Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

August 26, 1996

Room 836 - Mutual Building

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Monday, August 26, 1996 between 2:30 pm and 4:00 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

Glenn Cass	Cal Tech

Tom Moore	Arizona

Jay Hudson	Santee-Cooper

Kirit Chaudhari	Virginia

Jay Turner	DOT

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Jeffrey West	NARSTO-NE

Work Group Members Not Participating

John Cabaniss	AIAM

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

John Core	WESTAR

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Dave McNeill	Utah

Richard Paul	AAMA

Rich Poirot	Vermont

S.T. Rao	New York

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Manop Vanichchagorn	Louisiana

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Non-Work Group Participants

Mike Teague, Utility Air Regulatory Group; Richard Scheffe, U.S. EPA/AQMG; Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG and JoAnn Allman, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

Tom Helms began the conference call by giving a brief overview of topics that would be covered during the call. These topics included: guidelines for interacting with other FACA work groups; a discussion of current timelines, updates, and New Source Review (NSR); new assignments; and, a discussion of a possible face-to-face meeting in September to wrap up the conceptual model.

Representing the Science and Technical Work Group to Other FACA Work Groups

Tom Helms noted that there have been some complaints about the way some people are interacting at other work group sessions. Mr. Helms said that Science and Technical Work Group members should attend other work group meetings, but that members should be polite observers. In addition, Mr. Helms said that only official Science and Technical Work Group representatives can make statements on behalf of the Science and Technical Work Group. Mr. Helms has received feedback from other co-chairs regarding impolite behavior at their meetings.

Update on Work Group Members

Mr. Helms commented that there are several changes to the Work Group membership that he would like to announce. Tom Moore will continue as a member but will now represent the State of Arizona; John Core will represent WESTAR. Glenn Cass will join the Work Group to help address particulate matter (PM) issues. Mr. Cass is a member of the faculty at Cal Tech. Jay Turner will represent the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Washington University in St. Louis. Mr. Helms welcomed all new members on board.

Current Activities

Update on Base Programs Analysis and Policies (BPAP) Work Group Meeting

Sharon Reinders, representing the BPAP Work Group, noted that the BPAP Work Group will hold a face-to-face meeting tomorrow and Wednesday in the Mutual Building in Durham, North Carolina. Ms. Reinders added that the Work Group expects to make progress and conclude on the following topics: attainment dates, NSR, integration, and areas at risk. The following is a tentative schedule for the BPAP meeting:

Tuesday, August 27, 1996

Attainment dates, 9:30 am - 11:30 am

NSR, 12:30 pm - 5:00 pm (Greg Schaefer)

Wednesday, August 28, 1996

NSR, 8:00 am - 10:00 am

Integration, 10:00 am -3:30 pm

Areas at risk, 3:30 pm - 5:00 pm.

Ms. Reinders noted that all of the BPAP issue papers will be on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN).

Tom Helms added that hopefully at this meeting the BPAP Work Group can start to finalize the issue papers. Mr. Helms said that Science and Technical Work Group members will be able to participate in the meeting by dialing 919/541-1592. Mr. Helms asked members to make sure that they call in directly. Because of difficulties in the past with these conference lines, Work Group members were requested not to place the phone on mute or put the phone call on hold.

Tom Helms asked if there were any additional Work Group updates other than the ones he mentioned. Charlene Spells added that Robin Dunkins of the National and Regional Strategies Work Group has requested input from the Science and Technical Work Group on approaches in defining the size of areas of influence (AOIs). Mr. Helms said that the National and Regional Strategies Work Group will receive information on AOIs. Mike Teague asked if there would be a PM and regional haze coordination meeting. Charlene Spells responded that there may be funding concerns which may restrict such a meeting.

Conceptual Model

Harvey Jeffries stated that the "Green Book" was passed out at the FACA meeting in July. He added that it has had many reviews. Mr. Jeffries noted that he is particularly interested in Glenn Cass' comments on the PM portions of this document. Glenn Cass gave the following address where he can be reached:

Glenn Cass

P.O. Box 415

Castine, Maine 04421.

