OFFICE
OF
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
Catalyst
for
Improving
the
Environment
Evaluation
Report
EPA
and
States
Not
Making
Sufficient
Progress
in
Reducing
Ozone
Precursor
Emissions
In
Some
Major
Metropolitan
Areas
Report
No.
2004­
P­
00033
September
29,
2004
Report
Contributors:
John
Price
Lauretta
Ansah
Jamie
Huber
Abbreviations
CAA
Clean
Air
Act
CAAA
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
DQO
Data
Quality
Objective
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
I&
M
Inspection
and
Maintenance
MCD
Milestone
Compliance
Demonstration
NEI
National
Emissions
Inventory
NOx
Nitrogen
Oxide
OAQPS
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
OIG
Office
of
Inspector
General
PAMS
Photochemical
Assessment
Monitoring
Station
PEI
Periodic
Emissions
Inventory
ppm
parts
per
million
QAPP
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
ROP
Rate­
of­
Progress
Plan
SIP
State
Implementation
Plan
tpd
tons
per
day
VOC
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Cover
photo:
Photographs
of
Houston
from
a
68th
floor
monitoring
location
under
clear
and
smoggy
conditions.
Source:
EPA
Air
Quality
Trends
Site.
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
September
29,
2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
EPA
and
States
Not
Making
Sufficient
Progress
in
Reducing
Ozone
Precursor
Emissions
In
Some
Major
Metropolitan
Areas
Report
No.
2004­
P­
00033
FROM:
J.
Rick
Beusse
/
s/
Director,
Air
Issues
Office
of
Program
Evaluation
TO:
Jeffrey
R.
Holmstead
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation
(
6101A)

Attached
is
our
final
report
regarding
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
State
efforts
to
progressively
reduce
ozone
precursor
emissions
and
measure
actual
precursor
emission
reductions
as
required
by
the
Clean
Air
Act.
This
report
contains
findings
that
should
help
EPA
in
its
efforts
to
ensure
that
the
most
polluted
metropolitan
areas
expeditiously
attain
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard,
as
well
as
help
the
Agency
implement
and
oversee
the
more
stringent
8­
hour
standard.
Also,
the
report
contains
corrective
actions
the
Office
of
Inspector
General
(
OIG)
recommends.
This
report
represents
the
opinion
of
the
OIG
and
the
findings
contained
in
this
report
do
not
necessarily
represent
the
final
EPA
position.
Final
determination
on
matters
in
this
report
will
be
made
by
EPA
managers
in
accordance
with
established
procedures.

Action
Required
In
accordance
with
EPA
Manual
2750,
as
action
official,
you
are
required
to
provide
a
written
response
within
90
days
of
the
final
report
date.
The
response
should
address
all
recommendations.
For
the
corrective
actions
planned
but
not
completed
by
the
response
date,
please
describe
the
actions
that
are
ongoing
and
provide
a
timetable
for
completion.
If
you
do
not
concur
with
a
recommendation,
please
provide
alternative
actions
addressing
the
findings
reported.
We
appreciate
the
efforts
of
EPA
officials
and
staff,
as
well
as
external
stakeholders,
in
working
with
us
to
develop
this
report.
For
your
convenience,
this
report
will
be
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oig.

If
you
or
your
staff
have
any
questions
regarding
this
report,
please
contact
me
at
(
919)
541­
5747
or
John
Price,
Assignment
Manager,
at
(
404)
562­
9837.
Executive
Summary
Purpose
Ground
level
ozone,
the
most
pervasive
urban
air
pollutant,
has
been
linked
to
respiratory
illnesses
and
other
serious
public
health
concerns,
such
as
asthma
and
heart
disease.
Over
159
million
Americans
live
in
areas
that
do
not
meet
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
current
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Ozone
also
damages
sensitive
ecosystems
and
is
responsible
for
more
than
one
billion
dollars
in
agricultural
crop
losses
in
the
United
States
each
year.
Many
of
the
most
polluted
metropolitan
areas
are
still
struggling
to
attain
EPA's
1­
hour
ozone
standard
established
over
25
years
ago.
The
more
stringent
8­
hour
standard
that
EPA
and
States
began
implementing
in
2004
presents
even
greater
challenges.
The
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
recognized
that
reducing
the
precursor
emissions
that
cause
ozone
 
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
 
was
the
primary
method
for
assuring
permanent
ozone
reductions
and,
as
such,
mandated
increasing
levels
of
emissions
reductions
until
attainment
was
achieved.
Accordingly,
our
objectives
were
to
answer
the
following:

°
Have
emission
reduction
controls
been
as
effective
as
originally
projected
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
(
NOx
and
VOC)?

°
Have
emission
reduction
plans
and
related
controls
been
properly
completed
and
implemented
to
reduce
precursor
emissions
by
3
percent
annually
within
the
timeframes
established
by
the
Act?

°
Have
EPA
and
States
adequately
measured
the
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
in
reducing
(
1)
overall
precursor
emissions
as
required
by
the
Act,
and
(
2)
ambient
ozone
concentrations?

Results
in
Brief
Despite
national
and
regional
progress,
some
major
metropolitan
areas
have
not
achieved
the
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
required
by
the
1990
Act.
Our
analysis
of
EPA
emissions
data
for
"
serious,"
"
severe,"
and
"
extreme"
ozone
nonattainment
areas
indicates
that
some
major
metropolitan
areas
may
not
have
achieved
the
required
3­
percent
annual
emission
reductions
in
ozone
precursor
emissions.
For
example,
23
of
28
emissions
reduction
plans
submitted
since
1990
by
10
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas
raised
questions
as
to
whether
required
precursor
emissions
reductions
were
achieved
by
the
dates
specified
in
the
Act.
Further,
precursor
emissions
in
some
areas
may
actually
have
increased.
While
EPA
air
trends
reports
have
emphasized
that
ozone
levels
are
declining
nationally
and
regionally,
only
5
of
25
nonattainment
areas
designated
serious
to
extreme
have
experienced
substantial
downward
trends
in
ozone
levels.
For
some
areas,
EPA
data
indicate
emission
controls
for
the
last
10
years
have
generally
offset
growth
but
have
ii
not
significantly
reduced
ozone
levels.
Also,
analyses
by
EPA
and
other
researchers
indicate
that
recent
downward
trends
in
ozone
may
be
more
related
to
changes
in
weather
patterns
than
emission
reductions.
Delays
in
reducing
ozone
levels
can
have
serious
health
implications
for
persons
in
nonattainment
areas.

EPA
and
States
encountered
numerous
difficulties
in
developing
and
implementing
adequate
emission
control
plans
for
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
by
3
percent
annually
by
the
dates
mandated
in
the
Act.
In
addition,
States
may
have
used
inaccurate
data,
assumptions,
and
projections
of
emission
growth,
resulting
in
fewer
reductions
planned
than
appropriate.
For
example,
the
ozone
emissions
reduction
plan
for
the
Atlanta
metropolitan
area
assumed
a
growth
rate
that
was
about
half
of
the
population
growth
rate
that
the
Atlanta
metropolitan
area
experienced
from
1980
to
2000,
and
about
one­
third
of
Atlanta's
growth
rate
for
employment.
The
Act
requires
emission
reductions
of
at
least
3
percent
annually
over
and
above
an
area's
growth.
Limited
EPA
oversight
of
the
development
and
implementation
of
emission
control
plans
contributed
to
the
difficulties
States
encountered
in
reducing
emissions
by
the
required
3
percent
annually.
Additionally,
a
1997
EPA
policy
allowing
nonattainment
areas
to
claim
emission
reductions
from
selected
sources
outside
of
the
nonattainment
areas
allows
for
potential
double­
counting
and
does
not
ensure
that
reductions
do
more
than
just
offset
growth.

EPA
and
States
have
not
adequately
measured
whether
the
Nation's
worst
ozone
nonattainment
areas
have
made
acceptable
progress
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions.
In
the
14
years
since
passage
of
the
1990
Amendments,
EPA
has
not
issued
rules
requiring
States
to
demonstrate
progress
in
reducing
precursor
emissions,
nor
guidance
on
how
such
demonstrations
should
be
conducted,
despite
the
Act's
requirement
to
do
so.
Consequently,
there
is
no
approved,
consistent,
or
reliable
method
to
measure
the
success
of
ozone
precursor
emission
reduction
efforts.
EPA
still
needs
to
develop
specific,
quantifiable
goals
and
measures
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
in
nonattainment
areas,
and
improve
quality
assurance
processes
and
plans
for
emissions
data
reporting.

Recommendations
This
report
contains
information
that
should
help
EPA
in
its
efforts
to
ensure
that
the
most
polluted
metropolitan
areas
expeditiously
attain
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard,
as
well
as
help
the
Agency
implement
and
oversee
the
more
stringent
8­
hour
standard.

We
are
making
multiple
recommendations
to
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation
to
promulgate
new
ozone
rules,
issue
guidance,
and
take
other
actions
necessary
to:
(
a)
provide
consistent
and
reliable
methods
to
demonstrate
that
precursor
emissions
have
been
reduced;
(
b)
ensure
that
States
perform
such
demonstrations
and
implement
needed
controls
where
necessary;
(
c)
expand
the
use
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends;
(
d)
strengthen
EPA
oversight
of
planning;
(
e)
ensure
that
control
measures
are
timely
developed,
approved,
and
implemented;
iii
and
(
f)
develop
data
quality
objectives
and
proper
quality
assurance
plans
and
processes.

Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
In
his
September
17,
2004,
response
to
the
draft
report,
the
Assistant
Administrator
noted
that
the
report
provides
insightful
recommendations
for
EPA's
consideration.
He
also
noted
that
some
of
the
recommendations,
such
as
those
concerning
the
draft
rule
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations,
seemed
reasonable
and
would
be
explored
as
to
how
they
can
be
implemented.
However,
he
said
other
recommendations
were
"
good
in
theory"
but
practical
considerations
constrain
EPA
from
implementing
them.

The
Agency's
response
generally
agreed
with
the
report's
findings
except
for
the
use
of
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI)
data
as
an
indicator
as
to
whether
selected
nonattainment
areas
had
achieved
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act.
EPA's
response
indicated
that
NEI
emissions
data
was
not
of
sufficient
quality
and
did
not
contain
emission
data
in
the
proper
units
of
measure
needed
to
adequately
determine
the
amount
of
emission
reductions
achieved
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
However,
EPA
has
promoted
the
NEI
as
the
highest
quality
emissions
data
available,
has
used
the
data
for
regulatory
planning
and
support,
and
continues
to
use
the
data
for
national,
regional,
and
State
emission
trends
in
publically
released
reports.
Further,
during
our
evaluation,
senior
EPA
experts
told
the
OIG
that
updated
NEI
emissions
data
could
provide
a
reliable
indicator
of
emissions
reductions
achieved
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
Additionally,
the
Agency
provides
NEI­
developed
emissions
data
to
States
for
use
in
their
periodic
emissions
inventories.
As
such,
we
continue
to
believe
that
NEI
data
is
the
best
available
indicator
of
whether
individual
nonattainment
areas
have
met
the
precursor
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act,
and
that
analysis
of
the
precursor
emissions
data
in
NEI
will
help
EPA
ensure
that
permanent
ozone
reductions
have
been
achieved
as
required
by
the
Act.
The
use
of
NEI
data
is
further
discussed
in
the
OIG's
evaluation
of
the
Agency's
response
at
the
end
of
Chapter
2.

The
Agency's
response
also
indicated
that
EPA
preferred
to
focus
its
limited
resources
on
current
and
future
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
rather
than
assess
the
effectiveness
of
its
planning,
controls,
and
emission
reductions
under
the
1­
hour
standard
since
enactment
of
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments,
over
14
years
ago.
We
do
not
disagree
that
the
Agency
should
utilize
available
resources
on
effective
implementation
of
8­
hour
policies,
plans,
and
related
emission
controls.
However,
we
believe
that
the
Agency
first
needs
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
its
ozone
policies,
plans,
and
controls
under
the
1­
hour
standard
before
it
can
determine
the
most
efficient
and
effective
methods
and
controls
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
standard.
The
Agency
also
provided
technical
comments
on
the
draft
report,
and
we
have
made
changes
in
the
final
report
as
deemed
appropriate.
iv
The
Agency's
responses
to
individual
recommendations
and
our
evaluation
are
summarized
at
the
end
of
each
chapter.
The
Agency's
response
is
included
in
its
entirety
as
Appendix
H,
and
that
appendix
includes
a
detailed
OIG
evaluation
of
the
Agency
response.
v
Table
of
Contents
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
Chapters
1
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
Effectiveness
of
Controls
2
Despite
National
and
Regional
Progress,
Some
Major
Metropolitan
Areas
Have
Not
Achieved
Required
Emission
Reductions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
Emission
Reduction
Plans
3
Rate­
of­
Progress
Plans
Delayed
or
in
Error
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
4
EPA
Policy
Allowing
Outside
Emission
Reduction
Credits
Creates
Inequities
and
Hampers
Attainment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
Measurement
5
Reliable
Processes
Needed
to
Measure
Overall
Emission
Reductions
and
Related
Impacts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
6
Opportunities
Exist
to
Enhance
Measurement
of
Emission
Reductions
and
Ozone
Trends
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
7
Specific
Performance
Goals
and
Measures
Not
Developed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
8
Quality
Assurance
Reviews
and
Plans
Need
Improvement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
vi
Appendices
A
Details
on
Scope
and
Methodology
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
B
Timeline
of
Clean
Air
Act
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
C
Details
on
EPA
Analyses
of
Meteorologically­
Adjusted
Ozone
Observations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
D
Details
on
State
Delays
in
Submitting
ROP
Plans
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
E
Growth
Factors
Used
In
Projecting
ROP
Emissions
for
Atlanta
Area
.
.
.
72
F
Outside
NOx
Reductions
Claimed
in
Post­
1996
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
Nonattainment
Area
ROP
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
G
Examples
on
Use
of
Outside
Emission
Credits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
H
Agency
Response
to
Draft
Report
and
OIG
Evaluation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
78
I
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
Tables
1.1:
Sources
of
Precursor
Emissions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
1.2:
Designation
Status
of
50
Areas
in
Nonattainment,
May
2004
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.1:
Percent
Reduction
in
Precursor
Emissions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2.2:
Nonattainment
Areas
With
Increasing
NOx
and/
or
VOC
Emissions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
2.3:
Summary
for
Trend
Report
With
Nonattainment
Area
Totals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
3.1:
Differences
in
VOC
Targets
and
VOC
Emissions
in
PEIs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
3.2:
Differences
in
NOx
Targets
and
NOx
Emissions
in
PEIs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
3.3:
Outside
Emission
Reduction
Credits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
3.4:
Attainment
Date
Extensions
and
Suspension
of
ROPs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
8.1:
Regional
Receipt
and
Review
of
Nonattainment
Area
PEIs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
A.
1:
12
Nonattainment
Areas
Reviewed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
D.
1:
15­
Percent
ROP
Plans
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
D.
2:
Post­
1996
(
9%)
ROP
Plans
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
F.
1:
NEI
NOx
Data
for
Illinois
Power
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
Illustrations
1.1:
Map
of
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas
for
the
New
8­
hour
Standard
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.1:
Comparison
of
Actual
and
Meteorological
Adjusted
8­
Hour
O
3
Trends,
1993­
2002
10
B.
1:
Timeline
of
Clean
Air
Act
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
C.
1:
Baltimore
8­
hour
Ozone
Trends
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
1
Chapter
1
Introduction
Purpose
The
most
complex,
difficult
to
control,
and
pervasive
urban
air
pollutant
is
tropospheric,
or
ground
level,
ozone.
Tropospheric
ozone
has
been
linked
to
respiratory
illnesses
and
other
serious
health
concerns,
such
as
asthma
and
heart
disease.
About
109
million
Americans
live
in
areas
that
do
not
meet
EPA's
1­
hour
ozone
standard
 
issued
over
25
years
ago
 
that
requires
ozone
levels
not
exceed
an
average
of
.12
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
over
a
1­
hour
period.

Concerned
with
the
lack
of
progress
in
controlling
ozone,
Congress
enacted
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
(
Act),
in
part,
to
ensure
attainment
of
EPA's
1­
hour
ozone
standard
by
specific
dates.
The
1990
Act
recognized
that
reducing
the
precursor
emissions
that
cause
ozone
 
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
 
was
key
to
ensuring
permanent
ozone
reductions
and,
as
such,
mandated
increasing
levels
of
emissions
reductions
until
attainment
was
achieved.
Since
then,
research
has
found
that
ozone
causes
adverse
health
effects
at
lower
levels
and
over
longer
periods
of
time
than
once
thought.
As
a
result,
EPA
issued
a
more
stringent
ozone
standard
that
took
effect
in
April
2004
requiring
ozone
levels
not
to
exceed
an
average
of
.08
ppm
over
an
8­
hour
period.
Because
of
difficulties
in
bringing
areas
into
compliance
with
the
1­
hour
standard
and
the
even
greater
challenges
associated
with
the
new
8­
hour
standard,
our
objectives
were
to
answer
the
following:

°
Have
emission
reduction
controls
in
place
been
as
effective
as
originally
projected
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
(
NOx
and
VOC)?

°
Have
emission
reduction
plans
and
related
controls
been
properly
completed
and
implemented
to
reduce
precursor
emissions
by
3
percent
annually
within
the
timeframes
established
by
the
Act?

°
Have
EPA
and
States
adequately
measured
the
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
in
reducing
(
1)
overall
precursor
emissions
as
required
by
the
Act,
and
(
2)
ambient
ozone
concentrations?

Background
Ozone
(
O
3),
a
gas
composed
of
three
oxygen
atoms,
occurs
naturally
in
the
stratosphere
approximately
10
to
30
miles
above
the
earth's
surface
and
forms
a
layer
that
protects
life
on
earth
from
the
sun's
harmful
rays.
This
is
stratospheric
ozone.
Ozone
is
also
formed
at
ground
level
by
a
complex,
atmospheric
chemical
2
VOC
+
NOx
+
Sunlight/
Heat
=
Ozone
reaction
of
oxides
of
nitrogen
and
volatile
organic
compounds
in
the
presence
of
sunlight
and
heat.
In
addition
to
serious
adverse
health
effects,
this
ground­
level,
or
tropospheric,
ozone
also
damages
sensitive
ecosystems
and
is
responsible
for
more
than
one
billion
dollars
in
agricultural
crop
losses
in
the
United
States
each
year.

Known
as
precursor
emissions,
sources
of
NOx
and
VOCs
include
a
wide
range
of
stationary,
area,
and
mobile
sources,
including:

Table
1.1:
Sources
of
Precursor
Emissions
Source
Examples
of
Sources
Stationary
Utilities,
refineries,
chemical
manufacturers,
automobile
manufacturers,
most
other
industrial
activities
Area
Dry
cleaners,
service
stations,
wood
burning
stoves
Mobile
On­
road:
Cars,
trucks,
locomotives
Off­
road:
Heavy
construction
machinery,
generators,
off­
road
vehicles
Clean
Air
Act
Mandate
for
Precursor
Emission
Reductions
In
accordance
with
the
Act,
EPA
and
States
are
required
to
obtain
increasing
levels
of
VOC
and
NOx
emission
reductions
until
attainment
is
achieved.
For
example,
nonattainment
areas
were
to
have
reduced
ozone
precursor
emissions
15
percent
by
1996
and
24
percent
by
1999
from
a
1990
baseline.

The
1990
Act
requires
that
ozone
nonattainment
areas
reach
attainment
by
specific
dates
based
on
their
nonattainment
classification.
These
requirements
came
about,
in
part,
because
States
did
not
always
fulfill
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
requirements
during
the
1980s
to
implement
controls
and
reduce
ozone
precursor
emissions.
The
1990
Act
established
five
nonattainment
classifications
(
marginal,
moderate,
serious,
severe,
extreme),
with
varying
compliance
dates
depending
on
the
severity
of
an
area's
nonattainment
in
1990,
or
at
time
of
nonattainment
designation.
In
accordance
with
Sections
110
and
185
of
the
Act,
sanctions
may
be
imposed
against
areas
that
fail
to
submit
and
implement
adequate
plans.
Attainment
status
is
determined
from
ambient
air
monitor
readings
from
over
1,100
air
monitors
located
throughout
the
United
States.

Ozone
Attainment
Status
As
of
May
2004,
47
areas
initially
classified
"
marginal"
or
"
moderate"
for
ozone
nonattainment
had
subsequently
achieved
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
and
been
redesignated
to
attainment.
However,
50
areas
initially
classified
"
marginal"
to
"
extreme"
under
the
1990
Act
still
have
not
attained
the
1­
hour
standard.
3
Table
1:
2:
Designation
Status
of
50
Areas
in
Nonattainment,
May
2004
Nonattainment
Designation
Population
Affected
by
Nonattainment
Clean
Air
Act
Mandated
Attainment
Date
Areas
Still
Nonattainment
as
of
April
2004
Extreme
17,784,000
2010
2
Severe
55,853,000
2005­
2007
12
Serious
19,265,000
1999
10
Moderate
3,251,000
1996
6
Marginal
6,944,000
1993
19
Othera
6,542,000
2005
1
Totals
109,639,000
50
a
San
Francisco,
California,
was
designated
nonattainment
and
classified
as
a
moderate
nonattainment
area
in
1999
with
a
2005
attainment
deadline.

Twenty­
one
of
the
25
areas
classified
"
serious,"
"
severe,"
or
"
extreme"
were
metropolitan
areas.
Only
4
of
25
areas
classified
serious
or
above
have
been
redesignated
to
attainment
since
the
1990
Act
was
passed;
5
areas
classified
serious
or
above
have
been
reclassified
to
a
lower
nonattainment
classification.

As
shown
in
Table
1.2,
the
attainment
date
specified
in
the
Act
has
already
passed
for
35
of
the
50
areas.
Additionally,
three
areas
(
Atlanta,
Georgia;
Baton
Rouge,
Louisiana;
and
Washington,
DC)
were
recently
elevated
from
serious
to
severe
nonattainment
because
of
their
failure
to
attain
the
1­
hour
standard
by
1999.
The
San
Joaquin
Valley,
California,
nonattainment
area
was
elevated
from
severe
to
extreme
nonattainment
in
2004.

In
April
2004,
EPA
designated
126
areas
containing
474
counties
as
nonattainment
for
the
more
stringent
8­
hour
health­
based
ozone
standard.
The
219
counties
that
still
have
not
achieved
the
1­
hour
standard,
as
of
May
17,
2004,
are
included
in
these
474
counties.
The
map
below
shows
the
location
of
the
474
counties;
most
lie
within
the
largest
metropolitan
areas.
1It
should
be
noted
that
a
1997
change
in
the
survey
form
used
may
have
had
some
impact
on
the
different
numbers.

4
Illustration
1.1:
Map
of
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas
for
the
New
8­
hour
Standard
Source:
The
Ozone
Report:
Measuring
Progress
Through
2003,
EPA
report
published
April
2004
Responsibility
for
national
ozone
policies,
guidance,
and
program
management
is
principally
vested
in
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAQPS),
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina,
which
is
within
EPA's
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation.
Oversight
of
State
and
local
ozone
reduction
programs
is
the
responsibility
of
EPA's
10
regional
offices.

Health
Concerns
Associated
With
Prolonged
Ozone
Exposure
Health
researchers
have
frequently
associated
ozone
pollution
with
a
variety
of
human
respiratory
problems,
including
asthma
attacks,
respiratory­
related
hospitalizations,
reductions
in
lung
function,
respiratory
symptoms
(
such
as
coughing,
shortness
of
breath,
and
nausea),
increased
susceptibility
to
respiratory
infection,
and
pulmonary
inflammation.
The
health
care
costs
of
human
exposure
to
outdoor
air
pollutants
range
from
$
40
to
$
50
billion
annually.
In
addition,
an
estimated
50,000
to
120,000
premature
deaths
are
associated
with
exposure
to
air
pollutants.
People
with
asthma
experience
more
than
100
million
days
of
restricted
activity
with
an
economic
cost
exceeding
$
4
billion.

Health
effects
can
result
from
exposure
to
high
levels
of
ozone
over
short
time
periods,
but
also
from
longer
exposure
to
lower
levels
of
ozone.
One
of
the
most
common
health
problems
attributed
to
unhealthy
ozone
levels
is
asthma.
The
prevalence
of
asthma
in
the
United
States
has
been
increasing
steadily.
In
1980,
an
estimated
7
million
people
in
the
United
States
were
diagnosed
as
having
asthma,
while
in
2000
there
were
an
estimated
29.5
million
cases.
1
Recent
studies
have
linked
elevated
ozone
levels
to
school
absences
due
to
asthma
and
other
5
respiratory
ailments,
and
scientists
have
found
that
ozone
may
not
only
trigger
asthma
but
also
could
contribute
to
the
development
of
the
disease
in
children.
According
to
several
public
health
organizations,
including
the
American
Public
Health
Association
and
Harvard
Medical
School,
cases
of
asthma
are
rising
so
fast
it
is
now
widely
viewed
as
an
epidemic
 
one
that
is
hitting
hardest
at
the
very
young,
minorities,
elderly,
and
the
poor.

Scope
and
Methodology
To
assess
the
effectiveness
of
ozone
emission
control
efforts
by
EPA
and
States,
we
reviewed
documentation,
regulations,
and
guidance,
and
EPA
and
external
analyses/
studies
of
air
monitoring
data
for
individual
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
We
also
performed
analyses
of
data
from
EPA's
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI)
and
Air
Quality
System,
and
interviewed
officials
from
OAQPS,
six
EPA
regions,
and
two
States.
Additional
interviews
were
conducted
with
external
atmospheric
modeling
scientists/
engineers
and
other
external
stakeholder
organizations.
Budget
and
staffing
information
related
to
EPA's
ozone
program
were
obtained
from
OAQPS
and
the
EPA's
Office
of
the
Chief
Financial
Officer.
We
also
reviewed
pertinent
sections
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended.

Our
field
work
was
generally
conducted
from
February
2003
to
May
2004.
We
conducted
this
evaluation
in
accordance
with
Government
Auditing
Standards,
issued
by
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
Additional
details
on
our
scope
and
methodology
are
in
Appendix
A.
6
Effectiveness
of
Controls
Chapter
2
Despite
National
and
Regional
Progress,
Some
Major
Metropolitan
Areas
Have
Not
Achieved
Required
Emission
Reductions
Our
analysis
of
EPA
emissions
data
for
serious,
severe,
and
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas
indicated
that
some
areas
may
not
have
achieved
the
emission
reductions
mandated
by
the
CAA,
and
precursor
emissions
of
NOx
and
VOCs
in
some
areas
may
actually
be
increasing.
While
EPA
air
trend
reports
have
emphasized
that
ozone
levels
are
declining
nationally
and
regionally,
only
5
of
25
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas
have
experienced
significant
downward
trends
in
ozone
levels.
Also,
recent
downward
trends
may
be
more
related
to
changes
in
weather
patterns
than
emission
reductions.
For
individual
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas,
EPA
data
indicate
emission
controls
for
the
last
10
years
have
generally
offset
ozone
growth
but
have
not
significantly
reduced
ozone
levels.
Factors
that
contributed
to
these
conditions
included
delays
in
developing
Rate­
of­
Progress
Plans
and
controls
(
see
Chapters
3­
4),
insufficient
measurement
of
emission
reductions
(
see
Chapters
5­
7),
and
inadequate
EPA
guidance
and
oversight.

Act
Required
Specific
Emission
Reductions
Section
182
of
the
Act
required
that
ozone
nonattainment
areas
develop
and
implement
specific
emission
reduction
plans
within
certain
time
frames
to
reduce
precursor
emissions
until
attainment
was
achieved.
The
Act
also
required
that
precursor
emissions
be
reduced
an
average
of
3
percent
annually
"
net
of
growth"
(
the
minimum
percentage
reduction
plus
any
projected
growth
in
emissions)
for
each
3­
year
period
subsequent
to
the
enactment
of
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
(
CAAA).
Further,
the
Act
required
that
plans
include
contingency
control
measures
in
case
the
primary
controls
did
not
achieve
the
required
reductions
in
precursor
emissions
or
the
area
failed
to
attain
the
ozone
standard
by
the
statutory
attainment
date.
The
following
emission
reduction
plans
were
required:

°
The
first
emission
reduction
plan,
referred
to
by
EPA
as
the
15­
percent
Rate­
of­
Progress
(
ROP)
Plan,
was
to
be
submitted
by
State
and
local
agencies
within
3
years
of
enactment
of
the
1990
Act
(
November
15,
1993),
and
achieve
a
minimum
15­
percent
reduction
in
VOCs
within
6
years
(
November
15,
1996).
7
°
Additional
ROP
Plans
to
reduce
precursor
emissions
at
a
rate
of
at
least
3
percent
annually
"
net
of
growth"
were
required
for
each
3­
year
period
after
1996
until
an
area
attains
the
1­
hour
standard.
These
additional
plans,
referred
to
by
EPA
as
"
post­
1996
ROP
Plans,"
or
9­
percent
ROP
Plans,
were
required
to
be
submitted
by
States
within
4
years
of
enactment
(
November
15,
1994).
The
first
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
had
a
November
15,
1999,
milestone
date.

In
addition
to
ROP
Plans,
Section182(
g)(
2)
of
the
Act
required
States
to
demonstrate
that
these
emission
reductions
had
actually
been
achieved.
States
with
serious
and
above
nonattainment
areas
were
to
submit
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
within
90
days
after
the
milestone
date
for
achieving
emission
reductions.
The
Act
also
required
States
to
submit
1990
baseline
VOC
and
NOx
emission
inventories
for
each
nonattainment
area
and,
thereafter,
develop
periodic
emission
inventories
for
every
3­
year
period,
until
attainment
of
the
ozone
standard.
According
to
OAQPS,
their
interpretation
of
the
Act
is
that
the
demonstrations
should
include
a
comparison
of
baseline
inventories
to
the
applicable
periodic
emission
inventories
as
a
measure
of
emission
reductions.

A
timeline
of
the
Act's
requirements
is
provided
in
Appendix
B.

Required
Emission
Reductions
Not
Achieved
The
NEI,
maintained
by
OAQPS,
is
a
continuously
updated
national
database
of
air
emissions
information
based
on
input
from
numerous
State
and
local
air
agencies,
tribes,
and
industry.
This
database
contains
information
on
stationary
and
mobile
sources
that
emit
criteria
air
pollutants
and
their
precursors,
such
as
VOCs
and
NOx,
as
well
as
hazardous
air
pollutants.
The
inventory
is
continuously
updated,
focusing
on
every
third,
periodic
inventory
year
(
1990,
1993,
1996,
1999,
etc.).
Starting
in
2003,
OAQPS
initiated
a
major
effort
to
update
the
inventory's
VOC
and
NOx
data
back
to
1990
based
on
the
EPA's
latest
models,
methodologies,
and
emission
factors.
As
of
January
2004,
inventory
data
had
been
updated
from
1990
through
1999.
According
to
Agency
officials,
the
NEI
is
EPA's
best
available
data
on
facility
emissions
at
the
present
time.

Our
analysis
of
1990­
1999
VOC
and
NOx
data
in
EPA's
NEI
database
for
12
serious
or
severe
nonattainment
areas
indicated
that
some
areas
may
not
have
achieved
the
emissions
reductions
required.
For
example:

°
Seven
areas
did
not
achieve
a
15­
percent
reduction
in
VOCs
by
the
November
15,
1996
deadline,
and
six
of
the
seven
areas
still
had
not
achieved
a
15­
percent
reduction
by
the
next
deadline
 
November
15,
1999.

°
Eight
areas
did
not
achieve
the
combined
24­
percent
reduction
in
precursor
emissions
by
the
November
15,
1999,
deadline;
however,
two
of
the
eight
2The
Clean
Air
Act
prohibits
nonttainment
areas
from
receiving
credit
for
emission
reductions
from
certain
pre­
1990
emission
controls,
primarily
Federal
emission
control
programs.
Nonattainment
area
baseline
emissions
must
be
adjusted
for
projected
reductions
from
these
controls
between
1990
and
the
applicable
ROP
milestone
date.

8
areas
(
Sacramento,
California,
and
Washington,
DC)
were
within
1
percent
of
the
required
24­
percent
reduction.

