WPC: 2 ZB 0XHP DeskJet 500x6X@7X@Ыx6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierXX*0 x7X),h  Z 2CG Times (W1) RegularX208#|x  #X*0 x7X#June 19, 1996SAMI Policy Committee Introductions Kerr: we try to let PC members have first opportunity to comment, then guests. Ask that you keep that in mind. Propose changing agenda somewhat. Brian Mortonalternative fuels workgroup. Dean Rivkin Dean: actually, I don't have to leave, so we can leave me in same place on agenda. Kerr: Minutes from May 1996 meeting being passed around. We won't ask about approval now, will talk about at end of meeting. Kerr: (1) get up to date on other groups. (2) continue discussion of process to get existing remaining EMOs resolved. NOT whether it's a good emo or a bad one... Julie: Someone to be cosecretary with me? Kerr: have asked Angela to step in my (Julie's) absence. Julie: When I'm here, I'm happy to, just not sure how often I'll be able to. Nancy H: PAC 2 factsheets out. still working on visibility one. Still working on the emos that we had to work on from last year. Also a letter to FLMs that GB was going to draft, Steve Levitis is picking up again. (FLMstate coop on NSR.) Lucy: Clean air Campaign, and ozone advisory program 2 new EMOs she is proposing to PAC. Lucy strategic outreach committee forming, too. Kerr: TOC committee? OK, will do later in day. Brock: Clean air factsheet workgroup. had worked on and came to an impasse. asked for a fresh group to look at it. Brock and others on PC are assigned to look at Mike T, Cindy, Tom F. Angela, Nancy, Harmon. Does factsheet properly state issues? another question: should we attempt to make it more readerfriendly? What's supposed to happen under the CAAA. Group felt it is a little too involved for general public... also, dealing with issue from earlier draft. We're willing to chew on that. Also willing to start anew, if necessary. Considering a 60 day window...other perspectives? Kerr: Since it was given to us (back to us) advice to workgroup , make user friendly, accurate, and pertinent. 60 day window may be ambitious, but go for it. Brian M: low emission vehicle fuels emo. Mobile sources workgroup organized 2 meetings last fall in Atlanta. tried to ID about 30 potentially interested stakeholders who might want to participate. Came up with a list broad range of types. got 2530 people to come. 1acquaint people with probs we're dealing with. 2solicit info on emissions and costs of various fuels. to assess the different fuels. hired an intern at Duke U. to prepare report describing existing policies (local, state, federal) affecting use of LE fuels. part of larger report on the dialog. Mobile sources wkgp report will be coming out sometime soon. successful in accomplishing purposes. we have implemented the EMO. ready to begin a phase 2 developing additional emos, using the LE fuels that looked best in the report.   Julie : recommendations? Brian: no, it did say there appears to be promise in using LE fuels. development of specific emos is next steps. Kerr: thank you for your efforts. you have made commitment to develop more EMOs, right. Brian: right. Kerr: any questions, if you want copies, get with Julie Julie: start a signup sheet (doing) Kerr: Brock, back to clean air act factsheet. any more suggestions? Brock: should we scrap this one and begin again? Julie: "Blowing n the wind"brochure that SHEN put out. Can use as example, if you want to look at. Kerr: primary is to make it understandable, trash it if you have to. Pat (visitor) may we get copied on this, too? Bob Tate: have we seen drafts of this? Julie, others; Yes. Brock: I'll take back to workgroup and tell them we can begin again. that it's ok with group to begin again... maybe too, we'll take longer than 60 days. Kerr: 60 days ballpark Mike S: so it's our baby now? Kerr: yes, we cooperate, too. Dean Rivkin nextsocioeconomic model for how to evaluate EMOs. Dean: last meeting talked about. major milestone was devel of Lumina reporthad large sections of SE analysis. have grappled with implications of that report, methodologies, have come to a stalemate Kerr: see meeting notes from last time (Kerr's comment about enviros wanting benefits, and industries wanting costs) Dean: so have had a series of conf calls with a variety of people Tom Elmore sitting in on all of them. Now how to proceed in how to include...we're going to continue with process with tom organizing it. nothing inconsistent with rest of modules in IAF. SE may or may not be a "Module" but still part of IAF. Elmore's coordinating is helping a lot. Kerr: thank you. Kerr: there are 9 small stacks of paper, one big stack, start handing those out... (new EMOsformat). Tate: can Elmore come in and update us on TOC? Kerr: Mike, could you go get someone? Kerr: you got a large stack of EMOs and then others. Tate: these are the remaining EMOs. Kerr: there is a sheet somewhere telling which EMOs have had done what with? Tate: yes, I'll get copies out. Kerr: review of our purpose and what we've done so far. Angela has taken another job with the state of NC. we're getting her a gift. Passing card around. Anyway, we developed strategy for developing EMOs. Attitude by many that class I areas already experiencing degradation. Did not prelim screen as to size or magnitude of effect. we also agreed to take emos in almost any format. led us to a problem in trying to separate these into nobrainers, and harder one. We've found we MUST state these better. Consistent format. We've asked LandofSky and SAMI staff to develop a draft format for EMOs. this is in first stack. 