Document KxGBLY971Z8BBmvg96YGa3qr

Monsanto mjmiihi --iirrn. ckmcmj ca 00 * (.' ir.,r St ia.. u.iimn <3'l( . ]!li IM-'OaO ^ January 18, 1974 Hearing Citric U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Veahington, D.C. 20^60 Rt: Environmental Protection Agcnc7 (40 CP* Part 129) Veter Program Proposed Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standard* Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 247, Pages 35388-35395 Thursday, December 27, 1973 Gentlemen: As a major producer and supplier of polychlorinattd biphenyl* (PCBa) to the electrical industry for fire reaiatant dielectric fluid applications, we have reviewed with considerable interest the effluent standards for these materials proposed in new Part 129, Subparc I, Chapter I of Title 40, Code of Pederal Regulations. Ve appreciate and concur with the Agency's intent to . control the presence of persistent PCS* in the navigable waters of the United States to prevent environmental damage. Ve have already taken positive steps toward this end. Ve strongly support realistic action designed to prevent irresponsible introduction of persistent PCBa into the environment. Ve note, however, with considerable dismay that proposals lafiluded in Subpart I are, in our considered opinion, gy--llatically restrictive, not supported by currently ittfUable data and not warranted under the present con ations of manufacture and use. . In accordance with Section 104.6, Part 104, Chapter I of Title 40, Code nr Pederal Regulations, we offer the following oh.Jcfr.inns. Theee objections Indicate cur deep concern for this matter and are in as much detail ACM CC25C1 295 WATER PCB-SD0000017282 He*ring Citric Jtnuiry 18, 1974 Pt|a 2 is available tins.has allowed. We reepectfully requeet *n opportunity to present testimony describing our ob jections In greater detail at public hearings which we understand will be* conducted at a future date. 1. We object to the unavailability of all the informa tion used in the eatabllahaent of the propoaed affluent atandarda. The abort time available between the publi cation of the atandarda on December 27, 1973 and the publiahed filing date of January 18, 1974; the unavail ability of new Part 104, Title 40 CPU until January 4, 1974 and of the Statement of Easia and Purpoae, Ibzlc Pollutant Effluent Standards until January 14, 1974, have prevented completion of a thorough evaluation of the propoaed atandarda at this time, further, a full copy of the EFA Water Quality Criteria dated October, 1973 1* not yet available to us to review and evaluate r.or la the long heralded report of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering entitled "Water Quality Criteria, 1972." 2. We object to the propoaed definition of polychlorinated biphenyls which implies that all the isomers have ' similar chemical, physical, toxicological, and degra dation characteristics. Significant differences do exist and should be considered in developing s clear definition of those PCBa which affect the environment. 3. We object to the limitation of a maximum flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second in determining the quantity of PCBa which can be discharged into a scream, lake, estuary or coastal water. We find it difficult to understand the rationale which reaulta in the con clusion that a PCS concentration which la acceptable in a alow moving body of water muat be proportionately reduced when the flow exceeds an arbitrarily dealgnated rate, 4. We object to the establishment of an effluent level for PCBa bated on s concentrstlon level which has been suggested ts the threshold for stlmon egg mortality. Information supporting the velidlty of this data is not available. Secondly, we aerloutly question that saloon truly qualify for the requirement under Section 307(a)(2) of the Act which states that the standard must take into account "....the usual or( potential presence of the effected organisms.... 0C2 296 WATER_PCB-SDOOOO017283 Hearing Citric January IS, 1974 ?4 3 5. Ve object to the establishment of an effluent level for PCBj baaed on calculation* m which a biological accuaulatlon faktor of 200,000 was uaed. Biooagnificatlon observed',In envlronaental sample* ha a been reported aa ranging froa 1 to 200,000 fold varying with the type of PCBa and wildlife apecle* atudled. W# queatlon the appropriateneaa of ualng the non- ' typical higher value. 