Monday,

April 2, 2001

Part II

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 761

Reclassification of PCB and PCBContaminated Electrical Equipment; Final

Rule

r- \....

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17601 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[OPPTS-66015B; FRL-5790-7]

RIN 2070-AC39

Reclassification of PCB and PCBContaminated Electrical Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the

requirements for reclassifying

transformers, electromagnets, switches,

and voltage regulators that contain

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from

PCB status (>500 parts per million

(ppm)) to PCB-Contaminated (>50 but

<500 ppm) or non-PCB (<50 ppm)

status; or from PCB-Contaminated to

non-PCB status. This rule brings the

reclassification requirements into

conformance with data and Agency

experience gained since EPA last

revised this regulation in 1982. The rule

reduces the regulatory and economic

burden of reclassification, and reduces

the risk from PCBs to health and the

environment by encouraging the phaseout and removal of PCBs from electrical

equipment.

DATES: This rule is effective May 2,

2001. This rule is promulgated for

purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m

April May 2, 2001 under 40 CFR 23.5.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information contact: Barbara

Cunningham, Acting Director,

Environmental Assistance Division,

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics (7408), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address:

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

For technical information contact:

Tom Simons, Project Manager, National

Program Chemicals Division (7404),

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (202) 260-3991; fax number:

(202) 260-1724; e-mail address:

simons.tom@epa.gov; or Julie Simpson,

Attorney, National Program Chemicals

Division (7404), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone number: (202) 260-7873; fax

number: (202) 260-1724; e-mail address:

simpson.julie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by

this action if you process, distribute in

commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs

contained in transformers,

electromagnets, switches, voltage

regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers, or

cable. Potentially affected categories and

entities include, but are not limited to:

TABLE 1 .- POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES

Categories NAICS codes Examples of potentially affected entities

Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction .................. 211111 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribu- 2211 ........................ Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

tion.

Food Manufacturing .......................................................... 311 .......................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Paper Manufacturing ........................................................ 322 .......................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Paper Mills ........................................................................ 322121 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Newsprint Mills .................................................................. 322122 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing .................. 324 .......................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Petroleum Refining ........................................................... 32411 ...................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing ... 324199 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Chemical Manufacturing ................................................... 325 .......................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Primary Metal Manufacturing ............................................ 331 .......................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Iron and Steel Mills ........................................................... 331111 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing ................................... 331221 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Primary Aluminum Production .......................................... 331312 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Line Haul Railroads .......................................................... 482111 .................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Lessors of Real Estate ..................................................... 5311 ........................ Owners of commercial buildings with electrical equipment containing PCBs

Waste Treatment and Disposal ........................................ 5622 ........................ Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Materials Recovery Facilities ............................................ 56292 ...................... Facilities that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

Public Administration .............................. 92................ I Agencies that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

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 the table 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 or not this action

applies to certain entities. To determine

whether you or your business is affected

by this action, you should carefully

examine the applicability provisions in

40 CFR part 761. If you have any

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

a technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional

Information, Including Copies of this

Document or Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain

electronic copies of this document, and

certain other related documents that

might be available electronically, from

the EPA Internet Home Page at http://

www.epa.gov/. To access this

document, on the Home Page select

"Laws and Regulations," "Regulations

and Proposed Rules," and then look up

the entry for this document under

"Federal Register-Environmental

Documents." You can also go directly to

the Federal Register listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

To access information about PCBs, go

directly to the PCB Home Page for the

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics at http://www.epa.gov/pcb.

2. In person. The Agency has

established an official record for this

action under docket control number

OPPTS-66015B. The official record

consists of the documents specifically

referenced in this action, any public

comments received during an applicable

17602

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17602 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

comment period, and other information

related to this action, including any

information claimed as Confidential

Business Information (CBI). This official

record includes the documents that are

physically located in the docket, as well

as the documents that are referenced in

those documents. The public version of

the official record does not include any

information claimed as CBI. The public

version of the official record, which

includes printed, paper versions of any

electronic comments submitted during

an applicable comment period, is

available for inspection in the TSCA

Nonconfidential Information Center,

North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside

Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC.

The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The telephone number for the

Center is (202) 260-7099.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This final rule amends the

requirements for reclassifying

transformers, electromagnets, switches,

and voltage regulators (40 CFR

761.30(a)(2)(v) and 761.30(h)(2)(v)).

Reclassification is a voluntary process

you can use to lower the PCB

concentration in electrical equipment.

This rule:

* Eliminates the requirement to raise

the temperature of a transformer's

dielectric fluid to at least 50°Centigrade

(C).

* Eliminates the 90-day in-service use

requirement for all transformers,

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators with a pre-retrofill PCB

concentration <1,000 ppm.

* Allows you to reclassify PCBContaminated transformers,

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators to non-PCB status by

retrofilling with fluid <2 ppm PCBs. The

rule does not require you to test the

equipment after 90 days.

* Requires you to keep records

showing that you followed the required

reclassification procedures, and to make

these records available to EPA or to any

party holding or possessing the

equipment.

1. What are the advantages of

reclassifying electrical equipment?

Electrical equipment containing PCBs is

regulated for use based on the PCB

concentration of its dielectric fluid. The

most stringent and costly use conditions

apply to electrical equipment containing

dielectric fluid at PCB concentrations

>500 ppm. Less stringent and less costly

use conditions apply to PCBContaminated electrical equipment

(containing >50 but <500 ppm PCBs in

the dielectric fluid), and non-PCB

electrical equipment (containing <50

ppm PCBs in the dielectric fluid).

Reclassification allows you to take

advantage of the less stringent and less

costly use conditions that apply to

electrical equipment at lower PCB

concentrations, helps you avoid or

reduce liability and insurance costs, and

benefits health and the environment.

a. Use conditions-i. Transformers.

EPA originally issued the

reclassification rules to allow the owner

of a PCB Transformer (a transformer

containing dielectric fluid at >500 ppm

PCBs) to rebuild the transformer rather

than dispose of it. Rebuilding involves

draining and opening the transformer to

service the coil and other internal parts,

and presents the risk of PCB exposure

to workers and to the environment.

Because of this risk, since 1979 EPA has

banned rebuilding PCB Transformers

unless they were first reclassified to at

least PCB-Contaminated status (that is,

the PCB concentration of the dielectric

fluid was reduced to <500 ppm) (Ref. 1,

p. 31532).

There are many advantages to

reclassifying a PCB Transformer besides

allowing you to rebuild it. PCB

Transformers are subject to the

following stringent use conditions, and

associated costs, that do not apply to

either PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB

transformers. You can avoid these use

conditions and costs by reclassifying the

equipment.

* Marking. If you own a PCB

Transformer, you must make sure it is

marked with a 'ML' (40 CFR 761.40(a)(2)

and 40 CFR 761.40(c)(1)). For example,

you must mark an unlabeled PCB

Transformer that you sell to another

entity; an unmarked PCB Transformer

that you dispose of; a transformer that

you assumed was PCB-Contaminated,

but that you test and find is

contaminated at >500 ppm; or a PCB

Transformer whose mark is missing,

damaged, or incorrect. Additionally,

you must mark the location of a PCB

Transformer, including vault doors,

machinery room doors, fences, hallways

or other means of access (other than

grates and manhole covers) (40 CFR

761.40(j)(1)). There are no marking

requirements for PCB-Contaminated or

non-PCB transformers. EPA estimates

that you save $32.09 each time you

avoid having to mark a PCB Transformer

or its location (Ref. 2, p. 8).

* Inspections. If you own a PCB

Transformer, you must inspect it

periodically to look for leaks and other

potential problems (40 CFR

761.30(a)(ix), (x), and (xiii)) while the

unit is in use and in storage for reuse.

There are no inspection requirements

for PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB

transformers. EPA estimates that you

incur $43.80 in annual inspection costs

for each PCB Transformer you own (Ref.

2, pp. 8-9).

* Recordkeeping. If you own a facility

that uses or stores a PCB Transformer,

you must keep an annual document log

(40 CFR 761.180(a)). You must include

in the annual document log information

on the location and disposal status of

PCBs and PCB Items at your facility.

EPA estimates that if your facility is

large, your cost to keep an annual

document log is $1,226. Large facilities

are likely to have several PCB Items,

including PCB Transformers. You do

not have to include a reclassified inservice transformer in the annual

document log. EPA expects that not

having to include a reclassified

transformer in the annual document log

would result in cost savings, but is

unable to quantify those savings for an

individual transformer (Ref. 2, p. 9).

In addition, the regulations restrict

the use of PCB Transformers near food

or feed and in commercial buildings (40

CFR 761.30(a)(1)(i) through (v), 40 CFR

761.30(a)(1)(vii), 40 CFR

761.30(a)(1)(xiv)). PCB Transformers are

subject to registration with EPA (40 CFR

761.30(a)(1)(vi)). You may not store

combustible materials in a PCB

Transformer enclosure or within 5

meters of an unenclosed PCB

Transformer (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(viii)).

If a PCB Transformer is involved in a

fire-related incident, the owner of the

transformer must immediately report

the incident to the National Response

Center (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(xi)). If a

PCB Transformer leaks, you must

initiate clean-up within 48 hours (40

CFR 761.30(x)). Finally, the owner of a

PCB Transformer must keep records of

inspection and maintenance for at least

3 years after disposing of a PCB

Transformer (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(xii)).

The PCB Transformer owner may avoid

these restrictions and requirements by

reclassifying the transformer to PCBContaminated or non-PCB status.

ii. Electromagnets. You may not use

or store for reuse electromagnets

containing _>500 ppm PCBs that pose a

risk to food or feed (40 CFR

761.30(h)(1)(i)). This prohibition does

not apply to electromagnets that contain

<500 ppm PCBs.

iii. Voltage regulators. Voltage

regulators containing 1.36 kilograms (3

lb.) or more of dielectric fluid >500 ppm

PCBs are subject to essentially the same

marking, inspection, recordkeeping, and

fire-reporting requirements as PCB

Transformers (40 CFR 761.30(h)(1)(ii)).

These requirements do not apply to

17603

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17603 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

voltage regulators that contain <500

ppm PCBs.

b. Liability and insurance costs.

Reclassification can help you avoid or

reduce liability and insurance costs.

Liability may result from catastrophic

events such as explosions or fires, leaks

or spills, or from improper handling or

disposal of PCB waste. In addition, the

risk of such events may increase your

insurance costs. Dielectric fluid released

from electrical equipment under any of

these scenarios is unregulated for

disposal if its concentration is <50 ppm

PCBs, which it is likely to be if you have

reclassified the equipment to non-PCB

status. Therefore, cleanup of spills or

releases from electrical equipment

reclassified to non-PCB status is likely

to be less costly and subject to less

liability than if you had not reclassified

the equipment.

c. Environmental benefits. Finally,

reclassification of electrical equipment

benefits health and the environment.

Lower PCB concentrations in

reclassified equipment reduce the risk

to workers who may be exposed while

using or servicing the equipment. Spills

from reclassified equipment release less

PCBs to the environment and present

less of a risk during cleanup and

disposal. PCBs removed from the

equipment during reclassification are

disposed of under existing requirements

at 40 CFR part 761, subpart D, and thus

are not released to the environment.

2. What do the current reclassification

regulations require? Under the current

rules for reclassifying electrical

equipment containing PCBs:

* You may reclassify a transformer,

electromagnet, switch, or voltage

regulator with a PCB concentration >500

ppm to PCB-Contaminated status by

reducing the PCB concentration in the

equipment's dielectric fluid to <500

ppm.

* You may reclassify a transformer,

electromagnet, switch, or voltage

regulator with a PCB concentration >500

ppm, or a transformer, electromagnet,

switch, or voltage regulator classified as

PCB-Contaminated Electrical

Equipment, to non-PCB status by

reducing the PCB concentration in the

equipment's dielectric fluid to <50 ppm.

