Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Mutual Building, Tom Helms' Office

April 15, 1997

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee met on Tuesday, April 15, 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

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Jay Hudson	Santee Cooper

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

Tom Moore	Arizona

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

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Jay Turner	DOT

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

Harvey Jeffries, Co-Chair	University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Diana Andrews	Kentucky DEP

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Glen Cass	Cal Tech

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia DEQ

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

John Core	WESTAR

Ellis Cowling	SOS

Cyril Durrenberger	TNRCC

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

George Lauer	ARCO

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana DEQ

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Jeffrey West	GPU Services Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Bob Wayland, SAIC; Bob Judge, U.S. EPA/Region 1; Guy Donaldson, U.S. EPA/Region VI; Ken Schere, U.S. EPA/NERL; Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; Nancy Mayer, U.S. EPA/ISEG; Bill Johnson, David Sanders, John Silvasi, and Bob Stallings, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

SIP RFP Update Since the Falls Church FACA Meeting

David Sanders thanked John Silvasi, Cyril Durrenberger and Steve Ziman for their efforts in preparation for the face-to-face meeting last week in Falls Church, regarding the RFP.

John Silvasi asked if it was necessary to reiterate the 3 questions raised during last weeks meeting? He indicated he would do so briefly, and stated that these were issues before STSWG at this time:

-	Length of time needed for determining air quality trends; and the interval for assessing trends in air quality.

-	Preference for RFP metrics: What does one measure based on scientific principles; technical considerations for uncertainty and data requirements, used prospectively or retrospectively; trading; tiering of metrics (e.g., primary and secondary).

-	Potential for available tools to remove meteorological effects from ambient air quality data.

Mr. Silvasi continued that there was a lively debate at the Falls Church meeting from Cyril Durrenberger, S.T. Rao, Steve Ziman, David Chock, George Lauer, Tom Moore and Bruce Hill regarding the use of metrics. There was general agreement for using both air quality and emissions metrics. For the most part, the group agreed that both types of metrics were needed. David Chock presented some statistical techniques, George Lauer suggested a climatological analysis, while Tom Moore suggested using a frequency distribution approach. There was also some discussion on the selection of monitors; e.g., whether you choose "clean" or "dirty" sites. Mr. Silvasi reminded everyone that S.T. Rao advised the STSWG of the complexity of meteorology, and the temporal and spatial variability associated with such measurements. A three year review cycle was suggested for RFP, and was in principle agreed upon by the group.

Mr. Silvasi asked Steve Ziman if he had any additions?

Steve Ziman responded that he thought John Silvasi had adequately covered all the issues.

John Silvasi suggested that he, Cyril (Durrenberger) and Steve (Ziman) get the notes compiled, and distribute them to everyone in the STSWG for review. However, he indicated that he wished that Harvey (Jeffries) was here today to guide the future of these discussions. Mr. Silvasi questioned if only he, Mr. Durrenberger and Mr. Ziman should do this compilation, or whether the entire STSWG or some other larger group should generate this information?

David Sanders said that he would send this information out later in the week. He added that we need to get some level of consensus from the Work Group as soon as possible. He

indicated that there was some discrepancy over meteorological variability, and that we probably needed to discuss this further.

John Silvasi mentioned that Cyril Durrenberger had some additional concerns that he wanted to discuss with Steve (Ziman) and I. Mr. Silvasi stated that Mr. Durrenberger had co- authored a paper with some of his Texas constituents that he wanted Mr. Silvasi and Mr. Ziman to review for consideration to be incorporated into this RFP issue. Therefore, Mr. Silvasi stated that he would like to talk with Cyril next week when he returns from OTAG, and see where the issue stands.

David Sanders added that he thought we needed to look at some of these other metrics that are available.

John Silvasi responded that there was a list of suggested metrics in the RFP group. This list includes some very specific metrics; however, the group did not get into a discussion of these metrics at the meeting last week in Falls Church. Mr. Silvasi said that he agreed with David (Sanders), that STSWG needed to look at these other metrics, and if possible, almost rank these for the policy group. Mr. Silvasi stated that there are numerous metrics contained in this list, and that STSWG needed to review the list in some detail. He also noted that precursor monitoring is included in this list, as well as population weighting, etc. However, it is a little limited regarding emissions metrics, but does include some basic emission reduction strategies.

