Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Mutual Building, Tom Helms' Office

March 4, 1997

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee met on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 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-Chapel Hill

Diana Andrews	Kentucky DEP

Glenn Cass	Cal Tech

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia DEQ

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Cyril Durrenberger	TNRCC

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

Tom Moore	Arizona

Leon Outlaw (and Jay Hudson)	Santee Cooper

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Jay Turner	DOT

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

John Cabaniss	AIAM

John Core	WESTAR

Ellis Cowling	SOS

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

Rich Poirot	Vermont

S.T. Rao	N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana DEQ

Jeffrey West	GPU Services Corp.

Non-Work Group Participants

Bob Wayland, SAIC; Pradeep Saxena, EPRI; Ken Schere, NERL; Ned Meyer, U.S. EPA/AQMG; Bill Kuykendal, U.S. EPA/EIFG; JoAnn Allman, Bill Johnson, David Sanders, and John Silvasi, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

Tom Helms opened the meeting by defining what he would consider a successful meeting. Mr. Helms stated that in today's call, the STSWG needed to address the following topics: (1) talk a little bit about the Source Attribution Workshop - go over the questions, but stay out the details. Mr. Helms indicated that he was currently negotiating the funding with (Joe) Tikvart and Ned Meyer; (2) We also need to resolve the Chapter 5 issues of the Conceptual Model; and, (3) Discuss the possibilities surrounding the joint meeting on March 13/14, 1997 here in RTP.

Harvey Jeffries indicated that he had reviewed the STSWG comments, and that there were some problems as to the focus of the workshop. He suggested that we re-visit the definition of the workshop and why were holding it in the first place.

Ned Meyer voiced his agreement with Harvey Jeffries.

Harvey Jeffries said that he recognized two very serious limitations - one day for ozone and one day for PM. He continued saying that we want to allow sufficient time to have a meaningful dialog on both of these issues. Originally, we had divided this into observational and model-based techniques; however, given our time constraints, this is not going to be possible. Thus, Mr. Jeffries suggested that we limit the presentations to model-based techniques. There is the possibility that we allow some of the other techniques to be presented as background or handout material, and not actually be presented at the workshop.

Again, Ned Meyer concurred with Harvey Jeffries' comments. Mr. Meyer stated that given the amount of time scheduled for the workshop, that he did not see more than 10 presentations being made on each topic.

Steve Ziman reminded the group that as we talk about techniques that are going to be used, there has to be a baseline understanding of the pros and cons of each technique.

Harvey Jeffries responded that this is the purpose of the review process to ensure that all techniques that are presented are investigated properly. Mr. Jeffries stated that obviously if you are going to present a model, the assumption must be made up-front that the model is using the correct meteorology and the correct emissions. Mr. Jeffries alluded to Steve that he had missed the last meeting and a couple of calls, and thus might not be totally versed on what had transpired. As a summary, Mr. Jeffries explained that we are simply trying to get at what techniques are available for AOI./AOV and that there will be a second workshop later for evaluating these tools in detail relative to their applicability to the regulatory process.

Steve Ziman responded that this approach was not entirely clear to him when he submitted his recent memo/comments. Mr. Ziman again urged Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Meyer to clarify what exactly is going to be discussed at the workshop.

Harvey Jeffries offered that he understood what Mr. Ziman was referring too, and indicated that this material was another layer beyond the current thinking and evaluation process.

Ned Meyer brought forward a second issue that has come up with regard to the timing of the workshop. Originally, it was hoped that the material generated from the workshop could be used to support the proposal to be promulgated in July 1997. Mr. Meyer said that he did not think that this was possible, given our delay in getting started. Mr. Meyer concluded that it would be best to push the workshop back towards the end of Summer 1997.

Harvey Jeffries interjected that he did not see any of this information contributing to the discussion of RAMPs and initial AOIs. As a result, Mr. Jeffries did not have concerns moving it back to the summer. However, he stated that for STSWG to have the second workshop, it would be good to have this information prior to this second workshop.

