WPC 2S ZB 0HP DeskJet 500x6X@7X@Ыx6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierX2#|x  ! p xp  \ SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS INITIATIVE ,TRANSCRIPT 0OF FIFTH SEMIANNUAL SAMI GOVERNING BODY MEETING *June 20, 1996 ,8:30 A.M. *Campbell Room (Campbell House Inn &1375 Harrodsburg Road 'Lexington, Kentucky t)MEMBERS PRESENTă Harold Reheis CHAIRMAN John Jansen Alan Klimek John Walton John Hankinson Lewis Shaw Tom Hopkins John Johnston Diana Andrews Brian Morton Suzette Kimball   p xpD/.AGENDAă Contract Proceduresp8"%I 3 8 Bylaws Amendmentp!%H 8 10 New Committee NomineespH!%G 10 11 Elect a Vice ChairpH!%G 11 12 Committee UpdatespH!%G 12 39 Integrated Assessment FrameworkpH!%G 40 61 Budget and DeadlinespH!%G 62 69 Next Semiannual SAMI MeetingpH!%G 70 73 New BusinesspH!%G 73 75 Reporter's Certificatep#%L 76 CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Good morning. I want to thank everybody for coming. I'm Harold Reheis from Georgia, if anybody doesn't know me, and this is our Governing Body meeting. Why don't we start over with John Jansen and have everybody at the front table introduce themselves. MR. JANSEN: 0 0 0 I'm John Jansen with the Southern Company. I'm sitting in for Joe Harwood of Duke Power Company. MR. KLIMEK: 0 0 0 Alan Klimek, North Carolina Air Quality, and I'm sitting in for Steve Levitas. MR. WALTON: 0 0 0 John Walton, State of Tennessee, sitting in for Commissioner Justin Wilson. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 And I'm Lewis Shaw from South Carolina sitting in for Lewis Shaw from South Carolina. MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 John Johnston. I'm from West Virginia, and I'm sitting in for Dale Farley. MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 And I'm Diana Andrews from Kentucky representing James Bickford. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 I'm Brian Morton with the Environmental Defense Fund. I'm also sitting in for someone, David Carr, who is with a very obscure environmental group called the Southern Environmental Law Center. MS. KIMBALL: 0 0 0 I'm Suzette Kimball with the National Park Service, and oddly enough, I'm sitting in for Bob Baker, our Field Director. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 We have a lot of sitting this morning. What I would like to do today is rearrange just a little bit the agenda items that we have. If everybody is looking at the back side of their purple sheet, lower righthand corner, you've got the Governing Body agenda. We have nine items there. And what I'd like to do is take the first two, the Integrated Assessment Framework Proposal and the Budget and Deadlines, and move those to items No. 6 and 7 so that we take those up after we have had the committee updates. 0 0 0 And we will start now with Contract Procedures, and we have a proposal in our package, a final draft, which is Overview of Contracts and Contract Administrations or Administration. It's the procedures that are proposed for how we're going to manage contracts from here out. 0 0 0 I think we have, in fact, pretty much been following this procedure. And in my reading of it, it looks like pretty much a condensation of standard federal contracting procedures and is very similar to what we do within the State of Georgia government. 0 0 0 Is there any discussion that anybody wants to have before we adopt these procedures, any changes or comments anybody would like to make on the Governing Body? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 Harold, I had one comment. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: Yes. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 When I looked through, I can't find it; but on the sole source contracts, it listed three things, three conditions. One of them was the amount of money. The question I had was do all three of those conditions have to take place before a sole source contract, or any one of those three conditions? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Leslie or Susan Martin, do you know the answer to that question? Is Susan here? AUDIENCE: 0 0 0 On page 3 at the bottom? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 That's right, Jim. It's on page 3 at the bottom, the last paragraph. You've got subheadings 1, 2 and 3. My question is do all three of those have to be in place before a sole source is done, or any one of those three things? MS. COX: 0 0 0 I believe it's any one of those three. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 All three. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 One question I had was on the first page where we're talking about duties of the parties, it says: Approval by the Governing Body must be obtained as the first step in awarding any contract over $25,000. Does the Governing Body want to do that, or I was thinking one possibility is we could make an addition that says unless the Governing Body authorizes the Operations Committee to award contracts for higher amounts. Would there be any advantage that anybody on the Governing Body sees to putting in some language that allows us to look at a smaller body of contracts than those above $25,000? In other words, we could raise the number to $50,000 or $100,000 if we trust the Operations Committee to make those decisions. Doug. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 One comment on that, Harold. I think almost any contract we issue would probably be greater than $25,000. So, that would essentially mean that we would bring all contracts to the Governing Body. It seems like it would be more functional if we had the Operations Committee there. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, I would suggest, then, that we add at the end of that sentence after $25,000, we put a comma and we add the language, unless the Governing Body authorizes the Operations Committee to award contracts for higher amounts, period. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 Are you looking for a second, or are you still having a discussion? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Discussion? Any thoughts on that? Any objections? Can the Chair make motions or does somebody else need to do that? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 I make the motion. MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 I'll second it. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 We've got a motion and a second to add the language that would allow the Governing Body to authorize the Operations Committee to award contracts for higher amounts than $25,000. All in favor? Opposed? That is an addition. Now I think we need to approve the contract procedures themselves. Do we have a motion for approval? MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 So moved. CHAIRMAN REHEIS:0 0 0 Tom Hopkins, Virginia. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 Second. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Any discussion? It was seconded by Lewis Shaw of South Carolina. All in favor? Opposed? Those contract procedures as amended are adopted. 0 0 0 Our next item is a Bylaws Amendment. In your package, this amendment would make a change to allow the custodian of all funds collected by SAMI to disburse funds as approved by the Governing Body in the annual general budget and all items not approved in the annual general budget must be requested in writing by the Chair or the ViceChair before disbursal of funds. 0 0 0 What this would do is provide more flexibility in how we disburse funds. It allows us to operate, I think, a little more efficiently. Even if funds such as office supplies, meeting costs, etcetera, have been approved in the annual budget, the Treasurer wouldn't be disbursing them without approval of the Chair. 0 0 0 So, if we make this change, we'll need the Governing Body's Chair's approval only if items are not approved in the general budget. I think this would allow Leslie to do her work more efficiently. So, that is the proposed bylaws amendment. Any discussion on that? Do we have a motion for adoption? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 So moved. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Do we have a second? MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 Second. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 All in favor of adopting this bylaws amendment, please say aye. All opposed? Okay. 0 0 0 Our third item of business is New Committee Nominees. Everyone should have a page in their package that describes these nominees. Nell Cooper from North Carolina on the Public Advisory Committee, David Jones representing Forest Service on Public Advisory Committee, James Seay from Kentucky Power Company to represent Kentucky on Public Advisory Committee, Phil Brantley from South Carolina DHEC to represent South Carolina on the Policy Committee, Kevin Clark representing South Carolina on the Technical Oversight Committee, and Don Gasper formerly from West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to be on the TOC. 0 0 0 And we have Governing Body members, James Bickford, the new Commissioner of Kentucky; Michael McCabe, the new Regional Administrator for Region III; Eli McCoy, the Commissioner from West Virginia; Justin Wilson, the new Environmental Commissioner for Tennessee; and William Damron from U.S. Forest Service. MS. COX: 0 0 0 Harold, I have one correction. We had a problem with our committee list. James Seay is with American Electric Power. I think I'm correcting that. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 American Electric Power, okay, but still representing Kentucky on the PAC, is that correct? MS. COX: 0 0 0 Yes. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Would I have a motion to approve all of these committee nominees? MR. WALTON: 0 0 0 So moved. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 So moved from Tennessee. A second? MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 Second. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 West Virginia. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Those are approved. We currently do not have a ViceChair. We need to have one. There has been some discussion about this, and somebody is willing to serve if he or she gets a nomination. Are there any nominations? MR. KLIMEK: 0 0 0 I'd like to nominate South Carolina. MR. WALTON: 0 0 0 I'll second that. