U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC)
Air and Energy (A-E) Subcommittee
Teleconference Meeting Summary
March 22, 2019
Dates and Times: March 22, 2019, 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: Teleconference
Executive Summary
On March 22, 2019, the EPA BOSC A-E subcommittee coin ened via teleconference to finalize
the A-E subcommittee report. A-E program staff members were a\ ailable during the
teleconference to address questions and provide input regarding the revised A-E Strategic
Research Action Plan (StRAP) and specific areas of input from the liOSC. The meeting format
consisted of open dialogue, subcommittee questions, and EPA responses to their questions.
Mr. Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer (1)1 O) for the BOSC A-E subcommittee, opened the
call and introduced A-E subcommittee members. I-PA staff, and three public attendees: Johanna
Bell from the Association of Idaho Cities. Roger Caia/./.a from I jivironmenlal Energy Alliance
of New York, and Kristin Marshall from The Boeing Com puny Dr. Alan Vette, National
Program Director for the A-E Research Program, and Mr Tracy welcomed the subcommittee
and thanked them for reviewing the revised A-l- StRAP and making appropriate changes to the
subcommittee report in response to the StRAP re\ isions and EPA-provided charge questions.
Dr. Charlette Geffen. Chair of the A-E subcommittee, explained that subcommittee members
would review the draft report and discuss potential changes in response to the revised StRAP.
She noted that several members already submitted comments reflecting potential changes. She
also heightened the goal of solidifying subcommittee recommendations that are actionable by the
A-E program and clari lying the weight of different recommendations. Finally, Dr. Geffen stated
that she and Vis. Sandra Smith. Vice Chair of the A-E subcommittee, drafted the conclusions
section of the report, but they encouraged feedback to ensure that their conclusions reflected the
key messages of A-E program staff. Dr (ieffen suggested that the group review each section of
the advisory report based on re\ iews of the revised StRAP.
Subcommittee Discussion of Air and Energy Subcommittee Report
Background and Introduction
Dr. Geffen asked if the subcommittee agreed with the material in their report through the middle
of page 9, where the charge question responses began. Ms. Smith suggested updating the
background section to capture recommendations made regarding the earlier StRAP draft that the
subcommittee felt were now reflected in the revised version. Dr. Geffen agreed, and no
subcommittee members objected.
DRAFT
1
-------
Charge Question la- Does the research outlinedfor the 2019—2022 timeframe support the
relevant Agency priorities as described in the EPA and ORD Strategic Plans?
Dr. Louie Rivers mentioned that he really liked the paragraphs that Dr. Geffen drafted,
specifically the explicit callout to environmental justice.
Dr. Jennifer Hains expressed concern with a sentence in the first paragraph of the Subcommittee
Response to Charge Questions section which read as follows, "The A-E program vision, while
well-articulated, must beware of becoming too 'customer focused.'" Dr. Hains could not discern
whether 'customer focused' was warning against the public or industry influencing the A-E
program, and she emphasized that the subcommittee should be open to the public's concerns. Dr.
Geffen proposed the group clarify the text. The intent of the original sentence was to encourage
the A-E program to balance responsiveness to stakeholders with leading-edge science.
Dr. Jeffrey Arnold agreed, and said that the sentence was meant lo express that responding to
immediate concerns could prevent the A-E program from responding to emerging issues. Dr.
Arnold agreed that the text "customer focused" w as unclear, and he agreed with Dr. Hains that
they should remove the line in question. Dr. (ielVen suggested revising the lext to say, "We
encourage the A-E program to ensure they balance the interest of partners with those of the
environmental science research community." Following Dr. I lains' approval. Dr. Geffen said
that they would be able to review and edit the final subcommittee report.
Charge Question lb - Each ORD research program undertook a rigorous engagement process
to provide additional detail on specific EPA program and region, state, and tribal needs, the
results of which are summarized in the StR. 1P objectives and explanations of research topics
and areas. How well does the proposed research program respond to these partner-identified
needs?
Dr. Geffen noted that Dr. Constance Senior suggested the subcommittee delete Recommendation
lb.2 because the A-E program addressed it in the re\ ised StRAP.
