Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations, 17645-17667 [2010-7751]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
safety. We will request approval of the
incorporation by reference of the 2009
edition of NFPA 101 from the Office of
the Federal Register. We are not aware
of any significant changes from the 2006
edition to the 2009 edition.
This document for which we are
seeking incorporation by reference is
available for inspection by appointment
(call (202) 461–4902 for an
appointment) at the Department of
Veterans Affairs, Office of Regulation
Policy and Management, Room 1063B,
810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20420 between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday (except holidays). It is
also available at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this document at NARA, call 202–741–
6030, or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html. In addition, copies
may be obtained from the National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02269–9101. (For
ordering information, call toll-free
1–800–344–3555 or go to https://
www.nfpa.org.)
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
given year. This rule would have no
such effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document contains no
collections of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3521).
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that
this regulatory amendment would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This
rulemaking would affect veterans and
State homes. The State homes that
would be subject to this rulemaking are
State government entities under the
control of State governments. All State
homes are owned, operated and
managed by State governments except
for a small number that are operated by
entities under contract with State
governments. These contractors are not
small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this rule would be exempt
from the initial and final regulatory
flexibility analysis requirements of
sections 603 and 604.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The
Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ requiring review by
the Office of Management and Budget as
any regulatory action that is likely to
result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or interfere with
an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in Executive Order.
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this proposed rule have
been examined, and it has been
determined not to be a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance numbers and titles for the
programs affected by this document are
64.005, Grants to States for Construction
of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind
Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans
Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans
Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans
Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans
Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans
Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans
Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans
State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans
State Nursing Home Care; 64.016,
Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018,
Sharing Specialized Medical Resources;
64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol
and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans
Home Based Primary Care; and 64.026,
Veterans State Adult Day Health Care.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17645
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. John
R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department
of Veterans Affairs, approved this
document on March 1, 2010, for
publication.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 51
Administrative practice and
procedure, claims, day care, dental
health, government contracts, grant
programs—health, grant programs—
veterans, health care, health facilities,
health professions, health records,
mental health programs, nursing homes,
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, travel and transportation
expenses, Veterans.
Dated: April 1, 2010.
Robert C. McFetridge,
Director, Regulation Policy and Management.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, VA proposes to amend 38
CFR part 51 as follows:
PART 51—PER DIEM FOR NURSING
HOME CARE OF VETERANS IN STATE
HOMES
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741–
1743, 1745.
§ 51.200
[Amended]
2. Amend § 51.200 by removing the
phrase ‘‘(2006 edition)’’ each place it
appears and adding, in its place, ‘‘(2009
edition)’’.
[FR Doc. 2010–7811 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757; FRL–8811–7]
RIN 2070–AJ38
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Reassessment of Use Authorizations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM).
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing an ANPRM for
the use and distribution in commerce of
certain classes of PCBs and PCB items
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
17646
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
and certain other areas of the PCB
regulations under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). EPA is reassessing
its TSCA PCB use and distribution in
commerce regulations to address: The
use, distribution in commerce, marking,
and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in
electric and non-electric equipment; the
use of the 50 parts per million (ppm)
level for excluded PCB products; the use
of non-liquid PCBs; the use and
distribution in commerce of PCBs in
porous surfaces; and the marking of PCB
articles in use. Also in this document,
EPA is also reassessing the definitions
of ‘‘excluded manufacturing process,’’
‘‘quantifiable level/level of detection,’’
and ‘‘recycled PCBs.’’ EPA is soliciting
comments on these and other areas of
the PCB use regulations. EPA is not
soliciting comments on the PCB
disposal regulations in this document.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 6, 2010.
See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for meeting dates and other
deadlines associated with the meetings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document
Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg.,
Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757.
The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the DCO’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2009–0757. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be
made available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or e-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
mail. The regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
at https://www.regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of
the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566–0280. Docket visitors are required
to show photographic identification,
pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are
processed through an X-ray machine
and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times in the building and
returned upon departure.
See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for meeting locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:
TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
For technical information contact:
John H. Smith, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(202) 566–0512; e-mail address:
smith.johnh@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you you manufacture,
process, distribute in commerce, use, or
dispose of PCBs. Potentially affected
entities may include, but are not limited
to:
• Utilities (NAICS code 22), e.g.,
Electric power and light companies,
natural gas companies.
• Manufacturers (NAICS codes 31–
33), e.g., Chemical manufacturers,
electroindustry manufacturers, endusers of electricity, general contractors.
• Transportation and Warehousing
(NAICS codes 48–49), e.g., Various
modes of transportation including air,
rail, water, ground, and pipeline.
• Real Estate (NAICS code 53), e.g.,
People who rent, lease, or sell
commercial property.
• Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services (NAICS code 54),
e.g., Testing laboratories, environmental
consulting.
• Public Administration (NAICS
code 92), e.g., Federal, State, and local
agencies.
• Waste Management and
Remediation Services (NAICS code
562), e.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g.,
storage facilities, landfills, incinerators),
waste treatment and disposal,
remediation services, material recovery
facilities, waste transporters.
• Repair and Maintenance (NAICS
code 811), e.g., Repair and maintenance
of appliances, machinery, and
equipment.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
40 CFR part 761. If you have any
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
With this document, EPA is issuing
an ANPRM for the use and distribution
in commerce of certain classes of PCBs
and PCB items and certain other areas
of the PCB regulations under TSCA.
EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
and distribution in commerce
regulations, 40 CFR part 761, subparts B
and C, to address:
1. The use, distribution in commerce,
marking, and storage for reuse of liquid
PCBs in electric and non-electric
equipment.
2. The use of the 50 ppm level for
excluded PCB products.
3. The use of non-liquid PCBs.
4. The use and distribution in
commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces.
5. The marking of PCB articles in use.
EPA is also reassessing the definitions
of ‘‘excluded manufacturing process,’’
‘‘quantifiable level/level of detection,’’
and ‘‘recycled PCBs’’ in 40 CFR part 761,
subpart A.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
The authority for this action comes
from TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of
TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B) and (C))
as well as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15
U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). Section 6(e)(2)(A)
of TSCA provides that ‘‘no person may
manufacture, process, or distribute in
commerce or use any polychlorinated
biphenyl in a manner other than in a
totally enclosed manner’’ after January 1,
1978. However, TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B)
provides EPA with the authority to issue
regulations allowing the use and
distribution in commerce of PCBs in a
manner other than in a totally enclosed
manner if the EPA Administrator finds
that the use and distribution in
commerce ‘‘will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment.’’ (EPA’s authority to
allow distribution of PCBs in commerce
is limited to those PCB items that were
‘‘sold for purposes other than resale’’
before April 1978 (TSCA section
6(e)(3)(C) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(C))).
Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA defines
‘‘totally enclosed manner’’ as ‘‘any
manner which will ensure that any
exposure of human beings or the
environment by the polychlorinated
biphenyl will be insignificant as
determined by the Administrator by
rule.’’ Section 6(e)(1)(B) of TSCA directs
EPA to promulgate rules to require PCBs
to be marked with clear and adequate
warnings and instructions (15 U.S.C.
2605(e)(1)(B)).
III. Context of this ANPRM
In the 1970s, commercial manufacture
of PCBs in the United States ceased. A
substantial portion of the PCBs that had
already been manufactured were still in
use in many areas of the country; in
1976 EPA estimated that of 1.4 billion
pounds (lbs.) of PCBs produced in the
United States, 750 million lbs. remained
in service in the country.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17647
Approximately 75% of the PCBs
produced were for use as liquids in
electrical or industrial equipment (Ref.
1). For some specific types of
equipment, such as electrical capacitors,
virtually all of the large number of units
manufactured and in use contained
PCBs, but for other types of equipment,
such as electromagnets, only a small
number of units contained PCBs (Ref. 2).
TSCA became effective on January 1,
1977. Section 6(e) of TSCA generally
prohibited the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs and charged EPA with issuing
regulations for the marking and disposal
of PCBs. EPA published the first
regulations addressing the use of
equipment containing PCBs on May 31,
1979 (Ref. 3). Over the 30 years since
then, many changes have taken place in
the industry sectors that use such
equipment, and EPA believes that the
balance of risks and benefits from the
continued use of remaining equipment
containing PCBs may have changed
enough to consider amending the
regulations.
A. Regulatory History
On December 30, 1977, EPA
published a notice in the Federal
Register stating that implementation of
the January 1, 1978 ban imposed by
TSCA was being postponed until 30
days after the promulgation of new
regulations (Ref. 4). On May 31, 1979,
EPA promulgated these regulations (Ref.
3). The regulations found that PCB
liquid-filled capacitors, electromagnets,
and transformers (other than railroad
transformers) met the statutory
definition of ‘‘totally enclosed,’’ and
were exempt from the ban in TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(A) on manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, or
use. This EPA finding meant that it was
not necessary to specifically authorize
the use of these types of PCB-containing
equipment. In this same regulation, EPA
also authorized, in accordance with
TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), the use of other
liquid-filled equipment that was not
totally enclosed (railroad transformers,
heat transfer systems, and hydraulic
systems), based on a finding that the use
would pose no unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment,
subject to conditions. One of the
conditions EPA imposed on the
authorization of most non-totally
enclosed uses was a time limit on the
use of PCBs at or above the established
50 ppm PCB regulatory cutoff. In the
June 7, 1978 (Ref. 5), proposed rule for
the use authorizations, EPA discussed
its authority and rationale for
establishing use limits:
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17648
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to
authorize by rule the manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce, and
use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed manner
if these activities will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. EPA has determined that
certain non-totally enclosed PCB use
activities will not present an unreasonable
risk and proposed to authorize these use
activities for a period of 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule. At that time,
EPA will examine the need for continuing
these authorizations.
(Ref. 5, p. 24807)
EPA has not previously undertaken a
reassessment. In making this
determination to make a reassessment,
EPA weighed the effects of PCBs on
health and the environment, the
magnitude of exposure, and the
reasonably ascertainable economic
consequences of the rule. This
determination is fully discussed in the
support/voluntary draft environmental
impact statement. These proposed time
limits were, with minor modifications,
adopted in the final rule:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Unlike all other activities that may be
subject to an authorization under TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(B), use activities are not
prohibited under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A).
Accordingly, there is no automatic limit to
the length of use authorizations. In deciding
how long to authorize each use, EPA believes
that it should have the opportunity to review
each use in a timely way to ensure that there
is no unreasonable risk associated with its
continuation. In addition, improved
technology or development of new PCB
substitutes could reduce the need for the
authorization. Accordingly EPA proposed a
five-year limit on most use authorizations;
however, no such limit was proposed on the
use authorization for PCBs in electric
equipment.
(Ref. 3, p. 31530)
After the May 31,1979, rule was
published, the Environmental Defense
Fund, Inc., (EDF) petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit to review the portion
of the 1979 regulation which designated
the use of ‘‘intact and non-leaking’’ PCB
liquid filled capacitors, electromagnets,
and transformers (other than railroad
transformers) as ‘‘totally enclosed.’’ On
October 30, 1980, the court decided that
there was insufficient evidence in the
record to support the Agency’s
classification of the equipment as
‘‘totally enclosed’’ (Ref. 6). The court
vacated this portion of the rule and
remanded it to EPA for further action.
EPA, EDF, and certain industry
interveners petitioned the court to stay
the mandate while EPA conducted
rulemaking beginning with an ANPRM,
and a utility industry group agreed to
develop factual information necessary
for the rulemaking. The court granted
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
the request for a stay and the text of the
court order was published with EPA’s
ANPRM on March 10, 1981 (Ref. 7). On
August 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule
authorizing the use of capacitors,
electromagnets, and transformers other
than railroad transformers, in
accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B)
(Ref. 8). Time limits were imposed on
the use of certain types of PCB
equipment posing an exposure risk to
food and feed. Since 1982 there have
been additional rulemakings (e.g., Refs.
9 and 10), which, with certain
exceptions, have continued to allow the
use of PCB-containing equipment, the
passive removal of PCB-containing
equipment from use through attrition,
and to require the disposal of PCBs and
PCB-containing equipment in an
environmentally sound manner.
B. PCB Use Authorizations
Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the
following liquid-filled PCB equipment
is authorized for use in a non-totally
enclosed manner:
• Electrical transformers.
• Railroad transformers.
• Mining equipment.
• Heat transfer systems.
• Hydraulic systems.
• Electromagnets.
• Switches.
• Voltage regulators.
• Electrical capacitors.
• Circuit breakers.
• Reclosers.
• Liquid-filled cable.
• Rectifiers.
The servicing, in accordance with
specified conditions, of the following
liquid-filled equipment is also
authorized:
• Electrical transformers.
• Railroad transformers.
• Electromagnets.
• Switches.
• Voltage regulators.
• Circuit breakers.
• Reclosers.
• Liquid-filled cable.
• Rectifiers.
Liquid PCBs are authorized for use
where they are a contaminant in the
following equipment:
• Natural gas pipeline systems.
• Contaminated natural gas pipe and
appurtenances.
• Other gas or liquid transmission
systems.
There are also use authorizations for
certain non-liquid PCBs applications:
Carbonless copy paper and porous
surfaces contaminated with PCBs
regulated for disposal by spills of liquid
PCBs. There are other use authorizations
for research and development (40 CFR
761.30(j)), for scientific instruments (40
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CFR 761.30(k)), and for decontaminated
materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)).
However, there are no use
authorizations for non-liquid PCBcontaining products if they contain
PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm,
including but not limited to adhesives,
caulk, coatings, grease, paint, rubber or
plastic electrical insulation, gaskets,
sealants, and waxes.
In 40 CFR 761.35, storage for reuse of
authorized PCB articles is allowed for
up to 5 years, or longer if kept in a
storage unit complying with TSCA or
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements.
C. Distribution in Commerce
Regulations
Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA states,
‘‘The term ‘totally enclosed manner’
means any manner which will ensure
that any exposure of human beings or
the environment to a polychlorinated
biphenyl will be insignificant as
determined by the Administrator by
rule.’’ The definition established by rule
in 40 CFR 761.3 is, ‘‘Totally enclosed
manner means any manner that will
ensure no exposure of human beings or
the environment to any concentration of
PCBs.’’
EPA has found that the distribution in
commerce of intact and non-leaking
equipment is ‘‘totally enclosed.’’ See 40
CFR 761.20 (Ref. 3, p. 31542). Therefore,
no authorization is required for the
distribution in commerce for use of
intact and non-leaking, liquid-filled
electrical equipment, so long as the
equipment was sold for purposes other
than resale before July 1, 1979. Section
40 CFR 761.20 states:
In addition, the Administrator hereby
finds, for purposes of section 6(e)(2)(C) of
TSCA, that any exposure of human beings or
the environment to PCBs, as measured or
detected by any scientifically acceptable
analytical method, may be significant,
depending on such factors as the quantity of
PCBs involved in the exposure, the
likelihood of exposure to humans and the
environment, and the effect of exposure. For
purposes of determining which PCB Items
are totally enclosed, pursuant to section
6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since exposure to such
Items may be significant, the Administrator
further finds that a totally enclosed manner
is a manner which results in no exposure to
humans or the environment to PCBs. The
following activities are considered totally
enclosed: distribution in commerce of intact,
nonleaking electrical equipment such as
transformers (including transformers used in
railway locomotives and self-propelled cars),
capacitors, electromagnets, voltage
regulators, switches (including sectionalizers
and motor starters), circuit breakers,
reclosers, and cable that contain PCBs at any
concentration and processing and
distribution in commerce of PCB Equipment
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
containing an intact, nonleaking PCB
Capacitor.
Since then, EPA has gathered
information showing measurable
emissions of PCBs from some otherwise
intact and non-leaking equipment,
which is not energized (providing or
receiving electricity), to the ambient air
(Ref. 11). ‘‘Weeps’’ and ‘‘seeps’’ and other
leaks are visual indicators that the
distribution in commerce of some of this
equipment could result in exposure to
humans or the environment to PCBs.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. PCB Health Effects
The following information about the
health effects of PCBs is taken directly
from the 1996 EPA document entitled
‘‘PCBs: Cancer Dose Response
Assessment and Application to
Environmental Mixtures’’ (Ref. 12),
which is the source document for the
1997 EPA Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) file for PCBs. The
information is referenced in the 1997
EPA IRIS file for PCBs under heading
II.A.2 (Human Carcinogenicity Data), it
states in part:
Occupational studies show some increases
in cancer mortality in workers exposed to
PCBs. Bertazzi et al. (1987) found significant
excess cancer mortality at all sites combined
and in the gastrointestinal tract in workers
exposed to PCBs containing 54 and 42
percent chlorine. Brown (1987) found
significant excess mortality from cancer of
the liver, gall bladder, and biliary tract in
capacitor manufacturing workers exposed to
Aroclors 1254, 1242, and 1016. Sinks et al.
(1992) found significant excess malignant
melanoma mortality in workers exposed to
Aroclors 1242 and 1016. Some other studies,
however, found no increases in cancer
mortality attributable to PCB exposure
(ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistency
overall limits the ability to draw definitive
conclusions from these studies. Incidents in
Japan and Taiwan where humans consumed
rice oil contaminated with PCBs showed
some excesses of liver cancer, but this has
been attributed, at least in part, to heating of
the PCBs and rice oil, causing formation of
chlorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR, 1993;
Safe, 1994).
A study of rats fed diets containing
Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, or 1016 found
statistically significant, dose-related,
increased incidences of liver tumors from
each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996). Earlier
studies found high, statistically significant
incidences of liver tumors in rats ingesting
Aroclor 1260 or Clophen A 60 (Kimbrough et
al., 1975; Norback and Weltman, 1985;
Schaeffer et al., 1984). Partial lifetime studies
found precancerous liver lesions in rats and
mice ingesting PCB mixtures of high or low
chlorine content.
Several mixtures and congeners test
positive for tumor promotion (Silberhorn et
al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB congeners is
correlated with induction of mixed-function
oxidases; some congeners are phenobarbitaltype inducers, some are 3-
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
17649
methylcholanthrene-type inducers, and some
have mixed inducing properties (McFarland
and Clarke, 1989). The latter two groups most
resemble 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
in structure and toxicity.
Overall, the human studies have been
considered to provide limited (IARC, 1987) to
inadequate (U.S. EPA, 1988a) evidence of
carcinogenicity. The animal studies,
however, have been considered to provide
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity (IARC,
1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). Based on these
findings, some commercial PCB mixtures
have been characterized as probably
carcinogenic to humans (IARC, 1987; U.S.
EPA, 1988a). There has been some
controversy about how this conclusion
applies to PCB mixtures found in the
environment.
particularly sensitive indicators of toxicity in
monkeys exposed either as adults, or during
pre- or postnatal periods.
(Ref. 13)
In addition to cancer, the 1996
document states, ‘‘Although not covered
by this report PCBs also have significant
ecological and human health effects
other than cancer, including
neurotoxicity, reproductive and
developmental toxicity, immune system
suppression, liver damage, skin
irritation, and endocrine disruption.
Toxic effects have been observed from
acute and chronic exposures to PCB
mixtures with varying chlorine content’’
(Ref. 12).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological
Profile for PCBs of November 2000
(2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile) is a
more recent review of the toxicity of
PCBs. The study’s summary of health
effects (chapter 2.2) states:
The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological
Profile for PCBs summarizes the
environmental fate, transport, and
bioaccumulation of PCBs as follows:
The preponderance of the biomedical data
from human and laboratory mammal studies
provide strong evidence of the toxic potential
of exposure to PCBs. Information on health
effects of PCBs is available from studies of
people exposed in the workplace, by
consumption of contaminated rice oil in
Japan (the Yusho incident) and Taiwan (the
Yu-Cheng incident), by consumption of
contaminated fish, and via general
environmental exposures, as well as food
products of animal origin....[H]ealth effects
that have been associated with exposure to
PCBs in humans and/or animals include
liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular changes,
immunological alterations,
neurodevelopmental changes, reduced birth
weight, reproductive toxicity, and cancer.
The human studies of the Yusho and YuCheng poisoning incidents, contaminated
fish consumption, and general populations
are complicated by the mixture nature of PCB
exposure and possible interactions between
the congeneric components and other
chemicals.... Therefore, although PCBs may
have contributed to adverse health effects in
these human populations, it cannot be
determined with certainty which congeners
may have caused the effects. Animal studies
have shown that PCBs induce effects in
monkeys at lower doses than in other
species, and that immunological, dermal/
ocular, and neurobehavioral changes are
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(Ref. 14)
EPA continues to examine more
recent scientific studies on the health
effects of PCBs and seeks comments
and/or information on the health effects
of PCBs available since the 1997 EPA
update of IRIS and since the 2000
ATSDR Toxicological Profile. Any
proposed or final PCB rulemaking
which relies on PCB health effects will
use information subject to EPA’s
rigorous peer-review process.
