1 NHICEP Conference NH Hospital Association September 15, 2009 Cleaning Chemicals: Risk, Cleanliness...
Transcript of 1 NHICEP Conference NH Hospital Association September 15, 2009 Cleaning Chemicals: Risk, Cleanliness...
1
NHICEP ConferenceNH Hospital Association
September 15, 2009
Cleaning Chemicals: Risk, Cleanliness Testing and EPA Regulatory Update
Jack Fellman
Greener Chemistry Associates LLC
Topics for Discussion
Chemical Risk Assessment Model ATP Bioluminescence Test Method U.S. EPA Actions
July 30, 2009 Regulatory Update-Antimicrobial Labeling Update (Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, Director)
June 12, 2009 Pesticide News Story: antimicrobial Testing Program Web Page Now Available
July 31, 2009 EPA Reaches Settlement with Nation’s Largest Manufacturer of Hospital Disinfectants; Company Agrees to Pay $550,000 in Penalties
2
Chemical Risk Assessment Model
3
GCA Cleaning Product Risk Assessment Considerations
Health Environment Potential For Exposure of Personnel Storage & Handling Product Cost/Working Gallon Product Performance
4
GCA Cleaning Product Risk Assessment Objectives
Reduce Health and Environmental risks Reduce potential personnel exposure Product upgrade should be cost neutral Increase usage of 3rd party certified products or
better
5
What is a GCA Chemical Risk Assessment?
A method to quantify the risk to personnel and the environment of using a chemical for a cleaning function
A tool to facilitate the comparison of one product to another for the same potential use
A lower number for the risk assessment indicates a safer chemical
Water would have a GCA rating of zero
6
Criteria for GCA Risk Assessments
The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
EPA/s Design for the Environment (DfE) Green Seal Certification Standards Health & Environmental Risk Assessment
Project (HERA) Hodge and Sterner Scale for Toxicity Classes Arizona State University - Chemical Risk
Assessment Form Tool (CRAFT)7
The GCA Risk Assessment Process Steps
1. Product is identified with the MSDS
2. Hazardous ingredients are determined
3. Risk assessments of individual hazardous ingredients are made
4. Data for individual ingredients are combined to produce a product risk assessment
5. Typical application data (i.e., 1 gallon/hour) is used to calculate and compare the estimated exposure to documented exposure limits (OSHA)
6. Product cost and typical dilutions used to calculate cost/working gallon
8
Product is Selected
Product name MSDS number Product codes Recommended use Manufacturer Concentrate or Ready to Use Dilution Ratio Estimated Usage per Hour
9
Hazardous Ingredients are Identified
Chemical name(s) CAS Number(s) % Weight Concentration
10
Component Risk Assessments Hazards
Health Physical
Degree of Hazard Flash point Toxicity Aquatic Toxicity
Risks Acute health effects Chronic health effects Exposure limits
Exposure indicators Routes of exposure Physical form Vapor hazard ratio
11
Product Risk Assessment
Example
12
Product Information
Product Name: ABC 7/10/2009
MSDS #: Number
Product Code: 123456
Use:Cleaning Product
Concentrate or RTU: Concentrate
Manufacturer: DEF
13
Hazardous Components & Summary of GCA Component Assessment
Component: 1 2Total
Ingredient: Benzyl Alcohol Ethanolamine
CAS #: 100-51-6 141-43-5
Max in Product: 25% 7%
GCA Health Hazard 8 30
GCA Physical Hazard 2 2
GCA Degree of Hazard 9 12
GCA Risks 56 42GCA Probability of Exposure 14 19
