Document EdMveGB6VMGL9L10Qpymyb4gn

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR In Re: Proposed Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards for Aldrin/Dleldrln et al. FWPCA (307) Docket No. 1 TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AS AN OBJECTOR TO THE PROPOSED TOXIC EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR PCBs - 0 CFR 129 Section 3 - Biological Assessment - presented by Dr. Gerald J. Lauer, Assistant Director of the New York University Laboratoryfor Environmental Studies. HONS 066694 -1 Dr. Gerald J. Lauer deposes and says: I am Senior Research Scientist and Assistant Director of the Institute of Environmental Medicine Laboratory for Environmental Studies, and adjunct Associate Professor In the Department of Biology at New York University. Fifteen years of my professional life have been devoted to study of the effects of environmental stresses on aquatic life. Included were six years as a commissioned officer In the U.S. Public Health Service's Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control research program to determine the fate and effects of pesticides In our Nation's waters. Additional biographical Information Is contained In the attached resume. (Attachment 1) The proposed effluent standards (40 CFR 129) for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) contain several major technical flaws and Inconsistencies that might be attributed to the fact that the EPA was given an awesome task to accomplish In too little time and with Inadequate Information. In proposing these standards (38 FR 3538B) EPA acknowledged: "Time limitations established by Court order (NRDC vs. Frl. Civ. Action 1849-73 (D.D.C.), have required publication of these standards at this time, even though It Is acknowledged that there may In some cases be Inadequacies In the underlying data base. Public comment and technical data are solicited to assist In strengthening the standards". My comments that follow are ' made to constructively assist the EPA. Most of the deficiencies In the proposed standards result from the EPA's adoption of criteria prepared by a National Academy of Sciences Committee^) as the substantive basis for the standards, despite the admonition of the MAS Conmlttee that such action would be Inappropriate. HONS 066095 -Z' The ecross-the-board requirement of the proposed standards In Section 129.09c that daily average PCB concentration not exceed 280 ppb for discharges Into fresh waters and 10 ppb for discharges Into salt water; and the proposed across-the-board limits for total dally weight of PCB's that would be permitted to be discharged Into streams, lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters are biologically indefensible for several reasons. A) The acute toxicity of PCB's is too variable to justify across-the-board standards. The toxicity of a pollutant varies from species to species, for different life stages of the same species, and depends on a host of variables Including the chemical quality of the receiving water, water temperature, duration of exposure, the fate and physical-chemical state of the pollutant In the receiving water, the ability of mobile organisms to sense and avoid pollutants, presence of other pollutants, etc. This complexity of Influences requires that effects of pollutants be evaluated on a case by case basis, and not by the across-the-board approach used by EPA. The toxicity data for PCB's compiled in Table 1 clearly demonstrate the impractlcallty of selecting a single concentration limit for an across-the-board type standard as proposed by EPA. Values for a single homolog frequently vary by as much as 100 to 1000, and for Aroclor 1242* there Is a difference of over 100,000 between the lowest and highest LCgg value. 'PCBs are sold commercially by the Monsanto Company under the trade-name Aroclor. MONS 066696 -3- Differences of this magnitude exist even for the same species and Aroclor (e.g. bluegill sunflsh and Arochlor 1242) under different conditions of exposure. Moreover, there Is no Justification evident in the existing data for assigning the same toxicity criteria to all 210 homologs and isomers of PCB's, as in effect, was done by the EPA in proposing a single numerical concentration limit. Across-the-board standards such as those proposed by EPA do not contain sufficient flexibility to be responsive to these many variables. B) The EPA's use of the highest observed bioconcentration factors on record as bases for proposed across-the-board limits on the total daily weight of PCB's