## 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

Reclassificationof 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 (>50but <500 ppm)or non-PCB (<50ppm) status; or from PCB-Contaminated to non-PCB status. This rule brings the reclassification requirements into conformance with data and Agency experience gained since EPAlast revised this regulation in 1982. The rule reduces the regulatory and economic burden ofreclassification, andreduces the risk from PCBs to health and the environment by encouraging the phaseout andremoval ofPCBs from electrical equipment.
DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2001. This rule is promulgated for
purposes ofjudicial review at 1p.m April May 2, 2001 under 40 CFR 23.5. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For generalinformationcontact:Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division, Office ofPollution 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.

Fortechnicalinformationcontact: Tom Simons, Project Manager, National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Office ofPollution 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 ofPollution 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 thisActionApply toMe?

You may be potentially affected by this action ifyou process, distribute in

commerce, use, or dispose ofPCBs 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................ IAgencies that own electrical equipment containing PCBs.

This listing isnot 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 alsobe affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes havebeen provided to assistyou and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you oryour business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. Ifyou have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult

atechnical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How CanI GetAdditional Information,IncludingCopies ofthis Document orOther RelatedDocuments?
1.Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies ofthis document, and certain otherrelated documents that might be available electronically, from the EPAInternet Home Page at http:// www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select "Laws andRegulations," "Regulations and Proposed Rules," andthen look up the entry for this document under "Federal Register-Environmental Documents." You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings athttp:// www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

To access information about PCBs, go directly tothe PCB Home Page for the Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics athttp://www.epa.gov/pcb.

2. Inperson.The Agency has established an official record forthis action under docket control number OPPTS-66015B. The official record consists ofthe 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 otherinformation 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 ofthe official record, which includes printed, paperversions ofany 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 4p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.

II. Background

A. WhatAction istheAgency 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 canuse to lower the PCB concentration in electrical equipment. This rule:

*Eliminates the requirement to raise the temperature ofa transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50°Centigrade (C).

*Eliminates the 90-day in-service use requirement for alltransformers, 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, andto make these records available toEPA or to any party holding or possessing the equipment.

1. Whataretheadvantagesof reclassifyingelectricalequipment? Electrical equipment containing PCBs is regulated for use based on the PCB concentration ofits 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 ofthe less stringent and less costlyuse 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. Useconditions-i.Transformers. EPA originally issued the reclassification rules to allow the owner ofa PCB Transformer (atransformer containing dielectric fluid at >500 ppm PCBs) to rebuild the transformer rather than dispose ofit. Rebuilding involves draining and opening the transformer to service the coil and otherinternal parts, andpresents the risk ofPCB exposure to workers andto the environment. Because ofthis risk, since 1979 EPAhas banned rebuilding PCB Transformers unless they were first reclassified to at least PCB-Contaminated status (thatis, the PCB concentration ofthe 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 donot apply to either PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. You can avoid these use conditions and costs byreclassifying the equipment.

*Marking.Ifyou own a PCB Transformer, you must make sure itis marked with a 'ML' (40 CFR 761.40(a)(2) and40 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 markis missing, damaged, orincorrect. Additionally, you must mark the location ofa PCB Transformer, including vault doors, machinery room doors, fences, hallways

or othermeans ofaccess (otherthan 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

orits location (Ref. 2,p. 8).

*Inspections.Ifyou 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 ornon-PCB transformers. EPA estimates thatyou incur $43.80 in annual inspection costs for each PCB Transformer you own (Ref. 2,pp. 8-9).

*Recordkeeping.Ifyou own a facility thatuses or stores a PCB Transformer,
you mustkeep 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 atyour facility. EPA estimates that ifyour facility is large, your cost tokeep an annual document log is $1,226. Large facilities

are likely to have several PCB Items, including PCB Transformers. You do
nothave to include a reclassified inservice transformer in the annual document log. EPA expects that not having to include areclassified 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 ofPCB 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 (40CFR 761.30(a)(1)(vi)). You may not store combustible materials in a PCB Transformer enclosure or within 5
meters ofan unenclosed PCB Transformer (40CFR 761.30(a)(1)(viii)). Ifa PCB Transformer is involved in a fire-related incident, the owner ofthe transformer must immediately report the incident tothe National Response Center (40CFR 761.30(a)(1)(xi)). Ifa PCB Transformer leaks, you must initiate clean-up within 48 hours (40 CFR 761.30(x)). Finally, the owner ofa PCB Transformer must keep records of inspection andmaintenance for at least 3years after disposing ofa PCB Transformer (40CFR 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 thatpose a risk to food or feed (40 CFR 761.30(h)(1)(i)). Thisprohibition does
not apply to electromagnets that contain <500 ppm PCBs.

iii. Voltageregulators.Voltage regulators containing 1.36 kilograms (3 lb.) ormore ofdielectric 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 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

voltage regulators that contain <500 ppm PCBs.

b. Liabilityandinsurancecosts. Reclassification can help you avoid or reduce liability and insurance costs. Liability may result from catastrophic
events such as explosions or fires, leaks

orspills, or from improper handling or disposal ofPCB waste. In addition, the risk ofsuch events may increase your insurance costs. Dielectric fluid released from electrical equipment under any of these scenarios is unregulated for disposal ifits concentration is <50 ppm PCBs, which it is likely to be ifyou have reclassified the equipment to non-PCB
status. Therefore, cleanup ofspills or releases from electrical equipment reclassified to non-PCB status islikely
to be less costly and subject to less liability than ifyou had not reclassified the equipment.

c. Environmentalbenefits.Finally, reclassification ofelectrical 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 ofa risk during cleanup and disposal. PCBs removed from the equipment during reclassification are disposed ofunder existingrequirements
at40 CFR part 761, subpart D, and thus

are not released to the environment.

2. Whatdo thecurrentreclassification regulationsrequire?Under the current rules for reclassifying electrical equipment containing PCBs:

*You may reclassify a transformer, electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator with aPCB 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 aPCB concentration >500
ppm, or atransformer, electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator classified as PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment, to non-PCB status by reducingthe PCB concentration in the equipment's dielectric fluid to <50 ppm.

