Meeting Minutes

Human Health Focus Group

May 21, 2007

10:00am to 12:00pm

Oregon Fish Consumption Rate Project

Please note that these meeting minutes are meant to summarize the discussion in the meeting and are a combination of many people’s notes. These notes are DRAFT and still under review.

Meeting Participants

At ODEQ

Jordan Palmeri (ODEQ)

Ken Kauffman (ODHS)

Deb Sturdevant (ODEQ)

On Phone

Joan Rothlein (OHSU)

Patti Howard (CRITFC)

Pat Cirone (former EPA employee)

Becky Lindgren EPA Region 10

Elaine Faustman (UOW)

Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR)

Dave McBride (WDH)

Sue MacMillan (URS)

Nina Bell (Northwest Environmental Advocates)

Rene Parabis (Oregon Environmental Council)

1.  Background

•  DEQ provided a brief overview of May 16, 2007 Public Workshop #2 held at the Chinook Winds Casino. Based on input from this meeting, DEQ explained a need to ensure an open process, including the public being able to listen in on the Focus Group calls.

•  The Facilitator provided overview of meeting goals and objectives and agenda. Planning Team (DEQ, EPA, and CTUIR representatives) revisited questions for Focus Group (see questions for Focus Group handout) based on the May 9, 2007 meeting of the Focus Group.

•  A Focus Group member commented that there are many sub questions under the question labeled “#1”. This makes it unclear if the Planning Team is looking to have the all the questions, or the main question under “#1”.

•  The Facilitator noted that the main question under ‘#1’ is the one the Planning Team is looking to have answered, but that the sub-questions are ways to possibly answer the main question.

•  A Focus Group member asked if there are other fish consumption studies to include for the Focus Group review.

•  DEQ offered to send out a list of existing fish consumption studies as a starting point (FOLLOW UP).

•  The Facilitator asked that the Focus Group provide any information on any additional fish consumption studies to add.

•  The CRITFC representative offered to obtain and share an electronic version of the CRITFC fish consumption study reanalysis (FOLLOW UP).

•  A Focus Group member requested that the Planning Team expand on the last sentence to Question 1. Said the tone of that sentence differed from the May 9, 2007 meeting discussion, risk now seemed secondary.

•  Discussion on this sentence occurred between a Focus Group member and the EPA representative regarding the Clean Water Act regulations for Water Quality Standards specific to criteria.

•  A Focus Group member indicated a push for language such as “one purpose of the standard is to protect designated use that includes protection of public health, scientifically sound criteria.” Also included phrases such as health-based standard, and human health endpoint.

•  The EPA representative indicated that she would provide regulatory language to the Focus Group for clarity on what the regulations require (FOLLOW UP).

•  A Focus Group member asked about the cancer risk that will be used. This topic was discussed amongst the Focus Group members.

•  The Facilitator stated that it is presumed that Oregon will continue with the one in a million cancer risk rate. It’s a policy question.

•  A Focus Group member asked what does “acceptable risk” mean. What are the State’s regulations on the “unacceptable risks”? The member pointed out that the Focus Group can only say what the risks are, but cannot say if those risks are acceptable, as that is a policy decision.

•  The EPA representative noted that EPA’s has said that carcinogen risk rates range from one in one million to one in ten thousand. EPA has also said that you should not exceed the reference dose (RfD) for noncarcinogens.

•  The DEQ representative reminded the Focus Group that on the May 9^th meeting, they had discussed running several of the criteria through an analysis to see what risks higher consumers face under the existing Water Quality Standards, and that is process is now being covered under Question 3 posed to the Focus Group.

•  A Focus Group member asked about waters where we know fishers can’t eat? The member wanted to make certain standard is health based and provides protection of fishing and the eating of those fish.

•  The Facilitator asked if there was anything more on Question 1.

•  The CRITFC representative asked if there is anything else the group needs to consider?

•  A Focus Group member noted that the questions didn’t ask which populations should be considered. For example, what about populations that were not included in a survey?

•  A Focus Group member said that to consider whether data is adequate, the Group needs to know what data were left out e.g. demographics, age, health. Is the Planning Team asking the Focus Group to identify the populations not included in the study and to project the risks those group face?

•  The Facilitator said that the Planning Team was not looking for that information, but instead identify what credible information is available to us and what does it tell us?

•  A Focus Group member noted that information on populations not included in the surveys would show that populations are more complex than what the surveys capture.

•  The Facilitator said that it would be left up to the Focus Group on how much they would want to fill in those gaps.

•  CRITFC staff asked how the lack of that information influences what we can say about fish consumption.

