Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Room 836, Mutual Building

October 15, 1996

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee met on Tuesday, October 15, 1996 between 1:30 pm and 2:30 pm EDT in Room 836 of the North Carolina Mutual Building 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

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Kirit Chaudhri	Virginia DEQ

Tom Moore	Arizona

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Jeffrey West	GPU Services Corp.

Work Group Members Not Participating

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Glenn Cass	Cal Tech

John Core	WESTAR

Ellis Cowling	SOS

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Jay Hudson	Santee Cooper

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

Rich Poirot	Vermont

S.T. Rao	New York ARB

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana DEQ

Jay Turner	DOT

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Mike Teague, UARG; Bob Judge, U.S. EPA Region I; Scott Mathias, U.S. EPA/ISEG; Robin Dunkins, U.S. EPA/IPSG; David Cole, Bill Johnson, Annie Nikbakht, David Sanders, and David Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

Tom Helms began the meeting by stating that success for today's meeting would be to review where we are with the various issue papers, the status of the conceptual model and the upcoming meeting of the FACA Subcommittee October 28-29, 1996 in Dallas, Texas. Harvey Jeffries added that the Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) has to make a presentation on its positions at the October FACA meeting. Therefore, we need to make progress on those issues today.

Tom Moore expressed an interest in hearing what Tom Helms and Harvey Jeffries perceived the current role of the STSWG in the FACA process. David Sanders stated that one thing he took away from the FACA Subcommittee meeting held in Norfolk, Virginia was that people thought that they were getting input from our Work Group, but that it was not very focused at times. For example, the discussion of Area of Influence (AOIs) and Area of Violation (AOVs) had an underlying hint of science, but it was not clear where this group (e.g. STSWG) was headed with these issues. Jerry Golden with the Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) Work Group said our inputs needed to be both focused and formalized - not necessarily simply from our oral input at their face-to-face meetings. The STSWG has done this to a certain extent with some of the issue papers (e.g. written up and submitted formalized comments).

Tom Helms indicated that David was correct. He said that we have made our points clear at these meetings; however, we need to get these in writing and formalized prior to heading to Dallas for the next FACA meeting. Mr. Helms stated that the STSWG needs to have something to hand-out at the October working sessions. He noted that the STSWG is being heard, we simply need to be heard more and better!

Issue Papers to be Discussed at the October and November FACA Subcommittee Meetings

October Meeting

Regional Haze (in fairly good shape, Tom Moore has integrated the science position into the actual paper)

Monitoring Incentives (in fairly good shape, Diana Andrews has added a separate piece on the science issues into this paper)

Institutional Mechanisms

Economic Incentives

Areas at Risk for Nonattainment

Options for designating PM-fine Areas

November Meeting

Integrated Implementation

New Source Review

Attainment Dates

AOI/AOV Approach

It was noted that the issue paper on regional haze has been completed. The monitoring incentives paper has also been completed (Diana Andrews). Attainment Dates has been finalized (John Cabaniss). New Source Review is also close to completion (Dave McNeill).

Harvey Jeffries commented that the issue paper on institutional mechanisms by S.T. Rao appears to be a little weak.

Robin Dunkins stated that the National and Regional Strategies (NRS) Work Group has a strawman addressing institutional mechanisms, but more work needs to be done on it. She added that currently there are no science questions involved in this document. The NRS Work Group has looked at what works and what does not work and what mechanisms are currently available. Ms. Dunkins noted that NRS does not look for much STSWG involvement prior to the Dallas meeting.

Mike Teague stated commented that with regards to institutional mechanisms, people are looking at coordinating existing mechanisms into their policy decisions. He thought that interaction from the science team is needed on engaging the quality of the tools needed to define the AOIs and AOVs. He added that other parts of this issue can be dealt with by the policy people. Mr. Teague stated that you need to define the regions on the front end, and thus the tools used to define the regions need to be defined upfront.

Robin Dunkins stated that the NRS Work Group wants to start large and go small in terms of developing the AOIs.

Harvey Jeffries commented that the STSWG input is more in support of the AOI/AOV paper. Additionally, we need to cover these topics better in the conceptual model document. There is a place holder in the document to accommodate such a piece. He noted that we simply need to write a piece on what the state-of-the-art is in terms of the available tools. However, for the October meeting, we really do not have to address institutional mechanisms.

