Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

June 18, 1996

Room 628, Mutual Life Building

Durham, NC

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee held a conference call on Tuesday, June 18, 1996. A list of 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

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Jay Rosenthal	USN

S.T. Rao	New York

Jeff West	NARSTO

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corp.

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Leon Outlaw (Jay Hudson)	Santee Cooper

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

Dave McNeill	Utah

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corp.

Work Group Members Not Participating:

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Richard Paul	AAMA

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Rich Poirot	Vermont

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Non-Work Group Member Participants:

Pradeep Saxena, Electric Power Research Institute; Chris Lidhgem, EPA/OMS; John Chamberlin, EPA/OPPE; Ken Schere, EPA/NERL; Rich Scheffe, EPA/EFIG; Terence Fitz- Simons, EPA/AQTAG; Charlene Spells, EPA/IPSG; David Cole, Annie Nikbakht, David Sanders, EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

Tom Helms identified success for today's meeting would be to take stock of where the Work Group is on the Conceptual Model, which includes talking about time lines and discussing details of the model. He added that the Work Group should focus on questions that we are now receiving from other Work Groups. Harvey Jeffries reported that he sent a fax out to all Work Group members adressing these questions, and asked if they had all received it. Work Group members responded that yes some of them have it, but some do not.

Topics addressed by the Work Group at this meeting included a discussion on the time lines for June and July, discussion of the status of the Conceptual Model, and questions that have been posed to the Science and Technical Support Work Group by the other Work Groups. In addition, Rich Scheffe discussed a technical document that he has written which may form the basis for Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Conceptual Model.

Conceptual Model Update

Time Line

Tom Helms noted that regarding time lines the Work Group has made excellent progress on parts 1-5. He added that the Group should target finishing this segment by June 30, 1996, to allow the Work Group time to focus on answering the questions from the other Work Groups. Mr. Helms stated that as time permits, the Work Group will return to sections 6 and 7 of the Conceptual Model after that period.

Harvey Jeffries commented that he had some conversations with David Sanders and Rich Scheffe concerning the timing of completing the document. He added that the following discussion is based on the June 14, 1996 version of the Conceptual Model Document. Mr. Jeffries noted that it is now much clearer to understand the complete pieces and the gaps that are currently in the document. He commented that with the exception of some new additions and some revisions, we should be able to make the June 30, 1996 deadline.

Jeff West asked how the Work Group would handle comments on the conceptual model. David Sanders noted that he and Rich Scheffe will share the burden for addressing the comments. Harvey Jeffries indicated that at this time, the Group should focus on the mechanics of completing the document. He added that he has major commitments until the end of June, so Rich and David will have to bear the burden for the majority of the revisions to the document.

Mr. Jeffries provided information regarding upcoming meetings. He noted that there is a meeting of the Subcommittee chairs and co-chairs on June 21, 1996 from 9 am-12 pm. This meeting is in response to our Work Group's request for coordination and communication with the other Work Groups. Another set of face-to-face meetings will be held on July 1-2, 1996 in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. A follow-up meeting will be held on July 22- 23, 1996 in Washington, DC. This latter meeting coincides with the OTAG meeting and is approximately one week prior to the next face-to-face FACA Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Jeffries noted that this should give us ample opportunity to coordinate with the other Work Groups.

Tom Helms noted that the meeting on July 22-23, 1996 is currently wide open. He stated that he has coordinated with National and Regional Strategies Work Group and will be talking with the Base Programs and Policies (BPAP) Work Group this Friday. Steve Ziman stated that the work group needed an agenda for this meeting. He added that he could be present if needed, but he probably would not make the trip without a detailed agenda. Tom Moore and Steve Ziman agreed that there was a need for the BPAP to meet with the Science and Technical Work Group on July 22-23, 1996, to discuss science related issues and concerns.

Tom Helms added that the BPAP meeting to be held on July 1-2, 1996 is open for anyone to attend. It will in RTP, NC at the Environmental Research Center (ERC) in Classroom 2. They will be discussing issue papers and things that will probably rollover into our Work Group. Mr. Helms noted that his goal is to be there if he can.

