1                           MEETING
            
        2                            OF THE
            
        3      SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL ON TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
            
        4                CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
            
        5   
            
        6   
            
        7   
            
        8   
            
        9   
            
       10                       EXTENSION CENTER
                      UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE
       11                    1200 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
                             RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
       12   
            
       13   
            
       14   
               
       15   
            
       16   
            
       17                   THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2000
            
       18                          9:00 A.M.
            
       19   
            
       20   
            
       21   
            
       22   
            
       23   REPORTED BY:
            Susan M. Kline, 
       24   CSR 4617
            
       25   Our File No. 1-63045                             
            









        1   APPEARANCES:
            
        2   MEMBERS PRESENT:
            
        3   Dr. John Froines, Chairman
            Dr. Roger Atkinson
        4   Dr. Paul Blanc
            Dr. Craig Byus
        5   Dr. Gary Friedman
            Dr. Hanspeter Witschi              
        6         
            
        7   MEMBERS PRESENT BY TELEPHONE:  
            
        8   Dr. Standon Glantz 
            
        9   
            
       10   REPRESENTING THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD
            ASSESSMENT:
       11   
            Dr. George Alexeef, Deputy Director for Scientific
       12   Affairs
            Dr. Bob Blaisdell, Staff Toxicologist
       13   Dr. James Collins, Staff Toxicologist
            Dr. Melany Marty, Senior Toxicologist
       14   Dr. Andrew Salmon, Chief, Air Toxicology and Risk
            Assessment
       15   
            
       16   REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION:
            
       17   
            Mr. Paul Gosselin, Assistant Director
       18   Dr. Andrew Rubin, Staff Toxicologist
            
       19   REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD:
            
       20   Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division
            
       21                                                       
            
       22  ALSO PRESENT: 
            
       23          
            Dr. Elinor Fanning, Associate Toxicologist
       24          
            
       25   
            



           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1                          I N D E X
            
        2   AGENDA ITEMS:                                      PAGE
            
        3   1   Closed Session - Litigation                      1
            
        4   2   Review of Draft Report:  Air Toxics Hot          6
                Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines,
        5       Part IV:  "Technical Support Document for 
                Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis"
        6   
            3   Review of addendum to Appendix A of the Air     26
        7       Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment
                Guidelines, Part III:  "Technical Support
        8       Document for Noncancer Chronic Reference
                Exposure Levels"
        9   
            4   Consideration of findings based on the          46
       10       report:  "The Evaluation of Methyl
                Isothiocynate (MITC) as a Toxic Air
       11       Contaminant"
            
       12   5   Toxic Air Contaminant Program Update            72                                                                                                         
            
       13   Adjournment                                        116
            
       14   
            
       15   
            
       16   
            
       17   
            
       18   
            
       19   
            
       20   
            
       21   
            
       22   
            
       23   
               
       24    
                  
       25                 
            



           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1                    P R O C E E D I N G S
            
        2            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So we will officially open
            
        3   the meeting of the Scientific Review Panel.  
            
        4            Stan, can you hear me? 
            
        5            DR. GLANTZ:  It would be nice if they could
            
        6   make it a little louder.
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We can hear you fine.
            
        8            DR. GLANTZ:  Now I can hear a lot of feedback,
            
        9   but I can't hear you any better.  So maybe they should
            
       10   try again.  
            
       11            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  What I was saying for the
            
       12   purpose of the record is that we will formally open the
            
       13   public meeting of the Scientific Review Panel for 
            
       14   April 13, 2000.  
            
       15            And we are going to go immediately into a
            
       16   closed session in order to discuss with counsel the
            
       17   litigation entitled California Trucking Association, 
            
       18   et al. versus California Air Resources Board, et al.  
            
       19   So that we've asked everyone, all the public, to leave
            
       20   the room.  
            
       21            So this is a closed meeting, and the only
            
       22   person here is the -- only persons here are the
            
       23   Scientific Review Panel members, the court reporter and
            
       24   Mr. Kirk Oliver, who is representing the Attorney
            
       25   General's office with respect to the litigation. 
            

                                                                  4

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BLANC:  I move that we go into closed
            
        2   session.  
            
        3            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So moved. 
            
        4            DR. BLANC:  Is there a second?  
            
        5            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Second.  
            
        6            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  All in favor?  
            
        7            (Show of hands.)
            
        8            (Whereupon a recess was taken.)
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We will officially reopen
            
       10   the meeting.  I should say that during the discussion
            
       11   with the attorney from the Air Resources Board, Kirk
            
       12   Oliver, that the panel members who were present were
            
       13   Craig Byus, Roger Atkinson, Hanspeter Witschi, Paul
            
       14   Blanc, Gary Friedman and John Froines, and Stan Glantz
            
       15   was on the telephone.  There were no other persons
            
       16   present in the room during those discussions. 
            
       17            So, Melanie, we're going to start with the next
            
       18   -- with the Exposure Assessment and Stochastic
            
       19   Guidelines.  Stan has about 20 minutes before he has to
            
       20   go off.  Because he is leaving, he asks that we take
            
       21   this up because he has been the lead for the panel on
            
       22   this topic area.  
            
       23            We know that in terms of discussing the issues,
            
       24   any issues that might arise is going to take longer than
            
       25   we're going to take up today.  So I think we see this as
            

                                                                  5

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   an introduction, any comments from Stan, and then we'll
            
        2   basically move on. 
            
        3            DR. MARTY:  Okay.  Thanks.  
            
        4            Melanie Marty from OEHHA.  
            
        5            Today we're just going to give an overview of
            
        6   the document -- 
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Pull your microphone closer. 
            
        8            DR. GLANTZ:  Yeah, and shout.
            
        9            DR. MARTY:  Is that better, Stan?  
            
       10            DR. GLANTZ:  That's better.  
            
       11            DR. MARTY:  Today we're going to talk about an
            
       12   overview of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
            
       13   Assessment Guidelines, Part IV.  It's the Technical
            
       14   Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic
            
       15   Analysis.  And the presentation is going to be given by
            
       16   Robert Blaisdell of my staff.  
            
       17            And essentially what we just wanted -- you guys
            
       18   have actually already heard parts of this presentation,
            
       19   but it's been a few years.  It was prior to our response
            
       20   to the public comments.  So we gave the panel the latest
            
       21   revisions, which include revisions made via the public
            
       22   comment process and also some revisions made by
            
       23   preliminary comments from the panel.  
            
       24            So, Bob, can you come on up?  
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Stan, do you want to say
            

                                                                  6

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   anything before this starts?  
            
        2            DR. GLANTZ:  Yeah, just because I may have to
            
        3   leave before they're done.  
            
        4            As Melanie said, this document has been
            
        5   gestating for quite a long time.  I have reviewed the
            
        6   draft that's being -- was distributed to the panel, and
            
        7   I think it's quite good now.  And I've also reviewed all
            
        8   of the public comments and the response to the comments,
            
        9   and I think the staff did a good job.  
            
       10            There were many changes made to the document in
            
       11   response to the comments that I thought were in part
            
       12   responsive.  There were other comments that I thought
            
       13   were either not germane or not correct, and I think the
            
       14   staff did a good job of explaining why.  
            
       15            So, I mean, I'm sure as we get into the
            
       16   document other members of the panel and maybe even
            
       17   myself will find more things to pick at, because, you
            
       18   know, different people have different areas of
            
       19   expertise.  
            
       20            But overall, I think it's come quite a long
            
       21   way, and this is actually one of the more impressive
            
       22   things that's come out of the process now that I've been
            
       23   on the panel.  I think it's really going to be a seminal
            
       24   document that's going to affect the way that people look
            
       25   at the stochastic model.  
            

                                                                  7

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            So at least as of right now I'm quite happy
            
        2   with it.  I mean, maybe Melanie has snuck something by
            
        3   me that I missed.  I guess I shouldn't say that.  I was
            
        4   joking.  For the record, I was joking.  But I'm quite
            
        5   happy with it.  
            
        6            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I had one comment just to
            
        7   mention before we start that really relates more to
            
        8   George than the document.  I think that at some point,
            
        9   both with respect to the risk assessment and the
            
       10   exposure documents, that one of the issues will be as a
            
       11   discussion of policy on how one takes stochastic
            
       12   modeling and actually makes use of it beyond the risk
            
       13   assessment process in terms of decision making on
            
       14   management.  And I think OEHHA and ARB should hold a
            
       15   workshop or conference on that issue.  
            
       16            And it goes beyond the scope of this panel, but
            
       17   I think that one can generate thousands of numbers using
            
       18   Monte Carlo modeling.  And when you're all finished, you
            
       19   may say we don't want to use a bright line, but somebody
            
       20   has to make decisions about what are the criteria you
            
       21   use to then make decisions and using the data that's
            
       22   generated.  
            
       23            And so I think you should consider, George,
            
       24   that at some point you hold a small meeting or workshop
            
       25   to talk about the implications of this.  We'll deal with
            

                                                                  8

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   the science, but let's look and see where does it go
            
        2   from here once you've got it. 
            
        3            DR. GLANTZ:  If I could just chime in on that,
            
        4   I mean, I think that in the end, as part of the
            
        5   regulatory process, you know, there is going to be a
            
        6   number that somebody's going to have to come up with. 
            
        7   There will be a lot of hand ringing and concern and this
            
        8   and that.  But as a practical matter, there will be a
            
        9   bright line. 
            
       10            I think that the thing which the stochastic
            
       11   modeling approach does, though, is it's going to give us
            
       12   a much better idea of not just the uncertainties in --
            
       13   which I think we've already been dealing with reasonably
            
       14   well, but the effect of population variability on where
            
       15   that line should be.  
            
       16            And instead of just simply dealing with average
            
       17   numbers, we're going to be able to take into account the
            
       18   fact that there are some more and some less sensitive
            
       19   people.  So I think it will give rise to bright lines
            
       20   that have a much more thorough rationale than, you know,
            
       21   some of the older approaches to take.  
            
       22            I mean, I think that your suggestion is a good
            
       23   idea, John, but the way that I look at this is that it's
            
       24   just giving us, you know, a much more quantitative
            
       25   approach to realizing, when you do draw that line, who's
            

                                                                  9

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   being left out and who's being covered on a population
            
        2   basis.  
            
        3            So, I mean, I think it's a very useful process
            
        4   actually.
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, I was trying to be
            
        6   very careful on what I said.  That's why I said that the
            
        7   issue for our a meeting or a workshop would be on
            
        8   criteria of how you end up selecting what you end up
            
        9   selecting. 
            
       10            DR. GLANTZ:  Yeah, I agree.
            
       11            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Okay.  Sorry, Melanie. 
            
       12            DR. MARTY:  Okay.  Bob Blaisdell is --
            
       13            DR. GLANTZ:  I'm going to disappear in like
            
       14   seven minutes.
            
       15            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We'll note by your silence. 
            
       16            DR. GLANTZ:  Okay.
            
       17            DR. BLAISDELL:  I'm going to give a brief
            
       18   overview of our Technical Support Document for Exposure
            
       19   Assessment and Stochastic Analysis.  
            
       20            May I have the next slide, please?  
            
       21            OEHHA was mandated under SB-1731 to establish a
            
       22   "likelihood of risk" approach to risk assessment and "to
            
       23   estimate the maximum actual exposure." 
            
       24            May I have the next slide? 
            
       25            This outlines our general approach for
            

                                                                  10

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   stochastic analysis.  Stochastic analysis in our
            
        2   document is confined to variability rather than
            
        3   uncertainty.  The distributions recommended in the
            
        4   document are derived by OEHHA from the raw data of
            
        5   existing studies or obtained from the literature.  
            
        6            The distributions are for major exposure
            
        7   parameters and not for dose response.  
            
        8            The stochastic approach is recommended for
            
        9   cancer risk only.  
            
       10            May I have the next slide? 
            
       11            Okay.  In general, our General Approach to
            
       12   Exposure Assessment is outlined on this slide.  Risks
            
       13   from airborne emissions from stationary facilities are
            
       14   evaluated.  
            
       15            We mostly do the inhalation pathway for the --
            
       16   we mostly do the inhalation pathway because most of the
            
       17   chemicals we're dealing with are volatile.  
            
       18            Noninhalation pathways are also evaluated for a
            
       19   few semi-volatile chemicals and metals.  
            
       20            The pathways that we evaluate include dermal,
            
       21   breast milk, and ingestion of water, produce, soil,
            
       22   meat, milk and eggs.  
            
       23            May I have the next slide, please? 
            
       24            These are some of the general limitations of
            
       25   Stochastic Risk Assessment that we've run into as we've
            

                                                                  11

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   prepared our document.  
            
        2            Data are available for estimating variability
            
        3   for some parameters.  
            
        4            Data that are available are short-term studies
            
        5   that do not necessarily capture individual average
            
        6   intake over long periods of time.  
            
        7            Future research may provide more information to
            
        8   develop distributions from longer-term studies.  
            
        9            May I have the next slide? 
            
       10            Okay.  We released our Exposure Assessment and
            
       11   Stochastic Analysis document for a 90-day comment period
            
       12   in December of 1996.  We presented an overview to the
            
       13   Scientific Review Panel in March of 1997.  We have
            
       14   responded to public comments and incorporated changes
            
       15   into the document. 
            
       16            Next slide? 
            
       17            The 1996 Draft recommended evaluating three
            
       18   exposure duration scenarios, 9, 30 and 70 years.  
            
       19            We have generated exposure distributions
            
       20   corresponding to ages 0 to 9 and ages 0 to 70 in our new
            
       21   draft. 
            
       22            We recommend the use of the 0-to-70-year
            
       23   distribution for evaluating the 30-year exposure
            
       24   duration.  
            
       25            May I have the next slide? 
            

                                                                  12

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Could you explain why that is,
            
        2   why you're doing that?  
            
        3            DR. BLAISDELL:  Well, it was essentially in the
            
        4   interest of simplifying the document.  It's a slight
            
        5   underestimation of the 30-year exposure, but it doesn't
            
        6   underestimate it by much. 
            
        7            DR. GLANTZ:  This is Stan.  I actually have to
            
        8   go now.  So have fun, guys.  And I apologize, but I'm
            
        9   getting a call now.
            
       10            DR. BLAISDELL:  I think you'll get a better
            
       11   picture of that as we proceed. 
            
       12            DR. GLANTZ:  Bye-bye.  
            
       13            DR. BLANC:  Bye.  
            
       14            DR. BLAISDELL:  The nine-year exposure duration
            
       15   is for the first nine years of life and is therefore
            
       16   protective of children.  Children receive a higher dose
            
       17   in terms of milligrams per kilogram body weight than do
            
       18   adults.  
            
       19            May I have the next slide? 
            
       20            OEHHA recommends a tiered approach in which a
            
       21   point estimate approach is used before the stochastic
            
       22   approach.  
            
       23            The 1996 draft used USEPA RCCRA/CERCLA values
            
       24   that reflect "central tendency" and "high end" for
            
       25   exposure point estimates.  
            

                                                                  13

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            Our revised draft recommends using point
            
        2   estimate exposure paramaters that are the mean and 95th
            
        3   percentiles from the available distributions.  
            
        4            These values reflect more revent studies than
            
        5   the USEPA defaults and create an internally consistent
            
        6   approach within our document. 
            
        7            Okay.  I'm going to run through briefly the
            
        8   derivation of our breathing rate distributions.  This is
            
        9   the Dose Algorithm for Inhalation, simply dose times
            
       10   breathing rate times the concentration in the air times
            
       11   the unit conversion factor.  
            
       12            May I have the next slide? 
            
       13            The California Air Resources Board sponsored a
            
       14   study of breathing rates at various lab and field
            
       15   activities in children and adults.  
            
       16            Minute ventilation, heart rate and breathing
            
       17   frequency were measured during various activities. 
            
       18            Okay.  These minute ventilation rates were
            
       19   divided by each subject's body weight to give us
            
       20   liters-per-minute per kilogram body weight.  
            
       21            We selected a mean breathing rate for specific
            
       22   activities to represent breathing rate at resting,
            
       23   light, moderate, moderately heavy, and heavy activities. 
            
       24            Next slide?  
            
       25            The California Air Resources Board also did two
            

                                                                  14

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   studies of activity patterns in adults, and we used
            
        2   these to evaluate our activity patterns.  That gave us
            
        3   the minutes that we spent on various self-reported
            
        4   activities.  
            
        5            Individual reported activities are assigned a
            
        6   resting, light, moderate, et cetera, breathing rate. 
            
        7            Next slide? 
            
        8            A distribution of breathing rates, daily
            
        9   breathing rates, are constructed from the sum of the
            
       10   products of the liters-per-minute per kilogram body
            
       11   weight times the minutes at that activity over a 24-hour
            
       12   period for each individual in the activity patterns
            
       13   study.  
            
       14            We did separate distributions for adults and
            
       15   children.  
            
       16            And we simulated a 70-year distribution using
            
       17   Monte Carlo technique with crystal ball by
            
       18   proportionately combining the children and adult
            
       19   distributions. 
            
       20            Okay.  This is the children's breathing rate
            
       21   distribution that we came up with.  You'll notice that
            
       22   the 95th percentile is around twice the 5th percentile,
            
       23   indicating this is a fairly narrow distribution.  
            
       24            For those of you that are used to thinking in
            
       25   terms of meters per day, we have that on the right. 
            

                                                                  15

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   This is for an 18-kilogram person, which is the average
            
        2   body weight over ages 0 to 9.  
            
        3            Next slide, please? 
            
        4            DR. BLANC:  Average kilogram -- go back to that
            
        5   one second.  Average, you mean the mean body weight over
            
        6   that time?
            
        7            DR. BLAISDELL:  That's the average of the mean
            
        8   body weights over the nine-year period.  
            
        9            DR. WITSCHI:  Zero to one, two to three, three
            
       10   to four. 
            
       11            DR. BLANC:  And how linear would that weight be
            
       12   by year?  Is it appropriate to use the mean?  Or is
            
       13   there a lot of time when the weight is most of the time
            
       14   -- it's been a long time since I did pediatrics.  And
            
       15   I'm trying to think about the growth curve, but it's not
            
       16   linear, is it?  
            
