MEETING
BEFORE THE
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL
OF THE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE CENTER
255 SOUTH AIRPORT BOULEVARD
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1999
8:30 A.M.
Vicki L. Ogelvie, C.S.R.
License No. 7871
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
MEMBERS PRESENT
Dr. John Froines, Chairman
Dr. Craig Byus
Dr. Paul Blanc
Dr. Stanton Glantz
Dr. Gary Friedman
Dr. Hanspeter Witschi
Dr. Peter Kennedy
Dr. Roger Atkinson
Others Present:
Bill Lockett, Liason
Peter Mathews, ARB
Lynn Baker, ARB
Jim Behrmann, ARB
Kevin Mongar, ARB
Randy Segawa, DPR
John Sanders, DPR
Dr. Keith Pfeifer, DPR
Dr. Jay Schreider, DPR
Dr. Robert Spear, UC, Berkeley
Dr. Michael Majewski, US Geological Survey
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
I N D E X
--o0o--
Page
Proceedings 1
Call to Order 1
Opening remarks by Chairman Froines 1
AGENDA ITEMS:
Item 6 - SRP Workshop: Pesticides in the Air 2
Scientific issues in the design of an air
pollution sampling strategy,
presentation by Dr. Spear 82
Sampling of multiple pesticides,
presentation by Dr. Majewski 96
Afternoon Session 118
Prioritization 124
Adjournment 150
Certificate of Reporter 151
--o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 --o0o--
3 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We will call the meeting to
4 order.
5 We are still missing two Members of the Panel, but
6 we have a quorum, so we will be ahead because we have a long
7 Agenda for today.
8 We are going to change the Agenda slightly. We are
9 going to start with current monitoring requests and
10 protocols, given by DPR staff and ARB staff, and then we are
11 going to go to update on 1999 projects, by Lynn Baker and his
12 staff, and then to changes to the current practice being
13 considered, DPR and ARB.
14 So, it is a very slight modification. So, why
15 don't we get started.
16 Just by way of background, for those that are not
17 familiar with why we are having this semi-workshop,
18 basically, as most of you know, when we find a chemical as a
19 toxic air contaminant within the context of the Air Resources
20 Board, that determination is made primarily on the basis of
21 health effects information, also with some knowledge of
22 exposure, whereas with DPR, the criteria for determining a
23 compound as a toxic air contaminant is based upon both health
24 effects information, risk assessment, as well as on the
25 results of air borne monitoring, which enables them to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 calculate MOE.
2 Since the issue of exposure and monitoring is so or
3 such a crucial element in the determination of a compound as
4 a toxic air contaminant with the Department of Pesticide
5 Regulation, we thought it would be important to look at how
6 effective we are approaching the issue of monitoring of
7 pesticides, with specific reference to the development of
8 protocols for monitoring and how to maximize our
9 opportunities, and it is particularly important, because, for
10 example, yesterday, it was apparent with methyl parathion,
11 that both -- there has been dramatic changes in the use of
12 methyl parathion in a number of counties and that the nature
13 of the pesticide use on the crops has changed.
14 So, we exist in a situation where the circumstances
15 change. How frequently, is not clear, but it is a changing
16 problem, and how we can best determine what the exposures may
17 be to the public is an issue of major consequence.
18 So, that is the underlying basis of this workshop.
19 So, why don't we go ahead and get started.
20 I don't know who will be lead for DPR.
21 MR. BAKER: Good morning, Dr. Froines, Members of
22 the Panel.
23 I'm Lynn Baker, with Air Resources Board. On my
24 left is Randy Segawa, from the Department of Pesticide
25 Regulation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 We are going to give you a joint presentation this
2 morning on ARB's current approach to air monitoring of
3 pesticides. I also would like to introduce Kevin Mongar, who
4 will help us out with the overheads.
5 Kevin is with our Monitoring Lab Division, and
6 coordinates our field monitoring of pesticides and so if
7 analytical questions come up later in the presentation,
8 either he or Bob Okamoto, one of our chemists, can probably
9 answer analytical questions for us.
10 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I just want to make one point so
11 that everybody keeps in mind, one particular element of all
12 this, as we go through the morning, that is when we say,
13 talking about cotton, cotton doesn't have one pesticide
14 applied.
15 Cotton is one of the examples where you have
16 multiple pesticides, and so we have a tendency to take up
17 chemical by chemical, but that is not the way that the real
18 world exists.
19 Crops have multiple pesticide exposure. Therefore,
20 there is a potential for public exposure to multiple
21 pesticides from various crops. So, one of the issues that we
22 really have to address on the ongoing basis in the future and
23 beginning of this point, how can we address issues of
24 monitoring with respect to multiple pesticide exposure and
25 how can we incorporate to the risk assessment process, so
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 that we are actually dealing with situations that are real
2 world situations rather than sort of abstract, regulatory
3 issues, where you take one thing at a time, which isn't the
4 reality.
5 Go ahead.
6 MR. BAKER: Thank you, for the additional
7 introduction.
8 We are going to first touch on the current
9 approach, and then Randy is going to go through suggested
10 modifications we have to that approach to address your point
11 about the exposure to multiple pesticides.
12 As most of you are aware, the Health and Safety
13 Code and the Agricultural Code requires the Air Resources
14 Board to conduct air monitoring of pesticides, at the request
15 of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in support of
16 their toxic air contaminant program, and since 1986, we have
17 been doing air monitoring of pesticides in support of DPR.
18 I'm going to give a very brief overview of our
19 monitoring approach, and then Randy is going to describe the
20 monitoring recommendations that DPR gives us and the
21 pesticide use reporting system which is critical to those
22 monitoring recommendations.
23 Then we will describe our current study design,
24 give status of the monitoring to date and then we will finish
25 up with the update on this year's monitoring.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 Next slide.
2 We heard a little yesterday about DPR's
3 prioritization process. I guess we are going to hear a
4 little bit more later this morning.
5 Out of that prioritization process comes requests
6 to the ARB from DPR for monitoring of specific pesticides
7 and, as Dr. Froines mentioned, to date we have always
8 approached this on a pesticide by pesticide basis.
9 The DPR then provides ARB with a detailed
10 monitoring recommendation from which we, points us in the
11 direction of where and when to go, and then we develop a
12 sampling analysis methods, conduct the monitoring and provide
13 DPR with a report of the results.
14 Randy is going to describe our, the DPR monitoring
15 recommendation process.
16 MR. SEGAWA: Next slide.
17 Can you hear me okay?
18 How's that?
19 DPR requests monitoring from Air Resources Board
20 for five to six chemicals per year currently, plus any
21 breakdown products which we need or find necessary as well.
22 A couple of weeks ago, we sent the Panel Members an
23 example of both the monitoring recommendation and a protocol
24 that Air Resources Board creates for bifenthrin.
25 This is one of the chemicals that we are currently
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 monitoring. DPR monitoring recommendation contains some
2 background information on the physical and chemical
3 characteristics of the chemical, vapor pressure, water
4 solubility, soil absorption constant and dissipation rates.
5 In addition, we describe how the specific chemical
6 is used, the amount applied, both statewide as well as by
7 individual county, the principal crops for which that
8 pesticide is used, the target pests, areas or counties of
9 high use, periods or seasons of high use, the different types
10 of formulations, whether it is a malathion concentrate or
11 ground or material, then methods of application, whether its
12 primarily a soil applied chemical, aerial applied chemical or
13 some other.
14 Then our recommendation also contains specific
15 suggestions for how to conduct the monitoring in terms of the
16 area or county that should be targeted, the months or season
17 that should be targeted for monitoring, the crop that should
18 be located in that particular area, any breakdown products
19 that should be monitored, as well as target quantification
20 limit, which is developed by our toxicology staff, and we
21 also make recommendations on number of sampling sites, number
22 of samples and duration of the individual samples and then
23 some suggestions about quality assurance as well.
24 For the application specific monitoring, we also
25 make additional recommendations on the application rate that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 should be monitored, the crop that should be monitored, the
2 size of the fields, we normally make a recommendation, for
3 example, how a ten-acre field should be monitored and then
4 the sampling schedule, the time period that the application
5 monitoring during application should occur, as well as the
6 following periods.
7 While we may make suggestions for specific
8 applications, a lot of times, for a variety of reasons, ARB
9 is not able to locate to an ideal application, so we may have
10 to monitor, for instance, a lower application rate than the
11 maximum we desire.
12 DPR also makes recommendations regarding safety for
13 the monitoring personnel.
14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: That little sentence is the key
15 issue, because you may not be able to monitor ideal
16 applications from the standpoint of the risk assessor.
17 That is the fundamental question as to how maximize
18 our monitoring, quote, ideal application. That is really the
19 center of why we are doing this whole workshop.
20 That is not something to pass over.
21 MR. SEGAWA: Now, I would like to talk about sort
22 of a side issue for a couple of minutes here, because it is
23 important to monitoring recommendation that is DPR's
24 pesticide use report program.
25 DPR at that time was Department of Food and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 Agriculture. We had a statewide reporting program since
2 1970, but only since 1990, we have what we call a full use
3 reporting system, and that is virtually all agricultural
4 applications are now reported to the county agricultural
5 commissioner, who then turns that information over to DPR,
6 and we compile it on an annual basis.
7 While there is a full use reporting system, there
8 are some applications that are not reported. In particular
9 home and garden use is not reported. Most industrial and
10 institutional applications are also not reported.
11 So, applications to schools or factories, things
12 like that, those types of applications are not reported to
13 DPR.
14 There are two primary types of reports that come to
15 us. One is what we call the production agricultural report
16 and then the second type is the summary report.
17 The production agricultural report is a report used
18 by all growers, most pest control operators and other
19 professional businesses in producing agricultural
20 commodities.
21 The information that is reported to us includes the
22 county in which the work was performed, the geographic
23 location which is given by base, meridian, township, range
24 and section.
25 This is the public land survey coordinate system
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 that is used by the state, so we can identify the geographic
2 location of the application to within one square mile.
3 Then there is always a field location
4 identification that is normally assigned by the individual
5 county. The upper identification of permit number is
6 reported as well as the name, address, of both the operator
7 or grower of the fields, as well as applicator making the
8 pesticide application.
9 Then each site or field within the state is
10 assigned an ID number. Although it does vary by county, that
11 is the system for assigning the ID number, it varies from
12 county to county.
13 The commodity or crop that is treated is reported,
14 the number of acres planted, as well as the number of acres
15 treated is reported, date and time of application, the method
16 of application, at least whether it's an aerial, ground or
17 other type of application.
18 DR. GLANTZ: What would other be?
19 MR. SEGAWA: Other might be cow dip, for example.
20 For DPR, we have a very broad term for agricultural
21 use, so it includes things like livestock dips. It includes
22 applications to poultry and fish.
23 It includes rights of ways applications,
24 applications to timber, so it is a very broad definition of
25 agricultural in this case.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 Then the registration number of the specific
2 pesticide product is reported, and then the name of the
3 manufacturer of the pesticides as well.
4 The total amount of product applied for any
5 specific application is reported and the person who prepared
6 the report as well.
7 Then there are some types of applications for which
8 we only get summary information. We don't get as much
9 detailed information as we do for the production agricultural
10 applications, and these include applications for structural
11 pest control, landscape maintenance, rights of way, public
12 health, such as a mosquito abatement, vertebrate pest
13 control, commodity fumigation and regulatory pest control,
14 Med Fly ratification program, for these types of application,
15 we get information regarding the county in which the work was
16 performed, the operator identification name and address, the
17 particular pesticide product that was applied and its
18 registration number, the commodity or site that was treated,
19 and the total amount applied.
20 If you make a comparison to the previous slide, you
21 notice you don't get information about the specific location,
22 number of applications, the acreage treated, there was a
23 number of important information that we do not get for these
24 types of applications.
25 MR. BAKER: To summarize, again, the DPR gives us a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 request, and then that request is followed up a few months
2 later by the detailed monitoring recommendation that Randy
3 just summarized describing the following information.
4 Two key points on that slide I would like to
5 highlight, in item C, the request may include breakdown
6 products.
7 For instance, next year's monitoring request from
8 DPR asks the ARB to do monitoring for six different
9 pesticides.
10 In addition, they have asked for five breakdown
11 products of those pesticides. In terms of sampling and
12 analytical preparation standpoint, that's almost twice the
13 workload, as if there weren't, compared to no breakdown
14 products.
15 DR. BLANC: Why is that, the workload?
16 MR. BAKER: Because the different sampling and
17 analytical methods have to be developed for this break down
18 products and they have to be developed in advance of the
19 field sampling.
20 DR. BLANC: Well, how frequently is, in fact, the
21 sampling methodology different?
22 MR. BAKER: The sampling methodology is usually not
23 different. There has been one case that I can remember where
24 it was different but it is usually the analysis method that
25 is different.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 DR. BLANC: So, it shouldn't be twice the work
2 then?
3 MR. BAKER: It's not quite twice the work.
4 DR. BLANC: I mean, it is more work for the
5 analytical chemical side of your operation, but I would say
6 that, I would assume that 90 percent, or 95 percent of all
7 the labor involved in these kinds of sampling is, in fact,
8 the sampling and that the analysis, which could then be
9 batched and done is actually, I'm not trying to belittle the
10 analytic side, but I would imagine in terms of person hours
11 of labor, the vast majority of the work must be in the
12 sampling.
13 MR. BAKER: I actually think it is in the analysis.
14 Some of these have taken, and Kevin, you might want
15 to respond to this, but some of these have taken a couple of
16 months of staff's time for method development followed by
17 several weeks of actual analysis of the individual samples,
18 where it is a month to six weeks of one staff time in the
19 field to collect the samples.
20 Does that respond to your question?
21 DR. BLANC: Yeah.
22 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Lynn, as you get into this, I
23 wanted to, Randy's final two sentences were about what is
24 missing, and this review of what is obtained in terms of the
25 pesticide use reports, the striking thing about them is what
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 is missing as well as what is here.
2 So, in terms of developing a defined protocol for
3 monitoring purposes, hopefully you two can talk about what is
4 missing in the pesticide use reports in terms of maximizing
5 the monitoring as well as how you use the pesticide use
6 report.
7 MR. BAKER: We will.
8 The last point on this slide that I wanted to make
9 was that DPR's monitoring recommendations, the final point
10 there on the slide, requests that ARB provide results within
11 18 months of receipt of the recommendation.
12 We strive to meet that. Occasionally, if there are
13 unforeseen weather patterns that lead to unusual use of a
14 pesticide either early or late or very little, creates some
15 problems in preparing our analytical methods ahead of time,
16 and we may have to postpone the monitoring, so it may take us
17 two and a half years to find results rather than the one and
18 a half years.
19 Just a minor point.
20 DR. BYUS: I have just a brief question.
21 So, when you go out to monitor, DPR just doesn't
22 decide to spray a field with a certain amount at certain
23 time?
24 You go and find some farmer applying something that
25 you are interested in?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 MR. BAKER: Yes.
2 I will go into that.
3 DR. BYUS: Sorry.
4 MR. BAKER: That is all right.
5 As Randy mentioned in going through the monitoring
6 recommendation, there are two types of monitoring that we do,
7 ambient monitoring, for general population exposure, and
8 application site monitoring, that is associated with a
9 specific field application, and that is for acute, short term
10 concentrations.
11 Before we can do either one, the sampling analysis
12 methods have to be developed. So, they are developed prior
13 to the field sampling. They include the lab studies of
14 efficiency and sample stability to make sure the methods will
15 accomplish what we want them to accomplish.
16 The field studies include lab blanks and spikes,
17 trip blanks and spikes and field spikes.
18 DR. GLANTZ: For us who aren't -- can you explain
19 what that means in English?
20 MR. BAKER: I will.
21 The lab blanks and spikes are fairly
22 self-explanatory. You analyze a blank, whether it's a XAD
23 resin or a charcoal to be analyzed, a blank, to see if there
24 is any trace of the target pesticide on the blank.
25 The spike, you put known amounts of the pesticide
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 on a charcoal tube, desorb it, and hopefully, you will get
2 close to the amount off of the charcoal that you spiked onto
3 it.
4 The trip blanks and spikes are samples that
5 actually go out into the field, with the field samples, so
6 there would be, for the charcoal tube, for instance, it would
7 be blank charcoal tubes, and then spiked charcoal tubes that
8 would be put into the ice chest with the dry ice, when the
9 field staff goes out into the field, they would accompany the
10 batch of samples back to the lab, and then they would show up
11 as either contamination on the blanks or degradation of the
12 samples that were spiked.
13 DR. GLANTZ: Do you spike them, do you spike them
14 before you go out or while you are in the field?
15 MR. BAKER: Before we go out.
16 Then field spikes are much like the trapping
17 deficiency studies, only their samples that are taken, spiked
18 samples that are taken out into the field, air is drawn
19 through them for 24 hours, if that is the ambient sample, the
20 sample is put on dry ice, brought back to the lab and
21 analyzed to check for any losses.
22 It is similar to the trapping efficiency studies,
23 only that these are done in the actual field conditions
24 rather than ahead of time here in Sacramento.
25 The sampling media have included XAD resin or
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 charcoal absorbents, or three types of filters, glass, fiber,
2 quartz or teflon, depending on the target pesticide you are
3 interested in.
4 Sampling flows are varied from 2 to 30 liters a
5 minute, depending on whether we are doing ambient or
6 application site monitoring, and also depending on the group
7 that has done our work.
8 Some of our work has been done by our Monitoring
9 Lab Division, and some of it over the years has been
10 contracted out to universities, and then various analysis
11 methods are used from gas chromatography or high performance
12 liquid chromatography methods.
13 Then a study protocol, and I believe Randy
14 mentioned an example study protocol, bifenthrin, had been
15 sent to the Panel Members, sent as an example.
16 The study protocol is prepared, that summarizes the
17 analysis methods, and all of our studies follow ARB's quality
18 assurance plan for pesticide monitoring, that spells out how
19 we go about all of this.
20 The ambient monitoring for general population
21 exposure is conducted during a period of high use in a county
22 of high use. This is done following DPR's monitoring
23 recommendation.
24 Historically DPR would direct us to do monitoring,
25 in particular a county, say Fresno County, we would contact
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 the Agricultural Commissioner. They would give us some hints
2 in terms, well, the grapes are grown in this particular area
3 of the county.
4 The fungicide you are looking for is probably used
5 in these areas, and we would go out and look for sampling
6 sites in that area.
7 We have greatly improved that somewhat flawed
8 system by the DPR now giving us maps that show historical use
9 of the target pesticide in the target county, and I will show
10 some examples of those later in my presentation.
11 Those we feel are really helping us get a lot
12 closer to the actual use of the target pesticide. To date,
13 you might be interested in knowing we have done monitoring in
14 18 different counties throughout the state, all the way from
15 the Tule Lake region, up near the Oregon border, all the way
16 down to Imperial County, within a stone's throw of the
17 California-Mexico border.
18 Next slide.
19 When our Monitoring and Lab Division is preparing
20 to go out in the field to do the monitoring, they do contact
21 the Agricultural Commissioner.
22 DPR usually gives them a heads-up that we are going
23 to be coming out and doing monitoring. Our field staff
24 contacts them to discuss the expected time and area of use of
25 the target pesticide, find out if any quirks occurred this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 particular year regarding weather conditions or the need for
2 the pesticide that particular year are going to affect our
3 monitoring.
4 I am not sure if that is the first question they
5 always ask, Kevin, or if your first question is where do you
6 recommend going for lunch.
7 Next. Some of these areas are in some pretty
8 remote parts of our state but very interesting areas.
9 The primary monitoring sites and urban background
10 sites are selected as follows. We pick three to five primary
11 monitoring sites that meet the ambient siting criteria for
12 ambient air sampling.
13 We pick the sites typically at schools or fire
14 stations in the area of expected use of the target pesticide.
15 The monitoring sites are often put on the roofs of
16 schools, one-story roofs of schools, those meet siting
17 criteria in one of our other key criteria, that the sites
18 have to have power, because most of our sampling pumps
19 require electricity.
20 Application site monitoring surrounding a field is
21 typically done with either batteries or generators, but for
22 our ambient monitoring, we need electricity.
23 DR. GLANTZ: What are your ambient siting criteria?
24 MR. BAKER: Actually, Kevin has a slide that he
25 can put up.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 When we first started this measuring in 1986, we
2 adopted EPA's ambient air quality monitoring siting criteria,
3 which specified that representing air quality measurements
4 would be made anywhere from 2 to 15 meters above ground with
5 vertical and horizontal spacing away from structures of a
6 minimum of one meter.
