Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

April 22, 1996

Room 1019, Mutual Building

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Monday, April 22, 1996 between 1:00 am and 2:30 pm EDT 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

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Dave McNeill	Utah

Jay Hudson	Santee-Cooper

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Michael Smythwick (for Manop Vanichchagorn)	Louisiana

Work Group Members Not Participating

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

Richard Paul	AAMA

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

S.T. Rao	New York

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

David Chock; John Chamberlain; Jeff West, NARSTO; Ken Schere, U.S. EPA/NERL; Bill Hamilton, U.S. EPA/PRG; Jim Berry, U.S. EPA/ESD/MG; Bruce Polkowsky, U.S. EPA/VEPG; Bill Kuykendal, U.S. EPA/EFIG; Robin Dunkins, Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; JoAnn Allman, Doug Grano, Bill Johnson, David Sanders, Dave Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

Tom Helms opened the meeting by stating that today's goal would be to reach consensus on the Conceptual Model during this call, and begin to move toward actually getting information in writing and on paper. Today's call should serve as the impetus to focus the individual teams and get them started in the writing process. A secondary issue on today's agenda would be a discussion of the interim or transition policy.

Mr. Helms indicated that his office had received a number of comments from Work Group members regarding the Conceptual Model. He stated a "near final" version of the Conceptual Model had been sent to Work Group members via facsimile and electronic mail. Mr. Helms encouraged Work Group members to make changes directly on this draft version of the Conceptual Model during today's call. Also, attached to the draft version of the Conceptual Model was a preliminary time line for the Science and Technical Work Group.

Mr. Helms indicated that he was of the opinion that Sections 1-3 of the Conceptual Model could be readily produced at this time. Following completion of these sections, then the Work Group could focus its attention on Sections 4-6 of the Conceptual Model. Mr. Helms indicated that there would not be any problem adding additional items to the Conceptual Model agenda, as long as they are not related to policy. The procedure for making any suggestions, additions, and/or corrections would be to send them in writing via electronic mail to Mr. Helms or David Sanders.

Dan Weiss suggested that electronic mail was suitable for communicating ideas among Work Group members, but requested that a description of the file contents be added to each message to identify the information for the recipient. Harvey Jeffries also noted that attaching more than 2 documents was not "user-friendly"; generally, most mail systems cannot handle such messages. Dan Weiss also voiced his interest in the emission control technologies area of the Conceptual Model.

Mr. Helms moved to a discussion of the time line for the Work Group, and asked the Work Group members to comment on the proposed schedule. He reminded the Work Group that they were working against a July 31, 1996 deadline for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPR). Mr. Helms indicated that this date may slip, but that the Work Group could not work under that assumption. He envisions the first three sections of the Conceptual Model as some type of technical support document for the ANPR. Thus, these sections must be drafted and in the docket fairly soon, to be able to serve this function for the ANPR.

Mr. Helms admitted that the final form of the Work Group's document was still unclear in his mind. However, he would commit the EPA to provide the Work Group members with draft materials that are currently being collected internally. He indicated that this material would simply serve as starter/reference information for the Work Group members to take and begin to formulate their respective pieces of the Conceptual Model. He also indicated that the Work Group members were not bound by this information; they should feel free to use/discard any or all of this material in their respective write-ups. Mr. Helms indicated that this material would be available by April 30, 1996. He proposed that between May 1-27, 1996 that the Work Group members take this material and use it to generate a draft document for presentation at the May 29, 1996 Face-to-Face meeting, which will be held in Durham, North Carolina. He indicated that the Face-to-Face meeting would serve as the forum of discussion for the draft version of this material. Following the Face-to-Face meeting, each Team would have until mid-June to refine their document. The goal would be to have Sections 1-3 completed prior to the end of June.

Harvey Jeffries voiced some initial concern over focusing on the first three Sections, because it left a great deal of other material to be completed. However, following some discussion by the Work Group members, Mr. Jeffries agreed with the approach. Tom Helms stated that once Sections 1-3 were documented and agreed upon, then we could move fairly quickly to the remaining sections of the Conceptual Model.

