*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 1 of of 52 

EO12866_PCB-ANPRM_2009-11-06_redlined_2010-01-22.doc 

(Shows changes made during EO 12866 Review) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757; FRL-XXXX-X] 

RIN 2070-AJ38 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use Authorizations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA is providing advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for the use and 

distribution in commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB Items and certain other areas of the 

polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations (40 CFR 761.20, 

40 CFR 761.30, 40 CFR 761.35 and 40 CFR 761.40) to address (1) the use, distribution in 

commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment, 

(2) the use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products (3) the use of non-liquid PCBs, (4) the 

use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces, and (5) marking of PCB articles in 

use. Also in this document, EPA is also reassessing the definitions of “excluded manufacturing 

process,” “quantifiable level/level of detection,” and “recycled PCBs” in 40 CFR 761.3. EPA is 

soliciting comments on these and other areas of the PCB use regulations. EPA is not soliciting 

comments on the PCB disposal regulations in this document. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 60 days after date of publication 

in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–

HQ–OPPT–2009–0757, by one of the following methods: 

 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions 

for submitting comments. 

 • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

(OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. 

 • Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009-

0757. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during 

the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 

boxed information. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 2 of of 52 

 Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009-0757. 

EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the 

docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public 

docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in 

regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select 

“Advanced Search,” then “Docket Search.” Insert the docket ID number where indicated and 

select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov website to view the 

docket index or access available documents. Although listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, 

if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is 

(202) 566–0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a 

metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray 

machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible 

at all times in the building and returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; or the TSCA Hotline at telephone number: (202) 554–1404; 

e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

 For technical information contact: John H. Smith, National Program Chemicals Division 

(7404T), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 202-566-0512; email address: smith.johnh@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 3 of of 52 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

 You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, distribute in 

commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited 

to: 

 Utilities (NAICS 22), e.g., Electric power and light companies; natural gas companies. 

 Manufacturers (NAICS 31-33), e.g., Chemical manufacturers, electroindustry 

manufacturers, end-users of electricity, general contractors. 

 Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48-49), e.g., Various modes of transportation 

including air, rail, water, ground, and pipeline. 

 Real Estate (NAICS 53), e.g., People who rent, lease, or sell commercial property. 

 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 54), e.g., Testing laboratories, 

environmental consulting. 

 Public Administration (NAICS 92), e.g., Federal, State, and local agencies. 

 Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562), e.g., PCB waste handlers 

(e.g., storage facilities, landfills, incinerators), waste treatment and disposal, remediation 

services, material recovery facilities, waste transporters. 

 Repair and Maintenance (NAICS 811), e.g., Repair and maintenance of appliances, 

machinery, and equipment. 

 This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 

could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 

have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical 

person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

 1. Submitting TSCA Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit this 

information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail 

to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 

does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 4 of of 52 

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

 With this Federal Register document, EPA is providing advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the use and distribution in commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB Items 

and certain other areas of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) regulations under TSCA. EPA is 

reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations, 40 CFR part 761, 

subparts B and C, to address (1) the use, distribution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse 

of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment, (2) the use of the 50 ppm level for 

excluded PCB products, (3) the use of non-liquid PCBs, (4) the use and distribution in commerce 

of PCBs in porous surfaces, and (5) the marking of PCB articles in use. EPA is also reassessing 

the definitions of “excluded manufacturing process,” “quantifiable level/level of detection,” and 

“recycled PCBs” in 40 CFR part 761, subpart A. 

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? 

 The authority for this action comes from sections 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 

2605(e)(2)(B) and (C)) as well as section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). TSCA section 

6(e)(2)(A) provides that “no person may manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce or use 

any polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than in a totally enclosed manner” after January 

1, 1978. However, paragraph 6(e)(2)(B) provides EPA with the authority to issue regulations 

allowing the use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in a manner other than in a totally 

enclosed manner if the EPA Administrator finds that the use and distribution in commerce “will 

not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” (EPA’s authority to 

allow distribution of PCBs in commerce is limited to those PCB items that were “sold for 

purposes other than resale” before April 1978 (TSCA section 6(e)(3)(C) (15 U.S.C. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 5 of of 52 

2605(e)(3)(C)). Paragraph 6(e)(2)(C) defines “totally enclosed manner” as “any manner which 

will ensure that any exposure of human beings or the environment by the polychlorinated 

biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the Administrator by rule.” TSCA section 

6(e)(1)(B) directs EPA to promulgate rules to require PCBs to be marked with clear and adequate 

warnings and instructions (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).

 

III. Context of this ANPR 

 In the 1970s, commercial manufacture of PCBs in the United States ceased. A substantial 

portion of the PCBs that had already been manufactured were still in use in many areas of the 

country; in 1976 EPA estimated that of 1.4 billion pounds of PCBs produced in the United States, 

750 million pounds remained in service in the country. Approximately 75 percent of the PCBs 

produced were for use as liquids in electrical or industrial equipment (Ref. 1.). For some specific 

types of equipment, such as electrical capacitors, virtually all of the large number of units 

manufactured and in use contained PCBs, but for other types of equipment, such as 

electromagnets, only a small number of units contained PCBs (Ref. 2). 

 TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977. Section 6(e) of TSCA generally prohibited 

the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs and charged EPA with 

issuing regulations for the marking and disposal of PCBs. EPA published the first regulations 

addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 1979 (Ref. 3). Over the 30 years 

since then, many changes have taken place in the industry sectors that use such equipment, and 

EPA believes that the balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining 

equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending the current 

regulations. 

A. Regulatory History 

 On December 30, 1977, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register stating that 

implementation of the January 1, 1978 ban imposed by TSCA was being postponed until 30 days 

after the promulgation of new regulations (Ref. 4). On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated these 

regulations (Ref. 3). The regulations found that PCB liquid-filled capacitors, electromagnets, and 

transformers (other than railroad transformers) met the statutory definition of “totally enclosed,” 

and were exempt from the ban in TSCA section 6(e)(2)(A) on manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce or use. This EPA finding meant that it was not necessary to specifically 

authorize the use of these types of PCB-containing equipment. In this same rulemaking, EPA 

also authorized, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), the use of other liquid-filled 

equipment that was not totally enclosed (railroad transformers, heat transfer systems, and 

hydraulic systems), based on a finding that the use would pose no unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment, subject to conditions. One of the conditions EPA imposed on the 

authorization of most non-totally enclosed uses was a time limit on the use of PCBs at or above 

the established 50 ppm PCB regulatory cutoff. In the June 7, 1978 proposed rule for the use 

authorizations, EPA discussed its authority and rationale for establishing use limits: 

Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to authorize by rule the manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed 

manner if these activities will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment. EPA has determined that certain non-totally enclosed PCB 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 6 of of 52 

use activities will not present an unreasonable risk and proposed to authorize 

these use activities for a period of 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. 

At that time, EPA will examine the need for continuing these authorizations 

(Ref. 5 at 24807). 

Until today, EPA has not undertaken this examination. In making this determination, EPA 

weighed the effects of PCBs on health and the environment, the magnitude of exposure, and the 

reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule. This determination is fully 

discussed in the support/voluntary draft environmental impact statement. These proposed time 

limits were, with minor modifications, adopted in the final rule: 

Unlike all other activities that may be subject to an authorization under TSCA 

section 6(e)(2)(B), use activities are not prohibited under TSCA section 

6(e)(3)(A). Accordingly, there is no automatic limit to the length of use 

authorizations. In deciding how long to authorize each use, EPA believes that it 

should have the opportunity to review each use in a timely way to ensure that 

there is no unreasonable risk associated with its continuation. In addition, 

improved technology or development of new PCB substitutes could reduce the 

need for the authorization. Accordingly EPA proposed a five-year limit on most 

use authorizations; however, no such limit was proposed on the use authorization 

for PCBs in electric equipment (Ref. 3 at 31530).

 After the May 31,1979 rule was published, the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) 

petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the portion of 

the 1979 regulation which designated the use of “intact and non-leaking” PCB liquid filled 

capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad transformers) as “totally 

enclosed.” On October 30, 1980, the Court decided that there was insufficient evidence in the 

record to support the Agency’s classification of the equipment as “totally enclosed” (Ref. 6). The 

court vacated this portion of the rule and remanded it to EPA for further action. EPA, EDF, and 

certain industry interveners petitioned the court to stay the mandate while EPA conducted 

rulemaking beginning with an ANPR, and a utility industry group agreed to develop factual 

information necessary for the rulemaking. The court granted the request for a stay and the text of 

the court order was published with EPA’s ANPR on March 10, 1981 (Ref. 7). On August 25, 

1982, EPA issued a final rule (47 FR 37342) authorizing the use of capacitors, electromagnets, 

and transformers other than railroad transformers, in accordance with TSCA paragraph 6(e)(2)(B) 

(Ref. 8). Time limits were imposed on the use of certain types of PCB equipment posing an 

exposure risk to food and feed. Since 1982 there have been additional rulemakings (e.g., Refs. 9, 

10), which, with certain exceptions, have continued to allow the use of PCB-containing 

equipment, the passive removal of PCB-containing equipment from use through attrition, and to 

require the disposal of PCBs and PCB-containing equipment in an environmentally-sound 

manner. 

B. PCB Use Authorizations 

 Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the following liquid-filled PCB equipment is authorized 

for use in a non-totally enclosed manner: 

 electrical transformers 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 7 of of 52 

 railroad transformers 

 mining equipment 

 heat transfer systems 

 hydraulic systems 

 electromagnets 

 switches 

 voltage regulators 

 electrical capacitors 

 circuit breakers 

 reclosers 

 liquid-filled cable 

 rectifiers 

The servicing, in accordance with specified conditions, of the following liquid-filled 

equipment is also authorized: 

 electrical transformers 

 railroad transformers 

 electromagnets 

 switches 

 voltage regulators 

 circuit breakers 

 reclosers 

 liquid-filled cable 

 rectifiers 

Liquid PCBs are authorized for use where they are a contaminant in the following 

equipment: 

 natural gas pipeline systems 

 contaminated natural gas pipe and appurtenances 

 other gas or liquid transmission systems. 

 There are also use authorizations for certain non-liquid PCBs applications: carbonless 

copy paper and porous surfaces contaminated with PCBs regulated for disposal by spills of liquid 

PCBs. There are other use authorizations for research and development (40 CFR 761.30(j)), for 

scientific instruments (40 CFR 761.30(k)), and for decontaminated materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)). 

However, there are no use authorizations for non-liquid PCB-containing products if they 

contain PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm, including but not limited to adhesives, caulk, coatings, 

grease, paint, rubber or plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, and waxes. 

In 40 CFR 761.35, storage for reuse of authorized PCB Articles is allowed for up to 5 

years, or longer if kept in a storage unit complying with TSCA or RCRA requirements. 

C. Distribution in Commerce Regulations 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 8 of of 52 

 TSCA section 6(e)(2)(C) states, “The term ‘totally enclosed manner’ means any manner 

which will ensure that any exposure of human beings or the environment to a polychlorinated 

biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the Administrator by rule.” The definition 

established by rule in 40 CFR 761.3 is, “Totally enclosed manner means any manner that will 

ensure no exposure of human beings or the environment to any concentration of PCBs.” 

 EPA has found that the distribution in commerce of intact and non-leaking equipment is 

“totally enclosed.” See 40 CFR 761.20 (44 FR 31542, May 31,1979). Therefore, no 

authorization is required for the distribution in commerce for use of intact and non-leaking, 

liquid-filled electrical equipment, so long as the equipment was sold for purposes other than 

resale before July 1, 1979. Section 40 CFR 761.20 states: 

In addition, the Administrator hereby finds, for purposes of section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, 

that any exposure of human beings or the environment to PCBs, as measured or detected 

by any scientifically acceptable analytical method, may be significant, depending on such 

factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the exposure, the likelihood of exposure to 

humans and the environment, and the effect of exposure. For purposes of determining 

which PCB Items are totally enclosed, pursuant to section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since 

exposure to such Items may be significant, the Administrator further finds that a totally 

enclosed manner is a manner which results in no exposure to humans or the environment 

to PCBs. The following activities are considered totally enclosed: distribution in 

commerce of intact, nonleaking electrical equipment such as transformers (including 

transformers used in railway locomotives and self-propelled cars), capacitors, 

electromagnets, voltage regulators, switches (including sectionalizers and motor starters), 

circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable that contain PCBs at any concentration and 

processing and distribution in commerce of PCB Equipment containing an intact, 

nonleaking PCB Capacitor. 

Since then, EPA has gathered information showing measurable emissions of PCBs from 

some otherwise intact and non-leaking equipment, which is not energized (providing or receiving 

electricity), to the ambient air (Ref. 11). “Weeps” and “seeps” and other leaks are visual 

indicators that the distribution in commerce of some of this equipment could result in exposure to 

humans or the environment to PCBs. 

D. PCB Health Effects 

The following information about the health effects of PCBs is taken directly from the 

1996 EPA document “PCBs: Cancer Dose Response Assessment and Application to 

Environmental Mixtures” (EPA/600/P-96/001F) (Ref. 13). The information is consistent with 

that found in the 1997 EPA 12), which is the source document for the 1997 EPA Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) file for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. The information is referenced in 

the 1997 EPA IRIS file for Polychlorinated Biphenyls under heading II.A.2 (Human 

Carcinogenicity Data) it states in part (Ref. 1213): 

Occupational studies show some increases in cancer mortality in workers 

exposed to PCBs. Bertazzi et al. (1987) found significant excess cancer 

mortality at all sites combined and in the gastrointestinal tract in workers 

exposed to PCBs containing 54 and 42 percent chlorine. Brown (1987) found 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 9 of of 52 

significant excess mortality from cancer of the liver, gall bladder, and biliary 

tract in capacitor manufacturing workers exposed to Aroclors 1254, 1242, and 

1016. Sinks et al. (1992) found significant excess malignant melanoma 

mortality in workers exposed to Aroclors 1242 and 1016. Some other studies, 

however, found no increases in cancer mortality attributable to PCB exposure 

(ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistency overall limits the ability to draw 

definitive conclusions from these studies. Incidents in Japan and Taiwan where 

humans consumed rice oil contaminated with PCBs showed some excesses of 

liver cancer, but this has been attributed, at least in part, to heating of the PCBs 

and rice oil, causing formation of chlorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR, 1993; 

Safe, 1994). 

