Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Virtual Meeting December 8-9, 2020

Federal Advisory Committee Act

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee

Virtual Meeting via Microsoft Teams
December 8-9, 2020

Welcome & Opening Remarks

Due to increased concerns about safety regarding the coronavirus, this Clean Air Act Advisory
Committee (CAAAC) meeting was held remotely via Microsoft Teams. Mr. John Shoaff (EPA)
opened the first day of the meeting at 1:00pm on December 8, 2020 by welcoming everyone and
giving a brief overview of the logistics for the meeting, including requesting that everyone mute
themselves when not speaking and use the "Raise Your Hand" feature and the chat function. Mr.
Shoaff then discussed the agenda for the afternoon and introduced Ms. Shanika Whitehurst, the
Designated Federal Official (DFO), who also welcomed everyone and conducted the roll call. A
list of attendees is provided in Attachment 1. Previous meeting minutes as well as materials
associated with this virtual meeting will be available online at EPA's CAAAC website
(https://www.epa.gov/caaacy

Virtual Meeting Agenda - December 8th (Day 1)

Time

Item

Presenters/F acilitators



Opening Session: Welcome by

John Shoaff, Director, Office of Air Policy

1:00- 1:10pm

Chair, Introductions, DFO

and Program Support



Opening Statement

Shanika Whitehurst, DFO

1:15 -2:00pm

OAR Overview & Update on
Priorities

Anne Austin, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

2:05 - 3:00pm

MOVES Emissions Model

David Choi, Director, Air Quality and
Modeling Center

3:00 - 3:05pm

Break





Amy B. Vasu, Air Toxics Assessment Group

3:05 - 4:00pm

Draft Air Toxics Strategy

Mike Koerber, Office Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards





Paul White, Center for Public Health and



Airborne Transmission of
COVID-19 Indoors

Environmental Assessment

4:05 - 5:00pm

Laura Kolb, Indoor Environments Division



David Rowson, Director, Indoor
Environments Division

5:00 - 5:15pm

Wrap Up and Public Comments

-------
Following the roll call, Mr. Shoaff allowed a moment for members of the public to introduce
themselves; nobody did so. He also highlighted the agenda item for public comment that was
scheduled at the end of the day. Mr. Shoaff then introduced Ms. Anne Austin, the Principal
Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), to give an update on
the office's priorities and progress.

OAR Overview and Update on Priorities

Ms. Austin began by greeting attendees, acknowledging the 50th anniversary of both the EPA
and the Clean Air Act (CAA), thanking Mr. Larry Weinstock for serving as the DFO for many
years, and welcoming Ms. Whitehurst for taking over his role as well as for her work as the
office's environmental justice (EJ) coordinator.

Ms. Austin then described the latest developments and actions taken by OAR since the last
CAAAC meeting. They released another year of air trends data, showing declines in the six
criteria air pollutants (CAPs) from 1970 to 2019 while the economy grew significantly, resulting
in some of the lowest rates recorded. Ms. Austin explained that early in the Trump
Administration, a goal was set to get back on track to meet agency deadlines in a timely fashion,
with the most recent priorities being review of the particulate matter (PM) and ozone standards.
For PM, the review found a large decline in concentrations from 2000 to 2019, including
improvements for monitored low income counties, 80% of which are breathing air that meets the
2012 or 2006 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), compared to 43% in 2009.
Ms. Austin noted that on December 7, 2020, the EPA announced its final decision to maintain
PM standards at the current level, after consideration of over 60,000 comments. Additionally, the
EPA is still working on finalizing the ozone NAAQS. There has been a significant decline in
ozone-related pollutants such as NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and after review,
the office issued a proposal to maintain the NAAQS without changes; the comment period for
the proposal closed on October 1, 2020, and the office is now reviewing over 50,000 comments
that were received to prepare to finalize the rule later in December. Ms. Austin also discussed the
office's work on redesignations and State Implementation Plans (SIPs), including redesignating
57 areas to attainment, acting on more than 230 SIPs, and converting 30 Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) into SIPs.

Turning to other big priorities concluded this year, Ms. Austin noted that the final rules for oil
and natural gas production were announced in August, which included removing the
transmission and storage segment from regulation as well as eliminating other regulations on the
oil and gas industry and streamlining the process for emission control as fugitive emission
detection technology improves. Ms. Austin also discussed a rule allowing fuel storage vessels to
pass inspections, which is expected to save money and reduce VOCs. The office is also working
to improve New Source Review (NSR) and Title V programming, including choosing not to
finalize a proposed guidance but continuing to explore whether a future rulemaking would be
appropriate. They are also developing training modules for local and state air agencies, which
will be posted to the NSR website. The EPA has also finalized several rules and guidelines in the

-------
last quarter of 2020 and is continuing to develop others, including a benefit-cost accounting rule
and a procedural clarification for states.

Ms. Austin discussed the EPA's progress on conducting court-ordered residual risk and
technology reviews (RTRs), of which 27 have been completed, with 9 more in progress with a
deadline of October 2021. The agency is also looking forward to getting feedback on a draft
strategy for better addressing air toxics, especially regarding EJ.

On the subject of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update, the updated analysis
showed that for 9 out of 27 states being considered, the projected 2021 emissions do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment, so the proposal does not include obligations for those
states beyond CSAPR. For 12 other states, the EPA is proposing new or amended FIPs that
mandate additional emission reductions.

Ms. Austin explained that the EPA is also working on a rule for other solid waste incinerators
(OSWI) to encourage compliance and follow CAA requirements. The comment period ended in
October, and the agency is aiming to finalize the rule by the end of May. The EPA has also
proposed rules related to transportation and enforcement related to tampering. Ms. Austin also
noted that the EPA is assessing the possibility of strengthening on-road in-use testing programs,
soliciting comments, and reaching out to a range of stakeholders on this issue, with the goal of
issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in early 2021.

Lastly, Ms. Austin acknowledged the recently-released update of the MOVES model and
expressed interest in the discussion planned for later in the meeting about COVID-19 and indoor
air. Ms. Austin then offered to answer a few short questions before leaving to attend another
meeting.

Comments and Discussion

Mr. Dan Nickey asked Ms. Austin about the status of the once-in always-in rule. Ms. Austin
responded that the rulemaking was finalized in October.

Mr. Andrew Hoekzema congratulated Ms. Austin and her office on completing the PM NAAQS
by the December deadline and expressed hope that this would be a sign that moving forward
these reviews can be completed on the statutory 5-year basis. Mr. Hoekzema explained that
because the NAAQS was not changed, there is no requirement to conduct a designation process,
which has never happened before. Mr. Hoekzema asked what the EPA's plan is to address areas
that were designated as attainment following the last NAAQS review, but are now in violation.
Ms. Austin responded that she did not have a concrete answer yet and that they are discussing
this internally now. She invited engagement on this topic from stakeholders and CAAAC
members so they can better understand how states are impacted and what the practical
implications of the policy will be. Mr. Hoekzema suggested that the EPA issue a rule to codify

-------
the approach the same way the EPA goes through a rulemaking for the cost-benefit analysis. Ms.
Austin thanked Mr. Hoekzema for the suggestion and thanked everyone for listening.

Mr. Shoaff thanked Mr. Nickey and Mr. Hoekzema for their questions and noted that the
meeting was running ahead of schedule, so they would go ahead and start the next presentation
early. Mr. Shoaff then introduced Mr. David Choi, the Director of the Air Quality and Modeling
Center at the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), who would be discussing the
newly-released MOVES3 model.

MOVES3 Introduction and Overview - David Choi, EPA

Mr. Choi began by presenting an overview of the presentation and background on the MOVES
model. For the latest version of MOVES, MOVES3 - the third major release, there have been
several updates to the previous version. This includes new data on light-duty and heavy-duty
emissions, incorporation of the effects of new rules, and improved user features. MOVES3 has
gone through peer review and was beta tested by a small group of experienced MOVES users. In
addition, the MOVES Review Work Group has provided feedback to the EPA via the Mobile
Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS) of the CAAAC. The updated version of
MOVES compared to the previous version has resulted in national emission estimates that are
lower for most criteria pollutants and higher for greenhouse gases in future years. Results vary
by geographic area, but urban areas generally also have an increase in NOx levels. Changes in
nonroad emission estimates are limited to SO2 and PM, which decrease with the decrease in
diesel sulfur levels. The new version of MOVES must be used in SIPs after its release, with no
grace period, except that if a state has done significant work on a SIP using the previous model,
it can continue with that model. MOVES3 will also be required to be used for transportation
conformity at the end of a 2-year grace period. Technical guidance is available on using MOVES
at the county scale for onroad emission inventory development for SIPs and conformity, using
MOVES3 at the project scale for hot-spot analyses, using MOVES to model specific control
programs and using the model to estimate GHGs.

Comments and Discussion

Mr. Clay Pope asked Mr. Choi about the impact of temperature on onroad diesel and whether
that is where the increase in urban emissions comes from. Mr. Choi answered that when they
updated the model, they relied on the in-use testing program data provided by manufacturers,
which showed that there are more emissions when the vehicles are not fully warmed up because
the SCR systems do not work at lower temperatures.