6. V# object to the establishment of effluent atandarda for PCEa before the development of approved samplirg and analytical procedurea which will aaaure accurate . and reproducible reaulta when performed In qualified laboratorlea. Further, the propoaed critical chronic limit for freah water, atreaaa of 0.0012 /g/1 la below the preaent normal limit of detection with the analyal* performed by an experienced analyat ualng aenaltlve meaaurlrg equipment. 7. w* object to the lack of a published statement con taining a full and complete aaaeaament of the economic Impact of the propoaed effluent atandarda. If adopted, aa reguired by the national Environmental Policy Act of 19o9. 8. We object to the eatabllshnent of the PCS effluent standard! without acknowledgment and full consideration of the presence at point sources of significant quantities of residual PCS* due to past discharges. Becauae of this inherent background level and because of the extremely low levels which resulted from the use of unrealistic premlaea, to which we objected in our fore going comment*, the proposed PCB effluent standards *r not. In our opinion, prsctlcsbly attainable. The Honaanto Industrial Chemicals Compsny has commented and ude recommendations relating to the Inclusion of PCBs on the Toxic Pollutants List and to the establishment of an effluent standard for our manufacturing facility to representstIves of the Agency and to the Effluent Standards and Veter Quality Information Advisory Committee. Copies of our comments are enclosed. Our purpose In commenting on the proposed standards is to old the Agency In ihe development of realistic effluent atanilaioln which will achieve the Intended objectives with out oerloun technical, social and economic disruptions. 297 AC* CC2501 WATER_PCB-SDOOOO017284 H**rln Citric January 18, 1974 Pax* + To icfiliv* our purpcaa m ballava w# mu*e h*Ve tecta* to, and review with jtetney representative*, ill of th* Information which wia uttd in eh* eatabliahaent of the CtaiJ and purpoae of tha propoaed PCS acandard V* chertfor*, rtapactfully requaac chac eh# tin* period during which ceaeiaony la to be aubmlttad and th* date* on which'* the hearings will be conducted be extended. nich Rtapectfully submitted WBP/bt Enclosure W.'b. Papageoax* Manager, Product Acceptability Ainc clonal Product Groups ACf CC2SCt 298 WATER_PCB-SD0000017285 Monsanto MOttANTO INDUSTRIAL. CMCMtCALg ca 800 N. L*d&*'3h Boui*rd St. Laun. U'ffoun 031QQ Phan*: !U) fl^-1000 March 7, 1S74 Nr. A. N. Salazar National Electrical Manufacturers An. 155 Eaat 44th St. Nw Yoric City, N. Y. 10017 Dear Mr. Salazar: We thank you for taking the tine to attend the PC3 Effluent Standards meeting on February 28. We enclose the Minutes of our meeting and hope they accurately reflect the discussions and proposed actions. Should you have any questions regarding the forthcoming E?A Hearing on the Effluent Standards as they affect PCBs please do net hesitate to get in touch with our Mr. W. B. Papageorge. Kis telephone numoer is (314) 594-4051. C. Pa ton Product Manager Fluids /W c: V. B. Papageorge Hit of Momtnto Comoi*v AOM 007275 2S9 WATER PCB-SD0000017286 MINUTES OP MEETING ON PROPOSED PCB EPPLUENT STANDARDS February 28, 1974 Monsanto Coapany St. Louis, Mo. &0M uO 7 76 300 WATER PCB-SD0000017287 Chairman: Mr. \V. B. Papageorge Manager, Product Acceptability Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Co. Objective: The purpose of the meeting was to share information, experiences and impressions to help each of the participating companies in taking appropriate actions which are mutually supportive and effective in persuading the Administration of ZPA to modify the proposed PCB Effluent Standard. AJM 007277 301 WATER PCB-SD0000017288 PARTICIPANTS fcB STANDARDS MEETING February 28, 197^ CERTIFIED BALLAST MANUFACTURERS Mr. N. R. Clark Universal Manufacturing Co. E.I.A Hr. Arnold S. Doty Dr. E. H. Moore Hr. Rudy Carlson P. R. Hallory 4 Co., Inc Electrical Utilities Co. Electrical Utilities Co. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Hr. James S. Nelson Hr. Stuart Rlchel Dr. Edward L. Simons JARD COMPANY, INC. Hr. Richard Rollins NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (NEKA) Hr. A. H. Salazar UBTXTOEOUSE CORPORATION Hr. H. Sheppard Hr. V. H. Smith - AO* 007276 302 WATER PCB-SD0000017289 MONSANTO COMPANY P. 0. Benignua H. S. Bergen D. B. Hoamer \ t R. H. Munch V. B. Papageorge V. V. Withers C. Paton V. R. Richard J. R. Savage E. S. Tucker P. L. Wright -2- Market Manager Businesa Director Utilities and Environmental Protection Director Senior Science Pellow Manager, Product Acceptability Attorney Product Manager Manager, Research and Development Manager, Manufacturing Research Group Leader Manager, Toxicology AOM 007279 30 3 WATER PCB-SD0000017290 AGENDA PC3 EFFLUENT STANDARDS MEETING February 28, 1974 9:00 AM 9:10 AM 1. Welcome - H. S. Bergen \ . 