FISH CONSUMPTION RATE PROJECT

HUMAN HEALTH FOCUS GROUP MEETING

June 11, 2007

10:00am to ~4:45pm

ODEQ

811 SW 6^th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97204

 Room-A 10^th Floor  

Meeting Participants

In Person

At ODEQ (Planning Work Group (PWG) members)

Jordan Palmeri (ODEQ)

Deb Sturdevant (ODEQ)

Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR) (10:00am to 1:00pm)

Patti Howard (CRITFC)

Robin Harkle (DS Consultants) (mid afternoon)

Human Health Focus Group Members (HHFG)

Ken Kauffman (ODHS)

Joan Rothlein (OHSU)

Pat Cirone (COL)

Elaine Faustman (UOW)

Dave McBride (WDH)

Sue MacMillan (URS) (10:00am to 3:00pm)

Public

Nancy Judd (Windward Environmental)

On Phone

Becky Lindgrin EPA Region 10 (10:00am to 4:00pm) (Planning Workgroup member)

Lon Kissenger (EPA Region 10) (1:30pm to 2:00pm)

ODEQ: Reviewed agenda and asked for comments, questions. Agenda Item 4 focus on the scientific literature that ODEQ will rely on for the fish consumption rate. Goal of meeting was to get to Agenda Item 7. Agenda Item 10 as a timed item at 3:30pm.

CTUIR: Referring to the agenda, asked HHFG to help the Planning Workgroup identify the most important discussions to have during the meeting.

HHFG: Address Agenda Item 5.

HHFG Member: Asked how much do they need to know about what happened in Lincoln City.

ODEQ: OK

HHFG: Additional fish consumption rate (FCR) literature brought to meeting, need to review and determine which of those documents should be added to the list of literature being reviewed for this project.

HHFG Member: Agenda Item 5 is the meat of today’s meeting, then proceed to Agenda Item 4 to allow time to discuss additional literature brought to this meeting by HHFG members.

ODEQ: OK, switch Agenda items 4 and 5 and discuss what new literature to add.

HHFG: Additional literature as supportive and substantive to the core group of papers already distributed to the HHFG and that will be reviewed today.

ODEQ: Gave a review of what happened at the Lincoln City public workshop held May 16, 2007. CTUIR and EPA presented overviews of fish consumption rate. The meeting participants seemed to listen more than speak. The PWG came up with 5 policy questions for the Environmental Policy Commission (EQC) that were presented to the workshop participants. The workshop participants were divided into smaller groups to discuss their respective policy questions. That exercise generated ~100 policy questions. The PWG is now determining which policy questions will be introduced to the EQC. The PWG also introduced the concept of the HHFG. Meeting participants had concerns with the openness of the HHFG process.

EPA: Also presented EPA guidance and policy on topics such as cancer risk, reference dose, percent contribution, EPA water quality criteria hierarchy, and the EPA perspective on fish consumption rate.

CTUIR: Commented on a personal observation. Perception that there was excitement from some meeting participants that salmon could be removed from the FCR discussion. Cautioned that salmon still need to be accounted for in the process.

HHFG Member: Two questions: 1) Noticed that we don’t have reference material on toxic contaminant contribution to salmon.

ODEQ: There is some, we have not put this information together into a literature base. We won’t be putting together life-history information as part of this group because we are not biologists.

HHFG Member: Nervous that we don’t have this life-history information.

HHFG Member: It’s a policy call regarding life history so it won’t be resolved with a literature review.

ODEQ: Agenda Item 3. Review the three questions the HHFG will address (see page 2 of the handouts). Overarching policy decision HHFG will help inform, #s 1-4 (see page 3 of handouts).

HHFG Member: Do you want us to address 1-4 now?

ODEQ: Only answering the questions on page 2 of the handouts but going ahead.

HHFG Member: (Referring to page 3 of the handouts, Overarching Policy Decisions, item number 2 “What target population(s) will Oregon use as the basis for establishing Human Health water quality criteria.” Want to protect everyone, all Oregonians are a population. The driver makes me nervous, focus instead becomes a targeted population. Either need to list everyone or no one.

HHFG Member: But is tribal.

HHFG Member: Not just tribal, scope of issue is all who eat fish.

HHFG: Question 1 as a spatial question and questions 2 and 3 about the population, ethnic, race, age.

HHFG Member: Slicing “population concept down”

CRITF: Clarification?