Mr. Pope then asked what the assumed penetration of light-duty (LD), heavy-duty (HD), and
medium electric vehicles (EVs) is on a state by state level. Mr. Choi responded that modeling
hybrids and EVs is something they would like to improve in MOVES in the future, and they are
interested in hearing from users and stakeholders on the best way to incorporate them. He also
noted that more EV penetration data is needed.

-------
Mr. Steve Flint noted that as you look at the in-use emissions, in particular the HD activity and
the actual in-use NOx emissions, they have seen a lot of tampering. Mr. Flint asked what is being
used for emissions values in those cases, and where those values come from. Mr. Choi answered
that MOVES3 does not account for the latest report on diesel tampering, and they are working to
collect more data to hopefully include in a future version of MOVES. MOVES3 does have some
tampering and mal-maintenance assumptions built in, but these are different than what was
recently reported.

Mr. Flint then asked if MOVES3 builds off the California Air Resources Board (CARB) work on
low load emissions. Mr. Choi responded that it does not, but that colleagues working on the
Cleaner Trucks Initiative (CTI) have been coordinating with CARB, and they are looking into
data in that area.

Finally, Mr. Flint added that when considering PM emissions into 2028 due to brake wear, there
is less brake friction with EVs, so as penetration of hybrids and EVs increases, PM should drop
considerably because brake wear is reduced. Mr. Choi thanked Mr. Flint for pointing that out and
stated that they have a test program to study brake wear emissions, and they have included some
EVs.

Ms. Meg Patulski added that she works with Mr. Choi in implementing MOVES3, and to add to
his answer to Mr. Pope's question about EVs and hybrids, MOVES3 can be used to model
different scenarios for electrification and other future fleet changes as outlined in the technical
guidance documents. Also, for a typical hybrid, they treat them as a typical gasoline vehicle for
criteria pollutant emissions, including PM, since they are certified like gas vehicles.

Mr. Hoekzema commented that he encourages the EPA to work towards having some kind of
default assumption about hybrid and EV penetration as a starting point; for example, for certain
rulemakings the EPA has made explicit assumptions about EV penetration, so it would also be
important to use those same assumptions in the MOVES model to achieve internal consistency
within EPA. Mr. Hoekzema acknowledged that this task is very complex, but it would be helpful
to have guidance for local communities on how to model these scenarios. He also complimented
the EPA on having the model year forecasting tool that accounted for the drop in vehicle sales
during the last recession He pointed out that it would be good to look at the data for 2020, since
there was likely a downturn in sales again that would need to be accounted for in modeling. Mr.
Choi agreed that the impact of COVID-19 on transportation is interesting and noted that there's a
lot of research being done on how the pandemic has affected a variety of environmental
indicators.

Mr. Bob Meyers asked about the extent to which, when the EPA adjusts MOVES, defeat devices
and tampering are taken into account. Mr. Choi explained that this is a complicated modeling
effort, since you first need to have a good sense of how much dirtier vehicles with tampered
devices are compared to certified, compliant vehicles, as well as the prevalence of these vehicles

-------
locally and nationally. Mr. Choi reiterated that the EPA is interested in looking into this further
and would like to understand this better with more data. Mr. Meyers responded that the EPA
does estimate aggregate level emissions that they think come from tampering and has done some
measurements itself along with other groups, so there is some reference data. He then asked if
this means that MOVES3 does not currently adjust for tampering, and Mr. Choi confirmed that
this is correct.

Mr. Shoaff thanked Mr. Choi for his presentation and everyone for the good discussion. He also
encouraged members to visit the links at the end of the slides, especially if they are interested in
the training Mr. Choi referenced.

OAQPS Air Toxics Strategy — Mike Koerber and Amy Vasu, EPA

Mr. Koerber began by discussing the recommendations that CAAAC produced five years ago
regarding air toxics, which he stated were a significant factor for OAQPS in determining how to
proceed with air toxics issues. He explained that this strategy represents an attempt by the office
to "get its house in order," particularly because their work is often siloed, and they hope that this
new strategy will help them with internal operations and collaborations. Additionally, given how
many bodies deal with air toxics, it is important to be connected internally, with other offices at
the federal level, and with agencies and bodies at the state and local level. Mr. Koerber
highlighted four topic areas from the recommendations that will be covered by the presentation.
First, communication, especially best practices for risk communication and training. Second,
community toxics, including partnering with communities, providing cumulative impact
information, and considering impacts based on race and income. Third, data gaps. And fourth,
highlighting and sharing best practices for dealing with local air toxics issues. Mr. Koerber
thanked everyone for these recommendations and noted that not all recommendations were
possible to address with this strategy.

Ms. Vasu thanked Mr. Koerber for the introduction and Ms. Whitehurst for displaying the slides.
She explained that this is still a draft strategy for OAQPS, and they have been working on
revisions and discussing it with their sister offices in OAR as well as regional offices, but they
have not yet shared it with external partners. Their goal is to finish developing public-facing
materials by January.

Ms. Vasu started her presentation with an overview, noting that OAQPS has been working to
develop a strategy for the Air Toxics Program with a focus on providing a structure for the
program to more effectively address air toxics issues that arise. The EPA has a vision for the air
toxics program that includes having the EPA be the recognized national leader in identifying and
addressing air toxics issues. To achieve this vision, several steps need to be taken, including
building strong partnerships with frequent engagement, a well-organized plan to meet statutory
obligations and to address other air toxics issues, and effective communication with the public.
The core principles of their strategy to accomplish this are to identify and prioritize air toxics
issues, gather and analyze data, manage and mitigate air toxics issues through regulatory and
non-regulatory approaches, and perform outreach. They have developed a 5-step process to

-------
address new and emerging air toxics issues rather than doing this in an ad hoc manner. These
steps are early issue identification, preliminary issue characterization by a team, issue
communication to senior management, development of an analysis or action plan (when
relevant), and implementation of the identified action. The expected results of this process are
that issues can be identified and addressed proactively, and better outcomes can be realized by
dealing with issues in this systematic manner.

Mr. Koerber reiterated that this is still a draft, so they are briefing different people and offices on
it and expect to get good feedback from CAAAC. They also are hoping to have a public-facing
document ready by January so people can better understand the specifics.

Comments and Discussion

Mr. Tim Hunt pointed out that most of these process changes presented appear to be internal, and
asked if there is an external element or an example of a type of issue that might be flagged by
this new process - for example, a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), analytic tool, or source
category. Ms. Vasu answered that the process does apply more broadly and would be able to
cover any type of issue.

Mr. Nickey noted that the air toxics evaluation team appears to be all internal EPA staff, and
asked whether they would consider having members of outside organizations on the team. Ms.
Vasu answered that they haven't thought about that, but the focus of the team is to offer a point
of contact so that anyone from anywhere can raise an issue. The idea for the team is to spend 15
hours or fewer looking at a particular issue, using the resources they have, reaching out for
additional information, and doing a preliminary characterization to bring that information to
management to determine how to appropriately respond, such as creating a 1-2 year project
team, raising awareness, or something else. Ms. Vasu stated that she was not sure about the
benefit of having an outside representative since this is a quick response team, not a project
team.

Mr. Hunt explained that something he's observed in the air toxics program is that a lot of
schedules and workflow are determined by the courts when deadlines are missed. Mr. Hunt
asked how the EPA will deal with existing deadlines and whether part of the strategy is to lay out
a logic for how to proceed with outstanding obligations. Ms. Vasu answered that this is a good
question and noted that there is a group in the office looking at how to streamline the process for
scheduled reviews. Mr. Koerber added that while it's important to be mindful of the CAA and
core air toxics programs, the CAA and emissions standards can't solve every problem, and in
order to have more flexibility, it will help to be better connected internally and externally to get
the right solution for every problem.

Ms. Shannon Broome stated that she applauds the office for thinking about what's going to be
impactful for human health as opposed to pursuing de minimis issues as a result of statutory
obligations and court orders to address pollutants for which the risk is minimal. Ms. Broome

-------
encouraged the EPA to push the envelope on its de minimis authority, which she recognized is a
controversial stance, but she believes this would be more productive when it comes to protecting
underserved communities from undue exposure. Ms. Broome asked whether OAQPS is
coordinating with OTAQ or officials working on Title II. Mr. Koerber reiterated that mobile
sources is a growth area for this strategy, and although it is still a draft, they recognize that they
will need to work across the EPA and other federal offices to address issues correctly. In the near
term, Ms. Vasu had mentioned the possibility that an issue gets identified, the screening team
looks at it, they recommend focusing more on that issue, and then a project team could be
created that might involve OTAQ as well as other related mobile sources offices. However, Mr.
Koerber clarified that for now, this is just looking at stationary sources. Ms. Broome added that
it is also important to consider what local regulations might already exist to avoid placing a
double burden on companies. Mr. Koerber agreed that this speaks to the need to be connected at
multiple levels to avoid layering a federal solution on top of a state solution.

