*** Interagency EO 12866 Review DRAFT – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***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

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

RIN 2070-AJ38

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Re assessment of Use Authorizations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

distribution in commerce of certa in classes of PCBs and PCB Item s and certain other areas of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) re gulations under the Toxic Substa nces Control Act (TSCA). EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and dist ribution in commerce re gulations (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 n on-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 r eassessing the definitions of “excluded manufacturing process,” “quantifiable level/leve l of detection,” and “recycled PCBs” in 40 CFR 761.3. EPA is soliciting comments on these and other areas of th e PCB use regulations. EPA is not soliciting comments on the PCB disposal re gulations in this document.

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

in the Federal Register ].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by doc ket 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), Offi ce 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. Attent ion: 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 a rrangements 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 docke t 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 informa tion claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disc losure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or othe rwise 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 pr ovide 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 ot her contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you subm it. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for cl arification, 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 def ects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Dock et Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm

.

Docket : All documents in the docket are list ed 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.” In sert the docket ID number where indicated and

select the “Submit” button. Follo w the instructions on the regula tions.gov website to view the

docket index or access available documents. Alt hough listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other informati on whose disclosure is re stricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted materi al, will be publicly ava ilable only in hard copy. Publicly available docket material s are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Dock et. 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 ho lidays. 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 iden tification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. Al l visitor bags are pro cessed 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, Environmen tal Assistance Divisi on (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmenta l 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 T oxics, 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, pr ocess, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs. Potentially affected entities may in clude, but are not limited

to:

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

 Manufacturers (NAICS 31-33), e.g., Chemi cal manufacturers, electroindustry manufacturers, end-users of el ectricity, general contractors.

 Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48-49) , e.g., Various modes of transportation including air, rail, wa ter, ground, and pipeline.

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

 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Serv ices (NAICS 54), e.g., Testing laboratories, environmental consulting.

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

 Waste Management and Remediation Servi ces (NAICS 562), e.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g., storage facilities, landfills , incinerators), waste treatm ent and disposal, remediation services, material recovery f acilities, waste transporters.

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

This listing is not intended to be exhaus tive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be aff ected 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 whet her this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be af fected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability prov isions in 40 CFR part 761. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this actio n to a particular entit y, 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-ma il. 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 informati on 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 clea rly as possible, avoi ding 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 commer ce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB Items and certain other areas of the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) regulati ons 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, distri bution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric eq uipment, (2) the use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products, (3) the use of non-liquid P CBs, (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 manu facturing process,” “quantifiable level/level of detection,” and “recycled PCBs” in 40 CFR part 761, subpart A.

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

The authority for this action comes from sec tions 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 th an 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 P CB items that were “sold for purposes other than resale” before Apr il 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 requi re 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 alr eady been manufactured were sti ll in use in many areas of the country; in 1976 EPA estimated that of 1.4 billio n pounds of PCBs produced in the United States, 750 million pounds remained in service in the count ry. 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 capacito rs, virtually all of the large number of units

manufactured and in use cont ained PCBs, but for other type s of equipment, such as electromagnets, only a small number of units contained PCBs (Ref. 2).

TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977. S ection 6(e) of TSCA generally prohibited the manufacture, processing, distribution in comme rce, and use of PCBs and charged EPA with issuing regulations for the marking and disposal of PCBs. EPA publishe d the first regulations addressing the use of equipment containing P CBs 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 be nefits from the conti nued use of remaining equipment containing PCBs may have change d 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 (R ef. 4). On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated these regulations (Ref. 3). The regula tions found that PCB liquid-filled capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad transformers) met the statutory de finition of “totally enclosed,” and were exempt from the ban in TSCA s ection 6(e)(2)(A) on ma nufacture, processing,

distribution in commerce or use. This EPA finding meant that it wa s not necessary to specifically authorize the use of these type s of PCB-containing equipment. In this same rulemaking, EPA also authorized, in accordance with TSCA sec tion 6(e)(2)(B), the use of other liquid-filled equipment that was not totally enclosed (railro ad transformers, heat transfer systems, and hydraulic systems), based on a finding that the us e would pose no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, subject to conditi ons. One of the conditions EPA imposed on the

authorization of most no n-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 authorit y and rationale for establishing use limits:

Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to authorize by rule the manufacturing, processing, distribution in co mmerce, 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 unreas onable risk and proposed to authorize these use activities for a period of 5 years after the effectiv e 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 exam ination. In making this determination, EPA weighed the effects of PCBs on health and the e nvironment, 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 modificatio ns, adopted in the final rule:

Unlike all other activities that may be subject to an aut horization under TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), use activities ar e 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 continuati on. In addition, improved technology or development of new PCB substitutes could reduce the

need for the authorizatio n. Accordingly EPA proposed a five-year limit on most use authorizations; however, no such lim it was proposed on the use authorization

for PCBs in electric e quipment (Ref. 3 at 31530).

After the May 31,1979 rule was published, the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeal s for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the portion of the 1979 regulation which designated the use of “intact and non-leaki ng” PCB liquid filled capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad transformers) as “totally enclosed.” On October 30, 1980, the Court decided that there was insuffici ent evidence in the record to support the Agency’s clas sification of the equipment as “t otally enclosed” (Ref. 6). The court vacated this portion of the rule and remanded it to EPA for further action. EPA, EDF, and certain industry interv eners petitioned the court to stay the mandate while EPA conducted rulemaking beginning with an ANPR, and a util ity 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) author izing the use of capacitors, electromagnets,

and transformers other than railroad transforme rs, in accordance with TSCA paragraph 6(e)(2)(B) (Ref. 8). Time limits were imposed on the us e 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 cont inued to allow the use of PCB-containing equipment, the passive removal of PCB-contai ning equipment from use through attrition, and to require the disposal of PCBs and PCB-cont aining equipment in an environmentally-sound

manner.

B. PCB Use Authorizations

Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the following li quid-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 tr ansmission systems.

There are also use authorizations for cer tain 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 fo r decontaminated materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)).

