Umted States EPA-600/2-81-022
Environmental Protection
Agency February 1981
&EPA Research and
Development
GUIDELINES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF PCBS
AND PCB ITEMS BY THERMAL DESTRUCTION
Prepared for
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND
REGIONS 1 - 10
Prepared by
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-81-02 2
February 1981
GUIDELINES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF PCBs
AND PCB ITEMS BY THERMAL DESTRUCTION
by
D.6. Ackerman, L.L. Scinto, P.S. Bakshi, R.G. Delumyea,
R.J. Johnson, G. Richard, and A.M. Takata
TRW, Inc., Environmental Engineering Division
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Contract No. 68-02-3174, Work Assignment No. 1
EPA Program Element No. C1YL1B
Task Officer: David C. Sanchez
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
and Regions I Through X
Washington, DC 20460
,tfli Protection
S Environmental . rotv^
Chicago,
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, the Office of Toxic Substances and Regional Offices of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
U,S. Environmental Protection Agencf
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report is a resource and guidelines document intended to aid U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices in interpreting and apply-
ing the PCB Disposal Regulations to thermal destruction of PCBs.
As background material, this document describes fundamental processes
of combustion, thermal destruction systems, sampling and analysis methodo-
logy, and flame chemistry relative to PCB incineration. Administrative
considerations, including public involvement, are discussed. Detailed
guidelines on evaluation of Annex I incinerators, high efficiency boilers,
and the several stages of the approval process are presented and discussed.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3174,
Work Assignment No. 1, by TRW, Inc., Environmental Engineering Division,
under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers the period 12 October 1979 to 12 April 1980, and work was completed
as of 12 April 1980.
m
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 The Problem 1
1.3 Purpose 6
1.4 Scope 7
2. Thermal Destruction Technology 9
2.1 Combustion Theory 9
2.1.1 Combustion of Liquids 10
2.1.2 Combustion of Solids 13
2.2 Thermal Destruction Systems 14
2.2.1 Incineration Systems 15
2.2.2 High Efficiency Boilers 48
2.2.3 Summary 54
2.3 Sampling and Analysis Methodologies for PCBs .... 54
2.3.1 Sampling Methodologies 56
2.3.2 Analytical Methodologies 71
2.4 Stack Monitoring Instrumentation 83
2.4.1 Oxygen Monitors 83
2.4.2 Carbon Monoxide/Carbon Dioxide Monitors ... 85
2.4.3 NO, N02 Monitors 86
2.4.4 Use of Monitoring Equipment 86
2.5 Combustion of PCBs 87
2.5.1 Fuel Characteristics 87
2.5.2 Combustion Process Characteristics 88
2.5.3 Formation Mechanisms 91
2.5.4 Thermochemical Equilibrium Analysis 97
2.6 Other Pertinent Literature 102
2.7 Summary 103
3. Administrative Requirements 105
3.1 Federal Rules and Regulations 105
3.2 State and Local Rules and Regulations 108
3.3 Spill Control and Reporting Requirements 108
3.4 Public Notification and Participation 109
4. Evaluation of Annex I Incinerators Ill
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.1 Evaluation of Initial Report 115
4.1.1 Incinerator System Design 118
4.1.2 Operational Data Capability 159
4.1.3 Effluent Monitoring Capability 159
4.1.4 Sampling Locations 164
4.1.5 Waste Characterization and Feed Rate .... 166
4.1.6 Storage Capability 167
4.1.7 Site Specific Concerns 170
4.2 Evaluation of Trial Burn Plan 175
4.2.1 Operational Data 178
4.2.2 Monitoring, Sampling, and Analysis 179
4.3 Evaluation of Trial Burn • 186
4.3.1 Completeness of Data 188
4.3.2 Data Reduction 188
4.3.3 Data Assessment 191
4.4 Criteria for Incinerator Permit Approval 196
4.4.1 Design and Operational Criteria 196
4.4.2 Monitoring and Record Keeping Criteria ... 199
4.4.3 Sampling and Analysis 200
4.4.4 Waste Composition 201
4.4.5 Compliance Criteria 201
4.4.6 Waiver Criteria 202
5. Evaluation of High Efficiency Boilers 203
5.1 Evaluation of Notification Information 203
5.1.1 Boiler Design and Operation Evaluation . . . 205
5.1.2 Operational Data Capability 210
5,1.3 Waste Characterization and Feed Rate .... 211
5.1.4 Effluent Monitoring 212
5.1.5 Sampling Locations 212
5.1.6 Storage Capabilities 213
5.1.7 Site Specific Concerns 213
5.2 Evaluation of Trial Burn Plan 214
5.2.1 Operational Data 215
5.2.2 Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis 216
5.3 Evaluation of Trial Burn Data 218
5.3.1 Completeness of Data 218
5.3.2 Data Reduction 218
5.3.3 Data Assessment 219
5.4 Criteria for Approval of Boilers for PCB Destruction 220
5.4.1 Design and Operational Criteria 223
5.4.2 Monitoring and Recording Criteria 223
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.4.3 Sampling and Analysis 224
5.4.4 Compliance Criteria 224
References 226
Appendices
A. PCB Regulations 232
B. Environmental Assessment . . . i 289
C. Sample Calculations 302
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Disposal requirements for PCBs and PCB Items 8
2 Schematic of Rollins Environmental Services rotary kiln
incinerator 16
3 Typical vertically fired liquid waste incinerator ... 27
4 Horizontally fired liquid waste incineration system . . 29
5 Multiple hearth incineration system 33
6 Fluidized bed facility schematic 37
7 Retort multiple-chamber incinerator 40
8 In-line multiple-chamber incinerator 40
9 Schematic diagram of a catalytic combustor 42
10 Schematic diagram of a pyrolysis system 43
11 Atomic International Div. molten salt reactor - process
flow and sampling schematic 46
12 Pulverized coal firing methods 53
13 Cyclone firing of crushed coal 53
14 Schematic of EPA Method 5 train 58
15 SASS train schematic 59
16 Schematic of modified Method 5 stack sampling train . . 62
17 Preferred PCB sampling train configuration 64
18 Assembled sampler and shelter with exploded view of the
filter holder 69
19 Flowchart of Annex I incinerator approval process ... 112
20 Examples of wet scrubber types for emission control . . 139
21 Overall penetration versus cut to mean particle diameter
ratio 145
22 PCB incineration waste disposal 151
vn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Operational Data from PCB Tests at Rollins Environmental
Services 20
2 Operational Data from PCB Tests at ENSCO 24
3 Results of Incineration Tests of Ethylene and Hexachloro-
cyclopentadiene Wastes at the Marquardt Company 31
4 Results of Several Incineration Tests of Organochlorine
Wastes Onboard the M/T Vulcanus 31
5 Incineration System Summary 47
6 Summary of PCB Thermal Destruction Tests 55
7 CO, C02, 02 Monitoring Instrumentation 84
8 Percent of PCBs Remaining After Exposure at Different
Temperatures 89
9 Percent PCBs Remaining After Treatment at 704°C 90
10 Theoretical Combustion Efficiencies and Equilibrium
Concentrations of Major Species from Combustion of Two PCB
Wastes 98
11 Pyrolysis of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: Equilibrium Product
Distribution as a Function of Temperature 100
12 Pyrolysis of Highly Chorinated Hydrocarbons: Equilibrium
Product Distribution as a Function of Temperature .... 101
13 Federal Laws/Regulations Pertaining to PCBs 107
14 Checklist for Evaluation of Initial Report 117
15 Theoretical Oxygen Requirements and Product Gas Yields
for Complete Combustion 125
16 Configurations of Selected Gas Cleaning Devices Applicable
to PCB Incineration Facilities 138
17 Packing Depth Required to Achieve Specified Removal
Efficiency 142
18 Murphree Vapor Phase Efficiency for Plate Towers 143
19 Typical L/G Ratios 149
20 Partial List of Liquid Samplers 163
21 Partial List of Flow Rate Measurement Instruments .... 167
22 Checklist for Evaluating a Trial Burn Plan 176
23 Suggested PCB Trial Burn Plan Outline 177
24 Types of Data from Trial Burn 189
25 Checklist of Trial Burn Results 195
vm
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
26 Requirements for Approval to Incinerate Liquid PCBs. . . . 197
27 Requirements to Incinerate Non-Liquid PCBs 198
28 Information for High Efficiency Boilers 204
29 Recommended Types of Data from Trial Burn in a High
Efficiency Boiler 219
30 Requirements for Burning PCB-Contaminated Dielectric
Fluids in High Efficiency Boilers 221
31 Requirements for Burning PCB-Contaminated Non-Mineral
Oil Dielectric Fluids in High Efficiency Boilers .... 222
IX
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are derivatives of the compound biphenyl
in which from one to ten of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced with chlorine
atoms. PCBs synthesized for commercial use are mixtures of isomers. PCBs are
not naturally occurring compounds.
PCBs have extremely high thermal and chemical stability. They are of low
volatility (decreases with increasing chlorine content), are relatively non-
flammable, and have excellent electrical insulating characteristics. Commer-
cial mixtures are liquids at room temperature. They are insoluble in water,
have a low degree of hygroscopicity, and are soluble in most common organic
solvents.
There are 209 possible PCB isomers, ranging from three monochloro isomers
to one decachloro isomer. The commercial mixtures are very complex, each con-
taining many isomers. Sissons and Welti (1) identified 69 isomers in Aroclor
1254, a commercial mixture produced by Monsanto. Aroclor is a trademark of
Monsanto, the principal U.S. manufacturer of PCBs, for a series of PCB mixtures.
The digits "12" refer to biphenyl as the parent compound. The digits "54" in-
dicate that the chlorine content of Aroclor 1254 is approximately 54% by weight.
From 1971 through 1974, Monsanto produced Aroclor 1016 (an exception to this
nomenclature) which was similar to Aroclor 1242 but greatly reduced amounts of
penta-, hexa-, and hepta-chloro isomers. Other tradenames for PCBs or PCB
fluids are: Chlorextol (Allis-Chalmers), Clophen (Farbenfabriken Bayer), Dy-
kanol (Federal Pacific Electric Co.), Fenclor (Caffaro.S.P.A.), Inerteen
(Westinghouse), Kanechlor (Kanegafuchi Chemical Industry Co.), Noflamol (Wagner
Electric Corp.), Phenoclor (Prodlec), Pyralene (Prodlec), Pyranol (General
Electric), and Santotherm (Mitsubishi-Monsanto).
1.2 THE PROBLEM
The excellent stability characteristics of PCBs made them highly useful
-------
in numerous commercial applications: particularly dielectric fluids in capa-
citors and transformers, but also in heat transfer and hydraulic systems,
pigments, plasticizers, carbonless copying paper, electromagnets, components
in cutting oils, and others. Their wide use coupled with a lack of recogni-
tion of their hazards has led to PCBs being ubiquitously distributed world-
wide in virtually all compartments of the environment (2). Highest concen-
trations are found in industrialized urban areas; but PCBs are found in air,
water, soils, and marine samples in remote, unindustrialized areas. Experi-
mental evidence, summarized in Reference 2, indicates that atmospheric trans-
port is the major means by which PCBs have been so widely dispersed.
Although PCBs have low acute toxicities, other adverse effects have been
found in humans, laboratory animals, and other organisms (3). A summary of
toxicological and epidemiological data on the effects of PCBs, adapted from
Reference 3, is given below. More detailed discussions are given in References
2 and 3. PCBs appear to cause tumors in laboratory animals. There are limit-
ed human epidemiological data, but excess carcinogenic effects have been ob-
served in several large groups of people exposed to PCBs. Several studies in
animals have shown that PCBs cause fetal resorption, birth defects, and high
offspring mortality rates at levels of 1-5 mg/kg body weight. There is evi-
dence that PCBs produce immunosuppressive effects in laboratory animals. PCBs
have been observed to cause liver damage. PCBs have caused chloracne in human
3
workers occupationally exposed to air levels as low as 0.1 mg/m .
Adverse effects observed in laboratory tests also occur in wild animals.
PCBs are known to bioaccumulate and to biomagnify. Effects noted in mink
fed PCB contaminated fish include reproductive failure, reduced weight gain,
increased mortality, and enlargement of liver, kidneys, and heart.
PCB mixtures are extremely toxic to several species of aquatic inverte-
brates and fish. Aroclor 1254 is toxic to several shrimp species at levels
of about 1 ppb. Increased mortality of sheepshead minnows was observed in
water containing 0.16 ppb of Aroclor 1254. Concentrations of Aroclor 1242,
1016, and 1254 as low as 0.1 ppb have been demonstrated to depress photo-
synthetic activity in phytoplankton.
-------
The principal sources (2,3) on health effects of PCBs used in this
report indicate that there is very little information on the relative ad-
verse effects (toxicity, oncogenicity, mutogenicity, etc.) of individual
isomers or mixtures. It might be argued that the more highly chlorinated
isomers or mixtures are more harmful, if only by virtue of the facts that
they are less readily metabolized and eliminated than the less highly chlori-
nated species. However, EPA has not established standards for the differ-
ent mixtures because all PCB mixtures: 1) can induce toxic effects at low
levels, 2) include highly persistent components, and 3) include components
that are subject to significant uptake and storage.
The realization of the widespread distribution of PCBs in the environ-
ment and growing knowledge of their hazards led Monsanto in 1972 voluntarily
to restrict sales of PCBs to the manufacture of electrical transformers and
capacitors. Monsanto ceased all production in 1977.
A few data points serve to illustrate the magnitude of the environmen-
tal contamination problem. It has been estimated (2) that over 400,000
metric tons (mt) (900 million pounds) of PCBs were sold domestically in the
U.S. during the period 1957-1974. Nisbet and Sarofim (4) have estimated
that cumulative sales of PCBs in North America from 1930 through 1970 amount-
ed to 450,000 mt (1 billion pounds). Data from Reference 2 indicate that
domestic sales from 1971 through 1974 were 60,000 metric tons (133 million
pounds). Total domestic sales may thus be estimated at 510,000 metric tons
(1.1 billion pounds). Nisbet and Sarofim (4) also estimated that during the
period 1930 through 1970 cumulative losses of PCBs to the environment amount-
ed to 354,000 metric tons (770 million pounds) distributed as follows:
fl Air - 27,000 metric tons
• Fresh and coastal water - 54,000 metric tons
• Dumps and landfills - 270,000 metric tons
EPA has estimated (5) that up to and including 1975, between 136,000 and
181,000 metric tons (300 to 400 million pounds) of PCBs had entered the en-
vironment.
-------
Growing evidence of the problem of PCB contamination led in 1976 to the
inclusion of Section 6(e) in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Sec-
tion 6(e) of TSCA required EPA to regulate the marking and disposal of PCBs
already in use. It also provided for a ban on the manufacture and use of
PCBs in other than a totally enclosed manner by 1 January 1978, a complete
ban on manufacture by 2 July 1979, and a complete ban on distribution in
commerce and processing by 1 July 1979. The latter bans include activities
conducted in a totally enclosed manner. EPA was, however, authorized to
grant exceptions to the ban rules under certain conditions. Regulatory
implementation of Section 6(e) is summarized in (3).
On 31 May 1979, EPA promulgated the final rule ("PCB Regulations")
under the authority of Section 6(e) of TSCA: Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Pro-
hibitions (40 CFR 761). This rule: 1) prohibits all manufacturing of PCBs
after 2 July 1979; 2) prohibits processing, distribution in commerce, and
use of PCBs except in a totally enclosed manner after 1 July 1979; and 3)
authorizes certain exemptions. The PCB Regulations do not require removal
of PCBs and PCB Items from service and disposal earlier than would normally
be required. But, when PCBs and PCB Items are removed from service, dispos-
al must be in accordance with the PCB Regulations. The PCB Regulations
generally apply to any substance, mixture, or item containing greater than
50 ppm PCBs.
Regulatory actions by EPA and other Federal agencies apply to PCB dis-
posal. In particular, final and proposed regulations (43 FR 58946) pursu-
ant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) address facilities
which dispose of hazardous wastes. EPA is currently considering strategies
for integrating RCRA standards and TSCA rules for disposing of PCBs. In its
Phase I RCRA regulations, EPA has announced that the PCB disposal regulations
will be incorporated into the Phase II RCRA regulations (45 FR 33173).
EPA has regulatory authority governing PCB disposal activity under other
legislative acts. The Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) are used to regulate low concentrations
of PCBs entering the environment. Under CWA, EPA can control PCB releases
through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (Section
-------
402), through dredging permits (Section 404), and through toxic effluent
standards and prohibitions (Section 307(a)). CWA also required the President
of the U.S. to prepare the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan. This responsibility was delegated to EPA. The final plan
has just been issued (40 CFR 1510, 45 FR 17831). The plan covers spill pre-
vention and control procedures.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was establish-
ed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Among other powers, OSHA was
authorized to set standards for occupational exposure to chemicals. OSHA
has set standards for occupational exposure to PCBs (6):
• Chlorodiphenyl (42% chlorine) - TWA of 1 mg/m3 and STEL of
2 mg/m3.
• Chlorodiphenyl (54% chlorine) - TWA of 0.5 mg/m and STEL
of 1 mg/m3.
The TWA (Time Weighted Average) is a concentration to which a worker can be
exposed for 8-hour days and 40-hour weeks indefinitely without adverse ef-
fects. The STEL (Short Term Exposure Limit) is a level to which a worker
may not be exposed for more than 15 minutes without suffering adverse ef-
fects.
Large amounts of PCBs are in service which will eventually be subject
to or are currently awaiting disposal. No definitive estimate of the total
amount of PCBs in service has been found. The Versar data (3) are for 1975,
and it can be estimated from those data that 143,000 metric tons of PCBs in
1975 were subject to the PCB Regulations. In the Preamble to the PCB Regu-
lations, EPA estimates (44 FR 31516) that lowering the PCB concentration
cutoff from 500 ppm to 50 ppm will result in the control of an additional
454 metric tons (1 million pounds). In addition, EPA estimated that the
lower cutoff would result in the control of from 45 to 227 metric tons
(100,000 to 500,000 pounds) of new PCBs per year (estimated from manufac-
turing exemption petitions.) Allen (6) gave an estimate of from 136,000 to
1,364,000 metric tons of liquid PCBs (30 million to 3 billion pounds).
An estimate of the total amount of PCBs subject to eventual disposal
is given below. Nesbit and Sarofim (4) estimated that from 1930 through
1970 450,000 metric tons of PCBs had been sold domestically and that an
-------
estimated 354,000 metric tons had been released to the environment. Thus,
as of the end of 1970, some 96,000 metric tons are estimated to have been
in service. Data from Reference 2 showed that from 1971 through 1974 60,000
metric tons of PCBs were sold domestically. Assuming no loss of this latter
production (note that in 1972 Ronsanto restricted PCB sales to long-lived
capacitor and transformer uses), it might be estimated that 156,000 (96,000
plus 60,000) metric tons of PCBs might still be in service. Data taken from
an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report, Table 1-1 of Reference
8 indicate that a minimum of 121,400 metric tons of PCBs in utility capaci-
tors exists for eventual disposal over a 40-year period.
The Electric Power Research Institute concludes (8) that there will be
a shortfall of utility waste PCB disposal capacity (landfill and incinerator)
in most EPA Regions after 1 January 1980. While utilities apparently have
the majority of PCB production still in service, there are numerous other
commercial and industrial sectors also having PCBs still in service. Thus,
there is a disposal problem, and this resource document was prepared, in
part, to help ameliorate this disposal problem by aiding the approval pro-
cess for thermal destruction of PCBs and PCB Items.
1.3 PURPOSE
This report is a resource and guidelines document. It is intended to
aid EPA Regional Offices in evaluating facilities which apply for approval
for thermal destruction of PCBs. To achieve this purpose, this report pro-
vides guidance in:
• Interpreting those portions of the regulations governing thermal
destruction (Subpart B for high efficiency boilers and Subpart
E for incinerators)
• Establishing criteria for evaluating the consistency of disposal
operations with the regulations
• Evaluating for incinerators and high efficiency boilers: Initial
Reports, Notifications, Trial Burn plans, Trial Burn data, and
Approvals and compliance for thermal destruction of PCBs
t Facilitating coordinated and comprehensive control Agency review
of PCB disposal operations
In providing support to EPA Regional Offices, this resource document
provides information in the following general areas:
-------
t Description of fundamental combustion processes as they relate
to incineration efficiency
• Description and evaluation of thermal destruction technologies
that could be used for disposal of PCBs and PCB Items
• Descriptions of thermal destruction tests on PCBs and other
relevant materials
• Description and evaluation of monitoring, sampling, and analysis
methods used for PCBs
1.4 SCOPE
The PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761) provide four general methods for dis-
posal of PCBs and PCB Items. These methods are:
t Incineration in Annex I incinerators
• Incineration in high efficiency boilers
• Disposal in Annex II chemical waste landfills
• Disposal as municipal solid waste
Figure 1 illustrates disposal requirements for PCBs and PCB Items.
This guidelines document applies solely to disposal by thermal destruc-
tion in Annex I incinerators and high efficiency boilers. Disposal in Annex
II chemical waste landfills or as municipal solid waste is not covered. Non-
thermal destruction methods (e.g., chlorinolysis or microwave degradation)
are not covered. Sufficient discussion is provided so that capabilities of
new or still-developing thermal destruction technologies can be evaluated
as disposal methods.
Certain aspects of the PCB Regulations are unclear. Where there are
ambiguities, this document provides guidelines and recommendations for clari-
fication.
Chapter 2 of this report describes thermal destruction technology:
sampling, analysis, and monitoring techniques and the combustion of PCBs.
Chapter 3 describes administrative requirements, a method for determining
State and local requirements, and a methodology for involving the public in
the process for PCB disposal. Chapter 4 presents guidelines for evaluating
Annex I incinerators. Chapter 5 presents guidelines for evaluating high
efficiency boilers.
-------
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
CO
PCS ARTICLES
PCS CONTAINERS •
MINERAL OIL DIELECTRIC FLUIDS
FROM PCB TRANSFORMERS
. MINERAL OILDIELECTRIC FLUIDS
FROM PCB-CONTAMINATEO
TRANSFORMERS
' PCB LIQUID WASTES OTHER THAN
MINERALOIL DIELECTRIC FLUID
NON-LIQUID PCB WASTES -
(e.g., CONTAMINATED
MATERIALS FROM SPILLS)
• DREDGED MATERIALS AND
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
TREATMENT SLUDGES
CONTAINING PCBs
TRANSFORMERS
• PCB CAPACITORS
. PCB HYDRAULIC MACHINES
OTHER PCB ARTICLES
• THOSE USED TO CONTAIN ONLY PCBs -
AT A CONCENTRATION -. 500 PPM
• OTHER PCB CONTAINERS
THOSE ANALYZING > 500 PPM PCB
THOSE ANALYZING 50 - 500 PPM PCB
THOSE ANALYZING > 500 PPM PCB
THOSE ANALYZING 50 - 500 PPM PCB
PCB TRANSFORMERS
• PCB-CONTAMINATED TRANSFORMERS •
THOSE CONTAINING > 1000 PPM PCB
THOSE CONTAINING < 1000 PPM PCB
THOSE CONTAINING PCB FLUIDS
THOSE NOT CONTAINING PCB FLUIDS
(II ANNEX I INCINERATOR IS DEFINED AT 40CFR 761.40.
(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER APPROVED INCINERATORS ARE DEFINED AT 40 CFR 761 10 (el
(31 ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILLS ARE DESCRIBED AT 40 CFR 176.41 ANNEX II DISPOSAL IS PERMITTED IF THE PCB WASTE
ANALYZES LESS THAN 500 PPM PBC AND IS NOT IGNITABLE AS PER 40 CFH PART 761.41 (bl (81 l.nl
(41 DISPOSAL OF CONTAINERIZED CAPACITORS IN ANNEX II LANDFILLS IS PERMITTED UNTIL MARCH 1. 1981 THEREAFTER. ONLY ANNEX I
INCINERATION IS PERMITTED
ANNEX I INCINERATOR'"
ANNEX I INCINERATOR
HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILER (40CFR 761 10 (al (2) (nil]
OTHER APPROVED INCINERATOR (2>
ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL131
ANNEX I INCINERATOR
• ANNEX I INCINERATOR
• HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILER [40CFR 761 10(a)(3l (in)]
• OTHER APPROVED INCINERATOR
• ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL
• ANNEX I INCINERATOR
• ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL
• ANNEX I INCINERATOR
. ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL
• OTHER APPROVED DISPOSAL METHOD
[40CFR761.10la)(5)(iii|]
• ANNEX I INCINERATOR
. DRAINED AND RINSED TRANSFORMERS MAY BE DISPOSED
OF IN ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL
. DISPOSAL OF DRAINED TRANSFORMERS
IS NOT REGULATED
ANNEX I INCINERATOR
(41
DRAINED AND RINSED MACHINES MAY BE DISPOSED OF
AS MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE OR SALVAGED
DRAINED MACHINES MAY BE DISPOSED OF AS
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE OR SALVAGED
DRAINED MACHINES MAY BE DISPOSED OF
PER ANNEX I OR ANNEX II
ANNEX I INCINERATOR
• ANNEX II CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILL
• AS MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROVIDED ANY LIQUID
PCB« ARE DRAINED PRIOR TO DISPOSAL
• ANNEX I INCINERATOR
ANNEX II, PROVIDED ANY LIQUID PCBs ARE
DRAINED PRIOR TO DISPOSAL
DECONTAMINATE PER ANNEX IV
Figure 1. Disposal requirements for PCBs and PCB Items.
-------
2. THERMAL DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY
This Chapter presents results of a review of the literature pertinent
to thermal destruction of PCBs in chemical waste and other types of inciner-
ators and high efficiency boilers. Section 2.1 summarizes the important as-
pects of combustion theory which govern the efficiency of thermal destruc-
tion. Section 2.2 describes thermal destruction systems for waste incinera-
tion, including sizes, controls, operational characteristics, and previous
testing programs. Section 2.3 describes sampling methodologies (stack,
ambient air, liquid, solid, and work space) used in previous PCB incinera-
tion tests. Section 2.3 also describes analytical methodologies used for
PCB determinations. Section 2.4 describes monitoring instrumentation that
could be used during PCB incineration. Section 2.5 presents a brief dis-
cussion of fundamentals of combustion processes, flame chemistry, formation
mechanisms, and thermochemical equilibrium analyses as they specifically
relate to thermal destruction of PCBs. Section 2.6 presents a brief descrip-
tion of other .pertinent literature.
2.1 COMBUSTION THEORY
The fundamentals of combustion theory are discussed in this section to
provide the background for evaluations of specific thermal destruction
systems. This presentation is adapted from References 8-10 except as noted.
The physical form of the waste, i.e., liquid or solid, is the most
important factor influencing the mechanisms of combustion reactions. There-
fore, this section discusses combustion of liquids and solids separately.
For either physical form, five parameters determine the efficiency of com-
bustion: physical/chemical properties, combustion air, temperature, resi-
dence time, and mixing. Each of these parameters is discussed below as it
affects the combustion process, and each must be evaluated for specific sys-
tems proposed for thermal destruction of RCBs. Guidelines for such evalua-
tions are presented in Sections 4 and 5 for Annex I incinerators and high
efficiency boilers, respectively.
-------
2.1.1 Combustion of Liquids
2.1.1.1 Physical/Chemical Properties—
The physical properties of a liquid which are most important in assess-
ing its combustion characteristics are the kinematic viscosity and the size
and concentration of suspended solids in the liquid. Since a liquid must be
converted to a gas before combustion reactions occur, vaporization of the
liquid must be rapid if high combustion efficiency is to be maintained.
Vaporization in the combustion chamber requires heat transfer from the hot
combustion gases to the liquid, and heat transfer is enhanced if the exposed
surface of the liquid is increased. For this reason, liquid surface area is
increased by atomizing the liquid into small droplets at the point of air/
fuel mixing by burners. Here, the kinematic viscosity of the fluid comes
into play, because atomization is better for low viscosity fluids than for
high viscosity fluids. Solids in the fuel can impair atomization and cause
further problems by plugging, erosion, or buildup in the burners. Operation
of a burner with a fuel which is incompatible because of viscosity or solids
concentration can result in emission of smoke and unburned particles. Guide-
lines for evaluating fuel/burner compatibility are presented in Section
4.1.1.1.
The most important chemical properties of a fuel to be considered in
assessing its combustion characteristics are elemental composition, moisture,
and heating value. Carbon dioxide, and water vapor are the normal products
obtained from complete combustion of hydrocarbons in air. But wastes may
contain other constituents which give rise to other species. The presence
of these species in combustion product gases must be considered, as they
may affect air emissions and materials of construction in process equipment.
In particular, sulfur in fuels will be released as sulfur dioxide and chlor-
ine as hydrogen chloride. For wastes with a high chlorine content, free
chlorine can be formed on combustion unless sufficient hydrogen is supplied
by the fuel or by steam injection. Free chlorine is not as easily scrubbed
from combustion product gases as HC1 and can pose serious emission problems.
All organic compounds have a finite heat content, the quantity of heat
released upon combustion. Knowledge of the heat content is important in
designing and operating an incineration system and in determining the need
10
-------
for auxiliary fuel.
As a rule of thumb, a minimum heat content of 4400 to 5540 kcal/kg
(8,000 to 10,000 Btu/lb) is necessary to sustain combustion. However, some
materials with heat contents above 5540 kcal/kg will not sustain combustion
without auxiliary fuel, while some materials with heat contents as low as
2490 kcal/kg (4,500 Btu/lb) have been burned without auxiliary fuel. The
heat value of a waste decreases as the moisture and/or chlorine content in-
creases. When specifying heat content, the basis (wet or dry, gross or net)
must be clearly stated so that an energy balance around the combustion cham-
ber can be properly calculated.
2.1.1.2 Combustion Air--
An adequate supply of combustion air is essential for good thermal
destruction. The fuel/waste composition fixes the stoichiometric or theore-
tical air requirement for a given liquid. However, since perfect mixing is
never achieved in practice, excess air must be supplied to ensure adequate
contact between fuel and air. Excess air acts as a diluent, reducing the
combustion temperature from the theoretical maximum (adiabatic) flame tem-
perature and increasing the mass flow rate of combustion gases. Thus, the
selection of the amount of excess air to use must be based on the degree of
mixing achieved in the combustion chamber, the desired combustion tempera-
ture, and the allowable flow rate of combustion product gases.
2.1.1.3 Temperature--
The major considerations related to combustion temperature are that the
temperature is high enough to provide complete combustion but low enough to
prevent damage to the combustion chamber. Complete combustion requires a
temperature and a heat release rate in the combustion chamber that is high
enough to raise the temperature of the incoming fuel above its ignition
temperature. In evaluating whether the temperature is high enough, one must
consider the effect of temperature on heat transfer to the atomized fuel,
mass transfer of the liquid fuel into the gas stream, and oxidation of the
mixed gases by air. Heat transfer, mass transfer, and reaction rates all
increase with temperature. Thus, for a given residence time and mixing
regime, higher temperatures lead to more complete combustion. This points
out the close relationship among the "three T's" of combustion: temperature,
11
-------
time, and turbulence.
The current state-of-the-art in combustion modeling does not allow
prediction of destruction efficiency for a particular waste from inputs of
temperature, time, and turbulence. For now, experience is the best guide
to determining what conditions are adequate for thermal destruction of a
particular waste. This subject is discussed in Section 2.2, which also
discusses normal maximum limits for combustion temperature for various types
of systems.
2.1.1.4 Residence Time--
Residence time (dwell time) is the length of time that a molecule of
the fuel is exposed to the high temperatures produced in the combustion
chamber. The residence time required for a given degree of thermal destruc-
tion increases as combustion temperature decreases, all other factors being
equal. Not all molecules reside in the combustion chamber for the same
length of time. Variations in density, such as those caused by temperature
and pressure gradients, can affect the residence time and are superimposed
on effects due to velocity variations and micromixing. In practice, it is
difficult to assess each of these factors, and so a mean residence time can
be approximated by:
„ _ V
Q
where V is approximately the volume of the combustion chamber and Q is the
actual volumetric flow rate of combustion product gas leaving the chamber.
Since Q is also a function of temperature, residence time is inversely pro-
portional to temperature, i.e., as combustion temperature increases, resi-
dence time decreases, other factors being equal. Strictly speaking, V is
the volume through which combustion gases flow after they have been heated
to reaction temperature. However, if mixing is adequate, the total combus-
tion chamber volume is a good approximation for V.
2.1.1.5 Mixing--
Residence time, temperature, and combustion air requirements all depend
to some extent on the degree of mixing achieved in the combustion chamber.
The degree of mixing is a function of the specific burner design, the flow
12
-------
pattern in the combustion chamber, and the turbulence achieved. The Reynolds
number is a dimensionless quantity used to quantify turbulence, and is defined
as:
Re = Dvp
P
where: D = combustion chamber inside diameter, ft
v = gas velocity, ft/s
p = gas density, lb/ft3
p = absolute gas viscosity, lb/ft.s
At Re > 2300, flow is considered turbulent. Below this number, laminar or
transitional flow prevails, and mixing is essentially by diffusion only.
2.1.2 Combustion of Solids
2.1.2.1 Physical/Chemical Properties--
Just as liquid droplet size affects the combustion rate of liquid fuels,
particle size has an influence on the rate of combustion of solids. Combus-
tion of solids involves a series of repeated steps. First, volatile material
near the surface is burned, followed by burnout of the residual solid struc-
ture. Fresh unreacted solid is then exposed as the initial ash layer drops
off, and the process is repeated. Thus, the larger the solid particle, the
greater the number of times this sequence must be repeated, and the longer
the residence time required for complete combustion. Due to this mechanis-
tic difference between solid and liquid combustion, design residence times
for solids are generally longer than for liquids. In fact, solids are often
incinerated in a system which volatilizes the solid (or nonpumpable liquid)
in one chamber and incinerates the resulting gases in an afterburner.
The elemental composition, moisture, and heating value of solids are
as important in assessing combustion characteristics as they are for liquids
(see Section 2.1.1.1). However, inhomogeneity of the fuel is a greater con-
cern for solids. Therefore, steps should be taken to provide as uniform a
feed as possible when incinerating solids.
2.1.2.2 Combustion Air--
Computation of the theoretical air requirement for solids is essentially
the same as the procedure for liquids. However, since solid particles are
13
-------
generally larger than droplets of atomized liquids and air/fuel mixing is
less efficient, more excess air is generally required for combustion of
solids.
2.1.2.3 Temperature--
When incinerating solids, temperatures must be high enough to volati-
lize, partially oxidize, or otherwise convert the organic components of the
waste to gases and also high enough to degrade thermally these volatilized
organics. Furthermore, such reactions must occur within the residence time
of the equipment. As with liquids, equipment design will determine a maxi-
mum allowable combustion temperature. Characteristics of the solid will
determine a minimum combustion temperature.
2.1.2.4 Residence Time--
The residence times for solids in incineration equipment must be long-
er than residence times for liquids in order to achieve comparable destruc-
tion efficiencies. Often separate chambers in the equipment are used:
first to volatilize the organic components of the solid, then to complete
the combustion process in another chamber or afterburner. In such cases
the residence time in each chamber should be known (or estimated). Solids
residence time in the first section must be at least long enough to fully
volatilize the PCBs in the charge. Gas residence time in the afterburner
should then be assessed to ensure the desired thermal destruction effi-
ciency.
2.1.2.5 Mixing—
The degree of both air/solid contact and gas mixing must be assessed
in determining whether adequate mixing is achieved when incinerating solids.
The mechanical means of air/solid contact vary with equipment type, and are
discussed for several equipment designs in Section 2.2. Gas mixing is
discussed in Sections 2.1.1.5 and 4.1.1.3.
2.2 THERMAL DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
Thermal destruction processes described in this section are grouped
into the following general categories:
• Incineration systems
14
-------
t High efficiency boilers
Some of these thermal destruction processes have been tested for PCB
disposal, while others have been tested for disposal of other hazardous
wastes. Not all the systems described are suitable for thermal destruction
of PCBs.
The following incineration systems have received the most attention
in the literature and are technologically well developed for waste destruc-
tion:
• Liquid injection
• Rotary kiln
• Multiple hearth
t Fluidized bed
• Multiple chamber
• Catalytic combustion
• Pyrolysis
Several other thermal destruction processes which are not as techno-
logically well developed for waste disposal are:
• Starved air combustion
• Molten salt
• High efficiency boilers
2.2.1 Incineration Systems
2.2.1.1 Rotary Kiln—
2.2.1.1.1 Description—The rotary kiln incinerator is a cylindrical re-
fractory-lined shell that is mounted horizontally at a slight incline.
Wastes are fed into the uphill end. Rotation of the shell causes mixing
of the waste with combustion air in order to provide sufficient turbulence
and agitation for adequate destruction of the waste. It is sometimes neces-
sary to install a secondary high temperature combustion chamber to complete
the destruction of vapor phase and particulate materials. For incinerating
chlorinated wastes, a scrubber is necessary for control of HC1 emissions.
Figure 2 is a schematic of a rotary kiln typical of those used by contract
waste disposal facility operators (11).
15
-------
CONVEYOR
FIBER / SOLID WASTE
PACKS / /FEED CHUTE
ROTARY KILN
KILN EXIT DUCT
IR BURNER
HOT DUCT
WASTE* FEED
SAMPLE
ABSORPTION
TRAYS
FRESH
UATER
FEED
MIST
ELIMINATOR
EXIT
GAS
ASH RESIDI
SAMPLE
FEED WASTE
LIQUID BURNERS
LODDBY
(WASTE LIQUID BURNER)
SAMPLE
PORTS
SCRUBBER
SYSTEM
HYDRATED LIME
SLURRY FEED
INDUCED DRAFT
FANS STACK
DISCHARGE
SCRUBBER WATER
Figure 2. Schematic of Rollins Environmental Services rotary kiln incinerator (11)
-------
Combustion temperatures in a rotary kiln incinerator typically range
from 800°C to 1300°C. Since rotary kiln incinerators are normally complete-
ly refractory-lined, they are more resistant to damage by high temperatures
than other types. Residence times vary from seconds for liquids to hours
for solids.
Some rotary kilns are designed for batch feeding. Others are equipped
with liquid injection chambers after the rotary kiln. Both of these sys-
tems provide great flexibility in terms of wastes that can be destroyed.
Rotary kilns are particularly effective when the size or nature of the
waste precludes the use of other types of incineration systems.
2.2.1.1.2 Advantages
• Ability to handle both liquids and solids, either alone or
in combination
• Ability to operate at very high temperatures
t Feed system design flexibility and ability to feed large
containers
• Good mixing of air and solids
• Continuous ash removal
• No moving parts inside the kiln hot zone
• Solids residence time easily adjusted by varying rotational
speed of kiln
• Not necessary to pretreat waste prior to incineration
t Cement kilns represent a possible PCB disposal system with
resource recovery potential
2.2.1.1.3 Disadvantages —
• Seals on kiln ends and feed chute may leak
• Careful attention to temperature in the kiln is necessary
to prevent refractory damage
• Emission of particulates, especially unburned particulates,
can be a problem. Particulate emission control is necessary
§ Relatively low thermal efficiency
• High capital cost
2.2.1.1.4 Facilities and Test Data—A typical rotary kiln installation is
the facility at Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. (RES) in Deer Park,
Texas. The basic components of this rotary kiln system are:
17
-------
t Rotary kiln incinerator
t Liquid injection burner
• Afterburner
• Venturi scrubber with mist eliminator
• Waste and auxiliary fuel feed controls
• Instrumentation
t Ash and scrubber effluent handling
The rotary kiln is 4.9 meters long and 3.2 meters in diameter. Flame
temperature in the kiln is nominally 1300°C. Maximum total heat release is
28 million kcal/hr. The liquid injection burner is 4.9 meters long and 1.6
meters in diameter and produces a flame temperature of approximately 1500°C.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the rotary kiln and liquid injection burner both
feed the afterburner which is 10.6 meters long, 4 meters high, and 4.3
meters wide. Because the afterburner section is downstream of the liquid
injection burner, typical afterburner gas temperatures are about 1300°C.
The gas residence time of this system is of the order of 2-3 seconds. Both
the kiln and the liquid injection burner are equipped with natural gas ig-
nitors and gas burners for initial heating of the refractory lining, flame
stability during incineration, and supplemental heat if necessary. Number
2 fuel oil is used as auxiliary fuel if wastes have insufficient heat con-
tent.
Solid wastes are usually packed in fiber drums and are fed into the
kiln by conveyor. Metal cans as large as 55-gallon drums can also be fed
to the kiln. Liquids and sludges can be pumped into the kiln. Liquids can
also be fed into the liquid injection burner.
Atmospheric emissions from incineration of liquid and solid wastes are
controlled by a venturi scrubber. After being scrubbed, the combustion
gases pass through absorption trays and a mist eliminator before entering
a 30 meter high stack. Spent scrubber water is neutralized with lime and
sent to settling ponds where it is analyzed and given additional treatment,
if necessary, before discharge.
PCB destruction tests at RES were conducted in December 1976 and re-
ported by Ackerman, et al. (11,12). These tests involved incineration of:
1) whole PCB-containing capacitors and 2) PCB-containing capacitors
18
-------
hammer-milled into "fluff". The PCB mixture was determined to be Aroclor
1242, and its heat content was such that it would not ignite in a bomb
calorimeter (i.e., less than 3000 kcal/kg or 5,000 Btu/lb). The capaci-
tors contained 29% PCBs. Whole capacitors were fed to the rotary kiln at
about 360 kg/hr; the fluff, packed into 135 liter (35 gallon) fiber drums,
was fed at a rate of about 210 kg/hr. The following tests were conducted:
1) background while burning No. 2 fuel oil; 2) hammermilled capacitors
followed by a purge with No. 2 fuel oil; and 3) whole capacitor. No. 2
fuel oil and natural gas were used to supply additional heat during the
tests. Hot zone (between the afterburner and the scrubber), stack, ash,
and scrubber water samples were taken. On-line combustion gas monitoring
was performed in the hot zone for 02, C02, CO, NO , SOp, HC1, and hydro-
carbons. Nitrogen was obtained by difference.
Process data acquired were natural gas and fuel oil feed rates to the
kiln and liquid burner; temperatures in the kiln, liquid burner, after-
burner, and hot zone; combustion air; fresh scrubber water feed; and lime
slurry feed. Table 1 presents a summary of operational data.
PCBs were not detected in any combustion gas (detection limit of 5
o
vig/m ) or scrubber water sample (detection limit of 7 yg/1). PCBs were
detected in the solid residues from the whole capacitor test at a level of
470 mg/kg but were not detected in the ash from the hammermilled capacitor
test (detection limit of 0.1 mg/kg). Calculated PCB destruction efficien-
cies were (air, water, solid):
t Whole capacitors: 99.5%
• Hammermilled capacitors: >99.999%
HC1 scrubbing efficiency was 99.8%.
In November 1979, a PCB Trial Burn was conducted at RES (13,14). The
facility was essentially the same as that described above except that mon-
itoring instrumentation and process controls had been upgraded in compli-
ance with the PCB Regulations (40 CFR 761.40(d)(l)). A background test
(high heating value organochlorine waste) and three short duration PCB in-
cineration tests were conducted using the liquid injection burner.
19
-------
This PCB Trial Burn involved burning liquid PCBs with the liquid in-
jection burner of the rotary kiln system. Projected feed rates were: 1)
PCBs, 2270 + 450 kg/hr, and 2) auxiliary fuel, 1140 + 360 kg/hr. Stack
gases were monitored for 02, CO, CO,,, N0x, and S02. Samples of stack gas
were taken for analysis of PCBs, organochlorine compounds, polychlori-
nated dibenzofurans, HC1, and total particulate matter. Other process in-
fluent and effluent streams were taken for analysis of PCBs, PCDFs, and
PCDDs.
TABLE 1. OPERATIONAL DATA FROM PCB TESTS AT
ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (12)
o2, %
co2, %
CO, ppm
Fuel Oil Feed, 1/hr
PCB Waste Feed, kg/hr*
Kiln Flame, °C
Liquid Burner Flame, °C
Afterburner, °C
Hot Zone, °C
Residence Time, sec.
Scrubber Water, 1/min
Lime Slurry Feed, 1/min
1, Fuel Oil
10.1
9.1
2088
--
1306
1485
1308
1091
--
3200
6.4
Test
2, Fluff
9.8
8.8
2411
61
1252
1499
1331
1089
3.2
3200
6.4
3, Whole
Capacitors
10.1
5.0
2300
104
1338
1509
1332
1096
3.0
3200
8.4
* Fluff was 29% PCBs, fluff feed rate was 210 kg/hr, fluff plus fiber
drum feed rate was 330 kg/hr. Whole capacitor feed rate was 360 kg/hr.
t Approximately 30% by weight of lime.
Process parameters monitored were: feed and PCB feed rate; temperatures
in the liquid burner, afterburner, hot zone, combustion air; fresh scrubber
water and lime slurry feed; stack gas composition; and combustion efficien-
cy.
20
-------
Upgrading of the process instrumentation to be in accordance with the
PCB Regulations included stack gas monitoring instrumentation and interlocks
which shut off PCB feed unless each of the following conditions were met:
• CO, <80 ppm
• Afterburner exit, 1142°C (2088°F)
This interlock system did function. During switchover from background fuel
to PCB waste, the target PCB feed rate was momentarily exceeded, and the
control operator increased air feed rate to maintain the required excess
air until the outside operator could reduce the PCB feed rate. When the
PCB rate was reduced to the target level, the afterburner exit temperature
dropped to the shutdown temperature of 1116°C (2040°F) before the air feed
rate could be reduced. The PCB feed was thus shut down. Temperatures were
then brought to requirements with background fuel, switchover to PCBs was
made again, and the test proceeded without other incidents (14).
Combustion efficiencies during the two PCB tests averaged 99.993^.
Stack gas samples showed no detectable quantities of PCBs (detection limit
of 1 ppb), no PCDFs, and no organochlorine. Scrubber effluent samples
showed 1 ppb PCBs at the outlet and undetectable levels at the discharge
from the scrubber effluent treatment system. The average PCB destruction
efficiency was 99.99997%. All technical requirements for Annex I Inciner-
ators were met (14).
In October 1979, a PCB Trial Burn was conducted at a rotary kiln in-
cinerator operated by Energy Systems Company (ENSCO), El Dorado, Arkansas
(15,16). The ENSCO facility is somewhat different in configuration from
that of RES, see Figure 2. There is a totally enclosed shredder for shred-
ding solids. A conveyor moves solids from the bottom of the shredder to the
rotary kiln (10.4 m long, 2.1 m diameter). Sludge, semi-solids, and slur-
ries are fed into the bottom of the enclosure. A fan pulls air from the
enclosure and forces it into the rotary kiln. The outlet gases from the
kiln pass into a cyclone for ash removal. Flue gases then pass sequential-
33 3
ly through a 85 m (3000 ft ) combustion chamber and through a second 85 m
secondary combustion chamber. Liquid wastes and additional combustion air
can be fed into the primary combustion chamber. From the secondary
21
-------
combustion chamber, flue gases pass into a venturi scrubber, then into a
cyclone demister, and finally to a stack. HC1 is neutralized in the scrub-
ber by lime and caustic, and spent scrubber water is sent to a sludge
lagoon.
Tests were conducted on shredded electric utility and small electron-
ic capacitors and liquid PCBs. The liquid PCBs were mixed with the shred-
ded capacitors, so that there was only one feed stream. Target feed rates
were 909 kg/hr (2000 Ib/hr) of shredded capacitors (* 25% PCBs) and 450
kg/hr (1000 Ib/hr) of PCB oil (* 81% PCBs). The PCB mixture was Aroclor
1016. Auxiliary fuel was an organochlorine waste of approximately 40%
chlorine content. The following samples were taken: stack gas, ambient
air and surrounding soil, shredded capacitors, fuel, kiln ash and slag,
well water, recycled and spent scrubber solution, caustic feed, and lime
slurry.
Process parameters monitored were: rate and quality of small and
large capacitors and liquid PCBs fed; fuel feed rate; process temperatures;
caustic solution, lime slurry, recycled scrubber solution, and scrubber ef-
fluent; well water feed to the primary combustion chamber; kiln ash and its
PCB content; ambient wind speed and direction; combustion gas composition;
and combustion efficiency.
Process instrumentation installed to comply with the PCB regulations
had the following interlocks to shut down the PCB feed rate if:
• Kiln temperature, <650°C (1200°F)
• Kiln draft, <0.05 in. water
• Afterburner temperature, <1120°C (2050°F)
« Afterburner draft, >atmospheric pressure
• CO, >48-50 ppm
• 02, <4.5%
The interlock system did function on a few occasions when CO concentrations
momentarily exceeded 48-50 ppm.
Table 2 presents a summary of operational parameters. Combustion effi-
ciency, based on CO and CO^ measurements, was above 99.9%. PCBs were not
detected in the stack gas (detection limit was 100 pg/train) or the scrubber
22
-------
effluent (detection limit for decachlorobiphenyl was 4 ppb). Traces of
PCBs were detected in the kiln ash but at levels well below 50 ppm. This
Trial Burn met all requirements of the PCB Regulations (16). There was a
problem with false positives in the analysis of the samples (see Section
2.3.2.2.2).
As part of a program to develop methods for determining PCB emissions
from incinerators and capacitor and transformer filling plants, Haile and
Baladi (17) reported on field tests conducted while PCBs were being incin-
erated at Rollins Environmental Services, Deer Park, Texas.
At the RES tests, shredded capacitors containing approximately M%
PCBs were burned on one day, and whole capacitors were burned on the second.
No operational data, PCB input rates, or destruction efficiencies were
-5
given. Average stack emissions from the test at RES was 0.74 ng/m as de-
cachlorobiphenyl .
No other references to thermal destruction of PCBs in rotary kiln in-
cinerators have been found. 3M Company's Chemolite rotary kiln incinera-
tor was tested (11,18) while incinerating a waste stream resulting from
manufacture of polyvinyl chloride. The design of this system is similar
to that of RES and ENSCO, except that there is a water quench chamber be-
tween the secondary combustion chamber and the venturi scrubber. During
these tests the kiln was operated at 870°C, the secondary combustion cham-
ber was operated between 980 and 1090°C, and the gas residence time was 3
seconds. Oxygen in the stack ranged from 11 to 11.4%, C02 ranged from 6.1
to 6.3%, and CO ranged from 14 to 20 ppm. Waste destruction efficiencies
ranged from 99.8 to 99.88%
There are other rotary kiln incinerators in operation. Dow, U.S.A.,
operates a large rotary kiln unit (70 million Btu/hr) in Midland, Michigan
(10,19). Chemical Agent munitions (9) operates a rotary kiln unit. Test
data as detailed as those presented above were not available.
MacDonald, et al. (20) reported on PCB destruction tests at a cement
kiln at the St. Lawrence Cement Co. in January 1976. Ackerman, et al.
(11,21) reported results of analyses on samples taken during the tests.
While the rotary kiln tested was not designed and used as an incinerator,
temperatures reached in the kiln were of the order of those reached in an
23
-------
TABLE 2. OPERATIONAL DATA FROM PCB INCINERATION TESTS AT ENSCO (16)
ro
o2, %
co2, %
CO, ppm
Fuel Feed, kg/hr
3
Natural Gas Feed, m /hr
Liquid PCB Feed, kg/hr
PCB in Capacitors1"
Temperature, Outlet of
First Comb. Chamber, °C
Temperature, Outlet of
Second Comb. Chamber, °C
Caustic, gal/hr
**
Lime Slurry, Ib/hr
Background
14.2
4.5
10
2,584
312
--
--
1,270
1,050
634
—
Test 1
13.2
5.8
6
2,909
88
164
119
1,250
1,040
734
6,687
Test 2
13.8
4.9
4
3,032
37
176
98
1,240
1,043
849
7,198
Test 3
13.1
5.6
4
2,766
67
196
114
1,254
1,050
592
4,370
Average,
PCB Tests
13.4
5.4
5
2,963
64
179
110
1 ,250
1 ,040
725
6,085
-1
Liquid PCB feed was 80.9% PCBs. Average PCB oil feed was 221 kg/hr (179 kg-hr" /0.809).
1" _1
Capacitors averaged 24.8% PCBs. Average capacitor feed rate was 444 kg/hr (110 kg-hr" /0.248).
* 50% NaOH by weight, 12.7 Ib/gal.
**38% wt. % solids; solids are 85% Ca(OH)2, 10.54 Ib/gal. Average heat input was 56 x 10 Btu/hr.
-------
Incinerator. It was judged that burning organochlorine wastes would have
two benefits: 1) reduction in petroleum fuel fed to the cement kiln and
2) reduction in the amount of extra chloride necessary to reduce the alkali
content in the product cement.
Tests were conducted on two different unit processes (20). The first
was the wet process and consisted of a 123 m long by 3.5 m diameter kiln
maintained at 1450°C by firing No. 6 fuel oil. The second unit process was
a suspension preheater kiln. This kiln was 84 m long, 5.2 m in diameter,
and maintained at 1450°C by firing No. 6 fuel oil. Process raw materials
are fed into the flame end of the kilns, which slope gradually downward.
The downstream ends of both kilns fed into finished product and clinker
collection devices and emission control devices.
PCB destruction tests were conducted on a complex organochlorine waste
containing approximately 45% PCBs. Normal cement kiln operation process
data were taken. Also, the PCB mixture input rate and gas flow rates in
the stack were monitored. PCBs were not detected in the stack gas, parti-
culate, or clinker samples. The destruction efficiency of PCBs was cal-
culated to be 99.986%, and it was probably greater1 because of high back-
ground levels in the samples and small sample sizes. Residence time was
estimated to be of the order of 30 seconds (20).
Continental Can Company operates a pulp and paper mill at Hopewell,
Virginia. In 1976, EPA Region III received information that waste oil
supplied to Continental for operating its rotary lime kiln and power/steam
boilers was contaminated with PCBs (22). Upon confirming that the oil was
contaminated, EPA conducted emissions testing on kiln No. 3. This unit is
79.8 m long and 3.4 m in diameter. The kiln normally operates 24 hr/day
and 7 days/week. Its design production rate is 226 metric tons per day.
During testing it operated at 182 metric tons per day.
The kiln is equipped with instrumentation to indicate hot and cold end
kiln temperatures, fuel oil feed rate,,, lime and mud flow rate, and percent
solids in the lime slurry. The waste oil fired during testing averaged 2.4
ppm PCBs. The kiln operated at 1260°C during the tests. No oxygen data
were taken. There were several problems during the single test on lime
kiln No. 3: 1) the test could not be conducted within 10% of isokinetic,
2) an acceptable leak rate could not be achieved, and 3) several sampling
25
-------
parts were inaccessible. The test was considered invalid although a
destruction efficiency of 95.4% was reported (22).
A PCB destruction test was performed in December 1976 in a cement
kiln at Peerless Cement Co. in Detroit, Michigan. Two background and three
PCB destruction tests were performed. Kiln temperatures ranged from 1273°C
to 1389°C. Calculated residence time was 10 sec. Destruction efficiencies
derived from the summary reqport (23) averaged 99.9983%.
Several waste destruction tests were performed in a rotary cement kiln
in Sweden by the Swedish Water and Air Pollution Research Institute (24).
One of the wastes was 375 g/1 of Aroclor 1242 in oil. Destruction efficien-
cy for the PCB test was 99.99998%.
2.2.1.2 Liquid Injection--
2.2.1.2.1 Description--Liquid injection incinerators can be used to dis-
pose of virtually any combustible liquid with a viscosity low enough to be
pumped (< 10,000 SSU). This type of incinerator is made in numerous con-
figurations, but they are generally classified as vertical or horizontal
units. The vertical incinerator type, Figure 3, has the advantage that the
incinerator acts as its own stack. The stack, or a portion of it, may serve
as a secondary combustion chamber. Horizontal incinerators, Figure 4, are
connected to a stack. The vertical type is not as well suited to tall
stacks as the horizontal type.
Liquid injection incinerators have the following general components:
burner, primary combustion chamber, secondary combustion chamber (or stack),
quench chamber, scrubber, and stack. The heart of any liquid injection
incinerator is the burner. Efficient and complete combustion is achieved
only if the fuel droplet size is sufficiently small and adequately mixed
with the combustion air (see Section 2.5.2 for a discussion of fundamental
combustion process parameters). Atomization of the fuel is typically
achieved by: 1) rotary cup, 2) pressure atomization, or 3) gas/fluid noz-
zles using high pressure air or steam.
2.2.1.2.2 Advantages--
• Ability to handle a variety of liquid wastes, the range of
which is determined by burner type
26
-------
• Fast response of temperature to changes in fuel/waste feed
• No moving parts in the combustion chamber
• Capability of operating over wide range of feed rates
(high turndown ratio)
• Low maintenance cost
EFFLUENT DIRECTLY TO ATMOSPHERE
OR TO SCRUBBERS AND STACK
FREE STANDING
INTERLOCKING REFRACTORY
MODULES
TEMPERATURE MEASURING
INSTRUMENTS
TURBO-BLOWER
IGNITION CHAMBER
HIGH VELOCITY
AW SUPPLY
AIR-WASTE ENTRAINMENT
COMPARTMENT
WASTE LINE
FRESH AIR INTAKE
FOR TURBO-BLOWER
AND AFTEDBURBER FAN
AIR CONE
UPPER NACELLE
DECOMPOSITION CHAMBER
DECOMPOSITION STREAM
AFTER-BURNER FAN
.AME SENSITIZER
TURBULENCE COMPARTMENT
LOWER NACELLE
AUXILIARY FUEL LINC
TUBULAR SUPPORT COLUMNS
ELECTRICAL POWER LINE
Figuro 3. Typical vertically fired liquid
waste incinerator (25).
2.2.1.2.3 Disadvantages--
• Liquids incinerated must have viscosities low enough not only
to be pumped, but to be atomized in the burner.
t Burners are subject to plugging, erosion, and corrosion from
incompatible fluids.
• Sophisticated instrumentation is required to maintain
combustion efficiency.
27
-------
2.2.1.2.4 Facilities and Test Data--In September, 1974 EPA's Region I
arranged to test the incineration of 1540 gallons of a 20% DDT formulation
in General Electric Company's horizontal liquid injection incinerator in
Pittsfield, Massachusetts (27). The tests were a joint effort of EPA
Region I, General Electric, and the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health. The primary use of the incinerator is to destroy site-generated
waste oils, frequently contaminated with PCBs. During the tests, waste
oil contaminated with about 1.7% PCBs was used as auxiliary fuel.
GE's incinerator system consists of two steam atomization burners, a
long cylindrical chamber to provide sufficient residence time, a water
spray quench pot, a counter current packed scrubber column located at the
base of the stack, and appropriate control systems. The nozzles inject
the waste along with combustion air and produce vortex-type turbulence.
The oxidation chamber is 8.2 m (27 ft) long by 2.1 m (7 feet) in diameter,
is operated typically at 871 to 982°C (1600 to 1800°F), and provides about
3 seconds residence time.
The testing consisted of: 1) background with firing of waste oil only
(ca 1.7% PCBs), 2) two tests at 871°C firing waste oil (0.75 and 0.8 gpm)
and the DDT formulation at 0.5 and O.d gpm, and 3) two tests at 982"C fir-
ing waste oil and the DDT formulation at 0.5 and 0.8 gpm.
There were five tests, a background with firing only waste oil and
four tests at two temperature conditions (871 and 982°C) at two DDT formu-
lation feed rates. Waste oil was fed during the four DDT tests at a rate
about half that of the background test. PCB destruction efficiencies were:
1) 99.997% during the background, 2) 99.9995% and 99.9921% at 871°C, and
3) 99.9941% and 99.9951% at 982°C (27).
As part of a program to develop methods for determining PCB emissions
from incinerators and capacitor and transformer filling plants, Haile and
Baladi (17) reported on a field test while PCBs were being incinerated at
an industrial facility identified as Plant B. Plant B incinerates liquid
waste only, and a waste containing approximately 10% PCBs was incinerated
during the test reported by Haile and Baladi. No operational data, PCB
feed rates, or destruction efficiencies were given. PCB emissions averaged
3
177 ng/m as decachlorobiphenyl.
28
-------
MOU10 WA'.II', (BOM PI AMI
111 SFPARAII TANKS FOB
—I—,—1—,—I—| HIGH AND IQW
SIORAGt MELTING-POINT LIQUIDS
MACK IMF!. HIGH
6 f I f> IN. 1. D
* FT 6 IN I. D OUHEI
LINED WITH ACID-H-itSTING
PLAST 1C
"2r
WASTE-TAR
FEfD
NATURAL
GAS
t
ZING IL IT -
1
BURNING
TANK RELIEF
STACK
(CLOSED
DURING
OPERATION)
TEMPERING
AIR BLOWER
y-v 10,000
fOjCU FT./MIN,
| p 25 HP
Fit
30C
ESH V
GPf»
"" -
VAJtK \
' \
SPRAY
CHAMBER
— ^
VENTURI SCRUBBER LINED WITH
ACID RESISTING PLASTIC
\ RECYCLED
WASH
WAT Ed
1,300 GPM.
COMBUSTION AIR BLOWER
13,000 CU FT./M1N.
75 HP.
TOTAL AIR, 26 IB /IB WASH
TEMPERING
AIR BIOWFR
10,000
CU FT WIN.
