MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D
.C. 20460 

## FEB 10 2 015

OFFICE OF CHEM ICAL 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 ofPollution 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 I nformation 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 ofwritten 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 ofwritten comments, submitted by USWAG and the Color Pigments Manufactures Association, Inc
. The comments submitted by USWAG for the public comment period and the consultative outreach effort were identical. A copy ofall 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 ofthe 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 ofmany ofthe PCB manifest requirements. USWAG'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 O il Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paperremoved from the PCB r egulations as a result of the September 6, 2012 direct final rule. o The reference to the requirement in 40 CFR § 761.215(b) is in correct because i t 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 d iscussing "D i screpancy Reporting" incorrec tl y refers to 40 CFR § 761.21 O(b ); the d iscrepancy 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 re f er to 40 CFR § 761.211(c); the unmanifested waste reporting requirement re f erenced in this d isc u ss ion is now contained in 40 CFR § 761.216(a). Response: The EPA agr e es with USWAG's comments highlighting these points. Accordingly , the EPA revised the Supporting Statement to reflect the PCB manifest requirem e nt amendments promulgated in the EPA's September 6, 2012 fina l rule. • U SW AG questioned the inclusion o f specific language used to describe the PCB Tr ansformer Registration requirement and suggested that t his be removed from the Supportin g Statement. Response: The EPA agrees w i t h th i s comment and has updated the language regarding the PCB Transformer Registration requirem e nt. • In addition to reporting specific ref e rences for correction , U SW AG stated that they could not provide an accurate review of the PCB report ing and recordkeeping requirements and estimated burden un t il the EPA amended the Supporting Statement to correct these it ems. Response: The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics and the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery worked collaboratively t o revise and correct the PCB ICR Supporting S t a t ement in response t o USWAG's comments. No other substan t i at i ve changes were made to the ICR. EPA resubmitted the revised I CR to U SWAG on November 17,2014. Th e EPA

has not received any further comments from USW AG to date regard i ng th i s action. III.Consu l tative Comments

USWAG The consultation comments submitted by USW AG were identical to the public commen t s submitted by this group. Please see the pub li c comment s discussion above. CP MA • CPMA commented that the cost estimates for t he 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 report i ng subm i s s ion included is too low. Response: This comment did not p r ovide sufficient detail on what amount of man a gement supe r v i s i o n 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 comp il ed 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 ofthese reports are confidential. CPMA believes that crea ting 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 ofcompliance included in the Supporting Statement, the association stated that (1) the description provided above for the recordkeeping requirements applicable to manufacturers and importers ofexcluded products and processes is correct, accurate and reasonable; and (2) the existing regulatory stn,lcture for the control ofinadvertent PCBs is reasonable and protective ofhuman 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