that could be discharged is invalid. Bioconcentration of PCB's varies from species to species, and is likely to depend on a host of variables including the sources of exposure, exposure concentrations, length of time organisms are exposed, surface to volume ratios of exposed organisms, species specific assimilation efficiency, rates of metabolic and biochemical degradation, and position of the organism in the aquatic food chain. Most of the existing bioconcentration data are based on exposures of confined organisms in laboratories to concentrations in water formulated by use of solvents. Neither the data base nor level of understanding of the combined influence of these variables under natural conditions are sufficient to permit accurate prediction of concentration factors. MQNS 066697 The wide range of bioconcentration values (Table 2) defies generalization and provides no technical basis for applying one bio concentration value for one homolog of PCB for one species under one set of conditions to all other homologs of PCB's and all species under all other sets of conditions, as was done by EPA. In fact, available data already summarized by Dr. Simons Indicate that: 1) the rate of bacterial degradation of PCB's depends on the degree of chlorination (the lower the degree of chlorination the faster the degradation rate), and 2) that homologs .containing 4 or less chlorine atoms per biphenyl do not accumulate In tissues of fish and wildlife. C) In explaining the derivation of the PCB standard In Its Basis and Purpose document^, EPA refers to Information cited by the NAS Committee (Ref. 1, p. 177 and Ref. 2, p. 51). EPA couples Information that suggests possible reduction of survival of salmon embryoes by PCB concentrations exceeding 0.5 vg/g In the eggs with a maximum value for bioconcentration observed for another species of fish exposed under entirely different conditions to possibly another type of PCB. Such coupling may have been justified for the purpose of developing criteria or guidelines, but does not provide a reasonable basis for proposing a standard that would apply to all homologs of PCB's and to bodies of water containing neither of those species. Salmon are not Indigenous to any of the three streams (the upper Hudson, the Housatonlc, and the Coosa rivers) on which GE manufacturing plants are located. 06669b HONS 5- . As discussed In A and B above, both the toxicity and bio concentration of each of the homologs of PCB's can be expected to vary for different species and life stages of aquatic organisms. In relation to a host of physical, chemical and biological variables. It Is therefore unreasonable to apply an across-the-board chronic limit to all fresh water bodies and another to all salt water bodies as the fundamental bases for limiting the amount of any and all homologs of PCB's permitted to be discharged, as proposed by the standards. Moreover, the validity of the possible relationship of PCB residue In salmon eggs to mortality of the eggs, described by Jensen et al_^and cited by EPA^), remains questionable. The authors of that report concluded: "In spite of the small material used, this preliminary study Indicates a possible relationship between PCB In salmon eggs and egg loss. In order to find out If this relation Is true, new experiments have been prepared for the season 1970/71. For these tests females exposed to known concentrations of PCB will be used for stripping of eggs." I am not aware that the proposed new experiments were ever performed. The validity of Jensen's preliminary study results Is subject to question on still another count. Eggs from females reared In the sea were used as controls for comparison with eggs from females grown In fresh water. Jensen reported noting heavy losses of eggs originating from females reared In fresh water since 1965. This raises the possibility that the higher losses of eggs from the experimental females than for the MONS 066699 -6- controls was related to the different environments In which the two groups were reared. Experiments would need to be conducted that compare mortality of eggs with low PCB residue from females reared In fresh water with eggs with higher PCB residues from females reared In fresh water In order to determine If egg losses were related to PCB residues rather than the past history of the females. D) Through the tenuous coupling of unrelated data described In C on page 4, EPA arrived at a fresh water quality chronic limit of 0.002 ug/1. It Is noteworthy that results reported by the National Water Quality Laboratory (cited In Ref. 10, p. 326) show that the re production and growth of several fresh water species are unaffected by aqueous PCB concentrations In the range 2-10 ug/1, which Is 1,000-5,000 fold higher than the chronic limit of 0.002 u9/1 used by EPA. These data would be much more relevant as bases for standards to protect aquatic life from chronic effects than those used to generate the proposed standards. day of ____________ , 1974 Ncliiy IVY Lri r-'e i York Qi.iiiT.