A study of rats fed diets containing Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, or 1016 found 

statistically significant, dose-related, increased incidences of liver tumors from 

each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996). Earlier studies found high, statistically 

significant incidences of liver tumors in rats ingesting Aroclor 1260 or 

Clophen A 60 (Kimbrough et al., 1975; Norback and Weltman, 1985; Schaeffer 

et al., 1984). Partial lifetime studies found precancerous liver lesions in rats and 

mice ingesting PCB mixtures of high or low chlorine content. 

Several mixtures and congeners test positive for tumor promotion (Silberhorn 

et al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB congeners is correlated with induction of 

mixed-function oxidases; some congeners are phenobarbital-type inducers, some 

are 3-methylcholanthrene-type inducers, and some have mixed inducing 

properties (McFarland and Clarke, 1989). The latter two groups most resemble 

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in structure and toxicity. 

Overall, the human studies have been considered to provide limited (IARC, 

1987) to inadequate (U.S. EPA, 1988a) evidence of carcinogenicity. The animal 

studies, however, have been considered to provide sufficient evidence of 

carcinogenicity (IARC, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). Based on these findings, some 

commercial PCB mixtures have been characterized as probably carcinogenic to 

humans (IARC, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). There has been some controversy 

about how this conclusion applies to PCB mixtures found in the environment. 

(Ref. 13). 

 In addition to cancer, the 1996 document states, “Although not covered by this report 

PCBs also have significant ecological and human health effects other than cancer, including 

neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver 

damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. Toxic effects have been observed from acute 

and chronic exposures to PCB mixtures with varying chlorine content.” (Ref. 1312) 

 The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profile for 

PCBs of November 2000 is a more recent review of the toxicity of PCBs. The study's summary 

of health effects (chapter 2.2) states: 

The preponderance of the biomedical data from human and laboratory mammal 

studies provide strong evidence of the toxic potential of exposure to PCBs. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 10 of of 52 

Information on health effects of PCBs is available from studies of people 

exposed in the workplace, by consumption of contaminated rice oil in Japan (the 

Yusho incident) and Taiwan (the Yu-Cheng incident), by consumption of 

contaminated fish, and via general environmental exposures, as well as food 

products of animal origin....[H]ealth effects that have been associated with 

exposure to PCBs in humans and/or animals include liver, thyroid, dermal and 

ocular changes, immunological alterations, neurodevelopmental changes, 

reduced birth weight, reproductive toxicity, and cancer. The human studies of 

the Yusho and Yu-Cheng poisoning incidents, contaminated fish consumption, 

and general populations are complicated by the mixture nature of PCB exposure 

and possible interactions between the congeneric components and other 

chemicals.... Therefore, although PCBs may have contributed to adverse health 

effects in these human populations, it cannot be determined with certainty which 

congeners may have caused the effects. Animal studies have shown that PCBs 

induce effects in monkeys at lower doses than in other species, and that 

immunological, dermal/ocular, and neurobehavioral changes are particularly 

sensitive indicators of toxicity in monkeys exposed either as adults, or during 

pre- or postnatal periods. (Ref. 14). 

 EPA continues to examine more recent scientific studies on the health effects of PCBs 

and seeks comments and/or information on the health effects of PCBs available since the 1997 

EPA update of IRIS and since the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile. Any proposed or final 

PCB rulemaking which relies on PCB health effects will use information subject to EPA's 

rigorous peer-review process.

 

E. PCB Environmental Effects 

 The November 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for PCBs summarizes the 

environmental fate, transport, and bioaccumulation of PCBs as follows: 

Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down and therefore may 

remain for very long periods of time. They can easily cycle between air, water, 

and soil. For example, PCBs can enter the air by evaporation from both soil and 

water. In air, PCBs can be carried long distances and have been found in snow 

and sea water in areas far away from where they were released into the 

environment, such as in the arctic. As a consequence, PCBs are found all over 

the world. In general, the lighter the type of PCBs, the further they may be 

transported from the source of contamination. PCBs are present as solid particles 

or as a vapor in the atmosphere. They will eventually return to land and water by 

settling as dust or in rain and snow. In water, PCBs may be transported by 

currents, attach to bottom sediment or particles in the water, and evaporate into 

air. Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likely to settle into sediments while lighter 

PCBs are more likely to evaporate to air. Sediments that contain PCBs can also 

release the PCBs into the surrounding water. PCBs stick strongly to soil and will 

not usually be carried deep into the soil with rainwater. They do not readily 

break down in soil and may stay in the soil for months or years; generally, the 

more chlorine atoms that the PCBs contain, the more slowly they break down. 

Evaporation appears to be an important way by which the lighter PCBs leave 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 11 of of 52 

soil. As a gas, PCBs can accumulate in the leaves and above-ground parts of 

plants and food crops. PCBs are taken up into the bodies of small organisms and 

fish in water. They are also taken up by other animals that eat these aquatic 

animals as food. PCBs especially accumulate in fish and marine mammals (such 

as seals and whales) reaching levels that may be many thousands of times higher 

than in water. PCB levels are highest in animals high up in the food chain. (Ref. 

14). 

The ATSDR Profile also summarizes ecotoxicological effects of PCBs in 

wildlife (Ref. 14). Information in the profile is gathered from experimental studies and 

field observations of wildlife, specifically outlining PCB effects in fish, bird, and 

mammal species. The biological responses in wildlife to exposures to individual PCB 

congeners and commercial PCB mixtures vary widely in these studies, possibly 

reflecting not only variability in susceptibility among species, but also differences in the 

mechanism of action or selective metabolism of individual congeners. Noteworthy 

impacts on fish, birds, and mammals from this collective data include 

neurological/behavioral, immunological, dermal, and reproductive/developmental 

effects. Observed PCB effects related to neurological impairment include alterations in 

central nervous system neurotransmitter levels, retarded learning, increased activity, and 

behavioral changes. Immunological effects consist of morphological changes in organs 

related to the immune system, as well as functional impairment of humoral- and cellmediated immune responses. Dermal effects in species include adverse effects on fins 

and tails in fish, and abnormal skin, hair, and nail growth in mammals. Lastly, 

reproductive and developmental impacts consist of increased embryo/fetal loss through 

effects such as decreased egg hatchability and reduced embryo implantation. (Ref. 14) 

EPA seeks information on the environmental effects of PCBs that became available after 

the ATSDR Toxicological Profile of 2000 (Ref. 14). 

IV. Objective of This ANPR 

 The objective of this ANPR is to announce the Agency's intent to reassess the current use 

authorizations for certain PCB uses to determine whether they may now pose an unreasonable 

risk to human health and the environment. This reassessment will be based in part upon 

information and experience acquired in dealing with PCBs over the past three decades. This 

ANPR solicits information from the public on several topics to assist EPA in making this 

reassessment. 

 Since the Agency first promulgated its PCB use regulations in 1979, EPA's knowledge 

about the universe of PCB materials has greatly increased. The Agency has gained valuable 

knowledge and experience regarding the various sources and uses of PCB materials. Over the 

past 30 years, EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate and draw conclusions about the 

effectiveness of the PCB regulations in preventing an unreasonable risk to human health and the 

environment from exposure to PCBs, as well as their economic impact. This document details 

EPA’s observations on why there is reason to make changes in the regulations. At the present 

time, EPA is investigating whether some authorized uses of PCBs should be eliminated or phased 

out and whether more stringent use and servicing conditions would be appropriate. EPA is also 

re-examining the geographical and numerical extent of PCBs and PCB Items, which are subject 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 12 of of 52 

to the use regulations. The objective of the anticipated rulemaking would be to modify any of the 

current regulations that apply to PCBs or PCB Items, as necessary, if these uses present an 

unreasonable risk to human health and the environment, taking into account conditions as they 

exist today and as they are likely to exist in the future. 

EPA seeks information that will be useful in making the findings required by TSCA 

section 6. By prohibiting the use of PCBs (except in a totally enclosed manner), Congress 

established a statutory presumption that use of PCBs poses an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health or the environment. In order to assess whether a use poses “no unreasonable risks,” EPA 

would include an assessment of impacts on the economy, electric energy availability and all other 

health, environmental, or social impacts that could be expected from adoption of alternatives to 

PCBs. There is a list of several questions related to EPA’s reassessment in Unit XIV. Responses 

to the questions will provide EPA with information needed to assist in its reassessment; other 

information, of course, is also welcome. 

EPA recognizes that there may be differences in the maintenance operations, inventories, 

planning, funding and budgets for different owners of electrical equipment and does not make 

any assumptions about these differences. For example, when compared to very large interstate 

utilities, small municipal and cooperative utilities may have a very different approach to address 

the replacement of leaking equipment. Where applicable and appropriate, small municipal and 

cooperative utility responders should provide information about the impacts a phaseout of PCBcontaining equipment might have on their operations and their customers. In particular, EPA 

encourages small municipal and cooperative utilities to take the time to answer the questions in 

Unit XIV or otherwise provide details about maintenance operations, inventories, planning, 

funding, budgets, or any other information related to the cost of addressing the sound 

environmental management of the PCBs in their equipment and measures they have taken or 

planned to take and how these measures will help to safely manage their PCBs. EPA also is 

interested in exploring a range of incentives or programs that might facilitate organizations with 

limited budgets to remove regulated PCBs and PCB equipment from their systems and facilities. 

Within this document, EPA is also announcing plans to involve stakeholders in gathering 

information to inform EPA’s determination of the scope of the problem, and EPA’s decision on 

the best ways to address risks that may be present from current PCB use authorizations. EPA will 

sponsor a series of public meetings around the country to solicit stakeholder comments related to 

the contents of this document. Specific information regarding the locations, dates, and times of 

the public meetings are included in Unit XIII. 

V. EPA's Reasons for Reassessing Existing Use and Distribution Provisions. 

A. Attrition, Aging of Equipment, and Spills 

Today all of the PCB-containing equipment in current use, which has been operating in 

accordance with the 1979 and subsequent use authorizations, is at least thirty years old. Since the 

ban on manufacturing in 1979, no new equipment containing PCBs at concentrations greater than 

or equal to (≥) 50 ppm has been manufactured. For this reason, the numbers of PCB-containing 

equipment are decreasing and the numbers of non-PCB equipment are increasing with time. 

Therefore, PCB-containing equipment is a much smaller portion of the total equipment universe 

than it was in 1979The total number of PCB transformers in the United States is decreasing (Ref.
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 13 of of 52 

15) but there are still many PCB trasformers in use (Ref. 16). Also, all but the most recently 

manufactured PCB-containing equipment may be nearing the end of its expected useful life, 

although the useful life of some equipment may have effectively been extended by extensive 

maintenance and re-building. The useful life of transformers is typically no more than 30-40 

years (Ref. 2). 

Equipment is increasingly vulnerable to leaks the older it becomes. For example, between 

2002 and 2005, two large, aging electrical transformers located on Exxon Mobil’s offshore oil 

and gas Platform Hondo in the Santa Barbara Channel, leaked nearly 400 gallons of PCBcontaminated fluid. Exxon allowed one of the transformers to leak for almost two years before 

repairing it (Ref. 1517). 

Several statutes and regulations require reporting of spills of hazardous chemicals, 

including PCBs, to the National Response Center (part of the United States Coast Guard). EPA 

contacted the National Response Center (Ref. 18) to find out how many PCB spills have been 

reported historically. The National Response Center advised EPA that there were a total of 5,578 

spills associated with PCBs reported from 1990 through 2009 (to date) (Ref. 1719). 

B. International Developments 

 PCBs are persistent chemicals and it is internationally recognized that they pose a risk to 

health and the environment and need to be removed from use. As of October 6, 2009, 166 

countries have signed and ratified, accepted, approved, or accessed the Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants, which among other things requires parties to make determined 

efforts to phase out certain ongoing uses of PCBs by the year 2025. The United States is a 

signatory to this Convention but has not yet ratified it (Ref. 1820). A similar agreement, which 

has an earlier date relating to the phase out of certain ongoing uses of PCBs, is the 1998 Aarhus 

Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants of the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary 

Air Pollution, which the United States signed in 1998. As with the Stockholm Convention, the 

United States is a signatory to this Protocol, but has not yet ratified this agreement (Ref. 1921). 

 On September 17, 2008, Canada published PCB ban and phase out regulations with bans 

starting in 2009 for high concentration PCBs (Ref. 2022). In the Canadian regulations, low level 

(<500 ppm) equipment must be removed from use by 2025. 

C. Disposal and Cleanup Costs 

 EPA anticipates that disposal costs may increase faster than the general increase in 

inflation or cost of living. The population of PCB-containing equipment is continually 

decreasing and will never grow or rebound due to the ban on manufacturing. This may make the 

economics of retaining a presence in the PCB storage and disposal industry potentially less 

economically attractive for the waste management industry. The numerous disposal options and 

excess disposal capacity present today may not be available in the future, so the costs and 

benefits of continuing to operate aging equipment may be outweighed by these potential higher

disposal costs change in the future. The benefits of continued use of PCB-containing equipment 

are also diminished by the increasing risk that aging equipment may fail catastrophically,in a 

manner that releases PCBs to the environment as might be expected for olderthat equipment

reaches the end of its useful life. The cost of cleaning up PCB spills may exceed the cost of 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 14 of of 52 

reclassifying or disposing of the intact PCB equipment and replacing it with new equipment. The 

consequences include both the direct costs to the equipment owners in damage, equipment 

replacement, service interruption, and lost revenue, and also the liability costs of losses to other 

parties, and compensation and potential fines for damages to human health and the environment. 

EPA seeks information and comment on how much the possibility of spills and the costs of 

cleanup affect the decisions of facility owners and operators regarding the management, removal, 

reclassification, or replacement of PCB equipment. 

 

D. Insurance Costs 

 EPA believes that the cost of liability insurance for owners of PCB equipment is likely to 

increase significantly as the equipment continues to age. Insurers have already observed the 

increased rate of failure in equipment which is approaching the end of its useful life expectancy 

(Ref. 2123). EPA anticipates that in the future there will be continuous increases in the cost of 

liability insurance to cover all equipment because of numbers of releases and contamination from 

PCB equipment which is at least thirty years old. EPA seeks comments on the comparison of the 

cost of future liability insurance with potential costs for testing and reclassification of potentially 

contaminated equipment either before it has failed or before there has been a determination made 

to dispose of it. EPA seeks information on historical changes in insurance premiums, as PCBcontaining equipment has aged, and any projections of changes in future rates as a result of 

projected changes in failure rates. EPA also seeks information and comment on the extent to 

which the availability of commercial liability insurance or self-insurance by facilities affects 

facility owners’ and operators’ decisions on how to manage removal or reclassification of PCB 

equipment that may be nearing the end of its useful life. 

