DOE - Cannabis Science Task Force Steering Committee
(October 28, 2020)

Here are some observations from the Wednesday October 28th Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Cannabis Science Task Force (CSTF) Steering Committee meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

• The CSTF was formed in 2019 to assist in the transition of responsibility for accreditation of cannabis testing laboratories from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) to the DOE while helping bolster cannabis testing lab standards.
  • In 2018, SB 6032 appropriated $98,000 to the DOE “to begin conducting research into appropriate protocols and accreditation standards for marijuana testing laboratories.” A resulting interim study established a basis for the transfer of lab accreditation to Ecology as well as the formation of the CSTF which was created through the passage of HB 2052 into law in 2019.
  • The first CSTF meeting was held in August 2019. In addition to the Steering Committee, members of the task force formed an Analytical Workgroup (also referred to as the Lab Quality Standards Work Group) and a Proficiency Testing (PT) Workgroup.
    • On March 27th, 2020, the group created a Potency Work Group to determine best methods and practices in measuring cannabinoid concentration led by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). 
    • Then, on April 16th the CSTF formed a Heavy Metals Work Group with a goal of recommending testing methods and practices led by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH).
  • In June 2020, the group released their first report mandated by the legislature on Laboratory Quality Standards for Pesticides in Cannabis Plants and Products. The second report on “additional laboratory quality standards, including, but not limited to, heavy metals in and potency of marijuana products” must be submitted by December 1st, 2021. Following the CSTF reports, DOE and WSLCB were granted two years to undertake necessary rule and policy changes to transfer cannabis lab accreditation authority by July 1st, 2024.
  • The group’s last meeting was September 17th. Updates have been made available via DOE’s task force webpage and email list.
  • CSTF Steering Committee members present: 
    • Annette Hoffmann, DOE Environmental Assessment Program Manager and CSTF Chair
    • Jessica Archer, DOE Environmental Assessment Program Statewide Coordination Section Manager
    • Jeff Doughty, Capitol Analysis CEO and Chemistry Manager
    • Kendra Hodgson, WSLCB Cannabis Examiner Manager
    • Nick Mosely, Confidence Analytics CEO
    • Shelley Rowland, DOH Medical Marijuana Program Manager
    • Amber Wise, Medicine Creek Analytics Science Director
  • CSTF Work Group members, support staff, and observers:
    • Jennifer Carlson, DOE Environmental Assessment Program Manager and Policy coordinator for the CSTF
    • Mike Firman,WSDA Chemical and Hop Program Manager. Former Lab Quality Standards Work Group lead and Potency Work Group lead. 
    • Gregory Foster, Cannabis Observer
    • Jim MacRae, Straight Line Analytics
    • Alyssa Peter, DOE Environmental Assessment Program Manager
    • Tara-Lyn Poole, DOE Environmental Assessment Program Manager
    • Nick Poolman, WSLCB Marijuana Chemist. Member of PT and Potency work groups.
    • Sara Sekerak, DOE Senior Chemist and Project Manager. Lead chemist for the CSTF, author of its reports, and PT work group member.
    • Caroline West, DOH Chemist and Heavy Metals Work Group lead
    • Brad White, WSDA Assistant Director, Plant Protection Division
    • Ryan Zboralski, DOE Chemist and PT Work Group lead

• The Steering Committee heard updates from the proficiency testing, potency, and heavy metals work groups as well as the Interagency Coordination Team and voted on two motions - including the first non-unanimous vote in the CSTF’s history.
  • Proficiency Testing (PT) Work Group. Zboralski provided a review of the PT work group’s efforts, touching on test frequency, matching test matrices to end products, and the need to have in-state PT sample providers. He put forward a motion supporting the work group’s matrix matching recommendations which prioritized “potency, pesticides, and residual solvents” followed by “mycotoxins, terpenes, microbial analysis, metals, water activity, moisture, and foreign matter.” “It provided the best possible information, met the recommendations of the Pesticide Work Group, and was in line with other legal cannabis jurisdictions,” he summarized, including that it reflected best practices for “routine samples analyzed by the laboratories.” The downsides were that it necessitated a not yet established in-state PT sample provider, possibly making the approach more costly and initially difficult (audio - 19m). Wise moved to adopt the motion, was seconded by Archer, and the Steering Committee concurred unanimously (audio - 2m).