Mr. Jeffries noted that there are two areas that need work in the Conceptual Model. One of these areas is Chapter 5, which addresses transport, and the other is the chapter addressing the formation of the pollutants. Chapter 5 is undergoing an intense review by Fred Vukovich of SAIC. Mr. Vukovich has already raised some flags regarding the episodes selected by Robin Dennis. The other chapter is the State of the Environment and Process section. Mr. Jeffries stated that the episodes that Robin Dennis selected to model were high energy episodes. These are not the kind of episodes that represent most of the ozone formation. Under these scenarios, the transport distances are appropriate for depositional events; but, using these high energy episodes may overstate the distances from stagnant events. We are concerned that we may not have adequate descriptions of the spatial and temporal distributions of AOIs. Mr. Jeffries asked the opinion of the Work Group on PM episodes that are not associated with ozone episodes. Jay Rosenthal asked if the Catalina eddies are included in Robin Dennis' model runs?	Harvey Jeffries responded that only eastern episodes and data are included. Glenn Cass stated that in his studies he has found that there are particularly bad PM episodes that are not associated with severe ozone episodes.

Tom Moore said that there is similar information for the valley and bay areas. He noted that one of his concerns is that the majority of what we are seeing focuses on two thirds of the country. He suggested that people have not been interested in hearing about the west. Mr. Moore added that Rich Poirot has shown maps where PM is correlated with ozone episodes. He also suggested that where we do not have studies we need to look for indicators.

Glenn Cass suggested that we put a qualifier on the findings. For example, PM is correlated with sulfate which is correlated to ozone events. Rich Scheffe agreed that we need to look at the data more carefully. He suggested that we determine how long the relationships hold up. Tom Moore commented that we should do more analysis to say, " yes we know about that" or "no we do not know about it." Harvey Jeffries suggested that we need to include more on all of the process that are associated with the formation of PM fine, in the east and west. He added that we do not have enough information in the Conceptual Model on causal processes.

Glenn Cass noted that the studies involving Los Angeles have documented almost every causal process. Harvey Jeffries commented that we need to get the point across that there are multiple pathways and that these pathways may or may not be associated with other pollutants. Glenn Cass conveyed his belief that the in the eastern United States, where the process involves high sulfate content, ozone and PM fine may track each other more closely. However, Steve Ziman added that he was not sure that we would see that much difference between Los Angeles and eastern urban areas.

Harvey Jeffries asked if the work group could start improving on the "State of the Environment and Process" section of the conceptual model. Jay Rosenthal commented that an area that needs some examination is in the west where PM and ozone are correlated in the inversion layer. He added that we need sampling in the vertical to study this further. Harvey Jeffries requested that Jay Rosenthal, because of his insights in the west, develop a 1-2 page document for the west looking at regional detail.

Steve Ziman said that data analysis for the San Joaquin Valley demonstrates causes and relationships to Meteorology. Regarding stable events, the SARMAP model looked at representative episodes. These model runs demonstrated that most of the problem is still localized with some transport. He added that you need to go back and decide what the meteorological events are that you want to look at adding that they need to be representative of things that occur frequently.

Glenn Cass stated that this is a long time versus long distance transport issue adding that the distances may not be as far, but the time you need for formation may be the same. Tom Moore stated that all of the possible combinations forwards and backwards should be included. Harvey Jeffries commented that his assumption was that we need to define the relationship between PM and regional haze. He asked if there were components of regional haze that are not associated with fine PM.	Mr. Jeffries suggested that we need a new version of the Conceptual Model by the September meeting incorporating these additions.

Tom Helms said that we should get with the contractor supporting the Work Group to get an update on the Conceptual Model. Rich Scheffe commented that an update now is not appropriate. Tom Helms added that the face-to-face meeting is scheduled for September 5 and 6 and we cannot wait any longer for the update. Jay Rosenthal requested a copy of the latest version of the Conceptual Model. It was noted that a copy is on the web site and is the operative version 2.0, but there have been some changes. Rich Scheffe said that he would get the information to the contractor in the near future to begin work on updating the Conceptual Model.

Jeff West asked for clarification regarding the "Green Book" versus the Conceptual Model. Harvey Jeffries noted that the "Green Book does not replace the Conceptual Model. The "Green Book" contains information developed by Rich Scheffe which served as a background document for the ANPR. Mr. Jeffries stated that the Conceptual Model document needs to be brought up to the same level as the "Green Book." He added that we are not yet ready to start revising the Conceptual Model, however it is in rough shape at this point.