Steve Ziman suggested that he, Cyril Durrenberger and John Silvasi convene among themselves and attempt to reorganize these metrics in a more scientific manner than was presented in the RFP issue paper. He said that they would basically try to determine if these metrics are viable or not.

John Silvasi said he tended to agree with Steve. He said he would send him a copy of the paper that Cyril sent to him.

Steve Ziman added that within the SIP process, we need to discuss the coupling of retrospective and prospective analyses. He asked when is it appropriate to try and look at what has transpired over a period of "X" years? You have a set of metrics that you have pre-defined for yourselves, and if you aren't meeting those metrics, then you try and determine why or why not. He continued that S.T. Rao's tack for a three-year period is sort of hard line; he indicated that he did not know if he could accept that or not.

Jay Rosenthal suggested a time period longer than three years. Things associated with El Nino periods would average out closer to four years. He said he would, therefore, advocate a period on the order of five to six years, to account for global scale circulation features.

Steve Ziman interjected that he still does not want STSWG to lose the concept of retrospective versus prospective metrics.

John Silvasi inserted that another concern is the issue of meteorological variability. This is the third question that was raised by the RFP group, and STSWG does need to address it. David Chock has done a paper on this, and Bruce Hill has already provided comments on this issue. He said perhaps we need to convene a group (e.g., David Chock, S.T. Rao, Bruce Hill, etc.) and work on this issue.

Jay Rosenthal stated that he would also like to work on the meteorological variability issue.

Steve Ziman mentioned that the State of California has tried to deal with this in terms of attempting to identify the "outlier" days and eliminate these from the regulatory framework. California Air Resources Board (CARB) now uses them in their regulatory plans. He stated that perhaps we should contact Larry Larson at CARB and get his statistical analysis. It is a statistical, not a climatological analysis.

John Silvasi inquired if he was asking for Larry Larson to work on the tools for identifying meteorological variability?

Steve Ziman responded, no, not necessarily.

Bruce Hill said he would like to participate, but his monitoring field season is rapidly approaching, and his time would be limited. He said, however, that he would like to be involved from a review standpoint and see what S.T. Rao and David Chock are putting together.

John Silvasi inserted that we need to make sure that S.T. Rao and David Chock agree to chair this subgroup. He noted that they had expressed a certain amount of interest in Falls Church, and this would free-up Steve Ziman and Cyril for the metrics discussion.

John Silvasi said that Bob Stallings has been reading the material from CARB and Larry Larson, and coming up-to-speed on these issues. Hence, we are hoping to have Bob help out on the metrics issues.

Steve Ziman said to have Bob Stallings talk with Larry Larson on the one-to-one correspondence methods, which CARB is currently using.

John Silvasi acknowledged that they will definitely include Larry in our discussions.

Steve Ziman mentioned that the prospective analyses for population weighting of ambient data and modeling should be investigated also, because this technique does not look that bad. Mr. Ziman asked to be notified when they communicate with Cyril (Durrenberger), and he would get involved and do his part.

John Silvasi asked if there were any other questions on RFP? He noted none, then stated they would move on to our next agenda item.

Issue Paper for Modeling Requirements/Emission Inventories and Statements

David Sanders indicated that this process was begun as a discussion at the Falls Church meeting, and we identified Chapters 3 and 5. Chapter 3 is a "laundry list", and Chapter 5 presents a long register of questions related to these issues. He added that we came to the realization that we had not actually defined the issue that we needed to discuss in this paper. Further, Harvey Jeffries challenged us to define the true meaning of Modeling Requirements for NAAQS implementation. At that point we can use Ned's foundational information and Tom Moore's information and move forward. Mr. Sanders asked Tom Moore to comment on this issue. Is this an EPA piece or a STSWG piece? Mr. Sanders stated that the answer to this is that EPA provides starter information, and then the Work Group embellishes the idea and develops the final issues for the paper.