Table
2.1
shows
the
emission
reductions
achieved
by
the
12
nonattainment
areas
between
1990­
1996
and
1990­
1999.
Nonattainment
area
reductions
that
did
not
meet
the
Act's
required
15­
percent
VOC
reductions
by
1996
are
shown
in
bold
blue
text;
similarly,
combined
VOC
and/
or
NOx
reductions
that
did
not
meet
the
24­
percent
reduction
requirement
by
1999
are
shown
in
bold
red
text.
A
negative
number
indicates
an
increase
in
emissions.
Also,
1990
NEI
emissions
for
each
nonattainment
area
were
adjusted
for
noncreditable
emissions
as
required
by
the
Act.
2
Table
2.1:
Percent
Reduction
In
Precursor
Emissions
Nonattainment
Area
%
Reductions
by
11/
15/
1996
%
Reductions
by
11/
15/
1999
VOC
VOC
NOx
Combined
Atlanta
(
GA)
­
10.92
a
­
14.04
­
17.68
­
31.72
b
Baltimore
(
MD)
28.73
23.90
6.97
30.87
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
(
MA,
NH)
c
5.39
10.11
17.68
27.79
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
(
IL,
IN)
c
­
13.33
0.81
­
1,72
­
0.91
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
(
TX)
11.73
17.25
d
­
12.11
17.25
Milwaukee­
Racine
(
WI)
c
­
26.44
12.68
d
­
17.80
12.68
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
(
NH)
­
2.10
­
18.67
17.61
­
1.06
Providence
(
RI)
19.38
8.19
6.50
14.69
Sacramento
Metro
(
CA)
20.28
15.88
7.75
23.63
San
Joaquin
Valley
(
CA)
42.78
35.53
­
0.85
34.68
Springfield
(
MA)
18.48
16.51
15.23
31.74
Washington
DC
Area
(
DC,
MD,
VA)
3.82
9.25
14.38
23.63
a
Blue
text
indicates
nonattainment
area
reductions
that
did
not
meet
the
required
15­
percent
reduction
in
VOCs
by
1996.
The
negative
sign
in
front
of
the
numbers
means
that
there
was
an
increase
in
precursor
emissions.
b
Red
text
indicates
nonattainment
area
combined
reductions
that
did
not
meet
the
required
24­
percent
reduction
in
VOC
and/
or
NOx
emissions
by
1999.
c
States
claimed
either
NOx
or
VOC
emission
reductions
outside
of
nonattainment
areas
in
post­
1996
ROPs
for
Illinois
portion
of
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County,
New
Hampshire
portion
of
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester,
and
Milwaukee­
Racine.
The
emission
sources
outside
of
these
areas,
for
which
emission
credit
was
claimed,
were
added
to
analysis
of
overall
reductions.
d
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
and
Milwaukee­
Racine
15­
percent
and
post­
1996
ROPs
included
only
VOC
controls;
therefore,
only
VOC
reductions
were
included
in
combined
reduction
total
for
each.

EPA's
NEI
data
indicate
that
precursor
emissions
actually
increased
between
1996
and
1999
for
eight
areas.
For
many
of
these
areas,
the
increase
could
indicate
that,
9
although
the
minimum
9­
percent
in
required
emission
reductions
may
have
been
achieved,
the
reductions
attained
between
1996
and
1999
were
not
"
net
of
growth."
Similarly,
one
area
(
Providence)
that
achieved
a
15­
percent
VOC
reduction
by
November
15,
1996,
had
significantly
less
than
15­
percent
by
November
15,
1999,
potentially
due
to
growth
in
VOC
emissions.
According
to
the
1990
Act,
required
reductions
should
be
the
minimum
specified
percentage
plus
any
projected
growth
in
emissions.

Table
2.2
shows
those
areas
where
VOC
and/
or
NOx
emissions
increased
between
1996
and
1999.

Table
2.2:
Nonattainment
Areas
With
Increasing
NOx
and/
or
VOC
Emissions
Nonattainment
Area
Precursor
%
Change
in
Emissions
1990­
1996
%
Change
In
Emissions
1990­
1999
%
Change
In
Emissions
1996­
1999
a
Atlanta
VOC
12.6
14.04
1.44
Baltimore
VOC
­
28.73
­
23.9
4.83
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
NOx
0.76
12.11
11.35
b
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
VOC
2.1
18.97
16.87
Providence
NOx
­
18.55
­
6.5
12.05
VOC
­
19.38
­
8.19
11.19
Sacramento
Metro
NOx
­
20.28
­
7.75
12.53
b
San
Joaquin
Valley
NOx
­
13.87
0.85
14.72
b
VOC
­
42.78
­
35.53
7.25
Springfield
NOx
­
22.96
­
15.23
7.73
VOC
­
18.48
­
16.51
1.97
a
Red
text
indicates
those
areas
that
experienced
an
increase
in
VOC
or
NOx
emissions
between
1996
and
1999.
The
negative
sign
in
front
of
the
numbers
means
that
there
was
a
reduction
in
emissions.
b
These
areas
did
not
include
NOx
controls
in
their
post­
1996
ROPs.

EPA
Analyses
and
Reports
Indicate
No
Significant
Improvements
in
Ozone
Levels
for
Many
Nonattainment
Areas
Despite
the
decreases
in
ambient
ozone
concentrations
nationwide
and
regionally,
recent
EPA
analyses
and
long­
term
trend
reports
show
that
there
have
been
no
significant
improvements
in
ozone
levels
for
individual
nonattainment
areas,
especially
metropolitan
areas.
As
discussed
below,
decreases
in
ambient
ozone
observations
may
be
more
related
to
temporary
factors
such
as
changes
in
weather
and
wind
patterns
than
in
reduction
of
precursor
emissions.

EPA
Analyses
of
Meteorologically
Adjusted
Ozone
Observations
In
2003,
OAQPS
developed
and
analyzed
1990
through
2002
meteorologically
adjusted
ambient
8­
hour
ozone
observations
for
53
metropolitan
areas,
which
included
19
serious,
severe,
and
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Our
analysis
10
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
O
3
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
8
­
h
o
u
r
O
z
o
n
e
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
S
o
u
t
h
D
e
k
a
l
b
a
n
d
C
o
n
y
e
r
s
)

eteorology
0
.
0
1
2
3
4
of
the
ozone
levels
and
charts
developed
by
OAQPS
for
the
19
nonattainment
areas
indicated
that,
once
weather
had
been
excluded
as
a
factor
in
ozone
formation,
12
areas
had
achieved
little
or
no
improvements
in
ozone
levels
over
the
13­
year
period.
Ten
of
the
12
areas
had
approximately
5
percent
or
less
decrease
in
ozone
levels,
while
two
actually
had
increases
in
ozone
levels
of
up
to
9
percent
since
1990.
Three
of
the
12
areas
had
also
exhibited
upward
trends
in
ozone
levels
between
1999
and
2002.
The
remaining
seven
areas
had
downward
trends
in
ozone,
ranging
from
reductions
of
about
7
percent
to
almost
15
percent
(
Los
Angeles
area).
Further
details
are
in
Appendix
C.

EPA
included
an
analysis
of
the
1993
through
2002
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
data
for
the
53
metropolitan
areas
in
the
publically
released
report,
Latest
Findings
on
National
Air
Quality,
2002
Status
and
Trends,
dated
August
2003.
EPA's
conclusions
generally
confirmed
the
results
of
our
analysis
of
the
same
data,
stating
".
.
.
the
meteorologically
adjusted
trend
for
this
10­
year
period
can
be
seen
as
relatively
flat."
This
trend
indicates
that
emission
controls
have
effectively
eliminated
growth
in
ozone
pollution
but
have
not
significantly
reduced
ozone
levels
since
1993,
as
shown
in
Illustration
2.1.

Illustration
2.1:

Ozone
Trends
from
EPA's
Air
Quality
System
At
our
request,
OAQPS
performed
a
special
trend
analysis
of
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
ozone
exceedance
days
and
maximum
observed
ozone
levels
for
the
period
1992
through
2003
using
EPA's
Air
Quality
System.
The
study
included
25
serious
to
3The
report,
Analysis
of
Ambient
Air
Quality
Trends
in
the
Chicago
and
Atlanta
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas,
was
issued
on
September
30,
2002.

11
extreme
nonattainment
areas
covering
21
metropolitan
and
4
non­
metropolitan
areas.
For
the
25
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas:

°
Four
experienced
statistically
significant
downward
trends
in
the
number
of
ozone
exceedance
days
for
the
1­
hour
standard;

°
Five
experienced
downward
trends
under
the
8­
hour
standard;
and
°
The
remaining
areas
showed
no
statistically
significant
upward
or
downward
trends.

In
terms
of
maximum
ozone
level
observations
between
1992
and
2003
for
the
25
serious
to
extreme
areas,

°
Five
experienced
statistically
significant
downward
trends
under
the
1­
hour
standard;

°
Five
experienced
statistically
significant
downward
trends
under
the
8­
hour
standard;
and
°
All
but
one
of
the
remaining
areas
showed
no
statistically
significant
upward
or
downward
trends
(
El
Paso
area
showed
statistically
significant
upward
trend).

Details
are
in
Table
2.3.
Table
2.3:
Summary
for
Trend
Report
With
Nonattainment
Area
Totals
Standard
Ozone
Exceedance
Days
1992­
2003
Maximum
Ozone
Observations
1992­
2003
Down
Trenda
No
Trend
a
Up
Trenda
Down
Trenda
No
Trend
a
Up
Trenda
Sig.
Not
Sig.
Sig.
Not
Sig.
Sig.
Not
Sig.
Sig.
Not
Sig.

1­
hour
4
13
3
0
5
5
16
0
0
4
8­
hour
5
10
0
0
10
5
13
0
1
6
a
EPA
determined
the
up
and
down
trends
through
a
linear
regression
analysis
of
the
actual
ozone
exceedance
days
and
observed
maximum
ozone
levels
for
each
nonattainment
area.

Analysis
of
Two
Major
Metropolitan
Areas
Shows
Little
Change
in
Precursor
Emissions
The
Photochemical
Assessment
Monitoring
Station
(
PAMS),
established
within
most
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
in
1994,
measures
ambient
concentrations
of
NOx
and
many
VOCs.
In
2002
EPA
performed
a
limited
analysis
of
PAMS
data
for
two
severe
nonattainment
areas
 
Atlanta
and
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County.
According
to
the
EPA
study,
3
composite
NOx
trends
for
the
1995­
2001
4Ozone
design
values
generally
represent
the
4th
highest
daily
maximum
value
(
reading)
over
a
3­
year
period;
however,
if
only
2
years
of
data
are
available,
the
design
value
is
the
3rd
highest
daily
maximum
value;
if
only
1
year,
the
2nd
highest
daily
maximum
value
is
the
design
value.

5Latest
Findings
on
National
Air
Quality,
August
2003,
and
National
Air
Quality
and
Emission
Trends
Report,
2003,
September
2003.

6The
Ozone
Report:
Measuring
Progress
Through
2003,
April
2004
12
period
were
generally
flat
for
the
Chicago
area,
and
showed
a
slight
upward
trend
for
the
Atlanta
area.
None
were
statistically
significant,
indicating
little
change
in
NOx
emissions.
However,
1995­
2001
VOC
concentrations
did
decline
during
the
morning
precursor
buildup
period,
although
this
decline
was
not
consistent
and
needed
further
study.

The
EPA
report
further
stated
that
decreases
in
ambient
peak
ozone
concentrations
in
the
Chicago
area
from
1991­
2001
(
1­
hour)
and
1996­
2001
(
8­
hour)
were
fairly
modest,
and
none
of
the
composite
trends
were
found
to
be
statistically
significant.
For
the
Atlanta
area,
annual
1­
hour
ozone
design
values4
showed
a
slight
upward
trend
for
the
1991­
2001
period,
while
annual
8­
hour
design
values
decreased
between
1996­
2001,
primarily
because
of
a
relatively
large
drop
in
2001
ozone
levels.

Despite
National
and
Regional
Progress,
Many
Metropolitan
Areas
Show
Little
Change
EPA
air
quality
trend
reports
for
2001
through
2003
generally
documented
downward
trends
in
ozone
levels
and
in
precursor
emissions,
especially
VOCs,
at
the
national
and
regional
level
over
the
last
10­
and
20­
year
periods.
Recently,
however,
EPA
reports5
have
noted
that
NOx
emissions
have
only
been
reduced
12
percent
in
the
last
10
years
and
only
15
percent
over
the
last
20
years,
and
that
more
NOx
reductions
will
be
necessary
before
more
substantial
ozone
air
quality
improvements
are
realized.
For
example,
in
its
September
2003
report
on
ozone
trends,
EPA
noted
there
were
increases
in
certain
key
areas:

Ozone
concentrations
are
on
the
increase
in
several
cities
in
the
southeastern
and
midwestern
United
States,
while
urban
areas
on
the
West
Coast
and
in
New
England
generally
show
decreasing
trends.
The
1­
hour
trends
show
an
increasing
number
of
cities
with
upward
ozone
trends
in
the
western
and
mid­
Atlantic
urban
areas
and
a
decreasing
number
of
cities
with
upward
ozone
trends
in
the
Southeast.

Similarly,
in
April
2004,
EPA
reported6
that
the
2003
ozone
season
had
exhibited
the
lowest
observed
ozone
levels
since
1980,
yet
some
areas
 
especially
metropolitan
areas
 
had
not
experienced
a
significant
downward
trend
in
ozone
levels.
EPA
also
noted
that
favorable
weather
conditions
assisted
in
the
lower
13
ozone
concentrations,
and
EPA
cites
a
study
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends
for
individual
regions
and
35
metropolitan
areas,
which
found
that:

...
The
influence
of
weather
makes
it
difficult
to
isolate
the
specific
changes
in
ozone
concentrations
that
result
from
VOC
and
NOx
reductions.
In
addition...
assessing
trends
in
ozone
levels
nationally
or
by
EPA
Region
may
mask
important
local
differences
that
make
it
difficult
to
determine
direct
influence
of
emission
reductions....

Before
adjusting
for
weather,
EPA
Regions
3,
4,
and
6
show
improving
air
quality,
with
average
reductions
in
ozone
levels
of
9%
to
21%.
After
adjusting
for
weather,
however,
each
Region
demonstrates
a
more
moderate
decline.
The
most
dramatic
effect
of
the
meteorological
adjustment
is
in
Region
4,
where
the
adjusted
trend
shows
a
4%
decrease,
compared
with
a
21%
decrease
for
the
unadjusted
trend.
Region
6
shows
the
largest
improvement,
9%,
after
adjusting
for
meteorology.
Ozone
levels
in
the
midwest
and
central
regions
of
the
country
show
the
same
percent
increase
in
ozone
both
with
and
without
the
meteorological
adjustment.
EPA
Region
2
shows
a
larger
increase
in
ozone
levels
after
the
meteorological
adjustment
is
applied.

Reports
By
Others
Also
Find
Little
Change
in
Some
Areas
EPA
analyses
indicating
little
improvements
in
ozone
levels
for
many
nonattainment
levels
are
supported
by
an
independent
analysis
for
the
Atlanta
nonattainment
area
and
reports
issued
by
the
American
Lung
Association.

Atlanta
Report
Notes
2001
Ozone
Levels
Same
as
1981
A
2002
independent
study
of
Atlanta's
meteorologically
adjusted
8­
hour
ozone
levels
for
the
period
1981
through
2001
was
performed
by
an
atmospheric
research
scientist
with
the
Georgia
Institute
of
Technology.
He
used
the
EPA
method
of
statistically
adjusting
out
weather
variations
for
the
20­
year
period.
The
study
concluded
that,
between
1981
and
2001,
there
had
been
no
statistically
significant
changes
in
ozone
levels
for
the
Atlanta
area
due
to
reductions
of
precursor
emissions,
once
weather
was
eliminated
as
a
factor.
In
essence,
reductions
in
precursor
emissions
had
only
offset
emissions
growth
during
the
period.

American
Lung
Association
Reports
Indicate
Ozone
Decreases
May
Be
Weather
Related
State
of
the
Air
reports
published
by
the
American
Lung
Association
for
2003
and
2004
indicated
that
ambient
ozone
levels
have
decreased,
but
the
reports
also
suggest
that
reductions
may
be
primarily
attributable
to
cooler
summers
and
more
14
rain
than
usual
in
some
areas.
For
example,
one
American
Lung
Association
news
release
stated
that
analysis
of
ozone
data
since
the
mid­
1990s
showed
no
significant
ozone
improvements
except
where
there
were
changes
in
weather
patterns.
Additionally,
another
American
Lung
Association
report
was
quoted
as
stating
that
the
air
quality
improvements
for
the
Atlanta
nonattainment
area
were
largely
attributed
to
rain
and
cooler
temperatures
during
the
past
three
summers.

Conclusions
Our
analysis
of
EPA
emissions
data
indicate
that
some
serious
to
extreme
major
metropolitan
nonattainment
areas
have
not
reduced
emissions
as
required
by
the
Act.
Also,
EPA
air
quality
data
and
trend
reports
show
that
although
ozone
levels
have
improved
nationally,
some
areas
have
not
experienced
these
improvements,
especially
metropolitan
areas.
At
least
21
of
the
25
serious
to
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas
represent
some
of
the
largest
metropolitan
areas
in
the
country,
and
a
majority
of
the
nonattainment
areas
are
still
struggling
to
achieve
the
1­
hour
standard.

Given
the
health
consequences
of
ozone
and
the
repeated
delays
in
achieving
meaningful
reductions
over
and
above
emissions
growth,
EPA
needs
to
fully
utilize
all
available
methods
to
measure
the
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
implemented
by
individual
nonattainment
areas,
especially
metropolitan
areas,
in
reducing
ozone
and
determining
whether
nonattainment
areas
have
achieved
reductions
in
emissions
required
by
the
Act.
EPA
should
consider
using
the
NEI
or
other
available
methods
to
analyze
whether
all
serious
and
above
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas
met
emission
reduction
requirements,
and
require
implementation
of
contingency
measures
where
reductions
may
not
have
been
achieved.
If
areas
have
failed
to
properly
implement
required
emission
controls,
enforcement
actions
or
sanctions
as
authorized
under
Section
185
of
the
Act
may
be
necessary.

Delays
in
developing
ROP
Plans
and
implementing
emission
controls
(
see
Chapters
3­
4),
and
insufficient
evaluating
and
measuring
of
emission
reductions
(
see
Chapters
5­
7)
contributed
to
these
conditions.
Recommendations
that
address
correcting
these
specific
problems
are
also
in
those
chapters.
Delays
in
reducing
emissions
and
related
ozone
levels
have
serious
health
implications
for
persons
in
nonattainment
areas,
particularly
persons
with
chronic
respiratory
illnesses
and
vulnerable
populations
such
as
children
and
older
adults.
Therefore,
it
is
necessary
to
address
these
problems
as
expeditiously
as
possible.

Recommendations
We
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:
15
2­
1
Perform
an
in­
depth
evaluation
of
the
compliance
of
all
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas
with
emission
reduction
requirements
using,
at
a
minimum,
precursor
emissions
data
contained
in
the
Agency's
NEI
database.

2­
2
Implement
contingency
measures
and
additional
controls,
where
appropriate,
as
required
under
Section
182(
g)(
3)
of
the
Act,
if
nonattainment
areas
have
not
met
the
Act's
emission
reduction
requirements,
including
the
use
of
any
enforcement
and/
or
sanctions
available
under
Section
179
of
the
Act
for
failure
of
a
State
to
submit
adequate
plans
and/
or
failure
to
timely
and
adequately
implement
planned
controls
to
achieve
required
emission
reductions
by
the
statutory
milestone
dates.

Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
The
Agency
did
not
agree
with
our
use
of
NEI
data
to
measure
emission
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
EPA's
response
stated
that
the
use
of
NEI
data
to
measure
emission
reductions
would
produce
"
dubious
results"
because:
(
1)
the
Act
requires
that
States
demonstrate
reductions
on
a
tons
per
summer
day
basis
­
using
the
NEI
only
allows
an
analysis
of
reductions
using
annual
emissions
data,
a
significant
difference;
(
2)
the
NEI
database
simply
does
not
have
the
same
quality
of
data
as
emission
inventories
developed
by
States
­
the
OIG's
draft
report
provides
that
a
major
failing
of
the
NEI
is
its
lack
of
documentation
of
methods
used
by
the
States
to
prepare
emission
estimates;
and
(
3)
EPA
efforts
to
update
the
NEI
emissions
data
efforts
did
not
produce
emission
estimates
that
match
State
SIP
emission
inventories
for
all
years,
and,
again,
represent
annual,
not
daily
emission
values.

As
stated
in
our
report,
the
Act
requires
that
States
demonstrate
that
precursor
emissions
have
been
reduced
an
average
of
3
percent
annually
"
net
of
growth"
for
each
3­
year
period
subsequent
to
the
enactment
of
the
1990
Act.
The
Act
does
not
require
that
States
demonstrate
attainment
of
emission
reductions
in
"
tons
per
summer
day."
Also,
EPA
adjusts
the
NEI
every
3
years
based
on
State
emissions
data
that
is
expressed
in
tons
per
day
or
tons
per
summer
day
to
a
tons
per
year
expression.

EPA
has
indicated
that
the
NEI
is
the
highest
quality
emissions
data
maintained
by
the
Agency
and
has
used
this
data
for
regulatory
planning
and
support;
national,
regional,
and
State
emission
trends;
and
public
information
reports.
However,
the
Agency
now
states
that
the
NEI
is
not
of
sufficient
quality
to
indicate
whether
nonattainment
areas
met
emission
reduction
requirements
in
the
Act,
and
asserts
that
State
SIP
inventories
are
best
for
such
measurements.
According
to
EPA
documentation
and
our
analysis,
State
inventory
data
is
used
every
3
years
to
update
NEI;
therefore,
NEI
and
State
emissions
data
should
reflect
the
same
level
16
of
quality.
The
Agency
further
asserts
that
state
inventories
cannot
be
used
to
measure
nonattainment
area
accomplishments
in
reducing
precursor
emissions
because
baseline
and
subsequent
periodic
inventories
were
produced
using
different
models
and
factors.
EPA
has
stated
that
requiring
updates
to
baseline
and
periodic
inventories
would
be
too
burdensome
on
States.
These
contentions
by
EPA
would
leave
no
actual,
comparable
emissions
data
available,
State
or
national,
to
assess
nonattainment
progress
as
required
by
the
Act.
However,
the
OIG
looked
for
emissions
data
that
could
provide
a
reliable
indicator
as
to
whether
nonattainment
areas
had
achieved
precursor
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act.
Noting
that
the
NEI
was
being
updated
for
the
1990
to
1999
period
based
on
the
latest
models
and
emissions
factors,
EPA
senior
officials
 
including
some
regional
officials
 
said
that
this
updated
NEI
data
would
provide
a
reliable
indicator
of
whether
nonattainment
areas
met
emission
reduction
mandates.
This
is
the
data
we
used
in
our
analysis.

In
response
to
recommendations
presented
in
Chapter
2,
the
Agency
indicated
that
it
preferred
to
focus
its
efforts
and
resources
on
developing
plans
and
strategies
that
will
implement
the
more
health­
protective
8­
hour
standard
rather
than
evaluate
progress
toward
the
1­
hour
standard.
We
agree
that
the
Agency
should
focus
resources
on
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
However,
the
Agency
and
States
need
to
measure
and
assess
the
actual
effectiveness
of
controls
implemented
under
the
1­
hour
standard
before
developing
controls
for
the
8­
hour
standard.
This
assessment
could
be
a
valuable
tool
in
identifying
1­
hour
controls
that
were
not
effective,
overestimates
of
emission
reductions
from
1­
hour
controls,
and
methods
for
increasing
the
effectiveness
of
controls
to
be
included
in
8­
hour
Rate­
of­
Progress
Plans.
Many
new
nonattainment
areas
were
designated
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
These
areas
will
be
implementing
many
of
the
emission
controls
already
implemented
by
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas.
EPA
needs
to
know
how
effective
these
1­
hour
controls
were
in
reducing
emissions
and
identify
where
improvements
may
be
needed
before
developing
8­
hour
emission
control
plans
for
these
areas.
An
assessment
of
actual
reductions
achieved
by
1­
hour
controls
could
identify
the
need
for
EPA
to
adjust
the
expected
emission
reductions
from
these
controls
and/
or
develop
alternative
controls
to
meet
8­
hour
milestones.
A
viable
method
for
assessing
control
effectiveness
is
to
measure
emission
reductions
that
actually
occurred
from
implementation
and
compare
reductions
achieved
to
the
projected
or
expected
reductions
included
in
1­
hour
plans.
Finally,
EPA
needs
to
identify
1­
hour
areas
that
did
not
achieve
required
emission
reductions
for
the
1­
hour
standard
and
implement
the
available
contingency
measures.
For
areas
that
have
struggled
for
years
to
meet
the
less
stringent
1­
hour
standard,
implementation
of
contingency
measures
should
further
reduce
emissions
in
these
areas
and
better
facilitate
the
achievement
of
the
more
stringent
8­
hour
standard.
Therefore,
we
continue
to
believe
that
the
recommendations
in
Chapter
2
are
valid
and
realistic
actions
that
EPA
needs
to
take
to
ensure
more
effective
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
17
18
Emission
Reduction
Plans
Chapter
3
Rate­
of­
Progress
Plans
Delayed
or
in
Error
EPA
and
States
encountered
numerous
difficulties
with
the
timely
development
and
implementation
of
Rate­
of­
Progress
(
ROP)
Plans
for
nonattainment
areas,
and
often
did
not
approve
and
begin
implementing
those
plans
until
deadlines
in
the
1990
Act
for
achieving
the
emission
reductions
had
passed.
Furthermore,
States
may
have
used
inaccurate
assumptions
and
projections
of
emission
growth
in
ROPs,
resulting
in
unmet
emission
reduction
goals.
There
were
numerous
reasons
for
these
conditions,
including
inadequate
EPA
oversight
and
insufficient
policies
and
guidance
related
to
ROP
development
and
technical
support.

Because
the
number
of
ozone
nonattainment
areas
has
greatly
increased
with
implementation
of
the
new
8­
hour
standard,
States
will
be
required
to
develop
many
more
ROPs
and
related
SIP
revisions
than
were
required
under
the
1­
hour
standard.
To
facilitate
the
timely
development
and
implementation
of
State
ROPs
and
emission
controls
for
those
areas
struggling
to
meet
the
1­
hour
standard,
as
well
as
those
areas
required
to
implement
the
new
8­
hour
standard,
EPA
must
improve
its
ozone
guidance
and
oversight.

States
Encountered
Problems
in
Submitting
Acceptable
ROPs
As
noted
in
Chapter
2,
each
ozone
nonattainment
area
is
required
to
develop
emission
reduction
plans
(
in
the
form
of
ROP
Plans)
that
articulate
how
precursor
emissions
will
be
reduced
to
achieve
required
ozone
levels.
The
1990
CAAA
sets
specific
deadlines
for
submission
of
ROP
Plans.
For
example,
States
were
required
to
submit
the
initial
ROP
Plan
for
15­
percent
VOC
reductions
by
November
15,
1993,
with
implementation
of
controls
and
achievement
of
emission
reductions
by
November
15,
1996.
However,
our
evaluation
of
the
first
ROP
Plans
developed
by
States
under
the
1990
CAAA
for
10
serious
or
severe
nonattainment
areas,
involving
a
total
of
14
ROP
Plans,
found
that
only
5
of
14
ROP
Plans
were
submitted
on
time,
and
these
often
required
revisions.
Some
were
submitted
nearly
2
years
late.

Many
States
were
also
late
in
developing
acceptable
ROP
Plans
for
the
subsequent
9­
percent
reduction
of
VOCs
and
NOx
that
were
to
be
submitted
by
November
15,
1994,
with
emission
reductions
achieved
by
November
15,
1999.
EPA
allowed
States
until
mid­
1997
to
submit
these
plans,
but
only
3
of
the
14
ROP
Plans
were
submitted
by
the
revised
1997
deadline.
19
According
to
EPA,
many
of
the
proposed
plans
were
deficient
and
had
to
be
revised
several
times
before
final
approval.
Also,
States
took
extensive
periods
of
time
to
make
revisions
(
often
more
than
a
year
and
as
much
as
6
years),
and
EPA
took
a
great
deal
of
time
to
review
and
approve
the
revised
and
final
ROP
Plans.
These
conditions
contributed
to
a
substantial
delay
in
EPA's
proposed
and
final
ROP
Plan
approvals,
as
well
as
delays
in
the
implementation
of
related
emission
controls.
Section
110(
k)(
3)
of
the
Act
requires
that
ROP
Plans
be
approved
or
disapproved
within
18
months
of
State
submission
unless
EPA
grants
a
conditional
approval
(
which
only
provides
at
most
a
1­
year
extension).
However,
none
of
the
plans
received
final
approval
within
18
months
of
initial
State
submission.
ROP
Plans
in
many
cases
were
not
approved
until
years
after
the
milestone
dates
for
achieving
required
emission
reductions.
Appendix
D
provides
details
for
each
of
the
10
nonattainment
areas.

Officials
in
five
EPA
regions
stated
that
major
changes
in
Inspection
and
Maintenance
(
I&
M)
guidance
and
State
delays
in
implementing
I&
M
programs
were
two
primary
reasons
for
delays
in
developing
acceptable
ROP
plans.
In
one
region,
several
nonattainment
areas
had
temporarily
attained
the
ozone
standard
and
the
region
suspended
ROP
Plan
development
until
the
areas
again
violated
the
standard.
Regional
officials
also
noted
the
following
additional
problems:

°
Lack
of
definitive
EPA
guidance
for
the
States
on
how
to
prepare
and
document
ROP
Plans.

°
Lack
of
EPA
guidance
concerning
emission
reduction
crediting
for
various
local
and
regional
control
measures.

°
The
transitory
nature
of
some
EPA
guidance,
which
created
uncertainty
among
States
as
to
how
to
revise
and
finalize
ROP
Plans.

°
Delays
in
development
of
final,
acceptable
15­
percent
ROP
Plans
led
to
delays
in
the
subsequent
9­
percent
plans
because
one
was
dependent
on
the
other.

°
Timing
of
controls
not
yet
implemented
by
the
States,
and
the
State's
ability
to
support
likelihood
of
expected
emission
reductions.

As
will
be
discussed
below,
we
also
found
that,
in
order
to
reasonably
ensure
permanent
ozone
attainment
before
suspending
ROP
development,
improvements
are
needed
in
EPA's
"
Clean
Data
Policy."

Criteria
in
Clean
Data
Policy
Needs
Updating
A
May
1995
EPA
policy,
referred
to
as
the
"
Clean
Data
Policy,"
provides
that
certain
SIP
requirements,
including
ROP
Plan
development,
may
be
suspended
once
ambient
air
monitoring
data
indicate
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
standard.
Generally,
this
means
an
area
has
gone
for
3
years
with
a
total
of
three
or
less
1­
20
hour
exceedances.
Using
this
policy,
four
nonattainment
areas
suspended
their
development
of
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
when
ambient
air
monitoring
data
showed
that
they
had
achieved
the
1­
hour
standard
in
either
1998,
1999,
or
2000.
However,
all
four
subsequently
violated
the
standard
again.
ROP
development
then
had
to
be
re­
started
and,
as
a
result,
emissions
control
plans
for
these
areas
were
delayed.
According
to
EPA
officials,
changes
in
meteorological
conditions
caused
these
areas
to
again
violate
the
1­
hour
standard,
indicating
that
the
standard
had
not
been
achieved
by
permanent
and
enforceable
emission
reductions
within
the
nonattainment
area
or
by
upwind
contributing
sources.

Today
methodologies
and
data
exist
that
were
not
available
in
1995
that
allow
regulators
to
better
assess
the
permanence
of
attainment.
In
our
view,
the
Clean
Data
Policy
should
be
revised
to
require
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trend
analyses
along
with
a
trend
analyses
of
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
for
nonattainment
areas
that
subsequently
reach
attainment
based
on
ambient
ozone
monitoring
data.
These
changes
would
better
ensure
the
permanence
of
such
attainments.
EPA
should
also
consider
whether
upwind
contributing
sources
have
been
sufficiently
controlled
to
allow
attainment
to
continue
before
suspending
ROP
requirements.

Planned
Emission
Reductions
Not
Always
Achieved
by
Required
Milestone
Date
Twenty­
three
of
the
28
ROP
Plans
we
reviewed
for
10
serious
and
severe
nonattainment
areas
indicated
that
the
emission
reductions
projected
in
these
plans
were
not
achieved
by
the
dates
specified
in
the
Act.
While
there
were
multiple
reasons
for
delayed
ROP
implementation,
delays
in
implementing
vehicle
I&
M
programs
and
promulgating
Federal
rules
for
VOC
reductions
were
the
primary
reasons
that
statutory
deadlines
were
missed.

