Alliance for Risk
Steering Committee Conference Call
January 29, 2007
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
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
III. Old Business
IV. New Business
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
V. Next Meeting
VI. Good and