7 The sampler should be at least 20 meters from
8 trees. The distance from any obstacle that sticks above the
9 sampler, such as a tree or a nearby building must be at least
10 twice the distance that the obstacle protrudes above the
11 sampler intake.
12 The sampler must have 270 degree unrestricted air
13 flow around the sampler, and there are criteria regarding
14 co-locating some of the samplers for quality assurance
15 purposes for duplicates, and those should be two to four
16 meters apart, except for very low flow samplers, one of the
17 low flow samplers where it is not so critical that they be
18 two to four meters apart.
19 DR. GLANTZ: What about, if you are sampling for
20 some pesticide which is being used, let's say outside of
21 Fresno, you obviously wouldn't do your ambient sampling on
22 the roof here.
23 What is the criteria, if you are doing application
24 sampling?
25 Or do you do it adjacent to the field?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 But for the ambient sampling, what are the rules or
2 criteria in terms of where you are sampling relevant to the
3 application sites?
4 MR. BAKER: We use the use maps which I will show
5 at the end of my presentation.
6 We look for towns in the areas of the expected or
7 historical use, and then we look for monitoring sites that
8 are on the edges of towns, near the target crop.
9 So, if we are looking for cotton, we find a
10 pesticide that is applied on cotton.
11 We look for small towns in the cotton growing
12 regions in the San Joaquin Valley. Then we look for schools
13 typically in those small towns that are near the cotton
14 growing region, and then we have to, of course, seek
15 permission from those sites to request permission to actually
16 use one of those sites for our monitoring.
17 DR. GLANTZ: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. BAKER: Sure.
19 DR. MAJEWSKI: Do you take any meteorological
20 information or measurements?
21 MR. BAKER: We do for our application site
22 monitoring.
23 We don't for the ambient monitoring, since it is
24 for six weeks, for twenty-four hour samples. We haven't seen
25 a need to collect the meteorological data.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 DR. ATKINSON: You could get it?
2 MR. BAKER: Oh, we could always get it from local
3 stations or air quality monitoring stations if we wanted it,
4 but we haven't seen any use for it.
5 CHAIRMAN FROINES: If I could just comment, Bob,
6 feel free to ask questions as the two of you find questions
7 that you think are appropriate.
8 MR. BAKER: Actually, I would like to go away from
9 this overhead for a minute and show a couple of slides, and I
10 don't have the slide changer.
11 I want to just show you five slides just to give
12 you an idea of some of these monitoring sites.
13 This is the town of Pond, in Kern County. This is
14 an ideal site.
15 We don't always come up with sites that are this
16 ideal.
17 Let me find the pointer.
18 DR. GLANTZ: The thing in the middle is the town?
19 That is a pretty little town.
20 MR. BAKER: This is actually -- well, it is a very
21 small town.
22 This is the Pond Elementary School.
23 These are almond orchards in this area. The target
24 pesticide in this case was as azinphos-methyl, which was to
25 be applied to almond orchards.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 So, we have been directed to look for almond
2 orchards. We were able to find this school, obviously
3 surrounding a couple of sides by almonds orchards.
4 Our flaw, of course, is always that we don't know
5 for sure that the pesticide is going to be applied to the
6 target crop in this, the almond orchards, when we set up our
7 ambient monitoring sites, but DPR can find that out after the
8 fact by checking the information.
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Can we just focus on that point?
10 Because it seems to me you have said this on at
11 least three other occasions when you made presentations, and
12 it seems to me that this is like the fundamental question.
13 If I had a kid in that school, I would probably
14 move them to another school. But let's assume that we have
15 children in the school.
16 I would really want to know whether my child was
17 being heavily exposed to azinphos-methyl, and I wouldn't be
18 very happy if I was told that we did monitoring, but maybe
19 and maybe not the pesticide was in use at the time that they
20 were monitoring.
21 It seems to me like it was such a fundamental
22 issue. How can I do the monitoring without some sense that
23 the chemical is being used?
24 MR. BAKER: It's obviously a very fundamental
25 question, and we have been unable to grapple with that to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 date.
2 I don't know. Randy, is there any way that the
3 agricultural commissioner could assist us in talking with the
4 growers or owners of these target crops prior to monitoring?
5 This is an unusual case that we were surrounded
6 this close.
7 More typically --
8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Wait a second. It's your
9 example. You chose the picture.
10 The point is if you have a child in that school,
11 you have to sample when the material is being applied to get
12 some estimate whether children are at risk from that
13 pesticide, otherwise it makes no sense.
14 MR. BAKER: In this example, we were not put in
15 touch with the grower or owner of the property so, we had no
16 way of knowing when we set up the sampling whether, and I'm
17 not even sure when we set up the sampling whether the grower
18 knew whether he was going to need to apply azinphos-methyl to
19 this almond orchard.
20 DR. ATKINSON: What?
21 That is silly. It is obvious that you need to know
22 whether the grower is going to use a pesticide and when, and
23 it may change the application.
24 DR. GLANTZ: Earlier in the presentation, DPR gave
25 us all the information that is reported to them.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 Is that done after the fact?
2 DR. SPEAR: I would suggest, John, that they
3 actually do know this, because the monitoring of the
4 application itself is what's relevant to the school if it is
5 this close and had a lot of data on it, so they know, so,
6 they just don't get it from this ambient --
7 MR. BAKER: So, when we do application site
8 monitoring, this is about as close as we are to the actual
9 application sites when we do monitoring.
10 We would know the application rate and time of the
11 application.
12 What I was going to say is, looking at this school,
13 more typically, the closest field would be out in this
14 region. So, there would be a half a mile, a mile away and
15 there would be multiple different growers and owners, and it
16 would be the agricultural commissioner would have to assist
17 us in contacting all these different growers and owners of
18 the property, because we would have no way of knowing who
19 they all were, and being able to contact them all to try and
20 find out if they had an idea whether or not they were going
21 to be applying that target pesticide over the next six weeks
22 that we were doing the ambient monitoring.
23 The acute or worst case close near field exposure
24 issue is addressed by the application site monitoring.
25 DR. GLANTZ: Yeah, but that -- I don't understand.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 If when you are doing the application site
2 monitoring, you obviously have to know that they are applying
3 the pesticide in order to monitor it. So, there is some way
4 that you can find out if a pesticide is being applied before
5 the fact.
6 MR. BAKER: In that case, we are put in touch with
7 a single grower or applicator, so we aren't having to try and
8 find out this information from numerous fields and numerous
9 owners and applicators.
10 We are only working with a single individual.
11 DR. GLANTZ: If your ambient, I don't want to just
12 repeat what other people have said too much, but a little
13 bit.
14 It has never stopped me before.
15 DR. BYUS: Any of us.
16 DR. GLANTZ: That is true, but it just makes no
17 sense to go out and collect ambient data on pesticide levels
18 unless you know they are being used at the time that you are
19 collecting the data, because these pesticides are only used,
20 many of them, for brief periods during the year.
21 You've got to figure out some way to find out. The
22 historical data that you alluded to earlier should be of some
23 help, because these things tend to be used in more or less
24 the same places year after year, but as we talked about
25 yesterday, there are also times that these uses can change
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 very radically.
2 I think a big hole in what you are doing is this
3 problem. I realize it is not easy, but I think you guys need
4 to put in place procedures working with DPR and the county ag
5 commissioners to make sure that you know what is being used.
6 Two things, one is to find out when these things
7 are going to be applied so you can do your ambient monitoring
8 when you can reasonably expect them to be applied, and after
9 the fact, find out exactly what was being done during your
10 monitoring period so you kind of know what the denominator
11 is.
12 DR. BLANC: May I ask a regulatory question?
13 The ratio of toxicity to actual exposures, which
14 has some initials, John mentioned earlier --
15 CHAIRMAN FROINES: MOE.
16 DR. BLANC: MOE. Does that always have to be based
17 on the ambient, or is it based on the edge of the field
18 application air borne values, or is there a regulatory reason
19 why you have to do the ambient level?
20 MR. BAKER: The DEF report, as example, the ambient
21 data was used to compare with the DPR seasonally adjusted
22 daily dose, the overall, but the general seasonal
23 concentration, and this general population exposure ambient
24 air data was what was used to compare with that seasonally
25 adjusted exposure level where the application site data, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 acute data is compared with the daily dose, so that the acute
2 exposure level, I believe DPR uses two types of data for two
3 different reasons.
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Yesterday, we moved forward on
5 methyl parathion as being a toxic air contaminant, and the
6 MOEs that were calculated were in part based on the
7 application data.
8 In fact, that's what gave you the numbers that got
9 you to meet your criteria for it being listed as a TAC, so,
10 in fact, methyl parathion is a compound in which the
11 application data was used as a defining criteria for
12 designation.
13 DR. BLANC: The reason that I am asking the
14 question is, I wonder if there is any rationale at all for
15 the ambient sampling, and maybe all the effort should be put
16 in doing more sites for application monitoring since that is
17 the one time when you seem to be able to know in advance that
18 it is actually going to be used, and since it is a worst case
19 scenario, if that were negative, that would be eliminated,
20 and if it were positive, then you could use it for rationale
21 in public health policy.
22 DR. SPEAR: I am going to make a suggestion along
23 those lines when we get to my part of the discussion.
24 MR. BAKER: One of the things that we are going to
25 discuss is some of the modifications to the current
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 approaches to do more than one application site study.
2 DR. BYUS: I agree, but would that minimize your
3 chance of getting multiple pesticides?
4 I think that the ambient, whatever it is, may
5 increase the chances of seeing multiple pesticides if you
6 concentrate only on application site, you would reduce that
7 probability.
8 MR. BAKER: You're right.
9 The ambient is the best approach for looking at
10 exposure to multiple pesticides, but in terms of a worst case
11 situation, the application site is far better.
12 DR. BYUS: Just briefly, say that you put your site
13 there, you want me to leave it there for six weeks; is that
14 correct?
15 MR. BAKER: Correct.
16 DR. BYUS: Why couldn't you in a case like this,
17 this is such a great site, you should leave it there for six
18 years for the ambient thing like for air monitoring all over.
19 DR. GLANTZ: That would certainly solve the problem
20 not knowing when the applications were done, because if you
21 sample for a long time, then you could go back and use the
22 post op reports that DPR gets to figure out when the
23 applications were being done and then look at the appropriate
24 samples.
25 MR. BAKER: We would still have no guarantee though
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 this orchard has --
2 DR. BLANC: If you were trying to address the
3 question of integrating within a square mile what multiple
4 pesticides were used, and is there any ambient amount that
5 could be measured at this particular potentially high risk
6 place, and it would be asking a different question.
7 MR. BAKER: We have picked six weeks as kind of a
8 compromise between the typical window that the pesticide is
9 used, which is typically a month or two of the year versus
10 our resources.
11 DR. BLANC: You have high volume sampling going on
12 for six weeks.
13 Is this sampling apparatus checked on a daily
14 basis?
15 MR. BAKER: It is checked four times a week.
16 Four 24-hour samples are collected each week for
17 six weeks.
18 DR. BLANC: Oh. It is only a 24-hour sample.
19 It is not continuous monitoring?
20 It is intermittent?
21 MR. BAKER: It is one integrated 24-hour sample.
22 DR. BLANC: Four times a week?
23 So, four out of seven days?
24 MR. BAKER: Yes.
25 DR. ATKINSON: Previously you said in a condition
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 like this you wouldn't have wind direction or anything else,
2 and this particular example looks as though that would be one
3 you would need.
4 MR. BAKER: It would -- there are enough stations,
5 air quality stations around, if we were interested, it would
6 not be that hard to get the information.
7 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I want to go back to a question
8 that Stan asked, too, because I think that this discussion is
9 illustrative, and I think Bob will probably speak to it, but
10 your, the siting criteria that you gave is entirely
11 mechanistic in a sense, doesn't have anything to do with
12 health problems, and it seems to be that one should define
13 what we want to have happen out of this is to define criteria
14 that has to do with whether or not there is a potential
15 health problem and how to look at that.
16 So, the ambient monitoring gives you some long term
17 average, whereas the application monitoring gives you a worst
18 case scenario, if you allow me to use that.
19 It is those kinds of criteria, it seems to me, you
20 need to establish. In other words, the monitoring should be
21 reflective of the problem that you are trying to identify,
22 and this is an example of the problems that we have in all
23 air pollution around the use of monitoring to identify
24 exposure, and so the question is, how does one identify
25 exposure, and what is the relationship between monitoring and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 exposure, and what criteria does one want to use within that
2 context?
3 MR. BAKER: I agree.
4 I think we probably should try to develop some
5 additional siting criteria. Maybe we can work out a system
6 with DPR with the ag commissioners for us to target some
7 specific crops or some specific fields and to make some
8 initial contacts with those actual growers to have some sense
9 whether or not they plan to use the pesticide.
10 The only potential problem with that would be that,
11 warned in advance that we may be doing monitoring for that
12 targeted pesticide, that grower may choose to use an
13 alternate for pesticide.
14 DR. BYUS: Being a laboratory scientist, can't you
15 just take a field and know how much pesticide is applied with
16 the appropriate doses, apply it yourself and monitor after
17 you apply by whatever criteria and application rate and
18 distance from the fields, and that way you control
19 everything?
20 MR. BAKER: The application site monitoring pretty
21 much accomplishes that.
22 We surround the field. We know the application
23 rate.
24 DR. BYUS: Couldn't you just set it up somewhere
25 like a field in Davis, a big pesticide application monitoring
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 facility and apply and monitor constantly?
2 I apologize if I am naive to this, but since the
3 exposure of pesticides is a lot different than a lot of other
4 air pollutants, so this way would work, I believe.
5 DR. SPEAR: The problem is exposure of who or whom,
6 which it is.
7 If the question, originally, what were the kids in
8 the school exposed to, they would be able to deploy strategy
9 to nail that right to the mat. No problem with that.
10 But that is not the question here.
11 The question is what kind of exposure is sustained
12 by the population in agricultural areas around where
13 pesticides are used, and therefore, as I will try to make
14 clear, that the actual exposure to people is extraordinarily
15 variable.
16 You could go out there and take some random
17 samples, and generally speaking, the more sampling costs, the
18 more people believe it is true, and as a consequence, you
19 take a small numbers of samples that cost a lot of money, and
20 you understand the situation, where it is quite easy now to
21 go out and probably even pick another school kid in this same
22 school and monitor their personal exposure, find out if it
23 deviates from that which you estimated from the fixed
24 position monitoring.
25 So, I would summit that the problem that they are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 confronted with in a way is that as far as I can tell it
2 really hasn't been nailed about whose exposure we are really
3 talking about.
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I want to speak to that.
5 That is a really fundamental issue, because it is
6 interesting that one of the -- in the 80's, when there was
7 significant tension, which is the euphemism I will use,
8 between this Panel and the Department and Food and
9 Agriculture over 1807, was the notion that, in fact, they
10 would argue at that point that 1807 was not relevant to
11 pesticides, because we are really talking about these large
12 areas, like the South Coast Air Quality Basin with, you know,
13 formaldehyde or benzene, or what is in the air, and it was
14 the ambient exposure, ambient exposure that one was concerned
15 with.
16 Well, in fact, that is not true. 1807 doesn't
17 necessarily say it's only the South Coast Air Quality Basin
18 and diesel exhaust. It is interested in the issue of air
19 toxics and public exposure to it.
20 Therefore, yesterday, we spent the whole afternoon
21 talking about air toxics in the context of hot spots, which
22 is a very narrowly defined exposure, which is, in fact, the
23 school.
24 So that within the context of both AB 2588 and
25 1807, the issue is not limited to the broad base ambient
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 exposure. It includes as well the public exposure associated
2 with, let's call that a hot spot, for lack of a better term.
3 The concern of the Panel then is more broad based.
4 DR. SPEAR: That is perfectly consistent with what
5 I said.
6 I would argue that the ambient monitoring, the kind
7 we have done in the past is really conditioned by thinking
8 about large scale sort of situations in the Los Angeles air
9 basin or whatever, and this inherently is a hot spot issue,
10 and it requires a different approach.
11 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We have been literally, this
12 Panel has been literally asked to address hot spot issues as
13 well as the South Coast basin, so we are within our frame
14 work, so that is why you get the sense, Bob, from the Panel
15 of focusing on not simply allowing itself to be seeing the
16 issue as limited to the South Coast basin.
17 MR. BAKER: Should I move on?
18 I'm glad I selected this slide.
19 DR. GLANTZ: Very stimulating slide.
20 I think we have seen it before actually.
21 MR. BAKER: You may have a year ago. I thought it
22 was worth showing again.
23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: It was at the end of the day,
24 where we were dull.
25 DR. GLANTZ: I remember this one too, actually.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 MR. BAKER: You have a good memory.
2 I didn't remember showing this one. Four slides of
3 actual monitoring equipment, just to give you a quick view of
4 that.
5 We talked about methyl parathion yesterday. This
6 was a collocated methyl parathion site situated obviously
7 close to a flooded rice field at the time the methyl
8 parathion being applied to flooded rice.
9 This is was the sampling cup, their XAD resin in
10 both of these sampling cups. Again, we were able to be close
11 to a potential application, the crop or the pesticide might
12 potentially be applied, but we again didn't know for sure
13 that it would be applied here.
14 Similar situation, this is in Fresno County. I
15 believe this was in the lovely town of Tranquility.
16 This was DEF and paraquat sampling near cotton,
17 again close to cotton fields.
18 Here, this was a site in the back of a fire
19 station. So, we didn't feel that we needed the security of a
20 roof, feeling that the back of the fire station should be
21 fairly secure, so we were going to put this on the ground.
22 This is a filter for paraquat and a XAD resin for
23 the DEF. This is a collocated methyl bromide and
24 chloropicrin sampler in Monterey County, again, close to the
25 target crop of the strawberries in the back.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 This site is on the roof of a school, sampling here
2 with charcoal tube and XAD resin, and I have a close-up
3 actually of this, without the -- we typically shield these
4 with foil or some device to prevent sunlight from interfering
5 with the sampling media.
6 This shows the foil removed, so you can see XAD
7 resin that was used to trap the chloropicrin and charcoal
8 tubes to trap methyl bromide.
9 This also illustrates the value of the trapping
10 efficiency studies prior to the field work. This trapping
11 efficiency study showed that we needed three charcoal tubes
12 in series to avoid having breakthrough, because the methyl
13 bromide didn't stick real well to the charcoal.
14 That is all of the slides.
15 DR. GLANTZ: For the tubes that you drew the air
16 through, so those are hooked up to the pump?
17 MR. BAKER: Right.
18 Those are hooked up to a pump, correct. So, those
19 are some examples of primary monitoring sites.
20 We also typically have an urban background site.
21 So, if we are doing monitoring in rural Fresno County, we
22 would typically use ARB air quality monitoring site for
23 downtown Fresno as an urban background site.
24 One co-located sample is collected at each of these
25 sites per week for quality assurance purposes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 DR. GLANTZ: What is a co-located sample?
2 MR. BAKER: Duplicate sample, and we discussed DPR
3 can check with the counties and find out the amount of use
4 near the monitoring sites.
5 Next overhead.
6 We have already discussed this. We do five to six
7 weeks of ambient monitoring with 24-hour samples collected
8 each day, four days a week on the weekdays.
9 Next overhead.
10 DR. GLANTZ: Which days do you use?
11 MR. BAKER: Monday through Friday.
12 The staff goes down Monday morning, start sampling,
13 and then 24-hour sample is collected Monday to Tuesday,
14 Tuesday to Wednesday, Wednesday to Thursday, Thursday to
15 Friday.
16 They then return to Sacramento. Then the
17 application site monitoring --
18 DR. GLANTZ: Just one other thing, is there any
19 issue that you might be missing by not getting the weekends?
20 Is that a probable?
21 MR. BAKER: We don't have any reason to believe
22 that.
23 The application site monitoring will -- is
24 irrespective of weekends or weekdays. Once it starts, it's
25 for 72 hours or for three days following an application. So,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 we don't stop Friday at 5:00.
2 The ambient monitoring, we don't have any reason to
3 think that there would be more or less application on
4 weekdays versus weekends.
5 DR. GLANTZ: Is that consistent?
6 The DPR, they have to report when they do the
7 applications right?