Delayed
I&
M
Programs
ROP
Plans
for
9
of
the
10
nonattainment
areas
projected
significant
emission
reductions
from
implementation
of
vehicle
I&
M
programs,
but
7
of
these
experienced
delays
in
implementing
their
I&
M
programs.
Approved
ROPs
and
related
documentation
for
five
of
the
nine
areas
indicated
that
the
I&
M
programs
were
not
fully
implemented
until
2000
or
2001,
several
years
later
than
needed
to
meet
the
Act's
deadlines.
Also,
we
found
that
one
I&
M
program
(
Georgia)
had
projected
VOC
emissions
reductions
based
on
an
assumption
of
100­
percent
effectiveness,
whereas
program
records
showed
that
their
I&
M
program
was
only
81­
percent
effective.
As
a
result
of
these
conditions,
estimated
emission
reductions
in
both
the
15­
percent
and
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
were
not
achieved
by
November
15,
1999.
7"
Credit
for
the
15
Percent
Rate­
of­
Progress
Plans
for
Reductions
from
the
Architectural
and
Industrial
Maintenance
(
AIM)
Coating
Rule
and
the
Autobody
Refinishing
Rule,"
November
29,
1994;
"
Regulatory
Schedule
for
Consumer
and
Commercial
Products
under
Section
183(
e)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,''
June
22,
1995;
and
"
Guidance
on
Projection
of
Nonroad
Inventories
to
Future
Years,''
February
4,
1994.

21
While
some
delay
in
State
implementation
of
vehicle
I&
M
programs
can
be
attributed
to
statutory
and
EPA
guidance
changes
in
1995
and
1996,
this
does
not
explain
why
I&
M
programs
were
still
not
fully
implemented
by
2000
and
2001.
For
example,
the
Texas
I&
M
program
represented
51
percent
of
the
VOC
emissions
reductions
in
the
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
15­
percent
ROP
Plan.
However,
neither
the
15­
percent
nor
the
subsequent
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
for
the
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
area
were
proposed
for
final
approval
until
January
18,
2001.
An
August
1997
Federal
Register
notice
for
a
proposed
conditional
interim
approval
of
Texas'
15­
percent
ROP
noted
that
the
State
had
discontinued
implementation
of
its
I&
M
program
after
initial
submission
of
the
15­
percent
ROP
plan,
and
that
emission
reductions
related
to
the
I&
M
program
had
not
been
achieved
by
November
15,
1996.
EPA
Region
6
granted
Texas'
request
for
conditional
interim
approval
based
on
the
premise
that
the
reductions
would
be
achieved
"
as
soon
as
practicable."
Subsequently,
full
conditional
interim
approval
of
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plan
was
granted
in
November
1998,
with
the
condition
that
final
approval
would
not
be
granted
until
actions
related
to
the
I&
M
program
were
complete.
However,
the
January
18,
2001,
proposed
approval
of
the
15­
percent
and
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
indicated
that
the
Texas
I&
M
program
had
still
not
received
final
EPA
approval.

Delayed
Promulgation
of
Federal
VOC
Rules
Initial
15­
percent
ROP
Plans
for
the
10
nonattainment
areas
included
emission
reductions
for
Federal
VOC
rules
that
were
not
promulgated
until
September
1998
and
not
effective
until
1998
or
1999.
These
projected
reductions
ranged
from
4
to
20
percent
of
total
projected
emission
reductions
in
15­
percent
ROP
Plans.
However,
two
States
(
Massachusetts
and
Wisconsin)
subsequently
issued
State
VOC
rules
to
ensure
that
the
emission
reductions
occurred
before
November
15,
1996.
In
addition,
15­
percent
ROPs
for
three
areas
included
VOC
reductions
for
a
Federal
rule
on
off­
road/
small
engine
standards
that
had
compliance
dates
of
May
1997
and
January
1998,
6
to
14
months
after
the
Act's
milestone
date
of
November
15,
1996.

EPA
guidance7
allowed
States
to
claim
VOC
reductions
for
these
delayed
Federal
rules
even
though
the
emission
reductions
would
not
be
accomplished
until
after
the
milestone
date
for
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plan.
EPA
indicated
that
because
States
had
counted
on
these
Federal
rules
for
their
15­
percent
plans,
they
should
not
be
penalized
because
EPA
was
unable
to
promulgate
the
rules
on
time.
As
a
result,
significant
amounts
of
VOC
emission
reductions
were
not
achieved
until
almost
3
years
after
the
Act's
required
milestone
date
of
November
15,
1996.
For
example,
the
Washington,
DC,
nonattainment
area
claimed
a
total
of
25.81
tons
per
22
day,
or
20.81
percent
of
total
emission
reductions
in
its
1996
15­
percent
ROP
Plan
based
on
Federal
VOC
rules
that
were
not
issued
until
September
1998.
These
VOC
rules
included
architectural
and
industrial
maintenance
coatings,
auto
refinishing,
and
commercial/
consumer
products.

Extended
Dates
for
Achieving
Emission
Reductions
ROP
Plans
for
six
nonattainment
areas
stated
that
projected
VOC
emission
reductions
had
not
been
accomplished
by
the
milestone
date
of
November
15,
1996.
For
two
areas,
ROP
Plans
further
indicated
that
the
15­
percent
in
VOCs
and
9­
percent
reductions
in
VOCs
and
NOx
would
not
occur
until
2001,
almost
2
years
after
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
milestone
of
November
15,
1999.
EPA
approved
the
ROP
Plans
based
on
achievement
of
the
reductions
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
These
approvals
were
primarily
based
on
general
nonattainment
area
plan
provisions
in
Section
172(
c)(
1)
of
the
Act,
which
provides
for
implementation
of
all
reasonably
available
control
technology
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable."

Emission
Reductions
Underestimated
Due
to
Inaccurate
Growth
Projections
and
Other
Factors
For
15
of
28
ROP
Plans,
the
projected
VOC
and/
or
NOx
target
levels
for
the
applicable
milestone
date
were
significantly
less
than
the
actual
Periodic
Emissions
Inventory
(
PEI)
for
the
same
date.
These
differences
potentially
represent
an
under
estimation
of
required
emission
reductions
needed
by
1996
and
1999,
respectively.
Differences
between
PEIs
and
VOC
and/
or
NOx
target
levels
exceeded
10­
percent
for
15
of
28
ROPs.
The
potential
under
projection
of
required
emission
reductions
in
these
cases
ranged
from
about
7
tons
to
over
175
tons
per
day.

To
ensure
that
actual
emission
reductions
will
be
"
net
of
growth,"
ROP
Plans
usually
include
two
primary
calculations
of
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
as
of
the
plan
milestone
date:
(
1)
a
projection
of
emissions
growth
to
include
an
estimate
of
uncontrolled
emissions
as
of
the
milestone
date,
and
(
2)
an
emission
target
level
calculated
by
subtracting
an
amount
equal
to
a
9­
or
15­
percent
reduction
in
the
area's
1990
anthropogenic
baseline
emissions
plus
any
noncreditable
emission
reductions
from
the
1990
anthropogenic
baseline
or
the
previous
ROP
target
level.
The
difference
between
the
projected
uncontrolled
emissions
and
target
level
emissions
represents
the
required
ROP
emission
reductions,
net
of
growth.

VOC
Target
Levels
Not
Met
Table
3.1
shows
projected
target
levels
for
VOCs
in
15­
and
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
as
compared
to
VOC
emissions
per
1996
and
1999
PEIs.
Negative
differences
between
the
target
levels
and
PEIs
for
seven
nonattainment
areas
indicate
that
the
growth
of
projected
emissions
may
have
been
underestimated
and
the
implemented
ROP
emission
controls
and
related
reductions
(
to
include
emissions
growth)
were
23
inadequate
to
achieve
the
subject
target
levels.
Since
the
differences
between
projected
uncontrolled
VOC
emissions
and
target
emission
levels
for
1996
and
1999
were
usually
greater
than
9
or
15
percent
of
the
ROP
baseline
inventories,
the
differences
between
PEIs
and
target
levels
shown
in
Tables
3.1
and
3.2
may
represent
an
under
projection
of
emissions
growth
and,
therefore,
the
emission
reductions
needed
by
1996
and
1999
to
assure
emission
reductions
of
9
to
15
percent
(
net
of
growth).
The
potential
under
projections
of
required
VOC
reductions
ranged
from
0.57
to
over
104
tons
per
day
(
tpd).

Table
3.1:
Differences
In
VOC
Targets
and
VOC
Emissions
in
PEIs
Nonattainment
Area
1996
Target
VOC
(
tpd)
1996
PEI
VOC
(
tpd)
Difference
1996
Target
Less
1996
PEI
1999
Target
VOC
(
tpd)
1999
PEI
VOC
(
tpd)
Difference
1999
Target
Less
1999
PEI
Atlanta
444.21
548.32
­
104.11
NA
a
433.61
NA
a
Baltimore
253.3
274.03
­
20.73
252.85
237.1
15.75
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
­
Massachusetts
­
New
Hampshire
658
40.8
738
41.37
­
80
­
0.57
588
38.4
631.74
41.98
­
43.74
­
3.58
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
­
Illinois
­
Indiana
857.02
137.28
770.46
164.51
86.56
­
27.23
807.82
146.01
685.27
Unknownb
122.05
Unknownb
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
465.52
528.46
­
62.94
405.54
390.74
14.8
Washington
DC
Area
384.6
423.5
­
38.9
380.2
361.6
18.6
Milwaukee­
Racine
288.4
Unknownc
Unknownc
237.57
210.6
26.97
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
30.3
22.25
8.05
27.9
25.65
2.25
Providence
141.5
Unknownd
Unknownd
137.3
Unknownd
Unknownd
Springfield
118
115
3
115
99.65
15.35
a
Post­
1996
ROP
Plan
did
not
include
VOC
reductions.
Therefore,
no
VOC
target
level
was
calculated
for
11/
1999.
b
Indiana
did
not
develop
a
complete
1999
PEI
its
portion
of
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
area.
c
Wisconsin
did
not
develop
a
1996
PEI
for
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
area.
d
Rhode
Island
did
not
document/
publish
1996
and
1999
PEIs
for
Providence
area;
State
transmitted
data
directly
to
OAQPS.

NOx
Target
Levels
Not
Met
For
the
10
nonattainment
areas,
9
post­
1996
ROP
(
9
percent)
Plans
included
NOx
emission
controls
and
related
projected
emission
reductions
to
be
achieved
by
November
15,
1999.
A
comparison
of
1999
NOx
target
levels
to
the
relevant
1999
PEI
disclosed
that
for
eight
ROPs,
the
ROP
NOx
target
levels
were
significantly
less
than
the
actual
NOx
inventory
reflected
in
the
1999
PEI.
As
reflected
in
Table
3.2,
these
differences,
ranging
from
7.08
to
over
175
tons
per
day,
may
represent
under
projections
of
required
NOx
reductions.
24
Table
3.2:
Differences
In
NOx
Targets
and
NOx
Emissions
in
PEIs
Nonattainment
Area
1999
NOx
Target
Level
(
tpd)
1999
PEI
NOx
(
tpd)
Difference
1999
Target
Less
1999
PEI
(
tpd)

Atlanta
439.64
614.7
­
175.06
Baltimore
397.05
467.35
­
70.3
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
Massachusetts
New
Hampshire
828
48.2
914.89
41.12
­
86.89
­
7.08
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
Cty
Illinois
Indiana
1820.5a
NAb
1963.49a
Unknownc
­
142.99
NAb
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
NAb
523.84
NAb
Washington,
DC
614.7
626.4
­
11.7
Milwaukee­
Racine
NA
306.5
NA
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
38.7
48.18
­
9.48
Providence
85.5
Unknownc
Unknownc
Springfield
97
136.33
­
39.33
a
Illinois
claimed
NOx
emission
reductions
for
sources
outside
of
the
Chicago
and
East
St.
Louis
nonattainment
areas.
The
"
Illinois
Attainment
Area"
1990
NOx
baseline
emissions
inventory
was
used
as
ROP
baseline
for
computing
1999
NOx
target
level,
projected
1999
uncontrolled
NOx
emissions
and
required
NOx
reductions.
Therefore,
Illinois'
1999
PEI
for
the
Illinois
Attainment
Area
was
used
to
compare
to
the
1999
NOx
target
level.
b
Indiana
and
Wisconsin
did
not
include
any
NOx
controls
in
their
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
for
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
and
Milwaukee­
Racine
nonattainment
areas.
Therefore,
there
were
no
NOx
target
levels
projected
for
1999
in
the
respective
ROP
Plans.
c
Indiana
and
Rhode
Island
did
not
develop
or
publish
1999
PEIs
for
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
and
Providence
nonattainment
areas,
respectively;
thus,
a
comparison
was
not
possible
for
these
nonattainment
areas.

EPA
officials
and
the
staff
for
Georgia
indicated
that
this
condition
could
have
resulted
from
the
use
of
inaccurate
growth
rates
and
factors
(
such
as
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled)
in
projecting
target
year
emission
inventories.
A
Georgia
official
indicated
that,
in
addition
to
incorrect
growth
factors,
the
difference
between
its
nonattainment
area
1996
VOC
target
level
and
the
1996
VOC
PEI
may
be
caused
by
the
delayed
implementation
of
ROP
Plan
controls
after
the
date
that
such
reductions
were
supposed
to
have
been
achieved
or
differences
in
models
used
to
estimate
emission
levels.
In
one
case,
a
region
accepted
growth
factors
used
to
project
ROP
target
levels
that
were
not
supported
by
past
actual
growth
rates
for
the
area,
indicating
an
inadequate
review.
In
addition,
a
local
planning
commission
commented
that
the
ROP
projections
used
an
outdated
estimate
of
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
but
EPA
allowed
its
use,
stating
that
any
under
projections
could
be
resolved
in
subsequent
attainment
plans.
Use
of
inaccurate
growth
projections
can
result
in
underestimating
uncontrolled
emission
inventories
and
the
amount
reductions
needed
to
the
meet
the
Act's
requirements.
None
of
the
five
EPA
regions
we
contacted
had
performed
a
comparative
analysis
of
ROP
projections
and
PEIs;
thus,
they
were
not
aware
of
the
need
to
implement
contingency
measures
to
resolve
any
under
projections
of
required
reductions.
Appendix
E
provides
additional
information
on
the
growth
factors
used
for
the
Atlanta
area
ROP.
25
Table
3.3:
Outside
Emission
Reduction
Credits
Nonattainment
Area
Outside
Credits
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
261.97
tons
per
day
NOx
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
6.0
tons
per
day
NOx
EPA
did
not
grant
final
approval
for
many
of
the
ROP
Plans
until
after
the
date
that
relevant
PEIs
should
have
been
developed.
Under
the
Act,
the
1996
and
1999
PEIs
for
each
nonattainment
area
were
due
to
be
completed
by
September
1998
and
September
2001,
respectively.
EPA
final
approvals
of
the
15­
percent
ROPs
for
8
of
10
nonattainment
areas
did
not
occur
until
after
the
1996
PEIs
were
due.
Five
of
10
areas
received
final
approval
for
the
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
subsequent
to
the
September
2001
due
date.
In
these
instances,
there
should
have
been
sufficient
emissions
inventory
data
developed
prior
to
ROP
Plan
final
approval
for
EPA
regions
and
States
to
validate
the
ROP
emission
target
levels.

EPA
Regions
Did
Not
Always
Obtain
Adequate
Technical
Data
to
Support
State
Claims
for
Emission
Reductions
Post­
1996
ROPs
for
3
of
10
nonattainment
areas
included
emission
reductions
from
outside
nonattainment
area
boundaries
(
see
Table
3.3).
Such
emission
reduction
credits
were
permitted
under
a
December
1997
EPA
policy
memorandum.
However,
this
policy
does
not
preclude
double­
counting
of
emission
reductions
and
raises
other
concerns
that
are
discussed
further
in
Chapter
4.
Our
contacts
with
EPA
regional
officials
indicated
that
the
regions
had
not
obtained
sufficient
technical
support
or
researched
available
data
to
ensure
that
these
reductions
had
actually
occurred
by
November
1999.
Our
subsequent
analysis
of
1990
to
1999
NEI
data
indicated
that
these
emission
reductions
may
not
have
been
obtained
for
two
of
the
three
nonattainment
areas.
Details
follow.

Two
States
claimed
outside
power
plant
NOx
reductions
from
the
Federal
Acid
Rain
program
in
post­
1996
ROPs
for
two
severe
nonattainment
areas
(
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
and
New
Hampshire
portion
of
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester).
The
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
for
these
two
areas
received
final
approval
from
1
to
almost
3
years
after
November
1999.
Since
EPA
receives
power
plant
NOx
emissions
directly
from
these
sources
as
part
of
the
Acid
Rain
program,
these
emissions
should
have
been
available
for
EPA
regions
to
use
to
verify
ROP
emission
reduction
claims
prior
to
ROP
final
approval.
However,
one
region
relied
primarily
on
the
State's
claims
of
40
to
60
percent
emissions
reductions
at
specific
power
plants
without
verifying
the
reductions
with
NEI
or
other
sources
of
NOx
emissions
data
for
these
plants.
Our
analysis
of
NEI
data
for
1990
through
1999
NOx
emissions
for
these
power
plants
indicated
that
the
combined
NOx
emissions
had
been
reduced
by
only
12.5
percent.
Further
details
on
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
are
in
Appendix
F.
8Estimated
percent
emissions
reductions
ranged
from
20
to
37
percent
depending
on
the
category
involved
(
autobody
refinishing,
degreasing
operations,
or
organic
solvents).

9Federal
Register
Volume
64,
pages
14441­
14444,
dated
March
25,
1999,
titled
Extension
of
Attainment
Dates
for
Downwind
Transport
Areas.

26
Only
one
State
(
Wisconsin)
claimed
VOC
emission
reductions
outside
of
the
nonattainment
area
boundaries.
In
the
post­
1996
ROP
for
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
nonattainment
area,
Wisconsin
claimed
a
20
to
37
percent8
(
6.5
tons
per
day)
reduction
in
VOC
emissions
for
specific
VOC
source
categories
between
1990
and
1999
related
to
State
rules
for
autobody
refinishing,
degreasing,
and
organic
solvent
use
in
14
counties
outside
the
nonattainment
area.
However,
our
analysis
of
NEI
data
for
1990
through
1999
VOC
emissions
(
overall
and
category
specific)
indicated
that
the
VOC
reductions
claimed
by
the
State
for
the
14
counties
were
not
achieved
because
the
NEI
data
showed
only
an
8.2­
percent
decrease
in
total
VOC
emissions
between
1990
and
1999
for
the
14­
county
area.
Further,
a
comparison
of
1990
and
1999
NEI
data
for
VOC
emissions
from
solvent
utilization
within
the
14­
county
area
indicated
that
solvent
VOC
emissions
increased
from
42,252.81
to
43,053.01
tons
per
year,
a
1.17
percent
increase.

EPA
Suspended
Requirement
for
Post­
1996
ROP
Plans
and
Related
3­
Percent
Reduction
for
Six
Serious
Non­
Attainment
Areas
In
March
1999,
EPA
promulgated
a
policy9
that
allowed
extension
of
the
November
1999
attainment
date
for
serious
nonattainment
areas
under
post­
1996
ROP
Plans,
without
elevating
these
areas
to
the
next
higher
nonattainment
classification,
if
the
nonattainment
areas
were
impacted
by
ozone
transport.
This
policy
was
contrary
to
the
Act,
which
requires
that
nonattainment
areas
be
elevated
to
the
next
level
if
they
do
not
attain
the
ozone
standard
by
the
statutory
attainment
date.
Such
an
elevation
requires
more
stringent
emission
control
measures.

Six
of
14
areas
classified
serious
prior
to
2003
had
not
attained
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
by
November
1999,
and
had
been
either
proposed
for
approval
or
received
final
approval
for
attainment
date
extensions
under
this
policy.
Even
though
the
attainment
dates
for
the
six
areas
were
extended
to
between
2003
and
2007,
EPA
regions
did
not
require
that
the
SIP
revisions
related
to
the
attainment
date
extensions
include
requirements
for
ROPs
or
for
demonstrations
of
the
annual
3­
percent
reductions
of
precursor
emissions
after
1999.
These
areas
were
already
struggling
to
achieve
the
1­
hour
standard
when
EPA
suspended
the
requirement
for
ROPs
and
minimum
annual
emission
reductions.

Such
extensions
may
have
precluded
or
prolonged
the
planning
and
implementation
of
additional
emission
controls
needed
to
facilitate
attainment
and
improve
air
quality
in
these
areas.
Additional
9­
percent
reductions
(
3
percent
per
27
year)
in
precursor
emissions
would
have
been
required
by
November
15,
2002,
and
November
15,
2005,
if
these
areas
had
been
reclassified
to
severe
nonattainment.

Attainment
date
extensions
for
three
serious
areas
were
legally
challenged.
These
extensions
were
either
reversed
by
Federal
court
decisions
or
EPA
voluntarily
reclassified
these
areas
to
severe
before
an
adverse
court
ruling
could
be
issued.
In
each
case,
Federal
courts
ruled
or
indicated
that
such
attainment
date
extensions
without
elevation
to
the
next
higher
level
of
nonattainment
were
not
authorized
by
the
Act.
The
courts
also
ruled
that
suspension
of
ROP
requirements
and
related
3­
percent
annual
precursor
emission
reductions
were
also
not
within
the
intent
or
authorization
of
the
Act.

Table
3.4
includes
the
serious
nonattainment
areas
that
received
proposed
or
final
approval
of
attainment
date
extensions
under
the
March
1999
policy.
None
of
the
areas
promulgated
ROP
Plans
for
periods
subsequent
to
1999
despite
the
attainment
date
extensions.

Table
3.4:
Attainment
Date
Extensions
and
Suspension
of
ROPs
Serious
Nonattainment
Area
Extended
Attainment
Date
Date
Extension
Approved/
Proposed
Current
Status
Atlanta
11/
15/
2004
05/
07/
2002
Remanded
to
EPA
by
Federal
court.
Elevated
to
severe
in
2003.

Baton
Rouge
11/
15/
2005
10/
02/
2002
Extension
overturned
by
Federal
court.
Elevated
to
severe
in
2003.

Dallas­
Fort
Worth
a
11/
15/
2007
01/
16/
2001
Proposed
approval.
No
final
approval.
Still
classified
serious.

Greater
Connecticut
11/
15/
2007
01/
03/
2001
No
legal
challenge.
Still
classified
serious.

Springfield
11/
15/
2003
01/
03/
2001
No
legal
challenge.
Did
not
attain
by
2003
but
still
classified
serious.

Washington
DC
11/
15/
2005
01/
03/
2001
Extension
overturned
by
Federal
court.
Elevated
to
severe
in
2003.

a
Because
of
adverse
court
rulings
related
to
attainment
date
extensions
under
the
March
1999
policy,
Region
6
did
not
issue
a
final
approval
of
the
extension
for
the
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
area,
since
a
final
approval
would
permit
the
extension
to
be
legally
challenged.
However,
Region
6
has
not
elevated
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
to
severe
nonattainment
as
required
by
the
Act.
The
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
area
has
been
in
"
limbo"
since
January
2001,
when
approval
of
the
extension
was
proposed
and,
thus,
has
received
a
"
defacto"
attainment
date
extension
for
over
3
years
that
cannot
be
legally
challenged.

Insufficient
EPA
Oversight
Contributed
to
Delays
in
ROP
Plans
and
Implementation
of
Controls
As
noted
above,
delays
in
ROP
Plans
and
implementation
of
required
emission
controls
can
be
attributed
to
a
variety
of
reasons,
including
insufficient
EPA
oversight
of
ROP
Plan
development;
changes
in
EPA
guidance
on
major
emission
28
controls,
especially
the
vehicle
I&
M
program;
and
extended
ROP
milestone
dates
for
achievement
of
emission
reductions
required
in
the
Act
(
see
Appendix
D).
Other
reasons
for
delays
include
the
fact
that
EPA
headquarters
and
regional
officials:

°
Allowed
States
extensive
periods
of
time
(
up
to
8
years)
to
develop
acceptable
ROP
Plans
and
make
changes
to
draft
plans.
EPA
took
extensive
time
to
review
and/
or
approve
ROP
Plans
or
ROP
changes
by
States.

°
Did
not
consistently
review
assumptions/
projections
used
in
ROP
Plans
and
challenge
questionable
projections
of
future
inventory
levels.

°
Did
not
compare
projected
emission
levels
in
ROPs
with
actual
inventories
subsequently
developed
to
ensure
that
adequate
emission
controls
were
implemented.

°
Did
not
obtain
sufficient
supporting
documentation
for
emission
reductions
claimed
by
States
in
ROP
Plans.

°
Allowed
emission
reductions
in
ROP
Plans
for
Federal
VOC
rules
that
were
not
promulgated
or
effective
until
3
or
more
years
after
the
ROP
milestone
date
for
achieving
these
VOC
reductions.

°
Suspended
ROP
development
when
areas
temporarily
attained
the
1­
hour
standard
before
again
violating
the
standard
(
see
also
Appendix
D).

°
Suspended
requirement
for
post­
1996
ROPs
related
to
six
serious
nonattainment
areas
whose
attainment
dates
were
either
extended
or
proposed
to
be
extended
beyond
November
1999.

Conclusions
EPA
did
not
effectively
oversee
the
development
of
ROP
Plans
under
the
1­
hour
standard
to
ensure
that
(
1)
ROPs
were
developed
and
implemented
within
the
time
frames
required
by
the
Act,
(
2)
required
emission
reductions
were
achieved
by
the
milestone
dates
specified
in
the
Act,
and
(
3)
projected
emission
levels
and
emission
reductions
were
correct
and
properly
supported.
EPA
should
not
suspend
requirements
for
ROPs
and
related
minimum
annual
emission
reductions.
Once
air
quality
data
indicate
that
an
area
has
achieved
the
standard,
the
permanence
of
the
achievement
should
be
supported
with
meteorologically
adjusted
trend
analysis
of
ambient
ozone
observations
and
analyses
of
trends
in
ambient
concentrations
of
VOCs
and
NOx
for
the
nonattainment
area.

Implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
effectively
doubled
the
number
of
ozone
nonattainment
counties.
EPA
needs
to
improve
its
oversight
of
the
8­
hour
SIPs
to
29
include
the
development
and
approval
of
ROP
Plans
and
subsequent
State
implementation
of
emission
controls
to
ensure
that
the
8­
hour
ROPs
are
accurate,
developed
and
approved
in
a
timely
manner,
and
implemented
within
the
ROP
milestone
dates
established
in
the
Act
and
EPA
regulations.
EPA
should
require
States
to
provide
adequate
documentation
of
emission
projections
claimed,
including
projected
VOC
and
NOx
target
levels.

Recommendations
We
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:

3­
1
Develop
oversight
procedures
and
guidance
that
will
expedite
development,
approval,
and
implementation
of
ROP
Plans
and
related
emission
controls.

3­
2
Require
evaluation
of
proposed
ROP
Plans
by
EPA
regional
air
programs
to
assure
the
propriety
of
ROP
assumptions,
projections,
and
related
emission
reductions
in
comparison
to
available
emission
databases
and
historical
data.

3­
3
Develop
guidance
for
analyzing
and
comparing
periodic
emission
inventories
to
projected
emission
target
levels
and
evaluating
assumptions
used
in
applicable
ROP
Plans,
in
order
to:
(
1)
reconcile
differences
between
projected
and
actual
inventories;
(
2)
identify
any
incorrect
assumptions
or
projections
and
understatement
of
needed
emission
reductions;
and
(
3)
establish
improvements
that
may
be
needed
in
the
ROP
development
process,
and
ensure
training
of
staff
in
conducting
these
analyses.

3­
4
When
EPA
staff
determine
that
an
underestimation
of
emission
reductions
needed
to
meet
the
ROP
target
level
has
occurred,
require
States
to
implement
contingency
or
other
measures
needed
in
a
timely
manner
to
ensure
that
required
emission
reductions
are
achieved.

3­
5
Revise
EPA's
"
Clean
Data"
policy
to
require
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trend
analyses
and
trend
analyses
of
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
for
nonattainment
areas
that
attain
the
ozone
standard
based
on
ambient
ozone
monitoring
data,
to
better
assure
the
permanence
of
such
attainments
before
suspending
ROP
Plan
development
and
approval.

3­
6
Require
that
EPA
make
and
publish
a
determination
that
the
ozone
standard
has
been
achieved
through
permanent
and
enforceable
emission
reductions
before
suspending
ROP
Plans
and
related
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act.
30
Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
For
Chapter
3,
the
Agency's
response
generally
addressed
the
recommendations
presented
in
the
chapter.
The
Agency
indicated
actions
were
being
contemplated
or
planned
in
regard
to
Recommendations
3­
1,
3­
3,
3­
5,
and
3­
6.
The
Agency's
comments
regarding
Recommendation
3­
2
generally
were
non­
responsive
and
provided
no
actual
planned
corrective
actions.
Comments
on
Recommendation
3­
4
did
not
address
the
content
of
this
recommendation
and
provided
no
planned
or
contemplated
corrective
actions.
EPA's
response
also
suggested
several
technical
corrections
to
certain
statements
in
the
section
related
to
differences
between
ROP
target
levels
and
PEIs.
Changes
were
made
to
clarify
these
statements.
The
Agency's
responses
regarding
Chapter
3
and
our
detailed
evaluation
of
these
responses
are
included
in
Appendix
H.
10Memorandum
from
Acting
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation
to
Regional
Administrators,
"
Guidance
for
Implementing
the
1­
Hour
Ozone
and
Pre­
Existing
PM10
NAAQS,"
issued
in
December
1997.

31
Chapter
4
EPA
Policy
Allowing
Outside
Emission
Reduction
Credits
Creates
Inequities
and
Hampers
Attainment
In
1997,
EPA
issued
an
ozone
policy10
intended
to
grant
States
greater
flexibility
in
obtaining
precursor
emission
reductions
by
allowing
them
to
claim
emission
reductions
from
sources
outside
of
their
nonattainment
areas
for
post­
1996
ROP
Plans.
However,
as
designed,
the
policy
creates
potential
inequities
between
nonattainment
areas,
allows
for
double­
counting
of
the
same
facility's
emissions,
and
is
not
based
on
scientific
modeling
of
emissions
impact.
Additionally,
the
statutory
basis
for
the
policy
is
unclear,
EPA
has
expressed
differing
positions
regarding
the
legal
basis
for
the
policy,
and
the
policy
was
not
subjected
to
rulemaking
and
public
comment.
Of
most
concern
is
that
the
policy
can
lead
to
fewer
emissions
reductions
for
areas
that
use
the
policy
to
claim
outside
emission
reductions.
Our
review
of
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
for
the
10
serious
nonattainment
areas
showed
that
three
areas
included
credit
for
emission
reductions
outside
of
the
nonattainment
areas,
but
it
is
not
clear
that
the
claimed
emission
reductions
for
two
areas
were
actually
achieved.

Policy
Creates
Inequities,
Allows
Double­
Counting,
and
May
Not
Achieve
Emission
Reductions
Net
of
Growth
The
policy
allowing
nonattainment
areas
to
"
pick"
outside
sources
for
credit
in
ROP
Plans
allows
these
areas
to
ignore
other
sources
from
outside
areas
that
may
produce
emissions
that
offset
reductions.
For
example,
one
outside
electric
utility
that
had
reduced
emissions
may
be
included
in
the
ROP
baseline,
but
another
outside
utility
within
the
same
specified
area
that
had
increased
emissions
may,
under
EPA's
1997
policy,
be
ignored.
In
addition,
not
including
all
outside
source
baselines
in
the
ROP
calculations
can
result
in
emission
reductions
that
are
less
than
needed
to
meet
the
Act's
"
net
of
growth"
requirement.

To
ensure
that
emission
reductions
are
net
of
growth,
the
Act
specifies
that
the
calculation
of
required
reductions
is
to
include
the
anthropogenic
VOC
(
or
NOx)
baseline
emissions
for
all
sources
within
the
nonattainment
area,
once
adjustments
for
noncreditable
reductions
are
accounted
for
(
generally
involving
reductions
from
certain
pre­
1990
emission
controls).
EPA
often
refers
to
this
adjusted
nonattainment
baseline
as
the
adjusted
"
ROP
baseline."
32
The
1997
policy
allows
nonattainment
areas
to
include
in
ROP
baseline
emissions
only
the
baseline
emissions
for
the
specific
sources
or
source
categories
for
which
outside
emission
reduction
credit
is
being
claimed.
Exclusion
of
baseline
emissions
for
the
entire
outside
area
from
the
ROP
calculation
does
not
ensure
that
emissions
within
and
outside
the
nonattainment
area
are
being
reduced
net
of
growth
as
required
by
the
Act.
Under
the
policy,
there
is
no
assurance
that
excluded
outside
sources
have
not
increased
their
emissions
to
an
extent
that
offsets
or
exceeds
the
emission
reductions
of
the
selected
sources
or
source
categories.
In
addition,
allowing
States
to
"
pick
and
choose"
specific
outside
sources
and
only
include
the
baseline
emissions
for
these
selected
sources
in
calculating
required
reductions
creates
an
inequity
between
nonattainment
areas
that
reduce
emissions
within
the
nonattainment
area
and
nonattainment
areas
that
include
selected
outside
sources.