2go back to original authors to see about how to revise if necessary. Now to Tate to continue. We've come full circle, from assess what CAAA would do, then decide. We're hearing from TOC and IAF group that one of first products will be this kind of assessment. Next we need to decide where we can get the biggest effect. THEN, take these EMOs, decide how to handle the ones that don't go to TOC, do we contract out an analysis, do ourselves, what? Tate: Look at revised EMO form. asked Tom E which form? he's not coming yet... Section by section... General type. Suggestion: number sections to fill out, so we can know which to fill out. Karen: is it urgent to change this form? Tate: reason we changed was we did not have enough info. but effort was made to cover what we thought necessary to better define. Reason I asked Tom E. was we handed you 3 emos to run through the IAF, and to tell us what more info you needed. Tom Elmore: concern I raised was an EMO saying "Promote car pooling" does not lend itself to putting into a model. Need numbers, emissions amounts, etc. Leslie took lead in pulling info together what people needed/wanted. It's in electronic form, can be altered if we need to. Another item was interest in feedback to TOC to make sure model was "robust" enough to address the questions we have. Jansen concerned that most emos were stationary oriented, and wanted to see more mobile analysis. Fred: two paths, this issueprovide opportunity to revise, so that when next step happens the needed info will be there. Tom: might be possibility that an author may know much more than they wrote down about a particular emo. Move from verbal to numeric descriptions. Brock: form is mostly there, recommend we not try to polish the garbage can... translate the words to numbers will be forced at point at which emissions inventory gets used... some extra funds for contractor to give a range of numbers... Tate: some of authors may not have numbers. may have to ask someone else to provide info...2let's say we want a NOx cap of "X" they won't have the info you want, what they're asking is what would be the effect of a cap like that? If we could tell you the effect, we wouldn't need the TOC. Tom: TOC is developing info to allow looking at a variety of caps. as far as interviews, some info was gleaned, but you're right, not all. Mike: last PC and yesterday on IAF. source type and source sector. this group will need that analysis. until we get that data it will be hard for us to add much to emos. once we get those, we'll be able to analyze. refine emos in light of matrix options. until we get that data, we won't be able to say a lot. Kerr: "robust" Define Tom: need a range of emos to stress the system. Tate: I think Jansen meant also get mobile source emos to test as well as stationary. Kerr: we approached emos from "tell us what you want to happen" vs " what would happen if" now we have to convert 1st question to 2nd one. Doug Neeley: TOC. same as what Tom said this morning...we do have some copies of what our IAF proposal. more recent than this am. there will be a later version tomorrow... Kerr: mixed messages here...we're saying that we don't know enough to substantially change form. probably should NOT tinker with it. Brock: we shouldn't worry about tinkering with it. once we get to inventory point, it will be moot. Wally: some of this is going take moneydo we have? Doug: we've budgeted for it. we don't have it yet. Kerr: ok not tinkering with form. next: timing. do we need to wait from emissions inventory group in order to refine emos? or do we take existing emos and give to consultant to transform them into this form? John(WV): have we looked at from here's what we want, what would it take? Kerr: initial work plan. 1establish a goal. 2determine CAAA ability to remedy. 