75 HP
INDUCED- DHAfT FAN
?,600 LB 'WIN
5.000CU FT Min
600 HP
WASTE TAR FFF.D AVG 10 GPM
IJ.OOBTU LB
TEMPIHATUR1 BO-1000C
VISCOSITY 150 SSU
WATfR
?40 GPM.
pH J 0
5 PSI Hit)
4 BURNERS, COMBUSTION
GAS AND TAR NO/Al',
S 16 - IN ORIFICi
Figure 4. Horizontally fired liquid waste
incineration system (26).
It should be noted that several rotary kiln incinerators described in
Section 2.2.1.1 were equipped with liquid injection burners for incinerat-
ing liquid wastes. RES, Figure 1, has a liquid burner in the secondary
combustion chamber. ENSCO's unit has liquid injection burners in the
rotary kiln section and the primary combustion chamber (15). The liquid
injection systems of these two incinerators can be viewed as horizontal
incinerators.
Several detailed reports on testing of commercial scale liquid injec-
tion burner incinerators with hazardous wastes were found. They are
briefly described below.
The Marquardt Company operated a typical liquid injection incinera-
tor. The system consisted of a specially developed burner, Marquardt
D
Sudden Expansion (SUE ) burner; air, waste, and auxiliary fuel systems;
a mixing/afterburner; and a venturi/caustic scrubber. This is a horizon-
tal incinerator. The combustion section of the incinerator is designed
for feed rates of 190-230 liters per hour, a maximum wall temperature of
29
-------
1650°C, and residence times of 0.1 to 0.2 seconds (11,28). Tests were con-
ducted on ethylene and hexachlorocyclopentadiene wastes. Samples of pro-
cess effluents were taken: stack gas, solid residues, scrubber water. Pro-
cess parameters are presented in Table 3.
The United States Air Force conducted tests (29,30) at Marquardt on
thermal destruction of its stocks of Herbicide Orange, which were contami-
nated with approximately 1.5 ppm of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD). Combustion gas monitoring was performed, and samples of stack gas,
scrubber water, and burner head residue were taken and analyzed. Neither
Herbicide Orange esters nor TCDD was found in combustion zone and stack
gas and scrubber water samples. One injector nozzle was less efficient
and promoted coke formation, a trace of unburned esters was found in the
coke deposits around the nozzle. A second type of nozzle, a slot type,
promoted much less coke formation. Combustion zone temperatures ranged
from 1245 to 1522°C. Destruction efficiencies were not given explicitly
but were in excess of 99.9%.
An extensively tested liquid injection incineration system is the one
onboard the M/T Vulcanus, a chemical waste incinerator ship. This vessel,
originally a freighter, was converted into a tanker and then into an in-
cinerator ship which meets all international requirements for carriage of
3
hazardous cargoes. She has a cargo capacity of 3,503 m . There are two
vertical incinerators at the stern. The combustion chambers are 3.4 m ID
and 4.3 m high. Above the combustion chamber, there is a 1.6 m section
tapering to a straight stack, 4.6 m high and 3.4 m ID. Three rotating
cup vortex burners are located approximately equidistantly on the periph-
ery and near the base of each incinerator. The Vulcanus burns only liquids,
The incinerators are heavily instrumented and have several failsafe waste
feed shutoff systems. The M/T Vulcanus has been extensively tested while
burning organochlorine wastes. Table 4 presents a summary of results of
testing. The Vulcanus has been tested four times under EPA cognizance.
Wastler, et al. (31) and Clausen, et al. (32) reported on the incineration
of industrial organochlorine wastes in the Gulf of Mexico.
30
-------
TABLE 3. RESULTS OF INCINERATION TESTS OF ETHYLENE
AND HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE WASTES AT
THE MARQUARDT COMPANY (11,28)
Ethyl ene Waste
o2, %
co2, %
CO, ppm
Waste Feed Rate, kg/hr
Combustion Temperature, °C
Residence Time, sec.
Destruction Efficiency, %
4.9 -
9.3 -
17 -
84 -
1349 -
0.14 -
>99.
9.4
11.5
22
120
1752
0.19
999
Hexachlorocyclo-
pentadiene Waste
5.5
8.4
17
40
1348
0.17
>99
- 8.6
- 9.7
- 20
*
- 90
- 1378
- 0.18
.999
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene feed rate only. Waste feed was a mixture of
No. 2 fuel oil plus hexachlorocyclopentadiene at a rate of 120-174 kg/hr,
TABLE 4. RESULTS OF SEVERAL INCINERATION TESTS OF
ORGANOCHLORINE WASTES ONBOARD THE M/T VULCANUS
001
O 5 1°
co2,%
CO, ppm
Waste Feed, mt/hr
Flame Temperature, °C
*
Wall Temperature, °C
Wall Temperature, °C
Residence Time, sec.
Heat Input, 107 Kcal/hr
Waste Destruction
Efficiency, %
Organochlorine
Waste (31)
9-12.5
--
25-75
24.5
1550
1210
1138
•bl
8.1
>99.9
Organochlorine
Waste (32)
10.07
9.22
25.5
22
1535
1238
1186
0.9
8.5
>99.98
Herbicide
Orange (33)
8.9
10.3
10
14.6
1500
1273
1167
1.01
8.1
>99.999±
Thermocouple located about 1.3 cm from inside wall.
^Thermocouple located about 4 cm from inside wall.
Average TCDD destruction efficiency was >99.93% (34),
31
-------
Ackerman, et al. (33) and Ackerman (34) reported on the at-sea incinera-
tion of TCDD-contaminated Herbicide Orange in an incineration site in the
Pacific Ocean. Ackerman, et al. (35) reported on combustion gas monitoring
during incineration of European organochlorine industrial wastes in the
North Sea.
Process instrumentation is minimal but adequate, for this is a well
designed system. Each incinerator has three thermocouples. One is locat-
ed about 1.3 cm from the inside wall on the same level as the burners.
These are the "indicator" thermocouples, and they have readouts on the
bridge and the incinerator control panel. The second is located about 4
cm from the inside wall on the same level as the burners. These are the
"controller" thermocouples, and they serve the automatic waste feed shut-
off system. The third is located in the straight portion of the stack,
and they have readouts on the bridge and in the incinerator control panel.
There are differential manometers on the waste feed lines which give indi-
cations of flow restrictions. Waste feed rates are measured by gauging
the tanks. There are automatic sensors which shut off the waste feed
pumps if: 1) a burner is extinguished, 2) waste feed is terminated from
plugging of the lines, and 3) air feed is reduced below a certain point.
According to current international regulations, the Vulcanus and any other
incineration vessel will have to install additional instrumentation for CO,
CO,,, Op, and waste feed rate measurements. Heretofore, however, the
Vulcanus has operated very efficiently by feeding waste at a rate suffi-
cient to produce incinerator temperatures above 1200°C and below 1500°C.
2.2.1.3 Multiple Hearth—
2.2.1.3.1 Description—The multiple hearth incinerator (Herreshoff furnace)
was first developed to incinerate sewage sludges. Since then, it has found
application in disposal of other wastes, including tars, solids, liquids,
and gases. The multiple hearth furnace, Figure 5, consists of a refractory-
lined cylindrical steel shell with refractory hearths mounted one above the
other in the interior of the shell. A rotating air-cooled central shaft
turns air-cooled rabble arms equipped with teeth across the hearths. The
rabble arms plow burning solids to move across the hearths and to fall
through drop holes from the upper hearth to succeeding lower hearths and
32
-------
WASTE AIR TO
ATMOSPHERE
CLEAN GASES TO
ATMOSPHERE
SLUDGES
FILTRATE
GREASE AND TARS
BURNERS
(FUEL OIL, GAS,
LIQUID AND GASEOUS WASTE)'
AIR
AIR
~!tS ASH TO
BLOWER DISPOSAL
ASH SLURRY TO FILTRATION AND
ASH DISPOSAL
Figure 5. Multiple hearth incineration system (36).
eventually to an ash recovery hopper. Solids are fed into the top, vis-
cous liquids are fed in through side ports, and light liquids and gases
are fed in through auxiliary burner nozzles. Using combustible liquid and
gaseous wastes reduces the amount of hydrocarbon fuels required.
Furnaces range in size from 1.8 m to 7.6 m in diameter and 3.6 m to
23 m high. Six hearths are normally the minimum number used, but the
actual number needed depends on the waste fed, desired solids residence
time, and whether the process will be operated as an incinerator or a py-
rolysis unit (37).
2.2.1.3.2 Advantages--
• Solids residence times achieved are long enough to volatilize
PCBs from shredded capacitors or other solid wastes.
• A large variety of wastes and auxiliary fuels may be used.
t Fuel efficiency is high.
• High turndown ratios are obtainable.
• Gas residence times are adequate.
33
-------
2.2.1.3.3 Disadvantages—
• Normal operating temperatures for multiple hearth incinerators
are probably too low for effective thermal destruction of PCBs
unless a fired afterburner is used.
• Long solids residence times result in poor temperature response
in the incinerator and thus make control of supplementary fuel
firing difficult.
• The moving internals in the furnace are subject to damage or
clogging from feed solids and corrosion by hydrochloric acid.
This leads to high maintenance costs.
• Gas phase mixing is poor.
• PCBs should not be fed at the top of a multiple hearth because
rapid volatilization and short residence time could lead to
incomplete combustion.
2.2.1.3.4 Facilities and Test Data--l-Jhitmore (38) reported results of
incinerating sewage sludge containing about 50 ppm PCBs. Gases exited the
furnace at about 615°C after about 0.1 s of residence time. Maximum tem-
perature of ash in the furnace was about 790°C. No PCBs were detected in
the ash, so conditions were such that PCBs in the sludge were completely
volatilized. However, PCBs were detected in the stack gas. Destruction
efficiency was between 91.7% and 97.1%. As noted in the study (38), a
possible explantion for the relatively low destruction efficiency was that
the PCBs were injected into the sludge cake feed screw which fed the sludge
into the top hearth. The temperature in the top hearth was sufficiently
high to volatilize completely the PCBs from the sludge, but the residence
time was insufficient for complete destruction. Thus, an evaluation of a
proposal to burn PCBs in a multiple hearth incinerator should note where
it is proposed to inject PCBs. PCBs should preferably be fed into the
middle or perhaps, the next-to-bottommost hearth to provide longer resi-
dence time.
EPA sponsored tests of incineration of DDT and 2,4,5-T in a prototype
unit and on an operating municipal multiple hearth sewage sludge incinera-
tor in Palo Alto, California. Destruction efficiencies for DDT ranged from
99.97% to 99.983% and for 2,4,5-T from 99.99% to 99.996% (39). These com-
pounds are more easily incinerated than PCBs,
34
-------
As part of a program to develop methods for determining PCB emissions
from incinerators and capacitor and transformer filling plants, Haile and
Baladi (17) reported on a field test at two municipal sewage sludge incin-
erators. One test was at the Blue River facility of Kansas City, Missouri,
which receives waste with a significant industrial waste component. The
second test was at the facility of the City of Mission, Kansas, which re-
ceives mostly domestic wastes. The Blue River facility was a four-hearth
multiple hearth incinerator. The type at City of Mission was not identi-
fied. Operational data, PCB input rates, and destruction efficiencies were
3
not given. PCB emissions from the Blue River facility averaged 375 yg/m ,
3
significantly higher than the average of 3.75 yg/m from the City of
Mission facility. Both emission values are as decachlorobiphenyl.
As presently operated, multiple hearth incinerators alone are not
suitable for thermal destruction of PCBs.
2.2.1.4 Fluidized Bed—
2.2.1.4.1 Description—A fluidized bed incinerator consists of a refrac-
tory-lined cylindrical vessel containing a bed of inert, granular material.
Figure 6 is a schematic of a fluidized bed combustor. Air is injected at
the bottom of the vessel through a distributor plate at a rate sufficiently
high to cause the particles in the bed to act as a theoretical fluid.
Passage of the gases through the bed causes strong agitation. Waste gases
and liquids are typically injected into or closely above the bed. Sludges
and slurries are also injected into or just above the bed. Solids with
densities greater than the bed cannot be incinerated in a fluidized bed.
The bed is preheated to startup temperatures by a burner located above
and impinging on the bed. The strong agitation of the bed when in opera-
tion promotes very rapid and intimate mixing of combustion air and waste.
The large mass (relative to the mass of waste) and high heat content of a
bed very rapidly raise the waste to combustion temperatures, which in turn
transfers heat to the bed.
Gas velocities are typically low, of the order of 0.15 to 0.21 m/sec
(9), which gives sufficient residence time. Bed temperatures are restrict-
ed to the softening point of the bed material. Sand, a common bed material,
limits the temperature to about 1100°C, the point at which sand softens and
35
-------
begins to agglomerate.
Ash from combusted waste either sinks to the bottom of the bed where
it is drawn off or passes out through the gas stream outlet. The gaseous
effluent stream is conditioned by a scrubber, dry collector, electrostatic
precipitator, or a fabric filter.
2.2.1.4.2 Advantages—
• A large surface area results from fluidization of the bed,
which contributes to good combustion efficiency.
• Fluctuations in feed rate and composition do not result in
violent upsets in incineration temperature because large
amounts of heat are stored in the bed.
• Gases, most liquids, and some solids can be incinerated in
fluidized beds. Feeds with a high moisture content are
easily combusted.
• Long residence times for both gases and solids are achieved.
• The compact design, with no moving parts in the combustion
zone, results in low capital costs, and fewer operating
problems.
2.2.1.4.3 Disadvantages--
• Maximum combustion temperature is limited by the bed material,
which generally cannot tolerate temperatures as high as a
refractory lining can.
• Residues are hard to remove from the bed. Thus, metal pieces
from shredded capacitors would cause problems.
• Operating costs, especially for power, are high.
2.2.1.4.4 Facilities and Test Data—A fluidized bed unit operated by Sys-
tems Technology Corporation (Systech) in Franklin, Ohio, was tested under
EPA Contract No. 68-01-2966 (11,40). This unit, Figure 6, has a capacity
for up to 1,360 liters per hour of high heat content liquids (>3,560 kcal/
kg) and up to 7,570 liters per hour of low heat content liquids (>1,670
kcal/kg). Municipal wastes are burned at a maximum rate of 135 mt/hr.
Maximum heat release capability is 15 million kcal/hr. The unit is equip-
ped with a venturi scrubber to control particulate emissions.
Systech's fluidized bed combustor has a refractory-lined steel vessel
with an inside diameter of 7.6 meters and a height of 10 meters. The silica
bed is 1 meter deep when dry and expands to about 1.8 meters when fluidized.
36
-------
oo
VENT -—
EPA METHOD 5
SAMPLING
TRAIN
VENT
VENT
ON LINE
GAS
MONITORS
01
STACK
WASTE
FEED
SAMPLE
HOT ZONE
SAMPLING
TRAIN
LIQUID INJECTORS
(18)
GAS DUCT
EXPANSION
JOINT
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
LIQUID
SAMPLE
Figure 6. Fluidized bed facility schematic (40).
-------
Waste and auxiliary fuel are injected radially into the bed through up to
18 nozzles. Typical bed temperatures range from 600 to 810°C. Further
combustion occurs in freeboard volume above the bed where temperatures
range up to 980°C. Systech uses a venturi scrubber to control emissions.
Tests were conducted on a phenolic waste from petroleum refining (ap-
proximately 86% water) and a methyl methacrylate waste from manufacturing
of acrylic plastics. Both were liquids with low heat contents. No PCBs
were tested.
Union Oil Company, Union, Maine, is developing (41) and intends to
market a fluidized bed combustor. Union Oil's prototype is being used to
destroy still bottom residues from its process for recovering used indus-
trial hydrocarbon.
Hazen Research, Inc., of Golden, Colorado, also markets a fluidized
bed combustion system (42).
Because of the relatively low temperatures used and the lack of data
on PCB destruction, fluidized bed incinerators operated as indicated above
cannot be considered a viable option for thermal destruction of PCBs.
2.2.1.5 Multiple Chamber—
2.2.1.5.1 Description—There are three zones in a multiple chamber incin-
erator: 1) an ignition chamber, 2) a downdraft mixing chamber, and 3) an
updraft secondary combustion chamber. Solid waste is fed through charging
doors onto grates at the bottom of the ignition chamber, where the waste is
dried, volatilized, ignited, and partially oxidized. Incoming waste pushes
previously-charged material along the grates toward the ash pit; this com-
prises the only air/solid mixing in the incinerator.
Multiple chamber incinerators have been used at both municipal and
industrial facilities for solid waste disposal. The various configurations
are grouped (9) into two general categories: 1) retort type and 2) in-line
type.
The retort type (Figure 7) is distinguished by an arrangement of the
chambers such that combustion gases are forced to make a 90° change in both
horizontal and vertical directions. The primary and secondary combustion
chambers share a common wall.
38
-------
The in-line type (Figure 8) is distinguished by an intermediate secon-
dary combustion-mixing chamber which is followed by a third, secondary com-
bustion chamber. Also, this type is characterized by chamber arrangements
that force only vertical direction changes in combustion gas direction.
Retort-type incinerators are considered to have an upper capacity of
about 450 kg/hr. In-line type incinerators are not well suited to feed
rates below about 340 kg/hr but have upper limits much greater than the
rates of typical retort-type installations (9).
Typical multiple chamber incinerators operate at a maximum temperature
of about 540°C, which is well below temperatures required for complete
destructions of PCBs and most hazardous organic compounds. There is no
fundamental reason why these types of incinerators could not be designed
with provision for auxiliary fuel feed and more resistant materials of com-
bustion (9). Multiple chamber incinerators cannot handle liquids, slurries,
or sludges. They typically handle solids, but could also handle gases.
Typical residence times for solids and gases are minutes and seconds,
respectively.
2.2.1.5.2 Advantages--
• Technology is proven.
• Gas and solid residence times are adequate for PCB destruction
2.2.1.5.3 Disadvantages--
• Air/waste mixing is inadequate for destruction of PCBs.
• Normal operating temperatures are too low for PCB destruction.
• Labor intensive.
2.2.1.5.4 Facilities and Test Data—Multiple chamber incinerators normally
fire municipal solid waste, wood wastes, coal, or other solid wastes. With
the addition of auxiliary burners, liquid wastes-can be fired. Only one
reference to a PCB test at a multiple chamber incinerator was found, and
this was not a thermal destruction test but rather was a methods develop-
ment test. As part of a program to develop methods for determining PCB
emissions from incinerators at capacitor and transformer filling plants,
Haile and Baladi (17) reported on field tests at five municipal refuse in-
cinerators in the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, area: Miami No. 1; Dade
39
-------
SECONDARY
AIR PORTS
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
CURTAIN
WALL PORT
CLEANOUT
DOOR
MIXING
CHAMBER
FLAME PORT
CLEANOUT DOOR
WITH UNDERGRATE
AIR PORT
IGNITION
CHAMBER
CHARGING DOOR
WITH OVERFIRE
AIR PORT
GRATES
Figure 7. Retort multiple-chamber incinerator ( 9)
CHARGING DOOR
WITH OVERFIRE
AIR PORT
GRATES
IGNITION FLAME
CHAMBER ^ PORT
SECONDARY
PORT
,CURTAIN WALL
CLEANOUT DOORS WITH
UNDERGRATE AIR PORTS
LOCATION Of
SECONDARY
BURNER
MIXING
CHAMBER
CLEANOUT
DOORS
CURTAIN
WALL PORT
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
Figure 8. In-line multiple-chamber incinerator (9)
40
-------
County, N.E.; Broward County Plant No. 1 (incinerators Nos. 1 and 2); and
Broward County Plant No. 4. Incinerator types were not identified, but
municipal incinerators are frequently of the multiple chamber type. Opera-
tional data, PCB input rates, and destruction efficiencies were not given.
Average PCB emissions as ug/m decachlorobiphenyl were:
• Miami No. 1 - 33.8
• Dade County, N.E. - 10.3
§ Broward County Plant No. 1
- Unit No. 1 - 7.85
- Unit No. 2 - 5.4
• Broward County Plant No. 4 - 5.5
Other chlorinated organic wastes are being incinerated in small quanti-
ties in this type of unit. Some hazardous wastes (not PCBs) have been suc-
cessfully incinerated in tests conducted by Midwest Research Institute on a
pilot-scale modified multiple chamber incinerator (43).
2.2.1.6 Catalytic Combustion—
2.2.1.6.1 Description—Catalytic combustion is most applicable to gaseous
wastes containing low concentrations of combustible materials. Preheated
gases (320 to 540°C) are passed over a precious metal catalyst supported in
the gas stream to expose as much catalyst surface as possible. Combustion
occurs in the catalyst bed at temperatures up to about 870°C. A catalytic
combustion system is shown schematically in Figure 9.
2.2.1.6.2 Advantages--
t Combustion occurs at a lower temperature than would be necessary
for direct flame combustion. Thus, requirements for auxiliary
fuel and high temperature refractories are less than for direct
flame combustion.
• Combustion product gases produced from catalytic combustion are
clean, and well suited for waste-heat recovery.
2.2.1.6.3 Disadvantages—
• High temperatures deactivate most catalysts.
• Catalysts are fouled and poisoned by some impurities in the
gas stream. Therefore, the feed to a catalytic combustor
must be essentially free of such poisons (e.g., sulfur) or
foulants (e.g., particulates).
41
-------
DISCHARGI TO
AIMOSPHI RF
PRIHtAI
BURNfR',
GASEOUS
INFLUENT
CONTAINING
COMBUSTIBLE
MATERIAL
Figure 9. Schematic diagram of a catalytic combustor (39).
• Catalytic destruction of PCBs in this type of unit has not
been demonstrated.
2.2.1.6.4 Facilities and Test Data--A1though it appears that PCB destruc-
tion in catalytic combustors has not been investigated, B. F. Goodrich oper-
ates a catalytic oxidation process for destruction of other chlorinated hy-
drocarbon wastes (42). Catalytic combustion may find application in PCB
incineration, particularly as a polishing step or as a secondary combustion
system for vapor phase PCBs. However, considerable laboratory data must be
gathered to support any contention that catalytic combustion can effectively
destroy PCBs.
2.2.1.7 Pyrolysis—
2.2.1.7.1 Description—Pyrolysis processes are designed to decompose waste
in the absence of oxygen. Often the decomposition products contain gases,
liquids, or solids which have a high heating value and can be burned conven-
tionally. Figure 10 is a schematic diagram of a pyrolysis system.
42
-------
2.2.1.7.2 Advantages--
• Potential for resource recovery.
2.2.1.7.3 Disadvantages--
• Pyrolysis of wastes containing chlorine is not recommended
because of the high probability that toxic chlorinated by
products will be formed. This is an especially important
consideration for PCBs since pyrolysis of these substances
produces chlorinated dibenzofurans which are more toxic
than PCBs (see Section 2.5).
§ Auxiliary equipment for pyrolysis systems tends to be
specific for a particular waste feed. Thus pyrolysis
systems are usually unable to handle a variety of wastes.
SAMPLE
ROTARY HEARTH SLUDGE PYROLYSES
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of a pyrolysis system (42).
43
-------
2.2.1.7.4 Facilities and Test Data—The Surface Combustion Division of
Midland Ross Corporation operates a pyrolytic combustor. This unit was
tested (11,44) for disposal of: 1) petroleum refinery wastes (centrifuged
API separator bottoms), 2) styrene production wastes, and 3) rubber manufac-
turing wastes. The products of pyrolysis are a vapor stream and a residual
ash or char. The effectiveness of a pyrolysis process is usually evaluated
in terms of the vapor stream, which is expected to contain recoverable re-
sources. The ash or char is usually intended for disposal. The average
conversions of the organic material in the three waste streams tested at
Surface Combustion were:
• API separator bottoms - 70%
t Styrene waste - 60%
• Rubber waste - 80%
The vapor streams from the tests were highly complex. Compounds found ranged
from gases of ambient temperature and pressure to high boiling (500*C) liquids
and tars, including aromatic compounds.
Given that pyrolytic conditions convert PCBs to polychlorinated diben-
zofurans (PCDFs, see Section 2.5), pyrolysis is not recommended as PCB dis-
posal method. Even if the vapor stream were vented into an incinerator or
afterburner having a temperature and residence time adequate to ensure com-
plete destruction of residual PCBs and pyrosynthesized PCDFs, the ash or
char will be likely to contain PCDFs which would pose a significant disposal
problem.
2.2.1.8 Starved Air Combustion--
2.2.1.8.1 Description—Process equipment for starved air combustion is
similar to equipment for incinerators (9). However, in starved air combus-
tion, substoichiometric amounts of air are fed. The process is neither
purely pyrolytic nor purely oxidative; both types of reactions take place
in the system. One application of starved air combustion is shown in Figure
5, in which a multiple hearth reactor is used in the starved air mode. The
reactor gasifies the solid or sludge feed, producing a combustible gas which
is burned in an afterburner. Air emissions are controlled by a venturi scrub-
ber.
44
-------
2.2.1.8.2 Advantages--
• Potential for by product recovery.
• High thermal efficiency.
2.2.1.8.3 Disadvantages--
• Not tested on hazardous wastes in general and PCBs in particular
• Use of substoichiometric quantities of oxygen increases the
probability of formation of chlorinated dibenzofurans (see
Section 2.5).
2.2.1.8.4 Facilities and Test Data—Starved air combustion facilities have
not been tested for PCB destruction. Because of the possibility of chlori-
nated dibenzofuran formation, these units are probably not suitable for PCB
destruction.
2.2.1.9 Molten Salt—
2.2.1.9.1 Description—Combustion of waste in this type of incinerator is
primarily in a bed of molten alkali metal salts. Air and waste are injected
into the bed and are burned at temperatures up to about 980°C. Clean exhaust
gas is produced which may not require treatment. Solid residues are trapped
in the salt. Reactive salt mixtures may be used which trap chlorides and
metals formed from waste destruction. Spent salt is landfilled or regenerated.
Figure 11 is a schematic diagram of a molten salt combustor.
2.2.1.9.2 Advantages—
• Particulates and pollutant gases formed during combustion are
absorbed or react with salts in the bed so that pollution control
requirements are minimal or none.
• Organic wastes are rapidly destroyed at lower temperatures than
normally required.
• Residence times of approximately one second are achievable.
2.2.1.9.3 Disadvantages—
• Only pilot-scale units are operational.
• Residue disposal has not been adequately addressed.
• Continuous operation of a molten salt bed is difficult:
intermittent operation with frequent bed changes may be
required.
• The process is not currently proven reliable technology.
45
-------
VINT
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
SOLID WASTE
FEED STOCK
COMPOSITE SAMPLE
SECONDARY
COMBUSTOB
Figure 11. Atomic International Div. molten salt reactor -
process flow and sampling schematic (42).
2.2.1.9.4 Facilties and Test Data—The Atomics International Division of
Rockwell International built a pilot combustor in 1973 for disposal of chlor-
inated hydrocarbons, pesticides, and pesticide containers (42). The unit
has not been used to dispose of PCBs. Presently, the molten salt process
cannot be considered well enough developed for use in PCB incineration.
2.2.1.10 Summary of Incineration Systems--
Table 5 summarizes the potential applicability of various incineration
systems to the destruction of liquid and solid PCBs. Several systems have
demonstrated applicability: rotary kiln, liquid injection, and multiple
hearth (with cautions noted earlier). Other systems have potential appli-
cability but have not been tested or need additional design research: multi-
ple hearth, fluidized bed, and molten salt. Several systems probably have
no applicability: catalytic combustion, pyrolysis, and starved air.
46
-------
TABLE 5. INCINERATION SYSTEM SUMMARY
Type
Applicability
Reasons
Rotary Kiln
Liquid Injection
Multiple Hearth
Fluidized Bed
Multiple Chamber
Catalytic
Combustion
Pyrolysis
Starved Air
Combustion
Molten Salt
Liquids - Yes
Solids - Yes
Liquids - Yes
Solids - No
Liquids - Yes
Solids - Yes
Liquids - Potential
Solids - Potential
Liquids - Yes
Solids - No
Liquids - No
'Solids - No
Liquids - No
Solids - No
Liquids - No
Solids - No
Liquids - Potential
Solids - No
Best system for solid PCB Items.
Requires an afterburner.
Best system for liquid PCBs.
May be used as afterburner
following a solids incinerator.
Design is suitable, but may re-
quire operation at higher temper-
atures than currently used. After-
burner may be required.
Future consideration warranted for
liquids. Hard to remove shredded
noncombustibles. Temperatures
probably too low.
Liquids may be suitable if liquid
burner is installed above grates.
Insufficient air/solid mixing.
Primarily designed for gases and
vapors.
High probability of forming toxic
combustion products.
High probability of forming toxic
combustion products.
Not proven commercial technology.
Temperatures probably too low.
Hard to remove shredded noncom-
bustibles. Future consideration
warranted for liquids.
47
-------
Rotary kilns are most suited to destruction of PCB Items. For PCB
liquids, the liquid injection incinerator is most suited for thermal destruc-
tion. PCB liquids may also be considered for disposal along with PCB solids
in most rotary kilns and some multiple hearth furnaces. Incineration of PCB
liquids with non-PCB solids can be considered in other incinerator types
(e.g., multiple chamber) contingent on a thorough evaluation of system de-
sign. In many cases, an afterburner is required to ensure adequate PCB
destruction. It should be noted that not all systems designated as poten-
tially applicable for PCB destruction will meet evaluation criteria in Sec-
tion 4 or qualify as Annex I incinerators.
2.2.2 High Efficiency Boilers
In addition to incinerators, which are designed to combust waste mater-
ial , conventional boilers can also be used to destroy PCBs if proper combus-
tion conditions are maintained. The largest of these boilers, installed at
electric utility and large industrial sites, are designed and instrumented
for maximum fuel efficiency. For these units, cofiring PCB liquids and the
normal coal, oil, or natural gas fuel represents a viable method for the
thermal destruction of PCBs.
Boilers are operated for the basic purpose of supplying a dependable
supply of steam for power production or on-site use. Since heat output must
be controlled to match demand, these units are not always operated at a con-
stant load.
The key component in the boiler is the burner, normally located in the
vertical walls of the furnace. Burners are designed to operate with just,
enough excess combustion air to burn the fuel completely in order to attain
high combustion temperatures and maximum thermal efficiency. The most fre-
quently used burners for gas, oil, and pulverized coal are the circular type,
in which combustion air passes through tangentially disposed doors in the
air register to provide the turbulence necessary to mix fuel and air. Some
burners are dedicated to a specific fuel, while others are capable of firing
a mixture of two or more types. Fuel type and load range - the ratio of full
load to minimum load at which reliable operation is possible - are two impor-
tant design features of burners.
48
-------
2.2.2.1 Gas-Fired Boilers—
2.2.2.1.1 Description—Natural gas is an excellent boiler fuel commonly
fired in utility boilers because of its high heating value and clean burn-
ing properties. Many industrial boilers fire blast furnace gas, coke oven
gas, or refinery gas. Burner designs differ for these different gases due
to the different heat release rates and impurities in the various fuels.
Excess air requirements range from about 5-10% for most gaseous fuels. Ex-
ceptions are blast furnace gas, which requires 15-18% excess air, and multi-
fuel burners requiring 7-12% excess air (45).
2.2.2.1.2 Advantages--
• High flame temperatures are achieved with natural gas firing.
t Mixing characteristics are good.
t Close control of combustion conditions can be maintained.
• Variable-mix multispud type gas elements are available which
allow efficient cofiring of natural gas and oil. Switchover
from gas to liquid fuels can be accomplished without disrup-
tion. This feature would be important if PCB flow had to be
cut off.
2.2.2.1.3 Disadvantages—
• Not all gas-fired boilers are equipped to burn liquids.
• No control of hydrogen chloride emissions is provided.
• Higher than normal excess air rates may be required to
maintain a constant level of greater than 3% oxygen in the
stack. Very high excess air rates may degrade flame stabi-
lity.
2.2.2.1.4 Facilities and Test Data--Cofiring of PCB liquids with gaseous
fuels in boilers has not been attempted.
2.2.2.2 Oil-Fired Boilers—
2.2.2.2.1 Description—Fuel oil burners atomize the liquid fuel into small
droplets, exposing a large surface area to combustion air and assuring prompt
ignition and rapid combustion. Oil must usually be preheated to reduce its
viscosity prior to atomization. Two methods of atomization are used. The
most prevalent technique is steam (or air) atomization; mechanical atomizers
are used to a lesser extent. Excess air requirements rancjo from 5-10%,
normally, but rise to 10-20% for multifuel burners (45).
49
-------
2.2.2.2.2 Advantages--
• High flame temperatures and good mixing are achieved in large
oil-fired boilers.
• Close control of combustion conditions can be maintained.
• Additive systems are often present which could be used to
meter PCB flor to the burners. Alternatively, PCBs can
be premixed with fuel.
2.2.2.2.3 Disadvantages—
t No control of hydrogen chloride emissions is provided unless
a wet scrubber is employed.
• Higher than normal excess air rates may be required to
maintain greater than 3% oxygen in the flue gas.
2.2.2.2.4 Facilities and Test Data—Results of PCB burns in an oil-fired
boiler have been reported by Florida Power and Light Company (7). The No.
4 boiler at the FP&L Sanford Plant was used in the tests. A fuel additive
injection system was used to meter undiluted Askarel (60-100% PCB) into the
fuel oil feed to the burners. Feed rates were 34 liters per hour of PCB and
91,200 liters per hour of fuel oil, resulting in a PCB concentration of about
555 ppm in the final feed to the burners.
Accurate measurements of flame temperature and furnace exit temperature
were not made, as the boiler was not normally instrumented for these measure-
ments. Normal flame temperatures were estimated at between 1480°C and 1650°C.
Residence time was estimated to be 2.7 seconds at 2 percent excess oxygen.
Stack testing was conducted only for PCBs and oxygen. Oxygen in the stack
gases averaged about 2% during the test burns. PCB samples were taken at
the 41 meter level on a 122 meter stack. From 1.8 to 2.0 cubic meters of dry
flue gas at standard conditions were collected in hexane. Analyses by gas
chromatograph detected no PCBs at a detection limit of 1 ng per 5 pi sample.
This equated to a destruction efficiency of greater than 99.9997%. No ash
analyses were performed.
Continental Can Company operates a pulp and paper mill at Hopewell,
Virginia. In 1976, EPA Region III received information that waste oil
supplied to Continental for steam and power generation and rotary lime kiln
was contaminated with PCBs (22). Upon confirming that the oil was contami-
nated, EPA conducted emissions testing. Two of the three oil-fired boilers
50
-------
(Nos. 2 and 3) were tested.
Boilers Nos. 2 and 3 have design heat input rates of 198 and 391 million
Btu per hour, respectively. Process parameters monitored were steam, oil,
and feed water integrators; steam, feed water and airflow meters; tempera-
ture and pressure gauges on the various process streams, and an oxygen moni-
tor located after the air preheater. The waste oil averaged 5 ppm PCBs.
During several tests, the waste oil was spiked with additional PCBs to level
of 280 ppm.
Boiler No. 2 temperatures ranged from 1,360 to 1,500°C; boiler No. 3
temperatures ranged from 1,370°C to 1,520°C. Residence times ranged from
2-3 seconds and 3-6 seconds for boilers Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. Boiler
No. 2 operated at about 8% excess oxygen, while boiler No. 3 operated between
2-5% excess oxygen. Actual destruction efficiencies, based on PCB emissions,
ranged from 99.2% to 99.5% for boiler No. 2 and from 99.1% to 99.9% for
boiler No. 3.
General Motors Corporation recently (July 1980) conducted a PCB Trial
Burn at its Chevrolet plant in Bay City, Michigan (45,46). No details are
available at this time.
2.2.2.3 Coal-Fired Boilers--
2.2.2.3.1 Description—Two methods of firing are possible for coal: sus-
pension firing and fuel-bed firing. Suspension firing predominates for
large boilers and is more applicable to destruction of PCB liquids. Either
pulverized or crushed coal may be fired in suspension.
The design of furnaces and boilers for coal firing is based on the
physical and chemical characteristics of the coal, the steam conditions
required, and the emission levels to be met. Coals with high fusion tem-
peratures are suitable for burning, when pulverized, in hopper-bottom fur-
naces with dry-ash removal. Coals with low fusion temperatures may be
burned, when pulverized or crushed, in wet bottom furnaces with slag-tap
ash removal. For pulverized dry bottom and wet bottom furnaces, three burn-
er arrangements are used for coal firing: tangential firing, front wall
firing, and horizontally opposed firing. These burner arrangements are
shown schematically (47) in Figure 12. The vertical firing method, not
shown here, is seldom used for utility boilers. Vertical firing furnaces
51
-------
are no longer sold and will not be discussed.
In the tangential firing method, developed by Combustion Engineering,
Inc., pulverized coal is introduced from the four corners of the furnace in
vertical banks of burner nozzles, and directed towards an imaginary circle
in the center of the chamber. Such a firing mechanism results in the forma-
tion of a large vortex with its axis on the vertical center line.
In front wall and horizontally opposed fired furnaces, pulverized coal
is introduced through a horizontal row of burners mounted normal to the
furnace wall(s). For boilers less than 400 MW in size, the burners are
typically located on only one wall. For larger boilers, the burners are
located on both the front and back walls firing directly opposed to each
other. Horizontally opposed fired furnaces are generally newer because of
the recent trends towards boilers of larger capacity. The major manufac-
turers for these furnaces include Babcock'and Wilcox Co., Riley Stoker Corp.,
and Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.
Circular burners are most often used for pulverized coal firing. From
15-20% excess air is normally required.
In cyclone fired furnaces, the coal is not pulverized but is crushed
to 4-mesh size, and admitted with the primary air in a tangential fashion
to a horizaontal, cylindrical chamber (Figure 13). The finer coal particles
are burned in suspension, while the coarser ones are thrown to the walls by
centrifugal force. The wall surface, having a coating of molten slag, re-
tains most of the coal particles until they are burned. The cyclone furnace
was developed by Babcock and Wilcox Co.
Cyclone furnaces may be designed to cofire oil or natural gas. Oil
burners can be installed to inject fluid into the secondary air stream or
along the axis of the cyclone. Excess air requirements are about 10-157..
2.2.2.3.2 Advantages--
• Both pulverized coal burners and cyclone furnaces can be
equipped to cofire oil.
• Hydrogen chloride emissions can be controlled with wet
scrubbers already installed at many plants.
• High temperatures are achieved and close control of
combustion can be maintained.
52
-------
TANGENTIAL FIRING
' \
^PRIMARY AIR
X^ AND COAL
SECONDARY
AIR
PLAN VIEW OF FURNACE
PRIMARY AIR
AND COAL
SECONDARY
AIR
PRIMARY
AIR AND COAL
SECONDARY
AIR
MULTIPLE INTERTUBE HORIZONTAL FIRING
Figure 12. Pulverized coal firing methods (47).
SECONDARY
AIR
PRIMARY AIR
AND COAL
CYCLONE
CYCLONE FIRING
Figure 13. Cyclone firing of crushed coal (47)
53
-------
2.2.2.3.3 Disadvantages—
• Cofiring of pulverized coal and oil in circular burners for
long periods of time may cause coke formation on the pulver-
ized coal element.
• Instrumentation necessary to monitor certain combustion
parameters may not be installed.
2.2.2.3.4 Facilities and Test Data—Only one reference to a PCB destruction
test in a coal-fired boiler was found (48). This was a test in lieu of a
normal Trial Burn conducted in accordance with the PCB Regulations at
Tennessee Eastman Company's Kingsport, Tennessee plant. Power boilers Nos.
23 and 24 were tested. These units are coal-fired and rated nominally at
425 million Btu/hr each, well above the regulatory requirement of at least
50 million Btu/hr. Neither the weight nor volume of coal could be accurate-
ly determined. The waste was essentially toluene contaminated with about
400 ppm PCBs. The nominal waste feed rate (based on 10% of the boilers'
rated capacities and normal operating loads) was 19 liters per minute.
Normal oxygen content of the stack gas was 8.5%.
Tests were conducted on November 5-9, 1979. CO, C02, and Op were mon-
itored. The waste feed rate averaged 13 liters per minute; the PCB concen-
tration averaged 336 ppm, thus the PCB feed rate was about 4.1 grams/min.
CO averaged 39 ppm, C02 averaged 12.4%, and 02 averaged 5.9%. Combustion
temperatures and residence times were not given. Traces of PCBs were de-
tected in the blank and in samples from three of the four tests. Destruc-
tion efficiencies ranged from >99.7% (no PCBs detected but high levels of
interferences) to 99.993%.
2.2.3 Summary
Table 6 summarizes the thermal destruction testing located in the liter-
ature. It can be seen that thermal destruction of PCBs in incinerators
(rotary kiln and liquid injection) and high efficiency can be effected in
accordance with the PCB Regulations.
2.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES FOR PCBs
This section presents results of a literature search on methodologies
for sampling and analysis for PCBs in combustion source stacks, ambient air,
work space air, liquids, and solids. Recommended methods are described.
54
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF PCB THERMAL DESTRUCTION TESTS
en
tn
Unit Type
Rotary kiln/
liquid injection
Cement kiln
Liquid injection
Multiple hearth
High efficiency
boiler
Owner/Operator
Rollins Environmental
Services
Energy Systems Company
St. Lawrence Cement Co.
Peerless Cement Co.
General Electric Co.
Palo Alto, CA.
Florida Power & Light
Continental Can Co.
General Motors Co.
Tennessee Eastman Co.
Feedstock
Whole PCB capacitors
Hammer-milled PCB
capacitors
Liquid PCBs
Liquid PCBs and
Shredded PCB capaci-
tors
Liquid PCBs
Liquid PCBs
PCB waste oil
Liquid PCBs
Liquid PCBs, oil
Liquid PCBs, oil
Liquid PCBs, oil
Liquid PCBs, coal
Date
1976
1976
1979
1979
1976
1976
1974
1975
1974
1976
1980
1979
Trial
Burn
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Destruction
Efficiency, °:
>99.999a
99.5 a
99.99997b
>99.9999b
99.986a>c
99.983a
99.9921-99.9995
91. 7-97. la
>99.9997a
99. 1-99. 9a
Not available
>99.7-99.993b
a. Overall DE, all effluent streams
b. Gas phase DC only
c. Inferred from test report
-------
2.3.1 Sampling Methodologies
A critical factor in all sampling activities is obtaining a represen-
tative sample, for the accuracy and precision of the analytical result can
be no greater than the accuracy and precision of the sampling. EPA (49) has
specified in detail (Method 5) how to obtain representative samples of parti-
culate and gases in stacks and ducts. Many of the sampling methods described
in this Section are based on modified Method 5 sampling trains. Grant (50)
and "Standard Methods" (51) describe methods for sampling aqueous streams.
The American society for Testing Materials (52) gives a procedure for obtain-
ing representative samples of bulk solids. EPA has recently published a
manual for sampling and analysis of RCRA hazardous materials (53).
Sampling methodologies described below emphasize sampling stacks and
aqueous and solid process streams. Ambient air monitoring is also discussed;
however, the likelihood of detectable amounts of PCBs being emitted from a
properly designed and controlled incinerator or boiler is considered extreme-
ly low.
2.3.1.1 Stack Sampling--
Methods of sampling gases (stack or ambient air) can be grouped into
three general categories: 1) liquid absorption systems, 2) liquid phase ab-
sorbents coated on solid supports, and 3) solid adsorbents. Liquid absorp-
tion systems typically involve some type of impinger or fritted gas bubbler
and a vacuum pump. A widely used configuration consists of Greenburg-Smith
impingers and a vacuum pump drawing gas at rates from about 10 to 30 1pm.
Impinger contents vary widely. When fritted gas bubblers are used, parti-
culate matter can lodge in and plug the frits.
Solid adsorbent systems involve the use of granular solids which trap
organic vapors by means of adsorption. Types of granular solids that have
been used for PCB sampling include porous polymers (e.g., XAD-2 and TENAX-
GC), polyurethane foam, and Florisil. A vacuum pump is used to pull gas
through the adsorbent, and flow rates can be much higher than in liquid
absorption or liquid phase on solid support systems. Solid adsorbent sys-
tems have the advantage that there is no liquid phase which can interfere
in analysis of trapped compounds, but the organic adsorbents generally pro-
duce their own background. Solid adsorbents typically must be "cleaned"
56
-------
prior to use to reduce the background, and the residual background must be
accounted for in analysis. Care must be taken when packing granular adsor-
bents so that channeling (channels of lower packing density which allow
faster than average gas flow) does not occur. Also, solid adsorbents all
have finite capacity for organic compounds, and test conditions (gas flow,
bed temperature, sampling time) must be such that the capacity is not ex-
ceeded.
Solid adsorbent sampling systems offer numerous advantages over liquid
absorbtion and liquid phase on solid support systems, and they have been
much more widely used over the last few years for sampling stack gas and
ambient air. Consequently, uses, of solid adsorbent sampling systems are
described in greater detail in subsequent sections.
Condensation in cold traps has been used in organic vapor sampling,
but this technique has a fundamental physicochemical limitation for sampl-
ing trace compounds. If the partial pressure (concentration) of the sought-
for species in the stream being sampled is equal to or lower than its sat-
uration vapor pressure at the temperature of the trap, then the species
cannot be trapped. Further, when the saturation vapor pressure at trap
temperature of the sought-for species is a significant fraction of the gas
phase partial pressure of the sought-for species, trapping is not quanti-
tative.
There are two major systems for sampling combustion zone gases. The
first is typified by .the EPA Method 5 train (49) which is the standard sys-
tem for determining particulate mass emissions. The Method 5 train, shown
schematically in Figure 14, consists of a heated probe, a particulate filter
in an oven maintained at stack temperature, and a series of impingers. One
or more of the impingers contains a liquid to absorb vapors, one is usually
empty, and one contains silica gel to absorb moisture. A pump and a dry
gas meter complete this train. It is operated isokinetically, usually at
about 28 1pm (1 cfm). The Method 5 trajnjs constructed of glass. There-
fore, it is suitable for sampling combustion zone gases containing HC1.
Modifications of the standard Method 5 train for sampling PCBs (and
other organic or organochlorine compounds) include: 1) insertion of a water-
cooled sorbent trap (e.g., XAD-2, TENAX-GC, etc.) between the filter
57
-------
and first impinger; 2) insertion of a trap containing Florisil between
the last two impingers, or altering impinger contents to improve trapping
efficiency. Each of these modifications has been developed, tested, and
used for sampling combustion gases for PCBs, as well as other organic com-
pounds. Each is described in subsequent paragraphs.
The second major system is typified by the Source Assessment Sampling
System (SASS) developed (54) under the cognizance of EPA's Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park (IERL-RTP). This
train is mandated (55,56) for use in source characterization and emissions
assessment programs sponsored by IERL-RTP. This train apparently has not
been used for PCB sampling. However, its high volume capability would be
useful in situations where PCB emissions would be expected to be too low
for modified Method 5 trains to acquire samples of adequate size.
The SASS train, shown schematically in Figure 15, consists of a heated
probe, three cyclones and a filter in a heated oven for sizing particulates
into four ranges, an organic vapor sorbent trap containing XAD-2 resin which
is cooled to 20°C, a drainable condensate trap, a series of four impingers
STACK
WALL
Figure 14. Schematic of EPA Method 5 train.
58
-------
(two which trap volatile metallic and sulfur species, one of which is empty,
and the last of which contains silica gel), a pump, and a dry gas meter.
The SASS train is operated isokinetically from 4 to 5 cfm (112-140 1pm),
and a 30 m sample is usually required (55,56). The SASS train is construct-
ed of glass and stainless steel. In particular, the XAD-2 module, in which
the stack gas is cooled to 20°C to promote more efficient sorption of organ-
ics, is made of stainless steel (Type 316) which is corroded by aqueous HC1.
Glass XAD-2 modules are not commercially available. The use of the SASS
train thus has limited capability for sampling HC1-laden streams. There is
only one datum available on maximum allowable HC1 content. The SASS train
was used (32) during a test on the M/T Vulcanus. The sorbent module was
rapidly and seriously corroded by the combustion effluent which contained
3
approximately 80 g/m of HC1.
STACK T. C.
HEATER
CON-
TROLLER
1
CYCLONES FILTER , GAS COOLER
GAS
TEMPERATURE
T.C.
CONVECTION
OVEN
IMP/COOLER
TRACE ELEMENT
COLLECTOR
XAD-2
CARTRIDGE
CONDENSATE
COLLECTOR
DRY GAS METER ORIFICE METER
CENTRALIZED TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE READOUT
CONTROL MODULE
IMPINGER
T.C.
10 CFM VACUUM PUMPS
Figure 15. SASS train schematic.
59
-------
2.3.1.1.1 Liquid absorption systems--EPA (22) reported on PCB emissions
testing at a pulp and paper mill which had been supplied with PCB-contaminated
waste oil used for firing its boilers. Sampling and analysis of the oil
confirmed PCB contamination. Two boilers and a lime kiln were tested for PCB
emissions. Stack sampling was performed with a Method 5 train with xylene-
filled impingers. Ducts were traversed, and the sampling rate was between
90% and 110% of isokinetic.
The DDT/PCB incineration tests conducted by EPA Region I at General
Electric Company's Pittsfield, Massachusetts liquid injection incinerator
utilized a modified Method 5 train employing three ethylene glycol filled
impingers and isokinetic sampling (27).
In their study of incinerator operating conditions for pesticide dis-
posal, Ferguson, et al. (43) used the following methods. The train for
sampling the gaseous effluent consisted of: 1) a glass probe; 2) three
midget impingers; 3) an 0.8 pm filter; 4) a critical orifice; 5) a liquid
nitrogen cooled trap; 6) a pump; and 7) a rotameter. A variety of liquids
were used to fill the first two impingers, depending on the pesticide being
tested. Flow rates were of the order of 0.5 1pm, sample periods were about
0.5 hours. When solid pesticides were incinerated, a Method 5 train was used
in order to measure particulate pesticide emissions. Procedures for obtain-
ing representative samples of solid residues and scrubber liquids were also
described.
Guilford and Brandon (57) reported on a pilot scale PCB waste destruc-
tion study. Both liquid and solid (capacitors) waste PCBs were tested.
Combustion gas samples from the inlet and outlet to the secondary combustion
chamber were pulled through two ethylene glycol filled impingers in series
which were immersed in a water-ice bath. A stainless steel probe, manometer,
dry gas meter, and a pump completed the system, which can be viewed as a
Method 5, modified by excluding the filter and changing the impinger contents.
They determined that each impinger had a trapping efficiency of 94% and that
two in series had a combined efficiency of 99.64%. The sampling flow rate
was not specified, but the maximum allowable leak was specified as 0.06 1pm.
60
-------
Guilford and Rosenblatt reported (58) on PCB emissions in Ontario
from: 1) three PCB capacitor manufacturers, 2) two municipal sewage sludqe
incinerators, and 3) two municipal refuse incinerators. These were not
destruction efficiency tests. A conventional Method 5 train with ethylene
glycol filled impingers was used to sample stacks from the incinerators.
Samples of scrubber water and sludge were also taken. When the moisture
content was high, the first implnger was left empty. Sampling rates were
about 20 1pm (0.7 cfm) and within +_ 10% of isokinetic. The system was
tested in the laboratory before field use by passing Aroclor mixtures at
known air concentrations through the train. Capture efficiency was 97.7%
which was considered to be satisfactory.
Komaniya, et al. (59) reported on a laboratory scale test of incinera-
tion of PCBs. They sampled combustion zone gases by pumping through three
impingers, the first filled with water and the second two filled with hex-
ane. Sample volumes of 30 liters at 1 1pm were taken.
2.3.1.1.2 Liquid absorbents on solid supports—No studies of thermal de-
struction of PCBs using liquid absorbents on solid supports were found.
2.3.1.1.3 Solid adsorbents—Ackerman, et al. (11,12) reported on an incin-
eration test of whole PCB-containing capacitors and hammermilled PCB-contain-
ing capacitors at a commercial chemical waste incineration facility. Both
PCB materials were incinerated in a rotary kiln incinerator. A baseline
test with No. 2 fuel oil was also performed. Combustion zone, stack gas,
waste, and scrubber water samples were taken. Combustion zone samples were
taken with a Method 5 train modified with a water-cooled sorbent trap con-
taining XAD-2 resin. Flow rates were approximately 30 1pm (1.1 cfm) for 2
hours. Leak rates were less than 0.6 1pm. The incinerator stack was sampl-
ed with a standard Method 5 train for particulate loading. Figure 16 is
a schematic of the train used in these tests.
MacDonald, et al. (20) reported on thermal destruction testing of PCBs
in a cement kiln. In cooperation with Environment Canada, U.S. EPA supple-
mented the Canadian studies through participating in analyses of samples
taken during the tests. Stack sampling at the cement plant was performed
with a standard Method 5 train for particulates and a low flow rate train
containing a Chromosorb 102 sorbent trap for organic compounds. Samples
61
-------
INCINERATOR
WALL
WATER
COOLED
PROBE
QUARTZ
LINER
HEATED AREA
THERMOMETERS
ORIFICE
4 INCH
FILTER
HOLDER
SOLID
SORBENT
TRAP
GAS
SAMPLE
VALVE
THERMOMETER
CHECK
VALVE
ICE
BATH
BY-PASS
VALVE IMPINGERS VACUUM
(MAXIMUM SIX) GAUGE
VACUUM LINE
MAIN
VALVE
DRY TEST METER
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 16. Schematic of modified Method 5 stack sampling train.
62
-------
were also taken of a clinker product, clinker fines, electrostatic precipi-
tator dusts, and cement mixutres.
Haile and Baladi (17) developed and validated a method proposed by EPA
for measuring PCB emissions from incinerators and capacitor- and transform-
er-filling plants. The proposed method involved collecting PCBs in a train
consisting of a filter followed by a solid sorbent and converting trapped
PCBs to decachlorobiphenyl (DCB). Sorbents evaluated were: Florisil, XAD-2,
and Tenax GC. All were cleaned by soxhlet extraction. Florisil was then
activated at 650°C. Their studies showed that Florisil was preferable to
XAD-2 and Tenax GC because of generally higher and more reproducible trap-
ping-recovery efficiencies and lower levels of extracted contaminants.
Later in the study, specially cleaned XAD-2 was shown to have an acceptable
background.
Haile and Baladi (17) tested their PCB sampling and analysis method at
two municipal sewage sludge incinerators and two commercial industrial waste
incinerators. Figure 17 shows the sampling train used. The first two im-
pingers contained water, the third was empty, the fourth contained 10% NaOH,
and the fifth contained indicating silica gel. An organic vapor sorbent
trap containing Florisil was placed between the fourth and fifth impingers.
Sampling was conducted according to Method 5 and was within 10% of isokine-
tic. This is the train recommended by EPA's interim sampling and analysis
manual (60).
As a support document and interim policy guideline to the PCB Regula-
tions, EPA published (60) an interim sampling and analysis manual for PCB
disposal. The authors recommend that samples for analysis of PCBs and
other chlorinated and unchlorinated organics be collected on a solid sor-
bent trap, such as XAD-2. (XAD-2 is perhaps the best-characterized of all
porous polymer sorbents. References 61-63 and references therein describe
characterization studies.) Tenax-GC has also been widely studied, Refer-
ences 61-64. This trap is typically located downstream of the heated filter
and upstream of the first impinger. The trap temperature must be kept con-
stant and low (but above the freezing point of water) because the retention
of sorbed species is higher at lower trap temperatures (i.e., logarithm of
retention volume is proportional to reciprocal temperature). Figure 16 is
a schematic of such a train (filter and housing not shown) taken from
63
-------
Adsorbent Tube
Probe
Thermometer
\ Check
L Valve
•To Pump
and
Metering
System
Impingers \ rSilica Gel
100ml 10% NaOH
Figure 17. Preferred PCB sampling train configuration (17).
Reference 33. This type of train has been extensively used for testing
combustion sources (11,32,34).
While the text of EPA's interim manual (60) recommends use of a Method
5 train modified with an XAD-2 sorbent trap, Attachment E of the manual
specifies using a Method 5 train modified with a Florisil adsorbent trap
placed between the third and fourth impingers. Figure 17 Is a schematic
of this train.
A PCB Trial Burn was recently (November 1979) performed by Rollins
Environmental Services, Inc., Deer Park, TX (13,14). The sampling train
used for these tests was a modified Method 5: 1) heated probe, 2) no filter,
3) two water filled impingers, 4) an empty impinger, 5) a Florisil sorbent
trap, 6) a backup sorbent trap containing XAD-2, and 7) a silica gel filled
impinger. Sampling was conducted isokinetically by Method 5 procedures.
Samples of all process input and output streams were taken.
The Electric Power Research Institute recently (October 1979) spon-
sored a PCB Trial Burn test at Energy Systems Company, El Dorado, AK (15,
16). Combustion gas samples were taken with a modified Method 5 train:
1) heated probe, 2) no filter, 3) two water filled impingers, 4) one empty
impinger, 5) a Florisil sorbent trap, 6) a backup XAD-2 trap, and 7) a
64
-------
silica gel impinger. Sampling was performed isokinetically by Method 5
procedures. Samples of all process input and output streams were taken.
Ambient air samples were also taken at several locations during the tests.
These samplers used polyurethane foam to collect PCBs and were modified and
operated by the method proposed by Stratton, et al. (65).
Tennessee Eastman Company recently (November 1979) performed a PCB
Trial Burn in a coal-fired high efficiency power boiler (48). One test was
performed on each of four days. The sampling train was a modified Method 5:
1) heated probe, 2) cyclone, 3) two water filled impingers, 4) one empty
impinger, 5) Florisil trap,.6) silica gel filled impinger. Because the com-
bustion gas samples were taken at the boiler outlet before the mechanical
dust collector and because high particulate loadings were expected at this
location, a cyclone was substituted for the filter. Sampling was conducted
isokinetically by Method 5 procedures.
General Motors recently conducted (July 1980) a PCB Trial Burn at its
Chevrolet plant in Bay City, Michigan (45,46). The train was a modified
Method 5: 1) heated probe, 2) no filter, 3) two water filled impingers;
4) one empty impinger, 5) Florisil trap, and 6) silica gel filled impinger.
Sampling was conducted isokinetically by Method 5 procedures.
2.3.1.1.4 Recommended sampling methods—It is recommended that the Florisil
trap modified Method 5 train described by Beard and Schaum in EPA's Interim
Sampling and Analysis Manual be used for sampling PCBs in stack gas emis-
sions from Annex I incinerators and high efficiency boilers. The method has
been used for four recent PCB Trial Burns (13-16,45,46,48). The train is
operated according to Method 5, and a detailed procedure is given in (60).
If particulate matter loading is expected to be high, a cyclone may be in-
corporated before the filter to reduce the number of filter changes during
a verification test.
It is recommended that an XAD-2 trap modified Method 5 train be used
for sampling for RCls and other organic compounds when testing an Annex I
incinerator. As described previously, XAD-2 resin has been extensively
tested for retention of organic compounds (60-62) and widely used for com-
bustion source testing (11,61-63). A primary advantage of XAD-2 is its
greater capacity for organic compounds than Florisil.
65
-------
Additional work on PCB trapping efficiency and recovery on Florisil
should be performed. The report of Haile and Baladi (17) showed that the
recovery of a dichlorobiphenyl isomer was only 47% under the following
conditions: 1) 4 hour sampling, 2) ambient temperature, 3) 20 1pm (0.7 cfm),
and 4) trap size 150 mm long, 22 mm diameter, and 7.5 g of Florisil. These
conditions are essentially those required by Attachment E of EPA's Interim
Manual (59) and used in the four PCB Trial Burns cited above. It is widely
recognized that combustion and environmental aging (e.g., weathering and
photolysis) dechlorinate more highly chlorinated biphenyls to ones with
lower degrees of chlorination. Thus, the recommended sampling system lacks
adequate trapping efficiency for those chlorobiphenyls (mono- and di-chloro-
biphenyls) that ought to be enhanced by incineration.
2.3.1.2 Ambient Air Sampling—
As described in Section 2.3.1.1, methods of ambient air sampling for
PCBs fall into three general categories: 1) liquid absorption systems, 2)
liquid phase absorbents on solid supports, and 3) solid adsorbents. Each
method as applied to ambient air sampling is described in subsequent sec-
tions.
2.3.1.2.1 Liquid absorption systems--A widely used configuration consists
of Greenburg-Smith impingers, a vacuum pump drawing air at rates from about
10 to 30 1pm through ethylene glycol. Trapping solutions in the impingers
vary. This method has been used by EPA (66), Kutz and Yang (67), Enos, et
al, (68), and Staiff, et al. (69). Stanley, et al. (70) used hexylene
glycol; Leighton and Feldman (27) and Hocheiser (71) used hexane; American
National Standards Institute used toluene (72), and the American Industrial
Hygiene Association (73) used secondary butyl alcohol as trapping media.
When fritted gas bubblers are used, particulate material lodges in the frit,
and PCBs adsorbed on the particulates are extracted by the trapping medium.
The frits are generally rinsed along with the impingers during sample re-
covery.
2.3.1.2.2 Liquid phase on solid supports—As described in Section 2.3.1.1,
there are two types of liquid phase on solid support systems, one of which
is designed to serve as an alternative to liquid absorption systems. Compton
and Bjorkland (74) used cottonseed oil on 3 mm glass beads; Harvy and
66
-------
Steinhauer (75,76) used a mixture of 0.25 percent OV-17 and silicone oil
coated on 64 mm ceramic saddles; Wakimoto, et al. (77) used 5% glycerine
coated on Florisil; and Seiber, et al. (78) used 5% paraffin oil coated
on Chromosorb A. The work of Harvey and Steinhauer (75,76) and of Wakimoto,
et al. (77) was specifically directed at PCBs; the other workers were sampl-
ing for pesticides in general.