       17            DR. BLAISDELL:  No, it curves off.
            
       18            DR. MARTY:  I think what we've done here is
            
       19   just, for an example, to see how it works, if you
            
       20   weighed 18 kilograms and you breathed at the mean of our
            
       21   distribution, you would be breathing about 8.1 cubic
            
       22   meters per day. 
            
       23            DR. BLANC:  Okay.  So it's not for -- okay. 
            
       24   I'm just trying to get a sense of whether it throws
            
       25   things off in any other larger way.
            

                                                                  16

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. MARTY:  Well, yeah, I think your point's
            
        2   well taken.  What we see for some future work is to look
            
        3   at infants more closely.  The activity pattern study and
            
        4   the breathing rate studies -- the activity pattern study
            
        5   had information for everybody from zero to I think 97
            
        6   was the oldest person.  But the breathing rate studies
            
        7   which formed the basis for the breathing rates assigned
            
        8   to the activities, the youngest child was three.  
            
        9            And what we've done is assumed that before the
            
       10   age of three the breathing rates for light, moderate
            
       11   heavy, et cetera, would be the same.  It's probably not
            
       12   true for infants because they do breathe very rapidly
            
       13   relative to an older child.  So it's an area for future
            
       14   study. 
            
       15            DR. BLANC:  Okay.  
            
       16            DR. BLAISDELL:  May I have the next slide,
            
       17   please? 
            
       18            This is our adult breathing rate distribution. 
            
       19   Again, a fairly narrow distribution.  The 5th and 95th
            
       20   percentile vary by a factor of two.  We have the meters
            
       21   per day for a 70-kilogram person, corresponding to an
            
       22   adult.  So you can get some sense of where that fits in.
            
       23            May I have the next slide, please? 
            
       24            Okay.  This is the distribution that we
            
       25   simulated from the two distributions, proportionately
            

                                                                  17

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   combining the time spent as a child and the time spent
            
        2   as an adult.  And as you can see, in terms of
            
        3   liters-per-kilogram body weight, it falls in between the
            
        4   adult and the children's breathing rate.  
            
        5            And we've done the meters per day for a
            
        6   63-kilogram person, which is the average body weight
            
        7   over a 70-year lifetime.  
            
        8            May I have the next slide? 
            
        9            We've received some comments on the use of
            
       10   short-term data for breathing rate distribution. 
            
       11   Short-term surveys are all that are available right now. 
            
       12   So we were curious to see if that -- if our breathing
            
       13   rate distribution corresponded to the energy expenditure
            
       14   literature, and we found in general that the energy
            
       15   expenditure literature supported the range of our
            
       16   breathing rate distribution.  The details of that
            
       17   analysis are in Appendix K.  
            
       18            I'm going to talk just briefly about the Food
            
       19   Consumption Distributions.  We used raw data from the
            
       20   "Continuing Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals" that
            
       21   the USDA did.  We developed distributions for chicken,
            
       22   beef, pork, dairy and eggs; also, leafy, root,
            
       23   protected, and exposed produce, all in terms of
            
       24   grams-per-kilogram body weight per day.  
            
       25            May I have the next slide, please? 
            

                                                                  18

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            For the breast milk pathway, we developed data
            
        2   on the first year of life, and we developed a
            
        3   distribution of breast milk consumption for the first
            
        4   year of life.  
            
        5            We combined data from the Dewey study and also
            
        6   the Hofvander study to generate that distribution.   
            
        7            DR. BYUS:  How do you determine how much breast
            
        8   milk an infant consumes a day?  
            
        9            DR. BLAISDELL:  Well, they actually weigh 
            
       10   them --
            
       11            DR. BYUS:  Oh, they weigh them?  
            
       12            DR. BLAISDELL:  -- before and after feeding and
            
       13   take into account --
            
       14            DR. MARTY:  There's a little flow meter that
            
       15   you attach.  
            
       16            DR. BYUS:  Yeah.  
            
       17            Do they really?  
            
       18            DR. BLAISDELL:  Yes.  
            
       19            DR. BYUS:  Okay.
            
       20            DR. BLAISDELL:  For our Water Consumption
            
       21   Distribution, we utilized distributions generated by
            
       22   Ershow and Cantor from the '77-78 National Food
            
       23   Consumption Survey also conducted by the USDA.  
            
       24            We simulated the tap water consumption
            
       25   distribution for ages 0 to 9 from the published
            

                                                                  19

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   distributions of Ershow and Cantor.  
            
        2            Next slide?  
            
        3            For Fish Consumption, we used raw data from a
            
        4   study conducted in the Santa Monica Bay to further
            
        5   characterize a fish consumption distribution.  
            
        6            The Fish Consumption Distribution accounts for
            
        7   fish caught and consumed by fishers at a contaminated
            
        8   water body, not commercially caught fish. 
            
        9            Data were not available for children so we used
            
       10   the same distribution in terms of
            
       11   milligrams-per-kilogram body weight per day for ages 0
            
       12   to 9, 0 to 30 and 0 to 70.  
            
       13            Oops, you're right.  Next slide?  
            
       14            In summary, we have developed a stochastic
            
       15   approach using the best available distributions either
            
       16   developed from data or already published in the
            
       17   literature.  
            
       18            We've developed a point estimate approach based
            
       19   on the mean and a high-end, the 95th percentile, from
            
       20   our distributions.  
            
       21            We used a point estimate for exposure
            
       22   parameters where inadequate data for characterizing data
            
       23   for variability were available, such as for the soil
            
       24   ingestion pathway.  
            
       25            Any questions?  
            

                                                                  20

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Is it fair to assume that
            
        2   most of the panel haven't spent a good amount of time
            
        3   reading the actual document?  
            
        4            If that's the case, I think what we would do,
            
        5   unless people have specific questions that they've
            
        6   developed either from your presentation or from looking
            
        7   at the document, that we would defer further discussion
            
        8   until the panel's actually had a chance to look at the
            
        9   document in a little bit greater detail. 
            
       10            DR. BLANC:  John, just as a process question,
            
       11   would we have the benefit of some draft written comments
            
       12   from Stan in advance of the meeting, the next meeting,
            
       13   that would allow us to look at the document ourselves in
            
       14   light of his comments?  
            
       15            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We could ask him to do that. 
            
       16            DR. BLANC:  Rather than coming to the meeting
            
       17   and having him at the meeting raise the points that he
            
       18   might raise.  And I guess my follow-up technical
            
       19   question is are we then as a panel, is OEHHA looking to
            
       20   us for a brief resolution, saying that we have read and
            
       21   accepted the document in the same way that we -- they're
            
       22   not looking -- you're not looking for findings, per se,
            
       23   simply a brief statement that we've read it and on the
            
       24   model that we used I think for the last one we had; is
            
       25   that right?  
            

                                                                  21

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. MARTY:  Yes.  
            
        2            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So we would take a vote to
            
        3   -- with some language we'd have to craft but basically
            
        4   saying we've read it, we think it represents sound
            
        5   scientific approach, and that would be pretty much it. 
            
        6   Is that -- 
            
        7            DR. MARTY:  Yes.
            
        8            DR. ALEXEEF:  George Alexeef from OEHHA.  
            
        9            And also any suggestions you have for improving
            
       10   the document, that would be pretty much what we'd
            
       11   request.  
            
       12            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  As a procedural matter,
            
       13   Paul, we actually have in here -- if you'll notice,
            
       14   there are responses to comments that they've received. 
            
       15   So there is some information that would be useful.  
            
       16            We actually could divide the document into
            
       17   pieces and have people look at individual pieces of it
            
       18   and come in so that everybody doesn't have to read
            
       19   everything.  My sense is that's a little cumbersome and
            
       20   it would be better if people took a look at the entire
            
       21   document.  But I think that's another option.  
            
       22            Comments on that?
            
       23            DR. MARTY:  Dr. Froines, I have one additional
            
       24   piece of information.  We had a 30-day public comment
            
       25   period on this draft.  We received one comment letter,
            

                                                                  22

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   and it was from one of the air pollution control
            
        2   districts, with questions, clarification-type questions,
            
        3   on the air dispersion modeling piece.  And we received
            
        4   no other comments on this draft.
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, the point here
            
        6   procedurally is that there are eleven chapters in this
            
        7   document.  Now, does the panel want to have everybody
            
        8   read eleven chapters or go over eleven chapters, or do
            
        9   you want to divide them up in some form? 
            
       10            DR. FRIEDMAN:  I'd rather divide them up if it
            
       11   makes sense to do that.  In other words, can you -- can
            
       12   each chapter be evaluated independently of having
            
       13   carefully read other chapters?
            
       14            DR. MARTY:  I think everyone needs to read
            
       15   Chapter 1.  Otherwise, the rest of -- you won't know why
            
       16   we did what we did. 
            
       17            DR. FRIEDMAN:  But after you've read 1, then
            
       18   each --
            
       19            DR. MARTY:  Yes.  
            
       20            DR. FRIEDMAN:  -- chapter can be looked at
            
       21   independently?  
            
       22            DR. MARTY:  Yes.  And there are appendices that
            
       23   are cited within a chapter that go with that chapter so
            
       24   you'd want to read those appendices too.  
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And the chapters -- one
            

                                                                  23

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   chapter is on air dispersion modeling, and so Roger and
            
        2   Tony would be clearly the two people who would read
            
        3   that.  After that, the -- there is no epidemiology
            
        4   chapter.  It's not by discipline.  
            
        5            So that we would -- using Gary as a foil here,
            
        6   Gary might end up looking at water intake, fish
            
        7   consumption and body weight.  But that doesn't
            
        8   necessarily bring his expertise to bear.  And so once
            
        9   you get past the first chapter on air dispersion, then
            
       10   it's -- since it's not disciplinary driven, it's
            
       11   basically taking responsibility for some of the other
            
       12   chapters.  And I think we could almost do that randomly.  
            
       13            What do you think?  
            
       14            DR. BYUS:  Okay.
            
       15            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Do you want me just to sit
            
       16   down and send out some assignment with no prejudice
            
       17   involved?  
            
       18            DR. ATKINSON:  Surely.
            
       19            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And if there's any area of
            
       20   particular expertise that we can identify, we'll do
            
       21   that.
            
       22            DR. MARTY:  Dr. Froines, Appendix E would
            
       23   probably benefit from review by Dr. Atkinson.  
            
       24            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So we'll get that to the
            
       25   panel and -- is that reasonable?  
            

                                                                  24

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            It's also useful -- even if people look at
            
        2   individual chapters, it's useful to skim everything to
            
        3   get a sense of the overall document.  But I think 
            
        4   that -- 
            
        5            Melanie, do you agree that the individual
            
        6   chapters in a sense can be read as a complete piece?  
            
        7            DR. MARTY:  Yes, they can be individually read
            
        8   as a complete piece.  But I also agree with the last
            
        9   thing you said.  To get really an overview of what it is
            
       10   we're doing, everybody has to read Chapter 1, and it
            
       11   would be nice to skim through a few other chapters just
            
       12   to see what else went on for those pathways.  
            
       13            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Our hope would be to move
            
       14   this one through pretty quickly.  So as long as you're   
            
       15   still sitting there --
            
       16            DR. MARTY:  Shall we do the chronic RELs?  
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  It's either that or --
            
       18            DR. MARTY:  Yeah.  
            
       19            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  -- bring up Paul Gosselin. 
            
       20   You might as well grab the spot when you've got it. 
            
       21            And as far as I know, while they're getting
            
       22   here, Paul has to leave at 2:00.  
            
       23            Is that correct? 
            
       24            DR. BLANC:  Earlier than that.  I would say
            
       25   1:30.
            

                                                                  25

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  One, two, three, four, five. 
            
        2            Go ahead.  
            
        3            DR. MARTY:  Okay.  We have a short
            
        4   presentation, just going over the changes that were made
            
        5   for the 16 Chronic Reference Exposure Levels that the
            
        6   panel was sent for review.  These are chemicals that
            
        7   everyone's already seen.  We had suggestions from the
            
        8   panel for changes to make.  We've incorporated those
            
        9   suggestions, and we'd just like to briefly run those
            
       10   through a presentation.  
            
       11            The presentation today is going to be given by
            
       12   Dr. Andy Salmon.  
            
       13            DR. SALMON:  Thank you.  
            
       14            Well, I'll just start by reminding you what the
            
       15   document that you have in front of you is.  I think
            
       16   you've got a -- 
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Excuse me, Andy.  Do you
            
       18   have the handouts from -- 
            
       19            DR. SALMON:  I'm afraid I don't have it.  I've
            
       20   only got a few slides, and we -- 
            
       21            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Okay.  Can we -- Jim or
            
       22   Peter, can we make sure that we get the -- thank you.
            
       23            DR. SALMON:  What you I hope do have is the
            
       24   stack of toxicity summaries and the table of the
            
       25   numbers.  
            

                                                                  26

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            Anyway, so this is a -- in fact a part and an
            
        2   addition to the Appendix to the Technical Support
            
        3   Document for Chronic Reference Exposure Levels.  
            
        4            If I could have the next slide, please. 
            
        5            And this is the Part III determination.  And
            
        6   you saw the methodology section and the previous group
            
        7   of chemicals just previously.  
            
        8            If I could have the next slide.  
            
        9            And just for reference, I've included a
            
       10   reminder of the definition of Reference Exposure Level. 
            
       11   Key point here is that it's meant to protect most
            
       12   people, including sensitive individuals, although we're
            
       13   unable to account for idiosyncratic responses. 
            
       14            Therefore, exceedence of the REL does not
            
       15   necessarily result in the appearance of adverse health
            
       16   consequences, although it may increase the probability
            
       17   that such consequences might be seen.  
            
       18            If I could have the next slide, please.  Could
            
       19   you pull that down just a shade?  Thank you. 
            
       20            The modifications which we've made basically in
            
       21   response to your previous comments, and the first thing
            
       22   that we have done is in fact reevaluated several of the
            
       23   proposed RELs, which were based on USEPA RfCs.  And to
            
       24   -- rather than simply following the USEPA
            
       25   recommendation, we've reevaluated these levels in
            

                                                                  27

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   accordance with our methodological guidelines.  
            
        2            And the first group of chemicals, the change
            
        3   was essentially to drop the modifying factor from the
            
        4   uncertainty factors which USEPA uses on a number of
            
        5   occasions but without particularly consistent rationale. 
            
        6   And it's not in fact included in our guidelines.  
            
        7            And so for the four compounds listed here,
            
        8   ethyl chloride, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide,
            
        9   manganese, this was the substantial change.  
            
       10            In the case of hydrogen sulfide, the other
            
       11   uncertainty factors were slightly different than those
            
       12   used by USEPA.  But apart from the dropping the
            
       13   modifying factor, the other changes are not -- don't in
            
       14   fact result in a substantial difference in the final
            
       15   number.  
            
       16            If I could have the next slide, please. 
            
       17            Some other changes which I will describe more
            
       18   specifically, for hexane, we reevaluated the data, and
            
       19   rather than using the earlier RfC result, which was
            
       20   criticized by the panel on the grounds that the results
            
       21   in the key human study were somewhat questionable and
            
       22   involved potentiating co-exposures, we in fact developed
            
       23   a new REL, which is substantially higher, which was
            
       24   based on a one-year animal study with multiple exposure
            
       25   levels and which clearly avoids the problem of the
            

                                                                  28

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   potentiating co-exposures. 
            
        2            In addition to the change I mentioned earlier
            
        3   for hydrogen sulfide -- 
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I'm not sure I'd like to be
            
        5   exposed to 7,000 micrograms per cubic meter of hexane. 
            
        6   It seems like going from 207,000 is a big jump.
            
        7            DR. SALMON:  It is a substantial change, yes. 
            
        8            DR. COLLINS:  You're the key reviewer.
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I understand.
            
       10            DR. SALMON:  Essentially, we were following the
            
       11   recommendation to look at the animal studies in
            
       12   reference to the human study.  And this is -- 
            
       13            DR. BLANC:  In that particular case?
            
       14            DR. SALMON:  In this specific instance, because
            
       15   of the problems with the human study.  I -- and this is
            
       16   the number that going with the animal studies comes out
            
       17   with.  If you have further specific direction on how we
            
       18   should address this, then obviously we will --
            
       19            DR. BLANC:  Can you just translate that into
            
       20   parts per million?  I'm going through the document.
            
       21            DR. MARTY:  It's 2 ppm.  
            
       22            DR. SALMON:  Yeah, 2 parts per million. 
            
       23            DR. BLANC:  Okay.  And the current -- just for
            
       24   order of magnitude, the current OSHA --
            
       25            DR. COLLINS:  I think it's 50 ppm.
            

                                                                  29

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  2 ppm?  
            
        2            DR. SALMON:  7,000 is 2 ppm, which is 
            
        3   standard --
            
        4            DR. BLANC:  It's 7 milligrams per cubic meter.  
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I stand corrected. 
            
        6            DR. BLANC:  It just sounds worse when it's in
            
        7   micrograms.  
            
        8            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  No, that's exactly right. 
            
        9   I'm wrong.  I'm wrong.  It's okay.
            
       10            DR. SALMON:  Okay.  Should I proceed with
            
       11   hydrogen sulfide now?  
            
       12            Okay.  If I could have the next slide, please. 
            
       13            One of the concerns which the panel directed us
            
       14   to address at the previous consideration of hydrogen
            
       15   sulfide was -- 
            
       16            Bob, could you pull that one up a bit so people
            
       17   can see it?  Thank you. 
            
       18            -- was the question of odor thresholds.  
            
       19            And what I have here actually is a summary of
            
       20   some data from a paper which was published a while ago
            
       21   which considered the issue not only of odor thresholds
            
       22   in laboratory measurements but also what would be likely
            
       23   to be detected and identified in a practical situation. 
            
       24            The odor threshold reported here for hydrogen
            
       25   sulfide is in fact an average of a wide range of
            

                                                                  30

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   laboratory odor thresholds which have been reported in
            
        2   the literature, some of which are significantly below
            
        3   this level but others significantly above.  
            