Nonattainment
areas
that
limit
emission
controls
to
the
nonattainment
area
are
required
to
calculate
the
required
reductions
based
on
the
entire
nonattainment
area
baseline
of
VOC
and/
or
NOx
emissions.
However,
nonattainment
areas
that
choose
specific
outside
sources
for
emission
credit
only
have
to
calculate
reductions
against
the
baseline
for
these
specific
sources
and
not
the
baseline
for
the
entire
outside
area.
Since
the
required
reduction
of
9
percent
is
applied
to
the
baseline
used,
this
condition
may
result
in
less
emission
reductions
for
those
areas
that
choose
to
calculate
reductions
based
on
the
baselines
of
specific
outside
sources.

The
Act
specifies
that
the
9­
percent
emission
reduction
is
the
minimum
requirement.
Required
reductions
are
supposed
to
eliminate
emission
growth
plus
an
additional
9­
percent
reduction
from
the
baseline
emissions.
As
a
result,
most
ROPs
include
emission
reductions
substantially
more
than
the
9­
percent
minimum
requirement
in
the
Act.
Including
only
the
baseline
emissions
for
selected
outside
sources
in
ROP
calculations
may
result
in
a
9­
percent
reduction
 
net
of
growth
 
for
these
particular
sources,
but
not
a
reduction
net
of
growth
for
the
nonattainment
area
or
the
outside
areas
as
a
whole.

Post­
1996
ROP
Plans
for
two
of
the
three
nonattainment
areas
claiming
outside
emission
reductions
included
only
the
baseline
emissions
for
the
selected
sources
in
calculating
required
emission
reductions.
The
ROP
for
the
third
nonattainment
area
included
emission
baselines
for
the
entire
outside
area
where
emission
reductions
were
claimed.
Details
on
the
three
areas
are
in
Appendix
G.

Policy
Does
Not
Preclude
Double
Counting
Currently,
a
number
of
States
have
multiple
nonattainment
areas
under
the
1­
hour
standard,
and
the
number
of
nonattainment
counties
more
than
doubled
with
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
in
April
2004.
However,
EPA's
1997
policy
does
not
safeguard
against
two
or
more
nonattainment
areas
improperly
claiming
the
same
outside
emission
reduction
credits
in
their
individual
ROP
Plans.
If
two
or
more
nonattainment
areas
claim
benefit
from
emission
reductions
by
the
11Alabama,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
District
of
Columbia,
Georgia,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Kentucky,
Maryland,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Missouri,
New
Jersey,
New
York,
North
Carolina,
Ohio,
Pennsylvania,
Rhode
Island,
South
Carolina,
Tennessee,
Virginia,
West
Virginia,
and
Wisconsin.

33
same
outside
source,
the
State
needs
to
prove
that
all
of
the
areas
received
an
emissions
benefit
and
the
estimated
extent
of
benefit
received.
In
our
opinion,
areas
should
not
be
allowed
to
claim
the
total
emissions
reduced
but
only
receive
the
extent
of
emissions
benefit
on
its
ozone
levels.
To
show
the
benefit
and
impact
of
outside
emission
reductions
on
individual
nonattainment
areas
would
require
atmospheric
modeling;
however,
the
current
policy
does
not
require
such
modeling
as
a
condition
of
this
claim.

Policy
Inhibits
Ability
to
Use
Periodic
Emissions
Inventory
Data
to
Assess
Control
Strategy
Effectiveness
The
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act
required
that
a
1990
baseline
emissions
inventory
for
each
nonattainment
area
be
developed
and
updated
for
every
3­
years
thereafter.
Although
the
Act
did
not
require
that
the
PEI
be
used
to
assess
control
effectiveness,
OAQPS
and
State
officials
said
they
believed
that
the
PEIs
were
to
be
used
to
measure
emission
reductions
achieved
by
nonattainment
areas.
A
PEI
for
all
nonattainment
areas
was
required
for
1999.
However,
EPA
staff
and
our
comparison
of
1999
PEIs
to
post
1996­
ROP
baseline
emissions
for
the
three
nonattainment
areas
that
claimed
outside
emission
reductions
indicated
that
the
outside
sources
or
areas
for
which
emission
reductions
were
taken
were
not
included
in
the
1999
PEIs.
In
these
three
cases
the
PEIs
were
limited
to
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
within
the
nonattainment
areas.
As
a
result,
there
was
no
correlation
between
the
post­
1996
ROP
baseline
emissions
(
used
to
determine
the
emission
reductions
to
be
accomplished
by
November
1999)
and
the
1999
PEI.

This
occurred
because
EPA's
policy
allows
nonattainment
area
credit
for
outside
emission
reductions
without
requiring
that
outside
areas
or
sources
claimed
in
post­
1996
ROPs
be
included
in
subsequent
PEIs.
This
requirement
would
facilitate
comparison
of
PEIs
to
ROP
emission
target
levels
as
a
measure
of
the
effectiveness
of
ROP
controls
in
reducing
emissions.

Selection
of
Outside
Emission
Sources
Not
Based
On
Modeling
Selection
of
outside
emission
sources
for
emission
reduction
credit
is
not
based
on
a
scientific
method,
such
as
atmospheric
modeling
of
emission
transport.
Instead,
the
policy
is
based
on
distance
from
the
nonattainment
area
boundary.
For
example,
the
distance
limit
for
VOC
reductions
is
100
kilometers
outside
the
nonattainment
area
boundary.
For
NOx,
it
is
200
kilometers,
unless
the
State
was
a
core
State11
in
the
Ozone
Transport
Advisory
Group
study,
in
which
case
NOx
reduction
credit
may
be
expanded
to
the
whole
State.
34
When
the
policy
was
issued
in
1997,
atmospheric
modeling
was
expensive
and
resource
intensive.
The
policy
was
originally
based
on
a
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
committee
recommendation
to
EPA.
According
to
committee
members,
States
wanted
an
alternative
to
modeling,
so
EPA
had
an
environmental
engineer
and
modeling
expert
judgmentally
set
distances
that
States
could
use
in
lieu
of
modeling.
Atmospheric
modeling
experts
on
the
FACA
committee
said
the
distance
limits
are
not
strictly
supported
by
science,
and
that
modeling
is
the
only
scientific
method
to
identify
emission
sources
that
contribute
to
a
nonattainment
area's
zone
levels.
One
of
the
modeling
experts
said
the
distance
limits
are
arbitrary
limits
that
may
or
may
not
include
sources
that
most
impact
an
area's
attainment
of
the
ozone
standard.
The
expert
further
stated
that
atmospheric
modeling
is
no
longer
costly
and
resource
intensive,
and
can
be
run
on
laptop
computers.

Legal
Basis
of
Policy
Not
Clear
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B)
of
the
Act
states
that
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
shall
reduce
by
9
percent
"
baseline
emissions,"
and
defines
"
baseline
emissions"'
to
mean
the
total
amount
of
actual
VOC
emissions
from
anthropogenic
sources
within
the
nonattainment
area.
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
C)
also
provides
that
NOx
reductions
can
be
substituted
for
or
combined
with
VOC
reductions,
since
both
contribute
to
ozone,
a
requirement
that
EPA
lawyers
said
was
clear
and
legally
supportable.
During
our
interview
with
EPA
Office
of
General
Counsel
Air
and
Radiation
attorneys,
the
attorneys
could
not
find
any
language
in
Section
182
(
c)(
2)(
1)(
B)
restricting
NOx
substitution
to
the
nonattainment
area
baseline
emissions
or
any
reference
to
Section
182(
b)(
1)(
B)
that
contains
that
limitation.

The
legal
basis
is
more
ambiguous,
however,
when
it
comes
to
non­
attainment
areas
counting
VOC
emission
reductions
occurring
in
areas
outside
of
their
boundaries
toward
ozone
attainment
goals.
EPA
attorneys
told
us
that
the
statute
allowing
NOx
substitution
for
VOCs
allows
reasonable
further
progress
plans
to
include
a
combination
of
NOx
and
VOCs
reductions.
They
also
said
that
the
Act
does
not
state
that
the
VOCs
combined
with
NOx
are
subject
to
the
same
restrictions
as
the
9­
percent
VOC
reductions
specified
in
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B).
However,
the
one
nonattainment
area
ROP
Plan
that
claimed
outside
VOC
reductions
(
Milwaukee­
Racine
area)
did
not
include
NOx
substitution.
The
post­
1996
ROP
plan
contained
only
VOC
control
measures.
One
attorney
also
referred
us
to
the
general
reasonable
further
planning
requirements
in
Section
172
that
do
not
refer
to
restricting
VOC
reductions
to
nonattainment
area
baseline
emissions.
However,
the
Section
172
contains
no
specific
VOC
reduction
requirements.
The
basis
of
both
VOC
and
NOx
reductions
required
in
post­
1996
ROPs
is
contained
in
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B).
This
section
requires
that
post­
1996
ROPs
contain
a
minimum
9­
percent
reduction
in
VOC
baseline
emissions.
As
previously
stated,
the
9­
percent
reduction
is
further
referenced
to
Section
182(
b)(
1)(
B),
which
restricts
such
emission
reductions
to
nonattainment
area
baseline
emissions.
35
In
each
post­
1996
ROP
Federal
Register
notice
we
reviewed,
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B)
was
cited
as
the
basis
of
the
required
amount
of
either
VOC
or
NOx
reductions
included
in
the
plans.
For
example,
the
Illinois
post­
1996
ROP
for
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
severe
nonattainment
area,
which
claimed
261.97
tons
per
day
in
NOx
reductions
for
sources
outside
the
nonattainment
area,
cited
the
ROP
Plan
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B)
as
the
basis
of
the
required
amount
of
precursor
reductions:

The
plan
was
submitted
to
meet
the
Act's
requirement,
in
section
182(
c)(
2)(
B),
that
the
State
demonstrate
a
9
percent
reduction
of
VOC
emissions
in
the
Chicago
ozone
nonattainment
area
for
the
3
year
period
between
1996
and
1999.

Whether
an
ROP
includes
only
VOC
reductions,
NOx
reductions,
or
a
combination
of
VOC
and
NOx
reductions,
the
minimum
amount
of
required
reductions
is
determined
under
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B),
which
requires
that
VOC
reductions
be
within
the
nonattainment
area
baseline
emissions.

The
EPA
attorneys
we
contacted
said
that
a
person
could
reasonably
interpret
the
"
substitution"
of
NOx
for
VOCs
as
carrying
the
same
restrictions.
Also,
they
said
that
a
person
could
reasonably
interpret
that
the
VOC
reductions
used
in
combination
with
NOx
reductions
in
a
reasonable
further
progress
plan
are
the
same
VOC
reductions
cited
in
Section
182(
c)(
2)(
B),
and
these
reductions
would,
therefore,
be
limited
to
reductions
in
the
nonattainment
area
baseline
emissions.
EPA's
response
to
the
OIG's
draft
report,
included
as
Appendix
H
to
this
report,
stated
that
Office
of
General
Counsel
attorneys
are
responsible
for
advising
program
offices
on
the
legalities
of
various
issues,
such
as
the
policy
for
outside
emission
reduction
credit,
and
providing
their
opinion
on
whether
the
policy
or
guidance
in
question
could
be
successfully
challenged
in
court.
A
senior
OAQPS
official
said
the
policy
was
probably
not
explicitly
authorized
by
the
Act
but
that
EPA
has
to
make
policy
decisions
in
such
gray
areas
to
provide
flexibility
to
State
and
local
programs.

Policy
Not
Subjected
to
Rulemaking
or
Public
Comment
EPA's
"
Substitution
of
Credits
for
ROP
Emission
Reductions"
was
never
subjected
to
rulemaking
procedures
or
public
comment,
nor
was
it
issued
as
more
formal
policy
guidance.
The
outside
emission
credit
policy
was
included
in
an
attachment
to
a
policy
guidance
memorandum
issued
in
December
1997.
EPA
subsequently
issued
a
Notice
of
Availability
in
the
Federal
Register
(
Vol.
63,
page
8196,
February
18,
1998),
but
the
Notice
did
not
include
the
specific
guidance
involved
and
did
not
seek
stakeholder
opinions
or
public
comments.

Policy
May
Be
Inconsistent
With
Original
Purpose
As
previously
stated,
this
policy
was
based
on
a
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
committee
recommendation
to
EPA.
Two
committee
members
told
us
that
the
36
original
intent
of
the
recommendation
was
to
broaden
emission
controls
to
areas
outside
of
nonattainment
area
boundaries
in
order
to
address
sources
that
impacted
a
nonattainment
area.
However,
the
subsequent
policy
allows
nonattainment
areas
to
claim
emission
reductions
that
have
already
occurred
under
other
Federal
and
State
regulations.
Because
the
reductions
in
these
areas
have
already
occurred,
they
do
not
represent
a
broadening
of
nonattainment
area
controls
and
neither
facilitate
nor
accelerate
attainment.
One
of
the
committee
members
interviewed
told
us
that
the
policy,
as
written,
appears
to
be
a
mechanism
to
allow
States
"
cheap"
emission
reduction
credits
for
meeting
the
required
reductions
in
post­
1996
ROP
Plans.
A
senior
OAQPS
official
also
recalled
that
the
purpose
of
the
policy
was
to
broaden
controls,
but
he
said
it
was
not
EPA's
intention
that
the
policy
be
limited
to
new
controls
or
the
broadening
of
current
controls,
or
that
outside
reductions
should
accelerate
attainment.

Conclusions
The
legal
basis
of
the
policy
allowing
States
to
claim
outside
emission
reductions
in
post­
ROP
Plans
is
ambiguous,
and
appears
to
conflict
with
the
emission
reduction
requirements
for
post­
1996
ROP
Plans.
Because
of
its
potentially
harmful
impact
on
ozone
precursor
emissions,
the
policy
 
if
continued
 
should
be
subjected
to
the
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
process
to
provide
the
public
with
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
merits
of
the
policy.
In
our
view,
if
this
policy
is
to
continue,
revisions
are
needed.
At
a
minimum,
a
revised
policy
should:
(
1)
encourage
the
broadening
of
emission
controls
to
outside
sources;
(
2)
require
atmospheric
modeling
rather
than
arbitrary
distances;
(
3)
ensure
that
outside
emission
reductions
represent
appropriate
reductions,
net
of
growth;
and
(
4)
require
that
the
baseline
emissions
from
all
outside
areas
(
from
which
credits
are
claimed)
be
used
to
calculate
the
required
emission
reduction
amount
for
post­
1996
ROPs.
Also,
the
policy
should
specify
how
outside
emission
reductions
would
be
apportioned
among
multiple
nonattainment
areas
to
preclude
doublecounting
and
that
outside
areas/
sources
be
included
in
subsequent
PEIs.

Recommendations
We
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:

4­
1
Subject
the
policy
claiming
outside
emissions
to
the
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
process,
which
will
allow
broad
public
comment
and
feedback.
37
4­
2
Revise
policy
for
nonattainment
area
outside
emission
reduction
credit
to:

a.
Encourage
broadening
of
controls
for
sources
in
outside
areas
in
order
for
a
nonattainment
area
to
claim
emission
reduction
credits.

b.
Require
atmospheric
modeling
to
support
the
impact
of
outside
emissions
and
sources
on
nonattainment
area
ozone
levels.

c.
Require
that
the
emission
baselines
from
all
selected
outside
areas
be
included
in
ROP
baseline
emissions
for
calculating
required
emission
reductions
and
measuring
achievement
of
reductions.

d.
Establish
a
methodology,
such
as
atmospheric
modeling,
to
document
the
extent
of
benefits
that
NOx
and
VOC
emissions
reductions
from
outside
the
area
have
on
individual
nonattainment
areas
to
prevent
improper
double­
counting
of
emission
reductions
when
a
State
has
multiple
nonattainment
areas.

e.
Require
that
outside
sources
or
areas
included
in
post­
1996
ROPs
also
be
included
in
subsequent
PEIs
for
each
applicable
nonattainment
area.

Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
The
Agency's
response
generally
addressed
recommendations
presented
in
Chapter
4.

In
regard
to
Recommendation
4­
1,
the
Agency
contends
that
each
Federal
Register
Notice
for
ROPs
that
include
credit
for
outside
emission
reductions
allows
public
comment
on
the
policy
that
allows
these
credits.
We
agree
that
ROP
notices
could
provide
a
forum
for
public
comment;
however,
this
has
not
been
the
case
for
prior
notices
that
included
credit
for
outside
emission
reductions.
These
notices
only
referenced
the
policy
and
provided
little
or
no
details
regarding
the
policy
and
the
statutory
basis
for
the
policy
under
the
Act.
Additionally,
ROP
notices
were
normally
long,
complex
documents,
and
the
use
of
outside
emission
reductions
and
the
references
to
the
policy
were
difficult
to
ascertain
within
this
document.
While
we
acknowledge
that
it
is
possible,
we
do
not
believe
that
past
ROP
notices
appropriately
highlighted
nor
presented
sufficient
information
for
a
meaningful
public
discourse
on
the
subject
policy
and
its
ramifications.
Therefore,
the
OIG
continues
to
believe
that
the
policy
should
be
subjected
to
public
comment
in
an
open,
transparent,
and
equitable
manner.

The
Agency
indicated
that
it
would
consider
the
various
components
of
Recommendation
4­
2
during
its
assessment
of
existing
policies
and
guidance
as
38
part
of
the
rulemaking
process
for
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
EPA's
response
also
requested
an
editorial
change
related
to
certain
statements
attributed
to
EPA's
Office
of
General
Counsel
attorneys
as
shown
in
the
draft
report.
The
statements
were
changed
as
requested.
Details
of
changes
requested
by
EPA
and
OIG's
related
changes
to
the
final
report
are
shown
in
Appendix
H.
39
Measurement
Chapter
5
Reliable
Processes
Needed
to
Measure
Overall
Emission
Reductions
and
Related
Impacts
In
the
14
years
since
passage
of
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act,
EPA
has
not
issued
rules
requiring
States
to
demonstrate
their
progress
toward
reducing
precursor
emissions,
nor
has
EPA
issued
guidance
on
how
such
demonstrations
should
be
conducted,
despite
the
Act's
mandate
to
do
so.
Review
of
10
serious
and
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas
indicated
that
EPA
and
States
had
no
reliable
methods
to
assess
the
overall
success
of
State
emission
reduction
programs.
EPA
regions
and
States
either
did
not
measure
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas,
or
used
methods
that
were
unreliable,
erroneous,
or
did
not
demonstrate
achievement
of
reductions.
According
to
OAQPS
officials,
guidance
that
would
incorporate
the
Act's
timeframes
could
not
be
developed,
so
no
guidance
was
issued.
Also,
due
to
the
lack
of
goals
and
performance
measures
(
see
Chapter
7),
there
was
little
incentive
for
EPA
to
promulgate
the
guidance
or
ensure
that
States
measured
their
progress.
Consequently,
EPA
and
States
have
not
adequately
measured
the
effectiveness
of
nonattainment
area
emission
controls
and
whether
emissions
have
been
progressively
reduced
as
required
by
the
1990
Act.
More
importantly,
EPA
is
unsure
whether
recent
changes
in
ozone
levels
are
the
result
of
permanent
reductions
in
precursor
emissions
or
the
result
of
other
factors,
such
as
changes
in
weather
or
economic
trends.

1990
Act
Required
Measurement
of
Emission
Reductions
The
1990
Act
requires
each
State
to
submit
a
Compliance
Demonstration
within
90
days
after
each
ROP
Plan
milestone
date
that
demonstrates
that
the
required
emission
reductions
have
been
achieved.
According
to
the
compliance
demonstration
provisions
of
Section
182(
g)(
2),

For
each
nonattainment
area
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
1),
not
later
than
90
days
after
the
date
on
which
an
applicable
milestone
occurs
(
not
including
an
attainment
date
on
which
a
milestone
occurs
in
cases
where
the
standard
has
been
attained),
each
State
in
which
all
or
part
of
such
area
is
located
shall
submit
to
the
Administrator
a
demonstration
that
the
milestone
has
been
met....
The
Administrator
shall
determine
whether
or
not
a
State's
demonstration
is
adequate
within
90
days
after
the
Administrator's
receipt
of
a
demonstration
which
contains
the
information
and
analysis
required
by
the
Administrator.
40
The
Act
further
provided
that
if
a
State
could
not
adequately
demonstrate
that
the
required
emission
reductions
were
achieved,
the
State
could
be
subject
to
enforcement
actions
or
sanctions.

EPA
Did
Not
Issue
Rules
or
Guidance
for
Compliance
Demonstrations
EPA
refers
to
the
compliance
demonstrations
required
by
the
Act
as
"
milestone
compliance
demonstrations."
However,
according
to
interviews
of
air
program
officials
at
OAQPS,
five
EPA
regions,
and
two
States,
EPA
never
issued
rules
requiring
States
to
perform
milestone
compliance
demonstrations,
and
has
never
issued
guidance
as
to
what
information
and
analyses
these
demonstrations
should
contain.
As
a
result,
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
have
not
been
completed
for
most
nonattainment
areas.
For
the
10
nonattainment
areas
included
in
our
review,
only
3
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
had
been
submitted
by
2
States
(
Georgia
and
Illinois)
for
2
nonattainment
areas
(
Atlanta
and
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County).
Further,
these
three
compliance
demonstrations
generally
contained
only
a
listing
of
emission
controls,
the
dates
that
controls
were
implemented,
and
the
assumption
that
projected
emission
reductions
were
equivalent
to
actual
reductions.
The
three
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
we
reviewed
did
not
contain
any
measurements
of
actual
emission
reductions.
EPA
regional
staff
indicated
that
the
regions
did
not
review
these
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
because
EPA
had
not
issued
any
guidance
on
what
they
should
contain.

OAQPS
staff
explained
that
milestone
compliance
demonstration
rules
and
guidance
had
initially
been
drafted
around
1994,
but
 
because
of
a
"
disconnect"
in
the
Act's
requirements
 
OAQPS
could
not
develop
guidance
that
met
the
Act's
requirements,
so
the
guidance
was
never
issued.
According
to
OAQPS
officials,
their
interpretation
of
the
1990
Act
is
that
a
comparison
between
the
1990
baseline
emission
inventory
and
subsequent
periodic
emissions
inventories
should
be
used
in
State
compliance
demonstrations
to
demonstrate
actual
emission
reductions
achieved.
Milestone
compliance
demonstrations
are
required
from
States
90
days
after
each
milestone
date,
but
periodic
emission
inventories
are
not
due
until
22
months
after
the
milestone
dates.
Thus,
updated
emissions
inventories
are
not
available
when
States
need
them
to
create
their
milestone
compliance
demonstrations.

According
to
OAQPS
officials,
EPA
attorneys
would
not
approve
a
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
policy
that
did
not
meet
the
Act's
90­
day
time
frame.
OAQPS
developed
some
alternative
indicators
States
could
use
to
demonstrate
that
emission
reductions
were
probably
achieved,
but
this
did
not
satisfy
EPA
managers
who
wanted
actual
measures
of
reductions.
OAQPS
officials
were
asked
if
statutory
changes
in
the
Act's
requirements
were
sought
to
remedy
the
timeframe
inconsistencies,
to
which
they
replied
recommendations
on
statutory
41
changes
could
only
come
from
the
Assistant
Administrator
level
and
no
such
recommendations
had
been
made.

Baseline
and
Periodic
Inventories
Needed
Updating
While
EPA's
periodic
updates
to
emissions
models,
methodologies,
and
factors
since
1990
have
helped
improve
the
quality
of
more
recent
emissions
inventories,
substantial
effort
is
required
to
update
older
baseline
inventories.
This
will
require
EPA
to
revisit
early
assumptions
and
retrofit
newer
methodologies
to
old
activity
profiles.
As
a
result,
it
becomes
more
and
more
difficult,
costly,
and
resource
intensive
to
maintain
early
baseline
inventories
and,
as
such,
more
difficult
to
use
them
to
measure
emission
reductions.
OAQPS
staff
stated
that
the
intent
of
the
Act
was
that
baseline
and
PEI
inventories
be
used
by
nonattainment
areas
to
gauge
their
emission
reduction
progress.
However,
the
Act
does
not
specifically
require
that
emission
inventories
be
used
for
this
purpose.
Our
interviews
with
OAQPS,
regional,
and
State
officials
disclosed
that,
due
to
changes
in
models,
methodologies,
and
emissions
factors
over
the
years,
a
reliable
comparison
between
baseline
and
periodic
emission
inventories
could
not
be
conducted
unless
both
inventories
were
updated.

Five
EPA
regions
we
contacted
said
they
had
not
required
States
to
update
their
nonattainment
area
baseline
or
periodic
emission
inventories.
OAQPS
staff
indicated
that
EPA
had
not
required
the
updating
of
baseline
inventories
because
such
updating
required
modeling,
which
proved
expensive
and
resource
intensive
in
past
years.
However,
some
States
voluntarily
updated
their
baseline
inventories
in
2003
using
the
latest
mobile
emission
model
(
MOBILE6),
and
one
State
(
Wisconsin)
had
updated
the
1990
baseline
inventories
and
the
periodic
emission
inventories
for
its
one
nonattainment
area.
Also,
one
State
(
Maryland)
had
attempted
to
measure
actual
emission
reductions
in
its
1996
and
1999
PEIs
by
comparing
the
current
PEI
to
the
1990
baselines
for
its
nonattainment
areas,
but
the
baseline
inventories
had
not
been
updated
or
adjusted
for
noncreditable
emission
reductions
as
required
by
the
Act.
Maryland
did
not
submit
this
attempted
emission
reduction
measurement
as
a
milestone
compliance
demonstration.

EPA
Regions
and
States
Primarily
Used
Ambient
Trends
and
Implementation
of
Controls
to
Demonstrate
Progress
Our
interviews
at
six
EPA
regions
and
two
States
indicated
that
they
used
a
combination
of
ambient
ozone
trends,
ozone
exceedance
days,
and
implementation
of
ROP
emission
controls
to
gauge
reduction
of
ozone
precursor
emissions.
EPA
regions
and
States
generally
used
the
projected
emissions
reductions
from
implemented
controls
as
a
measure
of
progress
in
reducing
precursor
emissions.
12
"
Assessment
of
Interannual
Ozone
Variation
in
Urban
Areas
From
A
Climatological
Perspective,"
published
in
the
Atmospheric
Environment,
Vol.
30,
No.
14,
pp
2615­
2625,
1996.

42
EPA
established
"
observed
ozone
levels"
as
an
outcome
measure
for
its
ozone
precursor
emission
reduction
program.
However,
because
ozone
is
not
emitted,
but
formed
in
a
complex,
atmospheric
chemical
reaction
of
other
emitted
pollutants,
no
direct
correlation
exists
between
ozone
levels
and
the
reduction
of
precursor
emissions.
The
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ozone
levels
is
generally
estimated
through
use
of
atmospheric
models
that
include
additional
factors
that
affect
ozone
levels,
such
as
meteorological
conditions,
temperature,
and
wind
velocity.

For
example,
EPA
and
external
studies
of
recent
downward
trends
in
nonattainment
ozone
levels
pointed
to
weather
conditions
(
cooler
summers
and
more
rain
than
usual),
in
addition
to
emission
reductions,
as
the
primary
reasons
for
reduced
ambient
ozone
levels.
In
addition,
an
EPA
study
and
one
Georgia
study
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
levels
for
major
metropolitan
areas
found
no
statistically
significant
downward
trends
in
ozone
concentrations
in
the
periods
1990­
2002
and
1981­
2001,
respectively.
Further,
an
OAQPS
analysis
of
1991­
2001
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
for
two
ozone
nonattainment
areas
found
no
statistically
significant
downward
trends
in
ozone
or
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
resulting
from
emission
reductions.
Further,
a
1996
study12
by
two
OAQPS
ozone
experts
stated
the
following:

Tracking
progress
in
attaining
the
ozone
NAAQS
(
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards)
is
often
confounded
by
the
effect
of
interannual
variations
in
meteorological
conditions,
which,
in
turn,
affect
the
annual
(
seasonal)
distribution
of
ozone.
Large
interannual
variations
in
meteorology
can
thus
mask
the
underlying
trends
in
ozone
levels
and
may
suggest
changes
in
air
quality
that
are
not
actually
related
to
emission
reductions.

However,
changes
in
meteorological
conditions
and
wind
patterns
can
be
temporary
and
generally
cannot
be
controlled;
reduction
of
precursor
emissions
is
the
only
known
method
for
permanently
reducing
ozone
pollution.

Guidance
and
Rules
for
Compliance
Demonstrations
May
Be
Issued
for
8­
Hour
Standard
Although
the
1994
initial
draft
guidance
has
never
been
issued,
EPA
has
begun
updating
the
guidance
as
part
of
the
implementation
guidance
for
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
In
April
2004,
an
OAQPS
official
told
us
that
the
guidance
might
be
issued
in
2004,
but
could
be
delayed
because
of
other
priorities
related
to
8­
hour
implementation.
43
The
draft
milestone
compliance
demonstration
guidance
indicates
that
comprehensive
emission
inventories
are
the
most
effective
method
for
assessing
emission
reductions,
but
acknowledges
that
this
method
may
not
be
accomplished
within
the
Act's
90­
day
deadline.
As
a
result,
EPA
proposed
an
alternative
method
that
uses
a
"
weight
of
evidence"
approach
whereby
States
must
provide
evidence
that
control
measures
specified
in
their
ROPs
have
been
properly
implemented,
and
a
best
estimate
of
emission
reductions
achieved
based
on
growth
rates,
air
quality
trends,
and
other
factors.
This
approach
allows
ambient
air
monitoring
and
emission/
air
quality
modeling
as
support
for
emissions
reductions.
However,
as
previously
discussed,
ambient
ozone
levels
alone
are
not
an
accurate
measure
of
emission
reductions.
The
draft
milestone
compliance
demonstration
guidance
does
not
require
the
use
of
relevant
factors,
such
as
meteorologyadjusted
ozone
trends,
or
trends
in
ambient
concentrations
of
VOCs
and
NOx,
as
indicators
of
emission
reductions.
Including
these
would
be
beneficial.

Conclusions
EPA
and
States
need
reliable
methods
for
measuring
emission
reductions
of
nonattainment
areas
and
the
impact
of
such
reductions,
excluding
other
factors,
on
ambient
ozone
levels.
Without
reliable
measurement
methods,
EPA
is
unable
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
implemented
controls
and
has
no
assurance
that
the
progressive
emission
reductions
occurred.

Demonstrations
of
emission
reductions
have
become
increasingly
important
since
implementation
of
the
stricter
8­
hour
standard
and
the
lack
of
reasonably
available,
proven
control
techniques
for
some
areas.
Most
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas,
which
are
now
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas,
have
already
implemented
most
of
the
readily
available,
least
expensive
emission
controls.
These
areas
will
need
to
be
innovative
in
developing
and
promulgating
future
control
measures.
Accordingly,
EPA
needs
to
know
whether
these
controls
are
effective
in
achieving
required
reductions
and,
thereby,
facilitate
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
within
the
time
frames
established
for
each
area.

Recommendations
We
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:

5­
1
Expedite
issuance
of
the
milestone
compliance
guidance,
but
restrict
the
use
of
observed
ambient
zone
levels
as
a
stand­
alone
indicator
of
emission
reductions.
The
guidance
should
also
require
the
use
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends
and
trends
in
ambient
concentrations
of
VOC
and
NOx
in
the
weight
of
evidence
approach.

5­
2
Instruct
States
to
utilize
indicators,
as
reflected
in
the
draft
milestone
compliance
demonstration
guidance,
and/
or
provide
annual
updates
to
44
emissions
inventories
(
one
third
of
sources
per
year
or
one
third
of
States
per
year)
to
determine
potential
or
actual
emission
reductions
within
the
Act's
90­
day
time
frame
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations.

5­
3
Require
that
nonattainment
areas
update
baseline
inventories
and,
subsequently,
perform
more
in­
depth
assessments
of
actual
emission
reductions,
once
the
applicable
PEIs
are
completed.
This
subsequent
determination
of
actual
emission
reductions
may
not
meet
the
milestone
compliance
demonstration
90­
day
time
frame
but
will
provide
a
measure
of
progress
that
is
not
currently
available.

5­
4
Incorporate
the
use
of
updated
NEI
data
and
other
available
measures,
where
appropriate,
into
milestone
compliance
demonstration
guidance
as
top­
down
indicators
or
measures
of
nonattainment
area
progress
in
reducing
precursor
emissions.