Mr. Flint emphasized the need for putting more thought into communications, especially how to
communicate about toxics, concentrations, susceptibility, risk, and other environmental health
and safety concepts that aren't familiar to non-professionals. Mr. Koerber responded that they
have been working on that a lot over the past couple of years, as it has been a priority for
Administrator Wheeler. He has brought in a dedicated risk communication advisor to help and
has conducted trainings for officials.

Mr. Tomas Carbonell asked the presenters to elaborate more on the role of community
engagement in the overall strategy; what steps are being taken to ensure that communities are
empowered and have the capacity needed to communicate problems and concerns to the agency?
Additionally, is there any step built into the strategy to assess how it is working in terms of
improving public health outcomes? Mr. Koerber responded to the first question, noting that it is
a matter of knowing who the communities are and how to identify them, which is where the
screening team comes in. Typically, outreach is a very broad brush without much focus or
targeted efforts to listen and shape the message appropriately, so this strategy recognizes the
need to improve on that. Mr. Koerber noted that in regard to the second question, things are still
fairly open. People are aware that the office puts out an annual trends report, so that might be a
vehicle to communicate better about air toxics on the national level, and maybe it could include
some case studies, but this is something to work on.

Mr. William Spratlin began by commending OAQPS for making such progress over the years to
arrive at the draft strategy. He explained that when it comes to planning for how to allocate the
office's resources, one suggestion is to think about how to respond to the political realities of
dealing with a community on the ground, especially in a crisis situation. Mr. Spratlin also
suggested that it would be useful to reach out to industries and companies, since they are in those
communities and will be familiar with local opinions and activities in a way that will aid in
communication. Finally, Mr. Spratlin reminded the presenters that although they are working on
strategies to communicate with people who aren't scientific experts, the issue is not only
scientific - some people just do not trust the government, and the EPA needs to figure out how

-------
to contend with that. Mr. Koerber thanked Mr. Spratlin and agreed that as officials from the
federal government, credibility is very important, and they must build trust with the community
by showing that they care about the community's issues. He hopes this strategy will better
facilitate getting the right people involved in decision-making.

Mr. Meyers noted that the EPA regularly conducts a National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA),
with the most recent one being in 2018, and also runs a grant program related to community
toxics. He asked how this new strategy will work with those efforts in terms of risk calculation
and reduction. Mr. Koerber responded with the strategy, their goal is to "fit the puzzle pieces
together" - by determining what information they are gathering and why, and also determining
what data should be gathered and how that data would be used. He noted this information is
currently clearer for the NAAQS program than it is for air toxics. For instance, one question to
be investigated might be, "Is the NATA useful?" The end result of this exercise could be
changes to some programs or re-allocation of resources.

Mr. Bob Hodanbosi wanted to follow up on Mr. Carbonell's comment by drawing attention to
the local air agencies that are doing a good job of working with communities; some reach out
and have training sessions and have periodic meetings with community groups to ensure
consistent communication even prior to having a problem. This provides that when an issue
arises, they have already developed trust and lines of communication. Mr. Hodanbosi
specifically pointed to the Louisville, KY air agency as a good example of a group that uses this
approach but acknowledged that the federal government will always have a slight disadvantage
by coming in as an outsider. He then asked if OAQPS will create a document that goes through
the previous recommendations given by CAAAC and providing a response to each. Mr. Koerber
stated that they could consider doing so if that would be useful, and that they have periodically
gone back and reviewed them while developing the strategy, although some are more relevant
and actionable than others.

Ms. Gillian Mittelstaedt commented that the mission and vision statement pieces were good
ideas, and that the office should circle back with EJ groups and tribal communities to get their
input. Ms. Mittelstaedt also suggested that the EPA continue to collaborate with other partners.
Mr. Koerber noted in response that they are meeting with the National Tribal Air Association
(NTAA) steering committee and executive committee very soon as part of their road show, and
in 2021 they will begin engaging with community groups to get input from those stakeholders.

Mr. Hoekzema commented that the EPA could look at how risk is communicated for the
NAAQS program and apply it to the air toxics program also. He noted that for both programs, it
is not obvious that there is a "safe" level of risk associated with exposure to the pollutants. He
encouraged OAQPS to be thinking about ways to explain the nuances of these standards and
frame risk differently in a positive light focused on public benefit. Mr. Hoekzema also stated that
he does find the NATA helpful, but that it stops short of providing recommended next steps if
risk is at a certain level. He suggested that it might be helpful to states and communities to give
some recommendations or a blueprint that they can follow after reviewing the information in the

-------
report; for example, some voluntary program along the lines of the ones that already exist for
PM and ozone.

COVID-19 and Indoor Airborne Transmission - Paul White, Laura Kolb, and David
Rowson, EPA

Mr. Rowson thanked the members for their presence and noted that they would aim to save the
second half of their time for questions.

Ms. Kolb explained that she would provide a brief overview from the Office of Air and
Radiation on the transmission of COVID indoors, which they have been following for many
months and posting updated information about on their website in both English and Spanish.
COVID mainly spreads from close contact from person to person, but there is some uncertainty
about different transmission pathways; research shows that it can remain airborne for longer
times and distances than previously thought, including beyond the 6ft distance recommended.
The longer individuals occupy a space, the more people there are in a space, and the smaller the
space, the higher the chance is of disease transmission. However, steps can be taken to reduce
transmission, which is the focus of online materials.

Ms. Kolb noted that the layout of a building and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC) system can impact the airborne spread of the virus. Cleaning can't eliminate
transmission on its own, and the EPA recommends increasing the ventilation and filtration of the
air in a space as one layer of precaution. Ventilation is also a critical measure to reduce exposure
to cleaning products, disinfectants, and their byproducts. By themselves, ventilation and
filtration are not sufficient to fully protect from the disease, since airborne transmission is not the
only route of infection, but the evidence supports implementing a variety of measures to reduce
risk.

Ms. Kolb explained that airborne transmission of COVID-19 is a concern because infected
people can expel the virus through the mouth and nose. The number of COVID particles in
aerosols can vary depending on the stage of infection and the person, but they can be released by
an infected individual regardless of symptoms and travel up to 15ft according to recent studies.
The movement of airborne particles, including the distance traveled and the time they can remain
infectious, depends on air conditions. This can be modeled with physical models, and the
importance of different transmission routes is a subject of ongoing research. COVID-19 can
remain airborne in indoor environments for hours, potentially increasing in concentration over
time. Without intervention, the chance of transmission increases over time. Virus containing
particles can float for a long time and will accumulate unless there is sufficient filtration and
ventilation. Often, indoor ventilation cannot be changed or altered, though additional filtration
can be added to most spaces. Sunlight has a germicidal effect outdoors, and people tend to spend
more time together indoors, which makes indoor environments more dangerous.

-------
Ms. Kolb emphasized that it is essential to layer many precautions instead of relying on just one;
limiting indoor occupancy, ventilation - meaning ventilation with air from outside, not just the
recirculation of air - and filtration are key elements of this approach. The CDC and the EPA
agree on these overall recommendations. Also, it is best to filter air using an upgraded MERV-13
filter and place portable air cleaners in places that are more dense or hard to reach. Active areas
of research include aerosol or airborne transmission, how long COVID-19 can survive airborne
transport, and how many virus particles are needed to infect a target.

Mr. Rowson then described the work being done to track and understand airborne transmission
and indoor air concerns to inform a number of different needs; for example, directing research
with ORD and other organizations to identify gaps in understanding, working with other federal
agencies to support the White House Task Force on COVID-19, and developing science and
translating it into public guidance with the CDC. Their website has detailed guides for the
general public focused on indoor air transmission that was developed in coordination with the
CDC. Additionally, there are FAQs geared towards questions from the press and public that have
been coming to the agency. They are also providing technical assistance to certain stakeholders
through webinars and are working with the schools community through a different webinar
series to help them figure out how to manage indoor air quality to limit exposure and
transmission. They are also working to support tribes by partnering with the National Tribal Air
Association (NTAA) and Healthy Homes Network to deliver resources and information for those
communities. Finally, they served in an informal role to help GSA reopen and operate federal
buildings safely.

Mr. White from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) then provided an overview of
research on indoor COVID-19 airborne transmission; in particular, there are two ongoing
projects on this topic. One specific area of concern is the spread of the virus within an office
environment. ORD is hoping to provide information to support managers to make better
evaluations of the potential for exposure and risk associated with employees returning to the
workplace. They also are providing information about the benefits to be gained from fairly
simple mitigation actions.

Comments and Discussion

Ms. Mittelstaedt began by requesting that ORIA consider the public interest when considering
the wood heater donation program. She then noted that based on her research on wood smoke,
she is concerned that during COVID, tribal homes with older wood stoves are experiencing
much higher levels of ultrafine PM pollution within their homes. Ms. Mittelstaedt asked if these
particles are potentially giving COVID particles something to attach to, and if so, if this means
that homes relying on wood heat are at greater risk from COVID. Mr. Rowson responded that
they would take Ms. Mittelstaedt's comment into consideration and mentioned that there is
ongoing research in that area. Ms. Kolb stated that they would get back in touch regarding her
question about wood smoke particles and COVID.