*You must operate the equipment underloaded conditions (i.e., place it in in-service use)for 90 days after the last servicing conducted toreduce the PCB concentration in the equipment. The equipment's dielectric fluid must contain the specified PCB concentration
atthe end ofthis period.

*For electromagnets, switches, or voltage regulators, "in-service use"

means the equipment is used electrically under loaded conditions. Fortransformers, "in-service use"

means the transformer is used electrically under loaded conditions thatraise the temperature ofthe 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 oftransformers are at 40 CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v); rules governing reclassification ofelectromagnets, 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 EPAto approve the use ofalternate methods that simulate loaded conditions ofinservice use. Requests for reclassifying transformers using an alternate method had typically involved simulating inservice use or requesting that the temperature requirement of50°C for 90 daysbe waived. Ithas been EPA's experience that these requests were typically necessary when a transformer had failed, isnot on line because itis being serviced oris in storage for reuse

as a back-up unit, or for some other reason could not be operated under normal loaded conditions. 3. Why didEPAproposeto change the requirements?After EPApromulgated 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 afterretrofill were necessary for

an effective reclassification. This unit discusses the new information and EPA's assessment ofwhether itwarrants

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, ifany, electrical loading had on removing PCBs from the

core and coil ofa 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 ofleaching ("leaching" refers to the migration of PCBs fromthe transformer core and coils into the dielectric fluid) (Refs. 4 and 5). EPA also noted thatthe most important factor in the post-retrofill concentration ofthe transformer was the pre-retrofill concentration ofthe dielectric fluid. Another important factor was the length oftime between retrofill and sampling-the results ofthe study generally confirmed EPA's belief that near asymptotic (eventual)PCB concentrations are achieved by 90 days afterretrofill (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 2001Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

proportion ofthe level attained at 90 days. Increases in PCB concentrations after the first 7days were gradual and fairly consistent from transformer to transformer (Refs. 4 and 5).

ii. The 1989 study.Alarger 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 ofPCB reduction in a retrofilled transformer was not significantly related
to its size (KVArating), 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 ofthe report focused

on 263 transformers for which the data

were complete (Ref.4). Ofthese 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 afterretrofill. After 90 days ofin-service
use, during which the temperature of the dielectric fluid reached 50'C in
some, but not all, ofthe transformers, the PCB concentrations were tested again. All but one ofthe 175 PCBContaminated transformers contained <50 ppm PCBs, and the concentration of that one was 53 ppm. Of the 88 PCB Transformers, allbut eight (9.0%) had post-retrofill concentrations <50 ppm after 90 days, and the mean post-retrofill concentration for these eight transformers was 64.4ppm. The results ofEPA's analysis were generally consistent with those ofthe report's author. The onlyvariable which EPA found to be related to post-retrofill PCB level was the number ofdays 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 thathad 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. Otherinformation.EPA evaluated
two additional sets ofdata on transformers thathad been retrofilled and tested more than 90 days after retrofill (Ref.4). The data did not specifyhow the retrofill was conducted

orthe 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 andin writing indicated that
many transformers, even under normal operating conditions, might never reach 5o

0 Cbecause ofthe design limitations of the equipment, equipment failure, low ambient temperatures, ortransformer loading restrictions. In addition, this information suggested that there are drawbacks associated with attempting to comply withthe 50'C temperature requirement by simulating in-service

use ofthe transformers. These include safety risks to maintenance personnel, fire hazards associated with energizing

orinsulating equipment which isnot designed to withstand heavy loads or increased temperatures, andthe economic and resource commitment that must be borne bythe transformer

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

b. EPA's assessmentofthenew information.Review ofthis new information ledEPA tobelieve 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 andthat it caused the release ofPCBs from the internal components oftransformers into the dielectric fluid (Refs. 8 and 11). EPA's independent analyses ofthe 1986 and 1989 studies concluded that they showed no discernable relationship between transformer temperature and leachback rate. Otherinformation discussed in Unit II.A.3.a.iii. raised questions about the practicability, safety, and necessity ofthis requirement. EPAbelieved that the data showed thatthe rate ofmigration of PCBs into the dielectric fluid appeared
not to be greatly affected by the transformer's temperature, andthat the difficulties and dangers associated with meeting this criterion supported eliminating the 50°C requirement.

ii. The in-serviceuserequirement. EPA's independent analyses ofthe 1986 and 1989 studies concluded that whether a transformer <1,000 ppm PCBs

was loaded orenergized did not significantly affect its post-retrofill concentration. The data showed that PCB levels in these transformers measured shortly afterretrofill, but before being placed in service, had nearly reached their asymptotic PCB level. These studiestherefore supported eliminating the in-service use requirement fortransformers <1,000
ppm. iii. Properly conductedretrofill.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 ofPCBContaminated 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 aspart of the reclassification process.

iv. Testingafter21 days.The 1986 study data showed that a high proportion ofthe asymptotic PCB concentration was attained very soon afterretrofill. After the first week, continued increases in PCB concentrations occurred gradually and predictably. The increase in PCB concentration was generally consistent fromtransformer to transformer, and from one make ormodel to another. In general, the longer the period after retrofill when sampling was conducted, the more reliable the estimate ofthe eventual PCBlevel. Sampling at 3weeks provided a more reliable estimate than
at 1week. These data supported allowing testing shortly after retrofill for transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs.

4. Whatchanges to the reclassification requirementsdidEPA 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 toraise the temperature ofa 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% ofthe volume ofthe 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, ratherthan 90 days, after a properly conducted retrofill. Ifpost-retrofill test results showed a PCB concentration >25
to <500 ppm, you could reclassify the transformer to PCB-Contaminated
status. Ifthe 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

*Allowyou to immediately reclassify, status, after aproperly 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- andtest 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 retrofill

<25 non-PCB

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

EPA also proposed to: *Regulate a reclassified transformer based onits 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 ofthe 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 tobe 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 atransformer's Kilovolt-ampere (KVA) rating in determining what kind of reclassification process would be required (Ref. 12, p. 60972). EPAhad received information that distribution transformers with aKVA rating of500

orless arenot required tohave sampling valves and are therefore difficult to sample afterretrofill (Ref. 13).

