May 19, 2009

Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
May 19, 2009
DEP Boston – 2nd Floor
1 PM

Members present: Dave Williams, Chris Swartz, Larry Boise, Lorraine Braunsdorf, Veronica Vieira, Igor Linkov

Others present: Glenn Keith (DEP), Liz Harriman (TURI), Mary Butow (TURI), Heather Tenney (TURI), John Raschko (OTA), Sanford Ostroy (Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences from Purdue University) , Carol-Rowan West (DEP)

Welcome and Introductions

Program Updates
Among the topics discussed at the recent Advisory Committee, the study of alternatives to the HHS was included. At present, a long list of alternatives to TCE and Perchloroethlyene (Perc) has been identified. The Program has recently selected sample chemicals from each of the categories (i.e. VMS) to see where the SAB wants to focus. This is an item of high priority for consideration by the Board. There has been a request from MassDEP to look at nPB first, and consider this chemical for listing and possibly for HHS status. MassDEP and California have performed research on the chemical to this point. The Board should decide if it makes sense to prioritize the chemical, particularly as many facilities are switching to nPB and it is not on the TURA list.

Of the original list of 11 candidate substances for HHS, the 8 remaining for consideration were presented to the Advisory Committee for input as to which they felt were high priority for the Commonwealth. They suggested it would be useful to look at the candidates alongside the additional business and market drivers companies are facing, i.e. REACH, RoHS, etc. This would ideally increase competitiveness in MA. The Program assembled a list of some of the more common market drivers. In addition they will add the POPS list and new substances just recommended for POPS and toxics in packaging list. Of the list of 8, the most common chemical was arsenic compounds - a few others show up as well on the EU trade union priority list. Some focus on toxics in products, while trade unions are interested in things workers are exposed to. This list can be sent out to SAB.

A question was raised as to why Cr+6 was not on the HHS consideration list. At the last deliberation when the candidates were picked, Cr+6 and Cr+3 are still in the same category. There was a suggestion to break up the category by valence state. This needs to become part of the SAB future task list. The Advisory Committee wondered if Cr+6 would be on the candidate list if it were independent from the category.

They also reviewed the background document for decision making from the last meeting. There were questions about clarifying the intent of the original SAB guidelines, i.e.; What endpoints do you consider automatic, and the process that SAB goes through?

Labor representatives, Steve Gauthier of AFL-CIO and Tolle Graham of MassCOSH, raised awareness of occupational issues at the most recent Advisory Committee meeting. They wanted to ensure some of the issues important to Occupational Health and Safety were included in the whole programs emphasis. They have provided information on sensitizers and asthmagens. They would like to make sure that those things are on the official list of criteria that the SAB considers every time.

Glenn mentioned that nPB, was discussed at a recent dry-cleaning outreach meeting regarding perchloroethlyene. The Emerging Contaminant Workgroup at MassDEP, raised the issue. Carole has put together a background on the chemical. Liz noted that one of the issues with the designation – is that it would have to be considered very quickly by the SAB to be listed for this year. If the SAB is to consider this request a July meeting would have to occur as the Administrative Council meets at the end of July. This would be in order to make the fall regulations package.

Approve April Meeting Minutes
4 in favor, 2 abstain (members were not present at previous meeting)

Maleic Acid
Basic information previously considered was noted. Liz found a Japanese professor from UML who was able to translate the 1978 Japanese article previously found as a reference of another article that was considered. The translated article referenced an older body of NIH work which actually was referring to anhydrous maleic acid. Maleic anhydride is on the SARA 313 list ( and thus is a TURA chemical which must remain).

It was cited in the original article (Yanagisawa et al) as Maleic Acid yet when it was found in the referenced document ( Nagao) it was anhydrous maleic acid (maleic anhydride). Liz reviewed in terms of sensitizers, one study looking at two different tests for determining if something is a skin sensitizer – Europe has been investigating non animal testing options. Conclusion around the LLNA test – maleic anhydride is identified as skin sensitizer. Mike and Hilary (not present) didn’t think it needed to stay on the list. Carole noted that Mark Smith asked if there were any negative Mutagenicity tests other than the Ames ( there were not).