David Sanders noted that little has been done on areas at risk. He added that this issue paper is being done by BPAP. Diana Andrews and Kirit Chaudhari are STSWG's representatives on this paper which is extremely controversial.

Harvey Jeffries asked for someone to clarify what the issues are associated with areas at risk.

Diana Andrews stated that it's more involved than simply the areas that fall between the second and the fifth highest exceedance.

David Chock noted that one issue is what should one do for the areas at risk. It is not how do you define them, but rather what you do for these areas that fall into this dilemma (e.g. what happens for areas between the 2nd and 5th exceedance limits).

Diana Andrews added that she has read the paper and she believes that it has more to do with trending.

David Chock noted that it is more of a policy issue than a science issue.

Diana Andrews commented that the only science issue is "can they do what they want to do?"

Harvey Jeffries stated that it sounds like little progress will be made on this paper prior to the October FACA meeting. He asked David to upload Diana's comments to both the BPAP Work Group and STSWG folders on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).

Diana Andrews said that she is not supposed to send this paper to BPAP Work Group without first allowing the STSWG to "bless" the response.

Tom Helms noted that we need to work out a mechanism to ensure that the review procedure is being followed. He commented that we do not want the science position being sent around to other work groups without the entire STSWG having the opportunity to review and comment on these issues.

Harvey Jeffries responded that we do need to develop some sort of "institutional mechanism" to disseminate this information. However, he said that if we wait on consensus on every issue, this will delay our inputs to these other groups. He stated that he is in somewhat of a dilemma here. He preferred to deliver information to these other groups as quickly as possible rather than waiting for comments/responses.

David Sanders stated that he needed to get these papers in electronic form in order to put them on the TTN.

Tom Helms noted that the other groups are having similar problems.

Harvey Jeffries commented that the papers should go to the TTN as soon as possible. He suggested that members should either upload this information directly or send it electronically to David Sanders and let him upload the documents to the TTN.

David Sanders said that between now and Friday he would contact each person in charge of issue papers, get electronic copies of the papers, and get them uploaded to the TTN. He noted that this would allow us to have a "place saver" on the TTN, even if the version is not a final version of the document.

Jeff West recommended that everything that is not final should have the word "draft" in the title.

Tom Moore pointed out that the important thing is not only to get the draft and final versions on the TTN but that we need to get ourselves involved in the other work groups and get STSWG opinions known to the other work groups to resolve the more controversial issues.

Harvey Jeffries agreed adding that Tom Moore's role is a model for the rest of us.

Tom Moore stated that if we are going to succeed as a work group, we are probably going to have to meet more frequently like the other work groups.

Harvey Jeffries asked Diana Andrews if she would be going to the FACA meeting in Dallas.

Diana Andrews responded no.

Harvey Jeffries asked Diana Andrews to send a one-page overview on areas at risk that could be used as an overhead at the October 28-29 FACA meeting.

Tom Moore asked if we are going to start seeing a lot of papers coming from EPA Staff (e.g., like the PM-fine paper David sent out today)? He noted that if so, this is going to be a real nightmare trying to stay up to speed with the volume of information.

Robin Dunkins noted that this paper is unique. The paper was only intended to be a discussion starter. All of the options that were identified were put into the paper to simply initiate the discussion at the Dallas meeting.

Harvey Jeffries stated that it appears that the PM-fine paper will be the most controversial paper discussed at the Dallas meeting.

Tom Moore commented that there is no common share of information on the PM-fines issue adding that we have a lot of work to do on this issue. He suggested that we do not want to repeat the TSP-PM-10 issue of several years ago.

Robin Dunkins responded that this is the purpose of the initial paper.

Harvey Jeffries asked to open up this one issue to anyone who is interested in providing comments on this issue. He added that if Glenn Cass can contribute then fine, however, we cannot wait for him to do this one on his own. So, anyone who wants to contribute send in their comments.

Tom Moore stated that if you look at the AOI/AOV concept, it essentially deals with the problem. Basically, when you have information, you can make informed, intelligent decisions.

