Final Summary

March 6, 1996 Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

I.	PURPOSE

A conference call was held on March 6, 1996 to discuss the staff draft of the Interim Implementation Transition Policy.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work group:

Jerry Golden-Chair, Vincent Brisini, Glen Cass, John Crouch, Gregory Dana, Richard Dworek, Dennis Lawler, Brock Nicholson, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, and Herb Williams

EPA members and staff:

Joe Paisie-Chair, Sharon Reinders-Team Lead, Ellen Baldridge, Tom Braverman, Lee Ann Byrd, Rich Damberg, Denise Gerth, Bill Hamilton, Mark Kataoka, Callie Videtich for Dick Long, Miki Wayland, Mark Wolcott, Ken Woodard,

Others:

Deidre Farrell for Allen Krupnick

Rebecca Battye, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor support)

Work group members not in attendance:

David Baron, Jeff Gabriel, Steve Gerritson, Richard Halvey, Arthur Lee, Don Pickrell, Jim Ralston, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Conrad Schneider, and Mel Zeldin

III.	ACTION ITEMS

1) A face-to-face meeting has been scheduled for 7:00 p.m. EST the evening of March 20, 1996 at the Mark Radisson Hotel in Alexandria, Virginia. Teleconferencing will be available and the phone number will be distributed with the agenda.

2) Members are urged to return their completed questionnaires as soon as possible so the results may be compiled and distributed at the March 20, 1996 meeting.

3) Volunteers are sought for at least two remaining orphan issues. The two issues are: Integration of NAAQS Implementation Programs and What should be done if no data exist to support designations?

4) Corrections to the summary of the February 21, 1996 call distributed with the agenda for this call are also requested. If there are no corrections, the summary will be adopted as final at the March 20, 1996 meeting.

5) Any written comments on the draft Interim Implementation Transition Policy that can be submitted quickly should be submitted. There will be additional opportunity to comment on the policy when it is officially proposed.

6) The next teleconference call is April 3, 1996 from 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. EST. The conference call in number is (202) 260-7280 access code 3818#.

IV. MEETING SUMMARY

Information Update

Old Business

The meeting in Virginia on the evening of the 20th will have teleconferencing capabilities although the phone number had not been determined as this call.

There are still some outstanding questionnaires. Please return them quickly. The results are being compiled for distribution for the March 20, 1996 meeting.

No corrections were received on the summary of the February 7, 1996 conference call; therefore, the version distributed is the final version.

Comments from the prioritized issues list are still being compiled. A revised list may be available for distribution on the 20th.

Volunteers are still being sought to adopt issues and draft issue papers. There are currently two orphan issues from the February 14, 1996 revised preliminary prioritized issues list: Integration of NAAQS Implementation Programs and What should be done if no data exist to support designations?

Regarding the group's mission statement, Joe Paisie would like to change the third sentence of the mission statement from: "To develop transition policies which facilitate moving from the existing to new programs" to "To develop recommendations which facilitate ...". Additionally, he recommended that member's comments to add language effectively resolving the group's issues is more appropriately addressed in the forum of the group's discussion of the issues rather than in the mission statement. No comments followed from the members.

New Business

Discussion of the Draft Preliminary Interim Implementation Policy

Joe Paisie introduced the discussion by stating there could be a period of up to six years between the promulgation of revised standards and full implementation. As a result, a transition implementation policy is needed to fill the gap, i.e., to inform states how to act during the transition period. An staff draft Interim Implementation Transition Policy principles and potentially affected current programs was distributed March 1, 1996 as attachment 3 to the agenda for this call. It is EPA's expectation to propose the transition policy at the same time as the ozone NAAQS proposal. It is hoped that the subcommittee can be engaged in a discussion of the transition implementation policy on March 21st. Joe asked for comments from the members.

Steve Pezda asked whether the words "with due consideration to costs and benefits" should be added to statement 1a. He questioned whether it was contradictory under item 1b to continue the current programs and requirements when there is a change in the standard. Joe Paisie responded that this language was intended primarily to address a potential situation where the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS would change and the PM-10 annual NAAQS remains. Jerry Golden said that would work for PM-10 but asked what would happen in ozone if there is a new 8-hour NAAQS; would this statement continue the requirements of the 1-hour NAAQS? Joe Paisie responded that item 1d allows for case-by-case exceptions to the requirements.

Herb Williams asked if item 1b intends for current and future planned controls to be continued. He noted that currently planned future controls may not be needed under the future standards.

