Draft Summary

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Meeting

Falls Church, VA

April 7, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

In conjunction with the April 8 and 9, 1997 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) subcommittee meeting in Falls Church, Virginia, joint working sessions were held with the National and Regional Strategies (NRS) and Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group meeting was held on April 7, 1997. The meeting included several joint and individual work group sessions. Issue paper presentations to be delivered at the FACA subcommittee meeting were reviewed in the joint morning session. In the afternoon sessions, the Integrated Implementation, Control Strategies, Transportation Conformity, Area and Mobile Source Incentives issue papers were discussed.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

BPAP Work Group

Attendees

Jerry Golden, Co-chair, Joe Paisie, Co-chair, David Baron, Vincent Brisini, Richard Chastain, John Crouch, Gregory Dana, Richard Dworek, Steve Gerritson, Rich Halvey, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Barbara Lee (via phone), William Luneburg, Arthur Marin, Bob Palzer, Jim Ralston, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Richard Schoeneberg, Jean Vernet, Herb Williams, and Mel Zeldin.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance

Jeff Gabriel, Robert Kappelmann, Brock Nicholson, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, and Eric Skelton.

NRS Work Group

Attendees

David Mobley, Co-chair, Don Theiler, Co-chair, Mark Brownstein, Nina Dougherty, Cliff Doumas, Larry Feldcamp, Jon Heuss, Dewayne Huckabay, David Hyder, Dan Johnson, Donna Lamb, Amy Lilly, John McManus, Sarah Peirce-Sandner, Ted Russell, and Regina Spindler for David Howekamp.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance

Andrew Aitken, Joe Belanger, Tim Byrd, Joe Francis, Mike Frost, Jason Grumet, Stan Hathcock, John Leary, Marvin Lowry, David Marshall, Timothy Method, William Miller, Terry Rowles, Lydia Salmon, Christine Shaver, Jerry Steffy, and Thomas Wright.

Attendees from Science and Technical Support (STS) Work Group

Diana Andrews, John Cabaniss, Kirit Chaudhari, David Chock, Cyril Durrenberger, Bruce Hill, Jay Hudson, Harvey Jeffries, David Kelly, David McNeill, Tom Moore, Dan Weiss, Jeffrey West, and Steve Zieman.

Other Attendees

Julie Becker, John Dege, Tom Eagles, Norm Fichthorn, Carey Fitzmaurice, Stephen Fotis, John Hall, Dennis Isaacs, Robert Judge, Carter Keithley, Cindy Langworthy, George Lauer, Bob Lopez, C.V. Mathai, Nancy Mayer, Ned Meyer, Clayton Miller, Dee North, Sharon Reinders, Rosalina Rodriguez, Tom Rosendahl, Rob Rosenwinkel, Charla Rudisill, David Sanders, Susan Stark, John Silvasi, Robert Tannis, Bob Wayland, and Mark Wolcott.

Deborah Amaral, Bill Battye, Rebecca Battye, Catherine Deininger, Brian Morton, Wendy Vit, and Steve Walata, EC/R Incorporated, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract support)

III.	ACTION ITEMS

Comments from the joint morning discussion will be incorporated into the presentations.

A joint work group face-to-face meeting will be held on May 15 and 16, 1997 in Durham, North Carolina.

The General Mobile Measures subgroup is working to frame issues and options by the June 10 and 11, 1997 FACA subcommittee meeting.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Joint Work Group Session (10:00 - 12:00)

Issue Paper Relationships

Mr. Paisie presented a diagram that illustrates relationships among the issue papers being developed by the work groups. On the diagram, the issue papers are represented by boxes, and a linkage between two issue papers is indicated with an arrow leading from one box to another. The diagram shows the control regions and control strategies papers as central to all of the other papers.

Mr. Schoeneberg thought Transportation Conformity should be a Control Strategies issue since the paper focuses on control strategies. The diagram will be revised so that Transportation Conformity feeds into both Control Regions and Control Strategies.

Mr. Heuss felt that Integrated Implementation should also feed into both Control Strategies and Control Regions. Integrated implementation could refer to integrated timelines, control strategies, or to areas with multiple-pollutant problems. The diagram will be revised so that Integrated Implementation feeds into both Control Regions and Control Strategies.

Opportunity Matrix

Mr. Mobley reviewed the presentation of the Opportunity Matrix (matrix) (March 31, 1997 draft). He explained that a document explaining the assumptions and data sources accompanies the matrix. Data sources include the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), EPA Office of Mobile Sources (OMS), and several states. If California measures are in the STAPPA/ALAPCO reports, they are included in the matrix.

