August 6, 1996

Draft Summary

July 24, 1996 Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

I.	OVERVIEW

The Base Programs work group held a conference call on July 24, 1996 to discuss the issue paper on "Designation Issues for New NAAQS."

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work group:

Joe Paisie-Chair, John Crouch, David Baron, Richard Dworek, Steve Gerritson, Rich Halvey, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Jean Vernet (substitute), Herb Williams (substitute).

Work group members not in attendance:

Jerry Golden-Chair, Vince Brisini, Glen Cass, Gregory Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Robert Kappelmann, Dick Long, Brock Nicholson, Don Pickrell, Conrad Schneider, Eric Skelton, and Mel Zeldin.

Other attendees:

Richard Chastain, Beth Friedman (EC/R--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractor support).

III.	ACTION ITEMS

Upcoming Calls and Meetings. The next Base Programs face-to-face meeting is on July 29 in advance of the July 30 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) subcommittee meeting. The July 29 meeting will be in Crystal City, Virginia. The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) will meet on July 31. The next Base Programs conference call is on August 7 scheduled from 11:00 to 12:30 EDT.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

According to the agenda, the group was scheduled to continue discussion of the New Source Review (NSR) issue paper. However, the authors were not available at the start of the meeting, and the Designation issue paper was discussed in its place.

Designation Issues for New National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Other Work Group Comments on the Joint Issue Paper on Designations for New NAAQS

Mr. Gerritson presented the outcome of the combined efforts of the National and Regional Strategies (NRS) work group, the Science and Technical Support (STS) work group, and the Base Programs work group to develop a joint work group issue paper on "Designations for New NAAQS." The combined issue paper includes concepts from the original Base Programs' papers on designations and the alignment of boundaries as well as the related issues developed by the NRS work group. Mr. Gerritson participated in the face-to-face meeting between the other work groups, where the combined issues were presented. He reported that the other work groups accepted the recommendations of the joint paper. Following is a summary of Mr. Gerritson's report on the status of the issue paper and the comments raised by the other work groups.

On the background section, the main comment was that the description and statement of the problem were too negative. The authors agreed to add language describing the positive aspects of the present monitoring and modeling system.

Mr. Gerritson said there was a lot of discussion on the implications of issue 1, "Should the approach to designation be changed to include areas which contribute to violations as well as areas which experience them?" The combined group preferred to recommend option 3 of issue 1, which is consistent with the Base Programs' recommendation. The work groups considered adding an option between 3 and 4, but decided that option 3 is flexible enough to cover the range of considerations. Finally, the group recommended the consideration of national regulations that apply to selected source categories such as the small engine initiative and coating rules, and they concurred with a need for an appropriate mix of national and local controls in implementing this approach.

The work groups recommended option 1 of issue 2 because the boundaries should not be limited by political boundaries or sources. Modeling, broadly defined, would be used to connect the monitors.

With respect to issue 3, the work groups want to include non-anthropogenic emissions because their inclusion results in a more realistic background and allows the analysis of the interplay between biogenic emissions and anthropogenic emissions. However, controls are not contemplated for biogenic emissions. They also endorsed the adoption of alternative B of subissue B, because in most cases inventories are based on the county level. They agreed that in the West, some subdivisions might be needed and possible. The idea of using airshed boundaries to define AOIs was discussed and discarded because airshed boundaries are fluid. However, the use of airshed analyses to evaluate areas of influence (AOI) boundaries was recommended.

Overall Approach

Following is a summary of the Base Programs work group discussion on the joint issue paper on "Designations for New NAAQS."

Mr. Salvaggio was concerned that in an effort to recognize the need for regional strategies, the concept was pushed too far and local needs might not be addressed. Mr. Gerritson replied that he feels issue 3 addresses the need for local controls.

Mr. Baron asked if all of the existing Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements would apply in the area of violation (AOV). He felt the requirements should apply. He also wanted to ensure a good understanding of the consequences of implementing the AOI/AOV approach. Mr. Gerritson said that the AOV is intended to be an area of air quality violations, and the designation would carry a requirement to notify the public of the health effects of the violations. The AOI, which could include the AOV, is a planning area where control strategies would be implemented. The group has not addressed what those controls would be, because this is an implementation issue. Mr. Gerritson felt that acceptance of the AOV/AOI concept does not preclude further discussion of control requirements, and that it is possible to endorse the concept in the absence of final decisions on what those requirements would be.

Mr. Paisie said it is important at this stage to establish the big picture so that future discussions and decisions regarding implementation can occur. However, he agreed with other members of the group that local problems need to be dealt with expeditiously. Mr. Gerritson noted that local problems in one area can also have an effect on other areas, and the area would need to take responsibility to address these downwind effects. Mr. Lee said the recommendation to use a mix of local and regional controls covers these responsibilities.

Mr. Baron asked if the AOV would still have the traditional burden of developing a State implementation plan (SIP) to reach attainment, unless the area can show that transport is the issue. Mr. Gerritson said that the SIP would now rest with the entire AOI.