•  A Focus Group member said that there is a difference of what populations are surveyed and what populations should be surveyed. There has been a concentration on adults in collecting fish consumption rate information. However we have very little information on children and older adults. These would be areas of uncertainty. Are there populations for certain groups- e.g. by age or other characteristics.

•  The DEQ representative noted that Question 1 is a larger question. Once the Focus Group has a list of studies, how deeply do they want to go in reviewing these studies? How much detail will the Focus Group want tot get into to ensure that a fish consumption survey is good scientific evidence for Oregon’s use?

•  A Focus Group member said her/his review of the USDA study took some time. TO answer the questions posed by the Planning Team, the member would need the original study, read it, and identify the strengths and weaknesses. Then the member would need to know how quickly the Planning Team needed this information and what type of information the Planning Team is looking for. This is why the member is wondering if the Group could rely on information prepared by an EPA representative who presented at Workshop 2. Is the Focus Group going to do a comprehensive review of the fish consumption studies or just identify the weaknesses and strengths of the studies?

•  The EPA representative asked a Focus Group member if the best use of time is to present the existing fish consumption rate studies plus discuss the risks for higher consumers at difference fish consumption rates?

•  The Focus Group member said yes, but that it would be labor intensive.

•  The Facilitator suggested a way to move forward would be to get the list of existing studies and the Focus Group members could respond with which they are familiar with. This way each Focus Group member can speak to a study versus everyone having to review all of the studies in depth.

•  A Focus Group member said s/he was comfortable with this method. The member said that people are eating a lot of fish and there is diversity in how much fish they are eating among these populations. But there is consistency across the data, and that the Focus Group would probably see this.

•  A Focus Group member requested that the studies be made available on DEQ’s website in central location.

•  The DEQ representative offered to have the fish consumption rate studies on the website within the next day or two (FOLLOW UP).

•  A Focus Group member said they would look beyond just local studies and consider national studies as well.

•  The Facilitator agreed.

•  A Focus Group member asked if we could have some context on this topic.

•  A Focus Group member offered to pull together something about EPA’s guidance on the Relative Source Contribution (RSC). S/He noted that the RSC is a policy choice- not scientific- policy.

•  The EPA representative voiced her/his opinion that the discussion of how to address salmon is more appropriate for habitat biologists.

•  A Focus Group member asked if anadromous fish contribute to the total contaminant load in people.

•  The EPA representative cautioned the Focus Group from labeling all anadromous fish as “marine”. EPA’s policy to exclude Pacific salmon is based on identifying these salmon as “marine” species. However, there are other anadromous species that EPA included in the final fish consumption rate because they were classified as “freshwater/estuarine” e.g. sturgeon. Lamprey were not addressed in the national survey as none of the respondents reported lamprey in their diet.

•  CRITFC staff commented that tribal members eat lamprey.

•  A Focus Group member commented that (tribal consumption) that makes it (lamprey) important to diet here.

•  A Focus Group member said it is critical for the Focus Group to address the significance of anadromous species in the diet of the populations discussed in the fish consumption rate studies. Then you would need to have a fisheries biologist discuss the life history information about the various species and should know where they are bioaccumulating toxins. The Focus Group could provide as much information as they have- would that help the Planning Team? The member said you would need the exact language from EPA’s Human Health Methodology to see how the situation is unique for salmon.

•  The EPA representative offered to provide the language on EPA’s policy to label Pacific salmon as “marine” fish and therefore exclude from the national fish consumption rate (FOLLOW UP).

•  A Focus Group member also said suggested limiting the scope of the chemicals discussed in addressing Question 3.

2.  How do we address the questions?

•  The Facilitator said that we spent a lot of time on Question 1 and touched on some of the others. Do we need to have more discussion on these questions now? Or do we want to discuss the other questions in a later meeting.

•  The DEQ representative said that s/he would compile a list of fish consumption studies, and that the Focus Group members should suggest additional studies they would like to review and volunteer to provide summaries of studies they are familiar with. At the next meeting the Focus Group can discuss the studies related to the sub-questions identified in Question 1.

•  The EPA representative said that in terms of Question 2, there was some discussion about the Focus Group looking at the significance of anadromous species in the diet of the various studies reviewed, as well as where the body burden of contaminants are coming from. They had suggested that it would be more appropriate for a fisheries biologist(s) to discuss life history and habitat aspects of the various target species.

•  A Focus Group member had suggested that Tracy Collier, at NOAA NW Science Center, would have some information on anadromous species in OR.

•  A Focus Group member commented that the issue is so unique to the Pacific Northwest and therefore need to see specific language (e.g., as in Question 2 or further clarification on Question 2).