8 So, people tend to run seven day a week operations
9 or five day a week operations?
10 MR. SEGAWA: Probably a seven day a week operation.
11 DR. GLANTZ: Then it is pretty uniform across days
12 of the week?
13 MR. SEGAWA: Yes.
14 It all depends on pesticide and weather at the
15 time.
16 DR. ATKINSON: You don't lose any information by
17 not doing it night and day?
18 I know it is cooler at nights.
19 MR. BAKER: We have done some 12-hour samples where
20 we get the night and day difference.
21 DR. ATKINSON: See any difference?
22 MR. BAKER: This actually is associated with
23 application site monitoring, and yes, we do.
24 We usually see higher concentrations at night when
25 the air is stable. But for the general population exposure,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 the data that is used by the DPR toxicologist, they are
2 interested in on more long-term average, so that the 24-hour
3 data is sufficient.
4 For the acute application site monitoring, we do
5 want that shorter term maximum concentration data, and that
6 is what we have summarized here.
7 We do the application site monitoring by closely
8 coordinating with the agricultural commissioner, product
9 representatives, pest control advisors, applicators, growers,
10 and the key point is we have to obtain permission from the
11 land owner or grower prior to doing our field sampling.
12 The monitoring is done adjacent to an application
13 at or near the highest use of the pesticide per acre, and
14 that is a point that Dr. Froines picked up on earlier about
15 the application site data.
16 Sometimes not all being at the highest label rate
17 per acre, we strive to do that, DPR directs us to do that,
18 but sometimes our field staff works with the ag commissioner
19 office to try and find the application of the type that would
20 produce the highest rate per acre, and sometimes we just are
21 not able to identify any.
22 So, in some cases, we end up doing the monitoring
23 for what we can find, which is documented, but is not always
24 the absolute worst case application rate.
25 This crop may also differ from the crop that is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 used for the ambient monitoring.
2 For instance, the almonds around Pond, that was the
3 most heaviest use statewide for azinphos-methyl, but there
4 might be some other minor crop that has a higher use rate per
5 acre, and that would be the crop that we would target for
6 this application site monitor.
7 There we do short term samples, one to two hours,
8 up to 24 hours. They are collected before the application
9 for background purposes, during and for a total of three days
10 following the application.
11 The shorter samples are during -- their sample is
12 collected during the application, and then a few hour samples
13 are collected following the application, and then the second
14 and third day, either 12 or 24 hour samples are collected.
15 Samples are collected on four sides of the field at
16 a distance of 15 to 20 meters from the field edge, and we do
17 collect on-site meteorological data with this application of
18 site monitoring.
19 A collocated sample is also collected at the site
20 that is predominant down wind direction, so we also get some
21 sampling quality assurance information.
22 I have two overheads next, right, Kevin?
23 DR. FRIEDMAN: Do you have problems getting
24 permission from the land owner to do that?
25 MR. BAKER: Sometimes we do.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 Sometimes they are very cooperative, and sometimes
2 they say, thank you very much. Why don't you ask someone
3 else.
4 DR. FRIEDMAN: Do you think there is any
5 correlation of permission with degree of exposure or
6 intensity of spraying or anything?
7 MR. BAKER: Almost in every case in our application
8 site monitoring, we have detected the target pesticide.
9 There have been maybe two cases where we didn't,
10 and they were for pesticides that were so non volatile, and
11 there was no wind at the time of the application, that we
12 decided that it just didn't move off the target.
13 DR. GLANTZ: I think Gary is asking a different
14 question.
15 That is, do you think that naughty people are more
16 likely to say no than the nice people in terms of seeking to
17 minimize dosage?
18 MR. BAKER: I don't know that we are able to really
19 say.
20 The ag commissioners usually will give us contacts
21 with people that they think will be cooperative.
22 DR. GLANTZ: Again --
23 DR. FRIEDMAN: The question is, are the cooperative
24 people being more careful spraying less of the material?
25 MR. MONGAR: I'm sorry.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 We really have no way of knowing.
2 It is very difficult to answer your question,
3 because we are not there to see what the uncooperative people
4 are up to.
5 DR. GLANTZ: Well, can you, at one level people are
6 going to be bad, they are going to be bad, but have you gone
7 back and looked at the post HAC reports to see if there is at
8 least at that level any systematic differences between the
9 people who will cooperate with you and the people who don't
10 in terms of what they are using or how much they are
11 applying?
12 MR. BAKER: Well, we don't have a control to
13 compare to.
14 So, we don't know if they are being extra careful
15 in their application method, because we are doing the
16 monitoring.
17 I can remember cases where our field staff would
18 tell us about witnessing over spray of the fields. So, I
19 think we have seen cases where they weren't extremely
20 careful.
21 DR. GLANTZ: The question that Gary is asking is,
22 is sort of epidemiological in terms of a response by his
23 question, and I think it would be nice to at least be able to
24 say that the places that you are monitoring are, if at least
25 if you look at the reports they have to file with DPR that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 the use of application and amounts of pesticides they are
2 applying and all that in the places you are monitoring, or at
3 least similar to what people are claiming they are doing in
4 the other sites or places that people will not consent to the
5 monitoring, because there is real serious potential for bias
6 here.
7 I don't know what else you can do.
8 MR. MONGAR: We assume that they follow the label
9 guidelines when making the applications, and if they don't
10 follow the guidelines listed on the product label, then
11 that's a problem for the agricultural commissioner's office.
12 That's an enforcement issue.
13 DR. BYUS: That was my question.
14 Do you actually watch them put the chemical and mix
15 it up and go in the airplane and you know what actually is
16 going on at the rate that they are saying it is going?
17 MR. BAKER: No.
18 And that issue has come up.
19 DR. BYUS: If you had our own facility all of this
20 for hot spots, this would be all trivial sorts of
21 information.
22 You spray the maximum amount, more than the maximum
23 amount, less than the maximum amount, you could control for
24 everything.
25 MR. BAKER: Maybe DPR can purchase some land.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 DR. BYUS: I don't think it would be that expensive
2 to do this.
3 DR. GLANTZ: The only problem with what you are
4 suggesting, which is an interesting idea, but maybe it leaves
5 aside sort of local meteorological conditions and local,
6 maybe what the ground is made of makes a difference in terms
7 of absorption and what the crop is and what they are spraying
8 it on, so I think that is one thing that would, I mean it
9 sort of defeats the purpose.
10 The good thing about what they are doing is, except
11 for all the problems that we are identifying, it's the real
12 world, sort of.
13 DR. BYUS: You don't know it's the real world.
14 DR. FRIEDMAN: The problem is we don't know if the
15 people who are using extra concentrated solutions are the
16 one's who are denying you permission to monitor there, and
17 that is a serious possible cause of bias where you may be
18 underestimating what is going on in the real world.
19 DR. SPEAR: Let me make two comments.
20 One easy way around this that people in the past
21 have done, you make arrangements with the grower not to
22 monitor what they do, but to actually use their field at the
23 time where they would normally make the application and the
24 application is made by DPR personnel, and that sort of solves
25 the problem because you are actually doing it.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 DR. FRIEDMAN: Then you are missing what is
2 happening in the real world.
3 DR. SPEAR: The other thing to keep in mind is that
4 these pesticides are quite expensive, and people are not
5 going to really do a lot of extra application for the most
6 part and doses that depart very much from label
7 recommendations, just because it is a cost issue.
8 So, they are very sensitive, at least in my
9 experience, the agricultural, with what the label
10 recommendation is and not doing much more if they can avoid
11 it.
12 You are quite right. You can't -- again, this
13 whole issue of variations of application raises another
14 variable in this whole moulage that does go to the issue.
15 DR. GLANTZ: That is actually a very good idea.
16 That is something that you guys could do, feasible,
17 say we will apply it for you. That way you are sort of doing
18 what Craig is saying in a real world situation.
19 DR. BYUS: We will pay to spray.
20 DR. SPEAR: We will pay the commercial applicator,
21 someone who is licensed, to spray the chemical for them for
22 free.
23 DR. BYUS: They are going to get a lot more
24 compliance.
25 It is going to be a real world thing. Now,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 granted, this doesn't get to the real world.
2 DR. GLANTZ: Naughty.
3 DR. BYUS: But it makes the data a lot more solid.
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Let's keep the --
5 DR. FRIEDMAN: You also brought up the cost issue
6 which may be created by us in the opposite direction, and
7 maybe people are using less of it and maybe pay at the
8 standard application will overestimate what is getting into
9 the air.
10 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We need to -- I think these
11 kinds of suggestions have merit.
12 There are probably, if you are dealing with
13 hundreds of pesticides on a continuing basis, there are
14 obvious cost issues.
15 DR. BLANC: They are only doing five a year.
16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: No, but I'm talking about the
17 overall problem.
18 DPR is a regulatory agency. I doubt very seriously
19 if they want to get into the business of being pesticide
20 applicators.
21 Well, anyway, let's keep it as an option, but it
22 still seems to be that our goal is in part to define
23 protocol that maximize our information, and that is one
24 option, but I think perhaps there are other options with
25 different looks of practicality.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 MR. SEGAWA: In response to Dr. Byus' question, I
2 think it is definitely possible.
3 My concern, of course, would be the cost. Some of
4 these pesticides are rather expensive, and my guess is there
5 would be several thousand dollars for each application.
6 DR. BYUS: What is the big picture here?
7 DR. BLANC: It has got to be trivial compared to
8 the staff time.
9 I am sure it must cost $100,000 each time you
10 analyze one of these. Maybe its more, maybe 2 or $300,000.
11 MR. SEGAWA: Yes, except that DPR has budgeted its
12 staff to work on 1807, have not budgeted it from pesticide
13 applications.
14 DR. BYUS: You could.
15 MR. BAKER: I know in the case of metam-sodium, the
16 sprinkler application that monitoring was done around by DPR
17 you actually paid for the application but that was over and
18 above 1807.
19 DR. GLANTZ: I don't want to belabor this because
20 we do need to get on, but I think this a reasonable thing
21 that you guys ought to seriously look into, because I think
22 the point that Paul made is almost certainly true that the
23 data collection costs plus the costs associated with all of
24 the work that follows from the data that drags on for years,
25 if the cost of applying this to a field is few thousand
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 dollars, that is a small amount of money, and it may be that
2 you ought to be going in to develop your budgets and planning
3 to do this as part of your sampling cost.
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Everyone is making this so it is
5 an easy thing and maybe an easy thing to do in terms of doing
6 it, but this is not something you do without legislation and
7 regulation.
8 You cannot tell farmers we are going to use your
9 field when we choose to, to apply pesticides. My point is
10 that this is potentially a litigated complicated regulatory
11 issue.
12 It is not something -- it is simply not a voluntary
13 question that DPR says we have the money we are going sample
14 pesticides in a field that we.
15 DR. GLANTZ: No, no, no.
16 That is not what anybody is suggesting. I think
17 what people are suggesting, but that is another approach I
18 suppose you can take, but I think at least my understanding
19 of what is on the table is the idea that you would go to a
20 farmer who, the local ag commissioner says, well, this guy is
21 probably going to use pesticide X, and you would go to him
22 and say, okay, we will go do it for you, you are planning to
23 use pesticide X, we will do it for you, we will pay for it,
24 if you let us do this sampling at the time that we are
25 spraying it.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 It isn't where you are compelling them to do it. I
2 think then that gives you much better control over what is
3 going on. It gives you much more reliable data.
4 It is not where you would go in and say, we picked
5 your field, and we are going to do this whether you like it
6 or not.
7 It would be a thing where you would offer to them
8 and say, look we will do the spraying, and we will pay for
9 the pesticide to collect the data and bet you would get a
10 much broader cooperation then because they are getting
11 something out of it other than worrying that they are going
12 to get fingered by some regulatory agency for letting you
13 come in and make the measurements.
14 So, we are not talking about anything where people
15 are compelled to do anything. It would be an offer.
16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: This discussion is an academic
17 approach.
18 This is the researcher that wants to study the
19 problem. This is not regulatory policy for a state agency,
20 and let me just finish, Stan.
21 I think the point that we have to be careful about
22 here, we are trying to define a broad based approach to
23 monitoring for public health protection from pesticides. The
24 way that you describe it is much too ad hoc.
25 It is sort of like going around and saying let's do
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 it this way. That's fine. I think we should do things like
2 that.
3 But I still think that we need to define the broad
4 approach which ARB develops a protocol for sampling
5 irrespective getting volunteer information.
6 DR. GLANTZ: I agree with that except for that the
7 current approaches are voluntary.
8 There are two issues here that I see. One of them
9 is that the issue that we talked about before the ambient
10 monitoring, and I think that is a real serious problem if you
11 are out taking ambient data and you don't know whether the
12 stuff is actually being applied or not, and then the second
13 thing, when you are doing the hot spot monitoring, I think
14 that the kind of things that we are talking about here are
15 things that could be realistically done.
16 The only difference which they are doing now, what
17 we are talking about is that they would actually do the
18 application for the grower so they would know precisely what
19 is going on.
20 We are going through this whole process in
21 developing these reports and coming up with recommendations
22 in terms of public health stuff where the basic exposure data
23 may be wrong. That is pretty discouraging.
24 I think that the broad public health issues are
25 related to the problem with the ambient monitoring which are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 serious, but in terms of hot spot monitoring, this might be a
2 way to improve the data quality.
3 So, I don't think it is just an academic issue. It
4 is just a minor adjustment to what they are doing.
5 Do you see what I am saying?
6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I see it as an academic way of
7 looking at things.
8 DR. GLANTZ: Well, but I'm a professor.
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Keep in mind, as far as I know
10 there is no regulatory agency, whether occupational health,
11 environmental protection, clean drinking water, where the
12 regulatory agency goes to the regulated party and says, we
13 are going to do the sampling in your factory, or your field,
14 or your waterway or whatever for you, and then based on that
15 data that we collect, we are going to regulate you.
16 There are obviously some limitations to how one can
17 do that, but that is what we are saying. The industry will
18 be impacted by the regulating agency collecting data in the
19 regulated field, and so the effected party is bound to be
20 somewhat concerned about whether or not they are going to ask
21 the reverse question, is he not going to worry about money
22 and use a much higher concentration to get a much greater
23 worst case situation, and therefore, he comes back and DPR
24 regulates the devil out of this particular pesticide based on
25 DPR's monitoring.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 You've got a conflict of interest issue.
2 DR. ATKINSON: Do you only do the application
3 monitoring site once?
4 MR. BAKER: We are going to propose more than once.
5 DR. ATKINSON: I guess you could end up with a fair
6 amount of variation depending upon meteorological conditions.
7 MR. BAKER: Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Let's move on.
9 MR. BAKER: Okay.
10 Next overhead, Kevin.
11 DR. GLANTZ: Just for the record, I was the warm
12 fuzzy guy yesterday, and John was mean, but today he is being
13 warm and fuzzy, and I am being mean.
14 I was instructed to be mean, because he wants to be
15 warm and fuzzy.
16 MR. BAKER: I have two overheads.
17 DR. GLANTZ: For the record, that was a joke.
18 MR. BAKER: I have two overheads to show examples
19 of our application site monitoring.
20 This was a 40-acre field, a 40-acre peach orchard
21 actually, where we did monitoring for diazinon, applied as a
22 dormant spray in January with no leaves on the trees.
23 These X's are the locations of the monitoring sites
24 showing again that they are in the roughly 20 yards from the
25 edge of field. This is co-located site in the predominant
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 down wind direction, the northwesterly winds.
2 This also shows what we show not only and this is a
3 diagram out of one of our reports to DPR. This also shows
4 what was on the adjacent fields. This is the grassy area,
5 alfalfa, two foot high trees, new orchard, and just the dirt
6 to the bare field to the south here.
7 Next slide, please.
8 That was fairly ideal condition. This next
9 overhead is less ideal, and I wanted to contrast the two.
10 Often we will have, this was an application of
11 chlorphyrifos to an orange grove. Often there will be plots
12 or blocks as referred to here of land.
13 Here it was a 40-acre block, and then a 20-acre
14 block to the north, both received applications of
15 chlorpyrifos on two consecutive days, so that complicates our
16 sampling, because we are set up here to the southeast and
17 north of the 60-acre plot.
18 A couple of complicating factors. One, the fact
19 that the application occurred on two consecutive days. So,
20 what we were measuring in our off-site locations were, it
21 cannot be totally assigned to one day's application because
22 there is a carryover.
23 Another complicating factor is that these sites
24 here to the north and to the east are between orange groves.
25 So, the microscale meteorological impacts of air passing over
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 the canopy from one orange grove into the next complicates
2 the air flow.
3 The ideal is to have an orchard with just bare soil
4 or all the way around put our samplers on the four sides and
5 not have any complicating factors, but it is tough to find an
6 orchard like that without something around it.
7 The other interesting note is that we had samplers
8 on three sides. We started out with a sampler here on the
9 west side, because we always ring the fields with four
10 samplers, but midway through the study, someone else decided
11 that they needed our sampler more then we did, and we only
12 got data from three of the samplers, but that has been very
13 rare.
14 We have been very fortunate in not having samplers
15 stolen.
16 Next overhead.
17 Finally, then we wrap all this information up to
18 report to DPR.
19 That summarizes the sampling analysis methods, the
20 results of both types of monitoring and also the quality
21 assurance results from the lab and the field.
22 Next overhead.
23 I quickly I will run through the status of our
24 monitoring to date. To date DPR has requested monitoring for
25 48 pesticides. They have given us monitoring recommendations
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 for 42.
2 The difference there of six. Just about two months
3 ago, they gave us the request for six more pesticides for
4 next year, and so those monitoring recommendations will be
5 following.
6 To date, ARB has finalized reports for 35 different
7 pesticides. We have actually done monitoring for more than
8 that, so several of these pesticides we have done monitoring
9 multiple times, but we have done reports on 35 different
10 pesticides.
11 There are six reports in preparation. Monitoring
12 is just being completed for our last pesticide of 1999
13 cycloate, down in Imperial County, and we have monitoring for
14 nine pesticides scheduled for 2000-2001.
15 Next overhead.
16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Can I ask you a question?
17 You said that you sometimes have multiple samples.
18 Case in point, I said this yesterday, but I want to say it
19 again, in 1991, 1,108 pounds of Telone was used in
20 California.
21 In the first six months of 1995, 409,820 pounds
22 were used. I suspected that there is a lot more being used
23 even now.
24 So, my question is, since we knew there was a
25 problem in 1990 that actually led to suspension of Telone
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 used, do we know that that problem exists today?
2 In other words, have you been asked to do
3 monitoring over time to characterize what is in this case an
4 obvious problem, and have you done application site
5 monitoring to characterize whether or not they are hot spots?
6 MR. BAKER: We have done the monitoring most
7 recently in, I believe, July of 1996, for Telone in Kern
8 County, but we recently did discuss with DPR that we believe
9 that DPR may consider requesting us to go back and do
10 additional monitoring for Telone, because of the increase
11 used.
12 We have not done application site monitoring for
13 Telone other than the joint studies between ARB and Dow back
14 in the early 90's that were part of Dow Elanco's efforts to
15 bring Telone back under the California market.
16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I would argue that with Telone
17 that application site monitoring should be a priority.
18 MR. BAKER: I would think if we were asked to do
19 additional ambient monitoring, we would do application site
20 monitoring as well.
21 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Especially given the change in
22 methyl bromide.
23 This whole permethrin issue is actually quite
24 complicated. It is almost that we are thinking about how do
25 we look at the permethrin issue, because it is changing so
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 fast.
2 MR. BAKER: It really is with the dramatic increase
3 and use of metam-sodium in 1990, since Telone was suspended
4 and the phase out over the next few years of methyl bromide.
5 DR. GLANTZ: What is DPR planning to do in response
6 to the issues that are just being discussed?
7 MR. SEGAWA: Specifically, about Telone?
8 DR. GLANTZ: Well, in methyl bromide and
9 metam-sodium, I mean are you planning to alter your
10 monitoring plan?
11 In the past it has been like usually you go out and
12 look at something once. I mean are you planning on tracking
13 these things and going at and taking additional data to see
14 how the exposures are changing over time?
15 MR. SEGAWA: For the chemical, it is definitely
16 under serious consideration.
17 Lynn had pointed out that we have actually
18 requested 48 chemicals but have only sent over 42
19 recommendations, and normally we would have sent over the
20 recommendations for year the 2000 monitoring.
