Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

April 10, 1996

Room 201, 4201 Building

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Wednesday, April 10, 1996 between 11:30 am and 1:00 pm EDT in Research Triangle Park, 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

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Dave McNeill	Utah

S.T. Rao	New York

Leon Outlaw (for Jay Hudson)	Santee-Cooper

JohnCabaniss	AIAM

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Work Group Members Not Participating

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Richard Paul	AAMA

Non-Work Group Participants

Representative of the Electric Power Research Institute (guest of Dan Weiss); John Chamberlain; Jay Rosenthal; Ken Schere, U.S. EPA/NERL; Terrence Fitz-Simons, U.S. EPA/AQTAG; Bruce Polkowsky, U.S. EPA/VEPG; Bill Kuykendal, U.S. EPA/EFIG;Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; JoAnn Allman, Bill Johnson, David Sanders, Dave Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

Conceptual Model

Tom Helms initiated the discussion on the conceptual model by describing the accomplishments of the Work Group to date. He indicated that up to this point, the group had been engaged in a lot of discussion and fact finding efforts. However, the time had come to begin to formulate some ideas and get this information down on paper in the form of issue papers. Mr. Helms indicated that following this meeting, writing assignments would be made and the individual teams could begin putting together their respective documents.

Following the face to face meeting in Washington, Tom Helms and Harvey Jeffries got together and attempted to combine all of the information discussed onto a single page. The result of this effort is the current outline of the conceptual model. Mr. Helms asked that each Work Group member take a look at the individual sections of the conceptual model outline:

Introduction

Explain the Current Environmental State

How is that State Created, Sustained and Maintained?

Current Tools to Address/Implement this Current State of Knowledge

What Needs to be Done Based on the Issues, Needs and Identified Gaps?

Identify Critical Components of the Environmental States (where can policy have an	effect)

How do we Proceed with the Identified Gaps?

Following the presentation of the outline, Mr. Helms indicated Mr. Jeffries had a limited availability for today's meeting, and suggested that anyone having concerns regarding the outline should voice them at this time. Tom Moore commented that he thought the outline was representative of the discussions held previously in Washington, DC, but that he was concerned with the conceptualization of the available tools. Steve Ziman echoed this concern. Harvey Jeffries indicated he was planning to deal with this issue a little later in the meeting.

Tom Helms asked the Work Group members for a "comfort reading" on their perception of approaching the task before the group, using the conceptual model. Mr. Helms was concerned that everyone must feel comfortable operating under this outline if the Work Group was going to be successful. Bruce Hill and Jay Rosenthal indicated they had missed a good deal of the previous meetings, and would like to reserve their comments until such time that they had the opportunity to review the conceptual model materials in more detail. Mr. Helms acknowledged their concerns, and agreed to speak with them offline to bring them up to speed with the other members of the Work Group.

Dan Weiss questioned the document with regard to the anticipated number of revisions. Both Mr. Helms and Mr. Jeffries indicated that the final product would a "living document", which would be revised as necessary to reflect the current state of the science regarding ozone, particulate matter and regional haze issues.

Rich Poirot suggested that Section II of the outline, which deals with the creation, sustaining and maintenance of the environmental states, needed to have an additional section on deposition/removal. John Cabaniss suggested that this section should also deal with the commonalities between the three issues as well as their individual pollutant-specific issues. However, Harvey Jeffries indicated that this latter concern should be addressed under Section III. Tom Helms reminded the Work Group members that they were the authors, and they would be tasked with dealing with the issues as best they could. Mr. Helms encouraged the Work Group members to include these type issues in the draft document, and then the entire group could debate what should/should not be included in the final document. He stressed that contractor support was available to edit and compile the final document.

Harvey Jeffries commented that he had received distinctive comments regarding three major issues:

(1) The Conceptual Model Plan;

(2) Bulletin Board System (BBS) Document Distribution; and,

(3) Coordination with Other Work Groups.

Mr. Jeffries concluded that the first item had already been adequately covered earlier in the meeting, and he would turn his attention to the remaining issues.

Currently, downloading attached documents is difficult for Work Group members. Mr. Jeffries indicated that we need better document retrieval and distribution mechanisms. He encouraged the Agency to set aside a central location to store the Work Group's information, and to develop an easy way to get to this information.

