Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Mutual Building, Tom Helms' Office

April 1, 1997

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee met on Tuesday, April 1, 1997 in Durham, North Carolina. A list of 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

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia DEQ

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Cyril Durrenberger	TNRCC

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

George Lauer	ARCO (new STSWG member)

Tom Moore	Arizona

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

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

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Jeffrey West	GPU Services Corp.

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

Glen Cass	Cal Tech

John Core	WESTAR

Ellis Cowling	SOS

Jay Hudson	Santee Cooper

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Jay Turner	DOT

Mantop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana DEQ

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Bob Wayland, SAIC; Ellen Baldridge and Ned Meyer, U.S. EPA/AQMG; Nancy Mayer, U. S. EPA/ISEG; JoAnn Allman, Bill Johnson, David Sanders, John Silvasi, and Robert Stallings, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

Tom Helms opened today's meeting by discussing his goals for success for the conference call. He indicated that the primary reason for today's call was to prepare for next week's face-to-face discussions in Falls Church, Virginia. Mr. Helms stated that the following topics would be discussed:

-	RFP Issue Paper

-	Issue paper on Modeling Requirements/Emission Inventories and Statements

-	Issue Papers - update on the status of each paper

Mr. Helms reminded the group that the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Issue Paper could be omitted, because John Silvasi would have already covered this topic in the initial slot of today's meeting.

Harvey Jeffries asked everyone if they had the document from David Chock on Meteorological Variability, which was dated March 28, 1997. Mr. Jeffries said that there were also some e-mail messages on RFP that reported on some of the concerns raised on this issue. He questioned if the STWSG members had received this information as well?

David Sanders responded that he had received the information from David Chock, but that he was unaware of the additional e-mail messages on RFP.

Harvey Jeffries noted that perhaps they had been sent to him, and that he would have to distribute this information. He also stated that Steve Ziman also had comments on the straw man draft modeling tools document.

David Sanders indicated that he had forwarded Mr. Ziman's comments to the STSWG membership.

Harvey Jeffries asked David Sanders if he had gotten the EXCEL spreadsheet from the San Joaquin Valley study?

David Sanders responded that he had received this information, and that John Silvasi also had downloaded the material and converted it for the Work Group. Mr. Sanders also encouraged the other Work Group members to download the following issue papers dated March 31, 1997 from NRSWG section of the TTN: (1) Pre-SIP RFP; (2) Regular/SIP RFP; (3) Control Technologies Matrix; and, (4) Control Strategies

Tom Helms now asked John Silvasi to begin his discussion of the RFP Issue paper.

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) - John Silvasi

John Silvasi indicated that both Steve Ziman and Cyril Durrenberger had participated in the RFP Issue Paper conference call, which had been earlier this morning, and he encouraged them to "jump-in" on the discussion wherever they felt they need to. Mr. Silvasi noted that the STSWG will be asked to comment on the following issues:

(1)	Data Frequency Interval

Topic questions include: What guidance can STSWG provide to ascertain whether a trend is observed in perceived air quality improvements? What is an appropriate interval for assessing these improvements?

(2)	Meteorological Variability

In this category, questions include: Can progress be determined at pre-defined intervals? Are there tools that can remove meteorological variability from long-term data sets?

(3)	Use of Other Metrics

Mr. Silvasi mentioned that we will be providing a list of air quality metrics, ranging from emissions to air quality issues. He asked what guidance can the STSWG provide regarding which of these is a preferred metric from a scientific standpoint? Are there alternate metrics which should be considered? How would the STSWG prioritize these metrics in terms of their scientific validity? Are emission inventories the preferred metric, or is their an alternative?

Mr. Silvasi stated that STSWG will be asked to review the metrics and make recommendations. He asked should there be a hierarchy of metrics? For example, a primary set of metrics (e.g., emissions based metrics), and a secondary set of metrics (e.g., population exposure, etc.)? He said that he could guarantee that STSWG's responses would be reviewed by FACA.

Cyril Durrenberger interjected that Mr. Silvasi omitted the cost concerns from the evaluation of control strategies. He said, further we should have some precise definitions of these metrics, so that we are all on a even playing field.

John Silvasi responded that Mr. Durrenberger was correct. He said that STSWG should provide insight from a science perspective. If possible, STSWG should provide the actual calculation procedure.

