Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), 58266-58270 [2014-23104]
Download as PDF
58266
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
[FR Doc. 2014–23003 Filed 9–26–14; 8:45 am]
available only in hard copy form.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
AGENCY
the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
40 CFR Part 761
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396; FRL–9917–21– Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
OSWER]
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
RIN 2050–AG79
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
number for the RCRA Docket is (202)
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for
566–0270.
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
William Noggle, U.S. Environmental
Agency (EPA).
Protection Agency, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
ACTION: Final rule.
5304P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703–
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
347–8769; or by email: noggle.william@
is taking final action on a petition from
epa.gov.
the United States Defense Logistics
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agency (DLA) to import foreignI. General Information
manufactured polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the
A. Does this action apply to me?
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
This action applies to the petitioner,
‘‘manufacture’’ is defined to include the
the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency.
import of chemical substances into the
However, you may be potentially
customs territory of the United States.
affected by this action if you process,
With certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3)
distribute in commerce, or dispose of
of TSCA bans the manufacture,
the PCB waste imported by DLA, i.e.,
processing, and distribution in
you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste
commerce of PCBs. One of these
handler. Potentially affected categories
exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B),
and entities include, but are not
which gives the EPA authority to grant
necessarily limited to:
petitions to import PCBs into the
• Waste treatment and disposal
customs territory of the United States
(North American Industrial
for a period of up to 12 months,
Classification System (NAICS) code
provided the EPA can make certain
5622), e.g., facilities that store or
findings by rule. On April 23, 2013, the
dispose of PCB waste.
EPA received a petition from DLA, a
• Materials recovery facilities (NAICS
component of the United States
code 56292), e.g., facilities that process
Department of Defense (DOD), to import
and/or recycle metals.
PCBs that DOD currently owns in Japan
• Public administration (NAICS code
for disposal in the United States. The
92), e.g., the petitioning agency (i.e., the
EPA is granting DLA’s petition as of
DLA).
October 1, 2014. This decision to grant
This listing is not intended to be
the petition allows DLA to
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
‘‘manufacture’’ (i.e., import) certain
for readers regarding entities potentially
PCBs for disposal. Without an
affected by this action. Other types of
exemption granted by the EPA, DLA
entities not listed in this section could
would not be allowed to import the PCB also be affected. The NAICS codes have
waste to the U.S. for proper disposal.
been provided to assist you and others
DATES: This final rule is effective
in determining whether this action
October 1, 2014.
might apply to certain entities. To
determine whether you or your business
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
may be affected by this action, you
docket for this action under Docket ID
should carefully examine the
No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–0396. All
applicability provisions in 40 Code of
documents in the docket are listed on
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 761. If
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
(i) * * *
(B) Placer County Air Pollution
Control District.
(1) Rule 502, ‘‘New Source Review,’’
amended on August 8, 2013.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:55 Sep 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person
listed under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
II. Background
Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits
the manufacture, which includes the
import of chemical substances into the
customs territory of the United States,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs, except for the
distribution in commerce of PCBs that
were sold for purposes other than resale
before April 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of
TSCA also authorizes the EPA to
regulate the disposal of PCBs consistent
with the provisions in section 6(e)(2)
and (3) of TSCA.
Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, however,
stipulates that any person may petition
the EPA Administrator for an exemption
from the prohibition on the
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs. The
Administrator may by rule grant an
exemption if the Administrator finds
that:
(i) An unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment would not
result, and (ii) good faith efforts have
been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment and which may be
substituted for such polychlorinated
biphenyl. (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)(i)–
(ii)).
The Administrator may prescribe
terms and conditions for an exemption
and may grant an exemption for a
period of not more than one year from
the date the petition is granted. In
addition, section 6(e)(4) of TSCA
requires that a rule under section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA be promulgated in
accordance with sections 6(c)(2), (3) and
(4) of TSCA, which provide for
publication of a proposed rule, the
opportunity for written comments and
an informal hearing, if requested, and
publication of a final rule.
EPA’s procedures for rulemaking
under section 6 of TSCA are found
under 40 CFR part 750. This part
includes Subpart B—Interim Procedural
Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions,
which describes the required content for
manufacturing exemption petitions and
the procedures that the EPA follows in
rulemaking regarding these petitions.
These rules are codified at 40 CFR
750.10 through 750.21.
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Findings Necessary to Grant
Petitions
A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding
Before granting an exemption
petition, section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) of TSCA
requires the Administrator to find that
granting an exemption would not result
in an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or to the environment. The EPA
expects a petitioner to demonstrate in
its petition that the activity will not
pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40 CFR
750.11).
To determine whether a risk is
unreasonable, the EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur to
health or to the environment against the
benefits to society from granting or
denying each petition. See generally, 15
U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, the EPA
considers the following factors:
1. Effects of PCBs on human health
and the environment. In deciding
whether to grant an exemption, the EPA
considers the magnitude of exposure
and the effects of PCBs on humans and
the environment. The following
discussion summarizes EPA’s
assessment of these factors. A more
complete discussion of human health
and environmental effects of PCBs is
provided in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for the
reassessment of PCB use authorizations
in the Federal Register of April 7, 2010
(75 FR 17645) (Ref. 5). The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for PCBs
(2000) has also provided a recent review
of PCB human health and
environmental effects (Ref. 6).
a. Health effects. The EPA has
determined that PCBs cause significant
human health effects, including cancer
(classified as a probable human
carcinogen), immune system
suppression, liver damage, skin
irritation, and endocrine disruption.
PCBs also exhibit neurotoxicity, as well
as reproductive and developmental
toxicity. PCBs are readily absorbed
through the skin and are absorbed at
even faster rates when inhaled. Because
PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue,
humans are also exposed to PCBs
through ingestion of animal products.
b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB
congeners are among the most stable
chemicals known, and decompose very
slowly once they are released into the
environment. PCBs are absorbed and
stored in the fatty tissue of higher
organisms as they bioaccumulate up the
food chain through invertebrates, fish,
and mammals. Significantly,
bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even
more toxic than those found in the
ambient environment, since the more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Sep 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
toxic PCB congeners are more persistent
and thus more likely to be retained.