Harvey Jeffries asked Tom Moore to put these thoughts down on paper and get them into David Sanders. He added that we can wrestle with this at or face-to-face meeting in Dallas.

Tom Moore stated that the paper on regional haze is essentially complete. He added that it is not completed simply because we have reached consensus. However, he stated that he could provide Harvey Jeffries with a one-page summary for the Dallas meeting.

Harvey Jeffries noted that he could do institutional mechanisms for the Dallas meeting adding that the issue papers on areas at risk and economic incentives are a little lean at this point.

David Sanders asked Scott Mathias to generate something for the STSWG as a place holder on economic incentives.

Robin Dunkins stated that NRS Work Group is going to take some of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) economic incentive issues and use them to provide a general overview of how they could fit into our integrated approach for PM, ozone and RH. However, this would simply be from an OTAG perspective. She added that NRS Work Group has changed their approach slightly from the September meeting held in Raleigh. She noted that initially the issue paper on economic incentives was going to be a Phase II issue but, due to the increased interest, NRS Work Group has moved it up to a Phase I issue.

Tom Moore commented that it's he would like to return to the issue about tools and the costs to the regulated community. He added that if we don't have a better handle on what tools are available and what they cost, we cannot properly address these economic incentives for controls.

Harvey Jeffries asked if Mr. Moore was posing a tools question. He continued by asking what Scott Mathias would be doing for the STSWG.

David Sanders responded that he really did not know at this point. He was hoping that the economic incentives ad hoc group could potentially provide some inputs.

Harvey Jeffries asked if Scott Mathias could address these tools and their costs. He added that he and Tom Moore could address the scientific issues.

Tom Helms responded that he did not think that we have enough information at this point to really discuss this issue.

Scott Mathias added that there is not a good deal of information on economic incentives. He added that to his knowledge, there is no substantive information on this issue.

Tom Helms stated that we should simply deal with this at our face-to-face meeting to be held on October 28, 1996.

Robin Dunkins expected a paper from Joe Belanger for a call on Thursday. She added that NRS Work Group is going to have a call to discuss this issue. Ms. Dunkins said that she would get a copy to send via e-mail. Ms. Dunkins asked if Dave McNeill was the STSWG contact for this issue.

David Sanders noted that we do not have anyone from STSWG in this slot. Dave McNeill is our New Source Review person. He added that it could potentially be Jay Hudson, since he was on NSR with Dave McNeill.

Conceptual Model

Harvey Jeffries asked the work group members to focus on the Conceptual Model for the remainder of the call. He talked to David, but he still needs to discuss some of these things with Rich Scheffe. He noted that we need to focus on the tools section of the Conceptual Model. Fred Vukovich has completed his critical review of S.T. Rao's and Robin Dennis' work. This review is posted on the TTN under STSWG. FMV-03.wpd is the file name and it is under Section A of the STSWG - comment on documents area. He noted that S.T. Rao will make a presentation about this at the Dallas face-to-face meeting. Mr. Jeffries asked Jay Rosenthal to prepare a few slides with regards to the meteorology in coastal areas and complex terrain.

Jay Rosenthal responded that he could do this and bring his video as well.

Harvey Jeffries commented that as a result of some OTAG findings (e.g. model results), we need to discuss some of the issues and reach consensus. Essentially, OTAG says that transport is not important. He reiterated that STSWG needs to discuss this and come to consensus. Mr. Jeffries suggested that he did not know what the answer is adding that we need to discuss this a group, and synthesize the available information, and come to consensus as a group. He noted that the OTAG results are biased - it was a political study, not a scientific, hypothesis testing study.

Tom Helms commented that we need to start to wrap this thing up. He added that he did not want to generate a nice conceptual model document and then find out it is too late to do any good. He noted that completing the model depends on Harvey Jeffries and Rich Scheffe.

Harvey Jeffries stated that it would not be closed down prior to December. He reiterated that everyone needs to come to Dallas having read the Vukovich document, and be prepared to comment on it and how it fits into the conceptual model.

Tom Helms stated that there are a thousand people fooling with OTAG adding that we should not cloud this process with there "dirt." Mr. Helms adjourned the meeting by noting that there may be another face-to-face meeting in November at the FACA Subcommittee meeting to be held in Denver, Colorado.