E. PCB Environmental Effects
Once in the environment, PCBs do not
readily break down and therefore may remain
for very long periods of time. They can easily
cycle between air, water, and soil. For
example, PCBs can enter the air by
evaporation from both soil and water. In air,
PCBs can be carried long distances and have
been found in snow and sea water in areas
far away from where they were released into
the environment, such as in the arctic. As a
consequence, PCBs are found all over the
world. In general, the lighter the type of
PCBs, the further they may be transported
from the source of contamination. PCBs are
present as solid particles or as a vapor in the
atmosphere. They will eventually return to
land and water by settling as dust or in rain
and snow. In water, PCBs may be transported
by currents, attach to bottom sediment or
particles in the water, and evaporate into air.
Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likely to settle
into sediments while lighter PCBs are more
likely to evaporate to air. Sediments that
contain PCBs can also release the PCBs into
the surrounding water. PCBs stick strongly to
soil and will not usually be carried deep into
the soil with rainwater. They do not readily
break down in soil and may stay in the soil
for months or years; generally, the more
chlorine atoms that the PCBs contain, the
more slowly they break down. Evaporation
appears to be an important way by which the
lighter PCBs leave soil. As a gas, PCBs can
accumulate in the leaves and above-ground
parts of plants and food crops. PCBs are
taken up into the bodies of small organisms
and fish in water. They are also taken up by
other animals that eat these aquatic animals
as food. PCBs especially accumulate in fish
and marine mammals (such as seals and
whales) reaching levels that may be many
thousands of times higher than in water. PCB
levels are highest in animals high up in the
food chain.
(Ref. 14)
The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological
Profile also summarizes ecotoxicological
effects of PCBs in wildlife (Ref. 14).
Information in the 2000 ATSDR
Toxicological Profile is gathered from
experimental studies and field
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17650
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
observations of wildlife, specifically
outlining PCB effects in fish, bird, and
mammal species. The biological
responses in wildlife to exposures to
individual PCB congeners and
commercial PCB mixtures vary widely
in these studies, possibly reflecting not
only variability in susceptibility among
species, but also differences in the
mechanism of action or selective
metabolism of individual congeners.
Noteworthy impacts on fish, birds, and
mammals from this collective data
include neurological/behavioral,
immunological, dermal, and
reproductive/developmental effects.
Observed PCB effects related to
neurological impairment include
alterations in central nervous system
neurotransmitter levels, retarded
learning, increased activity, and
behavioral changes. Immunological
effects consist of morphological changes
in organs related to the immune system,
as well as functional impairment of
humoral- and cell-mediated immune
responses. Dermal effects in species
include adverse effects on fins and tails
in fish, and abnormal skin, hair, and
nail growth in mammals. Lastly,
reproductive and developmental
impacts consist of increased embryo/
fetal loss through effects such as
decreased egg hatchability and reduced
embryo implantation (Ref. 14).
EPA seeks information on the
environmental effects of PCBs that
became available after the 2000 ATSDR
Toxicological Profile (Ref. 14).
IV. Objective of this ANPRM
The objective of this ANPRM is to
announce the Agency’s intent to
reassess the current use authorizations
for certain PCB uses to determine
whether they may now pose an
unreasonable risk to human health and
the environment. This reassessment will
be based in part upon information and
experience acquired in dealing with
PCBs over the past 3 decades. This
ANPRM solicits information from the
public on several topics to assist EPA in
making this reassessment.
Since the Agency first promulgated its
PCB use regulations in 1979, EPA’s
knowledge about the universe of PCB
materials has greatly increased. The
Agency has gained valuable knowledge
and experience regarding the various
sources and uses of PCB materials. Over
the past 30 years, EPA has had the
opportunity to evaluate and draw
conclusions about the effectiveness of
the PCB regulations in preventing an
unreasonable risk to human health and
the environment from exposure to PCBs,
as well as their economic impact. This
document details EPA’s observations on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
why there is reason to make changes in
the regulations. At the present time,
EPA is investigating whether some
authorized uses of PCBs should be
eliminated or phased-out and whether
more stringent use and servicing
conditions would be appropriate. EPA is
also re-examining the geographical and
numerical extent of PCBs and PCB
items, which are subject to the use
regulations. The objective of the
anticipated rulemaking would be to
modify any of the regulations that apply
to PCBs or PCB items, as necessary, if
these uses present an unreasonable risk
to human health and the environment,
taking into account conditions as they
exist and as they are likely to exist in
the future.
EPA seeks information that will be
useful in making the findings required
by TSCA section 6. By prohibiting the
use of PCBs (except in a totally enclosed
manner), Congress established a
statutory presumption that use of PCBs
poses an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment. In order to
assess whether a use poses ‘‘no
unreasonable risks,’’ EPA would include
an assessment of impacts on the
economy, electric energy availability,
and all other health, environmental, or
social impacts that could be expected
from adoption of alternatives to PCBs.
There is a list of several questions
related to EPA’s reassessment in Unit
XIV. Responses to the questions will
provide EPA with information needed
to assist in its reassessment; other
information, of course, is also welcome.
EPA recognizes that there may be
differences in the maintenance
operations, inventories, planning,
funding, and budgets for different
owners of electrical equipment and does
not make any assumptions about these
differences. For example, when
compared to very large interstate
utilities, small municipal and
cooperative utilities may have a very
different approach to address the
replacement of leaking equipment.
Where applicable and appropriate,
small municipal and cooperative utility
responders should provide information
about the impacts a phaseout of PCBcontaining equipment might have on
their operations and their customers. In
particular, EPA encourages small
municipal and cooperative utilities to
take the time to answer the questions in
Unit XIV. or otherwise provide details
about maintenance operations,
inventories, planning, funding, budgets,
or any other information related to the
cost of addressing the sound
environmental management of the PCBs
in their equipment and measures they
have taken or planned to take and how
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these measures will help to safely
manage their PCBs. EPA also is
interested in exploring a range of
incentives or programs that might
facilitate organizations with limited
budgets to remove regulated PCBs and
PCB equipment from their systems and
facilities.
In this document, EPA is also
announcing plans to involve
stakeholders in gathering information to
inform EPA’s determination of the scope
of the problem, and EPA’s decision on
the best ways to address risks that may
be present from current PCB use
authorizations. EPA will sponsor a
series of public meetings around the
country to solicit stakeholder comments
on this document. Specific information
regarding the locations, dates, and times
of the public meetings are included in
Unit XIII.
V. EPA’s Reasons for Reassessing
Existing Use and Distribution
Provisions
A. Attrition, Aging of Equipment, and
Spills
All of the PCB-containing equipment
in current use, which has been
operating in accordance with the 1979
and subsequent use authorizations, is at
least 30 years old. Since the ban on
manufacturing in 1979, no new
equipment containing PCBs at
concentrations greater than or equal to
(≥) 50 ppm has been manufactured. The
total number of PCB transformers in the
United States is decreasing (Ref. 15) but
there are still many PCB transformers in
use (Ref. 16). Also, all but the most
recently manufactured PCB-containing
equipment may be nearing the end of its
expected useful life, although the useful
life of some equipment may have
effectively been extended by extensive
maintenance and re-building. The
useful life of transformers is typically no
more than 30–40 years (Ref. 2).
Equipment is increasingly vulnerable
to leaks the older it becomes. For
example, between 2002 and 2005, two
large, aging electrical transformers
located on Exxon Mobil’s offshore oil
and gas platform, Hondo, in the Santa
Barbara Channel, leaked nearly 400
gallons of PCB-contaminated fluid.
Exxon allowed one of the transformers
to leak for almost 2 years before
repairing it (Ref. 17).
Several statutes and regulations
require reporting of spills of hazardous
chemicals, including PCBs, to the
United States Coast Guard National
Response Center. EPA contacted the
National Response Center (Ref. 18) to
find out how many PCB spills have been
reported historically. The National
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Response Center advised EPA that there
were a total of 5,578 spills associated
with PCBs reported from 1990 through
August 19, 2009 (Ref. 19).
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. International Developments
PCBs are persistent chemicals and it
is internationally recognized that they
pose a risk to health and the
environment and need to be removed
from use. As of October 6, 2009, 166
countries have signed and ratified,
accepted, approved, or accessed the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (Stockholm
Convention), which among other things
requires parties to make determined
efforts to phaseout certain ongoing uses
of PCBs by the year 2025. The United
States is a signatory to the Stockholm
Convention but has not yet ratified it
(Ref. 20). A similar agreement, which
has an earlier date relating to the
phaseout of certain ongoing uses of
PCBs, is the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on
Persistent Organic Pollutants of the
1979 Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution, which the
United States signed in 1998. As with
the Stockholm Convention, the United
States is a signatory to the Aarhus
Protocol, but has not yet ratified this
agreement (Ref. 21).
On September 17, 2008, Canada
published PCB ban and phaseout
regulations with bans starting in 2009
for high concentration PCBs (Ref. 22). In
the Canadian regulations, low-level (<
500 ppm) equipment must be removed
from use by 2025.
C. Disposal and Cleanup Costs
EPA anticipates that disposal costs
may increase faster than the general
increase in inflation or cost of living.
The population of PCB-containing
equipment is continually decreasing
and will never grow or rebound due to
the ban on manufacturing. This may
make the economics of retaining a
presence in the PCB storage and
disposal industry potentially less
economically attractive for the waste
management industry. The numerous
disposal options and excess disposal
capacity currently present may not be
available in the future, so the costs and
benefits of continuing to operate aging
equipment change in the future. The
benefits of continued use of PCBcontaining equipment are also
diminished by the increasing risk that
aging equipment may fail in a manner
that releases PCBs to the environment as
that equipment reaches the end of its
useful life. The cost of cleaning up PCB
spills may exceed the cost of
reclassifying or disposing of the intact
PCB equipment and replacing it with
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
new equipment. The consequences
include both the direct costs to the
equipment owners in damage,
equipment replacement, service
interruption, and lost revenue, and also
the liability costs of losses to other
parties, and compensation and potential
fines for damages to human health and
the environment. EPA seeks information
and comment on how much the
possibility of spills and the costs of
cleanup affect the decisions of facility
owners and operators regarding the
management, removal, reclassification,
or replacement of PCB equipment.
D. Insurance Costs
EPA believes that the cost of liability
insurance for owners of PCB equipment
is likely to increase significantly as the
equipment continues to age. Insurers
have already observed the increased rate
of failure in equipment which is
approaching the end of its useful life
expectancy (Ref. 23). EPA anticipates
that in the future there will be
continuous increases in the cost of
liability insurance to cover all
equipment because of numbers of
releases and contamination from PCB
equipment which is at least 30 years
old. EPA seeks comments on the
comparison of the cost of future liability
insurance with potential costs for
testing and reclassification of
potentially contaminated equipment
either before it has failed or before there
has been a determination made to
dispose of it. EPA seeks information on
historical changes in insurance
premiums, as PCB-containing
equipment has aged, and any
projections of changes in future rates as
a result of projected changes in failure
rates. EPA also seeks information and
comment on the extent to which the
availability of commercial liability
insurance or self-insurance by facilities
affects facility owners’ and operators’
decisions on how to manage removal or
reclassification of PCB equipment that
may be nearing the end of its useful life.
E. Hazard Assessment of PCBs
EPA is evaluating the risks from
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
(PCDDs) and structurally similar
chemicals, such as certain PCBs,
through a process referred to as the
Dioxin Reassessment (Ref. 24).
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins,
polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs),
and some PCBs as molecules are
structurally similar and have been
shown to have similar impacts on
human health and the environment.
Also, under certain conditions, the
incomplete combustion of PCBcontaining materials produces PCDDs
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17651
and PCDFs, including some of the more
toxic congeners. Preliminary indications
from the 2003 Draft Dioxin
Reassessment are that the toxicity of
PCBs in general is higher than the
toxicity values that EPA used in
developing previous TSCA PCB
regulations. Some PCB congeners,
sometimes referred to as co-planar PCBs
or dioxin-like PCBs, are considered to
have toxicities similar to the most toxic
of the PCDDs and PCDFs. EPA has not
yet determined how a potentially higher
toxicity of these PCBs would impact
regulatory findings used to make risk
based decisions. It is possible that EPA
would find that some risks, which were
found to be reasonable using older PCB
toxicity information, would be
unreasonable when using potentially
higher toxicity information. If this is the
case, that information my affect any
proposed rule that EPA might issue.
Any proposed or final PCB rulemaking
which relies on the contribution of
dioxin-like PCBs to the overall toxicity
of PCBs will be based on the finalized
Dioxin Reassessment or another EPA
peer-reviewed document.
F. Risks of PCB Substitute Materials
EPA seeks information on the current
and likely future substitute materials for
PCBs that are currently in use or may be
put into service in the future. EPA is
particularly interested in the chemical,
physical, flammability, and
toxicological properties of these
materials. This information will be
essential to a consideration of the net
differences in risks, were these materials
to be substituted for PCB equipment
currently in use.
G. Updating Information on Releases of
PCBs
EPA does not have a current,
thorough national assessment of the
risks to human health and the
environment from PCB releases.
Information is fragmentary and much of
it is geographically limited. For
instance, the Great Lakes program in
which EPA participates has published
recent estimates of PCB releases, but
such estimates are statewide, and
similar estimates are not available for all
States in the United States (Ref. 25). The
New York Academy of Sciences
published a study of PCB releases into
the waterways feeding into the New
York/New Jersey harbor, breaking down
the releases by type of source (Ref. 26),
but similar studies are not available for
most waterways in the country. Releases
to the environment exceeding the
reportable quantity for PCBs must be
reported promptly to the National
Response Center. In addition to the
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17652
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
information which is available through
the National Response Center, EPA
seeks any information or data on
releases of PCBs, to the environment
from all kinds of sources, in order to set
the releases that are the subject of the
regulations being considered into a
larger context. EPA seeks information
on the causes of such releases, whether
the releases reached the environment or
were contained, and any information on
human health or environmental
consequences.
H. Risks From the Contamination of
Food from PCB-Containing Oils
Currently the use and storage for
reuse of PCB transformers that pose an
exposure risk to food or feed are
prohibited (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(i)). The
use and storage for reuse of large high
voltage capacitors and large low voltage
capacitors which pose an exposure risk
to food or feed are also prohibited (40
CFR 761.30(l)(1)(i)). However, both
transformers and capacitors containing:
• < 500 ppm PCBs at any weight or
volume; or
• < 1.36 kilograms (kg) or 3 lbs. of
dielectric fluid at any PCB
concentration, are not included in these
prohibitions.
To lessen the likelihood of such food
and feed contamination from these
sources, EPA is considering broadening
the prohibition on the use and storage
for reuse of PCBs that pose an exposure
risk to food and feed, including PCB
articles containing greater than 0.05
liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid
ounces) of dielectric fluid. PCB
concentrations in food are regulated by
the Food and Drug Administration and
PCB concentrations in feed are regulated
by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
There have been two recent incidents
of particular note in Europe of very
significant contamination of foods and a
subsequent recall of those foods from
the international market. Because of the
presence of trace amounts of dioxins
which are present in most PCBs, these
two crises also became dioxin crises.
These are discussed as follows.
1. Belgium. The ‘‘Belgian PCB/dioxin
crisis’’ began in January 1999, when 50
kg of PCBs contaminated with 1 gram (g)
of dioxins were accidentally added to a
stock of recycled fat used for the
production of 500 tons of animal feed in
Belgium. Although signs of poultry
poisoning were noticed by February
1999, the extent of the contamination
was publicly announced only in May
1999, when it appeared that more than
2,500 poultry and pig farms could have
been involved. The highest
concentrations of PCBs and dioxins and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
the highest percentage of affected
animals were found in poultry.
The Belgian government estimates
that the dioxin crisis cost approximately
$493 million, with approximately $106
million attributed to the loss in the
swine sector (in 1999 1 Euro = 1.06 U.S.
dollars). As other European Union (EU)
countries were also affected by export
bans, the final cost of this incident
worldwide will likely be higher (Refs.
27, 28, and 29).
2. Ireland. In December 2008, Irish
pork products were removed from
distribution in commerce. This action
was taken by the Food Safety Authority
of Ireland after finding levels of PCBs
and PCDDs in the food at concentrations
in excess of EU health standards for
food. Preliminary investigations
indicated that a single supplier’s feed,
which had been contaminated from PCB
oil in equipment, had been distributed
to farmers broadly throughout the
Republic of Ireland and Northern
Ireland. All pork products produced in
Ireland after September 1, 2008 were
removed from sale in early December
2008. Details of the full investigation
and the economic impact of the
contamination are not yet available
(Refs. 30, 31, and 32).
I. Risks in Public Buildings From
Fluorescent Light Ballasts
EPA is concerned about the release of
high concentrations of PCBs from
fluorescent light ballasts, particularly in
public buildings, such as schools. There
are anecdotal accounts of spills from
this source and anecdotal information
that PCB fluorescent light ballasts have
a lifetime of less than 10 years. One of
these spills was a significant release
from fluorescent light ballasts, almost 20
years after the publication of the PCB
use regulations, at the Standing Rock
Indian Reservation, ND.
On February 2, 1998, there were
complaints of respiratory problems in
the administration buildings at the
Standing Rock Indian Reservation in
North Dakota. On February 5, 1998, EPA
received an urgent telephone call from
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North
Dakota about possible PCB
contamination from leaking fluorescent
light ballasts. The light ballasts were
located in the elementary school,
administration building, high school
library, and several Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) buildings on the
reservation (Refs. 33 and 34). EPA
determined that many of the fluorescent
light ballasts contained PCBs. A
sampling contractor found PCBs above
EPA’s PCB spill cleanup levels in light
fixtures, office equipment and carpeting.
BIA hired a contractor to decontaminate
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
all areas where it found detectable
levels. The contractor removed light
ballasts and disposed of all ballasts and
contaminated materials as PCB waste. A
high school building where
contamination was found was closed
from February to June, but reopened for
summer school. The cleanup for the 4
buildings at Standing Rock cost BIA
more than $500,000 (Ref. 35). The
estimated cost for removing the nonleaking ballasts from 60 other buildings
in the BIA Great Plains Region (formerly
the Aberdeen Area) was $60,000.
J. Environmental Justice Considerations
EPA seeks comments on any
disproportionate environmental and
public health impacts that PCB use and
distribution in commerce for use may
have on minority, low-income, tribal,
and disadvantaged populations. As
explained in Unit III.D., it is noted that
ATSDR has concluded that there may be
an adverse impact on the health of
persons who eat fish contaminated with
PCBs. Disadvantaged populations may
be more exposed to PCBs in
contaminated fish than members of the
general population. Some disadvantaged
communities, such as Indian tribes,
have subsistence lifestyles and rely on
fish and mammals that may be caught
in PCB contaminated waters and
environs, as a primary source of
nutrition. Fish in these waters may have
been contaminated by both PCB wastes
disposed of prior to the use
authorizations, as well as releases that
have occurred from the currently
authorized use, distribution in
commerce and disposal of PCBs (Refs.
14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41).
In addition, EPA is concerned about
the presence of the potential risks to
urban environmental justice
communities from PCB releases at
railroad substations, electrical
substations, and electrical equipment
storage areas. EPA seeks specific
information about the prevalence of
spills and other releases, including fires,
from the use of PCBs in environmental
justice areas. The focus of the
information gathering in Unit XIV. is
owners and operators of regulated
electrical equipment and those using
PCBs which are authorized in part 40
CFR part 761. However, EPA also seeks
comments from minority, low-income,
tribal, and disadvantaged persons and
their representatives, who are not direct
owners or users of PCBs and PCB
equipment.
EPA is also announcing public
meetings to discuss the Agency’s
reassessment of the existing PCB use
authorizations at several locations
around the country. The dates,
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
locations, and times of the meetings are
included in Unit XIII. Any additional
meetings will be announced on the PCB
website (https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) at least 30
days prior to the first meeting date.
Please refer to the PCB website or call
Christine Zachek at (202) 566–2219 for
further details. At these meetings,
representatives of minority, low-income,
tribal, and disadvantaged populations
will be able to provide oral comments
on the proposed regulations. These
persons will also have the opportunity
to provide comments to EPA as part of
this ANPRM.
VI. Summary of Possible Regulatory
Changes for PCB-Containing Equipment
Under Consideration
This unit identifies possible changes
to the PCB use regulations that EPA may
consider in a future notice of proposed
rulemaking. Any future regulatory
action to propose these changes will be
supported by an analysis of costs and
benefits, as is required by TSCA. This
analysis will be supported, in part, by
the quality of the data submitted as a
result of the ANPRM.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Options for Initial Phaseout
Regulations
A potential phaseout of any PCB use
authorizations might be implemented
gradually, allowing some use to
continue under more restrictions before
the end of the use authorization. The
Agency may consider a number of
regulatory measures, including, but not
limited to, the following:
• Require testing of equipment which
is stored for reuse or removed from
service for any reason, and which is
assumed to contain PCBs at
concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in accordance
with §761.2.