89 105GCA Product Risk Assessment 194.0
14
Component Risk Assessment
Chemical Name:
Ethanolamine (2-aminoethanol) CAS #
141-43-5
Hazards: Potential Actual 7/10/2009
Health Hazards
Carcinogen 10
Corrosive 2 2
Irritant 2 2
Sensitizer 4
Toxic 2
Highly Toxic 4 4
15
Component Risk Assessment
Target Organ Effect
Liver 3 3
Kidney 3 3
Lymphoid system 3
Central nervous system 3 3
Blood forming organs 3
Respiratory tract 3 3
Lungs 3 3
16
Component Risk Assessment
Reproductive toxin
Teratogen 4
Mutagen 4
Skin 3 3
Eyes 4 4
Total Health Hazards 30
17
Component Risk Assessment
Physical Hazards
Combustible Liquid 2 2
Flammable 3
Oxidizer 4
Total Physical Hazards: 2
18
Component Risk Assessment
Degree of Hazard:
Flash Point (oF)
>200 0
150-200 1 1
100-150 2
1-100 3
<0 4
19
Component Risk Assessment
Oral, rat LD50 (mg/kgbw)
>15,000 0
5,000-15,000 1
500-5,000 1,720 2 2
50-500 3
1.0-50 4
<1 5
20
Component Risk Assessment
Inhalation, mouse LC50 (ppm)
>100,000 0
10,000-100,000 1
1,000-10,000 2,420 2 2
100-1,000 3
10-100 4
<10 5
21
Component Risk Assessment
Skin, rabbit LD50 (mg/kg)
>22,600 0
2,820-22,590 1
350-2,810 1,000 2 2
44-340 3
5.0-43 4
<5 5
22
Component Risk Assessment
Corrosivity (pH)
6.0-9.0 0
5-6 or 9-10 1
3-5 or 10-12 2
1-3 or 12-14 3 3
<1 or >14 4
23
Component Risk Assessment
Aquatic Toxicity-Acute (L/E/IC50)
>100 ppm 0 0
10-100 ppm 1
1-10 ppm 2
<1 ppm 3
Biological Half-life
minutes 0
hours 1
days 2 2
weeks 3
years 4
Total Degree of Hazards: 1224
Component Risk Assessment
Risks:
Acute Health Effects
Irritation 1 1
Sore throat 2 2
Coughing 2 2
Redness 2 2
Burning 4 4
Pain 4 4
Tearing 2 2
Stinging 2
Swelling 2
25
Component Risk Assessment
Nausea 3 3
Vomiting 3 3
Diarrhea 3
Headache 2 2
Dizziness 2
Narcotic effect 3 3
Difficulty breathing 4 4
Convulsions 4
Sensitization 4
Death 20
26
Component Risk Assessment
Chronic Health Effects
Cancer 10
Teratogenesis 10
Mutagenesis 10
Exposure limits (PEL and TLV)
>1,000 ppm 0
100-1,000 ppm 2
10-100 ppm 5
1-10 ppm 3 ppm TWA, 6 ppm STEL 10 10
<1 ppm 20
Total Risks: 42
27
Component Risk Assessment
Probability of Exposure Indicators:Routes of Exposure
Ingestion 1
Ingestion + Inhalation 3
Ingestion + Inhalation + Skin Contact 6 6
Physical Form
Solids, pellets 0
Liquids, granules 1 1
Mists 2
Vapors, fumes 3
28
Component Risk Assessment
Boiling Point
>400C 0
300-400C 1
200-299C 5
100-199C 170 C 10 10
0-99C 15
<0C 20
29
Component Risk Assessment
Vapor Pressure (mm Hg @ 20C)
<1 0.4 mm 0 0
1-10 2
11-100 10
101-760 20
Vapor Hazard Ratio [(Vpress)(10E6)/760]/TLV or PEL (Arizona State Un.)
<10 0
10-1,000 2 2
1,000-10,000 5
10,000-100,000 10
>100,000 20
Total Probability of Exposure: 19
GCA Material Rating 105 30
Exposure Risk Determination
Exposure Risk: Components in 1 ml of concentrated cleaner: Benzyl Alcohol - 269 ppm Ethanolamine - 75 ppmDilution to working strength: 1 parts cleaner diluted with 4 parts water to 20% concentrationComponents in 1 ml of diluted cleaner: Benzyl Alcohol - 54 ppm Ethanolamine - 15 ppm
Typical usage:500 mls in 15 minutes (33.3 mls/min.)
Potential Exposure: 1,800 ppm/min. 500 ppm/min.Permitted Exposure Level: 10 ppm 3 ppm TWA/6 ppm STELExposure Assessment: Expected: 2 Hour* usage>>> PEL Target: 2 Hour usage < PEL
31
Cost Assessment
Cost Assessment:
Container size: 2 LitersPrice per container: $25.00
Dilution: Dilute 1:5Cost/Working Gallon: $9.47
32
ATP Bioluminescence Test Method
33
How Clean Is It?
