Human Health Focus Group
Oregon Fish Consumption Rate Project
December 17, 2007
1:00-5:00 p.m.
The following notes are a summary of issues that are intended to point out future actions or issues that may need further discussion at upcoming meetings. These notes are not intended to be the “record” of the meeting, only a reminder for the group.
The following Focus Group Members were present for all or part of the meeting:
Pat Cirone (on phone, former EPA employee), Elaine Faustman (on phone, UW), Ken Kauffman (ODHS), Dave McBride (WDH), Joan Rothlein (OHSU)
Also Present: Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR), Rick George (CTUIR), Jordan Palmeri (DEQ), Deb Sturdevant (DEQ), Ryan Sudbury (CTUIR)
Donna Silverberg and Robin Gumpert, DS Consulting
Update on Progress to Date
Report assistance: A technical editor has been assigned to review the HHFG report, and DEQ management explicitly granted Jordan additional time to work on the report.
Transitions: Since Lauri and Stephanie’s departures from DEQ, Acting Director Dick Pederson and Acting Water Quality Administrator Neil Mullane will be additional contacts on this project. CTUIR scheduled a meeting with them on the Umatilla Reservation this week to discuss FCR issues. It was noted that a new Water Quality Standards manager (the position formerly held by Bob Baumgartner) may be hired soon.
Jannine Jennings and Mary Lou Soscia will be the primary contacts for EPA for this work, as Becky will be moving to a new assignment at EPA in January.
Visual aids for the report: Joan and Pat shared raw data tables of additional national and international studies and will refine the table to convey the message that consumption numbers are similar across populations. Everyone agreed that visuals would be a good addition to the HHFG report.
• Action: Dave offered to send some graphs relevant to the above topic that might be used in the final report. Elaine Faustman also offered to share recently developed methodology and figures on exposure factors/fish consumption numbers as an illustration of what the percentiles actually mean. (It was noted that this piece might best fit in the third section on ‘risks’.)
HHFG Report: Surveys
Jordan Palmeri shared the latest draft of the section of the Human Health Focus Group report that focused on Question One: What scientific evidence should Oregon rely on in selecting a fish consumption rate? HHFG members provided comments:
• References need to be more exact, e.g. quote the Exposures Factors Handbook instead of the Kissinger quote at the top of page 9.
• To avoid any confusion, clearly note at the beginning of the report that this was written by DEQ and reviewed by the HHFG.
• Under ‘Survey Methodology’ and Studies, consumer vs. all and individual vs. population based comparisons are not the same data comparisons so should not be coupled in the document – the use of the word ‘imprecise’(p. 13) is also misleading and should be changed, although no suggestions were made for the change. Also, this section could be simplified to clarify the overall meaning.
• Many studies exist that can be relied on to inform the FCR choice – this group has been looking for consistencies and corroboration between regional studies and national and international studies. One output of this might be shown in a visual that depicts the frequency at which studies support the 75th percentile, 90th percentile, etc.
• Concerns remain with the use of the word ‘reliable’ – all the studies that the HHFG reviewed are reliable. However, some may not be highly recommended for their ‘utility’ as it pertains to choosing an FCR in Oregon. As such, the focus should be on the utility of a given study, not on its “reliability”. While a variety of suggestions were made to address all of the studies, it was agreed that each study should be addressed individually in the report in terms of describing their utility/usability.
o Action: Dave will provide language for the Washington studies,
o Pat will provide language for the CRITFC re-evaluation study, and
o Joan will provide language for the Columbia Slough study.
• Section One will be re-organized to flow from survey methodology, followed by studies descriptions/evaluations, and then to the sub-sections on ‘consumers’, ‘populations’, and ‘seafood species’.
o Action: Dave will assist with developing the ‘Suppressed Rates’ section.
DEQ’s ‘Draft Initial FCR Options’
DEQ shared an internal, first cut, draft approach for deriving a range of FCR options. Jordan noted this analysis was developed largely based on the work to date by the HHFG and had been shared only with the internal, three government Planning Team. It is not intended to be shared with others until the March workshop.
Process Issues: While HHFG members commented on specifics of the draft, they also expressed concern about the process used to develop this draft—to the point of stating discomfort with how the entire process is moving forward. They expressed concern that the HHFG has done a lot of work that is not represented in the current presentation. Most importantly, they thought they should have been part of the development of the analysis in the first place:
• Given what was said at the EQC meeting in October, the HHFG believes it should not be spending so much time reviewing and word smithing the report and instead should focus on numbers. The group expressed concern that their own work product around numbers and their potential recommendations will be different from this proposal—that could cause problems for everyone if not corrected sooner than later.
• How much of the HHFG is really reflected in the development of these options? For example, the HHFG has said it does not want to take the approach of distinguishing populations—yet the presentation does. “This is not reflective of our desire to avoid population based determinations”.
• This entire HHFG has been a lengthy and time consuming process and resentment was expressed about spending time and effort on the report only to see that the approach taken to generate options veers so far from the group’s work.
o DEQ response: It was not intended to deviate from the HHFG work.