Bruce Hill intervened and noted that he was also on that phone call as well, and someone from California brought up some issues related to the costs of different metrics.

John Silvasi noted that he is aware that he skimmed over some of these changes, but one of these changes (made by Richard Groh, from Region 9 Office), was to consider the cost of implementing these metrics.

Steve Ziman reminded the group that individuals are discussing these same cost data in the East, relative to what is required to do a SIP.

Harvey Jeffries clarified that he thought that they just wanted to make sure the cost is listed under the data requirements.

Steve Ziman responded agreed with Mr. Jeffries.

Harvey Jeffries asked John Silvasi if he could clarify the difference in intervals and meteorological variability questions?

John Silvasi replied that the first point was related totally to intervals, and the frequency of evaluating RFP. For example, he asked do you do an emissions inventory every three years? What is a reasonable amount of time to allow the evaluation of the metric? Then, the last issue is simply, can one account for meteorology in determining trends? So, the first is simply defining the interval and the third one is can we separate meteorology from our trends?

Jay Rosenthal added that in addition to the year-to-year variations, there are often multi- year periods that stand out; whether due to air-sea interactions or El Niño type effects.

George Lauer asked, are we going to actually look at a recurrence interval?

Steve Ziman responded that you will be looking at various degrees of sophistication in the SIP process.

Harvey Jeffries indicated that he did not think this group was going to do any specific analyses. STSWG was simply going to be making recommendations to the policy groups. He noted that with the limited time frame, STSWG simply cannot realistically "try-out" some of these ideas.

George Lauer offered that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina does have some long-term climatological data that could address some of these issues.

Harvey Jeffries referred the issue back to Tom Helms, and questioned the level of funding which was available?

Tom Helms clarified that we are simply being asked as scientists and experts what we think about these issues. He agreed with Mr. Jeffries that we do not have the time to do an

original analysis here. Mr. Helms agreed that new analyses would be very hard to work into the system at this time.

George Lauer stated that perhaps a menu of options could be worked into this discussion.

John Silvasi mentioned that there was a list that would be circulated that contains a record of "brain stormed" metrics, which were derived from a face-to-face meeting held in Durham in early March.

Harvey Jeffries asked if he could go over this package?

Tom Helms interjected that the STSWG needed to discuss this package, and discuss the optimal time frame. He asked if we would have the package prior to next week's meeting?

John Silvasi responded that he will make it available for next week's meeting. He added that he thought we would need to have something back in time for the June FACA meeting. He relayed that there had been a lot of concern from the Subcommittee that this particular issue had taken too long. However, he said that they recognized that this is a complex issue, and that solutions are slow to come. Thus, Mr. Silvasi replied that some type of resolution by June would be acceptable.

Steve Ziman noted that the issues that are being broached here are issues that are attached to the process because RFP uses air quality as an indicator. He said that in reality, the issues that are being asked hear are as germaine to SIP, and what we have already discussed in this group. He added that these include modeling, data needs, time frame, costs, and the iterative process because models are not universally trusted.

George Lauer inserted that he participated in part of that brainstorming session in Durham, and that he doesn't necessarily agree with Mr. Ziman.

Steve Ziman responded that what we are looking at here is very clear; is there a smart way to make these emission reductions? He stated that we need to be making emission reductions in an ordered fashion as we move toward attainment. The metric is both retrospective and prospective.

Tom Helms also offered that what we are trying to do is set the stage for the discussions next week. He said that he thought the current discussion was going "outside the envelope", and suggested that we should save this for next week's face-to-face meeting.

Harvey Jeffries stated to Tom Helms that he was still trying to determine a time line. He asked John Silvasi if this material is in the Pre-SIP and SIP Issue Papers, which are on the TTN as of 3/31/97?

John Silvasi responded that this information was not currently contained in those documents on the TTN.

Harvey Jeffries questioned if those two papers only dealt with basic issues? If this was the case, he asked Mr. Silvasi if he intended to add this additional information to the documents on the TTN?

John Silvasi replied that the upload deadline had passed, and that we could not do this now. Mr. Silvasi suggested that he compose a memo, and fax it to all of the STSWG members. He noted that the memo will contain the metrics that have been "brain stormed", and the other issues that we have discussed this afternoon.

Tom Helms asked Harvey Jeffries how much time should be allocated at the face-to-face to discuss this topic?