  • Potency Work Group. Firman said the Potency Work Group had added “a new member” and held two meetings where they went over cannabinoid testing methods from New York and Colorado which had been reviewed and approved by AOAC International in 2019. He explained the group was in “agreement overall” but had “disagreement about specific procedures” and would continue to deliberate. Firman’s group was “struggling a little bit with attendance” of private lab representatives but he hoped to return with motions and recommendations soon (audio - 3m).
  • Heavy Metals Work Group. West shared an update before presenting a contentious motion which prescribed testing methods only possible on more contemporary equipment (audio - 12m).
    • The motion proposed that the Steering Committee “accept the following approved SW-846 compendium methods with specific cannabis changes where indicated, method 6020B which is the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and method 6010D which is the inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry.” West stated the purpose of the motion was to “drive the metals testing of cannabis and cannabis related products into a narrower field of allowable method platforms” and it “aligns with the hybrid approach” the group had been “leaning towards” (audio - 6m).
    • West believed benefits of the proposed motion included:
      • Increased accuracy through “harmonized quality control criteria,”
      • The three labs accredited to test for heavy metals already used Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) as their testing method so the policy followed “the direction that future testing is heading” as opposed to “older technologies.”
      • All metals can “be run in a single method, which avoids the extra cost and effort needed to accredit other platforms.”
      • DOE accreditation still allowed some flexibility for “preparation methods.”
      • The policy would “make the accreditation easier” for Ecology as there’d be “less options for testing and QC parameters that they’d need to audit.”
    • West articulated the downsides for approving the motion included that “it may narrow down the labs that participate as they would need to either already have or purchase instrumentation to complete it.” She felt “some labs may see this as too prescriptive if they use those older platforms, however currently this doesn’t seem to be the case for cannabis.”
    • Wise asked how the recommended methods could be adapted to incorporate future changes in technology or techniques (audio - 5m).
    • Doughty initiated a conversation about accreditation of atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) as a testing platform, which was a well-established, older technology and significantly cheaper albeit without the resolution possible with ICP-MS. He believed the lower capital equipment cost would allow for greater competition as more labs could offer heavy metals testing services, and the resolution constraints were sufficient to detect at action levels defined by WSLCB. Agency representatives pushed back. West worried about "too many labs wanting to do too many different kinds of methods." Wise remarked that “the justification for choosing ICP seems to be...easier accreditation" rather than ensuring public health or safety (audio - 19m).
    • Archer asked about prescriptive methods versus performance-based methods. Sekerak discussed similar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water testing methods, EPA 200.8 and EPA 6020, and West concurred that the best available science recommended a more prescriptive approach in this circumstance. Doughty concluded that “the cost of accreditation shouldn’t be a reason why we're not doing” AAS as a permitted heavy metals testing method (audio - 10m).
    • A vote on the motion was called by Archer and seconded by Mosely. During a roll call vote, the committee voted in favor with the exception of Doughty, the first non-unanimous motion in CSTF’s history (audio - 5m).
  • Interagency Coordination Team (ICT). Archer introduced an update on the ICT, the reframed “Client” for accreditation of the labs. She described the ICT as “an interagency technical work group” comprised of representatives from WSLCB, DOH, and WSDA. Hodgson took up the briefing to say “the work...to frame up what that program would look like is finished, but it’s not available yet to publish because it needs to go to leadership first.” She said a modified timeline had been drafted but three issues remained to be resolved: “regulatory authority in statute that is problematic and doesn’t stay in the places that it needs to stay; the timeline; and the funding for the interagency work to happen.” Hodgson cautioned that “with no money, and falling budget revenues for the state, we will not be able to ask for the resources to do this work in 2021.” She expected the legislative directors of each of the agencies would help decide whether or not it would be appropriate to request funding as part of the supplemental operating budget during the 2022 legislative session.
