Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Dissertation definition in art good cover letter for sales executive Marymount Manhattan College, Upper East Side, Manhattan, near Hunter College, ciep delf a1 sujets de dissertation School of Medicine, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie essayer des coiffure femme mi Delaware. Niagara University, Lewiston picture bride movie analysis essay martin luther king essay contest 2018 super County Road 47 zip 10154. Trocaire College, Buffalo report writing for class 11 isc convaincre et persuader dissertation meaning Schuyler American Museum of Natural History, College of New Rochelle (School of New Resources) phil thesis on indo pak trade Avenue of the Americas zip 10036.
Dissertation definition in art do my capstone hedge fund nyc 49c550 review of literature alright let's go ahead and get ourselves started let me go through a couple of logistical items first off my name is Dave suppose for those of you that are on the phone I'm associate director with the center for collaborative policy at Sacramento State and I will be your facilitator for today in a minute I will go around the room and have the panel members do their introductions we but first before we did I don't want to go through a couple logistical items for members of the public that are here attending in the room if you did not already see in the hallways you were coming through there was a table where you could sign in and as well as get your hands on some background materials that we would be referring to today so and that would be the agenda the meeting summary from the November meeting and then a few other items that I'll cover in a little bit so please avail yourself if you have not already done so again for folks in the room I'm gonna just apologize right now that I have my back turned towards you but since I'm using this microphone I just you appreciate that we we are having a couple of difficulties this morning one is that our science advisor dr. Stringfellow is enroute he hit some traffic difficulties so we're gonna have to move the agenda around a little bit and move to the item number nine number four so after we go through introductions and the item number two we're then gonna jump down to number four just handle a range of updates and then we'll have to go back to the crop sampling events so we're gonna that's gonna probably make us calling audibles a bit for the rest of the day then because I know that the presentation by dr. Stringfellow and your discussion is the line share of activity today we also are having some technical difficulties for folks that are on the phone are listening into the web you'll note that we do not have a simulcast right now going on and I do not believe we will for the day we are instead feeding you patching you through to a go to meeting or webinar set up something to that effect so we have the present some of the presentations will we boot it up but other items are not so I'll be just for folks in the room and for you to panel I'm gonna be a little more descriptive of reading things like the agenda and whatnot because there are some people who just simply may not be able to see it so I'm apologize in advance for being a little more descriptive and prescriptive than I might ordinarily be so with that let's go ahead and move on to introductions so from the panel on the phone we have dr. ken Kok from Callao iha is on and and if we could dr. beam will start over on your side again everybody remember to please put your microphone on and then we'll go to the panel members and then we'll go on to board staff and then we'll move ahead with rest agenda Stephen beam I'm chief of milk and dairy food safety animal health and food safety services division with the California Department of Food and Agriculture barbara peterson from exponent and igor ders from California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fresno seth shonkoff PSC healthy energy UC Berkeley and a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory mark Jones I'm with the US Army Corps of Engineers and I should say that I'm here and on behalf of myself and what I say doesn't represent those core Dave Mazzara I'm the chief of the Food Drug and tobacco enforcement programs for the Department of Public Health very good than starting over here with staff Sami waterboard staff Josh Mahoney waterboard staff Dale Harvey Water Board staff Alex Chloe Center for collaborative policy cool Carl Longley so trolly reaching a lot of quality control board and we'll be joined soon bye-bye Raji who's another clay Rogers I'm the assistant executive officer for a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Stephanie you counsel to the Regional Board great thank you very much so at this time let me just go through a couple logistical items as I'm doing for myself so make sure I don't forget if everybody both within the panel and in the audience if you could please silence your cellphone's at this time for folks on the phone via panel members or otherwise may be listening in through webinar I'm not sure how we've got that handled but please do mute yourself I will always be bouncing back and forth between conversation by the panel here in the room and then checking with folks on the phone right now as I said we have dr. o'clock dr. Ludwig has not yet joined us I do not believe but we'll keep checking in on that but to make sure that we don't have any background noise or disturbances can if you could just go ahead and keep your phone muted in case there's any background noises that we would get disturbed by thank you very much all right so with that what I would like to draw everybody's attention to now is the meeting agenda we'll go ahead and go through that I obviously already referred to the adjustments we're gonna have to make but just sort of going in order as we see it will be in a minute we'll just be going over the November public meeting notes to check and see if there's any revisions comments that the panel would like to make then we can open up the floor again for folks in the room standing rule after this agenda item the introduction agenda item this is a meeting as I've you've oftentimes heard me say this is a meeting of the food safety panel that is open to the public it is not a public meeting and the distinction however odd that sounds is that my responsibility is to make sure that the food safety panel has an opportunity to discuss things amongst themselves with their science advisor and with staff when they're here and then as I think everybody in this room that's been here before knows I will always open up the floor on every single agenda item after the food safety panel has sort of exhausted their conversation then I'll open up the floor for public comment members of the public you are welcome to we ask that you make comments to the point at hand the item at hand rather than something related to it I'll also try to open up the floor in general for sort of general comments that folks might want to make and we certainly encourage that if you choose to do so the panel members are under no obligation to respond to public comments or public questions so as members of the public you are certainly afforded the opportunity to do that and it is the discretion of panel members as to how that what they choose to do with that likewise Rebecca we still will have a system through the email site so for folks that are listening in remotely as we have always done if you have a comment that you would like to make via email please send it to the food safety panel email address that is available and I routinely check in with my colleague here Rebecca from the board and we'll read those so we'll keep posted on that okay so with that again we'll do that public meeting review and we'll open for public comment after that we will have item three which may end up being item for the update of the 2017 crop sampling events which will be provided by dr. Stringfellow when he arrives we'll be doing immediately here in a minute the update just sort of general updates on MOU status critical path various things like that we'll get an update on the implementation of a B 13:28 will do one more round of public comment any nice items and action items and then we'll close out we really need to do a hard stop at three o'clock today for closeout cuz I know several people have got various appointments and we actually I'm gonna ask that we need to do a hard stop for lunch at 12:00 as well regardless of where we're are because I think myself and a couple other people have got hard stop other items to actually fit into that lunch block period so I'm so we may be truncating and sort of you know bridging over the lunch period with discussions any comments or questions from the panel at this time okay any Jo yes Eddie yeah and November 7th wasn't I here I'm not listed on the front page okay let me get to that in a minute let me just let me just before we go to the meeting notes any immediate general questions or comments again not related to the other agenda items from the general public at this time okay seeing none in hearing none we're gonna move on then to the item number two which is the review the November public meeting and E is under the mistaken assumption that he was here in November I don't need him just so in addition to that significant oversight I apologize any other comments for members of the panel questions or anything regarding the notes all right hearing none and seeing none let me do a check-in we'll come back to the notes and we'll do a call to question just to sort of finalize them but before we do that let me go ahead and do the public members of the public any comments or questions again specifically about the November meeting notes all right seeing none and hearing none we will move on so members of the panel has anybody opposed to adopting these notes as final into the project record okay seeing no opposition these notes will be adopted with the modification that dr. gore has already made and then to be adopted as final thank you very much all right we're gonna then move on to agenda item number 4 which is the update on just overall the food safety panel so let me look first play to you on an update on the MOU implementation yeah I mean there certainly have been conversations regarding tasks 1 2 & 3 with the irrigator z' and getting that work on tasks we have provided dr. Stringfellow's comments to cawelo water district on task 1 and 2 and so we're hopeful to hear back soon and and with the idea going that we want to very soon within a matter of weeks be moving forward on completing task 1 and task 2 which is the literature review and the toxicity assessment of the of the chemicals being used task 3 which is the food sampling our next scheduled sampling were tentatively looking at the end of February early March would be the next time we need to collect samples and that would be of citrus in the area we can't delay much after early March because if we do the citrus will be harvested and it will be gone so we need to make sure by early February we just a few days ago received a number of comments from the from the mou group regarding task 3 very few of those comments were really regarding the technical work most of those were a bit were about administrative issues and interaction between the water board's the permit holders or the the irrigate errs and the consultants because the way the mou sets that up is that the permit holders the irrigators are responsible for paying for the work to be completed under the three tasks but there will be no involvement in the technical oversight or direction of the consultants that will be done by the Regional Board with assistance from dr. Stringfellow and the panel when we bring those issues to you because we to be quite honest with you where we're working to make sure that the claims that that somehow the users of this water are directing the work and that it may result in a biased result where we're working to make sure that that's not even a potential issue and so there are still some administrative issues that were working through I will be responding to the comments that we recently received from David and Saul Behar and responding back to that hopefully by the end of the week and if not by the first of the week share some of that with the panel members and we'll go from there and we'll see what the response is but the goal is there that I want to have the consultants selected so that we can actually have the new process in place before we need to go out and collect the February samples that being done if for some reason there's delays that are unavoidable by the parties in this we are prepared to make sure that we can continue with the sampling in the same mode under which we did the sampling last year so that we do not miss the citrus sampling so that's really the the update on the MOU still some discussions going over the scope and and final access and a couple of those issues you know I think we're we're getting closer but we're also getting very close to the point where the regional board will consider options if we can't get this agreed to to get it actually implemented so I think that's where and perhaps David and Saul bears here from cawelo water district he he's leading the group kind of you know the primary contact for us regarding the MOU and and the scopes of work and perhaps Dave wants to add something to this conversation too so David that's you don't mind update from easier for you you'll need to turn the mic on dip sir there yep my name is David on solo bow hair general manager of the cawelo water district and we have been having conversations with clay and the regional board regarding the scope of work for task 3 we have submitted that with our comments and also we have received the scope of work for tasks 1 & 2 from the regional board with their comments and those have been sent out to the group for their I would say final approval to make sure everyone is in an agreement to proceed forward with obtaining the consultant and starting or initiating the work for task 1 & 2 once we receive comments from the regional board as a staff for task 3 we will be able to then initiate the scope of work for task 3 the harvest time for task 3 as clay said into February probably to about mid-march while those crops are still on the trees I do believe we'll have enough time to successfully take care of the citrus sampling and have it all pretty much all wrapped up once we get to the almonds pistachios and grapes later this year I don't foresee too much problem on that at this point we are gathering names and contacting potential consultants to perform these tests are these studies so we're trying to follow in to your timelines and we'll make best effort to do that okay once you if you can just stay there for a minute let me look to the panel any questions or comments for David the panel members I'll look to first the room and then can all check in with you on the phone but first the room any any questions or comments okay seeing none can let me check in with you any questions or comments from you Kent no comment all right very good panel members writ large on this topic on the mou any questions or comments to to clay or board staff okay seeing none and hearing none we were gonna go ahead and move on our science advisor dr. Stringfellow has joined us but I'm gonna go ahead and let's just finish out Section four on the agenda and just get it be done with so let's move that on to the long term critical path in the white paper so Dale I'll look to you yeah this will be short we haven't made much progress in the outline for the white paper so that's on the agenda to continue working on that okay any target timelines at this point we will have by the clave to look at clip the clay is giving me we will have something substantial for the panel members to consider it the next public meeting um the answer to that is yes but I also want to explain that you know we have carried on you know there have been more discussions regarding the MOU than anticipated there have been another number of other issues so that have come up regarding oil field activities and and the same staff that are working on these issues are the same staff that are working on addressing underground injection control land disposal projects and and other issues associated with pond water so until some of the MOU issues those took precedent over trying to make sure we get the effort in place and start to get the work done before we we get the outline on the white paper although we do need to get that done because you know certainly you know after we complete another round of the the sampling this year my thoughts are is that we're to the point where we need to start discussing and and making formal presentations about what this means and the input from the panel with the work that's done by the consultants and have been has been done by dr. Stringfellow and start to see where we are in this process and and start to look at you know how long does the food safety panel need to continue its work and and you know while there may be other research issues that may need to be addressed you know the bottom line of answering the basic question of you know is there an issue with consumption of the commodities grown with this produced water hopefully will be to the point where it's time to put the white paper together and and have those discussions okay thank you very much any questions or comments from the panel members on the white paper okay hearing none seen and we're gonna move on then next public communications so there is a letter that the regional board has received to date there are it has been received 123 versions of it I was it's an identical letter that's been sent under 23 123 different individuals have sent it I'm not going to read it verbatim but I will read some of the substantive the parts it is addressed to dr. Longley as the chair of the board and it calls into question and I I'm gonna you know with would do due respect to our panel members I you know I'm gonna go ahead and read this it calls the question the appropriateness of to the panel members to be serving on the panel one Mark Jones and the other dr. Peterson so I'm gonna read those paragraphs just to enter it into the record within this public meeting it is clear it is a clear conflict