Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

July 8, 1996

Room 414, 4201 Building

Research Triangle Park, NC

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee held a conference call on Monday, July 8, 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

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

John Cabaniss	IIAM

Mark Scruggs	DOI

S.T. Rao	New York

Jeff West	NARSTO-NE

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Jay Hudson	Santee Cooper

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

Dave McNeill	Utah

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corp.

Work Group Members Not Participating:

Jay Rosenthal	USN

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Richard Paul	AAMA

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mtn. Club

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corp.

Non-Work Group Member Participants:

Pradeep Saxena, Electric Power Research Institute; Mike Teague, UARG; Bob Judge, EPA Region I; John Chamberlin, EPA/OPPE; Neil Frank, EPA/MQAG; Rich Scheffe, EPA/EFIG; Robin Dunkins, Tom Rosendahl, and Charlene Spells, EPA/IPSG; David Sanders, EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

At the July 8, 1996 teleconference, the Work Group was updated on several products including the status of the June 28, 1996 revised paper that Rich Scheffe was taking comments on and the status of the Conceptual Model Document. In addition, Tom Helms and David Sanders presented highlights of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) Work Group meeting held on 1-2 July and identified specific questions asked by the BPAP Work Group. Key dates for the remainder of July were also discussed.

Status of the June 28, 1996 Document

Rich Scheffe noted that he received a lot of comments on Wednesday, July 3, 1996. He noted that he received so many comments that he would like the Work Group to review the document again. He added that he would send (electronically) the latest version of the document to Work Group members by this weekend. Mr. Scheffe stated that the comments were constructive but that it is difficult to include all of the comments without changing the focus of the document. He noted specifically that he would need to speak with Dan Weiss again before finalizing the document.

Comments/Discussion

Dan stated that he would be happy to discuss his questions with Rich later this afternoon.

Rich asked if there was a "drop dead" date for this document.

Tom Helms noted that as soon as we can reach consensus on this document we should complete it and send it out. Hopefully, this would occur in the next 2-3 days.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that we do not have to reach consensus on this document; we could simply state both views and let it go where there is not consensus.

Rich Scheffe noted one key example where members were in disagreement. It was related to the use or reference of Robin Dennis' material. Mr. Scheffe added that he thought this information is good and should be included in the document.

Harvey Jeffries agreed, adding that he did not mind if we had caveats for it but that it must be included.

John Chamberlin agreed stating that the main weakness in the BPAP discussions was the lack of hard evidence in front of them.

Jeff West noted that he had a problem with Robin's work because it had not been peer reviewed. Harvey Jeffries stated that there is one chapter of Robin Dennis' document that has been submitted for a book that has been somewhat peer reviewed. Jeff West asked that people not misunderstand him. He added that he was not knocking Robin's work, he was simply trying to maintain scientific voracity in this process. Harvey Jeffries added that the RADM code is one of the most reviewed modeling codes in use today; however, he thought that there could possibly be questions about the interpretation of the modeling results. David Chock noted that he had some questions regarding Robin Dennis' results. He thought the grid size selected was too large and the diffusive scheme was also questionable, in that it diffuses things too much. Harvey Jeffries said that Robin has repeated this analysis using a smaller grid size. Tom Helms suggested that Rich, Dan, and David talk later today and try to resolve these issues.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that we need to get this document out no later than Friday, July 12, 1996. If anybody wants to comment further on this issue they should do so to Rich no later than Thursday, July 11, 1996. He added that we need to get short, concise answers into the hands of the BPAP Work Group as soon as possible.

Conceptual Model Update

Harvey Jeffries stated that he asked Robin Dennis to write a couple of chapters on his work for possible use in the Conceptual Model Document. He stated that there are 3-4 diagrams that Robin made available. In addition, he noted that Fred Vukovich of SAIC will begin an external review of both Robin Dennis' and S.T. Rao's work. He stated that Mr. Vukovich is well- versed in meteorology and qualified to analyze these results. He added that this effort will help build-up our sections on modeling and observations.

Mr. Jeffries has also talked with the monitoring people from the Acid Rain program. He noted that he would need to discuss his findings in detail with Tom Helms prior to discussing this with the Work Group more. He relayed that Rudy Husar has more information available on his web site.

Rich Scheffe noted that he has added some more sections which he received from S.T. Rao. He noted that he has a new version of Section 5 which incorporates information from S.T. Rao and Robin Dennis. Mr. Scheffe said that he has also taken a crack at Section 6 as well. This section identifies the strengths and weaknesses of existing programs.

Comments/Discussion

John Chamberlin asked if the NARSTO effort was included in his section? Rich Scheffe responded that the NARSTO effort is strictly research and is focused on ozone. He added that the audience that we are dealing with here is not strictly scientific nor are they research oriented. He suggested that the kind of gaps we are concerned with here are more broad-brush or at the least a much less technical audience. He added that NARSTO is more research based, while we are more Air Quality Management based. Harvey Jeffries asked the Work Group members that are a part of NARSTO comment on Rich's document as to what is/is not included in the NARSTO document, then we can identify these as NARSTO issues.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that the Work Group address the representativeness of monitors issue. He noted that the policy people would like to know if there is any scientific information regarding the representativeness of air quality monitors. If not, the policy people will have to return to using some type of geo-political boundary methodology. He added that we have to tie this issue into the incentive to do monitoring. A key question is if you use a monitor to designate nonattainment, then how big can this area be? S.T. Rao said that the only way to do this was to have a very dense network of monitors and then mark where the concentration drops off.

