February 3, 2009
Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2009
DEP Boston - 2nd Floor
12 PM
Members Present: Dave Williams, Larry Boise, Chris Swartz, Hilary Eustace, Veronica Vieira
Others Present: Heather Tenney (TURI), Liz Harriman (TURI), Mary Butow (TURI), Glenn Keith (DEP), John Raschko (OTA), Carol Rowan-West (DEP)
Welcome and Introductions
Program Updates
- Brief discussion of the Governor's proposed budget FY10 and the implications for the Program. OTA and TURI are awaiting further details on the intentions of the respective organizations, EOEEA & UMASS, in terms of funding. Specifically TURI is now rolled into the UMASS budget and OTA is now rolled into the EOEEA budget.
- TURI is currently assembling background, guidance information for the Administrative Council, per their request, including but not limited to: interpretation of SAB recommendations, structure for decision making, decision making under uncertainty, the Precautionary Principle, as well as a history of the evolution of the current list and decisions that have been made over the years. Suggestions are currently being solicited from the SAB for information they feel would be relevant and useful in this guidance document. The 1995 background document discussing the SAB guidelines for listing/de-listing of chemicals, was also mentioned. This document will be re-visited. Drafts of these documents are not expected to be completed for the next meeting, rather the draft will be reviewed by a sub-committee.
- The next Advisory Committee meeting will be held on March 2nd, and the Administrative Council meeting will be held on March 10th.
Approve December Meeting Minutes
There was some discussion raised by a member of DEP in regard to data considered for decisions indicated in the December Meeting Minutes, specifically the ferric compounds. The member's concerns were agreed to be addressed offline and the Minutes were approved unanimously as presented.
Preliminary Discussions: Fumaric Acid, Maleic Acid, Ammonium Chloride
The discussion on these substances has been postponed to March pending additional information as follows:
- Maleic Acid: Review of the Nagao study cited in an article that indicated the chemical as carcinogenic.
- Fumaric Acid: Review of a mouse lymphoma study indicated in the IUCLID dataset reviewed by the group that listed positive results.
- Ammonium Chloride: Review of an article on mutagenicity that is pending receipt. DEP indicated a high persistence in air for this substance.
There are currently only two users for these three chemicals.
Note: For Maleic and Fumaric Acid there is currently nothing compelling in the existing body of data. Comment was made that anti-tumorigenic properties, which were indicated for the acids, do not necessarily indicate safety.
Four remaining CERCLA chemicals:
Letters were sent to companies, currently reporting the following chemicals, soliciting additional information on the substances and encouraging their participation.
Aluminum sulfate
Board members cited the following as concerns in regard to this substance: caustic potential in the workplace, mutagenicity - as specifically evidenced in a paper indicating chromatid breaks, cell aberrations, dose-based abnormalities. Due to the routes of exposure, namely inhalation, and also pH concerns in waste water a member could not recommend this substance for the lower hazard list. The Board voted unanimously to retain this substance.
Butyl and iso-Butyl acetate
One member reviewed a paper that indicated that inhaled Butyl Acetate was not a developmental toxicant. This paper noted that there were weight decreases for subjects exposed. An earlier paper discussed at the last meeting spoke to the potency of amyl, butyl acetate, etc. Recovery from acute effects was rapid and began with removal from chamber. No Mutagenic or developmental effects were seen (just lower weights). It was also noted that the oral LD50's were fairly high for both, and that butyl acetate was listed as a GRAS substance.
There was limited information available on iso-butyl acetate. The Board reviewed structural properties by drawing out the structures (isobutyl, butyl and ethyl) and commenting on probable locations of steric hindrance, and other reactive sites. These are a homologous series which notes that the lower the number of carbons the more reactive.
Criteria/Endpoint: Butyl acetate; Iso-butyl acetate
LD50: 10,768 mg/kg; 13,400 mg/kg
Vapor Pressure: 11.5-18.9 mmHg; 17.8 mmHg
Flashpoint: 73ºF; 64ºF
Persistence: Air = high; Air = high
IDLH: 1700 ppm; 1300 ppm
Reactivity: +; n/a
Mutagen: 59 negative tests; 1 negative reference
Neurotoxicant: Short term +; ? (no evidence)
PEL: 150 ppm; 150 ppm
Iso-Butyl:
Information states that it is not a genotoxicant, not persistent in the environment and not likely to bioaccumulate.