5­
5
Require
State
and
local
agencies
to
update
past
baseline
and
periodic
emission
inventories
based
on
the
latest
models,
emission
factor,
and
methodologies,
and
complete
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
for
1990
through
1999
(
or
later
milestone
year)
for
nonattainment
areas
based
on
the
issued
milestone
compliance
guidance.
Further,
for
future
inventories,
require
States
to
continuously
update
inventories
as
new
emissions
data
and
methods
are
developed,
to
provide
timely
assessments
of
nonattainment
area
progress
in
reducing
precursor
emissions.

Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
The
Agency
indicated
that
it
would
evaluate
the
current
draft
milestone
compliance
guidance
and
determine
the
feasibility
of
incorporating
the
changes
recommended
in
Recommendations
5­
1,
5­
2,
and
5­
4.
Regarding
Recommendations
5­
3
and
5­
5,
the
Agency
questioned
whether
the
updating
of
baseline
inventories
for
comparison
with
future
PEIs
(
Recommendation
5­
3),
and
the
updating
of
baseline
and
periodic
inventories
to
measure
emission
reductions
achieved
by
nonattainment
areas
between
1990
and
1999
(
Recommendation
5­
5),
represent
an
effective
use
of
Agency
resources.
The
Agency
stated
that
the
current
focus
of
ozone
program
resources
is
on
implementation
of
the
more
protective
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
The
Agency
response
further
noted
that
EPA
and
States
will
rely
on
indicators
included
in
the
draft
milestone
compliance
guidance
to
determine
whether
emission
reductions
were
achieved
without
any
requirement
for
measurement
of
actual
reductions
through
the
use
of
NEI
or
State
emission
inventories
for
each
nonattainment
area.

We
agree
that
the
Agency
should
focus
resources
on
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
However,
as
noted
here
and
in
Chapter
2,
EPA's
efforts
to
implement
the
8­
hour
standard
will
be
significantly
enhanced
if
the
Agency
better
understands
45
the
effectiveness
of
prior
precursor
emissions
reductions
strategies.
This
should
help
the
Agency
properly
design
and
effectively
implement
emission
controls
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
These
efforts
may
be
especially
important
for
those
major
metropolitan
areas
that
have
made
so
little
progress
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
since
1990.
In
our
view,
determining
how
to
implement
the
8­
hour
standard
more
effectively
than
occurred
under
the
1­
hour
standard
represents
an
effective
use
of
Agency
resources.
Also,
the
additional
milestone
requirement
for
States
to
update
past
baseline
and/
or
periodic
inventories
for
comparison
to
the
most
recent
PEI
would
provide
a
realistic
measure
of
emission
reduction
achievements
under
the
8­
hour
standard
and,
as
such,
would
also
represent
an
effective
use
of
Agency
resources
to
achieve
the
8­
hour
standard.
The
use
of
indicators
alone
will
not
fully
meet
the
Act's
requirement
that
States
demonstrate
the
attainment
of
specific,
mandated
precursor
emission
reductions
for
each
nonattainment
area.
The
Agency's
specific
responses
to
each
recommendation
in
this
chapter
and
a
detailed
OIG
evaluation
are
included
in
Appendix
H.
13See
Chapter
2
for
discussion
of
State
adjustments
to
NEI.

46
Chapter
6
Opportunities
Exist
to
Enhance
Measurement
of
Emission
Reductions
and
Ozone
Trends
EPA
could
make
better
use
of
available
data
and
methodologies
to
more
accurately
assess
the
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
and
their
impact
on
ozone
levels.
Our
interviews
with
OAQPS
staff
and
EPA
officials
in
five
regions
disclosed
that
relatively
little
use
has
been
made
of
available
emissions
data,
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
methodologies,
and
ambient
precursor
monitoring
data
to
develop
long­
term
trends
and
assess
the
actual
emission
and
related
ozone
reductions
for
individual
nonattainment
areas.
Greater
use
of
these
data
and
techniques
would
enable
EPA
and
States
to
more
readily
recognize
shortcomings
of
current
control
mechanisms
and
help
them
to
develop
and
implement
contingency
plans
when
necessary,
and
better
protect
the
public
from
unhealthy
ozone.
OAQPS
officials
agreed
that
this
would
be
a
valuable
tool,
but
said
that
resource
constraints
had
prevented
more
extensive
trend
analyses
of
ozone
precursor
(
VOC
and
NOx)
monitoring
data.

Updated
NEI
Could
Represent
A
More
Consistent
Measure
In
2003,
EPA
initiated
an
update
of
1990
through
1999
NEI
data
based
on
EPA's
latest
models,
emission
factors,
and
methodologies.
Because
in
most
cases
the
data
have
been
adjusted
for
State­
developed
inventories,
13
the
NEI
could
be
used
to
accurately
assess
emissions
reductions.
OAQPS
is
presently
in
the
process
of
producing
emissions
data
for
2000
and
2001.
With
adjustments
for
non­
creditable
reductions
(
certain
emissions
resulting
from
pre­
1990
controls),
these
emissions
data
could
potentially
be
used
by
nonattainment
areas
to
measure
actual
reductions
in
precursor
emissions.
Under
the
2002
Consolidated
Emission
Reporting
Rule,
States
are
required
to
provide
State­
wide
emissions
inventories
to
OAQPS.
State
emissions
inventories
will
then
be
used
to
update
the
NEI,
making
it
an
accurate
baseline
from
which
States
can
develop
future
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
for
ozone
precursor
emissions
OAQPS
officials
agreed
that
the
updated
NEI
could
serve
as
a
source
of
data
for
measuring
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
However,
they
were
hesitant
about
using
the
data
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations,
noting
that
State
and
local
agencies
may
not
accept
NEI
data
since
it
is
a
top­
down
database
(
EPA
runs
the
models
and
chooses
data).
The
Act
provides
for
a
bottom­
up
approach,
whereby
States
develop
and
submit
to
EPA
demonstrations
that
required
reductions
have
been
achieved.
However,
since
EPA
47
adjusts
the
NEI
data
every
3
years
for
State
and
local
periodic
inventories,
States
may
have
fewer
objections.
Our
contacts
with
EPA
staff
in
five
regional
offices
indicated
that
most
were
willing
to
consider
use
of
the
updated
NEI
data
for
milestone
demonstrations.
Also,
some
States
had
already
accepted
certain
NEI
data
for
use
in
their
nonattainment
area
PEIs,
and
indicated
they
would
be
willing
to
consider
the
use
of
the
updated
NEI
data
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations.

Meteorologically
Adjusted
Ozone
Data
May
Also
Be
Useful
In
the
mid­
1990s,
EPA
developed
a
statistical
trend
model
to
normalize
the
effects
of
meteorological
conditions
on
observed
ozone
levels.
This
model
produces
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
values
that
take
into
account
meteorological
conditions
and
thus
more
accurately
reflects
the
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ozone
levels
over
time.
OAQPS
uses
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
data
in
national
and
regional
air
quality
trend
reports,
but
our
research
indicates
that
EPA
regions
and
States
do
not
generally
use
meteorologically
adjusted
data
to
assess
ozone
precursor
emissions
reductions
or
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
their
controls
for
individual
nonattainment
areas.
Staff
in
five
EPA
regions
and
two
States
were
aware
of
EPA's
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
methodology,
but
most
had
not
used
it
to
perform
long­
term
ozone
trend
analyses
for
individual
nonattainment
areas.

PAMS
Data
Could
Provide
Good
Measure
of
Emission
Control
Effectiveness
The
1990
Act
required
EPA,
in
partnership
with
State
and
local
agencies,
to
carry
out
more
extensive,
enhanced
monitoring
of
ozone
levels
and
ozone
precursor
emissions.
In
response,
EPA
established
the
Photochemical
Assessment
Monitoring
Station
(
PAMS)
to
collect
detailed
data
on
ambient
concentrations
of
VOCs,
NOx,
and
ozone,
primarily
within
urban
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
States
began
implementing
PAMS
networks
around
1994,
and
began
collecting
reliable
data
in
1995
or
1996.
States
operate
the
PAMS
networks
and
upload
the
data
into
EPA's
Air
Quality
System.
Currently,
there
are
about
8
to
9
years
of
PAMS
data
for
most
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas
in
the
Air
Quality
System.

Interviews
of
air
program
officials
at
five
EPA
regions
and
two
States
disclosed
that
States
had
developed
PAMS
data
analysis
plans
and
done
some
analyses
of
annual
and
seasonal
observations
of
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations.
However,
we
found
little
long­
term
trend
analyses
of
PAMS
data.
OAQPS
staff
indicated
that
the
PAMS
network
produced
reliable
data
on
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations,
and
OAQPS
had
extracted
this
data
from
the
Air
Quality
System
into
a
separate
database
for
trends
analysis.
However,
only
limited
analytical
work
regarding
individual
nonattainment
areas
had
been
performed
thus
far.
In
the
2003
National
Air
Quality
and
Emission
Trends
Report,
OAQPS
14Air
Quality
Management
in
the
United
States,
National
Research
Council
of
the
National
Academies,
January
2004.

48
provided
an
analysis
of
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
trends
on
a
national
basis,
as
well
as
a
limited
trends
analysis
of
PAMS
data
for
the
Atlanta
and
Chicago
nonattainment
areas.
OAQPS
officials
indicated
that
the
staff
assigned
to
this
project
were
subsequently
reassigned
without
replacement
and
no
additional
analyses
of
the
PAMS
data
have
occurred.

A
January
2004
National
Research
Council
report14
also
suggests
that
EPA
and
States
thus
far
have
made
little
use
of
PAMS
data
to
develop
long­
term
trends
in
ambient
concentrations
of
VOCs
and
NOx
within
urban
nonattainment
areas.
The
report
states:

The
chief
objective
of
PAMS
data
collection
is
to
provide
an
air
quality
database
that
will
assist
air
pollution
control
agencies
to
assess
and
refine
O
3
[
ozone]
control
strategies
and
specifically
evaluate
the
trends
in
and
effectiveness
of
controls
implemented
on
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
in
an
area....
In
principle,
the
data
from
the
PAMS
network
could
be
extremely
useful
for
the
regulatory
and
scientific
communities.
However,
it
appears
that
the
full
potential
of
the
data
has
yet
to
be
realized.

Since
PAMS
collects
data
on
the
ambient
concentrations
of
precursor
emissions,
long­
term
trend
analyses
of
these
data
could
provide
a
measure
of
whether
ambient
concentrations
of
these
compounds
for
each
nonattainment
area
are
increasing
or
declining.
Such
trend
analyses
could
be
further
used
as
a
measure
of
the
success
of
Federal,
regional
transport,
and
local
controls
in
reducing
precursor
emissions
and
identifying
areas
where
additional
controls
or
other
improvements
are
needed.

Conclusions
As
EPA
develops
new
ozone
control
strategies
and
guidance
for
the
8­
hour
standard,
the
Agency
has
the
opportunity
to
make
better
use
of
available
data
and
methods
to
measure
emission
reductions,
assess
the
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
in
reducing
precursor
emissions,
and
evaluate
the
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ozone
levels.
These
tools
are
especially
warranted
for
nonattainment
areas
still
struggling
to
achieve
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
More
effective
use
of
these
tools
and
methods
may
identify
areas
where
(
1)
declines
in
ozone
levels
are
due
to
temporary
meteorological
factors
rather
than
emission
reductions,
(
2)
required
emission
reductions
have
not
been
achieved,
and
(
3)
precursor
emission
reductions
have
not
resulted
in
reduced
ozone
levels.
This
information
could
allow
EPA
and
States
to
identify
shortcomings
with
current
control
strategies,
develop
and
implement
contingency
plans
when
necessary,
and
better
protect
public
health.
49
Recommendations
We
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:

6­
1
Develop
analytical
procedures
and
processes
for
EPA
and/
or
States
to
utilize
updated
NEI
data
for
measuring
the
progress
of
individual
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
in
reducing
precursor
emissions
and
complying
with
the
Act's
emission
reduction
mandates.

6­
2
Issue
guidance
for
the
development
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends
for
individual
nonattainment
areas,
updated
annually,
to
better
isolate
the
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ozone
levels.

6­
3
Provide
resources
to
develop
PAMS
data
analyses
and
identify
trends
in
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
for
individual
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Such
trends
could
be
used
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
Federal,
regional,
and
local
emission
controls
and
identify
where
additional
controls
may
be
warranted.

Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
The
Agency
generally
agreed
with
the
expanded
use
of
the
data
and
analyses
presented
in
this
chapter.
The
Agency
indicated
that
some
improvements
to
the
approaches
and
techniques
involved
would
be
needed
before
they
could
be
used
to
evaluate
the
progress
of
individual
nonattainment
areas
in
reducing
precursor
emissions
and
related
ozone
levels.
However,
as
previously
stated
in
Chapter
2,
EPA
has
already
used
these
techniques
and
approaches,
in
a
limited
manner,
to
evaluate
ozone
levels
and
the
impact
of
emission
controls
on
ambient
emission
and
ozone
levels
for
certain
nonattainment
areas.

The
Agency's
specific
responses
to
each
recommendation
presented
in
this
chapter
and
a
detailed
OIG
evaluation
are
included
in
Appendix
H.
50
Chapter
7
Specific
Performance
Goals
and
Measures
Not
Developed
EPA
and
States
have
not
developed
specific,
quantifiable
emission
reduction
goals
and
measures
for
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
although
the
Act
requires
these
areas
reduce
emissions
by
specific
amounts
within
mandated
timeframes.
In
addition
to
the
Act,
the
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
of
1993
requires
Federal
agencies
to
develop
goals
and
performance
measures
for
each
major
program
activity.
EPA
and
State
staff
indicated
that
goals
and
measures
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
had
not
been
developed
because
EPA
had
not
promulgated
guidance
and
methods
for
measuring
these
reductions
(
see
Chapter
5).
Without
goals
and
measures
to
provide
accountability,
there
is
little
incentive
for
staff
to
promulgate
rules
and
guidance
for
measuring
emission
reductions.

Statutes
Require
Goals
and
Measures
Section
182
of
the
Act
specifies
that
ozone
precursor
emissions
within
nonattainment
areas
are
to
be
reduced
by
specific
amounts
by
certain
milestone
dates.
For
example,
VOC
baseline
emissions
for
each
nonattainment
area
should
be
reduced
15
percent
by
November
15,
1996.
Further,
Section
4
of
the
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
provides
that
each
agency
shall
(
1)
prepare
an
annual
performance
plan
covering
each
program
activity;
(
2)
establish
performance
goals
to
define
the
level
of
performance
to
be
achieved
by
a
program
activity;
(
3)
express
such
goals
in
an
objective,
quantifiable,
and
measurable
form;
and
(
4)
establish
performance
indicators
to
be
used
in
measuring
or
assessing
the
relevant
outputs,
service
levels,
and
outcomes
of
each
program
activity.

EPA
Strategic
and
Annual
Plans
Included
Only
Emission
Reductions
From
Federal
Rules
EPA
Strategic
Plans,
issued
in
2000
and
2003,
included
goals
for
NOx
and
VOC
emission
reductions
related
to
some
national
Federal
programs
and
associated
rules,
such
as
power
plant
NOx
emissions
and
mobile
source
NOx
and
VOC
emissions.
However,
there
were
no
strategic
goals
for
VOC
and/
or
NOx
reductions
by
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Further,
EPA's
Annual
Plans
for
1999
through
2003
did
not
include
goals
and
performance
measures
for
emission
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
As
in
the
strategic
plan,
annual
plans
included
goals
only
for
VOC
and
NOx
reductions
related
to
some
national
Federal
programs
and
associated
rules.
51
EPA
Regional
and
State
Plans
Did
Not
Include
Specific
Emission
Reductions
for
Nonattainment
Areas
EPA
Regional
annual
and
multi­
year
goals
and
measures
are
negotiated
between
regional
staff
and
OAQPS
prior
to
the
beginning
of
each
fiscal
year.
The
agreed­
to
annual
goals
and
measures
are
subsequently
included
in
Memorandums
of
Agreement
between
EPA
regions
and
OAQPS.
The
agreements
for
2000
to
2003
that
we
reviewed
for
two
EPA
regions
(
Regions
4
and
5)
did
not
contain
specific,
numeric
goals
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
by
nonattainment
areas.
Additionally,
our
interviews
in
six
EPA
regions
further
indicated
that
most
regional
annual
plans
did
not
generally
have
specific
goals
and
measures
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
achieved
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
Officials
in
three
regions
said
EPA
had
not
developed
methods
and
guidance
for
measuring
or
demonstrating
that
emission
reductions
had
been
achieved.
Most
EPA
regions
indicated
that
they
rely
upon
air
quality,
ambient
ozone
trends,
and
tracking
of
State
implementation
of
emission
controls
to
measure
overall
emission
reductions
by
area.

At
least
two
EPA
regions
(
Regions
1
and
5)
indicated
that
they
had
developed
regional
strategic
plans,
but
only
one
region
included
a
specific
strategic
goal
for
nonattainment
area
emission
reductions.
Region
1
had
established
a
specific
strategic
goal
of
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
in
8­
hour
ozone
areas
by
3
percent
annually
between
2002
and
2010.
However,
the
region's
strategic
plan
did
not
show
how
this
goal
would
be
measured.

Interviews
with
EPA
officials
in
six
regions
and
review
of
annual
or
multi­
year
work
plans
for
three
States
disclosed
that
States
had
not
developed
goals
or
measures
for
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act.
States
listed
general
goals
for
reduced
emissions,
but
did
not
establish
specific
goals
or
measures
for
achieving
clean
air
goals.
For
example,
the
New
Hampshire
Performance
Partnership
Agreement
for
2003
and
2004
included
the
following
general
goal
without
specific
measures:
"
Reduce
emissions
of
criteria
pollutants
and
achieve
or
maintain
mandated
air
quality
standards
for
the
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment."

Furthermore,
States
generally
had
not
attempted
to
measure
or
demonstrate
emission
reductions
achieved
by
nonattainment
areas.
Two
States
(
Georgia
and
Illinois)
submitted
one
or
more
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
to
EPA
but
these
did
not
measure
or
demonstrate
actual
emission
reductions,
and
EPA
regions
did
not
review
these
demonstrations
because
EPA
had
not
required
that
States
prepare
or
submit
them.
Additionally,
one
State
(
Maryland)
tried
to
calculate
emission
reductions
achieved
as
part
of
its
periodic
emission
inventory
process
by
comparing
the
baseline
emission
inventories
to
the
latest
inventory.
However,
the
State
had
not
updated
the
baseline
inventories
based
on
the
methods
used
to
52
develop
the
periodic
emission
inventory
and
the
State
did
not
adjust
the
baseline
inventories
for
noncreditable
emission
reductions,
as
required
by
the
Act.

OAQPS
staff
acknowledged
that
EPA
regions
and
States
may
not
have
specific
nonattainment
area
goals
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
because
EPA
has
not
promulgated
rules
or
guidance
on
State
measurement
of
emission
reductions
and
the
submission
of
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
that
would
include
such
measurements.

Conclusions
EPA's
lack
of
goals
and
measures
for
mandated
reductions
undermines
the
legislative
intent
of
the
Act
in
establishing
specific
emission
reduction
requirements
for
ozone
precursor
emissions.
In
effect,
the
absence
of
goals
for
emission
reductions
has
resulted
in
a
lack
of
emphasis
in
measuring
overall
reductions
in
emissions
for
individual
nonattainment
areas.
EPA
needs
to
expedite
the
issuance
of
rules
requiring
States
to
demonstrate
that
required
emission
reductions
have
been
achieved
by
nonattainment
areas,
and
promulgate
guidance
on
methods
States
should
use
to
measure
emission
reductions.
EPA
should
then
establish
specific
goals
and
measures
for
emission
reductions
by
nonattainment
areas
in
EPA
and
State
performance
plans.
The
recent
listing
of
nearly
474
counties
that
are
in
nonattainment
for
the
8­
hour
standard
provides
an
excellent
opportunity
for
EPA
to
expedite
the
issuance
of
rules
requiring
States
to
demonstrate
that
required
emission
reductions
have
been
achieved
by
nonattainment
areas,
and
promulgate
guidance
on
methods
States
should
use
to
measure
emission
reductions.
EPA
should
then
establish
specific
goals
and
measures
for
emission
reductions
by
nonattainment
areas
in
EPA
and
State
performance
plans.

Recommendations
Once
milestone
compliance
demonstration
rules
and
guidance
are
issued,
we
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:

7­
1
Establish
annual
and
multi­
year
goals
and
performance
measures
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas
and
require
State
and
local
agencies
to
submit
evidence
that
these
goals
have
been
met.

7­
2
Once
annual
goals
and
measures
are
established,
include
the
goals
and
measures
in
EPA,
State,
and
local
agencies'
annual
and
strategic
plans,
and
provide
accomplishments
toward
these
goals
in
EPA's
annual
performance
reports.
53
Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
In
response
to
Recommendations
7­
1
and
7­
2,
the
Agency
indicated
that
its
strategic
planning
activities
were
already
sufficient
to
address
these
recommendations.
For
example,
in
response
to
Recommendation
7­
1,
the
Agency
referred
to
a
strategic
2010
goal
for
people
living
in
areas
with
unhealthy
ozone.
While
we
appreciate
this
larger
goal
for
ambient
ozone,
our
recommendation
pertains
to
establishing
performance
measures
for
precursor
emission
reductions
(
NOx
and
VOCs)
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
As
noted
in
our
report,
ambient
ozone
is
our
most
complex,
difficult
to
control,
and
pervasive
urban
air
pollutant.
In
recognition,
the
1990
Act
mandated
ever
increasing
levels
of
precursor
emissions
reductions
until
attainment
is
achieved.
Thus,
we
continue
to
believe
that
Recommendation
7­
1
is
appropriate
and
necessary
to
assuring
timely
ozone
attainment.
For
Recommendation
7­
2,
EPA
indicated
that
the
Agency's
strategic
goals,
objectives,
and
performance
measures
reflect
the
broader
goal
of
protecting
public
health
and,
thereby,
the
measurement
of
areas
and
populations
with
clean
air
for
criteria
pollutants.
While
we
appreciate
these
larger
goals,
we
believe
the
Agency
strategic
and
annual
plans
should
also
include
goals
for
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
in
accordance
with
the
1990
Act.
EPA's
current
strategic
and
annual
plans
already
include
goals
for
NOx
emission
reductions
from
power
plants,
as
well
as
VOC
and
NOx
emission
reductions
from
stationary
and
mobile
sources
based
on
Federal
rules.

The
Agency's
specific
responses
to
each
recommendation
presented
in
this
chapter
and
a
detailed
OIG
evaluation
are
included
in
Appendix
H.
15EPA
Order
5360.1A2,
revised
May
5,
2000;
initial
Order
5360.1
issued
1984.

54
Chapter
8
Quality
Assurance
Reviews
and
Plans
Need
Improvement
Most
EPA
regions
contacted
did
not
receive
and/
or
review
nonattainment
area
periodic
emissions
inventories
developed
by
States
to
ensure
that
these
inventories
were
properly
developed
using
acceptable
models,
methods,
and
emission
factors.
This
was
because
regions
did
not
consider
these
emissions
inventories
to
be
significant
regulatory
documents
that
required
review
and
approval.
Generally,
States
only
submitted
summary
inventory
data
to
OAQPS
for
updating
the
ozone
precursors
in
EPA's
NEI
database.
Consequently,
EPA
did
not
routinely
perform
quality
assurance
reviews
for
PEI
development.
Additionally,
OAQPS
did
not
have
an
approved
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP)
for
NEI
data
to
ensure
data
quality
and
consistency
in
accordance
with
EPA
guidance.
States
we
reviewed
did
not
have
approved
QAPPs
for
emission
inventory
and
ozone
monitoring
data
that
complied
with
EPA
requirements
for
data
quality.

Act
Requires
PEIs,
EPA
Policy
Requires
QAPPs
and
Data
Quality
Objectives
The
Act
requires
that
nonattainment
areas
update
their
baseline
emission
inventories
every
3
years;
these
updates
are
referred
to
as
periodic
emissions
inventories,
or
PEIs.
States
use
PEIs
for
planning,
assessing
progress
in
emission
reductions,
and
modeling
for
attainment
of
standards.
EPA
uses
PEIs
to
update
or
adjust
the
NEI,
which
is
used,
in
turn,
for
air
dispersion
modeling,
strategy
development,
regulation
setting,
tracking
emission
trends,
performance
measurement,
and
releasing
reports
to
the
public.

Because
of
the
importance
of
environmental
data
in
decision­
making,
EPA
issued
an
Agency
order15
nearly
20
years
ago
requiring
that
data
be
of
known
and
acceptable
quality
in
order
to
be
useful.
A
primary
way
that
EPA
ensures
that
environmental
data
is
acceptable
is
through
the
use
of
approved
QAPPs.
EPA's
quality
assurance
requirements
state
that
work
funded
by
EPA
that
involves
the
acquisition
of
environmental
data
generated
from
direct
measurement
activities,
collected
from
other
sources,
or
compiled
from
computerized
databases
and
information
systems
shall
be
implemented
in
accordance
with
an
approved
QAPP.
Except
when
specifically
stated,
all
QAPPs
prepared
by
non­
EPA
organizations
must
be
approved
by
EPA
prior
to
any
data
gathering
or
use,
except
under
special
circumstances
when
immediate
action
is
necessary.
The
order
defines
environmental
data
as
information
collected
directly
from
measurements,
and
55
includes
environmental
data
collected
by
EPA
and
all
EPA­
funded
organizations
(
such
as
States).

EPA's
QAPP
guidance
also
requires
that
QAPPs
contain
Data
Quality
Objectives
(
DQOs)
and
performance
criteria
for
the
environmental
data
being
collected.
EPA's
Guidance
for
the
Data
Quality
Objectives
Process
(
EPA
QA/
G­
4),
dated
August
2000,
defines
DQOs
as
"
qualitative
and
quantitative
statements...
that
clarify
study
objectives,
define
the
appropriate
type
of
data,
and
specify
tolerable
levels
of
potential
decision
errors
that
will
be
used
as
the
basis
for
establishing
the
quality
and
quantity
of
data
needed
to
support
decisions."

EPA
Regions
Did
Not
Receive
and/
or
Review
PEIs
Only
three
of
seven
regions
(
Regions
1,
4,
and
6)
required
States
to
submit
PEIs,
according
to
officials
in
the
seven
EPA
regions
we
contacted,
and
one
of
the
three
did
not
require
PEIs
from
all
of
its
States.
Two
regions
(
Regions
1
and
4)
indicated
they
reviewed
PEIs,
but
none
of
the
seven
had
formally
approved
any
PEIs.
Only
one
region
we
interviewed
(
Region
1)
had
provided
comments
to
a
State
regarding
PEI
quality.
The
remaining
four
regions
(
Regions
2,
3,
5,
and
9)
generally
indicated
that
State
submission
of
PEIs
to
regional
offices
was
not
a
SIP
requirement
for
these
States.
Table
8.1
summarizes
the
responses
we
received
from
7
regions
for
13
nonattainment
areas.

Officials
in
four
EPA
regions
told
us
that
they
did
not
require
PEI
submissions
and
that,
if
a
PEI
was
submitted,
they
did
not
perform
an
in­
depth
review,
nor
did
they
approve
it,
largely
because
EPA
had
determined
that
PEIs
were
not
of
"
regulatory
significance."
EPA
policy
only
required
that
nonattainment
area
baseline
inventories
be
approved
by
EPA
regions.
Four
regions
referred
us
to
September
1992
and
September
1994
EPA
policies,
but
we
found
that
these
two
policies
only
excluded
PEIs
from
rulemaking
until
they
became
significant
regulatory
documents.
Neither
policy
exempted
PEIs
from
review
and
approval
by
regional
offices
for
quality
assurance
purposes,
and
in
fact
called
for
regional
receipt,
review,
and
approval
of
PEI
summary
data.
For
example,
the
September
1994
memorandum
from
OAQPS
to
regional
air
program
chiefs,
"
1993
Periodic
Emission
Inventory
Guidance,"
stated:

The
review
and
approval
of
the
1993
periodic
emissions
inventory
is
the
responsibility
of
the
Regional
office.
In
accordance
with
the
memorandum
of
September
29,1992,
on
"
Public
Hearing
Requirements
for
1990
Base­
Year
Emissions
Inventories
for
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
Nonattainment
Areas,"
rulemaking
on
the
1993
periodic
emission
inventory
can
be
deferred
until
it
has
regulatory
significance.
In
any
case,
a
submittal
of
a
1993
periodic
emission
inventory
is
required
to
avoid
a
"
finding
of
Failure
to
Submit."
56
We
found
no
current
EPA
guidance
requiring
in­
depth
regional
reviews
of
the
methodologies
and
factors
that
States
used
to
develop
PEIs.
An
atmospheric
modeling
expert
indicated
that
he
had
encountered
significant
problems
in
State
emission
inventories
used
for
ozone
attainment
modeling.
He
said
he
had
found
incorrect
methodologies
were
used
in
identifying
emission
points
and
developing
and
maintaining
State
emission
inventories.
He
further
indicated
that
EPA
needed
to
perform
better
quality
assurance
reviews
of
State
emission
inventories.

OAQPS
Did
Not
Receive
Complete
Data
from
States
As
shown
in
Table
8.1
below,
many
regional
offices
did
not
receive
State
PEIs
for
nonattainment
areas,
and
the
States
that
submitted
electronic
files
to
OAQPS
only
submitted
summary
data
on
the
ozone
precursor
emissions
in
the
nonattainment
area.
OAQPS
used
this
summary
information
to
develop
the
NEI
for
milestone
years
(
1993,
1996,
and
1999).
Although
OAQPS
had
quality
assurance
procedures
regarding
content
and
formatting
of
the
PEI
data
received
from
States,
it
did
not
receive
information
on
the
models,
emission
factors,
and
other
methods
used
by
the
States
to
develop
the
summary
inventory
data.
Without
quality
control
information
regarding
the
development
and
collection
of
PEI
data,
OAQPS
cannot
assure
the
accuracy
or
quality
of
State
PEIs,
or
subsequent
NEIs.
For
the
seven
EPA
regions
we
reviewed,
Table
8.1
shows
their
review
of
PEI's.

Table
8.1:
Regional
Receipt
and
Review
of
Nonattainment
Area
PEI's
Region
State
Nonattainment
Area
Required
PEI
Submittal
Reviewed
Comments
to
State
Approval
1
MA­
NH
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
yes
yes
yes
no
1
NH
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
yes
yes
yes
no
1
RI
Providence
noa
no
no
no
1
MA
Springfield
yes
yes
yes
no
2
NY­
NJ
New
York­
New
Jersey­
Long
Is.
nob
no
nob
no
3
MD
Baltimore
no
no
no
no
3
MD­
DC­
VA
Washington,
DC
no
no
no
no
4
GA
Atlanta
yes
yesc
no
no
5
IL­
IN
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
no
no
no
no
5
WI
Milwaukee­
Racine
no
no
no
no
6
TX
Dallas
yes
no
no
no
9
CA
Sacramento
Metro
no
no
no
no
9
CA
San
Joaquin
Valley
no
no
no
no
a
Providence
did
not
publish
or
document
PEIs
for
1996
and
1999;
PEI
data
submitted
directly
to
OAQPS.
b
Region
2
only
received
and
reviewed
the
1996
PEI
for
New
Jersey;
no
PEIs
received
from
New
York.
c
Region
4
informally
reviewed
Atlanta
PEIs
but
provided
no
comments
to
the
State.
16
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality,
NAMS/
SLAMS
Network
and
U.
S./
Border
Support
Activities
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
for
2002
and
2003.

57
States
Generally
Did
Not
Have
Approved
QAPPs
Only
one
(
Region
6)
of
the
five
EPA
regions
we
contacted
had
an
approved
QAPP
for
State
emissions
data
(
Texas),
but
it
did
not
contain
DQOs
to
ensure
the
consistency
and
accuracy
of
the
State
data.
Only
two
of
the
regions
(
Regions
5
and
6)
had
State
QAPPs
for
air
monitoring
data,
including
ozone
data.
QAPPs
for
State
air
monitoring
data
provided
by
Region
5
had
not
been
approved
by
the
region
or
the
States
and
both
Region
5
and
6
QAPPS
did
not
contain
DQOs.
The
EPA­
approved
Texas
QAPP
for
air
monitoring
data16
stated
the
following
in
Section
A7,
Data
Quality
Objectives
(
DQO)
for
Measurement
Data:

The
tolerable
limits
on
the
probability
of
making
a
decision
error
with
respect
to
attainment
or
nonattainment
of
the
NAAQS
(
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards)
for
individual
criteria
pollutants
in
specified
areas
is
not
addressed
in
the
federal
regulations
and
is
not
attempted
in
this
plan.
This
results
in
a
break
in
the
DQO
process
between
the
decision
to
be
made
and
the
quality
of
the
data
needed
to
make
the
decision
within
a
defined
error
tolerance.
Because
of
this,
the
measurement
quality
objectives
for
this
project
in
terms
of
data
accuracy,
precision,
and
completeness
are
based
on
available
monitoring
technology
and
many
years
of
practical
monitoring
experience
rather
than
the
DQO
process.

