April 14, 2009

Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
April 14, 2009

Members Present: Larry Boise, Chris Swartz, Lorraine Braunsdorf, Hilary Eustace, Veronica Vieira, Joann Lindenmayer

Others Present: Heather Tenney (TURI), Liz Harriman (TURI), John Raschko (OTA), Mary Butow (TURI), Glenn Keith (DEP), Mark Smith (DEP), William Judd (Advisory Committee), Sean Legein (Executive Director - MACAPA)

Welcome and Introductions

February Meeting Minutes

Minutes from the February 3rd meeting were unanimously approved.

Program updates

• Liz noted that the Program Assessment draft was completed and presented to both the Administrative Council and the Advisory Committee. A draft will be sent to the SAB following the meeting.

• The remaining substances that are candidates for HHS were presented at the Advisory Committee meeting. Basic information on the chemicals such as expected number of filers was compiled and input from advisory members regarding which chemical(s) to move forward with was requested. The feedback received centered around what could be added, i.e. other high priority substances perhaps in products, etc. Their suggestion was, if possible, could substances be chosen that companies need to address elsewhere as well ( e.g. REACH, RoHS).

• DEP released the 2006 data which can be forwarded to the SAB.

• The Program has been updating the Council and the Committee about interim decisions, so that they are aware of what will be considered in the next few months, including; alternatives to the currently designated and future HHS. Many companies are using nPB as a substitute for TCE, which may be just as hazardous. Ideally when considering substances for HHS status, a list of typical alternatives companies are likely to choose could be evaluated simultaneously. Also, preferable substances could be indicated. As an initial step in this kind of evaluation, the Surface Cleaning Laboratory generated a list of ~ 500 alternatives to the currently designated HHS. We are currently reviewing substances by class, and will be bringing the data on these substances to the SAB soon for evaluation. If necessary, alternatives to be added would be similar to an internally initiated petition to list. Both the Council and Committee think this is important.

3 Chemicals remaining from 14 reported CERCLA Chemicals

Maleic Acid discussion: Confirmation that the Yanigasawa compared DNA synthesis tests. Mark inquired if there were any negative Mutagenicity tests other than Ames systems, i.e. in mammalian studies? He noted that without a negative mammalian study, a degree of uncertainty is left based on the one mammalian reference that is positive. Mark and Joann volunteered to have the remaining Nagao article translated, as it is supposed to contain information on the positive reference. A full translation was requested vs. a summary of the translation, since that may affect the evaluation of the information.

Fumaric Acid discussion: Based on the information in the above table, there was a motion to take no action. Motion unanimously approved.

Ammonium Chloride discussion: Only concern was the LD50 value. Based on the information in the above table, there was a motion to take no action. Motion unanimously approved.

Lead and Mercury in Concrete petition

The SAB originally discussed the petition over two meetings in 2006. At the time there was a motion to continue reporting but not require planning or fees. This is not allowed under the statute. Additionally, counsel has indicated that it is not possible to exempt certain SIC codes. The SAB has been charged with making a scientific recommendation vs. a policy recommendation. The program can then consider policy options such as the development of a model plan. The program noted that one reason this has been brought back to the SAB is that the Program is really interested to know what the SAB thinks about Hg/Pb in fly ash, concrete. What are the things we should worry about?

One member noted that from an elemental standpoint the Board clearly cannot take the stand that lead and mercury are not hazardous; actually they are more hazardous as the fly ash because of their easier access in air to the lungs. There was a discussion surrounding the mixture with concrete/aggregate.

The MACAPA representative noted that standardization of the plan would be a benefit to industry and that the way material is handled is very standardized. In regard to the issue of it being in the air or nuisance dust, he noted that the bag houses are over 99% efficient in most cases. If there were varying manufacturing processes it would be different. You could standardize plan to track/de-list, if turning into a product that would render it inert. A description of the process was given. The MACAPA representative notes that when the fly ash is bagged and leaves it is pneumatically pumped into tanker trucks and then pumped into the plant dry. Some residual may blow around on the ground. He emphasized that it is a very valuable commodity, so companies are very careful to ensure no leaking/spillage.

The DEP representative commented on trends in fly ash. There are new regulations on coal generating units that are in effect now in MA - carbon injection to pull out mercury, which will result in more mercury in the fly ash. These changes may result in the level of Hg in fly ash increasing, both in State and out-of-State in response to the more stringent standard. It is uncertain whether this would also affect Pb levels. The DEP representative noted that he was unsure if previous data regarding leaching and volatility of mercury in the cement compared to a controlled landfill He suspects leaching from landfill not a big concern, the cement is almost certainly not worse. However, the higher Hg content not looked at. A request was made to research for data on this topic.

Additionally the Board asked if there were any monitoring requirements for the workers, i.e. blood lead testing, etc. The representative noted that they provide PPE for respiratory issues, protective clothing. The Board also inquired if there were any typical findings for overexposure? The DOS representative will look into this.

A member asked what the alternative would be in lieu of the use of fly ash. The MACAPA representative noted that then they would have to go to the landfill. Pb/Hg increases strength of redi-mix concrete, it is very beneficial. An alternative would require more cement. Although plausible as the cost is comparable for fly ash/cement, certain end uses require a certain amount of fly ash (i.e. MASS Highway).

Facilities are subject to TRI reporting as well as TURA, however, often the report releases of 0, so data would be lost. Heather will extract current data for the Board (TRI vs. TURA).

The table included below summarizes the questions and what further information is necessary to properly evaluate the petition from a scientific perspective.

The DEP representative noted that there is an exemption if applicable to cement aggregate. If old concrete is being recycled (lead painted concrete), that could be an area with additional lead.

The Program noted that even if SAB votes to retain, we can still benefit from expert scientific discussion. The issue remaining is how to help TURI in bolstering a policy decision. How can the Program help in implementation and assistance to industry? All information coming from answers to these questions (see Table) will be helpful to the Program.

Finally, someone asked about Nitrates. They were not part of the original petition. The MACAPA Representative did not have a comment at the time of the meeting, but noted he would pursue the information for the next meeting. Heather noted that would be considered a separate meeting. Petitioners are asked to produce information supporting why they think it should be de-listed. Heather will continue to ask for help as needed with regard to the rest of the information.

Decision Making Guidelines

Liz noted that the Administrative Council has requested a decision-making guidelines document, to better document how decisions are made within the program. A Sub-committee of the Council helped to come up with the outline of the document. The Program is currently interested in any SAB comments on the accuracy of procedures, etc before re-circulating the draft back to the Sub-committee. It was noted that any thoughts on improvements are always appreciated, the comments on the decision making document should be sent to Rachel within the week. An additional idea was presented to have members take turns making short presentations on their areas of expertise over the "lunch" portion of the meeting.

A meet-n-greet has been scheduled with the Advisory Committee and the Administrative Council for June 9th.

Next Meeting - Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

Adjourn