March 13, 2012
Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
March 13, 2012
DEP Boston, 2nd Floor Conference Room B
Members present: Dave Williams (Chair), Larry Boise (Vice-Chair), Hilary Hackbart, Amy Cannon, Robin Dodson, Martha Mittelstaedt
Others present: Mary Butow (TURI), Liz Harriman (TURI), Heather Tenney (TURI), Patricia McCarthy (for ACC), Dave Wawer (MCTA), Sean Moynihan (MCTA), Ken Blanchard (MCTA), Jason Gonzalez (MCTA), Steve Rosario (ACC), Carol Rowan-West (DEP)
New Member Orientation
A brief new member orientation was offered over lunch.
Welcome and Introductions
Members and visitors introduced themselves. New member Amy Cannon was introduced. Amy is the Executive Director of Beyond Benign and holds a PhD in Green Chemistry.
● Priority User Segments (PrUS) – OTA is currently developing its recommendations on a potential PrUS for the Higher Hazard Substance Perc.
● The Continuing Education Conference will be on April 12th in West Newton.
● There are several demonstration sites this spring including a demonstration at Independent Plating showcasing their switch from hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.
● There are also several community events coming up, including an event on organic lawn care and an event on healthy nails which is tonight.
● The Form R/Form S trainings have been scheduled in May at locations throughout the state.
Approve January Meeting Minutes
There was a motion to approve January meeting minutes: 4 in favor, 2 abstentions.
Note: Corrected minutes from October and November were distributed to members.
Volatile Methyl Siloxanes (VMSs): D4
The Board has been considering the VMSs group for about a year. Some VMSs are common alternatives to TCE and Perc. At the January meeting a motion to include D4 based on PBT and endocrine disruption was tabled pending additional materials. Those materials were distributed between the meetings. Members Veronica, Robin, and Martha were assigned to review these articles.
Noted by EU to be a reproductive toxicant with possible risk of impaired fertility (Category 3) based on several studies.
Dow articles (Siddiqui, Quinn & Meeks) show weak, yet statistically significant effects for reproductive toxicity.
An additional NIOSH paper (which was not distributed, author is “He”) showed that D4 was an estrogen mimic which binds to estrogen receptor “alpha”. (Article information: Bin He, 2003 Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, “D4 exhibits estrogenic activity in mice via ERα”)
Reproductive effects were seen in female rats and not in the male rats. Decreased fertility was observed. Decreased implantation sites and litter size were observed as well as a prolonged estrous cycle.
NOAELS were set for reproductive toxicity. The NOAEL in Siddiqui is 300 ppm for female reproductive toxicity.
Estrogenic effects were observed in a dose-dependent manner.
Reproductive toxicity was observed to be more than just cellular – it was shown to be particularly potent at certain timing.
There was at least one multigenerational study.
Estrogenic activity of concern was noted.
The main issue is what the dose in the actual environment would be given the solubility. D4 is fairly insoluble. D4 is volatile – it does not stay in sediment long.
Dow articles show no effects at likely environmental concentrations.
The Siloxanes Panel is still working on their research – no completion date is estimated.
Does it make sense to consider D4 together with D5?
Has the SAB recommended listing other chemicals based on being estrogenic?
Some members found the evidence for estrogenic activity compelling and others did not.
Reproductive toxicity above and beyond estrogenic activity – may not only be estrogen causing effects.
Aquatic toxicity is not significant.
SEHSC is still completing their studies.
It was suggested that we have a presentation on endocrine disruption.
Motion: Table until Fall meeting and consider with D5.
Members would like to see the new EU document on endocrine disruption, the publication from Pete Meyers et al., and also both Veronica and Mary’s summary tables.
Vote: 6 in favor.
Hydrofluorinated Ethers (HFEs)
The HFE’s are being reviewed by the SAB because they are common replacements for chlorinated solvents.
Members Larry and Ken were assigned to review these papers.
HFE 7100 is a precision solvent. It is a replacement for CFCs. It is expensive. Australia states it is a non-hazardous compound. Not a lot of health effects were seen. Dose related studies showed extra ribs in rats. No other skeletal effects were seen, so they were considered to be an anomaly.
The LC50 > 100,000 ppm.
Regarding environmental fate issues: the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 5-20 times less than the CFCs HFEs are intended to replace. Trifluoroacetic acid breaks down quickly in the atmosphere. There is a possibility of HF formation, however it is fleeting due to the OH groups present in the environment. The carbon groups are hard to break - very harsh conditions are necessary to break them. UV would be needed to kick off the radical.
Carol will look into DEP’s current strategy for GWP (Global Warming Potential) and report back to the board next time.
It was noted that HFE 7100 is not a good surrogate for this category.
Motion: Table HFE discussion until next meeting, pending information from DEP regarding GWP.
Vote: 6 in favor.
Further research requested on actual mechanism of chemical shock therapy agent: 333-36-8.
Propylene glycol ethers: potential reproductive effects
Propylene glycol ethers are being discussed as a component in alternatives to PCE. The Board is being asked to interpret the scientific information in order to provide accurate guidance to companies.
Members Hilary and Dave were assigned to review these papers.
- The 2 year rat inhalation study showed equivocal results.
- The alpha-isomer showed a decrease in pups (Lemazurier study)
- The beta-isomer showed sperm effects (Lemazurier study)
- It was questioned whether these are asthmagens.
The propylene glycol ethers will be brought up again at a later meeting so that all members have a chance to read the distributed studies.
CERCLA Categories: reintroduction
These CERCLA categories are on the TURA list but have never been reportable due to DEP policy. In some cases this is because the categories were never well defined – they were created in the 1970’s with the Clean Water Act. In many cases several chemicals from the category are individually listed.
Of the most interest are:
- Phthalate Esters
- Haloethers – HFEs (there is some overlap with the SAB’s ‘Certain Halogenated Compounds Category’)
Mary will begin definition and data collection for the phthalate ester category and distribute information to members for the next meeting.