### 1 

## Bureau of 

### Health FishTissue 

### Action Levels 

## Updated 

# 22001 Following 

## USEPA’s three 

### volume Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

## Use in Fish 

### Advisories 

## EPA 1993 

## 1997 the 

## Maine Bureau of Health uses action levels as 

### a guide to determine the 

### need for developing fish 

### consumption advisories 

### Action levels are concentrations of a contaminant in fish tissue 

### below which there should 

### be negligible risk of toxicity at a 

### consumption rate of 

### one meal a 

## week Action levels 

## may be developed for seve ral different toxicological endpoints 

### cancer developmental and other 

## non cancer 

### effects Concentrations of contaminants in fish tissue are 

### compared to the appropriate action levels

## When fish tissue concentrations 

### exceed action levels the 

### development of Fish 

### Consumption Advisories are 

### considered This 

### document briefly describes the derivation of fish tissue action levels 

### and includes a tabulated 

## summaryof chemical specific fish tissue action levels currently in use 

### by the 

### Bureau of 

### Health For 

## more details 

### on risk 

### based approaches for developing fish 

### consumption advisories consult 

## EPA’s three 

### volume Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contamination Data for 

### Use in Fish Advisories 

## EPA 1993 

## 1997

Derivation of 

### Action Levels for 

### Noncarcinogenic Toxicological 

### Endpoints

Fish 

### Consumption Advisories 

### based on noncarcinogenic toxicological endpoints are set at a level believed to represent 

### a minimal risk of

### a deleterious effect 

### from lifetime

### exposure even for sensitive subpopulations It is 

### assumed that 

### noncarcinogenic toxicological endpoints 

### have a threshold response 

## i

# e there is a 

### dose below which toxic effects will not 

## occur Fish 

### Consumption Advisories are set such that total exposure 

### from eating 

### on average 

### one 8 ounce fish 

### meal per

## week will result in a daily 

### dose below the threshold 

## The equation 

## EPA 1997 for determining action levels for 

### noncancer toxicological endpoints 

### is


# FC RfD 

# BW AL

Where

# AL Action Level 

# mgkg RfD Reference 

## Dose 

# mgkgday 

# BW BodyWeight 

# kg FC Fish

### Consumption Rate 

## kgday

The reference 

### dose 

# RfD is defined 

### by the 

## EPA 1997 as 

### an estimate with uncertainty spanning perhaps 

### an order of 

### magnitude of a daily exposure level 

# mgkgday for the 

## human population including sensitive subpopulations that is likely to 

### be without 

### an

### 2 appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime 

## The value of the 

## RfD is 

### chemical and toxicological endpoint specific 

## The lower the value of the 

## RfD the 

### more toxic the 

### substance 

## USEPA maintains databases of 

## RfDs the 

## Agency has derived over the 

### years 

## USEPA’s premier database for toxicological data including 

## RfDs is called 

### IRIS Integrated 

### Risk Information 

## System RfDs listed 

### on IRIS have undergone an 

## Agency wide review 

### and are 

### viewed as 

## USEPA’s preferred toxicological 

### data 

## RfDs forchemicals not listed in the 

### IRIS database 

### can sometimes be found in the 

## USEPA’s Superfund Program 

# HEAST Health Effects 

### Assessment 

## Summary Tables database 

## USEPA’s Office of Pesticide 

### Programs 

# OPP also maintains a database for 

## RfDs and other toxicological data for pesticides It is the 

## Maine Bureau of Health’s preference to look first to 

### IRIS as 

### a source for toxicological 

### data followed 

### by

# HEAST and 

## OPP listings 

### Absent toxicological data 

### on 

## IRIS 

# HEAST or

## OPP databases the 

### Bureau of Health will consider other sources 

### such as the

## Agency for Toxic Substances 

### and Disease Registry 

### Minimal Risk 

### Levels or derive 

## RfDs directly 

### from the 

### primary toxicity data following standard risk assessment 

### methods as described in 

## USEPA Guidance 

## EPA 

# 1997 Additionally the 

### Bureau of Health 

## may derive 

## RfDs if existing 

## USEPA RfDs are considered outdated or 

### do not reflect important 

## new information 

## The estimated 

### body weight 

# BW of the 

### exposed individual is required in the action level calculation since the 

## RfD is expressed 

### on a per 

### kilogram body 

## weight basis 

### The average 

### body weight for adult 

### males and females 

### combined is 

### assumed to 

### be 70 kilograms 

# kg For adult 

### females the average 

### body weight is 

### assumed to 

### be 60 

## kg These values are supported 

### by the following 

### sources 

## EPA’s Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

## Use in Fish Advisories 

## 1993 recommends a

## mean body weight of 

### 70 kgs for all adult 

### and a 

### body weight of 

### 65 kgs for adult 

### females 

## EPA’s Draft 

### Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

