American Fisheries Society
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
October 20-22, 2002
Radisson Hotel
Burlington, Vermont
Assistance Agreement CX829699-01 -0
-------
Repository Material
Permanent Collection
American Fisheries Society
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
October 20-22, 2002
Burlington Vermont
Proceedings
-------
American Fisheries Society
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
October 20-22, 2002
Burlington Vermont
Proceedings
June 20, 2002
Prepared for
American Fisheries Society
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-2 199
http://www..org
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 3
Introduction 4
Summary of Conference Presentations 5
I. Welcome and Introductions 6
Jemey Bigler, US Environmental Protection Agency ________ 6
Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society 7
G. Tracy Mehan III, Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA 8
II. Guest Speaker 8
Trends in Chemical Pollutants in Fish. Usha Varanasi, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 8
Ill. Updates to the Forum 10
New Version of the Risk Communication Guidance. Barbara A. Knuth, Cornell University______________ 10
Update on TMDLs and Fish Consumption Advisories. Jim Pendergast, US EPA______________________ 12
IV. Reports from the Weekend Sessions 14
Methyl Mercury Contamination in Fish: Human Exposures and Case Reports. Henry A. Anderson,
Wisconsin Division of Public Health ______________________________________________________ 14
Advisories for Methyl Mercury: Approaches. Amy D. Kyle, University of California Berkeley __________ 16
V. Advisories for Commercial Fish 17
Report on the Advisory Panel to the Food and Drug Administration on Mercury Advisories. H. Vasken
Aposhian, University of Arizona 17
FDA Consumer Advisory for Methyl Mercury. Philip Spiller, US Food and Drug Administration_________ 18
Integrated Public Health Messages for Sport Fish and Commercial Seafood. Henry A. Anderson,
Wisconsin Division of Public Health 21
Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish. Andy Smith, Maine Department of Fluinan Services 23
The Context for Connecticut’s Seafood Advisory. Gary Ginsberg, State of Connecticut 24
Vt. Chemicals of Concern
A. Mercury —
Methylmercury: Ongoing Research on Toxicology. Kathryn R. Mahaffey, US EPA 26
Setting a Methyl Mercury Reference Dose for Adults. Alan H. Stem, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection 27
B. Brominated Flame Retardants 29
Occurrence of PBDE Flame Retardants in Fish. Robert C. Hale, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 29
PBDEs: Toxicology and Human Exposure. Linda S. Birnbaum, US Environmental Protection Agency _30
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (BDE5). Khizar Wasti, Virginia Department of Health 33
C. Dioxins and Coplanar PCBs
Emerging Science of the Dioxin Reassessment. Dwain Winters, US EPA 35
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 1
-------
D. Lead .37
Application of the Lead IEUBK Model to Assess Spokane River Fish Consumption Risks. Lon Kissinger,
US EPA 37
Occurrence of Lead in Fish: Examples from Georgia, Maine, and Cal fornia. Robert K. Brodberg,
California Enviromnental Protection Agency 39
E. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 41
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Fish and Invertebrates. Usha Varanasi, National Oceanic and
Attnosphenc Administration 41
VII. State and Tribal Approaches to Advisories 43
Setting Statewide Advisories based on Upper Percentile Lake Averages. Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of
Health 43
Use of Maine ‘s Statewide Advisory in a Tribal Setting. Susan M. Peterson, Aroostook Band of Micmacs 44
North Dakota ‘s Fish Consumption Advisory: Based on Average Concentration. Michael Eli, North Dakota
Department of Health 44
Mercury Advisories in the State of Pennsylvania. Bob Frey, State of Pennsylvania 46
Minnesota Statewide Fish Consumption Advice. Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health 47
Regional Fish Advisory for the Mississippi Delta. Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality 50
Advisories Based on Eight Meals per Month. Joe Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment 52
VIII. Approaches to Considering Benefits in Advisory Programs
Perspectives on Considering Risks from Contaminants in Fish. John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Research Lab 54
Impacts of Fish Contamination on the Columbia River Basin. Paul Lwnley, Yakama Tribe 55
Dietary Benefits and Risks in Alaskan Villages. Suanne Unger, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association 57
IX. Looking at Health Benefits of Consuming Fish
Overview of Benefits of Fish Consumption. Judy Sheeshka, University of Guelph 60
Use of Quality Adjusted L fe Years to Assess Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption. Rafael Ponce,
University of Washington - 61
X. Literature Cited 65
Appendices 67
Appendix 1: Conference At enaa 68
Appendix 2: Steering Committee Members 72
Appendix 3: Biographies of Speakers, Moderators, and Steering Committee Members 73
Appendix 4: Forum Participants 87
Appendix 5: Slides Presented by Speakers during the Forum 97
2002 Amerfcan Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 2
-------
Acknowledgements
This document was prepared under Assistance Agreement CX829699-0 1-0 between the US
Environmental Protection Agency and the American Fisheries Society (AFS). Betsy Fritz was
AFS’s manager for the project. Jeffrey Bigler was EPA’s project officer for the project. Under
contract to AFS, Amy D. Kyle prepared the proceedings document.
The following Steering Committee members and other individuals contributed their time and
expertise to develop the agenda for the 2002 Forum program, identify and recruit speakers,
determine priorities, and facilitate discussions:
Jeffrey Bigler, EPA, Office of Water, Co-Chair
Betsy Fritz, AFS, Co-Chair
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Razelle Hoffinan-Contois, Vermont Department of Health
Barbara Knuth, Past President, AFS Water Quality Section, Cornell University
Janet E. Lubeck, American Fisheries Society
Randall Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Patricia McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Andy E. Smith, Maine Bureau of Health
Although the information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, it may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no
official endorsement should be inferred.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 3
-------
Introduction
Representatives of 47 states, 30 tribes, 6 federal agencies, several Canadian provinces and other
interested organizations attended the 2002 Forum on Contaminants in Fish sponsored by the US
Environmental Protection Agency and convened by the American Fisheries Society in
Burlington Vermont.
The agenda was developed by a steering committee with representatives of states, tribes, federal
agencies and the AFS. The steering committee developed an agenda that presents a variety of
perspectives and approaches to the difficult issues facing states and tribes, including how to
address cumulative risks and mixtures; risks to those most exposed; and the need to integrate
perspectives and responsibilities of health and environment agencies. The Forum also included
topical breakout sessions for more in-depth presentations and discussion on Sunday, along with
the regional breakouts that have been customary. The forum also included a poster and
information exchange session.
This document presents the proceedings of the Forum. It includes summaries of all presentations
in the plenary session, copies of slides presented, a list of participants, and other information
about the forum. Additional copies are available from the American Fisheries Society in
Bethesda, Maryland.
2002 American Asheries Society
Forum on Con minan in Ash: Proceedings 4
-------
Summary of Conference Presentations
At the 2002 forum, 33 speakers presented technical information, perspectives on policy
development, and experiences in developing and implementing advisory programs. Biosketches
for the speakers are included in the appendix, as are black and white copies of slides presented.
The presentations were organized into nine sessions:
• Welcome and Introductions
• Guest Speaker
• Update on Activities Related to the 20011 Forum
• Reports from the Weekend Sessions
• Advisories for Commercial Fish: Federal, State, and Tribal Approaches
• Hot Topics — Chemicals of Concern
• Approaches to State and Tribal Advisories
• Approaches to Considering Benefits in Advisory Programs
• Current Science on the Benefits of Fish Consumption
Moderators for the panels offered additional comments and perspectives. In addition, forum
participants had an opportunity to ask questions and make comments after most of the
presentations.
Seven additional presentations were made during workshops held on Sunday October 20. While
these presentations are not summarized in this document, slides from these talks are included in
the Appendix.
This section provides short summaries of the presentations.
2002 American Fisheries Socety
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 5
-------
I. Welcome and Introductions
Jeffrey Bigler, US Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning, and welcome to the 2002 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, sponsored by
the American Fisheries Society, US EPA, and the Vermont Department of Health. My name is
Jeff Bigler and I will serve as the overall moderator for this year’s Forum.
This year, we have a full house - and then some. More than 240 have registered, making this a
banner year for the Forum. We had originally planned on accommodating up to 120 registrants
and we obtained rooms based on this estimate. Therefore, two weeks ago AFS found it
necessaly to close registration as the participation list approach 250. Fortunately, in the end,
AFS was able to accommodate all who registered for the Forum - but don’t be surprised if you
wind up sharing a donut during the breaks.
Attending the Forum this year are representatives from 47 states, 30 tribes, 6 federal agencies,
several Canadian Provinces, and scores of others from various agencies and organizations. We
have some of the nation’s experts on the occurrence of chemical pollutants in fish and the
potential health risks and benefits associated with fish consumption. Many experts are on the
agenda, while others are here to join in discussion over the next two days. I urge you all to take
advantage of the opportunity provided by the Forum to share your experiences and thoughts,
successes and failures. Whether you interact in the Plenary, in the halls during breaks, or
perhaps after hours at a local watering hole, please use this opportunity to meet others and share
your work with them. After all, we all share a common goal; that is the goal of ensuring that
decisions regarding the issuance of fish consumption advisories are based on sound science and
sound public health policy.
Let’s now move on to the agenda. As in the past, the agenda for the Forum was developed by a
joint stateftriballAFS/EPA steering committee. This year’s steering committee members include:
Betsy Fritz, American Fisheries Society, Co-Chair
Jan Lubeck, American Fisheries Society
Robert Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency
Razelle Hoffman-Contois, Vermont Department of Health
Barbara Knuth, Cornell University; Past President, AFS Water Quality Section
Randall Manning, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Pat McCann, Minnesota Department of Health
John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Andrew E. Smith/Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
Amy D. Kyle, University of California Berkeley and Consultant to AFS
The Forum has always been driven by the participants — states and increasingly tribes. The
steering committee decided to take on some challenging issues at the Forum, such as how to
assess cumulative risks and mixtures; issues for those at the upper end of the distribution for
exposure; ways of thinking about risks and benefits for people who are traditional users of fish.
These are tough and important issues. The agenda also reflects the need to integrate both
“health” and “environmental” agency perspectives and responsibilities: both play an important
role.
2002 Arnerk3n Rsheries Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 6
-------
On behalf of the entire Forum, I would like to thank the committee members for participating in
six months of conference calls, reviews and endless phone calls to potential speakers in order to
ensure that this year’s Forum provides a balanced, stimulating, and thought-provoking agenda. I
have no doubt that, at the end of the day, you will agree that the steering committee succeeded in
developing such an agenda. Please join me now in thanking the steering committee for all of
their hard work.
Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society
Welcome. Since the first forum in this series in 1990, the American Fisheries Society has been
pleased to co-sponsor this important venue for exchanging information on an extremely
important topic, with the Environmental Protection Agency. Aside from one previous forum held
in Chicago, AFS and EPA have been partners in bringing the best each organization has to offer
to the benefit of all the community. AFS brings its long track record in arranging and holding
scientific meetings, and EPA provides the capability to bring together various state programs,
federal agencies, tribal programs, and other stakeholders, all working toward common goals of
helping protect the public from effects of contaminants contained in fish.
Since 1990, much progress has been achieved. Fish consumption advisories are now common in
most of the states, and these advisories are underlain by the best scientific data available. Aside
from such an increase in awareness, the major discernible changes that came from previous fora
can be summarized as follows:
• There is an increasing awareness of the need for community involvement in both setting
standards and communicating advisories to target groups.
• Increased collaboration among neighboring states to achieve consistency of approach.
• Public awareness of the health problems associated with mercury levels in waters,
especially in most of the eastern, Midwestern, and southern United States.
• Assessment of “emerging” contaminants such as flame retardants or pharmaceuticals.
• Creation of Web-based communication tools such as the National Listing of Advisories.
The total knowledge-base on contaminants, their levels in both water and the fish swimming in
it, and their effects on health of target demographics, has expanded tremendously during that
time period, thanks mainly to the diligent efforts by scientists working in EPA and university
laboratories.
On the other hand, all this knowledge still needs to reach people— and reach them in the right
way and at the right time. Integrating the information in the popular culture and making sure that
people understand it and act on it is still a major challenge. This is especially true since no one
wants to turn people away from a healthy, fish-based diet.
This forum will allow the spirit of cooperation among State, Federal, and Tribal agencies to
expand. It will increase our common understanding of the scientific database of contaminants
and will certainly lead to better ways of communicating that scientific information to the public.
Thank you for contributing to these goals.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 7
-------
G. Tracy Mehan III, Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA
Congratulations are due to AFS on the program for the forum and partnerships they have
fostered through their sponsorship and organization of the forum.
My experience, including working in the Great Lakes, has given me a first hand awareness of
persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic pollutants, which are very important. The problems of such
contaminants in fish raise serious risk management and risk communication issues. What we see
in terms of contaminants in fish is an indicator of success in other programs that control releases
of pollutants to the environment and clean up past releases.
I want to emphasize how important it is that you continue your great work to identify risks from
contaminants in fish and communicate them to people at risk, especially women and children. I
urge you to keep the issue in the forefront. I also recognize that we need to address current air
pollution issues as well as continuing, or “legacy,” contamination releases from sites of past
disposal.
It is important for all of us to note the successes that we have achieved. One important success
for EPA relates to mercury, which is widespread in fish but primarily comes from air deposition.
EPA is closing in on 50% reduction in mercury releases to air due to development and
implementation of technology-based standards limiting mercury releases in industry sectors
(known as “MACI” standards.) We also hope to achieve international efforts in cooperation
with the United Nations. EPA is working on strategies to address releases of multiple pollutants
using a new approach to air pollution control known as “clear skies.” We hope to make progress
in remediation to reduce concentrations of pollutants in fish tissue. Thank you for the
opportunity to address your gathering.
Note: these remarks were presented by video.
II. Guest Speaker
Trends in Chemical Pollutants in Fish.
Usha Varanasi, Northwest Fisheries Science Center
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) manages living marine
resources, including fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles, in all federal waters off the U.S.
coast. This is a huge area, 3.4 million square nautical miles, spans a variety of ecosystems from
arctic to tropical, and is home to over 900 species of fish and invertebrates that are caught for
commercial, recreational, and/or subsistence purposes.
Fish are an important source of food, employment, and revenue, and are critical components of
marine ecosystems. As a food source, fish are particularly important and unique; they are the
primary source of animal protein for over 1 billion people and are largely harvested from the
wild. While there are many benefits of eating fish, accumulation of pollutants, toxic chemicals
as well as natural toxicants (e.g., harmful algal blooms) in fish can pose some risks to consumers.
NOAA is concerned about the health of living marine resources, as well as consumers of these
valuable resources. As a result, NOAA conducts research on the accumulation and impact of
pollutants, toxic chemicals as well as natural toxicants, on fishery resources.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 8
-------
Thousands of chemicals are produced and used routinely in industrialized and developing
nations. Many of these chemicals eventually find their way into the ocean. Studying toxic
chemicals is important because they affect both the safety of seafood that we eat and fish
development, diseases, reproduction, and survival. Science can provide the information we need
to assess benefits and risks associated with these pollutants and make critical management
decisions (e.g., when to close or open a fisheiy, post a health advisory, or modify effluent
discharge guidelines).
When investigating these pollutants, it is critical to determine the specific properties of key
compounds and how they interact with species of interest. For example, research in the late
1970s at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center found that polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH5) accumulate in the tissues of invertebrates (e.g., mollusks and crabs) but
not fish; this is in contrast to organochlorines and many metals that do accumulate in fish. Fish,
like other vertebrates, metabolize PAHs quickly and efficiently in the liver to detoxify them.
They readily convert most hydrocarbons to metabolites that are eliminated into bile and out of
their bodies.
It is also critical to develop and use methods that provide sufficient information, but that are not
unnecessarily sophisticated. This enables techniques to be readily transferred and applied
quickly to consumer safety issues (e.g., impacts of oil spills or harmful algal blooms on fishery
resources).
While contaminants exist to some degree in all of our nation’s waters, specific trends tend to
vary by region due to various physical, biological, and human use characteristics. Nationally and
regionally, federal, state, and tribal agencies are conducting monitoring programs to determine
the extent and impact of contaminants on coastal and estuarine areas. Results from NOAA’s
national benthic surveillance program, indicate that, in general, legacy pollutants (e.g., DDT and
PCBs) are decreasing, trace metals are more or less constant, and many chemicals, particularly
those that are human-made, are highly concentrated near cities. Data also indicate that PAHs
and other non-point source pollutants are increasing in a number of areas.
Long-term monitoring of contaminant levels and investigation into the impacts of non-point
source pollutants on fishery resources are key. Data from these programs are used to determine
trends in our nation’s waters and fishery resources. Historically, however, it has been difficult
for agencies to commit to consistent long-term monitoring programs. As part of long-term
monitoring programs, it has become increasingly important to investigate the full suite of non-
point source pollutants, such as PAHs and pharmaceuticals, as well as mixtures of pollutants and
their cumulative affect on species.
Credible, rigorous, and objective science; long-term monitoring of legacy and non-point source
pollutants; the development of testing methods that provide accurate and quick results; and
efficient and effective communication of information to fisheries users will help ensure that the
appropriate balance of benefits and risks is made with regard to the consumption of valuable fish
and invertebrate resources. Continued research to better understand pollutants and their impacts
on living marine resources is critical to the sustainability of the nation’s fisheries.
References:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Status and Trends Program.
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center Environmental Conservation Division
2002 American Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 9
-------
Andy Smith: What is NOAA doing to look at pharmaceutics in fish?
Response: NOAA is currently investigating a number of non-point source pollutants, including agricultural
pesticides and certain pharmaceuticals. Some compounds, such as caffeine, are of particular concern because of the
high volume and frequency with which they are released into the environment.
III. Updates to the Forum
New Version of the Risk Communication Guidance.
Barbara A. Knuth, Cornell University
EPA is sponsoring a revision to the current guidance for risk communication, which was entitled
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume IV—
Risk Communication, EPA 823-R-95-OO1 and issued in March 1995.
The 1 995guidance was written largely for an agency audience. In recent years, more attention
has been focused on the needs of other groups in risk communication. For example, the last
Forum focused on risk communication. Also, the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Committee (NEJAC), which advises EPA, has been discussing contaminants in fish. Such
initiatives and groups have contributed to an interest in updating and expanding the guidance.
Several issues are being addressed in the revisions. It is important to ensure that risk
communication is culturally appropriate. It is important to ensure that all partners are involved
and to assess messages based on needs identified. It is important to help the partners take actions
that can include eliminating the problem. We know it is important to acknowledge that
contamination is not “acceptable.” The Guidance should not be perceived as condoning
pollution or seeing warnings alone as an acceptable solution.
The document is being coordinated by Tetra Tech, Inc. as the lead technical consultant. Other
consultants are John Hesse (retired from the Michigan Health Department), Judy Sheeshka,
Barbara A. Knuth, Patrick West, and Amy D. Kyle. A group of stakeholders identified by Tetra
Tech and EPA have reviewed the work plan and provided input.
The approach for the revised guidance includes an effort to produce targeted modules that
communities can use. Community partners have different needs. Risk communication modules
can be targeted to help address these specific needs.
The guidance will emphasize community involvement and also better explain links to other
phases of the risk analysis process. The product will continue to enhance the user-friendly set of
risk communication outreach materials under development by the National Fish and Wildlife
Contamination Program.
The final product will be web-based, rather than a paper report, to encourage tailored use of
guidance appropriate to community needs. This should allow people to find helpful tools with a
few clicks.
A current prototype is shown below.
2002 American Rsheri Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 10
-------
U S. Environment 1 Protect
ency
F.:ecent Addtioris I Contact Us I Print Vsrsiori Search: I
Wster Science Fish Advisories > Natiorioi ;uidence Risk Communication
Guidance Document
, isk Communication Guidance Document
Section 1: Pick O.ommuriic:ation as a Process of Empowering C:ornrriunities
to Deal with a Contaminated Environment
Section 2: Workino with Communities. Key Issues for Technical
Assesc mnent and Formulatinc Advice
• Section 3: Deliririci What the Risk Communication Program is Supposed ti:
Achieve (If yoij dorit k:riov, where voud like to erirJ up, sos road will do
• Section 4: — .;s ri:i thy C omm n t Crjrrmun vU :n 1 cyd :
• Section 5: L : ii tc: “nat iou \fsnt to 5 j : lu ny - :
mu r arnvnUnct vow :rnr uni:vt or Thatevy n;dstm
• Section 6: Hcu Do you Knov . ft voum Ho;doi in l: Puiht Throcticn
The stakeholders advised us to keep the concise risk communication framework while adding
case studies to illustrate important points. These can draw on real situations. They also
requested that the product provide techniques for applying the framework to different situations
and that it be realistic in its assumptions about funding, time, and staffing. All phases of the
process are limited by resources and staffing. The stakeholders also wanted a discussion of fish
consumption benefits. The consultants are working on a design.
The advantages of a web-based approach are that the guidance is more accessible and it may be
less daunting than a large document. Moreover, materials may be developed for specific type of
audiences. The materials can be modified and updated easily. This allows the fonnat to become
issue-oriented, based on the path a user takes, rather than process-oriented. There are some
possible disadvantages, including accessibility only to those with web access. Stakeholders felt
that this is a diminishing concern. Also, the document will need to be updated.
The next steps will be to complete all sections, links, information boxes, etc. The stakeholder
work group will review the results and be involved in developing case studies.
2002 Amencan Fishenes Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
11
-------
Update on TMDLs and Fish Consumption Advisories.
Jim Pendergast, US EPA
This presentation focuses primarily on total maximum daily loads for methyl mercury; the water
quality criterion for methyl mercury and how this is related to total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs); the relationship between fish consumption advisories and TMDLs; and US EPA’s
new TMDL Rule.
The water quality criterion for methyl mercury that was adopted by EPA in January 2001
specified levels in fish tissue, rather than water, for the first time. This was because, to protect
people, it makes more sense to measure mercury in the fish that people eat than in the water.
However, this approach raises technical issues. How do states use this new criterion for
permitting and TMDLs? Because the new criterion is above the level of detection, this could
lead to more penrnts and TMDLs, which presents a resource issue.
US EPA has decided not to require states to start updating their own standards to reflect the new
water quality criterion for five years from the date of publication of the criterion. This would
allow time to publish guidance for implementing the criterion. Though EPA is not pushing them
to do so, some states are interested in adopting the criterion now.
The key elements and issues to be addressed in the methyl mercury water criterion
implementation guidance are:
• Water quality standards — translating methyl mercuiy to total merculy; flexibility for site
specific criteria, expression of criterion (tissue or water); variances and use attainability
analyses. Site-specific flexibility for criteria may be appropriate in cases where states
may have watersheds where people eat considerably more or less fish than the
consumption rate for the EPA criterion.
• Defining impairment — It will be important to define “impairment.” What does this
mean? Do you include all tropic levels; does size of fish matter; what are appropriate
analytical methods?
• Approaches to TMDLs.
• Permitting, especially for small sources.
US EPA has also been asked whether they will allow states to convert the tissue-based criterion
to a water-based number.
A lot of mercury in fish today has probably come from air deposition; there could be a statewide
or national analysis for sources in some watersheds. The map below shows the estimated percent
reductions in air deposition load necessary to meet new criterion. Reductions to be obtained
through imposition of the MACT (maximum achievable control technology) standards required
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act can be overlaid with this. US EPA is now working on
calculating the reductions in air deposition for each watershed so that it can determine where the
MACT standards are sufficient.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 12
-------
Estimated Percent Reductions in Air Deposition Load
Necessary to Meet New Methylmercury Criterion*
Watersheds with No Other Significant Mercury Sources
% Reduction to Meet Criti
Currently Meets Criteflon
10% Reduction Reqiired
15% Reduction Reqijied
20% Reduction Reqiired
. 25% Reduction Reqiired
50% Reduction Required
— 75% Reduction Reqtsred
> 75% Reduction Required
R Contains Other Sources
No Georeferenced Fith Data
* States currently use water column concentration-based mercury water quality standards and would need t5 adopt fish tissue-based
target levels in order to use this approach for mercury TMDLs. Additional reductions would be required to meet EPA national and most
state fish advisory levels, which are often set below the methyl-mercury criterion.
Note: Watersheds h hlighted yellow have “significant” mercury sources other than deposition, defined as where the total estimated load
from Publidy Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and pulp and paper mits is greater than 5% of estimated waterbody delivered mercury
at a typical air deposition load (10 glkm2/yr), and/or where mercury cell chior-alkali facilities, mercury mines, or significant past producer
gold mines are present. See text of report for data sources for point source dischargers and mines.
Source: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisones (NLFWA) Mercury Fish Tissue Database (June, 2001).
EPA issued guidance in 2000 that provides that states must list as impaired water bodies that
have risk-based fish advisories based on water body specific data where the advisory uses the
same the same risk basis as the WQS. This means that the advisory and WQS use the same type
of data collection and same threshold value.
The guidance does not require states to list water bodies with advisories that were issued without
site specific data. Statewide advisories do not by themselves trigger listings of water bodies as
impaired.
If the threshold for an advisory is based on a 0.3 parts per million level of methyl mercury that
the state had adopted as a WQS, then any time there was an advisory based on site specific data,
this would be considered to be an exceedance of water quality standards, and the state would be
expected to list this as an impaired water. But if state developed a statewide advisory as a
precaution, based on limited data, then US EPA would not require that all of the water bodies
included under the statewide advisory be considered to be impaired.
The 2000 guidance also shows a cross-walk between water body listings and the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program growing area classifications.
The bottom line is that advisories are not always impairments. Impairments occur when a
population is exposed to a greater than acceptable risk, considering mixtures and range of species
and ages.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
13
-------
Advisories are issued to protect individuals including people who have higher consumption.
They can be water body specific. Some are regional or statewide, some are size specific, and
some are species specific. A state could meet the water quality standards and still have
advisories for some people.
The water quality standards are based on certain assumptions — people who consume more fish
than this could still have risk but not be in impaired water bodies.
More information is available at the TMDL home page at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl
Question: Barry Moore, Maine. What is the basis for estimates on percent reductions? How does this map d ffer
from mercury map program map?
Response: It is the same mercury map. Paul Cocca developed it. Reductions were based on comparing average fish
tissue values in watersheds to 0.3 ppm and calculating percent reduction to achieve this, assuming a linear
relationship between the mercury concentration in fish and the atmospheric deposition of mercury.
Barry Moore: Is a linear relationship realistic? We don ‘I think so.
Response: A Florida Everglades study showed linear relationships between atmospheric loadings and
concentrations in fish tissue once reductions reached steady state, using a model developed for the power industry.
Other models give pretty much the same result. Some data coming out of Canada suggests that the reduction may
be much faster but still linear.
Don Axeirad, Florida: The model was developed by EPA and Florida Department of Environmental Protection as
well as EPRI Ifyou consider the relative source contribution from marine fish based on national numbers, in
Florida where there is a great deal of consumption of marine fish, we may calculate a 0 criterion forfresh water
fish.
Response: We haven’t considered this, but it is possible to occur.
IV. Reports from the Weekend Sessions
Methyl Mercury Contamination in Fish: Human Exposures and Case Reports.
Henry A. Anderson, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
You may remember that in the early days of the PCB advisories, one of the issues that came up
with regard to the medical community was whether breastfeeding was advised.
We have, in other sessions, discussed asking physicians to tell patients about advisories, but
when people come back with merci.uy values we are silent.
Now we have a biomarker for methyl mercury and the medical community is beginning to see
patients who are ill and who have mercury measurements from hair, urine or blood. The
question is, what does it mean and what do they do about it? The impetus for the workshop was
to address how we can partner with the medical community to address these issues.
The workshop held on Saturday was sponsored by the US EPA, AFS, American Academy of
Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Association of Occupational
and Environmental Clinics, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The goal was to learn about the distribution of blood methyl mercury in the general population,
including clinical experience. There is some published literature and some cases that have been
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 14
-------
evaluated. We wanted to start to look at neuropsychological or neurological testing. Flow do we
assess low exposures?
The group began with discussions of risks and benefits, toxicokinetics, available biomarkers, and
which tests should be run for which types of exposures. There are elemental mercury and
inorganic mercury exposures as well as methyl mercury, and it is important to physicians to
know which test to order depending on route and source of exposure. There were presentations
on chelation, where the issue is whether it is appropriate and when is it appropriate. The group
discussed exposure assessment methodologies and heard reports from physicians including Dr.
Jane Hightower and others from Boston, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. There was an evening
presentation on German approaches and the results coming from the biomonitoring being
conducted in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The group
discussed neuropsychological and neurological assessments. These have been the most sensitive
endpoints. How do we gather information? What are appropriate risk communication and
outreach methods?
Regarding the distribution of blood methyl mercury concentrations in the general US population,
national data available are from the Centers for Disease Control NHANES study. The 1999-
2000 NHANES only covers women (16-49) and children (1-5) for mercury (e.g., blood, hair,
urine). This is a significant limitation. The blood mercury data indicate 7.8% of women are
above EPA’s reference dose (for blood) of 5.8 j g/L [ 1]. It is not surprising, but the study found
that fish consumption correlated well with blood mercury (For women who ate less than one
fish meal a week, only 2% were above 5.8 while 15% of those who ate two meals a week were
above.)
The group recommends that mercury become a core biomarker measured for all populations.
The NIHANES group reported that they are moving toward analyzing all blood samples collected
for lead for mercury as well. The group also felt it would be important to look at the health
status information and relate it to the mercury biomarkers
The group discussed cases of elevated methyl mercury exposures. There are reports of fish
consumption that are related to blood mercury exceeding 50 .tgIl. If people start looking, we
may well find more of these. Now we need to address what this means. We need to define
advice for folks with elevated levels. In the past, we have focused on subsistence users as an at
risk population. We now need to consider high end consumers who have no cost boundaries and
don’t like bones in their fish, who purchase steak type fish. In Dr. Hightower’s study, people
were frequently eating sushi, tuna, swordfish, and other finfish with known high levels of
mercury. We need to get together clinical guidelines and treatment guidelines from the
professional associations. Targeted outreach for at risk populations is also needed.
With regard to neuropsychological impacts, though mercury is likely to cause effects, there is no
signature neurological effect pattern to define toxicity and no simple test to run. Protocols need
to be developed. What does a physician do? What kinds of tests are most likely to be useful?
Guidance on these questions also needs to come from professional associations.
Next steps are to build effective partnerships, including consortia between governmental and
non-governmental entities. More research is needed on cardiovascular effects in adults. Greater
public and professional communication of mercury exposures hazards and prevention methods
are needed. It would be important to better integrate fish consumption advice (between the states
and the federal agencies) to speak with a single voice. Funding is a key issue.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Pr-oceedungs 15
-------
Advisor/es for Methyl Mercury: Approaches.
Amy D. Kyle, University of California Berkeley
The conference steering committee developed a short work sheet including information about
how states and tribes develop advisories for methyl mercury. Program managers for 39 states
and four tribes completed the worksheet before or during the forum.
The worksheet included four types of advisories:
Advisories for no fish consumption that apply to the general population (not including
any identified sensitive subpopulations);
Advisories for restricted fish consumption that apply to the general population (not
including any identified sensitive subpopulations);
Advisories for no fish consumption that apply to an identified sensitive subpopulation(s);
Advisories for restricted fish consumption that apply to an identified sensitive
subpopulation(s).
Mercury concentrations in fish that trigger advisories for no fish consumption for the general
population ranged from 0.5 to 2.88 parts per million (ppm). Fifteen states and three tribes
reported issuing advisories of this type.
Mercury concentrations in fish that trigger advisories for no fish consumption for an identified
sensitive population ranged from 0.25 to 1.5 parts per million (ppm). Twenty three states
reported issuing advisories of this type.
Mercury concentrations in fish that trigger advisories for restricted fish consumption for the
general population ranged from 0.59 to 1 parts per million (ppm). Twenty eight states and two
tribes reported issuing advisories of this type. The provisions varied considerably, with the
allowable number of meals varying from 12 to 96 and the allowable meal size varying from 3 to
16 ounces. The total allowable methyl mercury that could be consumed following this type of
advisory ranged from 0.48 to 7.7 milligrams per year.
Mercury concentrations in fish that trigger advisories for restricted fish consumption for an
identified sensitive population ranged from 0.25 to 1.5 parts per million (ppm) and were issued
by 23 states. The allowable number of meals ranged from 12 to 104. The allowable total amount
of methyl mercury ranged from 1.37 to 47.4 milligrams per year.
2002 Amerk n Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminanis in Fish: Proceedings 16
-------
V. Advisories for Commercial Fish
Report on the Advisoty Panel to the Food and Drug Administration on Merculy
Advisories .
H. Vasken Aposhian, University of Arizona
The talk addresses the discussions of the Food and Drug Administration Food Advisory
Committee on Methyl Mercury, held July 23-25, 2002.
The charge to committee was to evaluate in light of all the relevant information about potential
consumption exposures, population body burdens, hazard, and consumer measures whether the
advisory for commercial fish is protective of the general public. Put more simply, does the FDA
advisory provide adequate protection for pregnant women?
Question No. 1 was: Has the agency adequacy addressed and appropriately considered all the
relevant actors and information that bear upon the elaboration of a consumer advisory on fish
consumption? Answer: No. Are any factors not relevant? Answer: No. Are there additional
factors that would be relevant? Answer: Yes.
There was some concern about a lack of transparency about the data that the FDA has used in the
past. A statement from the chairman was that, “The FDA should publish its risk assessment in
peer reviewed literature and indeed other organizations that have competing models ought to do
the same and let the scientific community evaluate it.” The group was also concerned about
exposure of children to canned tuna fish and exposure of women.
Question No. 2: Should the FDA advisory have specifically advised pregnant women to avoid
any other fish species not specifically mentioned and, if so, what would be the scientific
rationale?
Consensus response was: Yes. The panel was surprised to learn that 27% of seafood consumed
by American people is canned tuna. There was a concern about how to transfer information to
women and children at risk. The information pamphlets by the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota,
and Maine were very simple and clear. The Committee wanted to see better communication with
people at risk for canned tuna.
Question 3: Should the agency issue a fish listing as an adjunct to the advisory to clarify what is
meant? Answer: Yes
Should the agency revise its consumer advisory to make explicit that the 12 ounce per week
includes all sources of fish, both recreational and commercial? Answer: Yes.
Should the agency increase its monitoring of methyl mercury in commercial fish in order to keep
this advice current? Answer: Yes. FDA has not done much monitoring of canned tuna, which
they say is because there isn’t enough money. Other data are available. The American Tuna
Association said every batch that is processed has a methyl mercury determination done and
records are kept. The FDA has apparently never asked to see those records.
The state of Flonda has performed some testing and reported results that exceed one ppm. The
FDA action level is I ppm. One value of 1.238 was from a low sodium can of a type that should
be eaten by those with high blood pressure. This presents a concern.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 17
-------
The reference levels used by various agencies continue to differ.
His involvement began in 1995 during interagency discussions. EPA via act of Congress got a
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to determine which the appropriate level was,
and the NAS concluded that it should be at the level set by EPA, at 0.1 [ 2]. This was two to
three years ago. No one on committee felt people should not eat fish. Fish is good for people. It
is very important that FDA communicate with women about how much canned tuna they should
eat. Children are the future of this country.
FDA Consumer Advisory for Methyl Mercury.
Philip Spiller, US Food and Drug Administration
FDA has issued one advisory for seafood and that is for methyl mercury. It is still a work in
progress. The federal advisory is national and uniform in scope. The mission of FDA is to
address food in interstate commerce, not recreational/subsistence uses of fish.
Three major decisions are needed to devise an advisory: Who to target? What outcome are we
seeking in the target population? How do we structure advisory to achieve the desired outcome?
For adults, the threshold for effects is 50 ppm in hair. Recent studies in the Seychelles and Faroe
Islands show levels of 5 to 7 ppm. In the United States, the average adult hair concentration is
0.2 ppm. Some people may be consuming more mercury than recommended under the FDA
acceptable daily intake level, but so far they have been too few to detect through biomonitoring
such as that conducted in NI-lANES (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey by
CDC.) Based on these factors, FDA did not see adult population as urgent priority for action at
national level. This does not mean they cannot re-think this based on new data. It also does not
mean that on a regional basis, the adult population would not be an appropriate target for an
advisory.
FDA decided to target the fetus. The Seychelles Island study did not detect effects [ 3,4] [ 5] [ 6]
[ 7], while the Faroe Islands study did [ 8-13]. The Faroe Island study did report effects at levels
lower than those known to cause effects in adults. US EPA has used this study. Both have been
questioned. ATSDR relied on the Seychelles study.
In July 2000, after a review, the National Academy of Sciences said that the Faroe Islands study
should be used because of questions about Seychelles [ 2]. Other countries appear to be hedging
bets and take into account both studies.
Faced with this ambiguity, FDA decided to take a prudent course and issue a consumer advisory
to protect the fetus as a target population. The next question was what outcome should be sought
via the advisory. One option would be to set a goal of keeping exposure below highest no effect
level from Seychelles and Faroe Islands. That level of exposure is hard to reach, even without an
advisory and would be the equivalent of one fish meal per day with fish containing five times the
amount in commercial fish average. This is a 98 th percentile consumer.
Another option would be to keep exposure below a worst case acceptable daily intake (AD!)-
type level. The acceptable daily intake was developed by the FDA before the Seychelles or
Faroe Islands studies were available. It is still applicable to general population but would not be
relevant to the fetus if the fetus was more sensitive than the adult. ATSDR developed a daily
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings 18
-------
intake level, the Minimal Risk Level (MRL), which would be relevant for the fetus. The EPA
reference dose is also relevant to pre-natal exposures and is more conservative, representing the
worst case. According to the most recent data available from NHANES, eight percent of women
of child bearing age are consuming above the worst case.
2002 Amencan Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
The upper 8th percentile would
comprise approx. 276,000
pregnant women on an annual
basis.
1—
The BMDL
from Faroe
Island study
TheEPARfD
1 .
19
-------
FDA decided to issue a single advisory that would be simple to follow and that would minimize
impact on the majority whose consumption is not at issue. If advisory is followed, FDA
calculated that everyone within the target population would have margin of safety of at least 10.
It would move everyone to left of yellow line (on the previous graph). Most people do not need
to modify behavior. It creates as little dismption as possible and targets as few fish as possible.
The message is to avoid highest species, which are named; that it is acceptable to eat up to 12 oz
per week of a variety of fish; and that one should check local advisories for recreational and
subsistence advisories.
Michael Bender, Vermont: Why L FDA ‘s level of safety less than EPA? Why does FDA not test tuna?
Response: We keep hearing a steady concern over the years that it is a bad thing that FDA’s ADI differs from
EPA’s RID. The idea of having different numbers for adults and fetus is not necessarily bad. We need to have a
strategy for sensitive populations.
Kory Groetsch, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildl fe Commission: People are aware of mercury issue but can ‘t tell
which fish will have higher v. lower levels of mercury. Has FDA considered labeling to allow consumer to choose?
Response: yes — nothing has been ruled out. The standards for requiring labeling are strict. It is a challenge to
make sure an advisory becomes well known. The FDA advisory has been out since the mid 1990s and been
published in sources such as magazines.
H. Vasken Aposian: When you buy a candy bar — you can look at the number of calories. FDA now insists on
labeling of calories on foodstuffs — why not put on some kind of notice for mercury?
Reponses: Nutritional labeling is covered by a different law; other labeling has more rigorous studies mandated.
Eric Uram, Sierra Club. The ADI places sign flcant weight on the recommendation for two fish meals or more per
week from the American Heart Association, it now appears that eating less fish will get you same benefit. Has FDA
tried to quantify benefits for seafood and resolve this issue?
Question: The data for the tile fish came from two quadrants along the Texas Louisiana border —probably golden
tilefish. Other data collected was 0.1 ppm total Hg in survey collected along Atlantic coast. Would you consider
de-listing this and looking at data?
Response: We would be receptive to this.
Dan Kusnierz. Penobscot Indian Nation. Tribes are struggling with message of benefits and risks from fish
including cultural benefits. For subsistence fishing — people are going out there and catching fish themselves. A
new at-risk population is people buying fish from grocery stores because of messages that eating fish is good for
you. Now we are finding high levels of mercury in blood of these people. The communication strategy does not seem
to be working for at least some people. There are also implications for people who stop eating traditional foods and
buy fish.
Response — one of the recommendations was to do a better job of extending advisory beyond commercial fish
because people do not necessarily distinguish between these and to build in messages about subsistence and
recreational fish.
Elaine Krueger — Massachusetts issued an updated advisory last year that included advice from the federal level
and included advice on tuna. We can appreciate good work done by federal agencies but have to give advice on the
phone to people and can ‘1 always wait on the federal response. States have issued advisories regarding commercial
fish. How many states have commercial advisories?
Response: About four.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 20
-------
Integrated Public Health Messages for Sport Fish and Commercial Seafood
Henry A. Anderson, Wisconsin Division of Public Health
Understandably, it is confusing to see advice about mercury in fish on one side (the state or
recreational side) but not the other (the federal or commercial side.) Communication is a local
activity. We need to communicate at local level.
A survey was conducted in 12 states as a joint effort of the states of Wisconsin and Maine, using
random digit dialing. Other states included California, Montana, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Respondents were
asked about their fish consumption.
For women, average sport fish consumption was about 4 fish meals a year; 11 for shellfish: and
28 for fish fillets and tuna (combined). Even as few as 4 meals can be critical for PCBs, which
are low in commercial fish. Concentrations of mercury in sport fish can be comparable to
commercial.
Hair mercury was sampled, and 410 samples were obtained. The amount of mercury in hair was
related to fish consumption.
Wisconsin has a complex system of advisories. In 2000, 1200 water segments were tested, and
advisories were issued for 340. The states moved to general statewide guidelines plus site
specific advice for 92 hot spots where more stringent advice is needed, and the advice addresses
both commercial and sport caught fish.
The guide to eating fish from Wisconsin suggests:
• One meal per week of canned light tuna and one meal per week of either key sport caught
fish or any commercial fish;
• One meal per month of higher mercury sport caught fish;
• No consumption for the list of commercial fish on the FDA advisory to never eat.
A Woman and Child’s Guide to Eating Fish from Wisconsin (2002) — Includes sport and
commercial fish.
1 meal per WEEK
1
meal per WEEK
Bluegill, sunfish, black crappie, white
t 1
- - -
AND
— ‘ - ‘
OFEITNW
1
‘
crappie, yellow perch, bullheads
My commercial fish
(fish you buy In a store or restaurant)
2002 American Fisheries Society
I meal per MONTH
t r
Any sport fish species (sport fish are any flsn you catch or are given, such as bass, walieye,
northern, perch, or crappie). Sport fish are NOT fish you purchase in a store or restaurant,
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
21
-------
The advisory includes additional information about ocean species and provides pictures of both
sport caught fish and commercial fish that are low in mercury.
Choose Fish Low in Mercury!
ndere below are for fIsh from WjSCoflSjfl lakes, ponds, and rivers
and for f!sh bought in restaurants and stores.
— h ti Es gooa to ’ u.
ft: Ihh low i
SPORT CAUGHT: COMMERCIAL:
BLUEGILL
YELLOW PERCH
. C’
r pI t MID ISGM
SMALLMOUTH BASS
LARGEMOUTH BASS
:ec
— t * I 1
WHITE CRAPPIE
ta s L V MID
BLACK CRAPPIE
I DHV
CATFISH
•
4 ,( $ L MI 4
NORTH
ER
N PIKE
WALLEYE
MS I
I
I
i
po• ’.
I
MID
ATLANTIC SALMON
i y ta.,*’ L MID $00 14
FLATF1SH & FLOUNDERS
: 4
0 - ‘
• LOW MID $ 4
CANNED 4 LIGHr TUNA
£
HAUBUT
LC ’ MIT. 40011
COD 1 OCEAN PERCH &
HADDOCK
SC ’
MI4 Y $4’t* LOW MI 40DM
CANNED WHITF’ TUNA
pm
C) 0 (3
LOW M( 4 4
SWORDFISH SHARK
Dr
$00 Y$ L MID $00.4 4z ..4- LOW MID
2002 American Rsheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
SHELLFISH
utha ’r - E* O cw10 ”.,’
_• .: ‘
lWWW t + LOW MID 400 14
tf .Wl-. LO
0
TUNA
22
-------
People like to have pictures of what it looks like when they buy it in the store.
Any successful program has to be a joint activity between state health and environment agencies.
The environmental agency was responsible for comprehensive sport fish monitoring species,
size, and location. The health agency was responsible for human biomonitoring, heath
outcomes, and advisory evaluation. There are little state general revenues for this, so the work
was largely supported by federal sources.
The survey also asked about awareness of mercury. Awareness varied considerably by state but
averaged about 20% with a high of 32% in Maine and a low of 8 to 9% in Montana, New
Mexico, and California. States with longer established programs have higher awareness.
The group concludes that increased commercial fish monitored designed to assist in advisory
development is needed, as is increased human biomonitoring and continued health effects
research, particularly for cardio vascular effects.
Conswner Advisory for Commercial Fish.
Andy Smith, Maine Department of Human Services
The first question is, why issue advisories for commercial fish? The main reason is that
commercial fish are most commonly consumed. Women want to know about the commercial fish
they were eating. Only about 20% of women in Maine reported eating sport caught fish. The
limited data available for Maine suggest that higher hair mercury levels were largely associated
with eating commercial fish.
A guiding principle was to avoid confusion and increase consistency. It is difficult to inform
people and gain behavior change with differing messages. To gain buy-in from medical folks,
the message needs to be clear. A second objective was to redirect fish consumption toward fish
lower in mercury.
Ocear Fish and Shellfish
+ Stziped br s and b1uefi h .ifl1 t lk r everyonc, 2 m th per nie,nth
• Swordfish, hba& tilelMi . . . . . .. .Umit: • F r p c nnnt and w1n in5 women,
and kngickcrc wtnn n who ttu y et ptt gnant, and
hi1drcn uudcr , O nie ib
• F rallt,thtiip rimmtt
•Cauned tuna (the 6 ounoe Umit: • lk rpregneni md nur ing women.
Whit tuna ha morc mcrcury WOrnC 1U Ct pt gnant. and
th ui h ht tuna cMdrcn under l I L m M
2 cans of “iight rwu pci wcck
No limits for all others as pw of a b itanced diet
4 Au other ocean fish and beiIfish Umit: • For nozu and nw ing women.
inCJUdW.g canned fish and shetitith omca w’to m t get t re 1tnnt and
cJu1dn n under 8 2 neals per w k
No hmits f r all otheft as part of t alanecd d ct
2002 Amedcan Ash&es
Fon m on Contaminants in Fl i: Proceedings 23
-------
The advisory differs from FDA’s advice in certain ways. It addresses canned tuna and separates
Out light compared to white canned tuna, as the latter is about twice as high in mercury, and
suggests no more than 1 can of white or two cans of light tuna a week for women or children
under eight. (The FDA advisory does not include canned tuna.)
The advisory also provides information for the general population (in addition to women and
children) and recommends no more than two meals per month of swordfish, shark, tileflsh, and
king mackerel for the general public.
The strategy for risk communication focused on developing a brochure using focus groups and a
health literacy expert and posters for waiting rooms and exam rooms at clinics. It shows
commercial fish in forms found in the market and the sport fish in forms brought out of the
water. (So, commercial fish are depicted in a cleaned and packaged form and sport fish are
depicted in a whole form.) Maine is targeting women through WIC (woman infant children)
programs and clinics. The strategy also targets fishing households with kids by matching birth
certificates and fishing licenses.
