Draft Summary

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

May 7, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

The Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group held a conference call on May 7, 1997 to discuss the "Control Strategies" issue paper and the implementation flow flow diagram drafted by Jerry Golden.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees:

Jerry Golden, co-Chair, Joe Paisie, co-Chair, Betsy Bartlett for Jim Ralston, Vince Brisini, Richard Chastain, John Crouch, Richard Dworek, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Barbara Lee, Richard Long, William Luneburg, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Jim Salvaggio, Dick Schoeneberg, Jean Vernet, and Mel Zeldin.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance:

David Baron, Gregory Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Steve Gerritson, Rich Halvey, Robert Kappelmann, Arthur Marin, Brock Nicholson, Richard Phelps, Greg Schaefer, Eric Skelton, and Herb Williams.

Other Attendees:

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

III.	ACTION ITEMS

The "Control Strategies" issue paper was reviewed. Mr. Salvaggio suggested adding a "no prescribed measures" option to question 2.1 to allow the air quality agency to do whatever it takes to achieve the standards. In response to Mr. Zeldin's request for an option allowing an area to substitute measures that achieve equivalent air quality benefits for prescribed measures, option 2 under question 2.1 will be either refined to clarify its meaning, or a new option will be added. Mr. Brisini will fax Ms. Vernet his suggested revisions to question 3. His suggestions include two additional options and changes to question 3's introduction which would leave open all control measure options.

Jerry Golden's flow diagram was discussed. Mr. Golden will develop a couple of alternatives to show how national measures could be credited in SIPs on page 1. A footnote indicating that there may not be any prescribed measures will be added to page 3. Another footnote specifying that the SIP could contain prescribed measures will be added. This footnote will also indicate that the too-close-to-call option would not be eliminated. Finally, the maintenance plans cycle on page 5 will be revised.

A joint National and Regional Strategies (NRS) and BPAP work group meeting will be held on May 15 and 16, 1997 at the University Regal in Durham, North Carolina. The meeting will start around 8:00 a.m. on the 15th. A BPAP agenda will be distributed later this week. The "Control Strategies" issue paper and Jerry Golden's flow diagram will be discussed in a joint work group session.

The next Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee meeting will be held on June 10 and 11, 1997 at the Durham Omni in Durham, North Carolina. In conjunction with the meeting, the work groups will meet on June 9, 1997.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Control Strategies

Two pieces of the "Control Strategies" issue paper had been distributed to work group members before the call. The first piece (dated April 28, 1997) included background, mission statement, definitions, principles, working assumptions, and the list of questions. The second piece (dated May 7, 1997) contained discussion and options for questions 2 through 5.

Ms. Vernet said the definitions have not changed significantly since they were presented at the April FACA Subcommittee meeting. A short paragraph on visibility was added to the background section. The Control Strategies subgroup hopes the background section is final. Working assumption #7 was added: "there will be a scheme that will allow for the differentiation of control measures between and within areas for control." The April 28 document incorporates comments submitted by BPAP work group members to date.

Ms. Vernet said question 1 (should there be additional national measures or changes to the mix of those measures? If so, which measures should be adopted and on what basis will the measures be determined?) will be discussed on this afternoon's control strategies subgroup conference call. She gave an overview of the options developed for questions 2 and 3.

Question 2 Should there be minimum requirements imposed as additional prescribed measures common to some or all areas for control (e.g., final AOI, preliminary AOI, AOV, or other domains)? If so, which measures should be adopted, where should they be applied, and on what basis will the measures be determined?

Question 3 How should the order of implementation be determined?

Dan Johnson of the National and Regional Strategies (NRS) work group is leading the question 2 group. Ms. Vernet explained that his philosophy is to allow the greatest discretion possible in designing and adopting control strategies.

