Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Conference Call

September 2, 1997

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee held a conference call on Tuesday, September 2, 1997. A list of participants and a summary of the meeting follows.

Work Group Participants

Name	Affiliation

Tom Helms, Co-Chair	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

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

Diana Andrews	Commonwealth of Kentucky

Kirit Chaudhari	Commonwealth of Virginia

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Cyril Durrenberger	Texas NRCC

Jeffrey MacGillivray	New Hampshire House of Representative

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

Tom Moore	Arizona DEQ

Leon Outlaw	Santee Cooper

S. Trivikrama Rao	New York ARB

Jay Turner	U.S. Department of Transportation

Mike Teague	Cinergy/UARG

Work Group Members Not Participating

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Glen Cass	Cal Tech

Ellis Cowling	SOS

Ken Demerjian	SUNY

Bruce Hill	AMC

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

Russell Koch	TCL

George Laur	ARCO

Rich Poirot	Vermont DEC

Jay Rosenthal	U.S. Navy

Pradeep Saxena	EPRI

Mark Scruggs	U.S. DOI

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana DEQ

Michael Smithwick	Louisiana DEQ

Jeffrey West	GPU Service Corp.

Steve Ziman	Chevron

Non-Work Group Participants

Ellen Baldridge and Bill Kuykendal, EPA/EMAD; David Sanders and John Silvasi, EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

The meeting began by Harvey Jeffries delivering an update on the Area of Influence/Area of Violation (AOI/AOV) issue paper. He noted there was concern expressed by the environmentalist at the meeting regarding the paper that was presented.

John Silvasi acknowledged that he was not at the August FACA meeting, but posed the question: "Does this work group feel that it needs to add to the debate regarding the AOI/AOV issue?" He questioned if it was a directionally correct approach.

Harvey Jeffries said that he thought the STSWG had blessed this concept already.

Ellen Baldridge recalled that at the August FACA meeting, one person was not at the meeting where the AOV concept was discussed. A discussion followed and the environmentalist spoke up.

Cyril Durrenberger agreed with Ms. Bainbridge's recollection of the series of events.

Harvey Jeffries stated that he did not like the boundaries issue paper and it would be folded into Regional Air Management Partnerships (RAMPS) discussion. He revealed that he is not so much concerned with the paper's concept, but that the paper doesn't link AOI and AOV. Mr. Jeffries acknowledged that he understood that some mandatory controls would disappear unless it was explicit where they would apply.

Tom Helms noted that this is all still wide open.

Harvey Jeffries stated that it was not a question of science but of policy.

S.T. Rao was concerned that there was a disconnection between controls and the definition of an AOV. Mr. Rao felt that there was significant local contribution, and pollution generated in the AOV needed to be controlled.

Harvey Jeffries said that the concern is whether there are automatic application of controls in the AOV. Mr. Jeffries believed that someone needs to go back and articulate the cause and effect relationship.

Jeffrey MacGillivray reasoned that even if the group were to get additional reductions, there would still be some areas where the environmentalist would not give up controls.

Harvey Jeffries remarked that industry representatives believe there should be associated air quality benefits for required reductions.

Jeffrey MacGillivray said that he would hold up getting reductions from areas that will do some good. He noted that we need to define a more accurate AOV area. AOI would be expanded as the same old nonattainment area. Step 2 proposes adding areas to AOI, more of influence in AOI than in default AOI. He added the environmentalist was not interested in this approach.

Tom Helms stated that there would be a science breakdown if we have to support this position.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he did not believe that this policy should be dealt with by STSWG. He asserted that he is sympathetic to the environmentalist's position and that there are ways to remove controls in these areas.

S.T. Rao, referring to the monitoring incentives paper, recalled that it stated that if you have monitors in places that show exceedances then it doesn't count toward designating the area nonattainment.

Diana Andrews suggested that the single biggest disincentive to monitoring is the nonattainment designation.

S.T. Rao responded by saying that if you see levels in a certain range then it should be identified as a problem area and he stressed the importance of understanding the cause and effect relationships.

Harvey Jeffries asked what is the group's forum?

John Silvasi replied that the group has the opportunity to develop a comment regarding the AOI/AOV.

Ellen Baldridge inquired as to what the group is supposed to comment on.

Harvey Jeffries said that the AOI/AOV concept will be reintroduced.

Tom Helms responded that the AOI/AOV concept seemed to make sense early on. EPA has since come out with the AOI as a broad area. He thought it would be helpful to have STSWG give feedback in next presentation at the Chicago FACA meeting. For example, ozone and PM are regional in nature and science supports broader control areas.