Several members asked why the matrix does not include actual cost-effectiveness numbers. Mr. Mobley explained that the Phase II (of the FACA subcommittee process) Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) will include costs. The debate over the numbers should occur within the RIA process. For this work group, the matrix will be used to identify opportunities for integration and to support the development of the Control Strategies issue paper.

Mr. Paisie said States essentially evaluate the information in the matrix when they develop their State implementation plans (SIPs). The RIA is the up front 'big picture' of what will be done, and States make decisions based on information in the RIA. Mr. Feldcamp added that developing guidance to assist States to prepare their own matrices would be appropriate but that no more time should be spent analyzing costs in this matrix. Costs are highly region-specific.

Mr. Chastain was confused because the left side of the table, which includes source category emission from the 1990 National Inventory, does not correspond with the right side, which lists qualitative efficiencies of specific control measures. In addition, he requested that a disclaimer specifying that the sources listed in the matrix may or may not contribute to nonattainment areas be added. The table simply lists total emissions without any geographical reference.

Mr. Durrenberger suggested noting the practicality or ease of implementation in the matrix. Inspection and maintenance (I/M), for instance, is always at the top of control strategy lists, but it is not easy to implement.

Mr. Dana asked if the matrix lists existing or planned control measures. Mr. Brisini wanted the matrix to show the effects of measures that have already been implemented. The matrix is currently based on the 1990 inventory and many measures have been put in place. The change in the baseline should be reflected because it affects the opportunity for control.

Ms. Peirce-Sandner questioned the logic behind the shading, which indicates that a strategy provides multiple pollutant benefits. She wondered why fuel switching from coal to natural gas was not shaded.

Mr. Lauer commented that the Title V program (of the Clean Air Act (CAA)) has collected a wealth of data on both proposed and actual emissions. Mr. Mobley said unfortunately the Title V data have not been compiled into any one spot.

Mr. Jeffries was concerned about the purpose of the matrix. Simply indicating that a control measure reduces a particular pollutant does not say anything about ambient ozone or fine particulate matter (PM-fine) levels.

Work group members were requested to submit written comments with supporting documentation to Bob Lopez within 30 days.

Pre-SIP RFP

Ms. Dougherty reviewed the presentation of the pre-SIP Reasonable Further Progress paper (March 28, 1997 draft).

Mr. Johnson suggested explaining the CAA sections listed as options for pre-SIP RFP authority. Mr. Brisini was troubled by the authority options because they essentially call for finding a SIP deficient.

Mr. Durrenberger said issue 3 (what constitutes pre-SIP RFP) should have an option which recognizes areas that have taken early, proactive steps, such as implementing ozone action days. It is important that the early reductions are effective. Mr. Dworek wanted speciation and additional monitoring listed as an option for issue 3.

Mr. Johnson asked why New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) was an option for pre-SIP RFP. Ms. Dougherty explained that NSR/PSD would help prevent emissions growth during the interim period.

Mr. Huckabay said the presentation should explain the need for pre-SIP RFP. Mr. McManus did not see the need for pre-SIP RFP. The many programs already on the books should result in sufficient progress.

Mr. Marin said there should be some relationship between the baseline and pre-SIP RFP requirements.

Mr. Heuss said regional haze has its own reasonable progress requirements. This distinction should be made in issue 5 (should PM, regional haze, and ozone be treated the same or differently).

Mr. Brisini said the most important question is: Should there be requirements for pre-SIP RFP?" If RFP is tied to nonattainment areas, implementing a pre-SIP RFP requirement nationwide could be problematic. National measures are one option. He disagreed with extending the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) to additional areas.

Several members were confused about the relationship between this paper and the IIP.

In response to several comments regarding confusion about the RFP terminology, the title of the presentation will be changed to Progress During SIP Development.

RFP

Ms. Peirce-Sandner walked the joint work groups through the SIP-phase RFP presentation prepared for the FACA subcommittee. She emphasized that this was a status report of the subgroup's progress since the last Subcommittee meeting. The subgroup is still working on the issues and has not yet reached consensus. In addition, the subgroup has asked the STS work group to answer three questions regarding the determination of air quality trends, air quality RFP metrics, and techniques to 'filter out' meteorological or emissions anomalies.