Dr. Senior raised Recommendation Ic 1, and her workgroup did not feel EPA expressed outreach
methods well in the original StRAP hut EPA's distributed materials to the subcommittee and
revised StRAP provided a clearer description of the program's outreach. Dr. Geffen said that
there would be lour recommendations in the section in response to Charge Question lb after
removing Recommendation Ih 2
Dr. Arnold suggested that the subcommittee review Recommendation lb.3. Dr. Geffen asked if
Dr. Senior and her workgroup would be open to moving Recommendation lb.3 to a suggestion.
Dr. Senior and Dr. Hains agreed.
Charge Question lc - Does the StRAP, including the topics, research areas, and proposed
outputs, clearly describe the strategic vision of the program? Given the environmental
problems and research objectives articulated, please comment on the extent to which the
StRAP provides a coherent structure toward making progress on these objectives in the 2019—
2022 time frame.
Dr. Geffen said that Dr. Mitchell suggested that the subcommittee delete the second suggestion
because the revised StRAP addressed it. Dr. Arnold said that he thought that the suggestion
reflected the StRAP well.
DRAFT
2
-------
Dr. Vette and Dr. Arnold both expressed confusion about what the first suggestion meant. Dr.
Vette proposed a short summary addressing air pollutants under the first suggestion. He asked if
the subcommittee was referring to emissions control strategies or other approaches. Dr. Arnold
thought they collapsed several instances where they requested explanation into a single
summary, but he did not think it was connected. Dr. Arnold proposed that they eliminate the first
suggestion.
Dr. Vette stated that the revised StRAP could benefit from the development of a priority listing
and how they fit the overall vision of EPA and the A-E program. He specifically wanted clarity
about where the priorities came from (i.e., the Agency or the A-E program). Dr. Arnold clarified
they meant A-E program priorities.
Dr. Vette commented on the next bullet, "Mechanisms need lo be developed to facilitate
access..." He agreed mechanisms themselves would be dc\ eloped in conjunction with the
development of research implementation plans, taking things below the strategic plan level. Dr.
Geffen said that she thought that Dr. Vette's point was very helpful.
Dr. Michael Kleinman asked if it would be helpful lo expand the point to address access of
research communities and A-E partners (e.g., the broader research community, universities, and
others) to datasets. Dr. Arnold agreed. I le raised that they should be aware of the Office of
Research and Development's (ORD) limits for making information available. Dr. Arnold
reminded the subcommittee to keep recommendations under ORD's purview. EPA might find it
useful if the subcommittee included text about a collaborati\ e lead with an appropriate program
in EPA. Drs. Kleinman and Vette said that l)r Arnold s suggestion would be helpful. Dr. Vette
raised that the line demarcating ORD's limits would depend 011 circumstances and suggested the
subcommittee include that text within their suggestions.
Dr. Andy Miller, Associate Director for Climate. A-li Research Program, reminded members
that 1here are ORD- and EIW-le\ el strategies lor open data. Dr. Arnold asked if they could
resoh e the issue by collaborating with internal I-PA partners. Dr. Miller applauded the idea.
Dr. Arnold asked Dr. Geffen if they had included a phrase about internal collaboration with EPA
programs to ensure the recommendation demonstrated that the subcommittee was cognizant of
how that would happen internally. Dr. Geffen agreed, and the topic was included as a suggestion.
However, she raised that the subcommittee discussed how they did not want the A-E program to
respond to a recommendation happening elsewhere. She emphasized that the subcommittee
should be aware of how engagement with the broader community could be useful to the
A-E program. Dr. Arnold said that he thought that it would be appropriate to include a reminder
that engagement with the broader community is an important part of their mission.
Charge Question Id- Recognizing ORD's focus on addressing identified partner research
needs, in the presence of reduced scientific staff and resources, are there any other critical
emerging environmental needs or fields of expertise and/or new research methods where this
program should consider investing resources?
Mr. Bart Croes thought that the subcommittee should remove Recommendation ld.l because
extramural research components were discussed starting on page 22 in the revised StRAP. Drs.
Annette Rohr and Dr. Rivers agreed.
DRAFT
3
-------
Charge Question le- What are some specific ideas for innovation (including
prizes/challenges) and market-based approaches that the program could use to advance
solutions to existing and emerging environmental problems?
