MINUTES
UC Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program
Public Advisory Committee Fall Meeting
Water Resources Board Building, Sacramento, CA
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
Present:
Jim Stratton, Chair, Dept. of Health Services
Syed Ali, CA Water Resources Control Board
Jim Allen, Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
Steve Book, Dept. of Health Services
Paul Davis, Technical Support/Webmaster, TSR&TP
Arthur Fong (for June Anderson), IBM Environmental Programs
Cari Gandrud, Program Assistant, TSR&TP
Jim Hunt, Associate Director, TSR&TP
Jeff Hunts (for William Orr), CA Integrated Waste Management Board
Bruce Jennings, CA Assembly Env. Safety & Toxic Materials Committee
Charles Lapin, ARCO
Jerry Last, Director, TSR&TP
Niall Mateer, UCOP Academic Affairs
Mike Paparian, Sierra Club
Lisa Stevenson, Program Manager, TSR&TP
Leslie Stewart, League of Women Voters
Mika Pringle Tolson, Public Relations & Grants Coordinator, TSR&TP
William Vance, CA Environmental Protection Agency
Kip Wiley, CA Senate Office of Research
Not Present:
Marc Aarens, UCOP
Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Kean Goh, Dept. of Pesticide Regulation
Don Lassiter, Environmental & Occupational Health
Winona Victery, US Environmental Protection Agency
Arthur Winer, Associate Director, TSR&TP
The meeting was brought to order at 10:10am. Minutes from the spring 1999 meeting were reviewed for final approval. Mike Paparian moved to approve the minutes. All were in favor and none opposed.
Jerry Last asked the committee to think about how UC can assist with their needs. Leslie Stewart asked if members could email their suggestions to the TSR&TP office so they don’t have to wait for a committee meeting if they have concerns. Last confirmed that the committee is welcome to email suggestions at any time. Charles Lapin commented that UC did an excellent job with the MTBE studies and said that industry and the state of California really needs UC to be involved. He asked how we can develop a working relationship between state agencies and resources in UC. He is concerned that UC isn’t playing as major a role as they could. Bill Vance agreed and commented that often the decision time frame of state agencies is too short for UC researchers. Lapin said that UC should be involved in the planning stages of research needs and perhaps develop an institutional relationship. Kip Wiley added that the legislators are aware of the timing problem and hope to be able to plan better for future issues. Last stated that there’s a dichotomy between what UC and state agencies do well — UC generates new knowledge, and agencies codify existing knowledge. If there were a process for determining data gaps and research needs, it would be easier for UC to help.
Vance said that biomass is currently a big environmental issue both in its disposal and use. With the phaseout of MTBE as a fuel oxygenate additive, there will be a growing need for its replacement, most likely to be ethanol. There will be a real demand for ethanol beginning in December of 2002, perhaps up to 300-500 million gallons per year, and developing the technologies for converting biomass to ethanol without using strong acids in its production is a real need. Last said the enzyme process exists, but the problem is stabilizing cellulase so the process is economically viable. Niall Mateer added that the California Energy Commission is currently funding research in this area.
Jim Stratton asked the committee what advice UC can give to help state agencies. Last answered that the California Policy Research Center, another UC Multicampus Research Unit (MRU), does exactly that in collaboration with agencies. He commented that there are some real issues in forming relationships between UC, industry, and state agencies. Steve Book asked if there is a list of MRUs and ORUs (Organized Research Units) available for reference. Last answered that these internet links will be added to the TSR&TP website (http://tsrtp.ucdavis.edu/), and any further suggestions could be forwarded via email.
Last began the discussion of programmatic planning and future directions, and asked the committee for suggestions. Mateer informed the group that the Governor was in London for the opening of the California House with the purpose of developing research alliances between UC and the UK, and suggested that the TSR&TP think about expanding into areas outside of California. Stratton noted that with the world’s population hitting 6 billion people, sustainability and life cycle analysis would be a good area to explore. Mike Paparian mentioned three concerns: children’s environmental health, brownfields restoration, and impacts of global climate change. Mateer added that UC is already researching regional impacts of environmental change with other programs. Lapin stated that women are often underrepresented in research. Stewart suggested research on problems that women of reproductive age may have working in industry. Jim Allen listed three items of interest: integrated efficient transportation of people and goods, regional ecosystems impacts on bioregions, and unexploded ordnance. Arthur Fong suggested K-12 science and business managers and public education as important issues. The committee discussed public awareness, and determined that K-12 outreach is needed, although that may not fall within TSR&TP’s mission. Stratton suggested science literacy be added to the research needs. Hunt brought up the topic of environmental contamination associated with the emerging biotechnology industry, to which Last replied that there’s a great need for another TSR&TP lead campus to deal with all the research that focuses on that issue. Stewart added that dioxin is a persistent contaminant which deserves attention. Vance agreed and further discussed its relevance. Stratton commented that more investigator-initiated proposals that integrate scientific issues and their public policy significance are needed. Bruce Jennings listed cumulative industrial effects, source reduction practices for small businesses, different transportation modes and their environmental impacts, and evaluating emerging technologies as possible topics.
