Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Mutual Building, Tom Helms' Office

August 5, 1997

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee met on Tuesday, August 5, 1997 in Durham, North Carolina. A list of participants and a summary of the meeting follows.

Work Group Participants

Name	Affiliation

Diana Andrew	Kentucky

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia DEQ

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Cyril Durrenberger	TNRCC

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Leon Outlaw	Santee Chapter

Jeffrey MacGilivray	NH Legislature

Tom Moore	Arizona

S. Trivikrama Rao	NY ARB

Dan Weiss	Cinergy

Mike Teague	UARG

Jeffrey West	GPU Service Corp.

Work Group Members Not Participating

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

Ton Helms, Co-Chair

Glenn Cass	CALTECH

Ellis Cowling	SOS

Ken Demerjian	SUNY

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

Russell Koch	TCL

George Lauer	ARCO

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

Rich Poirot	Vermont DEC

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Jay Turner	Washington University/Dept. Of Transportation

Manop Vanichagorn, Michael Smithwick	Louisiana DEQ

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Bill Johnson, AQSSD; Bob Judge, U.S. EPA/Region 1; Ned Meyer, EMAD; Pradeep Saxena, EPRI

Summary of the Call

Process/Emission Inventories Issue Paper Update Modeling

David Sanders began the call by summarizing the status of the Process/Emission Inventories. He noted that the paper had been scaled back.. The latest comments were received from Ned Meyer and Bill Kuykendahl.

Jeffrey MacGilivray asked if the work group was required to have versions of the paper posted that day.

David Sanders replied yes. Since this was a transitional paper, he was going to ask Robin if she wanted to put it up on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) and in what form. Ms. Dunkins requested that the paper scaled back to 10 pages. The Executive Summary should be less than 5 pages.

Jeffrey MacGilivray questioned David Sanders about his intentions for the paper.

David Sanders responded that there had been a misunderstanding on his part about comments made by Ned Meyer. The paper was not a condensed version. He recognized that support from the National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG) and Ms. Dunkins would be needed in order to get the paper on TTN today.

Jeffrey MacGilivray inquired if it was David Sanders' intention for the group to see the shortened version of the paper.

David Sanders questioned whether a condensed version change the key concepts in the paper. He stated that two things could be done to condense the paper without destroying the basic concepts. First, physically shrink the paper and make it double-sided, and second, change the font and reduce the verbiage.

Ned Meyer responded that the latest version, draft 6, is 39 pages including appendices. However, the body of the paper is about 21 pages in length.

Jeffrey MacGilivray said that they should have no trouble shrinking the paper to 15-18 pages, but the fundamental problem is that they are not dealing with the same version.

David Sanders acknowledged that he did not have draft 6 and said that he would send the latest version of the paper out after this call. He noted all of the basic concepts are in the condensed version and the main thing is to get the paper up on TTN.

Jeff West said that he had some comments on version 3.3 and would like to review version 6 before it goes up on TTN. He added he couldn't do that until Friday because he has had some problems combining modeling and RFP.

Jeffrey MacGilivray countered that David Sanders should put more than the usual caveats in the introduction when the paper is placed on the TTN. The paper should acknowledge that a lot of changes have been made in the last two weeks and many work group members have not had a chance to review these changes, not even the changes in the previous version 3.3. However, he felt that the group shouldn't hold up the FACA process, but it should be made clear that the work group has not reviewed it as a group.

David Sanders agreed with Jeffrey MacGilivray's proposal. He instructed the group to read and develop comments before Tuesday and he would email the comments out to the STSWG members. He then announced that Tuesday's meeting with NRSWG had been canceled because NRSWG has other issues to discuss. The group will have a discussion on this issue paper and any additional comments received after it is posted on TTN. The NRSWG would be notified of any substantive comments.

Jeffrey MacGilivray asked why the paper had to be put on the TTN today.

David Sanders responded that it is because the Subcommittee and other Work Group members need time to read the material prior to the FACA Subcommittee meeting.

Jeffrey MacGilivray inquired as to why the Subcommittee needed the paper at this time.

David Sanders responded he noted that they would know the paper is a draft, but not a final. A discussion is planned for Thursday, August 14 @ 2:30 - 4:00pm which will be presented by Ted Russell. Members need to let any concerns be known to Ted Russell.

Dan Weiss stated that he would be absent on Tuesday at the face to face meeting in Portland, but would like to provide comments on the issue paper.

David Sanders said that Dan Weiss could get comments in by Friday and they would be considered.

Tom Moore offered to present Dan Weiss' comments at the face to face meeting if he mailed them to him.

Jeff West suggested that the STSWG finalize the document if there were no major problems and then leave it up to the Subcommittee to shorten the paper.

David Sanders admitted that even though there were a lot of people on vacation, he did want to turn the paper over, so that they could scale it back.

Jeffrey MacGilivray asserted that he would prefer that the STSWG shorten the paper and not the Subcommittee.

Tom Moore stated that he felt like the NRSWG needs help with the issue paper, but they do not want to talk to them anymore about the paper.

