Draft Summary

April 30, 1997 Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group

Conference Call

I.	PURPOSE

The Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group held a conference call on April 30, 1997 to discuss the status of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) White Paper and the Areas at Risk, Area of Violation (AOV) Boundaries, Attainment Dates, New Source Requirements, Contingency Measures and Maintenance Plans, Classifications, Control Strategies, Integrated Implementation, Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), Rewards and Sanctions, General Mobile Source Measures, and Monitoring Plans issue papers.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees

Jerry Golden, co-Chair, Joe Paisie, co-Chair, Betsy Bartlett for Jim Ralston, Vince Brisini, Richard Chastain, John Crouch, Richard Dworek, Megan Eaves for Jim Salvaggio, Steve Gerritson, Robert Kappelmann, Dennis Lawler, Barbara Lee, Arthur Marin, Brock Nicholson, Steve Pezda, Greg Schaefer, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, Callie Videtich for Dick Long, and Mel Zeldin.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance

David Baron, Gregory Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Rich Halvey, Arthur Lee, William Luneburg, Bob Palzer, Richard Phelps, and Richard Schoeneberg.

Other Attendees

Rebecca Battye and Wendy Vit, EC/R Incorporated (EPA contractor support)

III.	ACTION ITEMS

The Areas at Risk paper is being re-written to include options ranging from voluntary to mandatory programs and to point out links to other issue papers. The revised draft will be distributed to BPAP prior to the May 7, 1997 conference call. Mr. Chastain has requested that Areas at Risk be an agenda item on the May 15 face-to-face meeting agenda (he will not be able to attend on May 16). Based on discussion at the May meeting, the paper will be revised again in preparation for the June Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee meeting.

The AOV Boundaries paper is in good shape, but may be revised once more. Submit suggestions and comments to Mr. Crouch via e-mail.

The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portion of the New Source Requirements paper is ready for discussion. The first part of the paper is being re-thought based on the White Paper presentation at the April FACA meeting.

The Attainment Dates paper is being revised to incorporate the October 28, 1997 Attainment Dates ad hoc group recommendations. The revised draft will also point out the linkages to other issue papers, particularly the Classifications and RFP papers. The draft will be distributed to the BPAP work group prior to the May 7 conference call. The paper is expected to be on the agenda for the May face-to-face meeting.

Significant changes have been made to the Contingency Measures and Maintenance Plans paper, but it needs more work. The revised version of the paper will include a discussion of linkages with other issue papers. The paper will be ready for discussion at the May face-to-face meeting.

A revised draft of the Control Strategies paper with four out of the five questions addressed will be distributed to the work group by e-mail and/or fax by close of business on Monday, May 5. Options for all five questions are expected by the May face-to-face meeting. Ms. Vernet will send a list of legal questions to Mr. Paisie and Mr. Golden, as well as to Joe Belanger and David Mobley, co-Chairs of National and Regional Strategeies (NRS) work group. After the co-Chairs of both work groups review the questions, they will be submitted to EPA Office of General Counsel (OGC).

The Integrated Implementation subgroup is struggling with what their focus should be. The issue papers should be coordinated in such a way so that issues that are presumed to be covered in the Integrated Implementation paper are indeed being addressed by the subgroup.

RFP is currently an agenda item for the joint work group session at the May face-to-face meeting.

Mr. Brisini will contact Dee North, EPA Office of Mobile Sources (OMS), to determine whether the Transportation FACA has prepared something that would be useful for General Mobile Source Measures paper. He will report back on what he finds out. Mr. Paisie will try to schedule a presentation from the Transportation FACA at the May face-to-face meeting.

BPAP participants on the call generally agreed that the rewards portion of Rewards and Sanctions should be folded into the appropriate incentives papers and that the sanctions piece should be incorporated into the Control Strategies paper. The dismantling of the Rewards and Sanctions paper will be discussed once again at the May 7 BPAP conference call.

The next BPAP conference call will be held on May 7, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30, Eastern Time. The call-in number is 202/260-8330, 1429#.

Both the BPAP and NRS work groups will meet on May 15 and 16, 1997 at the University Regal in Durham, North Carolina. A two or three hour joint session will be held on May 15, 1997 to discuss Control Strategies, RFP, and Mr. Golden's flow diagram. Mr. Schaefer suggested adding to the agenda the issue of when and how the work group can get input from OGC on the New Source Requirements paper. Other suggested agenda items should be submitted to Mr. Golden or Mr. Paisie.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Areas at Risk

Mr. Chastain reported that the Areas at Risk paper is being re-written. The options in the revised draft will range from voluntary to mandatory programs for areas that are at risk of becoming nonattainment. He said work group members generally agree that areas should take preventative measures when trends indicate they are at risk of becoming nonattainment. However, opinions differ on whether these preventative measures should be mandatory or voluntary.