Question 2 has been split into the following three sub-questions:

2.1. What is the appropriate mix of prescribed and discretionary measures to achieve a required air quality objective?

2.2. What factors should be considered when selecting specific prescribed measures?

2.3. Are there specific measures that can be recommended based on how they conform to these factors?

The group discussed question 2.1. Ms. Vernet said the options are not mutually exclusive. Mr. Salvaggio observed that a "no prescribed measures" option was missing. Mr. Paisie responded that option 7 (prescription limited to emission reduction responsibility by source or source category) has the least amount of prescription. How much further could this be taken? The least amount of prescription in the Clean Air Act (CAA) is subpart 1, which includes Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM). In other words, "no prescribed measures" would be outside the current minimum amount of prescription. Mr. Salvaggio said the option would be to allow the air quality agency to do whatever it takes to achieve the standards. Mr. Brisini said the document presumes throughout that there will be prescribed measures. Ms. Vernet said the comment is legitimate. However, because this issue has been divided into three sub-questions, a "no prescribed measures" option does not fit easily. Questions 2.2 and 2.3 depend on a "yes" response to the first base question. She said perhaps a con to "no prescribed measures" would be that such an approach would require a change to the CAA. Mr. Lee supported adding the "no prescribed measures" option with the con.

Mr. Schoeneberg said the answer to question 2 depends on what is being controlled. In the case of mobile source measures, the Federal Motor Vehicle Program cannot be eliminated. Ms. Vernet clarified the distinction between national and prescribed measures. National measures are federally required and implemented nationwide, while prescribed measures are federally required in a subnational area and applied on the basis of an area's air quality status. According to this scheme, the Federal Motor Vehicle Program is a national measure, and mobile source programs such as Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) and Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) are prescribed measures. Question 2 only addresses prescribed measures.

Mr. Zeldin asked which option reflects the concept of allowing an area to substitute measures that achieve equivalent air quality benefits. If an area develops measures that achieve equal or greater benefits, the area could substitute such measures for the prescribed measures. Mr. Paisie said Mr. Zeldin's idea falls between options 2 and 7. Ms. Vernet responded that the substitution concept is the intent of the rebuttable presumption in option 2. Mr. Pezda supported revising option 2 to incorporate more of Mr. Zeldin's language. Either option 2 will be refined to clarify its meaning, or a new option will be added.

Mr. Dworek asked if the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)/RACM type controls in option 5 apply to non-traditional sources that contribute significantly to PMfine, including agriculture, road dust, etc. Mr. Paisie said RACT/RACM controls include those developed by the Department of Agriculture and those contained in Smoke Management Plans. Mr. Palzer added that standards for residential wood stoves also fall into this category.

Mr. Zeldin commented that dust and agriculture play a limited role in PM2.5. 90 - 95% of dust is larger than PM2.5. Mr. Dworek said the "Opportunity Matrix" indicates that these sources are significant contributors. Mr. Zeldin replied that this discrepancy is an indication of the flaws in the 1990 National Inventory.

Ms. Vernet said the options in question 2.2 need to be fleshed out more. Some of the terms, such as cost-effectiveness, and equity, have not been defined. Mr. Pezda commented that the question may not need options. Just listing potential criteria or factors would be useful. Ms. Vernet responded that options may be needed in terms of weighting the factors and applying the factors in the evaluation of various controls.

Mr. Chastain said "cost-effectiveness" should be expanded to "cost-effectiveness in achieving the standard." Ms. Vernet responded that cost-effectiveness can be based on air quality or just emission reductions ($/ton).

Mr. Paisie said some of the criteria are ethereal, particularly "equity" and "public acceptability." Is there any hope of coming to closure on these? One approach would be to offer a list and not try to answer the questions. Another approach would be to begin with the most objective factors and simply acknowledge that the other criteria are important considerations. Ms. Vernet said the subgroup could limit the list to the more mathematic factors. The other criteria would come out as pros or cons when these mathematic factors are used to assess control measures.

Mr. Salvaggio supported leaving the subjective factors in the list. The public asks these questions. Equity and public acceptability are things states must consider when adopting and implementing measures. Mr. Palzer agreed and offered the example of controls in PM nonattainment areas in Oregon. Although residential wood stoves have been regulated, open burning has not. This has been perceived as a very inequitable fix to the problem. Another example is the lack of inspection and maintenance programs for diesel engines.

Question 2.3 depends on the outcome to question 2.2.

The group discussed question 3. Steve Gerritson is leading the question 3 group.

Mr. Brisini said he has faxed some comments regarding question 3's presumption of prescribed measures to Mr. Gerritson. These comments had not yet been incorporated. He read his suggested revision to question 3's introduction. The purpose of the suggested edits, including changing "prescribed measures" to "control measures" and others, was to leave open all control measure options. He also proposed two additional options. Option 4 would be national measures credited upon the target dates, discretionary measures credited upon the planned dates in the SIP, and no prescribed measures. Option 5 would be national and prescribed measures credited upon target dates with discretionary measures used only for contingency and maintenance.