Static systems have been used for trapping PCBs and pesticides.
Risebrough, et al. (79) used 30% glycerine in water to coat 0.5 mm nylon
net. Tessori and Spencer (80) used 10% ethylene glycol in acetone to coat
nylon net. Sodergren (81) used SE-30 silicone oil to coat 0.2 mm nylon net.
Staiff, et al. (67) used ethylene glycol treated nylon net. Young, et al.
(82) treated glass plates with mineral oil.
Young, et al. (82) showed that, upon prolonged exposure, collection
efficiency of static systems declined, indicating volatilization of trapped
PCBs. They also found that volatility losses were greatest for lower mole-
cular weight PCBs, which are the PCBs generally present in air in the great-
est concentration.
2.3.1.2.3 Solid adsorbents--A number of solid adsorbent systems have been
tested for PCB sampling. These systems allow greater flow rates than
liquid phase or solid support systems. Because they are more popular,
literature on these systems is described in greater detail than that on
liquid absorption or liquid phase or solid supports.
Giam, et al. (83) collected PCBs in air by using columns packed with
Florisil and anhydrous sodium sulfate. Air was sampled at 4 1pm for up to
60 hours. Burg, et al. (84) sampled ambient air in Ontario for PCBs using
a Method 5 train modified with a Tenax-GC sorbent trap.
Bidelman and Olney (85) devised a high volume sampling system employ-
ing polyurethane foam as a collection medium. Cylindrical polyurethane
foam plugs, 10 cm thick, were placed behind the filter holder in a standard
•j
high volume air sampler. Air was sampled between 0.5 and 1.0 m /min (14-28
cfm). The authors evaluated the collection efficiency of the system. They
found that less than 1% of the test PCBs were retained on the filter and
that 96 to 99% of the total collected was on the first polyurethane foam
plug. At the same time, they also tested the collection efficiency of
67
-------
Greenburg-Smith impinger systems charged with ethylene glycol. They found
that the impinger system trapped from 75 to 82% of tetra- and pentachloro-
biphenyl test compounds. Bidelman and Olney (86) used this system to mea-
sure PCBs in the atmosphere over the Sargasso Sea near Mermuda and in Rhode
Island. Air was sampled at a rate of 0.4 to 0.8 m3/min (14-28 cfm).
Several other workers have also used polyurethane foam as a collection
medium: Rhodes, et al. (87), Rice, et al. (88), and Lewis, et al. (89).
Stratton, et al. (65) reported on an extensive methods development
study on sampling PCBs in ambient air. They used the system developed by
Bidelman and Olney (85) as a starting point and modified it to improve its
performance. Figure 18 shows this system schematically. The authors des-
cribe the modifications made, the laboratory tests performed to verify the
method, and field testing. They also describe the extensive polyurethane
foam cleanup procedure necessary before it can be used for sampling.
Validation studies performed by Stratton, et al. (65) indicated that
each PCB isomer has a different retention time in polyurethane foam. Re-
tention times are generally in order of decreasing volatility. Thus, mono-
chlorobiphenyl is the least retained PCB species. They found maximum
sampling period to be about 2 hours at 0.7 m3/min (84 m3 or 3000 ft3). The
authors' conclusions were:
• Collection and recovery efficiencies are independent of flow
rate in the range of 0.6 to 1.0 m /min (21-28 cfm).
• Ambient temperature and humidity have no effect on collection
efficiency.
• Breakthrough or loss of PCB isomers occurs in the order
monochlorobiphenyl, dichlorobiphenyl, and higher substi-
tuted species.
• Quantitative collection ( 85%) is assured when the sampling
period does not exceed 2 hours.
• The mean collection efficiency for all tests conducted with
Aroclors 1016 and 1242 was 101 + 10%.
The authors conducted several field tests of the system. Urban ambi-
ent air in Jacksonville, FL, was sampled. Several samples of 2 to 24 hours
duration were taken over a 24 hour period. Values ranged from 15 ng/m to
3 33
25 ng/m at one location and from 3 ng/m to 36 ng/m at a second location.
The second location was sampled again with a 6 hour sampling period. No
68
-------
Faceplate
Stainless Steel Throat Extension
Polyurethane Foam
Plug Location
Throat Extension
Wire
Retainer
Motor Unit
Adapter
ICxl'iausL Duct
(3m minimum length)
Figure 18. Assembled sampler and shelter with exploded view
of the filter holder (65).
69
-------
PCBs were detected. A third test at the second location was performed with
4-hour sampling durations over a 24 hour period. PCB concentrations varied
3 3
from 4 ng/m to 9 ng/m . Several other field tests are also described.
MacLeod (90) sampled indoor and ambient air with a high volume sampler
modified to use polyurethane foam as a collection medium for PCBs.
2.3.1.2.4 Recommended method—If ambient air monitoring for PCBs is to be
performed during a PCB Trial Burn, it is recommended that a high volume
sampler incorporating polyuretahne foam as described by Stratton, et al.
(65) be used. This is ah adequately tested methodology and offers the sub-
stantial advantage of sampling much larger volumes of air than any other
method.
2.3.1.3 Liquid Sampling--
Liquids are typically taken by what is termed grab sampling. A con-
tained liquid is generally taken by tap sampling. A tap, either existing
or installed in a line or container, is opened, and the sample is conducted
into an appropriate container. (Samples for organic analyses are best taken
in amber glass bottles with non-adhesive Teflon lid liners.) If the liquid
is at elevated temperature, it is passed through a cooling coil before enter-
ing the sample container. Dipper sampling is appropriate to sampling sluices,
ponds, open discharge streams, and rivers.
A grab sample is representative of the liquid stream only at the time
of acquisition. Consequently, samples need to be taken repeatedly through-
out the duration of a test in order that process variations that give rise
to composition changes in the stream are adequately tested. If numerous
samples are necessary, an automatic composite sampler, such as that des-
cribed by Grant (50), can be used.
Additional methods of sampling liquids are provided in a recent EPA
manual (53) published in support of physical/chemical testing required by
RCRA.
2.3.1.4 Solid Sampling--
Samples of non-biological samples (e.g., solid waste feeds, fly ash,
ash) are generally acquired by grab sampling. Soils and sediments are
generally sampled by trenching or core boring. Several samples of a
70
-------
particular solid stream should be taken over the duration of the test. The
American Society for Testing Materials (52) has published a procedure for
preparing composite samples. Other methods are described in Reference 53.
2.3.1.5 Personnel Monitoring—
MacLeod (90) reported on monitoring personnel exposed to PCBs during
cleanup operations along PCB-contaminated roadsides in North Carolina. Ex-
posed workers carried Mine Safety Appliances (MSA) Model S samplers. The
samplers had polyvinylchloride filters to trap particulates and polyurethane
foam plugs to trap vapor phase PCBs. The foam plugs were inserted into
glass tubes, 2 cm diameter and 7.5 cm long. Pumps were operated at 2.5 1pm.
A similar method was used by the U.S. Air Force to measure worker ex-
posure to Herbicide Orange vapors (n-butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) dur-
ing the disposal of Herbicide Orange vapors. Chromosorb 102 was used in-
stead of polyurethane foam, and filters were not used. MSA Model G pumps
pulled sample air through the tubes at 0.5 1pm (91).
2.3.2 Analytical Methodologies
PCBs have been detected by numerous researchers in all environmental
media. Indeed, these compounds are considered to be ubiquitous. Signifi-
cant levels of contamination have been detected in waters, aquatic sediments,
soils, and various biota. Data are limited, however, for assessing airborne
PCB levels. Further, there are only limited data on PCB emissions from com-
bustion sources and incinerators.
There are several factors which complicate the assessment and inter-
pretation of PCB emissions. First, the term PCB applies not to a single
chemical species but to a class of compounds, related by chemical structure
and degree of chlorine substitution on the parent molecule, biphenyl. There
are 209 possible isomers, ranging from 3 monochloro isomers to 1 decachloro-
biphenyl isomer. PCBs are seldom manufactured or used as pure isomers. In
industrial applications, PCBs are made and marketed as mixtures, and each
of these mixtures contains significant fractions of many of the possible
isomers. For example, Aroclor 1242, a commercial PCB product, is comprised
of 54 identified isomers (92). Sissons and Welti (1) identified 69 isomers
in Aroclor 1254. Such mixtures have been detected in numerous environmental
media. The fact that a class of compounds and not a single identifiable
71
-------
chemical species is to be detected and measured greatly increases the com-
plexity of a chemical analysis.
The second complicating factor is that combustion processes change the
relative amounts of isomers in the mixture(s) being burned or incinerated.
Also, ambient air samples tend to be enriched in the higher volatility,
lower molecular weight PCBs and deficient in the lower volatility, higher
molecular weight PCBs. Thus, interpretation of analytical results can be
difficult.
A third complicating factor is interferences. Combustion sources emit
a substantial number of compounds, many of which exhibit extraction and
analytical behavior similar to PCBs. Environmental samples frequently con-
tain a variety of pesticides which also exhibit analytical behavior similar
to that of PCBs.
2.3.2.1 General Analytical Methodologies--
Gas chromatography (GC) is by far the most widely used analytical
method of separating compounds in the vapor phase, and thus GC provides
qualitative information about a sample.
Various detectors are employed in GC analysis to measure compounds
after separation. The most widely used detector is the electron capture
detector (ECD). The ECD responds, in principle, to electronegative atoms,
such as halogens. The ECD is enormously sensitive and is capable of de-
tecting picogram quantities of halogenated compounds such as PCBs. The
ECD has a limited dynamic range, and its response is linear over only sever-
al orders of magnitude. A major complication in the use of the ECD is that
response factors to various compounds vary over several orders of magnitude,
depend strongly on the degree of halogenation, and depend to a lesser ex-
tent on halogen substitution pattern in isomers with the same degree of
halogenation. Thus, the analyst's experience and proper preparation of
analytical standards are very important in the analysis of PCBs using the
electron capture detector.
A less sensitive, and thus less widely used, detector is the flame
ionization detector (FID). The FID responds, in principle to carbon-
hydrogen bonds. In fully halogenated compounds, there are no carbon-
72
-------
hydrogen bonds; and the FID has negligible response. The FID is capable
of detecting nanogram and sub-nanogram quantities of partially halogenated
compounds, such as PCBs.
The most powerful current technique for organic compound analysis is
gas chromatography followed by mass spectrometry (GC/MS). In theory,
every compound will produce a unique mass spectrum. Thus, compounds are
separated in the GC, and they are identified and quantified by the mass
spectrometer. In practice, it is difficult or impossible to distinguish
the mass spectra of similar positional isomers. In general, however, GC/MS
provides sufficient identification power for PCB analysis. GC/MS analysis
is generally much less sensitive and considerably more expensive than
GC/ECD analysis although there are techniques for enhancing the sensitivity
of GC/MS. Thus, GC/MS is frequently used to confirm the presence of PCBs
in a sample after GC/ECD analysis.
2.3.2.2 Quantitation--
Three general methods of quantifying PCBs have been used either in-
dividually or in combination (16). These methods are described below.
2.3.2.2.1 Pattern recognition—The most common method of quantifying
PCBs in environmental samples involves comparing the multipeak gas chroma-
tographic elution pattern generated by the sample (after cleanup procedures
to remove pesticides and other potentially interfering compounds) with the
elution patterns of commercial PCB mixtures. (Because one company was the
principal manufacturer of commercial PCBs, each mixture is quite reproduc-
ible with respect to isomeric composition and concentration.) This compari-
son is relatively subjective. The decision is then made as to what commer-
cial product most closely matches the sample pattern. The quantity of PCB
present in the sample is calculated by comparing areas of one or more major
peaks in the sample with matching peaks in the commercial mixture of known
concentration. It is assumed explicitly that all PCB isomers are present
in the sample in the same proportion as in the commercial mixture chosen
for quantitation. This assumption is generally incorrect. Quantitation
by pattern recognition was described in detail by Hutzinger, et al. (92).
73
-------
Pattern recognition has the following advantages:
t It is well suited to gas chromatographic analysis, which is
simpler and less expensive than GC/MS analysis.
• It identifies a commercial mixture which can aid in identifying
the source of the contamination.
t It is more sensitive than some GC/MS methods and allows for more
accurate quantitation if samples are not complex or altered by
combustion, weathering, or biological processes.
Pattern recognition has the following disadvantages:
• Combustion source and environmental samples will have altered
patterns because of depletion of some isomers. Thus, recogni-
tion of a pattern may not be possible. Even if a pattern is
recognizable, quantitation of a PCB mixture with an altered
isomeric or concentration composition would be inaccurate and
potentially misleading.
• Many environmental samples also contain various pesticides,
some of which have extraction and chromatographic behavior simi-
lar to PCBs. Thus, pattern recognition may not be possible,
and quantitation may be inaccurate.
2.3.2.2.2 Derivatization--Derivatization involves converting all PCB iso-
mers in a sample to decachlorobiphenyl (DCB) by reaction with antimony
pentachloride. DCB is fully chlorine substituted, so that there is only
a single isomer.
Derivatization has the following advantages:
t It considerably simplifies the analysis by converting all PCB
isomers to a single isomer.
• It considerably reduces the detection limit when an electron
capture detector is used because ECD sensitivity increases
with increasing halogen substitution (although not linearly).
• It enables the analyst unequivocally to quantitate DCB.
• It minimizes the necessary analytical judgements involved in the
physical measurement of the chromatogram of a multicomponent
mixture.
Derivatization has several disadvantages:
• As Armour (93) stated, derivatization to DCB should only be used
as a confirmatory technique because of the possible presence of
interfering compounds. Biphenyl is frequently found in samples
from combustion sources and is converted to DCB.
74
-------
• The result of the conversion to and quantification of DCB is
generally reconverted to an amount of the Aroclor mixture in
the original sample. Correction factors range from 0.38 for
Aroclor 1221 to 0.79 for Aroclor 1262 (93). The actual factor
cannot be known without accurate knowledge of the Aroclor ori-
ginally present. Because of changes in isomer distribution
and concentration in a sample from a combustion source, con-
siderable error can be induced in conversion of a DCB value
to the original Aroclor mixture.
• The method is subject to false positives. Haile (94) found
several extracts of samples taken at a coal-fired utility
plant that produced DCB upon perchlorination in which PCBs
could not be confirmed by GC/MS analysis of unperchlorinated
portions of the sample. Haile concluded that the extracts
contained biphenyl and/or related aromatic compounds that
could be converted to DCB and that GC/MS was necessary for
verification of PCBs. EPRI (16) noted false positives in
the Trial Burn of ENSCO.
2.3.2.2.3 Measurement of individual components—Because of the dis-
advantages of pattern matching and derivatization, Webb and McCall (95)
proposed analysis by GC using ECD detection using Aroclor standards in
which the quantitative composition of each peak is known. Using GC/MS
and GC with an electrolytic conductivity detector, Webb and McCall deter-
mined the empirical formula and the amount of chlorine represented by each
peak in a series of Aroclor standards.
Eichelberger, et al. (96) proposed a GC/MS method in which selected
ions were monitored. Their study indicated that single ions characteris-
tic of mono- through hexachlorobiphenyl could be monitored and thus pro-
vide enhanced sensitivity over the usual method of scanning a large mass
range (e.g., 50-500 amu) repetitively during the chromatogram. During the
usual mode, the MS spends only a very small fraction of the total scan time
focusing ions of each m/e ratio. Thus, most of the information provided
by the MS (as much as 95-99%) is not relevant. When the MS is made to
focus repetitively on a limited number of ions of known significance, the
amount of time spent counting each of the limited number of ions is greater
than when all ions are scanned. Sensitivity is thus enhanced. In a library
search of mass spectra, Eichelberger, et al. found very few and only mini-
mally interfering compounds.
75
-------
Levins, et al. (97) examined methods used for PCB analysis, recommended
a procedure, and performed verification testing. Their work was performed
because conventional PCB analytical methods are frequently difficult to ap-
ply to samples derived from combustion sources or ambient air. Their ap-
proach is fully described in Reference 97. It is a GC/MS technique involv-
ing the following steps:
• Acquire GC/MS data in PCB subset mass windows large enough to
encompass all isotope clusters.
• Examine selected mass spectra to verify the presence of PCBS by
their chlorine isotope abundance patterns.
• Generate mass chromatograms from a single mass chosen to repre-
sent each chlorobiphenyl isomer (e.g., mono-, di-, tri-, etc.,
chlorobiphenyl).
• Integrate areas in each mass chromatogram only in the retention
time region corresponding to each chlorobiphenyl isomer.
• Quantitate from selected peaks in Aroclor reference standards
or with pure isomers.
Advantages of the techniques for measuring individual isomers are:
• Accuracy is not dependent on correct identification of an
Aroclor mixture. Thus, samples altered by a combustion source,
weathering, or metabolism can be quantitated as accurately as
pure standards.
• They eliminate the additional analytical step of perchlorina-
tion and the problem of false positives.
Disadvantages of the technique for measuring individual isomers are:
t There is a reduction in sensitivity relative to GC-ECD. Repeti-
tive scanning GC/MS can involve a sensitivity loss of 103-105
(96). Selective ion monitoring (96,97) results in an increase
in sensitivity, but GC/ECD is still more sensitive.
t GC/MS analyses are considerably more expensive than GC/ECD
analyses.
2.3.2.3 Methods Used in Past PCB Destruction Tests-
Samples taken at the PCB incineration tests conducted by Ackerman,
et al. (11,12) were treated as follows: 1) probes were rinsed with acetone;
2) filters were desiccated to constant weight; 3) probe rinses were filter-
ed and the solids added to the filter catches; 4) filters were extracted in
Soxhlets with pentane to which the filtered probe rinse had been added;
76
-------
5) the XAD-2 resin samples were extracted in Soxhlets with pentane and then
methanol; 6) scrubber water samples were liquid-liquid extracted with pen-
tane; and 7) solid ash residues were extracted in Soxhlets with pentane.
Extracts were dried with anhydrous Na2SO» and concentrated to 10 ml in
Kuderna-Danish concentrators.
GC/MS in the selected ion monitoring mode was used to analyze the
sample extracts (samples, blanks, controls, standards) for PCBs. Seven
sets of molecular ions were scanned to determine mono- through octachloro-
biphenyl. Total ion current measurements on standards and controls were
used for quantitation. Detection limits were 3-5 ng per 5 yl injection or
about 5 yg/m in the combustion zone gas, 7 yg/1 in scrubber water, and
0.1 mg/kg in ash samples.
Haile and Baladi studied (17) PCB analytical methodology as part of
their method development work. Florisil and water samples were spiked with
various Aroclors. Soxhlet and triple liquid-liquid extractions were used
to recover spiked Aroclors. Extracts were concentrated to 10 ml and analyz-
ed by GC-ECD. Recoveries were good, but it was noted that the concentra-
tion step may lose varying amounts of the more volatile PCBs. (Evaporating
PCB-containing extracts to dryness will certainly cause substantial loss of
the more volatile PCBs.)
Sample cleanup techniques were also studied (17). Equilibration of
hexane extracts with concentrated sulfuric acid destroys many potentially
interfering compounds, particularly aromatics. Adsorption column chroma-
tography on Florisil is widely used (38) for separating PCBs from potential-
ly interfering compounds. Haile and Baladi (17) recommended routine sul-
furic acid treatment followed by column chromatography, if necessary.
Standard perchlorination methods (93,98) were tested and modified to
increase conversion yields of lower PCBs (17). Satis factory yields were
obtained by the modified procedure. Conversion of PCBs to decachlorobi-
phenyl by treatment with SbCl5 also converts biphenyl to DCB, thereby
causing an over estimate of total PCBs. Several methods for removing bi-
phenyl were tried (17) but caused substantial losses of lower molecular
weight PCBs.
77
-------
Samples from the field verification tests of Haile and Baladi (17)
were recovered and analyzed as described below. Florisil samples contain-
ing sorbed PCBs were placed in Soxhlets and extracted with hexane. The
empty trap was rinsed with acetone and hexane; these rinsings were placed
in the Soxhlet extractor. The extracts were cooled, transferred to Kuderna-
Danish evaporators, concentrated to about 10 ml, and placed in separatory
funnels. Contents of the first three impingers were combined into one con-
tainer. In the laboratory, this sample was extracted three times with hex-
ane. The extract was added to a Kuderna-Danish concentrator, concentrated
to about 5 ml, and dried with anhydrous Na2S04- This extract was added to
the Florisil extract. The impingers were washed with water, extracted with
hexane, concentrated and dried as above, and added to the Florisil extracts.
The combined extracts were shaken with concentrated H^SO, and then concen-
trated to about 5 ml. (This extract could be processed through a second
cleanup step, column chromatography on Florisil, if necessary.) The concen-
trated extract was made to 25 ml, and 5 ml aliquots were taken for perchlor-
ination. The perch!orinated extracts were analyzed by GC-ECD for decachlo-
robiphenyl. Quantisation was effected by comparison with standard PCB solu-
tions.
Samples taken during PCB destruction tests at a cement kiln (20,21)
were extracted with pentane or hexane. Samples on the sorbent traps were
recovered by thermal desorption. Analyses were performed by GC-ECD with
confirmation by GC/MS. Quantisation was by pattern matching and peak area
comparisons.
EPA (22) used GC-ECD for determination of PCBs in samples taken during
tests at a pulp and paper mill burning PCB-contaminated waste oil. Xylene
from the impingers and xylene rinses of the probe and connecting glassware
were combined, concentrated to 3-4 ml, and brought to 10 ml with hexane.
Column chromatography on alumina was used to separate PCBs in the sample
from potentially interfering substances. The fraction containing PCBs was
concentrated to 10 ml, and aliquots were analyzed by GC-ECD. Peak patterns
in the samples were matched with those of standards to determine which
Aroclors were present. One or more peaks in a characteristic pattern were
usded for quantisation by comparing peak heights or areas.
78
-------
The glass fiber filters were torn into small peices and stirred with
hexane. The mixture was filtered, the hexane concentrated to 10 ml, and
the concentrate analyzed as above for PCBs.
Stratton, et al. (65) described analytical methodology for PCBs. Ex-
posed polyurethane plugs were extracted in Soxhlets for 3 hours with
Nanograde hexane. Filters were extracted in the same way. All plugs can
be extracted separately and then combined; or the filter and plugs can be
extracted and analyzed separately. Extracts were concentrated with
Kuderna-Danish and micro-Snyder apparatus. Evaporation to dryness must be
avoided to prevent loss of high volatility, low molecular weight PCBs
(e.g., monochlorobiphenyl).
Liquid column chromatography on silicic acid was employed to remove
chlorinated pesticides and other potentially interfering compounds. A
sulfuric acid cleanup was tested but was found not to be generally neces-
sary.
Analyses were by GC-ECD. Confirmation was effected by chromatography
on a second column of quite different polarity. GC/MS was also used for
confirmation of PCBs. The primary column, OV-17/QF-1, was a standard pesti-
cide column and is quite polar. The secondary column was non-polar. Gas
chromatographic retention times are characteristic; however, numerous com-
pounds may have the same retention time. Chromatographing a sample on two
columns of different polarity and comparing the chromatograms with those of
standards run on the same columns can be used for relatively unambiguous
qualitative identification.
Stratton, et al. (65) point out that in ambient air sampling low mole-
cular weight, high volatility PCB isomers are likely to be enriched relative
to higher molecular weight, lower volatility isomers. Thus, the chromato-
gram of an ambient air sample is not likely to match that of a standard
Aroclor. Consequently, quantitation by pattern matching and using peak
area ratios can lead to results with significant error. They consider the
most logical approach to quantitating PCBs in ambient air samples is per-
chlorination to and measurement of decachlorobiphenyl. This technique was
suggested by Armour (93) and Veith (98) and modified by Haile and Baladi
(17). They modified Armour's method to improve the extent of perchlorina-
79
-------
tion of mono- and di-chlorobiphenyl species and to reduce evaporative losses.
They also attempted to find a means of removing biphenyl, which is also per-
chlorinated, but were unsuccessful (as were Maile and Baladi (17)). To
determine and correct for biphenyl, Stratton, et al. (65) used GC with flame
ionization detection.
Samples taken at the recent Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., PCB
Trial Burns were analyzed by a contractor (14) according to the methodology
in EPA's interim manual (60). After extraction and concentration, samples
were analyzed by GC-ECD. Confirmation of PCBs was performed by GC/MS.
Samples taken by Tennessee Eastman Company (48) in their PCB incinera-
tion tests were analyzed as follows. Impinger contents were extracted three
times with hexane; the extracts were combined. The impingers were rinsed
with acetone, which was added to hexane rinses of the probe and connecting
glassware. Florisil samples were Soxhlet extracted with hexane, and the
extracts were combined with the train rinses and impinger water extracts.
Combined extracts were concentrated to 1 ml. Part of this concentrate was
spiked with an internal standard. Complex samples were cleaned up by liquid
chromatography on Florisil although this cleanup was not satisfactory for
some samples. Analyses were performed by GC/MS. Quantisation was performed
by the method proposed by Levins, et al. (97).
The analysis methodology used for samples taken at the ENSCO Trial
Burn (15,16) were essentially those of Beard and Shaum (60). Florisil and
XAD-2 tubes were extracted with hexane and then combined with hexane ex-
tracts of the impinger contents and probe rinse. The combined extract was
concentrated to 40 ml: a 35-ml portion for PCB analysis and a 5-ml portion
for RC1 analysis. The 35 ml portion was concentrated to 5 ml: 3 ml for per-
chlorination and 2 ml for confirmatory analysis, if necessary. Solid and
liquid samples were treated similarly. Analysis of the perchlorinated
fractions was by GC/ECD. When decachlorobiphenyl was found, unperchlori-
nated fractions were analyzed by GC/FID for biphenyl and GC/MS for confir-
mation of PCBs.
80
-------
The analysis methodology used for the samples acquired during the Trial
Burn performed at General Motors Corporation's plant in Bay City, Michigan
was that given in EPA's interim manual (60). Impinger water samples were
extracted with hexane, and acetone and hexane rinses of the impingers com-
bined with the extract. This sample was concentrated to ca. 5 ml, dried by
passage through anhydrous Na^SO^ and then combined with a hexane extract of
the Florisil samples. The combined extracts were concentrated and then
cleaned up by partitioning with concentrated I^SO, and then methanolic KOH.
Analyses were effected by GC-ECD and pattern matching, GC/MS and pure iso-
meric standards, and perchlorination to decachlorobiphenyl.
In their study of pilot scale PCB waste destruction, Guilford and
Brandon (57) used gas chromatography with election capture (GC-ECD) detec-
tion to measure the PCB content of the combustion zone gases. Quantitation
was performed by: 1) matching peak patterns in the samples with those of
standard Aroclor; 2) determining which Aroclor had been initially present;
and 3) comparing peak areas. Before use in the impingers, the ethylene
glycol was pre-extracted four times with hexane (4:1 glycol to hexane ratio).
Samples were extracted with hexane prior to analysis.
Analytical methodology employed by Komaniya, et al. (59) in their labor-
atory scale study of PCB incineration involved combining the water- and
hexane-filled impinger contents in a flask containing acetone, rinsing the
impingers and associated lines with hexane, washing the total volume with
1 M NaOH, and concentrating to one-tenth the original volume. Wastewater
from the scrubber was repeatedly extracted with hexane, which was then con-
centrated to about 3 ml. Samples were analyzed by gas chromatography with
electron caputre detection. Quantitation was effected by peak pattern
matching with authentic PCB mixtures. Destruction efficiencies were great-
er than 99.99999%.
Guilford and Rosenblatt (58) employed gas chromatography with electron
capture and flame ionization detection to measure PCBs in samples taken
from their PCB incineration tests. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) was used for confirmation. Hexane was used as the extractant for
filter, impinger, scrubber water, and sludge samples. Extracts were cleaned
to remove potentially interfering compounds by column chromatography on
Florisil. Extracts were concentrated to dryness, made to 5 ml with hexane,
81
-------
and refrigerated until analysis. Quantitation of the GC-ECD chromatograms
was effected by matching peak patterns in the samples with those of Aroclor
mixtures and then comparing the sum of major peak areas in sample and stan-
dard chromatograms. The presence of PCBs in the samples was confirmed by
GC/MS.
Exposed polyurethane plugs taken by MacLeod (90) were extracted with
hexane. The extracts were concentrated to ca. 1 ml and cleaned up by
liquid chromatography on alumina. When necessary, further cleanup by liquid
chromatography on silica gel was performed to remove pesticides. Analyses
were performed by GC-ECD. Pattern matching was used, and the largest peak
in the sample chromatograms was compared with the corresponding peak in
standard Aroclor solutions.
Burg, et al. (99) extracted filters and Tenax GC cartridges with 80:1
benzene/isooctane in Soxhlet apparatus. Extracts were concentrated to dry-
ness (Rotovap and purified air), taken up in 1 ml of hexane, and cleaned
up by liquid chromatography on Florisil. Electron capture GC was employed
for analysis; quantisation was performed by pattern matching with standard
Aroclor mixtures and comparing peak areas.
2.3.2.4 Recommended Analytical Methodology-
It is recommended that the methodology specified in EPA's interim
guide (60) be employed for analyses of samples taken during PCB Trial Burns.
The Florisil trap (sample or blank) trap is extracted with hexane in a soxh-
let, cooled, and then concentrated to about 5 ml. Contents of the first two
(water filled) impingers are extracted with hexane, dried by passing through
columns filled with anhydrous Na2SO», and added to the Florisil extract.
The probe and impingers are rinsed with acetone then hexane. The rinses
are dried with anhydrous Na2S(L and added to the combined extracts. The
combined extracts are then cleaned by extracting with concentrated HUSO.
(if the cleaned extract is still colored, liquid chromatography on Florisil
can be used). The extract is then made to 25 ml volume and split into four
portions: three 5-ml volumes for perch!orination and one 10-ml aliquot for
confirmation studies by GC/MS. After perchlorination, the solution is ex-
tracted four times with hexane and made to 5 ml. Analysis for decachloro-
biphenyl is performed by GC-ECD. Chromatographic parameters are:
*
82
-------
• Chromatograph - Any suitable instrument.
O CO
• Detector - Electron capture, H or Ni.
t Column - 1.8 m x 2 mm ID, 3% OV-210 on Supelcoport, 100/120
mesh.
• Temperatures - Column 280°C, others not specified.
• Carrier gas - Not specified (N2 or H2), 30 ml/min.
• Detection limit - Not specified, but standards of 25 to
50 pg/yl are suggested. The overall detection limit is
specified as 10 ng DCB in a 5 ml perchlorination aliquot.
This indicates a minimum detection limit of 2 pg/yl injected.
Results are reported in terms of ng DCB per cubic meter of combustion
effluent sampled. GC/MS is used to verify the presence of PCBs by pattern
matching with Aroclor mixtures. The precision of the DCB analysis is stated
to be 10-15%, and recovery of PCBs through the entire sampling and analysis
procedure is stated to be 85-95% (60).
It must be repeated that the perchlorination procedure is subject to
false positives. Therefore, the importance of adequate test strategy and
procedural (sampling and analysis) and reagent blanks cannot be overstated.
2.4 STACK MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION
As used in the PCB Regulations, the word "monitor" is interchangeable
with "sample". The latter implies a grab technique or collection of a
quantity of material for a specified time period for subsequent analysis.
Monitoring, on the other hand, implies continuous measurement of a value
(or concentration) for an indefinite period. The stack gases which must be
monitored, according to the above definitions, are 02 and CO. C0? and NO
may be determined periodically. Since the equipment used for CO analysis
is also applicable to COp, it may be more suitable to monitor CO,, than to
collect a separate sample for analysis. The following two sections describe
the types of equipment for determining 0?, CO, C0? and NO commonly avail-
L. L. A
able and used for stack gas monitoring. A partial list is presented in
Table 7.
2.4.1 Oxygen Monitors
Commercial monitors are available which function well in the range of
oxygen concentration expected from combustion of PCBs. These instruments
operate on either of two principles of oxygen detection. One type of
83
-------
TABLE 7. CO, C02,
MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION
03
-p.
Parameter
°2
CO
co/co2
Manufacturer
Joy
Teledyne Analytical
Taylor/Sybron
MSA
Beckman
Hague International
Joy
Energetics Science
InterScan Corp.
MSA Instruments
Beckman
CEA Instruments
Beckman
Infrared Indus-
tries, Inc.
Model
44106
311
OA-269
803
F2 & G3
OxSen
44105
Series 2000
LD14
570
865
RI550A
864
703
Hayes Improved 32000-000
Range
0 - 5%
0 - 25%
0 - 10%
Variable
0 - .1%
0 - 21%
0 - 1%
0 - 25%
Variable
0 - 500 ppm
0 -4000 ppm
0-100, 0-500
o - 100 ppm
0 - 500
10 - 100
2 - 200
0 - 2%
0 - 100%
0 - 4%
0 - 8%
0 - 15%
0 - 10°:;
0 - 30%
0 - 20".'.
Accuracy
+ 2% FS
+ 2% FS
+ 0.5% FS
+ 0.05% 02
+ 1% FS
+ 5% FS
+ 2%
+ 1% FS
+ 2% FS
+ 0-1% FS
+ 2% FS
+ 2T FS
+ 2°; FS
+ 2% FS
0.1",
Principle
Electrochemical
Electrochemical
Paramagnetic
Electrochemical
Paramagnetic
Electrochemical
Electrochemical
Electrochemical
Electrochemical
Electrochemical
Infrared
Infrared
Infrared
Infrared
Selective Absorption
NO/NO,
Model, Van,
Water and Rogers
Thermal Electron
Company
Phillips
PW 9762/02
Chemiluminescence
-------
detector is an electrochemical sensor which monitors the electrochemical
reduction of oxygen. These monitors are accurate to + 5% of the actual
oxygen content. Oxidizing gases such as chlorine or bromine are harmful
to this type of detector, and large amounts of N04 NO-, hUS, or SCL can
introduce errors. Soda lime traps can be installed before this type of
monitor to eliminate measurement errors caused by these acidic gases. A
second type of oxygen monitor measures the total volumetric magnetic suscep-
tibility of the sample gas. Since oxygen is the only major component in
normal stack gases with a significant magnetic susceptibility, the sensor
is oxygen-specific. A photodetector is used to measure the degree of dis-
placement of a light beam deflected from the detector by rotation of a
mirror suspended in a magnetic field when the magnetic susceptibility of
the test gas changes. Response is linear and rapid.
Calibration of oxygen monitors is usually performed by drawing ambient
air through the system and setting the readout of the instrument to 20.9%
oxygen. In special cases calibration gases may be used, but for normal
stack monitoring this is not required. Calibration checks of a continuous
oxygen monitor should be made at the start and end of each sampling run
when performed in conjunction with stack sampling and at least daily during
routine operation. If the baseline is found to drift appreciably during
monitoring, the instrument will require more frequent calibration and should
be repaired or replaced.
2.4.2 Carbon Monoxide/Carbon Dioxide Monitors
While other methods exist for monitoring CO and C0?, the most appli-
cable to stack monitors appear to be based on infrared sensors. In these
non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) monitors, the absorption of infrared radia-
tion is measured at wavelengths specific to the subject gas. The amount
of absorption is proportional to the content of the analyte in the gas
stream. Drift is within 2-5% of full scale in a typical eight hour period,
and calibration is performed by drawing gas from a cylinder with a known
composition of CO and COo that is close to the concentration being measured
(e.g., CO and CO- values in the range of 10-100 ppm and 10-15%, respectively)
Other monitors for CO are based on the catalytic oxidation of the carbon
compound on an active surface. These are usually specific for CO, are
85
-------
subject to significant interference from unburned hydrocarbons, and are
damaged by the presence of oxidant gases.
Because CCL need not be measured continuously (frequency is specified
by the Regional Administrator), methods other than NDIR may be used. A
popular method is the Orsat-type analyzer, as manufactured by several ven-
dors, which is based on measuring pressure changes as the sample gase passes
through a series of selective adsorbents. Orsat analyzers are considerably
cheaper than the NDIR instruments.
2.4.3 NO, N00 Monitors
£
Like C0~, NO must be determined at a frequency specified by the
L. X
Regional Administrator. The reference method is EPA Method 7 which is a
colorimetric technique. There are a number of instruments for determining
NO which are accepted as equivalent. These methods are based on reducing
A
N02 to NO, then reacting the total NO with ozone to produce excited state
NOp, and then measuring the chemiluminescence produced as the excited state
N0? returns to the ground state. Several monitors switch the sample gas
automatically into and out of the N02-to-NO converter to give almost con-
tinuous readings for NO and N02-
2.4.4 Use of Monitoring Equipment
Failure of Op, CO, or C02 monitors must result in shut off of PCB flow
or if excess Oo drops below required levels unless a prior-approval contin-
gency plan exists which outlines alternate measures. Consequently, cali-
bration accuracy, precision, and drift measurements are extremely important.
Performance specifications for continuous stack gas monitors are given
in Appendix B of 40 CFR 60. Reference 100 is a useful guide to selection
and operation of continuous monitors. Reference 101 is a useful guide to
the conduct of calibrations. In order that regulatory violations not occur
and that the incineration process not be shut down unnecessarily, it is
important that calibration testing be performed to assure that instruments
meet performance requirements specified in 40 CFR 60, Appendix B.
86
-------
2.5 COMBUSTION OF PCBs
The purpose of incinerating PCB-containing wastes is to destroy the
PCBs so thoroughly that emissions of undestroyed PCBs to the environment
(air, water, solids) will be so low that adverse environmental and health
impacts will not occur. It is widely understood that the products of com-
bustion of organic matter are CO- and H^O and that HC1 is a product when
organochlorines are burned. It is, however, not so widely understood that
other products are formed during combustion processes. The formation of
products of incomplete combustion (PICs) is of low probability, but traces
of PICs are always found in combustion effluents because of the large num-
ber of molecules undergoing reaction. Thus, if 1000 gallons per hour of
27
octane are being burned, 5 X 10 molecules per hour of octane are under-
going reaction. If the probability of forming a particular PIC of mole-
-12
cular weight of 100 were 10 (one per trillion), then about O.Syg per
hour of that PIC would be produced. Lustenhouwer, et al. (102) recently sum-
marized the literature on the formation and emission of a class of PICs, poly-
cyclic organic matter, including PCBs, from combustion sources. A general dis-
cussion of combustion processes as they relate to efficient destruction of PCBs
and formation of PICs is presented in this section.
2.5.1 Fuel Characteristics
Three fuel parameters are important in influencing formation of poly-
cyclic organic matter (POM) such as PCBs: the carbon-to-hydrogen ratio and
molecular structure of the fuel, the chlorine content of the fuel, and the
presence of contaminants and precursors in the fuel.
In general, the higher the carbon-to-hydrogen ratio, the greater the
probability of forming POM. Carbon-to-hydrogen ratio and molecular struc-
ture are often related. For example, aromatic compounds have higher carbon-
to-hydrogen ratios than alkanes. Thus, POM formation is more probable when
aromatics are being burned because unsaturated reactants promote additional
reactions between hydrocarbon species in a combustion zone and because a
ring structure is a more stable building block for forming more complex
condensed ring structures. PCBs, of course, are aromatic compounds.
87
-------
The chlorine content of a fuel is an obviously important parameter
that affects formation of chlorinated POM. Thermochemical calculations
presented later in Section 2 and in Reference 119 have shown that, in gener-
al, the higher the chlorine content of the fuel, the higher the concentra-
tions of chlorinated POM, such as chlorobenzenes, in the combustion pro-
duct. Chlorobenzenes are known precursors of PCBs, as well as toxic poly-
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) under pyro-
lytic conditions. Chlorine is present in the fuel whenever PCBs are burned.
2.5.2 Combustion Process Characteristics
Combustion theory is presented in some detail in Section 2.1. The
brief discussion below is adapted to combustion of PCBs. Five combustion
process parameters have major impacts on the formation of POM: 1) reaction
temperature within the combustion and post-combustion zones; 2) residence
time of reactants (air and fuel) and products in the high temperature zone;
3) turbulence or mixing efficiency of fuel and air; 4) air/fuel ratio in-
cluding the effects of operating cycles on combustion air supply; and 5)
fuel feed size.
Experimental evidence from laboratory studies indicates that with ade-
quate residence time and efficient mixing between air and fuel, tempera-
tures in the 800-1000°C range will cause extensive to complete destruction
of PCBs (103-108). Thermal destruction tests on PCBs cited in Section 2.2
indicate that essentially complete destruction occurs in well designed sys-
tems. On the other hand, pyrolytic conditions favor the formation of PCDFs.
The residence time necessary and the reaction temperature that must be
sustained for near-complete destruction of PCBs are interrelated. The
higher the temperature, the shorter the required residence time. The PCB
Regulations call for residence time of at least 2 seconds at 1200 +_ 100°C
(3% excess oxygen) and at least 1.5 seconds at 1600 + 100°C (2% excess oxy-
gen) for Annex I incinerators burning liquid PCBs. There is ample evidence
that properly designed systems produce adequate residence time for destruc-
tion of PCBs.
Duvall and Rubey (103) and Duvall, et al. (104) have conducted sophis-
ticated experiments on thermal decomposition of PCBs and other organochlor-
ine compounds. Their Thermal Destruction Analyses System (TDAS) works as
88
-------
follows: the sample is inserted into the system, gradually vaporized into
a flowing carrier gas, and subsequently subjected to a controlled high
temperature exposure in quartz tube reactor. Compounds exiting from the
high temperature zone are separated and analyzed by an in-line GC/MS.
Table 8 is taken from the work of Duvall, et al. (104) and shows per-
cents of those PCB isomers remaining after 2-second exposure at various
temperatures in flowing air. It is seen for these isomers that adequate
destruction does not occur even at 2 seconds at 775°C. (Based on the re-
quirement of not more than 1 mg emitted per kg of non-liquid PCBs fed into
an Annex I incinerator, the percentage remaining in the stack gas must be
not greater than 0.0001%.)
TABLE 8. PERCENT OF PCBs REMAINING AFTER EXPOSURE AT
DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES (104)
Exposure Temperature (°C)*
Compound 550 650 675 700 725 750 775
Tetrachlorobiphenyl 100 92 74 57 21 0.14
(2,2', 5,5')
Pentachlorobiphenyl 100 98 80 53 9.3 0.05 0.007
(2,2', 4,5,5')
Hexachlorobiphenyl 100 100 73 26 -- -- 0.005
(2,2', 4,4', 5,5')
*
2-second residence time, flowing air.
Table 9 is taken from the work of Duvall and Rubey (103) and shows
percents of biphenyl and three PCB isomers remaining after treatment at
704°C for three residence times in flowing air. It is seen that none of
the residence times at 704°C provide adequate destruction.
It is important to note that the TDAS is a pre-mixed system where the
fuel (e.g., PCBs) is intimately pre-mixed with the oxidant (i.e., 0? in
air). In such systems, physical processes, such as vaporization and dif-
fusion, do not dominate chemical reaction kinetics as they do in diffusion
limited systems,such as real-world incinerators in which fuel and air are
not pre-mixed. Thus, laboratory scale thermal destruction research instru-
ments like the TDAS provide "best case" or minimum necessary thermal
89
-------
destruction measurements. Real-world incinerators (and other combustion
devices) will require higher temperatures and/or longer residence time than
those determined in the IDAS to achieve the same level of completeness of
destruction.
TABLE 9. PERCENT PCBs REMAINING AFTER TREATMENT
AT 704°C (103)
Residence Time,
Compound
Biphenyl
2,2', 5,5' -
2,2', 4,5,5' -
Decachloro-
0.27
8.1
78.5
81.1
84.7
0.95
0.7
14.0
18.5
37.3
Sec *
3.84
' 0.07
2.6
3.4
16.1
In flowing air.
Data provided by systems such as the TDAS are valuable, for they pro-
vide minimum thermal destruction conditions from which incinerator opera-
tions can be planned. These data can be obtained more rapidly, less ex-
pensively, and in greater amounts than can be obtained from testing incin-
erators.
The most important reason for incomplete combustion of fuel is lack of
turbulence or incomplete mixing of fuel, air, and combustion products. In-
complete combustion of PCB-containing wastes could lead to increased emis-
sions of PCBs as well as PCDFs produced in the process. Previous PCB in-
cineration tests described in Section 2.3 show that well designed systems
provide sufficient turbulence that fuel, air, and combustion products are
adequately mixed.
90
-------
Fuel feed size is the fifth important combustion process parameter.
In liquid burner systems, the fuel is atomized into the combustion zone.
Droplets evaporate at a rate controlled by molecular diffusion. It is the
fuel vapor that actually burns, thus the rate of evaporation is the rate
controlling step in the combustion process. The smaller and narrower the
initial droplet size distribution, the more rapid is the rate of evapora-
tion, which promotes better combustion.
Combustion of solids involves a series of repeated steps (10). First,
volatiles near the surface vaporize and burn. The residual solid surface
then burns out, exposing fresh, unreacted solid. The process is repeated
until the particle is consumed. The larger the particle, the more times
the process is repeated, and the longer is the required residence time.
An incineration test of whole PCB-containing capacitors showed detectable
amounts of PCBs in solid residues, while PCBs were not detected in a test
of shredded capacitors incinerated under similar conditions (11,12). In
conducting a pilot scale study of PCB incineration, Guilford and Brandon
(57) found adequate destruction of liquid PCBs but were unable completely
to destroy PCBs in PCB Capacitors.
2.5.3 Formation Mechanisms
This section discusses in a general manner the chemistry of POM rele-
vant to formation and/or survival in combustion sources. Normally, POM is
defined as that class of compounds with more than two fused aromatic rings.
Thus, naphthalene, consisting of two fused benzene rings, is the simplest
form of POM. For the purposes of this document, the definition of POM is
expanded to include those compounds with two or more aromatic rings which
are not necessarily fused.
Stability is the outstanding characteristic of POM. Compared with
non-cyclic organic matter of comparable carbon-to-hydrogen ratios, POM is
much less susceptible to thermal degradation and chemical attack. The
major consequences of the stability of POM are: 1) the tendency of POM to
form during combustion and 2) the persistence of released POM in the environ-
ment. PCBs are extremely resistant to chemical and thermal degradation
which is why they were produced and used in such large quantities. They
are known to be highly persistent in the environment.
91
-------
It has been shown that there is evidence for emissions of PCBs from
combustion sources, and there is considerable evidence for emissions of POM
from combustion sources (102). As will be described in subsequent sections,
there are plausible mechanisms for formation of PCBs from combustion of such
precursor compounds as chlorobenzenes. There are also plausible routes for
formation of PCBs from species normally found in combustion zones.
2.5.3.1 Stability of Aromatic Compounds--
The fundamental concept of aromatic chemistry is the theory of reso-
nance bonding which explains the enhanced stability of POM relative to non-
aromatic compounds. The simplest aromatic compound is benzene. The benzene
molecule is actually a hybrid of the two principal and other resonance
structures. Each carbon-carbon bond is of 1-1/2 order, confirmed by the
o
fact that the carbon-carbon bond length of benzene of 1.397 A is interme-
o
diate between the single bond length of 1.544 A and the double bond length
O
of 1.334 A (109). Also, the carbon-carbon bond energy of benzene (124 kcal/
mole) is intermediate between the single and double bond energies of 80 and
140 kcal/mole, respectively. The extra stability of the benzene molecule
relative to the two primary resonance hybrids is termed the resonance energy
and is assigned a value of 37 kcal/mole (109). Resonance stabilization re-
sults from the availability of additional electrons which strengthen bonds
and a molecular structure which permits the extra electrons to move freely
which reduces electron-electron repulsion (the delocalization effect). As
benzene rings are fused, the extra electrons are shared and del oca!ized
across the system leading to greater stability.
Resonance theory also explains the enhanced stability of halogenated
aromatics relative to unhalogenated aromatics. In addition to the two
principle resonance hybrids of benzene, the presence of, e.g., a chlorine
atom, causes other forms to contribute to resonance stability because of
the availability of unshared electron pairs on the chlorine (109). Mhile
these structures contribute only about 6 kcal/mole to the resonance energy
of chlorobenzene, the result is an increase of about 15% of double bond
character to the C-C1 bond. As additional chlorine (or other halogens) are
added, resonance energies and C-C1 bond strengths increase up to hexachloro-
benzene.
92
-------
The simplest fused ring POM is naphthalene which has three principal
resonance hybrids. Resonance among these structures stabilizes naphthalene
relative to benzene: 75 kcal/mole versus 37 kcal/mole (109).
The simplest non-fused ring POM is biphenyl, the parent compound of
PCBs. Because the rings are not fused, the extra resonance stability of
naphthalene does not occur, and biphenyl is stabilized only an extra 5
kcal/mole relative to benzene. Adding chlorines to biphenyl causes addi-
tional resonance hybrids to contribute, as in the case of benzene. Furan
is also resonance stabilized, and its resonance stability is ascribed to
the participation of one pair of unshared electrons from the oxygen to
complete the aromatic sextet. The resonance stabilization energy is 23
kcal/mole (106), less than that of benzene (37 kcal/mole). The presence
of benzene rings in dibenzofuran provides additional resonance stability.
Similarly, 1-4 dioxin gains additional resonance stabilization from the
addition of benzene rings to make dibenzo-p-dioxin . Adding chlorine to
furan, dibenzofuran, 1,4-dioxin, or dibenzo-p-dioxin provides greater
stability than in the parent compounds for the same reasons described
for chlorobenzenes.
2.5.3.2 Reaction Path Analysis--
In practical combustion systems, fuel and air are not pre-mixed on a
molecular scale. Rather, practical combustion devices burn fuel in a tur-
bulent diffusion flame, in which the overall reaction rate and completeness
of combustion are controlled by physical processes (Section 2.1). Practical
devices are thus in contrast to pre-mixed devices in which chemical reaction
rates rather than physical processes are the controlling factors.
In turbulent diffusion flame devices, pyrolytic reactions may occur
over a wide range of operating conditions and temperatures. In a well de-
signed incinerator, however, the extent of pyrolytic reactions is small,
and the probabilities of formation of reduced compounds are very low. How-
ever, all real incinerators will produce, trace or ultratrace quantities
of reduced compounds. For example, pre-combustion reactions occur before
mixing of fuel and air, so that pyrolytic reactions occur on the fuel side
of a diffusion flame. Products of these types of reactions include fuel
fragments and unsaturated species such as olefins and acetylenes. They do
93
-------
not include oxidizing species such as 0 and OH. These pyrolytic reactions
on the fuel side continue until mixing with air occurs. If final mixing
is poor, relatively large quantities of pyrolysis products from precombus-
tion reactions may enter the post-flame region. Another source of pyroly-
sis products is thermal quenching at furnace walls. Although temperatures
in the immediate post-flame region are high enough to effect complete com-
bustion, the stagnant gas layers nearest the furnace walls are not complete-
ly mixed with the bulk of hot gases in the post-flame region. The small
amount of pyrolysis products produced by thermal quenching can react via
polymerization and association to form higher molecular weight species,
such as POM, as the combustion gases cool after the post-flame region.
It should be emphasized that well designed incinerators produce only trace/
ultratrace quantities of pyrolysis products.
Fuels containing large concentrations of olefins or aromatics generally
produce effluent gases containing relatively higher amounts of POM, than
fuels with low amounts of olefins or aromatics. However, POM has been
found in the effluent gases from the combustion of simple fuels like natur-
al gas which indicates the occurrence of pyrosynthesis reactions even in
relatively efficient combustion systems. Currently, detailed reaction paths
leading to the pyrosynthesis of POM are unknown. A general synthetic mecha-
nism for PAHs has been proposed (10):
Aliphatic Fuels
4
Alkyl Radicals
Small Alkyl Radicals
and Olefins
Cl & C2 Species
Conjugated
Polyene Radicals
Aromatic
Fuel
v
Aromatic
"^ Radicals
Polyaromatic Radicals
v
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
94
-------
This scheme recognizes the enhanced ROM-producing characteristics of aro-
matic fuels, the necessity of free radical chain reactions to produce POM,
and the enhanced stability of aromatic systems, particularly conjugated
aromatics. The condensation of aromatic and conjugated polyene radicals to
form poly-benzenoid radicals can occur by the well-known Diels-Alder con-
densation reaction.
In the presence of chlorine and oxygen, it is possible that the synthe-
tic scheme proposed for PAH formation can lead to the formation of PCBs,
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofur-
ans (PCDFs). In Section 2.5.3.1, it was shown that these three classes of
compounds are not as greatly resonance stabilized as conjugated aromatics,
hence the probability of their formation is lower.
The probability of formation is enhanced by the presence of chlorine
in the fuel. Chlorine atoms bound to aromatic molecules present in the
fuel may be retained through the flame zone. Chlorine atoms bound to non-
aromatic compounds are likely to be released as chlorine atoms or molecules,
or as HC1. Chlorine atoms thus released are reactive and will participate
in chain reaction free radical mechanisms until captured by stabilizing com-
pounds (e.g., aromatic molecules) or until the combustion gases are cooled
(10).
2.5.3.3 PCB Formation--
PCBs have been found in emissions from combustion sources. Vick, et
al. (110) found PCBs in stack emissions and ash in a facility generating
electricity from burning a mixture of coal and refuse. Eiceman, et al.
(Ill) found biphenyl, chlorobiphenyl, and a variety of PCDDs, PCDFs, and
chlorophenols in fly ash from a municipal incinerator.
Buser (105) found PCBs in the pyrolyzates of tri-, tetra-, and penta-
chlorophenols. PCDDs, PCDFs, and chloronaphthalenes were also found. No
formation mechanisms for PCBs were discussed, but the probability of their
formation is low because chlorophenols can condense or dimerize to form
three-ring systems (e.g., PCDFs and PCDDs) which are lower in energy than
the two-ring PCBs.
95
-------
2.5.3.4 Formation of Other Compounds from Combustion of PCBs--
In a series of papers, Buser, et al. (107) and Buser and Rappe (108)
studied the formation of PCDFs resulting from pyrolysis of PCB mixtures
and individual isomers. Complete PCB destruction (107) was noted at 700°C,
and no isomerization or dechlorination to lower PCBs was observed. Pyroly-
sis of Aroclor 1254 yielded mono-through penta-CDFs at levels of 0.1 to 0.9
percent at temperatures in the range of 550-650°C (107). Above 750°C, no
PCDFs were found. Buser and Rappe (108) found that the cyclization process
which yields PCDFs from PCBs was intramolecular and followed several paths.
01ie, et al. (112) found PCDDs and PCDFs in fly ash and flue gas from
some municipal incinerators in the Netherlands. Buser, et al. (113) inves-
tigated PCDFs and PCDDs in fly ash and flue gas samples from a municipal
incinerator burning mainly household with some industrial wastes and an in-
dustrial heating unit burning mainly used industrial oils. They found that
the major PCDDs in both fly ash samples were similar and, significantly,
were also similar to PCDDs produced by pyrolysis of common commercial chlo-
rophenols.
Rappe and Buser (114) recently summarized research on the formation
and degradation of PCDDs and PCDFs by thermal processes. They noted, as
has also been discussed in this section, that PCBs can be converted to PCDFs
under pyrolytic conditions. They also noted a similarity in PCDF compound
patterns formed by pyrolysis of commercial PCB mixtures (e.g., Aroclors)
and the PCDF compound patterns found in fly ash samples from municipal in-
cinerators and an industrial heating unit. They conclude that uncontrolled
burning of PCBs could be an important source of higher toxic PCDFs and re-
commend that burning of PCBs be strictly controlled and monitored.
No references to experimental evidence for PCDD formation from PCB
burning or pyrolysis have been found, and theoretical considerations indi-
cate that this conversion does not occur.
Carnes, et al. (115) analyzed samples of municipal refuse and solid
waste processing streams for PCBs and found them in a number of samples.
More importantly, they found PCBs in incinerator residue fines from two
units and in fly ash from two units different from the first two.
96
-------
2.5.4 Thermochemical Equilibrium Analysis
The potential for formation of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)
and dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) during thermal destruction of PCBs can be
examined by thermochemical equilibrium calculations. Because accurate
thermodynamic data are not available for these compounds, the thermodyna-
mic feasibility of formation of PCDFs and PCDDs was examined indirectly by
investigating combustion conditions and waste types that would favor the
formation of intermediates, such as chlorobenzenes and chlorophenols.
The first sets of calculations were performed on two hypothetical
liquid PCB wastes to examine major combustion product species. Specifica-
tions for the program were:
t 250 ppm Aroclor 1254 in kerosene
t 20% Aroclor 1254 in kerosene
• Excess oxygen at 2% and 3%
• Temperatures of 1300, 1400, and 1500°C.
The excess oxygen levels are the minima specified in the PCB Regulations.
Results of the calculations are given in Table 10.
It must be emphasized that these are theoretical equilibrium calcula-
tions which take no account of kinetics. This is demonstrated by the CO
concentrations, which, at temperatures above 1300°C, lead to calculated
theoretical combustion efficiencies less than 99.9%. The water-gas shift
reaction (H2 + COp + hLO + CO) is slow kinetically. Therefore, in the usual
combustion source, CO concentrations will not be as high as those predicted
by thermochemical equilibrium calcualtions (i.e., values in Table 10), and
combustion efficiencies will be higher than calculated from results of these
calculations.
A second set of calculations was performed under pyrolytic conditions.
The pyrolysis cases assumed the absence or near absence of oxygen and, hence,
of oxidizing species. Pyrolytic conditions may be encountered in a real
combustion system in several ways:
• Malfunctions or cyclic operation leading to excessively
lean air/fuel ratios
• Poor mixing of fuel and air leading to localized oxygen
deficient conditions
97
-------
TABLE 10. THEORETICAL COMBUSTION EFFICIENCIES AND EQUILIBRIUM CONCENTRATIONS
OF MAJOR SPECIES FROM COMBUSTION OF TWO PCB WASTES
vo
00
Composition
250 ppm PCB,
Kerosene
20% PCB,
Kerosene
Temperature
1300
1500
1600
1300
1500
1600
1300
1500
1600
1300
1500
1600
CE
%
99.99
99.89
99.70
99.99
99.92
99.76
99.99
99.89
99.69
99.99
99.92
99.75
C09
°r
4.74
4.62
4.62
7.54
7.44
7.38
4.86
4.78
4.74
7.80
7.69
7.63
CO
ppm
11.6
133
365
9
96
281
11
126
350
9
83
267
°2
r
1.98
1.93
1.93
2.99
2.94
2.92
1.94
1.91
1.89
2.95
2.91
2.88
HC1
ppm
9
9
9
9
9
9
5631
5513
5430
5294
5170
5081
H2
ppm
3
37
92
3
26
72
3
32
81
3
26
64
H20
/o
12.4
12.4
12.3
11.7
11.6
11.6
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.4
10.4
10.3
-------
t Thermal quenching of portions of the burning mixture at
the walls and carrying of the quenched mixture into the
hot post-flame region where pyrolysis can occur
• Pre-combustion reactions on the fuel side of the flame
The thermochemical calculations performed covered the temperature
range of 538°C (1000°F) to 1093°C (2000°F) for seven hypothetical wastes
of varying carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine content. One case was for a
mixture containing 4.2% oxygen, far below stoichiometric requirements. The
program used is capable of simultaneously considering a maximum of 200 gas-
esous species, including alkenes, chlorinated benzenes, and chlorinated
phenols (119).
Results of the pyrolytic thermochemical calculations are presented in
Table 11. Species with calculated concentrations less than 10 mole frac-
tion are not listed. Examination of the calculations for the first three
cases where the chlorine content is up to 10% leads to the following general
observations (119):
t Under pyrolytic conditions, the major equilibrium products
are: ethylene, acetylene, methane, benzene, styrene, mono-
chlorobenzene, hydrogen, and hydrogen chloride.
• Concentrations of HC1 and monochlorobenzene increase with
increasing chlorine content.
• Formation of ethylene, acetylene, and styrene is favored
by increasing reaction temperatures.
t Formation of methane and toluene is favored by decreasing
temperature.
• In the range studied, temperature appears to have a negligible
effect on the formation of benzene, monochlorobenzene, and HC1.
Examination of the calculations for the last four cases, Table 12, for
mixtures containing from 50 to 73 percent chlorine leads to the following
observations:
t Major equilibrium products from pyrolysis of the highly
chlorinated mixtures are: acetylene; benzene; styrene;
mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorobenzenes;
hydrogen chloride in most cases; and CO when small amounts
of oxygen are present.
99
-------
TABLE 11. PYROLYSIS OF CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS: EQUILIBRIUM
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE*
o
o
Composition of
Chlorinated
Temperature
r H.
r H.
Hydrocarbon "24 22
c.
H,
Cl.
c.
H.
Cl,
c.
H.
Cl,
83.66 wtZ
13.01 wt%
3.33 wt%
.
82.89 wt%
11.87 wt%
5.24 wt%
81.20 wtS
8.79 wU
10.01 wt*
1093°C (20GO°F)
954°C (1?50°F)
816"C (1500°F)
677°C (1250°F)
538°C (lOOO-F)
1093°C (2000°F)
954°C (1750°F)
S16°C (1500°F)
677°C (1250°F)
538°C (1000°F)
1093°C (2000°F)
954°C (1750°F)
816°C (ISOO'F)
677"C (1250°F)
538°C (1000°F)
1.11E-2,
7.06E-3
3.23E-3
9.59E-4
1.63E-4
1.07E-2-
6.78E-3.