        4            The authors also made the point that although
            
        5   these thresholds represent levels which could be
            
        6   distinguished and isolated in a controlled laboratory
            
        7   situation that such evidence as they were able to find
            
        8   on the issue suggested that in a practical situation in
            
        9   the outside world that odors which would be noticed
            
       10   and/or found objectionable would be occurring at a
            
       11   rather substantially higher level, something around
            
       12   about 50 times higher, I think, isn't it?  But at least
            
       13   in order of magnitude higher as possible. 
            
       14            But even taking a, you know, somewhat
            
       15   statistical approach and looking at a lower bound on it,
            
       16   you would probably expect not to find people noticing
            
       17   levels lower than about five times this
            
       18   laboratory-determined threshold.  Their report was about
            
       19   40 parts per million as producing reports in the field
            
       20   of noticeable and identifiable hydrogen sulfide odors. 
            
       21            Anyway, the conclusion which we drew from this
            
       22   specifically as regards hydrogen sulfide was that our
            
       23   health-based reference exposure level was likely to
            
       24   exclude all but the most extreme tale of the
            
       25   distribution of practical nuisance finding in exposures
            

                                                                  31

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   outside in the general environment as opposed to
            
        2   laboratory based detection.  
            
        3            However, it was also pointed out in this paper
            
        4   that one of the key problems with nuisance complaints
            
        5   involving hydrogen sulfide is that typically emissions
            
        6   of hydrogen sulfide are associated with emissions of
            
        7   other chemicals, including several of the mercaptans,
            
        8   which are similar in their objectionability from the
            
        9   odor point of view but have a considerably lower odor
            
       10   threshold.  
            
       11            And it has been pointed out that many of the
            
       12   complaints about odors associated with hydrogen sulfide
            
       13   emission may well be complicated by the co-exposure to
            
       14   other mercaptans, which are -- which have considerably
            
       15   lower odor threshold.  And this is something that is,
            
       16   you know, a factor in this consideration of this issue. 
            
       17            If I could have the next slide, please. 
            
       18            DR. BLANC:  Could we just close the loop on
            
       19   that one?
            
       20            DR. SALMON:  By all means. 
            
       21            DR. BLANC:  Therefore, just remind us therefore
            
       22   we're not likely to have a REL which is so high that
            
       23   people are going to be complaining of the odor and we
            
       24   won't have achieved the REL?  Was that the point?  
            
       25            DR. SALMON:  The point was -- the point with
            

                                                                  32

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   regard to hydrogen sulfide is that it's unlikely that --
            
        2   if the REL is observed, it's unlikely that there will be
            
        3   hydrogen sulfide related odor complaints.  However,
            
        4   we're not able to exclude by that mechanism the
            
        5   possibility that there might be odor complaints
            
        6   associated with co-exposure to some of these mercaptans
            
        7   which often appear in the same emission stream. 
            
        8            DR. BLANC:  But the reason why anyone would
            
        9   care would be because if people were being irritated by
            
       10   the odor, you wouldn't want to be then turning around
            
       11   and saying, well, yeah, but we have -- but it's not even
            
       12   high enough to be the REL.  That's the point of that
            
       13   exercise; right?  
            
       14            DR. SALMON:  Yes.  
            
       15            DR. BLANC:  Okay.  I just wanted to make sure I
            
       16   followed that.
            
       17            DR. SALMON:  And I think Dr. Witschi pointed
            
       18   out at the previous meeting that adverse odor experience
            
       19   is itself of deleterious impact and so that we would not
            
       20   be comfortable with -- 
            
       21            DR. BLANC:  Yes, yes.  No, I think it's a
            
       22   reasonable point.  That's why I was trying to clarify
            
       23   that.
            
       24            DR. SALMON:  Okay.  If I -- well, I'll proceed
            
       25   to methanol.  
            

                                                                  33

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            The methanol was basically a revision of the
            
        2   methodology.  We have made some comparisons of the
            
        3   benchmark dose methodology, and our preference as
            
        4   specified in the current version of the guidelines is
            
        5   that the benchmark concentration BMC 05 is a better
            
        6   basis for calculating the REL than the BMC 10, which was
            
        7   used by USEPA RfC.  
            
        8            So we're proposing that the REL be reduced to
            
        9   4,000 micrograms per liter cubed, which is based on the
            
       10   benchmark.  This is the lower confidence found on the
            
       11   five-percent effective benchmark concentration plus the
            
       12   appropriate uncertainty factors.  
            
       13            The fenol, the reexamination of the study led
            
       14   to a recommendation of that subchronic uncertainty
            
       15   factor should be three and not one in this case.  This
            
       16   results in a change in the REL to 200 micrograms per
            
       17   meter cubed.  
            
       18            Next slide, please, Bob.  
            
       19            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Before you go ahead, on the
            
       20   sheet that I'm looking at, you have naphthalene, and
            
       21   you're at nine micrograms per cubic meter for your REL. 
            
       22   Can you give me an estimate of the parts per billion?  
            
       23            DR. SALMON:  Yes, certainly.
            
       24            DR. MARTY:  It's two parts per billion.
            
       25            DR. SALMON:  Thank you.
            

                                                                  34

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  It's two parts per billion? 
            
        2            What's the ambient level, Roger?  
            
        3            DR. ATKINSON:  Oh, it used to make it up to
            
        4   about one.  We've seen lower values than that but
            
        5   certainly fairly close to a ppb would be expected or
            
        6   anticipated.
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  In -- 
            
        8            DR. ATKINSON:  Maximum.
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  If you have the basis, how
            
       10   about over here? 
            
       11            DR. ATKINSON:  The times when we had the
            
       12   highest -- well, it was in summer about ten years ago
            
       13   when we were measuring consistently about one ppb in
            
       14   Azusa area.  Here recently it's been lower by maybe up
            
       15   to a factor of 10.  But that's -- you know, and so much
            
       16   depends on meteorology and just when you're doing the
            
       17   measurements.
            
       18            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And if you added in the one
            
       19   methyl, two methyl naphthalene -- 
            
       20            DR. ATKINSON:  They would only kick it up by
            
       21   maybe 20 percent, so not very much.  Naphthalene totally
            
       22   dominates over -- oh, not totally but dominates fairly
            
       23   well over one and two methyl naphthalenes.  
            
       24            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So we're --
            
       25            DR. ATKINSON:  But you're getting close to --
            

                                                                  35

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   you know, you could reach that in the atmosphere and
            
        2   rotate inversion and close to an emission source. 
            
        3            DR. BLANC:  Well, maybe that's appropriate
            
        4   then.
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, it shows you this
            
        6   number, this naphthalene number, is actually quite
            
        7   important --
            
        8            DR. ATKINSON:  Yeah.
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  -- because you're right on
            
       10   the border here with it.  And for people like me who
            
       11   think these things then become quinones and start all
            
       12   surgent things -- 
            
       13            DR. BLANC:  Can you leave your obsession for
            
       14   just a few minutes and go on? 
            
       15            DR. ATKINSON:  People who used to live in the
            
       16   entomology museum here have been exposed to much higher
            
       17   concentrations than that for a full lifetime.  
            
       18            DR. BYUS:  Well, that's no recommendation. 
            
       19            DR. ATKINSON:  No, I know.  Maybe they were a
            
       20   bit -- 
            
       21            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  They were a survivor
            
       22   population.  
            
       23            DR. ATKINSON:  The few of them that were left.  
            
       24            DR. SALMON:  Well, I think I could also
            
       25   reemphasize the point I made at the beginning, that the
            

                                                                  36

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   REL is designed to be a concentration of which is a
            
        2   reasonable expectation that there would be no adverse
            
        3   health consequences.  It's not -- you know, it's
            
        4   deliberately designed to be below the effect level
            
        5   except in case of idiosyncratic responses.  And
            
        6   obviously that's -- in the interest of protecting the
            
        7   public health, that's the way we would want it to be.
            
        8            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  But later today, which I
            
        9   don't think we'll get to, but if we talk about -- if we
            
       10   talk about priorities, one of the issues becomes the
            
       11   two- and three-member ring pH's.  
            
       12            Let's go ahead.
            
       13            DR. SALMON:  Styrene, the -- we in fact
            
       14   originally had a USEPA RfC for styrene, which was based
            
       15   on the NOAEL and uncertainty factor method.  
            
       16            There was some recent work on benchmark dose
            
       17   analysis of this study done by OEHHA which enabled us to
            
       18   propose a revised REL using the BMC 05 method which I've
            
       19   just referred to.  And this in fact resulted in a very
            
       20   minor change in the proposed REL.  But we feel it's a
            
       21   methodologically sound derivation. 
            
       22            The toluene proposal is significantly modified
            
       23   from where it was before, primarily in methodological
            
       24   terms.  The original proposal was the USEPA RfC based on
            
       25   an epidemiological study with a LOAEL derivable and
            

                                                                  37

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   somewhat fully quantified exposure.  
            
        2            The revised proposal actually uses as the
            
        3   primary key study an animal experiment.  However, there
            
        4   are a number of other supporting studies based on other
            
        5   animal studies and also some supporting human studies. 
            
        6   And when we examined this set of data in its totality,
            
        7   we concluded firstly that all these studies were
            
        8   indicating effect levels which, after correction for
            
        9   exposure durations and inter-species comparisons and
            
       10   things like that, were basically pointing at a somewhat
            
       11   similar level.  
            
       12            And secondly, we felt that the availability of
            
       13   the supporting human studies actually reduced the
            
       14   overall uncertainty with which we were having to deal in
            
       15   using the animal study as the primary basis.  
            
       16            So taking all these factors into consideration,
            
       17   we came up with a revised REL of 300 micrograms per
            
       18   meter cubed, which we feel represents a level expected
            
       19   to be protective of the adverse effects, which are
            
       20   primarily central nervous system based, of course, on
            
       21   the basis of both the animal and the human studies.  
            
       22            May I have the next slide, please?  
            
       23            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Andy, just one quick
            
       24   question.
            
       25            DR. SALMON:  Yeah.
            

                                                                  38

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Have you gone through and
            
        2   looked at how the numbers that you are developing here
            
        3   -- how they may compare with any regulatory numbers
            
        4   under Prop 65, and are --
            
        5            DR. SALMON:  We --
            
        6            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  -- they consistent?
            
        7            DR. SALMON:  Are they consistent?  Yeah, one of
            
        8   the things that we actually do and which is described in
            
        9   the text for toluene, we do review the toluene
            
       10   reproductive and developmental toxicity data.  And this
            
       11   REL as proposed would be protective of those effects
            
       12   according to our methodology and -- 
            
       13            DR. COLLINS:  The NSRL for toluene is 7,000
            
       14   micrograms per day, and at 300 micrograms per cubic
            
       15   meters times 400 liters out to 6,000.  So quite similar.
            
       16            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So would you -- based on
            
       17   this, would you then change that number to be
            
       18   consistent?  
            
       19            DR. SALMON:  No, I think the Proposition 65
            
       20   process is relatively inflexible in terms of its -- the
            
       21   way it calculates the numbers.  So I don't know that we
            
       22   have any discretion to change the way that they
            
       23   calculated their number.  
            
       24            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Oh, that's right.  Because
            
       25   in the past -- 
            

                                                                  39

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. SALMON:  But I think what they're saying,
            
        2   as far as any practical consideration is concerned, we
            
        3   are consistent with that.  And we're not -- that was a
            
        4   point which we were at pains to establish when we were
            
        5   considering the overall toxicity situation here. 
            
        6            Well, that's the end of the individual
            
        7   compounds discussions.  I'll finish at this point unless
            
        8   you need to ask me any further questions.  
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Does the panel have further
            
       10   questions or queries on these chemicals? 
            
       11            DR. BLANC:  Just a process question.  Did you
            
       12   find that the way we did it was as useful as it could
            
       13   have been for you, or did we just make your life
            
       14   miserable or -- 
            
       15            DR. COLLINS:  Do we have counsel here? 
            
       16            DR. BLANC:  Yeah, because if we're going to go
            
       17   forward and then reiterate this work in progress with
            
       18   this next batch -- 
            
       19            DR. COLLINS:  I'd like to speak to that because
            
       20   I do the crunch work, and I found it very helpful.  It
            
       21   made us put in more comparisons, to put actual data in,
            
       22   to go check federal references for some of the physical
            
       23   chemical stuff.  So I think it was helpful.
            
       24            DR. MARTY:  I think I'd agree with Jim that the
            
       25   comments we got were really good and improved the
            

                                                                  40

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   document tremendously.  I think some of the pain was
            
        2   more coming here to the panel and not knowing yet what
            
        3   your concerns were, making it difficult to address them
            
        4   on the spot.  That's a little painful sometimes.  
            
        5            But the only other way to do it that I see is
            
        6   to have the panel members who are assigned to chemicals
            
        7   write out comments and submit them to OEHHA.  I don't
            
        8   know if that's something that you would be willing to do
            
        9   or had the time to do or if it makes sense to do it that
            
       10   way.  That's -- 
            
       11            DR. SALMON:  We're very happy to accept any
            
       12   comments on that basis.
            
       13            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, we have assigned - and
            
       14   everybody in the room has forgotten what they've been
            
       15   assigned to - the next group of 40 chemicals, if that's
            
       16   the right number.  
            
       17            DR. BLANC:  Have we?  
            
       18            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Yup.  
            
       19            DR. BLANC:  Well, I don't -- not only do I not
            
       20   remember which ones they were, but I don't remember the
            
       21   next group.
            
       22            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Have they got them?  
            
       23            Oh, no.  The good news is you haven't got them. 
            
       24   The bad news is we've done it. 
            
       25            DR. BLANC:  You know, in the ideal world, what
            

                                                                  41

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   you say is correct, that it would probably be useful if
            
        2   we supplied written comments.  
            
        3            But I can tell you that from a practical point
            
        4   of view, as long as you feel comfortable enough with
            
        5   sort of doing, you know, the live-TV version rather than
            
        6   the pretaped broadcast, it's easier, I think -- at least
            
        7   for me, speaking personally, it's easier to do it the
            
        8   way we did it.  
            
        9            And I'll always sort of give you my scribbled
            
       10   notes, but I would actuall -- to provide something
            
       11   coherent, I would have to sit down and word process
            
       12   something and -- 
            
       13            DR. MARTY:  Right.  
            
       14            DR. SALMON:  I think if there were any, you
            
       15   know, specific major concerns that the panel member had,
            
       16   obviously, we'd be very pleased to hear about them as
            
       17   soon as possible, even by -- you know, even verbally, if
            
       18   that's permissible.  
            
       19            DR. BLANC:  Well, what I would say is that if
            
       20   -- if reviewing chemicals, I say, you know, there's --
            
       21   you know, John Smith studies cited here, rather than
            
       22   just come here and say John Smith study, I'll at least
            
       23   bring you the abstract citation that I can hand to you
            
       24   at the time.  
            
       25            And similarly, I would suggest that if people
            

                                                                  42

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   -- and people have done this already, is that -- you
            
        2   know, this doesn't sound right for the boiling
            
        3   temperature for, you know, whatever, that if you have a
            
        4   Merck manual, you can just bring it in at the time.  So
            
        5   we're not talking off the top of our heads, but if we
            
        6   don't have to prepare formal written reviews, I would -- 
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, is the compromise in
            
        8   this that the panel members know which chemicals they
            
        9   have; they receive the information on the chemical; if
            
       10   they were -- Paul may not do it, but Gary may or what
            
       11   have you.  Some may submit written comments or
            
       12   communicate with you somehow.  Otherwise, we'll continue
            
       13   it.  I think that's the compromise.  
            
       14            I think that the -- I think it's nice of you to
            
       15   say that the process worked well.  But as we all know,
            
       16   without making it too explicit, this has been a very
            
       17   slow process too.  And so that if there's a way in which
            
       18   we could speed it up, I think we would all benefit. 
            
       19   Because, you know, you're in this position about saying,
            
       20   oh, my God, here come those 40 chemicals again and again
            
       21   and again.  But we want to do a thorough 
            
       22   job too.  So any suggestions that would work.  
            
       23            I frankly think it would be better if people
            
       24   did take the time to send you comments, but practical
            
       25   limitations may prevent it. 
            

                                                                  43

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. ATKINSON:  I have some minor comments just
            
        2   on the chemical properties and the usage stuff.  I've
            
        3   got them written down so I'll just hand them to you.
            
        4            DR. SALMON:  Thank you.
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Do we need a motion then to
            
        6   formally accept?  
            
        7            DR. COLLINS:  We did last time.
            
        8            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We did?  So we've done it. 
            
        9            Jim, do you -- we have -- Jim says that we had
            
       10   an acceptance resolution at the last meeting.  So we
            
       11   don't need to do anything because we're really cleaning
            
       12   up loose ends at this one.
            
       13            DR. MARTY:  I think the last meeting, though,
            
       14   it was the methodology plus the first 22 chemicals, and
            
       15   this meeting it's 16 more.  So we may want to make that
            
       16   clear. 
            
       17            DR. BLANC:  That does confuse me.  The 16 more
            
       18   ones that we did discuss?  
            
       19            DR. MARTY:  Correct. 
            
       20            DR. BLANC:  But there were 20 or so that we
            
       21   already grandfathered in or were done?  
            
       22            DR. MARTY:  We couldn't keep up with getting
            
       23   all of them to you the last meeting in February. 
            
       24            DR. BLANC:  Right.
            
       25            DR. MARTY:  So we just brought some of them
            

                                                                  44

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   back to you, and the rest of them that you've already
            
        2   looked at, these are the rest of the ones you've already
            
        3   looked at.  
            
        4            DR. BLANC:  Okay.
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So we need a motion to
            
        6   accept these chemicals. 
            
        7            DR. BLANC:  I move that we accept the modified
            
        8   document as presented. 
            
        9            DR. ATKINSON:  Second.
            
       10            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  All in favor?  
            
       11            DR. BLANC:  Aye.  
            
       12            DR. BYUS:  Aye.  
            
       13            (Show of hands.)
            
       14            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Unanimous.  Thank you.
            
       15            DR. MARTY:  Thank you.  
            
       16            DR. COLLINS:  Thank you.  
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  It's quarter to 12:00.  We
            
       18   have a couple of constraints.  One, we have Paul leaving
            
       19   at 1:30.  We can go on now to the issue of MITC, or we
            
       20   can break for lunch. 
            