PCBs also have reproductive and other
toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds,
and mammals.
c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are
the two basic components of risk. The
EPA has concluded that exposure of
humans or the environment to PCBs
may be significant, depending on such
factors as the quantity of PCBs involved
in the exposure and the effect of
exposure. Minimizing exposure to PCBs
should minimize potential risk. As
shown through the 40 CFR part 761
regulations that detail proper disposal
and storage options, the EPA has
previously determined that some
activities, including the disposal of
PCBs in accordance with those
regulations, pose no unreasonable risks.
Other activities, such as long-term
storage of PCB waste, are generally
considered by the EPA to pose
unreasonable risks.
2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to
society of granting an exemption vary,
depending on the activity for which the
exemption is requested. The reasonably
ascertainable costs of denying an
exemption also vary, depending on the
individual petition. As discussed in
Section IV of this preamble, the EPA has
taken benefits and costs into
consideration when evaluating this
exemption petition.
B. Good Faith Efforts Finding
Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires
the Administrator to find that ‘‘good
faith efforts have been made to develop
a chemical substance which does not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which
may be substituted for [PCBs].’’ The
EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate
in its petition how this standard is met.
(See 40 CFR 750.11.) The EPA considers
several factors in determining whether
good faith efforts have been made. For
each petition, the EPA considers the
kind of exemption the petitioner is
requesting. In each case, the burden is
on the petitioner to show specifically
what was done to substitute non-PCB
material for PCBs or to show why it was
not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for
PCBs.
To satisfy this finding for requests for
an exemption to import PCBs for
disposal, a petitioner must show why
such activities should occur in the
United States and what steps have been
taken to develop a substitute. While
requiring a petitioner to demonstrate
that good faith efforts to develop a
substitute for PCBs makes sense when
dealing with exemption petitions for
traditional manufacture and distribution
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58267
in commerce, the issue of the
development of substitute chemicals
seems to have little bearing on whether
to grant a petition for exemption that
would allow the import into the United
States for disposal of PCB waste.
However, because section 6(e)(3)(B)
allows a petitioner to request an
exemption from any of the prohibitions
listed in section 6(e)(3)(A), it is
appropriate to apply the standard in a
way that is relevant to the particular
exemption requested. Therefore, the
relevant ‘‘good faith’’ issue for an
exemption request to import PCBs for
disposal in the customs territory of the
United States is whether the disposal of
the waste could and/or should occur
outside the United States.
IV. Final Disposition of This Exemption
Petition
A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition
to Import PCBs Located in Japan
On April 23, 2013, DLA submitted a
petition seeking a 1–year exemption to
import PCBs and PCB Items currently in
storage at U.S. military installations in
Japan (Ref. 1). DLA estimates as much
as 1,014,222 pounds of waste
contaminated with PCBs could be
generated in Japan through calendar
year 2014. The material in Japan
consists of transformers (drained and
un-drained), large and small capacitors,
voltage regulators, switches,
electromagnets, circuit breakers,
reclosers, electrical cable, electric light
ballasts, used dielectric fluids
containing PCBs, and PCB-contaminated
soil and debris (e.g., rags, small parts,
packaging materials). Ninety four
percent of the waste is at PCB
concentrations below 50 ppm. Details of
the particular amounts and
concentrations DLA is petitioning to
import can be found in Attachment 1 of
the DLA petition, which can be found
in the docket to this rulemaking. The
EPA has concluded that import of the
DLA PCBs will not cause a shortage of
domestic PCB storage or disposal
capacity. In addition, the EPA has
concluded the amounts of PCBs
available for import are small in
comparison to domestic generation, and
pose little threat of overwhelming
domestic disposal capacity (Ref. 4).
1. Information Regarding No
Unreasonable Risk Provided by the
Petitioner
DLA will package, transport, treat,
and dispose of these PCBs in the same
manner as PCBs identified in its
previous petitions, which the EPA
granted in 2003 and 2007 to allow the
import of up to 4,293,621 and 1,328,428
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
58268
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
pounds of waste contaminated with
PCBs, respectively (Ref. 2, 3).
Specifically, DLA notes its adherence to
applicable modal and inter-modal
national and/or international packaging,
marking, labeling and shipping paper
regulations, such as the United Nations
Performance Oriented Packaging
(UNPOP) standards, the International
Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG)
Code/International Maritime
Organization (IMO) requirements, the
International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Technical
Instructions, requirements of the
International Air Transport Association
(IATA), United Nations (UN)
Recommendations on the Transport of
Dangerous Goods Code, and provisions
of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
at 49 CFR 100–199. DLA further notes
that proper handling and shipping will
include blocking, bracing, over packing,
and inclusion of spill containment
devices, as required by applicable
transportation regulations.
DLA further indicates it will handle
and dispose of all PCBs and PCB Items
in conformance with the PCB
regulations at 40 CFR part 761. DLA has
considerable experience and expertise
in awarding and administering disposal
contracts for PCBs and PCB Items in the
U.S. and will award contracts with
commercial firms in accordance with all
applicable Federal procurement statutes
and the Federal Acquisition Regulations
(FAR). DLA additionally notes only
companies with the required Federal
and/or state-permits for the
transportation, storage, treatment and
disposal of PCBs and PCB Items would
be considered as eligible for award of
such contracts. DLA’s exemption
petition does not request to limit the
storage, treatment or disposal of PCBs
and PCB Items imported from Japan to
management at a particular facility;
rather DLA requests any storage,
treatment, or disposal facility that has
the appropriate Federal and/or state
permits for PCBs and PCB Items and for
which DLA has entered a contract be
allowed to manage these materials.
