Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Work Group Meeting

March 11, 1996

Room 1019 Mutual Building

Durham, NC

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Monday, March 11, 1996 between 11:00 am - 12:30 pm EST. 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

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Dave McNeill	Utah

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

S.T. Rao	New York

Jay Hudson	Santee-Cooper

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Steve Ziman	Chevron

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Non-Work Group Participants

Matthew Cairns, U.S. EPA Region I; Rich Scheffe, U.S. EPA/AQMG; Ken Schere, U.S. EPA/AREAL; Bill Kuykendal, U.S. EPA/EFIG; Jim Berry, U.S. EPA/ESD; Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; Neil Frank, U.S. EPA/MQAG; and JoAnn Allman, Bill Johnson, David Sanders, David Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

Tom Helms began the conference call by announcing the time and place of the FACA face- to-face meeting. This meeting will be held at the Radisson Plaza Hotel at Marks Center (off Seminary Road) in Alexandria, Virginia. It is scheduled to begin on Wednesday March 20, 1996 at 10:00 am and continue until 4:00 pm EST. Questions regarding this meeting should be directed to David Sanders or JoAnn Allman. Tom Helms noted that the National and Regional Strategies Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee asked to meet with the Science and Technical Work Group on March 20, 1996 to discuss transport related issues.

Steve Ziman presented an overview of the conceptual model to be developed by the Work Group for each category of issues. This model will be used to gain a better understanding of ozone and particulate matter formation by describing information that is available and identifying where further information is needed.

Harvey Jeffries described the revised issues list he has been working on for this Work Group. These issues will provide information for developing the conceptual model and will address other topics such as modeling, monitoring, emission measurements, etc.

Issues and Work Group Products

Conceptual Model

Steve Ziman proposed that a conceptual model be developed to identify the processes that lead to ozone, particulate matter, and regional haze formation. This model will provide a mechanism to identify gaps where additional information is needed to gain a better understanding of pollutant formation. In addition, because the model can codify the processes independent of air quality modeling, it can serve as an independent mechanism to evaluate the models. The conceptual model will also be useful in helping to show that regulatory policy is based on sound scientific principles. Steve noted that there is information available from research programs such as NARSTO that needs to be compiled for use in developing the conceptual model.

Harvey Jeffries stated that while the conceptual model will show that we need more scientific information, we will need to move ahead with our objective which is forming a scientific basis for the implementation policy. What we need to know from the conceptual model is what data/tools are reliable to formulate this scientific basis.

Tom Moore suggested that with regards to particulate matter, we add another leg to the process to look at the effectiveness of control strategies.

Revised Issues List

Harvey Jeffries updated the Work Group on the list of issues that is being prepared for this Work Group to address. He began by making some assertions regarding the process as a whole. For example, he believes that by jointly implementing the revised ozone/particulate matter standards and the regional haze rule EPA has asserted that all three pollutants have commonalities that make it prudent to have a common control program. If everyone agrees that this is a reasonable interpretation of EPA's views, the first issue the Work Group should address is do we accept this assertion based on the scientific information available.

Rich Scheffe noted that this is not an all or none issue. EPA's decision to implement these programs together only states that there are some linkages between the pollutants and that we have to identify where we can benefit from these commonalities. Rich noted that the reduction of ozone precursors will impact the formation of fine particulate matter but the degree of impact is yet to be defined.

S.T. Rao stated that we need to pursue more data analysis on existing monitoring network data sets. He is of the opinion that some of the gaps that will be found in the initial evaluation of the conceptual model could potentially be filled through the analysis of existing monitoring data sets.

Harvey Jeffries urged the Work Group to develop a statement regarding the unique role of modeling, monitoring , mathematical models, and uncertainties associated with each of these to help the other Work Groups formulate policy. In addition, Harvey suggested that we gather information to describe the ozone/particulate matter/regional haze problem. Harvey suggested that the Work Group develop a bibliography that references work accomplished or underway on the "environmental state." In addition, this reading list will support the conceptual model.

Tom Helms noted that this Work Group has the largest number of people knowledgeable on these issues and that we should use the resources of our Work Group to identify papers/documents where these descriptions exist. Tom cautioned the Work Group not to forget about particulate matter and regional haze when pulling information together for the conceptual model.

Steve Ziman suggested that we are not forgetting about particulate matter and regional haze but that the level of understanding regarding these pollutants is much different than that for ozone.

Rich Scheffe noted that the criteria document is a good place to start to retrieve basic information on particulate matter. Chapter 6 of this document contains air quality information relevant to this Work Group. The criteria document is available on EPA's TTN.

Face to Face Meeting

Tom Helms identified the following agenda items for the March 20, 1996 meeting in Alexandria, Virginia:

Introduction of Work Group members

Timelines for implementation of ozone/particulate matter/regional haze rules

Highlights from the standard setting process

Discussions of the conceptual model

Presentations on transport.

Steve Ziman noted that it would be helpful for all three Work Groups to meet together on the night of March 20 to talk about objectives. This also would provide the Science and Technical Work Group with an opportunity to lay out the technical frameworks that the Work Group is considering.

David Sanders noted that there are several documents (below) that will be mailed out to Work Group members prior to the meeting that provide some of the background discussed earlier in the call. By reading these papers, it will help to better explain the conceptual model.

a) Sensitivity of Ozone to Model Grid Resolution - Parts I. and II. (two documents)

- Harvey E. Jeffries

b) Overview of Atmospheric Chemistry: Ozone chemistry and linkages to particles, haze formation and acid/toxics deposition - Rich Scheffe

c) Air Trajectory Residence Time Analysis Investigation of Ozone Transport Pathways: 1989-95 (one of two documents, the second to be mailed later) - Rich Poirot

d) Science and Policy Interaction in the Air Quality Decision Process

- Harvey E. Jeffries