3what else to do to reach that goal there was total rejection to that proposal. so we gathered potential improvements. we're coming full circlefirst thing thru the IAF will be the CAAA amendments. Karen: very different. CAAA is basecase, not an option. we're taking as a given. we had an understanding that CAAA wasn't enough. we drafted EMOs to look at other options. Kerr; I think we agree, just state differently. What we haven't said is how far beyond, what is objective. you have to run base case to see what else to do. Karen: also need an upper boundary, too Fred: "stressing" will stress in 2 ways. "surface," also need a variety of EMOs. (surfaceemissions, expenditures, and AQRVsmove from a curve to a 3d surface). discussion of variables. Guest: trying to come up with a 15% reduction for a county in KY. how IAF help achieve goal? is this model sensitive enough to use as only thing to decide. Kerr; no not sensitive enough. then we decide how we do address those. a little awkward, we look at range, then pick and choose what to take forward to GB. awkward to choose which ones. Those the IAF won't address, we have t decide how to analyze. Doug: direct to PC. set goals in reduction or an ambient goal we want to achieve. Kerr; no I don't think TOC should set the goal. TomE. Guest advantage is he has a goal. we don't have a single target. Karen: good point. emosa lot of them are not of a nature that they could be assessed. may require additional analysis, but many are of voluntary nature. no reason not to do voluntary, incentivebased emos. TomE: part of IAF called "cost controls" useful to use in incentives. W/regard t EMOs and toc, an early output: should it be a matrix of pollutant and sources? to stimulate thought as to which EMOs to pursue first? data "out there" to flesh out emos. emissions inventory folks developing info. is that the sort of info you're looking for? Kerr: yes on the first part. not sure about the second. Brock: natural outcome of TOClooking at EMO and translating it to emissions reduction.. may be a range. a natural feedback to us. does it meet the version of what the "words" version of the EMO said. If not, we should reconsider... Tom: a technical dimension, but also a policy dimension to EMOs. TOC can give you numbers, PC will still have to decide if it's "worth" it to do. Kerr: we still intend to have interaction. Maybe we're not having enough interaction? do we need joint meetings, do we need to all be on committee? Tom: not thought that far ahead, Brock's comments triggered thought. Brock: maybe a little more formal. TOC do a little work, then bring to PC for feedback. may vary from EMO to EMO. Wally: how to get EMOs to start with. Brock: assume we're beyond that, after we act on EMO, somewhere down the road... Wally: so they won't take the raw EMOs.... Kerr: process you describe is in workplan. and yes, initial role of this "group of 7" to find ways to "stress" the IAF. Tate: 1they're not 80 emos anymore, down to about 40. It was my understanding that the 7 were to look to see what we could consolidate. not to "stress" the system. I think Jansen wanted more than stationary sources to run thru the system. Kerr: screening format, etc. I think you're right that Jansen was going to come up with the "stressing" ones. Mike: are there capabilities that diff modules of IAF that we need to know about so TOC will have something to work with...EMOs that only look at one pollutant, then we don't test the system on other pollutants.... doug: all are of concernpoint, area, mobile, etc. "cap NOx" would "stress" system, but to what level? IF 7 can work with emissions inventory folks, that would help. Tom: don't wait too long to decide what to do with emos. budget to deal with EMOs. if you don't need the money, or if you do, we will need to know soon. TomF: emissions inventory. consensus on the area of influence? how large is inventory area? Doug: looking at whole eastern states. control strategies only for SAMI states. TomF: but for our county, about half is "boundary" pollution from elsewhere. Doug: but we haven't tried to develop policy things for outside states. Karen: emissions inventory include those states? Doug: absolutely. Brock: is this like the OTAG inventory Doug: yes, with some refinements. Brock: yes, might offer that OTAG is developing "EMOs" of their own. Kerr: we'll have a policy not to duplicate efforts of other groups. Brock: but we could use that. Yes. BREAK Kerr: we have a stack of EMOs we need to deal with. the IAF is in development process. The 7 are to: add Elmore to group. because the outcome is to test the IAF will need him. Please document the criteriajustification we used to do that. then more commun with TOC (tom, maybe dosge, too) to make sure they have what they need, maybe a fourth step of converting from words to numbers ranges, etc. task of this group. Comments? Jon: targets, benefits, costs? what kind of numbers. Kerr: more in terms of in range. run thru with a NOx cap for example, a 20%, 30% reduction, then see what improvement. Jon: not asking to pull out numbers from outside sources? Kerr; may be useful to do anyway. but not get an answer that says "no, but we'll know in 5 years" Mike S: Guest: percentagepoint source or pollution Kerr: point source right now. If NOx cap, develop a set of numbers range. some emos don't have any numbers. Guest: depending on percents, and industry grows, then reduction is meaningless. Kerr:comments? Tate: we'll try. All of us have a copy of this set. Kerr: process by which we do this is call of group. but we do have a policyprocess chair, talk to him (Brock). Kerr: 2nd thing is to do an initial screen of remaining emos. those that will matter in IAF, and those that won't have a numeric effect in IAF but that we think is important enough to also do should