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 e xplain the ramifications of any rulemaking. It is possible that there can be ex em ptions

– it is a much longer process to do that. There could be s omething bu ilt 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 i n 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 yo u provide

– how much equipment , where it is, the likelihood that it con tains PCBs, how often you replace equ ipment, 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 . W e 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 hav e 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 cost s to clean up the environment have to be balanced too. For e nvironm ental risk of releases , what model will you use? There is a general EPA risk assessment document, developed by the O ffice of R esearch and D evelopment. That is the kind of tool we would use. Look ing 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 f ocus in the A gency on children ’ s health and environmental justice

– we will probablylook at equip ment 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. T

he timing wasn’t right for th is rulemaking

. It is h ard to say if some thing 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 say s that this is the time to reall y loo k 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/ comparab le 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. W

e need to ha ve information that helps us achieve o u r 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 A gency 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 program s . Has EPA considered that you could have an exemption, particularl y 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 facil ities in the back country areas? B ecause we have a lot of small capacitors...Not in a long time

.

W e had discussed the possibility of A gency people to visit substations to get a feel for the complexities. I s the timing right to do that now? Or after the comment period is over? We are open to visits . Georgia Po wer 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 ma tters
. With respect to the i nterim measures, operationally how would we appl y those requirement s ? You would get into the issues of sampling . I f you sample the equipment , you can destro y them and then find out that the y don’t contain P CBs . Access, safety will be issues that we will be commenting on. You should see what it takes to sample some non

- liquid item s ... seeing it is different than address ing 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 t iming for this ANPR, was there outside pressure b y interest groups, or an incident? There is talk of ratifying the Stockholm Conven tion. We need to be prepared fro m a regulatory perspective to be able to say how we can achie ve the Stockholm Convention objectives. How does Canada rank in terms of Stockholm? Canad a is a party to the Stockholm C onvention and the United States is not. We have both b e en working on issues rela ted to PCB use and disposal and how our national situation s relate to Convention requirements

. If congress decides to ratify the Stockholm Convention we are trying to be better prepared in advance because o ften 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 utilitie

s) 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 rati fication to the Stockholm Convention was being discussed

– is this at the C ongressional or EPA level?At the Congressional level

. EPA do es n’t go to the Congress and advocate. Sometimes

Congress ask

s EPA about PCB regulatory matters, and sometimes Congress do es n’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, h ow are you going to fa ctor in this “new” concept of environmental justic e in rulemaking? We have to make an evaluation about environmental justice on a ny 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, the n 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) cont inue without controls? EPA’s general concern is about risk and expos ure. 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 be ing completely cleaned up quickly. I’m concerned that there are potential unreasonable risk exposures from lo nger uses of incompletely cleaned up spills than EPA originally thought would be f rom 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, especiall

y several years after the paint has covered incompletely cleaned or uncleaned (inaccessible to cleanup) oil

-soaked porous surfaces

. Are you thinking of additional condition s to address the prolonged use of a 30 P surface? My concern would lean more on t he difference between a 30P and an actual clean up, and how much diff

erence 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 ques tion than a use question. The 72 hours was not a risk

based provision. It was b ased 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 wo uld be able to respond to the spill

.When w e talk about identifying probabl y millions of pieces equipment and the risk and be nefit

of removing this equipment, has EPA considered the lineman who go out an d take these samples? T here 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 concerne d about the safety of people living the potential spills too
. The s afety of everyone is important to me. We have a lot of old equip ment , working probabl y better than what is there now. For e quip ment that is older and hasn’t been serviced from the 1920 s , would we have to test that if we know it doesn’t contain PCBs? No, we ’re not talking about requiring testing. Yo u can make assumptions based on certain criteria, and those assumption criteria are based on data provided by utilities. As a result of v oluntary

programs ( like in the Great L akes), there has been an accelerated phase

down beyond attrition. I would assume that would be imp ortant t o EPA in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. Is a phase

- down based on these programs and attri tion combined enough? How important are these programs and their effectiveness to EPA? If w e are moving towards Stockholm objectives, is this something you’ll evaluate? Yes, that is absolutely something

. Our end objective is to min imize PCBs in the enviro n ment in use and in storage for re

- use. We want to know about the number of equipm ent removed, how old it is, what condition it is in, and w hat 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. T he transformer registration database and the disposal info in the ANPR (c apacitors and transformers destroyed ). There is also s

pill 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

- 50 0 ppm world for 30 years, and that was thrown out in the ANPRM. It is hard for us to predict for 1 ppm 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? I s that important to you i f you see fewer pieces of PCB

- contain ing equipment ? That’s partly important. We don’t know proportion s, we just have absolute numbers. If they weren’t going down, then there is something wrong because we’re not making itanymore. We are looking for it to keep coming down , and that there are not going to b e

any eve nts because it is being phased out in a timely m anner by attrition

. H ow engaged are the PCB disposal companies with the A gency in this ANPR? Not at all , so far . Maybe they will be later , but disposal capacity is one of the things we ask ed about. Have you had conversations with the permitting side ? They were on the workgroup. This is not a disposal rulemaking, and w e have not heard from anyone o ver there tha t they are starting rulemaking. We are not sure about the capacity out there , and we are worried that there might be a backlog. We understa nd that this might b e an issue. I think that’s why C ongress provided for EPA to allow for a delay in disposal. Please provide information on whether you think capacity might be available. W hen we talk to disposal companies, they te ll us they are operating under permitted capacity. For the recycling of metals, tell us how mu ch 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 w o rk reasonably and rationally. The better information we have, the better decision we can make. Think of ways or different approaches to achieve the same obje ctives. It’s not all or nothing. In regards to n on - liquid uses , PCBs in caulk has been given high priority or scrutiny . What about paints or sealants ? W e w ondered what EPA ’ s thinking was in separating out caulk from other non - liquid uses? It was a management decision. The situation was a “ p erfect 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 tha t 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 somet hing we usually do; they didn’t consult us on their rule

- making. It is important to learn from what the y ’v e done. If you have information on that , please provide it. Are n atural 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 some thing we would prefer not to happen, but to our knowledge , it is limited in scope. We d

on’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 men tioned. Our sy stem is very

dry

. Tha t’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 equip ment from service, the concept of sustainability seems to run counter to that. We would be taking usable equip ment out of servi ce when it is still functional and replacing it with new equip ment that would have to be manufactured and u se green house gases in the manufacture. H as there been a discussion of this within the A gency? The Agency should be a champion for sustainability

. There have been no di

scussions within our program. W e are talking about old equip ment here, and we are ass uming that it doesn’t fail. We n eed 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 equip ment 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 reclass ify it. Tell me about it. Not only wh at you are doing , but why you do it that way . A nd what conclusions can you draw from this? You have thousands of dollars of equip ment ... how do you know what to replace and when? H ow do manage this vintage segment of your equipment population

. Do you have knowledge and experience from other industries mentioned in the document? Do yo u 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 b een active. Before the 19 98 regulation s, the gas transmission people. The electric utilities have been the most active. We care very much about their business. For example, for the F ederal 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

regulatio n that focuses on one segment of the industry. If there are ways to keep P CBs out of the environment, le t us know, so that other industries know that is an option . W e will n ot aim to exclude utilities from PCB regulation s, but provide conditions and approa ches 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 A gency. 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 yo u’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 w ould you predict for the future? We picked e nding in 2025 because that is a target that we have from the Stockholm Convention

. W ill there be a w est coast public meeting? We are considering it. You can submit where and when you would like to see it. We are doing a we binar with NW PPA. C hances are that the meeting will be furth er south, since we are doing the webinar up north.