![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
PPDC Performance Measures Work Group Meeting Notes - October 19, 2005
PPDC MEASURES WORK GROUP
Meeting Notes
October 19, 2005 , 2:00 – 5:00 PM
Room 709, Crystal Mall #2
Attendees
Members (In person):
Steve Balling – in person
Tom Beidler – in person
Amy Brown – by phone
Larry Elworth – in person
Michael Fry – in person
Nancy Golden – in person
Jimmy Roberts – in person
Bob Rosenberg – in person
John Schell – in person
Isi Siddiqui – by phone
Julie Spagnoli – in person
EPA Staff:
Sherry Sterling
David Widawsky
Ed Brandt
Discussion of Group Goals and Objectives:
Larry Elworth: If we are going to give the Agency good advice, we need to be clear about purview, where advice can be used.
Bob Rosenberg: Recent litigation has showed that the agency needs an adequate record of these meetings (bittering agent case).
Larry Elworth: What does the Agency want? Should we comment on the process for developing measures or concentrate on the substance of the measures?
Sherry Sterling: The agency would like advice from the PPDC on the draft measures that we will bring to this work group – what will work, won’t work. We would like ideas about sources for data that we have not captured in our work. We also think it would be helpful for you to identify measures/areas for measures that we have not covered.
Julie Spagnoli: Important to have measures for all parts of OPP.
Michael Fry: Are these at OMB yet?
Sherry Sterling: No, these are still under development within OPP.
Tom Beidler: We have sources of data on treated seed that could displace cover sprays and, presumably reduce risk, that would be helpful in this process.
Larry Elworth: What is the timeline for this project and what is the process?
Sherry Sterling: The process that we are using to develop these measures is a three-tiered process starting with task groups developing program-specific measures, specifically: worker safety, water quality, endangered species, Strategic Ag Initiative (SAI) + Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) and food safety/aggregate risk. A Coordinating Committee is developing measures in our three big mission areas: protect human health, protect the environment and “other benefits.” The “other benefits” category tries to capture the benefits not included in the “protect the human health” and “protect the environment” category.
Our schedule is to share these draft measures with Division Directors the first of November. Our goal is to begin implementation of a set of these measures in January 2006. We will be modifying these measures and further developing other measures throughout 2006.
Jimmy Roberts: It would be helpful if you outlined the groups and how they relate.
Discussion of the “Other Benefits” Document
David Widawsky gave an overview of the goals identified for this project and the measures considered to demonstrate progress towards these goals.
The goals are:
(1) Improving producer profitability.
(2) Maintaining or improving trade opportunities.
(3) Lowering cost of remediating pesticides in the environment.
(4) Enhancing the food supply.
(5) Protect property.
(6) Protecting public health.
Larry Elworth: Need to add the food supply description (#4 at the top of page 3) in the report.
David Widawsky: Yes.
Isi Siddiqui: Agree with the six goals outlined in the report.
Larry Elworth: For goal #1 (improving producer profitability), new materials are much more expensive and producers are not able to pass along these expenses to consumers.
Julie Spagnoli: In goal #6 (protecting public health), how are you defining public health?
David Widawsky: We are taking a broad view of public health.
Julie Spagnoli: What about pathogens for goal #6?
David Widawsky: We can consider them; please provide ideas.
Michael Fry: Costs in this document focus on production costs. What about costs in terms of the environment and human health?
David Widawsky: The costs associated with the other mission areas – environment and human health -- are included in the reports from those groups.
Larry Elworth: Is cost a word of convenience or very specific?
David Widawsky: Word of convenience; substitute “expenditures” for “costs.”
Michael Fry: Are the costs of water treatment included under goal #3 (lowering cost of remediating pesticides in the environment)?
David Widawsky: Yes.
Discussion of the individual measures.
Measure #1: Avoided crop loss due to pests measured through the emergency exemption (section 18) program.
Michael Fry: What about section 18 costs for crayfish producers when using carbofuran? Need to incorporate ancillary effects.
David Widawsky: Our methods don’t typically cover those effects; that’s due to limitations in our program’s scope.
Measure #2: Decreased costs associated with pesticide expenditure.
Julie Spagnoli: Does this only look at ag?
David Widawsky: Yes, because we have data on ag.
Steve Balling: What percentage of your effort goes into “me too” products?
David Widawsky: Don’t know.
Julie Spagnoli: Primarily home owner markets.
Measure #3: Volume of trade in commodities treated with pesticides.
David Widawsky: Our concern with this measure is that we think it will be difficult to link exports to program outcomes.
Isi Siddiqui: What about data from USDA/FAS? Also, NAS has data.
David Widawsky: We have found that these systems track volume, but they don’t necessarily track treated volume.
Larry Elworth: Need to consider phytosanitary standards.