Tom Moore stated that he thinks there is a bigger question: is the nonattainment issue simply a regulatory control issue, or are we actually trying to improve ambient air quality? He suggested that EPA has to address this question. Tom Helms suggested that we might be making this much more difficult than it needs to be. He added that we are simply asking the scientific community to address the question what does the data from this ozone monitor really tell us?

S.T. Rao noted that if you only have one monitor, you cannot really tell anyone what is going on. Tom Helms asked if you could expand this using modeling? S.T. Rao responded that if you are looking at spatial data, say within 50 miles, then 30% of the information is lost.

Harvey Jeffries asked what is the importance of this?

S.T. Rao responded that it is a scale problem - we cannot do this with the current network that we have.

Harvey Jeffries noted that in the south, a monitor does not represent 50 miles.

David Chock added that in LA, it is more like 10 km from the peak.

Harvey Jeffries stated that he did not think that it was possible to tell them scientifically what the region of representativeness is for a given monitor site. He asked the work group to identify what has been done to support these conclusions that have reached up to this point - a little work or a massive effort? He stated that he is looking for the summary work that will support whether the monitor represents 50 miles or 10 km. Mr. Jeffries said that he needed input on this issue from the Work Group.

S.T. Rao asked what are we asking with regards to monitor representativeness - what is the areal extent for a given monitor? In other words, if I have one monitor, how big of an area can I designate as nonattainment?

Tom Helms noted that the deadline for the Conceptual Model Document is as soon as possible adding that it is an important document and that he does not want to drag it into September.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that there are parts of the Conceptual Model that are secondary to the process. He added that the sections that we are working on now need to be concluded as soon as possible. The other pieces can be completed at a later time.

BPAP Work Group Meeting held on July 1-2, 1996

Tom Helms noted that the BPAP Work Group is looking for the STSWG to come up with short, concise answers for their respective issue papers noting that our objective is not to rewrite these papers but to evaluate them from a science standpoint and respond in 1-2 paragraphs. Mr. Helms added that some of the work group members have been "volunteered" for assignments on these issue papers.

David Sanders added that we tried to make the assignments by "cross-fertilizing" on the issues, and utilizing 3-person teams to evaluate each issue paper. He suggested that we should also set-up additional groups to communicate with the authors of the other issue papers from the other Work Groups. He said that he also included names of EPA people who are willing to assist with this effort. We are attempting to set-up a schedule when the 3-person teams can have a conference call, discuss the issues, and then come back to the STSWG, and report back to the other Work Groups. Thus, science can be inserted into this process.

Tom Helms relayed that his main concern was to tell the BPAP Work Group that science either supports or does not support whatever policy decision that they are making. Otherwise, we are into rewriting their paper.

Comments/Discussion

Harvey Jeffries noted that they are very interested in science adding that they want to know what science can and/or cannot support. Mr. Jeffries commented that they (e.g. BPAP) will change their position if we tell them that science cannot support a particular decision which they are considering.

Tom Helms said that he has tapped several EPA persons as facilitators for these issue papers. They include Annie Nikbakht, 919-541- 5246; David Cole, 919-541-5565; and Carla Oldham, 919-541-3347. He added that these facilitators are not to write the papers; they are simply supposed to get you the correct version of these papers and provide any materials that you need to support your answers.

Robin Dunkins stated that the BPAP Work Group has already started setting-up these calls and are supposed to plug-in the STSWG members.

Harvey Jeffries suggested that it would be nice to set up a file on the TTN/BBS which contains the most recent version of these papers.

Tom Helms said that he would have JoAnn Allman look into this, but that some of the issues are still being completed.

John Chamberlin noted that while the group was in general not very enthusiastic about either the too close to call (June 28, 1996 version) or population weighting (June 26, 1996) papers, there will be very little done to revise them. He said that both of these papers were nominated for being moved into implementation and dealt with later, but, this decision was not made at the 1-2 July meetings.

David Chock added that there was some concern that the standard setting personnel should be involved in revising the too close to call paper.

Harvey Jeffries noted that there are two sets of questions from the June 2, 1996 Work Group meeting. He received something dated May 29, 1996 draft which has questions for the STSWG, which is a WordPerfect document. He said that these are Donna Lamb's questions adding that we should probably focus on these questions.

David Sanders clarified the July dates. He said that the work group will meet as scheduled on July 25, 1996. The public meeting scheduled for July 17, 1996 has been moved until August 5, 1996. The FACA Subcommittee will meet on July 30, 1996.

Tom Helms added that the meetings on July 29 and 30 are optional. He relayed that all kinds of maps have been generated addressing what constitutes a nonattainment area. He asked the Work Group to review the sets of maps that EPA staff are getting ready to release. He noted that EPA has created these maps in a variety of different ways and they would like comments on these presentations. He said that he should be able to distribute the maps within the week.

John Chamberlin asked for Mr. Helms if he could also provide the data for these maps?

Tom Helms stated that he would provide everyone all of the information that he has. He added that he wanted the Work Group to have all of the information before the July 22/23, 1996 face-to-face meetings so that the Work Group can do a good evaluation of these products. Mr. Helms said that John Seitz wants the STSWG to provide input on the quality of these documents. He thanked the members for their effort up to this point.

David Sanders noted that the deadline for the first 5 chapters of the Conceptual Model Document is the end of July.

The next scheduled call for the Science and Technical Support Work Group is scheduled for 1:00 - 2:30 pm EDT on Monday, July 15, 1996. The purpose of this call will be to develop the agenda for the face-to-face meetings to be held the following week in Washington, DC at the Sheraton Washington Hotel.