June 4, 2007
Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
June 4, 2007
Members Present: Larry Boise, Chris Swartz, Hilary Eustace, Dave Williams, Beth Rosenberg, Igor Linkov, Nancy Maxwell
Others present: Heather Tenney (TURI), Mike Ellenbecker (TURI), Glenn Keith (MassDEP), Carol Rowan West (MassDEP)
Welcome and Introductions
Minutes
There was a discussion about placing the minutes on TURI's website quickly, so interested parties can read about the meetings. The Board decided that the minutes would be distributed to the Board via email within a few days of the meeting, and the Board would then have two days to review the minutes prior to posting. Non-response by members will be considered acceptance of the minutes as written.
Program updates
- Mike noted that there is still no decision on the status of an Executive Director for the TURA Administrative Council or a scheduled meeting.
- Mike noted that Science Advisory Board appointments are slowly moving forward.
- Mike noted that the House's and the Senate's FY08 budget included an increase in TURI's funding, which could provide more resources for the Board's activities.
- Heather gave an update on the process for determining the potential new users of the recommended higher hazard chemicals. TURI is using the Chemical Economics Handbook, the TURA data, and the Harris Database (which is a listing of Massachusetts companies) to determine potential types of users in the state. Also, TURI is using Tier II data and plans to explore other MassDEP databases. TURI also will use expertise in industry - particularly at OTA and TURPA - to help with this effort.
Chromium
The Board discussed the information supplied by Chris Swartz on the redox chemistry of Cr+3 and Cr+6 in the environment. The Board's initial categorization project had placed hexavalent chromium in the More Hazardous category and trivalent chromium in the less hazardous category. Since TURA reporting requirements do not currently distinguish between the two but only have categories for chromium and chromium compounds, hexavalent and trivalent cannot be listed separately under the current regulations.
Chris summarized the papers he had supplied. There is sufficient evidence that Cr+3 goes to Cr+6
readily in the environment under certain conditions - such as acidic conditions, in surface waters, and when certain elements, such as iron and manganese, are involved. The information presented clearly suggests that there is opportunity from a geochemical standpoint for trivalent chromium to change to hexavalent chromium, however it is not necessarily what will happen under typical conditions. In terms of worker health at a facility, trivalent chromium is clearly less hazardous.
There was a motion to split the chromium compounds category and to place hexavalent chromium in the higher hazard category and to place the remaining chromium compounds in the middle (uncategorized) group. The motion was seconded and the vote was unanimous.
MEK
The Board discussed whether to retain methyl ethyl ketone (MEK, which is a CERCLA-only chemical) on the Toxics list and discussed information Heather provided on MEK. EPA's SAB had denied a petition to delist MEK from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) list in 1998. However, the Ketones Panel of the Chemicals Manufacturing Association successfully won a lawsuit against EPA and MEK was delisted from TRI in 2005 (thus making it a CERCLA-only chemical for the TURA SAB's purposes). There seemed to be agreement from the Board that MEK should be retained; however, there was some question of which category it belonged in. The Board decided they needed more recent info regarding MEK. Nancy volunteered to look for epidemiological information and Heather will look for more recent information as well as minutes from the SAB meeting where the SAB first categorized MEK as less hazardous.
Isobutyl Alcohol
The Board retained isobutyl alcohol on the Toxics list at the March 2007 meeting; however, at the April meeting the Board decided to review this decision. Carol Rowan West provided and reviewed information on isobutyl alcohol for the group. Its LD50, Chronic Fish Toxicity, and TWA are lower than several other retained chemicals, suggested that isobutyl alcohol should be retained. The Board took no action and thus isobutyl alcohol remains retained as decided at the March meeting.
Ethyl Acetate
In 1996 the SAB voted not to delist ethyl acetate. Heather provided the minutes from the 1996 SAB meetings for the group to discuss as well as the information newly entered into EPA's High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS). The Board felt the information was too old to use and decided to table the issue and gather more recent information. Nancy volunteered to look for epidemiological information and Heather will look for other more recent information as well as Monsanto's 1996 delisting petition.
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate (BBP)
In 1996 the SAB reviewed a delisting petition for BBP and recommended to delist it. However, at the time there was rapidly emerging new information about the chemical. TURI later recommended to retain the chemical and the Administrative Council voted not to delist it. Heather distributed information from the past SAB meetings on BBP and Chris Swartz summarized newer information on the chemical. More recent literature documents developmental and reproductive effects such as undescended testicles and decreased ano-genital distance resulting from BBP exposure. In 2002 the National Toxicology Program (NTP) determined that it was a minimal risk. Studies after the 2002 NTP decision show that it is ubiquitous in the environment and is a human reproductive and developmental toxin. There was a motion to retain Butyl Benzyl Phthalate on the list and the vote was unanimous to retain it.
Chlorosulfonic Acid (LD50 50 mg/kg), 2-Chlorophenol (LD50 670mg/kg), paraformaldehyde (LD50 800 mg/kg), 1,2-dichloroethylene (LD50 2122 mg/kg), tetrahydrofuran (LD50 2816 mg/kg), benzenethiol (LD50 is 50 mg/kg)
These chemicals all have LD50s lower than chemicals on the less hazardous list. There was a motion to retain Chlorosulfonic Acid, 2-Chlorophenol, paraformaldehyde, 1,2-dichloroethylene, tetrahydrofuran, and benzenethiol. The vote to retain these chemicals was unanimous.
Acetic Anhydride
The Board discussed whether to retain acetic anhydride. It is more toxic than acetic acid, which the Board already had decided to retain. There was a motion to retain acetic anhydride and the vote was unanimous.
Chemicals of interest for next time
Several chemicals were identified as priorities for next time: propanenitrile, ammonium bifluoride, sodium fluoride, ammonium fluoride, and fuming sulfuric acid.
Nanotechnology
There was a brief discussion about recent events regarding Nanotechnology. TURI, Society for Risk Analysis and the City of Cambridge co-sponsored educational workshop at MIT on 29 May 2007 (http://www.cambridgepublichealth.org/events/nano_workshop.php). Mike and Igor summarized workshop conclusions. The workshop was attended by 140 participants represented academia, industry, government and consulting. Fourteen lecturers covered a diverse range of topics essential for professionals in nanotechnology and biotechnology. Nanotechnology is a broad and complex field of research and manufacturing that also presents potential uncertainties regarding environmental health and impacts of nanomaterials in certain uses. In the absence of federal and state guidance on nanotechnology risk assessment, the City of Cambridge has initiated advisory process on developing a nanotechnology city ordinance. The lectures coupled with panel discussions and Q&A allowed participants to gain an awareness of the critical issues in this evolving field and a set of conceptual tools needed to make decisions and prioritize challenges in their own organizations.
Carol shared some ideas from some meetings she had attended. The group is interested in staying engaged in this upcoming issue and it was decided that the Board would have a short presentation on Nanotechnology in the fall.