The subgroup has concentrated on the first issue of whether RFP should be standardized, customized, or a hybrid of both. The process currently in place for ozone nonattainment areas is the model for a standardized RFP process. The subgroup is developing an iterative RFP model in order to assess whether the process is robust enough to support a customized RFP.

Two customized RFP process flow diagrams were presented. The first mapped out RFP development in the initial SIP planning process. The second diagram proposed an iterative process by which progress toward the standard is measured by an air quality metric and an emission reduction metric. Success and/or failure of each metric leads to a series of next steps e.g., continue implementing planned measures, re-analyze for mid-course corrections, etc.

An alternative RFP process for areas where attainment by the attainment date appears unlikely is being considered. A sub-subgroup may be formed to address this issue.

Mr. Brisini indicated that the "key characteristics" are important elements of a customized RFP process. An air quality metric will be important for enforcement and other actions, such as additional control measures, bump ups, etc. EPA should treat areas differently depending on whether the area tried and failed versus failed to try.

Mr. Brisini pointed out the disagreement between the BPAP and the NRS work groups. BPAP assumes that the final area of influence (AOI) will develop the regional implementation plan (RIP), while NRS feels the preliminary AOI should develop the RIP. Why should the preliminary AOI determine the emission reduction strategy for the control region/final AOI?

Mr. Baron strongly opposed developing a separate process for areas unlikely to attain the new/revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs). Many areas would try to get into this category. The work groups should not set up a process for failure. He also objected to a customized process. Emission reductions could be delayed to the point that attaining the NAAQS by the attainment date is impossible.

Mr. Baron commented that the process diagram implies that determining the cause of failure is a prerequisite for triggering contingency measures. This extra analysis step could result in delay. If an emission reduction milestone is not met, corrective measures should be implemented immediately.

Control Strategies

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Vernet reviewed the Control Strategies presentation based on the March 31, 1997 draft of the paper.

Mr. Lee asked whether there was consensus on the second part of the Mission Statement, which states that the issue paper will "attempt to produce lists of suggested national... and prescribed measures." Mr. Johnson indicated that there had been consensus after the words "attempt to" had been added. Mr. Heuss stated that the subgroup is not doing any detailed analysis of control strategies, and this FACA is not the place to be producing lists of national measures. Mr. Gerritson indicated that not much analysis is needed to determine that some strategies would be best implemented as national measures, such as the reformulation of consumer products. Mr. Brisini also stated that it would be productive to lay out things that would be best implemented as national measures. Mr. Baron and Mr. Palzer agreed with Mr. Gerritson and Mr. Brisini.

Mr. Zieman suggested looking beyond $/ton in considering cost-effectiveness. For instance, he suggested that analysis of consumer product reformulation take into account reactivity of emissions.

Mr. Dworek pointed out the importance of fugitive emissions (agricultural, roads, open burning, etc.) in the control strategies matrix. He indicated that PM-fine in some metropolitan areas may not be amenable to national measures, and local measures will probably be needed, particularly for fugitive emissions.

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group (1:00 - 1:45)

Mr. Golden presented a thought piece on a potential method for alleviating the conflict between members who feel that a detailed AOI analysis is needed in order to implement control strategies and members concerned about the time that would be lost during this analysis. He presented a mechanism that might invoke various prescribed/mandatory measures using a classification system based on a distinction between geographic areas where transport is critical and areas where the problem is predominantly a local one.

Mr. Marin indicated that this classification system is OK for one pollutant but may not work for multiple pollutants. Mr. Golden stated that integration of pollutant strategies may not always be needed at the local level or could be done at the implementation step of the flow chart.

Mr. Halvey suggested adding a decision block that would allow an area to avoid doing a SIP if the national measures are enough to provide for attainment. Mr. Gerritson stated that this change would have to recognize that modeling would still be required.

Mr. Gerritson asked whether current nonattainment areas would be used in the classification system. Mr. Golden said that this was what he expected. Mr. Gerritson asked what would happen where the control area is being redefined from the current nonattainment area and indicated that the proposed mechanism may work to perpetuate the existing system.

Mr. Schoeneberg pointed out that there is still a need for national measures, giving the example of out-of-state vehicle pollution at Arcadia National Park. Mr. Golden indicated he expected that national measures would be superimposed over the entire classification process, working independently.

Mr. Salvaggio pointed to a problem that the proposed mechanism relies on prescribed measures, which many members object to. Mr. Brisini suggested that this problem could be addressed by substituting "mandatory reductions" for "mandatory measures."