Steve Balling: Harmonization is a process to make up for the fact that the US is “de-harmonizing” by taking FIFRA required actions, thereby creating barriers to trade
David Widawsky: Important insight.
Steve Balling: Therefore, need a weighting factor of some sort to take this into account.
Measure #4: Decreased costs of remediating solid waste.
Isi Siddiqui: CropLife America has an extensive data base on recycling pesticide containers.
David Widawsky: Is that information public?
Isi Siddiqui: I think it would be open; will check this out.
Michael Fry: Does this include the cost of disposing of wastes from the manufacturing process?
Larry Elworth: Is that in the purview of OPP?
David Widawsky: That’s not one of our areas; it’s an Office of Solid Waste area.
Steve Balling: Are individual activities required to do cost/benefit analysis?
David Widawsky: We don’t do a cost/benefit analysis on everything.
Measure #5: Decreased costs of remediating pesticides in drinking water.
Larry Elworth: American Water Works Association (AWWA) may have data.
Tom Beidler: How do you account for the fact that one process may take care of taste and odor at the same time as dealing with atrazine, for example?
Michael Fry: What about the costs of monitoring and the cost of equipment? How to capture public health costs from not removing chemicals?
David Widawsky: This is not the only measure of water quality in our constellation of draft measures. We have a task group focused on developing water quality measures.
Measure #6: Resistance management.
Julie Spagnoli: This is a big issue in public health.
Isi Siddiqui: There is an Insect Resistance Action Committee, an Herbicide Resistance Action Committee, and a Fungicide Resistance Action Committee; all could provide you with good information.
David Widawsky: There is a great amount of research, but what metric can we use for performance management?
Isi Siddiqui: Select a few key host/pest complexes to follow as examples.
David Widawsky: Would we track by looking at an LD-50 or by looking at change in product?
Larry Elworth: Challenge people in scientific areas to come up with a measure. This is a good idea for a measure.
Julie Spagnoli: Need to figure out how to determine if you have a good resistance management program.
Isi Siddiqui: CropLife America can help here.
Julie Spagnoli: Be sure to include public health; not just ag. The idea is that you need more than one product; more than one horse in the stable.
Steve Balling: How much extrapolation from anecdotal data will OMB allow?
Sherry Sterling: OMB guidance allows that sometimes it is not possible to obtain data for everything. OMB will look at each case individually.
Measure #7: Expenditures on structural damage control.
Bob Rosenberg: Need to consider toxic mold remediation and prevention; general materials protection. Two ways to look at this: (1) traditional – cost of damage by wood damaging insects, or (2) cost of treatment – reducing costs by using more efficacious products; reduction in the number of retreatments.
Julie Spagnoli: Need to consider different types of treatment, new technologies.
Bob Rosenberg: Give us some time and we will have data to share.
Julie Spagnoli: Biocides panel will be able to provide information.
Measure #8: Incidence and costs associated with vector borne illnesses.
David Widawsky: We have talked to people at CDC about data.
Julie Spagnoli: There are some efforts underway in the Agency to look at emerging pathogens, ensuring that effective products are available; SARS, for example.
Isi Siddiqui: What about West Nile virus?
Larry Elworth: What about information at DOD?
Steve Balling: What about data from the American Mosquito Control Association?
Bob Rosenberg: Not just mosquitoes. What about rodents?
Jimmy Roberts: Individual state health departments have data, especially for West Nile .
Larry Elworth: Is there guidance on data quality and causality?
Michael Fry: Treatment in Florida against mosquitoes with fenthion killed migratory birds. What about these costs?
Michael Fry: Toxic building syndrome and disposal of treated lumber need to be somehow included.
Bob Rosenberg: What about capturing quality of life factors? People don’t want ants in their home, mosquitoes in their backyard; basically, the “yuck factor.”
Julie Spagnoli: The “yuck factor” is important for disinfectants.
Steve Balling: Annual measure may present a problem; may be more successful in looking at factor over ten years.
Sherry Sterling: Yes, it is possible to have measures that go beyond one year.
Discussion of Next Steps
Presentation at PPDC meeting:
Group decided that they needed a structure for the presentation. They decided on the following order:
Background – Slides 21, 22 and 23 from the September 26 meeting presentation
Discussion of time frames and how the PPDC advice can fit into the process.
Summary of the Goals that the group identified for itself.
Presentation on “Other Benefits”
Next steps:
The group asked Sherry Sterling to go over the background, time frames and next steps; David Widawsky would make his presentation on “Other Benefits.” A committee member will make the goal presentation.
Next meeting:
The group decided to cover “Protect Human Health”, including the worker safety aspects at the next meeting. The group would like for the next meeting to be “in person,” not a conference call. Sherry Sterling will check that out and will send out a list of possible dates for members the members to consider for the next meeting. It was requested that EPA supply a note-taker for the meeting who is not a presenter.