However, there are no use authorizations fo r non-liquid PCB-containi ng 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 author ized 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 be ings or the environment to a polychlorinated biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the Administrator by rule.” The definition established by rule in 40 CF R 761.3 is, “Totally enclosed manner means any manner that will ensure no exposure of human beings or the en vironment to any concentration of PCBs.”

EPA has found that the dist ribution 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 requir ed for the distribution in commerce for use of intact and non-leaking, liquid-filled electrical equipmen t, 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 en vironment 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, pursuan t to section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since exposure to such Items may be significant, th e 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 e quipment such as transformers (including transformers used in railway locomotives and self-propelled cars), capacitors, electromagnets, voltage regulat ors, switches (including secti onalizers 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 s howing measurable emissions of PCBs from some otherwise intact and non-leaking equipment, which is not energized (p roviding or receiving electricity), to the ambient air (Ref. 11). “W eeps” and “seeps” and other leaks are visual

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

humans or the environment to PCBs.

D. PCB Health Effects

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

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

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

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. 12 13 ):

Occupational studies show some increas es 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 signi ficant excess malignant melanoma mortality in workers exposed to Aroc lors 1242 and 1016. Some other studies, however, found no increases in cancer mort ality attributable to PCB exposure (ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistenc y 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 ch lorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR, 1993; Safe, 1994).

A study of rats fed diets contai ning Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, or 1016 found statistically significant, dose-related, incr eased incidences of liver tumors from each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996). Ea rlier 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 hi gh or low chlorine content.

Several mixtures and congeners test positive for tumor promotion (Silberhorn et al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB c ongeners is correlate d with induction of mixed-function oxidases; some congeners are phenobarbital-type inducers, some are 3-methylcholanthrene-type inducer s, 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) ev idence 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 ch aracterized 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 st ates, “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 endoc rine disruption. Toxic effects have been observed from acute and chronic exposures to PCB mixtures with varying chlori ne content.” (Ref. 13 12 )

The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxi cological 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 da ta from human and laboratory mammal studies provide strong evidence of the t oxic 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 envi ronmental exposures, as well as food products of animal origin....[H]ealth eff ects that have been associated with exposure to PCBs in humans and/or anim als include liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular changes, immuno logical alterations, neur odevelopmental changes, reduced birth weight, reproductive toxici ty, 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 ca nnot 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 neurobe havioral changes are particularly sensitive indicators of toxicity in monke ys exposed either as adults, or during pre- or postnatal periods. (Ref. 14).

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

and seeks comments and/or information on the health effects of PC Bs 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 Toxicologica l 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. Th ey 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 lo ng 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 contaminati on. 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 pa rticles in the water, and evaporate into air. Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likel y 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 so il with rainwater. They do not readily break down in soil and may stay in the so il for months or years; generally, the

more chlorine atoms that the PCBs cont ain, 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 accumu late 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 eco toxicological effects of PCBs in wildlife (Ref. 14). Information in the profile is gathered from expe rimental 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 va ry widely in these studies, possibly reflecting not only variab ility in susceptibility among species, but also differences in the

mechanism of action or selective metabol ism of individual congeners. Noteworthy impacts on fish, birds, and mammals from this collective data include neurological/behavioral, immunological, dermal, and reproduc tive/developmental

effects. Observed PCB effects related to ne urological impairment include alterations in central nervous system neurotransmitter leve ls, retarded learning, increased activity, and behavioral changes. Immunological effects c onsist of morphologica l changes in organs related to the immune system, as well as functional impairment of humoral- and cellmediated immune responses. Dermal effects in species include a dverse effects on fins and tails in fish, and abnormal skin, hair , and nail growth in mammals. Lastly, reproductive and developmental impacts consis t of increased embr yo/fetal loss through

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

EPA seeks information on the environmental eff ects 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 determ ine 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 w ith PCBs over the past three decades. This ANPR solicits information from the public on seve ral 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 mate rials has greatly increased. Th e 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 regulati ons 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 whethe r some authorized uses of PCBs should be eliminated or phased out and whether more stringent use and servicing conditions would be appr opriate. 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 objec tive 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 enviro nment, taking into acco unt conditions as they exist today and as they are likely to exist in the future.

EPA seeks information that will be usef ul in making the findings required by TSCA section 6. By prohibiting the use of PCBs (e xcept 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 ec onomy, electric energy availa bility and all other health, environmental, or social impacts that coul d be expected from adoption of alternatives to

PCBs. There is a list of severa l questions related to EPA’s reassessment in Unit XIV. Responses to the questions will provide EPA with informati on 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 exam ple, when compared to very large interstate utilities, small municipal and c ooperative utilities may ha ve a very different approach to address the replacement of leaking equipment. Where applicable and appropriate, small municipal and cooperative utility responders should provide in formation about the impacts a phaseout of PCBcontaining equipment might have on their operations and their customers. In particular, EPA encourages small municipal and cooperative utilitie s to take the time to answer the questions in Unit XIV or otherwise provide details about ma intenance operations, inventories, planning, funding, budgets, or any other information rela ted to the cost of addressing the sound environmental management of the PCBs in thei r 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 pres ent from current PCB use authorizations. EPA will sponsor a series of public meetings around the count ry to solicit stakeholder comments related to the contents of this document. Specific informa tion regarding the locations, dates, and times of the public meetings are included in Unit XIII.

V. EPA's Reasons for Reassessing Exis ting 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 authorizat ions, is at least thirty years old. Since the ban on manufacturing in 1979, no new equipment contai ning 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 1979 The 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 equi pment 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 transf ormers 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 transf ormers 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 tran sformers to leak for almost two years before repairing it (Ref. 15 17 ).

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 Cent er advised EPA that there were a total of 5,578 spills associated with PCBs reported from 1990 through 2009 (to date) (Ref. 17 19 ).

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 P CBs by the year 2025. The United States is a signatory to this Convention but has not yet ratified it (Ref. 18 20 ). 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 ratifie d this agreement (Ref. 19 21 ).

