## Testimony ofMary E. Davis American Electric Power

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment ofUseAuthorizations Public Meeting - EPA Region 2 290 Broadway, New York, New York May 4,2010Good afternoon. My name is Mary Davis. I am the principal environmental specialist at American Electric Power (AEP) in Shreveport, Louisiana. During the course ofmy 3 l-year career at AEP, I have served as an internal PCB auditor for the company and currently am the senior subject matter professional responsible for PCB compliance and operational guidance for AEP system-wide. Also, since 2001 I have served as Chair ofthe PCB Committee for the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG"), a trade association ofpower generation, transmission and distribution companies. The USWAG PCB Committee has interacted closely with EPA for the past 30 years regarding all aspects ofthe PCB regulations as they relate to electric and gas company operations. Over the past three decades, I have come to know many ofthe dedicated EPA professionals who work diligently to administer the day-to-day aspects ofthe PCB program. While I am Chair ofthe USWAG PCB Committee, my testimony today is on behalfof my company, AEP. Given my limited time and the broad scope and magnitude ofthe ANPRM, I am going to limit my testimony to three critical issues: the need to extend the comment period to provide adequate time for a thoughtful response from the regulated community; the problematic assumption that utilities have already or can easily identify all PCB-regulated equipment within their systems; and the misconception that equipment is more likely to release PCBs as it ages. AEP would like to respectfully state: 1. We need more time. The ANPRM raises an overwhelming number ofcomplex issues and asks over 200 questions on a wide array ofPCB-inventory, management and related matters. AEP staffmust work this voluminous data response into our already full-time responsibilities and it is simply not practical to effectively and thoroughly respond to such an immense and varied array ofissues in such a short time period. Given the importance ofthis rulemakingTestimony ofMary E. Davis, American Electric Power EPA Public Meeting

- Reassessment ofUse Authorizations for PCBs Page 2 of7 initiative, it is critical that EPA give everyone potentially affected enough time to gather and provide the Agency with accurate information. Too much is at stake to rush this rulemaking, so
an extension ofthe comment period clearly is warranted and needed.



## * * * * * 2. Identifying all PCB-regulated equipment is problematic. The ANPRM assumes that
measures like mandatory phase-out or marking ofall known or assumed PCB Articles should not be that burdensome because companies should be able to readily identify all ofthe PCBregulated equipment in their systems; however, it will be. The existing PCB regulations have never required owners to identify PCB- regulated equipment, precisely because EPA recognized that it would be too difficult and cost too much. EPA now believes that owners already should have implemented a plan to locate any regulated equipment through the use ofbar codes, scanning equipment, global positioning systems or other
means. Over the last 30 years since the PCB regulations were implemented, AEP has made significant strides in reducing the number ofPCB-regulated articles in our system, including identifying and removing the most accessible equipment. However, AEP cannot state at this time where every piece ofPCB-regulated equipment in the system is located. AEP does take PCB equipment phase-out seriously though. AEP has been working on a voluntary and proactive basis to identify PCB-regulated equipment and remove it from service. In fact, AEP received multiple awards this year and another in 2008 from EPA's National Partnership for Environmental Priorities for voluntarily removing a combined total ofover 96,000 pounds ofPCBs from service at two AEP coal-fired power plants

- the Amos plant in Saint Albans, West Virginia, and the Clinch River plant in Cleveland, Virginia, through the early

- 2 -Testimony ofMary E. Davis, American Electric Power EPA Public Meeting - Reassessment ofUse Authorizations for PCBs Page 3 of7 retirement ofPCB Transformer/rectifier sets at these plants. While AEP is obviously proud of these efforts, we believe that it is important for EPA to understand that the early removal of just these 62 discrete pieces ofequipment cost approximately $2.6 million and took over a year of planning and execution to ensure against compromising our obligation to provide reliable electric service for the thousands ofcustomers who rely on these facilities for power. In order to sample all pieces ofelectrical equipment throughout AEP's 197,500 square mile service territory to identify what items in fact contain regulated levels ofPCBs would be a burdensome, expensive, and unnecessary undertaking, posing safety, physical, logistical, and reliability hurdles. AEP knows where certain regulated pieces ofelectrical equipment are located - such as known PCB transformers and large PCB capacitors. However, this is not the case for remaining assumed PCB-Contaminated transformers (such as pole-top and pad-mount transformers) and other assumed PCB-regulated equipment still in service in AEP's large electrical distribution system.As EPA correctly reasoned in 1979 when it established the PCB assumption rules for electrical equipment, it simply wasn't practical or even readily feasible to determine the PCB content in the tens ofmillions ofpieces ofequipment in service across the United States. Such
an undertaking would have come at a massive cost - estimated by USWAG at that time to be over $6 billion, in 1982 dollars. The same challenges that EPA recognized in identifying every piece ofPCB-regulated electrical equipment nearly three decades ago remain today; but today it will be even more difficult and more expensive. This is because the total number ofelectrical equipment items in service has grown dramatically as the AEP system has expanded, while the number ofPCBcontaining units has dwindled due to the 1979 ban on PCB production, the subsequent change-