11

-------
Ms. Mary Peveto explained that on the west coast, residents have found themselves in a horrible
situation in 2020 because they were unable to gather indoors due to COVID, but simultaneously
wildfires were creating some of the worst outdoor smoke conditions, which also affected
hospitals. Given that climate change and wildfires will be ongoing issues, Ms. Peveto asked how
the EPA is going to balance the risk of exposure to a viral infection indoors and the risk of being
exposed, through outdoor gatherings or increased ventilation, to harmful outdoor air quality. Mr.
Rowson responded that there are multiple ways of thinking about this issue: what do you do
when there is a situation that requires sheltering indoors in the midst of a contagious pandemic,
and how do you create the technological or behavioral guidance about what an individual should
do if they're sheltering in place from a hazard during a pandemic. He noted that their office is
actively working with both the outdoor and indoor environments groups to develop the right
guidance and identify solutions, such as designating "clean rooms" within a home, that might be
translatable to other circumstances. Mr. Cascio added that ORD is working on offering some
guidance and information based on research projects in Montana and Northern California
focused on indoor and outdoor PM levels during wildfires in different types of buildings and
with different HVAC systems.

Mr. Max Sherman suggested that there is little research to be done now on COVID that will
affect the course of the pandemic. However, it could be helpful to study novel techniques that
could be currently be helpful, such as bipolar ionization, which is a technology designed to
sanitize air spaces and is currently available for purchase Ms. Katherine Ratliff stated that she
agreed with this assessment and that they are honing in on those technologies, especially given
that vendors are eager to have their products evaluated.

Mr. Steven Marcus pointed out that although the discussion has focused primarily on office and
home environments, there are still classroom environments that need to be considered. Mr.

White responded that despite their priority focus in other areas, they hope that some of the
technology and research they are working on will be relevant to schools. He added that with
many researchers all looking into these topics at the same time, the literature should continue to
develop and expand to cover many different areas.

Wrap Up and Public Comments

Mr. Shoaff invited the co-chairs of the CAA 50th Anniversary Report Workgroup to give a brief
introduction on their work and provide information about what members should expect for the
second day of the meeting. Mr. Shoaff also thanked the whole workgroup for their efforts, as
well as the supporting contractors for the group.

Ms. Gail Good expressed excitement on behalf of the workgroup about sharing their work and
discussing the report with CAAAC members. Ms. Good explained that they would cover the
process to date and go through the draft outline, which was shared with the CAAAC in the
meeting invitation for the second day. Following that introduction, they would transition to
breakout groups for individual topics using a different meeting link provided in the agenda. She

-------
mentioned that notes would be taken during each session, and they are most interested in
discussing the challenges and solutions related to the breakout group topics. Ms. Good
encouraged everyone to consider which topics they would want to attend in advance of those
sessions. Ms. Mittelstaedt added that these sessions will be an opportunity for discussion, but
that they are by no means the last chance for CAAAC members to contribute to the report, and
they encourage everyone to share additional thoughts via the issue write-up form and email after
the meeting.

Mr. Shoaff thanked Ms. Good and Ms. Mittelstaedt and reminded everyone that the breakout
session topics and links could be found in the agenda circulated by Ms. Whitehurst. He then
stated that they would proceed with the final item on the agenda: a session to hear any comments
from the public.

Ms. Natalene Cummings stated that although she is not a member of the public, she wanted to
contribute her voice to support Ms. Mittelstaedt's earlier comment about woodstoves. Ms.
Cummings explained that based on her conversations with members of tribes in Region 5,
particularly in Wisconsin, woodstoves are widely used but very rarely EPA certified, and any
help in upgrading those stoves to something safer and cleaner would be very helpful.

Mr. Shoaff thanked Ms. Cummings and noted after a pause that he did not see any other raised
hands from members of the public wishing to comment. Ms. Whitehurst thanked everyone for
their attention and participation and reminded members to join the meeting a few minutes early
the next day to help resolve any technical issues that might come up. Mr. Shoaff then adjourned
the first day of the meeting.

-------
December 9th (Day 2) Introduction

Mr. Shoaff opened the second day of the meeting at 1:00pm on December 9, 2020 by explaining
that the day's discussion would focus on the CAA anniversary report workgroup charge and
progress to date. He also described the agenda for the day, which is shown below.

Virtual Meeting Agenda - Day 2

Time

Item

Presenters/F acilitators

1:00- 1:15pm

Introduction (EPA)

1:15 -2:00pm

Opening of CAA 50 Group
Review of Charge
Report Development Process
Review of Draft Report Outline

Workgroup Co-Chairs
Gillian Mittelstaedt
Gail Good
Bob Meyers

2:00 - 2:05pm

Break

2:05 -2:45pm

Break-Out Groups Session 1

a. Climate/Greenhouse Gases

b. Permitting

Bob Meyers
Shannon Broome

2:45 -3:25pm

Break-Out Groups Session 2

a. Environmental Justice

b. Mobile Sources

c. Measurement and Sensors

Gillian Mittelstaedt
Bob Meyers
Gail Good

3:25 - 4:05pm

Break-Out Groups Session 3

a. Attainment

b. Toxics

c. Other (Open, Could Include Indoor Air)

Gail Good, Andrew Hoekzema

Shannon Broome

Gillian Mittelstaedt, Bob Meyers

4:05 - 4:10pm

Break

4:10 - 4:50pm

Report Out and Discussion (Including EPA
Reaction/Input)

Break-Out Group Facilitators

4:50 - 5:00pm

Wrap-up and End of Meeting (EPA)

Mr. Shoaff noted that the workgroup charge was circulated over the summer of 2020 in
recognition of the 50th anniversary of both the CAA and the EPA, The charge requests feedback
on the key accomplishments of the CAA and advise for the EPA on the remaining challenges
and strategies for addressing them related to the Act. Mr. Shoaff then introduced the workgroup
chairs and thanked them and the full workgroup for their efforts.

Opening of Clean Air Act 5(fh Anniversary Report (CAA 50) Workgroup

Ms. Good thanked Mr. Shoaff for the introduction and Ms. Whitehurst for displaying the
presentation and explained that the co-chairs would talk about how the workgroup has
interpreted EPA's charge and what process they have used to put together the report outline. Ms.
Good noted that when the charge was initially received, the goal was to have a report draft ready

-------
to share with the full CAAAC at this meeting; this was very ambitious, and they wanted to be
able to get a lot of input and feedback and use the report to make useful recommendations, so
they have worked on the outline instead to allow more time to develop a helpful report. They
developed a survey and distributed it to the CAAAC to get feedback, and it is still monitored and
active for any members who want to provide additional feedback. Ms. Good added that their
meetings have centered on drafting the outline, and they can provide more insight into their
meetings and discussions during the breakout sessions. The outline was provided as part of the
meeting materials. Getting good feedback from the full CAAAC is very important to the
workgroup, and Ms. Good emphasized that the discussion during the meeting would not be the
last opportunity to provide input. If anyone has more ideas they want to add after the meeting,
they can reach out to one of the co-chairs. Ms. Good concluded by mentioning that at the next
CAAAC meeting, the workgroup intends to present a draft of the report and solicit feedback
again.

Ms. Mittelstaedt discussed two topics: the input received to date and a few examples of previous
CAAAC reports to provide a sense of the end-goal for the workgroup. First, there was the survey
that was sent out in October; fourteen responses were received, and the link will remain open if
anyone wants to provide further thoughts. Ms. Mittelstaedt noted that the survey is structured
like an issue write-up form so that members can provide more substantial comments that will be
helpful in writing the report. In terms of the responses so far, both the accomplishments and
future challenges provided by respondents span many levels, from specific parts of the CAA to
broader processes or topics. Ms. Mittelstaedt stated that they are prioritizing the future
challenges section of the report, and they strongly value hearing from a diverse set of viewpoints
going forward. In looking at past reports, the recommendations provided by CAAAC have
ranged in the level of detail and addressed areas such as specific provisions or process and
implementation issues. Ms. Mittelstaedt emphasized that with numerous changes to be expected
due to technology, climate change, electrification, and a host of other trends, it is very important
to think about how the EPA can adapt to these challenges and use the CAA to take the agency in
a new and productive direction.

Ms. Good then reiterated how the breakout sessions would work and noted that each would have
facilitators and note takers. The facilitator would begin by giving a quick synopsis of the
workgroup's discussion of the topic to date and highlight areas where they would like feedback
or comments. Ms. Good added that since time is limited, people should keep their comments
focused and specific.

Mr. Meyers then provided an overview of the draft report outline, which was distributed to
CAAAC members prior to the meeting. He emphasized that it isn't set in stone and reminded the
group that EPA's charge asked for it to be divided into two main sections focused on the
accomplishments of the CAA and future challenges that might fall under its scope. The first
section of the outline is the introduction, which includes a summary, description of the process,
and objectives of the report. The next section discusses accomplishments, and it somewhat
follows the structure of the CAA itself. Mr. Meyers noted that the organization of the outline is
not based on importance, and they do want to make sure that everything is included. The third
section discusses future challenges, which is not structured very much yet, but does somewhat

-------
mirror the accomplishments section. Mr. Meyers added that they still need to define each issue
specifically in relation to the CAA, keeping in mind that not everything can be addressed using
the Act. He reiterated the request for CAAAC members to provide feedback on these issues and
point out any others that they might have missed. Finally, the fourth section is for conclusions
and recommendations. The workgroup recognizes there may not always be consensus on
recommendations, and their priority is going to be transparency and providing a diversity of
viewpoints.