       21            DR. BLANC:  How about if we took a ten-minute
            
       22   break and then started with MITC and, if it seems as if
            
       23   it's going to drag on forever, then we took a lunch
            
       24   break?  
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  The panel -- members of the
            

                                                                  45

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   panel should think, because if we want to run through
            
        2   and go as far as we can go until 1:30 without taking a
            
        3   lunch break and then stop the meeting and then have a
            
        4   lunch break after that --
            
        5            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Is there food here that we could
            
        6   bring back and eat while we're meeting?  
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I think so.  He says there's
            
        8   a cafe.  
            
        9            DR. BYUS:  There's a cafe.  
            
       10            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So if we took a break and
            
       11   brought food back, we could be meeting while we --
            
       12            DR. BLANC:  How about a 15-minute break right
            
       13   now?  
            
       14            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Fifteen-minute break right
            
       15   now with a potential to bring some food back, is that
            
       16   acceptable to everybody?           
            
       17            (Whereupon a lunch recess was taken.)
            
       18            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Paul, you want to -- Elinor? 
            
       19   Andy?  
            
       20            Let me review for the panel where we are as I
            
       21   understand it.  At the last meeting, the panel voted for
            
       22   a resolution that Paul Blanc presented which approved
            
       23   the documents for MITC.  The title of that resolution
            
       24   was that, "The Panel Approves the Documents for
            
       25   Metam-Sodium and Breakdown Products."  And that was a
            

                                                                  46

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   point of departure because the document had been labeled
            
        2   as MITC.  But the discussion during the day focused on
            
        3   the role of metam -- MITC vis-a-vis MI -- MITC.  
            
        4            So then, as we normally do, we went off to
            
        5   develop the Scientific Review Panel's findings.  And as
            
        6   we've done in the past, the lead agency develops a draft
            
        7   for the panel, which we then modify as we so choose and
            
        8   then take it to the panel for final approval.  
            
        9            So Andy was nice enough to put together a draft
            
       10   document for us.  And then Elinor and I took a look at
            
       11   it, and Roger Atkinson and Peter Witschi looked at it. 
            
       12            And one of the things to say at the outset is
            
       13   that I think that the only prior panel findings that DPR
            
       14   really had to work from in terms of drafting something
            
       15   may have been diesel or lead or some documents from the
            
       16   past which were unique more or less unto themselves. 
            
       17   They weren't our usual, pardon the expression,
            
       18   run-of-the-mill findings.  
            
       19            So what Andy did was to prepare what is
            
       20   essentially a very long document.  And that's okay
            
       21   because you can always take a long document and tighten
            
       22   it up.  It became -- it looked a little bit too much
            
       23   like another executive summary of the overall document. 
            
       24   I don't mean that as a criticism.  I mean it's just that
            
       25   it needed to be tightened up.  
            

                                                                  47

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            So having gotten a draft from them, what we did
            
        2   was to ask Elinor to then develop a draft for us that
            
        3   could go to the panel.  And she did that.  
            
        4            So what you have before you, what you received,
            
        5   is Elinor's preliminary draft.  And she did it in a very
            
        6   short period of time.  So she and I recognized that it
            
        7   wasn't going to be a final document for the panel to
            
        8   approve today.  But it was a first step, and we will
            
        9   approve a document that will be completed at the next
            
       10   meeting. 
            
       11            And so that's a little bit of the history. 
            
       12   During the course of all this, I went back and looked
            
       13   over the exposure assessment in the original report
            
       14   based on what I read from Andy, because in Andy's
            
       15   document I had some trouble figuring out what was --
            
       16   what actually had happened in terms of some of the
            
       17   averaging relative to the exposure.  
            
       18            And so it was clear to me from the draft
            
       19   findings that there were some exposure issues that were
            
       20   problematic.  I then went back and looked at the
            
       21   original document and realized that there are some --
            
       22   some issues of consequence.  
            
       23            So at this point what I'd like to do is to
            
       24   propose that we discuss this document to the degree that
            
       25   people have had a chance to read it; that Elinor and I
            

                                                                  48

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   and the leads, Peter and Roger, can go back and develop
            
        2   a more complete document that will sort out some of the
            
        3   exposure issues and try and bring a more final document
            
        4   to the panel and so that we can improve the metam-sodium
            
        5   MITC document at the next meeting.  So that's my
            
        6   proposal for the procedure. 
            
        7            I think that there are issues about exposure
            
        8   that we will not take up when we take up the findings
            
        9   but we'll take up in a subsequent meeting, we hope maybe
            
       10   in July, which begins to look -- take the findings from
            
       11   our workshop and discuss some issues of exposure
            
       12   assessment more thoroughly further.  
            
       13            And my view is that there are issues -- in
            
       14   looking at exposure assessment, I would say there are
            
       15   three issues that we need to focus some effort on.  One
            
       16   is the issue of the representativeness of the samples
            
       17   that are collected.  Often we find ourselves drawing
            
       18   major conclusions about a document from samples but in
            
       19   which we haven't had any -- we haven't had discussions
            
       20   in the document about the representativeness of those
            
       21   samples. 
            
       22            Secondly, we haven't looked very effectively, I
            
       23   think, at distributional issues, that is, issues of
            
       24   variability, and we haven't addressed as fully as we
            
       25   might issues of uncertainty.  
            

                                                                  49

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            And so representativeness, variability and
            
        2   uncertainty are sort of the key words that seem to me to
            
        3   be issues that we can take up.  And this has to do not
            
        4   with MITC, this has to do with all the things that we
            
        5   are talking about in the future. 
            
        6            So those are the issues I think that we need to
            
        7   take up at a meeting.  So that we're talking about two
            
        8   meetings, one in which we finalize the MITC document and
            
        9   a subsequent meeting in which we talk about some of the
            
       10   -- which is basically a follow-up discussion to our
            
       11   workshop and findings on exposure. 
            
       12            Now, having said that, we've created a slight
            
       13   contradiction.  We're saying that there are some issues
            
       14   that are not adequately dealt with in the document. 
            
       15   However, I do think that Paul's motion was correct and
            
       16   we shouldn't go back on it because I think what happened
            
       17   is we recognized that the exposure data that was in the
            
       18   document does indicate that the exposures that occur are
            
       19   sufficient to meet the criteria to recommend the
            
       20   compounds as toxic air contaminants.  
            
       21            So that the fundamental decision hasn't been
            
       22   called into question.  It's more how we look at exposure
            
       23   issues rather than that there's any fundamental problem. 
            
       24            So that, as far as I'm concerned, we can go
            
       25   forward with the documents as they are because we have
            

                                                                  50

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   met the basic criteria that we would normally use to
            
        2   make a resolution and bring it to closure.  
            
        3            And so I think that what Paul suggested last
            
        4   time, the resolution that we voted on, is still
            
        5   consistent and we can go forward and correct these
            
        6   problems.  And some of them -- some of the things are
            
        7   not problems.  They're larger issues which I think will
            
        8   have implications well beyond MITC and will be a matter
            
        9   of some interest intellectually and scientifically.  
            
       10            So that's where we are.  Is that all clear? 
            
       11   Did I say that clearly? 
            
       12            DR. BLANC:  Well, the only thing that was
            
       13   slightly confusing in what you said was when you used
            
       14   the word "document," you were referring to the findings,
            
       15   not "the document" referring to the -- whatever the
            
       16   correct technical term is for the original report. 
            
       17   We've already approved the report, but what we still
            
       18   have not yet approved is the language of the findings.
            
       19            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Findings.  
            
       20            DR. BLANC:  So when you say we'll approve the
            
       21   document at our next meeting, we'll approve the written
            
       22   form of the findings; is that correct?  
            
       23            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  That's correct.  
            
       24            DR. BLANC:  Just to clarify.  
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We have -- what I'm saying
            

                                                                  51

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   is we have approved the report, and I don't propose that
            
        2   we go back to that issue.
            
        3            DR. BLANC:  Right, right.
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  We haven't approved the
            
        5   findings. 
            
        6            DR. BLANC:  Right.
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And I'm saying at the next
            
        8   meeting we will go back to that issue.
            
        9            DR. BLANC:  Right. 
            
       10            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Do you want us to comment on it? 
            
       11            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Yes.  Yes, so that the --
            
       12   what I think we should do is to get as many comments as
            
       13   we can right now and then -- because that will be very
            
       14   valuable in terms of completing the thing.  
            
       15            And I think the one -- as you notice, the part
            
       16   that's most missing in here is the exposure so -- 
            
       17            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Well, I had a few suggestions. 
            
       18            Item 22, you go into the carcinogenicity
            
       19   studies toward the end, and then you say, "When
            
       20   combined, the incidence rate at the high dose achieved
            
       21   statistical significance with respect to 
            
       22   controls . . . .  DPR concluded that these findings do
            
       23   not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that MITC is
            
       24   an animal carcinogen . . . ."
            
       25            And I just -- in reading this, when I read
            

                                                                  52

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   this, it sounded like there was evidence it was a
            
        2   carcinogen, and it seemed like some of the reasons why
            
        3   you might not have concluded that is because you didn't
            
        4   take the overall data as the criterion but you
            
        5   subdivided it.  And maybe it's in the subdividing that
            
        6   you lost statistical significance.  
            
        7            So I think maybe there's nothing wrong with --
            
        8   as I read this, it doesn't quite jibe.  You know, the
            
        9   conclusion doesn't fit with the findings.  I think maybe
            
       10   it needs some changes or more said there, Elinor.  
            
       11            DR. FANNING:  Yes.  That finding is a little
            
       12   bit problematic.  I was trying to work with the
            
       13   discussion that we had at UCSF in February where we
            
       14   spent quite a bit of time going through the data.  You
            
       15   know, I would definitely be interested in
            
       16   recommendations for changing the language.  
            
       17            I don't know if Dr. Witschi would like to
            
       18   comment on this.  I have -- in front of me I actually
            
       19   have a version that has a slightly modified finding
            
       20   number 22 based on language that he's recommended.  I
            
       21   don't know if you'd like to read and discuss that. 
            
       22            DR. WITSCHI:  Yeah, why don't you go ahead and
            
       23   read it?  
            
       24            DR. FANNING:  Okay.  
            
       25            DR. WITSCHI:  I don't have it with me.  
            

                                                                  53

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. FANNING:  Okay.  Shall I read it?  
            
        2            DR. BLANC:  Just the last part as it touches on
            
        3   -- or whatever part you've modified as it touches on it.
            
        4            DR. FANNING:  Okay.  It modifies slightly the
            
        5   description of the studies and the results.  The final
            
        6   concluding sentence is somewhat similar.  The sentence
            
        7   says -- it reads now -- with Dr. Witschi's suggestions,
            
        8   says, "The data do not allow to conclude that MITC is an
            
        9   animal carcinogen."  So --
            
       10            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Well, the stuff you show here
            
       11   does sound like it is. 
            
       12            DR. BLANC:  Well, let me -- maybe I could
            
       13   expand on it, just a more generic point in terms of the
            
       14   structure of the findings consistent with what John
            
       15   said, that this is not an executive summary of their
            
       16   document, this is our findings based on reading their
            
       17   document and touches on the extent to which we feel that
            
       18   scientific -- scientifically appropriate approaches were
            
       19   used or whatever limitations there may be.  And
            
       20   therefore I actually think the last sentence is
            
       21   superfluous.  
            
       22            I don't really actually care whether DPR wrote
            
       23   in their document whether it was or it wasn't a
            
       24   carcinogen.  These are the descriptive data that they
            
       25   used in assessing its carcinogenicity, and they in fact
            

                                                                  54

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   are open to interpretation.  
            
        2            But the important feature is that the data were
            
        3   looked at.  And since the carcinogenicity is not driving
            
        4   the risk assessment here, I don't think we're -- we
            
        5   don't -- our requirement is not -- I don't find it
            
        6   helpful simply to repeat what DPR's conclusions were.  I
            
        7   would rather if we -- if we differ or we have our own
            
        8   conclusions to say what those are.  But then that takes
            
        9   us down a different slope. 
            
       10            DR. WITSCHI:  That was my own conclusion.  In
            
       11   the last sentence, that's what in fact DPR concluded or
            
       12   thought there.  What I did in this rewrite was writing
            
       13   it as if this was the panel's conclusion.  
            
       14            Why don't you read the sentence once more?  
            
       15            DR. FANNING:  The --
            
       16            DR. WITSCHI:  Why don't you read the whole
            
       17   thing?  
            
       18            DR. FANNING:  Shall we go through the whole
            
       19   thing?  
            
       20            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, don't go through all
            
       21   the data part. 
            
       22            DR. WITSCHI:  It's much shorter.  
            
       23            DR. FANNING:  Okay.  
            
       24            DR. BYUS:  Read it.  
            
       25            DR. FANNING:  Okay.  
            

                                                                  55

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BYUS:  If you wouldn't mind.  
            
        2            DR. FANNING:  Okay.  We'll read it.  
            
        3            "Long-term oral toxicity studies of MITC have
            
        4   been conducted in dogs, rats and mice.  No bioassays of
            
        5   inhalation exposure were identified.  A suggestion of
            
        6   oncogenic potential was noted in rats and mice exposed
            
        7   to MITC in drinking water.  In female rats given 2, 10
            
        8   or 50 ppm of MITC in drinking water for 104 weeks, the
            
        9   incidence of benign and malignant mammary gland tumors
            
       10   was significantly higher in the 10 ppm but not the 2 or
            
       11   50 ppm groups.  Comparison of controls versus all
            
       12   exposed animals did not show a statistically significant
            
       13   increase in overall tumor incidence."  
            
       14            So that's that study.  And then, "In the mouse
            
       15   drinking water study, a small increase in cutaneous
            
       16   fibrosarcomas was observed in the highest dose group of
            
       17   males and females.  When the data from both sexes were
            
       18   combined, the increase in tumor incidence was
            
       19   statistically significant."  And the "p" value is given. 
            
       20            Then the final sentence once again, "The data
            
       21   do not allow to conclude that MITC is an animal
            
       22   carcinogen."
            
       23            DR. FRIEDMAN:  What would it take to allow you
            
       24   to conclude that? 
            
       25            DR. WITSCHI:  Well, the rat study is -- as I
            

                                                                  56

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   said, if you lump all the groups together and do a 50
            
        2   squared, then there's no significant increase in
            
        3   incidence.  As a matter of fact, the instance was from
            
        4   50 percent controls to 62 percent in the treated ones. 
            
        5            In the mouse study, it's even worse because
            
        6   there the incidence goes from zero percent in the
            
        7   controls to .46 percent if you use all the treated ones. 
            
        8   And I think this is a significance only.  If there had
            
        9   been one animal in the control group, it would not be
            
       10   significant.  
            
       11            DR. FRIEDMAN:  But there wasn't. 
            
       12            DR. WITSCHI:  There wasn't, yes.  
            
       13            DR. BLANC:  Well, wouldn't -- I think that the
            
       14   consensus view when we discussed it would -- the fairest
            
       15   way to summarize what the consensus was was that we all
            
       16   agreed that the data were not conclusive --
            
       17            DR. WITSCHI:  Yeah.  
            
       18            DR. BLANC:  -- in regards to carcinogenicity. 
            
       19            DR. WITSCHI:  To address Gary's question, there
            
       20   wasn't.  You know, this is also somewhat -- you can't
            
       21   draw necessarily this conclusion because when we're
            
       22   dealing with 30 controls about the total of 120 treated
            
       23   ones.  And if you have 120 controls, your chances of
            
       24   finding one there would be bigger.  
            
       25            DR. BYUS:  Right.  
            

                                                                  57

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BLANC:  But would people feel more
            
        2   comfortable with that wording?  It's a nuance issue. 
            
        3            DR. WITSCHI:  Yeah, I mean -- 
            
        4            DR. BLANC:  Because the issue is not -- some
            
        5   people will look at those data and say -- if one uses
            
        6   the words, "This does not indicate carcinogenicity,"
            
        7   well, there are some indications, but it's certainly not
            
        8   something that's it's conclusive that it's carcinogenic,
            
        9   and I think that's the thrust of it.
            
       10            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So you're suggesting that
            
       11   the data are --          
            
       12            DR. BLANC:  That the final sentence should be
            
       13   that, "These data are not conclusive in regards to
            
       14   carcinogenicity."
            
       15            DR. FRIEDMAN:  I would feel better about that
            
       16   than to say they don't show it.  
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  "These data are not
            
       18   conclusive with respect to carcinogenicity."  
            
       19            However, I'm going to write another paragraph
            
       20   to go with this.  And you can just throw it out or agree
            
       21   with it.  Because I think that there needs to be a brief
            
       22   discussion in which we look at the fact that there's
            
       23   evidence of carcinogenicity for metam-sodium, MITC and
            
       24   MIC.  
            
       25            There is some consistency across the primary
            

                                                                  58

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   and two breakdown products, and that's an issue which
            
        2   cannot be ignored in my view.  And so we may end up with
            
        3   the conclusion that it's all -- it is not conclusionary,
            
        4   but I think we also need to signal that this is an area
            
        5   that requires further evaluation.  
            
        6            DR. BLANC:  Well, I think you're sort of
            
        7   segueing into the uncertainties and other relevant
            
        8   findings section.  I mean, that's where you're saying
            
        9   you would put something like that.
            
       10            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Right.
            
       11            DR. FANNING:  Yeah, you might want to look at
            
       12   the language that's currently there for point 47, which
            
       13   is an attempt to address that point. 
            
       14            DR. BLANC:  But you still have other points to
            
       15   make, don't you? 
            
       16            DR. FRIEDMAN:  I have a couple.  This is
            
       17   probably -- this may not even be appropriate, but under
            
       18   number 34, the benchmark of at least 10 is considered by
            
       19   DPR to be protective, is there any definition in here of
            
       20   benchmark?  That seems to -- I don't work in this field
            
       21   very much.  I know we've heard it and I've heard it
            
       22   defined before, but shouldn't that definition be in the
            
       23   document?  
            