Next steps involve continuing to improve materials. The ultimate measure of effectiveness
would be increased awareness of safe eating guidelines, changed consumption behavior and
decreased hair mercury levels. (It would be a failure to reduce both hair mercury levels and
consumption.)
The Context for Connecticut’s Seafood Advisory.
Gary Ginsberg, State of Connecticut
The State had been issuing recreational advisories since 1 980s. The principal sampling for
mercury in lakes occurred in 1996-1997. This resulted in a statewide freshwater advisory. Four
water bodies were particularly high, with average concentrations in bass above 1 ppm.
People would ask about commercial fish, so Connecticut developed an advisory to respond to
questions. They decided to look at concentrations in commercial fish and how these compared to
sport caught fish. Swordfish and shark were greater than 1 ppm; tuna steak was generally from
0.3 to 0.5 ppm. Published results for carmed tuna [ 14] reported 0.1 ppm in chunk or chunk light
and 0.3 ppm in chunk white or solid white tuna.
The point of departure is around 0.2 ppm, and these numbers were in the same ballpark. This
convinced the administration that it was appropriate to move forward. Infrequent consumption
of swordfish/shark (once per month) is in the range of the methyl mercury RID. This leads to a
do-not-eat category. They do not have a category for consumption less frequent than once per
month. Frequent consumption of canned tuna (e.g., 2 or more times per week) is in the range of
the RfD and would lead to an advisory of one to two meals per week for the high risk population
only.
They considered whether consumption of commercial fish could be contributing to mercury
concentrations found in hair. In NHANES for 1999 (702 women), the 90 th percentile is at 1.4
ppm, which is around the range of the RID.
A simulation of seafood consumption by FDA [ 15] matched consumption rates and mercury
concentrations based only on 24 species (which suggests that others are not important). The
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Pmceedings 24
-------
study shows tuna is around 30% on average, which is by far the largest single species.
Swordfish and shark contribute much less overall. Pollock and cod are also contributors.
A New Jersey study measured mercury in pregnant women [ 16] and found that 9.5% were
between 1 and 2 ppm in hair. 10-15% ingested more than the RID. Fish consumption patterns
were only weakly correlated with Hg.
A Connecticut mercury biomonitoring data study ( EPA Mercury Advisory Awareness Study.
2000 ) found that the results for hair mercury were higher than other states and may be influenced
by small numbers. The study included 17 women from Connecticut, 18-45 yrs old, and found a
mean hair mercury level of 1.0 ppm (+1- 0.8 ppm.) The fish intake data was sketchy, but
commercial fish consumption was much more common than sport fish.
The Connecticut Commercial Advisory says that high risk groups should avoid swordfish and
shark, while others can eat 1 to 2 meals per month. For canned tuna and other commercial fish
the recommended consumption is 1-2 meals per week for high risk groups and unlimited for
others. Species identified as being low in mercury and PCBs include haddock, cod, flounder,
and salmon.
A question to consider is whether there should be a commercial advisory for PCBs. Striped bass
and bluefish have elevated PCBs. Connecticut has recreational but no commercial advisory for
these species. They are uncommon in marketplace in Connecticut.
LuAnne Williams, North Carolina: Would like to thanksfolksfrom Wisconsin and Maine for initiating the multi
state survey, which North Carolina benefIted from. This led to changes in approach, leading to more focus on
health care providers. They have advice statements that recommend two meals a week offish and provide a list of
safer species. They recommend that people avoid seven types offish.
Roseanne Lorenzana, EPA Region X There has been a study funded by EPA offish consumption in Asian
Americans in 1999 thaI show high level of consumption of commercial fish, though species are not primarily tuna
fish orpollock What is the monitoring of these kinds offish? Are there state advisories that focus on these
populations?
Response: Henry Anderson: if people are purchasing fish there is probably little testing. Wisconsin does have
outreach to growing Asian populations. There are difficulties in defining species in common terms. They are also
emphasizing cooking approaches.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 25
-------
VI. Chemicals of Concern
A. Mercury
Methylmercury: Ongoing Research on Toxicology.
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, US EPA
Fish and shellfish virtually all contain merculy, though both concentrations and consumption
vary widely.
Key results to review here include the NRC 2000 report [ 2]; the US EPA’s 2001 reference dose
[ 17, 18]; biomonitoring measures; and current research findings.
EPA’s 2001 RfD was based on a benchmark dose (BMDL) [ 19]. This was based on
neuropsychological tests reflecting children’s ability to learn and process information. Methyl
mercury exposure doubled the risk of scores in a range considered subnormal. The BMDL that
EPA used was based on doubling of the prevalence of scores in a range recognized as subnormal
on tests of developmental function.
Biomarkers are used to represent exposure. One key issue is the relationship between mercury
concentrations in umbilical cord blood in the developing child and in the mother.
Both US EPA and the National Academy of Sciences selected a BMDL of about 58 p gfL of
mercury measured in the umbilical cord. The cord blood was assumed to have the same amount
of mercury as the mother’s blood. This is a common assumption.
More recent results suggest that this assumption may be incorrect and that cord blood is on
average 1.7 times higher in mercury than maternal blood. This would mean that, if the level of
mercury in the umbilical cord blood was 58 tg/L, the level of mercuiy in the mother’s blood
would be expected to be about 34 .tg/L. The reasons for this difference are likely to be due to
differences in the way the mercury is distributed and processed in the body of the mother and
child. Differences in the mean ratio of cord blood to maternal blood varied in one study from
2.17 to 1.09 [ 20].
In developing the RfD, the uncertainty factors were set based on the assumption that the ratio
was 1. This did not take account of this difference.
As noted in other talks, according to NHANES data, about 8% of women in the US exceed the
EPA RfD of 5.8 tg/L. The 90 th percentile is 4.84 tg/L.
Effects of methylmercury in adults are also a concern. Are there cardiovascular effects in adults
of low dose exposure to methyl mercury? Some results suggest that this may be the case.
Salonen studied 1983 men living in Eastern Finland aged 42 to 60 years [ 21, 22]. This study
reports that mercury is a risk factor for coronary and fatal cardiovascular disease. Dietary intake
of fish and mercury were associated with significantly increased risk of acute myocardial
infarction (AM!) and with death from coronary heart disease (CHD), cardiovascular disease and
from any cause. Men in the highest tertile (2 ppm and higher hair mercury) had a 2-fold age- and
CHD-adjusted risk of AMI (95% CI 1.2 to 3.1; P=O.005) and a 2.9-fold higher adjusted risk of
cardiovascular death (95% CI, 1.2 to 6.6; P=0.014). This is a dramatic number.
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on Con minants in Fish: Proceedings 26
-------
Carotid intima-media thickness increased with increases in hair mercury concentration. This
suggests that mercury accumulation in the human body is associated with accelerated progress of
carotid atherosclerosis. This has been viewed as just one population. There is a multi center
European trial on coronary heart disease that also measured heart disease, and results have been
accepted for publication. Additional information should be available soon.
Setting a Methyl Mercuiy Reference Dose for Adults.
Alan H. Stern, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
The policy of the U.S. EPA is to derive a single reference dose (RfD) per chemical based on goal
of protecting most sensitive group. Generally, members of the sensitive group are not known, or
cannot control their exposure (e.g., air or drinking water). Therefore, protection of sensitive
groups results in overprotection of general population.
However, for methyl mercury (MeHg), the sensitive population is well characterized and is
women of childbearing age, pregnant women, and young children. Individuals have reasonable
control over exposure in that they control their fish consumption. They can consume fish with
lower mercury concentrations, at least in theory.
In principle, this lends itself to a two-tiered advisory structure for the sensitive population and
general population. The general population is not overly protected and has less potential
limitations on obtaining nutritional value from fish. The sensitive population is protected at
more stringent level.
The two-tiered approach is based on two RfDs. The current Rif) is based on
neurodevelopmental effects for the sensitive population.
The previous RID, which is applied to the general population, is based on neurological effects
for general population and is specifically protective against the occurrence of paraesthesia. This
was the basis for the previous US EPA methyl mercury RID, which was based on studies from
Iraq and Minamata. It is appropriate to consider whether this is still an appropriate endpoint
when more subtle health endpoints are considered.
Currently, 12-13 states follow a two-tiered approach. The appropriateness of this approach is
predicated on the assumption that the reference dose for the general population will be less than
that for a sensitive population (Ridgen> RfDsens). The current RfD is 0.1 pg/kg/day, while the
old RID (for the general population) was 0.3 .ig/kg/day. This difference is small, but significant
for fish advisories and allows for two different consumption rates for fish advisories.
Is the assumption that the RID for the general population will be greater than the RID for the
sensitive population (Rfdgen> RfDsens) correct? The NRC report highlights several areas of
uncertainty for a general (“adult”) RID, particularly cardiovascular effects and immunotoxic
effects [ 2]. Currently lacking is a lifetime exposure assessment that addresses in utero plus
adult exposures, as effects may be due to the combination of developmental as well as adult-
stage health impacts.
The NRC committee felt that there was not enough information in the literature or enough time
to peer review all of the studies that were available and to derive reference dose for these
endpoints. Their recommendation was to add an uncertainty factor of 3 (half a log unit) to deal
with this, for database uncertainties related to adult effects.
2002 Arnencen Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 27
-------
Researchers have reported some findings for cardiovascular endpoints for MeHg. Salonen et al.
[ 221 looked at middle aged Finnish men. The mean hair mercury was 1.92 ppm, approximately
2.3 times the New Jersey general population mean. For men with hair mercury greater than 2
ppm, the adjusted relative risk for AM!, CHD, and CVD were 1.7 to 2.1. In New Jersey, about
20% of general population has hair concentrations greater than 2 ppm.
The Salonen study [ 211 included a 4 year follow-up assessing hair Hg, and atherosclerosis
progression. They used ultrasound determination of carotid artery thickness, which is a major
advance in assessing pre-clinical effects. After adjustment for co-variates, men in upper quintile
of hair mercury (2.8 ppm in hair) had a 40% increase in arterial wall thickness.
If the RID for the general population is higher than the RfD for sensitive populations, we would
retain the two tier structure. Currently they are separated by only 0.2 .tg/kg/day. If the RfD for
the general population decreases by 0.1 rig/kg/day, will the difference in advisories be
significant? If the RID for the general population is lower than that for the “sensitive”
populations, would we just have one advisory? Does the cardiovascular endpoint apply to
women?
EPA has sponsored a project to look at these issues, to be investigated by Dr. Alan H. Stern with
Dr. Andy E. Smith of Maine as the co-principal investigator. Other participants include state
toxicologists, epidemiologists, risk assessors. The project will also include independent
consultants in statistics and cardio-epidemiology.
Note: Dr. Stern was a member of the NRC panel.
Hen,)’ Anderson, Wisconsin: Because of benefits offish consumption, maybe you would want to call this something
other than an RJD?
Response: Any integrated analysis that looks at mercury exposure and health effects should integrate competing
processes of beneficial omega three fatty acids. The trick is to see to what extent this is actually occurring. Another
paper suggests that when mercury is present, benefits of omega three fatty acids are lost.
Kate Mahaffey: There is a big literature about omega 3 and omega 6 in various fish. They are associated with fat in
fish. We can have fish that are high in omega 3 ‘s but not high in mercury. It is misleading to think that just because
you select fish lower in mercury that you are winding up with fish lower in these fatly acids.
Andy Smith: this will be addressed by a speaker on the fish oils issues
Kate Mahaffey: Going from the benchmark dose (BMDL) to the reference dose has an uncertainty factor often,
which has several components, but it assumed that cord blood and maternal blood are equal. Some of this factor is
eroded by what we know so far.
Deb Rice: The NAS panel used the critical study/critical endpoint approach to choose a point of departure for
calculating an RiD, in accordance with typicaipractice. They chose the Faroe Islands study as the critical study,
and the Boston Naming Test as the critical endpoint. However, they also performed an integrative analysis of all
three studies combined, to encourage better use of all the available data. EPA considered the RID to be based on a
number of endpoints from the Faroe Islands and New Zealand studies, as well as the integrative analysis. Most of
these endpoints yield an RID of 0.1 pg/kg/day. The BMDL from the Boston Naming Test is 58 ppm in blood;
however, any one of a number of other endpoints could have been chosen as representative of the RID. For example,
the BMDL for the integrative analysis is 32 pg/kg/day.
Alan Stem: They did an integrated analysis in a less formal sense with the Fame Islands data. I agree with you.
The intent on the committee was to come up with the test that gave the lowest BMDL that was clearly defensible.
They did not pick the lowest one, which was the continuous performance test, but the test giving the most sensitive
mercwy effect (the Boston naming test) because they thought it was a more robust test. 58 xg/kg/day was one of
several numbers within a fairly narrow range that could have been chosen, but it was not the lowest number that
could have been shown.
2002 American Asheries Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings 28
-------
B. Brominated Flame Retardants
Occurrence of PBDE Flame Retardants in Ash.
Robert C. Hale, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
The term “brominated flame retardants” is often used interchangeably with “polybrominated
diphenyl ethers.” In reality, PBDEs are a subclass of BFRs, which are chemicals added to
products up to reduce fire hazards. Products can contain up to 30% of them by weight.
BFRs have differing chemical structures. However, PBDEs and PBBs (poly brominated
biphenyls) have very similar chemical structures, which differ only in that the PBDEs have an
ether linkage not found in the PBBs. Both resemble the highly toxic and persistent PCBs.
In 1973, PBBs were inadvertently introduced into livestock feed in Michigan and subsequently
into people. As a result, a large number of animals had to be destroyed, but many people still
cany body burdens. Following this incident, PBB use in the US was suspended.
There are three commercial PBDE mixtures now in use in the US, referred to as “Deca,”
“Penta,” and “Octa.” Deca-BDE is used in thermoplastics and textiles. Penta BDE is used in
polyurethane foam, and Americans use 98% of the world’s total production. Octa-BDE is less
common and mostly used in thermoplastics. They are mixtures that are numbered just like PCB
congeners.
These mixtures consist of individual congeners, which have been assigned numbers like PCB
congeners, to reflect the number of halogens and their position.
Deca (BDE-209) strongly partitions to sediments and does not represent as much of a
bioconcentration hazard as some other forms. The congeners that comprise the “Penta” product
tend to partition similarly to PCBs. Bioaccumulation is high and probably occurs to a greater
degree for these compounds than for PCBs.
PBDEs are resistant to environmental degradation and subject to long range transport. Those
with less than seven bromines have higher vapor pressure and appear to be subject to long range
transport. Accumulation in fish is a major pathway for human exposure, as per PCBs.
European researchers have conducted more research in this area than researchers in the US.
Their work suggests that the less brominated congeners have already reached remote areas.
Levels in breast milk measured in North America are increasing logarithmically, in proportion to
our relatively higher use.
The European Union has issued a ban on the penta mixes, scheduled to go into effect in 2003.
It has been suggested that Deca (BDE-209) may be vulnerable to debromination in some
conditions, perhaps including the presence of UV light. However, there is no currently published
literature showing that degradation of BDE-209 is responsible for the distribution of tetra- and
penta-brominated congeners in the environment.
To date, the US has no regulations restricting the use or disposal of these compounds.
The Mussel Watch program (which routinely monitors concentrations of contaminants in
sediments and shellfish) is expected to add the PBDEs to its surveillance program.
2002 Ameilcan Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 29
-------
The first documentation of PBDE concentrations in North American aquatic organisms was from
1987 and reported about 200 ppb in lipids of dolphins. Marine mammals seem to be very high
accumulators. Levels in San Francisco Bay seals increased 65-fold from 1988 to 2000 [ 23]. The
values in the US are increasing over time, and tetra-brominated compounds are being found in
virtually all samples.
A case study from Virginia, published in Environmental Science and Technology, was conducted
in 1998-9 in the Roanoke Basin [ 24]. It found BDE-47, the most commonly reported congener
and a major component of the Penta- mixture, in 89% of Roanoke basin fish fillets. Other
congeners were present as well. The detection of PBDEs in rivers surrounded by dams debunks
the idea that it comes from historical uses of drilling muds or marine sponges. Sources are likely
to be local. There is a history of textile mill and furniture manufacturers in the area. While there
is some statistical correlation between PCBs and PBDE concentrations, there were also outliers.
This suggests that the original sources may differ.
Major PBDE commercial products in use in North America in 1999.
Commerdal PBDE 1999 North American Percent of 1999 Major component
Mixture demand (tons) Global Demand PBDE congeners
Penta- 8290 97.5% BDE-47, 99, 100, 153,
154, 85
Octa- 1375 35.9% BDE-183, 153, unknown
octa- and nona-BDEs
Deca- 24300 44.3% BDE-209, unknown
nona-BDEs
Total 33965 50.6%
PBDE5: Toxicology and Human Exposure.
Unda S. Birnbaum, US Environmental Protection Agency
The brominated flame retardants are major industrial products ( - 67 metric tons/year). There are
several forms.
The “deca” compounds are produced in the largest volume (75% of what is produced in the
European Union.) They are used in polymers, electronic equipment, and textiles.
The “octa” compounds are used as polymers, especially in office equipment.
The PeBDEs are most problematic. They are used in textiles and polyurethane foams (up to
30%). A ban has been recommended in the European Union for these compounds, allowing no
production, only import. Essentially they are not being used except in North America
The mixes of congeners vary by medium.
In air: 47>99>100>153=154.
The pattern in sludge looks like the pattern in foam, as you see less 47 than 99.
2002 American Rsheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings 30
-------
In sediments, concentrations of congener 99 are higher than 47. This pattern reflects commercial
PeBDEs along with some also some nona and deca forms.
In biota, 47>99=100 except in locations near a manufacturing site. This pattern does not reflect
commercial mixtures. In a commercial mixture you have more 99 than 47
For concentrations in biota, marine mammals have much higher concentrations than other
organisms. Fish are lower and invertebrates about the same or slightly lower.
For ecotoxicity, PeBDEs are much worse than OBDEs which are worse than DBDEs. They are
highly toxic to invertebrates (For larval development, the lethal effects levels are in the low j.igIL
range.)
DBDEs and OBDEs may be low risk to surface water organisms and top predators. There are
concerns for waste water, sediment, and soil organisms. The presence of lower brominated
congeners in OBDE, which could lead to penta forms, is a concern. Photolytic andlor anaerobic
debromination can also give us penta forms.
For mammals, concerns are liver effects, enzyme induction. DBDE is a hepatocarcinogen at high
doses. There are also neurotoxic effects. More recent studies show more subtle effects.
Changes seen would be associated with learning issues in adults and could lead to permanent
changes in brain function. Moreover, developmental exposure may lead to increased
susceptibility of adults exposed to low doses of PBDEs. In vitro studies show changes in
signaling pathways
Endocrine disrupting effects include AhR effects, thyroid effects, and estrogenic effects. For
thyroid the real concern has to do with ability to disrupt thyroid homeostasis. Some forms are
estrogenic.
PBDEs are readily absorbed except for DBDE, which is poorly absorbed. Lipid binding is
important. In fat, 47>99>>>209. In the liver, you see covalent binding from 99 and 209.
Metabolism is through hydroxylation, debromination, and 0-methylation. Excretion is primarily
in feces.
Trends of BDEs in human milk pose an important concern. In Sweden, results show an
exponential rise that peaked in about 1997 and then went down after they stopped using it in
1994. Levels in Europe are much lower than what we are starting to see here in North America;
levels of use are 10 times higher here than there and they have stopped using the penta
formulation. Our levels are much higher; some people are far above the range of any other
people and highly exposed.
2002 Amenc3n FiSherieS Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 31
-------
Total BDEs in contemporary human milk (ng/g lipid) [ 25]
Country Number of Year Median Mean
samples
Sweden 93 1996-1999 3.2 4.0
Japan 12 2000? 1.4 1.3
Canada 50 2001-02 25 64
USA (adipose) 23 1998 41 86
Measurements of PBDEs in human samples in the US [ 231 show that 47 is about 40% of total;
153 is about 20%, 154 is about 17% and 99 and 100 are about 10%. There is little 99 compared
to what is present in a commercial mixture. Possible explanations are that these may be more
persistent or perhaps they are coming from octa mixtures or debromination of deca mixtures.
The mix measured is totally unlike the original formulation of the products.
Though limited data are available, it appears that concentrations have increased dramatically in
measurements made in California.
Fig. 2 PBDE 47 in California women
140
120 CA serum 1960s, n=270
• CA adipose, 1990s, n=32
100 • CA Lao serum, 1990s, n50, md. NOs
• US milk, composite (Papke)
80
0)
0)
C
I
1960s Late 1990s
Source: 1261
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 32
-------
Measurements made in Canada show that the sum of eight congeners in breast milk has
increased greatly since around 1992 and is largely driven by 47. The pattern of congeners is
different from commercial mixtures (and food). In the US and Europe, 47 is higher than 99
(others: 100, 153, 183, and 209?). In Japan, 99 and 153 are higher than 47. There are also large
interindividual differences.
Concentrations are doubling every 2-5 years. PBDE and PCB levels are not correlated. In most
samples today, PCBs are greater than PBDEs. There are likely to be different sources and/or a
different time sequence.
The key question is whether levels are high enough to see effects. To determine this, we need
more toxicology data. We also need:
• More systematic human and environmental monitoring;
• More information on fate and transport — are commercial products breaking down? And
into what?
• More toxicology data that focus on congeners present in people and wildlife, not
commercial products since they are altered in the environment.
Po/ybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (BDEc).
Khizar Wasti, Virginia Department of Health
In view of BDES being detected in fish at 1-2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) range, the state
of Virginia developed guidance levels for the issuance of a fish consumption advisory for BDEs.
To date, information available in the literature regarding the toxicity of BDEs is very limited.
For deca-BDE, the acute toxicity in experimental animals is low. The oral LDSO in rats is
greater than 5 mg/kg. No adverse effects were noted in rats fed at doses of up to 800 mg/kg
body weight for 30 days. There is no evidence of carcinogenic, reproductive, teratogenic, or
mutagenic effects. Epidemiological studies in occupationally exposed workers did not indicate
any symptoms attributable to BDE exposure. In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, the oral reference dose (RfD) is
reported as 0.01 mg/kg/day.
For octa-BDE, the acute toxicity in experimental animals is low. The oral LD5O in rats is greater
than 5,000 to 28,000 mg/kg. Teratogenicity was seen at doses of 25 and 50 mg/kg body weight;
resorptions or delayed ossification of different bones and fetal malformations were noted in rats.
These changes were not seen at 15 mg/kg dose or less. In rabbits there was no teratogenicity, but
fetotoxicity was seen at a maternally toxic dose of 15 mg/kg. A no-effect level was 2.5 mg/kg.
Assays for mutagerncity were negative. For carcinogenicity, no data are available to date. The
oral RfD in the IRIS database is reported to be 0.003 mg/kg/day.
For penta-BDE, acute oral toxicity is low with an LD5O in rats of 6,000 to 7,000 mg/kg. Rats
given a diet containing 100 mg/kg for 90 days showed no clinical effects. It was not found to be
mutagenic, and there are no data on its carcinogenicity. In the IRIS Database, the oral RID is
reported as 0.002 mg/kg/day.
For tetra-BDE, no human or animal data are available. Toxicity may be assumed to be similar to
commercial penta-BDE since it contains significant amount of tetra-isomer.
2002 American Rsheries Sodety
Forum on Contaminants in R i: Proceedings 33
-------
Since very little toxicity information was available in the literature, Virginia sought assistance
from various federal and state agencies. A task force was formed comprising staff from health
and environmental agencies in Virginia and North Carolina, and two federal agencies which
included EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To derive an
allowable BDE level in fish, the oral RID values of penta-isomer (0.002 mg/kg/day); octa-
isomer (0.003 mg/kg/day); and deca-isomer (0.01 mg/kg/day) were compared. The task force
members concurred with the approach of selecting the RID of the most toxic isomer to be used in
deriving guidance levels for BDEs in fish. The task force considered the option of using the RfD
value for penta-isomer, 0.002 mg/kg/day. EPA suggested using an interim RID for tetra-isomer,
0.001 mg/kg/day. This RfD value was based on the assumption that tetra-BDE is twice as toxic
as the penta-isomer. Virginia used this RID and a consumption rate of two 8-ounce meals per
month to derive a trigger level for the issuance of a fish consumption advisory.
The equation used for deriving the trigger level is as follows:
0.001 malkaldav x 70 ka x 30 davslmonth = 4.62 5.0 mg/kg or parts per million (ppm)
0.227 kg/meal x 2 meal month
Using this equation, the allowable meals per month at various BDE concentrations can be
calculated and are shown in the table.
Concentration (mg/kg or ppm) # of Meals per month
1 9.3
1.47 6.3
2 4.6
3 3.1
4 2.3
5 1.9
9 1
10 0.9
Based on the calculations above, Virginia uses the following trigger levels for the issuance of a
fish consumption advisory when fish is contaminated with BDEs.
• Below 5 mg/kg or ppm - no advisory
• 5 to below 10 mg/kg or ppm - two eight ounce meals per month
• Above 10 mg/kg or ppm — no consumption
Because data are limited and reproductive or developmental effects of BDEs have not yet been
evaluated, the state concluded that it would be prudent for pregnant women, nursing mothers,
and young children to avoid consumption of fish contaminated with BDEs above 5 mg/kg or
ppm. Since reported concentrations in fish were below the trigger level, no advisory was issued.
In issuing advisories Virginia tries to give the message that not every concentration is harmful.
2002 American lRsheri Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 34
-------
Gary Ginsburg: Given the similarities between these compounds and PBBs, did you look at toxicological data for
PCBs?
Response: There was no information on PBBs either.
Luanne: This was one reason EPA recommended an additional safety factor of 2. New RiDs are pending
Linda Birnbaum: If neurodevelopmental effects were addressed, it would lower the number by three orders of
magnitude.
C. Dioxins and Coplanar PCBs
Emerging Science of the Dioxin Reassessment.
Dwain Winters, US EPA
A number of things have happened with the US EPA’s reassessment of dioxin assessment in the
last year.
Dioxin-like compounds include dioxins, furans and PCBs. There are 75 dioxin congeners, and
we consider seven of them to be highly toxic. There are 135 furan congeners, and we consider
10 of them to be highly toxic. There are 209 PCB congeners and we consider 12 to be highly
toxic.
We use TEQs to compare congeners of different toxicity. (The TEQ5 reflects the relative
toxicity of each congener.) These are fundamental to the evaluation of these compounds. They
are based on multiple endpoints or on the binding of the compound to a receptor. The TEQ5
developed by the World Health Organization are accepted internationally and have the most
comprehensive discussion.
Five compounds make up about 80% of the total TEQ in human tissues. Four of these are
dioxin/furan compounds and one is a PCB. They are: 2,3,7,9-TCDD, l,2,3,7,8-PCDD,
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD, 2,3,4,7,8-PCDF, and PCB 126.
The current human exposure to dioxin TEQ for adults in the US is about 1 pg TEQ/kg/d (one
picogram of dioxin TEQ per kilogram of body weight per day). Populations that may have
higher intake include nursing infants, people with a fatty diet, subsistence fishers, and farmers in
proximity to contamination.
EPA has concluded that for dioxin, unlike many other chemicals, the body burden is the best
dose metric. It accounts for differences in half life and results in strong agreement between
human and animal data. This approach has been adopted by the World Health Organization,
European Union, and the US. The metric is ng/kg BW (nanograms of dioxin TEQ per kilogram
of body weight.)
2,3,7,8-TCDD is considered to be a known carcinogen for humans, while other dioxin-like
compounds and complex environmental mixtures of these compounds are considered likely to be
carcinogenic. This based on unequivocal animal data studies demonstrating carcinogenicity and
limited human studies.
Cancer potency estimates are primarily based on recently published human epidemiological
studies. EPA’s potency value has been revised upward by a factor of six compared to a value
published by EPA in 1985 based on a rat study. Cancer risks to the general population may
2002 Ameri n Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 35
-------
exceed 1 per 1,000 from normal (dietary) exposure. This is not the upper bound, though risks
may be less.
Non-cancer toxic effects of concern include developmental toxicity (affecting the immune
system, nervous system and reproductive system), immunotoxicity, endocrine effects, chloracne
and others.
Information about non-cancer effects in animals and humans is sufficient to generate a level of
concern similar to that for cancer. It is likely that part of the general population is at or near
exposure levels where adverse effects can be anticipated.
This table summarizes the body burdens associated with adverse effects. The margins between
current average body burden (5 nanograms per kilogram - ng/kg) and these effect levels are
mostly less than an order of magnitude, so some people are at levels likely to result in adverse
effects. Consequently, EPA will not develop an RfD for dioxin.
Adverse Effects Body Burden (Ng/Kg)
Developmental neurotoxicity: 22
Developmental/reproductive toxicity: 0.7 - 42
Developmental immunotoxicity: 50
Adult immunotoxicity: 1.6 - 12
Endometriosis: 22
Biochemical Effects
CYP1A1 Induction: 0.6 - 33
CYP1A2 Induction 2.1 - 83
Most exposure is from the diet, but no one component dominates. Statistically based surveys of
beef, pork, and poultry were done in 1994-95 and 1996-97. These are being re-sampled now, so
some time trend data will be available. Fish data are more problematic because they do not lend
themselves to statistical analysis. EPA is compiling data on dioxins in fish and welcomes
submittal of relevant data.
Pathways for dioxin exposure include ingestion of soil, meats, dairy products, and fish;
inhalation of vapors and particulates; and dermal contact with the soil. Sources include
combustion, metals processing, chemical manufacturing, biological and photochemical
processes, and reservoir sources.
The sources of US adult daily intake of dioxins, flirans, and dioxin-like PCBs are shown in this
chart:
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 36
-------
Vegetable fat Soil ingestion
Other meats Soil dermal contact
Poultry Freshwater fish and
shellfish
Marine fish and shellfish
Beef °“°
Inhalation
Eggs
The sources and pathways involve discharges to air and water, transport through the air,
deposition from the air, and re-entrainment to soil particles. The compounds bind to leaves that
are consumed and then get into food supply.
Releases have been greatly reduced in the last ten years. Municipal and medical waste
incinerators have been greatly reduced. A major source remains backyard barrel burning.
Some sources are poorly characterized. Reservoir sources are past releases of dioxin that are
“stored” in the environment but that can be reintroduced. About 50% of population exposure is
related to these sources. Most incorporation into food supply is in the corn belt, dairy states, and
west. These are mostly upwind from major emission sources. Major reductions in emissions
will not see proportional reduction in exposure because we are looking at complex exchanges
between compartments. These need to be better understood.
D. Lead
Application of the Lead IEUBK Model to Assess Spokane River Fish Consumption Risks.
Lon Kissinger, US EPA
The Spokane River is down river from the Bunker Hill Superfund Site and the Coeur d’Alene
mining district, which are sources of lead in Idaho.
The goal of the project was to assess lead risks and develop fish advisories using models that
predict blood lead concentrations. Such approaches integrate lead risk for all exposure routes.
Two models were used. The first model, the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
(IEUBK) assesses risk for children age 0 to 84 months. The IEUBK model output is a
probability distribution of blood lead concentrations. EPA currently uses a criterion that lead
2002 American Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
Pork
19%
21%
Milk
I
37
-------
risks are tolerable if no more than 5% of predicted blood lead concentrations exceed 10
micrograms per deciliter (ug/dL). The 10 microgram per deciliter cutoff is supported by the
CDC. The second model, the adult lead model, is used to assess risks to the developing fetus.
This model assumes that if you maintain the mother’s blood lead level within an acceptable
range, then the risks to the developing fetus will be tolerable.
Information on the models is available at EPA’s Lead Technical Review Workgroup web site:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/prcQrams/leaci/
The IEUBK model, as used for the assessment of lead risks from Spokane River fish.
incorporates a number of parameters. which include the fraction of meat consumption that
consists of locally caught fish, the concentration of lead in fish tissue, and lead concentrations
and intake rates for other media. Fish tissue and sediments were sampled and analyzed for lead
at a number of locations. In general, fish tissue and sediment lead concentrations were positively
correlated.
One issue for this study was that there were no site specific, quantitative information about fish
consumption for children. In the absence of such data, a children’s tribal fish consumption rate,
developed by the Columbia River lntertribal Fish Commission, was used. The 65 th percentile
consumption rate of 16.2 grams per day was considered to be health protective.
Spokane River Fish Fillet Lead Concentrations
0.5
Mean +1.. 95% CL, N = 5
0 4 Mountain Whitefish
I Largescale Sucker
0.35 A Rainbow Trout
0.3
A
oA5i A A—
0.05! A
a
0 —
-0.05
Stateline Plantes Greene 7-Mile Bridge,
RM 96 Ferry, RM 85 Street, RM RM 63
77
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 38
-------
Species tested for lead included mountain whitefish, largescale sucker, and rainbow trout. The
mean levels in rainbow trout were 0.82 mg/kg and in largescale sucker 2.8 mg/kg. These levels
were substantially higher than background values in fish (Schmitt and Brumbaugh, 1990.)
Whole fish had much higher lead concentrations than filets.
IEUT3K parameter values were: a state line trout fillet lead concentration of 0.22 mg/kg; a soil
concentration of 230 mg/kg; other parameters at model defaults.
The model predicted that 3.7% of children consuming fillets would have blood lead levels above
10 j .tg/dL. This was less than 5%, so the risk was judged to be tolerable.
For those who ate whole fish, the percentage exceeding 10 pg/dl was much higher. Using the
maximum observed lead concentration, 62% would be above a blood lead level of 10 g/dl if
they consumed whole large scale sucker; 15% for rainbow trout; and 6% for mountain whitefish.
The model results were used to compute meal limits for children and adults. The results can also
be used to see the effect of percent of meat consumed as fish.
In employing the IEUBK model to assess lead fish consumption risks, it is important to take soil lead
exposure into account. High soil lead exposures will reduce the allowable levels in fish.
Editor’s note: There is no known safe exposure to lead and effects have been found for children with
blood lead concentrations below 10 ug/dL.
Occurrence of Lead in Fish: Examples from Georgia, Maine, and California.
Robert K. Brodberg, California Environmental Protection Agency
Lead has not been widely monitored in fish advisory programs. It is not one of the target
analytes recommended by U.S. EPA to assess chemical contaminants in fish [ 27]. A few
advisories have been issued for lead contamination in fish. Is there evidence that lead
bioaccumulation in fish is a problem that is being missed due to lack of monitoring? This
presentation summarizes preliminary data from Georgia, Maine, and California showing the
occurrence of lead in sport fish in these states. Randy Manning summarized data from Georgia
and Eric Frohmberg contributed the data from Maine.
Georgia
Georgia summarizes its monitoring data by water basin and hydrologic unit. Over 1700 fish
fillet samples have been analyzed for lead using a detection limit of I ppm. Lead above I ppm
has only been detected in about 4% of the samples. Lead has been detected most often in
largemouth bass and channel catfish. It has also been detected in hog suckers, trout and sunfish.
The highest levels have been found in the Upper Ocmulgee hydrologic unit (largemouth bass,
11.5 ppm; channel catfish, 15.5 ppm). This could indicate that there is a regional source of lead
in this area. Or, it might indicate a local problem with clean preparation techniques or cross-
contamination because samples are prepared in local jurisdictions. In either case, closer
investigation is warranted.
Maine
Maine’s summary of lead data includes over 300 fish samples. Maine used a lower detection
level (0.02-0.05 prim), and lead was detected in about 70% of the samples. The average lead
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on Contaminants in flsh: Proceedings 39
-------
concentration in these samples was between 0.05 and 0.6 ppm. In only one case did the average
lead concentration exceed the Maine action level of 0.6 ppm. Maximum values in some fillet
samples of brook trout and smailmouth bass reached about I ppm. Lead concentrations in whole
fish samples were generally low with the exception of white sucker (maximum concentration
about 0.7 ppm), which has intramuscular bones. Some data were available to compare lead
concentrations in the same species, prepared and analyzed whole body versus as fillets. Brook
trout and smalimouth bass had higher concentrations in fillet samples than in whole body
samples. However, lead concentrations in fillet and whole body samples of landlocked salmon
and white perch were about equal.
California
In California, lead measurements were available for about 250 composite fillet, whole body or
liver samples from the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program. The lead concentration in greater
than 80% of all samples was less than the detection limit (0.001 ppm). Levels in whole body
samples (maximum concentration 0.5 ppm) tended to be higher than in fillet samples (maximum
concentration 0.2 ppm). The highest lead concentration was measured in white croaker liver.
Overall there was not a noticeable difference in concentrations between inland and marine
species.
Conclusions
Lead concentrations in sport fish varied between the states. Comparison is limited by differences
in methods and detection limits, but the data show that a potential for bioaccumulation exists.
Still, in most cases, results were below the Maine action level (0.6 ppm), and many samples were
at or below detection limits.
This limited summary suggests that while lead may bioaccumulate in fish, it is not accumulating
to levels that indicate a wide-spread problem. Nonetheless, screening level monitoring should be
considered in areas of known or suspected high lead contamination.
One potential problem that should be considered when sampling fish for lead bioaccumulation is
internal and external contamination. In a study of fish from streams in the Missouri lead belt,
Schmitt and Finger [ 28] showed that differences in preparation can result in up to a ten fold
difference in lead concentrations. Most laboratories now use “clean metal” techniques, which
reduce external contamination. However, additional caution is needed because lead can
accumulate in bone, scales and skin (e.g., by adhering to the skin surface). This might account
for cases in which whole fish show higher lead concentration than fillet samples. And this can
increase the apparent concentration in fish with intramuscular bones that are not removed in
fillets. Lead can also be introduced from scales, skin and mucus, especially during field
preparations. Differential inclusion of these non-muscle sources can also increase sample
heterogeneity and consequently variation in reported lead concentration.
2002 Amerkan Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings 40
-------
E. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH5)
Polycyc/ic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH5) in Fish and In vertebrates.
Usha Varanasi, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAils) are toxic compounds that are released from a variety
of natural (e.g., oil seeps and fires) and anthropogenic (e.g., oil spills, combustion engines, coal
burning, and wood preservative) sources. PAHs enter our nation’s waterways and oceans
through both point and non-point mechanisms, exposing valuable fish and invertebrate resources
to toxic PAIl compounds.
Once fish and invertebrates are exposed to PAHs, they readily absorb the compounds into their
bodies. Key questions then become “is seafood safe to eat?” and “are there adverse effects on
the organisms?” The answers for these questions are different for fish and invertebrates.
Vertebrates, including fish, metabolize (body processes that transform substances) PAHs quickly
and efficiently in their liver to detoxify their systems. They readily convert most hydrocarbons
to metabolites that are eliminated into bile and out of their bodies. High molecular weight PAH
compounds, however, can be converted to reactive intermediates that bind to intracellular targets
(e.g., DNA) and alter their function. Because vertebrates metabolize PAils so quickly and
efficiently, very little toxic product is found in their edible tissues; however, toxic products and
byproducts can have a number of adverse effects on the fish themselves.
Invertebrates (e.g., mollusks and crabs), on the other hand, metabolize PAHs slowly and
inefficiently (or not at all); they are unable to readily convert hydrocarbons to metabolites and
eliminate them from their bodies. Because invertebrates metabolize PAHs so slowly and
inefficiently, they accumulate toxic PAIl compounds in their tissues, which can cause acute
effects to the organisms, as well as a seafood safety concern.
PAH compounds are fluorescent, enabling scientists to screen for them using high pressure liquid
chromatography or Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry analysis. These methods can be
used to look for metabolites in bile (vertebrates) and aromatics in tissues (invertebrates).
In responding to PAR contamination to determine its impact on fish and invertebrate resources,
it is critical to ask and answer a series of questions, such as “What is the chemical composition
of the source?” “What is the fate and toxicity of the source?” and “What are the resources at
risk?” In conducting analyses, it is often most appropriate to take a tiered approach that uses
both screening methods and detailed analyses. Screening methods are rapid, cost-effective,
provide a semi-quantitative estimate of contamination, and allow priority selection of a subset of
samples for detailed analysis. Detailed analyses provide confirmation of screening results and
quantitative information about individual contaminants. A tiered approach enables rapid
processing of a high volume of samples, which is critical during oil spills where information
about impacts to fisheries is needed quickly.
Durrng the Exxon Valdez oil spill, NOAA scientists sampled a variety of fish and invertebrate
species and compared PAH levels in edible tissues to a nearby, non-impacted reference site.
Scientists then used screening methods to analyze metabolites in pink salmon bile in several
Alaska villages where seafood safety was a particular concern; they found that metabolites in
pink salmon bile were considerably higher than the reference value, but that concentrations of
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 41
-------
PAl-Is in edible tissues were close to reference values. In contrast, PAils in edible tissues of
mussels, butter clams, and littleneck clams were highly elevated compared to reference values.
This information was quickly relayed to fish and shellfish consumers, helping to minimize
economic and subsistence impacts.
PAils appear to be increasing in many areas where population levels are increasing. From a
seafood safety standpoint, PAHs are a concern for invertebrates, but not fish. From a biological
effects standpoint, however, PAils are a concern for both invertebrates and fish. Reducing the
input of PAHs into the environment and continued monitoring of PAil effects on fish and
invertebrate reproduction, growth, and survival are critical to ensuring sustainability and health
of the nation’s fishery resources.
References
Field, L.J., J.A. Fall, T.S. Nightswander, N. Peacock, and U. Varanasi, Eds. 1999. Evaluating and
communicating subsistence seafood safety in a cross-cultural context: lessons learned from the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. Pensacola, FL: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 338p.
Varanasi, U., Ed. 1989. Metabolism of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Aquatic Environment.
CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. 341p.
NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center Environmental Conservation Division
Varanasi, U. 1994-95. Our Threatened Oceans. Daihousie Review. 74(3):339-353.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Pmceedings 42
-------
VII. State and Tribal Approaches to Advisories
Setting Statewide Advisories based on Upper Percentile Lake Averages.
Eric Frohmberg, Maine Bureau of Health
A key issue for developing advisories in Maine is that there are more than 3,000 lakes and ponds,
and the state does not have the resources to sample them all. The question becomes, how can we
develop advisories based on limited sampling data, and what kind of statistics should we use to
evaluate the data we do have?
Two options are to use a mean concentration for contaminants in fish or to use an upper
percentile estimate. The mean lake concentration gives you a good average population weighted
exposure. This might make sense if you are addressing people who fish at different lakes in a
somewhat random way. However, we don’t think this is how people behave.
An upper percentile estimate of lake concentrations reflects uncertainty. We have many lakes in
Maine and limited data. More importantly, it matches our hypothesis for how people fish. Many
people have summer cabins and fish at a particular lake. Hence, we are concerned about
someone on a high mercury lake, eating fish exclusively from that lake. Using the average value
from a lake at an upper percentile, while over protective for many lakes, will protect people
eating fish from these high mercury lakes.
The best data source of data about contaminants in fish in Maine is REMAP, an EPA-funded
study conducted in 1993 of a random sample of 120 lakes. It looked at many parameters,
including mercury. Based on the results from this sampling program, the first advisory was
developed and a second monitoring program (SWAT) was established. SWAT provided data for
80 more lakes between 1994 and the present.
We have looked at the distribution of mercury values for various species across lakes. Our
objective is to develop distributions of species-specific lake average mercury concentrations for
50 lakes per species. l’his will give us reasonable confidence in the upper percentile estimates of
mercury concentration by species. The mean values for lakes average vary from about 0.3 to 0.7
ppm.
Maine has two-tiered advisories, for the general population and sensitive populations. For each
species, we look at the percentage of lakes above the action level. The sensitive population
action level for one meal per month is 0.8 ppm. We use this as an action level because if you
cannot eat one meal per month for a non-cancer pollutant, we advise people not to eat any. If
95% of the lakes are below an action level, we do not issue an advisory.
The percentage of lakes above an action level varies. For brook trout, we found no values above
the action level of 0.8 ppm. For landlocked salmon, a few lakes were above the action level. For
white perch, smalimouth bass, and chain pickerel, a significant percentage of lakes were above
the action level. The advisory recommends that pregnant and nursing women, women who may
become pregnant, and children under eight limit their consumption of brook trout and landlocked
salmon to one meal per month and that these groups eat no other fresh water fish from Maine.
For all populations, one meal per week of brook trout and landlocked salmon and two meals per
month of other species are recommended limits in the safe eating guidelines.
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 43
-------
This approach reflects our understanding of exposure. It reflects uncertainty. It provides an
incentive for additional testing, as more data could lead to a better understanding of distribution.
The principal disadvantage is that it is over protective for the vast majority of lakes.
Use of Maine’s Statewide Advisory in a Tribal Setting.
Susan M. Peterson, Aroostook Band of Micmacs
The Aroostook Band of Micmacs is the only band of Micmacs in the US. There are about 8500
enrolled members. The tribe owns about 1000 acres in Maine and additional acres in Canada
and is acquiring land. The tribe does not own the lakes in which their members fish.
The State of Maine’s fish consumption warnings are included in the state’s book of fishing
regulations. The tribe was concerned that tribal members would not read the warnings. The
tribe adopted the advisories and issued its own publication called Keeping Our Traditions and
Our Families Alive. It includes the advisories for freshwater and salt water fish, as well as tribe
and agency contact information. It also includes guidelines for how to select, clean, and cook
fish.
The Tribe adopted the Maine advisory not because they feel it is fully protective but because
they do not have enough data to adopt something more protective. The meal size consumed by
tribal members is probably higher than that used to develop the advisory.
The Tribe plans to develop its own advisory and to research how advisories are perceived. One
approach may involve anthropological research combined with elements of a consumption
survey. This would look at what was consumed in the past, what is consumed now, and whether
advisories have had any effect. This would be done through interviews with tribal elders. They
will also evaluate particular risks for tribal members, including increased caloric demands or
increased respiration, as well as possible genetic susceptibility. This will be done in cooperation
with state and federal counterparts.
North Dakota’s fish Consumption Advisory: Based on Average Concentration.
Michael Eli, North Dakota Department of Health
This presentation will describe North Dakota’s experience in developing fish advisories based on
average concentrations of contaminants in fish.
Fish were first collected for analysis of mercury concentrations in 1991, with a focus on Devils
Lake. An advisory was issued that summer. In the spring of 1992, the state issued a broader
advisory, which included ten lakes and reservoirs and two rivers.
Sampling has continued since that time, reaching a peak in the mid I 990s, when more than 30
lakes and 20 species of fish were included. In the late I 990s, the state was not able to collect fish
for as many lakes, so several lakes were de-listed due to lack of data and an analysis suggesting
that bioaccumulation was decreasing. The focus changed to particular lakes with a lot of fishing.
In January 2001, the state issued the first statewide advisory, which remains in effect. The
rationale for the advisory was that mercury occurs in all lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams in
the state. For advice to be useful, it has to be simple. The earlier advisories had 20 species of
fish and 30 water bodies and were too complicated. The new statewide advisory was based on
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 44
-------
existing data and standard assumptions. It used a reference dose of 0.1 ig/kg/d for sensitive
populations.
We pooled all data available and looked at the relationship between length of fish and mercury
concentration. The relationship varied between lakes. We also look at the curve to select the
appropriate fish size for the statewide advisory. The lengths were converted into three categories
— small, medium, and large.
