FINAL DRAFT STUDY DESIGN
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN FISH
CONSUMED BY FOUR NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES IN THE
COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN
^
X
V
o
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DECEMBER 2, 1994
-------
FINAL DRAFT STUDY DESIGN
Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in Fish
Consumed by Four Native American Tribes in
the Columbia River Basin
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DECEMBER 2, 1994
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.2 DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES 3
2.0 STUDY DESIGN 5
2.1 SELECTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS 5
2.2 SELECTION OF SPECIES 11
2.3 SAMPLE TYPE 11
2.4 SAMPLING STRATEGY 15
2.5 TARGET ANALYTES 18
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 27
3.1 GENERAL COMMENTS 27
3.2 COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PHASE II STUDY 28
4.0 REFERENCES 29
u
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Decision tree for selection of tissue sampling sites 6
2 Tribal fishing sites for resident fish where use exceeded forty percent 7
3 Tribal fishing sites for anadromous fish where use exceeded forty percent 8
4 Fish sampling locations 10
5 Phase II study design 13
111
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Members of the task force for the CRITFC project 2
2 Percentage of adult tribal members consuming proposed target species and
fishing sites where these species will be collected 12
3 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Exposure Study.
Adult consumption of fish parts . 14
4 Study design for assessment of chemical contaminants in fish consumed by
CRITFC member tribes 16
5 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Exposure Study. Study
design for the Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission exposure study .... 17
6 Exposure assumptions for screening fish tissue chemical concentrations 19
7 Chemicals that exceeded tissue screening concentrations 20
8 Chemicals that did not exceed tissue screening concentrations 25
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Technical support for development of this study design was provided by Tetra Tech, Inc. under
U.S. EPA Contract Number 68-C3-8374.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) entered into a cooperative agreement with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1990 to conduct a fish consumption survey of the
Nez Perce, Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Yakima Native American Tribes. This consumption survey,
which was released in October 1994 (CRITFC 1994), was the first phase of a broader effort to determine
the role of fish consumption as an exposure route for waterborne toxics among individuals of these tribes.
The second phase will use the information from the consumption survey to design, and implement, a
sampling program to collect tissue contaminant data from resident and anadromous fish species consumed
by tribal members. It is this phase of the project with which this document is concerned. The third
phase, which will determine blood contaminant levels of tribal members, has not been initiated. Collec-
tively, these three components should provide the necessary information for developing an exposure
assessment for members of the four CRITFC tribes. Information derived from this exposure assessment
may then be used by U.S. EPA and others for developing an assessment of health risks to fish consumers
in the four member tribes.
1.2 DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This scoping document was originally submitted in draft .form to members of the CRITFC Task Force
(Table 1), other tribal representatives, and selected government agencies. The draft document provided
a preliminary study design that served as a starting point for discussions that occurred at a Design
Conference held on October 19-20, 1994 in Portland, Oregon, at which a study design for U.S. EPA's
Phase II CRITFC exposure study was finalized. This document presents the consensus study design
developed at the Design Conference and provides the study objectives, rationale, and study recommen-
dations formulated by attendees of the Design Conference. This document is not intended to be a
1
-------
TABLE 1. MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE FOR THE CRITFC PROJECT
Name
Leanne Stahl, Co-Project Manager
Rick Albright
Harriett Amann
Steve Bradbury
Pat Cirone, Co-Project Manager
Dave Cleverly
Dana Davoli
Jerry Filbin
Gene Foster
John Gabrielson
Clarice Gaylord
Jim Griggs
Lynn Hatcher
Gary James
Ken Kauffman
Craig McCormick
Bruce Mintz
Cynthia Nolt
Brian Offord
Carol Schuler
Anne Watanabe
Silas Whitman
Don Yon
Affiliation
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
U.S. EPA Region X, Water Division
Washington Department of Health
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Research &
Development
U.S. EPA Region X, Environmental Services Division
U.S. EPA Headquarters , Office of Research &
Development
U.S. EPA Region X, Environmental Services Division
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
U.S. EPA Region X, Water Division
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Environmental
Equity
Warm Springs Tribe
Yakima Tribe
Umatilla Tribe
Oregon Department of Health
Washington Department of Ecology
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
Washington Department of Ecology
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Nez Perec Tribe
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
-------
sampling plan or a quality assurance/quality control plan. Such documents will be prepared prior to
initiating the field sampling.
1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The primary objectives of the Phase II study are to:
Measure fish contaminant levels for species and fishing locations being utilized by
CRITFC member tribes to provide, in conjunction with the CRITFC (1994) fish con-
sumption report, an assessment of fish consumption as an exposure route for waterborne
toxics among individuals of these tribes.
Use the information derived from the exposure assessment to estimate potential health
risks to fish consumers in the four CRITFC member tribes.
The objectives for the Phase II study were thoroughly discussed at the Design Conference and consensus
was reached for the two primary objectives listed above. Specific details regarding how the collected data
will be used to accomplish these objectives will be developed as the Phase II study progresses. Design
Conference attendees recommended that the methodology for conducting an assessment of human health
for the CRITFC member tribes be clearly delineated, as well as the form in which this information would
be conveyed to the public. In particular, questions were raised about whether the data would allow only
site-specific exposure assessments, or whether the data could be extrapolated to estimate exposure over
larger areas of the Columbia River Basin. It was decided that, because of the study's nonprobabilistic
sampling design, the data are likely to allow only site-specific exposure assessments.
