FISH CONSUMPTION RATE PROJECT
HUMAN HEALTH FOCUS GROUP MEETING
July 10, 2007
9:00am to 5:00am
ODEQ Office
Meeting Participants
Planning Work Group (PWG) members
Jordan Palmeri (ODEQ)
Deb Sturdevant (ODEQ)
Patti Howard (CRITFC)
Becky Lindgrin (EPA)
Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR)
Donna Silverberg (DS Consultants)
Human Health Focus Group Members (HHFG)
Pat Cirone (Retired, EPA Region10)
Elaine Faustman (UOW)
Dave McBride (WDH)
Sue MacMillan (URS)
Observer
Suzanne Peplinger (Windward)
Meeting Summary
Agenda Item 1
The meeting agenda was reviewed, comments and questions were addressed. The majority of the meeting focused on a review of potential slides to be used by the HHFG members designated to speak at Workshop 3: Human Health Risks on July 17, 2007.
ODEQ: Fish consumption rates being used as a range of numbers for purpose of the economic analysis.
HHFG Member: No balance between the 10:30am - 3:15pm agenda items. Risk examined for >17.5 gpd in human health but the economics review looks at a range of numbers only, not the human health risk.
EPA: Range of human health rates should match with rates used for economic analysis.
ODEQ: Economic analysis has nothing to do with the human health risk assessment. People are asking why we don’t look at economic analysis of human benefits.
CTUIR: (Referring to the 10:30am -3:15 agenda item) Re/ vulnerable populations, CTUIR wants to make certain this group addresses those populations, particularly the children, in a different way other than high population rates (today and at one of the remaining human health workshops).
HHFG Member: Don’t look just at most exposed but women of child bearing age, children, etc.
CTUIR: Yes Should all numbers just be informed by CRITFC studies? There are other valid numbers specific to vulnerable groups (e.g., children aren’t just little adults).
HHFG Member: Critical part of risk assessment, not just exposure, there are life stage sensitivities.
HHFG Member: Good to emphasize will discuss.
HHFG Member: Balance risk assessment perspective, what risks do people face? Risk is exposure times hazard which is influenced by sensitivity of the individual; risk is not just exposure. Sometimes exposure reflects sensitivity by using a higher FCR.
Group reviewed the slides.
I. What is Risk Assessment, Perception/Philosophy
II. Nuts and Bolts of Risk Assessment
III. How Do We Use Risk Assessment in Water Quality Criteria
IV. What Does It Mean to be About the Risk Level
HHFG Member: Four hours didactic lectures?
HHFG Member: Not words, slides are being used in July 17 presentation, only presenting work slides here for our benefit.
ODEQ: Ends with risk in water quality criteria?
HHFG Member: Yes, embedding risk < & > criterion in presentation. Is ODEQ proposing to change or re-evaluate the 17.5 gpd?
ODEQ: Only variable in criteria up for discussion is the FCR
HHFG Member: If you discuss children you have to discuss body weight
HHFG Member: No falsity the body weight changes as one grows
ODEQ: We do want people to understand the variability in the equation
HHFG Member: So I’ll open it up.
EPA: Hesitant to open up uncertainty around variable
HHFG Member: Need to get farther to get context. Risk is about determining how safe something is.
HHFG Member: Risk assessment in insurance industry will include
HHFG Member: Aren’t we looking at science? That looks more like risk management.
HHFG Member: Its’ very difficult to separate the science from the policy.
HHFG Member: Not a shot gun slide, use the bubble slide instead.
HHFG Member: Opponents and proponents
HHFG Member: What is risk assessment? I strongly disagree with approach of using philosophy talk first that is the federalized version. We are going to worry about human health endpoints that’s what risk assessment is about; slides are in the wrong order.
HHFG Member: That’s what XXXX will discuss.
Draft presentation continued.
HHFG: We can toss out the unnecessary slides. Order of slides is wrong, prefer the retrospective slide.
ODEQ: Open to changing slides?
HHFG Member: Yes.
HHFG Member: Without getting into the philosophical slides before risk assessment being fully defined. How much detail are we going in to with regards to risk detail?
ODEQ: Do you want less detail over all?
HHFG Member: Yes.
HHFG Member: Discussing slides for water quality criteria part.