### - 3 -Testimony ofMary E. Davis, American Electric Power EPA Public Meeting

- Reassessment ofUse Authorizations for PCBs Page 4 of7 out ofequipment, and our voluntary phase-out efforts. Now the percentage ofequipment that contains PCBs is far less than in 1982. In our opinion, that declining percentage makes it an
even more inefficient use ofresources to search out PCB-regulated equipment before the end of its useful life. Thirty years ago EPA agreed that such a search would not be necessary, and the case for not implementing such a search is even stronger today. In addition to cost concerns, the practical and operational challenges ofidentification are problematic. As a practical matter, determining what equipment definitively contains PCBs would require AEP to visually examine most every one ofthe millions ofpieces ofequipment in the AEP system and, in many cases, to sample the dielectric fluid in the equipment. We believe that such an effort would show that only a very small percentage ofequipment in service contains regulated levels ofPCBs. To undertake this massive effort will require hundreds of thousands ofman-hours, millions ofdollars in sampling, disposal, and replacement costs, and outages that would directly impair our obligation to provide continued, reliable power to AEP's over 5.2 million customers. AEP also has safety concerns about sampling energized equipment. We would like to point out that the act ofsampling can destroy some equipment, as in the
case ofbushings and light ballasts, or compromise its integrity, as would be the case with inservice, energized distribution transformers. To sample fluid in energized distribution pole-top transformers we would have to use a power activated Ampact-type cartridge gun to puncture an otherwise intact, perfectly functioning piece ofequipment to obtain a sample ofdielectric fluid. Anytime you puncture a piece ofequipment, you greatly increase the odds for premature failure and also increase the odds for releases that would not otherwise have occurred. All padmount transformers must be de-energized to be sampled.

- 4-Testimony ofMary E. Davis, American Electric Power EPA Public Meeting

- Reassessment ofUse Authorizations for PCBs Page 5 of7 Even assuming that it is possible to identify in a practical, cost-effective way every piece ofPCB-regulated equipment, the costs, risks to workers, and service interruptions would far outweigh any potential environmental benefit. To the point that the universe ofPCB-regulated equipment is declining, in 2008 the AEP operating subsidiaries disposed/recycled 31,149 distribution transformers and less than halfof one percent were found to contain 500 ppm PCBs or greater. Also in 2008, AEP disposed/recycled 3,356 large capacitors; only 0.2% ofthose were found to contain 500 ppm PCBs or greater. AEP believes that the risk ofreleases from PCB-regulated equipment is far, far less today than it was in 1982. We believe that it makes no sense to incur enormous costs to track down the small percentage ofremaining PCB-regulated equipment when the overall risk ofPCB 'releases from this equipment is much less than the risks were in 1982. Even then, EPA determined there
was no "unreasonable risk" for continuing to use what was then a much larger universe ofPCBregulated equipment. Ifit did not make economic or practical sense to require utilities to identify a much larger universe ofPCB-regulated equipment in 1982, then why now?



### * * * * * 3. Lastly, there is not a correlation between the failure ofelectrical equipment due to age and a release ofPCBs. Based on AEP data, there is no basis to say that equipment is more likely to cause a spill

- let alone a release ofPCBs

- simply because it is aging. Oftentimes equipment failure due to age does not result in any spill, and is simply replaced with equipment that contains no PCBs. In addition to AEP's voluntary and proactive efforts, this natural attrition is contributing to the ultimate phase-out ofPCB-regulated equipment. The integrity of"vintage" equipment would be compromised by any sampling done to satisfy the suggested identification

- 5 -Testimony ofMary E. Davis, American Electric Power EPA Public Meeting

- Reassessment ofUse Authorizations for PCBs Page 6 of7 requirements. Those measures would greatly increase the risk ofspills resulting from the destructive sampling required for PCB analyses ofotherwise perfectly intact and non-leaking equipment.



### * * * * * On behalfofAmerican Electric Power, thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this process and to present some ofour views on this important rulemaking effort.

- 6 -