Federal Advisory Committee Act Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Meeting Summary September 26-27 2018

Federal Advisory Committee Act
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
Meeting Summary

September 26-27, 2018
The Holiday Inn, Ballston
Arlington, VA

Opening Session

Mr. Larry Weinstock with the EPA's Office of Air Policy and Program Support called the
meeting to order at 1:00 pm on September 26, 2018. Mr. Weinstock welcomed everyone to the
meeting and thanked attendees for taking the time to attend this meeting. Mr. Weinstock
introduced himself as the new Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Designed Federal
Officer (DFO). Mr. Weinstock will be acting as the liaison between the CAAAC board and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the meeting is to present and discuss
the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) initiatives. More information on the purpose of the
committee is available on the CAAAC website (https://www.epa.gov/caaac). The CAAAC
website will also include all the presentations that will be given today. A summary of the
meeting will be available on the CAAAC website within 90 days. Mr. Weinstock acknowledged
that in addition to the folks attending the meeting in person, there are additional people joining
via the phone. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, which the CAAAC is
chartered under, there will be an opportunity for public comment at the end of the meeting.

Mr. John Shoaff, the Director of the EPA's Office of Air Policy and Program Support
introduced himself and noted that he will be the facilitator of the group today and tomorrow.
Mr. Shoaff thanked everyone for being present and asked the committee members to introduce
themselves. The list of meeting attendees is provided as Attachment A to this summary. The
meeting agenda is provided as Attachment B.

Presentation: AirNow Undate

Mr. Phil Dickerson with the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
provided a summary of the AirNow system, which Mr. Dickerson has been involved with since
the inception of the system in 1998. AirNow is a year-round 24/7 system that provides real-
time ozone and particle data for 50 states, six Canadian Provinces, and 24 U.S. National Parks.
Based on data originating from state and local agencies, the system provides next-day Air
Quality Index (AQI) forecasts for nearly 500 cities. Mr. Dickerson noted that several audiences
are served by this system, including the public, governmental agencies, emergency responders,
and researchers. He noted that AirNow receives much higher viewer volumes during wildfire
events, as realitme data from the U.S. Forest Service is shown through the system. The EPA is
working with other countries to share data and to help them develop systems similar to
AirNow. Mr. Dickerson showed the Department of State monitors that report to the AirNow

-------
DRAFT

system and added that the Village Green benches also report to AirNow. Mr. Dickerson noted
that the AirNow.gov website has recently been redesigned, and he gave a live demo of the
newly updated AirNow website. He highlighted the fact that the new site immediately displays
local Air Quality Index meter, which was based on research to determine what users wanted to
see and how they used the former site.

Comments and discussion

A CAAAC member asked if the new system allows the option to compare two locations. Mr.
Dickerson answered that the system allows for comparison through the AirCompare page. He
also clarified that the data comes from the state and local agencies who run the monitors, and
those state and local agencies determine which monitor's data to display on the AirNow site for
a specific location. Mr. Dickerson illustrated the current site with the dial display for Arlington,
Virginia. He showed that information is provided on the bottom of the page indicating which
state and local agencies submitted the data for that site.

Mr. Gary Jones (Specialty Graphic Imaging Association) asked whether the system would
show graphs of both particulate matter (PM) and ozone concentrations. Mr. Dickerson replied
that the system will only show graphs of one pollutant at a time.

Mr. Robert Morehouse (Air Permitting Forum) asked what the system shows if there is no
monitor near the user and how far the monitors' reach is. Mr. Dickerson responded that if data
is requested for a location over 50 miles from a monitor, the state page will be shown.

Mr. Morehouse asked how far back the historical data goes. Mr. Dickerson replied that a user
can only look back one to two years on AirNow, and to get data going further back, the user
would need to go to the EPA's Air Quality System website.

Mr. Morehouse asked how the AirNow system defines "good," "poor," etc. air quality and
whether the ratings were related to the ambient air standards. Mr. Dickerson remarked that
AirNow uses NowCast, which relates the hourly measurements from the monitors to the air
quality standards. He also noted that the hours are weighted depending on how fast the
concentrations are changing.

Mr. Shoaff asked whether there had been any surprises from the website refresh. Mr.

Dickerson responded that the biggest issue they had heard about was that people's bookmarks
for the old site no longer work.

Ms. Patty Strabbing (Chrysler) asked whether AirNow will incorporate any new monitors that
are set up. Mr. Dickerson replied that states can add new monitors whenever they want, and the
AirNow system will automatically use the new monitors.

Presentation: Tools for State and Local Government

Ms. Julie Rosenberg (EPA) was the first of a group of three presenters to provide an overview
of energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) tools and resources the EPA has

-------
DRAFT

developed for state and local governments to use to achieve their air quality goals. Ms.
Rosenberg noted that there are 26 state EE Resource Standards, 29 state Renewable Portfolio
Standards, and over 80 cities and counties have committed to using 100 percent renewables.
Many state and local agencies have EE/RE policies and programs for a variety of reasons,
including emissions, energy, economic, public health and sustainability goals. Ms. Rosenberg
emphasized that quantification of emissions impacts from EE/RE is an area that state and local
agencies have requested assistance with, and the focus of the EPA's recent tools development
work has been on quantification tools. The tools and resources the EPA has developed in this
context are free and non-proprietary. Two of these tools include the Avoided Emissions and
geneRation Tool (AVERT) and the CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) health impacts
and screening and mapping tool, which can be used in conjunction with each other.

Ms. Robyn DeYoung (EPA) gave a summary of AVERT, the tool the EPA has created to
quantify the emissions benefits of EE/RE programs. The EPA found that there are other tools
available, however these include basic methods, such as the Emissions & Generation Resource
Integrated Database (eGRID), which isn't appropriate for use in Clean Air Act Plans, and
sophisticated energy models that require energy modeler expertise and licensure fees.. To fill
the gap between the basic methods, which might not provide enough detailed information , and
sophisticated methods, which require more time to run and monetary resources and lots of
input data, the EPA created an intermediate method. This system, AVERT, is an Excel
workbook that uses historical hourly emission rates and basic user inputs about energy saved
from EE programs or the total capacity of RE installations to estimate the emissions avoided
through the EE/RE programs. AVERT 2.0 is accessible using a web interface and is available
on your mobile phone as well. . Tools and training for AVERT is available at
https://www.epa.gov/avert.

