October 19, 2011
Science Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
October 19, 2011
Location: DEP Boston, 2nd Floor Conference Room B
Members Present: Dave Williams, Larry Boise, Hilary Hackbart, Veronica Vieira, Martha Mittelstaedt
Others Present: Bonny Betancourt (American Chemistry Council), Ken Weinberg (Safdoc Systems, LLC), Greg Braun (Department of Environmental Protection – Office of Research and Standards), Michael Hutcheson (DEP – Office of Research and Standards), David Wawer (Massachusetts Chemistry and Technology Alliance, Inc., [MCTA]), Rick Reibstein (OTA), John Raschko (OTA), Liz Harriman (TURI), Mary Butow (TURI), Heather Tenney (TURI), Mike Ellenbecker (TURI), Carol Rowan-West (DEP), Sean Moynihan (MCTA)
Welcome and Introductions
Update on Nanomaterials
Dr. Mike Ellenbecker gave an overview of the highlights of the recent Nano and Occupational Health Conference this summer in Boston. He emphasized current research with carbon nano-tubes (CNTs) and the concern for association with mesothelioma. Many attendees were interested in the images from the Mercer 2010 article in Particle Fiber Toxicology. There was a brief discussion about industry and being proactive with nanomaterials. Also, EPA has started to regulate carbon nanotubes through a PMN. California is gathering data from manufacturers and users of CNTs and also collecting data on quantum dots, fullerenes and some metals. EPA does not currently regulate nanomaterials as a Hazardous Waste – except as an explosive waste. A DEP member noted that the state of Washington is using hazardous waste regulations to inquire about the use of nanomaterials. Oregon, California and British Columbia are also researching initiatives. Mike’s slides will be sent out following the meeting.
Approve June Meeting Minutes
Approved: 4 in Favor, 1 Abstaining (not at previous meeting)
Program Updates
• Recommended Higher Hazard Substances (HHSs) formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium: The regulatory package has been approved and will be posted for public comment. Public comment starts 11/11/11 and goes for 21 days. In addition, the regulatory package includes 16 additional Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chemicals added to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
• The Administrative Council met and OTA presented its recommendation for Priority User Segments (PrUS) for Trichloroethylene (TCE) in cleaning. An OTA member noted that they found continued significant use of TCE and/or methylene chloride. The proposed PrUS fit the characteristics the statute said should be looked at, however the Council did not recommend designation.
• nPB – There is a series of fact sheets about to be printed. One is specifically for labor and workforce development.
• An asthmagen fact sheet will be published soon.
• The Perchloroethylene (Perc or PCE) Alternatives Assessment will also be published soon.
• November 9 is TURI’s Continuing Education Conference – Dr. Don Huisingh will be the keynote.
Final NTP Report on n-Propyl Bromide (nPB)
Heather reviewed a summary of the information on nPB in the final NTP report. The report concluded that there was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in the female rats and mice studied, some evidence of carcinogenic activity in the male rats studied and no evidence of carcinogenic activity in the male mice studied.
Continue Volatile Methyl Siloxanes (VMS) discussion
Heather reviewed the status of the VMS discussion to this point. The substances are potential alternatives to HHSs TCE and PCE and are being reviewed to determine whether they should be listed substances.
• First discussed in December 2010. Several concerns were identified.
o Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) (Cyclic): uterine carcinomas, bioaccumulation/PBT, estrogenicity
o Hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS) (Linear): High flammability
• March 2011 – Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council (SEHSC) attended meeting and provided Board with materials. The Board recommends listing HMDS due to flammability issues.
• Today – Canadian Board of Review work still pending. It is supposed to be published by 10/30. SEHSC is planning on finishing their additional studies by the end of the year.
Program will create a bibliography for the SAB of the materials that have been distributed/reviewed.
The rat-specific mechanism for the D5 uterine carcinomas is still an outstanding question.