The manner in which human health concerns resulting from the Phase II study would be disseminated to
the public was also discussed at the Design Conference. Concerns were raised by conference attendees
about the potential differences in methodology and presentation of human health information by State
Health departments, EPA, .and other state regulatory agencies. Design Conference attendees recognized
that different agencies would likely utilize the available data to meet their own specific operational man-
dates, and that the analyses and form of presentation of the data might differ. However, it was generally
-------
agreed that all agencies should strive to keep each other informed about the uses and presentation of any
data generated from the Phase II study.
Originally, a secondary objective of the Phase II study was to collect sediment contaminant data from the
fish collection sites to aid in the determination of chemical-specific biota-sediment accumulation factors
(BSAFs). While Design Conference attendees recognized the utility and merit of collecting this data, it
was felt that available resources were insufficient to accomplish the primary objectives and carry out a
statistically valid sampling program to determine BSAFs. Therefore, this secondary objective was
eliminated in favor of a recommendation that if additional resources become available a study should be
undertaken to determine site-specific BSAFs. Furthermore, there was general acknowledgement that
implementation of this recommendation should be preceded by the development of a well planned,
statistically valid, study design.
-------
2.0 STUDY DESIGN
This section provides a description and rationale for the study design developed for U.S. EPA's Phase II
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) exposure study. The study design was devel-
oped through a consensus process that considered the objectives presented in Section 1.3. The infor-
mation used in developing this study design included the fish consumption data provided in CRITFC
(1994), existing data on chemical concentrations in fish tissue within the Columbia River Basin collected
from 1984 - 1994, and the results of a human health risk-based screening analysis of the existing data.
The main constraint on the study design was the resources available for dioxin and PCB congener analysis
of tissue and sediment samples ($250,000).
2.1 SELECTION OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Figure 1 illustrates the decision process that was used to select the sampling sites for both resident and
anadromous fish species. Initially, fishing sites that represented greater than 40 percent of each tribe's
fishing use for resident and anadromous fish species were identified. The 22 fishing locations for resident
species that met this criterion were located in the Clearwater, Deschutes, and Umatilla watersheds, and
the mainstem Columbia River below McNary Dam (Figure 2). For anadromous species, the same
22 locations plus 4 additional sites located in the mainstem Columbia River upstream from the mouth
of the Snake River to Rocky Reach Dam represented greater than 40 percent of the fishing use (Figure 3).
To reduce the number of sites to a number consistent with the resources available for the Phase II
sampling effort, the distribution of fishing sites exceeding the 40 percent use criterion was subdivided into
two categories: watersheds with multiple fishing sites (i.e., Clearwater, Deschutes, and Umatilla), and
mainstem Columbia River segments represented by a single fishing site (fishing sites 5-9,15, 16, and 18).
For the three watersheds with multiple fishing sites, a single site located near the base of the watershed
(i.e., a second order river segment) was selected to be representative of other fishing sites within the
watershed. The three sites that meet this criterion are fishing sites 98, 30, and 96 located in the
-------
102 Tribal Fishing Sites
Proposed
Sites
Multiple
Locations Within
a Watershed or
River
Segment
Fishing
Use
>40%
Select
Representative Site
Local
Pollution
Source
Concern
Species
of
Special
Concern
Multiple
Locations Within
a Watershed or
River
Segment
) Y"
Select
Representative Site
L
RMldint r
30
98
48
49
Adequate Existing Data For Chemicals of Concern
Eliminated Sites
Proposed Tissue Sampling Sites
6,7,8,9,18,21,30,48,49, 57,79,98,98
Figure 1. Decision Tree For Selection of Tissue Sampling Sites
6
-------
2. Tribal Fishing Sites for
Resident Fish Where
Use Exceeded Forty
Percent
LEGEND
133 Fishing Use >40%
00 Sampling Location
85
-------
Figure 3. Tribal Fishing Sites for
Anadromous Fish Where
Use Exceeded Forty
Percent
LEGEND
Fishing Use >40%
00 Fishing Location
oo
-------
Deschutes, Umatilla, and Cleanvater Rivers, respectively (Figure 4). The assumption that these three
sites will be representative of other fishing sites within each watershed is probably reasonable for
anadromous species, but may not hold for resident species depending on local sources of contaminants
and the ranges of the resident species being considered. The decision to analyze contaminant levels in
resident species at the same sites as anadromous species was based on considerations of sampling
logistics, and the desire to compare contaminant levels between both categories of fish.
Eight fishing sites in the mainstem of the Columbia River are located in river segments separated by
dams. Sites 6, 7, and 8 were selected because they represented greater than 40 percent of the Yakima
fishing use for both resident and anadromous species (Figure 4). Site 5, which also met these use
criteria, was not selected because of the need to reduce the number of sampling locations, and because
of the large amount of recent fish contaminant data that have been collected by Lower Columbia River
Water Quality Bi-State Program in the vicinity of this site (Tetra Tech 1993; 1994a,b). Sites 9, 15, 16,
and 18 are Columbia River mainstem sites that represent greater than 40 percent of the Yakima fishing
use for anadromous species. Site 9 was selected by the Yakima representative due to its frequent use for
fishing. Site 18 was selected because it represented the most upstream location with frequent fishing use.