Mr. Shoaff thanked the co-chairs for their work and leadership as well as the workgroup
members for their contributions. Mr. Meyers then offered to answer any initial questions from
the CAAAC, as there was a little time left in the schedule. Ms. Broome suggested that someone
explain the breakout sessions again, which Mr. Shoaff did; Ms. Mittelstaedt suggested putting
the links in the meeting chat as well, and Ms. Whitehurst did this.

Mr. Hoekzema asked Mr. Shoaff if he or other EPA staff present had any preliminary reactions
to the outline or what had been presented so far. Mr. Shoaff responded that he was impressed to
date, and that he recognized that the time frame was a challenge. He did not have any specific
comments about the substance of the outline, but he noted that it would be a challenge to
structure and allocate space to the various issues. Mr. Shoaff added that the EPA would
appreciate succinctness where possible, and that they are standing by to provide support to the
extent that they can. He also stated that he is interested in hearing more about the expected time
frame of the report and that it would be great to have progress towards a draft in time for the
spring CAAAC meeting. Mr. Meyers spoke up and said that in terms of support from EPA, the
workgroup might like to have certain technical information from the EPA and the EPA's help
with facilitating briefings with different programmatic personnel to better understand what EPA
is working on and what advice would be most helpful. Mr. Shoaff responded that the EPA would
do their best to answer questions and provide clarity and status reports as needed.

Ms. Mittelstaedt mentioned that there is a lot of work produced around the CAA by a variety of
groups, including the EJ community, scientists, tribal groups, governor's associations, and
others, and this work might be useful to cite or reference in the report so EPA staff can seek out
those materials if they want to look further at a given issue.

Mr. Shoaff then directed meeting attendees to go to the breakout groups links. Below is a
summary of each of the breakout sessions.

-------
Breakout Group Session #la: Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

Moderator: Bob Meyers

Attendeees*:

William Bahnfleth
Tomas Carbonell
Henry Ferland
Jeremy Fincher
Steve Flint
Sara Hayes
Mitch Hescox
Adrienne Hollis
Tim Hunt
Lee Logan
Steven Marcus
Eric Massey

Gillian Mittelstaedt
Heather Olson
Jacob Palmieri
Stuart Parker
Mike Pring
Clay Pope
Kim Scarborough
Kris Ray
Max Sherman
Jamie Song
Victoria Sullivan
Bob Wyman

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Mr. Bob Meyers, one of the workgroup co-chairs, opened the discussion by explaining that the
workgroup is interested in input around climate and greenhouse gases in terms of the
accomplishments of the CAA, future challenges, and recommendations for how to use the CAA
to address those issues. Mr. Meyers then briefly described how climate and the CAA have
historically interacted, starting with the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in
2007 and the endangerment finding that was finalized at the end of 2009. Mr. Meyers also noted
that most EPA activity in this area has focused on mobile sources; for example, the light and
heavy-duty vehicle standards established under Obama, and the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
(SAFE) Vehicles Rule under Trump. Finally, Mr. Meyers added that the workgroup discussion
to date had focused more on future challenges than past successes, that the interpretation of
accomplishments might be controversial, and that they are interested in hearing more about how
to deal with other greenhouse gases that are not regulated as criteria air pollutants.

Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

-------
• The power sector remains a major source of climate pollution.

• There is a lack of resources for states to address climate change.

• There are issues regarding the scope of the EPA's authority to address this issue. Also,
there is a likelihood of the EPA being challenged in court for any rulemakings in this
area.

• Due to uncertainty around how regulations will change, industries lack the ability to plan
for the future.

• For carbon offsets, there are questions about how they will be defined, generated,
accredited, traded, and standardized nationally.

• Replacing natural gas with hydrogen fuel will increase NOx emissions, so this should not
be considered a silver bullet solution.

• The goal should be to decrease GHG emissions, not just shift them internationally; border
adjustments could be an important factor.

• There is academic dispute around the models for conducting life-cycle analyses. For
example, there are problems with double counting and determining where to place credit
or burden. Someone needs to take a leadership role in standardizing this.

• The EPA is limited by its budget and smaller staff. The report should acknowledge not
only potential roles for the EPA to play, but also the Agency's capacity to play those
roles.

• There has been a decline in public understanding and agreement around climate change.

• There is a need for interagency cooperation on this issue.

• On the part of the energy providers, developing new technologies is important.

• It is critical to have good data and information.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address climate and greenhouse gas issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to
incorporate into the report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• The report should send the clear message that climate change is an existential threat that
the EPA needs to address in a substantial and serious way.

• The EPA has clear authority to regulate mobile sources and methane emissions from oil
and gas production and can go further in these areas.

• The EPA should be willing to be aggressive on this issue when Congress is deadlocked.

• One task the EPA could take on now is in enhancing the available information tools.

-------
• The lifecycle of industries and products should be considered in determining total carbon
emissions from the production and use of that product.

• Tools should be devised to help consumers choose between low and high-carbon
footprint products and services.

• Voluntary corporate activities should be incentivized.

• The EPA should partner with states to provide clearinghouses, model rules/legislation,
and other support. This way, the EPA can take advantage of more flexible state
authorities to achieve objectives that are less clearly authorized under the CAA.

• Regarding authority, the EPA could consider trade tools; use section 115 that provides
reciprocity by trading partners.

• One strategy to reduce GHGs could be to regulate other pollutants for their GHG co-
pollutant benefits (i.e., address GHGs by targeting specific CAPs).

• To help industries plan and comply more effectively, the EPA should provide consistent
directions, long term goals, and transparency.

• The EPA should consider consumer and investor demand for cleaner energy and how to
incentivize that transition.

• The EPA could support research and development programs to improve technological
capabilities.

• In developing any new regulations or programs, the EPA should be careful to avoid
conflicting or overlapping with other Federal and state programs or regulations.

• To improve resource efficiency for EPA and industries, the permitting process should be
streamlined.

• The EPA should take a leadership role in standardizing a system for accounting and
trading offsets and carbon credits and work with other agencies and states on this issue.

• The EPA should improve education about climate change to build public support, address
declining consensus about climate change and debunk increasing misinformation.

Breakout Group Session #lb: Permitting
Moderator: Shannon Broome

Attendees*:

Natalene Cummings
Veronica Figieroa
Gail Good
Robert Hodanbosi,

Andrew Hoekzema
Jason Howanitz,

Dan Nickey

-------
William Spratlin,

Mary Uhl

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Everyone was welcomed to the meeting and introductions were made by workgroup members in
attendance of the first breakout group session on the topic of Permitting. The moderator laid out
the general objectives of the breakout group session. These objectives include recognizing
successes in permitting, identifying current/future challenges related to permitting, and
discussion how these topics would be written up in the anniversary report.

Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

• The Prevention of Significant (PSD) framework is a great accomplishment.

• The Title V program is another accomplishment made in permitting under the CAA.

• An additional success of CAA permitting is the small business assistance program under
the Title V program. Specifically, the small business assistance program is included
under section 507 of the CAA and is funded by the fees generated under the Title V
program. Prior to permitting, there was no support for small businesses, and this has been
a tremendous improvement. The small business assistance program gives direct grants to
facilities to install controls, and the CAA is the only mechanism for direct funding.

• Additional successes under CAA permitting include the tribal minor source review
program and funding made available for tribal governments.

• With the Title V program funding based on emissions, and with emissions going down
(which the commenter noted is great), available funds are also going down which is
already an issue in some states where facilities and/or power plants have shut down.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address permitting issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to incorporate into the
report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• One suggestion regarding funding was to revise the CAA, however other attendees
expressed concern with opening this issue back up.

• States could be encouraged to collect fees above the minimum to fund their permitting
programs, it is at the States' discretion to collect more than the presumptive minimum.

-------
• The Title V program could be re-designed to collect fees based on the sources it is
covering, i.e., "category" fees (e.g., electric generating units, etc.) in order to collect fees
for what the work really is.

• For permit streamlining, the Ohio EPA serves as a good model the EPA could use or
point to other state agencies to follow how to streamline permitting.

Breakout Group Session #2a: Environmental Justice (EJ)

Moderator: Gillian Mittelstaedt

Attendees*:

William Bahnfleth,

Tomas Carbonell
Natalene Cummings
Jeremy Fincher
Deana Gonzales
Zachary Good
Sara Hayes
Mitch Hescox,

Adrienne Hollis
Jason Howanitz
Eric Massey
Mary Peveto
Kim Scarborough
Mary Uhl,

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Ms. Mittelstaedt welcomed everyone to the meeting. She noted that the EPA specifically
requested EJ to be included in the report. She also mentioned that in the survey sent to the
CAAAC members, comments were received that emphasized the importance of making EJ
programs transparent, sensitive to community interests, and driven by scientific and economic
information. She remarked that there has been a lot of change and development in
conversation/understanding of EJ since the CAA was created. Since that time, the EPA has
created the EJ office, EJ-specific grant programs were established, EJ priorities were integrated
into other funding opportunities, data collection and modeling was developed for EJ purposes,
and collaborative partnerships have been established (NEJAC, Federal Interagency Workgroup
on EJ). Ms. Mittelstaedt then requested input from the attendees regarding accomplishments and
future challenges and solutions related to the CAA and EJ.

