This is a preliminary summary. It has been placed on the bulletin board for comments and corrections by the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group members. When their review is complete and this summary is in final form, this warning will be removed.

April 16, 1996

Summary

April 3, 1996 Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

I.	OVERVIEW

A conference call was held on April 3, 1996 to discuss draft issue papers on "Designation Criteria and Implementation Approaches for a New NAAQS."

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work group:

Jerry Golden-Chair, David Baron, Vincent Brisini, John Crouch, Richard Dworek, Steve Gerritson, Robert Kappelmann, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, Herb Williams, and Mel Zeldin

EPA members and staff:

Joe Paisie-Chair, Sharon Reinders-Team Lead, Ellen Baldridge, Tom Braverman, Lee Ann Byrd, John Chamberlin, Rich Damberg, Denise Gerth, Bill Hamilton, Tom Pace, David Sanders, Miki Wayland, and Ken Woodard

Others:

Beth Friedman, EC/R, Incorporated (EPA Contractor Support)

Work group members not in attendance:

Glen Cass, Gregory Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Rich Halvey, Brock Nicholson, Don Pickrell, and Conrad Schneider

III.	ACTION ITEMS

1)	The next conference call will be on April 17 from 11:00 am to 12:30 pm, EST. The call-in number is (202) 260-8330, access code is 3943#; 30 lines are reserved.

2)	Each work group member should send Sharon Reinders their name and password so they can be given access to upload the the EPA Bulletin Board for the FACA project.

3)	Issue group members Steve Gerritson, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, and Eric Skelton will take comments on the draft issue papers ("Designation Criteria and Implementation Approaches for New NAAQS") and prepare a consolidated second draft. Work group members should send comments to all four of the issue paper developers.

4)	The EPA will send members a complete list of members and issue paper assignments.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Information Update

1)	Joe Paisie asked for comments on the February 26 and March 6 conference call summaries. None were received, and these summaries are now considered final. The March 20 meeting summary will be made available to the group as soon as it is ready.

2)	The comment period on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) closed on March 31, 1996. The staff is reviewing the comments received. Comments on the Interim Implementation Transition Policy are due by April 15 to Sally Shaver.

3)	The week of May 20 is being considered for the next FACA subcommittee meeting. (This date was later delayed to the week of May 27.) Joe Paisie suggested the Base Programs work group hold a face-to-face meeting in early May to discuss the Interim Policy in preparation for the May meeting of the subcommittee. The work group meeting would be held in RTP, NC, and would last for one to one and a half days. The EPA should be able to pay the travel expenses of the environmental group members. Tentative meeting dates of May 7 and 8 were selected. West Coast work group members asked that future East Coast meetings be scheduled for either the beginning or end of a week to allow them to take advantage of weekend airfares.

The May 20 week FACA subcommittee meeting will also include another Base Programs work group face-to-face meeting. (This meeting was also later pushed back to the week of May 27.)

Communication Issues

Conference Call Access. Joe Paisie said that whenever possible, the number of available lines will increase on future calls. The April 17 call is an exception, which will only have 30 lines available. The May 1 call will have 50 lines, and the May 15 call will have 60 lines. The purpose of the increase is to allow additional outside parties the opportunity to listen in on the calls. The group discussed various protocols to ensure that the work group members are given first priority in obtaining access. The group decided to ask that work group members only call in the early minutes of the call (for example until 11:15 am.) After that point, any remaining lines could be used by members of the public. Mr. Brisini stressed that the only speakers on calls should be work group members. If other listeners have comments, questions, or concerns, they should raise them through the appropriate work group member.

EPA Bulletin Board Access. The group discussed the various options in structuring access to the Base Program's bulletin board site. The options range from complete public access to download and upload all files to restricting access to members of the Base Programs work group only. The group decided that the site should be structured for complete public, "read only" access and that members from all work groups and the subcommittee be given access to download and upload information and comments. Draft materials should be submitted with standard disclaimers, such as "For Discussion Purposes Only--Do Not Cite or Quote." Members suggested that the Bulletin Board contain a list of all work group members and their phone numbers, etc., so that if members of the public want to raise specific issues or have questions, they can contact a member who best represents their constituency.