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Are there any other nominations? I would move that we accept South Carolina and Lewis Shaw by acclamation. Any objection to that? Lewis, thank you. We appreciate your stepping forward to do that.MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 Glad to. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 You're going to do a fine job. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 Thank you, Harold. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I'd like now to move to the Committee Updates. I think that would be relevant to have before we have the discussion on the Integrated Assessment Framework and Budget and Schedules. Is there any particular committee chair who would like to go first? Hearing none, let'sgo ahead. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 You might want to just save the TOC when we get to the Integrated Assessment Framework. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Move the TOC to the end of the Committee Updates, okay. Last in the order. Is Lucy Smethurst here? AUDIENCE: 0 0 0 Lucy will be here shortly. CHAIRMAN REHEIS:0 0 0 Okay. We'll wait for a few minutes, then, on the PAC. How about Bob Kerr for the Policy Committee? I don't know that we need a report from the Operations Committee unless anybody just wants to give one. Here's Lucy. MS. SMETHURST: 0 0 0 You changed the agenda. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Yes, we did change the agenda. We will be glad to have you give a report if you're prepared to do so. MS. SMETHURST: 0 0 0 You'll have the pleasure of reading my handwriting. I'm going to do just a very quick update on the EMOs that we were assigned by the Governing Body, moving through them rather quickly and just commenting briefly on a couple of other things. 0 0 0 The first EMO87, tree planting, the assessment phase is 90% done. We have conducted a survey and made contacts at the other state levels to make sure that the survey of the tree planting initiative is completed. And the other three phases which are implementation strategies have been moved up accordingly. 0 0 0 EMO72, environmental enterprise teams, those are basically to encourage states to combine good environmental economic approaches. We are in an assessment phase here. We hope to come right back with a strategy to be approved by the fall meeting. 0 0 0 EMO1225, we have already endorsed the Energy Star Program. That's an EPA program. The Green Lights Program has been endorsed. EPA has been doing an incredible amount of moving forward. I have a package of materials I have not digested that must be this thick congratulations, John, to you and your staff. It's very impressive. And we want to continue to promote these programs. There have been three letters drafted to the states, to the SAMI participants and to industry, and I'll be giving those to Harold to review and to send out. 0 0 0 These EMOs are promoting energy efficiency with the public. In this particular case, that is a huge project; and, so, we decided to localize it. And the youngest but a very effective member of the PAC, David Jones, has taken on this initiative in the Asheville area and has done an incredible job and has submitted a twopage report. He frankly puts all of us to shame in the amount of work he has done. He has contacted two school systems to encourage them to look at programs like INHALE which is run by Dan Jaffe, and he has a variety of other school systems that he plans to contact as well. 0 0 0 The Sierra Club had promised a Sierra Club intern to develop a lesson plan about air quality for a school system, and we need to move on that. We have not had Harvard Ayers is not here who made that promise. So, we're going to move on that. But I particularly want to commend David Jones and his mother for doing an excellent job. We need more people in there frankly of this age group to make us realize why we're here and what we're doing. 0 0 0 The next one, promoting energy efficiency with decisionmakers, a questionnaire has been drafted that will be sent out after it has been reviewed, peerreviewed, and there will be a report by the fall meeting. 0 0 0 The land use planning is moving along. I'm sorry, I didn't get the final report on that. That is a very tough, particular initiative, and we're probably going to have to spend a little more time strategizing on that one. That's a biggy. 0 0 0 Just two more one more combination. This is the energy conservation within offices and buildings. We are trying to assess what the market is doing out there in energy efficiency and to encourage that the resourcesexcuse me, to focus on organizations who have had some model building program codes and to hold them in the light and to use them as examples. This is very closely aligned, obviously, to the EPA initiatives. 0 0 0 Those are the EMOs that this committee has been working on. We plan to meet this fall to move this along. It hasn't moved frankly as fast and we all have taken the vow to move it ahead more quickly. 0 0 0 There are two other EMOs that we are going to be proposing to Bob Kerr's committee that were just approved in concept by the Public Advisory Committee and they are the clean air campaign that has been organized and started in Georgia, and that is a consortium of about 60 organizations. 0 0 0 Harold is ViceChairman of it, and it has the Sierra Club on it and industry, utilities and so on and it is to promote general education on air quality issues, particularly focusing on mobile sources to the public. 0 0 0 We have developed a template for how to do it and organize it which we will be making available to anyone who is interested. So, we'd like to develop this into an EMO and pass it in to Bob's committee for processing. 0 0 0 The other is an ozone advisory project. This, too, is a national trend. There are 13 states involved now, either locally or statewide, depending on their level of need and attainment. There are even some areas like Charlotte, North Carolina who have talked to me about how do we get into this program so we don't fall out of attainment. 0 0 0 It is similar to a weather forecasting scenario, and we've developed a project around that that's quite impressive. These two templates we are offering to SAMI, to the states after they have hopefully gone through the process. 0 0 0 Moving very quickly along, we have also completed and have available, you have all seen the two fact sheets that we have come out with todate, and they are, of course, the citizen participation one and the general air pollution one. 0 0 0 The reason you did not get the visibility fact sheet is one reason only and that is because the pictures. The photographer did not get the pictures to us in time and we were not willing to send in an inferiorlooking fact sheet with pictures that were not state of the art. So, those will be performed on, printed very, very soon. So, that there will be three. 0 0 0 The fourth one, the clean air fact sheet, Clean Air Act fact sheet is in Bob Kerr's committee and it is being worked on. And I understand they are trying to move toward some sort of resolution on it in the next couple of months. So, that's the end of my report. If there are any questions, I'd be delighted to handle them. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Thank you, Lucy. Any questions, comments, discussion on this report from the Governing Body or from other participants? Well, it looks to me like you folks have done a lot of work and we appreciate it very much. You're making good progress.MS. SMETHURST: 0 0 0 Well, it's a good committee. We work very well together. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 It is a good committee, I agree. Thank you. Bob, could we have the report from the Policy Committee? MR. KERR: 0 0 0 I'm going to quit trusting you and the agenda. I'm going to ask Brian Morton in just a few moments to give a report on EMO88 of the group that the Governing Body has approved for implementation. Several of them, as Lucy has reported, went to the PAC. One of them, 88, came to the Policy Committee, and we assigned it to the Mobile Sources Work Group headed by Brian Morton. He's done a lot of work on that and I'll ask him in a few moments to give me the outcome on that. 0 0 0 The Clean Air Act fact sheet has been assigned to Brock Nicholson and a couple of other members of the committee. They have assured us that within 60 days, they will have rewritten it into userfriendly format without any controversy and it will be ready for publication.0 0 0 We, as you know, started off with some 0 0 0 80plus EMOs. We went through what we call a screen to get to nearterm versus longterm. Nearterm are sometimes called nobrainers, noncontroversial. It only took us about eight months to work through since they were noncontroversial. Those are the ones that you have acted on. 0 0 0 The remainder have been assigned to a number of work groups. Those work groups have consolidated, and, then, rewrote, etcetera, so that we're now down to about 30, 33 EMOs that you're actively pursuing. 0 0 0 As the IAF was being developed, it was discovered or at least realized that the EMOs as we had allowed them to come in were not adequately described or articulated so that we could run them through the IAF. 0 0 0 Working with LandofSky and Leslie, we have developed a new format for the EMOs. LandofSky has used one of their staffers to contact all of the authors of the EMOs to get as much information as possible from them on data or sources, references for the EMOs. And in doing that, we have discovered that there's still a lot of missing pieces.0 0 0 So, one of the things that we feel we have to do is go through a screening process. We have appointed a group called Magnificent 7, for want of a better term, and it's now the Magnificent 7 plus 3 because we've had to call in some reinforcements. Bob Collom, Brock and Tom Elmore will provide some assistance to this group. 