Visual assessment is not adequate Testing for microorganisms is better Testing takes a relatively long time – not relevant to a
“re-clean” possibility if results are not acceptable Testing requires laboratory facilities and skilled
personnel A new rapid test method must be quick, sensitive and
capable of detecting unacceptable cleaning performance Bioluminescence test for adenosine triphosphate (ATP)
has been developed for this need
34
C. Ramsay, Biotrace International July 29, 2003
What is ATP and how do we measure it?
ATP is contained in the nucleus of microorganisms
1947 bioluminescence first reported using the enzyme/substrate of firefly (luciferase/luciferin) to detect ATP
Methods developed to provide a linear relationship between luminescence intensity and ATP concentration
Reagent chemistry and portable instrumentation refined for a rapid test
35
Reaction for Light Measurement
Luciferin + Luciferase + ATP + Mg++ ->
(Luciferin-Luciferase-AMP) + Pyrophosphate
(Luciferin-Luciferase-AMP) + O2 ->
Oxyluciferin + Luciferase + CO2 + AMP + Light
36
New Portable Cleaning Test System
The New Portable Cleaning Test System is a tool to help healthcare professionals address the question, “How can I feel comfortable a surface has been properly cleaned?”
The technology of ATP bioluminescence is an accepted method for protein detection and it has been made portable with “real time results”.
In only 30 seconds, a quantifiable result is available to provide “peace of mind” or to “initiate corrective action”.
37
How does it work?
Swab without ATP is pre-moistened Swab is wiped across a surface,
approximately 4” x 4” in area Contaminated swab is placed in contact with
luciferin/luciferase reagents Swab is then placed in the portable
luminescence meter Readings in Relative Light Units (RLUs) are
available in 30 seconds38
How long can contaminated swabs be held before analysis?
Up to 4 hours The contaminated swab can be placed back
in the packaging tube and taken with other samples to a “workstation”, if preferred
39
Is monitoring hospital cleaning practices with New Portable Cleaning Test system “effective”?
Study by Boyce, et. al., Hospital of Saint Raphael and Yale University School of Medicine
Conclusions: The ATP bioluminescence assay method of the study
gave quantitative assessment of cleanliness The ATP method can be used for training purposes The ATP method can provide feedback in “real-time” Digital readings with data analysis software provide
data tracking
40
How does the New Portable Cleaning Test System compare to other methods for “sensitivity”?
Independent study by Simpson and Giles, Cara Technology, Ltd (2006) “Protocol for assessing the sensitivity of hygiene test systems for live microorganisms and food residue”.
Conclusions: The New Portable Cleaning Test System has better sensitivity
to low level contamination and repeatability for food residues and microorganisms.
A similar instrument produced almost 60% false negatives based on the samples tested: serial dilutions of Staphylococcus aureus, Citrobacter freundii, Zagosaccharomyce bailiis, Yeast extract and Yogurt drink, with manufacturer recommended pass/fail limits, for each dilution level.
41
How does the New Portable cleaning Test System compare to other systems for “repeatability”?
Independent study by Simpson and Giles, Cara Technology, Ltd (2006), “The repeatability of hygiene test systems in measurement of low levels of ATP”.
Conclusions 30 tests on each of 4 different systems, concluded that the New
Portable Cleaning Test System had the lowest Coefficient of Variation (%CV) and was more repeatable.
