MN Chemical Regulation and Policy, Work Group Meeting 9/14/11


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Budget includes one more Work Group meeting we could schedule for January, if needed.
  • MN Chemical Regulation and Policy, Work Group Meeting 9/14/11

    1. 1. Minnesota Chemical Regulation and Policy Project<br />Work Group Meeting<br />September 15, 2011<br />
    2. 2. Phase I Opportunities<br />Collaborative, effective chemicals policy:<br /><ul><li>Sound science
    3. 3. Fill information gaps
    4. 4. Minimizes exposure to and risk from chemicals
    5. 5. Decision-making tools and criteria
    6. 6. MN unique, value-added
    7. 7. Increases efficiency and decreases toxicity of processes and products</li></li></ul><li>Phase I Opportunities<br />2) Demonstrate Minnesota leadership<br /><ul><li>Priorities, vision, principles to guide policy decisions
    8. 8. Inform federal conversation around TSCA
    9. 9. MN unique/appropriate
    10. 10. Craft appropriate state policy that integrates with federal policy
    11. 11. Learn from others
    12. 12. Collaborative/integrated approach
    13. 13. Promote green chemistry innovation</li></li></ul><li>Phase I Opportunities<br />Increase public availability of information and educate the public and decision-makers <br /><ul><li>Educate legislature about policy options and their impacts
    14. 14. Ensure more effective risk communication by all stakeholders, especially by regulators to the public</li></li></ul><li>Phase I Opportunities<br />Position Minnesota to benefit economically <br /><ul><li>Identify opportunities, incentives for business
    15. 15. Identify long-term economic, public/environmental benefits</li></li></ul><li>Collaborative approach<br />MN unique/appropriate<br />Resource efficient/promote economic development<br />Sound science<br />Information, education, communications<br />Major Themes from Phase I Opportunities<br />
    16. 16. Project Roadmap & Milestones<br />Late September: sub-groups continue proposal development work <br />October 5 Work Group meeting<br />Sub-groups present recommendation proposals<br />Work group reacts, refines, finalizes draft recommendations<br />Prepare for public input meeting<br />October 12Stakeholder (Public) Input Meeting #15:00 – 7:00 pm; St. Paul location TBD<br />October 26 Work Group meeting<br />Review public input<br />Revise and refine recommendations<br />November 16 <br />Revise and refine recommendations<br />Date TBDStakeholder Input Meeting #2<br />December 7<br />Finalize and approve recommendations<br />
    17. 17. Meeting Schedule & Project Timeline<br />September 23 – Environmental InitiativePolicy Sub-Group Meeting, 9:00 – 11:00 am<br />October 5 Work Group Mtg – UROC<br />October 12: Stakeholder Input Group Meeting #15:00 – 7:00 pm, Location TBD<br />October 26 Work Group Mtg – UROC<br />November 16 Work Group Mtg – SPSC<br />Date TBD: Stakeholder Input Group Meeting #2<br />December 7 Work Group Mtg– UROC<br /><br />
    18. 18. Issues Identified in Phase I<br />There is a lack of shared vision for improved chemical management in Minnesota, resulting in chemical-specific initiatives unrelated to a comprehensive approach.<br />The status quo of chemical regulation, management, and policy is not sustainable given outdated federal policy and the chaotic approach to chemicals management that is occurring at state and local levels.<br />There are significant data gaps in our knowledge of occurrence, exposure, risk, and impacts of chemicals on ecosystems and human health.<br />Decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty will continue to be a challenge in effective chemical regulation and management.<br />There is inconsistency in regulatory requirements, lack of clarity in “standard” definitions, and an inadequate process to evaluate the effectiveness of policy tools.<br />There is insufficient education and a gap in perception surrounding chemical exposures and risk, government’s role and degree of protection, methods for communicating accurately to the public and elected representatives, and restrictions on access to certain information.<br />
    19. 19. Routes for “requests” to reach the Chemical Science Advisory Panel (CSAP)<br />Charge<br />Criteria<br />MPCA, MDH, MDA<br />Executive Branch<br />CSAP<br />Charge<br />Criteria<br />Committee Chair/ Legislator<br />Legislative Branch<br />LAC/Auditor<br />CSAP<br />Criteria<br />Relevant to MN environment or population<br />Disputed issue of science where independent review is helpful <br />Triggers<br />Proposed bill<br />Citizen concern<br />New chemical or chemical concern<br />
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.