Draft Summary

Summary of Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

April 16, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

The Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPA&P) work group held a conference call on April 16, 1997 to discuss the April 14, 1997 draft of the Phase II Implementation Strategy for Maintenance Plans and Contingency Measures paper and Jerry Golden's flow diagram.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees

Jerry Golden, Co-chair, Betsy Bartlett for Jim Ralston, Vince Brisini, John Crouch, Richard Dworek, Rich Halvey, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Barbara Lee, Bill Luneberg, Arthur Marin, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Dick Schoeneberg, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, Callie Videtich for Dick Long, and Mel Zeldin.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance

Joe Paisie, Co-chair, David Baron, Richard Chastain, Greg Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Steve Gerritson, Robert Kappelmann, Brock Nicholson, Richard Phelps, and Herb Williams.

Other Attendees

Rebecca Battye and Wendy Vit, EC/R Incorporated (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA0 contract support)

III.	ACTION ITEMS

1.	Mr. Skelton will revise the Maintenance Plans and Contingency Measures paper based on the discussion from this call.

2.	Mr. Golden will revise his flow diagram based on today's call.

3.	A joint work group face-to-face meeting will be held on May 15 and 16, 1997 in Durham, North Carolina. The white paper and the role of the Coordination Group in determining when consensus is reached, will be added to the agenda.

4.	The next Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group conference call is scheduled for April 30, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30 p.m., Eastern time. The call-in number is 202/260-7280, 9219#.

5.	A special BPAP conference call is scheduled for May 7, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30 p.m., Eastern time. The purpose of the call is to discuss the Control Strategies issue paper. The call-in number is 202/260-8330, 1429#.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

The April 14, 91997 draft of the Phase II Implementation Strategy for Maintenance Plans/Contingency Measures (draft #2) and the 4/8/97 draft of Jerry Goldens flow diagram were faxed to members of the work group prior to the conference call.

April FACA Subcommittee Meeting

EPA is preparing a white paper based on what the EPA has heard so far in the Feceral Advisory Committee Act (FACA) discussions. An overview of the white paper was presented at the April 8 and 9, 1996 FACA Subcommittee meeting.

Mr. Schaefer was troubled that the white paper presentation did not accurately characterize the work group discussions, specifically discussions on New Source Review (NSR). He said perhaps the work groups should simply comment on EPA proposals rather than develop issue papers and strive for consensus. Mr. Brisini was also disturbed about the presentation. He was concerned that the white paper could be misconstrued as a consensus document. The presentation included two cap-and-trade options for NSR, whereas the paper presents four options ranging from traditional to innovative approaches. The presentation also erroneously listed Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) as the technology floor instead of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). He said the work groups should limit their discussions to EPA's one or two preferred options.

Ms. Reinders said John Seitz explained at the meeting that the NSR options were an attempt to fit work group recommendations within the bounds of the Clean Air Act. EPA has heard the concerns of the work group. The white paper is still a work-in-progress, and no plans have been made for distributing it.

Mr. Golden encouraged work group members to submit comments to Sally Shaver or to Subcommittee members. Mr. Schaefer proposed that the BPAP work group develop a position statement on this issue. This will be an agenda item for the May 15 and 16, 1996 face-to-face meeting.

Mr. Brisini was concerned about the role of the Coordination Group in deciding when there was consensus. Mr. Brisini would like to discuss the role of the Coordination Group in determining when consensus has been reached at the May face-to-face meeting.

The Phase I report is being revised to correct some typos.

Maintenance Plans and Contingency Measures

Mr. Skelton reviewed the April 14, 1997 draft of the Phase II Implementation Strategy for Maintenance Plans and Contingency Measures paper. The background section, which focuses on current requirements for ozone under subpart 2, is close to being complete. The issues and options need work.

One significant change from the previous draft was the division of issue 1 into two separate issues -- can contingency measures be episodic? and can contingency measures be voluntary? Mr. Skelton was not completely satisfied with the revision because the wood smoke discussion should be an example of an episodic and not a voluntary control.

Mr. Dworek observed that pros were not listed under issue 1 (can contingency measures be episodic?). His industry has successfully addressed PM-10 problems using episodic controls. He suggested using language similar to that of the pros listed under issue 2 (can contingency measures be voluntary?). The statement about episodic measures being effective over time as public attitudes/awareness changes should be modified, however, because these strategies help to heighten the awareness of employees. Mr. Brisini agreed. These types of controls help change attitudes because people recognize that they are part of the attainment strategy. Mr. Crouch added that mobile and area source episodic controls create awareness by involving the public, as well as the people operating the facilities. These strategies let people know that there is value to altering their lifestyle. They can be an important means of garnering public buy-in to control strategies.

