1. Minnesota Chemical Regulation and Policy Project Work Group Meeting September 15, 2011

3. Fill information gaps

4. Minimizes exposure to and risk from chemicals

5. Decision-making tools and criteria

6. MN unique, value-added

8. Inform federal conversation around TSCA

9. MN unique/appropriate

10. Craft appropriate state policy that integrates with federal policy

11. Learn from others

12. Collaborative/integrated approach

16. Project Roadmap & Milestones Late September: sub-groups continue proposal development work October 5 Work Group meeting Sub-groups present recommendation proposals Work group reacts, refines, finalizes draft recommendations Prepare for public input meeting October 12Stakeholder (Public) Input Meeting #15:00 – 7:00 pm; St. Paul location TBD October 26 Work Group meeting Review public input Revise and refine recommendations November 16 Revise and refine recommendations Date TBDStakeholder Input Meeting #2 December 7 Finalize and approve recommendations

17. Meeting Schedule & Project Timeline September 23 – Environmental InitiativePolicy Sub-Group Meeting, 9:00 – 11:00 am October 5 Work Group Mtg – UROC October 12: Stakeholder Input Group Meeting #15:00 – 7:00 pm, Location TBD October 26 Work Group Mtg – UROC November 16 Work Group Mtg – SPSC Date TBD: Stakeholder Input Group Meeting #2 December 7 Work Group Mtg– UROC http://www.environmental-initiative.org

18. Issues Identified in Phase I There is a lack of shared vision for improved chemical management in Minnesota, resulting in chemical-specific initiatives unrelated to a comprehensive approach. The status quo of chemical regulation, management, and policy is not sustainable given outdated federal policy and the chaotic approach to chemicals management that is occurring at state and local levels. There are significant data gaps in our knowledge of occurrence, exposure, risk, and impacts of chemicals on ecosystems and human health. Decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty will continue to be a challenge in effective chemical regulation and management. There is inconsistency in regulatory requirements, lack of clarity in “standard” definitions, and an inadequate process to evaluate the effectiveness of policy tools. There is insufficient education and a gap in perception surrounding chemical exposures and risk, government’s role and degree of protection, methods for communicating accurately to the public and elected representatives, and restrictions on access to certain information.

19. Routes for “requests” to reach the Chemical Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) Charge Criteria MPCA, MDH, MDA Executive Branch CSAP Charge Criteria Committee Chair/ Legislator Legislative Branch LAC/Auditor CSAP Criteria Relevant to MN environment or population Disputed issue of science where independent review is helpful Triggers Proposed bill Citizen concern New chemical or chemical concern