Fish collected at this site would presumably have the maximum exposure duration to contaminants within
the mainstem Columbia River. Sites 15 and 16, which are located in the stretch of water between sites
9 and 18, were not selected because of the need to reduce the number of sites sampled.
Three sites (48, 49, and 79) were selected by tribal representatives because of concern about local pollu-
tion sources (Figure 4). Fishing use of these sites by tribal members is less than 20 percent. Sites 48
(Marion Drain) and 49 (Wilson Creek) are located in the Yakima River. There is concern that both of
these sites have been adversely impacted from pesticide runoff (Hatcher, L., 28 September 1994, personal
communication). Site 49 is also an important spawning site for rainbow trout. Site 79 is located in the
Salmon River watershed in the vicinity of a mining operation.
The two remaining sites that are proposed for sampling were selected by considering a particular species
of concern and the desire to provide broad geographical coverage of sampling sites (Figure 4). Site 57,
in the Cowlitz River, was selected to provide contaminant data for smelt. Fifty-two percent of adult tribal
members consume smelt (CRTTFC 1994). Because this fish species has a high oil content, it may
accumulate higher levels of hydrophobic organic contaminants than other anadromous species; therefore,
-------
Figure 4. Fish Sampling
Locations
LEGEND
00 Fishing Location
Sampling Location:
>40% Fishing Use
£ Sampling Location:
Local Pollution Source
A Sampling Location:
m Species/Geographical
Coverage
-------
CRITFC Task Force members felt it was important to include sampling at site 57. Site 21, in the
Willamette River, was selected to provide additional geographic coverage, and to provide contaminant
data for lamprey, which are consumed by 54 percent of adult tribal members (CRITFC 1994).
2.2 SELECTION OF SPECIES
The selection of species to be analyzed was based primarily on consumption data presented in CRITFC
(1994). Table 2 shows the fish species that are consumed by tribal members and the proposed fishing
sites where the species will be collected. Tissue samples for all consumed species except squawfish and
shad will be analyzed. These two species are consumed by only a small fraction (< 2.7 percent) of adult
tribal members.
2.3 SAMPLE TYPE
Figure 5 shows the locations, species, and sample types that will be analyzed during EPA's Phase II
study. Four types of samples will be analyzed: whole-body (WB), fillet with skin (Fs), fillet without skin
(Fw), and eggs (E). Whole-body samples were selected for several species to maximize the chances of
measuring detectable levels of contaminants of concern and because data presented in CRITFC (1994)
show that tribal members may consume several fish parts in addition to the fillet (Table 3). Eggs from
spring chinook, fall chinook, and steelhead will be analyzed because consumption data shows that sal-
monid eggs are widely consumed by tribal members (Table 3). Because of the high lipid levels in eggs,
concentrations of hydrophobic organic chemicals may reach substantially higher levels than in other fish
tissues. Design Conference attendees felt that it was important to determine contaminant levels in various
fish parts (i.e., whole-body, fillet, and eggs) so that this information could be used to provide guidance
on how to prepare fish, or what parts should be avoided, in the event that contaminant levels exceed
levels that warrant concern. In addition, the conversion factors developed from this data (e.g., whole-
body :fillet and whole-body:egg ratios) may assist in the comparison of Phase II data with other historical
data that exist within the Columbia River Basin. Figure 5 indicates that most of the comparisons of
contaminant levels in different fish samples will occur at Site 8 in the Columbia River between the
11
-------
TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE OF ADULT TRIBAL MEMBERS CONSUMING PROPOSED
TARGET SPECIES AND FISHING SITES WHERE THESE SPECIES WILL BE COLLECTED
Species
Salmon
Lamprey
Trouta
Smelt
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Sucker
Squawfish
Shad
Weighted Percent That
Consume the Species
92.4%
54.2%
70.2%
52.1%
22.8%
24.8%
9.3%
7.7%
2.7%
2.6%
Proposed Fishing Sites
Site Numbers
21, 8, 9, 18, 30, 96
21,6
98, 8, 18, 30, 48, 49,
96,79
57
8, 30, 96
6, 7, 8, 9, 96
98, 8, 48
98
none
none
Site Locations (Rivers)
Willamette,
Columbia, Umatilla,
Clearwater
Willamette, Columbia
Deschutes, Columbia,
Umatilla, Yakima,
Clearwater, Salmon
Cowlitz
Columbia, Umatilla,
Clearwater
Columbia,
Clearwater
Deschutes, Columbia,
Yakima
Deschutes
none
none
Source: Modified from CRTTFC (1994).
a Rainbow Trout and Steelhead.