Open discussion occurred on the need to answer the so what question regarding fish consumption rate. What does it matter that we as humans care about fish consumption rate.
CTUIR: With regards to body weight, focus on why important or how that affects protection rather than specific numbers of body weight.
LUNCH
ODEQ: Sue MacMillan will get here presentation to the group via e-mail. Wrap up presentation of how risk is part of OR HH WQS criteria in the next 20 minutes. Heart of issue is Bullet 3 of the 10:30-3:15 agenda item for July 17, 2007. What does HHFG want to say? Also need to finish topic on facilitated issues for the July 17 meeting. OK?
HHFG Member: Five slide types for HH part?
HHFG Member: Worried that we’ll repeat earlier conversation? It’s about drinking water and eating fish.
HHFG Member: Sounds like we’re not going to resolve the issue.
ODEQ: Wrap up the presentation and then go to the why part.
HHFG Member: Over lunch we had a good conversation on the overview.
ODEQ: Twenty minutes to finish up conversation from before lunch. FCR usually corrected for body weight.
HHFG Member: 142 gpd: EPA # and the most difficult number to find the reference behind or how it was calculated.
HHFG Member: Those EPA default values look incredibly precise. What’s the message? Values are 10 times higher or an order of magnitude higher than values used before.
ODEQ: presentation is about risk not the FCR and so HHFG not ready to talk about FCR here.
CTUIR: OR has chosen default but there are other recorded values from EPA in their guidance that are not being used.
ODEQ: Scientific evidence, anadromous fish, how is risk treated?
HHFG Member: Sensitive population that we are concerned with and are representing in the slide of EPA’s recommended FCR. In this regulation we have the luxury of FCR data for a high consuming population (tribal and API groups). Now you are going in to what this means?
Risk calculation slide shown with FCR shown against cancer risk and non-cancer risk.
EPA: EPA criteria guidance is based on bioconcentration factor (BCF), not bioaccumulation factor (BAF) and OR has adopted.
Relative source contribution not applied to linear carcinogens, EPA policy decision, and handout for meeting for slide with quote?
HHFG Member: Need to mention table of values of relative source contribution from EPA that are toxicant specific “conceptually for public” for moving from one slide to the next. In public health we discuss exposure routes in relationship to risk in a way that is different from water quality standards. In public health we look at all exposure routes (e.g., fish, air, water) but in water quality standards we only look at the water route. Relative source contribution could vary based on the population (tribal = local fish, API = store bought fish and local fish).
EPA: If you had data for store bought fish you could use that data. Floor is 20 % (that’s what EPA uses) and ceiling is 80%.
HHFG Member: Relative source contribution slide is misleading unless you describe it in detail.
Group: We really haven’t discussed relative source contribution to date and actual fish consumption numbers.
HHFG Member: Any concluding comments for the presentation?
Facilitator: Moving into the 3rd bullet, how do you want to start off the conversation?
ODEQ: We discussed showing examples.
HHFG Member: Graphs etc….
HHFG Member: Let’s step back on this conversation.
HHFG Member: Don’t know.
HHFG Member: 1) Title slide, 2) two examples of toxicity that we know are concerns in the PNW: So what we are going to do is look at MeHg and PCB (potential risk for)
ODEQ: Let’s talk concept.
HHFG Member: 3) Why are we interested in MeHg (Minimata slide) we aren’t’ there yet but we know of subtle affects. 4) Why are we interested in PCB?
HHFG Member: As (for cancer) soon as you go above a criteria, the risk increases.
HHFG Member: But 10 fold is a big change. All values above an acceptable risk are not acceptable.
HHFG Member: Want people to think whether they are protected.
HHFG Member: Like photos and words.
HHFG Member and EPA: Reference dose is not used in 2002 EPA table. Q1 value used instead.
HHFG Member: No safe levels because already a body burden based on dioxin reassessment.
HHFG Member: For PCB, 10 fold higher than Rfd vs 22 fold higher for Hg. The 10 fold higher for PCB could be more of a problem than the 22 fold higher for Hg. MeHg is ubiquitous and toxic; Rfd based on 5.8 ug/l. Dave McBride is sending fish advisory slides for WA.
HHFG Member: Slide 4, use simplified slide for PCB?
HHFG Member: Why not use a simple slide for PCB? Slide # 5, how we are going to put everything together:
Hazard plus Exposure X Toxicity => Risk
Exposure is the fish consumption rate: What difference does it make for a broad range of exposure?