### Use in Fish Advisories 

## 1999b recommends a 

## mean body weight of 

### 72 kgs for all adult 

### and a body weight of

### 65 kgs foradult 

### females It further

### recommends a value of

### 64 kgs for

## women of reproductive 

## age EPA’s Exposure Factors 

## Handbook 1999a recommends an adult 

### body weight of 71.8 

## kgs Body weights for

## women in various age groups include 65.4 

### kgs for 

## women 18 to 

## 75 60.6 kgs for

## women 18 to

## 25 and 64.2 for

## women 25 to 

## 35 The 70 kg adult general population 

### body weight is 

### used for all action level calculations except for chemicals in

### which the 

## RfD is based 

### on reproductive or 

### development effects 

### The 60 kg adult female 

### body weight is used for calculating action levels for reproductive 

### and developmental toxicants 

## The Bureau of Health plans to review these values 

## when EPA’s draft guidance 

### becomes finalized

### 3 

# A fish 

### consumption rate 

# FC of 

### one eight 

### ounce 227 

## grams meal per

## week is 

### used to derive action levels 

## EPA 1997 One fish 

### meal per

## week is equivalent to 

### an average daily fish 

### consumption rate of 0.0324 

# kgday This 

### consumption rate is 

### an upper estimate of sport fish 

### consumption and is supported 

### by the following 

### sources 

## EPA’s Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

### Use in Fish Advisories 

## EPA 1997 recommends a 

### meal size of eight 

### ounces 227 

## grams as 

### an average 

### meal size for adults in the general population eating 

### noncommercial caught fish

This 

### same guidance 

## EPA 1997 also 

### recommends a consumption rate of 

### 0.0065 

## kgday in calculating action levels but states this value is 

### under review 

## The new draft guidance 

## EPA 1999b has increased the 

### consumption rate to 0.016 

## kgday for recreational fishers 

## They explicitly state 

## however that these are 

## recommended default rates 

### and 

## when local 

### consumption rate data are available they should 

### be chosen preferentially 

## EPA’s Exposure Factors 

## Handbook 

## EPA 1999a recommends a consumption rate of 0.025 

# kgday as 

### a 95th percentile value for recreational 

### anglers This is 

### based several individual studies of

## Maine and Michigan sports anglers Ebert et 

### al 

## 1993 West et 

### al 1989 and 

## West et 

### al 

## 1993
The 95th percentile values 

### from these individual studies 

### range from 0.026 

## kgday for 

## Maine anglers 

### Ebert et 

### al 

## 1993 and Chemrisk

## 1992 to 

### 0.039 

# kgday for 

### Michigan anglers 

## West 

## 1989
Based on this 

### data it is 

### judged that 

### a meal size of 

### 0.0324 

## kgday is conservatively representative of

### an upper level fish ingestion rate for

## Maine recreational anglers


### Derivation of 

### Action Levels for 

### Carcinogenic Effects
Fish 

### Consumption Advisories 

### based on cancer effects are set at a level believed to represent a 

### minimal risk of cancer 

### from a lifetime of 

### exposure 

## The Bureau of Health estimates a lifetime of

### 70 years 

## EPA 

# 1993 There is data that suggests the 

### upper bound estimate of residency for a particular location 

## may be 30 years 

## EPA 1999a however the 

### same source 

### acknowledges that the majority of 

## moves are less than 

### 100 miles 

### from the previous 

### residence This suggests that while 

### an estimate of residency 

## may only 

### be 30 years one 

## may still live within 

### commuting distance to favorite fishing sites Carcinogens are 

### assumed to act in a 

## non threshold 

### manner in that 

### any amount of exposure to 

### a carcinogen can cause 

### an increase in risk Historically incremental lifetime risk levels that 

### have received regulatory attention range 

### from 1 in 10,000 to 

### 1 in 1,000,000 

## EPA 

# 1997 The Maine Bureau of Health has historically 

### based Fish

### 4 Consumption Advisories 

### on a 

### 1 in 

### 100,000 Acceptable Risk Level1 for individual 

### chemicals 

## The equation fordetermining action levels for cancer effects 

### is


# FC RSD 

# BW AL
Where

# AL Action Level 

# mgkg 

# BW Body Weight 

## kgs 

## FC Fish

### Consumption Rate 

## kgday RSD Risk Specific 

## Dose 

# mgkg day and



## CSF ARL 

## RSD
Where

# ARL Acceptable Risk 

### Level unitless 

## CSF Cancer Slope Factor 

# mgkg

# day1 

## Body weight and fish 

### consumption rate are previously 

### defined 

## The acceptable risk level is defined 

### above as 

### 1 in 

## 100,000
The cancer slope factor 

# CSF is derived 

### by

# USEPA usually but not 

### always as the 95th percent 

### upper confidence limit of the 

## lowdose linear slope of the 

### dose response curve 

### and is expressed in units of 

# mgkgday1 The 

## CSF is 

### most often derived 

### from studies of laboratory 

### animals traditionally 

### by application of 

## dose response 

### models that 

### assume no threshold for carcinogenic effects 

### i

# e any

## dose no matter 

## how small will result in

## some risk and allow for linearity in response at 

### low 

## dose The value of the 

## CSF is 

# chemicalspecific The greater the value of the 

# CSF the greater the carcinogenic 

### potency of the 

### substance 

## As with 

## RfDs IRIS is 

### viewed as the 

### primarydatabase for obtaining estimates of cancer slope factors with 

## HEAST and 

## OPP databases being 

### used in the absence of 

### an IRIS value 

## As with 

## RfDs CSF’s can be derived using standard 

## EPA 1997 methodologies

1 Acceptable Risk Level is the terminology used by EPA’s Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data forUse in Fish Advisories 