HHFG Member: Issue is FCR for peoples of Oregon, can answer question 1, get rid of question w.

HHFG Member: All people or only people who eat fish.

ODEQ: What does the HHFG think of those questions?

HHFG Member: What are you going to do about questions 2 and 3?

HHFG Member: what level of protection are you going to afford people of Oregon; high, average, or low consumers? It’s a policy question.

ODEQ: Interest is in how the FCR studies relate to high, average, or low consumers/

HHFG Member: Don’t want to set up fish consumers against each other.

HHFG Member: If can’t or if you choose not to protect the most exposed, what percentile will we protect?

ODEQ: These are policy questions you are informing not what you are answering.

HHFG Member: Issue will come up.

CRITFC: Is how you resolve the issues with questions 2 and 3 important to how the scientific data is presented?

HHFG: No.

ODEQ: Moving on to question agenda item 4 which was switched with 5. See table (Fish Consumption Studies for Review) on page 5 of the handouts. Categories are not to drive discussions, ideas only. HHFG discussion leads identified for each paper via e-mails. Members volunteered to take review specific papers and speak on relevance to Oregon water quality standards.

HHFG Member: Don’t have summary statistics as one of the table columns.

CTUIR: That information is provided in a table (EPA Region 10 Seafood Consumption Rates Used for Risk Analysis) compiled by EPA in your handouts.

ODEQ: Studies in the review table are not in any particular order.

HHFG Member: Reviewed the 1994 and 2004 CRITFC FCR studies and the EPA Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States.

The following table reflects the HHFG Conversation on the CRITFC and USDA National FCR Study.

¹ General conversation occurred on whether a fish meal is by wet or cooked weight. Washington state advisories are for wet weight.

² Extensive conversation occurred on how the fish species, in particular the salmonids, were grouped in the above fish consumption studies. The grouping in the CRITFC and National Survey make it difficult to separate and interpret specific fish species consumed. HHFG comment: the National Survey distinguished between percent marine and percent fresh based on CPUE. Also, the CRITFC study grouped sturgeon as above and below Bonneville dam. EPA comment: In EPA guidance, classification is specific to salmon: Atlantic in and Pacific out. Trout estuarine and fresh, sturgeon as estuarine, did not exclude steelhead. ODEQ: Why wasn’t salmon included? EPA: Large portion of life history in marine environment, out of state jurisdiction. HHFG member: Estimated per capita fish consumption 2002? HHFG member: How accurately did the participants identify the fish they consumed?

³ Need transparency in tracking fish consumption rate numbers from the original national survey to the EPA document to EPA guidance and to fish consumption rate tables produced as part of this process. HHFG member: Need exact citations for EPA table in handout (i.e., report name, table number, assumptions behind those numbers, and report citation). ODEQ: Numbers on EPA handout seem different from those presented by the HHFG. HHFG member: Don’t use the numbers I’m presenting as the final number, use only for purposed of comparison. HHFG member: Need to go back to the National Study. HHFG member: Need to decide how far back to go for purposed of transparency.

HHFG member: If we are going to compare these numbers, then we need to go slowly (referring to pace of the discussion at the meeting) and perhaps have this conversation at a later date. Regarding the CRITFC numbers on the EPA table in the handouts, does the table included information on consumers and non consumers? ODEQ: Going off the EPA table in the handouts for relevance of those studies to Oregon.

HHFG Member: The CRITFC study looks at FCR data from 4 tribes combined into one dataset and was used in the EPA national criteria year? for a subsistence number, as it was the only data they had at that time (perhaps a Michigan study as well). It was a policy decision to use that number, the term “subsistence” was a philosophical term and not statistically defined, and not a tribal number. The 142 grams per day represented what EPA thought was “subsistence” for all “subsistence” type populations.

HHFG Members” Where did that 142.4? number originate? Came from a mean for subsistence? From EPA headquarters Dennis XXXXXXX (HHFG: Should we include his name as part of these notes?). CRITFC: How does EPA define subsistence? EPA: Policy guidance for water quality human health criteria states the lowest FCR should be a minimum average for consumers only. HHFG member: Having a different standard for different people is a problem. Who do you want to protect? ODEQ: EPA guidance: if taking high consuming populations need to use at least the 50 percentile of the high consumers and 90^th percentile overall.

Group Broke for lunch from 12:20pm to 1:00pm.

