January 13, 2010

Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
DEP, 2nd Floor
January 13, 2010

SAB Members present: David Williams (Chair), Igor Linkov, Hilary Hackbart, Veronica Vieira, Anne Marie Desmarais

Others present: Heather Tenney (TURI), Liz Harriman (TURI), John Raschko (OTA), Sanford Ostroy (retired professor, Purdue University), Mike Ellenbecker (TURI), Bill Judd (Advisory Committee, TURPA)

Welcome

Program Updates
· Heather is working on getting three new members.
· Since our last meeting the regulation package was completed. This reg package included nPB and the CERCLA chemicals.
· The Advisory Committee is working on the fee structure and potential Priority User Segments (for the first high hazard chemicals: Lead, Mercury, Dioxin)
· The first TCE and cadmium reports are in.
· The Governor’s Budget is out next week. The next steps are that it goes through the House and Senate.
· The asthma report was distributed at the Advisory Committee meeting – there was a recommendation that the SAB to considers asthmagens and sensitizers when making decisions.
· TURI is moving to Wannalancit in February.

Approve July and September Minutes
The July Minutes were approved. The September Minutes were approved with one abstention (member was not at the September meeting).

2-Bromopropane (iso propyl bromide)
· Information that supports listing, primarily from NTP – CERHR
o Ovarian toxicant – animal studies at 100ppm
o Neurotoxicant
o Affects sperm formation
o Reproductive toxin for both male and female
o Human data
o Similar to DBCP
o Animal adverse impacts @ 300mg/l3 (levels that could be expected in the workplace)
o Prop 65
o Importance of reproductive toxicity: generational effects
o Vote: unanimous for listing 2-Bromopropane on TURA List

Discussion on 2-Bromopropane as More Hazardous Substance
o Similar to DBCP on more hazardous list
o Reproductive Toxicity – Human Evidence
o Importance of endocrine and reproductive effects
o Vote:unanimous for moving 2-Bromopropane to the More Hazardous list

Chromium
The question is whether we should we split the chromium category so that we can reflect differences in hazard of the different valence states. If that were the case then the thresholds would be 25,000 for each rather than combined.
· Chromium oxide was delisted
· Dichromate waste is a real environmental issue - crystallizes from water
· DEP says that if you can’t differentiate you must call it hexavalent (+6)
· Worthwhile to differentiate and focus on hexavalent
· Hexavalent is an IARC 1 by inhalation
· Trivalent ( +3) is unlikely to change into hexavalent in a natural system
· +5 is not stable; toxicity appears more linked to animals than chrome
· +3 and +6 reported primarily in literature: other states are rare and not likely to be stable
· +6 used in glass manufacturing – tempered glass, chrome plating

Chromium 6
· IARC 1
· Mutagen
· Positive Developmental Toxin
· Renal Toxin

Chromium 3
· Doesn’t easily convert to +6
· Doesn’t Bioaccumulate
· Relatively low acute toxicity
· DEP differentiates under MCP 50-fold difference in clean-up standard
· Naturally occurring in soil and rock
· In vitamins

Chromium Summary:
· Trivalent is likely to be categorized as less hazardous; hexavalent is likely to be more hazardous; all others could be NOS due to lack of available information or anything that can’t be categorized as trivalent could be more hazardous. The asthmagen status needs to be checked, follow up EPA repro effects, ATSDR, Inhalation studies for 4+, and NIOSH.

SAB Guidelines Document – Data points
Data Points we currently use:
· IARC
· PBT
· Neurotoxin/Developmental toxin/Reproductive toxin/Mutagen
· LD50/LC50
· RFD/MRL
· NIOSH REL/TLV
· FP

Other items we should consider:
· How long has it been in common use?
· Environmental estrogens
· Structure Activity Relationship
· Critical conc. in fish –Army uses this
· Asthmagens
· Sensitizers (NIOSH)
· OSHA

Notes:
· We aren’t setting standards – we are deciding what is on the list.
· Reproductive and generational effects are more important than cancer/individual effects.
· Individuals make decisions and vote; then we add votes. Individuals should be able to justify their own vote
· Better explanation of expert judgment and Delphi method needed– layman description, what EPA does, etc.
· Members should review Draft Handout and Drop/Add/Re-order data items. Liz will email out.

Next Meeting
Wednesday, March 24th, 2010 1PM