Harvey Jeffries responded that it is so preliminary, that he would suggest not to devote more than 1 hour to this topic.

Kirit Chaudhari asked if real, practical experiences were going to be discussed on RFP? He noted that he could tell the group first-hand of the many difficulties he goes through in Virginia to deal with RFP.

Harvey Jeffries asked Mr. Chaudhari to summarize his concerns on paper for discussion next week.

Bruce Hill requested that John Silvasi fax the two-page list of basic principles to everyone as well.

John Silvasi replied that it was a good suggestion and that he would comply.

Tom Helms suggested that the group move on to the NRSWG paper dealing with modeling and emission inventory statements.

David Sanders indicated that this was initially and STSWG paper; but, that now it has become a joint paper because of Ted Russell's desire to be involved in the effort. As you know from the principles, EPA generally starts off with inception material, then other, non-EPA people embellish on this effort. He said he thought that the latter part of Ned Meyer's document (e.g., the straw man) could be used as the EPA starter material for this effort, and then we could allow the STSWG and NRWSG members to embellish, and work it into a paper.

Harvey Jeffries asked Mr. Sanders if he was referring to Chapter 3 in Ned Meyer's document?

David Sanders responded that he was referring to the material which began in Chapter 5, because these are the types of questions that we should be developing further. Then when we go to the Subcommittee on April 8, 1997, we could further develop these issues. However, he mentioned that he did not think we would have anything to put before the Subcommittee on April 8, 1996; but, he thought we could begin to place some of these questions before the full Subcommitte and try and peak their interest in these issues.

Harvey Jeffries added that he was still confused. He said Chapter 5 is nothing but questions. He asked if Mr. Sanders was saying that we simply provide answers to these questions for the Subcommittee?

David Sanders responded that was his original intent. Mr. Sanders stated that he thought STSWG could use this document as foundational material to start the Subcommittee thinking about these issues.

Tom Helms asked David Sanders if the Subcommittee was not more interested in our expertise and what we think about these questions, rather than providing concrete answers at this point?

David Sanders replied that he thought these questions would generate a thought process for the Subcommittee. He agreed that STSWG would in fact be querying the Subcommittee; but, at the same time we would be bringing them up to speed on these issues.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he was still very confused. He stated that he did not understand what the issues were in this paper and who exactly the straw man document was written for?

David Sanders responded that Ned Meyer's document was compiled for the Source Attribution Workshop to frame the need for that effort.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he read this straw man as something much bigger than that. Mr. Jeffries stated that it is a document which describes air quality management under the new scenarios.

Ned Meyer added that he had been led to believe that STSWG wanted to know what EPA was thinking so that they could define the tools needed to implement air quality management. He said that this is a conceptual document, which describes how you would implement this approach, given the currently available tools.

S.T. Rao asked if the Work Group has this document?

Harvey Jeffries replied that it was on the Web site. He said that the document is on the STSWG page dated March 5, 1997, and that it was a great background document. He noted, however, that what remains unclear, is the relationship between this straw man and the Issue Paper that we were currently discussing.

David Sanders responded that we could go back to Chapter 3 to start.

Harvey Jeffries reminded David Sanders that this is an Issue Paper and asked what are the true science issues here? He further questioned that now that NRSWG is in on this, was this in fact now an educational process for them?

David Sanders answered that he thought that this would be a two-way process. He stated that he believed that Ted Russell could educate the members of the STSWG as well as we could educate the membership of the NRSWG.

Harvey Jeffries noted that before we get into the details, we need some high-level recognition and vision to be defined and supported by this Work Group.

S.T. Rao asked if this was going to be discussed and addressed in the Conceptual Model?

Harvey Jeffries responded that this information was supposed to feed from the straw man into the Conceptual Model. First we needed to meet NRSWG's immediate demands, and then allow this information to filter into the Conceptual Model.

Tom Helms added that we would have answered this question with our missing chapter in the Conceptual Model. He stated we have now, however, chosen to approach this in a little different manner. Mr. Helms then mentioned to Harvey Jeffries that the two of them needed to make a call to NRSWG and then report back to the group on Monday.

Harvey Jeffries replied to Tom Helms that he could not do it this week. He said that he thought that they could do this next Monday, going back and forth between the different Work Groups.

Tom Helms responded that he would do some preliminary work this week, and then next Monday they would get with David Mobley, Don Theiler or Robin Dunkins and have them come over and work through it with STSWG.