NORTH DAKOTA ADVISORY FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF FISH
The chart çdies to fisheries of the slate: data fc4 ’ crappie, trwl arti white suCkef are inc 11plete, arsi the fish in
many lakes, resers rs ard rivers have not been sampled. It does not consider other himan ex xeures of
meU-i 1merojrv as mercuryt, sud-i as eatir ean ‘ other inland fish.
Meal frequencies: none -- no isumpiion rd sed
oo ’asionat— oo ’asional consumption. ito 2 meals per nxinlh. avoid eating whDppers
n 1 erate — moderate consumption, 2 to 4 meals per month
frequent—frequent consumplion, 4 to 8 meals per rm inth
&immary: ‘chidren S & vounger, çreqrsant women and nursirsi rnen c n oooa onally eat only smaller fish:
a rsl chikiren c er ages ard all other adults oan frequen1h eat smallerfish s4-ile limflinq the n’,eals of medium arid
largerfish.
——-- Fkh Sizo
Fish Species Smaller or Medium or Larger
BASS, largemc’uth Children S & wr ter occasional none none
smallmouth ftegnant &nursirsj s nen occasional occasional none
srral I cr sizes are less Children over S & under 16 n’sxlerate nxiderats. n’Dier ’ate
than 16 inches
Al other people frequent nxderate noderate
BASS.white ChildrenS&,tucc*er occasional none none
smaller s es are less keqnant & nursing women m derate n ierale occasional
than 12 inches Children over S & under 15 frequent n derate occasional
All other people frequent moderate n-o derate
CHINOOK SALMON Children S & wnger moderate occasional occasional
‘sgnant & nursing women moderate rroderate occasiora I
smaller sizes are less
than 19 Inches Children over 5 & under 16 frequent moderate rrKxierate
Al other pao e frequent frequent moderate
NORTHERN PIKE Children S & ur a ’ moderate o c casiornl occasional
smaller sizes are less Pregnant & nursing women rrsxlerate moderate occasional
than 28 inches Children over S & under 15 frequent moderate occasional
Al other o le frequent nxsierate mnxlerate
WALLEVE Children S & urster moderate occasional occasional
CHANNEL CATFISH r tegnant & nursing women rrs erate moderate occasional
smaller sees are less Children over S & under 16 frequent rnxierate mnxlerate
than 22 inches All other people frequent rrnderate moderate
YELLOW PERCH Children 5 & y r er n erate moderate occasional
Pregnant S nursing women moderate moderate occasional
smaller sizes are less
than 11 inches Children over 5 & under 15 frequent moderate n-nderate
All other people frequent frequent frequent
2002 Amencan Fishenes Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 45
-------
The reason to use the mean concentrations to develop a statewide advisory is that we are using
individual fish concentrations rather than lake averages. These are composite data. It also
provides more flexibility to the consuming public by giving people more opportunity to keep and
eat fish. We conclude that this provides an adequate level of rotection and that 75% of fish will
be below the consumption level anyway. By contrast, the 95 percentile would recommend that
people only consume walleye of 13 inches or smaller.
Mercury Advisories in tile State of Pennsylvania.
Bob Frey, State of Pennsylvania
The presentation will address the development of site specific advisories and a statewide
advisory for mercury.
In April 2001, Pennsylvania issued a large number of site and species specific mercury
advisories. The technical group had wanted to issue advisories before that but was asked by the
management to wait until the release of the National Academy of Sciences analysis of the EPA
RfD. They used the EPA RID and meal-specific advisory groups based on EPA’s fact sheet
(EPA 823-F99-016, September 1999) but adjusted the trigger levels a bit. They issued nearly 80
new advisories.
The advisory triggers used were modified slightly from those recommended by EPA, as shown
in this table:
* Eight meals per month
The distribution of mercury concentrations by the advisory type is shown in this table, which
summarizes ten years of data and 551 mercury data points.
Category of Advice
Unrestricted
One meal per month
Two meals per month
One meal per month
Six meals per year
Do not eat
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminanis in Fish: Proceedings
Category of Advice
Pennsylvania (Hg ppm)
US EPA
(Hg ppm)
Unrestricted
0— 0.12
>
0.08 — 0.12*
One meal per month
0.13 — 0.25
>
0.12 — 0.24
Two meals per month
0.26 — 0.50
>
0.32 — 0.48
One meal per month
0.51 — 1.0
>
0.48 — 0.97
Six meals per year
1.01 — 1.9
>
0.97 — 1.9
Donoteat
>1.9
>1.0
Number
222
169
118
37
5
0
Percent of samples
40
31
21
7
>1
0
46
-------
Values for key species were walleye (n = 44) 0.069 to 1.56 ppm; largemouth bass (n = 54) 0.078
to 0.99 ppm; smailmouth bass (n = 97) 0.06 to 0.73 ppm; brown trout (n = 75) 0.007 to 0.86
ppm; carp (n = 50) 0.04 to 0.58 ppm; and channel catfish (n = 37) 0.027 to 0.78 ppm.
Species fell out differently into advisory groups. Walleye had 7% unrestricted; 30% one meal
per week; 41% two meals per month; 11% one meal per month; 5% six meals per year; none at
do not eat. Substantially more largemouth and smalimouth bass were in the unrestricted
category.
The state also issued a statewide advisory recommending consumption of no more than one
meal per week of recreationally caught sport fish, in response to questions from anglers who
asked about water bodies and species not covered in the site specific advisories. The reasons
include the fact that many waters and species are not tested and there could be additional
contaminants.
As a result of this, they no longer issue site specific one meal per week advice.
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations have implications in Pennsylvania. The
state has listed water bodies with advisories on the 303(d) of impaired water bodies, which puts
them in line for a TMDL. Things changed when they issued the statewide advisory, as they had
eliminated one of the advisory categories. How to handle a statewide advisory for 303(d)
purposes is an important question. Any place with actual fish tissue data that would result in an
advisory should be listed for 303(d) purposes. Once you have a statewide advisory, you have
two options. You could list only water bodies with an advisory of two meals per month (or more
restrictive advice.) A second option would be to include waters where actual data fall into the
one meal per week group. There are varying opinions about the best option, but the 303(d) list
was recently submitted, and we will see how this falls out.
Minnesota Statewide Fish Consumption Advice.
Pat Mccann, Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota is famous for being the land of 10,000 fish advisories.
We now have a statewide advisory, but also still issue site specific advice.
The reasons to issue a statewide advisory were because, while the state cannot test every species
and every water body, we observe that every fish we do test has some mercury in it. Because of
the widespread mercury, we have concluded that some advice should be available for every
water body. Previously, some had the misconception that all of the water bodies on the advisory
list were bad, while everything else was clean. This is not true. It is important to have advice
that applies everywhere, particularly for sensitive populations. This will also simplify
communication to the public.
A key question is whether the available data can be used to predict mercury concentrations in
untested water bodies. We have concluded that they can be, in a general sense, though not in a
rigorous sense. There is high variability in production of methyl mercury between water bodies
for reasons that are not well understood. Our sampling is not designed for predictive purposes,
and there are issues of selection bias and sample type consistency.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 47
-------
The approach used to develop advisories is a “weight of evidence” approach. We analyze data by
species and geographic location, look at harvest rates, and get input from other agencies.
Consistency with nearby states is also a consideration.
In 2001, we developed a new brochure to communicate a simple message and provide statewide
advice. We hoped it would help people decide whether they were at risk and needed more
detailed information.
For the general population, consumption is unlimited for panfish fish caught in Minnesota for
(sunfish, crappie, perch and bullheads.) For all other fish, the recommended limit is one meal
per week.
Walleyes, northern pike, smalimouth bass,
largemouth bass, channel catfish, flaihead catfish
whee sucker drum, burbot, souger, carp,
wh e bass, rock boss, other species
Co.. dd f
—.-— .*
I
meal a week
Limit the following species: shark, swordfish,
—
I
meal a month
file fish, k’m mackerel
1ngnd dul t sedfishjustdegaca f ionorneseasoncaneotfishtwiceasohen
as recommended in these guidelines.
For sensitive populations, the panfish meal limit is now one per week; for most fish, one meal
per month; for walleyes over 20 inches and some others we recommend no consumption.
2002 Ameilcan Flsheiies Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Fish: Pmceedings 48
Safe Eating Guidelines: General Population
For adults who eat fish all year long*
Kind of fish How often can you eat it?
Fish ivgkt I M iesota
Sunfish, crappie, yellow perch, bullheads unlimited amount
-------
Safe Eating Guidelines: Special Populations
For pregnant women, women who may become pregnant and children under age 5 ’
Kind of fish
Fish caught m Minnesota.
Sunfish, crappie, yellow perch, bullheads
—0’ - 1 meal a week
Walleyes shorter than 20 inches, northern pike
shorter than 30 inches, smollmouth bass,
largemouth bass, channel onifish, flathead catfish — I meal a month
white sucke drum, burbot, sauger, carp,
while buss, rock bass, other species
Walleyes longer than 20 inches,
northern pike longer than 30 inches, muskellunge
Commerdal fish:
• Shark, swordfish, tile fish, king mackerel
• Other commercial species, including canned tuna
—* Do not eat.
The materials also show waters with more restrictive advice.
Special Note:
Please see the two
tables on page 6
for exceptions to
these guidelines.
These exceptions Ore
for eating fish from
ertoin Minnesota
waters known to have
higher levels of
contaminants. —,
Do not eat.
See MDH’s brochure, “An Expectant Mother’s
Guide to Eating Minnesota Fish, “for guidelines.
There is no change in these guidelines for eating fish just during vacation or one season.
Other agencies provided input. The Department of Natural Resources wanted to continue to
provide site specific advice and point out less contaminated water bodies. They were concerned
about developing lists of “bad” waters. Future funding for monitoring became a problem, as
money was cut from the budget due to the statewide advisory. The pollution control agency has
concerns about implications for the TMDL listing process. They had listed any lake or water
body with an advisory. Now they use a cutoff of 0.2 ppm. They were also concerned about
future monitoring funding. Statewide advice fell more in line with their work on trends. The
tourism agency was concerned about impacts on tourism.
The meal advice categories for women and children for mercury provide for unlimited
consumption at less than 0.05 ppm; one meal per week from 0.06 to 0.2 ppm; one meal per
month from 0.21 to 1.0 ppm; and no consumption above 1.0 ppm.
There are more than 3,500 data points for mercury in fish in Minnesota. We looked at means,
which do not differ that much from the upper 95% confidence interval. Both are in the same
advice category. We decided to do a length cutoff because otherwise many waters would be on
the do not eat list, We also wanted to emphasize that bigger fish tend to be more contaminated.
A regression analysis did not help pick a cutoff.
Communication strategies for the general statewide advice include a brochure called “Eat Fish
Often,” a guide for mothers, on-line resources, and a page in the fishing regulations. Site
specific advice is provided on the agency web site and on DNR lake reports.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 49
How often can you eat it?
-------
Regional F/c/i Advisory for the Mississi;opi Delta.
Henry Folmar, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
The Mississippi Delta is very southern but also different from the rest of the south. It is highly
productive but has low biological diversity. People have a deep and abiding respect for the
Mississippi River. Fishing is an important part of life, and most people eat what they catch.
DDT is not a new problem in the Delta. It was heavily used after World War II. It lasts a long
time, even though banned in 1972. Use of DDT led to the decline in fish eating species like the
bald eagle and brown pelican. Fish advisories were issued for certain Delta lakes in the I 970s.
Recent studies show that the Mississippi has some of the highest DDT levels in the country.
Whole carp had the highest levels of any 112 sites monitored by the US Geological Survey.
Yazoo Refuge was closed to fishing due to DDT. Levels were also found to be extremely
elevated in the delta.
Levels of DDT in fish are declining. Data show a three-fold decline since 1984 at the Yazoo
River at Redwood Mississippi in both DDT and toxaphene. Some data show a greater decrease
since the I 970s.
Concerns remain because the levels considered to be safe have also changed. The Food and
Drug Administration rescinded its action level in 1993. States were encouraged to use guidance
from US EPA that was more protective.
The Mississippi Fish Advisory Task Force developed new criteria for DDT and toxaphene in
fish. The task force included several agencies, followed EPA guidance and also sought advice
from experts from outside the government. The criteria are shown in this table.
Mississippi Fish Advisory Criteria for DOT and Toxaphene
Consumption Ash Concentration Fish Concentration of
Advice of DDT in ppm Toxaphene in ppm
No ‘imit <1.0 <0.4
Two meals per month 1.0 to 5.9 0.4 to 1.9
No consumption 6.0 2.0
A Mississippi Delta fish tissue study was conducted to evaluate DDT and toxaphene in edible
fish tissue at ten sampling sites. These data were used to evaluate human health risks and to
develop an approach to future monitoring.
The study was conducted in 2000. All largemouth bass, bream, crappie, freshwater drum and all
catfish less than 3 pounds were below the criteria. 66% of samples were below the criterion for
DDT; 73% for toxaphene. Farm raised catfish were below the criteria for both pollutants.
All ten sites had at least two samples above the consumption criteria. Some form of advisory
was warranted at each site.
2002 American Rsheries Society
Forum on contaminants in risI i: Proceedings 50
-------
The group developed Mississippi’s first regional advisory. For buffalo, gar, carp, and catfish
over 22 inches, recommended consumption was two meals per month. No limit was adopted for
drum, bream, small catfish, largemouth bass, and crappie.
The advisory applies to the Delta from Memphis to Vicksburg but not to the Mississippi River or
oxbow lakes connected to the river.
In addition, for one lake, Roebuck Lake, they recommended no consumption of buffalo. The
Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks also issued a commercial fishing ban for
Roebuck Lake.
KEY FOR FISH BELOW
:LTA FISH ADVISORY
B REAM
MIUIUIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
For more information call toll free - 1-888-786-0661
There was a public media campaign that included news conferences, new releases, staged
sampling demonstration photo-ops, radio and TV spots on morning shows, call in shows on
gospel and blues radio stations, distribution of letters and posters to stores, door to door
canvassing in some communities, and signs at boat ramps. Letters and brochures were mailed to
1400 churches; 16,000 coloring books were distributed; and posters and brochures were placed at
WIC offices. The materials were also translated into Spanish.
Next steps are to continue monitoring for both hot spots and areas that can be removed from the
advisory, to continue outreach efforts, and to develop TMDLs.
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
J LIIIIIIIYUFFALO
JOT EAT ANY BUFFALO FISH FROM ROEBUCK LAKE
LARGE CATFISH
SRSAT*R TH*R 22 IN.
GAR
BUFFALO
TFITWOF
—
MONTH (
L
Iwo LIb lT owi.t:2 EL ___
BASS
51
-------
Advisories Based on Eight Meals per Month.
Joe Beaman, Maryland Department of the Environment
Maryland provides guidance for three populations: the general population, women of child-
bearing age, and young children. The state uses three meal sizes (eight ounces for the general
population; six ounces for women; and three ounces for children to age six).
Advisory recommendations are provided for the following consumption rates: less than 1 meal
per month (4-11 meals per year), I meal per month, 2 meals per month, 4 meals per month, and 8
meals per month. The decision to provide recommendations for up to 8 meals per month was a
policy decision focused on protecting frequent fish consumer groups based on anecdotal
knowledge about these populations in Baltimore City, urban Maryland near the Potomac, and the
Eastern Shore. It was not based on a formal exposure assessment.
What does eight meals per month mean?
For carcinogens (PCBs for example), the resulting threshold ranges are 20 to 39 ppb for general
population and 17 to 33 ppb for women of child-bearing age. This coffesponds to a 1 per 10,000
risk level. Maryland assumes 30% cooking loss for carcinogenic compounds.
For non-carcinogens (methyl mercury), the threshold for eight meals per month are 59 to 117
ppb for the general population, 54 to 107 ppb for women of child bearing age; 13 to 26 ppb of
PCBs for children to age six; and 32 to 64 ppb of mercury for children to age six. This is based
on an Rfl) of 0.1 Ig/kg/d for mercury and 0.05 for PCBs.
Decision rules establishing data sufficiency thresholds state that an advisory may be developed
for a minimum of 5 fish. Decision rules for temporal relevance allowed data from 1995 - 2001
to be used to establish advisories released in 2001.
The data supporting the statewide mercury advisories came from the Department of Natural
Resources, which sampled 20 lakes of 80 acres or more. Maryland has about 372 lakes or
impoundments. Species collected were largemouth bass, smalimouth bass, bluegill, sunfish, and
black crappie. About 59% of the lakes greater than 50 acres had sufficient data for advisories
for bass, bluegill and/or crappie. For each species, a geometric mean was calculated for each
lake and then the average of the geometric means for the lakes was used as the threshold to set
the advisory. Three lakes had higher values than all others and were separated out and given
special advisories.
PCBs advisories for eight meals a month were issued for white perch for rivers on the lower
Eastern Shore, including the Choptank, Nanticoke, and Pocomoke. The average PCB level in
these tidal tributaries was 27 ppb.
The advantage of issuing an advisory based on consumption of eight meals per month is that it
provides information to fish consumers including low-level subsistence users about locations and
species of fish that can be consumed frequently (2 times per week) without concern about health
effects. The disadvantage is that any advisory may discourage fish consumption, even of
relatively clean fish.
A key outstanding issue is that data on exposure are lacking. The state is currently conducing
mail surveys among licensed anglers and interviews in urban areas. They will use this
information in tailoring the advisory recommendations to the populations of concern based on
their specific consumption habits.
2002 American Asheries Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Fish: Pmceedings 52
-------
Bob Brodberg: question for Henry Folmar on the risk communication. What did this cost?
Henry Folmar: I don’t know. There was no budget for it, and we just bootlegged it out of other programs. We have
not put a pencil to this.
Bob Brodberg: Did you look at mercury?
Henry Folmar: We did not look at mercury in these fish but have not previously found mercury in the fish.
Sediment conditions do not appear to be favorable to methylation.
Andy Smith: Tell us what sort of mercury levels you have seen? Jam also very impressed with the risk
communication program. Are you doing an,v assessment or evaluation?
Henry Fohnar: For mercury, they are still using an action level of 1 ppm. The levels they are seeing in largemouth
bass are around 0.2 or 0.3. As far as outreach, there is nothing on the books to target evaluation. There is a guy who
is doing a consumption survey and they are going to try to persuade him to repeat it.
Andy Smith: How did you actually develop materials? Did you use focus groups?
Henry Folmar: We did not officially call it a focus group but had citizen input from people on the Delta.
Question: I want to turn Andy’s question back to him. What is the response in Maine to the advisories in general?
Are people following them?
Eric Frohmberg: We do have a follow up program to look at awareness of advisories. Henry presented some of the
data yesterday. It is better than it used to be and not what we wish it would be.
Sue Peterson: We have not received any feedback as yet. We may develop a video and use tribal language.
Andy Smith: We will be getting data from pregnant women including hair mercury and survey information. For the
general population the advice is not that restrictive. We have some data on angler behavior. Most anglers are not
eating enough to be affected by advisory in the first place.
Question: Remember the presentation on PAHs off the coast ofAlaska. The salmon there that were smoked were
much higher than salmon from oil spill site. Are you thinking about putting advice about smoking in advisories?
Sue Peterson: We could consider that in the future.
Jeff Bigler: I don’t recall that there was risk information presented. It might be worth looking at risk.
John Persell: We could look at this. But remember that native people have been smoking fish for generations.
Bob Brodberg: In Maine, do you sample marine waters at all? How does this match up with statewide advice?
Eric Frohmberg: We do look at marine waters and shellfish. The big marine species that have been a problem are bluefish
and striped bass. Our striped bass and bluefish advisories, however, are driven by PCBs, not mercury.
2002 Amencan Fisheries Society
Forum on contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 53
-------
VIII. Approaches to Considering Benefits in Advisory Programs
Perspectives on Considering R,.cks from Contaminants in Fish.
John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab
People like good news better than bad news. For high end consumers, people are paying
attention to the message that fish is good food.
People may reserve judgment about information they hear. Think of cigarettes and smoking.
Science told us that all of those toxics in the body were bad for us, but there were also scientists
on the other side that kept things from advancing.
Working with Indian people, the feedback is that they don’t trust what we say as scientists, and
they will make their judgments based on what they feel is best for them. Our credibility and our
ability to communicate results are key. We can do the best science in the world, but if we can’t
communicate it then we are spinning our wheels. One of the major goals that I have set out is to
shine light on the information that we have. Let’s communicate risk as best we can. I am
pleased to see the outstanding message development presented by the gentleman from
Mississippi.
Let’s also consider how we got to where we are today and how we can fix the problem. I never
go to a meeting with the tribal government to communicate risks without somebody saying, what
are we doing about this? The Minnesota Chippewa tribe wants their treaty rights back. They
want to be able to eat these resources at a level that would sustain them.
Three years ago the tribe embarked on a project to determine contaminants in nature’s food
sources and alternatives. They had been measuring contaminants in fish since about 1992. They
developed guidance for what might be safely consumed for three groups: women and children,
50 kg adults; 70 kg adults. They have been looking lake by lake and looking at multiple species,
trying to inform their decision making process. They are also looking at risk assessment process
itself including the assumptions made. Do we consider all contaminants? What about those we
are not aware of? If we have information on particular contaminants, that is the easy part. What
about those we have no information for? Maybe we need to include a factor for these. Do we
consider multiple contaminants? What about endocrine disrupters? Cancer is not the only
endpoint of concern.
Fish is good food. It has cultural and spiritual values. It helps to keep culture alive. What does
it do to the human spirit when we know that fish is contaminated? What are the ethical
concerns? If fish is a gift of the creator, then what does it mean if it is contaminated? What does
it mean to people who think that they are the protectors?
We need to consider additional species. It may be important to look at moose, grouse and
rabbits. We are looking at wild rice. Dioxin has been found at 0.6 pg/g in rice kernels. In a year
or two, the tribe expects to publish their first comprehensive food guidance addressing all food
sources including grocery stores and commodity foods. They are going to do some local testing
and look at patterns. They want to be accurate with what they are going to put out in guidance.
They will be supporting a health and well being paradigm. The hope is that in the future we will
be looking at this in a different way and look at restoration of the resource.
2002 Amerkan Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 54
-------
Impacts of Fish Contamination on the Columbia River Basin.
Paul Lumley, Yakama Tribe
The Columbia River basin is large. There are four member tribes of the Columbia River Inter
Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) — the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama.
There are a total of 14 tribes in the Columbia River basin.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the likelihood that Native American tribal members
may be exposed to high levels of contaminants from eating Columbia River Basin fish.
The first phase was a fish consumption survey, and the second phase a fish contamination study.
The fish consumption survey investigated two questions: are tribal members eating more fish
than average and are they being protected by water quality standards based on a national fish
consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day?
Fish species identified as important for the basin include salmon, rainbow trout, mountain
whitefish, eulachon, lamprey, walleye, white sturgeon, and largescale sucker. A hypothetical
diet was constructed with these species. The fish consumption survey found tribal members with
average consumption rates ate two meals per week and those with high consumption rates ate 12
meals per week. Tribal member eat about nine times the amount of the general public. Children
eat about three times the national average. Adults eat 58.7 grams per day on average. They are
probably not protected by the water quality standards based on lower rates.
The goals of the fish contamination study were to determine whether fish were contaminated,
whether there were differences in concentrations between species and locations, and whether
tribal members face a higher risk. The study was not designed to evaluate people’s health,
intergenerational risks, rates of disease, or sources of chemicals.
The study sites were not random and were mostly on the Columbia River main stem at places
where tribal members catch fish. 300 samples were obtained from tribal fishers and hatcheries,
with three replicates per site. The resident species included white sturgeon, mountain whitefish,
rainbow trout, walleye, bridgelip, and largescale sucker. Some are commercial species. The
anadromous species included Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, eulachon (smelt), and
Pacific lamprey. Samples were analyzed in various ways because people eat fish in various
ways. The samples were analyzed for 132 chemicals.
The resident fish were found to have considerably higher concentrations of many contaminants
than the anadromous fish. For aroclors, resident fish were higher, but Pacific lampreys also
showed 100 ppb. Mercury showed up in both at similar amounts.
The total cancer risk was calculated to be 4 x I 0 for tribal members. This is for the average
consumer. Some are higher consumers. The pollutants contributing the greatest risk varied by
species, though PCBs, mercury, dioxins, DDT, and arsenic seemed to be most important overall.
The hazard index for non-cancer effects was above three, when hazard indices for all types of
effects were added.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 55
-------
The most contaminated fish were found in upper parts of the basin. There is some contamination
from Lake Roosevelt. They will be bringing in more tribes to discuss these results.
The conclusions of the study were that the fish were contaminated; that there are differences
between species and locations, and that tribal members are exposed to a higher risk. Tribal
members eat a lot more salmon (anadromous species) than resident fish.
US EPA has concluded that the Columbia River basin results are similar to other large river
basins in the US in terms of contamination. Industrial groups seem to be honing in on this as a
reason to avoid addressing the critical issues. This is a significant issue for the Columbia River
tiThes.
The four member tribes do not have advisories. The report received considerable news coverage.
If they issued fish advisories, they would have to be careful and be scientifically credible.
Some of the issues to consider include the following.
Salmon is very important from a cultural perspective. It is the first food placed on the table at a
long house ceremony.
The tribes have treaty rights. Treaties of 1885 guarantee the “right of taking fish at all usual and
accustomed places.” They take this very seriously. Some sites have been covered up by the
dams. The Columbia River basin used to produce more salmon than any other basin in the
world, and now it produces more electricity. When the tribes signed the treaties they never
envisioned the fish would become toxic.
The organizations primary mission is to restore the fisheries, not human health. The tribes are
struggling with the report because they are trying to get people to return to a traditional diet
2002 Arnecican Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings
• Study Sites
Dam Locations
Cotuvnb4a River
Clearwater River
/
200 M l . .
56
-------
because of other health problems. People are demanding answers from leaders about cleaning up
contaminants. People see health as embodying physical, mental, spiritual, and cultural qualities.
Fish preparation methods may be an important issue. Canning has become more popular.
Drying salmon is healthier. They are advising people go to back to the more traditional ways.
Some traditional methods may not be healthy, however, such as whole fish soup and eating
salmon eggs.
There are issues about the health of the fish. Research needs are significant and include
pathology, toxicology, etc. The tribes do not have staffing to address fish health. Fish health
issues tend to get lost in the shuffle compared to human health. There is a need for more
discussion of stewardship of the fish. It is difficult for tribes to do it as well, but we need to
consider this.
The economic benefits of the fish in the Columbia River Basin are substantial, amounting to
about $2 million for tribal members annually. The tribes are looking at ways to add value to
product by smoking, etc. The recent EPA report has impacted tribal ability to market salmon.
Farmed fish may be ten times more toxic than wild fish.
Environmental cleanup is important. There are a lot of legal and political issues. The
agricultural industry is large. Cleanup would take a major effort. Environmental justice is a
concern. Risk assessments need to be done by and for the tribes, but they do not have the staff
within their governments to do this at present. There are limitations to tribes addressing these
issues. Understanding and communicating results to tribal members are important. EPA is not
planning to use report to advise the general public. The tribes have to address it. They are
initiating an effort to coordinate tribal efforts.
The tribes do not want to see another study presented to them. They want to see something done
about it. The next step is to look at action to clean up the environment.
Dietary Benefits and Ri.cks in Alaskan Villages.
Suanne Unger, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association
The focus of the project is on community health issues and community services. There are
community-based coordinators in the villages involved in the study.
There are more than 229 tribes in Alaska. In rural Alaska, the subsistence harvest is about 375
pounds of fish, marine and terrestrial mammals per person per year, compared to an average US
annual consumption of 255 total pounds of meat, fish, and poultry.
In Alaska, the main subsistence food is fish, at about 65%. Common species are salmon, halibut,
herring, whitefish, cod, and Dolly Varden. Subsistence is very important in Alaska. It is not
just to supplement the diet.
In the Aleutian/Pribilof region, at St Paul Island, subsistence harvest and use of marine mammals
is almost equal to that of fish. The percentage of households that use marine mammals varies
among communities, though the highest rates are at Atka, Nikolski, and Akutan, at more than
90%.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish; Proceedings 57
-------
St Paul Island
JAtka I
... b 0 ...o
The purpose of the study is to encourage healthy dietary choices by raising awareness about the
rural diet and the risks and benefits unique to foods consumed at Atka and St. Paul. There are a
lot of unique situations in rural Alaska with regard to risks and benefits. The intention is to
produce a process that other tribes can replicate.
There is currently no consumption advisory in Alaska except that unlimited consumption is
recommended by the state health department due to benefits. This is a confusing message to
people. People are concerned about increasing cancer and increasing blights and sores that they
observe on fish. Part of the purpose is to help tribes recognize they can start to monitor local
species and work at the community level.
Key questions that people have are: Is traditional food safe to eat? What are benefits and risks
of traditional foods? What are the benefits and risks of changing from a traditional diet to a more
store-bought diet?
The community goal is to restore and maintain healthy lifestyles and cultural connections for this
and future generations and to achieve holistic community health in Atka and St. Paul. This is
defined as a natural interplay among cultural, physical, environmental, economic, spiritual,
social, and emotional forces.
The hypotheses of the study are that: traditional foods are safe to eat and are an important part of
a nutritious balanced diet; maintenance of a traditional diet enhances community cohesion,
cultural connection and community and individual health; increasing substitution of traditional
foods with commercial foods in the diet is resulting in negative health effects; many factors are
influencing the collection, use and benefits of traditional foods.
The two communities were chosen for the study because they have high use of subsistence foods
and are far removed from the urban center of Anchorage. Foods are expensive and there are
limited choices for fresh foods. In St. Paul, testing has shows high levels of persistent organic
pollutants in northern fur seals; people have had dramatic changes in their diet; there is a high
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings
58
-------
rate of diabetes; and there is access to store bought foods. In Atka, some studies have also
shown persistent organic pollutants, and the community is in close proximity to Amchitka Island.
Tracey Lynn Alaska Division of Public Health: The presentation made reference to a POPs study that has been
conducted in parts ofAlaska. It was not a random sample as they tried to encourage certain people to participate.
Question: How do you {tribes) like to be approached by researchers? Particularly one who has never worked with
a community before?
Paul Lumley: The best way to work with a tribe is to develop a relationship with someone in the tribe. Each tribal
government has a different structure.
Marvin Kline, Fort McPoint Environmental Department: Tribes are at a crossroads. I don ‘t think that going back
to traditional ways will help to deal with more powerful culture that we see on TV. Advisories are necessary for
elders and for those who want to practice subsistence. For people like me, who decide to be more assimilated, what
kind of curriculum are you offering or are you encouraging youth to go to college for natural resources
management, etc.
Paul Lumley: A lot of members are focused on cultural practices. In our reservations, the economic conditions are
pretty bad, and there is a lot of apathy. It is important to be careful about recommendations to cut back on the use of
salmon. You can also make advisories but that does not mean people have to abide by them. High consumers may
not change. I will not ask them to reduce salmon use. We need to give them information. If it is true that fish is
contaminated, we need to let them know.
Sue Unger: One thing we are hoping to do is to get students involved in parts of the analysis per the laboratory.
John Persell: The tribe has a critical professions program to encourage people to get into critical training.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 59
-------
IX. Looking at Health Benefits of Consuming Fish
Overview of Benefits of Fish Consumption.
Judy Sheeshka, University of Guelph
Consumption of fish has health benefits that depend on the amount consumed, species, and what
foods are replaced by fish.
Fish are a good food source because they have high quality protein, “good” fatty acids, and
vitamins and minerals. Good quality proteins are those that have all of the essential amino acids
and are available to the body. The proteins in animal foods have all nine amino acids, while
plant foods do not. This is why vegans need to be careful about combining their plant sources to
gain all of the acids. Egg proteins have the highest quality, followed by fish. Sometimes what
appear to be big differences in quality disappear when you look at the actual diet. Substituting
chicken for fish produces fairly similar result while substituting hot dogs results in what
dieticians would consider to be a disaster because of much higher fat concentrations.
Current dietaiy guidelines recommend 25 to 35% of calories from fat. This is based on benefits
of a Mediterranean style diet, with emphasis on low saturated fats. Saturated fats come from
meats, baked goods, and high fat dairy products and tend to raise the “bad” cholesterol. Mono
and poly unsaturated fats (MUFA and PUFA), in fish, vegetable oils, and nuts, are considered to
be good fats. They lower serum LDL (bad cholesterol) and raise HDL (good cholesterol), which
lowers the risk of heart disease.
Both lean fish and fatty fish have 75% heart healthy fat. On average, only 25% of fat in fish is
the bad kind, compared to 40% in beef. This is pretty consistent across species.
Omega 3 fatty acids are a form of PUFA found in fish and nuts. The two of greatest interest are
DHA and EPA. They are not only found in all fish, though the amounts are less in lean fish.
The amount of these acids in fish depends on the temperature of the water where the fish live.
Examples of amounts found in different types of fish are shown below.
N-3 Fatty Acids in Fish (grams per 100 grams of fish)
EPA DHA
Large-mouth bass 0.31 0.45
Coho salmon 0.40 0.66
Rainbow trout 0.47 0.56
Fresh-water drum 0.29 0.37
Channel caffish 0.10 0.14
Northern pike 0.04 0.09
Walleye 0.11 0.29
Yellow perch 0.10 0.22
Fish and mercury and fish and omega acids are another issue. Mercury does not necessarily co-
occur with the beneficial fatty acids because the fatty acids go into fat not muscle. A fatty fish
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Pruceedings 60
-------
can be either low or high in mercury. Walleye tend to be higher in mercury while perch are low;
both have high concentrations of omega 3 acids. Pike has low fatty acids and high mercury.
There is some debate about omega 3 concentrations of farmed fish. The type of feed is
important. Farmed fish are higher in total fat than other fish. The percentage of omega 3 acids
as a percent of total fat is lower. But the amount of omega 3 acids per gram appears to be similar
as in wild fish. It depends on how data are expressed.
Omega 3 fatty acids are important to growth and development and are important during the third
trimester up to twelve months of age. The mother’s consumption leads to the baby’s initial
exposure.
There seems to be agreement that one to two fish meals per week will reduce deaths from
myocardial infarctions and will also reduce all-cause mortality. The acids reduce triglycerides
(which are risk factors for heart disease) in the blood but results for cholesterol are not
consistent.
The literature is difficult to interpret because there are different cardiac endpoints. Mechanisms
are not known. Some effects do not increase with dose. Lean fish produce the same effects as
fatty fish. Addition of I gram per day of fatty acid supplement provides improvement but higher
doses do not. The benefit plateaus at two fish meals per week. This suggests that something else
at play here. Two meals per week of lean fish do not contribute much in the way of omega 3
fatty acids. The studies have only included well educated, relatively wealthy people. The
American Heart Association recommends at least two fish meals a week, and the evidence
clearly supports 1 to 2 fish meals per week.
There is evidence that fish consumption can protect against cancer especially in the GI tract.
Fish consumption may be beneficial for stroke. Research suggests that some kinds of stroke may
be affected and others not. Adding fish to diets designed to lower blood pressure (low salt, etc),
along with weight loss and exercise, reduces blood pressure.
To summarize the findings, all fish contain the omega 3 fatty acids, which are highly beneficial
during pregnancy and the first year of life and which are found in all fish. The effects of fish on
reducing chronic disease may be independent of the effects of fish on blood lipids (including
cholesterol). There is complete consistency in the literature that says that having no fish is a
health risk.
Use of Quallty Adjusted Life Years to Assess Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption.
Rafael Ponce, University of Washington
The benefits and risks of fish consumption are a key concern. Benefits include high nutritional
quality, often inexpensive cost, often ready access, health benefits (cardiovascular disease,
neurodevelopmental), social and cultural associations. Risks include health effects of harmful
environmental toxicants. There are also issues of risk substitution.
A decision problem is how to develop methods and conduct analysis when disparate health
endpoints are at risk.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 61
-------
An ideal policy tool would allow consideration of both risks and benefits; be transparent,
rigorous, and theoretically well-founded; allow consideration of uncertainties, correlations; be
flexible and allow updating with new information.
The available tools include risk analysis (which compares disease incidence to identify best
policy); benefit-cost analysis, (which considers whether the benefits of implementing a policy
outweigh the cost); cost-effectiveness analysis (which considers which policy option has the
greatest effectiveness per unit cost). In any of these analyses, you need similar “units.”
Comparisons of risk are not sufficient for health policy decision making because each risk does
not have the same impact or consequences. Economists try to develop ways to define when
health endpoints are equivalent. Ways to determine when health endpoints are equivalent could
include the following: when an individual is ambivalent between two health effects; when health
effects have comparable duration; when health effects have comparable cost; when health effects
have comparable population impact.
Use of QALYs (quality adjusted life years) is suggested because it is one way to compare. They
divide health impacts into two elements: duration of impact and quality of life. The method
assumes that these are independent. Haifa year of perfect health equals one year of half-health.
This is used for evaluating therapies and screening programs, as well as disease burdens.
To do this, researchers assess preferences and aversions for different health states and rate them
on a scale from 0 to I, where 0 represents death and 1 represents perfect health. There is some
controversy about whether this is an appropriate. Discounting is also a concern; is the value of
life at 55 the same as at 23?
To estimate net benefit/risk, one can use QALYs to adjust dose-response functions. Once
normalized, dose-response functions can be directly compared and then combined to get a net
health impact. This allows for the comparison of endpoints that differ in risk and consequence.
The method is presented in more detailed in two papers [ 29, 30]
This case is presented as an example. It was not intended to be definite. Although realistic data
were used in the derivation of this case, it is not intended as a definitive analysis. A number of
assumptions need careful consideration. It considers only a single benefit and risk endpoint.
The risk is neurodevelopmental delay from prenatal MeHg exposure. The benefit is reduced risk
of fatal myocardial infarction with eating fish. The populations modeled are a general
population of 100,000 and a population of 100,000 women of child-bearing age and their
children. A fish intake of 0 to 300 grams per day of fish was used. This includes 99 th percentile
of fish consumers for the lower 48 states. The concentration of methyl mercury in fish was
assumed to be between 0 and 2 ppm.
To model risks they the Iraqi poisoning data [ 31] and a Weibull dose-response model from US
EPA. They estimated the risk of neurodevelopmental delay from methyl mercury in fish, with a
reduction in the quality of life decreased from on the scale from I to 0.9. They assumed a
lifetime impact of reduced quality of life and used life table to estimate lifespan.
A plot of the extra risk of delayed talking against mercury consumption in fish based on this
approach is shown below.
2002 American Rsheries Society
Forum on Coniaminants in Fish: Proceedings 62
-------
0.35
5,000
0
0.30
.
0.25
0.5 ppm
I
ppm
-C
>
O
I -
o 0.15
.X /
0.10
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consumption Rate, giday
To model benefits they used CDC data to estimate lifespan using mortality rates by all causes
and by MI. They estimated benefits of fish consumption [ 32, 33] and modified the mortality
rates, assuming that the male data was applicable to females.
They aggregated risks and benefits. They assumed equivalent health impacts for the two
outcomes. This is not an appropriate assumption. There is no discounting of effects. There is an
ethical issue here because benefits go to adults and risks to kids. This graph shows the net health
impact.
Net health impacts for 100,000 men and
unequal QALY weights (right graph).
20,000 .-- - — - -
15,000
10,000
.5,000
0.5 ppm
1.0 ppm
.10,000 - --- --2.0 ppm
-15,000
50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consuntion Rate, glday
women with equal QALY weights (left graph) and
30,000 .
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consumption Rate, glday
2002 American Fisheries Soaety
0.5 ppm
lppm
---—2 ppm
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings
63
-------
The conclusion of the analysis is that, depending on the model assumptions, restrictions for the
general population to limit fish consumption could do more harm than good. Recommendations
to limit fish intake during pregnancy would do more good than harm.
The method is amenable to sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. It is possible to adjust the
QALY weights and dose-response modeling. It is amenable to discounting; forecasting and can
consider multiple benefits/risks. It requires data on health effects (dose-response, age-specific
rates, duration of effects). Other issues are that extrapolation of data from animals is uncertain.
It requires quality of life weights for each endpoint.
Tracey Lynn: Have you coiLsidered further developing model to take into account multiple endpoints? Look at
risks and benefits for women, for example.
Response: No
What was the age definition of women and children?
Response: We used life tables; do not specify age. We only looked at the fetus and following the impact over a
lifetime
On the second population there was no benefit because low risk of MI — what about benefit of future reduction of
MI.
Response: We did not consider that.
Re: risk of not eating fIsh. What if you replace it with other good nutrition not hot dogs?
Sheeshka — Researchers concluded that a diet high in fish was healthier
Eric Frohm berg — We should be careful about how commercialfish is described across the slates. King mackerel is
a high mercury fish rarely seen in Maine and another form of mackerel is a poster child for low mercury.
Lynn Tracey. Alaska Division of Public Health: The State ofAlaska would like to see salmon included on list of
good fish.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 64
-------
Literature Cited
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Second National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals. 2003.
2. NRC, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. 2001, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Myers, G.J., et al., Effects of prenatal methylmercury exposure from a high fish diet on
developmental milestones in the Seychelles Child Development Study. Neurotoxicology, 1997.
18(3): p. 8 19-29.
4. Davidson, P.W., Ct a!., Effects ofprenatal and postnatal methylmercury exposure from fish
consumption on neurodevelopment: outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles Child
Development Study. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1998. 280(8): p. 701-
7.
5. Myers, G.J., et al., Secondary analysis from the Seychelles Child Development Study: the child
behavior checklist. Environmental Research, 2000. 84(1): p. 12-9.
6. Axtell, C.D., et a!., Association between methylmercury exposure from fish consumption and
child development at five and a halfyears of age in the Seychelles Child Development Study: an
evaluation of nonlinear relationships. Environmental Research, 2000. 84(2): p. 71-80.
7. Palumbo, D.R., et a!., Association between prenatal exposure to methylmercuiy and cognitive
functioning in Seychellois children: a reanalysis of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Ability
from the main cohort study. Environmental Research, 2000. 84(2): p. 81-8.
8. Weihe, P., et al., Health implications for Faroe islanders of heai y metals and PCBs from pilot
whales. Science of the Total Environment, 1996. 186(1-2): p. 141-8.
9. Grandjean, P., et al., Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal exposure to
methylmercury. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1997. 19(6): p. 417-28.
10. Grandjean, P., et al., Cognitive performance of children prenatally exposed to “safe” levels of
methylmercury. Environmental Research, 1998. 77(2): p. 165-72.
11. Grandjean, P., P. Weihe, and R.F. White, Milestone development in infants exposed to
methylmercury from human milk. Neurotoxicology, 1995. 16(1): p. 27-33.
12. Grandjean, P. and R.F. White, Effects of methylmercury exposure on neurodevelopment. Journal
of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1999. 281(10): p. 896.
13. Grandjean, P., et al., Methylmercury exposure biomarkers as indicators of neurotoxicity in
children aged 7 years. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1999. 150(3): p. 301-5.
14. Yess, N.J., U.S. Food and Drug Administration survey of methyl mercury in canned tuna. J
AOAC Int, 1993. 76(1): p. 36-8.
15. Carrington, C.D. and M.P. Bolger, An exposure assessment for methylmercury from seafood for
consumers in the United States. Risk Analysis, 2002. 22(4): p. 689-99.
16. Stern, A.H., et al., Mercury and methylmercury exposure in the New Jersey pregnant population.
Archives of Environmental Health, 2001. 56(1): p. 4-10.
17. US EPA, Reference Dose for Methylmercury: External Review Draft. 2000, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment: Washington, DC.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: ProceedingS 65
-------
18. US EPA, Response to Comments of the Peer Review Panel and Public Comments on
Methylmercury. 2001. p. 23.
19. Rice, D.C., R. Schoeny, and K. Mahaffey, Methods and rationale for derivation of a reference
dose for methylmercury by the U.S. EPA. Risk Analysis, 2003. 23(1): p. 107-15.
20. Vabter, M., et al., Longitudinal study of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in blood and urine
ofpregnant and lactating women, as well as in umbilical cord blood. Environmental Research,
2000. 84(2): p. 186-94.
21. Salonen, J.T., et a!., Mercury accumulation and accelerated progression of carotid
atherosclerosis: a population-based prospective 4-year follow-up study in men in eastern
Finland. Atherosclerosis, 2000. 148(2): p. 265-73.
22. Salonen, J.T., K. Nyyssonen, and R. Salonen, Fish intake and the risk of coronary disease. New
England Journal of Medicine, 1995. 333(14): p. 937.
23. She, J., et al., PBDEs in the San Francisco Bay Area: measurements in harbor seal blubber and
human breast adipose tissue. Chemosphere, 2002. 46(5): p. 697-707.
24. Hale, R.C., et al., Polvbrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants in Virginia freshwater fishes
(USA). Environmental Science and Technology, 2001. 35(23): p. 4585-91.
25. Ryan, J.J., et at., Organohaline compounds, 2002. 58: p. 173-176.
26. Petreas M, S.J., Brown FR, Winkler J, Windham G, Rogers E, Zhao G, Bhatia R, Charles Mi.
2003. High Body Burdens of 2,2’,4,4’ - Tetrabromo Diphenyl Ether (BDE-47) in California
Women., High Body Burdens of 2,2’,4,4 - Tetrabromo Diphenyl Ether (BDE-47) in California
Women. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003. doi:1O.1289/ehp.6220. lOnline 10 March
2003J.
27. EPA, U., Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories.
Volume 1 Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition. 2000, US Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Water.: Washington, DC.
28. Schmitt, C.J. and S.E. Finger, The effects of sample preparation on measured concentrations of
eight elements in edible tissues of fish from streams contaminated by lead mining. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 1987. 16(2): p. 185-207.
29. Ponce, R.A., E.Y. Wong, and E.M. Faustman, Quality adjusted 4fe years (QALYs) and dose-
response models in environmental health policy analysis -- methodological considerations.
Science of the Total Environment, 2001. 274(1-3): p. 79-91.
30. Ponce, RA., et a!., Use of quality-adjusted l fe year weights with dose-response models for public
health decisions: a case study of the risks and benefits offish consumption. Risk Analysis, 2000.
20(4): p. 529-42.
31. Marsh, D.O., et al., Fetal methylmercury poisoning. Relationship between concentration in single
strands of maternal hair and child effects. Archives of Neurol, 1987. 44(10): p. 1017-22.
32. Daviglus, M.L., et al., Fish consumption and risk of coronary heart disease. What does the
evidence show? European Heart Journal, 1997. 18(12): p. 1841-2.
33. Daviglus, M.L., et at., Fish consumption and the 30-year risk offatal myocardial infarction. New
England Journal of Medicine, 1997. 336(15): p. 1046-53.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 66
-------
Append ices
Appendix 1: Conference Agenda
Appendix 2: Conference Steering Committee Members
Appendix 3: Biographies of Speakers, Moderators, and Steering Committee Members
Appendix 4: Participants
Appendix 5: Slides from Presentations
2002 Amencan Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 67
-------
Appendix 1: Conference Agenda
Sunday October 20
8:30 — 10:00 AM Registration in Lobby, Radisson Hotel, Burlington, Vermont
10:00 AM — Noon Regional Work Groups.
Moderators:
Northeast: Razelle Hoffrnan-Contois, State of Vermont
Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Estuary: Tom Fikslin, State of Delaware
Southern: Tracy Shelley, State of South Carolina
Great Lakes: Pat McCann, State of Minnesota
Western: Bob Brodberg, State of California
2:00 — 3:30 PM Topical Discussion Sessions
A. Contaminants in Stocked Fisheries: Potential for contamination, human exposure,
and human health risks.