* You must operate the equipment

under loaded conditions (i.e., place it in

in-service use) for 90 days after the last

servicing conducted to reduce the PCB

concentration in the equipment. The

equipment's dielectric fluid must

contain the specified PCB concentration

at the end of this period.

* For electromagnets, switches, or

voltage regulators, "in-service use"

means the equipment is used

electrically under loaded conditions.

For transformers, "in-service use"

means the transformer is used

electrically under loaded conditions

that raise the temperature of the

dielectric fluid to at least 50oC.

Table 2 summarizes the current

requirements for reclassifying electrical

equipment.

TABLE 2.-CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLASSIFYING ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

If the PCB concentration and, if your equipment is a and test results show the then the equipment's re-

(ppm) in the equipment and you ... transformer... PCB concentration (ppm) classified status is ...

prior to retrofill is ... after retrofill is ...

>500 operate the equipment operation under loaded >50 but <500 PCB-Contaminated

under loaded conditions conditions raises the

for at least 90 days after temperature of the diretrofill electric fluid to at least

50'C

<50 non-PCB

>50 but <500

Current rules governing

reclassification of transformers are at 40

CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v); rules governing

reclassification of electromagnets,

switches, and voltage regulators are at

40 CFR 761.30(h)(2)(v). The rules

governing reclassification of

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators also apply to circuit breakers,

reclosers, and cable (40 CFR

761.30(m)(1)(ii)).

The current rules also allow EPA to

approve the use of alternate methods

that simulate loaded conditions of inservice use. Requests for reclassifying

transformers using an alternate method

had typically involved simulating inservice use or requesting that the

temperature requirement of 50°C for 90

days be waived. It has been EPA's

experience that these requests were

typically necessary when a transformer

had failed, is not on line because it is

being serviced or is in storage for reuse

as a back-up unit, or for some other

reason could not be operated under

normal loaded conditions.

3. Why did EPA propose to change the

requirements? After EPA promulgated

the original reclassification rule in 1982,

the Agency received information that

raised questions about whether the 50°C

requirement, the in-service use

requirement, and the 90-day period for

testing after retrofill were necessary for

an effective reclassification. This unit

discusses the new information and

EPA's assessment of whether it warrants

a change in the current reclassification

requirements at § § 761.30(a)(2)(v) and

761.30(h)(2)(v).

a. New information-i. The 1986

study. An industry-sponsored study of

18 retrofilled PCB-Contaminated

transformers was conducted in 1986 to

determine what effect, if any, electrical

loading had on removing PCBs from the

core and coil of a drained, flushed, and

refilled distribution transformer (Ref. 3).

The study concluded that electrical

loading had no significant effect on PCB

levels. The refilled fluid in all the

sampled transformers remained <50

ppm.

EPA's independent analyses also

concluded that the study showed no

discernable relationship between

transformer temperature, transformer

loading, and the rate of leaching

("leaching" refers to the migration of

PCBs from the transformer core and

coils into the dielectric fluid) (Refs. 4

and 5). EPA also noted that the most

important factor in the post-retrofill

concentration of the transformer was the

pre-retrofill concentration of the

dielectric fluid. Another important

factor was the length of time between

retrofill and sampling-the results of the

study generally confirmed EPA's belief

that near asymptotic (eventual) PCB

concentrations are achieved by 90 days

after retrofill (Ref. 4). EPA also found

that the study showed that within 7

days after retrofill the PCB

concentration in the dielectric fluid had

already achieved a relatively high

17604

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17604 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

proportion of the level attained at 90

days. Increases in PCB concentrations

after the first 7 days were gradual and

fairly consistent from transformer to

transformer (Refs. 4 and 5).

ii. The 1989 study. A larger industrysponsored report analyzed data on 387

retrofilled transformers with

concentrations <1,000 ppm collected

from several dozen utility companies

(Ref. 6). The report concluded that the

percent of PCB reduction in a retrofilled

transformer was not significantly related

to its size (KVA rating), whether the

transformer was energized, whether it

was loaded, or whether the internal

temperature reached 50'C. The report

found that whether the transformer was

flushed was a significant factor, but only

for transformers with pre-retrofill

concentrations <100 ppm PCBs.

EPA's analysis of the report focused

on 263 transformers for which the data

were complete (Ref. 4). Of these 263

transformers, 175 had pre-retrofill PCB

concentrations of >50 but <500 ppm; the

remaining 88 retrofilled transformers

had pre-retrofill PCB concentrations

>500 but <1,000 ppm. All the

transformers were retrofilled with fluid

containing <2 ppm PCBs, and were

tested for PCB concentration shortly

after retrofill. After 90 days of in-service

use, during which the temperature of

the dielectric fluid reached 50'C in

some, but not all, of the transformers,

the PCB concentrations were tested

again. All but one of the 175 PCBContaminated transformers contained

<50 ppm PCBs, and the concentration of

that one was 53 ppm. Of the 88 PCB

Transformers, all but eight (9.0%) had

post-retrofill concentrations <50 ppm

after 90 days, and the mean post-retrofill

concentration for these eight

transformers was 64.4 ppm. The results

of EPA's analysis were generally

consistent with those of the report's

author. The only variable which EPA

found to be related to post-retrofill PCB

level was the number of days between

pre-retrofill and post-retrofill testing.

EPA's analysis concluded that these

data showed that a properly conducted

retrofill was very likely to reduce PCB

dielectric oil concentrations to <50 ppm

in transformers that had pre-retrofill

levels <500 ppm; and that over 90% of

transformers with pre-retrofill levels

>500 but <1,000 ppm had 90-day test

concentrations <50 ppm.

iii. Other information. EPA evaluated

two additional sets of data on

transformers that had been retrofilled

and tested more than 90 days after

retrofill (Ref. 4). The data did not

specify how the retrofill was conducted

or the conditions under which the

transformers were operated after

retrofill, so their usefulness for

establishing regulatory requirements is

limited.

In addition, information submitted to

EPA orally and in writing indicated that

many transformers, even under normal

operating conditions, might never reach

5o0 C because of the design limitations of

the equipment, equipment failure, low

ambient temperatures, or transformer

loading restrictions. In addition, this

information suggested that there are

drawbacks associated with attempting to

comply with the 50'C temperature

requirement by simulating in-service

use of the transformers. These include

safety risks to maintenance personnel,

fire hazards associated with energizing

or insulating equipment which is not

designed to withstand heavy loads or

increased temperatures, and the

economic and resource commitment

that must be borne by the transformer

owners (Refs. 7, 8, 9, and 10).

b. EPA's assessment of the new

information. Review of this new

information led EPA to believe that

changes to the reclassification

requirements might be warranted (Refs.

4 and 5).

i. The 50'C requirement. EPA

originally based the 50°C requirement

on a 1981 study showing that this

temperature was associated with light

electrical loading and that it caused the

release of PCBs from the internal

components of transformers into the

dielectric fluid (Refs. 8 and 11). EPA's

independent analyses of the 1986 and

1989 studies concluded that they

showed no discernable relationship

between transformer temperature and

leachback rate. Other information

discussed in Unit II.A.3.a.iii. raised

questions about the practicability,

safety, and necessity of this

requirement. EPA believed that the data

showed that the rate of migration of

PCBs into the dielectric fluid appeared

not to be greatly affected by the

transformer's temperature, and that the

difficulties and dangers associated with

meeting this criterion supported

eliminating the 50°C requirement.

ii. The in-service use requirement.

EPA's independent analyses of the 1986

and 1989 studies concluded that

whether a transformer <1,000 ppm PCBs

was loaded or energized did not

significantly affect its post-retrofill

concentration. The data showed that

PCB levels in these transformers

measured shortly after retrofill, but

before being placed in service, had

nearly reached their asymptotic PCB

level. These studies therefore supported

eliminating the in-service use

requirement for transformers <1,000

ppm.

iii. Properly conducted retrofill. The

studies showed that, in PCBContaminated transformers, a properly

conducted retrofill substantially

reduced the PCB concentration in the

dielectric fluid. This is particularly

well-demonstrated in the case of PCBContaminated transformers. During a

properly conducted retrofill, the

transformer was drained, flushed, and

refilled with dielectric fluid <2 ppm

PCBs. The studies supported requiring a

properly conducted retrofill as part of

the reclassification process.

iv. Testing after 21 days. The 1986

study data showed that a high

proportion of the asymptotic PCB

concentration was attained very soon

after retrofill. After the first week,

continued increases in PCB

concentrations occurred gradually and

predictably. The increase in PCB

concentration was generally consistent

from transformer to transformer, and

from one make or model to another. In

general, the longer the period after

retrofill when sampling was conducted,

the more reliable the estimate of the

eventual PCB level. Sampling at 3 weeks

provided a more reliable estimate than

at 1 week. These data supported

allowing testing shortly after retrofill for

transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs.

4. What changes to the

reclassification requirements did EPA

propose? In the Federal Register of

November 18, 1993 (Ref. 12), EPA

proposed to amend the PCB rules

governing the reclassification of

transformers to:

* Eliminate the requirement to raise

the temperature of a transformer's

dielectric fluid to at least 50°C.

* Eliminate the 90-day in-service use

requirement for all transformers with a

pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000

ppm.

* Require you to test a transformer to

determine its PCB concentration prior to

retrofill.

* Require a "properly conducted

retrofill"-draining the PCB dielectric

fluid, flushing with dielectric fluid <2

ppm PCBs or with a solvent in which

PCBs were at least 5% soluble by weight

using no less than 10% of the volume

of the transformer, and retrofilling with

<2 ppm dielectric fluid.

* Allow you to initially test a

transformer with a pre-retrofill PCB

concentration <1,000 ppm after 21 days,

rather than 90 days, after a properly

conducted retrofill. If post-retrofill test

results showed a PCB concentration >25

to <500 ppm, you could reclassify the

transformer to PCB-Contaminated

status. If the results were <25 ppm, you

could reclassify the transformer to nonPCB status.

17605

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17605 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

* Allow you to immediately reclassify, status, after a properly conducted Table 3 summarizes the proposed

with no 90-day post-retrofill test, a PCB- retrofill. changes to the requirements for

Contaminated transformer to non-PCB reclassifying transformers.

TABLE 3.-PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLASSIFYING TRANSFORMERS

If test results show

the PCB concentra- and test results show the then the transformer's re- tion (ppm) in the and you . . . and you . .. PCB concentration (ppm) classified status is...

transformer prior to after retrofill is...

retrofill is...

>1,000 drain the PCB dielectric fluid operate the transformer >50 but <500 PCB-Contaminated

from the transformer; flush under loaded conditions

the transformer with di- for at least 90 days after

electric fluid <2 ppm retrofill

PCBs or with a solvent in

which PCBs are at least

5% soluble by weight

using no less than 10% of

the volume of the transformer; and refill the

transformer with <2 ppm

dielectric fluid.

<50 non-PCB

>500 but <1,000 operate the transformer >25 but <500 PCB-Contaminated

under loaded conditions

for at least 21 days after

retrof ill

<25 non-PCB

>50 but <500 (not applicable) (no need to test)

EPA also proposed to:

* Regulate a reclassified transformer

based on its actual concentration if

testing showed that the actual

concentration had increased after

reclassification, but allow the owner to

repeat the reclassification process.

* Require you to keep records of the

transformer's pre-retrofill PCB

concentration, the retrofill and

reclassification schedule and procedure,

and the transformer's post-retrofill PCB

concentration.

* Require the PCB dielectric fluid

drained from the equipment to be

stored, manifested, and disposed of

according to existing requirements for

PCB waste.

