USWAG Meeting 

Baltimore, MD

April 29, 2010

If the rule stipulates a phase-out date, has the agency considered what the effects would be on the 

ability to provide power? 

The time to address these issues is now before there is a proposed rule, so we can make a 

better proposed rule. In your comments, you can explain the ramifications of any 

rulemaking. It is possible that there can be exemptions – it is a much longer process to do 

that. There could be something built into the regulations for exceptions, but this would 

have special requirements, for example a limited timeframe. 

What are the big themes in EPA that will consider if you decide to go forward? What is really

important (economic, risk, etc.)? With the limited comment period, how can we focus? 

Focus on what is in the questions section. Think of this in terms of justifying a use 

authorization. Assume that what you are going to get is going to be based on what

information you provide – how much equipment , where it is, the likelihood that it 

contains PCBs, how often you replace equipment, and information about all sorts of costs 

because TSCA is a balancing statute. If you were in my shoes, what you want to know to 

be able to justify what you’re doing with respect to PCBs? 

In ANPRM, why was the 1 ppm number chosen? 

The original 50 ppm standard was based on economics. It was not based on potential risk 

for releases, 1ppm was used to move people away form thinking that this assessment will 

not depart from the status quo. 

Used oil?

Discuss the implications of that summarily. We don’t know about how much equipment 

out there contains PCBs at sepcifc PCB concentrations (other than what we have in the 

transformer database) so we definitely do not know what is out there between 1 and 50

ppm. We have a good idea about what people said in 1982. It’s not just what it will cost 

you to replace and reclassify equipment, but the costs from potential releases and 

exposures and what it costs to clean up the environment have to be balanced too. 

For environmental risk of releases, what model will you use? 

There is a general EPA risk assessment document, developed by the Office of Research 

and Development. That is the kind of tool we would use. Looking at the equipment and 

exposed parties, we might look at the worst possible case scenarios, e.g. subsistence

fisherman, people who eat a lot of cattle, fish farms and potential risk for food. Given the 

focus in the Agency on children’s health and environmental justice – we will probably 
look at equipment in those areas (for example, old, equipment, potential releases to 

water... drinking or surface, high exposures to sensitive population locations, potential

for spills). 

Will you look at dioxin reassessment work?

I don’t know. The timing wasn’t right for this rulemaking. It is hard to say if something

will end up in a rulemaking when a the assessment is not final yet. Possibly, it will be 

included for a proposed rule. 

For toxicity information, what is EPA looking at that says that this is the time to really look at 

PCBs again in terms of the reassessment? Are there studies that indicate a “smoking gun”? 

More so that after 30 years providing relief from a ban, it was the time to take a look at 

PCB uses again.

We heard that ORD might update IRIS on PCBs, but we are not sure that will happen. 

We hear that there are many more endpoints on PCBs, and not just the dioxin-like PCBs, 

and we’re not sure if there are more sensitive populations. 

It is vey difficult to establish a program where one size fits all/comparable across all utilities. In 

going forward, might EPA focus on geographic limitations? What kind of flexibility might be 

considered? 

The book is open right now. I will re-iterate that I would like to see comments on better 

ways to do things. We need to have information that helps us achieve our environmental 

objectives based on good information. 

Has the agency considered some kind of funding to change that balance? 

We talked about “cash for clunkers” sort of action. Department of Energy might be the 

likely place for that. We are asking for it, so you could too. From an Agency perspective, 

it is not a current EPA priority to provide funds to enable reclassification equipment or 

removal of PCBs, that is why I recommended other sources. We might be able to give 

time relief, for a limited time. 

Some utilities have aggressive voluntary phase-out programs. Has EPA considered that you 

could have an exemption, particularly to the identification, if you had a phase-out voluntary

program? 

If you have been collecting that phase-out information, please provide the results of what 

you have been doing to us. Different phase-out options are on the table. 

Have you been to one of our facilities in the back country areas? Because we have a lot of small 

capacitors... 
Not in a long time.

We had discussed the possibility of Agency people to visit substations to get a feel for the 

complexities. Is the timing right to do that now? Or after the comment period is over? 

We are open to visits. Georgia Power had a storage yard in Atlanta that we went to

several years ago. It would be best to talk to management about how and what you would

want to do during a visit and what you would want to talk about. I don’t think it is a 

question of EPA realizing that these are complex matters. 

With respect to the interim measures, operationally how would we apply those requirements?

You would get into the issues of sampling. If you sample the equipment, you can destroy them 

and then find out that they don’t contain PCBs. Access, safety will be issues that we will be 

commenting on. You should see what it takes to sample some non-liquid items... seeing it is 

different than addressing these issues in comments on paper. 

We would be willing to work with you to engage management on how to set up visits. 

On the issue of timing for this ANPR, was there outside pressure by interest groups, or an 

incident? 

There is talk of ratifying the Stockholm Convention. We need to be prepared from a 

regulatory perspective to be able to say how we can achieve the Stockholm Convention 

objectives. 

How does Canada rank in terms of Stockholm?

