MEMORANDUM
          
          TO:       OTAG Implementation Strategies and Issues Workgroup
          
          FROM:     Merrylin Zaw-Mon and Bill Baker, Co-Chairs
          
          SUBJECT:  Schedule for Upcoming Meetings and Summary of
                              Implementation Strategies and Issues Workgroup Conference
                              Call on February 23, 1996
          
          DATE:     March 7, 1996
          
          The Implementation Strategies and Issues Workgroup members conference call
          previously scheduled for March 29 at 11:00 a.m. has been rescheduled for
          March 27 at 11:00 a.m.  The workgroup meeting that was previously scheduled
          for April 11 has been rescheduled for April 1 in Baltimore.  An agenda for the
          meeting and conference call will be developed.
          
          Please review the following OTAG Implementation Strategies and Issues
          Workgroup conference call summary.  If you have any questions regarding the
                    materials, please contact Merrylin Zaw-Mon or Bill Baker directly.                            ATTACHMENT
    Summary of Implementation Strategies and Issues Workgroup
               Conference Call on February 23, 1996

Participants
Bill Baker
John Calcagni
Patrick DalPorto
Steve Gerritson
Jerry Golden
Marlin Gottschalk
Danny Herrin
Nancy Hirshberg
Robert Hodanbosi
Julie Hudak (Walcoff)
Mike Koerber
Chris Lindhjem
Bob Lopez
Brock Nicholson
David Parks
Kay Prince
Randy Robinson
Kimber Scavo
Michael Stroben
Don Theiler
Eugene Trisko
Leah Weiss
Susan Wierman
Merrylin Zaw-MonOpening Remarks
Bill Baker opened discussion by confirming that all group members had received the February
19 version of the agenda for the February 29 workgroup meeting.  Two workgroup members
had not received the agenda, and Walcoff faxed the information to them.

Report on Criteria Evaluation Mini-Workgroup
Don Theiler informed the group that Bob Lopez, who chaired the microgroup on rating control
technologies, had been designated to present information regarding the microgroup's progress.

On January 23, Mr. Theiler's group decided to form the new microgroup.  This Rating
microgroup would be headed by Mr. Lopez and would rate different control technologies using
criteria developed through the strategies process.  Microgroup members include Dick Forbes,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; Peter Chant, Shell Oil Products Company; Danny
Herrin, Southern Company; and Chris Lindhjem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The rating criteria include the following:

    1.    Availability--reliance on commercially available technology.

    2.    Timing--the time frame for getting ozone and/or precursor emissions benefits.

    3.    Precursor Emissions Impact--estimated ozone precursor emissions reductions due to
          technology, program, or method.

    4.    Direct Cost--direct economic cost of reducing precursor emissions.
In terms of availability, the group examined the relative commercial level and/or availability
of the measures between 1995 and 2007.  The group devised a ratings system based on the
following definitions:

    o Highest rating/top bin = "control technologies that are commercially available with
      proven transferability and widely demonstrated."

    o Medium rating/middle bin = "control options for which technology is in place for
      one size or type of a source but not necessarily having proven transferability to
      other sizes or other subsectors within the general broad sector."

    o Lowest rating/bottom bin = "control options demonstrated in pilot applications but
      not yet in commercial use."

Merrylin Zaw-Mon asked Mr. Lopez if the group had considered technologies available in
countries other than the United States.  Steve Gerritson indicated that the group considered
those in other countries only if the technologies were currently in operation.

Mr. Lopez then turned to the second criteria, timing.  He explained that timing would be
measured by potential subsector penetration and/or program benefit by a given year.  The
group devised the following breakdowns for rating according to timing: 

    o Highest rating = greater than 90 percent potential reduction impact, subsector-wide, by 2007.

    o Medium rating = between 50 percent and 90 percent potential reduction impact,
      subsector-wide, by 2007.

    o Lowest rating = less than 50 percent of potential reduction impact, subsector-wide,
      by 2007.

The group was unsure how to apply criterion rating precursor emissions impact.  At this point,
however, the group is considering one or both of the following approaches to measuring
emission reduction potential:

    o Measurement of only NOx reduction potential.
    o Measurement of both NOx and VOC reduction potential.

For the record, Mr. Lopez indicated that the group originally intended to consider NOx and
VOCs separately.  Emission reduction potential can be calculated on the basis of potential
reduction from the source category or as potential reduction from the entire inventory.

Finally, in addressing the cost criteria, the group agreed to apply a cost per ton, using 1995
dollars.  The group also determined that four bins would be necessary to ensure that all
relevant factors are taken into consideration.  The proposed breakdowns are as follows:

    o Bin 1--under $1,000 per ton.
    o Bin 2--between $1,000 and $5,000 per ton.
    o Bin 3--between $5,000 and $10,000 per ton.
    o Bin 4--more than $10,000 per ton.

Ms. Zaw-Mon asked the group whether $10,000 per ton might be too low for an accurate
representation of all cost ranges.  Mr. Theiler responded that these dollar amounts represent
what appear to be natural break points.