Slide #6 Delete DDT from the risk calculation slide, the risk calculation slide comparing FCR.
HHFG Member: What did OR say about Rfd?
ODEQ: Nothing.
HHFG Member: Went through numbers, small risk is still increasing?
Specific to MeHg and PCB, (not looking at additivity) Proportion of protected population, include discussion or slide of this to show impacts to tribal members and woman of child bearing age who eat more (after table of risk calculation). Would also need a slide from CTUIR that puts tribal information into play. Include assumption s slide as? conservation and non conservation? Other toxicants with same endpoint not accounted for (PCB and MeHg happen to have the same exposure endpoints)
CTUIR: A place to discuss the “so what” with regards to children vulnerability
ODEQ: That’s a big point, all our calculations are based on adults, are other populations other than tribal populations that are affected such as children.
HHFG Member: Rfd MeHg will be set on neurological development of infants, mixed assumptions for Hg vs. other chemicals.
HHFG Member: Only looking at cancer endpoints with reference to MeHg and PCB, not the non cancer, other toxicants with same endpoints.
HHFG Member: Many of the assumptions are there.
ODEQ: Ten minute break and => logistics of the 7/17 workshop.
ODEQ: How will presentation be done?
Sue will put together her talk this weekend and send out her presentation to the HHFG and support staff on Monday; she will also create a handout on acronyms and other terms. Looking for more substantive comments, Sue will bring presentation on a flash card, computer will be provided.
HHFG Member: Showed draft PCB/Hg slide presentation.
Facilitator: ODEQ gives introduction, HHFG gives introduction to risk followed by a risk presentation, Q&A for 15-30”, HHFG gives presentation on risk, Q&A, risk and 17.5gpd, what does that mean for you as an individual. Interactive: How much fish have you eaten and have you modified what you eat because of contaminants? Line up folks by height => calculation of FCR and percentiles. Small group discussion: How does this impact your life? How should what you’ve heard today impact what ODEQ (OR) should do regarding FCR?
HHFG Member: Will answer question by phone.
ODEQ: Presenters don’t necessarily have to answer all questions?
ODEQ: Not the policy questions.
HHFG Member: Asked ODEQ to make slide that lets audience know that we’ve all worked together and who we are.
ODEQ: At 3:30pm will take public input on those rates. Which FCR numbers will be used in an economic analysis? Which are the scientifically defensible rates to use? Had hoped to have had this discussion by now, haven’t but we’ll move forward any way.
HHFG Member: Sensitivity analysis to be included? Considered would look at risk benefit of an increased FCR.
ODEQ: Not doing a human health risk benefit to >FCR above and beyond…… Looking at above and below the Rfd only. Haven’t figured out the details for how that range of four numbers will be selected.
CTUIR: Range only, boy wouldn’t it be helpful if those numbers are in the right range, so even if HHFG has highs and lows that would be helpful.
ODEQ: Have until end of July to get range to contractor.
ODEQ: FCS work and summary statements we can make. Can group meet before end of July to have this discussion? FCR literature and related summary statements. Consumer vs. non-consumer only. Anadromous fish issue. Assumptions/uncertainties.
EPA: EPA has designated Pacific Salmon as marine so not included in WQ Criteria. Life-history strategies.
ODEQ: How and in what way is it appropriate to account for salmon in WQC?
ODEQ: Other pieces of work to be considered by this group?
HHFG Member: Notes from meeting and handouts?
ODEQ: Staff will write report? HHFG to review report?
HHFG Member: Other meeting would be helpful.
August 17 = EQC meeting (update on WQC)
September 11 = HHFG Meeting
ODEQ: HHFG members to present @ EQC meeting? Would be valuable for HHFG to present to EQC. But @ Oct EQC meeting rather than the August EQC meeting.
CTUIR: Would be good for HHFG to speak @ EQC.
HHFG Member: Available on Aug 17
HHFG Member: Not available on Aug 17
HHFG Member: Difficult to attend EQC due to work commitments
HHFG Member: Need to check calendar.
ODEQ: Get core FC stuff done at next meeting. Have HHFG review document at subsequent meeting.
ODEQ: Want to do presentation when discussing FCR studies?
HHFG: Yes.