Ms. Denise Mulholland (EPA) continued the presentation with an overview of COBRA. The
COBRA tool provides insight into the health impacts associated with EE/RE programs by
estimating illnesses and deaths avoided, as well as the economic value associated with
emission decreases. It is a screening-level tool that can be applied by a range of different users,
including financial institutions, state regulators, utilities, etc. According to Ms. Mulholland,
while there are usually good estimates associated with the costs of EE/RE programs, the
benefits of these programs are difficult to estimate and fewer tools are available to assist with
these analyses. The COBRA tool is available at https://www.epa/gov/COBRA.

Ms. DeYoung concluded the presentation of the EPA-developed EE/RE tools by conducting a
phone demonstration of AVERT. She noted that the AVERT results (annual emissions
reductions) can be directly input into COBRA.

Comments and discussion

Mr. Frank Prager (Xcel Energy) stated that his company does a great deal of resource planning
and sophisticated analysis and expressed concern about the public comparing the results of
AVERT to the results of the more detailed analyses that uses energy models. Specifically, Mr.
Prager noted concern with the accuracy of the results and the age of the data used by the
model. Ms. DeYoung acknowledged that every model is a projection of a what-if scenario and

-------
DRAFT

there are limitations to AVERT. Those limitations are stated in the materials about AVERT. In
terms of what it should and should not be used for, e.g., it should not be used for more looking
more than five years in the future and integrated resource planning that looks at the impacts of
new electric generators coming online. She noted that the AVERT 2.0 web edition is a good
screening tool and gives good "ballpark" estimates, but this should be followed by more
rigorous analysis, if needed for Public Utility Commission integrated resource planning needs.
Mr. Prager stressed that it is important for the EPA to communicate the limitations of the
AVERT tool, especially to policy makers.

Mr. Bob Wyman (National Climate Coalition) commented that if the proposal for the power
sector moves forward, state and local agencies will be making plans. He asked whether these
tools could be used to track data and allow trading across states for power sector emissions.
Ms. Rosenberg responded that the EPA had not thought about the tools being used in that way,
but that they would examine this as a possible use.

Mr. Dan Greenbaum (Health Effects Institute) asked how AVERT and COBRA compare to
BenMAP - the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
(https://www.epa.gov/benmap). He also stated that with COBRA, the sense of uncertainty in
the results is lost, and he asked how the uncertainties are presented. Ms. Mulholland indicated
that the tools correlate closely with BenMAP but noted that COBRA does not include ozone as
a pollutant. She also responded that COBRA does try to convey uncertainty and how the
results should be used.

Mr. Morehouse asked whether COBRA has information on its limitations discussed
somewhere. He added that the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) highlights the
limitations of its data and suggested that something similar could be done for COBRA. Ms.
Mulholland indicated that there is a user manual and that all assumptions used to develop the
tool are available from the user manual. She added that it may also be possible to include some
of this information on the model output pages.

Mr. Dave Foerter (Ozone Transport Commission) noted that the EPA Clean Air Markets
Division (CAMD) data is for units of 25 megawatts (MW) or larger and he asked how the
smaller units (less than 25 MW) are dealt with in the tools. Ms. DeYoung indicated that
smaller units are currently not included because the EPA does not have hourly information for
those units. However, users can add that data to the model if they have the information
available.

In the context of the COBRA outputs, Mr. Steven Marcus (Rutgers University) commented
that prevalence rather than incidence provides a better idea of the health effects. Further, Mr.
Marcus observed that the only health impacts related to children represented in the material the
EPA presented was infant mortality. He stated that due to this, the health effects to children are
most likely under-represented.

Ms. Roxanne Brown (United Steelworkers) asked how many people are using the tools and
additionally asked if the only renewable projects in AVERT are wind and solar installations.
Ms. DeYoung said that there have been more than 1,200 AVERT downloads and 80 citations

-------
DRAFT

in public reports and articles of use of the tool. There have been around 1,000 downloads for
COBRA, according to Ms. DeYoung. In response to Ms. Brown's first question, the EPA
indicated that data for wind and solar projects had been entered into the tool, making the results
for those projects easier to obtain, but the tool has the capability to do other things, such as
biomass, but that would require more user input.

Ms. Sara Hayes (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy) expressed that she has
used this tool many times and noted that she has used the tools in combination with other
models and also in comparing projects across cities.

Presentation: Overview of new SAFE standard

Mr. Bill Charmley (EPA) presented an overview of the new Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
(SAFE) Vehicles rule (presentation available at https://www.epa.gov/caaac). On August 2,
2018, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking for the SAFE Vehicles rule
for model years 2021-2026 passenger cars and light-trucks. Mr. Charmley showed a graph
highlighting the improvement in light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions rates over time, which
started in the mid-1970's. Mr. Charmley noted that this trend is expected to continue with the
EPA's current CO2 standards through 2025. Mr. Charmley next gave an overview of the
midterm evaluation process. The 2012 rule which finalized standards for model years (MY)
2017-2025 included a commitment to conduct a mid-term evaluation of whether the standards
for model years 2022-2025 remained appropriate. An initial determination was made in
January 2017 that the 2022-2025 standards remained appropriate, but this determination was
reconsidered, and the EPA determined in April 2018 that the 2022-2025 standards are not
appropriate. The EPA and NHTSA worked together to set appropriate standards, and proposed
the SAFE Vehicles rule in August 2018. This proposed rule would reduce the stringency of
MY2021-2026 to the MY2020 levels. The EPA is also proposing to withdraw the Clean Air
Act waiver for California's greenhouse gas (GHG) and zero emissions vehicle standards. Mr.
Charmley indicated that the existing EPA CO2 standards average around a 4.7 percent
stringency increase from model years 2020-2025, and several regulatory alternatives to this
level of stringency were discussed in the proposal, with requests for public comment. The
impacts associated with the proposed SAFE Vehicles standards are estimated to be a national
net benefit of $290 billion. Mr. Charmley highlighted the EPA's request for comment on a
number of topics, including incentives and credits designed to assist in providing
manufacturers flexibility in meeting the standards. Mr. Charmley noted that there were three
public hearings on the rule and that the public comment period ends on October 26, 2018.

Comments and discussion

Mr. Mitch Hescox (Evangelical Environmental Network) asked whether there were increased
health risks associated with the decrease in stringency and whether these were assessed. He
also asked why this rule included provisions to not allow California to set more stringent
standards. Mr. Charmley responded that as fuel efficiency increases, there is also an increase in
driving, which leads to more pollution upstream associated with more refining activities. He
noted that more information about this is in the regulatory impact analysis for the rule. Mr.