John Silvasi indicated that he saw this as a Phase II issue. Mr. Silvasi reminded the group that EPA will go final with this in early- to mid-1998. Thus, any findings from the workshop would be used as guidance to support this policy. Mr. Silvasi concluded that as soon as the RAMPs are formed, then the AOIs need to identified.

Ned Meyer acknowledged Mr. Silvasi's point, and reiterated that we need to provide guidance for the determination of preliminary AOIs.

Tom Moore stated that he was confused, and did not understand how STSWG was going to do any of this, without having the building blocks under the foundation.

Harvey Jeffries stated that this similar to the "chicken and egg" problem - if you do not have a clear idea of what the tools are, then you can not lay the foundational pieces. Mr. Jeffries replied that he could not believe he was hearing from EPA that we needed to delay something.

Tom Helms inserted that this guidance was extremely important, and that EPA did not want to mess this up. Mr. Helms stated that he had talked at length with (Joe) Tikvart, and that they had concurred that the Agency would move carefully on this issue.

Harvey Jeffries stated that the amount of peer review and information gathering involved here is enormous, and that the lead time is simply not good enough. However, Mr. Jeffries recognized the need to get some of this information out now to benefit the Subcommittee requests for scientific/technical information.

Ned Meyer questioned Mr. Jeffries about exactly what STSWG is being asked to produce and when?

Harvey Jeffries replied that the Subcommittee has asked for technical guidance on the activities that RAMPs have to engage in.

Ned Meyer asked is a summer workshop not soon enough?

Harvey Jeffries emphatically replied absolutely not! Mr. Jeffries stated the Subcommittee needs this information prior to the July promulgation date. He said that STSWG was being asked, "What is available in terms of modeling tools?; How many episodes do you have to model?, etc.". STSWG needs to have a dialog on these issues, prior to making these recommendations to the Subcommittee.

Bruce Hill agreed that there needs to be some science underpinning for the decisions being made in the FACA process; otherwise, we will go back to square one.

Ned Meyer offered that the Air Quality Modeling Group (AQMG) could give the STSWG some initial thoughts on how all of this can be done.

Harvey Jeffries replied that he was sure that AQMG could do this. However, Mr. Jeffries indicated that the reason for holding a workshop was to provide the opportunity to develop a dialog between the NRSWG and STSWG on the specific questions placed before this group.

Dan Weiss reminded the group that every step is a learning process; thus, these workshops should be sooner as opposed to later, and occur more frequently.

Steve Ziman said that he had just completed a conference call on the RFP issue. There is such a degree of different opinions/understandings about how models are used and implemented, that we need to have these workshops now. Mr. Ziman suggested that STSWG needs to bring all the players up-to-speed and on a level playing field.

Harvey Jeffries indicated that this was the level of the workshop that he was discussing. Mr. Jeffries stated that the client of this type of workshop was not the BPAP and NRSWG, rather the client is EPA and the STSWG. This initial workshop is a technical information workshop for "inside" players and not the policy groups. The follow-on workshop would be for the policy makers.

Glenn Cass agreed with Harvey Jeffries basic approach, and indicated that we need this workshop sooner, rather than later. There are a lot of tools out there that are unknown, simply because they have not been published at this time.

Bruce Hill asked if the EPA could influence Atmospheric Environment or AWMA to publish a special volume on this information.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he was against a journal-based peer review process, because of the time commitments/constraints.

Glenn Cass said he was of the opinion that the ability to understand and evaluate the technical material could be done by the STSWG members. He reminded each of the Work Group members that they were highly qualified individuals and capable of doing this work.

Ken Schere defended his suggestion of a journal-based review process, stating that he still believed that this is the best way to go. Mr. Schere said that he agreed to a STSWG review panel only to speed-up the process.

Harvey Jeffries reminded the group that we have the possibility of missing an opportunity here. There could be a dozen peer-reviewed presentations, but we will still need the workshop to determine what EPA's needs are. We are going to have to have some meetings to review these tools as the STSWG, prior to making any suggestions to the FACA Subcommittee.

