UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I 5 POST OFFICE SQUARE, SUITE 100 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109

- 3912

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT : Tribal Technical Consultation: Maine Water Quality Standards and Human Health C riteria

FRO M : Michael Stover , EPA Region 1 Indian Program Manager

TO : file

DATE: March 31, 2016

On Wednes day, September 9

, 2015 from 1:00

– 2 :00pm , a technical conference call was held with the Maine tribal environmental directors regarding the application of wa ter quality standards pertaining to waters in Indian lands in Maine

. Present on the conference call were:

Fred Corey, Environmental Director, Aroostook Band of Micmacs Sue Young, Natural Resources Director, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Sharri Venno, E nvironmental Planner, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Jane Stedman, Attorney, Kanji & Katzen ( Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians ) Dan Kusnierz, Water Program Manager, Penobscot Indian Nation Marvin Cling, Environmental Planner, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasa nt Point Trevor White, Environmental Director, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township Martin Dana, Environmental Director, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township Tim Williamson, Deputy Director, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region 1 Ann Williams, Office of Regional Counsel, EPA Region 1 Ken Moraff, Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPA Region 1 Ralph Abele, Chief, Water Quality Branch, EPA Region 1 Ellen Weitzler, Municipal Permits Section Chief, EPA Region 1 Jeanne Voorhees, Water Quality Standa rds Coordinator, EPA Region 1 Matt Hoagland, Branch Chief, Wetlands, EPA Region 1 Sara Levin son, Office of Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 Michael Stover, Indian Program Manager, EPA Region 1 Tracy Bone, Office of Water, EPA Headquarters Claudia Fabia no, Office of Water, EPA Headquarters Nicole Shao, Office Research and Development, EPA Headquarters Pete Ford, Office of General Counsel, EPA Headquarters Andrew Baca, American Indian Environmental Office, EPA Headquarters

EPA hosted this technical confe rence call with the tribal environmental directors to explain how water quality standards are established, particularly for human health criteria (HHC), and to solicit feedback from the tribes regarding appropriate fish consumption rate(s) and other factor s including trophic levels and relative source contributions employed in determining protective standards. Prior to the call, EPA provided the tribes with an “HHC Primer” as a tool for the tribes to better understand how criteria are developed.

D uring th e call, EPA sought input from the tribes regarding use of geographically distinct fish consumption rates (FCRs) and asked Dan Kusnierz about the FCR approach that the Penobscot Nation undertook in developing their water quality standards. Dan shared that t he Nation derived 286 grams/day from the “Wabanaki Study” as a representative FCR for resident fish, since anadromous fish are not present above the Milford dam in any appreciable numbers. However, the Nation hopes to see salmon come back in larger

### 2 numbers now that the Penobscot River has been restored through a number of dam removals and a new fish passage on the Milford Dam , allowing tribal members to consume at higher sustenance levels

.
Sharri Venno of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians supported usi ng aspirational goals for the eventual return of anadromous fish to the Meduxnekeag River , and hopes that a barrier dam (Mactaquac Dam in Frederick, NB) will be removed in the future . Marvin Cling reported that the Passamaquoddy Tribe initiated a fish cons umption study, and found that lack of access and concerns around fish advisories hampered the desire of the tribal members to fish and the completion of the study was tabled. Tribal members do consume resident fish: introduced “new” species such as large

- m outh bass, marine fish and land

- locked salmon. Marine fish used to come to shore such as p ollock, but not so much anymore.

EPA explained that the 2015 EPA recommendations refer to a default relative source contribution of 20%, and solicited feedback from the tribes. Dan Kusnierz commented that many anadromous fish may not be impacted by discharges. Sharri Venno recommended consideration of alternate exposure pathways.

EPA commented that the Wabanaki Study combined anadromous fish and marine species int o one c ategory. The two categories lis ted in the study was “resident fish” and an adromous fish/marine s pecies

. ” Absent any considerations from the tribes, EPA would likely default to the 2015 updates to the national criteria. Adult weight is used in the fo rmula as targets, not children weight. EPA considers a lifetime of exposure, even though fish advisories target pregnant women and children.

Sharri Venno commented that the Houlton Band desires fish consumption rate/water quality standards that protect t ribal youth and pregnant women. Fred Corey relayed that fish advisories are a detriment to public health. He also relayed that in the Micmac tribe, there are high fish consumers, typically between 20

- 40 years old, who fish regularly and consum e as much fis h as they can. Marv in Cling reported that tribal fishers conduct ice fishing in winter months, bring the catch back to the tribal school and share with the community in fish fry meals.

