UC Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program
Public Advisory Committee Spring Meeting
Air Resources Board Building, Sacramento, CA
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
Present:
Jim Stratton, Chair, Dept. of Health Services
Marc Aarens, UCOP
Terri Cronin (for William Orr), CA Integrated Waste Management Board
Paul Davis, Technical Support/Webmaster, TSR&TP
Kean Goh, Dept. of Pesticide Regulation
Jim Hunt, Associate Director, TSR&TP
Jerry Last, Director, TSR&TP
Mike Paparian, Sierra Club
Lisa Stevenson, Program Manager, TSR&TP
Leslie Stewart, League of Women Voters
Mika Pringle Tolson, Program Coordinator, TSR&TP
William Vance, CA Environmental Protection Agency
Winona Victery, US Environmental Protection Agency
Kim Wilhelm (for Jim Allen), Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
Wayne Young (for June Anderson), IBM Environmental Programs
Not Present:
Syed Ali, CA Water Resources Control Board
Steve Book, Dept. of Health Services
Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, Contra Costa County
Charles Lapin, ARCO
Don Lassiter, Environmental & Occupational Health
Niall Mateer, UCOP Academic Affairs
Arthur Winer, Associate Director, TSR&TP
The meeting was brought to order at 10:10am. Minutes from the Fall 1998 meeting were reviewed and after comments on corrections, Jim Stratton motioned to approve the minutes. All were in favor and none opposed.
Stratton announced that there would be a new format for the meeting. After an email inquiry of members, it was mutually decided that individual updates would be replaced with a focus on where the TSR&TP is going and how the program can assist the members of the committee and their interests. Jerry Last began the discussion by referring to two handouts, the list of research needs, and the list of 1999-2000 Proposals categorized by priority areas, as requested by the committee at the fall 1998 meeting. Last emphasized that assigning priority areas to proposals is somewhat subjective. He asked the committee to review the Research Priority list and see if any areas stand out as more important than others. Stratton said that while MTBE is fresh in our minds, we should reflect on the problem and consider ways we can avoid making similar mistakes in the future. There needs to be some integration of environmental science along with policy. If we learn nothing else from MTBE, we should come up with a series of questions for every chemical brought into use. He asked the committee to think about what UC can do to help society struggle with science and develop better policy.
Jerry Last gave the Director’s Office report. The TSR&TP conducted reviews of the four lead campus components in the last year. Three of four reviews were favorable and one was recommended for recompetition. An RFP for a new lead campus was issued in November of 1998, and five preproposals were received. Three of them include a substantial policy component, and Last said he is hopeful that the TSR&TP may be able to finally put together a coherent program in policy.
Next was a discussion on the current list of research needs. Stratton asked the group for suggestions of priorities to add to the list. Kean Goh suggested bio-engineered foods and effects on health (i.e. allergens & potential allergens). He added that many foreign countries require labeling on bio-engineered foods. Last agreed that it is a good example of anticipatory research. Jim Hunt mentioned that the TSR&TP lead campus at UCB, the Health Effects Program, is studying the effects of technologies on people, and anticipating consequences of new technologies. However, their focus is more on chemicals than genetics. Mike Paparian said that public concerns about new technologies is an important issue such as irradiation of food or large-scale biotechnology products introduced into the mainstream. He asked if UCD has a role in educating the public about this issue. Last answered that UCD is involved in this area partly because of pest resistant crop research, but it has not been a focal point. Paparian concluded that we should be analyzing what the public reaction to chemicals in the marketplace has been and what can be done to alleviate public concern.
Kim Wilhelm suggested adding endocrine disrupters and also life cycle analysis relating to pollution prevention. For example, around the turn of the 20th century, cars were considered pollution prevention technology because they helped solve the problem of increasing horse droppings on city streets. Last stated that endocrine disruptors is a major focus of the TSR&TP’s investigator initiated grant program, and he is beginning to see life cycle analysis research done in the Lead Campus Components. He said he would identify what the TSR&TP is doing in the two areas and report back to the committee.
Wayne Young mentioned that Europeans are researching alternatives for lead solder in electronic appliances. The two best candidates are bismuth and indium for new solders, but nobody’s ever looked at the life cycle of these. If we changed all lead-tin solder to lead bismuth we would have to increase production of bismuth, but bismuth is a byproduct of lead mining. He concluded that this is a good example of the need for life cycle analysis.