ODEQ: Any burning questions/comments?

HHFG Member: Do studies consider the depletion of resource issues and the perception of pollutants?

HHFG Member: That’s an important/big question.

HHFG Members: CRITFC study has a narrative that addresses that topic.

HHFG Member: There are historical studies that examine past consumption.

HHFG Members: Recommend that the word “bias” not be used to discuss the studies. Recommend using the word “uncertainty” or the phrase “limits that are lowering or raising estimates of fish consumption rate.”

HHFG Member: Heard a tribal member comment that we should look at past fish consumption rates.

ODEQ: Relevance to state FCR.

CRITFC: Any summary statements from the HHFG?

ODEQ: Save to end of meeting.

HHFG Member: Exciting that we have regional specific data that’s cited.

HHFG Member: CRITFC study as a model survey dismissed in the first round of human health water quality criteria for Oregon.

HHFG Member: Data from four tribes and put together makes it more representative for tribal people and people of Oregon. Combining it makes it a much better dataset. (Tulalip and Squaxim studies differ from each other).

HHFG Member: Good as have an averaging effect without high levels.

HHFG Member: Exactly, averaging as limit or not.

HHFG Member: Looking at lots of studies and ranges of estimates at upper end of FCR and the remarkable consistency of these studies.

HHFG Members: Message need to be broaden, that a lot of people eat a lot of fish.

ODEQ: Any questions for EPA staff on the phone? How did EPA derive the 142 grams per day as a subsistence number? EPA staff will get back thinks it’s the 99^th percentile including the non consumers.

HHFG Member to EPA Staff: Did Dennis XXXXX confirm the 142 grams per day? EPA staff will get back on that question.

HHFG Member to EPA Staff: Would like the page numbers and document citations for the FCR numbers listed in the EPA handout.

HHFG Member: Can’t have a national number in areas where there is no water.

ODEQ to EPA Staff: How are the FCR ranges generally treated in the National Survey? EPA Staff: We will get back to you on that one.

HHFG Member: Regarding the EPA Lincoln City FCR materials, can the FCR numbers presented in the EPA tables be recreated?

EPA Staff: Issues with data custody.

HHFG Member: Could I find these numbers using the same table and assumptions as the EPA staff that created this table?

EPA Staff: We can have a side meeting to discuss.

HHFG: Are the numbers (the origin) accessible by the public as presented?

HHFG Member: I would think you’d want the history of the FCR number.

HHFG Member: Eventually we have to address the why behind using the National Study FCR numbers when we have data that reflects the local land quality of this area. What is the relevancy of Iowa FCR to the Pacific Northwest? What is the data validity?

ODEQ: Focus is on EPA staff time and technical questions related to FCR.

HHFG Member: What percent of the National Survey is reflective of the Pacific Northwest? Is there a study that looks at FCR and fishing patterns, a correlation of fishing pattern and FCR?

HHFG Member: European study looking at fishing patterns along the coast, or Greece and Spain vs. Romania, the FCR correlates strongly with relationship to sea.

EPA Staff: Creel surveys that correlate well with CRITFC study, creel survey of San Francisco correlates well with the CRITFC study.

HHFG Member: Raw or Cooked fish?

EPA Staff: Need to check.

HHFG Member: CRITFC study “What’s the size of your meal? Cooked or uncooked?

EPA Staff: Contaminant concentration frequently calculated and reported as wet weight. Make recipe correction. EPA Region 10 staff has a software package that asks about the prepared dish (i.e., how much uncooked shrimp, mussel, etc.) just the edible meat.

ODEQ Staff: Aspects of studies that estimate too high or too low.

HHFG Member: EPA study averaged the 2 days, sensitivity analysis not conducted.

EPA Staff: Good estimate of the snap shot but not distributional analysis.

HHFG: Discussion occurred on the meaning of average daily consumption in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, page 2-7 of the EPA Estimated Per Capita Fish Consumption in the United States report. Debra or Pat: Do you have the quote to insert here? How the average daily consumption is calculated is a limitation of the study resulting in an overestimation (because any FCR of ‘0’ for the two days recorded is dropped).

EPA Staff: Given the sensitivity of tribal data, how should that data be presented?

HHFG Member: Need to identify which FCR values on the EPA table (handout from today or the Lincoln City handout?) are cited values vs. values calculated by EPA staff.