0 0 0 What we have asked them to do are several things. One, we have asked them to go through a screen that will essentially break the current EMOs into three categories those that will require an IAF process; that is, they will be run through the models. We found that this was necessary because the models as designed or at least as we project them to be designed in some cases will not be sensitive enough to react to some of the EMOs. In other words, they won't make a blip on the screen. So, we have to select out those that will. 0 0 0 Those that will not, we will determine then in a secondary screen whether or not they will come to the Policy Committee for internal debate, discussion, approval without any further effort in gathering significant data.0 0 0 We believe there will be a group that will require us to go to a consultant, contractor, staff, whatever to help gather additional data before we internally in the Policy Committee can examine them with enough understanding to make a decision on what recommendation to make to the group. 0 0 0 That is where we are. The current EMOs have been rewritten. This screening process will take place shortly. Bob Tate is the chair of that group along with Joe Harwood as cochair. And since we've endowed them with such a wonderful name of the Magnificent 7, we're expecting great things out of them. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Are the other three also magnificent? MR. KERR: 0 0 0 The other three groups? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 No, the other three people added to the Magnificent 7? MR. KERR: 0 0 0 Nah. I told you who they were. CHAIRMAN REHEIS:0 0 0 I was just looking for clarification. MR. KERR: 0 0 0 Brian, would you like to take a moment and tell us about 88, the alternative fuels work group? MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 Sure. Thank you. As you all know, about a year ago, the Governing Body passed a resolution approving EMO 88 having to do with alternative fuels or low emission vehicle fuels, and the term was defined quite broadly to include everything from lower revapor pressure styled gasolines to reformulated gasoline to electricity to fuel cells, natural gas, liquid propane gas and similar alternatives to conventional diesel fuel. And the intent of the EMO was to obtain further information on the potential benefit of lowemission vehicle fuels from SAMI's perspective; that is to say to what extent might such fuels reduce the pollutants of concern to this organization. 0 0 0 So, the Policy Committee and the Mobile Sources Work Group in particular working with a number of folks whom I'll acknowledge in a minute organized two meetings in Atlanta. We called these dialogue meetings because the purpose of each meeting was to invite a number of stakeholders from the region and other interested stakeholders to Atlanta to have a fairly comprehensive, freeranging discussion of lowemission vehicle fuels and also to introduce the concerns of the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative to a number of stakeholders who have an interest in lowemission vehicle fuels, but thus far have not participated in the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative. 0 0 0 Before I continue with my summary of the dialogue meetings, let me just acknowledge publicly the people whom I think were most helpful. On the Mobile Sources Work Group itself, I especially would like to acknowledge the assistance of Fred Ellis from Southern Company Services and Peter Chant, a member of the Policy Committee representing Shell. Leslie Cox, of course, helped out a lot as did Susan Martin. And two people in particular from EPA's Region IV office in Atlanta and I'd like to highlight the contributions of a Ben Franco and Yasmin Yorker. We were also assisted by an excellent facilitator from ICAD, and I don't now remember what ICAD stands for.MR. KERR: 0 0 0 It's Institute of Community and Area Development. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 And they are at MR. KERR: 0 0 0 University of Georgia. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 University of Georgia, thank you. All of those MR. KERR: 0 0 0 Gail Cowie. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 All of those Atlantians were so helpful. Yes, Gail Cowie in particular. Well, with the assistance of that group as well as an intern, we identified as many stakeholders as we could, not only people participating in SAMI but also people who have an interest in lowemission vehicle fuels or alternative fuels and related vehicles, but people who hadn't been participating in SAMI. We came up with a list of about 30, I believe. We sent invitations to them. And a good number of those people whom we invited did, in fact, attend both dialogue meetings. 0 0 0 So, I think that we had a good representation of stakeholders; of course, people from SAMI, but perhaps most importantly people for whom air pollution in the Southern Appalachian was a new issue. 0 0 0 So, I think that one purpose which we accomplished well was to help raise the salience of air pollution in the Southern Appalachians among a variety of groups who up until that point had been unfamiliar with these particular problems and the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative in particular. 0 0 0 So, we held the dialogues where we acquainted everyone with the purposes of this organization and the purposes of the dialogue. We had general discussions of the emissions performance and some discussion of the costs of promoting further penetration of various lowemission vehicle fuels into the market. 0 0 0 The intern whom I referred to prepared a report on federal and state policies and programs to promote alternative vehicle fuels in the SAMI region, and the report is available to you all. 0 0 0 The intern's report is one piece of a more general report which the Mobile Sources Work Group prepared. The additional components of that report are the two very detailed proceedings of both dialogue meetings which were prepared by ICAD. In addition, we're including in this big report a report prepared by the Ozone Transport Assessment Group on a variety of mobile source control options including, of course, lowemission vehicle fuels. And, then, the Mobile Sources Work Group has prepared a summary of what we did to implement EMO88. 0 0 0 We have a very general recommendation to SAMI, that being the information presented at the dialogue and the interest of many stakeholders in lowemission vehicle fuels clearly indicates that these fuels do have a potential, a nearto intermediateterm potential to reduce a number of the pollutants of concern to SAMI. And by near term, I mean five to eight years. And, consequently, the Mobile Sources Work Group recommends that the work group in particular work diligently to develop specific emission management options or emission reduction strategies, which is the term I prefer, to develop voluntary incentivebased approaches to promote further penetration of lowemission vehicle fuels, especially those with superior NOx performance. MR. KERR: 0 0 0 Thank you, Brian. Any questions for Brian on this particular EMO? Just a general comment. I think the group did an outstanding job, particularly in pulling together a wide diversity of interest from all of the alternative fuels interest and getting excellent dialogue. As Brian said, it was facilitated over a couple of days and I think you'll learn a lot from examining that report. Again, thank you. 0 0 0 A couple of personal observations on direction. This is not an agreedupon set of directions of the organization at this point. If you recall, one of the purposes of SAMI is to look beyond the effect of the Clean Air Act amendments. And while we are pursuing one line of the EMOs, I think one of the things we will recognize or do recognize is that we will run a base case through the IAF of the effect of the Clean Air Act amendments. We will get some sense of where that will take us, and, then, I think the group will have to sit down again, examine the EMOs we have and begin to develop new EMOs to take us beyond that. So, I don't think that what you see here in the current stack is going to be all there will be out of the Policy Committee. Thank you. Any questions? MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 How are you going to factor OTAG's work into your base line? MR. KERR: 0 0 0 Brock Nicholson and I were discussing that briefly this morning. The question is how to factor OTAG's work in. I understand there will be quite a bit of information coming out of OTAG on ozone transport effects. There has been some discussion in the IAF itself as to how much we recreate that and how much we use it. I suspect we'll use quite a bit of that. 0 0 0 There are also a number of options that are being examined in OTAG and a very fine matrix is being developed as to what those options are, and Brock has assured me that we will introduce those into our process here. So, we will have those and will examine them. Thank you.CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Any other discussion, comments or questions? Brian, I'd like to thank you and your coworkers for the excellent work you've done on the lowemission fuels project. And, Bob, thank you for your continued leadership of the committee and everybody who works on that committee. It's a very hardworking group of folks and we appreciate you very much. 0 0 0 Can you people in the back of the room hear me all right? Go like this if you can't. I had heard that some people may not be able to hear at the back. So, we either need to speak closer to the microphones or turn the microphones up or something. I just want to make sure everybody can hear. 0 0 0 I think our next committee report is from the TOC. And, Doug Neeley, if you're ready to do that, we're ready for you. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 As you know, we commissioned a consulting firm by the name of Lumina to develop an integrated assessment framework for us, and we gave them a charge to look at different ranges. And they came back with recommendations on what to do for a $1 million assessment, $3 million, and I think the upper one was about $8 million. 0 0 0 Well, the TOC, looking at the money we had in the bank account, figured we better proceed with the $1 million one, and we were working toward that effort of designing one for $1 million with a lot of inkind services from the state and others. 