E. Hazard Assessment of PCBs 

 EPA is evaluating the risks from polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and structurally 

similar chemicals, such as certain PCBs, through a process referred to as the Dioxin 

Reassessment (Ref. 2224). Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated 

dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and some PCBs as molecules are structurally similar and have been 

shown to have similar impacts on human health and the environment. Also, under certain 

conditions, the incomplete combustion of PCB-containing materials produces PCDDs and 

PCDFs, including some of the more toxic congeners. Preliminary indications from the 2003 

Draft Dioxin Reassessment are that the toxicity of PCBs in general is higher than the toxicity 

values that EPA used in developing previous TSCA PCB regulations. Some PCB congeners, 

sometimes referred to as co-planar PCBs or dioxin-like PCBs, are considered to have toxicities 

similar to the most toxic of the PCDDs and PCDFs. EPA has not yet determined how the new 

information on the a potentially higher toxicity of these PCBs would impact regulatory findings 

used to make risk based decisions. It is possible that EPA would find that some risks, which 

were found to be reasonable using older PCB toxicity information, are nowwould be

unreasonable in relation to newwhen using potentially higher toxicity information. If this is the 

case, EPA may propose modifications to the regulations to support the required finding of “no 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” based on the new toxicity information 

If this is the case, that information my affect any proposed rule that EPA might issue. Any 

proposed or final PCB rulemaking which relies on the contribution of dioxin-like PCBs to the 

overall toxicity of PCBs will be based on the finalized Dioxin Reassessment or another EPA 

peer-reviewed document. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 15 of of 52 

F. Risks of PCB Substitute Materials 

 EPA seeks information on the current and likely future substitute materials for PCBs that 

are currently in use or may be put into service in the future. EPA is particularly interested in the 

chemical, physical, flammability, and toxicological properties of these materials. This 

information will be essential to a consideration of the net differences in risks, were these 

materials to be substituted for PCB equipment currently in use. 

G. Updating Information on Releases of PCBs 

 EPA does not have a current, thorough national assessment of the risks to human health 

and the environment from PCB releases. Information is fragmentary and much of it is 

geographically limited. For instance, the Great Lakes program in which EPA participates has 

published recent estimates of PCB releases, but such estimates are statewide, and similar 

estimates are not available for all states in the U.S. (Ref. 2325). The New York Academy of 

Sciences published a study of PCB releases into the waterways feeding into the New York / New 

Jersey harbor, breaking down the releases by type of source (Ref. 2426), but similar studies are 

not available for most waterways in the country. Releases to the environment exceeding the 

Reportable Quantity for PCBs must be reported promptly to the National Response Center. In 

addition to the information which is available through the National Response Center, EPA seeks 

any information or data on releases of PCBs, to the environment from all kinds of sources, in 

order to set the releases that are the subject of the regulations being considered into a larger 

context. EPA seeks information on the causes of such releases, whether the releases reached the 

environment or were contained, and any information on human health or environmental 

consequences. 

H. Risks from the Contamination of Food from PCB-Containing Oils 

Currently the use and storage for reuse of PCB Transformers that pose an exposure risk to 

food or feed are prohibited (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(i)). The use and storage for reuse of Large 

High Voltage Capacitors and Large Low Voltage Capacitors which pose an exposure risk to food 

or feed are also prohibited (40 CFR 761.30(l)(1)(i)). However, both transformers and capacitors 

containing: (a) < 500 ppm PCBs at any weight or volume; or (b) < 1.36 kilograms (kg.) or 3 

pounds of dielectric fluid at any PCB concentration, are not included in these prohibitions. To 

lessen the likelihood of such food and feed contamination from these sources, EPA is considering 

broadening the prohibition on the use and storage for reuse of PCBs that pose an exposure risk to 

food and feed, including PCB Articles containing greater than 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 

fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. PCB concentrations in food are regulated by the Food and Drug 

Administration and PCB concentrations in feed are regulated by the Department of Agriculture. 

 There have been two recent incidents of particular note in Europe of very significant 

contamination of foods and a subsequent recall of those foods from the international market. 

Because of the presence of trace amounts of dioxins which are present in most PCBs, these two 

crises also became dioxin crises. These are discussed as follows. 

1. Belgium. The “Belgian PCB/dioxin crisis” began in January 1999, when 50 kg of 

PCBs contaminated with 1 g of dioxins were accidentally added to a stock of recycled fat used 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 16 of of 52 

for the production of 500 tons of animal feed in Belgium. Although signs of poultry poisoning 

were noticed by February 1999, the extent of the contamination was publicly announced only in 

May 1999, when it appeared that more than 2,500 poultry and pig farms could have been 

involved. The highest concentrations of PCBs and dioxins and the highest percentage of affected 

animals were found in poultry. 

The Belgian government estimates that the dioxin crisis cost approximately $493 million, 

with approximately $106 million attributed to the loss in the swine sector (in 1999 1 Euro = 1.06 

US Dollars). As other EU countries were also affected by export bans, the final cost of this 

incident worldwide will likely be higher. (Ref. 2527, Ref. 2628, and Ref. 2729) 

 2. Ireland. In December 2008, Irish pork products were removed from distribution in 

commerce. This action was taken by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland after finding levels of 

PCBs and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins in the food at concentrations in excess of European 

Union health standards for food. Preliminary investigations indicated that a single supplier’s 

feed, which had been contaminated from PCB oil in equipment, had been distributed to farmers 

broadly throughout the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. All pork products produced in 

Ireland after September 1, 2008 were removed from sale in early December 2008. Details of the 

full investigation and the economic impact of the contamination are not yet available (Ref. 28, 

2930, 31, and 3032.) 

I. Risks in Public Buildings from Fluorescent Light Ballasts 

EPA is concerned about the release of high concentrations of PCBs from fluorescent light 

ballasts, particularly in public buildings, such as schools. There are anecdotal accounts of spills 

from this source and anecdotal information that PCB fluorescent light ballasts have a lifetime of 

less than 10 years. One of these spills was a significant release from fluorescent light ballasts, 

almost twenty years after the publication of the PCB use regulations, at the Standing Rock Indian 

Reservation in North Dakota. 

On February 2, 1998, there were complaints of respiratory problems in the administration 

buildings at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota. On February 5, 1998, EPA 

received an urgent telephone call from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota about 

possible PCB contamination from leaking fluorescent light ballasts. The light ballasts were 

located in the elementary school, administration building, high school library, and several Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) buildings on the reservation (Ref. 3133 and 3234). EPA determined that 

many of the fluorescent light ballasts contained PCBs. A sampling contractor found PCBs above 

EPA's PCB spill cleanup levels in light fixtures, office equipment and carpeting. BIA hired a 

contractor to decontaminate all areas where it found detectable levels. The contractor removed 

light ballasts and disposed of all ballasts and contaminated materials as PCB waste. A high 

school building where contamination was found was closed from February to June, but reopened 

for summer school. The cleanup for the 4 buildings at Standing Rock cost BIA $500,000 (Ref. 

3335). The estimated cost for removing the non-leaking ballasts from 60 other buildings in the 

BIA Great Plains Region (formerly the Aberdeen Area) was $60,000. 

J. Environmental Justice Considerations 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 17 of of 52 

EPA seeks comments on any disproportionate environmental and public health impacts 

that PCB use and distribution in commerce for use may have on minority, low-income, tribal and 

disadvantaged populations. As explained in Unit III.D., it is noted that ATSDR has concluded 

that there may be an adverse impact on the health of persons who eat fish contaminated with 

PCBs. Disadvantaged populations may be more exposed to PCBs in contaminated fish than 

members of the general population. Some disadvantaged communities, such as Indian tribes, 

have subsistence lifestyles and rely on fish and mammals that may be caught in PCB 

contaminated waters and environs, as a primary source of nutrition. Fish in these waters may 

have been contaminated by both PCB wastes disposed of prior to the use authorizations, as well 

as releases that have occurred from the currently authorized use, distribution in commerce and 

disposal of PCBs. (Refs.14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41) 

 

In addition, EPA is concerned about the presence of the potential risks to urban 

environmental justice communities from PCB releases at railroad substations, electrical 

substations and electrical equipment storage areas. EPA seeks specific information about the 

prevalence of spills and other releases, including fires, from the use of PCBs in environmental 

justice areas. The focus of the information gathering in Unit XIV of this document is owners and 

operators of regulated electrical equipment and those using PCBs which are authorized in part 40 

CFR 761. However, EPA also seeks comments from minority, low-income, tribal and 

disadvantaged persons and their representatives, who are not direct owners or users of PCBs and 

PCB equipment. 

EPA is also announcing public meetings to discuss the Agency’s reassessment of the 

existing PCB use authorizations at several locations around the country. The dates, locations and 

times of the meetings are included in Unit XIII of this document. Any additional meetings will 

be announced on the EPA PCB website 

(http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) at least 30 days prior to the first 

meeting date. Please refer to the PCB website or call Christine Zachek at (202) 566-2219 for 

further details. At these meetings, representatives of minority, low-income, tribal and 

disadvantaged populations will be able to provide oral comments on the proposed regulations. 

These persons will also have the opportunity to provide comments to EPA as part of this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

VI. Summary of Possible Regulatory Changes for PCB-Containing Equipment under 

Consideration 

 This Unit identifies possible changes to the current PCB use regulations that EPA may 

consider in a future notice of proposed rulemaking. Any future regulatory action to propose these 

changes will depend on newbe supported by an analysis of riskscosts and benefits, and to some 

extent on the quality of data received in response to this documentas is required by TSCA. This 

analysis will be supported, in part, by the quality of the data submitted as a result of the ANPR. 

 

A. Interim Measures to be Assessed for Possible Proposal Options for Initial Phase-Out 

Regulations 

Before implementing aA potential phaseout of any PCB use authorizations, EPA may first 

consider implementing interim measures. might be implemented gradually, allowing some use to 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 18 of of 52 

continue under more restrictions before the end of the use authorization. The Agency may 

consider a number of interimregulatory measures, including, but not limited to, the following: 

 Require testing of equipment which is stored for reuse or removed from service for any 

reason, and which is assumed to contain PCBs at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in accordance 

with §761.2. 

 Require that where such equipment is found to contain PCBs at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm 

after testing, within 30 days of receiving the test results the owner must either reclassify 

the equipment to < 50 ppm PCBs or designate it for disposal. 

 Eliminate all currently authorized PCB equipment servicing except for reclassification. 

 Require marking of all equipment which is known or assumed (in accordance with 

§761.2) to contain PCBs at ≥ 50 ppm. 

 Increase the inspection frequency to a minimum of once every month for non-leaking 

known or assumed ≥ 500 ppm PCB equipment in use. 

 Before the final phaseout date(s), broaden the prohibition on the use of PCBs in 

transformers that pose an exposure risk to food or feed to include use of PCBcontaminated transformers. 

 Broaden the definition of PCB Article (this would also require changing other definitions) 

to include all equipment containing > 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of 

dielectric fluid with ≥50 ppm PCBs, in place of the current definition which regulates 

transformers and capacitors containing ≥ 3 pounds of dielectric fluid. 

 Require registration of PCB large capacitors containing a specified volume of dielectric 

fluid or having a specified external volume or dimensions. 

 Eliminate the authorization for storage of PCB equipment for reuse. 

 Eliminate the use authorization for PCBs in carbonless copy paper. 

 Eliminate totally enclosed determination for distribution in commerce. 

 Require reporting/notification to Regional Administrators when PCBs are found in any 

pipeline system, regardless of the source of PCBs or the owner of the pipeline. 

B. Phaseout to be Assessed for Possible ProposalPotential Time Frames for Completing the 

Removal of PCB Equipment From Service.

 

 These measures would phase out all PCB electrical equipment uses with interim deadlines 

by equipment concentration and type. 

 By 2015, eliminate all use of Askarel equipment (≥ 100,000 ppm PCBs), removing from 

service the equipment in high potential exposure areas first. EPA is considering allowing 

exceptions on a case-by-case basis based on hardship and no unreasonable risk. 

Exceptions may be granted based on an application and approved exceptions may be 

published on the PCB web site. 

 By 2020, eliminate all use of oil-filled PCB equipment (≥ 500 ppm) and the authorization 

for use of PCBs at ≥ 50 ppm in pipeline systems. 

 By 2025, eliminate all use of any PCB contaminated equipment (≥ 50 ppm), which is still 

authorized for use. 

VII. Information to Be Considered during EPA Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 19 of of 52 

 This Unit outlines what information EPA believes is important to consider when 

reassessing PCB use authorizations. EPA seeks comment on any other information, which may 

not be included in this Unit, but which you believe is important for EPA to consider when 

reassessing PCB use authorizations. 

A. Liquid-filled Electrical Equipment (Except Railroad Transformers and Mining Equipment) 

 EPA seeks information on the specific population of any electrical equipment that 

contains greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid with PCBs ≥ 1 ppm and that was 

manufactured prior to July 31, 1979: transformers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), 

electromagnets (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), switches (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), 

voltage regulators (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical capacitors (regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), reclosers (regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(m)), liquid-filled cable (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), and rectifiers (regulated at 40 

CFR 761.30(r)). Each paragraph in this heading describes specifically what information EPA 

solicits. EPA encourages small business owners and small municipal and cooperative utilities to 

provide details on their PCB containing electrical equipment population characteristics and their 

management activities for the equipment. 

1. Population characteristics for Transformers, Electromagnets, Switches, Voltage 

Regulators, Electrical Capacitors, Circuit Breakers, Reclosers, Liquid-filled Cable, and 

Rectifiers 

Information that EPA seeks about the use of this equipment appears in questions, which 

are located in Unit XIV.A.–E. 

2. Servicing. Since the first use regulations for liquid-filled PCB-containing equipment, 

EPA has continued to prescribe conditions for authorized servicing (maintaining or repairing) this 

equipment, which facilitated extending the life of the equipment, in order to ease the hardship an 

immediate ban would have caused owners. Most life-extending use conditions are included in 

the authorization for servicing: 

 Draining, repairing, and putting back into service PCB-contaminated electrical 

equipment. 

 Topping off and putting back into service PCB electrical equipment. 

 Blending the oil drained from multiple pieces of PCB-containing equipment for servicing. 

 Adding blended or other PCB containing oil into repaired, drained equipment. 

 Reclassifying. 

 Distributing PCB-containing equipment in commerce for repair without manifesting; 

 Storing company-owned equipment for servicing without any conditions to protect 

against leaks or spills. 

 Servicing equipment which is owned by others, without having commercial storage 

approvals. 