The committee broke for lunch at 12:01 p.m. and reconvened at 12:40 p.m. Mateer presented the UCOP report discussing the research initiatives on oxygenates and the future budget for TSR&TP. He said that increases in budgets for research programs such as TSR&TP are primarily for new initiatives or new programs; a new component concerning environmental contamination in which TSR&TP could work with other biotech programs might fit the bill. The program will have to market any increased need for funding. Last pointed out that this is part of the 15 year review process and offered the group a draft of the future major initiatives. Mateer suggested that letters of support for the TSR&TP could be sent to the UCOP Vice Chancellor of Research, Robert Shelton.
Last presented the Director’s Office Report. He described the internal reviews of the lead campuses and the Director’s Office that took place in 1998 and briefly reviewed the results. The reviews led to a recompetition of one of the lead campuses, and he described the four proposals the TSR&TP Executive Committee is considering for funding. The proposals range from green engineering and sociopolitical processes and public policy to molecular biology and toxicology. The TSR&TP annual symposium schedule was announced for April 28-29, 2000 in San Diego, and Last asked for suggestions for topics for this year’s discussion to be emailed to him or Mika. Last referred to the handouts for grant and fellowship proposals received and those funded for last year, and informed everyone that the abstracts of funded projects are available on the TSR&TP website. Stratton redirected the committee to the research needs and said that exposure assessment continues to be a problem.
Stratton gave the introduction to the perchlorate presentations from Steve Book and Jim Hunt, indicating that we don’t have a lot of information on the compound. Steve Book made the first presentation. He referred to a handout of "Overview of California’s Perchlorate Experience" and provided a brief history of the problem. As a result of better testing technologies, perchlorate contamination in drinking water has become a major public concern in the Sacramento area and elsewhere since 1997. Many studies have been conducted since then, but so far there is no definitive answer on treating the problem effectively. The EPA is scheduled to finish risk assessments of perchlorate in 2000, and OEHHA will be completing a draft document in the spring and holding public workshops on the issue.
Jim Hunt also provided a brief presentation on perchlorate from the engineering perspective. He has found that solutions containing the compound settle in the ground 10 to 100 times faster than pure water and it is very difficult to remove from wells due to the dense layer it forms. With current strategies, it would take 50-150 years to pump it out of the ground. More research is needed to provide new approaches to solving the problem.
Stratton asked Vance about the health goal for perchlorate. Vance replied that in addition to the US EPA studies, Cal EPA is looking at the toxicology of perchlorate in animals. The new Sher bill (635) calls for public health goals on the compound. Stratton noted that web based documents help increase public awareness. He suggested that the TSR&TP look into funding research that would create electronic forums for such issues.
Old business was opened for discussion. Last asked if everyone was comfortable with the composition of the committee. Allen suggested including the Air Resources Board. Stewart answered that member Mark DeSaulnier is an advisor to the ARB and can address air board concerns. Stratton suggested that TSR&TP seek more industry involvement on the committee by encouraging dialog between lead campuses and industry about problems with toxic substances. He congratulated Last and UCOP for responding to previous committee concerns and adding legislative representation.
Stratton directed the committee to New Business. David Sedlak, a UC Berkeley professor, has agreed to give a presentation on pharmaceuticals in the environment if the next meeting is held in Berkeley. In addition, Vance suggested a future meeting presentation topic of serpentine asbestos. The committee agreed to have the spring 2000 meeting in Berkeley sometime in early April, and that Fridays are free for most members. The meeting adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
| Join
the TSR&TP Mailing List |
Comments |
Please send corrections to the TSR&TP Webmaster