3.10F-3
9.20E-4
1.56E-4
7.26E-3
4.64E-3
2.13E-3
6.34E-4
1.08E-4
2.10E-2
2.86E-3
2.29E-4
8.61 E-6
—
2.20E-2
3.00E-3
2.41E-4
9.07E-6
--
2.59E-2
3.53E-3
2.83E-4
1.07F-5
—
Species Concentration, Mole Fraction
CM.
*-"4
1.R7E-1
3.25E-1
4.81E-1
6.00E-1
6.56E-1
1.68E-1
2.91E-1
4.30E-1
5.35E-1
5.84E-1
8.00C-2
1.40E-1
2.09F-1
2.60E-1
2.83E-1
CrH,
6 6
2.59E-1
2.71E-1
2.75E-1
2.75E-1
2.70E-1
?.97E-1
3.13E-1
3.19E-1
3.21E-1
3.17E-1
4.82E-1
5.07E-1
5.20E-1
5.26E-1
5.23E-1
CH,CHC
36 5
4.69E-3
6.89F-3
9.65E-3
1.33E-?
1.91E-2
5.27E-3
7.79E-3
1.10E-2
1.52E-2
2.19E-2
7.04E-3
1.04E-2
1 .48E-2
2.07E-2
3.QOE-2
CM CMC H
2 65
2.73E-3
l.ME-3
1.13E-3
5.68E-4
2.26E-4
3.28E-3
2.29E-3
1.38E-3
7.00E-4
2.79E-4
6.25E-3
4.36C-3
2.65E-3
1.35E-3
5.43E-3
C,H,C1
6 5
5.05E-5
3.88E-5
3.15E-5
2.72E-5
2.42E-5
1.12E-4
8.61E-5
7.00E-5
6.07E-5
5.41E-5
9.21E-4
6.83E-4
5.38E-4
4.59E-4
4.09E-4
H,
2
4.8GE-1
3.57E-1
1.99E-1
7.83E-2
1.99E-2
4.48E-1
3.27E-1
1.82E-1
7.13E-2
1.81E-2
2.59E-1
1.90E-1
1.06E-1
4.17E-2
1.05F-2
HC1
2.51E-2
2.75E-2
2.99E-2
3.17E-2
3.27E-2
4.45E-2
4.84E-2
5.23E-2
5.52E-2
5.67E-2
1.31E-1
1.36E-1
1.44E-1
1.49E-1
1.52E-1
Minor equilibrium products (mole fraction < 10" ) are not listed.
-------
TABLE 12. PYROLYSIS OF HIGHLY CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS: EQUILIBRIUM
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE*
Composition of (
CM or! ruled
C.
II.
Cl,
C.
n .
Cl.
c.
II,
Cl.
c.
II.
Cl.
0.
47.43 wtS
2.56 wtX
50.01 wtt
Z'i.3l wtS
1 .4« wl«.
69.21 'wD
24.78 wtS
2.06 wti
73.14 wtl
37. 84 wit
2.12 wr:
55.84 wt?
4.20 w«
Temperature
1093°C
954 °C
677°C
9S4°C
816'L
677-C
10S1-C
9S4"C
fll6°C
67/°C
1093-C
954«C
E16'C
677"C
53l)"C
(2000°F)
(1750-F)
(1250-F)
(17M-F)
(1500"F)
(12iO'F)
(2000°F)
(1750°F)
(1500T)
(1250°F)
(20B()°F)
(1750-F)
(1500"F)
(1250°F)
(1000«F)
C,H2 CO
1.21E-2
1.60E-3
4.49E-6
2.ROE-4
2.01F-5
6.541-7
3.H6E-3
5.00E-4
3.74E-5
1.30F-6
7.35E-3 2.30E-1
9.67E-4 2.31F-1
7.42E-5 2.31E-1
2.C6E-6 2.31E-1
3.04F-B 2.31C-1
C02 C..-6
4.94E-?
4.72E-2
3.ME-2
2.55F-4
l.hiF-4
1 .20C-4
1.6.1F-3
1.45E--!
1.20E-3
9.UE-4
2.P.5E-8 1.11F-?
9.ME-R 1.C5F-?
4.2BF-7 9.3AF-3
3.12E-6 B.12E-3
4.66F-5 6.67E-3
Sptcies f oncentratlon . Mole Fraction
C,,2CHC6H5
2.99E-4
1 .81F-4
4.20F-5
1 .74E-7
6.tfll-H
1 .«9E-H
3.10F-6
1.76F-6
S.OC.E-7
2.91E-7
4.0PF-5
2.47E-5
1.25E-5
5.19E-6
1.62F-6
w
2.SCE-1
2.60E-1
2.5PE-1
6.41F-3
5.47E-3
4.39E-3
1 .B'jF-2
1 .BOF-2
l.f.PF-2
1.53F-2
7.57F-2
7.6CF-2
7.52E-2
7.32E-2
7.05E-2
C6M4C12
2.76E-1
2.B4E-1
3.00C-1
1.19E-2
1.04F-2
2.B1E-2
4.33E-2
4.42E-2
4.44F-2
4.4fif-?
1.07E-1
1.11E-1
1.13E-1
1.16F-1
1.1PF-1
C6M.C,3
3.14E-1
3.20F-1
3.32F-1
1.63C-1
1.67F-1
1.71C-1
1 .OPE-1
1.12F-1
1.16E-1
1.2U-1
1 .61F-1
1.65E-1
1.69E-',
1.74F-1
1.B2E-1
C6HjCl,
8.47E-2
B.02E-2
6 79E-2
1.R7E-1
1 .I19C-1
1.92E-1
6.43E-2
6.32E-2
6.23F-2
6.09E-2
5.71F-2
5.46F-:
5.19E-2
4.84E-2
4.34E-2
CeHC,5
7.28E-3
6.15E-3
3.74E-3
6.51E-2
6.21E-2
5.P.3E-2
1.21E-?
1 .09f-2
9.69F-3
P.29F-3
6.16E-3
5.53E-3
4.62F-3
3.63F-3
2.56F-3
C6C16
1.28E-5
9.37E-6
3.63E-6
4.52E-4
3.12E-4
3 29E-4
1.71E-5
3.74E-5
2.90E-5
2.10F-5
1 .50E-5
1.12F-5
7.91E-6
5.05E-6
2.65C-6
HC1
--
--
--
5.45E-1
5.45f-l
5.54F-1
7.4RE-1
7.60E-1
7.50F-1
7.50F-1
3.44E-1
3.46E-1
3.46E-1
3.46E-1
3.46E-1
Minor equilibrium products (mole fraction - 10 ) are r.ot listed.
-------
• Depending on the ratio of carbon to hydrogen to chlorine,
HC1 is not necessarily favored by pyrolysis of highly
chlorinated mixtures.
• Chlorobenzenes are more favored thermodynamically than
chlorinated aliphatic and phenolic compounds.
• The relative equilibrium concentrations of polychlorinated
benzenes generally increase with increasing chlorine content
of the mixture.
• Reaction temperature in the range examined appears to have
a negligible effect on the formation of HC1 and chloro-
benzenes.
t The presence of small amounts of oxygen does not appear to
have a major impact on the equilibrium product distribution
except for the formation of CO.
The results of the second set of calculations indicate that, under
pyrolytic conditions, formation of chlorobenzenes is thermodynamically
feasible. Because chlorobenzenes are known precursors of PCDDs, PCDFs,
and PCBs, under pyrolysis conditions these calculations imply that:
• PCDFs and PCDDs may form during the thermal destruction of
PCBs carried out under pyrolytic conditions.
• PCDFs and PCDDs may form during the thermal destruction of
PCBs carried out under oxidizing conditions in an incinerator
if inadequate design and/or operation allow the existence of
pyrolytic zones in the system.
2.6 OTHER PERTINENT LITERATURE
Manson and Unger (116) recently reviewed the literature on chemical
waste incineration and combustion theory as the basis for predicting de-
struction efficiencies for hazardous wastes in large commercial incinera-
tors and for scaling such incinerators to larger sizes. They concluded
that the state-of-the-art of design theory does not permit a designer to
scale up an incinerator with a rigorously predictable destruction efficien-
cy. This inability to predict exactly characteristics of a scaled up pro-
cess is reflected in Best Engineering Judgement as it relates to the prac-
tice of testing processes as they progress from bench to pilot and eventual-
ly to commercial scale. The PCB Regulations account for this typical ex-
perience by requiring more extensive monitoring of an Annex I incinerator
during its first use after a change that is likely to change its emission
characteristics (761.40(a)(6)(ii)).
102
-------
Wilkinson, et al. (117) recently reviewed published and unpublished
information on recent and current research and development on pesticide
disposal or conversion methods. Incineration was one of the methods stu-
died.
Riley (118) published a study on thermal destruction methods for dis-
posing of organic pesticides. Shih, et al. (119) studied thermal degrada-
tion of military standard pesticide formulations on a laboratory scale.
Incineration parameters and sampling and analytical methods were discussed.
2.7 SUMMARY
Both theoretical considerations and experiments, at lab scale and
commercial scale indicate that essentially complete destruction of PCBs
can be effected in Annex I incinerators and high efficiency boilers. On
the other hand, both theory and experiment indicate that inadequately de-
signed or improperly operated thermal destruction processes can lead to
inadequate destruction efficiency and formation of highly toxic compounds,
such as PCDFs and PCDDs. With respect to the formation of PCDFs and PCDDs
from the incineration of PCBs, it must again be emphasized that:
• The probability of forming any of these compounds is exceedingly
low
• As noted by Dow Chemical Company (19) only the great recent
advances in analytical chemistry permits the detection of
compounds such as these at ultratrace levels.
In the commercial scale systems described in this chapter, fuel, waste,
and air are not pre-mixed. Thus, under the intense temperature conditions
at which these systems operate, thermal destruction is controlled by physi-
cal processes (heat transfer, vaporization, diffusion) and not by chemical
reaction kinetics.
Because physical processes are rate controlling in real world inciner-
ators, it is not possible to take the temperature-residence time values for
PCB incineration in Annex I incinerators (2 sec at 1200 + 100°C or 1.5 sec
at 1600 + 100°C) and extrapolate in a linear fashion to greatly lower tem-
peratures. Chemical reaction rates vary exponentially with temperature.
Therefore, reaction rates slow rapidly and non-1inearly with decreasing
temperature. The physical processes which are rate controlling at high
temperatures are less temperature dependent but are strongly dependent on
103
-------
design parameters. Thus, straight line extrapolations will not give mean-
ingful results. Further, data presented in Tables 7 and 8, which were
taken in a pre-mixed system where chemical kinetics are rate controlling,
show that 2 second exposure at 775°C in air provides an inadequate level
of destruction and that exposure at 704°C for 3.84 seconds provides an in-
adequate level of destruction. It is likely that in a real world incinera-
tor, temperatures of less than 1000°C will not provide the required gas
phase destruction efficiency however long the residence time.
Ferguson, et al. (43) constructed a pilot scale experimental inciner-
ator system to study the effect of operational variables on destruction
efficiency for several pesticides. They developed a set of primary operat-
ing conditions (temperature, residence time, and excess air) which were ap-
plicable to the incineration of the organic pesticides they tested and which
they believed were applicable to all organic pesticides.
104
-------
3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The siting and operation of a PCB thermal destruction facility will in-
volve certain legal and institutional policies and procedures which must
be considered. This chapter describes the significant Federal regulations
and a methodology for obtaining data pertaining to State and local require-
ments. A general methodology is proposed for public participation and noti-
fication.
3.1 FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
Pertinent Federal rules and regulations must be adhered to, and the
appropriate enforcement agency contacted for completed information regard-
ing requirements which may affect the siting and operation of a PCB thermal
destruction facility. Table 13 presents an overview of Federal laws and
regulations pertaining to PCBs.
The PCB Regulations, 40 CFR 761, implement provisions of TSCA prohibit-
ing the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs.
Subpart B sets PCB disposal requirements, and Subpart E includes the follow-
ing annexes:
Annex I: Specifies operating requirements for high temperature
incinerators used for PCB destruction
Annex II: Specifies location, design, and operating requirements
for chemical waste landfills used to dispose of PCBs and
PCB items
Annex III: Specifies requirements for temporary storage of PCBs and
PCB items which have been designated for disposal
Annex IV: Specifies requirements for decontamination of PCB con-
tainers
Annex V: Specifies formats for marking PCB items.
Annex VI: Specifies record keeping and monitoring requirements
for disposal of PCBs
Regulations pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR 129, set toxic pol-
lutant effluent standards for PCBs. No discharge of PCBs is allowed (40 CFR
129.105) from manufacturers of 1) PCBs, 2) electrical capacitors, and 3)
electrical transformers. This standard applies to both new and existing
105
-------
sources. While 40 CFR 129.105 includes discharges from incineration areas
in manufacturing plants, it does not appear that the standards mandated in
40 CRR 129.105 cover commercial contract incinerator operators because the
definition of manufacturers explicitly refer to those who produce PCBs, pro-
duce or assemble electrical transformers in which PCBs are part of the dielec-
tric, or produce or assemble electrical transformers in which PCBs are part
of the dielectric. Parts 116 and 117 of the Act define discharges under the
Act, designate reportable quantities of PCBs spilled into waterways, and
designate reporting requirements and fines.
While the PCB Regulations were promulgated under the authority of TSCA,
RCRA regulations will have a large impact on PCB disposal. Interim final
and final RCRA regulations (40 CFR 264 and 265, 45 FR 33154) state that the
PCB Regulations will be incorporated into Phase II RCRA regulations. Parts
264 and 265 establish standards and interim status standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Pertinent areas covered by parts 264 and 265 standards and interim status
standards are: waste analysis, security, inspections, training, preparedness
and prevention, contingency plans and emergency procedures, recordkeeping,
ground water monitoring, closure, tanks, surface impoundments, incinerators,
thermal treatment, and general facility standards.
Under provisions of 29 CFR 1910.1, the OSHA 40-hour week limit for
Aroclor 1242 is 1 mg/m3 and 600 yg/m3 for Aroclor 1254. In September 1977,
NIOSH recommended a time-weighted average for all PCBs of 1.0 yg/m . However,
the OSHA standard has not yet been changed. This NIOSH value is a recommenda-
tion and is not legally binding.
The current time weighted average for PCBs as established by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is 1 nig/m for
Aroclor 1242 and 0.5 mg/m3 for Aroclor 1254 (120).
Under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, regulations in 40
CFR 171-177 cover the transport of hazardous waste materials. The rules
place minor recordkeeping requirements on shippers and transporters of
106
-------
TABLE 13. FEDERAL LAWS/REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PCBs
Federal Statute
Federal Regulation
o
-vl
Toxic Substances Control Act
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
Resource Conservation & Recovery
Act
Williams-Steiger Occupational
Safety & Health Act
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Act
EPA, 40 CFR 761, Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions
EPA, 40 CFR 129, Toxic Pollutant Effluent
Standards
EPA, 40 CFR 116, Designation of Hazardous
Substances
EPA, 40 CFR 122-124 and 260-265, Hazardous
Waste Guidelines and Regulations
OSHA, 29 CFR 1910, OSHA Safety and Health
Standards
DOT, CFR 171-177, Transportation of Hazardous
Waste Materials
-------
hazardous wastes and prohibit transportation and delivery to improper treat-
ment, storage, or disposal sites.
3.2 STATE AND LOCAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
EPA Regional Offices should be aware of State regulations concerning
the siting and operation of PCB thermal destruction facilities. If a
Regional Office does not have this information, then the State public health
and environmental control agencies should be contacted individually. Also,
the States may be able to assist with local agency coordination. At the
local level, zoning ordinances must be considered for land use requirements,
and various city officials may have a say in the determination of a project
as it relates to public safety, health, and welfare.
3.3 SPILL CONTROL AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Prevention of spills of hazardous materials is far superior to clean-
up. An established contingency plan is mandatory under the Clean Water Act
for safe spill control and prevention. Additionally, RCRA interim status
standards for owners/operators of hazardous waste treatment facilities re-
quire preparation of a facility contingency plan (45 FR 33224). When the
PCB Regulations are incorporated into RCRA, the contingency plan will have
to meet RCRA requirements under Section 264.50. A spill coordinator should
be assigned for each PCB thermal destruction facility. He should be thorough-
ly familiar with established safety and reporting procedures. All other per-
sonnel likely to be confronted with a PCB spill should also be aware of the
proper reporting procedure prior to any actual spill. In addition to the
requirements of National and Regional Contingency Plans, any State reporting
requirements must also be met. U.S. Coast Guard Regulations require that
spills of hazardous substances that may affect water sources should be reported
to the National Spill Response Center (400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.,
20590; (202) 426-2675). Appropriate methodology for the control of PCB spills
and reporting procedures is addressed in the Manual for the Control of Hazardous
Material Spills, EPA-600/2-77-227. EPRI has recently published two documents
on utility spill prevention, control, and countermeasure planning for PCBs (121,
122).
108
-------
3.4 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION
The PCB Regulations do not explicitly discuss public notification or
participation in the approval process. It is not an unreasonable assumption,
therefore, that it is the intent of the regulation that PCB thermal destruc-
tion facilities should be approved by Regional Administrators on their tech-
nical merit alone.
There is ample evidence of local public concern about and opposition to
hazardous waste incinerators. Thus, local support for such a facility will
be very helpful, if not essential. This section will describe steps that
can be taken to enhance public support by providing for an informed public.
It will also describe some pitfalls to be avoided.
EPA recently published a proposed policy on public participation in
Agency decision-making and rulemaking (45 FR 28911). To ensure effective
public participation, EPA defined five basic tasks to be performed. These
are described briefly below.
t Identification. Those groups or members of the public who
may be interested in or affected by action (i.e., PCB destruc-
tion approval) should be identified. The Mayor of the town
should be among those identified and notified.
t Outreach. Information about a PCB approval action must be
conveyed to the public through mailings, personal communications,
public service announcements, media briefings or ads, and other
means. The information must include background, timetables,
summaries of technical material, and, if possible, a description
of social, economic, and environmental consequences.
t Dialogue. The responsible official and interested or affected
members of the public must be able to exchange views and explore
issues. The dialogue may take several forms: meetings, workshops,
hearings, or correspondence. Timely dissemination of information
is crucial.
• Assimilation. The results of the "outreach" and "dialogue" tasks
must be assimilated into the final decision, and the responsible
official must demonstrate that he has understood and considered
public concerns.
• Feedback. The responsible official must provide feedback to
interested parties concerning the outcome of the public's
participation. This feedback must state the action that was
taken and indicate the effect that public participation had
on the action.
109
-------
Public concern caused considerable delays in performing a PCB Trial
Burn in an industrial boiler at General Motors' Chevrolet plant in Bay City,
Michigan. Zelenski and Haupt (46) reported on deficiencies in the public
participation process. The major deficiencies were:
• The public was not informed of the proposed permit application
in the early planning stages.
• Special interest groups were not informed of the proposal
permit application in the early planning stages.
• Plant personnel were not informed in the early planning
stages.
t Information needs of the public and special interest groups
were not adequately anticipated.
• Information finally supplied was perceived as too technical.
• There was a lack of communication, coordination, and clearly
defined responsibilities between participants in the permit
approval process.
Zelenski and Haupt (46) made a number of recommendations, several of
which are basically the same as will be required by EPA's proposed policy
on public participation:
• Identify the concerned public and groups
• Communicate with the concerned public and groups
t Develop a relationship of cooperation with the public and
groups
t Determine the level of support and incorporate that in plans
for the proposal action.
As noted in Chapter 1, there is a large quantity of PCBs and PCB Items
awaiting or that will become subject to disposal, and much of these mater-
ials may only be disposed of by incineration in Annex I incinerators or
high efficiency boilers. Inadequate public participation in PCB thermal
destruction approval processes should not be allowed to compound the PCB
disposal problem.
110
-------
4. EVALUATION OF ANNEX I INCINERATORS
One disposal option for PCBs and PCB Items* is thermal destruction in an
approved incinerator. In general, incinerators must meet specific operating
requirements set forth in Annex I of the PCB Regulations. An incinerator
which meets these requirements or which, based on evidence is capable of op-
erating without presenting unreasonable health or environmental risks from
PCBs when one or more of the Section 761.40 requirements is not met, is known
as an Annex I incinerator. An incinerator which meets the requirements of
Annex I should be approved unless there is some risk of inefficiency noted
during the testing and evaluation phase. The waiver section of Annex I (40
CFR 761.40 (d) (5)) provides for approval of units which do not expressly meet
all specified operating conditions. These units should not be summarily dis-
regarded as inefficient. The designers or operators may have good evidence,
based on calculations, tests, and previous burns with other chlorinated organics,
which shows that the unit deserves serious review by EPA.
The process of approving an Annex I incinerator is depicted in Figure 19,
which notes appropriate sections of this chapter. The process begins with
submission of an Initial Report by the owner or operator of a facility to the
EPA Regional Administrator (RA). Following receipt of the Initial Reports,
the RA determines whether a PCB Trial Burn is necessary. If a Trial Burn must
be held, the owner or operator submits a Trial Burn Plan to the RA for approval.
Subsequent to approval of the Trial Burn Plan (with additions and modifications
if required), the Trial Burn takes place. Data obtained on incinerator system
performance during the Trial Burn are then analyzed. If, based on these data,
the RA deems operation of the facility safe, approval is granted.
For the purpose of this discussion, when a term (e.g., PCB Items) is
used in the strict sense of its definition in 40 CFR 761.2, it is
capitalized.
Ill
-------
OWNER/OPERATOR
PREPARES INITIAL
REPORT AND
SUBMITS IT TO EPA
SECTION 4.1
EPA IDENTIFIES
CONCERNED/
AFFECTED GROUPS/
PUBLIC
EPA PREPARES
CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL
SECTION 4.4
EPA OUTREACH,
DIALOG.
ASSIMILATION.
FEEDBACK
YES
EPA OUTREACH
INFORM PUBLIC
i
DO
RESULTS
OF TRIAL BURNS
SHOW SYSTEM CAN
BE APPROVED
OWNER/OPERATOR
CONDUCTS TRIAL
BURNS AND SUB-
MITS DATA TO EPA
SECTION 4.3
Figure 19. Flowchart of Annex I incinerator approval process.
112
-------
Section 3.4 presented a general discussion of public participation as
it relates to the approval process. The approval process flow chart, Figure
19, incorporates steps where public participation is appropriate and, indeed,
required by EPA's proposed public participation policy (45 FR 28911). The
intent and content of this Chapter is technical. Reference to Section 3.4
should be made for public participation.
This chapter is divided into sections corresponding to the four phases
of the approval process. Section 4.1 discusses aspects of facility design
and operation and site-specific concerns which must be considered in evalu-
ating the Initial Report. Evaluation of the Trial Burn plan is discussed in
Section 4.2, which considers operational data requirements, and monitoring,
sampling, and analysis procedures. Section 4.3 discusses evaluation of Trial
Burn data. Data reduction and interpretation, as well as means of assessing
their completeness and adequacy, are addressed. The technical criteria for
incinerator approval and the contents of such an approval are summed up in
Section 4.4. Administrative requirements applicable to both Annex I incinera-
tors and high efficiency boilers are discussed in Section 3.
Before getting into the technical heart of this Chapter, it will be use-
ful to examine EPA's strategy in preparing the technical requirements for Annex
I incinerators.
A common figure of merit for an incinerator is destruction efficiency:
DE . ,00 x -
in
where DE is destruction efficiency in percent, W^ is the mass of waste fed
into the incinerator, and W . is the mass of unburned waste exiting from
1 1
the incinerator. It is important to note that wout is the sum of unburned
waste emissions in the three generic effluent streams: stack gas, scrubber
effluent, and solid residue.
As noted in the Preamble to the PCB Regulations, Annex I incinerators
are capable of achieving 99.9999% destruction efficiency. In establishing
technical requirements for Annex I incinerators, EPA had two choices for
strategy:
113
-------
• Mandating a minimum required destruction efficiency, e.g.,
99.9999%, or
• Setting limits on unburned PCB emissions
EPA chose the second alternative, setting limits for unburned PCB
emissions in each generic process effluent stream. This choice acknowledged
several factors:
• Technical limitations of sampling and analysis methodologies
• The relative ease or difficulty in controlling the different
effluent streams
• The relative potential environmental impacts of the different
effluent streams
Sampling and analysis are both sciences and arts. They are sciences
in that there is a large body of validated methodologies for sampling and
analysis of organic compounds, including PCBs. They are arts in the sense
that effluent streams and samples are all different and that no one tech-
nique is optimum for sampling all streams or analyzing all samples. Thus,
the strategy of mandating a minimum acceptable destruction efficiency might:
• Give rise to situations where the state-of-the-art sampling
and analysis techniques would be inadequate to demonstrate
achievement of that destruction efficiency
• Cause unnecessary and increased expense in modifying sampling
and analysis methods for particular samples
• Give rise to difficulty in comparing the effectiveness of
different incinerators if different sampling and analysis
methods were used in testing.
The most voluminous process effluent stream from an incinerator is the
stack gas. Scrubbers for control of HC1 and particulate emissions are re-
latively easily implemented control devices. However, control of organic
vapor emissions in stack gases is well beyond the state-of-the-art of con-
trol technology. EPA set a limit on maximum PCB emissions to the air from
the stack gas (1 mg PCBs per kg of PCBs fed) while burning non-liquid PCBs
(761.40(b)(l)). No limit was set for stack gas emissions during incineration
of liquid PCBs. However, non-liquid PCBs are typically more difficult to
incinerate than liquid PCBs, so that there is a higher probability of great-
er stack gas emissions of PCBs during incineration of non-liquid PCBs. Thus,
an Annex I incinerator that can achieve stack gas emissions of PCBs of less
114
-------
than 1 mg per kg fed while burning non-liquid PCBs has a high probability
of producing considerably lower PCB emissions while burning liquid PCBs.
In contrast to the stack gas, scrubber effluent is much less voluminous
than the stack gas, and because the scrubber is downstream of the combustion
chamber(s), scrubber solution comes into contact with only trace or undetect-
able levels of unburned PCBs. No explicit limit on the PCB content of the
scrubber effluent is given in the PCB Regulation. However, it is required
(761.40(a)(9)) that the scrubber effluent be monitored and that it comply with
applicable effluent or pretreatment standards and any other state and Federal
laws and regulations. Thus, other regulatory schemes set limits on PCB emis-
sions in liquid process streams to the environment from Annex I incinerators.
The least voluminous effluent stream from an incinerator is the solid
residues. Consequently, this stream is the easiest to handle. In a typical
rotary kiln, solids spend in excess of 0.5 hours at temperatures above 900° C,
which is sufficiently hot to vaporize and degrade PCB content of the solids
to trace or undetectable levels. As noted in Sections 2.1 and 2.5, the degree
of comminution of solids fed to the rotary kiln (or other solids combustor)
is an important parameter in achieving complete destruction of PCBs. Therefore,
no explicit limits or the PCB content of the solid residue stream is given,
and there is no reference to any applicable regulatory criteria. However, it
is a reasonable inference that the PCB Regulations govern disposal of this
type of stream. Thus, if the solid residue from an Annex I incinerator contains
less than 50 ppm PCBs, its disposal is not governed by the PCB Regulation. Con-
versely, if the solid residue contains greater than 50 ppm PCBs, it is subject
to the disposal requirements of the PCB Regulations: Annex I incinerator, Annex
II chemical waste landfills, or other approved disposal method.
The only disadvantage to EPA's strategy is that the determination of a
single figure of merit - destruction efficiency - is not required. This may
cause some confusion because of the historical use of destruction efficiency
and will make it difficult to compare the performance of different incinerators.
Since sampling and analysis of all process streams is required, it is recom-
mended that overall destruction efficiency be calculated from Trial Burn data.
115
-------
4.1 EVALUATION OF INITIAL REPORT
The PCB Regulations, 40 CFR 761.40(d)(l), specify the information which
must be included in an operator's initial report to the RA. This information
includes the following:
t The location of the incinerator
• A detailed description of the incinerator including general
site plans and design drawings of the incinerator
• Engineering reports or other information on the anticipated
performance of the incinerator
• Sampling and monitoring equipment and facilities available
• Waste volumes expected to be incinerated
t Any local, State, or Federal permits or approvals
• Schedules and plans for complying with the approval requirements
of this regulation.
Additional information may be required by the RA before deciding whether a
Trial Burn is necessary. Ideally, this information would be included in the
Initial Report, and would include:
• Chemical and physical characterization of the waste(s) to be
burned
• Emission control system design and operating data
• Process control system operation
• Waste storage facilities description
If such additional information is not included in the Initial Report, it may
be requested later. Requests for additional information must be restricted
to the types of information which are consistent with the regulations at
761.40(d)(l)(i) through (l)(vii). If a waiver of any one of the requirements
of 761.40(a) or (b) is being sought, the Regional Administrator can request
information other then those types specified in 761.40 in order to make a
determination as to whether or not an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment would result from the waiver. In addition, the Regional
Administrator may request, 761.40(d)(3), any other information deem reasonably
necessary to determine whether or not an incinerator may be approved.
This section is divided into seven subsections. Each deals with essen-
tial information contained in the Initial Report: incineration facility
116
-------
design, operational data capability, effluent monitoring capability, sampl-
ing location, waste characterization and feed rate, storage capability, and
site-specific concerns. Table 14 is a checklist that may be used during
the Initial Report evaluation process.
TABLE 14. CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATION OF INITIAL REPORT
Step
Physical Properties
of Waste
Chemical, Thermodynamic
Considerations
General Site Plan
Evaluation
Waste Feed System
Evaluation
Thermal Destruction
System Evaluation
Pollution Control
System Evaluation
Process Control
System Evaluation
Operational Data
Evaluation
Effluent Monitoring
Evaluation
Sampling Locations
Waste Characterization
Storage
Information Supplied
See
Section Acceptable Unacceptable More Needed
2.1.1.1
2.5
4.1.1.1
4.1.1.2
4.1.1.3
4.1.1.4
4.1.1.5
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
117
-------
4.1.1 Incinerator System Design
The PCB Regulations specify certain requirements for incinerator opera-
tions which are directly related to system design. A design evaluation must
consider not only whether these requirements will be met but also whether
good engineering practice is observed in system design and operation.
Aspects of incinerator system design which must be considered are not
limited only to the incinerator unit. A systems approach to evaluation
should be adopted. In evaluating a facility for approval to burn PCBs,
general site plan, waste feed system, thermal destruction unit, pollution
control system, and process controls should all be considered as they affect
PCB destruction efficiency. Each of these topics is considered separately
below.
4.1.1.1 General Site Plan Evaluation--
Overall facility design is dependent to a great degree on the type of
waste which is processed. This will affect all aspects of waste processing,
transportation and unloading, storage, pretreatment, feeding, combustion,
gas cleaning and discharge, ash handling, and disposal, as well as health
and environmental protection and safety. Compatibility of the incoming
waste with processing equipment at the facility is of prime importance. The
goal of the site plan evaluation should be to determine how well the various
waste processing steps can be integrated, given the nature of the waste to
be disposed of and the type and layout of equipment at the facility.
Ideally, the site plans submitted with the Initial Report should pro-
vide the following information:
t The size and location of all major process equipment and auxiliary
structures
• Topographical information sufficient to analyze drainage patterns
for storm runoff or liquid spills
f Facility boundaries and access routes
The evaluator should check to see that:
• The flow of waste through the facility is in a logical pattern
which avoids unnecessary handling of PCBs and prevents their
contaminating clean areas at the site
118
-------
• The facility is contoured so that contaminated runoff or acci-
dentally spilled liquids do not leave the property uncontrolled
• Security from vandalism is provided and access restricted to
those persons who are directly involved with facility operations
and who are knowledgeable of safe procedures for handling hazard-
ous wastes.
4.1.1.2 Waste Feed System Evaluation--
As discussed below, the waste feed system includes all equipment used
to process PCB wastes from their point of storage to the point at which
they enter the incinerator. Since the feed systems for liquids and non-
liquids are quite different, so they are separated for discussion. Discus-
sion of automatic feed shut-off systems is reserved for Section 4.2.1.5.
4.1.1.2.1 Liquid feeding systems--Common unit operations in a liquid feed
system are: 1) waste filtration, 2) waste/fuel blending, and 3) feed pre-
heating. These operations are usually performed to obtain a liquid feed
to the burners that has a low solids content, high heating value, and low
kinematic viscosity.
Filtration may be necessary to remove suspended particles in the liquid
which, if not removed, could clog, erode, or build up on the burner and de-
grade combustion efficiency. In-line filters may be used to reduce the
solids content of the liquid. Several filters are usually installed in
parallel.
Blending of PCBs with other fuels may be required when the waste PCB
liquid has a relatively low heating value. Blending should be done in a
closed-top agitated mixing vessel to prevent PCBs from splashing out.
Viscosity of the liquid can be decreased by heating. Steam heating
with coils in the mixing tank, in-line heaters, and pipes wound with elec-
trical heating cables are commonly used. As a practical maximum, 400-500°F
is normally the limit for heating to reduce viscosity since difficulties in
pumping can occur at high temperatures. Preliminary checks should be made
to ensure that preheating will not cause polymerization, oxidation, nitra-
tion, or evolution of gas.
119
-------
The vessels, pumps, and piping in the liquid feed system should be
constructed of materials suitable for use in PCB service. Positive dis-
placement (PD) pumps are preferred over centrifugal pumps because PD pumps
afford a tighter shut-off and prevent siphoning when out of service. When
PD pumps are used, a relief valve should be used downstream to prevent pres-
sure buildup in the piping system. Discharge from the relief valve should
be returned to a feed tank or the suction side of the pump. Sealed pumps,
which have no external seals to leak, may be used. Sealed pumps are only
available in a limited number of small sizes and generally have low effi-
ciencies. However, in PCB disposal applications, their use may be justi-
fied.
The pumping and piping system should be designed to prevent any liquid
leaks and to minimize the quantity lost if liquid does escape. Some guide-
lines for design are as follows:
• Indoor piping should be located either overhead or in floor
trenches. Overhead installations should be near the ceiling
or along the wall about 3 meters or more above the floor to
prevent head injuries. Floor trenches should be impervious
and should not drain to storm drains or sewers Metal plates
should cover the trenches.
• Each pipeline should be labeled as to its contents
• Regular inspections of the piping system, as required
by RCRA regulations, should be performed to check for
leaks and determine the condition of system components.
• Pumps feeding the mixing tank should be located as near as
possible to the storage tank.
4.1.1.2.2 Solid feeding system—Solid wastes may be fed pneumatically,
mechanically, or by gravity to the incinerator. In most cases, PCB-contain-
ing solids will have to be reduced in size by shredding (or other method)
for ease of feeding and efficiency of combustion. They must then be con-
veyed to the incinerator and charged to the combustion zone. These three
operations - size reduction, transport, and charging - are discussed separ-
ately below.
PCB Items cannot usually be fed directly to an incinerator because
they are too large to permit adequate combustion. The interior surfaces
of PCB Items must be exposed to allow rapid vaporization of the PCBs in
the waste. Shredding or hammermilling should be used to reduce the size
120
-------
and increase the surface area of the waste if pieces larger than about 4
cm are to be burned. Care should be taken in the size reduction operations
to prevent escape of PCBs either from splashing or vaporization. Automa-
tic operation is preferred so that plant personnel are not exposed to PCBs
during the operation. Capacity of the size reduction equipment may exceed
incinerator feed rate so that closed storage bins or silos may be required.
The method used for conveying solids from storage to the incinerator
depends on the physical form of the feed material. Very often the material
to be incinerated is packaged in fiber packs or drums which may be fed
directly to the incinerator on an open conveyor belt. If the PCB-containing
solids are not pre-packaged, screw or belt feeders may be needed. Screw
feeders and belt feeders are common for handling hazardous wastes. Open
belt feeders should not be used if the possibility exists for leaking of
PCB liquids or spilling solids off the belt. Screw feeders are usually
acceptable, except for sticky or cohesive materials.
Charging the incinerator may be done in either batch or continuous
mode. Batch feeding may be accomplished by open charging or air-lock feed-
ing. Open charging is often used in rotary kilns, where solids are gravity
fed (e.g., from a conveyor belt) into a chute leading to the kiln. For
batch air-lock feeding, the interior of the kiln is sealed from the outside
by two sliding gates which operate alternately. A common method of continu-
ous feeding is screw feeding solids into a stream of air which is blown into
the incinerator. When feeding containerized PCB wastes, both waste and con-
tainer may be incinerated. However, if only the contents of PCB Containers
are emptied into the incinerator, the PCB Containers must be disposed of
per the PCB Regulations. Disposal of PCB Article Containers is not regu-
lated.
4.1.1.3 Thermal Destruction Unit Evaluation--
In evaluating the thermal destruction unit, checks should be performed
to ensure that the unit is designed and operated so that:
• The various system components have sufficient capacity to
handle the quantities of waste to be burned
• The temperature, residence time, oxygen concentration, and
mixing achieved in the unit are sufficient to destroy PCBs
121
-------
• Process controls incorporate automatic shutoffs to prevent waste
flow if proper combustion conditions are not maintained
The first two considerations are discussed in this section, in general terms
and specifically for systems designed to burn liquid and non-liquid PCBs.
Process controls and automatic shutdown capabilities are discussed in Sec-
tion 4.1.1.5.
4.1.1.3.1 General considerations—The capacity of an incinerator is govern-
ed by two factors: 1) the allowable heat release rate in the combustion cham-
ber and 2) the maximum gas flow rate set by the design of the combustion
equipment. If the amount of heat released (per unit time and chamber vol-
ume) exceeds the design capacity of the chamber, structural damage to the
refractories will result. To evaluate the adequacy of combustion chamber
design, the following procedures should be used:
t Determine the heating value and proposed feed rates for waste
and auxiliary fuel, and calculate a heat release rate (Btu/hr).
t Determine combustion chamber volume and design heat release rate
(Btu/hr-cubic foot).
• Compare heat release rates. If design rate exceeds proposed
waste/fuel feed rate, unit can be assumed to operate below its
thermal limit. If the converse is true, fuel/waste feed rate
must be decreased.
For proper incinerator operation, the gas handling system must be able
to move the entire volumetric flow rate of combustion gases while overcoming
all pressure drops in the system. The prime gas mover in waste incineration
systems is usually an induced draft fan located downstream of the air pollu-
tion control devices. Fan capacity will be specified by the fan manufactur-
er and will vary with pressure and fan inlet temperature.
The highest pressure drops across the system will occur in the pollu-
tion control devices. Smaller pressure drops will occur from frictional
losses during gas flow through the incinerator and system ductwork. Major
pressure drops can be determined from manufacturer specifications and gas
flow rates at the inlets to each control device, or they may be known by
facility operators from experience. Other pressure drops such as frictional
losses through ducts and losses due to flow constrictions can be estimated
using standard engineering methods (123).
122
-------
An evaluation of gas moving capacity should include the following
steps:
• Determine gas flow rate and temperature at the inlet to the
induced draft fan.
• Estimate total pressure drop across the system.
• Compare fan capacity at the estimated pressure drop with
expected gas flow rate. If fan capacity exceeds that needed
to handle the expected gas flow, the system can be assumed to
operate below its maximum gas handling capacity. If the
capacity is insufficient, waste feed rate must be decreased,
fan capacity increased, or the system must be modified to
reduce pressure drop.
If means other than an induced draft fan are employed (e.g., steam ejectors)
the same basic procedure of determining gas flows and pressure drops may be
used.
Conditions under which gas handling capacity is exceeded during opera-
tions should be avoided. Such a condition may be quite obvious, character-
ized by puffs of smoke emanating from upstream of a flow constriction in
the system ductwork. The cause may be inhomogeneous feed, in which case
the problem is transitory, or a continuous problem such as indicated in
step 3 of the above evaluation. Continuous puffing should not be permitted
in the final approval.
Another general consideration is that all incinerators should be equip-
ped with auxiliary fuel firing systems to heat them up to operating tempera-
ture prior to the introduction of PCB waste. Such a firing system may con-
sist of separate burners for auxiliary fuel, dual-liquid burners, or burners
equipped with a pre-mix system in which fuel flow can be gradually turned
down as waste flow is increased after the desired operating temperature is
achieved. The same types of fuel/waste feed systems are required if auxi-
liary fuel firing is needed during PCB combustion. Liquid burners, whether
installed in a liquid injection or solid waste incinerator, must be aligned
so as to avoid impingement on refractory walls and on other burner flames
(in a multiple burner system).
123
-------
4.1.1.3.2 Incinerators for liquid PCBs--In evaluating incinerators for
destruction of liquid PCBs, the following points should be considered:
• Are the physical properties of the waste compatible with the
burner type used?
• Have the chemical and thermodynamic properties of the waste
been identified and are they compatible with incinerator
design and operation?
• Can adequate excess air rate, temperature, residence time,
and mixing be achieved and maintained to ensure required
destruction efficiency?
Kinematic viscosity and the size and concentration of solids in a
liquid waste must be considered in determining burner/waste compatibility.
For good atomization, the liquid should have a low viscosity and a low con-
centration of solids. Kinematic viscosities greater than 750 SSU (Saybolt
standard units) may cause incomplete atomization and result in smoke and
unburned particle emissions. This is, however, only a rule of thumb since
some burners can handle higher viscosity liquids, and others cannot handle
liquids with this viscosity. Solids in the waste can cause problems by
plugging, eroding, or building up on the burner. The concentration and the
size in relation to the burner nozzle must be considered.
Atomization can be achieved by rotary cup atomization, single-fluid
pressure atomization, or dual-fluid atomization using high or low pressure
air or high pressure steam.
A rotary cup atomization burner consists of an open cup mounted on a
hollow shaft. Liquid is fed through the shaft into the rotating cup where
it spreads in a film toward the rim. At the rim, the centrifugal force of
the rotating cup tears the film into droplets. High pressure air fed through
an annulus on the shaft, aids in atomization and shaping the flame.
In air or steam atomizing burners, atomization can be accomplished by
physical mixing of fuel and atomizing media inside or outside the nozzle or
by sound waves set up by compressed gas and directed onto the liquid in the
burner. Sonic atomization requires less waste pressurization and can effec-
tively handle slurries and liquids with relatively large particles without
plugging problems.
124
-------
In evaluating a specific incinerator design the viscosity and solids
content of the wastes should be compared with manufacturer specifications
for the particular burner employed.
Chemical properties of the waste must be evaluated in order to calcu-
late stoichiometric combustion air requirements and predict the composition
and flow rate of combustion product gases. Complete combustion can be as-
sumed for scoping calculations. Theoretical air requirements must be based
on the elemental composition of the waste and any auxiliary fuel fired with
the waste. Table 15 shows stoichiometric oxygen requirements and combustion
products formed for complete combustion of the major elements expected in
PCB wastes.
TABLE 15. THEORETICAL OXYGEN REQUIREMENTS AND PRODUCT GAS
YIELDS FOR COMPLETE COMBUSTION
Waste/Fuel
Component
Theoretical
Oxygen Required
Product Gas
Yield
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Chlorine
Sulfur
Nitrogen (fuel)
Nitrogen (air)
Water
2.66 Ib/lb carbon
7.94 Ib/lb hydrogen
-1.00 Ib/lb oxygen
-0.226 Ib/lb chlorine
0.998 Ib/lb sulfur
3.66 Ib C02/lb carbon
8.94 Ib H20/lb hydrogen
1.03 HCl/lb chlorine
-0.254 Ib H20/lb chlorine
2.00 Ib S02/lb sulfur
1.00 Ib N2/lb fuel
nitrogen
3.29 Ib N2/lb theor.
oxygen
1.00 Ib H20/lb water
125
-------
The combustion products in Table 15 are not the only species formed
during combustion. Excess air, products of side reactions, and products
of incomplete combustion will also be present. The most important of these
are carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO ), chlorinated organics
X
(RC1), excess oxygen (02), and free chlorine (Clp). Monitoring of combus-
tion emissions is required for all but free chlorine.
Chlorine formation results from an inadequate supply of hydrogen to
convert the chlorine in PCBs to HC1 . Free chlorine is more toxic and hard-
er to remove by wet scrubbing than HC1 , so that its formation is undesirable.
The American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has set a time
weighted average (for 8-hour days, 40-hour weeks) for C^ of 3 mg/m or 1
ppmv (120). The amount of free chlorine formed can be estimated from equi-
librium calculations using the following equations (8):
Kp =
In Kp = " -~- + 8.292
where the terms in the equilibrium expression are the partial pressures, in
atmospheres, of HC1 , 02, H20, and C12 and the equilibrium constant Kp is a
function of absolute temperature T (Kelvin). For highly chlorinated feeds,
formation of free chlorine may be a problem. Increasing combustion tempera-
ture, decreasing excess oxygen, and increasing hydrogen content of the waste/
fuel will lead to reduced free chlorine formation. Stoichiometrically, at
least 0.0282 pounds of hydrogen are required to convert one pound of chlorine
in the waste to HC1 . Burning wastes containing sulfur may also help allevi-
ate chlorine emissions. Sulfur dioxide formed during combustion is thought
to reduce C12 to the chloride (124).
The heating value of a waste must be considered in establishing an
energy balance for the combustion chamber and in assessing the need for
auxiliary fuel firing. To maintain stable combustion, the heat released by
combustion must also heat incoming waste to its ignition temperature and
provide the activation energy for oxidation reactions to occur. Wastes with
126
-------
heating values below 6,000 Btu/lb usually require auxiliary fuel.
Heating value should be reported as "higher1, "lower" or "net". The
higher heating value is greater than the lower heating value by the heat of
vaporization of the water in the combustion products. The net heating value
of a waste is its lower heating value minus the heat required to vaporize
any moisture present. Since the net heating value represents the net energy
input into the combustion process, net heating values are useful in develop-
ing energy balances for incinerators.
The heating value of a complex waste mixture is difficult to predict
a priori. Therefore, these values should be measured experimentally. Ap-
proximate heating values for chlorinated chemical wastes such as PCBs are
(8):
Lower Heating Value, Btu/lb =_
14,000 (C) + 45,000 (H —g-) - 760 (Cl) + 4500 (S)
Higher Heating Value, Btu/lb = n
14,000 (C) + 54,500 (H - -g-) - 150 (Cl) + 4500 (S)
where C, H, 0, Cl, and S are the weight fractions of the indicated
elements in the waste.
For auxiliary fuels, the following net heating values are typical:
Residual fuel oil (e.g., No. 6) - 17,500 Btu/lb
Distillate fuel oil (e.g., No. 2) - 18,300 Btu/lb
Natural gas - 19,700 Btu/lb (1,000 Btu/scf)
Standard practice in the hazardous waste incineration industry is to
blend wastes so that the chlorine content does not exceed about 35%. This
is done to maintain sufficient heating value for sustained combustion, pre-
vent excessive HC1 formation, and to limit free chlorine concentration in
the combustion gas.
Temperature, oxygen concentration, dwell time and the degree of mixing
achieved in the combustion chamber are the major parameters affecting thermal
destruction efficiency. Methods for evaluating these parameters in light
of the current PCB Regulations are described in the following paragraphs.
127
-------
PCB Regulations set the following criteria for destruction of liquid
PCBs in an Annex I incinerator:
• Maintenance of the introduced liquids for a 2-second dwell time
at 1200°C (+_ 100°C) and 3% oxygen in the stack gas, or
• Maintenance of the introduced liquids for a 1.5-second dwell
time at 1600°C (+ 100°C) and 2% oxygen in the stack gas.
In order to evaluate whether the incinerator can meet these criteria,
it must be determined that:
• The waste, auxiliary fuel, and combustion air feed rates will
result in maintenance of the gas temperature above 1100°C with
3% or greater oxygen concentration, or above 1500°C with 2% or
greater oxygen concentration.
• The volume of the combustion chamber is sufficient to provide
gas residence times of 1.5 seconds or greater at 1500°C or above,
or 2 seconds or greater at 110CPC to 1500°C.
The amount of excess air needed for incineration of non-liquid PCBs
depends on the degree of mixing achieved in the primary combustion zone,
secondary air requirements, and combustion temperature. The theoretical
(maximum) flame temperature is reached at zero percent excess air. Adding
excess air dilutes product gases and reduces the temperature in the inciner-
ator. Such a reduction in temperature is desirable when wastes with good
combustion characteristics and high heating value are being burned in order
to limit refractory degradation. When wastes with poor combustion charac-
teristics or low heating value are being burned, excess air should be mini-
mized to keep the combustion temperature high so that combustion chamber
volume and downstream equipment size can be smaller.
Two excess air rates must be considered for liquid injection incinera-
tors, primary combustion air and total excess air. Normally, 10% to 20%
primary excess air is needed at the burner to prevent smoke and soot forma-
tion. This may be reduced to 5% for high efficiency burners firing homo-
geneous waste. Too much primary excess air (a condition which may result
under turndown conditions) can blow the flame away from its retention cone.
Burner manufacturer specifications provide the best source of information
analysis. In general, the total excess air rate should exceed 20% to 25%
to insure adequate waste/air contact in the secondary combustion zone (8).
128
-------
The temperature/excess air evaluation procedure is based on identifi-
cation of: 1) the minimum air-to-waste ratio (A/W) which will give the
required 2% or 3% oxygen in the combustion product and 2) the maximum A/W
that can be used and still obtain temperatures high enough to conform with
regulatory requirements. Once these maximum and minimum ratios are calcu-
lated, the ability of the unit to operate satisfactorily within this range
of conditions must be assessed. The evaluation procedure requires calcu-
lation of mass and energy balances around the combustion chamber, which
should be based on a unit mass of a waste/auxiliary fuel mixture of known
(or estimated) composition and heat content.
To calculate the minimum A/W:
• Calculate - From the known (or estimated) composition of the
waste and auxiliary fuel, calculate the yields of combustion
product gases assuming complete combustion with theoretical
air (see Table 15). Check mass balance.
• Calculate - Assuming oxygen concentrations of 2% and 3% (by
mole or by volume) in the combustion product gases, back cal-
culate the required combustion air mass flow rate (do not
neglect the nitrogen present with excess oxygen). Check mass
balance. This is the minimum A/W.
• Calculate - Set up the energy balance around the combustion
chamber for the minimum A/W determined above. The enthalpy
changes (AH) to be considered in the energy balance are as
follows (all values of AH >0):
ZAH (products) = ZAH (reactants) + AH (combustion) - AH (heat loss)
Sensible heat of Sensible heat of Net heating Assume ^5%
Products above _ reactants often + value of total
standard temper- negligible, espe- heat re-
ature cially if react- leased is
ants are not pre- lost through
heated walls of
chamber
• Calculate - Determine the maximum flame temperature (Tf) which can
be achieved at the minimum A/W. This will require an iterative solu-
tion of the energy balance for Tp.
• Evaluate - Can the required minimum combustion air flow (primary and
secondary) be supplied by existing equipment over the range of ex-
pected waste/fuel feed rates?
• Evaluate - Is the unit capable of withstanding the temperature and
heat release rate at the minimum A/W?
129
-------
Once the minimum A/W has been evaluated, the maximum A/W which will still
result in maintenance of the desired combustion temperature should be cal-
culated.
t Calculate - Set up the energy balance around the combustion
chamber assuming a flame temperature and leaving the excess
air rate as variable.
t Calculate - Find the excess air rate required to attain the
assumed Tp. A direct solution can be found. This is the maxi-
mum A/W for the assumed Tp.
• Evaluate - The burner(s) should be able to operate satis-
factorily at or below this maximum A/W and should not be
operated above it. Include in the evaluation both maximum
waste/fuel flows and turndown conditions which may cause
operation at A/W higher than full load.
Dwell time, e, is a function of combustion chamber volume, V and com-
bustion gas flow rate, Q. The latter is also a function of temperature,
and since 0 = V/Q, the higher the temperature the shorter the dwell time.
By assuming a maximum temperature, a minimum dwell time can be calculated.
The maximum temperature in the combustion process is the flame temperature.
The Initial Report should give a value for V, total combustion chamber vol-
ume. The minimum dwell time can then be calculated at the flame temperature
from knowledge of the volumetric flow rate of combustion gases (calculated
assuming complete combustion or from actual gas flow measurements). If the
minimum dwell time from this calculation exceeds 1.5 seconds at 1500°C, or
above, or exceeds 2 seconds at 1100°C to 1500°C and if the chamber outlet
temperatures also exceed the cutoff temperatures (1100°C and 1500°C), the
residence time can be considered adequate.
If the temperature at the combustion chamber outlet is known, this
temperature can be used to calculate a maximum dwell time in the chamber.
Since the outlet temperature is the lowest temperature in the combustion
chamber, the dwell time calculated is a maximum dwell time. If the maxi-
mum dwell time calculated is less than 1.5 seconds at 1500°C, or above, or
less than 2 seconds at 1100° to 1500°C, and if the outlet temperature is
less than the cutoff temperatures, the dwell time is not sufficient. How-
ever, if the outlet temperature exceeds the cutoff temperature, sufficient
dwell time may exist downstream of the combustion chamber to meet the re-
quirements of the PCB Regulations. If successive downstream temperatures
130
-------
above the cutoff temperature are known (along with cumulative system vol-
umes), additional upper limit dwell times may be calculated. Approximate
mean dwell times may then be calculated based on the average of the flame
temperature and the downstream temperature (which is above the cutoff tem-
perature). The approximate mean dwell times so calculated can then be
compared to those required by the regulations.
Temperature, oxygen, and residence time requirements for waste destruc-
tion all depend to some extent on the degree of mixing achieved in the com-
bustion chamber. However, mixing is difficult to quantify. Manson and
Unger (116) have attempted to define the relationships among these para-
meters in some incinerator types by comparison of dimensionless quantities,
such as the Fourier and Biot numbers. Such analysis based on design data
may be useful in comparing mixing in two incinerators of the same type. To
some extent, operational data, such as the CO and total hydrocarbon emissions
from an incinerator provide some measure of mixing efficiency. Performance
data from prior tests may be compared to data for incineration of similar
wastes in a unit of the same generic type as the one being evaluated. De-
sign data for the unit can also be used as the basis for a cursory evalua-
tion. Such an evaluation should be made to ensure that turbulent flow con-
ditions exist in the combustion chamber.
In liquid injection incinerators the calculation of Reynold's number
(see Section 2.1.1.5) can be simplified to consideration of superficial gas
velocity only. Adequate turbulence is usually achieved at superficial gas
velocities (v) of 3 to 5 m/s, determined by
'•-a-
where q = gas flow rate at operating temperature, m /s
2
A = cross-sectional area of the incinerator chamber, m
If primary or secondary air is fed tangentially or if cyclonic flow
prevails in the incinerator, actual gas velocities will be greater than v.
In these cases, adequate turbulence may be achieved at v <3 m/s. Baffles
installed in the secondary combustion zone can increase turbulence by chang-
ing the direction of gas flow. However, baffles increase pressure drop and
are for this reason not commonly used in liquid injection incinerator designs,
131
-------
Steam ejectors can also be used to increase turbulence.
4.1.1.3.3 Incinerators for non-liquid PCBs--Thermal destruction units
designed to destroy non-liquid PCBs will generally employ a primary com-
bustion zone where solid wastes are heated, volatilized, and partially
oxidized and a secondary combustion chamber (afterburner) to complete the
gas-phase combustion reactions. Liquid wastes may be fired in the primary
combustion zone along with waste solids. The afterburner is normally a
liquid injection incinerator, firing auxiliary fuel and/or waste.
The discussion in this section will center on the design of the pri-
mary combustion zone for solids. However, in evaluating the design of an
incineration system for solids, the afterburner should be evaluated accord-
ing to the principles outlined in Section 4.1.1.3.2. Approval to burn non-
liquid PCB wastes should only be granted to a facility if both the primary
combustion zone and the afterburner are suitable for PCB incineration.
The same basic considerations used to evaluate incinerators for liquid
PCBs can be applied to the evaluation of incinerators for non-liquid PCBs.
These considerations are: physical waste properties, chemical/thermodynamic
waste properties, combustion temperature, excess air, residence time, and
mixing. They are discussed below for the two generic types of incinerators
deemed most suitable at this time for incineration of non-liquid PCBs:
rotary kiln and multiple hearth incinerators.
Compatibility of the incinerator with the physical form of the waste
is an important consideration. Rotary kilns are very versatile. They can
handle most slurries, sludges, bulk solids, and containerized wastes. How-
ever, several wastes do present some problems when charged to a rotary kiln.
Aqueous organic sludges that become sticky when dried form rings around the
circumference of the kiln, disrupting the flow of solids. Glass tends to
become a molten mass in the kiln which can impair solids flow and can be
difficult to remove. Solids such as drums that can roll down the kiln may
not be retained as long as the rest of the solids. This last problem can
be reduced by not introducing drums into an empty kiln, so that solids al-
ready in the kiln can arrest the rolling action of the drums. In multiple
hearth incinerators, the physical form of the solids must not interfere
with the action of the rabble arms that move the solids from hearth to
132
-------
hearth. Multiple hearth incinerators are not as well suited as rotary
kilns to receive large bulk solids. Multiple hearth units were originally
designed to incinerate sludges. They perform best with sludges and/or gran-
ular solids. Hammermi11ed, drained PCB Small Capacitors may be suitable as
a multiple hearth feed.
The chemical and thermodynamic considerations applicable to incinera-
tion of non-liquid PCBs are essentially the same as for liquid PCBs. A
greater problem with non-liquid wastes is feed inhomogeneity. Such inhomo-
geneity (e.g., from feeding large containers of PCB wastes to rotary kilns)
can cause rapid evolution of combustion product gases, and a consequent
positive pressure surge. Such violent pressure swings can cause problems
in design of the process control system. They may also lead to buildup of
pressure in the kiln (normally operated at subatmospheric pressure) to ex-
ceed atmospheric pressure for brief periods. Release of kiln gases, con-
taining unburned PCBs and possibly PCDFs would occur under these conditions.
In addition to inhomogeneity, the other major problem related to the chemi-
cal properties of PCB waste concerns materials of construction and their
ability to withstand the corrosive attack of HC1 at high temperature. Mul-
tiple hearth incinerators, which use moving internal metal parts, would
require frequent inspection and maintenance when burning PCBs.
Excess air rates for incineration of non-liquid PCBs must be greater
than for liquid PCBs because mixing of the air and solids is not as intimate
as mixing of air and atomized liquid droplets. The actual excess air rate
will depend on the heat content of the waste, the desired combustion temper-
ature, and the degree of air/waste mixing. For PCB burns in rotary kilns at
RES and ENSCO (see Section 2.2.1.1), excess air rates measured in the duct
downstream of the afterburners ranged from about 85% to 100%. Multiple
hearth incinerators processing sewage sludge generally operate with 50% to
100% excess air (125). An additional guideline is that enough air should
be supplied to the kiln or multiple hearth to prevent oxygen-deficient con-
ditions which may give rise to PCDFs. That is, the primary combustion zone
should not act as a pyrolyzer or starved air combustor relying on the after-
burner for PCB destruction. Experience with a particular waste/incinerator
combination is the best guideline for determining an adequate excess air
rate. As with liquid injection incinerators, the equipment supplying
133
-------
combustion air should have sufficient capacity to handle the expected air
flow. Excess air rate should be low enough to allow maintenance of adequate
temperature in the system but high enough to prevent thermal damage to sys-
tem hardware.
Temperature and dwell time requirements for incineration of non-liquid
PCBs are not prescribed directly by the PCB Regulations. Assuming non-liquid
PCB incinerators will incorporate an afterburner, the function of the primary
combustion zone (i.e., rotary kiln, multiple hearth) is to volatilize, par-
tially oxidize, or otherwise convert all organic components of the waste to
a gaseous state. Therefore, temperatures and residence times do not neces-
sarily have to be sufficient for PCB destruction, only PCB volatilization.
The speed of the volatilization step (for a given temperature and residence
time) is proportional to the initial size of the PCB solids fed. Thus,
smaller sized feeds should require less dwell time. In general, for feed
material sized to less than about 4 cm, the incinerator should be capable
of retaining solids for 15 minutes to one hour at 800°C (8).
Rotary kilns can easily meet these criteria. Multiple hearth inciner-
ators can meet the dwell time criterion, and can probably operate at high
enough temperatures. Three operating zones are usually used in multiple
hearth furnaces for incinerating sewage sludges:
• The top hearths constitute the drying zone, in which gas
temperatures average about 420°C and solids temperatures
about 70°C. Here, cool solids are heated by hot gases.
t The middle hearths constitute the incineration zone, in
which gas and solid temperatures range from 760°C to 980°C.
• The bottom hearths constitute the cooling zone, in which gas
temperatures average about 180°C and solids temperatures about
250°C. Here, hot solids heat incoming combustion air.
For rotary kilns, the following equation can be used to estimate solids
retention time (123):
•s - °'19
where 9$ _ retention time for solids, minutes
L,D = kiln length and inside diameter, meters
S = slope of kiln, meters/meter
N = kiln rotational speed, revolutions per minute
134
-------
Gas residence times for rotary kilns and multiple hearth furnaces can be
estimated assuming plug flow as with liquid injection incinerators. How-
ever, this does not take into account that gases are continuously being
evolved along the entire length of the combustion chamber and are not intro-
duced only at one end. Thus, a wider distribution of dwell times exists
for non-liquid PCB incinerators than for liquid injection incinerators.