EPA did not propose to change the

requirements for reclassifying

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators, but solicited comments on

whether to treat this equipment like

transformers for purposes of

reclassification (Ref. 12, p. 60973). The

current regulations at § 761.30(h)(2)(v)

allow you to reclassify voltage

regulators, switches and electromagnets

that are >500 ppm PCBs to non-PCB or

PCB-Contaminated status.

EPA also requested comment on

whether to consider a transformer's

Kilovolt-ampere (KVA) rating in

determining what kind of

reclassification process would be

required (Ref. 12, p. 60972). EPA had

received information that distribution

transformers with a KVA rating of 500

or less are not required to have sampling

valves and are therefore difficult to

sample after retrofill (Ref. 13).

5. What comments did EPA receive on

the proposed rule? EPA accepted

written comments on the proposed rule

for 45 days after its publication. On

March 9, 1994, EPA held a public

hearing on the proposed rule in

Washington, DC, where the agency took

oral comments (Ref. 20). An additional

period for written reply comments

followed the hearing. Copies of all

written comments and a transcript of

the hearing are in the official record for

this rulemaking. These documents are

available to you as part of the public

version of the official record for this

final rule. To learn how to get copies of

these documents, see Unit I.B. The

following discussion addresses

significant issues raised by the

commenters, EPA's reaction to those

comments, and how these comments

affected the outcome of this final rule.

Comments raising each issue are

identified in parentheses by the

designation assigned each comment by

the TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center staff.

a. Drop the 50'C requirement. The

current reclassification rule requires you

to operate a retrofilled transformer

under conditions that would raise the

temperature of the dielectric fluid to at

least 50'C. Many commenters favored

EPA's proposal to eliminate this

requirement. Commenters agreed that

the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. show

that temperature has a minimal, if any,

effect on the amount of PCBs recovered

when a transformer is drained and

refilled with non-PCB fluid. They also

noted the practical difficulties and

safety risks associated with attempting

to comply with this requirement (C1-

007, C1-008, C1-009, C1-011, C1-012,

C1-014, C1-024, C1-033, C1-034, C1-035,

C1-036, C1-037, C1-038, C1-039, C1-041,

C1-043, C1-045, C1-046, C1-048, C1-050,

C1-052, and C1-054) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-

60). The final rule follows the proposal

in eliminating the 50°C requirement.

b. Drop the in-service use requirement

for equipment <1,000 ppm PCBs. Most

commenters did not object to EPA's

proposal to drop the in-service use

requirement for transformers <1,000

ppm PCBs. However, one commenter

supported maintaining the in-service

use requirement for all transformers (C1-

047) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-43). The

commenter also asked EPA to define

"in-service use" and "under loaded

conditions." The commenter was

concerned that retrofilled transformers

might be put back into in-service use

17606

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17606 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

under conditions where there was

significant voltage in the equipment, but

no measurable electric current to ensure

the movement of fluid through the

internal components of the equipment;

and that, without this movement, the

levels of PCBs in the fluid might rise

after retrofilling due to the retention of

PCBs in the fluid remaining in the coil.

The commenter submitted results of

experiments conducted to determine the

effectiveness of triple rinsing in

reducing the PCB concentration of

fluids retained within the core and coils

of mineral oil-filled electrical

equipment. In one experiment, two

transformers containing fluid at 128 and

282 ppm PCBs respectively were triple

rinsed with <2 ppm PCB fluid. Then the

transformers were disassembled and the

fluid and core were tested. In one

transformer, the PCB concentration of

the fluid was 13 ppm and the

concentration of the core was 58 ppm.

In the other transformer, the

concentration of the fluid was 6 ppm

and the concentration of the core was 75

ppm. The second experiment used a hot

oil flush a varied number of times in 3

transformers with PCB concentrations

>400 ppm. The concentrations of the

rinse oil after the last flush ranged from

9 to 22 ppm PCBs, and the residual

concentrations in the core and coil

assemblies ranged from 105 to 204 ppm

PCBs. The commenter asserted that

these experiments supported their

concern that lack of loading could cause

PCB concentrations to rise after

retrofilling due to the retention of PCBs

in the oil remaining in the coil. The

commenter urged EPA to ensure that the

PCB concentration of the oil in the coils

was not still above regulated levels prior

to reclassification of the equipment (C2-

005).

EPA has never formally defined the

terms "in-service use" or "under loaded

conditions," nor did it propose to.

Placing equipment back into in-service

use or operating it under loaded

conditions means simply that, after

retrofill, you must operate the

equipment under its normal operating

conditions, whatever they may be. As

the commenter correctly pointed out,

the purpose of putting the equipment

back into in-service use was to circulate

the oil in the equipment to remove PCBs

from the inner workings of the

equipment. Based on the data discussed

in Unit II.A.3., this final rule does not

require you to operate equipment

containing <1,000 ppm PCBs under

loaded conditions. At the same time,

this rule does not allow you to reclassify

equipment containing PCBs >50 ppm

simply by rinsing, flushing, or

retrofilling it (except for PCBContaminated equipment retrofilled

with fluid <2 ppm). You must allow 90

days after retrofill for leaching to occur

and then test the equipment to

determine its post-retrofill

concentration. The commenter's study,

which tested only the effectiveness of

flushing a transformer, does not

demonstrate that the reclassification

process required by the final rule for

equipment <1,000 ppm PCBs (removing

the free-flowing liquid from the

equipment, refilling the equipment, and

testing the fluid after 90 days) will not

result in an effective reclassification.

Another commenter believed the inservice use requirement was necessary

so that PCBs would leach adequately

from the transformer's porous insulation

into the newly retrofilled liquid (C1-

001) (Ref. 20, pp. 8-29). The commenter

correctly noted that the studies

referenced in EPA's proposed rule did

not measure the PCB level in the porous

inner parts of a reclassified transformer.

The commenter was concerned that

workers dismantling a "non-PCB"

reclassified transformer could be

exposed to PCBs >500 ppm. EPA has not

adopted this suggestion because the data

discussed in Unit II.A.3. support

allowing reclassification without inservice use for equipment <1,000 ppm

PCBs while the equipment is in use. The

reclassification procedure is a form of

servicing to reduce the risks from PCBs

during continued use. It does not

determine equipment's concentration at

the time of disposal. You should verify

the equipment's PCB concentration at

the time of disposal to ensure that you

manage and dispose of it properly. An

added safeguard to proper disposal is

the disposal industry's practice of

testing waste at the disposal facility.

Several commenters took issue with

the statement in the preamble to the

proposed rule that most substation

transformers contain >1,000 ppm PCBs

(Ref. 12, p. 60972). The commenters

asked EPA to correct this statement in

the final rule (C1-007, C1-011, C1-020,

C1-024, C1-035, C1-036, and C1-045).

EPA made the statement based on data

available at the time of the proposed

rule, as part of its rationale for dropping

the in-service use requirement for

transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs, but not

for transformers >1,000 ppm. EPA

believed that small distribution

transformers, which are difficult and

dangerous to sample after having been

reconnected, are likely to contain <1,000

ppm PCBs, while large substation

transformers, which can be sampled

more conveniently and safely, generally

contain >1,000 ppm PCBs. EPA is

retaining the in-service use requirement

for all equipment >1,000 ppm, but, in

light of these comments, is not basing

the requirement on assumptions about

the concentration of substation

transformers. EPA is relying on the data

discussed in Unit II.A.3. in retaining the

in-service use requirement for

equipment >1,000 ppm, whether or not

the equipment is a substation

transformer. These data do not support

dropping the requirement for this

equipment, and commenters did not

supply additional data to support such

a change.

A commenter asked EPA to clarify

that the rule covers Askarel transformers

as well as mineral oil-filled transformers

(C1-040). You may reclassify equipment

regardless of the type of dielectric fluid

it contains. Virtually all Askarel

transformers will have PCB

concentrations >1,000 ppm prior to

reclassification. For equipment >1,000

ppm PCBs, you must operate the

equipment for at least 90 days after

retrofill, under loaded conditions, and

retest the dielectric fluid. The

equipment is regulated based on this

post-reclassification PCB concentration.

Finally, a commenter suggested

eliminating the 90-day in-service use

requirement for all oil-filled electrical

equipment, regardless of concentration,

that does not contain a core (C1-038).

The commenter did not support this

suggestion with data showing that it

would be effective for equipment >1,000

ppm, so EPA is not adopting it.

i. Allow immediate reclassification of

PCB-Contaminated equipment to nonPCB status. Under the proposed rule, if

you removed all free-flowing PCB

dielectric fluid from a piece of PCBContaminated equipment and refilled

the equipment with dielectric fluid

containing <2 ppm PCBs, the equipment

would be immediately reclassified to

non-PCB status without being placed in

in-service use (that is, operated under

loaded conditions). The final rule

retains this provision, which most

comments on this issue supported (C1-

009, C1-037, C1-045, C1-048, and Ci052) (Ref. 20, pp. 8-29). (See Unit

II.A.5.b. for a discussion of a comment

that supported maintaining the inservice use requirement for all

transformers.)

ii. Modify the 90-day in-service use

requirement for equipment >1,000 ppm

PCBs. One commenter stated that they

do not continuously use their >1,000

ppm PCB Transformers, and therefore

would not be able to meet the

continuous 90-day in-service use

requirement included in the proposed

rule. The commenter requested that EPA

allow for cumulative time in service in

the final rule (C1-008). Another

commenter stated that it had one-of-a17607

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17607 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

kind transformers that are in storage for

reuse as backups to the equipment on

line. These backups might never get on

line and, therefore, might never be able

to meet the 90-day in-service use

requirement for equipment >1,000 ppm

(C1-030). The commenter suggested that

EPA allow equipment that has been

properly retrofilled to be tested at an

interval to be determined by EPA.

EPA is not adopting these suggestions.

The effectiveness of these alternate

reclassification methods could depend

on factors such as the equipment's preretrofill PCB concentration, the amount

of fluid replaced, and the length of the

intervals the equipment was in service

and out of service. EPA would need to

look at each case individually. If you

wish to use a method of reclassification

that differs from the method in the final

rule, you may request an approval from

the Director of the National Program

Chemicals Division under

§ 761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or

§ 761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).

iii. Do not require all retrofilled

transformers to be installed. A

commenter asked EPA to clarify

§ 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) (formerly

§ 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(C)(2)(iii)). That

provision refers to transformers that are

"installed" for reclassification. The

commenter noted that under the

proposal, not all transformers would

have to be installed as part of

reclassification, only those >1,000 ppm

PCBs (C1-017).

The purpose of § 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) is

to authorize the installation of

retrofilled transformers where

installation is required for

reclassification. Without this

authorization, installation would be

prohibited under § 761.30(a)(1)(iii). You

need not install a transformer as part of

reclassification unless required to do so

under § 761.30(a)(2)(v), notwithstanding

§ 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B).

