Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

May 20, 1996

Room 1019, Mutual Building

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Monday, May 20, 1996 between 1:00 pm 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

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Mike Smithwick (for Manop Vanichchagorn)	Louisiana

Jay Hudson	Santee-Cooper

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Kirit Chaudhri	Virginia

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

Name	Affiliation

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Dave McNeill	Utah

Richard Paul	AAMA

Rich Poirot	Vermont

S.T. Rao	New York

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Non-Work Group Participants

Mike Teague, UARG; Bob Judge U.S.EPA/Region I, John Chamberlin, U.S. EPA/OPPE; Bill Hamilton, U.S. EPA/PRG; Richard Scheffe, U.S. EPA/AQMG; Bill Kuykendal, U.S. EPA EFIG; Ken Schere U.S. EPA/NERL; JoAnn Allman, Bill Johnson, Bill Hamilton, David Sanders, David Stonefield, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Meeting

David Sanders opened the meeting by soliciting input on the agenda for the face-to-face meeting scheduled for May 29, 1996 in Durham, North Carolina. He suggested that we use today's conference call as a barometer to determine agenda topics for the upcoming meeting. Mr. Sanders indicated that Tom Helms would be joining the call by phone from a meeting in New Jersey.

Dan Weiss requested that one of the agenda topics be a robust discussion on what the other Subcommittee Work Groups are presently doing and what, if any, reports they have produced. Harvey Jeffries responded that he has uploaded issue papers from the National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG) which should help provide background for what their Work Group is doing. Diana Andrews stated that there was an electronic mail message from Rich Scheffe, but that she was having trouble downloading this document.

David Sanders reiterated that the discussion today should focus on the status of the Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) teams: Atmospheric Processes, Emissions, Air Quality and Tools. He stated that the goal of the Work Group would be to put together a document which would give some direction as to where the Science and Technical Support Work Group is going. This report would be backed up by the technical support document that Rich Scheffe has put together. He continued that he hoped that Harvey Jeffries could present a summary to the FACA Subcommittee of what we have done and what our expected efforts will be to support the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

Rich Scheffe asked if the Work Group should complete a rough draft of the Conceptual Model to give the FACA Subcommittee members by May 30th. David Sanders responded that he did not know if this could be accomplished before the meeting on May 30th. Harvey Jeffries stated that the only group that knew anything about Conceptual Model was the Coordinating Committee. The Conceptual Model has been updated since it was first presented to the Coordinating Committee several weeks ago. Mr. Jeffries said that he would be cautious in handing out what we have now to the Committee because the Science and Technical Support Work Group has not reviewed it. However, Mr. Jeffries stated that he does not have a problem with sending an outline of the Conceptual Model to the Coordinating Committee or FACA Subcommittee. Mr. Jeffries noted that it was more important to supply greater detail to the other Work Groups than it was to get this information to the full FACA Subcommittee.

Tom Moore asked if people that are writing could provide an outline of those sections to EPA before they leave on Friday. David Sanders said that he would distribute (via Federal Express) all of the documents he had received so far to the Work Group members tomorrow and use electronic mail for those sections that he has received electronically. Harvey Jeffries stated that the Work Group members need something in hand on May 29, 1996. This means that everything has to get to EPA by May 27, 1996 in order for it to be compiled in time for the face- to-face meeting on the 29th. Rich Scheffe added that the idea is to hand something out that conveys the general ideas and direction of the Work Group. Mr. Scheffe stated that this initial version does not have to have all sections completed.

Harvey Jeffries asked if the Work Group was supposed to hand out any materials at the face-to-face meeting on May 29th. Tom Helms added that the only thing we have to do is meet and talk about the Work Group's status and remaining issues. On May 30, 1996 at the FACA Subcommittee meeting, we will have to give some kind of an update. Rich Scheffe said that he did not see how we could possibly get all the sections reviewed internally by May 29th. Harvey added that all we need to hand out at the Subcommittee meeting is an outline. David Sanders added that comments from the face-to-face meeting on May 29 can be folded into the work that is currently in progress.

Harvey Jeffries asked what are we trying to accomplish for ourselves at the May 29th meeting. It was suggested that interaction with the Base Programs and Analysis Work Group (BPAWG) should occur. Tom Helms asked the Work Group members to define what success for this interaction would be. Tom Moore suggested that a brief discussion about designations, health related issues, and transport would define success for this interaction. John Chamberlin added that the BPA WG Work Group has prepared a matrix to address issues that their Work Group is trying to address. He suggested that David Sanders get a copy of this matrix from Sharon Reinders and distribute this to our Work Group members.

Tom Helms asked if the Science and Technical Work Group wanted to meet with the entire BPA WG or just the leaders. Harvey Jeffries responded that the entire Science and Technical Support Work Group should meet with the leaders of the BPAP Work Group. David Sanders noted that the face-to-face meeting on May 29, 1996 is scheduled from 10:00 am until 4:00 pm. He stated that he would work on setting up a joint meeting with the other Work Groups. Mr. Sanders noted that at 3:00 pm there is a meeting with the Coordination Committee and at 4 pm there is a meeting of all Work Group leaders. Tom Helms suggested that we need to schedule a meeting between 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm with key members of the BPAWG.

Conceptual Model Updates

Section 1A:

Harvey Jeffries stated that the Tools Team will give an historical perspective on ozone (Harvey Jeffries), fine particulates (Tom Moore), and regional haze (Mark Scruggs) tools. David Sanders added that presently the team will holding off on addressing issue number 3D.