12
-------
EGEND
Fishing Location
Whole Body
Fillet With Skin
Fillet Without Skin
Eggs
Sampling Location
RatahMTratf-Fi
Mountain Whltaflsk
>40% Fishing Use
Sampling Location:
Local Pollution Source
White Sturgeon-WB
Sampling Location:
Species/Geographical
Coverage
RaMwTnMt-Fi
RatakowTnwt-Fi
LateWhlMMi-Fi
White StwfM»fw
rl«g ChlBOok-WB
RiiQtww Trout-Fj
-------
TABLE 3. COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION EXPOSURE STUDY. ADULT CONSUMPTION OF FISH PARTS
Species
Salmon
Lamprey
Trout
Smelt
Whitefish
Sturgeon
Walleye
Sucker
Squawfish
Shad
Parts
Fillet
N
473
249
365
209
125
121
46
15
42
16
Weighted %
That Consume
95.1%
86.4%
89.4%
78.8%
93.8%
94.6%
100%
89.7%
89.3%
93.5%
Skin
N
473
251
365
209
124
121
46
15
42
16
Weighted %
That Consume
. 55.8%
89.3%
68.5%
88.9%
53.8%
18.2%
20.7%
34.1%
50.0%
15.7%
Head
N
473
250
365
210
125
121
46
15
42
16
Weighted %
That Consume
42.7%
18.1%
13.7%
37.4%
15.4%
6.2%
6.2%
8.1%
19.4%
0.0%
Eggs
N
473
250
364
209
125
121
46
15
42
16
Weighted %
That Consume
42.8%
4.6%
8.7%
46.4%
20.6%
11.9%
9.8%
11.1%
30.4%
0.0%
Bones
N
473
250
365
210
125
121
46
15
42
16
Weighted %
That Consume
12.1%
5.2%
7.1%
28.4%
6.0%
2.6%
2.4%
5.9%
9.8%
3.3%
Organs
N
470
250
362
206
124
121
46
15
42
15
Weighted %
That Consume
3.7%
3.2%
2.3%
27.9%
0.0%
0.3%
0.9%
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
Source: CRTTFC (1994).
-------
McNary and John Day dams. This site was selected because of its importance as a fishing site for all
four CRITFC member tribes.
2.4 SAMPLING STRATEGY
The sampling strategy proposed for this study design is consistent with guidance provided in the document
entitled: Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume I: Fish
Sampling and Analysis (U.S. EPA 1993b). For all fish species except white sturgeon, three replicate
composite samples will be analyzed from each collection site. For white sturgeon, one sample from three
individual fish will be analyzed from each collection site. The number of fish per composite will likely
vary for different species: 20 individuals per composite for smelt and lamprey, 8 individuals per
composite for resident species, and 5 individuals per composite for salmon and steelhead (Table 4).
U.S. EPA (1993b) recommends that 3 to 10 individuals should be collected for a composite sample for
each target species and that the same number of individual organisms should be used to prepare all
replicate composite samples for analysis of contaminants for a given target species at a given site. Several
ongoing fish contaminant studies in the Columbia River Basin are compositing 8 individuals per sample,
so the use of this number would simplify comparisons with other available data. Because of the small
size of lamprey and smelt, a composite of 8 individuals would not provide enough tissue for all chemical
analyses; therefore a nominal value of 20 individuals per composite was suggested for these species.
Design Conference attendees felt that the number of individuals per composite for salmon and steelhead
should be reduced from 8 to 5 (some individuals suggested 3) because of concerns about the ability to
collect sufficient numbers offish, and because it was felt that the study should strive to minimize impacts
on these fish stocks.
Collection periods for each species have been tentatively assigned and are given in Table 5. According
to U.S. EPA guidance (U.S. EPA 1993b), the collection period should ideally avoid the spawning period
of the target species, because many fish are subject to stress during spawning. However, because eggs
will be collected from salmonid species, the typical spawning period for these species will be targeted
(WDF/ODFW 1993). For resident species, collection periods have been proposed so that spawning
periods can be avoided (Table 5). For white sturgeon, the proposed collection period is consistent with
seasons established in previous years (WDF/ODFW 1994).
15
-------
TABLE 4. STUDY DESIGN FOR ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN FISH CONSUMED BY CRITFC MEMBER TRIBES
Species
Smelt
Lamprey
Steelhead
Coho
Chinook (Fall)
Chinook (Spring)
Rainbow Trout
White Sturgeon
Lake Whitefish
Largescale Sucker
Walleye
TOTALS
Classification
Anadromous
Anadromous
Anadromous
Anadromous
Anadromous
Anadromous
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
Resident
\ ' ' %
Fishing
Sitea
57
21
6
8
18
48
96
30
8
9
96
21
8
18
30
98
49
96
30
79
6
7
8
9
96
8
30
96
98
98
48
8
13 sites
Waterbody
Cowlitz River
Willamette River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Yakima River
Clearwater River
Umatilla River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Clearwater River
Willamette River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Umatilla River
Deschutes River
Yakima River
Clearwater River
Umatilla River
Salmon River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Clearwater River
Columbia River
Umatilla River
Clearwater River
Deschutes River
Deschutes River
Yakima River
Columbia River
8 Rivers
Sample Typeb
WB
WB, Fs
WB
WB, Fs, E
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB, Fs, E
WB
WB
WB
WB, Fs, E
WB
WB
Fs
Fs
WB
Fs
Fs
Fw
Fw
WB, Fw
Fw
WB
WB, Fs
Fs
WB, Fs
WB
WB
WB
WB
4 Sample Types
Number of Composite
Samples
3
6
3
9
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
6
3
6
3
3
3
3
108
Number of
Individual Samples
-
-
-
;
-
-
3
3
6
3
3
~
-
-
18
Number of Fish
per Composite
20
20
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
8
8
-
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Total Number
of Fish
60 -
120
60
30C
15
15
15
15
30C
15
15
15
30C
15
15
24
24
24
24
24
3.
