MORE JOB KILLING RULES FROM ODEQ
The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality is in the process of adopting
the most restrictive water quality
standards in the nation. The proposed
human health criterion standards relate
to the highest concentration of a
pollutant in water that is alleged to
not pose a significant human health
risk. The numeric standards being
proposed for Oregon are an order of
magnitude tougher than any of the other
49 states in the US. Compliance with the
new Human Health Toxics standards will
be virtually impossible because in many
situations the selected numeric
standards exceed the normal background
concentration of the regulated
pollutant. These new rules have the
potential to profoundly affect the
fiscal soundness of businesses,
agriculture and forestry in the state.
They may be expected to have an extreme
negative effect on Oregon’s future job
growth and economic recovery.
These new requirements for water quality
standards rules are based upon the
amount of fish that ODEQ assumes to be
consumed by certain tribal entities in
Oregon. However, closer evaluation of
the scientific protocol used to
delineate the proposed standards reveals
an apparent lack of empirical scientific
data collection, as well as a lack of
reproducibility of the data sets.
When the ODEQ was recently queried in a
legislative hearing about the background
used to formulate the new rules, they
replied in the following written form:
Legislature: “How many Oregonians are
eating the amount of fish that (the
ODEQ) proposed water quality standards
are based upon?
The
reply from ODEQ was: “We are not aware
of any studies that quantify the fish
consumption of all Oregonians.”
Legislature:
“Is the DEQ aware of any studies
documenting the harm to human beings
related to toxins consumed through a
fish-oriented diet?”
ODEQ
reply: “We are not aware of any such
reports.”
Legislature:
“Does the DEQ have information on the
statistical confidence in the studies
that the proposed rules are based upon?”
ODEQ reply:
“DEQ convened a Human Health Focus
Group…. the group recommended that DEQ
rely on five studies, four conducted in
the Pacific Northwest and one national
study.”
The five studies include one undertaken
in 2002 by the EPA (*see direct links
below, 2002 EPA Estimated Per Capita
Fish consumption in the United States).
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/files/consumption_report.pdf.
Examples of the quality of research
reported from this study include the
following:
P11
“The CSFII surveys have advantages and
limitation for estimating per capita
fish consumption. One limitation of the
CFSII surveys is that individual food
consumption data were collected for only
two days, a brief period, which does not
necessarily depict “usual intake.”
and
“Survey participants provided two
non-consecutive, 24 days of dietary
data. Both days’ dietary recall
information was collected by an in-home
interviewer.”
and
P
23 “The day 2 interview occurred three
to 10 days after the Day 1 interview,
but not on the same day of the week. The
interviews allowed participants “three
passes” through the daily intake record
to maximize recall. Two days of dietary
recall data were provided by 20,607
individuals across the four survey
years. This constitutes an overall
two-day response rate of 77.5%.
In other
words, three attempts were made to have
the respondents recall from memory the
desired intake amount.
and
Sec 1.3 “Low
income individuals are oversampled to
ensure their representation in the
survey.” This sentence represents
a scientific oxymoron because a survey
should be represented by unaltered and
broadly selected samples, not by
manipulated sampling methods.
and
“Because
daily averages are estimated from each
respondent from only two days, the
precision of an individual’s daily
average consumption is diminished.
Therefore the limited-time period of
dietary intake collection does not
produce usual intake estimates.”
and
P 27 “Non-consumption of a given food
or food group by a majority of
individuals, combined with consumption
data from high–end consumers can result
in a wide range of observations. This
can lead to a highly-skewed distribution
of consumption values.”
Further
evidence of questionable data gathering
are found in quotes from the ODEQ’s
supposedly “scientifically sound and
relevant report” entitled Human
Health Focus Group Report - Oregon Fish
and Shellfish Consumption Rate Project,
June 2008 .
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/HHFGFinalReportJune2008.pdf
This report
appears to be nothing more than a
literature review wherein the data was
exclusively comprised from existing
literature.
P3 “The discussion and conclusions
presented in this report were generated
in one year May 2007-2008, a relatively
short time considering the scope of the
questions addressed.”
and
P4-5 “Oregon’s current numeric human
health criteria are based on EPA’s 2002
recommended Clean Water Act Section
304(a) water quality criteria. EPA
derived these criteria by considering
the known toxicity of the regulated
chemical and the likely exposure people
have to these chemicals . EPA’s current
recommended CWA Section 304 (a) human
health based water quality criteria are
calculated using the national fish
consumption rate of 17.5g/day. This
nationally recommended rate is roughly
equivalent to two – 8 oz fish meals per
month. This rate represents the 90th
percentile of all people who were
interviewed from across the US. Until
2003 Oregon’s water quality standards
were based on a fish consumption rate of
6.5 g/day consistent with EPA’s default
fish consumption rate. EPA increased its
recommended rates to a nationally based
per capita default level of 17.5 g/day
while urging states to rely on local
consumption data wherever possible.”