EPA relayed that the standards goal is to establish protective standa rds to protect sustenance consumption levels. The tribes voiced that the goals of the tribes should be emphasized, and expressed the concern that data used in developing water quality standards may not reflect the goals of the tribes.

Fred Corey stressed his earlier point that fish advisories are a detriment to public health by referring to a University of Maine fish consumption advisory study and presentation at an EPA

- sponsored “contaminants and fish” forum in Alexandria, VA. The link is http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/fishshellfish/fishadvisories/fishforum2014present.cfm1

Background Information for Tribal Consultation Sept ember 2015

Primer on Derivation of Ambient Water Quality Crite ria for the Protection of Human Health (HHC)

The following is provided as background information to explain the various factors that EPA considers when developing ambient water quality criteria to p rotect against adverse effects to human health when the water body is used as a drinking water sup ply and fish and shellfish are consumed from the water body.

History: EPA issued guidance in 2000 on a methodology for d eriving HHC for the protection of human health from the consumption of water and organisms and for the consumption of organisms only, known as the 2000 Human Health Methodology 1 . EPA uses this guidance when updating or adding to the human health criteria in its National Recommend ed Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) 2 . For example, EPA used the 2000 methodology to derive the 2015 up date of the NRWQC, which updated the HHC for 94 organic chemicals by incorporating new exposure parameters. EPA also uses, and recommends that states and tribes use, the 2000 Human Health Method ology when deriving criteria for pollutants or exposures not included in the NRWQC.

Equations used to derive HHC differ slightly depending on th e nature of the toxic effect (cancer vs. noncarcinogenic effects) related to ingestion of the p ollutant and by the mode of action of the compound (threshold vs. non-threshold). In cases where a ch emical exhibits multiple adverse effects, concentrations protective of each effect may be der ived. In these instances, the HHC is selected base d on the lowest concentration protective of each effe ct. The two equations utilized for deriving AWQC
include:

HHC for non-carcinogenic effects and nonlinear low- dose extrapolation carcinogens =

RfD* x RSC x BW x CF

DWIR + ∑ 4 i=2 (FCR i x BAF i )

HHC for carcinogenic effects with linear low-dose e xtrapolation =

target cancer risk level x BW x CF CSF x [DWIR + ∑ 4 i=2 (FCR i x BAF i )]

Where:

HHC = Human Health Criteria (ug/l)
RfD* = Reference Dose (mg/kg-day). Note: for non-linear low-dose carcinogens, a POD/UF (discussed below) may substitute for the RfD. See discussion below and EPA 2000 for further explanation.

1 EPA, **Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Crit eria for the Protection of Human Health (2000),**  EPA822-B-00-004, October, 2000. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/u pload/2005_05_06_criteria_humanhealth_method_comple te.pdf

2 Provided at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidan ce/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm2

RSC = Relative source of contribution. Refers to the t otal permissible exposure allocated to the water body of interest (via ingestion of water and organi sms) relative to all other sources of exposure to the pollutant (unitless). Target cancer risk level = target excess cancer risk desired for the AWQC ( unitless).

CSF = cancer slope factor (mg/kg-day) -1

BW = Body weight (kg)

CF = unit conversion factor (1000 ug/mg).

DWIR = Drinking water ingestion rate (l/day). ∑ 4 i=2 = summation of values from trophic level 2 to trop hic level 4

FCR i = Trophic specific fish/shellfish consumption rate by the population of interest of aquatic trophic levels i=2-4. Consumption rates are expressed in un its of kg fish and shellfish/day.

BAF i = Fish/shellfish contaminant bioaccumulation facto r for aquatic trophic levels i= 2-4. BAFs are expressed in units of l/kg. Note: in instances whe re a chemical specific bioaccumulation factor is not available, a bioconcentration factor (BCF) may be substituted.

PARAMETERS DEFINED Toxicity Values : RfDs, CSFs, and POD/UF

The Reference Dose (RfD) is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human po pulation (including sensitive groups, such as asthmatics, or life stages, such as children or the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciab le risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. In genera l, RfDs are used in describing non-carcinogenic eff ects.

The Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) is used to describe t he potency of a carcinogen and is used in characterizing carcinogenic effects of compounds EP A deems suitable for use with a linear low dose extrapolation model that relates dose to the respon se (cancer).

For certain compounds exhibiting carcinogenic effec ts, EPA has found the linear low-dose extrapolation is not appropriate (e.g., the carcinogenicity may b e a secondary effect of toxicity or of an induced physiological change that is itself a threshold phe nomenon). In these instances, a non-linear low dos e extrapolation method may be used based on point of departure (POD) and uncertainty factors (UF) as described in EPA 2000.

