Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

January 13, 1997

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee met on Monday, January 13, 1997 between 1:30 pm and 3:00 pm EDT in Durham, North Carolina. A list of the participants and a summary of the meeting follows.

Work Group Participants

Name	Affiliation

Tom Helms, Co-Chair	U.S. EPA

Harvey Jeffries, Co-Chair	University of North Carolina

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Glenn Cass	Cal Tech

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Tom Moore	Arizona

S.T. Rao	New York

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

John Core	WESTAR

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Jay Hudson	Santee-Cooper

Dave McNeill	Utah

Richard Paul	AAMA

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Jeffrey West	GPU Services Corporation

Jay Turner	DOT

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Denise Scott, SAIC; Ken Schere, U.S. EPA/NERL; Christine Hawk, U.S. EPA/OMS; Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; Nancy Mayer, EPA/ISEG; and JoAnn Allman, Bill Johnson, David Sanders, John Silvasi, Bob Stallings, and David Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of Meeting

Tom Helms noted his appreciation of the work group members' time as we kick off the 1997 version of the STSWG. He hoped to come out with Part I of the conceptual model and to have participation in active issues. Mr. Helms noted that John Silvasi has taken a shot at our vision of what the STSWG should have completed.

John Silvasi commented that David Sanders sent the package he will be speaking from to all of the work group members. He added that this is a draft and he is still fine tuning. Mr. Silvasi said the work group should finish the conceptual model this month and begin volume 2. The work group should begin providing input on issue papers in early February. He emphasized the need for STSWG to get into these issue papers. He stated that there was a lot of concern expressed by the National and Regional Strategies (NRS) Work Group that STSWG start giving direction on the Areas of Violation (AOV) issue. He said this draft takes us out to May time frame.

Tom Moore stated that the NRS Work Group is trying to get support for the Area of Violation (AOV) concept. He added they want two types of support--support for AOV and broad technical recommendations for Areas of Influence (AOI).

John Silvasi asked if this schedule meshes or do we need to accelerate on AOI/AOV.

Tom Moore responded that we are going to have to start sooner on AOV and AOI than the schedule suggests because they want to talk about those at the next meeting. He added we need to have an outline to NRS Work Group prior to the next meeting.

John Silvasi asked if there was some way we can ask the same group of work group members to pull a summary together on the AOI/AOV issues.

Tom Helms noted that the world keeps changing on AOI/AOV; adding that we need to look at these again.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that the original groups that worked on these issues continue to work on them.

Steve Ziman said we need to outline issues with the detail that does not allow us to go forward.

Tom Moore responded that he understood Mr. Ziman's comments. Generally they have the AOI concept a little better defined. He added we need to attach to this the technical limitations with the concept. He added we need to try and answer what the first step is. It is probably easier for the east than the west.

Harvey Jeffries said that the STSWG wrote a paper on November 12, 1996 on AOI scientific tools. He asked if the other work groups had an opportunity to look at this paper.

Tom Moore said he did not do a good job demanding that they look at the paper. He said he did ask them to consider county boundaries guidance.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he did not want them to just trash the document. He added that we need feedback from NRS Work Group to get a basis of where we are with regards to this issue.

Steve Ziman said we need to know where the NRS Work Group is on AOI. He asked if the paper put out in late November was the latest paper.

Tom Moore said that Don Theiler had made some changes. He would follow through by looking at our last paper and get their comments.

Tom Helms responded that is a good idea. He said we will ask for a call. He identified success at the end of the call to be that the STSWG is involved with the AOI/AOV issues.

Harvey Jeffries stated that it is more than a concern for reinventing the wheel, we don't want to do work that is ignored. He reiterated that Tom Moore volunteered and he has been involved, so we should let him continue. He added he would like to have Theiler give us their status. He asked Tom how he got involved with the NRS Work Group.

Tom Moore responded that he is the contact from STSWG on the AOI issue. He added that it is very difficult to keep the NRS Work Group making policy without a scientific basis. He added that the STSWG needs to jump in before the science doesn't match up to the policy.

Tom Helms said he is trying to take stock and believe that we (all members) are involved. He was sensitive to the fact that they may be ignoring our papers.

Steve Ziman responded that while he just heard Silvasi say there is a hurry, this is a Phase II issue.

Tom Helms said that AOI/AOV is Phase I but it is hard to do this until you figure out how NRS will fit into this.

Steve Ziman said he thought AOI/AOV was a Phase II issue.

Harvey Jeffries responded that the definition is not consistent. He explained Phase I is getting as many ideas and concepts on the table as possible. Phase II is supposed to be the implementation of Phase I.

John Silvasi asked the members to please let us know if the schedule for the other issue papers makes sense. He added that if he did not hear from them we will assume this schedule is correct.

Harvey Jeffries referred to the next page and the joint meeting with STSWG and BPAP.

John Silvasi said that he has not seen an agenda. He added we need to come up with what we are planning to talk about.

Harvey Jeffries said we need to hammer out the AOI/AOV issue now, before this meeting.

John Silvasi said the meeting is planned for the Omni hotel in Durham.

David Sanders has sent out a rough time for the meeting. He added that the STSWG has another call on January 28, 1997.

Steve Ziman commented that the other issue papers are things that we have not looked at before.

John Silvasi asked for members to bear with him, that he thought they had been assigned to STSWG.

Harvey Jeffries responded that in the mailing for the meeting there is a status sheet. He added that we have a conceptual model that is further down. There is one on control and technology. He said these are new Phase II issues for which there are no papers.

David Sanders said David Mobley is writing a description. Perhaps we need to wait for this.