## EPA 1997 Other

### EPA documentation identifies this as the Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

### 5 Action Levels 

## The following table identifies current action levels 

### used by the 

## Maine Bureau of Health forscreening evaluations

### 6 Environmental Toxicology 

## Program Maine Bureau ofHealth 

# UPDATED 

# 501 

## FISHTISSUE 

## ACTION LEVELS FOR SCREENING EVALUATIONS Fillet wet 

## weight Reference 

### Dose 

## RfD



# mgkg

# d Cancer Potency Factor 

# CPF



# mgkg

# d 1 Risk Specific 

### Dose 

# RSD

mgkg

# d Cancer Action Level 

### NonCancer Action Level
Chlorinated 

### Biphenyls Dioxins and Furans 

## ppb ppb PCBs 2.0 

### x 10 5 

### 2 5.0 

### x

## 106 

### 11 43 Dioxin 

# a 1.0 

### x 10 9 

### 14000 7.1 

### x

## 1010 0.0015 0.0019 Polycyclic 

### Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

# PAHs ppb ppb Benzo

# apyrene Equivalence 7.3 1.4 

### x

## 106 3.0 Acenaphthene 6.0 

### x 10 2 130 Anthracene 3.0 

### x 10 1 648 Fluoranthene 4.0 

### x 10 2 

### 86 Fluorene 4.0

### x 10 2 

### 86 Biphenyl 5.0 

### x 10 2 108 Naphthalene 2.0 

### x 10 2 

### 43 Pyrene 3.0

### x 10 2 

### 65 Chlorinated Pesticides 

## ppb ppb Hexachlorobenzene 8.0

### x 10 4 1.6 6.3

### x

## 106 

### 14 1728 Heptachlor 5.0

### x 10 4 4.5 2.2 

### x

## 106 

### 5 1080 Aldrin 3.0 

### x 10 5 

### 17 5.9

### x

## 107 1.3 

### 65 Mirex 2.0 

### x 10 4 432 Lindane 3.0 

### x 10 4 1.3 7.7

### x

## 106 

### 17 648 Heptachlor Epoxide 1.3

### x 10 5 9.1 1.1 

### x

## 106 2.4 

### 28 Toxaphene 3.6

### x 10 4 1.1 9.1 

### x

## 106 

### 20 778 ChlordaneNonachlor 6.0 

### x 10 5 1.3 7.7

### x

## 106 

### 17 130 Dieldrin 5.0 

### x 10 5 

### 16 6.3

### x

## 107 1.4 108 

## DDT 5.0 

### x 10 4 0.34 2.9

### x

## 105 

### 64 1080 Endosulfan 6.0

### x 10 3 

### 12963 Metals 

# ppm ppm Arsenic inorganic 

# b 3.0 

### x 10 4 1.5 6.7

### x

## 106 0.014 0.6 

## Cadmium 1.0 

### x 10 3 2.2 

### Chromium VI 5.0 

### x 10 3 3.0 

### x

## 103 3.3

### x

## 103 

### 7 11 Lead 

# c Manganese 1.4 

### x 10 1 302 Methylmercury developmental 1.0

### x 10 4 0.2 Methylmercury adult paraesthesia 3.0 

### x 10 4 0.65
Nickel 2.0 

### x 10 2 

### 43 Selenium 5.0

### x 10 3 

### 11 Silver 5.0 

### x 10 3 

### 11 Tributyl Tin 

## Oxide 3.0 

### x 10 4 0.6 

### Vanadium 

# d 3.0 

### x 10 3 

### 6 Zinc 3.0

### x 10 1 648

### 7 

## RfD reference dose 

# RSD risk specific dose 

# CPF cancer potency factor 

# NB Action levels are the fish tissue concentration thatallow 

### a consumption rate of

### one 8 ounce 

### meal per

### week for

### an adult without exceeding