Mr. Chastain asked about the situation where transport was intrastate. Mr. Golden indicated that although he had not thought this through completely, he thought that transport in the same jurisdiction would not require a RIP.

Mr. Zeldin pointed out that the mechanism does not fully deal with areas that are sources of transport.

Mr. Brisini asked who would do the RIP, and when would the RIP be developed. Mr. Golden indicated that will have to be worked out.

Mr. Baron asked for clarification on when the measures kick in. Mr. Golden indicated that they would kick in before the SIP. The purpose is to shortcut a long-term planning process.

Mr. Baron disagreed with earlier criticism of mandatory measures by Mr. Salvaggio. He emphasized the effectiveness of mandatory measures, especially because they give political officials the cover they need to implement State-level rules. Mr. Palzer agreed with this point, and pointed out the need for tracking in Mr. Golden's mechanism. Mr. Golden indicated that this would happen in the SIPs.

Ms. Vernet stated that some nationally prescribed measures will require State regulatory action. Mr. Golden indicated that he is trying to steer clear of the legal authority issue at this stage.

Mr. Williams asked whether this mechanism is aimed at current nonattainment areas, nonattainment areas under the new standards, or both. Mr. Golden indicated that his intention was to address all areas that violate the new standards.

Returning to the "mandatory measures" issue, Mr. Salvaggio suggested possibly using mandatory reductions for a set period of time, then going to mandatory measures in cases where the reductions are not achieved.

In closing, Mr. Paisie indicated that he thought the general response seemed to indicate that Mr. Golden's mechanism was a reasonable construct to move forward discussion. There was no objection.

Joint Work Group Session (1:45 - 2:45)

Ms. Vernet briefly reviewed the BPAP discussion of Mr. Golden's pre-SIP mechanism. Mr. Johnson then moved forward to discuss the procedure for writing the issue paper, emphasizing that the time period allotted is only about four months. He reiterated ground rules that have been used to date, that he would like to continue to have a free discussion where anyone can participate, even outside the subgroup. However, if someone begins to dominate discussion, the process will have to go back (cut back) to the core (work) group.

Mr. Johnson proposed using sub-subgroups to address the specific questions for the issue paper, to be formed from volunteers interested in the specific issues. He proposed that one of the volunteers will "ghost author" the issues and options from the smaller discussion group, and that these results will then be brought to the full group. Ms. Vernet asked to what extent EPA would provide contractor support for this process. Mr. Rosendahl indicated that only limited support, such as dissemination of past research, could be provided. At this point, volunteers were taken, on a question-by-question basis.

On question 1, national measures, Mr. Brisini recommended bringing in the control opportunity matrix, and suggested adding Mr. Lopez as a point of contact. Mr. Heuss stated that the group should bear in mind the existing national measures. EPA referred to a list of national measures that had previously been provided to the Groups, and agreed to reissue this list.

After the volunteering process, Mr. Johnson closed by suggesting that the sub-subgroups not split hairs, but develop about 4-5 options for each key question. Mr. Baron was concerned that 4-5 options would not be enough to address some questions. He particularly encouraged looking at a broad array of options for potential national measures.

The following volunteers were identified: (work group affiliation is shown in parentheses)

Question 1

Mel Zeldin, South Coast, CA (BP)

Mark Brownstein, Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (NRS)

Bob Palzer, Sierra Club (BP)

Bruce Craig, NGSA (NRS)

Arthur Lee, Texaco (BP)

Greg Dana, AIAM (BP)

Bob Lopez (liaison for control opportunities matrix), Wisconsin

Question 2

Jon Heuss, General Motors (NRS)

Barbara Lee, N. Sonoma APCD (BP)

John Crouch, Hearth Products Assn. (BP)

Bill Luneburg, GASP (BP)

Dan Johnson, Washington (NRS)

Bob Tannis, Houston

Charla Rudisill, NESCAUM

Marika Tatsutani, NESCAUM

Bob Lopez (liaison for control opportunities matrix), Wisconsin

Questions 3/4

Larry Feldcamp, Baker & Botts (NRS)

Steve Gerritson, LADCO (BP)

Vince Brisini, Pennsylvania Electric (BP)

Question 5

Rich Halvey, WGA (BP)

Greg Schaefer, ARCO (BP)

Arthur Marin, NESCAUM (BP)

John McManus, American Electric Power Co. (NRS)

Bob Lopez (liaison for control opportunities matrix), Wisconsin