Draft Summary of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

Science and Technical Support Work Group Meeting

Room 1012 - Mutual Building

September 20, 1996

Durham, North Carolina

The Science and Technical Support Work Group of the FACA Subcommittee met on Friday, September 20, 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

Diana Andrews	Kentucky DEP

David Chock	Ford Motor Company

Bruce Hill	Appalachian Mountain Club

Jay Hudson	Santee Cooper

David Kelly	Navajo EPA

Dave McNeill	Utah DEQ

Tom Moore	Arizona

S.T. Rao	New York ARB

Jay Rosenthal	Navy

Mark Scruggs	DOI

Mike Smythwick (Manop Vanichchagorn)	Louisiana DEQ

Jay Turner	DOT

Dan Weiss	Cinergy Corporation

Jeffrey West	GPU Services Corp.

Steve Ziman	Chevron Corporation

Work Group Members Not Participating

Harvey Jeffries, Co-Chair	University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

John Cabaniss	AIAM

Glenn Cass	Cal Tech

John Core	WESTAR

Ellis Cowling	SOS

Kirit Chaudhri	Virginia DEQ

Rich Poirot	Vermont

Non-Work Group Participants

Mike Teague, UARG; Terry Keating; Jim Berry, EPA/MG; Charlene Spells, U.S. EPA/IPSG; Bruce Polkowsky U.S. EPA/VEPG; David Sanders and JoAnn Allman, U.S. EPA/OPSG.

Summary of the Conference Call

Tom Helms began the conference call by announcing that there will be a meeting of the FACA Subcommittee in Norfolk, Virginia on September 26-27, 1996. He noted that there will not be a meeting of the Science and Technical Support Work Group (STSWG) in conjunction with this meeting. However, all Work Group members are welcome to attend the FACA meeting.

Mr. Helms stated that one of the topics for discussion today will be the face-to-face meeting tentatively scheduled for late October. The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the Conceptual Model. Mr. Helms noted, however, that it is up to the Work Group as to whether or not we need this meeting. The other topics for discussion during today's call included updates on the issue papers.

Mr. Helms stated that there are a number of people that have been representing the STSWG on other work group calls. He requested that unless you are an official representative of the STSWG, please do not represent the STSWG! He noted that members may feel free to speak openly, but they should not identify themselves as STSWG representatives.

Dan Weiss commented that he has been unable to participate in the call for the last couple of weeks. He asked if Mike Teague could represent him on these calls, since he has similar views. Tom Helms stated that, in situations like this, he preferred members to simply call himself or David Sanders and let them appoint the replacement. He asked members not take it upon themselves to appoint a replacement. He cautioned that we need to be sensitive as to what we say because we are representing the entire 15-20 member STSWG.

Update on Issue Papers

Tom Helms commented that coming up with scientific perspectives on these issue papers is an adventure, especially when the issue papers are constantly changing. He asked members to please be patient and try to participate in the calls relevant to their particular issue paper. The following is an update on the issue papers that ad hoc committees of the STSWG are reviewing.

Regional Haze

Tom Moore noted that David Sanders sent out a package with an agenda for today's conference call, which also included some material on regional haze. He added that he has tried to have a couple of phone calls with STSWG members to discuss regional haze but that these calls have not worked out. He stated that thus far there has not been a great deal of STSWG discussion on regional haze. Mr. Moore commented that in light of this, he has prepared a strawman which was included in David Sanders handout package for today's call.

Tom Helms asked if what Mr. Moore wanted was a reaction to the strawman as quickly as possible. Tom Moore responded yes, adding that responses could be sent to him via e-mail or fax. He added that we could have a call at a later date (approximately 1 month) to finalize this paper. Jay Turner asked if there was a more up-to-date version of the strawman than what was discussed on the call yesterday? Tom Moore responded no, there is not an updated version.

David Sanders commented that Donna Lamb indicated that the strawman would be placed in the National and Regional Strategies Work Group (NRSWG) paper which will be placed on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) today. Mr. Sanders noted that by establishing a deadline of today for TTN placement, it gives us a target for which to aim.