David Sanders reaffirmed that NRSWG is lead.

Tom Moore inquired as to what the STSWG is supposed to deliver.

David Sanders said that the NRSWG has what they wanted from the STSWG, but it was too long.

Tom Moore remarked that Ted Russell was the only who had written on the document and speculated that scaling back should be done by Mr. Russell or by the EPA contractor.

David Sanders believed that Ted Russell is trying to bring science and policy together. He added that, when the contractor takes document their job is to preserve the science while including the policy issues raised by the NRSWG. David Sanders agreed that caveats should be placed and everyone should read version 6 and 3.3, with editorials by Ned Meyer. He said that comments on version 6 should be ready by next week.

Diana Andrew interjected that she had version 3.3, dated July 14, and asked if this was the latest draft.

David Sanders replied that version 3.3 had been redlined and that Ned Meyer's had announced that it had been replaced by version 6 which is a scaled back draft that is about 21 pages.

Bruce Hill asked David Sanders if he mailed that version to the group today.

David Sanders answered yes, and noted members should use that copy to review the condensed version 6. He asked everyone to please comment by Friday, or to bring their comments to Tuesday's face to face meeting. The previous document was from July 14th so he needs to get the latest version from Ned Meyer and will get this out to everyone today. That ended the discussion on the paper. If David Sanders acknowledged that the Co-chairs are not present; Harvey Jeffries is very busy on a grant and Tom Helms is attending another meeting. He emphasized that it is critical for people to attend the early morning session on Wednesday because there will be a discussion with the Subcommittee members on Presidential direction. The groups relationship with OTAG, Presidential directive, and other facets of the ensuing discussion will help the group to see how FACA fits in and how the group wants to move forward.

Cyril Durrenberger asked if David Sanders had an agenda for the meeting.

David Sanders responded that he would send it out with modeling and emission inventory paper.

Cyril Durrenberger questioned if the group should have seen the Presidential directive.

John Silvasi responded that it is on TTN.

Jeff West inquired if anything is going on with respect to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAC).

John Silvasi replied that there is a CAAC meeting later this week and noted Bill Hamilton would know more about this.

David Sanders asked about the agenda for face to face and asked Jeffrey MacGilivray if he could develop an alternative title for the source attribution paper because of confusion with the Source Attribution Workshop.

Jeffrey MacGilivray responded that he could do so.

Diana Andrew recommended that he should use culpability which was the term used in OTAG.

David Sanders announced one additional topic in the agenda - Ellis Cowling's new findings from the Asheville study. He stated that Mr. Cowling would like to present some of these findings and so it has been added this to the agenda.

Jeffrey MacGilivray interjected that they should have some time set aside for comments on OTAG.

The work group member's remarked that they have a lot to say on the subject.

David Chock wanted to know what Harvey Jeffries will say.

David Sanders said that on Thursday they will give Mr. Jeffries a script to talk from.

David Chock then remarked that it would be a good place to talk about the caveats for the Process/Emission Inventories Issue Paper.

David Sanders asserted that he usually does this. He then broadly outlined the agenda: workshop, future workshops, and RFP Modeling paper.

John Silvasi said that the group should put time on the face to face meeting agenda for the work group to talk about Harvey's presentation.

David Sanders concurred.

Jeffrey MacGilivray questioned if it unreasonable for someone to put together an outline for Mr. Jeffries.

David Sanders volunteered to do so.

David Chock inquired about the time limit that will be placed on Mr. Jeffries.

David Sanders replied approximately 45 minutes.

Jeffrey MacGilivray instructed David Sanders not to make the outline too fancy and to limit the bullets to 10-15.

David Sanders stated that the RFP Issue Paper would not be on agenda next week.

John Silvasi asked Cyril Durrenberger if he would be at the meeting next week. He noted that the contractor has incorporated comments on his paper.

David Chock asked if he responded to the email Mr. Jeffries sent out.

David Chock said that he would call him after this call.

David Sanders said that he got that version back from the contractor and placed it on TTN. He noted that it took up a lot of space with the graphics.

Cyril Durrenberger asked David Sanders if he could get a copy to him.

David Sanders offered to fax it to him.

Cyril Durrenberger asked if he could attach it to the other emails he would be sending.

David Sanders replied yes. Mr. Sanders said that the modeling version he sent out earlier is now on the TTN, however, the latest condensed version is not on TTN yet.

Saharan Particulate Transport Discussion

David Sanders said that he thought an invitation had been extended to Dr. Flocchini to discuss Sohoran Particulate Transport through Harvey Jeffries and that he needed to follow up with Mr. Jeffries on this presentation.

Jeff West suggested that it be left as the last thing on the agenda.

Cyril Durrenberger concurred that dust may have an impact on long distances.

John Silvasi added this came up as a result of discussion by Coordinating Committee which was referred to STSWG to render a discussion on this.

David Sanders asked if there were any further questions to discuss?

David Sanders thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and encouraged people to get in touch with one another.