Harvey Jeffries suggested to Tom Helms that there is currently not a formal method for passing information directly to the Coordination Group for FACA. He continued indicating that there also did not appear to be a mechanism for inter-group exchanges. He stressed the Work Group members concern over these issues at the Washington, DC meeting. However, he stated that there did not appear to be any consensus on how this type of communication/coordination should be accomplished. He stated that a methodology needed to be devised that would ensure this type of communication/coordination.

The need for communication is imperative. Mr. Jeffries indicated that there will inevitably be certain questions, which will arise during this process, that will need to be resolved at a level higher than the Science and Technical Work Group. He stated that there must be some process for hearing these issues, and then determining which group has jurisdiction to resolve them. He stated that such responses will impact the direction the group takes. The corollary to this approach is also important, in that other groups will need a way to distribute their questions to the Science and Technical Work Group. Thus, there needs to be a central filter to distribute and allocate this information to the proper Work Group.

David Sanders suggested that the OAQPS TTN/BBS was the best way to distribute this information. Mr. Sanders accepted the responsibility for compiling the information weekly, organizing the questions raised, and then distributing this information to the Work Group members.

Steve Ziman questioned whether the group had any indication of what the other work groups were doing. Have the other Work Groups developed a baseline plan, similar the Conceptual Model? Harvey Jeffries and David Sanders responded that the Conceptual Model outline had been provided to the other Work Groups. Tom Helms indicated that the other groups were just getting started, and that it would be premature to expect a document from them that is as detailed as the Conceptual Model outline.

Tom Helms suggested that as issues arise, that he and Mr. Jeffries would draft memorandums, which could be distributed to the other Work Groups and the Coordinating Group. Thus, the decision on the issues would become a FACA group decision, not necessarily the EPA dictating an issue. Harvey Jeffries voiced his agreement for this type of approach. He indicated that this approach would allow the Science and Technical Work Group to continue to do the baseline efforts. However, at the same time the Work Group could begin to deal with the interactive issues and find places to fit this information into the Conceptual Model.

Mr. Helms stated that there are currently 4 groups set up: (1) Information Transfer; (2) Transport; (3) Base Programs; and, (4) Science and Technology. He warned the Work Group members that this group was not going to set policy. He cautioned the members not to get "fooled" into thinking that this was what was going to happen. Harvey Jeffries indicated that he understood the role of the Science and Technical Work Group; however he stated that policies that could not be underpinned with sound science and technology could not be supported by this Work Group. He concluded his remarks stating that the communication problems were most likely due to the newness of the process and an inability to get the ball rolling.

David Sanders stated that currently the Science and Technical Work Group was providing information to both the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and the Interim Implementation Transition Policy (IITP). Mr. Sanders reminded the group that this Work Group was attempting to formulate science for both of these documents. Steve Ziman voiced his frustration with not being able to meet deadlines. He stated that it appeared that the Work Group had no control over the anticipated time schedule for these two policy decisions. Tom Helms responded indicating that was exactly the case. Mr. Helms suggested that the group do the best it could and move forward. He urged the group to make the best comments it could, keep moving forward and allow the regulatory system to catch up along the way. He indicated that the ANPR was not really a big issue, but that the IITP was extremely important.

Tom Moore indicated that this all appeared to be a "process problem" and not really a science or technical issue. Mr. Moore indicated that it appeared to him that the policy process was moving forward, whether the science was there or not. Mr. Helms stated that the Science and Technical Work Group would participate in both the ANPR and the IITP. He apologized for any misconceptions, and agreed to pass these sentiments along to the policy people on a conference call, which was scheduled immediately following this meeting.

Harvey Jeffries closed out this segment of the meeting stating that the Work Group needed to continue with the development of the conceptual plan as best as possible. He indicated that the conceptual plan is twofold. Initially the purpose of the plan is to offer explanations of how the world works, and secondly, to offer guidance on how to proceed given our current understanding. He concluded that achieving this goal would be a give and take process, and that communication would be the key link in the success of the group.