4 2. Introductory Remarks - W. B. Papageorge a. Brief Review of Proposed Standard b. Critical Action Dates c. Objectives of Meeting 9:15 AM 9:45 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 Noon 12:30 PM 1:15 PM 2:00 PM 2l*5 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 3. Discussion Topics a. PCB Characteristics - Realistic Definition chemical, physical, biodegradation b. Sampling and Analytical Methodology Break c. Toxicity Acute Chronic d. Bloaccuaulation - Biomagnlflcation e. Dilution - Stream Size Lunch f. Proposed Effluent Standard g. Control at Kanufacturlng and Use Sites Current losses Background Break h. Economic Considerations 1. Action Plana Adjourn 00 7^ aU 304 WATER PCB-SD0000017291 MINUTES OP PCB EFFLUENT STANDARDS MEETING 1. Mr. Howard S. Bergen, Jr., Director, Specialty Products Business Group of Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company, welcomed the participants. \ 2. Introduction - V. a. Papageorge I Mr. Papageorge summarized the timetable past and future on toxic pollutants: July 6, 1973 - Toxic Pollutants list published September 7, 1973 - Pinal toxic pollutants list pub lished including PCBs and 8 other chemical classes (e.g. cyanide, mercury, DDT, cadmium, etc.) December 27, 1973 - Proposed Effluent Standards published January 18, 197* - Piling date for status as participant at proposed EPA Hear ing on Standards January 25, 197* - (i) Prehearing Conference with EPA (il)- HEMA, Monsanto, G.E. and Vestinghouse recognized as participants. (iil) A total of 38 objectors ex pressed an interest. They represented industry or trade associations with the exception of the Michigan Water Research Commission and two powerful environmental groups (Environmental Defense Pund and National Resources Defense Council). (iv) Presiding officer made it clear that Hearings will be atrlctly~for cross-examination of participants1 testimonies in affidavit form only. a CM 0072=1 305 WATER PCB-SD0000017292 -2- Karch 15, 1974 Written testimony by 38 objectors to be submitted in affidavit fora. April 8, 1974 - Hearings open for cross-examination and rebuttal evidence. CN"/Cd/Hg - first three. PCBa are 7th (third from last). Mid-May, 1974 Hearings completed. (Evenings/week ends may be used.) June 25, 1974 - 7Inal standards published - effective In one year. It should be noted that others who are affected by these standards can still comment by March 25 to: Dr. C. Hugh Thompson, Chairman-Hazardous and Toxic Substances Regulation Task Force Office of Water Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency Washington D. C. 20460 Industry representatives still wishing to comment and who need more background information can contact any of the industry participants (see attached list) or Mr. W. B. Papageorge of Monsanto (314-694-4051). Mr. Rlchel (Q.E.): (i)Made a plea for greater industry participation. Comments can still be made up to March 25 with sound excuse for tardiness. (li) E?A at January 25 prehearing Conference were reluctant to expose themaelves to cross-examination.- Dr. Hugh Thompson to be available for cross-examination at Hearings. (ill) Many objectors had common interest (e.g. environmentalists). EPA suggested a common counsel for this group. (lv) On each of first 3 pollutants, EPA would offer 2 witnesses. Mr. Doty (P.R. Mallory) aaked about bearing of economic factors on standards. . Mr. Rlchel (Q.E.) stated: (l) Law is clear-economic facton are not relevant in establishing standards. (ll) EPA is somewhat of a split personality on this. The -10.1 00 72 J2 306 WATER PCB-SD0000017293 -3- Presiding Officer at the Prehearing Conference ruled that economics are relevant. NRDC (National Resources Defense Council) objected and waa over-ruled. (ill) Industry can and should therefore introduce relevant economic data. EPA would be wise not to expressly refer to such data in th'e published standard otherwise NRDC could go to court ^nd EPA over-ruled. Department of Commerce It waa pointed out that Sidney R. Oalller, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs at the Department of Commerce wrote Monsanto on January 15 asking their views on the proposed effluent standards. Copies of