-------
Discussion of Topics to Include in the Report

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

• Education is important in helping communities understand the issues.

• The EPA needs to think about how to help impacted communities, how to view problems
from perspectives other than just economic/business-oriented and how to involve
communities in decision-making.

• Accessibility/affordability of monitoring technology/data is an issue.

• It is important for air monitoring to be conducted in communities and not only at the
facility fenceline.

• Sometimes communities are polluted not by a single large source, but many smaller
sources, which are more difficult to regulate.

• There are differences in how states approach EJ issues, which is not standardized or
consistent, and some are more aggressive than others.

• There is a lack of regulatory authority or CAA language to tackle some issues.

• There are limits to relying on monitoring data alone to determine whether there is an
issue in a community. The data is not always representative.

• EJ is a huge topic that encompasses many other issues and affects different groups of
people; covering it adequately will necessarily make the report longer, but this is still
important to do.

• Enforcement is important.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address EJ issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to incorporate into the report
as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• The EPA should strengthen its National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(NEJAC) and the Federal Interagency Workgroup on EJ and revisit how people are
chosen for the NEJAC. There has been criticism that it currently is based more on
likeability than qualifications.

• The EPA should focus on providing a just transition for fossil fuel workers.

• To improve the environment in EJ communities, the EPA should consider all actions,
from planting trees to electrification of bus lines, and everything in between.

• The EPA should encourage community engagement and empowerment to make
communities part of the processes and solutions.

-------
• There needs to be recognition of the limits of what air pollution agencies can actually do,
for example, redlining is out of their control.

• There has been a lot of conversation and planning around EJ, but real action is also
needed to solve problems.

• The EPA should work to find ways to incorporate citizen science into their efforts.

• In the report, EJ should be integrated across all issues rather than in a separate
subsection.

• EJ concerns and cumulative impacts should be integrated into the standard-setting
process under the CAA.

• The rulemaking offices at the EPA need to work with other offices within EPA as well as
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make sure EJ standards are enforced. There is also a
need for something that will work on both state and federal levels.

• Better support and resources should be provided to state and local agencies beyond just
documents and website materials.

• The EPA should allow more opportunities for communities to participate in the public
comment process on rulemakings.

Breakout Group Session #2b: Mobile Sources
Moderator: Bob Meyers

Attendeees*:

Bob Wyman
Clay Pope
Jamie Song
Steve Flint
Steven Marcus
Stuart Parker
Victoria Sullivan

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Everyone was welcomed to the meeting and introductions were made by the attendees of the first
breakout group session on the topic of Mobile Sources. The moderator, Bob Meyers, began by
summarizing the discussions the workgroup has had so far regarding the successes and
challenges of the Clean Air Act regarding emissions from mobile sources.

-------
Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

• One major success in this area has been getting the lead out of gasoline.

• Another key success for mobile sources has been the increases in stringency of criteria
pollutant standards for fuels. Fuel sulfur content has also been greatly reduced.

• Another success has been the advancement in technology and especially electrification,
which was enabled by Sections 209 and 177 of the Act.

• Fuel standards have effects as soon as the fuel is in place, rather than requiring a waiting
period for the fleet to turn over to realize emissions reductions.

• Gasoline is still the largest source of atmospheric benzene, and motor vehicles are the
largest source of GHGs.

• There may be a downturn in mass transit that lasts forever due to COVID.

• One attendee noted that if the EPA is not the one to set standards, the question is how the
EPA can encourage standardization. Another attendee commented that this is not a new
issue, and the marketplace will likely fix it. There was discussion about how the better
technology does not always win, such as in the VHS vs. Betamax battle.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address mobile source pollution issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to
incorporate into the report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) grows when the economy grows, and it is best not to try to
contain VMT through policies or regulations.

• There is an increasing consensus that the future light-duty fleet will be electric, but for
trucks, there will likely be a switch to other fuel sources. There needs to be thought given
to long-term standards that align with these realities and that minimize the investments
needed to improve old technologies.

• The EPA may need to decouple itself from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) in developing standards.

• Regarding vehicle electrification and the needed infrastructure, the EPA should not be
picking technology winners or losers.

• Agencies should convene discussions on how to move forward with a modern
transportation system. A broad-based dialogue would likely be fruitful, is absolutely
warranted, and should be recommended in this report.

• There should be some discussion in the report about the transition in original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) to hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric vehicles (BEVs).

-------
• The US should move toward zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) so that the issue is addressed
here rather than in China.

• To encourage a proliferation of BEVs, there needs to be interoperability in the systems.

• The EPA could subsidize charges to encourage ZEVs and BEVs.

• While discussion today so far is suggesting a shift in the source of fuel for mobile
sources to utilities, the report should acknowledge that the workgroup is not suggesting
driving the oil and gas industry out of business.

• Any new system needs to recognize early adopters of technologies and account for those
that have had sunk costs rather than just recognizing the new players.

• The EPA could work with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to ensure
that renewable energy is used. The goal is to reduce emissions in total, not just shift them
from the mobile sources to utilities.

Breakout Group Session #2c: Measurement and Sensors
Moderator: Gail Good

Attendees:

Veronica Figueroa
Robert Hodanbosi,

Andrew Hoekzema
Gary Jones
Dan Nickey
Kris Ray
William Spratlin

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Everyone was welcomed to the second breakout group session on the topic of measurement and
sensors. The general objectives were laid out, which were to recognize successes and identify
future challenges related measurement and sensors. The moderator also wanted to make sure the
group discussed the role of the EPA in this work, the citizen aspect, as well as the area of
communication.

-------
Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

• There has been a lot of progress in this area, from using wet chemistry in the beginning
to computer analysis today.

• There has also been notable advancement in sensor technology.

• AirNow Fire is an example of how data from low-cost sensors are used to track and
present air quality to the public. It is exciting that there is emerging technology that
supplements existing stationary monitors that are supposed to represent a whole area.

• Regarding personal sensors, it is a challenge to determine exactly how the data obtained
can be used.

• One issue with personal sensors is the timeframe used when collecting data and how that
timeframe is related to public health data. Another issue is determining the quality of the
data.

• There is an increasing trend in use as these sensors become more and more available.
There is also better sensor technology.

• The PurpleAir personal air pollution monitor is an example of a new sensor that has been
recognized by air agencies. The EPA can influence the market and establish guidance to
steer development and progress in this area of personal exposure monitors.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address measurement and sensor issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to
incorporate into the report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• It would be helpful for the report to include background information regarding the
improvements that have been made in this area.

• There needs to be guidance around sensor data parameters.

• The EPA needs to continue to consider how to communicate sensor data to the public.

• The EPA should work with state and local air agencies in this area. The EPA already
requires states to review their monitoring networks.

At the conclusion of the session, it was noted that the report will identify successes and
highlights around measurements and sensors and advancement in technology. It was also noted
that as discussed during the session, particulate measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 continually
go to AirNow. It was further noted that the EPA can be more precise now with the
improvements that have been made in measurement technology.

-------
Breakout Group Session #3a: Attainment

Moderator: Gail Good, Andrew Hoekzema

Attendees*:

Natalene Cummings
Veronica Figueroa
Steven Flint
Zachary Good
Robert Hodanbosi
Gary Jones
Michael Lebeis,

Eric Massey
Bob Meyers
Stuart Parker
Clay Pope
Kim Scarborough
William Spratlin
Victoria Sullivan
Mary Uhl,

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Ms. Gail Good, one of the workgroup co-chairs, opened the discussion by reviewing the
objectives for the session: first, looking retrospectively at the accomplishments of the CAA, and
second, considering future challenges and solutions related to the CAA and attainment. Mr.
Andrew Hoekzema, one of the workgroup members, added that the workgroup's discussions had
mostly focused on the NAAQS review process, area designations, SIP requirements, interstate
transport, and transportation conformity. Mr. Hoekzema requested input related to those specific
issues from the attendees.

Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

•	The NAAQS reviews typically take many years, and it is an issue that they are not done
on schedule.

•	A question is what should be done with existing NAAQS when revising a NAAQS
(revoke?).

•	Where science indicates there is no clear health threshold, it is not clear how the
pollutants should be handled.

27

-------
• It is not clear how areas that are not attaining a NAAQS but were not designated
nonattainment after the last review process should be handled. There is no clear timeline
or requirement for designation.

• There is still no comprehensive framework for dealing with interstate transport.

• It is not clear whether transportation conformity work is actually producing
environmental benefit. Perhaps it could be done differently.

• International transport plays a larger role as the NAAQS are lowered.

• CAA provision 179b only freezes requirements but does not encourage attainment, and it
can be a burden to do the necessary inventories.