%CV = 7.4, 38.1, 58.7, 89.4
42
Features/Benefits of New Portable Cleaning Test System
Features Benefits
Consistent, measureable results Reliable results to confirm cleaning effectiveness
Real time proactive solutions To implement immediate corrective actions and assure surfaces are clean
Ease of use (swabs) Reduces variability between users
Ease of use (instrument) Reduces errors, training time and costs
Data management Track results of cleaning effectiveness over time with statistical control
43
Field Experience with the New ATP Test System
One local user reported a decrease in MRSA cases from about 9 per month to 2 per month, since they started using the New ATP Test System
44
“Infection Control QA in the Patient Care Environment using ATP Bioluminescent Technology” Mark Gallivan, Un of Minnesota
Sampling 610 Samples To compare the RLUs of occupied vs discharged patient rooms
Location 4 Different Wards Bone marrow transplant Neurology Solid organ transplant Medical intensive care
Surfaces 5 Different Surfaces Bedrail Keyboard Treatment cart Bathroom door knob Toilet flush handle
45
“Infection Control QA in the Patient Care Environment using ATP Bioluminescent Technology” Mark Gallivan, Un of Minnesota
Mean RLU Values Median RLU Values Range RLU Values
Surfaces Occupied Discharged Occupied Discharged Occupied Discharged
Bedrail 1287 458 363 142(37-26,825) (57-6,891)
Keyboard 223 238 111 71(15-6,911) (15-5,642)
Treatment Cart 399 309 129 104(20-4,571) (20-4,280)
Door Knob 608 445 379 282(56-6,640) (25-2,949)
Toilet Flush Handle 422 856 194 126(14-3,458) (21-27,896)
46
“Infection Control QA in the Patient Care Environment using ATP Bioluminescent Technology” Mark Gallivan, Un of Minnesota
Sensitivity Capable of detecting clean and unclean surfaces
High Variability Data skewed to the right from high outliers
Real Time Monitoring of Protocol Capable of achieving p < 0.05 results
Comparability of Surfaces Not valid due to surface area and type
Creation of Baseline RLU Values Should be created for individual surfaces
47
U.S. EPA Actions
48
Antimicrobial Labeling Update From U.S. EPA
July 30, 2009 Presented by:
Joan Harrigan-Farrelly, Antimicrobial Div. Director Dennis Edwards, Chief, Regulatory Management
Branch 1, Antimicrobials Division Ben Chambliss, Microbiologist, Antimicrobial Div. Tajah Blackburn, Team Leader, Efficacy Team,
Product Science Branch, Antimicrobials Division
49
Presentation Overview
How EPA regulates Antimicrobials How EPA ensures product efficacy for hospital
disinfectants Overview of EPA’s Antimicrobials Test Program Availability of Information on the Antimicrobial Program Antimicrobial Division’s Hospital Community Outreach
Initiative How can AD best communicate with hospital community and
maintain an open forum for future discussions?
50
How AD Ensures Product Efficacy for Hospital Disinfectants
Product Performance Laboratory studies are submitted by the registrants to demonstrate that
their product will perform against target pests (microorganisms) when the product is used according to label directions
Studies are conducted using standardized tests, usually from the AOAC International
Hospital disinfectants must demonstrate effectiveness against: Staphylococcus aureus Salmonella enterica Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Using: AOAC Use-dilution Test Germicidal Spray Products Test or EPA Towlette Test
51
Overview of the AD Testing Program
52
Antimicrobial Testing Program Web Page Now Available
Current as of June 12, 2009 Program overview Testing results What if a product fails? Product universe Collection of products How tests are performed Next steps
53
Program Overview
Antimicrobial Testing Program (ATP) started testing hospital sterilants, disinfectants and tuberculosides in 1991
EPA collects samples from manufacturers or other places
Test methods are rigorous challenge with bacteria levels at least 1,000 times greater than typical contamination levels found in healthcare facilities
Current focus is on “primary” registration of each product formulation
54
Program Overview
Manufacturers often contract with distributors, who then register products with identical formulas
Current results: About two-thirds of hospital disinfectants and one-half of tuberculocides are fully efficacious when challenged at the highest bacteria challenge level
Those that do not meet this high standard are brought into compliance through regulatory or enforcement measures, or a combination of both.
Continuing efforts to complete testing the initial group of products and developing long term strategy for continued oversight of both the primary products and the larger group of distributor products
55
Testing Results
Products tested through the ATP (pdf available) 325 hospital disinfectants (~218 met standards) 72 tuberculocides (~36 met standards)
Tuberculocides must be effective also against mocobacterium bovis BCG
56
What If a Product Fails?
EPA will determine the appropriate action: Product reformulation and retest by mfgr Removal of Hospital Disinf or TB claims from
label Modification of label directions, i.e., contact times,
and retesting by the mfgr following new directions Voluntary cancellation of product by mfgr EPA initiates removal of product from market
place (e.g. stop sale orders)
57
Product Universe
1991 ATP initiated Tuberculocides Hospital disinfectants Sterilants
1993 Sterilant testing completed
1996 Regulatory authority for certain liquid chemical
sterilant products transferred to FDA under Food Quality Protection Act amendments to FIFRA.