5. Whatcomments didEPA receiveon theproposedrule?EPAaccepted 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 ofall written comments and a transcript of the hearing are in the official record for this rulemaking. These documents are available to you aspart ofthe public version ofthe 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 tothose comments, and how these comments affected the outcome ofthis final rule. Comments raising each issue are identified in parentheses bythe designation assigned each commentby the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center staff.

a.Dropthe 50'Crequirement.The
current reclassification rule requires you to operate a retrofilled transformer under conditions that would raise the temperature ofthe dielectric fluid to at least 50'C. Many commenters favored EPA'sproposal to eliminate this requirement. Commenters agreed that the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. show that temperature has a minimal, ifany, effect on the amount ofPCBs 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. Dropthe in-serviceuserequirement forequipment<1,000ppm PCBs.Most
commenters did not object toEPA'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 thatretrofilled transformers might be putback into in-service use 

### 17606

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17606 2001Federal 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 offluid through the internal components ofthe equipment; and that, without this movement, the levels ofPCBs in the fluid might rise afterretrofilling due to the retention of PCBs in the fluid remaining in the coil.

The commenter submitted results of experiments conducted to determine the effectiveness oftriple rinsing in reducing the PCB concentration of fluids retained within the core and coils ofmineral 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 ofthe core was 58 ppm. In the other transformer, the concentration ofthe fluid was 6 ppm and the concentration ofthe core was 75 ppm. The second experiment used a hot oil flush avaried number oftimes in 3 transformers with PCB concentrations >400 ppm. The concentrations ofthe 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 ofloading could cause PCB concentrations torise after retrofilling due to the retention ofPCBs in the oil remaining in the coil. The
commenter urged EPA to ensure that the PCB concentration ofthe oil in the coils

was not still above regulated levels prior
to reclassification ofthe 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 theymay be. As the commenter correctly pointed out, the purpose ofputting the equipment back into in-service use was to circulate the oil in the equipment toremove PCBs from the inner workings ofthe 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. Atthe same time, this rule does not allow you to reclassify equipment containing PCBs >50 ppm simplyby 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 itspost-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 areclassified transformer. The commenter was concerned that workers dismantling a "non-PCB" reclassified transformer couldbe exposed to PCBs >500 ppm. EPAhas 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 isin use. The reclassification procedure is aform of servicing to reduce the risks from PCBs during continued use. Itdoes not determine equipment's concentration at the time of disposal. You shouldverify the equipment's PCB concentration at the time of disposal to ensure that you manage and dispose ofitproperly. An added safeguard to proper disposal is the disposal industry's practice of testing waste atthe disposal facility. Several commenters tookissue with the statement in the preamble tothe proposed rulethat most substation transformers contain >1,000 ppm PCBs (Ref. 12, p. 60972). The commenters askedEPA 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 ofthe proposed rule, as part ofits 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. EPAis retaining the in-service use requirement for all equipment >1,000 ppm, but, in lightofthese comments, is not basing the requirement on assumptions about the concentration ofsubstation transformers. EPA is relying on the data discussed in UnitII.A.3. inretaining the in-service use requirement for equipment >1,000 ppm, whether or not the equipment is a substation transformer. These data donot support dropping the requirement forthis 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 ofthe type ofdielectric fluid itcontains. Virtually allAskarel transformers will have PCB concentrations >1,000 ppm priorto reclassification. For equipment >1,000
ppm PCBs, you must operate the equipment for atleast 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 ofconcentration, that does not contain a core (C1-038). The commenter did not support this suggestion with data showing that it wouldbe effective for equipment >1,000
ppm, so EPA is not adopting it.

i. Allow immediatereclassificationof PCB-Contaminated equipmentto nonPCBstatus.Under the proposed rule, if
you removed all free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid from apiece ofPCBContaminated equipment and refilled the equipment with dielectric fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, the equipment wouldbe immediately reclassified to non-PCB status without being placed in in-service use (thatis, operated under loaded conditions). The final rule retains this provision, which most comments onthis 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 ofa comment that supported maintaining the inservice use requirement for all transformers.)

ii. Modify the 90-dayin-serviceuse requirement forequipment>1,000 ppm PCBs.One commenter statedthat they do not continuously use their >1,000
ppm PCB Transformers, and therefore would notbe able to meet the continuous 90-day in-service use requirement included in the proposed rule. The commenter requested thatEPA allow for cumulative time in service in the final rule (C1-008). Another
commenter statedthat it had one-of-a

### 17607

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 asbackups to the equipment on line. These backups mightnever 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 tobe determined by EPA.

EPA is not adopting these suggestions. The effectiveness ofthese alternate reclassification methods could depend

onfactors such as the equipment's preretrofill PCB concentration, the amount offluidreplaced, and the length ofthe intervals the equipment was in service and outof service. EPA would need to look at each case individually. Ifyou wish touse a method ofreclassification that differs from the method in the final rule, you may request an approval from the Director ofthe National Program Chemicals Division under §761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or §761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).

iii. Donotrequireallretrofilled transformersto be installed. A
commenter askedEPA to clarify §761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) (formerly § 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(C)(2)(iii)). That provision refers to transformers thatare "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 ofthis 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 EPAis not finalizing this provision ofthe proposal (see Unit II.A.5.c.iii.), the final rule leaves the current language of §761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) intact.

c. Dropthepost-retrofill90day testingrequirement-i. Allow immediate reclassificationofequipment< 500ppm PCBs.Under the proposed rule, ifyou removed all free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid from a piece ofPCB-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 onthis 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 leasttwo consecutive tests.)

ii.Allow retrofillwithfluid<50ppm PCBs.Commenters also wanted the option ofretrofilling 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 riskswhere testing was required after retrofill. Therefore, the final rule allows you to reclassify equipment usingretrofill fluid <50 ppm PCBs, however testing is alsorequired
to ensure that the PCB concentration has been sufficiently reduced and the reclassification has been successful. Ifit has not,you may either repeat the reclassification process or treat the equipment asregulated atits actual concentration as reflected in the test.

