26 



case if that is the way I understand it to be — a more lenient stand- 

 ard? 



Mr. Caspe. The 10-part-per-trillion standard that was used, that 

 EPA is deeming is acceptable, was based upon New York State De- 

 partment of Health criteria for fish flesh — for fish fillets. It as- 

 sumed a variety of very conservative assumptions because really 

 the 10 parts per trillion is a 28-day concentration of dioxin in 

 worms that are allowed to grow in this area. It assumes that the 

 worm is then eaten, and it goes directly into a fish to some degree 

 on a one-for-one basis. So the 10 parts per trillion would equate 

 into a 10 parts per trillion in the fish itself. That is very conserva- 

 tive because all the numbers, in fact, are actually around zero 

 point seven — point eight at maximum. We used one point zero just 

 to be conservative in that regard. 



Then once you get into the fish, the 10 part per trillion would be 

 whole fish weight which includes a lot of the fatty and non-edible 

 tissue. We used the 10-part-per-trillion number that New York 

 State used for the fish fillet. The fillets are always much lower ac- 

 tually in dioxin, and then we capped on it. We suggested capping 

 on top of that so it was a very, very conservative number. 



The four part per trillion, I believe, was actually three parts per 

 trillion if I am correct, and that number really comes from, again, 

 another standard that has been taken from Great Lakes work, and 

 it is based upon protection of mammals. And actually that is based 

 upon protection of a mink. There are fish in the Great Lakes that 

 would, again, concentrate the dioxin, and then mink have a 

 strange eating habit. They only eat these fish. So that is what the 

 elevation is. So the three parts per trillion was based upon protect- 

 ing mink in the Great Lakes which is very different, obviously, 

 than the environment that we are dealing with in the ocean. 



The 10 part per trillion we felt was more than effective in pro- 

 tecting against fish and against human health. As far as mammals 

 in the ocean, we don't have the data at this stage of the game to 

 give those. 



Mr. Pallone. I hope I am hearing you wrong, but it seemed like 

 you are suggesting to me that the mink had a better standard than 

 humans. 



Mr. Caspe. What I am saying is that mink only eat — this is their 

 sole food supply. So as it is their sole food supply, they, obviously, 

 eat an awful lot of it, and so their intake is much greater than 

 what any other mammal or any other species would be taking in. 

 Therefore, that standard would be based upon that particular spe- 

 cies, and that is the mink, and that was the three-part-per-trillion 

 number. That is correct. 



Mr. Pallone. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Green. Any more questions? 



Mr. Pallone. I did want to ask one other thing if that is OK. I 

 know you have another panel, but I guess we will probably vote in 

 between. 



Mr. Green. Mr. Saxton wcnted to submit some for the record 

 and then come back. 



Mr. Pallone. Sure. 



Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a 

 chronology of events regarding the proposed ocean disposal dioxin- 