to have mr. Jones on a panel that is charged with evaluating the merits of evidence that he previously produced on behalf of the oil and gas industry dr. Peterson also has direct conflicts and should not serve on a panel these conflicts were not disclosed when dr. Peterson joined the panel but only came to light at the April 21st 2017 food safety expert panel meeting through a short written note at the very end of the revised project Charter drafted by board staff the note stated that dr. Barbara Peterson's participation on the panel had been funded by Chevron through the majority of 2016 and that she's now being paid to participate by Cal flows an oil and gas and agribusiness industry trade group whose directors include representatives from Chevron area energy and certain large agricultural firms Cal flows openly states that its purpose is to defend and promote the reuse of produced water in agriculture and the corporations behind the group have a clear financial interest in the outcome of the panel's findings and recommendations dr. Peterson's associations with Chevron and Cal flows represents clear conflicts that make her unsuitable to serve on a panel by including candidates with a history of working for industry against government regulation the board jeopardizes the scientific reliability and public credibility of this process the prior paragraphs of this letter are more just introductory in nature so again that's why I didn't read all that so again that's right into the into the record of this meeting there are 123 versions of this that have been sent is there any comment from the panel with this regard okay hearing and seeing and we're gonna move on okay so I'm gonna do one less final check to the panel before I go ahead and open over the floor to the public on agenda item four and the bullets that we've covered any questions or comments from the panel okay hearing none I'm gonna go ahead and move to the public we have the microphone that is here in the room does anybody wish to help yes go ahead Oh our key thing well we can't let me let me bring in I to them check Keith naka Tanja clean water action so I'm also wondering about the literature review that's been talked about for a long time if you can address that what's up with that and in general that seems like an overarching issue is you know clay was explaining it a bit the lack of capacity of the board to actually work on some of these things and they've been dragging on I mean we're into two years now on this panel I think as people are aware so is there any efforts to try to increase staff capacity so that we can boot these along these things along a little bit quicker clay you want to address that first you know our budget is set by the legislature and the governor and not by staff so I'm not aware of any efforts to increase our staff I don't know and I can't really answer that specific question when it comes to you know what's there I'm not aware of any new positions and the governor's proposed budget that he issued in January but you know beyond that I I don't know anything I mean what we are doing I mean the white paper you know certainly and like the outline is is you know delayed but that's because right now it's not the bottleneck the real critical issue they can't be delayed and has to be done is the collection of the samples and the analysis of the samples and that has been completed and been done staff has been deeply involved in that along with dr. Stringfellow and his his group you know so that has been collected as far as task 1 and task 2 we're working to make sure that that's moving forward and I think we're very close to having the consultant that will they will do that but the most critical nature is to collect the samples and today will be the first time in public I believe that we've talked about the latest sampling which is you know or at least talked about the results which includes the almond pistachios and garlic and grapes excuse me I was searching for the last commodity so I don't think a lack of staff has delayed this issue you know it has caused us to prioritize what we what we work on certainly you know from from a staffing standpoint oilfield activities in general are getting a great amount more attention than they did in the past four or five years ago we had about one-and-a-half P wise that covered our entire oilfield program that's person-years the equivalent of one and a half people working on this entire issue related to oilfield activities and last dale because he's actually our regional program manager for oilfield activities how many how many py is do we have now I think we're up to like 22 and a half so we have 22 and a half staff so we're we're more than 10 times more staff than we've had in the past year now that's that's just oilfield money and we have a couple extra staff from other funds to cobble together yeah and that's that's the same funding we had in the past so this this specific oilfield money's come from the division of oil gas and geothermal resources to cover underground injection and sp4 well stimulation activities and then we we have six P Y's that are funded out of what's called the waste discharge or permit fund so I mean you know we've seen a significant increase in staff that has given us the resources to to do what we're doing here and and try to carry on the oilfield program so I do want to say that you know I don't think any anything has been delayed it would have been preferred I would have loved to have had the consultants in place by now but I don't think it's delayed the end result because we needed go through a couple cycles of the the fruit and nuts and stuff actually being available to sample and that only happens once a year so you know Keith I share your frustration at times I want to snap my finger and make everything happen but I think we are we are working along this and and you know like dr. Stringfellow will be presenting information today about the most recent sampling that we've done and you know it just I would have loved to have had this done much quicker but unfortunately it just takes time and it takes excuse me it takes time to be able to collect the samples get the analytical results get the data assess and get it in a format that's ready for a presentation so I just wanted to say that let me uh let me check in I know Keith's got a following but let me just check in on the literature review Dale is there anything more that you want to add there was a question that Keith had asked about literature review no not at this time I mean that's part of the MOU process that we're still working towards good thank you yeah and just let me add Dave real fast that that the literature review is is task 1 that's the task 1 and task 2 which is the literature review and then the toxicological assessment also just well it's it's under item number five I'll talk about item number five one week when we get to it about other things staff are doing related to this activity and making sure that we we do know every single potential chemical that could end up in in the water back to Keith so just to be clear on those issues it's the finalization of the MOU that's hanging up addressing literature review and other stuff in that it's the MOU has been finalized the MOU is signed and was signed several months ago what we're working on now is the actual finalization of the scopes of work that that are completed under the MOU and then I'm a little bit confused about the capacity issue because I heard you in your preface issue that you mentioned that you guys are working on UIC stuff and other oil field matters which seem to indicate that you were doing more pressing things and then afterwards you said you clarified that now you have 22 P wise at least in the oil field program and it sounds like it's not a capacity issue so I'm a bit confused about those two things well let me let me clarify that a little bit then I mean you know one we have a lot more resources than we've had in the past it's caused us to have to go out and spend a lot of time hiring people to make sure we get qualified people and they can be productive and do positive work and then it's it's training people and and all of that takes time to get to exactly where we want to be we do at times for all of our programs have to prioritize what we do and determine what the bottlenecks are what the critical path is to success we all do that and everything we do you know I don't know an organization that couldn't use a few more resources occasionally we're no different than any other organization you know I just want to state that you know as far as the resources that have been provided to the water board you know when you think about where we were a few years ago to where we are now it's really quite astounding that we've been able to get the resources that we get just having been involved with the processes that this takes for quite a while with in the water boards you know there are those paths and and we're making progress and we're trying to make sure that we don't do anything that delays reaching the end result but at the same time prioritizing what provides the most immediate benefit and making sure that the foundation is laid so we can move forward and and get to that end result where we come up with good supportable answers to the primary questions thank you um Keith's got a fall on before I go to him I just wanted to just check in are there any other members of the public that have got any questions or comments under this agenda item four okay so bill anybody else okay so we'll go to Keith and Bill and then we'll move on so I don't know if it's I should know but I haven't read it in a while the MOU whether the soil sampling issue is in that or not so if you can clarify that I know we've raised this before but if you can also clarify that because to a lot of us it seems like that's actually the more critical study that's needed because of course the water is being applied to the soil it's if there's going to be any sort of issues you've one would think that it would be more the whatever chemicals are in the produced water tearing to soil particles so if you can just update us on soil sampling thinking well I let me let me answer this in regards to MOU the MOU lays out the foundation of the agreement between the irrigate errs and the waterboard it basically talks about what the responsibilities of each of the party is and includes this that you know there would be scopes of work that would be negotiated and approved among the individual groups that would between the water boards and the irrigate errs that then would be implemented by the selected consultant where the water boards would oversee the technical work and the ear gaiters would basically pay the bills you know and it talks about the process of doing that and how when additional work is being done that that you know how how that is approved the MOU does not specifically at that time that it was done it contemplated task one two and three with I believe task one being the literature review task to being the toxicological assessment of the chemicals and task three being the sampling of food produce it does not preclude any other additional work that the water boards with input from the expert panel if it's decided that that work needs to be done then we would approach the irrigators and negotiate how to get that done you know but we have a process to go through the advantage of the soil is the soil in going anywhere at least I hope not you know very quickly the biggest issue right now is the fruit itself and that's what we're concentrating on you know to make sure that the fruit doesn't have an issue that would be a problem for consumption you know some of the issues with soils may be long-term research needs that may be actually beyond this panel because this I don't envision this panel being a five or ten year study quite honestly but the primary question that was presented to this panel and the food safety experts and toxicologists is the question of you know is there an issue if somebody eats the fruit or nuts that are grown in areas where this water is used to be completely honest with you and nothing against the panel we all have our strengths if we get into soil sampling in real detail there may need to be some people with particular expertise in soil issues that that would help to advise the board that to be quite honest with you is more in line with the expertise that regional board staff have because it's you know the 20 years I spent in private consulting was spent dealing with groundwater and soil issues and and issues with things like migration of chemicals through soils and also you know perhaps some plant pathologists plant people who talk about specifically how would a plant take up an inorganic since you know I'm assuming that in soil issues we would be talking about primarily you know organic chemical uptake and not organic chemical uptake because most of the organic will degrade readily in the environment or volatilize into the atmosphere and are probably ultimately from a soil uptake issue not long living in the soil and probably would not accumulate but you had a question Keith so when you said that the MOU doesn't preclude tasks that are in it now if the panel were to recommend to staff and the board that soil sampling should be done then that's more likely for it to happen than otherwise would that be correct or accurate well certainly the reason we have the panel put together is to seek the panel's input and it help guide us on how this needs to go so the panel is going to be very influential very influential in recommending to the regional board members and the regional board staff about additional paths that need to be completed bill a Leo and Barb bill a Leo environmental working group here in Sacramento just for a historical perspective and it's not to boast so because I don't think the panel knows the history we really are gratified that so many people are now available and working in this this district in the Central Valley it was January 4th 2011 that I walked into doggers headquarters and talked them said do we frack in California said no we don't need to and that led to a series of things because I knew they were and so things started happening sp4 and then we started looking at underground injection control program one of the things on my list was I've heard about wastewater to food and we saw we're getting through these things it takes time I understand it now we have the new bill a B 1328 which is on today's agenda so but I want to thank you for making that effort I know the money came from dogger but at the first time Andrew Greenberg from Clean Water Action I were here chair Longley and clay thanked us and said they focused a lot on agriculture for the last couple decades and they knew they had work to do in this area and so you as I appreciate that on the issue of panel makeup clean water action in ourselves and a couple other did a sign on letter and sent it to the board months ago now about this what we see is an apparent conflict of interest and now someone has generated a bunch of letters recently I cannot remember what the response to that is how the board how the food safety panel is constituted is there I don't think there are formal bylaws and so is there going to be an action on that because I saw no response in when Dale or no if I guess clay brought it out no Dave Dave read that so anyway is there a response to that yet yeah I'll I'll provide a response and certainly I'll let dr. Longley Roger Brevard members weigh in in Stephanie you from the office of chief counsel I mean we did look at what we considered viable potential conflicts of panel members you know because that's the big issue for us are conflicts and we also looked at the fact that we need a wide breadth we looked very clearly at the expertise of the individual members you know people that had been suggested to us people that we were aware of and you know making sure that we had the right agencies and people that had expertise in food safety since that's an area that regional board staff ourselves are not we don't have that expertise it's it's really outside our realm but we feel a responsibility to try and address it if it is even if it isn't our direct regulatory responsibility you know we knew dr. Jones had or mark had worked on excuse me mark I don't think you have a pH deedy okay not yet but mark mark we were aware that mark had done work with well it was actually crc i believe is is is who he had done work and to be honest with you we had looked at the work that he had done we had talked to other people that had seen the work the work we thought was a good technical piece of work done with the data presented it wasn't presented in a biased fashion and that's our biggest issue is that you know we wanted to have a group that represented all the stakeholders that was diverse and had the expertise that we needed mark we knew had done consulting in the past but we felt that you know his qualifications his expertise his knowledge in the subject was beneficial and he was one member of the panel and no one single member of the panel is going to control the results of the panel with dr. peterson you know she had been recommended to us we looked at her area of expertise the work that she had done with the World Health Organization and her knowledge of food safety experience and expertise in that area isn't shared by a lot of people and certainly not people that we could get to be a part of this effort and her input and knowledge I believe is critical to coming down to the right answers at the end of the day I believe we all have the same desired outcome of this project and that is is that we want to be able to demonstrate we want to know if the food is safe to use consumed by humans if there are issues with that what are the issues and I stated very early on that you know that's the regional boards intent we want to know that the food is safe I can pretty much guarantee you that the ear Gators have to know that the food is safe because they're the ones that are actually have the greatest you know have a huge amount of risk you know I grew up on a farm where you know I can tell you almost all the fruit I ate was fruit that was grown on the farm that I grew up on you know they probably consumed more of that fruit than you know