John Silvasi asked the group to push back from the table for a minute and examine exactly what is the objective for holding this workshop? Mr. Silvasi stated that if we review the 5-step process of RAMP identification, then we would arrive at a different time schedule. The definition of the RAMP is not a regulatory process/action. Thus, the use of the models here is not really a regulatory function. However, when you start designing preliminary AOIs, then there are real regulatory purposes.

Tom Moore agreed with Mr. Silvasi. However, Mr. Moore continued saying that he did not see this process as being long enough, or well-defined enough to be able to delineate where the programmatic vs. scientific distinction is placed.

Bruce Hill stated that he saw a danger of directing this workshop toward a total policy resolution process. Mr. Hill concluded that it would be dangerous to step too far from the science initiatives STSWG currently has in the agenda.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that we discuss putting together a proposal to gather some information - be it workshops or whatever. Mr. Jeffries said that all of these activities would be sponsored by the STSWG. Then, EPA will evaluate the suggestions and the framework under which these types of activities can be performed. However, Mr. Jeffries indicated that he was still hearing a debate about the function of the RAMP on this call, and that STSWG needed to determine what models are being used to generate what information. Mr. Jeffries suggested that we take Steve Ziman's approach of writing a primer on what a SIP currently looks like, and what we anticipate it will look like in the future.

In terms of summarizing, Tom Helms said that we have talked a good deal about the Source Apportionment Workshop and that we do need a way to sort this out to meet everyone's needs. STSWG needs to work with Ned (Meyer) to develop this workshop as soon as possible. However, STSWG still has some questions that need to be answered now, and we need to focus on these at this time. Mr. Helms concluded that STSWG could sponsor a specific session on tools, but he thought the people out there know more than they are letting on too.

Harvey Jeffries agreed that a time line for a SIP is an excellent idea. He thought that it would be a great "tool" to show the people what it takes to develop, design and implement a modeling program. Mr. Jeffries offered that he was not clear on all of the steps in this process. Mr. Jeffries indicated that if we have some type of visual comparison of the approaches, and the time and resources required, it would be very beneficial.

Tom Moore stated that in Don Theiler's paper, this type of information is referred to as "second order questions" and this is where the substance of the policy gets done. Everyone is for clean air, but that statement alone does not clean it up. We need to answer these second order questions. I would agree with Glenn Cass that the STSWG can adequately evaluate a good deal of these issues without the workshop.

Tom Helms offered that he was not sure where EPA was going from here. Some of the Work Group members are in favor of a workshop, and others are not so sure.

Harvey Jeffries said that what STSWG has just done is assign ourselves a new document to write! Basically, he indicated that we need to develop some type of document to address Don Theiler's "second order questions".

Tom Moore suggested that at the next joint meeting, STSWG should make a presentation on these issues to the other Work Groups, and explain that their policy may/may not work based on the scientific underpinning.

Steve Ziman agreed, but said this had to be done much sooner than August.

Tom Helms questioned that Steve Ziman was correct, but that this can not be done next week.

Harvey Jeffries said that we needed to move on and begin our detailed planning for the April STSWG FACA meetings.

Tom Helms responded that he would report back to the other committees that this is the approach that STSWG is going to take.

Harvey Jeffries stated that we should be able to complete this by May, and this will eventually become part of the Conceptual Model.

Steve Ziman asked if NARSTO could contribute here?

Ken Schere responded that NARSTO could not really contributed, because of timing delays in the peer review process for their papers.

Tom Helms reminded the group that remaining face-to-face meetings would be April in Falls Church, VA; June in RTP; and, August in San Francisco.

Harvey Jeffries interjected that in between those dates are joint meetings between the Work Groups.

Tom Helms said that STSWG could take the lead on setting up another joint Work Group meeting if STSWG thought it would be useful.

John Silvasi offered that the joint meeting on March 13, 1997 would be a joint meeting in the morning, and then in the afternoon the Work Groups would meet individually. On Friday, March 14, 1997 the meetings will be for the individual Issue Paper subgroups.

Steve Ziman reminded Tom Helms of the cost of attending these meetings, and asked that EPA inform STSWG members which meetings are "worth" attending, as individuals can not make very meeting.