Solids residence time for multiple hearth incinerators is difficult to cal-
culate from purely a design standpoint and is usually determined experimen-
tally. It depends on feed rate, shaft rotational speed, and the spacing,
angle, and size of the rabble teeth. Operator experience and manufacturers
specifications are the best guide to the solids residence time achieved in
multiple hearth units. Gas residence time in afterburners should be evalu-
ated using procedures and guidelines for liquid injection incinerators.
Mixing of air and solids in rotary kilns is primarily a function of
the rotational speed of the kiln. Typical rotational speeds are in the
0.3 to 1.5 m/s range, measured at the kiln periphery. The rotation of the
kiln segregates the charge so that the large solid particles are at the top
of the charge (in contact with the gas phase) and the small particles are
at the bottom. Gas and charge move cocur'rently (some cement kilns are a
notable exception). For comparing mixing characteristics of two kilns
(firing similar wastes), the parameters of interest are rotational speed,
superficial gas velocity, and charge depth (related to L/D and feed rate).
In multiple hearth incinerators, rotating rabble arms on each hearth provide
mixing action as well as rotary and downward movement of the charge. In
travelling across a hearth, solids are constantly turned and broken into
smaller particles by the rabble arms, exposing a large surface area to the
hot gases. The rabble arms form spiral ridges of solids on each hearth,
the surface area of which varies with the inherent angle of repose of the
solid. The exposed surface area is thus greater than the total hearth area.
Effective surface area can be as great as 130% of the total hearth area (125)
Added mixing is achieved due to the fall of the sludge from hearth to hearth
through the coutercurrent flow of hot gases. Quantification of mixing para-
meters is difficult and can best be based on prior experience with similar
waste/incinerator combinations.
135
-------
4.1.1.4 Pollution Control Systems Evaluation--
The major gaseous pollutant arising from combustion of PCBs is hydro-
gen chloride, HC1. Combustion of solids gives rise to particulate emissions
which must be controlled. PCB Regulations mandate the use of wet scrubbers
or an approved alternate method for HC1 control. Performance requirements
are to be specified by the appropriate RA. Additional hazardous waste reg-
ulations pursuant to RCRA also apply to solid waste products of PCB incinera-
tion.
Three steps are required in an evaluation of the air pollution control
system. The type, design, and operation of the installed equipment must be
evaluated to answer the following questions:
t Is the type of pollution control equipment installed at the
facility capable of controlling HC1 and particulate emissions
expected from the incinerator?
• Is the equipment properly designed to handle the particular
waste streams produced from combustion of PCBs?
• Will the proposed operating conditions of the control device(s)
assure adequate control of emissions?
A fourth step in an overall systems approach to the pollution control evalua-
tion should consider ultimate disposal of scrubber water and ash. All four
of these steps are discussed separately below.
4.1.1.4.1 Equipment selection—Equipment commonly used for gaseous and par-
ticulate emission control includes wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators,
and fabric filters. In hazardous waste incineration facilities designed to
handle a variety of solid and liquid wastes, the use of wet scrubbers (venturi
and packed bed) is most common (see facility descriptions in Section 2.1). In
the future, new control technologies such as wet electrostatic precipitators,
electrostatically augmented scrubbers, and dry collection on fabric filters
with chemical additives may be used in special applications or as secondary
devices to polish gas streams treated by conventional methods. The selection
of the air pollution control device should be based on the physical and the
chemical chemical characteristics of the incinerator off-gases. In general:
• Wet scrubbers (packed bed, tray (plate) tower, venturi) are most
suitable for the removal of HC1. For gas streams also containing
high particulate loadings venturi scrubbers are necessary.
136
-------
• Electrostatic precipitators are effective for the collection of
fine particles, are unable to remove HC1, and perform poorly
for particles with high resistivity.
t Fabric filters are effective for the collection of fine particles,
unable to collect HC1, and perform poorly with particles that are
hygroscopic, sticky, or have the tendency to solidify on fabric
material.
Control devices can be categorized as either wet or dry devices. Each
has advantages and disadvantages. Dry control devices (cyclones, electro-
static precipitators, and fabric filters) have the advantage of particulate
collection without production of sludge or wastewater. They are generally
effective for removing five particles (less than 1 ym diameter) at low to
moderate pressure drop (less than 2 k Pa). However, most are ineffective
in removing gaseous pollutants, such as HC1. Wet scrubbers can simultan-
eously remove particulate matter and gaseous pollutants but produce sludge
and wastewater streams which require treatment and disposal. Wet control
devices operate at moderate to high pressure drop to attain particle cut
diameters (diameter of particles collected with 50 percent efficiency) in
the 0.3 to 1 ym range.
Potential configurations of air pollution control devices for hazardous
waste incinerator facilities are presented in Table 16. Low particulate
loadings indicate levels typically associated with liquid injection inciner-
ators, while high particulate loadings indicate levels associated with solid
waste incinerators.
Most hazardous waste incineration facilities currently employ one or
more of the wet scrubber designs shown in Figure 20. Venturi scrubbers or
sequential venturi and plate type or packed bed scrubbers are quite common.
For systems incorporating venturi scrubbers, a gas quench is optional since
the venturi effects gas cooling. Such systems can handle a variety of in-
cinerator off-gas compositions and dust loadings. Systems not incorporating
a venturi scrubber require a quench section prior to a caustic or lime scrub-
ber, otherwise the hot gases cause particulate formation in the scrubber.
Since wet scrubbers have found the widest application in hazardous waste
incineration, both for gaseous and particulate control, their design and
operational characteristics will be emphasized in the following discussions.
As experience is obtained with wet electrostatic precipitators, sorbent-
137
-------
TABLE 16. CONFIGURATIONS OF SELECTED GAS CLEANING DEVICES APPLICABLE TO PCB
INCINERATION FACILITIES
Gas Stream Characteristics
Participate
Control Device*
HC1 Control Device
CO
00
No HC1 Control
Required
HC1 Control
Required
HC1 Control
Required
High or low particulate
loading
High or low particulate
loading
Low particulate
loading
Cyclone
Electrostatic Precipitator
Fabric filter
Gas-atomized spray --#
Preformed spray
Wet electrostatic
precipitator
Cyclone
Electrostatic precipitator
Gas-atomized spray t
Preformed spray
Plate type scrubber t*
Packed bed scrubber ti»
Ionizing wet scrubber
Not required
Not required
Not required
Gas-atomized spray =
Preformed spray r
Plate type scrubber =
Packed bed scrubber =
Sorbent filled baghouse
Ionizing wet scrubber
Plate type scrubber (optional) -?
Packed bed scrubber (optional) -»
Sorbent filled baghouse (optional)
Ionizing wet scrubber (optional)
Wet electrostatic precipitator
(as a polishing device)
Not required
Not required
* Particulate control may require combinations of the indicated devices depending on loading, size
distribution and economics.
t Existing hazardous waste incineration facilities commonly employ these device, configurations.
# Mist eliminator is required for this device but is option?! if two wet scrubbers are used in series.
-------
GAS OUT
LIQUID
DOWNCOMER
PLATES
GAS IN
LIQUID IN
TRAYS
LIQUID OUT
-TRAY TOWER-
GAS OUT
SPRAYS
GAS IN
LIQUID IN
LIQUID OUT
SPRAY TOWER
GAS OUT
GAS IN
^LIQUID IN
PACKING
ELEMENTS
GAS DISTRI-
BUTOR AND
PACKING
SUPPORT
LIQUID OUT
PACKED BED
GAS IN
LIQUID IN
LIQUID OUT
GAS-ATOMIZED SPRAY
(VENTURI) SCRUBBER
Figure 20. Examples of wet scrubber types for emission coriuui
139
-------
filled baghouses, and other novel devices, these systems will find wider
application. Should the need arise to evaluate these systems, technical
assistance should be requested from equipment suppliers and/or the EPA
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
The selection of wet scrubber types for different incinerator types
can be summarized as follows. Plate towers, packed beds, and venturi scrub-
bers can all be used to control HC1 emissions from liquid injection incin-
erators. Because of its lower operating costs (due to lower pressure drops),
the packed bed scrubber is used at most liquid injection incineration faci-
lities. Packed beds and plate towers are generally more effective than
venturi scrubbers in reducing HC1 emissions but less effective in control-
ling emissions of acid mists. For solid waste incinerators, high particu-
late loadings preclude the use of plate towers or packed beds as the primary
control device. The venturi scrubber is used in this case for simultaneous
gaseous and particulate emission control A tray tower or packed bed used
downstream of a venturi scrubber serves two functions: it eliminates
liquid droplet entrainment and further reduces emissions of gaseous pollu-
tants such as HC1.
4.1.1.4.2 Design considerations—The major factors which must be considered
in the design of wet scrubbers include: 1) total gas flow rate, 2) gas in-
let temperature, 3) type and concentration of gaseous pollutants to be re-
moved, 4) particulate loading and size distribution, 5) desired removal
efficiency for gases and particulates, 6) corrosiveness of contaminants,
and 7) variations in physical and chemical characteristics of the gas stream
to be treated.
The flow rate of gas to the scrubber is dependent on the feed rate and
composition of hazardous waste and fuel and the amount of combustion air
used. The size of and gas velocity through the control devices is directly
related to the gas flow rate. Most control devices have an optimum velocity
range, above or below which performance decreases. For example, in absorp-
tion towers higher gas velocity decreases the mass transfer resistance but
may also cause decreased performance due to channeling or flooding.
140
-------
Temperature, by its effect on gas volume, has an impact on the size
and cost of control devices. Temperature also influences the selection of
materials of construction for these devices. For example, high gas temper-
atures may require the use of special refractory linings. Many times gas
temperatures are lowered to 65-100°C (150-200°F) by water or solution quench-
ing, so that control equipment downstream can be constructed of fiberglass
reinforced plastic (FRP).
Wet scrubbers must be designed to remove HC1 present at relatively low
levels (less than 10%) in the gas stream. Scrubber liquids commonly used
to remove HC1 include water, caustic (NaOH) solution, and Time slurry.
Based on cost considerations, lime is preferred, even though its incomplete
solubility in water sometimes poses operational and disposal problems.
Packed bed scrubber design is based on mass transfer considerations.
Required packing depth can be estimated by the following equation (126):
Z = NOG X HQG
where Z is the packing depth, NgG is the number of overall transfer units
and HQG is the height of a transfer unit. The number of transfer units is
related to the desired removal efficiency. The height of a transfer unit
is related to the mass transfer rate and is dependent on the size and type
of packing, gas and liquid flow rates, and the chemistry of the gas/liquid
system. For low concentrations of HC1, absorbed by a solution in which it
can completely dissolve or react, the expression for NOG is approximated by:
NOG = ln < J~2 ]
where y^ and y2 are inlet and outlet concentrations of HC1, respectively.
Thus for 99% removal, NQG = In 100 = 4.6; for 99.9% removal NQG = In 1000
= 6.9; etc. The height of a transfer unit is quite difficult to calculate,
however for gaseous contaminants that are highly reactive with the scrubbing
liquid, HQG is typically in the range 0.3 to 0.5 meters (127), depending on
the type of packing used. Assuming HC1 is present in low concentrations
and is reactive with the scrubbing solution, required packing depth can be
calculated as a function of packing size and removal efficiency. This has
been done in assembling Table 17, which is based on data from Hanf and
141
-------
MacDonald (127) for packing size vs.
TABLE 17. PACKING DEPTH REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED REMOVAL
EFFICIENCY* (127).
Removal
Efficiency
90%
95%
98%
99%
99.5%
99.9%
99.99%
Packing Size
1 in.
0.76 m
0.91 m
1.22 m
1.40 m
1.60 m
2.13 m
2.82 m
1-1/2 in.
0.99 m
1.14 m
1.52 m
1.75 m
1.98 m
2.67 m
3.51 m
2 in.
1.14 m
1.37 m
1.83 m
2.13 m
2.44 m
3.20 m
4.27 m
3 in.
1.75 m
2.06 m
2.74 m
3.12 m
3.56 m
4.80 m
6.40 m
3.5 in.
2.13 m
2.59 m
3.43 m
3.96 m
4.50 m
6.02 m
7.92 m
* Applicable only to gaseous contaminants that are highly soluble or
chemically reactive with the scrubbing liquid. Variations in packing
depth vs. the type of packing used (approximately + 25 to 30%) have
not been taken into account.
To design tray towers for absorption of gaseous contaminants that are
highly soluble or chemically reactive with the scrubbing liquid, the number
of actual trays NT may be calculated from the equation:
In(y.,/y2)
where y, and y~ are the inlet and outlet concentrations of the gaseous con-
taminant and EMV is the Murphree vapor phase efficiency. In deriving this
equation, it is assumed that EMV is identical for each tray in the tower.
The Murphree vapor phase efficiencies for various tray designs may be ob-
tained from published data for selected gas-liquid systems (123,126). Effi-
ciencies normally range from 25 to 80%. For a 99% removal efficiency, the
number of actual trays required would range from 3 to 16. A rigorous esti-
mation of the Murphree vapor phase efficiency is extremely complicated, but
in the case of absorption towers operating with low-viscosity liquids and
without excessive weepage (liquid dripping") or entrainment, the estimates
142
-------
in Table 18 can be used.
TABLE 18. MURPHREE VAPOR PHASE EFFICIENCY FOR PLATE TOWERS (127)
Perforation Murphree Vapor Phase
Diameter Efficiency
1/16 in. 80%
1/16 to 1/8 in. 75%
1/8 to 3/16 in. 70%
1/4 to 3/8 in. 65%
The design of preformed spray and gas-atomized spray scrubbers for
removal of gaseous contaminants is usually based on experimental data. No
satisfactory generalized design correlation for these types of scrubbers
exists, particularly when absorption with chemical reaction is involved.
Reliable design must be based on full-scale data or at least laboratory-
or pilot-scale data.
Tray towers and packed bed scrubbers are often interchangeable with
regard to performance. However, each type has relative advantages and dis-
advantages over the other (126).
t For gases containing corrosive contaminants, construction of
packed bed scrubbers is simpler than tray towers built of acid-
resisting alloys. Also, the packing material can be readily
changed to handle different kinds of corrosive fluids.
• The depth of packing in packed beds can be changed if a different
removal efficiency is required or if the gas flow rate or wastes
incinerated change. There is usually no flexibility in changing
the number of trays in a tray tower.
t Unless operated at very high L/G ratios, the pressure drop in
packed bed scrubbers is considerably lower than in tray towers
designed for the same duty.
t For scrubbers less than about 1 to 1.5 m in diameter, capital
costs for packed beds are usually lower than for tray towers.
For larger equipment, plate towers are considered more economical.
• Tray towers are less likely to clog and can be more easily cleaned
of accumulated particles than packed beds.
• Gas and liquid channeling are not encountered in tray towers.
143
-------
Wet scrubbers can be effective in removing participate matter as well
as HC1 emitted from the incinerator. Venturi and orifice scrubbers are the
most commonly used wet scrubbers for particulate control. Although some
particulate control is achieved with packed beds and tray towers, these
scrubbers cannot handle gas streams with high particulate loadings. The
inlet particulate size distribution is important in determining the overall
collection efficiency of a particulate control device. A common method of
representing particle size distributions is by plotting particle size versus
cumulative percent of particles by weight that are less than a stated size.
Presentation of such data on logarithmic probability paper often yields
essentially straight plots, which characterize a log-normal distribution.
Since log-normal distributions are defined by the mass median particle dia-
meter (d ) and the geometric standard deviation (a ), this represents a
concise method of data presentation.
Calvert, et al. (129) presented working plots of overall penetration
versus the ratio of the cut diameter (diameter with 50% penetration, d5Q)
to mass median diameter with geometric standard deviation as a parameter.
Figure 21 may be utilized to estimate overall penetration for tray, packed
bed, and venturi scrubbers from cut diameter and particle size distribution
data. Alternatively, the required cut diameter may be estimated from size
distribution data and desired removal efficiency.
Consider the following example for particulate removal by a venturi
scrubber. Assume the particulate matter being emitted from the incinerator
has a mass median diameter of 4 ym and a geometric standard deviation of 3
ym. Using Figure 23, a venturi scrubber with a cut diameter of 0.5 ym
(d5Q/d = 0.125) will have an overall penetration of 0.037. The overall
removal efficiency will therefore be 96.3%. If only 90% removal is required,
Pt = 0.1 and drn/d = 0.22. A design cut diameter of about 0.88 ym will
50 pg
provide the desired performance.
Hesketh (130) developed an empirical relationship between penetration
of <5 ym diameter particles and pressure drop across Venturis based on data
from the collection of a number of industrial dusts. Assuming that particles
larger than 5 ym are collected with 100 percent efficiency, the following
equation may be used with size distribution data to estimate overall pene-
tration:
144
-------
OVERALL PENETRATION, Pt
n>
o-o ii
O> fD
fD O>
c-t- — '
CD — i
-S
•o
-S fD
fl> 3
-s
o
fD
-------
Pt = 1.78 x 10"4(W)(AP)"1'43
where:
W is the weight fraction of inlet particles 5 ym or less in diameter
and AP is pressure drop in inches of water.
Materials of construction must be selected to resist corrosive and
erosive attack from the HC1 and particulates present in combustion product
gases. Some of the corrosion problems with HC1 can be alleviated by using
basic scrubbing solutions and/or neutralizing scrubber effluent prior to
disposal. However, experience has shown that neutralization is often not
sufficient to prevent attack of hydrogen and chloride ions on materials.
Investigators from 3M (131) report that dealkalinization of scrubber solu-
tions worsens the effect of HC1. They note that as the pH of scrubber water
decreases, the natural alkalinity of the solution shifts from the carbonate
form to carbon dioxide. The high temperatures in the gas stream combined
with turbulent contact of the gas and liquid phases causes the carbon diox-
ide to vaporize from the liquid. This dealkalinization decreases the buffer
capacity of the scrubbing solution. Without buffering, chloride attack on
metals and refractories is increased. Addition of soda ash (sodium carbon-
ate) was proposed to restore buffer capacity but was not adopted due to high
chemical costs.
Most efforts to combat corrosion have centered on selection of appro-
priate materials to resist attack by HC1. Field corrosion tests (132) con-
ducted on a scrubber system for a chemical waste incinerator have shown that
carbon steel, stainless steel, and Monel all experienced severe corrosion
problems and are not recommended as materials of construction for scrubber
systems, unless linings are used. Hastelloy C and Inconel 625 showed excel-
lent resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion which can be attributed to
their high molybdenum content.
Because of the corrosion problems associated with HC1, superalloys or
non-metallic materials are used in scrubber construction wherever possible.
In the quench section where temperatures of approximately 1000°C are en-
countered, Hastelloy C and Inconel 625 have been used. Other possibilities
include refractory-lined carbon or stainless steel. Carbon graphite or acid
resistant refractories installed with a furan resin cement have been used.
146
-------
However, quench spray nozzles should still be made of Hastelloy C or Inconel
625.
For the scrubber, Hastelloy C or Inconel 625 can be used, but at tem-
peratures <100°C, temperatures, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) is re-
commended. It is economical, easily fabricated, lightweight, and has good
resistance to both acid and alkaline environments, up to temperatures of
around 100°C. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can be considered as a material for
scrubber construction, but its use is limited to temperatures of less than
70°C. If structural strength becomes a prime consideration (e.g., for large
scrubbers) carbon steel or stainless steel can be used with a suitable lining
material. <,In such a case, bonding of the liner to the steel shell is a key
factor in determining performance. Carbon graphite, FRP, Kynar, and acid
resistant bricks and resins are suitable liner materials. Butyl rubber has
been used, but acid and water vapor can penetrate thin (1/8 inch) rubber
liners. Rubber is recommended only in applications where it is subjected
to low gas velocities and is constantly flushed with water. In packed beds,
ceramic, carbon, or plastic packing which can withstand acid attack is re-
commended.
Downstream system parts such as the induced draft fan and stack must
also be protected from acid attack. Fans constructed of Hastelloy C 'usually
resist most types of corrosion; however, fan vibrations can lead to fret-
ting corrosion which enlarges the hub-to-axle clearance. Water sprays
directed at the fan help in this regard. Stack coatings of fiberglass or
resins are usually sufficient to prevent serious corrosion problems.
Erosion from attack by high velocity particles is a problem with ven-
turi scrubbers. Throat and elbow areas are subject to the most wear. FRP
does not stand up well in these regions. Harder materials are recommended;
however, since no material is immune to erosion, areas of high wear should
be designed for ease of replacement.
Cyclic incinerator operation may occur in systems burning solid wastes
or sludges, particularly if drums or packs of waste are charged without
shredding. Fixed bed incinerators may have a programmed incineration cycle
that includes heating, charging, combustion, cool down, and ash removal.
Such operation may affect the performance of scrubber systems. The magni-
147
-------
tude of this potential impact will depend on the magnitude of the inciner-
ation cycle and the flexibility of the scrubber system. Control devices
such as variable orifice Venturis and flooded disk scrubbers afford consi-
derable flexibility in both gas and liquid flow rates; however, only the
liquid flow rate may be varied in fixed orifice devices and packed towers.
Such systems may operate at less than optimum performance during portions
of the incineration cycle. The potential for cyclic operation is, there-
fore, a significant parameter which must be incorporated into the selection
and design of a particulate emission control device.
4.1.1.4.3 Operation and maintenance—Proper performance of the scrubber
system is contingent upon good operating and maintenance procedures. Most
scrubber malfunctions do not occur in the scrubber itself but in the inter-
connecting ductwork, dampers, fans, pumps, valves, and piping. A well-
designed system will contain alarms to signal malfunctions such as excessive
pressure drop, pump or blower faliure, and inadequate liquid level. Other
parameters which should be monitored include recycle pump liquid rate, makeup
water rate, slurry density and pH, and purge rate.
Pressure drop, AP, is an important scrubber system operating parameter.
For packed beds and plate towers, pressure drop across the unit Is not the
operating parameter used to estimate removal efficiency, as it is for venturl
scrubbers. However, pressure drop across the scrubber system is Important
in that it indicates whether gas flow is being restricted, which could degrade
system performance. Abnormally high pressure drops can indicate clogging or
unsteady-state operation, while low pressure drops may indicate channelling.
If such conditions occur, waste feed should be shut off and the cause of the
abnormal AP determined. Pressure drops for packed beds and tray towers are
in the range of 2.0 to 7.2 inches of water. Venturi scrubbers used for gas-
eous and particulate control usually operate at a pressure drop of 20 to 50
in. W.G.
For control of HC1 emissions, caustic soda and hydrated lime are usually
added to the scrubber solution. Caustic soda is used in the form of an 18-
20 weight percent caustic solution for scrubbing incinerator exhaust gas-
es. Lime is made into a 10 to 32 weight percent Ca(OH)2 slurry and used
along with water as the scrubbing medium. Hot gases must be cooled, either
by a venturl scrubber or a water quench section, before contacting caustic
148 ,
-------
or lime solutions in a scrubber. A third option is to use water as the
scrubbing medium, followed by neutralization of the scrubber water with
caustic soda, lime slurry, limestone, or ammonia. The level of additives
required depends on the chloride content of the waste stream incinerated.
For single pass scrubbing, the chemical requirements are typically 60% in
excess of the stoichiometric requirements. When scrubber liquid is re-
cycled, the chemical requirements can be reduced to 5-30% in excess of the
stoichiometric requirements.
The liquid-to-gas (L/G) ratio is an important design and operating
parameter. It affects collection efficiency for both HC1 and particulates.
Typical L/G ratios for pollution control equipment which may be used in
a system to incinerate PCBs are shown in Table 19. For packed beds and
tray towers, a maximum L/G ratio is set by the flooding condition. Other-
wise, the only limits on the amount of liquid used are practical, e.g.,
practical constraints of high pumping cost. Minimum values of L/G can be
calculated based on stoichiometric neutralization of HC1 by lime or caustic
in the scrubber solution but will likely depend as much on practical con-
siderations and operating experience.
In the design of gas absorption devices, the cross sectional area for
gas-liquid contact is determined by the superficial gas velocity selected.
The greater the gas velocity selected, the smaller will be the scrubber
diameter but the larger will be the pressure drop and the cost of pumping
the gas. The optimum gas velocity and diameter are sometimes determined
by minimizing the annualized operating cost, including the fixed charges
of the scrubber as well as the cost of power for operating. There are two
additional factors that must be considered in the selection of gas velocity.
TABLE 19. TYPICAL L/G RATIOS
Device L/G, 1/m3 (gal/1000 acf) Reference
Quench chamber 0.1 to 0.5 (0.8 to 4) 128
Venturi 0.7 to 2.7 (5 to 20) 133
Packed bed or plate tower 0.8 to 10 (6 to 75) 133, 134
Spray tower 4 to 14 (30 to 105) 133
_
-------
First, the gas velocity through the scrubber should allow sufficient resi-
dence time for gas-liquid contact. Second, in countercurrent tray or packed
towers, the gas velocity should not exceed the flooding velocity. Operation
at 60 to 70 percent of the flooding velocity is typical. Common gas velo-
cities in tray towers, spray towers and packed beds range from 2.1 to 3.0
m/sec (7 to 10 ft/sec). In venturi scrubbers, gas velocities at the throat
are significantly higher, typically in the 30 to 120 m/sec (100 to 400 ft/
sec) range.
For absorption devices, higher efficiencies are attained by increasing
the gas/liquid contact time. In tray towers, for example, greater depths of
liquid on the trays lead to longer contact time and higher tray efficiency.
Removal efficiencies for gaseous contaminants in packed beds are directly
related to the depth of packing, which is proportional to the contact time.
The contact time required for gas absorption is a function of mass transfer
rate. The mass transfer rate, in general, is dependent upon four separate
resistances: gas-phase resistance, liquid-phase resistance, chemical reac-
tion resistance, and a solids dissolution resistance for scrubbing liquids
containing solid reactants. For absorption of gases that are highly soluble
or chemically reactive with the scrubbing liquid (such as the absorption of
HC1 by caustic solution) the contact time required for 99 percent removal is
extremely short and of the order of 0.4 to 0.6 sec.
4.1.1.4.4 Ash handling and scrubber effluent disposal--Incineration does
not eliminate all of the disposal problems associated with PCB wastes. Most
incinerators produce waste streams which themselves must ultimately be dis-
posed of. These wastes include ash or inert residues and liquid effluents
from wet scrubbers used for HC1 and/or particulate control. If systems are
operated correctly, these effluents should be non-hazardous, and amenable
to standard treatment methods. However, in some cases, these secondary waste
streams may contain unburned PCBs or other hazardous substances and may
require special handling.
A typical waste disposal scheme for incineration of PCBs is shown in
Figure ?2. Not all waste streams indicated in the figure are produced at
all facilities.
150
-------
WASTE
AIR
INCINERATOR
ASH
LANDFILL
WATER
QUENCH
QUENCH
WATER
WATER -
LIME OR -
CAUSTIC
(OPTIONAL)
NEUTRALIZING
REAGENTS
SOLID
WET
SCRUBBER(S)
SCRUBBER
EFFLUENT
SCRUBBER
SOLUTION
TANK
NEUTRALIZATION
TANK
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATOR
TREATED
• GAS TO
ATMOSPHERE
SCRUBBER
SOLUTION
RECYCLE
(OPTIONAL)
LIQUID
DISCHARGE
Figure 22. PCB incineration waste disposal.
-------
For incineration of solid wastes, an ash stream is produced from the
incinerator. This contains mainly non-combustible metal oxides, but it
may contain small quantities of organic matter not destroyed by combustion,
such as residual PCBs or PCDFs (see Section 2.5). The ash is sometimes
slurried to minimize dust problems in handling. PCB concentrations in the
ash greater than 50 ppm would require further disposal action as per the
PCB Regulations.
Liquid effluents include quench water and spent scrubber liquor. These
streams will contain dissolved HC1 and dissolved solids from caustic or
lime addition. Particulates scrubbed from the gas stream will also be pre-
sent. These solutions are normally neutralized and subjected to some type
of treatment (e.g., settling in ponds) for suspended solids removal. Clear
liquid from the liquid/solid separation is either recycled or discharged,
while settled solids are eventually landfilled. The gross parameters of
concern in such a liquid discharge are pH and total dissolved solids (TDS).
Some chlorinated organics and metals may be present at low levels from hav-
ing been scrubbed from the gas stream. Discharge of these liquids after
treatment is governed under the NPDES permit system.
An evaluation of the adequacy of waste disposal methods and equipment
should consider the quantity and characteristics of wastes produced and the
suitability of the design, construction, and operation of system components.
The quantity and character of ash produced depends on the waste burned
and the incinerator type used. Ash quantities can be estimated from the ash
content of the incinerator feed, allowing for some entrainment of fly ash in
the combustion gas stream. The ash handling system (e.g., hoppers, convey-
ors) must be of sufficient capacity to handle all the ash produced. The
materials of construction must be resistant to corrosive and abrasive ash
slurries. A sampling/analysis plan should be implemented to ensure adequate
chemical characterization of the ash.
The quantity of spent scrubber and quench water effluents which require
disposal depends on the water use pattern at the facility. The use of re-
cycle will greatly affect the quantity and chemical nature of these liquid
effluents. For a single-pass scrubbing system, large amounts of wastewater
are produced; the actual quantity is determined by the liquid-to-gas ratio
152
-------
used. The characteristics of single-pass scrubber effluents are highly vari-
able and depend on waste feed rate and chlorine content, liquid feed rates,
and scrubbing efficiency.
If scrubber water is recycled, total dissolved solids (IDS) build up in
the scrubber solution which is recirculated until IDS reach about 3% (135),
at which point a portion of the stream is removed (blowdown) and replaced with
fresh solution. The quantity of blowdown is much less than the quantity of
once-through effluent to be disposed of. The blowdown rate varies with waste
chlorine content and liquid feed rate.
The overall water use pattern at a facility can employ either treatment
and discharge or total containment of liquid effluents. Recycle can be in-
corporated into either scheme. The design of a system for treatment and dis-
charge must ensure adequate removal of suspended solids. Laboratory test data
on settling rate for solids in the effluent can be used with data on effluent
flow rate and the volume of the settling ponds (and/or tanks) to determine
whether adequate holdup time will be provided to remove suspended solids. A
discharge permit will be required and will mandate certain effluent monitoring
requirements. Total containment of liquid effluents in a lined evaporation
pond may be feasible, especially in regions where the net evaporation rate is
high. Recycle of pond water would likely be practiced at a facility using the
total containment option.
Construction materials for scrubber water handling must be carefully chosen.
Experience has shown that conventional materials (iron, carbon, steel, concrete)
are susceptible to corrosive attack by scrubber solutions. Proper material
selection, especially in areas of high flow velocity, is essential to avoid
the necessity of frequent shutdowns for maintenance. Non-metallic coatings and
corrosion-resistant metal alloys are recommended for equipment which will be in
constant contact with scrubber wastewater. Ponds should be lined to prevent
seepage since the chloride ion is quite mobile. Plastic or treated clay liners
are preferred. Pond capacity will depend on influent (scrubber water, rainfall,
runoff) rates, effluent (recycle, discharge, evaporation) rates, and safety
factors. Evaporation rates will be substantially less for scrubber wastewater
than for pure water because of the high concentration of dissolved salts.
153
-------
4.1.1.4.5 Alternatives for HC1 control--PCB incineration in cement kilns
and commercial recovery of HC1 represent two alternatives for HC1 control.
Recovery systems can produce commercial-grade hydrochloric acid (20-60% HC1)
by utilizing aqueous solutions to absorb HC1 (135). The resulting solution
can be concentrated by water extraction procedures. Residual HC1 in the
combustion product gas stream can be removed by conventional wet scrubbers.
Cement kilns provide a desirable alternative for HC1 control, as they
represent a technology which can combine waste disposal with resource re-
covery (20,24). PCB liquids provide heat and chlorine needed for the pro-
duction of cement clinker. Kiln temperatures and residence times are suf-
ficient to destroy the PCBs, and HC1 liberated from combustion is absorbed
by the cement clinker. Solid PCB wastes should not be incinerated in cement
kilns when the flow of solids is countercurrent to the gas flow, because
PCBs volatilized from the incoming solids would escape in the exit gas with-
out passing through the kiln. The chlorine input to the kiln should not
exceed about 0.4% by weight of the clinker production rate (20). This limi-
tation is based on the fact that when too much chlorine is fed to the kiln
a "ring" of scale can build up inside the kiln, restricting solids flow,
and forcing shutdown.
4.1.1.5 Process Control System Evaluation--
The most important aspect of a process design, from the standpoint of
operating personnel, is the process control scheme. In evaluating process
control schemes, several things should be considered in a general sense:
• Controls must deal with the unexpected, not just day-to-day
trimming of operating parameters.
• Analysis of an operating problem in the field is much harder
than analysis in the office.
• Control systems must be kept simple. They must be understand-
able to the average operator.
In order to achieve the required degree of process control, the oper-
ator must specify exactly what variables will be controlled, the desired
values (set-points) for the controlled variables, what variables will be
manipulated to achieve the desired set-points, and how such manipulation
will be accomplished. To control properly a process facility, five para-
meters must usually be measured: 1) temperature, 2) pressure, 3) flow rate,
r
154
-------
4) liquid level, and 5) composition. These parameters should be measured
both for local display and for transmission to a remote control room. Since
the measurement equipment must give an accurate representation of the para-
meter measured, the type and location of measurement equipment should be spe-
cified by the operator. Proper control hinges not only on accurate measure-
ment of the controlled variables but also on selection of suitable equipment
to regulate the manipulated variables.
All incinerators should be equipped with process controls to regulate
waste and air flows (manipulated variables) to ensure maintenance of desired
combustion conditions such as temperature and oxygen level (controlled vari-
ables). The incinerator must be equipped with automatic shutdown systems
for waste flow which actuate during incinerator system malfunction. The
type of controls needed are slightly different for liquid and non-liquid
PCB incinerators. The two system types are discussed separately below.
Some process control systems are mandated by the PCB Regulations and must
be automatic. Others may be automatic or manual and, although not required,
are necessary for safe incinerator operation.
4.1.1.5.1 Process controls for liquid PCB incinerators--PCB Regulations
applicable to liquid PCB incinerators require that waste flow to the burn-
ers be cut off automatically whenever:
• Combustion temperature drops below the minimum allowable
temperature for thermal destruction, or
• Excess oxygen falls below the required percentage, or
• Monitoring and recording devices for CO, C0?, or 0? malfunction,
or
t Measuring and recording devices for PCB feed rate malfunction
Although not required by the regulations, the process control system
should be designed to cut off waste flow in the event of:
t Loss of combustion air and/or auxiliary fuel flow, or
• Burner flameout, or
t Malfunction in the pollution control system (see Section 4.1.1.4).
The following guidelines apply to the type and location of measure-
ment equipment used for process control:
• Temperature - Combustion temperature should be based on measure-
155
-------
ment of the gas stream or wall temperature at the combustion
chamber outlet. Wall temperatures will be less than gas tem-
peratures and can either be used as a conservative estimate of
combustion temperature or can be correlated with gas temperature
by prior calibration. Wall temperatures may be accurately mea-
sured with standard thermocouples. Gas temperatures cannot ac-
curately be measured with standard shielded thermocouples.
Because of thermal re-radiation shielded thermocouples will
give low readings for temperature. Velocity thermocouples
(suction pyrometers) should be used with such hot gases in pre-
ference to thermocouples, thereby avoiding re-radiation effects.
Exit gas temperature less than 1100°C should automatically trig-
ger waste flow shutdown. Excessive temperature, which may be
indicative of insufficient combustion air, should also trigger
shutdown. Cutoff temperature should exceed that associated with
normal process variations but should be low enough to protect
the system from severe thermal shocks.
t Oxygen level - Oxygen concentration should also be measured at
the combustion chamber outlet because air leaking into the sys-
tem could bias oxygen measurements taken downstream on the high
side. Care should be taken in selection and installation of
oxygen analyzers since their reliability is often poor (sample
taps frequently plug). Exit gas oxygen concentrations less
than 3% (wet basis) at combustion temperatures from 1100°C to
1500°C or less than 2% (wet basis) at combustion temperatures
of 1500°C and above should automatically trigger waste flow
shutdown*
t Flow rate - Flow rate should be measured and recorded for waste
and fuel, combustion air, and scrubber solution. Failure of
measurement equipment and/or loss of flow from pump failure
should automatically trigger waste flow shutdown. Flow rates
can be measured by means of an orifice plate, sonic-type flow-
meter, or rotameter. (The latter is only applicable to local
display.) Flow rates should be measured downstream of any pumps
and in-line filters and upstream of the flow control valve.
Liquid feed to the burner should be controlled to ensure the
proper mix of fuel and waste. Normally, secondary air will be
fed at a constant rate, while outlet temperature is controlled
by adjustments in the waste or fuel feed rate within the oper-
ating range of the burner. To maintain air/fuel stoichiometry
in the burner on turndown, the burner must be equipped with a
primary air feed control system to pump or aspirate primary air
to the burner in proportion to the fuel/waste feed rate.
• Pressure - Pressure drop across the pollution control system
and across individual process units should be measured. The
Wet basis is selected because operations should ensure at least 2%
(or 3%) oxygen in the combustion chamber. Concentrations reported
on a dry basis will be greater than those reported on a wet basis
for the same stream.
156
-------
implications of abnormal pressure drops are discussed in
Section 4.1.1.4.
• Liquid level - Liquid levels in fuel, waste, and scrubber
solution tanks should be monitored periodically to prevent
overflow and to ensure adequate supplies of these fluids to
the process. Gauge glasses or automatic sensors can be used.
• Flameout - Problems with the automatic temperature control
system occur on loss of ignition, or flameout. When flameout
occurs, the temperature in the incinerator drops, and more
waste is automatically fed to the burner. Without a heat
source for ignition, however, this waste passes through the
incinerator partially or completely unburned. Thus, tempera-
ture continues to drop, more waste is automatically injected,
and the problem of incomplete combustion is magnified. To
prevent this phenomenon from occurring, burners should be
equipped with flame scanners. These devices sense ultraviolet
radiation from the flame. When used in conjunction with an
automatic waste feed cutoff, flame scanners immediately termi-
nate the feed to the burner on loss of ignition.
Flame scanners are usually designed to sense ultraviolet radiation
from gas or fuel oil flames. Flame stability for these fuels is generally
greater than for burning wastes, which are usually less homogeneous than
fuels. For example, organic wastes containing a large amount of water burn
with a relatively unstable flame, particularly when slugs of water pass
through the burner. Although flameout may not occur, flame scanners often
sense loss of ignition, resulting in unnecessary waste feed cutoff. To pre-
vent this, flame scanners can be used in conjunction with temperature sen-
sors at the combustion chamber outlet. With this system, feed is only stop-
ped by a combination of flameout, as sensed by the flame scanner, and low
temperature in the combustion chamber. This considerably reduces operating
problems when relatively heterogeneous wastes are being burned. If the low
temperature cutoff is set to the minimum temperature needed for waste de-
struction, release of products of incomplete combustion (PIC) to the environ-
ment is also prevented.
The equipment in the control system consists basically of monitors, pumps,
and valves. Proper system design should take into account equipment type and
redundancy. Guidelines are presented below:
• Monitors - Except when measuring flows, the sensing point for an
alarm or automatic shutoff should not be shared with the sensing
point used to indicate or record the parameter in the control room.
157
-------
For critical services, separate sensing should be used for
local indicators, control room recorders, alarms, and auto-
matic shutoffs. Redundant flow sensors are not critical but
may be advisable on the PCB feed stream to prevent shutdown
should a single device fail.
• Pumps - Pump types were discussed in Section 4.1.1.2.1. Fuel
and waste feed pumps and scrubber liquor pumps should be re-
dundant to prevent shutdown in the event the primary pump fails.
• Valves - Emergency shutoff valves should be of the diaphragm,
solenoid, or weight- or spring-operated fusible-element types.
They should be rated for the expected flow rate, temperature,
pressure, and fluid being handled. They should have the follow-
ing performance capabilities: 1) close in the direction of liquid
flow so that system pressure holds valve closed, 2) close on fail-
ure of operating electrical or air supply, 3) close against a
pressure of at least 150% of design rating, and 4) close within
5 seconds of actuation.
4.1.1.5.2 Process controls for non-liquid PCB incinerators--PCB Regulations
applicable to non-liquid PCB incinerators require that waste flow be cut off
automatically whenever:
o Monitoring and recording devices for carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, or oxygen malfunction, or
o Measuring and recording devices for PCB feed rate malfunction.
Although not required by the PCB Regulations, the process control system
should be designed to cut off solid and liquid PCB waste flows to the primary
combustion zone in the event that:
• Combustion temperatures at the afterburner outlet exceed allow-
able limits based on thermal destruction efficiency (low tempera-
ture limit) and the thermal limits of the system (high temperature
limit), or
• Excess oxygen at the afterburner outlet falls below the level re-
quired to ensure adequate PCB destruction, or
• Flameout occurs in the afterburner,* or
• Loss of combustion air and/or auxiliary fuel flow occurs in the
afterburner or primary combustion zone, or
• Flameout of gas or liquid burner(s) occurs in the primary combus-
tion zone, or
• Combustion temperatures at the outlet to the primary combustion
zone are too low to produce complete vaporization of PCBs, or
This is an extremely undesirable situation. Therefore, only conven-
tional fuels or "clean" homogeneous wastes should be fired in the
afterburner.
158
-------
• Subatmospheric pressure is lost at the outlet of the primary
combustion zone.
The guidelines for liquid PCB incinerators set forth in Section 4.1.1.5.1
should be applied to evaluation of the adequacy of the afterburner control
system.
4.1.1.5.3 Alternative process control schemes—Some or all of the process
control requirements of the PCB Regulations may be waived if the operator
submits contingency plans indicating what alternative measures would be
taken in lieu of the required automatic shutdowns. Such contingency plans
would have to be approved by the RA.
4.1.2 Operational Data Capability
This document has drawn a distinction between operational data and
monitoring data. Operational data include process:
• Temperatures
t Flow rates (e.g., waste, auxiliary fuel, combustion air, and
scrubber water)
• Pressures
Monitoring data include:
• Op, CO-, and CO concentrations
• PCBs, organochlorines, and total particulate in the stack gas
• PCBs in scrubber water and solid residues.
Guidelines were given in Section 4.1.1.5 for evaluating incinerator
process control systems. Typically, instruments used to control process
parameters provide signals for readout and/or recording of operational data.
In evaluating the Initial Report, the RA should determine whether the tem-
perature and flow control instrumentation provide for recording, at a mini-
mum, the parameters required by the PCB Regulations: 1) combustion zone
temperature and 2) rate and quantity of PCBs fed to the incinerator.
Monitoring data, as defined above, are treated in Section 4.1.3.
4.1.3 Effluent Monitoring Capability
An Annex I incinerator will produce three generic process effluent
streams:
159
-------
• Stack gas
• Scrubber effluent
• Solid residues (from non-liquid PCBs)
In evaluating the Initial Report, the Regional Administrator must evaluate
the facility operator's description of instrumentation, sampling equipment,
and analysis methods for the measurement and determination of:
• CO, COp, 02, NO , PCBs, organochlorines, HC1 and total
particalate matter in the stack gas
• PCBs in the scrubber effluent
• PCBs in the solid residues
This section describes means of evaluating the methods for measurement and
determination of these parameters.
The PCB Regulations do not establish special requirements for monitor-
ing during a Trial Burn. The choice of minimum monitoring requirements for
a Trial Burn is, therefore, between:
t The routine operation requirements of 761.40(a)(7) and (9), or
• The more extensive requirements of 761.40(a)(6)(i), (ii),
and (iii) for, respectively, first disposal use or after modi-
fication.
For a Trial Burn, it is recommended that the more extensive monitoring re-
quirements be imposed, so that more extensive operational data can be ac-
quired. Consequently, it is recommended that the Initial Report reflect
and be evaluated upon the more extensive monitoring requirements.
The effluent monitoring capability of a facility is determined by the
facility operator's description of the appropriate streams to be sampled
and the means of sampling them, as described in subsequent sections.
4.1.3.1 Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Capability--
The gaseous effluent stream of most concern is the stack gas. The
facility is required to monitor CO and Op continuously and CO 2 periodically
as required by the Regional Administrator. Presumably, NO must be mom'-
J\.
tored periodically although this is not stated. Preferred instruments for
CO and Op monitoring are described in Section 2.4. A non-dispersive infra-
red monitor may be used for COp although other types of devices can be used
because the measurement need not be continuous. COp measurement is also
160
-------
necessary for stack gas molecular weight determination, and an instrument
such as an ORSAT analyzer is acceptable. EPA Method 7 (40 CFR 60) is the
reference method for NO analysis. However, there are several manufacturers
X
of instruments that measure NO by chemiluminescence, and these are accepted
A
as equivalent to Method 7 for ambient air monitoring.
Measurement and determination of PCBs, organochlorines, HC1 and total
particulate matter are performed using sampling trains. The recommended
trains are described in Section 2.3.1.1, and details are given in Reference
60.
Other gaseous effluent streams are fugitive ones, typically from waste
handling operations. For example, PCB emissions can result from shredding
PCB capacitors unless the shredding operation has a suitable vapor control
system.
Combustion gas measurements are typically performed near the exit plane
of the stack, as discussed in Section 4.1.4.1.
4.1.3.2 Liquid Effluent Sampling Capability--
The PCB Regulations require monitoring of the scrubber effluent stream
(761.40(a)(9)). In addition, the Initial Report should describe monitoring
during a Trial Burn of all other liquid process input and output streams
so that their (potential) contribution of PCBs to the scrubber effluent can
be determined.
Prior to sampling any liquid stream, plant data concerning the stream
must be available. Many streams exist under pressure or elevated temperature
or both; attempts to sample such a stream without prior knowledge of its
condition could result in severe injury. The following data points must be
available: temperature, pressure, flow rate, stream identification (e.g.,
blowdown, cooling tower, etc.), and solids content.
Tap sampling is generally applicable to contained liquids in motion or
static liquids in tanks or drums. Slurries are occasionally sampled using
this technique, but sample representativeness is unreliable if solids con-
tent exceeds 10%. If sampling valves or stopcocks are not available, samples
may be taken from water-level or gauge-glass drain lines or petcocks. Para-
meters which must be considered in determining the adequacy of liquid sampling
161
-------
capability are: 1) the location of the tap (is it in a depression in the
pipe, at the top, middle or bottom of a tank or pipe, etc.), 2) how far
into the pipe it extends (wall effects), 3) the ratio of the diameter of
the tap to the diameter of the pipe (the tap diameter must be large enough
to sample a significant volume percent of the effluent), and 4) the flow
rate of the effluent out of the tap should not exceed 500 ml/min.
Automated samplers are commercially available which can sample almost
any process stream in any of several programmed modes. Use of such samplers,
while not required, increases the likelihood that a representative sample
will be obtained. Table 20 gives a partial list of sampling equipment which
can be used to monitor liquid streams. When available, the use of an auto-
mated composite sampler is preferred to manual tap sampling.
4.1.3.3. Solid Effluent Sampling Capability--
There are no specific requirements for monitoring solid residues from
an Annex I incinerator. However, if this residue is to be disposed of pro-
perly, it is necessary to know its PCB content. Similarly, for non-liquid
PCBs, it is necessary to monitor the solids fed to the incinerator in con-
junction with the requirement for determining PCB feed rate.
Solids are typically sampled by grab techniques. Streams are sampled
at an established frequency, and the individual grab samples from a given
stream are typically added together to form a composite sample. The fre-
quency of grab sampling depends on an assessment of the variability of the
solid stream. For example, if PCB capacitors of varying PCB content are
being shredded before entering the incinerator, the shredded material should
be sampled at fairly short intervals (e.g., 15 minutes) so that a represen-
tative composite sample can be formed. Because such a composite sample can
be quite large, it is typical to mix it thoroughly and then to take a small-
er sample of the composite for subsequent analysis. A technique used for
sampling a composite is coning and quartering and is given in detail by ASTM
D 346-78 (52). Additional information is given in Reference 53.
It is preferable to sample a moving stream rather than a stationary
storage pile. This is particularly true if a large solids size distribu-
tion exists because settling occurs which causes size segregation. Thus,
if solid influent or effluent streams are handled by moving belts, sampling
162
-------
TABLE 20. PARTIAL LIST OF LIQUID SAMPLERS
cr>
CO
Manufacturer
Fluid Kinetics Inc.
Quality Control
Equipment Co.
Sigmamotor
Collins
Isolok
Horizon Ecology Co.
N-Con
Manning
Model
C50-142
CVE
6100
42
M4
7578-7579
Sentry 505
S-5000
Mode of Operation Mn..ntpH
riountcQ
Continuous Programmed In-line
X X
X
XX X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
Sample
Port
Needed
X
X
X
X
X
-------
should be from the belt, if possible, rather than a stationary pile. When
belt sampling is possible, full cross-stream cuts should be taken for com-
positing. Again, frequency depends on an assessment of the variability of
the stream being sampled.
4.1.4 Sampling Locations
A detailed drawing of the facility should be provided with the Initial
Report which clearly indicates the sampling locations available. A sample
must be taken on the exit side of the last combustion gas treatment step to
determine the composition of the stack gas. If a Trial Burn is subsequently
required by the Regional Administrator, all input and output streams must
be sampled or monitored. This includes the fuel, waste, cooling water (if
present), scrubber makeup water, etc., entering the unit; and incinerator
bottom ash, scrubber effluent, and stack gases produced during the incinera-
tion of PCBs. In determining the adequacy of test port locations, it is
therefore necessary to examine whether a representative sample can be ob-
tained from each influent and effluent stream, whether gaseous, liquid, or
solid.
4.1.4.1 Stack Sampling Locations--
Organic compounds tend, to a greater or lesser extent, to be adsorbed
on particulate matter. Consequently, the stack sampling effort must in-
clude a representative sample of particulate matter. The particulate matter
must be analyzed for PCBs, and this result must be part of the overall PCB
emission value. The adsorption equilibrium position (or extent of adsorp-
tions) is highly temperature dependent. Therefore, the extent of PCB-parti-
culate matter adsorption will vary with temperature and thus position in an
incinerator system. Consequently, it is meaningless to distinguish between
PCBs in the vapor and adsorbed phases. The total emissions value - not the
distribution - should be reported.
Careful selection of a stack sampling port is required so that a repre-
sentative sample of particulate matter can be obtained. The selection cri-
teria of EPA Method 1 are intended to help the sampler select a port in a
region of the stack where gas flow is not turbulent. Sampling must be with-
in + 10% of isokinetic (i.e., the linear velocity of gas entering the probe
164
-------
nozzle must be within +_ 10% of the linear velocity of the gas in the stack).
A sampling port should be available which is at least 8 stack or duct
diameters downstream and 2 diameters upstream from any flow disturbance such
as a bend, expansion, contraction, or visible flame. If a port meeting
these requirements is impractical, an alternate site that is at least 2
stack or duct diameters downstream and 0.5 diameter upstream from the flow
disturbances is acceptable. For a rectangular cross section stack, an equi-
valent diameter calculated from the equation given in EPA Method 1 (40 CFR 60)
should be used. When the 8 and 2 diameter criterion can be met, the minimum
number of traverse points should be 12 for stack diameters greater than 0.6 m
(24 in.) and 8 for stack diameters equal to or less than 0.6 m (24 in.).
When the 8 and 2 diameter criterion cannot be met, EPA Method 1 should be
consulted. In addition, for stacks greater than 0.6 m (24 in.) in diameter,
no sampling points should be selected within 2.54 cm (1 in.) of the stack
walls; and for stacks equal to or less than 0.6 m (24 in.) in diameter,
sampling points should be selected within 1.27 cm (1/2 in.) of the stack
walls. Method 1 is not applicable to stacks containing cyclonic or swirl-
P
ing flow or stacks smaller than about 0.3 m (1 ft.) in diameter or 0.07 m
2
(0.8 ft ) in cross sectional area.
4.1.4.2 Liquid Sampling Locations--
Process liquid streams must be sampled during the Trial Burn. Thus,
the Initial Report should describe locations for sampling appropriate liquid
streams:
• Liquid PCB feed
t Auxiliary fuel feed
• Inlet scrubber water
• Outlet scrubber water
• Caustic or lime feed, if not combined with feed water prior to
entering the scrubber
t Other pertinent streams
Samples should be taken at points which provide samples as representa-
tive as possible. A flowing stream containing particulate material or in-
soluble or immiscible phases will, in general, be stratified. In general,
then, an optimum sampling point will be located after a bend, which promotes
165
-------
turbulence and, hence, attainment of homogeniety.
4.1.4.3 Solid Sampling Locations—
Process solid streams must be sampled during the Trial Burn, if it is
required by the Regional Administrator. Thus, the Initial Report should
describe those stream(s) and sampling point(s). Appropriate streams are:
• Non-liquid PCB feed
• Solid residue
• Lime or caustic for scrubber.
Some units may have automatic composite samplers, and these should be used
in preference to manual methods.
4.1.5 Waste Characterization and Feed Rate
In addition to the amount of PCB material to be burned, the Initial Report
should describe the method by which the feed rate will be determined. A spe-
cific description of the type of waste to be incinerated must be provided, and
the PCB content of the waste must be stated. In most cases, this analysis will
have been performed on the waste prior to the planned destruction, test pro-
cedures for PCBs are discussed in Section 2.3.2 and Section XII of the Preamble
to the PCB Regulations. Since the PCB wastes are toxic, manual sampling of
the waste feed should be performed carefully. The Regional Administrator may
choose to accept the prior analysis of the PCB waste in place of sampling the
actual waste feed. This, however, places the incinerator operator at a disad-
vantage by not knowing the exact composition of the waste as it enters the in-
cinerator.
The feed rate of the fuel and waste as well as the total feed rate must be
measured at least once every fifteen minutes. Measurement of such flows can
be accomplished in a variety of ways, and the accuracy of the measurement
should be the main criterion for acceptance. A wide variety of techniques and
instruments are employed for process stream flow measurement. Table 21 is a
partial list of flow monitors and manufacturers based on four different prin-
ciples, each of which applies to certain liquid streams. The feed rate of non-
liquid PCBs, PCB articles, PCB equipment, or PCB containers may be more diffi-
cult to determine accurately, and the method by which these data will be ac-
quired should be detailed.
166
-------
TABLE 21. PARTIAL LIST OF FLOW RATE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS
Manufacturer
Model
Range
Contact Principle
Advanced
Instrumentation
Columbia Controls
Hoffer Flow
Controls, Inc.
Manning
Fisher and
Porter
Subsize
150-900 gpm
Di rect Flume
120,T30,B40 0-50 ft/sec None Doppler Shift
Various 0.50-12,000 gpm Direct Turbine
580 0.15-100 ft/sec None Ultrasonic
10LV2000 0-44 gpm Direct Vortex Shredding
4.1.6 Storage Capability
PCB Regulations prescribe time limits and facility requirements for
storage of PCB Items prior to their eventual disposal. The storage for dis-
posal regulations, 40 CFR 761.42, comprise Annex III of 40 CFR 761 Subpart
E.
4.1.6.1 Time Limits—
Three time limits apply to storage of PCB Articles and PCB Containers:
• Any PCB Article or PCB Container stored for disposal before
January 1, 1983 must be removed from storage and disposed of
before January 1, 1984.
• Any PCB Article on PCB Container stored for disposal after
January 1, 1983 must be removed from storage and disposed of
within one year from the date it was first put into storage.
t Certain PCB Items may be stored temporarily for up to thirty
days from the date they are removed from service, in areas
which do not meet the normal storage facility requirements.
To ensure adherence to these time limits, PCB Articles and PCB Containers
must be dated when they are placed in storage. Marking and recordkeeping
requirements are prescribed by the PCB Regulations in Subpart C § 761.42(b)
(10) and Annex VI § 761.45, respectively.
167
-------
4.1.6.2 Facility Requirements--
Facilities for the storage of PCBs and PCB Items designated for dis-
posal must, at a minimum, meet the following criteria (40 CFR 761.42(b)(l)):
• Adequate roof and walls to prevent rain water from reaching
the stored PCBs and PCB Items
t An adequate floor which has continuous curbing with a minimum
six inch high curb. The floor and curbing must provide a con-
tainment volume equal to at least two times the internal volume
of the largest PCB Article or PCB Container stored therein or
25 percent of the total internal volume of all PCB Articles or
PCB Containers stored therein, whichever is greater
• No drain valves, floor drains, expansion joints, sewer lines,
or other openings that would permit liquids to flow from the
curbed area
• Floors and curbing constructed of continuous smooth and imper-
vious materials, such as Portland cement concrete or steel, to
prevent or minimize penetration of PCBs
t Not located at a site that is below the 100-year flood water
elevation
In addition to the § 761.42(b)(l) criteria, the following guidelines
should be considered in evaluating the storage facilities:
• Storage capacity should be adequate to accept all incoming waste
shipments and should slightly exceed the maximum desired inven-
tory.
• Incompatible corrosive or reactive wastes should be segregated
in the storage area.
• Materials used in construction of storage tanks for PCBs should
be compatible with the physical and chemical form of the waste
contained.
t PCBs should not be stored in an unwashed tank which previously
contained incompatible materials.
• If underground storage tanks are used, provisions for gaging,
pumping, and leak detection should be such as to minimize the
possibility of a PCB release. Above-ground storage is preferred.
• Provisions for drainage of diked areas should assure that
uncontrolled discharge to storm drains or surface waters does
not occur. This may necessitate pumping stormwater drainage
to an on-site pond or treatment system and pumping spilled
wastes to alternate storage tanks.
168
-------
• Spill cleanup equipment and supplies should be available
to contain spills.
• Personnel safety equipment and procedures should be used
as needed.
Temporary storage in an area that does not meet the § 761.42(b)(l)
criteria is allowed for up to thirty days in some cases, provided the date
of removal from service is attached to the PCB Item or PCB Container. These
cases are:
• Non-leaking PCB Articles and PCB Equipment
t Leaking PCB Articles and PCB Equipment if the PCB Items
are placed in a non-leaking PCB Container that contains
sufficient sorbent materials to absorb any liquid PCBs
remaining in the PCB Items
• PCB Containers containing non-liquid PCBs such as conta-
minated soil, rags, and debris
• PCB Containers containing liquid PCBs at a concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm, provided a Spill Prevention, Control
and Countermeasure Plan has been prepared for the temporary
storage area in accordance with 40 CFR 112. In addition,
each container must bear a notation that indicates that the
liquids in the drum do not exceed 500 ppm PCB.
Non-leaking and structurally undamaged PCB Large High Voltage Capacitors
and PCB-Contaminated Transformers that have not been drained of free-flowing
dielectric fluid may be stored outside a facility which meets the § 761.42
(b)(l) criteria until January 1, 1983. To allow for leaks, such outside
storage is permitted only when storage space inside the facility is imme-
diately available to handle at least 10 percent of the capacitors and trans-
formers temporarily stored outside. Weekly checks for leaking capacitors and
transformers must be performed. Storage of drained PCB-Contam'nated Trans-
formers is not regulated under the current PCB Regulations.
No item of movable equipment used for handling PCBs and PCB Items in
the storage facilities and that comes in direct contact with PCBs can be
removed from the storage facility area unless it has been decontaminated as
specified in Annex IV, § 761.43.
All PCB Articles and PCB Containers in storage must be checked for
leaks at least once every 30 days. Leaking PCB Articles and PCB Containers
and their contents must be transferred immediately to properly marked non-
169
-------
leaking containers. Spilled or leaked materials must be immediately cleaned
up, using sorbents or other adequate means and the PCB-contaminated materials
and residues disposed of in accordance with § 761.10(a)(4).
Storage containers for liquid PCBs must comply with the Shipping Con-
tainer Specifications of the Department of Transportation (DOT)* or be
designed and constructed so as to provide the same degree of strength,
durability, and leak prevention. Bulk storage of liquid PCBs is allowed,
provided: 1) tanks are designed, constructed and operated in compliance
with Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards, 29 CFR 1910.
106, for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, and 2) a Spill Prevention, Con-
trol and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan in accordance with 40 CFR 112 is im-
plemented.
Final and interim final RCRA hazardous waste regulations (45 FR 33153)
for owners and operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities potentially
overlap the PCB Regulations, which will be incorporated into Phase II RCRA
regulations. Therefore, PCB disposal facilities will eventually have to meet
all the requirements of RCRA, in addition to the current PCB Regulations.
4.1.7 Site Specific Concerns
This Section addresses several site-specific concerns that the Regional
Administrator should consider when evaluating an Initial Report. These site-
specific concerns are not technical requirements of the PCB Regulations, how-
ever, they merit consideration during the evaluation process.
4.1.7.1 Safety Assessment—
PCBs have been found repeatedly to be widespread in analyses of human
tissues. For example, detectable levels of PCBs have been reported in adi-
pose tissue samples of up to 91 percent of individuals sampled in a sur-
vey of the United States population (136). This finding suggests that envi-
ronmental contamination may be a significant source of human exposure.
Likely routes of exposure for the general population are water and particu-
See PCB Regulations, 40 CFR 761.42(c)(6) for reference to applicable DOT
codes.
170
-------
larly food, while inhalation and dermal contact are likely to be more
significant routes in occupational exposure.