Harvey Jeffries added that he did not have a problem with this being an Issue Paper. He stated that we just needed to define what the science issues are, and how we would deal with them.

Ned Meyer interjected that he hoped that he had not confused the issue with his document. He clarified that he was simply trying to start STSWG's thought process.

Harvey Jeffries replied that he perceived Mr. Meyer's document as an excellent job. However, he did ask Mr. Meyer what the nature of Chapter 5 was in his document?

Ned Meyer responded that these were questions that occurred to him as he was writing the document. He said that he had intended for STSWG to pick and choose the questions that were most important to STSWG, and then add additional questions that STSWG thought might be important that were not currently found in Chapter 5.

Tom Helms indicated that we now had a game plan for next week's meeting.

Harvey Jeffries agreed that he was happy with this, and motioned to move forward.

Issue Paper Discussions

Tom Helms asked that each presenter make these discussions brief, as we were beginning to run out of time today. He acknowledged that we keep beating some these of these Issue Papers to death, but that there was a need to continue discussing them.

Areas of Violation (AOV) - Tom Moore

Mr. Moore stated that he has not actually done any work on this, but that there was a version being placed on the TTN. He said there were really no science issues, but there were some policy changes in the document. He stated that if he could be reassured that this would not be talked about by the Subcommittee until August, he would spend his time doing more important things.

Tom Helms responded that all he could tell him was that the agenda had not been set for June and August. However, he stated that this Issue Paper was not on the agenda for April.

Tom Moore replied as long as we were on schedule for either June or August, he would not rush to complete anything this week.

Ellen Baldridge noted that the only thing that had been mentioned with regards to this paper was that it was in the August time frame for review by the Subcommittee. Ms. Baldridge noted that the subgroup would be looking at it in the meantime; but, the Subcommittee would not deal with this until August. She also concurred with Mr. Moore that there was very little science in this document.

Tom Moore mentioned that he would like to talk about the issues associated with wild land fire management next Monday at the face-to-face.

Jay Rosenthal asked what the technical issues were?

Tom Moore responded that the magnitude of the emissions were enormous, the downwind effects are on the order of kilometers, and the emissions are primarily in the PM-fine range.

S.T. Rao asked if this would fit into the discussion of metrics?

Tom Moore indicated that he would agree, but some of these were related to man-made activities (e.g., prescribed burning). He stated that he was interested in working on the science questions, but that what he was calling for was the initiation of the political process.

Tom Helms questioned if this was the project that Gary Blais was doing?

Tom Moore answered that he was referring to a process that was initiated by Sally Shaver.

Tom Helms responded that he could have either John Silvasi or JoAnn Allman look into this with Gary (Blais), and that we could have his group come back to STSWG and report on his findings.

Tom Moore reiterated that this was an important source category that we discussed last July at our face-to-face meeting.

S.T. Rao asked if this could be discussed on Monday at our meeting.

Tom Moore added that he would appreciate any help that he could get because this source will have large impacts in the West and in the Southeast.

Tom Helms responded that EPA would follow up with Mr. Moore on this issue.

Economic Incentives - Dave McNeill

Mr. McNeill stated that there was supposed to have been a meeting on the issue, but that he had not received anything from Rosalina Rodriguez. Therefore he had not really done anything on it.

Nancy Mayer interjected that she was not sure why he did not get the information, but that the call was scheduled today from 2:30 - 4:00 p.m.. Ms. Mayer indicated that the call-in number was 919-541-4407. She said that the economics paper was split four ways: trading programs for stationary sources, innovative strategies for mobile sources, innovative strategies for area sources and "cats/dogs" innovative strategies sources. She noted that the last group is the "catch-all", and that this was what would be discussed on the call this afternoon. Ms. Mayer stated that they had previously discussed the mobile source, area source and the trading paper and that all of these would be discussed next Monday at the Work Group meetings in Falls Church, Virginia.

Tom Helms responded that he thought this update provided us a good background. He asked that the STSWG move on to the Institutional Mechanisms paper at this time.

Institutional Mechanisms - S.T. Rao

Mr. Rao indicated that he had not seen anything, and that he was not well connected with this Issue Paper at this time.