5

-------
DRAFT

Hescox commented that with an increase in CO2, there would likely be an increase in other
pollutants also, and this would seem to result in more deaths. Mr. Charmley replied that the
estimate of 1,000 deaths avoided is due to cheaper vehicles being available, which increases
fleet turnover and to quicker use of vehicles with enhanced safety features. He noted that these
1,000 deaths avoided dwarfs the health impacts associated with pollution increases. Mr. Bill
Wehrum (EPA) added on the issue of California standards, that while the Clean Air Act (CAA)
is clearly an exercise in cooperative federalism, cooperative federalism was not intended by
congress to apply to this rule (i.e., the SAFE rule). In this case, congress says that states are
preempted from vehicle regulation. While historically California has been allowed to create
more stringent standards due to its local air quality problems, the case here is not unique to
California. There is nothing unique or extraordinary with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in California.

Mr. Wyman commented that there are very different views on the modeling and cost analyses
done for this rule. He also remarked that this rule is not in line with what the automakers are
currently doing and trying to do for future models. He expressed that the previous rulemaking
included coordination with the regulated community, and the subsequent proposed rule
benefitted greatly from that process.

Ms. Nancy Kruger (National Association of Clean Air Agencies) asked where the technical
analysis is for the proposal. Mr. Wehrum indicated that there is one for the midterm evaluation
and that it was concluded for the midterm evaluation that the fundamental assumptions are
different. The price of gas is different, vehicle choice has changed, and the use of electric cars
is not as high as predicted. Based on that, former Administrator Scott Pruitt determined that
another rulemaking was needed. The EPA is proposing a range of options and is open to
comments, Mr. Wehrum emphasized. Ms. Kruger noted that there is no Technical Assessment
Report or an opportunity for stakeholders to provide input on the analysis. Mr. Wehrum replied
that the Agency is doing things differently now and following a more traditional path with this
rulemaking. The Agency has had a lot of conversations with different parties and believes that
the best process is to conduct the analysis, then draft the reconsideration proposal rather than
proceed through a regulatory negotiation-like process that had been followed in the past. Ms.
Kruger stressed that a 60-day comment period does not allow for robust involvement from the
regulated community and stakeholders. In response, Mr. Wehrum stated that essentially the
comment period was longer, attributing an additional 3 weeks of comment time when the
proposal was available online before being published in the Federal Register. Mr. Wehrum
added that the rule is complex, but that NHTSA has to put the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards into place ahead of the model year, and there is not an unlimited
amount of time available.

Mr. Steve Flint (New York Department of Environmental Conservation) commented that it
was nice to have the chance to talk here for more than the three minutes that was allotted at the
public hearings for the SAFE Vehicles rule. He indicated that this is a joint rulemaking
between EPA and NHTSA, but he is concerned that the regulation is dominated by NHTSA.
Mr. Flint asked how the EPA expects to meet the endangerment findings and criteria pollutant
requirements. Mr. Wehrum expressed that under the CAA there is a lot of flexibility, and the
EPA needs to give adequate weight to all the considerations. The ever-increasing stringency of

-------
DRAFT

pollution standards makes vehicle costs increase, and people are driving older, less safe cars.
We are the EPA, Mr. Wehrum asserted, but the Agency needs to consider all the costs and
benefits, including highway safety. He added that regardless of how the stringency of the
standards change, GHG emissions will continue to be reduced.

Ms. Brown spoke from the steel workers and jobs perspective, indicating that the steel workers
represent the largest union in the automobile sector. From her group's perspective, they see
existing standards driving investments into domestic facilities. Since 2008 there has been an
increase in jobs, and Ms. Brown indicated that the steel workers would like to see the domestic
automaker industry continue this trend. Mr. Charmley responded that the EPA did try to
quantify the jobs impacts, but he noted they had difficulty in quantifying the impacts on
innovation.

Mr. Adrienne Shelley (Air Alliance Houston (via phone)) echoed some earlier comments
made, that it seems certain effects and impacts associated with the proposed rule are not
present in the material today. For instance, Mr. Shelley asked what the co-pollutant effects
were and specifically what the co-pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxides (NOx)) impacts are in non-
attainment areas.

Presentation: Overview of Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Pronosal

Mr. Kevin Culligan (EPA) spoke next on the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) proposal
(presentation available at https://www.epa.gov/caaac). The ACE rule empowers states to reduce
CO2 emissions and would replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP). There are several components
to the rule, which are related to reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants. An Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this rule was published in December 2017 and received
over 270,000 comments. Mr. Culligan displayed a graph of emissions trends in the power
sector, showing that CO2 emissions have been dropping since 2005 due to market forces,
technology improvements and policy changes. He noted that the ACE rule would continue this
trend, pushing CO2 power sector emissions to about 34% less than 2005 levels. He noted that
the ACE clarifies EPA and state roles and works via four main actions: defining the best system
of emission reduction (BSER), listing candidate technologies, providing adequate time and
flexibility to develop state plans, and revising the New Source Review (NSR) permitting
program. For the two first actions, the EPA determined the BSER and proposed a list of
candidate technologies states would need to consider in establishing performance standards.
The ACE rule would require states to develop and submit plans to the EPA for the standards of
performance they would establish. The rule includes timelines for state plan submittals and
allows states to include compliance flexibility in their plans. On NSR, the rule proposes new
applicability tests to determine whether a change at a power plant is a "major modification" and
would give states the option to adopt an hourly emissions increase test along with the annual
emissions test required by NSR. The costs and benefits of the rule are explained in the
regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The RIA includes different scenarios to account for the
flexibility of the rule but shows that CO2 emissions would decrease under each scenario. The
costs of the rule are estimated to be $3.4 less than the CPP costs. Mr. Culligan noted that the
comment period deadline for the proposal is October 31, 2018, and the date for the public
hearing is set for October 1, 2018.

-------
DRAFT

Comments and discussion

Mr. Hescox asked what the health costs are related to the ACE rule and questioned the 1,400
additional premature deaths figure that are predicted for this rule over that of the CPP, which he
said is an incredible loss of life. Mr. Culligan stated that the emissions reductions predicted for
the CPP cannot be achieved because the EPA does not have the authority to require all the
elements of the CPP. He also said that the rule is really about GHG emissions and added that
the EPA has more authority to address pollutants outside of CAA section 112(d) through other
programs. Mr. Hescox agreed, but he stated that the EPA has not addressed those co-pollutants
through the other programs. He remarked that the mission of the EPA is to protect public health
and the environment, and he thinks it is troubling that the EPA is not fulfilling that mission with
rules like the ACE. Mr. Culligan noted that the biggest driver to particulate emissions is sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and emissions of this and other pollutants have already been significantly
reduced through many other EPA programs. He added that the EPA is continuing to address all
of these pollutants through other programs.