Mr. Chastain is identifying where the Areas at Risk paper overlaps other issue papers. The Classifications and Contingency Measures papers are two examples. An EPA staffperson reported that areas at risk have been discussed in the context of early reductions and economic incentives. Members should submit comments on linkages with other issue papers.

The revised draft of the paper will be distributed to BPAP work group members prior to the May 7 conference call. Mr. Chastain has requested that Areas at Risk be an agenda item on the May 15 face-to-face meeting agenda (he will not be able to attend on May 16). Based on discussion at the May meeting, the paper will be revised again in preparation for the June FACA Subcommittee meeting. A preliminary agenda lists Areas at Risk on the June FACA meeting agenda.

AOV Boundaries

Mr. Crouch reported that the AOV Boundaries paper has been dormant. The White Paper could have an impact on AOVs. The paper is in good shape, but he expects it will be revised at least once more. Comments and suggestions should be e-mailed to Mr. Crouch.

New Source Requirements

Mr. Schaefer said the first part of the paper is being re-thought based on the White Paper presentation at the April FACA meeting. He did not agree with the options for new source requirements that were presented by the EPA. The second piece of the paper on PSD is ready to go.

Mr. Brisini said he discussed his concerns about the New Source Review (NSR) portion of the white paper with Lydia Wegman, EPA. He is willing to share the points he made to the work group.

Attainment Dates

Ken Woodard, EPA, provided an update of the Attainment Dates paper because Herb Williams could not attend the call. The paper is being revised to incorporate the October 28, 1997 Attainment Dates ad hoc group recommendations. The revised draft will also point out the linkages to other issue papers, particularly the Classifications and RFP papers. The draft will be distributed to the BPAP work group prior to the May 7 conference call.

Attainment Dates is expected to be on the agenda for the May face-to-face meeting.

Contingency Measures and Maintenance Plans

Mr. Skelton reported that significant changes have been made on the draft but the paper needs more work. The revised version of the paper will include a discussion of linkages with other issue papers. For instance, one option for a contingency measure is to expand the area of violation (AOV) boundary.

He will be prepared to discuss the paper at the May face-to-face meeting and will possibly be ready to present the paper at the June FACA Subcommittee meeting.

Classifications

Mr. Skelton said the February 11, 1997 version of the Classifications paper has not changed since it was presented at the February FACA Subcommittee meeting. BPAP had discussed waiting until further development of the Control Strategies paper to revise the Classifications paper. At a minimum, the next step for the Classifications paper would be to prioritize the various options.

Mr. Paisie commented that the paper could move in the direction of Jerry Golden's flow diagram, pending work group buy-in to the concept. Mr. Golden added that the flow diagram re-enforces the linkage between the Control Strategies and Classifications papers.

Control Strategies

Ms. Vernet gave an update of the Control Strategies paper. Sharon Reinders had distributed two pieces of the Control Strategies paper (both dated April 28) -- a draft background section and a draft paper consisting of the mission statement, definitions, questions, principles, and working assumptions. The mission statement and definitions had been revised.

Each of the five questions in the paper will be addressed by a team of Control Strategies subgroup members. The subgroup discusses one of the questions each week on their conference call. By the May 7 BPAP conference call, four out of the five questions will have a preliminary set of options. Options for all five questions are expected by the May face-to-face meeting.

A revised draft of the paper (with four out of the five questions addressed) will be distributed by e-mail and/or fax by close of business on Monday, May 5.

The subgroup has submitted a list of questions concerning legal authority to the EPA OGC. Both chairs of the NRS and the BPAP must approve these questions before they are sent to OGC. Ms. Vernet will send the questions to Mr. Paisie and Mr. Golden, as well as to Joe Belanger and David Mobley, co-Chairs of NRS.

Mr. Pezda asked about the status of the legal caucus comprised of legal authorities outside of the EPA. Tim O'Brien of Ford is supposed to be the lead of this group.

Integrated Implementation

Mr. Kappelmann said the Integrated Implementation subgroup is struggling to determine what their focus should be. Many of the issue papers have opportunities for integrated approaches. For instance, should integrated control strategies be addressed in the Control Strategies paper or in the Integrated Implementation paper? The subgroup has made progress on the integrated timelines issue. Donna Lamb (NRS) is summarizing comments from subgroup discussions to date.

Ms. Vernet said Integrated Implementation has not been discussed within the Control Strategies subgroup. They had intended to pull pieces from the Integrated Implementation issue paper because they may not have time to address the issue themselves. Mr. Paisie noted that if the work groups are not careful, some issues could fall through the cracks.

Mr. Kappelmann said discussing Integrated Implementation at the May face-to-face meeting would be helpful, although he and Ms. Lamb may not be able to attend.

Mr. Paisie asked who is responsible for the Opportunity Matrix. At the April FACA Subcommittee meeting, Bob Lopez was designated as the person to receive comments on the Matrix.