we eval, or consult? How to select consult? Or there may be a group of emos that we HAVE to eval ourselves. Mike S: had slightly diff categories. what would we ask a contractor? Kerr: if the IAF were more sensitive, those kind of questions. Qualitative. Stroben: my other category is emos that we just don't want to deal with. Kerr: my sense is that some of them we may decide to put aside. Stroben: we all still need to read...there's a bit of an overlap with what the 7 are doing. Let's agree on general categories nd then let 7 put them into those groups.... Kerr: some initial breakdown could be done. but sending to a consultant not fair ask 7 to develop the questions for the consultant. Stroben: not that far, just categorize into slot. tate: if we go thru emos and have 5 to TOC, then obviously the bulk will need something else don with them. we could decide. Kerr: you;re going to pick for testing, there may be more that should go to TOC. test group, then the 3 breakdowns of the remainder. Fred: you just answered my ? but another question. if one particular emo not a blip, what about a couple of emos. together? Kerr; consolidation will be done. You asking about some additional consolidation. Fred: consolidsimilar emos. but I was thinking that there may be a broad category that would also run together. Kerr: not sure if IAF allows running "batches" of emos. Brock: you can in UAM. would be a good thing to do. Some build on each other. Julie: but will be very hard to get at all the synergistic effectstwo completely unrelated things could have a good benefit. Jon: but could do a first cut. Bob Collum: will have to work VERY closely with TOC cost of running model may depend on how we form the questions. Kerr: why Elmore should be on group. Collum: Stroben: initial cut should bee can this be quantified goes to IAF. Julie: not a values judgement, just a first ct. Stroben: then get with TOC and refine list. Collum: can pick a sequence of emo runs to see if similar packages would have a diff impact. may save you some runs of the model. Kerr:guidance for selection criteria is in files somewhere. Test capabilities. go to TOC/IAF. those not suitable, those needing further info, those this group to look at. stroben: not exactly sure. from going out asking a contractor to get info on an emo without modeling results to back it up. qualitative sense, make some judgements, but not quantify. what I hear is we take an emo that won't go to TOC, and ask contractor to eval, and then we eval. Julie: no, may then go to TOC. Kerr: agree. how do we get the info to develop the emo. Stroben: so we're asking contractor to more fully develop the emo... Kerr: right. the 3rd group is we can take action on ourselves. Julie: JMU could do something like that.' Kerr: taking those emos for IAF getting into an acceptable format. This group, TOC, consultant or any combination could do that. Tate, what's your perception of how to get it in form for IAF Tate: not sure yet, Elmore could tell us, or TOC... They'll vary. Fred: get with the emissions inventory group. Collum: ask them what assumptions are. Kerr: maybe we shouldn't have segregated these groups (TOC, etc). Karen: EMO 8 was called a nearterm. and is underway. we don't need Kerr: just using as a conversational example. you're right. Brock: reiterate.yes the issue of translating words to numbers will happen at inventory stage. have a review of the assumptions of the emissions inventory. to know where the number came from...and understand how to interpret. Kerr: too early to tell how to convert emos into useable form for model. right. Collum will be available for consultation with group of 7. Kerr: the second group of emos needing more info development. internal or external help. I think it should be external help...staff addition or academic institution, or hire it done. need to discuss Julie: JMUwould be on a semester basis. Kerr: I'll pursue. we'll need to talk to the professor. but also look at other sources...agreeable? Jon: how can you get very far with this when you don't know the emos and what's to be evaluated? better able to decide once we know what we need to find out. Kerr: you're right. but would like to do prelim work to see if they're interested, etc. we've got deadlines that we may not be able to make, but if no objection to prelim inquiries, I'll do. Then meet with Tom Elmore. Julie: Other sources? Kerr: will have to look at our policies (SAMI's) Kerr: we've talked about most of agenda. have not discussed how to compare EMOswill save for another day. but have made some progress...Tate: how soon to have results? Tate: hope to initially have 7 review these emos for purpose of conference call discussion. then break out into categories. Maybe week of July 7? Kerr: 1 processsome assignments. Tate: not 30 days. Kerr: 60 90 days 6 months? Collum: should be 3090 days for modeling effort. Kerr: let me know process. Tate: hope between 30 and 60 days. Kerr: look for next meeting in September. Further comments? John Harmonreporter has been sitting in on meeting. adjourn.