• Require that where such equipment
is found to contain PCBs at
concentrations ≥ 50 ppm after testing,
within 30 days of receiving the test
results the owner must either reclassify
the equipment to < 50 ppm PCBs or
designate it for disposal.
• Eliminate all currently authorized
PCB equipment servicing except for
reclassification.
• Require marking of all equipment
which is known or assumed (in
accordance with §761.2) to contain
PCBs at ≥ 50 ppm.
• Increase the inspection frequency to
a minimum of once every month for
non-leaking known or assumed ≥ 500
ppm PCB equipment in use.
• Before the final phaseout date(s),
broaden the prohibition on the use of
PCBs in transformers that pose an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
exposure risk to food or feed to include
use of PCB-contaminated transformers.
• Broaden the definition of PCB
article (this would also require changing
other definitions) to include all
equipment containing > 0.05 liters (or
approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of
dielectric fluid with ≥ 50 ppm PCBs, in
place of the current definition which
regulates transformers and capacitors
containing ≥ 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid.
• Require registration of PCB large
capacitors containing a specified
volume of dielectric fluid or having a
specified external volume or
dimensions.
• Eliminate the authorization for
storage of PCB equipment for reuse.
• Eliminate the use authorization for
PCBs in carbonless copy paper.
• Eliminate totally enclosed
determination for distribution in
commerce.
• Require reporting/notification to
EPA Regional Administrators when
PCBs are found in any pipeline system,
regardless of the source of PCBs or the
owner of the pipeline.
B. Potential Time Frames for
Completing the Removal of PCB
Equipment From Service
These measures would phaseout all
PCB-electrical equipment uses with
interim deadlines by equipment
concentration and type.
• By 2015, eliminate all use of askarel
equipment (≥ 100,000 ppm PCBs),
removing from service the equipment in
high potential exposure areas first. EPA
is considering allowing exceptions on a
case-by-case basis based on hardship
and no unreasonable risk. Exceptions
may be granted based on an application
and approved exceptions may be
published on the PCB website.
• By 2020, eliminate all use of oilfilled PCB equipment (≥ 500 ppm) and
the authorization for use of PCBs at ≥ 50
ppm in pipeline systems.
• By 2025, eliminate all use of any
PCB contaminated equipment (≥ 50
ppm), which is still authorized for use.
VII. Information to Be Considered
During EPA Reassessment of PCB Use
Authorizations
This unit outlines what information
EPA believes is important to consider
when reassessing PCB use
authorizations. EPA seeks comment on
any other information, which may not
be included in this unit, but which you
believe is important for EPA to consider
when reassessing PCB use
authorizations.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17653
A. Liquid-filled Electrical Equipment
(Except Railroad Transformers and
Mining Equipment)
EPA seeks information on the specific
population of any electrical equipment
that contains greater than 2 fluid ounces
of dielectric fluid with PCBs ≥ 1 ppm
and that was manufactured prior to July
31, 1979: Transformers (regulated at 40
CFR 761.30(a)), electromagnets
(regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)),
switches (regulated at 40 CFR
761.30(h)), voltage regulators (regulated
at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical
capacitors (regulated at 40 CFR
761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at
40 CFR 761.30(m)), reclosers (regulated
at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), liquid-filled cable
(regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), and
rectifiers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(r)).
Each unit describes specifically what
information EPA solicits. EPA
encourages small business owners and
small municipal and cooperative
utilities to provide details on their PCBcontaining electrical equipment
population characteristics and their
management activities for the
equipment.
1. Population characteristics for
transformers, electromagnets, switches,
voltage regulators, electrical capacitors,
circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled
cable, and rectifiers. Information that
EPA seeks about the use of this
equipment appears in questions, which
are located in Unit XIV.A.–E.
2. Servicing. Since the first use
regulations for liquid-filled PCBcontaining equipment, EPA has
continued to prescribe conditions for
authorized servicing (maintaining or
repairing) this equipment, which
facilitated extending the life of the
equipment, in order to ease the hardship
an immediate ban would have caused
owners. Most life-extending use
conditions are included in the
authorization for servicing:
• Draining, repairing, and putting
back into service PCB-contaminated
electrical equipment.
• Topping off and putting back into
service PCB-electrical equipment.
• Blending the oil drained from
multiple pieces of PCB-containing
equipment for servicing.
• Adding blended or other PCBcontaining oil into repaired, drained
equipment.
• Reclassifying.
• Distributing PCB-containing
equipment in commerce for repair
without manifesting.
• Storing company-owned
equipment for servicing without any
conditions to protect against leaks or
spills.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17654
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
• Servicing equipment which is
owned by others, without having
commercial storage approvals.
EPA believes that this equipment is
nearing the final stages of useful life,
after a minimum of 30 years of use.
When this aging equipment fails to
function in use or is otherwise removed
from service, and if there is a need to
prolong the life of the equipment, EPA
believes that the PCBs should be
removed from the equipment and
disposed of in accordance with the
regulations in 40 CFR part 761, subpart
D. The reclassification of out-of-service
equipment could be considered
preventive maintenance and does not
require service interruption, lost
revenue, or liability costs of losses to
other parties. In the brochure, entitled
‘‘Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down
of PCB-Containing Equipment,’’
published in October 2005 by the
Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG) (Ref. 42), it states that:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Many utility companies across the country
have procedures in place to ensure that most
equipment containing PCBs in
concentrations > 50 ppm identified after
removal from the field is either disposed of
and not returned to service or retrofilled
before being returned to service. This
practice helps ensure the accelerated
retirement from service of a large class of
potentially PCB-containing equipment (e.g.,
distribution pole-top and padmount
transformers) that could otherwise lawfully
be placed back into service. USWAG will
continue to actively promote these systematic
practices of voluntarily identifying and
retiring PCB-containing equipment from
service.
On April 2, 2001, EPA provided new
reclassification procedures which
include refilling mineral oil filled
equipment with liquid containing < 2
ppm total PCBs (Ref. 10). A majority of
liquid-filled equipment which was
manufactured to contain mineral oil
dielectric fluid (mineral oil) and which
remains in use can be easily reclassified
to contain < 50 ppm with a thorough
draining and refilling with liquid
containing < 2 ppm PCBs. If an owner
determines that the equipment is not
worth reclassifying, there currently are
numerous disposal options and excess
disposal capacity for the equipment.
EPA seeks information on the types and
extent of service-extending maintenance
and rebuilding of PCB-containing
transformers, railroad transformers, heat
transfer systems, hydraulic systems,
electromagnets, switches, voltage
regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers,
cable, and rectifiers. EPA’s questions
about servicing are located in Unit
XIV.F.
3. Identifying and managing the use,
removal from use, and disposal. In the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
public comments provided during the
1979 rulemaking, electrical equipment
owners stated that they did not know
where PCB-containing equipment was
located (Ref. 3). In the 30 years since,
EPA believes that it would have been
prudent for owners to implement a plan
during that time to locate any regulated
equipment. The common use and
availability of bar code labels and
scanning equipment and user-friendly
computerized inventory management
systems, plus the ability of global
positioning systems to precisely specify
locations, should facilitate the
development and maintenance of an
inventory of PCB-containing regulated
equipment. Equipment owners
previously told EPA that it was not
possible to determine whether mineral
oil-filled equipment contained PCBs
unless the oil was tested, and testing
was expensive. EPA agrees that it is
necessary to collect oil to test it and
there is a cost associated with the oil
sample collection and chemical
analysis. However, at the time of
disposal it is already necessary to test to
determine the PCB concentration to
determine how the equipment is
regulated for disposal. Based on current
regulatory requirements, the cost of
chemical analysis would have to be paid
at the time of the disposal of the
equipment, regardless of a non-attritionbased phaseout. Collection and analysis
of oil would only be an additional cost
if EPA imposes a new requirement to
test in-service and energized equipment.
Currently there are several options
available for equipment that is no longer
operable, or is otherwise designated for
disposal. For equipment with recyclable
metals, some disposal companies are
paying for this equipment, because they
can recover their costs and make a
profit, even when paying the waste
generator for ‘‘scrap metal.’’ In 2001,
EPA facilitated the reclassification of
electrical equipment making this a cost
effective means of removing the risk
from PCBs in equipment, while
continuing to use the equipment until it
no longer functions or is voluntarily
removed from service for disposal (Ref.
10).
In 1996, EPA surveyed the PCB
disposal industry and found that there
was a large capacity surplus (Ref. 35).
However, as the PCB disposal market
increasingly becomes smaller, it may be
that fewer disposers will find it
economical to retain licenses and
disposal facilities for this small market,
decreasing the number of options
available and very likely increasing the
costs for the remaining options. Any
increased cost of fuel employed in many
disposal technologies and for the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
transportation of equipment to disposers
will likely also increase disposal costs
in the future. The potential increase in
disposal costs in the future may make it
economically advantageous to either
reclassify equipment or dispose of it
now, even if it has not reached the end
of its useful life.
Owners commented in 1979 that there
were few commercial storers for PCB
wastes (Ref. 3). Currently, EPA believes
that there is an excess of storage
capacity. Like disposal, commercial
storage capacity could also decrease as
the supply of PCB equipment
diminishes. EPA seeks information on
whether advancing the date of testing
from some future disposal date to a date
closer to the present time would present
cost, economic, or management
difficulties or advantages to the owners
and operators of PCB-containing
equipment.
4. Information about an increased
failure rate of vintage electrical
equipment. A 2002 report, Life Cycle
Management of Utility Transformer
Assets, by the Hartford Steam Boiler
Inspection and Insurance Company,
uses information from claims filed by
policy holders with the insurer for
failed transformers, regardless of
whether they contained PCBs (Ref. 23).
The information has been used to
estimate or predict when equipment
will fail, based on historical failures for
which claims were filed. This document
also highlights that the electricity
demand load grew 35% and the
transmission capacity grew 18% over
the 10 preceding years. EPA is
concerned that the rate of failures for
transformers manufactured in the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s may increase
substantially in the future. EPA seeks
data on the failure rate in the last 10
years and the results and documentation
of recent modeling of projections of
failures into the future. EPA seeks
information on any differences in failure
rate for different types of equipment of
different vintages, and differences in
failure rates for equipment which is
located indoors as compared to outdoors
and what effect, if any, that electronic
monitoring and other maintenance
methods have had on failure rates.
EPA’s questions about failure rates are
located in Unit XIV.G.
5. Severe weather event and other
natural disasters increase the potential
risk from PCBs. There have been recent
severe weather events (e.g., Hurricane
Katrina (Ref. 44), Tornado in
Greensburg, KS (Ref. 45)) where there
was significant damage to electrical
equipment of all ages, both containing
PCBs and not containing PCBs.
Although there have not been reports of
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
natural disasters such as earthquakes,
mudslides, or volcanic eruptions which
resulted in significant spills of PCBs,
there is a possibility that this could have
occurred in some regions of the country.
These unpreventable events contribute
to catastrophically ending the useful life
of PCB-containing equipment and the
uncontrolled release of PCBs. EPA
believes that one cost-effective
protection against PCB releases from
these weather events and natural
disasters may be a proactive program to
test equipment that is taken out of
service for PCBs, and to remove, test,
and replace or retrofill equipment in
service that is known or assumed to
contain PCBs, especially the equipment
in locations and areas where a release
would present the greatest risk. EPA is
also concerned about areas which may
not be directly contaminated from
nearby equipment ravaged by severe
weather, but where spilled PCBs from
that weather event might be expected to
migrate and accumulate, such as
spillways and drinking water reservoirs.
Answers to the questions about severe
weather events in Unit XIV.H. and other
related comments will assist EPA in the
reassessment of the use of PCBcontaining electrical equipment.
6. Alternatives to PCB liquids. One
type of information the Agency is
soliciting for its proposed rulemaking
relates to alternatives to the use of PCBs
in liquid-filled equipment. To EPA’s
knowledge, satisfactory substitutes are
available to replace PCBs in all
electrical equipment applications. The
Agency welcomes comments on the
comparative costs and the effectiveness
of various substitutes in reducing fires
and heat-related degradation or
destruction of equipment. EPA seeks
information on the hazards and the risks
posed by these PCB substitutes. EPA’s
questions about alternatives to PCB
liquids are located in Unit XIV.I.
7. Removal and replacement costs.
EPA seeks information on the costs of
removing and replacing old PCBcontaining equipment with new or used
non-PCB equipment based on attrition
(i.e., end of equipment’s useful life) and
based on removal in advance of
attrition. In particular, EPA would like
to have information on:
• How often any equipment (PCBcontaining or non-PCB–containing) of
the same age or size is replaced per year
and the costs for replacement.
• Costs for replacement include
cheapest source, foreign, or domestic,
including transport and transaction
costs.
• The price for replacement of
various types and classes of equipment
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
each year over the last 30 years, as well
as estimated or projected future prices.
EPA seeks information that explains:
• The impact of changes in system
distribution and transmission voltage on
the potential obsolescence of mineral
oil-filled equipment, which was
manufactured before 1979 would be
useful.
• The cost impact of replacing
mineral oil-filled equipment, which was
manufactured before 1979, with more
modern equipment with respect to
efficiency, longevity, or any other
attribute which would create an
economic incentive to hasten the
phaseout of older equipment.
Further, EPA solicits information on the
numbers of these units manufactured
before 1979 that are:
• Expected to be replaced or
excessed during system voltage changes.
• Planned for distribution in
commerce for use. EPA would also like
to know to whom these excessed units
would most likely be sold.
EPA seeks information on the costs of
service interruptions and revenue loss
which may result from equipment
replacement, either scheduled or
unplanned. Similarly, EPA solicits
comments on the current and estimated
future supply of replacement
equipment, when PCB–containing
equipment is moved out of service
before the end of its useful life.
Reclassification options and procedures
in the regulations were broadened in
2001 (Ref. 10) and EPA seeks comments
on the costs and advantages found for
this option, as opposed to disposal. EPA
encourages small business owners, and
small municipal and cooperative
utilities to provide details on their PCBcontaining electrical equipment
replacement schedules and costs. EPA’s
questions about PCB equipment removal
and replacement costs are located in
Unit XIV.J.
8. Current PCB waste disposal
capacity. EPA solicits comments on the
availability of disposal capacity for
PCBs in liquids at concentrations ≥ 50
ppm by weight, and for other materials
in drained electrical equipment. EPA
also seeks comments on the economic
benefits of decontamination and
recycling of liquids or non-liquids in
this equipment, where possible. In 1979,
PCB disposal options and capacity were
limited and the potential demand on
disposal capacity from a ban or
phaseout of PCB-containing equipment
would have been high. EPA also seeks
information on whether there currently
is a charge to the equipment owner
(waste generator) for disposing of
equipment which will be
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17655
decontaminated and then sold as scrap
metal. EPA also seeks information on
the cost for disposing of mineral oil
contaminated with PCBs. EPA has seen
a continuous decrease in the numbers of
PCB disposal approvals issued over the
last 10 years. EPA seeks comment on
what the disposal industry predicts with
respect to the future number of
approved PCB disposal and storage
companies, future disposal and storage
capacity, and the future cost of
commercial storage and disposal of
electrical equipment waste as compared
to current disposal costs. EPA’s
questions about PCB waste disposal
capacity are located in Unit XIV.K.
9. Current equipment management
practices. EPA solicits information on
the current management practices
intended to reduce the risk from PCBs
in the following types of equipment that
contain PCBs at concentrations of ≥ 1
ppm: Electrical transformers, railroad
transformers, mining equipment,
electromagnets, switches, voltage
regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit
breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled cable,
and rectifiers. EPA encourages small
business owners, small municipal and
cooperative utilities to provide details
on their PCB-containing electrical
equipment management activities.
EPA’s questions addressing the
information that EPA seeks about
equipment current management
practices are located in Unit XIV.L.
10. Electrical equipment which
contains non-liquid PCBs at
concentrations ≥ 1 ppm. EPA seeks
information on electrical equipment,
such as tar-filled equipment, which was
manufactured prior to July 31, 1979, in
the following categories: Containing
non-liquid PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1
ppm and < 50 ppm, ≥ 50 ppm and < 500
ppm, ≥ 500 ppm and < 100,000 ppm,
and ≥ 100,000 ppm. EPA seeks this
information for the following non-liquid
filled equipment types: Transformers,
electromagnets, switches, voltage
regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit
breakers, reclosers, rectifiers, and any
other equipment populations (such as
paper insulated lead cable and
bushings). EPA’s questions about
electrical equipment which contains
non-liquid PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1
ppm are located in Unit XIV.M.
11. Impact of vandalism and theft on
the risk from PCBs. The presence of
PCBs in equipment subject to vandalism
incidents could increase potential risk
not only to the vandal, but to others in
the area. In particular, EPA is concerned
about areas which may not be directly
contaminated from the nearby
equipment impacted by vandalism but
also areas where spilled PCBs from that
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
17656
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
vandalism might be expected to migrate
and accumulate such as low-lying
residential neighborhoods and cropland.
EPA solicits data on the number of units
lost and the cost from losses from
vandalism and theft of electrical
transformers, railroad transformers,
mining equipment, heat transfer
systems, hydraulic systems,
electromagnets, switches, voltage
regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit
breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled cable,
and rectifiers. EPA seeks information on
the rate of occurrence of vandalism
events involving PCB-containing
equipment in each calendar year
starting from 1998 until 2008, including
how many gallons of oil have been lost
from equipment and what has been the
cost from this loss of oil. EPA’s
questions about the impact of vandalism
and theft on the risk from PCBs are
located in Unit XIV.N.
12. Fraudulent export for scrap metal
recovery. EPA is concerned about the
potential for incidents where used
electrical equipment is exported for
purported reuse, but where the
equipment is actually scrapped or
smelted for recovery of metal
components. Elimination of the totally
enclosed determination for distribution
in commerce will restrict the fraudulent
practice of export of equipment in the
guise of reuse, when the exported
equipment will not be used, properly
reclassified/decontaminated, or
disposed of in an environmentally
sound manner. EPA is concerned that
metal recycling facilities may not
manage the exported equipment and the
PCBs in an environmentally sound
manner; and scrap metal management
workers may not be protected from
exposure to PCBs or even know that
PCBs are present in the exported
equipment.
13. Reclassification of askarel
transformers. EPA is concerned that
reclassification of askarel transformers
(which were manufactured to contain ≥
500,000 ppm PCBs) is generally
ineffective because PCBs leach back out
of internal components several years
after the active processing to reclassify
is completed. This seems plausible
because of the nature of the inner
structure of transformers. EPA is
considering whether to restrict the
reclassification option to electrical
equipment which at the time of
manufacture contains < 10,000 ppm (<
1%) PCBs, based on the inability to
drain and flush PCBs efficiently from
askarel PCB equipment. EPA’s questions
about the reclassification of askarel
transformers are located in Unit XIV.O.
14. Registration of PCB large
capacitors. PCBs were formulated at
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
concentrations from about 75 weight
percent to about 100 weight percent (or
750,000 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm) in
capacitors (Ref. 46). Therefore, the
amount of PCBs in the smallest PCB
large capacitor, which contains 1.36 kg
or 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid, is about 1.02
kg. (or about 2.25 lbs.). There could be
as much PCBs of the same PCB
formulation in the smallest PCB large
capacitor as the approximately the same
amount of PCBs in a transformer which
contains 600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs
in mineral oil dielectric fluid. The
regulations currently require that a
mineral oil transformer containing 600
gallons of 500 ppm PCBs and even a
much smaller 1–gallon transformer
containing 500 ppm of PCBs in mineral
oil dielectric fluid to be registered with
EPA. In order to protect first responders
and others who might potentially be
accidentally exposed to PCBs from PCB
large capacitors, EPA is assessing
whether to require registration of some
or all PCB capacitors currently in use
with EPA. EPA could publish and post
the register of the capacitors on the PCB
website as it has the Transformer
Registration Database.
B. Railroad Transformers (Regulated at
40 CFR 761.30(b))
At the time of the 1979 rulemaking
there were a limited number of PCB
transformers used on electric railroad
engines and cars. The railroads where
the askarel PCB equipment was used
were located in the northeastern part of
the country, mainly in Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, and New York (Ref. 47).
Because of the known leakage from this
equipment and the requirement for
frequent servicing, EPA found that the
distribution in commerce of this
equipment was not totally enclosed. The
leaks from the use of this equipment
have resulted in Superfund PCB
cleanups of some Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA) track areas. EPA assumes that
by now, all of the PCB railroad
transformers have either been removed
from service or the dielectric fluid has
been replaced and that all railway
transformers are now operating with
dielectric fluid which contains < 50
ppm PCBs. EPA seeks comments on the
continued use of PCBs in railroad
transformers, and is considering
eliminating the authorization for the use
of PCBs in railroad transformers at
concentrations greater than 1 ppm.
EPA’s questions about the railroad
transformers are located in Unit XIV.P.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Mining Equipment (Regulated at 40
CFR 761.30(c))
In 1978, there were only very limited
uses of PCBs in electric motors in fewer
than 1,000 mining machines (Ref. 2).