       24            DR. FANNING:  Perhaps it would be clearer to
            
       25   say a benchmark MOE, Paul?  
            

                                                                  59

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BLANC:  In the document?  
            
        2            DR. FANNING:  Yeah.  It's essentially a number
            
        3   to which the MOE is compared.  So I don't believe
            
        4   there's a formal -- the word benchmark is sort of just
            
        5   chosen to indicate that.  That's the comparison point. 
            
        6            DR. FRIEDMAN:  I just think a few more words
            
        7   there to explain --
            
        8            DR. FANNING:  Okay. 
            
        9            DR. FRIEDMAN:  -- explain what you mean, if you
            
       10   could. 
            
       11            And then in number 47, you talk about drinking
            
       12   water studies.  I think it would be worth adding the
            
       13   words "in animals."  Because when I think of drinking
            
       14   water, I always think of people.
            
       15            DR. FANNING:  Good point. 
            
       16            DR. FRIEDMAN:  That's all.
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Paul?
            
       18            DR. BLANC:  Well, returning to the theme of
            
       19   executive summary versus findings, we very intentionally
            
       20   approached the document, the report, as addressing
            
       21   metam-sodium and its breakdown products.  The actual
            
       22   organization of the report was weighted as an evaluation
            
       23   by and large of MITC.  And some of that has -- has
            
       24   hampered, I think, the structure of the findings in a
            
       25   way that makes the findings less logical in their
            

                                                                  60

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   progression than they might otherwise be.  
            
        2            And therefore I would suggest that -- and I'll
            
        3   give you my written notes afterwards, but I would
            
        4   suggest that in the initial health effects section of
            
        5   metam-sodium that you take the -- any human reports, and
            
        6   most specifically the Dunsmuir spill, and place it under
            
        7   that section.  
            
        8            Because the assumptions have been made and the
            
        9   publications people focused on MITC because they
            
       10   realized after the fact that that was the most salient
            
       11   breakdown product of metam-sodium.  But in fact we have
            
       12   no way of knowing how much of the Dunsmuir symptoms were
            
       13   not related to MIC.  It was never measured, nor was MITC
            
       14   measured really in any realtime way.  
            
       15            So I think it's logical to have your health
            
       16   effects of metam-sodium, the first part be animal
            
       17   studies where you say these are mostly -- these are not
            
       18   inhalation studies because metam-sodium isn't -- isn't
            
       19   vol -- isn't in itself volatile.  But the human studies
            
       20   would be any human outbreak or case report that was from
            
       21   metam-sodium. 
            
       22            So that would just be one logical outline.  I
            
       23   think that there are a number of ways in which the text
            
       24   has to be carefully edited for being more cautious or
            
       25   specific in language.  And I'll just give you notes.  I
            

                                                                  61

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   don't want to go over that here.  
            
        2            But in terms of the more generic issues, to me
            
        3   the issue with exposure in exposure assessment in the
            
        4   original document is from a public health point of view,
            
        5   that all of the errors, omissions and uncertainties, and
            
        6   the fragmentary and limited nature of the exposure
            
        7   assessment data would all drive towards underestimation
            
        8   of exposure.  
            
        9            Therefore, if our finding is that this is a
            
       10   toxic air contaminant, even given the limited nature of
            
       11   the exposure data that there is, if you had better
            
       12   exposure data, it could only drive it in the other way. 
            
       13   There is no -- we have no scientific basis upon which to
            
       14   assume that the error would be in the other direction of
            
       15   overestimation.  And I think that's a point that needs
            
       16   to be made in the uncertainties section.  
            
       17            I've drafted a little language, and I'll just
            
       18   read it briefly.  I'm not wedded to this, but this is my
            
       19   thought:  
            
       20            "The current database assessing ambient
            
       21       exposures to metam-sodium breakdown products is
            
       22       limited in important ways.  These limitations may
            
       23       lead to potential underestimation of MITC and, to an
            
       24       even greater extent, to MIC following application of
            
       25       metam-sodium.  The limitations of current data do
            

                                                                  62

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1       not indicate a meaningful likelihood of
            
        2       overestimation of exposure to MITC or MIC.  Thus,
            
        3       estimates based on available data that nonetheless
            
        4       identify excess risk are inherently conservative."
            
        5            DR. WITSCHI:  Sorry.  I don't understand the
            
        6   last -- 
            
        7            DR. BLANC:  In other words -- 
            
        8            DR. WITSCHI:  Can you reread the last sentence? 
            
        9            DR. BLANC:  "Thus, estimates based on available
            
       10   data that nonetheless identify excess risk are
            
       11   inherently conservative."  In other words, I missed 90
            
       12   percent of the exposure.  Even with the 10 percent of
            
       13   the exposure, when I do all my little risk calculations,
            
       14   the ratio is greater than ten to one or less than ten to
            
       15   one or whatever it has to be.  
            
       16            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Paul, again, I think the problem
            
       17   is the use of the word "conservative."  Because I know
            
       18   exactly what you mean --
            
       19            DR. BLANC:  I'm not wedded to the language.  
            
       20            DR. FRIEDMAN:  -- but they often use the word
            
       21   in health conservative --
            
       22            DR. BLANC:  That's right.  
            
       23            DR. FRIEDMAN:  -- meaning you want to go the
            
       24   other way. 
            
       25            DR. BLANC:  Well, I'm not wedded to the
            

                                                                  63

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   language, but as long as you understand what I'm talking
            
        2   about. 
            
        3            DR. WITSCHI:  No, that's what threw me off,
            
        4   because --
            
        5            DR. BLANC:  Right.  
            
        6            DR. WITSCHI:  -- you say what we are doing --
            
        7            DR. BLANC:  Right.  
            
        8            DR. WITSCHI:  -- is very health conservative,
            
        9   but it is not because we do not have the data.  We -- 
            
       10            DR. BLANC:  Yeah, okay.  That's fine.  Whatever
            
       11   you want.
            
       12            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I'm not sure you are
            
       13   agreeing right now.  
            
       14            DR. BLANC:  All I'm saying is if they found an
            
       15   effect with the lousy data that they have, we have a
            
       16   real -- enough to say qualitatively, not quantitatively,
            
       17   that this is a toxic air contaminant.  If you had even
            
       18   better data, then you would say it five times over that
            
       19   it is a toxic air contaminant.  
            
       20            DR. WITSCHI:  But you want to say if we had
            
       21   better data what we have might actually be
            
       22   underestimating the risk because of the lousy data.  
            
       23            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  That's what he's saying. 
            
       24            DR. WITSCHI:  Well, that's not what I --
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  He's saying the opposite of
            

                                                                  64

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   the bias towards the null with exposure
            
        2   misclassification.  He's saying with the limitations
            
        3   with the exposure, of the bias -- we have enough to find
            
        4   an increase to -- we have -- MOE just means the
            
        5   criteria.  
            
        6            DR. BLANC:  I can even word it better.  If it
            
        7   confused you, it will confuse somebody else.  So it
            
        8   should definitely be worded differently as long as you
            
        9   find that I think there should be some kind of finding. 
            
       10            DR. WITSCHI:  It's the conservative versus not
            
       11   conservative that confuses me. 
            
       12            DR. BLANC:  Right.  Now, the other thing is I
            
       13   think in the of final -- the other sort of policy issue,
            
       14   I think that the very final finding should also allude
            
       15   to MIC.  I think that -- you're saying that -- what you
            
       16   say is that we want to list MITC as a toxic air
            
       17   contaminant, we want to list metam-sodiam as a toxic air
            
       18   contaminant and dazomet as a toxic air contaminant, but
            
       19   unless MIC is already a toxic air contaminant -- which
            
       20   it may be.  I don't know.  
            
       21            DR. FANNING:  Yeah, MIC is a HAP.  So --
            
       22            DR. BLANC:  Right.  
            
       23            DR. FANNING:  -- as a hazardous air 
            
       24   pollutant --
            
       25            DR. BLANC:  So we don't have to.  Then forget
            

                                                                  65

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   it.  
            
        2            DR. FANNING:  -- it would be listed.  
            
        3            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Is that right?  
            
        4            DR. FANNING:  That's my understanding.  We
            
        5   looked at -- 
            
        6            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  But it's listed from the
            
        7   standpoint of George.  It's not necessarily listed from
            
        8   Paul's standpoint.  
            
        9            DR. RUBIN:  If anything's listed as a HAP, if
            
       10   it's a pesticide, we also list it.  
            
       11            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  You do? 
            
       12            DR. BLANC:  Well, then we should just make a
            
       13   separate point that we're not going to -- you know, we
            
       14   recognize that MIC has already been listed.  
            
       15            Then why are we going through this whole
            
       16   exercize?  If you proved that seven percent of
            
       17   metam-sodium breaks down in this thing, don't you have
            
       18   to list metam-sodium as a toxic air contaminant?  Why
            
       19   did we go through all this?  
            
       20            DR. BYUS:  Remember, they couldn't prove that
            
       21   it came from that maybe.  I don't know.  Forget it.  
            
       22            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  The -- 
            
       23            DR. BLANC:  Well, never mind.  
            
       24            DR. BYUS:  Never mind.  
            
       25            DR. BLANC:  Anyway, you've done it.  
            

                                                                  66

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BYUS:  We've done it.  We've done it. 
            
        2            DR. BLANC:  I mean, I have to say that as a
            
        3   occupational health person, the thing that surprised me
            
        4   the most in the document, in the original document, was
            
        5   the data about MIC.  Because in all of this sort of
            
        6   discussion of Dunsmuir among colleagues and, you know,
            
        7   the issue about MITC, we recognized there are structural
            
        8   similarities to MIC and sort of always emphasized, well,
            
        9   it's not MIC, but it's sort of structurally related, not
            
       10   quite as toxic.  
            
       11            But nobody every said in all those discussions
            
       12   that, by the way, you know, this breaks down to MIC.  
            
       13   So -- 
            
       14            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, there's another issue
            
       15   -- which I don't want to even open the can of worms, but
            
       16   the issue -- this metam-sodium breaks down to carbon
            
       17   disulfide, hydrogen sulfide, MIC, MITC.  And there's
            
       18   potential for quite significant toxicity associated with
            
       19   that.  
            
       20            DR. BLANC:  Yeah, I thought that in the draft
            
       21   findings that that was weighted sufficiently.  I thought
            
       22   that -- I didn't see a lot of places where the issue of
            
       23   carbon disulfide and hydrogen sulfide needed to be
            
       24   brought up more than it was.  I thought it was
            
       25   appropriately alluded to in the findings.  
            

                                                                  67

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            I mean, I might feel differently when I see the
            
        2   next version, but just my initial take on it was that it
            
        3   wasn't -- it was -- 
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I'm going to add -- I think
            
        5   I'm going to look and try and design a table in which on
            
        6   the one side you have chemicals and on this side we have
            
        7   end points.  And I want to see with all those chemicals
            
        8   where there is commonality in end points to give a sense
            
        9   of where interactions might have some significance. 
            
       10            DR. BLANC:  Again, for your limitations and
            
       11   uncertainties section?  
            
       12            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Somewhere in there, yeah.
            
       13            DR. BLANC:  Because, you know, it seems to me
            
       14   that the uncertainties section is where you talk about
            
       15   things that the document didn't talk about, but you
            
       16   can't really use the document to infer things that the
            
       17   document didn't say anything about.  So you have to be
            
       18   cautious about where you place such findings.  
            
       19            I think this is -- has been more or less
            
       20   cautious in that regard, but I'm just saying if you
            
       21   start to -- and it may be of use.  I don't know what is
            
       22   more -- of more use to the pesticide, the DPR, and ARB
            
       23   in terms of driving further work, but we could certainly
            
       24   -- I would like to see the findings be a useful tool for
            
       25   you to justtify allocation of resources and research
            

                                                                  68

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   priorities as well as the obvious regulatory outcomes. 
            
        2            DR. RUBIN:  Yeah, and if I can answer that, add
            
        3   to that, I think both issues, the narrow issue of
            
        4   viewing and accepting the risk assessment document we
            
        5   have for subsequent regulatory action is important.  But
            
        6   also equally a lot of the discussions here and the
            
        7   uncertainty issues and the things that where data may
            
        8   lead us to certain areas that need further scrutiny are
            
        9   also important for us to take a look at for further
            
       10   action, working with ARB on; if we have to do more
            
       11   monitoring designs and other assessments in the future,
            
       12   to keep looking at this.  I think both are equally
            
       13   important. 
            
       14            DR. BLANC:  I mean, isn't there a fundamental
            
       15   disconnect between the DPR and OEHHA in terms of this
            
       16   MOE business?  
            
       17            DR. RUBIN:  No, I think what we've actually
            
       18   tried to do in our documents is move and incorporate the
            
       19   REL format.  And I think we've also internally taken a
            
       20   look that, you know -- and not just this document but
            
       21   all the preceding ones -- is that the exposure data we
            
       22   have are very dated.  Use practices have changed by the
            
       23   time the documents reach here.  And the MOE calculations
            
       24   may still be relevant if the uses have all stayed the
            
       25   same.  And some have.  But -- and in most cases the uses
            

                                                                  69

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   haven't.  
            
        2            And so for our long-term view, the REL
            
        3   calculation is sort of the foundation from which we
            
        4   would take the completion of these documents to continue
            
        5   evaluating different uses, different practices that go
            
        6   forward.  
            
        7            So I think we're moving a lot closer in the
            
        8   viewpoint on that so --
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So you would be willing to
            
       10   adopt something as a toxic air contaminant without the
            
       11   calculation of an MOE?  
            
       12            DR. RUBIN:  Well, the way it stands now is we
            
       13   do have that regulatory section that has at least that
            
       14   criteria or threshold for listing materials as toxic air
            
       15   contaminants.  And that's one of the things we'll have
            
       16   to go back and take a look at.  But that's sort of the
            
       17   guidant principle for listing.  
            
       18            But once things get listed, we're going to have
            
       19   to view this as almost a continuous process to keep an
            
       20   eye on the use of these materials, whether they exceed a
            
       21   threshold that causes us to put in additional
            
       22   restrictions, that uses may change and we need to keep
            
       23   an eye on these things through some surveillance
            
       24   monitoring program.  
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Done? 
            

                                                                  70

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BLANC:  I'll give you my written notes.
            
        2            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Craig, I think not -- 
            
        3            DR. BYUS:  I haven't read it all.  I do like
            
        4   the way Hanspeter rewrote that last carcinogenicity
            
        5   paragraph.  I think it's much better that way he wrote
            
        6   it.  It's much clearer.  And I agree with him.  
            
        7            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Roger's given his -- 
            
        8            DR. ATKINSON:  On the first part.  I'm
            
        9   certainly happy to help any way I can on the exposure
            
       10   part.
            
       11            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So for the moment -- for the
            
       12   moment, unless -- Peter, do you have additional comments
            
       13   for this meeting?  
            
       14            DR. WITSCHI:  No.  
            
       15            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So thank you.  I think -- I
            
       16   think this is actually going to turn out to be very
            
       17   useful in the long run.  It may be a little slower, but
            
       18   I think it will be better.  And I frankly think that
            
       19   metam-sodium is an incredibly important compound, and so
            
       20   we should try and have our findings really be the best
            
       21   that we can be, if you don't mind the -- so thank you. 
            
       22            And we should move on before Paul leaves.  But
            
       23   all those comments I think from Gary and Paul and
            
       24   Hanspeter were very valuable and useful.  
            
       25            We have two items on the agenda.  
            

                                                                  71

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. BLANC:  We do?  Can we -- John, can I make
            
        2   a suggestion that we do number 5 before we do number 4,
            
        3   sort of a logical -- 
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Where's my agenda?  We can. 
            
        5            We can't?  Paul?  Paul?  We're not prepared to
            
        6   do 5. 
            
        7            DR. BLANC:  So we won't be doing 5 today? 
            
        8            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  No.  We're going to do the
            
        9   Toxic Air Contaminant Program Update.  And what Peter
            
       10   Venturini and I talked about is that they're going to
            
       11   make a presentation.  And because Peter Witschi would
            
       12   like to make the same plane you're going to make, that
            
       13   what we may do is we'll go as far as we can.  
            
       14            Peter will certainly get through his
            
       15   presentation, and then if we want to have subsequent
            
       16   discussion at a future meeting, we can do that.  I mean,
            
       17   that's -- well, we'll see where we get to, and then we
            
       18   can decide.  We don't need to prejudge.  
            
       19            So, Peter, welcome.  
            
       20            MR. VENTURINI:  Thank you.  It's a pleasure
            
       21   being here once again.  I'm going to have a few slides
            
       22   to walk us through this.  I am Peter Venturini.  I am
            
       23   Chief of the Stationary Source Division at the Air
            
       24   Resources Board.  
            
       25            And before I begin, I wanted to really express
            

                                                                  72

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   my appreciation to the panel that you asked to hear
            
        2   about some of the other things that we're doing at the
            
        3   Air Resources Board with our Air Toxics Program,
            
        4   particularly with our risk management efforts.  
            
        5            And today I do want to pretty much focus on
            
        6   some of our risk management activities.  I am going to
            
        7   cover quite a bit of territory so my presentation will
            
        8   of necessity be somewhat general to give you an
            
        9   overview.  But if I've piqued your interest in any
            
       10   particular area, I'd be more than happy to in the future
            
       11   go into more detail with any of the programs and bring
            
       12   some of the program people that really know a lot more
            
       13   about the details than I certainly do. 
            
       14            I also -- while I was looking over my
            
       15   presentation last night, I reflected somewhat that it's
            
       16   been about 15 years that I, my division, and OEHHA have
            
       17   been working with the panel on our air toxic programs. 
            
       18   And I just wanted to take a brief moment to express my
            
       19   appreciation and joy at working with the panel over
            
       20   these many years.  
            
       21            You've certainly dealt with a large number of
            
       22   issues and compounds, and I know it's been a pleasure
            
       23   for us.  And I do know that the results of our
            
       24   collective efforts have significantly improved public
            
       25   health in California, and I think that's the -- our
            

                                                                  73

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   collective objective, and appropriate.  So I appreciate
            
        2   all of your efforts. 
            