• There is an excessive amount of documentation and resources required to report
exceptional events. This is perhaps not the best use of state resources if the EPA can
track, provide information, or help flag potential exceptional events.

• There is a lack of consistency in reviews of exceptional events reports. This can present a
potential equity issue in how they are evaluated.

• The impacts of weather and climate change on the concentrations of certain pollutants,
especially ozone, is an issue for NAAQS attainment.

• Domestic transportation is an issue. There are impacts from upwind states on downwind
states. This is especially an issue in the northeast. There is limited ability to sue upwind
states.

• There are merits to modeling and monitoring. Neither provides a complete picture, and
there are different limitations and benefits of each.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address attainment issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to incorporate into the
report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• The EPA should determine whether it can use CAA subpart 1 for ozone nonattainment or
the more prescriptive subpart 2.

• The EPA needs to ensure that the tools are in place for states dealing with international
transport for attainment of the NAAQS and regional haze rules. One area where help is
needed is in the determination of the proportion of nonattainment that is due to
international transport, especially since international data can sometimes lag by a decade
or more.

• Additional modeling and projections from the EPA would be helpful to state and local
governments to use in developing SIPs or making predictions regarding attainment.

-------
• The EPA needs to standardize and streamline how exceptional events are evaluated and
also provide more assistance to states regarding exceptional events.

• In the NAAQS review process, the form of the NAAQS should be reassessed in addition
to the level. This would be appropriate, and there could be benefits to changes in the
form.

• The EPA should consider conducting a rulemaking to define how attainment designations
are made. This would allow for public comment on the process and could be an action to
codify the current guidelines.

• Some parts of the designation guidelines are out of date and need updating, such as
jurisdictional boundaries.

Breakout Group Session #3b: Toxics
Moderator: Shannon Broome

Attendees*:

Tomas Carbonell
Jeremy Fincher
Jason Howanitz
Robert Meyers
Dan Nickey

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Everyone was welcomed to the third breakout group session on the topic of air toxics. The main
objectives were to recognize successes and identify future challenges related to air toxics. The
moderator summarized some of the primary programs that cover toxics, including the maximum
achievable control technology standards (MACT) program, the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) program, and the urban air toxics program. The various programs related to air
toxics are covered under different subsections of CAA section 112.

Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

• One success is that the EPA's "once-in, always-in" policy that had hindered pollution
prevention for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) for many years has recently been
rescinded.

-------
• Another success is that the EPA has issued many RTR rules.

• As part of a new effort, the EPA has started The School Air Toxics Monitoring Initiative
(note: this initiative will monitor the outdoor air toxics around schools).

• The National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) was recognized as a success by the group,
but the group also mentioned that there are remaining opportunities in this area.

• Another area of progress, but that was identified as also an opportunity, is the
implementation of the fenceline air monitoring program at petroleum refineries.

• A future challenge or area for growth is with how residual risk is characterized and
communicated.

• The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule has been finalized.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address air toxics issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to incorporate into the
report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• Concerning NATA, there is a time lag that needs to be shortened because the emissions
data is outdated by the time it is published.

• NATA needs to include accurate data to avoid the illusion of higher risk levels than what
really exists.

• There is a need for a plain language translation of regulations. For example, there are a
series of rules that cover chemical plants that cite and refer to several other rules, which
make the rules difficult to follow and understand.

• It would be beneficial to show the before and after results of specific rules across the
country.

• The EPA could expand fenceline monitoring programs to other facilities or industries.

• There are legitimate concerns related to hot spots, which is the confluence of emissions
from many sources. This has not been the focus of RTRs, but it is an important issue.

Breakout Group Session #3c: Other (including indoor air)

Moderator: Gillian Mittelstaedt

Attendees*:

Adrienne Hollis
William Bahnfleth
Kris Ray
Mary Peveto
Sara Hayes

-------
Steven Marcus

* Other participants in attendance at this virtual meeting included staff from the EPA and SC&A
Inc. (EPA contractor).

Welcome. Introduction and Overview

Everyone was welcomed to the third breakout group session on the topic of indoor air and other
issues. The main objectives were to recognize successes and identify future challenges related to
indoor air and to also discuss other issues that attendees wished to introduce. The moderator,
Gillian Mittelstaedt, summarized some of the primary discussions the workgroup has had so far
regarding the successes and challenges of the Clean Air Act regarding indoor air quality.

Discussion Topics

Areas of discussion and comments made during the session included the following:

• Considering EJ, energy efficiency has a role to play for indoor air quality, such as in
having affordable air conditioning to filter the air.

• The EPA needs teeth or regulatory power to address indoor air and to also address other
areas, such as extreme events and climate change.

• In Eastern Washington, exposure to wildfire smoke is the biggest concern. Reducing PM,
as well as CO and CO2, exposure on a long-term basis would be helpful rather than
thinking about these exposures on a 1-hour or 8-hour basis. The first step would be to
have everyone develop a smoke-ready plan for their buildings and vehicles.

• Work is being done in Oregon to try to protect students in schools from pollution, such as
from wildfires. Engineering standards for HVAC systems are needed to address pollution
from outdoor air infiltration and indoor air recirculation.

• The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) has ventilation standards that specifically reference the NAAQS, but
ASHRAE is a bit constrained related to ambient air quality and also for events like
wildfires.

Suggestions for Solutions

Breakout session attendees offered the following suggestions regarding the use of the CAA to
address indoor air issues in the future, which the workgroup could choose to incorporate into the
report as proposals for how the EPA can proceed:

• The EPA could drive the building industry toward developing engineering standards for
HVAC systems to address pollution infiltration and recirculation.

• COVID-19 will spark standards related to infection control, and this present a prime
opportunity to also develop related standards for indoor air quality. It was noted that

-------
some of the largest outbreaks of COVID-19, such as in Italy, were associated with high
levels of ambient PM.

• While it does not appear that the CAA could provide authority to address indoor air
quality through improved energy efficiency, energy efficiency is a prime way to address
climate change. The EPA could provide leadership, such as in SIP planning, to encourage
energy efficiency, which could produce co-benefits for indoor air.

• The EPA should determine how energy efficiency credits can be given in SIPs.

• Due to the CAA's limitations, consideration should be given to authorities that could
improve indoor air by way of improving outdoor air.

• More medical doctors should be involved in the process of advising the EPA on indoor
air quality and other pollution-related issues.

Report Out and Discussion

Mr. Shoaff welcomed everyone back to the main meeting and asked the co-chairs to direct how
they would like the sharing session to go. Mr. Meyers responded that it would make sense to
follow the order on the agenda and asked how much time they would have. Mr. Shoaff answered
that to cover eight sessions in 40 minutes, each session could have five minutes, and he
requested that the climate and GHG session go first.

Mr. Meyers presented on behalf of the climate and GHG group. He noted that several members
of the session emphasized the need to treat climate change as an existential threat and the
importance of the EPA being willing to take substantial actions, although it would obviously be
necessary to coordinate with other agencies. Some suggestions included relying on section 115
of the CAA in addition to previously used authorities. The EPA could also consider co-pollutants
- that is, targeting other emissions that are often associated with CO2 in order to achieve GHG
reductions. The group also discussed life cycle and GHG accounting, such as for building
materials, or putting labels on consumer products. Mr. Meyers concluded that the discussion
covered a lot of ground, the challenge will be understanding that there are going to be a diverse
set of perspectives on what the EPA can do under the authority of the CAA. The general
consensus is that climate change is a major challenge, and the EPA should continue to invite
input from CAAAC on this subject.

Mr. Shoaff asked if anyone had questions for Mr. Meyers. Ms. Broome asked if he could clarify
what he meant by product labelling. Mr. Meyers responded that the group discussed what the
private sector has done in terms of carbon accounting, specifically for wood products used in
construction, and that one way of thinking about it would be considering carbon intensity.

Next, Ms. Broome presented on behalf of the permitting breakout group. The group noted that
the frameworks for permitting and attainment were accomplishments, as well as the minor NSR
programs and the ability of states to tailor them according to local needs. They also discussed the
small business assistance programs, which are unique to the CAA and helpful. In terms of
challenges, the structure of fees will need to be reconsidered because revenue will decline as

-------
emissions go down. Permit trading, PSD monitoring requirements, transparency around
modeling, and access to data were identified as other challenges. There were no questions from
the group for Ms. Broome.

Next, Ms. Mittelstaedt presented on behalf of the EJ group. For accomplishments, they discussed
the establishment of the EJ office, specific programs and grants, and the fact that EJ priorities
appear across funding sources. For future challenges, they identified education, the task of
learning from impacted communities, inconsistencies in enforcement across state and local areas,
and the fact that engagement still needs to become more robust to address issues.

Mr. Meyers then presented on behalf of the mobile sources breakout group. For
accomplishments, they identified vehicle technology improvements, tighter standards,
addressing ozone through catalytic converters, sulfur and CAP standards, and fuel programs. For
future challenges, they discussed the California waiver, electrification, infrastructure equity,
access to charging, how to reward early adopters, and the geographic shift in emissions from
zero emission vehicles to utilities. Mr. Meyers also mentioned their conversation about the role
of the private sector and demand-driven changes.

