FISH CONSUMPTION RATE PROJECT

HUMAN HEALTH FOCUS GROUP MEETING

Conference Call

May 21, 2007

10:00am to 12:00pm

Notes Prepared by Patti Howard

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Meeting Participants

At ODEQ

Jordan Palmeri (ODEQ)

Ken Kauffman (ODHS)

Deb Sturdevant (ODEQ)

On Phone

Joan Rothlein (OHSU)

Patti Howard (CRITFC)

Pat Cirone Self

Becky Lindgrin 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)

Jordan: Gave brief overview of May 16, 2007 Public Workshop #2 held at the Chinook Winds Casino. He provided an explanation as to need for open process and the public being able to listen in on Human Health Focus Group (HHFG) call.

Deb: Provided overview of meeting goals and objectives and agenda. Planning workgroup revisited questions for HHFG (see questions for HHFG handout).

Jordan: The questions as Planning Workgroup’s (PWs) attempt to capture HHFG discussion from May 9, 2007 meeting.

HHFG Member: Commented that # 1 a, b, c, and d are not inclusive, and wanted to know expectations of the PW for the HHFG.

Deb: #1 a, b, c, and d are not meant to be all inclusive but suggested topics for discussion.

HHFG Member: Looking for a broad assessment, seek out others

HHFG Member: Asked if there are other studies to include. Indicated that Jordan will send out a draft of Fish Consumption Studies (FCS) as a starting point.

Patti: Obtained copyright information on the CRITFC reanalysis and will send an electronic copy to Jordan.

HHFG Member: Requested that the PW 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.

HHFG Member and Becky discussed the sentence.

HHFG Member: Indicated that would 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.

Becky: Indicated that she would include regulatory language for clarity.

HHFG Member: Asked about the cancer risk that will be used. Topic discussed by HHFG Members.

Deb: Presumption is that Oregon will continue with the one in a million. It’s a policy question.

HHFG Member: HHFG Member is asking about the ‘what is or is not unacceptable risk question.’ The HHFG can only say what the risks are, can’t say what is or is not unacceptable, that’s a policy component.

HHFG Member: What about waters where we know you can’t eat? Want to make certain standard is health based and provides protection of fishing and the eating of those fish.

Deb: Asked if there was anything more on question 1.

Patti: Is there anything else we need to consider?

HHFG Member: Didn’t ask which populations should be considered. For example, what about populations that were not included in a survey?

HHFG Member: If considering whether data is adequate, need to know what was left out. Demographics, age, health….. Are you asking for those groups and for the HHFG to project their risks?

Deb: No, but we want to know the limitations of the studies. Will leave it up the HHFG.

HHFG Member: The populations at risk is perhaps more complex than what is reflected in the studies.

HHFG Member: What populations are surveyed and what were not and should be. The major focus has been on adults. There are areas of uncertainty when discussing the protection of human health.

Patti: How does the lack of that information influence what we can say?

Jordan: Question 1 is a large question. Once we have a list of studies, how deeply does the HHFG want to go into the studies to be able to decide on the scientific credibility? What does the review of the studies entail?

HHFG Member: That member’s review of national studies was time intensive. Would need copies of the original studies and need to read them, it’s not a small task. There is a timing issue: how quickly and thorough do you want to be? There is an ability to draw on others to do the work: Can we rely on for example Lon K’s work (see table A Summary of Fish/Shellfish Consumption Surveys done in U.S. EPA Region 10) to provide the information. We have a July 17, 2007 deadline.

Becky to HHFG Member: Is the best use of time is to present FCR studies out there plus the risks at difference FCRs?

HHFG Member: Yes but labor intensive.

Deb: Get list out there, have HHFG members share their knowledge of specific studies including Lon’s work.

HHFG Member: Makes sense, let’s not reinvent the wheel but build upon collective knowledge and individual knowledge of specific studies. Will probably find that there is tremendous consistency across studies with regards to FCR, that people eat a lot of fish.

HHFG Member: Wants to see studies on website in central location.

Jordan: Will have studies up within the next day or two.

HHFG Member: Need to consider national studies as well.

Deb: Agreed.

Deb: Anything else on how the three questions are worded? Can always revisit questions 2 and 3.

HHFG Member: Do we need context for question number 2, it kinda comes out of the blue.

Deb: Yes, we will provide context.

HHFG Member: Discusses relative source contribution in a 5-21-07 e-mail to the PWG and HHFG. It’s a policy statement and makes this HHFG member nervous. The issue is marine (i.e., sturgeon), salmon are unique.

HHFG Member: As worded is a policy question.

Becky: Agreed. We talked about the science behind the species. A better question for the habitat biologists?

HHFG Member: Do anadromous fish contribute to the total contaminant load in people?