Tom Helms indicated that JoAnn Allman would be coordinating the calendar for this Work Group. Ms. Allman's electronic mail address is as follows:

allman.joann@epamail.epa.gov

and her phone number is 919-541-1815. Mr. Helms concluded this section of the meeting by stating that the communication issue was an important milestone. He promised to continue to work with David Sanders and Harvey Jeffries to resolve the problems and facilitate better communication and coordination between Work Groups.

The focus of the meeting shifted at this time to the writing assignments for the issue papers outlined in the Conceptual Model outline. Mr. Helms indicated that the first three sections of the outline could definitely move forward at this time. He discussed the matrix which was distributed to each Work Group member, and solicited volunteers for each of the areas contained within the matrix. Mr. Helms indicated that each Work Group member was expected to participate in at least one area, but in no more than three areas. He requested that each Work Group member review the matrix and notify David Sanders prior to COB Friday, April 12, 1996 as to which section they would like to be involved in writing. Mr. Helms indicated that each "team" would be assigned an EPA-person to oversee the progress and provide direction and communication. The draft of each team's effort is due to EPA on May 6, 1996.

Dave Stonefield indicated that each team's effort should be approximately 10-15 pages, and be designed for a Manager-type individual, with the majority of the technical information simply referenced in an appendix. Mr. Helms concurred that these papers should be written for a general management-level person (e.g. his boss). He urged the Work Group members to be concise, but thorough.

Rich Poirot suggested that due to the time constraints a "broad brush" approach to writing these documents would be attractive. He suggested that the authors simply need to overview the state of the science and summarize the issues, rather than being comprehensive. The Work Group members voiced good general consensus on a broad-brush overview approach, as opposed to a detailed approach. The group concluded that the details could be referenced in an appendix or bibliography.

In closing this segment of the meeting, Mr. Helms acknowledged that communication was a big problem at this point. He assured Work Group members that his personnel would continue to fax and e-mail information until the BBS was up and running. He asked for additional comments, and Diana Andrews provided the group a revised e-mail address:

dandrews%agencies@nsmail.state.ky.us

Mr. Helms reminded the Work Group that teams would be set-up and that he expected something back from each team prior to May 6, 1996.

Tom Helms indicated that the Base Programs Group had requested some assistance from the Science and Technical Work Group regarding program substitutions. Mr. Helms agreed to compile this information and distribute it to Work Group members prior to the next meeting. Following this effort, the Work Group team would be tasked to write something and get it to the Base Programs Work Group. There was considerable discussion on how the response should be formulated. Mr. Helms agreed to get this information out to Work Group members to allow them to intelligently discuss the options. The issue was raised regarding reaching a consensus. Mr. Helms indicated that he would be optimistic on this issue until proven otherwise. He said the decisions of the Work Group would be group efforts and that if offline conversations were required to gain consensus, then he would be responsible for conducting such communications.

David Sanders discussed the current status of the Bulletin Board Service (BBS). He indicated that he was working with Jan Kleeman to resolve this issue. Currently, Base Programs is using the following approach:

(1)	All the users (including the general public) have the ability to download everything, but cannot upload information.

(2)	Segmented areas for Work Group member correspondence only would allow both uploads and downloads.

Jan Kleeman had outlined the following options for the Science and Technical Work Group:

(1)	Work Group members could correspond, but the general public would be locked-out from the discussions.

(2)	Work Group members could download and upload information, but the general public could only download the information (identical to Option 2 above).

(3)	Work Group members and the general public could upload, download and comment.

David Sanders suggested that the third option was too open and the first option was too restrictive. Thus, he recommended the use of option 2, which is currently the approach the Base Programs and Regional Strategies Work Groups are using. Tom Helms suggested that Work Group members provide David Sanders their comments and suggestions on the proposed options.

In closing the meeting, Tom Helms admitted that today's agenda had been punishing and laborious. He challenged the Work Group members to use their creativity and insight in writing and compiling the Work Group's document. He reminded the members that another face to face meeting would be held May 29-30, 1996 in North Carolina and that considerable progress needed to be made prior to this meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled April 22, 1996, between 1:00 pm -2:30 pm EDT. Prior to this meeting the teams will be formed and a good deal of this meeting will be devoted to hearing status reports from the individual teams.