Mr. Prager commented that he is glad to have a replacement rule and believes that having a
replacement rule is the right decision. Mr. Prager stressed that the EPA should consider the
issue of state authority and take a broader perspective on this issue. He stated that the EPA
should consider allowing states the flexibility to go beyond the facility fenceline. Some of the
options, such as heat rate improvements will force some owners and operators to close plants.
However, he said that if broader, beyond-the-fenceline strategies are allowed, there are other
opportunities, like using more renewable energy, to reduce emissions. Mr. Culligan responded
that while this and some other policy suggestions seem like good ideas, the EPA must act
within its CAA authority.

Mr. Dan Nickey (Iowa Waste Reduction Center) asked if the EPA has considered the impact of
the rule on small businesses. Mr. Culligan indicated that the EPA typically does an analysis
under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) when the EPA is
directly regulating small businesses, but one was not done for this rule since the EPA is not the
direct regulator.

Mr. Bob Wyman echoed Mr. Prager's suggestions in terms of state flexibility and incorporating
portfolio programs that extend across states. He noted that states have broad authority in the
context of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to do outside-the-fenceline requirements. Mr.
Culligan agreed that those could be good programs for states to implement, but how that relates
to BSER is unknown and whether BSER must relate to that are currently two unanswered
questions.

Mr. Tomas Carbonell (Environmental Defense Fund) asserted that the ACE rule is unlawful and
that his organization will be submitting comments. He also asked if the effects the BSER will
have on the NSR program have been evaluated. Mr. Culligan replied that the EPA focused on
heat rate improvements, particularly with where they thought they would apply and the likely
actions that would be taken to get these improvements. He stated that the EPA would welcome
comments on this, as it is not clear that there are any other types of projects to consider.

-------
DRAFT

Mr. Greenbaum commented that there have been many rules and programs that have reduced
emissions and provided health benefits. He stated that emissions and health benefits should be
considered in a broad context in terms of determining which types of stationary sources are still
causing problems and how those should be addressed. Mr. Wehrum responded that the EPA
"keeps score" by seeing who is meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and who is not. He also said that there is a paradox here, because they predict that there will be
health benefits by reducing emissions below the levels of the NAAQS, which are supposed to
be the levels that protect human health. He noted that a dialog has started within the EPA to
reconcile these two thoughts.

Mr. Morehouse commented that on NSR, it would be best to design the program so that all
industries, not just electric utilities, will do plant upgrades without the NSR problems that are
being addressed in the ACE rule.

Ms. Lynne Liddington (Knox County Health Department) said that her county has endured non-
attainment and came into attainment due to the NOx State Implementation Plan (SIP) call. She
noted that there are other issues contributing to non-attainment, like transport. She stated that
her area wants to stay in attainment, and she hopes that the EPA will develop rules that make
continued attainment a possibility.

Presentation: OAR Overview & Undate on Priorities

Mr. Wehrum presented an overview and update on priorities of the EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (presentation available at https://www.epa.gov/caaac). Mr. Wehrum indicated that
this presentation is meant to be a conversation starter and that he was interested in questions
and comments from the CAAAC. Mr. Wehrum pointed to a graph of air quality trends from
1970 until today, showing that there has been a huge decline in emissions in this time period.
He stated that as debates about emissions and health continue, the significant progress that has
been made should not be forgotten. In terms of the ACE and SAFE rules, Mr. Wehrum strongly
urged CAAAC members to submit comments on these rules. Comments on ACE are due by
October 31, 2018 and by October 23, 2018 for the SAFE rule. Other OAR priorities include the
oil and gas New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), the NAAQS, the Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS), and NSR and permitting reform. In terms of the oil and gas rule, the
targeted improvements proposal was published on September 11, 2018. The proposal addressed
near-term issues and additional fixes, and the EPA will take a hard look at the comments that
are currently coming in to the Agency. With respect to the NAAQS, this is always a big issue
according to Mr. Wehrum, and the Agency is conducting an accelerated review of the 2015
ozone standard. Mr. Wehrum added that the EPA is trying to provide additional help to states
under the SIP reform. Another OAR priority is the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS)
rule, which the Agency is reviewing. Mr. Wehrum concluded his overview of OAR priorities
by indicating that all the work that has been discussed takes a lot of effort, but that he feels that
there has been a lot of progress made.

Comments and discussion

-------
DRAFT

Mr. Mike Rochford (Caterpillar) asked about the status is of the once-in-always-in (OIAI)
policy. Mr. Wehrum explained that a memo was issued saying that the OIAI policy no longer
applies. He noted that the memo also said the EPA would do a rulemaking to reflect this policy,
and he believes the proposal should be published sometime this fall.

Mr. Prager asked about the status of the Regional Haze program. In response, Mr. Wehrum
replied that the regional haze program was significantly misapplied under the previous
administration. He stated that the purpose of the program is to improve visibility in national
parks. The EPA is currently working on three things to address regional haze: (1) resolve the
controversy from the first planning period, (2) meet with states and other agencies to get
feedback on whether there were problems for the first planning period, and (3) apply a new
perspective to implementation of the program based on the years of experience since 1998
when the program began. Mr. Wehrum added that the Administrator signed the Regional Haze
Reform Roadmap memo a few weeks ago.

Ms. Mary Peveto (Neighbors for Clean Air) commented that she questions the assumptions
made in the SAFE rule regarding pollution vs. traffic fatalities in determining the overall
impacts of the rule. She also expressed concern that while there have been overall
improvements in air quality, there are still areas that have not seen as much progress, including
Environmental Justice (EJ) communities and areas impacted by urban air toxics. She also noted
that the states do rely on the EPA to develop and implement technology-forcing standards.

Mr. Tim Hunt (American Forest and Paper Association and American Wood Council) thanked
the OAR Assistant Administrator for the direction the Agency is taking on air permitting and
NSR reform, but he thought an additional area for improvement would be with the modeling
aspects of the program and suggested that some modeling assumptions could be systematized.
Mr. Wehrum responded that the EPA is seeking a balance with the tools that support decision
making, in that they should provide information about potential scenarios and impacts without
being overly conservative. The EPA is trying to make NSR be a better tool under the CAA to
achieve results that make sense.

Mr. Jones asked if the EPA's direction on the once-in-always-in policy would be expanded to
other pollutants, such as for ozone NAAQS implementation. Mr. Wehrum said that the Agency
has not thought of this policy extending beyond the MACT program, but he would be interested
to hear about other programs that may have similar issues. With respect to ozone NAAQS
implementation and state flexibility, the EPA is interested in empowering states to develop their
own solutions to ozone issues, such as interstate transport. The role of the EPA in this could be
to provide state agencies with analytical tools so they may can make their own rules and
policies with confidence.

