Draft Summary

Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) Work Group Conference Call

May 28, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

The BPAP work group held a conference call on May 28, 1997 to discuss the Phase II Implementation Strategies for Contingency Measures and Control Strategies issue papers and the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) Implementation Process flow diagram.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees:

Jerry Golden, co-Chair, Joe Paisie, co-Chair, David Baron, Richard Chastain, John Crouch, Richard Dworek, Megan Eves for Jim Salvaggio, Steve Gerritson, Liz Johnson for Herb Williams, Dennis Lawler, Barbara Lee, Richard Long, William Luneburg, James Mentesti, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, Greg Schaefer, Eric Skelton, and Jean Vernet.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance:

Vince Brisini, Gregory Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Rich Halvey, Robert Kappelmann, Arthur Lee, Arthur Marin, Brock Nicholson, Bob Palzer, Dick Schoeneberg, and Mel Zeldin.

Other Attendees:

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

III.	ACTION ITEMS

James Mentesti of the Great River Economic Development Foundation is a new member of the BPAP work group.

The bulletin board posting deadline for papers being presented at the June 10 and 11, 1997 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee meeting is June 3.

The next FACA Subcommittee meeting will be held on June 10 and 11, 1997 at the Durham Omni in Durham, North Carolina. The Contingency Measures and Areas at Risk papers and the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram will be presented. The Contingency Measures presentation will focus on issues and options; it will not contain a recommendation. In conjunction with the meeting, the work group will meet on June 9, 1997.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Contingency Measures

Eric Skelton reviewed the changes to the May 21, 1997 Phase II Implementation Strategies for Contingency Measures paper (draft #4). As discussed during the May 15 and 16, 1997 meeting, a lot of material, including all of the references to maintenance plans, was deleted. The material was deleted because the because all of the issues either dealt with contingency measures or were addressed by other papers.

Mr. Skelton summarized comments he received via fax from Mr. Baron. Mr. Baron disagrees with the last statement of the first paragraph in the Background section (The general preamble to implement Title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) attempted to suggest what should be in the list of contingency measures (i.e., 3 percent of volatile organic compounds (VOC) or nitrogen oxides (NOx)), however, there was never a clear definition as to how much correction would be triggered). He feels the preamble was very clear in the amount of reductions required. Mr. Skelton will forward the fax to David Cole, and he'll address the comment.

Mr. Skelton reviewed the specific changes.

- To shift the focus from questions of legality, the issue about episodic measures (issue #1) was changed from "Can" to "Should."

- Some elaboration of Section 123 was added to the second and third paragraph under issue #1.

- Under issue #5 (Could a contingency measure be used to expand the area of an AOI and broaden the applicability of the control measures?), a statement was added that there would need to be an agreement up front in the Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP) to increase the size of the area of influence (AOI).

- The language of issue #6 (Will contingency measures be required for Class I areas for visibility purposes?) was softened.

- Issue #7 (How much emission reduction is required for contingency measures?) was resurrected during the May face-to-face meeting. Two options were added: one is a contingency measure with unspecified reductions, and the other is a contingency measure with either quantifiable percentage of emission reductions or reduction of some portion of VMT growth.

- Issue #8 (Should there be a mechanism to allow substitution of equivalent measures(s) in lieu of State implementation plan (SIP)-planned contingency measures?) was added.

Mr. Skelton envisions presenting the options during the Subcommittee meeting on June 10th. He will walk through the issues and the pros and cons to hear the general reaction from Subcommittee members. He is looking for consensus on options in order to prioritize them.

Mr. Gerritson voiced a concern about expanding the AOI as a contingency measure. He said it was not only dangerous politically but also scientifically, unless a new source can be identified as a justification.

Mr. Paisie reviewed the schedule for the paper. This paper is scheduled for a first presentation to the Subcommittee on June 10, 1997. In preparation for the June Subcommittee meeting, the paper will be posted on the technology transfer network (TTN) bulletin board by June 3, 1997. There are no recommendations at this time. The paper will be presented to the Subcommittee a second time with a final recommendation.

Mr. Baron suggesting adding a third option to issue 7: require SIPs to include a process for adopting any additional measures that might be needed to make up the shortfall from either of the two options already listed in the paper. This would not be a mutually exclusive option. Mr. Skelton clarified that the SIPs would contain a commitment to identify control measures and go through the rulemaking to get the additional measures in place.

There was a discussion of issue #8. Mr. Phelps commented on the con. He said the substitution of federal measures in lieu of SIP measures is not an equity issue but rather an issue of flexibility. Mr. Skelton explained that the concern was raised at the May work group meeting. The EPA could issue national measures after states put their SIPs together. Some areas may achieve greater emission reductions from the national measures than other areas. The areas that do not benefit significantly from the national measures may have to implement contingency measures to make up the shortfall. Mr. Pezda asked that the issue be qualified with details of the scenario described by Mr. Skelton.

Mr. Baron raised a concern about issue #8. Does issue #8 propose that states could drop a contingency measure if EPA adopts a national measure? He described this as a perilous course. An area might need the state measures and the federal measures to attain the standard. Contingency measures should not be dropped before the milestone date or attainment is reached. This would be contrary to the whole purpose of the contingency measure. Mr. Skelton will add this concern as a con.

Mr. Baron asked if the substitution could take place without a SIP revision or would the state be required to make the demonstration. Mr. Skelton responded that there would have to be some type of demonstration.

Mr. Phelps said this is a significant issue that requires additional discussion. Mr. Lawler added that when it was discussed at the May 15 and 16, 1997 meeting it was not limited to national measures. Mr. Skelton clarified that he only used national as the example. Mr. Phelps reiterated that a specific measure in a specific area would not be an equity issue. There needs to be as much flexibility as possible. Mr. Skelton will elaborate more in this issue.