iii. Donot allowreclassificationbased

on 25ppm after21 days forequipment >500but <1,000ppm. Under the proposed rule, you could have tested transformers with aPCB concentration >500 but <1,000 ppm after 21 days rather than after 90 days following a properly conducted retrofill. Then, if the results ofthe post-retrofill test were <25 ppm PCBs, you could have reclassified the transformer to non-PCB
status. Ifthe 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

anew category ofPCB-Contaminated transformer (>25 but <500 ppm), and pointed out that this new category would create confusion, particularly in the application ofthe Spill Cleanup Policy (where a spill of>25 but <50 ppm would haveto be categorized for
purposes ofcleanup 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 thatthis provision would allow high concentrations ofPCBs to remain in the
porous inner parts ofthe transformer (Ci-001). Others believed the 25 ppm level was arbitrary, or might be unreasonably low based onthe available data (C1-024, C1-039, andC1-048). A
commenter askedEPA to clarifyhow these transformers should be labeled and stored duringthe 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 thisprovision in the final rule. Inthe 1989 study,PCB concentrations in a significant percentage (9%) oftransformers 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 apre-retrofill concentration of>500 but <1,000 ppm PCBsbe testedto determine PCB concentration 90 days after retrofill.

iv.Allow reclassificationbasedon testingafter21 days fortransformers withPCBconcentrations>1,000ppm. 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 tobe tested after 21 days ofin-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 EPArelied on inthe proposed rule indicated that mostequipment retains less than 8% ofthe original PCB concentration after retrofill, EPA could raisethe 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., EPAis notincluding 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 formineral 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. Requiretestingtobe repeateduntil thereisno increasein 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 leasttwo 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 2001Federal 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 ifthe PCB concentration in the fluid of reclassified equipment changes, causing the equipment's reclassified status to change, the equipment isregulated based onthe actual concentration ofthe 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 ofservicing to reduce the risks ofcontinued use. It does not determine equipment's concentration for disposal. You should verify the equipment's PCB concentration at the time ofdisposal to

ensure that you dispose ofit properly. An added safeguard to proper disposal is the disposal industry's practice of testing waste atthe disposal facility. EPA does not believe that continuous testing ofreclassified equipment while in use is necessary to ensure proper disposal.

d. Define "properlyconducted retrofill." A commenter requested that EPA define the term "properly conducted retrofill" orprovide 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 allthe required steps for reclassifying electrical equipment, including the requirements for retrofilling.

i. Clarifyhow todrainequipment priortoretrofill.A comment suggested that EPA prescribe what draining means procedurally, i.e., whether there is a certain amount oftime that should elapse when draining the free-flowing liquid from a piece ofequipment, and whether there are other methods one could use to remove the fluid (CI-014).

The purpose ofdraining is to remove

as much aspossible ofthe original dielectric fluid from the equipment prior to retrofill. Removing this freeflowing liquid increases the likelihood ofa successful reclassification. EPA is
not requiring that a specific amount of time elapse or thata specific methodbe used to remove the fluid from the equipment. You may use any method that removes the fluid, such as draining

orpumping. An extended or second draining or pumping maybe prudent to

remove asmuch ofthe free-flowing fluid as possible. To reduce confusion, the final rule requires you to "remove" rather than "drain" the fluid from the equipment priorto retrofill.

You must either test the fluid prior to initiating a reclassification procedure or

assume that itis >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 underthis rule. Nor may you batch test the fluid from several pieces ofequipment anduse those test results to classify all ofthe equipment.

ii. Donotrequire flushingaspartof

a "properlyconductedretrofill." Several
commenters were strongly opposed to including flushing aspart ofthe reclassification procedure. They stated that flushing provided no significant benefit because it only removed superficial surface residues, andthat flushing generated additional waste, which is counterto the Agency's waste minimization efforts (C1-007, C1-008, C1-045, C1-046, andC2-001) (Ref. 20,
pp. 44-60). Other commenters recommended that ifthe provision were maintained, the
process should be revised. Some suggested reducing the flush volume from 10% to 5%ofthe volume ofthe transformer, orlimiting the flush volume to amaximum of500 gallons (C1-007, C1-036, and C1-046). Some
commenters pointed out that the proposal to estimate flush volume based

onthe transformer's height, width, and depth would not account forvolume displaced bythe core and coils. They recommended estimating 10% ofthe volume ofthe equipment based on the volume offluid removed or 80% oftotal volume (C1-007, C1-020, and C1-050). Other comments suggested thatEPA allow the use offlush material at PCB concentrations up to 50 ppm, rather than <2 ppm. One commenter wanted to know whether the flush material could be disposed ofbased onits "as is" PCB concentration as opposed to the original concentration ofthe equipment itwas used to flush. Lastly, commenters felt that flushing shouldbe optional for PCB Transformers >1,000 ppm where postretrofill testing is required (C1-007 and C1-008).

Based onthe data discussed in Unit II.A.3. andthe comments, this final rule does not require flushing aspart ofthe 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
counterto the Agency's waste minimization efforts. Nonetheless, you may flush equipment prior toretrofill, and the final rule prescribes neither the concentration northe volume offlush material you must use. You may dispose ofthe flush material "as is", i.e., based

on its concentration after the flushing procedure has been completed, not based onthe concentration ofthe equipment priorto the flush. (See40 CFR 761.79(g).)

e. DonotmakeKVA afactorin the reclassification procedure.In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asked for comment onwhether 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 autility that distribution transformers with a KVA rating of500 or less are not required to have sampling valves, and that sampling these units outside ofthe shop environment is precarious. The utility therefore suggested that EPA notrequire post-retrofill testing ofdistribution 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 arelationship between KVArating and the effectiveness ofa 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 notplaced an undue burden onindustry (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, ifKVA

were taken into account, a 100 KVA rating level wouldbe more favorable to the environment (C1-040). Another suggested that distribution transformers be defined asless than 69 KV, 500 KVA equipment (C1-020). Since most ofthe
comments did not support the utility's suggestion, EPAhas not added a KVA criterion tothe final rule.

f.Allow reclassificationofall oil-filled equipmentaswell astransformers.In the proposed rule, EPA invited
comments on allowing the proposed 

### 17609

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17609 2001Federal 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 thatEPA should include these types ofelectrical 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 totransformers would be as effective or more effective for this equipment.

