Meeting Minutes
Human Health Focus Group
May 9, 2007
2:00 – 5:00
Oregon Fish Consumption Rate Project
Present
Members: Ken Kauffman (OR-DHS)
Joan Rothlein (OHSU)
Pat Cirone (retired-EPA)
Elaine Faustman (UW)
Susan MacMillan (URS Corp)
Dave McBride (WA-DOH)
Support staff: Becky Lindgren (EPA)
Jordan Palmeri (DEQ)
Debra Sturdevant (DEQ)
Patty Howard (CTUIR)
Kathleen Feehan (CTUIR-on the phone)
Others: Liz Carr (WA-DOH)
Introductions
• Dave McBride is a toxicologist with the Washington Department of Health and has 7-10 years of experience issuing fish advisories
• Elaine Faustman is a Professor and Director of Risk Analysis and Communication Center at UW. She also serves on an Oceans and Human Health workgroup, as well as the Science Advisory Board for the Washington Department of Ecology.
• Joan Rothlein is a Professor at OHSU and was a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during the last triennial review of the standards. She focuses her research on pesticide exposures in children and farm workers.
• Ken Kauffman was also on the TAC during the last review. He has been issuing fish advisories for the last 34 years.
• Susan MacMillan is a Senior Risk Assessor for the URS Corporation. She used to work for EPA R5 as a project manager.
• Pat Cirone is a former EPA employee that was one of the authors of the EPA Fish Contaminant Survey (needs clarification/addition…I don’t remember if Pat was at opening
• The support staff introduced themselves, told a little about their backgrounds and involvement in the Oregon Fish Consumption Rate Project
Background
• Jordan provided a background to the fish consumption rate issue which included the following facts and points of discussion:
• In 1999, DEQ began a review of our water quality standards (WQS) for toxics. There were other standards being reviewed at this time too but the human health criteria within the standards is the only relevant background to cover for this group.
• WQS are water column concentrations expressed in ug/l. There are aquatic life and human health criteria. We are only discussing human health today.
• They are regulatory and are enforced in TMDL, permits, 401 certifications. They have state wide impacts
• They are required by the Clean Water Act, are developed by the state and then either approved or disapproved by EPA.
• During the last review, a technical and policy advisory committee was formed.
• The TAC looked at the EPA 2000 Human Health Methodology for establishing water quality criteria and agreed that is was superior to the old methodology used. They agreed to use it with modifications. The two main aspects they decided to look at were Bioaccumulation Factors (BAFs) and fish consumption rates.
• There was a discussion among the group members around which EPA criteria DEQ’s current criteria are based on. Becky responded that they are based on EPA’s 2002 recommended criteria and the 2003 updates. There was discussion and it was requested that Jordan send a table of DEQ current water quality criteria with reference to what year update those criteria are based on (FOLLOW UP).
• BAF take into account the uptake of contaminants into fish from the water column, exposure to sediment, and the fish’s diet. Bioconcentration Factors (BCFs) only take the water column exposure into account. The TAC asked EPA if they had any nationally derived BAFs. EPA did not. So, because of the time and resource constraint of trying to develop OR specific BAFs the TAC decided to just use the nationally derived BCFs.
• Fish Consumption Rates. The TAC reviewed available local data from the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) on fish consumption rates and determined that there was a whole range of rates that might be appropriate for Oregon but it was really a policy decision about which population to choose as a basis for action.
• The PAC asked the TAC to be more explicit in their recommendations
• The TAC took the national default rates and the CRITFC numbers to derive a tiered approach for using 3 different fish consumption rates (17.5, 142, and 389) for different waters in Oregon depending on the fishing intensity of a given location.
• The PAC looked at this approach as being very difficult to implement and having some equity issues associated with it.
• The PAC never made a recommendation to DEQ about with fish consumption rate to adopt
• Joan asked if the agency was committed to bringing a “range” of recommendations to the EQC? She asked because they brought a range last time and the PAC didn’t agree and ultimately, the recommendation was not brought to the EQC
• Jordan clarified that when we say we will bring a “range” of recommendations to the EQC, we mean that we will give them multiple options to proceed to a rulemaking and not a literal “range” of numbers, although actually recommending a “range” of numbers certainly can be one of the many options DEQ presents to the EQC.
• DEQ moved forward with a recommendation of 17.5 grams/day. There were a lot of comments received during rulemaking that supported a higher rate.
• Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) members asked DEQ to revisit the fish consumption rate because they thought it needed more attention. They also specifically requested that more information on the consumption of fish by Oregonians is needed.
• Deb mentioned to the group that although more information on Oregonian’s fish consumption was requested by the EQC, DEQ was unable to collect that information because it was too costly and would take too long.
• The focus group asked some specific questions about the details of what the TAC looked at last time and what was concluded. Jordan will follow up by sending the Issue Paper to all focus group members and look into any more details that can be found about the TAC proceedings (FOLLOW-UP).
Where are we today?
• EPA has not approved the DEQ water quality criteria that was submitted in May 2004. They typically have 90 days to approved or disapprove the criteria.
• DEQ has committed to recommending a higher rate
• Pat asked if DEQ leadership has actually already committed to recommending a higher rate. Jordan responded by saying yes, DEQ has committed to recommending a higher rate. What rate that is, where it will apply, and how it will be implemented is a large part of the discussion in the public workshops.
• Jordan clarified that although DEQ has come forward to say the agency feels that higher rate is needed, the ultimate decision will be up to the EQC, DEQ’s rulemaking body.