HHFG Member: Also need to show how those values were calculated. It would be good for ODEQ to receive copies of EPA’s memos on XXXXXX (Can someone provide a bit more information on the nature of these memos?).

HHFG Member: Getting at the 142 is the harder one.

HHFG Member: What are the two greatest limitations to your (EPA staff) calculations?

EPA Staff: Fraction of the harvest taken from Puget Sound vs. other areas where fish are harvested. What study is being referred to here? In taking notes, I wasn’t able to follow along with the tables being discussed. Conceptually for shellfish, there may be multiple sources of the shell fish and that leads to potential uncertainties.

Note: It was decided that all of the EPA memos on XXXXX would be forwarded to the HHFG.

EPA Staff: I apologize, I will need your input to more accurately reflect the conversation that occurred at this point. How were studies (CRITFC and National Survey?) designed, characterization of the population (CRITFC straight 125). 95^th UCL (Upper Confidence Limit) of mean within a specified percent of the mean. We should look at acceptable tolerance intervals of seasonal consumption.

ODEQ Staff: Number of respondents, characterize population and abilities of these studies to characterize larger populations.

EPA Staff: See similar patterns of consumptions. May be difficult to extrapolate from one tribe to another. Best thing to do is to get more data.

CRITFC: Target population issue?

Note: Conversation now moved to the review of the Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood Consumption Study (EPA 910/R-99-003) (API Study) and A Fish Consumption Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island Tribes of the Puget Sound Region (TSFCR Study). Two handouts summarizing those studies were handed out to the meeting participants.

HHFG: For Asians and Pacific Islanders, variability of fish acquisition varies between regions, personally caught vs. store bought fish.

TSCR Discussion

ODEQ: Relevancy of the TSCR studies to Oregon tribes?

HHFG Member: Want to address how subsistence is defined.

EPA Staff: What fish species comprised the anadromous fish consumed in the TSFCR study?

HHFG Member: Not certain.

HHFG Member: Consumers vs. non consumers was confusing.

HHFG Member: Applicability to Oregon tribes? Use to put boundaries on a range of fish consumption?

HHFG Member: Salmon number?

HHFG Member: Were scallops included? Some species may be applicable. Consistency between tribes is important. Skin or no skin shows variability.

HHFG Member: Children have preference for skin. Difference in FCR between children from the two tribes?

HHFG Member: Has to do with differences between the importance of shell fish and fin fish between the two tribes.

API Discussion

HHFG Member: EPA and NIH funded study. Ten, diverse, ethnic groups. Survey participants identified through a refugee center, adds, and the newspaper. Interviewers selected from the community.

Note: Conversation now moved on to a discussion of three studies: 1) Fish Consumption Survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of the Port Madison Indian Reservation, Puget Sound Region; 2) Consumption Patterns of Anglers who frequently fish Lake Roosevelt (WA); and 3) Lake Whatcom residential and Angler Fish Consumption Survey. Three handouts that summarize each of those studies was handed out to the meeting participants.

Study 1

HHFG Member: Lack of data in general missing for teens in all of these studies.

HHFG Member: Quality of children’s data is good.

HHFG Member: Why is it better?

HHFG Member: You have body weight.

HHFG Member: No red flags on the children’s data?

HHFG Member: Variability within household of diet preference of children (variability within and between houses, would need to look at).

HHFG Member: Different but not necessarily better.

HHFG Member: State of Washington is participating in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Sponsored by CDC and in all 50 states. Department of Ecology (DOE) has 11 questions placed in BRSS to address FCR, N=6000 in Washington statewide and includes sport fishery: random selection by phone. Goal is to get an estimate of a state-wide average sport FCR. Results not yet available.

HHFG Member: Demographic data collected?

HHFG Member: Yes.

ODEQ: Move to next agenda item of the July Workshop, another meeting needed of the HHFG?

HHFG Member: Need to hear non-tribal perspective, i.e., urban data.

ODEQ: Moving on to the Public Workshop agenda item, last page of handout. Who will be at the July workshop? Pat Cirone yes, Sue Mac Millan yes, Ken Kauffman yes.

ODEQ: Technical questions only, not expected to answer policy questions.

HHFG Member: how about smaller groups after the presentation?

DS Consultants: Would you prefer small group exercises?

HHFG Member: That’s OK if the experts rotate.