The proposed rule would have

deleted all but the first sentence of

§ 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B). The purpose of this

change was to remove language that

would have conflicted with EPA's

proposal to allow reclassification after

21 days for transformers >500 but

<1,000 ppm PCBs. Since EPA is not

finalizing this provision of the proposal

(see Unit II.A.5.c.iii.), the final rule

leaves the current language of

§ 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) intact.

c. Drop the post-retrofill 90 day

testing requirement-i. Allow immediate

reclassification of equipment < 500 ppm

PCBs. Under the proposed rule, if you

removed all free-flowing PCB dielectric

fluid from a piece of PCB-Contaminated

equipment and refilled the equipment

with dielectric fluid containing <2 ppm

PCBs, the equipment would be

immediately reclassified to non-PCB

status without further testing. The final

rule retains this provision, which most

comments on this issue supported (Ci007, C1-008, C1-014, C1-015, C1-036,

C1-037, C1-039, C1-041, C1-043, C1-045,

C1-046, C1-048, C1-050, and C1-052)

(Ref. 20, pp. 8-29, 44-60). (See Unit

II.A.5.c.v. for a comment recommending

retesting until there is no increase in

PCB concentration in at least two

consecutive tests.)

ii. Allow retrofill with fluid <50 ppm

PCBs. Commenters also wanted the

option of retrofilling equipment with

fluid <50 ppm PCBs (C1-037 and Ci054). Allowing retrofilling with fluid at

this slightly higher PCB concentration

would save costs and would not add to

reclassification risks where testing was

required after retrofill. Therefore, the

final rule allows you to reclassify

equipment using retrofill fluid <50 ppm

PCBs, however testing is also required

to ensure that the PCB concentration has

been sufficiently reduced and the

reclassification has been successful. If it

has not, you may either repeat the

reclassification process or treat the

equipment as regulated at its actual

concentration as reflected in the test.

iii. Do not allow reclassification based

on 25 ppm after 21 days for equipment

>500 but <1,000 ppm. Under the

proposed rule, you could have tested

transformers with a PCB concentration

>500 but <1,000 ppm after 21 days

rather than after 90 days following a

properly conducted retrofill. Then, if

the results of the post-retrofill test were

<25 ppm PCBs, you could have

reclassified the transformer to non-PCB

status. If the results were >25 but <500

ppm PCBs, you could have reclassified

it to PCB-Contaminated status.

Commenters were generally opposed

to this provision. Most saw it as creating

a new category of PCB-Contaminated

transformer (>25 but <500 ppm), and

pointed out that this new category

would create confusion, particularly in

the application of the Spill Cleanup

Policy (where a spill of >25 but <50 ppm

would have to be categorized for

purposes of cleanup as >50 but <500

ppm) (Cl-002, C1-006, C1-011, C1-027,

C1-032, C1-036, C1-038, and C1-041).

Another commenter stated that this

provision would allow high

concentrations of PCBs to remain in the

porous inner parts of the transformer

(Ci-001). Others believed the 25 ppm

level was arbitrary, or might be

unreasonably low based on the available

data (C1-024, C1-039, and C1-048). A

commenter asked EPA to clarify how

these transformers should be labeled

and stored during the 21-day period

(C1-017). Other commenters favored the

provision, but thought the 25 ppm

threshold was overly conservative (Ci023, C1-024, and C1-051).

After re-examining the data discussed

in Unit II.A.3. and these comments, EPA

has not included this provision in the

final rule. In the 1989 study, PCB

concentrations in a significant

percentage (9%) of transformers with

pre-retrofill concentrations >500 but

<1,000 ppm tested <50 ppm at 21 days,

but continued to rise, and when retested

after 90 days showed PCB

concentrations >50 ppm. Therefore, in

this final rule, EPA is requiring that

transformers with a pre-retrofill

concentration of >500 but <1,000 ppm

PCBs be tested to determine PCB

concentration 90 days after retrofill.

iv. Allow reclassification based on

testing after 21 days for transformers

with PCB concentrations >1,000 ppm.

Commenters suggested that the

reclassification procedures proposed for

equipment >500 but <1,000 ppm be

applied to at least some equipment at

concentrations >1,000 ppm. This would

allow equipment at higher

concentrations to be tested after 21 days

of in-service use as opposed to 90 days

(C1-023 and C1-030). One commenter

suggested that these classification

procedures apply to equipment

containing up to 5,000 ppm PCBs. The

commenter theorized that since the data

EPA relied on in the proposed rule

indicated that most equipment retains

less than 8% of the original PCB

concentration after retrofill, EPA could

raise the upper limit as high as 6,200

ppm (6,200 ppm x 0.08 = 496 ppm). For

the reasons discussed in Unit

II.A.5.c.iii., EPA is not including the 21-

day provision in the final rule. EPA

therefore is not adopting this suggestion.

Likewise, EPA is not adopting

commenters' suggestion to eliminate the

90-day test after retrofill for

transformers >1,000 ppm PCBs,

especially for mineral oil transformers

less than 500 KVA (C1-035 and C1-036).

The data discussed in Unit II.A.3.

support amending the reclassification

requirements for electrical equipment

<1,000 ppm PCBs, not for equipment at

higher concentrations. The commenter

did not support this suggestion with

data, so EPA is not adopting it.

v. Require testing to be repeated until

there is no increase in concentration.

One commenter stated that, since

leachback occurs, retesting should be

conducted at regular intervals until

there is no increase in PCB

concentration in at least two

consecutive tests. The commenter also

argued that reliance on a single test

taken at 21 days, or even at 90 days, can

17608

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17608 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

lead to improper disposal based on the

assumption that the equipment has

maintained that concentration over time

(C1-047) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-43).

EPA recognizes that even after a

properly conducted reclassification

procedure, the concentration of

reclassified equipment may rise. The

final rule at § 761.30(a)(2)(v)(B) and

§ 761.30(h)(2)(v)(B) clarifies that if the

PCB concentration in the fluid of

reclassified equipment changes, causing

the equipment's reclassified status to

change, the equipment is regulated

based on the actual concentration of the

fluid. The final rule allows you time to

come into compliance with

requirements for a transformer or

voltage regulator you discover contains

>500 ppm PCBs. The rule also allows

you to repeat the reclassification

procedure.

Finally, the reclassification procedure

is a form of servicing to reduce the risks

of continued use. It does not determine

equipment's concentration for disposal.

You should verify the equipment's PCB

concentration at the time of disposal to

ensure that you dispose of it properly.

An added safeguard to proper disposal

is the disposal industry's practice of

testing waste at the disposal facility.

EPA does not believe that continuous

testing of reclassified equipment while

in use is necessary to ensure proper

disposal.

d. Define "properly conducted

retrofill." A commenter requested that

EPA define the term "properly

conducted retrofill" or provide further

clarification on the process (C1-036).

EPA is not using this term in the final

rule. Instead, the reclassification process

described at § 761.30(a)(2)(v) and

§ 761.30(h)(2)(v) includes all the

required steps for reclassifying electrical

equipment, including the requirements

for retrofilling.

i. Clarify how to drain equipment

prior to retrofill. A comment suggested

that EPA prescribe what draining means

procedurally, i.e., whether there is a

certain amount of time that should

elapse when draining the free-flowing

liquid from a piece of equipment, and

whether there are other methods one

could use to remove the fluid (CI-014).

The purpose of draining is to remove

as much as possible of the original

dielectric fluid from the equipment

prior to retrofill. Removing this freeflowing liquid increases the likelihood

of a successful reclassification. EPA is

not requiring that a specific amount of

time elapse or that a specific method be

used to remove the fluid from the

equipment. You may use any method

that removes the fluid, such as draining

or pumping. An extended or second

draining or pumping may be prudent to

remove as much of the free-flowing

fluid as possible. To reduce confusion,

the final rule requires you to "remove"

rather than "drain" the fluid from the

equipment prior to retrofill.

You must either test the fluid prior to

initiating a reclassification procedure or

assume that it is >1,000 ppm PCBs. You

may not use the "assumption rule" at

§ 761.2 to classify mineral oil filled

equipment as PCB-Contaminated (>50

but <500 ppm PCBs) for purposes of

reclassification under this rule. Nor may

you batch test the fluid from several

pieces of equipment and use those test

results to classify all of the equipment.

ii. Do not require flushing as part of

a "properly conducted retrofill." Several

commenters were strongly opposed to

including flushing as part of the

reclassification procedure. They stated

that flushing provided no significant

benefit because it only removed

superficial surface residues, and that

flushing generated additional waste,

which is counter to the Agency's waste

minimization efforts (C1-007, C1-008,

C1-045, C1-046, and C2-001) (Ref. 20,

pp. 44-60).

Other commenters recommended that

if the provision were maintained, the

process should be revised. Some

suggested reducing the flush volume

from 10% to 5% of the volume of the

transformer, or limiting the flush

volume to a maximum of 500 gallons

(C1-007, C1-036, and C1-046). Some

commenters pointed out that the

proposal to estimate flush volume based

on the transformer's height, width, and

depth would not account for volume

displaced by the core and coils. They

recommended estimating 10% of the

volume of the equipment based on the

volume of fluid removed or 80% of total

volume (C1-007, C1-020, and C1-050).

Other comments suggested that EPA

allow the use of flush material at PCB

concentrations up to 50 ppm, rather

than <2 ppm. One commenter wanted to

know whether the flush material could

be disposed of based on its "as is" PCB

concentration as opposed to the original

concentration of the equipment it was

used to flush. Lastly, commenters felt

that flushing should be optional for PCB

Transformers >1,000 ppm where postretrofill testing is required (C1-007 and

C1-008).

Based on the data discussed in Unit

II.A.3. and the comments, this final rule

does not require flushing as part of the

reclassification procedure. The data

show that flushing provided only about

a 7% difference in PCB reduction

compared to equipment that was not

flushed (Refs. 4 and 6). In addition, as

commenters pointed out, flushing

creates additional waste, which is

counter to the Agency's waste

minimization efforts. Nonetheless, you

may flush equipment prior to retrofill,

and the final rule prescribes neither the

concentration nor the volume of flush

material you must use. You may dispose

of the flush material "as is", i.e., based

on its concentration after the flushing

procedure has been completed, not

based on the concentration of the

equipment prior to the flush. (See 40

CFR 761.79(g).)

e. Do not make KVA a factor in the

reclassification procedure. In the

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA

asked for comment on whether KVA

rating, in addition to or separately from

pre-retrofill concentration, should be

taken into account in determining

transformer reclassification

requirements. EPA had requested

comment on this issue based on

information provided by a utility that

distribution transformers with a KVA

rating of 500 or less are not required to

have sampling valves, and that sampling

these units outside of the shop

environment is precarious. The utility

therefore suggested that EPA not require

post-retrofill testing of distribution

transformers 500 KVA and below (Ref.

12, p. 60972, and Ref. 13).

There was little consensus among the

commenters on this question. Some

commenters noted that there were no

data indicating a relationship between

PCB concentration and KVA rating, or

demonstrating a relationship between

KVA rating and the effectiveness of a

retrofill (C1-007, C1-008, C1-014, C1-

024, C1-041, and C1-045) (Ref. 20, pp.

44-60). One commenter stated that the

current post-retrofill testing

requirements have not placed an undue

burden on industry (C1-040). Other

commenters favored taking KVA into

consideration, stating that transformers

larger than 500 KVA are generally

designed to allow in-service sampling of

their oil, while transformers 500 KVA

and smaller are not. Sampling the latter

transformers would be unfeasible and

potentially dangerous to service

personnel (C1-017, C1-035, and C1-036).

One commenter suggested that, if KVA

were taken into account, a 100 KVA

rating level would be more favorable to

the environment (C1-040). Another

suggested that distribution transformers

be defined as less than 69 KV, 500 KVA

equipment (C1-020). Since most of the

comments did not support the utility's

suggestion, EPA has not added a KVA

criterion to the final rule.

f. Allow reclassification of all oil-filled

equipment as well as transformers. In

the proposed rule, EPA invited

comments on allowing the proposed

17609

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17609 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

reclassification rules to be used for

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators (Ref. 12, p. 60973).

Commenters addressing the issue

unanimously agreed that EPA should

include these types of electrical

equipment, but some also wanted EPA

to expand the rules to include all oilfilled electrical equipment >50 ppm (C1-

014, C1-036, C1-038, C1-041, C1-045,

and C1-052). Information supplied by

commenters supported amending

§ 761.30(h)(2)(v) so that the new

reclassification procedures apply to

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators. Under § 761.30(m)(1)(ii),

these reclassification provisions also

apply to circuit breakers and reclosers.

The information shows that, compared

to a transformer, this equipment

contains the same amount or less porous

inner materials that could absorb PCBs.

Therefore, the reclassification

requirements that apply to transformers

would be as effective or more effective

for this equipment.

* Electromagnets. A commenter

stated that electromagnets do not

contain significant core and coil

components that can trap PCBs (C1-

011).