Issue Paper Discussion: Designation Criteria and Implementation Approaches for New NAAQS

Steve Gerritson, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, and Eric Skelton developed the draft issue paper, which was accompanied by an appendix developed by Dave Park. Because of time limitations, the group had not reached consensus on the content of the papers. The group offered to take comments on the papers and prepare a consolidated second draft.

Attainment Deadline. Steve Gerritson briefly summarized the issue papers. Herb Williams asked if the issue paper group bound themselves to timing considerations in the Clean Air Act. Mr. Gerritson said they tried to work within the Act, but did not consider themselves bound by the letter of the law. Mel Zeldin noted some portions of the Act may be very constrictive, and it is appropriate to look beyond the boundaries of the Act.

Jim Salvaggio said a 10-year attainment deadline would be very difficult for Northeastern cities to meet. The societal changes required to meet the current ozone standards are already very daunting, and meeting a more prescriptive standard will require more time. Joe Paisie suggested looking at the requirement that the Administrator makes an attainment finding at the attainment date. If the finding is that the area failed to attain, the Administrator can require more planning, but there are no defined consequences for a failure to attain. The Act appears to allow the flexibility to revisit deadlines. Nevertheless, one member was concerned about the state's ability to make an attainment demonstration in a defined period, develop an attainment strategy, and avoid sanctions.

Steve Pezda said the 5- and 10-year attainment deadlines are arbitrary. He suggested looking at the risks and costs involved in deciding on a particular attainment deadline. For example, what would be the health risks and costs of a 5-year ozone attainment deadline compared to a 7-year deadline? David Baron said he did not like the idea of automatically allowing some areas 10 years. The amount of time to make determinations for areas affected by transport would be prohibitive. His concern was that an area could wait for years to find out if it qualifies for the 10-year deadline, and the resulting planning efforts would be less than serious. Mr. Baron suggested firm, close deadlines. For example, all areas would be subject to a 5-year deadline, unless the State makes a strong showing of why the area cannot meet the 5-year deadline.

Designation Criteria. Greg Schaefer gave an example where Denver, with only one monitor, showed a PM-fine exceedance and asked how the policy would interpret a designation decision in this case. Steve Gerritson said the first test is whether the network is considered sufficient. The proposed designation criteria would require two years of data from a sufficient network, coupled with modeling. He suggested that the Denver hypothetical example would not meet this case. Mr. Gerritson said it is important to look beyond the monitors to the entire system: meteorology, modeling, observation, etc. All of these factors explain an individual nonattainment situation.

Jim Salvaggio raised the issue of multi-state PM problems. Steve Gerritson said recognizing secondary aerosols is a big step. Then one can identify sources and patterns. David Baron said a designation based on monitoring data coupled with modeling is based on a presumption that the nonattainment area is an urban area. If transport is involved, the state should ask EPA to establish a transport region. Mr. Gerritson agreed the problem should be addressed at the appropriate level.

Dick Dworek liked the idea of a "monitoring SIP" to help define the problem. Steve Pezda and others said the focus should be on using chemical composition and identifying sources. David Baron agreed the focus is good, but it should not be a prerequisite to designations; that there is no time to wait for all of the data. Steve Gerritson said in many cases there is more information available than we think. However, there are also areas where information is deficient, and it is not fair to make designations based on deficient data. Timely action must be balanced against the need for more information.

Joe Paisie raised the issue of a level playing field. Since the Northeast has more data than other areas, should the plan build incentives for the other areas to get comparable information. Steve Gerritson agreed the plan should not penalize the Northeast and other areas for having more data. Several members raised concerns about the relative lack of PM-fine data. Mr. Gerritson reminded them the issue paper proposes a minimum of two years of monitoring data prior to designation. Dave Park said the States could use current data to warn potential problem areas of the need to prepare inventories, etc., to start a process of establishing a level playing field.

Members discussed the effects of transport on local nonattainment problems. For example, a state could get monitors out quickly, obtain two years of data, but determine that transport is a major issue.

The conference call ended at 12:30 pm. The discussion of this issue paper will be continued at the April 17, 1996 teleconference.