3
6
3
3
48
24
48
24
24
24
24
819 '
a Nominal collection areas.
b WB = Whole body, Fs = Fillet with skin, Fw = Fillet without skin, E = Eggs.
c Assumes eggs wul be removed from whole-body samples and analyzed separately.
-------
TABLE 5. COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION EXPOSURE STUDY
Study Design for the Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission Exposure Study
Site
48
18
9
57
6
7
8
49
96
79
30
98
21
Receiving Water
Yakima River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Cowlitz River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Columbia River
Yakima River
Clearwater River
Salmon River
Umatilla River
Deschutes River
Willamette River
Anadromous Fish
Species (Sex)
Steelhead (F)
Spring Chinook (F)
Steelhead (F)
Fall Chinook (F)
Smelt (F)
Lamprey
-
Spring Chinook (F)
Fall Chinook (F)
Steelhead (F)
-
Steelhead (F)
Fall Chinook (F)
- .
Spring Chinook (F)
Coho(F)
Spring Chinook (F)
Lamprey
Sample Type3
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
WB
-
WB, Fs, E
WB, Fs, E
WB. Fs, E
-
WB
WB
-
WB
WB
WB
WB, Fs
Collection Period3
March
Early September
Early March
Late October
Late January
May
-
May
Early September
February-March
-
January-February
Early September
~
Sept-Nov
Oct-Dec
March- April
Early June
Resident Fish
Species (Sex)
Walleye
.
White Sturgeon
-
White Sturgeon
White Sturgeon
White Sturgeon
Lake Whitefish
Walleye
Rainbow Trout
Mountain Whitefish
Rainbow Trout
White Sturgeon
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Trout (F)
Lake Whitefish (F)
Rainbow Trout
Largescale Sucker
Walleye
Sample Type3
WB
Fw
-
Fw
Fw
WB, Fw
WB ,Fs
WB
Fs
WB, Fs
WB
WB
Fs
Fs
Fs
Fs
WB
WB
-
- " s 5 < '
, ', . , ' . ,
'
~-- .
Collection Period
October
-
' Late October
--
February
February
February
February
February
September-October
February-March
February-March
February-March
August
February
February
March
March
March
Total
+ 12QA
Number of '
Samples at Siteb
6
6
6
3
6
3
42
3
18
3
12
9
9
126
138
WB = Whole body, Fs = Fillet with skin, Fw = Fillet without skin, E = Eggs. v
a Samples from all species except sturgeon are composites from 5-20 individuals. Sturgeon samples are from individual fish.
" Number of samples assumes each tissue sample performed in triplicate.
-------
2.5 TARGET ANALYTES
Target analytes were selected by considering the guidance provided in U.S. EPA (1993b) and by
performing a health risk-based screening analysis of tissue contaminant data collected within the Columbia
River Basin during the last ten years (1984-1994). The exposure assumptions used to perform the screening
analysis are given in Table 6. Screening for carcinogens was performed for a 70 kg adult using a target
cancer risk of 1 x 10"^. Screening for non-carcinogens was performed for a 14.5 kg child using a target
hazard quotient of 0.1. Fish consumption rates assumed for adults and children were 194 and 81 g/day,
respectively, which correspond to the cumulative 97th percentile consumption rate reported in CRITFC
(1994). For chemicals that had both slope factors for estimating carcinogenic risk and reference doses for
estimating non-carcinogenic risk, separate tissue screening concentrations (STCs) were calculated and the
lower of the two values was used for the screening analysis. Chemical concentrations reported as not
detected were assumed to be equal to one half the detection limit for the screening analysis.
Table 7 lists the chemicals that exceeded tissue screening concentrations (STCs) and the frequency of
exceedances. Chemicals that exceeded STCs include dioxins/furans, PCBs, organochlorine and orgaoo-
phosphorus pesticides, PAHs and other semrvolatiles, trace metals, and radionuclides. Table 8 provides
a list of the chemicals that did not exceed STCs. It should be noted that the tissue screening analysis could
only be conducted for chemicals that have established slope factors or reference doses; therefore, Table 8
includes chemicals that do not have either of these lexicological reference values.
The final list of chemicals that will be analyzed during the Phase II study will be presented in a sampling
and QA/QC plan that will be prepared prior to initiating sampling. This document will also provide the
analytical methods and quantrtation levels expected for the laboratory analyses. The chemical groups
expected to be analyzed and a preliminary listing of the methods that may be employed are provided below:
Analyte Group
Dioxins/Furans
Coplanar PCBs
Pesticides/PCBs
Semivolatile organics
PAHs
Metals
Analytical Method
EPA 1613B
NFCRC C5.181
EPA 8081
EPA 8270
EPA 8270 with
selected ioa monitoring (SIM)
EPA 6010A
18
-------
TABLE 6. EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SCREENING
FISH TISSUE CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
Cancer
Non-Cancer
Target Cancer Risk
1 x KT6
Target hazard quotient
0.1
Body weight - Adult (kg)
70
Body weight - Child (kg)
14.5
Averaging time - Adult (years of life)
70
Averaging time - Child (years of life)
10
Exposure frequency (days/year)
365
365
Fish ingestion rate - Adult (grams/day)
194a
Fish ingestion rate - Child (grams/day)
81'
Oral carcinogenic slope factors and oral reference doses were obtained from IRIS or HEAST.
a This value is the 97th percentile consumption rate for fish consumers cited in Phase I of this project.