Next, Ms. Good presented on behalf of the measurement and sensors group. The group focused
on monitoring technology and acknowledged that it has come a long way. Some of the
challenges are focused on the use of technology, including accuracy, standardization, and how
measurements are communicated. For successes, they talked about the Air Quality Index.
However, Ms. Good stated that it would be helpful to get more updates on the work EPA is
currently doing. Mr. Hoekzema, who also facilitated the session, added that one idea they
discussed was to make the placement of regulatory monitors part of the review process.

Mr. Hoekzema then presented on behalf of the attainment breakout group. He stated that there
was good feedback on four out of five issues that they wanted to discuss. For NAAQS reviews,
the EPA has tended lately to not evaluate potential changes to the form of the NAAQS, but in
light of higher year-to-year variability, international impacts, and climate change, they proposed
that the EPA could spend more time and effort looking at the standards' formats to account for
limitations in their ability to control pollution. For designations, the EPA has guidance
documents that govern criteria and processes, but the group suggested that it might be more
appropriate to do this in a rulemaking. Additionally, they discussed the merits of monitors vs.
modeling, out of cycle designations, and using modeling to classify ozone designations rather
than the current system, which causes marginal classifications and does not encourage better
planning. For SIP requirements, the group discussed the lack of offsets for existing
nonattainment areas and the need for more information about the extent of influence of
international emissions, especially for smaller states that can't afford to conduct their own
modeling. For exceptional events, there is a huge amount of documentation required for just one
event, and Mr. Hoekzema indicated that some people had thoughts about the equity of how those
events are handled across states and regions and whether it is appropriate to give leeway to states
who avoided nonattainment designations as a result of these events. The group also discussed the
need to facilitate the ability of states to remove old controls that are now unnecessary. Finally,

-------
for interstate transport, the group thought it was important from an equity standpoint to think
about timing, the extent to which states are impacted by other states, and how to prevent states
from needing to overcompensate for others.

Next, Ms. Broome presented on behalf of the toxics group. Overall, she described there being
consensus that the EPA has accomplished a great deal by conducting the MACT reviews on an
aggressive schedule. Other accomplishments include residual risk determinations and analyses,
pollution prevention, the school air toxics initiative, the EPA's practice of recognizing impacts
on small businesses and communication with businesses, and the urban air toxics strategy.

Future challenges identified include dealing with the time lag of NAT A, improving resource
allocation to get more accurate data, creating plain language translations of regulations,
assessment of the effectiveness of rules through future monitoring and fence-line monitoring,
managing the impacts of area source rules on small businesses, and the MATS rule.

Lastly, Ms. Mittelstaedt presented on behalf of the "Other" breakout group, which was created to
cover other topics that aren't related to specific statues or provisions of the CAA, including
indoor air quality. The group primarily discussed indoor air, climate change, and EJ, which Ms.
Mittelstaedt noted are all interconnected issues. Although the CAA does not explicitly address
indoor air, intrusion rates indicate that outdoor pollutants generally enter indoor spaces at
concentrations up to 70%. Given that we spend about 97% of our time in homes, schools,
vehicles, and workplaces, it is very important for the EPA to consider how to regulate ambient
spaces. In terms of challenges going forward, climate change was identified as a major issue that
will affect many areas over time, including by driving people indoors more and exacerbating EJ
issues. Further integration and collaboration with the medical community were also proposed.
Ms. Mittelstaedt concluded that these issues are important for the EPA to address, but it is not
clear whether the levers of the CAA are appropriate to use.

Wrap-Up and End of Meeting

Mr. Shoaff thanked each of the presenters and asked whether the co-chairs had any comments
they wanted to make regarding the next steps for the workgroup and the report. Mr. Meyers
responded that they need to begin actually writing the report, and while they already have a
small amount of content prepared, this will be a huge task, and they're not sure how long it will
take given not only the quantity of material but also the complexity of the issues being
addressed. Mr. Meyers reiterated that they want the report to be as helpful, substantial,
insightful, and complete as possible, so they invite participation by the whole CAAAC
throughout the process. Ms. Mittelstaedt concurred with this assessment and recognized that
there is a huge wealth of knowledge and experience among CAAAC members and taking
advantage of that resource will make the report much better. She added that including
perspectives from the field will be very useful for EPA.

Mr. Shoaff asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Hoekzema thanked the co-chairs for
their help and the EPA for allowing the workgroup to have such flexibility in formulating the
report. He also encouraged the other CAAAC members to view the report as a huge opportunity
to contribute their ideas and perspectives to a report that will be lasting and hopefully impactful.

-------
He requested that they follow up and share more information later if they want. Mr. Hoekzema
then expressed that he hopes to present a draft and get approval at the next CAAAC meeting.
Mr. Shoaff noted that the timing is flexible, and it would be great to be able to host the meeting
in person, although they don't know the time horizon yet. He added that the EPA would stand by
to assist with the report however they can.

Mr. Flint then pointed out that workgroup chairs can start by reaching out to the people who
participated in each breakout group to help with the report writing. He also expressed agreement
with Mr. Hoekzema's comment, stating that this is an opportunity for everyone to accomplish
what he believes they joined the committee to do: put forth recommendations for the EPA to
continue responding to challenges through the provisions of the CAA. Mr. Flint also expressed
that he was disappointed by the previous day's meeting when Ms. Austin was not able to stay
and participate in discussion longer.

Mr. Shoaff thanked Mr. Flint for his comment and proposed to wrap up the meeting. He thanked
everyone for their time and participation and expressed enthusiasm about seeing their
recommendations and advice through the report. Mr. Shoaff also reminded members that they
welcome feedback on the issues that were discussed on the first day and thanked the workgroup
co-chairs and members for their hard work. Finally, he thanked Mr. Jonathan Lubetsky, Ms.
Whitehurst, and Ms. Stobert for their support with the meeting, wished everyone a healthy
holiday season, and stated that they would be in touch about scheduling for the spring meeting.
Ms. Whitehurst also thanked everyone, reminded them to stay tuned for the date of the next
meeting, and encouraged them to email her if they have questions. Ms. Whitehurst then
adjourned the meeting.

-------
Attachment 1

C\\\C Meeting Attendance List

Co in in il 1 cc > 1 em hers

Nsi me

()rg:ini/;ilion

Dr. William Bahnfleth

Penn State University

John Booher

Briggs and Stratton

Shannon Broome

Hunton Andres Kurth

Deborah Brown

American Lung Association

Tomas Carbonell

Environmental Defense Fund

Natalene Cummings

Forest County Potawatomi Community

Veronica Figueroa

Mosaic Fertilizer

Jeremy Fincher

Sac and Fox Nation

Steven Flint

New York Department of Environmental Conservation

Gail Good

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Sara Hayes

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

Mitchell Hescox

Evangelical Environmental Network

Bob Hodanbosi

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Andrew Hoekzema

Capital Area Council of Governments

Dr. Adrienne Hollis

Union of Concerned Scientists

Jason Howanitz

Jefferson County Department of Health

Timothy Hunt

American Forest and Paper Association, American Wood
Council

Elizabeth Jacobs

Akwesasne Housing Authority

Gary Jones

Specialty Graphic Imaging Association Foundation

Dr. Steven Marcus

Rutgers University

Eric Massey

APS

Robert Meyers

Crowell and Moring

Gillian Mittelstaedt

Tribal Healthy Homes Network

Daniel Nickey

Iowa Waste Reduction Center Business and Community
Services

Mary Peveto

Neighbors for Clean Air

Clay Pope

Consultant

Kris Ray

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation

Maria Robinson

Massachusetts House of Representatives

Kimberly Scarborough

Public Service Electric & Gas

Dr. Max Sherman

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

John Shoaff

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

William Spratlin

Aptim Environment and Infrastructure

Ted Steichen

American Petroleum Institute

36

-------
Vickie Sullivan

Duke Energy

Mary Uhl

Western States Air Resources Council

T.J. Wallington

Ford Motor Company

Shanika Whitehurst

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert Wyman

Latham and Watkins, LLP, National Climate Coalition

Other Attendees

Anne Austin

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Wayne Cascio

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

David Choi

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rachel Feinstein

(not identified)

Deana Gonzales

(not identified)

Zachary Good

(not identified)

David Harlow

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Meagan Harvey

(not identified)

Catrice Jefferson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Miles Keogh

(not identified)

John Kinsman

(not identified)

Mike Koerber

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Laura Kolb

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Michael Lebeis

(not identified)

Jonathan Lubetsky

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Wendy McQuilken

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Heather Olson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jacob Palmieri

(not identified)

Stuart Parker

(not identified)

Brendan Philip

(not identified)

Mike Pring

(not identified)

Sean Reilly

(not identified)

David Rowson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Kathryn Sargeant

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Jamie Song

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Whitney Tull

(not identified)

Amy Vasu

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Paul White

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contractor Support

Lesley Stobert

SC&A, Inc.

Margaret Overton

SC&A, Inc.

Tanya Parise

SC&A, Inc.

37

-------