Steve Ziman asked if there was any way of knowing that what the Work Group is doing is being used by others? He added that the issue papers from the other Work Groups have a shaky scientific basis. Harvey Jeffries responded that all co-chairs and authors of issue papers have been receptive to using input from the Science and Technical Work Group; however, the problem is that there has not been much time for our Work Group to provide input. The other Work Groups are influenced by the information and are using it when they have it available. Mr. Jeffries noted that the attention that the Science and Technical Work Group received at the last FACA meeting demonstrated that our Work Group is getting recognition.

Harvey Jeffries commented that many timelines are coming to closure at the end of September, including the wrap up of Phase I. Steve Ziman asked for further clarification of the "Green Book". Harvey Jeffries responded that this is the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) document that Rich Scheffe put together with background information. Tom Helms added that this document is on the FACA web page. He asked Steve Ziman to call JoAnn Allman at 541-9855 for a copy of the document. Mike Teague also requested a copy of the "Green Book" and the Conceptual Model.

Jeff West commented that there is an open issue, NOx and VOC substitution, that we have not reached agreement on but that other groups think we have. Ellis Cowling stated that he would like to work with Glenn Cass or other people in SOS to address this issue.

Issue Papers/Writing Assignments

Tom Helms noted that we are taking a look at all issue papers and are trying to formulate a position, not re-write them. He added that the sooner we come up with a position, the better we will be. Mr. Helms said that he and Harvey would send the positions on the issue papers to the other groups. Harvey Jeffries commented that we need representatives to work with the other Work Groups to give us a better idea of what the questions they need answered really are. Mr. Jeffries noted that it is not your job as a representative to comment on behalf of the Work Group but we need you to get a clear understanding on what they need and are trying to ask. The representative would then come back to the Science and Technical Work Group to get an opinion. Your role as a representative is to educate us on what we need to know. If the question they are asking is for broad guidance, for example, is there science to do this, then you can answer; otherwise bring the question back to the Work Group for consideration.

Tom Helms stated that he did not feel comfortable representing the Work Group. He added that timing is important but that he is concerned because the dates may not be firm. Harvey Jeffries commented that the issue of substitution needs to be developed further. He said that the FACA Subcommittee had re-written the interim implementation policy. He said that all Work Group members should have received copies of these materials. Mr. Jeffries noted that there is intense debate regarding massive backsliding from a scientific standpoint and that there is no scientific support for the limits given in this document. He added that there are unresolved issues and that we need to make sure that our views are represented fairly.

Diana Andrews asked if the second document should replace the first one. Harvey Jeffries responded yes. Diana Andrews asked if closure had been reached. Harvey Jeffries responded that there had been no closure. Tom Helms added that there is a Coordinating Committee conference call on Wednesday. He asked members to respond to the status of the Science and Technical Work Group's review of this document. Steve Ziman asked if this was the document that we discussed with Doug Grano at the May FACA meeting. He followed up by asking if we did not already provide comments on this document. Tom Helms noted that the re-write was restricted to the ad hoc group that was formed. Comments from our Work Group were not considered. Steve Ziman commented that the comments should have been available to them. Harvey Jeffries added that the decisions in this document are not based on science. Steve Ziman added that even when we do something it is not used.

Tom Helms stated that he owed everyone an E-mail containing the current status of the issue papers and new writing assignments. He added that there are at least four new areas where we need to provide input. These areas are attainment dates, institutional mechanisms, areas at risk, and regional haze. Mr. Helms asked the following members to address these areas:

Attainment dates - John Cabaniss and Jeff West

Institutional mechanisms - John Core and S.T. Rao

Areas at risk - Diana Andrews, Kirit Chaudhri, and Steve Ziman

Regional haze - Glenn Cass, Steve Ziman, Tom Moore, and Jay Rosenthal.

September Work Group Meeting

Tom Helms asked work group members if they would like to have a face-to-face meeting in September. Many work group members responded that they could not arrange travel that fast. Diana Andrews asked if there was a meeting on September 26 and 27 of the FACA Subcommittee. Mr. Helms responded that there was a FACA Subcommittee meeting on those dates but our Work Group could not hold a meeting that week because he and Harvey Jeffries would be on travel.

It was suggested and agreed that the face-to-face meeting should be held following the FACA meeting in September. There will be another conference call on Tuesday, September 10, 1996. Mr. Helms adjourned the meeting at 4:00 pm.