Mr. Jones asked a follow-up question regarding ozone and whether the EPA is working on the
issues of foreign transport and background concentrations. Mr. Wehrum replied that the EPA is
working on background concentrations, including background concentrations from international
transport and true background, like wildfires. He noted that most of the causes of background
concentrations, such as wildfires, are covered under the exceptional events provisions.

However, some areas of the country, like Texas, are impacted by foreign transport.

-------
DRAFT

Ms. Mary Uhl (Western States Air Resources Council) expressed that she appreciated seeing
the Regional Haze Road Map. Ms. Uhl asked if there is any way the Regional Haze Map could
be brought into OAR. priority for amendments, stating that it would be better to not have
guidance be issued at the end of the process, since states are already working on their analyses.
Mr. Wehrum acknowledged the request and stated that the Agency is aware of the schedule and
is moving as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Ted Steichen (American Petroleum Institute) stated that there is a lack of transparency in
terms of the progress being made on the NAAQS outside of the EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. He asked whether the Science Advisory Board or the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) had been consulted. In Mr. Steichen's opinion, there
are things missing regarding the NAAQS review process and it is unclear how the deadline on
ozone and particulate matter (PM) will be met. Mr. Wehrum indicated that former EPA
Administrator Mr. Scott Pruitt made it clear that the ozone standards will get done on time, and
the current Acting Administrator, Mr. Andrew Wheeler, is supportive of this. According to Mr.
Wehrum, the EPA is also going to try to catch the PM standards up to the ozone standards
timeline, which may require doing things a little differently within the Agency, such as
potentially not going to the CASAC so many times in the rule development process.

Mr. Morehouse mentioned that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has had some
rules in the review process for a long time and asked whether the EPA was working with them
to try to smooth this process. Mr. Wehrum responded that the EPA has given the OMB many
rules to review, so the long review time has not been due to disputes but rather that the OMB
has so many rules to review.

Mr. Flint commented that it is better to get rules done correctly rather than quickly (referring to
the NAAQS). He also commented that the information available so far on how to handle
transport is inadequate. Mr. Wehrum replied that it is imperative that the EPA get the NAAQS
done correctly, but there are also deadlines for the NAAQS reviews that must be met. He stated
that the EPA may need to develop a better process to get these reviews done on time.

Public Comments

Mr. Shoaff asked if there were any comments from the audience, and there were no questions or
remarks from the public.

Meeting Adjourned

The meeting was adjourned for Wednesday, September 26, 2018, and was scheduled to resume
on Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:30am.

Welcome to Day 2 (September 27, 2018)

Mr. Shoaff introduced the second session of this two-part meeting at 8:30am on September 27,
2018. The topic for this session of the meeting was presentations and discussion of air quality

-------
DRAFT

sensors. He noted that a conference on the subject was recently held in Oakland, California.1 In
addition to different EPA presentations on the topic and 5-minute lighting round presentations
by select CAAAC members, there is also a list of six specific charge questions (see Attachment
B) the EPA sought feedback on.

Presentation: Sensors Overview

The first presenter on air sensors was Ms. Kristen Benedict (EPA) who gave the EPA's
perspective on air sensors (presentation available at https://www.epa.gov/caaac). Ms. Benedict
described the EPA's traditional process of collecting air quality data, which involves collecting,
storing, sharing and communicating about the data collected. She stated that the EPA is going
to continue gathering data in this way but will also monitor the changing landscape of new
participants monitoring air quality. As an example of the changing landscape, Ms. Benedict
showed the ambient PM continuous monitoring network in October 2016 alongside a sensor
vendor map of PM monitoring in August 2018, and she showed a brief video showing a non-
government organization collecting data from mobile platforms in California. According to Ms.
Benedict, air sensors are often broadly grouped into three different categories: low-cost, mid-
tier and regulatory-grade instruments. The topic of air sensors is generating a lot of interest both
domestically and internationally, and Ms. Benedict referred to the recent 2018 Air Sensors
International Conference and the website where the PowerPoint presentations are available
(https://asic.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/). Ms. Benedict noted many applications for air quality sensors, as
found through a literature review and also listed a few opportunities for their use. She noted that
one important question is how to use air sensors during exceptional events, such as wild fires.
In terms of advancing sensors, the EPA recently held a workshop to discuss sensor performance
targets. Data quality is an issue, as there are questions about the precision and accuracy of the
sensors and also about how well the sensors perform in different meteorological conditions and
over time. Overall, there is a strong desire for sensor certification, but there is continued
discussion about certification protocols and by whom the certification should be performed. Ms.
Benedict noted that there are also international sensor initiatives going on in Europe, China, and
some low- and middle-income countries where there is an interest in characterizing air quality.

Sensor data management is another issue the EPA is working to address. There are questions
regarding privacy, security, ownership, format and storage. Data interpretation and
communication is also an issue, and there are currently several different platforms that look
similar but are actually displaying different types of data. Ms. Benedict noted that the EPA is
also tracking emissions monitoring legislation in California by the California Air Resources
Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. Ms. Benedict wrapped up her presentation on EPA's perspective on air
sensors by indicating that the Agency is planning to publish a policy memo this fall/winter to
address recent questions from state and local agencies regarding the use of air sensor data.

Presentation: Outdoor Project Examples

Ms. Gail Robarge (EPA) next presented an overview of the EPA's air sensors research. Ms.

1 https://asic.aqrc.ucdavis.edu/.

-------
DRAFT

Robarge indicated that there is a vast array of work being done that includes collaboration with
several parties. Of high importance is the understanding of sensor performance in laboratory-
controlled environments compared with performance in the field. Ms. Robarge highlighted a
field evaluation in Denver, in which the performance of seven sensor models were compared
with reference sensors. Some key findings from sensor performance testing showed good
performance for some sensors on the market, but other have highly variable results. However,
the sensors in the field were affected by temperature, humidity and high pollutant
concentrations. Ms. Robarge also noted that another sensor study is being conducted to
investigate the extent of pollution at the local scale related to one primary source (i.e., a railyard
in Kansas City). The EPA and partner agencies also held a contest where the goal was to
develop a sensor that could continuously monitor high concentration events in difficult field
conditions (i.e., in or near wildfires) and report wirelessly. Ms. Robarge mentioned community
air monitoring that has seen traction through the EPA's Science To Achieve Results (STAR.)
Research Grants. The EPA is next looking to evaluate sensor performance over longer time
frames and in diverse locations, and Ms. Robarge emphasized the importance of partnering with
local agencies for this effort. The EPA's Air and Energy Strategic Plan will soon be coming
out, and it is anticipated that there will be a focus on air measurement methods, support for state
and local agencies, and a special focus on wildfire emissions and impacts. Ms. Robarge
concluded her presentation by highlighting the many staff involved in the EPA's sensor
projects.