On September 17, 2008, Canada pub lished PCB ban and phase out regulations with bans starting in 2009 for high c oncentration PCBs (Ref. 20 22 ). 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 in crease faster than the general increase in inflation or cost of living. The population of PCB-containi ng 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 i ndustry potentially less economically attractive for the waste management industry. The numerous disposal options and excess disposal capacity pres ent today may not be availa ble 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 con tinued 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 older that 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 equi pment and replacing it with new equipment. The consequences include both the direct costs to the equipment owners in damage, equipment replacement, service interr uption, 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 an d operators regarding the management, removal, reclassification, or replacement of PCB equipment.

D. Insurance Costs

EPA believes that the cost of liability insura nce for owners of PCB equipment is likely to increase significantly as the equipment continue s to age. Insurers have already observed the increased rate of failure in equipment which is approaching the end of its useful life expectancy (Ref. 21 23 ). EPA anticipates that in the future there will be continuous incr eases 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 ol d. EPA seeks comments on the comparison of the cost of future liability insurance with potential costs for testing and reclas sification 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 hist orical changes in insurance premiums, as PCBcontaining equipment has aged, a nd 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 in surance or self-insuran ce by facilities affects facility owners’ and operators’ decisions on how to manage rem oval 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 polychlor inated dibenzo-p-dioxi n and structurally similar chemicals, such as certain PCBs, through a process referred to as the Dioxin Reassessment (Ref. 22 24 ). Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-di oxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and some PCBs as mol ecules 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 PC B-containing materials produces PCDDs and PCDFs, including some of the more toxic cong eners. Preliminary indications from the 2003

Draft Dioxin Reassessment are that the toxicity of PC Bs in general is high er than the toxicity

values that EPA used in deve loping previous TSCA PCB regulat ions. Some PCB congeners, sometimes referred to as co-planar PCBs or dioxi n-like PCBs, are consider ed to have toxicities

similar to the most toxic of the PCDDs a nd 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 possi ble that EPA would find th at some risks, which were found to be reasonable using older PCB toxicity information, are now would be

unreasonable in relation to new when 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 he alth or the environment” based on the new toxicity information If this is the case, that info rmation my affect any proposed ru le 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 nationa l assessment of the risks to human health

and the environment from PCB releases. Info rmation is fragmentary and much of it is geographically limited. For inst ance, the Great Lakes program in which EPA participates has published recent estimates of P CB releases, but such estimates are statewide, and similar

estimates are not available for all states in the U.S. (Ref. 23 25 ). The New York Academy of Sciences published a study of PC B releases into the waterways feeding into the New York / New Jersey harbor, breaking down the releases by type of source (Ref. 24 26 ), but similar studies are not available for most waterways in the countr y. Releases to the environment exceeding the Reportable Quantity for PCBs must be reported pr omptly 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 ar e 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 info rmation 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 Ca pacitors 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 a ny PCB concentration, are not incl uded in these prohibitions. To

lessen the likelihood of such food and feed contam ination from these sources, EPA is considering broadening the prohibition on the use and storage for reuse of PCBs th at pose an exposure risk to food and feed, including PCB Ar ticles containing greater than 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. PCB concentr ations in food are regulated by the Food and Drug

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

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

contamination of foods and a subs equent recall of those foods fr om the interna tional market. Because of the presence of trace amounts of dioxins which are pres ent 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 acci dentally 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 th e contamination was publicly announced only in May 1999, when it appeared that more than 2,500 poultry and pig farm s 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 th e loss in the swine sector (in 1999 1 Euro = 1.06 US Dollars). As other EU countries were also affected by export bans, th e final cost of this

incident worldwide will li kely be higher. (Ref. 25 27 , Ref. 26 28 , and Ref. 27 29 )

2. Ireland. In December 2008, Irish pork products were removed from distribution in commerce. This action was taken by the Food Safe ty Authority of Ireland after finding levels of PCBs and polychlorinated dibenzo- p-dioxins in the food at concentr ations in excess of European Union health standards for food. Preliminary inve stigations indicated th at 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 Nort hern 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 contaminati on are not yet available (Ref. 28,

29 30, 31 , and 30 32 .)

I. Risks in Public Buildings from Fluorescent Light Ballasts

EPA is concerned about the rel ease 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 balla sts have a lifetime of less than 10 years. One of these spills was a si gnificant release from fluor escent light ballasts, almost twenty years after the publication of the PCB use regulations, at th e 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 fluores cent light ballasts. Th e light ballasts were located in the elementary school, administration building, high school library, and several Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) buildi ngs on the reservation (Ref. 31 33 and 32 34 ). EPA determined that many of the fluorescent light balla sts contained PCBs. A sampli ng 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 fo und detectable levels. The contractor removed light ballasts and disposed of all ballasts a nd contaminated materials as PCB waste. A high school building where contaminatio n was found was closed from Fe bruary to June, but reopened for summer school. The cleanup for the 4 build ings at Standing Rock cost BIA $500,000 (Ref.

33 35 ). The estimated cost for removing the non-leaki ng ballasts from 60 othe r buildings in the BIA Great Plains Region (forme rly 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 us e 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 heal th 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 dispos ed of prior to the use authorizations, as well

as releases that have occurred from the curren tly 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 pr esence of the poten tial risks to urban environmental justice communities from PCB releases at railroad substations, electrical substations and electrical equipment storage ar eas. 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 gather ing 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 comment s from minority, low-income, tribal and disadvantaged persons and their re presentatives, who are not direct owners or users of PCBs and PCB equipment.

EPA is also announcing public meetings to di scuss the Agency’s reassessment of the existing PCB use authorizations at several locati ons around the country. Th e 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/inde x.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, repres entatives of minority, lo w-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 th e 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 new be supported by an analysis of risks costs and benefits, and to some

exten t on the quality of data r eceived in response to this document as 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 M easures to be Assess ed for Possible P roposal Options for Initial Phase-Out Regulations

Before implementing a A 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 restrictio ns before the end of the use authorization

. The Agency may

consider a number of interim regulatory 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 c ontain PCBs at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm in accordance with §761.2.