Steve Pezda requested that statement 1c be clarified as there is currently not a 3% reduction requirement for NOx. He noted that the statements under 1c appear as mandates whereas the statements under 1d provide flexibility. He requested clarification on what is meant by case-by-case substitutions. His concern is that different states could end up with different automobile standards.

The third statement of 1c on the use of the coarse/fine mix of PM in case-by-case determinations brought the following discussion.

When asked about the purpose of 1c, Joe Paisie said that when the current PM-10 NAAQS replaced the previous TSP NAAQS, implementation of the TSP standards ground to a halt. The principles of the interim implementation transition policy provide a means to prevent backsliding.

Eric Skelton thought the PM-10 NAAQS would be replaced with a PM-fine NAAQS. In that case, he would not want to proceed with controls until monitors are in place to verify that the controls are needed under the new NAAQS.

There was discussion on the potential inequity of areas with early PM-fine monitoring data being required to implement controls versus those areas with no PM-fine data.

Joe Paisie asked if the third bullet of item 1c created a disincentive for collecting data. Glen Cass pointed out that in L.A. the lawyers pushed the adoption of controls into the slowest legally acceptable time frame.

Eric Skelton said that to be proactive, the collection of data could lead to early reductions, simplifying the SIP requirements, or avoiding the nonattainment designation.

Dick Dworek agreed that the case-by-case nonattainment status based on the coarse/fine mix is a big issue. He interpreted the case-by-case principle as two air samples that are collected side-by-side with one showing compliance and one showing a violation. He questioned whether the nonattainment status for this situation would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Joe Paisie asked what would be an effective communication strategy during the 6-year transition. One member suggested that the current programs be continued with additional voluntary measures. Eric Skelton suggested that the 6 years could be used to analyze the data and conduct the necessary research on secondary pollutants and transport.

Glen Cass discussed the regional nature of the programs being addressed. He stated that all of the alternatives to the NAAQS under EPA consideration will broaden the geographic size of the study areas. Regional haze could impact one quarter of the country. Fine particle is a transport issue and a longer averaging time for the ozone NAAQS will effectively enlarge the boundaries of controls needed downwind. Regional control strategy plans that overlay many states in the east will be needed. Joe Paisie asked if this discussion should be added to the policy. Glen Cass said the closest policy that addresses the regional aspect of these programs is in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.

Vince Brisini stated that he thought the purpose of the strategy was to try and allow a variety of controls under many programs. He did not see the objective as crafting a broad reaching plan. He said that the modeling used to describe transport has many uncertainties and asked what effect current federally enforceable programs that are or would be coming would accomplish. Are separate ozone, regional haze and fine particle programs/NAAQS necessary or can there be one program?

Glen Cass asked who would do the analysis of the local versus national control programs and how would this concept be built into a regulatory program. Joe Paisie responded that the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) process is currently addressing this issue.

Jerry Golden stated that the ton for ton substitutions in item 1d would not necessarily provide the same air quality benefit. Joe Paisie asked how much analysis of substitutions is needed. Glen Cass said the National Academy on Regional Haze developed a model for analyzing these types of questions and that a suitable model does not have to be a photochemical model but could be a simplified process. A framework is needed for evaluating these types of issues (the effects of substitutions) and from which local action could be taken.

Joe Paisie asked if this much technical discussion and analysis is warranted on the transition policy or should a broad approach be taken in the interim policy where a ton for a ton is okay. Glen Cass does not want to discuss the development of the ultimate strategy but would rather develop the framework for the development of a strategy. He suggested that the interim policy should be designed to lay the framework for such regional solutions. Vince Brisini said the starting point has not been defined and, therefore, how could we take the existing programs and craft a directionally correct place-holding strategy?

Steve Pezda asked to take a few steps back and look at the cost and benefits of an interim policy. He would like a risk assessment of all actions in the interim implementation plan. Vince Brisini asked for clarification on whether Steve is advocating a risk assessment or a cost benefit analysis. Also, he asked whether Steve Pezda is advocating doing a risk assessment before doing the measures that are already on the books, or just new measures that would come out of the transition policy? Steve Pezda responded probably both and that all programs should be analyzed.

Jerry Golden said an analysis should be conducted to ensure that the control measures are still valid under the new standard.

Bob Palzer emphasized that no backsliding should occur during the 6-year transition period and agrees it would be good to look at the regional aspect of the problem. He said that the exceptions under 1d should not be allowed because the impacts may not be equivalent. Therefore, the language should be tightened.