 EPA believes that this equipment is nearing the final stages of useful life, after a 

minimum of thirty years of use. When this aging equipment fails to function in use or is 

otherwise removed from service, and if there is a need to prolong the life of the equipment, EPA 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 20 of of 52 

believes that the PCBs should be removed from the equipment and disposed of in accordance 

with the regulations in 40 CFR part 761, subpart D. The reclassification of out-of-service 

equipment could be considered preventive maintenance and does not require service interruption, 

lost revenue, or liability costs of losses to other parties. In the informative brochure, “Promoting 

the Voluntary Phase-Down of PCB-Containing Equipment,” published in October 2005 by the 

Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) (Ref. 3442), it states that: 

Many utility companies across the country have procedures in place to ensure that most 

equipment containing PCBs in concentrations greater than (>) 50 ppm identified after 

removal from the field is either disposed of and not returned to service or retrofilled 

before being returned to service. This practice helps ensure the accelerated retirement 

from service of a large class of potentially PCB-containing equipment (e.g. distribution 

pole-top and padmount transformers) that could otherwise lawfully be placed back into 

service. USWAG will continue to actively promote these systematic practices of 

voluntarily identifying and retiring PCB-containing equipment from service. 

 On April 2, 2001, EPA provided new reclassification procedures which include refilling 

mineral oil filled equipment with liquid containing < 2 ppm total PCBs (Ref. 10). A majority of 

liquid-filled equipment which was manufactured to contain mineral oil dielectric fluid and which 

remains in use today can be easily reclassified to contain < 50 ppm with a thorough draining and 

refilling with liquid containing < 2 ppm PCBs. If an owner determines that the equipment is not 

worth reclassifying, there currently are numerous disposal options and excess disposal capacity 

for the equipment. EPA seeks information on the types and extent of service-extending 

maintenance and rebuilding of PCB-containing transformers, railroad transformers, heat transfer 

systems, hydraulic systems, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, circuit breakers, 

reclosers, cable, and rectifiers. EPA’s questions about servicing are located in Unit XIV.F. 

3. Identifying and managing the use, removal from use, and disposal. In the public 

comments provided during the 1979 rulemaking, electrical equipment owners stated that they did 

not know where PCB-containing equipment was located (Ref. 3). In the 30 years since, EPA 

believes that it would have been prudent for owners to implement a plan during that time to 

locate any regulated equipment. The common use and availability of bar code labels and 

scanning equipment and user-friendly computerized inventory management systems, plus the 

ability of global positioning systems to precisely specify locations, should facilitate the 

development and maintenance of an inventory of PCB-containing regulated equipment. 

Equipment owners previously told EPA that it was not possible to determine whether mineral oilfilled equipment contained PCBs unless the oil was tested, and testing was expensive. EPA 

agrees that it is necessary to collect oil to test it and there is a cost associated with the oil sample 

collection and chemical analysis. However, at the time of disposal it is already necessary to test 

to determine the PCB concentration to determine how the equipment is regulated for disposal. 

Based on current regulatory requirements, the cost of chemical analysis would have to be paid at 

the time of the disposal of the equipment, regardless of a non-attrition-based phaseout. 

Collection and analysis of oil would only be an additional cost if EPA imposes a new 

requirement to test in-service and energized equipment. 

Currently there are several options available for equipment that is no longer operable, or 

is otherwise designated for disposal. For equipment with recyclable metals, some disposal 

companies are paying for this equipment, because they can recover their costs and make a profit, 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 21 of of 52 

even when paying the waste generator for “scrap metal.” In 2001, EPA facilitated the 

reclassification of electrical equipment making this a cost effective means of removing the risk 

from PCBs in equipment, while continuing to use the equipment until it no longer functions or is 

voluntarily removed from service for disposal (Ref. 10). 

In 1996, EPA surveyed the PCB disposal industry and found that there was a large 

capacity surplus (Ref. 35). However, as the PCB disposal market increasingly becomes smaller, 

it may be that fewer disposers will find it economical to retain licenses and disposal facilities for 

this small market, decreasing the number of options available and very likely increasing the costs 

for the remaining options. Any increased cost of fuel employed in many disposal technologies 

and for the transportation of equipment to disposers will likely also increase disposal costs in the 

future. The potential increase in disposal costs in the future may make it economically 

advantageous to either reclassify equipment or dispose of it now, even if it has not reached the 

end of its useful life. 

Owners commented in 1979 that there were few commercial storers for PCB wastes (Ref. 

3). Currently, EPA believes that there is an excess of storage capacity. Like disposal, 

commercial storage capacity could also decrease as the supply of PCB equipment diminishes. 

EPA seeks information on whether advancing the date of testing from some future disposal date 

to a date closer to the present time would present cost, economic, or management difficulties or 

advantages to the owners and operators of PCB-containing equipment. 

 4. Information about an increased failure rate of vintage electrical equipment. A 2002 

report, Life Cycle Management of Utility Transformer Assets, by the Hartford Steam Boiler 

Inspection and Insurance Company, uses information from claims filed by policy holders with the 

insurer for failed transformers, regardless of whether they contained PCBs (Ref. 2023). The 

information has been used to estimate or predict when equipment will fail, based on historical 

failures for which claims were filed. This document also highlights that the electricity demand 

load grew 35% and the transmission capacity grew 18% over the ten preceding years. EPA is 

concerned that the rate of failures for transformers manufactured in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s 

may increase substantially in the future. EPA seeks data on the failure rate in the last ten years 

and the results and documentation of recent modeling of projections of failures into the future. 

EPA seeks information on any differences in failure rate for different types of equipment of 

different vintages, and differences in failure rates for equipment which is located indoors as 

compared to outdoors and what effect, if any, that electronic monitoring and other maintenance 

methods have had on failure rates. EPA’s questions about failure rates are located in Unit 

XIV.G. 

 5. Severe weather event and other natural disasters increase the potential risk from 

PCBs. There have been several recent severe weather events (e.g Hurricane Katrina (Ref. 44), 

Tornado in Greensburg, Kansas (Ref. 45.)) where there was significant damage to electrical 

equipment of all ages, both containing PCBs and not containing PCBs. Although there have not 

been reports of natural disasters such as earthquakes, mudslides or volcanic eruptions which 

resulted in significant spills of PCBs, there is a possibility that this could have occurred in some 

regions of the country. These unpreventable events contribute to catastrophically ending the 

useful life of PCB-containing equipment and the uncontrolled release of PCBs. EPA believes 

that one cost-effective protection against PCB releases from these weather events and natural 

disasters may be a proactive program to test equipment that is taken out of service for PCBs, and 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 22 of of 52 

to remove, test, and replace or retrofill equipment in service that is known or assumed to contain 

PCBs, especially the equipment in locations and areas where a release would present the greatest 

risk. EPA is also concerned about areas which may not be directly contaminated from nearby 

equipment ravaged by severe weather, but where spilled PCBs from that weather event might be 

expected to migrate and accumulate, such as spillways and drinking water reservoirs. Answers to 

the questions about severe weather events in Unit XIV.H. and other related comments will assist 

EPA in the reassessment of the use of PCB-containing electrical equipment. 

 6. Alternatives to PCB liquids. One type of information the Agency is soliciting for its 

proposed rulemaking relates to alternatives to the use of PCBs in liquid-filled equipment. To 

EPA's knowledge, satisfactory substitutes are available to replace PCBs in all electrical 

equipment applications. The Agency welcomes comments on the comparative costs and the 

effectiveness of various substitutes in reducing fires and heat-related degradation or destruction 

of equipment. EPA seeks information on the hazards and the risks posed by these PCB 

substitutes. EPA’s questions about alternatives to PCB liquids are located in Unit XIV.I. 

 7. Removal and replacement costs. EPA seeks information on the costs of removing and 

replacing old PCB containing equipment with new or used non-PCB equipment based on attrition 

(i.e. end of equipment’s useful life) and based on removal in advance of attrition. In particular, 

EPA would like to have information on: (1) how often any equipment (PCB-containing or nonPCB–containing) of the same age or size is replaced per year and the costs for replacement; (2) 

costs for replacement include cheapest source, foreign or domestic, including transport and 

transaction costs; and (3) the price for replacement of various types and classes of equipment 

each year over the last 30 years, as well as estimated or projected future prices. EPA seeks 

information that explains: (1) the impact of changes in system distribution and transmission 

voltage on the potential obsolescence of mineral oil-filled equipment, which was manufactured 

before 1979 would be useful; and (2) the cost impact of replacing mineral oil-filled equipment, 

which was manufactured before 1979, with more modern equipment with respect to efficiency, 

longevity, or any other attribute which would create an economic incentive to hasten the phaseout 

of older equipment. Further, EPA solicits information on the numbers of these units 

manufactured before 1979 that are (a) expected to be replaced or excessed during system voltage 

changes, and (b) planned for distribution in commerce for use. EPA would also like to know to 

whom these excessed units would most likely be sold. EPA seeks information on the costs of 

service interruptions and revenue loss which may result from equipment replacement, either 

scheduled or unplanned. Similarly, EPA solicits comments on the current and estimated future 

supply of replacement equipment, when PCB–containing equipment is currently moved out of 

service before the end of its useful life. Reclassification options and procedures in the 

regulations were broadened in 2001 (Ref. 10) and EPA seeks comments on the costs and 

advantages found for this option, as opposed to disposal. EPA encourages small business 

owners, and small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB containing 

electrical equipment replacement schedules and costs. EPA’s questions about PCB equipment 

removal and replacement costs are located in Unit XIV.J. 

8. Current PCB waste disposal capacity. EPA solicits comments on the availability of 

disposal capacity for PCBs in liquids at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm by weight, and for other 

materials in drained electrical equipment. EPA also seeks comments on the economic benefits of 

decontamination and recycling of liquids or non-liquids in this equipment, where possible. In 

1979, PCB disposal options and capacity were limited and the potential demand on disposal 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 23 of of 52 

capacity from a ban or phaseout of PCB-containing equipment would have been high. EPA also 

seeks information on whether there currently is a charge to the equipment owner (waste 

generator) for disposing of equipment which will be decontaminated and then sold as scrap metal. 

EPA also seeks information on the cost for disposing of mineral oil contaminated with PCBs. 

EPA has seen a continuous decrease in the numbers of PCB disposal approvals issued over the 

last ten years. EPA seeks comment on what the disposal industry predicts with respect to the 

future number of approved PCB disposal and storage companies, future disposal and storage 

capacity, and the future cost of commercial storage and disposal of electrical equipment waste as 

compared to current disposal costs. EPA’s questions about PCB waste disposal capacity are 

located in Unit XIV.K. 

9. Current equipment management practices. EPA solicits information on the current 

management practices intended to reduce the risk from PCBs in the following types of equipment 

that contain PCBs at concentrations of ≥ 1 ppm: electrical transformers; railroad transformers; 

mining equipment; electromagnets; switches; voltage regulators; electrical capacitors; circuit 

breakers; reclosers; liquid-filled cable; and rectifiers. EPA encourages small business owners, 

small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB containing electrical 

equipment management activities. EPA’s questions addressing the information that EPA seeks 

about equipment current management practices are located in Unit XIV.L. 

10. Electrical equipment which contains non-liquid PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1 ppm. 

EPA seeks information on electrical equipment, such as tar-filled equipment, which was 

manufactured prior to July 31, 1979 in the following categories: containing non-liquid PCBs at 

concentrations ≥ 1 ppm and < 50 ppm; ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm; ≥ 500 ppm and < 100,000 ppm; 

and ≥ 100,000 ppm. EPA seeks this information for the following non-liquid filled equipment 

types: transformers, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit 

breakers, reclosers, rectifiers, and any other equipment populations (such as paper insulated lead 

cable and bushings). EPA’s questions about electrical equipment which contains non-liquid 

PCBs at concentrations ≥1 ppm are located in Unit XIV.M. 

11. Impact of vandalism and theft on the risk from PCBs. There is recent evidence about 

the vandalism and theft of copper from copper-containing equipment. The presence of PCBs in 

equipment subject to vandalism incidents would could increase potential risk not only to the 

vandal, but to others in the area. In particular, EPA is concerned about areas which may not be 

directly contaminated from the nearby equipment impacted by vandalism but also areas where 

spilled PCBs from that vandalism might be expected to migrate and accumulate such as lowlying residential neighborhoods and cropland. EPA solicits data on the number of units lost and 

the cost from losses from vandalism and theft of electrical transformers; railroad transformers; 

mining equipment; heat transfer systems; hydraulic systems; electromagnets; switches; voltage 

regulators; electrical capacitors; circuit breakers; reclosers; liquid-filled cable; and rectifiers. 

EPA seeks information on the rate of occurrence of vandalism events involving PCB-containing 

equipment in each calendar year starting from 1998 until 2008, including how many gallons of 

oil have been lost from equipment and what has been the cost from this loss of oil. EPA’s 

questions about the impact of vandalism and theft on the risk from PCBs are located in Unit 

XIV.N. 

12. Fraudulent export for scrap metal recovery. EPA is also aware of the practice of 

equipment owners and servicers selling EPA is concerned about the potential for incidents where 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 24 of of 52 

used electrical equipment for the purpose of export is exported for purported reuse, but where the 

equipment is actually scrapped or smelted for recovery of metal components. Information has 

been anecdotally reported by (a) equipment owners, who are solicited as sellers, and (b) 

governments of foreign countries, who have facilities which are either recipients of this 

equipment or transit stations for further shipment. Elimination of the totally enclosed 

determination for distribution in commerce will restrict the fraudulent practice of export of 

equipment in the guise of reuse, when the exported equipment will not be used, properly 

reclassified/decontaminated, or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. EPA is 

concerned that metal recycling facilities may not manage the exported equipment and the PCBs 

in an environmentally sound manner; and scrap metal management workers may not be protected 

from exposure to PCBs or even know that PCBs are present in the exported equipment. 

13. Reclassification of askarel transformers. EPA’s reclassification rulemaking of 2001 

was based on limited information from askarel transformers. EPA has anecdotal informationis 

concerned that reclassification of askarel transformers (which were manufactured to contain 

≥500,000 ppm PCBs) is generally ineffective because PCBs leach back out of internal 

components several years after the active processing to reclassify is completed. This information 

seems plausible because of the nature of the inner structure of transformers. EPA is considering 

whether to restrict the reclassification option to electrical equipment which at the time of 

manufacture contains < 10,000 ppm (< 1%) PCBs, based on the inability to drain and flush PCBs 

efficiently from askarel PCB equipment. EPA’s questions about the reclassification of askarel 

transformers are located in Unit XIV.O. 