Moderator: Bob Brodberg, State of California
• PCBs and Hatchery Trout in Pennsvlvania----the Good, the Bad and the Ugly!
John Arway, State of Pennsylvania
• Regulating Contaminants in Feed for Fish. Frances Pelt, US FDA, Center for
Veterinary Medicine
• Round Table Discussion
B. The Use of Composite Samples in the Development of Fish Advisories
Moderator: Razelle Hoffiuian-Contois, State of Vermont
• Issues in the Use of Composite Samples for Assessing Risks to Highly Exposed
Populations. John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab
• Composite Sampling Analysis of Fish. Henry Kahn, US EPA
• Round Table Discussion
3:45 — 5:15 PM Topical Discussions
C. Addressing Multiple Pollutants in Fish
Moderator: Eric Frohmberg, State of Mame
• Current Guidance from EPA on Chemical MD iures. Roseanne Lorenzana, US EPA
• Current Guidance from EPA on Cumulative Risk. Ed Bender, US EPA
• Round Table Discussion
D. TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) and the Interplay Between Water Quality
Programs and Fish Advisory Programs
Moderator: Randy Manning, State of Georgia
• TMDLs and Fish Consumption Advisories. Jim Pendergast, US EPA
• Round Table Discussion
6:00 — 8:00 PM Displays and Materials from Forum Participants
2002 M erican Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings 68
-------
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 69
-------
Monday October 21
8:00 — 8:15 AM I. Review of Agenda and Introductions Jeffrey Bigler, US EPA
Welcome: Gus Rassam, Executive Director, American Fisheries Society
8:15 — 8:30 AM H. Opening Address
• Trends in Chemical Pollutants in Fish. Usha Varanasi, NOAAfNorthwest Fisheries
Science Center
8:30 — 9:15 AM HI. Update on Activities Related to the 2001 Forum
• New Version of the Risk Communication Guidance. Barbara Knuth, Cornell University
• Relationship of TMDLs to Fish Advisories. Jim Pendergast, US EPA
9:15 — 9:45 AM IV. Reports from the Weekend Sessions
• Medical Workshop Report. Henry Anderson, State of Wisconsin
• Report on mercury advisory worksheets. Amy D. Kyle, University of California
Berkeley
10:15 AM — V. Advisories for Commercial Fish: Federal, State, and Tribal Approaches
12:15 PM Moderator: Elaine Krueger, State of Massachusetts
• Advisory Panel to the Food and Drug Administration on Mercury Advisories.
H. Vasken Aposhian, University of Arizona
• FDA National Advisory on Mercury in Commercial Fish. Phil Spiller, US FDA
• State and Tribal Advisories on Contaminants in Commercial Fish.
• Henry Anderson, State of Wisconsin
• Andy Smith, State of Maine
• Gary Ginsberg, State of Connecticut
1:30 — 3:15 PM VI. Hot Topics—Chemicals of Concern
Moderator: Luanne Williams, State of North Carolina
1:30-2:15 PM A. Mercury
• Update: On-going Research. Kate Mahaffey, US EPA
• Setting a Reference Dose (RJD) for Adults. Alan Stern, State of New Jersey
• 2:15-3:15 PM B. Brominated Flame Retardants (Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers or PBDEs)
• Occurrence of PBDEs in Fish. Rob Hale, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
• Toxicity of PBDEs in Fish. Linda Birnbaum, US EPA
• Assessing the Risks of PBDE5. Khizar Wasti, State of Virginia
3:30 — 4:00 PM C. Dioxins and Coplanar PCBs
• Status of the Reassessment. Dwain Winters, US EPA
4:00 — 4:45 PM D. Lead
• The EPA Lead Model. Lon Kissinger, US EPA
• Occurrence of Lead in Fish. Bob Brodberg, State of California
4:45 — 5:15 PM E. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
• Occurrence in Fish. Usha Varanasi, Director, NOAA!Northwest Fisheries
Science Center
2002 American R eries Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 70
-------
Tuesday October 22
8:00 — 10:00 AM V II. Approaches to State and Tribal Advisories
Moderator: Jeff Bigier, US EPA
• Statewide Advisories Based on the 95th Percentile of Concentrations in Fish.
Eric Frohmberg, State of Maine
• The Use ofMaine’s Statewide Advisory in a Tribal Setting
Susan Peterson, Aroostook Band of Micmacs
• Statewide Advisories Based on Average Concentrations in Fish.
Mike Eli, State of North Dakota
• Setting Advisories Specific to Named Water bodies Based with a Default Statewide
Advisory
Bob Frey, State of Pennsylvania
Pat McCann, State of Minnesota
• Regional Advisory for DDTfor the Mississippi Delta
Henry Folmar, State of Mississippi
• Statewide Advisory Based on 8 Meals per Month
Joe Beaman, State of Maryland
10:15 — 11:30 AM Vffl. Approaches to Considering Benefits in Advisory Programs
Moderator: Dan Kusnierz, Penobscot Nation
• John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Research Lab
• Paul Lumley, Yakima Tribe
• Sue Unger, Aleutian-Pribiiof Islands Association
11:30 — 12:30 PM IX. Current Science on the Benefits of Fish Consumption
Moderator: Andy Smith, State of Maine
• Overview of Benefits of Fish Consumption. Judy Sheeshka, University of Gueiph
• Use of Quality-adjusted L fe Years to Assess Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption.
Rafael Ponce, University of Washmgton
• Questions and comments from participants
12:30 — 1:00 PM X. Closing Comments
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 71
-------
Appendix 2: Steering Committee Members
• Jeffrey Bigler, US Environmental Protection Agency, co-chair
• Betsy Fritz, American Fisheries Society, co-chair
• Robert K. Brodberg, California
• Eric Frohmberg, Maine
• Razelle Hoffiuian-Contois, Vermont
• Barbara Knuth, Cornell University
• Jan Lubeck, American Fisheries Society
• Randy Manning, Georgia
• Patricia McCann, Minnesota
• John Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
• Andy F. Smith, Maine
• Amy D. Kyle, steering committee facilitator
2002 American Rsheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 72
-------
Appendix 3: Biographies of Speakers, Moderators, and Steering Committee
Members
Henry A. Anderson, MD
Since 1980 Dr. Anderson has been with the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family
Services, division of Public Health as a Chief Medical Officer and State Environmental and
Occupational Disease Epidemiologist. He is certified by the American Board of Preventive
Medicine with a sub-specialty in occupational and environmental medicine and is a fellow of the
American College of Epidemiology. He holds adjunct Professorships at the University of
Wisconsin - Madison, Department of Population Health and the UW Institute for Environmental
Studies, Center for Human Studies. He has published widely on a broad spectrum of
environmental, occupational and public health topics. For the past twenty years he has conducted
research on the health impact of contaminants in sport fish and risk communication via fish
consumption advisories. He is chair of the Environmental Health Committee of the US EPA
Science Advisory Board and serves on the US EPA Science Advisory Board Executive
Committee. He is a member of the Director’s Advisory Committee, National Center for
Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He is associate editor of the
American Journal of Industrial Medicine and serves on the editorial board of Cancer Prevention
international.
F-I. Vasken Aposhian, PhD
Dr. Aposhian is Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Professor of Pharmacology and a
Member of the Toxicology Center of the University of Arizona. He was a member of the
National Academy of Sciences! National Research Council Committee on Methylmercury
Toxicology and its Committee on Arsenic in Drinking Water. His research deals with arsenic
metabolism and biotransformation in humans as well as how to remove mercury from the human
body. He is very much aware of the problems of the commercial fisherman since he has always
spent a month of each year in the town next to Gloucester, Mass, the oldest fishing harbor in the
USA.
John Arway
John Arway is a fisheries ecologist and Chief of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s
Environmental Services Division. John is responsible for the statewide coordination of the
Commission’s aquatic risk, damage assessment, habitat management and threatened and
endangered species programs. He is also the Commission’s representative on the
Commonwealth’s Fish Tissue Contaminants Technical Workgroup. He has worked for over 22
years in the prediction and evaluation of impacts to aquatic resources living in Commonwealth
waters.
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 73
-------
Edward Bender
Dr. Edward Bender is a Science Administrator on the Science Policy Council staff of the Cross
Programs Branch of OSP. Ed supports the meetings and activities of the Science Policy Council
of EPA. His current focus is on cumulative and environmental risk assessment, risk management
decision making, metals hazard and risk, environmental economics, and foresight analysis.
Prior to joining the SPC staff, he served as a Designated Federal Official to several committees
of EPA’s Science Advisory Board which examined a range of ecological, economic,
engineering, and futures issues. He worked as an aquatic biologist and national expert with the
Enforcement Division, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits on biological monitoring and
water quality assessment for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and
Pretreatment Program under the Clean Water Act. He also worked for the U.S. Army to assess
the effects of manufacturing and base operations on ecological communities of streams and
military lands.
Dr. Bender has more than thirty years experience in environmental monitoring, aquatic ecology
and toxicology. His dissertation, entitled “Recovery of a Macroinvertebrate Community from
Chronic DDT Contamination,” studied the toxic effects of DDT runoff from an abandoned
manufacturing facility on fish and aquatic invertebrates in a south-central Arkansas stream. Ed
chairs a multi-agency panel that monitors a remedial action on DDT contaminated sediment in
Northern Alabama. Ed has a bachelor of science degree in biology from Westminster College, a
master of science degree in zoology from the University of Florida, and a doctorate in biology
from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Linda S. Bimbaum
Dr. Birnbaum is the Division Director of the Experimental Toxicology Division, National Health
and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Dr. Birnbaum received her B.S. in Biology from the University of Rochester, Rochester, New
York. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois. After a semester as a Visiting Assistant Professor of Microbiology at the University of
Illinois and two years of postdoctoral work at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), Dr.
Birnbaum became an Assistant Professor of Science at Kirkland (Hamilton) College in Clinton,
New York. She spent four years at the Masonic Medical Research Laboratory in Utica, New
York, first as a Research Associate, then a Research Fellow and a Research Scientist. She next
accepted a Senior Staff Fellowship with the National Toxicology Program of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Serving
next as a Research Microbiologist and then a Supervisory Research Microbiologist, Dr.
Birnbaum remained with NIEHS for ten years. After a serving as the Head of the Chemical
Disposition Group, NIEHS, she accepted the position of Director, Experimental Toxicology
Division with the U.S. EPA, which is responsible for conducting research to determine the health
effects of inhaled, ingested, and dermally contacted environmental pollutants, and the cause and
effects relationships at pollutant concentrations which mimic those occurring in the environment.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Fonim on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 74
-------
Since going to the EPA, she has served as the Acting Assistant Director for Health for a year and
as the Acting Director of the Human Studies Division for another year, returning to her present
position.
Dr. Birnbaum is the author of over 600 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, abstracts, and
reports. She is an Adjunct Professor in the Toxicology Curriculum and the Department of
Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and in
the Integrated Toxicology Program at Duke University. She is the former Vice President of the
American Aging Association and the Chairperson of the Division of Toxicology of the American
Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. She was recently elected to be the
Vice President-Elect of the Society of Toxicology and will serve as President in 2004-2005.
Robert K. Brodberg
Dr. Brodberg received a BS from Heidelberg College, and the MS and Ph.D. from Bowling
Green State University. Dr. Brodberg is currently a Senior Toxicologist in the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which is part of the California
Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Brodberg has worked in the Pesticide and Environmental
Toxicology Section of OEHHA since 1992. He is currently the Chief of the Fish and Water
Quality Evaluation Unit that is responsible for assessing the potential human health risks of
eating chemically contaminated sport fish and seafood and issuing sport fish consumption
advisories for California. Dr. Brodberg also consults on projects with units of the State Water
Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the Department of Fish and
Game, and other agencies. He worked on developing sediment quality objectives as part of the
Bay Protection and Toxic Clean-up Program and water quality objectives for the Ocean Plan.
Dr. Brodberg was awarded a US EPA cooperative agreement to sample and evaluate chemical
contamination in fish from two California Lakes. He is a member of the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and has authored government reports and journal
publications.
Michael J. Eli
I currently administer the Surface Water Quality Management Program in the North Dakota
Department of Health’ s Division of Water Quality. The Surface Water Quality Management
Program has responsibility for lake and reservoir, river and stream, and wetlands monitoring and
assessment, including the Section 305(b) reporting; Water Quality Standards; the Section 319
Nonpoint Source Management Program; and TMDL development. The program also supports
the state’s fish consumption advisory program through the collection and interpretation of
mercury and other contaminant data in fish throughout the state.
I was first employed by the Department of Health in 1985 where I worked in the Atmospheric
Deposition Program (Acid Rain). I have been in the Division of Water Quality since 1987 and in
my current position since May 1991. I graduated from North Dakota State University with a BS
in Zoology in 1982 and completed my MS degree at NDSU in 1988 where I studied the effects
of weed harvesting on the biota of a small lake in north central North Dakota. I am married and
have two children, both teenagers.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 75
-------
Henry Folmar
Mr. Folmer serves as Laboratory Director for the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality in Pearl, MS. He Received B.S. and M.S. in Fisheries Biology from Auburn University.
Began working with fish tissue monitoring in 1979. Helped found Mississippi’s Fish Advisory
Task Force in 1990, and has served as chairperson for the past 10 years. He is a Charter Member
of the Southern States Mercury Task Force.
Robert Frey
Bob is a Water Pollution Biologist with the Division of Water Quality Assessment and Standards
in the Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management at DEP. He holds a Bachelor of
Science in Education from Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. Among other duties, Bob is
responsible for preparation of the “Pennsylvania Water Quality Assessment” report for
submission to EPA every other year as required by the federal Clean Water Act. He also
coordinates rulemakings for stream use redesignations, including High Quality and Exceptional
Value designations.
Bob has been involved with Pennsylvania’s fish tissue sampling and advisory issuance program
since 1980. He is responsible for scheduling the annual fish tissue sampling conducted by DEP
regional biologists and PFBC Area Fisheries Managers and coordinating laboratory analysis. He
currently serves as Chair of the interagency Pennsylvania Fish Consumption Advisory Technical
Workgroup. In this capacity he reviews and summarizes the fish tissue data collected each year
and formulates advisory recommendations for the interagency workgroup. After the technical
workgroup acts on the advisory recommendations, he forwards the revised advisory listing to an
interagency policy workgroup for approval. Following this approval, Bob coordinates issuance
of needed advisories, publication in the fishing regulations summary booklet, and posting of
advisories on the DEP web site.
Eric J. Frohmberg
Eric Frohmberg is a toxicologist with the Maine Bureau of Health. He has been involved in the
development of the fish consumption advisories as well as the Bureau’s fish advisory
communication program. This has included development of the new brochures, testing efforts
with low literacy focus groups, and development of the fish consumption advisory website.
Gary L. Ginsberg
Dr. Ginsberg is currently a toxicologist at the Connecticut Dept. of Public Health within the
Division of Environmental Epidemiology and Occupational Health. He has responsibility for
human health risk assessments conducted in the state. He is also the project manager for several
cooperative agreements with US EPA. One project is researching pharmacokinetic differences
between children and adults while the other is exploring the influence of genetic polymorphisms
on susceptibility to toxicants and inter-individual variability. Dr. Ginsberg serves as adjunct
faculty at the Yale School of Medicine and also at the University of Connecticut School of
Public Health. He received a Ph.D. in toxicology from the University of Connecticut (Storrs)
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 76
-------
and was a post-doctoral fellow in carcinogenesis/mutagenesis at the Coriell Institute for Medical
Research. Dr. Ginsberg’s toxicology experience has involved a variety of settings: basic
research, teaching, working within the pesticide and consulting industries, and now working in
public health. He has published in the areas of toxicology, carcinogenesis, physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic modeling, and children’s health.
Robert C. Hale
Dr. Hale is Professor, Department of Environmental & Aquatic Animal Health, Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, College of William & Mary. He received a B.S. in Biology and a B.A. in
Chemistry from Wayne State University (MI) and a Ph.D. from the College of William & Mary
(VA) in 1983. He subsequently joined Mobil Corporation’s Environmental & Health Sciences
Laboratory in Princeton as a Research Environmental Chemist. In 1987 he joined the faculty at
VIMS, received tenure in 1993, and was promoted to Professor in 2002. Rob has been involved
for over 20 years in research examining the analysis, fate and environmental effects of organic
pollutants. During this time his research group has authored more than 120 peer-review articles
and scientific presentations. While at VIMS, he has worked with the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, the U.S. EPA and NOAA on a variety of projects, including efforts to
characterize pollutants present in tissues of fish. Dr. Hale is particularly interested in the
sources, fate, bioavailability and effects of brominated flame retardants and other emerging
contaminants. I-fe has recently published papers describing high concentrations of
polybrominated diphenyl ethers in land-applied sewage sludge, World Trade Center dust and
U.S. fishes in Nature, Chemosphere, Environmental Health Perspectives and Environmental
Science & Technology .
Razelle S. Hoffman-Contois
Razelle Hoffrnan-Contois is the public health risk assessment specialist for the Office of
Environmental Health and Toxicology in the Vermont Department of Health in Burlington.
She routinely provides toxicology and risk assessment support for various state entities such as
the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of Fish and Wildlife. Ms.
Hoffman-Contois was instrumental in the development of Vermont’s mercury based fish
consumption advisory. She earned both her B.S. and M.S. at the State University of New York
College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Henry D. Kahn
Senior Statistician, Statistics and Analytical Support Branch
Engineering and Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water
EPA experience: 28 years
Experience in application of statistics to environmental problems including the design and
analysis of studies that involve composite sampling. Received his D.Sc. from George
Washington University, M. S. from the University of Miami, and B. E. S. from Johns Hopkins
University.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 77
-------
Lon Kissinger
Lon Kissinger joined U.S. EPA Region 10 as a risk assessor in 2000, where his main focus has
been on contaminated sediment sites. Lon’s interests include subsistence fish and shellfish
consumption by tribes and other populations, as well as use of geographic information systems to
evaluate sediment contamination. Prior to working with EPA, Lon worked for eleven years with
the Washington State Department of Ecology, where he dealt with implementation of the
Washington State Superfund Regulation, air toxics, data management issues, and contaminated
sediment sites. Lon received his master’s degree in environmental toxicology from Cornell
University and a bachelor’s degree from Millersville University in biology and chemistry.
Barbara Knuth
Dr. Barbara Knuth is a Professor of Natural Resource Policy and Management, and Chair of the
Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University. She is a Co-leader of the Human
Dimensions Research Unit, specializing in inquiry focused on human attitudes, behaviors, and
perceptions related to the environment. Her research program includes a focus on risk
perception, communication, and management associated with chemical contaminants in fish.
She holds a Ph.D. from Virginia Tech, a Masters of Environmental Science (M.En.) from Miami
University (Ohio), and undergraduate degrees in Interdisciplinary Studies and Zoology, also
from Miami University. Dr. Knuth has served as the President of the Water Quality Section of
the American Fisheries Society (AFS), and is currently 1st Vice President of AFS. She has
served on numerous scientific and advisory bodies, including the Great Lakes Science Advisory
Board of the International Joint Commission, the Board of Technical Experts of the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, and the National Research Council Committee on Improving the
Collection and Use of Fisheries Data. She serves currently on the Institute of Medicine/National
Research Council Committee on Implications of Reducing Dioxin in the Food Supply. She
authored, under contract to US EPA, the first risk communication guidance document for fish
consumption health advisory programs.
Daniel H. Kusnierz
Daniel Kusnierz has been the manager of the Penobscot Indian Nation’s Water Resources
Program since January 1993. Because the Penobscot Reservation consists of the islands and
water of the Penobscot River upstream of Old Town, Maine, clean water is extremely important
to the Penobscot tribe. In his capacity as manager of the tribe’s water program, Dan Kusnierz
oversees many water resource related projects conducted by the tribe including a watershed-wide
water quality monitoring program; studies of contaminant levels in fish, aquatic wildlife, and
sediments; assessments of water quality using aquatic invertebrates; and studies of cumulative
impacts. Working jointly with the tribal health department he is involved with establishing
consumption advisories for tribal members. The program also participates in many permitting,
licensing, and regulatory proceedings that affect the Penobscot Reservation and its aquatic
resources. Dan serves as the tribal coordinator for the model water quality monitoring
cooperative agreement between Penobscot Nation and ME DEP.
Dan serves on numerous committees including the Technical Advisory Committee for Maine’s
Surface Waters Ambient Toxics Program and the Maine Dioxin Monitoring Program, the Maine
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 78
-------
Council on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, and participates on EPA’s Regional
Tribal Operations Committee. He is the Region I tribal representative to the EPA Tribal Science
Council. He is also the chairman of the Penobscot County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Dan earned his B.S. degree in Wildlife Biology from the University of Vermont. He is a M.S.
candidate in Wildlife Management at the University of Maine, Orono.
Amy D. Kyle
Amy D. Kyle works on issues at the intersection of environmental health science and public
policy and to further the links between the realms of “environment” and those of “health.”
She holds research and teaching appointments at the University of California Berkeley School of
Public Health where her work focuses on children’s environmental health, policy for persistent
pollutants, development of methods to measure net population burdens of pollution, and air
pollution. She is a component director for the Berkeley Center on Environmental Public Health
Tracking at Berkeley. She is also one of the authors of a national analysis of measures relevant to
children’s environmental health produced by the US Environmental Protection Agency. She
works with a variety of governmental and non-governmental agencies on a variety of policy
issues. Recently, she worked with state health and environment agencies to develop a national
strategy to address environmental factors that contribute to asthma in children, a ground-
breaking project sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States and the Association of
State and Territorial Health Officials. As a Switzer Environmental Leadership Fellow, she is
developing develop human health indicators to accompany a set of indicators of environmental
quality for the San Francisco Bay, rivers, and delta watersheds with the Bay Institute. She serves
as an advisor and consultant to organizations including California Communities Against Toxics,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the California Air Resources Board, and the California
Department of Health Services. She has an extensive background in public policy and public
service at the state level, having served for five years as deputy commissioner for the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation and in a variety of other positions. She obtained her
BA at Harvard College and MPH and PhD at the University of California Berkeley.
Roseanne M. Lorenzana
Roseanne has been a toxicologist in the US EPA Region 10 Office of Environmental Assessment
for the past ten years. And, in the last year has also become Region 10’s science liaison to the
Agency’s Office of Research and Development. Prior to EPA, she was with the Oregon Health
Division and the Washington Department of Health. She has a Doctorate in Veterinary Medicine,
a Ph.D. in toxicology from the University of Illinois and research experience in biochemical
mechanisms of toxicity from the Environmental Health Sciences Center at Oregon State
University.
Roseanne has been a Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology since 1992. She holds an
adjunct faculty position the University of Washington, and has guided a number of students
through projects involving priority scientific issues important to regional programs. Roseanne
has extensive experience with risk assessment for the Superfund program and Water program.
She has taught the Agency’s Risk and Decision-Making class a number of times in Region 10 as
2002 American Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 79
-------
well as abroad. Roseanne also spent several months in Australia assisting the development of
their national cancer assessment guidelines for contaminated sites.
Some of Roseanne’s other recent activities have focused on toxicology and exposure assessment
for arsenic, issues related to contaminants in traditionally harvested, subsistence food of
Northwest Native Americans and Native Alaskans and environmental exposure issues for Asian
Americans and Pacific Islander Americans.
Paul Lumley
Paul Lumley is the Manager of the Watershed Department at the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission. The Commission is composed of four tribal nations: the Nez Perce Tribe, the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.
Paul Lumley received his Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Western Washington
University in 1986. Mr. Lumley is an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation and was born and
raised on the reservation. Mr. Lumley has fished throughout the Yakama Reservation, including
on the Columbia River.
Paul Lumley has worked for the Commission since 1987. Mr. Lumley worked within the U.S. v.
Ore i forums in fisheries management for 12 years and has testified in federal court on behalf
of the tribes on numerous issues related to fisheries management and the use of hatcheries as a
salmon-rebuilding tool. Beginning in 1999, he expanded his role to include watershed issues,
such as habitat protection, habitat restoration and improving water quality for salmon. The
project area for the four CRITFC tribes is the entire Columbia River Basin.
Mr. Lumley is active raising funds and assisting in the implementation of projects that are
identified in the tribes’ salmon restoration plan: Wv-K4N- USH-MI WA-KISH- WiT (Spirit of the
Salmon). As a means to pursue the tribes’ goals, Mr. Lumley participates in the following:
numerous processes under the Northwest Power Act as related to the Fish and Wildlife program
that mitigates for the development of the federal hydrosystem program (Bonneville Power
Administration funding), various water quality programs in cooperation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on numerous water quality issues, and promotes and seeks
foundation and corporate sponsorships to fund tribal salmon restoration programs.
Kathryn R. Mahaffey
Dr. Mahaffey’s professional career is in exposure assessment and toxicology of metals. She has
worked extensively in the area of food safety. Following graduate training in nutritional
biochemistry and physiology at Rutgers University, she completed post-doctoral training in
neuro-endocrinology at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. Her research has
been on susceptibility to lead toxicity with greatest focus on age and nutritional factors resulting
in more than 100 publications in this area. During her long career with the United States
Government she has been influential in lowering lead exposures for the United States population
through actions to remove lead from foods and beverages, and from gasoline additives during the
1970s and 1980s.
2002 American Asheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Ash: Proceedings 80
-------
In the past decade, Dr. Mahaffey has been actively involved in risk assessments for mercury.
She was the author of the NIH Report to Congress on Mercury, and a primary author of US
EPA’s Mercury Study Report to Congress. These reports emphasized risk of developmental
deficits caused by methylmercury exposure during development of the nervous system. Dr.
Mahaffey was one of the primary developers of US EPA’s Mercury Research Strategy which
was released in late 2000. Along with other team members, she was responsible for the 2001
EPA/FDA national advisory on fish consumption. Dr. Mahaffey was one of a group of three
EPA health scientists who revised the basis for EPA’s Reference Dose for Methylmercury which
was used in developing the Methylmercury Water Quality Human Health Criterion. In 2002 she
received EPA’s Science Achievement Award in Health Sciences for this work. This is EPA’s
highest health sciences award and is presented in conjunction with the Society of Toxicology.
Currently Dr. Mahaffey is the Director of the Division of Exposure Assessment, Coordination
and Policy within the Office of Science Coordination and Policy of OPPTS, US EPA. This
division runs US EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Validation Program. Dr. Mahaffey
remains active in research and developing US EPA’s policies on methylmercury.
Randall 0. Manning
Dr. Manning is the Coordinator of the Environmental Toxicology Program in the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Dr. Manning received his
Ph.D. in 1986 from the University of Georgia (UGA), College of Agriculture where he studied
the toxicity and metabolism of mycotoxins. Prior to joining the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (GAEPD) in 1991, Dr. Manning was a Postdoctoral Research Associate
(1987-88) and an Assistant Research Scientist (1989-90) in the Department of Pharmacology and
Toxicology at UGA, studying the toxicity of volatile organic chemicals and the development of
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment. As the Coordinator of
the Environmental Toxicology Program at GAEPD, Dr. Manning is responsible for providing the
Division with support in toxicology and risk assessment. Dr. Manning’s research interests relate
to the development of risk-based approaches for evaluation of environmental contamination by
regulatory agencies. Dr. Manning is a member of the Society of Toxicology, a Diplomate of the
American Board of Toxicology, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Department of
Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Georgia and the
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory
University.
Patricia McCann
Ms. McCann is Program Manager of the Minnesota Fish Consumption Advisory Program at the
Minnesota Department of Health. She researches the toxicological characteristics of
contaminants in Minnesota fish and wildlife, evaluates environmental and exposure data, and
develops fish and wildlife consumption guidelines and communicates them to the public. She
holds a M.S. in Environmental Health from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health
and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology.
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on contaminants in Fish: proceedings 81
-------
G. Tracy Mehan III
G. Tracy Mehan, lU, was nominated by President George W. Bush to be Assistant Administrator
for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on August
3, 2001. Mehan has responsibility for implementing the nation’s Clean Water Act, as well as the
Safe Drinking Water Act, along with other environmental statutes, in collaboration with state and
tribal partners.
Since Februaty 1993, Mehan has served as Director of Michigan’s Office of the Great Lakes and
a member of Governor John Engler’s Cabinet, coordinating policy on a variety of issues
including toxic contamination, aquatic nuisance species (exotics) and water diversions. He
represented Michigan on the Great Lakes commission, an interstate compact organization, and its
executive committee. He also served on the board of the Great Lakes Protection Fund, a $140
million endowment established by the governors of the region as well as the Water Quality
Board of the International Joint Commission.
Mehan chaired the Michigan Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force, a public-private body
which initiated numerous mercury minimization efforts including the phasing out of 9.8 metric
tons, per year, of mercury in convenience light switches previously used by the Big Three auto
companies. Mehan was formally Associate Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (1992), where he coordinated policy issues for the agency and represented the
Deputy Administrator in interactions with federal, state, and local agencies.
From 1989 to 1992, he was Director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which
included divisions of environmental quality; parks, re-creation and historic preservation; energy;
geology; and land survey. He represented the state in the Missouri Basin States Association, the
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, and the Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Compact Commission.
Mehan holds a Bachelor’s Degree in history from St. Louis University, Missouri, and a Juris
Doctor from the St. Louis University Law School. He is member of the Missouri Bar
Association and the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis. As a practicing attorney for
many years, he concentrated in the area of civil litigation.
Mehan was an Adjunct Professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Michigan State
University Detroit College of Law in environmental law. He and his wife, Mary, have seven
children.
Fran Pell
Fran graduated with a B.S. from Purdue University in 1982. She started her career with the
Federal government in USDA as a food inspector about a year after graduation. Fran transferred
to FDA in 1985 as an investigator in Baltimore District Office. She conducted mostly food
inspections and tissue residue investigations. She transferred to the Center for Veterinary
Medicine in 1988. She issued an information gathering assignment in 1989 to the Field to
conduct an inspectional survey of aquaculture producers to determine what their drug use
patterns were. This Field assignment spawned an educational campaign from the Center on the
regulations of drug use for aquaculture. She transferred to the Tissue Residue Branch in 1994
and maintained her expertise in aquaculture. In 1997, Fran was transferred to the Division of
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 82
-------
Compliance she became the Compliance expert in Aquaculture drug use. She handles all
regulatory questions related to Aquaculture drug use. She is also the lead for the development of
regulations on Import Tolerances.
James F. Pendergast
Jim Pendergast is chief of the Health Protection and Modeling Branch in the Office of Water
where he manages EPA ’s fish and beach advisory programs, and provides technical support for
water quality modeling and sediment contamination assessments. He has 26 years of
professional experience in environmental engineering, water quality modeling, and regulatory
controls. Since moving to EPA Headquarters in 1990, he worked on the revision to the TMDL
mle, reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, and as a Section and Branch Chief and later Acting
Director of the NPDES Permits Division. He was a principal in leading the Water Protection
Task Force where he helped manage EPA’s work to support efforts by drinking water and
wastewater treatment utilities to understand vulnerable points and to mitigate the threat from
terrorist attacks as quickly as possible. He worked for six years in EPA Region 6 in the NPDES
permits and Superfund programs. Prior to joining EPA in 1984, he was a project manager at
Limno-Tech, Inc., where he developed models of water quality impacts from nonpoint and point
sources on rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Mr. Pendergast received a BS in Environmental Engineering in 1976 and a MS in Water
Resources Engineering in 1978, both from the University of Michigan. He is a registered
professional engineer. He is a member of the Water Environment Federation, the American
Society of Civil Engineers, and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. He has
several published papers on water quality modeling in engineering journals and conference
proceedings. He is married with one daughter, and spends his non-work time coaching a girls
fast pitch softball team and playing golf.
John Persell
John began working for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in 1978 as a Water Quality Planner,
shortly after graduating from Bemidji State University (Bemidji, MN) with a B.S. in Biology and
Chemistry. The Tribe’s Water Quality Program grew to become the Tribal Water Research Lab
in 1979, achieving Federal drinking water certification in 1987. John has remained Director of
the Tribal Government’s Lab, which today employs four staff performing drinking water, surface
water, and tissue analyses for a wide variety of parameters. John has directed the Tribe’s
research focus to contaminants in subsistence resources during the last ten years. At the center
of this research focus is the St Regis/Wheeler Superfund Site which is located on the Leech Lake
Reservation. The toxic cocktail at this former wood preservation company site includes Dioxins
and Furans, PCBs, DDT, PAHs, Phenols, Arsenic, Chromium, and Mercury.
John is a six year veteran of the United States Air Force and Army; a father and grandpa, and
particularly enjoys family and outdoor activities.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 83
-------
Susan M. Peterson
Susan Peterson is an envIronmental chemist working for the Aroostook Band of Micmacs for a
year and a half. A graduate from the University of Maine at Presque Isle, Susan had a double
major receiving a BA in Biology and a BS in Environmental Studies. Since working for the
Tribe, she has been exposed to the many environmental issues concerning the Micmacs, such as
the substandard Tribal housing units in which members are living in and the various toxics found
in natural resources that are utilized by the Tribe for food, medicine, and spiritual purposes. One
of her major accomplishments was to finish developing a drinking water laboratory and obtain
full certification from the state of Maine for the lab. She is currently working on adding more
testing parameters to the lab’s certification, developing an arsenic-in-drinking water study with
all of the Tribes of Maine, and is taking steps to have the lab NLLAP certified for lead testing.
Rafael Ponce
Rafael’s interest in environmental health began during his Master’s research investigating
methylmercury uptake into rainbow trout. He received his Masters from the School of Fisheries
at the University of Washington in 1990, and transferred to the Dept. of Environmental Health
where he moved up the food chain to investigate the mechanisms of methylmercuiy-induced
developmental neurotoxicity in rats. Rafael received his doctorate in Environmental Health,
Toxicology from the University of Washington in 1995. He moved to Anchorage to work as the
toxicologist for the Department of Health and Social Services, conducing health risk assessments
and evaluation of subsistence food safety. In 1996, he returned to the University of Washington
to perform basic research of heavy metal toxicity and risk assessment. He currently has an
affiliate appointment with the University of Washington and works as a toxicologist for a
biotechnology company (ZymoGenetics, Inc.) in Seattle, WA.
GUS N. RASSAM
Executive Director and CEO, Treasurer, and Senior Editor (May 1999-present) American
Fisheries Society. Staff of 22; annual budget of $3 million.
Director of Program Development and Publications (July 1998-1999) Optical Society of
America, Washington, DC. Staff of 45; annual budget of $9 million. Previously he served as
Executive Director and CEO (acting) (July 1997-July 1998) Optical Society of America.
Member of three-person team acting as Executive Director. Report to Executive Committee and
Board of Directors. Before that, as Director of Publications (1995-1997) Optical Society of
America, Washington, D.C.
Member, Governing Board of the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation, RNRF (1999-
present); chair of Finance Committee, RNRF; chair of Awards Juiy Committee, RNRF.
Fuibright Scholar
Philip Spiller
Philip Spiller has been with the Food and Drug Administration since 1981. He spent the first
nine years in the Office of Legislative Affairs in the Office of the Commissioner, where he
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 84
-------
became the Deputy to the Director of that office. He worked on a wide variety of legislative
initiatives and helped prepare FDA officials to testify at numerous hearings in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate. At one of them, involving the pesticide Alar in apples, he
engaged in a 5 second conversation with the actress Meryl Streep, which he regards to this day as
the high point of his career. During 1989 through 1991 seafood safety became a major issue in
the Congress and Mr. Spiller became familiar with that subject as a consequence. In 1990 Mr.
Spiller became a special assistant to the Commissioner on seafood-related matters. When an
Office of Seafood was subsequently created in FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, Mr. Spiller transferred to that Office as Deputy to the first permanent director, Mr.
Thomas Billy. His major responsibility during that time was drafting FDA’s seafood HACCP
regulations. Mr. Spiller became the director of the Office of Seafood in 1994.
Before coming to FDA, Mr. Spiller worked for the Health Resources Administration, which is
now part of the agency known as HRSA. Mr. Spiller has a law degree from Boston College and
an undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia.
Alan H. Stern
Alan Stern, PhD DABT, received his doctorate in public health from the Columbia University
School of Public Health in 1987. He is Chief of the Bureau for Risk Analysis in the Division of
Science and Research of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection where he
specializes in human health risk and exposure assessment. He is board certified in toxicology,
and adjunct associate professor in the School of Public Health, and the Department of
Environmental and Community Medicine of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jersey. He served as a member of the National Research Council!National Academy of Sciences
Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. His current scientific and research
interests include assessment of exposure and risk from methylmercury and other heavy metals,
biomonitoring, exposure assessment, intenndividual variability in dose-response, and
probabilistic approaches to risk assessment.
Andrew E. Smith
Andrew Smith, S.M., Sc.D., is the State Toxicologist and Director of the Environmental
Toxicology Program within the Bureau of Health, Maine Department of Human Services. Dr.
Smith obtained his master’s in environmental health management and doctorate in enviromnental
health sciences from the Harvard School of Public Health. He performed post-doctoral studies at
Harvard with joint appointments in the Departments of Environmental Health and Biostatistics.
As the State Toxicologist and Director of the Toxicology Program, he is responsible for the
development health-based drinking water and ambient air guidelines for toxicants, the issuance
of fish consumption advisories due to chemical contamination, the design and conduct
environmental exposure and epidemiological studies, and management of the Maine
Occupational Disease Registry. Dr. Smith has served on U.S. EPA scientific advisory panels to
review the Agency’s recently revised reference dose for mercury, guidance for evaluating
residential exposure to pesticides, and a preliminary evaluation of the non-dietary hazard and
exposure to children from contact with CCA pressure-treated wood.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 85
-------
Judy Sheeshka
Judy Sheeshka is a registered dietitian and an Associate Professor in Applied Human Nutrition at
the University of Guelph, in Ontario. For the past 8 years she has been interested in comparing
the nutritional benefits and the potential risks of eating sport-caught fish from contaminated
waters. She was part of a multi-disciplinary team that received Health Canada funding to
mvestigate fish consumption from 5 Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Over 5,000 people fishing
along the Canadian shorelines in these Areas of Concern were surveyed and 91 completed
dietary records, tape-recorded long interviews, anthropometric measurements, and provided
blood and hair samples for laboratory analyses.
Suanne Unger
Suanne Unger received a BS in Education with a major in biology from the University of
Wisconsin- Madison in 1998. In 1993, she received an MS in Environmental Studies from the
University of Montana- Missoula. After finishing her masters program, Suanne served as a US
Peace Corps Volunteer in Botswana from 1993-1995 in the Wildlife! Environment Program.
Suanne has taught high school and middle school science. In Alaska, she has worked for several
tribal non-profit organizations developing community-based environmental assessment tools for
tribes in Alaska. Currently, she works for the AleutianfPribilof Islands Association, Inc., a non-
profit tribal organization of the Aleut people in Alaska. This organization services communities
on the Aleutian Islands and Pribilof Islands in western Alaska. Suanne is the Environmental
Health Research Coordinator on a project entitled Dietary Benefits and Risks in Alaskan
Villages. This project is funded by the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.
Khizar Wasti
Ph.D. Chemistry, 1976, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
M.S. Chemistry, 1972, Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia
1991 -Present: Director, Division of Health Hazards Control, Virginia Department of Health
1978-1991: Toxicologist, Bureau of Toxic Substances, Virginia Department of Health
1976-1978: Project Manager, Toxicology, Franklin Institute, Philadelphia
Luanne Williams
Dr. Luanne Williams is a state toxicologist for North Carolina and a full member of the Society
of Toxicology. Dr. Williams’ primary responsibilities as a state toxicologist include developing
health-protective environmental standards for North Carolina and health risk assessments for
contaminated soil, air, water, and fish. She is also the Co-editor and contributing author of the
recently published book titled Environmental Health Secrets.
Dr. Williams received a doctor of pharmacy degree at Campbell University School of Pharmacy
in North Carolina. Dr. Williams also participated in a residency program at the IJNC Hospital in
Chapel Hill, North Carolina and most of her undergraduate courses were completed at the
University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 86
-------
Appendix 4: Forum Participants
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 87
-------
Participants
Addreu2
St Zip
WI 53702
Phone
608-266-1253
520-621-7565
315-446-9120
615-532-0703
Email
anderha@dhfs.state.wi.us
aposhian@u.arizona.edu
lda@bbl-inc.com
debbic.arnwine@state.tn.us
Last
First
Organization
Addreul
City
Anderson
Henry A.
Wisconsin Division
of Public Health
I W. Wilson St., Room 150
Madison
Aposhian
H. Vasken
University of Arizona
Life Sciences South Bldg.
P.O. Box 210106
Tucson
AZ
85721.
0106
Arcand-Hoy
Lisa
BI3L Sciences
6723 Towpath Road
Syracuse
NY
13214
Arnwine
Deborah
Tennessee Dept. of
Environment &
Conservation
7th Floor, L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville
TN
37243-
1534
Arway
John
Pennsylvania Fish &
Boat Commission
450 Robinson Lane
Relleforte
PA
16823
814-359-5147
jarway@state.pa.us
Ashizawa
Annette E.
Centers for Disease
Control
1600 Clifton Road NE
MS E-29
Atlanta
GA
30333
404-498-0718
ada8@cdc.gov
Austin
Stephen
Navajo Nation
Environmental
Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1999
Shiprock
NM
87420
505-368-1037
nnepawq cyberporI.com
Axelrad
Donald
Florida Dept. of
Environmental
Protection
2600 Blair Stone Rd., MS
6540
Tallahassee
FL
32399-
2400
850-414-1347
don.axelrad@dep.state.fl .us
Baird
John R.
North Dakota Dept.
of Health
600 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck
ND
58505-
0200
701-328-2372
jbaird@state.nd.us
Ball
Wayne
Utah Department of
Health
P.O. Box 142104
288 North 1460
West
Salt Lake City
UT
84114-
2104
801 -538-6191
wba1l utah.gov
Bank
Michael
University of Maine
5722 Deering Hall, Room 202
Orono
ME
04469-
5722
207-581-2961
michael_bank@umit.maine .edu
Barber
David
Wyoming
Department of health
do University of Illinois
008 West
hiazelwood
Urbana
IL
61802
217-244-5835
dabarber@uiuc.edu
Beaman
Joseph
Maryland
Department of the
Environment
7610 Shady Lane
Boonesboro
MD
21713
410-537-3633
jbeaman mde.state.md.us
Beckwith
William
US EPA/Region I
I Congress Street, Suite 1100
WQ
Boston
MA
02114-
2023
617-918-1544
beckwith.william @Jepa.gov
Bender
Edward S.
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW
Washington
DC
20460
202-564-6483
bender.ed@epa.gov
Bender
Michael
Mercury Policy
Project
1420 North Street
Montpclier
VT
05602
802-223-9000
mercurypolicy aol.com
Bigler
Jeffrey D.
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW
Mail Code: 4305T
Washington
DC
20460
202-566-0389
bigler.jcff epa.gov
Birkholtz
Detlef
Enviro-Test
Laboratories
9936 67th Ave.
Edmonton
AR
Canada
780-413-5205
deib@envirotest.com
Birnbaum
Linda S.
US
85 T.W. Alexander Drive
ERC (MD-66)
RTP
NC
27709
919-541-2655
birnbaum.linda epa.gov
-------
EPAIORD/NHEERL
Blackwell Steve ATSDR 1600 Clifton Road, NE, E-33 Atlanta GA 30333 404-498-0517 sblackwell cdc.gov
Blake Laura New England Boott Mills South 100 Foot of John St Lowell MA 01852- 978-323-7929 lblake@neiwpcc.org
Interstate Water 1124
Pollution Control
Corn.
Brodberg Robert California EPA 301 Capitol Mall, Room 205 Sacramento CA 95814- 916-327-7320 rbrodber@oehha.ca.gov
4327
Brooks Barbara Hawaii Dept. of 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room Honolulu HI 96814 808-586-4249 bbrooks@eha.health.state.hi.us
Health 206
Busshart Karen Vermont Dept. of 103 South Main Street Waterbury VT 05671 802-241-3455 karenbu@dec.anr.statc.vt.us
Environmental
Conservation
Carison Gale M. Missouri Dept. of P.O. Box 570 Jefferson City MO 65102 573-751-6102 carIsg dhss.state.mo.us
Health and Senior
Services
Cling Marvin Pleasant Point P.O. Box 343 Perry ME. 04667- 207-853-2600. marvin@wabanaki.com
Passamaquoddy 0343 x-234
Tribe
Cornelison Kimberly Louisiana Dept. of 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton Rouge LA 70810 225-765-0246 kimberly_c ldeq.org
Environmental
Quality
Cranmer Morris Cranmer and P0 Box 22093 Little Rock AR 72221 501 -224-0240 cranmerl mindspring.com
Associates
Crenson Sharon Associated Press 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York NY 10020 212-621-1600 pr@ap.org
Crocker Philip US EPA/Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas TX 75202- 214-665-6644 crockcr.philip epa.gov
2733
Cunningham Patricia Research Triangle 3040 Cornwallis Road Research NC 27709 919-316-3722 patc@rti.org
Institute Triangle Park
Dabolt Tod US EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Mail Code: 45031 Washington DC 20460 202-566-1186
NW
Day Jeff Wampanoag Tribe of 20 Black Brook Road Aquinnah MA 02535 508-645-9265, ranger wampanoagtribe.net
Gay Ilead x-16l
Dickison Jeff Squaxin Island Tribe 2952 Old Olympic Hwy. Shelton WA 98584 360-432-3815 jdickison squaxin.nsn.us
Dominguez James Colorado Dept of 4300 Cherry Creek Dr S Denver CO 80246 303-692-3537 james.dominguez state.co.us
Public Health &
Environ.