The motors were manufactured in the
1960s and early 1970s by one company
and used in machinery manufactured by
another company. The PCBs were used
as a motor coolant. Because of its
operating conditions, this equipment
must frequently be rebuilt. Based on the
small usage in 1979 and the expected
relative short life of this limited use
population, EPA believes it is likely that
PCBs are no longer used in the motors
of mining equipment. EPA seeks
comments on whether there is any
continued use of PCBs in such electric
motors in mining equipment and
whether EPA should eliminate the
authorization for the use of PCBs in
mining equipment at concentrations > 1
ppm. EPA’s questions about mining
equipment are located in Unit XIV.Q.
D. Heat Transfer Systems (Regulated at
40 CFR 761.30(d)) and Hydraulic
Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(e))
Heat transfer systems and hydraulic
systems have been authorized for use
since 1984, when they contain PCBs at
concentrations < 50 ppm. Because of the
common leakage from this equipment
and the frequent requirement for
servicing, the distribution in commerce
of this equipment was not found to be
totally enclosed. The regulatory
provisions for this equipment at 40 CFR
761.30(d) and (e) have been in place for
almost 25 years. EPA seeks information
on the number of these units, their
types, and how frequently draining and
refilling takes place. Because these types
of equipment are often serviced by
draining and refilling with new PCBfree fluid, EPA believes it is likely that
any residual PCBs present in equipment
that was in use in 1984, has been
diluted through servicing to a
concentration far below 50 ppm. There
may be no reason to continue an
authorization of PCBs in equipment at
measurable concentrations. EPA seeks
information demonstrating a need to
continue to use PCBs in heat transfer
systems and hydraulic systems at
concentrations greater than 1 ppm.
E. Carbonless Copy Paper (Regulated at
40 CFR 761.30(f))
In 1979, there were many files
containing carbonless copy paper. EPA
does not have information on whether
the information on this 30–year old,
thin carbon copy paper is still legible,
and if it is not legible, why it cannot be
disposed of. Thirty years later it may be
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
feasible and economical to convert any
necessary, legible information and
records from carbonless copy paper to a
different storage medium. EPA seeks
information on the volume of records on
carbonless copy paper, the records’
locations, and the types of business,
government agencies, or other holders of
such documents. EPA would like to
know whether holders of such
documents are smaller or larger
businesses, and whether the size or type
of the business would affect the
economic feasibility of document
conversion. EPA seeks comments on
whether carbonless copy paper
containing PCBs is still in use and
whether there is a need to continue the
existing use authorization for this paper.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Continued Use of Porous Surfaces
Contaminated with PCBs Regulated for
Disposal by Spills of Liquid PCBs
(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(p))
EPA is considering changing 40 CFR
761.30(p) to reflect the continued
potential risk from contaminated porous
surfaces. Persons who are potentially
exposed to contaminated porous
surfaces should be protected from air
emissions, which are not eliminated
under the existing use authorizations by
encapsulation or metal covers. EPA’s
questions about the use of contaminated
porous surfaces are located in Unit
XIV.R.
G. Use in Fluid and Gas Transmission
and Distribution Systems (Regulated at
40 CFR 761.30(i), 40 CFR 761.30(s), and
40 CFR 761.30(t))
In comments on the June 7, 1978,
proposed rule (Ref. 5), which was
finalized in 1979, two natural gas
transmission companies claimed that
they had PCBs in turbine compressors at
concentrations ≥ 50 ppm, but they could
not reduce these concentrations to
levels < 50 ppm in the near future. One
company claimed to have removed all of
the PCB turbine oil in 1972. The
companies claimed that the PCBs would
not leak out of the compressors into
other parts of the natural gas pipeline
system. In the May 31, 1979 final rule
(Ref. 3), EPA prohibited the use of PCBs
at concentrations > 50 ppm in natural
gas pipeline systems, effective as of May
1, 1980.
In the early 1980s, PCBs were found
in a cold trap in the gas line outside a
home in New York. In 1981, EPA
entered into agreements with 13 natural
gas transmission companies which had
PCBs at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in
their systems but outside of turbine
compressors (Ref. 48).
It is not clear exactly how the PCBs
entered the systems if they did not come
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
from the turbine compressors. After
nearly 30 years of operations and after
all known sources of PCBs were
removed from these systems, EPA has
information indicating that PCBs at
levels ≥ 50 ppm continue to be found in
natural gas pipeline systems including
within equipment which is not
specifically designed to collect such
material. EPA believes that the
authorized use conditions in the current
regulations should have resulted in
companies removing PCBs to the extent
that there no longer are PCBs in the
systems at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm.
EPA is considering requiring
sampling and analyzing individual
condensate samples (not composites or
accumulations) to determine the extent
of the PCB contamination when any
person finds PCBs in any pipeline
system at concentrations ≥ 1 ppm.
Owners would be required to analyze
condensate from surrounding areas to
confirm that regulated PCBs were not
present in the system. Regardless of the
original or current source of the PCBs,
owners would report results of ≥ 50
ppm findings to EPA. EPA is also
considering whether to propose ending
the use authorization for PCBs at
concentrations ≥ 1 ppm in these systems
by 2020 or an earlier date. In this phasedown approach, owners would also be
required to analyze current condensate
in areas having historical PCB
measurements to confirm the absence of
PCBs during the period prior to the final
phaseout date. If PCBs are found,
owners would have to demonstrate they
have reduced PCB concentrations to < 1
ppm or have implemented engineering
controls similar to the current
requirements in 40 CFR
761.30(i)(1)(iii)(A)(4) to reduce and
prevent migration of PCB impacted
material. EPA seeks comments on the
continued use of PCBs in fluid and gas
transmission and distribution systems.
EPA’s questions about use in gas
transmission and distribution systems
are located in Unit XIV.S.
EPA has little information on the need
to continue the use authorizations at 40
CFR 761.30(s) for air compressor
systems and 40 CFR 761.30(t) for other
gas or liquid transmission systems. The
10 years that these authorizations have
been in place should have allowed
owners sufficient time to purge the
PCBs from their systems. EPA is
considering whether to terminate or
significantly limit the duration of these
authorizations.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17657
H. Use in Research and Development
(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(j),
Scientific Instruments (Regulated at 40
CFR 761.30(k)), and Decontaminated
Materials (Regulated at 40 CFR
761.30(u))
EPA is not currently planning to
reassess the authorizations for: Use in
research and development, scientific
instruments, and decontaminated
materials. However, EPA welcomes
comments on these use authorizations.
I. No Use Authorization for PCBContaining Electrical Equipment Parts
There is no use authorization for parts
or detached ancillary equipment, such
as bushings, for electrical equipment
when separate from that equipment.
Bushings contain insulating material
separated from the primary equipment’s
insulating fluid. Bushings may be
removed from equipment during
servicing or transportation. Utilities
have told EPA that it is necessary to
store bushings for reuse, especially for
large transmission electrical equipment.
There is no use authorization in 40 CFR
part 761, subpart B, for bushings, which
are no longer attached to or associated
with a specific article of authorized
equipment (Ref. 10). EPA seeks
information on the feasibility of
reclassifying bushings or other ancillary
equipment, which can be used as spare
parts. EPA seeks information on the
economic value of continuing to
maintain such PCB-containing parts and
ancillary equipment in inventories of
utility companies and industrial
facilities. EPA’s questions about the use
of PCB-containing electrical equipment
parts are located in Unit XIV.Y.
J. Reassessment of the Possible
Authorization of the Use of Some NonLiquid PCB-Containing Products
The use of PCBs at concentrations of
50 ppm or greater in caulk products,
regardless of whether the PCBs were
created by an inadvertent chemical
reaction during the manufacturing
process or were added to the caulk
afterward, is not currently authorized
under TSCA section 6. EPA requests
comments on whether the use of PCBs
in caulk should be authorized, and what
data or other information is available on
which to evaluate the risks and benefits
of the use of PCB-containing caulk.
EPA’s questions about authorization of
some non-liquid PCB-containing
products are located in Unit XIV.Z.
VIII. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles
(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.35)
EPA established limits on storage of
PCB articles for reuse at 40 CFR 761.35.
These limits were established to curtail
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17658
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
storage practices which were not in
keeping with the statutory objectives of:
1. A general ban on use with limited
exceptions.
2. Quick disposal of PCB-containing
equipment which was no longer used or
usable.
3. Protection of human health and the
environment from risks presented by
PCBs.
When the PCB regulations were first
promulgated in the late 1970’s, EPA
recognized that it might be necessary to
have PCB-containing spare equipment
to press into use when other new or
reasonably new equipment needed to be
replaced. However, nearly 30 years
later, the demand for PCB-containing
equipment replacements should be
much lower. EPA has information
indicating that the older unused PCB
equipment, now 30 years old or older,
does emit PCBs even when sealed and
still can leak even when it is not
energized. EPA also seeks information
about whether stored non-askarel
equipment could be reclassified while it
is in storage for reuse. EPA also is
concerned that equipment, which is
stored for reuse outside of a secure
storage facility, is more susceptible to
potential releases of PCBs to the
environment from accidents, both
weather-related and the result of the
owner’s activities, and to vandalism or
theft.
EPA seeks information on the location
of equipment being stored for reuse,
especially in relationship to the
equipment it is to replace. EPA seeks
information on the economic value of
continuing to maintain PCB-containing
equipment which is not in use, in
inventories of utility companies and
industrial facilities. EPA’s questions
about storage for reuse of PCB articles
are located in Unit XIV.T.
IX. Distribution in Commerce of
Electrical Equipment (Regulated at 40
CFR 761.20)
PCBs have been measured in the
ambient air coming from PCBcontaining equipment in storage for
disposal in an approved PCB storage
facility. Information about the
measurement of PCBs in the ambient
environment around stored electrical
equipment indicates that aging
equipment appears to no longer be
airtight, even if seemingly ‘‘intact and
non-leaking’’ upon cursory visual
inspection (Ref. 11). If this stored
equipment is not airtight, there must
also be releases during use and
transportation (distribution in
commerce) of this equipment, despite
its deenergized state. EPA is also
concerned about and seeks information
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
on the frequency of PCB surface
contamination on this equipment and
the practice of routine inspection for the
presence of residual PCB surface
contamination on equipment, by using a
standard wipe test. For this reason, EPA
questions whether the historical
determination that distribution in
commerce of PCBs in electrical
equipment still can be considered
totally enclosed in accordance with
TSCA section 6(e)(2)(C). Elimination of
distribution in commerce of this PCBcontaining equipment for reuse could
also prevent the fraudulent practice of a
guise of resale for reuse. One fraudulent
practice is a claim of the export of
regulated PCB-containing equipment for
reuse to avoid proper domestic
reclassification or disposal, when the
equipment is intended only for foreign
scrap metal recovery. EPA’s questions
about distribution in commerce are
located in Unit XIV.U.
X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50
ppm Level for Excluded PCB Products,
in Particular for PCBs in Caulk
The level of 50 ppm has been used in
PCB use regulations since 1979. Based
on regulatory history, this number is
based almost entirely on economic
considerations. There are no traditional
exposure and risk assessment
calculations (Refs. 3 and 8). EPA seeks
comments on the application of the
value of 50 ppm as the upper value in
the definition of Excluded PCB products
in 40 CFR 761.3. One such excluded
product is PCBs in caulk where PCBs
are present at concentrations < 50 ppm.
EPA is seeking comment and any
supporting data or other information on
whether the number 50 ppm should be
changed given the recent realization that
the use of PCBs in caulk may be
widespread and may be an undue
burden for schools if the exclusion
continues at 50 ppm. EPA’s questions
about excluded PCB products are
located in Unit XIV.X.
XI. Definitional Changes Under
Consideration (Located at 40 CFR
761.3)
EPA is considering proposing changes
to the following definitions found at
§761.3, and solicits comments on these
changes.
A. PCB Articles
The definition of PCB articles in
§761.3 includes transformers and
capacitors, but it has no mention of size
or the volume of liquid contained in the
article. EPA is considering changing this
definition to regulate equipment
containing ≥ 0.05 liters (approximately
1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Definitions for Capacitor, PCB
Capacitor, PCB Transformer, and PCBcontaminated Electrical Equipment
would be adjusted accordingly. This
revision would correspond to minimum
volumes for liquid-filled equipment
found in the Stockholm Convention.
EPA seeks information on the type
and volume of PCB products that would
be affected by such changes in the
definition, as well as the cost, economic,
and other impacts of these changes.
B. Excluded Manufacturing Process
The current definition states, ‘‘The
concentration of inadvertently generated
PCBs in products leaving any
manufacturing site or imported into the
United States must have an annual
average of less than 25 ppm, with a 50
ppm maximum.’’ EPA is considering
whether to eliminate the annual average
and whether the maximum
concentration should be set at < 1 ppm.
EPA’s questions about excluded
manufacturing processes are located in
Unit XIV.V.
C. Recycled PCBs
The current definition states, ‘‘The
concentration of PCBs in paper products
leaving any manufacturing site
processing paper products or paper
products imported into the United
States must have an annual average of
less than 25 ppm, with a 50 ppm
maximum.’’ EPA is considering whether
to revise the annual average and
whether the maximum should be
lowered. Additionally, the definition
requires the release of PCBs to ambient
air at any point be at concentrations <
10 ppm. EPA is considering whether the
maximum allowable PCB concentration
released to air should be lowered to be
consistent with what the Agency has
said about PCB exposures from PCBs in
caulk (Ref. 49). EPA’s questions about
recycled PCBs are located in Unit
XIV.W.
D. Quantifiable Level/Level of Detection
In the years since this definition was
first promulgated, analytical
measurement technology has improved
so that the current quantitation level/
level of detection is lower. Currently,
the quantitation level in mineral oil can
be as low as, or lower than, 1 ppm and
the level of detection can be as low as,
or lower than, 0.5 ppm. The
quantitation level and level of detection
in other media such as air and water can
be three orders of magnitude or more
lower than the values for mineral oil.
EPA is evaluating whether to change
this definition to reflect to most current
science, and solicits any information
regarding such a change.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
XII. Marking of All PCB Articles
XIII. Public Participation
EPA is considering requiring marking
of all PCB articles, which includes
electrical equipment containing ≥ 50
ppm PCBs, and all storage areas. Some
≥ 50 ppm PCBs items are already
required to be marked in 40 CFR 761.40:
• Above-ground sources of PCB
liquids in natural gas pipeline systems.
• PCB containers.
• Electric motors using PCB coolants.
• Hydraulic systems using PCB
hydraulic fluid.
• PCB heat transfer systems.
• PCB article containers.
• Areas used to store PCBs and PCB
items for disposal.
• Transportation vehicles
transporting more than 45 kg or 99.5 lbs
of items containing ≥ 50 ppm liquids,
containers of ≥ 50 ppm liquids, or one
(or more) PCB transformers.
EPA discussed concerns about PCB
releases from liquid-filled equipment,
regardless of concentration, during
natural disasters in Unit VII.A.5. The
consequences of natural disasters and
other events such as automobile
collisions with equipment and
vandalism (e.g., shots from firearms),
may be more significant when damaging
older and over-loaded electrical
equipment. In addition to those persons
who might be accidentally exposed, it is
important that public emergency
responders as well as owners/
maintainers be advised of the PCB
content of PCBs in use or those
catastrophically released from use as
quickly as possible. In addition,
residents and the public in proximity to
regulated equipment have the right to
know of the presence of PCBs. Many
owners already know the locations of
and have already marked PCBcontaminated equipment. EPA believes
that marking of PCB-contaminated
equipment also aids in planning
management of equipment during
transportation and storage for disposal.
A possible requirement under
consideration is for owners to locate and
label PCB-contaminated equipment.
This would require an owner to take
additional labeling action beyond what
is required in the current regulations for
the use of PCB-contaminated equipment
and the assumptions in 40 CFR 761.2.
Once equipment was marked for use, it
would not need to be re-marked at the
time of disposal. In Unit XIV.A.–E., M.,
P., Q., and S. EPA has asked for specific
numbers of PCB-contaminated
equipment and the size of populations
of equipment which is assumed by
regulation to contain PCBs ≥ 50 ppm.
In addition to the requests for
information and comments contained in
this document, EPA intends to involve
stakeholders through a series of public
meetings taking place in locations
across the country. The purpose of these
meetings is to receive stakeholder
comments on the issue of EPA’s
reassessment of PCB use authorizations,
including the questions described in
Unit XIV.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
A. Meeting Dates and Locations
The meetings will be held as follows:
1. New York, NY, May 4, 2010, from
1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at EPA Region 2 offices,
Room 2735, Conference Room A (27th
Floor), 290 Broadway.
2. Chicago, IL, May 18, 2010, from 1
p.m. to 5 p.m., at the EPA Region 5
offices, Lake Michigan Room (12th
Floor), 77 West Jackson Blvd.
3. Atlanta, GA, May 25, 2010, from 1
p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA Region 4 offices,
Rooms 9D and 9E, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW.
4. Washington, DC, May 27, 2010,
from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA
Headquarters, EPA East, Room 1153,
1201 Constitution Ave., NW.
B. Meeting Procedures
For additional information on the
scheduled meetings, please see the PCB
website (https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) or contact
Christine Zachek at (202) 566–2219 or
zachek.christine@epa.gov.
The meetings will be open to the
public. To ensure that all interested
parties will have an opportunity to
comment in the allotted time, oral
presentations or statements will be
limited to 10 minutes. EPA therefore
recommends that stakeholders who
present oral comments also submit
written comments following the
instructions provided under ADDRESSES.
Interested parties are encouraged to
contact the technical person at least 10
days prior to the meeting to schedule
presentations. Since seating for outside
observers will be limited, those wishing
to attend the meetings as observers are
also encouraged to contact the technical
person at the earliest possible date, but
no later than 10 days before the
meetings, to ensure adequate seating
arrangements.
To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Christine
Zachek at (202) 566–2219 or
zachek.christine@epa.gov, preferably at
least 10 days prior to the meeting, to
give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17659
XIV. Request for Comment and
Additional Information
EPA invites public comment and any
additional information in response to
the questions identified in Unit XIV.A
through Unit XIV.AA. Unit I.B. contains
a description of points commenters
should consider when preparing
comments for submission to EPA,
including how to submit any comments
that contain CBI. No one is obliged to
respond to these questions, and anyone
may submit any information and/or
comments in response to this request,
whether or not it responds to every
question in this unit.
A. Populations of Transformers
(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid
Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)
1. What percentage of your entire
transformer inventory in use or storage
for reuse was manufactured each year
between 1950 and 1980, all years up to
1949, and all years from 1981 to date?
If this information is not available,
please provide alternative information,
such as: What percentage of the entire
transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40
years old, and 50 years old?
2. Of the inventory information
provided in the previous question, how
does the percentage differ for the
following applications: Transmission,
substation, pole top, and pad mount?
3. What percentage of your
transformer population consists of PCB
transformers? How many units are in
this population? How does the
percentage and population compare for
major interstate utilities, municipal
utilities, cooperative utilities, industrial
owners, and other groups?
4. What percentage of your
transformer population consists of PCBcontaminated transformers? How many
units are in this population? How does
the percentage and population compare
for major interstate utilities, municipal
cooperatives, industrial owners, and
other groups?
5. For electrical utilities and other
owners, have you tested all potentially
(based on year of manufacture and other
information) contaminated equipment?
Do you know where all regulated PCB
equipment is currently located? Have
you removed all askarel containing PCB
transformers? Have you removed all
mineral oil containing PCB
transformers? Have you removed all
mineral oil containing PCBcontaminated transformers?
6. What percentage of the transformer
population consists of transformers
which contain measurable PCBs
between 1 and 50 ppm and were
manufactured before July 31, 1979? How
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17660
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
many units are in this population? How
does the percentage and population
compare for major interstate utilities,
municipal cooperatives, industrial
owners, and other groups?
7. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing within 10
years the PCBs from the transformers
through reclassification and disposing
of the transformers, versus disposing of
the transformers without reclassification
at the end of their useful life?
8. How much equipment is being used
indoors? How much equipment is being
used outdoors?
9. Geographically and topographically
exactly where, in the form of global
positioning system coordinates or maps,
is the PCB-containing equipment
located? What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these
locations?
10. What active or passive safety
systems and equipment are installed
and operating for PCB-containing
equipment, including dikes, berms,
safety valves, expansion chambers,
remote monitoring systems and capture
basins?
B. Populations of Electromagnets,
Switches, and Voltage Regulators
(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid
Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)
1. What percentage of your entire
electromagnets, switches, and voltage
regulators inventory in use or stored for
reuse was manufactured each year
between 1950 and 1980, all years up to
1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007?
If this information is not available,
please provide alternative information,
such as: What percent of the entire
transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40
years old, and 50 years old?
2. What percentage of the
electromagnets, switches, and voltage
regulators population contains dielectric
fluid with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm
PCB? How many units are in each
population? How does the percentage
and population compare for major
interstate utilities, municipal
cooperatives, industrial owners, and
other groups?