14. Registration of PCB large capacitors. PCBs were formulated at concentrations from 

about 75 weight percent to about 100 weight percent (or 750,000 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm) in 

capacitors (Ref. 3646). Therefore, the amount of PCBs in the smallest PCB large capacitor, 

which contains 1.36 kilograms (kg) or 3 pounds of dielectric fluid, is about 1.02 kg. (or about 

2.25 pounds). There could be as much PCBs of the same PCB formulation in the smallest PCB 

large capacitor as the approximately the same amount of PCBs in a transformer which contains 

600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs in mineral oil dielectric fluid. The regulations currently require 

that a mineral oil transformer containing 600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs and even a much smaller

one-gallon transformer containing 500 ppm of PCBs in mineral oil dielectric fluid to be 

registered with EPA. In order to protect first responders and others who might potentially be 

accidentally exposed to PCBs from PCB large capacitors, EPA is assessing whether to require 

registration of some or all PCB capacitors currently in use with EPA. EPA could publish and 

post the register of the capacitors on the EPA PCB website as it has the Transformer Registration 

Database. 

B. Railroad Transformers (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(b)) 

At the time of the1979 rulemaking there were a limited number of PCB transformers used 

on electric railroad engines and cars. The railroads where the askarel PCB equipment was used 

were located in the northeastern part of the country, mainly in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and 

New York (Ref. 3747). Because of the known leakage from this equipment and the requirement 

for frequent servicing, EPA found that the distribution in commerce of this equipment was not 

totally enclosed. The leaks from the use of this equipment have resulted in Superfund PCB 

cleanups of some Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) track areas. 

EPA assumes that by now, all of the PCB railroad transformers have either been removed from 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 25 of of 52 

service or the dielectric fluid has been replaced and that all railway transformers are now 

operating with dielectric fluid which contains < 50 ppm PCBs. EPA seeks comments on the 

continued use of PCBs in railroad transformers, and is considering eliminating the authorization 

for the use of PCBs in railroad transformers at concentrations greater than 1 ppm. EPA’s 

questions about the railroad transformers are located in Unit XIV.P. 

C. Mining Equipment (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(c)) 

 In 1978, there were only very limited uses of PCBs in electric motors in fewer than 1,000 

mining machines (Ref. 2). The motors were manufactured in the 1960s and early 1970s by one 

company and used in machinery manufactured by another company. The PCBs were used as a 

motor coolant. Because of its operating conditions, this equipment must frequently be rebuilt. 

Based on the small usage in 1979 and the expected relative short life of this limited use 

population, EPA believes it is likely that PCBs are no longer used in the motors of mining 

equipment. EPA seeks comments on whether there is any continued use of PCBs in such electric 

motors in mining equipment and whether EPA should eliminate the authorization for the use of 

PCBs in mining equipment at concentrations > 1 ppm. EPA’s questions about mining equipment 

are located in Unit XIV.Q. 

D. Heat Transfer Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(d)) and Hydraulic Systems (Regulated 

at 40 CFR 761.30(e)) 

 Heat transfer systems and hydraulic systems have been authorized for use since 1984, 

when they contain PCBs at concentrations < 50 ppm. Because of the common leakage from this 

equipment and the frequent requirement for servicing, the distribution in commerce of this 

equipment was not found to be totally enclosed. The regulatory provisions for this equipment at 

40 CFR 761.30(d) and (e) have been in place for almost 25 years. EPA seeks information on the 

number of these units, their types, and how frequently draining and refilling takes place. Because 

these types of equipment are often serviced by draining and refilling with new PCB-free fluid, 

today, EPA believes it is likely that any residual PCBs present in equipment that was in use in 

1984, has been diluted through servicing to a concentration far below 50 ppm. There may be no 

reason to continue an authorization of PCBs in equipment at measurable concentrations. EPA 

seeks information demonstrating a need to continue to use PCBs in heat transfer systems and 

hydraulic systems at concentrations greater than 1 ppm. 

E. Carbonless Copy Paper (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(f)) 

 In 1979, there were many files containing carbonless copy paper. EPA does not have 

information on whether the information on this paper 30-year old, thin carbon copy paper is 

legible today, and if it is not legible, why it cannot be disposed of. Thirty years later it may be 

feasible and economical to convert any necessary, legible information and records from 

carbonless copy paper to a different storage medium. EPA seeks information on the volume of 

records on carbonless copy paper, the records’ locations, and the types of business, government 

agencies, or other holders of such documents. EPA would like to know whether holders of such 

documents are smaller or larger businesses, and whether the size or type of the business would 

affect the economic feasibility of document conversion. EPA seeks comments on whether 

carbonless copy paper containing PCBs is still in use and whether there is a need to continue the 

existing use authorization for this paper. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 26 of of 52 

F. Continued Use of Porous Surfaces Contaminated with PCBs Regulated for Disposal by Spills 

of Liquid PCBs (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(p)) 

EPA is considering changing 40 CFR 761.30(p) to reflect the continued potential risk 

from contaminated porous surfaces. The original intent of this authorization was to provide 

temporary relief from the requirement to dispose of contaminated concrete or other porous 

surfaces underneath pad-mounted or other electrical equipment, which is used to distribute 

electricity. The temporary relief was authorized in order to avoid creating a long, unplanned 

power outage but to use the contaminated porous surfaces in accordance with conditions in 40 

CFR 761.30(u) until there was an opportunity to dispose of the contaminated porous surfaces. 

Assumptions that EPA used in its evaluation of risk were based on a short-term exposure to the 

contaminated porous surface and economic issues related to an unplanned outage. The no 

unreasonable risk determination used for this authorization was based on short-term exposure 

scenarios. The assessment presumed that after sufficient time had passed, owners would have 

found a way to cleanup and plan an outage of sufficient duration to meet the use authorization 

requirements in 40 CFR 761.30(u).

Owners of liquid–filled equipment have had thirty years to remove, reclassify, or replace 

equipment and up to an additional ten years after the 1998 authorization to plan how to remove 

the contamination and meet the requirements in 40 CFR 761.30(u) for use of decontaminated 

materials. Persons who are potentially exposed to contaminated porous surfaces should be 

protected from air emissions, which are not eliminated under the existing use authorizations by 

encapsulation or metal covers. EPA believes that additional precautions may be necessary in 

order to ensure that PCB-contaminated porous surfaces are cleaned up, including limiting the 

situations and locations when this authorization can be used; requiring notification to EPA of the 

interim measure, and requiring management in accordance with the risk present, such as with 

specified institutional controls, for a limited amount of time (after the date of the final 

rulemaking). Otherwise, the porous surfaces should be decontaminated or removed and disposed 

of in an approved facility. Without these precautions, the contamination could migrate or be 

forgotten, presenting risks for an unsuspecting new owner or cleanup sites EPA under Superfund. 

EPA believes that all PCB–containing equipment, which is in place and has leaked at least once 

to cause contamination of porous surfaces, should be reclassified or the PCB-containing 

equipment should be removed from service and disposed of. EPA also believes that the PCBs in 

the contaminated porous surfaces should be managed for disposal like any other PCB remediation 

waste by either decontamination to unrestricted use or with institutional and engineering controls 

and deed restrictions. 

EPA also intends to clarify that the qualifying event for the §761.30(p) use authorization 

is a spill of liquid material containing PCBs at a specified concentration in ppm. The surface 

concentration after the spill, or after any remediation, is irrelevant with respect to this 

authorization. EPA also believes the authorization should follow the themes of: (a) remove and 

dispose of the PCBs; and (b) reclassify, reuse or dispose of equipment. EPA believes that leaking 

equipment is a sign of additional equipment problems in the future and that leaking equipment 

should be reclassified and removed for repairs. While the equipment is being repaired, any 

contaminated porous surfaces must be cleaned up before the equipment can be reused at the same 

location. EPA’s questions about the use of contaminated porous surfaces are located in Unit 

XIV.R. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 27 of of 52 

G. Use in Fluid and Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(i), 40 CFR 761.30(s), and 40 CFR 761.30(t)) 

 In comments on the June 7, 1978, proposed rule (43 FR 24802), which was finalized in 

1979, two natural gas transmission companies claimed that they had PCBs in turbine 

compressors at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm, but they could not reduce these concentrations to levels 

< 50 ppm in the near future. One company claimed to have removed all of the PCB turbine oil in 

1972. The companies claimed that the PCBs would not leak out of the compressors into other 

parts of the natural gas pipeline system. In the May 31, 1979 final rule (44 FR 31514), EPA 

prohibited the use of PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm in natural gas pipeline systems, effective 

as of May 1, 1980. 

In the early 1980s, PCBs were found in a cold trap in the gas line outside a home in New 

York. In 1981, EPA entered into agreements with thirteen natural gas transmission companies 

which had PCBs at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in their systems but outside of turbine compressors 

(Ref. 3848). 

It is not clear exactly how the PCBs entered the systems if they did not come from the 

turbine compressors. After nearly 30 years of operations and after all known sources of PCBs 

were removed from these systems, EPA has information indicating that PCBs at levels ≥50 ppm 

continue to be found in natural gas pipeline systems including within equipment which is not 

specifically designed to collect such material. EPA believes that the authorized use conditions in 

the current regulations should have resulted in companies removing PCBs to the extent that there 

no longer are PCBs in the systems at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm. 

EPA is considering requiring sampling and analyzing individual condensate samples (not 

composites or accumulations) to determine the extent of the PCB contamination when any person 

finds PCBs in any pipeline system at concentrations ≥ 1 ppm. Owners would be required to 

analyze condensate from surrounding areas to confirm that regulated PCBs were not present in 

the system. Regardless of the original or current source of the PCBs, owners would report results 

of ≥ 50 ppm findings to EPA. EPA is also considering whether to propose ending the use 

authorization for PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1 ppm in these systems by 2020. In this phasedown 

approach, owners would also be required to analyze current condensate in areas having historical 

PCB measurements to confirm the absence of PCBs during the period prior to the final phaseout 

date. If PCBs are found, owners would have to demonstrate they have reduced PCB 

concentrations to < 1 ppm or have implemented engineering controls similar to the current 

requirements in 40 CFR 761.30(i)(1)(iii)(A)(4) to reduce and prevent migration of PCB impacted 

material. EPA seeks comments on the continued use of PCBs in fluid and gas transmission and 

distribution systems. EPA’s questions about use in gas transmission and distribution systems are 

located in Unit XIV.S. 

 EPA has little information on the need to continue the use authorizations at 40 CFR 

761.30(s) for air compressor systems and 40 CFR 761.30(t) for other gas or liquid transmission 

systems. The ten years that these authorizations have been in place should have allowed owners 

sufficient time to purge the PCBs from their systems. EPA is considering whether to terminate or 

significantly limit the duration of these authorizations. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 28 of of 52 

H. Use in Research and Development (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(j), Scientific Instruments 

(Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(k)), and Decontaminated Materials (Regulated at 40 CFR 

761.30(u)). 

EPA is not currently planning to reassess the authorizations for: use in research and 

development; scientific instruments; and decontaminated materials. However, EPA welcomes 

comments on these use authorizations. 

I. No Use Authorization for PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment Parts 

 There is no use authorization for parts or detached ancillary equipment, such as bushings, 

for electrical equipment when separate from that equipment. Bushings contain insulating 

material separated from the primary equipment's insulating fluid. Bushings may be removed 

from equipment during servicing or transportation. Utilities have told EPA that it is necessary to 

store bushings for reuse, especially for large transmission electrical equipment. EPA has said in 

question-and-answer documents that bushings may be stored for reuse. EPA has also said by 

policy letter that a bushing, when it is attached to a transformer, is regulated the same as the 

dielectric fluid in the transformer casing. However, there is no use authorization in 40 CFR part 

761, subpart B, for disconnected spare parts that contain PCBs, such as bushings, which are no 

longer attached to or associated with a specific article of authorized equipment. EPA seeks 

information on the feasibility of reclassifying bushings or other ancillary equipment, which can 

be used as spare parts. EPA seeks information on the economic value of continuing to maintain 

such PCB-containing parts and ancillary equipment in inventories of utility companies and 

industrial facilities. EPA’s questions about the use of PCB containing electrical equipment parts 

are located in Unit XIV.Y. 

J. Reassessment of the Possible Authorization of the Use of Some Non-Liquid PCB-Containing 

Products 

The use of PCBs at concentrations of 50ppm or greater in caulk products, regardless of 

whether the PCBs were created by an inadvertent chemical reaction during the manufacturing 

process or were added to the caulk afterward, is not currently authorized under TSCA section 6. 

EPA requests comments on whether the use of PCBs in caulk should be authorized, and what 

data or other information is available on which to evaluate the risks and benefits of the use of 

PCB-containing caulk. EPA’s questions about authorization of some non-liquid PCB containing 

products are located in Unit XIV.Z. 

VIII. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.35) 

 EPA established limits on storage of PCB articles for reuse at 40 CFR 761.35. These 

limits were established to curtail storage practices which were not in keeping with the statutory 

objectives of: (1) a general ban on use with limited exceptions, (2) quick disposal of PCBcontaining equipment which was no longer used or usable, and (3) protection of human health 

and the environment from risks presented by PCBs. 

When the PCB regulations were first promulgated in the late 1970's, EPA recognized that 

it might be necessary to have PCB-containing spare equipment to press into use when other new 

or reasonably new equipment needed to be replaced. However, nearly thirty years later, the 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 29 of of 52 

demand for PCB-containing equipment replacements should be much lower. EPA has 

information indicating that the older unused PCB equipment, now 30 years old or older, does 

emit PCBs even when sealed and still can leak even when it is not energized. EPA also seeks 

information about whether stored non-askarel equipment could be reclassified while it is in 

storage for reuse. EPA also is concerned that equipment, which is stored for reuse outside of a 

secure storage facility, is more susceptible to potential releases of PCBs to the environment from

accidents, both weather-related and the result of the owner’s activities, and to vandalism or theft. 

EPA seeks information on the location of equipment being stored for reuse, especially in 

relationship to the equipment it is to replace. EPA seeks information on the economic value of 

continuing to maintain PCB-containing equipment which is not in use, in inventories of utility 

companies and industrial facilities. EPA’s questions about storage for reuse of PCB Articles are 

located in Unit XIV.T.

