5/21/07
Attendance: Ken Kauffman, Jordan Palmeri, Deb Sturtevant, Patti Howard, Elaine Faustman, Dave McBride, Joanne Rothelien, Pat Cirone, Becky Lindgren, Kathleen Feehan
Observing: Nina Bell (NWEA), Oregon Environmental Council (?)
Questions for the Focus Group:
PC: Please clarify- you have questions labeled ‘1’ but then there are many sub-questions. So do you want us to answer all of these questions, or is 1 the main question?
DS: The main question is one, and that the sub-questions are ways to possibly answer the main question.
THINGS TO DO:
• Jordan will send out a list of these studies and DS asked that the HH Focus Group provide any info on studies we haven’t previously identified.
• Jordan will be putting the studies (some/all?) on the internet.
EF: Wanted the by-line on what the regulations are suppose to do. Would like to have more detail about the regulatory requirements.
What does “unacceptable risk” mean?
EPA: Carcinogen risk rates are 10-4 to 10-6. EPA has also said that you should not exceed the RfD.
PC: What are the State’s regulations on the “unacceptable risk”? Pat reminded everyone that the Focus Group will not be telling OR what risks are unacceptable- only what the risks are.
JP: Reminded everyone that the idea was to run several chemicals through an analysis to see what the risks are to higher consumers, and that this process is now proposed to be covered under Q3.
EF: Suggested that there will be less data available for children or elderly- but that there is no room in the current question for what populations need to be covered.
JR: If you are only considering whether the data are adequate, you don’t know this if you don’t know what you have left out. This is related to discussions the other populations in the state- are you asking us to look at these other populations and ask us to project what the rates might be?
DS: No, what we are asking is what credible information is available to us and what does it tell us? It is perfectly legitimate to describe the limitations of that information- what are the uncertainties surrounding populations that haven’t been looked at?
JR: Will show that the populations are more complex than what the surveys capture.
DS: Leave it up to the group on how much you want to fill in those gaps.
JR: DEQ may want to explore what information has not been collected.
PH: I would like to know which groups and subpopulations have been left out which will help to indicate if you have the right type of data to make a decision. What decision can we make if we do not have the information on these population groups.
EF: What populations are surveyed and what populations should be surveyed. There has been a major concentration have been on adults when 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 other groups- e.g. by age or other characteristics?
JP: In reviewing Question 1, I am wondering, once we get a list of studies, how deeply does the Focus Group want to go in reviewing these studies? How much detail will you want to get into to ensure that this is good scientific evidence for Oregon’s use?
PC: I reviewed the USDA study this morning, and it took a bit of time. To answer what you are asking, I would have to have the original study, read it, and identify the weaknesses and strengths. Then I need to know how quickly you need this information and what type of information are you looking for. That is why I am wondering if we can rely on Lon Kissinger to give us this information (background). Are we doing a comprehensive review or just identify the weaknesses and strength of the studies?
DS: A way to move forward would be to get the list and Focus Group members could respond which ones they are familiar with. This way each person can speak to a study vs. having everyone reviewing all of the studies in depth.
EF: I am comfortable with this method. As everyone on the Focus Group is a scientific expert on these topics, it would be great to have people bring summaries and then build upon it. People are eating a lot of fish and there is diversity in how much fish they are eating within these populations. But there is consistency across this data, and we will probably see this.
PC: We need to get this stuff on the internet.
TO DO:
• JP: The studies will be on the internet soon.
• JP: Will send out the studies we have and a suggested date for responding if you are familiar with and suggestions for other studies we are missing.
JR: Let’s expand beyond local studies and look at some national as well.
EF: Do we need to provide a little context on this topic?
TO DO:
• We will put together the context of why this is a question.
PC: I put together something about the RSC which is how EPA’s guidance suggests how you address. This is a policy choice- not scientific- policy.
PC: Critical for us to address the significance of anadromous species in the diet of these fish consumption rate. Then you need to have a fisheries biologist discuss the life history information about the various species and should know where they are bioaccumulating toxins. We can provide you as much information that we have- does this help?
PC: You need to have the exact language in EPA’s Human Health Methodology to see how the situation is unique for salmon.
TO DO:
• Provide the exact language on EPA’s policy on salmon as it is unique for the Pacific Northwest.
JR: You should limit the contaminants that you are covering for Q3.
TO DO:
• Need to narrow down the chemicals that we would be discussing. Planning Group should pick out some chemicals.