        3            My -- Robert, you want to go back one?  You got
            
        4   ahead of me a little bit on the overview.  
            
        5            These are the areas that I plan to cover very
            
        6   briefly.  I will focus primarily on the second two
            
        7   bullets, our current actions and our future directions. 
            
        8            Just very, very briefly on the next slide, our
            
        9   Toxics Air Contaminant Program is basically four
            
       10   separate elements.  We've got our Criteria Air Pollutant
            
       11   Program.  And I mention that because although our formal
            
       12   Air Toxics Program really got started with legislation
            
       13   enacted in the mid 80's, we really were in fact
            
       14   addressing toxic air pollutants with our criteria
            
       15   program even in the early 60's because many of the VLC's
            
       16   that were related in our early vehicle program and some
            
       17   of our fuels programs actually did provide for
            
       18   reductions in some of those toxic air contaminants,
            
       19   particularly, for example, benzene contributed to from
            
       20   motor vehicles.  
            
       21            But then we really focused much more with the
            
       22   legislation that created this panel and our formal
            
       23   Toxics Identification and Control Program, followed by
            
       24   the Hot Spots Legislation.  
            
       25            Then in 1990 Federal Clean Air Act amendments
            

                                                                  74

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   put much more emphasis on air toxics nationwide.  
            
        2            So a little bit of background on our program. 
            
        3            The next slide basically I want to give you a
            
        4   little perspective of where we've been.  And what we did
            
        5   is we took a look at a three year-period, '90 to '92,
            
        6   and then the three-year period '95 to '97 and took a
            
        7   look at those compounds for which we have ambient
            
        8   monitoring data for.  And we, based on that information,
            
        9   from a general, overall statewide exposure, we've seen
            
       10   and accomplished about a 30 percent reduction in risk
            
       11   statewide overall.  
            
       12            And I want to emphasize that's the general
            
       13   exposure.  It doesn't reflect what I believe are much
            
       14   more significant reductions in exposures that are near
            
       15   source, near facilities where we've adopted measures to
            
       16   get 80, 90 percent more reductions in emissions from
            
       17   specific facilities. 
            
       18            But overall, general populations exposure have
            
       19   been reduced significantly.  And I'll show you another
            
       20   slide a little later why I think that's very important. 
            
       21            DR. WITSCHI:  Can I ask you a question?  
            
       22            MR. VENTURINI:  Certainly. 
            
       23            DR. WITSCHI:  The reduced risk, that's just
            
       24   exposure?  This has nothing to do -- you haven't seen
            
       25   fewer health effects or something like this?  
            

                                                                  75

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            MR. VENTURINI:  No.  
            
        2            DR. WITSCHI:  Okay.  
            
        3            MR. VENTURINI:  Just in the calculated risk, by
            
        4   looking at the monitoring data, the reduced
            
        5   concentration in the atmosphere.  
            
        6            This slide kind of gets at that second point in
            
        7   that we have over the years adopted a number of control
            
        8   measures for some of the more significant toxic air
            
        9   contaminants that have been identified.  
            
       10            And the point I'd like to make here is you can
            
       11   see the measures that we adopted have typically resulted
            
       12   in greater than a 90, 90-plus, 95%-plus reduction in
            
       13   emissions of those pollutants.  And in one case, with
            
       14   cooling towers, we've basically eliminated the use of
            
       15   hex chrome in cooling towers.  
            
       16            So persons that may be exposed or had been
            
       17   exposed to emissions near these facilities are probably
            
       18   seeing much greater reductions in exposures than you
            
       19   would get by just looking at the general trends.  
            
       20            DR. BLANC:  This is just for chrome, this data,
            
       21   though?  
            
       22            MR. VENTURINI:  No, the first two are for
            
       23   chrome.  The metal melting included some of the metal
            
       24   cadmium, cadmium, lead, and a few of the other metals
            
       25   from metal foundry.  The sterilized/aerators is ETO, and
            

                                                                  76

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   medical waste incinerators included dioxin and other
            
        2   additional compounds that would be emitted from those
            
        3   types of facilities.
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Is there a place in ARB
            
        5   where there is research or activity on the issue of
            
        6   looking into alternatives? 
            
        7            MR. VENTURINI:  In terms of when we look at a
            
        8   control measure?  
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, you decided to
            
       10   eliminated the chromium VI in the cooling towers. 
            
       11            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes. 
            
       12            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Did that --
            
       13            DR. BLANC:  And replaced it with benones.
            
       14            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Pardon?  
            
       15            DR. BLANC:  They've replaced it with benones. 
            
       16            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And they aloud Julia Roberts
            
       17   to make a movie about Erin.  
            
       18            MR. VENTURINI:  Actually, our direction -- once
            
       19   a compound has been identified, our direction under
            
       20   statute is to basically reduce the emissions to the
            
       21   maximum extent feasible, and it also requires us to take
            
       22   a look at alternatives.  
            
       23            In fact, as I go a little further in my
            
       24   presentation, one of the measures we will be taking to
            
       25   our board the end of this month will be actually
            

                                                                  77

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   prohibiting the use of halogenated compounds in certain
            
        2   cleaning activities.  
            
        3            So to answer your question, yes, we do look at
            
        4   alternatives as we develop and look at control measures. 
            
        5   That's part of our program.
            
        6            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Part of the reason I asked
            
        7   the question is that it's very clear that the use of
            
        8   Chromium VI is declining precipitously in the United
            
        9   States, but in California it is still very widely used
            
       10   in all the aerospace industry.  Every airframe has got
            
       11   -- is coated with Chromium VI spray paint.  And it seems
            
       12   to me that that should represent an area of intense
            
       13   focus because it is so widely used in this state.  
            
       14            And the question is what do you use in place of
            
       15   Chromium VI on airframes for corrosion resistance?  
            
       16            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, good point.  No, there's
            
       17   certainly a lot more work for us to do in this area. 
            
       18            The next slide is intended to give kind of an
            
       19   overall perspective of the relative risks of the various
            
       20   compounds that we have been dealing with that have been
            
       21   identified.  And the point here is that basically, as
            
       22   you can see from the bars, that the diesel PM represents
            
       23   about 65 percent of the total risk associated with these
            
       24   substances.  Benzene, 1,3-butadiene, about ten percent. 
            
       25            The other thing to point out, those compounds
            

                                                                  78

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   are mostly motor vehicle related.  
            
        2            Also, I think the 1,3-butadiene and benzene are
            
        3   much also lower relative contributors because we've had
            
        4   significant reductions in emissions of those.  
            
        5            But one of the reasons for showing you this as
            
        6   well is where I'll be talking about some of our
            
        7   priorities in terms of risk management efforts as we
            
        8   move along. 
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Our colleague, Elinor
            
       10   Fanning, is currently interested in -- the thing that's
            
       11   missing from that, you know, Peter --
            
       12            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes.
            
       13            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  -- is gasoline. 
            
       14            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes. 
            
       15            DR. FROINES:  We think gasoline is probably not
            
       16   good for you either. 
            
       17            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, I would concur with that. 
            
       18   There's a lot of warning signs when you go to the pump. 
            
       19   Although in our analysis I think the four significant
            
       20   toxics associated with gasoline that comprise well over
            
       21   90 percent of risk would be the 1,3-butadiene, benzene,
            
       22   formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.  
            
       23            CHAIRMAIN FROINES:  But we still don't know the
            
       24   role of particulates?  
            
       25            MR. VENTURINI:  No.  
            

                                                                  79

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  -- absorbed compounds on
            
        2   particulants?  
            
        3            MR. VENTURINI:  So one of the things why we
            
        4   feel pretty good about the reductions we've achieved,
            
        5   not only in exposure to air toxics but also in a
            
        6   Criteria Pollutant Program, is we've received those --
            
        7   obtained those reductions in the light of very
            
        8   significant growth in population in the state.  That's
            
        9   about -- what is it?  About 41 percent population growth
            
       10   the last 20 years.  And it just keeps going.  I think
            
       11   the statistic is well over half a million people a year
            
       12   added to California.           
            
       13            Vehicle miles traveled, increasing about
            
       14   double.  It has increased about double the rate of
            
       15   population.  And of course our gross state product.  
            
       16            So despite the significant amount of growth in
            
       17   California, we are making great strides in our air
            
       18   quality program.
            
       19            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  One negative comment about
            
       20   that. 
            
       21            MR. VENTURINI:  Sure.
            
       22            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  That does reflect a little
            
       23   bit that the risk reductions have occurred where you're
            
       24   looking for the keys under the streetlight.  On air
            
       25   toxics, we still know so little about so many things
            

                                                                  80

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   that if you -- if we actually knew what the problem was,
            
        2   we might be more frightened by the answers than we
            
        3   currently know. 
            
        4            So what we have done is with a certain number
            
        5   of defined compounds.  But Roger Atkinson could talk for
            
        6   five days straight about nitro-PAHs and atmospheric
            
        7   chemistry, and of course we haven't dealt with any of
            
        8   that issue. 
            
        9            MR. VENTURINI:  And that also is just the
            
       10   compounds that we have data for.  And I think your point
            
       11   is well taken.  As I go further into some of the other
            
       12   initiatives that we're pursuing, the area of near source
            
       13   or micro scale is becoming something that we know we're
            
       14   going to have to look much closer at. 
            
       15            Now, let me go into a little bit some of our
            
       16   current actions.  And I just thought I'd mention that
            
       17   here's a couple areas that will be directly affecting
            
       18   the panel.  
            
       19            And this year we do intend to proceed with
            
       20   entering crystalline silica into the 1807 process.  We
            
       21   have been discussing with OEHHA.  We have some work
            
       22   going on internally to try to get a handle on how we're
            
       23   going to do exposure and so forth.  So I think that's
            
       24   going to be a very interesting effort.  
            
       25            We are talking to OEHHA about taking a look at
            

                                                                  81

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   some of the other PAH potency factors, see if there's
            
        2   any further information there.  We recognize that could
            
        3   be a very significant effort.  And we don't want to
            
        4   overly burden OEHHA on that, but we would like to get a
            
        5   better perspective on some of the other PAHs.  
            
        6            And then we're initiating some health work,
            
        7   reviewing some of the health studies on styrene that may
            
        8   result in styrene in the next year or so being entered
            
        9   into the identification process. 
            
       10            DR. ATKINSON:  When you talk about PAHs, are
            
       11   you limiting yourself just to the hydrocarbons, or is
            
       12   that open to polycyclic aromatic compounds?  
            
       13            MR. VENTURINI:  From my perspective, I think
            
       14   that's open.  I'm not fully aware of all the details on
            
       15   that.  My staff is working with OEHHA.  
            
       16            Would you suggest we do keep that open? 
            
       17            DR. ATKINSON:  Yeah, because in the atmosphere
            
       18   the micro compounds and the oxygenated compounds might
            
       19   be quite significant. 
            
       20            MR. VENTURINI:  Okay.  
            
       21            DR. FRIEDMAN:  When you talk about crystalline
            
       22   silica, are you referring to chip manufacturing, or are
            
       23   you referring to things that deal with moving earth?  
            
       24            MR. VENTURINI:  Primarily, I think, moving
            
       25   earth, quarries and so forth.  And this is going to be,
            

                                                                  82

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   we think, a very difficult one to address.  But I
            
        2   understand IARC has identified crystalline silica, and
            
        3   it did come up fairly high on our prioritization
            
        4   process.  So there is some merit to taking a look at it.  
            
        5            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  The PM Center at UCLA and
            
        6   Riverside, Irvine and USC, of course, is going to place
            
        7   a great deal of emphasis in research on what we might
            
        8   call polar PAHs so that there's a lot of activity that's
            
        9   going to be happening in the next few years in Southern
            
       10   California and has already happened with Roger and
            
       11   Janet.  
            
       12            MR. VENTURINI:  Good.  
            
       13            Okay.  I wanted to share what some of our
            
       14   priority -- current priorities are for risk management
            
       15   efforts.  And number one on our list is particulate
            
       16   matter from diesel fueled engines.  In fact, we have as
            
       17   an organization made a major commitment to look at
            
       18   diesel emissions, not only the PM from a toxic
            
       19   perspective but also PM as a criteria pollutant.  Also,
            
       20   oxides of nitrogen.  
            
       21            So I think you're going to be seeing over the
            
       22   next ten years that our efforts and our goals are to
            
       23   substantially reduce emissions from diesel fueled
            
       24   vehicles.  
            
       25            The good news is that the technology is just
            

                                                                  83

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   like for gasoline vehicles.  The technology to reduce
            
        2   emissions from new diesel fueled engines and even
            
        3   existing engines is just developing rapidly.  So that's
            
        4   very encouraging.  
            
        5            We recognize cleaner diesel fuels are probably
            
        6   going to have to be a part of that strategy, and EPA is
            
        7   hopefully fairly soon going to be proposing some much
            
        8   lower sulfur diesel fuel standards that will be
            
        9   necessary to enable some of these technologies.  So a
            
       10   lot of effort and a lot of commitment from our
            
       11   organization to focus on diesel from a wide range of
            
       12   perspectives. 
            
       13            The next item is actually, our board will be
            
       14   hearing this item the end of this month.  And what we're
            
       15   looking at is primarily consumer products that are used
            
       16   in the repair, auto repair, and maintenance activities. 
            
       17   These are things like brake cleaners, carbon choke
            
       18   cleaners and degreasers.  
            
       19            And one of the things that we learned is there
            
       20   are many chlorinated products, particularly brake
            
       21   cleaners, that contain Perc.  And what we are going to
            
       22   be recommending to our board is a ban on the use of
            
       23   Perc, methylene chloride and TCE in these automotive and
            
       24   consumer products.  
            
       25            We believe there are very viable alternatives
            

                                                                  84

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   available, and, even more importantly, there are aqueous
            
        2   cleaning systems that have become available that do very
            
        3   effective jobs.  
            
        4            So, Dr. Froines, this is an example where we
            
        5   are looking at just replacement alternatives. 
            
        6            We also have another initiative under way that
            
        7   will be going to our board this July, and that's a
            
        8   revisiting of the Air Toxic Control Measure that we
            
        9   adopted about ten years ago for asbestos on unpaved
            
       10   roads.  
            
       11            You may be aware that in Eldorado County there
            
       12   has been a great interest in asbestos emissions and
            
       13   exposures to asbestos there.  And we have been doing
            
       14   some monitoring up there for the last couple of years
            
       15   and working with the county and the citizens, and we
            
       16   felt it would be appropriate to update our Asbestos
            
       17   Control Measure to basically -- in my view, to take a
            
       18   look at additional reasonable steps that can be taken to
            
       19   reduce individuals' exposure to asbestos.  
            
       20            And in this case, the proposal that's out on
            
       21   the street at this point in time is recommending that
            
       22   serpentine containing -- serpentine rock, which contains
            
       23   asbestos or can contain asbestos, be prohibited on
            
       24   unpaved roads.  So you wouldn't in the future have this
            
       25   asbestos-containing serpentine on an unpaved road where
            

                                                                  85

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   it can be kicked up with vehicle traffic.  
            
        2            DR. BLANC:  But you can still build a housing
            
        3   project in the midst of a serpentine containing bed?  
            
        4            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes, although we are working
            
        5   with the Department of Real Estate to look at steps that
            
        6   can be taken for disclosure.  We're also looking at
            
        7   preparing some guidance for steps that can be taken to
            
        8   minimize exposures during construction and quarrying
            
        9   activities.  
            
       10            And we also would like to develop some guidance
            
       11   that would be directed basically to a homeowner, where
            
       12   they can be aware that they may have asbestos on their
            
       13   property and steps that they could take to minimize the
            
       14   exposure. 
            
       15            DR. BLANC:  But couldn't you write regulatory
            
       16   language that would essentially make it impossible for
            
       17   such housing projects to be constructed because the
            
       18   construction phase would never be able to meet a
            
       19   realistic standard if you wished as public policy to
            
       20   prevent new housing construction in such areas, rather
            
       21   than having a passive standard which after people were
            
       22   forced to buy the houses because they couldn't afford
            
       23   anything else got a warning that raising their children
            
       24   there would likely result in mesothelioma?  
            
       25            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, I think, from my
            

                                                                  86

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   perspective, you're talking about land use decision
            
        2   making, which is basically going to have to occur at the
            
        3   local level.  What we're trying to do is provide
            
        4   measures and steps that would minimize, say, during
            
        5   construction activities and so forth the exposure to
            
        6   people. 
            
        7            DR. BLANC:  But all I'm saying --
            
        8            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes.  
            
        9            DR. BLANC:  -- is if you seriously had
            
       10   regulations which did indeed limit the generation of
            
       11   asbestos in construction, I mean, if that really had
            
       12   teeth in it, it would actually prevent the construction. 
            
       13   Because I don't think that they could use current
            
       14   construction methods in those kinds of asbestos bearing
            
       15   areas and meet any kind of real standard.  
            
       16            It would have -- in other words, yes, you could
            
       17   make some kind of a guideline that won't have any effect
            
       18   on this.  But if you had a real guideline, wouldn't it
            
       19   tend to have an indirect control on the whole problem,
            
       20   at least insofar as new construction is concerned?  
            
       21            MR. VENTURINI:  What we're looking at is
            
       22   actually some regulatory language for construction
            
       23   activities that would require, you know, specific
            
       24   management practices occur to minimize dust and
            
       25   hopefully eliminate much exposure to the dust from
            

                                                                  87

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   construction activities.  
            
        2            And beyond that, I think you start getting into
            
        3   the area, as I say, of planning issues that hopefully
            
        4   the local jurisdictions will need to be addressing.  
            
        5            And we've spent a lot of time looking and
            
        6   visiting, looking at different sites up there.  And I
            
        7   think there are some things that are reasonable to do. 
            
        8   And it would be hard, I think, in order to do a
            
        9   regulation that requires specific action on specific
            
       10   properties.  
            
       11            But for a homeowner, I think there's specific
            
       12   things that they can be educated about, particularly
            
       13   existing homeowners, that we think will lead to
            
       14   minimizing the potential exposure.  
            
       15            DR. BLANC:  Let me go back to the coordinating
            
       16   TACs too. 
            
       17            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes.  
            