 Require that where such equipment is f ound 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 equi pment 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 mi nimum of once every month for non-leaking

known or assumed ≥ 500 ppm PCB equipment in use.

 Before the final phaseout date(s), broade n 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 w ould also require changing other definitions) to include all equipment containing > 0.05 lit ers (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of

dielectric fluid with ≥ 50 ppm PCBs, in place of the curr ent definition which regulates transformers and capacitors containing ≥ 3 pounds of dielectric fluid.

 Require registration of PCB la rge capacitors containing a specified volume of dielectric fluid or having a specified external volume or dimensions.

 Eliminate the authorization for stor age of PCB equipment for reuse.

 Eliminate the use authorization fo r PCBs in carbonless copy paper.

 Eliminate totally enclosed determin ation 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. Phase o ut to be Assessed for Possible P roposal Potential Time Frames for Completing the Removal of PCB Equipment From Service

.

These measures would phase out all PCB elect rical 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 pot ential 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 a pplication 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 seek s comment on any other information, which may not be included in this Unit, but which you be lieve is important for EPA to consider when reassessing PCB use authorizations.

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

EPA seeks information on the specific popul ation 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: tr ansformers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), electromagnets (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a )), switches (regulatedat 40 CFR 761.30(h)), voltage regulators (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical capaci tors (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at 40 CF R 761.30(m)), reclosers (r egulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), liquid-filled cable (re gulated 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 sm all municipal and coope rative utilities to provide details on their PCB cont aining electrical equipment populat ion characteristics and their management activities for the equipment.

1. Population characteristics for Transfor mers, Electromagnets, Switches, Voltage Regulators, Electrical Capacitors, Circuit Brea kers, 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 liq uid-filled PCB-containing equipment, EPA has continued to prescribe conditions for authorized servic ing (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 cond itions are included in the authorization for servicing:

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

 Topping off and putting back into se rvice PCB electrical equipment.

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

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

 Reclassifying.

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

 Storing company-owned equipment for serv icing without any c onditions to protect against leaks or spills.

 Servicing equipment which is owned by ot hers, without having commercial storage approvals.

EPA believes that this equipment is neari ng 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 se rvice, and if there is a need to pr olong 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 mainte nance and does not require service interruption, lost revenue, or liability costs of losses to othe r parties. In the inform ative brochure, “Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down of PCB-Containing Equipment,” published in October 2005 by the

Utilities Solid Waste Activi ties Group (USWAG) (Ref. 34 42 ), 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 pr actice helps ensure the accelerated retirement from service of a large class of potential ly 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 reclassifi cation 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 w ith a thorough draining and refilling with liquid containing < 2 ppm PCBs. If an owner determ ines 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 transf ormers, railroad transformers, heat transfer systems, hydraulic systems, electromagnets, switc hes, voltage regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers, cable, and r ectifiers. EPA’s questions about se rvicing 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, electri cal equipment owners st ated that they did not know where PCB-containing equipment was locat ed (Ref. 3). In the 30 years since, EPA believes that it would have been prudent for owne rs to implement a plan during that time to locate any regulated equipment. The common us e and availability of bar code labels and scanning equipment and user-friendly computeri zed inventory management systems, plus the ability of global positioning syst ems to precisely specify locations, should facilitate the development and maintenance of an inventor y of PCB-containing regulated equipment. Equipment owners previously toldEPA 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-attri tion-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 opti ons available for equipment that is no longer operable, or is otherwise designated for disposal. For equi pment with recyclable metals, some disposal companies are paying for this equipment, because they can recover their co sts 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 “s crap 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 servi ce for disposal (Ref. 10).

In 1996, EPA surveyed the PCB disposal i ndustry 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 capaci ty. 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 presen t cost, economic, or management difficulties or advantages to the owners and opera tors of PCB-containing equipment.

4 . Information about an increased failure ra te of vintage elec trical equipment. A 2002 report, Life Cycle Management of Utility Tr ansformer Assets, by the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, uses informati on from claims filed by policy holders with the insurer for failed transformers, regardless of whether they contained PCBs (Ref. 20 23 ). The information has been used to estimate or predic t when equipment will fail, based on historical

failures for which claims were filed. This doc ument also highlights that the electricity demand load grew 35% and the transmission capacity gr ew 18% over the ten preceding years. EPA is

concerned that the rate of failures for tran sformers manufactured in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s may increase substantially in the future. EPA seek s 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 fail ure 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, th at electronic monitoring and other maintenance methods have had on failure rates. EPA’s quest ions about failure rates are located in Unit

XIV.G.

5 . Severe weather event and other natural disa sters 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 disast ers such as earthquakes, mudslid es or volcanic eruptions which resulted in significant spills of P CBs, there is a possibility that this could have occurred in some regions of the country. These unpr eventable events cont ribute to catastrophically ending the useful life of PCB-containing equipment and th e uncontrolled release of PCBs. EPA believes that one cost-effective protection against PCB re leases from these weat her events and natural disasters may be a proactive program to test equi pment 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 sp illed PCBs from that weather event might be expected to migrate and accumulate, such as spil lways 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 alte rnatives to the use of PCBs in liquid-filled equipment. To EPA's knowledge, satisfactory substitutes are av ailable to replace PCBs in all electrical equipment applications. The Agency welcom es comments on the comparative costs and the