Dr. Qalller'a letter and Monsanto's response were circulated at the meeting. Industry should contact the Dept, of Commerce. Their legal counsel (Mr. Morland) has been active on the side of industry in other environmental hearings. Mr. Salazar (NEMA) pointed out that the PCB Task Porce had recommended a standard for PCBa of 0.01 ppb in the main body of water. (EPA was a member of that task force). ANSlC-lig proposes to use this Task Porce recommendation and print this as a standard of 0.01 ppb in main body of water. Mr. Sheppard (Vestlnghouae) queried if plant effluent standards could be set to meet 0.01ppb. Dr. Simons (O.E.) said this implied an acceptance of ANSI C-119 by industry. There seemed to be some doubt on this., PCB Characteristics " Dr. Tucker (Monsanto) presented hand-outs on: ' (a) Monsanto's proposed definition of PCBs ` (b) Comments on SPA'* proposed analytical methodology (c) Monsanto's pre-publication paper on biodegradation of PCBa. (a) Definition of PCBa 1-4 chlorobiphenyla do not have long residence time. PCBa up to tetrachlorobiphenyl are not of concern on environmental persistence or biomagnlfication. Dr. Tucker proposed the following definition: aDM 007*33 307 WATER PCB-SD0000017294 'Polychlorinated blphenyla (PCBa) means materials containing the biphenyl group _ which la chlorinated and which have been ' shown to persist and rapidly bioaccumulate - in the aquatic environment. These ` chlorinated, biphenyls are identified as those compoaenta having gas chromatographic retention ti,aea greater than 54, relative to p, p-DEE p 100, under the standard con ditions recommended in the EPA PCB test method." Mr. Sheppard (Westlnghouae) said Monsanto's proposed definition was relevant to persistence but was it relevant for standards directed toward toxic materials? Are persistent materials non toxic? Mr. Wright (Monsanto) stated the proposed effluent standard had two pares: (i) acute limits directed to toxicity of materials and specifically limits PCB concentrations on that basis. (li) daily load in effluent - based solely on bio magnification (relevant to persistence). Dr. Simons (G.S.) pointed out that section 307-A of the proposed standard reiera to persistence as being a critical factor to be considered. Dr. Tucker (Monsanto) stated we were badly hurt if all PCBa are regarded as persistent and if biomagnificatlon factors of 200,000 are used. Researchers other than Monsanto have found bacterial degradation of PCBa and that PCBa have been found to undergo metabolism in both avlarlmn and masuaallan animals. Mr. Kelson (Q.E.) aslced if proposed PCB definition would exclude Aroclor 1016. . Dr, Tucker (Monsanto) Aroclor 1016 would be excluded for the moat part 1* lower than pentachloroblphenyl). Aroclor 1242 would bm excluded to 65^ or better. Aroclor 1254 however would not Mm excluded. Mr. ^pmgeorge (Monsanto) pointed out that of the factors listed as being critical in determining which pollutants made the EPA list of 9/7/73 only biomagnif icatlon appeared relevant to PCBs. Dr. Elaona (G.E.) agreed. AOM 00 7 2 3t 308 WATER PCB-SD0000017295 Mr. Wright (Monsanto) stated that an acuta toxicological level Is-HaTTnaTtn-tEF'TFA Basis t Purpose document as ^ 10 ppm (96 hour LC-50). He also believes that differences in toxicity among PC3a are minor until chlorinated as high as Aroclor 1260. Mr. Kelson (O.E.) stated that words should be used in a dis course on definition to properly screen us on acute toxicity. In reference to a cooaqpt that Aroclor 1254 would not be excluded by the proposed definition, Dr. Tucker (Monsanto) offered the opinion that transformer fluids were easier to re cover than capacitors. (b) Analytical Methodology Dr. Tucker (Monsanto) stated the EPA's proposed method for PCB analysis was being submitted to ASTM. He thought the method was well written and capable of detection to ppt (parts per trillion) but it was untried and the quantitative accuracy is in question. The method was not submitted for round-robin testing before EPA adopted it. Monsanto has found that by spiking distilled water with 500,000 ppt or 500 ppb of PCBa we get values for PCB that vary by 55^* Tfte EPA, however, claims a capability of detecting absolute values at 50 ppt. The EPA method ignores interfering substances. Mr. Clark (Universal Manufacturing) said that with a proposed upper limit for PCB discharge of 5.0648 lb./day the sensitivity of the analytical method would vary "all over the lot" depending on the size of the water "reservoir" into which the PCBs dis charge . Mr. Sheppard (Vestlnghouse) commented that if the analytical techniques on determining PCB levels are so difficult, how valid are the determination of toxic values for PCBa. Mr. Clark (Universal Manufacturing) asked if analytical techniques differentiate between different chlorine levels. Dr. Tucker (Monsanto) said it would depend on the PCB mixture"! Aroclor 1242 could probably be identified quantitatively in a mixture with Aroclor 1260 but addition of Aroclor 1254 to the mixture would prevent identification because Aroclor 1254 contains PCB homologa that overlap both Aroclor 1242 and 1260. Dr. Mhpjh (Monsanto)said that the proposed EPA method does not resolution and hence handicaps identification of individual peaks. ' Dr. Simons (O.E.) mentioned that after EPA set automotive emission standards (NIOX) the analytical methodology was found faulty and the standards were delayed. In this case, EPA is not setting the effluent standard on analytical methodology but -3* 30S WATER_PCB-SD0000017296 -6- on factors such as toxicity and persistence. The methodology is relevant in enforcement and monitoring. This then leads to the possible argument that the effluent standard la correct and Justified'on the basis of toxicology et al, but la not enforceable due to lack of an accurate method for absolute value deter mination of PCB discharge. , -'V< Mr. Rlchel (Q.S.) pointed out that EPA won't buy an answer to that arguaent which seeks to raise the effluent- atandard to a level that can be accurately measured. Mr. Savage (Monsanto) felt strongly, however, 'that this dilemma needed to be in the record. Others agreed. Dr. Tucker (Monsanto) said ASTM would hold a round-robin on the EPA method and that Monsanto would participate. He will send the name of the ASTM contact to the participants so that they can decide if they want to Join the round-robin test. Mr. Sheppard (Westlngbouae) said he was not prepared to accept that the proposed E?I method for determining quantities and types of PCB in samples and animals was accurate enough so that toxic limits could be defined on the basis of PCB levels of question able accuracy. Toxicity Mr. Hosmcr (Monsanto) stated that the original EPA publication on Water Quality Criteria came from a publication by McKee and Volfe for the State of California. The McKee/Volfe volume was well done and EPA did not change much of it. There is now a new 2-volume EPA edition extracted from the work of 10 committees of the National Academy of Sciences. The toxicity of PCBa la related to salmon egg studies and Monsanto doubts the validity of this. Monsanto has made their feelings known to Dr. Thompson of EPA but he thought the criteria were sound. Since then Russell Train'has been sued by NRDC and other groups on the grounds that the toxic pollutants list la not long enough and the proposed standards are too len- . lent. Mr. Wright (Monsanto) went through the rationale used by EPA in arriving at a PCB discharge maximum of 0.06b8 lb./day. He also showed bow the standard could be changed and yet be consistent with jobliabed data on PCBs. Details follow. (a) PDA set arbrltary proposed tolerances: 5 ppa in fish for human consumption 5 PP in components for animal feed 0.5 ppm in complete animal feed 001 z 310 WATER PCB-SD0000017297 -7- (b) fcnaanto would not disagree with these tolerances. (c) PDA has presented - acute toxicity Units (point sources) - chronic toxicity Halts (dally load) Acute toxicity Halts; 96 hour LC-50 studies for PCBs show: . ~280 ppb in fre&h water (bluegill) --10 ppb In coastal or seawater (pink ahrlmp/oysters) Published data based on naterlals leaving an outlet and going into a body of water. Acute Halts have no direct relation to chronic Halts. Chronic toxicity Halts: The EPA equation Is: Chronic Halt X water flow rate X safety factor gm/day discharge In Karine organisns the chronic Halt is set as In fresh water the chronic Halt has been determined by using 0.5 ppm as toxic Halt for salmon eggs and a 200,000 bio magnification factor. This gives a chronic Halt of The biomagnlficatlon level of 200,000 is based on unpublished data froo Stalling t Kever (Pish Pesticide Lab, U. S. Dept, of Interior, Colombia, Ko.). Dr. Slyns fald that In response to repeated requests by Q.E. to the Columbia Lab the only reference ' they have been given is a Stalling fc Keyer paper presented In Carolina in 1971 and which contains no mention of a 200,000 factor. Kr. Vright (Monsanto) stated he has seen only one literature reference to an accumulation factor of --200,000 and that was in thm bepato pancreas of a pink shrimp. If the PCB level was calculated on the basis of the total shrimp then the accumulation factor was only 22,000." Other references give accumulation factors of 1000-75*000 for whole tissues of various fresh water organisms. Accordingly, Kr. Wright proposes that a biomagnlfIcatlon factor of 30,000 and not 200,000 be used. He also proposes that we retain the chronic limit of 0.5 ppm with out debating the salmon egg issue. ADH 007237 311 WATER PCB-SD0000017298 -8- Thl would lead to a discharge level for PCBa: 0.5 r- 10,000 X 30, oOC (flow rate) . 0.5 X (safety factor) 5.4 (conversion into lb./ day) . 0.459 lb./day This compares to the proposed standard of 0.06AS lb./day. The safety factor cones'.from the EPA's Basis and Purpose document supporting the proposed effluent standards. It is supposed to take account of non-point sources of PCBs and is the same as 6 of the 9 toxic pollutants proposed for EPA standards. Monsanto's Medical Department feels this safety factor is arbitrary and confers no real toxicological benefit. If deleted, the revised Wright PCB discharge level would be O.918 lb./day. One of the most critical parts of the discharge equation is the water flow rate? A significant number of dielectric PCB canufacturers have plants on rivers where the flow rate Is under 100 cfs or 1% of the EPA cut-off flow of 10,000 cfs. Several plants discharge into sewage plants which in turn have treated liquid flowing into rivers or streams with very low flow rates. For a river with 100 cfs flow the EPA maximum discharge would drop to 0.000648 lb./day or 0.1b2 lb. in a 250 work-day year. Even a revised standard of 0.91d lb./day at 10,000 cfs would only be 0.00918 lb./day at 100 cfs or 2.3 lb. per 250 work-day year. Clearly this la a staggering target to nave to meet. . Mr. Doty (Mallory) pointed out thait in the present language of the EPA standards municipal sewage systems are not considered point sources. Mr, Rlchel (Q.E.) was of the opinion that where a plaht dis charged into a sewage system without treatment and hence into navigable waters the plant could have to comply with effluent standards on toxic pollutants. Mr. Papageorge (Monsanto) felt we should not be complacent and regard discharge to sewage plants being the answer to problems. Mr. Hosmer (Monsanto) stated that 10,000 cfs represents the largest flow the E^A will consider on the grounds that all industry would move to the largest river. The opposite of that argument is that it encourages small plants on every stream in the country. ' Mr. Sheppard (Vestlnghouse) raised the issue of sedimentation. Since it appears that all the experiments to establish toxic values were run without sediment effects being considered, the real-life values were questioned. PCBs attach themselves to sediment. Furthermore the sediment moves down river and so PCB would be dispersed from the point source. It was pointed out by Dr. Richard (Monsanto) that Aroclor 1254 is soluble in water up to 50 ppb ana that in time partitioning between sediment and aOM 007230 312 WATER PCB-SD0000017299 -9- water could taka place. Mr. Wright (Monsanto) agreed that the discharge limit a were extrema cases In the absence of sediment conalderatlone and this was worth study and Incorporation Into arguawnta- agalnat the proposed levela. " ~" Dr. Simona (Q.E.) queried whether we were correct In concen trating our attacks on. the criterion of toxic effecta of axammala eating fiah and ignoring the possible argument that fiah per ae must be protected. Mr^ Wright (Monsanto) aaid the proposed standard aays both. In*salt water, standards are proposed that would protect the speciis that eat organisms containing PCB. In fresh water, if 0.5 PP* in salmon eggs correlates with <5 ppm in salmon then we are protecting salmon. He also said that the chronic limits and biooagniflcation limits he was proposing would protect the species themselves. Ve should, however, beware of arguing for higher levels in fish because we could draw EPA and PDA into conflict. The PDA levels in food, fish etc., are temporary tolerances and any arguments against their validity could lead to a reduction in these tolerances. Mr. Savage (Monsanto) queried whether raising the level in organisms could cause possible danger to predators. Dr. Simona (Q.E.) quoted from page 39 of the Basis 4 Purposes document which states