Dreisig John New Hampshire 6 Hazen Drive Concord NH 03301 603-271-4664 jdreisig dhhs.state.nh.us
Dept. of Health &
Human Services
Ducheneaux Carlyle Cheyenne River P.O. Box 590 Eagle Butte SD 57625 605-964-6568 cducheneaux@crstepd.org
Sioux Tribe
Dyer Norm US EPA/Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas TX 75202- 214-665-8349 dyer.norman epa.gov
2733
Eisiminger Eric C. Kentucky Division of 14 Reilly Road Frankfort KY 40601 502-564-3410, eric.eisiminger mail.state.ky.us
Water x-453
ElI Michael North Dakota 1200 Missouri Avenue Room 203 Bismarck ND 58504- 701-328-5214 mell@state.nd.us
Department of Health 5264
-------
Faulds Ann M. Pennsylvania Sea 4601 Market Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia PA 19139 215-471-2216 a.faulds@psu.edu
Grant
Fauser Corn Vermont Dept. of 195 Colchester Avenue Burlington VT 05402 cfauser@vdhs.state.vt.us
Health
Ferry Valerie US EPA I Congress Street, Suite 11001 Mail Code: C5P Boston MA 02114 617-918-1674 bataille.valerie@epa.gov
Bataille
Fikslin Thomas Delaware River Basin P.O. Box 7360 West Trenton NJ 08628 609-883-9500 tfikslin@drbc.state.nj.us
Commission
Folmar Henry Mississippi Dept. of 1542 Old Whitfield Road Pearl MS 39208 601-664-3910 henry_folniar@deq.state.ms.us
Environmental
Quality
Forti Anthony New York State 546 River Street, Rm 330 Flanigan Square Tray NY 12180- 51 8-402-7815 ajif) I @health.state.ny.us
Dept. of Health 2216
Frey Bob Pennsylvania Dept. P.O. Box 8467 Harrisburg PA 17105- 717-787-9637 rofrey@state.pa.us
of Environmental 8467
Protection
Fritz Betsy American Fisheries 5410 Grosvenor Lane, #110 Bethesda MD 20814- 301-897-8616, bfritz@fisheries.org
Society 2199 x-212
Frohmberg Eric Maine Bureau of Key Plaza, 8th Floor 11 State House Sta. Augusta ME 04333 207-287-8141 eric.frohmberg@state.me.us
Health
Gassel Margy California EPA 1515 Clay Street, 16th Floor Oakland CA 94612 510-622-3166 mgassel@oehha.ca.gov
Gately Glenn Jefferson County 205W. Patison Street Port Hadlock WA 98339 360-385-4105 glenn-gately@wa.nacdnet.org
Conservation District
(}erlach Robert Alaska Dept. of 555 Cordova St., 5th Floor Anchorage AK 99501 907-269-7635 bob_gerlach envircon.state.ak.us
Environmental
Conservation
Ginsberg Gary State of Connecticut 410 Capitol Avenue, MS P.O. Box 340308 Hartford CT 06134 860-509-7742 gary.ginsberg po.state.ct.us
Dept. of Public 1 ICHA
Health
Gray Gayla Seneca Nation 1508 Rte. 438 Irving NY 14081 716-532-2546 sniepdl@localnet.com
Environmental
Greene Richard Delaware DNREC 820 Silver Lake Blvd., Suite Dover DE 19904- 302-739-4590, rgreene state.de.us
220 2464 x-116
Groetsch Kory J. Great Lakes Indian 100 Maple Street Odanah WI 54861 715-682-6619, groetsch@glifwc.org
Fish & Wildlife x-l 89
Commission
Gulka Gary Vermont Dept. of 103 South Main Street Waterbury VT 05671 802-241-3455 gaiyg@dec.anr.state.vt.us
Environment
Conservation
Hadden Karen SEED Coalition 61 S. Congress, Suite 200 Austin TX 78704 512-479-7744 karen@seedcoalition.org
(Sustainable Energy
& Economic Dev)
Haire David Wind River 625 North Bent Street Powell WY 82435 307-754-7952 dhaire@tritel.net
Environmental
Quality Commission
Hale Robert C. Virginia Institute of P.O. Box 1346 1208 Great Road Gloucester Pt. VA 23062 804-684-7228 ha1e@vims.edu
Marine Science
Hansel Joel US EPA/Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta GA 30303 404-562-9274 hansel.joel epa.gov
-------
Harden Siegfried B. Alabama Dept. of 201 Monroe Street Montgomery AL 36104 334-206-5952 sharden adph.state.al.us
Public Health
Heilman Sandy US EPA/Great Lakes 77 W. Jackson Blvd. Chicago IL 60604 312-353-5006 hellman.sandra epa.gov
Nat’l Program Office
Hellyer Greg US EPA/New 11 Technology Drive North MA 01863 617-918-8677 hellyer.greg@epa.gov
England Regional Cbelmsford
Lab
Henderson George Florida Fish & 100 Eighth Avenue, SE St. Petersburg FL 33701 727-896-8626 george.henderson fwc.state.fl.us
Wildlife
Conservation
Commission
Hitzig Robert US EPA/Superfund 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue Mail Code 5204G Washington DC 20460 703-603-9047 hitzig.robert epa.gov
Hochheimer Job i Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax VA 22030 703-385-6000, john.hochheimer@tetratechffx.com
x-35 1
Hoffman- Razelle S. Vermont Department 195 Colchester Avenue Burlington VT 05402 802-863-7558 rhofflna@vdh.state.vt.us
Contois of Health
Hohreiter David BBL Sciences P.O. Box 66 Syracuse NY 13214 315-446-2570 dh@bbl-inc.com
Holtgren Marty Little River Band of 375 River St. Manistee MI 49660 231-723-1594 mholtgren@lrboi.com
Ottawa Indians
Hornshaw Thomas C. Illinois P.O. Box 19276 Springfield IL 62794- 217-785-0830 thomas.hornshaw@epa.state.il.us
Environmental 9276
Protection Agency
Huntly David R. US Fish & Wildlife 6623 Turner Rd Elmira MI 49730 231-584-2461 david_huntly@fws.gov
SeMce
Jernejcic Frank West Virginia 1304 Goose Run Road Fairmont WV 26554 304-367-2720 jemef wvnet.edu
Division of Natural
Resources
Jock Jessica St. Regis Mohawk 412 State Rt. 37 Ak’wesasne AK 13655 518-358-5937 earth2 -jj®northnet.org
Tribe
Joseph Catherine US EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20460 202-564-8481 joseph.catherine@epa.gov
NW
Kairn Henry D. US EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 4303T Washington DC 20460 202-566-1030 kahn.heniy@epa.gov
Kamman Neil Vermont Dept. of 103 S. Main, 10 N Waterbury VT 05671- 802-241-3795 neil.kamman@state.vt.us
Environmental 0408
Conservation
Kanetsky Chuck US EPAJRegion3 1650 Arch Street (3ESIO) Philadelphia PA 19103 215-814-2735 kanetsky.charIes@epa.gov
Kelly April University of Blaisdell House Amherst MA 01003 413-545-2842 geo_april@hotmail.com
Massachusetts
Kindt Irish SD Dept. of 523 E. Capitol Avenue Pierre SD 57501 605-773-4055 trish.kindt@state.sd.us
Environment &
Natural Resources
Kissinger Lon US EPA/Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mail Stop OEA-095 Seattle WA 98101 206-553-21 15 kissinger.lon®epa.gov
Knuth Barbara Cornell University DNR, l22A Fernow Hall Ithaca NY 14853 607-255-2822 bak3@cornell.edu
Kramer Bill US EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Mail Code 4305T Washington DC 20460 202-566-0385 kramer.bill epa.gov
Krueger Elaine 1. Massachusetts Dept. 250 Washington Street Boston MA 02108 617-624-5757 elaine.krueger@state.ma.us
of Public Health
Kusnierz Daniel Penobscot Indian 6 River Road Indian Island ME 04468 207-827-7776 pinwater penobscotnation.org
-------
Nation
US EPAIOflice of
Water
University of
California-Berkeley
Nez Perce Tribe
Vermont Dept. of
Environmental
Conservation
Ted Florida Fish &
Wildlife
Conservation
Commission
EPRI
West Virginia Dept.
of Health & Human
Resources
Sharon US EPA/Region 9
Bonnie C. Kansas Dept. of
Health &
Environment
Delaware Division of
Public Health
Health Canada
Houlton Band of
Maliseet Indians
US EPA/Region 10
Arkansas Dept. of
Health
NMFS/NOAA/USDC
American Fisheries
Society
Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission
Tracey Alaska Division of
Public Health
Kathryn R. US EPA
Martha Alta Analytical
Laboratory
Mark Lake Champlain Sea
Grant
Barbara
3412 Ilillview Avenue
815 Quarrier St., Suite 418
Kuzrnack
Kyle
Landeen
Langdon
Lange
Arnold M.
Amy D.
Dan
Rich
Levin Leonard
Lightbourn Alrena
MC 4301 1
Washington
DC
20460
202-566-0432
kuzmack.arnold epa.gov
322 Cortland Ave PMB-226
San Francisco
CA
94110
510 642 8847
adkyle ix.netcom.com
P.O. Box 365
Lapwai
ID
83540
208-843-7375
danl nezperce.org
103 S. Main Street
Waterbury
VT
05671
802-241-1379
RichL@dec.anr.state.vt.us
601 West Woodward Avenue
FL
32726
352-742-6438
ted.lange@fwc.state.fl.us
Eustis
Palo Alto CA 94303 650-855-7929 llevin@epri.com
Charleston WV 25301 304-345-5012 alrenalightbourn@wvdhhr.org
San Francisco CA 94105
Topeka KS 66612-
1367
Gerald
Belinda
David
Roseanne
Shirley
Tony
Janet E.
Paul
Lin
Liscek
Liewellyn
Lo
Lombard
Lorenzana
Louis
Lowery
Lubeck
Lumley
Lynn
Mahaffey
Maier
Maichoff
Malczewska-
Toth
415-972-3446 lin.sharon@epa.gov
785-296-8791 bliscek@kdhe.state.ks.us
75 Hawthorne St. (WTR-2)
1000 SW Jackson, Suite 420
Cooper Bldg. P.O. Box 637
1st Floor East, Banting Bldg. Tunney’s Pasture
88 Bell Rd
1200 Sixth Avenue, OEA-095
4815 West Markham St. Mail Slot #32
705 Convent Street
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite
110
729 NE Oregon St, Ste 200
3601 C Street, Suite 540
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7201M
1104 Windfield Way
Plattsburgh State University 101 Broad Street
P.O. Box 26110 1190 St. Francis Dr
DE
ONT
ME
WA
AR
MS
MD
OR
19903
KIA
0L2
04730
98101
72205
39567
20814
97232
Dover
Ottawa
Littleton
Seattle
1.ittle Rock
Pascagoula
Bethesda
Portland
Anchorage
Washington
El Dorado
Hills
Plattsburgh
Santa Fe
302-744-4540
613-941-6224
207-532-4273
ext 220
206-553-8002
501-661-2833
228-769-8964
301-897-8616
503-238-0667
907-269-8045
202-564-8440
916-933-1640
518-564-3037
gllewellyn state.de.us
belinda.lo hc-sc,gc.ca
timber@maliseets.com
lorenzana.roseanne@epa.gov
slouie@healthyarkansas.com
tony.lowery@noaa.gov
jlubeck fisheries.org
lump critfc.org
tracey_lynn@health.state.ak.us
mahaffey.kate@epa.gov
mmaier@altalab.com
mark.malchoff plattsburgh.edu
New Mexico Dept. of
Health
AK 99503
DC 20460
CA 95726
NY 12901
NM 87505- 505-476-3028 btoth@doh.state.nm.us
6110
-------
Manning Randall 0. Georgia Dept. of 745 Gaines School Road Athens GA 30605 706-369-6376 randy_manning@dnr.state.ga.us
Natural Resources
Margillo Gina California 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1700 Oakland CA 94612 510-622-4476 gmargilI dhs.ca.gov
Department of health
Martin Shawn St. Regis Mohawk 412 State Rt. 37 Akwesasne NY 13655 518-358-5937 earth2-rshawn northnet.org
Tribe
Maugle Paul D. Monegan 72 Water Street Stonington CT 06378 860-961-5607 pmaugle@moheganmail.com
Aquaculture LLC
Mayo Kathleen R. US EPA/Region 5 Mail Code WQ-165 77 West Jackson Chicago IL 60604 312-353-5592 mayo.kathleen epa.gov
Blvd.
McBride David Washington State P.O. Box 47846 Olympia WA 98501- 360-236-3176 dave.mcbride doh.wa.gov
Dept. of Health 7846
McCann Pat Minnesota P.O. Box 64975 121 East Seventh St. Paul MN 55164- 651-215-0923 patricia.mccann@health.state.mn.us
Department of Health Place, Suite 220 0975
McDonough Margaret US EPA One Congress Street Boston MA 02114 617-918-1276 mcdonough.margaret epa.gov
Mensh Mikhail Milestone Inc. 160B Shelton Road Monroe CT 06468 203-261-6175 mware@milestonesci.com
Moreau Genevieve Health Canada F. Banting Research Centre Tunney’s Pasture Ottawa Ont KIA 613-952-5986 genevieve_moreau hc-sc.gc,ca
0L2
Morrison Todd URS Corporation 1400 Union Meeting Rd., Suite 202 Blue Bell PA 19422 215-542-3800 toddmorrison@urscorp.com
Mower Barry ME Department of State House Station #17 Augusta ME 04333- 207-287-777 barry.f.mower state.me.us
Environmental 0017
Protection
Murphy Greg Virginia Tech 100 Cheatham Hall Blacksburg VA 2406!- 540-250-1314 gmurphy@vt.edu
032!
Murray Michael National Wildlife 213 West Liberty St., Suite Ann Arbor MI 48104- 734-769-3351 murray nwf.org
Federation 200 1398
Ogren Stephanie Little River Band of 375 River St. Manistee Ml 49660 231-723-1594 sogren@lrboi.com
Ottawa Indians
Olson John Iowa Dept. of Natural Wallace State Office Bldg. 502 East 9th Street Des Moines IA 50319- 515-281-8905 john.olson dnr.state.ia.us
Resources 0034
Ott Mary A. US EPA/Region 8 999 - 18th Street Denver CO 80202- 303-312-6909 ott.toney epa.gov
2466
Patrick Bob Aleutian/Pribilof 20! East 3rd Avenue Metro Park N2 Anchorage AK 9950! 907-276-2700 bobp@apiai.com
Islands Association,
Inc.
Pell Frances M. US FDA/Center for 7499 Standish Place, Room Metro Park N3 Rockville MD 20855 301-827-0188 fpe Il@cvm.fda.gov
Veterinary Medicine E4l0
Pendergast Jim US EPA 1199 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 43051 Washington DC 20460 202-566-0398 pendergast.jim@epa.gov
NW
Persell John Minnesota Chippewa P.O. Box 217 Cass Lake MN 56633 218-335-6303 mctwq@paulbunyan.net
Tribe Research Lab
Peshut Peter American Samoa P.O. Box PPA Pago Pago, AS 96799 684-633-2304
EPA American
Samoa
Peterson Susan Aroostook Band of 8 Northern Road Presque Isle ME 04769 207-764-7219 speterson@jmicmachealth.org
Micmacs
Pitkin Jay B. Utah Division of 288 North 1460 West Salt Lake City UT 84114- 801-538-6087 jpitkin utah.gov
Water Quality 4870
-------
Ponce
Rafael A.
University of
3818 Corliss Avenue
Seattle
WA
98103
206-442-6825
ponccr zgi .com
Washington
Rainosek
Alvin p.
NMFSINOAAIUSDC
ILR 325 Univ South Alabama
Mobile
AL
36688
251-460-6754
al.rainosek@noaa.gov
Rassam
Ratnapradipa
Gus
Dhitmut
American Fisheries
Society
Rhode Island Dept. of
Health
5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite
110
3 Capitol Hill, Room 201
Bethesda
Providence
MD
RI
20814
02908-
5097
301-897-8616
401-222-7764
grassam@fisheries.org
dhitinutr@doh.state.ri.us
Rector
Samuel
Arizona Department
of Environmental
Quality
1110W. Washington Street
Phoenix
AZ
85007
602-771-4536
smr@ev.state.az.us
Redmon
Pete
US EPA/RegionS
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago
IL
60604
312-886-6110
redmon.walter epa.gov
Redmond
Cheryl
Natural I lea lth
70 Lincoln Street, 5th Floor
Boston
MA
02111
617-753-8900
credmond@weiderpub.com
Rice
Deborah
Magazine
US EPA/ORD/NCEA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW
MC 8623D
Washington
DC
20460
202-564-3404
rice.deborah@epa.gov
Round
Margaret
Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use
Mgmt.
101 Merrimac Street
Boston
MA
02114
617-367-8540
mround@nescaum.org
Santerre
Charles
Purdue University
700 W. State Street
W. Lafayette
N
47907-
765-496-3443
2059
Sass
Neil L.
Alabama Dept. of
Public Health
The RSA Tower, Suite 1450
201 Monroe Street
Montgomery
AL
36104
334-206-5973
nsass adph.state.al.us
Schrank
Candy
Wisconsin DNR
101 S. Webster St. (F}I/3)
Madison
WI
53707-
7921
608-267-7614
candy.schrank@dnr.state.wi.us
Schwartz
Jack
Massachusetts
Division of Marine
Fisheries
30 Emerson Avenue
Gloucester
MA
01930
978-282-0308,
x-122
jack.schwartz state.ma.us
Sekerke, Jr.
H. Joseph
Florida Dept. of
Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way
Bin A00
Tallahassee
FL
32599-
1707
850-245-4248
joe_sekerke@doh.state.fl.us
Sharp
Sandra L.
Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation
Conference
209-2 Dawson Road
Columbia
SC
29223
803-788-7559
issc@issc.org
Shaw-Tulloch
Elke
Idaho Bureau of
Environmental
Health and Safety
450 West State St., 4th Floor
P.O. Box 83720
Boise
ID
83720-
0036
208-334-5950
shawe@idhw.state.id.us
Sheeshka
Judy
University of Guciph
Guelph
Ont
NIG
2W1
519-824-4120,
x-4479
jsheeshk uogueiph.ca
Shelley
Tracy
SC Dept. of Health &
Environmental Con
2600 Bull Street
Columbia
SC
29201
803-896-9731
shelIetl@columb30.dhec.state.sc.us
Shiedt
Enoch
Manulaq Association
Kotzebue
AK
Shoven
Heather
US EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW
Washington
DC
20460
202-564-8278
shoven.heather epa.gov
Skaar
Don
Montana Fish,
Wildlife & Parks
1420 East 6th Avenue
helena
MT
59620
406-444-5686
dskaar@state.mt.us
Skinner
Lawrence C.
New York State
Dept. of
Environmental
Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany
NY
12233-
4756
518-402-8969
lxskinne gw.dec.state.ny.us
Andrew E.
Maine Bureau of
Smith
Key Plaza, 8th Floor II State House Augusta
ME 04333 207-287-5189 andy.e.smith@state.me.us
-------
Health Station
Smithson Janice West Virginia Dept. 1201 Greenbrier Street Charleston WV 25311 304-558-2837 jsmithson@dep.state.wv.us
of Environmental
Protection
Spiller Philip US FDA 5100 Point Branch Parkway Mail Stop HFS-400 College Park MD 20740 301-436-1428 pspiller@cfsan.fda.gov
Stahl Leanne US EPA 1199 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail Code 4305T Washington DC 20460 202-566-0404 stahl.leanne epa.gov
NW
Stanfill John W. Nez Perce P.O. Box 365 Lapwai II ) 83540 208-843-7375, johns@nezperce.org
Tribe/ERWM x-2369
Starszak Robert J. Louisiana Dept. of 325 Loyola Avenue, Suite 210 New Orleans LA 70112- 504-568-8537 rstarsza@dhh.state.la.us
Health & Hospitals 1824
Stern Alan New Jersey Dept. of P.O. Box 409 401 E. State Street Trenton NJ 08625 609-633-2374 astern@dep.state.nj.us
Environmental
Protection
Stewart Kenneth Lee West Virginia P.O. Box 6064 Morgantown WV 26506 304-293-2867, ken.stcwart@mail.wvu.edu
UniversityfNRCCE x-5472
Stone David Oregon Dept. of State Office Bldg., Suite 608 800 NE Oregon Portland OR 97232 503-731-4012, dave.stone@state.or.us
Human Services Street x-244
Strom Stan C. Montana Dept.of P.O. Box 202953 3400 Broadway, Helena MT 59620- 406-444-5306 sstrom@state.mt.us
Public Health/Human Suite C-2l4 2953
Services
Tarbell Barbara St. Regis Mohawk 412 State Route 37 Akwesasne NY 13655 518-358-5937 earth3-nrda northnetorg
Tribe ext 23
Truchon Stephen BBL Sciences 100 Cummins Center, Suite Beverly MA 01915 508-878-7497 spt@bbl-inc.com
322G
Tunink Dave Nebraska Game and 2200 North 33rd Street Lincoln NE 68503 402-471-5553 dtunink@ngpc.state.ne.us
Parks Commission
Unger Suanne Alcutian/Pribilof 201 E. 3rd Avenue Anchorage AK 99501 907-276-2700 sueu@apiai.com
Islands Association,
Inc.
Uram Eric R. Sierra Club 214 North Henry street, Suite 203 Madison WI 53703- 608-257-4994 eric.uram sierraclub.org
2200
Varanasi Usha NMFSINOAAIUSDC 2725 Montlake Blvd. E Seattle WA 981 32- 206-860-6795 usha.varanasi@noaa.gov
2097
Wasti Khizar Virginia Dept. of P.O. Box 2448 Room 124 Richmond VA 23238 804-786-1763 kwasti@vdh.state.va.us
Health
Wei Lei Texas Department of 1100W 49th St Austin TX 78756- 512-458-7587 lei.wei@tdhstate.tx.us
Health 3160 ext 2484
Weist Jeri US EPA/NE I Congress St., Suite 1100 Boston MA 02114 617-918-1568 weiss.jeri epa.gov
Wente Steve US Geological 2280 Woodale Drive Mounds View MN 55132 763-783-3272 spwente usgs.gov
Survey
Wiles Kirk Texas Department of 1100W. 49th St. Austin TX 78756 512-719-0215 kirk.wiles@tdh.state.tx.us
Health
Wilkinson Mike Indiana State 2 N.Meridian Street, Section Indianapolis IN 46204 317-233-7055 mwilkins@isdh.state.in.us
Department of Health 3-D
Williams Luanne K. North Carolina 1912 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699- 919-715-6429 luanne.williams@ncniail.net
Division of Public 1912
Health
-------
Winters Dwain US EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC 20460 202-566-1977 winters.dwain epa.gov
NW
Wolff Steve Wyoming Game & 5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne WY 82006 307-777-4559 stcve.wolff wgf.state.Wy.Us
Fish Department
Wooton Maureen Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus OH 43201 614-424-4890 wootonm battelle.org
Wright Jay Oklahoma Dept. of P.O. Box 1677 Oklahoma OK 73101- 405-702-1039 jay.wright®deq.state.ok.us
Environmental City 1677
Quality
Yeaton Violet Port Graham Village P.O. Box 5510 Port Graham AK 99603 907-284-2227 vyeaton yahoo.com
Council
-------
Appendix 5: Slides Presented by Speakers during the Forum
Part One: Slides Presented During Workshops
C. Contaminants in Stocked Fisheries: Potential for contamination, human exposure, and
human health risks. Bob Brodberg, State of California, moderator.
1. PCBs and Hatchery Trout in Pennsylvania—The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! John Arway,
State of Pennsylvania
2. Regulating Contaminants in Feed for Fish. Frances Pell, US FDA, Center for Veterinary
Medicine
D. The Use of Composite Samples in the Development of Fish Advisories. Razelle
Hoffrnan-Contois, State of Vermont, moderator.
1. Use of Composited Fish Samples for Assessing Health Risks to High Intake Consumers.. John
Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Research Lab
2. Composite Sampling Analysis of Fish. Henry D. Kahn, US EPA
E. Addressing Multiple Pollutants in Fish, Eric Frohmberg, State of Maine, Moderator
1. Addressing Multiple Contaminants in Fish.. Roseanne Lorenzana, US EPA Region 10
2. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Edward Bender, US EPA
Part Two: Slides Presented During Plenary Sessions
I. Update on Activities Related to the 2001 Forum
A. New Version of the Risk Communication Guidance. Barbara Knuth, Cornell University
B. Update: Relationship of TMDLs to Fish Advisories. Jim Pendergast, US EPA
II. Reports from the Weekend Sessions
A. Methvlmercurv Contamination in Fish: Human Exposures and Case Reports. Henry A.
Anderson, State of Wisconsin
B. Mercury Advisories. Amy D. Kyle, University of California Berkeley
III. Advisories for Commercial Fish: Federal, State, and Tribal Approaches. Elaine
Krueger, State of Massachusetts, Moderator
A. Report on the Advisory Panel to the Food and Drug Administration on Mercury Advisories. H.
Vasken Aposhian, University of Arizona.
B. FDA Consumer Advisory for Methylmercury. Philip Spiller, US FDA
C. Sport and Commercial Seafood Wisconsin Integrated Public Health Message: Maximize Health
Benefit, Minimize Risk, Coordinate Health Message. Henry A. Anderson, State of Wisconsin
D. Context for Connecticut’s Seafood Advisory. Gary Ginsburg, State of Connecticut
E. ConsumerAdvisoryfor Commercial Fish. Andy Smith, State of Maine.
2002 American Fisheries Society
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 97
-------
IV. Hot Topics—Chemicals of Concern. Luanne Williams, State of South Carolina,
Moderator
A. Mercury
• Methylmercury: Ongoing Research on Toxicology. Kathryn R. Mahaffey, US EPA
• Setting a Methylmercury Reference Dose (RiD) for Adults. Alan H. Stern, State of New
Jersey
B. Brominated Flame Retardants (Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers or BDEs)
• Occurrence of PBDE Flame Retardants in Fish. Robert C. Hale, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science
• PBDEs: Toxicology and Human Exposure. Linda S. Birnbauin, US EPA
• Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (BDEs). Khizar Wasti, State of Virginia
C. Dioxins and Coplanar PCBs
• Emerging Science of the Dioxin Reassessment. Dwain Winters, US EPA
D. Lead
• Application of the Lead IEUBK Model to Assess Spokane River Fish Consumption Health
Risks. Lon Kissinger, US EPA Region 10.
• Occurrence of Lead in Fish. Robert Brodberg, State of California
E. Polycycic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Fish and Invertebrates. Usha Varanasi,
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
V. Approaches to State and Tribal Advisories. Jeff Bigler, US EPA, Moderator
A. Setting Statewide Advisories Based on Upper Percentile Lake Averages. Eric Frohmberg, State
of Maine
B. Use of Maine’s Statewide Advisory in a Tribal Setting. Susan M. Peterson, Aroostook Band of
Micmacs Environmental Laboratory
C. North Dakota ‘s Fish Consumption Advisory: A Statewide Advisory Based on Average
Concentrations. Mike Eli, State of North Dakota
D. Advisories in Pennsylvania. Bob Frey, State of Pennsylvania
E. Minnesota Statewide Fish Consumption Advice. Pat McCann, State of Minnesota
F. Regional Fish Advisory for the Mississippi Delta. Henry Folmar, State of Mississippi
G. Consumption Advisories Based on 8 Meals per Month. Joseph Beaman, State of Maryland
VI. Approaches to Considering Benefits in Advisory Programs. Dan Kusnierz, Penobscot
Nation, Moderator
A. Impacts of Fish Contamination in the Columbia River Basin. Paul Lurnley, Yakima Tribe
B. Dietary Benefits and Risks in Alaskan Villages. Sue Unger, Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Association
VII. Current Science on the Benefits of Fish Consumption. Andy Smith, State of Maine,
Moderator.
A. Overview of Benefits of Fish Consumption. Judy Sheeshka, University of Guelph
B. Use of Quality-adjusted Life Years to Assess Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption. Rafael
Ponce, University of Washington
Please note that some speakers did not present slides.
2002 American Fisheries Sodety
Forum on Contaminants in Fish: Proceedings 98
-------
Part One: Slides Presented During Workshops
A. Contaminants in Stocked Fisheries: Potential for contamination, human exposure, and
human health risks. Bob Brodberg, State of California, moderator.
1. PCBs and Hatchery Trout in Pennsylvania—The Good, the Bad and the Ugly! John Arway,
State of Pennsylvania
2. Regulating Contaminants in Feed for Fish. Frances Pell, US FDA, Center for Veterinary
Medicine
B. The Use of Composite Samples in the Development of Fish Advisories. Razelle
Hoffman-Contois, State of Vermont, moderator.
1. Use of Composited Fish Samples for Assessing Health Risks to High Intake Consumers.. John
Persell, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Research Lab
2. Composite Sampling Analysis of Fish. Henry D. Kahn, US EPA
C. Addressing Multiple Pollutants in Fish, Eric Frohmberg, State of Maine, Moderator
1. Addressing Multiple Contaminants in Fish.. Roseanne Lorenzana, US EPA Region 10
2. Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Edward Bender, US EPA
-------
PCBs and Hatchery Trout in
Pennsylvania
The Good, The Bad and the
Ugly!.’!
According to a
1996 LS. Fish and
Jrildhfe Service
Repor4 irci i
Fishinz in the U.S . ,
anglers .pend more
days (8,861,000
dayc valued at over
j 5568M)) fishing for
trout in PA , more
any other state
wept California.
dP fhzt ,herv
Eight trout hatcheries statewide that
produce between 3.8 to 5.2 million
catchable trout annually to stock more
than 4500 miles of streams.
S.,.. -J
- - _____
Raceway Series A Raceway S iies B
— k
- 5 j• ; .l
* _.l .
— - - 0
S —
I
PFBC Trnt CuItDre (Hatchery) Statlo. Locatlo.s
. m.’
- -
I-
-------
Warm/Cootwater Ponds
* [ i wav Series B
1
Supp4y
: CIarilier
Settling Pond
Serial Flow-Through Raceways
- --- -
L ; :; :-;
-------
THE GOOD
‘- Fish Tissue
• Freeze dry then Super
Critical Fluid Extraction
(SFE) with CO 2
• Modified US EPA Method
3561
INPDES Discharge
THE GOOD
- PA Tissue/Feed Extraction
Protocols for PCBs
• Fish Feeds
• Freeze dry then Accelerated
Solvent Extraction (ASE)
• US EPA Method 3545
THE GOOD
The PA PCB Analytical Protocol
for Fish Tissue and Feeds
• Gas ChromatographyfElectron
Capture Detector (GCIECD)
Analysis (US EPA Method 8082)
• Quantify Aroclors 1221, 1232,
1242, 1248, 1254 and 1260
TH1 GOOD
-------
THE GOOD
Protocol
for a
t;n&form Great Lakes Sporl Fish
Consumption Adsisors
- -\
_/ _ \_.
0 •
_s.. t’ ,
The Good
• Uses a weight-of-
evidence approach.
• PA began applying this
protocol to hatchery-reared
trout in 1998.
THE GOOD
Focused on PCBs
which is the chemical
contaminant most
frequently encountered
in Great lakes fish.
THE GOOD
Non-cancer (neurological)
endpoint to protect pregnant
women and children and
women of child-bearing ages.
Great Lakes Protocol Advisory Groupings
(1993)
• Group 1 (No Advisory): 0-0.06 ppm
• Group 2(1 meal/week -52 meals/year): 0.06 - 0.2 ppm
• Group 3(1 meal/month -12 meals/year): 0.21 - 1.0 ppm
• Group 4(6 meals/year): 1.1 - 1.9 ppm
• Group 5 (No consumption): >1.9 ppm
-------
Hatchery Trout Sampling
r (1) 5 Fish Composite
‘ (5) 8 Fish Composites
I UCL (95%) of a one
tail test
Variables
Variables
Partitioning in Body Tissues
Variables
Fish Feed Component Testing
• Fish Meals
v Feather
• Fish Feed Components
Fish Oils
“ Crude
V’ Deodorized
v’ Winterized
v’ Soy
lCereal
lBIood
“Bulk Flour
“‘Ground Wheat
“‘Soybean
“‘Poultry
Analytical Chemistry
-------
Fish Feed Testing
Fish Feed Component Results
Diet
Fish Meal
Menhaden Oil
PCB (ppb)
I
Herring
Distilled
69
2
Menhaden
Filtered
126
3*
Menhaden
Filtered
220
4*
Menhaden
Filtered
280
• Fish Feed
• Perdue Specialty Feeds
• Zeigler Brothers
• Fish Oils
v’<0.05 to 0.938
1 mean= 0.265
ln=6, 10 tests
• Fish Meals
1<0.05 to 0.102
1 mean= 0.03
ln=6, 12 tests
• Other Ingredients
1<0.05
Results in mg/kg
Fish Feed Results
• Fish Feed
• <0.05 to 0.2
• mean= 0.061
• n=24
• 44 tests
Results in mg/kg
PSU Academic Study Objectives
>ID Possible Sources of PCBs in
PFBC Hatchery Trout
) Determine Bioaccumulation and
Assimilation Rates
PSU Academic Study Objectives
>Determine the Relationship between PCB
Concentrations in the Feed and in
the Hatchery Trout
>Determine Seasonal Variations
Feed Formulations (*PCBs added)
-------
120
0. 100
40
20 —AdvisoTy
a.
0 100 200 300
PCB conc. in feed . ppb
PSU Study Results
When feed concentrations are
less than 0.126 ppm PCBs,
concentrations in trout ifilets
after 6 months of feeding did not
exceed 0.10 ppm (1 meal/week).
THE UGLY
RISK
COMMUNICATION!!!!!
Have I not walked without
an upward look
Of caution under stars that
very well
Might not have missed me when
they shot and fell?
It was a risk I had to take—
and took.
Robert Frost
Bravado, 1962
What is Risk?
Basically, it is a measure of the
severity and probability of harm.
Frost’s poem suggests that it is
an unavoidable part of our daily
lives.
Public Notice of Fish Advisories
General Statewide
News Releases
-------
L t
i=_•
Public Notice of Fish Advisories
On 11 April 2001 PA issued a
general statewide advisory that
states no person should eat
more than one-meal-a-week of
sportfish caught in any
Commonwealth water.
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
Trout fishing 1
is t notighto
vouick
I .!
& 3
ck yb ui
iurrsid abo
6
I—
— I Sup m it . — -
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
Pa. fish
advisory
raises
quest
Same isv the advi thMn e
e.tenmivmi4
theatñiktOt 1fl& e
-
Public Notice of Fish Advisories
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
Subject to the statewide
one-meal-a-week advisory
plus...
p Additional advice on
www.fish.state.pa.us
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
Pa. must alert puhuic to (langer
from fish. fowl. official says
.. J_ — — —— — — ,.
— — .- -.. ‘I- — —. - -
—
- . -P — .
- -
__ - — . .,
— ._— . —
-
-‘
-------
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
Legislators rebuke
fish commission
Public adv sones on .Ie
on
ait c nIucing, they y
rLI.LZNL
f% INI PA7 -j
WbUI sEat. Pub wd BosE
bi t t iI 1S*NN INN. 1977
• thsv ate — .(
NN99 . In
In A ttree y. i
‘TOO ’ fl .*att
DR sM —
a tn1t.Z
sE MM and
tNt GINEBAt ASS&MBIY 01 ci ½ V AhEA
HOUSE RESOLUTION
RI Sescato D l
IMO. J 2000
IUTNENNtED IT I 991 iN CMMIY lOUdER 9999IN(9G1 STABAtA
MO 5 1*1* ‘ 2000
TO I TflL 99 RtS 1*Y I 0OO
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN 1A
PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 1999
r v ‘
_________ I I I!
‘A i ’. :4
DO NOT
EAT TROU1
TAKEN FROM
THESE WATERS
THE PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT CO SI
AS iSSUED All R4TEMM CONSUMPTION STATEN
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
Fish flap warrants investigation, say Democrats
A
•1
C
C
4
9 -
h
U
I .
a
Public Notice of Hatchery Trout
Advisories
A t.S0(UT I OU
1 T1* Pems IMMia 1i I 3t C te at to l1.
d tsd c c.
The End
-------
Regulating Contaminants in
Feed for Fish
Fran Pell
Consumer Safety Officer
Division of Compliance
Center for Veterinary Medicine
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has the responsibility to
enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the Act) by ensuring
that foods for man and animal are
safe and free of residues of illegal
contaminants.
‘Food’ means
(1) articles used for food or drink for man
or other animals
(2) chewing gum, and
(3) articles used for components of any
such article
The FDA’s, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM) is responsible:
for protecting the animal feed supply
assuring that it is safe and wholesome,
that incidence of harmful residues in
human food derived from animals is
minimized.
The Center uses Compliance
Programs to give guidance to the
Field on how we want our programs
implemented by the Field.
k
The Feed Contaminants Compliance
Program is designed to address the
Center’s responsibility for feed
contaminants.
‘p
-------
Animal feeds adulterated with pesticides,
industrial chemicals, mycotoxins, and
other microbiological agents may
present a hazard:
to livestock health and production,
the nation’s food supply,
- and to the public heafth by the
residues which may occur in animal
derived foods
The more frequently identified
contaminants in animal feeds are
toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, or otherwise deleterious
to animal and human health.
The Feed Contaminants Compliance
Program provides guidance for:
Investigation of the cause(s) of violative
sample findings and Contamination
Response System (CRS) reports.
The CRS is an early warning system
developed by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Food Safety and inspection Service
(FSIS) for the reporting of tissue
contaminants.
The Feed Contaminants Compliance
Program provides guidance for:
Collection and analysis of animal
feed samples for pesticides,
industrial chemicals, heavy metals,
mycotoxins and microbiological
agents.
Surveillance of the industry to
identify potential problem areas to
be addressed under this program.
The Feed Contaminant
program is:
• A cooperative program
• Our Field (Investigators, compliance
officers and analysts)
• State counterparts could also collect
samples for FDA
Center wilt issue directed assignments
-------
SCOPE OF THE COMPLIANCE
PROGRAM
• District’s program monitor • Pesticide and industrial chemical
samples assigned under this
• Drafts regional pesticide plan program are to be incorporated into
the each FDA Regional Pesticide
• Includes sampling for contaminants in Sampling Plans.
human foods
Guidance on developing FDA/State
• Encouraged to work with the states cooperative sampling plans.
SCOPE OF THE COMPLIANCE
PROGRAM CONT’D
• The Center will issue directed
• More definitive guidance on priority feeds
and feed ingredients which the Center assignments as necessary.
has identified as high-risk commodities.
• These directed assignments with
• Regional evaluations and headquarters the District’s surveillance are
review to determine the need for making expected to provide
adjustments to sampling plans. contaminants-related data.
Example of directed assignment:
Since fiscal year 2000, CVM issued
This will supplement the data sampling assignments to test for
from such sources as United Dioxin.
States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Environment Protection • There were 50 samples collected for
Agency (EPA) and industry, each assignment.
Sampling a tiered approach
-------
• First tier- )
Criteria for sampling • Feed suspect containing highest
• Past history of dioxin dioxin
contamination • Fish meal, oliseed, deodorizer
• Likelihood ingredient will be distlUates, animal fat and meat and
used in a ration bone meal
• Ingredients where air deposition
• Amount typically used in a ration (corn)
• Amount of fat • Uptake from soil (beet molasses)
• Fire during harvest (cane molasses)
Second tier
• Feed ingredients 2nd likelihood of
Fish meals sampled as part of e elevated dioxin level
assignment • Oliseed meals
Fat-soluable vitamins
• Catfish and anchovy (used for pet • Complete Feeds
food) • Milk Products
• Pacific species (pollock) • Minerals
• Menhaden (90% of fishmeal in U.S.) . WoOd Products
• Third tier
• Feed ingredients 3rd likelihood of
elevated dioxin level
Web site:
• Sampling similar to previous
assignment
www.fda.gov/cvm
-------
The End
Questions????
Email: fpell cvm.fda.gov
-------
USE of COMPOSITED FISH
SAMPLES for ESTIMATING
HEALTH RISKS to HIGH
INTAKE CONSUMERS
John Persell
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Consider Two Factors
• Composited Fish
• Bolus Dosing
Composite Variance
• . . .“even under ideal conditions, the
variance of the mean estimated from a
set of composite samples
underestimates the variance among
fish.” (Fabrizio, 1995)
Variance Larger in
Contaminated Areas
• Fish move in and out of contaminatec
areas
• Fish have different metabolic rates
• Time of year sampled
Data from Fabnzio Study
• 195 Striped Bass
• Total PCBs in Muscle
• Range = 0.1 to 40.7 ppm
• Average = 3.57 ppm
Research Lab
Types of
Fish Composites
• Batch: Homogenize fish together
(greater variance about the mean)
• Individual: Homogenize individual fish
separately, take equal portions of
indMdual homogenates and
homogenize for composite
S .
•Variance 24.105
-------
• Children: including fetuses and breast
fed children; for fetuses, the timing of
fetal exposure is at least as important
as the dose
• Elderly: diminished detoxification
capacities
• Persons taking pharmaceuticals
Bolus Dose
• A potentially large, intermittent dose
• May not be problematic for low intake
consumers, however it is a concern for
the most susceptible in high intake
consumers
• The bolus dose has not been evaluated
in most toxicity studies (EPA, 2000)
• Fabrzio, M.C., Frank, A.M., and Savino, J.F.
Procedures for Formation of Composite
Samples from Segmented Populations.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 1995. 29: 1377-44.
• USEPA. Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories.
Vol. 2, 3 Ed., EPA 823-B-OO-008
The Perfect Homogenate
• Even with composited water samples,
there may be difficulty in detecting the
presence and seventy of extreme
concentrations (Fabrizio, 1995)
• Greater difficulty yet with fish
homogenates
• Tendency to dilute out hot fish
• Wide range in whole fish homogenates
Those Most Susceptible
High Intake Fish Consumers
• Individuals, such as Tribal members utilizing
traditional lifeways, are more exposed in
general to fish contaminants. Intake ranges
up to one pound per day (454 grams/day) in
the Pacific Northwest; higher intakes have
been reported for Alaska Tribes
• These high intake consumers are more
exposed to bolus doses from highly
contaminated fish
Recommendation
• When using composited fish homogenates to
4 determine safe fish consumption quantities
for high intake consumers, employ an
additional safety factor of 3 to 10
• Use specific chemical toxicity as a safety
ctor me ic
Literature Cited
• This will offer a reasonable accounting of the
inherent contaminant underestimates
-------
Composite Sampling Analysis of Fish
Henry D. Kahn
Statistics & Anatytical Support Branch
Engineering & Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
Composite Sampling Analysis of
Fish
• Introduction
• Basics of Composite Sampling
• Examples: Analysis of Blood arid Fish Tissue
• Assessment of the Effectiveness of Composite
Sampling Analysis: Flounder Data
• Number of Fish in the Composite: Maine lakes
Study
• Conclusions
Introduction
• sampêing is used widely in envlronrnenta and other
- Sof ter. atlid w hazer i$ matehal
- omedical, e.g . blood, pharmacetmcals
- Manhlactunng quality ooi1rol e.g. liquids, biat materials
Introduction
Guidance for Assessing thecrecal Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories, Vol 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3rd Ediborc, EPA 823-
800-007, Nov 2000.
- ‘Cong,oslte ssrçles of 8th Slats or of the edbe passes of scs i fish are
recoeleseded f an&yse of teget atcalyias in orreecung stijdies
- Ca xidis saa 5iles are honegseeocs Tr*xtswes of seipes from tse or
rices fr&vldual egasees of the same speaes ccilected at a parOcular
site arid so 5yssd at a single rOe.
loduction
Composite Sampling Analysis of Fish
—A cost effective method for estimating mean
contaminant levels in fish tissue
—Provides sufficient amount (usually) of fish tissue
for analyses
-Does not provide information on individual fish
Basics of Composite
Sampling
• Composite sample: collect a number of sample units
and combine them cmix, blend, homogenize) into a
new sample, i.e. the composite’. One or more
measurements are made on the composite.
• Composite sampling supports inference regarding key
population parameters (e.g., the mean) in a cost
effecthie manner.
• Composite sampling does not provide information on
individual sample units.
-------
Basics of Composite Sampling
• Fundamental Concept: A composite sample is a
mixture of individual sample units. Mixing results in
physical averaging of individual units.
• Composite sampling is useful when:
— Cost of analyzing indMdu& samples is high
- Cost of obtaining individual samples is relatively low
— Samples can be thoroughly mixed
- Study budges are limited
Basics of Composite Sampling
Composite sampling objectives:
-Objective is to estimate mean concentrations or
presence/absence
—Information on individual sample units is not a
priority
Example: Analysis of Blood
Samples - Presence I Absence
• Composite Sample analysis in World War II
-Large numbers of blood samples were analyzed
for syphilis
-Composite samples were formed from batches of
individual samples
-If composite tested positive, all indMduals in the
composite were retested separately
—If a composite tested negative, all individuals in
the composite were deared
Example: Analysis of Blood Samples -
Presence / Absence
— Methodology documented in a famous paper by
Dorfman (1943) “The Detection of Defective
Members of Large Populations”
• batch size was optimized based on likelihood
of syphilis and cost of analysis
• inference regarding individuals using
composites is possible but individual sample
material is reguired
Example: Composite Analysis of Fish -
Physical Averaging to Obtain Mean
Estimate
composite
I
Sub Samp4e
Measured concentration of Sub Sample = estimated mean
of individual units
Assessment of the effectiveness of
composite sampling
• It is typical in practice to make only one
measurement on the sub sample
• The one measurement is adequate for
estimating the mean of the individual units
• Additional sampling and analysis is required to
obtain information on sub sampling and repeat
measurement variability that will support the
assessment of composite sampling
-------
Assessment of the Effectiveness of
Composite Sampling: Flounder Data
Conduct 15 kidMdual Analysis
___ ____ ____
Total nun er o( samples for analysis =27(15 IndIviduals +12 dupes)
Statistical Analysis of Flounder
Samples
kedlyldusi Fish
49. 927.
Co 49edv. C......eded... C e .m5as
cs iii (n tg)
C .sBa. 254 349 - 3793
CBa 271 435 1251.4101 355
C osBa c 321 437 3 - 4153 349
O ed S4 437 3 1352372 1 321
15.00531 Hg (u tg)
C osBa. SI 47 23 (12-1103
CcpssBab 0.4 27 23 (13-1023
C SBac 10 32 24 (17-115
Owse I 1.4 47 23 (17.351
Based 25 seas 00 u9191 15 1 Ba Dd (0 e49od Load 119121)
o CSdasos BBaaB
Statistical Analysis of Flounder
Samples
Statistical comparisons do not show evidence of difference
between composite and individual concentrations (a = 0.05)
• The composite measurements provide good approximations to
the average individual concentrations (i.e., the overall mean)
• Composite samples should be adequate for risk assessment
— Costs are substantially less than for analysis of individual fish
Methyl Hg:
Analysis
Sub Sample I Duplicate
Number of Fish in the Composite
• Protocols for composite analysis specify a
number of fish to be included in the composite
• In field studies it often is not possible to obtain
the specified number of fish for each composite
—This is usually not a significant problem
• Typically, the size of the fish in the composite
is more important
— Composites should be comprised of similar
size fish since tissue concentration for many
contaminants is correlated with size
Composite HG Concentration vs
Number of Fish in the Composite
• - :‘ .‘ ,e Led15. S e (1997) tom ks Its.
- o35 I ) Dy ) - ,.. alas4s Goo41masi (1006)
-------
PCB Concentration vs Fish
Conclusions
• Composite sampling analysis of fish is effective
— Theory, experimental results support this
— Objectives for the analysis must be clear
Protocols for sampling and analysis should be
adhered to strictly
— Number of fish in composite may vary without
severely affecting results
— Size of fish in composite is more likely to a
critical factor
Weight
pc•c•.,••$ O
l00
eo
20
o
0
W ( )
Conclusions
• Sub sampling and replicate analyses should be
performed on, at least, a subset of samples
- Important as a check on the effectiveness of
composite analysis and chemical analysis
• Refer to Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Vol. 1, Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3rd
Edition, EPA 823-B-OO-007, Nov 2000.
-------
U.S. EPA Guidance
Supplementary Guidance for Conducting
Health Risk Assessment for Chemical
Mixtures (EPA 6301R-001002, August
2000).
http://www.epa.gov/ncealraf/Chem_mx.htm
Fish Intake Rate Decreases.
CR = ( RfDrn Pm )
Fish Consumption Advisories: Toward a Unified, Scientificaly
Credible Approach . Dourson and Clark, Reaulak iv Toxicoloav
and Pt rmaouloav 12:161-178.
•BW
Addressing Multiple
Contaminants in Fish
AFS/EPA National Forum on
Contaminants in Fish
October20, 2002
II _ IIF A Dr. Roseanne Lorenzana
“‘GQ 66 WHAT’€ i ii ’? ‘. ‘ AT AM I A
lOX ICOLOGI6T?”