Charlene Spells commented that NRSWG is interested in getting this out to all members and getting comments so they can come to closure in October. She noted that Donna Lamb indicated that she was going to take this draft material and include it in the NRSWG paper to let people understand that there are some STSWG comments that need to be thought about. Bruce Polkowsky added that there was a paper placed on the TTN this morning that contains all of this information regarding regional haze.

Tom Helms asked Work Group members to download the paper, react to it, and get back to Tom Moore with comments. He added that we should work towards having a position on regional haze soon and perhaps influence the way the final issue paper is drafted.

Steve Ziman commented that he had talked specifically to Tom Moore about this point. He suggested that the regional haze paper starts off by discussing goals for progress without having sufficient information about what progress entails with respect to any emissions reductions associated with a regional haze program. Tom Moore stated that he needed the information back from everyone by the end of next week.

Bruce Polkowsky noted that the regional haze program is not just focused on Grand Canyon adding that we must be careful not to limit ourselves to the results of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. Steve Ziman stated that is exactly why he made the point. He commented that when you are developing a national program, you can not necessarily set a goal like the goal that has been set with ozone. He added that we do not understand what these alternative standards mean with respect to regional haze at this time.

Attainment Dates

This issue paper was not discussed due to John Cabaniss' absence.

Monitoring Incentives

Diana Andrews noted that she developed an agenda this morning based on the September 19, 1996 version of the issue paper. This version was received a day after we finally reached consensus on our response! She noted that the revisions in the September 19, 1996 paper are insignificant; they added an executive summary and changed some minor issues. She stated that the STSWG ad hoc committee reviewing this issue paper concluded that many of the options and incentives are linked to financial considerations which they felt were not relevant to the FACA process. She stated that the ad hoc committee supported the previous recommendation of the STSWG regarding monitoring incentives.

Ms. Andrews stated that the committee did not support the proposal to design a network based on a strict grid network because they did not feel that science could support such an approach. She added that she would send this addendum which should be pretty close to a final version unless the group wants to change anything substantially.

Steve Ziman stated that he had just returned from a monitoring design meeting at EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) yesterday adding that none of the ideas were confined to a strict grid concept. Diana Andrews stated that this would lead into the development of a national task force to oversee these issues which is mentioned in the new executive summary. Steve Ziman commented that depending on what you want your network for, there are a lot of ideas currently being developed by ORD.

Tom Helms asked if the Work Group was ready to roll this position out? He added that he thought we should close this discussion by the first of next week and have a draft position to take with us to the Norfolk FACA meeting. Diana Andrews stated that she would need input by Monday, because she is leaving for the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) meeting on Tuesday. Dan Weiss commented that he sent comments to Ms. Andrews via e-mail this morning. He added that we can either discuss them offline or at the OTAG meeting on Tuesday. Diana Andrews noted that her new e-mail address is dandrews@mail.state.ky.us.

Integrated Implementation

Mark Scruggs stated that a lot has happened in the last few days regarding integrated implementation. He said that the committee reviewing this issue paper had started to prepare a draft or strawman - but then he realized that he did not understand all the issues. He noted that Donna Lamb has recast this paper and that Tom Moore has provided a great deal of input on the paper. Currently, the paper is on the TTN as of September 19, 1996. There are two sections which need comments from the STSWG: 1) the Introduction and 2) the section entitled Data Tools to Perform Integrated Analyses.

Tom Helms stated that STSWG comments can be received by either putting together a strawman or by taking comments on the current version of the issue paper. Mark Scruggs noted that he preferred to let the group comment on the current version of the issue paper. Tom Moore commented that he was a little more inclined to move slower on this issue. He said that he preferred to let Mark issue a new draft of this paper, and then let us discuss that paper later in October.

Steve Ziman agreed with Tom Moore noting that Work Group members may each have a different opinion on what is meant by integration. For example, he noted that his approach is greatly different from Rich Scheffe's. Mark Scruggs stated that this paper should be the catalyst or a springboard for such discussions. Steve Ziman commented that he understood Rich Scheffe's paper. He noted that while it was dense, it did cover the issues. However, when he read the integration paper, it was obvious that the group that developed this issue paper did not understand everything that was in Rich's paper. Mark Scruggs stated that was exactly what he wanted to hear.