* Switches (including sectionalizers).

Commenters stated that switches and

sectionalizers are used throughout all

utility systems. Switches and

sectionalizers contain dielectric fluid,

but, unlike transformers, do not contain

an iron core or paper insulated coils of

wire. Therefore, there is very little

material into which oil (and thus PCBs)

could be absorbed (C1-007, C1-011, Ci012, C1-023, and C1-037) (Ref. 20, pp.

44-60).

* Voltage regulators. Voltage

regulators control voltage as it moves

through the electric utility system from

generation to ultimate consumption.

Commenters stated that voltage

regulators are like transformers in that

they require the same type of insulating

oil to retain dielectric integrity, and they

contain an iron core or paper insulated

coils of wire. Therefore, the anatomy of

a voltage regulator and a transformer

can be considered the same and the

procedures to reclassify the two forms of

equipment should be the same. Thus,

enough oil and PCBs would be removed

by a drain and refill process to reclassify

a contaminated voltage regulator

without placing it in service (C1-007,

C1-011, C1-012, C1-017, C1-020, C1-037,

and C1-039) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). One

commenter provided data on retrofilled

voltage regulators, but the data did not

specify how the retrofill was conducted

or the conditions under which the

voltage regulators were operated after

retrofill, so the data's usefulness for

establishing regulatory requirements is

limited (Cl-007).

* Circuit breakers. Circuit breakers

may be used throughout a utility

system, but are especially common in

transmission substations where they are

used to protect transformers. According

to commenters, circuit breakers require

the same type of insulating oil as

transformers for dielectric integrity.

However, unlike transformers, they do

not contain an iron core or paper

insulated coils of wire into which oil

(and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (Ci007, C1-023, and C1-041) (Ref. 20, pp.

44-60).

* Reclosers. Reclosers are relatively

small pieces of equipment that are often

mounted on utility poles to protect

distribution system equipment.

Reclosers contain dielectric fluid, but

have no inner iron core or paper

insulate coils of wire into which oil

(and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-

007) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).

Under § 761.30(m)(1)(ii), you may also

reclassify oil-filled cable. It is EPA's

experience that oil-filled cable rarely

contains PCBs >50 ppm (Ref. 14, p.

37352). Therefore, most oil-filled cable

is considered non-PCB, and would not

be reclassified. In the unlikely event

that you discover oil-filled cable

containing PCBs at >50 ppm, you may

reclassify it by following the procedures

at 40 CFR 761.30(h)(2)(v).

One commenter asked that the

reclassification procedures also apply to

bushings (Cl-038). EPA has not adopted

this suggestion because bushings are not

regulated separately from the equipment

on which they are installed, that is,

there is no separate use authorization

for bushings and therefore no

reclassification provision for bushings

in § 761.30. The PCB regulations assume

that intact electrical equipment contains

the component parts necessary for the

equipment to operate. A bushing that is

in service on authorized electrical

equipment is treated as having the same

PCB concentration as the equipment of

which it is a part. Therefore, if you

reclassify equipment under

§ 761.30(a)(2)(v), § 761.30(h)(2)(v), or

§ 761.30(m)(1), you need not reclassify

the bushing separately for the

equipment as a whole to be considered

reclassified.

If, however, you wish to reduce the

concentration of the bushing while it is

installed on the equipment, you may do

so by draining the existing fluid and

disposing of it as PCB waste, flushing

the bushing with fluid containing <2

ppm PCBs, and refilling it with fluid

containing <2 ppm PCBs. Once you

remove a bushing from the equipment,

it is regulated as a separate PCB Article

and you may not reclassify it under the

provisions of this rule. At the time of

disposal, you must dispose of a bushing

containing fluid >50 ppm PCBs as a

separate PCB Article under 40 CFR

761.60(b)(5) (Refs. 15, 16, and 17).

Commenters pointed out that many

voltage regulators contain an internal

small capacitor that has the potential to

rupture or leak. They felt that it was

important to remove this small capacitor

during reclassification to prevent it from

leaking and contaminating the

replacement fluid in the voltage

regulator (C1-017 and C1-024). Intact

and non-leaking small capacitors

containing PCBs are authorized for use

without restriction (see 40 CFR 761.3

and 761.30(1)), and are subject to

existing disposal requirements (see 40

CFR 761.60(b)(2)). If your voltage

regulator's fluid were contaminated by a

leak from an internal small capacitor,

you could reclassify the voltage

regulator if necessary, or you could

manage it at its post-leak PCB

concentration. EPA recognizes this

potential problem and suggests that if

you find a small capacitor in a voltage

regulator, you remove it after draining

and replace it with one that contains no

PCBs.

g. Do not regulate disposal as part of

reclassification. The proposed rule

would have required you to properly

store and dispose of PCB-containing

waste materials as part of a properly

conducted retrofill. Commenters felt

that the ultimate disposal of these

materials (such as drained fluid, rags,

and personal protective equipment) was

not necessary to complete a properly

conducted retrofill (C1-007, C1-008, and

C1-024) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). EPA agrees

that the reclassification process can be

regulated separately from the disposal of

waste from reclassification. This final

rule does not specifically refer to

disposal of PCB-containing waste

materials as part of the reclassification

procedure, although you must dispose

of these materials based on their PCB

concentration at the time of disposal by

following existing rules at 40 CFR part

761, subpart D.

h. Allow time to come into

compliance when equipment's

concentration changes after

reclassification. Commenters were

concerned that they would be subject to

enforcement action if, after properly

reclassifying a piece of equipment, the

concentration of the equipment rose

above the concentration limit for its

class. Commenters strongly urged that

the rules allow the opportunity to come

into compliance if equipment originally

reclassified as non-PCB were later

discovered to be >50 ppm, or if

17610

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17610 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

equipment originally reclassified as

PCB- Contaminated were later

discovered to be >500 ppm.

Commenters suggested using a schedule

similar to that at § 761.30(a)(1)(xv) for

assumed mineral-oil transformers that

are later discovered to be _>500 ppm.

Commenters also wanted to have the

opportunity to repeat the

reclassification process if the

transformer's concentration increased

(C1-007, C1-012, C1-016, C1-035, C1-

050, C1-051, C1-052, and C2-001).

Under the final rule, a piece of

equipment is regulated for use based on

its reclassified concentration until the

equipment is retested. If the retest

shows that the equipment is above the

upper concentration limit for its

reclassified status, the equipment is

regulated based on the actual

concentration of the fluid. EPA agrees

with the commenters that if you

discover that the concentration of

equipment reclassified to PCBContaminated status has risen to >500

ppm PCBs, you should have time to

come into compliance with

requirements that apply to equipment

containing >500 ppm PCBs. The final

rule directs you to follow the schedules

in § 761.30(a)(1)(xv)(A) through (J) for

transformers and § 761.30(h)(1)(iii) for

voltage regulators. If you documented

that you conducted the original

reclassification procedure properly (see

the recordkeeping requirement at

§ 761.180(g)) and you complied with

these schedules, you would not be in

violation of the reclassification

requirements.

If you discover that the concentration

of equipment reclassified to non-PCB

status has risen to >50 but <500 ppm,

the only regulatory concern (other than

cleanup of spills during use) is the

eventual disposition of the equipment

and its fluid. During use, you do not

need to mark, inspect, or keep records

on the equipment.

The final rule also allows you to

repeat the reclassification process to

reduce the concentration in any

reclassified equipment to the desired

level.

i. Allow reclassification based on the

procedures in the proposed rule. Several

commenters requested that EPA allow

owners to consider their equipment to

be reclassified if they followed the

procedures in the proposed rule before

the effective date of this final rule.

These commenters asked to be

"grandfathered in" to the requirements

of the final rule, rather than having to

request a formal approval of an alternate

method of reclassification from EPA or

having to repeat the procedure after the

effective date of this final rule (C1-007,

C1-008, C1-023, C1-050, C1-052, and Ci053).

EPA is not adopting this suggestion.

Prior to promulgation of this final rule,

owners who wanted to reclassify their

equipment based on the provisions of

the proposed rule could do so based on

a written approval from EPA. Those

who have requested and received an

approval need not follow the

reclassification process in the final rule

for the equipment that was subject to

the approval. Those who have followed

the requirements of the proposed rule

without requesting and receiving an

approval have not complied with the

reclassification rules and must either

request an approval or comply with the

provisions of this final rule. Equipment

reclassified under the rules currently in

effect does not need to be reclassified

again once this final rule goes into

effect.

j. Allow alternate reclassification

methods. A commenter suggested that

EPA amend the rule to allow on-line

processing (C1-021). The commenter

stated that on-line processing is

conducted while the transformer is

energized and under load, thereby

achieving sustained elevated

temperatures which should promote

effective PCB extraction from the

transformer. The commenter did not

submit enough data to allow EPA to

include this process in the final rule. If

you wish to use on-line processing for

reclassification, you may request an

approval under § 761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or

§ 761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).

k. Do not require recordkeeping. The

proposed rule would have required you

to maintain the following records on

your reclassified equipment for at least

three years after you disposed of the

equipment:

* The pre-retrofill concentration of the

equipment.

* The retrofill and reclassification

schedule and procedure.

* A copy of the analysis indicating the

equipment's reclassified status (i.e.,

final PCB concentration).

Commenters questioned the need for

this requirement (C1-022, C1-039, and

C1-041). First, as discussed in Unit

II.A.5.l., if reclassified equipment is sold

or transferred to another company for

use, service, or salvage, those records

will provide useful information to the

buyer, servicer or disposer. In addition,

for equipment that has been reclassified

from >500 to <500 ppm PCBs, the

records of reclassification will provide

documentation of why the equipment is

no longer being recorded on the annual

report or the annual document log and

why the equipment is no longer being

marked or inspected. Finally, the

records will allow EPA inspectors to

determine whether the equipment was

reclassified according to the regulatory

requirements. EPA is generally retaining

the proposed recordkeeping provisions

in this final rule for equipment

reclassified on or after the effective date

of this rule. This final rule requires you

to maintain records of the prereclassification concentration of the

equipment, the reclassification

procedure conducted, and the final PCB

concentration after the completion of

the reclassification procedure (see

§ 761.180(g)).

In the preamble to the proposed rule

(Ref. 12, p. 60971), EPA erroneously

cited ASTM methods D923-86 and

D923-89 as recognized methods for

determining the concentration and

nature of PCBs in dielectric fluid. These

are sampling methods, not testing

methods. You may analyze for PCBs

using any method of gas

chromatography that is appropriate for

the material being analyzed (see 40 CFR

761.60(g)(iii)). Methods include ASTM

Method D4059-96, "Standard Test

Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated

Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids by Gas

Chromatography" (Ref.18) and "The

Determination of Polychlorinated

Biphenyls in Transformer Fluid and

Waste Oils," issued by EPA's Office of

Research and Development (Ref.19).

Other methods are listed in 40 CFR

761.60(g)(iii).

1. Require that reclassified equipment

be labeled to protect workers from

higher PCB concentrations in porous

inner parts. A commenter submitted

data to show that 21 days after a PCBContaminated transformer has been

properly reclassified, the fluid in the

equipment may test at <50 ppm, but the

porous inner parts may be >50 ppm. The

commenter expressed concern that

workers who dismantle these

transformers for servicing or disposal

could unknowingly be exposed to PCBs

at >50 ppm when they remove the

internal components of the equipment.

The commenter asked EPA to require

notification and labeling to show that

the equipment had been reclassified

(Ci-001 and B1-001) (Ref. 20, pp. 8-29,

62-67). Another commenter opposed

such a requirement as misleading (Ref.

20, pp. 44-60).

EPA has not adopted this suggestion.