U.S. EPA Guidance
• Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories, Vol. 2, Risk Assessment and
Fish Consumption Limits ( 3 rd edition, EPA
823-B-OO-008, Nov 2000).
httpj/www.epa.gov/waterscieflce/fiSh/gUidaflce.htmf
Guidance for Fish Advisories, Vol
2, Risk Assessment and...
• Section 3.5
• Equation 3-13
- Cancer ARL. -
• (343)
• Equation 3-16
- Non-Cancer
t P. ) . 5W (3-16)
-------
Paradigm for Mixtures
V
( X ( : ,
4.-_ 7\
— 4
/
I
I
Paradigm for Mixtures
_________________ I
— .
I
L !q fl&yflI.4.th. i..
Paradigm for Mixtures
I
( ) ( \ ( X
4. /
\
4 / v/
I
I
FW•14.
Paradigm for Mixtures
__ —
7/ / \ I
— - — - 1 \.
— •W
, — —— I
Toxicologically Similar: Dose-Addition
0 Wi I a l fl im, 1. O MOO I
MO. IO dtFdI..
Dose-Addition (cont’d)
• Hazard Index
• Relative Potency Factor
• Toxicity Equivalence Factor
-------
Dose-Addition (cont’d)
• Relative Potency Factor (RFP)
— Addition of scaled concentrations.
— Expert judgment required.
— Example: B2 PAHs are scaled to B(a)P
• Toxicity Equivalence Factor (TEF)
- Specific type of RPF.
— TEFs for dioxin congeners
i-’araciugm tor Mixtures (cont’d)
Paradigm for Mixtures (cont’d)
/
- \
/
. / i’- -
I I
Paradigm for Mixtures (cont’d)
.• .
•—r
r •
I
‘ -‘N
1 tI w :
r / k, -‘ a
Dose-Addition (cont’d)
• Hazard Index
— More generally applicable, but more
uncertainty
— Assumes same “mode of action” and similarly
shaped dose-response
— Limitation: Exposures should be relatively low
— Scaling factors should be related to each
component’s toxicity
-------
-
a_ , nu!a. ..inp
___
‘
T
.
Uncertainties
• Data Quality.
• Quality of Health Effects Data.
• Information on Interactions.
Consult “User Fact Sheets” in the Supplemental Guidance for
‘ i Conduction Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures for
summary of uncertainties associated with each approach.
Dose-Addition for other effects
, z _
V
So. ut*il . . — A O3. flOO
-------
Cumulative Risk Assessment
Framework for
Cumulative Risk
Assessment
Edward Bender ORD
.\ Risk Assessment Forum Technical
Panel on Cumulative Risk Assessment
• “Traditional” Risk Assessment:
- Where we’ve been
• Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA):
- Why change?
• Framework: What is CRA?
• Guidelines: How do we do CRA?
• How the Framework relates to Fish
Advisories?
.1
Framework vs. Guidelines
• Framework: General description of the
topic. An information document laying
out scope of the subject and how
various parts fit together.
• Guidelines: Description of how it’s done,
including boundaries (e.g., limits of
good science”) not to be exceeded.
Types of Issues
• Process issues: Extent of public
participation, Role of risk managers, etc.
• Technical/scientific issues: Feasibility of
certain components, Assumptions and
defaults, etc.
Policy issues: Requirements, etc. (will
not be discussed)
-------
Process issues
Process issues
Working Definition
• Cumulative risk assessment: The
examination of the accumulation over time
(across sources, across routes, etc.) of
stressors or exposures that can cause
adverse effects, and then the integration of
the effects these stressors or exposures
cause into an estimate and characterization of
the risk caused to the individual or population
by the stressors acting together.
Organization of Framework
1. Introduction
2. Planning, Scoping, and Problem
Formulation Phase
3. Analysis Phase
4. Interpretation Phase
5. Glossary
6. References
Where are we going?
• Finish Framework document this year
• Examine case studies and issues for tools
and methods through 2004
• Then begin Guidelines work
• http://www.epa.govfncea/raf/pdfs/frniwrk_for_
cra/Draft_Framework_April23_2002.pdf
Applying the Framework to
Fish Advisories
• Planning and scoping.
— Problem-Fish are or may be
contaminated with one or more
chemicals. How do we protect the
public?
—What do we know about
stakeholders, sources, exposures and
adverse effects?
A Generalized Conceptual Model
wIth Bioaccumulation and Fish Consumption
Conceptual Model
• Defines the goals and assessment
context
• Tool for learning, communicating, and
consensus building
• Describes linkages among sources,
stress, and entities at risk.
-
I lI
___1lE
r
IM
5—
i I iI
_ fth
-------
Analysis Plan for the
Assessment
• Describes agreements on data
sources, models, quality, and methods
• Carries forward assumptions, rationale
for scope, stakeholder values and risk
management objectives.
• Helps the analysis inform risk
management option selection
H ofisn do thsy SM fish?
pSM of e . fish do easy
EM?
Do disy dflnk waisr frors
Ths s iMs of eonc.rn? EIc.
Conc.ms of stak.hold.rs
-oth.i- iild•qdlf lud co ,ilnants?
-aisfy of fish si pIy?
.coSM of flak ,, na s.asnt?
: = z —
Health status of stakoftolders
r..ss s*rng d s.as.?
Oiher xposlvss?
-OMfaly hakiM?
-Ufss*y i s?
-Health cars?
Vulnerability
• Susceptibility/Sensitivity
• Differential exposure
• Differential preparedness
• Differential ability to recover
• Question: How do these factors change
risk?
Analysis Phase
• Collect and evaluate data to address
the problem
• Fish Advisories may be for:
— Public notice
—Part of Remediation, or perhaps
—To monitor effectiveness of Risk
Management actions
Are they contaminated?
How and
What?
Who is sspos.d?
nI
Fish Hazard Screen
Exposure and Stakeholders
Peshc des (4)
M s (2) Ocgan cs 3
A
Mfl
lndusV lM
P hwys
Dired ñsh
Trans-Fish
Direct-Fish
Human Roide
Fish Ingestion
Fish Ingestion
Fish Ingestion
WMer
Wster
W
Food
Food
Possible 1 P4euroloxic Kidney furt on Can is
TeaMSM ls. s
-------
Technical Issues
Stressors Acting Together
• Combination toxicology- common mech.
• Combining risks-occupational ex.
• Risk factor approach-Heart Disease,
RSC
• Biomarkers or biomonitonng
• QALYs, DALYs, LLEs and other
Technical issues
Combining different risks
• Can different types of risk be
combined?
• Common metric approach
• Index approach
Technical issues
Uncertainty
• Few good examples of uncertainty
analysis for Cumulative Risk
Assessments
• New GIS-based technology poses new
challenges in uncertainty analysis
• What type of analysis would be useful to
a decision-maker?
Risk Characterization
• Draws on scoping and problem
formulation
• Do data validate model assumptions
(stressors, sources, etc.)
• How are susceptibilities/exposures of
fish consumers considered in the CRA
• How does the Fish Advisory help
consumers manage risks?
CRA May Apply to Fish
Advisories
• To Clarify the Problem and 1D
Stakeholders
• To Plan Analysis and Monitoring
• To Place Fish Contamination risks in a
larger context
• To Help the Public Understand and
Manage Risks
-------
Part Two: Slides Presented During Plenary Sessions
I. Update on Activities Related to the 2001 Forum
A. New Version of the Risk Communication Guidance. Barbara Knuth, Cornell University
B. Update: Relationship of TMDLs to Fish Advisories. Jim Pendergast, US EPA
II. Reports from the Weekend Sessions
A. Merhvlmercury Contamination in Fish: Human Exposures and Case Reports. Henry A.
Anderson, State of Wisconsin
B. Report on Mercury Advisory Worksheets. Amy D. Kyle, University of California Berkeley
ifi. Advisories for Commercial Fish: Federal, State, and Tribal Approaches
A. FDA Consumer Advisory for Methvlmercuiy. Philip Spiller, US FDA
B. Sport and Commercial Seafood Wisconsin integrated Public Health Message: Maximize Health
Benefit, Minimize Risk, Coordinate Health Message. Henry A. Anderson, State of Wisconsin
C. Context for Connecticut ‘s Seafood Advisory. Gary Ginsburg, State of Connecticut
D. Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish. Andy Smith, State of Maine.
IV. Hot Topics—Chemicals of Concern
A. Mercury
• Methvlmercurv: Ongoing Research on Toxicology. Kathryn R. Mahaffey, US EPA
• Setting a Methylmercury Reference Dose (R I D) for Adults. Alan H. Stern, State of New
Jersey
B. Brominated Flame Retardants (Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers or BDEs)
• Occurrence of PBDE Flame Retardants in Fish. Robert C. Hale, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science
• PBDEs: Toxicology and Human Exposure. Linda S. Bimbaum, US EPA
• Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (BDEs). Khizar Wasti, State of Virginia
C. Dioxins and Coplanar PCBs
• Emerging Science of the Dioxin Reassessment. Dwain Winters, US EPA
D. Lead
• Application of the Lead IEUBK Model to Assess Spokane River Fish Consumption Health
Risks. Lon Kissinger, US EPA Region 10.
• Occurrence of Lead in Fish. Robert Brodberg, State of California
E. Polycycic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
• Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Fish and invertebrates. Usha Varanasi,
Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
V. Approaches to State and Tribal Advisories
A. Setting Statewide Advisories Based on Upper Percentile Lake Averages. Eric Frohmberg, State
of Maine
B. Use of Maine’s Statewide Advisory in a Tribal Setting. Susan M. Peterson, Aroostook Band of
Micmacs Environmental Laboratory
C. North Dakota ‘s Fish Consumption Advisory: A Statewide Advisory Based on Average
Concentrations. Mike Eli, State of North Dakota
-------
D. Advisories in Pennsylvania. Bob Frey, State of Pennsylvania
E. Minnesota Statewide Fish Consumption Advice. Pat McCann, State of Minnesota
F. Regional Fish Advisory for the Mississippi Delta. Henry Folmar, State of Mississippi
G. Consumption Advisories Based on 8 Meals per Month. Joseph Beaman, State of Maryland
V I. Approaches to Considering Benefits in Advisory Programs
A. Impacts of Fish Contamination in the Columbia River Basin. Paul Lumley, Yakima Tribe
B. Dietary Benefits and Risks in Alaskan Villages. Sue Unger, Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Association
VII. Current Science on the Benefits of Fish Consumption
A. Overview of Benefits of Fish Consumption. Judy Sheeshka, University of Guelph
B. Use of Qualiiy-adjustedLjfe Years to Assess Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption. Rafael
Ponce, University of Washington
-------
What is changing?
New Version of the Risk
Communication Guidance
Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume IV — Risk Communication
EPA 823-R-95-OO1
March 1995
Why Change the Guidance?
• Risk communication must
be culturally appropriate.
• Involve the partners.
— I
The Development Team
• Continually assess the
partnership and message.
\*l tia ki’ k
-
1=
• Help the partners to take
action.
• Technical contractor: Tetra Tech, Inc.
• Consultants:
John Hesse
Barbara Knuth
Amy Kyle
• Stakeholders:
Workgroup
General
Judy Sheeshka
Patrick West
Approach for Revised Guidance
*
• Risk communication modules that can be
targeted for specific needs.
*
• Modules developed by state and
culturally- diverse stakeholders, and
nationally- recognized consultants.
Approach for Revised Guidance
• Acknowledge contamination is not
“acceptable.”
• Encourage community involvement.
• Link to other phases of the risk analysis
process.
-------
Approach for Revised Guidance
• Continue to enhance the user-friendly set
of risk communication outreach materials
under development by the National Fish
and Wildlife Contamination Program.
• Web-based to encourage “tailored” use of
guidance appropriate to community needs.
Developing a Web-based Guidance
The stakeholders advised:
• Keep the concise risk communication
framework.
• Add case studies to illustrate important
points.
• Provide techniques for applying the
framework to different situations.
Developing a Web-based Guidance
The stakeholders advised:
• Be realistic (funding, time, people).
• Link to tools and examples.
• Include fish consumption benefits.
Main Page
U.S. Envsronmntal Pro cuon
Receil r :;. i ;L I S th I
_________ _________ h . 3 am* S d
Communication Guidance Document
• Sectionl:: .. -‘•. : ,:. .:
—
• Section?: . . — - - . . -
• Section 3: [ e::r-. :: ,yr Ire ii . orrn1u’.cat : r I-” iCn
?.chie ,e c-. : .% C- I ,T* O coo up n
• Scc : us :4 -- :. . : -
• c i :
. ..-.. -
• Secttor 0:—- . . . - - . : :
Section Home Page
. Pon S. D.cIdIn W1P You Want to $y and NOW to Say Pt:
Ja ..tgalng and Ilitptsi atIng you, ConuvlunIe 6on Stratogy
Section Information Page
- . WANT TO SAY AND NOW TO SAY
YOUR COMMUNICATION
-------
Link to Information Box
Information Box
G’uaeal Advinety for Eating Sportlbh
The general health adoisore for apoetish is that von eat no atone tao one natal (one-half posaud) pee
week of fish taken from the state’s freohwoters and some ronnie waters at the mouth of the Hudson
Finer These Sods the New Yost waters of the Hudson Paste. Uwte Bay of New YodcHask’oe
(north of Veeeazano Naerowa Bridge), Arthur Xii. ICE Van Hot H no ltiser and the East Paver to
the Throgn Neck fre)dgu (see snap on pope 14) This general adoisoos u to protect agonist enbtg large
a mounts of fish that have nor been tested or cray contain uoidentified contnnmanta The genera l
advisory does not app to most museum waters
c l ea n Wndtrw
Advantages to Web Approach
• Guidance is more accessible to a wide
range of fish consumption advisory
programs and groups issuing or
learning about consumption advisories.
• Guidance is less daunting — web pages o
to negotiate rather than a large book to
read.
Advantages to Web Approach
• Materials may be developed for a
specific type of partner audience; more
“tailored” than a general process that
leaves many decisions and few directly-
related examples or tools.
• A living document modified and updated
easily.
Advantages to Web Approach
• Customized population-specific modules.
• More choices of examples, tools, methods,
and current information related to fish
consumption advisories and specific
partners.
• Supports early inclusion of partner
audiences and communicators in the risk
communication process.
Advantages to Web Approach
• Responsive to stakeholders who indicated
a web-based approach has the potential to
be more useful.
• Allows the format to become issue-
oriented, based on the path a user takes,
rather than process-oriented.
-------
Possible Disadvantages of
Next Steps
Web-based Approach
• Development team drafting all sections,
• The web-based guidance is accessible links, information boxes, etc.
only to those with web access.
• Ongoing stakeholder work group review.
• The living document will need to be
updated continually. . General stakeholder comment, use,
revisions.
Thanks to the Stakeholder
Workgroup!
Janice Adair Randall Manning
Rosetta Alcantra Maria Maybee
Dave McBride
Robert Brodberg
Pat McCann
Mike Callam
Ora Rawis
Josee Cung Roland Shanks
Henry Folmer Brian Toal
Kenny Foscue Luanne Wiflianis
Eric Frohmberg
Jim Labdlle
-------
Topics Covered Today
Update: TMDLs and Fish
Consumption Advisories
Jim Pendergast
USEPA Office of Water
Washington, DC
• Methyl Mercury
TMDLs
• Methyl Mercury
Criterion and TMDLs
• Advisories and TMDLs
• New TMDL Rule
Percent of U.S. River Miles and Lake
Acres Under Advisory: 1993-2001
30%
3 R I l o t .
• 1 5 /S
10g.
6•,•
-
Mercury TMDL Issues
• Long timefranie to achieve water quality
standards
• Regional/global scope of mercury deposition,
as well as local scale deposition
• Dependence on non-water programs (e.g., air
sources and contaminated sediments)
• Small loadings from water point sources
compared to air sources
L
Methyl Mercury TMDLs
• What is the TMDL
picture for mercury?
• What will it take to
reduce mercury
loadings?
• What is the news
about alternatives to
TMDLs?
Mercury in Watersheds
• In 1998. of 21,800 impaired waterbodies
— -.4,000 listed for metals (including mercury)
— —1,100 listed specifically for mercury
• —8 states listed atmospheric deposition as source
• —650 segments impaired by atmospheric deposition
• As of 2001.44 states have issued mercury
fish consumption advisories
0•
i S l’ 111. 097 111 I$11 2111 2111
- . — Year
-------
Basin Water Qua1it’
Target (ugh)
% Reduction in
Hg Loadings to
Meet Target
% Reductions
from Existing
Clean Air Act
Regulations
Aiaflah .
4.9
64
17-25
Ochlockonec
1.6
76
31-41
St Mary’s
1.9
56
1-6
Satilla
3.2
61
31-39
Suwanee
2.8
58
9-15
Withlacoochee
6.8
40
33-43
Ohoopec
3.5
24
42-54
How Long to Recover?
2.- -
Florida Everglades
p
0-a
68 0-6 -
O4
0.2. -- --
Florida Mercury TMDL Pilot:
Mercury Loads vs. Levels in Fish
0.9 -
09
0 10 70 1 40 SO 80 70 80 00 100
—20% 70a —70% 7011
0?
06 -
0.5
, i n (,, )
S
0.4 -
03 -
4-684- —70% 709’
024-
0 0.1 0 2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 7 0.8 0.9
F,9 [ 4-C ,o4 ,t4- ph•, , Hg )0) d .p .s ,t61o
( [ Pt . .d d.y, gh6 2 )y ,(
Needed vs Expected Reductions in
Mercury Loads for GA TMDLs
Cot1rIbsaIo, .. c i Nstcacy 5094f 4- to 4- 4.p4-Ocn 6111600070 oitmg c.o,
149123 0.,,. liii
p
‘ : iII, iiiiiiiii :c:
New Approaches to Hg TMDLs
Abridged Approach: Mercury Maps
- Geographic information system containing fish-tissue and
other data on a watershed-by-watershed basis
- Screens watersheds on national scale by comparing fish
Hg concentrations against new MeHg ciiterion
- Links air deposition and fish tissue mercury through
simple model (linear relationship)
Regional Approach: New England Pilot
- Will combine Mercury Maps and regional model
- Goal is to evaluate regional approach. e.g., identify waters
where existing controls are likely to achieve the criterion
Estimated Percent Reductions in Air Deposition Load
Necessary to Meet New Methylmercury Criterion 0
atersheds with No Other Significant Mercury Sources
70—
94—
94—
16% 94664-,94 .4
6% 4-70oR
15% 94 4-.0
500 3164-y toO o 664- 0070*-bto80 l_ _ . .. ., ,..... ., 94684.900 0 4 .c ,j ‘..d r.as 9 4th 6. -4. O
4-6994009 0.609640004.64-061670 ooyI4-.s *44-64706870060000706190*5409070 [ P9,080704-
4- 70, .4-a .y 4-8.094-700094,1194-46,. 0.9054.4- 15.0 104- .
944-U 9’6970 •70 Il 068 y 4- 0 6 09 .4-09o00 1166949,57016664- 16664. [ 66000. 864.6469707068.00160696964 6.1
066. Pu0*4y 0,.d T4- t Woks(POTW.) 4- p*aod 64 Ii oo 4-6% 09.70.06.4 8 . 6 4 -sd 0016,5
69a 5.154-66470000 , 6 664(109*621)97.0706614- l66o oy 4- 1660-7068%4-• 9 . 6154-5 9111 [ 68 0.62961*6.9
5lj,604- 54a9’ $..s701 994-6th, 4-6704-109994196094-696709615664614-
So,., 94670.1114-15 I 96,6640.704. A1670l s (NLFWA) M Oy F s1 , 77070 Do l4-• 2001)
-------
MeHg Implementation Guidance:
MeHg Criterion and TMDLs
• How will the new
criterion affect
TMDLs?
• Whatisthestatusofthe
implementation
guidance?
• What will the
implementation
guidance include?
Key Elements and Issues
Waxer Quality Standards, e.g.,
- translating methyl Hg to total Hg
- site specific aiteria flexibility
— expression of criterion (tissue or water)
- variances and UAAs
Defining impairment
— troplilc level averaging
— size averaging
- appropriate analytical methods
• Approaches to TMDLs
• Permitting, especially for small sources
How Long to Finish?
Oct: Revise draft
Nov: Outreach discussions
Management review
Dec: Draft for release
60 to 90 day comment period
Quicksilver-TMDL Workgroup
• State participants include WI (co-chair), ME. CT,
CA, CO, FL. GA, IL, MN, OR
• Workgroup will focus on air deposition-dominated
mercuiy TMDLs (mining issues later)
• Initial ideas include the following:
- Develop separate categoly on 303(d) lists for waters
impaired by pollutants from air deposition
- Allow alternatives such as regional or screening TMDLs
- Develop interim goals and indicators of progress
Mean Mercury Concentration in
Tissues of Selected Fish Species (all sample types)
F
New WQC
•• , ,r.1 ,
*471
D I *
0 L * * *1
o o
N .7.
•s__
a , —
,.
•Y * 1 12W
•L110 1111
11W
111 474
112774
{ • s* t
0*.11 U
*543
*1 .072
*
p5 .1.154
*70
•L *175
S II 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ssw !40 ’. S Fthtu, 2112. fro t*7-2 1S1
S. 0.7 Si •. I
State WQS Adoption Expectation
• EPA not pushing states
to adopt new criterion
until implementation
guidance published
— technical issues
— resource issues
• Some States interested
in adopting new
criterion now
-------
Advisories and TMDLs
• What does the
October 2000
guidance really say?
• What is EPA’s vision
on the relationship
between water
quality standards and
advisories?
2000 Guidance
• Must list waters when risk-based fish advisories based
on waterbody-specific data and same risk basis of WQS
— same type of data collection
— same threshold value
• Not required to list for fish advisories without
waterbody-specific data
— thus statewide advisories do not trigger listings
• Shows cross-walk between listings and National
Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) Growing Area
Classifications
Advisories Are Not Always
Impairments
• Impairments
— Population are exposed at greater than acceptable risk
— Considers mixture and range of species and ages
• Advisories
- Individuals are exposed at greater than acceptable risk
— Some waterbody specific; some regional or statewide
— Some are size specii c and some are species specific
Total Wt
Raot Ch*acloostics
New TMDL Rule
Clean Water Act Framework
F Rule? r
• What is it likely to
include?
• Whenwillit
happen?
-------
TMDL Rule Objectives TMDL Rule Timing
• Achieve steady reasonable progress towards achieving
Proposed rule in
I X / November2002
• Encourage planning and management on a watershed basis
• Final rule in Spring
• Support adaptive implementation, trading, and pre-TMDL
2004 at the earliest
voluntaiy efforts
water quality standards (WQS) • Reality check —
• Enable States to do planning and implementation
• Improve accountability for results
• Improve monitoring and listing
This may change!!
• Leverage fimding from non-EPA programs
Information Sources
• TMDL homepage -
http://www.epa.gov/owow tmdl
- EPA guidance and documents
- Maps and information on impaired waters
- Links to other TMDL websites
- Regulations and supporting information
• Fish Advisory homepage -
http://www.epa.gov/waxerscience: fish
- National guidance
- Listings of advisories
-------
Sponsorship
Methylmercury Contamination in Fish:
Human Exposures and Case Reports
Clarion and Radisson Hotels
Burlington, Vermont
October 19-20, 2002
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• American Fisheries Society
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists
• Association of Occupational and
Environmental Clinics
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(National Center on Birth Defects and
Developmental Disabilities)
Steering Committee
• Kathiyn Mahaffey, Ph.D. - Chair
• Heniy Anderson, MD
• Sophie Balk, MD
• David Bellinger, Ph.D.
• Jeff Bigler
• Tom Burke, Ph.D.
• Ronald Dobbin, CIH, MSC-OH
• Betsy Fritz
• Catherine Joseph
• Donald Mattison, MD
• Michael Shannon, MD, MPH
Goals
• To inform participants on the distribution of
blood methylmercury concentrations in the
general population of the U.S.
• To evaluate cases of elevated methylmercury
exposures
• To present expert advice on neuropsychological
andlor neurological evaluation strategies to
assess impact of elevated methylmercury
exposures
• To develop a product providing information
from this workshop
Selected Program Topics
• Developmental Health: Risks and Benefits
• Methylmercury Toxicity and Exposure —
Toxicokinetics and Biomarkers
• Chelation: Metal Complexing and Metal
Mobilization
• Medical Associations — Overviews and
Approach
• Methylmercury Exposure Assessments — New
Jersey I St. Lawrence River
Selected Program Topics (cont)
• Methylmercury Clinical Assessments —
California I Boston I Wisconsin / New Jersey
• Biomonitonng and Population Data — German
Methods and NHANES
• Neuropsychological and/or Neurological
Evaluation Strategies
• Population Assessment Methods — questionnaires
• Risk Communication and Outreach — WI, ME
-------
Goal #1 Key Points
To inform participants on the distribution of blood
methylmercury concentrations in the general US pop
- National data available are NHANES
— 1999-2000 NHANES only covers women (16-49) and
children (1-5) for mercuty (e.g., blood, hair, urine)
- Blood mercury data indicate 7.8% women above 5.8
tgfL
— Fish consumption correlated well with blood mercuiy
(<1 mlfwk =2% and 1+ mllwk = 15% above 5.8 tg/L)
Recommendations:
• Mercury should become core biomarker for all pops
• Correlate health status and NHANES biomarkers
Goal #2 Key Points
To evaluate cases of elevated methylmercury
exposures
— Growing interest in biomonitormg for mercury
— Reports of fish consumption resulting in blood mercury
>50 p.g/L
— New “at risk” pop recognized in high income consumers
of fresh fish; subsistence individuals also reported
Recommendations:
• Clinical testing guidelines and treatment guidance needed
(professional associations must endorse and promote)
• Targeted outreach needed for “at risk” pops
Goal #3 Key Points
To present expert advice on neuropsychological
andlor neurological evaluation strategies to assess
impact of elevated methylmercuiy exposures
— Adult low level mercury health effects are likely to
impact the neurological system
— Pre-natal toxicity is predominately neurological
— No signature neurological effect pattern
Recommendations:
Clinical neurological testing protocol must be developed
for low level mercury exposures (professional associations
must endorse and promote)
Next Steps
• Effective partnerships and consortium building (both
governmental and non-governmental)
• More research and better understanding of
cardiovascular effects in adult men (and women)
• Greater public and professional communication of
mercury exposure hazards and prevention methods
• To integrate fish consumption advice = speak with a
single voice (e.g., framework for national fish
advisories)
• ss$
• 0
•
Any Questions?
-------
Purpose of worksheet
State and Tribal Mercury
Advisories:
Results from worksheets
Amy D. Kyle, MPH PhD
• Look at starting point for state and tribal
advisories
• Focus is on lowest mercury concentration used
as basis for advisories in various categories
• Provides informative, if imperfect, point of
comparison between states and tribes
• “Get some idea”
What we did
• Simple worksheet distributed by AFS through
email in advance of meeting
• Worksheets also available at regional meetings
• Some regional meetings discussed them and some
didn’t
• Results compiled from those returned
• 39 states and 4 tribes provided information
How to compare?
• Purpose was to gain an idea of what mercury
concentrations in fish were leading to advisories
• This is imperfect because states and tribes don’t
always use the same mercury concentration in
different advisories
• To tr to gain comparability, asked for the
lowest concentration of mercury for each of
several types of advisories
Categories of advisories
• Used four basic categories of advisories:
• General Population — apply to everybody not
otherwise mentioned
• advisories for NO consumption of fish
• advisories for restricted consumption of fish
• Sensitive Populations — identified groups
• advisories for NO consumption of fish
• advisories for restricted consumption of fish
Who responded?
• 39 states and 4 tribes
• States that responded have 81.3 of population of
women of child-bearing age
• 34 states and four tribes reported issuing
advisories recommending no consumption or
restricted consumption for fish with mercury
• at least one other is currently developing an advisory
• one tribe uses state or federal advisories
-------
General Population — no
consumption of fish
• 15 states and three tribes report issuing at least
one advisory of this type for mercury
• Mercury concentrations for these advisories
range from 0.5 to 2.88 ppm
• The concentrations of mercury that trigger these
advisories should be comparable
• Because there is no advice regarding number of
allowable meals or meal size
General population: restricted
consumption
• 28 states and two tribes report issuing at least
one advisory of this type
• Applies to everyone not covered by a more specific advisoi-v
• Mercury concentrations from 0.059 to I ppm
• Triggering concentrations of mercury will depend on
advice offered (size and number of meals)
• Allowable meals per year from 12 to 96
• Meal size from 3 to 16 ounces
Mercury aHowed in advisories for
the general population
• Compare allowable total mercury per year
• Range is from 0.48 to 7.71 milligrams of
mercury per year
• Calculated by: number of meals x meal size = total
fish consumed per year— converted to kilograms
• ppm equals milligrams per kilogram
• Multiply kilograms of fish consumed by allowable
conceneranon total milligrams
Sensitive Population: No
Consumption
• 23 states report issuing at least one advisory of
this type
• Mercury concentrations from 0.25 to 1.5 ppm
• The concentrations of mercury that trigger these
advisories should be comparable
• Because there are is no advice regarding number of
allowable meals or meal size
Sensitive Populations: restricted
consumption
• 23 states and one tribe report issuing at least one
advisory of this type
• Mercury concentrations from 0.032 to 0.5 ppm
• Triggering concentrations of mercury will
depend on advice offered
• Significant differences in advice regarding number
and size of allowable meals
• Allowable meals per year from 12 to 104
Mercury allowed in advisories for
sensitive populations
• Compare allowable total mercury per year
• Range is from 1.37 to 47.4 milligrams of
mercury per year
• Calculated bv number of meals x meal size total
fish consumed per year- converted to kilograms
• ppm equals milligrams per kilogram
• Multiply kilograms of fish consumed by allowable
concentration = total milligrams
-------
- —
-
Limitations
• Asked only about “lowest” concentra on: may
or may not be a good representation of overall
approach
• May be only a small percentage of advisories
• Advisories are often issued for more than one
meal size; these results report for the largest one
• Can be multiple pollutants: mercury may be part
of an advisory but not the primary driver
-------
FDA Consumer Advisory for
Methylmercury
Philip Spiller
Director. Office of Seafood
Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition
• One FDA seafood advisory: MeHg
• Still a work in progress
• What our experience so far tells us about
advisories generally
• Developing an advisory: first ID the major
decisions that will have to be made, and that
will be reflected in the advisory
• Federal advisory: nationaL/uniform in scope
• FDA’s mission: food in interstate
commerce, not recreationallsubsistence
Three Major Decisions
• Who is the advisory for? Everyone?
“Target” population(s)?
• What outcome are we seeking in the target
population?
• How to structure the advisory to achieve the
desired outcome?
Targeting the Advisory:
Background
• MeHg is a neurotoxin with effects at high
doses.
• Primary exposure in U.S. is through fish
• Public Health questions involve
detetmuung exposure over time necessary
to cause an effect
Targeting the Advisory: Adults?
• Threshold effects: 50 ppm
• Seychelles/Faroe Islands: 5-7 ppm
• United States: 0.2 ppm
• Few above the ADI
-------
Outcome
• OPTION: keep exposure below “worst case
ADI-type level
• FDA’s ADI: adult/general pop.
• ATSDR’s MRL: fetus, less conservative
• EPA’s RfD: fetus, more conservative
Structure
• Avoid “highest” species, which are named
• OK to eat up to 12 oz. per week of a variety
of fish
• Check local advisories for recreational
• Subsistence fishermen check with local
authorities
Targeting the Advisory:
developing fetus
• Seychelles finds no effects
• Faroe Islands finds effects
• ATSDR relies on Seychelles
• EPA relies on Faroe Islands
• FDA issues advisory to protect fetus, as a
matter of public health prudence.
Outcome
OPTION: keep exposure below highest no
effect level from Seychelles and Faroe
Islands
That level of exposure is hard to reach, even
without an advisory
Over time, 98 th percentile consumer must
eat fish containing 5x the average amount of
MeHg
U.S. Exposure vs. Risk Management Levels
f _.s ==-—
4... TP A —
Structure
• To achieve objective
• To minimize impact on majority in target
population whose consumption is not an
issue
• To retain benefits
• To keep it as simple as possible in order to
encourage people to follow it
-------
Conclusion
• MeHg is a neurotoxin that can be found in
nearly all fish
• Public health issue is consumption over
time
• Risk reduction can occur while still
consuming fish
• Primary focus has been susceptible
subpopulation
Conclusion
• Taking all that into account:
• Primary target: pregnant women and
women of childbearing age who may
become pregnant
• Outcome: keep exposure below all
“tolerable daily intake” levels established
for MeHg
-------
12 State Mercury Survey
Average Number of Meals during Previous Year
(All women N =3,015)
3O 28
Fish fihI sftma 0 Shsllflsh I Spo.tflsh
‘di
L
Wisconsin 2000
1200 water segments tested
340 with Hg advisories
/
t
(I
12 State Mercury Survey (2001)
Sport Fish & Commercial Seafood
Wisconsin Integrated Public Health Message:
Maximize Health Benefit, Minimize Risk,
Coordinate Health Message
Henry A. Anderson MD.
Chief Medical Offker
WI Division of Public Health
Madison, WI
t
sl fro. . Caay S h k. WD R
— 5 . PN Oil, .d .5. ly OO Ol ’ 0*
25 -
>.
15
10
0- .-
Consumption by Hair Mercury Intervals
Interval 10th 25th 50th 75th
Mean
10 19 33
Total meals! meals! meals!
fish year year year
90th 100th
Total 2
Sport meals! meals!
Fish year year
43 52
meals! meals!
year year
73
meals!
year
3 7
meals! meals! I
year year
Hair 0.05 0.12
vry ppm ppm
7 9
meals! meals!
year year,
0.2 0.43 .78 1.89
ppm ppm ppm ppm
lmsrvsts 0-10%, 11-25%, 26.50%, 51-75%, 7640%, 91-100%
I____
— (_
Mercury Advisory Groupings
Using EPA Reference Dose
Q,1 6
111L
U i .L t
S i lo.
/
No
Silo. , —
I - 1
Abovo 0.0 ppm
w. o. mid hNd, o.
Do Not Sat
Ab 1.0 ppm
No mm obould •at
(Abov. FDA cmom.rciid
I
-------
2002 Wisconsin
Mercury Fish Advisory
General Statewide Guidelines
most inland waters
and
Site Specific Consumption Advice (92)
where data indicates
more stringent advice is necessary
A Woman and Child’s Guide to Eating
Fish from Wisconsin (2002)
(includes sport and commercial fish)
I .d p WUS I s p WU* —
Wisconsin 2002 Mercury Advisory
includes Commercial Fish Advice
W
‘T
— s ,
,,‘
$ I W ——
IkkL . _ ,.I.4 _ . iu ’w pWui. *W IS.i W uqusW
Ipss,, u.ic 4 •S Sb :
4
“a !
- I I III
,
Fh ‘ ,
iU •
‘ 1 ’ I!
f! ‘i i t I
t?lI.e ,c
- ‘I
Wisconsin Sport Fish Monitoring Program
Year
Sites Sa!! ed
234
Sarr es Cd
Prior to 1980
1980-1989
939
11,139
1990-1999
683
2000
Tc
11,565
96
806
I sà sr WOItT$
curiently’ use FDA “never eat” list
Future years, review monitoring data, coordinate
advice on commercial fish with other states
Choose Fish Low in Mercury
2002 Wisconsin
Woman and Child’s
Guide
Wisconsin Sport Fish Consumption
Advisory Support Program
Joint Environment and Health Agency Program
Environment - Comprehensive sport fish monitoring
species, size, location
Health - Human blomonitoring, health outcomes,
advisory evaluatlon
• • H71 Th
— - _ WJ P k
-------
Sport Fish & Commercial Seafood
Wisconsin Integrated Public Health Message:
Maximize Health Benefit, Minimize Risk,
Coordinate Health Message
Any Questions?
k
Mercury 12 State Survey
Advisory Awareness among Women
AU Women By State (N = 3,015)
35 32
30
25
..25 22
20 fl 18
i5 H: fl
10
H
0
20
10
Recommendations
Need increased commercial fish
monitoring designed to assist in advisory
placement
Need increased human biomonitoring
Need continued health effects research,
especially potential cardiovascular effects
AR CA CT FL LA ME MN MT NC NJ NM WI ALL
-------
H E\: surc Potential from Seafood
• Swordfish, shark 1 ppm
• Tuna steak 0.3 - 0.5 ppm
• Canned tuna (Yess, 1993):
—0.1 ppm-chunk orchunk light
— 0.3 ppm - chunk white or solid white
• Infrequent consumption of swordfish/shark
(e.g., once per month) equals meHg MD
• Frequent consumption of canned tuna
(e.g., 2 or more times / week) RfD
Percent Contribution of Seafood
Species to Daily Hg Intake
fro.,. C.mn n & Soog.r. S2)
40
30
20
10 1
o
CT Mercury Biomonitoring Data
( EPA Mercury Advisory Awareness Study. 2000 )
• 17 women, 18-45 yrs old sampled
• mean hair Hg -! sd = 1.0+1- 0.8 ppm
• percentiles: 50th - 0.86 ppm
95th - 2.36 ppm
nmdetect .254ppm
• fish intake data sketchy but comm. fish
much more common than sportflsh
• anecdotal reports of elevated blood Hg in
non-occupational settings
Context for CT’s Seafood
Advisory
• Recreational Advisories since 1980s
• Major sampling for Hg in lakes: 1996-1997
• Resulted in statewide freshwater advisory
• 4 waterbodies particularly high: avg. bass
conc. 1 ppm
• Natural question: commercial fish
National Trends for Hair Hg
Concentrations
•NHANES. 1999 - 702 women
—50th % = 0.2 ppm
—75th%0.5 ppm
—90th%= 1.4 ppm
•Simulation of seafood consumption
(Cathngtc and Botga 2002)
-consumption rates and Hg coocs for 24
conmiesical species
-maiched NHANES distribution for women
New Jersey Hg Biomonitoring in
Pregnant Women (St a!.. 2001
• 189 women sampled
• average Hair Hg = 0.53 ppm
- 9.5%bctweenland2ppm
- L6%bctween2and4ppm
- sporndic canes ov 4 ppm
• calculated that 10-15% ingest> Rtl)
• canned tuna most popular fish meal
— 30 of 83 fish meals/year
• fish consumption patterns only weakly
correlated with hair or blood Hg
-------
CTDPH Commerical Advisory
180
160 Swordfish and shark:
— Do not eat if in high risk group
100 — Everyone else - ito 2 meals per month
40 ———— -- -—— ——s-
20 • . . ... • Canned tuna lumped with other commercial
0 -- • 1 r •1IpuI.C fish - 1-2 meals per week
7124)98 12,6/99 4119/01 9/1/02
Choose species low in Hg and PCBs -
e.g., haddock, cod, flounder, salmon
Commercial Advisory for PCBs?
LIS striped bass & bluefish - elevated PCBs
—303 bass(1994): avg= l.I8ppm
— 57 bluefish (1998): avg for >25” = 1.26 ppm
• CTDPH has recreational but no commercial
advisory for these species
— uncommon in marketplace in CT
— questions about sources if do occur in market
• Need data on bluefish and striped bass in
marketplace
-------
Consumer Advsorv for Commercial Fish
Why Issue Advice on Commercial Fish?
Maine Department of Human Services
Bureau •IHealth
• it’s the fish most commonly consumed
Women In focus groups asked for Information
80% Maine women of childbearing age eat fish,
BUT only 21% report eating any sport-caught fish
Higher hair mercury levels (e.g.> I ppm) associated with
eating commercial fish
Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish
Guiding Principles
Wanted to follow / support updated US FDA advice
F BECAUSE - want In asoid confusion & sOlve for esasiatenc
F BECAUSE - want buy-in frme health care providen
• Wanted to redirect fish co.sumptioa behavior toward fish
lower In mercury
F SO, siagle out 9l ht vs white canned tuna
SO. provide Iholts for geueral population
• Keupitüm e
Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish
Risk Communication Strategy
______ • Target preBua nt women
_ FW1Cd i nuS
t P - Za F OB/GYN. FP/OB, NMW
_______ • Target fishing households with kids
F Matches of Birth Certificate
and Fhbiag License Reglatrlea
• Target newlyweds’
F limed mn i.gu based on
marriage licenses
Consumer Advisory for Commercial Fish
•
• J I
:;; = 4 ..i
U
-------
Next Steps
• Improve risk communication materials
Redesign brochure for more general population
- Mixing and Matching Limits
• Evaluate effectiveness
.- Surveys of random samples from birth certificate registry
I awareness of “safe eating guidelines”
‘ fish consumption behavior (changes?)
I hair mercury lexelt
Acknowledgements
Funding Support
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
0111cc of Water
Collaborators
• Henry Anderson & Laurie Draheim, Wisconsin
Division of Family and Community Health
• Sue Stableford, UNE Adult Health Literacy Center
• Doug Campbell, Campbell Creative
-------
1
Methylmercury:
Ongoing Research on Toxicology
Kathryn R. Mahaffey, Ph.D.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Dietaiy Sources of Fish & Shellfish Vary Widely
Virtually All Contain Methylmercury
I
, T.
Current Toxicology Projects
I
• Brief note on NRC 2000 Methylmercury
Assessment and US EPA’s 2001 Rfi)
• Relation of biomonitoring measures.
• Current reports on blood and hair mercury
concentrations in the US
• Reports on adverse cardiac outcomes in
adults
Basis for US EPA’s RfD for
Methylmercury
“Methods and Rationale for Derivation of a
Reference Dose for Meihylmercury by the
US EPA”
Deborah Rice, Rita Schoeny and Kathryn
Mahaffey, in press — Feb 2003
Risk Analysis.
EPA’s BMDL for Methylmercury Is
Based On:
I
Neuropsychological tests that indicate
neuropsychological processes involved with
a child’s ability to learn and process
information.
Doubling the risk of scores in a range
considered clinically subnormal.
I
Biomarkers of Mercury Exposure
and the RID
Relation of Cord/Fetal Blood
Mercury Concentration and Maternal
Blood Mercury Concentration
-------
Blood Hg
ugn.
Number of
Subjects
5(p* Percentile
9(p* Percentile
Women
1709
0.94 (0.73— 1.15)
4.84(4.11 —5.57)
US EPA ‘s Assessment of “Benchmark Dose
Lower Bound”for Met hylmercury
BMDL based on a doubling of the prevalence of
scores on tests of developmental function in a range
recognized as clinically subnormal.
• Both US EPA and NRC utilized a BMDL of
approximately 58 ug/L of cord blood.
• Dose conversion of cord blood [ Hg] to maternal
blood [ Hg] assumed to be 1:1.
Comparison of Maternal Blood and Cord
Blood Mercury Concentrations
Current risk assessments assume that cord blood and
maternal blood [ Hg] are equal.
More recent assessments indicate cord blood is, on
average. 1.7 times higher in mercury than
maternal blood concentrations.
58 ugiL cord blood fHg) -.34 ugiL maternal blood /HgJ
Factors Contributing to
Differences in Ratios
• Differences in kinetics of maternal distribution of
methylmercury in her body.
• Differences in ratio of cord blood [ CH3Hg] to
maternal blood [ CH3Hg]. Range of means from
2.17 to 1.08. Individual data far more variable.
Vahter et a!. (2000) reported 5 th and 95 th
percentiles were 0.88 to 3.1.
Dose-Response on the
Basis of Blood [ Hg]
Cord [ Hg] for BMDL: 58 ug/L
Maternal [ Hg] at 1:1 cord:maternal ratio: 58 ug/L
Maternal [ Hg] at 1.7:1 cord:maternal ratio: 34 ug/L
What range of maternal blood concentration are
associated with a doubling of the prevalence of
neuropsychological deficits?
I
Blood Mercury Concentrations
in the United States Population
NHANES Data
NHANES 1999/2000 - Blood Mercury
Women Ages 16—49 Years
I
-------
Totati Mercury Levels in Women,
Aged 16-49
by Weekly Fish Consumption Levels
70 US EPA RID Based on Mwernal Blood Hrf 5.8 ugiL
.
n 2+IWK
• 21WK
I
US EPA’s Reference Dose for
Methylmercury s
Effects in Adults
Are there cardiovascular effects of
low-dose exposure to
met hylmercury?
c i ltod StoS 1O i4 15to35
Mercury Levels (ug/L)
Adult Cardiovascular Effects
Association with Mercury Erposures
• Sa1on i at al. studied 1953 enati living in Eusun FinI.id aged 42 60 s
(Salonut cc aL, Cwculsticst 91:645-655, 1955. Aib oaclansis 148265-263,
2000).
• kepon that munly n a risk facict Ott coiv y id fatal wdiovasculst
d at.
• Dic*y ã*ake of fish sd zaceuny wue satociated with significately increased
risk of acssc myo dial isfatuion sed death freen eneu y IwatI diiesee
ondiovseoniv dise e sed wy desk
• Men in the hiØi senile (2 ppm and hi) hair mesciny had a 2-fold (95%
Cl 1.2 cc 3.1 P 0.O05 I age- and CHD-adjustnd nsk of AMI and a 2.9-fold
(95 Cl. 1.2 to 6.6. P 0.0141 adjust risk of cardiovascuLar death.
• CMotid rnuma-nxdia th:ckn .s ncrtasnd w Ith In rca cs fl ha:r rr,actnv
cr arUItTatO,1 Suggest ITerc Es SCC IL’T IULIUOO :n the bulnart bod assoc :ated
with eiciaicd resIgress arot: ath ertn v Sa onet : e: a .
Methylmercury: Exposure and Effects
tal :Itj
-------
Setting a Methylmercury The Two-Tiered Advisory
Reference Dose (RfD) for Adults Structure
The policy of the U.S. EPA is to derive a
Alan H. Stern, Dr.P.H., DABT single R per chemical
— based on goal of protecting most sensitive
group
Division of Science, Research & Technology — generally, members of the sensitive group are
New Jersey Department of Environmental not known, or cannot control their exposure
Protection (e.g., air, drinking water)
therefore, protection of sensitives results in
overprotection of general population
Trenton NJ
• In principle, this lends itself to a two-tiered
However, for MeHg, the sensitive advisory structure
population is well characterized — Sensitive population and general population
— women of childbearing age, pregnant women,
young children — general population is not overly protected and
has less potential limitations on obtaining
nutritional value from fish
• Individuals have reasonable control over
exposure — sensitive population is protected at more
— consumption of fish with lower Hg conc. stringent level
• Currently, 12-13 states follow such a two-tiered
• Two-tiered approach based on two RfDs approach
— neuro-developmental effects for sensitive
population Appropriateness of approach is predicated on
• current RID assumption:
Rfç , Rfl) ,
— neurological effects for general population • Current RfD 0.1 ug/kg/day
• paraesthesia — predictive and protective for
progression of neurological effects Old RID = 0.3 ug/kg/day
* old RID — difference is small, but significant for fish advisories
— from Iraq and Minimala
-------
Summary of reported findings for
cardiovascular endpoints for Mefig
Salonen et al. (1995)
• Is assumption that Rfdgen> RfDSCTIS — middle aged Finnish men
correct?