HHFG Member: one of the goals for fish consumption is to answer the question of what does it mean for me? Need to impart ownership to issue (i.e., how much do I eat, ,my neighbors, etc….)

ODEQ: Most likely that topic will be low for the general public present at the meeting. Folks are experienced with the issue.

HHFG Member: Have participants answer question of how much fish each person eats.

HHFG Member: Important to think about what a serving would be.

HHFG: Bring a piece of fish.

HHFG Member: In School of Public Health, often ask what does it mean that I eat x amount of fish.

ODEQ: That’s not really a water quality standard issue.

EPA Staff: What does it mean for public health?

HHFG Member: Is it a conversation we should have now?

HHFG Member: Yes, because the Environmental Quality Commission is going to get these questions.

HHFG Member: What does a risk number mean for public health?

ODEQ: Public not necessarily interested in the detail.

HHFG Member: It’s the detail that’s important.

CRITFC: How would the HHFG like to present the information related to the three questions they have been asked to help inform (referring to page 2 of the handouts, Questions for Human Health Focus Group)

HHFG Member: Confused with regards to what is expected at the July 17 workshop.

EPA Staff: Context, touch on human health.

HHFG Member: We haven’t touched on human health.

EPA Staff: There are 2 HHFG workshops planned, will need 3. need FCRs for purposes of economic workshop, tribal health.

HHFG Member: It’s not just tribal health. Start with water quality and move to fish contaminant and move to risk. Need just four slides, 4 risk assessment type slides to set the context (e.g., exposure and hazard).

HHFG Member: We’ve only discussed FCR.

HHFG Member: We are moving forward too quickly, and haven’t discussed exposure.

HHFG Member: We are doing something that the HHFG hasn’t discussed.

HHFG Member: Here’s what we’ve reviewed, what’s relevant. Where it fits into a risk assessment paradigm (variability, limits).

HHFG Member: Need another workshop to discuss public health.

HHFG Member: Literature: 1) What’s regional and national; 2) Consistencies in studies and what it means for Oregon. But we haven’t discussed public health.

Discussion on Page 2 of the Handouts, Questions for Human Health Focus Group

Question 1

HHFG: Can do 1 a-d for the July workshop. For 1 a, include regional, national, and perhaps global studies.

Question 2

HHFG: Can help facilitate, it’s an on-going discussion.

HHFG Member: If we are going to do #2, then source contribution is essential because it makes up a large percent of the data but least contaminated. It’s a reality check when looking at source contribution.

Question 3

ODEQ: Don’t think it will take long to discuss.

HHFG Member: Are you kidding?

HHFG Member: Whole plethora of information that should be part of the conversation. Want the opinion of the HHFG represented at the July workshop not just individual members of the HHFG.

HHFG Member: That’s why we need this context discussion.

EPA Staff: Haven’t taken the FCR to the beneficial use protection aspect of water quality standards. Want to hear this discussion on July 17 because that discussion was not heard during the 2004 water quality standards review of human health criteria.

HHFG Member: If you want that done, we will only do it correctly.

HHFG Member: We need to discuss Question 3 prior to the July 17 workshop.

HHFG Member: EPA’s 4 best slides on protection of beneficial use and the HHFG can translate the public health component.

HHFG Member: I can provide the slides. But the group must discuss Question 3 as a group so that the topic is presented as a HHFG presentation.

HHFG Member: I will present the FCR study overview and provide a summary.

ODEQ: Planning Group will propose a July 17 agenda.

EPA staff and HHFG: Keep the agenda broad.

HHFG Member: Most worried about Question 3 because we haven’t started this discussion.

ODEQ: So keep agenda narrow and broaden at a later date.

HHFG Member: Agreed.

Note: Group returned to discussion on papers reviewed for this meeting, City of Portland Fish Consumption and recreational Use Survey of Columbia Slough and Sauvie Island (City study).

HHFG Member: 1995 study; 21 days during June-July; short, bilingual stratified sampling design; 91 interviews; carp as most commonly consumed fish. Will provide a handout at a later date.

ODEQ: What else FCR paper wise to we want to include? Have the HHFG put together any additional papers, send additional studies to ODEQ for inclusion in our list, but stay regional.

HHFG Member: But there’s a European study that is important.

ODEQ: OK.

CRITFC: We can try and obtain those papers, scan them and distribute them electronically.

Meeting adjourned around 4:45pm.