Tom Moore explained that a summation of what he had been saying for several months, is that it is useful for STSWG to go through the same exercise that Ned (Meyer) has put together. He stated that we need to know EPA's perspective on all of the issues, because ultimately, EPA will be writing the guidance on these issues. However, he reminded the group that following OTAG and GCVTC goes against the way we are going to do business in the future. Under the concept of RAMPs, AOIs and AOVs, the states are going to have to work together to solve air quality management issues. He continued that the more interesting point here is not the answer to Ned Meyer's questions, rather it is what kind of policies and programs will EPA support on a technical level to improve air quality management? He remarked that this is the kind of paper he would like to write and participate in. He said he has titled the paper "Technical Responsibilities for RAMP Members". He noted that this may not be the same paper that Mr. Sanders was currently addressing, but it was what he wanted to do, especially for PM issues. Most of this has been done for ozone, but we cannot move forward on PM until we have some data and model results in hand.

David Sanders asked if there were any other comments?

Steve Ziman reminded everyone that he had stated in Falls Church that Ned's (Meyer) document was a straw man for a revision to EPA's modeling guidance for regulatory modeling. He continued that there had been a great deal of discussion on the data needs, modeling needs, etc. Should we simply pull this together rather than "reinventing the wheel"?

John Silvasi replied that the point was that the FACA process was supposed to be people outside the agency giving EPA advice on how to implement standards. He asked if this group feels that some important principles needed to be laid out regarding models, emissions inventories, data, etc., which were not contained, for instance, in the Conceptual Model? Are there some burning issues that this group would like EPA to consider in this process?

Steve Ziman responded that there were a lot of things that Ned (Meyer) had included in his document that the RAMPs will by "de facto" have to decide and implement (e.g., number of vertical layers, wind fields, etc.). STSWG has dealt with some of these in the Conceptual Model; but we have not dealt with the limitations of these models (e.g., the burden of proof). Mr. Ziman said he does not want to drop or lose this issue in the discussion. He asked how much credibility can we put in these tools? Or are they simply guidance tools and not absolute predictors of air quality? Finally, STSWG needs to state clearly what these models can and cannot do.

John Silvasi commented that this statement would be very helpful for EPA to hear. For example, how good does the emission inventory have to be to reflect the "real world"? He noted that EPA is interested in what the members of STSWG have to say about all the issues raised in Ned Meyer's document. He asked if there were certain principles that should be in a paper that was generated by STSWG and BPAP?

Steve Ziman responded that you have the report by Demerjian on the iterative process. What we need to do is "cull out" the important points, and make these known to EPA.

John Silvasi noted that we have not made the Demerjian paper available to everyone at this time, and he said that EPA could do that. Mr. Silvasi questioned whether the whole STSWG was going to work on this or only Tom Moore, Harvey Jeffries and Ned Meyer?

Steve Ziman inserted that he was part of this group as well.

John Silvasi said that he thought a smaller group would be more productive.

Steve Ziman asked Tom Moore if he agreed with this?

Tom Moore said, sure. He stated he thought we needed to layout a straw man and then begin to move forward. It is really a policy question. It's not something that we can make a great deal of scientific findings on. Most of it requires a fair amount of speculation. He said we needed the new standards first before we could evaluate whether they work or do not work.

Steve Ziman agreed with the smaller group concept, and said that he would also agree that we needed to see both the upsides and downsides.

David Sanders replied that he understood what Tom Moore was getting at. He clarified that initially we were trying to "fit a square peg into a round hole". When Ned Meyer wrote the initial piece it was for something else; however, we have seen other uses for the document in the interim. He stated further that we do not want people to see this as EPA pushing Ned Meyer's paper. We need to salvage the pieces that are useful, and destroy the rest of it. He said that he would organize a call for the smaller group and get the issue moving forward.

John Silvasi asked if it is possible for our contractor to sit in on the call, and possibly draft the paper for this group?

Steve Ziman concurred that it would be useful.

John Silvasi mentioned that Ted Russell should also be involved.

Steve Ziman announced that he was part of a group that advised EPA in 1990 on photochemical modeling guidance, and it was a frustrating exercise using a deterministic model to make absolute predictions. He added that our purpose here is to provide a technical purpose for designing the limitations of these models so that people can move "outside of the box" in terms of thinking.