Such a change would not by itself

guarantee that workers dismantling

transformers were protected from PCBs

that might remain in the internal

workings of reclassified equipment. The

PCB regulations at 40 CFR

761.30(a)(2)(v) and (h)(2)(v) have

allowed the reclassification of electrical

equipment since 1982 and have never

17611

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17611 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

required labeling of units <500 ppm. If

EPA required labeling of all equipment

reclassified after the effective date of

this rule, disposal facilities would still

receive equipment that had been

reclassified before the effective date of

this rule, but that was not labeled. If the

facility needed to make sure of the PCB

concentration of the internal

components of this unlabeled

equipment, it would still have to test

these components-it could not rely on

the fact that the equipment was not

labeled to assume that the equipment

had not been reclassified. EPA believes

that imposing a labeling requirement for

equipment reclassified after the effective

date of this rule could therefore give

disposers of electrical equipment a false

sense of security in handling equipment

that was not labeled. A labeling

requirement would create costs and

burdens for owners of reclassified

equipment, but would be of limited

usefulness to servicing and disposal

facilities.

This final rule requires anyone

conducting a reclassification after the

effective date of this rule to keep records

of the reclassification (see 40 CFR

761.180(g)). These records must contain

the pre-reclassification concentration of

the equipment, the reclassification

procedure conducted, and the final PCB

concentration after the completion of

the reclassification procedure. Any

potential buyer, servicer, or disposer

may request these records. Obtaining

these records would serve as

notification of the potential for the inner

workings of the equipment to contain

higher PCB concentrations than the

fluid itself, and would allow servicers

and disposers to take proper precautions

if the equipment were to be dismantled.

In addition, the existing rules at

§ 761.60(b)(8) protect workers by

requiring that persons disposing of PCB

Articles wear or use protective clothing

or equipment to protect against dermal

contact with or inhalation of PCBs or

materials containing PCBs.

Finally, nothing in this final rule

limits the servicer's or disposer's

flexibility to include provisions in its

contracts with its suppliers requiring

additional information on the servicing

history of the equipment it receives.

m. Do not encourage dilution of PCBs

during reclassification. One commenter

objected to the proposal on the basis

that it encouraged the deliberate

dilution of PCBs as an acceptable means

of avoiding more stringent disposal

requirements. The commenter stated

that reclassification in general, and the

proposed amendments to an even

greater extent, allow transformer owners

to decrease the PCB concentration in the

residual oils in the internal components

of the transformer through dilution with

the retrofill liquid. The commenter

believed the proposal would cause huge

volumes of PCBs to be diluted to

unregulated levels rather than

permanently destroyed. The commenter

suggested that EPA instead create

incentives for the use of methods which

actually remove the PCBs from the

transformer and decrease the risk of

release of PCBs into the environment

(C1-047 and C2-005) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-

44).

As discussed in Unit II.A.l.a., EPA

originally developed the reclassification

process to allow the owner of a PCB

Transformer to rebuild the transformer

rather than dispose of it. Rebuilding

involves draining and opening the

transformer to service the coil and other

internal parts, and presents the risk of

PCB exposure to workers and to the

environment. Because of this risk, in

1979 EPA banned the rebuilding of PCB

Transformers unless they were

reclassified to PCB-Contaminated status.

Since 1979, EPA has regulated

rebuilding and reclassification as a form

of servicing, and has allowed dilution of

PCBs during these activities. While EPA

generally prohibits dilution of PCBs to

avoid disposal requirements, the agency

recognized that for certain activities,

including servicing, dilution is essential

to the intended performance of the

activities and is not performed with the

intent of evading the disposal

requirements for PCBs. Therefore,

reclassification is an exception to the

general ban on dilution to avoid

regulation at § 761.1(b)(5).

The process of retrofilling equipment

during reclassification removes

substantially all the original fluid (90%

according to this commenter, 95%

according to another commenter who

testified at the informal hearing (Reft 20,

p. 51)), and since this fluid is subject to

the disposal requirements, the PCBs it

contains are not released to the

environment. The reclassified

equipment remains in use, but the

lower-concentration fluid poses a

reduced risk to health and the

environment from spills or other

exposures. In addition, disposal of the

equipment at the end of its useful life,

and the fluid it contains, are regulated

to protect health and the environment.

For all these reasons, EPA believes the

benefits of allowing reclassification

outweigh the risks to health and the

environment of allowing a relatively

small amount of the fluid in the

equipment to be diluted.

6. What does this final rule require?

Based on comments and data submitted

in response to the proposed rule, and

further review of the data the Agency

had at the time of the proposed rule,

EPA is modifying the current rule to:

* Eliminate the requirement to raise

the temperature of a transformer's

dielectric fluid to at least 50'C.

* Eliminate the requirement to operate

the equipment under loaded conditions

for all transformers, electromagnets,

switches, and voltage regulators with a

pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000

ppm.

* Allow you to reclassify equipment

using retrofill fluid <50 ppm, as long as

you test the equipment 90 days after

retrofill to ensure that reclassification

has been successful.

* Allow you to reclassify PCBContaminated transformers,

electromagnets, switches, and voltage

regulators to non-PCB status by

retrofilling with fluid <2 ppm PCBs.

You are not required to test the

equipment after 90 days.

* Allow you time to come into

compliance if you determine that the

concentration of equipment reclassified

to PCB-Contaminated status has risen to

>500 ppm PCBs.

* Allow you to repeat the

reclassification process to further reduce

the PCB concentration in your

equipment, for example, if your prior

attempt at reclassification fails. If your

attempt to reclassify your equipment

does not lower its PCB concentration

sufficiently, the equipment is not

considered reclassified under the PCB

regulations. This would be the case if

your equipment had a PCB

concentration >1,000 ppm prior to

reclassification, and after following the

reclassification procedures the

concentration was not reduced to <500

ppm; if your equipment had a PCB

concentration >500 ppm prior to

reclassification, and after following the

reclassification rocedures the PCB

concentration was not reduced to <500

ppm; and if your equipment had a PCB

concentration >50 but <500 ppm prior to

reclassification, and after following the

reclassification procedures the PCB

concentration was not reduced to <50

ppm.

* Require you to keep records

showing that you followed the required

reclassification procedures. The records

must include copies of pre- and postreclassification PCB concentration

measurements from a laboratory using

quality control and quality assurance

procedures. You must make these

records available to EPA or to another

party holding or possessing the

equipment (for example, through sale,

loan, lease, or for servicing). You must

retain the records for at least 3 years

17612

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17612 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

after you sell, transfer, or dispose of the of the National Program Chemicals electromagnets, switches, and voltage

equipment. Division. regulators from which you have

* Change the EPA official authorized Table 4 summarizes the removed free-flowing liquids (see

to approve alternate methods for reclassification requirements for § 761.30(h)(2)(v))). Under

reclassifying equipment from the transformers from which you have § 761.30(m)(1)(ii), these reclassification

Assistant Administrator to the Director removed free-flowing liquids (see provisions also apply to circuit breakers,

§ 761.30(a)(2)(v)); and for reclosers, and cable.

TABLE 4.-CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS FINAL RULE

If test results show the and you retrofill the equip- and test results show the then the equipment's rePCB concentration (ppm) ment with dielectric fluid and you ... PCB concentration (ppm) classified status is

in the equipment prior to containing .. after retrofill is " " " retrofill is ...

>1,000 (or untested) <50 ppm PCBs operate the equipment >50 but <500 PCB-Contaminated

electrically under loaded

conditions for at least 90

continuous days after

retrofill, then test the

fluid for PCBs

<50 non-PCB

>500 but <1,000 test the fluid for PCBs at >50 but <500 PCB-Contaminated

least 90 days after

retrofill

<50 non-PCB

>50 but <500 >2 but <50 ppm PCBs

<2 ppm PCBs (no need to test) (not applicable)

B. What is the Agency's Authority for

Taking this Action?

This final rule is issued pursuant to

TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B). Section

6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA gives EPA the

authority to authorize the use of PCBs

in other than a totally enclosed manner

based on a finding of no unreasonable

risk of injury to health or the

environment (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B)).

EPA finds that this rule's amendments

to the reclassification requirements will

not present an unreasonable risk of

injury to health or the environment.

PCBs have significant ecological and

human health effects, including cancer,

neurotoxicity, reproductive and

developmental toxicity, immune system

suppression, liver damage, skin

irritation, and endocrine disruption

(Ref. 21). EPA has found that any

exposure of humans or the environment

to PCBs 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

(see 40 CFR 761.20). Nonetheless, EPA

has recognized the economic benefits of

continued use of PCBs in electrical

equipment, and has authorized those

uses under conditions designed to

minimize the risk of exposure to PCBs

during use and servicing, or through

leaks or other releases (Ref. 14).

EPA finds that the amendments in

this final rule will reduce the risk to

health and the environment from

exposure to PCBs. The process of

retrofilling electrical equipment during

reclassification removes substantially all

the original fluid (90% to 95%), and

because this fluid is subject to the

disposal requirements of 40 CFR part

761, subpart D, the PCBs it contains are

not released to the environment. The

reclassified equipment remains in use,

but the lower-concentration fluid poses

a reduced risk to health and the

environment from spills or other

exposures. In addition, disposal of the

equipment at the end of its useful life,

and the fluid it contains, are regulated

to protect health and the environment.

Because the final rule will relax a

number of the requirements for

reclassifying PCB-containing electrical

equipment (while adding one new

requirement), the rule will result in a

net cost savings for owners who choose

to reclassify their equipment. EPA

estimates that the owner of a PCB

Transformer, or the owner of a PCBContaminated transformer who

reclassifies the transformer using fluid

>2 but <50 ppm PCBs, will save $35.15

compared to the costs of the current

requirements. EPA estimates that the

owner of a PCB-Contaminated

transformer who reclassifies the

transformer using fluid <2 ppm PCBs

(and who need not test the

concentration of the transformer after

retrofill) will save $80.15 compared to

the costs of the current requirements. In

addition to reducing the costs of

reclassifying electrical equipment, the

rule will allow owners of reclassified

equipment to experience incremental

savings from the less stringent

regulatory requirements that apply to

reclassified equipment. EPA estimates

that the owner of a reclassified

transformer will save $32.09 each time

the owner avoids the requirement to

mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80

annually for not having to inspect PCB

Transformers that are reclassified (Ref.

2, p. 21). Reclassification can also help

avoid or reduce recordkeeping, liability,

and insurance costs.

Therefore, having considered the

effects on health and the environment of

PCBs, the economic benefits of

continued use of PCBs in electrical

equipment, and the expected cost

savings of these amendments, EPA finds

that this rule's amendments to the

reclassification requirements will not

present an unreasonable risk of injury to

health or the environment.

III. References

1. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA), Office of Toxic

Substances (OTS). Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing,

17613

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17613 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Processing, Distribution in Commerce,

and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule.

Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31,

1979).

2. USEPA, Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),

Economics, Exposure and Technology

Division, Economic and Policy Analysis

Branch. Reclassification of PCB and

PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment

Rule: Supporting Analysis for Small

Entity, Environmental Justice, and

Unfunded Mandates Certifications,

September 28, 2000.

3. Baltimore Gas and Electric

Company, Electric Test Department,

Paul J. Frey. PCB-Contaminated

Distribution Transformer

Reclassification Study, July 16, 1987.

4. USEPA, Office of Pesticides and

Toxic Substances (OPTS). Memorandum

from Dan Reinhart to Tony Baney;

Background Report on Empirical Basis

for Proposed Changes to Reclassification

Criteria for PCB and PCB-Contaminated

Transformers (undated).

5. USEPA, OPTS. Memorandum from

Dan Reinhart to Joe Davia; Examination

of the Relationship Between PCB

Leaching and Load Level in

Transmission Transformers by

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company,

May 20, 1988.

6. Resource Planning Corporation.

Letter from Richard E. Bell to Carl

Manger, April 24, 1989.