John Chamberlain questioned whether the ozone nonattainment area maps discussed under Section 1B of the Conceptual Model would be based on the current NAAQS or on one of the various scenarios currently under evaluation. Tom Helms indicated that any of the scenarios currently under evaluation by the EPA would be fair game at this point. Harvey Jeffries reiterated to the Work Group members that in order to explain what the environmental state is will require the use of graphical information. Mr. Chamberlain stated his purpose for posing the original question was to gain a commitment from EPA on which direction the Agency was heading. Mr. Jeffries reminded the Work Group members that the inclusion of a metric in this report was to document science, not to promote one version of a standard over another. Tom Helms indicated that the EPA personnel assigned to each writing team would be able to help generate the necessary graphical information required to adequately display the scientific concepts.

Tom Moore stated that this type of graphical information must be used for particulate matter and regional haze, not just for ozone. Harvey Jeffries suggested that each team articulate as clearly as possible the condition of the environmental state. He went on to say that if there is additional graphical support that you need, then you should make a request to EPA to provide your team with this information. Mr. Moore suggested that the Work Group needed some type of workable and/or formalized range of scenarios for ozone, particulate matter and regional haze from which the group could work. He recommended that limits be clearly articulated to the members of the Work Group. Harvey Jeffries commented that in North Carolina there had been an attempt to develop such a metric for ozone. However, he stated that in terms of regional haze, he had very little guidance on such metrics and asked the Work Group members for help in this area.

Mark Scruggs indicated there is existing particle and synoptic data and that the pollutants which are causing the majority of the impairment can be identified. Mr. Scruggs indicated that speciated maps existed from which the impairment-causing pollutants could be identified. Harvey Jeffries suggested that a map showing data limited areas would also be important. Mr. Scruggs indicated that Colorado State University had collected some good information along these lines. Rich Poirot suggested that some airport visibility data would be useful. However, he indicated that current automated airport visibility data differs somewhat from the traditional airport visibility data. He suggested that a new metric might need to be developed to properly analyze and synthesize this data.

Tom Moore commented on the writing assignment team matrix, stating that the ozone, particulate matter and regional haze issues had been segregated. He voiced his concern over making such a distinction. Tom Helms acknowledged Mr. Moore's concern, and asked if this discussion could be tabled until later in the call. Mr. Moore also questioned whether the draft document, which is shown on the time line as being due on June 30, 1996 to support the ANPR, would be a final version. Tom Helms indicated that this would be the final version for the first three chapters. However, he reminded Work Group members that things could change. Mr. Helms stated that if the Work Group gets to June 20, 1996 and the group cannot reach consensus, then the modifications will continue. However, he indicated that he would prefer to reach consensus on Sections 1-3 prior to June 30, 1996 and consider this version a final report.

Dan Weiss questioned the usefulness of the Conceptual Model to the ANPR, because of the lateness of the submission. Tom Helms responded that the information he promised to distribute earlier during this call is being written by the same EPA personnel who are responsible for drafting the ANPR. Thus, the Work Group members will be reviewing this information during May and returning their inputs/comments back to the ANPR staff in June. Harvey Jeffries concluded that the time line must be over-simplified and that a good deal of interaction must be built into this schedule. Mr. Helms concurred that there would be a good deal of interaction between this Work Group and the personnel drafting the ANPR. Mr. Jeffries indicated that the critical time period of interaction would be during May. Mr. Helms agreed to assign EPA personnel to each team to assist in writing and coordination/communication. He indicated that the first Work Group-wide presentation of the document would come on May 29, 1996 at the next Face-to-Face meeting. He reiterated that this effort would be a total team effort, and that the process was to build toward consensus and then move on to the remaining issues contained within the Conceptual Model.

Mr. Helms now moved to a discussion of the individual teams: (1) Air Quality Team; (2) Emissions Team; (3) Atmospheric Processes Team; and, (4) Tools/Trends and Models Team. He suggested that the individuals listed on the matrix get together on a separate series of teleconferences, work through the material which EPA is providing and determine what the best approach is toward completing their respective section. He reminded the Work Group that EPA staff would be available to set-up the conference calls, provide coordination/communication and technical support.

David Sanders commented that the table looks very compartmentalized. He indicated, however, that there is to be a free-flow of information between the individual teams. As an example, he suggested that the Air Quality Team should not be compartmentalized between ozone, PM and RH. Rather, the individual teams must deal with what is important to the discrete pollutants, while also dealing with the commonalities between the individual pollutants. Tom Helms indicated that it was difficult to get the ball rolling, but that once we get moving, then the document will take shape as the Work Group progresses. David Sanders concluded this segment of the call by stating that he believed the reference material provided by the EPA would set the wheels in motion.