21 One of the reasons for the delays, we are now
22 considering changing the chemicals that we want monitored,
23 including some of the fumigants.
24 MR. BAKER: Next overhead.
25 This is an overhead just very quickly of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 pesticides that we have monitored to date. Metam-sodium is
2 listed up there just because it is the parent for MITC, but
3 we have not done air monitoring for metam-sodium, just for
4 MITC, and its breakdown product, methyl isocyanate.
5 So, there is 41 up there on the list, we have done
6 monitoring for to date.
7 DR. GLANTZ: So, DPR has reports on all these?
8 MR. BAKER: They have reports on 35.
9 There are six that are in preparation, actually it
10 will be seven.
11 One is just being completed.
12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The key to this entire
13 discussion is focused on the fact that we have a very nice
14 list, but the question is when you look inside the list what
15 do we really know.
16 Do we have application monitoring and ambient
17 monitoring for all of these compounds, and we could raise a
18 series of questions that we have discussed and there is no
19 sense of going back over them, but the question is, to what
20 degree do we have sufficient information for decision making
21 purposes?
22 MR. BAKER: Seems to me that the key question is,
23 is the data adequately representative of public exposure?
24 Now, Randy is going to discuss a little bit more on
25 DPR's evaluation of our reports.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 CHAIRMAN FROINES: This is for Randy, how long do
2 you think you are going to be?
3 MR. SEGAWA: I will only be talking about two
4 minutes, but it may generate a number of questions.
5 DR. BYUS: Brief question, Randy, about the use
6 data, that is analogous to this in the drug industry, in
7 terms of the amount of drugs that people use and listing the
8 amount of drugs that pharmacies prescribe and the amount of
9 drug that is actually manufactured, it doesn't always add up,
10 so my question to you is, now it is a question for the
11 pesticides, if you have all this use data but do you monitor
12 the amount, say, of the pesticides that are brought into the
13 State of California and sold, and does that actually add up
14 with the use data, is my question?
15 MR. SEGAWA: DPR does have information regarding
16 sales of pesticides in the state.
17 We are currently running an analysis comparing that
18 sales data to our pesticide use data and seeing how well they
19 match up.
20 One of the problems that we have most pesticides
21 have non agricultural applications, so we don't get pesticide
22 use reports for all chemicals, and so for many of the
23 chemicals, it is impossible to match up because the use is
24 not required to be reported.
25 DR. BYUS: Some of this is going to add up.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 Granted, if people store the stuff and you make the
2 estimates, but if it's grossly out of kilter --
3 MR. SEGAWA: We are doing that analysis now.
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I just want to make one comment
5 before we break.
6 I hope that everybody appreciates why there is such
7 sensitivity to the issue of having a requirement that we use
8 monitoring data before we determine a particular chemical a
9 toxic air contaminant, that we are trapped at some level in
10 the quality of the exposure and monitoring data.
11 We can take a highly toxic chemical, and we could
12 not declare it a toxic air contaminant without adequate
13 monitoring data. It's so different than what we do with ARB.
14 I would still argue that we shouldn't, it still
15 raises a question of whether or not the designation of a
16 compound of a toxic air contaminant should be based solely on
17 this kind of requirement. So, let's leave it, but you see
18 why this is such a troubling issue.
19 So, let's take a break.
20 (Thereupon a brief recess was taken.)
21 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Okay. Go ahead.
22 MR. SEGAWA: As Lynn mentioned previously, ARB has
23 sent to DPR 35 monitoring reports, and the next couple of
24 overheads here will list the status of those 35 reports.
25 Similarly, chemicals are currently toxic air
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 contaminants, and you see the list of seven chemicals there.
2 One chemical has been cancelled by DPR. That is
3 monocrotophos. One is currently proposed as a toxic air
4 contaminant, DEF. Seven reports are in preparation for
5 review by DPR.
6 Next slide.
7 Then we have 18 chemicals sort of in line waiting
8 for our evaluation by DPR staff, and one chemical for which
9 we requested additional monitoring, that is benomyl.
10 DR. BLANC: I found this very confusing.
11 It was in your handout. Everything on this list,
12 is this list and the previous list completely a subset of the
13 pesticides monitored to date list?
14 MR. SEGAWA: Well, there are 41 pesticides
15 monitored to date, but ARB has sent us 35 reports.
16 So, these two slides show the status of those 35.
17 DR. BLANC: 18 and 35 would mean 53.
18 MR. SEGAWA: 19 on this slide and the previous
19 slide at 16.
20 DR. BLANC: Well, again, maybe I don't understand
21 the terminology, in the que --
22 DR. GLANTZ: What does it mean that it is in the
23 que?
24 MR. SEGAWA: That means the monitoring has been
25 completed, but we don't have staff assigned to all parts of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 the health effects document.
2 DR. BLANC: But DPR, you have received the report
3 from the ARB for 35 reports?
4 MR. SEGAWA: Right.
5 We have the monitoring data but, for instance,
6 parts of the risk characterization or the exposure assessment
7 is not yet done.
8 DR. BLANC: Okay. So, none of this refers to
9 anything else that you are expecting from the ARB except for
10 the one thing that you have asked for additional monitoring
11 for?
12 MR. SEGAWA: Correct, and that the six reports that
13 they are currently working on.
14 DR. BLANC: Right, which are things that are not
15 even in the que yet?
16 MR. SEGAWA: That's correct.
17 DR. BLANC: But will be in the que?
18 MR. BAKER: Once we finalize them.
19 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.
20 DR. BLANC: So, could you go back to the previous
21 slide then?
22 There are seven toxic air contaminants that are
23 already put to bed. There is one that you canceled because
24 it is not made anymore, or something.
25 There is one that has been proposed to us to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 finalize that really would move up into the top list now,
2 right?
3 MR. SEGAWA: Yes.
4 We have regulation currently as proposed to add it
5 to the toxic air contaminant list but it is not yet official.
6 DR. BLANC: Right, but it is basically, we have
7 done our part, and we just finished our part for methyl
8 parathion.
9 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.
10 DR. BLANC: So, therefore, of the seven reports
11 that are in preparation or review, that means they are not
12 done, but they are farther along than things that are in que;
13 is that the difference?
14 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.
15 All three sections of the health effects document
16 and then environmental fate section, exposure assessment and
17 the risk assessment section are all in active preparation
18 right now.
19 DR. BLANC: Well, some of them are more than in
20 active preparation, right?
21 MR. SEGAWA: Correct.
22 DR. BLANC: So, the one's that we have already
23 gotten drafts of here, it's molinate and MITC, have we gotten
24 a draft?
25 MR. SEGAWA: The leads have the MITC.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 DR. BLANC: So, what else does the leads have or
2 not have yet?
3 MR. SEGAWA: That's it, MITC and molinate.
4 DR. BLANC: And methyl parathion.
5 MR. SEGAWA: Yes.
6 DR. BLANC: So, there are four things that the lead
7 people have been assigned but don't have the documents or
8 nobody has been assigned yet, John?
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What is what?
10 Azinphos methyl, chlorothalonil, endosulfan and
11 naled?
12 DR. BLANC: So, in fact, any discussion that we
13 would have, our next discussion after you is going to be on
14 how priorities are set, and that would be in terms of how
15 priorities are set for things for which the Air Resources
16 Board has already done the air monitoring for?
17 MR. SEGAWA: In part, yes.
18 DR. BLANC: Or would it be a discussion of how
19 priorities are set for things beyond the 18 chemical list?
20 MR. SEGAWA: Both.
21 DR. BLANC: Can you tell us, of the six things that
22 you sent requests, you said that there are six things that
23 have been, you have gotten requests for monitoring, that you
24 have planned out for the next two years, what are those six
25 things?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 MR. BAKER: I don't have a table of that, but I
2 could list them for you. They are, carbaryl, dimethoate,
3 maneb, phosmet, tralomethirn and benomyl.
4 DR. BLANC: So, none of those are Telone?
5 MR. BAKER: No, but as Randy mentioned earlier, one
6 of the reasons they have not sent us monitoring
7 recommendations yet is that they are reconsidering those
8 requests.
9 DR. BLANC: Those six, you mean they may change
10 those?
11 MR. BAKER: Correct.
12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What was the last?
13 MR. BAKER: Tralomethirn, T-r-a-l-o-m-e-t-h-r-i-n.
14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: T-r-a-l-o-m-e-t-h-r-i-n.
15 DR. BLANC: What about bifenthrin that we got the
16 handout on?
17 MR. BAKER: We have done the monitoring on it
18 already.
19 DR. BLANC: Okay. So, let's say I wanted to
20 potentially review a substance as an air contaminant,
21 pesticide, that wasn't yet one of the 18 chemicals in que,
22 for which there has already been monitoring done, and it
23 wasn't one of the six that you mentioned, does that mean that
24 earliest sampling could be three years from now, and
25 therefore, it would be five years from now before we would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 have a document?
2 MR. BAKER: No, there are, let me reiterate, we
3 have done monitoring for 41, or I think it is 42.
4 We have finalized reports for 35. Of the remaining
5 seven, one is the monitoring is just ending, the other six
6 the reports are under preparation.
7 So, there will be, over the next several months,
8 there will be seven more reports going in from ARB to DPR.
9 Then for those other six pesticides or replacements for those
10 that DPR has requested monitoring for us, that will be done
11 either in 2000 or 2001, with either a report to follow
12 probably the following year.
13 DR. BLANC: That is how I came up with three years
14 of the stuff that is in the pipeline.
15 Therefore, if there was something that is not in
16 the pipeline yet, wouldn't it be more like five years before?
17 MR. BAKER: Well, you mean if they were to next
18 month substitute a request for Telone instead of the phosmet?
19 DR. BLANC: Then it would only be three years.
20 MR. BAKER: Possibly two, two to three.
21 DR. BLANC: Why would you consider things in que
22 for which -- there are other things that are sort of in the
23 second que for which ARB is preparing the reports for you, or
24 are those in the 18?
25 MR. BAKER: Those 18 are just compounds that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 have finalized reports.
2 DR. BLANC: So, what are the one's that the reports
3 are pending for?
4 MR. SEGAWA: Amitraz, atrazine, bifenthrin,
5 propargite, cycloate, diquat dibromide, and there is a
6 seventh, oh, simazine.
7 DR. BLANC: So, let's say I was to go back to the
8 1996 document.
9 MR. BAKER: The prioritization document.
10 DR. BLANC: Prioritization document where
11 propargite is number one.
12 So, propargite, which is number one on that list,
13 is actually not even appearing on the radar screen as being
14 in que?
15 MR. BAKER: It is actually somewhat unique.
16 We did monitoring for it in 1996, gave DPR a report
17 in 1998, but we and DPR agreed that the report was not
18 adequate. There was a problem with the analysis method and
19 sort of fluctuating limit of quantifications. So, we redid
20 that monitoring the past couple of months.
21 DR. BLANC: Okay. What was the next one on your
22 list?
23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Can I ask a question, Paul?
24 Do you have an application site report
25 for propargite?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 MR. BAKER: We do, and that was finalized and sent
2 to DPR last year.
3 DR. BLANC: So, actually is has been held up
4 because of some school or fire house or some place where you
5 had the levels?
6 MR. BAKER: Well, we again did the application site
7 monitoring -- hold on a second. I have a summary.
8 All the data -- no. I take that back.
9 We got measurable results from the application site
10 monitoring for propargite. So there is nothing wrong with
11 that data.
12 We did repeat it this year, but the problem was
13 with the ambient monitoring for propargite, but we chose to
14 repeat both studies.
15 DR. GLANTZ: When will those be available?
16 MR. BAKER: Probably spring or summer of next year.
17 Is that a fair guess, Kevin?
18 MR. MONGAR: Yes, that is correct.
19 DR. GLANTZ: So, if we were to say we would truly
20 like to see a report on that, it could conceivably be before
21 the Panel by the fall, like a year from now?
22 MR. BAKER: That would be at the early spring or
23 more likely summer, us giving DPR a final report on --
24 DR. GLANTZ: Right, but they could be doing the
25 health effects part while you are finishing your monitoring
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 study.
2 MR. BAKER: I don't know how long that takes DPR to
3 put all that together.
4 MR. SEGAWA: I'm not sure what the stats on risk
5 assessment for propargite is.
6 DR. BLANC: Okay. What about something like
7 simazine?
8 MR. BAKER: Simazine was actually withdrawn.
9 DR. BLANC: So, it fell off the map.
10 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What about chlorothalonil?
11 DR. BLANC: Chlorothalonil.
12 MR. SEGAWA: It is all done, and it is one of the
13 next few that will be coming up shortly.
14 DR. BLANC: That is in preparation.
15 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Oh. I'm sorry. You are right.
16 DR. BLANC: I am sorry to make you go over this
17 again, but the one's that you are preparing that you have
18 done the sampling for already and you are preparing the
19 reports but they haven't formally gone to DPR, could you list
20 those again, those seven?
21 MR. BAKER: Yes.
22 There are seven and they are, amitraz, bifenthrin,
23 diquat dibromide, cycloate, propargite, simazine and
24 atrazine.
25 DR. BLANC: So, we should remember those and ask
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 when we talk about the priority setting, we should get a
2 sense as to where those would fall, because they are not in
3 the que yet.
4 MR. SEGAWA: Yes, we will discuss those more when
5 we discuss the prioritization.
6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Any other questions?
7 MR. BAKER: Next overhead.
8 We could have remembered all these on this next
9 overhead if I had been thinking of it.
10 This is an update of our monitoring this past year.
11 This lists the six pesticides that we did monitoring ambient
12 and application site application for, and then in addition of
13 these six, the seventh report that will soon be completed is
14 simazine, which was monitoring done late last year.
15 These, just quickly to run through these, amitraz
16 an insecticide used on cotton in Kings and Fresno County,
17 atrazine a herbicide used on sudangrass in Sacramento County,
18 bifenthrin an insecticide used on cotton in Kings and Fresno
19 County, cycloate that we are just completing monitoring for
20 an herbicide used for sugar beets, used on vegetation in
21 sugar beets in Imperial County, diquat dibromide a desiccant
22 used for alfalfa seed in Kings County, and propargite an
23 insecticide used on cotton and grapes in Kings and Fresno
24 County.
25 As we move on here, I would like to point out that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 there are three that are listed for Kings and Fresno County,
2 amitraz, bifenthrin, and propargite, and this presented a
3 rare opportunity for us this year to actually do monitoring
4 for three pesticides simultaneously at some of the sites.
5 If I could have the next overhead. I will now go
6 through a few overheads of the pesticide use maps that have
7 been so helpful to us that DPR provides, and we won't get
8 into a lot of specifics on these, but they give us, they can
9 illustrate a couple of different things.
10 This is the use map that DPR provided for the use
11 of amitraz in Fresno and Kings County during 1994, during the
12 period of July through August of 1994.
13 You can see scattered use here in Fresno County and
14 then a little more concentrated used down in Kings County
15 around Hanford.
16 If we could look at the next slide, for the 1997
17 use, you see the pattern has changed a fair amount in a three
18 year period there is not nearly as much used in around
19 Hanford and it has spread up to the valley more.
20 So, this illustrates both the change in the use
21 pattern for this particular pesticide but also that the
22 complication that we would be under if we using outdated use
23 information to pick our monitoring sites.
24 If we had used 1994 data, we would have done all
25 the monitoring down here and would have missed locations up
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 here in the valley.
2 Kevin, why don't you put up that overlay. We have
3 another slide here that we will use for a couple of these
4 that overlays that shows our actual monitoring locations in
5 this area.
6 As I mentioned a minute ago, we did monitoring at
7 some of the sites for amitraz, bifenthrin and propargite.
8 So, Fresno again, was our urban background site for this
9 monitoring.
10 We had amitraz monitors at the locations here with
11 the A, Huron, five points, Lemoore and Stratford and you can
12 see in general these sites are in the areas of historical for
13 amitraz.
14 Why don't you pull that off, and we will move on to
15 bifenthrin.
16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Is there another name for
17 bifenthrin?
18 MR. BAKER: Is there another name for bifenthrin?
19 MR. SEGAWA: There is but it doesn't come to me at
20 the moment.
21 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I don't find it on the priority
22 list for '96.
23 MR. SEGAWA: Oh, bifenthrin is a recently
24 registered active ingredient.
25 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 MR. BAKER: The bifenthrin and the propargite we
2 were actually able to monitor simultaneously the same
3 sampling media.
4 The amitraz used a different sampling media, but we
5 were able to use the same sites in some cases for all three.
6 This is the 1994 use pattern for bifenthrin. It is
7 pretty uniform throughout the western part of Fresno County
8 and down here in Kings County.
9 Now, the 1997 use, you will see a change in that
10 pattern. Instead of pretty uniformly distributed throughout
11 there, just a little bit of use in the western Fresno County
12 and scattered use down in Kings County.
13 Now, why don't you overlay again the monitoring
14 sites for bifenthrin. Some of these, again, are picked as
15 primarily bifenthrin sites. Some were primarily for
16 propargite sites.
17 For instance, the Kerman station here, there is no
18 historical use by bifenthrin there, but we were able to get
19 both the alunites off of the same sampling cartridge, so we
20 used that primarily for propargite.
21 We had these two sites in San Joaquin in the heart
22 of the historical bifenthrin use area, Stratford and Huron,
23 also in that same region, and then Kingsburg is another site
24 that is more of a propargite site.
25 DR. BLANC: Could I see the previous map just for a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 second?
2 MR. BAKER: The '94, '94 for bifenthrin.
3 The kind of pink is the '94 bifenthrin use and the
4 tannish or whatever color that is, is the '97.
5 Anything else on that?
6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I still don't understand why
7 bifenthrin is not in the '96 documents?
8 That is 1994.
9 MR. SEGAWA: I'm lost myself.
10 I don't know.
11 DR. BLANC: Seemed like it didn't work very well, I
12 mean it is not very popular.
13 It lost popularity.
14 MR. SEGAWA: Bifenthrin is a propylene type
15 chemical, and one of the problems with propylene chemicals is
16 that insects get resistance to that very rapidly.
17 DR. BLANC: So, just in terms of our upcoming
18 discussion here is a chemical which doesn't appear at all on
19 the list of priorities as, is a propylene which probably
20 wouldn't be my choice for high priority to study, because it
21 is not particularly that potent, had a brief popularity of
22 use which is now sort of collapsing, but took up 20 percent
23 of what the ARB could do in terms of sampling.
24 I mean, it was one of the five things you could
25 sample.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 MR. BAKER: There are actually two on our
2 2000-2001 list, tralomethirn and methamidophos, which is a
3 carry over from last year that are also not listed in the '96
4 document.
5 So, I am assuming there has been new information
6 that DPR has come upon since that document was prepared that
7 has caused those to become priorities. I assume the case is
8 similar for bifethrin.
9 MR. SEGAWA: We will talk more about that in depth
10 when we get to prioritization discussion.
11 MR. BAKER: Okay. Let's just wrap up with the
12 propargite overheads and then we will move on.
13 Prior to amitraz and bifenthrin, we noted a fair
14 change in the use pattern from '94 to '97, and here that is
15 not the case, '94 received pretty uniform use throughout
16 Fresno and more eastern in Kings County.
17 Propargite used some on cotton but slightly more
18 heavily on grapes, and this is the grape growing region.
19 Now, '97, and you see the use pattern has not really changed
20 significantly. It's still that grape growing region.
21 If you recall, there were a couple of sites, Kevin,
22 do you want to put the overhead back again, that we used for
23 bifenthrin and propargite, that were not big.
24 In fact, there was no historical use for
25 bifenthrin. They were coming in Kingsburg, but you can see
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 that they are in the use area for propargite as well as for
2 others and to lesser extent by Helm and Stratford.
3 So, if there are no further questions, that
4 concludes what I was planning to present.
5 We could move on to Randy's presentation on the
6 modifications that are being considered.
7 MR. SEGAWA: Go ahead, next slide, Kevin.
8 DPR and ARB staff have had a couple of meetings now
9 to discuss possible options for revising the current
10 monitoring. This summarizes those discussions.
11 All of these options will give us more data for
12 each chemical, but then the sacrifices that we will be doing
13 fewer chemicals for or less frequent monitoring for each
14 chemical.
15 Currently ARB collects about 120 ambient samples
16 for each chemical at 40 application site samples. Now we
17 currently monitor 5 to 6 chemicals per year.