Presentation: Overview of Tndoor Sensors

Ms. Laura Kolb (EPA) continued the EPA's presentations on air sensors, specifically providing
an overview of indoor air quality and sensors. The Office of Air and Radiation's Indoor
Environments Division implements non-regulatory programs to improve indoor air quality.
According to Ms. Kolb, low cost indoor air quality monitors are widely available, and some
people are using these sensors to make decisions about their homes. One of the challenges is
that the accuracy of these devices is variable and there is no standard rating system for sensors
and monitors. Ms. Kolb noted that there is also concern that the indoor air sensors are not
capturing lower particle range emissions. Ms. Kolb explained that indoor conditions are
different than outdoor conditions (i.e., temperature, outdoor pollutants migrate indoors, the
number and concentration of pollutants may be greater, and indoor chemical reactions can
generate particulates and additional chemicals). The use of indoor air sensors is increasing
rapidly, but citizens need assistance and guidance from the EPA on how to interpret and use the
results appropriately. The goal is have sensors that can provide actionable information.

Lightning Round of Various Perspectives from CAAAC Memhers

#1 Lightning Round Presentation on Non-Regulatorv and Portahle Sensors

Mr. Mike Silverstein (Denver Regional Air Quality Council) was the first lightning round
speaker to discuss non-regulatory and portable sensors from the Colorado perspective. Mr.
Silverstein stated that Colorado has several non-regulatory portable ozone analyzers and PM
sensors that are used to characterize air quality across different areas for a number of different
reasons. For example, where new industry has moved in, the monitors can provide information

-------
DRAFT

on the air quality in that particular area. Also, there has been an emphasis on wildfires, Mr.
Silverstein noted. In his opinion, PM sensors are becoming good in quality, however, low cost
sensors for ozone and gaseous pollutants are inadequate, especially at lower concentrations, and
need to be further developed. Citizens are concerned about emissions from the oil and gas
industry, and it would be nice to have good quality, low cost VOC sensors. Mr. Silverstein
added while there are more requests from citizens and local agencies, the state agency is
concerned about the quality of the data (e.g., sensor quality, calibration) and how the data might
be used (e.g., issue with comparing a one-minute value compared with a 24-hour standard).
Lastly, sensors must be set up to output in common units, Mr. Silverstein said.

#2 Lightning Round Presentation on Non-Regulatory and Portable Sensors

Mr. Kris Ray (Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation) spoke next on the tribal
perspective of air sensors. Mr. Ray provided some background on the Colville Reservation and
how they use air sensors. Mr. Ray indicated that air sensors are affordable and a great screening
tool, and he noted that the data quality from low cost sensors is improving rapidly. He stated
that in many geographical areas, especially tribal areas, there are no monitors at all. In Mr.

Ray's opinion, these sensors can help fill gaps and identify problems or provide peace of mind
where there is currently no information available.

#3 Lightning Round Presentation on Non-Regnlatorv and Portable Sensors

Mr. Hunt spoke next on the topic of air quality sensors from the industry's perspective. He
indicated that technologies are changing rapidly and have significant potential benefits, but
there are some issues to work through. First, it is essential that quality from the sensors is
ensured. Second, it is good to have more data, but the data need to be properly understood,
especially when the data is taken from an area near a specific facility. Tension can be created
when low cost sensors near facilities and are being compared with more sophisticated monitors
following established monitoring protocols. Finally, communication must be clear and
effective. People need to understand how the sensor results relate to health effects and any
limitations of the sensors. In conclusion, Mr. Ray indicated that it is important to balance all
these factors and continue the good work that has been made improving low cost sensors.

#4 Lightning Round Presentation on Non-Regulatorv and Portable Sensors

Mr. Carbonell spoke next on some of the work EDF has done, with a focus on empowering
cities and communities to protect their health. Mr. Carbonell said that EDF has deployed air
monitors in communities who are suffering from the effects of air pollution. In one example,
they monitored health risks after Hurricane Harvey and found that there were significant
pollutants in the air and water as a result of the hurricane. He also noted that EDF partnered
with a company to monitor a neighborhood in California that is near a refinery, where it was
found that benzene was leaking from storage tanks. Mr. Carbonell further described EDF's
work with sensors and stated that the current threats they have found were not detected by
anyone else. The technology that is available via air sensors provides a great opportunity to
monitor and protect public health; however, traditional regulatory monitors are not located
everywhere and can overlook some threats. In summary, EDF is working with communities to

-------
DRAFT

capture this data and apply it in a useful way.

Charge Questions/Feedback from CAAAC Members: Questions #l-#3

Mr. Shoaff indicated that the meeting would now focus on the identified six charge questions
that are available in the agenda (see Attachment B). Mr. Shoaff gave an opportunity for those
on the phone to make comments and ask questions. Mr. Shelley (via telephone) expressed
appreciation for all the speakers who presented today and expressed that the EPA is making
good progress. He commented that it is important to value community monitoring, as it is
empowering to the citizens of those neighborhoods, and there is value in both the data obtained
and in the relationship developed between the agency(s) and the communities.

Mr. Robert Hodanbosi (Ohio EPA) commented that his colleagues who work in water quality
have gone through a similar process in dealing with citizen science. For water data, the attitude
that citizen data was not "good enough" led to state rules on how data would be accepted and
used. Mr. Hodabosi said this provides an example of how agencies have been able to handle
citizen-gathered data.

Ms. Peveto commented that there is a tremendous movement to validate sensors. How to
reconcile so much data from these sensors, bring it the community level and how to use it are
all challenges. In her opinion, there is a lot of air quality data available, and having more of the
same types of data is not what is needed, as the existing data does not answer the questions
communities have. Communities want to do their own monitoring to ensure they have data for
their local area. Ms. Peveto commented that in her area, there is the continued use of older
diesel engines, but the EPA has not provided a monitoring protocol for diesel. Ms. Peveto
expressed that the EPA could work to address some of the existing issues like this before
focusing on new issues, such as sensor data.

Mr. Greenbaum noted that there is a disconnect between the sensors, which measure
concentrations every minute, and the health effects that are generally a result of chronic
exposures. He suggested that the EPA examine the sensor data and how the data relate to the
AQI. He also noted that satellite data has had great improvements, and the data can now be
used to assess exposure levels at the 1-kilometer grid level for NOx and PM. He suggested that
it could be useful to see how the sensor and satellite data can be combined. Ms. Benedict
indicated that the EPA has conducted an analysis of short term (e.g. 1 minute) data points
versus longer term averages (e.g. 8 hour or 24 hours) through efforts associated with EPA's
Village Green project. She also asked whether there would be a benefit to developing shorter-
term sensor messaging and who would be the audience. Mr. Greenbaum replied that he thought
the audience would be state and local agencies. Ms. Benedict added that the health science
doesn't tell us what a minute of exposure to elevated levels of pollution means for an
individual.