that the body burdens of birds and mammals should not increase over present levela. Page 51 of the same document cites a Mat. Acad. Sci. report which gives 2.0 ppm PCB as tolerable level in flesh of whole fish. 2.0 * 0.1 DDm PCB -------- is given as tolerable level in water divided by a safety factor of 5 to give a maximum PCB concentration in water of 0.002 ppm. Thus EPA accepted 2 ppm PCB level in fish but got to water concentration of 0.002 pp* by using a high level of 200,000 for biomagniflcation and an arbitrary factor of 5. If we were to revise the proposed EPA standard by: % (i) using 2.0 ppm as chronic limit in fresh water species instead of 0.5 PP*; (ii) substituting 30,000 instead of 200,000 for biOMgniflcation factor; . and ignoring safety factor of 0.5 then the maximum permissible discharge in lb. PCB per day would be: 2.0 ,, 10.000 ^ 5.4 ~ 3.6 lb. 30; WO 1 ' X ` ADM 00 72a9 313 WATER PCB-SD0000017300 -10- Por the plant situation on a river with a flow of only 100 cfs the discharge would be O.036 lb/day or 9.0 lb. per 250 work-day year. These levels are still far below the 5 lb./day given in 5Bfl"C-107. It Is therefore apparent that other aspects of PCBa Bust be highlighted In order to get away from FOB discharge levels as low as even our "revised proposals. \ Aspects to concentrate Jjn are: (1) Definition of PCBa that excludes biodegradable homologs. This could exclude 90?C or better of Aroclor 1016 and 65% or better of Aroclor 1242. On that basis, discharge levels would be as follows: PCB Type Stream Discharge Tl'E'.POS 4tquivalent/day) Plow (cfs) EH Wright Simons/Vright Any PCB Any PCB Aroclor 101b Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1242 10,000 100 "10,000 100 10,000 100 0.0646 O.918 0.000648 0.00918 0.648 ~ 5.IB o.oo648 0.0918 0.194 2.75 0.0019 0.027 3.6 0.036 --------- sor-- 0.36 10.8 0.10 (2) Try to change stream flows from the present value of the flow rate in cubic feet per second (cfs) expressed as the probable low race occurring during a 7 consecutive day period once in 10 years at the effluent point. If the average flow rate over a period of time (to be agreed on) was used, the lowest flow rate in the equation could conceivably be raised by a factor of 10 fro* 100 to 1000. In the Simons/Vright version for a standard the Aroclor 1016 discharge could be raised to . 3.6 lb./day at 1000 cfs flow arid Aroclor 1242 to 1.0 lb./ 4ty at 1000 cfs flow. (3) fcgnltude of PCB Point-Sources It is possible that EPA and environmentalists are totally misinformed on the number of plants still using PCBa. In the U.S. today there are: AOH 007290 314 WATER PCB-SD0000017301 -11- 1 PCB manufacturing plant --18 capacitor plants using PCB -- 27 transformer manufacturing plants using PCB In the past there were probably 1500-2500* plants using PCBs. Only 2-3$ of these plants continue to use PCB today. * (Subject to closer checking if neeesaary) In the past -- 975^ of plants using PCBs purchased-- 40 million pounds of PCB per year. Monsanto's PCB sales policy has therefore - reduced number of using plants to -- 2-3^ of previous total. - eliminated -- 4oR lbs. PCB sales per year. The EPA standard would limit PCB discharge per plant to 0.0646 lb./day or--3.2 lb./day across the U.S. (-50 plants). This equates to --800 pounds in a 250 work-day year. Since fish have survived throughout the 40+ years that PCBs have been produced and widely used, the standard proposed by EPA seems far too drastic. Turning again to the Simons/Vright proposal we can estimate the effect in terms of annual PCB discharge into water across the U.S. at lOOOcfs: Discharge As Discharge (lb./day) No. Plants Bs Total per 250 days (pounds) As Persistent PCBs Discharge No. tfs (lb./day) Plants Total Any PCB Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1242 Aroclpr 1254 3.6 3.6 1.08 O.36 *1 900 18 16200 4 1080 23 2070 20.250 1.2 O.36 O.36 O.36 1 18 4 23___ 300 1620 360 2070 4350 * Plant is on river in excess of 10,000 cfs. Using this technique an argument can be made in favor of the ANSI C-107 proposal of 5.0 lb./day. AUrt 007291 315 WATER PCB-SD0000017302 -12- Proposed Effluent Standards Dr. Simona (O.E.) summarized the points he felt had to be dealt-, with in trying to change the proposed standard: 1.. Higher persistence of higher PCBa versus alleged lower acute toxicity \ 2. Background leiela of PCBa ' _ > 3. Written testimony of participants and correlation Toxicity EFA Basis 4 Purpose document (page 50) states that 96 hour LC-50 to fish cannot adequately measure toxicity of PCB. Where is time demarcation between acute and chronic. Chronic effects can be either lethal or non-lethal. Why are PCBa on the list on toxic grounds? LD-50 for PCB is such that it is not considered toxic to humans. For protection of aquatic life the Vat. Aca. Scl. set a 96 hour LC-50 of 10 ppm or less. In proposing a definition for PCBs, Dr. Simons (O.E.) felt we should stress: (a) lack of persistence of homologs below tetrachloroblphenyl. (b) chronic toxicity does not arise for the lower homologs because they are non-persistent. (c) ignore acute toxicity - no real differences between Aroclor 1016, 1242 and 1254.