some of the landowners consumed more of that fruit than anybody so they have their own personal safety issues but also you know no food producer can be in a position where the food that they produce isn't safe that's a that's a route for a disaster you know we want to know what the absolute truth is to know whether you know one is there a direct issue with with the fruit that and nuts that are grown I'm pretty sure dr. Mazzara and and Steven beam share those concerns too because you know they're part of the agencies that probably are actually responsible for food safety in the state of California so they have a very vested interest in coming to the right answer one if if there's something that needs to be changed about how we do this that it's still a good practice but it would be better if we changed it a little bit we certainly want to know what that is so this can be done as well as it can be done and if there's a problem we want to stop it you know that's part of the reason why you know we want to make sure that we don't go so fast that we leave data gaps that we leave holes in in what's done and be as comprehensive and thorough as we can be so we come up with the best answer at the end of the day bill but I mean I think we all want to make sure that what's being done is the right thing to be done water is also a very valuable commodity in Kern County you know I can tell you coming from Fresno where we've had about a inch of rain so far this year it's going to be an even more valuable commodity probably by the end of by by the middle of summer if the atmospheric River or whatever we want to call it doesn't open up and and we start getting a snowpack in the southern Sierra you know so it it assists the economic driver it allows lands to be used it makes our water supply more sustainable and so there are benefits from the use of this water that we don't want to take away unless there's a very good reason to take it away it meets most of the drinking water standards some of the arsenic is a little bit high but the water quality for the most part is probably every bit as good or better than than much of the irrigation water that's currently being used in in California let me know we're in the we're in the process I'll wrap up Dave so we can go but you know I'll ramble on for another 30 seconds you know we're in the process and I'll talk about it under number five making sure that we know all the chemicals and getting the test done so that you know there's that one nagging little unanswered question that I very much want to get answered as quickly as we can you know as far as it goes back to the panel you know I will tell you I had a lot of complaints about dr. shonkoff being part of the panel that he was biased in his approach and my comment was I need a panel that represents everybody I want dr. shonkoff on the panel because he represents a different view it is valuable to be presented and be a part of the panel the one panel member we had that's no longer a panel member is dr. Stringfellow because all of a sudden you know he was going to be on the panel and reviewing his own personal work as our science advisor and that was not appropriate for the panel for him to be involved at that level but you know as the science advisor and also preparing the reports and presenting the data that will be presented so you know we've we've heard the we've heard the complaints there is no current effort underway to ask any of the panel members to no longer be a part of the panel member they are a diverse set that represent a wide range of interests and activities in the state and we think with a diverse set of interests and activities and hearing everybody's viewpoint we actually come up with the best solutions to the to the questions so I mean that's where we are it may not be where we are tomorrow but that's that's at least where I am today and I think I think clay has done a good job of summarizing long summary summarizing the the direction we've gone on on assembling this panel it's it's a distinguished group of people they do represent a wide diverse interests but at the same time we're very transparent about what we're doing transparency is important here and I might point out that it's difficult to find there are a lot of individuals that on this panel for their own reasons it's pro bono panel you know and but the point is is that they don't necessarily have the kind of in-depth expertise in the areas that we're looking to be able to address this problem and I think I think clay Rogers did a fine job and pointing out the thinking that we went through and why we're at where we are right now let me let me check in one last time with members the public any any other comments or questions at this time yes okay all right so we have one email coming in as Rebecca's booting that up I'll I'll give just a response as well and with the caveat hopefully bill you know that it's in neutral my job is to be neutral but as the facilitator for this group both in the public settings that they have that you are with them and then when they do have working sessions and we've always made you be aware when those working sessions aren't provided you notes now once is this panel and my observation ever gotten any kind of loggerheads they not want is it no one says any one of these members ever tried to steer other members towards something they work in a highly collegial with the utmost of professionalism manner with each other and you know going through that the technical issues that they've been asked to address that's I can tell you that as the neutral we have two emails from the public the first one is from Deb workman and she says hello please note that one of my questions listed on the November meeting report was not answered I asked about radioactive compounds other than norms that were used as radiotracers and oilfield operations that may be present in the recycled produced water being used for agriculture I want to know whether these compounds are being studied by the panel the response to my question was about farmers not about the use and fate of radiotracers in oil field operations please respond to my question so let's I'm going to look to - doctor string fell in a minute but let me well let's go to you now we'll go ahead and respond to that and then we'll come back to the next letter so the short answer is we are considering it there is they under the information that's released under the disclosures is which I believe is a B 1328 okay so the short answer is yes we're looking at that there's under the both what was done before with some orders plus the new regulations and laws the oil companies that are using chemicals on the field including any kind of radioactive tracers have to report that use and we will evaluate that reported use in to my memory at this moment there hasn't been significant use of those tracers there was I'm going to actually talk about a little bit later I think there was some xenon tracer that was used and there's a lot of reasons to believe that's not a concern and in water but the we are looking at that and will continue to investigate that aspect the next email comes from Chris Valdez Valdez from the California fresh-fruit Association and he says on behalf of the California fresh-fruit Association I write to express the following at present the link between a known hazard and the likelihood of adulteration does not appear to have been established as evidence thus far from the series of uptake studies and literature acknowledged by the panel so we encourage the panel to move forward and produce the white paper answering the primary food safety questions if there exists an interest and further reason to conduct research in other areas which fall outside of the direct scope of the quality of produced water and its effect of on the food safety irrigated with this water then such interest should be clearly framed for its Nexus to the discharge permit or more specific it's use as a source of water for irrigating crops and the role of the regional board to approve or not approve in its permit conditions irrigation use as an appropriate end use of this water if the research interest is beyond any casual framework for the food safety questions that has been opened by the panel then please do not allow interest to delay the work of this panel from moving forward to produce its opinion over whether produced water creates a food safety concern to human health in the actual food that is consumed thank you Thank You Rebecca okay we had it's gonna have to be brief Keith cuz we're not that we have to move on so we're gonna go to Keith and then we had another board member join us I'd like her to introduce herself and they're gonna move on so very quickly on the radio possible radioactivity issue I got an article yesterday didn't read through it carefully or closely but that in Pennsylvania there was a study that showed that radioactive materials were accumulating in soil sediments over a number of years it was not only from fracking but also from enhanced oil recovery techniques so what I'll do I guess is forward that to clay and Dale and maybe he can distribute that to the pound thank you good morning everyone my apologies for running a little behind the fog got the best of me I drove up this morning from Bakersfield and I'm looking forward to spending the day with you thank you thank you all right so with this I'm going to move ourselves back to item three and I'm gonna hand it over to dr. strengthen and we've got the part you do under a break okay let's all right break go okay okay so we're gonna need to pull the presentation up it's a whereas it was it on that computer sorry okay we're taking a break that's what I meant to say earlier I don't the rest of it was just madness on my part we're taking a five-minute break all right we're taking a five-minute break we will begin at 10:00 after 11:00 sharp one of the problems we're fighting today is that there's a backbone that our system is on and so far the internet system and they had some problems with around here but they've been working in fact they've been working a long time before this meeting started to try to try to resolve that issue so okay my thanks to the guys that have been gals I've been working so hard to make this thing no I I mean we have it up and running and we've got to work around so it's you know the only thing as I said to Alex is people don't see the bolts or I don't have to see my bald spot on the webcast so that I'm fine with this actually all right we now have a three minute break picture of moderation okay let's go ahead and get started please if the members could please take their seats Gabrielle by the way did you join us I know we have ken ken you're still with us but dr. Ludwig did you join us on the call all right okay we're gonna go ahead and get started well you are on is your mic on yep there we go okay sorry a few minutes late this morning it seems like everybody found something to do to amuse themselves so what I want to do well you're gonna need to get pretty close to the microphone so it boom Thanks what I want to do today is go over all of the data that was collected in 2017 and give a summary of that data and some context for analysis and we did talk a little bit about some of this on the phone and I got some good feedback from the panel which I've incorporated in this presentation so what I wanted let's see there's easy way to do this okay what I'm going to do is just give a description of the sampling and the methods I'm calling everything at this point preliminary because we need to make sure we go back and forth and get a lot of eyes on this data we'll see there's a lot of data and a lot of potential different ways to interpret it so we present the results in preliminary context and then some discussion of those results especially critical parts of the results and then talk about what's going on next so sampling has been completed in 2017 it was a really full sampling set as we'll see the procedure for sampling as we there's a little bit redundant as things we've talked about before but I want to make sure we're thorough is samples were collected by a contract ampler which in this case was advanced environmental concepts incorporated they collected I believe all of the samples except for a set that was collected in the current Tulare water district of citrus early in the year there was oversight provided for the sampling and the shipping with the Regional Board in particular staff were there during the sample collection and were also took possession of the samples at the site and then arranged for them to be direct shipped to the analytical lab which was wek laboratories which is a state certified analytical lab that also has experience doing fruit analysis Berkeley National Laboratory and myself and some people work for me also provided some oversight and some split sampling for archiving but most of the oversight was actually provided by the Regional Board so the actual sampling events in 2017 if you look at the bottom of the screen here if this pointer works is that there were ten sampling sites I think it is since ten sampling days that went out there was a collection of all of the major crops and perhaps all the crops grown in a koala water district and in the region including a citrus which were lemons and oranges and mandarins which for the purposes of data analysis we pooled that data we looked at garlic there's particular interest in garlic almonds grape and pistachio and all of these harvests were done approximately when we would expect the fruit to be picked or actually when the fruit was being picked for being you know harvested and taken to market the picture show a few dis points of interest that samples are collected by hand you can see the gloved hand and then this is a piece of garlic there was some processing for the garlic and that the root mass was was clipped with a clippers can somewhat be seen here with that photograph and it shows the type of samples of collect did with oranges in a jar here's some garlic and pistachios I believe and they you know there were some questions that came about the handling of the samples at each site there might be more than one jar collected representing that sample and then those samples when their ship to the lab they might they would be composited in one sample I explained that a little bit more this picture also shows just collection from the trees is done by hand and there's a clipper use so it's not that fruit or being pulled off and bruised or otherwise abused before they're put in the jar and you'll notice that we didn't just mash the oranges down into the jar they're put in his whole fruit the sampling was extensive in 2017 samples were collected it controlled and treated sites the treated sites are referred to as the sites that have received some produced water and again the amount of produced water used is a fraction of the total water supply in the region and then the control sites are from sites outside the water districts that are believed to be farmed using similar practices and they are receiving water just from other sources such as service water and groundwater there were approximately 110 samples collected including some duplicate samples twenty duplicates so we hit approximately 90 80-something sites the map here the black outlines are the two water districts the Co ellos the larger water district current Larry uses some produced water in some parts of that district and those were sampled we can see four different fruit the color code show pistachio grape excuse me grape garlic is the the red people are particularly concerned or fuchsia particularly concerned about garlic then the citrus yellow and the almonds or the pink and we can see that there's a very intensive covering of sampling in the cawelo water district and then reference sites are selected all over the bow for reference sirs Bakersfield Wasco and Delano just so you can get an idea of the it's a large range in a large area we're looking at these samples once they're collected they are shipped under by the water board and staff over to this certified contract laboratory what laboratories the just to make sure we're 100% clear that the analysis is performed on the edible portion of the fruit and the samples are received by the laboratory they're opened the for example the orange is extracted and then peeled and it's a peeling of the rhein there is still some of the white material which would be the refer to as the mesocarp that may still remain on the orange that's considered the edible part for a nut for example they would remove the shells and then analyze the the meat or the seed the selection of analyses that we looked at were analysis for known contaminants of concern and the petroleum industry I'm gonna dr. shonkoff in particular but other members the panel wanted discussion about what wasn't measured and we'll cover that with the update on the citrus report but the logic behind this to begin with was that we're looking at petroleum reuse and petroleum industry water so we weren't going to dis limit ourselves to what was found in sampling of the irrigation water we're gonna take a more comprehensive look again and I'll talk a little bit about it is the MOU needs the part on the literature review we really want to get that executed so we can make sure we're covering everything we should but from experience people have in the field of how you know industrial waste and also with oil and gas industry in general we think we have a very you know comprehensive list for what's the most important compounds that is comes down to 26 organic compounds of requested including things such as poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons so-called be tax which includes things like benzene and toluene ethylbenzene we also added some compounds of carbon Saul and peretta diene which have been found in Canadian waste waters in particular from the oil and gas industry there was acetone and methanol was specifically asked for because they had been found at some point in monitoring of petroleum waste waters in particularly in open canals this I'm emphasizing that there are compounds that we know are associated with oil and gas those are the ones where it's particularly interested in looking at but as the nature of the analyses that we're doing there's a number