Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

July 15, 1996

Room 836, Mutual Building

Durham, NC

The Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) of the FACA Subcommittee held a conference call on Monday, July 15, 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

Jeff West	NARSTO-NE

Mark Scruggs	DOI

S.T. Rao	New York

Tom Moore	WESTAR

Jay Hudson	Santee Cooper

Dave McNeill	Utah

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corp.

Diana Andrews	Kentucky

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corp.

Work Group Members Not Participating:

John Cabaniss	IIAM

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Richard Paul	AAMA

Jay Rosenthal	USN

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mtn. Club

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Non-Work Group Member Participants:

Pradeep Saxena, Electric Power Research Institute; Bob Judge, EPA Region I; John Chamberlin, EPA/OPPE; Jim Berry, EPA/ESD/MG; Ken Schere, EPA/NERL; Bill Kuykendal, EPA/EIFG; Robin Dunkins, Charlene Spells, EPA/IPSG; JoAnn Allman, David Cole, Bill Johnson, Annie Nikbahkt, David Sanders, and David Stonefield, EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

Tom Helms opened the call by asking each Work Group member to double-check his/her travel plans for next week's Face-to-Face meeting to be held in Washington, DC. Mr. Helms stressed that the Work Group would be attempting to merge the science and the policy side of the issues in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Helms indicated that Rich Scheffe would not be participating in the call today because of the extensive damage his beach house suffered during last week's passage of Hurricane Bertha along the North Carolina coast.

Tom Moore volunteered to provide the Group an update on the status of Rich Scheffe's ANPR Document, since he had exchanged several drafts with Mr. Scheffe last week. Tom Helms acknowledged the offer and indicated it would be covered later during this call. Harvey Jeffries asked for further clarification on the materials sent to him earlier in the day regarding today's agenda and the agenda for next week's meeting. Mr. Helms indicated that both of these issues would be discussed in the next few minutes of this call. However, at this time he would prefer that we move to a discussion of the Work Group's Issue Papers.

Mr. Helms indicated that he had asked Annie Nikbakht, David Cole and Carla Oldham of EPA/OAQPS/OPSG to facilitate the development of these policy Issue Papers. The Work Group then moved to a discussion of the Issue Papers, individually.

Designations and Control Regions

Tom Moore indicated that this topic was combined with the boundaries paper in the original outline. He indicated that a conference call was held last Wednesday with the National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG) personnel. Mr. Moore indicated that the Midwest was well represented in the boundary defining process. He also indicated that S.T. Rao would also have something to say about this effort as well. He concluded by stating that he would distribute a written copy of his analysis of these draft papers to Work Group members following this call.

S.T. Rao said that Tom Moore had covered the basic issues involved in the combination of the two papers. Mr. Rao indicated that he had put together some material earlier this morning, which basically summarized his comments on the issue of designations and area of violation (AOV) / area of influence (AOI). Mr. Rao concluded that he was also very concerned about the concept of spatial representativeness.

Steve Ziman indicated that there appeared to be some confusion over which version of the Issue Paper we were discussing. Tom Moore indicated that the version dated July 11, 1996, was the correct version. He indicated that it consisted of a memo from Steve Gerritson and Don Theiler to Robin Dunkins. Tom Helms indicated that we needed to be careful not to rewrite these Issue Papers, but to simply provide scientific guidance. He also asked David Sanders to try and get the most recent version of each Issue Paper to the members of the Work Group by Friday, July 19, 1996. This process would allow each Work Group member the opportunity to review these materials and formulate discussion questions, prior to the Face-to-Face meeting in Washington, DC.

Too Close to Call

Steve Ziman reported to the Work Group on this particular Issue Paper, indicating that the lines of communication were open, and that most people were happy with the paper in its current form. In conclusion, he strongly urged the Work Group members to review this paper prior to next week's meeting. Diana Andrews asked how the latest version of this Issue Paper could be located on the OAQPS TTN/BBS? Mr. Ziman noted that it was dated June 29, 1996, and that the file name on the TTN/BBS was BP1A1B.628.

Population Weighting

David Cole indicated that he and David Sanders had called Rich Poirot on Friday, July 12, 1996 to discuss the Issue Paper. He also indicated that the current version is dated June 26, 1996 and is located on the TTN/BBS in the file BP1A2B.626. Mr. Cole indicated that Rich Poirot has questions and concerns regarding the document, and that he will be calling Steve Pezda and/or David Chock in an attempt to resolve the pertinent issues. David Sanders stated that he thought it was possible for David Chock and Rich Poirot to discuss the issues offline and come to some degree of consensus.

Monitoring Incentives

Diana Andrews indicated that she had just recently found out from Annie Nikbakht of her responsibility for this document. Ms. Andrews also requested a recent version of the Issue Paper, as the document on the TTN/BBS (e.g. BP1E.531) is not the most recent version. Tom Helms said that it was his understanding that a gentleman from USX was reworking the file. Mr. Helms asked that Diana coordinate with the gentleman from USX and Jeff West to get this paper to consensus. Jeff West also indicated that a good deal of work would be needed, because he had some serious reservations about the document in its current configuration.

Integration of Implementation Programs

Mark Scruggs indicated that a conference call was held last Thursday (e.g. July 11, 1996) between himself, Dan Capleman, Dan Weiss and Donna Lamb. Mr. Scruggs indicated that the group identified four specific issues during the call. He also indicated that Rich Scheffe's ANPR Document could go a long way towards explaining some of their concerns. He identified the four areas of concern: (1) Speciation of pollutants that form ozone, particulate matter and regional haze; (2) Control strategies which lead to multiple pollutant benefits;

(3) Regional haze - What is it? Where is it? When is it a problem?; and, (4) Regional variations.