IX. Distribution in Commerce of Electrical Equipment (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.20) 

 PCBs have been measured in the ambient air coming from PCB-containing equipment in 

storage for disposal in an approved PCB storage facility. Information about the measurement of 

PCBs in the ambient environment around stored electrical equipment indicates that aging 

equipment appears to no longer be air tight, even if seemingly “intact and non-leaking” upon 

cursory visual inspection (Ref. 11). If this stored equipment is not airtight, there must also be 

releases during use and transportation (distribution in commerce) of this equipment, despite its 

deenergized state. EPA is also concerned about and seeks information on the frequency of PCB 

surface contamination on this equipment and the practice of routine inspection for the presence of 

residual PCB surface contamination on equipment, by using a standard wipe test. For this reason 

EPA questions whether the historical determination that distribution in commerce of PCBs in 

electrical equipment still can be considered totally enclosed in accordance with TSCA section 

6(e)(2)(C). Elimination of distribution in commerce of this PCB-containing equipment for reuse 

could also prevent the fraudulent practice of a guise of resale for reuse. One fraudulent practice 

is a claim of the export of regulated PCB-containing equipment for reuse to avoid proper 

domestic reclassification or disposal, when the equipment is intended only for foreign scrap metal 

recovery. EPA’s questions about distribution in commerce are located in Unit XIV.U. 

X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 ppm Level for Excluded PCB Products, in 

Particular for PCBs in Caulk 

 The level of 50 ppm has been used in PCB use regulations since 1979. Based on 

regulatory history, this number is based almost entirely on economic considerations. There are 

no traditional exposure and risk assessment calculations (Ref. 3, 8). EPA seeks comments on the 

application of the value of 50 ppm as the upper value in the definition of Excluded PCB products 

in 40 CFR 761.3. One such excluded product is PCBs in caulk where PCBs are present at 

concentrations < 50 ppm. EPA is seeking comment and any supporting data or other information 

on whether the number 50 ppm should be changed given the recent realization that the use of 

PCBs in caulk may be widespread and may be an undue burden for schools if the exclusion 

continues at 50 ppm. EPA’s questions about distribution in commerce are located in Unit XIV.X. 

XI. 40 CFR §761.3 Definitional Changes under Consideration 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 30 of of 52 

 EPA is considering proposing changes to the following definitions found at §761.3, and 

solicits comments on these changes. 

A. PCB Articles

 The definition of PCB Articles in §761.3 includes transformers and capacitors, but it has 

no mention of size or the volume of liquid contained in the article. EPA is considering changing 

this definition to regulate equipment containing ≥ 0.05 liters (approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of 

dielectric fluid. Definitions for Capacitor, PCB Capacitor, PCB Transformer, and PCBcontaminated Electrical Equipment would be adjusted accordingly. This revision would 

correspond to minimum volumes for liquid-filled equipment found in the Stockholm Convention. 

 

 EPA seeks information on the type and volume of PCB products that would be affected 

by such changes in the definition, as well as the cost, economic and other impacts of these 

changes. 

B. Excluded Manufacturing Process

The current definition states, “The concentration of inadvertently generated PCBs in 

products leaving any manufacturing site or imported into the United States must have an annual 

average of less than 25 ppm, with a 50 ppm maximum.” EPA is considering whether to eliminate 

the annual average and whether the maximum concentration should be set at < 1 ppm. EPA’s 

questions about excluded manufacturing processes are located in Unit XIV.V. 

C. Recycled PCBs

 The current definition states, “The concentration of PCBs in paper products leaving any 

manufacturing site processing paper products or paper products imported into the United States 

must have an annual average of less than 25 ppm, with a 50 ppm maximum.” EPA is considering 

whether to revise the annual average and whether the maximum should be set at < 1 

ppm.lowered. Additionally, the definition requires the release of PCBs to ambient air at any 

point be at concentrations < 10 ppm. EPA is considering whether the maximum allowable PCB 

concentration released to air should be < 1 ppm (<1 microgram per cubic meter [μg/m3]).lowered 

to be consistent what the Agency has said about PCB exposures from PCBs in caulk. (Ref. 49) 

EPA’s questions about recycled PCBs are located in Unit XIV.W. 

D. Quantifiable Level/Level of Detection 

 In the years since this definition was first promulgated, analytical measurement 

technology has improved so that the current quantitation level/level of detection is lower. Today, 

the quantitation level in mineral oil dielectric fluid (MODEF) can be as low as, or lower than, 1 

ppm and the level of detection can be as low as, or lower than, 0.5 ppm. The 

quanitiationquantitation level and level of detection in other media such as air and water can be 

three orders of magnitude or more lower than the values for MODEF. EPA has found that in 

some scenarios, exposure to PCBs at low concentrations greater than 1 ppm can be found to 

result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA is evaluating whether 

to change this definition to reflect to most current science, and solicits any information regarding 

such a change. 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 31 of of 52 

XII. Marking of All PCB Articles 

EPA is considering requiring marking of all PCB Articles, which includes electrical 

equipment containing ≥ 50 ppm PCBs, and all storage areas. Some ≥ 50 ppm PCBs Items are 

already required to be marked in 40 CFR 761.40: 

 Aboveground sources of PCB liquids in natural gas pipeline systems. 

 PCB Containers. 

 Electric motors using PCB coolants. 

 Hydraulic systems using PCB hydraulic fluid. 

 PCB Heat transfer systems. 

 PCB Article Containers. 

 Areas used to store PCBs and PCB Items for disposal. 

 Transportation vehicles transporting more than 45 kg or 99.5 lbs of items containing ≥ 50 

ppm liquids, containers of ≥ 50 ppm liquids, or one (or more) PCB transformers. 

 EPA discussed concerns about PCB releases from liquid filled equipment, regardless of 

concentration, during natural disasters in Unit VI.A.5. The consequences of natural disasters and 

other events such as automobile collisions with equipment and vandalism (e.g. shots from 

firearms), may be more significant when damaging older and over-loaded electrical equipment. 

In addition to those persons who might be accidentally exposed, it is important that public 

emergency responders as well as owners/maintainers be advised of the PCB content of PCBs in 

use or those catastrophically released from use as quickly as possible. In addition, residents and 

the public in proximity to regulated equipment have the right to know of the presence of PCBs. 

Many owners already know the locations of and have already marked PCB-contaminated 

equipment. EPA believes that marking of PCB-contaminated equipment also aids in planning 

management of equipment during transportation and storage for disposal. A possible requirement 

under consideration is for owners to locate and label PCB-contaminated equipment. This would 

require an owner to take additional labeling action beyond what is required in the current 

regulations for the use of PCB-contaminated equipment and the assumptions in 40 CFR 761.2. 

Once equipment was marked for use, it would not need to be re-marked at the time of disposal. 

In Unit VI.A.3, EPA has asked for specific numbers of PCB-contaminated equipment and the 

size of populations of equipment which is assumed by regulation to contain PCBs ≥ 50 ppm. 

XIII. Public Participation 

 In addition to the requests for information and comments contained in this document, 

EPA intends to involve stakeholders through a series of public meetings taking place in locations 

across the country. The purpose of these meetings is to receive stakeholder comments on the 

issue of EPA’s reassessment of PCB use authorizations, including the questions described in Unit 

XIV of this document. 

A. Meeting Dates and Locations 

 The meetings will be held as follows: 

In Chicago, IL [Exact date, time, and address of meeting locationIn Chicago, IL April 1, 

2010 from 1:00 p.m. to be added]5:00 p.m. at EPA Region 5 offices.
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 32 of of 52 

In Atlanta, GA [Exact date, time, and address of meeting locationIn New York, NY April 

8, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to be added]5:00 p.m. at EPA Region 2 offices

In Seattle, WA [Exact date, time, and address of meeting locationat EPA Region 10 

offices

In Atlanta, GA April 21, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to be added]5:00 p.m. at EPA Region 4 

offices

In Dallas, TX [Exact date, time, and address of meeting location to be added]

In Washington, DC [Exact date, time, and address of meeting locationApril 28, 2010 from 

1:00 p.m. to be added]5:00 p.m. at EPA Headquarters EPA East Room 1153, 1201 

Constitution Avenue, NW 

B. Meeting Procedures 

 For additional information on the scheduled meetings, please see the EPA PCB website 

(http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) or contact Christine Zachek at (202) 

566-2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov. 

 The meetings will be open to the public. To ensure that all interested parties will have an 

opportunity to comment in the allotted time, oral presentations or statements will be limited to 10 

minutes. EPA therefore recommends that stakeholders who present oral comments also submit 

written comments following the instructions provided under ADDRESSES. Interested parties are 

encouraged to contact the technical person at least 10 days prior to the meeting to schedule 

presentations. Since seating for outside observers will be limited, those wishing to attend the 

meetings as observers are also encouraged to contact the technical person at the earliest possible 

date, but no later than 10 days before the meetings, to ensure adequate seating arrangements. 

 To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Christine Zachek at (202) 566-

2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA 

as much time as possible to process your request. 

XIV. Request for Comment and Additional Information 

EPA invites public comment and any additional information in response to the questions 

identified in Unit XIV.A through Unit XIV.AA. Unit I.B. contains a description of points 

commenters should consider when preparing comments for submission to EPA, including how to 

submit any comments that contain CBI. No one is obliged to respond to these questions, and 

anyone may submit any information and/or comments in response to this request, whether or not 

it responds to every question below.

A. Populations of Transformers (containing greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid) 

1. What percentage of your entire transformer inventory in use or storage for reuse was 

manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 

date? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What 

percentage of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, and 50 years old? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 33 of of 52 

2. Of the inventory information provided in the previous question, how does the 

percentage differ for the following applications: transmission, substation, pole top and pad 

mount? 

3. What percentage of your transformer population consists of PCB transformers? How 

many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major 

interstate utilities, municipal utilities, cooperative utilities, industrial owners, and other groups? 

4. What percentage of your transformer population consists of PCB-Contaminated 

transformers? How many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population 

compare for major interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other 

groups? 

5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially (based on year 

of manufacture and other information) contaminated equipment? Do you know where all 

regulated PCB equipment is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB 

transformers? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB transformers? Have you 

removed all mineral oil containing PCB-contaminated transformers? 

6. What percentage of the transformer population consists of transformers which contain 

measurable PCBs between 1 and 50 ppm and were manufactured before July 31, 1979? How 

many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major 

interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 

7. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within ten years the 

PCBs from the transformers through reclassification and disposing of the transformers, versus 

disposing of the transformers without reclassification at the end of their useful life? 

8. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used 

outdoors? 

9. Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning 

system coordinates or maps, is the PCB containing equipment located? What is the age of the 

PCB containing equipment at each of these locations? 

10. What active or passive safety systems and equipment are installed and operating for 

PCB containing equipment, including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, remote 

monitoring systems and capture basins? 

B. Populations of Electromagnets, Switches, and Voltage Regulators (containing greater than 2 

fluid ounces of dielectric fluid) 

1. What percentage of your entire electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators 

inventory in use or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all 

years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, please 

provide alternative information, such as: What percent of the entire transformer inventory is 30 

years old, 40 years old, and 50 years old? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 34 of of 52 

2. What percentage of the electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators population 

contains dielectric fluid with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm PCB? How many units are in each 

population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, 

municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 

3. The original use authorization for electromagnets was for a very restricted number of 

known applications in coal mine processing operations. How many electromagnets in these coal 

mining operations still use PCBs? 

4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially (based on year 

of manufacture and other information) contaminated electromagnets, switches, and voltage 

regulators? Do you know where all regulated PCB-containing electromagnets, switches, and 

voltage regulators are currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Have you removed all mineral oil containing 

PCB electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Have you removed all mineral oil 

containing PCB-contaminated electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? 

5. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the PCB-containing 

electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators and disposing of them within ten years, versus 

disposing of the electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators at the end of their useful life? 

6. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used 

outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning 

system coordinates or maps, is the PCB containing equipment located? 

7. What is the age of the PCB containing equipment at each of these locations? 

8. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed and operating, 

including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, and capture basins? 

C. Populations of Electrical Capacitors (containing greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric 

fluid) 

1. What percentage of your entire capacitor inventory in use or stored for reuse was 

manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 

2007? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What 

percentage of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old or 50 years old? 

2. How does the percentage differ of these 30, 40, and 50 year-old and older capacitors 

for the following applications: transmission, substation, pole top and pad mount? 

3. What percentage of the total capacitor population is made up of PCB large capacitors? 

How many units are in this population? How does the percent and population compare for major 

interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 

4. What percentage of your capacitor population is PCB-contaminated? How many units 

are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate 

utilities, municipals cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 35 of of 52 

5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially (based on year 

of manufacture and other information) contaminated equipment? Do you know where all 

regulated PCB equipment is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB 

capacitors? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB capacitors? Have you removed all 

mineral oil containing PCB-contaminated capacitors? 

 

6. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the regulated PCB 

capacitors and disposing them within ten years as opposed to at the end of the useful life of the 

capacitors? 

7. How many PCB capacitors which are still in active use (not stored for reuse) contain ≥

2 ounces of dielectric fluid and < 3 pounds of dielectric fluid? 

8. What is the best way to determine whether a capacitor contains ≥ 2 ounces of 

dielectric fluid other than reading a nameplate or actually draining and weighing the dielectric 

fluid? 

9. What are the most likely minimum dimensions of a capacitor, which contains 2 or 

more ounces of PCB dielectric fluid? 

10. What percentage of the total population of PCB capacitors that are currently in use 

contain ≥ 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid and 1.36 kg. (< 3 

pounds) of dielectric fluid? 

11. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within ten years the 

PCBs from the PCB capacitors and disposing of them versus disposing of the PCB capacitors at 

the end of their useful life? 

12. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used 

outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning 

system coordinates or maps, is the PCB containing equipment located? 

13. What is the age of the PCB containing equipment at each of these locations? 

14. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed and operating, 

including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, and capture basins? 

D. Populations of Circuit Breakers, Reclosers, and Liquid-filled Cable (containing greater than 

2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid) 

1. What percentage of circuit breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables inventory in use 

or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and 

all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, please provide alternative 

information, such as: What percent of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years 

old and 50 years old? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 36 of of 52 

2. What percentage in each population of your circuit breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled 

cable population contains dielectric fluid with PCB concentrations ≥ 50 ppm is PCB? How many 

units are in each population? 

3. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially contaminated 

breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables? Do you know where all regulated PCB breakers, 

reclosers, and liquid-filled cables are currently located? Have you removed all circuit breakers, 

reclosers, and liquid-filled cables containing mineral oil with ≥50 ppm PCBs-contaminated 

circuit breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables? 

4. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within ten years the PCB 

breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables and disposing of them versus disposing of the PCB 

breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables at the end of their useful life? 

5. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used 

outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning 

system coordinates or maps, is the PCB containing equipment located? 

6. What is the age of the PCB containing equipment at each of these locations? 

7. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed and operating, 

including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, and capture basins? 