*Electromagnets.A commenter statedthat electromagnets donot 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) couldbe absorbed (C1-007, C1-011, Ci012, C1-023, and C1-037) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). * Voltageregulators. Voltage regulators control voltage as itmoves 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 ofinsulating oil to retain dielectric integrity, and they contain an iron core or paper insulated coils ofwire. Therefore, the anatomy of

avoltage regulator and a transformer

canbe considered the same and the procedures to reclassify the two forms of equipment should be the same. Thus, enough oil and PCBs wouldbe removed by a drain andrefill 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 onretrofilled voltage regulators, but the data did not specifyhow the retrofill was conducted

orthe conditions under which the voltage regulators were operated after retrofill, so the data's usefulness for establishing regulatory requirements is limited (Cl-007). *Circuitbreakers. 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 ofinsulating oil as transformers for dielectric integrity. However, unlike transformers, they do
not contain an iron core or paper insulated coils ofwire into which oil (andthus PCBs) could be absorbed (Ci007, C1-023, and C1-041) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). *Reclosers.Reclosers are relatively smallpieces ofequipment that are often mounted on utility poles to protect distribution system equipment. Reclosers contain dielectric fluid, but have no inner iron core orpaper insulate coils ofwire into which oil (andthus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1- 007) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). Under §761.30(m)(1)(ii), you may also reclassify oil-filled cable. Itis 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, andwould not be reclassified. In the unlikely event that you discover oil-filled cable containing PCBs at >50 ppm, you may reclassify itby following the procedures
at40 CFR 761.30(h)(2)(v).

One commenter asked that the reclassification procedures also apply to bushings (Cl-038). EPAhas not adopted this suggestion because bushings are not regulated separately from the equipment

onwhich 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. Abushing that is in service on authorized electrical equipment is treated as having the same PCB concentration as the equipment of which itis a part. Therefore, ifyou 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 awhole to be considered reclassified.

If,however, you wish to reduce the concentration ofthe bushing while it is installed on the equipment, you may do

so by draining the existing fluid and disposing ofit as PCB waste, flushing the bushing with fluid containing <2
ppm PCBs, andrefilling itwith fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs. Once you
remove abushing from the equipment, it is regulated as a separate PCB Article andyou may notreclassify it underthe provisions ofthis rule. At the time of disposal, you must dispose of abushing 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 itwas important to remove this small capacitor during reclassification to prevent itfrom 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)). Ifyour voltage regulator's fluid were contaminated by a leakfrom an internal small capacitor,
you could reclassify the voltage regulator ifnecessary, oryou could
manage it at itspost-leak PCB concentration. EPArecognizes this potential problem and suggests that if
you find a small capacitor in avoltage regulator, you remove it after draining and replace itwith one that contains no PCBs.

g. Donotregulatedisposalaspartof reclassification. The proposed rule would haverequired you toproperly
store and dispose ofPCB-containing
waste materials as part of aproperly conducted retrofill. Commenters felt that the ultimate disposal ofthese materials (such as drained fluid, rags, and personal protective equipment) was notnecessary 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 ofPCB-containing waste materials as part ofthe reclassification procedure, although you must dispose ofthese materials based ontheir PCB concentration at the time ofdisposal by following existing rules at 40 CFR part 761, subpart D.

h. Allow time to come into compliancewhen equipment's concentrationchangesafter reclassification. Commenters were concerned thatthey would be subject to enforcement action if, afterproperly reclassifying a piece ofequipment, the concentration ofthe equipment rose above the concentration limit for its class. Commenters strongly urged that the rules allow the opportunity to come into compliance ifequipment 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 aschedule similar to that at §761.30(a)(1)(xv) for assumed mineral-oil transformers that

are later discovered tobe _>500 ppm. Commenters also wanted tohave the opportunity to repeat the reclassification process ifthe 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. Ifthe retest shows that the equipment is above the upper concentration limitfor its reclassified status, the equipment is regulated based onthe actual concentration ofthe fluid. EPA agrees with the commenters that ifyou 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. Ifyou documented that you conducted the original reclassification procedure properly (see the recordkeeping requirement at §761.180(g)) andyou complied with these schedules, you would not be in violation ofthe reclassification requirements.

Ifyou discover that the concentration ofequipment reclassified to non-PCB
status has risen to >50 but <500 ppm, the only regulatory concern (other than cleanup ofspills during use) isthe eventual disposition ofthe equipment and its fluid. During use,you do not need to mark, inspect, or keep records

onthe 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 reclassificationbasedon the proceduresin theproposedrule.Several
commenters requested thatEPA allow

owners to consider their equipment to be reclassified ifthey followed the procedures in the proposed rule before the effective date ofthis final rule. These commenters askedto be "grandfathered in" to the requirements ofthe final rule, rather than having to request a formal approval of an alternate method ofreclassification from EPA or having to repeat the procedure after the effective date ofthis final rule (C1-007, C1-008, C1-023, C1-050,C1-052, and Ci053).

EPA is not adopting this suggestion. Prior to promulgation ofthis final rule,

owners who wanted to reclassify their equipment based onthe provisions of the proposed rule could do so based on

awritten approval from EPA. Those who have requested andreceived 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 ofthe proposed rule without requesting and receiving an approval have not complied with the reclassification rules andmust either request an approval or comply with the provisions ofthis 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 alternatereclassification methods.A commenter suggested that EPA amend the rule to allow on-line processing (C1-021). The commenter statedthat on-line processing is conducted while the transformer is energized and under load, thereby achieving sustained elevated temperatures which shouldpromote effective PCB extraction from the transformer. The commenter did not submit enough datato allow EPA to include this process in the final rule. If
you wish touse 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. Donotrequirerecordkeeping. The proposed rulewould have required you to maintain the following records on your reclassified equipment for at least three years after you disposed ofthe equipment:

*The pre-retrofill concentration ofthe equipment.

*The retrofill and reclassification schedule and procedure.

*Acopy ofthe 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, asdiscussed in Unit II.A.5.l., ifreclassified equipment is sold

ortransferred 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 ofreclassification will provide documentation ofwhy 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 thisfinal rule for equipment reclassified on or after the effective date ofthis rule. Thisfinal rule requires you to maintain records ofthe prereclassification concentration ofthe equipment, the reclassification procedure conducted, andthe final PCB concentration after the completion of the reclassification procedure (see §761.180(g)).

In the preamble tothe 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 ofPCBs in dielectric fluid.These

are sampling methods, nottesting methods. You may analyze for PCBs using any method ofgas 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 ofPolychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids by Gas Chromatography" (Ref.18) and "The Determination ofPolychlorinated Biphenyls in Transformer Fluid and Waste Oils," issued byEPA's Office of Research and Development (Ref.19). Other methods are listed in 40 CFR 761.60(g)(iii).