    • Chair Annette Hoffmann followed up to ask if lingering questions about authority and budget were tied together. Hodgson said they were not and elaborated: “Currently, in RCW---which then propagates into the WAC---that the authority to set lab standards is implied for LCB in our authority related to certifying and accrediting labs. And that when that authority moves to Ecology, we no longer have an implied authority to do and house lab standards. So the question becomes whose rule does that authority---or not even rule, whose statute does that live under---and does there need to be work done to get that cleaned up on, number one, that it is explicit authority around lab standards. And, two, that it is where it needs to be.”
    • Mosely asked whether a fee structure had been considered as a funding mechanism for the ICT. Hodgson said, “admittedly, our thoughts were that this would be an ask for an appropriation directly from the Legislature. We had not considered a fee structure partly because we believe it is on-going work. It’s not just the initial setup of all the methods but it’s the continual review and approval of them and that because of the subject matter expertise needed to have it constant, we were moving forward to ask...on an appropriation that would come annually.”

• Several attendees spoke during the meeting’s public comment session, engaging Steering Committee members on questions about the scope of changes contemplated, timelines, and budgets.
  • In the webinar chat, MacRae asked members to “try to balance barriers to entry with the ease of regulatory oversight. WSLCB has dangled the likelihood of pesticides and heavy metals being required elements of cannabis testing for over two years now.” He noted that some labs had invested in equipment which had then “laid fallow for those two years” (audio - 2m).
  • Foster asked for clarification about the interplay between CSTF’s primary mission of shifting accreditation of labs to DOE with their legislative charge to recommend “standardization of methods and practices.” He wanted a better understanding “of how that’s going to play out” alongside the change in accreditation authority, stating his presumption that the marketplace effects of lab standardization would be significant (audio - 8m).
    • Archer agreed there was “often an economic impact that goes along with” standards development. She expected a small business economic impact statement (SBEIS) would be developed alongside “an implementation plan for how things...are going to work.”
    • Hodgson acknowledged Foster's concerns, saying that “the funding is necessary first to set up the interagency collaborative group.” The ICT would evaluate the CSTF’s recommendations before “putting together what are the standards” and, where necessary, defining specific “criteria levels.” WSLCB would then modify their rules to implement the new standards, shift accreditation authority to DOE, and coordinate with labs accordingly. Foster was grateful for the response and remarked it “put a lot of the focus on this interagency coordination team” before expressing his hope that its meetings would be made public.
  • Mosely followed up on the need for coordinated rulemaking at ICT, asking “would it be prudent then, for that rulemaking to begin now?” (audio - 8m)
    • He felt that a “firm foundation” had already been laid by CSTF and some agency work could begin. Hodgson responded that the interagency team required funding “before we can get to rulemaking.” The team would include “subject matter experts” and counsel from the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (OAG).
    • Wise asked about the timeline for funding and the potential for “another roadblock” in moving ahead with the transfer of accreditation. Hodgson said that “there's not a lot of discretionary money anywhere right now” due to required agency spending reductions. Should funding for the ICT become available in 2022, she guessed it would be “at least a year” to organize rule and policy changes across agencies.
    • Foster suggested the interagency team get started as a CSTF work group since “you have a lot of the people here” and the Task Force may have funds still available from the original allotment in HB 2052.
  • MacRae inquired if they could “fund the ICT with the agency budgets,” and whether any delays in CSTF’s work would impact the Quality Control (QC) Testing and Product Requirements rulemaking project underway at WSLCB. Archer said the budgeting comment was “too big of a question” for the task force members, and Hodgson promised to email MacRae a response (audio - 3m).
    • MacRae provided Cannabis Observer Hodgson's response sent later that day wherein she stated: "We believe that the product testing standards are separate and apart from the lab standards. While related in relation to test results the product standards can move forward. We have had a number of licensees state they believe the Cannabis Science Taskforce work must be finished before we make the rule change regarding pesticides and heavy metals. We do not agree and have tried to clarify the distinction between what the Cannabis Science Taskforce (CSTF) is responsible for. The CSTF is not tasked with product testing standards. That responsibility still lies with WSLCB."