Draft Summary

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

April 2, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

A Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group conference call was held on April 2, 1997 to discuss the Maintenance Plans/Contingency Measures, Rewards and Sanctions, Control Strategies, and Control Technology issue papers.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees

Jerry Golden, Co-chair, Joe Paisie, Co-chair, David Baron, John Crouch, Steve Gerritson, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Barbara Lee, Callie Videtich for Dick Long, William Luneburg, Arthur Marin, Brock Nicholson, Bob Palzer, Jim Ralston, Greg Schaefer, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, and Chuck Mueller for Herb Williams.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance

Vincent Brisini, Richard Chastain, Gregory Dana, Richard Dworek, Jeff Gabriel, Rich Halvey, Robert Kappelmann, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Jim Salvaggio, Richard Schoeneberg, and Mel Zeldin.

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

III.	ACTION ITEMS

Post next draft of Maintenance Plans/Contingency Measures issue paper.

Joe Paisie, Jerry Golden, and Steve Gerritson will discuss the future of the Rewards and Sanctions issue paper

The next BPAP work group face-to-face meeting will be held April 7, 1997 in Falls Church, Virginia.

The next Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) subcommittee meeting will be held on April 8 and 9, 1997 in Falls Church, Virginia.

The next BPAP work group conference call is scheduled for April 16, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30 p.m., Eastern Time.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

The current drafts of the Maintenance Plans/Contingency Measures and the Rewards and Sanctions issue papers were included in the materials distributed for the call.

Maintenance Plans/Contingency Measures

Eric Skelton introduced the paper (3/24/97 draft #1) by discussing the changes that have been made since the March 13 and 14, 1997 meeting in Durham, North Carolina. Issues ten through fifteen are new. He anticipates there will be some additional changes to the background. He asked the group if the issues were captured correctly, and if they required elaboration.

The group discussed issue number 12 What can be used as a contingency measure other than emission reductions when an area determines they have controlled all that can be controlled and no additional measures are available? Eric interprets the issue as voluntary measures like transportation measures that aren't enforceable. Joe Paisie identified an overlap with issue number 1 on voluntary measures.

Eric asked the group if an area should be allowed to petition EPA in the event they have gone as far as they can go and still can't attain the standard. Bob Palzer said additional, overlooked sources can be found if the area does a new emission inventory.

Luneburg asked if §123 (of the Clean Air Act (CAA)) prohibits intermittent controls. Joe Paisie said there are exceptions like residential wood combustion and silviculture. Section 123 generally doesn't allow State implementation plan (SIP) credits for intermittent controls. Barbara Lee asked if #12 could include public education and outreach.

Bob Palzer clarified that in Portland, Oregon wood burning only provides a SIP credit if it is a mandatory and not a voluntary program. John Crouch added that a credit is possible for a voluntary program. It is not a robust credit and has not yet been approved by EPA. Callie Videtich added that there is more credit for an enforceable program. The Denver program is quasi-voluntary. Denver did a survey and found compliance was about 85%, and EPA gave some credit for the program.

Jerry Golden asked the group if they should look at ideas that are currently not allowed by the CAA. Luneburg said that if issue number 12 is pursued it may need to get a change in the CAA. Brock Nicholson added that the group should not dismiss the idea of episodic controls and that the discussion under issue 1 of episodic controls for ozone is a little unfair. Episodic controls can be real, quantifiable, enforceable and permanent. William Luneburg recommended that the issue paper state that episodic controls would represent a fundamental change to EPA policy. The "credible evidence" rule requires continuous emission reductions. This would open up a can of worms. Enforcement has always been problematic for intermittent controls.

Brock Nicholson encouraged thinking "outside the box" and said that the issue paper should mention enforcement difficulties with these measures. It was suggested that the exact language of §123 be included without interpretation. Bob Palzer disagreed saying it is a significant issue and past interpretations that do not favor episodic controls should be included.

Arthur Lee encouraged use of more results-oriented controls with the new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs).

Arthur Marin asked that a distinction be made between technology- versus behaviorally-based measures. Steve Gerritson agreed noting that fuel switching is an episodic control that is technology-based and intermittent controls work for carbon monoxide (CO).