This section discusses worker safety and exposure potential from PCB
emissions from Annex I incinerators and high efficiency boilers.
4.1.7.1.1 Worker safety—Exposure to PCBs may occur during their transport,
storage, and disposal. If the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
guidelines are followed, work exposure should be nil, inasmuch as the re-
commended procedures entail use of closed systems for the manufacture,
transport, and handling of PCBs. Nevertheless, even when these guidelines
are followed, workers may still be exposed to PCBs as a consequence of
equipment malfunction or breakdown, leaks, spills, and various accidents.
There are three routes by which a toxic agent can enter the body:
ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption.
Ingestion or swallowing of industrial products is sometimes encoun-
tered when workers eat or even smoke without washing or when foods or
cigarettes are stored near where the toxic materials are used. The potential
of exposure to PCBs by this route in an Annex I incinerator or high efficien-
cy boiler facility is, however, not very likely if proper worker indoctrina-
tion is performed. Skin absorption is a more insidious or hazardous route
of entry into the body than ingestion because it is not easily noticeable.
It generally occurs during transfer and handling of products or chemicals.
Inhalation is a more general hazard than even ingestion or skin absorption
because no visible physical contact between the worker and the compound is
required. Airborne particulates, gases, and vapors not only contaminate the
work space but, due to transportation by air currents, also contaminate the
surrounding communities.
A study of occupational exposure in Japan found PCB vapors at levels
3 3
between 13 and 540 yg/m and airborne particulates between 4 and 650 yg/m
in a survey of six industrial plants. An additional finding of 6,270 yg/m
PCB particulates was associated with a spill. Blood PCB levels of 99 ex-
posed workers averaged 370 ppb as compared to levels in 32 controls of 20
ppb. In Australia Aroclor 1242 levels between 2.22 and 0.32 mg/m3 were
observed in different areas of an electrical equipment manufacturing facility.
171
-------
Workers in a capacitor impregnation room where inhalation was a major mode
of exposure had higher levels of PCBs than did workers in another area
where exposure was primarily dermal. A series of 30 control individuals
were not found to have detectable PCB levels. The limit of detection in
this study was not reported; however, in 1972, American control population
blood levels of 0.3 to 3 ppb were reported (137).
It is difficult to differentiate between industrial exposure by in-
halation and dermal absorption. Animal studies do indicate that animals ex-
posed to PCB aerosols show rapid increases in liver PCB levels. Exposure to
aerosol Pydranl A 200 for 15 minutes was reported to have resulted in the
accumulation in the liver of 50 percent of the PCBs accumulated after two
hours (131). The lung appears to be a good site of absorption, and certain
occupational environments contain significant levels of airborne PCBs. The
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has recently proposed
o
an occupational exposure limit of 1.0 yg/m on a time weighted average 10-
hour day, 40-hour week basis (Natl. Inst. Occup. Safety Health, 1977). As-
3
suming a tidal air volume of 10 m in an eight-hour day and 100 percent ab-
sorption, the resulting dose at this exposure level would be 10 yg/day. At
•5
present, the OSHA Administrator's occupational exposure limit is 1 mg/m .
4.1.7.1.2 Exposure potential--The general populace is exposed when PCBs enter
the ambient environment from the working environment. This can occur when
recommended procedures are not followed, when leaks and spills are not con-
tained and cleaned up, and when PCBs and PCB-contaminated items are not dis-
posed of properly.
Prior to the restriction of PCB use, substantial losses to the atmosphere
resulted from evaporation of plasticizers and from improper incineration (137).
In 1972 terrestrial input from aerial fallout was estimated to be 915 to 1835
metric tons/year. Annual emission rates were estimated at 1375 to 2290 metric
tons. In 1972 a study of PCB content in air in surburban areas in Florida
and Colorado indicated that average atmospheric levels were approximately 100
ng/m (137). Rates of fallout along the southern California coast were esti-
2
mated to average 1800 kg/year over a 50,000 km area (137). The distribution
of PCBs is more highly concentrated in urban areas. The aerial fallout survey
in southern California indicated that sectors in the urban areas around Los
Angeles had fallout rates of up to 180 kg/yr while less industrialized sectors
172
-------
had rates as low as 30 kg/yr. A study of PCB levels in soil samples showed
that they were rarely detectable in agricultural soils but were found in 63
percent of urban samples from 19 cities. General human exposure to inhaled
PCBs probably varies with the local conditions. Relative to the 9 yg/day in-
take estimated from the diet (131) non-occupational exposures by inhalation
are probably small:
The evaluator of the Initial Report should:
• Evaluate the facility operator's description of worker safety
plans.
• Evaluate the facility description in terms of operations that
could cause unnecessary worker exposure to PCBs during opera-
tion,
4.1.7.2 Spill Prevention and Control--
EPA has published a manual which discusses both spill control and spill
prevention (138). This report includes sections regarding: notification pro-
cedures; an inventory of information sources; methods for spill identification,
assessment, and prevention; a guide for determining the best method of handling
a spill; and suggested treatment techniques for numerous designated hazardous
materials/chemicals, including PCBs. This manual is updated periodically to in-
sure the contents are current. EPRI has recently published a three-volume hand-
book on PCBs: the first (8) discusses disposal technology; the second (121) dis-
cusses procedures for developing spill prevention and control plans; and the
third (122) gives an example plan.
As was noted in Chapter 1, disposal facility operators are required to have
a site-specific spill prevention and control plan that is in accordance with the
National Plan (40 CFR 1510). Thus, the evaluator of the Initial Report should:
• Evaluate the degree of conformance of the facility operator's
SPCC with the National and any State of local SPCCs.
4,1.7.3 Ambient Monitor!ng--
An Annex I incineration facility operating in accordance with the PCB Reg-
ulations will emit levels of PCBs that: 1) will have negligible environmental
effects and 2) will be at the threshold of sampling and analysis methodology.
Consequently, the PCB Regulations do not require monitoring of ambient air for
173
-------
PCBs in the vicinity of an incineration facility during operations.
There is a reasonably high level of public concern about PCBs, and in
some areas this concern is quite high. Recently, GCA Corporation has summa-
rized (46) the adverse public reaction to the proposed PCB Trial Burn in a
power boiler at the General Motors Bay City, Michigan, facility. Public op-
position had significantly delayed accomplishing this Trial Burn. GCA cited
a number of positive actions that could have been but weren't initially taken
to allay public opposition.
Given the existence of public concern and potential opposition to incin-
eration of PCBs, one positive action that could be taken is ambient monitor-
ing for PCBs during a Trial Burn. Several high colume samplers of the type
described in Section 2.3.1.2 should be placed around the facility to measure
airborne PCB emissions.
The evaluator of the Initial Report should:
• Give consideration to potential public opposition
• Determine whether or not to require ambient air monitoring
4.1.7.4 Environmental Assessment--
The PCB Regulations do not require assessment of the potential environ-
mental impacts of PCB destruction by Annex I incinerators or high efficiency
boilers. It is clear from the Preamble that EPA considers that PCB emissions
from Annex I incinerators and high efficiency boilers (44 FR 31519) approved
in accordance with the PCB Regulations will not pose an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment. However, given the level of public con-
cern over PCBs, it is recommended that EPA give consideration to preparing a
general environmental assessment that will cover several "typical" commercial
incinerator-site cases, particularly a case in which an incinerator is sited
in a heavily populated or industrialized area. If monitoring in support of
such an environmental assessment is deemed necessary, it could be performed
at a Federal facility which will destroy only site-generated waste PCBs.
An environmental assessment includes the identification of sources of
PCB loss to the affected environment; air pollution and water pollution
174
-------
modeling; description of sampling and analysis methods for testing; and des-
criptions of air, water, and solid waste pollution control technologies.
Some general information pertaining to these sections is given in Appendix
B. This information can be used as a guide to evaluate the type of informa-
tion that should be included in environmental assessments of PCB disposal
operations.
Air pollution modeling by plume dispersion techniques attempts to deter-
ming the PCB input to the surrounding community, principally from the stack.
It uses a model to predict the location of the plume and the PCB concentra-
tion therein as a function of distance from the stack. The model commonly
used is a Guassian plume and is more fully described in Appendix B. Wind
direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability are the primary variables
in predicting the maximum ground level concentrations of a stack effluent.
Plume dispersion modeling can also be used to predict dispersion of fugitive
emissions.
If, after evaluating the Initial Report, the Regional Administrator
determines that a Trial Burn is necessary, the Regional Administrator should
consider whether local public concern warrants requesting that the facility
operator perform air pollution modeling.
4.2 EVALUATION OF TRIAL BURN PLAN
This section presents a discussion of and guidelines for evaluating a
Trial Burn plan, if a Regional Administrator has determined that a Trial
Burn is necessary. Table 22 is a checklist of information required in the
Trial Burn plan. Table 23 is a suggested Trial Burn plan outline used by
EPA Region VI (139). Each of these items is discussed and means of evalua-
tion addressed in subsequent sections.
The PCB Regulations do not specify the total amount of testing to be
performed. On the basis of past Trial Burns and engineering judgement, it
is recommended that the following test strategy be utilized:
• One background test while burning normal wastes and/or
auxiliary fuel. Monitor for CO, 0'?, C0?, and NO . Sample
for PCBs, RC1, HC1, TPM. Collect all pertinent xliquid and
solid samples for PCB and RCL analyses.
175
-------
TABLE 22. CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING A TRIAL BURN PLAN
1. Date of proposed Trial Burn
2. Quantities and types to be burned
a. PCBs
1. Quantities -
2. Types -
3. Concentration -
4. Target feed rate: Waste PCBs
b. PCB Items
1. Quantities
2. Types
3. Concentrations
4. Target feed rate: Items PCBs
3. Monitoring
Parameter
°2
co2
CO
N0x
HC1
RCL
PCB
TPM
Rate PCBs
Quantity PCBs
Temperatures
Sampling, analysis
a. Types -
b. Methods -
c. Frequencies -
d. Schedules -
Review of Results
a. Name of reviewer -
b. Address, telephone
c. Qualifications
d. Schedule
Interval
Location
176
-------
TABLE 23. SUGGESTED PCB TRIAL BURN PLAN OUTLINE (139)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of trial burn
B. References listed
C. Proposed dates of trial burn
II. TRIAL BURN PROCEDURES
A. Quantity and type of material to be incinerated
B. Concentration of PCBs expected in feed streams
C. Operating conditions of incinerator (temp., dwell time, flow rates, etc.
D. Expected 02 and CO concentrations
E. Scrubber efficiency for HC1 removal and total particulate emissions
III. STACK PARAMETERS TO BE MEASURED (Method)
A. PCBs (EPA Method) PCB train with Florisil & XAD-2 resins
B. Chlorinated organics (Region 6 method) Tenax tubes
C. Particulates (Method 5)
D. HC1 (NaOH impingers) (Included with particulate train)
E. NOX (Method 7) (12 separate samples)
F. CO, 62, and C02 (Method 3) (For molecular weight determination)
IV. OTHER STREAMS TO BE SAMPLED
A. Feed rates for PCBs (Liquids and/or solids) -
B. Scrubber influent and effluent
C. Incinerator ash (For PCB solids)
D. C02 measurement of stack gas for combustion efficiency calculation
E. List any deviations from above methods
V. SAMPLING LOCATIONS (Including drawings)
A. Stack sampling location
B. Feed location
C. Scrubber and ash location
VI. SAMPLE RECOVERY AND ANALYSIS
A. PCBs (stack, feed, scrubber, and ash)
B. Chlorinated organics
C. Particulates
D. HC1
E. NOX
VII. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
A. Spikes for extraction efficiencies
B. Blanks
C. Split Samples
D. Calibration Standards
VIII. CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES
A. Describe procedures
B. Provide example of chain of custody forms
IX. SAMPLING SCHEDULE
X. ANALYSIS SCHEDULE
XI. DESCRIPTION OF CONTINUOUS MONITORS
A. Calibration Error test (0, 50%, and 90%)
B. Calibration Drift (2 hr.)
C. Calibration Drift (24 hr.)
D. Zero Drift (2 hr.)
E. Zero Drift (24 hr.)
F. Response Time
G. Accuracy Test for 02 Monitor
XII. QUALIFICATIONS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PERSONNEL (Resumes)
177
-------
• Three tests while burning PCBs, PCB-Items, normal waste,
and/or auxiliary fuel. Monitor, sample, and analyze as
above.
A background test is necessary for the interpretation of test results
when PCBs are incinerated. It is possible that normal waste or other process
influent streams will contain PCBs, and if the normal waste contains organo-
chlorines, it may produce RCLs upon incineration.
The recommended protocol is representative of past Trial Burn practices
and is the minimum necessary for any statistical treatment of emissions data.
A single test or two tests give, respectively, either no or minimum (range of
values only) information on the reproducibility of PCB destruction.
4.2.1.1 Minimum Data Requirements—
The operational data which must be collected during a Trial Burn are
more extensive than would be required for operation of the incinerator during
routine PCB destruction, so that the Regional Administrator can accurately
assess the capability of the incinerator to destroy PCBs adequately. All
operator log sheets must be supplied for both the incinerator and the water
scrubber and/or other applicable control device(s). As indicated in Table
22, these data must include at a minimum:
t Data from which to determine the residence time of the PCBs
in the incinerator
• The flow rates of PCB waste, fuel, and total flow rate,
at no longer than 15 minute intervals
• The temperature of the incinerator continuously measured
and recorded
• Continuous monitoring of CO and 0? and periodic monitoring
for CCL, NOx, HC1, PCBs, total organochlorines, and total
particalate matter
t Any other requirements which may be prescribed by the
Regional Administrator
Section 761.40 clearly intends that analysis is subsumed under the mon-
itoring requirements. Therefore, the Trial Burn plan must describe analytical
as well as monitoring methodology.
178
-------
4.2.1.2 Adequacy of Equipment and Methodology—
In order that PCBs be completely destroyed in the incineration process,
the flow of PCBs into the incinerator must be terminated when a change in
operating conditions reduces thermal efficiency. The combustion temperature
is determined via a thermocouple inside the incinerator or, as is ususal, at-
tached to the inside wall. When the temperature drops below a preset value
(minimum 1200 _+ 100°C or 1600 + 100°C, depending on oxygen content and resi-
dence time as per Section 761.40(a)(l) of the PCB Regulations), the flow of
PCBs must be terminated. Similarly, a decrease in boiler oxygen to below 2
or 3% (depending on temperature and residence time as per Section 761.40(a)(l))
must cause the input of PCBs to stop. Failure of the monitoring equipment for
oxygen, temperature, or feed rate of fuel or PCBs is also grounds for termina-
ting PCB input to the incinerator. The equipment used for such monitoring must,
therefore, demonstrate not only their accuracy and reliability, but must also
have the automatic cutoffs required to interrupt PCB feed.
A partial list of suitable instrumentation for CO, COp, Op, and NO was
described in Section 2.4 and Table 6. Monitoring methodology that can be
used for PCBs, RC1, and TPM was described in Section 2.3, which also describes
analytical methodology. Section 2.3 describes recommended methodology (59),
as well as other techniques that have been used. Monitoring methodology pro-
posed by the facility operator should be compared with that described in Sec-
tion 2.3.
4.2.2 Monitoring, Sampling, and Analysis
A clear distinction must be made between "monitoring", which is a con-
tinuous determination of some parameter and "sampling" which involves the
collection of a discrete sample for subsequent analysis to determine some
relevant parameter. The following section presents the parameters which
must be monitored or sampled for subsequent analysis. In some cases, the
regulations use the terms interchangeably and this discussion will clarify
those cases.
4.2.2.1 PCB Waste Characterization--
Section 3.2.6 discussed methods for obtaining a sample for waste
characterization. The regulations discuss, in the Preamble to the PCB
179
-------
Regulations, the method of analysis for PCBs. ASTM D3304 presents a method
for analysis of air, water, soil, and sediments for PCB content. At the
time of this document, no standard procedure has been accepted for PCB
analysis of the waste itself, although the EPA has provided interim guidance
(60) to all Regional Offices. The Regional Administrator must evaluate the
method proposed in each Trial Burn Plan for analysis of PCB content.
4.2.2.2 Pre-test Site Survey—
If the incinerator operator will be performing the sampling and moni-
toring effort for the Trial Burn, a pre-test site visit will not be neces-
sary. Some incinerator operators, however, may not be qualified for or
interested in performing such efforts. In most cases, therefore, an inde-
pendent contractor will be hired to conduct monitoring, sampling, and ana-
lysis during the incinerator Trial Burn. In these cases, while not required
by the PCB Regulations, the Regional Administrator should require the con-
tractor to make a pre-test site survey.
If the pre-test site survey is not completed prior to submission of
the Trial Burn plan, evaluation of the monitoring, sampling/and analysis
portions of the Trial Burn plan will be incomplete, since modifications
which may be required by the contractor will not be known to EPA personnel.
Therefore, in cases where the sampling and monitoring effort is being con-
ducted by someone other than the incinerator operator, the Trial Burn plan
should include a report from the contractor that will conduct the actual
work. This report on the pre-test site survey should include assessment of
the adequacy of the sampling locations, facilities (such as power, water,
if needed, shelter, etc.) available, compatibility with sampling equipment,
and modifications to the incinerator of sampling and monitoring equipment
necessary to collect the Trial Burn data.
4.2.2.3 Monitoring--
While the PCB Regulations do not specify the parameters which should
be monitored during the Trial Burn, they should, at a minimum, include all
parameters which must be monitored or sampled during actual PCB incinera-
tion. Table 22 indicates monitoring requirements. In addition to feed
rates of the waste and fuel, incinerator temperature and scrubber effluent
180
-------
discussed above, the PCB Regulations state the parameters which should be
monitored and/or sampled during the first use or first use after substantial
modification of a facility for PCB incineration. These parameters are:
oxygen (C^K carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO-), oxides of nitrogen
(NO ), hydrochloric acid (HC1), total chlorinated organic compounds (RC1),
/\
PCBs, and total particulate loading of the stack emissions. Section 761.40
(1)(7) states that oxygen (0 ) and carbon monoxide (CO) must be monitored
/\
continuously and that "Monitoring for C02 shall be periodic, at a frequency
specified by the Regional Administrator". A strict interpretation of this
requirement eliminates Orsat analysis of grab samples for CO and 02, since
such a technique is not "continuous". Intermittent sampling of the stack
gas or integrated samples taken by slowly filling a sample container for
subsequent C02 analysis are less than satisfactory. In most cases since the
former may not be representative of the long-term stability, and the latter
integrates the value smoothing out high or low values. Thus, continuous C0£
analysis, while not required by the PCB Regulations, is preferable to grab
samples during a Trial Burn to establish the variability of COp content of
the stack gas. When coupled with the CO data, a continuous record of the
combustion efficiency can be obtained.
4.2.2.3.1 Equipment--Monitoring equipment for CO and Op have been discussed
in Section 2.4.1; fuel and waste feed rate monitoring in Section 4.1.5; and
temperature of the incinerator in Section 4.1.2. These are the parameters
which require continuous monitoring, and the Test Burn plan should specify
the type, manufacturer, and model of each instrument to be employed. Sup-
porting documentation should be appended to the Trial Burn plan describing
each instrument in detail.
4.2.2.3.2 Use of real-time data --Continuous monitors produce a "real time"
analog signal, which is typically recorded on a strip chart. A hard copy of
the data is necessary for documentation purposes. Data reduction is done
by hand. An additional piece of equipment which can assist in the evalua-
tion of continuous data is a data-logger.' Such devices sample the output
of the monitor at discrete (pre-programmed) intervals and print the data on
paper tape or store the data on magnetic tape. Data reduction is performed
manually, or a small computer can be used to reduce the data. A computer
181
-------
has the advantage that data reduction is rapid, and the data can be inte-
grated, or "smoothed" to eliminate some of the problems described in the
preceding section. A hard copy of the data should still be obtained, how-
ever. "Real-time" data obtained from continuous monitors requires that
certain judgements be made on the acceptance of temporal variations in the
signal. For example, brief decreases in CO 2 or increases in CO response
will lower the calculated instantaneous combustion efficiency. The amount
of the change, duration of the change, and frequency of such changes are
criteria which must be considered when evaluating real-time data. The flow
of PCB wastes must, by regulation, be interrupted when oxygen content of
the incinerator decreases below a preset value (2% or 3%). A decision must
be made as to how long the response must stay below the minimum before the
flow is stopped. This time span should be linked to the response time of
the method for correcting the problem. Section 761.40(a)(9) provides the
operator with the opportunity to address this concern by offering a contin-
gency plan for approval by the Regional Administrator. Such approval can
only be made on a case-by-case basis.
4.2.2.4 Sampling--
Sections 761.40(a}(6) and 761.40(a)(7) state the parameters which must
be determined in the stack gas at the start of a routine PCB burn. In addi-
tion, samples must be obtained of the scrubber effluent, the fuel, and the
waste being burned. All effluent streams from such treatment processes
should be sampled and analyzed for RC1 and PCBs. This should be the minimum
required for acceptance of a Trial Burn plan as well.
4.2.2.4.1 Stack sampling—The purposes of stack sampling are: 1) to monitor
the incinerator operation conditions (02» NOX, HC1, and particulates); 2) to
determine the combustion efficiency of the incinerator (CO and (X^); and
3) to determine the efficiency of PCB destruction during waste incineration
(RC1 and PCBs). A sampling location should provide adequate access to the
ducting to permit the determination of the stack velocity profile so that a
representative sample can be obtained. Two methods for sample acquisition
can be employed in stack monitoring. If sufficient ports are available,
short sampling periods at several points across two diamters of the stack
(EPA Method 1) have been used to collect a representative sample. Another
182
-------
method is to sample isokinetically a single point chosen to be "average" on
the basis of the velocity profile. Stack sampling techniques and'locations
have been discussed in Sections 2.3.1.1 and 4.1.4.1. The Trial Burn plan
should be evaluated according to these discussions.
The time required to collect an adequate sample is dependent on several
factors such as the sample flow rate, stack flow and concentration, and sen-
sitivity of the detection device. The Trial Burn plan should indicate pro-
jected sample times. An estimate of the sample times required for collection
of stack samples can be back-calculated from the detection limit of the
analytical technique as follows: If the incinerator destruction efficiency
is defined as:
= ioo ' '1n " PCB°ut
PCBin
In the "worst case", the amount of PCBs in the stack gas would be the amount
of PCB being burned times 0.000001, assuming 99.9999% gas phase destruction
efficiency, as required for non-liquid PCBs. Although not stated in the
PCB Regulations, 99.9999% gas phase destruction efficiency should apply to
liquid PCB wastes burned in an Annex I incinerator, as well as to non-liquid
PCBs.
Detection limits for PCBs range from 25 ng to 10 yg, depending on the
analysis method, and should be specified in the Trial Burn plan. Calcula-
tion of the minimum stack sampling time for PCBs can then be made assuming
a factor "of, for example, 3 more than the detection limit should be collect-
ed in the sample from the equation:
T _ PL x V , ,N
" 0.00001 F X S (* }
where: T = sampling time, sec
DL = PCB detection limit, g
3 -1
V = volumetric flow rate of stack gas, m sec
F = feed rate of PCB waste, g sec~ , and
3 -1
S = sample flow rate, m sec
183
-------
Since the same train can be used for HC1, RC1, PCB and total particu-
late matter, calculation of the sampling time should be made on each species
and a time selected which allows collection of a sufficient quantity of all
species without overloading any individual substance (for example total
particulate matter). Three trains are suggested (60): one for PCBs, one
for RC1, and one for HC1 and total particulate matter.
The above equation can also be used to calculate the minimum PCB feed
rate, since sufficient PCBs must be collected in the sample to exceed the
detection limit. In other words, if
DLXV (x3),
1 0.000001 x T x S
then an accurate determination of the destruction efficiency cannot be made
because the quantity of PCBs collected will be below the detection limit.
In evaluating the Trial Burn plan, the Regional Administrator should:
• Determine if the number of tests is adequate (one background
and three PCB tests are recommended)
• Determine if the sampling rates and durations are adequate:
- one hour at 21 to 28 1pm (0.75 to 1 cfm) is typical
for TPM and HC1
- 4 hours at 21 to 28 1pm (0.75 to 1 cfm) is typical
for PCBs and RC1 by Modified Method 5 train
4.2.2.4.2 Liquid effluent sampling—In order to obtain a representative
sample, the liquid streams should be sampled at 30 to 60 minute intervals
if they are known to be reasonably homogeneous. It is sufficient to com-
posite the samples taken after the burn has terminated. Samples taken prior
to introduction of PCBs will serve as background samples, and those taken
after the burn will determine whether hysteresis, or "memory" occurs (holdup
of PCBs in the equipment and subsequent purging when PCB feed is terminated).
Use of automated samplers is advised. Samples should be stored in appro-
priate containers prior to analysis, and the Trial Burn plan should indicate
the sampling schedule, equipment, and the methods of compositing, storing,
and shipping samples prior to analysis.
184
-------
4.2.2.4.3 Solid effluent sampling—The collection of solid samples was
discussed in Section 2.3.1.4 and sampling locations in Section 4.1.4.3. The
Trial Burn plan should specify the method for sampling, compositing, and
storing the solid samples.
4.2.2.4.4 Ambient air sampling--The PCB Regulations do not require ambient
air sampling. However, the determination to require ambient air sampling or
plume dispersion modeling is at the discretion of the Regional Administrator.
Ambient air sampling for PCBs preferably involves emplacement of high
volume samplers, using polyurethane foam to trap PCBs, as described in
Section 2.3.1.2. In order properly to emplace such samplers, local meteo-
rological data (wind speed and direction) need to be considered. Also, the
results of plume dispersion modeling can be used to emplace monitors, e.g.,
at the predicted location of the plume touchdown. Additional, general con-
siderations for ambient air sampling are given below.
Sampling devices should be located at ground level, downwind of any
structures containing PCB waste, including the incinerator. There should be
no obstructions between the structure and the sampler, the inlet of which
should be approximately 4 to 5 feet above ground to reduce the entrainment
of soil. If the soil is suspected of contamination by PCBs, a sample of the
soil around the sampler should be taken for analysis.
Meteorological data should be collected to permit proper location of
the sampling devices. A single meteorological sampler in a location free
from obstructions will suffice. Wind shifts of t 30° from the direction
initially chosen as "downwind" can be tolerated before the samplers must
be repositioned. High winds or precipitation during the burn will reduce
the validity of ambient samples, and the Trial Burn plan should address this
possibility. At least one sampler should be located upwind of any potential
PCB source. This unit will collect samples which will be used to determine
the quality of the air entering the plant and which will be considered as
blanks. The air upwind and downwind of the facility should be sampled
simultaneously prior to incineration of PCBs and during the Trial Burn.
Proposed locations for the ambient air monitors should be clearly indicated
on the facility diagram. Sampling durations and schedules should be spe-
cified in the Trial Burn plan.
185
-------
4.2.2.5 Analysis--
The Trial Burn plan should describe in some detail the analytical
protocol to be followed for determination of: 1) PCBs, 2) organochlorines,
and 3) total particulate matter. Section 2.3.2 described both the recom-
mended methodology (60) and methodologies used in various PCB test programs.
Briefly, the methodology for PCBs involves the following steps:
• Extracting the various samples and drying the extracts
• Combinations as appropriate (e.g., combine extracts of
particulate filter, impingers, and Florisil)
t Cleanups (e.g., partitioning with sulfuric acid, column
chromatography on silica gel)
• Concentration to 25-ml and splitting into three 5-ml
aliquots and one 10-ml aliquot
• Perchlorination of the 5-ml aliquots to decachlorobiphenyl
followed by analysis by gas chromatography with electron
capture detection
• Gas chromatography/mass spectrometric analysis of the
10-ml aliquot for confirmation of PCBs
While there are other, and perhaps better analytical methodologies
(e.g., that proposed by Levins, et al. (97)), it is recommended that the
methodology described by Beard and Shaum (60) in EPA's Interim Manual be
employed in order to achieve consistency and comparability of Trial Burn
results.
4.3 EVALUATION OF TRIAL BURN DATA
The object of obtaining data during a Trial Burn of PCBs or PCB-Items
is to provide information needed for predicting, maintaining, and documenting
conditions for the safe disposal of PCB waste materials and for the protec-
tion of personnel and environment.
This section, and the accompanying Appendix C, detail the treatment
and evaluation of analytical data which are necessary to derive required
process parameters, such as residence time and combustion and PCB destruction
efficiency. Also included is a discussion of how these data relate to
important process parameters, thus indicating how adequately the combustion
process is being monitored.
186
-------
Data gathering will begin with the analysis of PCB waste prior to in-
cineration to determine handling, process control, and combustion require-
ments. During incineration, various indicators of the combustion process
will be monitored by on-line gas analyzers, temperature measurement instru-
mentation, and flow rate measurement devices. Samples will be collected
for laboratory analyses to determine waste destruction efficiency. On-line
gas analyzers and collected samples will also be used to monitor pollutants
in the final air emissions, liquid effluents, and solid residues from the
disposal system in accordance with the PCB Regulations. Also for personnel
safety, as well as for the protection of the surrounding populace, meteoro-
logical conditions may have been monitored to prevent undesirable exposure
to toxic or corrosive emissions.
The aforementioned activities require specialized equipment and facili-
ties. Because of the ease with which the resulting data can be accumulated
on a data logger or a minicomputer, it is assumed that the measurements by
monitoring instruments will be digitized for interfacing with one of these
devices. Visual observations and data resulting from laboratory analyses
can be manually logged. The data logger or computer can then be used to
store, reduce, and analyze the raw data. Outputs from either one of these
devices will include information needed by the incinerator operator and also
complete reports of raw or reduced data. If data logger or minicomputers
are not used, manual reduction of data will have to be performed.
The information resulting from the above data will be used for:
• Waste feed characterization
• Combustion temperature determination
• Combustion efficiency determination
t Waste destruction efficiency determination
• Residence time calculation
t Facility approval
The information regarding waste feed- characterization is required to
answer important questions that must be determined prior to incinerating the
PCB waste, such as: Will the waste support combustion? Can the waste be
mixed safely with other wastes? Should the waste be fed as solid or as a
187
-------
liquid? Will operation of the control device be required? What compounds
should subsequently be measured to determine waste destruction efficiency?
4.3.1 Completeness of Data
Prior to the determination of the aforementioned information, it is
essential that the data obtained during a Trial Burn be reviewed for com-
pleteness. In this Section, a list of parameters is provided to ascertain
that minimum data requirements to meet PCB Regulations were obtained during
the Trial Burn.
In Table 24 a summary of the types of data required to evaluate a Trial
Burn is listed. It must, however, be noted that for each Trial Burn data
requirements may not conform to the data listed in Table 24 because of the
variability in the type of incinerators, type of control equipment, and PCB
waste at specific sites.
4.3.2! Data Reduction
As mentioned earlier, the data collected during the Trial Burn are used
to determine residence time, destruction efficiency, combustion efficiency,
and other operational parameters specified in the PCB disposal regulations.
Oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and total hydrocarbons are
monitored and serve as a basis for monitoring combustion efficiency. Oo is
monitored because it is a critical parameter for tuning the combustion pro-
cess to desired stoichiometric conditions. CO and total hydrocarbons (HC)
are monitored to provide immediate information regarding the adequacy of
combustion, and 02 is monitored so that an average combustion efficiency can
be determined.
Combustion efficiency is calculated based on the following equation:
CO
CE = - 2 r X (100) (1)
Uco2 Lco
where CE = combustion efficiency
Crn = percent carbon dioxide in the flue gas stream, and
2
Cp0 = percent carbon monoxide in the flue gas stream
(The equation in the PCB Regulations (on page 44 FR 31551) is incorrect. An
188
-------
TABLE 24. TYPES OF DATA FROM TRIAL BURN
I. Summary of Feed Rates
(In and out of the incinerator)
Liquid Waste
Liquid PCB
Solid PCB
Supplementary Fuel
Miscellaneous Waste
Scrubber Water
Solid Residue
II. Analysis of Fuels
(This includes PCBs and PCB-Items, Fuels, etc.)
Carbon Content
Hydrogen Content
Chlorine Content
Oxygen Content
Ash Content
Heating Value
Molecular Weight
III. Combustion Gas Analysis
0? Content
C02 Content
CO Content
NOX Content
HCT Content
PCB Content
RC1 Content
H20 Content
Particulates Content
Temperature of gas
Volumetric flow rate
IV. Properties of Liquid Waste
Density
Heat Content (HHV)
Chlorine Content
Ash Content
pH Value
Sulfur Content
V. Incinerator Information
Volume of Combustion Chamber
Temperature in the Combustion Zone
Temperature of Input Feed
Temperature of Input Air
Volume of Input Air
189
-------
open parenthesis should be added after the equals sign and a close parenthe-
sis before the multiplication sign.)
The PCB Regulations do not require calculation of destruction efficien-
cy. Instead, they require determination that PCB emissions to the air not
exceed 1 mg per kg of PCBs fed (when burning non-liquid PCBs only). It is
recommended, however, that destruction efficiency be calculated and reported
because it is a widely used figure of merit and because it will enable the
environmental community to compare .present with past incineration tests. It
should be noted whether a destruction efficiency derived from a PCB Trial
Burn is an overall one (air, water, and solid) or gas phase only. Destruc-
tion efficiency is calculated using the following equation:
100 x \~ "OUt (2)
in
where DE = destruction efficiency
3
W. = amount of PCB into the incinerator, m /sec or /hr, and
in o
W . = amount of PCB exiting the incinerator, m /sec or /hr
Residence time within incinerators is a function of the combustion
temperature and the volume of the unit combustion chamber. Combustion tem-
peratures within these units are obtained by either direct (pyrometer) or
indirect (wall thermocouple - pyrometer correlation) temperature readings.
Residence or dwell time (Section 2.2.6) is usually calculated from an
equation similar to the one presented below (corrected from standard condi-
tions):
1 = Q(T/Tstd) (3)
where t = residence time, sec
V = volume of incinerator, m
3
Q = volumetric flow rate, m /sec
T = temperature in combustion zone, K, and
Tstd = standard temperature, K
Sample calculations of residence time, combustion efficiency, and des-
truction efficiency are provided in Appendix C.
190
-------
4.3.3 Data Assessment
Following data reduction, a review should be made to assess the vali-
dity and representativeness of the data. This review should include:
t Engineering assessment - Determine any periods of anomalous
operation, such as during burner cleaning, start up, shut
down, or inoperative periods.. Remove data taken during
periods of anomalous operation. These data can be used to
characterize transient effects but should not be included in
characterizing normal operations.
t Statistical testing - After removal of data from anomalous
operation, statistical testing for outliers should be per-
formed. The Dixon Outlier Test (140) is recommended. A
basic assumption in using the Dixon Test is that data are
normally distributed, a common assumption.
• Data quality assessment - Calibration data for thermocouples,
flow rate devices, gas monitors (CO, C02, 02, NOX), stack
samplers, instrumentation, and etc., should be reviewed for
acceptability in terms of recency of calibration and results.
Data satisfying the above assessment can then be used to characterize the
Trial Burn. A suggested means of data treatment for characterizing the
Trial Burn and determining whether or not approval is warranted involves
calculating tolerance limits.
The tolerance limit is a statistical method of examining the excursions
of individual measurements about the mean value. It is recommended that
the 0.99/0.95 tolerance limit be used. This nomenclature means that 99% of
the data points will fall within the limits in 95 of 100 times. In other
words, the recommended tolerance limit will be such that, at most, 1% of the
data points will fall outside the limit upon repeated measurements, 5% of
the time.
In cases for which only a maximum (or minimum) value is of interest,
the one-sided tolerance limit should be used. Where both maximum and minimum
values are of interest, the two-sided tolerance is used. Tolerance limits
are defined as:
_ |
• Upper limit = x + K-j s (1-sided)
• Lower limit = x - Kl s (1-sided)
• Upper/lower limit = x 1 K? s (2-sided)
191
-------
where x = calculated average
s = calculated standard deviation
n - number of data points in average
K, = 1-sided tolerance factor for n-1 degrees of freedom
at p = 0.99 probability and y = 0.95 confidence
l<2 = 2-sided tolerance factor under same conditions as K-,.
In some instances it might be useful to characterize the mean of a set
of data rather than excursions of individual data points about the mean.
In these instances, the confidence interval can be calculated. The confi-
dence factor commonly used for calculating the confidence interval is 95%.
The confidence interval is:
y = X +_ —
n
where u = true population mean
x = average
s = standard deviation
t = "student's" statistic at 95% confidence and (n-1) degrees
of freedom
n = number of measurements comprising the mean
The confidence interval provides a range of values within which the true
mean of the population sampled should lie with 95% confidence upon repeated
testing under the same test conditions.
4.3.3.1 Operational and Monitoring Data--
Adequacy of operational and monitoring data can be assessed by the
procedure described above:
t Engineering assessment
t Statistical testing
• Quality assessment
• Tolerance limit (or confidence interval).
A numerical example of tolerance interval is given below. For the first
test day during the at-sea incineration of Herbicide Orange (33, Table 19),
the wall temperatures of the starboard incinerator averaged 1225 +_ 19°C (one
standard deviation, average of 24 hourly measurements). Assume that the
192
-------
lower limit was to be 1100°C. The lower, one-sided, tolerance limit is
calculated to determine the minimum temperature below which only one measure-
ment in 100 is expected to fall with 95% confidence. From Reference 141,
K-, = 3.181 for 0.99/0.95 and 23 degrees of freedom. The lower tolerance
limit is:
LL = 1225°C - 3.181 x 19°C
LL = 1164°C
Thus, for this set of thermal data, one has 95% confidence that not more
than one measurement in 100 will be below 1164°C, and one would conclude
that this was an acceptable thermal measurement.
4.3.3.2 Sampling Data--
Assessment of the adequacy of sampling data (i.e., for PCBs, RC1, and
TPM) is made by: 1) examination of the sampling logs, and 2) consideration
of the analytical results.
Detailed sampling logs will be submitted as part of the Trial Burn
data. The following information should be present:
• Stack samples - name of stream; date and start/stop time of
test; port location(s) and traverse points; flow rates,
temperature, pressure drops, and times at each point; initial
and final impinger volumes; initial and final weight of
silica gel; and process data on combustion gas flow rate
• Solid or liquid grab samples - name of stream; name of sample;
date, time, and location; approximate amount of sample; des-
cription of appearance; and pertinent process data to enable
the analyst to calculate the fraction of the tested stream
represented by the sample
t Solid or liquid composite samples - name of stream and
sample; date, time span over which the sample was collected;
the volume of each increment to the composite; tested compo-
site volume; description of appearance; and pertinent process
data to enable the analyst to calculate the fraction of the
total stream represented by the composite sample
The absence of any of the above information may hinder subsequent ana-
lysis or invalidate the results of the Trial Burn. For example, if the
amount of PCBs fed or if the volume of stack gas sampled is lost or not
acquired, it will not be possible to determine if emissions of PCBs while
193
-------
incinerating non-liquid PCBs exceed 1 mg/kg. The second stage of evaluating
the adequacy of sampling data involves analytical results, which are des-
cribed below.
4.3.3.3 Analytical Data—
The analysis portion of a Trial Burn report should describe in detail
the following items:
• Procedures
- Extractions, dissolutions
- Cleanups
- Analyses
• Instrumentation
• Quality control-quality assurance
- Blanks and controls
- Replicates
- Spikes
- Calibrations
- Statistical treatment
• Results
A Trial Burn conducted as suggested in Section 4.2 will provide one
stack sample and blank for PCBs on each of three daysvand a fuel oil back-
ground and blank. Corresponding liquid and solid effluent stream samples
were also acquired. A sampling effort conducted as recommended permits the
data analyst to assess the day-to-day variability (1 sample on each of 3
days).
The QA/QC program will enable the data analyst to determine the accur-
acy and precision of the results by: 1) corrections for blanks and controls,
2) use of calibration curves, and 3) statistical treatment of replicate
analyses and spiked samples.
The overall validity of the sampling and analysis effort can then be
assessed by a procedure similar to that used to assess operational data in
Section 4.3.3.1 by calculating the tolerance limit.
4.3.3.4 Summary--
Table 25 presents a checklist of required Trial Burn results which must
be achieved for approval to be granted.
194
-------
TABLE 25. CHECKLIST OF TRIAL BURN RESULTS
Parameters Value(s) Adequate Inadequate
1. Combustion temperature .
a. Pyrometer
b. Wall thermocouple
2. Excess oxygen
3. Carbon monoxide
4. Carbon dioxide
5. Residence time
6. Combustion efficiency
7. Flow rate of PCBs
8. Mass air emissions of PCBs
(non-liquid PCBs only)
9. PCB concentrations
a. Scrubber water
b. Solid residues
10. Destruction efficiency*
a. Liquid PCBs
b. Non-liquid PCB
11. N0x
12. Total particulates
13. HC1 control
14. RCL emissions
* Value of $.99.9999% inferred from PCB Regulation Preamble.
-------
4.4 CRITERIA FOR INCINERATOR PERMIT APPROVAL
The operator of an incinerator is required to obtain written approval
from the Regional Administrator prior to incineration of PCBs or PCB Items.
Approval will be obtained according to the procedure described in Section
4.1 of this document. This procedure includes the sequential submitta-1 of
reports by the incinerator operator and the evaluation of these reports by
the Regional Administrator, as illustrated in Figure 19.
The Regional Administrator approves an incinerator for disposal of PCB
when he is satisfied the incinerator will meet the requirements of the PCB
Regulations (40 CFR 761.40). These requirements are summarized briefly in
Tables 26 and 27. The Regional Administrator's approval is contingent on
evaluation of information submitted in an Initial Report by the incinerator
operator. Guidelines to assist the Regional Administrator in the evaluation
of the Initial Report to determine conformance of the incinerator system
with requirements of the PCB Regulations are discussed in Section 4.1 of
this document. Subsequent to evaluation of the Initial Report, and submittal
of any other information required, the Regional Administrator may require
that a Trial Burn be conducted before approval may be issued. Guidelines to
assist the Regional Administrator in the evaluation and approval of the
operator's Trial Burn plan are discussed in Section 4.2 of this document.
Guidelines to assist the Regional Administrator in the evaluation of the
Trial Burn results to determine conformance of the incinerator system with
requirements of the PCB Regulations are discussed in Section 4.3 of this
document.
The Regional Administrator will prescribe for approval additional re-
quirements he find necessary to insure that the intent of the regulation is
satisfied. Although such requirements may vary by Region and by source, it
is expected that the Regional Administrators will normally impose require-
ments which are consistent with the guideline recommendations of Section
4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of this document. The main elements of these additional
requirements are summarized briefly in the following sections.
4.4.1 Design and Operational Criteria
To approve a facility, the Regional Administrator must be satisfied that
the incinerator is capable of operating according to the basic requirements
196
-------
TABLE 26. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL TO INCINERATE LIQUID PCBs
DESIGN & OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
MONITORING & RECORD KEEPING CRITERIA
vo
a)
b)
0
d)
e)
2 sec dwell
1200° C
3% stack Oj
or
Vi sec dwell
1600° C
2% stack 02
Combustion efficiency >99.9«
Automatic Shutoff of PCB Feed * When:
• temperature < (level prescribed above)
• monitor failure for 02, CO or C02
• measurement & recording failure for PCB feed
• excess 02 < (levels prescribed above)
* or_ contingency measures,
as approved by the RA.
Hater Scrubber (or alternative) for HCI Control
Storage facilities and operations per
Annex III of 40 CPR Part 761
CONTINUOUSLY:
•••Combustion temperature. Stack Og and CO
PERIODICALLY:
•Rate and quantity of PCBs Stack C02
At FIRST USE or after modification:
»Stack 02, CO, C02, NOX, HCI, RC1, PCBs,
total particulates
WHENEVER PCB ITEMS ARE RECEIVED. INCINERATED. OR TRANSFERRED
• Date of receipt of PCBs received and source.
« Date and description of PCBs Incinerated or transferred to another
facility.
• Total weight of PCB materials received, transferred, and retained.
• Identification of contents of PCB containers or transformers were
transferred.
• Idenf1cat1on of facilities to which PCB containers or transformers
were transferred.
•Total number and identification of types of PCB articles/equipment
received, transferred, and retained.
•Identification of facilities to which PCB articles/equipment were
transferred
•Total weight of solid residues from PCB Incineration disposed to
• landfill and remaining. - • . . . _ _
Collect & maintain
information at facility
for 5 year period
' Collect & maintain
information for
annual reports
to EPA
-------
TABLE 27. REQUIREMENTS TO INCINERATE NON-LIQUID PCBs
oo
DESIGN & OPERATIONAL CRITERIA
a)
2 sec dwell
1200* C or
3X stack 02
1>4 sec dv
1600* C
2* stack
MONITORING & RECORD KEEPING CRITERIA
*e!1 CONTINUOUSLY:
02 • Combustion temperature, Stack 02 and CO
b) Combustion eff1dency*99.9X
c) PCS stack emissions $ 0.001 g/kg of PCB feed
d) Automatic Shutoff of PCB Feed When:
• temperature <(level prescribed above)
• monitor failure for 02, CO or C02
• measurement & recording failure for PCB feed
• excess 02<(levels prescribed above)
e) Hater Scrubber (or alternative) for HC1 Control
f) Storage facilities and operations per
Annex III of 40 CPR Part 761
Collect 4 maintain
Information at facility
for 5 year period
PERIODICALLY:
• Rate and quantity of PCBs Stack C02
At FIRST USE or after modification:
• Stack 0,, CO. CO, NO,, HC1, RC1, PCBs,
total particulatls
WHENEVER PCB ITEMS ARE RECEIVED. INCINERATED, OR TRANSFERRED
• Date of receipt of PCBs received and source.
• Date and description of PCBs incfnerated or transferred to another
facility.
• Total weight of PCB materials received, transferred, and retained.
• Identification of contents of PCB containers or transformers were
transferred.
• Identification of facilities to which PCB containers or transformers
were transferred.
• Total number and Identification of types of PCB articles/equipment
received, transferred, and retained.
• Identification of facilities to which PCB articles/equipments were
transferred
• Total weight of solid residues from PCB incineration disposed to
landfill and remaining
Collect & maintain
information
annual report
to EPA
-------
of the PCB Regulations. The basic design and operational requirements
(summarized briefly in Tables 26 and 27) are very broad; therefore, it may
be necessary for the Regional Administrator to develop additional and more
definitive guidelines to determine conformance of an incinerator facility
with the regulation.
The facility operator must submit data indicating the residence time of
PCB in the combustion zone meets the minimum requirement of the regulation.
The operator should cite test data which he uses to calculate dwell time
(e.g., volume of combustion chamber, mass flow rate of fuel and air, combus-
tion chamber pressure) and show that adequate dwell time will be attained
for the range of combustion conditions anticipated. Guidelines for evalua-
ting dwell time are discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.1 of this
document.
In the event of a PCB spill, the operator should perform sampling and
analysis to determine the PCB contamination level associated with the spill,
as covered by the facilities SPCC Plan. The spill and the associated media
contaminating the spill should be removed to the boundary of the zone of
contamination (any location where the PCB concentration exceeds 50 ppm) and
disposed of by any of the acceptable methods prescribed in the PCB Regula-
tions.
4.4.2 Monitoring and Record Keeping Criteria
To approve a facility, the Administrator must be satisfied that the
incinerator is equipped with monitoring equipment which is able to meet the
requirements of the regulation, and that the operator intends to maintain a
record of the required information. The operator is required to maintain
inventory data on the disposition of PCB materials on site, and monitor data
for specified parameters measured continuously or at various different
frequencies (see Table 26). The data are to be maintained for a period of
at least 5 years, including a 5 year period after the facility is no longer
used for storage or disposal.
In addition to the basic requirements specified in the PCB Regulations,
the operator should monitor scrubber effluent samples prior to, during, and
after PCB incineration. It is preferable that monitoring during incineration
199
-------
be conducted by collecting and analyzing composite samples from holding
tanks, eliminating the need for frequent grab samples.
The operator should maintain a log of the combustion efficiency. It
is preferable that a continuous record of the combustion efficiency be main-
tained. This is not impractical if a continuous CCL monitor is installed.
Temperature monitoring within the combustion zone may be conducted
with thermocouples or radiation pyrometers when temperatures exceed the
operating range of thermocouples. The temperature sensors should be shield-
ed from the flame to avoid radiation effects on the temperature measurement.
The temperature measurement should be conducted in at least two locations in
the combustion chamber. The measurement should be accurate to within 100°C
«
of the true temperature.
It is preferred that the liquid PCB waste feed rate be monitored by
real-time measurement of the bulk flow rate and automatic continuous record-
ing. A variety of standard devices are commercially available for this pur-
pose. The flow rate of PCB into the incinerator is then calculated, based
on the concentration of PCB in the waste and bulk flow rate. The PCB con-
centration should be determined by periodic sampling and analysis of the
PCB waste feed. For solid PCB wastes, it will be required that the flow
rate of waste solids be determined by weighing loads and monitoring the
loading over regular intervals of 15 minutes or less. The actual feed rate
of PCBs is determined based on the concentration of PCB in the solid waste
feed (as determined by periodic sampling and analysis) and the bulk feed
rate.
Waste residue from the incinerator may be monitored by using any suit-
able weight scale, and a log of the total weight of residue transferred to
landfill shall be maintained by the operator.
4.4.3 Sampling and Analysis
The Regional Administrator will have available an Agency manual (60)
prescribing preferred sampling methods and analytical procedures for the
various parameters which are to be monitored at the incineration facility.
These methods and procedures are discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of
this document.
200
-------
4.4.4 Waste Composition
Extensive testing has shown that PCBs are incinerated with destruction
efficiencies greater than 99.99% when temperature, dwell time, and excess
oxygen levels are maintained above certain minimum levels. The physical,
chemical, and thermal properties of the PCB waste will affect the tempera-
ture, dwell time, and excess oxygen levels. However, waste feed rate,
auxiliary fuel, excess air, and burner adjustments can be changed to main-
tain the required combustion conditions, and destruction efficiencies may
be maintained at the desired minimum acceptable levels. Therefore, varia-
tions in the PCB content of the waste will not affect the destruction effi-
ciency under the current regulation, and there is no need to restrict the
PCB content of the waste.
4.4.5 Compliance Criteria
Continuing approval to operate an incinerator for the destruction of
PCB waste depends on the operator maintaining compliance with applicable
regulations. The Regional Administrator will determine whether such com-
pliance is being maintained by reviewing incinerator performance reports
submitted periodically by the operator. It is recommended that a performance
report be submitted to the Regional Office every six months and should in-
clude summary and all required monitoring data corresponding to the periods
when PCBs were incinerated. The report should include a summary of all
occasions in which the operating conditions of the incinerator facility
caused (or should have caused) a shutdown and an explanation of the cause of
each such occurrence. The report should also document any spill occurrences,
the associated contamination levels, and the remedial action taken. In
addition, the operator must also prepare a separate document whenever the
incinerator operation is shut down from failure of the monitoring equipment
or failure of the incinerator to operate at the required conditions. This
document will include an explanation of the shutdown occurrence and a des-
cription of any corrective measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence. The
document must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days of the
shutdown occurrence.
201
-------
The Regional Administrator will review all occurrences of suspended
incinerator operation or violations of prescribed operating requirements to
assess the associated potential impact and the risk of reoccurrence. If
the Regional Administrator is not satisfied that the facility has taken
proper remedial action to minimize the risk of reoccurrence or if the inci-
dent has resulted in excessive irreversible damage to the environment,
approval for further operation of the facility will be suspended.
The Regional Administrator may also conduct periodic inspections of
the facility to assure that the incinerator is in compliance with the regu-
lations. The operator shall maintain monitoring data, PCB waste inventory
records, and other pertinent documents or correspondence (per item (6) of
Annex VI of 40 CFR 761} at the facility, and these records shall be avail-
able for inspection by the Administrator.
4.4.6 Waiver Criteria
Waiver of certain requirements of the PCB Regulations may be approved
by the Regional Administrator as part of the approval when he is satisfied
that the operation of the incinerator will not present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment from PCBs. Such waivers are allowed
on a site-specific basis and are contingent on the Regional Administrator's
review of evidence submitted by the operator in request of the waiver.
It is recommended that EPA establish a policy regarding waivers that
would:
• Require special review or consultation by a qualified team
• Maintain a file of waivers, waived criteria, and reasons
for the waivers
202
-------
5. EVALUATION OF HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS
One disposal option for liquids containing greater than 50 ppm PCB but
less than 500 ppm PCB is thermal destruction in a high efficiency boiler.
In general, high efficiency boilers must meet specific design and operational
requirements set forth in the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR 761.10(a).
The notification and approval process for high efficiency boilers depends
on the type of liquid being burned. A facility operator who intends to burn
mineral oil dielectric fluid from PCB-Contaminated Transformers is required
only to submit written notification of his intentions to the EPA Regional Ad-
ministrator (RA) 30 days prior to the burn. No EPA approval is required. Ther-
mal destruction of other liquid wastes containing 50 to 500 ppm PCB in high ef-
ficiency boilers requires not only written notice but also authorization by the
RA. The different requirements stem from the fact that mineral oil dielectric
fluids tend to have similar properties and high heat contents, while other
liquids containing PCBs at low concentrations have properties that vary con-
siderably and that may affect their combustibility.
This chapter is divided into four sections. Section 5.1 discusses aspects
of facility design and operation and site-specific concerns which should be
considered in evaluating notification information. Section 5.2 discusses the
procedures that may be used to evaluate a Trial Burn plan, if one is offered.
Should a Trial Burn take place, data should be evaluated based on the guidelines
in Section 5.3. The technical criteria for approval of high efficiency boilers
are summarized in Section 5.4.
5.1 EVALUATION OF NOTIFICATION INFORMATION
A checklist like that in Table 14 can be used in the evaluation of a high
efficiency boiler system. Table 28 is a checklist for comparing required with
actual values of the performance parameters specified in 40 CFR 761.10 for a
Notification and Trail Burn. Notification information required by the PCB Reg-
ulations must contain, at a minimum, the following:
• The name and address of the owner or operator of the boiler
and the address of the boiler
203
-------
TABLE 28. INFORMATION FOR HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS
Company Name
Location
Boiler Location
Type of PCB Waste to be Burned
Parameter
Concentration of PCB in
contami nated 1i qu i d
Boiler capacity
Boiler fuel
Normal boiler temperature
Typical stack CO
Test stack CO
Typical stack 02
Test stack 02
Gallons per year to be burned
CO monitoring
02 monitoring
Percent PCB waste of total
feed to boiler (G)t
Boiler fuel geed measured,
recorded
PCB-liquid feed measured,
recorded
Combustion efficiency
Analysis of PCB liquid,
percent by weight,
non-mineral oil
dielectric fluid only
Date of PCB Burn
Requirement
<500 ppm
(Submit analysis)
>50 x 106 Btu/hr
Natural gas, oil, or coal
None
None
<50 ppm for gas, oil
<100 ppm for coal
None
None
Continuous, >30,000 gal/yr
Hourly, <30,000 gal/yr
Continuous, >30,000 gal/yr
Hourly, <30,000 gal/yr
Every 15 minutes
Every 15 minutes
>99.9%
C, H, N, S, Cl, HaO
sediment, ash, heat
content, carbon
residue, flash point
Actual
ppm
x 10° Btu/hr
ppm
ppm
ppm
gal.
C =
H =
S =
Cl =
H20 =
Sediment =
Ash =
Heat content =
Carbon residue =
Flash point =
Btu/gal
Adapted from Reference 139.
fPercent PCB liquid feed of total feed
PCB liquid feed rate: gal/hr
Heat content PCB liquid: Btu/gal
Boiler fuel feed rate: gal/hr _^_
Boiler fuel heat content: Btu/gal ~~
PCB liquid heat input: Btu/hr
Boiler fuel heat input: Btu/hr
Percent total fuel feed: %
(A)
C
(D)
(E) = (A) X (B)
(F) = (C) X (D)
(G) = (E)/[(E) + (F)]
204
-------
§ The boiler rating in Btu/hour of heat input
t The carbon monoxide and oxygen concentrations encountered
in boiler stack gases when it is operated in a manner
similar to the manner in which it will be operated when
burning PCB liquid wastes
• The type of equipment, apparatus, and procedures to be
used to control the PCB feed rate and monitor carbon
monoxide and oxygen concentrations
In addition, when liquid which is not mineral oil dielectric fluid is burned,
the following items must be included in the notification:
0 The type of waste to be burned
• The concentration of PCBs and of any other chlorinated
hydrocarbons and the results of waste analyses performed
using American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
methods for carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine,
water, sediment, ash, heating value, carbon residue, and
flash point
• The quantity of wastes estimated to be burned in a 30-day
period
• An explanation of the procedures to be followed to insure
that burning the waste will not adversely affect the
operation of the boiler such that combustion efficiency
will decrease
The owner or operator should supply enough information in the Notification
to permit the Regional Administrator to evaluate whether the boiler will
meet the design, operating, and monitoring requirements of the regulations
and that proper reporting and recordkeeping procedures will be followed.
For any requirements of the regulation which the operator requests a waiver,
a detailed discussion should be included describing the waiver desired and
the reasons for the request. If such a waiver is granted, the operator will
be required to give additional notification to State and local authorities.
5.1.1 Boiler Design and Operation Evaluation
Aspects of boiler system design and operation should be evaluated using
a systems approach. In evaluating a facility for approval to burn PCBs,
general site description, waste feed system, boiler pollution control system,
and process measurement and control systems should be considered as they
affect the safe operation of the facility. Each of these topics is consi-
dered separately below.
205
-------
5.1.1.1 General Site Description—
The location of the facility should be known with respect to industrial
and residential areas and to surface waters. From this information, a
general assessment of the environment affected by the disposal action can
be made.
On-site equipment needed in the disposal action should be described.
This would include transfer and storage facilities, boilers, and pollution
control devices. Operations which are not part of the disposal action but
which may be affected by it should be noted.
The goal of the site evaluation should be to determine how well the
steps required in the PCB disposal action can be integrated at the chosen
site, and whether the action has the potential to affect nearby activities
or the environment.
5.1.1.2 Waste Feed System Evaluation--
As noted in Table 28, the PCB Regulations require that:
• Primary fuel feed rate, waste feed rate, and the total
quantities of fuel and waste be measured and recorded at
regular intervals of no longer than 15 minutes while
burning liquid PCB waste
• The waste does not comprise more than 10 percent of the
total liquid feed rate on a volume basis
t The above data, as well as monthly figures for the amount
of PCB waste burned, be retained for five years at the
boiler location
• The type of equipment and the procedures used to feed
waste to the boiler be described in the operator's notice
to EPA
The feed system evaluation should consider whether these regulatory require-
ments can be met, and additionally whether waste/fuel and waste/burner
compatibility is likely, given the characteristics of the liquid PCBs and
the primary boiler fuel. Compatibility is discussed below.
Waste and fuel may be fed separately to the burner or may be premixed,
if both are liquids. If they are premixed, the liquids should be complete-
ly miscible in the proportion and at the temperature at which they will be
mixed and fed to the burner. The viscosity and heating value of the
206
-------
mixture should be within the range the pump and burner are able to handle
efficiently (see Section 4.1.1.3.2). Premix systems are advantageous in
that only a single fluid is fed; however, should PCB flow need to be shut
off immediately, the entire boiler may have to be shut down. A contingency
plan should be drafted to avoid total disruption of boiler operations in
the event PCB flow must be terminated. From this standpoint, separate
firing of primary fuel and waste is preferable to a premix system. In the
event PCB flow must be terminated, the boiler can continue to operate.
Separate firing systems may not be advisable for pulverized coal-fired
boilers with circular burners. Such firing practices are not normally re-
commended for long operating periods due to possible coke formation on the
pulverized coal element. Coal-fired cyclone boilers, equipped to cofire
oil, oil-fired boilers with dual-fluid burners, or gas-fired boilers with
variable-mix multispud-type gas elements may be suitable for separate waste
and fuel firing.
In some instances, the 10 percent limit for PCB flow may be safety
waived, at the discretion of the Regional Administrator. This would be the
case for PCB liquids with high heating values which, based on past experience,
have good combustion characteristics.
5.1.1.3 Thermal Destruction Unit Evaluation--
PCB Regulations require that high efficiency boilers be designed and
operated such that:
• The boiler is rated at a minimum of 50 million Btu/hr
(15 MW) heat input rate
• If the boiler uses natural gas or oil as the primary fuel,
the carbon monoxide concentration in the stack is 50 ppm
or less and the excess oxygen is at least 3 percent when
PCBs are being burned
• If the boiler uses coal as the primary fuel, the carbon
monoxide concentration in the stack is 100 ppm or less
and the excess oxygen is at least 3 percent when PCBs are
being burned
• The mineral liquid PCB stream does not comprise more than
10 percent (on a volume basis) of the total fuel feed rate
• PCBs are not fed to the boiler unless it is operating at
its normal operating temperature (i.e., no feed during
start-up or shut-down)
207
-------
• The owner or operator of the boiler:
- Continuously monitors and records the carbon monoxide
concentration and excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas while burning PCBs, or
- If the boiler will burn less than 30,000 gallons of
liquid PCB wastes per year, measures and records the
carbon monoxide concentration and excess oxygen percent-
age in the stack gas at regular intervals of no longer
than 60 minutes while burning PCBs
• The primary fuel feed rates, PCB waste feed rates, and
total quantities of both primary fuel and waste fed to the
boiler are measured and recorded at regular intervals of no
longer than 15 minutes while burning PCBs
• The carbon monoxide concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage are checked at least once every hour that PCBs
are burned. If either measurement falls below the levels
specified in the regulations, the flow of PCBs to the
boiler shall be stopped immediately.