In general, EPA’s Integrated Risk Information Syste m (IRIS) has been used as the primary source for mo st toxicity values used in deriving HHC, but other ass essments may be used.

Target Cancer Risk Level:

EPA uses a cancer risk level of one in one million (10 -6 ) in deriving NRWQC or promulgating water quality criteria for states and tribes, which EPA believes reflects an appropriate risk for the general popula tion. 3

3 EPA, **Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Crit eria for the Protection of Human Health (2000),**  EPA822-B-00-004, October, 2000, page 2-6. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/u pload/2005_05_06_criteria_humanhealth_method_comple te.pdf.3

Relative Source of Contribution (RSC):

For pollutants exhibiting threshold effects (non-ca rcinogenic compounds and carcinogens with a nonlinear low-dose extrapolation), the objective of th e HHC is to ensure that an individual’s total expos ure does not exceed threshold levels (e.g.; RfD or POD/ UF). Since individuals may be exposed to pollutant s in other foods not considered in the derivation of the HHC and via other exposures pathways (e.g., inhalation and dermal contact), EPA applies a relat ive source of contribution (RSC) so that the entire RfD or POD/UF is not apportioned to drinking water and fish consumption alone. Guidance is provided in EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology for determining the relative source of contribution factor to be used for a particular chemical. Where there is no d ata to indicate otherwise, EPA uses a RSC of 20%.

Body Weight (BW): In its 2015 NRWQC update, EPA revised the national default body weight for human health criteria to 80 kilograms based on National Health and Nutrition Ex amination Survey (NHANES) data from 1999 to 2006 (USEPA 2011). This represents the mean body weight for adults ages 21 and older. EPA’s previously recommended default body weight was 70 kilograms, w hich was based on the mean body weight of adults from the NHANES III database (1988-1994).

Drinking Water Ingestion Rate (DWIR): In its 2015 NRWQC update, EPA revised the national default drinking water consumption rate for human health criteria to 2.4 liters per day based on NHAN ES data from 2003 to 2006 (USEPA 2011). This represents the per capita estimate of community wat er ingestion at the 90th percentile for adults ages 21 and older. This value of 2.4 liters per day rep laces the previously recommended default drinking water consumption rate of 2 liters per day, which r epresented the per capita community water ingestion rate at the 86th percentile for adults surveyed in the US Department of Agriculture’s 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CS FII) analysis and the 88th percentile of adults in the National Cancer Institute study of the 1977-1978 Na tionwide Food Consumption Survey.

Bioaccumulation Factor (BAF) and Bioconcentration F actor (BCF): Aquatic organisms can accumulate certain chemicals in their bodies when exposed to chemicals through water, their diet, and other sources. This process is called bioaccumulation. The magnitude of bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms varies widely depending on the chemical. Additionally, concentrations of chemicals may increase in aquatic organisms of each successive trophic level (refer to discussion below regarding trophic levels) due to i ncreasing dietary exposures (e.g., increasing concentrations going from algae, to zooplankton, to forage fish, to predatory fish).

In order to prevent harmful exposures to waterborne chemicals through the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish, HHC must address t he process of chemical bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. EPA incorporates bioaccumulation factor s (BAFs) into the HHC to capture the relationship
between the concentration of a chemical in water to its expected concentration in commonly consumed aquatic organisms of different trophic levels.

EPA’s methodology for deriving HHC emphasizes using , when possible, measured or estimated bioaccumulation factors, which account for chemical accumulation in aquatic organisms from all potential exposure routes (e.g., the water, sedimen t, and diet). In order to account for the variation in4

bioaccumulation that is due to trophic position of the organism being consumed, EPA’s Human Health Methodology recommends that BAFs be determined and applied to three trophic levels of fish corresponding to trophic levels 2 -4 (discussed bel ow). EPA has recommended using a framework for deriving national trophic level-specific BAFs. In June 2015, EPA updated several BAFs using fieldmeasured BAFs and laboratory-measured bioconcentrat ion factors available from peer-reviewed, publicly available databases to develop national tr ophic level specific BAFs. If this information was not available, EPA selected octanol-water partition coe fficients (K ow values) from peer-reviewed sources for use in calculating national trophic level specific BAFs.

Historically, EPA’s 1980 Methodology emphasized use of a bioconcentration (BCF) factor for deriving HHC that was usually determined from laboratory dat a, field data, or from octanol-water partition
coefficients where lab or field-measured data were not available. Because bioconcentration characterizes the uptake and retention of a chemica l by an aquatic organism from water only, in
contrast to bioaccumulation which characterizes the uptake of chemicals by aquatic organisms from water, sediment, and the diet, EPA’s 2000 Methodolo gy emphasizes measurement of a chemical’s bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms for use in der iving HHC.