Unanimous – motion to take no action (6)

This concluded the review of the 14 currently reported CERCLA chemicals the SAB was asked to review a second time by the Administrative Council. A policy analysis document has been drafted and will be circulated to the SAB. Of the fourteen reconsidered chemicals, 3 were recommended for retention.

Lead and Mercury in Concrete
In the fall of 2005 AIM submitted a petition to de-list lead/mercury in concrete. In the spring of 2006, the Board recommended that affected facilities keep reporting but not require planning. This recommendation was not allowable by law, as reporting and planning cannot be separated. Also, the statute does not support reporting for one SIC code and not others. Since then the Program has tried to work with industry to address the concerns.

The new charge to the SAB is to develop a recommendation solely based on science, while acknowledging the Program will deal with Policy issues. Their research can provide information to assist in the construction of a model plan for the industry, specifically from a scientific standpoint with regard to Pb/Hg and addressing leaching/volatilization issues.

Many questions were generated at the last meeting. Questions were separated into policy & science categories, where appropriate. Progress has been made in answering many of the questions. Information was distributed to different Board members for review.

Leaching:
A member noted that when discussing leaching, all uses should be considered and not solely concrete.

A member inquired as to the reportable concentrations/clean-up standards present in 21E, specifically the values cited for Pb and Hg. These could be useful as they are already deemed cutoffs approved by the State for reporting and cleanup.

A member inquired if this would apply to every company that uses these metals; also if we had a sense of other uses of Pb/Hg in the State. It was noted that anything mined, companies using talcs, calcium carbonates, could have Pb/Hg. They were also noted as used in the wire and cable industry. The Program noted that hundreds of companies are reporting lead. A member noted that although the petition was to de-list mercury and lead in coal ash, the Board cannot just de-list the chemicals outright.

A member inquired if the Board could employ a de minimus, similar to the precedent set with acetic acid. He noted, if there is a certain level that DEP considers a safe amount, could that be set as a de minimus, and would that benefit the industry. This will affect a lot more people, possibly in the wood industry, mining. Someone noted that setting de minimus levels would help construction waste. DEP indicated that Pb and Hg are PBTs under TRI. Therefore reporting rules specifically don’t allow de minimus.

There was discussion regarding whether it is preferable to be used in concrete vs. disposed in a landfill. It was agreed that this discussion could be addressed on a policy level, although the scientific discussion corresponding to leaching/degradation is important. One member noted that from a scientific point of view, it is better to use fly ash, versus disposing. However, another member pointed out that exposure potential would be greater from concrete than from a landfill.

If the Program develops a model plan, they want to address the inherent hazards of the materials. A member noted that if it is still toxic, then the beneficial use of fly ash in the end use stabilizes the contaminants; if the contaminants cannot leach to a reportable concentration that is good. Heather noted that the original petition pertained to end use, and we are not considering the life cycle.

Should lead and mercury be listed?

Formal motion for Pb/Hg to remain listed; Unanimous.

Is it more beneficial for the environment to have fly ash in concrete or landfill?

Leachability studies discussion:

  • Fly ash makes a better product when used in concrete, stronger, increases tensile properties, required for many state projects (policy) issue.
    A member reviewed the leaching studies and found the procedures to be weak yet consistent. Fly ash in concrete is more stable, ph=2, 6, 12…found a couple of studies with aging of concrete, “distinguishing the source of trace metals in leachates, all components had similar properties’
  • One member noted that the Asphalt Institute information didn’t really address fly ash, would have found lead from aggregate and cement, only found chromium and barium in TCLP.
  • Oxy-anions are more mobile than the cations, road salting. The study included sampling from all over the road and soil from the shoulder?
    Confirmed date of the study from the concrete industry – coring occurred in 1991.
  • Biggest thing found was naphthalene.
  • A member noted that the detection limits are so much higher than in other studies, 10x higher from the Asphalt Institute, which is not implying bias, but it does not prove anything. Also, the Program noted it was not published and peer reviewed.
  • A member felt it was obvious that fly ash in concrete is more stable.
  • DEP felt there was still uncertainty – some of scientific issues outlined aren’t answered yet. (i.e. the demo, deicing, disintegration)
    A member noted that the concern is exposure routes, in landfill won’t have kids playing near soil in the landfill. Other members felt kids are attracted to landfills. Regardless, it was agreed it was a policy issue.
  • One member noted that it is invalid to say when fly ash in concrete is most stable as long term stability it unknown, and in some circumstances will leach.
  • Another concern was with regard to particulate size and whether or not the dust would be nuisance or respirable?
  • The Program is focused on considering EH&S risks/concerns throughout the lifecycle; from power plant, to concrete plant, placement, etc…
    Overall, there was not consensus whether the fly ash is better in a landfill or in concrete.

