October 15, 2008

Toxics Use Reduction Institute Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
October 15, 2008

Members Present: Dave Williams, Chris Swartz, Lorraine Braunsdorf, Hilary Eustace, Larry Boise, Joann Lindenmayer

Others Present: Heather Tenney (TURI), Mike Ellenbecker (TURI), John Raschko (OTA), Mary Butow (TURI), Liz Harriman (TURI), Glenn Keith (DEP), Carole Rowan-West (DEP)

Welcome and Introductions

Administrative Issues: Recording, Scheduling

• Meetings will now be recorded (via laptop) for the sake of clear communication of information discussed.

• Scheduling of all fall meetings will occur today. Ideally we can schedule with one additional member to avoid the cancellation of meetings.

• Biographies will be posted on the TURI website by the end of the month.

Approve May Meeting Minutes
Minutes from the May 20, 2008 meeting were approved.

Results of Advisory Committee and Administrative Council Meetings
Higher Hazard Substances
Mike communicated that the Administrative Council and the Advisory Committee had each met three times since the last SAB meeting and were very pleased with all the work done by the SAB in evaluating all of the CERCLA chemicals for scientific basis for retention on the TURA list. He also noted that perchloroethylene was designated as a Higher Hazard Substance by the Administrative Council. Additional information on the Council's decision and information considered can be found at:

Administrative Council Meeting Minutes

Heather mentioned that other potential HHS will be considered at some point in the near future. TURI is currently reviewing the chemicals that the SAB has recommended, which will include a best engineering estimate of who would be affected, what regulations might apply, and relevant science, to be summarized for the Advisory Committee. Since the program cannot address all the chemicals at once and provide necessary services to companies, we will be obtaining input from the Advisory Committee as to which chemicals should be of highest priority.

CERCLA Chemicals
Mike noted most of the recommendations made by the SAB were adopted by the Administrative Council. The Administrative Council voted to keep all the chemicals that the SAB recommended to retain. The 58 chemicals recommended for no action were retained by the Administrative Council for one more year. The Council has asked the SAB to review a subset of these chemicals (the 14 currently reported chemicals) as if they were a delisting petition and determine if there is enough evidence to let them go.

Glenn summarized the concerns from DEP that lead to the decision to temporarily retain the chemicals the SAB recommended for No Action. DEP raised concerns at the September Advisory Committee meeting about a lack of data for some of these chemicals. For other chemicals there was a concern that another chemical had been retained with a similar data point.

One member inquired if this was different from the negotiations of the amendments. Mike responded that the Bill said we would review the CERCLA list. Glenn indicated that the expectation on industries part was that things would come off the list, although the way the legislation was written there was no bias to letting things go or not, just a review.

TURI staff reiterated that there was no pre-conceived notion that the outcome will change or not. It is understood that the scientific process in place was followed and this is just a second look at the 14 chemicals with the opportunity to look at extra sources.

Another member expressed concern that when a delisting petition is considered there is generally an antagonist and a protagonist. Mike added that those who filed a petition to de-list a chemical could be actively championing for/against their chemical. One member felt that the manufacturers of chemicals not in MA should also be notified. Liz felt that the program should let people reporting know - and then allow them time to call in resources with other information. A discussion ensued about the scope of inclusion in the notification process regarding the possible de-listing of these chemicals. There was a consensus regarding allowing those reporting/selling the chemicals in state should have an opportunity to attend a meeting where the chemical would be discussed. One SAB member suggested getting input from companies that currently report the chemicals, for them to provide additional information.

The discussion surrounding the purpose of re-considering these chemicals continued and DEP re-iterated their stance that they would just like to see more documentation in terms of criteria and basis for decisions. Heather noted the recording and additional time available to focus on a small group of chemicals should remedy this concern.

14 Currently Reported No Action Chemicals
Heather indicated that many are food additives and on the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) list. She also identified that many of the chemicals are wastewater treatment chemicals which could be grouped, as could the acetates.

The task at hand was to review the additional information and devise a schedule for reviewing the individual/groups of chemicals in the future, thus giving outside stakeholders an opportunity to contribute to the process where appropriate.

DEP recently identified that they would like to see more information on carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and neurotoxicity where available. Some data gaps have been filled in regard to mutagenicity, including some negative tests, which indicate progress toward answering questions posed by DEP.

Discussion around the validity and meaning of results prompted the need to further research sources of information obtained on tests, specifically those tests that have both positive and negative mutagenicity data. DEP staff noted that type of test performed could produce the positive result. Both source and type of test performed will be supplied by TURI staff.

There was some concern that evaluating all 14 chemicals from a delisting perspective could take more than a year. In addition the perception of not delisting anything was also a concern of some SAB members. It was reiterated that the purpose of this re-evaluation is to fill in any places where data is available that has yet to be found and provide a more complete justification for the decision to retain/delist. TURI staff reiterated that intent of the additional information may serve to simply enforce their current decision.

An SAB member highlighted GRAS status as a good indicator for generally recognized safety of a chemical. One member raised the question regarding if there were amounts associated with the GRAS on food additives. Another member said that many food additives don't have limits according to the FDA, some are safe at any levels.

Several meeting attendees raised the question of criteria and threshold for decision making. SAB members reiterated that there was an effort to weight variables and the expert analysis procedure was implemented. TURI staff indicated that the data gaps were making some stakeholders uncomfortable.

OTA staff suggested an approach that was applied many years ago where there was a 1st round of categorization, a summary of criteria, and then the basis for decision for each chemical was indicated. This is similar to the current approach? An SAB member suggested that there needs to be more structure to the decision making process, more systematic approach, same framework, and then these things can be applied to the next decision. They also suggested that it would be appropriate to assign a few people to review evidence and present to the rest of the board. This suggestion is being implemented moving forward.

Heather listed items on schedule for the fall: Diethyl phthalate, Lead and Mercury in Concrete Petition, CERCLA categories, emerging issues (ie nanomaterials), IARC chemicals.

Consensus was reached by SAB to evaluate chemicals in groups, based on similarity, by teams of members. This data, along with any other relevant data submitted by industry, will be reviewed and presented to the board as a whole. Those reporting in MA and other associated industry organizations will be notified in advance of the meetings and allowed to attend and contribute where appropriate. This will allow the SAB to continue to focus on other emerging issues as indicated above.

TURI staff will provide teams with guidance including more detailed information on the sources of current data, as well as be available to provide additional information as requested. In terms of requesting information similar to that required in a de-listing petition from companies, a short guidance can be drafted to be sent out, paring down the information needed.

Diethylphthalate
To be discussed at the next meeting and reported on by Chris & Lorraine.

Schedule Next Meetings
11/12/08, 12/9/08, and 1/7/09. Location - DEP.

Adjourn