November 14, 2012
Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
November 14, 2012
DEP Boston, 2nd Floor Conference Room C
Members present: Dave Williams (Chair), Larry Boise (Vice-Chair), Ken Weinberg, Martha Mittelstaedt, Robin Dodson, Hilary Hackbart, Amy Cannon
Others present: Mary Butow (TURI), Liz Harriman (TURI), Heather Tenney (TURI), Carol Rowan-West (DEP), John Raschko (OTA), Suzi Peck (DEP), Dave Wawer (MCTA), Trish McCarthy (ACC)
Members not present: Igor Linkov
Welcome and Introductions
- Dave shared an article Advancing the Next Generation of Health Risk Assessment which Heather will email to the Board. Dave wanted everyone to see some of the emerging issues with data availability and collection.
- Regarding the HFEs, MCTA is in communication with Dupont regarding additional information to be shared in the January meeting (information planned for the November meeting was delayed due to the hurricane).
- Regarding the VMSs – Heather has been in communication with SEHSC. They have completed their chronic aged animal study and are in the process of analyzing the data. They should have some written materials to share for the January meeting.
- nPB use under TURA was requested at the last meeting. There is one year of TURA data for nPB thus far. It was reported by 3 facilities ~ 50,000 lbs otherwise used. Over half of this amount was reported as releases which brings nPB to the Top 20 for releases under TURA.
- Heather and Liz followed up on the rules regarding recusal for members with a conflict of interest. If a member works for a company using a discussed chemical (or an organization which would profit from the outcome) the member needs to completely recuse themselves from the discussion.
- Liz reviewed the work that has been ongoing as the alternative to a Priority User Segment for perc. The Alternatives Assessment report for perc was circulated. The program and stakeholders are working with DEP on a comparative analysis table.
- OTA is in the process of finalizing its asthmagens report. The report focuses on formaldehyde, chlorine, and diisocyanates.
- The Continuing Education Conference was November 13th. There was a session on chronic disease (which included information on asthma and cancer), as well as an overview of the GHS system.
Approve September Meeting Minutes
A motion was made to approve the September minutes. 5 in favor, 2 abstain.
IARC 1: MOCA, 1, 3-butadiene- potential more hazardous substances
These two IARC 1 chemicals were noted during the process of working on the carcinogen report. MOCA was reviewed during the original Chemical Categorization, but was an IARC 2A at the time. 1,3-Butadiene had yet to be reported. Both had a change in IARC status (to IARC 1) around 2010.
Motion: List MOCA and 1,3 butadiene on the More Hazardous substance list, in keeping with guidelines established by the SAB previously of listing all IARC 1 carcinogens reported under TURA.
All members voted in favor.
At the last meeting some questions arose about the various agency carcinogen lists. Mary compiled a list of carcinogen definitions by Agency/Organization (OSHA/IARC/NTP) so Board members could compare the definitions and have them in mind when comparing substances which may have classifications from different organizations. This list was distributed for future reference.
CERCLA Categories: Phthalate esters
The Board has been asked to make a recommendation to DEP regarding the phthalate ester category. The phthalate ester category is on the TURA list, but is currently not reportable due to DEP policy (however, 6 phthalate esters are individually listed on the TURA list and are therefore reportable). DEP has asked the SAB to help define the category and make updated recommendations to the DEP policy.
Suzi Peck from DEP reviewed the history of the category and DEP’s needs. The phthalate esters were listed on CERCLA because the Clean Water Act had identified them as hazardous substances. CERCLA substances were often added by classes. At the time of the listing, the category was not well defined and information on specific chemicals was lacking. DEP is looking for input on whether any of the substances that are not reportable (by policy) have hazards warranting a change in the policy. If hazards are noted, changes can be made to the policy for specific phthalates or groups of phthalates.
A Board member noted that there were some substances listed as phthalate esters on the current data sheet that are actually acids or salts (not esters). She identified these for Mary and they will be removed them from the data sheet.
The Board requested that the spreadsheet be separated into ortho, meta and para substances and that structures be added to the spreadsheet. The board will consider one group at a time, beginning with the orthos which have the most information. The article (previously distributed) by Fabjan looks at the chemical structure (whether a given substance is ortho, meta or para) in terms of prioritizing. High Production Volume (HPV) data and the Chemical Action Plans are on the orthos. A member asked if there is a similar study (to Fabjan) for meta or para? TURI has not found one yet, but will continue to look. In addition, an industry representative on the Advisory Committee suggested considering Terephthalic substances as well.
A member asked if there was other toxicity data available. Patty’s Toxicology data is available as well and will be added to the spreadsheet. The Board asked about any information for the substances that had all ‘n/f’ in the spreadsheet. Trish will follow-up with Steve Risotto.
Heather will send the paper Robin recommended (Koch and Calafat) and will also send out the EPA phthalate action plan. The Board will look at the ortho phthalate esters in January.
Methylene Chloride: potential higher hazard substance
Member Martha Mittelstaedt recused herself due to her company reporting this chemical.
Methylene Chloride was placed on the More Hazardous List in 2001. It has been noted as significant recently for several reasons:
● During the OTA calls to companies reporting chlorinated solvent waste codes several companies reported using methylene chloride (though it has been noted that it probably is not being used as substitute for TCE/PCE).
● It was listed in the February Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report due to deaths of bathtub refinishers.
● It was listed in the NTP 12th report on Carcinogens as reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
The LD50 is a lot lower than TCE/PCE. The chronic RfD is the same as PCE.
At the last meeting the volatility was highlighted as an endpoint of importance.
A member commented that it is used quite ubiquitously. It is commonly used in chemistry labs.
Methylene chloride is hazardous enough to warrant its own standard for OSHA. Occupationally it would be considered comparable to TCE/PCE.
Motion: Recommend to Administrative Council that Methylene Chloride be listed as a Higher Hazard Substance.
Vote: 5 in favor, 1 abstain.
Rationale – the combination of the factors listed below:
- Chronic RfD similar to PCE
- Similar hazards to some other HHS listed
- High Vapor Pressure and lower occupational exposure limit
- NTP reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen
- Low LD50 relative to TCE/PCE
- Target organs (CNS/Liver)
Two meetings have been scheduled for 2013 --- January 9 and March 6.
Documents distributed/circulated at meeting:
- Phthalate Esters Spreadsheets (Regulatory and Scientific)
- Fabjan et al 2006 A Category Approach for Reproductive Effects of Phthalates
- September Minutes
- 1,3 Butadiene IARC Monograph summary
- MOCA IARC Monograph summary
- NTP 12th Report on Carcinogens Summary for Methylene Chloride
- Definition of Carcinogen Classifications by Agency/Organization
- Comparison Table for TCE/PCE/MeCl2