DLA notes that it and its contractors
have extensive experience in safely
returning PCBs and PCB Items to the
United States for treatment and
disposal, and that DLA has returned
several million pounds of PCBs and PCB
Items for compliant disposal in the
United States, including 3.6 million
pounds of foreign-manufactured PCBs
and PCB Items imported under the two
previously granted exemptions. As
noted previously, DLA had authority to
import up to 5.5 million pounds of PCBs
and PCB Items under the previous two
exemptions. Throughout the course of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Sep 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
this experience, DLA has used the same
standards and procedures discussed
above without spills or safety problems
affecting human health or the
environment.
2. Information Regarding Good Faith
Efforts Provided by the Petitioner
DLA states in its petition that disposal
of its PCBs and PCB Items in Japan is
not an available disposal option.
Specifically, as DLA noted in its
exemption request, there are significant
impediments to disposal on DOD
military installations in Japan. For
example, while there may exist certain
mobile technology capable of treating
some of the PCBs and PCB Items
generated by United States military
forces in Japan, there are also significant
impediments to obtaining the permits
that would be required to have that
technology approved for use on United
States military installations, where
residual wastes and metals would still
need to be taken off-installation for
disposal. Complicating the situation
further is any transfer or sale of property
from the U.S. military installations into
Japanese commerce is considered an
‘‘import’’ of property. Japan has banned
the importation of PCBs and PCB Items
at any detectable concentration,
including concentrations below the very
stringent 0.5 ppm level at which Japan
regulates domestic PCBs. DLA’s market
research suggested a potential option
could exist for disposal of some limited
waste streams in newly permitted
Japanese facilities (i.e., ‘‘offinstallation’’ disposal). However, DLA
has not been able to identify any change
in Japanese law that would allow offinstallation disposal in Japan nor the
existence of any properly permitted
vendor or technology that would be
currently available to properly treat the
DOD generated PCBs and PCB Items
within the confines of the United States
installations in Japan. Accordingly, onsite treatment does not present a
reasonable alternative to the import of
these wastes for proper disposal in the
United States in compliance with the
TSCA Section 6(e)(3).
DLA further notes disposal of this
waste in another country is not a viable
option. DLA cites its 1999 Report to
Congress as background on the
difficulty it faces in finding suitable
disposal alternatives for PCBs and PCB
Items generated or owned by DOD
overseas. In particular, DLA discusses
the difficulty of shipping waste from
Japan to other countries as a result of
the Basel Convention. Prior to its
previous petitions, DLA and its primary
disposal contractor made extensive
contacts over a period of several years
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with Japanese officials and disposal
facilities in numerous locations outside
the United States in an effort to identify
firms who could dispose of such PCBs
and PCB Items while satisfying the
Basel Convention requirements. At that
time, the DOD also consulted at length
with State Department officials in Japan
and in the United States whose
responsibilities include international
environmental matters. The variety of
problems identified in these contacts
regarding overseas disposal of certain
PCB Items resulted in a consensus that
use of existing facilities in other
developed countries was not a
reasonable alternative. Even if other
countries had the physical capacity to
accept these wastes, non-governmental
organizations might be expected to
oppose the DOD’s disposal of its waste
in third countries (that is, countries
other than Japan and the United States)
because the United States has the
technical capability to properly dispose
of the hazardous materials itself.
DLA concludes that its diligent but so
far unsuccessful attempts to locate
appropriate disposal sites outside the
United States demonstrate its good faith
efforts to pursue alternatives to disposal
within the United States and fulfill the
requirements of TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
B. What comment did the EPA receive
and how is it addressed?
On April 2, 2014, the EPA published
a direct final rule with an accompanying
proposed rule in the Federal Register
(79 FR 18471). In that rule, we noted if
adverse comments or a request for an
informal hearing were received, then the
EPA would publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the
public that this rule would not take
effect based on the direct final rule. We
also stated that we would then address
all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on the proposed rule
which accompanied the direct final
rule.
During the public comment period,
the EPA received one adverse comment
and request for informal hearing. The
comment received states in part, ‘‘In
brief, since the first two permissions
were granted in 2003 and 2007, there
have been alarming increases in
previously rare malignancies such as
melanoma and liver carcinoma.
Additionally even common
malignancies such as breast cancer have
had substantial rises. PCBs have also
been linked to endocrine disorders such
as diabetes and obesity both of which
have seen dramatic increasing trends’’
(Docket Document ID EPA–HQ–RCRA–
2013–0396–0004). The comment did not
include specific information to support
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
the claim of increased numbers of
cancers nor did the comment include
any support for the claim that this
increase is due to PCB exposures.
On June 13, 2014, the EPA published
a withdrawal of the direct final rule and
notice of informal hearing (79 FR
33867). During the informal hearing,
held on July 8, 2014, the EPA received
one presentation, which was submitted
by the same person who submitted the
adverse comment and request for an
informal hearing. The presentation
included a request for the EPA to update
EPA’s classification of PCBs from a
probable human carcinogen to a known
human carcinogen, as well as included
citations to studies purportedly
indicating a connection between certain
types of cancers and PCBs (Docket
Document ID EPA–HQ–RCRA–2013–
0396–0011). In the direct final rule for
this action, as well as re-stated in this
final rule, the EPA recognizes cancer as
a possible health effect from exposure to
PCBs. Therefore, neither information in
the comment nor in the presentation
characterizes risks of PCBs that were not
previously considered by the EPA, and
the information does not change EPA’s
evaluation that granting this exemption
will not result in an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment.
Specifically, the additional research
states cancer has been associated with
PCB exposure, and argues PCBs are
causal for a specific cancer (e.g., nonHodgkin lymphoma), is insufficient to
demonstrate that proper disposal in
accordance with our regulations would
result in an unreasonable risk. The PCB
wastes under this exemption must be
properly disposed of according to the
regulations set forth in 40 CFR part 761.
C. EPA’s Final Decision on the Petition:
April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA is Granting
This Petition
1. No unreasonable risk
determination. The EPA finds generally
that the disposal of imported PCBs and
PCB Items at an EPA-approved PCB
disposal facility poses no unreasonable
risks as these facilities have been
approved on the basis of that standard.
In addition, as with the previous two
petitions, the EPA concurs with DLA’s
assessment that transportation of this
waste will pose no unreasonable risk if
conducted in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations.