Butyl:
Based on the drawing it is more reactive. There is a short term positive neurotoxic.
IDLHs are based on lower explosive limits (both) it is the flammability issue vs. toxicity.
A member noted that many people use butyl acetate as nail polish remover. One member noted that there is a caveat to the neurotoxin designation in that the minimum effect concentration = 8000ppm. A member from DEP noted that these values could not be accurately compared with PEL values due to the different dosing regimens. An exposure duration and frequency is likely to be different for a worker.
Voting on motion to retain and consider for Lower hazard substance 3 in favor, 2 abstaining
The information was not compelling to keep or delist the substances. The issues supporting retention were: Neutoxicity (animal studies - acute) and the uncertainty regarding how this translates to a long term worker health situation. Short term effects are reversible, the long terms effects are yet unknown. Both are unknown for iso-butyl. Flash point - flammability are not egregious. Low birth weight could be a risk factor for diseases later in life. Unsure if 3% and 12% less than control is a substantial decrease in fetal birth weight.
For Isobutyl there is very little information. Limited information was still similar to butyl, so they do not anticipate many other unknowns to arise. There is an acknowledgement of the difference in the two materials. At this point SAB considering these substances to be possible lower hazard substances.
Ammonium sulfamate
According to HSDB, this substance had low toxicity, not much human health data, animal data indicating no irritation or systemic toxicity with repeated applications to shaved skin, was not irritating on subcutaneous injection, and some other mild health effects. It is historically used as an herbicide. Known as a contact herbicide which is only used to targeted parts of plants for a desired to affect. Used in Massachusetts as a flame retardant for crepe streamers. Poisonous gases may be produced in fire. It liberates ammonia at elevated temperatures. There was some discussion around it's listing as an indirect food additive. It is used to treat cigarette paper. It is also indicated as an adhesive in food packaging.
There was some uncertainty regarding the occupational health perspective. The substance is mild from a skin irritation standpoint. Tumor inhibition potential was acknowledged. There was a gap in the Mutagenicity field.
Main issue for this substance is as a respiratory irritant, as a dust (rationale for low PEL). Ames assay listed as negative per Toxnet. Information also indicates that it does not cause permanent changes in genetic material and is not carcinogenic at 25 mg/kg/day. This substance is noted as part of FIFRA, but is not currently registered as a pesticide.
Ecotoxicology data indicates that it is practically non toxic to birds and aquatic organisms (fish). Listed as toxic to perch. Deer were not harmed when fed the substance. It is low to moderately persistent in soil, decomposed by microbes; absorbs moisture readily; highly soluble in water. Is a fertilizer and doesn't seem to have an effect on human or animal skin.
Motion to delist, 5 in favor
Update on Pb/Hg in concrete discussion from Spring 2006. The Program did not commit to a policy decision on chemicals. There were counsel changes at the relevant agencies. The main issue pertained to SIC code specific interpretation. Previous deliberation by the SAB surrounded the question of delisting lead and mercury in concrete aggregate and materials, and substances still being reportable with a waiver for planning (which was not a mandate of the SAB). Policy analysis would be responsible for determining these stipulations, along with the fact that the Program not having the statutory authority to require planning and waive planning and require reporting. The SAB's role is to make a scientific recommendation about Pb and Hg in concrete and if producers should be a part of the TURA program. Various legal counsels at DEP and EEOA have indicated that reporting and planning cannot be separated.
Topics for the next meetings will include a final review of Fumaric Acid, Maleic Acid & Ammonium Chloride.
Heather will contact companies using the remaining chemicals and advertise the meeting to stakeholders.
The Pb/Hg in concrete petition will be re-introduced. SAB has requested information on the description of processes used with Hg/Pb in concrete, i.e. cleaning, production, etc. Materials will be handed out for review by the April 14th meeting.
Next Meeting - Wednesday, March 11th, 2009
Adjourn