0 0 0 And about three months ago, the Governing Body says, you're going the wrong way. We want you to look at a $2 to $3 million one. So, that's what we have been doing the last two months. 0 0 0 And as a part of that process in looking at a $3 million one, we have what we called an Air Share Meeting. That is, we brought in experts from a lot of different programs. You've heard some of them this morning mentioned OTAG, Southern Oxidants Study, National Acid and Precipitation Assessment Program, the Forestry Service, TVA, the Park Service, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at EPA who is looking at revising the ozone standard, developing a new particulate matter fine standard and developing a regional haze standard, and there were several other speakers. We had a total of 14 that shared their information with us. 0 0 0 And we want to utilize as much of that information as we can. We really don't have the luxury of duplicating people's efforts. You've already heard a little bit and we definitely want to use the OTAG efforts. They have done a lot of work and we're certainly not going to duplicate those works. 0 0 0 And, then, we had about three additional combined meetings of the Technical Oversight Committee with our Integrated Assessment Framework work group and our socioeconomics work group. And we're here today to present you with a $2 to $3 million assessment. 0 0 0 And over the course of the last few days, we have handed outwe don't have a lot of additional copies, but almost everyone has received at least one copy at this meeting. The Governing Body had one at least in their folder; and the ones that were there yesterday, we gave them copies. And we've made a few changes since that time, and I'm just going to highlight the changes.0 0 0 We did not prepare what you would call a sophisticated report or work plan. It's basically one page of a narrative with a lot of attached tables to it showing you what all of the various modules are and the various costs of it. 0 0 0 If you have your copies that were handed out, you can kind of follow along. The basic changes were made in the fourth paragraph, the last line in that fourth paragraph. It's been changed by: By first characterizing an emissiontoreceptor response surface, the TOC hopes to produce an analysis tool that can be used by SAMI to screen the EMOs for detailed analysis and by others for custom EMO analyses. 0 0 0 What we're trying to do is create a tool here that can not only be used by SAMI, but anyone else that might be interested in running some different emission reduction strategies through this framework. It's pretty ambitious. 0 0 0 The next paragraph to change there is the range is $1.6 to $3.2 million. I think maybe even our table we've already upped that a little bit. 0 0 0 And, then, in the last paragraph, almost the last sentence, we're basically saying that we expect to complete this project over a twoyear period. So, that's basically the changes in the narrative that we presented to everyone. 0 0 0 And what we will do, after we have this meeting today and make some decisions, we will get this printed up in a final form and make sure that everybody gets a copy that is dated and numbered so you'll have the latest, and we would encourage anyone that has a copy of the old one just to stick it in your recycle bin. Don't hold on to those old ones. Just stick it in your recycle bin and hold on to one that will come as a result of this meeting. MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 Could I ask a question? MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Yes, sir. MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 What does that language mean there, the receptor response surface? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Repeat the question, Doug.MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 That's right. He asked the question there, what does that mean by receptor response surface, right? Let me see if I can try to explain that. 0 0 0 It is a little complicated, but I think what we're trying to do, of course, is we want to look at emission management options. And when we reduce emissions, we're going to see an effect. 0 0 0 So, one of the curves, we're talking about the effects people will look at different ambient conditions. For example, it might be ambient ozone levels and they'll have a curve showing what the effects to the forest or to whatever, what we would expect to see at different ambient levels. 0 0 0 Now, another piece of that, though, is we know that emissions impact the ambient levels. So, we're going to have a curve that shows the relationship between emissions and the ambient levels, and, then, go from that relationship to the effects that we think we'll see. So, that's kind of it in a nutshell. Is that pretty much it, Tom? MR. ELMORE: 0 0 0 Correct.MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 This is a table showing the different modules that will be worked on, we hope, simultaneously with the cost and the sequencing that we would hope to institute for that. And we have estimated a schedule start task also in there and we would like to start right away. Of course, that depends on the action we take today and identifying the funding levels. 0 0 0 But, naturally, for such an assessment, we're going to need a good emissions inventory and the emissions inventory group will be looking at the direct cost of controls. In other words, if we had an emission reduction strategy, when they're doing the projections on the inventory, they will also be looking at the direct cost. 0 0 0 Transport and air chemistry, those two right there will help establish the source/receptor relationship that we talked about, the emissions information and the transport and air chemistry. And we're looking at acid deposition, ozone and visibility. 0 0 0 The effects area, we're looking, of course, at the acid deposition and we're probably going to combine the aquatic and terrestrial, and, then, of course, ozone and, then, visibility. 0 0 0 Then the socioeconomic consequences, and, naturally, we have to have a final report. 0 0 0 And what we have given here is the range of money in the cost column. That is not to say that we're proposing that we look at a Chevrolet version or a Cadillac version, okay, or a Nova versus a Cadillac maybe is a better term. 0 0 0 There's a lot of uncertainties right now on what these various modules are going to cost. And when you look at the tables that support this, you'll see that we're talking about. 0 0 0 On the emissions inventory, there's a lot of questions as far as doing the projections, how much of the OTAG inventory will be useful to us, how much of the interim emissions inventory that EPA has on file will be useful to us, whether we're looking at the regional and, then, adding some more detailed inventory as we get closer to the Class I areas, if we're looking at some reduction strategies that are very close to the Class I areas, and we expect some inkind service, and the inkind service there we're expecting that from EPA and our states. 0 0 0 The transport and air chemistry, again, we have a range there. And what we're doing there is we're putting out a request for information. This is not any dollars involved in it. What we're doing is we're identifying expertise in the transport and air chemistry field, sending them some information about what SAMI's needs are and asking them a bunch of questions and having them respond to us. And based on some of those responses, we can further narrow the cost there. 0 0 0 The other thing that we would like to do real soon is issue a request for a proposal that does cost money for an episode selection screening. And what we want to look at there, we want expertise in the fields to look at the ozone, acid deposition, visibility, all three of those parameters and see if there are some episode periods that are in common. If there are, we can use one different type of model for all three of those. If there are not, we may have to use individual models for each of those pollutant areas. We would like to do that real soon. 0 0 0 The effects folks would still like to go ahead and establish what I was referring to earlier, these ambient conditions and what effects you might hope to see under those various ambient conditions, and that's what those three areas are. 0 0 0 And, then, of course, the final report. And what we would like to do today is kind of get general approval to proceed in this fashion so that we can start preparing the RFPs and get the work in motion. So, I'll stop there and see if there's any questions or comments. And anyone else on the TOC or those work groups, if I've left out something, please feel free to join right in. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Do we have questions or comments from either the Governing Body or anybody participating in the meeting? Yes, Brian. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 Doug, let me ask you a clarifying question about what you project will be accomplished by two years from now, June of 1998. I guess one possibility is that we will have all of the modules and we will have this response surface. Is that what you're saying will be completed in two years?MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 That; and plus, when we go through and design the modules, do some sensitivity runs and refine the EMOs, we hope at the end of that two years to have it developed, have the sensitivity runs done, have those EMOs identified that you want to run through the assessment and have those run through. So, we would be coming back with a report to the Policy Committee on the results or what those EMOs will accomplish. So, we're looking at that for the twoyear period. MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 Doug, this is a brand new model or will this be integrating models that exist at the present time? For example, OTAG is using the UAMB model. Will ozone be run through a photochemical assessment model like that or MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Well, the particular model has not been identified yet, and that's what the request for information will hopefully do. If you look at your package, there's about four different modeling approaches that we can take. 0 0 0 But to answer your question, yes, they will be using existing models. There won't be a new model for ozone, a new model for acid deposition and a new model for visibility. It will be using current models that are out there; and, then, the integrated assessment will integrate the results of those models, or modules is what we call them. 0 0 0 Let me point out one thing, though, and you see the socioeconomic consequences, there's not much information there. That is one of the areas where we're having the most difficulty in reaching consensus, and we do have a group that is working feverishly of many diverse interests in SAMI to try to reach consensus on the socioeconomics. 