Therefore, for the following reasons, the
EPA finds there is no unreasonable risk
from importing the PCBs and PCB Items
by DLA from Japan to the United States
for disposal, as outlined below.
i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a
potential risk to health and the
environment. Proper disposal in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Sep 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
accordance with the 40 CFR part 761
regulations would reduce PCBassociated risks.
ii. Risk results from a combination of
exposure (likelihood, magnitude and
duration) and the probability of effects
occurring under the conditions of
exposure. Because the probability of a
transport accident occurring is low (Ref.
4), the likelihood of exposure to PCBs is
commensurately low. Consequently, the
probability of adverse effects to human
health or the environment is low.
iii. The PCB-containing materials will
be packaged in a manner consistent
with Federal, State, and local
regulations addressing the risks
associated with the storage and
transportation of hazardous wastes. In
addition, PCB waste will be
continuously monitored during the
ocean transport from Japan to the
United States. Contingency plans are
required by the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods Code and U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to
be in place before and after the import
of PCB-containing items to the United
States. Moreover, the PCB Items that
will be transported to the United States
generally have a low combustion
likelihood, which will make the
probability of fires low. Together, these
contingency measures will minimize
exposure to humans and the
environment in the event of an accident
or emergency during ocean transport.
iv. Given the aforementioned
information, the exposure likelihood,
frequency, and duration are so low that
even though PCBs are considered to be
highly hazardous, any risk resulting
from the combined exposure and hazard
potential would not be unreasonable to
human health or the environment.
v. The potential for human health
risks are further mitigated by the limited
duration of potential exposure. Under
the transport scenario proposed, any
exposures to humans (i.e., accidental or
emergency situation) would be of very
short duration. Hence, the low
probability of exposure occurring
combined with the short-term duration
of exposure, should one occur, further
support a qualitative conclusion that
there is no unreasonable risk to human
health.
vi. The long-term concern is the
potential for accumulation in the
ecological environment. Under a worst
case scenario where all of the PCBs were
released due to an unforeseen and
unlikely catastrophic event during
transport, PCB-exposed biological
receptors could be adversely affected.
However, this scenario would require a
failure of all safeguards that will be in
place. Furthermore, the alternative of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58269
storing the PCBs indefinitely seems to
pose more risk than transport.
Moreover, should an accident occur,
emergency response authorities would
be invoked to mitigate and/or remediate
exposures.
2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes
met. Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA
requires the Administrator to make an
additional finding, that ‘‘good faith
efforts have been made to develop a
chemical substance that does not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which
may be substituted for such
polychlorinated biphenyl.’’ The EPA
has interpreted this provision to require
that a petitioner has the burden of
demonstrating that it has made the
requisite good faith efforts to identify
alternatives to management of the PCB
waste in the United States. (See 40 CFR
750.11).
The EPA finds that DLA has
demonstrated good faith efforts to find
alternatives to disposal of this PCB
waste in the United States. The EPA
acknowledges the restrictions to
disposing of this waste in Japan. DLA
has also explored exporting this waste
to other countries as an alternative.
However, DLA has indicated, and the
EPA acknowledges, the peculiar
circumstances of DOD’s PCBs and PCB
Items, which, while present in one
country (i.e., Japan), are generated by
another country’s government, leading
to significant difficulty in providing
Basel Convention notification to third
countries. Given these difficulties, the
EPA concurs with DLA’s conclusion
that disposal in a third country (that is,
countries other than Japan and the
United States) is not a viable alternative
for this waste.
3. Benefits of Granting the Petition
i. Avoiding the risks of long-term
storage. The EPA believes granting the
petition to DLA to import 1,014,222
pounds of waste contaminated with
PCBs (94% of which is less than 50
ppm) will benefit the United States and
the environment in general. As DLA
notes, the continued long-term storage
of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities
in Japan poses risks to U.S. personnel
and the environment—risks that can be
eliminated through the action finalized
in the petition.
ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal.
Granting the petition allows the United
States to accept responsibility for the
PCBs and PCB Items it generates by
assuring proper and safe disposal in
domestic permitted disposal facilities.
iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese
citizens. The EPA considers the
reduction of risk to Japanese citizens to
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
58270
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
be advantageous, especially in light of
the heightened concerns over PCBs in
that country. Granting the petition is the
only practical mechanism to remove
this waste from Japan; otherwise, the
U.S. military would be required to
explain to its Japanese hosts that it
cannot remove its own toxic waste from
their country because U.S. law does not
allow the waste to be sent to the United
States.
For all these reasons, the EPA finds
DLA has satisfied the exemption criteria
of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and is
granting the petition.
V. References
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. DOD, DLA. Petition from David
Rodriguez, Director to EPA. Subject: Petition
to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency For an Exemption Under
the Toxic Substances Control Act to Import
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB
Items for Disposal. April 23, 2013. 19 pp.
2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls;
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption. Final
Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 53152,
September 18, 2007) (FRL–8143–4).
Available on-line at https://
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/09/18/
E7-18345/polychlorinated-biphenylsmanufacturing-import-exemption, Document
ID: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0042–0008.
3. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls;
Manufacturing (Import) Exemptions. Final
Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January
31, 2003) (FRL–7288–6). Available on-line at
https://www.federalregister.com/Browse/
Document/usa/na/fr/2003/1/31/03-2344,
Document ID: EPA–HQ–OPPT–2002–0013–
0041.
4. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls; Import for Disposal. Final Rule.
Federal Register (61 FR 11095, March 18,
1996) (FRL–5354–8). Available on-line at
https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1996/
March/Day-18/pr-24122.txt.html.
5. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations.
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Federal Register (75 FR 17645, April 7,
2010). (FRL–8811–7). Available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID:
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0757–0001.
6. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) (November 2000).