Mr. Scruggs reiterated that Rich Scheffe had done a real good job pointing out the similarities and differences for this question in his ANPR Document, which is on the TTN/BBS as ANPR.712. Mr. Scruggs indicated that there is some room for minor improvements in the document; however, overall the document is quite good.

General Discussion of the ANPR Document

John Chamberlin stated that if this ANPR Document is so informative, then the Subcommittee members should have this information in their hands prior to the meeting on July 30, 1996. Harvey Jeffries indicated that he had talked with Rich Scheffe on Friday, July 12, 1996. At that time, Mr. Scheffe indicated that he had concluded his effort of incorporating Work Group comments in the ANPR Document. Mr. Jeffries indicated that Rich Scheffe thinks that the document is complete, and voiced his approval of that conclusion. Mr. Jeffries indicated that with some minor reworking this week, the document could be ready for distribution to the full FACA Subcommittee.

Tom Helms asked if we should strive to finalize this document by the conclusion of next week's Face-to-Face meetings in Washington, DC. Harvey Jeffries responded that he thought the document was complete right now; that there was no need to delay until next week to distribute the document. John Chamberlin concurred that the document needed to be distributed as soon as possible, in order for science to make its way into the policy process. Tom Helms agreed to draft a cover letter and get the document out this week. The Work Group stressed that the cover letter should indicate that this document is from the STSWG and not from EPA or Rich Scheffe.

New Source Review

Jay Hudson indicated that a conference call had taken place, and that in light of that discussion he had some serious reservations regarding some of the technical issues presented. Annie Nikbakht indicated that Joe Paisie had promised to get the most recent version of the document on the TTN/BBS; however, as of this morning there was not a revised document on the bulletin board.

Steve Ziman questioned the need for a New Source Review (NSR) Issue Paper in the first place, given the recently proposed NSR/PSD document, which is scheduled to be in the Federal Register. John Chamberlin responded that the new NSR document has appeared in the Federal Register, and Tom Helms could provide the Work Group members with a copy of the informational press release. Mr. Chamberlin indicated that the paper in question purports to provide a broad philosophic view of NSR and how it would operate under the revised NAAQS. However, in Mr. Chamberlin's opinion, the purpose of this Issue Paper is intended to be more technical in nature. Steve Ziman responded that he thought a number of the Issue Papers that the Work Group is seeing are philosophical in nature. He voiced concern that this type of Issue Paper does not get to the level of detail that the Work Group needed to be discussing in order to solve the issues before the Work Group. He suggested that the Work Group needed to send a message back to these other Groups that they stop being philosophical and deal specifically with the facts. He likened the current approach to one of dealing with trial balloons. He stressed that we need to deal specifically with the scientific issues at hand.

Tom Helms suggested that next week's meeting will solve a lot of these problems. Mr. Helms stated that both Joe Paisie and David Mobley would be present at next week's meeting, and would be available to this Work Group for as much interaction as necessary. Mr. Helms reminded the Work Group that the purpose of the Issue Papers was simply to stimulate discussion and open-up a dialogue among the different Work Groups.

Conceptual Model

Harvey Jeffries indicated that the Conceptual Model Document has been on hold, while the Work Group has focused its efforts on the ANPR Document and the Issue Papers. However, Mr. Jeffries indicated that considerable effort has been expended on Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. He indicated that work performed by S.T. Rao and Robin Dennis had been expanded and worked into the document. Mr. Jeffries stated that TRC had also recently generated a document, which detailed the temporal and spatial variations of PM-10 and PM-2.5. Mr. Jeffries suggested that Tom Moore talk with Neil Frank about getting this work released to the Work Group for review.

Face-to-Face Meeting Agenda

Tom Helms indicated that the meeting was scheduled to begin at 10:00 am, with a discussion of the Conceptual Model Document. Harvey Jeffries indicated that he would prefer to postpone the proposed two morning sessions, in favor of an open discussion of the Issue Papers. He indicated that he was not opposed to spending a limited amount of time on the Conceptual Model Document; however, he believed strongly that we should let Rich Scheffe's ANPR Document be this Work Groups "spotlight" product for awhile.

Tom Helms agreed with the proposed changes to the agenda, and asked for a time slot to present the EPA maps and allow for Work Group comment and discussion. Harvey Jeffries concurred, and the discussion was added to the agenda.

David Sanders closed the call by asking for a confirmation on attendees for the Washington, DC meeting. The following individuals are currently scheduled to participate: Mark Scruggs, Leon Outlaw, Steve Ziman, S.T. Rao, Tom Moore, Jay Hudson, Jeff West, John Cabaniss, David Chock, Dan Weiss, Kirit Chaudhari, Diana Andrews, Harvey Jeffries, Bob Judge and, John Chamberlin. Mr. Sanders asked that anyone intending to eat lunch on Tuesday, during the joint Work Group meeting, send him an electronic mail message indicating their sandwich preference: Roast Turkey, Roast Beef or Vegetarian.

Mr. Helms thanked the Work Group members for their time and participation, and urged their full participation next week at the STSWG meeting and the joint meeting with NRSWG. He indicated that science was making a difference in the FACA process and that it would continue to do so because of the hard work and dedication of this Work Group. Mr. Helms concluded saying that there would not be a call scheduled for Monday, July 29, 1996 because of the full FACA Subcommittee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 30, 1996. The next conference call for the Work Group will be scheduled for Monday, August 5, 1996.