Three
regions
(
Regions
1,
3,
and
4)
could
not
provide
any
QAPPs
for
ozone
air
monitoring
data.
Some
regions
believed
State
Quality
Management
Plans
would
suffice
in
lieu
of
QAPPs,
but
such
plans
are
broad,
covering
all
of
a
State's
environmental
programs,
and
do
not
include
accuracy
and
precision
criteria
or
DQOs.
One
region
stated
that
since
EPA
had
not
promulgated
the
DQOs
for
ozone
air
monitoring
data,
the
region
had
not
required
QAPPs.
Another
region
indicated
that
its
States
still
used
EPA­
approved
quality
assurance
plans
from
the
mid­
1980s,
before
QAPPs
were
required,
and
is
in
the
process
of
negotiating
current
State
QAPPs
for
air
monitoring
data,
including
ozone.

NEI
Did
Not
Have
An
Approved
QAPP
OAQPS
staff
stated
that
until
a
few
years
ago
they
did
not
believe
a
QAPP
was
necessary
for
NEI
ozone
precursor
emissions
data
because
a
significant
amount
of
these
data
came
from
other
sources,
such
as
States
and
power
plants.
OAQPS
does,
however,
maintain
its
own
internal
QAPP
for
data
it
collects
or
develops
from
modeling.
In
July
2003,
OAQPS
provided
the
OIG
with
a
copy
of
a
draft,
58
unapproved
QAPP
for
NEI
data.
It
did
not
contain
DQOs,
as
required
by
EPA's
guidance,
and
quality
assurance
staff
at
OAQPS
indicated
that
DQOs
for
emission
data
produced
by
States
or
EPA
have
not
yet
been
developed.
The
draft
still
had
not
been
finalized
as
of
May
2004.

DQOs
for
Emission
and
Ozone
Data
Not
Promulgated
OAQPS
staff
referred
us
to
NEI
planning
and
preparation
documents
for
DQOtype
guidance
related
to
NEI
data.
However,
these
documents
primarily
establish
how
OAQPS
will
obtain
and
assimilate
emissions
data
from
external
sources
and
perform
quality
assurance
on
data
input.
The
documents
did
not
contain
specific
precision
and
acceptance
criteria
for
emissions
data
collected
or
developed
by
OAQPS
through
modeling
or
other
methodologies.
An
OAQPS
official
indicated
that
DQOs
for
ozone
data,
which
have
to
be
issued
as
a
regulation,
have
been
developed
but
the
DQOs
have
not
been
released.

An
OAQPS
official
indicated
that
States
should
have
QAPPs
for
ozone
and
other
air
monitoring
data
based
on
the
pre­
1990
precision
and
acceptance
criteria,
even
though
the
DQOs
have
not
been
issued.
However,
the
pre­
1990
requirement
for
precision
for
ozone
data
was
plus
or
minus
15
to
20
percent,
whereas
the
ozone
DQO
will
require
a
more
strict
precision
level
of
plus
or
minus
7
percent.

Conclusions
States
use
nonattainment
area
PEIs
for
many
critical
activities,
such
as
planning
and
modeling
for
SIP
revisions
and
attainment
demonstrations.
EPA
also
uses
State
emissions
inventories
to
adjust
the
NEI
and
the
NEI
data
are
used
in
regulatory
planning
and
public
information
releases.
Therefore,
adequate
quality
assurance
of
these
data
is
critical.
Despite
the
important
role
of
State
emissions
data,
EPA
has
no
consistent
process
for
ensuring
the
quality
of
the
State
PEIs.
EPA
regions
did
not
require,
receive,
and/
or
review
PEIs.
Additionally,
OAQPS
did
not
receive
sufficient
information
regarding
State
inventory
development
and
methodologies
to
provide
quality
assurance
for
inventories
used
to
update
and
adjust
the
NEI.
Further,
QAPPs
for
ozone
air
monitoring
data
need
improvement.
Some
States
did
not
have
QAPPs
for
air
monitoring
data;
others
had
air
monitoring
QAPPs
that
did
not
include
required
DQOs.
EPA
has
not
developed
DQOs
for
ozone
precursor
emissions
data,
and
the
ozone
DQOs
it
has
developed
have
not
been
released.

Recommendations
We
recommend
that
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation:

8­
1
Develop
DQOs,
using
EPA
DQO
development
guidance,
for
State­
and
NEI­
generated
emissions
data
for
use
in
applicable
QAPPs.
59
8­
2
Expedite
completion
and
approval
of
the
draft
QAPP
for
NEI
data.

8­
3
To
the
extent
possible,
expedite
the
regulatory
process
for
releasing
ozone
DQOs
for
use
in
State
air
monitoring
QAPPs.

8­
4
Inform
EPA
regions
that
approved
State
QAPPs
are
needed
for
emissions
and
ozone
air
monitoring
data
accumulated
or
developed
by
States
within
each
region's
boundaries.

8­
5
Promulgate
policies
and
procedures
which
require
regions
to
obtain
State
PEIs
and
review
the
PEIs
for
quality
and
compliance
with
EPA
emission
inventory
development
guidance.

Agency
Comments
and
OIG
Evaluation
The
Agency
generally
agreed
with
the
recommendations
presented
in
this
chapter.
The
Agency's
specific
responses
to
each
recommendation
presented
in
this
chapter
and
a
detailed
OIG
evaluation
are
included
in
Appendix
H.
60
Appendix
A
Details
on
Scope
and
Methodology
To
assess
whether
emission
reduction
controls
have
been
as
effective
as
originally
projected
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions,
we
interviewed
air
program
officials
at
EPA's
OAQPS,
five
EPA
regions,
and
the
States
of
Georgia
and
Wisconsin.
Further,
we
reviewed
Agency
guidance
regarding
planning,
implementation,
and
oversight
of
programs
to
reduce
ozone
precursor
emissions
(
NOx
and
VOC)
and
the
following
pertinent
documentation:

°
EPA
Annual
Performance
Reports
for
2000
through
2003.
°
SIPs
for
Georgia
and
Wisconsin,
including
revisions
for
ozone
attainment
demonstrations.
°
Emission
control
assessments,
evaluations,
and
compliance
reports
for
Georgia
and
Wisconsin.
°
SIP
revisions
involving
ROP
Plans
for
10
nonattainment
areas.
°
Emission
control
development
and
implementation
for
ROP
Plans
for
10
nonattainment
areas.
°
OAQPS
emissions
trend
analyses
for
25
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas.

To
assess
whether
EPA
and
States
adequately
measured
the
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
in
reducing
overall
precursor
emissions
as
required
by
the
Act,
we
interviewed
air
program
officials
at
OAQPS,
five
EPA
regions,
and
the
States
of
Georgia
and
Wisconsin.
We
also
interviewed
external
atmospheric
scientists/
engineers
and
modeling
experts;
reviewed
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
in
Section
182
and
Government
Performance
and
Results
Act
requirements
in
Sections
3
and
4;
and
researched
other
documentation
related
to:

°
Projected
and
actual
measurements
of
emissions
by
five
EPA
regions
and
two
States
for
10
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
°
PAMS
data
analyses
by
States
and
EPA
for
ambient
concentrations
of
VOCs
and
NOx
within
nonattainment
areas.
°
EPA
Air
Quality
System
and
external
data
on
ozone
exceedance
days,
observed
ozone
levels,
and
ozone
trends
between
1990
and
2003.
°
EPA
Strategic
Plans
for
2000
and
2003.
°
EPA
Annual
Plans
for
1999
through
2004.
°
Regional
Memorandums
of
Agreement
and/
or
Strategic
Plans
for
EPA
Regions
3,
4,
and
5.
°
Section
105
air
program
work
plans
for
Georgia
and
Wisconsin.

To
assess
whether
emission
reduction
plans
and
related
controls
had
been
properly
completed
and
implemented
to
reduce
precursor
emissions
by
3
percent
annually
within
the
1990
Act's
time
frames,
we
interviewed
officials
at
OAQPS,
six
EPA
regions,
and
two
States;
downloaded
and
analyzed
emission
data
from
NEI
for
25
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas;
and
reviewed
documentation
related
to:

°
ROP
Plans
for
10
ozone
nonattainment
areas
in
five
EPA
regions.
61
°
SIP
attainment
demonstrations
for
Georgia
and
Wisconsin.
°
Baseline
and
periodic
emission
inventories
for
10
nonattainment
areas.
°
Emission
control
evaluations
and
compliance
reports
for
Georgia
and
Wisconsin.

To
gain
an
understanding
of
EPA,
State,
and
local
agency
responsibilities
in
planning
for
and
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions,
we
reviewed
regulations,
guidance,
and
policies
involving
the
development
and
implementation
of
SIPs,
ROP
Plans,
emission
control
measures,
baseline
emission
inventories,
periodic
emission
inventories,
and
quality
assurance
for
air
monitoring
and
emission
inventory
data.
We
also
obtained
budget
and
staffing
information
for
EPA's
ozone
program
for
fiscal
years
2000
through
2003
from
OAQPS
and
the
Office
of
the
Chief
Financial
Officer.

To
identify
statutory
requirements
for
EPA
and
States
to
classify
ozone
nonattainment
areas;
promulgate
SIPs,
ROP
Plans,
and
emission
controls;
and
reduce
ozone
precursor
emissions,
we
reviewed
Sections
110,
171­
172,
and
181­
183
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.

Our
scope
was
limited
to
OAQPS,
five
EPA
Regions
(
1,
3,
4,
5,
and
6),
and
10
serious
to
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas
within
these
regions,
with
the
following
exceptions:
certain
information
was
obtained
from
Regions
2
and
9
related
to
three
other
nonattainment
areas,
analyses
of
NEI
data
involved
12
serious
or
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
and
air
quality
data
and
related
studies
for
the
total
25
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas
were
obtained
and
reviewed.
Details
on
the
12
serious
to
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas
(
which
includes
the
aforementioned
10)
are
in
Table
A.
1.

Table
A.
1:
12
Nonattainment
Areas
Reviewed
Nonattainment
Area
EPA
Region
State(
s)
Current
1­
Hour
Classification
Total
Counties
Population
2000
(
thousands)

Atlanta
4
GA
Severea
13
3,699
Baltimore
3
MD
Severe
6
2,512
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
1
MA­
NH
Serious
12
5,883
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
5
IL­
IN
Severe
10
8,758
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
6
TX
Serious
4
4,590
Milwaukee­
Racine
5
WI
Severe
6
1,839
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
1
NH
Serious
2
192
Providence
1
RI
Serious
5
1,048
Sacramento
Metro
9
CA
Severe
6
1,978
San
Joaquin
Valley
9
CA
Extremeb
8
3,191
Springfield
5
MA
Serious
4
815
Washington
DC
3
DC­
MD­
VA
Severea
16
4,545
a
Areas
reclassified
from
serious
to
severe
nonattainment
during
2003.
b
Area
reclassified
from
severe
to
extreme
nonattainment
in
April
2004.
62
Prior
Related
Coverage
Government
Accountability
Office
(
formerly
General
Accounting
Office)

°
Air
Pollution:
EPA
Could
Take
Additional
Steps
to
Help
Maximize
the
Benefits
from
the
2007
Diesel
Emissions
Standards,
GAO­
04­
313,
March
11,
2004
°
Clean
Air
Act:
Key
Stakeholders'
Views
on
Revisions
to
the
New
Source
Review
Program,
GAO­
04­
274,
February
2,
2004
°
Clean
Air
Act:
New
Source
Review
Revisions
Could
Affect
Utility
Enforcement
Cases
and
Public
Access
to
Emissions
Data,
GAO­
04­
58,
October
21,
2003
°
Clean
Air
Act:
EPA
Should
Use
Available
Data
to
Monitor
the
Effects
of
Its
Revisions
to
the
New
Source
Review
Program,
GAO­
03­
947,
August
22,
2003
°
Environmental
Protection:
Federal
Planning
Requirements
for
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
Protection
Could
Potentially
Be
More
Efficient
and
Better
Linked,
GAO­
03­
581,
April
28,
2003
°
Emissions
from
Older
Electricity
Generating
Units,
GAO­
02­
79,
June
2002
°
Meeting
Electricity
Demands
Will
Increase
Emissions
of
Some
Harmful
Substances,
GAO­
03­
49,
October
2002
°
Environmental
Protection:
Wider
Use
of
Advance
Technologies
Can
Improve
Emissions
Monitoring,
GAO­
01­
313,
June
2001
°
Emission
Sources
Regulated
by
Multiple
Clean
Air
Act
Provisions,
GAO/
RCED­
00­
155,
May
2000
°
Status
of
Implementation
and
Issues
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,
GAO/
RCED­
00­
72,
April
2000
°
The
Border
Smog
Reduction
Act's
Impact
on
Ozone
Levels,
GAO/
RCED­
99­
212,
July
1999
°
Delays
In
Motor
Vehicle
Inspection
Program
Jeopardize
Attainment
of
Ozone
Standard,
GAO/
RCED­
98­
175,
June
1998
°
Air
Pollution
­
Limitations
of
EPA's
Motor
Vehicle
Emissions
Model
and
Plans
to
Address
Them,
GAO/
RCED­
97­
210,
September
1997
EPA
OIG
°
Consistency
and
Transparency
in
Determination
of
EPA's
Anticipated
Ozone
Designations,
Report
No.
2002­
S­
00016,
August
15,
2002
°
Clean
Air
Design
Evaluation
Results,
Report
No.
2002­
M­
000013,
April
23,
2002
°
EPA
and
State
Progress
In
Issuing
Title
V
Permits,
Report
No.
2002­
P­
00008,
March
29,
2002
63
°
Consolidated
Report
on
OECA's
Oversight
of
Regional
and
State
Air
Enforcement
Programs,
Report
No.
E1GAE7­
03­
0045­
8100244,
September
25,
1998
°
Consolidated
Review
of
the
Air
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assistance
Programs,
Report
No.
E1GAE5­
05­
0169­
7100306,
September
30,
1997
°
EPA's
Air
State
Implementation
Plan
Program
Consolidated
Report,
Report
No.
E1KAE6­
05­
0044­
6400100,
September
30,
1996
°
Emission
Factor
Development,
Report
No.
E1KAF6­
24­
0008­
6100318,
September
30,
1996
64
Appendix
B
Timeline
of
Clean
Air
Act
Requirements
Illustration
B.
1:
Clean
Air
Act
Timeline
for
ROP
and
Emission
Inventory
Submittals
and
Emission
Reduction
Milestones
Through
2003
11/
1990
11/
1992
11/
1993
11/
1994
09/
1995
11/
1996
02/
1997
09/
1998
11/
1999
02/
2000
09/
2001
11/
2002
02/
2003
CAAA
BEI
15%
ROP
9%
ROPs
1993
PEI
15%
ROP
Milestone
15%
MCD
1996
PEI
Additional
9%
ROP
Milestone
9%
MCD
1999
PEI
Additional
9%
ROP
Milestone
9%
MCD
CAAA
=
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
BEI
=
Baseline
Emissions
Inventory
MCD
=
Milestone
Compliance
Demonstration
Milestone
=
Date
percent
emissions
reduction
should
be
achieved.
PEI
=
Periodic
Emissions
Inventory
ROP
=
Rate
of
Progress
Plan
17
"
Assessment
of
Interannual
Ozone
Variation
in
Urban
Areas
From
A
Climatological
Perspective,"
Atmospheric
Environment,
Volume
30,
No.
14,
pp
2615­
2625,
1996,
William
Cox
and
Shao­
Hang
Chu,
EPA.

65
Appendix
C
Details
on
EPA
Analyses
of
Meteorologically
Adjusted
Ozone
Observations
In
2003,
OAQPS
developed
and
analyzed
1990
through
2002
meteorologically
adjusted
ambient
8­
hour
ozone
observations
for
53
metropolitan
areas,
which
included
19
serious,
severe,
and
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
OAQPS
used
a
method
developed
by
OAQPS
experts17
to
statistically
adjust
raw
ambient
ozone
observations
to
exclude
the
effects
of
variations
in
weather
patterns
on
ambient
ozone
levels.

As
noted
in
Chapter
2,
our
analysis
of
the
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
levels
and
charts
developed
by
OAQPS
for
the
19
nonattainment
areas
indicated
that,
once
weather
had
been
excluded
as
a
factor
in
ozone
formation,
12
areas
had
achieved
little
or
no
improvements
in
ozone
levels
over
the
13­
year
period.

This
OAQPS
study
included
only
a
summary
of
the
methodology
used
and
charts
for
each
of
the
53
metropolitan
areas
showing
meteorologically
adjusted
trends
in
ozone
from
1990
through
2002.
There
was
no
written
analysis
for
each
of
the
53
areas.
OAQPS's
general
summary
of
the
analysis
stated,
in
part,
the
following:

Generally,
annual
variations
in
unadjusted
ozone
are
quite
large
compared
with
annual
ozone
variations
after
adjustment
[
for
weather
conditions].
For
[
example]
Baltimore,
most
of
the
apparent
upturn
in
ozone
between
2000
and
2002
is
related
to
more
favorable
meteorological
conditions
in
2000
and
2001
compared
with
2002.

Charts
produced
by
OAQPS
staff
for
the
Baltimore
nonattainment
area
follow.
The
raw
ambient
ozone
observations
show
a
significant
drop
in
ozone
levels
for
the
2000­
2001
period.
However,
the
meteorologically
adjusted
chart
does
not
indicate
a
significant
decrease
in
ozone
for
the
same
period,
indicating
that
the
drop
in
ozone
levels
was
weather
related.
66
Illustration
C.
1:
67
Appendix
D
Details
on
State
Delays
in
Submitting
ROP
Plans
Submission
and
Approval
of
15­
Percent
ROP
Plans
The
10
serious
and
severe
nonattainment
areas
in
our
review
involved
14
ROP
Plans
that
required
a
15­
percent
reduction
in
VOCs
(
net
of
growth)
by
November
15,
1996.
Of
these
14
ROP
Plans,
5
were
submitted
to
EPA
by
the
required
date
of
November
15,
1993,
and
9
were
submitted
approximately
2
months
to
almost
2
years
late.
Only
1
of
the
14
plans
received
EPA
final
approval
prior
to
the
milestone
date
of
November
15,
1996.
For
the
other
13
ROP
Plans,
11
received
final
approval
from
8
months
to
6
years
after
the
milestone
date,
and
two
have
not
yet
received
final
approval.

None
of
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plans
were
approved
or
disapproved
within
18
months
of
submission.
Elapsed
time
between
initial
State
submission
and
EPA
final
approval
ranged
from
2
to
11
or
more
years.
Nine
plans
received
conditional
approvals,
but
only
1
was
approved
or
disapproved
within
1
year
after
the
conditional
approval,
as
required
by
the
Act.
Two
ROP
Plans
received
both
"
interim"
and
"
final"
conditional
approvals,
but
such
"
conditional"
approvals
are
not
mentioned
in
the
Act.

Table
D.
1
shows
the
date
that
States
initially
submitted
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plans
to
EPA
and
the
dates
that
these
plans
received
final
EPA
approval.
The
table
also
shows
the
number
of
State
revisions
required
for
each
and
the
approximate
time
taken
by
States
to
make
these
revisions.
68
Table
D.
1:
15­
Percent
ROP
Plans
Nonattainment
Area
15%
ROP
Submittal
Due
Per
CAA
Originally
Submitted
by
State
No.
of
Rev.
Interval
Between
Revisions
Conditional
Approvals
Final
Approval
Elapsed
Time
Submittal
to
Final
Final
Approval
After
Milestone
11/
15/
1996
Atlanta
11/
15/
93
11/
15/
93
2
1­
3
years
09/
12/
97
04/
26/
99
Nonea
11+
years
7+
years
Baltimore
11/
15/
93
07/
12/
95
2
1­
2
years
10/
09/
97b
10/
07/
98
02/
03/
00
4.5
years
4
years
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
­
Massachusetts
­
New
Hampshire
11/
15/
93
11/
15/
93c
02/
03/
94
5
2
1­
5
yearsd
1­
2
years
07/
14/
97
NA
08/
28/
02
12/
07/
98
8.75
years
5
years
6
years
2
years
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
­
Illinois
­
Indiana
11/
15/
93
11/
15/
93
01/
13/
94
6
2
1­
1.5
years
1.5­
years
NA
NA
12/
18/
97
07/
18/
97
5
years
3.5
years
1
year
8
months
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
11/
15/
93
05/
09/
94
4
1­
3
years
11/
10/
98
Nonee
4.3
years
7+
years
Washington,
DC
Area
­
Maryland
­
District
of
Columbia
­
Virginia
11/
15/
93
07/
12/
95
05/
15/
95
05/
15/
95
2
2
2
2­
3
years
1
year
1­
2
years
09/
23/
97
07/
07/
98
06/
24/
97
07/
19/
00
08/
05/
99
10/
06/
00
5
years
4.25
years
5.5
years
4
years
3
years
4
years
Milwaukee­
Racine
11/
15/
93
11/
15/
93
1
1­
2
years
NA
03/
26/
96
2.75
years
None
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
11/
15/
93
02/
03/
94
2
1­
2
years
NA
12/
07/
98
4.75
years
2
years
Providenceg
11/
15/
93
03/
15/
94
1
4
years
04/
17/
97f
12/
08/
98
4.75
years
2
years
Springfield
11/
15/
93
11/
15/
93
6
1­
3
years
NA
08/
28/
02
8.75
years
6
years
a
Region
4
issued
a
"
final
conditional
interim
approval"
for
Atlanta
15­
percent
ROP
Plan
on
April
26,
1999
in
64
FR
20186.
Region
4
did
not
issue
a
"
final"
approval
after
conditions
were
met
for
15­
percent
ROP
Plan.
b
07/
12/
95
submittal
did
not
include
sufficient
emission
reductions
to
meet
15­
percent
requirement
and
account
for
growth
for
1990­
1996
period.
Also,
I&
M
program
only
conditionally
approved.
Federal
Register
Volume
65,
page
6246,
dated
02/
03/
2000,
listed
four
problems
that
Baltimore
must
rectify,
as
stated
in
10/
09/
97
conditional
approval.
c
EPA
ruled
that
the
11/
15/
93
ROP
Plan
was
incomplete.
d
Processing
of
ROP
Plan
was
suspended
in
1999
due
to
air
quality
meeting
1­
hour
standard
for
period
1996­
1998.
However,
area
subsequently
violated
standard
again
for
period
1999­
2001.
ROP
Plan
processing
initiated
again
in
2002.
e
EPA
proposed
approval
of
15­
percent
and
post­
1996
9%
ROP
Plans
on
01/
18/
2001;
however,
final
approval
has
not
been
issued.
f
The
04/
17/
97
rule
was
a
limited
approval/
limited
disapproval
rather
than
a
conditional
approval.
See
62
Federal
Register
18712,
04/
17/
97.
g
Rhode
Island
Department
of
Environmental
Management
stated
that
the
State
did
not
publish
1996
and
1999
periodic
inventories.
The
emissions
data
in
the
State
systems
at
the
time
was
electronically
submitted
to
Air
Quality
System/
NEI
but
no
documentation
was
retained.

Delayed
approval
of
15­
percent
ROP
Plans
can
be
attributed
to
many
factors,
including
the
number
of
revisions
made
by
States,
the
extensive
time
taken
by
States
to
revise
the
plans,
and
the
time
taken
by
EPA
to
review
and
approve
the
plans
once
received.
As
can
be
seen
in
the
Table
D­
1,
15­
percent
ROP
Plans
were
revised
or
modified
as
many
as
six
times
prior
to
final
approval.
States
took
from
less
than
1
year
to
as
many
as
5
years
to
submit
revisions
to
the
plans.
Another
problem
stemming
from
major
statutory
and
EPA
policy
guidance
changes
in
the
mid­
1990s
is
that
States
were
allowed
to
claim
up
to
100
percent
of
projected
emission
reductions
for
decentralized
I&
M
programs.
Prior
to
these
changes,
EPA
had
allowed
States
credit
for
only
50
percent
of
projected
emission
reductions
from
decentralized
I&
M
systems.
State
revisions
to
their
programs
based
on
the
new
guidance
delayed
conditional
and/
or
final
approval
of
15­
percent
ROP
Plans.
At
least
one
region
indicated
that
it
did
not
pressure
a
particular
State
with
a
centralized
I&
M
program
to
submit
its
revised
ROP
Plan
because
the
other
States
with
69
decentralized
programs
were
still
in
the
process
of
revising
their
ROP
Plans
based
on
the
new
guidance.
Also,
many
States
failed
to
implement
their
I&
M
programs,
further
delaying
ROP
Plan
approval.

According
to
ambient
ozone
monitoring
data,
4
of
10
nonattainment
areas
met
the
1­
hour
standard
in
1998
through
2000,
but
the
areas
subsequently
violated
the
standard
again.
Processing
of
all
ROP
Plans,
including
the
15­
percent
and
9­
percent
plans
that
had
not
been
approved
by
1998
and
1999,
was
suspended
once
the
areas
attained
the
standard,
but
ROP
Plan
development
was
reinitiated
once
an
area
again
violated
the
standard.
Suspension
of
ROP
Plan
processing
contributed
to
significant
delays
in
finalizing
the
15­
percent
and
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
for
these
four
areas.
Suspension
of
ROP
development
for
these
areas
is
discussed
in
more
detail
below.

Submission
and
Approval
of
9­
Percent
ROP
Plans
The
14
post­
1996
(
9­
percent)
ROP
Plans
reviewed
required
that
each
nonattainment
area
achieve
a
9­
percent
reduction,
net
of
growth,
in
either
VOC
and/
or
NOx
emissions
by
November
15,
1999.
These
ROP
Plans
were
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
by
November
15,
1994.
Only
three
were
submitted
on
time,
and
only
one
received
final
EPA
approval
prior
to
November
15,
1999.
Two
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
have
not
yet
received
final
approval
from
EPA
and
the
remaining
12
were
not
granted
final
approval
until
2
months
to
3.5
years
after
the
deadline.
EPA
issued
a
policy
memorandum
in
March
1995,
Ozone
Attainment
Demonstrations,
that
extended
the
date
to
mid­
1997
for
serious
and
above
nonattainment
areas
to
submit
their
first
post­
1996
ROP
Plan.
EPA
issued
the
memorandum
because
States
were
having
difficulty
in
developing
timely
and
acceptable
emission
inventories,
ROP
Plans,
and
attainment
demonstrations
within
the
time
frames
provided
in
the
Act.

Table
D.
2
shows
the
submission,
number
of
revisions,
and
final
approval
dates
of
State's
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
for
10
serious
or
severe
nonattainment
areas.

As
with
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plans,
the
9­
percent
plans
were
subject
to
several
revisions
and
extensive
time
intervals
for
revision,
review,
and
approval.
None
of
the
9­
percent
plans
received
EPA
approval
or
disapproval
within
18
months
as
required
by
the
Act.
The
elapsed
time
between
ROP
Plan
submittal
and
EPA
final
approval
ranged
from
2
to
7
or
more
years.
Only
the
Washington
area
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
received
conditional
approvals.

States
also
had
problems
developing
the
Act's
required
ozone
attainment
demonstrations,
which
delayed
final
approval
for
many
ROP
Plans.
In
most
cases,
the
post­
1996
plans
were
contingent
upon
emission
reductions
from
enhanced
vehicle
I&
M
programs,
and
several
States
were
late
in
implementing
the
enhanced
programs
(
Georgia,
Massachusetts,
and
Texas).
70
Table
D.
2:
Post­
1996
(
9%)
ROP
Plans
Nonattainment
Area
9%
ROP
Submittal
Due
Per
CAA
Originally
Submitted
by
State
No.
of
Rev.
Interval
Between
Revisions/
Final
Conditional
Approvals
Final
Approval
Elapsed
Time
Submittal
to
Final
Final
Approval
After
Milestone
11/
15/
1999
Atlanta
11/
15/
04
11/
15/
03
2
2­
3
years
NA
03/
18/
99
5.5
years
NA
Baltimore
11/
15/
94
12/
24/
97
04/
24/
98
2
1­
3
years
NA
09/
26/
01
3.75
years
2
years
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
­
Massachusetts
­
New
Hampshire
11/
15/
94
11/
15/
94
09/
27/
96
6
1
5
years
6
years
NA
NA
08/
28/
02d
04/
16/
02d
7.75
years
5.5
years
3
years
2.5
years
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
­
Illinois
­
Indiana
11/
15/
94
12/
18/
97
12/
17/
97
3
1
>
1
yeara
2
mo.­
2
years
NA
NA
12/
18/
00
01/
26/
00
3
years
2
years
1
year
2
months
Dallas­
Fort
Worth
11/
15/
94
03/
19/
99
2
>
1­
1
year
NA
Noneb
7+
years
5+
years
Washington,
DC
Area
­
Maryland
­
District
of
Columbia
­
Virginia
11/
15/
94
12/
24/
97
11/
03/
97
12/
19/
97
1
1
1
1­
1.5
years
09/
28/
00
10/
19/
00
10/
19/
00
02/
03/
03c
01/
03/
01
04/
17/
03c
3
years
3
years
3
years
1
year
3.5
yearsc
Milwaukee­
Racine
11/
15/
94
12/
11/
97
4
1
mo.­
2
years
NA
10/
10/
01
4
years
2
years
Portsmouth­
Dover­
Rochester
11/
15/
94
09/
27/
96
1
6
years
NA
04/
16/
02
5.5
years
2.5
years
Providence
11/
15/
94
11/
15/
94
0
3
years
NA
06/
08/
01
3
years
1.5
years
Springfield
11/
15/
94
11/
15/
94
6
>
1­
2
years
NA
08/
28/
02
7.75
years
3
years
a
Illinois
amendments
to
post­
1996
plan
were
submitted
12/
17/
99,
01/
14/
00,
and
01/
21/
00.
All
amendments
were
after
emission
reductions
were
to
be
achieved,
11/
15/
99.
b
EPA
proposed
approval
of
15­
percent
and
post­
1996
9­
percent
ROP
Plans
on
01/
18/
2001;
however,
final
approval
has
not
been
issued.
c
Federal
court
vacated
the
post­
1996
(
1999)
ROP
Plan
approved
01/
03/
01;
however,
none
of
the
emission
targets,
reduction
credits,
or
calculations
were
changed
when
ROP
Plan
was
reapproved
on
04/
17/
03.
The
02/
03/
03
conditional
approval
is
contained
in
Federal
Register
Vol.
68,
page
5246,
dated
02/
03/
03.
d
Processing
of
ROP
Plan
was
suspended
in
1999
due
to
air
quality
meeting
1­
hour
standard
for
period
1996­
1998.
However,
area
subsequently
violated
standard
again
for
period
1999­
2001.
ROP
processing
initiated
again
in
2002.

Impact
of
Clean
Data
Policy
on
ROP
Plans
Region
1
had
four
nonattainment
areas
that
achieved
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
in
1998
through
2000,
based
on
air
monitoring
data,
but
later
violated
the
standard
again
in
2001
or
2002.
The
processing
of
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plans
were
suspended
once
the
area
air
monitoring
data
for
the
previous
3­
years
showed
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
standard.
The
processing
was
not
reinitiated
until
the
areas
again
violated
the
1­
hour
standard.
As
a
result,
ROP
Plan
development
and
approvals
for
these
areas
were
delayed.
18
Policy
referred
to
as
"
Clean
Data
Policy"
was
issued
on
May
10,
1995,
in
memorandum
from
OAQPS
Director
to
regional
air
program
directors,
titled
"
Reasonable
Further
Progress,
Attainment
Demonstration,
and
Related
Requirements
for
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas
Meeting
the
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard."

71
Region
1
indicated
that
a
May
1995
EPA
policy,
18
referred
to
as
the
"
Clean
Data
Policy,"
provided
that
certain
SIP
requirements
could
be
suspended
once
air
monitoring
data
indicate
attainment,
i.
e.,
3
years
with
a
total
of
three
or
less
1­
hour
exceedances.
However,
Section
107(
d)(
1)
D,
E
of
the
Act
indicates
that
SIP
requirements
are
to
remain
in
effect
until
an
area
is
officially
redesignated
as
being
in
attainment
based
on
permanent
enforceable
emission
reductions
and
an
approved
a
maintenance
plan
that
will
ensure
continued
attainment.
However,
the
1­
hour
attainment
for
these
areas
was
partially
due
to
changes
in
meteorological
conditions,
not
permanent
and
enforceable
emission
reductions.