Dennis Lawler said the most important component of the transition policy should no backsliding. Justification should be required before there is a change from the existing program. Glen Cass said the transition policy should do more that maintain momentum; it should establish the machinery for developing regional policies.

Joe Paisie asked for the members' definition of backsliding. Bob Palzer defined it to be losing anything from existing SIP's, because those measures have some justification. Steve Pezda said there was nothing wrong with reviewing what is in place and that substitutions do not necessarily mean backsliding. Vince Brisini said that backsliding is where things that were supposed to happen, didn't happen.

Dennis Lawler suggested that the burden to demonstrate that there is no backsliding should be on the party suggesting the change. Joe Paisie asked for suggestions on how the justification would be conducted.

Joe Paisie thanked the group for the discussion and reminded the group that the policy would be proposed with additional opportunity for the public to comment. He also said that written comments would be accepted now if they were submitted quickly. He encouraged the members writing up issues to include these perspectives in their writeups.

Attachment from Herb Williams Received March 11, 1996

Comments on the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Workgroup's

Proposed Interim Implementation Transition Policy

We (I) have several concerns with various aspects of the proposed Interim Implementation Transition Policy which I would like to bring to your attention. However, before I begin specific discussions of the issues, I feel I need to express my concern that in the effort to move forward with the Workgroup process in a timely manner, the EPA staff supporting the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Workgroup staff appear to have adopted a policy of bringing issues to the workgroup with little or no forewarning and then pushing to move forward without adequate opportunity for thoughtful consideration and input by the Workgroup members. All of the issues identified in the proposed Interim Implementation Transition Policy and probably many more are of great concern to the those of us involved in developing recommendations for implementation of any new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and even more so to many of the regulated community and the public who we serve. We (I) believe that all issues should have opportunity for adequate discussion by the Workgroup members before any action is taken on them and that the staff developing the issues for the Workgroup's consideration should do so with this in mind and should only present issues in a manner so as to encourage rather than discourage this type of open discussion.

We are (I am) forwarding these comments with the hope that they will be considered and discussed prior to a final decision being reached on any aspect of the proposed policy.

We (I) have a number of concerns with issues identified in the proposed Interim Implementation Transition Policy. Some of the more important of those concerns are as follows:

1.a.	We (I) support the inclusion of consideration of costs versus benefits, to the extent possible, in development of the interim policy. While cost/benefit considerations are not a factor in setting the NAAQS, they should be in development of policies to implement the NAAQS.

1.b.	While protection of the environment by not allowing backsliding in the interim is a wise approach, it is just as unwise to use a blanket requirement that all existing programs, attainment dates, and current NAAQS requirements remain intact especially since some of those requirements may be of limited benefit or may even be a disbenefit to the achievement of any new NAAQS. The policy should allow flexibility in the continuing requirements so that states could eliminate or modify programs that are not contributing significantly to progress toward attainment.

1.c.	We (I) also support the need to provide for a continuing rate of progress in reducing emissions but only to the extent that those reductions are demonstrated to show reductions in ambient levels of the pollutant. A flat requirement for certain annual percentages of emissions reductions without a demonstration of a reasonably corresponding level of ambient level reductions may not be the best national policy. For example from an ozone perspective, we (I) have demonstrated that blindly requiring a 3% per year reduction in VOC and /or NOx can cost a tremendous amount of money for the local economy with very little benefit in ozone reduction. There is a growing realization that the entire approach to addressing these air quality issues needs to be re-thought both from an integrated as well as a regional perspective. We (I) would support continuing the implementation of any programs already implemented, but would suggest that further development or implementation of additional strategies not be required unless their benefit to air quality is demonstrated.

1.d.	The suggested "case-by-case" flexibility seems to be a reasonable approach, especially with regard to those requirements that have little, if any, proven benefit in progress toward achievement of the NAAQS. However, we (I) believe this flexibility should be extended (to) many other issues and requirements including, but not limited to, attainment demonstration requirements, attainment dates, classifications, etc.

We (I) believe that everyone of the issues identified in the proposed Interim Implementation Transition Policy and many others need to be thoroughly reviewed and discussed before final recommendations are made. The idea for Workgroup members to develop issue papers and then the whole Workgroup discuss and develop recommendations on those issues seems to be a reasonable approach which we (I) support.

We (I) also believe that the proposed Objectives of the Interim Implementation Transition Policy need to be subject to the same level of review and discussion as the issues discussed above. While we (I am) are not including comments on individual components of the proposed Objectives in order to timely submit our other comments above, we (I) suggest that the Workgroup refrain from adopting any such objectives until after opportunity for thorough review and discussion.