E. Populations of Rectifiers (containing greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid) 

1. What percentage of your rectifiers inventory in use or stored for reuse was 

manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 

2007? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What 

percentage of the entire rectifier inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old and 50 years old? 

2. What percentage of your rectifier population contains dielectric fluid with PCB 

concentrations ≥ 50 ppm PCBs? How many units are in this population? 

3. What percentage of your rectifier population is PCB-contaminated? How many units 

are in this population? 

4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially contaminated 

rectifiers? Do you know where all regulated PCB rectifiers are currently located? Have you 

removed all askarel PCB rectifiers? Have you removed all rectifiers containing mineral oil with 

≥500 ppm PCBs? Have you removed all rectifiers containing mineral oil with ≥50 ppm and <500 

ppm PCBs? 

5. What percent of electrical utilities and other owners has removed all mineral oil PCB 

rectifiers? 

6. What percent of electrical utilities and other owners has removed all mineral oil PCBcontaminated rectifiers? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 37 of of 52 

7. What would be the estimated cost (and why) for removing these PCB rectifiers and 

disposing of them within 10 years as opposed to at the end of the useful life of the rectifiers? 

8. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used 

outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning 

system coordinates or maps, is the PCB containing equipment located? 

9. What is the age of the PCB containing equipment at each of these locations? 

10. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed and operating, 

including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, and capture basins? 

F. Servicing 

1. How long does servicing extend the useful service life of each type of equipment? 

2. How does servicing alter the likelihood of equipment failures? 

3. How does servicing change the ultimate likelihood of the release of PCBs? 

G. Failure of Vintage PCB-containing Electrical Equipment 

1. How do failure rates differ for equipment which has been rebuilt or serviced in 

particular ways, relative to equipment that remains substantially as it was originally installed? 

 

2. EPA seeks information to project the rate, location, and amount of PCB releases, and 

the causes of the releases. For example, what are the risks of failure involving electrical surges, 

insulation failure, or electrical fires as compared to the rupture of the tanks containing the PCBs? 

3. What percentage of the entire transformer inventory, which was in use or storage for 

reuse and which was manufactured before July 31, 1979, failed in the following time periods: 

a. All years between January 1, 1940 and December 31, 1949; 

b. Each year between 1950 and 1980; and 

c. All years from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 2008? 

 

4. If this information is not available, please provide information for alternate time 

intervals. 

 

5. What forms of preventive maintenance or remote monitoring are used to warn owners 

or operators of a potential or impending equipment failure? 

6. With respect to a company’s PCB-containing equipment, on what equipment are these 

or other preventive maintenance or remote monitoring techniques employed? 

7. For drainable and refillable mineral oil containing PCB articles, how do the purchase 

price and operational costs for this approach compare to reclassification for transformers or 

reclassifiable equipment? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 38 of of 52 

8. How do failure rates differ for equipment which has been rebuilt or serviced in 

particular ways, compared to equipment that remains substantially as it was originally installed? 

9. What have been and are the insurance costs for the replacement of failed PCB 

containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment over the past 30 years? 

10. How would these insurance costs for the replacement of failed PCB containing 

equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment be expected to change in the next 

twenty years? 

H. Damage to Equipment During Severe Weather Events 

1. What kind of steps can be taken to prevent release of dielectric fluid from damage 

during adverse severe weather events such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, and earthquakes? 

2. What is the cost per unit of these steps compared to the cost of: removal and disposal 

of askarel containing units; or reclassification or removal and disposal of the mineral oil 

containing units? 

3. What is the cost to cleanup an average catastrophic weather release of dielectric fluid 

and the disposal of the waste and the equipment plus any damages to private or public property? 

4. How does this cleanup and related costs compare to the cost of: removal and disposal 

of askarel containing units; or reclassification or removal and disposal of the mineral oil 

containing units? 

5. What have been and are the insurance costs as the result of damage from severe 

weather events for the replacement of failed PCB containing equipment and cleanup of PCB 

spills from this equipment over the past 30 years? 

6. How would these insurance costs as the result of damage from severe weather events 

for the replacement of failed PCB containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this 

equipment be expected to change in the next twenty years? 

7. How has the weather-related liability insurance cost changed for owners of PCB 

containing equipment over the last 30 years? Over the last 20 years? Over the last 5 years? 

8. EPA seeks information on the rate of occurrence of severe weather events involving 

PCB-containing equipment in each calendar year starting from 1998 until 2008. 

a. What types of equipment were involved? 

b. Where was the equipment located (indoors or outdoors)? 

c. Did spills occur as a result of the severe weather events? 

d. What was the amount released in gallons of liquid, and if PCBs were presents what 

was the concentration in ppm? 

e. How much liquid was contained and recovered? 

f. What human health or environmental exposure and effects were observed or 

recorded? 

g. How were the exposures and effects estimated or measured? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 39 of of 52 

I. Alternatives to PCB Liquids 

1. What are the PCB substitutes currently available commercially?

2. What are the human health and environmental effects of exposure to PCB substitutes 

when they are released to the environment? 

23. What are the human health and property damage risks due to the flammability 

properties of the PCB substitutes? 

34. What is the likelihood that equipment containing the PCB substitutes have releases of 

the substitute materials, compared with the likelihood that equipment containing PCBs have 

releases of PCBs? 

5. What other information about PCB substitutes is available that would inform EPA’s 

consideration of the trade-offs that would be required by a PCB phase-out?

J. Removal and Replacement Costs 

1. How many PCB liquid disposal companies have been operating at the end of each year 

for the last ten years? 

2. How many PCB equipment (drained or undrained) disposal companies have been 

operating at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

3. What has the average disposal cost been for a gallon of PCB oil containing ≥ 50 ppm - 

and < 500 ppm at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

4. What has been the average disposal cost been for a gallon PCB oil containing from ≥

500 ppm - to ≤ 10,000 ppm at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

5. What has been the average disposal cost been for a gallon or of askarel oil containing 

>100,000 ppm PCBs at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

6. What has been the average cost per ton been for disposing of drained, oil-filled 

equipment, which contained ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCB at the end of each year for the last ten 

years? 

7. What has been the average cost per ton been for disposing of drained, oil-filled 

equipment which contained ≥ 500 ppm PCB at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

8. What has been the average cost per ton been for disposing of drained askarel-filled 

equipment (> 100,000) ppm PCB at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

9. What has been the average cost per pound, per ton or per kilovolt amp (KVA) been for 

recycling the metal from drained oil-filled transformers which contained ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 

ppm PCB at the end of each year for the last ten years? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 40 of of 52 

10. What sorts of incentives might enable organizations with limited budgets to remove 

regulated PCBs and PCB equipment for their systems and facilities? 

K. PCB Waste Disposal Capacity 

1. What has been the permitted PCB disposal capacity for liquid PCBs for companies 

which have been operating at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

2. At what average percent of permitted PCB disposal capacity have the PCB liquid 

disposal companies operated per year for the last ten years? 

3. What has been the permitted PCB disposal capacity for drained PCB equipment for 

companies which have been operating at the end of each year for the last ten years? 

4. At what average percent of permitted PCB disposal capacity have the drained PCB 

equipment disposal companies operated per year for the last ten years? 

5. For a transformer containing 100 gallons of 250 ppm oil, how does the cost compare 

for: 

a. Reclassifying to a non PCB transformer (draining, refilling with new/clean oil, and 

disposing of the PCB oil and reusing the transformer)? Reclassifying to a 

transformer containing < 1 ppm PCBs? 

 b. Disposing of the oil and landfilling the drained carcass? 

 c. Disposing of the oil and recovering the metal for recycling? 

L. Current Management Practices for Equipment (Other than Equipment included in Unit XIV. 

A-F) 

 1. If you are a PCB equipment owner, which of the following have you completed: 

a. Identified all PCB-containing equipment? 

b. Routinely tested equipment for its PCB content? 

c. Tested all equipment known or assumed to contain PCBs? 

d. Reclassified known PCB equipment or equipment, which is newly tested and 

found to be positive for PCBs? 

e. Disposed of, without recycling metals, known PCB equipment, or equipment 

which is newly tested and found to be positive for PCBs? 

f. Disposed of, to include recycling metals, known PCB equipment, or equipment 

which is newly tested and found to be positive for PCBs? 

g. Distributed in commerce to someone else for use known PCB equipment, or 

equipment which is newly tested and found to be positive for PCBs? 

h. Recorded the locations of all equipment or a particular type of equipment, such as 

transformers or capacitors, containing >500 ppm PCBs? 

i. Recorded the locations of all of a particular type of equipment, such as transformers 

containing >50 ppm PCBs? 

j. Recorded the locations of all of a particular type of equipment, such as transformers 

containing >1 ppm PCBs? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 41 of of 52 

k. Tested all mineral oil containing equipment, or a particular type of equipment 

(such as transformers), which was manufactured before 1979? 

l. Labeled all PCB-containing equipment, even though PCB equipment containing < 

500 ppm is not required to be marked? 

m. Removed from service and disposed of all PCB containing equipment or a 

particular type of equipment (such as PCB contaminated transformers or PCB 

large capacitors)? 

2. What are the costs associated with such activities in question No. 1 in Unit XIV.L.? 

3. What are the costs of the practice of preventive maintenance and the re-building of 

equipment to meet changing service requirements and/or industry or company codes? 

4. How well does preventive maintenance or rebuilding effect extension of the expected 

service life of equipment? 

M. Equipment Containing Non-liquid PCBs 

1. What is the total number of units (liquid filled plus non-liquid filled) in each 

equipment category, such as transformers? 

2. What total number of non-liquid units in each equipment category, such as 

transformers, is in each of these PCB concentration ranges: ≥ 1 ppm and < 50 ppm; ≥ 50 ppm and 

< 500 ppm; ≥ 500 ppm and < 100,000 ppm; and ≥ 100,000 ppm? 

For example, fill in the following table: 

Category 

Total number of liquid 

filled plus non-liquid 

filled units in population 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with 

≥1 ppm and <50 ppm 

PCBs 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with 

≥50 ppm and 

<500 ppm PCBs 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with 

≥ 500 ppm and 

< 100,000 ppm PCBs 

Number of non-liquid 

filled units with 

≥ 100,000 ppm PCBs 

transformers 1,000 0 2 0 0 

capacitors 200 0 0 0 10 

etc. 

3. What is the difference in the locations used for liquid filled units, versus non-liquid 

filled units located? 

4. How much does it cost to test (sample collection, extraction, chemical analysis, and 

recordkeeping) non-liquid filled equipment to determine the PCB concentration? 

5. Other than chemical analysis, what methods (such as application type, name plate, 

model number, manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to identify PCB containing non-liquid filled 

equipment? 

N. Damage Due to Vandalism or Theft 

1. What types of equipment were involved? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 42 of of 52 

2. Where was the equipment located (indoors or outdoors)? Did spills occur as a result 

of the vandalism? 

3. What was the amount released in gallons of liquid, and if PCBs were present what was 

the concentration in ppm? 

4. How much liquid was contained and recovered? 

5. What human health or environmental exposure and effects were observed or recorded? 

6. How were the exposures and effects, which were reported in response to question No. 

5 in Unit XIV.N., estimated or measured? 

7. What have been and are the insurance costs as the result of vandalism or theft for the 

replacement of failed PCB containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment 

over the past 30 years? 

8. How would these insurance costs as the result of vandalism or theft for the 

replacement of failed PCB containing equipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment 

in the next twenty years? 

O. Reclassification of Askarel Transformers 

1. If you have attempted to reclassify an askarel-filled unit and have been unsuccessful, 

how long did you spend draining and refilling and how many times did you drain and refill when 

PCBs still “leached back” to a concentration ≥ 500 ppm for each unit? 

2. What was the cost of each unsuccessful reclassification? 

3. How many askarel transformers or other askarel PCB articles (such as voltage 

regulators) have you reclassified successfully to PCB-contaminated status or non-PCB status? 

4. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled equipment, how many times 

was it necessary to drain and refill the equipment? 

5. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled equipment, if the equipment 

was also flushed, what flushing procedure did you use? 

6. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled equipment, how long did it 

take to reclassify the equipment from the first drain and refilling to a permanent PCB 

measurement at the new regulatory status of PCB-contaminated or non-PCB? How often was 

reclassification later proven to be unsuccessful, because PCBs leached back above the target 

reclassification level? 

7. What was the cost of each successful reclassification? 

P. Railroad Transformers 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 43 of of 52 

1. In what railroad systems are PCB transformers and PCB-contaminated transformers 

still in use as railroad transformers? 

2. What percentage of railroad transformers are PCB transformers? 

3. How many railroad transformers are PCB transformers? 

4. What percentage of railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated transformers? 

5. How many railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated transformers? 

6. What is the expected life of a transformer now in service as a railroad transformer 

before it requires routine servicing of the dielectric fluid? 

7. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within ten years the 

PCBs from the railroad transformers through reclassification and disposing of them versus 

disposing of the railroad transformers without reclassification at the end of their useful life? 

Q. Mining Equipment 

1. At what locations and for what applications are PCBs currently used in mining 

equipment? 

2. What percent of these pieces of equipment, which are found in these applications, 

contain PCBs? 

3. How many pieces of equipment in these applications contain PCBs? 

4. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within ten years the 

PCBs from the mining equipment and disposing of them versus disposing of the mining 

equipment at the end of their useful life? 

R. Use of Contaminated Porous Surfaces 

1. What has the average per ton, drum, or cubic yard disposal cost been to dispose of 

contaminated non-liquid material (such as soil or concrete) from a spill of PCB oil containing ≥

50 ppm each year for the last ten years? Please differentiate costs based on PCB concentration 

(e.g. < 50 ppm PCB waste; ≥ 50 ppm etc.) and based on type of disposer (e.g. landfill, 

incinerator, etc). 

2. How often is there a planned major outage to equipment mounted on concrete pads or 

floors? How long is such a planned outage? 

S. Use in Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 44 of of 52 

1. How many gallons of ≥ 50 ppm condensate have been removed and disposed of 

annually from natural gas pipelines owned by each individual gas transmission company and 

distribution company starting in 1998? 

2. Do transmission companies regularly test the condensate for PCBs? If so, what is 

done with the PCBs when found? 

3. What locations in the system have the most condensate removed? 

4. What time of year is most condensate removed? 

5. How do natural gas transmission and distribution companies test for PCBs in dry 

systems? 

T. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles 

1. How many pieces of in-use equipment are the stored equipment items being kept to 

replace? 

2. Where is the equipment, which is to be replaced by the stored equipment, located with 

respect to other potential indoor secure storage areas? 