of other compound organic compounds that are also included which include things like chlorinated solvents a lot of miscellaneous volatile and semi-volatile organic sit will run into a few those today when we're discussing that are that show up in materials and we'll discuss whether they're natural or not but they are can be found they're not necessarily on our target list of things we normally associate with oil and gas industry in addition to that we are analyzing for 18 different metals we're using total metal concentration which is considered a conservative analysis and these metals are based not only on the oil and gas industry in particular but our metals that are routinely monitored on you know EPA screening lists for industrial waste waters because these are kind of materials that you get concerned about if they're in too high concentration and I'll discuss some about that in particular as we go okay just to be thorough so there are several different methods were applied at no little expense to the Water District we're looking at alcohols by at-15 D the semi volatile organic compounds by EPA method 80 to 70 see which pick up a few of the odds and ends and Biss to ethoxide hexyl for phthalates got all the list from reasons that are not exactly clear to me but it is a really common plasticizer so it's not necessarily associated with the oil and gas industry at all then there's this SEM about organics which is a method that's 8270 si si M which means single ion monitoring and I'm getting this detail because it becomes important when I try to explain some things later the single ion monitoring method is a selective method for poly nuclear Matic hydrocarbons which are as I'm sure most people know are one of the more problematic type of compounds that are found in oil and gas waste waters they tend to persist more than a lot of other organics their potential to accumulate so these are one things we definitely want to look at this is a sensitive and specific method for those P ages including things like naphthalene then there's also a more general volatile organic carbon excuse me bottle organic compounds by EPA 80 to 60 B which is what is used generally for monitoring gasoline spills and other hydrocarbons associated pollutants in groundwater and in other samples soil samples etc including fruit in our case and that that's the analysis that also includes things like chlorinated solvents and a lot of other materials that are not being used on oil fields but really common in contaminate groundwater in particular the metals were done by two different methods and I won't get into too many details about it but there's the 80 to the 60 20 a and the 60 20 B there's very similar analysis but they're different ways to process the data and that gives us different sensitivities for the analysis depending on which metal so there's some overlap between those two methods as to which metals are measured but in the end between the two methods all of the metals on that list are measured there's a specific list just for the record of compounds that were specifically associated with oil and gas I'll be glad to answer any questions about that if anybody has and then this is the lists of the inorganics metals and we'll come back to this as we go okay so looking at this starting to move on to the results so the measurements were made for the analysis of 108 organic inorganic compounds so I kind of like to put this number up because it does show that there's a lot of Associated data if you look at a you know 100 plus samples with 108 different analyses associated you get quite a few lines of data that need to be vetted and edited of those so part of my purpose today is I can't go into every detail about every little thing so I'm gonna pick highlights if people want me to come back and get into details about anything in particular be glad to address that either here other places to get you know start to do a little bit of a triage so we get I think what more important points is they first of all to say that there are only 16 compounds or elements that were detected in any of the crop samples so all of the things like chlorinated solvents a lot of the different other materials it might be measured by different analyses those materials were not found in the samples so we can get into details about what wasn't found probably at another conversation of those 16 compounds six inorganic compounds were found including barium copper molybdenum nickel strontium and zinc and there were 10 organic compounds that were found and I want to go through each one of these individually so I won't read out all of the names and we'll talk a little bit about each compound but a lot of these we've seen before were discussed because they were involved in the citrus analysis so again with considering a triage approach and we've done a lot of analysis in trying to make this digestible I'm doing the best job I can I hope so again if people feel like I'm especially the public feels like I'm breezing over something I'll be glad to invest to talk about it more thoroughly but to get through today without spending three hours doing this of the organic analytes found I've categorized some would I consider low in interest in the context of the oil field food safety study ok there of low interest because of the following reasons found methanol it was found in in one sample it was a control sample and was a garlic control sample so the fact that it was only found one sample means there's not a lot of statistical analysis we can do with it the meaning of that is could be anything could be just a blip in the laboratory could be a contamination issue it's hard doesn't have a lot of significance in terms of the context of people eating we have found phenol it's also found in control samples so it's not really our purview because it's there's some other thing going on it's the control area with the other way water is not the produced water we found phenol in one control sample that was found a citrus sample same rationale as for methanol we found sec-butyl benzene in one treated sample which was citrus again because it's only found in one sample it was found in a treated sample I certainly you know we were cognizant of that and looking forward to show up in other materials it hasn't showed up in the whole year with a hundred almost 100 samples taken so right now it's on the back burner in terms of any concerns about that the BIST to ethyl hexyl v al 8 was found it was found in a garlic control it was found in a grate that both of control and treated and was found in a pistachio was treated that material is not specifically related to oil and gas industry it is associated with plastics and potentially even plastic neoprene excuse me nitrile type gloves I have to look into that a little bit it's really common in the environment we make plastics so many things out of plastics it's certainly something to be concerned about in terms of a general environmental food issue but the fact that it's found in both controls entreated it's really common sort of extraneous contaminant from modern society I put it on the we're not that particularly interested in it today list but if people want to pursue that more but I would say the fact that it's found both controls and treated means it's not really in our purview then the next triage step is to talk about organic analytes that were found and we're largely discussed discussed previously so we can go back over things I've done in previous meetings but I think everybody's at least on the panel's got a lot of familiarity with that the first being the one to four tribe methyl benzene it was found in citrus both treated and controls which first of all tells you that it's not necessarily it's not related directly to produce water then with further investigation we were able to determine that it was a false positive meaning that the there was an interference from a compound naturally occurring terpene compound they really confused the instrument and let it think that it was seen try methyl benzene when it was actually seeing a terpene we found acetone and that's been found in citrus garlic pistachios and both treating controls it's naturally occurring in fruit and we can discuss more and I think in another meeting perhaps about what the significance of it is but it's related to fruit ripening it's related to fruit degradation it's very common in Burma in the environment under this context it's just not a high priority right now although it will be obviously continued to be analyzed in a complete analysis of that done but we've talked a lot about it in the last meeting about how these are you know since a present both control and treated and it's a common ripening material we're not really going to spend a lot of time talking about today we found P isopropyl toluene which is also called simon een ass I mean excuse me it's found in citrus it's not on our list of compounds that are particularly associated with the oil and gas industry it's naturally occurring in fruit after more literature investigation would be kind of unusual if we didn't find it in an orange so that's in a way a positive thing that shows that our analysis is being thorough we did find a false positive naphthalene in a citrus it was found about treating controls it was found with this 80 to 60 B method which is why I digressed and explained a little bit about the two different methods this is a very nonspecific method and it's more for this compound it's got a higher detection limit so it's not as sensitive the same samples were also run on this 80 to 70 C single line monitoring method which is specific to nappa lean it's much higher sensitivity they were as no naphthalene found so there naphthalene is a very common pollutant out in the air pollutant out in the valley so it could possible I wouldn't say that it wasn't ever found in the 80 to 60 B method but it's not showing up except in that one set of analyses it was run and the method that's very specific and thorough didn't find it so under this context right now were that's really all we have to say about it so we can look at it more if people want to moving on to the compounds that are new to the panel that we found some results for I'm wondering what I'm going to do now with a series of slides that go forward we're going to see very similar types of information it's gonna on the left side there it's going to talk about what the samples the the compound was found in whether it was in treated and controls we look at the statistics of those differences usually some information on how many of the samples he was actually found in that's also indicative of levels of contamination for example and it has to do with the nonparametric analysis that we'll talk about more later so for this compound and then on the right side we have these graphics which people are starting to get used to which are a plot of the actual data was showing means and standard deviations with a box plot the control is going to be on the left side of the x-axis and the treatment on the right and all of the slides and you can see the level or concentrations of the compound versus the the treated versus and controls and I want to point out for this analysis yes well you're showing the the detection 8 out of the 24 how are those distributed I think it's pretty even I'd have to I'd have to double-check I've got a cheat sheet over there I can show I think it shows up on the graph if you look at the graph the ones that are above zero or the detects so to me it looks like there's three from the control and five yeah it's a little bit miss lean because some may be on top of each other because they're I think they're 12 yeah there if you look at the bottom now this isn't gonna be on all of them they're kind of put in as a sheet cheat sheet for me but there's 12 of each sample and so we got three yeah so you got so no I'm okay so we got your right mark did you really take it off the chart you got three out of 12 here and you got 5 out of 12 over here okay so the treated there were 5 out of 12 that were positive thank you I see how to read okay the y-axis is parts per billion it's microgram yeah and I'm the way the program puts things out it does that they say sorry the units for the organics are micrograms per milligram excuse me per kilogram and then when we talk about the metals it's milligrams per kilogram so two hex alone again it's not on our list of compounds not known to be associated with the oil and gas industry it is found in both the treated and controls they're not statistically different which I won't show this table this was more a reminder to explain what happens is we're looking at with this analysis we do a statistical test to see you know whether they're really different on a you know significantly different one thing just to point out for this analysis I use zero when we got a non detect I called it a zero and we talked about this previously I can't remember if it was in the public forum or in the some of the other meetings technical meetings we had but there's other ways to analysis with the non detect using the lower detection limit I'll talk a little bit about that later but for the purposes of I think clarity to in a public forum you know not to add confusion that if it's wasn't found it just wasn't found I'm calling a zero but the results I'm getting ahead of myself I did other analyses and it's not showing any kind of difference from what we're seeing here so this compound because it's found in treating controls it hasn't been my first priority I'm suspicious it's probably a naturally occurring by definition that it's found in control that would suggest it's naturally occurring it's definitely not our target list so we're gonna continue to look into this as I talk about some action items as we go forward but right now there's no difference between treating controls and it was found only in grapes the next compound is a compound called acrolein or acrolein depending on what part of the country you come from it was found in grapes garlic and garlic and we can see there two box the two plots they're showing the concentration differences this is the treated and there's the control and again the treated and the control it was only found in the grapes in 3 out of 24 samples in the garlic it was found in all of the samples but there's even though there's a little bit higher levels in the treated there's not a statistical difference between the treating controls for this compound we I've spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks trying to investigate more about this compound it's definitely a compound that's used in industrial processes it's definitely a compound that has been reported be used on oil fields but it is also a common degradation product for oils and we where at least I think we all know that garlic can be kind of oily it's a common compound for combustion that it's a combustion by-product so we're going to continue investigate this further but it looks more like its natural compound and I did there may be weather we've found the first people to document that it occurs pretty regularly and garlic so that's pushing back the scientific envelope on that but we're not gonna I mean we'll continue to look at it but at this point it looks like garlic contains a colon moving completely different so I don't know if there's particular questions about the organics at this point that people want to stop me or I'll just keep rolling but I'm gonna go on to start talking about the inorganic compounds okay so with the inorganic compounds and again you know I just keep calling up limit results because we need to go through everything a bunch of times and make sure everybody's on board with my interpretations but the polymer results for copper is copper is point out as a trace nutrient it's required for growth both plants and humans so it's not surprising to find copper in food stuffs we see here a little change of pace on the tables is on the left side we see the results for this material copper and again this time actually put the unit's did milligrams per kilogram this is the mean and the standard deviation for that crop whether it's a controller treated that's the number of samples that were actually taking the number of detects from that the mean actual concentration found with standard deviations and then the results of the statistical test whether it was significantly different or not so in almonds the control and the treated they're both around seven milligrams per kilogram and there's no difference between those two sample sets of samples citrus in contrast there's there was not all the samples were found with copper but more were found under control than the treated and the concentrations found tended to run higher so yes there is a significant difference here between the citrus and we can see this group it's graphically shown here well we do see though is that the controls the one that's higher so this is going to become important when we start interpreting other materials or other elements is that there is some variation that's occurring here they is obviously not related to produce water it's related to something else so there is a significant amount of variation then it can occur so to reach the punchline with copper we've got higher concentrations in the controls in general in both the pistachio and the citrus and we'll get into the details of this more but copper is should be in your foods you need it as a nutrient as long as you don't have too high concentration and there's no indication these are high concentrations or above normal then that's something that's not of concern at this point we looked at molybdenum the story there's there is no story there it's also a trace nutrient it was found here and there it's really occurred low levels in natural systems so the types of analyses that you're looking at into they're not really specific analysis for trying to determine this material in a really clean system they're looking more kind of analysis used for what you expect to be a little dirtier so the fact that we really didn't see much molybdenum it's not a surprise it's a good good thing zinc also is a trace nutrient it's involved with some enzymatic activity so again it's something you'd expect to find in a living plant and then foods that you eat the zinc if we look through I'm not