• PCBs are not burned when the boiler output is less than the
output at which performance figures for carbon monoxide and
oxygen were obtained
• Data on carbon monoxide and oxygen concentration are re-
tained at the boiler location for five years.
Information in the notice filed with EPA should be evaluated to see that
these requirements are met.
The regulations specify neither temperature or dwell time requirements,
nor minimum combustion or destruction efficiencies. However, data may be
included in the notice to EPA from which some of these parameters may be
estimated. Typically, temperatures in the combustion zone of utility boilers
range from 1430°C to 1675°C and in the furnace exit from 1090°C to 1402°C.
Nominal dwell time in utility boilers generally ranges from 1.0 to 3.7
seconds. Oxygen concentration at the economizer exit varies from 0.9 to
4.0 percent (8). Thus, based on the criteria for Annex I incinerators, some
boilers will meet the stringent requirements of Annex I and some will not.
The Annex I requirements should be used in evaluating high efficiency boilers,
not as requirements to be met, but as guideposts to determining the probable
destruction efficiency capability of the boiler. Most boilers which meet
the requirements for classification as a high efficiency boiler are capable
of achieving combustion and destruction efficiencies of 99.9 percent or
208
-------
greater. Data may be available to estimate the normal combustion efficiency
of the boiler, but PCB destruction efficiency estimates must be based on
experience with similar wastes and boilers and on careful evaluation of in-
formation presented in the operator's notice to ,EPA.
Materials of construction in the boiler must be considered in evaluating
boiler designs. The effect of increased chloride levels from PCBs will
likely be quite small because of the low concentration of chlorine in the
waste and the dilution of the chlorine content by the primary fuel. However,
the resistance to chloride attack in the boiler and pollution control system
varies for different fuel types and should be assessed. Coal-fired boilers
are probably best equipped to withstand attack from HC1 since the chloride
content of coal sometimes reaches nearly 4000 ppm (102). Oil- and gas-fired
boilers would potentially be more affected by the HC1 generated from PCB
combustion since the chloride content of oil and gas is much lower than for
coal. Chloride attack is reduced at lower operating temperatures and
pressures.
Boiler rating, age, and original design should be considered in the
evaluation. The minimum rating of 50 million Btu/hr should be used as a
guideline, but some slightly smaller industrial boilers may be well suited
for PCB destruction while some larger boilers will be inadequate because of
other design features. Older boilers tend to operate at lower temperatures
than newer units. They will therefore be less suited to low heating value
and/or low chloride content wastes and more suited to high heating value
and/or high chloride content wastes. Many older boilers were originally
designed for coal and then converted to oil or were originally designed for
natural gas and converted to oil. Temperature profiles in these boilers
are different from profiles typical of boilers originally designed for coal
or oil.
5.1.1.4 Pollution Control System Evaluation--
The PCB Regulations do not require HC1 emission control from high
efficiency boilers. No additions to existing pollution control equipment
should be necessary, solely for reduction of HC1 from PCB combustion. If
wet scrubbers are already installed on the boiler, HC1 will be removed from
the gas stream. The effect on materials of increasing the dissolved
209
-------
chloride content of the scrubber water should be considered if PCBs will be
burned on a continuing basis.
Unlike Annex I incinerators, malfunction of the pollution control
system should not be cause for shutting off PCB flow to the boiler.
5.1.1.5 Process Measurements and Control System Evaluation--
PCB Regulations applicable to high efficiency boilers require immediate
shutdown of PCB waste flow to the boiler in the event that carbon monoxide
or oxygen concentration in the stack gas drops below levels specified in the
regulations. Thus, waste flow must be terminated if, during the periodic
check (at least hourly) for carbon monoxide and oxygen concentration, oxygen
is less than 3 percent (wet basis) or carbon monoxide is either 50 ppm or
less (gas- and oil-fired boilers) or 100 ppm or less (coal-fired boilers).
Although not required by the regulations, waste flow should be cut off in
the event of:
• Malfunction of carbon monoxide or oxygen monitors or of
PCB feed rate measuring devices, or
t Burner flameout (for oil- and gas-fired burners)
The type, location, and redundancy of equipment used in the process measure-
ment and control systems have been discussed previously (Section 4.1.1.5.1).
For high efficiency boilers, existing control systems will be designed
to match boiler output (usually in terms of steam production) to demand.
Instantaneous cutoff of PCB flow might have severe adverse effects, not only
on steam output but also on flame stability. Therefore, waste cutoff systems
should be designed and operated so that the prime function of the boiler
(steam production) is not impaired. Gradual switchover from waste/primary
fuel to fuel alone will ensure nondisruptive boiler operation and will not
significantly affect the environment.
5.1.2 Operational Data Capability
PCB Regulations require continuous monitoring and recording of carbon
monoxide and oxygen concentrations in the stack gas for boilers which burn
greater than 30,000 gallons of low concentration PCB wastes per year. For
boilers burning less than 30,000 gallons per year, periodic monitoring at
regular intervals of no longer than 60 minutes is required. Additionally,
210
-------
the flow rates and total quantities of primary fuel and waste must be
measured and recorded for all boilers burning PCB wastes.
Although not required by the Regulations, another desirable measurement
is the carbon dioxide concentration. If this,measurement is taken along
with carbon monoxide concentration, the combustion efficiency can be calcu-
lated. This would give another indication of the effectiveness of PCB
destruction. If such a measurement is not normally taken, it should not be
required as a condition for approval.
5.1.3 Waste Characterization and Feed Rate
The types of material which can be destroyed in high efficiency boilers,
according to Section 761.10, are either mineral oil dielectric fluids con-
taining 50 to 500 ppm PCBs or other liquids containing 50 to 500 ppm PCBs.
In these cases, the PCB content of the liquid must be known prior to the
burn. Exact determination of the PCB content can be obtained by analysis
of samples collected according to methods described in Section 2.3.1.3. The
primary fuel feed rate, PCB feed rate, and the total feed rates of both
streams must be measured and recorded at intervals not exceeding 15 minutes
when the PCB material is being burned. Further, the waste cannot comprise
more than 10 percent (volume/volume) of the total fuel feed rate.
The notification or approval information should describe the method by
which these flowrates will be measured. A wide variety of techniques and
instruments are employed for process stream flow measurement. Table 21 is
a partial list of flow monitors and manufacturers based on four different
principles, each of which applies to certain liquid streams. The principal
criterion for determining adequacy of the flow monitor should be accuracy.
Liquid PCBs which are not mineral oil dielectric fluid must be identi-
fied by type (e.g., hydraulic fluid, heat transfer fluid, etc.) and by
chemical characterization. Such a characterization must be submitted with
the original notice to EPA and must be done once a month as long as PCBs
are burned. The waste must be analyzed for the following parameters using
the indicated ASTM methods (in parenthesis):
• Carbon and hydrogen (ASTM D-3178)
• Nitrogen (ASTM E-258)
211
-------
• Sulfur (ASRM D-2784, D-1266, or D-129)
• Chlorine (ASTM D-808)
• Water and sediment content (ASTM D-2709 or D-1796)
• Ash content (ASTM D-482)
• Heating value (ASTM D-482)
• Carbon residue (ASTM D-2158 or D-524)
• Flash point (ASTM D-93)
• PCBs and any other chlorinated hydrocarbc-ns (no ASTM
method specified)
The above data must be retained for five years at the boiler location.
Additionally, the following waste parameters should be measured in
order to evaluate waste/fuel and waste/burner compatibility:
t Viscosity (vs. temperature)
t Density (vs. temperature)
• Miscibility with primary fuel, if primary fuel is liquid
and fuel and waste are to be premixed.
5.1.4 Effluent Monitoring
The term "effluent" should refer to all streams leaving the high effi-
ciency boiler, including boiler ash, electrostatic precipitator or baghouse
flyash, scrubber waste, and stack emissions. The PCB Regulations require
that only CO and 02 be measured in the stack gas either continuously or, if
the facility will burn less than 30,000 gallons of waste per year, at inter-
vals not to exceed 60 minutes. Monitoring equipment for CO and 02 discussed
in Section 2.4 are applicable to high efficiency boilers as well, Table 7.
However, in order to determine that PCBs are being efficiently destroyed,
an analysis of all influent and effluent streams should be performed at some
time during PCB disposal, preferably prior to the time an approval is granted.
In that case, the facility should have the ability to collect samples of all
streams, similar to the monitoring capability of Annex I incinerators dis-
cussed in Section 4.1.3.
5.1.5 Sampling Locations
The facility is required to monitor CO and 02 in the stack gas in order
to verify that the conditions of the boiler remain constant and at some
212
-------
level guaranteed to destroy the PCBs present in the waste. The ideal place
to sample the combustion gases is in the stack following any control devices.
Since neither of these gases is affected by conventional effluent control
devices, however, the location of such monitors is not critical, provided
that no leaks exist in the system or that leakage Can be accounted for.
5.1.6 Storage Capabilities
When storage of PCBs is required prior to disposal in a high efficiency
boiler, PCBs must be stored in a facility which complies with Annex II.
Requirements for such a facility are described in Section 4.1.6.
If PCBs or other hazardous wastes are not disposed of on a routine
basis at a site, temporary storage facilities may have to be set up. In
particular, this may involve construction of a temporary dike around PCB
storage and transfer areas. The dike may be constructed with sand bags and
lined with an impermeable plaster liner.
Compliance with Annex III storage requirements is not mandatory for
PCB containers containing between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs, provided that:
• Storage is for a period no more than 30 days from the date
of removal from service
• The date of removal from service and a notation that the
PCBs so stored do not exceed 500 ppm is attached to the
container, and
• A Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter-measures Plan has
been prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 112.
5.1.7 Site Specific Concerns
It is expected that high efficiency boiler facilities will have even
greater site-to-site variations than Annex I incinerators. Site specific
concerns relevant to Annex I incinerators, discussed in Section 4.1.7, apply
also to high efficiency boiler facilities. Thus, only several additional
concerns are noted in this section for evaluation by the Regional Adminis-
trator.
The Trial Burn Plan should address (see Section 4.1.7 and Appendix B
for more detail):
213
-------
t Facility safety
- Worker safety
- Exposure control
• Spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan
If the facility intends to burn PCBs infrequently or if the PCBs to be
burned are not generated on-site, logistics, transportation, and spill pre-
vention, control, and countermeasures should be addressed in the Notifica-
tion. Further, the Notification should address public information mechanisms,
especially if the facility is a utility.
5.2 EVALUATION OF TRIAL BURN PLAN
A Trial Burn is not required for burning mineral oil dielectric or
other fluids of 50 to 500 ppm PCB content in a high efficiency boiler. It
is, however, recommended that a Trial Burn be required for a high efficiency
boiler in which the operator intends routinely to burn PCB fluids other than
mineral oil dielectric fluids. This section provides guidelines and recom-
mendations for evaluating a Trial Burn plan for a high efficiency boiler.
The PCB Regulations provide no guidance on a Trial Burn plan for high
efficiency boilers. In a large extent, the requirements for a Trial Burn
in an Annex I incinerator apply to high efficiency boilers. Thus, the eva-
luation of a high efficiency boiler Trial Burn plan follows the same criteria
presented in Section 4.2. Since many high efficiency boilers employ devices
to control stack emissions, such as cyclones, venturi scrubbers, high energy
scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators, or fabric filters, effluent monitoring
may be more complex than Annex I incinerators. Nevertheless, the need to
determine the fate of the PCBs requires sampling and analysis of all influent
and effluent streams.
A Trial Burn is not required for high efficiency boilers by the PCB
Regulations; therefore, there are no specifications for technical content of
a Trial Burn Plan. Thirty days prior to burning mineral oil dielectric
fluids or other liquid PCB waste containing <500 ppm of PCBs, the EPA Regional
Administrator must receive written notice of intent to burn. Table 28 shows
information that must be contained in that written notice.
214
-------
The criteria for acceptance of a facility to burn PCB wastes are
defined in the regulations. The minimum acceptable boiler rating is 50
MBtu/hr. If the facility is coal-fired, the CO and excess oxygen in the
stack gas must not be greater than 100 ppm and not less than 3 percent, res-
pectively. For natural gas- or oil-fired boilers, the CO and Oo content of
the effluent gas must be 50 ppm or less and 3 percent minimum, respectively.
The following sections discuss the information which should be contained in
a Trial Burn plan and establish criteria by which such a plan may be eva-
luated.
5.2.1 Operational Data
5.2.1.1 Minimum Data Requirements--
The operational data which must be collected during a Trial Burn are
the same as would be required for operation of the boiler during routine
operation. At a minimum, the data must include:
• The PCB waste, fuel, and total feed rates at intervals not
to exceed 15 minutes. The PCB waste feed rate must not
exceed 10 percent of the total feed rate
• Boiler temperature
• Excess oxygen
t Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide content of the stack gas
In addition, however, representative operational log sheets for the boiler
and applicable control devices should be submitted for evaluation to deter-
mine whether sufficient data are logged to determine the normal operating
conditions of the boiler prior to, during, and after the destruction of PCBs.
5.2.1.2 Adequacy of Equipment and Methodology--
Section 2.2.2 discussed the operation of high efficiency boilers.
Specific items of equipment are required by the PCB Regulations for boilers
destroying PCB wastes. The feed of PCBs must be interrupted whenever one
of several failure modes are encountered. The Trial Burn Plan should address
the method by which the equipment will meet and handle these conditions.
The failure modes are:
t Excess oxygen drops below 3 percent
• CO exceeds 100 ppm for coal-fired boilers or 50 ppm for
natural gas- or oil-fired boilers
215
-------
t The temperature of the boiler is below "normal", as
defined in 761.10(a)(3)(iii)(A)(5)
• The PCB waste comprises greater than 10 percent of the
total flow of fuel and waste
Although not stated in the PCB Regulations, failure of the monitoring
equipment for oxygen, temperature, or feed rate of fuel or PCBs should be
grounds for terminating PCB input to the boiler, as it is with incinerators.
The equipment used for such monitoring must, therefore, have not only demons-
trable accuracy and reliability but also must have automatic cutoffs required
to interrupt PCB feed.
5.2.2 Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis
The Regulations require only that CO and Op be monitored continuously
and that the data be inspected on an hourly basis. It is recommended that,
at least for a Trial Burn, a full investigation of all waste streams be made
to determine the fate of PCBs being destroyed. The evaluation of a Trial
Burn Plan for a high efficiency boiler then follows the same criteria as
those for evaluation of a Trial Burn Plan for an Annex I incinerator. Since
this overlap occurs, the following sections refer to the portion of Section
4 where the topic was discussed. Comments applicable to boilers are made
where appropriate.
5.2.2.1 Waste Characterization--
Only liquid wastes are to be burned in high efficiency boilers, and
these are discussed in Sections 4.1.6 and 4.2.2.1.
5.2.2.2 Pre-test Site Survey--
See Section 4.2.2.2.
5.2.2.3 Monitoring—
The monitoring scheme recommended in Section 4.2.2.3 applies to boilers
as well.
5.2.2.3.1 Equipment—
See Section 4.2.2.3.1.
5.2.2.3.2 Use of Real-Time Data—
See Section 4.2.2.3.2.
216
-------
5.2.2.4 Sampling--
The sampling effort required for a Trial Burn of an incinerator applies
to a boiler as well. The effort may be larger because of greater use of
pollution control equipment, but it should be required that all influent
and effluent streams for each control system be sampled. Section 4.2.2.4
discusses this sampling.
5.2.2.4.1 Stack Sampling—
See Section 4.2.2.4.1.
5.2.2.4.2 Liquid Effluent Sampling—
See Section 4.2.2.4.2.
5.2.2.4.3 Solid Effluent Sampling—
See Section 4.2.2.4.3.
5.2.2.4.4 Ambient Air Sampling —
See Section 4.2.2.4.4.
5.2.2.5 Analysis—
The analysis of samples collected from a boiler will be conducted in
the same manner as for samples collected from an incinerator, as discussed
in Section 4.2.2.5. In addition, for PCB wastes other than mineral oil
dielectric fluids, the waste must be analyzed for PCBs, other chlorinated
hydrocarbons and the following components and characteristics, listed with
their required method: carbon and hydrogen, ASTM D-3178; nitrogen, ASTM
E-258; sulfur, ASTM D-2784, D-1266, or D-129; chlorine, ASTM D-808; water
and sediment, ASTM D-2709 or D-1796; ash content, ASTM D-482; calorific
value, ASTM D-240; carbon residue, ASTM D-2158 or D-254; and flash point,
ASTM D-93.
5.2.2.5.1 On-Site, Off-Site—
See Section 4.2.2.5.1.
5.2.2.5.2 Analysis Equipment—
In addition to the equipment described in Section 4.2.2.5.2, sufficient
equipment must be available to perform the ASTM procedures described in
Section 4.2.2.5.
217
-------
5.2.2.5.3 Analysis Methodology—
In addition to the methodology described in Section 4.2.2.5.3, the ASTM
procedures in Section 4.2.2.5 must be performed on liquid PCB wastes other
than mineral oil dielectric fluid.
5.3 EVALUATION OF TRIAL BURN DATA
Evaluation of data from a PCB Trial Burn in a high efficiency boiler
can be performed in the same manner as for an Annex I incinerator. In order
to minimize duplication of the discussion and guidelines presented in Section
4.3, this section will only discuss briefly the major steps of the process
of evaluating Trial Burn data.
5.3.1 Completeness of Data
Prior to the data reduction effort, the Trial Burn data package should
be examined for completeness. Table 29 is a list of types of data required
of a Trial Burn recommended here for high efficiency boilers. Given the
wide variation expected of high efficiency boiler facilities, particularly
for control devices, several types of data in Table 29 are generic. For
example, if the boiler were equipped with a scrubber, sufficient process
data on the scrubber would have to be taken so that analysis of scrubber
effluent streams could be converted into emission rates. Other entries in
Table 29 are specifically required by the PCB Regulations.
5.3.2 Data Reduction
Results desired for characterizing a high efficiency boiler for routine
burning of PCB-contaminated mineral oil dielectric fluid or for approval for
burning other PCB-contaminated fluids are:
• Combustion efficiency
• PCB destruction efficiency
• PCB emissions
- Air
- Water effluent
- Solid effluent
t Residence time
Numerical examples for combustion and destruction efficiencies and residence
time are presented in Appendix C.
218
-------
TABLE 29. RECOMMENDED TYPES OF DATA FROM TRIAL BURN
IN A HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILER
CO
°2
co2
Primary fuel
Feed rate
Quantity
Waste- type
Feed rate
Quantity
Boiler temperatures
Stack sampling data
Pertinent control device data
Analytical data on PCB emissions
*
Waste Composition
C
H
N
S
Cl
Water
Sediment
Calorific value
Carbon residue
Flash point
For non-mineral oil dielectric fluid wastes
5.3.3 Data Assessment
Section 4.3.3 presented a detailed discussion of a methodology for
assessing the adequacy of Trial Burn data for Annex I incinerators. The
major elements of the assessment process are given below:
• Completeness
• Engineering assessment for anomalous or non-representative
operation
t Statistical testing to eliminate outliers
• Quality assessment of calibrations, standard, blanks, etc.
Data which are assessed as valid and representative by the above process are
then used to characterize the adequacy of the Trial Burn for approval to
burn PCBs. The suggested means of data treatment (see Section 4.4.3) is to
calculate tolerance limits and compare these values with regulatory require-
ments.
219
-------
5.4 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF BOILERS FOR PCB DESTRUCTION
An operator of a boiler which is to burn minerial oil dielectric fluid
containing a PCB concentration of 50 to 500 ppm must submit written notice
to the Regional Administrator thirty days before the first burning of the
fluid in the boiler. The Administrator will review the notice and may re-
quire additional actions by the operator prior to burning the waste fluid
if he is not satisfied the boiler will meet the requirements of §761.10 of
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 761. The applicable requirements are summarized
in Table 30.
An operator of a boiler which is to burn liquids other than mineral oil
dielectric fluid, containing a PCB concentration of 50 to 500 ppm, must
obtain written approval from the Regional Administrator prior to burning the
PCB waste. Approval will be given by the Administrator when he is satisfied
the boiler will meet the requirements of §761.10 of Subpart B of 40 CFR Part
761, as summarized in Table 31. The approval is obtained according to the
procedure described in Section 3 of this document.
Guidelines to assist the Regional Administrator in the evaluation of the
notification to burn mineral oil dielectric fluid or the request for approval
to burn PCB fluids other than mineral oil dielectric fluid are discussed in
Section 5.1 of this document. Subsequent to evaluation of the operator's noti-
fication or request for approval (as well as any other information required)
the Regional Administrator may request, but cannot require, a Trial Burn be
conducted before approval is issued. Guidelines to assist the Regional Admini-
strator in the review and evaluation of the operator's Trial Burn plan are dis-
cussed in Section 5.2 of this document. Guidelines to assist the Regional Ad-
ministrator in the evaluation of the Trial Burn results to determine confor-
mance of the boiler with requirements of the Federal regulations are discussed
in Section 5.3 of this document.
The Regional Administrator may prescribe additional safeguards
he feels necessary to insure the intent of the regulation is satisfied. Al-
though such requirements may vary by Region and by source, it is expected that
the Regional Administrators will normally impose requirements which are con-
sistent with the guideline recommendations of Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of this
220
-------
TABLE 30. REQUIREMENTS FOR BURNING PCB-CONTAMINATED DIELECTRIC
FLUIDS IN HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS
Design & Operational Requirements
Monitoring & Recording Requirements
a) Boiler rating 50 x 10 Btu/hour
SPECS DURING PCB COMBUSTION
b)
ro
ro
Fuel
Type
Nat gas
or oil
Coal
Stack Stack
02 CO
>3% 150 ppm
>3% 1100 ppm
Boiler
Output Level
-level corresponding
to baseline tests
>
c) Feed rate of mineral oil dielectric fluid 110%
of total fuel feed rate (by volume)
d) Mineral oil dielectric shall not be fed to boiler
during start up or shut down
e) Based on periodic checks (at least once hourly),
the feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid shall be
shut off when concentrating of CO or Qy are
outside the allowable range.
a) Continuously:
• Boiler operating temperature
• Stack CO and 02 (when boiler burns
130,000 gal/yr waste fluid per
year, monitoring may be conducted
at 60 minute intervals or less)
• Boiler load factor
b) 15 minute intervals:
• Stack CO and 0? (when boiler burns
130,000 gal/yr)
• Primary fuel feed rate
• Mineral oil dielectric fluid feed
rate
• Total feed rate
c) Monthly:
t Quantity of mineral oil dielectric
burned for month
d) Whenever PCB waste is Received, Burned
or Transferred:
• Date of receipt of PCB wastes
received and source
• Date and description of PCB wastes
burned or transferred to another .
facility
• Total weight of PCB waste received,
transferred, and retained
• Total weight of solid residue (from
PCB burning) disposed to landfill
and retained
Collect
& maintain
information
at facility
for 5 years
Collect
& maintain
information
for annual
reports to
EPA
-------
TABLE 31. REQUIREMENTS FOR BURNING PCB-CONTAMINATED NON-MINERAL
OIL DIELECTRIC FLUIDS IN HIGH EFFICIENCY BOILERS
ro
ro
ro
a)
c)
d)
e)
Design and Operational Requirements
Boiler rating 50 x 10 Btu/hour
SPECS DURING PCB COMBUSTION
Fuel Stack Stack Boiler
Type 02 CO Output Level
Nat gas *3% i50 ppm ilevel corresponding
or oil to baseline tests
Coal *3% si oo ppm *
Feed rate of mineral oil dielectric fluid ilOX
of total fuel feed rate (by volume)
Mineral oil dielectric shall not be fed to
boiler during start up or shut down
Based on periodic checks (at least once hourly),
the feed of liquid PCB waste shall be shut off
when concentrations of CO or Oj are outside the
allowable range.
Monitoring & Recording Requirements Sampling & Analysis Requirements
a) Continuously:
• Boiler operating temperature
• Stack CO and 03 (when boiler
burns 230,000 gal/yr waste fluid
per year, monitoring may be con-
ducted at 60 minute intervals or
less)
• Boiler load factor
b) 15 minute intervals:
• Primary fuel feed rate
• Waste fluid feed rate
• Total feed rate
• Stack CO and 02 (when boiler
burns i 30, 000 gal/yr)
c) Monthly:
• Quantity of waste fluid burned
for months
t Concentration in the waste of:
carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,
sulfur, chlorine, water,
sediment, ash, carbon residue
• Flash point and calorific value
d) Whenever PCB waste is received,
burned, or transferred
• Date of receipt of PCB wastes
received and source
• Date and description of PCB
wastes burned or transferred to
another facility
• Total weight of PCB waste re-
ceived, transferred, and
retained
• Total weight of solid residue
(from PCB burning) disposed to
landfill and remaining
Constituent or
parameter
PCB & other
chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Collect Carbon,
& maintain hydrogen
> at facility Nitrogen
Sulfur
Chlorine
Water,
sediment
Ash
Carbon
residue
Calorific value
Flash point
Sampling/ Analysis
Method
Draft method in
Interim Report on
Sampling Methods
and Analytical
Procedures Manual
for PCB disposal
ASTM D-3178
ASTM E-258
ASTM D-2784,
D-1266 or D-129
ASTM D-808
ASTM D-2709 or
D-1796
ASTM D-482
ASTM D-2158 or
D-524
ASTM D-240
ASTM D-93
Collect
& maintain
information
for annual
reports to
EPA
-------
document. The main elements of these additional requirements are summarized
briefly in the following sections.
5.4.1 Design and Operational Criteria
Extensive testing has demonstrated that incinerators are capable of ach-
ieving a PCB destruction efficiency of 99.9 percent of greater when operating
at high combustion efficiency (99.9 percent). It is a reasonable technical
inference that large (>50 million Btu) well-designed boilers are capable of
achieving at least 99.9 percent destruction efficiency, particularly when
burning a "clean", high heat content waste such as PCB-contaminated mineral
oil dielectric fluid. The operator must submit data indicating that suffic-
ient combustion efficiency can be attained to meet the minimum requirement
of the regulation. These data include carbon monoxide and excess oxygen
levels in the stack when the boiler is operated in a manner similar to that
which will be maintained when PCB wastes are burned. The operator must de-
monstrate that he will provide for shutoff of the PCB waste feed whenever
the carbon monoxide or oxygen levels are not within the required levels.
In the event of a PCB spill, the operator should perform sampling and
analysis to determine the PCB contamination level associated with the spill.
The spill and the associated media containing the spill should be removed to
the boundary of the zone of contamination (any location where the PCB con-
centration exceeds 50 ppm) and disposed of by any of the acceptable methods
prescribed in 40 CFR 716.
5.4.2 Monitoring and Recording Criteria
To approve a facility, the Regional Administrator must be satisfied that
the boiler is equipped with monitoring equipment which is able to meet the
requirements of the regulation and that the operator intends to maintain a
record of the required information. The operator is required to maintain
inventory data on the disposition of PCB wastes on site and monitor data for
specified parameters measured continuously or at various different frequen-
cies (see Tables 30 and 31). The data are to be maintained for a period of
at least 5 years, including a 5 year period after the facility is no longer
used for storage or disposal.
223
-------
It is preferred that liquid PCB waste feed be monitored by real-time
measurement and automatic continuous recording. A variety of standard
devices are commercially available for this purpose (Table 21). The PCB
concentration in the fluid waste should be determined by periodic sampling
and analysis of the waste feed.
Waste residue from the boiler may be monitored by using any suitable
weigh scale, and a log of the total weight of residue transferred to land-
fill shall be maintained by the operator.
5.4.3 Sampling and Analysis
The Regional Administrator will have available an Agency manual pre-
scribing preferred sampling methods and analytical procedures for the various
parameters which are to be monitored at the boiler facility. These methods
and procedures are discussed in Section 2.3.2 of this document.
5.4.4 Compli ance Criteria
Continuing approval to operate a boiler for the destruction of PCB
liquid wastes depends on the operator maintaining compliance with applicable
regulations. The Regional Administrator will determine whether such com-
pliance is being maintained by reviewing reports submitted periodically by
the operator. It is recommended that a report be submitted to the Regional
Office every six months which includes summaries of all required monitoring
data corresponding to the periods when PCBs were burned. The report should
also include a summary of all occasions in which the operating conditions
of the boiler caused (or should have caused) a shutdown of the PCB feed and
an explanation of the cause of each such occurrence, as well as any remedial
actions taken. Such reports should also document any spill occurrences, the
associated contamination levels, and the remedial actions taken.
The Regional Administrator should review all occurrences of suspended
PCB feed (or violations of prescribed operating requirements) to assess the
associated potential impact and the risk of reoccurrence. If the Regional
Administrator is not satisfied that the facility has taken proper remedial
action to minimize the risk of reoccurrence, or if the incident has resulted
in excessive irreversible damage to the environment, approval for further
operation of the facility will be suspended.
224
-------
The Regional Administrator may also conduct periodic inspections of
the facility to assure that the boiler is in compliance with the regulations.
The operator must maintain monitoring data, PCB waste inventory records, and
other pertinent documents or correspondence (per item (b) of Annex VI of
40 CFR 761) at the facility, and these records shall be available for inspec-
tion by the Administrator.
225
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sissons, D. and D. Welti, "Structural Identification of Polychlon%
nated Biphenyls in Commercial Mixtures by Gas-Liquid Chromatography,
Nuclear Magnetic Resources and Mass Spectroscopy", J. Chromatog.,
60, 15 (1971).
2. Fuller, B., J. Gordon, and M. Kornreich, "Environmental Assessment of
PCBs in the Atmosphere", Mitre Corp. Technical Report MTR-7210, Rev.
1, 1976.
3. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, "Support Document/Voluntary
Environmental Impact Statement and PCB Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Ban Regulation: Economic Impact
Analysis", April 1975.
4. Nisbet, I.C. and A.F. Sarofim, "Rates and Routes of Transport of PCBs
in the Environment", Environ. Health Perspect., 1, 21 (1972).
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, "PCBs in the United States.
Industrial Use and Environmental Distribution", EPA 560/6-76-005,
February 1976.
6. "TLVs Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical
Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended Changes for 1979",
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1979.
7. Allen, R.N., "Trial Destruction of PCBs in an Electrical Utility
Boiler", Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Control of Specific
(Toxic) Pollutants, the Florida Section of the Air Pollution Control
Association, February 13-16, p. 275, 1979.
8. Electric Power Research Institute, "Disposal of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) and PCB-Contaminated Materials", EPRI Report No.
FP-1207, Vol. 1, October 1979.
9. Ottinger, R., J. Blumenthal, D. Dal Porto, G. Gruber, M. Santy, and
C. Shih, "Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery,
or Disposal of Hazardous Waste, Volume III: Disposal Process Descrip-
tions, Ultimate Disposal, Incineration, and Pyrolysis Processes",
EPA-670/2-73-053C (PB 224 582), August 1973.
10. Edwards, J.B., "Combustion: Formation and Emission of Trace Species",
Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1974.
11. Ackerman, D.G., J.W. Adams, J.F. Clausen, N.J. Cunningham, E.H.
Dohnert, A. Grant, J.C. Harris, R.J. Johnson, P.L. Levins, C.C. Shih,
J.L. Stauffer, K.E. Thrun, R.F. Tobias, L.R. Woodland, and C.A. Zee,
"Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Incinerators, Final
Report Phase II", EPA Contract No. 68-01-2966, November 1977.
226
-------
12. Ackerman, D.G., J.W. Adams, J.F. Clausen, J.C. Harris, R.J. Johnson,
P.L. Levins, J.L. Stauffer, K.E. Thrun, R.F. Tobias, L.R. Woodland,
and C.A. Zee, "Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale
Incinerators, Facility Report No. 6, Rollins Environmental Services",
Contract No. 68-01-2966, June 1977.
13. Anonymous, "A Proposal by Rollins Environmental Services (TX), Inc.,
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, to Demonstrate
the Incineration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) at Their Facility
in Deer Park, Texas, September 1979.
14. Anonymous, "The PCB Incineration Test Made by Rollins Environmental
Services (TX) at Deer Park, Texas, November 12-16, 1979", Report by
Rollins Environmental Services to EPA Region VI, June 1980.
15. Anonymous, "Test Plan for Incineration of PCBs at the ENSCO Facility
in El Dorado, Arkansas", Test Plan 74 75-2, Prepared for Electric
Power Research Institute, 15 August 1979.
16. Anonymous, "Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and PCB-
Contaminated Materials. Volume 4: Test Incineration of Electrical
Capacitors Containing PCBs", EPRI Report FP-1207, Volume 4, September
1980.
17. Adapted from Haile, C.F. and E. Baladi, "Methods for Determining the
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Emissions from Incineration and Capacitor and
Transformer Filling Plants", EPA-600/4-77-048, November 1977.
18. Adams, J.W., E.H. Dohnert, J.C. Harris, P.L. Levins, J.L. Stauffer,
and K.E. Thrun, "Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale
Incinerators. Facility Report No. 5, 3M Company Chemolite Incinera-
tion System", July 1977.
19. Anonymous, The Chlorinated Dioxin Task Force, Michigan Division, Dow
Chemical, USA, "The Trace Chemistries of Fire - A Source of and Routes
for the Entry of Chlorinated Dioxins into the Environment", Copyright,
Dow Chemical Company, 1978.
20. MacDonald, L.P., D.J. Skinner, F.J. Hopton, and G.H. Thomas, "Burning
Waste Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in a Cement Kiln", Report to Fisheries
and Environment Canada, Report No. EPS 4-WP-77-2, March 1977.
21. Ackerman, D.G., J.F. Clausen, and C.A. Zee, "Destroying Chemical
Wastes in Commercial Scale Incinerators. Laboratory Analysis Results
from the CHEM TROL/St. Lawrence Cement Facility Test", Contract No.
68-01-2966, November 1976.
22. Anonymous, "Emission Testing at Continental Can Company,.Hopewell,
Virginia, July 14-23, 1975", EPA Office of Enforcement, EPA-330/2-76-
030, October 1976.
23. Anonymous, "Summary of PCB Emission Tests for Peerless Cement Company,
Detroit, Michigan", December 1976.
227
-------
24. Ahling, B., "Destruction of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in a Cement Kiln",
Environ, Sci. & Technol., 13, 1377 (1979).
25. Adapted from Prenco, Prenco Brochure, "The Modern Approach to Pollution
Control", Pickands Mather and Company, Detroit, Michigan.
26. Adapted from Novak, R.G., "Eliminating or Disposing of Industrial Solid
Wastes", Chemical Engineering, 177(21), 79 (1970).
27. Leighton, I.W. and J.B. Feldman, "Demonstration Test Burn of DDT in
General Electric's Liquid Injection Incinerator", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, December 1974.
28. Clausen, J.F., R.J. Johnson, and C.A. Zee, "Destroying Chemical Wastes
in Commercial Scale Incinerators. Facility Report No. 1. The
Marquardt Company", EPA Contract No. 68-01-2966 (NTIS PB 257 70916WP),
October 1976.
29. Hutson, J.E., "Report on the Destruction of 'Orange' Herbicide by
Incineration", Report to U.S.A.F. Environmental Health Laboratory,
Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, April 1974.
30. Anonymous, U.S. Department of the Air Force, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, "Disposition of Orange Herbicide by Incineration",
November 1974.
31. Wastler, T.A., C.K. Offutt, C.K. Fitzsimmons, and P.E. Des Rosiers,
"Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes by Incineration at Sea",
EPA-430/9-75-014, July 1975.
32. Clausen, J.F., H.J. Fisher, R.J. Johnson, E.L. Moon, C.C. Shih, R.F.
Tobias, and C.A. Zee, "At-Sea Incineration of Organochlorine Wastes
Onboard the M/T Vulcanus", EPA-600/2-77-196, September 1977.
33. Ackerman, D.G., H.J. Fisher, R.J. Johnson, R.F. Maddalone, B.J.
Matthews, E.L. Moon, K.H. Scheyer, C.C. Shih, and R.F. Tobias, "At-Sea
Incineration of Herbicide Orange Onboard the M/T Vulcanus", EPA-
600/2-78-086, April 1978.
34. Ackerman, D.G., "Destruction Efficiencies for TCDD During At-Sea
Incineration of Herbicide Orange", EPA Contract No. 68-02-2660, March
1979.
35. Ackerman, D.G., R.J. Johnson, E.L. Moon, A.E. Samsonov, and K.H.
Scheyer, "At-Sea Incineration: Evaluation of Waste Flow and Combus-
tion Gas Monitoring Instrumentation Onboard the M/T Vulcanus", EPA-
600/2-2-79-137, July 1979.
36. Adapted from Sebastian, F.P. and P.J. Cardinal, "Solid Waste Disposal",
Chemical Engineering, pp. 112-117, October 14, 1968.
37. Hitchcock, D., "Solid Waste Disposal: Incineration", Chemical
Engineering, 86(11) 185, (1979).
228
-------
38. Whitmore, F.C., "Destruction of PCBs in Sewage Sludge During Inciner-
ation", NTIS No. PB 258162/7WP, 1976.
39. U.S. EPA, "A Study of Pesticide Disposal in a Sewage Sludge Inciner-
ator", SW-116C, 1975.
40. Ackerman, D.G., J.F. Clausen, R.J. Johnson, and C.A. Zee, "Destroying
Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Incinerators. Facility Report
No. 3. Systems Technology", EPA Contract No. 68-01-2966, NTIS
PB 265 540, November 1976.
41. Personal communication from Raymond Esposito, President, Union Oil
Company, to D.G. Ackerman, April 1980.
42. Anonymous, "Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Inciner-
ators. Facility Test Plans Volume 11", NTIS No. PB 257 710/4 WP,
July 1975.
43. Ferguson, T.L., F.J. Bergman, G.R. Cooper, R.T. Li, and F.I. Honea,
"Determination of Incinerator Operating Conditions Necessary for Safe
Disposal of Pesticides", EPA-600/2-75-041, December 1975.
44. Adams, J.W., J.C. Harris, P.L. Levins, J.L. Stauffer, K.E. Thrun, and
L.R. Woodland, "Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale
Incinerators. Facility Report No. 2. Surface Combustion Division
Midland Ross Corporation", NTIS No. PB 268 232, November 1976.
45. Hall-Enos, J. and S. Zelenski, "Test Plan for Evaluation of PCB Des-
truction Efficiency in Industrial Boilers", EPA Contract No.
68-02-3168, TD No. 9, March 1980.
46. Zelenski, S.G. and S. Haupt, "Evaluation of PCB Destruction in Indus-
trial Boilers", Draft Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2607, Task
No. 33, December 1979.
47. Adapted from "Steam: Its Generation and Use", 39th Edition, Babcock
and Wilcox Company, New York, 1978.
48. Anonymous, "Destruction of a Dilute PCB-Contaminated Waste in a Coal-
Fired High Efficiency Boiler at Tennessee Eastman Company",
Report by Tennessee Eastman Company, December 1979.
49. U.S. EPA, 40 CFR Part 60, Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. Ill, 8 June
1976, pp. 23076-23083.
50. Grant, D.M., "Open Chemical Flow Measurement Handbook", Instrumenta-
tion Specialties Company, 1978.
51. APHA-AWWA-WPCF, "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater", 14th Edition, 1975.
52. ANSI-ASTM D346-78, "Standard Method of Sampling Coke for Analysis",
Part 26, p. 213-ff, 1978.
229
-------
53. U.S. EPA, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
Methods", Report No. SW-846, 1980.
54. Blake, D.E., "Source Assessment Sampling System: Design and Develop-
ment", EPA-600/7-78-018, February 1978.
55. Hamersma, J.W., S.L. Reynolds, and R.F. Maddalone, "IERL-RTP Procedures
Manual: Level 1 Environmental Assessment", EPA-600/2-76-160a, June
1976.
56. Lentzen, D.E., D.E. Waggoner, E.D. Estes, and W.F. Gutknecht, "IERL-
RTP Procedures Manual (Second Edition), EPA-600/7-78-201, January 1979.
57. Guilford, N.G.H. and R.J. Brandon, "Pilot Scale Evaluation of the
Destruction of Waste Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Incineration",
Ontario Research Foundation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, August 28,
1978.
58. Guilford, N.G.H. and G. Rosenblatt, "Polychlorinated Biphenyl Source
Testing Survey, Ontario Region", MS Report No. OR-9, September 1977.
59. Komaniya, K. and S. Morisaki, "Incineration of Polychlorinated Bi-
phenyls with Oxygen Burner", Environmental Science & Technology.
12. (10), 1205-1208, (1978).
60. Beard, J.H., III, and J. Schaum, "Sampling Methods and Analytical
Procedures Manual for PCB Disposal: Interim Report", U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste, February 1978.
61. Adams, J., K. Menzies, and P. Levins, "Selection and Evaluation of
Sorbent Resins for the Collection of Organic Compounds", EPA-
600/7-77-044, April 1977.
62. Gallant, R.F., J.W. King, P.L. Levins, and J.F. Piecewicz, "Character-
ization of Sorbent Resins for Use in Environmental Sampling", EPA-
600/7-78-054, March 1978.
63. Piecewicz, J.F., J.C. Harris, and P.L. Levins, "Further Characteriza-
tion of Sorbents for Environmental Sampling", EPA-600/7-79-216,
September 1979.
64. Neher, M.B., P.W. Jones, and P.J. Perry, "Performance Evaluation of a
Solid Sorbent Hydrocarbon Sampler", Report to Electric Power Research
Institute, No. EA-959, January 1979.
65. Stratton, C.L., S.A. Whitlock, and J.M. Allen, "A Method for the
Sampling and Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Ambient
Air", EPA-600/4-78-048, August 1978.
66. U.S. EPA, "Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Human and Environmental
Samples", Research Triangle Park, N.C., 1974, revised.
230
-------
67. Kutz, F.W. and H.S.C. Yang, "A Note on Polychlorinated Biphenyls in
Air", Paper presented at the National Conference on Polychlorinated
Biphenyls", November 19-21, 1975, Chicago, IL.
68. Enos, H.F., J.F. Thompson, J.B. Mann, and R.F. Moseman, "Determina-
tion of Pesticide Residues in Air", Paper 22, Division of Pesticide
Chemistry, 163rd National American Chemical Society Meeting, Boston,
MA, April 1972.
69. Staiff, D.C., G.E. Quinby, D.L. Spencer, and H.C. Carr, Jr., Bull.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 12,455 (1974).
70. Stanley, C.W., J.E. Barney, M.R. Helton, and A.R. Yobs, "Measurement
of Atmospheric Levels of Pesticides", Environ. Sci. and Techno!., 5,
430 (1971).
71. Hocheiser, S., "State of the Art of Measurement Techniques for Moni-
toring of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Atmosphere", U.S. EPA,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., 1976.
72. American National Standards Institute, "Guideline for Handling and
Disposal of Capacitor- and Transformer-Grade Askarels", ANSI C107.1-
1974, New York, 1974.
73. American Industrial Hygiene Association, "Chlorodiphenyls", Hygiene
Guide Series, February-June 1965.
74. Compton, B. and J. Bjorkland, "Design of a High Volume Sampler for
Airborne Pesticide Collection", Paper 21, Division of Pesticide
Chemistry, 163rd National American Chemical Society Meeting, Boston,
MA, April 1972.
75. Harvey, G.R., W.G. Steinhauer, and J.M. Teal, "Polychlorinated Bi-
phenyls in North Atlantic Ocean Water", Science, 80, 643 (1973).
76. Harvey, G.R. and W.G. Steinauer, "Atmospheric Transport of Poly-
chlorobiphenyls to the North Atlantic", Atmos. Environ., 8, 777 (1974),
77. Wakimoto, T., R. Tachikawa, T. Ogawa, and T. Watanabe, "Method for
the Quantitation of Organic Chlorine Compounds in Air", Japan Analyst,
23,790 (1974).
78. Seiber, J.N., J.E. Woodrow, T.M. Shofik, and H.F. Enos, "Determination
of Pesticides and Their Transformation Products in Air", in "Environ-
mental Dynamics of Pesticides", pp. 17-43, Plenum Press, New York,
1975.
79. Risebrough, R.W., P. Rieche, D.G. Peakall, S.G. Herman, and M.N.
Kirven, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Global Ecosystem", Nature,
220,1098 (1968).
231
-------
80. Tessori, J.D. and D.L. Spencer, "Air Sampling for Pesticides in the
Human Environment", J. Official Analytical Chemists, 54,1376 (1971).
81. Sodergren, A., "Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Residues in Airborne Fallout",
Nature, 236, 395 (1972).
82. Young, D.R., D.J. McDermott, and T.C. Heesen, "Polychlorinated Bi-
phenyl Inputs to the Southern California Bight", Paper presented at
National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Chicago, IL. 19-21
November 1975.
83. Giam, C.S., H.S. Chun, and G.S. Neff, "Rapid and Inexpensive Method
for Detection of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Phthalates in Air",
Anal. Chem., 47, 2319 (1975).
84. Burg, O.W., R.B. Caton, R.D. Smillie, and R.D. Stevens, "An Ambient
Air Survey for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ontario", Paper presented
at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
20-24 June 1977.
85. Bidelman, T.F. and C.E. Olney, "High Volume Collection of Atmospheric
Polychlorinated Biphenyls", Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 2, 5
! (1974).
86. Bidelman, T.F. and C.E. Olney, "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the
Sargasso Sea Atmosphere and Surface Water", Science, 183, 516 (1974).
87. Rhoades, J.W., D.E. Johnson, and R.G. Lewis, "Evaluation of Collection
Media for Measurement of Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in
Ambient Air", 173rd National Meeting, American Chemical Society, New
Orleans, Paper No. 77, March 25, 1977.
88. Rice, C.P., C.E. Olney, and T.F. Bidelman, "Use of Polyurethane Foam
to Collect Trace Amounts of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and Other Organics
From Air", Paper presented at World Health Organization Meeting,
Gothenburg, Sweden, October 1976.
89. Lewis, R.G., A.R. Brown, and M.D. Jackson, "Evaluation of Polyurethane
Foam for Sampling Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, and Poly-
chlorinated Naphthalenes in Ambient Air", Anal. Chem. 49, 1668 (1977).
90. MacLeod, K.E., "Sources of Emissions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls into
the Ambient Atmosphere and Indoor Air", EPA-600/4-79-022, March 1979.
91. Young, A.L., J.A. Calcagni, C.E. Thalken, and J.W. Tremblay, "The
Toxicology, Environmental Fate, and Human Risk of Herbicide Orange
and Its Associated Dioxin", Report by U.S. Air Force Occupational and
Environmental Health Laboratory, Brooks A.F.B., TX, No. OEHL TR-78-92,
October 1978.
92. Hutzinger, 0., S. Safe, and V. Zitko, "The Chemistry of PCBs", CRC
Press, Cleveland, Ohio, 1974.
232
-------
93. Armour, J.A., "Quantitative Perch"!orination of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
as a Method for Confirming Residue Measurement and Identification",
J. Official Analytical Chemists, 56, 987 (1972).
94. Haile, C., "Interlaboratory Verification Analysis", Midwest Research
Institute, Final report on EPA Contract No. 68-02-1399, December 1976.
95. Webb, R.6. and A.C. McCall, "Quantitative PCB Standards for Electron
Capture Gas Chromatography", J. Chromatog. Sci., 11, 366 (1973).
96. Eichelberger, J.W., I.E. Harris, and W.L. Budde, 'Analysis of the
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Problem. Application of Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry With Computer Controlled Repetitive Data Acquisition
From Selected Specific Ions", Anal. Chem., 46, 227 (1974).
97. Levins, P.L., C.E. Rechsteiner, and O.L. Stauffer, "Measurement of
PCB Emissions from Combustion Sources", EPA-600/7-79-047, February
1979.
98. Veith, G.D., "Baseline Concentrations of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and
DDT in Lake Michigan Fish", Pesticide Monit. J., 9, 21 (1975).
99. Burg, O.W., R.B. Caton, R.D. Smillie, and R.D. Stevens, "An Ambient
Air Survey for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ontario", Paper presented
at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
20-24 June 1977.
100. U.S. EPA, "Handbook. Continuous Air Pollution Source Monitoring
Systems", EPA-625/6-79-005, June 1979.
101. U.S. EPA, "Guideline for Development of a Quality Assurance Program:
Volume XV - Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources by Continuous Monitors", EPA-650/4-74-005-0, March 1976.
102. Lustenhouwer, J.A., K. Olie, and D. Hutzinger. Chlorinated Di-
benzo-p-Dioxins and Related Compounds in Incinerator Effluents-
A review of Measurements and Mechanisms of Formation. Chemos,phere
9, 501-522 (1980)
103. Duvall, D.S. and W.A. Rubey, "Laboratory Evaluation of High Temperature
Destruction of Polychlorinated Biphenyls", EPA-600/2-77-228, December
1977.
104. Duvall, D.S., W.A. Rubey, and J.A. Mescher, "High Temperature Decompo-
sition of Organic Hazardous Waste", in "Treatment of Hazardous Waste.
Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium", D. Shultz, Ed., EPA-
600/9-80-011, March 1980.
105. Buser, H.R., "Formation of Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and
Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDDs) From the Pyrolysis of Chlorobenzenes",
Chemosphere, 6, 415 (1979).
233
-------
106. Morita, M., J. Nakagawa, and C. Rappe, "Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran
(PCDF) Formation from PCB Mixture by Heat and Oxygen", Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol., 19, 665 (1978).
107. Buser, H.R., H.P. Bosshardt, and C. Rappe, "Formation of Polychlori-
nated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) from the Pyrolysis of PCBs", Chemosphere,
1, 109 (1978).
108. Buser, H.R. and C. Rappe, "Formation of Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans
(PCDFs) from the Pyrolysis of Individual PCB Isomers", Chemosphere,
3, 157 (1979).
109. Pauling, L., "The Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of
Molecules and Crystals", Third Ed., Cornell University Press, New York,
1960.
110. Vick, R.D., C.A. Junk, M.J. Avery, J.J. Richard, and H.J. Svec,
"Organic Emissions from Combustion of Combination Coal/Refuse to
Produce Electricity", Chemosphere, 11, 893 (1978).
111. Eiceman, G.A., R.E. Clement, and F.W. Karasek, "Analysis of Fly Ash
From Municipal Incinerators for Trace Organic Compounds", Anal. Chem.,
51, 2343 (1979).
112. 01ie, K., P.L. Vermeulen, and 0. Hutziner, "Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
and Chlorodibenzofurans are Trace Components of Fly Ash and Flue Gas
of Some Municipal Incinerators in the Netherlands", Chemosphere, 8,
455 (1977).
113. Buser, H.R., H. Bosshardt, and C. Rappe, "Identification of Poly-
chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin Isomers Found in Fly Ash", Chemosphere,
2, 165 (1978).
114. Rappe, C. and H.R. Buser, "Formation and Degradation of Polychlori-
nated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) by Thermal
Processes", Paper presented at 178th National American Chemical
Society Meeting, Washington, D.C., September 9-14, 1979.
115. Carnes, R.A., J.U. Doerger, and H.L. Sparks, "Chlorinated Biphenyls
in Solid Waste and Solid-Waste-Related Materials", Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol., 1(1), 27 (1973).
116. Manson, L. and S. Unger, "Hazardous Material Incinerator Design
Criteria", EPA-600/2-79-198, October 1979.
117. Wilkinson, R.R., G.L. Kelso, and F.C. Hoskins, "State-of-the-Art
Report, Pesticide Disposal Research", EPA-600/2-78-183, September 1978.
118. Riley, B.T., "Summation of Conditions and Investigations for the
Complete Combustion of Organic Pesticides", EPA-600/2-75-044, October
1975.
234
-------
119. Shih, C.C., R.F. Tobias, J.F. Clausen, and R.J. Johnson, "Thermal
Degradation of Military Standard Pesticide Formulations", for U.S.
Army Medical Research and Development Command, TRW Report No. 24768-
6019-RU-OO, March 1975.
120. American Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists", TLVs Threshold
Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents in the Work-
room Environment with Intended Changes for 1979", 1979.
121. Electric Power Research Institute, "Disposal of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) and PCB-Contaminated Materials. Volume 2: Suggested
Procedures for Development of PCB Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
measure Plans", EPRI FP-1207, Vol. 2, October 1979.
122. Electric Power Research Institute, "Disposal of Polychlorinated Bi-
phenyls (PCBs) and PCB-Contaminated Materials. Volume 3: Example
Preparation of a Utility PCB Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
measure Plan", EPRI FP-1207, Vol. 3, October 1979.
123. Perry, J.H., "Chemical Engineer's Handbook", 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1973.
124. Fabian, H.W., P. Reher, M. Scheren, "How Bayer Incinerates Waste",
Hydrocarbon Processing, p. 183-ff, April 1979.
125. U.S. EPA, "Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal",
EPA-625/1-74-006, October 1974.
126. Sherwood, T.K. and R.L. Pigford, "Absorption and Extraction", 2nd Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1952.
127. Hanf, E.W. and J.W. MacDonald, "Economic Evaluation of Wet Scrubbers".
Chemical Engineering Progress, 71 (83), 48 (1975).
128. Zenz, F.A., "Designing Gas Absorption Towers", Chemical Engineering,
79 (25), 120 (1972).
129. Calvert, S., J. Goldschmid, D. Leith, and D. Mehta. "Wet Scrubber
System Study: Volume I - Scrubber Handbook", EPA-R2-72-118a, August
1972.
130. Hesketh, H.E., "Fine Particle Collection Efficiency Related to Pressure
Drop, Scrubbant, and Particle Properties and Contact Mechanism",
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 24 (10): 939 (1974).
131. Santoro, M.A., R.E. Edwards, and C.R. Lewis, "Materials and Construc-
tion Features That Contribube to Reliability of Air Pollution Control
Equipment of an Industrial Incinerator", 3M Company, 6 pp.
132. Kerchner, R.W., "Corrosion of Pollution Control Equipment", Chemical
Engineering Progress, 71 (3), 58 (1975).
235
-------
133. Calvert, S., "How to Choose a Particulate Scrubber", Chemical Engi-
neering, pp. 54-68, August 24, 1977.
134. Marchello, J.M., "Gas Cleaning for Air Quality Control", Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1975.
135. Paige, S.F., L.B. Baboolal, H.J. Fisher, K.H. Scheyer, A.M. Shaug,
R.L. Tan, and C.F. Thorne, "Environmental Assessment: At-Sea and
Land-Based Incineration of Organochlorine Wastes", EPA-600/2-78-087,
April 1978.
136. Kutz, F.W. and S.C. Strassman, "Residues of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
in the General Population of the United States", Paper 139 in National
Conference Polychlorinated Biphenyls, November 19-21, 1975, Chicago,
EPA 560/75-004.
137. U.S. EPA, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls - Ambient Water Quality Criteria",
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., NTIS # PB
296 803, 1978.
138. Huibregtse, K.R., R.C. Scholz, R.E. Wullschleger, J.H. Moser, E.R.
Bellinger, and C.A. Hansen, "Manual for the Control of Hazardous
Material Spills, Volume 1. Spill Assessment and Water Treatment
Techniques", EPA-600/2-77-277, November 1977.
139. Personal communication from Philip C. Schwindt, U.S. EPA, Region VI,
October 8, 1980.
140. Dixon, W.J. and F.J. Massey, Jr., "Introduction to Statistical
Analysis", 3rd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.
141. Chemical Rubber Company, "Handbook of Tables for Probability and
Statistics", 2nd Ed., Chemical Rubber Company, Cleveland, 1968.
236
-------
APPENDIX A
THE PCB REGULATIONS
237
-------
Thursday
May 31, 1979
Part VI
Environmental
Protection Agency
Poiychlorinated Blphenyls;
Criteria Modification; Hearings
238
-------
31514
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[FRL 1075-2]
Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution In Commerce, and Use
Prohibitions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule implements
provisions of the toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) prohibiting the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs}. Specifically, this rule:
(1) Prohibits all manufacturing of
PCBs after July 2, 1979 unless
specifically exempted by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
(2) Prohibits the processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs except in a totally enclosed
manner after July 2,1979;
(3) Authorizes certain processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs in a non-totally enclosed manner
(which would otherwise be subject to
the prohibition described above);
(4) Prohibits all processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs after
July 1,1979, unless specifically
exempted by EPA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 2, 1979. The disposal
and marking rule [43 FR 7150, February
17, 1978. as amended by 43 FR 33918
August 2, 1978) shall remain in effect
until the rule promulgated today
becomes effective.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For information concerning this rule and
for copies of this rule contact: John
Ritch, Jr., Director, Office of Industry
Assistance, Office of Toxic Substances
(TS-799), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Call the toll-
free number (800)—424-9065, or in
Waahingtpn, D.C. call 554-1404.
The support documentation for this
ruk can also be obtained through the
above-mentioned address. The support
documentation consists of two parts and
are entitled Support Document/
Voluntary Environmental Impact
Statement and PCB Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce
Ban Regulation: Economic Impact
Analysis. (This Economic Impact
Analysis is hereinafter referred to as the
Versar Report). These two documents
have been reproduced and bound into
one publication.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Format of Rule
In order to clarify the relationship
between the PCB Disposal and Marking
Rule and the PCB Ban Rule, all of Part
78J is printed in this notice in a fully
integrated form. This notice incorporates
the Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR
7150, February 17,1978) for PCBs and
the technical amendments (43 FR 33918,
August 2,1978) to that Rule into one
regulation. Therefore, this notice
supercedes the previous notices on July
2, 1973.
Background
Section 6(e) of TSCA requires EPA to
control the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, disposal,
and marking of polychlorinated
biphenyts (PCBs). On February 17,1978,
EPA published the PCB Disposal and
Marking Rule in the Federal Register (43
FR 7150). Clarifying amendments to this
rule were published on August 2,1978
(43 FR 33918).
Section 0(e)(2) provides that no person
may manufacture, process, distribute in
commerce, or use any PCB in a manner
other'than in a "totally enclosed
manner" after January 1,1978, except to
the extent EPA authorizes activities in a
non-totally enclosed manner. On
December 30,1977, EPA published a
notice (42 FR 65264) stating that
implementation of the January 1,1978
ban would be postponed until 30 days
after promulgation of this rule.
Section 6(e)(3) provides that no person
may manufacture any PCB after January
1,1979, or process or distribute in
commerce any PCB after July 1,1979,
except to the extent that EPA
specifically exempts such activities.
Implementation of the January 1,1979
ban was postponed until 30 days after
the promulgation of the rule published
today (See 44 FR 108, January 2,1979).
Section 6(e)(3)(B) provides that
persons may petition the Administrator
for exemptions from the prohibition of
the manufacture of PCBs, which goes
into effect July 2,1979 or from the
prohibition of processing and
distribution in commerce, which goes
into effect July 1,1979. Interim rules
establishing procedures for submitting
petitions for exemptions from the
manufacturing prohibition were
published November 1.1978 (43 FR
50905). More than 70 petitions for
exemptions have been received. On
January 2,1979, EPA announced (44 FR
108) that it would not enforce the PCB
manufacturing and importation ban of
section 6f»(3)(A) against persons who
had submitted petitions until EPA has
acted on their exemption petition. This
nonenforcement policy applies solely to
activities that are properly subject to a
pending PCB manufacturing or
importation exemption petition.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
EPA has published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that identifies each petition
received for exemptions from the
manufacturing prohibition and, in most
cases, the action that EPA proposes to
take on individual petitions. Rules
establishing procedures for submitting
petitions for exemptions from the
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions will be published in the
near future.
Authority to grant or deny petitions
for exemptions from the PCB processing
and distribution in commerce bans
under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, as well
as the authority to revise the procedural
rules for PCB exemptions and to grant
further PCB authorizations and to
amend or modify this regulation ia
delegated to the Assistant Administrator
for Toxic Substances. This authority
was previously delegated to the
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances for the PCB manufacturing
exemptions (see 43 FR 50905).
This final rule implementing sections
6{e) (2) and (3) of TSCA was proposed
June 7.1978 (43 FR 24802). Ten days of
public hearings were held in
Washington, D.C., from August 21 to
September 1. Over 50 oral presentations
were made and two hearing participants
conducted cross-examination on
September 26, 1978. On September 22,
1978 (43 FR 43048), EPA published a
notice of the opportunity for cross-
examination and extended the reply
comment period to October 10, 1978.
EPA received over 200 comments on the
proposed rule.
EPA has produced, as part of the
rulemaking process for PCBs, two
support documents. The first support
document which was entitled Support
Document/Voluntary Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, was
made available at the time the proposed
rule was published and discussed the
health and environmental effects of
PCBs, the substitutes for PCBs, and the
regulatory alteniatives EPA considered
in developing the proposed PCB Ban
Rule. The second support document
entitled Support Document/Voluntary
Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared along with the final PCB Rule
and Preamble. This particular document
contains updated versions of the health
and environmental effects and PCB
substitutes sections, and addresses the
239
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31515
major comments that were made on the
proposed rule during-the comment
period. In many cases these comments
led to changes to the proposed PCB Ban
Rule. There are also two versions of the
economic impact analysis that have
been prepared by Versar. Inc. The first
Vcrsar Report was made available at
the time of the proposed PCB Ban Rule.