• CTUIR wants the best science to inform the rate and therefore wants to use the expert guidance of the HHFG throughout the process until the EQC makes its final decision. “This will affect our tribes and, also, is precedent-setting for other states”.
• All agreed that process mistakes need to be corrected as soon as possible. Clarity is needed from the new management at DEQ and the three governments about whether or not the HHFG will have input to the FCR choices.
o ACTION: (See below).
Jordan responded to the concerns – he reminded everyone of the events leading to the current situation and offered DEQ’s perspective:
• When convened, the HHFG was not going to discuss numbers, they were only going to review the literature to establish a scientific basis from which DEQ could choose an FCR.
• At the October EQC meeting, the EQC clearly asked the HHFG to provide a range of numbers and/or FCR recommendations if they could.
• Right after that EQC meeting, the HHFG agreed to somehow present a range of rates in their report (this was the beginning of actually discussing numbers/rates).
• HHFG and Jordan continued to write the report and we only recently received the first table of possible rates from the group.
• In the meantime, and with EPA and CTUIR support, the initial options for the March workshop were being derived by DEQ, and were partially based on the HHFG work completed to date. The development of these rates by DEQ began before the October EQC meeting with the understanding the HHFG was just providing the surveys from which a rate can be chosen, and not actual rates.
• So, after the Oct EQC meeting the role of the HHFG shifted to now discuss ranges of numbers for FCRs. The work, however, continued to focus on the report and the development of number ranges was taken on by a couple of HHFG members. Driven by the schedule, DEQ continued to develop initial options while the HHFG worked on the report. The two processes should have been integrated sooner.
Substantive Issues about the Presentation Materials:
• Should say consumer vs. “total”, not “non-consumer”
• Why were women of child bearing age not separated out as were adults and children? DEQ response: They were lower in consumption numbers and therefore covered in the other categories. Strong suggestion: Include narrative that explicitly states that women of child-bearing age are a susceptible population, and that they would already be ‘covered’ by the other populations with higher consumption rates.
• Is this a decision tree or an organizational tool to show the surveys? DEQ response: It is intended to be both.
• The approach and process for getting at the range of numbers needs to be laid out in a more transparent way.
• Why did you remove two of the studies the HHFG recommended be used? They should be included first and then, once the analysis has been done, consciously removed—not prior to the analysis being completed.
• Share a narrative of the slides that describes the methodology you used so that we can better understand it.
• More data points from the CRITFC study may be available in January or February that could be used in this analysis. Also, the CRITFC study specifically says lognormal distribution would not be appropriate for the data from the study.
• Include narrative that while children are not higher consumers, they are more susceptible and have different exposure impacts due to their body weight.
• Clarify what is meant by ‘exclusion of marine species’ – in which studies?
• How do we use regional data vs. other? EPA gives priority to regional data as a policy, but does not provide any additional detail – e.g. does not say HOW to use regional data and national data.
• This methodology is confusing and complicated, and the conclusions might be reached in a much simpler way. The group needs substantial clarification on what the aim and purpose of this analysis was. The group would like to meet with Bruce to find out his rationale and underlying assumptions in this, and details on how he proceeded to answer the exposure questions. The HHFG would like to discuss options for proceeding on these types of analysis.
Next Steps for Moving Forward
Three of the HHFG members (Joan, Dave and Ken) were present during the final discussion about next steps. The remaining HHFG members, DEQ and CTUIR representatives agreed that the HHFG should be involved in the process for analyzing and recommending FCR options. This needs to be clarified with managers. Additionally, Joan, Dave and Ken expressed a willingness and desire to stay involved in the process leading up to EQC decision-making—and believed their colleagues would as well if the process were clarified.
To support this, the following next steps were outlined:
• Rick will talk with DEQ leadership to help determine what the governments want from the HHFG and will coordinate this with EPA.
• The facilitation team (DS Consulting) will work with the three governments to clarify:
o what type of involvement is desired from the HHFG,
o what is/are the questions on which the HHFG should be focused, and
o what steps are necessary to get to the ultimate EQC decision, including a schedule for a follow-up meeting with the HHFG.
• Once the above is clarified, the HHFG will determine how it would like to proceed including what support it will need from EPA, DEQ, CTUIR and the facilitation team.
• In the meantime, HHFG members will review the DEQ report revisions and the presentation to determine whether, when asked to proceed, they will comment on/refine the approach laid out or whether they will develop a new approach.
In conclusion, today’s meeting presented both tensions and clarity in terms of what the group needs in order to proceed. All present at the end of the meeting expressed continued commitment to work together as effectively as possible. It was acknowledged that this is not an easy task and, because of the number of people who will be impacted by any decision to change the fish consumption rate, getting the analysis right—and having this group of experts agree that it is right—is very important. As such, care must be taken in the way the process moves forward in order to support the likelihood of success. This will include everyone following through with what they commit to do in a timely manner—or letting the group know if they are not going to be able to follow through in time for others to get that work done.
Thank you for your participation in this project.