Sanctions - Nancy Mayer

Nancy Mayer mentioned that the sanctions paper had been rewritten. She noted that RFP had given Sanctions and Rewards an assignment. However, at this time, these issues had not been incorporated. She requested a volunteer from STSWG to assist with this assignment.

Tom Helms responded that he would make sure that S.T. Rao and Dave McNeill were plugged into this system on their two respective Issue Papers.

Tom Moore asked to be added to this group as well.

Tom Helms replied to Mr. Moore that he could be added to this group, and he said that EPA would make new handouts of the FACA Issue Paper schedules and distribute these on Monday in Falls Church.

Classifications - Diana Andrews

Diana Andrews stated that she was still trying to connect with Eric Skelton. Thus, there was not any real progress to report on this Issue Paper.

David Chock asked if his issue had been incorporated yet?

David Sanders asked if he was referring to his one-page handout on Meteorological Variability?

David Chock responded, yes. He said if we ignore the year-to-year variations in the metrics, we are essentially eroding the significance of the design value. He noted that we have been talking about AOVs, but we are not even certain on how to classify the AOV.

Harvey Jeffries offered that we have an AOV paper. Mr. Jeffries asked should not this issue be incorporated into the AOV paper?

Tom Helms responded that he thought this was an excellent place for this topic.

Tom Moore indicated that he would be happy to take this information to the AOV group. He reminded the group that this paper is more about drawing boundaries, and not what you use to define AOV.

Harvey Jeffries reiterated that this issue has nothing to do with setting the standard; it was whether an area was in violation or not.

Diana Andrews asked if meteorology had to be considered in setting the standard?

Harvey Jeffries replied, no. He said the meteorology was considered in the implementation of the standard.

S.T. Rao added that there were a lot of ways to deal with meteorological variability in the implementation of the standard.

Steve Ziman noted that what we were dealing with was determining air quality improvement over time; whether it was related to real emissions reductions or simple meteorological variability.

George Lauer said that this was what RFP is all about - can you use something other than air quality to measure real air quality improvements? (e..g., can we remove the meteorological noise from the time series data?)

Tom Helms stated that there was only about 10 minutes left. He stated that we needed to discuss the Source Attribution Workshop and Chapter 5 of the Conceptual Model. He asked Harvey Jeffries to comment.

Harvey Jeffries stated that the Source Attribution Workshop was not critical because of the timing. He said it was currently set for sometime in late July or early August - one day on ozone, one day on PM, and a half a day for the peer reviewers to summarize their information. He noted that there would probably be some solicited presentations (given that information could be provided for peer reviewers). He also said a lot of other written material could be supplied to the peer reviewers for consideration.

Tom Helms asked Ellen Baldridge and Ned Meyer if this assessment was suitable to the intentions of the Air Quality Modeling Group?

Ned Meyer responded that AQMG had not formalized anything; but, that this sounded like it was on target.

Harvey Jeffries indicated that he would need to make some sort of announcement on Wednesday at the FACA meeting as to the schedule and logistics of the workshop.

Chapter 5 of the Conceptual Model

David Sanders announced that the old Chapter 5 would be moved to some later chapter within the document. He stated that we needed to clarify or redefine the purpose of the new Chapter 5.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he thought it would revolve around Ned Meyer's straw man. He said that he believed a good deal of it would come from the STSWG face-to-face discussion next week in Falls Church. Mr. Jeffries added that STSWG needed to decide what goes in the Issue Paper, and what goes into Chapter 5.

Discussion of the April 7, 1997 Falls Church, Virginia Agenda

-	RFP discussion will be moved back to 1:00 pm

-	Add discussion of David Chock's one-page memo on Meteorological Variability

Tom Helms announced that we needed more discussions on the RFP paper such that STSWG could begin to start framing the issues on this Issue Paper. He also stated that STSWG needed a lengthy discussion with Ned Meyer on the status of the Modeling/Emissions Requirements paper that is being done jointly with NRSWG. Finally, Mr. Helms stated that the group needed to address the wildfire issue that Tom Moore raised earlier.

Jay Rosenthal offered that Donna Lamb is already looking at the wildfire issue.

Tom Helms asked the group to be flexible, because undoubtedly some things would change between this call and Monday morning in Falls Church. Thus, he stated that the first agenda item on Monday would be to recap the week's events, and proceed from that point.

Steve Ziman asked if the meeting could start before 10 a.m.?

Tom Helms concluded by stating that we will start at 9:00 a.m.