RFP

Mr. Phelps could not attend the call so Nancy Mayer of EPA gave a status update of the RFP paper. The RFP subgroup has submitted questions regarding the feasibility of an air quality RFP metric to the Science and Technical Support (STS) work group. A response is not expected for several weeks. In the meantime, the RFP group is addressing second-tier questions, such as sector-specific RFP, crediting of voluntary measures, and others.

Sarah Peirce-Sandner has requested that RFP be taken off the June FACA Subcommittee meeting agenda. Until the STS work group reports back on an air quality RFP metric, the subgroup will not have anything substantive to present.

RFP is currently an agenda item for the joint work group session at the May face-to-face meeting.

Rewards and Sanctions

Mr. Gerritson said at the April 7 work group meeting it was decided that the Rewards and Sanctions paper should be sent to NRS for additional ideas. Developing ideas for real rewards has been difficult.

The Rewards and Sanctions paper was discussed on the April 28 NRS work group conference call. One suggestion was for EPA to give states full discretion to develop and implement control strategies. The sanction would be that if they failed to plan, implement, etc., EPA would prescribe measures. Time delay and cost were identified as potential cons to this approach. Another idea was to establish a clean air trust fund to finance incentives. Sources that are not moving as quickly would pay into the fund. A third idea was to create a pilot project program to encourage the development of innovative mobile and area source strategies. Participants would be held harmless from federal and perhaps citizen enforcement for the duration of the program. Bounds for the program, such as a limited time period, a certain tonnage affected in the inventory, or measures to prevent environmental justice problems, would need to be established. The demonstration project program could be coupled with a clean air trust fund.

Mr. Gerritson suggested that the rewards portion of Rewards and Sanctions be folded into the appropriate incentives papers and that the sanctions portion be incorporated into the Control Strategies paper.

Mr. Golden was concerned that if the Economic Incentives subgroup takes over the rewards piece, the early reduction concepts would be lost. It was noted that the Economic Incentives subgroup is not focusing solely on cost-effectiveness; the group is also addressing incentives to reduce more emissions and to reduce emissions early.

Mr. Brisini commented that currently there are tremendous disincentives to reduce emissions early. The Excellence in Leadership (XL) program, for example, does not give credit for early reductions. His company was given no credit for reducing 25,000 tons/year of SO2.

Ms. Vernet asked if Mr. Gerritson's suggestion would require an expansion of the sanctions question in the Control Strategies paper. Mr. Gerritson felt the existing sanctions question, which Mr. Gerritson is addressing, is sufficient to address the issue.

Ms. Mayer said the RFP subgroup was planning to ask the Rewards and Sanctions paper to address missed milestones. Mr. Gerritson said the Control Strategies and Contingency Measures papers would cover penalties for missed milestones.

Mr. Paisie summarized that the BPAP participants on the call feel that a separate Rewards and Sanctions paper is not needed. The concepts will be folded into the other issue papers. He asked members to think about this. It will be discussed once again on the May 7 BPAP conference call.

General Mobile Source Measures

The General Mobile Source Measures paper was last discussed at the April 7 meeting in Falls Church, VA. Mr. Marin reported that the subgroup decided that they would benefit from a presentation from the Transportation FACA. This separate FACA process has spent two years deliberating the issues covered in the General Mobile Source Measures paper.

Mr. Brisini explained that the Transportation FACA is addressing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), changing people's behavior without being overly intrusive, land-use planning, and other issues. Mr. Brisini will contact Dee North, EPA, OMS, to determine whether the Transportation FACA has prepared something that would be useful for this group. He will report back on what he finds out.

Mr. Paisie will try to schedule a presentation from the Transportation FACA at the May face-to-face meeting.

Ms. Vernet said Greg Dana is on the Control Strategies team that is addressing national measures. The linkage between the Control Strategies and General Mobile Measures papers is clear.

Monitoring Plans

Mr. Nicholson said the question about whether a separate paper on monitoring plans is needed is unresolved. The Monitoring Incentives ad hoc group may be addressing the issues.

Issues that could be addressed in a separate issue paper include: 1) would the current monitoring network provide adequate data to support the new implementation approaches? 2) what would an integrated (multiple-pollutant) monitoring network look like? and 3) should there be a public process for input into monitoring objectives?

Mr. Golden said these questions are sufficiently different to stand on their own. Mr. Skelton added that the original issue was that given a limited amount of money, how can states prioritize their monitoring?

White Paper

Based on the response at the April FACA Subcommittee meeting, EPA is re-thinking the White Paper. EPA is preparing a very general two-page communication piece to accompany the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs) and Interim Implementation Policy (IIP). The Coordination Group will be kept abreast of the communication piece as it is developed.

Mr. Paisie asked if members still want to discuss the White Paper at the May face-to-face meeting. Mr. Schaefer suggested adding to the agenda the issue of when and how the work group can get input from OGC on the New Source Requirements paper.