0 0 0 And Tom Elmore, who I have failed to introduce, is our new TOC Coordinator, and he is kind of facilitating that discussion, and I understand they're making progress. So, that's good. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Let me say a few things here. Doug, I appreciate your leadership on the committee and all of the work that it has been doing to get to here and appreciate the committee's tolerance of having the Governing Body kind of change your direction when you were working on a cheaper proposal and we said, no, we don't want to do it on the cheap. I guess we got more optimistic about the ability to raise the funds that would be needed to do a more rigorous analysis. 0 0 0 We had some discussion of these matters yesterday afternoon in a joint meeting of the Governing Body and the Operations Committee and a lot of good conversation around this issue. 0 0 0 One of the things that we want to do, of course, is get on with it. We want to get into the meat of this integrated assessment framework and get it done. We hope that we won't have to spend as much as $3.2 million to do this work, but we probably ought to budget that much for it. 0 0 0 We know we've got some other funding needs. We need to maintain our SAMI office. We've got a little bigger staff now with Tom Elmore working with us. We know that we need to put money into our public outreach efforts, and Lucy gives a big smile. We recognize it. 0 0 0 And as Bob Kerr mentioned, we probably have some needs for a consultant to look at a number of the emission management options and translate those into numbers that can actually be plugged into and used in the integrated assessment framework. And that will cost some money, too. 0 0 0 So, we have calculated that we probably need $2 million to do all of this work over the nextno, I'm sorry, $2 million each year for the next two years. And, fortunately, last night, I don't think everybody here at the meeting was able to meet her, but Mary Nichols came to visit our SAMI meeting. Mary is the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation in EPA headquarters, and she had heard about SAMI for some time. And when John Hankinson and I were in Washington a couple of weeks ago, we twisted her arm and said we'd really like you to come to this meeting and see what we are about. 0 0 0 And, so, she did that, sat in on our meeting, and we put the fullcourt press on Mary to help assure that we could fund SAMI the way it ought to be funded to get it done. And Mary did what I think she probably was supposed to do and said, this is all real good, but she didn't make us any promises. But I feel good about the meeting and conversations that went on before and after that meeting with Mary.0 0 0 If you look at our funding outlook right now, we've got something like $160,000 in our checking account. We have a $550,000 grant for FY '96 that has not been awarded yet but is only days away. That was delayed due to the various budget delays that occurred on the national budget during the past several months. That is $550,000 of Region IV EPA money. We have a commitment of another $225,000 of Region IV money in FY '97 which would be available sometime after October 1 of this year. 0 0 0 In addition to that, it is my assumption and my hope that each of the eight states will contribute again cash on the order of what they have been contributing for the last couple of years to the SAMI effort and that would be something on the order of $200,000 in total. When you put all of these things together, we've got aboutlet's see, 995 and 160 MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 Eleven thirtyfive. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 What did we say, $1,350,000 or thereabouts. MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 No, eleven thirtyfive I ended up, if you count your checking account 160, 550, 225 and 200. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 All right. Anyway, we've got over $1 million in cash and, then, we've got the prospect of another $1.25 million dollars that might well come to us through a supplemental environmental project as a result of a national enforcement action that is going on with EPA headquarters and the Department of Justice. 0 0 0 We should know in a month whether that $1.25 million is going to be a reality. It is looking promising right now. The final settlement between the corporation that has the enforcement violations being pursued by the federal government has not been inked yet, but they are making positive progress. And EPA and the Justice Department like the idea of putting some of the money onto SAMI. 0 0 0 So, if that comes through, we will have perhaps $2.4 million or so that would be available to us over the next six months, money in hand. If it doesn't come through, then, we're going to have to find another eight or nine hundred thousand dollars somewhere which I hope we can prevail upon EPA headquarters and maybe EPA Region III to help us locate. 0 0 0 But it is going to take several months for our working groups, the TOC, to go ahead and draft the request for proposals and to get those proposals back and evaluated to where we could issue contracts and go forward with the integrated assessment framework. And in the course of that several months, we will have these various sources of cash coming in to SAMI that are not here yet and we will know for sure whether or not the supplemental environmental project will be a reality. 0 0 0 So, I think what we ought to look at doing is directing the Technical Oversight Committee, the TOC, to go ahead and prepare the request for proposals and prepare draft contracts that would have end points assuming we get $2 million worth of money available to us over the next six months. And, then, we can put all of those contracts into place, get the whole Integrated Assessment Framework project moving forward. And, then, all of us will need to work and figure out how to get another $2 million for FY '98 so that then we can do the remainder of the IAF project.0 0 0 I think that's a doable way for us to go forward and that's a proposal I'd like to put on the table for everybody to consider right now. Is there any discussion from anybody on the Governing Body, any questions about that? MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 I have a question. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Yes, Tom. MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 To what extent haswe had someone else delegated to come here. So, I haven't been involved for some period of time. To what extent has the SAMI looked at doing perhaps some of this work with, you know, like through our state agencies and so forth as opposed to contracting it out? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 The question is to what extent have we looked at doing any of these elements through inkind services among the member states? MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 Yes, the different agencies, right. CHAIRMAN REHEIS:0 0 0 Doug, do you have a response for that? MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Sure. As I showed on the emissions inventory, we are definitely expecting inkind services from our state agencies and from EPA. 0 0 0 For the other modules, we have not depended on much inkind services, even though a lot of these state people are involved in all of our committees and our work groups. But we didn't get a good feeling that the states were ready to take on huge chunks of these efforts just because of their workload, everything else they were involved in. 0 0 0 We're certainly willing, if a state wants to do some of it, to factor that in. But through all of those discussions and all, we didn't really see any coming forward volunteering huge chunks of resources. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I'll speak for Georgia. Our air program is slammed right now. We're trying to get Title V permitting going. We're trying to do our part to help support the Ozone Transport Assessment Group. And, in fact, our people who are capable of doing good airrelated modeling are pretty heavily committed on that, and it would be difficult to take them off of that and put them onto SAMI activity. And we're starting up our enhanced vehicle emissions inspection program in Metro Atlanta and revising our state implementation plans for ozone. And Georgia EPD would not be able to contribute inkind services that are significant enough to count much on any of these items simply because of the workload right now, Tom. Some of our neighbors may be MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 We're spending all of our money in court fighting the EPA. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 I would point out, though, Harold, that the states have definitely contributed significant resources to the Southern Oxidants Study to develop a seasonal ozone modeling that's underway. So, even though they don't have a lot of free time for their employees to spend on major chunks, they are supporting both SAMI and the Southern Oxidants Study for those efforts, too. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Other comments, questions? Yes, John Hankinson.MR. HANKINSON: 0 0 0 Yes. Harold, I think you lay out a good proposal. I think we need to do the work we need to do to answer the questions that we have in terms of how to get the best result in the Southern Appalachian mountains here from an air quality standpoint. 