Trophic Levels: While it is easy to refer to all aquatic species as fish and shellfish, in actuality numerous species of aquatic organisms exist, each of which represents a very different location in the food web. The troph ic level of an organism refers to the organism’s place in the food web. Organisms with higher trophic levels have higher exposures to environmental conta minants.

• Trophic level 1 organisms are primary producers (e. g., plants and algae).

• Trophic level 2 organisms are herbivores, also call ed primary consumers (e.g., benthic filter feeders).

• Trophic level 3 organisms are carnivores that consu me herbivores (e.g., forage fish).

• Trophic level 4 organisms are carnivores that consu me other carnivores (e.g., predatory fish).

• Trophic level 5 organisms are apex predators.

To account for the difference in the nature of fish and shellfish consumed, in 2000 EPA recommended that attention be paid to the trophic level of the species being consumed in derivation of the HHC. Example trophic level assignments for several aquat ic species include:

• Trophic level 2: clams, mussels, oysters, scallops , and snails.

• Trophic level 3: crayfish, shad, lobster, and herr ing.

• Trophic level 4: cod, eel, perch, salmon, and trou t.

• Trophic level 5: seal, beluga.

Fish Consumption Rates and Trophic Level Specific F ish Consumption Rates (FCR i ): Because the level of fish intake in highly exposed populations varies by geographical location, EPA ha s suggested a four preference hierarchy for states an d authorized tribes to follow when deriving consumption rates that encourages use of the best l ocal, state, or regional data available. EPA stron gly emphasizes that states and authorized tribes should consider developing criteria to protect highly5

exposed population groups and use local or regional data over the default values as more representativ e of their target population group(s). EPA suggests a four preference hierarchy for deriving fish consumption rates representative of the defined pop ulations being addressed for the particular water body. The hierarchy consists of: (1) use of local data from fish intake surveys of local watersheds w ithin the state or tribal jurisdiction; (2) use of data r eflecting similar geography/population groups; (3) use of data from national surveys; and (4) use of EPA’s de fault intake rates. EPA recommends the use of uncooked weight intake values. The recommended fou r preference hierarchy is intended for use in evaluating fish intake from fresh and estuarine spe cies only. In that case 

### , t o protect humans who additionally consume marine species of fish, the ma rine portion could be considered another source of exposure when calculating an RSC for dietary intake

.

In its 2015 NRWQC update, EPA revised the default a dult (21 yrs and older) fish consumption rate for the US population for the consumption of fish and s hellfish from inland and nearshore waters to 22 g/day. This value represents a 90th percentile inta ke based on results from a National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted bet ween 2003 and 2010. Also in the 2015 update,
EPA identified 90 th percentile trophic level specific fish consumption rates for this same population corresponding to 7.6 g/day, 8.6 g/day, and 5.1 g/da y corresponding to trophic levels 2, 3, and 4 respectively.

Special Case for Methylmercury In January 2001, EPA published a new water quality criterion for the protection of human health resulting from exposure to methylmercury that expre ssed the human health criterion as a concentration
in fish and shellfish tissue rather than in the wat er. The equation for calculating the methylmercury fish tissue residue criterion used by EPA is:

TRC = BW x (RfD - RSC Hg ) ∑ 4 i=2 FCR i

Where:

TRC = Fish tissue residue criterion (mg methylmercury/ kg fish) for freshwater and estuarine fish.
RSC Hg = Relative source contribution in mg methylmercury /kg-day (subtracted from the RfD to account for marine fish consumption). and the other parameters are as previously describe d.

This equation is essentially the same equation used in the 2000 Human Health Methodology to calculate a HHC, but is rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue, rather than in water. Note that it does not include a BAF, a drinking water in take value, or consider exposures other than marine fish in the RSC because non-fish exposures to methy lmercury are negligible. Refer to EPA 2001 for further information on derivation of the methylmerc ury fish tissue criterion.6

References

EPA, **Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Crit eria for the Protection of Human Health**  **(2000),** EPA-822-B-00-004, October, 2000. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/u pload/2005_05_06_criteria_humanhealth_metho d_complete.pdf

EPA 2001. **Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury**  . EPA-823-R-01- 001. January 2001. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/sw guidance/standards/criteria/health/document.cfm

EPA 2011. **Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition**  . EPA-6000-R-09-052F. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-complete.pdf

EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/c riteria/current/index.cfm