effectiveness of various substitu tes in reducing fires and heat-rel ated degradation or destruction of equipment. EPA seeks information on th e hazards and the risks posed by these PCB substitutes. EPA’s questions about alternatives to PCB liqui ds 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 a nd the costs for replacement; (2) costs for replacement include cheapest source, foreign or domestic, including transport and transaction costs; and (3) the price for replacem ent of various types and classes of equipment each year over the last 30 years, as well as es timated or projected future prices. EPA seeks information that explains: (1) the impact of changes in system distribution and transmission voltage on the potential obsolescen ce of mineral oil-filled equipm ent, which was manufactured before 1979 would be useful; and (2) the cost imp act of replacing mineral oil-filled equipment, which was manufactured before 1979, with more m odern 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 solicit s 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 comm erce 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–cont aining 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 utili ties 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-li quids 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-containi ng 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 dispos ing 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 predic ts with respect to the future number of approved PCB disposal and st orage companies, future disposal and storage capacity, and the future cost of commercial storag e and disposal of electr ical equipment waste as compared to current disposal costs. EPA’s que stions 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 transfor mers; railroad transformers; mining equipment; electromagnets; switches; volta ge regulators; electric al capacitors; circuit breakers; reclosers; liquid-filled cable; and rectifiers. EPA en courages small business owners, small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB containing electrical equipment management activities. EPA’s questi ons addressing the information that EPA seeks about equipment current management prac tices 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 followi ng categories: containi ng 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, electr ical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, rectifiers, and any other equipment populations (such as paper insulated lead cable and bushings). EPA’s questions about electrical equipment whic h 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 ar ea. In particular, EPA is concer ned about areas which may not be directly contaminated from the nearby equipm ent impacted by vandalism but also areas where spilled PCBs from that vandalism might be e xpected to migrate and accumulate such as lowlying residential neighborhoods and cropland. EPA so licits 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; elec tromagnets; switches; voltage regulators; electrical capacitors; ci rcuit breakers; reclosers; liquid- filled cable; and rectifiers.

EPA seeks information on the rate of occurrenc e 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 th eft 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 po tential 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 sme lted 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 f acilities 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 manne r; and scrap metal management workers may not be protected from exposure to PCBs or even know that PCBs are present in the e xported equipment.

13 . Reclassification of askarel transformers. EPA’s reclassification rulemaking of 2001

wa s based on limited information from askarel transformers. EPA has anecdotal information is

concerned that reclassification of as karel transformers (which we re manufactured to contain

≥ 500,000 ppm PCBs) is generally ineffective becau se PCBs leach back out of internal components several years after the active processing to reclassify is completed. This information seems plausible because of the natu re of the inner structure of tr ansformers. 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 in ability to drain and flush PCBs efficiently from askarel PCB equi pment. 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 wei ght percent (or 750,000 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm) in capacitors (Ref. 36 46 ). 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 am ount of PCBs in a transformer which contains 600 gallons of 500 ppm PCBs in mi neral oil dielectric fluid. The regulations currently require that a mineral oil transformer containing 600 gall ons of 500 ppm PCBs and even a much smaller one-gallon transformer containing 500 ppm of PC Bs in mineral oil dielectric fluid to be registered with EPA. In order to protect firs t responders and others w ho might potentially be accidentally exposed to PCBs from PCB large ca pacitors, EPA is assessing whether to require registration of some or all P CB capacitors currently in use with EPA. EPA could publish and post the register of the capacito rs 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 rail roads where the askarel PCB equipment was used

were located in the northeastern pa rt of the country, mainly in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York (Ref. 37 47 ). Because of the known leakage from this equipment and the requirement for frequent servicing, EPA found that the distribution in commer ce 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 Tr ansportation Authority (S EPTA) 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 repla ced 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 railro ad transformers, and is consider ing eliminating the authorization

for the use of PCBs in railroad transformers at concentrations greater than 1 ppm. EPA’s questions about the railroad transfor mers are located in Unit XIV.P.

C. Mining Equipment (Re gulated 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 expect ed relative short life of this limited use population, EPA believes it is like ly that PCBs are no longer us ed in the motors of mining equipment. EPA seeks comments on whether there is any continued use of PC Bs in such electric motors in mining equipment and whether EPA shoul d eliminate the authori zation 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 system s 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 se rvicing, 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 freque ntly 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 servic ing to a concentration far below 50 ppm. There may be no

reason to continue an authorizat ion of PCBs in equipment at measurable concentrations. EPA seeks information demonstrating a need to conti nue to use PCBs in heat transfer systems and hydraulic systems at concentra tions greater than 1 ppm.

E. Carbonless Copy Paper (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(f))

In 1979, there were many files containing ca rbonless 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 legi ble, why it cannot be disposed of. Thirty years later it may be feasible and economical to convert any nece ssary, legible information and records from carbonless copy paper to a different storage medi um. 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 feasib ility of document conversion. EPA seeks comments on whether carbonless copy paper containing PCBs is still in us e and whether there is a need to continue the existing use authorizat ion 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 Contaminat ed 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 i ntent of this authorization was to provide temporary relief from the requirement to di spose of contaminated concrete or other porous surfaces underneath pad

- mounted or other electrical equipment , which is used to distribute electricity. The temporary reli ef 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. Assump tions that EPA used in its evalua tion of risk were based on a short

- term exposure to the

contaminated porous surface and economic issues relate d 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 suffi cient 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 au thorization to plan how to remove the contamination and meet the requirements in 40 CFR 761.30(u) for use of decontaminate d

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 precaut ions may be necessary in

order to ensure that PCB

- contaminated porous surfaces ar e cleaned up, including limiting the

situations and locations when th is authorization can be used; re quiring notification to EPA of the interim measure, and requiring manageme nt in accordance with the ri sk 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 a t 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 t he PCBs in

the contaminated porous surfaces should be managed for dispos al 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 qualif ying event for the §761.30( p) use authorization

is a s pill of liquid material containing PCBs at a specified concentration in ppm. The surface concentration after the spill, or after any remediation, is irre levant with respect to this

authorization. EPA also believes th e authorization should follow the them es of: (a) remove and dispose of the PCBs ; and (b) reclassify

, reuse or dispose of equipment. E PA believes that leaking equipment is a sign of additional equipment problems in the future and that leaking equipment

should be reclassified and removed for r epairs. 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 contam inated 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 Di stribution 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 redu ce 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 co mpressors 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 out side of turbine compressors (Ref. 38 48 ).