Mr. Wyman reiterated the point that many others have made that data quality and data
management is important. He emphasized that it is important for the EPA and state and local
agencies to develop helpful, informative guidance and to be ready to address communities'
concerns and put monitoring results in context.

-------
DRAFT

Mr. Foerter reminded the group that the CAAAC is an advisory committee under FACA. Mr.
Foerter said that in the past, the CAAAC has worked hard in between meetings and asked what
the CAAAC could do as a group to help the EPA.

In terms of 1-minute readings versus 1-hour measurements, Mr. Marcus stated that this issue
has already been dealt with in terms of occupational exposure. He suggested that the
occupational expsosure framework could be considered in this air pollution context.
Additionally, with respect to public health data, Mr. Marcus suggested that it might be useful
for the EPA to use poison center information to relate emission events to reported cases of
potentially associated health effects.

Ms. Kruger thanked the EPA for all the presentations and important information. She echoed
other comments that there are both opportunities and challenges ahead and that she would
compile and submit information from her members. In response to charge question #1, Ms.
Kruger remarked that it is difficult to compare sensors due to differences from manufacturer to
manufacturer and even sensors within the same manufacturer. She also stated that it there are no
standards for the use of sensor data in health studies or how conclusions from this data can be
made for policy decisions. She expressed that these are two issues that the EPA should address.
She also commented that the short-term 1-hour data sets versus AQI indices designed for longer
sets needs to be reconciled. With respect to charge question #2, Ms. Kruger stressed that any
data algorithms should not become the replacement for accurate data measurements.

Mr. Ray commented that there is confusion between the Washington state air quality indices
and the EPA AQI. He also commented that addressing yearly exposure concerns may be where
things are leading, which would incorporate exposure endured from the wood smoke season
and from wildfires. As it relates to charge question #2 about data algorithms being used to
"correct" raw measurement data, Mr. Ray said that all monitors use algorithms, so the quality of
the data and algorithms matters. Ms. Benedict noted that algorithm corrections at the network
level are also a concern.

Mr. Flint remarked that sensors measure a specific pollutant at a specific location at one point
in time, and how this value is interpreted is critically important. This is a complicated area the
public does not understand, and this can end with public mistrust of regulators. He also noted
that in his experience, the public does not want to hear that the air quality is fine. Mr. Flint
commented that the schedule for the PM and ozone NAAQS does not seem to allow for this
type of sensor data to be included in the process.

Ms. Liddington supported comments that sensors only provide a snap-shot, which the public
does not understand. She said that the state and local agencies need the EPA's help to
communicate the message that acute sensor data should not be compared to chronic health
effect benchmarks. She noted that citizens will reach out to the county health departments about
their respiratory issues and assert that their condition must be due to emissions from a specific
facility close by. Essentially, Ms. Liddington has observed that people have long-term problems
that they want to connect to short-term monitors.

16

-------
DRAFT

Ms. Jennifer Kreusch (Eli Lilly and Company) commented that community concerns have been
addressed haphazardly in the past and recommended that the EPA develop guidance and criteria
for how these sensors should be used. This way, the EPA can verify that the data is "good" and
use it, rather than ignoring the information and the communities' efforts.

Charge Questions/Feedback from CAAAC Members: Questions #4-#6

Ms. Peveto said that there is guidance missing on how to evaluate indoor air quality for
institutions like schools and urged the EPA to provide direction.

Mr. Wyman noted that indoor biological contaminants can have a big impact on public health,
especially on asthma. He expressed that he would like to have a comparable amount of data on
biological contaminants and not only chemical pollutants, as the control of biologies can be
life-changing. Mr. Hodanbosi commented that it is much more difficult to monitor biologies
compared with chemicals. Mr. Greenbaum asked whether there is a market or incentive
structure for biologic sensors and whether the sensors are the same for measuring VOC indoors
and outdoors.

Ms. Hayes stated that indoor air quality guidance is needed. She noted that there is some
guidance, but most of it is very general or is old and needs to be updated. Ms. Hayes
highlighted an issue with modern building codes and the conflict between buildings being
sealed off for efficiency reasons but are violating ventilation standards. This issue is known, but
an indoor dataset would be helpful to shed light on and address this issue, Ms. Hayes added.

Ms. Liddington added that there are many issues with asthma and mold, but there is reluctance
from landlords and building owners to change their buildings to address potential issues, like
proper ventilation. Ms. Liddington expressed that maybe indoor air sensors could provide a
body of evidence that could help demonstrate that these issues should be addressed.

Mr. Marcus remarked that in terms of indoor air sensors and children, it is important to
remember that children are shorter than adults. He noted that monitors placed at an elevated
position can have very different readings from what children are exposed to.

Ms. Benedict thanked everyone for the feedback on this topic and looked forward to the next
time the group meets to discuss air sensors. Mr. Shoaff indicated that there will be a follow-up
discussion at the next CAAAC meeting on this topic.

Next Steps and Closing

Mr. Shoaff highlighted a few items related to CAAAC including the Clean Air Excellence
Awards. He said that the EPA will be having the awards ceremony again and they will be
asking for panelists and nominations soon. He also noted that there have been some updates to
the awards criteria and asked the CAAAC members to help get the word out for potential
nominations.

Mr. Shoaff indicated that the next CAAAC meeting will be held sometime in the spring. He

-------
DRAFT

also mentioned that there are some CAAAC members who are rotating off the committee, and
he expressed gratitude for their participation. Mr. Shoaff thanked the group for all their input,
time, and comments. Mr. Shoaff adjourned the meeting.