0 0 0 I think we're only going to get one bite at this apple. So, we have to be sure we're investing these resources where we're going to get those answers and not duplicate other work. That's something I'm very concerned about. 0 0 0 Doug mentioned this, that there is a tremendous amount of work on ozone going on. I want to be sure thatyou know, we say that, but I want to be looking as we commit dollars to projects that we are not duplicating work that's going on and particularly in the ozone area. And it may be that we have to do some timing things to make sure that we don't do that. 0 0 0 I agree with Harold. I take it as an encouraging sign that Mary Nichols joined us yesterday. They have been working very hard at one of their first visibility projects as Mary described it yesterday working with the other federal agencies, the Park Service and others in the west and the Grand Canyon visibility effort and they have developed a management plan, as I understand it, Doug. I'm not quite sure at what stage, but at some stage that we hope to be in in about two years, I guess MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Yes. MR. HANKINSON: 0 0 0 ©is sort of the way you characterize it. And I think it is good timing for us at EPA to be working with the states to try to develop an approach for our mountains as to how to address the issues that we have in terms of visibility, impact on the aquatic and terrestrial systems, health, etcetera. 0 0 0 But I'm going to keep asking the questions as to how is this answering the questions that we're going to have at the end of this process to make the management decisions that we're all going to need to make; and if I'm not getting the right answers, then, I'm going to bring it back to Lewis. 0 0 0 I think there are some goodI would also like the folks that are sort of putting together the work schedule to think about an issue that was discussed last night. Sort of at an interim point in this process, what could we have that will enable us to promote what we're trying to do so that we will assure that we can continue to get that second half of the resources. 0 0 0 I mean, the budget you lay out, Harold, only addresses the first half, and we've got to be able to demonstrate that this project is going to provide such results that we will want to see it continued and that those that have to make those decisions will feel that this is moving ahead and that the citizens involved will also feel this is leading to some decisions that they're going to want to see made. So, I want to see that built into how we structure the contracting and the reports. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Yes. And Suzette Kimball had made a point last night about in the political uncertainties that exist, budget uncertainties and so on, that it would be nice to be able to produce completed projects at the end of this first year as opposed to having to assume that we're going to be able to have funding in another year to finish the rest of it out. 0 0 0 Suzette, I don't know if you wanted to mention anything more about that or what, but it's certainly an important concern. There may be a way that we can structure our contracts to help do that. Did you want to comment? MS. KIMBALL: 0 0 0 That, in essence, is a concern that I wanted to make it really clear that the Park Service, of course, is not pessimistic about the effort but thinks that we do need to go forward with the full effort. 0 0 0 But that in looking at it realistically, if there is a way as the TOC and the contractors put together the package, put together the framework, if there is a way to identify discreet products that are usable products that can come out at a midpoint that will enable us to make a better case to those people with the purse strings to make it easier and more likely to get continued funding, that would be helpful. 0 0 0 And it would also be good that in the event that we don't get the funds or don't get the full amount of funds, that we have some useful products to show for a lot of man hours and a lot of hard work that we have put into this effort. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Brian, go ahead. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 Thank you, Harold. And I also would like to amplify the concerns that various people have expressed about the desirability of targeting the work that's going to be done. 0 0 0 I guess a specific concept that I would like this group to consider is that perhaps we should target our resources in such a way that we have as an interim deliverable the set of modules that would allow one to characterize the complete pathway for one effects category. By a complete pathway, I mean that integrated set of modules that begins with an emissions or a change in emissions and, then, the implied change in pollutant concentration or deposition rate, and, then, the change in the environmental effects and even the socioeconomic consequences of some particular emissions reductions strategy.0 0 0 And I think there are a number of reasons for considering that approach to building the assessment. First, it seems to me to be the fastest way to develop something that is definitely useful for policy analysis. In other words, it helps to ensure that the assessment effort is focused on the question. 0 0 0 And as I see it, the question is how do we develop or what are the emissions reductions strategies that we can implement to help reduce adverse impacts on the resources, air qualityrelated values in the Class I areas. It also demonstrates SAMI's productivity and fundamental commitment to the mission of the organization; and, thirdly, it also tests the validity of the assumption that something as complex as this assessment is, in fact, useful for a policy analysis. And I'm a bit uncomfortable with an approach to the assessment which doesn't produce results, doesn't allow us to test this hypothesis of utility until two years from now. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Doug, what do you think? Have you given and the rest of the TOC enough thought to whether what Brian suggests is a doable thing, or is there a hybrid between starting everything in the first year and having one or more completed components of it going all the way through as Brian suggests? For example, if we can leave off dealing with ozone in any significant way to see what comes out of OTAG, but deal with the other aspects of the pollutants of concern in the SAMI region, would we be able to do something along the lines of what Brian is suggesting, or is it not doable, or do you want to have some more time with your committee to look at that? MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 I think a little more time, but just a couple of comments. We did discuss at several of our meetings, you know, maybe of putting ozone in the parking lot, but there wasn't any consensus on doing that. And I guess what we were responding to at the TOC is the charge that we were given is to develop an integrated assessment in the $2.5 to $3 million range that would answer all of the questions. So, that's what we were trying to do is looking at all of them rather than sequencing one pollutant at a time because, as a lot of you know, these pollutants are interrelated. 0 0 0 In other words, oxides and nitrogen impacts ozone, it impacts visibility and it impacts deposition. So, you do save money on some of your inventory work and your modeling work by considering those activities. But we could look at it more if that's the direction that we receive. But I guess we were saying let's just go for it, you know. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I understand. MR. MORTON: 0 0 0 Doug, I wasn't suggesting slicing it by pollutant but rather by effect. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 I understand, but all I'm saying is oxides or nitrogen impacts all three effects areas, and there's some savings there, say, if you're doing the inventory, that you get a good inventory for all of those pollutants rather than segregate them just for the CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I think the inventories would need to be done all at once, but maybe we could avoid doing ozone 0 0 0 modeling MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Right. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 ©and try to let OTAG carry the water on that and put the efforts MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 We could; but I guess what I would ask for is that you ask us to look at that rather than say do it that way. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I understand. John. MR. JANSEN: 0 0 0 I guess I'd like to respond to a couple of issues. On the issue of interim deliverables, I made the point last night and I'd like to repeat it that the dialogue that has been going on between the Policy Committee and the Technical Oversight Committee has resulted in a desire to produce interim information for the Policy Committee so that they can do a better job of screening their EMOs. As you've heard Bob's articulation of the three categories they want to put in, well, they need some help and other information to help them do that. 0 0 0 So, I do think that there's going to be information. There has to be sensitivity analyses and other things done early on. 0 0 0 I also think that one needs to go forward with the entire package to begin getting that initial sensitivity information. If you leave one off, you're definitely not going to be as efficient in the process. These pollutants are all interrelated. FACA has that as a basic premise. 0 0 0 And one final comment. The issue of duplication, I fully agree that we do not want to duplicate. But I think we have to remember something and this has led to one of the projects we need to get started right now, and that is SAMI, taking ozone as an example, SAMI needs to know how ozone on a seasonal average changes because that's what the ecosystem responds to is a sum 60 or seasonal average of ozone. OTAG, the attainment process, the SIP process, etcetera are not focusing on that. 0 0 0 The question we are going to try to answer with this episode selection process is, can one utilize the 45 to 55, whatever the number of days of OTAG days, to sum up to in a credible way a seasonal average. That's what this first project is supposed to test. 0 0 0 If it is, then, we have the ability to use the OTAG results directly and use the modeling platforms directly. If, however, the way those episodes got selected do not give us the ability to do that, then, I don't think it's prudent for us to say, well, we've got to use it because it's more convenient. 