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 af ter all known sources of PCBs were removed from these systems, EPA has in formation 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 su ch material. EPA believes that the authorized use conditions in the current regulations should have resulted in co mpanies removing PCBs to the extent that there no longer are PCBs in the systems at concentrations ≥ 50 ppm.

EPA is considering requiring sampling and an alyzing individual c ondensate samples (not composites or accumulations) to determine the exte nt 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 conf irm that regulated PCBs were not present in the system. Regardless of the or iginal or current sour ce of the PCBs, owners would report results

of ≥ 50 ppm findings to EPA. EP A is also considering whethe r 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 anal yze current condensate in areas having historical

PCB measurements to confirm the absence of P CBs 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 us e of PCBs in fluid and gas transmission and distribution systems. EPA’s ques tions about use in gas transmi ssion 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 system s. 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 (Regulat ed at 40 CFR 761.30(j), Scientific Instruments (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(k)), and Decontaminated Materi als (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 decont aminated 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 de tached ancillary equipment, such as bushings, for electrical equipment when separate from th at 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 tran smission electrical equipm ent. 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 transforme r 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 specifi c 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 informati on on the economic value of continuing to maintain such PCB-containing parts and an cillary equipment in inventor ies of utility companies and industrial facilities. EPA’s ques tions about the use of PCB cont aining electrical equipment parts

are located in Unit XIV.Y.

J. Reassessment of the Possi ble 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 inadvert ent chemical reaction during the manufacturing process or were added to the cau lk afterward, is not currently au thorized under TSCA section 6. EPA requests comments on whether the use of PC Bs 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 quest ions about authorization of some non-liquid PCB containing products are located in Unit XIV.Z.

VIII. Storage for Reuse of PCB Arti cles (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.35)

EPA established limits on storage of P CB 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 promulga ted in the late 1970's, EPA recognized that it might be necessary to have PCB-containing spar e equipment to press into use when other new or reasonably new equipment needed to be replaced. Howe ver, 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 replace ments should be much lower. EPA has information indicating that the older unused PC B 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 equi pment could be reclassified while it is in storage for reuse. EPA also is concerned that eq uipment, 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 equipm ent 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 wh ich is not in use, in inventories of utility companies and industrial facilities. EPA’s questi ons about storage for reuse of PCB Articles are

located in Unit XIV.T.

IX. Distribution in Commerce of Electri cal 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 (distributi on 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 pr actice 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 determinat ion that distribution in commerce of PCBs in electrical equipment still can be considered to tally enclosed in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(C). Elimination of dist ribution in commerce of this P CB-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-c ontaining equipment for reuse to avoid proper

domestic reclassification or dis posal, when the equipment is intended only for foreign scrap metal recovery. EPA’s questions about distributi on 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 calcula tions (Ref. 3, 8). EPA seeks comments on the application of the value of 50 ppm as the upper value in the de finition 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 commen t and any supporting data or other information on whether the number 50 ppm should be changed given the recent realiza tion 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 ques tions about distribution in comme rce are located in Unit XIV.X.

XI. 40 CFR §761.3 Definitional Ch anges 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 ca pacitors, 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 volum e 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 concentr ation 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 maximu m.” EPA is considering whether to eliminate the annual average and whether the maximum con centration 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 concentr ation of PCBs in paper products leaving any manufacturing site processing pa per products or paper products im ported 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 averag e 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 [ μ g/m 3 ])

. lowered to be consistent what the Agency has said a bout PCB exposures from PC Bs 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 le vel/level of detecti on is lower. Today, the quantitation level in mineral oil dielectric fl uid (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 quanitiation quantitation level and level of detection in othe r media such as air and water can be three orders of magnitude or more lower than the values for MODEF. E PA 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 in jury to health or the environment. EPA is evaluating whether to change this definition to reflect to most curre nt 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 fi lled 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 damagi ng older and over-loaded el ectrical equipment. In addition to those persons who might be accid entally 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 catastroph ically released from use as quickly as possible. In addition, residents and the public in proximity to regulated equipment ha ve 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 a nd storage for disposal. A possible requirement

under consideration is for owners to locat e 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 n eed 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 informati on and comments contained in this document,

EPA intends to involve stakeholde rs through a series of public mee tings 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 authori zations, including the questi ons 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 location In 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 location In New York, NY April 8, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to be adde d ] 5:00 p.m. at EPA Region 2 offices In Seattle, WA [Exact date, time, and address of meeting location at 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 a ddress of meeting location to be added] In Washington, DC [Exact date, time, and address of meeting location April 28, 2010 from 1:00 p.m. to be adde d ] 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/inde x.htm) or contact Christine Zachek at (202)

566-2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov

.

The meetings will be open to the public. To en sure that all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment in the allo tted 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 pr ovided under ADDRESSES. In terested 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 co ntact the technical person at the earliest possible date, but no later than 10 days before the meeti ngs, to ensure adequate seating arrangements.

To request accommodation of a disability, pl ease contact Christine Zachek at (202) 566-

2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov , preferably at least 10 days pr ior 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 grea ter 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, a ll years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to

date? If this information is not available, please provide altern ative 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 provide d in the previous question, how does the percentage differ for the following applicati ons: 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 populat ion compare for major interstate utilities, municipal u tilities, cooperative util ities, industrial owners, and other groups?

4. What percentage of y our transformer population cons ists of PCB-Contaminated transformers? How many units are in this popu lation? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate ut ilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups?

5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all poten tially (based on year of manufacture and other information) cont aminated 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 popula tion consists of transformers which contain measurable PCBs between 1 and 50 ppm and we re manufactured before July 31, 1979? How many units are in this population? How does the percentage and populat ion compare for major interstate utilities, muni cipal cooperatives, industria l 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 reclassifica tion and disposing of the transformers, versus disposing of the transformers without reclas sification at the end of their useful life?

8. How much equipment is being used indoor s? 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 containi ng 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, berm s, 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 elect romagnets, switches, and voltage regulators inventory in use or stored for reuse was ma nufactured 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 pe rcent 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 popula tion compare for major interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industr ial owners, and other groups?