Available online at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
toxprofiles/tp17.pdf.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive
Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011), this action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ and is therefore not
subject to OMB review. Because this
action is not subject to notice and
comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:58 Sep 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
other statute, it is not subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1999
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). In addition,
this action does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
action does not create new binding legal
requirements that substantially and
directly affect Tribes under Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This action does not have
significant Federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). Because this
final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866,
this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994). This action does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This action is
subject to the Congressional Review Act,
and the EPA will submit a rule report
to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. Under the CRA, a ‘‘major rule’’
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous
substances, and Polychlorinated
biphenyls.
Dated: September 19, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 761—POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBs)
MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING,
DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND
USE PROHIBITIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 761
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611,
2614, and 2616.
Subpart E—[Amended]
2. Section 761.80 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and
distribution in commerce exemptions.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) The Administrator grants the
United States Defense Logistics
Agency’s April 23, 2013 petition for an
exemption for 1 year beginning on
October 1, 2014, to import up to
1,014,222 pounds of PCBs and PCB
Items stored or in use in Japan as
identified in its petition for disposal.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–23104 Filed 9–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, 38, 42, 44, 45, 52,
62, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 90, 92,
95, 97, 105, 109, 111, 114, 115, 117, 119,
121, 122, 131, 150, 151, 153, 154, 159,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 169, 171,
172, 174, 175, 176, 180, 181, 182, 185,
188, 189, 190, 194, 196, 197, and 199
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0688]
RIN 1625–ZA33
Shipping and Transportation;
Technical, Organizational, and
Conforming Amendments
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is issuing a
final rule that makes non-substantive
changes throughout Title 46 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. The purpose of
this rule is to make conforming
amendments and technical corrections
to Coast Guard regulations. This rule
will have no substantive effect on the
regulated public. These changes are
provided to coincide with the annual
recodification of Titles 46 and 49 on
October 1, 2014.
DATES: This final rule is effective
September 29, 2014.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29SER1.SGM
29SER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58266-58270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23104]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396; FRL-9917-21-OSWER]
RIN 2050-AG79
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
is taking final action on a petition from the United States Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) to import foreign-manufactured polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). For purposes of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), ``manufacture'' is defined to include the import of chemical
substances into the customs territory of the United States. With
certain exceptions, section 6(e)(3) of TSCA bans the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. One of these
exceptions is TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B), which gives the EPA authority to
grant petitions to import PCBs into the customs territory of the United
States for a period of up to 12 months, provided the EPA can make
certain findings by rule. On April 23, 2013, the EPA received a
petition from DLA, a component of the United States Department of
Defense (DOD), to import PCBs that DOD currently owns in Japan for
disposal in the United States. The EPA is granting DLA's petition as of
October 1, 2014. This decision to grant the petition allows DLA to
``manufacture'' (i.e., import) certain PCBs for disposal. Without an
exemption granted by the EPA, DLA would not be allowed to import the
PCB waste to the U.S. for proper disposal.
DATES: This final rule is effective October 1, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, WJC
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA
Docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Noggle, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5304P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703-
347-8769; or by email: noggle.william@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies to the petitioner, the U.S. Defense Logistics
Agency. However, you may be potentially affected by this action if you
process, distribute in commerce, or dispose of the PCB waste imported
by DLA, i.e., you are an EPA-permitted PCB waste handler. Potentially
affected categories and entities include, but are not necessarily
limited to:
Waste treatment and disposal (North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) code 5622), e.g., facilities that store
or dispose of PCB waste.
Materials recovery facilities (NAICS code 56292), e.g.,
facilities that process and/or recycle metals.
Public administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., the
petitioning agency (i.e., the DLA).
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities potentially affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this section could also
be affected. The 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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 761. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
II. Background
Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits the manufacture, which
includes the import of chemical substances into the customs territory
of the United States, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs,
except for the distribution in commerce of PCBs that were sold for
purposes other than resale before April 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(1) of
TSCA also authorizes the EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs
consistent with the provisions in section 6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA.
Section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, however, stipulates that any person may
petition the EPA Administrator for an exemption from the prohibition on
the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The
Administrator may by rule grant an exemption if the Administrator finds
that:
(i) An unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
would not result, and (ii) good faith efforts have been made to develop
a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for
such polychlorinated biphenyl. (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)(i)-(ii)).
The Administrator may prescribe terms and conditions for an
exemption and may grant an exemption for a period of not more than one
year from the date the petition is granted. In addition, section
6(e)(4) of TSCA requires that a rule under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA
be promulgated in accordance with sections 6(c)(2), (3) and (4) of
TSCA, which provide for publication of a proposed rule, the opportunity
for written comments and an informal hearing, if requested, and
publication of a final rule.
EPA's procedures for rulemaking under section 6 of TSCA are found
under 40 CFR part 750. This part includes Subpart B--Interim Procedural
Rules for Manufacturing Exemptions, which describes the required
content for manufacturing exemption petitions and the procedures that
the EPA follows in rulemaking regarding these petitions. These rules
are codified at 40 CFR 750.10 through 750.21.
[[Page 58267]]
III. Findings Necessary to Grant Petitions
A. No Unreasonable Risk Finding
Before granting an exemption petition, section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) of
TSCA requires the Administrator to find that granting an exemption
would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or to the
environment. The EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate in its
petition that the activity will not pose an unreasonable risk. (See 40
CFR 750.11).
To determine whether a risk is unreasonable, the EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur to health or to the environment
against the benefits to society from granting or denying each petition.