58
Collection of Products
In the past: Collection by official federal or state inspectors
Present: Collection Internet purchases Direct shipment from registrant Purchase from marketplace
December 2008 EPA letter to primary registrants requesting samples be sent directly to their laboratories for testing.
This form of sampling only for completion of initial testing EPA expects to return to random testing of products after initial
testing is complete
59
How Tests are Performed
Product registration & post-registration Specific methods for testing effectiveness maintained and
published by Association of Analytical Chemists (AOAC) International
Challenge microorganisms: Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Mycobacterium bovis BCG
Four laboratories do testing: Ohio Department of Agriculture/Consumer Analytical Laboratory North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Michigan Department of Agriculture/Laboratory Division EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program’s Microbiology Laboratory
Branch
60
EPA’s Standard Operating Procedures for ATP Testing
MB-02-03 Culture initiation, maintenance and Quality Control
MB-02-04 Tracking of test microorganisms MB-03-04 Screening carriers used in disinfectant
efficacy testing MB-04-05 Enumeration of bacterial inocula on
carriers MB-05-06 AOAC Use dilution Method for testing
disinfectants
61
EPA’s Standard Operating Procedures for ATP Testing
MB-06-03 Germicidal Spray Products as Disinfectants: MB-07-04 Tuberculocidal Activity of Disinfectants: II.
Confirmative in vitro Test for determining tuberculocidal activity
MB-09-02 Disinfectant Towlette Test against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa
MB-11-02 Neutralization Confirmation Assay for Disinfectant Products Tested against Mycobacterium bovis (BCG)
MB-22-00 Disinfectant sample preparation
62
List of Products Tested or Pending
Definitions Claims Tested: Hospital Disinfectant (HD) and or Tuberculocide
(TB) Claims in Compliance: Label claim is in compliance with EPA
Standards. NA indicates claim confirmation not applicable Product Voluntarily Cancelled: Product was voluntarily
canceled by the registrant Claim Removed: Pathogen claim removed from product labeling Under Agency Review: Products tested, Agency action pending Voluntarily Submitted to EPA for Testing: Sample submitted
by mfgr in response to EPA letter of request dated December 19, 2008
RTC: Retest claim due to issues with initial testing63
Table Format (pdf) Sample Number: Registration Number: Registrant: Product Name: Claims Tested (HD) (TB): Yes or No Claims in Compliance (HD) (TB): Yes, NA, RTC Product Voluntarily Canceled: Yes, Blank Claim Removed: Blank, Removed hospital site, TB claim removed,
HD/TB claims removed Under Agency Review: Blank, HD claims under Agency review, HD
and TB under Agency review, TB under Agency review Voluntarily Submitted to EPA For Testing: Yes, Blank
64
Familiar Company Names
3M AIRKEM Professional Products Clorox Company ECOLAB JohnsonDiversey Spartan Chemical Company
65
3M
Number Product Name Status
328 HB Quat Disinfectant Cleaner Concentrate
Voluntarily Submitted
66
AIRKEM Professional Products
# Product Name Claims TestedHD/TB
Claims in ComplianceHD/TB
Status
275 A-33 Yes/No 0/NA HD under Agency Review
276 Omega Yes/No 0/NA HD under Agency Review
277 Asepticare Voluntarily Submitted
278 A-33 Dry Yes/No 0/NA HD Under Agency Review
279 A-456-N Yes/No Yes/NA
280 A-464-N Yes/No Yes/NA Product Voluntarily Canceled
67
Clorox Company
# Product Name Claims TestedHD/TB
Claims in ComplianceHD/TB
Status
170 Clean-Up Yes/No Yes/NA
171 Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner
Vol. Sub.