—meanhairHg= 1.92 ppm
• NAS/NRC report highlights several areas of aPwo • 2.3 times NJ general pop. mean
uncertainty for general (“adult”) RID — for hair Hg >2 ppm, adjusted RR for
— cardiovascular effects
- immunotoxic effects AM!, CHD, and CVD = 1.7-2.1
in NJ -20% of general population >2 ppm
Implications for Hg Fish Advisory
Structure
• Salonen et at. (2000)
- middle aged men in Finland • Rif) > RfD sensitive
— retain two tiered advisory structure
— 4 year follow-up assessing hair Hg. and • currently only separated by 0.2 ug/kg!day
atherosclerosis pTOgJeSSIOfl • if Rfl) decreases by 0.1 ugfkg/day will
uluasound detennmalion of caratid aneri thiCknesS difference in advisories be significant?
— after adjustment for co-variates, men in upper • RID gm
-------
Occurrence of PBDE
Flame Retardants
in Fish
Robert C. Hale Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VINS: N. La Guardia, E. Harvey, N. Manor, E. Bush, N. Gaylor,
S C aris, N. Jacobs & D. Luellen
Viminla Dept. of Environmental Quality : J. Gregory, k Barron,
G.Darkwah & R. Browdr
PdII L
Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs)
Duff Th$1rW Ure . -
cR3
Ho ecaae Tetrsbroob lspbe.o l-A
(H& D) (TBSP-A)
bre nated
Bipbeayla (PBBs)
Polybroisteatad dipbeayl
Ethers (PRDEs)
3 Commercial PBDE Mixes
f \
Uses
Nondispersive?
1999 Demand
%ofgio .iu.e
Deca-BDE
Thermoplastics &
texthssri
f :::!
24,300 MT
44.3
Octa-BDE
ABS
plastics ‘.
1375 MT
359 %
Penta-BDE
Polyurethane
foam
8290 MT
975 %IH
Brorninated Flame Retardants
. ...(I3FRsJL,... .
• Chemicals added (up to 30% by weight) to
reduce fire hazard associated with our
wide use of flammable polymers & textiles
BFR use saves:
Lives
Property
Learned that their structural similarity to PCBs and other
persistent, bioaccumulative & toxic (PBT) chemicals was
problematic
PBBs accidentally Introduced into
Ml livestock feed in 1973
Destroyed large numbers of animals
-1 MI residents still carry PBB
_______ burdens. - -
Sbhbh. ..Apparendy we shifted to PBDES Instead...
8
Its
D 8OE
-------
U
. —
/ ;;•
U
/
I , i
PBDE Research: turopeans More
I —- --
• Reporting PBDEs in fish,
mostly less brominated,
since 1980’s
• Detected even in remote
areas
- Arctic & deep ocean
• Rising in human breast milk
• E.U.BanofPenta-mixin
2003
• Concern turning to Deca-BDE
.p_ .p
Reports of
F
le wte6 -
our
Ngh P
us.
PODE s
• - — — f
Meo & S2
$s ] I
IA -air
s ]
• HI..
p
K of BFRs versus PCB-153
Bioaccumulation & sediment partitioning
C
Log i(ow
Environmental
— K.
• Resistant to environmental degradation
• Long-range transport — POP?
— Less brominated congenere — atm transport
• Accumulation in fish is a major pathway for
human exposure — as per PCBs
• PBDEs accumulate in lipid-rich tissues
— Penta-BDE mix> Octa-BDE > Deca- BDE
• BD€-47 bioconcentration PCBs
—I,-
en
Irview PBDEsrnUS .
• No specific U.S. regulations or widespread
monitoring
• Detected in U.S. aquatic environment in 1987
- EPA: Atlantic dolphin mortality event
Tslras - ltsxa PODEI - 200 iiglkg (lipid)
• Marine mammals high accumulators ______
- Indigenous populations at future risk?
— San Fran Harbor seal 8325 uglkg — _________ -
— 65.4 o d ci* from 1168.2000 — ————————-
• U.S. fish increasing over time - — - -- 4
— Pnta-liks cong.nors most common — - p -
en en en en is.
[ tUdY PBDES in irna Fist
In: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001
• VA fISh FLIS 68 OV
• 1998-9 Ra.oke Basis
• PBDEs .bfqaks.s in fish?
• BDE-47 In 89% efRosseke Basin fish fillets
cornposlted (133 sitos, n=332) :
i’m S
• 40-70% BD -47; followed by -100 & -99 JI
• Carp anomaloudylewln BDE-99 jfl
• Derived fr Pests- 681115re? fflj.j ill £
•Deca -& -BD€j*bg t —
I —
-------
PBDES in VA Fish
-
• laRoanoktil}an River VA Basin
• %“warm” spots (>1000 ueJkg lipid basis)
• Highest In Hyco River
• I )west in Leesvllle Lake LV
— surrounded by dams
• Suggests ! PBDE sources :•
• Debunks “historical drilling muds”
& - in
L
PBDEs in VA Fish
• OnrVk “hot” spot
• 9nnoemons” Hyco River skirts VA/NC border
• Small tributary of the Dan River
• Exceeded Viskan River fish (Sweden)
• Carp fillet 47,900 ugfkg (lipid), PCBs low
• Equivalent to 1000-2000 ug/kg wet
• VDH set fish advisory limit of 5000 uglkg
• Source remains under Investigation
• Sewage trcott plant related?
S1 p Sludge
100,800 kg
r .
surface
anlà, to
STP
Reanoke Basin fish among highest P p &u
• Borne to numerous textile mills & flerniture
manufacturers
• Basin has historical PCB issues
• PCBsIPBDEs in fish often correlated
...but not always —
...different uses of PCBs & PBDEs -
.,; .
• BDE-47 conc. rivaled PCB-153 .
In half f fish samples
T
—J
PBDTake omeC cep
• BFRs serve a crucial role
• 3 PBDE mixes have different uses, properties & risks
• Penta-BDE product most bioaccumulatlve in fish
• U.S. uses 98% of global Penta-BDE production
• PBDEs are now ubiquitous
& environmental levels increasing ________
• Point & nonpoint sources of PBDE5 exist,
magnitudes uncertain
• Congener pattern In fish differs from commercial ________
mixtures
• Impacts risk calculation -
• Complicates source & fate determination L
PUF as a Source of BDEs to Sludge?
SE tIon
& lad
lamlids
-------
PBDEs: Toxicology and
man Exposure
Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.L,
NHEERL/ORD/US EPA
rIuithjstrial Products
(—67 metri tbns/year)
11)
• DBDE — largest volume (75% in]
- 97% DBDE; 3% NBDE
- Polymers, electronic equipment>textiles
. OBDE
- 6%HxBDE; 42%HpBDE: 36% OBDE; 13%NE.
2%DBDE — multiple congeners (unclear if any --
- Polymers. esp. office equipment
• PeBDE
- Textiles — esp. polyurethane foams (up to 30%)
- Recommended ban in EU(no production/only import)
- Mainly PeBDE+TeBDE, some HxBDE
PBDES in Bioiic and Abiotic
Sam s, ,
• Air 47>99>100>153=154
• Sediment: 99>47 (pattern reflects corr
PeBDE); also some nona and deca
• Sewage Sludge: 1-3mg/kginUS:paflem- 1
- Point sources (-DBDE)-—>O.1- mg/kg
• Biota: 47>99=100 except if near manufIcturi4
site (pattern does NOT reflect commercial
PBDEs)
• lnvertebrates>OBDE>DBDE
- Highly toxic to invertebrates (Larval devL.
LOECs in low ig’l range)
• DBDEIOBDE
- May be low risk to surface water organism and
predators
- Concem for waste water, sediment, and soil organis
- CONCERNS:
• Presence of lower beuminated co geners in OBDE
• Photolytic and/or anaerobic debromination
• Fan naaonofPBDDs/PBDFs
of PBDEs
• DBDE - hepatocarcinogen (high
• Hepatotoxic
• Enzyme Induction
ic ects
• Developmental Neurotoxicants
- Perinatal; neonatal - pndl0 in mice
— 47,99,153,209
- Spontaneous behavior (mice)/hyperactivity
- Permanent changes in brain fimction
• Developmental exposure --*Increased
susceptibility of adults exposed to low doses
PBDEs
.B.T.
I
1
• In vitro changes in signalling pathways
-------
E rupting Effects
• AhR Effects
- Relevance for commercial BFRs?
• combustion can produce PBDDs/PBDFs
• Recently found in human adipose tissue
• Thyroid
- OH-PBDE metabolites bind to transthyretin
- Parent PBDEs - Effects on T4 seen in vivo
• induction of UDP-glucuronyl transfeiasc
• Rats and mice; body burdens as low as 0.8 mg/kg
• Estrogemc
- OH-PBDEs
— Sulfotransferase inhibition (mostly in vitro)
Pharm ticsofPBDEs
• Absorption — DBDE is poorly’
• Distribution — lipid binding is ii.
— Fat: 47>99>>>209
— Liver: covalent binding from 99,209
• Metabolism — hydroxylation,
debromination, 0-methylation
• Excretion — feces is major route
-.
—
a
Betts: Env Sd Technol Dee, 2001
Tot DEsin contemporary human
milks (nglkg Iii 1 Ryan and Patry, 2002)
Country
No
samples
Year
-
3.2
1.4 1.
Sweden
93
1996-
1999
Japan
12
2000?
Canada
50
2001-02
25 64
USA
(adipose)
23
1998
41 86
i Mean
I
Es(, 7 in Canadian
individual huma ilks (ng/kg lipid)
(Ryan and Patry 2 2)
Location
No
samples
Year M
Canada 72 1992 3.0
Canada
50 2002 25
PBDEs inHuman Samples
(Petreas et i 2002)
T T fBDEs in human
1
• 5,. c
5
h ean 1
-------
u 2 PRDE 47 I .
724 . ...__
I I
PSI. Lits 144 1 ,
(Petreas et al. -
Ilends of BDEs in Canadian
Breast Miä (Ryan and Patry, 2002)
30
25
:2 20
.5 15
E
D 10
.5
o-
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
year
(s.o ,s1s1. of P9P m 11v,s ‘ 1.4
Ssm Dmmg D41k7c7 1 e P47-44th
tilTIan Samples
• Pattern of congeners is different frL
mixtures (and food)
- 47>99 in US and Europe(others: 100,153,11
- Iniapanese.99and153>47
• Large intenndividual differences
• Increasing time trends — levels doubling every
years
• PBDEs and PCBs levels are not correlated
- In most samples today, PCBs>PBDEs
• different sources and/or time sequence
‘re bf B ic Levels
• Rapid increases from 70s thru
• Maybe slight decrease in Sweden
- Ban on use of PeBDE?
• Levels still increasing in America
- Continued use of PeBDE?
• ARE LEVELS HIGH ENOUGH TO SEE’
EFFECTS??? NEED MORE TOX DATA! I
• More systematic human and t
monitormg
• More information on fate and transport —
commercial products breaking down? And i
what?
• More tox data - Focus on congeners present in
people and wildlife, NOT commercial products
since they are altered in the environment
47
6 99
190
—--A— 153
Sum nS
I
( actSSval$ of P( 9-. •huna. ‘4S h
.s9S,d DIolof O.Ikrt.i hm,
I .—
I
£
r
- ommercial
Ryan and Patry,
‘
-------
Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers
(BDEs)
Khizar Wasti, Ph.D.
Virginia Department of Health
Phone: (804) 786-1763
FAX: (804) 786-9510
!PH E-mail: kwasti@vdh.state.va.us
http:llwww .vdh.state.va.uslhhcofltrO l
Toxicity of Deca-BDE
• The acute toxicity in experimental animals is
low; oral LD5O in rats is >5mg/kg.
• No adverse effects were noted in rats fed at
doses of up to 800 mg/kg BW for 30 days
• No evidence of carcinogenic, reproductive,
teratogenic, or mutagenic effects
• Epidemiological studies in occupationally
exposed workers did not indicate any
symptoms attributable to BDEs exposure
• Oral RID 0.01 mg/kg/day
Toxicity of Octa-BDE
• Low acute oral toxicity; LD5O in rats >5-28 g/kg
• Low chronic toxicity
• Teratogenicity-at doses of 25 and 50 mg/kg BW,
resorptions or delayed ossification of different
bones and fetal malformations were noted in rats.
These changes were not seen at 15 mglkg or less.
In rabbits there was no teratogenicity, but
tetotoxlcity was seen at maternally toxic dose of
15 mg/kg. A no-effect level was 2.5 mg/kg
• Mutagenicity- negative
• Carcinogenicity- no data available
• IRIS Data Base- Oral RID 0.003 mg/kg/day )
:2
Toxicity of Penta-BDE
• Low acute oral toxicity; LD5O in rats 6-7 glkg
• Rats given diet containing 100 mg/kg for 90
days showed no clinical effects
• Not found to be mutagenic
• No data on carcinogenicity
• IRIS Data Base- Oral RID 0.002 mg/kg/day
Toxicity of Tetra-BDE
• Virtually no human or animal data are
available
• Toxicity may be similar to commercial
Penta-BDE since it contains significant
amount of tetra-isomer
Derivation of Allowable BDE
Levels in Fish
Based on oral RfD,
Penta-isomer
Octa- isomer
Deca-isomer
0.002 mglkglday
0.003 mg/kg/day
0.01 mg/kg/day
i3TE .
-------
BDE Task Force
• Virginia Department of Health
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
• Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
• Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
• North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services
• North Carolina Department of the Environment
• U.S. Environmental ProtectIon Agency
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Selection of RfD for Risk
Assessment
• Use the RfD value for penta-isomer,
0.002 mg/kg/day
• EPA suggested an interim RID for
tetra-isomer, 0.001 mg/kg/day. This
RfD was based on the assumption
that the tetra-BDE was twice as toxic
as the penta-isomer
V1)
Derivation of Acceptable
Concentration in Fish
C RfD x BW i
MS x NM
C = acceptable concentration
R I D reference dose
BW = average adult weight (70 kg)
= Time period 30 days/month
MS = meal size 8-ounce or 0227 kg
NM = number of meals/month, 2
Allowable Concentration of BDEs
in Fish for Two Meals per Month
0.001 ma/ks/day x 70 k x 30 days/month
0.227 kg/meal x 2 meals/month
= 4.62 — 5.0 mg/kg or parts per million (ppm)
Number of Allowable Fish Meals
per Month at Various BDE levels
Guidance for Issuing Fish
Consumption Advisories
Concen
I ppm
1.47 ppm
2 ppm
3 ppm
4 ppm
5 ppm
9 ppm
10 ppm
I of Meals per month
9.3
6.3
4.6
3.1
2.3
1.9
I
0.9
BDE concentrations
• Below 5ppm
• Spprn-c10 ppm
• >10 ppm
No Advisory
Two 8-oz meals/month
P lo consumption
rot
Since reproductive or developmental effects of
tetra-SDE have not yet been evaluated, it would
be prudent for pregnant women, nursing mothers,
and young children to avoid consumption of fish
contaminated with BDEs above 5 ppm
vDH ;
-------
The Dose Makes the Poison
Not every contaminant (in low
concentrations) is harmful
-
; E . (i;_
S
-;_ i Hi -—
I — ‘ -I
©
DH
-------
EMERGING SCIENCE OF THE
DiOXIN REASSESSMENT
O P01 yP
O . 01 Po , d Too
US A
2 556 1677
Dioxins
75 cosigeneqs
7 toxic
2 3 7.I-TcDO
123JJ-P.CDO
1,3 I 7. 64t ocnO
1.2.3, 5 7,$4 l 1GDO
1Z3 4,L7,I- 1 ,cDO
1 .3 1 L7. 5,I.OcVO
Fur n*
135 conguners
10 toxic
1,z3.7.a-p,cJw
1,z3j s. s4txccc
2.34.6.73- ll 0 Oc
123.45 7.8-NpCOF
1,2.347J,,4 ,cVF
1,2,34.6,7L9.OcDF
PCBs
209 congenef 5
12 toxic
3344-T.cB
3.34,4.5-P.CR
3,344 5.5 H ocB
Pk I 05,0 ,0
Toxic Equivalency (TEQ)
• Fundamental to evaluation of this group of
com
• Based on inspection of multiple endpoints and/or
receptor binding (WHO criteria)
• Reassessment Chapter Summarizes Scientific
Support
• WHO,, Internationally accepted
Five Compounds Make up About 80% of
the Total TEQ in Human Tissue
•Four of 17 Toxic CDD/CDF Congeners
•One of the 12 toxic PCBs
‘- Z3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PCDD
:.- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
2,3,4,7,8-PCDF
- PCB 126
Current Dioxin Exposure/Body
Burdens
-1 PG TEa/Kg/Day (PCDDs/PCDFsIPCBs)
. Possible Higher intake Populations
• Nursing infants
• Fatty Diet
• Some subsistence fishermen and farmers in
proxunityto contamination
Body Burden Best Dose Metric
(NglKg BW)
• Accounts for differences in half-life
• Results in strong agreement between
human and animal data
• Adopted by WHO, EC, HHS
-------
Dioxins and Human Carcinogenicity
Quantitative estimate of cancer risk
Characterization of Non-Cancer
Effects
Identification of non-cancer effects In animals and
human are sufficient to generate a similar level of
concern to cancer
Adverse non-cancer effects have been observed in
animal and humans wIthin 10 times background
exposure.
It is likely that part of the general population is at,
or near, exposure levels where adverse effects can be
anticipated
EPA will rely on MOE rather than RfD as the risk
descriptor for dioxin non-cancer risk
U.S. Adult Average Daily Intake of
CDDsICDFsI Dioxin- Like PCBs
65 pg TEQ ,-WHO 9 ,iday
•‘ Inh ion
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Other dioxin-like
compounds
+ Carcinogenic to
humans
4 Likelytobe
carcinogenic
Complex Environmental 4
Mixtures
Ukely to be
carcinogenic
Based on: . Unequivocal animal carcinogen
• Umited human information (epidemlologlcailother)
• Mechanistic plausibility
Cancer potency Increasingly focusing on human studies
Note: (IARC) classified TCDD as a Categoiy 1, 1(nown human carcinogen.
DHHS ge Report on Carcinogens (ROC) the same
Cancer slope factor is based primarily on recently
published analyses of human studies and is revised
upward by a factor of—6 over the 1985 EPA value
based on 1978 study in rats
Cancer risks to the general population may exceed
l0 (1 in 1,000) from background (dietary) exposure
but are likely to be less and may even be zero for
some individuals
Non-cancer Toxicants in Animals and
Humans
4 Developmental Toxicity
Targets:
Developing Immune System
Developing Nervous System
Developing Reproductive System
4 Immunotoxicity
4 Endocrine Effects
-3 Chloracne
4 Others
Body Burdens Associated With
Non-Cancer Effects
Ng/Kg
MOE*
4 Adverse Effects
Developmental neurotoxicily.
Developmental/reproductive toxicity:
Developmental immunotoxicity:
r Adult immunotoxicitv
Endometriosis:
9 Biochemical Effects
CYPIAI Induction:
CYPIA2 Induction:
22
0.7-42
50
1.6- 12
22
4
0.! -8
10
0.3-2
4
0.6-33 0.1-7
2.1-83 0.4-17
MOE = elect level / current ave age U.S. background body burdens of 5 Ng/kg
V.gs abl. f Soil W ,gseilon
oe. -— Soild.n con d
Frsshwai,f Sel, aid
N.rWw Seli id shslSeh
7%
-------
U.S. Levels in
TEQNHOSS (whoa. woag
Food CDD/CDF/PCB
ht basis)
lewioti
Ia. —sii—. w
P 5. R
I.* o s
tOW
s-OA i-O43
*
a N. (iarb
fr NN “ “
- li , -
I
-
L w g ftQVb
a,ij
aNN.ltw?) 1 .4 1 14
a _ I
.
—
‘.4
-
- -
Ibi s
1 1SS
-
‘ I iN
- 1
p
L*i ’
..
kt
‘ - ‘ ._ ‘ .-•‘ .:
• - -:
I
r —5w ‘ - - --
*
—
. •a’
—
‘• •
rN ’
II
)P LA
SC 1L
‘
41 N
1i 5 I}
:
• ,
- -
b c _, 1
N N
ti. 1 1 1 I* b0 ’
- - 4 S isrN N. (t
. ..
1
::jd ‘: :
Background CDDICDF ‘ ISO. mAsh and SMiNish, Consumption Rates, and Intakes
-F ’
. )! !
I 3e
Ba ’owid CDD CDF TEQ In Fish and Sris!ttisn Coi ,sun IIon RMss
Pathways and Sources of
Human Exposures
• Pathways:
• Ingestion of soil, meats, dairy products, fish
• Inhalation of vapors and particulates
.. Dermal contact with soil
• Sources:
-, Combustion
4 Metal Smelting, Refining, Processing
• Chemical manufacturing
4 Biological and Photochernical Processes
-, Reservoir sources
Sources and Pathways to Human Exposures
so ces DEPOSI71ON Øo
I
TRANSPORT
—
R nms
TF
_) )___ J ) __ L L
-------
20 th Century Trend
?.!I ili
I’U’: , . ::
I — - ‘
•
.‘ \_‘- - - -‘-
I
Major US Dioxin Sources
9000.0
8000.0
7000.0
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
1987 20000
1995 1000.0
2004 -0.0
“V
Poorly Characterized Sources
• oudar steel electric arc • RangI fires
furnaces
• Ag burning
• Coke production
• Landfihlfires
• Ceramic manufacturing
• Structural fires
• Clay proceming
• landfihlf lares
• Ferrous and non-ferrous foundries
• Asphalt mixing plants Rural soil erosion to water
• Pr1mar magnesium • Urban runoff to surface water
• 1102 • Uthiti poles and storage yards
• Wood stoves
• Landfill fugitive emissions
• Forest fires
• Brush fl • Trsnsfonnei- storage yards
Reservoir Sources
Old releases of dioxins that are temporarily stored in
environmental compartments to later be reintroduced
into the circulating environment:
• Soil
• Sediment
• Biota
Materials
Reservoirs contribute as much as 50% to general
population exposure.
Dioxin Uptake Into Meat And Dairy
p
-
a •
‘ 1::.
-------
Fluxes A k
Among , ,
Dioxin Th +
Reservoirs __
p ___
- •0• 4k
-------
Application of the Lead IEUBK
Model to Assess Spokane River
Fish Consumption Health Risks
Lon Kissinger, U.S. EPA Region 10
Spokane River Sediment Lead Concentrations Near
Fish Sampling Locations
2000
1800-
1600 4
, 1400
1200 -
H
C 800
1
60 70 80
River
Me + - SEM
Lead Risk Assessment
• Based on internal measure of exposure,
blood lead level ( PbB )
• Risks assessed by comparing predicted
population PbB values to PbB values
associated with health effects.
• This approach integrates lead risks for all
exposure routes.
n !!J - __ _________j I
13 LL S I V -.
N F .I *1.S ( .i P&CAL 3
BIOAMLtM4UTY M4) Th c’T1
E Y
1i Si i t wt* .R-As a1tX W Afl 4 cf 1*5 FO& t’
ILAD lb iocc f .Isit S4S M1’IML1Y O WKLS ITS
MIUTy lb prJ4tl*iL e D JG & 4. (p &’J4t .
I#4 IT A IL I.OT Toxic P
/
j j
Fish Tissue & Sediment Sampling
Locations
— ‘S•
c,,• .v
90 1uu
-------
Dietary Lead Input Screen for the
IEIJBK Model
.1
S I IS 31 41 iS
c
-.r —
r
-
I- i
Dose-Response
Otiserved Effect
—+ ?Threshold
Childrm Adults
Blood Lead ig/d1
Death
125 ?
Neurological
Encephalopathy 70 100
Sub-dinical Paip&mlNeurpa.thy4O 40
Central N vous S tem
Hcaring 10
CognitivelQ 10 -
Psychonx*or Fu__lO -
Birth wcicht Term length 10 -
Anemia 20 80
.Hemesynthesis 10 10
Renal neplunpathy 40 40
llypcrtc tmoo
, -VilannnD -30
Sperm examS & fwidioa 40
— M & tk TOXkfltLX I1
Models Used to Assess
Lead Health Risks
• Models used:
— Risks to children : ages 0 to 84 months assessed using
the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model
(IEUBK)
— Risks to developing fetus : determined using the adult
lead model.
• Information at: EPA’s Lead Technical Review
Workgroup:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programsflead/
EPA IEUBK Model for Lead
Integrated Exposure Uptake BioKinetic
Exposure ___
Uptake
BioKinetics
Health protectiveness in lead risk assessment
derives from the fact that only a small
fraction of the population is pemiitted
to have PbBs exceeding a specified cut-off
fl \ (i.e > 10 tgfdl) .
the Adult Lead Model
Gcometzic Mean Maternal PbB
Central tendency estimate of maternal
blood lead maintained at a level such
thatihe Fetal 95 th PbB will not
exceed 10 ig-dl
Sl 3. 51 713 1L4 1 1311
Maternal Blood Lead Concentration
-------
Key IEUBK Model Parameters
• Fraction of meat consumption that consists
of locally caught fish.
• Concentration of lead in fish tissue.
• Lead concentration and intake rates for
other media (e.g. water, soil, house dust)
Fraction of Meat Consisting of Locally
Caught Fish: Meat Consumption
IEUBK model variable: meat_all(t)
Avg. for children 0-72 months = 101 g/day, therefore, a fish
consumption rate of 16.2 g/day is 16% of total meat consumption
Fish Species Assayed for Lead
Mountain Whitefish ___________________
_I
Fraction of Meat Consisting of Spokane
River Fish: Fish Consumption Rate
• What childen’s fish consumption rate to use?
• Identified populations included:
— Recreational anglers
— Laotians
— Russian immigrants that consumed fish cakes
prepared by grinding fish after removal of head
& spine.
• Problem : No quantitative information
Fraction of Meat Consisting of
Locally Caught Fish: Fish
Consumption Rate (continued)
• Opted to use tribal fish consumption rates
for children age 0 to 72 months.
• Rates taken from the Columbia River
lntertribal Fish Commission Fish
Consumption Study (EPA, 2002).
• 65 th percentile consumption rate of 16.2
g/day was used as a health protective central
tendency estimate.
Largescale Sucker
Rainbow Trout
Spokane River Fish Fillet & Whole Body Lead Concentrations
S k
R tO T 4
WI $t’
Wh
s *.
RM 96 PW s
Fny. RM
F 1e9
I17
Whole Fle
7-lao
9ol e. 96.493
-------
Comparison of Spokane River
Average Whole Fish Lead Levels
with National Values (mg/kg)
CJ. Scbadu sad W.C. 1990. N.dssaI Cs.tsaa.t Bi.smICoria
Pr. .: Csacsatrads.s .( Ar,esic, Cadni., C. er, L d , Mcrc.iy,
sad ZMc U.S. Fres ws1er F . 1974-1904. Art vss st E av
C.stai sation sad T.ak.I.t9. 19:731-747.
70%-
60%-
50%-
40%---
20%--.
10%-.
0%
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Wbo FI , TIis L..d Cou ,*.Iwn. UIg
Spokane River Fish Fillet Lead Concentrations
0.5
045 -
04 -
03
025
0.2
£
£
015- —
U
0.1;
0.90
0— ——
P s
90 Fwy. RU 55
Selected IEUBK Model
Parameters
• Stateline trout fillet lead concentration of
0.22 mg kg.
• Soil concentration of 230 mg/kg.
• All other parameters set at model defaults.
Distribution of Lead Concentrations in
Whole Fish
90%
80%
- -
a.
9
8
0 . 5
CJ. Scbsdtt sad W.G. Brsnibs.g%, 1990
c
Uss .1.90% 0.. N • 5
I La sc
£
1— —
A
U =
st••t i
7- O ge.
RU 63
IEUBK Model Results, Rainbow Trout Fillet Consun xion
PbBs Resulting from
Consumption of Whole Fish
1ax Observed %>IO
Co.centratlon Micrograms
SDecies ( ma/ka )
Largescale 4.34 62%
Sucker
Rainbow Trout 1.14 15%
Mou.tain WhItefish 0.56 6%
U- —.
I
-------
Comparison of Children’s and
Adult Fillet Meal Limits
Søecies
Rainbow Trout
Largescale Sucker
Mountain Whitefish
8 oz. Meals per Month
IEUBK ALM
Children Adults
4 8
7 14
13 52
Concentrations That Cause 5% of the Population to have
PbBs of 10 ug/dI (Children Age 0 through 84 Months)
I.e
• ‘ 1.7
D 1.6
E 15—
C 1.4
1.3’ -
12.—
1.1
1. - —- -
0.9 ’
0.8
-
-i 0.6-
0.5-
0102030405060708090100
S N..t • Consisting of Fish
-.-2O0 g
75n9.o
Issues/Model Improvements to
consider:
• Consider altering the model to accept more
population specific dietaiy mformation.
• Evaluate how the model does with subsistence
consumption.
• Are there differences in bioavailability of lead
found in bone/cartilage vs. muscle tissue?
• Change consumption rate data ently from fish as
% of meat consumption to g/day.
Computing Pb Fish Fillet
Consumption Limits
In order to run the IEUBK model, fish
meals are converted to fish intake as %
of meat intake:
(NmealspermonthX8oz.)/3odays X 28.349g/oz.
IEUBK daily meat intake in g day
PCB Based Spokane River Fish
Consumption Limits
PCB Conc., ppb
Species g. High End
RaInbow 880 1312
Trout
Allowable 8 0Z. Meals
per Year
g. High End
2.6 1.7
Largescale 148 182 15.2 12.4
Sucker
PbB by Fish/Meat Diet Fraction & Fish Lead Concentration
6 % Meat
O Coosun don
- Consistingof
4. Fjh
10%
a
.16%
22 . 50%
.100%
a.
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 025 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55
Fish Tissu. Lssd Concsnfrstlon. mg 5 g
0.87
-------
Acknowledgements
Equations for the Adult Lead
Model
Intake of Lead from Soil and Fish
PbB J = PbB ,
+
BKSFI(PbSXIRIAF ,IEFI+PbFILRJXAFFI EFF)/AT
Equations for the Adult Lead
Model (continued)
\ hat materual blood lead le el lll be
protecthe of the fetus ?
= PbB x GSD’ x
PbB (PbBç j o .L) (GSD X Rfe aL, e, I)
Supplement
• The following slides were not presented at
the forum but were provided by the author
for inclusion in the proceedings.
Relationship Between Particle Size and
Sedimentffissue Lead Concentration
• Lead analyses done for particle size ranges
of<63 jiM, <175 jiM, <500 jiM & <2000
• Avg. lead concentrations for each size range
determined for sediment stations in the
vicinity of fish sampling areas.
• FilletJWhole fish vs. sediment lead
concentrations piotted for different size
ranges.
• ‘ anc Beck, U.S.
0MB
• Steven Boa. USGS
• Robert Duff, WA
Dept. of
Hea lth/ATSDR
• Art Johnson. WA
Dept. of Ecology
• Mike LaScuola.
Spokane Regional
Health District
• Terry Maret. USGS
• John Roland. WA
Dept. of Ecology
• Marc Stifelman, U.S.
EPA
Spokane River Sediment and
Fish Sampling Locations
-I
/ .,
&
;...:f
I D.. Lc5s
C .mmtr
— F.• $ap
C St Sp.I.s.
S i ent data compiled by Bi
aid Willis, USGS, 2000
-------
077 0 0 077
63 008770
R
rver Mile
Sediment — Whole Fish Lead Concentration
Relationship, Particle Size <63 pM
. 4.5..
3.5
: 3 •
•Troijt
C .Suc lc
2’ .
1.5
ii.
.2 1
0 500 1000 1500
S.dum.nt Concenfra6on (mg/kg)
seoimcnt — wnoie risn i eao . .uut enuauuu
Relationship, Particle Size <175 paM
S .-——...- .. --
4.5
1
: 3
2.5 L
2
! 1.5
I ’.
0.5
0 — -- — —
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Sediment - Fillet Lead Concentration
Relationship, Particle Size <63 pM
Sediment Lead Concentrations by
Reach and Particle Size
2000
1800-- -
1600-
p1400 - - -.
c63uM
.E1200.
iooo - -:
d8 0 0 .
600- -
400
200
0-
Mean
= <2 0 00uM
< 500 iIA
<175 uM
0.25 - -
..
0.2 -
-
-
!
;
2
0.15
,
.
.
- -
I
-
•
-
.Troiit
•Sucker
-
0.05 -
01__-___.
0
500
1000
1500
Sdiment
ConcsnVaton
(mg/kg)
Sediment - Fillet Lead Concentration
Relationship, Particle Size <175 pM
0 25
0.2.
6
0 .154
.Trout
a
C a Sucker
0.1
a
0.05
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
S.dim.nt Conc.n abon (mg/kg)
• Troil
• Sucker
Sediment - Fillet Lead Concentration
Relationship, Particle Size <500 pM
025
0.2
0015
•Trout
C •Sucker
o.iL . - - - - —
a
0.05 - -
I L
.
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
S.dlrnsnt Conc.,*atioIo (mg/kg)
S.dim.nt Conc.nfratlon (mg/kg)
-------
Sediment — Whole Fish Lead con alma Sediment - Fillet Lead Concentration
Relationship. Partick Size <500 pM Relationship, Particle Size <2000 pM
5. 0.25
•
4 .
35. E
C
• 3. • 00.15-
- .Trc ,jt • .Tf OL S
C . •SLEk& . •Suck
8 2 - - go.i .- -
- . 8 •
a. U
1- - E0.05
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 200 400 600 800
S.dôui,.nt Con ,*sOon @1191k9) Sdlmnt Concsntyabon (rnglkq)
Sediment - Whole Fish Lead Co•centration Relationship.
Particle Size < 2000 Ratio of Fillet Tissue to Sediment
Lead Concentration
4.
s . Particle Size Rainbow Trout Large Scale Sucker
3 • <63 3.9E-04 5.5E-04
.1W <175 3.8E-04 2.6E-04
2 • • <500 7. IE-04 5.3E-04
i.e. <2000 6.5E-04 6.8E-04
i. All Sizes 5.3E-04 5.1E-04
0
0 200 400 600
S iW Conmt*ebon mg k)
Comments on Use of Lead
Tissue/Sediment Ratios
• Lead tissue sediment ratios may be a useful
method for screening as to whether or not
fish consumption lead hazards exist.
• More work needs to be done to characterize
these ratios.
-------
Occurrence of Lead in Fish
Examples from Georgia,
Maine, and California
A Note on Contamination
during Sample Preparation
Georgia
Means of Detected Lead Values Only
by Basin
M s s
s l S
C
co_
c.
e
-
A
(N)
L5
—
(W(
L..d
-
(N) L.ad
-
I
1.1$
I
1.15
1
C. .
2$
4
I.
235
4
i ii
3 1.35
— 1535
5
7
1.34
3
1.33
_____
S
I&
3
537
Oc . ,s
7
215
2
2
- .
S
255
1
2.25
1 255
S
225
3
2.2$
S uiss
1
4.25
-
-
-
TM s
2
1.55
Georgia
Sunim i:,-- ‘ -. Lea 1
Corccntratonis in F sn F,lIe (
Cocnpcnc4es
Georgia
All Species (Pb)
By Hydrologic Unit
Georgia
LargemouthBass (Pb)
Georgia
Channel Catfish (Pb)
-------
Maine Fish Lead Concentrations
n *ed spec.e
rrixed buues
;4’
Average Lead PPM
• 002-005
005-02
02-032
032-06
• 06-064
10.0
1.0•
0.1
0.0
0
I- O
0
Marne Flat Tissue Concentrations
Mu, Mean, Max
t U U •
—•0
22 ooc.
I— •
t Cl)
•
, ,,Z
e
_•
-
5 —
0
WI- ---
-
Ou Ifl
E . ,
fl
U)
MH . iols Fish Concentrations
Maine F WM oIe Comparèson
a
10
E 1
a
a
.
0 0.1
0 .01
California
Fillet Non-detects in TSMP
Spscass
N
$çsdss
•
N
chi
I
L . io .ion
a
s m
I
7
I
S4 isg iIi
4
Lgss.o 4i
b e ss
4
I
Nes
‘V
Sresn 5
4
0!I,gs.ulouIiI
n•
1
Cp
4
RW o’ Sad
I
cl i.wi&
4
d sw
S
-
w
-
- V
I
I
-
V
thuw
I
I
I
t
T A
JL
.
, 010 .
u —*-
Mk , Mean, Max
a a
5 III 13
I
Speces
California
c*iesppa s S P 5sI ad ass sdy
U
.
-------
California
CA TSNP Pb Data: Prep Effect
1oo°
_, 100
The Effects of Sample Preparation
on Measured Concentrations of
Eight Elements in Edible Tissues of
Fish from Streams Contaminated
by Lead Mining
Christopher Schmitt and Susan E. Finger
Arch. Environ. Contam. ToxicoL 16, 185-207 (1987)
Ettect ot Preparation Method
Grand (s.v.n alt..) g.onl.trIc man concentration l..d
In ppno
Taxa P4onnal Prep Clean Prep Difference
0.097 0.024 4X
P4 —13
Catfish 0.314 0.031 lOX
P4=13
Redhorse 0.228
P4=14
Conclusions
Preparation methods can effect
reported Pb concentration
Cross contamination from skin, bone,
mucus and scales can effect reported
Pb concentration
Cross contamination and non-muscle
fragments can effect sample
heterogenlety
Acknowledgements
Eric Frohmberg, Maine
L
Randy Manning, Georgia
-------
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
in fish and invertebrates
Usha Varanasi
/q\ Notthwest Fi.hs . Sc*ncs C., sr
4 NOAAF
S•athe. W
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs
•
Petrogenic (LMW) and pyrogenic (HMW)
sources
•
Natural sources (seeps, fires)
•
Anthropogenic sources (spills, internal
combustion engines, coal burning, wood
preservatives)
# Vertsbratss:
Accu ø, , ii ms
• ___
• - -
• = . _ 4 _
Responding to PAM contamination
Questions that need to be answered:
Chemical composition of the source
• Fate and toxicity of the source
Resources at risk
• Type of Investigation to be conducted
• Sampling design
Tiered approach:
Screening -vs- Detailed analyses
• Screening methods are rapid and cost-effective
• Screening methods provide a semi-quantitative
estimate of contamination In samples
• Screening allows priority selection of a subset of
samples for detailed analysis (e.g., GCIMS)
• Detailed analyses provide confirmation of screening
results
• Detailed analyses provide quantitative information
about individual contaminants
I
Exposure
Fish & Shoufish
zes
istIons:
.. ood sato to . ?
Are there dveres s e s an the
organisms?
M
fi sh& th
]
I klvsrtebratos T1 ’
L
,‘
1 HPt.Cfl1uo1eecumc. ( s.nin ) or GC S n y
I •
• Analytical approaches
-------
Screening Methods:
Analyzing AC metabolites in bile
Laboratory exposure of fish to
contaminated sediments
demonstrated that:
• ACs readily taken up
• ACs extensively
metabolized
• Metabolites concentrated
in bile for elimination
• Marked differences in
tissue concentrations
10
106
Muscle
io 2 ,
0 2 4 6 8 10
Exposure (days)
Port Lions 0
Larsen Bay
Kas 1 i Karluk 0
Akhiok 0
S Chignik
Chenega 0
Bay
P0,10
Graham! English Bay
0 Ouzink le
Kodiak
DChiniak
0 01d Harboi
SPILL
o
/
Native
Alaskan
Villages
Concentrations of AC metabolites in pink
salmon bile following the Exxon Valdez oil spill
Uws
Iwe is
( a ga . I
(5 1
Lw ’ •
owI
isi
2O 1O 615151
C=mf*.bo ’ o(AC , , o61is (‘Vs. mee *50)
— is..,, reference level
Yakutat (reference site)
Total PAHs (nglg, ww)
Cobb salmon musde (n =6)
3.0
Mussels(n=6)
3.0±2.0
Butterciams(n9)
1.0±1.0
Littleneckclams(n=6)
0.8±0.3
Cheneqa Bay (oiled site)
Total PAHs (nqlq , ww)
Punk salmon musde (n = 3)
0.8
Bile PAHs in Marine Mammals
100000
]iI
________
(taitor sellefler sea lions
Sea 1.8 14 ev6sd pl.,8. W 1 , SouC w,d eolou*g $aii
Total PAHs measured In fish muscle and
invertebrates after EVOS 1990
Mussels (n = 8)
Butter clams (n= 9)
Littleneck dams (n = 16)
Tatltlek
Old Harbor
640 ± 620
330 ± 340
120± 44
Smoked ulinon 23,000 nglg wet wt.
Smoked salmon 7,900 ng/g wet wt.
-------
PAHs in Marine Mammals PAHs and Seafood
• PAHs are toxic compounds, derived from a variety of
I [ ii sources, including oil spills and combustion of petroleum.
- • Fish and invertebrates, when exposed to PAHs, readily
___________ - - assimilate them into their bodies.
• Fish efficiently metabolize PAH5, and excrete them from
a c ________ ________________ their bodies. it is very rare to detect significant amounts
of PAHs in the tissues of fish.
A
60* £ • Invertebrates, however, are much less efficient
j j• • metabolizers of PAHs, and PAHs are commonly found in
0 100 200 3X) 400 6)07010 these species in PAH-contaminated areas.
• While PAHs do not accumulate in fish, they have a number
of adverse effects on the fish themselves.
born GdI OS1 W wi Sound
Current/Upcoming Issues
with PAHs
• PAH Input into the environment is increasing
in many areas
• Seafood Safety Standpoint:
—fish (not a concern)
—invertebrates (concern)
• Biological Effects Standpoint:
—fish and invertebrates (concern)
—Need to monitor the adverse effects
(reproductive, sensory, physiological)
-------
Setting Statewide Advisories
based on upper percentile lake
averages
Eric Frohmberg
Environmental Toxicology Program
Maine Bureau of Health
% of Lakes above Action Level
Brook Trout
(n=31 lakes)
— T__ Pve”
Landlocked Salmon
(n=21 lakes)
/ bcita Sources
r REMAP — 1993
EPA Study
120 Random Lakes
$50,000 per year to
support Hg Advisoiy
FSWAT— 1994 to
current — added 80
lakes
Implications in Choice of Statistic
Mean Lake Concentrations
Average Population Weighted
‘ Exposure
Assumes Random Fishing
Upper Estimate of Lake
Concentration
Reflects uncertaint
Matches hypothesized exposure
patterns
Variation of Lake Average Hg by Species
2
5.5
I MrI
U 5ss 5].out’ 6
tev3l n 2l eev8 n 32 n 48
Sançle size represents number of lakes
Se olthe Pop
I eo
Acd.. level (5.1
pp-)
Tissue Conc. ppm Tissue Cone. ppm
I__ .I- _ TP
-------
% of Lakes above Action Level
S ew P S fl’t S Nw Psp —
I ! I I I
A *1 M S d
Tissue Cssc. s a
Tissue Conc.
Ti ie Cmic ppm
White Perch
Smailmouth Bass
Chain Pickerel
(n=4 lakes)
(n=32 lakes)
n=7 lakes)
- T
I,’., 11
Implications
Positive
Reflects what we think we know about exposure
Reflects uncertainty
, Provides incentive for testing
Negative
Over protective for the vast majority of lakes
Impact on Advice
.sd F .v
4’tW . ’ %ft r’ ’
The F’sh
‘ig G ’’ (It.!! r 1 s
-------
Use of Maine’s Statewide
Advisory in a Tribal Setting
Susan M. Peterson
Environmental Chemist
Aroostook Band of Micmacs Environmental Laboratory
E-mail: speterson(à’micmachealth.org
STATE c i MAINE
OPEN WATER FISHING •••
2002 REGULA11ONS
The State of Maine
Bureau of Health
Fish Consumption
Advisory
As taken from the 2002
Maine Department of
Inland Fisheries and
N iMIafe Regulations
S e E Guêde Ines
•
p &
S
. •• _s
I
U lA12
•
•
*
•
• I _
•
•
The Aroostook Band of Micmacs
4
_• — .— —
- — I — ,
cc aAcT F 94. - - - --
79
Keeping Our
Traditions and Our
Families Alive
=
:= i 1 9T E
outside I —
inside - ==
.— U
-
7S4-7I1 iI • ( d
%S 3471 .
oso
-------
bTt F h rm
Fe
My F IyS e?
-
—
-
. t
Th,
— ——
I
—
GUNI FEATHERS
-------
MICMAC
HEALTH
DEPARTMEN1
8 Northern Road
Presque Isle, Maine
04769
Ph: (207) 764— 7219
E-mail: fcorey@rnicmachealth.org (Environmental Director) - or -
speterson@micmachealth.org (Environmental Chemist)
-------
Outline
North Dakota’s
Fish Consumption Advisory: • History
A Statewide Advisory Based
on Average Concentration • Development of Current Statewide
Advisory
Pr e.ted by
Mike Eli, F. bs e .tal Scientist
NDDeptofHealtb • Considerations for the Future
Octob 22 , 21S2
History • Continued sampling with additional lakes
and reservoirs added each year
First fish collections for mercury analysis • Peaked in the mid 90’s with over 30 lakes
in 1991 and rivers and 20 species of fish listed
- Resulted in limited fish advisory for Devils • Numbers declined through the late 90’s
Lake during the summer of 1991 due to limited sampling
First published advisory occurred in • Focus on Devils Lake and Lake Sakakawea
March 1992 • Predominant fisheries in the state
- Included ten lakes and reservoirs, including • Research interest in mercury effects and lake
Devils Lake, and two rivers manipulations
Statewide Advisory
• First Issued In January 2001
• Rational
Mercury occurs in fish ía all lakes, reservoirs,
rivers, and streams ía the state
- For advise to be useful It shouldn’t be complicated
• Based on standard assumptions and existing
fish tissue data for all lakes and rivers
• Final advisory reduced to simple consumption
advice
I _ . GUUa flC 3tS S F Con r t V O(Y
M umpbon.
— -—
Dai D..
— — .
son —
son a
son
Des. Con
MesER N.aySM.rnsy Con WsSoaa sa Fish
s_ ‘— — — — 4
s._ S 543 ’ 5
a’s ’ s
s__a s__a a__a
-------
I — ——
O dc*iu’Wde Fish ConsunipUon AdvIsa y
-- A ge
FPARL B M M S e OIIyD ..
___ 1,I __ J
N I
Do.. Con
- -
-------
• Provides more flexibility to the
consuming public
— Give the public more opportunity to
keep fish and to eat those fish
While providing protection
Why Use The Mean
Concentration?