Harvey Jeffries replied that he would not recommend coming to the March 13/14, 1997 meetings in RTP. Mr. Jeffries stated that STSWG needs to be prepared to outline and identify who is working on this new document, prior to the April FACA meeting. The information to be included and the people working on it need to be included in this initial effort.

Tom Helms agreed with Harvey Jeffries' comments.

Kirit Chaudhari asked if a summary could be provided for next weeks meetings?

Tom Helms indicated that EPA would provide this to each Work Group member. In conclusion, Mr. Helms stated that we would move towards the meeting in Falls Church, and that we would continue to work with Ned (Meyer) and Ken (Schere) on setting-up a more detailed Source Attribution Workshop at some point in the future.

Harvey Jeffries agreed and suggested that the STSWG really needed to move forward on solving Don Theiler's "second order questions". Mr. Jeffries stated that if we do not address these issues, the whole process will die. There are an awful lot of people out there who are skeptical on EPA's (e.g. FACA's) ability to make this whole process work.

Glenn Cass suggested that we do not need to limit our efforts to identifying the tools out there. Mr. Cass reminded the group that we also need to review the number of qualified individuals out there to run these models and the quality of the emissions inventories. Computer codes are not the limiting factor here.

Harvey Jeffries acknowledged Mr. Cass' statement and stated that before someone has controls put on them, these entities want to tinker with the model codes, and verify that the codes are in fact reliable.

Steve Ziman stated that OTAG has shown that multiple scenarios must be modeled in order for people to develop a comfort level with the results. Thus, Mr. Ziman volunteered to help with the writing of the new document.

Tom Helms suggested that Harvey Jeffries and Joe Tikvart talk off-line about the Source Attribution Workshop.

Conceptual Model

Harvey Jeffries stated that the Executive Summary was "on hold", and that he would be unable to do any additional writing for the next couple of months.

Tom Helms suggested that Bob Wayland (e.g. contractor) take a crack at drafting an Executive Summary.

Harvey Jeffries agreed with this approach, and asked that we move on to the more problematic issues like Chapter 5 and beyond. Mr. Jeffries suggested that each member of the STSWG read through the original material (e.g. June, 1996 version of Chapter 5; the Vukovich paper; and, S.T. Rao's response material).

Harvey Jeffries suggested that the revised Chapter 5 should be founded on Rich Scheffe's ANPR material, and then have Robin Dennis', Fred Vukovich's and S.T. Rao's material folded- in to some degree.

Tom Helms offered to have David Sanders re-distribute the original materials to each member of the Work Group.

Steve Ziman suggested that before we start re-writing Chapter 5, perhaps we should recast what Chapter 5 should be?

Harvey Jeffries asked if Steve Ziman was suggesting that Chapter 5 should be a tools chapter and that transport should be treated in a later chapter?

Steve Ziman responded that we needed to deal with these secondary issues that Tom Moore has been discussing today.

Tom Moore stated that he had numerous conversations with (Rich) Scheffe when he was writing his document. Mr. Moore agreed that using some of the pieces from Scheffe's original document would be quite useful. Mr. Moore concluded by saying that we need to get across the message that this process is iterative. This message is not the technique, rather it is how much or how little we actually know.

Issue Papers

RFP - John Silvasi and Steve Ziman; Cyril Durrenberger

Cyril Durrenberger stated that a lot of people in this country do not understand SIP Planning.

John Silvasi offered that Sarah Peirce-Sandner's group has been trying to "think outside the box" and that there are a lot of good ideas coming forth that really have not had a chance to be reviewed yet. For example, in the past we have only dealt with emissions reductions. Maybe for RFP purposes we look at reductions not only for attainment demonstrations, but perhaps link them with health benefits.

Tom Helm's asked what was the future for this paper?

John Silvasi responded that a number of issues still need to be ironed-out. The metric needs to be determined. We need to define how much is enough for RFP - be it emissions or air quality. How do you document progress increments? What happens if you don't make your progress increments? There is considerable effort still to be put into this paper.