CRITFC (1994). Table 10.
b This value is the 97.4th percentile consumption rate for fish consumers cited in Phase II of this project.
CRITFC (1994). Table 24. .
19
-------
'o
TABLE 7. CHEMICALS THAT EXCEEDED TISSUE SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS
(Page Iof5)
Chemical Group
Dioxins/Furans
PCBs
Chemical
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4.7.8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
TOTAL HxCDD
1.2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7.8-TCDF
1,2,3.7.8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1 ,2,3,4,6,7/1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3.6.7.8-HxCDF
1.2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6.7.8-HxCDF
1.2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Aroclor 1016
Arocior 1221
Aroclor 1232
Arocior 1242
Aroclor 1242/1016
Arocior 1248
Aroclor 1254
Aroclor 1260
TOTAL PCBs
Screening Tissue
Concentration (STC)
G*g/kg)a
0.000002
0.000005
0.000024
0.000024
0.000024
0.000058
0.000024
0.0024
0.000024
0.000048
0.000005
0.000024
0.000024
0.000024
0.000024
0.000024
0.00024
0.00024
0.0024
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
STC
Classification11
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Total
Measurements
548
229
265
265
265
47
264
182
541
229
229
182
10
192
192
228
192
228
182
109
220
220
187
33
143
231
268
328
Number
Detected
323
61
54
. 77
38
4
142
142
511
79
80
34
0
37
37
73
50
25
61
0
0
1
2
0
1
74
82
132
Maximum
Concentration
(Mg/kg)a
0.05602
0.009
0.01885
0.049
0.00336
0.001
0.09172
1
0.32069
0.05432
0.01902
0.003
0.001385
0.0056
0.0045
0.0115
0.0055
0.002665
0.036
25
100
40
121
26
100
2700
1403
2043.1
Total Number
of STC
Exceedances
548
229
265
265
265
36
264
135
541
221
228
172
10
182
188
228
104
121
8
109
220
220
187
33
143
231
268
326
Frequency
of STC,
Exceedances
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
76.6%
100.0%
74.2%
100.0%
96.5%
99.6%
94.5%
100.0%
94.8%
97.9%
100.0%
54.2%
53.1%
4.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.4%
-------
Chemical Group
Pesticides
Organochlorines
TABLE 7. CHEMICALS THAT EXCEEDED TISSUE SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS
(Page 2 of 5)
Chemical
Aldrin
alpha-BHC
beU-BHC
gamma-BHC
TOTAL BHC
Chlordane
Chlordane (tech)
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Total Chlordane
o.p'-DDD
p.p'-DDD
o.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDE
o,p*-DDT
p,p'-DDT
TOTAL DDT
Dicofol
Dkldrin
Rndosiilfan
Endosulfcnl
Endosulfan n
Endrin
Heptachtor
Heptachtor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane
Melhoxychlor
Screening Tissue
Concentration (STC)
(M5/kg)a
0.021
0.057
0.20
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
1.5
1.5
1.1
1-1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.82
0.023
1.6
0.90
0.90
5.4
0.080
0.040
0.23
0.28
89.5
STC
Classification1*
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
C
N
Total
Measurements
269
433
412
425
29
184
23
234
249
29
313
430
313
498
313
473
60
186
478
49
227
227
467
287
431
334
5
240
Number
Detected
10
28
14
27
3
3
18
58
40
18
72
214
43
391
42
215
57
17
113
6
12
7
17
22
17
24
0^
10
Maximum
Concentration
(Mg/kg)a
103
39
150
50
160
70
144
50
60
200
130
420
65
3400
105
960
3000
300
352
170
148
50
61
68
20
250
5
832
Total Number
of STC
Exceedances
269
433
412
425
29
184
23
233
249
29
262
330
313
466
313
424
60
186
478
36
213
214
59
287
431
333
5
9
Frequency
of STC -
Exceedances
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.6%
100.0%
100.0%
83.7%
76.7%
100.0%
93.6%
100.0%
89.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
73.5%
93.8%
94.3%
12.6%
100.0%
100.0%
99.7%
100.0%
3.8%
-------
TABLE 7. CHEMICALS THAT EXCEEDED TISSUE SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS
(Page 3 of 5)
Chemical Group
Pesticides (Com.)