3. The original use authorization for electrom agnets was for a very restricted number of known applications in coal mine processing opera tions. How many electromagnets in these coal mining operations still use PCBs?

4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all poten tially (based on year of manufacture and other information) contam inated electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Do you know where all regulated PCB-containing el ectromagnets, 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 regul ators? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB-contaminated electromagne ts, switches, and voltage regulators?

5. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the PCB-containing electromagnets, switches, and volta ge regulators and disposing of th em within ten years, versus disposing of the electromagnets, switches, and volta ge regulators at the end of their useful life?

6. How much equipment is being used indoor s? How much equipment is being used outdoors? Geographically and topo graphically 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 (contai ning greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid)

1. What percentage of your entire capacito r inventory in use or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, a ll years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, pleas e 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: transm ission, 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 doe s the percent and population compare for major interstate utilities, muni cipal cooperatives, industria l owners, and other groups?

4. What percentage of your capacitor population is PCB-c ontaminated? 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 poten tially (based on year of manufacture and other information) cont aminated equipment? Do you know where all regulated PCB equipment is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB capacitors? Have you removed a ll mineral oil containing PCB cap acitors? 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 read ing a nameplate or actually drai ning and weighing the dielectric

fluid?

9. What are the most likely minimum dimens ions of a capacitor, which contains 2 or

more ounces of PCB dielectric fluid?

10. What percentage of the to tal population of P CB capacitors that are currently in use

contain ≥ 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid oun ces) of dielectric fluid and 1.36 kg. (< 3 pounds) of dielectric fluid?

11. What would be the difference in cost (a nd why) for removing within ten years the PCBs from the PCB capacitors and disposing of th em versus disposing of the PCB capacitors at

the end of their useful life?

12. How much equipment is being used indoor s? How much equipment is being used outdoors? Geographically and topo graphically 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 containi ng equipment at each of these locations?

14. What active or passive safety system s 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 ye ar between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, plea se 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, reclos ers, 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 pot entially contaminated breakers, reclosers, and liquid- filled cables? Do you know wh ere all regulated PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cable s 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 (a nd why) for removing with in ten years the PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables and disposing of them versus disposing of the PCB breakers, reclosers, and li quid-filled cables at the end of their useful life?

5. How much equipment is being used indoor s? How much equipment is being used outdoors? Geographically and topo graphically 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 grea ter than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid)

1. What percentage of your rectifiers inventory in us e or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, a ll years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, pleas e provide alternative information, such as: What percentage of the entire rec tifier 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-c ontaminated? How many units are in this population?

4. For electrical utilities and other owners , have you tested all pot entially contaminated rectifiers? Do you know where a ll regulated PCB rectifiers are currently located? Have you

removed all askarel PCB rectifiers ? Have you removed all rectifie rs containing mineral oil with

≥ 500 ppm PCBs? Have you removed all rect ifiers containing mineral oil with ≥ 50 ppm and <500 ppm PCBs?

5. What percent of electrical utilities and other owners ha s removed all mineral oil PCB

rectifiers?

6. What percent of electrical utilities and other owners ha s 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 indoor s? How much equipment is being used outdoors? Geographically and topo graphically 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 se rvice 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 equipmen t which has been rebuilt or serviced in particular ways, relative to equipment that remain s substantially as it was originally installed?

2. EPA seeks information to project the ra te, location, and amount of PCB releases, and the causes of the releases. For example, what ar e 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 transforme r 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 informa tion 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-containi ng equipment, on what equipment are these or other preventive maintenance or re mote monitoring techniques employed?

7. For drainable and refillable mineral oil containing PCB articles, how do the purchase price and operational costs for this approach co mpare to reclassificati on 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 equipmen t 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 insuran ce 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 eq uipment 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 prev ent 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 co mpared 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 ca tastrophic weather releas e of dielectric fluid and the disposal of the waste a nd the equipment plus any damages to private or public property?

4. How does this cleanup and related costs comp are 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 co sts 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 re sult of damage from severe weather events for the replacement of failed PCB containing eq uipment and cleanup of PCB spills from this equipment be expected to change in the next twenty years?

7. How has the weather-related liability in surance 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 occu rrence of severe weat her events involving PCB-containing equipment in each cale ndar year starting from 1998 until 2008. a. What types of equipment were involved? b. Where was the equipment lo cated (indoors or outdoors)? c. Did spills occur as a resu lt 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 environmenta l 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?

2 3 . What are the human health and property damage risks due to the flammability properties of the PCB substitutes?

3 4 . What is the likelihood that equipment containing the PCB substitutes have releases of the substitute materials, comp ared with the likelihood that eq uipment containing PCBs have

releases of PCBs?

5. What other information about PCB substitu tes 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 undr ained) disposal companies have been operating at the end of each y ear 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 t on been for disposing of drained, oil-filled equipment, which contained ≥ 50 ppm and < 500 ppm PCB at the e nd of each year for the last ten years?

7. What has been the average cost per t on 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 be en 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 or ganizations 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 dr ained carcass? c. Disposing of the oil and rec overing 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 me tals, 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 particul ar type of equipment, such as transformers containing > 50 ppm PCBs? j. Recorded the locations of all of a particul ar 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 equipm ent, or a particular type of equipment (such as transformers), which was manufactured before 1979? l. Labeled all PCB-containing equipmen t, 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 pr eventive maintenance a nd the re-building of equipment to meet changing service requireme nts and/or industry or company codes?

4. How well does preventive maintenance or re building effect extension of the expected service life of equipment?

M. Equipment Containing Non-liquid PCBs

1. What is the total number of units (liqui d 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, ch emical analysis, and recordkeeping) non-liquid filled equipmen t to determine the PCB concentration?

5. Other than chemical analysis, what met hods (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 c ontained and recovered?

5. What human health or environmental expos ure and effects were observed or recorded?

6. How were the exposures and effects, whic h were reported in response to question No. 5 in Unit XIV.N., estimated or measured?

