Comments on Suggested Revision to Workbook Organization & Process

Comments on Poirot's Suggested Revision to Workbook Organization & Process
I agree with Rich's arguments for not structuring the Workbook on the six question laid out in the July 7 conference call minutes. I also really like the idea of structuring the workbook so that the Resources (tools and data) comes early on followed by the Exploratory Analysis or "how to explore the data with the available tools". However, I do not think that for a "how to" workbook dividing the PM analyses into Compliance and Regional Analysis categories is the most efficient means for communicating and organizing the PM analysis techniques. These two analysis classification will use similar methods, tools, and data creating considerable overlaping information. For example, many of the tools, methods and resources for creating spatial and temporal patterns and trends are the same/similar whether looking at regional or local scale and exceedances or averages. Grouping this information into one Trends section would be a more compact means of presentation. Also, it would serve Rich's goal of de-emphasizing the local/compliance view point. Someone interested in only compliance questions may never look at the Regional Analysis section, but they may look at (or at least run into ) regional analysis methods and results in a Trends section that incorporates both compliance and regional analyses. Last, contained within Shelly's and Miki's six questions are the primary issues facing regulatory agencies, and should some how be reflected in the top level structure of the Workbook. These objections can be addressed by replacing the Compliance and Regional Analysis sections with Rudi's outline derived from his PMFine management process steps:
1. Assessing Status and Trends
2. Identifying the Causes of PMFine Exceedances and Patterns
3. Control Actions
4. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Control Measures
5. Evaluating and Improving the PMFine Monitoring system

One last nit pic. I disagree with Poirot's assertion that "the local analyst needs to know how much of his problem is "beyond jurisdictional control" to develop efficient local strategies, but doesn't necessarily need to know (nor will it do any good to know) exactly what locally uncontrollable, upwind sources are contributing." After knowing what regional sources, sources outside ones jurisdictional control, are contributing and how much one can ask the question what is happening to these regional source emission rates and what impact will this will have on our air quality. If the regional source's emission are going up then the nonattainment region would need more stringent local control, if they are decreasing then they would need less stringent local controls.

Submitted by Schichtel Bret on 7/28/98
RecID: Forum.RichPoirot.CF.BretSchichtel
Comments on Poirot's Suggested Revision to Workbook Organization & Process
I agree with Rich's arguments for not structuring the Workbook on the six question laid out in the July 7 conference call minutes. I also really like the idea of structuring the workbook so that the Resources (tools and data) comes early on followed by the Exploratory Analysis or "how to explore the data with the available tools". However, I do not think that for a "how to" workbook dividing the PM analyses into Compliance and Regional Analysis categories is the most efficient means for communicating and organizing the PM analysis techniques. These two analysis classification will use similar methods, tools, and data creating considerable overlaping information. For example, many of the tools, methods and resources for creating spatial and temporal patterns and trends are the same/similar whether looking at regional or local scale and exceedances or averages. Grouping this information into one Trends section would be a more compact means of presentation. Also, it would serve Rich's goal of de-emphasizing the local/compliance view point. Someone interested in only compliance questions may never look at the Regional Analysis section, but they may look at (or at least run into ) regional analysis methods and results in a Trends section that incorporates both compliance and regional analyses. Last, contained within Shelly's and Miki's six questions are the primary issues facing regulatory agencies, and should some how be reflected in the top level structure of the Workbook. These objections can be addressed by replacing the Compliance and Regional Analysis sections with Rudi's outline derived from his PMFine management process steps:
1. Assessing Status and Trends
2. Identifying the Causes of PMFine Exceedances and Patterns
3. Control Actions
4. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Control Measures
5. Evaluating and Improving the PMFine Monitoring system

One last nit pic. I disagree with Poirot's assertion that "the local analyst needs to know how much of his problem is "beyond jurisdictional control" to develop efficient local strategies, but doesn't necessarily need to know (nor will it do any good to know) exactly what locally uncontrollable, upwind sources are contributing." After knowing what regional sources, sources outside ones jurisdictional control, are contributing and how much one can ask the question what is happening to these regional source emission rates and what impact will this will have on our air quality. If the regional source's emission are going up then the nonattainment region would need more stringent local control, if they are decreasing then they would need less stringent local controls.

Submitted by Schichtel Bret on 7/28/98
RecID: Forum.RichPoirot.CF.BretSchichtel3


New entries to this page can be added by the users. Fill out the submission form and observe your new entry on the top of the list.