       18            DR. BLANC:  Because the one emerging problem in
            
       19   the auto product category is the use of hexane, which
            
       20   has increased dramatically.  And I wonder if that's
            
       21   something that's going to come up in that discussion. 
            
       22   Because if you link the chlorinated TAC phaseout -- if
            
       23   you don't link it more directly to soap and water, it's
            
       24   going to have the tendency to further increase the use
            
       25   of hexane. 
            

                                                                  88

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            MR. VENTURINI:  We are aware of that issue. 
            
        2   Our hope is that through this control measure that it
            
        3   will hopefully move and cause many of these shops to
            
        4   switch over to some of the aqueous cleaning systems. 
            
        5   Currently, roughly about 40-plus percent of the shops
            
        6   are now using aqueous systems.  
            
        7            We are aware of the hexane and end-hexane issue
            
        8   and have been in discussion with OSHA.  And so I know
            
        9   they're concerned.  Whether that may be more worker
            
       10   exposure issues versus, you know, general population
            
       11   exposure, I'm not clear, but we are aware of that issue. 
            
       12            Finally, then, I just wanted to mention part of
            
       13   our risk management is our continuing effort to reduce
            
       14   mobile source emissions and cleaner fuels.  
            
       15            This last December we adopted our Phase III
            
       16   Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, which in addition to
            
       17   phasing out MTBE by December 31, 2002, also we also
            
       18   reduced benzene, allowed benzene levels in gasoline
            
       19   about another 20 percent. 
            
       20            Let me speak just very briefly, a couple
            
       21   slides, on our diesel risk management efforts. 
            
       22   Following the identification of -- 
            
       23            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Peter?  
            
       24            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes?  
            
       25            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Just a quick question on
            

                                                                  89

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   that.  Carol Browner, you know, gives a press conference
            
        2   announcing that she's moving away from MTBE. 
            
        3            MR. VENTURINI:  Yeah.
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And then she says, "But
            
        5   we're going to now move towards ethanol," which for some
            
        6   of us is a -- not a perfect decision.  What are the
            
        7   implications of what Carol Browner says about ethanol
            
        8   for California?  
            
        9            And I know OEHHA is working on a document which
            
       10   is going to say everything's going to be wonderful. 
            
       11   Those of us who are skeptics may find that document to
            
       12   be convincing and some not.  But the -- what is going to
            
       13   happen?  Is ARB going to take a position that ethanol is
            
       14   the oxygenate of choice?  
            
       15            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, to the extent that the --
            
       16   right now California in about 70 percent of our gasoline
            
       17   is under a federal mandate that that gasoline has to
            
       18   contain about two percent oxygen, which translates to
            
       19   about six percent ethanol or about 11 percent MTBE.  
            
       20            One of the things we have been doing with EPA
            
       21   is we've been asked -- we've made a formal request of
            
       22   EPA to waive the oxygen mandate for California.  We
            
       23   believe that we can  and we've demonstrated that we can
            
       24   achieve the air quality benefits associated with our
            
       25   cleaner burning gasoline program without necessarily the
            

                                                                  90

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   use of oxygenates.  And we have asked the EPA to provide
            
        2   California with that waiver.  
            
        3            If we are successful in getting that waiver,
            
        4   that will allow California refineries to decide what
            
        5   oxygenate to use.  And basically with the -- either MTBE
            
        6   not being available and in our regulation that we
            
        7   adopted in December, before anyone could use any other
            
        8   oxygenate, it would have to go through a review.  The
            
        9   only other oxygenate that's really available would be
            
       10   the ethanol.  
            
       11            And we believe refiners should have the ability
            
       12   to decide which oxygenate and how much. 
            
       13            In Southern California, since we have not
            
       14   achieved the ozone standard in Southern California,
            
       15   during the winter months we will still see oxygenate
            
       16   usage, which will probably translate to ethanol usage of
            
       17   around -- rough estimate, a hundred million-plus gallons
            
       18   per year to satisfy by that requirement at the
            
       19   two-percent level.  
            
       20            It's uncertain.  Browner's announcement would
            
       21   basically replace the oxygen mandate with a renewable
            
       22   fuels requirement at I think it was 1.2 percent by
            
       23   volume.  And we don't have too much in the way of
            
       24   details.  
            
       25            But we still feel strongly that California
            

                                                                  91

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   should be granted this waiver.  But even with that
            
        2   waiver, we do expect there will be a significant role
            
        3   for ethanol because it does provide octane, and we will
            
        4   see ethanol being used in California gasoline. 
            
        5            Earlier this year you may not aware the
            
        6   Environmental Policy Council, which is made of the heads
            
        7   of the various county EPA agencies, did have a meeting
            
        8   where they reviewed all the information on ethanol and
            
        9   so forth from health, water, air implications.  And
            
       10   their finding was that they didn't see any -- I guess in
            
       11   lay terms, any significant effects that would preclude
            
       12   the use of ethanol.  
            
       13            So they basically indicated, in essence, it was
            
       14   okay to proceed with ethanol usage.  So maybe we'll
            
       15   learn more down the road.  So -- 
            
       16            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I don't want to pursue this,
            
       17   but everybody thought MTBE was going to be just dandy
            
       18   for about ten or 15 years.  So the predictions of how
            
       19   wonderful something's going to turn out -- 
            
       20            DR. BLANC:  Well, we do have a longer
            
       21   experience of ethanol.
            
       22            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Yeah, and we know how good
            
       23   that is when we drink it.  
            
       24            DR. BLANC:  What do you mean we?  
            
       25            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Would you mind commenting a bit
            

                                                                  92

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   on these new hybrid engines?  I've heard an opinionated
            
        2   talk show host say not only do they burn less gasoline,
            
        3   but the engine itself, the gasoline engine itself, can
            
        4   be virtually nonpolluting and that this may go a long
            
        5   way to solve the air pollution problem produced by
            
        6   automobiles. 
            
        7            MR. VENTURINI:  Sure.  I'll tell you what I
            
        8   know about the program.  As part of your Low Emission
            
        9   Vehicle and now our Low Emission Vehicle II Program is
            
       10   basically a progressive program to bring all vehicles
            
       11   down to basically near zero, even zero, zero emissions. 
            
       12   And the hybrid's kind of one path in that direction.  
            
       13            One of the nice things about a hybrid is the
            
       14   engine can run at a fairly constant speed, and so you
            
       15   can reduce the emissions to near zero, zero levels.  In
            
       16   fact, it's amazing to me that many of the cars that are
            
       17   being -- newer cars that are being certified now, once
            
       18   they get past the startup from the cold startup, the
            
       19   emissions are essentially zero or near zero.  
            
       20            So we're seeing very low levels of emissions
            
       21   from new vehicles.  So as a fleet turns over, we're
            
       22   going to be seeing much reduced emissions.  
            
       23            And the hybrid is a very effective technology,
            
       24   kind of is on the path to the zero emission vehicle.  
            
       25   There's a lot of work being done on fuel cells as well. 
            

                                                                  93

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   So you can get the hybrid engine to very low levels of
            
        2   emissions. 
            
        3            A little bit more on the diesel risk
            
        4   management.  After we identified diesel PM, we convened
            
        5   an advisory committee that's about 300 strong to guide
            
        6   us in the risk management effort.  And there are two
            
        7   main focuses.  
            
        8            One is to provide some guidance to the local
            
        9   air districts to help them deal with the permitting,
            
       10   like stationary diesel engines.  
            
       11            And then the second effort is to develop a
            
       12   diesel risk management plan to identify what further
            
       13   regulatory actions that we want to take to address
            
       14   diesel PM emissions. 
            
       15            On the next slide, this is basically focused on
            
       16   the guidance for the permitting of new sources.  We've
            
       17   been at this for about a year.  We hope to have a draft
            
       18   out this spring.  
            
       19            And one of the things that has come to light
            
       20   is, as I mentioned earlier, the technology that's
            
       21   advancing rapidly to reduce PM emission in terms of trap
            
       22   and catalyst technology and cleaner diesel fuel.  
            
       23            So we're working on this guidance, which we
            
       24   think will be focusing largely on identifying
            
       25   performance standards and technology requirements that
            

                                                                  94

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   hopefully districts then will be able to use this
            
        2   information when they permit new diesel engines. 
            
        3            The next slide focusing more on the overall
            
        4   diesel risk management plan.  And this will be taking a
            
        5   broad look at diesel engines from the PM perspective. 
            
        6   We'll be looking at both existing stationary, portable
            
        7   engines, mobile sources, and fuels.  
            
        8            And basically by this fall when we go to the
            
        9   board, we'll be presenting the board with an overall
            
       10   strategy of steps, additional steps, that we believe
            
       11   should be pursued.  And with the board's concurrence in
            
       12   that strategy, we'll go into the rule making process. 
            
       13            So it's basically laying out a plan,
            
       14   identifying the priorities, and then executing the plan. 
            
       15            Some of the things that we're considering, of
            
       16   course, additional mobile source standards, improvements
            
       17   in fuel, stationary sources, and also incentives.  
            
       18            We currently have a -- it's called a Carl Moyer
            
       19   Program.  And I believe this year or last year it's $25
            
       20   million dedicated to that program.  And that's money
            
       21   that's being used by districts to provide incentives for
            
       22   individuals to replace dirtier engines with cleaner
            
       23   engines.  And that program seems to be very, very
            
       24   successful and I believe may even be expanded this year. 
            
       25            I think I already covered the Perc, Perc item
            

                                                                  95

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   the board will be considering this month so I'll just
            
        2   move on to the next slide.  
            
        3            As I mentioned, on the asbestos we'll be
            
        4   looking at unpaved surfaces, grading, construction
            
        5   activities, and quarries and surface mining operations. 
            
        6   And our board will be considering that this July. 
            
        7            A little bit about the future.  And this first
            
        8   thought I want to mention does have some impacts on you
            
        9   as a panel.  And I don't know if this has been discussed
            
       10   with you in the past.  
            
       11            This is Senate Bill 25 that was enacted last
            
       12   year.  And the focus of this bill is to ensure that our
            
       13   ambient air quality standards and our toxics program are
            
       14   fully protective of infants and children.  
            
       15            There are three basic elements to this program. 
            
       16   It first requires a review of the ambient air quality
            
       17   standards to assure that they are protective of infants
            
       18   and children.  It requires an expansion of our air
            
       19   monitoring efforts to focus specifically on schools and
            
       20   daycares.  
            
       21            We're required to do some monitoring in six
            
       22   communities throughout the state, and we're in the
            
       23   process now of taking a look in developing some criteria
            
       24   for that effort.  
            
       25            And then finally, there are some significant
            

                                                                  96

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   enhancements to the air toxics program.  
            
        2            A few key dates here.  OEHHA is to by the end
            
        3   of this year conduct an initial review of the ambient
            
        4   standards to determine if they adequately protect
            
        5   children.  Then by the end of '02, ARB is to update the
            
        6   highest priority air quality standard and then evaluate
            
        7   the others in one-year time frames.  
            
        8            With respect to the monitoring efforts, we'll
            
        9   probably -- we're required to do the monitoring, as I
            
       10   said, in six communities to get an assessment of what
            
       11   exposures there may be for children near -- in daycares
            
       12   and schools, and we're supposed to do an evaluation of
            
       13   that by 2003. 
            
       14            Now, with respect to the air toxics program, by
            
       15   July of 2001, OEHHA is to identify up to five TACs for
            
       16   which children may be especially susceptible.  And their
            
       17   review will come to this panel, as you do with other
            
       18   reviews, to assure and review the scientific basis for
            
       19   their determinations.  
            
       20            DR. BYUS:  Peter?  
            
       21            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes?  
            
       22            DR. BYUS:  Does that include DPR and pesticides
            
       23   or not?  
            
       24            MR. VENTURINI:  No, it does not.  
            
       25            DR. BYUS:  Why is that?  I mean, granted -- 
            

                                                                  97

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            MR. VENTURINI:  It was not addressed in
            
        2   legislation.  
            
        3            DR. BYUS:  Okay. 
            
        4            MR. VENTURINI:  Then by 7 of '04, OEHHA is to
            
        5   identify another 15 TACs that are susceptible for
            
        6   children.  And then there's a continuing process for
            
        7   them to take a look at other TACs.  
            
        8            For a risk management perspective, when OEHHA
            
        9   identifies up to those first five compounds, we will
            
       10   have basically two years to either review existing
            
       11   control measures that we have in place for those to
            
       12   amend them, if necessary, to ensure the control measure
            
       13   provides adequate protection of children and infants. 
            
       14   And then we have an ongoing program then to develop
            
       15   additional measures that are based on the lists that
            
       16   OEHHA develops.  
            
       17            So over time what we're going to be seeing here
            
       18   is a look at all the TACs to assure that the risk
            
       19   assessment addressed children and infants, and then
            
       20   based on that assessment, we will have to go back and
            
       21   either update control measures or possibly generate and
            
       22   develop new measures that assure that children and
            
       23   infants are fully protected. 
            
       24            The next slide -- these are some of the
            
       25   criteria that will have to be used in some of those
            

                                                                  98

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   assessments.  I just want to mention that OEHHA on May 1
            
        2   and 2, I believe -- is that Oakland?  
            
        3            DR. MARTY:  Yeah. 
            
        4            MR. VENTURINI:  -- in Oakland will be
            
        5   conducting a symposium on children's health to -- I'm
            
        6   going to start giving them some information to help them
            
        7   do their initial assessment. 
            
        8            Now, this is an area that we're finding quite
            
        9   interesting, this area that we're moving into of
            
       10   community health issues.  And what this slide is, kind
            
       11   of just to give an indication of relative risks in
            
       12   different parts of the state.  
            
       13            But it's also a kind of the precursor to what I
            
       14   see our program evolving into is we've been dealing
            
       15   pretty much with some large general population exposures
            
       16   and specific sources.  And I think Dr. Froines mentioned
            
       17   earlier kind of a prelude to this.  
            
       18            One of the things we're starting to look at
            
       19   much more closely is more of a neighborhood or, say,
            
       20   community health, where we actually started focusing on
            
       21   certain communities to see what particular exposures,
            
       22   risks, and problems there may be at this more of a --
            
       23   say a micro scale. 
            
       24            And we do have some initiatives -- 
            
       25            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Could you go back?  
            

                                                                  99

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            MR. VENTURINI:  Sure.  
            
        2            DR. FRIEDMAN:  I didn't understand what those
            
        3   bars represent.  
            
        4            MR. VENTURINI:  Oh, those bars represent
            
        5   relative risks for the air toxics that we've monitored
            
        6   for and just to give you a perspective for the different
            
        7   areas of the state. 
            
        8            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Is any of them low risk?  Are
            
        9   they all supposed to be high risk or some higher?  I
            
       10   can't quite make it out. 
            
       11            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, okay.  The risk for --
            
       12   let me give you some exact numbers in perspective.  For
            
       13   Los Angeles, we're probably looking on the order of
            
       14   about 1,000 per million.  When you get to the Sacramento
            
       15   valley, we're around 500. 
            
       16            DR. FRIEDMAN:  500 what?  
            
       17            MR. VENTURINI:  Potential cancers per million
            
       18   risk.  
            
       19            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Over a lifetime?  
            
       20            MR. VENTURINI:  Yeah, our standard methodology. 
            
       21            But this -- I guess I kind of interpret this
            
       22   that if you live in an urban area in California you're
            
       23   exposed to something on the order of 500 per million
            
       24   risk, just general background as you're living there. 
            
       25   On the south coast, it's maybe about double that. 
            

                                                                  100

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            One of the things we're looking at in our
            
        2   Community Health Initiatives is to assess impacts of air
            
        3   toxics by enhancing our monitoring effort, doing more
            
        4   localized inventory efforts and actually developing
            
        5   protocols and methods to assess these more localized
            
        6   community exposures.  
            
        7            And there's effort under way now to kind of
            
        8   develop a program and a plan to try to address some of
            
        9   these community issues.  And one of the areas that we
            
       10   are spending some effort in now is the Barrio Logan area
            
       11   in San Diego.  
            
       12            This is an area where there's quite a bit of
            
       13   mixed development of residential and small light
            
       14   industrial.  And there have been significant community
            
       15   concerns that have been raised.  
            
       16            We've initiated some ambient monitoring in that
            
       17   area last fall and are planning to continue monitoring
            
       18   for some time.  And this is -- we're kind of looking at
            
       19   this as somewhat of a pilot program to help guide us and
            
       20   develop our plan and our procedures for looking at other
            
       21   areas.  
            
       22            So we're working very closely with the district
            
       23   and some community groups on this.  And it's getting at
            
       24   looking more at a much more narrow emphasis, this
            
       25   community micro scale type of analysis.  And we'll be --
            

                                                                  101

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   I think, around the end of the year or so be having our
            
        2   data from this and drawing some inferences.  
            
        3            That's a very interesting effort.  And as I
            
        4   said, that will be kind of a pilot for other efforts. 
            
        5            What I'd like to wrap up on is a little bit
            
        6   about the federal program.  We have spent significant
            
        7   amount of our resources over the last five years and
            
        8   continue to put resources into the -- what we call the
            
        9   integration of the Federal Air Toxics Program into
            
       10   California's program.  
            
       11            With the Federal Toxics Program in 1990, many
            
       12   of those requirements have put duplicative requirements,
            
       13   particularly for reporting and record keeping, on our
            
       14   sources.  Many of those requirements are overlapping
            
       15   some of the regulations which we've already adopted.  
            
       16            So we've had considerable effort to work with
            
       17   EPA districts and industry in California to integrate
            
       18   those programs as much as possible so they're
            
       19   complementary rather than getting in the way of each
            
       20   other.  
            
       21            And we do have basically a memorandum of
            
       22   understanding that's been developed with California and
            
       23   EPA that hopefully in the near future we'll be able to
            
       24   finalize and then have the districts buy into it, which
            
       25   will assure that California's program can continue with
            

                                                                  102

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   integration of the federal program to eliminate
            
        2   duplication and overlap. 
            