- Participants need to consider: Do we have the beat definition? In the tentative EPA analrtical method we should take note that in the table on p.3-22, tn e percentage of PCB was not controlled. Mr. Cylson (g.TJ.C.) pointed out that in lta present form the atla^R could saddle present PCB users with all other dis- contttwad uses. Dr. Richard (Monsanto) pointed out that PDA and Boxboard Manufacturer*s Association had agreed on a protocol that protected recycle pater users from Just such a situation. Mr. Bergen (Monsanto) asked that copies be circulated to participants. . ACM 007292 316 WATER PCB-SD0000017303 -13- Ve need to word our definitions'to exclude residuals. Participants should exchange proposed drafts on wording re garding rjaiduals by Kerch J. 0. g. stated we should not approach the hearing on the basis that things can't be done. Rather taka the proposed standard and point out what it means in real life. In O.S. 'a case they use X If lb./year and yet can't lost 0.5 drops per day. Stream flow rates make the matter worse, nils Is a point on which Dr. Thompson should be cross-examined. Of the participants present, 5 plants discharge Into sewers with outlets into rivers (very small except in 2 cases). Three plants discharge into small rivers. Ko one at the meeting could cope with the EPA standard as It Is propoaecfT Only Jard expressed an opinion on what level they could live with. (Jard stated 27 lb. Aroclor 1016 per day. This would be 2.7 lb. PCB by our proposed definition.) AuM 0072*3 317 WATER PCB-SD0000017304 -14- Partlclpatlon at EPA Hearing Definite jartlclpatlon: Monsanto 0. E. Vestinghouse Undecided: Electrical Utilities . Jard \ NEKA No participation: ' Electronic Components Mallory Objectors of recoil could adopt non-responding company as witness. G.E.'s testimony will fall into the following areas: - Explanation of why PCBs are used - Consequences of ban on customers - Inadequacy of EPA/Vat. Acad. Sci. statements - How standards would apply to G.E. - Inadequacies of the Standard - definition - methodology - logic behind the atandard Other contributory actions: - Involve Pederal Energy Office (e.g. Aerovox letter on motor-run capacitor contribution to ease energy crisis.) - - Involve P.E.O./other agencies along lines of petrochemical producers' PEG report. - Power Systems Group of IEEE will circulate a posi tion paper on PCBs (technical aspects) In the dielectric industry to Congress, EPA, PEO and Dept, of Commerce (target date: April). ` ^* AOM 00729<. 318 WATER PCB-SD0000017305 -15- Aetlon Plans 1. (V. B: Papageorge) Circulate to participant* copies of - . FDA/3oxboard Manufacturers protocol . on PCBa In recycle paper. # 2. (Participants) ^ Exchange drafts on testimony regarding { PCB residuala/baclcground levels with (each other by March 7. '.(Monsanto contact should be W. B. Papageorge.) 3. (Participants) Submit to W. B. Papageorge their thoughts on proposed PCB definition (to exclude 1-4 chlorine homologs). 4. (Participants) Communicate with each other on how best to handle sedimentation phenomenon (as raised by Mr. Sheppard of Westinghouae). 5. (E. S. Tucker) Send out name of ASTM contact for participation in round-robin on proposed EPA analytical method. 6. (Participants) Write to Dr. Caller of Commerce Dept, opposing EPA standards. (See Caller letter to Monsanto and Monsanto response.) 7. (Participants) Those who have not responded to EPA can still write Dr. Thompson by March 25. t 8. (A. Salasar, XEMA) (a) Cat feedback from Sangaao/KcQraw Edison on the proposed standards. (b) Determine role MEMA. will take on affidavits/testiswny at EPA hearing. . ' 9. ()L I. Papageorge) Obtain PEC report and send to Mr. Kelson (C.Z.). 10. Cftwt ic ipanta) Involve F.E.O. in EPA Hearing along lines of Aerovox letter to Secretary Simon. AOH 007295 319 WATER PCB-SD0000017306