Issue 2--Definition of AOV

The next issue discussed was how AOVs will be defined. Mr. Gerritson said that AOV boundaries should not be limited by strict source boundaries. Instead, he said modeling, broadly defined, should be used to connect monitors where appropriate into a single AOV. The monitoring SIP concept is implied in this issue paper because of the need to address shortages of monitors. In the absence of steps to develop adequate monitoring networks by the States, modeling would have to be used to set the AOV boundaries.

One member asked what would happen if there are some monitors that show no violations in the same "area." Mr. Gerritson said the answer would lie in the tools used to analyze the monitoring data. Mr. Lee said the selection of averaging times would be a key component of any analysis. Mr. Gerritson and Mr. Paisie said the transition period (2 to 3 years) would be used to address these issues.

Mr. Lee noted that the size of the AOV could range from very small to very large. Mr. Gerritson said because the AOV is based on public health concerns alone, the incentive to make it as small as possible is removed. Instead, the incentive in establishing boundaries is to do so as honestly as possible.

Mr. Baron said under current law if there is a violation in an urban area the boundary will automatically include the broader metropolitan statistical area. This approach is advantageous in order to implement mobile source strategies in particular. He was concerned the AOV would be drawn just around the monitors, which would preclude the environmental community from influencing effective control strategies in the AOV. Mr. Gerritson said the AOI jurisdictional boundaries address Mr. Baron's concern. The intent with the AOV was to decouple the nonattainment designation from the control requirements.

Mr. Dworek raised the opposite concern. He fears that in an area with extensive monitoring the AOV could be much larger than the current nonattainment area. Mr. Pezda agreed and noted that the trends report can overstate the extent of nonattainment. Mr. Gerritson said that the intent of the approach is to remove the idea of "one size fits all" and replace it with a response that reflects actual conditions. The steps in implementing this process are to (1) identify the AOV, (2) identify the AOI, and (3) design a plan. The only thing lost relative to the current system is the certainty of automatic controls, which is replaced with more flexibility in designing a control strategy. As for concerns that boundaries will not be properly set, this approach recognizes the need for more aggressive monitoring.

Mr. Baron raised a distinction where, in a perfect world, the proposed AOV/AOI concept would work perfectly, but in the real world he was concerned that people will "game" the system. He did not like the idea of giving up the certainty that there will be at least a minimum area subject to controls. Mr. Gerritson said there is certainty related to the need to obtain emission reductions to meet the standard. He said there is an incentive to make the planning AOI large enough to ensure it contains sources capable of contributing to real reductions to reach attainment. In addition, EPA will still provide oversight. Finally, some level of good faith must be assumed. While Mr. Gerritson concurred there have been problems in the past, he argued the proposed approach is designed to address some of the reasons for those problems. Mr. Paisie agreed that EPA will review plans for credibility and suggested that some discussion of mechanisms to avoid gaming must occur, but not necessarily in the context of this issue paper.

Issue 3--AOI Definition

Mr. Palzer agreed that it makes sense to use political boundaries, so long as good science is at the base of the decision. Mr. Ralston clarified that airsheds are not the same as air quality control regions. He also questioned why the AOI was not defined in the same way as the AOV. Mr. Gerritson replied that the AOV is just the "problem" area and political boundaries are not needed. However, the AOI is a planning area, and political boundaries are needed to align with emission inventories and to ensure the needed political authority to act.

Mr. Ralston noted that if AOI encompass broad areas, other institutional mechanisms will be needed. Mr. Gerritson agreed, and added that the use of State boundaries to define the AOI was too arbitrary.

Mr. Salvaggio was concerned that, in the East, the AOIs could revert to the flaws in the current nonattainment area system and become a piecemeal patchwork of counties that would fail to address regional issues. He suggested a merger of alternatives A and B might be needed in some cases. Mr. Gerritson said selection of alternative B does not preclude adopting broader boundaries. Mr. Salvaggio agreed, but said selection of alternative B might send a signal that the States are continuing to "piecemeal" the areas. Mr. Gerritson suggested this concern could be addressed without changing the overall recommendation.

Mr. Paisie closed the discussion by noting that adopting this system puts a lot of pressure on EPA and the States' ability to draw boundaries. If they are unable to do so, the default approach may be to adopt national controls.

Status of Issue Papers

There are revised versions of "Too Close to Call" and "Exposure Based Monitoring" on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) bulletin board that reflect the input from the July 1 and 2 meeting as well as input from the STS work group in the case of "Exposure Based Monitoring." The STS work group agreed that the problem of fluctuations is real, but that they occur regardless of the standard. Adjustments can reduce, but not totally eliminate, the problem. They said use of an adjustment technique is a policy call, and they did not recommend any specific technique. There is a need to address "at risk" areas, and Richard Chastain is preparing a Phase II issue paper on this topic. The STS work group is reviewing "Too Close to Call."

Mr. Paisie has a revised version of Mr. Dworek's paper on monitoring, and he needs to review it with Mr. Golden. The issue paper will not be discussed at either the July 29 work group meeting or the July 30 FACA subcommittee meeting. Review on the NSR paper will continue at the July 29 work group meeting.