1.Requirethatreclassifiedequipment be labeledtoprotectworkers from higherPCBconcentrationsinporous inner parts.A commenter submitted data to show that 21 days after a PCBContaminated transformer has been properly reclassified, the fluid inthe 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 ofthe 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 arequirement asmisleading (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).

EPA has not adopted this suggestion. Such a change would notby itself guarantee that workers dismantling transformers were protected from PCBs that might remain in the internal workings ofreclassified equipment. The PCB regulations at 40 CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v) and (h)(2)(v) have allowed the reclassification ofelectrical equipment since 1982 and have never 

### 17611

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

required labeling ofunits <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. Ifthe facility needed to make sure ofthe PCB concentration ofthe internal components ofthis unlabeled equipment, itwould still have totest 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 ofthis rule could therefore give disposers ofelectrical equipment a false

sense ofsecurity in handling equipment that was not labeled. A labeling requirement would create costs and burdens for owners ofreclassified equipment, but wouldbe oflimited usefulness to servicing and disposal facilities.

This final rule requires anyone conducting areclassification after the effective date ofthis rule to keep records ofthe 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 ofthe potential for the inner workings ofthe equipment to contain higher PCB concentrations than the fluid itself,and would allow servicers and disposers totake proper precautions ifthe equipment were to be dismantled. In addition, the existing rules at §761.60(b)(8) protect workers by requiring thatpersons disposing ofPCB Articles wear or use protective clothing

orequipment to protect against dermal
contact with or inhalation ofPCBs 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 ofthe equipment itreceives.

m. DonotencouragedilutionofPCBs duringreclassification. One commenter objected to the proposal on thebasis that itencouraged the deliberate dilution ofPCBs as an acceptable means ofavoiding 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 ofthe transformer through dilution with the retrofill liquid. The commenter believed the proposal would cause huge volumes ofPCBs to be diluted to unregulated levels rather than permanently destroyed. The commenter suggested thatEPA instead create incentives for the use ofmethods which actually remove the PCBs from the transformer and decrease the risk of release ofPCBs 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 aPCB Transformer to rebuild the transformer rather than dispose ofit. Rebuilding involves draining and opening the transformer to service the coil and other internal parts, and presents the risk of PCB exposure to workers andto the environment. Because ofthis risk,in 1979 EPAbanned the rebuilding ofPCB Transformers unless they were reclassified to PCB-Contaminated status. Since 1979, EPAhas regulated rebuilding and reclassification as a form ofservicing, andhas allowed dilution of PCBs duringthese activities. While EPA generally prohibits dilution ofPCBs to avoid disposal requirements, the agency recognized that for certain activities, including servicing, dilution is essential
to the intended performance ofthe activities andis not performed with the intent ofevading the disposal requirements for PCBs. Therefore, reclassification is an exception to the general ban on dilutionto avoid regulation at §761.1(b)(5).

The process ofretrofilling equipment duringreclassification removes substantially all the original fluid (90% according to this commenter, 95% according to another commenter who testified atthe 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 andthe environment from spills or other
exposures. In addition, disposal ofthe equipment atthe end ofits useful life, and the fluid it contains, are regulated
to protect health and the environment. For all these reasons, EPAbelieves the benefits ofallowing reclassification outweigh the risks tohealth and the environment of allowing a relatively small amount ofthe fluid in the equipment to be diluted.

6. Whatdoes this finalrulerequire? Based on comments and data submitted in response to the proposed rule, and further review ofthe data the Agency had atthe time ofthe proposed rule, EPAis modifying the current rule to:

*Eliminate the requirement toraise the temperature ofa transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50'C.

*Eliminate the requirement to operate the equipment under loaded conditions for alltransformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators with a pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000
ppm.

*Allow you toreclassify equipment using retrofill fluid <50 ppm, as long as you testthe equipment 90 days after retrofill to ensure thatreclassification has been successful.

*Allow you toreclassify 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 ifyou determine that the concentration ofequipment reclassified
to PCB-Contaminated status has risen to >500 ppm PCBs.

*Allow you torepeat the reclassification process to further reduce the PCB concentration in your equipment, for example, ifyour prior attempt at reclassification fails. Ifyour attemptto reclassify your equipment does not lower its PCB concentration sufficiently, the equipment is not considered reclassified under the PCB regulations. This wouldbe the case if
your equipment had a PCB concentration >1,000 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the reclassification procedures the concentration was notreduced to <500
ppm; ifyour equipment had aPCB concentration >500 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the reclassification rocedures the PCB concentration was notreduced to <500
ppm; and ifyour equipment had aPCB concentration >50 but <500 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the reclassification procedures the PCB concentration was notreduced to <50
ppm.

*Require you to keep records showing that you followed the required reclassification procedures. The records
must include copies ofpre- 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 atleast 3years 

### 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 ofthe ofthe 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 tothe 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

Iftest results show the and you retrofill the equip- andtest results showthe 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 istheAgency'sAuthority for TakingthisAction?

This final rule isissued pursuant to TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B). Section 6(e)(2)(B) ofTSCA gives EPA the authority to authorize the use ofPCBs in other than atotally enclosed manner based ona finding ofno unreasonable risk ofinjuryto 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 tohealth 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). EPAhas found thatany exposure ofhumans orthe environment
to PCBs maybe significant, depending

on such factors as the quantity ofPCBs involved in the exposure, the likelihood ofexposure to humans and the environment, and the effect ofexposure (see 40 CFR 761.20). Nonetheless, EPA has recognized the economic benefits of continued use ofPCBs in electrical equipment, and has authorized those

uses under conditions designed to minimize the risk ofexposure to PCBs duringuse 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 thisfluid is subject to the disposal requirements of40 CFR part 761, subpart D, the PCBs it contains are not released tothe environment. The reclassified equipment remains in use, but the lower-concentration fluidposes

areduced risk to health andthe environment from spills or other
exposures. In addition, disposal ofthe equipment atthe end ofits useful life, and the fluid it contains, are regulated
to protect health and the environment.