Canada is a party to the Stockholm Convention and the United States is not. We have 

both been working on issues related to PCB use and disposal and how our national 

situations relate to Convention requirements. If congress decides to ratify the Stockholm 

Convention we are trying to be better prepared in advance because often Congress gives 

us detailed mandates with rather short time frames, and EPA prefers to have time to 

gather information before having to make decisions required in potential Congressional 

mandates. 

Right now if we sampled and tested and spent dollars to do something that is not mandated, our 

stockholders wouldn’t like that. 

We (EPA and the utilities) have different primary objectives. I’m hoping that the 

information that you gather and report to EPA would also be useful to you and your 

members. It would be useful for you to know because of potential liability for spills or 

other catastrophic events. 

You said that ratification to the Stockholm Convention was being discussed – is this at the 

Congressional or EPA level? 
At the Congressional level. EPA doesn’t go to the Congress and advocate. Sometimes 

Congress asks EPA about PCB regulatory matters, and sometimes Congress doesn’t. It’s 

hard to know what they’ll do. But right now, EPA wants to hear from you. 

Given the Administrator’s keen in interest in environmental justice, how are you going to factor 

in this “new” concept of environmental justice in rulemaking?

We have to make an evaluation about environmental justice on any decision that we 

make. I don’t know the exact criteria to address it and how. For higher risk areas, 

stricter controls might have to be in place. If PCB-containing equipment is not in remote 

locations, then the risk might be much larger. Any use authorization should be based on 

no unreasonable risk. 

Will 40 CFR 761.30(p) (abbreviated hereafter as 30P) continue without controls?

EPA’s general concern is about risk and exposure. We assumed that this authorization 

would only be used for a short time frame. Our sense is that it is not the case and these 

spills are not being completely cleaned up quickly. I’m concerned that there are potential 

unreasonable risk exposures from longer uses of incompletely cleaned up spills than EPA

originally thought would be from spills which were cleaned up within a year or two.

Right-now there is a double wash sealant on paint. Are you saying that this might not be 

protective? 

Yes, especially several years after the paint has covered incompletely cleaned or 

uncleaned (inaccessible to cleanup) oil-soaked porous surfaces.

Are you thinking of additional conditions to address the prolonged use of a 30P surface? 

My concern would lean more on the difference between a 30P and an actual clean up, 

and how much difference there is in cost and prevention of risk for each of those. The last 

thing I want is for people to spend too much on something that is not working to protect 

against exposure from the spilled PCBs. 

If you can get to concrete and clean it within 72 hours... is this something under discussion?

That’s more of a disposal question than a use question. The 72 hours was not a riskbased provision. It was based on the maximum time between a spill just after close of 

business on a Friday of a three day weekend and the time when someone would be able 

to respond to the spill. 
When we talk about identifying probably millions of pieces equipment and the risk and benefit 

of removing this equipment, has EPA considered the lineman who go out and take these 

samples? There are potential burns and fatalities; this puts workers at risk. 

Hopefully, we don’t have to choose between one (safety of workers) or the other (safety of 

others). I’m concerned about the safety of people living the potential spills too. The safety 

of everyone is important to me. 

We have a lot of old equipment, working probably better than what is there now. For equipment

that is older and hasn’t been serviced from the 1920s, would we have to test that if we know it 

doesn’t contain PCBs?

No, we’re not talking about requiring testing. You can make assumptions based on 

certain criteria, and those assumption criteria are based on data provided by utilities. 

As a result of voluntary programs (like in the Great Lakes), there has been an accelerated phasedown beyond attrition. I would assume that would be important to EPA in terms of evaluating 

the effectiveness of these programs. Is a phase-down based on these programs and attrition 

combined enough? How important are these programs and their effectiveness to EPA? If we are 

moving towards Stockholm objectives, is this something you’ll evaluate?

Yes, that is absolutely something. Our end objective is to minimize PCBs in the 

environment in use and in storage for re-use. We want to know about the number of 

equipment removed, how old it is, what condition it is in, and what can we predict about 

the future from the past. We didn’t have good information about what was out there and 

where is was.... In terms of the future of PCB containing equipment, we want to make 

sure that they are contained and when they’re done, they are destroyed. 

Right now we have 2 pieces of trend data. The transformer registration database and the 

disposal info in the ANPR (capacitors and transformers destroyed). There is also spill 

info from the coast guard. As a scientist, I’m not sure there is much I can say from that 

one way or the other. There is something wrong if there are that many in the disposal 

database every year. We need more information.

We’ve been living in a 50-500 ppm world for 30 years, and that was thrown out in the ANPRM. 

It is hard for us to predict for 1ppm or even smaller quantities. 

Tell us what you know. If you think it’s wrong to go less than 50 based on risk, tell us. Or 

explain what you don’t know. 

Do you find that the disposal trends are going down? Is that important to you if you see fewer 

pieces of PCB-containing equipment?

That’s partly important. We don’t know proportions, we just have absolute numbers. If 

they weren’t going down, then there is something wrong because we’re not making it 
anymore. We are looking for it to keep coming down, and that there are not going to be 

any events because it is being phased out in a timely manner by attrition. 