Mr. Golden requested that cost-effectiveness and flexibility be added as pros for episodic controls. He objects to the statement about areas being able to predict ozone concentrations only 48 hours in advance. Areas can influence what is in the atmosphere two days in advance.

Mr. Salvaggio hoped members were not intending to replace base program controls with episodic controls. In order for episodic strategies to work, an area must be reasonably close to the standard. In Pittsburgh, episodic controls are used on will controlled plants where additional controls would be very expensive. Mr. Crouch said the definition of contingency measures implies that a base program will be in place. Episodic controls are intended to supplement the base program controls.

Mr. Palzer does not support episodic controls. With few exceptions, episodic controls are not approvable. Oregon instituted a mandatory wood stove curtailment program. It was not successful because meteorological forecasts were often wrong. After two years of mandatory curtailment, Oregon still violated the standard. Only after additional measures were applied to the industrial sector did Oregon get down to levels where episodic controls were not needed.

Mr. Zeldin commented that episodic controls presume that episodes can be predicted. In order to prevent misses, the trigger threshold must be set lower. Areas relying on episodic controls should be prepared for many false alarms. Enforceability is another issue. How do you get the word out to everyone? Mr. Crouch acknowledged that enforceability is a problem but noted that it may be more of a problem in large metropolitan areas.

Mr. Crouch said in the West episodic controls are part of the core State implementation lplan (SIP). How are episodic controls part of contingency measures? Mr. Golden said episodic controls could fit in either place. The question for this issue paper is -- can episodic controls be used as contingency measures? The Control Strategies issue paper should also address episodic controls.

Mr. Marin suggested clarifying the distinction between behavior- and technology-based episodic controls.

Mr. Salvaggio suggested adding a discussion of transport, which has significant implications for contingency measures and maintenance plans. Much of eastern ozone and PM-10 problems involve inter-state transport issues. The paper must be put into the context of the Area of Influence/Area of Violation (AOI/AOV) construct.

Ms. Lee commented that the discussion has centered on what has been done in the past. Under the new/revised national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), transportation measures will be critically important.

Mr. Lawler disagreed with tying the emissions budget to the transportation conformity process. The conformity process carries a lot of baggage. Mr. Schoeneberg said the important point is to coordinate area and mobile source emissions budgets. Adding a reference to the Transportation Conformity paper would be appropriate.

Ms. Lee asked about issue 12 (should EPA allow credit in the maintenance plan for additional/new reductions that would occur when contingency measures are triggered -- for trading purposes, etc.?). Does this mean the excess reductions would be known ahead of time, or would the excess reductions be unexpected? The first case would be more viable because the emissions could be tracked.

Mr. Brisini asked to schedule a 90 minute call to discuss this paper. Eric Skelton asked for written comments before the call was scheduled.

Flow Diagram

Mr. Golden developed a flow diagram which illustrates how control strategies could be implemented based on the two-tiered approach from the Classifications issue paper. The two-tiered option distinguishes between areas where transport is critical and areas where the problem is predominately local. The diagram was initially presented at the April 7, 1997 joint work group meeting in Falls Church, Virginia and has been revised based on comments from that meeting.

Mr. Golden explained that the diagram is useful for determining where consensus has and has not been reached. Mr. Lee suggested labeling where consensus has been reached.

Mr. Dworek suggested changing "develop monitoring plans" to "develop monitoring plans and emission inventories." The box should be moved in front of "promulgate regulations."

Mr. Salvaggio interpreted "promulgate regulations" as promulgate implementation requirements and not control requirements. He said national measures may not be relevant on this diagram. Ms. Vernet said national measures are ongoing throughout the entire process.

Mr. Brisini disagreed that the preliminary AOI should develop the Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP). Jurisdictions that are not part of the final control region (final AOI) should not develop the RIP. Mr. Golden said the chart is consistent with the Regional Air Management Partnerships (RAMP) and Areas of Influence issue paper (February 13, 1997), which indicates that the preliminary AOI develops the RIP.

Mr. Pezda asked that cost, too close to call, and achievability concepts be incorporated into the diagram.

Mr. Salvaggio said RAMPs should be established after the standards are promulgated. On the second page, he suggested moving the transport dominant arrow for "affected by transport" to lead into the Continue Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) box. The IIP may differ depending on whether the problem is locally generated or caused by transport.

On the third page, Mr. Zeldin suggested adding a test -- have all feasible measures been implemented? after the "RIP Demonstrates Attainment - No." Cost could be incorporated into this test.

Ms. Lee commented that feedback loops for monitoring and emission inventories may be needed.

Mr. Lawler suggested noting that discretionary measures can be part of the SIP.