Leah Weiss asked how the group plans to factor in differentiations in cost for the same
technologies.  Mr. Lopez explained that multiple ratings would be assigned to account for
these differentiations; this approach was deemed to be more useful than averaging costs

In response to a question from Ms. Zaw-Mon about the missing inventory information needed
for rating against the precursor emission reduction criterion, Mr. Lopez explained that the
mobile source inventory has been projected for future years, but this task is not yet complete
for stationary sources.  This makes it very difficult to compare between mobile and stationary
source controls.

Several group members debated the appropriateness and timeliness of using proxy inventory as
a basis for future point sources.  In the interest of time, the group decided to postpone
discussion of this issue until the February 29 meeting.  Mr. Theiler requested that the item be
added to the meeting agenda.

In preparation for the February 29 meeting, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Lopez and Mr. Herrin to
develop a schedule for completing the rating process.  Mr. Baker also directed the micro-group
to apply to the extent possible availability, timing, and cost ratings to technologies under
consideration and to distribute findings on February 29.  Mr. Theiler indicated that, given the
shortage of time before the meeting, the group could provide only an example of ratings
assignments rather than a comprehensive list.

Formation of a New Mini-Workgroup
Mr. Baker added that once the group applies the matrix to proposed technologies, the next task
is to put technologies into strategies for the Regional and Urban Scale Modeling Workgroup to
model.  Before moving to discussion of modeling, Mr. Baker announced the formation of a
new Strategy Development Mini-Workgroup.  Brock Nicholson will chair the group, and Mr.
Baker is in the process of preparing its charge.  He asked that members of the workgroup
consider joining this new important mini-workgroup.

Discussion of Modeling Issues
Ms. Zaw-Mon turned to Mike Koerber for a progress report on work between the
Implementation Strategies and Issues Workgroup and the Regional and Urban Scale Modeling
Workgroup.

Mr. Koerber informed group members that they would receive a memo from him via Walcoff
later in the day.  This memo identifies the first round of sensitivity tests, reflecting revisions
discussed over the last few months.  Following the January 23 and 24, 1996, meetings, the
group refined its original list to match the broad approaches more closely.  During a
conference call last week, the group prioritized the sensitivity tests, thereby providing
modelers with a clear starting point.

Given this background, Mr. Koerber asked the group to review his memo and call him with
any questions.  He added that further discussion will take place during the February 29
meeting.

David Parks asked about Attachment 2, and Mr. Koerber explained that the attachment
includes the following two modifications to the original version:

    o Area source NOx and CO emissions using off-highway vehicle emissions and
      projected change were added.

    o Elevated point sources in southeastern NOx emissions and attainment areas were
      slightly increased, based on information from Mike Stroben.

Ms. Weiss asked whether any other input on the list would be allowed; Mr. Koerber
responded affirmatively, asking that additional input be provided to him.  Ms. Weiss also
inquired whether the list would be presented to the Policy Decision Group.  In general, items
from the workgroup are presented to the subgroup.  At times, the subgroup chair has asked
that certain items be presented to the Policy Decision Group.  If sensitivity tests are presented
to the Policy Decision Group it will likely be by the Modeling and Assessment Subgroup.

Mr. Theiler raised a concern about the usefulness of evaluating urban attainment area controls
versus rural attainment area controls.  The group then discussed whether inventory is necessary
to answer this question, whether there is enough of a difference between urban and rural
attainment areas to warrant evaluation, and whether another geographical breakdown might be
more useful.

Ultimately, Mr. Koerber offered to add more modeling runs in an attempt to address this
concern.  He asked that the group submit any new modeling run requests to him before the
February 29 meeting so as not to delay the modeling schedule.  Mr. Baker cautioned the group
against reopening the entire modeling discussion.  Mr. Koerber added that additional runs must
be limited.

Additional Business
Defining Cost-Effectiveness
Ms. Zaw-Mon acknowledged that many members have raised questions about Set II criteria,
particularly the definition of cost-effectiveness.  She has asked Mr. Theiler's mini-workgroup
to continue to discuss this issue.  There will also be a discussion during the February 29
meeting.  

Presentation to the Policy Decision Group
Nancy Hirshberg asked whether the Set II criteria will be presented to the Policy Decision
Group on March 1.  Ms. Zaw-Mon indicated that the criteria will first be presented to the
Strategy and Controls Subgroup when the issue is ripe, and the subgroup will determine
whether this information should be presented at the Policy Decision Group level.

February 29 Meeting Agenda
Ms. Zaw-Mon asked for comments on the proposed meeting agenda; no objections were
raised.  Members indicated that they appreciated receiving the agenda well in advance of the
meeting date.

Bob Hodanbosi added that the subgroup will meet at 3:00 p.m. on February 29, and may also
meet the following morning if necessary.  The Policy Decision Group meeting will begin at
10:30 a.m. on Friday, March 1.

Susan Wierman suggested that a meeting be scheduled on Friday, March 1, prior to the Policy
Decision Group meeting, for anyone interested in participating in the newly formed Strategy
Development Mini-Workgroup.

Closing Remarks
Ms. Zaw-Mon reminded members that the February 29 Implementation Strategies and Issues
Workgroup meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and thanked them for participating in the
conference call. 

Members of the Criteria Ratings Mini-Workgroup remained on the line to discuss the initial
rating process.  The call concluded at approximately 3:45 p.m. (EST).