• Jordan summarized the current situation by saying that basically the EQC will face the same policy decisions they did last time around. The difference is that this time around, we will have a lot more info on how a new standard would be implemented.
Goals of Project and Workshop Schedule
• Jordan reviewed the goals of the workshops:
o Provide a forum for participants to identify critical issues, discuss implementation challenges and propose alternative actions.
o Develop recommendations and supporting documentation to present to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) with (1) a range of options to increase the fish consumption rate and (2) options for pollution control strategies that can help reduce risks associated with consuming contaminated fish and decrease the toxic levels present in fish.
• Jordan then stepped the focus group through the workshop schedule
• A focus group member suggested that the one workshop entitled “Economic Impacts on NPDES permit holders” implies that there are only negative impacts for raising the fish consumption rate. This phrasing does not take into account all the positive health impacts that could occur from raising the fish consumption rate.
• It was suggested that we discuss the health benefits of raising the fish consumption rate may be wise.
Questions Posed to Group
• Jordan read the questions the planning group proposed that the focus group concentrate on. Those questions were:
o Considering the human health criteria within the water quality standards- to what extent are populations who consume more than the current fish consumption rate used in the standards (17.5 g/day) at a greater risk for health impacts?
o Considering existing water quality conditions and contaminants in fish, water are the actual existing risks to high fish consuming populations in Oregon?
• This generated a lot of discussion
• The group discussed addressing the question of what the scientific evidence is for the fish consumption rate in the region (nationally, locally, globally). • This was a central question to the project and the group thought their scientific expertise could be used to help answer this question. They discussed how the numbers were derived, and mentioned that the assumptions behind the numbers were important pieces of the discussion.
• There was discussion about the difference between answering what the scientific evidence is for fish consumption rates in a geographic region versus choosing an “appropriate” rate for the region. Choosing an appropriate rate is a policy decision and this group made it quite clear that they do not want to deal with policy issues. The group emphasized that they were scientists and that they want to review the science.
• There was general agreement that this was a central question to the issue.
• Jordan mentioned that another big question to answer is how anadromous fish is included in the fish consumption rate.
• Becky explained a little about EPA’s stance on freshwater and marine fish in the fish consumption rate, which seemed to clear up a little confusion.
• Jordan and others explained how we had many more questions on our list originally for the group to address but had to cut down due to time considerations. Jordan and others expressed openness to shifting the focus of the group to what they felt the most pressing scientific questions were but Jordan expressed concern over the ability of the group to take on too much work in a short time frame.
• WE TOOK A BREAK
• When we returned, Becky explained the basis for the questions we had written for the group.
• The group discussed the first question of addressing the risk to people who consume more than 17.5 grams/day. Suggestions were made to take a couple of chemicals (eg. PCBs and Methymercury) and discuss what increase in risk occurs if a consumer is exposed to those chemicals at the current criteria levels and at higher consumption rates. The group discussed whether this would be a simple exercise that could answer the first question re: What risks do higher consumers face with existing criteria?
• Pat suggested dropping the second question, and that this would be a more appropriate thing for DEQ to answer- not this focus group.
• The group reaffirmed the distinction between the policy questions and the technical questions, and reiterate their focus on technical questions
• Joan said she was still not clear on what we are asking them to answer. Would like more clarification and make it clear what the meeting requirements are.
• The Planning Team asked the Focus Group to consider what the original questions are (which are the "why does this issue matter in terms of human health for high end consumers") in the context of their interest in looking at different fish consumption rates on an international, national and regional level, and come up with ways to integrate these together.
• We also asked the Focus Group to consider what work than can actually do within the short time frame that exists.
• A comment was also made at one point (by Ken and others) that the using the phrasing of “Fish Consumption Rate” does not make it obvious that shellfish are also included. As an important part of people’s diet, many thought we should expand our title to include shellfish.
Process
• Deb laid out the process for these meetings
• Planning Team members will attend meetings and function as support staff for the Focus Group. We will take notes and prepare write ups that the Focus Group can then review and comment on;
• Focus Team members are expected to speak up about the issues discussed, review the documents prepared by the Planning Team, and possibly present info at public workshops.
• The group discussed whether the focus Group could present before the EQC.
• Deb thought this would be a possibility and asked if they would want just one rep from the Focus Group. Others thought it would be helpful to have the whole Focus Group or a quorum of folks present to the EQC for a Q&A session.
• Deb asked if the group would like to elect a chair-
• Joan asked if this could be settled at a later meeting once the Focus Group had more time to solidify/work together.
• Question came up about having meetings in person vs. conference calls. Because of everyone's schedules, it was suggested to try and do face to face when possible, but allow for conference calls in case not all can make it.
• In terms of consensus- Focus Group would like to table the issue of coming up with group recommendations vs "growing body of evidence indicates" until another time. Some concern that recommendations are too policy oriented for a group of scientists to make.
Follow up items
• Send out list of contact info of Focus Group members
• Send notes to members and post on internet after reviewed
• Upoming meetings-
o tentative 5/21 conference call from 10-12; in Portland for those who can make it – purpose- review newly drafted scope of work and lay out steps forward
o 6/11 in person meeting- please reserve the day conference call sometime in late June
o 7/10 last face to face before Workshop 3
o Deb asked to keep a later date open in case the group wants to meet after workshop to finish up project
• Send Issue Paper to group
• Send numeric criteria with references to group
• Start compiling a list of relevant FCR studies
• Create central place on DEQ website for working materials/info exchange
• Consider some of the phrasing and wording suggestions made by the focus group