18 Some of the options we are discussing is monitoring
19 an additional season, we currently do that of course for one
20 year. We could do that over two or three years.
21 We could also monitor additional areas. Right now
22 we target the highest or second highest county of use, and we
23 could spread that out more.
24 We could also monitor additional sites. We
25 normally monitor 3 to 5 sites of each chemical. We could
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 monitor for a longer period of time, as Lynn said.
2 We currently monitor for about six weeks, or we
3 could monitor additional applications. Currently we do one.
4 As you know, we have not yet monitored for TAC.
5 We would like to begin including those into our monitoring
6 scheme as well.
7 Another option would be and go back for those 18
8 chemicals in cue and gather additional monitoring data for
9 those.
10 Another idea we have been considering is
11 supplementing the monitoring data with some computer modeling
12 information. We are looking for suggestions and
13 recommendation from the Panel here.
14 One question we had, was if it is important to
15 distinguish between particulate phase and vapor phase for
16 these pesticides.
17 DR. BLANC: Why was that a question?
18 MR. SEGAWA: That question has came up in other
19 monitoring that we have been doing where people are
20 interested in the partitioning between the particulate phase
21 and vapor phase.
22 Unfortunately, at this point the sampling
23 analytical methodology is not well worked out, so we can't
24 get a good distinction between the two phases.
25 So up until now, we haven't tried to make that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 distinction.
2 DR. ATKINSON: That would be important for
3 environmental fate because two phases could be quite
4 different.
5 MR. BAKER: Right.
6 We have had some discussions I know with DPR's
7 toxicologist, and they might care to comment, but it didn't
8 sound like that they would do much with the data if it was
9 particulate versus gaseous phase.
10 It's not like they would do the same. They would
11 treat the data the same way. So from a toxic end point
12 perspective, we want to be certain that there was a real need
13 for separating the two types of information.
14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: It depends also on your
15 sampling.
16 If you are not picking up particulate because you
17 are doing, let's say, charcoal tube sampling, or if you are
18 picking up both, then of course, that is an issue.
19 DR. MAJEWSKI: The chances are you are picking up
20 both you are just not getting a high efficiency for the
21 particulates.
22 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The question of how much of the
23 organic gets particle associated?
24 MR. BAKER: Even if we were able to measure with a
25 filter upstream of the absorbent resin and trap the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 particulate from fraction and the gaseous fractions some of
2 the pesticide that would be absorbed to the particle that
3 would be trapped on a filter, then also the pesticide would
4 be stripped off of that particle from the filter during the
5 sampling, so we wouldn't necessarily be able to accurately
6 characterize what was occurring in the ambient air.
7 DR. ATKINSON: Yeah, it wouldn't necessarily be
8 particularly accurate, yet some knowledge.
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: My suggestion on that list of
10 yours, is that it would be best to actually wait on any
11 discussion of it until after our guest speakers have
12 contributed and then go back to it following their
13 recommendations.
14 MR. SEGAWA: That is about all I had.
15 The other slide was just our current thoughts that
16 we had monitored, continued to monitor for 5 to 6 chemicals
17 each year but monitoring for two years rather than one, that
18 those chemicals would include 2 to 3 toxic air contaminants,
19 ARB would give us the data from the first season which we
20 would then look and help plan for the second season of
21 monitoring whether we want to monitor in a different area or
22 monitor a second application or increase the number of weeks
23 that we monitor.
24 CHAIRMAN FROINES: One of the questions obviously,
25 is why do you monitor what is the purpose in the long-term,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 and going back to Craig and Stan's arguments about sampling
2 in the field and just putting pesticide on it and calculating
3 the data, if one of questions for this Panel is, is if one of
4 the issues is a chemical to be designated a toxic air
5 contaminant as opposed to having a broad based picture of the
6 pesticide exposure, those may have different, one may be done
7 more quickly than the other depending on what your ultimate
8 end point goal is.
9 DR. BLANC: To expand on that thought, it might be
10 in fact, I realize we are going to embark on a discussion
11 about priority setting for labeling, what should be
12 considered to be labeled a toxic air contaminant from
13 pesticides, but maybe the question is the reverse, which is
14 maybe what we need is just the minimum amount of information
15 so that we can designate many of these pesticides as toxic
16 air contaminants and let that drive, what we need to do in
17 terms of ambient monitoring.
18 Let's sample at the edge of fields and let's find
19 enough that we can decide that things are toxic air
20 contaminants in terms of the pesticides and then let that
21 drive your population based monitoring rather then everything
22 happening, it seems to me, in reverse a bit.
23 So, many of the things that we are talking about
24 would automatically be toxic air contaminants, if we can
25 demonstrate that there are any amount of either,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 aerosolization or volatility at all or persistence.
2 I mean, to me, these things have to prove that
3 they are not toxic air contaminants. After all they are
4 all toxins, because, after all --
5 They are all toxins, that is how they got to be
6 pesticides, and the only question is do they get into the air
7 or not beyond some kind of trivial amount because of their
8 physical properties and use patterns, right?
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: These two questions, what I
10 raise and this follow-up is exactly the issue it seems to me.
11 DR. BLANC: So, then I would say no I wouldn't
12 actually take any of this strategy what you are suggesting,
13 what I would is get us rapidly measurements of the edges of
14 the fields and do 20 chemicals a year and then once we
15 declare that they are toxic air contaminants then you can go
16 back and do your monitoring of multiple, to detect the
17 multiple one's so you can get some kind of public health risk
18 assessment on that level and intervention strategies, because
19 the process of declaring something a toxic air contaminant is
20 simply the first step in allowing the Air Resources Board
21 then to proceed with public health regulatory steps that
22 would obviously require the kind of data that we are talking
23 about the very detailed information, whereas ours is really
24 more a dichotomous decision.
25 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The broad based in-depth data on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 ambient monitoring is information that one needs for risk
2 management purposes and literally has nothing to do with the
3 dichotomous decision of the Panel.
4 It's not even in the risk assessment phase.
5 MR. BAKER: I like your suggestion.
6 The only case that I can think of that it might not
7 work would be if there was a pesticide for which the chronic
8 exposure was what was driving the risk and the acute
9 exposure, the information that we get from the application
10 site data, and in that case the application site data might
11 not lead DPR to identify it as a toxic air contaminant and
12 then we would need the ambient longer term data for that
13 chronic risk assessment, or DPR that is, would need that
14 information.
15 DR. BLANC: I would be curious to hear what Bob and
16 our other guess have to say on this topic.
17 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Are we ready to move on and hear
18 from Bob?
19 DR. SPEAR: We are ready.
20 CHAIRMAN FROINES: For those of you that don't
21 know this is Dr. Robert Spear, who is the Director of the
22 Center for Occupational Environmental Health.
23 DR. SPEAR: By way of introduction, I will say two
24 things.
25 I think you can actually leave the lights pretty
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 well up to keep everyone awake.
2 By way of introduction, I will say two things. I
3 spent about a decade in the 70's dealing with pesticides and
4 I haven't done much since, so some of these might be a tad
5 dated, but unfortunately when I do revisit this it has
6 changed unremarkably little.
7 The other thing that will very shortly become
8 obvious to you is I am engineered by training and so when
9 faced with a short time to talk about a complicated subjected
10 I usually fall back on some kind of equations so I apologize
11 for that.
12 The first thing that I'm talking about here, air
13 born exposures to agricultural chemicals I don't have to tell
14 you that compounds air borne exposures are not the only
15 exposures one has to consider, but I understand the
16 partitioning of the regulatory world, and I would like to be
17 quite explicit about what I mean about exposure, and that is
18 that I am talking about inhalation exposure here where C is
19 the concentration of this stuff that we are worried about
20 actually in the breathing zone of the individual who we're
21 concerned about, and I want to underscore here that I am
22 talking about a person.
23 We picked a person and that person is exposed to
24 whatever it is we are concerned here about and concentration
25 C, which varies as a function of time as they move about
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 their activity whatever it is that they do, and we are
2 assuming that they are breathing, their ventilation rate is
3 some rate, B, which also is the two years of the person and
4 changes over time given their activity.
5 So, that inherently from an engineering experience
6 gives us a little notion, that is to say that this notion of
7 exposure moves with the person.
8 What we get out of this is we sum up or integrate
9 over some exposure time, T, which can be an hour, a day or
10 year, and this particular formulation here, this is the
11 inhalation exposure that you sustain over that period, and it
12 is in, let's say milligrams, then C is for milligrams per
13 cubic meter, then E would be in milligrams, the total amount
14 of this stuff that is inhaled over whatever the exposure
15 period may be.
16 In general, in the risk assessment practice there
17 are two approaches to estimating exposures, the first one
18 here says, well, we can actually in many cases put on some
19 kind of a device on people not unlike this little thing here
20 on the microphone, that will actually measure that interval,
21 C by T over, will measure C by T over the exposure of
22 interval and we then in that formulation we usually make some
23 assumptions about the ventilation rate depending upon the
24 activities that are going on, the age of the person, whatever
25 it may be.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 Then we can then take the direct measurement of the
2 concentration over the exposure, multiply it by our estimates
3 of ventilation rates and get an individuals exposure. The
4 other way that it's commonly done is to use the sort of micro
5 environment approach in which we have, we sum up over a
6 number of micro environments, and micro environments can be
7 your car on the way to work, the actual workplace, your home
8 where you are sleeping at night, whatever in each one of
9 these places is characterized by what it is you are doing
10 there and also the amount of time you spend and this where
11 the time activity notion comes in.
12 In this case generally speaking, C, we associate
13 with the environment itself it is a constant number which we
14 associate with the environment, now it could be associated
15 with an individuals environment, as in this case, C, is the
16 function of the person in the environment or it may not be,
17 but any case says you can see in order to make it an exposure
18 estimate we need the same assumptions with respect to
19 inhalation rate but now we also need to have some idea about
20 the time spent in the environment since we are not measuring
21 it directly, and we need to have some estimate of the expose
22 in that environment.
23 Now when we move from individuals to groups, things
24 of course get slightly more complicated. With personal
25 measurements the thing that we don't have is the ventilation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 rate, but we can account for the individuals moving through
2 the environment because the sampler moves with them and
3 therefore we don't to independently get measurements of the
4 environmental concentration because it is being measured as
5 the individual acts as their own sampler in a way and collect
6 that information.
7 Now, if we are talking about a group of people
8 instead of an individual, well we could put samplers on
9 various people and then we get some idea of the statistical
10 distribution of the exposure on this group of people by
11 direct measurement of concentration and some secondary source
12 of instances about ventilation rate.
13 The time activity approach requires estimates of
14 the time and each environment for each individual now, so now
15 it becomes a more of a statistical issue as well as the
16 ventilation rate and generally we assume in the micro
17 environment approach that this concentration to which people
18 are exposed to in the J micro environment is the same for all
19 people who were there.
20 That is to say that we generally assume that, C,
21 does not depend on the individual but that the micro
22 environmental concentration applies to everybody in that
23 micro environment.
24 As I indicate here, this assumption is the weak
25 point and U.S. EPA discovered this about 1982 or somewhere in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 there and has put a lot of emphasis in recent years into
2 personal measurements of the, C bar, rather than area
3 measurements and inferences they are from.
4 Now, the story really or the guts of the issue as
5 Steven J. Gouhle likes to point out more than I in the
6 variance, that is to say this whole notion of the variability
7 in these numbers across the population, and what most of us,
8 what most people find difficult to get used to, is these are
9 really variable numbers, and I want to just take a particular
10 example that I know something about.
11 Take an occupational micro environment that is to
12 say just one of the micro environments which a person might
13 flux throughout the day and look very closely at that micro
14 environment and see what kind of variability we get in
15 exposure.
16 The example I use is here, suppose we go to an oil
17 refinery to a particular unit, for the cat cracker number
18 three and we select all day shift workers, day shift, who
19 have the job title of platform operator. Very specific group
20 of people and over a period of months we randomly select
21 people, we are going to take direct exposures now we are
22 going to hang a pump on them for eight hours and we are going
23 to find out what their exposure is say benzene, and generally
24 speaking what we find when we do this, is these 8 hour time
25 weighed average concentrations the C bar for that micro
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 environment are log normally distributed, that is to say
2 there is a lot of variations. There is a long tail, a lot of
3 measurements up towards the left end and then the geometric
4 deviations.
5 If you think in those terms is between 3 and 5, and
6 I made a little back of the envelope calculation which I
7 never quite remember, just to give you the flavor of what
8 that means, if we have a geometric, suppose we are going to
9 look at the 95 percent tile exposure measurement and the
10 fifth percent tile and ask what the ratio is so now we are
11 looking at this population of samples we have collected from
12 these workers it has got a log normal distribution and saying
13 what is the ratio of the 95 highest exposure to the fifth
14 percent tile highest exposure, and if the geometric standard
15 of deviation is 2 that ratio is a factor of 10. If the
16 geometric standard deviation is 2.5 it is a factor of 20, if
17 it's 3 it's a factor of 40, and if it's 4 it's a factor of
18 100.
19 Okay.
20 So, typically this is real data this is not
21 speculation. If you do exactly what I suggested here and
22 look at the distribution of all exposure over eight hours you
23 find between 5 low and high ends, there is factor of one
24 hundred in these.
25 More over, it is convincingly in the, it is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 demonstrated in the occupational environment that the
2 variation between mean value of individuals, now we take
3 these individual workers, and we take multiple samples on
4 each, and we get a mean value for each worker.
5 Well, you find out that a very large proportion of
6 this total variability is also got to do with the variability
7 in the means between people, the people are not the same.
8 Okay. There is no -- there is in the occupational
9 world something called homogeneous exposure group which is
10 largely a fiction. They don't really exist.
11 Now, what does this all have got to do with
12 pesticide monitoring?
13 The implications for pesticide monitoring, well for
14 sure there is a lot of variability and exposure concentration
15 even within the indoor environment I just talked about,
16 although oil refineries certainly have outdoor compliments to
17 it.
18 The distinction in the occupational environment is
19 these exposures are relatively continuous. As to say if you
20 go into a oil refinery you are going to have benzene
21 exposures at some level pretty much all the time, it may be
22 small but it is likely to be there and this is unlike
23 pesticides in the regulatory setting that you just discussed
24 this morning.
25 Pesticides sources are episodically distributed in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 time and space and the transport characteristics are also
2 going to vary a great deal day to day.
3 I can tell you also it varies by formulations. You
4 put a wettable pattern on versus some kind of emulsifiable
5 concentrate, it is probably going to change as well.
6 This whole thing leads me to conclude that fixed
7 position monitoring stations in the far field what is called
8 for ambient monitoring are very limited value for human
9 exposure assessment.
10 They are probably fine if you want to know can you
11 measure a pesticide, pesticide X down near Hanford, if you
12 put one out, yes you can, no you can't.
13 If you are trying to estimate human exposure, I
14 suggest it is a very different issue because of the enormous
15 variability, the mean values, because that is what you are
16 really trying to do.
17 You are saying that these ambient stations are
18 giving you some idea about these constant, C's, in the micro
19 environment, and the micro environment hasn't really defined
20 that we are talking about people being in, but because of
21 this variability issue, we are talking about people if you
22 are using a C, established from one of these ambient
23 monitoring stations, on average concentration of
24 azinphos-methyl, you could expect that people who are going
25 to be in that environment to actually put some kind of very
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 sensitive personal exposure monitors on them I would guess
2 that we would have variability in their exposures even
3 integrated over a 6 week period at least 100, but probably
4 closer to 1,000.
5 Now, so having painted this terrible picture, what
6 alternative do I have to offer?
7 I have a thought that echos what some of you have
8 said here this morning. I would suggest that focusing the
9 measurement resources on what I call here source
10 characterization and what you are calling the application
11 situation, to try and really understand how this stuff comes
12 off into the air, in what intensity and over what duration of
13 time.
14 My guess is for anything that is reasonably
15 volatile after about two weeks is probably not much there but
16 you have got data that will tell you that.
17 In any case to do a good job at the source around
18 the periphery of the field and then use conventional old
19 mathematical dispersion models, I think that Randy already
20 referred to this morning, they were thinking about some
21 modeling sorts of things, to predict downwind concentrations
22 under what I call various multi-source scenarios, and you
23 have got data about multiple sources you know how they are
24 distributed from some of those maps that we just saw a little
25 while ago, and then to invert the usual risk assessment
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 scenario and say, well if we predict downwind concentration
2 over time for various sources at something like this, what
3 kind of time activity patterns in human beings would be
4 necessary to build up any kind of exposure that you are going
5 to worry about, it gives you the ability, since you don't
6 know what time activity patterns are.
7 I mean one thing is not to discuss this point at
8 all, but where are the people. We talked about that school,
9 and you can do this with that school, because you could say
10 here's the source characteristic, the school is right here
11 what's the down way of concentration, how long does it
12 persist and how long a day are kids in that school versus how
13 long are they at home.
14 Perhaps next to another field that has been
15 sprayed, but unless you play out scenarios that try to get at
16 the relative circumstances under which this could be a
17 problem and then if you want to spend some time in ambient
18 monitoring one of the four would be to check and see if these
19 ideas about dispersion really work out, because you know
20 after the fact where these things were.
21 You have your map. You could say, well, we know
22 this is was sprayed on August the 15, and over there it was
23 September the 17, what under that circumstance would we
24 predict and see if you get it anywhere in the ballpark.
25 But in any case, this would be in my mind a way to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 bring some specificity to it, and one of the things in the
2 valley we do have, reasonably good wind data we know a lot
3 about statistical distributions and when, intensity of
4 direction, we know about the circumstances to spraying as far
5 as direct and there is a lot of information to inform a
6 relatively simple dispersion calculation.
7 So, in any case with that quick run through, again
8 just to summarize, these exposures if they are measured in
9 the real world are extraordinarily variable.
10 They are very difficult even in an occupational
11 setting to predict individual exposures and the distribution
12 of individual exposures from fixed position monitoring data,
13 and in the occupational environment, we don't.
14 We can't avoid it generally anymore because of
15 that, and U.S. EPA found that the team studies to be the same
16 conclusion that they would draw with respect to human
17 exposure estimation based on fixed position monitoring in
18 sources to communities.
19 He could talk to you a whole morning about that and
20 his findings, and then I think then to really understand the
21 source input to some kind of a modeling exercise that would
22 identify particularly hazardous density issues in terms of
23 field application, and also it allows you to look at it and
24 investigate sub populations who might be highly at risk.
25 So, anyway with that quick run through, that is my
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 quick hit on the problem that you are facing.
2 I will be happy to answer any questions.
3 DR. GLANTZ: I think that is a very good idea.
4 In fact, it is something that we have used in
5 earlier 1807 documents.
6 Which I cannot remember which one's, but where they
7 were doing modeling test to estimate ambient levels, and I
8 think, that gets around a lot of the problems that we are
9 going to discuss this morning.
10 So, I really think that is a very good suggestion
11 and it is probably in the end cheaper.
12 MR. BAKER: As Randy noted, Dr. Spear, and you
13 mentioned as well, the modeling is one of the things that we
14 were looking at as a possibility for modifying our current
15 approach, because we had envisioned something exactly as Dr.
16 Spear laid out.
17 The value of taking more than one application
18 monitoring data for more than one application study, so that
19 we knew that we had a worst case and take that data, back
20 calculate emissions and we know the spread or the
21 distribution of the use, and do area wide modeling and we
22 still might want to do some monitoring for some validation.
23 DR. GLANTZ: Yes.
24 I think, you will want to do monitoring for
25 validation, but it is my understanding that you guys, these
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 models are very well developed and very well validated in
2 general terms, and I mean, you have used them before and the
3 Panel has accepted those results, and I think that is a
4 really good idea.
5 DR. ATKINSON: The variable will be, the question
6 is going to be in applications, going from one application to
7 another application.
8 MR. BAKER: I think they will vary tremendously
9 depending on the --
10 DR. ATKINSON: That impacts the modeling, unless
11 you know that variability.
12 DR. GLANTZ: Well, I do not know about that,
13 because if you have some sort of good monitoring from a few
14 individual sites, where you can talk about, if they put X
15 amount of pesticides somewhere, where does it end up and what
16 is the concentration of the boundaries?
17 And then if you go back to those maps that we were
18 looking at earlier, a lot of that will kind of come out in
19 the wash, and in terms of your overall estimate of average,
20 and you can correct me if you think I am wrong, but I think,
21 your overall estimate of the average ambient level will
22 probably be better than you are getting from measuring a few
23 individual sites because all that will get averaged out.