Harvey Jeffries moved into a discussion on the need to share information very quickly and effectively. David Sanders indicated that the OAQPS TTN/BBS was now online and available for uploading/downloading information. Mr. Jeffries stated that the individual teams would simply have to step up and request the information required to complete their sections. He stated that the purpose of Section 1 was to describe the current environment state. Thus, he stated that each team would have to decide if the topics under their jurisdiction are adequately covered within the Conceptual Model and circulate these among the Work Group. Mr. Jeffries indicated that through this process, the Work Group would identify the gaps that are still in the Conceptual Model. Mr. Helms reminded the Work Group that the EPA would provide any information which they currently have available.

Harvey Jeffries questioned if anyone was writing a history for the document. Tom Helms responded that Warren Frease and some of his group were putting together some information to define the environmental state. Mr. Helms asked Bill Kuykendal to address what was being done from the emissions standpoint. Mr. Kuykendal indicated that EMAD personnel were compiling draft language for the ANPR. This information should total 8-10 pages when completed. Mr. Helms stated that the Work Group's emissions team would then take a look at this material and tell the Work Group at the May 29, 1996 meeting that this draft material was either complete or needed revisions. David Chock questioned the overall organization of the document. Harvey Jeffries responded that it would not be possible to refer to each team as a chapter in the Conceptual Model. Tom Moore suggested that the Work Group employ an alphanumeric scheme to divide the final document. Tom Helms suggested that the individual teams should make the decision on how to structure their respective sections. Harvey Jeffries agreed with Mr. Helms assessment, and suggested that this process would also identify the issues which had fallen through the cracks in developing the initial draft of the document.

Bill Kuykendal suggested that each team needed to appoint a chair prior to the conclusion of today's call. He indicated that this process would facilitate the scheduling of the initial calls for each team. Mr. Kuykendal stated that EPA personnel would be responsible for scheduling the teleconference lines. The following assignments were made:

Air Quality Team:

EPA:	David Sanders - Coordinator

WG Coordinator:	Tom Moore

Emissions Team:

EPA:	Bill Kuykendal

WG Coordinator:	Poirot/McNeill

Atmospheric Processes:

EPA:	Spells

WG Coordinator:	Jeffries

Tools Team:

EPA:	Scheffe

WG Coordinator:	Ziman

The EPA and Work Group Coordinators were encouraged to communicate as soon as possible, and to begin the writing process.

The next issue before the Work Group was to address a request from the Base Programs Support Work Group regarding substitutions. Mr. Helms provided the background information surrounding this request. Essentially, Base Programs has asked if you implement some type of substitution program, what does it mean?; how should the substitution be done?; and, under what scientific conditions does the substitution make sense? Mr. Helms asked that Doug Grano address some of these questions.

Doug Grano stated that EPA had looked at substitution issues in the past. However, he stated that the EPA had not looked rigorously at the issue from a scientific standpoint. Mr. Grano stated that in most instances, EPA had deferred judgement on this issue. Interpollutant trading is complex, and thus no national rule has been issued. The EPA generally suggests that substitution be evaluated on a case by case basis. Local and downwind impacts are important when considering pollutant substitutions.

Mr. Grano indicated that the EPA had done investigations as mandated by the CAAA. The rate of progress section was handled by a simple approach, which was not overly rigorous scientifically, but was done on a percent basis. Another area where the EPA is addressing this area is Project XL. Mr. Grano indicated that one area that had not been considered, is in the PM and RH arena, where NOx for SOx substitutions could be evaluated. He concluded by saying that EPA was directed toward looking at multiple environmental effects. Thus, he indicated that as the EPA discusses this from a policy standpoint, it is not clear exactly where the science falls in this area.

Mr. Helms concluded this section by stating that the Work Group had been asked to draft a concept paper on this issue. Harvey Jeffries questioned the time table for this document, and was told that it was due prior to April 30, 1996. Tom Helms stated that we could not meet this schedule. He concluded saying the Work Group would move as quickly as possible, but that the issue could not be resolved within one week. Mr. Helms asked any interested Work Group members to contact either himself or Doug Grano (919-541-3292).

Mr. Helms concluded the call by reminding Work Group members that the writing assignments had been made, team coordinators had been identified, and that the group really needed to focus on writing Sections 1-3 of the Conceptual Model. The next scheduled meeting of the Science and Technical Work Group is set for Monday, May 6, 1996 between 1:00 pm and 2:30 pm. The location of this meeting is to be determined.