David Baron asked how quickly the contingency measures should be implemented in order to bring an area back into attainment. This could be a subset of issue number 10: how much and how fast. Steve Gerritson agreed and noted that for ozone it is appropriate to have a number (like 3%) plus making up the shortfall.

Jerry Golden said one contingency measure might be to expand the area of influence (AOI) to capture more sources. This option should be included under issue 12. Joe Paisie said expansion would be consistent with the notion that the control region is smaller than the preliminary AOI: when you've run out of control measures in the preliminary AOI, you expand the control region. John Crouch observed that allowing such expansion of the control region creates problems. Steve Gerritson said there must be a strong showing that the additional sources are contributing.

Eric Skelton asked the group to fax him comments and he'll incorporate the changes prior to the call on Monday. A draft should be available next week. The paper will be posted in the BPAP area. Eric Skelton assumed the paper will be discussed on the April 16, 1997 conference call.

Rewards and Sanctions

Steve Gerritson led the discussion of the March 21, 1997 (draft #3) version of the issue paper. He reviewed the changes to the document. The issues are the same but the discussion has been expanded. Steve Gerritson is looking for additional ideas.

Bob Palzer asked about quantifying the health benefits and adding the benefit to public recognition. He also asked about the obvious reward of not violating the standard.

David Baron asked how early the planning would have to be in order to get the benefit. Steve suggested one year although he acknowledged it would need to be discussed. Joe Paisie said one year would be consistent with an annual PM standard. Carey Fitzmaurice stated that because the CAA requires attainment as expeditiously as practicable there can be no early planning or attainment.

David Baron asked what would happen if the plan is submitted, EPA finds it incomplete, and by the time it is approved it is due anyway. To be meaningful there can't be late corrections. Greg Schaefer suggested eighteen months. Steve Gerritson supported the addition of "approved." David Baron suggested two years as the criterion for early submittal of a complete approved SIP.

Steve Gerritson asked the group for additional ideas on incentives and said that the current sanctions are so draconian they are not implemented, which results in an eighteen month extension for missing a deadline. Steve Pezda supported Steve Gerritson by stating the punishment should fit the crime.

Dennis Lawler responded that if deadlines are missed it's usually because an organization is stonewalling the State. Arthur Lee asked how a source could be punished for giving public comment. Steve Gerritson advised caution with regard to these political reasons for missing deadlines. His example was the State of Texas and the legislature's refusal to implement an inspection and maintenance program.

Joe Paisie asked the group how sanctions should be implemented given the limited authority provided in the CAA. Steve Gerritson suggested taking State funds but he acknowledged this is still an indirect sanction and will cause pain to the recipient of the funds. He supported early reductions with tax incentives and other financial incentives. The incentives should be real and direct with a minimum requirement or time to qualify. Joe Paisie asked what will happen in the event that everyone qualifies and additional reductions are needed. Also, do national programs always count?

Joe Paisie, Jerry Golden, and Steve Gerritson will discuss the future of the paper.

Control Strategies

Jean Vernet provided an update on the Control Strategies issue paper. The paper has been posted but the presentation for the April 9, 1997 FACA subcommittee meeting is incomplete. The presentation will be reviewed during the April 7, 1997 face-to-face work group meeting. Jean Vernet and Dan Johnson of the National and Regional Strategies work group will present the issue paper to the Subcommittee. They will go over the mission statement. The work groups have spent a lot of time discussing the definitions. They have added two additional definitions for "mandatory reductions."

Jean Vernet spent some time answering a question by Jerry Golden. Each state plan will be evaluated against the goal, be it the NAAQS or regional haze rules. They have added some of the content-related principles to avoid arguments.

Control Technology

The Opportunity Matrix is now the Control Technology paper. Barbara Lee volunteered to be the liaison for this issue paper. Joe Paisie recommended that the members download and read the issue paper.

Upcoming Meetings

The next BPAP meeting is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. on April 7, 1997 in Falls Church, Virginia. Between 1:00 - 1:45 EST, Jerry Golden wants to share a construct he developed. Both the SIP and pre-SIP RFP papers are on the bulletin boards. The RFP presentation is a status report. The process flow diagrams have not been agreed upon by everyone on the work group. There will be a phone link for the meeting.

The next work group conference call is scheduled for April 16, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30 EST.