3. The original use authorization for
electromagnets was for a very restricted
number of known applications in coal
mine processing operations. How many
electromagnets in these coal mining
operations still use PCBs?
4. For electrical utilities and other
owners, have you tested all potentially
(based on year of manufacture and other
information) contaminated
electromagnets, switches, and voltage
regulators? Do you know where all
regulated PCB-containing
electromagnets, switches, and voltage
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
regulators are currently located? Have
you removed all askarel containing PCB
electromagnets, switches, and voltage
regulators? Have you removed all
mineral oil containing PCB
electromagnets, switches, and voltage
regulators? Have you removed all
mineral oil containing PCBcontaminated electromagnets, switches,
and voltage regulators?
5. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing the PCBcontaining electromagnets, switches,
and voltage regulators and disposing of
them within 10 years, versus disposing
of the electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators at the end of their
useful life?
6. How much equipment is being used
indoors? How much equipment is being
used outdoors? Geographically and
topographically exactly where, in the
form of global positioning system
coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located?
7. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these
locations?
8. What active or passive safety
systems and equipment is installed and
operating, including dikes, berms, safety
valves, expansion chambers, and
capture basins?
C. Populations of Electrical Capacitors
(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid
Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)
1. What percentage of your entire
capacitor inventory in use or stored for
reuse was manufactured each year
between 1950 and 1980, all years up to
1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007?
If this information is not available,
please provide alternative information,
such as: What percentage of the entire
transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40
years old, or 50 years old?
2. How does the percentage differ of
these 30, 40, and 50 year-old and older
capacitors for the following
applications: Transmission, substation,
pole top, and pad mount?
3. What percentage of the total
capacitor population is made up of PCB
large capacitors? How many units are in
this population? How does the percent
and population compare for major
interstate utilities, municipal
cooperatives, industrial owners, and
other groups?
4. What percentage of your capacitor
population is PCB-contaminated? How
many units are in this population? How
does the percentage and population
compare for major interstate utilities,
municipals cooperatives, industrial
owners, and other groups?
5. For electrical utilities and other
owners, have you tested all potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(based on year of manufacture and other
information) contaminated equipment?
Do you know where all regulated PCB
equipment is currently located? Have
you removed all askarel containing PCB
capacitors? Have you removed all
mineral oil containing PCB capacitors?
Have you removed all mineral oil
containing PCB-contaminated
capacitors?
6. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing the
regulated PCB capacitors and disposing
them within 10 years as opposed to at
the end of the useful life of the
capacitors?
7. How many PCB capacitors which
are still in active use (not stored for
reuse) contain ≥ 2 ounces of dielectric
fluid and < 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid?
8. What is the best way to determine
whether a capacitor contains ≥ 2 ounces
of dielectric fluid other than reading a
nameplate or actually draining and
weighing the dielectric fluid?
9. What are the most likely minimum
dimensions of a capacitor, which
contains 2 or more ounces of PCB
dielectric fluid?
10. What percentage of the total
population of PCB capacitors that are
currently in use contain ≥ 0.05 liters (or
approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of
dielectric fluid and 1.36 kg. (< 3 lbs.) of
dielectric fluid?
11. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing within 10
years the PCBs from the PCB capacitors
and disposing of them versus disposing
of the PCB capacitors at the end of their
useful life?
12. How much equipment is being
used indoors? How much equipment is
being used outdoors? Geographically
and topographically exactly where, in
the form of global positioning system
coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located?
13. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these
locations?
14. What active or passive safety
systems and equipment is installed and
operating, including dikes, berms, safety
valves, expansion chambers, and
capture basins?
D. Populations of Circuit Breakers,
Reclosers, and Liquid-filled Cable
(Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid
Ounces of Dielectric Fluid)
1. What percentage of circuit breakers,
reclosers, and liquid-filled cables
inventory in use or stored for reuse was
manufactured each year between 1950
and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all
years from 1981 to 2007? If this
information is not available, please
provide alternative information, such as:
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
What percent of the entire transformer
inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old,
and 50 years old?
2. What percentage in each
population of your circuit breakers,
reclosers, and liquid-filled cable
population contains dielectric fluid
with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm is
PCB? How many units are in each
population?
3. For electrical utilities and other
owners, have you tested all potentially
contaminated breakers, reclosers, and
liquid-filled cables? Do you know where
all regulated PCB breakers, reclosers,
and liquid-filled cables are currently
located? Have you removed all circuit
breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled
cables containing mineral oil with ≥ 50
ppm PCBs-contaminated circuit
breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled
cables?
4. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing within 10
years the PCB breakers, reclosers, and
liquid-filled cables and disposing of
them versus disposing of the PCB
breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled
cables at the end of their useful life?
5. How much equipment is being used
indoors? How much equipment is being
used outdoors? Geographically and
topographically exactly where, in the
form of global positioning system
coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located?
6. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these
locations?
7. What active or passive safety
systems and equipment is installed and
operating, including dikes, berms, safety
valves, expansion chambers, and
capture basins?
where all regulated PCB rectifiers are
currently located? Have you removed all
askarel PCB rectifiers? Have you
removed all rectifiers containing
mineral oil with ≥ 500 ppm PCBs? Have
you removed all rectifiers containing
mineral oil with ≥ 50 ppm and < 500
ppm PCBs?
5. What percent of electrical utilities
and other owners has removed all
mineral oil PCB rectifiers?
6. What percent of electrical utilities
and other owners has removed all
mineral oil PCB-contaminated rectifiers?
7. What would be the estimated cost
(and why) for removing these PCB
rectifiers and disposing of them within
10 years as opposed to at the end of the
useful life of the rectifiers?
8. How much equipment is being used
indoors? How much equipment is being
used outdoors? Geographically and
topographically exactly where, in the
form of global positioning system
coordinates or maps, is the PCBcontaining equipment located?
9. What is the age of the PCBcontaining equipment at each of these
locations?
10. What active or passive safety
systems and equipment is installed and
operating, including dikes, berms, safety
valves, expansion chambers, and
capture basins?
E. Populations of Rectifiers (Containing
Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of
Dielectric Fluid)
1. What percentage of your rectifiers
inventory in use or stored for reuse was
manufactured each year between 1950
and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all
years from 1981 to 2007? If this
information is not available, please
provide alternative information, such as:
What percentage of the entire rectifier
inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old,
and 50 years old?
2. What percentage of your rectifier
population contains dielectric fluid
with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm
PCBs? How many units are in this
population?
3. What percentage of your rectifier
population is PCB-contaminated? How
many units are in this population?
4. For electrical utilities and other
owners, have you tested all potentially
contaminated rectifiers? Do you know
G. Failure of Vintage PCB-Containing
Electrical Equipment
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
F. Servicing
1. How long does servicing extend the
useful service life of each type of
equipment?
2. How does servicing alter the
likelihood of equipment failures?
3. How does servicing change the
ultimate likelihood of the release of
PCBs?
1. How do failure rates differ for
equipment which has been rebuilt or
serviced in particular ways, relative to
equipment that remains substantially as
it was originally installed?
2. EPA seeks information to project
the rate, location, and amount of PCB
releases, and the causes of the releases.
For example, what are the risks of
failure involving electrical surges,
insulation failure, or electrical fires as
compared to the rupture of the tanks
containing the PCBs?
3. What percentage of the entire
transformer inventory, which was in use
or storage for reuse and which was
manufactured before July 31, 1979,
failed in the following time periods:
a. All years between January 1, 1940
and December 31, 1949;
b. Each year between 1950 and 1980;
and
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17661
c. All years between January 1, 1981
and December 31, 2008?
4. If this information is not available,
please provide information for alternate
time intervals.
5. What forms of preventive
maintenance or remote monitoring are
used to warn owners or operators of a
potential or impending equipment
failure?
6. With respect to a company’s PCBcontaining equipment, on what
equipment are these or other preventive
maintenance or remote monitoring
techniques employed?
7. For drainable and refillable mineral
oil containing PCB articles, how do the
purchase price and operational costs for
this approach compare to
reclassification for transformers or
reclassifiable equipment?
8. How do failure rates differ for
equipment which has been rebuilt or
serviced in particular ways, compared
to equipment that remains substantially
as it was originally installed?
9. What have been and are the
insurance costs for the replacement of
failed PCB-containing equipment and
cleanup of PCB spills from this
equipment over the past 30 years?
10. How would these insurance costs
for the replacement of failed PCBcontaining equipment and cleanup of
PCB spills from this equipment be
expected to change in the next 20 years?
H. Damage to Equipment During Severe
Weather Events
1. What kind of steps can be taken to
prevent release of dielectric fluid from
damage during adverse severe weather
events such as hurricanes, tornados,
floods, and earthquakes?
2. What is the cost per unit of these
steps compared to the cost of: Removal
and disposal of askarel containing units;
or reclassification or removal and
disposal of the mineral oil containing
units?
3. What is the cost to cleanup an
average catastrophic weather release of
dielectric fluid and the disposal of the
waste and the equipment plus any
damages to private or public property?
4. How does this cleanup and related
costs compare to the cost of: Removal
and disposal of askarel containing units;
or reclassification or removal and
disposal of the mineral oil containing
units?
5. What have been and are the
insurance costs as the result of damage
from severe weather events for the
replacement of failed PCB-containing
equipment and cleanup of PCB spills
from this equipment over the past 30
years?
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17662
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
6. How would these insurance costs
as the result of damage from severe
weather events for the replacement of
failed PCB-containing equipment and
cleanup of PCB spills from this
equipment be expected to change in the
next 20 years?
7. How has the weather-related
liability insurance cost changed for
owners of PCB-containing equipment
over the last 30 years? Over the last 20
years? Over the last 5 years?
8. EPA seeks information on the rate
of occurrence of severe weather events
involving PCB-containing equipment in
each calendar year starting from 1998
until 2008:
a. What types of equipment were
involved?
b. Where was the equipment located
(indoors or outdoors)?
c. Did spills occur as a result of the
severe weather events?
d. What was the amount released in
gallons of liquid, and if PCBs were
presents what was the concentration in
ppm?
e. How much liquid was contained
and recovered?
f. What human health or
environmental exposure and effects
were observed or recorded?
g. How were the exposures and effects
estimated or measured?
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Alternatives to PCB Liquids
1. What are the PCB substitutes
currently available commercially?
2. What are the human health and
environmental effects of exposure to
PCB substitutes when they are released
to the environment?
3. What are the human health and
property damage risks due to the
flammability properties of the PCB
substitutes?
4. What is the likelihood that
equipment containing the PCB
substitutes have releases of the
substitute materials, compared with the
likelihood that equipment containing
PCBs have releases of PCBs?
5. What other information about PCB
substitutes is available that would
inform EPA’s consideration of the tradeoffs that would be required by a PCB
phaseout?
J. Removal and Replacement Costs
1. How many PCB liquid disposal
companies have been operating at the
end of each year for the last 10 years?
2. How many PCB equipment
(drained or undrained) disposal
companies have been operating at the
end of each year for the last 10 years?
3. What has the average disposal cost
been for a gallon of PCB oil containing
≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm at the end of
each year for the last 10 years?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
4. What has been the average disposal
cost for a gallon PCB oil containing from
≥ 500 ppm to ≤ 10,000 ppm at the end
of each year for the last 10 years?
5. What has been the average disposal
cost for a gallon or of askarel oil
containing > 100,000 ppm PCBs at the
end of each year for the last 10 years?
6. What has been the average cost per
ton for disposing of drained, oil-filled
equipment, which contained ≥ 50 ppm
and < 500 ppm PCB at the end of each
year for the last 10 years?
7. What has been the average cost per
ton for disposing of drained, oil-filled
equipment which contained ≥ 500 ppm
PCB at the end of each year for the last
10 years?
8. What has been the average cost per
ton for disposing of drained askarelfilled equipment > 100,000 ppm PCB at
the end of each year for the last 10
years?
9. What has been the average cost per
pound, per ton, or per kilovolt amp
(KVA) been for recycling the metal from
drained oil-filled transformers which
contained ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCB
at the end of each year for the last 10
years?
10. What sorts of incentives might
enable organizations with limited
budgets to remove regulated PCBs and
PCB equipment for their systems and
facilities?
K. PCB Waste Disposal Capacity
1. What has been the permitted PCB
disposal capacity for liquid PCBs for
companies which have been operating
at the end of each year for the last 10
years?
2. At what average percent of
permitted PCB disposal capacity have
the PCB liquid disposal companies
operated per year for the last 10 years?
3. What has been the permitted PCB
disposal capacity for drained PCB
equipment for companies which have
been operating at the end of each year
for the last 10 years?
4. At what average percent of
permitted PCB disposal capacity have
the drained PCB equipment disposal
companies operated per year for the last
10 years?
5. For a transformer containing 100
gallons of 250 ppm oil, how does the
cost compare for:
a. Reclassifying to a non PCB
transformer (draining, refilling with
new/clean oil, and disposing of the PCB
oil and reusing the transformer)?
Reclassifying to a transformer
containing < 1 ppm PCBs?
b. Disposing of the oil and landfilling
the drained transformer?
c. Disposing of the oil and recovering
the metal for recycling?
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
L. Current Management Practices for
Equipment (Other Than Equipment
Included in Unit XIV.A.-F.)
1. If you are a PCB equipment owner,
which of the following have you
completed:
a. Identified all PCB-containing
equipment?
b. Routinely tested equipment for its
PCB content?
c. Tested all equipment known or
assumed to contain PCBs?
d. Reclassified known PCB equipment
or equipment, which is newly tested
and found to be positive for PCBs?
e. Disposed of, without recycling
metals, known PCB equipment, or
equipment which is newly tested and
found to be positive for PCBs?
f. Disposed of, to include recycling
metals, known PCB equipment, or
equipment which is newly tested and
found to be positive for PCBs?
g. Distributed in commerce to
someone else for use known PCB
equipment, or equipment which is
newly tested and found to be positive
for PCBs?
h. Recorded the locations of all
equipment or a particular type of
equipment, such as transformers or
capacitors, containing > 500 ppm PCBs?
i. Recorded the locations of all of a
particular type of equipment, such as
transformers containing > 50 ppm
PCBs?
j. Recorded the locations of all of a
particular type of equipment, such as
transformers containing > 1 ppm PCBs?
k. Tested all mineral oil containing
equipment, or a particular type of
equipment (such as transformers),
which was manufactured before 1979?
l. Labeled all PCB-containing
equipment, even though PCB equipment
containing < 500 ppm is not required to
be marked?
m. Removed from service and
disposed of all PCB-containing
equipment or a particular type of
equipment (such as PCB-contaminated
transformers or PCB large capacitors)?
2. What are the costs associated with
such activities in question No. 1 in Unit
XIV.L.?
3. What are the costs of the practice
of preventive maintenance and the rebuilding of equipment to meet changing
service requirements and/or industry or
company codes?
4. How well does preventive
maintenance or rebuilding effect
extension of the expected service life of
equipment?
M. Equipment Containing Non-liquid
PCBs
1. What is the total number of units
(liquid filled plus non-liquid filled) in
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17663
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
each equipment category, such as
transformers?
2. What total number of non-liquid
units in each equipment category, such
Category
Transformers
as transformers, is in each of these PCB
concentration ranges: ≥ 1 ppm and < 50
ppm, ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm, ≥ 500
ppm and < 100,000 ppm, and ≥ 100,000
ppm?
For example, fill in the following
table:
Total number of liquid
filled plus non-liquid
filled units in
population
Number of non-liquid
filled units with ≥ 1
parts per million (ppm)
and < 50 ppm PCBs
Number of non-liquid
filled units with ≥ 50
ppm and < 500 ppm
PCBs
Number of non-liquid
filled units with ≥ 500
ppm and
< 100,000 ppm PCBs
Number of non-liquid
filled units with
≥ 100,000 ppm PCBs
1,000
0
2
0
0
200
0
0
0
10
Capacitors
Etc.
3. What is the difference in the
locations used for liquid filled units,
versus non-liquid filled units located?
4. How much does it cost to test
(sample collection, extraction, chemical
analysis, and recordkeeping) non-liquid
filled equipment to determine the PCB
concentration?
5. Other than chemical analysis, what
methods (such as application type,
nameplate, model number,
manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to
identify PCB containing non-liquid
filled equipment?
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
N. Damage Due to Vandalism or Theft
1. What types of equipment were
involved?
2. Where was the equipment located
(indoors or outdoors)? Did spills occur
as a result of the vandalism?
3. What was the amount released in
gallons of liquid, and if PCBs were
present what was the concentration in
ppm?
4. How much liquid was contained
and recovered?
5. What human health or
environmental exposure and effects
were observed or recorded?
6. How were the exposures and effects
which were reported in response to
question No. 5 in Unit XIV.N. estimated
or measured?
7. What have been and are the
insurance costs as the result of
vandalism or theft for the replacement
of failed PCB-containing equipment and
cleanup of PCB spills from this
equipment over the past 30 years?
8. How would these insurance costs
as the result of vandalism or theft for the
replacement of failed PCB-containing
equipment and cleanup of PCB spills
from this equipment change in the next
20 years?
O. Reclassification of Askarel
Transformers
1. If you have attempted to reclassify
an askarel-filled unit and have been
unsuccessful, how long did you spend
draining and refilling and how many
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
times did you drain and refill when
PCBs still ‘‘leached back’’ to a
concentration ≥ 500 ppm for each unit?
2. What was the cost of each
unsuccessful reclassification?
3. How many askarel transformers or
other askarel PCB articles (such as
voltage regulators) have you reclassified
successfully to PCB-contaminated status
or non-PCB status?
4. For each piece of successfully
reclassified askarel-filled equipment,
how many times was it necessary to
drain and refill the equipment?
5. For each piece of successfully
reclassified askarel-filled equipment, if
the equipment was also flushed, what
flushing procedure did you use?
6. For each piece of successfully
reclassified askarel-filled equipment,
how long did it take to reclassify the
equipment from the first drain and
refilling to a permanent PCB
measurement at the new regulatory
status of PCB-contaminated or non-PCB?
How often was reclassification later
proven to be unsuccessful, because
PCBs leached back above the target
reclassification level?
7. What was the cost of each
successful reclassification?
P. Railroad Transformers
1. In what railroad systems are PCB
transformers and PCB-contaminated
transformers still in use as railroad
transformers?
2. What percentage of railroad
transformers are PCB transformers?
3. How many railroad transformers
are PCB transformers?
4. What percentage of railroad
transformers are PCB-contaminated
transformers?
5. How many railroad transformers
are PCB-contaminated transformers?
6. What is the expected life of a
transformer now in service as a railroad
transformer before it requires routine
servicing of the dielectric fluid?
7. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing within 10
years the PCBs from the railroad
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
transformers through reclassification
and disposing of them versus disposing
of the railroad transformers without
reclassification at the end of their useful
life?
Q. Mining Equipment
1. At what locations and for what
applications are PCBs currently used in
mining equipment?
2. What percent of these pieces of
equipment, which are found in these
applications, contain PCBs?
3. How many pieces of equipment in
these applications contain PCBs?
4. What would be the difference in
cost (and why) for removing within 10
years the PCBs from the mining
equipment and disposing of them versus
disposing of the mining equipment at
the end of their useful life?
R. Use of Contaminated Porous Surfaces
1. What has the average per ton,
drum, or cubic yard disposal cost been
to dispose of contaminated non-liquid
material (such as soil or concrete) from
a spill of PCB oil containing ≥ 50 ppm
each year for the last 10 years? Please
differentiate costs based on PCB
concentration (e.g., < 50 ppm PCB
waste, ≥ 50 ppm, etc.) and based on type
of disposer (e.g., landfill, incinerator,
etc.).
2. How often is there a planned major
outage to equipment mounted on
concrete pads or floors? How long is
such a planned outage?
S. Use in Natural Gas Transmission and
Distribution Systems
1. How many gallons of ≥ 50 ppm
condensate have been removed and
disposed of annually from natural gas
pipelines owned by each individual gas
transmission company and distribution
company starting in 1998?
2. Do transmission companies
regularly test the condensate for PCBs?
If so, what is done with the PCBs when
found?
3. What locations in the system have
the most condensate removed?
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
17664
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
4. What time of year is most
condensate removed?
5. How do natural gas transmission
and distribution companies test for
PCBs in dry systems?
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
T. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles
1. How many pieces of in-use
equipment are the stored equipment
items being kept to replace?
2. Where is the equipment which is to
be replaced by the stored equipment
located with respect to other potential
indoor secure storage areas?
3. What is the historical lifetime and
turnover (removal from storage for
disposal) rate per year of the in-use
equipment?
4. When do owners plan to replace
this in-use equipment with non-PCB
equipment or reclassify this in-use
equipment?
5. When do owners plan to replace
the stored equipment with non-PCB
equipment or reclassify this stored
equipment?
6. What is the annualized cost of
storing and managing this equipment?
7. What would be the cost of
replacement of this equipment?