Section 3B:

Rich Scheffe will present a summary of ozone models and Steve Ziman will summarize particulate models. Mr. Scheffe is sending his section this afternoon. The team facilitator and coordinator should be pulling all of these things together for David Sanders and the contractor.

Section 3D:

Rich Scheffe noted that Section 3D is the most "issue-free" of all sections. David Sanders suggested that the team hold off on completing Section 2 until it gets input from the other teams.

Mr. Scheffe disagreed. He believed that we need Section 2 completed before we start on Section 3. Harvey Jeffries added that we cannot do Section 3 by itself. Mr. Scheffe suggested that we begin with Section 1- Environmental State.

Section 3A:

Diana Andrews stated that she has begun working on Section 3A.

Section 1:

Rich Scheffe added that he thought David Sanders and Tom Moore were leading the effort on the environmental state. Tom Moore noted that there are topics which overlap, but that topics should be led by the most appropriate team. Section 1A has been assigned to Tom Moore and the rest of the Air Quality Team. Section 1B will be led by Mike Smithwick, David Stonefield, and Rich Scheffe. Tom Moore noted that he did not know who was leading Section 1C: the emissions category. Tom Helms said that he thought Bill Kuykendahl was leading Section 1C. Mr. Helms asked if it was worth while to put all of the sections together. The Work Group members confirmed that it was a good idea to compile all the sections. In addition, it was suggested that a table with sections and lead teams be generated. David Sanders agreed to be responsible for this task.

Tom Moore will have the lead on Section 1D: Climatology/Meteorology. David Chock will be responsible for ozone issues, Steve Ziman particulate matter issues, and Bruce Polkowsky regional haze issues in this section. Rich Scheffe noted that Section 1D is not the same as Section 2C. Tom Moore agreed with Mr. Scheffe, and reiterated that Section 1D is a discussion of the current state, not how it is created, sustained or maintained (which is the subject Section 2C). Mr. Scheffe added that Section 1B should not be in the Environmental State.

Section 2A:

The question was asked as to who is addressing Section 2A: primary and secondary emissions. David Sanders answered that Rich Poirot was responsible for Section 2A. Tom Helms said that he would speak with Mr. Poirot and get a status of his write-up. Tom Moore reiterated the urgent need for a master matrix, so that people will know what sections they are responsible for.

Section 2B:

Harvey Jeffries and Rich Scheffe will be responsible for ozone, Steve Ziman will be responsible for fine particulate matter and regional haze. David Chock said that he had written some on Section 2B also. Rich Scheffe asked Mr. Chock to review what has already been written and provide comments. Harvey Jeffries suggested that Sections 2B and 3A have to be done together. Tom Moore noted that members should read each others work to make sure it is delivered in a sequential fashion.

Rich Scheffe said that his team ran into a roadblock with the meteorology and transport sections. They found it difficult to separate the two. Ken Schere volunteered to help with these sections but could not begin writing until June. Rich added that these are important sections and someone needs to address them.

Tom Moore noted that, in his opinion, Sections 2C and 2D are the same. Mr. Scheffe agreed that the people responsible for writing are the same, but that he was not sure about the contents of the sections being identical. He indicated that a some of what is being discussed in Section 2D may be also be useful in Section 2C. Rich Scheffe added that the section on deposition and removal (e.g. Section 2E) is being written by Mark Scruggs.

Section 3 - Tools Team:

Steve Ziman noted that the Tools Team has not had a follow-up call. The only thing that is complete at this point is a description of PM modeling.

Section 3 - Modeling Inventories

Harvey Jeffries identified Steve Ziman and Rich Scheffe as key people for the modeling inventories section. He stated that we need further input on monitoring and an understanding of the environment to adequately address inventories that will be used for modeling purposes.

Section - Monitoring

Rich Scheffe added that there is a need to convey a sense of the coverage of the monitoring networks and monitoring equipment to measure pollutants in space and time for use with the models and other analytical tools. Tom Moore disagreed with this statement. He stated that there is a feedback loop; monitoring feeds modeling and modeling feeds monitoring.

In terms of particulate matter, Steve Ziman suggested that we define what the network was initially developed for and identify what additional information we need in order to clearly enunciate how to design a particulate matter monitoring network that captures both particulate matter and meteorology. Tom Moore added that Diana Andrews will address ozone monitoring, he will be responsible for fine particulate matter monitoring, and Mark Scruggs regional haze monitoring. Rich Scheffe stated that it was hard to separate these issues in the document, as currently structured.

Harvey Jeffries stated that without monitoring you are blind to many things that are going on but if you place monitors under the present system you can get hammered. He added that the PAMS network approach is useful. Rich Scheffe added that PAMS could be the foundation but in its current structure it will not be helpful since PAMS is only ozone related. Steve Ziman stated that we have to discuss the cost of monitor placement. Harvey Jeffries agreed with this. He noted that in California an estimate of $100K for a fine particulate matter network had been estimated, but quickly added that he did not agree with this figure. Diana Andrews noted that EPA has published a document on the cost of particulate matter monitoring.

Steve Ziman added that monitors are being pulled out and placed in other locations. Doing this removes the ability to observe long-term trends and climatological assessments that we need for evaluation of the historic record.

Conclusions

Harvey Jeffries asked everyone to have their sections completed and sent to David Sanders by May 27, 1996. This will allow Mr. Sanders and the contractor to compile them and hand them out at the meeting on May 29, 1996. There were several questions asked by Work Group members concerning meeting logistics. Members were asked to contact Denise Gerth with questions or problems with meeting arrangements.