sure everybody can read that but we have the you know almonds citrus garlic grape and pistachios there's zinc found in most of the the samples that were taken the levels of zinc were the same between the different crops except in the case of pistachio where the zinc was slightly higher in the control than in the treated so again showing that there is variation that can occur it's got nothing to do with produced water causing any kind of change in concentration I don't think we'd be sitting here and saying produced water reduces in content same thing for nickel to finish up with the trace nutrients the this is nickels needed for growth it was only found you can see the red highlights is where the different ones numbers that were significantly different and you can see in the graphic here they was found more frequently in the control samples than the treated from a nonparametric approach also that would imply that it's got a higher concentrations and but there's nothing on these levels of concentration that suggests anything's miss yes it's just a minor question but it appears that the boxplot indicates that there was a sample below zero in the treated is there any no that's that's kind of statistical that's standard deviation that's okay okay so it's just calculating it what that also says that number isn't different than zero and again this measured the way I calculated this data it comes up with zero we if we did it with the lower detection limit it would come you know it would look like it's less than I think it was a point one milligram per liter 0.05 milligrams per liter excuse me milligrams per kilogram okay so now getting to the part that is a little bit trickier in my mind because I don't want to I want to bring it to everybody's attention but not get over reaction from people there's two other we looked at barium and selenium and I'll show the slides on that so what we've done before these are there are heavy metals there potentially you know copper nickel potentially our environmental pollutants but they're also trace nutrients now the next two materials I'm doing they're not trace nutrients but they are naturally occurring in the environment okay so the first one is barium it's also a material that is used in well construction for oil and gas fields but I think it's also used in well construction for Ag wells it's so it is somewhat associated with oil and gas industry we looked at the barium concentrations in in this case again almond citrus garlic grape pistachios control over treated and to make a long story short and several of the food and crops in particular almonds garlic and pistachio we found that the concentration of barium was slightly higher than the concentration found in the corresponding control samples that that data is shown graphically here where we see that there's a grouping on the treated this is the almonds tend to be a little bit higher in the treated areas than in the control areas and again this is the Garlic higher in the treated than the control areas now before we discuss over interpretation the data let's talk about the strontium data again this is a natural element it's associated with ground waters and other soils and things like that it's non essential nutrient and we found also when we looked at strontium we found that it was in some cases in this case citrus and grape it Trin's higher I think that's no that is garlic okay so in citrus the garlic and the grape it tends higher in the treated areas than the control areas from my point of view this is it's not alarming but it's certainly worth investigating further looking at accumulation of materials or higher levels of nutrients in one area than the other but I want to you know just for the public forum is it there's nothing alarming about the concentrations that are found in crops what I think is worth looking at is if there is some trend that's being observed we need to think about that and look at you know whether there are some implications of that and I'll talk a little bit about that so I have my opinions and then the panel is gonna have to interpret data the way they want to I want to emphasize that the concentration of all the compounds that we've tested are within acceptable ranges for safe consumption although as I mentioned going forward I'm looking forward to the literature review of the mou let's make this more thorough because everything in this context right now is a little bit preliminary what I put up here to state drive home this point which is again a preliminary analysis it's not been peer-reviewed yet so it's just one of many approaches to look at food safety is that we have here the the crop widths it Triss grape garlic almond pistachio two different elements barium and strontium in each crop these are the concentrations we found in the controls and the treated and these are so these are milligrams per kilogram if you looked at this material for instance barium if you were eating a lot of barium the amount of you'd have to eat to get sick is equivalent to eating - you'd have to have a piece of fruit that has 3000 milligrams per kilogram in it in order to you know under normal fruit consumption to get sick or not even get sick just to reach a level where it's fine where it's accepted perfectly well accepted by the regulatory agencies so the concentrations were looking at based on this analysis were thousands of times lower this one is twenty two thousand times lower than anything they would even remotely make a piece of fruit something that the European regulatory agencies for example might say oh you can't import this fruit this analysis against preliminary but it's just trying to you know put it into context especially for the public that this is not a big deal on a short-term issue but as an environmental scientist having done a lot of work in industrial ways I just do not think you want to just completely blow it off either we need to consider it carefully what is that the implications for that in terms of long term usage of this land and this this water source obviously barium strontium could be coming from a lot of different places than just produced water for one thing so just to make sure we get the context for this so very mister auntie Armour naturally-occurring elements their difference in the treating control cops crops but they could be reflective of natural differences in the soils at the different areas it could be effective agricultural practices you know they could be doing some kind of land application with different kinds of fertilizer might have this material in it for example there could be just natural variation and I point out the fact that nickel zinc and copper were all higher in control areas nobody's trying to say that's because they didn't use produce water and it could be though a subtle effect from different source waters including produce water but not necessarily produce water and that's something as you know though my science adviser I just want to point that out that that needs to be considered going forward how are we going to approach you know what we're you know everybody's interested in coming up with final answers and good answers so what the plan is going forward at this point we are planning a complete full second year of sampling analysis now this is actually the third year because it's this is two years of independent data collection and again there was also a prior year to that that was done by the water districts without oversight from the board we're continuing to go ahead and collect all of the crops that were collected the prior year in 2017 and including garlic assuming anybody plants garlic this year we're going to go ahead and particularly to address the barium and strontium questions is we're gonna start investigating soil conditions and other factors there potentially influencing these elemental concentrations as clays mentioned several times there's a lot of things going on besides between the soil the water the water the soil the tree and the fruit there's a lot of need this is you know emphasize again the need for this MOU work is trying to look at really understand the context of what's going on on the physiological level of the tree but what we're looking at is also starting off with a geographical information service type analysis sorry system geographical information system type analysis and looking at water chemistry and soil chemistry data that's existing and seeing if we you know it may be that when we do soil maps we'll just see that the areas that are in Coelho have higher barium and their soils than areas outside based on natural deposits so we're gonna start off there there's been talk about doing soil studies if they're warranted and I think there are some good comments on what's the context for that and where you know would what's under what purpose we do these things we're also moving forward with continued investigation the oilfield chemicals as a potential source of organic contaminants there's gonna be new disclosure information coming out so we're gonna be addressing that there are a couple of questions about what we haven't done I will have another short presentation on the so called citrus report and we started looking at part of the response reviewer comments was addressing what isn't being measured so we're gonna get you know moving forward in these areas I'm really looking forward to the start of these so-called MoU projects there are two tasks that the test three is the sampling that's moving forward one way or another no matter what I'm hoping they were pushing forward for this task 1 and test 2 under the MOU which again which I think we don't want to wait any longer we have to look into selection of chemicals of interest for further evaluation we've come up with our list and that and I'll talk some more about this in the next sector section but we need to go back and revisit this now is the time to make sure we're covering all the bases the so that includes the analysis of the oils field disclosures I'm hopeful on that scope of work and then the tests to the literature review and produced water in agriculture we really need to get that started because it's a little bit of musing moving target because we also want to consider things like barium and strontium and plant uptake of different materials so it's you know it can be a pretty significant body work and we're doing a little bit of ad hoc right now and I'd like to be a little more systematic about that so I'm pretty excited that that's going to move forward and that's all I really had to present today it's a lot of material I'm trying to you know really boil it down to something digestible [Music] answer any questions or come back with a better analysis next time if it's too much too short so as I as I'd said prior to going to this presentation I wanted to ask and request that we do some hard stops to accommodate different people that have got some other responsibilities they have a lunch so we are very short you know up coming up on noon so I'm gonna go ahead and open up the floor for the panel to start some inquiry members of the public we will come back after lunch and we will continue with panel discussion and certainly open the floor for public comment as well but so for right now let me first go to the panel questions or comments Seth go ahead well great great work on that too I think pretty easy straightforward questions one is this the measure of strontium that was being used is it I assume it's not strontium 90 which is a radioactive element deposited mostly via atmosphere is it stable strontium or is it some composite total strontium it presumably it's stable strontium and except for like you say there's a small trace amount that's present we haven't really done any analysis to look at that but it does bring up the point that there are ways to do more thorough analysis on strontium that might help give a fingerprint as to where it came from yeah yeah and the other is so I really appreciated you laying out how are the numbers of compounds that you chose to include and how you whittled them down to 16 how does the hundred and eight compounds that you started with compared to the compounds disclosed under the 13 267 order can I answer that question with my next presentation absolutely directly answer that or address that question okay other questions comments from the panel at this time yeah hold on a second bill let me see Barbara and then I'll come to you bill but I want to talk about the food consumption data that we use for doing the exposure assessment but I think maybe after lunch is better so we'll talk about food consumption who've done some food consumption that exactly all right thank you okay let's go to bill really quickly Phil alio environmental working group I notice metal not tested for looked at is boron which is naturally occurring in large amounts in the in this part of the valley and killed a lot of almond trees a few years back when there are resources wastewater pond got into these almond trees so why not boron second is that risk-based comparison and those thousands of parts or milligrams per kilogram who sets that it's obviously not an MCL a drinking water standard Thanks yeah so we'll go ahead and answer that and then we're gonna go to the break for lunch [Music] so the question was why didn't we do boron hey well let me let me add something to that real quick I think the primary reason we didn't include boron is because boron usually doesn't end up being a human health issue it's an agricultural issue it's an issue in the source water because before you get to boron in concentrations that my understanding would be a problem with the fruit you're gonna kill the crops and so it's really a self limiting factor for the farmers themselves I mean we can confirm that as part of the literature review but but my understanding is is that that's the issue with the boron is that yeah it's it's actually more toxic to plants than it is to normally to us so it becomes a self limiting issue really for the the agricultural interests if they use borer you use water with too much boron they won't last long yeah let's see I'd like to talk about that after lunch for because there there's a lot of ways to skin that cat and I think it's a good conversation to have alright so we've got that in our notes we'll come back to that then alright so we are at noon ordinarily we do a one-hour lunch does that work for everybody yep okay we will reconvene right up one o'clock and now a question is will let me just check in really quick fast and panel any reason to be concerned that by convening at 1:00 we will not have enough time to have a hard stop at 3:00 okay then well then we're gonna go with that I just wanted cuz like I said there are several people that I know I've got a hard stop at three so okay we will start right at 1 o'clock promptly thank you yeah oh and for folks here in the room CCP we're gonna be here all meeting long or dogs so if you want to leave anything we're gonna be here so yeah we'll be playing here all week lost room let's go ahead and get started do we still have Ken clock on the phone can you with us awesome right Gabrielle were you ever able to join us today nope okay alright so we're gonna go ahead and open up the floor I know some folks couldn't come back after lunch unfortunately but um IPE had spoken with clay quite a bit so let me I know clay were you gonna sort of sort of mention into the public record so to speak some of that discussion that you were having with some folks that couldn't stay after lunch or was they did not need to be done that one well I don't know that they mention anything they need to be introduced into the public record some stakeholders that have some concerns and all right well let's go back to the so will was there anything else that you needed to from a presentation perspective cover or now we're just going into open discussion okay well let's let's I mean they'll come back to the panel then on just the first part so opening the floor again with the panel any further questions or comments and then I will go back to the public to close out from any questions or comments on this and then we'll come back to will for the second part so going to the panel first comments questions concerns anything you want raised are we go ahead please about to talk about is neither the concern or questions but go using this data now to go forward and do an assessment of consumer exposures and I don't know maybe that's your part to will is that the second presentation no I'm a little confused as to having seen some powerpoints with exposure on it my my specialty is food consumption as you know and I think that's why I was asked to help with this project and I do have easy and ready access to consumption estimates for these commodities and they are the same data that comes from the national food consumption survey and I've used that for the last 30 years developing software for both EPA and for FDA to do similar types of exposure assessments so if the committee has an idea of what they want to calculate I can easily do that for these five crops what I'm thinking about would be both a per capita and a per user estimate of the consumption for each commodity and that can easily be combined with the data that have been generated in the study estimator can you I mean this is I'm asking out my own curiosity but perhaps others shared given that we are talking about the discrete geographic area of growers when you're looking at consumption patterns I mean how do you how do you how do you factor for that that you've got consumption patterns that are taking place but you you've more than likely got multiple sources that are that are feeding you know pistachios and grapes and things like that so how do you find fine-tune at - well what I'm thinking to bring forth as the consumption data I think we would assume that our worst case is that it all comes from there and my preliminary estimates is that there's that there's plenty of margins of exposure here but I think it's better did you use the current and refined data than the data that are available for example in the exposure factors handbook which are tend to be pretty rough numbers and in my experience okay so I just want to I would you know I think from the science advisor point of view I incredibly welcome that I'm hoping that's what we're gonna get