Harvey Jeffries said that STSWG should develop a handout, less than 2 pages and in bullet form, to pass out at the next FACA meeting. He asked what is scheduled for discussion at the next FACA meeting?

Ellen Baldridge voiced her concern that environmentalists may ask where is my fail-safe.

Harvey Jeffries countered that it is not up to the group to address policy issues and clarified that environmentalists see required reductions as being taken away.

Kirit Chaudhari commented that we need some model to address the cause and effect relationship.

Harvey Jeffries remarked that the issue of RAMP is still on table.

John Silvasi added that RAMPs and AOI/AOV are on the agenda for Friday morning at the next FACA meeting.

Tom Helms was asked if EPA will make a SIP call. He stressed the importance of the technical centers' role and streamlining new source review (NSR) drive to reduce nonattainment areas. If mandatory rate of progress (ROP) goes by the wayside with flexibility for local controls, then RAMPs may not be that necessary.

Harvey Jeffries responded that he thought that he may be using the term RAMP differently than Mr. Helms. He noted that the RAMP may just be a technical center.

Tom Helms acknowledged that not a lot has transpired since a meeting he attended in New York, but he offered to give an update on technical centers.

Harvey Jeffries stated that it is easy to see how EPA may make SIP calls where there is some knowledge that States may need to get together. However, the bottom line is that a State is still responsible for solving its own AOV areas. There could be many solutions, but modeling seems to be an especially effective solution. Mr. Jeffries stated that it is clear that a State cannot solve its problems by itself because there are outside influences, which gives a reason to push the concept of AOI. Mr. Jeffries said that he is willing to speak to this issue. Mr. Jeffries said that he believed that they could have a contractor look at old material and pull it together.

David Sanders requested that Harvey Jeffries put forth the broadest statement of cause and effect possible.

Harvey Jeffries asked who raised RAMP issues and what are linkages back to that group.

Tom Helms answered that Bob Lopez had raised the RAMP issues.

Jeffrey MacGillivray stated that we should examine the process for determining cause and effect. He added that we need to show what the air coming into an area looks like which would entail placing monitors in upwind areas.

Tom Helms requested that a copy of Mr. MacGillivray's approach be sent to him.

Cyril Durrenberger asked if it is possible for the group to get an illustration of that approach.

Harvey Jeffries said that he had problem with this being abstract and questioned what a real AOV/AOI looks like from EPA's standpoint.

Tom Helms said that EPA did not have a response to give at this time.

Ellen Baldridge asked if when the Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPR) is published, will the AOI/AOV concept show up.

Tom Helms said no.

Harvey Jeffries was concerned that cause/effect was not adequately addressed.

Tom Helms said that he was not clear what EPA will propose.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that they reactivate contacts with Bob Lopez. He also emphasized that it would be important for the group to go through old documents relative to the new Presidential Directive.

Tom Helms commented that the EPA staff will develop a short 2-page summary on the AOI/AOV concept addressed early on by the STSWG and will include a summary of the Presidential Directive.

Diana Andrews suggested that the group had received something like that before.

Tom Helms admitted that was true, however the previous document was done hastily and no one on his staff had looked at it. He then interjected that he would like to hear Jeffrey MacGillivray's thoughts on the technique.

Harvey Jeffries added that Gary Dorris and Tim Mount would be presenting something similar.

Diana Andrews replied that it seemed a little incestuous for the group to review this.

Harvey Jeffries said that he did not agree. This would not be a peer review only that STSWG would look at it and give their opinions.

Jeffrey MacGillivray stated that there were data from one episode and they could, if needed, back it up with additional data.

Diana Andrews said that you can get additional data, however, Gary Dorris would have to come up with the funds to use. She felt that STSWG could add something if the group was able to evaluate more data.

Harvey Jeffries said that the group would not be able to give a stamp of approval on the results of the runs, but could only identify and review new techniques.

Tom Helms asked if EPA should be looking at these and said that the group needed caveats for applying techniques.

John Silvasi inquired how they would get to that level.

Harvey Jeffries said that it should be on the agenda at the next face-to-face meeting.

John Silvasi followed by asking if there was going to be another meeting?

Harvey Jeffries remarked that he thought there would be one.

Tom Helms suggested spending 1 or 2 hours at the meeting discussing each technique.

Harvey Jeffries disagreed saying that they would probably need more time than that.

S.T. Rao said that he could send the materials to David Sanders on Tim Mount's technique. He asked Mr. Sanders not to start the meeting before 10:00 am.