How engaged are the PCB disposal companies with the Agency in this ANPR? 

Not at all, so far . Maybe they will be later, but disposal capacity is one of the things we 

asked about. 

Have you had conversations with the permitting side?

They were on the workgroup. This is not a disposal rulemaking, and we have not heard 

from anyone over there that they are starting rulemaking.

We are not sure about the capacity out there, and we are worried that there might be a backlog.

We understand that this might be an issue. I think that’s why Congress provided for EPA 

to allow for a delay in disposal. Please provide information on whether you think 

capacity might be available. When we talk to disposal companies, they tell us they are 

operating under permitted capacity. For the recycling of metals, tell us how much of a 

change has there been in your practices to recycle instead of dispose or incinerate. 

For what is proposed in the ANPR, we would be talking about disrupting service en masse. How

does that factor into compliance with NUR?? 

That’s not our objective at EPA. We are trying to work reasonably and rationally. The 

better information we have, the better decision we can make. Think of ways or different 

approaches to achieve the same objectives. It’s not all or nothing. 

In regards to non-liquid uses, PCBs in caulk has been given high priority or scrutiny. What about 

paints or sealants? We wondered what EPA’s thinking was in separating out caulk from other 

non-liquid uses?

It was a management decision. The situation was a “perfect storm” of sensitive 

populations, concerned parents, and high levels of material releases. I’m not sure that 

there are other non-liquids are in that same situation. My reading of old production 

information is that 25% of production went into non-liquid uses; that is lots of PCBs that 

we know very little about. 

Have you sought information from Canada, for a lessons-leaned opportunity?

It would help if you could share with some of their utilities. It is not something we usually 

do; they didn’t consult us on their rule-making. It is important to learn from what 

they’ve done. If you have information on that, please provide it. 

Are natural gas pipelines a PCB risk? What are EPA’s thoughts on reauthorization? 
We have pipelines regulations that are based on our knowledge 10 years ago. There has 

only been one situation... in Chicago, where PCBs were found in a stove and gas-trap. 

That is something we would prefer not to happen, but to our knowledge, it is limited in 

scope. We don’t have disposal information from utilities – they are not required to report, 

just to keep records. Is there a downward trend? That would be useful information for us

to have. There is no push to address a known risk, other than the one I mentioned. 

Our system is very dry.

That’s what we heard back then, that most of the liquids are on the generation side. 

Has EPA considered use with strict management controls? This way would save resources while 

providing energy to the US grid. When you look at removing equipment from service, the 

concept of sustainability seems to run counter to that. We would be taking usable equipment out 

of service when it is still functional and replacing it with new equipment that would have to be 

manufactured and use green house gases in the manufacture. Has there been a discussion of this 

within the Agency? The Agency should be a champion for sustainability. 

There have been no discussions within our program. We are talking about old equipment

here, and we are assuming that it doesn’t fail. We need to replace those pieces before 

they catastrophically fail. USWAG practices are very good, but we don’t want people to 

think that these are the only things that should be done. Is it sustainable to keep 

equipment that will fail? You can replace it before it fails and before you have the mess. 

We do have programs in place to find the older units, whatever our scrapping guidelines may be. 

We do take equipment out of service or reclassify it. 

Tell me about it. Not only what you are doing, but why you do it that way. And what 

conclusions can you draw from this? You have thousands of dollars of equipment... how 

do you know what to replace and when? How do manage this vintage segment of your 

equipment population. 

Do you have knowledge and experience from other industries mentioned in the document? Do 

you get a sense that they will be able to provide that data as well? 

The only other organization that we work with routinely is waste management, and the 

shredder people have been active. Before the 1998 regulations, the gas transmission

people. The electric utilities have been the most active. 

We care very much about their business. For example, for the Federal Government, we 

want to make sure they are doing the same things to protect people from PCBs that you 

are.

Would the agency consider separating out the entities? The Agency should focus on other 

entities besides utilities.
I think there are ways where conditions can be developed. I think it is hard to have a 

regulation that focuses on one segment of the industry. If there are ways to keep PCBs 

out of the environment, let us know, so that other industries know that is an option. We 

will not aim to exclude utilities from PCB regulations, but provide conditions and 

approaches that work that can be applied to other industries. If it works well, I want 

everybody doing it. 

You don’t have to wait for a rulemaking to submit comments to the Agency. I’d rather not 

see it in the trade press, I’d rather learn it from you guys, so I can ask questions and ask 

you about the data that would be helpful for us. If there is not an extension of the 

comment period, let us know what you have done and what you need more time for. The 

ANPR is much less rigid for accepting late comments. If you’re going to develop data, 

now is the time. I doubt you’ll be getting a 90-day extension. Tell us something that you 

can do, something that would be reasonable for you, and evidence to back that up. Based 

on that, what would you predict for the future? We picked ending in 2025 because that is 

a target that we have from the Stockholm Convention. 

Will there be a west coast public meeting? 

We are considering it. You can submit where and when you would like to see it. 

We are doing a webinar with NWPPA. Chances are that the meeting will be further 

south, since we are doing the webinar up north.