either 

### an Rfd or

### a

## 105Acceptable 

### Risk Level 

# a These are 

## BOH derived values Frakes 

## 1990 scheduled for review 

### upon completion of 

### EPA's draft health assessment fordioxin



# b The action levelsare for inorganic arsenic Fish tissue data are usually given as total arsenic the 

# BOH uses 

### FDA’s 

## 1993 assumption that

# 10 of the total arsenic in fish is inorganic arsenic



# c For lead action level derived 

### by using EPA's 

## IEUBK model for lead with fish

# 17 ofdietary meal intake

# 95 prob blood lead 

### 10

## _gdL in children 

# d For

### vanadium 

## RfD based 

### on ATSDR's intermediate duration 

# MRL

References 

## ChemRisk 

## 1992 Consumption of freshwater fish 

### by Maine anglers

# A Technical 

### Report Portland

# ME ChemRisk

# A Division of

## MeLaren Hart Revised July

## 24 1994
Ebert

# E Harrington

# N Boyle

# K Knight

# J Keenan

# R 1993 Estimating 

### consumption of freshwater fish 

## among Maine anglers

# NAmJ Fisheries

## Management 

## 13737 745 

# EPA 1993 Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

## Use in Fish 

### Advisories 

## Volume 1 Fish 

### Sampling and Analysis Second Edition Office of

## Water Washington 

# DCEPA823

# R93002 

# EPA 1997 Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

## Use in Fish 

### Advisories 

## Volume 2 Risk Assessment and Fish 

### Consumption Limits Second Edition Office of

## Water Washington 

# DC EPA823

# B97009 

## EPA 1999a Exposure Factors 

## Handbook Office of Research 

### and Development 

# EPA600

# C99001 February 

# EPA 1999b Guidance for Assessing 

### Chemical Contaminant Data for 

### Use in Fish 

### Advisories 

## Volume 

# 1 Third Edition 

# DRAFT Office of

## Water Washington 

# DC EPA 823

# R99007August
Frakes

# R 1990 Health Based Water Quality Criteria for 2,3,7,8 

# Tetrachlorodibenzop Dioxin 

# TCDD Final 

## Document November 

# FDA 1993 Guidance Document for Arsenic in Shellfish Center for 

### Food Safety 

### and Applied Nutrition 

### January 

## West 

# P

# CFly

# MJ Marans

# R Larkin 

# F 1989 Michigan sport anglers fish 

### consumption survey

# A report to the 

### Michigan Toxic Substance Control 

## Commission Michigan Department of

## Management and Budget Contract 

# No 87

### 8 

## 20141 West 

# P

# C Fly

## J

# M Marans

# R Larkin

# F Rosenblatt

# D 1993 1991 92 Michigan sport anglers fish 

### consumption study Prepared 

### by the University of 

### Michigan School of Natural 

### Resources for the 

### Michigan Department of Natural 

### Resources 

## Ann Arbor

# MI Technical 

### Report 

# No 6 May