David Sanders told the group about Russell Cooke, who joined the STSWG as a member in May. Mr. Cooke found out that he was desperately ill, but David had spoken recently with Mr. Cooke and he is better now, giving us something to think about.

Harvey Jeffries said that there needed to be a discussion on the modeling inventory paper which will include how to incorporate environmentalists in reviewing the papers. He stressed the need to provide support or funding so they can participate in the process.

Michael Teague suggested that the FACA Subcommittee should come up with a quantitative way to define cause and effect.

Harvey Jeffries agreed and added that they should not do so source by source but by a regional approach because it is compatible with the large regional strategy EPA will be proposing. The important issue is what is causing the problem.

Future Role of STSWG

Tom Helms solicited opinions for what people thought the groups future role should be. He suggested that there were several things that they could use the group for: they could wrap up in December, become a sounding board for issues, or provide technical input for policy development; all of which are acceptable.

Ellen Baldridge said that EMAD had tried to develop guidance and had outside experts to assist in the review. She added that this might be a role for the STSWG.

Tom Helms asked that people give him feedback.

Harvey Jeffries said that most of the people he had talked to agree that the group should continue.

Jeffrey MacGillivray stated that another review of the PM national ambient air quality standard will be conducted in five years and yet there are still several research questions that need to be answered. For example, what research would be beneficial and the impact of that research. This could be a role for the STSWG.

Harvey Jeffries said that they had been asked by Ken Schere (ORD) to do that for NARSTO. OAQPS would be able to give the group time lines on the open vs. directed (applications) research.

Cyril Durrenberger asked for a vote for this role to continue.

Tom Helms advised everyone to think it over carefully.

Milestone Compliance Demonstration

John Silvasi added that he and Cyril had talked about one other item on the agenda - milestone compliance demonstrations. He asked if STSWG wanted to address that issue. He said that in the past, FACA had been set up to provide guidance on new standards, but this was an issue with the old standard. How do we assess whether a State has met its required 15% reductions?

Harvey Jeffries stated that the old requirements continue until attainment of the current NAAQS.

John Silvasi asked if STSWG wanted to address this and if something could roll over from the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Metrics issue paper to do so. He asked Cyril Durrenberger to call him later on the matter.

Cyril Durrenberger asked if there was anything in the RFP Metrics issue paper applicable to the milestone compliance demonstration.

Harvey Jeffries said that they should see if they could have an understanding of what exact requirements are going to be needed to meet the old NAAQS, while keeping in mind the new standards.

Cyril Durrenberger responded that the States would have to submit new SIPs, and that if this is built into the process up front, then analyses later on would be easier.

Harvey Jeffries stated that there are ways to encourage good tracking, and that to an extent we can utilize administration and monitoring techniques and get improvement in tracking rate of progress.

Cyril Durrenberger responded by saying that States are supposed to show how they will or how they did attainment reductions.

Jeffrey MacGillivray asked if anyone knew of someone who could answer these questions. He said that New Hampshire submitted their SIP and was curious to know how many States submitted their demonstrations.

David Sanders suggested that David Cole or Annie Nikbakht would be good contacts.

Kirit Chaudhari proposed that other States' plans may not be complete.

Harvey Jeffries asked how do you know ifyou got the 15% you were supposed to get.

Cyril Durrenberger agreed that many estimates are soft measurements.

Jeffrey MacGillivray said the he never believed that a reduction of VOC would help attain the ozone NAAQS in New Hampshire, but they were required to show a reduction.

David Sanders asked if he were suggesting taking milestone compliance demonstration and incorporating some language supporting this in a section of the RFP paper.

Cyril Durrenberger replied that he was not and that he would not put this in the paper. He asked how do you do milestone compliance demonstration and if there was anything in future metrics that could be used for existing milestone compliance demonstration.

Harvey Jeffries stated that he did not know how he felt about this issue.

Jeffrey MacGillivray asked if someone had a suggestion for doing something other than 3% per year when should they bring that up.

Cyril Durrenberger said that Sara Peirce-Sandner is in charge of the RFP metrics paper and that someone should go on the internet and get the latest version of the paper.

Harvey Jeffries asked if anyone had suggestions for the new SIPs that they were receiving.

S.T. Rao asked when the agenda would be finalized for the next face to face meeting.

David Sanders replied that there would be a tentative agenda posted in a couple of days.

Jeffrey MacGillivray requested that Tim Mount's presentation should be around 1:00 pm.

Harvey Jeffries said that the next FACA meeting would be October 9 and 10 in Chicago and that reservations should be made before September 15.

David Sanders reminded every one that the next call would be on September 16 and that he would be sending out a new call-in numbers list.

The meeting was adjourned.