-------
Considerations for the Future
• Sample Design
— Targeted vs Statewide Sampling
— Probablistic Sampling
• Public Communication
L
-------
CATECOR’W
PA
FACt SHEET
LNRF .ST1 (IC1TtI 0 0I2
.0FO)2
I MEALWEEK
013-0.25
1-0.12-0.24
2 MEALS/MONTH
0.26 — 0.50
.32 - 0.48
1 MAL54ONTH
051-1.0
6 MEAL&YEAR
1.01 - 1.9
0.97- 1.9
DONOTEAT
1.9
1,9
SPWITS
ISAM LES
Hg RANGE gikg
WAUEYE
44
0.069—1364
L&RG€MOSTTH RASS
54
0.076 - 0.99
SMAUMO ,JTH HASS
97
0.06- 0.733
BROWN TROUT
75
0007 - 0.656
CARP
SO
0.04—0576
CHANNEL CA1TISH
37
0.027— 0.76
ADVJCE
NUMBER
% OF SAMPLES
UNRESTRICTED
222
40
)MEALWEEK
169
31
2MEALS /XIONTH
118
21
IMEALMONTH
37
7
6MEALSYEAR
5
>1
DONOTEAT
0
--
CATEGORY
WALLLYE
IARGEMOLTTH
SMALLMOUTH
UNRESTRICTED
3 (7%)
8 (15%)
17 (18%)
I MEALWEEK
13 (30%)
IS (33%)
33 (34%)
2 MEALS/MONTH
18 (41%)
19 (35%)
39 (40%)
I MEAL3.4ONTH
5 (11%)
9 (17%)
8 (8%)
6 MEALS/YEAR
5 (11%)
0
0
DONOTEAT
0
0
0
Note: The following slides are from
the presentation by Bob Frey
MERCURY ADVISORIES - APRIL 11, 2001
• WAITED FOR NAS VALIDATION OF EPA RiD
• BASED ON EPA 1999 FACT SHEET
EPA-823-F-99-016, SEPTEMBER 1999
• MODIFIED LEVELS SLIGHTLY FOR EASE OF USE
• CROSS-CHECKED WITH PCB ADViCE
• ISSUED NEARLY 80 NEW ADVISORIES
ADVISORY TRIGGERS
DATA
551 MERCURY DATA POINTS
10 YEARS OF DATA
8 MEALS34ONTH
DATA EXAMPLES
SPECIES COMPARISONS
-------
CATEGORY
WALLEYE
BROWN TROUT
- CARP
UNRESTRICtED
3 (7%)
52 (70%)
29 (58%)
I MEAL’WEEK
13 (30%)
(9 (25%)
(5)30%)
2 MEALS/MONTH
18 (41%)
3 (4%)
5 (10%)
I MEAIJMONTH
5 (11%)
1 (1%)
I (2%)
6 MEALS;YEAR
5 (11%)
0 0
ONOTEAT
0
0 0
SPECIES COMPARISONS II
STATEWIDE ADVISORY - APRIL 11, 2001
EAT NO MORE THAN 1 MEAL/WEEK OF
RECREATIONALLY CAUGHT SPORT FISH
REASONS:
- UNTESTED WATERS
- UNTESTED SPECIES IN WATERS WITH ADVISORIES
- CURRENTLY UNKNOWN CONTAMINANTS
TMDL IMPLICATIONS
• PA LISTS WATERS WITH ADVISORIES ON 303(d)
• HOW DO YOU HANDLE A STATEWIDE ADVISORY
WATERS WITH ACTUAL DATA ARE TO BE LISTED
OPTION 1 - LIST ONLY WATERS WITH 2 MEALS/MONTH
OR MORE RESTRICTIVE
OPTION 2- ALSO LIST WATERS WHERE ACTUAL DATA
SHOW 1 MEAIJWEEK
-------
Why have a Statewide Advisory?
Minnesota Statewide Fish
Consumption Advice
Pat McCann
Minnesota bepcirtment of Hedth
October 22. 2002
• Can’t test every water and every species
• Some level of Hg is in every fish we test
• Every water should some advice —
particularly for the sensitive population
• Myth - the waters listed in the fish advisory
are bad, others good
• Simplify the communication
Sig Locot ons -
Can existing data be used to
predict untested waters advice?
Yes and No — not with statistical rigor, but
yes in a general sense
High variability in meHg production
— Predictors not completely understood or
measured
Sampling not designed for predictive
purposes (selection bias and sample type
consistency problems)
A “Weight of Evidence”
Approach
• Data Analysis
- Means and regression analysis
By species and geographic location
• Harvest rates
• Input from other state agencies
• Consistency with neighboring states
• Consistency with site-specific advice format
-------
o
Kind of fish How often can you sat it?
fisi co.qii iM ..ueui..
Seehob. aappi& eIewpenb. bt*ecth — unbrusadwno
W* e os noriharn ,, bans,
bo oosouth boss, boedcctfish
edsi esuker, mans buoboi. sarp. olleeb
— Os
! ard
ti me ieuanuq ecars. o dfst I meal a
thual
eMs ee et b t h ear samor an e ei lab us
us ra. ..us.id.d us the,e pdelw
Sunfisk crappse, yellouperds. bu rods
——--*
ineal a week
Wakyes shorter thor 20 lushes. northern jkr
shorter than 30 etches sm mouth boss,
thbessdusnnelc agWsR headcotfish
I
* 1 : w: e1 *vm. leebol , sauger carp,
ails, bas rock bass, other spores
For yse ssan1 a a jnen who ma, a ome useqnant arid chedren under age IS
Kind of fish How often can you eat it?
RithcseqktIMi.es.ioc
Shea ea Ius
sile l —
let ea us
Ibseeuseapejvwe
t sr itllee
Woboyes lunger thou 20 isclses. + ,
ariritiens e hager Shun 30 mitses. muskeilungr ________
sis swordfish •Ø Do eat sen. -
• Other reeninercial spenes lichideig canned iwsr See MDC inoctiure An &werensr Mother
Ga* Jo (o,ssp Ms neseJa hth for qsodrlmes
I Thec ,sangemthmogedelusesoeoanqh shp erg
Input from other Agencies
• Department of Natural Resources
— Continue to provide site-specific advice
— Concern about list of “bad” waters
— Concern about future funding for monitoring
• Pollution Control Agency
- In line with their trend and mechanistic work
— TMDL list
- Concern about future funding for monitoring
• Tourism
- Concern about list of “bad” waters and impact on
northern MN
I
-i; _ A
-------
Means Analysis
,.s.•. I
••t• i.i 1 ‘: •
Mean
N (jig/g)
Upper 95%CI
on mean
All Walleye 3761
0.39
0.41
NE Walleye 2268
0.45
0.47
Not NE Walleye 1493
0.31
032
/ ‘U
0.0 0 5 10 1’
Length )
Communication
• General Statewide Advice
— “Eat fish ofta T ’ and Mom’s Guide brochures
- MDH web site
- DNR Fishing Regulations
• Site Specific Advice
- MDH web site
- DNR Lake Repoils - web and hard copy
L
I’.
w ,
dM
t nnesota Waileye Harvest
N id $s U.3. HW s, 2
25.0
20.0
15.o
0
10.0
U
• 5.0
0 .
MUle .acs ake Walleye
LI
-0- ..
35
-------
Regional Fish
Advisory for the
Mississippi Delta
Hcniy Folmar
October 21. 2002
Fishing is an
important part
oftheculturein
the Delta.
DDT in the Delta is not a new problem.
• DDT was heavily used as a cotton
insecticide beginning shortly after WWII.
• Decline in fish eating species like the Bald
Eagle and Brown Pelican.
• Fish Advisories for Wolf, Mossy and
Washington Lakes in 1970’s.
• DDT was banned in 1972 and toxaphene in
1982.
- Mssipp4FuAdv* ao .*
‘.4
-
Recent studies show DOT and toxaphene
levels in the Delta are among the highest
in the country:
• USFWS - Yazoo R. @ Redwood - whole carp
had highest DDT levels of 112 sites across
the country.
• USFWS - Monitored pesticides in fish and
wildlife on refuges around the country. Led
to closure of Yazoo Refuge to Fishing.
• USGS - NAWQA Study - MS portion of Delta
had highest levels of DOT and toxaphene in
fish of any of their 230 sites nationwide.
-------
DDT and toxaphene levels in fish
in the Delta are declining.
• Data from USFWS and MDEQ and other
agencies show conditions are improving.
Concentrations of DOT and toxaphene in whole
carp from the Yazoo River at Redwood, MS
(USFWS).
6
LiP __
DDDT
- • To phene
1 L
I
1996
Average DDT concentrations in largemouth
bass in the Delta 1973-1998 (MDWFP,
MDEQ)
I
1473 1174 1476 1463 1464 1166 1166 1467 IllS
Y taCo he *4
So if things are getting better, why all the
fuss?
• The level considered to be safe has changed.
• FDA rescinded their action level for DDT in
1993.
• States were encouraged to begin using EPA
guidance that was more protective.
The Mississippi Fish Advisory Task Force led
an effort to develop new criteria following the
EPA guidance
Criteria Setting Process
• MS Fish Advisory Task Force (DEQ, DH,
DWFP, DAC, and DMR)
• Followed EPA Guidance
• Technical Review Committee (UMC, MSU,
USGS, USDA, USFWS, EPA, COE)
Mississippi Fish Advisory Criteria for DDT
and Toxaphene
Fish Tissue Concentration (mg/kg)
Consumption DOT Toxaphene
U 1
0
1984
-------
Sampling
Sites
Mississippi
Delta Fish
Tissue Study
2000
! ii
[ 7 L
( /
,*
N - - -r.
Good News:
• All largemouth bass, bream, crappie,
freshwater drum and all caffish less than
3Ibs were below the criteria at all sites.
.66% of all samples were below the
criteria for DDT.
• 73 % of all samples were below the
criteria for toxaphene.
• Farm raised catfish samples were below
the criteria for both DDT and toxaphene.
Bad News:
• All ten sites had at least two samples
that exceeded Mississippi’s limit
consumption criteria for DDT or
toxaphene.
.7 of 9 Cassidy Bayou samples
exceeded the criteria.
• 7 of 13 Roebuck Lake samples
exceeded the criteria, including 3
samples that were above the no
consumption criteria.
• Some form of advisory was
warranted at each site sampled
The objectives of the Mississippi Delta Fish
Tissue Study were to:
• Evaluate the concentration of DDT and
toxaphene in edible tissue from 10 selected sites.
• Use these data to evaluate human health risks
associated with eating fish.
• Develop a species concentration gradient for
DDT and toxaphene that will help focus future
monitoring efforts.
DILTA P11K ADVISORY
LARSE C*VVt$N
SUFFALO cA*p
—— —
Delta Fish Tissue
Advisory Area
:
TTJ
Includes Mississippi
Portion of Delta from
Memphis to
Vicksburg from MS
River Levee to the
bluff hills.
MI IIUIPPI DIPARIMENT OP ENVIRO$M!MTAL. QUALITY
For more nfo.mation call toll free - 1 .8U-786-O6 1
• Does not include
MS River or
connected oxbow
lakes.
-------
Outreach/Public Information
Outreach Efforts Cont’d
Outreach Efforts Cont’d
• Sent letters, maps and brochures to all
commercial fishermen in the state.
• Pnnted Advisories in MDWFP Outdoor
Digest
• Pnnted Signs for Roebuck Lake and rest of
Delta.
• MDWFP and MDEQ put up signs at boat
ramps and pubhc fishing areas.
• Placed Maps, Brochures, Posters, and
Advisory Table on MDEQ WebSite.
• Mailed letters, maps and brochures to 1400
Outreach Efforts (Cont’d)
16,000 Coloring books for distribution in
schools, head start programs and other
children’s groups.
• Distribution of posters and brochures through
WIG offices and county Health Departments
in the Delta.
• Fish Advisory Brochure and Poster in
Spanish.
Next Steps
• Continue monitoring looking for hot spots
and clean areas that can be removed from
advisory.
• Continue Outreach Efforts.
• TMDL’s by June 2003.
News Conference in Jackson/Stoneville
News Release
Sampling Demo for TV and Print Media
Radio and TV spots on Delta Area Morning
Shows
• Call in shows on gospel and blues radio
stations in and around the Delta
• Sent letters and posters to Delta Area Fish
Markets and Grocery Stores
• Went door to door in some communities
explaining advisories and answering
questions.
• Participated in two Delta area Health Fairs
(Greenville and Clarksdale).
• Participated in three Wildlife Expos in
Greenville and Jackson
• Appeared on Mississippi Outdoors TV Show.
• Appeared on Listen to the Eagle, a statewide
radio call in show.
-------
Questions?
Contact Information:
Henry Folmar
MDEQ Laboratory
1542 Old Whiffield Road
Pearl, MS 39208
601-664-3910
Henry_FoImar deq.state.ms.us
-------
Consumption Advisories Based On 8
Meals/Month
=
Joseph Beaman
Maryland Department of The Environment
2002 National Forum on Contaminants in Fish
Risk Assessment Equations
• Calculate acceptable concentration of contaminant
in fish tissue
• [ PCBs] RL x BWxLTxL. .
CSF x MS x MF x ED x ((100- % loss 100)
• [ Methyl Mercury] =RfDxBWxLTxL .
MS x MF x ED
What Does 8 Meals/Month Mean?
Carcinogens
Resulting Threshold Ranges For 8 Meals/Month (i.e. PCBO)
- General Population 20-39 ppb
- Women of Child Bearing Age 17-33 ppb
RA Parameters (Careinogens)
l x 10 Risk Level
- Standard Population Bodyweights
- 70 Year Lifetime
-30 Year Exposure Duration
- Upper Estimate Can Slope Factor (PCBs =2)
- Cooking Loss (General Population Only)
- Used Non-Carcinogenic Effects for Children ( more conservative )
Meak/M.atb
Gc.cral
Pop.Iatlon
Woe. 18-45
Cbtldren 0-6
8meals/month
20-38
17-32
13-25
4meals/month
39-77 -
33-66
26-51
2 meals/month
78 - 155
67 - 133
52 - 103
Imea ls/month
156-312
134-266
104-207
<1 meallmonth
>3i3
>267
- >208
Overview of MD RA Policies:
Fish Consumption Advisories
• Provide Guidance for Three Populations:
- Gcn Pop adon
— Women of Child-Bearing Age (18-45 years of age)
- Young Children (0-6 years of age)
• Consider Carcinogenic/NonCarcinogenic Effects
• Meal Size (Wet Weight In oz)
— 8 Or. - General Population
— 6 Or. - Women of Child Bearing Age
- 3 Or. - Children 0-6 Years of Age
• Meal Thresholds For Allowable Fish Consumption
— Do Not Eat (Lea Than 4 mea1s ycar)
— 4— Il mealsperyear
- 1. 2.4.or8mealspermonth(>4meals=8)
Basis For Meal/Month Advisory
Recommendations
• POLICY DECISION Based on:
• Anecdotal knowledge exists for subsistenceJfrequcnt fish
consumer populations in several areas of the State:
- Baltimore Clt
- Urban MD near Potomac River
- Eastern/Western Shores of the Chesapeake Bay
• Was not based on Exposure Assessment data from fish consumer
populations in M D.
Consumption Thresholds - PCBs
-------
What Does 8 Meals/Month Mean?
Non-Carcinogens
• Resulting Threshold Ranges For S MealsIMonth
— General Population 59— 117 ppb
— Women of Child Bearing Age 54— 107 ppb
- Children 0-6
• PCBs 13—26ppb
•Mercury 32—64ppb
• R.A Parameters (Non-Carcinogens)
— RID (Mercury) =0.1 ugfkg day; (PCBs .05 ug/kg day)
— Standard Population Bodyweights, Meal Sizes
- 70 Year Exposure Duration
Consumption Thresholds - Mercury
Mealsf%lonth General Population Women 18-45 Children 0-6
8 meals/month 59 - 117 54 - 107 32 - 64
4meals/month 117-235 107-215 65-129
2 meals/month 236-469 216-429 130-258
1 meals/month 470-939 430-858 259-519
<1 meal.month >940 >858 >519
Data Decision Rules: Advisories
• Generally, need a minimum of 5 fish (individual or
composite) to establish advisory.
• For 2001, Advisories, only used data back to 1995.
• Calculate thresholds using Geometric Mean when
sufficient individual or more than I composite exists.
• Less than 5 fish may be used when contaminant levels
warrant advisories in the meallyear (cc I mealimonth)
category and
- Waterbody is confined (i.e. lake)
— Fish species is resident (i.e. channel catfish, bullhead spp.)
MD Lakes/Impoundments
• Approx. 372 “Lakes” Total
• I or 2 Natural Lakes
• 30 Lakes> 100 acres
• 275 Lakes/Ponds < 1 —20 acres
Data Supporting Hg Advisories:
Statewide Lakes/Impoundments
• MD DNR Power Plant Research
Initiative
• 20Lakes—Minsize80acres
• Target SpeciesCollected
- Large/Smalhnouth Bass
- BluegilL/Sunfish
- Black Crappie
• 10-15 individuals/species
• THgIMeHg Analyzed
Setting the Statewide Advisory
• 19/32 (59.4%) of lakes/impoundments>80 acres had sufficient
data to generate consumption advisories for bass, bluegill, and/or
crappie
• 13/32 (40.6%)> 80 acres of lakes/impoundments had sufficient
data to generate consumption advisories bluegill.
• First, geometric mean MeHg (or T Hg when MeHg not available)
were calculated for individual waterbodies.
• The average of the geometric means was calculated and used to
determine the appropriate level for the advisory, based on EPA
risk assessment methodology for mercury
-------
Siyta _ .ay La ds in 8 - BkØI Ftø.n W. sn U 4asd Lá
U
i
0
C.)
:
F wg Sm e R. PtEras Bg Foci D.ep. &osi*xd L
Os l
44 lOvur) L a
1L1JLfl [ LrLü
-
Lbty l xi44l O & Trid Ø a Pvey ) ii
PCB Advisories: 8 Meals/Month
• VThite Perch Only
• Lower Eastern Shore Rivers Only
-a
—
- PomnK c
• Average 27.6ppb
• Stt Dcv. Slppb
• 30 Fish Sampled - 2 composites of
5 per flyer
Total PCBs Lv•li In White Parch Sampled From
Ch.sap.ak. Bay Tributarlea
/,,, ‘.//IW ‘ ‘f?;;/
Tr .44y - -
h 4msiuiy Levels h Os d 0 1uU Front C el
- Lelms
icxo ,-
Dt.a nxli
____ .
- --
C
o
I
C
a
U
C
0
0
L
•B i t g il
N iybw ay Levels te B.as sad Shi.g te CoslsI Plels La .s
• La’gemoilh Bass
1’
440
Cs
0
Data Summary for Statewide
Advisories
Lakes/Impoundments
13 Lakes
181 md. Bluegill Sampled
Average MeHg = 61 ppb
STD=29.Sppb
Mm: 24 ppb; Max: 133 ppb
L L .-
L wvoE
• Rivers & Streams
• 6 RverstStreams
• 29 Bass Sampled — Composites (4-5
fish)
• Av age MeHg = 607 ppb
• STD = 40.4 ppb
• Min4lppb;Maxl23ppb
• AdvInory was consnvative based on
fren observed in rivers
• A onsi saniphng needed
750
500
125.
-------
Potential Advantages of the
8 MealfMonth Advisory
Provides information to fish consumers (including
subsistence populations) as to the locations and species of
fish that can be consumed frequently without increased
risk of health effects.
Provides some assurance that fish species with
recommendations based on 8 meals/month have relatively
“low” (based on risk assessment procedures)
concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants.
Potential Disadvantages of the
8 Meal/Month Advisory
• Unintended negative consequences:
• Some consumers may stop eating fish if there is an
advisory of any type, thereby negating the benefits of fish
consumption, even though contaminant levels were
relatively low.
• Fish Consumption Advisories may cause unintended and
potentially unnecessary negative impacts on recreational
andlor commercial fisheries. (RFF Report)
• Potential Regulatory Disadvantages (TMDLs)
• Confusion in interpretation of advisoiy information
Outstanding Issues
• Exposure Assessment:
• Currently conducting mail surveys among MD licensed anglers
and interviews in urban areas
• Assessment Questions:
• What are the proper fish consumption levels at which to assess
risk in the State? Do we need to go to 8 meals? Higher or
Lower?
• How should we categorize/group populations in areas with fish
consumers?
-------
Impacts of Fish Contamination in
the Columbia River Basin
Fish Contamination Study
Fish Advisory Issues
Purpose of Fish Contamination Study
To Evaluate the Likelihood that Native
American Tribal Members may be
Exposed to High Levels of Contaminants
through Consumption of Columbia River
Basin Fish.
Phase 1: Fish Consumption Survey
1990-1994 (CRITFC)
Phase 2: Fish Contamination Survey
1996-2002 (USEPA)
TOXICITY
EXPOSURE
- Concentration in Fish’\
- Type of Health Effect I - Amount of Fish Eaten
- Level of Concern I - How Often/How Long
- Body Weight
RlSK
- Increase an Cancer Risk
- Non-Cancer Health
Phase I
Fish Consumption Survey
(CRITFC, 1990-1994)
Member Tribes of
the Columbia
River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission
(CRITFC):
P1ez Perce
Umatilla
-Warm Springs
-Yakama
Total of 14 Tubes
in the Columbia
River Basin
-------
: lea
CRrTFC Tr t aI Members
N
o 250
a.
• 4 Me k
2 sM%
C,
= ¶ 3 I. a sJUonV
cn n
Av.raga Consumption Rats
The Fish Consumption Survey was
Designed to Answer the Questions:
Are Tribal Members Eating More than the National
Average (6.5 Grams) used by USEPA?
Yes. Adults 58.7 Grams, Children 19.6 Grams.
Are Tribal Members Adequately Protected by Water
Quality Standard Based on the National Fish
Consumption Rate?
Probably Not. More Study Needed.
Phase 2
Fish Contamination Survey
(USEPA, 1996-2002)
The Fish Contamination Survey
was Designed to Answer the
Following Questions:
Are the Fish Contaminated?
Is there a Difference in Contaminant
Concentrations Among Species and Location?
The Fish Consumption Survey was
Designed to Answer the Questions:
Are Tribal Members Eating More than the National
Average (6.5 Grams) used by USEPA?
Are Tribal Members Adequately Protected by
Water Quality Standard Based on the National
Fish Consumption Rate?
Percent of Each Species in Hypothetical Multiple
Species Diet (CRITFC Study)
Salmon 28%
Rainbow Trout 21%
Mountain Whitefish 7%
Eulachon 16%
Lamprey 16%
Walleye 3%
White Sturgeon 7%
Largescale Sucker 2%
1994 Fish Consumption Survey Results
Hl9h Consumption Ratss -
Are the Tribes Exposed to a Higher Risk?
-------
This Fish Contaminant Study was Not
Designed to Evaluate:
People’s Health
‘ Intergenerational Risks
Rates of Disease
Sources of Chemicals
.. Multiple Exposures
The Study Design was not Random.
Resident Species:
White Sturgeon
d Mountain Whitefish
Rainbow Trout
-WaIIeye
Bridgelip
Largescale Sucker
Various Sample Analyses:
Anadromous Species:
‘Spring Chinook
rFall Chinook
-Coho
Steelhead
EuIachon (Smelt)
rPacific Lamprey (Eels)
-145 Whole body, 132 FilIet& 11 Egg Samples.
- Fillet with Skin (Except White Sturgeon).
. -Composites Samples (Except White Sturgeon).
•
\ Oam Loc.at ,o i
Columbia River Basin Study Sites
Fish Sampling
298 Fish Samples from
3 Replicates per Site.
26 Sample Locations on
Mainstem Columbia
River & 14 Tributaries.
Gilinetting for Salmon
Samples Obtained for
Tribal Fishers and from
Hatcheries.
Sturgeon at Hanford K Ponds
Steelhead
Steelhead Fillet
-------
Analyzed for 132 Chemicals (92 Detected)
21 Pesticides
16 Inorganics (Mercury, Arsenic)
3 Aroclors
13 Dioxin-like PCBs
17 Chlorinated Dioxins & Furans
22 Semivolatiles, eg PAHs
•F,PetwISjd i
DWholetudy
0.02
I
2
0
Anadromous
0 005
-
Anadromous
—‘-
OWho ieBody.
— Resident
Anadromous • Fillet
0
50 100 150
Basin-Wide Average (uglkg)
200 250
Largescale Sudrer
W a lleye
Mountain Whitefish
Rainbow Trout
Coho
S head
Pacific Lamprey
Chinook
Fall Chinook
AD fish are compostes —
White sturgeon are single fish
and Ste without skin
Anadromous
U Whole Body
I P5140W/Skin
50 100 150 200
Basin-Wide Average (ugikg)
Toxicity Assumptions for Chemicals
Contributing the Highest Risks
USEPA Scientist
Central Nervous System
Mercury
Arsenic
Cardiovascular
Arsenic
Keratosis
Arsenic
Immune System
Aroclors
Reproductive System
Mercury
Liver
DDT/DDE/DDD
Cancer
Dioxins/furans (B2) Inorganic Arsenic (A)
Dioxin-like PCBs (B2) DDTIDDE/DDD (B2)
Dioxin (2.3.7.8 TCDF)
Waleye
Mountain Whitefish
charmal C th
Bfldgel*, Sucker
La escale Sucker
Resident
Rinibow Trout
Padflc Lamprey
Fal Chinook
Pesticides
Spring Chinook
Eua lchon
Coho
Steethead
Smalimouth Bass ________
White Sturgeon
WalIeye —
Largescale Sucker —
Mountain Whitefish -
Resident
Bndgalp
Rainbow Trout
Pacific Lamprey
Fall Chinook
Coho Safrnon
Eulachon
Spring Chinook
Steethead
0.01 0.015
Basin-Wids Average (ugikg)
0.025
Basin-Wide Average (uglkg)
Aroclors
Smaenou Bau
White Sturpeon
Wa lleye
Chatnel Catfish
Mercury
— Sucker__
Bhdgel Sucker ______
Rainbow Trout
Lw rey
E dton
Fal Chinook
Spr Chinook
Cobo
Ste&heaa
White Sturgeo
Resident
250 300
-------
Conclusions
Resident Fish More Contaminated
than Anadromous Fish.
Tnbal Members Eat Significantly More
Salmon than Resident Fish.
Fish Consumption Risk Much Higher
for Tribal Members than for the
General Population.
Peto.n8.g.o4 Coon
Hypothebc I Risk
0is
ESecOs
S non
27.7 17$ 6x 10-5
0.6
RenilOw Trout
21.0 13i 4x 10-5
0.3
Moontae W1s fi
68 4.3 9x 10-5
07
Eu thon 156 9.9 3x106
0.1
Lam y 16.3 103 l x io-4
0.7
J 2.8 1.8 4x 106
01
Wti s Sta 9 eon 7.4 0.6
Lges e Suar t 2.3 - 1.5 01
Tc(als IWO 63.2 4x10- 4 - 3.2
Conclusions (continued):
USEPA Condudes the Columbia Basin
Fish Contamination Results are Similar
to other Large River Basins in the US.
Stressing this USEPA Condusion
Downplays the Importance of
Addressing this Critical Issue for Tribes
in the Columbia River Basin.
Percent Contribution of Chemicals to Heatth Effects
White Sturgeon
(Fillet without skin)
Coho
(Fillet with Skin)
Non-
Cancer
Cancer
4%
n
14
Mixed Diet Results
CRITFC Tribal Data
Average Fish Consumption, 70 Years Exposure
cI0 >1
Pr b4em Problem
The Fish Contamination Survey
was Designed to Answer the
Following Questions:
Are the Fish Contaminated?
Yes.
Is there a Difference in Contaminant
Concentrations Among Species and
Location? Yes.
Are the Tribes Exposed to a Higher Risk?
Yes.
-------
Cultural Importance of Salmon
Issues to Address while
Considering a Fish
Advisory in the
Columbia River Basin
Human Health
Traditional Diet vs. Toxic Fish
Personal Health of Tribal
Members is the Highest
Priority of Tribal Governments.
Fish Preparation Methods May
be an Issue.
Personal Health = Physical, Mental, Spiritual & Cultural
Fish Health
Research & Analysis Needs
are Substantial (Pathology,
Toxicology, etc.).
Hagerman Lab in Idaho is
Currently Being Built.
Fish Health Issues Tends to
Get Lost in the Shuffle.
r
T
Treaty Fishing Rights
Treaties of 1855
Guaranteed “the Right of
Taking Fish at All Usual
and Accustomed Places”
Tribal Fishery at Celilo Falls
This Means Taking Fish
that will Nourish, Not
Harm, the Health of our
Bodies.
Economic
Economic Benefit to Tribal
Members is Significant
(—$2M Annually).
Major Tribal Effort is
Underway to Increase the
Fishery Value.
Recent USEPA Report has
Impacted Tribal Ability to
Market Salmon.
Tribal —Lher L j
Salmon to the Public
-------
Environmental Clean-Up
Identification of Contamination
Sources.
Legal Issues: ESA, CWA,
Treaties with Thbes.
Political Process.
Environmental Justice.
Partnering with Environmental
Organizations.
Tribal Limitations in Addressing
the Risks and Benefits of Eating
Salmon:
. Understanding Results
Communicating to Tribal Members
Coordinating Inter-Tribal Efforts
Action to Clean Up the Water
Lack of Funding
-------
Marine mammal use in the Aleutiari/Pribilof Region
tr • i
Principal Investigator :
‘Mike Brubaker, AleutianfPribilof Islands Assn.
Regional Research Coordinator :
•Sue Unger, AleutianlPribiof islands Assn.
St. Paul Coordinators :
•Aquitina Lestenkof, Phil Zavadil & Blair Powless
Atka Coordinators :
‘Ray Golodoff & Margaret Lokanin
Percentage of Households Using MarIne Mammals
i T
S. S
, / ,, /,/ , s’
I,
•1 ’
1 ’
Purpose of Study:
• To encourage healthy dietary choices by
raising awareness about rural diet and the
risks and benefits unique to foods consumed
in Atka and St. Paul.
Subsistence Use in Alaska
229+ tribes in Alaska
4 ..,
2 0;
200
1
hO
00
0
00 Pv sm
C.n sd wow
Main subsistence food
is fish- about 65
percent (salmon,
halibut, herring,
whitefish, cod, and
Dolly Varden, etc.)
i Hr 3Th
.0I .I ,.
• mOs S
(255 pejoOs o(
Subsistence Use in the
Aleutian/Pribilof Region
Ccmpoter 01 $ fl00nca lOewea. . P00oo1 10101000 C 00eo
.rce’0 9 0 00 Us 01 000hd o (
______
—
01L 4 .w ._ iJ
p.’ . -:--. x- . - . .-. ‘,-. .,—. 00%
I0 00
-------
Key Questions
• Is our traditional food
safe to eat?
• What are the benefits
of eating traditional
foods? Risks?
What are the
benefits risks of
changing from a
traditional diet to a
more store-bought
diet?
Hypotheses:
• Traditional foods are safe to cat and are an important part of a
nutritious balanced diet.
• Maintasance of traditional diet enhances community cohesion,
cultural connection and community and individual health.
• Increasing substitution of traditional foods with commercial
foods in the diet are resulting in negative health effects.
• Many factors are influencing the collection use and benefits of
traditional foods.
• -
How were study sites chosen?
Study showing high consant of Persistent Organic Pollt ts in Northun
Fur Seal
St. Paul :
Atka:
Th c danigas in 4bst
Higheat nate at increase in diabstes in State
inst loads
Rmuhs train Painatesi Organic Pollutants Study in 5 Aleutian and
Pr lof Villages.
Proximity Animsilka Island
High subsistance use area
FI CCnWnW ies loemull in Maternal Cord Blood San lrng Program
‘I
Unique Partnership
A/PIA
Dept. of
Environ.
Conservation
Alaska Native
Tribal Health
Co.sorlium
Tribal Gov’t of’
St. Paul
Atkn IRA
Council
UAA-Institute
for
Circumpolar
Health
Dept. of
HedTh & Dept. oIThh Alaska Native
Sodal Services
and Game Health Board
L’S
Environmental
Protection
—
U .S. Fish and
Local Village
Wildlife
Advisory
Service
Groups in St.
Pau l/Atka
Benefits and Risks of Traditional Foods
Community Goal:
Restore and maintain health lifestyles and cultural connection
for this and future generations to achieve holistic community
health in Atka and St. Paul.
* Community health is defined as a natural
interplay among cultural, physical,
environmental, economic, spiritual, social
and emotional forces.
St. Paul Island
-------
Process
Process (cont.)
• Dietary Surveys:
Finding out what
foodspeople in the
community are eating
and how much.
Process (cont.)
• Analysis: Testing
sampled iraditional
foods for contaminants
and nutrients
1%Iflt
Project Objectives
The benefit-risk assessment for dietary choices will be
designed to improve the understanding of and communicate:
• Pollutant levels in traditional foods
• Nutritional value of traditional foods
• Pollutant levels in commercial foods
• How to select and prepare foods to reduce exposure
• Ways to select a quality blended diet to enhance personal
and community health.
Project Assumption
I
Sampling: Traditional foods that
are collected for subsistence will be
sampled.
Process (cont.)
Education/Communication:
• Village Advisory Groups
• Public Meetings
• Working with the School
• Technical Advisory Team
• Film Project
Objectives are based on assumptions that the nutritional and
cultural benef its of traditional foods are essential to holistic
community health.
-------
“...What does it (seal) have that
makes me better able to live in
this environment that is very
windy, that is very wet and
damp a lot of the time?”
-A Dc L ko( SL Pa
“Diabetes and high blood pressure and all of that is a concern
because of our diet change. We have nowadays more junk food
available to us. Lack of exercise and more soda pop and sweets are
available..
-Safly Atka
* 4 f
‘ -
-------
Rainbow
Trout
Perch
(mixed)
Chicken
breast
(no skin)
Hot Dog
%kcal
pRn
24%
26%
27%
15%
%kcalFAT
37%
33%
34%
52%
% kcal
(‘ .Hfl
39 %
41 %
39 %
33%
total KcaVd
1148
1099
1171
1396
Overview of the Benefits of Fish
Consumption
Judy Sheeshka, PhD, RD
University of Guelph
Guelph, Ontario
Outline
• Fish in ‘healthy diets’
• Omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FA) in fish
• n-3 FA in growth & development
• n-3 FA, fish & chronic disease
• Summary
• Benefits depend on:
— Amount consumed
- Species
— Food displaced
• Generally, fish valued for:
— High quality protein
— ‘Good’ fatty acids. esp. n-3 FA
- Vitamins & minerals
Protein quality = relative proportions of
essential amino acids & their availability to
the body
• Animal foods have ‘complete’ proteins
• Plant foods have ‘incomplete’ proteins
• Egg protein highest quality, then fish
• Look at total day’s intake, not food substituted
Fish vs. other ‘protein foods’ (150 gram
portions)
Fat
• New dietary reference intakes (DRls,
2002) recommend:
— 20-35% of total calories from fat
— Low saturated fat
• Saturated fatty acids (SFA) — mostly in
meats, baked goods, high-fat dairy
• SFA — raise serum LDL cholesterol (‘bad’)
-------
• Mono & poly-unsaturated fatty acids
(MUFA & PUFA) — fish, veg oils, nuts
• MUFA & PUFA lower serum LDL (‘bad’)
& raise HDL (‘good’ cholesterol’)
= lower risk of heart disease
Lean Fatty Beef
jFIShf Fish
SFA 25% 25% 40-45% 30-35%
LJFA 25% 50% 50% 35-40%
PU FA 50% 25% 5-10%
25-30%
Omega-3 Fatty Acids
• Type of PUFA found in fish, fiaxseed oil
— DHA 22:6n-3
—EPA 20:5n-3
• Amtsinleanfish=O.3-O.5g/lOogfish
• Amtsinfattyfish=O.8-1.0+g/lOOgfish
• Fish from co’der waters — more n-3 FA
N-3 FA (gIlOO g fish)
C20:5 EPA C22:6 DHA
Bass, mixed-
species
0.305 0.458
Coho salmon
0.401 0.658
Rainbow trout
0.468 0.560
Fresh-water
drum
0.295 0.368
N-3 FA (gIlOO g fish)
C20:5 EPA
C22:6 DHA
Channel catfish
0.100
0.137
Northern pike
0.042
0.095
Walieye
0.110
0.288
w perth
fo.ioi
0.223
N-3 FA & Mercury
EPA&DHA Mercury
g/loogfish Meanppm
Bass, mixed-
species
0.763 . 0.46 - 0.52
Northern pike
0.137
0.36
Walleye
0.398 10.43 — 0.77
0.324 0.25 - .040
Yellow perch
-------
N-3 FA & Contaminants
Farmed vs Wild Fish
• Fattier, predatory fish (e.g., swordfish, king
mackerel):
— Higher n-3 FA but also higher mercury, PCBs
where these a problem
• Halibut, potlock, catfish, sablefish, herring
lower in mercury, modest amts n-3 FA
• Debate re: n-3 FA in farmed vs wild fish
• Type of feed important
• Farmed fish have higher total fat, so n-3
as %of total FA is lower
• But appears that n-3 FA /100 g farmed fish
same as for wild fish
Summary of Nutritional Benefits
• Fatty fish comparable to lean meats &
skinless poultry in:
— amount of protein, fat, cholesterol
— quality of protein
• But proportions of SFA, MUFA & PUFA
better in fish
• Cheese, processed meats & eggs have
more fat & cholesterol
• Plant foods (e.g., pasta, rice) have
poorer quality protein
Summary of Nutritional Benefits
• Only fish have n-3 FA
— Levels higher in cold water, fatty fish
— Predatory high fat fish may be high in
mercury (e.g., king mackerel, swordfish)
— Fish with modest amts n-3 FA & low
mercury: halibut, catfish, yellow perch
Omega-3 FA in Growth & Development
• cell membranes of retina, brain & central
nervous system
• important during 3rd trimester pregnancy
to 12 mos. of age
• during pregnancy & lactation, fish in
mother’s diet provides n-3 FA to baby
• controversy over need for n-3 FA in
commercial infant formulas
• Faroe Islands Study - women who ate
more marine animals & fish during
pregnancy had longer gestations &
heavier babies
• Clinical study of Danish women found
similar results (Olsen et at., 1992)
• Inuit women had lower blood pressure
at end of pregnancy (Popeski et at.,
1991)
-------
N-3 FA, Fish & Chronic Disease
Heart Disease — Prospective Studies
— Overall, results suggest 1-2 fish meals/wk
may reduce risk of CHD & all-cause mortality
— N-3 FA reduce triglycerides, but effects on
LDL, HDL & total cholesterol inconsistent
• Heart Disease — Secondary Prevention
— DART & GISSI studies of Ml survivors
- fish meals (2x/wk for 2 yrs) or n-3 FA pills
(1 g/d) lowered mortality rates
—Von Shacky (1999)— intervention to halt
progression of CVD; 6 gld n-3 FA for 3
months, then 3 gld for 21 months
- modest effect on disease progression but
LDL increased
Issues
• Different cardiac endpoints
• Mechanism not yet known
• Some effects don’t increase with dose
• Lean fish produce same effects as fatty
fish
• N -3 FA pills vs amt n-3 FA in fish
• Studies mostly well-educated men
Health Recommendations
• American Heart Assoc. (2000)
recommends
“eat at least 2 servings of fish per week”
• FDA (2000) allows ‘qua/if lec! health claim
— “Scientific evidence about whether n-3 FA
may reduce the risk of CHD is suggestive, but
not condusive.”
Cancer & Stroke
Case-control studies provide evidence that
small amts of fish may be protective
against certain cancers, esp. in GI tract
• Stroke — depends on whether ischemic or
hemorthagic; results mixed, but evidence
of lower mortality from ischemic stroke
High blood pressure
• Several studies suggest that adding fish to
diets can lower blood pressure, esp. in
combination with low fat, low sodium,
weight loss diets & exercise
• NHLBI (Oct. 2002) — re: n-3 FA pills lower
blood pressure only slightly in individuals
with hypertension”
-------
Type II Diabetes Mellitus Conclusions
• Concern that fish worsens blood sugar • All fish contain n-3 FA, critical during
levels pregnancy & 1 St year of life
• CARDIA study (Daviglus, 2002) — • Not clear if n-3 FA provide CHD benefits,
moderate amts of fish don’t raise blood since lean fish also associated with lower
glucose levels mortality rates & only 1-2 meals/wk
needed
• Some researchers say amt of fat in diet is • People with Type II Diabetes may benefit
important — fish added to 30% fat diet ok from eating more fish as part of a low-fat
diet, with blood glucose levels monitored
‘Take Home’ Messages
• Regardless of whether effects are due to
fish or n-3 FA, consistent finding that
eating no fish is a health risk
• 1-2 mealslwk appears to provide CHD
benefits; more fish more protection from
chronic disease
• N-3 FA in fat tissues, Hg in muscle
tissues; can choose lower Hg, higher n-3
FA species
-------
Use of Quality Adjusted Life Years to
Assess Risks and Benefits of Fish
Consumption
Scott Bartell, PhD Candidate UC Davis
Mike Bolger, PhD US FDA
Clark Carrington, PhD US FDA
Elaine Faustman, PhD UW
Denise Laflamme, MS WA Dept of HeaithfUW
Robert Lee, MS Univ. of Calgary
Rafael Pence, Phi) UW
Eva Wong, PhD Student UW
Risks and Benefits of Fish or Seafood
Consumption
Benefits
• High nutritional quality
• (Often) inexpensive
• (Often) easily obtained
• Associated with variety of
health benefits
— Cardiovascular disease
AntiatherogeluC
AntithTomboflc
— Neurodeveiopmeflt
• Socio- ultura1 associations
Risks
May contain harmful
environmental toxicants
— Heavy metalS
Methyhoercury
• Cadmium
— Organochlorine compounds
• Peslicides
• PC8s
• Risk substitutioø
Decision Context/Problem
How can one conduct environmental health policy
analysis when disparate health endpoints are at risk?
Public health policy and fish
consumption
ideal policy tool would
- allow consideration of both risks and benefits
- be transparent, rigorous, theoretically well-
founded
— allow consideration of uncertainties, correlations
— be flexible and allow updating with new
information
Available Tools
• Risk analysis (compare disease incidence to identify best
policy)
• Benefit-cost analysis (do the benefits of implementing
policy outweigh costs?)
• Cost-effectiveness analysis (which policy option has
highest effectiveness per unit cost?)
Risk analysis (compare disease
incidence to identify best policy)
Comparisons of risk not sufficient for health policy
decision making
Using risk and “ignoring” consequences assumes
consequences are equivalent
This assumption is hidden in the comparison
‘ In any analysis, you need similar ‘units”
-------
When Are “Health Endpoints Equivalent”?
Characteristics of QALYs
Low Risk
Low Consequence
Fl (Risk,
Consequence)
9
-w
High Risk
F2 (Risk,
Consequence)
High Consequence
1. Au individual is ambivalent between the two health effects
(QALY, willingness to pay/accept)
2. Health effects have comparable duration
(workdays lost, life years lost)
3. Health effects have comparable cost
(disability cost, Medicare reimbursement cost, insurance
cost)
4. Health effects have comparable population impact
(hospitalization rates, mortality rates)
• QALYs disaggregate health effects
— Duration of impact (life years) [ Life tables]
— Quality of life (o-i, death-perfect health) [ Surveys]
• In simplest form, QALYs assume:
— Duration and quality of life are independent
— Linear and constant exchange between duration and
quality of life
0.5 years of perfect health = iyear of 50% health
QALYs cont.
• Assess preferences/aversions for different
health states
— Including symptoms, pain, functional impairment
— Preferences scaled (typically o-i)
• o is death
• 1 is optimal health
• QALY scale data combined with the duration
of impact
QALYs
• Extensive literature
• “QALY” search on Medline = i600 articles
• Cost-effectiveness comparisons of
— Alternative therapeutic/surgical regimens
— Screening programs
— Disease burden
— Training programs
Estimating net benefit/risk
i. Use measure of equivalency (e.g., QALYs) to adjust
the dose-response functions
2. Normalized dose-response functions can be directly
compared
3. Normalized dose-response functions can be combined
to get a ‘net health impact’
Risk
0
0
=
0
=
0
0
U
-------
Analytical (not so) Small Print
Use of QALY Weights with Dose Response Models for
Public Health Decisions:
Case Study of the Risks and Benefits of Fish
Consumption
Risk Anal 2000 20(4):529-42
Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and dose-response
models in environmental health policy analysis —
methodological considerations.
Sci Total Environ 2001 274(1-3):79-91
• Analysis performed as a case example
• Although realistic data used in derivation, not
intended as a definitive analysis
• A number of assumptions made that need careful
consideration
i)Problem definition
• Net health impact of eating fish
— Single benefit and risk endpoint considered
- Risk: Neurodevelopmental delay from
prenatal MeHg exposure
— Benefit: Reduced risk of fatal MI with eating
fish
• Population selection
— General population of ioo,ooo
100,000 women of child-bearing age and their children
2) Data collection
MeHg intake
- Evaluated 0-300 g/day fish intake rate
Includes th percentile of heavy fish
consumers in lower 48 states
- Fish MeHg concentrations
Assumed 0-2 ppm MeHg
3) Modeling Risks
delay from
• Used Marsh eta!. (1987) data
• Weibull dose-response model (US EPA)
• Estimated i .—k fbf n upi I%m 1It I
MeHg in flsl
- Specify quality of life factor using survey data (0.9)
- Assume lifetime impact at reduced quality of life
— Life table approach used to estimate expected lifespan
— Assume MI risk and neurodevelopmental delay risk are
independent
— .s_
O 2S
o.a /
S
•
t,o
S ito in so so so
F h Consump 5on Rat., glday
-------
4) Modeling Benefits
• Use CDC data
Estimated lifespan usmg age- and gender-specific
mortality rates by all causes and MI
• Used Davighis et a!. (1997) to estimate benefits of
fish consumption (Logistic excess risk model)
— ModilS’ age-specific MI mortality rates by RR and
estimate lifespan by gender
— Assume male-only RRs apply to females, constant across
age groups
— Assume quality of life drops from 1 to o with MI (i=life,
o=death)
0.00 , - - - - - - -
-0.05
0.10
0
a
a
0
a
00
e
K
02
N
\
N
015
025 — ‘ -- ‘ — ‘ - ‘
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consumption Rate, g/day
Risk-Benefit Analysis
Aggregate risks/benefits of fish consumption
— Assuming equivalent health impacts
— Assuming QALY-weighted health impacts
— In a population of ioo,ooo (all ages, both genders)
— In a population of ioo,ooo child-bearing aged women
and their children
— No discounting, effect of discounting, and all life
years are equivalent
Net Health Impact, ioo,ooo men and women
Equal QALY weights
20.000 - - -
.5,500
- -le,oee -
z -
-15,000 — ‘—-- ‘----—-—--- - “- —-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consirnoption Rate. glday
Net Health Impact, 100,000 men and women
Unequal QALY weights
30.000
a
_i 25.000
20,000
a
0.
15.000
I
a
Z 5.000
0
0
Net Health Impact ioo,ooo women (15-44 y.o.) and
their children
Unequal QALY weights
i- ii
-60,000
-8c,000
a
-100,000
— -120.000 -----0.01 ppm
—05ppm
- .140.000 - 1.0 ppm
I 160,000 - - -2.0 3pm
:; .100,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consumption Rate, glday
50 100 150 200 250 300
Fish Consumpti fl Rate. g/day
-------
Conclusion
Method Robustness
• Under given model assumptions
- Population-wide restrictions on fish consumption would
do more harm than good
- R ommendatjons to limit fish intake during pregnancy
would do more good than harm
1 X 3
Effect of Discounting
D.ca a by 3%
t f —.
• Amenable to sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
— Fertility rate, age distribution, gender comp.
- QALY weights
— Dose-response modeling
• Amenable to discounting, forecasting
• Can consider multiple benefits/risks
- Endpoints appropriately weighted
— Can incorporate correlations
Requirements/assumptions
•Rcqufres
- Data on health effects
- Dose-re s pon
- Age-specific rates
- Duration of effects
• Extrapolation of data from animals uncertain
• Requires quality of life weights for each considered
endpoint
Parting words
Any aggregation/comparison of disparate
health effects will require a weighting
scheme
To ignore weighting is to assume that
consequences are equivalent
It
C
0
a
. X’ 2 C-
Fis Conwmpbon R a ”d y
------- |