24 DR. ATKINSON: You are going to need data from more
25 than one application, just for several applications.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 DR. GLANTZ: Well, that's correct, but you see, and
2 that is right, but that actually, if you go back to the
3 earlier discussion, it seems to me that getting data at the
4 application sites is easier and more reliable, and they have
5 from the DPR reporting system the information that is in
6 those maps.
7 So, if they know, if they have some reasonable good
8 empiric idea, correct me if I'm wrong, but, if they have
9 reasonably empiric ideas about the relationship between the
10 application and what is going on at the edge of the
11 application site, and then they have the, where it was
12 applied and the meteorological data, getting some estimates
13 of the overall average ambient level will not be that hard.
14 CHAIRMAN FROINES: If I could cut you off at this
15 point, I would like to move on to Mike Majewski.
16 DR. GLANTZ: I'm sorry, I was being warm and fuzzy.
17 CHAIRMAN FROINES: No, I think, we can have a more
18 full discussion after Mike's explanation.
19 This is Dr. Mike Majewski, of the United States
20 Geological Survey.
21 DR. GLANTZ: Are they like, going to be talking
22 about killing insects with rocks or something?
23 DR. MAJEWSKI: Thank you.
24 Yes. I must admit my expertise is a little out in
25 left field for the survey.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 Before I begin, I would like to say, pesticides
2 become airborne not only during the application process but
3 many pesticides are volatile.
4 Even those with low volatility or low vapor
5 pressures, and volatility is a continuous process that can
6 last for days, weeks, months, years, even decades.
7 An example is, many of the organic chlorine
8 insecticides that were used in the 60's and 70's are no
9 longer used and are still volatilizing from fields where they
10 have not been used for more than 30 years.
11 I would also like to acknowledge my co-worker, Bill
12 Foreman, who I do a lot of work with, and he is with the
13 methods development group in Denver.
14 Today, I'm going to present some information on
15 various, I guess, air sampling matrix that can be used to
16 collect multi residue pesticide samples in the air, and then
17 I will talk about some of the environmental problems that can
18 occur, and they need to be considered while taking air
19 samples and designing your study, and then show some multi
20 residue methods results for the trapping appliances that we
21 use and then finish up with some data from 2 studies that I
22 have done.
23 One is in the Sacramento area and the other one in
24 the Mississippi River.
25 So, once a pesticide becomes air borne, either by
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 volatilation, direct injection during application, wind blown
2 on absorbed on a particulate matter, then, you have a gas
3 phase and particle phase fraction and in the atmosphere you
4 can get partitioning from the gas phase to the particles and
5 vice versa.
6 Then you can get removal by dry fallout of the
7 particles, gas exchange for the gas, as well as scavenging by
8 rain and snow and fog for both the gas and particles.
9 Typical matrices that can be used for sampling
10 pesticides in air are polyurethane foam, and this is no other
11 than seat cushion. In fact, the source for polyurethane foam
12 I have used a local upholstery store, to buy a big chunk of
13 foam, cut, clean it and use it in your sampler.
14 In many other groups, research groups I have used
15 polyurethane foam. Their is a variety of resin that can be
16 used. XAD's are the most popular, XAD2 and XAD4 are an
17 example of polystyrene type polymers.
18 They are used for nonpolar pesticides and XAD comes
19 in a variety of different polarities that can be used to trap
20 different glasses of pesticides with different physical
21 chemical characters.
22 Then there is a variety of chromatographic phases
23 that were originally used in the old packed chromatography
24 columns so is chromasorb, boropak, and tenax.
25 These are good tracking efficiencies for many
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 pesticides. The problem is that there particle sizes are
2 very fine and pulling the high volume of air through them is
3 difficult and often times when doing ambient sampling you
4 need a high volume of air passed through your sampling matrix
5 so you collect enough material that can be analyzed reliably.
6 Then lastly there is glass fiber filter. Some
7 compounds, they are associated primarily with the particle
8 phase, and if you don't have a glass fiber filter, you may
9 miss a majority of this compound in the air, plus if you do
10 get partitioning between the gas phase and the particle phase
11 in the atmosphere, so you get an accurate assessment of what
12 is in the air using a glass fiber pre filter or some type of
13 refilter is often a good idea.
14 So, the factors that influence the distribution of
15 a pesticide between the gas phase and particle size include
16 the sampling period, how long you sample.
17 The longer you sample the greater volume of air can
18 pass through you have problems associated with that, and I
19 will talk about that in a few minutes.
20 You have to consider the concentrations in both the
21 gas phase as well as the particle phase. In the ambient
22 temperature and humidity also can play an affect on your item
23 tracking efficiency and the phase distribution.
24 Now when you design your study, you need to
25 consider whether or not you want the bulk air that is, like
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 we discussed earlier that the Air Resources Board takes bulk
2 air samples they differentiate between particle phase and gas
3 phase.
4 But they are not using a glass fiber pre filters as
5 I understand it so they could be missing a good portion of
6 what is in the atmosphere.
7 Conversely, if you want to look at phase
8 distribution you can analyze glass fiber pre filter
9 separately from the gas phase sulfate matrix or you can
10 analyze them all together to get your bulk air concentration.
11 DR. GLANTZ: Can I just ask, now you are saying the
12 way that the ARB is doing it they are missing the gas phase,
13 is that what you are saying?
14 DR. MAJEWSKI: Not, necessarily they are probably
15 collecting some particles, but they don't know what
16 percentage of the material is on the particle phase and then
17 their analysis, they are extracting the particles that they
18 do collect, but they don't know what tracking efficiency for
19 the particle distribution that is in the air.
20 It may be missing a fraction of what is actually in
21 the air.
22 DR. ATKINSON: I would guess that you probably
23 collect all the particles.
24 MR. BAKER: I am sure the absorbent would capture
25 all the particles.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 DR. ATKINSON: You might have problems depending on
2 how you analyze the stuff you might have a different.
3 MR. BAKER: I think that is Mike's point.
4 DR. MAJEWSKI: Do you think the XAD 2 collects
5 particles efficiently, I would not.
6 MR. BAKER: I don't know why a particle wouldn't
7 be captured by a XAD resin.
8 DR. MAJEWSKI: Well, whatever, I think that is an
9 unknown we don't know what is actually happening. It may
10 very well be collecting the particle efficiently, but that is
11 a source of uncertainty.
12 Then, also, for sampling design do you want to
13 monitor for peak concentrations or do you want ambient levels
14 I guess this would come into play here whether or not they
15 are looking for toxic hot spots or ambient levels.
16 Do you sample daily, within a day you can sample
17 hourly if the concentrations are high enough or any sub
18 sample of the day, you could sample weekly, and continue the
19 sampling on the daily and weekly sampling throughout a season
20 or throughout the whole year, and I guess that brings into
21 play here the discrete sampling would be your hourly
22 sampling, to pull out high concentrations of what time during
23 the day those occur or not versus your composite sampling
24 which are a 24 hour averages which gives you nighttime
25 concentrations as well as daytime concentrations or even
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 weekly composite sampling which gives you a weekly average
2 air concentration.
3 So, getting back to some of the factors that
4 influence the distribution between the gas and particle phase
5 with long sampling periods you could have adsorption gains
6 which are gaseous material being adsorbed through the
7 particles that are being collected on the glass fiber pre
8 filter or blow-off losses which is material that's originally
9 adsorbed through particles trapped on the glass fiber filter
10 and because of the air passing over the particles it's
11 removed from the particles and adsorbed through the gas phase
12 matrix.
13 I do also have chromatographic effects and all this
14 traffic of the matrices is reversible. That is how you trap
15 your material and then extract it with solvents it also moves
16 down the trapping matrix.
17 It's a volume regulated effect. So, if you sample
18 too long your material can end up going out the back end of
19 your sampler.
20 This is all effected by the ambient temperature,
21 the higher the temperature the effective vapor pressure of
22 the material increases and the movement through the trapping
23 matrix as well as the trapping efficiency can be affected as
24 well as the ambient moisture, moisture can affect the
25 partitioning of what is on the particle phase as we did in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 soil, a dry soil volatility is nearly pretty low but you
2 apply a very thin, a very low coat of water on the soil
3 volatility increases, because the water displays the
4 pesticide on the actual side of the soil and the same thing
5 can happen on the particle phase and then you can have
6 chemical reactions in the sampler itself, either by
7 photolysis with reaction to sunlight, in which you can reduce
8 by covering your sample with aluminium foil and also you can
9 have oxidation with oxidants in the air, hydroxyl radicals or
10 ozone.
11 Here is a type of sampler that we have used in the
12 past. It is a typical high volume sampler.
13 We have the glass fiber pre filter here, followed
14 by 2 polyurethane foam plugs, in this cartridge here and we
15 have used this sampler for continuous sampling of air and we
16 have also sampled five minutes a hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days
17 a week.
18 So, these can be timed to sampled just about any
19 frequency.
20 DR. GLANTZ: Now, what the pre filter there to get
21 rid of?
22 DR. MAJEWSKI: It does not get rid of anything. It
23 traps the particles.
24 DR. GLANTZ: I see, so, with this configuration the
25 glass fiber pre filter gets the particles and the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 polyurethane foam gets the gases.
2 DR. MAJEWSKI: Right.
3 DR. GLANTZ: I see.
4 DR. MAJEWSKI: So, this next series of slides are
5 results of the method that we use. The mean spike trapping
6 and recovery study that we have done.
7 The method used as polyurethane foam, and I believe
8 it traps 48 different herbicides and insecticides.
9 I will start with the herbicides and with the
10 chloroacetanilides. Alachlor and acetochor,
11 2,6-Diethylaniline, which is a translation product of
12 alachlor, metolachlor and propachlor.
13 You can see either the exception of
14 2,6-Diethylaniline, that it is fairly volatile and that it
15 moves through the polyurethane foam fairly rapidly.
16 The trapping efficiencies are good, and we see
17 these compounds both in the gas phase as well as the particle
18 phase.
19 The Dinitrotoluene herbicide, Benfluralin,
20 Ethalfluralin, and Trifluralin are also relatively volatile
21 compounds and I think, the trapping efficiency is lower, but
22 still is pretty good and I should say that these compounds
23 and volatile especially when the temperatures get hot in
24 Sacramento where it gets 110, you are not going to have good
25 trapping efficiency.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 Then moving to the Thiocarbamates herbicides,
2 Butylate, EPTC, Pebulate, Triallate and Thiobencarb again,
3 you find the trapping is good and we find that just about all
4 the compounds in both the gas phases, and both the particle
5 phase. Triazines, Atrazine, CEAT, CIAT are translation
6 products, that come from a number of Triazines, including
7 Atrazines, Cyanazines, propazines, Metribuzin, Prometon, and
8 Simazines.
9 We had a little problem with Prometon in that, it
10 is an extraction efficiency from the public belt. We some
11 problems getting it off or maybe it is not being trapped
12 sufficiently on the polyurethane foam.
13 Moving on to the miscellaneous compounds, such as,
14 Dacthal, Linuron, Molinate, Napropamide, Pendimethilan and
15 Pronamide. Again, trapping efficiencies is good, Molinate is
16 another volatile compound that is affected by temperature.
17 Then finally, for the herbicides, the Propanil, the
18 Tebuthiuron and Terbacil, both Tebuthiuron and Terbacil we
19 have problems with both analytically as well as the trapping
20 efficiency for Tebuthiuron is not good.
21 Moving on to the insecticides, starting with the
22 Organophosphates compounds, azinphos-methyl, chlorpyrifos,
23 diazinon, dimethoate, disulfoton, ethoprop, fonofos,
24 malathion, methyl parathion, parathion, phorate and terbufos
25 all have very good trapping efficiencies and recoveries on
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 the polyurethane foam.
2 DR. GLANTZ: N D means you cannot deduct.
3 DR. MAJEWSKI: Not deduct well.
4 Then N D means none detected in this phase
5 distribution from the studies that we have done. Yes.
6 The gas phase or the G and P represents, where we
7 have found these compounds in the past. So the N D, means we
8 have not detested that yet.
9 DR. BLANC: And this in the field studies?
10 DR. MAJEWSKI: Yes.
11 DR. GLANTZ: Just to be clear, what you are saying,
12 is you can use this one system and detect all of these at the
13 same time.
14 DR. MAJEWSKI: Yes.
15 Carbamates, Carbaryl, Carbofuran, here we can trap
16 these two compounds fairly good, but again, we have
17 analytical problems associated with these kinds of compounds.
18 Alpha-HCH, lindane, 4,4-DDE, dieldrin and
19 cis-permethrin all have good trapping efficiencies and then
20 fungicides, propargite 1 and 2 are fairly good.
21 I have to say that these or this method, that we
22 have kind of focused on the high use pesticides, in general,
23 these compounds are fairly easy to analyze for, many of them
24 are used in mass quantities throughout the United States, so,
25 their concentration in the air, although are fairly low,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 which I will show you in a few minutes. They are not that
2 difficult to detect.
3 Some concerns that I have in the future were
4 compounds such as the sulfa diethylaniline and ethalfluralin
5 are also in there. These are compounds where their use is
6 wide spread but they are so potent and so toxic that their
7 application is also very low.
8 With several of the sulfa diethylaniline even vary
9 trace amounts can cause an effect to, or with plants anyway,
10 they can cause a herbicidal effect in plants.
11 Ethalfluralin is fairly low, and I am not sure on
12 what their transformation products are or their toxicological
13 effects are, but with sulfa diethylaniline these are very
14 difficult to analyze for one, trap enough material to analyze
15 it, and in the environment at extremely low concentrations,
16 so this is a classic compound that is coming up.
17 They are already being used, but I think the
18 chemical industry is may be moving towards this type of
19 compound and it is going to present a challenge quote
20 antilytically as well as physically trying to go out and
21 collect the material that is inlayed.
22 DR. ATKINSON: So, your analysis is by GCMSI take.
23 DR. MAJEWSKI: Yes. The next few slides are
24 results of a study I did a few years ago in the Sacramento
25 valley, where I took ambient air samples at 3 locations and I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 sampled with respect to wind direction.
2 This whole sampling study came about because of
3 concerns that chemicals used in the agricultural environment
4 specifically the orchard, dormant orchard sprays were
5 drifting into the urban environment.
6 We used 2 samplers per site and I will just talk
7 about that a little bit later. We took weekly composite
8 samples, bulk air samples of EPTC, molinate, well this whole
9 slew here. We had a number of organophosphates,
10 insecticides, tralomethirn herbicides.
11 Now the sampling, there are 2 samplers, one sampler
12 would come on when the wind speed was above a meter per
13 second and the wind direction moved primarily from the North,
14 45 degrees on either side of north and then the other sampler
15 would come on when the wind speed was one meter per second or
16 more and primarily from the south, which is the predominant
17 wind speed direction in Sacramento.
18 DR. GLANTZ: Why did you do that which is that just
19 to see what was blowing in from where?
20 DR. MAJEWSKI: Yes, samplers were located at
21 Sacramento International Airport. T Street downtown
22 Sacramento that is the Air Resources Board group and then at
23 Franklin Air Field, near Galt down here on Bruceville Road.
24 Now, the compounds we found, this is for 1996, this
25 is starting January, for one year, this top graph here is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 when the wind is from the south, Bruceville is up wind, T
2 street is downwind, and you can see during the months January
3 February March we have a pretty high number of hits almost
4 weekly concentrations on the order of 3 to 5 nanograms per
5 cubic meter.
6 The green bars represent Bruceville or the up wind
7 site as the blue bars represent downtown Sacramento, or the
8 down wind site.
9 When I first trifluralin concentrations downtown
10 Sacramento I thought all right this is pretty neat this is an
11 indicator of agricultural use coming into the urban and then
12 I went to the local HomeDepot and saw whole wall trifluralin
13 and was shocked and amazed and had to scratch that idea of
14 using trifluralin as an ag indicator.
15 But you will see the correlation between upwind air
16 concentrations and downwind concentrations occur quite
17 frequently during the winter months. During the summer
18 months, you do see some downwind concentrations and then it
19 picks up again towards the fall and winter, when winds from
20 the north we don't see as much.
21 One reason for that is that the wind was primarily
22 from the South, but we do see some fairly high concentrations
23 or one anyway in April, downtown, and I'm not sure why, or
24 what correlation this has to be here it maybe the air mass
25 slashing back and forth, but why we didn't see a high
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 concentration downwind from here, I don't know.
2 Diazinon shows a little better correlation during
3 the dormant spray season. We will see that the winds are
4 again from the south high upwind concentration followed by
5 lower downwind concentrations, but then in April, the upwind
6 concentration pretty much falls off, and we start getting
7 hits downtown with no upwind concentration and we attributed
8 this to urban use of diazinon.
9 Again, the concentrations are higher than
10 trifluralin but still on the order of between 5 and 10
11 nanograms per cubic meter.
12 Then for chlorpyrifos, you see upwind
13 concentrations for chlorpyrifos during the dormant spray
14 season and then pretty much none for the rest of the year,
15 and I'm attributing this to urban use for chlorpyrifos.
16 We do see some upwind, winds from the North
17 concentrations but again not much, primary saw trifluralin,
18 diazinon, and chlorpyrifos and the rice herbicide, molinate,
19 and thiobencarb are probably the only true ag indicator
20 compounds that I have been able to come up with as far as I
21 know no one grows rice in their backyard.
22 But here you will see molinate is also a compound
23 and trapping efficiency isn't that great when the temperature
24 is high. You see high concentrations upwind with winds from
25 the north and most of the rice in Sacramento valley is grown
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 north of Sacramento.
2 That was good, and we did see some corresponding
3 downwind concentrations in Sacramento around 15 nanograms per
4 cubic meter and most concentrations were a magnitude higher.
5 Lastly, I will show you a few of the results from a
6 study we did several years ago, where we looked at pesticides
7 in the air in area of the Mississippi River Valley.
8 I will just focus on some of the, I will show you
9 where ever I put the samples, the samples in Mississippi we
10 had compared urban and agricultural sites. Jackson,
11 Mississippi was our urban site, Rolling Fork that is near
12 Greenville, Mississippi, that was our ag site.
13 Iowa City was the urban site in Iowa. Cedar Rapids
14 was the agricultural site, and Minneapolis was the urban site
15 for Minnesota, and Princeton was the agricultural site, and
16 we had a background site in Eagle Harbor that was far removed
17 from major metropolitan areas and the agricultural activities
18 and I will show the phase distribution for atrazine and this
19 top graph here is atrazine.
20 We mainly saw atrazine at the agricultural site we
21 didn't see much in Jackson and you can see we saw most of it
22 occurring in the gas phase with some in the particle phase,
23 it seemed like the particle dominated early on and then the
24 percentage of the gas increased as the year went on, we saw
25 that same trend in Iowa, we saw higher concentrations in Iowa
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 City and Cedar Rapids than we did in the Mississippi sites.
2 Again, we saw concentrations mainly associated with
3 the particle phase at the beginning of the seasons and then
4 they are applying it to bare fields and then towards the end
5 of the season the concentration we saw in the air was mainly
6 associated with the gas phase and this we had driven it into
7 volatilization off the treated fields.
8 At Eagle Harbor, with the exception of this one
9 sample here we saw atrazine, CIAT and CEAT associated only
10 with the particles which indicates to me that long range
11 transport discount pilot is associated with the particle
12 phase not the gas phase.
13 Now with respect to the organophosphate
14 insecticides, Mississippi in general was by far the most
15 interesting.
16 If you can call it interesting it contained quite a
17 few organophosphates and insecticides we found diazinon,
18 methyl parathion, malathion, propargite in the samples, and
19 you can see we didn't find them one at a time we found all 4
20 of them at once in some cases, and chlorpyrifos again in the
21 yellow being associated with the gas phase, we saw throughout
22 the season and then later on in the season we starting seeing
23 diazinon hits, methyl parathion hits, and malathion hits.
24 As far as I know there is no legal urban use for
25 methyl parathion in Mississippi, I don't know if there is in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 California either, but methyl parathion has recently been
2 indicated as being used for structure fumigations, and people
3 have been arrested for it in the South and mid west.