John Silvasi interjected that it appears that we have an action item here.

NRSWG and BPAPWG Issue Papers

AOV - Tom Moore

Tom Moore stated that this topic is scheduled to be discussed in August. He said that it was his assumption that STSWG would revisit this in the meetings in mid-May. He added that he would unfortunately not be able to attend. So, currently, he has not done a great deal.

David Sanders responded that they would take good notes.

Tom Moore replied that he would review whatever BPAP puts together prior to that meeting, and participate as much as he could. He noted that they really have not done anything since the version that was distributed in mid March.

David Sanders commented that he thinks a good deal of the Issue Papers would be combined.

John Silvasi stated that another thing was that a lot of different Issue Papers begin to overlap over time, and they catch up with one another. The linkages become more visible, and where feasible, these links should be connected and the papers merged, if possible.

Economic Incentives - Dave McNeill

Dave McNeill said that there were four separate papers here: a trading paper, an area source paper, a mobile source paper; and, a "cats and dogs" paper, which was stationary issues other than trading.

Nancy Meyer clarified that the paper had been combined back into two papers. Currently, mobile and area sources have been merged back together. We will be getting a lecture this afternoon by McGelvrade on "Industry Averaged Performance Standards". He said that he was sure that STSWG would be interested in this as well.

Ms. Mayer indicated that the group was also considering having a trading tutorial on a future phone call. She stated that if you would like to participate on this call, please let David Sanders or John Silvasi know of your intentions. She stated that the group wanted to do this at the June FACA meeting, but could not find time on the agenda.

John Silvasi added that it is really a tutorial, and he advocated that a video tape be made for distribution.

Nancy Meyer replied that she was not quite ready for prime time yet. Ms. Mayer indicated that Robin Dunkins would be interested in giving this to as many people as possible; however, she said that the group simply did not have any time.

Dave McNeill asked, if the tutorial could be given at the May 15, 1997 meetings?

Nancy Meyer responded that she thought we already had something scheduled for that evening; however, she asked Mr. McNeill to discuss this with Rosalina Rodriguez on the call this evening.

Dave McNeill said he would call Ms. Rodriguez.

Source Attribution Workshop

David Sanders said the Contractor, Ned Meyer and himself would be meeting immediately after this meeting. He said at that point, he would be able to give the STSWG more details. He asked for anyone to let him know if there were problems holding the workshop in July.

Jay Rosenthal inserted that through July 18, 1997 was okay for him.

Steve Ziman added that he was out the week of July 21, 1997 for vacation. He asked if the group would get a revised calendar?

David Sanders indicated that he would get this information to the Work Group members.

May 15-16 Joint Work Group Meeting

David Sanders announced that this meeting was for the two policy groups (e.g., NRSWG and BPAP); however, STSWG members were invited to participate.

Tom Helms responded that STSWG's participation was optional because OTAG is running parallel to this. He encouraged the Work Group members to attend if possible, and if not, David Sanders would make the information to everyone. Mr. Helms indicated that he really did not want to overload anyone on the Work Group.

David Sanders replied that he did not have an agenda for this yet, but would distribute one as soon as he received the information.

Nancy Meyer interjected that he thought there would be a good dose of the Economic Incentives Issue Paper at this meeting; but, he could not confirm this. He encouraged the RFP group to request some time at the May meeting, before all the time slots were allocated.

David Sanders asked if anybody had anything else to discuss?

John Silvasi reiterated that the action items are as follows: Cyril Durrenberger, Steve Ziman, John Silvasi and Bob Stallings will discuss RFP; S.T. Rao, David Chock, Steve Ziman, Jay Rosenthal and Bruce Hill will discuss meteorological variability; Harvey Jeffries , Steve Ziman and Ted Russell will discuss Modeling Requirements Issue Paper.

Nancy Meyer asked what kind of a schedule are these groups on?

John Silvasi replied that we would need to wait until Cyril Durrenberger returns to schedule these calls. He indicated that the calls should take place next week.

Jay Rosenthal added that he would be in Charleston next week, so he would only be available either early in the morning or late in the afternoon.

David Sanders concluded by thanking everyone for joining today's meeting.