Because the final rule will relax a number ofthe 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 ofa PCB Transformer, orthe owner ofa PCBContaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using fluid >2 but <50 ppm PCBs, will save $35.15 compared to the costs ofthe current requirements. EPA estimates that the

owner of aPCB-Contaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using fluid <2 ppm PCBs (andwho need not testthe concentration ofthe transformer after retrofill) will save $80.15 compared to the costs ofthe current requirements. In addition to reducingthe costs of reclassifying electrical equipment, the rule will allow owners ofreclassified 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 alsohelp 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 ofPCBs in electrical equipment, and the expected cost savings ofthese amendments, EPA finds that this rule's amendments to the reclassification requirements willnot present an unreasonable risk ofinjuryto health or the environment.

III. References

1. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office ofToxic 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 ofPollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Reclassification ofPCB 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 ofPesticides 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 ofthe 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 ofWater and Power the City ofLos 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 ofPCBs Between Transformer Oil and Transformer Solid Materials, December 3, 1981. 12. USEPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reclassification of PCB andPCB-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 ofPrevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). Letter from Tony Baney, Chief, Operations Branch, toJim 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. ofNewMexico, 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 ofPolychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids by Gas Chromatography (D 4059-96), 1996. 19. USEPA, Office ofResearch 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 ofProceedings: 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 at40 CFR part 761, September 28, 1999.

IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. RegulatoryPlanningandReview

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled RegulatoryPlanningand Review(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to reviewby the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB), because this action isnot likely
to result in a rule thatmeets any ofthe criteria for a "significant regulatory action" provided in section 3(f)ofthe Executive Order.

EPA's analysis ofthe potential impact ofthis action is contained in a document entitled "Reclassification of PCB andPCB-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 ofthe publicversion ofthe official record for this final rule. To learn how
to get a copy ofthis 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 ofdata limitations and the assumed small numbers ofunits of electrical equipment other thantransformers, the analysis addresses only transformers. This analysis concludes that, because the final rule will relax a number ofthe 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 ofincluding data on other electrical equipment affected bythe rule, were these data available, would be onlyto further increase the overall
cost savings attributable to the rule (Ref. 2,p. 1).

EPA estimates thatthe owner ofa PCB Transformer, or the owner ofa PCBContaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using fluid >2 but <50 ppm PCBs, will save $35.15 compared to the costs ofthe current requirements. EPA estimates that the

owner of aPCB-Contaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using fluid <2 ppm PCBs (andwho need not testthe concentration ofthe transformer after retrofill) will save $80.15 compared to the costs ofthe current requirements (Ref. 2, pp. 3-5). In addition to reducing the costs ofreclassifying electrical equipment, the rule will allow owners ofreclassified equipment to experience incremental savings fromthe less stringent regulatory requirements that apply toreclassified equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of areclassified 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 northe 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 ifthe 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 2001Federal 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 andbenefits.

B. RegulatoryFlexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amendedby the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will
not have asignificant 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, EPAused the definition for small entities in section 601 ofthe RFA. Under section 601, "small entity" is defined as:

*A small business thatmeets Small Business Administration size standards codified at 13 CFR 121.201.

*A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government ofa city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population ofless 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

ontransformer ownership and reclassification decisions among small entities is needed to accurately assess the small entity impacts. Following a review ofavailable data sources, EPA concluded that complete data are not available for any ofthe 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 willbenefit both small and large entities bymaking reclassifications

more affordable, and will increase the number ofreclassifications 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 aPCB Transformer and $43.80 annually for not having to inspect each reclassified transformer. Small entities that are induced to reclassify aPCB Transformer will benefit from these cost savings.

*Because reclassification is voluntary, it is aprivate business decision on the part oftransformer

owners in which the private benefits are compared to the private costs of reclassifying. Thus, each reclassification project shouldbe assumed to generate net private benefits for transformer

owners, both prior to and after implementation ofthe 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 (whichis unlikely), this shouldnot create an adverse impact because reclassification is performed onlywhen itis in the interest ofthe transformer owner to do so, and the final rule is expected to onlyreduce the

costs ofreclassification.

Having reviewed all ofthe 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 apotential

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 ofreclassification and an accelerated rate ofremoval ofPCBs from

use. Furthermore, reclassification is a business decision made bytransformer

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 netbenefit for transformer

owners.
C.Paperwork ReductionAct
The information collection requirements contained in this rule are reflected in the Consolidated Information CollectionRequest(ICR) SupportingStatement forthePCB Regulationsat40 CFRpart761, September28, 1999 (Consolidated ICR) (Ref.22). The Consolidated ICR was prepared in response to arequest from OMB to combine the various PCB information collections into a single ICR. These information collection requirements (includingminor amendments to address the requirements ofthis final rule) have been submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., andin 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 ICRNo. 1446.07, which has been included in the publicversion ofthe official record described in Unit I.B.2., andis available electronically as described in Unit I.B.1., at http://www.epa.gov/opperidl/ icr.htm, orby e-mailing arequest 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, orby calling (202) 260-2740.

An agency maynot conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection ofinformation 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 ofthe Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, andincluded on any related collection instrument.

As defined bythe PRA and 5CFR 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 aFederal agency. Thisincludes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose ofcollecting, validating, andverifying 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 ofelectrical equipment containing PCBs who choose
to reclassify that equipment to lowerits PCB concentration. The recordkeeping requirement is being implemented so that ifreclassified equipment is sold or transferred to another company for use, service or salvage, thebuyer, servicer or disposer will be able to learn the servicing history ofthe equipment. In 

### 17615

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17615 2001Federal 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 ofreclassification will provide documentation ofwhy the equipment is no longer being recorded

onthe 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 onan average burden of 15 minutes per response for an estimated 60,200 respondents to maintain required records.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

Pursuant to Title II ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 (UMRA) (PublicLaw 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 1year. Rather than impose netcosts of$100 million or

more in any 1year, 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 Order13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely inputby State and local government officials in the development ofregulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations thathave "substantial direct effects on the States,

onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment."

Under section 6 ofthe 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 incurredby State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local government officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and thatpreempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State andlocal government officials early in the process ofdeveloping the proposed regulation. Section 4 ofthe Executive order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law,

even ifthose rules do not have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial direct effects

onthe States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, or onthe distribution of
power and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment). Those requirements include providing State and local government officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development ofthe regulation. Ifthe preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extentpracticable, with appropriate State andlocal government officials regarding the conflictbetween State law and federally protected interests within the agency's area ofregulatory responsibility.