John Silvasi said that the EPA staff is laying out background and we need to get statements from these people. The background will address things like what does the CAA say now about that particular issue.

Harvey Jeffries commented that there is a draft proposal for Phase II issue papers. He said he has no problem with this. If the staff prepares the framework then this will make things go a lot quicker.

Steve Ziman said he felt like we are shot-gunning all of these. He said he did not know what the issues are or how they feed into others. He continued that we are now getting into the nitty gritty, but asked if have we satisfied the overarching principals yet.

Harvey Jeffries said he thought the unorganized approach was a reasonable expectation for developing new ideas. He added the options from Phase I should now be on the table. He commented that there is not a formal transition. He asked who was able to draw up Phase II issue papers.

John Silvasi stated that he would try get something out. He has a diagram that helps show how these things fit together. He could walk through this process and show how they fit together.

Steve Ziman said it would be helpful and we should talk about prioritization.

Charlene Spells commented that Harvey was asking about transition, the NRS Work Group is working on that.

Harvey Jeffries said he did not understand why there is not an issue paper with AOI and AOV together.

Tom Moore said that someone has declared victory and split them into two issues and let BPAP Work Group and STSWG tell them what those two issues should be.

Harvey Jeffries asked where does that fit into the papers.

Tom Moore commented that we have something to say about planning areas and control regions. He added that none of these things are separable.

Diana Andrew asked if we were going to split AOI/AOV and then define how to identify AOIs.

Tom Moore said we need further definition of AOI. He sated that AOVs have been left behind and argued that there should be a paper to support what AOVs are.

Harvey Jeffries asked why modeling requirements and emission inventories are separate.

John Silvasi responded that they are both tools to help support control strategy development.

Harvey Jeffries commented that he did not think you could separate the two.

Steve Ziman said there is a hierarchy. He added that another thing that is bothersome is that there are papers we haven't even seen yet. For example, Reasonable Further Progress (RFP). He wondered how can we go before the FACA Committee when we haven't been involved in developing this paper.

Harvey Jeffries asked who created the Phase II status.

David Sanders replied that in the NRS Work Group meeting last week, Tom Moore said that science was not in the policy. David Mobley stated he thought the science was in there. He felt there was at least enough science to establish strawman. He added that he did not think it is enough to actually define AOI regions and that much more data needs to be collected to define these areas.

Harvey Jeffries said we are not talking about that level of detail; there is no structure here.

John Silvasi hoped to pull the structure together. He thought asking for this is a fair request. He responded that he would get something in a week from now.

Steve Ziman noted there are still real questions about attainability of the standard. He asked if this shouldn't be identified.

John Silvasi proposed an additional phone call on January 21, 1997 to cover this and other items that did not get covered in today's call.

Conceptual Model Update

Harvey Jeffries commented that having looked at what the other two groups did, and hearing from a student who spent two months on the decision making process, many of the people have such truncated maps of the science, that it is shocking. He added that the conceptual model and the "Green" document are way too detailed. He said we need our own set of principles (2-3 pages) that we can put on the table. This would be a general framework. He volunteered to create bullets which would serve as an executive summary.

David Sanders agreed saying that this would go a long way in answering questions on the conceptual model.

John Silvasi asked Harvey Jeffries if he was looking for comments from other members.

Harvey Jeffries said yes but let him take a first shot at it and fill in the gaps.

John Silvasi asked if it would be possible to get started on Volume 2 this month.

Harvey Jeffries replied that Chapter 5, which addresses transport issues needs expansion to include OTAG results. He added that we need to put matching technical detail in Volume 2 as we are writing issue papers for NRS and BPAP Work Groups.

John Silvasi asked for the schedule.

Harvey Jeffries said as issue papers are finished then you will get a shot at Volume 2.

John Silvasi asked if at the next few meetings the agenda should be changed.

Harvey Jeffries recapped that on January 21, 1997, John Silvasi will provide a framework and on January 28, 1997, Tom Moore will discuss issues that we need to be aware of before the joint meeting on January 31, 1997.

David Sanders noted that the meeting on January 28, was intended as a wrap up of Volume 1 of the Conceptual Model.

A work group member asked when the draft of Volume 1 would go out.

David Sanders responded that we will have a draft version out on January 21, 1997.

Harvey Jeffries asked if it were more complete than any one has seen yet. He added that Chapter 5 and beyond goes into Volume 2.

David Sanders said there is an executive summary but there needs to be additional work on Chapter 3.

Harvey Jeffries noted the chapter that addresses the state of the environment, existing tools, issues related to AOI/AOV, and tools designed to meet the new requirements will be covered under the next volume of the Conceptual Model (i.e. Chapters 6-8). Mr. Jeffries also noted that this meeting will be a time for Tom Moore to bring the work group up to speed on some of the issues.

Tom Moore said he would be happy to do this.

Harvey Jeffries asked how the agenda for the meeting on January 30 and 31 will come out.

David Sanders said that we need topics from STSWG for the agenda.

Tom Moore responded that we need to compromise on issues where we can. It can not be an "us vs. them" mentality.

John Silvasi noted that this wraps up the items on the agenda. He asked Harvey Jeffries if he had anything else.

Harvey Jeffries said that it is probably a good thing that there is a meeting on January 30 and 31.

Tom Moore pointed out that he has tried to pull together AOI progress and this is all related to institutional mechanisms. He wanted Harvey Jeffries to be aware that there is another paper on the institutions that are going to run these super areas.

Harvey Jeffries said that maybe we will see how these issues fit in after we see John Silvasi's framework. David Sanders reminded everyone of the meeting on January 21, 1997 to discuss the Conceptual Model. It will be from 1:00-2:30pm.

The meeting was adjourned.