2. How do we address the questions?
DS: We talked about this a lot for #1- touched on it for the others. Do we need to have more discussion on that now? Or discuss how to do it for the rest of the questions in a later meeting?
JP: Process for 1- I am going to compile a list of studies, folks are going to suggest other studies and volunteer to provide summaries of the studies they are familiar with. At the next meeting we can discuss the studies related to those sub-questions identified in Q1.
BL: In terms of the Q2- 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 the life history and habitat aspects of the various target species.
PC: Had said that Tracy Collier, NOAA NW Science Center would have some information on anadromous species in OR.
Discussion on the chemicals used in assessing risk (Q3).
PC: Would like to have Focus Group members share info that they already have. For example, PC and DM have looked at the risk from PCBs and Hg and can talk about what it means for risks associated with exceeding the RfD (for example). They have looked at in relation to the CRITFC study for different fish consumption rates.
EF: We should present the differences in risk in several different ways- it is important to look at how we are presenting it.
TO DO:
• BL send out the spreadsheet where you can recalculate the criteria at higher FCR.
3. Discuss the studies that are available.
DS: This is the time to send Jordan any ideas you have about information DEQ should be aware of and looking at.
DM: Are OR’s current FC advisories available on line? Does this include information about species are and the contaminant level?
KK: We do talk about specific species if they stand out and some contaminant info. Not all have this information.
DM: Might be helpful to have the OR FC advisory information to figure out what contaminants to look at.
KK: Most advisories are for mercury, some for PCBs and one for dioxins. Don’t really have much for shellfish. Also have a couple of for crayfish- in Portland Harbor, Bradford Island and Bonneville Dam- all for PCBs.
DS: DM you have a couple advisory documents that you would like to share with the group?
DM: Many in WA are for Hg and PCBs- that is what you are seeing nationally.
EF: Suggested looking at a couple of chemicals that are not as persistent in answering Q3.
DM: Would be helpful to look at what is occurring in OR that are not persistent.
JR: Have had some data about organophosphates.
KK: Non-persistent chemicals are not the subject of advisories usually. Cumulative ones are always present, but not sure if there is any monitoring that would pick up short term peeks of non-persistent chemicals.
JP: I am not aware of any information locally available that looks at non-persistent chemicals.
PH: Noted the USGS study that looks at water column vs. fish tissue.
4. What should people be reviewing before the next in person meeting?
BL: Will send out the page numbers for the HH Methodology for salmon and the preference hierarchy.
JP: Going to post the following on the internet:
• HH Methodology
• CRITFC Study
• Suquamish Study
• Tulalip Survey
• API Survey
• EPA Fish Contaminant Survey
• Willamette Fish Contaminant Survey
• PPT from Workshops 1 and 2
• Electronic version of HH Calculation Matrix
• Issue Paper from 2004
• Numeric Criteria with References Document
• Calculation Spreadsheet (BL needs to check with HQ if this is possible)
5. Discussion on the meeting notes.
DS: Need to go over the notes so we can post them on the internet.
Focus Group requested that we put off this discussion until the next meeting. If you have comments before then, please give them to Jordan.
JP: There is some urgency to get the notes up. Can I put these on the internet with “draft” label?
EF: We need to change the tone- save ourselves, from ourselves.
JR: Why don’t you just give us three days to email you edits?
DS: What date can you look at it by?
Wednesday would work for everyone. COB on Wednesday for comments on the notes.
PC: Can you put a note that we are taking handwritten notes by staff and that there might be some errors? So folks know that these are an absolute transcript.
Preference to not include names.
Like to have names in the personal notes.
PH: Is Jordan going to make changes that the Focus Group suggests or is he going to use his discretion to include/exclude suggestions?
JP: Will include all of the Focus Groups edits.
DS: Does Jordan need to take the name out now or in for the future can we start excluding names?
Okay to exclude names in future if folks can edit what is currently in the draft notes.
JP: Please use red line strikeout for the word doc- it is easiest. But you can submit them however you want to.
JP: Next meeting is on 6/11 from 10-4 PM. Face-to-face.
JR: Please get us the materials ASAP so that the Focus Group can come prepared for the next meeting.
SM: Would like the new study of the CRITFC information.
PH: Will send it out.
JP: Will add it to the list of documents on the website.
JR: Please send an email immediately with all of the information if it is going to take some time to get these things posted to the internet.