7. Electrical Power Research Institute

(EPRI). PCB Seminar Notebook;

"Reclassification: Simulating In-service

Use," October 1989.

8. USEPA, OPTS, OTS. Letter from

Don R. Clay, Director, OTS, to Timothy

S. Hardy, Kirkland and Ellis, June 13,

1984.

9. USEPA, OPTS. Letter from Joseph

J. Merenda, Director, Exposure

Evaluation Division, to Edward

Karapetian, Department of Water and

Power the City of Los Angeles,

November 29, 1990.

10. S.D. Myers Transformer

Consultants. Letter from Dana S. Myers,

President, to Jan Canterbury, USEPA,

OPTS, Exposure Effects Division (EED),

Chemical Regulation Branch (CRB),

August 16, 1991.

11. EPRI, Dr. Gilbert Addis.

Equilibrium Study of PCBs Between

Transformer Oil and Transformer Solid

Materials, December 3, 1981.

12. USEPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated

Biphenyls (PCBs); Reclassification of

PCB and PCB-Contaminated

Transformers; Proposed Rule. Federal

Register (58 FR 60970, November 18,

1993).

13. Baltimore Gas and Electric

Company, Electric Test Department.

Letter from H. C. Manger, General

Supervisor, to Jan Canterbury, USEPA,

OPTS, EED, CRB, July 24, 1991.

14. USEPA, OTS. 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).

15. USEPA, Office of Prevention,

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances

(OPPTS). Letter from Tony Baney, Chief,

Operations Branch, to Jim Ridder, PCB

Coordinator, Elkhorn Rural Public

Power District, June 8, 1994.

16. USEPA, OPPTS. Letter from Tony

Baney, Chief, Operations Branch, to Ron

D. Johnson, Sr. Environmental Scientist,

Public Service Co. of New Mexico,

August 29, 1995.

17. USEPA, OPPTS. Letter from John

W. Melone, Director, National Program

Chemicals Division, to John T. Graves,

Environmental Manager, Minnetonka

Power Cooperative, Inc., April 29, 1999.

18. American Society for Testing and

Materials. Standard Test Method for

Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

in Insulating Liquids by Gas

Chromatography (D 4059-96), 1996.

19. USEPA, Office of Research and

Development (ORD), Environmental

Monitoring & Support Laboratory. Test

Method: The Determination of

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in

Transformer Fluid and Waste Oils

(EPA-600/4-81-045), September 1982.

20. USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings:

PCB Transformer Reclassification

Proposed Rule, March 9, 1994.

21. USEPA, ORD, National Center for

Environmental Assessment. PCBs:

Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and

Application to Environmental Mixtures

(EPA/600/P-96/001F), September 1996.

22. USEPA, OPPT. Consolidated ICR

Supporting Statement for the PCB

Regulations at 40 CFR part 761,

September 28, 1999.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866,

entitled Regulatory Planning and

Review(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),

this action is not a "significant

regulatory action" subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), because this action is not likely

to result in a rule that meets any of the

criteria for a "significant regulatory

action" provided in section 3(f) of the

Executive Order.

EPA's analysis of the potential impact

of this action is contained in a

document entitled "Reclassification of

PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical

Equipment Rule: Supporting Analysis

for Small Entity, Environmental Justice,

and Unfunded Mandates Certifications"

(Supporting Analysis) (Ref. 2). This

document is available to you as a part

of the public version of the official

record for this final rule. To learn how

to get a copy of this document, see Unit

I.B.

This final rule will affect owners of

electrical transformers, voltage

regulators, electromagnets, switches,

circuit breakers, reclosers and cable that

contain PCBs. Because of data

limitations and the assumed small

numbers of units of electrical equipment

other than transformers, the analysis

addresses only transformers. This

analysis concludes that, because the

final rule will relax a number of the

requirements for reclassifying PCBcontaining transformers, the rule will

result in a net cost savings for

transformer owners who choose to

reclassify their equipment (Ref. 2, p. 4).

The effect of including data on other

electrical equipment affected by the

rule, were these data available, would

be only to further increase the overall

cost savings attributable to the rule (Ref.

2, p. 1).

EPA estimates that the owner of a PCB

Transformer, or the owner of a PCBContaminated transformer who

reclassifies the transformer using fluid

>2 but <50 ppm PCBs, will save $35.15

compared to the costs of the current

requirements. EPA estimates that the

owner of a PCB-Contaminated

transformer who reclassifies the

transformer using fluid <2 ppm PCBs

(and who need not test the

concentration of the transformer after

retrofill) will save $80.15 compared to

the costs of the current requirements

(Ref. 2, pp. 3-5). In addition to reducing

the costs of reclassifying electrical

equipment, the rule will allow owners

of reclassified equipment to experience

incremental savings from the less

stringent regulatory requirements that

apply to reclassified equipment. EPA

estimates that the owner of a reclassified

transformer will save $32.09 each time

the owner avoids the requirement to

mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80

annually for not having to inspect PCB

Transformers that are reclassified (Ref.

2, p. 8-9).

Moreover, neither the current

reclassification requirements nor the

amendments in this final rule require

you to reclassify your electrical

equipment. Whether to reclassify is a

private business decision. Any firm,

large or small, will reclassify their

equipment only if the savings to the

firm exceed the firm's costs of

performing the reclassification. The

changes to the reclassification rules

17614

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17614 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

impose no positive net costs on small

entities because firms that choose to

reclassify their equipment are basing

their decision on a comparison of

private costs and benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency

hereby certifies that this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. The factual basis for the

Agency's determination is presented in

the Supporting Analysis (Ref. 2), and is

briefly summarized here.

For the purpose of analyzing potential

impacts on small entities, EPA used the

definition for small entities in section

601 of the RFA. Under section 601, "small entity" is defined as:

* A small business that meets Small

Business Administration size standards

codified at 13 CFR 121.201.

* A small governmental jurisdiction

that is a government of a city, county,

town, school district, or special district

with a population of less than 50,000.

* A small organization that is any notfor-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.

This rule will result in a net cost

savings for transformer owners who

reclassify their equipment. Information

on transformer ownership and

reclassification decisions among small

entities is needed to accurately assess

the small entity impacts. Following a

review of available data sources, EPA

concluded that complete data are not

available for any of the affected sectors.

Nevertheless, several observations can

be drawn (Ref. 2, pp. 20-22).

* The rule is expected to generate cost

savings for reclassifying PCB and PCBContaminated transformers. On a per

reclassification basis, the estimated cost

savings are $35.15 for PCB Transformers

and for PCB-Contaminated transformers

retrofilled with fluid >2 but <50 ppm,

and $80.15 for PCB-Contaminated

transformers retrofilled with fluid <2

ppm (EPA has eliminated the

requirement to test the concentration of

these transformers after retrofill). Thus,

the rule will benefit both small and

large entities by making reclassifications

more affordable, and will increase the

number of reclassifications that occur.

* These "induced" reclassifications

will be able to capture cost savings

associated with complying with reduced

regulatory requirements. PCB

Transformer owners who reclassify will

save $32.09 each time they avoid having

to mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80

annually for not having to inspect each

reclassified transformer. Small entities

that are induced to reclassify a PCB

Transformer will benefit from these cost

savings.

* Because reclassification is

voluntary, it is a private business

decision on the part of transformer

owners in which the private benefits are

compared to the private costs of

reclassifying. Thus, each reclassification

project should be assumed to generate

net private benefits for transformer

owners, both prior to and after

implementation of the rule.

* Smaller entities are less likely to

own transformers, and therefore less

likely to need to perform

reclassification. Thus, larger businesses

may be more likely to take advantage of

the reduced requirements of

reclassification. However, even if

smaller entities did own a

disproportionate number of

transformers (which is unlikely), this

should not create an adverse impact

because reclassification is performed

only when it is in the interest of the

transformer owner to do so, and the

final rule is expected to only reduce the

costs of reclassification.

Having reviewed all of the available

relevant data and after taking the data

limitations into account, EPA believes

that this rule will not impose any

adverse impact on small entities, and

should actually provide a potential

source of cost savings to many

transformer owners who choose to

reclassify their equipment. The final

rule will make reclassification more

affordable for both small and large

entities, and should result in an

increased rate of reclassification and an

accelerated rate of removal of PCBs from

use. Furthermore, reclassification is a

business decision made by transformer

owners based on a comparison of

private benefits and costs. Assuming

that transformers owners pursue their

own best interest, no reclassification

will take place that does not have a

positive net benefit for transformer

owners.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements contained in this rule are

reflected in the Consolidated

Information Collection Request (ICR)

Supporting Statement for the PCB

Regulations at 40 CFR part 761,

September 28, 1999 (Consolidated ICR)

(Ref. 22). The Consolidated ICR was

prepared in response to a request from

OMB to combine the various PCB

information collections into a single

ICR. These information collection

requirements (including minor

amendments to address the

requirements of this final rule) have

been submitted to OMB for review and

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., and in accordance with the

procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. The

burden and costs related to the

information collection requirements

contained in this rule are described in

an ICR identified as EPA ICR No.

1446.07, which has been included in the

public version of the official record

described in Unit I.B.2., and is available

electronically as described in Unit

I.B.1., at http://www.epa.gov/opperidl/

icr.htm, or by e-mailing a request to

farmer.sandy@epa.gov. You may also

request a copy by mail from Sandy

Farmer, Collection Strategies Division,

Environmental Protection Agency

(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington DC 20460, or by calling

(202) 260-2740.

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

that is subject to approval under the

PRA, unless it displays a currently valid

OMB control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA's regulations, after

appearing in the preamble of the

Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR

part 9, and included on any related

collection instrument.

As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR

1320.3(b), "burden" means the total

time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, disclose, or provide

information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review

instructions; develop, acquire, install,

and utilize technology and systems for

the purpose of collecting, validating,

and verifying information, processing

and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with

any previously applicable instructions

and requirements; train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

The information collection for this

rule is a recordkeeping requirement

placed on owners of electrical

equipment containing PCBs who choose

to reclassify that equipment to lower its

PCB concentration. The recordkeeping

requirement is being implemented so

that if reclassified equipment is sold or

transferred to another company for use,

service or salvage, the buyer, servicer or

disposer will be able to learn the

servicing history of the equipment. In

17615

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17615 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

addition, for equipment that has been

reclassified from >500 ppm to <500 ppm

PCBs, the records of reclassification will

provide documentation of why the

equipment is no longer being recorded

on the annual report or the annual

document log and why the equipment is

no longer being marked or inspected.

Finally, the records will allow EPA

inspectors to determine whether the

equipment was reclassified according to

the regulatory requirements. The burden

to respondents for complying with this

information collection is estimated to

total 15,050 hours per year, with an

annual cost of $573,322. The totals are

based on an average burden of 15

minutes per response for an estimated

60,200 respondents to maintain required

records.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

(Public Law 104-4), EPA has

determined that this rule does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more for State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any 1 year. Rather than

impose net costs of $100 million or

more in any 1 year, this final PCB

Reclassification rule will result in a net

cost savings to transformer owners who

decide to reclassify their equipment

(Ref. 2, p. 23).

E. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local government officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications." "Policies

that have federalism implications" is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that have

"substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government."

Under section 6 of the Executive

order, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local government officials

early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation. EPA also may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless the Agency consults with

State and local government officials

early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation.

Section 4 of the Executive order

contains additional requirements for

rules that preempt State or local law,

even if those rules do not have

federalism implications (i.e., the rules

will not have substantial direct effects

on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government). Those

requirements include providing State

and local government officials notice

and an opportunity for appropriate

participation in the development of the

regulation. If the preemption is not

based on express or implied statutory

authority, EPA also must consult, to the

extent practicable, with appropriate

State and local government officials

regarding the conflict between State law

and federally protected interests within

the agency's area of regulatory

responsibility.