MA Office of Technical Assistance and Technology (OTA) staff noted that there was a draft of the Canadian report in January 2011. A SAB member noted that some assumptions have to be made with environmental models. There was a question about Polydimethylsiloxanes (PDMS), if the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number represented a mixture. A SAB member noted that with commercial mixtures, there wouldn’t be a CAS number. Substances can be given CAS numbers based on being an isomer, or due to a specific method of manufacturing.
TURI will send an MSDS to a Board member for further research into the formulations for CAS numbers 107-51-7 & 141-62-8.
The Board decided to table the VMS discussion until the next meeting when the Canadian update should be available.
Continued work on Certain Halogenated Compounds Category (CHCC)
The Program staff gave a review of the purpose of the CHCC discussion. This discussion came about during the listing of nPB- it was noted that a small change could be made to nPB which would give it similar properties yet the new compounds would be unlisted. It was suggested that the Board look at a similar group of compounds to prevent getting singular petitions that are similar.
One question is should this be addressed as a category or on an individual chemical basis? The Board is considering a category. The Individual listing threshold is higher. A category has a lower defacto threshold. A category can be defined and not include certain things (such as the substances that are already listed). However, there is a loss of information with a category (e.g. you don’t get specific compound information). Policy issues such as these would be considered in the Policy Analysis as a recommendation moved forward. The DEP representative noted that there are similar health effects that would support a category. One possibility is to group the low flash point substances. A member questioned if we voted to list a group whether specific delisting petitions could be seen.
Some questions that remain are:
• Are the substances not currently listed in use? How are they being used?
• Is there enough EHS information to consider these a hazard?
• Flash point discussion – careful not to have sparks/flames
• Data not found = no brominated analog to the chlorinated substance.
• Explore particular Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) – reached out to EPA for some information on SAR … limited info available
• Endpoints of concern – cardiovascular, liver, kidney, gastrointestinal, blood, carcinogenicity, Central Nervous System (CNS), reproductive, respiratory, developmental
• Trans/cis isomers not on list? Isomer could make difference in activity
• Board would like explanation of the different type of CAS#’s e.g. B059590000
• Other brominated compounds similar to nPB? Are they the same physical state?
It was decided that TURI would gather information on the following:
o Acetylene tetrabromide/acetylene tetrachloride
o 1-bromopropane/1-chloropropane
o Isomers 156-60-5/156-59-2/590-11-4/540-49-8/590-12-5/593-92-0/25429-23-6
o EPA SAR on health endpoints (Contact EPA on specific endpoints)
TURA List Maintenance
This is a topic that has been discussed with the Administrative Council and the Advisory Committee. The program would like to keep the TURA chemical list current. The program has the ability to list or delist 10 substances per year. Additionally, the program has the ability to designate 10 higher and 10 lower substances per year. A list of potential sources that could be used to find new substances for the TURA list was circulated and Program staff went over the ideas that have been generated regarding list maintenance thus far. Additional ideas and comments from Board members were:
• National Toxicology Program (NTP) carcinogens could be assessed for potential addition
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) list of carcinogens
• Are the NTP carcinogens same as International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Group 1?
• Generational effects (teratogens/mutagens/endocrine disruptors) were stated to be of importance
• Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBTs)
• Nanotechnology – “DEP category?”
• EPA chemical action plans
Process coming under review…looking at EPI reports Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) – Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risk (SENSOR) program MA (Asthma, cancer, burns)
• Consider the Canadian Priority list
• MMWRs – exposure to chemicals – look at programs that track chemical exposure related to disease
• Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC)/Europe
• OTA – EPA has candidate lists for moderating drinking water contaminants under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which would feed into Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). They also have a candidate list of air toxics.
• Does NTP have a candidate list?
• MA list – Office of Research and Standards (ORS) – emerging contaminants
• Is there a compilation of these lists? Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse (IC2)/Works-Walmart
• Some thoughts on prioritizing
o Fire Service – serious physical hazard
o Zero valence flammable metals
o Companies selling into Europe are already phasing out substances (SVHC)
o Focus on children
o Flame retardants – Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs)…where are these chemicals used in mfr and in consumer products
o Is there a place where generational effects intersect with asthmagens?
o Generally look for intersections with the above lists
Next Meeting
Tuesday, November 29, 2011