Organophosphate
Semi-Volatiles
Chemical
Mirex
Pentachtorophenol
Toxaphene
Methyl parathkm
Benzidine
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbazole
4-Chtoroaniline
2-CUorophenoi
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2 ,4-Dimethy Iphenoi
2.4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-DinitrotolueDe
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Hexachlorobutadkne
Hexachtorocyclopemadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
4-Nitropbenoi
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Pyridine
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2 ,4,6-TrichlorophenoI
Screening Tissue
Concentration (STC)
0«g/kg)a
3.6
3.0
0.33
4.5
0.0016
0.33
5.2
25.8
3580.2
18.0
71.6
89.5
0.80
53.7
358.0
35.8
35.8
0.53
358.0
4.6
125.3
17.9
379.8
9.0
1109.9
0.0071
0.052
17.9
179.0
32.8
STC
Classification11
N
C
C
N
C
C
C
C
N
C
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
C
N
C
N
C
C
N
N
C
C
N
N
C
Total
Measurements
262
129
311
106
23
258
258
129
129
73
54
129
129
129
129
128
129
129
129
146
127
129
105
129
129
23
%
23
147
129
Number
Detected
5
0
38
6
0
0
0
51
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
2
0
1
0
6
0
Maximum
Concentration
0*g/kg)a
50
6000
1200
38
815
250
250
34200
3700
250
750
4200
1250
750
600
2500
1250
1250
2640
250
1305
250
430
250
4000
139
2900 .
139
3100
1250
Total Number
of STC
Exceedances
180
129
311
55
23
258
258
129
1
56
35
11
129
129
1
128
129
129
1
128
127
129
1
129
8
23
96
23
9
129
Frequency
of STC,
Exceedances
68.7%
100.0%
100.0%
51.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.8%
76.7%
64.8%
8.5%
100.0%
100.0%
0.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.8%
87.7%
100.0%
100.0%
1.0%
100.0%
6.2%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
6.1%
100.0%
-------
TABLE?. CHEMICALS THAT EXCEEDED TISSUE SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS
(Page 4 of 5)
Chemical Group
Semi-Volatile PAHs
Trace Metals
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyreoe
Benzo[b]ffuoranthene
Benzo(b,k]fluonuithene
Benzo[k]ftuoranthene
Benzolg,h,i]perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Indeno[l ,2,3-«I]py rene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Screening Tissue
Concentration (STC)
0»g/kg)a.
1074.1
0.34
0.049
0.40
0.40
0.93
2.3
0.049
0.04S
0.18
537.0
7.2
0.21
1253.1
0.084
9.0
89.5
662.3
7.7
89.5
5.4
358.0
89.5
89.5
5370.4
STC
Classification1*
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
N
C
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Total
Measurements
147
146
328
131
33
131
162
163
146
146
163
170
267
144
40
291
102
297
298
45
335
136
207
136
297
Number
Detected
3
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
20
126
117
2
215
69
281
220
45
321
57
91
39
296
Maximum
Concentration
0*g/kg)a
3800
100
700
800
5
. 700
200
100
200
200
5200
2200
I860
47200
60
5910
620
66900
23300
24200
100000
17290
2500
1540
136000
Total Number
of STC
Exceedances
1
146
328
131
33
131
142
163
146
146
I
114
267
84
40
250
44
173
287
45
334
84
158
66
241
Frequency
of STC ,
Exceedances
0.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
87.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.6%
67.1%
100.0%
58.3%
100.0%
85.9%
43.1%
58.2%
96.3%
100.0%
99.7%
61.8%
76.3%
48.5%
81.1%
-------
Chemical Group
Radionuclides
TABLE 7. CHEMICALS THAT EXCEEDED TISSUE SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS
(Page 5 of 5)
Chemical
Americium 241
Cesium 137
Cobalt 60
Europium 152
Europium 154
Plutonium 238
Plutonium 239/240
Screening Tissue
Concentration (STC)
Otg/kg)a
0.00084
0.0072
0.013
0.0%
0.067
0.00092
0.00088
STC
Classification11
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Total
Measurements
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
Number
Detected
0
2
0
0
0
1
16
Maximum
Concentration
0*g/kg)a
0.0135
0.06
0.075
0.2
0.125
0.011
0.0055
Total Number
of STC
Exceedances
33
33
16
33
33
33
31
Frequency
of STC
Exceedances
100.0%
100.0%
48.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
93.9%
a All concentrations are reported in units of jig/kg wet weight, except for radionuclides. Radionuclide concentrations are reported as pCi/g wet weight.
C = Carcinogen, N - Non-carcinogen.
-------
K>
TABLE 8. CHEMICALS THAT DID NOT EXCEED TISSUE SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS
Chemical Group
Pesticides
Dinitroanilines
Organochlorines
Organophosphates
Radionuclides
Semi-Volatiles
Semi-Volatile PAHs
Chemical
Screening Tissue
Concentration (STC)
Oig/kg)a
STC
Classification'1
Isopropalin
Trifluralin
Chlorpyrifos
Dacthal
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Malathion
Parathion
Europium 155
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
2-Metbylphenol
Pentachlorobenzene
Phenol
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Anthracene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
268.5
134.3
53.7
8950.6
1.4
358.0
107.4
0.45
71604.9
17901.2
1038.3
1611.1
1593.2
1790.1
14321.0
1790.1
895.1
14.3
10740.7
5.4
1790.1
5370.4
1432.1
716.0
716.0
716.0
519.1
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Total
Measurements
Number
Detected
Maximum
Concentration
0*g/kg)a
Total Number
of STC
Exceedances
18
18
18
81
18
72
72
33
56
56
129
129
129
129
129
129
129
18
129
18
56
163
129
163
163
* 164
163
0
1
1
9
0
2
3
0
3
2
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
1
10
2
0
0
0
10
3
26
12
1.25
7.16
3.44
50
1.25
110
26
0.25
2500
250
250
250
250
1550
250
326
326
1.25
5000
1.61
1250
100
250
100
100
500
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a All concentrations are reported in units of /*g/kg wet weight, except for radionuclides. Radionuclide concentrations are reported as pCi/g wet weight.