The Agency has determined that this

rule does not have federalism

implications. It amends a voluntary

process by which owners of

transformers and other electrical

equipment can reclassify that

equipment to a less stringent regulatory

status. The changes are not expected to

result in a significant intergovernmental

mandate under the UMRA, and thus,

EPA concludes that the rule will not

impose substantial direct compliance

costs. Nor would the rule substantially

affect the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Those

relationships have already been

established under the existing PCB

regulations, and these amendments

would not alter them. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

final rule.

This final rule would preempt State

and local law in accordance with TSCA

section 18(a)(2)(B). By publishing and

inviting comment on the proposed rule

(Ref. 12), EPA provided State and local

government officials notice and an

opportunity for appropriate

participation. Thus, EPA has complied

with the requirements of section 4 of the

Executive Order.

F. Executive Orders 13084 and 13175

Under Executive Order 13084,

entitled Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR

27655, May 19, 1998) EPA may not

issue a regulation that is not required by

statute, that significantly or uniquely

affects the communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB,

in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA's prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and

other representatives of Indian tribal

governments "to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities."

This rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments, nor does it

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on such communities. It amends a

voluntary process by which owners of

transformers and other electrical

equipment can reclassify that

equipment to a less stringent regulatory

status. Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

On November 6, 2000, the President

issued Executive Order 13175, entitled

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR

67249). Executive Order 13175 took

effect on January 6, 2001, and revokes

Executive Order 13084 as of that date.

EPA developed this rule, however,

during the period when Executive Order

13084 was in effect; thus, EPA

addressed tribal considerations under

Executive Order 13084.

G. Executive Order 12898

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 has considered

environmental justice related issues

with regard to the potential impacts of

this action on the environmental and

health conditions in low-income and

minority communities. EPA finds that

the amendments in this final rule will

reduce the risk to health and the

environment from exposure to PCBs.

The process of retrofilling electrical

17616

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17616 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

equipment during reclassification

removes substantially all the original

PCB-containing fluid, and since this

fluid is subject to the disposal

requirements of 40 CFR part 761,

subpart D, the PCBs it contains are not

released to the environment. The

reclassified equipment remains in use,

but the lower PCB concentration in the

fluid poses a reduced risk to health and

the environment from spills or other

exposures. In addition, at the end of its

useful life, the equipment and the fluid

it contains must be disposed of based on

existing requirements to protect health

and the environment. EPA's research

did not reveal any data to suggest that

the effects of this rule, even beneficial

effects, would disproportionately affect

minority or low-income populations

(Ref. 2, pp. 22-23).

H. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that is both

determined to be "economically

significant" as defined under Executive

Order 12966, and concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health and safety effects

of the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. However, it

has been EPA's policy since November

1, 1995, to consistently and explicitly

consider risks to infants and children in

all risk assessments generated during its

decision-making process, including the

setting of standards to protect public

health and the environment.

This regulation is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant as defined by

Executive Order 12966 (i.e., it does not

generate annual costs of $100 million),

and the Agency does not have reason to

believe that the environmental health or

safety risks addressed by the regulation

present a disproportionate risk to

children (Ref. 2, pp. 23-24). This

regulation changes the requirements for

reclassifying PCB Transformers, voltage

regulators and other PCB-containing

electrical equipment to a lower PCB

status. The activities addressed by the

regulation include draining PCB liquids

from the equipment, refilling it with a

non-PCB mixture, and then in some

cases, testing the equipment after a

period of use. Most transformers and

voltage regulators are located in

facilities such as electric utilities,

manufacturing facilities, and prisons

where children are not present. In

facilities such as schools and hospitals

that have equipment containing PCBs

and where children are present, the

equipment is located in areas that are

strictly off-limits to children, and for

that matter, any unauthorized

personnel. Therefore, the

reclassification will occur where

children are either not present or not

permitted, and the process will pose no

special risks to children.

L National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

This regulatory action does not

involve any technical standards that

would require Agency consideration of

voluntary consensus standards pursuant

to section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d)

of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures,

business practices, etc.) that are

developed or adopted by voluntary

consensus standards bodies. The

NTTAA requires EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

This rule requires you to test

dielectric fluids from electrical

equipment for PCB concentration.

Existing regulations at § 761.60(g)(iii) set

out requirements for testing the fluids,

and allow you to use any method of gas

chromatography that is appropriate for

the material being analyzed, including

voluntary consensus methods

established by organizations such as the

American Society for Testing and

Materials.

J. Executive Order 12630

EPA has complied with Executive

Order 12630, entitled Governmental

Actions and Interference with

Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by

examining the takings implications of

this rule in accordance with the

"Attorney General's Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings" issued under the Executive

Order.

K. Executive Order 12988

In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct, as

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

V. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

Agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and the Comptroller General of

the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule 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, Labeling, Polychlorinated

biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 16, 2001.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 761-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 761

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611,

2614, and 2616.

2. Section 761.30 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and

(h)(2)(v) to read as follows:

§761.30 Authorizations. * * * * *

(a)***

(2)***

(v) You may reclassify a PCB

Transformer that has been tested and

determined to have a concentration of

>500 ppm PCBs to a PCB-Contaminated

transformer (>50 but <500 ppm) or to a

non-PCB transformer (<50 ppm), and

you may reclassify a PCB-Contaminated

transformer that has been tested and

determined to have a concentration of

>50 ppm but <500 ppm to a non-PCB

transformer, as follows:

17617

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17617 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

(A) Remove the free-flowing PCB PCBs. Retrofill the transformer with status according to the following table

dielectric fluid from the transformer. fluid containing known PCB levels (if following this process does not result

Flushing is not required. Either test the according to the following table. in the reclassified status you desire, you

fluid or assume it contains >1,000 ppm Determine the transformer's reclassified may repeat the process):

If test results show the and you retrofill the trans- and test results show the then the transformer's re- PCB concentration (ppm) former with dielectric fluid and you ... PCB concentration (ppm) classified status is.

in the transformer prior to containing ... after retrofill is " " retrofill is ...

>1,000 (or untested) <50 ppm PCBs operate the transformer >50 but <500 PCB-contaminated

electrically under loaded

conditions for at least

90-continuous days after

retrofill, then test the

fluid for PCBs

<50 ppm PCBs operate the transformer <50 non-PCB

electrically under loaded

conditions for at least

90-continuous days after

retrofill, then test the

fluid for PCBs

>500 but <1,000 <50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for PCBs at >50 but <500 PCB-contaminated

least 90 days after

retrofill

<50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for PCBs at <50 non-PCB

least 90 days after

retrofill

>50 but <500 >2 but <50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for PCBs at <50 non-PCB

least 90 days after

retrofill

<2 ppm PCBs (no need to test) (not applicable) non-PCB

(B) If you discover that the PCB

concentration of the fluid in a

reclassified transformer has changed,

causing the reclassified status to change,

the transformer is regulated based on

the actual concentration of the fluid. For

example, a transformer that was

reclassified to non-PCB status is

regulated as a PCB-Contaminated

transformer if you discover that the

concentration of the fluid has increased

to >50 but <500 ppm PCBs. If you

discover that the PCB concentration of

the fluid has risen to >500 ppm, the

transformer is regulated as a PCB

Transformer. Follow paragraphs

(a)(1)(xv)(A) through (j) of this section to

come into compliance with the

regulations applicable to PCB

Transformers. You also have the option

of repeating the reclassification process.

(C) The Director, National Program

Chemicals Division, may, without

further rulemaking, grant approval on a

case-by-case basis for the use of

alternative methods to reclassify

transformers. You may request an

approval by writing to the Director,

National Program Chemicals Division

(7404), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington DC 20460. Describe the

equipment you plan to reclassify, the

alternative reclassification method you

plan to use, and test data or other

evidence on the effectiveness of the

method.

(D) You must keep records of the

reclassification required by § 761.180(g). * * * * *

(h)*** (2)***

(v) You may reclassify an

electromagnet, switch, or voltage

regulator that has been tested and

determined to have a concentration of

>500 ppm PCBs to PCB-Contaminated

status (>50 but <500 ppm) or to non-PCB

status (<50 ppm), and you may

reclassify a PCB-Contaminated

electromagnet, switch, or voltage

regulator that has been tested and

determined to have a concentration of

>50 ppm but <500 ppm to a non-PCB

status, as follows:

(A) Remove the free-flowing PCB

dielectric fluid from the electromagnet,

switch, or voltage regulator. Flushing is

not required. Either test the fluid or

assume it contains >1,000 ppm PCBs.

Retrofill the electromagnet, switch, or

voltage regulator with fluid containing

known PCB levels according to the

following table. Determine the

electromagnet, switch, or voltage

regulator's reclassified status according

to the following table (if following this

process does not result in the

reclassified status you desire, you may

repeat the process):

17618

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17618 2001
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

If test results show the and you retrofill the equip- and test results show the then the electromagnet,

PCB concentration (ppm) ment with dielectric fluid and you ... PCB concentration (ppm) switch, or voltage reguin the equipment prior to containing .. after retrofill is lator's reclassified status is

retrofill is ... ...

>1,000 (or untested) <50 ppm PCBs operate the equipment >50 but <500 PCB-contaminated

electrically under loaded

conditions for at least

90-continuous days after

retrofill, then test the

fluid for PCBs

<50 ppm PCBs operate the equipment <50 non-PCB

electrically under loaded

conditions for at least

90-continuous days after

retrofill, then test the

fluid for PCBs

>500 but <1,000 <50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for PCBs at >50 but <500 PCB-contaminated

least 90 days after

retrofill

<50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for PCBs at <50 non-PCB

least 90 days after

retrofill

>50 but <500 >2 but <50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for PCBs at <50 non-PCB

least 90 days after

retrofill

<2 ppm PCBs (no need to test) (not applicable) non-PCB

(B) If you discover that the PCB

concentration of the fluid in a

reclassified electromagnet, switch, or

voltage regulator has changed, causing

the reclassified status to change, the

electromagnet, switch, or voltage

regulator is regulated based on the

actual concentration of the fluid. For

example, an electromagnet, switch, or

voltage regulator that was reclassified to

non-PCB status is regulated as a PCBContaminated electromagnet, switch, or

voltage regulator if you discover that the

concentration of the fluid has increased

to >50 but <500 ppm PCBs. If you

discover that the PCB concentration of

the fluid in a voltage regulator has risen

to >500 ppm, follow paragraph (h)(1)(iii)

of this section to come into compliance

with the regulations applicable to

voltage regulators containing >500 ppm

PCBs. You also have the option of

repeating the reclassification process.

(C) The Director, National Program

Chemicals Division may, without

further rulemaking, grant approval on a

case-by-case basis for the use of

alternative methods to reclassify

electromagnets, switches or voltage

regulators. You may request an approval

by writing to the Director, National

Program Chemicals Division (7404),

Environmental Protection Agency,1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington

DC 20460. Describe the equipment you

plan to reclassify, the alternative

reclassification method you plan to use,

and test data or other evidence on the

effectiveness of the method.

(D) You must keep records of the

reclassification required by § 761.180(g).

3. In § 761.180 by adding a new

paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§761.180 Records and monitoring.

(g) Reclassification records. If you

reclassify electrical equipment using the

procedures in § 761.30(a)(2)(v) or

§ 761.30(h)(2)(v), you must keep records

showing that you followed the required

reclassification procedures. Where these

procedures require testing, the records

must include copies of pre- and postreclassification PCB concentration

measurements from a laboratory using

quality control and quality assurance

procedures. You must make these

records available promptly to EPA or to

any party possessing the equipment

through sale, loan, lease, or for

servicing. You must retain the records

for at least 3 years after you sell or

dispose of the equipment.

[FR Doc. 01-8055 Filed 3-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S

17619

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17619 2001