Mr. Helms noted that there is a full FACA Subcommittee meeting on July 30, 1996 with the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) meeting following on July 31, 1996. He added that the Science and Technical Support Work Group will meet prior to these meetings on July, 29, 1996. All of these meetings are scheduled to be held in Washington, DC.

Comments on the Conceptual Model

Rich Scheffe offered his help in drafting the remaining sections (e.g. 6,7, and 8) of the Conceptual Model. He added that he will focus on getting the major portions of the document finished by the end of June. Mr. Scheffe noted that he had sent everyone the document that he wrote for Joe Paisie for the ANPR earlier in the week electronically. He asked that everyone review this document, and provide comments directly to him as soon as possible. He added that he would use this material as the foundation for completing the remaining sections of the Conceptual Model document.

Harvey Jeffries stated that he was pleased with the document Rich Scheffe had sent to him. However, he suggested that the document be "re-ordered" slightly. He suggested that the regionalization section be moved forward in the document, and then go into the discussions on ozone, particulate matter, and regional haze. He suggested using the "regionalization" term as a cornerstone for the document. He said that Chapter 5 needs enormous expansion, adding that the questions that we are being asked by the National and Regional Strategies Work Group hinge on this issue of regional transport and the scientific support for these issues. Mr. Jeffries stated that we need some detailed science to support this change to a regional approach from the existing single state SIP approach.

Steve Ziman commented that one of the things the work group needs to address is the development of strategies and options. Harvey Jeffries noted that one of the major questions from the BPAP Work Group is what is the actual spatial representativeness of an individual monitor.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that a date/header be added to the document, so that it is not confused with the earlier/later versions. S.T. Rao recommended moving Section 2 to the front of the document (e.g. similar to Harvey Jeffries comment above) and, added that he liked the use of the term "interacting scales". He also noted that a section entitled "integrated approach" or something like this should be added to the document. He suggested that section 3 or 4 could cover such a topic.

Several work group members indicated that they had not received the document (e.g. ANPR.SCI) that Mr. Scheffe sent electronically earlier in the week. Mr. Scheffe said that he would re-send the document and asked for everyone to get back to him with comments as soon as possible. He emphasized that this new document is not the Conceptual Model, it is simply starter material.

Tom Moore voiced concern that the above process of sending this draft document to Joe Paisie was circumventing the Conceptual Model process. He noted that the idea of regionalization is not fully explained in Mr. Scheffe's document. Harvey Jeffries disagreed, noting that the linkages and separations between ozone and particulate matter m are explained. The document simply states that sometimes you have a linkage (e.g. regionality) and sometimes you do not (e.g. local problem). Thus, some of the problems need to be approached regionally, while some need to be approached as a local problem. He concluded that Mr. Scheffe made it very clear that the east is not like the west.

Steve Ziman suggested that there needs to be a set of caveats in this document somewhere so as not to "upset" anyone. Rich Scheffe agreed that there is room for this in the document. He added that the newer version already has a lot of these caveats included. Tom Moore stated that he is not against sending the document to Joe Paisie; however, he suggested that the Work Group members should see the final version of this prior to sending this to Joe Paisie.

Harvey Jeffries noted that the editing process will end as of next Wednesday, June 26, 1996. Rich Scheffe will not accept any further comments after this date. Rich Scheffe stated that he only needs approximately one day to turn the document around. He added that he will

distribute the revised document as an embedded text document in the body of the electronic mail message and include it as an attachment, in both WordPerfect 5.1 and WordPerfect 6.1.

Tom Helms noted that if this document is to have an impact on the BPAP Work Group, then we need to be finished with it so that we can have it available to Joe Paisie to hand out to his people their July 1 and 2 meeting.

Tom Moore asked what is the value of having this as a work product from the Science and Technical Support Work Group as opposed to simply coming from EPA? Harvey Jeffries stated that it needs to come from the Work Group because this represents the first chance that the Work Group has to carry science into their policy deliberations. He added that we need to take advantage of this opportunity now.

John Chamberlin stated that he was on a call today where the other Groups were discussing their goals for the meetings on July 1-2, 1996. He followed by saying that he thought there was a recognition within the Work Group that the papers discussed today will be completed in time for the July 1-2 meetings. He added that he thought, however, that it was important to get as much science as possible to these people now. It will be helpful to have this Work Group's information in advance of the July 1-2 meetings.