Winona Victery said that a common issue for US EPA is reducing dioxin generation. The public perceives any process that generates dioxin to be negative, and we need to look for alternatives to thermal destruction of dioxin-like materials. Bill Vance echoed Victery’s concerns and added that run-off of dioxin into the San Francisco Bay Area is a problem as well. No one can pinpoint the source of these dioxins. Some think diesel emissions are the source, but that has yet to be confirmed. UC could help identify the sources of dioxin in the environment. Last commented that he doesn’t believe dioxin is as big of a risk as is publicly perceived, and he asked the committee if an assessment by UC would be worthwhile. This is one example where environmental policy has had an enormous effect and not necessarily a good one. Leslie Stewart said she thinks this would be a good role for UC and an important public service to communicate an unbiased analysis of the risk posed by dioxin.
Jim Stratton commented that we don’t know what the effects are from constant low level exposure to phthalates or other ubiquitous plasticizers. He added that another concern is the issue of genetic interaction and the environment - genetic susceptibility and genetic variability affects how different species interact with the environment. TSR&TP could use funding to leverage general research in this area. Last mentioned that the TSR&TP Annual Research Symposium focuses on this theme. There are also at least two grant proposals and one of the new lead campus proposals focusing on this as well. There is enormous interest from the National Laboratories and UC faculty in building bridges to the Human Genome Project. Much of that work is technology-driven and not hypothesis-driven, but the TSR&TP can look for links to the Human Genome Project that deal with informatics and how we can utilize the large databases that are a result of the project. Stratton said that if virtual animal models were developed, it could help speed up screening and preliminary research on exposure assessment.
Winona Victery suggested mercury as an important toxin to study, because the human health effects for consuming contaminated fish are not known.
Bill Vance mentioned reduced-risk pesticides and suggested that a 30-40% reduction of risk through the use of reduced-risk pesticides might be an area to look into because the California Governor is very interested in this. Last asked if this area was science or policy. Paparian answered that he thinks it encompasses both science and policy. The policy is answering the question of what to do in the face of uncertainty, and the science is assessing what is available and what is possible. It is also an industrial and economic issue - can reduced-risk pesticides be produced and will they be successful in the marketplace.
Jim Hunt returned to the issue of mercury and the inactive and abandoned mines in the San Francisco Bay Area. He asked if these abandoned mines are on anyone’s agenda and if it is perceived as being an issue that UC should deal with. Last said that the Ecotoxicology Lead Campus Program at UCD is doing research in this area, and there are bits and pieces of related research funded by the TSR&TP. Leslie Stewart commented that the mercury issue has a big impact on people in East Bay. Vance said that point sources of mercury have already been targeted and the next step is to work on the environmental sources.
Stratton asked the committee if there were any other topics they’d like to add to the priority list. He returned to the comment on life cycle analysis and the issue of sustainability. How do we reconcile the improving standards of living and increasing energy use with environmental quality? What changes can be made in the world economy to steer it toward sustainability?
The conversation was turned to how UC can assist with the group’s needs. Last asked for member’s opinions of the TSR&TP website and how it can be made more useful. Stratton said a list of interesting links for broad research areas could be made available. Mike Paparian inquired about the frequency and source of hits on the site. Paul Davis (TSR&TP Tech. Coord.) explained that hits are dependent on content and changes, and that the MTBE site continues to be a very popular component. When the UC MTBE report was made available in November, TSR&TP website hits went from about 300 per day to several thousand. The UCD MTBE site is also popular and receives many hits per day. The sources of the hits are both local, national, and international. The largest link hit on TSR&TP’s site is from Cal EPA (related to MTBE). Last said that if anyone is interested in further specifics to contact Paul Davis. Davis requested that members send URL’s from interesting sites and he will create links from the TSR&TP site. He added that the TSR&TP abstracts would soon be available on major search engines for a larger network audience. The question of adding key word searches was brought up by Stratton and Goh and Last confirmed that the website would have that capability in the near future.
Jim Stratton asked if UC feels like there enough input from the committee with biannual meetings. Last responded that some of the members have become resource people that are contacted about specific issues, but in general meeting twice annually is often enough. He asked for the committee’s opinion, and the consensus was to continue with biannual meetings. Stratton asked Marc Aarens to comment on advice that UC needs. Aarens said that this committee seems to be active and useful and a good place for UC to turn for advice. Terri Cronin inquired how UC communicates research results to business. Last listed the standard venues of publishing in journals and websites, and said the TSR&TP also conducts an Annual Research Symposium and sponsors some workshops. Last asked if the committee felt the TSR&TP should be more active with workshops. Victery said she found the MTBE workshops to be very good and helpful and thinks that the program should continue with workshops on relevant topics in the future. Last welcomed further suggestions for workshop topics from the group.