In other words ODEQ’s proposed
fish consumption is 175 g/day, an order
of magnitude greater than the recent
EPA’s 3- fold increase. Before that
three-fold increase the fish consumption
standard was about 5 pounds per year.
The proposed ODEQ standard is 140 pounds
per year!
Another report quoted by the ODEQ is
the 17 year old study “Fish
Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, Nez
Perce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes
of the Columbia Basin (CRITFC
1994).
http://www.critfc.org/tech/94-3report.html
It states:
“The
survey of Columbia River Basin Tribes is
regarded as the study most relevant to
Oregon fish consumers.” “No consumption
of any shellfish or open ocean fin fish
was reported. Since these questions were
not asked in the interview, it is not
clear how this may have affected the
fish consumption rates reported by the
Columbia River Tribes.”
and
P
10 “Although the raw data were not
available for re-analysis, there was
good documentation of the summary
statistics conducted.” “The survey
interviewers noted that individuals had
difficulties in reporting the quantity
of fish they consumed. Overall, there
was not sufficient information to
calculate reliable fish consumption
estimates.”
What is the scientific relevance of a
study based on “good documentation of
summary statistics” based on information
that was not sufficient to even
calculate fish consumption estimates?
From the report Fish Consumption
Survey of the Suquamish Indian Tribe of
the Port Madison Indian Reservation,
Puget Sound Region 2000 (an eleven
year old survey of a Washington tribe)
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/doc/toxics/suquamish2000report.pdf
“The
Suquamish staff chose to include high
consumption rates because they were
familiar with the individuals eating
those large quantities and that the
consumption rates reported were likely
to reflect real consumption. With no
adjustments made for the high
consumption rates, it was noted that the
reported means may be highly influenced
by the consumption of just a few
individuals.”
Does this statement imply that the
researchers purposely selected
individuals who ate large quantities of
fish and then used that level of
consumption as the average consumption
rate in order to inflate the true amount
of fish eaten by the average Tribal
member?
From the study, A Fish Consumption
Survey of the Tulalip and Squaxin Island
Tribes of the Puget Sound
Region (Troy et al. 1996) Another
Washington state survey which is 15
years old.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/tulalipsquaxin1996.pdf
“The Tribes survey is regarded as being
relevant to Oregon fish consuming
populations although some of the
fish and shellfish they consumed may not
be found in Oregon waters.”
And
the final study quoted for the new ODEQ
water quality standards determination,
The Lake Whatcome Residential and
Angler Fish Consumption Survey
(Washington Department of Health 2001)
http://www.doh.wa.gov.ehp/oehas/publications_pdf/whatcomesurvey.pdf
“The
fish consumption rates from this survey
were not useful because of
inconsistencies on how the interviewee
reported their fish consumption. The
four week recall diet limited the
ability to fully quantify fish
consumption due to the low number of
people that consumed fish during that
period.”
All
five of these reports, which are being
used to force Oregon’s businesses,
agriculture and forestry to comply with
the most restrictive water quality
standards in the United States, are
chocked full of the disclaimer language
as exampled above. One of the “sound
scientific” reports was nothing more
than a literature review. The new ODEQ
standards are based on fish consumption
rates ten times greater than current EPA
national values.
Moreover, the proposed rules appear to
assume that the levels of the toxics
found in fish are the result of the fish
acquiring those levels of toxics
exclusively from their contact with
fresh water in Oregon. Salmon,
steelhead, ocean bottom fish, many
shellfish and crabs, and a variety of
other fish species spend the
preponderance of their life cycle in the
ocean. Strict implementation of the
proposed rules on Oregon fresh water
bodies would have little if any effect
on the toxics concentration found in
these species.
To summarize, the new rules are based on
the amount of fish assumed to be eaten
by certain Oregonians. The assumed
average annual rate of fish consumption
has been recently revised from about 5
pounds to about 140 pounds. That 28 fold
increase is based on little more than
speculation. The influence ocean water
on species that spend most of their
lifecycles in that environment appears
to be ignored.
In my opinion, the scientific relevance
of these studies is at best pathetic and
at worst criminally negligent.
Please
remember that if we do not stand up for
rural Oregon no one will.
Best
regards,
Doug
|