Mr. Palzer (and Mr. Rosendahl on EPA staff) agreed that Mr. Brisini's suggestions were reasonable. Mr. Brisini will fax his suggestions to Ms. Vernet.

Jerry Golden's Flow Diagram

Mr. Golden summarized the changes to the flow diagram. The revised diagram incorporated comments from the April 16, 1997 BPAP work group conference call and comments submitted by individual work group members.

- An additional pathway was added to page 1 to differentiate between the implementation of national measures and the implementation of State Implementation Plans (SIP).

- In addition, "develop monitoring plans" was expanded to "develop monitoring plans and emissions inventories."

- On page 2 the "initiate voluntary measures" box was changed to "consider/initiate voluntary measures."

- A footnote indicating that the implementation of the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) may involve control actions outside the nonattainment area depending on findings related to transport was added.

- "Final AOI/RIP Development" was placed into one box to sidestep Mr. Brisini's concern about who develops the regional implementation plan (RIP).

- On page 3 a too-close-too-call screen was added to the local-dominant/high-severity pathway allowing areas to bypass prescribed measures. In other words, prescribed measures would only be implemented where the standard is clearly violated.

- Too-close-to-call areas could implement voluntary measures or other measures to prevent the violation.

- Finally, a new diagram showing that discretionary measures can be added to the SIP was presented on page 4. In addition, this diagram incorporated the "all feasible measures tried?" test.

Mr. Palzer commented that some work group members advocate requiring measures in areas at risk. He wanted the word "voluntary" stricken from the "consider/initiate voluntary measures" box on page 2. Mr. Pezda disagreed.

On page 1, Mr. Brisini suggested adding a dotted line from the national measures pathway to the SIP pathway following the "promulgate national measures" and "promulgate regulations" boxes to indicate that areas should credit the reductions from national measures in their SIPs. Mr. Palzer thought the dotted line should follow the "implement national measures" box because credit should not be given until national measures have been implemented. Mr. Brisini commented that this debate gets to the heart of question 3 in the "Control Strategies" issue paper. The range of BPAP views should appear as options under question 3. Mr. Paisie suggested adding a decision block reading "is EPA on time?" Mr. Palzer said the other issue is whether states have responded in a timely manner. Mr. Paisie explained that EPA would be doing the implementing on national measures. Mr. Golden will develop a couple of alternative approaches to capture these thoughts.

Mr. Palzer was concerned about the too-close-to-call concept. The work groups have not shown significant support for the concept. Mr. Golden said the too-close-to-call test in this diagram differs from the proposal in the 7/25/96 "Implementation of a 'Too Close to Call' Category As a Mechanism to Reduce the Impact of Meteorological Fluctuations on Attainment Designation and State Implementation Plans" paper. Mr. Pezda explained that the original concept was that if an area falls into the too-close-to-call category, it would be given an additional year to collect data before being designated.

Mr. Chastain asked why the too-close-to-call box was not included in the transport-dominant pathway. Mr. Golden said the too-close-to-call test would only influence local/prescribed measures, and there would not be local/prescribed measures in areas dominated by transport. He will think about this more.

Mr. Salvaggio observed that a footnote regarding prescribed measures had been omitted. Mr. Golden replied that a footnote indicating that there may not be any prescribed measures had been inadvertently left off.

Mr. Luneburg asked why prescribed measures only appear in the diagram before SIPs are approved and implemented. Mr. Golden said he would add a footnote specifying that the SIP would contain the prescribed measures. Mr. Pezda thought this would eliminate the too-close-to-call option. Mr. Golden will word the footnote in such a way that too-close-to-call would not be eliminated.

Referring to page 5, Mr. Chastain pointed out that once attainment is achieved, the maintenance plan is initiated. Mr. Golden agreed and will redraw that portion of the diagram.

Several work group members expressed their support for Mr. Golden's process flow diagram. Mr. Crouch said the Economic Incentives subgroup may want to incorporate some of their ideas. Mr. Paisie confirmed that the diagram would be discussed in the May 15 and 16 joint work group meeting.