4 Moving to the agricultural site the concentrations
5 in air we found were dominated by methyl parathion the lowest
6 the concentrations are in order of magnitude higher and again
7 methyl parathion is associated primarily with the gas phase
8 and towards the end of the season, and if we reduce the scale
9 to look at the other compounds, malathion, chlorpyrifos, and
10 diazinon again we will see chlorpyrifos associated primarily
11 with the gas phase, malathion we get some distribution and
12 there is some methyl parathion associated with the particles.
13 Trends like that continue in Iowa and Minnesota and
14 the background site.
15 With that, I will take any questions.
16 Thank you.
17 DR. FRIEDMAN: Please forgive my ignorance on this,
18 but how does measuring these pesticide levels fit in with the
19 emission of the geological survey of the environmental
20 protection agency, and why do you guys do this?
21 DR. MAJEWSKI: I imagine I do it because I am
22 trying to build a program.
23 I came in, I was hired into the survey the natural
24 quality water assessment program. It's a nationwide program
25 where we are looking at the quality of the nations water
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 resources service water and groundwater, pesticide is a focal
2 points of this study when I first came on.
3 I was hired to look at the pesticides in the
4 atmosphere because the atmosphere is an important part of
5 hydrologic cycle and how pesticides move in the environment
6 and I am trying to build a program to convince the survey
7 that they need to do more air sampling to look at the effects
8 of air quality on water quality so that is kind of a round
9 about way.
10 DR. FRIEDMAN: My experience with the he geological
11 survey is taking a hike somewhere and finding a little metal
12 plaque saying that the altitude of this rock is 7,000 feet,
13 I thought that was what the geological survey was primarily
14 interested in.
15 DR. GLANTZ: Now they will have also the background
16 levels of malathion somewhere.
17 MR. BAKER: Dr. Froines, I would just like to make
18 a point we talked about the definite uncertainty in the
19 ambient monitoring that we have done throughout California,
20 but I thought it might be interesting to the Panel members as
21 Mike, was going through his concentrations that they had
22 found with this method in these different areas, Iowa and
23 Mississippi, I looked at those same chemicals, chlorpyrifos,
24 methyl parathion, diazinon in our ambient monitoring and we
25 have seen as suspect and variable as we have seen some
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 substantially higher concentrations than any that you
2 measured in any of your studies, I thought that, that might
3 be of interest.
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: What's different is that you are
5 doing them in a series of separate studies and he is actually
6 looking at the multiple, and one of the reasons that we
7 wanted Mike to talk was that in the future the notion of
8 collecting data on multiple substances seem highly relevant.
9 MR. BAKER: I didn't want to diminish what he said,
10 the multiple sampling and analysis approached that he
11 described is the Cadillac method, and I think we need to look
12 at that for assessing exposure to multiple pesticides, I
13 just wanted to point out just for the compound by compound
14 comparison.
15 DR. MAJEWSKI: But also, like I said these
16 compounds are easy and most of them are the parent compounds.
17 If you start looking at transmission products the
18 volatility changes. A different sampling stages for
19 different polarities of your matrix, again, your different
20 glass is a compound the analytical techniques for the
21 transmission products are often different although
22 liquidchromotography gaschromotography is becoming more
23 affordable and that seems to be where we are headed, all our
24 analytical techniques are being shifted toward LCMS because
25 it give us the opportunity to look at these 4 transmission
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 products as well as the other compounds.
2 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Do you have LCMS capability?
3 MR. BAKER: Kevin or Bob, do we have
4 liquidchromotography capability?
5 MR. MONGAR: We have no LCMS at this time.
6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: That is an important issue when
7 it comes to Roger and his folks.
8 DR. ATKINSON: We don't not use LCMS either.
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Why is that?
10 DR. ATKINSON: We use HBLC but not GCMS.
11 DR. MAJEWSKI: I think the LCMS will bring the
12 level of detection down. LCMS brings detection down to the
13 same order of magnitude as the GCMS where as the current LC
14 detection limits without the mess spec detector are fairly
15 high.
16 DR. FRIEDMAN: Some of us here in different
17 disciplines, I don't know what any of those initials that you
18 just quoted mean.
19 DR. MAJEWSKI: Liquidchromotography, it's like
20 gaschromotography only it uses liquid as the mobile phase.
21 DR. FRIEDMAN: What is the one began with D?
22 DR. MAJEWSKI: GCMS that is gaschromotography.
23 DR. BLANC: Mr. Chair, would you entertain a motion
24 to break for lunch?
25 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Yes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 I think that I would like to.
2 My concern at this point is that I don't know if
3 the Panel wants to discuss Dr. Spear's and Mike's in general
4 have any concluding discussion about this?
5 We will break for lunch, but we have -- I think we
6 are going to have to postpone your discussion of multiple
7 chemicals.
8 I think the problem we have, is we have the people
9 from yesterday on pesticide priorities who have been waiting
10 for a very long time and the Panel is going to start to
11 collapse at some point on Friday afternoon, at 2:00, after a
12 two-day session.
13 I think what would be best is that if we went to
14 lunch came back spent 15 minutes to a half an hour on this
15 issue if there was any further discussion and then go to the
16 prioritization and try finish that in an hour or so and then
17 call it quits.
18 We'll take 45 minutes, so let's break.
19 (Thereupon the lunch recess was taken.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2 --o0o--
3 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We have to start, really
4 immediately because we have three Panel Members who are
5 leaving at two o'clock.
6 So, the meeting comes to an end in 55 minutes under
7 any circumstances. We don't even have a quorum at two
8 o'clock.
9 So, the question is, is there any follow-up
10 discussion to this morning's session before we take up the
11 prioritization?
12 We covered a lot of ground.
13 DR. MAJEWSKI: I would like to bring up the point
14 of modeling and the type of sampling they are doing in the
15 off field, sampling they are doing now.
16 If the ARB is restricting themselves to surface
17 sampling off field depending on the meteorology of the area
18 they could miss the plume completely or get certainly
19 something that doesn't represent something in the plume but
20 coming off the field if they are doing their ground base
21 sampling at one point.
22 There has been a lot of work done in the past that
23 monitored post application volatilization of pesticides, so
24 that is pretty well documented.
25 MR. BAKER: We recognize that we probably need to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 redesign the way that we do the application site monitoring
2 if we want to use the information to back calculate
3 emissions.
4 So, good point, Mike.
5 DR. BLANC: John, if you had to summarize the
6 findings or the themes that were raised this morning, not
7 just by the last speakers but integrating the whole thing how
8 would you summarize it?
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Well, I think, I think that what
10 I would suggest is that for purposes of identifying compounds
11 as toxic air contaminants that we make use of the data
12 collected from application sampling, and that would enable a
13 lot more pesticides to be sampled for over a short period of
14 time and enable us to address larger number of compounds over
15 a more limited period of time, and then one could follow the
16 recommendation from Bob Spear in terms of longer term
17 sampling approaches for or to address some of the broader
18 issues, so that the recommendations that you and I were
19 talking about this morning and then, that Bob Spear talked
20 about seems to me the direction that we should be headed if
21 we want to improve the exposure characterization from the
22 stand point of establishing a toxic air contaminant.
23 DR. SPEAR: John, if I could comment I think also
24 you might think about the role, what is currently called the
25 ambient monitoring program.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 If, for example, you put in place an ambient
2 monitoring program which could sample at one time for all of
3 that years chemicals of concern, you might have a way to in
4 some way validate the whatever model base prediction based on
5 source at one go.
6 At least you could collect the sampling procedures
7 if the procedures were sufficiently common, that you could it
8 really would have validating function, and it could serve
9 more than one compound at a time to do that.
10 MR. BAKER: That would work great if they were all
11 used in the same area over the same rough period of time.
12 DR. SPEAR: Well, they wouldn't be.
13 DR. BLANC: Then from your pointed of view, were
14 that suggestion to be promoted, is it technically feasible
15 that one could change directions in that way? It doesn't
16 seem to me it wouldn't be.
17 MR. BAKER: I think it is certainly technically
18 feasible.
19 DR. BLANC: Is that true from DPR's point of view?
20 MR. SEGAWA: I believe so, and they would like us
21 to make these changes as soon as possible for monitoring for
22 2000 they would like to see this implemented.
23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We haven't really come to making
24 that decision, but once we have made the decision, then the
25 Panel would like it done as soon as possible.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 DR. BLANC: I think, one way to do it would be, to
2 have John, you as Chair of the Panel, draft a letter to DPR,
3 summarizing that view, if there is a feeling of consensus on
4 the Panel, a few people have not spoken up, Dr. Kennedy, Dr.
5 Witschi, do you have any, would that be consistent?
6 CHAIRMAN FROINES: He's asking is it okay for the
7 suggestions that we are making, and I think Peter thought you
8 were asking for comments.
9 DR. BLANC: Hearing no decent, is there a consent
10 for taking that approach?
11 DR. KENNEDY: My position I'm seeing small pieces
12 of the science, but I am also it's quite clear that the issue
13 here is one of the issues in the prioritization, and the
14 technology and the approach that we have seen this morning
15 gets to the heart of those issues in a much more direct
16 fashion.
17 I think it's a -- I think we are in a position to
18 dictate that sort of movement, then I think it is a good
19 thing and support it.
20 DR. GLANTZ: What I would suggest since we are
21 meeting again in about three weeks, if you could draft
22 something up and circulate it before the meeting, I think it
23 is complicated enough that we want to discuss it at a meeting
24 but it would be very good to have a specific proposal in
25 front of the Panel to discuss where we could look at it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 before the meeting.
2 So, if you would sort of just amend your
3 suggestion, if John could write something up, get it out to
4 us and get it on the agenda for the next meeting, and then we
5 could act formally on it as a Panel, I think that would also
6 be stronger then just having the Chair do it.
7 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Anything we write we should have
8 panel discussion under any circumstances.
9 DR. GLANTZ: But I think there is reasonable
10 consensus at the same time.
11 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Roger and Craig are nodding
12 their heads, we will take it up at the next meeting.
13 So, we will amend that to the Agenda and take up
14 the issue of air sampling exposure characterization at the
15 next meeting having a draft of proposed some changes, good.
16 MR. SEGAWA: Would you like DPR, ARB to present any
17 additional information for that discussion?
18 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The next meeting I think the
19 answer is no.
20 Although, we can, Bill and Jim want to get the
21 Agenda out because the meeting is coming up so soon, and I
22 really would like to spend the next meeting with this as
23 exception getting through and finishing these chronic REL's,
24 we spent all afternoon yesterday and we still have an
25 enormous number to go through and I would like to get through
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 those, and then maybe in November we can go back and take up
2 some of the other pesticide issues.
3 DR. GLANTZ: I think it would be good if you guys
4 were there so as we are discussing this so we will have the
5 benefit of any input you have to offer.
6 DR. WITSCHI: I have question about the exposed
7 characterization so far we are dealing with concentrations in
8 air, but do we have to go into such nice things like particle
9 size, retention,imposition, clearance all those kind of
10 things, because concentration in the air doesn't really mean
11 much to how much people are going to be really exposed?
12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I think, that is another issue,
13 because there is also the issue of micro environmental
14 monitoring we are doing studies in Mexico right now where we
15 are looking at exposure in people from pesticides in the
16 soil, and the rugs, and so on and so forth, there are lots of
17 tangential issues like that, that we could take up, but let's
18 make the first cut on the policy level issue before we focus
19 on the details.
20 DR. GLANTZ: Okay. I don't.
21 We can go on to prioritization.
22 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Thank you, both of you.
23 This was one of the best sessions we have ever had,
24 I think this morning, with the contributions from the four
25 people, I think we have really come a long way.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 MR. BAKER: Thank you for your questions.
2 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Good afternoon. Sorry to have
3 kept you waiting all this time.
4 MR. SANDERS: I am John Sanders, from DPR and I'm
5 here with Dr. Jay Schreider and Dr. Keith Pfeifer.
6 We are going to try and show a little bit more life
7 on the prioritization scheme that we have been using and
8 based upon, first of all we are going to go through the
9 historical process that we used and then talk a little bit
10 about what we want to do in the future.
11 First of all Jay Schreider, is going to talk about
12 the large scale prioritization as I call it and you should be
13 getting a package of material right now.
14 The first thing Jay, is going to go through is this
15 memo it's to the Pesticide Registration and Evaluation
16 Committee it's kind of what I call a large scale
17 prioritization of chemicals in the high medium and low
18 priority risk assessment.
19 So, Jay, why don't you go ahead.
20 MR. SCHREIDER: I will wait until everyone has the
21 handout.
22 Yesterday I spoke of the report that's made to the
23 Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee or PREC and
24 what you have is the latest report, report number 40 that
25 gives the prioritization, start out has a prioritization for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 SB 950 of the chemicals for risk assessment.
2 As I said, Adverse Effects and Advisory Panel meets
3 periodically when there's sufficient number of chemicals to
4 cover, and then decides on the prioritization.
5 If I could have the first overhead. It is a
6 subjective rather qualitative but these are the criteria that
7 are considered as the nature of the adverse effect, by that I
8 mean the number of adverse effects, the number of species
9 that are affected, multiple studies, the no observed defect
10 level is that a low number a high number.
11 The potential human exposure, use or sales in use
12 numbers is widely used, for new active ingredients.
13 There may be less of that information, application
14 rates, how much is applied per acre, that becomes very
15 important in trying to judge what the exposure may be.
16 Pending U.S. EPA actions, if we know that US EPA is
17 completing an action or completing an assessment that may
18 lead to significant increases in use, that may lower the
19 priority level.
20 Special California issues what comes to mind would
21 be ratification programs, one going on under consideration of
22 EPA right now is the imported red fire ant, looking at
23 various materials that can be used to combat that pest.
24 So, what previously may have been a low use
25 pesticide could become potentially a high use so that would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 go into the prioritization.
2 If you go into the handout, the handout wasn't real
3 amenable to an overhead. It was 30 pages.
4 The active ingredients are placed into high,
5 medium, or low priority and they are not prioritized within
6 that classification they are listed in alphabetical order.
7 The studies which indicated the possible adverse effects are
8 also listed, chemicals may move up there may be new
9 information may move up in priority.
10 Early in the 950 process, as we have partial
11 databases, there a frequent chemical would enter the process
12 where the couple of studies would complete our data gaps
13 filled and would move up in prioritization as more toxicity
14 data gap were filled.
15 Generally the -- well, almost entirely the
16 pesticide high priority really are under consideration for
17 risk assessment occasionally a pesticide a modern priority
18 has moved up usually that's because of use questions or use
19 in ratification questions.
20 Also, in that report, and this is a public report
21 that comes out probably quarterly, gives also some of the
22 risk assessments status, changes, it gives separately, if you
23 look on page 22 it gives us specific changes to the list so
24 it's not just hidden in the list and then after that we will
25 give some of the status of compounds that are currently
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 inactive risk assessment.
2 Some of the compounds in addition of being listed
3 because of 950 questions may also receive a high priority
4 because they have a low acute NOAEL, low NOAEL's would place
5 it in a high priority also although that may not be part of
6 the health effect studies that is an important consideration.
7 MR. SANDERS: I think we also need to realize that
8 originally the department started out in this process we
9 envisioned 2 separate processes one for 1807 and one for 950
10 in reality though considering resources and things like that
11 we decided to merge the two together in some fashion, and we
12 have been doing that over the last two years and so we are
13 still in kind of a transition period here.
14 If we go and look at the next document, which is
15 called status of high priority risk assessments and this is
16 what I call the micro level this is a list that is updated
17 monthly and is used as a status report, by the toxicologist
18 for where each of these compounds are and I will ask Keith to
19 describe them.
20 DR. PFEIFER: Keith Pfeifer, Medical Toxicologist,
21 just a couple of other notes having to do with the what we
22 call the PREC prioritization list the one that Jay just
23 mentioned dated March 19, a little historical background on
24 that because one of the aspects that you will obviously
25 compare to the 1807 one the 96 document that was discussed
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 yesterday is, and Jay alluded to this, this is more of a
2 qualitative evaluation and prioritization meeting.
3 When we started this back in 1986, we didn't assign
4 numbers or try to quantitate specific health effects for our
5 prioritization.
6 Early on we tried to fine tune it a little more
7 into group 1 and group two and three within each high
8 moderate or low priority, and we found that we were getting
9 bogged down too much in the prioritization process rather
10 than doing risk assessments per say.
11 I think it is also important to note when we
12 started this in 1986 we put the original 200 under SB 950 on
13 this list and some risk assessments when they were completed
14 were taken off the active ingredients were taken off the list
15 and new active ingredients were added to the list as they
16 came forward in the department for registration.
17 So, this report is a very dynamic document. You
18 can see that the last was March 19, so it is an updated
19 monthly like the document that John Sanders, just mentioned
20 it's updated as there is enough sufficient number of active
21 ingredients to go through with OEHHA and go through this
22 prioritization process and that is usually any where from 5
23 to 10 active ingredients.
24 So, the document that John Sanders just mentioned
25 that I update monthly for the department the active
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 ingredients that are listed are grouped in a dissenting order
2 of completeness.
3 So, the first one's are completed. If there was
4 any mitigation that was required, that was also finalized by
5 the department.
6 These active ingredients as you look at the foot
7 notes, reflect the risk assessments that the department has
8 proposed for completion either during the past fiscal year,
9 98-99 or this current one 1999-2000 to the state Legislature.
10 You will note on page 3, under initiation of risk
11 assessment active pending there are a few which come under
12 the 1807 process that we in some cases have already completed
13 documents under our SB 950 process one is ethoprop,
14 endosulfan is in the final stages of review in our branch
15 right now. Molinate which is scheduled to come before the
16 Panel next year some time, and also naled.
17 MR. SANDERS: Dr. Blanc, asked about the 6 that are
18 recommended for monitoring now, all of them are on this list
19 in some state of preparation except I believe bifenthrin is
20 not on this list is not actively under risk assessment at
21 this point I think you asked that from a previous --
22 DR. PFEIFER: I could add a little bit to the
23 bifenthrin.
24 That came into the department as a new active
25 ingredient and it was prioritized and we completed the risk
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 assessment.
2 Subsequently new uses came in and we were again
3 looking at the new use scenarios doing some additional risk
4 assessment calculations, so the fact that there seemed to be
5 an increase in use for bifenthrin, I think, thinking back led
6 to its recommendation for air monitoring, even though it does
7 not appear either on this SB 950 prioritization list nor in
8 the '96 1807 one.
9 DR. BLANC: You again said this list, this SB 950
10 prioritization list which was periodically updated so this
11 isn't the 1985 list, this is a list that is current.
12 DR. PFEIFER: Current, right. This is list number
13 40.
14 DR. BLANC: So, reflecting all of the revisions.
15 So, I think it probably would be aluminating for us
16 to hear a little bit in more detail how exactly it was that,
17 that particular pesticide jumped up other than the fact that
18 it was a new.
19 DR. PFEIFER: I'm trying to think back on it, there
20 were some health effects that we were fairly concerned with
21 low, no low effect levels, I can't remember exactly what the
22 concern was.
23 The process years ago was to when new active
24 ingredients came into the department that we would look at a
25 risk assessment prior to full registration, and that pulled
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 the trigger on that.
2 DR. BLANC: Are there other examples that you can
3 think of, of materials that have jumped up that don't appear
4 on any of these list as a priority.
5 DR. PFEIFER: Tralomethirn that was mentioned
6 earlier today I think in the monitoring.
7 We completed a risk assessment on that and that was
8 a new active ingredient, and we recently completed a risk
9 assessment for deltamethrin, which is the parent.
10 DR. BLANC: That risk assessment would
11 automatically include the Air Resources Board doing your
12 monitoring for you?
13 DR. PFEIFER: No.
14 MR. SANDERS: No, only if it's available.
15 DR. PFEIFER: The one we completed for tralomethirn
16 was based on what the use was that involved occupational
17 exposure and it may have included some residential I am not
18 sure and it would also include dietary.
19 DR. BLANC: You can see our confusion, at least my
20 confusion on the Panel because I'm trying to figure out, here
21 an Air Resources Board can do 5 chemicals a year for you and
22 then you say, well we got this fairly elaborate process
23 qualitative for reviewing priorities and we revised the list
24 quarterly, yearly or half yearly and here is the list in
25 January or March and we have the other list that was done for
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 different purposes and one of the 5 chemicals that was tested
2 doesn't appear on any of the list.
3 It's not exactly transparent how the decisions get
4 made especially with each thing that is not tested. It means
5 it is not going to be possible under the current structure
6 for us to review or comment on some other pesticide.
