Water Quality Standards Human Health Criteria Technical Workgroup Meeting #8

1. Water Quality StandardsHuman Health Criteria Technical WorkgroupMeeting #8 Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water- Water Quality Standards October 12-13, 2016 Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

2. Webinar instructions: • For audio please dial: 1-800-315-6338 • Access code: 51851 • Note that all lines will be muted during the presentations • Public testimony will be taken at the end of the webinar. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF ALL PARTICIPANTS Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

3. Purpose of Technical Workgroup Provide technical feedback on issues associated with development of human health criteria (HHC) in state water quality standards Develop a Summary Report Identify key sources of information that may be applicable to the process Ensure a variety of stakeholder voices are heard Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

4. Meeting Outline • Introduce Gap Analysis (GA) and Key Issues • Discuss format and other aspects of the Workgroup Report • Goals of today’s meeting: • Discuss results of GA Issues 1-3 • Determine points of agreement and recommendations to be included in TWG Report • Goal for tomorrow • Discuss results of GA Issues 4-5 • Determine points of agreement and recommendations to be included in TWG Report • Determine next steps for DEC/Workgroup Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

5. Recap of Mtg #7 Draft notes for Meeting 7 – any changes? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

6. Gap Analysis Allison and DEC provided a series of questions specific to the HHC issue to the TWG Received responses from six TWG participants Organized your responses in a tabular format Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

7. Issue 1: What information about FCRs is available to inform HHC process? • Should the DEC Fish Consumption Literature Review be a one-time review or ongoing catalog? • Key Points • ADFG-Subsistence database should provide FCR percentiles at various scales • Use new surveys to determine if SSC is required • Refine periodically (10-20 yr basis) • General values revisited when new substantive info becomes available Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

8. Other points raised • Need to consider ADF&G results against that of Seldovia report • Other approaches: “Blueberry” report and other peer-reviewed documents • Consider whether a statewide survey may be beneficial • Consider site-specific (Community-specific) data Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

9. Issue 1 cont.: Are data available to identify the “population of concern” • Certain regions are high consuming with potential to high exposure from certain pollutants • Hg and POP biomonitoring data may help identify exposure • Questions remain about urban population/sub-pop groups • High consumption may drive high statewide value • Population of concern does not exist unless there are actual food-borne contaminates Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

10. Issue 2. What options does Alaska have for developing fish consumption rates on a statewide/regional/SSC basis? • General support for a regional approach • Concern that ADF&G data may be dated • Questions remain regarding high consumption versus high exposure • Not clear if regional or statewide approach provides more protection to urban consumers • Need to look at geographic distribution of FCRs Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

11. 2a. Inclusion of Market Fish • Preference for inclusion as part of RSC but not necessarily consensus • May depend on urban consumption patterns • May not account for much in the way of consumption and/or protection depending on other factors Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

12. 2b. Treatment of marine mammals • GA did not determine consensus • Challenging issue as consumption varies widely • Consider threshold of consumption? • If you eat more than x… • Treat individual species differently (FCR v. RSC) • Harbor seals- FCR • Bowheads-RSC Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

13. 2c. Treatment of salmon • Support for inclusion • Consider as percentage of FCR based on anadromous characteristics . • Residence time in state water • Percentage of body weight • ? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

14. Issue 3: Should Alaska use Bioconcentration or Bioaccumulation Rates? • GA indicates support for use of bioaccumulation rates • Concern that generic use of BAF doesn’t reflect contaminates in Alaskan waters and aquatic life. • Where do whales fit in? (Issue 2b) • Did the BAF consider consumption of MM? • Inclusion as RSC may not protect individuals if they are exposed via higher BAFs than current EPA values. Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

15. Issue 4: Cancer Risk Factor • Does not appear to be consensus • Support for use of highest value possible • Based on high rates of cancer in Alaskan Natives • Support for status quo based on lack of data demonstrating need • Concern that more stringent value will not result in lower contaminates in fish. Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

16. Issue 5. Relative Source Contribution • Responses focus more on what should be FCRv. RSC • Questions regarding the amount of data available to adjust above EPA-recommended value of 0.2% • Some regional tissue data • DEC may need to address data requirements before RSC to be adjusted on a regional/SSC basis Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

17. Questions? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

18. The Workgroup Report • Goal is to have a draft report written by … (Month?) • The format of the report would be … (Narrative, tabular, other?) • Such a report (or section of) would be drafted by … (DEC, TWG, contractor?) • The report would present different options by … (comment/response?) • Dissenting opinions would be addressed by … (depends on format) • Suggested edits from the workgroup would be facilitated by … (e.g., email, Google Docs?) Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

19. Questions and Discussion about Workgroup Report Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

20. Thank you. Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

21. Questions to be considered by the Workgroup • Issue #1: What information about fish consumption and fish consumption rates is available to inform the HHC process? • Issue #2: What options does DEC have for developing criteria on a statewide/regional/site specific basis? • Issue #2a: What modeling approach(es) should DEC consider (Determinstic v. Probabilistic)? • Issue #3: What is the appropriate level of protection for Alaska and its residents? • Issue #3a: How should DEC apply bioconcentration v. bioaccumulation factors? • Issue #3b: How should DEC address concerns about its carcinogenic risk value? Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality

22. Questions to be considered by the Workgroup • What should Alaska’s FCR(s) be? • Issue #4a: What species should Alaska include for deriving a fish consumption rate? • Marine Fish (i.e., salmon?;) • If we include- Can we adjust FCR values based on lipid content? • Marine Mammals (AK would be the only state that considers this issue) • Issue #4b: What is the role of Relative Source Contribution (RSC) in relation to other exposure issues and what are Alaska’s options? • Issue #5: What are Alaska’s options for implementing the proposed criteria? • Existing tools (compliance schedules) and new tools (variances, intake credits) Improving and Protecting Alaska's Water Quality