What are concerns re: Pb/Hg in fly ash @ facility?

  • Fly ash in the bag houses and handling at facilities.
  • There were papers sent on occupational exposure.
  • The petitioner stated material is pneumatically moved from trucks to mixing chambers and further talked about the bag houses.
  • Hilary offered to look at DOS records on monitoring, wasn’t able to find monitoring on Pb; only showed silica.
  • A member questioned if this was the role of the SAB to consider occupational exposure at the lifecycle phase?
  • The Program notes that if there is anecdotal evidence there are losses at facilities? Is that a concern for workers?
  • A member noted that would be a concern with any chemical.
  • A member noted that facilities should be operating under applicable OSHA rules.
  • The Program reiterated that these considerations are in terms of helping them develop a model plan, what are the biggest health and environmental concerns? Is it respiration?
  • John noted that other materials ought to be considered as well, i.e. aggregate, cement.
  • Liz noted that respiration wouldn’t be the same for cement/fly ash.
  • Carole noted that Pb/Hg more concentrated in fly ash than in concrete. What would be the hazards/exposure with an accident, particularly of a truck carrying fly ash?
  • A member noted that the TUR plan is designed to capture the lifecycle.
  • Another member noted that any company would have to consider these things…ie. Pigments, etc.. this type of issue for any process.
  • A member noted that a big issue is stormwater – because it is happening outside of the facility. Also truck wash water and fugitive emissions.
  • Particle size – nuisance (coughed up), respirable stays in lungs.
  • A member noted that if lead is used in a facility, they are required to report under OSHA for a certain amount. OSHA has a program for Lead.
  • Heather noted should be under the limit since Hilary checked.
  • Another question raised was in regard to what DEP would do if they found (pending further investigation of the fly ash) amounts that triggered another threshold?
  • A member noted that one sturdy showed that chelators inhibitor leaching quite a bit.
  • Issues of respiration – fate of losses that occur at the facility.
  • What about questions from last meeting? Some answered and some haven’t – some questions may be returned to when reviewing the policy analysis.
  • The Program noted that one concern that came up both times was potential exposure, concentrating concrete in dense urban areas – open question…one of the reasons not to be an automatic more beneficial in concrete than landfill.
  • DEP noted fly ash in future could have higher lead and mercury levels according to new regulations which could really change the leaching properties.
  • A member noted the top filters trap more of the carbon – makes problem worse.
  • Liz noted that if the carbon was removed to make it more beneficial, could it also pull out the Pb/Hg as well? Should the Program be monitoring this with DEP?
  • John asked who is doing that separation; power plant? Fly ash processor?
  • Liz noted it is unknown – experimental methods – questions for Mark.
  • John noted it will change the cost, which could change the use. Mark has had limited success finding that information in the short time frame.

Summary
The Program will send out nPB information including a table of data and the info from Carole’s group. We will investigate if drycleaners have data on nPB, as we are also updating the dry cleaning portion of the 5-chemicals study. CA has done a lot of information gathering on the chemical. Also, the next meeting will review the decision making guidelines used as a Board (criteria used, information desired for listing/delisting, endpoints for listing/delisting) and the fall schedule.

For the July meeting we may have information to discuss Chromium. The Chromium discussion will include whether any other valence states should still be reportable.

Next Meeting

Scheduled for June 9, 2009, 12PM
Meet – n – Greet with the Advisory Committee and Administrative Council @ the Saltonstall– 100 Cambridge Street
July meeting was scheduled for July 22.

Adjourn