In
these
cases,
Region
1
suspended
processing
and
implementation
of
ROP
Plans
based
only
on
ambient
monitoring
data
that
showed
that
these
areas
had
experienced
three
or
less
violations
in
the
prior
3­
year
period.
In
addition
to
ambient
ozone
monitoring
data,
new
methodologies
and
data
currently
exist
that
allow
EPA
regions
to
better
assess
the
permanence
of
attainment.
For
example,
EPA
has
PAMS
data,
collected
since
the
mid­
1990s,
that
permits
trend
analysis
of
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
over
time.
Such
a
trend
analysis
of
monitoring
system
data
could
be
used
to
determine
whether
ambient
precursor
concentrations
of
NOx
and
VOCs
have
been
sufficiently
reduced
to
assure
attainment
despite
changes
in
weather.
Similarly,
before
suspending
ROP
Plan
requirements,
EPA
could
determine
whether
upwind
contributing
sources
have
been
sufficiently
controlled
to
allow
attainment,
and
require
a
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trend
analysis
for
nonattainment
areas
that
attain
based
on
ambient
ozone
monitoring
data
to
better
assure
the
permanence
of
such
attainments.
72
Appendix
E
Growth
Factors
Used
In
Projecting
ROP
Emissions
for
Atlanta
Area
For
the
Atlanta
area,
which
is
just
one
example
of
an
area
that
did
not
reflect
historical
growth
rates,
substantial
differences
existed
between
VOC
and
NOx
target
levels
and
the
relevant
PEIs.
The
differences
for
VOCs
and
NOx
emissions,
ranged
from
104.11
tons
per
day
in
VOCs
for
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plan
to
175.06
tons
per
day
in
NOx
for
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan.
These
differences
represented
23.4
to
39.8
percent
understatements
of
the
respective
emission
target
levels.
More
importantly,
the
understatements
indicate
that
required
VOC
and
NOx
emission
reductions
could
be
deficient
as
much
as
104
and
175
tons
per
day,
respectively.
This
potential
deficit
in
emission
reductions
is
significant
considering
that
the
15­
percent
ROP
Plan
only
contained
emission
control
measures
projected
to
reduce
VOC
emissions
by
117
tons
per
day
and
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
contained
only
50.10
tons
per
day
in
NOx
reductions.

Officials
with
Georgia's
Air
Protection
Division
indicated
that
the
State
may
have
used
a
growth
rate
as
low
as
1
to
2
percent
in
projecting
milestone
year
emissions
for
the
15­
percent
and
post­
1996
ROP
Plans.
The
State
officials
further
indicated
that
they
no
longer
possessed
documentation
of
the
actual
growth
rates/
factors
used
or
how
these
rates/
factors
were
determined.
The
officials
admitted
that
the
1­
to
2­
percent
growth
factors
may
have
been
too
low,
resulting
in
the
significant
differences
between
target
levels
and
PEI
emissions
data.

Information
obtained
from
the
Atlanta
Regional
Planning
Commission
indicated
that
a
growth
rate
of
1
or
2
percent
for
the
Atlanta
metropolitan
area
would
be
substantially
below
the
actual
population
and
employment
growth
rates
prior
to
and
after
the
15­
percent
and
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
milestone
dates.
Population
growth
in
the
Atlanta
metropolitan
area
for
the
period
1980
through
1990
averaged
about
3
percent
per
year.
From
1990
to
1995
and
1995
to
2000,
the
population
grew
at
2.4
and
2.8
percent
annual
rates,
respectively.
Atlanta
area
employment
between
1980
through
1990
expanded
at
a
rate
of
over
4.5
percent
with
the
employment
rate
declining
slightly
to
between
2.8
and
4
percent
between
1990
and
1997
and
increasing
again
to
between
3.7
and
4.3
percent
between
1997
and
1999.
Based
on
this
information,
the
State's
use
of
a
1­
or
2­
percent
growth
rate
in
projecting
1996
and
1999
precursor
emissions
is
questionable.

The
Atlanta
Regional
Planning
Commission
also
commented
on
EPA's
proposed
approval
of
the
Atlanta
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
and
stated
that
Georgia
was
using
outdated
vehicle
miles
traveled
estimates
in
the
ROP
projections
and
calculations
related
to
Atlanta
area
emissions.
Federal
Register
Volume
64,
page
13340,
dated
March
18,
1999,
stated
the
following:

Comment:
The
Atlanta
Regional
Commission
(
ARC)
submitted
a
letter
on
September
9,
1998,
providing
comment
on
the
9
percent
plan.
The
comment
concerned
the
use
of
vehicle
miles
traveled
(
VMT)
estimates.
ARC
updated
the
VMT
estimates
in
1996.
The
9
percent
plan
used
the
VMT
estimates
previously
provided
to
the
Georgia
Environmental
Protection
Division
(
GAEPD)
by
ARC
rather
than
the
1996
updated
73
VMT
estimates.
ARC
recalculated
the
transportation
emissions
budget
using
the
updated
VMT
and
requested
in
the
September
9,
1998,
letter
that
this
higher
emissions
budget
be
used
as
the
applicable
transportation
conformity
budget.

EPA
acknowledged
that
the
vehicle
miles
traveled
estimates
used
by
Georgia
were
not
current
but
stated
that
the
region
would
address
this
problem
in
the
region's
action
on
the
Atlanta
attainment
demonstration,
which
will
occur
in
a
future
Federal
Register
notice.
19
1998
Compliance
Report
Acid
Rain
Program
(
EPA­
430­
R­
99­
010,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation,
Acid
Rain
Division),
dated
July
1999.

20
NEI
NOx
data
for
power
plants
is
generally
based
on
Continuous
Emissions
Monitor
Systems,
which
is
the
best
emission
monitoring
technology
currently
available.

74
Appendix
F
Outside
NOx
Reductions
Claimed
in
Post­
1996
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
Nonattainment
Area
ROP
In
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
for
the
Illinois
portion
of
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
nonattainment
area,
Illinois
claimed
NOx
emissions
reductions
of
40
to
60
percent,
or
221.92
tons
per
day,
between
1990
and
1999
at
nine
power
plants
outside
of
the
Chicago
and
East
St.
Louis
nonattainment
areas.
The
State
used
the
1990
Illinois
Attainment
Area
NOx
emissions
(
NOx
emissions
outside
of
Chicago
and
East
St.
Louis
nonattainment
areas)
as
the
ROP
baseline
for
computing
required
NOx
reductions
in
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan.
The
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
was
required
to
include
a
9­
percent
reduction
in
baseline
VOCs
or
NOx
emissions
for
the
Chicago
area.
These
emission
reductions
from
outside
the
nonattainment
area
represented
almost
7
percent
of
the
total
9
percent
in
required
reductions.
The
other
2
percent
came
primarily
from
projected
VOC
reductions
within
the
Chicago
nonattainment
area.

In
response
to
our
request
for
technical
support
for
the
Acid
Rain
NOx
reductions
claimed
in
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan,
Region
5
provided
NOx
reduction
percentages
for
five
of
the
power
plants
as
shown
in
an
EPA
1998
Acid
Rain
compliance
report.
19
Region
5
indicated
that
they
did
not
possess
any
information
on
the
NOx
reductions
for
the
remaining
plants.
The
Region's
response
did
not
mention
Hennepin
Units
1­
2,
which
were
listed
in
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
and
the
1998
Acid
Rain
compliance
report.
The
Acid
Rain
report
showed
only
an
8­
percent
decrease
in
NOx
emissions
for
Hennepin
Units
1­
2
between
1990
and
1998.
Also,
post­
1996
ROP
NOx
emission
reductions
were
claimed
through
1999.
In
addition,
this
compliance
report
only
reflects
the
Acid
Rain
Phase
I
reductions
through
1998.
However,
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
also
included
reductions
from
early
implementation
of
Phase
II
controls.
Furthermore,
the
1998
compliance
report
only
included
1990
and
1998
NOx
emission
rates
and
percent
reductions.
There
was
no
conversion
of
these
rates
to
show
daily
NOx
emission
reductions
for
comparison
to
the
State
reductions
claimed
in
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan.

Our
analysis
of
1990
through
1999
NEI
data
for
the
nine
power
plants
indicated
that
annual
NOx
reductions
were
only
reduced
12.5
percent
between
1990
and
1999.
These
data
do
not
support
the
State's
claim
of
40
to
60
percent
in
daily
NOx
reductions.
NEI
data20
indicated
that
one
plant
actually
increased
NOx
emissions
by
74.4
percent,
or
16,497
tons
per
year,
between
1990
and
1999,
while
the
State
claimed
a
reduction
of
14.3
tons
per
day
for
the
same
period.
A
comparison
between
1990
and
1999
NOx
emissions
for
these
plants,
per
the
NEI,
is
shown
in
Table
F.
1.
75
(
Note:
Baldwin
units
1­
3
were
listed
separately
in
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
for
a
total
of
nine
plants.
However,
the
NEI
does
not
separate
these
units.)

Table
F.
1:
NEI
NOx
Data
for
Illinois
Power
Plants
Power
Company
­
Emission
Units
1990
NOx
Emissions
(
tpy)
a
1999
NOx
Emissions
(
tpy)
1990­
1999
Reductions
Percent
Reduction
Dominion
Energy
­
Kincaid
1­
2b
39,477.82
27,118.68
12,359.14
31.3
Electric
Energy
­
Joppa
Steam
1­
6
20,869.82
8,446.82
12,423
59.5
Cilco
­
Edwards
2­
3
18,003.38
10,193.49
7,809.89
43.4
Illinois
Power
­
Baldwin
1­
3
57,159.77
55,026.84
2,132.93
3.7
Commonwealth
Edison
­
Powerton
5­
6
22,176.91
38,674.09
­
16,497.18
*
­
74.4b
Illinois
Power
­
Vermillion
1­
2
3,367.42
1,962.23
1,405.19
41.7
Illinois
Power
­
Hennepin
1­
2
4077.39
3032.04
1045.35
25.6
Totals
161,132.51
144,454.15
20,678.32
12.5
a
tpy
=
tons
per
year
b
Negative
numbers
represent
increased
NOx
emissions.

Assuming
constant
demand
on
these
units
throughout
the
year,
the
total
20,678.32
tons
per
year
reduction
would
equate
to
only
56.65
tons
per
day.
The
State
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
claimed
a
NOx
reduction
of
221.97
tons
per
day
between
1990
and
1999
for
these
same
power
plants.
NEI
data
also
indicated:

°
only
a
0.27
percent
decrease
in
total
NOx
emissions
and
a
3.83
percent
reduction
in
NOx
emissions
for
all
electric
utilities
in
the
Illinois
Attainment
Area
(
counties
outside
of
Chicago
and
East
St.
Louis
nonattainment
areas)
between
1990
and
1999.
°
3
percent
increase
for
total
NOx
emissions
Statewide
between
1990
and
1999.
°
1.57
percent
increase
between
1990
and
1999
in
power
plant
NOx
emissions
within
the
Illinois
portion
of
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
nonattainment
area.

According
to
the
1990
baseline
and
1999
periodic
emission
inventories,
there
was
an
increase
of
14
tons
per
day
in
total
NOx
emissions
for
the
Illinois
portion
of
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
nonattainment
area.

Illinois
had
received
an
EPA
waiver
for
NOx
reductions
within
its
portion
of
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
nonattainment
area
on
the
premise
that
a
reduction
in
these
emissions
may
increase
ozone
levels
even
though
these
emissions
potentially
impacted
ozone
levels
in
Chicago
and
all
downwind
nonattainment
areas
such
as
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
severe
nonattainment
area.
Illinois
had
not
implemented
any
controls
on
nonattainment
area
NOx
sources
until
the
NOx
SIP
Call
reductions
became
effective
in
2004.
An
OAQPS
official
stated
that
many
of
these
waivers
were
granted
based
on
questionable
justifications.
76
Appendix
G
Examples
on
Use
of
Outside
Emission
Credits
Post­
1996
ROP
Plans
for
two
of
the
three
nonattainment
areas
claiming
outside
emission
reductions
included
only
the
baseline
emissions
for
the
selected
sources
when
calculating
required
emission
reductions.
However,
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
for
the
third
nonattainment
area
did
include
the
entire
emissions
baseline
for
the
outside
area
where
emission
reductions
were
claimed.

The
Illinois
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
for
the
Chicago­
Gary­
Lake
County
severe
nonattainment
area
included
NOx
reductions
based
on
Tier
I
vehicle
emission
rules,
Federal
non­
road
engine
standards,
and
the
Federal
Acid
Rain
program
that
occurred
outside
the
nonattainment
area.
In
calculating
the
required
NOx
reductions
for
the
ROP,
Illinois
used
the
entire
NOx
baseline
for
all
counties
outside
of
the
Illinois
ozone
nonattainment
areas.

Wisconsin,
in
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan,
claimed
emission
reduction
credit
of
about
6.5
tons
per
day
for
certain
VOC
sources
outside
of
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
nonattainment
area.
These
reductions
were
based
on
prior
Statewide
VOC
rules.
The
State
determined
that
VOC
emissions
from
14
counties
outside
of
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
nonattainment
area
affected
the
nonattainment
area's
ability
to
achieve
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
For
the
14­
county
area,
the
State
included
in
ROP
calculations
of
required
VOC
reductions
only
the
1990
baseline
VOC
emissions
(
28.53
tons
per
day)
for
autobody
refinishing,
degreasing,
and
organic
solvent
use.
The
use
of
baseline
emissions
only
for
these
specific
sources
assumes
that
other
VOC
sources
within
the
14­
county
area
did
not
increase
emissions
and
offset
or
exceed
any
reductions
by
the
selected
sources.
If
the
State
had
selected
these
same
VOC
control
measures
within
the
nonattainment
area,
the
State
would
have
had
to
calculate
emission
reductions
and
project
emissions
growth
 
per
Clean
Air
Act
statutes
 
against
the
entire
anthropogenic
VOC
baseline
for
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
nonattainment
area
(
362
tons
per
day).
According
to
the
NEI,
the
1990
total
VOC
anthropogenic
emissions
for
the
14­
county
area
were
119,286
tons
per
year,
or
an
estimated
326.8
tons
per
day.
However,
the
State
included
only
28.53
tons
per
day
of
these
emissions
in
the
ROP
baseline.
Most
of
the
VOC
reductions
projected
in
the
Milwaukee­
Racine
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
resulted
from
controls
within
the
nonattainment
area.
Therefore,
to
ensure
VOC
reductions,
net
of
growth,
for
the
entire
area
in
which
VOC
reductions
were
claimed,
the
ROP
baseline
should
have
combined
VOC
baseline
emissions
for
the
6­
county
Milwaukee­
Racine
nonattainment
area
and
the
14­
county
outside
area.

The
New
Hampshire
portion
of
the
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
for
the
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
severe
nonattainment
area
included
Acid
Rain
NOx
reductions
for
a
specific
power
plant
located
outside
New
Hampshire's
portion
of
the
nonattainment
area.
According
to
the
NEI,
Merrimack
County,
New
Hampshire,
in
which
the
power
plant
is
located,
had
total
1990
NOx
emissions
of
29,338.43
tons
per
year,
or
an
estimated
80.4
tons
per
day.
The
State
included
only
the
power
plant's
1990
baseline
NOx
emissions
of
26.3
tons
per
day
in
the
ROP
total
NOx
baseline
of
59.7
tons
per
day.
This
NOx
baseline
was
used
to
calculate
required
NOx
reductions
and
project
growth
in
NOx
emissions
for
New
Hampshire's
portion
of
the
Boston­
Lawrence­
Worcester
area.
However,
limiting
the
outside
NOx
baseline
to
the
power
plant
emissions
assumes
that
other
NOx
77
sources
in
the
surrounding
outside
area
would
not
grow
and/
or
offset
the
power
plant
reductions.
The
post­
1996
ROP
Plan
also
included
NOx
reductions
from
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
controls
within
the
nonattainment
area.
Therefore,
to
assure
NOx
reductions,
net
of
growth,
for
the
entire
area
in
which
emission
reductions
were
claimed,
the
ROP
baseline
should
have
been
the
combined
NOx
baseline
for
New
Hampshire's
portion
of
the
nonattainment
area
and
Merrimack
County.
78
Appendix
H
Agency
Response
to
Draft
Report
and
OIG
Evaluation
Note:
The
OIG's
evaluation
of
the
Agency's
response
appears
in
italics,
in
a
box,
after
each
comment.

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
OIG
Draft
Evaluation
Report
EPA
and
States
Not
Making
Sufficient
Progress
in
Reducing
Ozone
Precursor
Emissions
in
Some
Major
Metropolitan
Areas
Assignment
No.
2003­
0000499
FROM:
Jeffrey
R.
Holmstead
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation
TO:
J.
Rick
Beusse,
Director
for
Program
Evaluation
Air
Quality
Issues,
OIG
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
draft
report
concerning
progress
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
in
some
major
metropolitan
areas.
The
report
reflects
a
significant
effort
from
your
staff
and
provides
insightful
recommendations
for
our
consideration.
Attached
is
our
response
addressing
the
report
and
recommendations.
Our
response
also
reflects
input
from
the
EPA
Office
of
General
Counsel
and
several
Regional
Offices.

In
general,
some
of
the
recommendations
concerning
the
draft
rule
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
seem
reasonable
and
we
will
investigate
how
they
can
be
implemented.
Other
of
the
recommendations
are
good
in
theory,
but
practical
considerations
constrain
us
from
implementing
them.
Highlights
of
our
comments
include:

°
Resource
constraints
are
a
major
consideration.
The
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
(
OAR)
has
many
statutorily
required
programs
and
resources
to
support
those
programs
has
remained
stagnant
for
years.
We
must
prioritize
our
efforts,
putting
our
resources
where
we
think
we
can
get
the
most
good
for
dollar
spent.
For
several
years
now,
our
ozone
program
has
focused
on
implementing
the
more
health­
protective
8­
hour
ozone
standard
rather
than
the
1­
hour
standard
that
is
due
to
be
revoked
under
regulation
on
June
15,
2005.
Rather
than
spending
resources
looking
back,
we
have
chosen
to
focus
on
moving
forward
and
developing
programs
and
guidance
that
will
assist
states
in
getting
the
reductions
necessary
to
meet
the
new
standard.
We
believe
public
health
will
be
served
by
this
choice.
79
OIG
Evaluation:
We
agree
that
EPA
should
focus
its
resources
on
the
current
and
future
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
Where
possible
we
have
focused
the
recommendations
to
future
implementation
actions
that
should
help
EPA
and
the
States
attain
the
8­
hour
standard
in
a
timely
manner.
However,
we
continue
to
believe
that
EPA
needs
to
look
closely
at
past
implementation
of
the
1­
hour
standard
to
see
what
was
accomplished
and
what
was
not
accomplished,
which
controls
worked
as
expected
and
which
did
not,
and
which
aspects
of
their
ozone
strategy
need
improvement
in
order
to
implement
the
8­
hour
standard
more
effectively
than
occurred
under
the
1­
hour
standard.
As
noted
in
our
report,
delays
in
implementation
of
1­
hour
emission
controls
and
related
inadequate
emission
reductions
have
prolonged
the
exposure
of
millions
of
people
to
unhealthy
ozone
levels.
In
addition,
if
many
nonattainment
areas
could
not
meet
the
1­
hour
standard,
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard
will
be
even
more
complex
and
difficult
for
these
areas.
EPA
needs
to
learn
from
the
past
how
to
better
address
these
current
and
future
challenges
in
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions.

°
OAR
has
already
required
large
reductions
in
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx),
a
major
precursor
to
ozone,
through
the
NOx
SIP
call,
heavy­
duty
diesel
rule,
the
Tier
II
tailpipe
rule
and
offroad
engines.
These
reductions,
some
which
have
just
come
into
play
this
year,
go
a
long
way
toward
meeting
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
goal
of
emission
reductions
contemplated
through
the
rate­
of­
progress
plans
(
ROP).
We
anticipate
further
reductions
under
the
proposed
Clean
Air
Interstate
(
CAIR)
rule.

OIG
Evaluation:
We
recognize
that
EPA
has
implemented
many
national
and
regional
controls
that
should
significantly
impact
NOx
emissions
in
the
future.
These
controls
should
further
reduce
ambient
ozone
levels.
However,
these
controls
were
not
timely
designed
and/
or
implemented
to
meet
emission
reduction
mandates
of
the
Act.
As
a
result,
the
effects
of
unhealthy
ozone
levels
on
public
health
have
been
substantially
prolonged
past
the
1990
Act's
milestones
for
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
Additionally,
as
indicated
in
our
report,
the
effectiveness
of
these
national
and
regional
controls
should
still
be
measured
in
precursor
emissions
reductions
at
the
local
level,
especially
in
those
major
metropolitan
areas
that
have
struggled
to
meet
the
1­
hour
standard.

°
The
report
expresses
concern
that
the
policy
allowing
States
to
claim
ROP
emission
reductions
for
sources
outside
the
nonattainment
area
allows
for
potential
double­
counting
of
emission
reductions
and
does
not
ensure
that
emission
reductions
do
more
than
just
offset
emissions
growth.
The
1997
Ozone
Transport
Assessment
Group
analyses
indicated
reductions
in
NOx
from
upwind
sources
does,
in
fact,
reduce
ozone
levels
in
downwind
communities.
This
study
was
the
basis
for
EPA's
NOx
SIP
call
and
is
more
a
co­
benefit
than
a
double­
counting.
80
OIG
Evaluation:
In
some
cases,
emission
reductions
by
sources
outside
nonattainment
areas
could
benefit
more
than
one
nonattainment
area.
However,
modeling
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
that
the
outside
sources
actually
impacted
multiple
areas
and
to
what
extent
each
area
benefitted
from
these
reductions.
In
our
view,
the
credit
given
in
ROPs
should
be
limited
to
the
extent
of
benefit
received
by
each
nonattainment
area.
The
current
policy
does
not
provide
for
or
require
modeling
to
demonstrate
outside
emission
sources'
impact
on
individual
nonattainment
areas
and
does
not
limit
credit
for
such
emission
reductions
to
the
actual
benefit
received
by
individual
nonattainment
areas
from
such
reductions.
Under
the
policy,
nonattainment
areas
are
generally
allowed
credit
for
all
emission
reductions
achieved
by
outside
sources
within
specified
distances
outside
the
nonattainment
area
boundaries
without
any
demonstration
of
the
actual
impact
of
these
specific
emissions
on
the
area's
nonattainment
of
the
ozone
standard.
We
believe
that
any
"
double
counting"
or
"
co­
benefit"
of
outside
emission
reductions
by
multiple
nonattainment
areas
should
be
limited
to
the
extent
of
benefit
received
by
each
area
based
on
appropriate
atmospheric
modeling.

If
you
have
any
questions
about
this
response,
please
contact
Gail
Whitfield
at
919­
541­
1451.

Attachment
cc:
John
Price,
Office
of
Inspector
General
Steve
Page,
Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
OAR
Lydia
Wegman,
Director,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division,
OAQPS
Peter
Tsirgotis,
Director,
Emissions,
Monitoring,
and
Analysis
Division,
OAQPS
Kay
Holt,
Director,
Planning,
Resources,
and
Regional
Management
Staff,
OAQPS
Kevin
McLean,
Office
of
General
Counsel
Pete
Cosier,
OAR
Audit
Coordinator
Yvonne
W.
Johnson,
OAQPS
Audit
Coordinator
81
Detailed
Comments
on
August
16,
2004
Draft
OIG
Report
Suggested
changes:

On
page
3,
in
title
of
Table
1:
2:
after
the
word
"
Nonattainment"
insert
for
"
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS".
In
the
footnote,
change
"
designated"
to
"
re­
designated".

Also
on
page
3,
"
Twenty­
one
of
the
25
.
.
.
to
a
lower
nonattainment
"
classification"
rather
than
"
designation".

OIG
Evaluation:
The
final
report
reflects
the
changes
requested
above.

To
the
last
paragraph
on
page
3,
add
"
These
designations
because
[
sic,
became]
effective
for
113
of
the
126
areas
on
June
15,
2004.
The
remaining
13
("
Early
Action
Compact"
or
"
EAC")
areas
received
deferred
effective
dates
for
their
designations.
Furthermore,
one
of
the
original
113
areas
subsequently
received
a
deferred
effective
date."

OIG
Evaluation:
We
agree
with
the
effective
dates
for
8­
hour
designations
shown
above.
However,
we
did
not
add
this
information
as
requested
because
the
information
did
not
directly
relate
to
or
provide
clarification
for
any
of
the
issues
addressed
in
the
report.

On
page
6,
the
report
presents
the
3%
requirement
in
a
way
that
implies
that
it
is
a
3%
annual
requirement.
Actually,
it
is
3%
per
year
as
averaged
over
a
3
year
period.

OIG
Evaluation:
We
modified
the
report
to
clarify
that
the
3­
percent
per
year
emission
reduction
requirement
pertained
to
the
average
annual
reduction
required
over
each
3­
year
period.

On
page
33,
an
OGC
attorney
was
quoted
as
defining
their
job
"
as
attorney
advisors
is
to
find
language
gaps
and
ambiguities
in
statutes
that
allow
EPA
flexibility
in
promulgating
policy
guidance."
OGC
attorneys
are
responsible
for
advising
program
offices
on
the
legalities
of
various
issues
and
providing
their
opinion
on
whether
the
policy
or
guidance
in
question
would
be
successfully
if
challenged
in
court.
That
is
a
more
accurate
statement
of
their
role.
OAR
rules,
policies
and
guidance
are
frequently
challenged,
both
by
industry
and
by
environmentalists.
When
establishing
policies
that
affect
large
sectors
of
the
population,
it
is
critical
to
review
the
legal
angles.
We
would
request
that
the
two
sentences
in
the
middle
of
the
page
beginning
"
However,
according
.
.
.
score
given
to
the
policy"
be
stricken
from
the
report
and
the
above
italicized
sentence
be
substituted.
82
OIG
Evaluation:
The
draft
report
reflects
the
actual
statements
made
to
the
OIG
by
an
EPA
attorney
who
was
involved
in
reviewing
the
outside
emission
credit
policy.
This
statement
was
provided
to
allow
the
reader
to
understand
Office
of
General
Counsel's
role
in
the
questioned
policy,
and
was
not
central
to
our
finding
that
the
legal
basis
of
the
policy
was
unclear;
thus
we
made
the
changes
in
the
final
report
as
requested
by
the
Agency.
The
OIG
will
refer
to
the
Agency
response
as
the
source
of
the
statement
in
the
final
report.

On
use
of
data
from
EPA's
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI)
database
to
prove
or
disprove
whether
an
area
reduced
its
emissions
by
the
required
amount:
OIG's
analysis
produces
dubious
results
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
Act
requires
that
States
demonstrate
reductions
on
a
tons
per
summer
day
(
TPSD)
basis;
using
the
NEI
only
allows
for
one
to
analyze
reductions
using
annual
emissions
data.
This
is
a
significant
difference.
Additionally,
EPA's
NEI
database
simply
doesn't
have
the
same
quality
of
data
as
State­
prepared
inventories.
Second,
the
draft
report
points
out
that
a
major
failing
of
the
NEI
is
its
lack
of
documentation
of
methods
used
by
the
States
to
prepare
the
emission
estimates.
However,
we
would
like
to
point
out
that
each
State's
hard­
copy
inventory
includes
methods
as
part
of
the
report,
making
them
available
for
assessment
with
the
inventory.
Third,
the
draft
report
finds
that
using
periodic
emission
inventories
(
PEIs)
to
compare
back
to
baseline
numbers
is
problematic:
".
.
.
Our
interviews
with
OAQPS,
regional,
and
State
officials
disclosed
that,
due
to
changes
in
models,
methodologies,
and
emissions
factors
over
the
years,
a
reliable
comparison
between
baseline
and
periodic
emission
inventories
could
not
be
conducted
unless
both
inventories
were
updated."

Although
EPA
has
updated
past
inventory
estimates
to
make
them
consistent
with
current
estimates
in
various
ways,
such
as
updating
past
inventory
year
on­
road
emission
estimates
with
estimates
produced
by
the
most
current
version
of
the
Mobile
model,
such
efforts
still
do
not
produce
emission
estimates
that
match
SIP
emission
inventory
estimates
for
all
years,
and
again,
represent
annual,
not
daily
emission
values.
83
OIG
Evaluation:
As
stated
in
our
report,
the
Act
requires
that
States
demonstrate
that
precursor
emissions
have
been
reduced
an
average
of
3
percent
annually
"
net
of
growth"
for
each
3­
year
period
subsequent
to
the
enactment
of
the
1990
Act.
The
Act
does
not
require
that
States
demonstrate
attainment
of
emission
reductions
in
"
tons
per
summer
day."
Also,
EPA
adjusts
the
NEI
every
3
years
based
on
State
emissions
data
that
is
expressed
in
tons
per
day
or
tons
per
summer
day
to
a
tons
per
year
expression.

EPA
has
indicated
that
the
NEI
is
the
highest
quality
emissions
data
maintained
by
the
Agency
and
has
used
this
data
for
regulatory
planning
and
support;
national,
regional,
and
State
emission
trends;
and
public
information
reports.
However,
the
Agency
now
states
that
the
NEI
is
not
of
sufficient
quality
to
indicate
whether
nonattainment
areas
met
emission
reduction
requirements
in
the
Act,
and
asserts
that
State
SIP
inventories
are
best
for
such
measurements.
According
to
EPA
documentation
and
our
analysis,
state
inventory
data
is
used
every
3
years
to
update
NEI;
therefore,
NEI
and
State
emissions
data
should
reflect
the
same
level
of
quality.
Further,
the
Agency
routinely
provides
NEI­
developed
emissions
data
to
States
for
their
use
in
developing
their
nonattainment
periodic
emissions
inventories,
and
we
found
at
least
three
states
had
used
NEI
data
in
their
periodic
inventories
rather
than
developing
their
own
data.
The
Agency
further
asserts
that
State
inventories
cannot
be
used
to
measure
nonattainment
area
accomplishments
in
reducing
precursor
emissions
because
baseline
and
subsequent
periodic
inventories
were
produced
using
different
models
and
factors.
EPA
has
stated
that
requiring
updates
to
baseline
and
periodic
inventories
would
be
too
burdensome
on
States.
These
contentions
by
EPA
would
leave
no
actual,
comparable
emissions
data
available,
State
or
national,
to
assess
nonattainment
progress
as
required
by
the
Act.
However,
the
OIG
looked
for
emissions
data
that
could
provide
a
reliable
indicator
as
to
whether
nonattainment
areas
had
achieved
precursor
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act.
Noting
that
the
NEI
was
being
updated
for
the
1990
to
1999
period
based
on
the
latest
models
and
emissions
factors,
EPA
senior
officials
 
including
some
regional
officials
 
said
that
this
updated
NEI
data
would
provide
a
reliable
indicator
of
whether
nonattainment
areas
met
emission
reduction
mandates.
This
is
the
data
we
used
in
our
analysis.

We
believe
OIG
has
interpreted
Tables
3.1
and
3.2
in
the
report
incorrectly
when
they
say
"
Negative
differences
between
the
target
levels
and
PEIs
for
seven
nonattainment
areas
indicate
that
the
target
levels
were
underestimated."
This
indicates
OIG
believes
that
projected
emission
inventories
are
used
in
the
establishment
of
target
emission
levels,
and
therefore
that
underestimates
of
the
projected
emissions
can
cause
ROP
shortfalls
because
it
leads
to
inadequate
planning
for
emission
reductions.
In
fact,
projected
emission
estimates
aren't
used
in
establishing
the
target
level.
Target
levels
are
directly
determined
by
subtracting
the
required
ROP
reductions,
non­
creditable
reductions,
etc.
from
the
baseline
inventory.
It's
a
straight
subtraction
of
known
amounts
from
a
known
baseline.
It
can
be
miscalculated,
but
not
underestimated.
It
would
be
true
to
say
that
"
negative
differences
between
projected,
controlled
emission
levels
and
PEIs
indicate
that
growth
may
have
been
underestimated,
and
so
not
enough
emission
reductions
were
planned
for."
But
it's
incorrect
to
say
that
negative
differences
target
levels
and
PEIs
indicate
target
levels
were
underestimated.
84
OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
did
not
use
projected
emission
inventories
in
either
Table
3.1
or
3.2.
Actual,
"
calculated"
target
levels,
as
documented
in
the
15­
percent
and
post­
1996
ROP
Plans,
were
used
in
these
tables
to
show
differences
between
actual
periodic
emission
inventories
and
calculated
target
inventories.

