MEMORANDUM 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB 1 0 2015 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: Response to Comments on the PCB Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Information Collection Request Renewal 

FROM: Tanya Hodge Mottley, Director ~ rJ4-4~ National Program Chemicals Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

TO: Angela Hofmann, Director 

Regulatory Coordination 

I. Background 

On October 10,2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a notice in the Federal 

Register soliciting public comment on its proposal to renew Information Collection Request number 

1446.11 and its Supporting Statement (79 FR 61302) for polychlorinated biphenyls. The 60-day public 

comment period ended December 9, 2014. In response to the notice, the EPA received one set of written 

comments submitted by the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group. 

In addition, concurrent with the public comment period for this ICR renewal, the EPA conducted a 

consultative outreach effort. The EPA contacted seven potential respondents to solicit their opinion on 

the PCB recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The EPA received two sets of written comments, 

submitted by USW AG and the Color Pigments Manufactures Association, Inc. The comments submitted 

by USW AG for the public comment period and the consultative outreach effort were identical. 

A copy of all the comments received, as well as the EPA's consultation request to the potential 

respondents, can be found at www.regulations.gov under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0597. 

Below is a brief summary of the comments received and the EPA's responses. 

II. Public Comments 

• USW AG commented that the Supporting Statement did not reflect the changes made to the PCB 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements by the EPA's September 6, 2012 final rule entitled, 

"Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Revisions to Manifesting Regulations." This final rule aligned the 

PCB manifest requirements with the EPA's hazardous waste manifest requirements, which 

resulted in the reorganization and renumbering of many of the PCB manifest requirements. 

USW AG's recommended corrections include the following: 

o Reference 46 in Table 2-1 and throughout the document regarding Exception 

Reporting incorrectly refers to 40 CFR § 208(a)(4); this requirement has been 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed. with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
removed from the PCB regulations as a result of the September 6, 2012 direct final 

rule. 

o The reference to the requirement in 40 CFR § 761.215(b) is incorrect because it has 

been renumbered to 40 CFR § 761.217(b) as a result of the September 6, 2012 direct 

fmal rule. 

o Reference number 4 7 discussing "Discrepancy Reporting" incorrectly refers to 40 

CFR § 761.21 O(b ); the discrepancy reporting requirement referenced in this 

discussion is now contained in 40 CFR § 761.215(c). 

o Reference numbers 48 and 49 discussing "Unmanifested Waste Reports" incorrectly 

refer to 40 CFR § 761.211(c); the unmanifested waste reporting requirement 

referenced in this discussion is now contained in 40 CFR § 761.216(a). 

Response: The EPA agrees with USWAG's comments highlighting these points. Accordingly, 

the EPA revised the Supporting Statement to reflect the PCB manifest requirement amendments 

promulgated in the EPA's September 6, 2012 final rule. 

• USW AG questioned the inclusion of specific language used to describe the PCB Transformer 

Registration requirement and suggested that this be removed from the Supporting Statement. 

Response: The EPA agrees with this comment and has updated the language regarding the PCB 

Transformer Registration requirement. 

• In addition to reporting specific references for correction, USW AG stated that they could not 

provide an accurate review of the PCB reporting and recordkeeping requirements and estimated 

burden until the EPA amended the Supporting Statement to correct these items. 

Response: The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and the Office of Resource 

Conservation and Recovery worked collaboratively to revise and correct the PCB ICR 

Supporting Statement in response to USWAG's comments. No other substantiative changes were 

made to the ICR. EPA resubmitted the revised ICR to USWAG on November 17,2014. The EPA 

has not received any further comments from USW AG to date regarding this action. 

III.Consultative Comments 

USWAG 

The consultation comments submitted by USW AG were identical to the public comments submitted by 

this group. Please see the public comments discussion above. 

CPMA 

• CPMA commented that the cost estimates for the burden of compliance provided in the 

Supporting Statement significantly underestimate the costs of compliance with the reporting 

obligations because the amount of management supervision and technical time needed for each 

reporting submission included is too low. 

Response: This comment did not provide sufficient detail on what amount of management 

supervision and technical time is needed for the maintenance of records. The EPA believes that a 

minimal amount of management supervision is necessary to ensure records are compiled and 

maintained. 
• CPMA also provided specific responses to the EPA's consultation questions on the PCB 

recordkeeping and recording requirements. CPMA consultation responses are summarized 

below: 

o CPMA stated that the data collected under this ICR are not publically available. 

However, this information is readily shared between a company and its customers. 

o CPMA believes the data requirements are clear in the Supporting Statement. 

o CPMA does not support an option for electronic data submissions for reports 

pursuant to 40 CFR § 761.185 and 40 CFR § 761.187 because many of these reports 

are confidential. CPMA believes that creating a system for electronic reporting for . 

these documents would be expensive and time-consuming. 

o Although CPMA believes that the EPA has underestimated the costs for the burden 

of compliance included in the Supporting Statement, the association stated that (1) 

the description provided above for the recordkeeping requirements applicable to 

manufacturers and importers of excluded products and processes is correct, accurate 

and reasonable; and (2) the existing regulatory stn,lcture for the control of inadvertent 

PCBs is reasonable and protective of human health and the environment. 

Response: The EPA appreciates CPMA's comments and responses regarding the PCB 

recordkeeping and recording requirements. However, these comments do not need to be 

addressed with changes to the Supporting Statement. 

cc: Ron Carlson 

Toiya Goodlow