See generally, 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). Specifically, the EPA considers
the following factors:
1. Effects of PCBs on human health and the environment. In deciding
whether to grant an exemption, the EPA considers the magnitude of
exposure and the effects of PCBs on humans and the environment. The
following discussion summarizes EPA's assessment of these factors. A
more complete discussion of human health and environmental effects of
PCBs is provided in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the
reassessment of PCB use authorizations in the Federal Register of April
7, 2010 (75 FR 17645) (Ref. 5). The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for PCBs (2000) has also
provided a recent review of PCB human health and environmental effects
(Ref. 6).
a. Health effects. The EPA has determined that PCBs cause
significant human health effects, including cancer (classified as a
probable human carcinogen), immune system suppression, liver damage,
skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. PCBs also exhibit
neurotoxicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity. PCBs
are readily absorbed through the skin and are absorbed at even faster
rates when inhaled. Because PCBs are stored in animal fatty tissue,
humans are also exposed to PCBs through ingestion of animal products.
b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB congeners are among the most
stable chemicals known, and decompose very slowly once they are
released into the environment. PCBs are absorbed and stored in the
fatty tissue of higher organisms as they bioaccumulate up the food
chain through invertebrates, fish, and mammals. Significantly,
bioaccumulated PCBs appear to be even more toxic than those found in
the ambient environment, since the more toxic PCB congeners are more
persistent and thus more likely to be retained. PCBs also have
reproductive and other toxic effects in aquatic organisms, birds, and
mammals.
c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are the two basic components of
risk. The EPA has concluded that exposure of humans or the environment
to PCBs may be significant, depending on such factors as the quantity
of PCBs involved in the exposure and the effect of exposure. Minimizing
exposure to PCBs should minimize potential risk. As shown through the
40 CFR part 761 regulations that detail proper disposal and storage
options, the EPA has previously determined that some activities,
including the disposal of PCBs in accordance with those regulations,
pose no unreasonable risks. Other activities, such as long-term storage
of PCB waste, are generally considered by the EPA to pose unreasonable
risks.
2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to society of granting an
exemption vary, depending on the activity for which the exemption is
requested. The reasonably ascertainable costs of denying an exemption
also vary, depending on the individual petition. As discussed in
Section IV of this preamble, the EPA has taken benefits and costs into
consideration when evaluating this exemption petition.
B. Good Faith Efforts Finding
Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to find
that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be substituted for [PCBs].''
The EPA expects a petitioner to demonstrate in its petition how this
standard is met. (See 40 CFR 750.11.) The EPA considers several factors
in determining whether good faith efforts have been made. For each
petition, the EPA considers the kind of exemption the petitioner is
requesting. In each case, the burden is on the petitioner to show
specifically what was done to substitute non-PCB material for PCBs or
to show why it was not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for PCBs.
To satisfy this finding for requests for an exemption to import
PCBs for disposal, a petitioner must show why such activities should
occur in the United States and what steps have been taken to develop a
substitute. While requiring a petitioner to demonstrate that good faith
efforts to develop a substitute for PCBs makes sense when dealing with
exemption petitions for traditional manufacture and distribution in
commerce, the issue of the development of substitute chemicals seems to
have little bearing on whether to grant a petition for exemption that
would allow the import into the United States for disposal of PCB
waste. However, because section 6(e)(3)(B) allows a petitioner to
request an exemption from any of the prohibitions listed in section
6(e)(3)(A), it is appropriate to apply the standard in a way that is
relevant to the particular exemption requested. Therefore, the relevant
``good faith'' issue for an exemption request to import PCBs for
disposal in the customs territory of the United States is whether the
disposal of the waste could and/or should occur outside the United
States.
IV. Final Disposition of This Exemption Petition
A. The Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition to Import PCBs Located in
Japan
On April 23, 2013, DLA submitted a petition seeking a 1-year
exemption to import PCBs and PCB Items currently in storage at U.S.
military installations in Japan (Ref. 1). DLA estimates as much as
1,014,222 pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs could be generated in
Japan through calendar year 2014. The material in Japan consists of
transformers (drained and un-drained), large and small capacitors,
voltage regulators, switches, electromagnets, circuit breakers,
reclosers, electrical cable, electric light ballasts, used dielectric
fluids containing PCBs, and PCB-contaminated soil and debris (e.g.,
rags, small parts, packaging materials). Ninety four percent of the
waste is at PCB concentrations below 50 ppm. Details of the particular
amounts and concentrations DLA is petitioning to import can be found in
Attachment 1 of the DLA petition, which can be found in the docket to
this rulemaking. The EPA has concluded that import of the DLA PCBs will
not cause a shortage of domestic PCB storage or disposal capacity. In
addition, the EPA has concluded the amounts of PCBs available for
import are small in comparison to domestic generation, and pose little
threat of overwhelming domestic disposal capacity (Ref. 4).
1. Information Regarding No Unreasonable Risk Provided by the
Petitioner
DLA will package, transport, treat, and dispose of these PCBs in
the same manner as PCBs identified in its previous petitions, which the
EPA granted in 2003 and 2007 to allow the import of up to 4,293,621 and
1,328,428
[[Page 58268]]
pounds of waste contaminated with PCBs, respectively (Ref. 2, 3).
Specifically, DLA notes its adherence to applicable modal and inter-
modal national and/or international packaging, marking, labeling and
shipping paper regulations, such as the United Nations Performance
Oriented Packaging (UNPOP) standards, the International Maritime
Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code/International Maritime Organization (IMO)
requirements, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
Technical Instructions, requirements of the International Air Transport
Association (IATA), United Nations (UN) Recommendations on the
Transport of Dangerous Goods Code, and provisions of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations at 49 CFR 100-199. DLA further notes that proper
handling and shipping will include blocking, bracing, over packing, and
inclusion of spill containment devices, as required by applicable
transportation regulations.
DLA further indicates it will handle and dispose of all PCBs and
PCB Items in conformance with the PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761.
DLA has considerable experience and expertise in awarding and
administering disposal contracts for PCBs and PCB Items in the U.S. and
will award contracts with commercial firms in accordance with all
applicable Federal procurement statutes and the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR). DLA additionally notes only companies with the
required Federal and/or state-permits for the transportation, storage,
treatment and disposal of PCBs and PCB Items would be considered as
eligible for award of such contracts. DLA's exemption petition does not
request to limit the storage, treatment or disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items imported from Japan to management at a particular facility;
rather DLA requests any storage, treatment, or disposal facility that
has the appropriate Federal and/or state permits for PCBs and PCB Items
and for which DLA has entered a contract be allowed to manage these
materials.
