Alliance for Risk Assessment

Steering Committee Conference Call

January 29, 2007  2:00PM

 

I. Introductions

• Steering committee members present: Barbara Harper, Bette Meek, Bill Hayes, Brian Howard, Edward Ohanian, Jack Snyder, Michael Dourson, Mike Honeycutt, Ruthann Rudel   
• Others: Andy Maier, Oliver Kroner, Phil Wexler, Roberta Grant

II. Reports

ARA Management team provided a brief review of the ARA goals, functions and processes.  The presentation was given from the Power Point slide show downloadable from the “About ARA” page on the website.

Clarifying questions regarding the scope and goal of the ARA were addressed with reiteration of the intent of the ARA to provide a resource for sharing information and collaboration building as well as a resource for local organizations to address risk assessment needs not being addressed elsewhere.

Funding mechanisms were discussed – with noted funding resources including – work funded directly by sponsors, stakeholder grants to cover ARA costs and provide an account for unfunded project requests, ARA user fees assessed on funded projects, and continuation of TERA’s State Hazard Evaluation Lending Program (State HELP).

III. Old Business

• none

IV. New Business

Discussion of ARA and the role of the steering committee (all)

• The steering committee members agreed that the input of the steering committee should be advisory in nature.
• It was stated that statutory protection exists for any advisory group to a non-profit in the State of Ohio.  Such protection exists for this group as well.
• Specific Roles of the Steering Committee

1.      Evaluate appropriateness of projects within ARA mission.  The Committee suggested that the mission of ARA should be more clearly stated to aid in providing advice.

2.      Prioritize incoming projects.   It was noted that providing some criteria would help in this area as well.  For example, guidance on the weight given to the existence of alternative risk assessments was noted as an area needing clarification.  Members indicated that their respective knowledge of the field and networks would provide a basis for providing useful feedback to the ARA managers on overall needs of the risk assessment community.

3.      Identify Conflicts of Interest.  It was noted the Science Advisory Board has a strong COI process that could be used to help the ARA management in formulating a process identifying COI issues with incoming project requests.

4.      Other roles of the Steering Committee for later consideration included providing advice on risk assessment needs and data gaps, and providing advice on mechanisms for securing resources for the ARA. 

• It was also stated that the tasks and focus of the steering committee would become clearer as it developed.
• ARA management will propose language for a mission statement to be reviewed by the Steering Committee.

Membership to the steering committee (all)

• The Steering Committee was asked to provide input as to whether there would be any objection to nomination of an additional member affiliated with industry and/or academic institution.  No preferences or objections were noted.
• It was proposed that members have the option of appointing an alternate to represent member in his/her absence.  This proposal was accepted by the Committee.

Design of Steering Committee Web Page and attributable information (all)

• The Steering Committee decided that for purposes of facilitating efficient meetings, the meetings would not routinely be open for public participation, but to ensure transparency, brief notes of the meeting, without attribution, would be posted on the website.  The value of posting of the meeting agenda prior to the meeting was not fully discussed, but will be addressed at a future meeting.  
• The Steering Committee advised that the ARA management obtain a legal opinion on whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), State, or other regulations affect the operation and procedures of the Steering Committee.  ARA management agreed to consult a Freedom of Information Act or (FACA) expert to discuss meeting transparency requirements.
• ARA management will develop draft meeting minutes and distribute them for approval by the Steering Committee.  Once approved, the minutes will be posted on the ARA website.

Project Clearance

• Development of a Relative Source Contribution for RDX (U.S. Army).  Discussion of this project was delayed to a future meeting.
• Peer Review of a 1,3-Butadiene Effects Screening Level (ESL) (State of Texas).  TCEQ provided a short summary of the requested project for a paper peer review of an Effect Screening Level for 1,3-Butadiene.  By way of background it was noted that during preparation of it assessment, TCEQ became aware that North Carolina was already developing an assessment for 1,3-Butadiene.  TCEQ noted that this exemplifies the potential benefits of the HNS.  In response to questions from the Steering Committee, TCEQ indicated that they were aware of existing risk values on this chemical developed by Health Canada and U.S. EPA, but that the TCEQ assessment includes updated analyses on human exposure that have become recently available as well as develops the assessment using the specific methodology and scenarios called for in TCEQ methods.  Steering Committee members indicated a willingness to share insights from their own experiences regarding the peer review process for this chemical.  The Steering Committee agreed to further discuss this project as criteria for determining mission relatedness, task prioritization, and conflict of interest are further developed.

V. Next Meeting Agenda (all)

not discussed

VI. Good and Welfare (all)  

not discussed