Dr. Hains asked if it was possible that reinvigorating the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
program might cost money that the A-E program did not have. Dr. Art Werner mentioned that
one of their recommendations suggested cost sharing. Dr. Vette said that it was beyond the A-E
program's control to prompt the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and STAR
programs. He said that if the SBIR and STAR programs were funded and viable, the A-E
program would try to benefit from them. He suggested the subcommittee heighten those
programs as means to achieve the work and vision.
Dr. Geffen thought that the emphasis should be on reinforcing rather than reinvigorating.
Dr. Werner agreed, and the word "supporting" would lx- Ix-ller than "reinvigorating."
Dr. Kleinman suggested they include a phrase such as "look for opportunities to reinvigorate" or
"think creatively about ways in which the Agency can reinvigorate the programs." He said that
the SBIR and STAR programs benefit the Agency and its mission, and there should be an effort
to redirect some resources into the programs. Dr Arnold agreed.
Dr. Arnold noted it would be beneficial to include the importance of prioritizing problems. The
program has some control over its priorities, but not o\ er things that do not currently have
resources. He thought the subcommittee should suggest things it Icels strongly about that
influence the budget and priorities of the A-l- program where they do not have control.
Dr. Arnold emphasized that the subcommittee has an outside view of the Agency, and the
subcommittee recommends maximizing opportunities within ORD. Dr. Geffen agreed with Dr.
Arnold's comments She added that other things to remember would be mechanisms to
encourage more cost sharing and partnering, as well as topical areas that speak to emerging areas
where the A-l - program might or might not ha\ e resources to address. She also noted that the
program should consider a way to engage the next generation in the kinds of science that will be
important in the future.
Dr. Miller suggested that the subcommittee be careful on how they talk about SBIR. He said that
it is a requirement by law for a certain percentage of EPA's research budget go towards SBIR.
To say "reinvigorate" ignores that it is ongoing. He said that there might be opportunities for him
and his colleagues to interact w ith the SBIR program to provide input and identify partnering
opportunities.
Dr. Arnold agreed. He asked if it would be better to say something like "continue to be on
lookout to expand historical SBIR work" and provide generic examples of what those new
opportunities would be. Dr. Miller applauded the idea. Dr. Arnold said that he liked the idea of
tying together opportunities with emerging work.
Summary of Charge Question Responses
Dr. Kleinman raised the last sentence of the report, "The subcommittee believes the A-E StRAP
articulates and organizes an ambitious and achievable program." He asked if it be possible to
include context that the A-E program is doing the best they can with limited resources available,
DRAFT
4
-------
rather than giving the impression that their work is adequate, and they could not do more if
provided additional resources. Other subcommittee members agreed. Dr. Geffen suggested that
he might also want to look at the introductory paragraph and see if there are opportunities to
insert context at the front of the Conclusions section as well.
Conclusions
The edits from the teleconference will be compiled into the draft BOSC A-E StRAP review
reports. The BOSC EC will convene in June 2019 to review and consider the subcommittees'
recommendations and finalize the overall BOSC report, which will include reviews of each of
ORD's research programs.
DRAFT
5
-------
Meeting Charge Questions
The draft charge can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2Q18--
)cuments/strap charge to bosc.pdf.
Meeting Participants
BOSC Air and Energy Subcommittee Members:
Charlette Geffen, Chair
Sandra Smith, Vice Chair
Viney Aneja*
Jeffrey Arnold
Bart Croes
Jennifer Hains
Cara Keslar*
Michael Kleinman
Myron Mitchell*
Louie Rivers III
Annette Rohr
Constance Senior
Art Werner
*did not attend
EPA Designated Federal Officer (l)IO): Join Tracy, Office oj Research and Development
Other EPA Attendees:
Stacey katz, Office of the Assistant. hlnimisiraior. (IJjice of Research and Development
Andy Miller, Associate Director jor ('Innate, Air and Energy Research Program
Tom Long, Acting Assistant Laboratory / Erector, Air and Energy Research Program
Gail Robarge, Office of the Assistant. \dministrator, Office of Research and Development
Laurel Schultz, Associate Director for Program Planning and Coordination
Alan Vette, Acting National Program Director, Air and Energy Research Program
Public Attendees:
Roger Caiazza, Environmental Energy Alliance of New York
Kristin Marshall, The Boeing Company
Johanna Bell, The Association of Idaho Cities
Contractor Support (ICF):
Camryn Lieb
DRAFT
6
------- |