172 Ultra Clorox Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
173 Spruce-Ups Yes/No 0/NA Agency Review
344 Disinfecting Spray Vol. Sub.
345 CPPC Everest Yes/No Yes/NA
346 Germicidal Wipes Vol. Sub.
347 Germicidal Spray Vol. Sub.
68
ECOLAB
# Product Name Claims TestedHD/TB
Claims in ComplianceHD/TB
Status
86 MIKRO-QUAT Yes/No Yes/NA
87 Mikroklene Yes/No Yes/NA
88 D-QUAT II Yes/No Yes/NA
89 Oxonia Active Yes/Yes Yes/0 TB Claim Removed
90 Quorum Cleaner Yes/No Yes/NA
91 Vortexx Yes/No Yes/NA
92 Multi-Quat Yes/No Yes/NA
69
ECOLAB (cont.)
# Product Name Claims TestedHD/TB
Claims in ComplianceHD/TB
Status
93 65 Disinf. HD Acid Bathroom Cleaner
Yes/No Yes/NA
94 Octave FS Vol. Sub.
95 Exspor Base Conc. Vol. Sub.
131 ENVERROS Sanimaster 4
Yes/No Yes/NA
287 Exspor Base Conc. Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
288 LD Base Conc. Yes/No Yes/NA
70
JohnsonDiversey
# Product Name Claims TestedHD/TB
Claims in ComplianceHD/TB
Status
49 Quat 256 Yes/No Yes/NA Removed Hospital Site
187 CREW NA Bathroom Cl Vol. Sub.
361 Disinf. DC100 Vol. Sub.
362 Phenolic Disin. HG Vol. Sub.
363 Blue Chip Germicide Cleaner for Hospitals
Vol. Sub.
365 Envy Liq. Dis. Cl. Vol. Sub.
366 ALPHA HP Vol. Sub.
367 OXIVIR TB Vol. Sub.
368 Carpe Diem Conc. Five 16 Vol. Sub. 71
Spartan Chemical Co.
# Product Name Claims TestedHD/TB
Claims in ComplianceHD/TB
Status
160 STERIGENT Yes/No Yes/NA
161 PD-64 Phenolic Base Cl&Dis Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
162 METAQUAT Germ. CLE Yes/No Yes/NA
163 SANI-T-10 Yes/No Yes/NA
164 TNT Tub & Tile Cleaner Yes/No Yes/NA
165 DMQ Yes/No Yes/NA
166 CDC-10 Yes/No Yes/NA
167 STERIPHENE II Deod. Yes/Yes Yes/Yes
168 FOAMY Q&A Yes/No Yes/NA
169 Green Sol. Rroom Cleanser Yes/No Vol. Sub.72
Next Steps
Goal is set for completion of post-registration evaluation of efficacy by end of 2011
EPA developing an ATP Strategy to include continued oversight of “primary” and “distributor” products
Strategy and implementation plan scheduled for completion early 2010 and will be publicly available
73
EPA Reaches Settlement Release date: July 31, 2009 Region 2 (NY) Contact Information: Sophia Kelly (212) 637-3670,
[email protected] Third pesticide enforcement case settled against Lonza Inc., the
nation’s largest manufacturer of hospital disinfectants, for multiple violations of the federal law that regulates pesticides.
Agreed to pay fines for allegedly making misleading claims regarding the efficacy of two products. Settlement (>$640,000.00) is one of the largest civil penalties under
FIFRA. Company previously agreed to develop a supplemental ground-breaking
environmental project, valued at $390,000.00.
74
EPA Reaches Settlement
George Pavlou, acting EPA Regional Admin. said “It may surprise people to know that part of EPA’s job is to make sure disinfectants are as effective as they claim, and we take this job very seriously.”
“Products that make claims that are not met put people at risk of getting sick. We are pleased that Lonza has agreed to not only pay penalties but to take steps that will go a long way toward rectifying the problem.”
75
EPA Reaches Settlement
Products cited for inefficacy Saniphor No. 450, registered as Tuberculocide,
but found ineffective against a bacteria causing Tuberculosis
7 Healthcare Disinfectant Neutral Cleaner, did not kill the pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa, as claimed on the label
Klear Guard Tub & Tile Foaming Germicidal Cleaner, cited as misbranded for use of label with missing first aid information
76
EPA Reaches Settlement
Lonza has already begun its project to institute rigorous quality assurance and product efficacy testing at more than 470 formulators of Lonza products nationwide. This will help ensure that the products sold are effective and provide public health protection.
77
Feedback to EPA’s Healthcare Outreach Launch?
1.
78
Questions???
79
Thank You!!!