Draft Summary

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

March 19, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

A Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group conference call was held on March 19, 1997 to discuss the Monitoring Plans issue paper, Control Strategies issue paper, and the status of the Reasonable Further Progress issue paper.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees

Jerry Golden, Co-chair, David Baron, Vincent Brisini, Richard Chastain, John Crouch, Rich Halvey, Walter Goldburg for William Luneberg, Matt Will for Dennis Lawler, Barbara Lee, Callie Videtich for Dick Long, Arthur Marin, Brock Nicholson, Steve Pezda, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, and Liz Johnson for Herb Williams.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance

Joe Paisie, Co-chair, Gregory Dana, Richard Dworek, Jeff Gabriel, Steve Gerritson, Robert Kappelmann, Arthur Lee, Bob Palzer, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Richard Schoeneberg, and Mel Zeldin.

Others in Attendance

Rebecca Battye and Wendy Vit, EC/R Incorporated (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract support)

III.	ACTION ITEMS

Incorporate ideas from this conference call into the Control Strategies issue paper.

Brock and Jerry will talk to Nash Gerald and Lee Byrd about the status of the Monitoring Plans issue paper.

The next BP&P work group conference call is scheduled for April 2, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30 EST. The call in number is (202) 260-8330 access code 2127#.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Monitoring Plans Issue Paper

Brock Nicholson and Rich Halvey had a conference call on March 13, 1997 with Lee Ann Byrd and Nash Gerald (of EPA) to discuss the need for a separate paper on Monitoring Plans. They assumed that the scope of the paper would be technical and the policy issues would continue to be discussed in the Monitoring Incentives ad hoc group.

Brock Nicholson pointed out that whenever an issue was raised it was said that the issue was being addressed by the ad hoc group. For example, timing. Flexibility for enhanced monitoring is a technical issue with a policy component.

Rich Halvey clarified that the original charge of the Monitoring Incentives ad hoc group recognized the need for additional monitors without focusing on where they were located. Network design is outside the purview of the Monitoring Incentives ad hoc group. Is the Subcommittee interested in having the ad hoc group look at network design or, should the Science and Technical Support (STS) or the BPAP work group address this issue? Jerry Golden asked if the group wanted to address how to ensure that the network design confirms transport and modeling results?

Jerry Golden added the issue of schedule. The current State implementation plans (SIPs) are very brief and general stating the states will do what they need to do. Is this sufficient?

Rich Halvey stated that the membership of the ad hoc group may need to be reviewed if the charge becomes more technical. Technical issues may need to go to the STS work group.

Jerry Golden suggested EPA should review the background section of the paper and determine whether something is not being covered by the ad hoc group. David Baron asked for clarification. Is Jerry asking for approval of the approach? Jerry asked if there are outstanding issues that justify a Monitoring Plans issue paper.

David Baron is concerned with the current approach of the Monitoring Incentives ad hoc group: the current system should be retained with additional rewards, for example more time to attain, for those who site additional monitors. He disagrees with averaging-in additional data. He supports the need for monitoring plans and requirements for additional monitors. He does not support rewards for actions that should be done anyway. The ad hoc group should look at network design and Part 58 (of the Code of Federal Regulations on ambient monitoring) issues.

Rich Halvey will work with the ad hoc group to develop a list of the issues they are covering. Jerry asked the group to consider mandatory monitoring and incentives, and e-mail any ideas to Jerry and Sharon Reinders.

Control Strategies

Jean Vernet provided an update on the Control Strategies discussions. Sharon Reinders forwarded all of the materials developed by Control Strategies subgroup to the BPAP work group.

On March 14, 1997 the Control Strategies subgroup met in Durham, North Carolina. Jean and Richard Chastain were the only BPAP members in attendance. There was very little modification to the mission statement, the definitions, or the key questions. She asked for comments. She announced that BPAP members are free to call into the Control Strategies conference calls. The calls are Wednesday afternoon from 1:00 - 2:00, Pacific Time. The agenda for the next two meetings is working on a paper that will be sufficient to post for the April Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) subcommittee meeting.

Vince Brisini asked if they were envisioning recommending national and mandatory measures or are they thinking more broadly. Jean responded that they are working on measures that EPA would consider. Richard Chastain said based on history he thinks it is unlikely the group could reach consensus on specific measures. The subgroup could develop a process.

Steve Pezda asked that information on cost, feasibility, and air quality benefits be added to the list of criteria used for assessing measures.

There was a request to add a question about legal authority. Is the paper focusing on additional requirements or what is already 'on the books' in Titles I, II and IV (of the Clean Air Act)?

Chastain asked that the term "attempt" be put in front of national and mandatory measures in the mission statement.

David Baron asked that the discussion of discretionary measures be kept broad enough to encompass current strategies. Some measures should be required everywhere, and others should be applied presumptively. The states can rebut the need for the latter. We should not foreclose the idea that EPA can mandate some measures without a rulemaking process. It is premature to assume which measures will require a rulemaking process.

Brock Nicholson said the mission statement should clarify that EPA has an obligation to promulgate national measures.

The discussion moved to the definitions. Measures for super-regional areas, like the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), are mandatory measures. The status is not restricted to attainment versus nonattainment areas. When asked why "measures" was changed to "requirements" the response was the choice of measures is up to the state but attaining the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs) is not.

Vince Brisini asked where the Regional Implementation Plan (RIP) based requirements fit. They are neither mandatory nor discretionary. Arthur Marin clarified that the definition of mandatory is a federal requirement on a regional basis. Steve Pezda added that a mandatory measure is not applied based on air quality status.

The group discussed the meaning of the term "air quality status." Jean Vernet's interpretation is measures that shouldn't be required everywhere but should be required in certain areas (for example the first ring of the control region). David Baron agreed there was nothing to preclude this type of approach. Jean suggested they define the term "air quality status." Eric Skelton offered the clarification that it is federally required but applied on a control region or subregional area.

It was suggested that the current wording implies throughout the whole control region. The classifications paper may need to be revisited after the control strategies.

Vince supported using the term "federally." Steve Pezda asked that the achievability issue be acknowledged.

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

Because Richard Phelps was not on the call, Nancy Mayer of EPA provided a status report on that issue paper. The current flow chart will be split into two pieces. The goal is still to develop a process that is robust enough to support customized RFP. The next conference call is Tuesday from 11:00 - 12:30 Eastern Time, and subgroup expects to discuss both the metric and the rate.

The issue of progress before submittal of the SIPs (pre-SIP RFP) has been separated from post-SIP RFP due to time constraints. EPA is currently summarizing the results of the March 13, 1997 brainstorming session that was held in Durham, North Carolina. Another group, probably the environmental caucus, will then take charge of this issue paper. Comments will need to be submitted quickly. Jerry Golden asked if the environmental caucus would have the same charge in terms of presenting all points of view. Sharon Reinders responded they would; the FACA lead for the RFP paper asked for help with these issues. The working definition of the pre-SIP issue is progress in areas where the interim implementation policy (IIP) would not apply. The IIP currently applies to nonattainment areas under the current NAAQS that are in violation of the new/revised NAAQS.