The Agency has determined that this rule does not have federalism implications. It amends avoluntary
process bywhich owners of transformers and other electrical equipment canreclassify that equipment to a less stringent regulatory
status. The changes arenot 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 andthe States, or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities amongthe various levels ofgovernment. Those relationships have already been established under the existing PCB regulations, andthese amendments would not alterthem. Thus, the requirements ofsection 6 ofthe Executive Order do not apply to this final rule.

This final rule would preempt State and local lawin accordance with TSCA section 18(a)(2)(B). Bypublishing and inviting comment onthe proposed rule (Ref. 12), EPAprovided State and local government officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation. Thus, EPAhas complied with the requirements ofsection 4 ofthe Executive Order.

F. Executive Orders13084 and13175

Under Executive Order 13084, entitled ConsultationandCoordination withIndian TribalGovernments(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 ofIndian 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 incurredby the tribal governments. Ifthe mandate is unfunded, EPA mustprovide to OMB, in a separately identified section ofthe preamble to the rule, a description of the extent ofEPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary ofthe nature oftheir 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 ofIndian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timelyinput inthe development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly oruniquely 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 canreclassify that equipment to a less stringent regulatory
status. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) ofExecutive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175, entitled ConsultationandCoordinationwith IndianTribalGovernments(65 FR 67249). Executive Order 13175 took effect onJanuary 6, 2001, andrevokes Executive Order 13084 as ofthat 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 Order12898

Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal ActionstoAddress EnvironmentalJusticeinMinority Populations andLow-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 onthe environmental and health conditions in low-income and minority communities. EPA finds that the amendments inthis final rule will reduce the risk to health andthe environment from exposure to PCBs. The process ofretrofilling 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 of40 CFR part 761, subpart D, the PCBs itcontains 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 ofbased on existing requirements to protect health and the environment. EPA's research did not reveal any data to suggest that the effects ofthis rule, evenbeneficial effects, would disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations (Ref.2, pp. 22-23).

H. Executive Order13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled ProtectionofChildren from EnvironmentalHealthRisks andSafety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule thatisboth determined to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12966, and concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason tobelieve may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health and safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective andreasonably 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 allrisk assessments generated during its decision-making process, including the setting ofstandards 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., itdoes not generate annual costs of$100 million), and the Agency does not have reason to believe that the environmental health or safety risks addressed bythe 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 alower PCB
status. The activities addressed by the regulation include draining PCB liquids from the equipment, refilling itwith a non-PCB mixture, and then in some cases, testing the equipment after a period ofuse. 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 ornot permitted, and the process will pose no special risks to children.

L NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct

This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act of1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) ofNTTAA directs EPAto use voluntary

consensus standards in itsregulatory 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 byvoluntary

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 forPCB concentration. Existing regulations at §761.60(g)(iii) set outrequirements for testing the fluids, and allow you to use any method ofgas 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 Order12630

EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions andInterferencewith Constitutionally ProtectedProperty 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 ofRisk and Avoidance ofUnanticipated Takings" issued under the Executive Order. K.Executive Order12988

In issuingthis rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, andprovide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988, entitled CivilJusticeReform (61 FR 4729,February 7, 1996).

V. Submission to Congress andthe ComptrollerGeneral

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe 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 ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. This ruleis not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part761

Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 16, 2001. CarolM. Browner, Administrator.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter Iis 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 tohave a concentration of >500 ppm PCBs to a PCB-Contaminated transformer (>50 but <500 ppm) orto a non-PCB transformer (<50ppm), and
you may reclassify a PCB-Contaminated transformer thathas been tested and determined tohave 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 (iffollowing 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 itcontains >1,000 ppm Determine the transformer's reclassified may repeat the process):

Iftest results show the and you retrofill the trans- andtest results showthe 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) Ifyou discover that the PCB concentration ofthe fluid in a reclassified transformer has changed, causing the reclassified status to change, the transformer is regulated based on the actual concentration ofthe fluid. For example, a transformer that was reclassified to non-PCB status is regulated as a PCB-Contaminated transformer ifyou discover thatthe concentration ofthe fluid has increased
to >50 but <500 ppm PCBs. Ifyou discover that the PCB concentration of the fluid has risen to >500 ppm, the transformer isregulated as a PCB Transformer. Follow paragraphs (a)(1)(xv)(A) through (j)ofthis section to

come into compliance with the regulations applicable to PCB Transformers. You also have the option ofrepeating 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 ofthe method. (D) You must keep records ofthe reclassification required by §761.180(g).

* * * * *

(h)*** (2)*** (v)You may reclassify an electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator thathas 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 thathas been tested and determined tohave 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
notrequired. Either test the fluid or

assume it contains >1,000 ppm PCBs. Retrofill the electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator with fluid containing known PCBlevels according to the following table. Determine the electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator's reclassified status according
to the following table (iffollowing this
process does notresult inthe reclassified status you desire, you may repeatthe process): 

### 17618

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17618 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 63/Monday, April 2, 2001/Rules and Regulations

Iftest results show the and you retrofill the equip- andtest results showthe 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) Ifyou discover that the PCB concentration ofthe fluid in a reclassified electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator has changed, causing the reclassified status to change, the electromagnet, switch, orvoltage regulator isregulated based onthe actual concentration ofthe fluid. For example, an electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator thatwas reclassified to non-PCB status isregulated as a PCBContaminated electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator ifyou discover that the concentration ofthe fluid has increased
to >50 but <500 ppm PCBs. Ifyou discover that the PCB concentration of the fluid in a voltage regulator has risen
to >500 ppm, follow paragraph (h)(1)(iii) ofthis 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 orother evidence on the effectiveness ofthe method.

(D) You must keep records ofthe reclassification required by §761.180(g).

3.In §761.180 by adding anew paragraph (g)to read asfollows: §761.180 Recordsand monitoring.

(g)Reclassificationrecords.Ifyou 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 ofpre- 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 3years afteryou sell or dispose ofthe equipment.

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S 

### 17619

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 17619 2001