7 Also, then the interconnection between this status
8 sheet, the micro level status sheet that you mentioned and
9 the ranking for SB 950, then everything that's -- would it be
10 a reasonable assumption and that everything that would be on
11 the first page here should all be things that were high
12 priority things?
13 DR. PFEIFER: With, on the first page, yes, you are
14 talking about the status on data with the footnote 9/2/99,
15 everything on that first page would be either is or was a
16 high priority.
17 The top one cyanazine, molinate under SB 950 which
18 would have been the occupational dietary, chlorothalonil,
19 fenamiphos, Telone are not on the list anymore because they
20 were completed under that mandate, but they would be a
21 priority, for example, molinate under SB 950, I mean, excuse
22 me, under 1807.
23 MR. SANDERS: I think part of the problem here
24 historically that the department is not focused on 1807 but
25 has focused on 950 and particularly occupational exposure
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 that is where the data says that the real exposures are and
2 our concerns particularly about acute exposures, so there has
3 been a lot of emphasis in the department on worker safety
4 issues, and historically there wasn't much emphasis on 1807.
5 We are now trying to correct that pipe bringing in
6 the 1807, whatever exposure data we have from the Air
7 Resources Board or from other sources and take them and put
8 them together with some existing 950 risk assessments,
9 reformatting the documents adhere to how we would like to see
10 them and understand them so we are in that transition period
11 of trying to mate the two processes together, but it is still
12 a transition period, and I guess I would characterize our
13 prioritizations scheme focused on acute exposure and an acute
14 end points as well as flexibility for us in our workload and
15 resource allocation and needs the change periodically because
16 of either ratifications, new registrations or things like
17 that.
18 So, it is not a straight forward explanation to you
19 and we understand that.
20 CHAIRMAN FROINES: I think the problem that I have
21 maybe this is what Paul is saying, is I can't really tell and
22 sense how one comes to decide that a chemical is a priority
23 for 1807.
24 I am still mystified about that.
25 DR. PFEIFER: I think the main thing Dr. Froines
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 that determine which chemicals were started for 1807 was the
2 main thing was the toxicology.
3 I think the first one that we did years ago, methyl
4 parathion was a major concern, and then methyl parathion
5 following that, but also I think it was mentioned this
6 morning was the availability and quality of data that would
7 allows us to go forward to do a decent quantitative
8 assessment.
9 That later aspect is very important, and it's not
10 unique to just 1807. We have the prioritization process, but
11 then we also have an initiation process.
12 That's where the senior staff from workers safety
13 and medical toxicology look at this high priority list the SB
14 950 and say okay, which one's do we want to work on, which
15 one's do we have the most concern, which one's do we have
16 reasonable or decent exposure data that we can do a good
17 assessment.
18 That initiation process is the one where the
19 decision is made to go forth with the assessments. So,
20 initially it would involve worker safety and our branch and
21 then the decision to go through with 1807 has a lot to do
22 with what risk assessments since the 1807 is pretty far
23 behind on the completion curve, which one's were of major
24 toxicology consideration and have been completed under the
25 950, and then is there monitoring data sufficient quality to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 go forth with 1807.
2 DR. GLANTZ: I mean I understand that has been the
3 historical discussion for as long as I can remember, but in a
4 way that's gone.
5 That's history.
6 When I sit and look at this list, everything with
7 one or two exceptions, if you just look on the first page,
8 this is the SB 950 AB 1807 list, okay. It's the one that has
9 SB 950 and AB 1807.
10 DR. PFEIFER: We put this together yesterday with
11 through the 28.
12 DR. GLANTZ: Right, when I look at that, except for
13 4A, of the first 18, 1807 compounds every single one of them
14 but that one gets high priority under SB 950, and all but
15 about 4 of them have air data on already and in many of them
16 you have already got the SB 950 risk assessment well under
17 way if not finished.
18 So, it would seem to me that you guys ought to be
19 able to move very quickly on the first 10 or 15 of these
20 compounds in terms of the 1807 process except for
21 dichlorobenzene and cyanazine and alachlor and dimethoate,
22 those are the only one's you don't have any exposure data on.
23 DR. PFEIFER: That is a reasonable question looking
24 at this, the one factor that I am faced with is the fact that
25 I have 7 toxicologist who are juggling four or five active
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 ingredients risk assessments at one time.
2 DR. GLANTZ: Right but this has been going on for
3 years.
4 DR. PFEIFER: I understand that. I'm not making
5 excuses for historical events.
6 DR. GLANTZ: This is something that I don't know
7 that we are going to resolve right now, but I think that the
8 different process we have been using for the RELs, for the
9 acute and chronic RELs, which is a little more abbreviated.
10 Maybe what we should start doing here in order to
11 move things, realizing that you don't have an informant
12 amount of resources.
13 The one thing that I have come away from this
14 workshop feeling is that there is a lot more information
15 available particularly the stuff we heard about from the EPA
16 yesterday and the air data that we heard about yesterday and
17 today.
18 So, it may not be necessary to go back and reinvent
19 the wheel on every single one of these compounds. So, I know
20 we spent a long time pounding on you guys to produce,
21 traditional 1807 like documents and there are sort of two
22 aspects.
23 One was the scientific quality and general approach
24 and the other was the thickness and formatting. It may be
25 that we should be looking to these more recent documents as
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 the model that we should be going toward where we are still
2 maintaining quality the same high scientific standard but
3 things that can be put together more expeditiously by staff
4 and handled by the Committee more expeditiously.
5 So instead of doing 2, 3, or 4 compounds a year we
6 might be able to do 50 in the end, so that is the
7 direction --
8 DR. PFEIFER: You are talking about the REL format.
9 DR. GLANTZ: Yes like we started talking about
10 yesterday.
11 I don't think you guys were at the meeting but
12 there was another document that I was to lead on which was
13 the acute exposure of RELs and we spent a long time working
14 with the staff to come up with this sort of general algorithm
15 which was used and I think Gary worked on this one and I
16 think that has proved to be a good model and an efficient
17 model and maybe that's the direction we should be taking this
18 so that we can move these chemicals a lot more quickly, while
19 still maintaining proper scientific oversight.
20 You have got a lot, there is a lot more data
21 available than I thought there was three days ago. So, I
22 don't know what other people think.
23 CHAIRMAN FROINES: One of the questions that we
24 asked in preparing for the prioritization discussion, I
25 think, Peter, everyone has this series of questions that we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 raised?
2 Eleanor, did the series of questions go to everyone
3 on the Panel?
4 CHAIRMAN FROINES: They were e-mailed to the Panel.
5 They claim they haven't seen them.
6 DR. GLANTZ: Deleted their E-mail, stopped reading
7 them.
8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: The key questions that we raised
9 in preparing for this particular discussion was, could the
10 risk assessments of organophosphates pesticide coming out of
11 the FQPA that process is provided bases for expedited
12 assessments for the 5 OP's in the DPR's priority list, I
13 think that yesterday we didn't come to any final conclusion
14 but we thought that, that was an appropriate way that we
15 could pursue.
16 It would be helpful to hear what you views are on
17 that?
18 DR. SCHREIDER: The short answer is yes.
19 The sooner we can get, we would like to make use of
20 those documents, so we can get them and not reinvent the
21 wheel on not duplicating EPA's we would sure like that not
22 only was the 1807 type things but our other risk assessments
23 also if they look at the same exposure scenarios we would
24 sure like to use them.
25 CHAIRMAN FROINES: When I say, I say that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 recognizing that yesterday we also took up the chronic RELs
2 and one of the things that was apparent when we went through
3 those is some of those EPA chronic RELs are not entirely
4 satisfactory is the euphemism I will use.
5 So, there is a quality issue I mean hexane they
6 literally used the quality study and so we would never want
7 to use that as a base of decision for hexane, there is the
8 issue of quality control quality assurance in the EPA
9 document but that doesn't mean we can't use them at least as
10 a starting point.
11 DR. SCHREIDER: We don't want to take the documents
12 blindly, but we have got the same studies on file.
13 So there is no reason if we could get an in depth
14 document not just their summary but their reasoning and what
15 went into that. There is no reason we can't do fairly quick
16 quality assurance on each document.
17 We already had to do a toxicology review of those
18 studies. Does their assessment agree with how we judged the
19 studies, I don't know that we need to go into detail that we
20 would do for a risk assessment.
21 You should keep one thing in mind the chronic REL
22 thing, yesterday points out that is that we are taking up a
23 lot of compounds under AB 1807 that were grandfathered in as
24 TACs because of Clean Air Act amendments.
25 So there was always some expectation that the Panel
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 would review the risk assessments on the HAPS, in other words
2 they would designated as HAPS but the question of the
3 quantitative risk assessment was still as incomplete since
4 the HAPS did not have risk assessments contained within the
5 digressional designation.
6 So, one of the other things that I don't want to
7 create more work for the Panel but things like Telone or
8 propoxor, or others that are designated TACs already because
9 of them being grandfathered, and that the Panel is also at
10 some level we have assumed some obligation for looking at
11 those risk assessments.
12 So, keep that in the back of your mind.
13 DR. PFEIFER: I would like to comment on EPA, RFC
14 or REL a lot of the IRIS information is probably in need of
15 revision or updating.
16 So, I think that is one of the problems. Again,
17 that is a compound specific issue. Also just to follow-up on
18 what Dr. Schreider just said, as part of the 1082 wrap
19 process we went through a pretty detailed exercise looking at
20 our risk assessments and comparing with EPA's both the
21 studies that we used and the end points and the no effect
22 levels.
23 We were pretty close, I mean we weren't that far
24 apart on some, most of the chemicals. A lot of times our no
25 effect level may have been a little different, or it may have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 been a cholinesterase issue or something like that, but given
2 they addressed the exposure scenarios that we need, I think
3 we could certainly make use of their documents.
4 One other issue that I would just like to mention
5 also, I do not think this has been mentioned at all and there
6 is another mandate under which we operate and that is the
7 food safety act that was passed a few years ago, that
8 required the department to look at food use pesticides
9 specifically and to assess the tolerance for those
10 pesticides.
11 Although we are not in the tolerance setting
12 authority business, EPA does that, that was part of the 2161
13 mandate under the food safety act, and quite frankly that
14 specific act drove our prioritization and risk assessment
15 activities quite a bit when that first came out.
16 Subsequently, we have naled, the dietary assessment
17 which we were doing separately in with the occupational and
18 we do under what FQPA's commonly term aggregate risk or
19 aggregate exposure, that is what we were doing previously
20 with our and still do with our dietary or residential and
21 occupational.
22 One of the questions I think that came up yesterday
23 on this list here, on page 2, is azinphos-methyl is number
24 23, why did we do a risk assessment on that?
25 Well, the answer is that was a very high concern
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 from a dietary standpoint, because azinphos is used on
2 apples, peaches and pears and that is a big contribution to
3 children's diets either not as a single fruit but in mixtures
4 and fruit juices.
5 We had an internal prioritization under 2161 for
6 doing dietary risk assessment and that reflected exactly what
7 we came out under the SB 950.
8 A lot of our risk assessments were driven by
9 dietary and use on food commodities.
10 DR. BLANC: Let's see if I can get a sense of the
11 process, and then going forward.
12 If I take a couple examples from your high priority
13 list that are not already in the pipeline, let's say
14 fenbuconazole, number 33, which is cited as being a priority
15 because of chronic reproductive, so I can assume that is
16 something that is fairly suspect.
17 DR. PFEIFER: I would think so based on that list.
18 DR. BLANC: Right, so, now what happens?
19 How does that then go from there to --
20 DR. PFEIFER: That is what I was referred to.
21 Quite frankly, that has only been on there either
22 on report 39 or 38 it has been fairly recent. In other
23 words, that is one difficulty in just having a single report
24 and not having all the other one's because it doesn't
25 indicate when it went on.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 DR. BLANC: Is there a time thing then is, what you
2 are saying --
3 DR. PFEIFER: No.
4 I'm just saying this just kind of retrospectively.
5 That's when we get into the initiation phase and then the
6 workload aspect comes in.
7 The available information as far as in this case,
8 I'm not familiar with what commodity this is used on, quite
9 frankly, but if worker safety who has a responsibility to do
10 the occupational exposure whether they would have data that
11 would allows us to move forward in a timely manner to get
12 this done.
13 With the tox -- the toxicology is what puts us on
14 the list, so we are a little farther ahead on the curve, the
15 risk assessment curve but the toxicology, like Dr. Schreider
16 said, the mandatory health effects, but then the decision
17 comes well which one's can we get through the risk
18 assessment, quickly, that we are really concerned about.
19 DR. BLANC: That is what I'm asking and that is
20 what seems to be a complete black box.
21 Saying, well, okay we have identified 72 things
22 that we think are high priority, and then you say but we can
23 only monitor for 5 things a year, and I have got my dance
24 card filled for the next three years, and none of these are,
25 none of these 72 things are those things because those things
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 are already here, so I am just trying to get a sense of a
2 process.
3 I mean is it a random sample of the 75 things, is
4 there a separate list over and above this list in which you
5 then prioritize the priorities?
6 DR. PFEIFER: No, that is what I was trying to
7 indicate.
8 It becomes a judgment call between our branch and
9 worker safety branch as to the availability of their data,
10 and their ability to do an exposure assessment, which is
11 integral part of our risk characterization.
12 DR. BLANC: Is there a paper trail which still
13 indicates the process by which things get from the list of 72
14 to some next.
15 DR. PFEIFER: The initiation group?
16 DR. BLANC: Yes.
17 DR. PFEIFER: Only it would appear in this
18 document, that's the report number 40, as a, in the back we
19 have a brief synopsis of where certain chemicals are in the
20 process.
21 DR. BLANC: Yeah, but it doesn't say.
22 MR. SANDERS: There is nothing that says how it got
23 on there.
24 DR. PFEIFER: Actually when you talk about a paper
25 trail when we do initiate the risk assessment a notice goes
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 out to the registrant from our registration branch indicating
2 that we are starting on it and in that letter to them they
3 ask for any other available data that hasn't been submitted
4 to the department.
5 DR. BYUS: I think part of the problem is you have
6 this high priority list and things go on there but there is
7 no time line from this high priority list to the action list.
8 DR. PFEIFER: You're absolutely correct.
9 DR. BYUS: In my opinion what you need is a
10 separate list of this high priority list that you are going
11 to bring action on in a finite period of time, that you
12 define, it could six months, a month, a year --
13 DR. GLANTZ: Five years.
14 DR. BYUS: No.
15 Well, it shouldn't be. Finite time of six months
16 or a year and then this action list then becomes the one that
17 pushes your workload. The way that you have it now, I'm not
18 being critical but to me it seems that --
19 DR. PFEIFER: You can be critical.
20 DR. BYUS: You have to have a high priority and
21 assuming that none of these have been on there for a long
22 period of time, and I won't ask you how long that is.
23 DR. PFEIFER: Some of them have of been on there
24 from the beginning.
25 DR. BYUS: So, beyond what the word high priority
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 means and time line for this priority list can be so off.
2 DR. PFEIFER: Initially some of the chemicals on
3 here were of concern back when we started, 1986.
4 We have initiated risk assessments on them, and
5 some of them have not been completed for various reasons, but
6 the other aspect was back then there was more concern for
7 longer term effects, and as we started seeing some of the
8 studies that were coming in we became more concerned with
9 some of the acute affects like in the developmental and
10 reproductive and low NOAEL studies, and so some of these
11 became a higher priority.
12 Some of them may have been on the list before but
13 we were starting to see effects that could occur in a shorter
14 exposure period so we felt that we should, to be a little
15 more prudent to address those.
16 DR. BLANC: Also, if you wait long enough some get
17 delicensed and so that does solve the problem that way, I
18 suppose.
19 DR. SCHREIDER: Actually not in jest but that maybe
20 one of the outgrowths of FQPA, where the first couple of
21 years we may see a number of them disappear and that may
22 change a lot of prioritization list.
23 DR. BLANC: I hope I didn't get us offtrack, but if
24 the suggestion was really on the table that one option ought
25 to be a pseudo REL grouped approach I think I would argue
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 that if that approach were to be taken, that it be taken for
2 classification of materials for which there is a fair amount
3 of knowledge about mechanism and assumption like the
4 organophosphates, as an example.
5 I think that would be a good test case. I think
6 for some of these things are exotic enough and complicated
7 enough that it would be difficult in sort of the REL
8 dictionary approach for us to adequately review them, but I
9 think that for the organophosphates as a group it might be
10 worth the try on an experimental basis to see if we could
11 batch.
12 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We are about to run out of
13 time, but so I want to go back to the point that you made
14 though, and I don't mean to cut you off.
15 The word black box is important I think. I think a
16 public agency has a responsibility to have articulated
17 approach as to how one makes decisions.
18 I think it can't be left up to a black box. So,
19 the answer of how do things move forward here, how does that
20 particular compound, how does something happen to it, should
21 be part of the articulated process that is described.
22 I don't think the public whose health -- I think
23 the agency has obligation to describe some process by which
24 decisions are made in an articulate way.
25 So I don't think it can be left up to come back and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 say, oh, we had this compound. It's high priority in 1986,
2 but we have just never gotten to it.
3 If one doesn't get to something, somebody should
4 explain why they are not getting to it, or where it's coming
5 into the process or some rational organization way of
6 reviewing high priority chemicals.
7 So, that is where the frustration is coming from.
8 It is hard to tell how things get where in this process.
9 MR. SANDERS: Well, that leads me to what we are
10 proposing is that we will update the '96 report this spring
11 but also bring to you the compounds that we are going to be
12 initiating risk assessment on, so that you can review those
13 and have your input on what we initiated.
14 DR. GLANTZ: Well, that is a step forward.
15 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Well, we would like to know --
16 DR. BLANC: How did you choose that?
17 How did that process come?
18 MR. SANDERS: We can fully explain that to you when
19 we bring it to you.
20 DR. BLANC: I would like a few examples of the
21 one's that you decided not to do to and why.
22 While I would like to move that we adjourn.
23 DR. GLANTZ: Before that, I think that one thing
24 that we have left a little bit hanging is this batching idea.
25 I mean I presented one approach and you presented
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 an alternative, and I think since the Chair has been asked to
2 put together some recommendations for us to discuss at the
3 next meeting on the monitoring and other aspects, I would
4 like to request that you also think about if we want to
5 recommend any specific actions in that area because it all
6 grows out of this workshop to discuss at the next meeting, if
7 we want to be changing the way we are asking them to come
8 forward with the compounds, and then I'll second the motion.
9 CHAIRMAN FROINES: Okay. That is fine.
10 We would be very happy also if members of the Panel
11 instead of sending everything to the Chair and going like
12 this, wrote sentence, because I have other things besides the
13 Panel.
14 DR. GLANTZ: Right, but you are so much smarter,
15 and now you are the real Chair not the acting Chair.
16 CHAIRMAN FROINES: How about you send a memo by
17 E-mail to me which suggests.
18 DR. GLANTZ: I think it's in the minute, I think it
19 is in the transcript.
20 CHAIRMAN FROINES: We will go through and see how
21 the two of you differ in your recommendations and how they
22 are similar and we will use that as a way to go forward and
23 we will call upon on you if we need further input, is that
24 fair?
25 DR. BLANC: Yes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 Secondly, want to call the question?
2 DR. GLANTZ: Before the permanent Chair talks any
3 more.
4 Peter is standing up. I don't think we have a
5 quorum for a vote.
6 DR. KENNEDY: If you vote quick.
7 I'm still here.
8 CHAIRMAN FROINES: All in favor, aye.
9 Thank you very much. I really thank you everybody.
10 A two-day intense meeting is very difficult, and I
11 think everybody who is out there should now how much we
12 appreciate your input.
13 I think it went really well. This was a very
14 successful two days.
15 Hopefully, something good will come of it in the
16 public interest.
17 (Thereupon the Scientific Review Panel meeting
18 was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.)
19 --o0o--
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER
2
3 I, VICKI L. OGELVIE, a Certified Shorthand
4 Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 foregoing hearing was reported in shorthand by me, Vicki L.
7 Ogelvie, a Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of
8 California, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting.
9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
10 attorney for any of the parties to said hearing nor in any
11 way interested in the outcome of said hearing.
12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
13 this twenty-second day of September, 1999.
14
15
16
VICKI L. OGELVIE
17 Certified Shorthand Reporter
License No. 7871
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345