-d in Cranes County Commission expires March 30. 19.?. ' NOTARY PUBLIC C)NS 066700 Table 1. Acute toxicity of PCB's to freshwater organisms. PCB type Aroclor 1221 Aroclor 1232 Aroclor 5432 MCS 1016 Aroclor 1242 Organism Cutthroat trout Bluegills Channel catfish Cutthroat trout Bluegills Channel catfish Bluegills Channel catfish Rainbow trout Rainbow trout Cutthroat trout Trout Bloasaay Type Exposure (Days) LCjo or tl50 (ppb) Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Static Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static Static Static 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 10 4 4 4 1,170 230 3,340 2,500 > 100,000 > 100,000 650 750 109 39 5,430 > 100,000 > 10, 000 to < 100,000 Reference 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 4 7 9 HONS 0 6 6 7 0 1 Table 1. page a Table 1. Acute toxicity of PCB's to freshwater organisms, (cont.) PCB type Aroclor 1242 Organisms Bluegills Bluegills Channel catfish Crayfish Scud Dragonfly Bioassay Type Exposure (Days) LC50 or TL50 (ppb) Static Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static Static 4 5 10 15 4 4 Static bitermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static Continuous -flow Continuous-flow Static 4 10 15 7 4 10 7 240 154 72 54 660 > 10,000 to < 100,000 130 174 107 no 10 5.0 Him Reference 9 6 6 6 7 8 9 6 6 4 4 4 4 HONS 0 6 6 7 0 2 Table 1. Tabic 1. page 3 Acute toxicity of PCB's to freshwater organisms, (coni.) PCB type Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 5442 Aroclor 1248 Organisms Bioassay Type Exposure (Days) LC5o or tl50 (ppb) Damselfly Continuous-flow Anopheles quadrimaculatua larvae 7 Bluegills Static ' Channel catfish Static Rainbow trout Interimttent-Qow Cutthroat trout Static Bluegills ' Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-How Inte rmlttent-Qow Static 4 2 4 4 5 4 5 10 15 20 5 10 4 400 1.0 > 100,000 > 100,000 51 5,750 307 160 76 10 137 76 278 Reference 4 10 5 5 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 MCNS 0 6 6 7 0 3 Table 1. Table 1. page 4 Acute toxicity f I'CB's to freshwater organisms, (cont.) PCBtype Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1254 Organisms Channel catfish Rainbow trout Cutthroat trout Trout BluegiUs Bioassay Type Exposure (Days) LC50 or TL50 (PPb) fntermittent-fiow intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow fntermittent-Qow Static fntermittent-fiow Static Static Static Static intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow 10 IS 10 IS 4 S 10 4 4 4 4 10 IS 20 255 127 94 57 6,000 1S6 8 42,500 > 100,000 7. 100,000 2,740 443 204 135 Reference 6 6 6 6 4 6 6 4 7 9 4 6 6 6 * 0 9 9 0 SVOW Table 1. Tabic 1. page S Acute toxicity of PCB'a to freshwater organisms, (cont.) PCBtype Aroclor 12M Organisms BluegiUs Channel catfish Crayfish Scud Glass shrimp Dragonfly Damsolfly Bioassay Type Exposure (Days) Intermittent-flow Static Static Static Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static Continuous-flow Static Continuous-flow Static Continuous-flow 25 4 4 4 15 20 25 7 7 4 7 7 4 LC50 or TL50 (ppb) 54 660 --. 200 12,000 741 300 113 100 80 2,400 3,0 lt 000 200 Reference 6 7 9 4 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 HONS 0 6 6 705 Table 1. page 6 Tabu- 1. Acute toxicity of l'CB's to freshwater organisms, (cont.) PCB type Aroclor 1260 Organisms Rainbow trout Cutthroat trout Trout Bluegills Channel catfish Bloassay Type Exposure (Days) LC50 or tl50 (ppb) Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static Static Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static Static Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Intermittent-flow Static 10 15 20 4 4 20 25 30 4 4 20 25 30 4 240 94 21 60,900 > 100,000 245 212 151 > 100,000 e 100,000 296 160 1J7 7 100.00(1 Reference 6 6 6 4 7 6 6 6 9 7 6 6 6 9 MONS 0 6 6 7 0 6 Tabic 1. Table 1. page 7 Acute toxicity of PCB's to freshwater organisms, (cont.) PCB type Aroclor 5460 Aroclor 1262 Aroclor 1268 Organisms Trout Bluegllls Channel catfish Cutthroat trout Cutthroat trout Bloassay Type Static Static Static Static Static Static Exposure (Days) LC50 or TL50 (ppb) 4 > 100,000 4 > 100,000 4 > 100,000 4 * 100,000 4 50, 000 4 50, 000 Reference 7 7 5 5 4 4 t 0 f9 9 0 SHOW Table 2. Concentration of PCB's by aquatic organisms. Aroclor Species 1242 1248 1234 Diatom . Channel catfish Blueglll Daphnla magna Blueglll Blueglll Channel catfish Blueglll Blueglll Blueglll Daphnla Phantom midge " M Gammarus " It II Concentrations Water Organism (Ppb) (ppm) Length of Concentration Exposure factor Source reference 100.0 10.0 13.3 4.9 300 2.0 10.0 4.1 6.8 2.0 10.