MEETING SUMMARY

 

JOINT TECHNICAL AND POLICY COMMITTEE

NOVEMBER 20 AND 21, 2000 - CHARLESTON, SC

 

Attending:  Phil Brantley, Brock Nicholson, Laura Boothe, Jeff Carter, Patty West, Diana Andrews, Charles Davis, John Jansen, John Bunyak, Wilfred Whitecraft, Cal Ogburn, Kathy Beckett, Pat DalPorto, Jake Gilmer, Jim Browder, Jim Renfro, Ted Russell, John Daniel, Bruce Bayle, Bob Asplund, Fred Durham, Kevin Clark, Adrienne Carney, Don Gasper, Mike Stroben, Pat Brewer, Tom Elmore

 

Sensitivity Preferences: Pat Brewer described the options and tradeoffs involved in doing state-by-state sensitivity analyses.  After an extended discussion the group agreed to pursue the following approach:

 

·        Five pollutants (SO2, Low level NOx, Elevated NOx, VOC, Ammonia)

·        Eight SAMI states, full domain, and the difference between the SAMI 8 states and the rest of the domain

·        Year 2010

·        All episodes

·        One strategy (select this strategy by February 1)

 

By early January Ted Russell expects to have guidance for the Committee on how well NOx sensitivities are likely to work and on the linearity of the model response for the pollutants of interest.  The "racetrack" map approach to sensitivity analyses will probably not be pursued nor will the longer list of pollutants in the original sensitivity analysis plan drafted by Georgia Tech.  The sensitivities listed above are likely to be the only ones done if the computers are "turned off" in early fall of 2001.

 

Bold and BWC Descriptions

 

The group worked through Tom's November 14 draft entitled "Proposed Revisions to Bold and Bold with Constraints" which contained questions from Pechan. 

 

Nonroad

 

Question 1.  Under nonroad the following penetration of ZEV (above existing levels of ZEV) is proposed:


 

Year

2010

2040

Bold with Constraints

10%

30%

Bold

15%

45%

Beyond Bold

30%

90%

 

Question 2 - Aircraft

 

Assume the following penetration of clean engines

 

Year

2010

2040

Bold

10%

75%

Beyond Bold

50%

100%

 

Maureen Mullen should check with Nancy Kruger with STAPPA/ALAPCO (202) 624-7864 to determine the difference in emissions between existing and clean engines.

 

Question 3. Construction, Farm, Logging, Industrial Equipment, and Marine Commercial Engines: Line four should read 0.2 g NOx/brake horsepower hour.

 

Question 4.  The gasoline and diesel sulfur content for recreational marine engines should match the fuel sulfur content for on-road in the same years.

 

Industrial

 

Steve Gossett presented revised recommendations on Bold and BWC for the industrial sector.  The group expressed interest in a side-by-side comparison of the proposed version and the existing version, which will be undertaken, on a conference call on November 29.

 

Added clarification: For those engines less than the NOx SIP Call threshold (500-2400 HP) apply the following limits:

 

Year

2010

2040

BWC

Apply limits year-round

Apply limits year-round

Bold

20% reduction

50% reduction

 

Include cement kiln SIP Call reductions in BWC, Bold and Beyond Bold.

 

Electric

 

The table in the November 14 summary was approved (with the addition of beyond Bold as previously described).

 

Nonroad Comments from EPA

 

Greg Stella forward two sets of suggestions from EPA related to the nonroad strategy description for Bold and BWC. 

 

First set (Greg's comments), Item 5.  Cap emissions as Greg suggests.

 

Second set (OTAQ), Item 3.  Find out if Pechan changed the default of 3300 ppm Sulfur to 500 ppm in On-the-way.  OTAQ reports that the actual fuel used in off-road vehicles has a sulfur content of approximately of 3300 ppm. For Bold, BB and BWC use 3300 but make note if a different number was used in OTW in interpreting the results.

 

Incentives to Organizations

 

Tom Elmore presented a list of tax deductions offered by Alabama as incentives to reduce emissions.  Several states reported similar incentives that are seldom used.  The group asked staff to develop more information on this topic including lists of measures considered by other organizations as well as consultants that know this topic area.  VMT reductions and how to move travel to rail is a particular interest.

 

SAMI Recommendations

 

A wide-ranging discussion revealed a variety of expectations about what the SAMI final report should include and should not include.  A suggestion was made for staff to present the type of information that modeling is likely to generate.  The PC/TOC is interested in participating in describing the format to be used to present results.  Even without modeling complete, the group may be better able to discuss recommendations when the nature of the SAMI technical answers is understood.  A goal for having this discussion is the next meeting (below).

 

Next PC/TOC Meeting

 

The next meeting was set for January 23-24 in Charleston SC at the Doubletree Hotel.  A target for starting the meeting is 1:00 on the 23rd and adjournment by 3:00 on the 24th.

 

Adjournment