7. What have been and are the insurance cost s 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 othe r askarel PCB articles (such as voltage regulators) have you reclassified successfully to PCB-contaminated stat us 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 flus hing 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 regulator y 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 transf ormers 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 transfor mers are PCB-contaminated transformers?

5. How many railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated transformers?

6. What is the expected life of a transformer now in servi ce as a railroad transformer before it requires routine servic ing 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 re classification and dispos ing of them versus disposing of the railroad transformers without r eclassification at the end of their useful life?

Q. Mining Equipment

1. At what locations and for what applic ations are PCBs curre ntly used in mining equipment?

2. What percent of these pieces of equipm ent, 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 disposi ng 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 cubi c 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 co sts 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 Transmi ssion 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 dist ribution 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 i ndoor secure storage areas?

3. What is the historical lifetime and turnove r (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 st ored equipment with non-PCB equipment or reclassify this stored equipment?

6. What is the annualized cost of st oring and managing this equipment?

7. What would be the cost of replacement of this equipment?

8. What would be the cost of reclassi fying 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 occurren ces, dates, amounts and co st to clean up) of spills or other releases of PCBs from this eq uipment, 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 la st 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 electrica l equipment were sold each year over the last five years for domestic scrap metal recovery?

5. How many units of regulated PCB electrica l equipment were sold each year over the last five years for foreign scrap metal recovery?

6. How many units of regulated PCB elect rical 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 purc hase price of new or rebuilt (PCB-free) larger or smaller transformers and capacitors?

9. What is the average number of days betw een 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) transforme r, and larger (> 1.36 kg [3 pounds] of dielectric fluid) capacitors?

V. Excluded Manufacturing Processes

1. How many excluded manufacturing proce sses 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 produ ced each year over the last five years and in the next five years in each of the fo llowing 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 we ll 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 wa s 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 thes e 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 pr oducts that would be affected by a potential change in the definition of recycl ed paper (required to contain le ss 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 concentra tion, if any, be for the “Excluded PCB products” as defined in 40 CFR 761.3?

2. What should the minimum PCB concentra tion be for the “Excluded PCB products” as

defined in 40 CFR 761.3?

3. Should there be a new separate use author ization for certain cu rrently 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, se alants, 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 flui d), other than those authorized for use in 40 CFR 761.30, contain PC Bs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 ppm?

6. For each class of non-liquid and liquid pr oduct, 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 pr oduct been applied to, on, or in? c. What is the geographic dist ribution of each product use? d. What is the average expect ed 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 recl assifying 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 stori ng and managing PCB-cont aining spare parts?

4. What would be the cost of replaceme nt 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 geogra phically 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 Possi ble Authorization of the use of Some Non-Liquid PCB-Containing

Products

1. What comments can you provide that will in form EPA as to whether to authorize or not authorize the use of caulk, paint or other non-liquid PCB pr oduct at concentrations exceeding the level of 50 ppm currently provided in th e PCB regulations for excluded PCB products?

2. What data or other information is availabl e 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 aut horized 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 equipmen t containing PCBs on vessels now in service before it requires routine servicing?

5. What is the difference in the locations us ed for liquid filled equipment, versus nonliquid filled equipment located?

6. How much does it costs to identify and test (sample collecti on, 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 met hods (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 pos e 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. Th e following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this documen t. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA in developing th is 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 locat ing these other documents, please

consult the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

.

1. O. Hutzinger, S. Safe, V. Zitko, Chemistr y 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 degr ee 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 a nd 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 App lication 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 Annua l Reports from Commercial PCB Disposal Companies from 1991-2007

16. USEPA PCB Transformer Regi stration Database (January 2008) http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/ha zard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/data.htm

17. U.S. EPA Region 9 Exxon Transf ormer Case Press Release. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/a dmpress.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 po llutants (POPs) Ra tification Status - http://chm.pops.int/Countries/Statuso fRatification/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- p

Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds Na tional 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, Polychlorinate d 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/N ew 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 la ter: An overview. Envi ronmental 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 Pote ntial Impact on Health. Environmental Health Perspectiv es, 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 Iri sh Food Crisis: Paper, December 10, 2008.

31. BBC News, Irish pork contamin ations 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 in formation last reviewed. March 9, 2009 ( http://www.fsai.ie/food_busin esses/topics_of_interest/r ecall_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 communicat ion with J. Gidner, BIA. September 1999.

36. U.S. EPA (1998) Guidance for conducting fi sh and wildlife consumption surveys. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA-823-B-98-007. http://www.epa.gov/fishadvi sories/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 Ambien t Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. Washington, DC: Of fice of Water, EPA-822-B-00-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/crite ria/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 am ong Mohawk women at Akwesasne. J. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epid. 5(1):1-19. (1995)

39. Tribal Rights and Fish Consumption Wo rkshop, University of Washington School of Public Health August 12-13, 2009 (http://depts.washington.edu/tr ibalws/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 H ealth Perspect 108:611–616 (July 2000). [Online 25 May 2000] http://ehpnet1.ni ehs.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 Li ght and Power January 2006

45. USEPA EPA Personnel Deployed to Greensbur g, Kansas, for Tornado Response, May 7,

2007 http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpr ess.nsf/8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/c0b30985 df7b3cac852572d5006f3917!OpenDocument&S tart=1&Count=5&Expand=1

46. ASTM Standard D2233-86 (1997) Standard Sp ecification for Chlo rinated 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 Bu ildings 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, en titled ‘‘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 revi ew 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 co nsider in possibly de veloping a subsequent proposed rule, the various othe r review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do not apply to this action. Neve rtheless, as part of your comments on this document, you may include any comments or in formation that you have regarding the various other review requirements.

In particular, EPA is interested in any info rmation 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 stan dards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancem ent 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 ‘‘Protect ion of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 2 3, 1997); or to consider human health or environmental effects on minority or low-in come populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Enviro nmental Justice in Mino rity 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 a ppropriate steps to address a ny 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. 09 10 -????? Filed ??-??- 09 ; 10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S