from the panel we you know what I did was extremely preliminary I also did a different this is actually a lot of the panel toxicology guys helped me you know kind of directed what to do on this they're also my original approach was just to see how much material you'd have to eat to even approach any kind of uncomfortable limit and you know kilos of garlic per day you know I think that from the public point of view kind of an idea a visual of what what's really going on just trying to find some context for what I think this know and I think you know this is not really in my scope to do it so if we're going to do that I think we need to you know set out a scope of what's going to be done and who's going to do it that's something there's no charge in doing this it's it's food consumption data and it's been peer-reviewed and it's used by I think it's used both by EPA for all of their pesticide work and by FDA for its contaminant work so I think it'll stand up to the scrutiny we need for what we're doing here so you're basically making an offer then - yes I'm making an offer to do it but I think the group should decide what the invite calculation what I have our data depending on the years you use but I have about food consumption data for about 15,000 individuals and their individual data so we can decide whether we want a mean per user or per capita or whether we want it / body weight in order to compare it to the toxicology data or per day or both but I think we ought to think about that before I just blather out some numbers so let me do this I mean let me try be a little anal about where we go next here in the discussion and look to the piano first if there's any other comments or questions or anything you have specifically - will on what he had presented otherwise then I want to come back to what Barbara has put on the table and start getting at least so initial pulse check from you all on what she's proposing so any anything immediate further for will okay so now let's go to the offer slash questions that Barbara is asking so thoughts I'm you know let's start opening the floor here I dandiya Andy I saw you sort of nodding your head and now you are in life all right wait he's not even here at today's meeting any so I mean what would be what would be a next step for you I mean what kind of time frame would this take to do this work I mean what I could easily have it back in a couple of weeks it's this is not a hard project okay BOTS anybody yes no maybe so I just you know to point out of the panel we we've done one full year I think we have a really good idea of what the data you know when the how the data is coming in the kind of units the format's so I think this is a really good idea to maybe put your heads together you've got a lot of public health experience up here and make a decision about you know from my point of view and what I tried to do going back and forth with the panel over the last couple of weeks trying to had a it'll present this kind of information is both what you know we need to go to things like was suggested these EPA approaches that we tried to imitate be sure we do it thoroughly but also think of it in terms in my mind it's in terms of things that for the general public to understand easily also because I think a lot of times when you look at these data you know with the risk assessment data it's sometimes a little hard for a person to think about what does that really mean and context of my life and I I know these analysis I did aren't the standard analysis but the whole idea of you know looking at what the concentrations are in the in the actual foodstuffs we have and we have these levels it's the maximum you wouldn't want to eat even though it's still safe you wouldn't want to eat more than that and we end up with ideas that you have to consume kilograms of garlic or fruit or something that day to reach these I think that's something the public in absorb I mean I thought it was kind of that's the reason I did it originally was just to try to get a grasp of how much of this stuff would actually have to eat you know to reach a level where you'd be on you know be at some limit that the government says it's probably not a good idea to eat more than this so and you you know have a lot of problems consuming 25 kilos of great for the day so so I think it's a it would be a great idea to do more of this I also just want to make sure that if we embarked on doing this with the available concentration data that we have for say strontium and barium that we could easily plug in new numbers from new sampling as it rolls out and one of the reasons why I think that's important is that you know we do have more rounds of sampling so there will be more data and we should be able to incorporate that as it rolls in but also another thing that a number of us brought up on our call earlier was it last week was you know we understand why the sample sizes are what they are and that's because it's expensive to go out and collect samples and process them but truth be told you know a number of those statistical tests were based on a sample size of three and all the way up to I think the biggest was the size of 16 or so statistically that's probably somewhat underpowered for the geographic area that we have that we're looking at here I'm by no means throwing those data under the bus but I am sort of ringing it up that you know as we collect more data hopefully with bigger sample sizes that we can incorporate them into an exposure estimate so Barbara adaptive yes well my thought was for that reason because I it's a little easier for me that I would bring the consumption data so we'll put it in a spreadsheet here and then you can easily substitute different contaminant data is anybody opposed to Barbara starting on this okay any any further guidance that panel members along the lines of you know any any anything that that you want to raise as a cautionary note a caveat asterisk whatever you want to call it for Barbara she's gonna start taking this on and then bring it to you all okay so we there you go I'll send it around for everybody to look at once it's once it's done sure okay okay let me go now to public comment again from wills initial presentation and Rebecca let me check in do we have any emails as well we we have one okay why don't we go ahead and read that into the record first and then we'll go to the public here and then we'll move on to wills X portion this email comes again from Deb workman and she says dr. Stringfellow and panel members thanks for answering my question about radiotracer compounds I would also like to know how frequently in comprehensive lis though produce water is being monitored for radioactivity and whether you think that's sufficient the next question is what about mercury why is it not being included in the metals analyzing the crops we were doing some planning for next steps in the meeting so I'm sorry again she asked questions about whether or not radioactivity is being measured in the produce water and whether or not mercury is being measured and how often it we measure for radioactivity and mercury a quarterly okay not we but the discharges do and I mean that's answering her question then yeah okay yeah it's part of their monitoring and reporting program that they have to do on the produced water so alright let's go open up the floor to the public go Ali Oh environmental working group on sample size the the question that dr. shonkoff raised my question would be since it's small samples over tens of thousands of acres between North current alaric hernand cawelo water district how would the public know that it's a fair sample like what if a farmer was using ground water most of the last 10 years and then used processed oil processed water for a year or you could take a sample in the Coello that barely they're using mostly water from the state water project and and local groundwater and hardly or use it or not at all from the treated water coming down from Chevron how is that accounted for thank you so that is still a work in progress but that's something or what we're our to-do list and they may have some particular but I won't steal your thunder if you're gonna direct directly asset but what we're wanting and we're getting is trying to get some land use history water use history and unless Dave's gonna correct me right now as part of our model is that the the water distribution that's the same water being distributed throughout koala now there's some other some of the other water districts there particular areas that have been using more produced water and other areas they don't use any and we're getting information on that and kind of debating how to approach that exact problem so it's on I think it's a work in progress I think it's important question with addressing yeah let me let me add on top of that will that you know and Dave can can speak for Coelho we we believe we specifically know the field in which this practice has gone on longer than any place else we believe we know the first field which that was done and it has been included in the sampling program that specific site and so those are some of the issues we're looking at and I've got a couple slides I'll put up after we do some of the public comment that shows part of what we're looking at with different soil types and concentrations to help clarify that a little bit more and bring this a little bit more into context dick yeah I'd like to address at least for the cawelo water district as I've stated many times before the oilfield produced water comes into the cawelo system at our main lending reservoir all water that is distributed through Kuo's distribution system come from that main reservoir so that is where the Chevron's produced water Valley waters produced water comes into that reservoir it is blended and distributed out through our system it is throughout the koala water district if you are taking surface water you are taking blended well produced water the only areas that may not have constant blended produced water are areas in our non service area which were not included and the sampling locations the only samples test samples that were taken within coelho are within lands that have received blended produced water for approximately 23 years as far as current Tulare that is the site that is has taken produced water the longest that was specifically identified and sampled this last year are actually just on the citrus because that's it's just a block of citrus North Kern was not sampled because they have just recently started using produced water I believe they've had one year of irrigation with produced blended produced water the last I believe the last year North Korean stated all their water went to their recharge basins and none of the produced water was used for irrigation so that's why we did not sample anything in North Korea hopefully that answers your question on that part if I may I have a couple of comments on dr. Stringfellow's presentation I guess my main issue is I understand we're testing the fruit and we're identifying the constituents that are found in the fruit fly has mentioned many times that the different soil types will accumulate the metals differently but what we have not really discussed too much is the other irrigation waters that are utilized throughout cawelo and throughout the valley we have taken samples of other waters utilized for irrigation now on the oil field produce water our highest detected of barium was 220 micrograms per liter now the drinking water MCLs is a thousand micrograms per liter so we're 1/5 of the drinking water standards to be used for irrigation if that is a issue for coelho shouldn't it be a issue for any water used for irrigation throughout the state of California if we are below drinking water standards and the same with strontium the highest level detected in the water that is before it's been blended is 870 micrograms per liter the MCL for drinking water is for thousand micrograms per liter again around 1/5 of the level required or recommended for drinking water standards if we're gonna go down this level and start testing soil based on something that is 1/5 the MCL of drinking water that's an issue to us we have taken samples of the Kern River Frank canal which is the federal canal California Aqueduct and starting at the Kern River barium is at 47 micrograms again the produced water is at 94 strontium 210 for the Kern River and coelho maximum was eight seventy so I mean there are some of these waters have barium and strontium a little less than the produced water but not a whole lot less so it concerns me that even though they're within drinking water standards we're looking at then testing doing increased testing because it's below drinking water standards we are we gonna be throwing out the drinking water limits here how far we're gonna go down this road I'll save my other comments for once you do the citrus Thank You Melissa clay here any any immediate response to that question from a regulatory context well I mean you know the primary issue here is we want to show that you know that there is not a problem with consuming the fruit that's grown with produced water certainly we've looked at it and recognized that that this water for the most part meets maximum contaminant levels that can be used for drinking water you know but it's still it's still you know we need to answer the question part of the issue is we want to make sure that we know all the compounds that are actually being used you know and and any issues with compounds that do not have MCLs associated with drinking water which the MCL czar set for a relatively finite list of of constituents so you know it's still issues I mean I agree with David I don't want to go down this issue if it doesn't need to go down but I'm also a firm believer that we need to look at the data and look at the science you know and the role that I want to make sure that we're at at the end of the day is that we have a scientifically defensible and supportable answer to the basic question before the food safety panel and that is is the food safe to consume and and so you know if if at the end of the day that means that soil samples need to be collected or more done for soils then then what I'm gonna talk about here in just a couple in just a minute or two then I think with the panel the science advisor and Regional Board staff and and our subcommittee of regional board members will make those determinations about where we need to go and and if that needs to be done then I'll address the issues with with the users of the water so let me David if you if you don't mind I'm gonna put a question back to you and you may want to come back to mine so when in as much as right now the you know wills obviously making it relatively speaking initial presentations on the data thus far and it's just it's just data that's being put it so when you ask the question if we're gonna you know and I'm paraphrasing you we're gonna go down that road when you say are we gonna go down that road are you saying are we gonna go down the road for the presentation of the data just sort of the data is what the data is which obviously you're looking at saying can we look at the data comparative to MCLs this is you know your analysis of that your your read interpretation or it does are we gonna go down that road mean the Regional Board are you gonna start regulating us in some unique way not what's standing out there that these these analytical results seem to be significantly below m-seal so what is are we gonna go down that road or does it down are we gonna go down this road mean mean okay so you're gonna take us down the road of doing soil sampling next so what what are you sort of implying there thank you I obviously was not clear what my comment was are we gonna make go down the road that even though constituents are below drinking water standards we're still gonna analyze them as if there is a problem whereas if you were drinking this water you're okay but if you irrigate with it we have to worry about soil accumulation of metals in the soil even though you're okay to drink it but you can't use it for irrigation without severe testing so so it is so again the are we going to go down that road is ultimately your meaning are we gonna go down a regulatory context correct okay we're gonna throw out MCLs for drinking and you have a whole new set of parameters for irrigation water because it's coming from an oil company and not coming from the Kern River the state aqueduct or the Friant current canal it's different parameters so we're gonna have two sets of rules for you water yeah okay I just I want I just want to clarify I appreciate that yeah obviously it wasn't clear the first time thank you yep okay let's continue on with public comment wait Rebecca user good we have another question from Deb workman and she says why was mercury not included on the list of metals being analyzing the crops and will it be included in the future will you want to go ahead and touch on that one then I want to go after that that answer I want to go to the public to see if any more comments and then I want to move on to the citrus because I'm getting a little antsy on time well we have addressed mercury in prior meetings but what and correct me Dale if I'm wrong to interpreting your presentations and but there's been a lot of work on the mercury coming into the system it's not considered an important constituent at this time and additionally there are issues with really making sure we have accurate measurements and these kind of media and so there's a number of factors it made that mercury is not considered one of our important targets right now yeah there were some hits for mercury back in the early 2000s when these were discharges to surface water and the surface water limits for mercury are very very very low way below the NLCS since we updated the monitoring reporting programs you know 2015 or so to expand the list of constituents for those discharges to land we have included mercury and David or Abby can correct me if I'm wrong but Chevron has been testing for mercury and we don't have any recent detects above the MCL of the detection limits are set right at the MCL and they're all non detect and plus let me add to the mercury is not a common constituent we see associated with the oil fields we don't typically see mercury