Control Strategies

Jean Vernet discussed the changes to the May 27, 1997 draft of the Control Strategies paper. This latest version has not been discussed by the Control Strategies subgroup. There was a significant rewrite of questions 1 and 2. They were combined and subquestions were added. Ms. Vernet tried to make options out of the text prepared by Dan Johnson. She is concerned that no option is a null set.

Jean Vernet will review subquestion 2 to ensure that it addresses Bill Luneberg's concern. This subquestion has 5 levels of prescription. There may be some definitional conflicts in the current document by using the term "prescribed."

On subquestion 3, Ms. Vernet said there is now a lengthy list of factors for consideration, some of which would apply to both national and prescribed measures, and some of which would apply to national measures. She indicated that this subquestion probably needs some editorial reworking to establish parallelism between the section dealing with national measures and the section dealing with prescribed measures. The options need to be analyzed simultaneously and iteratively. These are the same options as in earlier versions of the paper.

The old question 3 remains the same. With resounding support by state members option 4 was added to issue 4 stating that the EPA is responsible for substituting measures sufficient to achieve equal reductions when national measures are not implemented.

Question 5 was reformatted. Option 5 was added, stating that technical tools and

suggested methods would be provided by EPA to regional planning bodies. A paragraph was added to option 3 about RIPs.

The current paper will be discussed during the call this afternoon from 4-5 pm EDT. This is the last time that group will look at the paper before it is posted. Mr. Paisie added that the issue paper will be presented to the Subcommittee on June 10, 1997 and at the August meeting. Ms. Vernet asked how the schedule would change if the Subcommittee keeps going after September. Mr. Paisie clarified that this paper must reach closure because there are many decisions in other issue papers that will key off this paper.

Mr. Phelps asked if there would be a list of control measures developed. Ms. Vernet said that is still being discussed. There are different opinions on whether a list of control measures should be developed.

Mr. Paisie asked the group to think about how the groups interact on this paper. There is the large subgroup and two work groups. Because there is not time for the entire "Control Strategies" issue paper to be reviewed during each conference call and meeting, the BPAP work group needs to recognize the twists and turns taken by this subgroup along the way. Mr. Paisie strongly encouraged members to send their comments in early so it can be reflected in the paper as it is being developed.

Ms. Vernet asked the group for comments. She asked if BPAP is ready to put forth the pros and cons. There are no pros and cons for options 3, 4, & 5. Ms. Vernet is concerned that the Control Strategies subgroup will not be able to talk through the pros and cons in the one hour they have this afternoon. Mr. Paisie supported presenting the pros and cons and getting some reaction from Subcommittee members. Mr. Gerritson said the issue paper is so central and so important that the approach has been to get the options done first within the serious time constraints. He recommends getting the options straight first and then working through the pros and cons. Mr. Phelps suggested asking for written comments on pros and cons by a certain date. Mr. Lawler suggested providing a condensed version of the paper with issues and options, and handing out the pros and cons as supplementary material. Ms. Vernet thought that was a good idea. She is hoping for some time on the 9th to discuss the pros and cons.

Mr. Schaefer asked if there is still a working assumption that a Class I area is an area of violation (AOV) as opposed to an area of concern. Treating Class I areas as AOVs has many implications. Perhaps the issue should be moved to the Regional Haze paper.

NAAQS Implementation Flow Diagram

Mr. Golden summarized the changes to the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram. The revised diagram incorporated comments from the May 15 and 16, 1997 BPAP work group meeting. Mr. Paisie hopes to present this diagram to the Subcommittee"s Coordination Group on Friday. Mr. Golden is thinking about developing another document that gives a bit of discussion about the issue papers that relate to the blocks in the diagram. Mr. Phelps suggested including a code for the issue papers and adding an addendum.

Mr. Baron raised a question about the last page. Both I and H establish fixed attainment dates and progress requirements. However, this is done way down in the process, after the SIPs are developed and there has been lots of planning. Doesn't the establishment of fixed attainment dates and progress requirements need to occur at the beginning?

Mr. Golden explained that the area is striving to find a set of coordinated measures that will result in attainment. Many members have asserted that attainability is an issue. If an area can't model and show attainment then this is the process that will be used. If there is an earlier time when one can show that attainment can be reached, he'll move it up.

Mr. Baron responded that the attainment dates issue is an area of disagreement. Many members don't support the flexible attainment date and he doesn't think it should even be an option. He suggested that Mr. Golden add one option which would establish fixed attainment dates up front and a second option which would establish a flexible attainment date process. Mr. Baron sees the attainment date as the driver, but the diagram suggests that many areas will say that they can't attain. There is a philosophical disagreement here, and the diagram should show this difference.

Mr. Golden said that during the last meeting areas of the flow diagram that were the most controversial or had the least consensus were highlighted. He never meant to imply this was the only way to put this together. It is an approach without trying to represent every viewpoint.

Mr. Baron said fixed attainment dates are one of the Coordination Group content-related principles. His preference is to have the attainment date and progress requirements at the beginning so that these drive the process rather than the other way around. Mr. Pezda, Phelps, and Golden said there is a fixed attainment date but it is established on the last page.

Mr. Paisie added that the diagram is not suppose to resolve the issues, and it is not a substitute for the issue papers or the decisions in the issue papers. This diagram does answer some questions about the classification system. It shows that from a process standpoint you need a classification scheme. Mr. Golden suggested using this issue as a way to highlight the fundamental differences. Mr. Pezda said there are a lot of members that will not support putting the attainment dates issue up front. Mr. Baron strongly disagrees with Mr. Pezda. This is a fundamental issue. The Subcommittee rejected getting rid of fixed attainment dates when it was proposed the first time and you are proposing a fundamental change in the current law.