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 100 4.7 988 312 7 7 7 312 87 7 7 7 7 7 30 7 7 7 39 7 7 14 days 14 days 60 days 60 days 7 chronic chronic 60 days 60 days chronic chronic 1 day 4 days 1 day 4 days 7 days 14 days 1 day 4 days 7 days 14 days 1100 470 72,030 63,670 48,000 26,300 71,400 76,097 12, 794 26,300 71,400 24,700 47,000 22,000 23,000 23,800 24, 800 17,000 24,000 26,000 27, 500 ii ii 6 6 11 11 11 6 6 4 4 12 12 12 12 12 CO 12 no* * 12 w 12 2 X 12 12 Table 2. Table 2, - page 2 Concentration ol PCB'a by aquatic organisms, (cont.) Aroclor Species Gammarus Mosquito larvae ft " Glass shrimp " It It ' Stonefly " ' It t Dobsonfly It ' It Concentrations Water Organism (ppb) (ppm) Length of Concentration Exposure factor Source reference 1.6 ? 21 days 27,000 1.5 7 1 day 12,600 1.5 27 4 days 18,000 1.5 7 7 days 20,000 1.3 7 1 day 10,300 1.3 16 4 days 12,300 1.3 7 7 days 13,700 1.3 7 14 days 14,200 1.3 7 21 days 16,600 2.8 7 1 day 2,100 2.8 7.0 4 days 2,500 2.8 7 7 days 2,800 2.8 7 14 days 2,900 2.8 7 21 days 2,800 1.1 7 1 day 1,400 1.1 5.1 4 days 4,600 1.1 7 7 days 5,700 1.1 7 14 days 6,600 1.1 7 21 days 6,800 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 MONS 066709 Table 2. Table 2. - page 3 Concentration of PCB'a by aquatic organisms, (cont.) Aroclor Species Concentrations Water Organism (ppb) (ppm) Length of Exposure Concentration factor Source reference Crayfish It " 11 II Ciliate protozoan 11 Pink shrimp " It Pink shrimp Blue crab Oyster Oyster Plnfish Pinfish Spot 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 10.0 1000.0 10.0 1.0 5.0 2.5 6.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 1.0 1.0 ? 1 day 0.2 4 days ? 7 days ? 14 days ? 21 days 0.56 7 46.0 7 1.3 2 days 0.14 2 days 33 20 days 510 22 days 23 20 days 33 4 days 8.1 4 days 3.8 2 days 0.98 2 days 37 28 days 570 1, 700 3.400 4,500 5,100 55 46 130 140 6,600 200, 000 4,600 3,300 8,100 380 980 37, 000 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 HONS 066?10 REFERENCES (Lauer Testimony) 1. Water Quality Criteria. 1972, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering (EPA Exhibit No. 12). 2. Statement of Basis and Purpose for PCBs (EPA Exhibit No. 8) p. 30. 3. Jensen, S., N. Johansson, and M. Olsson. 1970. PCB-Indlcatlons of effects on salmon, PCB conference, Stockholm, September 29, 1970. (Swedish Salmon Research Institute). (Report LFI HEDO 7/1970). 4. Stalling, David L., and Foster Lee Mayer, Jr., 1972. Toxlcltles of PCBs to Fish and Environmental Residues. Environmental Health Perspectives (April): 159-164. 5. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.-Report to Monsanto Company. Four-day Static Fish Toxicity Studies with Aroclor 1221, Aroclor 5432, Aroclor 5442, Aroclor 5460, and MCS 1016 In bluegllls and channel Catfish. January 12, 1972 IBY No. A9380, 27 p. 6. Stalling, David L., 1971. Analysis of Organochlorlne Residues In Fish. Current Research at the Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory. International IUPAC Congress of Pesticide Chemistry, 2nd, Tel-Aviv. Edited by A.S. Tahorl New York, Gordon and Breach, 1972 Vol. IV pp. 413-438. 7. Taken from summary of data prepared by Monsanto Company and attributed to Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories report BTL-69-33. 8. ibid. BTL-72-82. 9. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc.-Report to Monsanto Company. Four-day Fish Toxicity Studies with Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260 In bluegllls and channel catfish. November 17, 1972. BTL-72-103, IBT No. A8570, 19 p. 10. Sellkoff, Irving J., 1972. Polychlorinated Blphenyls-Envlronmental Impact: A review by the Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances. Environmental Research Vol. 5(3) pp. 249-362; see p. 326. 11. Ref. 10, p. 292. 12. Sanders, H.O. and J.H.Chandler, 1972, Biological Magnification of a Polychlorinated Biphenyl (Aroclor 1254) from Water by Aquatic Inverterbrates, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 7(5), pp. 257-263. MCNS 066711