DLA notes that it and its contractors have extensive experience in
safely returning PCBs and PCB Items to the United States for treatment
and disposal, and that DLA has returned several million pounds of PCBs
and PCB Items for compliant disposal in the United States, including
3.6 million pounds of foreign-manufactured PCBs and PCB Items imported
under the two previously granted exemptions. As noted previously, DLA
had authority to import up to 5.5 million pounds of PCBs and PCB Items
under the previous two exemptions. Throughout the course of this
experience, DLA has used the same standards and procedures discussed
above without spills or safety problems affecting human health or the
environment.
2. Information Regarding Good Faith Efforts Provided by the Petitioner
DLA states in its petition that disposal of its PCBs and PCB Items
in Japan is not an available disposal option. Specifically, as DLA
noted in its exemption request, there are significant impediments to
disposal on DOD military installations in Japan. For example, while
there may exist certain mobile technology capable of treating some of
the PCBs and PCB Items generated by United States military forces in
Japan, there are also significant impediments to obtaining the permits
that would be required to have that technology approved for use on
United States military installations, where residual wastes and metals
would still need to be taken off-installation for disposal.
Complicating the situation further is any transfer or sale of property
from the U.S. military installations into Japanese commerce is
considered an ``import'' of property. Japan has banned the importation
of PCBs and PCB Items at any detectable concentration, including
concentrations below the very stringent 0.5 ppm level at which Japan
regulates domestic PCBs. DLA's market research suggested a potential
option could exist for disposal of some limited waste streams in newly
permitted Japanese facilities (i.e., ``off- installation'' disposal).
However, DLA has not been able to identify any change in Japanese law
that would allow off-installation disposal in Japan nor the existence
of any properly permitted vendor or technology that would be currently
available to properly treat the DOD generated PCBs and PCB Items within
the confines of the United States installations in Japan. Accordingly,
on-site treatment does not present a reasonable alternative to the
import of these wastes for proper disposal in the United States in
compliance with the TSCA Section 6(e)(3).
DLA further notes disposal of this waste in another country is not
a viable option. DLA cites its 1999 Report to Congress as background on
the difficulty it faces in finding suitable disposal alternatives for
PCBs and PCB Items generated or owned by DOD overseas. In particular,
DLA discusses the difficulty of shipping waste from Japan to other
countries as a result of the Basel Convention. Prior to its previous
petitions, DLA and its primary disposal contractor made extensive
contacts over a period of several years with Japanese officials and
disposal facilities in numerous locations outside the United States in
an effort to identify firms who could dispose of such PCBs and PCB
Items while satisfying the Basel Convention requirements. At that time,
the DOD also consulted at length with State Department officials in
Japan and in the United States whose responsibilities include
international environmental matters. The variety of problems identified
in these contacts regarding overseas disposal of certain PCB Items
resulted in a consensus that use of existing facilities in other
developed countries was not a reasonable alternative. Even if other
countries had the physical capacity to accept these wastes, non-
governmental organizations might be expected to oppose the DOD's
disposal of its waste in third countries (that is, countries other than
Japan and the United States) because the United States has the
technical capability to properly dispose of the hazardous materials
itself.
DLA concludes that its diligent but so far unsuccessful attempts to
locate appropriate disposal sites outside the United States demonstrate
its good faith efforts to pursue alternatives to disposal within the
United States and fulfill the requirements of TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
B. What comment did the EPA receive and how is it addressed?
On April 2, 2014, the EPA published a direct final rule with an
accompanying proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 18471). In
that rule, we noted if adverse comments or a request for an informal
hearing were received, then the EPA would publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule would not
take effect based on the direct final rule. We also stated that we
would then address all public comments in any subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule which accompanied the direct final rule.
During the public comment period, the EPA received one adverse
comment and request for informal hearing. The comment received states
in part, ``In brief, since the first two permissions were granted in
2003 and 2007, there have been alarming increases in previously rare
malignancies such as melanoma and liver carcinoma. Additionally even
common malignancies such as breast cancer have had substantial rises.
PCBs have also been linked to endocrine disorders such as diabetes and
obesity both of which have seen dramatic increasing trends'' (Docket
Document ID EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0396-0004). The comment did not include
specific information to support
[[Page 58269]]
the claim of increased numbers of cancers nor did the comment include
any support for the claim that this increase is due to PCB exposures.
On June 13, 2014, the EPA published a withdrawal of the direct
final rule and notice of informal hearing (79 FR 33867). During the
informal hearing, held on July 8, 2014, the EPA received one
presentation, which was submitted by the same person who submitted the
adverse comment and request for an informal hearing. The presentation
included a request for the EPA to update EPA's classification of PCBs
from a probable human carcinogen to a known human carcinogen, as well
as included citations to studies purportedly indicating a connection
between certain types of cancers and PCBs (Docket Document ID EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2013-0396-0011). In the direct final rule for this action, as well
as re-stated in this final rule, the EPA recognizes cancer as a
possible health effect from exposure to PCBs. Therefore, neither
information in the comment nor in the presentation characterizes risks
of PCBs that were not previously considered by the EPA, and the
information does not change EPA's evaluation that granting this
exemption will not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Specifically, the additional research states cancer
has been associated with PCB exposure, and argues PCBs are causal for a
specific cancer (e.g., non-Hodgkin lymphoma), is insufficient to
demonstrate that proper disposal in accordance with our regulations
would result in an unreasonable risk. The PCB wastes under this
exemption must be properly disposed of according to the regulations set
forth in 40 CFR part 761.