8. What would be the cost of
reclassifying this equipment, where
authorized?
9. What is the likelihood and
consequences of service interruptions
and loss of revenue if these replacement
devices were not available at the site of
the equipment to be replaced?
10. What is the history (number of
occurrences, dates, amounts and cost to
clean up) of spills or other releases of
PCBs from this equipment, which is
being stored for reuse?
U. Distribution in Commerce
1. What is the annual sale price or
dollar value and what is the number of
units which were distributed in
commerce each year over the last 5
years of used but working askarel-filled
equipment?
2. What is the annual sale price or
dollar value and what is the number of
units which were distributed in
commerce each year over the last 5
years of used but working mineral oil
filled PCB (≥ 500 ppm) equipment?
3. What is the annual sale price or
dollar value and what is the number of
units which were distributed in
commerce each year of used but
working mineral oil filled PCBcontaminated (≥ 50 ppm and < 500
ppm) equipment?
4. How many units of regulated PCBelectrical equipment were sold each
year over the last 5 years for domestic
scrap metal recovery?
5. How many units of regulated PCBelectrical equipment were sold each
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
year over the last 5 years for foreign
scrap metal recovery?
6. How many units of regulated PCBelectrical equipment were exported for
use each year over the last 5 years for
use?
7. What has been the average
purchase price of a new or rebuilt (PCBfree) 100 KVA mineral oil filled
transformer and a new (PCB-free) 100
KVAR capacitor every year over the last
10 years?
8. How different is the average
purchase price of new or rebuilt (PCBfree) larger or smaller transformers and
capacitors?
9. What is the average number of days
between an order and delivery for a new
or rebuilt replacement PCB-free 100
KVA transformer and a new
replacement PCB-free 100 KVAR
capacitor every year over the last 10
years?
10. How long does it take for a
delivery for a replacement for a new or
rebuilt PCB-free large (> 250 KVA)
transformer, a smaller (< 250 KVA)
transformer, and larger (> 1.36 kg [3 lbs.]
of dielectric fluid) capacitors?
V. Excluded Manufacturing Processes
1. How many excluded manufacturing
processes are currently operating or, if
not currently operating, expect to be
operating in the next 5 years?
2. What is the estimated total annual
weight in tons of PCBs produced each
year over the last 5 years and in the next
5 years in each of the following
categories: Products, solid waste, waste
water, and air emissions?
3. What are the type and volume of
PCB products that would be affected by
such changes in the definition, as well
as the cost, economic, and other impacts
of these changes?
W. Recycled PCBs
1. In any of the last 5 years have you
anyone found PCBs at concentrations ≥
1 ppm in recycled paper? How often?
What was the source of the feedstock
paper?
2. What steps can be taken or have
been taken to reduce the PCB
concentration in recycled paper?
3. What is the cost of implementing
these steps to reduce the PCB
concentration in recycled paper if they
have not already been implemented?
4. What are the type and volume of
PCB products that would be affected by
a potential change in the definition of
recycled paper (required to contain less
than 1 ppm PCBs), as well as the cost,
economic, and other impacts of these
changes?
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50
ppm Level for Excluded PCB Products
(e.g., Caulk)
1. What should the maximum PCB
concentration, if any, be for the
‘‘excluded PCB products’’ as defined in
40 CFR 761.3?
2. What should the minimum PCB
concentration be for the ‘‘excluded PCB
products’’ as defined in 40 CFR 761.3?
3. Should there be a new separate use
authorization for certain currently
excluded PCBs found in certain
products such as paint, gaskets, or
caulk?
4. What types of non-liquid products
(adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease,
paint, rubber/plastic electrical
insulation, gaskets, sealants, waxes,
etc.), which were manufactured before
1979 and are currently in use, contain
PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm
and 50 ppm?
5. What types of liquid products
(pump oil, solvent, or other fluid), other
than those authorized for use in 40 CFR
761.30, contain PCBs at concentrations
between 1 ppm and 50 ppm?
6. For each class of non-liquid and
liquid product, what percent of the
overall product market share is taken by
the PCB-containing product?
a. What is the estimated total weight
or volume of each type of product in
current use?
b. What kinds of use has each product
been applied to, on, or in?
c. What is the geographic distribution
of each product use?
d. What is the average expected
lifetime of the product?
e. When would the product normally
be replaced as part of preventive
maintenance?
Y. Use of PCB-Containing Electrical
Equipment Parts
1. What PCB-containing spare parts,
such as bushings and other ancillary
equipment, are currently needed for
what equipment?
2. What is the feasibility of
reclassifying PCB-containing spare
parts?
3. What is the annualized cost of
storing and managing PCB-containing
spare parts?
4. What would be the cost of
replacement of PCB-containing spare
parts?
5. What are the likelihood and
consequences of service interruptions
and loss of revenue if the PCBcontaining spare parts were not
available?
6. Where are these spare parts located
geographically in relation to the
equipment they will be used on?
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
7. In what industrial or commercial
settings can the equipment, which the
spare parts will be used on, be found?
Z. Reassessment of the Possible
Authorization of the Use of Some NonLiquid PCB-Containing Products
1. What comments can you provide
that will inform EPA as to whether to
authorize or not authorize the use of
caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB
product at concentrations exceeding the
level of 50 ppm currently provided in
the PCB regulations for excluded PCB
products?
2. What data or other information is
available on which to evaluate the risks
and benefits of the use of PCBcontaining caulk, paint, or other nonliquid PCB product?
3. What PCB concentrations should be
authorized for the use of PCB-containing
caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB
products?
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
AA. PCBs on Maritime Vessels
1. In what vessel systems is PCBcontaining equipment still in use on
vessels?
2. What percentage of vessel
equipment uses liquid PCBs?
3. What percentage of vessel
equipment uses non-liquid PCBs?
4. What is the expected life of
equipment containing PCBs on vessels
now in service before it requires routine
servicing?
5. What is the difference in the
locations used for liquid filled
equipment, versus non-liquid filled
equipment located?
6. How much does it cost to identify
and test (sample collection, extraction,
chemical analysis, and recordkeeping)
liquid filled equipment and/or nonliquid filled equipment on vessels to
determine the PCB concentration?
7. Other than chemical analysis, what
methods (such as application type,
nameplate, model number,
manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to
identify PCB-containing equipment?
8. Do non-liquid PCBs enclosed in
cabling pose any greater risk to the
health of the public than liquid PCBs
enclosed in cabling?
9. Should the ‘‘totally enclosed’’
exemption accorded to liquid PCBs
enclosed in cabling be extended to solid
PCBs?
XV. References
As indicated under ADDRESSES, a
docket has been established for this
rulemaking under docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757. The
following is a listing of the documents
that are specifically referenced in this
document. The docket includes these
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
documents and other information
considered by EPA in developing this
ANPRM, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that
are included in the docket, even if the
referenced document is not physically
located in the docket. For assistance in
locating these other documents, please
consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
1. Hutzinger, O.; Safe, S.; and Zitko,
V. Chemistry of PCBs. Robert E. Krieger
Publishing Company. 1983.
2. EPA. Microeconomic Impacts of the
Proposed ‘‘PCB Ban Regulation.’’ EPA
560/6–77–035.
3. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use
Prohibitions; Final Rule. Federal
Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979)
(FRL–1075–2).
4. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs), Toxic Substances Control;
Notice. Federal Register (42 FR 65264,
December 30, 1977) (FRL–837–1).
5. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use
Bans; Proposed Rule. Federal Register
(43 FR 24802, June 7, 1978) (FRL–886–
6).
6. Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency. 636
F2d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
7. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); Use in Electrical Equipment;
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Federal Register (46 FR
16096, March 10, 1981) (FRL–1773–2).
8. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use
Prohibitions; Use in Electrical
Equipment Final Rule. Federal Register
(47 FR 37342, August 25, 1982) (FRL–
2184–6).
9. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in
Electrical Transformers Final Rule.
Federal Register (50 FR 29170, July 17,
1985) (FRL–2835–6).
10. EPA. Reclassification of PCB and
PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register
(66 FR 17602, April 2, 2001) (FRL–
5790–7).
11. Mills III, William James. Thesis for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
the Graduate College Public Health
Sciences of the University of Illinois at
Chicago. Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Dioxins and Furans in Ambient Air
During the Smithville PCB Incineration
Project. 2001.
12. EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dose Response
Assessment and Application to
Environmental Mixtures (EPA/600/P–
96/001F). Available on-line at: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17665
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486.
13. EPA. Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) (CASRN 1336–36–3).
June 1, 1997. Available on–line at:
https://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/
0294.htm.
14. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
November 2000. Available on–line at:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/
tp17.html.
15. EPA. Compilation of Total Annual
PCB Large Capacitors and Total PCB
Trnsformers Disposed in the United
States From Annual Reports from
Commercial PCB Disposal Companies
from 1991–2007.
16. EPA. PCB Transformer
Registration Database. January 2008.
Available on–line at: https://
www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/
pcbs/pubs/data.htm.
17. EPA. Region 9. Exxon Transformer
Case Press Release. Available on–line at:
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/
2dd7f669225439b78525735900400c31/
66964079fdc4700e852574ac006f4537.
18. United States Coast Guard.
National Response Center. Available
on–line at: https://www.nrc.uscg.mil/
nrclegal.html.
19. E-mail messages from Nichaulus
C. Threatt of the National Response
Center to John Smith, dated 8–19–2009
and 9–10–2009.
20. Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Ratification Status. Available on–line at:
https://chm.pops.int/Countries/
StatusofRatification/tabid/252/
language/en-US/Default.aspx.
21. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP
POPs). Available on–line at: https://
www.unece.org/env/lrtap/status/
98pop_st.htm.
22. Environment Canada. PCB
Regulations Canada Gazette. Part II,
Vol. 142, No. 19, pp. 2078–2140.
September 17, 2008.
23. Bartley, W. Life Cycle
Management of Utility Transformer
Assets. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection
& Insurance Company. October 10–11,
2002.
24. EPA. Exposure and Human Health
Reassessment of 2,3,7,8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD)
and Related Compounds National
Academy Sciences (NAS) Review Draft.
October 2004. Available on-line at:
https://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/
nas-review.
25. Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy, Stakeholder Forum–1998,
Implementing the Binational Toxics
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
17666
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Strategy, Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Workshop Great Lakes
Monitoring. Available on-line at: https://
www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/pcbsrce/
pcbsrce.html.
26. Panero, M.; Boehme, S.; and
˜
Munoz, G. Pollution Prevention and
Management Strategies for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the New
York/New Jersey Harbor. Report from
the Harbor Consortium of the New York
Academy of Sciences. February 2005.
27. Covaci, A.; Voorspoels, S;
Schepens, P.; Jorens, P.; Blust, R.; and
Neels, H. The Belgian PCB/dioxin
crisis–8 years later: An overview.
Environmental Toxicology and
Pharmacology. Vol. 25, Issue 2. March
2008.
28. van Larebeke, N.; Hens, L.;
Schepens, P.; Covaci, A.; Baeyens, J.;
Everaert, K.; Bernheim, J.; Vlietinck, R.;
and De Poorter, G. The Belgian PCB and
Dioxin Incident of January-June 1999:
Exposure Data and Potential Impact on
Health. Environmental Health
Perspectives. 109:265–273. 2001.
29. Buzby, J. and Chandran, R.
Chapter 8, The Belgian Dioxin Crisis
and Its Effects on Agricultural
Production and Exports. International
Trade and Food Safety/AER–828
Economic Research Service, USDA.
30. Reuters. Used Oil May have
Caused Irish Food Crisis: Paper.
December 10, 2008.
31. British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) News. Irish pork contaminations
probed. December 8, 2008. Available online at: https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/
2/hi/uk_news/7770476.stm.
32. Food Safety Authority of Ireland.
Recall Information last reviewed March
9, 2009. Available on-line at: https://
www.fsai.ie/food_businesses/
topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/
recall_information.html.
33. EPA, OPPT. PCB Spill Cleanup in
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. EPA–745–
N–98–001. OPPT Tribal News. Vol. 1,
Issue 1, pp. 1–2. September 1998.
34. Senator Byron Dorgan text from
the Congressional Record. pp. S2914–
2915. Available on-line at: https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&page
=S2914&dbname=1998_record.
35. EPA. John H. Smith personal
communication with J. Gidner, BIA.
September 1999.
36. EPA, Office of Water. Guidance for
conducting fish and wildlife
consumption surveys. EPA–823–B–98–
007. 1998. Available on-line at: https://
www.epa.gov/fishadvisories/files/
fishguid.pdf.
37. EPA. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA–
822–B–00–004. 2000. Available on-line
at: https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
criteria/humanhealth/method/
complete.pdf.
38. Fitzgerald, E.; Hwang, S.; Gomez,
M.; Bush, B.; Yang, B.; and Tarbell, A.
Environmental and occupational
exposures and serum PCB
concentrations and patterns among
Mohawk men at Akwesasne. Journal of
Exposure Science and Environmental
Epidemiology. 17:269–278. 2007.
39. Tribal Rights and Fish
Consumption Workshop, University of
Washington School of Public Health.
August 12–13, 2009. Available on-line
at: https://depts.washington.edu/
tribalws/index.php?doc=schedule.
40. Hardy, J. Evaluation of
Contaminants in Puget Sound Fish and
Resulting Fish Advisory. Washington
State Department of Health. November
2, 2009. Available on-line at:https://
www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/
2009/day1d.ppt.
41. Sandau, C.; Ayotte, P.; Dewailly,
E.; Duffe, J.; and Norstrom, R. Analysis
of Hydroxylated Metabolites of PCBs
(OH-PCBs) and Other Chlorinated
Phenolic Compounds in Whole Blood
from Canadian Inuit. Environ Health
Perspect. 108:611–616. July 2000.
Available on-line at: [Online 25 May
2000] https://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/
members/2000/108p611-616sandau/
108p611.pdf.
42. USWAG. Promoting the Voluntary
Phase-Down of PCB-Containing
Equipment. October 2005.
43. EPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls; Import for Disposal; Final
Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11096,
March 18, 1996) (FRL–5354–8).
44. Helmick, R. W. and Zemanek, J. H.
How Entergy Battled Back-to-back
Hurricanes. Entergy Corporation,
Electric Light and Power. January 2006.
45. EPA. EPA Personnel Deployed to
Greensburg, Kansas, for Tornado
Response. May 7, 2007. Available online at: https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/
8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/
c0b30985df7b3cac852572d5006f3917
!OpenDocument&Start=1&
Count=5&Expand=1.
46. ASTM International. D2233–86
(1997). Standard Specification for
Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(Askarels) for Capacitors (Withdrawn in
2003).
47. EPA. Support Document/
Voluntary Environmental Impact
Statement and PCB Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce,
and Use Ban Regulation: Economic
Impact Analysis. pp. 32–43. April 1979.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48. EPA. Information on the Natural
Gas Pipeline Agreement with Texas
Eastern. pp. 33. 1981.
49. EPA. PCBs in Caulk in Older
Buildings. Available on-line at: https://
www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk.
XVI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes to the document
that were made in response to OMB
comments received by EPA during that
review have been documented in the
docket as required by the Executive
Order.
Since this document does not impose
or propose any requirements, and
instead seeks comments and suggestions
for the Agency to consider in possibly
developing a subsequent proposed rule,
the various other review requirements
that apply when an agency imposes
requirements do not apply to this
action. Nevertheless, as part of your
comments on this document, you may
include any comments or information
that you have regarding the various
other review requirements.
In particular, EPA is interested in any
information that would help the Agency
to assess the potential impact of a rule
on small entities pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider
voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note);
to consider environmental health or
safety effects on children pursuant to
Executive Order 13045, entitled
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or
to consider human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations pursuant to
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
The Agency will consider such
comments during the development of
any subsequent proposed rule as it takes
appropriate steps to address any
applicable requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous
substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 66 / Wednesday, April 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules
biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 31, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–7751 Filed 4–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2008-0067]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt
From Threatened to Endangered
Throughout Its Range
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition
finding.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12–month finding on a petition to
reclassify the delta smelt (Hypomesus
transpacificus) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. After
review of all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that
reclassifying the delta smelt from a
threatened to an endangered species is
warranted, but precluded by other
higher priority listing actions. We will
develop a proposed rule to reclassify
this species as our priorities allow.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on April 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R8–ES–2008–0067. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way,
W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. Please
submit any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Grim, San Francisco Bay-Delta
Fish and Wildlife Office, 650 Capitol
Mall, 5th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814;
by telephone at 916-930-5634; or by
facsimile at 916-414-6462. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Apr 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for
any petition to add a species to, remove
a species from, or reclassify a species on
one of the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, we first
make a determination whether the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, we make this determination
within 90 days of receipt of the petition,
and publish the finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
If we find the petition presents
substantial information, section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires us to
commence a status review of the
species, and section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act
requires us to make a second finding,
this one within 12 months of the date
of receipt of the petition, on whether the
petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted,
(b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but the
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether any species is
threatened or endangered, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. We must publish
these 12–month findings in the Federal
Register.
Species for which listing is warranted
but precluded are considered to be
‘‘candidates’’ for listing. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that a
petition for which the requested action
is found to be warranted but precluded
be treated as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, i.e., requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. Each subsequent 12–month
finding is also to be published in the
Federal Register. We typically publish
these findings in our Candidate Notice
of Review (CNOR). Our most recent
CNOR was published on November 9,
2009 (74 FR 57804).
Previous Federal Action
We were originally petitioned to list
the delta smelt as endangered on June
26, 1990. We proposed the species as
threatened and proposed the
designation of critical habitat on
October 3, 1991 (56 FR 50075). We
listed the species as threatened on
March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12854), and we
designated critical habitat on December
19, 1994 (59 FR 65256). The delta smelt
was one of eight fish species addressed
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
17667
in the November 26, 1996, Recovery
Plan for the Sacramento–San Joaquin
Delta Native Fishes (Service 1996, pp. 1195). We completed a 5–year status
review of the delta smelt on March 31,
2004 (Service 2004, pp. 1-50).
On March 9, 2006, we received a
petition to reclassify the listing status of
the delta smelt, a threatened species, to
endangered on an emergency basis. We
sent a letter to the petitioners dated June
20, 2006, stating that we would not be
able to address their petition at that time
because further action on the petition
was precluded by court orders and
settlement agreements for other listing
actions that required us to use nearly all
of our listing funds for fiscal year 2006.
We also stated in our June 20, 2006,
letter that we had evaluated the
immediacy of possible threats to the
delta smelt, and had determined that an
emergency reclassification was not
warranted at that time.
On July 10, 2008, we published a 90–
day finding that the petition presented
substantial scientific information to
indicate that reclassifying the delta
smelt may be warranted (73 FR 39639).
We announced the initiation of a status
review at that time, and requested
comments and information from the
public on or before September 8, 2008.
We reopened the comment period on
December 9, 2008, and that comment
period closed February 9, 2009 (73 FR
74674).
Species Information
Description and Taxonomy
Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish,
generally about 60 to 70 millimeters
(mm) (2 to 3 inches (in)) long, although
they may reach lengths of up to 120 mm
(4.7 in) (Moyle 2002, p. 227). Delta
smelt are in the Osmeridae family
(smelts) (Stanley et al. 1995, p. 390).
Live fish are nearly translucent and
have a steely blue sheen to their sides
(Moyle 2002, p. 227). Delta smelt feed
primarily on small planktonic (freefloating) crustaceans, and occasionally
on insect larvae (Moyle 2002, p. 228).
Delta smelt usually aggregate into loose
schools, but their discontinuous strokeand-glide swimming behavior likely
makes schooling difficult (Moyle 2002,
p. 228).
The delta smelt is one of six species
currently recognized in the Hypomesus
genus (Bennett 2005, p. 8). Within the
genus, delta smelt is most closely
related to surf smelt (H. pretiosis), a
species common along the western coast
of North America. In contrast, delta
smelt is a comparatively distant relation
to the wakasagi (H. nipponensis), which
was introduced into Central Valley
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17645-17667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7751]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757; FRL-8811-7]
RIN 2070-AJ38
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use
Authorizations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing an ANPRM for the use and distribution in
commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB items
[[Page 17646]]
and certain other areas of the PCB regulations under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and
distribution in commerce regulations to address: The use, distribution
in commerce, marking, and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric
and non-electric equipment; the use of the 50 parts per million (ppm)
level for excluded PCB products; the use of non-liquid PCBs; the use
and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces; and the
marking of PCB articles in use. Also in this document, EPA is also
reassessing the definitions of ``excluded manufacturing process,''
``quantifiable level/level of detection,'' and ``recycled PCBs.'' EPA
is soliciting comments on these and other areas of the PCB use
regulations. EPA is not soliciting comments on the PCB disposal
regulations in this document.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2010.
See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting dates
and other deadlines associated with the meetings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0757. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting
locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
For technical information contact: John H. Smith, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0512; e-mail
address: smith.johnh@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you you
manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Utilities (NAICS code 22), e.g., Electric power and light
companies, natural gas companies.