Jerry Last informed the committee that he would be away on sabbatical from the end of April until October of 1999. Jim Hunt, TSR&TP Associate Director, will be the Acting Director during that time, and Mika Pringle Tolson will be the contact in the TSR&TP Director’s Office. He announced that the TSR&TP Annual Research Symposium will be held on April 9-10, in Santa Barbara, and everyone was invited to attend. The theme of this year’s symposium is the science and policy of genomics and toxics, and the speaker is Tony Carrano from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Bill Vance proceeded with the update on MTBE. Two public hearings were conducted in February (Diamond Bar in southern CA and Sacramento in northern CA). The authors of the UC MTBE report made presentations the morning of each hearing. Vance thought the audiences enjoyed the presentations and the question and answer sessions with the researchers. There was also a panel of members from state agencies to address public comments. At the close of the hearings, Cal EPA Secretary Hickox received a standing ovation from the audience. For such a contentious subject, the hearings went very smoothly. The public comment period was extended three weeks past the original deadline and 1,100 comments have been logged as of March 16, 1999. Cal EPA will brief Governor Davis in the next week and he will likely make a decision the week of March 29th. The Governor’s decision will address whether MTBE is a risk to current and future public health or the environment and what appropriate actions should be taken. If the Governor makes the decision to ban MTBE, it will be phased out over a number of years, probably 3-5. Alternative oxygenates will likely be limited to ethanol, since Senator Sher has introduced an Assembly bill to ban all ethers, not just MTBE. The supply of ethanol in California is extremely limited, and the state would have to ease into it to avoid serious economic impacts. The US EPA Blue Ribbon Panel will meet later in March to discuss MTBE and what EPA’s decision should be. Winona Victery commented that she heard oxygenates are not needed in California because reformulated gasoline does the job. Vance responded that some refineries can make gasoline without MTBE that meets the requirements by increasing the octane, but it comes with a price and it would take some time for them to gear up to produce the new gasoline.
The Committee broke for lunch at 12:15pm and reconvened at 1:00pm.
Marc Aarens presented the update from UCOP. The budget for next year is still undecided and does not look favorable right now, but this will not affect research programs like TSR&TP. UCOP is working on making a new budget compact with Governor Davis’ administration, similar to the one that was in place with the Wilson administration. Stratton inquired about the annual TSR&TP budget and Last answered that it is $2.07 million/year. Stratton asked Aarens how valuable the program is to UC. Aarens responded that if the TSR&TP were not around, UCOP would need to invent it – MTBE is a good example of this need. Because TSR&TP exists, UC was able to respond quickly to the task of MTBE research and benefit California. Stratton asked why the budget has remained the same for the last 10 years and not been increased given the success of the program. Aarens replied that there are many pressures on UC in different areas like undergraduate and graduate education. How TSR&TP fares with the budget depends on many other factors. Funding for other research programs like TSR&TP have remained the same as well. Aarens acknowledged that TSR&TP has been very successful. UC had envisioned it as a source of funding for start-up research and not funding for all toxics research. Stratton asked Aarens to consider additional marginal funds to increase the TSR&TP budget. Stewart wondered if there are worthy proposals that don’t get funded each year and Last said yes, that TSR&TP is always limited by the amount of funding available. Stratton asked if the committee would like to send a collective message to UCOP to increase the TSR&TP budget and all members agreed. Stratton concluded that a 25-30% increase could immediately be put to good use.
Stratton inquired if anyone regretted the opportunity to present their individual updates to the committee. No one did, and the consensus was to continue with the new format, with the caveat that the agenda will be left open in the future for members to come forward and give updates on specific issues. Stratton asked if there was any interest in research presentations on particular topics. There were no specific requests. Mike Paparian remarked on the lack of legislative staff representation on the TSR&TP Advisory Committee. He said there are some new members who may be interested in the committee. Jerry Last asked Paparian to send a list of recommended members and the TSR&TP would invite them to serve on the committee.
The location of the next meeting was discussed and members agreed that the Air Resources Board in Sacramento remains a good choice. The meeting adjourned at 1:35pm.
| Join
the TSR&TP Mailing List |
Comments |
Please send corrections to the TSR&TP Webmaster