used in oilfield products you know if we were talking about mother lode gold mining in the 1800s then mercury would be a major concern but not necessarily with the oil companies and so that's the primary reason it was removed as I'll talk about under item number five we are looking at all of the constituents and if for some reason that were to change then then mercury would be added to the list of constituents and all I had a short clarifying comment we haven't seen mercury as an issue on the east side oil fields from where this water is coming from there has been some issues on the west side where it's much more saline water so thank you to Deb for the email let's go to Bill with another question let me just get a show of hands will it be any other on where we're at now are there any other questions from the presentation that we'll have done okay so we're gonna go to bill and then if there's any response necessary to what Bill's question we're gonna move on the will again bill a Leo e GG on terms of what's in the water coming down the pipes the MCL to me isn't the question not how what is it at that moment in time but could it build up in the soil and in the tree a tree that's being watered this for 25 years would it bio accumulate I think that's the issue not like well look it's below the MCL so we don't have to worry about the almond or the grape the other one was blocking on it for a second that I'll think of it a second me someone has an answer I know what it is I came back to you a little bit yeah all right okay well let's go the clay had made reference to a couple slides that they'd put in so let's go to those really quickly and then we're gonna either move on to Bill's question before we move on to will or will swap them around bill bill I will come back to you if need be so basically what I want to show the panel is there's a couple issues we've been working on this question about the soils in and my my initial comment about the soils and basically what I've been doing is that you know this needs to be in scientific and Edie and oh don't touch that okay and and basically let the data take us so it's a little bit complicated but and we've only been working on this for a few days but you know we thought well let's take a look at the publicly available data that we have we know where the samples were collected the colored background that you see here are actually soil maps they're from the National Resource Conservation Service of USDA and and historically we found that these are extremely good maps for the different types of soils so I'll apologize a little bit because it's it's awfully small particularly for some of the people in the in the crowd that that have to look at it from some distance but basically what we've done is we've we've put these things together or try to put them together where you got soils in the background the legend the explanation is it didn't transfer very well it didn't transfer at all you'll have to excuse me Josh you want to come up here and explain this a little bit because without the explanation it becomes a little bit difficult but what I want to show you is is first of all the colors represent ranges of concentrations with the cooler couple colors to blues and the greens being the lower concentrations that were detected for specific constituents and the warmer colors being higher concentrations and basically what it shows is that you know there are some areas where higher concentrations are grouped up and lower concentrations are grouped so you know part of the question is are those things associated with just the naturally occurring soils and not related to the produced water so that's some of the questions the shapes of these actually go to the different commodities and unfortunately without the explanation I can't tell you which is which but there's pentagon circles squares diamonds triangles and so maybe if Dale has that there I can tell you real quickly but what we're trying to do and and this scale isn't very amenable to that is basically be able to present the different concentrations for the different commodities geographically to see if there's a pattern to see if a correlation can be made that would help to explain what do we see these differences so that's basically what we're trying to do is the very first step Seth there's another one too isn't there just I can also wait till the end if that's easier for you okay well that was the only map they gave me we have a couple others too but but I just wanted to give you an idea of what's there I mean with available information if the panel has some thoughts about additional things we could do we certainly would like to hear that also so I maybe when you first stood up here and you may have explained this well I was out of the room so I apologize in advance if that's the case um what does what does naturally-occurring mean in a context like this well I want to say that you know the soils the soils are there and they are the soils that are present deposited and altered into soils over geologic time you know that has occurred over a very long period of time not that they can't get altered by man's activities not that you could not potentially accumulate something within the soil but usually that's a fairly long term process you know and especially if you're only dumping on very low concentrations but what we're trying to do is is look at again the different types of soils along with the data that we have to see if there's a correlation is there an explanation for some of what we see you know it's just like if you were looking for accumulations you would probably typically will have higher mineral and salt concentrations within the finer grained soils the Clay's and in particular and will tend not to see it in the in the sands and gravels because that you know there's nothing for the consortio molecules to adhere to so they just leach through the soil it's more of a threat to groundwater if if was a significant issue okay any other questions or feedback I mean we can yeah go ahead one comment add to this when we're talking about the you know this is the GIS type analysis they're also other layers we're looking at two they might have chemistry data salinity data things like that they you know if there's an easy explanation that's got nothing to do with produce water let's figure that out before we get like the Coelho suggested just run off on a tangent well okay so so in in the context of you sort of introducing these these this map now and in the context of that there's sort of an ad hoc nature to what's playing out here so are we gonna is the board staff gonna put together a more concrete set of you know some of these examples and information to the panels you and then give the panel some more concrete questions yeah you're sort of asking sort of broad questions but in fairness of the panel and there's not a lot for them to there's not a lot to on right now my thought is that you know over the next few weeks probably in concert with dr. Stringfellow you know I'm gonna have my staff look at this publicly available information Joshu is pretty much a whiz with GIS and and all things computer oriented much more so than in some old guy like me you know we'll we'll look at some of this information and then probably try to put together a short little memorandum basically to send to you with what we've gotten to seek your input and comments and and and what you think maybe with some preliminary conclusions that that ultimately would be potentially included within more detailed reports or in the white paper that's that's more closer to the end of the study look up recall that age and treachery will overcome youth and enthusiasm any day now so just you've got that on your side clone right okay build you remember your question what about the chemicals that don't have MCLs a lot of chemicals my understanding are used in the oil company operations that the state water board drinking water program have not set MCLs for and certainly OEO hasn't set a public health goal because they don't expect it to be in drinking water isn't that true so are we looking for those outside of classic MCL situations question mark yes boom mic drops so yes you're looking at them we're look okay alright okay will your honor yep so it's asked to do an update on the citrus report I think this clays way of punishing me and he's been bugging me over and over to get this thing wrapped up so what I want to do is just give a brief discussion about where this is and remind everybody what the citrus report is so we did we mean the science advisory folks with the board did a plenary report on the citrus sampling results we presented that data at the public meeting back in June we got a technical report out on September 16th and then that went into the food safety panel at a working group around September 20th and then I got comments back on that report in October and essentially November through now I've been working on trying to incorporate those comments into the report I only have a limited amount of bandwidth so I this keeps getting pushed back I was trying to get it wrapped up last week but it's not quite done yet just to remind people what they were asking for so the first technical report came out was really pretty much just the facts ma'am report was not it was a little dense it was not exactly easy for people that weren't specifically schooled in that area of science to understand so there was a lot of interest more explanatory text and some background including goals and objectives including also things background on you know the sampling selection process and where the crops were and things like that and related to sampling sites so we're working on that there was some interest in getting further explanation of the mass spectra results if you remember we had several false positives so I want to clarify what that was the one of the big questions was the some of the statistical methods were using our so called parametric statistics and there was an interest in whether those statistics were really appropriate for the data since we again with a lot of questions came up again today about the number of sample size what's the distribution of the data you know technical issues related to statistical analysis so we went back and redid some analysis I'll talk about that today and there was also I think very important discussion about limitations of the whole project in terms of what we're not measuring and also things like what the detection limits are in relation to data quality goals and to analysis it's we're talking about doing now with in terms of risk analysis make sure everything's you know you know really have an analysis of that in that context so we start really a lot of the conversations about these so-called non de Texas how do we deal with those then there's a lot of in the methods section there was deal on again the statistics and sampling and all the figures and tables getting redone that they include things like the CA Chemical Abstracts service registration numbers and a number of appendices that had to be added so just a hit a couple of highlights this is again almost done it's got some few more edits and then it's gonna be out we did reap or I did reproduce the Rican duct statistical analysis doing nonparametric statistics this was directed at addressing concerns about the use of the parametric analysis which do not I know all the panel knows this but just for anybody in the public who might be interested is you normal statistics suggests that the data is distributed over what they call a normal distribution it's you do tests like T tests it's mostly what people learn in in school through college that you you know you compare one sample to another and it's it's got a normal distribution do they overlap sufficiently to be the same or different non-parametric s-- are a different approach to the same question as whether things are the same or different and it's not relying on the fact whether the data are normally distributed and just to hopefully clarify a little bit it's a lot of data in managed systems such as agricultural systems are not normally distributed if you look at things like water flows it's an on-and-off process it's not just a normal distribution when the rain falls so that's you know we've had a lot of experience or my group has looking at these kind of questions and and my experience in the past has been that the parametric statistics are very robust the nonparametric statistics are also very interesting we reran the data using three different nonparametric tests we're getting the same results that we're getting with the parametric analysis so in the report itself the body the report we're sticking of the parametric analysis we're gonna include a number of pendous EES that cover all the nonparametric so they it's clear we've covered all the bases there's nothing right now that suggests that any results that i've presented to any of the meetings or in any of the reports is not correct in the sense that it's based on saying what's different and what's the same okay and then one of the last things to do is really to write down a readable description of these statistical tests and the justification which is one of the things that i was asked to do by the board this isn't gone for too long guys but we can get any other details anybody wants but i did think this was worth talking about which is these things about the limitations of the project so we did and I always take a statistical approach to Big Data questions like this looking at things like detection limit reporting limits there's still some work that needs to be done in terms of putting that data in the context Ricks risk assessment and I've been asking the panel for some help with that because that's risk assessment I have done a lot of hazard assessment or risk assessment is a little bit different level and I want to make sure on the same page about that so we're putting that you know again a lot of data crunching end up being a big appendix and then coming up with a you know a paragraph or two that really explains what the bottom line is on those kind of analyses but I think it's really important question was something you know we need to be looking at especially going in the second year sampling make sure we got our ducks in a row on this there's also just in general evaluations of what's not being measured that's kind of an open-ended question I think in a lot of my mind a lot of this is what we're supposed to be doing with the MOU process with the literature review and the task one is really identifying all the compounds we're supposed to look at but what I did do to answer that reviewer comment was look at how the current analytical measurements is covering what we know about or not covering what we know about the oilfield chemicals and the main touchstone for the oilfield chemicals was the report dr. shonkoff and I co-authored along with some other folks that we presented to the food safety panel back in 2016 looking at it was the first set of disclosures of oilfield chemical use that we had received through orders that were put out by the regional board so in this new final draft of the report one of the things I did was we looked at all of so what this table represents here is if we look they're going to be two tables and these are the compounds that were kind of the punchline of that technical report which is based on screening criteria and other other information that we received from all the materials that were actually being used in the oil fields that are providing produced water there was we kind of had a final list of things that we wanted to look at more and there wasn't any inherent decision about any hazard I mean any kind of real risk associated with these but these were a list of compounds and for one reason another came up with something that we I need to be looked at further as you go towards looking at reusing produced water in various different contexts so going through this list and we can go through some certain cases this is in alphabetical order we see that a lot of the compounds so what this shows here is the compound the chemical abstract service number which is like the definitive identification of that compound so it may have different names and then whether it's included in any of the current analysis that we have right now the notes often point out what analysis that it's included in so we have to try methyl benzene compounds we've got the the 5 1 3 5 tri methyl benzene yes that's covered acryl in yes that's covered yes sir by covered what do you mean which in the sampling or in in the analysis so in the so what I'm saying here sorry so we're collecting the samples and we go through this these as I explained in the last talk about the you know they collect the sample they extract it and then they're doing a series of different analyses those analyses were originally selected based on us requesting certain compounds such as benzene to be measured when you measure benzene they calibrate the instrument for an you know in some cases as dozens of other compounds such as chlorinated solvents such as a colon such as the tri methyl benzene which isn't really wasn't really on our original list of things we were concerned about so you're kind of catching these compounds as part of these other analysis ok so part of what I want to look at is the completeness of our coverage in comparison to this list is that better so for example with a this 1 3 5 tri methyl benzene that material when you run an EPA 80 to 60 B that and that compound is calibrated for in our runs okay at low levels aqualen as we talked a lot about today that's included we're not including things like Lunia McClure oxy oxy hydride we can go into the details why we're not but the bottom line on aluminum it's very common in soils it's used for its a water treatment chemical there's no you know there it's not something that we have any reason to think we're particularly concerned about a lot of times it's it's ends up being a precipitate and these systems like the aluminum chloride oxy hydride is probably used for water treatment chemical in this system and I'm not making a judgment whether it should or should not but I'm just I shouldn't make a judgement let's put it that way I put out the facts but they they're not included we got antimony trioxide