3. What is the historical lifetime and turnover (removal from storage for disposal) rate per 

year of the in-use equipment? 

4. When do owners plan to replace this in-use equipment with non-PCB equipment or 

reclassify this in-use equipment? 

5. When do owners plan to replace the stored equipment with non-PCB equipment or 

reclassify this stored equipment? 

6. What is the annualized cost of storing and managing this equipment? 

7. What would be the cost of replacement of this equipment? 

8. What would be the cost of reclassifying this equipment, where authorized? 

9. What is the likelihood and consequences of service interruptions and loss of revenue if 

these replacement devices were not available at the site of the equipment to be replaced? 

10. What is the history (number of occurrences, dates, amounts and cost to clean up) of 

spills or other releases of PCBs from this equipment, which is being stored for reuse? 

U. Distribution in Commerce 

1. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the number of units which 

were distributed in commerce each year over the last five years of used but working askarel filled 

equipment? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 45 of of 52 

2. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the number of units which 

were distributed in commerce each year over the last five years of used but working mineral oil 

filled PCB (≥ 500 ppm) equipment? 

3. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the number of units which 

were distributed in commerce each year of used but working mineral oil filled PCB-contaminated 

(≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm) equipment? 

4. How many units of regulated PCB electrical equipment were sold each year over the 

last five years for domestic scrap metal recovery? 

5. How many units of regulated PCB electrical equipment were sold each year over the 

last five years for foreign scrap metal recovery? 

6. How many units of regulated PCB electrical equipment were exported for use each 

year over the last five years for use? 

7. What has been the average purchase price of a new or rebuilt (PCB-free) 100 KVA 

mineral oil filled transformer and a new (PCB-free) 100 KVAR capacitor every year over the last 

ten years? 

8. How different is the average purchase price of new or rebuilt (PCB-free) larger or 

smaller transformers and capacitors? 

9. What is the average number of days between an order and delivery for a new or rebuilt

replacement PCB-free 100 KVA transformer and a new replacement PCB-free 100 KVAR 

capacitor every year over the last ten years? 

10. How long does it take for a delivery for a replacement for a new or rebuilt PCB-free

large (> 250 KVA) transformer, a smaller (< 250 KVA) transformer, and larger (> 1.36 kg [3 

pounds] of dielectric fluid) capacitors? 

V. Excluded Manufacturing Processes 

1. How many excluded manufacturing processes are currently operating or, if not 

currently operating, expect to be operating in the next five years? 

2. What is the estimated total annual weight in tons of PCBs produced each year over the 

last five years and in the next five years in each of the following categories: products, solid 

waste, waste water, and air emissions? 

3. What are the type and volume of PCB products that would be affected by such 

changes in the definition, as well as the cost, economic and other impacts of these changes? 

W. Recycled Paper 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 46 of of 52 

1. In any of the last five years have you anyone found PCBs at concentrations ≥ 1 ppm in 

recycled paper? How often? What was the source of the feedstock paper? 

2. What steps can be taken or have been taken to reduce the PCB concentration in 

recycled paper? 

3. What is the cost of implementing these steps to reduce the PCB concentration in 

recycled paper if they have not already been implemented? 

4. What are the type and volume of PCB products that would be affected by a potential 

change in the definition of recycled paper (required to contain less than 1 ppm PCBs), as well as 

the cost, economic and other impacts of these changes? 

X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 ppm Level for Excluded PCB Products (e.g. Caulk) 

1. What should the maximum PCB concentration, if any, be for the “Excluded PCB 

products” as defined in 40 CFR 761.3? 

2. What should the minimum PCB concentration be for the “Excluded PCB products” as 

defined in 40 CFR 761.3? 

3. Should there be a new separate use authorization for certain currently excluded PCBs 

found in certain products such as paint, gaskets, or caulk? 

4. What types of non-liquid products (adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint, 

rubber/plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, waxes etc.), which were manufactured 

before 1979 and are currently in use, contain PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 

ppm? 

5. What types of liquid products (pump oil, solvent, or other fluid), other than those 

authorized for use in 40 CFR 761.30, contain PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 

ppm? 

6. For each class of non-liquid and liquid product, what percent of the overall product 

market share is taken by the PCB-containing product? 

a. What is the estimated total weight or volume of each type of product in current 

use? 

b. What kinds of use has each product been applied to, on, or in? 

c. What is the geographic distribution of each product use? 

d. What is the average expected lifetime of the product? 

e. When would the product normally be replaced as part of preventive maintenance? 

Y. Use of PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment Parts 

1. What PCB-containing spare parts, such as bushings and other ancillary equipment, are 

currently needed for what equipment? 

2. What is the feasibility of reclassifying PCB-containing spare parts? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 47 of of 52 

3. What is the annualized cost of storing and managing PCB-containing spare parts? 

4. What would be the cost of replacement of PCB-containing spare parts? 

5. What are the likelihood and consequences of service interruptions and loss of revenue 

if the PCB-containing spare parts were not available? 

6. Where are these spare parts located geographically in relation to the equipment they 

will be used on? 

7. In what industrial or commercial settings can the equipment, which the spare parts will 

be used on, be found? 

Z. Reassessment of the Possible Authorization of the use of Some Non-Liquid PCB-Containing 

Products 

1. What comments can you provide that will inform EPA as to whether to authorize or 

not authorize the use of caulk, paint or other non-liquid PCB product at concentrations exceeding 

the level of 50 ppm currently provided in the PCB regulations for excluded PCB products? 

2. What data or other information is available on which to evaluate the risks and benefits 

of the use of PCB-containing caulk, paint or other non-liquid PCB product? 

3. What PCB concentrations should be authorized for the use of PCB-containing caulk, 

paint or other non-liquid PCB products? 

AA. PCBs on Maritime Vessels

1. In what vessel systems is PCB containing equipment still in use on vessels?

2. What percentage of vessel equipment uses liquid PCBs?

3. What percentage of vessel equipment uses non-liquid PCBs?

4. What is the expected life of equipment containing PCBs on vessels now in service 

before it requires routine servicing?

5. What is the difference in the locations used for liquid filled equipment, versus nonliquid filled equipment located?

6. How much does it costs to identify and test (sample collection, extraction, chemical 

analysis, and recordkeeping) liquid filled equipment and/or non-liquid filled equipment on 

vessels to determine the PCB concentration?

7. Other than chemical analysis, what methods (such as application type, name plate, 

model number, manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to identify PCB containing equipment? 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 48 of of 52 

8. Do non-liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling pose any greater risk to the health of the 

public than liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling? 

9. Should the “totally enclosed” exemption accorded to liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling 

be extended to solid PCBs? 

XV. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this rulemaking 

under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. The following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule, including documents that are 

referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document 

is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please 

consult the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. O. Hutzinger, S. Safe, V. Zitko, Chemistry of PCBs, Robert E. Krieger Publishing 

Company, 1983, Chapter 2. 

2 Microeconomic Impacts of the Proposed “PCB Ban Regulation” EPA 560/6-77-035. 

3 U.S. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in 

Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule. Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 

1979). 

4 U.S. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Notice. Federal Register (44 FR 33918, 

December 30, 1977). 

5 U.S. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in 

Commerce, and Use Bans; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (43 FR 24801, June 7, 

1978). 

6 Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency, No.79-1580 (D.C. Cir. 

October 30, 1980). 

7 U.S. EPA. PCB Use in Electrical Equipment; ANPR. Federal Register (46 FR 16095, 

March 10, 1981). 

8 U.S. EPA. PCB Use in Electrical Equipment Final Rule. Federal Register (47 FR 

37342, August 25, 1982). 

9. U.S. EPA. PCBs in Electrical Transformers Final Rule. Federal Register (50 FR 29170, 

July 17, 1985). 

10. U.S. EPA. Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment. 

Federal Register (66 FR 17602, April 2, 2001). 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 49 of of 52 

11. William James Mills III, Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate 

College Public Health Sciences of the University of Illinois at Chicago “Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls, Dioxins and Furans in Ambient Air During the Smithville PCB Incineration 

Project” (2001). 

12. “PCBs: Cancer Dose Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures” 

(EPA/600/P-96/001F) http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486

13. U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 

(CASRN 1336-36-3) June 1, 1997. http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0294.htm. 

U.S. EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental 

Mixtures (EPA/600/P–96/001F). September 1996. 

14. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (November 2000). 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp17.html. 

15. USEPA Compilation of Total Annual PCB Large Capacitors and Total PCB Trnsformers 

Disposed in the United States From Annual Reports from Commercial PCB Disposal 

Companies from 1991-2007

16. USEPA PCB Transformer Registration Database (January 2008) 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/data.htm

17. U.S. EPA Region 9 Exxon Transformer Case Press Release. 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/2dd7f669225439b78525735900400c31/669640

79fdc4700e852574ac006f4537. 

18. National Response Center, United States Coast Guard 

(http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrclegal.html). 

19. Email messages from Nichaulus C. Threatt of NRC to John Smith dated 8-19-2009 and 9-

10-2009. 

20. Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) Ratification Status - 

http://chm.pops.int/Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/enUS/Default.aspx. 

21. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP POPs). 

http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/status/98pop_st.htm. 

22. Environment Canada. PCB Regulations, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 142, No. 19 pages 

2078-2140 (September 17, 2008). 

23. William H. Bartley, P.E. Life Cycle Management of Utility Transformer Assets. Hartford 

Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company (October 10-11, 2002). 
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 50 of of 52 

24. U.S. EPA. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds National Academy Sciences (NAS) Review 

Draft, October 2004 (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/nas-review/). 

25. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Stakeholder Forum – 1998, Implementing the 

Binational Toxics Strategy, Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) Workshop Great Lakes 

Monitoring http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/pcbsrce/pcbsrce.html. 

26. M. Panero, S. Boehme, G. Muñoz, Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the New York/New Jersey Harbor, New York Academy of 

Sciences, February 2005. 

27. A. Covaci, S. Voorspoels, P. Schepens, P. Jorens, R. Blust, H. Neels. The Belgian 

PCB/dioxin crisis—8 years later: An overview. Environmental Toxicology and 

Pharmacology, Volume 25, Issue 2 (March 2008). 

28. N. van Larebeke, L. Hens, P. Schepens, A. Covaci, J. Baeyens, K. Everaert, J. 

Bernheim, R. Vlietinck, G. De Poorter. The Belgian PCB and Dioxin Incident of 

January-June 1999: Exposure Data and Potential Impact on Health. Environmental 

Health Perspectives, 109:265-273 (2001). 

29. J. Buzby, R. Chandran. Chapter 8, The Belgian Dioxin Crisis and Its Effects on 

Agricultural Production and Exports. International Trade and Food Safety / AER-828 

Economic Research Service/USDA. 

30. Reuters, Used Oil May have Caused Irish Food Crisis: Paper, December 10, 2008. 

31. BBC News, Irish pork contaminations probed. December 8, 2008 

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7770476.stm). 

32. Food Safety Authority of Ireland, recall information last reviewed. March 9, 2009 

(http://www.fsai.ie/food_businesses/topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/recall_infor

mation.html). 

33. U.S. EPA, OPPT. “PCB Spill Cleanup in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” EPA-745-N-98-

001, OPPT Tribal News Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 1-2. September 1998. 

34. Senator Byron Dorgan text from the Congressional Record, pp. S2914-2915 

(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S2914&dbname=1998_record). 

35. U.S. EPA. John H. Smith personal communication with J. Gidner, BIA. September 1999. 

36. U.S. EPA (1998) Guidance for conducting fish and wildlife consumption surveys. 

Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA-823-B-98-007. 

http://www.epa.gov/fishadvisories/files/fishguid.pdf
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 51 of of 52 

37. U.S. EPA (2000) Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Human Health. Washington, DC: Office of Water, EPA-822-B-00-004. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf.

38. E. Fitzgerald, S.A Hwang, K.A. Briz, B. Bush, K. Cook, P. Worswick. Fish PCB 

concentrations and consumption patterns among Mohawk women at Akwesasne. J. Exp. 

Anal. Environ. Epid. 5(1):1-19. (1995) 

39. Tribal Rights and Fish Consumption Workshop, University of Washington School of 

Public Health August 12-13, 2009 

(http://depts.washington.edu/tribalws/index.php?doc=schedule)

40 J. Hardy, Evaluation of Contaminants in Puget Sound Fish and Resulting Fish Advisory,

Washington State Department of Health, November 2, 2009

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/2009/day1d.ppt

41. C. Sandau, P. Ayotte, E. Dewailly, J. Duffe, and R. Norstrom, Analysis of Hydroxylated 

Metabolites of PCBs (OH-PCBs) and Other Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds in Whole 

Blood from Canadian Inuit. Environ Health Perspect 108:611–616 (July 2000). [Online 

25 May 2000] http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2000/108p611-

616sandau/108p611.pdf

 

42. Utilities Solid Waste Advisory Group (USWAG). Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down 

of PCB-Containing Equipment (October 2005). 

43. U.S. EPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for Disposal; Final Rule 

Federal Register (61 FR 11105 March 18, 1996). 

44. How Entergy Battled Back-to-back Hurricanes, R. W. Helmick and J. H. Zemanek, 

Entergy Corporation, Electric Light and Power January 2006

45. USEPA EPA Personnel Deployed to Greensburg, Kansas, for Tornado Response, May 7, 

2007 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/c0b30985

df7b3cac852572d5006f3917!OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=5&Expand=1

46. ASTM Standard D2233-86 (1997) Standard Specification for Chlorinated Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons (Askarels) for Capacitors (Withdrawn in 2003). 

47. U.S. EPA. Support Document /Voluntary Environmental Impact Statement and PCB 

Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Ban Regulation: 

Economic Impact Analysis, pp. 32-43. April 1979. 

48. U.S. EPA. Information on the Natural Gas Pipeline Agreement with Texas Eastern, 33 

pp. 1981. 

49. USEPA. PCBs in Caulk in Older Buildings website (www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk)
*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page Page 52 of of 52 

XVI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review. Any changes to the document that were made in response to OMB comments 

received by EPA during that review have been documented in the docket as required by the 

Executive Order. 

 Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks 

comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various other review requirements that apply when an agency imposes 

requirements do not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on this 

document, you may include any comments or information that you have regarding the various 

other review requirements. 

 In particular, EPA is interested in any information that would help the Agency to assess 

the potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, 

section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety effects on children 

pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or to consider human health or 

environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 

12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

 The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any subsequent 

proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to address any applicable requirements. 

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761 

Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: _____________________________ 

___________________________________ 

Administrator 

[FR Doc. 0910-????? Filed ??-??-09; 10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S