Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757-0055
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-06-14T04:00Z

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 risk-based 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 phase-down 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.