Summary Comments
on PCB Assessment
by Wisconsin
Division of Health

Detailed Comments on
WDOH Assessment

Report Summary

Report Contents

Risk Assessment
Review and Analysis

Feasibility Study
Review and Analysis

Proposed Cleanup
(Action) Levels for
the Fox River and
Green Bay

Literature Cited

Complete Report
for easy printing

Report PDF File

About Dr. Foran

Dr. Foran's CV (PDF)

Technigal Assistance
Grant (TAG)

News release: March 7, 2002

Dr. Jeffery Foran, an independent toxicologist, has found serious weaknesses in a state health agency’s report  which could lead to continuing public health risks even after a proposed PCB cleanup is completed on the Fox River.
 

The proposed “Public Health Assessment for PCB-contaminated Sediments in the lower Fox River and Green Bay” was written by the Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Services (DHFS), Division of Public Health.  This Assessment is different and separate from the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) proposed cleanup plan for the Fox River and Green Bay.

The Assessment was funded by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, to “describe the existing health issues related to PCB-contaminated sediments … and to recommend actions to reduce risks to human health.”

“Wisconsin’s health officials have failed in their duty to call for a stronger Fox River cleanup. The proposed DNR plan will clearly not achieve the DHFS goals for public health protection, and should be challenged,” stated Dr. Jeffery Foran, a PhD toxicologist hired by Clean Water Action Council using a Superfund Technical Assistance Grant.  “They need to restore the cleanup target level to no more than .25 ppm PCBs in the sediment.”

“The state must do a better job of warning residents, including minorities, to avoid eating contaminated fish from the Fox River and Green Bay region, until the cleanup is complete,” added Foran.  “Government surveys show that only 50% of Wisconsin residents who eat sport-caught fish are aware of the advisories, and only 40% of women and 22% of minorities are aware.    These people are at risk and have not been properly warned.”

“Furthermore, the state should issue a stronger advisory fully protective of public health.  The U.S. EPA has developed improved protocols, but the DHFS has ignored them and continues to encourage anglers to eat fish which are unsafe,” added Foran.

DHFS must conduct a more thorough health assessment for PCBs and other contaminants in the Fox River and Green Bay, including consideration of cumulative risks from multiple sources of PCB exposure, and multiple chemicals.  They must acknowledge the very high health risks associated with PCBs and other contaminants.

Dr. Foran’s written review was submitted by the Clean Water Action Council as part of their formal comments on the DHFS Health Assessment. 

Key Criticisms

1.  Assessment of health risks from PCBs and other contaminants.

• Incomplete list of effects --- The description of PCB health effects is very incomplete: only six short paragraphs to describe volumes of information.

• No comments on DNR’s assessment --- The DHFS did not evaluate the quality, nor recommend any improvements in the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (BLHHRA) which was the basis of DNR’s cleanup plan for the Fox River.

• No mention of high risks --- The DHFS makes no mention of the BLHHRA cancer risk estimates as high as 1-in-a-1,000 (equal to smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day), and non-cancer hazard indices greater than 100 (when 1 is our background risk).

• Ignored weak assumptions --- The DHFS should acknowledge that the BLHHRA used non-conservative assumptions regarding fish-preparation and fish consumption behaviors, leading to weakness in the risk assessment.

• Ignored total uptake from multiple PCB sources --- Neither DHFS nor the BLHHRA assessed cumulative PCB exposures from multiple sources.  They focused almost exclusively on fish consumption, and dismissed as insignificant waterfowl consumption, wading, skin contact, inhalation and other routes of PCB exposure which contribute to total PCB exposure levels.   DHFS should have performed a comprehensive, cumulative assessment.

• Ignored added risks from other chemicals --- The DHFS and the BLHHRA should have assessed the cumulative risks due to exposure to PCBs plus several other toxins found in Fox River sediments, such as dioxins, DDT, dieldrin, and mercury.

• Ignored requirements for cumulative risk assessment --- The federal Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires cumulative risk assessment, including exposure to multiple contaminants and multiple sources.   The methodology has been developed and should be used for the Fox River assessment.