0 0 0 So, this initial project, I think, will give us a lot more information about how much of the existing information we can use and how much we have to do de novo because we're answering a different question. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Okay. Thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 Harold, can I make a comment? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Yes. MR. JOHNSTON:0 0 0 Has any kind of critical path method scheduling been done for this? I mean, to run a typical project, you do that. And if we could do something like that, it might help to define individual weight points and also schedule expenditures, particularly if you have a hard time raising the last $2 million. We'd define that critical path to at least get a product done and also deliverables in between. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Doug shook his head no. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 It hasn't. But I guess what we were kind of saying, here's how we'd like to proceed, and definitely that would be some of the next steps is designing such a critical path and, then, outlining a detailed budget for those twoyear periods. MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 A typical construction project. I mean MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Right. MR. JOHNSTON: 0 0 0 ©that's the way you run those.MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Absolutely, and Tom is good at that. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Other comments, questions? What is the pleasure of theI'm sorry, Bob Collum. MR. COLLUM: 0 0 0 On the emissions and modeling aspect, I think it's fair for me to make the observation that the Southern Oxidants Study work which has started will cover the entire Eastern United States and then some. It goes beyond the OTAG domain. It will be for an entire summer season of four months and the model that they are using was initially developed for acid deposition. It works fine for ozone and haze. In fact, it's the framework that EPA is working on for a model that will handle all three pollutants at once. Some of the same people are working on both efforts both within and outside of EPA. That may be a way through the modeling aspect of the IAF to combine all of these issues and concerns I think within the time frame that we're interested in, '97/98. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 What the Governing Body needs to do is make a decision so that we can give direction to the Technical Oversight Committee and they can move on ahead. 0 0 0 My suggestion is that we direct them to go ahead and prepare the RFPs to do the entire Integrated Assessment Framework. That as they prepare those, they look at the aspect of critical path and the item that Brian Morton brought up which is, is there some component that we can carry through that affects level evaluation in this first year. But that we direct them to go ahead and prepare those RFPs and get them ready to send out. 0 0 0 We could ask also the TOC to report back to the Governing Body before they actually start putting these RFPs out on the street so that we can understand what it is they are recommending be done. 0 0 0 And we will know before the RFPs hit the street whether we are going to have the whole $2 million plus that we need for this first year of the IAF. 0 0 0 If it turns out that we don't have that amount of money, then, we will have to regroup. If it turns out that the supplemental environmental project that I mentioned doesn't come forward, then, I and others will immediately be working with EPA headquarters to see if we can make up the difference with EPA. So, that would be my recommendation for direction to the TOC. 0 0 0 Is there any discussion on that? Does anyone object? And if not, do we have a motion to that effect? MR. JANSEN: 0 0 0 One point of clarification. I do believe there is at least one project that actually we'd like to go forward with right now. The episode selection project is something that is pacing in terms of the desire of the RFP for the modeling. I think that we would need to get authorization for that. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Doug, you're in agreement with that? MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Yes. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, with that modification to my proposal, that's my proposal. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 That effort will be somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 All right. MR. WALTON: 0 0 0 So moved. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 John from Tennessee makes that motion. Is there a second? MR. KLIMEK: 0 0 0 Second. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 North Carolina seconds it. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed? We have made a decision. Thank you. 0 0 0 We have a couple of other short items. One of those is the Budget and Deadlines. The next is discussion of the next semiannual meeting, and, then, finally any new business. My guess is we could wrap these up before too long. Now, we can go ahead and take a break now if people would like to take a break or we can continue to work on through and be out of here earlier than any of us had thought we would be able to be out of here. Why don't we take ten minutes and then come back. %OFF THE RECORD RECESS CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I think our next item of business is the Budget. Leslie, are you going to present that, please? MS. COX: 0 0 0 The information that you have Angela prepared. We have the '96 SAMI disbursements of what was proposed we never did approve a '96 budget of what was proposed and, then, what todate we have spent. The last direction we had from the Governing Body was to continue like on a continuing resolution, I guess, like the federal government has been on and that's how we've been operating within those parameters, but we never did approve the final budget. 0 0 0 The other page you have is the SAMI revenues and obligated funds showing the projections of the projects and contracts and things we have committed to through the next three months because we're on the federal fiscal year. And it shows you the balance of what we have remaining. And we have a $550,000 grant in process, and John Walton with Tennessee just told me this morning that they were raising their contribution from $20,000 to $50,000. So, we can raise that number to $580,000. And I asked Ron Methier this morning what he thought about that and was he going to let Tennessee be ahead of him. So, we appreciate that, John. 0 0 0 So, we've got the total unobligated funds looking at the grant in process and what we have in our checking account not spent that's not obligated came to $665,365 plus $30,000 from Tennessee. 0 0 0 And what we need is for your approval for budgeting that we can continue spending for the rest of the three months, and we also have a proposed '97 page totaling $1,845,000 which obviously we cannot spend all of that. I apologize that I misplaced an overhead that I could use so everyone could see this, but we need to approve something for '97 based on the funds that we expect to see. 0 0 0 Then, you had a page that was the projected, kind of more of a bigger picture showing the projected revenues and the projected expenses that Tom Elmore prepared showing that we need almost $4 million for '96, '97 and '98. Basically $1 million in '96, $2 million in '97. So, questions on the materials that you have up there? How do you want to proceed? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, it seems to me like we have got, with the decision that we made this morning in terms of direction to the TOC about proceeding with the Integrated Assessment Framework, we will have some different costs that need to be put into the FY '97 budget. 0 0 0 What I would suggest as a possibility is we could approve the FY '96 budget as presented and approve the FY '97 conditional upon the fact that we need to get back together either by a telephone conference call or a facetoface meeting among the Governing Body once a revised FY '97 budget has been put together to reflect the income that we expect to have and what kind of outlay we expect to need based on moving forward with the Integrated Assessment Framework as discussed earlier this morning. So, does everybody understand what I just said?MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 Harold, I have no problem with the concept. I just wanted to know if we could maybe touch base on this auditing question. Are we going to talk about that at some point in time? MS. COX: 0 0 0 We have an update on that. EPA did get back to us, and it is required. MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 The big MS. COX: 0 0 0 The big one. MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 The big one. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Just in case some of us like me don't know what the big one is, why don't you describe it? MS. COX: 0 0 0 It's called a single audit. We had distributed a letter to the Operations Committee members from the accountant which describes a single audit requires more reports than the kind of audit that we thought we had to do, and it's required under the grant. We EPA double check it. It's underwhat was the OMB or CFR 33what was the one that she cited? She cited the regulations. I can get you a copy of that letter, but we had Ray Gregory check with Grants in Region IV and we are required to do that type of audit. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Does this mean we need to hire an outside accounting firm to do the auditing? MS. COX: 0 0 0 We already have done that. What the discrepancy was is initially we had asked for, I think, $2,500 for accounting help and this audit costs $3,500 in and of itself. It was about $1,500 initially for services plus the audit, and we thought $2,500 would cover it. So, we've upped the number that we need to $5,000, I think was the number. So, there was just a question of do we really have to spend that much money, and, yes, we do. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Okay. So, you've got accounting services, then, budgeted at $5,000 for FY '96 and also the same for FY '97?MS. COX: 0 0 0 Yes. Right now, yes, up to that amount, but it will likely be less. Initially to get set up, we needed more help from the accountant and that the other services will likely drop. But the $3,500 audit will be each year. And if they raise the price, it will be more. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Does that answer your question, Diana? MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Any other discussion on budget? I have a proposal that we MS. COX: 0 0 0 Doug raised his hand. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I'm sorry. Doug. MR. NEELEY: 0 0 0 Just one comment on the '96. I think what you said is all right, but we may be in a position to issue contracts in FY '96. Maybe, I'm not saying that we will, but we might be if we could get these RFPs out and response back fairly quickly. So, we might want to spend some of this money in FY '96 that is not reflected here in the budget. But, again, the way you said it, those RFPs will come back to you all through the Operations Committee. So, you'll be aware of them. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, it looks like we will have plenty of revenue available in FY '96 so that if we get an early contract prepared such as the episode selection that John Jansen mentioned, we should be in fine shape financially to go forward with that. And I think we can transact that business through a letter, FAX, telecom as needed between or among the TOC, the Operations Committee and the Governing Body. MS. COX: 0 0 0 Harold, when did you say you wanted to see the revised budget? Was this after we find out if that other pot of money is going to become available? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Yes. I think that first the TOC as they put together the RFPs will probably be able to hone down on what they think the dollars are going to be on these various components of the IAF, and, so, they should be able to give us a better idea of the actual dollars needed I assume in a couple of months, and we will know then also whether we're going to get the supplemental environmental project or if we need to go some other route. 0 0 0 So, I think as quickly as it can be done, we need to put together a revised FY '97 budget; and, hopefully, that could be done before October 1. If that's not doable, somebody tell me. But, then, I would hope that the Governing Body, then, could get back together through some means of communication and approve a revised FY '97 budget before October 1. Does that suit everybody on the Governing Body? John. MR. JANSEN: 0 0 0 Just a question. It's my opinion that the ability to refine the budget will be more successful after we get responses to the RFPs. The purpose of getting RFPs is to get firm cost estimates and choose options. So, if we can get the RFPs out and responses back; but, of course, you've got the chicken and egg. You don't want to send them out unless you have the funds. So, it's a little difficult. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Yes. I think we'll all be more comfortable sending them out as soon as we know whether this supplemental environmental project is tied down; and, again, I hope that will be resolved in a month or less. So, I agree with your comment. Do we have a motion to approve the budget as described for FY '96 and '97? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 I'll so move. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 South Carolina makes a motion. MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 Second. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Seconded by Kentucky and West Virginia both. All in favor. All opposed? That's approved. 0 0 0 The next item of business is to talk about when our next sort of semiannual meeting is going to take place. We can try to truly make it semiannual or we can go a little longer than that which is what we had done this past time. If it's semiannual, we'd be looking at something in the December 1996 time frame or we could move a little further and go into spring. Is there any discussion? MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 Harold, would it be maybe more productive if we delayed it a bit to see some more of the work product from the IAF? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 I think there's certainly merit to that. So, you're suggesting not set anything right now, wait a few months, see how the IAF is going and then schedule the next meeting when we get a review of that? MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 I think it might be more productive. Of course, Leslie needs pretty good leadtime, I guess, on MS. COX: 0 0 0 Yes. If the TOC might have any projections for when that is. It's very hard to get you guys together and get your calendars out and it's also hard to find a facility large enough to host us if you don't do it almost six months to a year in advance. So, two or three months' notice isn't going to be enough. So, if you can kind of ballpark it, and, then, we can work with it, that would help. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, it would be really neat to do something in South Carolina for the next meeting since South Carolina is going to take over the rein then. MS. COX: 0 0 0 We talked about Charleston. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 What do you think about Charleston in the spring about azalea time? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 I think that would be great CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 March? MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 ©if we had a March/April time frame, but Charleston is always hard to book. MS. COX: 0 0 0 Right. MR. SHAW: 0 0 0 And the sooner, the better. MS. COX: 0 0 0 Give me some dates. How do your calendars look? I know certain states are in session in the spring. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 If we were going to do it in March, as late in March as possible would be better for Georgia since my legislature usually goes until midMarch also. April is good, but I think you're going to run into somebody's legislative session just about anytime you pick it. MS. COX: 0 0 0 Right. Do you have your calendars with you now and you could tell me CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, I do. And I can assure you, I don't have anything in March, 1997. MS. COX: 0 0 0 Does anybody have anything in March, 1997? CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Well, perhaps, I think since that is nine months, ten months in advance, why don't we simply direct Leslie to look at availabilities of a meeting place in late March or April, 1997, pick awhat do you all like, the beginning of a week, the end of the week, and, then, simply get out a communication to the Governing Body as soon as you can about what's available so that we can make a selection and then get the word to everybody else. Is the Governing Body satisfied with Charleston, South Carolina as the next location? MS. ANDREWS: 0 0 0 I think we had a fallback of Asheville if Leslie has problems with Charleston. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 A fallback of Asheville, North Carolina. Will that work for everybody? I see lots of nods. Our last item on the agenda is any new business. Does anybody on the Governing Body have any new business they would like to bring up? MR. HOPKINS: 0 0 0 Frequently, I think as we focus on process of the kinds of things that SAMI is doing, we don't really talk about success stories, and I just wanted to pass on something I mentioned to Harold. 0 0 0 We, in Virginia, the Richmond area is a nonattainment area moderate and we are now asking the EPA to redesignate Richmond. Knock on wood I hope there's some wood around here assuming we don't have any exceedences this summer, we have asked for designation to attainment. And, then, of course, as you know, we have to develop a maintenance plan. Part of that maintenance plan we were quite short of the emissions reductions that we needed in that plan. 0 0 0 And I just want to say Wally Hatter is here. Where are you, Wally? Wally Hatter back here from Virginia Power. Virginia Power and Allied Signal who are major sources in the Richmond area have voluntarily, and I emphasize voluntarily, agreed to significant emission reductions so that we can meet that designated status. And I would ask you to join me if we could give Wally and his company a hand. CHAIRMAN REHEIS: 0 0 0 Volunteerism is alive and well in America. Any other new business on the Governing Body? How about from any of our other participants in SAMI? Anyone in the audience care to say anything? 0 0 0 Well, we're done more than two hours ahead of time and I'm going to head back to Atlanta. I want to thank everybody again for your continued participation in this process. I think SAMI is doing well, and I think we're going to pick up momentum now and really crank through some very important work. And, again, I appreciate the time and effort that all of you put into this process. I think it's a remarkable voluntary process that we have undertaken here. We're getting a lot of attention from a lot of folks, and I like what's happening. And it couldn't work without all of you putting your time and effort into it and we appreciate it very much. Thank you for coming. We're adjourned. (MEETING ADJOURNED !STATE OF KENTUCKY COUNTY OF FRANKLIN I, Terri H. Pelosi, a notary public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding taken down by me in the abovestyled matter taken at the time and place set out in the caption hereof; that said proceeding was taken down by me in shorthand and afterwards transcribed under my direction; that the appearances were as set out in the caption hereof. Given under my hand as notary public aforesaid, this the 3rd day of July, 1996. ____________________________ Notary Public State of Kentucky at Large My commission expires February 20, 1997.