Manufacturers (NAICS codes 31-33), e.g., Chemical
manufacturers, electroindustry manufacturers, end-users of electricity,
general contractors.
Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS codes 48-49), e.g.,
Various modes of transportation including air, rail, water, ground, and
pipeline.
Real Estate (NAICS code 53), e.g., People who rent, lease,
or sell commercial property.
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS
code 54), e.g., Testing laboratories, environmental consulting.
Public Administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., Federal,
State, and local agencies.
Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS code
562), e.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g., storage facilities, landfills,
incinerators), waste treatment and disposal, remediation services,
material recovery facilities, waste transporters.
Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811), e.g., Repair and
maintenance of appliances, machinery, and equipment.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. If
you have any
[[Page 17647]]
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
With this document, EPA is issuing an ANPRM for the use and
distribution in commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB items and
certain other areas of the PCB regulations under TSCA. EPA is
reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations,
40 CFR part 761, subparts B and C, to address:
1. The use, distribution in commerce, marking, and storage for
reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment.
2. The use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products.
3. The use of non-liquid PCBs.
4. The use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces.
5. The marking of PCB articles in use.
EPA is also reassessing the definitions of ``excluded manufacturing
process,'' ``quantifiable level/level of detection,'' and ``recycled
PCBs'' in 40 CFR part 761, subpart A.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
The authority for this action comes from TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B)
and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B) and (C)) as well as TSCA
section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). Section 6(e)(2)(A) of
TSCA provides that ``no person may manufacture, process, or distribute
in commerce or use any polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than
in a totally enclosed manner'' after January 1, 1978. However, TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(B) provides EPA with the authority to issue regulations
allowing the use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in a manner other
than in a totally enclosed manner if the EPA Administrator finds that
the use and distribution in commerce ``will not present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment.'' (EPA's authority to
allow distribution of PCBs in commerce is limited to those PCB items
that were ``sold for purposes other than resale'' before April 1978
(TSCA section 6(e)(3)(C) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(C))). Section 6(e)(2)(C)
of TSCA defines ``totally enclosed manner'' as ``any manner which will
ensure that any exposure of human beings or the environment by the
polychlorinated biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the
Administrator by rule.'' Section 6(e)(1)(B) of TSCA directs EPA to
promulgate rules to require PCBs to be marked with clear and adequate
warnings and instructions (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).
III. Context of this ANPRM
In the 1970s, commercial manufacture of PCBs in the United States
ceased. A substantial portion of the PCBs that had already been
manufactured were still in use in many areas of the country; in 1976
EPA estimated that of 1.4 billion pounds (lbs.) of PCBs produced in the
United States, 750 million lbs. remained in service in the country.
Approximately 75% of the PCBs produced were for use as liquids in
electrical or industrial equipment (Ref. 1). For some specific types of
equipment, such as electrical capacitors, virtually all of the large
number of units manufactured and in use contained PCBs, but for other
types of equipment, such as electromagnets, only a small number of
units contained PCBs (Ref. 2).
TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977. Section 6(e) of TSCA
generally prohibited the manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs and charged EPA with issuing regulations for
the marking and disposal of PCBs. EPA published the first regulations
addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 1979 (Ref.
3). Over the 30 years since then, many changes have taken place in the
industry sectors that use such equipment, and EPA believes that the
balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining
equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending
the regulations.
A. Regulatory History
On December 30, 1977, EPA published a notice in the Federal
Register stating that implementation of the January 1, 1978 ban imposed
by TSCA was being postponed until 30 days after the promulgation of new
regulations (Ref. 4). On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated these
regulations (Ref. 3). The regulations found that PCB liquid-filled
capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad
transformers) met the statutory definition of ``totally enclosed,'' and
were exempt from the ban in TSCA section 6(e)(2)(A) on manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, or use. This EPA finding meant
that it was not necessary to specifically authorize the use of these
types of PCB-containing equipment. In this same regulation, EPA also
authorized, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), the use of
other liquid-filled equipment that was not totally enclosed (railroad
transformers, heat transfer systems, and hydraulic systems), based on a
finding that the use would pose no unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment, subject to conditions. One of the conditions
EPA imposed on the authorization of most non-totally enclosed uses was
a time limit on the use of PCBs at or above the established 50 ppm PCB
regulatory cutoff. In the June 7, 1978 (Ref. 5), proposed rule for the
use authorizations, EPA discussed its authority and rationale for
establishing use limits:
[[Page 17648]]
Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to authorize by rule the
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs
in a non-totally enclosed manner if these activities will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
EPA has determined that certain non-totally enclosed PCB use
activities will not present an unreasonable risk and proposed to
authorize these use activities for a period of 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule. At that time, EPA will examine the
need for continuing these authorizations.
(Ref. 5, p. 24807)
EPA has not previously undertaken a reassessment. In making this
determination to make a reassessment, EPA weighed the effects of PCBs
on health and the environment, the magnitude of exposure, and the
reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule. This
determination is fully discussed in the support/voluntary draft
environmental impact statement. These proposed time limits were, with
minor modifications, adopted in the final rule:
Unlike all other activities that may be subject to an
authorization under TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), use activities are not
prohibited under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A). Accordingly, there is no
automatic limit to the length of use authorizations. In deciding how
long to authorize each use, EPA believes that it should have the
opportunity to review each use in a timely way to ensure that there
is no unreasonable risk associated with its continuation. In
addition, improved technology or development of new PCB substitutes
could reduce the need for the authorization. Accordingly EPA
proposed a five-year limit on most use authorizations; however, no
such limit was proposed on the use authorization for PCBs in
electric equipment.
(Ref. 3, p. 31530)
After the May 31,1979, rule was published, the Environmental
Defense Fund, Inc., (EDF) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit to review the portion of the 1979
regulation which designated the use of ``intact and non-leaking'' PCB
liquid filled capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than
railroad transformers) as ``totally enclosed.'' On October 30, 1980,
the court decided that there was insufficient evidence in the record to
support the Agency's classification of the equipment as ``totally
enclosed'' (Ref. 6). The court vacated this portion of the rule and
remanded it to EPA for further action. EPA, EDF, and certain industry
interveners petitioned the court to stay the mandate while EPA
conducted rulemaking beginning with an ANPRM, and a utility industry
group agreed to develop factual information necessary for the
rulemaking. The court granted the request for a stay and the text of
the court order was published with EPA's ANPRM on March 10, 1981 (Ref.
7). On August 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule authorizing the use of
capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers other than railroad
transformers, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) (Ref. 8). Time
limits were imposed on the use of certain types of PCB equipment posing
an exposure risk to food and feed. Since 1982 there have been
additional rulemakings (e.g., Refs. 9 and 10), which, with certain
exceptions, have continued to allow the use of PCB-containing
equipment, the passive removal of PCB-containing equipment from use
through attrition, and to require the disposal of PCBs and PCB-
containing equipment in an environmentally sound manner.
B. PCB Use Authorizations
Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the following liquid-filled PCB
equipment is authorized for use in a non-totally enclosed manner:
Electrical transformers.
Railroad transformers.
Mining equipment.
Heat transfer systems.
Hydraulic systems.
Electromagnets.
Switches.
Voltage regulators.
Electrical capacitors.
Circuit breakers.
Reclosers.
Liquid-filled cable.
Rectifiers.
The servicing, in accordance with specified conditions, of the
following liquid-filled equipment is also authorized:
Electrical transformers.
Railroad transformers.
Electromagnets.
Switches.
Voltage regulators.
Circuit breakers.
Reclosers.
Liquid-filled cable.
Rectifiers.
Liquid PCBs are authorized for use where they are a contaminant in
the following equipment:
Natural gas pipeline systems.
Contaminated natural gas pipe and appurtenances.
Other gas or liquid transmission systems.
There are also use authorizations for certain non-liquid PCBs
applications: Carbonless copy paper and porous surfaces contaminated
with PCBs regulated for disposal by spills of liquid PCBs. There are
other use authorizations for research and development (40 CFR
761.30(j)), for scientific instruments (40 CFR 761.30(k)), and for
decontaminated materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)).
However, there are no use authorizations for non-liquid PCB-
containing products if they contain PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm,
including but not limited to adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint,
rubber or plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, and waxes.
In 40 CFR 761.35, storage for reuse of authorized PCB articles is
allowed for up to 5 years, or longer if kept in a storage unit
complying with TSCA or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) requirements.
C. Distribution in Commerce Regulations
Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA states, ``The term `totally enclosed
manner' means any manner which will ensure that any exposure of human
beings or the environment to a polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insignificant as determined by the Administrator by rule.'' The
definition established by rule in 40 CFR 761.3 is, ``Totally enclosed
manner means any manner that will ensure no exposure of human beings or
the environment to any concentration of PCBs.''
EPA has found that the distribution in commerce of intact and non-
leaking equipment is ``totally enclosed.'' See 40 CFR 761.20 (Ref. 3,
p. 31542). Therefore, no authorization is required for the distribution
in commerce for use of intact and non-leaking, liquid-filled electrical
equipment, so long as the equipment was sold for purposes other than
resale before July 1, 1979. Section 40 CFR 761.20 states:
In addition, the Administrator hereby finds, for purposes of
section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, that any exposure of human beings or the
environment to PCBs, as measured or detected by any scientifically
acceptable analytical method, may be significant, depending on such
factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the exposure, the
likelihood of exposure to humans and the environment, and the effect
of exposure. For purposes of determining which PCB Items are totally
enclosed, pursuant to section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since exposure to
such Items may be significant, the Administrator further finds that
a totally enclosed manner is a manner which results in no exposure
to humans or the environment to PCBs. The following activities are
considered totally enclosed: distribution in commerce of intact,
nonleaking electrical equipment such as transformers (including
transformers used in railway locomotives and self-propelled cars),
capacitors, electromagnets, voltage regulators, switches (including
sectionalizers and motor starters), circuit breakers, reclosers, and
cable that contain PCBs at any concentration and processing and
distribution in commerce of PCB Equipment
[[Page 17649]]
containing an intact, nonleaking PCB Capacitor.
Since then, EPA has gathered information showing measurable
emissions of PCBs from some otherwise intact and non-leaking equipment,
which is not energized (providing or receiving electricity), to the
ambient air (Ref. 11). ``Weeps'' and ``seeps'' and other leaks are
visual indicators that the distribution in commerce of some of this
equipment could result in exposure to humans or the environment to
PCBs.
D. PCB Health Effects
The following information about the health effects of PCBs is taken
directly from the 1996 EPA document entitled ``PCBs: Cancer Dose
Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures'' (Ref.
12), which is the source document for the 1997 EPA Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS) file for PCBs. The information is referenced
in the 1997 EPA IRIS file for PCBs under heading II.A.2 (Human
Carcinogenicity Data), it states in part:
Occupational studies show some increases in cancer mortality in
workers exposed to PCBs. Bertazzi et al. (1987) found significant
excess cancer mortality at all sites combined and in the
gastrointestinal tract in workers exposed to PCBs containing 54 and
42 percent chlorine. Brown (1987) found significant excess mortality
from cancer of the liver, gall bladder, and biliary tract in
capacitor manufacturing workers exposed to Aroclors 1254, 1242, and
1016. Sinks et al. (1992) found significant excess malignant
melanoma mortality in workers exposed to Aroclors 1242 and 1016.
Some other studies, however, found no increases in cancer mortality
attributable to PCB exposure (ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistency
overall limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions from these
studies. Incidents in Japan and Taiwan where humans consumed rice
oil contaminated with PCBs showed some excesses of liver cancer, but
this has been attributed, at least in part, to heating of the PCBs
and rice oil, causing formation of chlorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR,
1993; Safe, 1994).
A study of rats fed diets containing Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242,
or 1016 found statistically significant, dose-related, increased
incidences of liver tumors from each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996).
Earlier studies found high, statistically significant incidences of
liver tumors in rats ingesting Aroclor 1260 or Clophen A 60
(Kimbrough et al., 1975; Norback and Weltman, 1985; Schaeffer et
al., 1984). Partial lifetime studies found precancerous liver
lesions in rats and mice ingesting PCB mixtures of high or low
chlorine content.
Several mixtures and congeners test positive for tumor promotion
(Silberhorn et al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB congeners is
correlated with induction of mixed-function oxidases; some congeners
are phenobarbital-type inducers, some are 3-methylcholanthrene-type
inducers, and some have mixed inducing properties (McFarland and
Clarke, 1989). The latter two groups most resemble 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in structure and toxicity.
Overall, the human studies have been considered to provide
limited (IARC, 1987) to inadequate (U.S. EPA, 1988a) evidence of
carcinogenicity. The animal studies, however, have been considered
to provide sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity (IARC, 1987; U.S.
EPA, 1988a). Based on these findings, some commercial PCB mixtures
have been characterized as probably carcinogenic to humans (IARC,
1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). There has been some controversy about how
this conclusion applies to PCB mixtures found in the environment.
(Ref. 13)
In addition to cancer, the 1996 document states, ``Although not
covered by this report PCBs also have significant ecological and human
health effects other than cancer, including neurotoxicity, reproductive
and developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage,
skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. Toxic effects have been
observed from acute and chronic exposures to PCB mixtures with varying
chlorine content'' (Ref. 12).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profile for PCBs of November 2000 (2000 ATSDR
Toxicological Profile) is a more recent review of the toxicity of PCBs.
The study's summary of health effects (chapter 2.2) states:
The preponderance of the biomedical data from human and
laboratory mammal studies provide strong evidence of the toxic
potential of exposure to PCBs. Information on health effects of PCBs
is available from studies of people exposed in the workplace, by
consumption of contaminated rice oil in Japan (the Yusho incident)
and Taiwan (the Yu-Cheng incident), by consumption of contaminated
fish, and via general environmental exposures, as well as food
products of animal origin....[H]ealth effects that have been
associated with exposure to PCBs in humans and/or animals include
liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular changes, immunological
alterations, neurodevelopmental changes, reduced birth weight,
reproductive toxicity, and cancer. The human studies of the Yusho
and Yu-Cheng poisoning incidents, contaminated fish consumption, and
general populations are complicated by the mixture nature of PCB
exposure and possible interactions between the congeneric components
and other chemicals.... Therefore, although PCBs may have
contributed to adverse health effects in these human populations, it
cannot be determined with certainty which congeners may have caused
the effects. Animal studies have shown that PCBs induce effects in
monkeys at lower doses than in other species, and that
immunological, dermal/ocular, and neurobehavioral changes are
particularly sensitive indicators of toxicity in monkeys exposed
either as adults, or during pre- or postnatal periods.
(Ref. 14)
EPA continues to examine more recent scientific studies on the
health effects of PCBs and seeks comments and/or information on the
health effects of PCBs available since the 1997 EPA update of IRIS and
since the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile. Any proposed or final PCB
rulemaking which relies on PCB health effects will use information
subject to EPA's rigorous peer-review process.
E. PCB Environmental Effects
The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for PCBs summarizes the
environmental fate, transport, and bioaccumulation of PCBs as follows:
Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down and
therefore may remain for very long periods of time. They can easily
cycle between air, water, and soil. For example, PCBs can enter the
air by evaporation from both soil and water. In air, PCBs can be
carried long distances and have been found in snow and sea water in
areas far away from where they were released into the environment,
such as in the arctic. As a consequence, PCBs are found all over the
world. In general, the lighter the type of PCBs, the further they
may be transported from the source of contamination. PCBs are
present as solid particles or as a vapor in the atmosphere. They
will eventually return to land and water by settling as dust or in
rain and snow. In water, PCBs may be transported by currents, attach
to bottom sediment or particles in the water, and evaporate into
air. Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likely to settle into sediments
while lighter PCBs are more likely to evaporate to air. Sediments
that contain PCBs can also release the PCBs into the surrounding
water. PCBs stick strongly to soil and will not usually be carried
deep into the soil with rainwater. They do not readily break down in
soil and may stay in the soil for months or years; generally, the
more chlorine atoms that the PCBs contain, the more slowly they
break down. Evaporation appears to be an important way by which the
lighter PCBs leave soil. As a gas, PCBs can accumulate in the leaves
and above-ground parts of plants and food crops. PCBs are taken up
into the bodies of small organisms and fish in water. They are also
taken up by other animals that eat these aquatic animals as food.
PCBs especially accumulate in fish and marine mammals (such as seals
and whales) reaching levels that may be many thousands of times
higher than in water. PCB levels are highest in animals high up in
the food chain.
(Ref. 14)
The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile also summarizes
ecotoxicological effects of PCBs in wildlife (Ref. 14). Information in
the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile is gathered from experimental
studies and field
[[Page 17650]]
observations of wildlife, specifically outlining PCB effects in fish,
bird, and mammal species. The biological responses in wildlife to
exposures to individual PCB congeners and commercial PCB mixtures vary
widely in these studies, possibly reflecting not only variability in
susceptibility among species, but also differences in the mechanism of
action or selective metabolism of individual congeners. Noteworthy
impacts on fish, birds, and mammals from this collective data include
neurological/behavioral, immunological, dermal, and reproductive/
developmental effects. Observed PCB effects related to neurological
impairment include alterations in central nervous system
neurotransmitter levels, retarded learning, increased activity, and
behavioral changes. Immunological effects consist of morphological
changes in organs related to the immune system, as well as functional
impairment of humoral- and cell-mediated immune responses. Dermal
effects in species include adverse effects on fins and tails in fish,
and abnormal skin, hair, and nail growth in mammals. Lastly,
reproductive and developmental impacts consist of increased embryo/
fetal loss through effects such as decreased egg hatchability and
reduced embryo implantation (Ref. 14).
EPA seeks information on the environmental effects of PCBs that
became available after the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile (Ref. 14).
IV. Objective of this ANPRM
The objective of this ANPRM is to announce the Agency's intent to
reassess the current use authorizations for certain PCB uses to
determine whether they may now pose an unreasonable risk to human
health and the environment. This reassessment will be based in part
upon information and experience acquired in dealing with PCBs over the
past 3 decades. This ANPRM solicits information from the public on
several topics to assist EPA in making this reassessment.
Since the Agency first promulgated its PCB use regulations in 1979,
EPA's knowledge about the universe of PCB materials has greatly
increased. The Agency has gained valuable knowledge and experience
regarding the various sources and uses of PCB materials. Over the past
30 years, EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate and draw conclusions
about the effectiveness of the PCB regulations in preventing an
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from exposure to
PCBs, as well as their economic impact. This document details EPA's
observations on why there is reason to make changes in the regulations.
At the present time, EPA is investigating whether some authorized uses
of PCBs should be eliminated or phased-out and whether more stringent
use and servicing conditions would be appropriate. EPA is also re-
examining the geographical and numerical extent of PCBs and PCB items,
which are subject to the use regulations. The objective of the
anticipated rulemaking would be to modify any of the regulations that
apply to PCBs or PCB items, as necessary, if these uses present an
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment, taking into
account conditions as they exist and as they are likely to exist in the
future.
EPA seeks information that will be useful in making the findings
required by TSCA section 6. By prohibiting the use of PCBs (except in a
totally enclosed manner), Congress established a statutory presumption
that use of PCBs poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. In order to assess whether a use poses ``no unreasonable
risks,'' EPA would include an assessment of impacts on the economy,
electric energy availability, and all other health, environmental, or
social impacts that could be expected from adoption of alternatives to
PCBs. There is a list of several questions related to EPA's
reassessment in Unit XIV. Responses to the questions will provide EPA
with information needed to assist in its reassessment; other
information, of course, is also welcome.
EPA recognizes that there may be differences in the maintenance
operations, inventories, planning, funding, and budgets for different
owners of electrical equipment and does not make any assumptions about
these differences. For example, when compared to very large interstate
utilities, small municipal and cooperative utilities may have a very
different approach to address the replacement of leaking equipment.
Where applicable and appropriate, small municipal and cooperative
utility responders should provide information about the impacts a
phaseout of PCB-containing equipment might have on their operations and
their customers. In particular, EPA encourages small municipal and
cooperative utilities to take the time to answer the questions in Unit
XIV. or otherwise provide details about maintenance operations,
inventories, planning, funding, budgets, or any other information
related to the cost of addressing the sound environmental management of
the PCBs in their equipment and measures they have taken or planned to
take and how these measures will help to safely manage their PCBs. EPA
also is interested in exploring a range of incentives or programs that
might facilitate organizations with limited budgets to remove regulated
PCBs and PCB equipment from their systems and facilities.
In this document, EPA is also announcing plans to involve
stakeholders in gathering information to inform EPA's determination of
the scope of the problem, and EPA's decision on the best ways to
address risks that may be present from current PCB use authorizations.
EPA will sponsor a series of public meetings around the country to
solicit stakeholder comments on this document. Specific information
regarding the locations, dates, and times of the public meetings are
included in Unit XIII.