Harvey Jeffries noted that there is still an incredible amount of interest in transport and regionality. He suggested that the Work Group focus on what is currently Section 2 of Mr. Scheffe's document. He suggested that Tom Moore should get his comments to Rich Scheffe regarding regionality as soon as possible.

Status of the Questions from Other Work Groups

Steve Ziman stated that he did not think that the other Work Groups were asking relevant questions. Harvey Jeffries responsed, indicating that he was not going to re-frame the questions this time as he had done with the initial set of questions at the May 29, 1996 FACA meeting. He asked that Work Group members send him electronic versions of how they think the questions should be framed. He noted that the issues that we've gotten from the National and Regional Strategies Work Group are diverse and vague. While, the BPAP Work Group's questions are more specific and detailed. He concluded that what we need to do is to ensure that Section 5 of the Conceptual Model is more complete and can deal with these issues. He added that we also need to deal with the appendices. Mr. Jeffries noted that the Control Technologies section would most likely be an appendix to the document. Steve Ziman responded by stating that we do not have anyone in our work group who is an expert in control technologies. Harvey Jeffries responded stating that it is not necessarily a detailed understanding of control technologies that is needed, rather it is how you integrate them.

Regarding the questions the BPAP Work Group has asked: Harvey Jeffries stated that David Chock needs to evaluate the question (perhaps with S.T. Rao's help) on using a t-test to evaluate statistical anomalies. In responding to the BPAP questions, S.T. Rao said that these are complex questions. He added that we cannot answer them with a simple yes/no answer.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that we need to devise a methodology for addressing these questions. He added that we are not going to answer these questions here in this Group, but that we are going to develop the framework regarding how these issues could potentially be solved. Tom Helms stated that the Work Group only need to tell the BPAP what we currently know about this issues at this point in time. Harvey Jeffries asked if S.T. Rao could take a first crack at responding to the questions from the BPAP Work Group? S.T. Rao agreed to undertake this responsibility, as long as he is not expected to conclusively answer each of them!

Tom Moore noted that Question 1 is actually most important here. By doing site specific sampling, we're always implying some level of exposure and representativeness. S.T. Rao responded that if we cannot answer Question 1 for ozone, then it is not going to happen for fine particulates and Regional Haze. He stated that this is another research item, which cannot be answered in the Work Groups time frame. In addition, he added that we need to suggest how difficult these questions are, and refer to the NARSTO group for the answers. Ken Schere stated that the NARSTO questions should encompass most of these, but reminded the Work Group that NARSTO was designed totally for ozone. He stated that he was unsure how the NARSTO framework would work for particles.

S.T. Rao added that he thought the Work Group could broaden the issue of representativeness, because the current question only deals with spatial representativeness, while the temporal aspects are not addressed.

Tom Helms said that he would interact with the other Work Groups on Friday. He added that we really do not want to simply respond that NARSTO will answer all the questions. He used the following analogy for this approach: "If we choose this approach, the train will simply go down the tracks, and we will be left waving at the train, and unable to influence the direction the train travels".

Recap of the Schedule

June 21, 1996 - Harvey Jeffries and Tom Helms will meet with the other co-chairs. At this meeting they will finalize the July 22-23, 1996 meeting in Washington, D.C.

June 24, 1996 - Mr. Helms and Mr. Jeffries will update the work group on the June 21, 1996 meeting with the other Work Groups through a memo.

June 28, 1996- Rich Scheffe will finalize the technical document and send it back to Work Group members.

July 1-2, 1996 - BPAP Work Group will meet in RTP (the Science and Technical Support Work Group is invited to attend).

July 22-23, 1996 - The next face-to-face meeting of the Science and Technical Support Work Group will be held in Washington, D.C.

July 24-25, 1996 - The Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) will meet in Washington, D.C.

July 29, 1996- A face-to-face meeting of the Science and Technical Support Work Group will be held in Washington, DC.

July 30, 1996 - The FACA Subcommittee will meet in Washington, D.C.

July 31, 1996 - The Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) will meet in Washington, D.C.

It was reported that the Ozone Staff Paper is will be sent to the TTN staff today. It should be available under the "Recently Signed Rules" section of the TTN. The next meeting of the Science and Technical Support Work Group will be Monday, July 1, 1996.