-------
A contract laboratory will be responsible for processing the collected fish samples and for analysis of
dioxin/furans and coplanar PCBs. The U.S. EPA Manchester Laboratory in Port Orchard, Washington
will be responsible for all other analyses.
The resources allocated for chemical analyses do not presently provide for the analysis of radionuclides
in tissue. Design Conference attendees recommended that analysis of radionuclides be included in the
Phase II study. EPA staff are currently trying to determine whether an EPA laboratory can perform these
analyses; if so, they will be included in the study design. If an EPA laboratory cannot provide these
analyses, radionuclides will not analyzed. This issue is expected to be resolved prior to the preparation
of the draft sampling and QA/QC plan.
26
-------
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Design Conference attendees provided several recommendations that address a variety of issues relevant
to the Phase II study and broader objectives for assessing the impacts of toxic contaminants and habitat
degradation on fish stocks, ecological health, and human health. These recommendations are listed
below.
3.1 GENERAL COMMENTS
It is important to recognize that studies should be designed with the goal of providing
information that will allow better protection of natural resources.
Design conference participants recognized that the assessment of ecological risk is beyond
the scope of the Phase IICRTTFC exposure study which will focus on providing data for
human health risk assessment. However, conference participants noted that assessment
of ecological impairment is important. Consideration should be given to holding an
ecological risk design conference to develop specific objectives and a study plan for
assessing ecological impairment.
Regulatory agencies should coordinate their risk assessment activities to ensure that the
public receives a consistent message.
The methodology for conducting an assessment of human health for the CRTTFC member
tribes should be clearly delineated, as well as the form in which this information will be
conveyed to the public.
A detailed study plan should be developed for determining biota-sediment-accumulation
factors (BSAFs) for the Columbia River Basin.
27
-------
3.2 COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PHASE II STUDY
A sampling and QA/QC document should be prepared for the Phase II study that includes
a schedule for the project collection activities and report due dates.
Radionuclides should be analyzed. It is recognized, however, that Phase II funding will
not support this additional analysis for radionuclides.
Composite samples should consist of fish within a specified size range. It is recom-
mended that the size range include the larger fish within a given population, since these
fish may contain higher contaminant burdens.
The sampling and QA/QC plan for the Phase II study should include guidance on
selecting alternative species, or locations, if sufficient numbers of the target species can
not be collected.
If resources are insufficient to collect all of the samples included in this study design, it
is recommended that the following samples, in order listed, be eliminated: largescale
sucker at site 98, fall chinook at site 96.
Any observed external anomalies in the fish collected should be recorded.
Although not part of the Phase n study, the inclusion in the study design of pathological
analyses and measurement of hormone levels of fish collected should be considered, if
additional resources become available.
28
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
CRITFC (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission). 1994. A fish consumption survey of the
Umatilla, Nez Perce, Yakima, and Warm Springs Tribes of the Columbia River Basin. CRITFC
Technical Report No. 94-3. Portland, Oregon.
Hatcher, L. 28 September 1994. Personal communication (Telephone conversation with Dr. Steve Ellis,
Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond, Washington). Yakima Indian Nation, Fisheries Resource Management,
Toppenish, Washington.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1993. Reconnaissance survey of the lower Columbia River. Task 6: Reconnaissance
report (3 volumes). Prepared for Columbia River Bi-State Committee. Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond,
Washington. Volume 1 - 454 pp + appendices. Volume 2 - Appendix A, Data Validation Reports -
361 pp. Volume 3 - Data Tables, Appendices B, C, D, and E - 314 pp.
Tetra Tech Inc. 1994a. Assessing human health risks from chemically contaminated fish in the lower
Columbia River. Sampling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan. Prepared for the Columbia River
Bi-State Program. Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond, Washington.
Tetra Tech Inc. 1994b, Lower Columbia river backwater reconnaissance survey (3 volumes). Prepared
for the Columbia River Bi-State Program. Tetra Tech, Inc., Redmond, Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993a. Interim report on data and methods for assessment of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin risks to aquatic life and associated wildlife. EPA/600/R-93/055.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993b. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for
use in fish advisories. Volume 1: Fish sampling and analysis. EPA823-R-93-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Washington Department of Fisheries/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDF/ODFW). 1993.
Status Report. Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-1992. Washington Department of
Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.
Washington Department of Fisheries/Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDF/ODFW). 1994.
Joint staff report concerning commercial seasons for spring chinook, sturgeon, shad, and other fisheries
and miscellaneous regulations for 1994! Joint Columbia River Management Staff. Washington
Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland,
Oregon.
29
------- |