• Incorrectly assured public of no risk --- The DHFS stated that swimming, wading and marine construction pose no increased health risk, but ATSDR, EPA, IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), NTP (National Toxics Program) and other scientific agencies have concluded PCBs are a probable carcinogen with elevated cancer risk even at lowest exposures.  Zero risk of cancer occurs only where there is no (zero) exposure.   The DHFS must correctly inform the public of this risk.

• DNR’s plan does not protect public health --- The DNR’s assessment admits that sediment PCB levels need to be reduced to 1 to 10 ppb (parts per billion) in order to reduce PCB levels in fish to safe human consumption levels.  But the DNR’s plan sets a target cleanup level of 1 ppm (part per million), which is 100 to 1,000 times less protective, and leaves 20 miles of the 39 mile river entirely uncleaned (between Appleton and the Little Rapids Dam).   The Clean Water Action Council recommends a cleanup target of a maximum of .25 ppm, or 250 ppb, which will be much closer to achieving the 1 to 10 ppb health protection standard, once over-dredging and averaging are factored in.   This is four times stronger than the DNR plan, and is the same target DNR recommended 2 years ago.

• DHFS endorsed the plan, which conflicts with DHFS recommendations --- The DHFS endorsed the cleanup plan at the same time it recommended “cleanup remedies be selected based on their ability to most effectively reduce reliance on fish consumption advisories.”   This is a direct conflict.  The DHFS should call for a more stringent Fox River cleanup (which is financially and technically feasible), since it is clear the proposed cleanup will not adequately address the high BLHHRA risk estimates.   Or DHFS needs to explain if they believe the BLHHRA estimates are wrong.

• DHFS endorsed faulty “natural recovery” concept --- The DHFS endorsed a cleanup plan which claims the Fox River will “naturally recover” in 30 to 70 years after limited dredging, and will protect public health only then.   In fact, natural PCB degradation has not and will not occur in the Fox River and Green Bay, therefore, the 30 to 70 year timeline is faulty.   At best, the PCBs will only flow downstream to add to the Bay’s contamination. The DHFS has endorsed scientifically inaccurate claims.

• No Bay Cleanup --- DHFS failed to call for cleanup of lower Green Bay PCB hotspots, despite high human health risks which could persist more than 100 years without cleanup.   Though the total PCB numbers are disputed in the Bay, the .25 ppm PCB target cleanup level still needs to be applied.  The DHFS should have called for immediate sampling to better characterize PCBs in bay sediments, and endorsed cleanup of all PCB hotspots identified.

• Advisories are No Substitute for Cleanup --- DHFS needs to promote an aggressive PCB cleanup, rather than rely too heavily on advisories to reduce public exposure to PCBs.  However, while the cleanup is underway, DHFS needs a much stronger approach to warning potential fish and duck consumers.

• Many Consumers are Unaware --- DHFS admits only 50% of Wisconsin residents who eat sport-caught fish are aware of the advisories.  Only 40% of women and 22% of minorities are aware.  In the Fox River/Green Bay region, 50% of anglers consume contaminated fish, and 70-80% of minorities.

• Poor Information Distribution --- Only 40,000 advisories are distributed in Wisconsin each year, enough for only 3.2% of the 1.25 million licensed anglers in the state.    The supply would be inadequate even for the few counties bordering the Fox River, where 47,000 anglers have licenses.  DHFS must develop new approaches to dissemination of more effective consumption warnings, with a goal of changing behaviors and reducing contaminant exposure.  DHFS must also develop and implement tracking methods to determine advisory effectiveness, and improve its efforts accordingly.

• Other Factors Not Addressed Adequately --- Even when they are aware of the advisories, some minority and low-income individuals consume their catch for important economic, nutritional, and cultural reasons.   DHFS has shown a callous disregard for the cultural traditions and needs of these people.

• EPA Health Protocol Ignored --- The U.S. EPA has developed a risk-based fish consumption advisory designed to be fully protective of human health.  If it were used, the public would be warned to virtually eliminate all consumption of Fox River fish.  The DHFS has issued a much weaker warning, which encourages anglers to eat some of the fish once per month, or even once per week.   The DHFS has abdicated its responsibility to issue honest health warnings, and should work with other Great Lakes states to immediately adopt the EPA protocol.

Back to top