The
OIG
agrees
that
the
draft
report
statement
cited
by
the
Agency
is
not
technically
correct.
The
total
emission
reductions
needed
to
achieve
the
target
levels
were
under
projected,
not
the
target
levels.
The
cited
sentence
has
been
changed
to
read:
"
Negative
differences
between
the
target
levels
and
PEIs
for
seven
nonattainment
areas
indicate
that
the
growth
of
projected
emissions
may
have
been
underestimated
and
ROP
emission
controls
and
related
reductions,
(
to
include
emissions
growth)
were
inadequate
to
achieve
the
subject
target
levels."

Regarding
Recommendations:

Chapter
2:
2­
1
Perform
an
in­
depth
evaluation
of
the
compliance
of
all
serious
to
extreme
nonattainment
areas
with
emission
reduction
requirements
using,
at
a
minimum,
precursor
emissions
data
contained
in
the
Agency's
NEI
database.

Response:
OAR
has
chosen
to
focus
its
efforts
on
developing
plans
and
strategies
that
will
implement
the
more
health­
protective
8­
hour
standard
rather
than
evaluate
progress
toward
the
1­
hour
standard
which
is
scheduled
to
be
revoked
on
June
15,
2005.
Since
EPA
will
no
longer
be
determining
whether
areas
have
met
their
1­
hour
ROP
milestones
after
June
15,
2005,
it
seems
more
appropriate
to
focus
our
efforts
and
our
resources
on
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
rule.
Implementation
rules
will
incorporate
development
of
the
ROP
plans
and
assessing
progress
toward
those
plans.
85
OIG
Evaluation:
We
agree
that
the
Agency
should
focus
resources
on
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
However,
the
Agency
and
States
need
to
measure
and
assess
the
actual
effectiveness
of
controls
implemented
under
the
1­
hour
standard
before
developing
controls
for
the
8­
hour
standard.
This
assessment
could
be
a
valuable
tool
in
identifying
controls
that
were
not
effective,
overestimates
of
projected
emission
reductions,
and
methods
for
increasing
the
effectiveness
of
controls
in
8­
hour
ROPs.

Many
new
nonattainment
areas
were
designated
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
These
areas
will
be
implementing
many
of
the
emission
controls
already
implemented
by
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas.
EPA
needs
to
know
how
effective
these
1­
hour
controls
were
in
reducing
emissions
and
identify
where
improvements
may
be
needed
before
developing
8­
hour
emission
control
plans
for
these
areas.
An
assessment
of
actual
reductions
achieved
by
1­
hour
controls
could
identify
the
need
for
EPA
to
adjust
the
expected
emission
reductions
from
these
controls
and/
or
the
need
to
develop
alternative
controls
to
meet
8­
hour
milestones.
A
more
viable
method
for
assessing
control
effectiveness
is
to
measure
emission
reductions
that
actually
occurred
from
implementation
and
compare
reductions
achieved
to
the
projected
or
expected
reductions
included
in
1­
hour
plans.
Finally,
EPA
needs
to
identify
1­
hour
areas
that
did
not
achieve
required
emission
reductions
for
the
1­
hour
standard
and
implement
all
available
contingency
measures.
Implementation
of
contingency
measures
should
further
reduce
emissions
in
these
areas
and
better
facilitate
the
achievement
of
the
more
stringent
8­
hour
standard
for
areas
that
have
struggled
for
years
to
meet
the
less
stringent
1­
hour
standard.
Therefore,
we
continue
to
believe
that
the
recommendations
in
Chapter
2
are
valid,
realistic
actions
that
EPA
needs
to
take
to
ensure
a
more
effective
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.

2­
2
Implement
contingency
measures,
where
appropriate,
if
nonattainment
areas
have
not
met
the
Act's
emission
reduction
requirements,
including
the
use
of
enforcement
and/
or
sanctions
as
authorized
under
Section
185
of
the
Act.

Response:
Section
182(
g)(
3)
 
not
the
enforcement
or
sanctions
provisions
of
the
Act
 
establishes
the
process
for
when
a
serious,
severe,
or
extreme
area
has
not
met
the
emission
reduction
obligations
in
a
ROP
plan.
Under
this
provision,
if
an
area
has
not
met
the
emission
reduction
targets,
the
statute
provides
three
options
for
the
state:

$
to
have
the
area
reclassified
to
the
next
higher
classification,

$
to
implement
specific
additional
measures
adequate,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator,
to
meet
the
next
milestone
as
provided
in
the
applicable
contingency
plan,
or
$
to
adopt
an
economic
incentive
program
as
described
elsewhere
in
the
Act.

The
Administrator
may
require
the
state
to
adopt
additional
controls
only
if
he/
she
determines
that
the
state­
selected
option
is
inadequate.
Additionally,
we
note
the
provision
referenced
in
the
report,
section
185,
applies
only
when
a
severe
or
extreme
nonattainment
area
fails
to
attain
the
standard
by
the
area's
attainment
date.
This
provision
does
not
apply
to
areas
that
fail
to
meet
ROP
milestones.
86
OIG
Evaluation:
We
agree
that
Section
185
only
pertains
to
sanctions
for
failure
of
a
severe
or
extreme
nonattainment
area
to
attain
the
ozone
standard
by
the
statutory
attainment
date.
This
statutory
reference
was
changed
in
the
final
report.
However,
Section
179
indicates
that
sanctions
may
be
taken
if
an
area
fails
to
submit
an
adequate
ROP
that
will
attain
the
required
reductions
by
the
applicable
milestone
date
and
if
an
area
fails
to
adequately
implement
ROPs.
As
indicated
in
the
report,
some
ROP
controls
were
not
timely
or
adequately
implemented
in
order
to
attain
required
emission
reductions
by
statutory
milestone
dates.

Chapter
3
3­
1
Develop
oversight
procedures
and
guidance
that
will
expedite
development,
approval,
and
implementation
of
ROP
Plans
and
related
emission
controls.

Response:
Consistent
with
our
focus
on
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard,
EPA
has
proposed
options
for
addressing
the
ROP
requirement
for
areas
covered
under
subpart
2
and
intends
to
issue
a
final
rule
(
the
phase
2
portion
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
rule)
that
would
cover
development
and
approvability
of
the
ROP
plans
and
the
timing
of
emission
controls.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
appreciates
EPA's
efforts
to
address
the
need
for
better
oversight
procedures
and
guidance
as
it
simultaneously
develops
its
final
rules
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard;
however,
we
continue
to
believe
that
new
oversight
procedures
and
guidance
need
to
be
developed
that
specifically
show
how
the
new
8­
hour
procedures
and
guidance
will
improve
the
development
and
implementation
of
8­
hour
ROPs
as
compared
to
1­
hour
ROPs
that
were
the
subject
of
our
evaluation.

3­
2
Require
evaluation
of
proposed
ROP
Plans
by
EPA
regional
air
programs
to
assure
the
propriety
of
ROP
assumptions,
projections,
and
related
emission
reductions
in
comparison
to
available
emission
databases
and
historical
data.

Response:
The
Regional
Offices
have
responsibility
for
reviewing
all
aspects
of
SIPs,
including
the
ROP
plans.
OAR
also
includes
this
as
an
item
in
the
annual
guidance
issued
to
Regions
and
States.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
recognizes
that
regions
have
the
responsibility
for
reviewing
State
SIP
submissions.
However,
as
pointed
out
in
Chapter
3,
EPA
Regions
did
not
always
throughly
review
State
support
for
ROP
Plans.
We
continue
to
believe
that
EPA
needs
to
require
regions
to
perform
in­
depth
reviews
of
State
technical
support
for
ROP
submissions.

3­
3
Develop
guidance
for
analyzing
and
comparing
periodic
emission
inventories
to
projected
emission
target
levels
and
evaluating
assumptions
used
in
applicable
ROP
Plans,
in
order
to:
(
1)
reconcile
differences
between
projected
and
actual
inventories,
(
2)
identify
any
incorrect
assumptions
or
projections
and
understatement
of
needed
emission
reductions,
and
(
3)
establish
improvements
that
may
be
needed
in
the
ROP
development
process,
and
ensure
training
of
staff
in
conducting
these
analyses.
87
Response:
As
noted
in
the
draft
report
on
page
39,
OAQPS
is
developing
a
rule
for
the
compliance
milestone
demonstration
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
In
the
process
of
developing
that
rule,
OAQPS
intends
to
address
this
recommendation.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
appreciates
EPA's
efforts
to
address
the
need
for
better
oversight
procedures
and
guidance
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
as
it
simultaneously
develops
its
final
rules
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.

3­
4
When
EPA
staff
determine
that
an
understatement
[
sic;
may
have
meant
"
overstatement?"
or
"
underachievement"]
of
emission
reductions
has
occurred,
require
States
to
implement
contingency
or
other
measures
needed
in
a
timely
manner
to
ensure
that
required
emission
reductions
are
achieved.

Response:
As
noted
above
in
response
to
recommendation
2­
2,
Section
182(
g)(
3)
 
not
the
enforcement
or
sanctions
provisions
of
the
Act
 
establishes
the
process
for
when
a
serious,
severe,
or
extreme
nonattainment
area
has
not
met
the
emission
reduction
obligations
in
an
ROP
plan.
Under
this
provision,
if
an
area
has
not
met
the
emission
reduction
targets,
the
statute
provides
three
options
for
the
state:

$
to
have
the
area
reclassified
to
the
next
higher
classification,

$
to
implement
specific
additional
measures
adequate,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator,
to
meet
the
next
milestone
as
provided
in
the
applicable
contingency
plan,
or
$
to
adopt
an
economic
incentive
program
as
described
elsewhere
in
the
Act.

The
Administrator
may
require
the
state
to
adopt
additional
controls
only
if
he/
she
determines
that
the
state­
selected
option
is
inadequate.
Additionally,
we
note
the
provision
referenced
in
the
report,
section
185,
applies
only
when
a
severe
or
extreme
nonattainment
area
fails
to
attain
the
standard
by
the
area's
attainment
date.
This
provision
does
not
apply
to
areas
that
fail
to
meet
ROP
milestones.

OIG
Evaluation:
While
we
appreciate
the
Agency's
views,
the
response
did
not
address
the
content
of
this
recommendation,
as
Section
185
of
the
Act
is
not
a
part
of
this
recommendation.
The
OIG's
recommendation
only
provides
that
EPA
should
require
implementation
of
contingency
measures,
as
required
under
Section
182(
g)(
3),
when
an
area
has
not
met
emission
targets.
As
shown
in
Chapter
3,
our
comparison
of
PEIs
to
target
emission
levels,
indicated
that
many
nonattainment
areas
did
not
achieve
emission
targets.
The
recommendation
did
not
provide,
as
stated
in
OAR's
response,
that
EPA
require
States
to
implement
additional
controls,
only
implementation
of
contingency
measures
that
should
have
already
been
included
in
approved
ROPs
and
ozone
attainment
demonstrations.

3­
5
Revise
EPA's
"
Clean
Data"
policy
to
require
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trend
analyses
and
trend
analyses
of
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
for
nonattainment
areas
that
attain
the
ozone
standard
based
on
ambient
ozone
monitoring
data,
to
better
assure
the
permanence
of
such
attainments
before
suspending
ROP
Plan
development
and
approval.
88
Response:
OAQPS
is
evaluating
incorporating
these
recommendations
into
the
Clean
Data
Policy.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
appreciates
EPA's
efforts
to
address
these
recommendations
as
it
revises
the
Clean
Data
Policy.

3­
6
Require
that
EPA
make
and
publish
a
determination
that
the
ozone
standard
has
been
achieved
through
permanent
and
enforceable
emission
reductions
before
suspending
ROP
Plans
and
related
emission
reductions
required
by
the
Act.

Response:
Current
EPA
guidance
for
redesignation
to
attainment
requires
a
determination
that
the
reductions
are
permanent;
EPA
will
reassess
the
Clean
Data
Policy
to
determine
whether
such
a
determination
can
be
incorporated
into
that
policy.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
appreciates
EPA's
efforts
to
address
these
recommendations
as
it
revises
the
Clean
Data
Policy.

Chapter
4
4­
1
Subject
the
policy
claiming
outside
emissions
to
the
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking
process,
which
will
allow
broad
public
comment
and
feedback.

Response:
Each
time
the
Agency
approves
a
SIP
that
relies
on
the
policy
allowing
,
the
public
has
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
reliance
on
reductions
from
outside
the
nonattainment
area.

OIG
Evaluation:
We
agree
that
ROP
notices
could
allow
public
comment.
However,
the
policy
has
only
been
referenced
in
ROP
notices
and
not
presented
in
detail
for
public
comment.
Additionally,
ROP
notices
are
usually
long
and
complex
and
the
use
of
outside
emission
reductions
are
buried
within
this
long,
technically
complex
document.
The
public
has
received
few
details
regarding
the
policy
in
past
ROP
notices.
The
ROPs
did
not
present
a
clear
picture
of
the
impact
of
this
policy
on
nonattainment
area
emissions
or
any
information
on
the
statutory
basis
for
the
policy
under
the
Act.
Therefore,
the
OIG
continues
to
consider
Recommendation
4­
1
valid.

4­
2
Revise
policy
for
nonattainment
area
outside
emission
reduction
credit
to:
°
Encourage
broadening
of
controls
for
sources
in
outside
areas
in
order
for
a
nonattainment
area
to
claim
emission
reduction
credits.
°
Require
atmospheric
modeling
to
support
the
impact
of
outside
emissions
and
sources
on
nonattainment
area
ozone
levels.
°
Require
that
the
emission
baselines
from
all
selected
outside
areas
be
included
in
ROP
baseline
emissions
for
calculating
required
emission
reductions
and
measuring
achievement
of
reductions.
°
Provide
a
methodology
for
apportioning
outside
area
NOX
or
VOC
emissions
reductions
among
nonattainment
areas
to
prevent
double­
counting
of
emission
reductions
when
a
State
has
multiple
nonattainment
areas.
89
°
Require
that
outside
sources
or
areas
included
in
post­
1996
ROPs
also
be
included
in
subsequent
PEIs
for
each
applicable
nonattainment
area.

Response:
As
part
of
the
rulemaking
process
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
the
Agency
is
assessing
existing
policies
and
guidance.
We
will
take
these
comments
into
consideration,
along
with
other
comments
received
from
stakeholders,
as
we
proceed
with
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
Also,
Federal
rules
such
as
the
NOx
SIP
call,
new
vehicle
standards,
and
the
proposed
CAIR
rule
will
provide
emission
reductions
that
will
significantly
reduce
ozone
levels
in
many
of
these
areas
and
promote
adequate
ROP.
Since
upwind
sources
are
known
to
contribute
to
downwind
ozone
pollution,
controlling
these
source
through
regional
programs
will
contribute
to
reducing
the
ozone
levels
in
more
than
one
nonattainment
area.
That
isn't
double­
counting.

OIG
Evaluation:
We
appreciate
OAR's
plans
to
consider
Recommendation
4­
2
during
its
assessment
of
existing
policies
and
guidance
as
part
of
the
rulemaking
process
for
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.

Chapter
5
5­
1
Expedite
issuance
of
the
milestone
compliance
guidance,
but
restrict
the
use
of
observed
ambient
ozone
levels
as
a
stand­
alone
indicator
of
emission
reductions.
The
guidance
should
also
require
the
use
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends
and
trends
in
ambient
concentrations
of
VOC
and
NOX
in
the
weight
of
evidence
approach.

Response:
We
will
evaluate
the
current
draft
milestone
compliance
rule
to
determine
the
feasibility
of
this
recommendation.
We
must
remember
our
overall
goal
is
to
meet
the
health­
protective
air
quality
standard
for
ozone,
not
just
reduce
precursor
emissions.
The
ROP
is
a
tool
designed
to
help
areas
meet
the
standard,
it
is
not
the
measure
used
for
designation
of
areas
as
attainment
or
nonattainment.

5­
2
Instruct
States
to
utilize
indicators,
as
reflected
in
the
draft
milestone
compliance
demonstration
guidance,
and/
or
provide
annual
updates
to
emissions
inventories
(
one
third
of
sources
per
year
or
one
third
of
States
per
year)
to
determine
potential
or
actual
emission
reductions
within
the
Act's
90­
day
time
frame
for
milestone
compliance
demonstrations.

Response:
In
the
draft
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
contemplating
reliance
on
indicators
to
meet
the
milestone
compliance
demonstration.
At
this
time,
it
is
not
technically
feasible
for
States
to
complete
quality
assured
emissions
inventories
for
most
source
categories
based
on
actual
emissions
generating
activities
in
a
90­
day
time
frame.

OIG
Evaluation:
Emission
inventories
are
the
best
measure
of
actual
emission
reductions.
Indicators
will
not
provide
assurance
that
emissions
have
been
sufficiently
reduced
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act.
Updated
inventories
should
be
used
as
part
of
the
milestone
demonstration
whenever
feasible.
90
5­
3
Require
that
nonattainment
areas
update
baseline
inventories
and,
subsequently,
perform
more
in­
depth
assessments
of
actual
emission
reductions,
once
the
applicable
PEIs
are
completed.
This
subsequent
determination
of
actual
emission
reductions
may
not
meet
the
milestone
compliance
demonstration
90­
day
time
frame
but
will
provide
a
measure
of
progress
that
is
not
currently
available.

Response:
We
believe
that
the
IG
is
recommending
that
OAR
should
require
that
whenever
a
state
has
revised
an
emission
inventory
model
or
method,
for
example
a
method
of
estimating
emissions
from
mobile
sources,
as
part
of
preparing
the
PEI,
the
baseline
inventory
(
e.
g.,
for
2002
in
the
case
of
an
8­
hour
ozone
area)
should
be
recalculated
with
the
new
method
so
that
actual
reductions
from
base
year
to
PEI
year
can
be
estimated
without
the
confounding
influence
of
method
changes.

Assuming
our
interpretation
of
this
recommendation
is
correct,
we
appreciate
the
issue.
However,
we
are
not
certain
that
we
have
legal
authority
to
require
a
state
to
revise
its
baseline
inventory
once
submitted,
or
that
it
would
be
the
best
use
of
state
and
EPA
resources
in
all
cases.
For
some
changes
in
method,
it
may
be
technically
impossible
to
re­
estimate
the
baseline
inventory
years
later,
for
example,
if
source
testing
methods
change.
We
address
the
intercomparison
issue
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
when,
during
review
of
a
PEI
submittal,
it
seems
material
to
the
area's
progress
toward
attainment.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
OIG
did
not
intend,
as
suggested
in
the
Agency's
response
above,
that
States
update
baseline
inventories
each
time
a
new
model
or
factor
is
promulgated.
The
recommendation
provides
that
States
should
update
baselines
in
order
to
be
comparable
to
the
most
recently
developed
PEI,
so
that
actual
emission
reductions
achieved
can
be
measured.
The
OIG
continues
to
believe
that
this
additional
requirement
would
provide
a
realistic
measure
of
emission
reduction
achievements
under
the
8­
hour
standard
and,
as
such,
would
also
represent
an
effective
use
of
Agency
resources
to
achieve
the
8­
hour
standard.
The
use
of
indicators
alone
will
not
fully
meet
the
Act's
requirement
that
States
demonstrate
the
attainment
of
specific,
mandated
precursor
emission
reductions
for
each
nonattainment
area.

5­
4
Incorporate
the
use
of
updated
NEI
data
and
other
available
measures,
where
appropriate,
into
milestone
compliance
demonstration
guidance
as
top­
down
indicators
or
measures
of
nonattainment
area
progress
in
reducing
precursor
emissions.

Response:
We
will
evaluate
the
current
draft
milestone
compliance
rule
to
determine
the
feasibility
of
this
recommendation.

OIG
Evaluation:
We
appreciate
OAR's
plans
to
consider
Recommendation
5­
4
during
its
assessment
of
milestone
compliance
guidance
as
part
of
the
rulemaking
process
for
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard.

5­
5
Require
State
and
local
agencies
to
update
past
baseline
and
periodic
emission
inventories
based
on
the
latest
models,
emission
factors,
and
methodologies,
and
complete
milestone
compliance
demonstrations
for
1990
through
1999
(
or
later
milestone
year)
for
nonattainment
areas
based
on
the
issued
milestone
compliance
guidance.
Further,
for
91
future
inventories,
require
States
to
continuously
update
inventories
as
new
emissions
data
and
methods
are
developed,
to
provide
timely
assessments
of
nonattainment
area
progress
in
reducing
precursor
emissions.

Response:
The
focus
of
the
EPA
ozone
program
is
on
implementation
of
the
more
protective
8­
hour
standard,
including
guidance
on
the
ROP
program.
We
do
not
feel
it
would
be
a
good
expenditure
of
our
resources
to
document
progress
or
failures
against
the
1­
hour
standard
that
will
be
revoked
under
regulation
on
June
15,
2005.

OIG
Evaluation:
As
previously
stated
in
response
to
Recommendation
2­
1,
we
believe
that
if
the
Agency
better
understands
nonattainment
area
progress
in
reducing
emissions
under
the
1­
hour
standard,
it
can
more
effectively
design
and
implement
emission
controls
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
In
our
view,
determining
how
to
implement
the
8­
hour
standard
more
effectively
than
occurred
with
the
1­
hour
standard
represents
an
effective
use
of
resources.

Chapter
6
6­
1
Develop
analytical
procedures
and
processes
for
EPA
and/
or
States
to
utilize
updated
NEI
data
for
measuring
the
progress
of
individual
areas
in
reducing
precursor
emissions
and
complying
with
the
Act's
emission
reduction
mandates.

Response:
We
are
broadly
examining
the
issues
of
program
tracking,
assessment,
and
accountability
in
response
to
the
recent
National
Academy
of
Sciences
committee
report
on
air
quality
management.
To
be
clear,
any
policy,
procedures,
or
guidance
we
would
issue
at
this
point
would
support
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.

OIG
Evaluation:
This
recommendation
was
intended
to
address
future
EPA
and
State
analyses
of
NEI
to
determine
the
progress
of
nonattainment
areas
in
reducing
precursor
emissions.
The
recommendation
is
directly
related
to
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
and
measurement
of
emission
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas
under
this
standard.
We
have
modified
the
recommendation
in
the
final
report
to
indicate
that
actions
recommended
apply
to
the
8­
hour
standard.

6­
2
Issue
guidance
for
the
development
of
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends
for
individual
nonattainment
areas,
updated
annually,
to
better
isolate
the
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ozone
levels.

Response:
While
EPA
has
developed
and
used
approaches
to
meteorologically
adjust
ozone
trends
(
e.
g.,
EPA
454/
K­
04­
001,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
airtrends/
ozone.
html),
adjusted
trends
for
specific
areas
or
regions
may
not
adequately
adjust
for
all
influences
caused
by
meteorology.
We
are
exploring
more
sophisticated
adjustments
and
when
a
better
approach
is
developed
and
demonstrated,
we
will
make
it
available
to
States.
92
OIG
Evaluation:
In
2003,
the
EPA
developed
meteorologically
adjusted
ozone
trends
for
major
United
States
metropolitan
areas,
many
of
which
are
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
An
EPA
analyses
of
these
trends
was
included
in
publically
released
reports.
If
EPA's
prior
meteorologically­
adjusted
trends
for
many
large
nonattainment
areas
were
sufficiently
reliable
to
be
included
in
EPA's
ozone
trends
reports,
we
do
not
understand
the
need
for
more
sophisticated
adjustments
before
utilizing
the
approach
as
an
indicator
of
the
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ozone
levels.
More
precise
measures
of
meteorologically­
adjusted
ozone
levels
would
improve
the
approach
as
an
indicator
but
the
current
approach
has
already
been
deemed
by
EPA
as
sufficiently
reliable
for
trends
analyses
and
public
information.

6­
3
Provide
resources
to
develop
PAMS
data
analyses
and
identify
trends
in
ambient
VOC
and
NOx
concentrations
for
individual
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Such
trends
could
be
used
to
assess
the
effectiveness
of
Federal,
regional,
and
local
emission
controls
and
identify
where
additional
controls
may
be
warranted.

Response:
This
is
a
resource
allocation
issue.
The
EPA
has
intermittently
analyzed
PAMS
data
for
special
studies
but
such
analyses
have
been
a
lower
priority
during
the
last
few
years
than
other
air
quality
analyses
for
ozone
and
fine
PM.
However,
we
re­
initiated
PAMS
data
analysis
in
FY
2004.
This
analysis
will
involve
technical
challenges
in
relating
ambient
VOC
concentrations
to
various
meteorological
factors
influencing
emissions
and
atmospheric
transformations,
and
developing
statistical
relationships
with
factors
such
as
activity
levels
and
regional
transport.
This
approach
will
likely
require
an
iterative,
exploratory
analysis
to
determine
the
most
relevant
factors
in
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
control
programs
and
identifying
additional
control
measures.
In
addition,
there
are
PAMS
siting
"
gaps"
as
not
all
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
participate
in
this
program.
Considering
these
challenges,
we
are
committed
to
PAMS
data
analysis
provided
sufficient
resources
can
be
allocated
to
PAMS
data
acquisition
and
analysis.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
older
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas
already
have
PAMS
networks.
Therefore,
PAMS
data
for
these
areas
is
already
available
for
trend
analysis
to
identify
the
direct
impact
of
emission
reductions
on
ambient
concentrations
of
ozone
precursor
emissions.
PAMS
is
probably
one
of
the
best
methods
available
to
assess
the
direct
impact
and
effectiveness
of
emission
controls
on
individual
nonattainment
areas.
We
agree
that
the
Agency
should
pursue
the
resources
necessary
to
perform
PAMS
data/
trend
analyses
for
individual
nonattainment
areas.

Chapter
7
7­
1
Establish
annual
and
multi­
year
goals
and
performance
measures
for
ozone
precursor
emission
reductions
by
individual
nonattainment
areas
and
require
State
and
local
agencies
to
submit
evidence
that
these
goals
have
been
met.

Response:
The
Agency's
2003
Strategic
Plan
includes
objectives
regarding
ozone
improvements
for
nonattainment
areas.
Sub­
objective
1.1.1
states
that
by
2010
air
quality
with
respect
to
8­
hour
ozone
will
be
improved
to
heathy
levels
(
i.
e.,
meet
the
NAAQS)
for
60
percent
of
the
people
who
live
in
areas
not
meeting
the
national
standard
in
2001.
The
objective
further
states
that
air
93
quality
will
improve
for
an
additional
27
percent
of
the
people
who
live
in
areas
not
meeting
the
8­
hour
standard
in
2001.

7­
2
Once
annual
goals
and
measures
are
established,
include
the
goals
and
measures
in
EPA
and
State
and
local
agencies'
annual
and
strategic
plans,
and
provide
accomplishments
toward
these
goals
in
EPA's
annual
performance
reports.

Response:
The
Agency's
goals,
objectives,
and
performance
measures
are
based
on
the
broader
overall
goal
of
protecting
public
health,
and
as
such,
reflect
measuring
areas
and
population
with
clean
air
for
the
various
criteria
pollutants.
Our
instructions
from
OMB
are
that
the
goals
be
meaningful.
We
feel
we
are
doing
this
by
addressing
the
public
health
issue.

The
State
implementation
plans
(
SIP)
for
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas;
specifically
attainment
demonstrations,
rate­
of­
progress
plans,
and
maintenance
plans,
provide
emission
targets
for
each
of
the
ozone
precursors.
These
targets
are
approved
as
part
of
the
SIP
rulemaking
process.
In
the
case
of
on­
road
mobile
source
sector,
these
targets
are
"
budgets"
that
are
used
in
implementing
the
transportation
conformity
requirements.

OIG
Evaluation:
The
Agency
suggests
that
its
strategic
planning
activities
were
already
sufficient
to
address
recommendations
7­
1
and
7­
2;
however,
our
recommendations
pertain
to
establishing
performance
measures
for
precursor
emission
reductions
(
NOx
and
VOCs)
by
individual
nonattainment
areas.
As
noted
in
our
report,
ambient
ozone
is
our
most
complex,
difficult
to
control,
and
pervasive
urban
air
pollutant.
In
recognition
of
this
fact,
the
1990
Act
mandated
ever
increasing
levels
of
precursor
emissions
reductions
until
attainment
is
achieved.
Thus,
we
continue
to
believe
that
Recommendation
7­
1
is
appropriate
and
necessary
to
assuring
timely
and
permanent
ozone
attainment.
For
Recommendation
7­
2,
EPA
indicated
that
the
Agency's
strategic
goals,
objectives,
and
performance
measures
reflect
the
broader
goal
of
protecting
public
health
and,
thereby,
the
measurement
of
areas
and
populations
with
clean
air
for
criteria
pollutants.
While
we
appreciate
these
larger
goals,
we
believe
the
Agency
strategic
and
annual
plans
should
also
include
goals
for
reducing
ozone
precursor
emissions
in
accordance
with
the
1990
Act.
Current
Agency
strategic
and
annual
plans
include
goals
for
NOx
emission
reductions
from
power
plants,
as
well
as
VOC
and
NOx
emission
reductions
from
stationary
and
mobile
sources
based
on
Federal
rules.

Chapter
8
8­
1
Develop
DQOs,
using
EPA
DQO
development
guidance,
for
State­
and
NEI­
generated
emissions
data
for
use
in
applicable
QAPPs.

Response:
In
FY
2005,
EPA
will
develop
data
quality
objectives
(
DQOs)
for
the
2002
NEI
as
part
of
the
development
and
finalization
of
the
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP)
for
the
2002
NEI
and
then
may
consider
the
role
these
DQOs
 
or
an
augmented
version
of
them
 
should
play
with
respect
to
state­
generated
emission
inventories.
The
DQOs
will
be
used
in
future
versions
of
the
NEI
(
i.
e.,
2005
version
and
beyond).

8­
2
Expedite
completion
and
approval
of
the
draft
QAPP
for
NEI
data.
94
Response:
EPA
will
finalize
the
draft
QAPP
for
the
1999
NEI
by
the
end
of
this
calendar
year.
We
will
develop
a
separate,
improved
QAPP
for
the
2002
NEI.
This
will
complement
the
planned
first­
ever
external
peer
review
of
the
2002
NEI.

8­
3
To
the
extent
possible,
expedite
the
regulatory
process
for
releasing
ozone
DQOs
for
use
in
State
air
monitoring
QAPPs.

Response:
These
DQOs
were
developed
for
ozone
monitoring
and
are
part
of
the
regulatory
change
to
EPA's
ambient
air
quality
monitoring
requirements
implementing
the
National
Monitoring
Strategy.
These
changes
will
be
proposed
in
2005.

8­
4
Inform
EPA
regions
that
approved
State
QAPPs
are
needed
for
emissions
and
ozone
air
monitoring
data
air
monitoring
data
accumulated
or
developed
by
States
within
each
region's
boundaries.

Response:
EPA
QA
Policy
has
had
a
long
standing
requirement
for
QAPPs
for
any
organization
accepting
federal
funds
for
the
collection
of
environmental
data.
The
Regions
are
aware
of
this
requirement.
OAQPS
has
developed
a
format
for
collecting
information
from
the
Regions
assessing
the
State,
Local
and
Tribal
QAPPs
for
the
Ambient
Air
Quality
Monitoring
Program
within
the
Region.
We
will
soon
be
working
with
Regional
Offices
to
compile
this
assessment
information.

OIG
Evaluation:
We
appreciate
EPA's
plans
to
develop
data
quality
objectives
for
ozone
precursor
emissions
data
and
ensure
their
use
in
State
and
national
emissions
inventories
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
95
Appendix
I
Distribution
EPA
Headquarters
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation
(
6101A)
Agency
Followup
Official
(
2710A)
Agency
Followup
Coordinator
(
2724A)
Audit
Followup
Coordinator,
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
(
6102A)
Audit
Followup
Coordinator,
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
8102A)
Associate
Administrator
for
Congressional
and
Intergovernmental
Relations
(
1301A)
Director,
Office
of
Regional
Operations
(
1108A)
Associate
Administrator
for
Public
Affairs
(
1101A)
Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
C404­
04)
Deputy
Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
C404­
04)
Director,
Air
Quality
Strategies
and
Standards
Division
(
C504­
01)
Leader,
Ozone
Policy
and
Strategies
Group
(
C539­
02)
Director,
Emissions,
Monitoring
and
Analysis
Division
(
C304­
02)
Leader,
Air
Quality
Trends
Analysis
Group
(
C304­
01)
Leader,
Emission
Inventory
&
Factors
Group
(
D205­
01)
Leader,
Monitoring
and
Quality
Assurance
(
C339­
02)
Audit
Liaison,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
C404­
2)
Inspector
General
(
2410)

EPA
Regions
Regional
Air
Program
Directors