18

------- Attachment A Clean Air Advisory Committee (CAAAC) September 26-27, 2018 Attendance Sheet First Name Last Name Affiliation Committee Members Rhonda Anderson Sierra Club Roxanne Brown United Steelworkers Michael Buser USDA, Agricultural Research Service Tomas Carbonell Environmental Defense Fund Susan Collett Toyota Technical Center Natalene Cummings Forest County Potawatomi Community, Natural Resources Department Steven Flint NY Department of Environmental Conservation David Foerter Ozone Transport Commission Daniel Greenbaum Health Effects Institute Sara Hayes American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Mitchell Hescox Evangelical Environmental Network Robert Hodanbosi Ohio EPA Adrienne Hollis We Act for Environmental Justice Tim Hunt American Forest and Paper Association & American Wood Council Gary Jones Specialty Graphic Imaging Association Jennifer Kreusch Eli Lilly and Company Nancy Kruger National Association of Clean Air Agencies Melanie Lawson Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Lynne Liddington Knox County Health Department Steven Marcus Rutgers University Robert Morehouse Air Permitting Forum Brian Mormino Cummins, Inc. Dan Nickey Iowa Waste Reduction Center Peter Pagano Environment and Energy, Boeing Mary Peveto Neighbors for Clean Air Frank Prager Xcel Energy Inc. Kris Ray Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Michael Rochford Caterpillar, Inc. Kimberly Scarborough Public Service Electric & Gas Adrian Shelley Air Alliance Houston John Shoaff U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Michael Silverstein Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Ted Steichen American Petroleum Institute 15 [SSEZj % &

-------
Si

Clean Air Advisory Committee (CAAAC)

September 26-27, 2018
Attendance Sheet

First Name

Last Name

Affiliation

Patricia

Strabbing

Chrysler Group, LLC

Mary

Uhl

Western States Air Resources Council

Larry

Weinstock

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robert (Bob)

Wyman

National Climate Coalition

Presenters and Attendees

Kristen

Benedict

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Laureen

Burton

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bill

Charmley

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Kevin

Culligan

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Robyn

DeYoung

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Phil

Dickerson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Matthew

Goodwin

AJW, Inc.

Kathleen

Horchler

Caterpillar

John

Kirsman

Edison Electric Institute

Laura

Kolb

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Denise

Mulholland

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Tanya

Parise

SC&A Inc.

Stuart

Parker

IWP News

Sean

Reilly

E+E News

Leslie

Ritts

NEDA/CAP

Gail

Robarge

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Julie

Rosenberg

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Amena

Saiyid

Bloomberg Environment

Carolyn

Slaughter

APPA

Lesley

Stobert

SC&A Inc.

Bill

Wehrum

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

15

-------
Attachment B

Clean Air Advisory Committee (CAAAC)

September 26-27, 2018
Agenda

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - Arlington Room (Ballroom, Lobby Level)

12:30 PM

Registration Begins

1:00-1:15

Opening Session

Welcome by Chair/Other, Introductions, DFO opening statement

1:15-2:00

AirNowllpdate

Phil Dickerson

Phil Dickerson, who leads the AirNow Program at US EPA, will present the history of AirNow's efforts to
provide the public with real time information they can use to reduce or avoid exposure to poor air quality.
He will talk about how the program developed from a regional initiative to a national, and even
international, system used across the US as well as in Mexico and China. After covering how the program
came about, Phil will demonstrate the new airnow.gov website, which was recently rebuilt from the ground
up. He will cover how the new design was developed and show how the new site improves public access
to air quality information.

2:00-2:45

Tools for State and Local Government

Denise Mulholland, Robyn DeYoung and Julie Rosenberg

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Tools for State and Local Governments

Presentation on some of the tools and resources that EPA has developed that the states and localities use

to achieve their air quality goals.

2:45-3:30

Overview of new SAFE standard

Bill Charmley

On August 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a notice of proposed rulemaking, the Safer
Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks (SAFE Vehicles Rule). This session will present an overview of the proposed rule.

3:30-3:45

Break

3:45-4:30

Overview of new Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) proposal

Kevin Culligan

Presentation on recent proposal and questions and answers.

4:30-5:00

OAR Overview & Update on Priorities

OAR Assistant Admin. Bill Wehrum + CAAAC Members' Q & A

5:00-5:30

Public Comments

5:30 PM

Meeting Adjourned

6:15 PM

Group Dinner at Rustico Restaurant & Bar | 4075 Wilson Blvd.

Thursday, September 27, 2018 - Arlington Room (Ballroom, Lobby Level)

8:30 AM - 8:45

Welcome to Day 2

-------
8:45-11:45
Break at 10 AM

Sensors Discussion (See detailed agenda on back.)

Kristen Benedict et al.

This session will be divided into two parts. In the first half of the session, EPA will provide an overview on
the use of air quality sensors in the outdoor and indoor environment including discussion of ongoing
projects and initiatives. Select CAAAC representatives will then participate in lightning round presentations
offering 5-minute perspectives on sensors. The second half of the session is dedicated to receiving
feedback from CAAAC members on the morning presentations and charge questions provided in
advance.

11:45-12

Public Comments

12 Noon

Meeting adjourned.

Detailed Agenda

rsday, September 26, 2018 - Arlington Room (Ballroom, Lobby Level)

8:30 AM - 8:45

Welcome to Day 2

8:45-8:50

Introduction to Session

Kristen Benedict, EPA - OAQPS

8:50-9:15

Sensors Overview

Kristen Benedict, EPA - OAQPS

9:15-9:25

Outdoor Project Examples

Gail Robarge, EPA - ORD

9:25-9:35

Overview of Indoor Sensors

Laura Koib, EPA - OR!A

9:35-10:00

Note: Each speaker
presents 5 minutes
or less

Lightning Round of Various Perspectives from CAAAC Members

Speaker #1 - Mike Siiverstein
Speaker #2 - Kris Ray
Speaker #3 - Tim Hunt
Speaker #4 - Tomas Carboneii
Speaker #5 - Gillian Mittelstaedt

10:00-10:15

Break

10:15-11:30

Charge Questions/Feedback from CAAAC Members

Charge #1 - Please provide feedback on the key areas of focus for air sensors - data quality, data
interpretation, and data management. Are any key focus areas missing?

Specifically, please describe considerations for interpretation of real-time data (e.g. 1 minute) in the
outdoor and/or indoor environment. Also, how can EPA effectively manage or access data from various
projects both within and outside the Agency?

Charge #2 - What should EPA consider when data algorithms are being used to "correct" raw
measurement data?

Charge #3 - [Outdoor air specific] How are the considerations for use of sensors in ambient and source
environments different? What about near source environments?

Charge #4 - [Indoor Air Specific] For sensors that have been tested or evaluated for outdoor use, please
comment on what additional research should be done to assess those sensors for indoor use. Are there
additional considerations for long term use?

Charge # 5 - [Indoor Air Specific] Please provide feedback on how sensors for detection of multiple
indoor pollutants and/or complex mixtures found in indoor environments should be evaluated.

Charge #6 - [Indoor Air Specific] Please comment on the state of sensors for biological contaminants

15

-------


indoors, particularly for use in residential environments, and what further research may be required to
further develop or evaluate them.

11:30-11:45

Next Steps

11:45-12

Public Comments

12 Noon

Meeting adjourned.

15

-------