Institutional Mechanisms - S.T. Rao,

None.

AOVs - Tom Moore

Tom Moore stated that there is a summary of notes that Ellen Baldridge took that she can make available to STSWG members. Mr. Moore indicated that there should be no further Subcommittee discussion on this paper until August. Mr. Moore said that he talked with John Crouch yesterday, and that he would be submitting some maps to Mr. Crouch for review. These maps could serve to generate some discussion at that meeting in August.

Tom Helms asked whether Mr. Moore needed any additional help with this paper?

Tom Moore responded that he would take whatever anyone could give him; but, perhaps it would be most beneficial if he took the first crack at putting something together over the next 30-60 days. He stated that there was no real rush on this paper.

Classifications - Diana Andrews

Diana Andrews apologized, indicating that she had done nothing on this paper. However, Ms. Andrews agreed to make some progress prior to the next call.

David Chock asked if the "Too Close to Call" issue had disappeared from the classifications paper? Can this not be re-included in this paper?

Harvey Jeffries suggested that David Chock join Diana Andrews and submit his thoughts in this way.

Tom Helms agreed with Harvey Jeffries' suggestion. Mr. Helms urged the Work Group members to contact Eric Skelton, and volunteer their opinions. He cautioned the group to remember that they are representing the entire STSWG; so, whatever comments you make should represent the views of the entire STSWG.

Harvey Jeffries warned David Chock to remember that one option for classifications is in fact no classification at all. Thus, Mr. Jeffries asked Mr. Chock to be careful about what he takes to this subgroup.

Tom Helms asked if "Too Close to Call" did not also belong in RFP?

John Silvasi responded that they had not discussed this yet.

Harvey Jeffries reminded the group that Beverly Hartsock discussed this idea as "an out" for states that could not reach attainment.

David Chock indicated that "Too Close to Call" could also be included in the Attainment Dates paper as well.

Tom Helms agreed, and encouraged David to contact the necessary individuals working on these other papers and get the STSWG thoughts adequately represented.

Steve Ziman responded that he thought this issue could be a viable component of RFP, and welcomed David Chock's input on this issue.

Tom Helms requested that David Chock coordinate his efforts with Diana Andrews, since she is the official STSWG lead on this paper.

Harvey Jeffries questioned which Issue Papers were scheduled for April?

Tom Helms responded, Attainment Dates, Control Strategies, Economic Incentives, Modeling Incentives and RFP. However, Mr. Helms indicated that this list is guaranteed to change before we get to Falls Church. He offered to update this list periodically as the meeting date got closer. Mr. Helms concluded that the agenda should come together following the meetings on March 13/14, 1997.

Economic Incentives - Dave McNeill

Dave McNeill said that he would be meeting on March 12, 1997 in the evening to discuss this paper with the subgroup. Mr. McNeill indicated that the RFP discussion that STSWG members were having at the last face-to-face meeting in Washington, D.C., which was stopped because of time, needs to be continued at the next face-to-face. Mr. McNeill stated that the Economic Incentives paper is fast becoming the largest paper in the process. He warned STSWG members that the subgroup is getting very close to coming to STSWG and asking for "how do we do this". Thus, STSWG needs to get up to speed on these issues, and be ready for answering these questions. Thus, I think this source attribution issue needs to be addressed. We are going to be very busy! Mr. McNeill concluded that the subgroup as an incredible list of questions that they will be expecting STSWG to address.

Tom Helms stated that it sounded like Dave McNeill needs some help!

Dave McNeill responded not necessarily, but that he would have a lot more to say at our next face-to-face meeting.

Tom Helms acknowledged that the group had accomplished everything that we needed to do today. Mr. Helms thanked the group for participating and said the meeting had been a great success. In summary, he asked David Sanders to provide the Chapter 5 materials to all Work Group members and reminded Bob Wayland that he would need to draft an Executive Summary for distribution at the April FACA meetings.

Bruce Hill asked for STSWG support on the Monitoring Incentives Group.

Tom Helms indicated we could discuss this next week in RTP, and adjourned the meeting.