V. EPA's Reasons for Reassessing Existing Use and Distribution
Provisions
A. Attrition, Aging of Equipment, and Spills
All of the PCB-containing equipment in current use, which has been
operating in accordance with the 1979 and subsequent use
authorizations, is at least 30 years old. Since the ban on
manufacturing in 1979, no new equipment containing PCBs at
concentrations greater than or equal to (>=) 50 ppm has been
manufactured. The total number of PCB transformers in the United States
is decreasing (Ref. 15) but there are still many PCB transformers in
use (Ref. 16). Also, all but the most recently manufactured PCB-
containing equipment may be nearing the end of its expected useful
life, although the useful life of some equipment may have effectively
been extended by extensive maintenance and re-building. The useful life
of transformers is typically no more than 30-40 years (Ref. 2).
Equipment is increasingly vulnerable to leaks the older it becomes.
For example, between 2002 and 2005, two large, aging electrical
transformers located on Exxon Mobil's offshore oil and gas platform,
Hondo, in the Santa Barbara Channel, leaked nearly 400 gallons of PCB-
contaminated fluid. Exxon allowed one of the transformers to leak for
almost 2 years before repairing it (Ref. 17).
Several statutes and regulations require reporting of spills of
hazardous chemicals, including PCBs, to the United States Coast Guard
National Response Center. EPA contacted the National Response Center
(Ref. 18) to find out how many PCB spills have been reported
historically. The National
[[Page 17651]]
Response Center advised EPA that there were a total of 5,578 spills
associated with PCBs reported from 1990 through August 19, 2009 (Ref.
19).
B. International Developments
PCBs are persistent chemicals and it is internationally recognized
that they pose a risk to health and the environment and need to be
removed from use. As of October 6, 2009, 166 countries have signed and
ratified, accepted, approved, or accessed the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention), which among other
things requires parties to make determined efforts to phaseout certain
ongoing uses of PCBs by the year 2025. The United States is a signatory
to the Stockholm Convention but has not yet ratified it (Ref. 20). A
similar agreement, which has an earlier date relating to the phaseout
of certain ongoing uses of PCBs, is the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on
Persistent Organic Pollutants of the 1979 Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution, which the United States signed in 1998. As
with the Stockholm Convention, the United States is a signatory to the
Aarhus Protocol, but has not yet ratified this agreement (Ref. 21).
On September 17, 2008, Canada published PCB ban and phaseout
regulations with bans starting in 2009 for high concentration PCBs
(Ref. 22). In the Canadian regulations, low-level (< 500 ppm) equipment
must be removed from use by 2025.
C. Disposal and Cleanup Costs
EPA anticipates that disposal costs may increase faster than the
general increase in inflation or cost of living. The population of PCB-
containing equipment is continually decreasing and will never grow or
rebound due to the ban on manufacturing. This may make the economics of
retaining a presence in the PCB storage and disposal industry
potentially less economically attractive for the waste management
industry. The numerous disposal options and excess disposal capacity
currently present may not be available in the future, so the costs and
benefits of continuing to operate aging equipment change in the future.
The benefits of continued use of PCB-containing equipment are also
diminished by the increasing risk that aging equipment may fail in a
manner that releases PCBs to the environment as that equipment reaches
the end of its useful life. The cost of cleaning up PCB spills may
exceed the cost of reclassifying or disposing of the intact PCB
equipment and replacing it with new equipment. The consequences include
both the direct costs to the equipment owners in damage, equipment
replacement, service interruption, and lost revenue, and also the
liability costs of losses to other parties, and compensation and
potential fines for damages to human health and the environment. EPA
seeks information and comment on how much the possibility of spills and
the costs of cleanup affect the decisions of facility owners and
operators regarding the management, removal, reclassification, or
replacement of PCB equipment.
D. Insurance Costs
EPA believes that the cost of liability insurance for owners of PCB
equipment is likely to increase significantly as the equipment
continues to age. Insurers have already observed the increased rate of
failure in equipment which is approaching the end of its useful life
expectancy (Ref. 23). EPA anticipates that in the future there will be
continuous increases in the cost of liability insurance to cover all
equipment because of numbers of releases and contamination from PCB
equipment which is at least 30 years old. EPA seeks comments on the
comparison of the cost of future liability insurance with potential
costs for testing and reclassification of potentially contaminated
equipment either before it has failed or before there has been a
determination made to dispose of it. EPA seeks information on
historical changes in insurance premiums, as PCB-containing equipment
has aged, and any projections of changes in future rates as a result of
projected changes in failure rates. EPA also seeks information and
comment on the extent to which the availability of commercial liability
insurance or self-insurance by facilities affects facility owners' and
operators' decisions on how to manage removal or reclassification of
PCB equipment that may be nearing the end of its useful life.
E. Hazard Assessment of PCBs
EPA is evaluating the risks from polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
(PCDDs) and structurally similar chemicals, such as certain PCBs,
through a process referred to as the Dioxin Reassessment (Ref. 24).
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFs), and some PCBs as molecules are structurally similar and have
been shown to have similar impacts on human health and the environment.
Also, under certain conditions, the incomplete combustion of PCB-
containing materials produces PCDDs and PCDFs, including some of the
more toxic congeners. Preliminary indications from the 2003 Draft
Dioxin Reassessment are that the toxicity of PCBs in general is higher
than the toxicity values that EPA used in developing previous TSCA PCB
regulations. Some PCB congeners, sometimes referred to as co-planar
PCBs or dioxin-like PCBs, are considered to have toxicities similar to
the most toxic of the PCDDs and PCDFs. EPA has not yet determined how a
potentially higher toxicity of these PCBs would impact regulatory
findings used to make risk based decisions. It is possible that EPA
would find that some risks, which were found to be reasonable using
older PCB toxicity information, would be unreasonable when using
potentially higher toxicity information. If this is the case, that
information my affect any proposed rule that EPA might issue. Any
proposed or final PCB rulemaking which relies on the contribution of
dioxin-like PCBs to the overall toxicity of PCBs will be based on the
finalized Dioxin Reassessment or another EPA peer-reviewed document.
F. Risks of PCB Substitute Materials
EPA seeks information on the current and likely future substitute
materials for PCBs that are currently in use or may be put into service
in the future. EPA is particularly interested in the chemical,
physical, flammability, and toxicological properties of these
materials. This information will be essential to a consideration of the
net differences in risks, were these materials to be substituted for
PCB equipment currently in use.
G. Updating Information on Releases of PCBs
EPA does not have a current, thorough national assessment of the
risks to human health and the environment from PCB releases.
Information is fragmentary and much of it is geographically limited.
For instance, the Great Lakes program in which EPA participates has
published recent estimates of PCB releases, but such estimates are
statewide, and similar estimates are not available for all States in
the United States (Ref. 25). The New York Academy of Sciences published
a study of PCB releases into the waterways feeding into the New York/
New Jersey harbor, breaking down the releases by type of source (Ref.
26), but similar studies are not available for most waterways in the
country. Releases to the environment exceeding the reportable quantity
for PCBs must be reported promptly to the National Response Center. In
addition to the
[[Page 17652]]
information which is available through the National Response Center,
EPA seeks any information or data on releases of PCBs, to the
environment from all kinds of sources, in order to set the releases
that are the subject of the regulations being considered into a larger
context. EPA seeks information on the causes of such releases, whether
the releases reached the environment or were contained, and any
information on human health or environmental consequences.
H. Risks From the Contamination of Food from PCB-Containing Oils
Currently the use and storage for reuse of PCB transformers that
pose an exposure risk to food or feed are prohibited (40 CFR
761.30(a)(1)(i)). The use and storage for reuse of large high voltage
capacitors and large low voltage capacitors which pose an exposure risk
to food or feed are also prohibited (40 CFR 761.30(l)(1)(i)). However,
both transformers and capacitors containing:
< 500 ppm PCBs at any weight or volume; or
< 1.36 kilograms (kg) or 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid at any
PCB concentration, are not included in these prohibitions.
To lessen the likelihood of such food and feed contamination from these
sources, EPA is considering broadening the prohibition on the use and
storage for reuse of PCBs that pose an exposure risk to food and feed,
including PCB articles containing greater than 0.05 liters (or
approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. PCB concentrations
in food are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and PCB
concentrations in feed are regulated by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
There have been two recent incidents of particular note in Europe
of very significant contamination of foods and a subsequent recall of
those foods from the international market. Because of the presence of
trace amounts of dioxins which are present in most PCBs, these two
crises also became dioxin crises. These are discussed as follows.
1. Belgium. The ``Belgian PCB/dioxin crisis'' began in January
1999, when 50 kg of PCBs contaminated with 1 gram (g) of dioxins were
accidentally added to a stock of recycled fat used for the production
of 500 tons of animal feed in Belgium. Although signs of poultry
poisoning were noticed by February 1999, the extent of the
contamination was publicly announced only in May 1999, when it appeared
that more than 2,500 poultry and pig farms could have been involved.
The highest concentrations of PCBs and dioxins and the highest
percentage of affected animals were found in poultry.
The Belgian government estimates that the dioxin crisis cost
approximately $493 million, with approximately $106 million attributed
to the loss in the swine sector (in 1999 1 Euro = 1.06 U.S. dollars).
As other European Union (EU) countries were also affected by export
bans, the final cost of this incident worldwide will likely be higher
(Refs. 27, 28, and 29).
2. Ireland. In December 2008, Irish pork products were removed from
distribution in commerce. This action was taken by the Food Safety
Authority of Ireland after finding levels of PCBs and PCDDs in the food
at concentrations in excess of EU health standards for food.
Preliminary investigations indicated that a single supplier's feed,
which had been contaminated from PCB oil in equipment, had been
distributed to farmers broadly throughout the Republic of Ireland and
Northern Ireland. All pork products produced in Ireland after September
1, 2008 were removed from sale in early December 2008. Details of the
full investigation and the economic impact of the contamination are not
yet available (Refs. 30, 31, and 32).
I. Risks in Public Buildings From Fluorescent Light Ballasts
EPA is concerned about the release of high concentrations of PCBs
from fluorescent light ballasts, particularly in public buildings, such
as schools. There are anecdotal accounts of spills from this source and
anecdotal information that PCB fluorescent light ballasts have a
lifetime of less than 10 years. One of these spills was a significant
release from fluorescent light ballasts, almost 20 years after the
publication of the PCB use regulations, at the Standing Rock Indian
Reservation, ND.
On February 2, 1998, there were complaints of respiratory problems
in the administration buildings at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation
in North Dakota. On February 5, 1998, EPA received an urgent telephone
call from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota about possible
PCB contamination from leaking fluorescent light ballasts. The light
ballasts were located in the elementary school, administration
building, high school library, and several Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) buildings on the reservation (Refs. 33 and 34). EPA determined
that many of the fluorescent light ballasts contained PCBs. A sampling
contractor found PCBs above EPA's PCB spill cleanup levels in light
fixtures, office equipment and carpeting. BIA hired a contractor to
decontaminate all areas where it found detectable levels. The
contractor removed light ballasts and disposed of all ballasts and
contaminated materials as PCB waste. A high school building where
contamination was found was closed from February to June, but reopened
for summer school. The cleanup for the 4 buildings at Standing Rock
cost BIA more than $500,000 (Ref. 35). The estimated cost for removing
the non-leaking ballasts from 60 other buildings in the BIA Great
Plains Region (formerly the Aberdeen Area) was $60,000.
J. Environmental Justice Considerations
EPA seeks comments on any disproportionate environmental and public
health impacts that PCB use and distribution in commerce for use may
have on minority, low-income, tribal, and disadvantaged populations. As
explained in Unit III.D., it is noted that ATSDR has concluded that
there may be an adverse impact on the health of persons who eat fish
contaminated with PCBs. Disadvantaged populations may be more exposed
to PCBs in contaminated fish than members of the general population.
Some disadvantaged communities, such as Indian tribes, have subsistence
lifestyles and rely on fish and mammals that may be caught in PCB
contaminated waters and environs, as a primary source of nutrition.
Fish in these waters may have been contaminated by both PCB wastes
disposed of prior to the use authorizations, as well as releases that
have occurred from the currently authorized use, distribution in
commerce and disposal of PCBs (Refs. 14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41).
In addition, EPA is concerned about the presence of the potential
risks to urban environmental justice communities from PCB releases at
railroad substations, electrical substations, and electrical equipment
storage areas. EPA seeks specific information about the prevalence of
spills and other releases, including fires, from the use of PCBs in
environmental justice areas. The focus of the information gathering in
Unit XIV. is owners and operators of regulated electrical equipment and
those using PCBs which are authorized in part 40 CFR part 761. However,
EPA also seeks comments from minority, low-income, tribal, and
disadvantaged persons and their representatives, who are not direct
owners or users of PCBs and PCB equipment.
EPA is also announcing public meetings to discuss the Agency's
reassessment of the existing PCB use authorizations at several
locations around the country. The dates,
[[Page 17653]]
locations, and times of the meetings are included in Unit XIII. Any
additional meetings will be announced on the PCB website (https://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) at least 30 days prior
to the first meeting date. Please refer to the PCB website or call
Christine Zachek at (202) 566-2219 for further details. At these
meetings, representatives of minority, low-income, tribal, and
disadvantaged populations will be able to provide oral comments on the
proposed regulations. These persons will also have the opportunity to
provide comments to EPA as part of this ANPRM.
VI. Summary of Possible Regulatory Changes for PCB-Containing Equipment
Under Consideration
This unit identifies possible changes to the PCB use regulations
that EPA may consider in a future notice of proposed rulemaking. Any
future regulatory action to propose these changes will be supported by
an analysis of costs and benefits, as is required by TSCA. This
analysis will be supported, in part, by the quality of the data
submitted as a result of the ANPRM.
A. Options for Initial Phaseout Regulations
A potential phaseout of any PCB use authorizations might be
implemented gradually, allowing some use to continue under more
restrictions before the end of the use authorization. The Agency may
consider a number of regulatory measures, including, but not limited
to, the following:
Require testing of equipment which is stored for reuse or
removed from service for any reason, and which is assumed to contain
PCBs at concentrations >= 50 ppm in accordance with Sec. 761.2.
Require that where such equipment is found to contain PCBs
at concentrations >= 50 ppm after testing, within 30 days of receiving
the test results the owner must either reclassify the equipment to < 50
ppm PCBs or designate it for disposal.
Eliminate all currently authorized PCB equipment servicing
except for reclassification.
Require marking of all equipment which is known or assumed
(in accordance with Sec. 761.2) to contain PCBs at >= 50 ppm.
Increase the inspection frequency to a minimum of once
every month for non-leaking known or assumed >= 500 ppm PCB equipment
in use.
Before the final phaseout date(s), broaden the prohibition
on the use of PCBs in transformers that pose an exposure risk to food
or feed to include use of PCB-contaminated transformers.
Broaden the definition of PCB article (this would also
require changing other definitions) to include all equipment containing
> 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid
with >= 50 ppm PCBs, in place of the current definition which regulates
transformers and capacitors containing >= 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid.
Require registration of PCB large capacitors containing a
specified volume of dielectric fluid or having a specified external
volume or dimensions.
Eliminate the authorization for storage of PCB equipment
for reuse.
Eliminate the use authorization for PCBs in carbonless
copy paper.
Eliminate totally enclosed determination for distribution
in commerce.
Require reporting/notification to EPA Regional
Administrators when PCBs are found in any pipeline system, regardless
of the source of PCBs or the owner of the pipeline.
B. Potential Time Frames for Completing the Removal of PCB Equipment
From Service
These measures would phaseout all PCB-electrical equipment uses
with interim deadlines by equipment concentration and type.
By 2015, eliminate all use of askarel equipment (>=
100,000 ppm PCBs), removing from service the equipment in high
potential exposure areas first. EPA is considering allowing exceptions
on a case-by-case basis based on hardship and no unreasonable risk.
Exceptions may be granted based on an application and approved
exceptions may be published on the PCB website.
By 2020, eliminate all use of oil-filled PCB equipment (>=
500 ppm) and the authorization for use of PCBs at >= 50 ppm in pipeline
systems.
By 2025, eliminate all use of any PCB contaminated
equipment (>= 50 ppm), which is still authorized for use.
VII. Information to Be Considered During EPA Reassessment of PCB Use
Authorizations
This unit outlines what information EPA believes is important to
consider when reassessing PCB use authorizations. EPA seeks comment on
any other information, which may not be included in this unit, but
which you believe is important for EPA to consider when reassessing PCB
use authorizations.
A. Liquid-filled Electrical Equipment (Except Railroad Transformers and
Mining Equipment)
EPA seeks information on the specific population of any electrical
equipment that contains greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid
with PCBs >= 1 ppm and that was manufactured prior to July 31, 1979:
Transformers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), electromagnets (regulated
at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), switches (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), voltage
regulators (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical capacitors
(regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at 40 CFR
761.30(m)), reclosers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), liquid-filled
cable (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), and rectifiers (regulated at 40
CFR 761.30(r)). Each unit describes specifically what information EPA
solicits. EPA encourages small business owners and small municipal and
cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB-containing
electrical equipment population characteristics and their management
activities for the equipment.
1. Population characteristics for transformers, electromagnets,
switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers,
reclosers, liquid-filled cable, and rectifiers. Information that EPA
seeks about the use of this equipment appears in questions, which are
located in Unit XIV.A.-E.
2. Servicing. Since the first use regulations for liquid-filled
PCB-containing equipment, EPA has continued to prescribe conditions for
authorized servicing (maintaining or repairing) this equipment, which
facilitated extending the life of the equipment, in order to ease the
hardship an immediate ban would have caused owners. Most life-extending
use conditions are included in the authorization for servicing:
Draining, repairing, and putting back into service PCB-
contaminated electrical equipment.
Topping off and putting back into service PCB-electrical
equipment.
Blending the oil drained from multiple pieces of PCB-
containing equipment for servicing.
Adding blended or other PCB-containing oil into repaired,
drained equipment.
Reclassifying.
Distributing PCB-containing equipment in commerce for
repair without manifesting.
Storing company-owned equipment for servicing without any
conditions to protect against leaks or spills.
[[Page 17654]]
Servicing equipment which is owned by others, without
having commercial storage approvals.
EPA believes that this equipment is nearing the final stages of
useful life, after a minimum of 30 years of use. When this aging
equipment fails to function in use or is otherwise removed from
service, and if there is a need to prolong the life of the equipment,
EPA believes that the PCBs should be removed from the equipment and
disposed of in accordance with the regulations in 40 CFR part 761,
subpart D. The reclassification of out-of-service equipment could be
considered preventive maintenance and does not require service
interruption, lost revenue, or liability costs of losses to other
parties. In the brochure, entitled ``Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down
of PCB-Containing Equipment,'' published in October 2005 by the
Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) (Ref. 42), it states
that:
Many utility companies across the country have procedures in
place to ensure that most equipment containing PCBs in
concentrations > 50 ppm identified after removal from the field is
either disposed of and not returned to service or retrofilled before
being returned to service. This practice helps ensure the
accelerated retirement from service of a large class of potentially
PCB-containing equipment (e.g., distribution pole-top and padmount
transformers) that could otherwise lawfully be placed back into
service. USWAG will continue to actively promote these systematic
practices of voluntarily identifying and retiring PCB-containing
equipment from service.
On April 2, 2001, EPA provided new reclassification procedures
which include refilling mineral oil filled equipment with liquid
containing < 2 ppm total PCBs (Ref. 10). A majority of liquid-filled
equipment which was manufactured to contain mineral oil dielectric
fluid (mineral oil) and which remains in use can be easily reclassified
to contain < 50 ppm with a thorough draining and refilling with liquid
containing < 2 ppm PCBs. If an owner determines that the equipment is
not worth reclassifying, there currently are numerous disposal options
and excess disposal capacity for the equipment. EPA seeks information
on the types and extent of service-extending maintenance and rebuilding
of PCB-containing transformers, railroad transformers, heat transfer
systems, hydraulic systems, electromagnets, switches, voltage
regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers, cable, and rectifiers. EPA's
questions about servicing are located in Unit XIV.F.
3. Identifying and managing the use, removal from use, and
disposal. In the public comments provided during the 1979 rulemaking,
electrical equipment owners stated that they did not know where PCB-
containing equipment was located (Ref. 3). In the 30 years since, EPA
believes that it would have been prudent for owners to implement a plan
during that time to locate any regulated equipment. The common use and
availability of bar code labels and scanning equipment and user-
friendly computerized inventory management systems, plus the ability of
global positioning systems to precisely specify locations, should
facilitate the development and maintenance of an inventory of PCB-
containing regulated equipment. Equipment owners previously told EPA
that it was not possible to determine whether mineral oil-filled
equipment contained PCBs unless the oil was tested, and testing was
expensive. EPA agrees that it is necessary to collect oil to test it
and there is a cost associated with the oil sample collection and
chemical analysis. However, at the time of disposal it is already
necessary to test to determine the PCB concentration to determine how
the equipmen