we're including our measurement for antimony cellophane in my experience cellophane is a solid material you wrapped cigarette wrappers in I'm not sure what they're doing with cellophane in there but it's not something that's going to show up on a 82:6 analysis petroleum cloak coke is calcified it's a solid so it's probably not something that's going to show up in the water we're looking at copper I'll run through these quickly but you getting the idea correct and I'm clear hopefully everyone so if you look through this you'll see that we're actually covering a lot of these compounds there are a couple that were not getting like this fatty acid oxide some of them the ethylene glycol it's very label on the environment there you know I think judgment I just put that in there as a note to say well that's one reason why from my point of view it wasn't consider like we have to have an ethylene glycol a measurement made and I think this is where again with these hiring you know some support to get these literature reviews done these assessments done then it'll be extremely clear to people that don't have to take my word for it the glutaraldehyde is not gonna last to be showing up in water necessarily unless the literature review shows there might these hydrochloric hydrofluoric acid czar not something that are gonna be in that form in the water etc etc some materials like kerosene our mixture and although we do not make a particular measurement for kerosene we do measure a lot of the materials in kerosene that are environmental importance including things like naphthalene potentially some of the BTX type compounds might be found in kerosene so I can go through anything that anybody wants to talk about specifically there's your xenon radio nuclei right there this is the only radioactive material that I'm aware of you know that's been reported so far is being used i looked extensively into what its properties are it's a noble gas there's no reason to believe it's gonna stay in the water it's gonna blow off as soon as that put into any kind of open system xylene we're already covered in zinc we've got covered but this is going to be included in the report and you know if they're I think as part of going forward with the MOU process we again need to look at this list we're gonna generate the new list based on the new information update these lists and just make sure everybody is on the same page about what's important what's not I still do not know what cellophane is used for out there I'm really curious to find that out so that's really all I have to say and I will get this report done ASAP it's been an albatross around my neck for a while it's not that I don't want this thing over with so any that's all I really have to say about unless people have other questions or want to beat me up yep so as you thought that you'll finish this report without having an exposure assessment in it well this is one what I kind of made a technical error which is when we first got these comments back I should have pushed back on it immediately but I thought I could really deal with most of it I think a lot of this is what should be in the white paper you know a lot of we did some talking about whether we're just going to roll this thing over and get all the data in here with the you know this is a report just about that first data set from back in in April you know this is where deep cover a lot of the basis for what I thought was gonna really be in the final report and I think doing these kind of things is an interim basis like this is it's been part of some of the issues with this project is we need to be sure we have a big picture with what the outcomes are gonna be because I think certainly from the public's point of view from the feedback I'm getting is everybody thinks the last data point is the end of the story and I don't really you know a lot of this stuff we can get all this information put together but in my mind this needs to be in the annual report or the final report so what we do here we can then move over to the next report but but at this point I just want to check the box and make sure we have a complete report here and then not make the same mistake going forward on the next report okay other questions all right let's go to the public any questions or comments Keith bring a mic so well you may have addressed this in your comments now or before but if so I missed this so question is in regards to the chemicals that were analyzed in your studies and how you selected them how did you address or did you address the trade secret of chemicals and if not if there is there anything that can be done about those because those seem to be a big wild card in this assessment that if we can't get access to not we but if assessment can't get access to those chemicals seems like there's a big hole in the overall assessment yeah and I think that's important question I think the ideas that this ATP a B 13:28 is gonna resolve that issue and Clay's talked about this a couple of times with you know there's gonna be a list of chemicals we're not necessarily going to know the amounts and in a way that you know that's the conservative estimate you can assume that there's a huge amounts of it so they as a minimum my understanding is they have to tell us all the chemicals no that's not correct yeah but they're that see that's item five on our agenda Keith so can we address that then please I mean I'll I'll try to answer that fairly thoroughly any other questions well I was just gonna say that in the analysis that provided the list of chemicals that we'll just went through which is very helpful I our analysis started with something like one hundred and seventy three compounds that were disclosed through that thirteen to sixty-seven order by the board to the operators and we were only able to analyze I think something along the lines of a hundred and five that had Kassar ends or something like that so yeah I think that's how you arrived at that list and and yeah I think 1328 may or may not work that out but I'll defer to clay okay so we're gonna come down in a couple minutes so any last questions or comments for well on what he just presented okay seeing none we are then going to move on with the agenda and we're gonna do an update 1328 I'd been waiting all day to talk about this just to bring you up to date with where we are on the trade secret information the end of December we sent orders out a matter of fact they were a little bit before Christmas just to be received right about Christmas we sent orders out with a with a very short time frame to all of the producers that produce water for irrigation usage to report to us all of the chemicals that are in the compounds that they use in their drilling and maintenance activities basically for anything that has potential to end up in the produced water and so Dale can correct me if I'm wrong but for some reason the date of like January 7th sticks in my head they went out December 28th and I think January 12th was a due date the 12th was the magic date and if there were trade secret information that wasn't provided to them under assembly bill 1328 they were to provide us the names and contact information of the suppliers that did not provide the complete information and so we're in the process of looking at that data that we got a week ago week and a half ago whatever it was when it when he came in were in the process of drafting an order for some of the chemical companies that did not produce all of the information but we have to go through the process 1328 added a new section to the water code effective January 1 that allows the water boards to get trade secret information on all the oilfield compounds being used the products so we're in the process I am in conversations with one of the major suppliers who has basically agreed to provide the information well they're going to provide it the question is I'm trying to make sure I get it in a form where it's not presented as a trade secret and so one of the things you know one of the potential ways to do that is to be able to get a list of all the compounds in the products they're using and a list of the products they're using but not tie the compounds to the product you know to me that answers the question do we know all of the compounds that are being used you know I don't need the recipe for each individual compound and to be honest with you I'm very anxious and I very desirable to get the information in a format that I can share with the panel and I can share with the public so that we can be completely transparent in this if I end up getting the information in a trade secret format and it is truly a trade secret I will not be able to share it with anybody from the public I may be able to share it with some of our sister agency members that agree to sign on to confidentiality agreements but we will be legally bound to protect that that confidential trade secret information and so at that point a less desirable position to me is that I sit up here and tell everybody on all the compounds and everything's being tested for trust me but I can't show you you just have to trust me you know because some people won't and I would prefer to be transparent be able to share it all so everybody can see it so that's some of the things we're going through my comment is we have to have that information I need that information really for the literature review and the toxicological assessment because had we already done task one and two we'd be out doing it again if we ended up with new compounds I'd prefer to do it all at once and the other thing is I've made it clear to the irrigators and the oil companies that if I don't can't get all the trade secret and information in time to sample the citrus the price they're going to get to pay is it just means they're guaranteed to have to do another round of citrus sampling with all of the constituents which at the end may end up just costing them a bunch of money and so they need to apply the pressure to help us get the information to potentially minimize the overall cost to them so we are working on it we're trying to work on it diligently I'm trying to get the information in a format I can share with everybody on the panel and our science advisor and hopefully by before the end of February we'll have all of this information but we are actively looking at it we will be staff will be organizing it to make sure that we identify anything that we don't already know about we think we know about most of the compounds but there may be a limited number of compounds that are included we have also specifically required that all of the chemical compounds of the CAS are n numbers so that there is we can clearly know exactly what we're talking about and not to be confused because a name you know a compound has several different names or it's confusing to know that you know we we don't know that we know exactly what it is so we're trying to get the information on this and hopefully we'll have it soon and hopefully we can get it all on a format that that isn't a trade secret and we can share comments questions just a quick question over what time period are you attempting to get chemical additive information alright how far back did we go Dale I think it was a couple years right now yeah I think it was at least two years I don't have the letter right in front of me but I believe we asked for two years right now for everything that's been used within the past two years you know and and those will be part of our required monitoring and reporting programs is that if anything new is used it's gonna have to be reported to the regional board you know if if Company X comes up with the newest hwangbang compound that does magical things then then we're gonna go same place to look to see if there's anything different in it that would need to be included in any monitoring programs but you know we did not go back and ask for every possible compound that was ever used there had to be a limit to where we could go and so we we've asked for the last two years with the you know and our understanding things probably haven't significantly changed for a while the just to clarify the letter doesn't specify a time period it basically says that they must provide a complete list of all additives and associated constituents that could be found in the produced water supplied in this case - valley water in cawelo water district well I guess I was thinking about the previous 13 - six seven order that we sent that I believe had a specific to your timeframe one last question it's a will we'll clarify that issue with with the producers with respect to incorporating new evolving chemical use in the industry into discharge permits and requirements I understand that that's been going on since you last updated many of the permits which is great but one of the things that had not been I don't know if it was required or not but is not showing up in the monitoring data or Kassar ends so will this impacts what people need to you know disclose and and monitor for in their discharge monitoring yeah I mean that some will have to think about the Kassar ends are probably a good thing to provide so that you know we have clarification and certainty about exactly what we're talking about you know and if we need to modify that we will yeah I just say that from a from a you know a scientific perspective there is absolutely nothing that I or anyone can really do with a name and you know act and pull things through screening criteria with with any semblance of certainty so that be really be really great any other questions or comments from the panel all right let's go to the public and also can I'm when I'm asking that question I'm assuming you're still with us and I if you've not weighed in so let me just check in Rebecca any email so we need to be with members of the public on a be 13:28 any comments or questions okay seeing none we are going to then move on to sort of close things out so we're on item six of the agenda general public comment so are there any last comments or questions that members of the public would like to make at this time okay seeing none hearing none one last check online and for folks that are online and while well folks online are mulling that let's go ahead and move on to seven I'm going to look to the hardest-working person in the room and I'm not being facetious when I say that I think I'm gonna apologize I rare I oftentimes forget to thank Alex for the hard work that she does these are these are long meetings there's a lot of dense information and notwithstanding forgetting Andy we did we Alex does a great job on these notes and she really is the hardest-working person so action items from today first we're gonna put Andy back on that list absolutely double check that for in the future as usual we'll be turning around a meeting summary for this meeting than 10 days for you all to review a couple more substantive items sounds like Barbara is gonna move forward with compiling the consumption data for that exposure assessment to share with panel members will probably want to follow up maybe with a conference call with the panel in February or March before our next public meeting in April I think that's April 24th I'll send out the calendar invites for that I know you already have held it and then beyond that I think that the waterboard just in this last item was going to follow up with the on the UH Nate issues about the period of time that refers to the request that there reporting that chemicals sorry my brain is alright but you know what you're gonna do clay right the proprietary yeah how long they've been using the chemicals and then we're gonna we're gonna sort of revisit I'll look to daily will revisit try to get a pin down date on where where things might move on the white paper yep alright oh yeah go ahead bill public comment in fact this is apropos cuz you let me interrupt out of order again I just want to thank the panel staff and day for being really open to letting us set it up and not waiting to the very end yeah five minute maximum after you know three hours so I appreciate all the input time thank you yeah you bet thank you okay let me just check in online one last time did anybody send in any final comments all right any closing comments or what yes Barbara is that a firm date for next meeting yes they were the quarterly meetings were set I can send those out again and I just wanted to confirm that it wasn't likely to change unless I hear otherwise from the board yes there's that now my my intent is that we've set the meetings and I will push dr. Stringfellow as hard as I need to push him to make sure that we have substantial information to present to the panel but you know it was very unsatisfying to me and to most of the stakeholders as I'm sure it was to you to be trying to set up meetings you know with 30 days notice or less because everybody's schedule is busy so we decided that we just had to set them and try to hold to them so that people could get them on their schedule and this last minute of trying to come up with an available date for extremely busy people just wasn't working okay any last final comments from dr. Wong Lee or Ravi well first of all I want to thank the panel for donating their time that's what they're doing but it's a very important effort and I know for a lot of folks it's excruciating me slow but that turns out to be the name of the game to be able to get to each take care of each issue that we have to take care of just getting the to just finally being able to get the legislation passed and then being able to get the these compounds finding out what's in them I think is a great milestone to advance farther what we're doing some of the other issues things that we are doing is quite frankly this white paper has to be in my opinion can't have holes in it we we have to it's going to be a very important document that has to be strongly supported by the science behind it but thank you for your help thank you for your efforts your interest and input is greatly appreciated and we want to thank members of the public to and the members the panel and we know several you drive a very long way to be here for this meeting so thank you for dedicating your time so we are adjourned safe travels everybody [Music] you ethics paragraph in dissertation Vaughn College of Aeronautics & Technology.