        3            There are two emerging federal programs that
            
        4   we're spending some time with at this point to assure,
            
        5   once again, that it's merged with our program.  These
            
        6   are the Residual Risk Program and the Urban Air Toxics
            
        7   Program.  EPA's initial program basically focused on
            
        8   technology standards, and these two programs are moving
            
        9   into a risk-based strategy for EPA.  
            
       10            The Residual Risk Program basically is that
            
       11   once they've adopted a mapped standard or a
            
       12   technology-based standard for an air toxic, within eight
            
       13   years they have to take a look at the residual risk
            
       14   associated with that measure.  
            
       15            And if they feel they need to enact further
            
       16   reductions, they have to -- from that category, they
            
       17   have to develop such measures.  And the first such
            
       18   residual risk standard should be hitting around 2001.  
            
       19            The Urban Air Toxics Strategy is a very
            
       20   different program, and under that strategy the goal is
            
       21   to achieve about a 75 percent reduction in cancer - and
            
       22   I think it's incidence in the act - in urban areas from
            
       23   non-mobile sources.  
            
       24            And EPA has been putting together -- or they
            
       25   have put together a list of HAPs that would be subject
            

                                                                  103

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   to this Urban Air Strategy.  And the objective is that
            
        2   over I think it's about a ten -- roughly a ten-year
            
        3   period from when this program is begun that there be
            
        4   demonstrated a 75 percent reduction in the potential
            
        5   cancer incidence associated with these HAPs.  
            
        6            We are working with EPA to try to provide some
            
        7   flexibility in that program because the HAPs that EPA
            
        8   may give priority to nationwide may not be a priority
            
        9   here in California.  For example, coke oven emissions,
            
       10   we don't have coke ovens in California.  But yet coke
            
       11   oven emissions is one of the items on their list.  
            
       12            So we've been working to see if we can get a
            
       13   little bit of flexibility to focus -- and states can
            
       14   focus in a little more on their own priorities. 
            
       15            One of the things we are concerned about and
            
       16   are discussing with EPA along with OEHHA is, when they
            
       17   go into a risk-based program, how are they going to
            
       18   determine the risk, what unit risk factors.  Are they
            
       19   going to recognize the risk factors that you folks have
            
       20   recommended, that OEHHA has, or will everything have to
            
       21   default to the EPA risk factors.  And we know there are
            
       22   some differences there.  
            
       23            Also, what type of risk assessment methodology
            
       24   will EPA require to be used.  And we would like to not
            
       25   be in a situation where we're tied to specific EPA risk
            

                                                                  104

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   assessment methodology.  And we in California have done
            
        2   an awful lot of work in risk assessing methodology.  
            
        3            So these are some of the policy issues we're
            
        4   trying to work with on EPA as we deal with that
            
        5   strategy.  
            
        6            So finally, I think, you know, we have taken
            
        7   some significant steps to reduce exposures to air toxics
            
        8   in California.  We do have a ways -- we do have more
            
        9   work to do.  And as I mentioned, one of the areas we're
            
       10   moving more into is more of the community, the
            
       11   neighborhood efforts; diesel is a very high priority for
            
       12   us; and working with the federal EPA to achieve
            
       13   flexibility in their programs.  
            
       14            So that's a very brief and broad overview of a
            
       15   lot of activities.  And I hope it gives you a flavor and
            
       16   a perspective of some of the risk management efforts
            
       17   some of the other things we have ongoing in the ARB. 
            
       18   And if you're interested in more focused dialogue in any
            
       19   of these, we would be happy to do that in the future.  
            
       20            Thank you for the opportunity.  
            
       21            DR. BLANC:  Thanks. 
            
       22            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Thank you.  
            
       23            Could I ask whether in your work on trying to
            
       24   improve diesel emissions the organizations that are
            
       25   suing us are cooperating, or are they going along with
            

                                                                  105

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   this program to reduce emissions?  Are they resisting
            
        2   it?  
            
        3            MR. VENTURINI:  I can tell you that the Western
            
        4   States Petroleum Association and the Engine
            
        5   Manufacturers Association, which are not party to the
            
        6   lawsuit, have been working with us, particularly
            
        7   providing information and data to help us understand
            
        8   what the technology is today and what technology is
            
        9   available in the future.  
            
       10            So we've been -- I feel we've been having very
            
       11   good technical dialogue. 
            
       12            DR. FRIEDMAN:  How about the truckers?  Are
            
       13   they -- 
            
       14            MR. VENTURINI:  They are participating.  You
            
       15   know, they certainly have their issue and their
            
       16   perspective with regard to the risk assessment.  And
            
       17   really, from our perspective, what we're trying to do is
            
       18   focus on what steps can we take to reduce the exposure. 
            
       19            So a lot of our discussions that we have are
            
       20   focused on what can we do in terms of control measures
            
       21   and so forth because the risk assessment has already
            
       22   been conducted. 
            
       23            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Would these control measures
            
       24   have a big impact on them economically?  I mean, would
            
       25   people who own trucks have to spend a lot of money to
            

                                                                  106

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   upgrade their engines or get new engines? 
            
        2            MR. VENTURINI:  A lot of the technology, some
            
        3   of the trap technology -- and a lot of it would be on
            
        4   new engines.  And I don't have specific numbers of what
            
        5   that would be.  We're looking at, say, for stationary
            
        6   engines, the technology for traps can vary from, you
            
        7   know, several hundred dollars all the way up to several
            
        8   thousands of dollars.  
            
        9            So one of the things we'll be doing as part of
            
       10   our assessment in looking at these measures is also what
            
       11   is the impact on individuals and so forth, the cost
            
       12   impact.  
            
       13            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Okay? 
            
       14            DR. ATKINSON:  Yeah, I'd like to point out that
            
       15   laboratory studies would indicate there are many
            
       16   chemicals in the atmosphere for which we have
            
       17   degredation products, atmospheric degradation products,
            
       18   directly from chemicals for which we have essentially no
            
       19   ambient data for, no health effects data.  
            
       20            So this potential is a whole host of the
            
       21   compounds out there which may not be good for one which
            
       22   we don't know anything about.  What's the prognosis for
            
       23   research in that area? 
            
       24            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, I guess the best way I
            
       25   can respond to that is that we need to probably take a
            

                                                                  107

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   look at some of that.  I obviously don't know a lot of
            
        2   the specifics, but I think what my view, being
            
        3   associated with this for 15 some years, is we're making
            
        4   progressions to our program.  
            
        5            And as we move along, as we learn more, we're
            
        6   going to find there's some things we don't know much
            
        7   about, and we're going to have to investigate those
            
        8   further and weave them into the programs.  I see a lot
            
        9   of these as just natural progressions of our program.
            
       10            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Craig?  
            
       11            DR. BYUS:  Just thanks, Peter.  I enjoyed the
            
       12   talk very much.  Interesting to see.
            
       13            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Roger is much nicer than I
            
       14   am.  He approached that with some delicacy.  Let me take
            
       15   a different tack here.  
            
       16            MR. VENTURINI:  Sure.
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Less friendly.  
            
       18            I thought that this was a very nice
            
       19   presentation so don't misunderstand what I'm about to
            
       20   say.  But this is a group of scientists who benefit from
            
       21   getting an overview of the whole program, I think. 
            
       22   That's the good side.  
            
       23            The bad side is what you basically said to us,
            
       24   though, is that in terms of the panel's taking things
            
       25   up, at some point silica is going to come down the pike.
            

                                                                  108

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   There may be some potencies of PAHs, which will be
            
        2   hydrocarbons, I'm sure.  And then there's the styrene
            
        3   issue.  
            
        4            So if we take the thousand toxic air
            
        5   contaminants or 2,000, 500, whatever number you want to
            
        6   come up with, basically what's being said is we did
            
        7   diesel and we've been doing pesticides ever since, and
            
        8   the only thing we're going to have is basically styrene
            
        9   and silica over the foreseeable future.  
            
       10            And I think, as Roger alluded to, that there
            
       11   are a lot of compounds out there that deserve
            
       12   designation as toxic air contaminants.  I'll tell you
            
       13   one is PAN.  Why don't we have PAN before us?  Why don't
            
       14   we have quinones?  Why don't we have nitro-PAHs?  Why
            
       15   don't we have -- and on and on and on.  I mean, we could
            
       16   put -- a group of scientists could put together a very
            
       17   good list of compounds that should be dealt with as
            
       18   toxic air contaminants.  
            
       19            So what we get is a broad overview, Peter, but
            
       20   what we don't get are a list of compounds that represent
            
       21   important toxic air contaminants.  And this panel wants
            
       22   to know the answer to that question. 
            
       23            MR. VENTURINI:  Actually, I'm not troubled by
            
       24   your question at all.  I think it's a very good
            
       25   question.  
            

                                                                  109

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            I wanted to focus here on basically risk
            
        2   management, kind of gave you an overview of what we saw,
            
        3   some of the things that will be coming to you as the
            
        4   next compounds.  
            
        5            And I think one of the things that we've done
            
        6   collectively very well is we periodically do this list
            
        7   update where we update the list of compounds that are on
            
        8   our list, which is 200 and something.  And we actually
            
        9   have developed a methodology, kind of ranked these and
            
       10   prioritized these.  
            
       11            And what I suggest that we might want to
            
       12   initiate is, you know, in the next year or whatever's
            
       13   appropriate, take another look at that list, take
            
       14   another look at that prioritization.  And, you know,
            
       15   there are categories on that list of compounds to be
            
       16   evaluated further to then enter into the process.  
            
       17            And I think that would be a very good dialogue,
            
       18   you know, with us, with you folks, with OEHHA, to say
            
       19   what are -- you know, over the next several years, what
            
       20   do we think is going to be the next important ones to
            
       21   bring to the panel.  
            
       22            So I don't want to leave you that, you know,
            
       23   three more compounds and we're done.  I don't think
            
       24   that's the case at all.  But that's just where we are at
            
       25   this point.  And then we need to continually update that
            

                                                                  110

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   list and see what should be next, what should the next
            
        2   priorities be.
            
        3            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, the -- Jim Pitts and I
            
        4   have been arguing to take up nitro-PAHs since about
            
        5   1985.  And one gets the impression sooner or later that
            
        6   there's an avoidance process going on.  Because we keep
            
        7   saying it every year, and everybody says uh-huh, uh-huh. 
            
        8   And Janet actually mentioned nitro-PAHs in a phone
            
        9   conversation at one point.  So I know it was on her
            
       10   radar screen. 
            
       11            I think that the problem with the priority
            
       12   system tends to be -- it's one of the problems with
            
       13   DPR's priority system too.  They tend to take the things
            
       14   where there is a certain kind of information available,
            
       15   and they don't take -- they don't try and look at things
            
       16   where the sort of regulatory information isn't
            
       17   available, it's less available.  
            
       18            So the science may be there.  There may be some
            
       19   science there, but there's -- less regulatory
            
       20   attention's been given to it.  And it seems to me that
            
       21   we need to do that. 
            
       22            I would argue, yeah, sure, let's go back to
            
       23   that document, but I would argue at some point that
            
       24   OEHHA and SRP and you all should put together a meeting
            
       25   in which we actually spend a day talking, having a
            

                                                                  111

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   conference in which people make presentations about what
            
        2   are the issues around toxic air contaminants in
            
        3   California and try to come up with a laundry list that
            
        4   might then be taken seriously.  In other words, it
            
        5   should be a process, it seems to me.  
            
        6            Roger and Janet have been pushing their issue,
            
        7   the issue of atmospheric chemistry transformation, for,
            
        8   you know, as long as you and I have been here.  And --
            
        9   but it hasn't gotten translated into -- I mean, there is
            
       10   no reason why this panel shouldn't take up 20 nitro-PAHs
            
       11   as toxic air contaminants.  I think -- I don't think
            
       12   that's far off.  
            
       13            Roger? 
            
       14            DR. ATKINSON:  No.  Well, a dozen for sure.
            
       15            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I mean, you know, an
            
       16   estimate. 
            
       17            DR. ATKINSON:  As a class. 
            
       18            MR. VENTURINI:  And we should have that
            
       19   dialogue.  
            
       20            DR. ATKINSON:  And there are new -- there are
            
       21   chemical classes for which there probably are no health
            
       22   effects data but which until recently there was no
            
       23   definitive data that they would be present in the
            
       24   atmosphere.  Maybe they'll turn out to be nontoxic, but
            
       25   it would be nice to have some view of them or somebody
            

                                                                  112

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   start thinking about it from a toxics viewpoint, are
            
        2   they going to be a problem or aren't they?  I don't
            
        3   know. 
            
        4            MR. VENTURINI:  Melanie just reminded me as
            
        5   part of my presentation we did mention that we are
            
        6   asking OEHHA to take a look at the PAHs.  And she just
            
        7   mentioned that they'll be looking at the mitro PAHs as
            
        8   well.  So maybe that's a precursor to bringing it to the
            
        9   panel.
            
       10            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Polar PAHs is the correct
            
       11   compounds.  Because it's not going to be just nitro
            
       12   compounds.  It's going to be ketones.  It's going to be
            
       13   -- I mean, go back to Schutsell's papers in the early
            
       14   80's on what's in these, and you've got thousands -- or
            
       15   at least hundreds of compounds that are ketones,
            
       16   aldehydes, quinones, fenols, et cetera, et cetera.  And
            
       17   those are all potential candidates.  
            
       18            Now, to the degree that we deal with diesel,
            
       19   you don't have to deal with some of those.  But to the
            
       20   degree you're dealing with compounds that are
            
       21   atmospherically generated, it's a little different
            
       22   issue. 
            
       23            DR. ATKINSON:  Yeah, what you breathe is not
            
       24   necessarily just what's emitted. 
            
       25            MR. VENTURINI:  Right.  
            

                                                                  113

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            DR. ATKINSON:  Unless you're behind a diesel
            
        2   bus. 
            
        3            MR. VENTURINI:  Well, you know, one thing that
            
        4   I've been busy working with the panel is that we have at
            
        5   times stepped back and taken a look at things and do we
            
        6   need to do things a little differently, do we need to
            
        7   reprioritize.  And, you know, it could be that we're at
            
        8   that point again.
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Well, I think the panel can
            
       10   spend every -- can meet every month over the next five
            
       11   years, and we will cover hun -- a few dozen pesticides. 
            
       12   But the question is what's going to happen with the air
            
       13   toxics.  
            
       14            MR. VENTURINI:  Okay.  Well, I will -- let me
            
       15   chat with OEHHA and my folks, and we'll talk to you
            
       16   further and see where we can go.
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I think we could have a
            
       18   day-long meeting about this issue that would be pretty
            
       19   interesting if it was coupled with people actually
            
       20   presenting science about what -- you know, it's not just
            
       21   sort of what's on the high-risk list or what's on the
            
       22   hierarch list and that sort of thing, but what's the
            
       23   emergent science indicate.  And, clearly, the issue that
            
       24   we're not talking about are the non-cancer effects. 
            
       25            MR. VENTURINI:  Yes.  And just a comment on
            

                                                                  114

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   that.  Historically, we haven't focused that much in
            
        2   risk management on that because it's been our
            
        3   experience, looking at the data, the ambient data, that
            
        4   the ambient levels have been far below those non-cancer
            
        5   effect levels.  But that may change as we start looking
            
        6   at these more micro-scale assessments.  
            
        7            So I think we're moving into some new territory
            
        8   with our control program, and I think also with the -- 
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Every meeting, at least once
            
       10   in our meetings, Paul Blanc says the following:  "We are
            
       11   not being driven by the carcinogenic end point with this
            
       12   particular chemical."  And he's always happy when he can
            
       13   say that because he feels that we are driven by
            
       14   carcinogenic end points much too much.  
            
       15            And if you watch, listen, because he says it
            
       16   every time.  And it represents a philosophical point of
            
       17   view.  And it's -- we think the same thing around diesel
            
       18   and asthma.  You know, so it's -- anyway, thank you very
            
       19   much. 
            
       20            MR. VENTURINI:  My pleasure.  
            
       21            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Thanks a lot. 
            
       22            MR. VENTURINI:  I enjoyed the dialogue.  
            
       23            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  The overview was very
            
       24   important, I think, for everybody.  We got to ask our
            
       25   MTB issue, and Gary got to ask his hybrid question. 
            

                                                                  115

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1            MR. VENTURINI:  Super.  And we will be glad to
            
        2   do this periodically in the future, and I appreciate
            
        3   your interest in the risk management side. 
            
        4            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  And we wanted to meet with
            
        5   you to talk because we think we should be doing some of
            
        6   that monitoring because we're going to be in six sites
            
        7   anyway. 
            
        8            MR. VENTURINI:  Super.
            
        9            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  Shall we have a motion to --
            
       10   adjourn?  Adjourn?  
            
       11            DR. ATKINSON:  That's the word. 
            
       12            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Not part of your regular
            
       13   vocabulary.
            
       14            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  I keep having these senior
            
       15   moments. 
            
       16            MR. VENTURINI:  You're not alone.
            
       17            CHAIRMAN FROINES:  So any motion to adjourn?  
            
       18            DR. BYUS:  So moved. 
            
       19            DR. FRIEDMAN:  Second.  
            
       20            (Show of hands.)
            
       21            (Whereupon the proceedings adjourned at 1:45
            
       22   p.m.)
            
       23   
            
       24   
            
       25   
            

                                                                  116

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900





        1   STATE OF CALIFORNIA    )
                                   )  ss.
        2   COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO    )                       
            
        3   
            
        4            I, Susan M. Kline, CSR No. 4617, a Certified
            
        5   Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California,
            
        6   do herby certify:
            
        7            That I reported the foregoing meeting in
            
        8   shorthand writing; that I thereafter caused my shorthand
            
        9   writing to be transcribed into typewriting.  
            
       10           I further certify that I am not in anyway
            
       11   interested in the outcome of said meeting.  
            
       12            EXECUTED this 1st day of May, 2000.  
            
       13   
            
       14   
            
       15   
                                                               
       16                              SUSAN M. KLINE
                                        CSR No. 4617
       17   
            
       18   
            
       19   
            
       20   
            
       21   
            
       22   
            
       23   
            
       24   
            
       25   
            

                                                                  117

           BARNEY, UNGERMANN & ASSOCIATES    1-888-326-5900