Steve Ziman commented that assuming integration is the way we want to go, then he would say that integration is only done on a case by case basis when you have the data to support that type of analysis. Mark Scruggs stated that he simply wanted to start getting some of this information down on paper. Steve Ziman responded that "the devil is in the details." In most cases, he noted, the data is not available to support a lot of these issues.

Dan Weiss stated that this is why he suggested that this Work Group have a Phase II which will tell the policy people exactly how much all of these things are going to cost. Mark Scruggs noted that Donna Lamb has also pushed all of the assessments into Phase II.

Tom Helms asked Mark Scruggs if he still wanted comments, adding that he wanted to take more time to focus on this paper and get the interaction from everybody. Mark Scruggs responded yes. He noted that what he would like to see take place soon, is to get started discussing integration. He added that because there are some land mines out there, the sooner we find them, the better off we will be.

Steve Ziman commented that we need to understand costs, tools, and data and the availability of each of these things. He added that if our policy people are willing to undertake policy goals and not fund the science to adequately support the goals, then we are headed for a catastrophic disaster. Mark Scruggs responded that he thought Rich Damberg is doing some of these things already.

Tom Helms stated that everyone should get the latest version of the integration paper and get comments to Mark Scruggs so that he can begin to try and synthesize these issues. He added that Tom Moore and Mark Scruggs could influence the way Donna Lamb is currently writing the paper.

Mike Teague noted that the issue paper currently does not have a section to argue against integration. He suggested that it would be good idea to look at it from a pros and cons perspective. Tom Helms asked Mike Teague to send his comments to Mark Scruggs as soon as possible.

New Source Review (NSR)

Dave McNeill stated that he has received some comments from several STSWG members, and Rosalina Rodriguez. He added that Dan Weiss has commented that this is a Phase II issue, which he agreed with. Mr. McNeill said that this will have a lot of impact, and we should approach it slowly and carefully. He added that this paper asks whether we need to keep the NSR and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules. Mr. McNeill stated that he is waiting for comments from Jay Hudson.

Tom Helms offered the following summary of Mr. McNeill's situation: you have started the work, you need two more people to interact with you, and you could benefit from discussions with the other STSWG member. He encouraged Mr. McNeill to get the other two guys on line and move forward.

Steve Ziman commented that it was not clear to him how the concept of areas of influence (AOIs) and areas of violation (AOVs) will maintain themselves once we get into this process. He noted that the currently proposed NSR rule could have significant impact here, prior to any of these things we're discussing having any perceptible impacts.

Tom Helms requested that we keep talking and keep moving forward. Dave McNeill stated that he is going to work with Jay Hudson, and get a paper out by the end of next week.

Bruce Polkowsky noted that there is a lot of the discussion in the NSR package which is focused on single source impacts and truly does not reflect regional haze considerations. He added that we need to keep in mind that FACA is designed to focus on regional haze and not single source impacts. Steve Ziman commented that his understanding of this rule was drastically different than Bruce Polkowsky's. Bruce Polkowsky stated that this group should deal with the regional haze source problem. Tom Helms suggested that we just proved that we need discuss this issue some more.

Mike Teague asked what the work group is doing about attainment dates? Tom Helms stated that we are skipping this issue because John Cabaniss is not present. David Sanders suggested that Mike Teague could go ahead and discuss this now, they would allocate 10-15 minutes to it. Tom Helms stated that he would rather not discuss this without John Cabaniss present. He encouraged Mike Teague to pursue this issue with John Cabaniss outside of this call.

Institutional Mechanisms

S.T. Rao said that he was trying to obtain any information which has been put together on this topic. He noted that it is essentially a Phase II issue. He stated that there is an August 9 version of this paper on the TTN. David Sanders commented that the paper has an August date but that he was unsure that it was August 9, 1996. He added that Chris Shaver indicated that she did not have anything new to provide on this issue at this time. S. T. Rao noted that he would track down this information and report back to the work group at a later time. Tom Helms asked S.T. Rao to please pull this information down, synthesize it, and get the dialogue started. S. T. Rao stated that he would do this prior to our next conference call or the face-to- face meeting.

Areas at Risk

This issue paper was not discussed due to Kirit Chaudhari's absence.