C. EPA's Final Decision on the Petition: April 23, 2013 Petition; EPA
is Granting This Petition
1. No unreasonable risk determination. The EPA finds generally that
the disposal of imported PCBs and PCB Items at an EPA-approved PCB
disposal facility poses no unreasonable risks as these facilities have
been approved on the basis of that standard. In addition, as with the
previous two petitions, the EPA concurs with DLA's assessment that
transportation of this waste will pose no unreasonable risk if
conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Therefore, for the following reasons, the EPA finds there is no
unreasonable risk from importing the PCBs and PCB Items by DLA from
Japan to the United States for disposal, as outlined below.
i. PCBs are hazardous and pose a potential risk to health and the
environment. Proper disposal in accordance with the 40 CFR part 761
regulations would reduce PCB-associated risks.
ii. Risk results from a combination of exposure (likelihood,
magnitude and duration) and the probability of effects occurring under
the conditions of exposure. Because the probability of a transport
accident occurring is low (Ref. 4), the likelihood of exposure to PCBs
is commensurately low. Consequently, the probability of adverse effects
to human health or the environment is low.
iii. The PCB-containing materials will be packaged in a manner
consistent with Federal, State, and local regulations addressing the
risks associated with the storage and transportation of hazardous
wastes. In addition, PCB waste will be continuously monitored during
the ocean transport from Japan to the United States. Contingency plans
are required by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code and
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to be in place before and after
the import of PCB-containing items to the United States. Moreover, the
PCB Items that will be transported to the United States generally have
a low combustion likelihood, which will make the probability of fires
low. Together, these contingency measures will minimize exposure to
humans and the environment in the event of an accident or emergency
during ocean transport.
iv. Given the aforementioned information, the exposure likelihood,
frequency, and duration are so low that even though PCBs are considered
to be highly hazardous, any risk resulting from the combined exposure
and hazard potential would not be unreasonable to human health or the
environment.
v. The potential for human health risks are further mitigated by
the limited duration of potential exposure. Under the transport
scenario proposed, any exposures to humans (i.e., accidental or
emergency situation) would be of very short duration. Hence, the low
probability of exposure occurring combined with the short-term duration
of exposure, should one occur, further support a qualitative conclusion
that there is no unreasonable risk to human health.
vi. The long-term concern is the potential for accumulation in the
ecological environment. Under a worst case scenario where all of the
PCBs were released due to an unforeseen and unlikely catastrophic event
during transport, PCB-exposed biological receptors could be adversely
affected. However, this scenario would require a failure of all
safeguards that will be in place. Furthermore, the alternative of
storing the PCBs indefinitely seems to pose more risk than transport.
Moreover, should an accident occur, emergency response authorities
would be invoked to mitigate and/or remediate exposures.
2. Good faith efforts to find substitutes met. Section
6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA requires the Administrator to make an additional
finding, that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical
substance that does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be substituted for such
polychlorinated biphenyl.'' The EPA has interpreted this provision to
require that a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that it has
made the requisite good faith efforts to identify alternatives to
management of the PCB waste in the United States. (See 40 CFR 750.11).
The EPA finds that DLA has demonstrated good faith efforts to find
alternatives to disposal of this PCB waste in the United States. The
EPA acknowledges the restrictions to disposing of this waste in Japan.
DLA has also explored exporting this waste to other countries as an
alternative. However, DLA has indicated, and the EPA acknowledges, the
peculiar circumstances of DOD's PCBs and PCB Items, which, while
present in one country (i.e., Japan), are generated by another
country's government, leading to significant difficulty in providing
Basel Convention notification to third countries. Given these
difficulties, the EPA concurs with DLA's conclusion that disposal in a
third country (that is, countries other than Japan and the United
States) is not a viable alternative for this waste.
3. Benefits of Granting the Petition
i. Avoiding the risks of long-term storage. The EPA believes
granting the petition to DLA to import 1,014,222 pounds of waste
contaminated with PCBs (94% of which is less than 50 ppm) will benefit
the United States and the environment in general. As DLA notes, the
continued long-term storage of PCB waste on U.S. military facilities in
Japan poses risks to U.S. personnel and the environment--risks that can
be eliminated through the action finalized in the petition.
ii. Ensuring proper and safe disposal. Granting the petition allows
the United States to accept responsibility for the PCBs and PCB Items
it generates by assuring proper and safe disposal in domestic permitted
disposal facilities.
iii. Ensuring the safety of Japanese citizens. The EPA considers
the reduction of risk to Japanese citizens to
[[Page 58270]]
be advantageous, especially in light of the heightened concerns over
PCBs in that country. Granting the petition is the only practical
mechanism to remove this waste from Japan; otherwise, the U.S. military
would be required to explain to its Japanese hosts that it cannot
remove its own toxic waste from their country because U.S. law does not
allow the waste to be sent to the United States.
For all these reasons, the EPA finds DLA has satisfied the
exemption criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) and is granting the
petition.
V. References
1. DOD, DLA. Petition from David Rodriguez, Director to EPA.
Subject: Petition to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency For an Exemption Under the Toxic Substances Control Act to
Import Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and PCB Items for Disposal.
April 23, 2013. 19 pp.
2. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import)
Exemption. Final Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 53152, September 18,
2007) (FRL-8143-4). Available on-line at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/09/18/E7-18345/polychlorinated-biphenyls-manufacturing-import-exemption, Document
ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0042-0008.
3. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing (Import)
Exemptions. Final Rule. Federal Register (68 FR 4934, January 31,
2003) (FRL-7288-6). Available on-line at https://www.federalregister.com/Browse/Document/usa/na/fr/2003/1/31/03-2344,
Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0013-0041.
4. EPA, OPPT. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for
Disposal. Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11095, March 18, 1996)
(FRL-5354-8). Available on-line at https://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/1996/March/Day-18/pr-24122.txt.html.
5. EPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of
Use Authorizations. Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal
Register (75 FR 17645, April 7, 2010). (FRL-8811-7). Available on-
line at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-
0757-0001.
6. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Public Health Service,
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (November
2000). Available online at https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.pdf.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. Because this action is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other
statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) or Sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does
not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and
directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not
involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This action is subject to the Congressional
Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Under the
CRA, a ``major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, and Polychlorinated
biphenyls.
Dated: September 19, 2014.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 761--POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 761 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.
Subpart E--[Amended]
0
2. Section 761.80 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce
exemptions.
* * * * *
(j) The Administrator grants the United States Defense Logistics
Agency's April 23, 2013 petition for an exemption for 1 year beginning
on October 1, 2014, to import up to 1,014,222 pounds of PCBs and PCB
Items stored or in use in Japan as identified in its petition for
disposal.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23104 Filed 9-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P