•  A Focus Group member asked that the Focus Group share information they already have in terms of answering Question 3. Several of the Focus Group members have looked at the risks from PCBs and Hg and can talk about what it means for risks associated with the RfD for example. They have looked at risks in relation to the higher fish consumption rates discussed in the CRITFC fish consumption study.

•  Another Focus Group member suggested presenting the discussion of risk in several different ways, emphasizing it is important to look at how the Focus Group presents risks.

•  A Focus Group member noted that EPA Region 10 have an Excel table where one can change the FCR and recalculate the human health criteria. The member asked that it be shared with the group.

3.  Discuss the studies that are available.

•  The Facilitator stated that this discussion covered Agenda Item 3 in relation to Agenda Item 1. S/He requested that the Focus Group members send their ideas on information we should be looking at to the DEQ representative.

•  A Focus Group member asked if OR fish advisories available on the internet. Does this include information about the species and the contaminant level?

•  A Focus Group member responded that the text for advisories on line with varying degree of detail with regards to specific species and contamination. The member also reported that most of the advisories are for mercury, while there are some for PCBs and dioxins. There aren’t really many for shellfish. However there are a couple for crayfish- in Portland Harbor, Bradford Island and Bonneville Dam- all for PCBs.

•  The Facilitator asked if the Focus Group member would have some advisory documents that should be shared.

•  The Focus Group member agreed, saying that PCBs and Hg are the main drivers.

•  A Focus Group member suggested looking at a couple for chemicals that are not as persistent in answering Question 3.

•  A Focus Group member responded that it would helpful to look at what is occurring in OR that is not persistent.

•  A Focus Group member responded that there are some data about organophosphates.

•  A Focus Group member responded that the non-persistent chemicals are not the subject of advisories usually. Cumulative chemicals are always present, but not sure if there is any monitoring that would pick up short term peeks of non-persistent chemicals.

•  The DEQ representative noted that s/he was not aware of any information locally that looks at non-persistent chemicals.

•  The CRITFC representative noted that the USGS study looks at water column concentrations of chemicals vs. fish tissue.

4.  What should people be reviewing before the next meeting?

•  The EPA representative said s/he would send out the page numbers within EPA’s Human Health Methodology for how it addressed Pacific salmon and outlining the preference hierarchy.

•  The DEQ representative is going to post the following on the internet:

o  EPA’s Human Health Methodology;

o  CRITFC Study

o   Asian Pacific Islander study

o  Squaxin Island and Tulalip studies

o  EPA Columbia River Fish Contaminant Survey,

o  link to power points presentations from Workshop 2.

o   EPA Human Health calculation matrix,

o  link to DEQ’s the 2004 issue paper,

o  EPA’s numeric criteria with references

o  Calculation Spreadsheet (the EPA representative needed to check with EPA headquarters before sharing this publically)

5.  Discussion on the meeting notes

•  The Facilitator would like to post meeting notes on the ODEQ website. S/he would also like the Focus Group to review the meeting notes prior to posting. Is the Focus Group comfortable with the May 9, 2007 summary or do you need more time to review?

•  The Focus Group would like more time.

•  The Facilitator offered to wait until June 11, 2007 to post the meeting notes on the internet.

•  The DEQ representative raised her/his concerns that there is more of an urgency to get these posted sooner.

•  A Focus Group member suggested a tone change to the meeting notes.

•  A Focus Group member requested an additional three days for review.

•  The Focus Group said that they could get comments on the notes back to the Planning Team by COB Wednesday.

•  The CRITFC representative asked if we intend to incorporate the Focus Group comments as submitted? S/He also asked the Focus Group if it is alright with identification of Focus Group member names in personal notes but not the summary notes?

•  The Focus Group replied yes and yes. Names will not be used in final meeting minute notes.

•  The DEQ representative stated that the final meeting notes will reflect all of the Focus Group comments.

•  The Facilitator asked the Focus Group if they would prefer to have names removed from the May 9, 2007 meeting summary notes.

•  The Focus Group said yes.

•  The DEQ representative requested that the Focus Group members use redline/strikeout when revising the meeting notes. S/He also pointed out that the next meeting is June 11, 2007 at 10am-4pm.

•  A Focus Group member said that the Focus Group needed the fish consumption rate documents as soon as possible.

•  A Focus Group member requested getting the new study of the CRITFC fish consumption data.

•  The CRITFC representative said s/he needed to find out about the copyright issue. It’s fine to distribute the study.

•  The DEQ representative requested feedback on whether meeting date is doable.

•  The Focus Group members requested that none of the meeting dates change.