Face to Face Meeting

Diana Andrews noted that there is an OTAG meeting scheduled for October 25, 1996 in Washington, D.C. David Sanders stated that we are currently looking at October 22-23 as possible dates for this meeting. Steve Ziman suggested that we piggy-back this meeting with the OTAG meeting in Washington, D.C. Tom Moore commented that he preferred piggy- backing with the FACA meeting as opposed to the OTAG meeting. Tom Helms stated that we would try to have a meeting the end of October- trying first to piggy-back with FACA, and then with OTAG. David Kelly noted that there is a Grand Canyon meeting on October 27-30, 1996. Tom Helms concluded that the two pivotal meetings are FACA and OTAG, and he would try to accommodate the majority of participants.

Double Counting Issue

Bob Judge, U.S. EPA/Region I, stated that last week an issue addressing double counting was sent to the STSWG for review. The question that needs to be resolved is whether or not a certain policy proposed under substitutions would actually allow for double counting of emissions reductions. He added that we essentially viewed it as double counting if the rate of progress requirements with substitution resulted in fewer reductions than without the policy. Under the substitution policy, it allows emissions reductions from outside the attainment areas as long as certain conditions were met.

Mr. Judge illustrated the double counting issue by using a major NOx source located in New Hampshire as an example. He noted that this facility was subject to NOx RACT requirements and that the facility was required to reduce emissions under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of t 1990. He stated that within the nonattainment area a number of requirements are creditable under the CAA. The issue here with double counting is that we would be counting reductions that are already mandated under the CAAA (e.g. NOx RACT) under the substitution rule/policy. In our view, this would be double counting. Thus, reductions that are already being implemented should not be used for other things under the substitution policy.

David Chock commented that the concept of substitution is designed to get away from the CAAA requirements as long as the rate of progress "glide slope" is being met. Thus, he suggested, the reductions that are outside of the area of nonattainment should be accepted as long as they produce a net benefit to the environment. Tom Helms asked if there was really a scientific issue here?

Bob Judge stated that he realized that this may be a policy issue. He added that the simple question is are there fewer reductions being met with this policy than without this policy. The answer is simply yes, as a result of the substitution policy. However, he added that this is not limited to NOx RACT. He chose to focus on this because Region I has experience with this particular situation. He added that the only way that it is not double counting is if you go beyond CAAA accounting procedures.

Tom Helms asked should the STSWG go with this? David Chock asked how would a model address this issue - with and without double counting. Steve Ziman noted that the measure of progress is strictly an emissions counting system. In terms of air quality, he stated that the current system may not guarantee you better air quality for an emissions reduction. He stated that we all understand that this is a quandary - however, it appears to be more of a policy or legal issue. It definitely is not a science issue. S.T. Rao commented that he thought this would be a classic mis-application of models! He added that air quality modeling simply cannot address this issue.

David Kelly expressed his concern about the double counting issue. He noted that the Work Group should be able to make some credible recommendation to the FACA process from a scientific perspective. Bob Judge asked do we agree with the policy or not? Is there double counting that is occurring? Are we in agreement that we are in fact double-counting? No consensus was reached on these questions.

Tom Helms noted that this is a live, valid issue but perhaps this is more of a Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) Work Group issue and not one for the STSWG. He stated that we need to give this over to Joe Paisie. Bob Judge agreed that this would be a good idea. The work group concurred that this is a valid issue but one which should be address primarily by Joe Paisie and the BPAP Work Group.

Conceptual Model

David Sanders noted that during a recent meeting that ordinary mechanics were discussed and handled. Also the FACA Home Page was discussed. He noted that Rich Scheffe has given some direction as to how to bring Chapter 5 to closure.

David Sanders noted that Fred Vukovich's paper has been faxed to each STSWG member. He asked members to look at this paper, comment on it. He noted that this paper will be incorporated into Chapter 5.

Tom Helms noted that he will be with Harvey Jeffries next week and that he would like to get as much of the Conceptual Model out as possible. He added that he would discuss with Harvey Jeffries the concept of having a Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the Conceptual Model.

In summary, Mr. Helms noted that :

There will be a face to face meeting in combination with either FACA/OTAG

We need to schedule an interim call prior to the face-to-face meeting to keep working on the issue papers.

Mr. Helms adjourned the meeting.