Becky: EPA anadromous policy is specific to salmon. Sturgeon is fresh esturine in the national survey. EPA didn’t address lamprey in the national survey because no one reported eating it in their diet.

HHFG Member: Lamprey makes it important to the diet here.

HHFG Member: So what is the question?

Becky: Percent of diet that is anadromous?

HHFG Member: Important to discuss importance in the diet. The habitat issue should be discussed by the biologists.

HHFG Member: Proportion of contaminant load, and not just habitat. NOAA?

HHFG Member: Tracy Collier has discussed. Perhaps he could lay out the issues and contribute whatever their knowledge can.

Deb: That’s great, still trying to determine all the component pieces.

HHFG Member: Question is so unique to the Pacific Northwest and therefore we need to see specific language (as in question 2 or further clarification on question 2).

HHFG Member: Can only answer if HHFG limits number of chemicals, so perhaps question 3 to a specific list of chemicals so therefore might want to include language in question 3 as to why only a few chemicals will be analyzed.

Deb: More discussion on question 2 and 3 at the next meeting.

HHFG Member: What?

Deb: Agenda 2, thought that agenda item addressed with agenda item 1.

Jordan: 1. Studies go to Jordan, 2. ID specific individual knowledge of a specific study, and 3. habitat.

HHFG Member: Discussion should be contaminant load and contribution to diet.

Becky: Discussion on percent and significance of an andromous species in diet of FCR studies and identification of local of where those contaminant exposures occur.

?: Is that information summarized?

Deb: HHFG question 3.Does the HHFG pick and the PWG run the risk assessments?

HHFG Member: As an approach, do it the same way as question number 1 and talk about at next meeting. Here focus was tribes. HHFG Members know about the reference dose issues. Build on pieces already started.

HHFG Member: HHFG can decide on 2 to 3 key messages.

HHFG Member: HHFG member, can you share data in a table where you can play with the numbers?

HHFG Member: Becky and Jordan have Lon’s excel table where a change in the FCR can cause a change in the criteria, can share with the group.

Deb: Covered Agenda Item 3 in relation to Agenda Item 1. Send to Jordan ideas on information we should be looking at.

HHFG Member: HHFG Member: are OR fish advisories available on line?

HHFG Member: Text for advisories on line with varying degree of detail with regards to specific species and contamination. Fish advisories are over 90% for Hg.

HHFG Member: Is that true for shell fish?

HHFG Member: We do very little work with shellfish, that’s the purview of the State Ag Dept. except for Bradford Island PCBs in shellfish.

Deb: HHFG Member: do you have some advisory documents that should be shared?

HHFG Member: yes, PCBs and Hg are the main drivers.

HHFG Member: How about transient chemical (e.g., non legacy pollutants) drivers such as pesticides?

HHFG Member: Agreed, that is chemicals that are of concern but pose a HH issue.

HHFG Member: Dieldren and DDT are drivers but organophosphates are also a problem.

HHFG Member: Setting criteria, do we have agricultural runoff that creates drivers?

HHFG Member: Little monitoring has been conducted on the short-term peaks.

HHFG Member: Some ODEQ data, but do we want to go there?

Becky: EPA Power Point on the EPA hierarchy, will share as well as information on how salmon is used.

Sue M. Came in at 11:16am. Had the wrong time.

Jordan: What he plans to post including separate links and pages: EPA WQ Criteria, CRITFC study, API study, Squaxim and Tulalip studies, EPA Fish Contaminant Survey, link to project power points, the EPA HH matrix, link to the 2004 issue paper, ?, calculation spread sheet.

Deb: Would like to post meeting notes on the ODEQ website. Want HHFG to review prior to posting. Is the HHFG comfortable with the May 9, 2007 summary or do you need more time to review?

HHFG Member: Would like more time.

Deb: Will wait until June 11, 2007 to post.

Jordan: Feels there is more of an urgency.

HHFG Member: Suggest a tone change.

HHFG Member: Need three days.

HHFG Member: Will be done by end of day.

HHFG Member: Wed.

Jordan: Wed afternoon.

Patti: Jordan: do you intend to incorporate the HHFG comments as submitted? To HHFG: Are you alright with identification of names in personal notes but not the summary notes? Yes and Yes.

HHFG Member: Describe the process for how the summary minutes are derived. Do not use names in the summaries.

Jordan: His meeting notes will reflect HHFG comments.

Deb: Remove names from the May 9, 2007 meeting summary?

HHFG: Yes.

Jordan: Use redline/strikeout.

Jordan: Next meeting is June 11, 2007 at 10am-4pm.

HHFG Member: Date and time good and need documents ASAP.

HHFG Member: Second CRITFC study?

Patti: Yes, needed to find out about the copyright issue. It’s fine to distribute the study.

Jordan: Need feedback on whether meeting date is doable.

HHFG Members: Don’t change the date.