The second, or final Versar Report, has
been incorporated into the final Support
Document. Copies of the final Support
Document can be obtained from the
Industry Assistance Office identified
above.
Table 1—Content* of Preamble
1. Summary of the Rule's Organization
-D. Changes in Major Definitions
A. "PCB" and "PCB Items"
B. Regulation of PCBs at the 50 ppm
Concentration Level
C. Classification of Transformers Under
This Rule
1. PCB Transformers
2. PCB-Contaminated Transformers
3. Non-PCB Transformers
4. Discussion of Transformer Categories
a. Determining Appropriate Categoric*
b. Significance of Transformer Categories
D. Totally Enclosed Manner and Significant
Exposure
E. Sale for Purposes Other Than Rente
F. Other Definitions,
III. Changes In Subpart B: Disposal of PCBs
and PCB Items
A. Mineral Oil Dielectric Fluid with GO to
500 ppm PCB
1. High Efficiency Boilers
2. Conditions for Boilers
3. Other Disposal Alternatives
a Other Liquid Wastes with 50 to 500 ppm
JPCB
C. Disposal of 50 to 500 ppm PCB Liquids in
Chemical Waste Landfills'
D. Disposal of Non-Liquid PCBs in
Chemical Waste Landfills
E. Batch Testing of Mineral Oil Dielectric
Fluid
F. Other Changes in the Disposal
Requirements
IV. Changes in Subpart C: Marking of PCBs
and PCB Items
V. Changes in Subpart E: Annexes
A. Annex I: Incineration
B. Annex H: Chemical Waste Landfills
C. Annex HL Storage
1. Container Specifications
2. Bulk Storage
3. Spill Prevention Procedures
4. Flood Protection
5. Temporary Storage
a. Revisions
b. Action on Petitions to Amend Rule on
Temporary Storage Requirements
D. Annex IV:'Decontamination
a Annex VI: Records and Monitoring
VI. Subpart D: Manufacturing, Processing.
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Bans
A. Prohibitions
1. Waste Oil Bans
E Changes in i 761.30: Prohibitions
1. Change in Scope of Manufacturing Ban
a. "Manufacturing" versus "Processing" of
PCB Items
b. Manufacture and Import of PCB Items
2. Import and Export of PCBs and PCB Items
for Disposal
C Other Issues
1. PCB Impurities and Byproducts
2. Disposal of Small PCB Capacitors
3. State Preemptions
VII. Relationship of { 6(e)(2) to 5 6(e)(3) in
TSCA
VIII. Authorization!! and Exemptions
A. Explanation of Authorizations and
Exemptions
1. Manufacturing Exemptions
2. Processing and Distribution in Commerce
Exemptions
B. General Changes in { 761.31:
Authorizations
1. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
2. Length of Use Authorizations
3. Changes in { 761.46: Annex VII
DC. Specific Authorizations
A. Servicing Transformers (Other Than
Railroad Transformers}
1. General Discussion of Transformer
Servicing
2. PCB Transformers
3. PCB-Contaminated Transformers
4. Rebuilding PCB Transformers
5. Contents of Authorization
E Use and Servicing of Railroad
Transformers
C. Use and Servicing of Mining Equipment
D. Use in Heat Transfer Systems
E. Use in Hydraulic Systems
P. Use in Carbonless Copy Paper
C. Pigments
H. Use and Servicing of Electromagnets
L Use in Natural Gas Pipeline Compressors
]. Use of Small Quantities for Research and
Development
JC Use in Microscopy
X. PCB Activities Not Authorized by this Rule
A. Manufacture of PCB Capacitors
B. Manufacture of PCB Transformers
C. Other PCB Activities
XI. Manufacturing, Processing, and
Distribution in Commerce of PCBs for
Export
XII. Test Procedures for PCB
XIII. Compliance and Enforcement
XIV. Relationship of PCB Disposal Under
TSCA to Hazardous Waste Disposal Umler
RCRA
XV. Summary of Economic Consequences
1. Summary of the Rule's Organization
Subpart A (§§ 761.1 and 761.2) of this
rule contains general provisions
applicable to all other Subparts. Section
761.1 states the applicability of the
provisions of the rule. Section 761.2
contains definitions of terms used in the
rule. Subparts B (§ 761.10) and C
(§ 761.20) contain disposal and marking
requirements. Subpart D (|§ 761.30 and
761.31) concerns the manufacturing.
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs. Section 761.30 contains
prohibitions on activities while § 761.31
sets out authorizations under TSCA
section 6{e)(2)(B). Subpart E contains
Annexes to the rule concerning
incineration of PCBs, chemical waste
landfills, storage for disposal,
decontamination, marking, and records
and monitoring.
The preamble to this rule primarily
describes changes from the proposal.
Except to the extent that it is
Inconsistent with this final rule
preamble, the preamble to the proposed
rule (43 PR 24602, June 7.1978) is
incorporated by reference into this
document and should be consulted for
additional information (see 43 FR 24802-
24812, June 7,1978). The contents of this
preamble are summarized in Table 1.
The amount of PCBs used in different
PCB activities and the impact this rule
will have on these PCBs is summarized
in Table 2.
I i—OuantttlM ol PCS'! Uwd In PCB ActtvlliM'
Poundi w
Pound* r»gul«lw] Ptxxv* c
_ 295 000 000
_ -400000
. 5,000000
_ 34000
- ~ 7SO-3SOO
. 40.000- IfOOOO
I'l
STOO'yr
- ao.Mo-ao.ooo _
205000000
-400000
5000000
34000
" 7SO-JSOO
. 40000-100.000
I'l
S.TWJ/y
20000-30.000
. SOOO.OOO
, J4000'
TS03900 '
40.0OO-I*9000 '
4M.OOO.OOO — . 2*2 WO,000 .
1W.000-500.OOO/Vf 100 000-500OOO'yr 100,000-5000000')"'
. 33000V - — K.OOO/yr KOOO/yr
- 7SO.WO 000 - 483.300 000* - S 430 000
'Ow • §*• yMT parted
HX«F I ••*• yMr pwtod
*Dr*r*na and nMng r
* 01PCS (ithttum o
•Si4>|«c. to .wtrnpfcon
»U.» mafwma but odw
y papal »war*»rlat MnartoOTl Uw !• auffiortad mtorm«M)r
Jut and *• ana fc tw ootum 10 fw Ml » tv PC8
•n» japacrtore. w*w^ ar* unccK1-
•Oftta d4ftMtf ta» Vvav newt
n. Changes in Major Definitions
A. "PCBa" and "PCB Items"
This final rule changes the definition
of "PCB" from that contained in the
proposal In two significant respects. In
the proposed rule, § 761 .2(q) defined
"PCB" and "PCBs" to include PCB
Chemical Substances, PCB Mixtures,
PCB Articles, PCB Equipment, PCB
Containers, and PCB Sealants, Coatings,
and Dust Control Agents. Section
761.2(8) of the final rule defines "PCB"
and "PCBs" to mean any chemical
substance or combination of substances
that is limited to the biphenyl molecule
that has been chlorinated to varying
degrees. This definition is essentially
what the proposal defined as "PCB
Chemical Substance". This term and the
term "PCB Mixture" have been deleted
240
-------
31516 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
from the rule. Because some provisions
in the rule apply to concentrations of
PCBs below 50 ppm (e.g.. the ban on the
use of PCBs as sealants, coatings, and
dust control agents), the applicability
section (5 761.1 (b)) explains that
wherever the term "PCB" or "PCBs" is
used in this rule, it means PCBs at a
concentration of 50 ppm or greater
unless otherwise specified.
The second principal change is the
addition of a neW term. "PCB Item",
defined as "any PCB as it is a part'of, or
contained in, any 'PCB Article', 'PCB
Article Container1, 'PCB Containers' or
'PCB Equipment', at a concentration of
50 ppm or greater" (see 5 761.2(x)). This
change significantly affects the scope of
the manufacturing ban. (See preamble
section VI.B.1. below.)
B. Regulation of PCBs at the 50 ppm
Concentration Level
To implement this rule in a practical
manner, it is essential that EPA adopt a
regulatory cut-off point based upon the
concentration of PCBs. PCBs are widely
dispersed in the environment and are
found worldwide at low concentration.
This wide dispersion has occurred
because hundreds of millions of pounds
of PCBs have been used in the past with
little or no attempt to control their use or
disposal. Because PCBs are now so
pervasive, the effect of not having a cut-
off concentration would be to extend the
prohibitions and other requirements of
section 6(e) of TSCA to almost all
human activity. Many foods, such as
fish and milk, as well as the human
body often contain detectable
concentrations of PCBs.
The final rule applies to any
substance, mixture, or item with 50 ppm
or greater PCB. This 50 ppm cut-off was
proposed as a change from the Disposal
and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150, February
17,1978), which specified a 500 ppm cut-
off. (See definition of "PCB Mixture" in
that rule (§ 761.2(w), 43 FR 7157).)
Where t
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31517
C. Classification of Transformers Under
This Rule
This rule establishes four categories of
transformers: 1) PCB Transformers; 2)
PCB-Contamlnated Transformers; 3)
Non-PCB Transformers; and 4) Railroad
Transformers. Railroad Transformers
are discussed in the preamble section
IX.B. The other three categories are
discussed immediately below.
PCB Transformers
PCB Tranformers are transformers
thai contain PCBs at a concentration of
500 ppm or greater. This category
includes transformers that were
designed to use concentrated PCBs (40
percent or greater PCBs) as a dielectric
fluid, as well as transformers that were
not designed to use concentrated PCBs
but contain 500 ppm or greater PCB. The
higher concentration of PCB could result
from an unusual contamination incident
at the manufacturing facility, from
careless servicing operations, or from
deliberate attempts to use concentrated
PCBs as a dielectric fluid. The selection
of 500 ppm as the lower limit defining a
PCB Transformer is directly related to
the selection of limits for defining PCB-
Contaminated Transformers. This is
discussed in section C.2 immediately
below.
A transformer must be assumed to be
a PCB Transformer if any one of the
following conditions exist: [1] the
nameplate indicates that the transformer
contains PCB dielectric fluid; (2) the
owner or operator has any reason to
believe that the transformer contains
PCB dielectric fluid; or (3) the
transformer's dielectric fluid has been
tested and found to contain 500 ppm or
greater PCB. If a transformer does not
have a nameplate or if there is no
information available to indicate the
type of dielectric fluid in it. the
transformer must be assumed to be a
PCB Transformer unless it is tested and
found to contain less than 500 ppm PCB.
This category of transformers is defined
in the rule in § 761.2(y).
2. PCB-Contaminated Transformers
PCB-Contaminated Transformers are
transformers that contain between 50
ppm and 500 ppm PCB. This category
includes transformers that were
designed to use PCB-free mineral oil
dielectric fluids but now contain
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm of PCBs
because of contamination that occurred
in manufacturing or servicing
operations. Available data indicate that
as many as 38 percent of the 35,000,000
mineral oil transformers contain
^ between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs but that
PCB concentrations above 500 ppm in
such transformers are rare. Based on
these data, EPA IB specifying 50 to 500
ppm as the range of PCB concentration
defining PCB-Contaminated
Transformers. The data also support the
requirement that all mineral oil
transformers must be assumed to be
PCB-Contaminated Transformers unless
tested and found not to contain between
50 and 500 ppm PCB.
The upper limit of 500 ppm is a
practical cut-off because it includes
virtually all mineral oil transformers
that are substantially contaminated with
PCBs and it coincides with the February
17,197B PCB Disposal and Marking Rule
limit for defining a "PCB Transformer".
Because most of the requirements of this
rule apply only to PCB concentrations of
50 ppm or greater (see preamble section
II.B above), 50 ppm is the logical choice
for a lower limit for PCB-Contaminated
Transformers.
As discussed in section C.4 below.
PCB Transformers may be converted to
PCB-Contaminated Transformers by
draining and replacing the dielectric
fluid as long as the replacement fluid is
between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs after
three months of in-service use. The term
PCB-Contaminated Transformer is
defined in § 761.2(z).
3. Non-PCB Transformers
Non-PCB Transformers are
transformers that contain less than 50
ppm PCB. No transformer may ever be
considered to be a Non-PCB
Transformer unless its dielectric fluid
has been tested or otherwise verified to
contain less than 50 ppm PCB. A person
who tests his transformers to classify
them as Non-PCB Transformers should
also take precautions to insure that
these transformers are not later
contaminated in servicing operations.
Addition of PCB-contaminated fluid, for
example, may result in PCB levels over
50 ppm.
Non-PCB Transformers are not
specifically covered by this rule.
However, it is possible mat the
dielectric fluid in these transformers
may contain a detectable, but less than
50 ppm PCB concentration. In this case,
the rule's prohibition of the use of waste
oil containing any detectable PCBs as a
sealant, coating, or dust control agent
would be applicable when the dielectric
fluid is removed from the transformer.
The term Non-PCB Transformer is not
defined in the rule.
4. Discussion of Transformer Categories
The owner or operator of a
transformer must ascertain which of
these three categories, PCB Transformer,
PCB-Contaminated Transformer, or
Non-PCB Transformer, is applicable. In
determining this, a person must make
certain assumptions, as discussed
below.
a. Determining Appropriate Categories
Transformers originally designed to
use concentrated PCBs usually have a
nameplate indicating that they contain
PCB dielectric fluid. Such transformers
must be assumed to be PCB
Transformers unless tested and found to
contain less than 500 ppm PCB. The
same assumption must also be made if
there is any other reason to believe that
a transformer was designed to use
concentrated PCB fluid or was ever
filled with such fluid. If a transformer
does not have a nameplate or if there is
no information available to indicate the
type of dielectric fluid in it, the
transformer must be assumed to be a
PCB Transformer.
If the owner or user has serviced the
transformer to reduce the PCB
concentration below 500 ppm, he cannot
simply assume that the PCB reduction
process was successful. Because PCBs
can continue to leach out of transformer
windings after refilling with dielectric
fluid containing less than 50 ppm PCB,
the owner must test to determine the
PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid
if he wants to reclassify such a
transformer. The test must be performed
only after the transformer has been in
use for three months or longer after the
most recent servicing intended to reduce
the PCB concentration. If this test shows
the transformer dielectric fluid to
contain between 50 ppm and 500 ppm
PCB, then the transformer can be
reclassified as a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer. If the PCB reduction was
successful enough to reduce the PCB
concentration below 50 ppm, then the
transformer would be a Non-PCB
Transformer. Owners or operators of
reclassified transformers must retain
record* of their tests in order to be able
to demonstrate compliance with the
reclassification requirements.
Because of the widespread PCB
contamination of transformers that were
designed to use PCB-free mineral oil
dielectric fluid, all such mineral oil
dielectric fluid transformers must be
assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
Transformers, unless reasons exist to
believe that a transformer was filled
with greater than 500 ppm PCB fluid (in
which case the assumption is that the
transformer is a PCB Transformer). The
owner or operator has the option of
testing the dielectric fluid to determine if
the PCB concentration is below 50 ppm.
This testing must be performed on the
242
-------
31513 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
dielectric fluid that is in the transformer.
If the PCS concentration in the dielectric
fluid is below 50 ppm, then the
transformer may be considered a Non-
PCB Transformer.
If any 500 ppm or greater PCB fluids
are added to a collection tank, the entire
tank contents must be considered to be
greater than 500 ppm PCBs and be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements found in Annex I of the
rule. (In other parts of this preamble this
will be referred to as an Annex I
incinerator.) The tank contents cannot
be used as dielectric fluid: the tank
contents must be disposed of. In
addition, PCB-free or low concentration
PCB fluids cannot be added to the tank
in order to dilute the tank contents to a
level below 50 ppm PCBs and avoid
more stringent disposal requirements.
High concentration PCBs must be
disposed of in accordance with the
applicable requirements even if the
concentration of PCBs could be or is
actually lowered by dilution. This
requirement is intended to prevent the
deliberate dilution of concentrated PCBs
to evade the more stringent disposal
requirements that apply to such liquids.
In addition, to permit dilution in this
way would result in greater
dissemination of PCBs and,
consequently, greater human and
environmental exposure to PCBs. The
use of collection tanks for mineral oil
dielectric fluid is discussed further in
preamble section OLE.
b. Significance of Transformer
Categories
The three categories of transformers
are subject to different disposal,
rebuilding, and storage requirements
under these rules. Fluids from Non-PCB
Transformers (with less than 50 ppm
PCBs} have one disposal restriction:
they cannot be used as a sealant,
coating, or dust control agent if they
contain any detectable PCB. Fluids from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers (with
50 ppm or 500 ppm PCBs} must be
disposed of in high efficiency boilers, in
approved chemical waste landfills, or in
Annex I incinerators. (See section ni.A
below). Fluids from PCB Transformers
(cor. entrations of 500 ppm or greater)
must be disposed of only by high
temperature incineration.
Other significant activities for which
the categories have different
requirements are servicing (including
rebuilding) and disposal (of the
transformer coil and casing). PCB-
Contaminated Transformers are subject
to no restrictions on servicing (including
rebuilding) or coil and casing disposal,
except that after July 1,1979, servicing
of PCB-Contaminated Transformers
must be performed either by the owner
or operator or by someone who has an
exemption from the processing and
distribution in commerce bans. The
major advantage of recategorizing a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer to Non-
PCB Transformer is that no exemption
would be needed for servicing and that
simpler dielectric fluid disposal
requirements would apply.
The servicing and disposal of PCB
Transformers are subject to more
stringent restrictions. Any servicing of
PCB Transformers that requires the
removal of the coil from the casing is
prohibited and PCB Transformer coils
and casings must be disposed of either
in an Annex II chemical waste landfill
or in an Annex I high temperature
incinerator. Any fluid removed from a
PCB Transformer being serviced must
either be reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in an Annex I incinerator.
Any fluid removed from a PCB
Transformer that is being disposed of
must be disposed of in an Annex I
incinerator. Servicing that does not
require the removal of the coil can be
performed, but persons who process or
distribute PCBs in commerce for
purposes of servicing must be granted
an exemption by EPA. Consequently,
recategorizing a PCB Transformer to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer by
lowering the PCB concentration would
permit rebuilding of the transformer,
simplify future disposal, and permit
salvage of the casing and coil.
Rebuilding may be especially important
to owners of transformers that are used
in special applications or have unique
design characteristics and that cannot
be readily replaced in the event of a
failure.
D. Totally Enclosed Manner and
Significant Exposure
The definitions of these terms are
basically unchanged from those
contained in the proposed rule. See the
preamble to the proposed rule (43 FR
24805-6, June 7,1978) for a discussion of
these terms.
E. Sale for Purposes Other Than Resale
Two modifications have been made to
this definition. First, sale for purposes of
research and development is not
considered to be for purposes other than
resale. The proposed rule excluded all
activities involving small quantities of
PCBs for research and development (as
defined in § 761.2(ee)). The final rule
includes such activities within its scope
and authorizes the processing and
distribution in commerce of small
quantities for research and development
until July 1,1979 (after which
exemptions would be required to
continue these activities) and authorizes
use of such quantities until July 1,1984
(see preamble section IX.]).
The second change concerns leasing
of PCB Equipment. The proposed rule
would have required that PCB
Equipment be leased for a minimum of
one year. The final rule provides that the
lease period may be for any period of
time provided that the lease begins
before July 1,1979. The import and
export of leased equipment will require
an exemption after July 1,1979 (see
preamble section VI.B.l.b).
F. Other Definition Changes
The definitions of "Chemical Waste
Landfill" (§ 761.21(f)) and "Incinerator"
(§ 761.2(1)) have been modified in a
minor way to reflect more closely the
proposed definitions developed for these
facilities under the Hazardous Waste
Regulations developed pursuant to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The changes do not affect
the criteria for these facilities in
Annexes I and II of the PCB Disposal
and Marking Rule.
Definitions for "Byproducts"
(§ 761.2(c)) and "Impurity" (§ 761.2{k))
have been added. These definitions are
the same as those promulgated in EPA's
inventory regulation under section 8 of
TSCA (42 FR 84572). (See preamble
section VI.C.l.)
III. Changes in Subpart B: Disposal of
PCBs and PCB Items
A. Mineral Oil Dielectric Fluid With 50
to 500 ppm PCB
The proposed rule would have
changed the PCB Disposal and Marking
Rule by requiring all PCBs containing 50
ppm or more PCB to be disposed of in an
incinerator meeting the requirements of
Annex I. This requirement would have
increased the quantity of liquid to be
incinerated over the next 30 to 40 years
from 300 million pounds to at least 3
billion pounds, with proportional
increases in costs (see the Versar
Report). This increase would also have
severely strained available incineration
capacity. EPA was concerned about the
impact of this requirement and
requested comments on the use of High
temperature boilers for incinerating PCB
pontaminated mineral oil
1. High Efficiency Boilers
A substantial number of comments
stated that power generation facilities
could provide an environmentally safe
alternative for burning PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. EPA reviewed
243
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31519
the comments and investigated the
feasibility of permitting the use of
boilers as a disposal option. After
exploring this matter with combustion
experts, EPA concluded that there are
boilers capable of adequately
incinerating PCB-contaminated mineral
oil. These boilers [which can be referred
to as "high efficiency boilers") include
power generation boilers and industrial
boilers that operate at a high
combustion efficiency (99.9%), as
defined by the carbon monoxide
concentrations and excess oxygen
percentages in the combustion
emissions.
These boilers are capable of achieving
a PCB destruction efficiency of 99.9% or
greater. This destruction efficiency is
somewhat lower than the estimated
99.9999% or greater destruction
efficiency that an Annex I incinerator
can achieve. However, this disposal
alternative is restricted to PCB-
contaminated mineral oil of low PCB
concentration (50-500 ppm) and offers a
substantial reduction in disposal costs
(over $13 million per year). Given the
9C.9% destruction efficiency for PCBs in
high efficiency boilers, only 10 more
pounds of PCB would enter the
environment annually as compared to
the amount released from high
temperature incinerators under Annex I.
(This estimate is derived from Versar
data).
After considering these factors, EPA
concluded that disposing of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil containing 50
to 500 ppm PCB in high efficiency boilers
does not present an unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment.
However, for the reasons explained in
section III.B, only PCB-contaminated
mineral oil will be permitted to be
burned in boilers without specific
approval by the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator. A discussion of
the burning of other low concentration
PCB wastes also is found in section III.B.
2. Conditions for Boilers
Based on the conclusions stated
above, the final rule permits the burning
of PCB-contaminated mineral oil with a
concentration below 500 ppm in high
efficiency boilers if the following
conditions are met: (1) the boiler is rated
at a minimum of 50 million BTU/hour,
(2) the mineral oil is no more than ten
percent of the total fuel feed rate; (3) the
mineral oil is not added to the
combustion chamber during boiler start-
up or shut-down operations; (4) before
commencing the burning of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil, the owner or
operator has conducted test* and
determined that the combustion
emissions contain at least three percent
(3%) excess oxygen and the carbon
monoxide concentration docs not
exceed 50 ppm for oil or gas-fired boilers
or 100 ppm for coal-fired boilers; (5) the
company has notified the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator at least 30
days before the company uses its high
efficiency boiler for this purpose and
has supplied the notice with the
combustion emissions data as specified
in (4) above; (6) the combustion process
is monitored either continuously or, for
boilers burning less than 30,000 gallons
of mineral oil annually, at least once
each hour that PCB-contaminated
mineral oil is burned, to determine the
percentage of excess oxygen and.the
carbon monoxide level in the
combustion emission; (7) the primary
fuel and mineral oil feed rates are
monitored at least every 15 minutes
whenever burning PCB-contaminated
mineral oil; (8) the carbon monoxide and
excess oxygen levels are checked at
least once an hour and, if they fall
below the specified levels, thp flow of
mineral oil to the boiler is immediately
stopped; and (9) records are maintained
that include the monitoring data in (6)
and (7) above and the quantities of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil burned each
month. When burning mineral oil
dielectric fluid, the boiler must operate
at a level of output no less than the
output at which the reported carbon
monoxide and excess oxygen
measurements were taken. The Regional
Administrator has to be notified only
before the first burning of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil in the boiler.
The conditions are intended to prevent
the introduction of PCBs into boilers
when combustion conditions are not
optimum for the destruction of PCBs.
The level of 30,000 gallons per year was
chosen as the cut-off for continuous
monitoring because, (1) EPA believes
that boilers burning 30,000 gallons or
more per year of PCB-contaminated
mineral oil would be burning on a
regular basis and therefore should
continuously monitor CO and excess O*
and (2) a boiler burning this quantity of
mineral oil annually will incur more
than sufficient savings over high
temperature incineration or chemical
waste landfill disposal costs to offset
the added costs of continuous
monitoring. However, a person whose
boiler does not meet these requirements
but who can demonstrate that the boiler
will destroy PCBs as efficiently as a high
efficiency boiler may seek specific
approval from the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator under
« 761.10(aK2)(iv).
EPA plans to monitor the use of these
boilers closely and will carefully
analyze the effectiveness of this
disposal option.
3. Other Disposal Alternatives
Alternatively, any PCB-cont.iminatud
mineral oil dielectric fluid (with a PCD
concentration less than 500 ppm) may be
disposed of either in an incinerator
complying with Annex I or, under
special conditions (see section III.C
below), in a chemical waste landfill
complying with Annex n. These landfills
will provide a disposal option less costly
than Annex I incineration for owners or
users of PCB-contaminated mineral oil
who do not have access to high
efficiency boilers. EPA believes that
only small quantities of dielectric fluid
will be disposed of in landfills because
high efficiency boilers or incinerators
will be available for most of the waste
fluids.
The impact on human health and the
environment from disposing of these
wastes in chemical waste landfills is
discussed in the preamble section III.B
below.
B. Other Liquid Wastes With 50 to 500
pom PCB
To provide thermal destruction
alternatives for other low concentration
liquid wastes containing less than 500
ppm PCB, EPA has included in the rule a
procedure that is comparable to the
disposal alternatives for PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. This
procedure permits the disposal of these
non-mineral oil fluids on a case-by-case
basis in high efficiency boilers.
Such approval can be granted if: (1)
the boiler is rated at a minimum of 50
million BTU/hour, (2) the PCB-
contaminated waste comprises no more
than ten percent (10%) of the total
volume of fuel; (3) the waste will not be
added to the combustion chamber
during boiler start-up or shut-down
operations; (4) the combustion emissions
will contain at least three percent (3%)
excess oxygen and the carbon monoxide
concentration will be less than 50 ppm
for oil or gas-fired boilers or 100 ppm for
coal-fired boilers; (5) the combustion
process will be monitored continuously
or at least once each hour that the PCB-
contaminated wastes are being burned
to determine the percentage of excess
oxygen and the carbon monoxide level
in the combustion emissions; (6) the
primary fuel and waste feed rates are
monitored at least every 15 minutes
whenever burning the waste; (7) the
carbon monoxide and excess oxygen
levels are monitored at least once an
hour and if they fall below the levels
244
-------
31520 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
specified, the flow of wastes to the
boiler is stopped immediately; and (8)
records are maintained that include the
monitoring data in (5) and (6] above and
the quantities of PCB-contaminated
waste burned each month. When
burning PCB wastes, the boiler must
operate at a level of output no less than
the output at which the reported carbon
monoxide and excess oxygen
measurements were taken. These
requirements are similar to those for
high efficiency boilers used to burn PCB-
contaminated mineral oil.
Persons seeking approval to use this
disposal alternative must submit an
application to the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator. The application
must contain information describing the
quantity of waste expected to be
disposed of each month, descriptive
information about the waste including
the concentrations of PCBs and other
chlorinated hydrocarbons, the results of
a number of standard fuel analyses to
determine the nature of the waste, BTU
heat value and flash point of the wastes,
and an explanation of the procedures to
be followed to insure that burning the
waste in the boiler will not adversely
affect the operation of the boiler such
that the combustion efficiency will
decrease. The information contained in
the applications will help the Regional
Administrator to assess whether these
high efficiency boilers will adequately
destroy these low concentration PCB
wastes.
The cost of this alternative is greater
than the mineral oil disposal alternative
because approval application costs and
analytical costs are greater. However,
these costs will be less than the cost for
Annex I incineration or Annex II
chemical waste landfills. As a result, the
quantity of low concentration PCB
wastes going to Annex I and Annex II
facilities should be reduced. In addition,
a person whose boiler does not meet
these requirements but who can
demonstrate that the boiler will destroy
PCBs as efficiently as a high efficiency
boiler may seek specific approval from
the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator under $ 761.10(a)(3)(iv).
Th 'se wastes are treated differently
than PCB-contaminated mineral oil
dielectric fluid because they tend to be
more varied in composition than
contaminated mineral oil. In many
cases, these fluids are fire or heat
resistant and could reduce PCB
destruction efficiency. For example,
unlike mineral oil, PCB-contaminated
hydraulic fluid will require the addition
of more primary fuel for it to burn In the
manner necessary to destroy the PCBs.
C. Disposal of 50 to SOOppm PCB
Liquids in Chemical Waste Landfills
The rule also provides another new
disposal alternative not permitted in the
proposed rule. All liquid wastes with
less than 500 ppm PCB may be disposed
of in chemical waste landfills that
comply with the requirements of Annex
n. Allowing this additional disposal
option for low concentration liquid
wastes will reduce disposal costs and
increase the availability of Annex I
incinerators to destroy high
concentration wastes.
This disposal alternative is limited to
those low PCB concentration (50-500
ppm) wastes that are not considered
ignitable wastes. A waste is considered
ignitable if its flash point is less than 60*
C (140* F). This limitation is consistent
with the proposed Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
rules for disposal of hazardous wastes
(43 FR 58946, December 18,197fl).
Properly designed and operated
chemical waste landfills are capable of
containing liquid wastes when the
liquids are stabilized in the disposal
process or contained in cells of sorbent
material, as required by this rule. EPA's
Office of Solid Waste recommends
mixing liquids with soils or solid wastes
in order to stabilize liquid wastes.
Alternatively, containers of the liquids
may be surrounded by enough inert,
sorbent material to absorb all of the
liquid in the container should the
container leak. These techniques will
effectively control the migration of PCBs
from the landfill site. Use of such
landfills will result in only limited
exposures to PCBs. Almost all of the
exposure will occur during the liquid
stabilization process. This use of
chemical waste landfills is consistent
with hazardous waste disposal policies
being proposed by EPA under RCRA
(see 43 FR 58946).
Incineration of low concentration PCB
wastes is much more costly. To destroy
a small percentage of PCBs, a significant
volume of contaminated material must
be destroyed. The cost of incineration
per pound of PCB may be very high.
Disposal of low concentration liquid
PCBs in an Annex Q chemical waste
landfill will greatly reduce these
disposal costs, free incineration
facilities for burning of high
concentration wastes, and produce little
increase in environmental or human
exposure to PCBs.
Owners or operators of chemical
waste landfills already approved by
EPA for disposal of non-liquid PCBs and
PCB Items will have to request
additional approval to dispose of liquids
with low-concentrations of PCBs.
Guidance on proper procedures for
requesting such approval will be
provided for these owners or operators.
Owners and operators of chemical
waste landfills not yet approved for
disposal of PCBs will also have to
request specific permission to dispose of
such liquids.
D. Disposal of Non-Liquid PCBa in
Chemical Waste Landfills
EPA has decided to permit the
disposal of non-liquid PCBs at any
concentration in chemical waste
landfills that meet the requirements of
Annex II. The Disposal and Marking
Rule permitted only persons with
contaminated soils and other solids
recovered from spills or removed from
old disposal sites to use this disposal
option. It would be inconsistent not to
permit this same disposal option for
other non-liquid PCB wastes such as
contaminated rags and absorbent
materials. These additional solids are
estimated to be only a small fraction of
the total non-liquid PCB wastes
generated. Providing this alternative
disposal method will permit more of the
currently available incineration capacity
to be used for high concentration liquid
wastes and will result in little additional
human or environmental exposure to
PCBs. For these reasons, EPA has made
this change in 5 761.10{a)(4) of the rule.
In addition to disposal in Annex I
incinerators or Annex Q chemical waste
landfills, dredge materials and
municipal sewage sludges that contain
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm PCB may
also be disposed of by any alternative
method approved by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator (see
§ 761.10(a)(5Kiii)). This provision is
unchanged from the Disposal and
Marking Rule, except that it now covers
these materials down to 50 ppm.
EPA has received a petition from the
State of North Carolina regarding the
disposal of contaminated soil and debris
from spills (44 FR 13575, March 12,1979).
EPA is required to respond to the
petition by June 4,1979.
The storage requirements of § 761.42
Subpart E apply to all of the low
concentration wastes discussed above
including substances containing
between 50 and 500 ppm PCB and will
help provide adequate protection
against spills.
E. Batch Testing of Mineral Oil
Dielectric Fluid
Testing of mineral oil dielectric fluid
and waste oil from sources that are
otherwise assumed to contain PCBs at a
concentration between 50 ppm and 500
245
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31521
ppm can be performed on samples taken
from collection tanks ("batch testing").
This is permitted so that oils from
multiple sources can be collected and
tested wilhout requiring a separate teat
of each transformer each time a disposer
wants to evaluate his disposal options.
The prohibition aguinst dilution,
however, has not changed. The new
testing option does not permit the
deliberate dilution of the collected oil
(assumed to contain PCBs above 50
ppm) with PCB-free or low-PCB fluids to
reduce the concentration of PCBs in the
resultant mixture below 50 ppm. Further,
the option does not permit the deliberate
addition of PCB wastes with
concentrations greater than 500 ppm to
the tank in order to avoid the more
stringent disposal requirements for high-
concentration wastes. If such high-
concentration wastes are added to the
tank, then the entire tank contents must
be disposed of in compliance with
requirements for wastes containing 500
ppm PCBs or greater, even if a sample of
the aggregate tank contents reveals a
concentration below 500 ppm. In this
circumstance, the tank contents cannot
be used as dielectric fluid; the tank
contents must be disposed of in a high
temperature incinerator.
These restrictions are essential to
ensure that appropriate measures are
taken to, destroy or dispose of PCB-
contaminated wastes. In developing the
final rule, EPA developed a balanced
approach to disposal by considering the
most appropriate means of disposing of
wastes with different PCB
concentrations in light of the risks to
human health and the environment.
Diluting or mixing PCB wastes as
described above to avoid proper
disposal upsets this balance and ifl a
violation of this rule. The proposed rule
would have required testing of each
transformer's fluid. The cost of batch
testing is substantially less than
individual source testing. In addition.
permitting testing from collection tanks
will result in very little additional
exposure of humans or the environment
to PCBs.
F. Other Changes in the Disposal
Requirements
The disposal requirements for PCB
chemical substances and PCB mixtures
have been replaced by disposal
requirements for PCBs (§ 781.10(a)). This
was necessary because of the revised
definition of PCBs and the elimination of
the definitions of "PCB Chemical
Substances" and "PCB Mixtures".
The disposal requirements for PCB
Articles other than PCB Transformers
and PCB Capacitors have been changed
to permit these articles to be disposed of
in a chemical waste landfill as well as in
high temperature incinerators
(5 761.10(b)(4)). Examples of these
articles include pipes, hoses, parts of
heat transfer systems, electromagnets,
and electric motors. Altogether, these
articles account for less than one
percent (1%) of the PCBs currently in use
in the United States. When these
articles are disposed of in chemical
waste landfills, they must be drained of
free flowing liquid. As a consequence,
these articles will contain only small
amounts of PCBs. Disposal of these
articles in chemical waste landfills will
add only small quantities of PCBs to the
landfills and will result in little or no
additional human and environmental
exposure of PCBs.
The final rule has a special disposal
provision for hydraulic machines. These
machines are difficult to transport as
they frequently weigh many tons and
can be as large as a small building. In
general, only a relatively small portion
of the machine is contaminated with
PCBs. For these reasons, instead of
requiring disposal in a chemical waste
landfill, the final rule permits disposal of
hydraulic systems as municipal solid
waste and salvaging of these machines
after draining. The machines must first
be drained of all free-flowing liquid. If
the fluid contains more than 1000 ppm
PCBs, the machines must be flushed
with, a solvent and thoroughly drained
before disposal. After considering the
cost of disposing of these machines in
chemical waste landfills and the small
quantities of PCBs that would remain in
a properly drained machine, EPA
concluded that disposal as municipal
solid waste did not represent an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment. For these same reasons, no
special storage requirements have been
included for properly drained machines.
The final rule also permits PCB
Containers that were used only to
contain materials or fluids with PCB
concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm
to be disposed of as municipal solid
waste. If these containers are well
drained, as required by the rule, only
very small quantities of PCBs would
remain and these containers could be
safely disposed of as municipal solid
waste with little added exposure to
humans or the environment. For
example, if a drum containing 500 ppm
liquid waste is drained of 99% of the
liquid, less than one gram of PCB would
remain in the drum. Disposers of these
containers will have to be able to
demonstrate that the containers only
contained PCBt-in concentrations of 50
to 500 ppm.
IV. Changes in Subpart C: Marking of
PCBs and PCB Items
The PCB Disposal amd Marking Rule,
as promulgated in February 197B,
applied only to PCB and PCB Hums th.it
contained 500 ppm or greater PCl3s.
These requirements now extend to all
PCB Items (including PCD Containers,
PCB Article Containers, PCB Articles,
PCB Equipment, and PCB transport
vehicles) that contain 50 ppm or greater
PCBs. This modification makes the
marking and disposal requirements
consistent with the final prohibition rule,
which generally extends to all PCB
Items with 50 ppm or greater PCBs, as
discussed above.
The extension of the disposal and
marking requirements is essential to
ensure that PCB Items regulated under
this rule are properly identified,
handled, and disposed of to minimize
the potential risks of exposure to PCBs.
To provide sufficient time to identify
and mark PCB Items containing between
50 and 500 ppm PCB, § 761.20(e)
provides that these PCB Items must be
marked by October 1,1979.
PCB-Contaminated Transformers are
an exception to the policy described
above and are not required to be
marked. The cost of marking a very
large number of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers while they are in service
would be extremely high. There are
about 35 million PCB-Conraminated
Transformers and, if it cost $10 to label
each one, the total labeling cost would
be about $350 million. Also, because
EPA assumes that all transformers other
than PCB Transformers (which are
required to be marked) are PCB-
Contaciinated Transformers, labels are
not necessary. An unmarked mineral oil
transformer will automatically be
assumed to be a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer unless it meets one of the
criteria listed in preamble section II.C.I
above. Although transformers at any
time can be properly tested and found to
be either a Non-PCB Transformer or a
PCB Transformer, such testing would
generally be performed only when
disposal is contemplated. Consequently,
labeling to differentiate such
transformers from PCB-Contaminated
Transformers would-have little practical
value.
Some PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may have already been
marked with the PCB Transformer mark
(especially in Michigan wher^ State law
requires marking for transformers with
100 ppm PCB or greater). There is some.
concern that the label on the
transformer will determine the disposal
alternatives. This is to clarify that when
246
-------
31522 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
a transformer is ready to be disposed of,
the owner or operator may choose
among the alternative disposal methods
applicable to the transformer in question
and permitted by this rule. (See
preamble section D.C, "Classification of
Transformers Under This Rule".)
Marking of large capacitors i»
relatively straightforward because
virtually all large capacitors were PCB-
filled until the past few years. Therefore,
any capacitor that cannot be shown to
be PCB-free by examining label or
nameplate information, must be
assumed to be a PCB Capacitor and
must be .marked with the PCB mark.
A new paragraph § 761.20(h), has
been added that requires that marks (or
labels) be placed on the exterior of PCB
Items and transport vehicles so that the
marks can be seen by interested
persons. This addition corrects an
oversight in the original Disposal and
Marking Rule.
Section 761.20{i) has been added to
clarify that any marking requirements
for PCBs at concentrations less than 500
ppm manufactured after [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register],
including PCBs that are byproducts or
impurities, will be contained in the
exemption EPA grants to permit such
manufacture. However, any PCB Article
or PCB Equipment into which the PCBs
are processed must be marked in
accordance with the requirements found
elsewhere in Subpart C. Those persons
who have submitted petitions to
manufacture chemicals with PCB
contamination pursuant to the
rulemaking procedures for the
manufacturing exemptions (43 FR 50905,
November 1,1978) are not required to
label any chemical that contains less
than 500 ppm PCB until EPA acts on
their petition. For example, persons who
have petitioned because they
manufacture PCBs as a contaminant at
less than 500 ppm or a pigment or other
commercial chemical product do not
have to label that product as containing
PCBs until after EPA acts on their
petition. Conversely, any containers of
any product that contains 500 ppm or
greater PCBs must be labeled. This latter
requirement was included in the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150,
February 17,1978).
V. Changes in Subpart E: Annexes
A. Annex I: Incineration
Section 761.40(a)(2) establishes a new
value of 99.9% for the combustion
efficiency required of incinerators. This
is a correction of the earlier value of 99%
efficiency that was specified in the
Disposal and Marking Rule. Specifically
incinerators operating at the
temperatures, dwell times, and excess
oxygen concentrations specified in
Annex I normally operate at a
combustion efficiency of 99.9% -or
greater. A combustion efficiency of
99.9% thus more accurately represents
the true combustion efficiency of Annex
I incinerators. All incinerators that have
been approved or that are under
consideration for approval by EPA are
capable of operating at 99.9%
combustion efficiency; accordingly, this
modification should not disqualify these
incinerators or result in additional
operating expenses for these facilities.
(This change does not mean that those
incinerators already approved will be
required to_rea£ply for approval to
operate.) Combustion efficiency is an
effective parameter for evaluating the
degree of destruction that occurs in an
incinerator, and it is essential that the
required value for this parameter
accurately reflect expected combustion
conditions.
A change has been made to the CO»
monitoring requirement of § 761.40(a)(7).
The Disposal and Marking Rule required
continuous monitoring of the CO*
concentration in the stack gas of the
incinerator. The rule has been changed
to require periodic COi monitoring as
specified by the Regional Administrator.
This change was made for two reasons;
(1) the high cost of the equipment
needed to continuously monitor CO*
and (2) the insensitivity of the
combustion efficiency calculation to
variations in the Cd concentration.
The automatic shutoff of waste flow
that was required by the Disposal and
Marking Rule when certain operating
deficiencies occurred has been modified.
Owners or operators of an incinerator
may submit to the Regional
Administrator, when they apply for the
approval to incinerate PCBs, a
contingency plan outlining the corrective
steps they will take when operating
problems occur. This change provides
for greater flexibility for incinerator
operators and will result in no increased
human or environmental exposure since
the contingency plans will be examined
on a case-by-case basis by the Regional
Administrator for proper safeguards
before approval.
A new paragraph, J 761.40{d)(8), has
been added to clarify the responsibility
of the owner or operator of an approved
facility when the ownership of the
facility is transferred.
B. Annex II: Chemical Waste Landfills
Section 761.41 (b) specifies
requirements for operational plans for
chemical waste landfills. These
requirements have been modified to
require delineation of the procedures to
be used for the disposal of liquids
containing between 50 ppm and 500 ppm
PCB. After EPA approves an operational
plan, the affected landfill operator must
follow those procedures in disposing of
PCB wastes.
Section 761.41(b)(3) specifies that the
bottom of a chemical waste landfill must
be at least fifty feet above the historical
high water table. Because the distance
between the bottom of the chemical
waste landfill and the water table hi
many areas east of the Mississippi River
is far less than fifty feet, EPA Regional
Administrators have had to waive this
criterion in several situations. While the
criterion in the final rule is unchanged
from the Disposal and Marking Rule,
EPA is proposing a modification of this
provision In a separate notice of
proposed rulemaking.
The provisions in Annex D of the
Disposal and Marking Rule establishing
monitoring requirements for surface
water (§ 761.41(b)(6)(i)) have been
modified to allow the Regional
Administrator to designate the surface
watercourses that are to be sampled.
This minor change eliminates any
uncertainty about which watercourses
are to be sampled.
Section 761.41(b)(7) includes
provisions for leachate collection in
chemical waste landfills. The Disposal
and Marking Rule specified that the
collection system be located under the
landfill liner system. The final rule
corrects this provision and specifies that
the collection system be above the
landfill liner system. Collection systems
are placed above the liner to capture
liquids to protect and reduce hydraulic
pressure on the liner system. All
chemical waste landfills currently in use
have collection systems above the liner.
A new paragraph, § 761.41(c)(7), has
been added to clarify the responsibility
of the owner or operator of an approved
facility when the ownership of the
facility is transferred.
C. Annex III: Storage
1. Container Specifications
The requirements of § 761.42(c)(6)
have been modified to clarify the five
types of Department of Transportation
(DOT)-approved containers that can be
used to store PCBs and PfJ Items. The
Disposal and Marking Rule
(§ 761.42(c)(6)) stated that container*
used to store liquid PCBs must comply
with the DOT specifications set out hi 49
CFR 173.340. which describe a broad
range of containers varying in size from'
less than one gallon containers to
247
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
31523
railroad tank can. Since only five of
these container specifications (5, 5B, 8D,
17C, and 17E) are appropriate for such
PCS storage, the rule has been modified
to refer only to these five DOT container
specifications. This change should not
he disruptive as industry already
generally uses the containers included in
these five DOTLspecifications for PCS
storage and handling.
In addition, on August 2,1978, EPA
published a clarification of J 761.42(c)(6)
concerning PCB containers that
provided for the use of special-sized
containers for oversized PCB Articles or
PCB Equipment (43 FR 33918). This
clarification is incorporated in the final
rule.
2. Bulk Storage
A new subparagraph, § 761.42{c){7),
has been added to permit the use of
large containers, such as storage tanks,
for the storage of PCB liquids. This
change is designed to allow safer
transfer and storage of bulk PCBs. While
the greatest risks of spills and exposure
to PCBs may occur during transfer
operations, transfers in bulk from
storage tank (or tank truck) to storage
tank are usually better controlled than
transfers to or from drums. Accordingly,
the modification should reduce the
number of spills and the extent of
exposure to PCBs during transfer
operations.
To permit bulk storage of liquid PCBs,
EPA has had to add to the rule suitable
standards for the containers or storage
tanks that would be used. The
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has prepared
comprehensive tank specifications (29
CFR Part 1910.106). These specifications
are based on standards developed by
Organizations such as the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) and the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and are widely
recognized as reasonable standards that
provide for safe storage of hazardous
substances. These specifications,
however, are oriented to flammable and
combustible liquids, which usually have
a specific gravity of less than one. As
provided in the OSHA rules, when a
liquid's specific gravity is greater than
1.0 (which is the case with PCBs),
precaution must be taken to insure that
an adequate factor of safety exists when
designing new tanks or when evaluating
the structural strength of existing tanks.
Liquids with ouch specific gravities are
heavier than water and will put greater
stress on the tanks. Accordingly.
} 761.42(c)(7)(i) requires that this factor
be taken into account to insure adequate
structural safety of storage tanks used
for PCBs.
Owners or operators of bulk storage
facilities will have to keep a record of
the amounts added to and removed from
the bulk containers. The records will be
important in tracing waste shipments
and enforcing the disposal and storage
requirements. This requirement is
similar to the requirement promulgated
in the Disposal and Marking Rule for
individual containers.
Another factor in EPA's decision to
allow bulk storage was the high cost of
not permitting it. Considering just
mineral oil dielectric fluid, there are
about 1.73 billion gallons presently in
use (see Versar Report). Assuming this
oil would be disposed of over a 40 year
period and that the cost of storing each
55 gallon drum is $145 (see Versar
Report, Disposal and Marking Rule), the
annual storage cost would have been
about $132 million. This value would
have been larger in practice since new
mineral oil brought into use after this
year would also have been stored in the
same way because of contamination
from residual PCBs in the equipment.
3. Spill Prevention Procedures
Spill prevention procedures are
necessary to provide adequate
environmental protection during the use
of PCB storage tanks permitted by
§ 761.42(c)(7). Some of the substances
contained in these tanks may qualify as
oils under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act and, therefore, may be
subject to the spill prevention provisions
of 40 CFR Part 112. In order to provide
equivalent control of PCB liquids that do
not qualify as oils, the Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
provisions of the 40 CFR Part 112 have
been incorporated with certain
modifications into this rule. A wide
cross section of U.S. industry is now
using these procedures to protect
against oil spills. Extending these
requirements to non-oil PCBs should
provide substantial environmental
protection and should be easily
complied with by industry.
Those provisions of 40 CFR Part 112
incorporated in this PCB rule have been
modified to adapt them to the PCB
activities regulated by § 781.42(c)(7) of
this rule. Specifically, the Part 112 oil
spill prevention requirements do not
apply to tanks smaller than 660 gallons
and underground tanks smaller than
42,000 gallons. Because of the risks
associated with spills of PCBs, these
tank size exemptions do not apply to
containers or tanks containing PCBs at
concentrations of SO ppm or greater. The
PCB rule also adds the requirement that
the area between a storage tank and
secondary containment dikes must be
impervious to PCBs to prevent
groundwater contamination.
One provision of 40 CFR Part 112, the
SPCC plan amendment procedures, is
not currently applicable to PCBs. These
procedures are triggered by a
notification requirement for oil spills.
Because these notification requirements
do not now apply to PCB spills, the
SPCC plan amendment procedures are
not applicable.
EPA has proposed a spill prevention
rule for hazardous substances (including
PCBs) under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (43 FR 39276, September 1,
1978). When this spill prevention rule is
promulgated, the spill prevention
provisions of this PCB rule will be
revised to eliminate duplications or
inconsistencies.
4. Flood Protection
The Disposal and Marking Rule
required that storage areas be above the
100 year flood level. The Agoncy is
considering modifying the PCB rule to
include the flood protection guidelines
developed by the National Flood
Insurance Administration (NFIA) which
is part of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The Agency
decided not to change the PCB rule at
this time because the Hazardous Waste
Regulations proposed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act have included a flood protection
approach based on the NFIA program. If
that approach is adopted when the
Hazardous Waste Regulations are
promulgated, the Agency will consider
adopting a similar flood protection
approach for PCB storage areas.
5. Temporary Storage
a. Revisions
The temporary storage of non-leaking
PCB Articles and PCB Containers
containing leaking articles was
permitted for 30 days under the
provisions of the Disposal and Marking
Rule. This would enable electric utilities
and others to consolidate their PCB
Items in a central facility and improve
management and recordkeeping for PCB
wastes. The proposal did not, however,
permit PCB Containers of non-liquid
wastes, such as contaminated soil, to be
placed in temporary storage. Because
these containers of non-liquid waste do
not pose any greater hazard than the
containers of leaking articles,
§ 761.42(c)(l) of this rule modifies the
storage requirements to permit PCB
Containers of non-liquid waste to be
248
-------
31524 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
held in temporary storage for up to 30
days.
Under the final rule, large quantities
of low concentration PCB liquids from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers must
be properly disposed of. The logistics of
immediately transporting liquids
drained from these transformers to a
single, permanent storage facility are
frequently difficult. Even though these
liquids pose less of a threat to health
and the environment when spilled than
do more highly concentrated PCB
liquids, adequate spill prevention
remains esscniial. The final rule permits
the 30 day temporary storage of low
concentration (50 to 500 ppm PCBs)
liquids at facilities that have a SPCC
plan. That SPCC Plan must adequately
address storage of PCBs in relatively
small containers, such as 55-gallon
drums, which is not normally included
in such plans. This approach will insure
adequate environmental and human
health protection and will place little or
no additional burdens on facility owners
or operators.
The final rule does not allow
temporary storage for high
concentration PCB liquids (above 500
ppm). Because of the potential harm
from an uncontrolled spill, temporary
storage of these concentrated liquids i»
not permitted,
b. Action on Petitions To Amend Rule
on Temporary Storage Requirements
Subsequent to the close of the reply
comment period, EPA received petitions
under section 21 of TSCA from
Commonwealth Edison, Consolidated
Edison Company, and the Edison
Electric Institute to amend § 761.42(c)(l)
;43 FR 7150, 7162, February 17,1978 and
43 FR 33918, 33920, August 2,1978) to
allow temporary storage of PCB
substances, mixtures, and PCB-
contaminated materials, such as rags
and soil. Representatives of EPA met
with petitioners on January 24, 1979 and
received written materials on that date
in support of the petitions. EPA wrote to
petitioners on February 9,1979 and
advised them that the Agency
considered the petitions to have been
filed on January 24,1979, the date when
wr-tteh and oral information in support
of die petitions was received.
The actions on temporary storage of
PCBs and PCB Items described in
section V.C.S.a. above grant the
petitions in part and deny them in part.
The petitions are granted as to
temporary storage of PCB Containers of
non-liquid wastes, such as contaminated
soil and rags. Such temporary storage is
now permitted under the conditions of
J 761. 42(c)(l)(iii). Similarly, the
petitions are granted as to temporary
storage of low concentration (50 to -500
ppm PCBs) liquids. Such temporary
storage is permitted under the
conditions of § 761.42(c)(l)(iii).
However, the petitions are denied as to
temporary storage of high concentration
PCB liquids (above 500 ppm). As noted
in section V.C.S.a. of this preamble, the
risk of potential harm from an
uncontrolled spill, or a leak, is too great
to permit temporary storage of such high
concentration PCB liquids.
D. Annex IV: Decontamination
The decontamination requirements in
Annex IV were changed in this rule to
require flushing with a solvent
containing less than 50 ppm PCB rather
than 500 ppm PCB as previously.
promulgated. This change is based on
lowering the cut-off concentration of
PCBs from 500 ppm to 50 ppm. This
change will further reduce the amount of
residual PCBs in decontaminated
containers.
E. Annex V: Records and Monitoring
A new paragraph, { 761.45(d), has
been added specifically to require
chemical waste landfill operators to
retain records concerning the operation
of the landfill. These records include the
identity of the wastes they receive and
where the wastes are placed in the
landfill. This paragraph does not require
the development of any new records but
corrects an omission from the Disposal
and Marking Rule.
The final rule modifies § 761.45(b) and
adds § 761.45(e) to provide for retention
-of records by owners or operators of
high efficiency boilers. The requirements
are similar to recordkeeping
requirements for other PCB waste
disposal alternatives, such as
incinerators or chemical waste landfills,
and are necessary for enforcement.
VI. Subpart D: Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce,
and Use Bans
\. Prohibitions
Sectfon 761.30(a) implements TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(A), which prohibits the
manufacture (including importation),
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs and PCB Items in a
manner other than a totally enclosed
manner unless authorized*under § 761.31
of this rule. This prohibition also applies
to the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items intended solely for export
(see preamble section XI below).
Section 761.30(b) implements TSCA
§ 6(e)(3)(A)(i), which prohibits the
manufacture (including importation into
the United States) of PCBs after January
1,1979 unless an exemption is granted
for such manufacturers. This prohibition
applies to the manufacture (and
importation) of PCBs regardless of
whether they are manufactured in a
totally enclosed manner or they are
manufactured solely for export This
prohibition does not apply to PCBs that
are imported solely for disposal (see
section B.2 below).
Section 761.30(c) implements TSCA
section 6{e)(3)(A)(ii), which prohibits
both the processing and the distribution
in commerce of PCBs and PCB Items
after July 1,1979 unless exemptions are
granted for such activities. This
prohibition applies to the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items regardless of whether the
Items are processed or distributed in a
totally enclosed manner or solely for
export. There are three exceptions to
these prohibitions.
First, as provided in section 6(e)(3)(C)
of TSCA, PCBs or PCB Items that have
been sold for purposes other than resale
before July 1,1979, may continue to be
distributed after July 1,1979 in a totally
enclosed manner. Therefore, a person
who purchases before July 1,1979, PCB
Equipment (such as computers,
television sets, or microwave ovens
containing PCB Capacitors) for his own
use, rather than for resale, may sell that
equipment after June 30,1979.
Second, after July 1,1979, anyone may
process or distribute in commerce PCBs
or PCB Items for purposes of disposal in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.10. Because TSCA treats disposal
separately from processing and
distribution in commerce, the processing
and distribution in commerce
requirements generally are not intended
to interfere with the disposal
requirements. Section 761.30(c)(2)
explicitly states that processing and
distribution for purposes of disposal in
accordance with S 761.10 may continue
after July 1.1979.
Third, PCBs or PCB Items may be
exported for disposal purposes despite
the general ban on export of PCBs and
PCB Items in § 761.30(c). Section
761.30(c)(3) requires persons to notify
EPA at least 30 days before they first
intend to export PCB wastes. This "
provision is discussed further in section
B.2. below.
1. Waste Oil Bans
Section 761.30(d) prohibits the use of
waste oil containing any detectable
concentration of PCBs as a sealant.
coating, or dust control agent. Prohibited
uses include road oiling, general dust
249
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
31525
control, as a pesticide or herbidde
carrier, and as a rust preventative on
pipes. Waste oil is defined as used
products primarily derived from
petroleum, which include, but are not
limited to, fuel oils, motor oils, gear oils.
cutting oils, transmission fluids.
hydraulic fluids, and dielectric fluids. In
the proposed rule, "PCB Sealant
Coating, and Dust Control Agent" was
defined (5 761.2(cc), 43 FR 24813) and
was included in the term "PCB" for the
purpose of regulating these activities.
Because the term "PCB Sealant, Coating.
and Dust Control Agent" was deleted
from the definition of "PCB" (see
preamble section H.A.). it became
necessary to specifically regulate these
activities in § 761.30.
Persons who process, distribute in
commerce, or use waste oil must assume
it contains PCBs unless the waste oil has
been tested and found to contain no
PCBs. Batch testing of waste oils is
permitted. Waste oils that contain
detectable concentrations of PCBs less
than 50 ppm may be used as a fuel, as a
feedstock in the production of re-refined
oils and lubricants, or for any other
purpose except as a sealant, coating, or
dust control agent.
The use of waste oil containing any
detectable concentration of PCBs as a
sealant, coating, or dust control agent is
banned because these uses result in
rapid, direct entry of PCB into the
environment. For example, the run-off
from road surfaces frequently goes
directly to rivers or streams. Once in the
environment, PCB enters the food chain,
causing a number of adverse effects.
The dumping of waste oil (e.g.. in a field]
is considered use as a dust control agent
and is prohibited by this rule. Waste oil
is also used to coat water pipes and as a
carrier for pesticides and herbicides.
These uses also result in substantial
direct entry of PCBs into the
environment and are prohibited.
Although the PCB concentration in
waste oil may be low, the large volume
of waste oil that is used in these
activities results in a large quantity of
PCBs entering the environment.
Approximately 8,500 pounds of PCB
enter the environment annually just
from road oiling activities (see the
Versar Report).
B. Changes in § 761.30: Prohibitions
The following changes have been
made to 5 761.30:
1. Change in the Scope of the
Manufacturing Ban
The proposed rule would have
considered the manufacture (and
importation) of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment as the manufacture and
import of PCBs. This approach would
have had the effect of prohibiting the
production (and importation) of PCB
Articles and PCB Equipment after
January 1.1979, under the provisions of
section 6(e)(3)(A)(i) of TSCA. A large
number of commentors argued that to
consider the production of PCB Articles
and PCB Equipment to be
"manufacture" was inconsistent with
TSCA and other rules promulgated
under TSCA. In addition, it was argued
that if these activities are considered to
be "manufacturing" PCBs, the term
"processing" would have no meaning, aa
almost all commence! activities using
PCBs prior to final sale or end use would
be manufacturing activities.
a. "Manufacturing" Versus "Processing"
of PCB Items
After considering the comments, EPA
reexamined the "manufacturing" versus
"processing" issue and concluded that
PCB Article and PCB Equipment
production is "processing" of PCBs, not
"manufacture" of PCBs. This conclusion
is based on an analysis of the activities
of manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use with
respect to chemical substances. EPA
determined that "manufacturing" a
chemical substance involves only the
actual creation of the chemical
substance (or of a substance
contaminated with PCBs). The other
activities are distinguished from
"manufacturing" because they involve
the use of the already existing
substance. "Processing" PCBs includes
activities such as placing previously
manufactured PCBs into capacitors or
transformers. While these activities may
be referred to as "manufacturing" of
PCB Articles, they do not involve the
"manufacture" of the PCBs, only the
"processing" of PCBs. The "distribution
in commerce" and "use" of PCBs
generally coincides with the distribution
and use of the PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment. Thus, the ban of PCB
"manufacture" applies solely to the
manufacture of PCBs, as defined in
5 761.2(s). Bans of all other activities,
namely processing, distribution in
commerce, and use, apply both to PCBs
as a substance and PCB Items. This
interpretation of the terms
"manufacture" and "process" also
accords with the manner in which
Congress intended the requirements of
section 6(e)(3) of TSCA to be "phased-
in" over time.
The change in EPA's use of the terms
"manufacturing" and "processing" is
reflected in the definition of PCBs. The
proposed definition of "PCB" and
"PCBs" included both PCB Article and
PCB Equipment (see { 761.2(q) at 43 FR
24813). The final rule changes the
definition of "PCB" and "PCBs" in
J 761.2(8) by applying these terms only
to chemical substances (see preamble
section II.A. for more detailed
discussion). PCB Equipment and PCB
Articles are no longer included in the
definition of "PCB" and "PCBs" but are
included in a separate term, "PCB
Items", which is defined in 5 761.2(x).
b. Manufacture and Import of PCB Items
The revised interpretation of
"manufacture" and "processing" has
two main effects. The first is to postpone
the effective date of the prohibition
under section 6(e)(3) of the manufacture
of PCB Articles and PCB Equipment to
July 1,1979 (unless EPA grants an
exemption under section 6{e)(3)(B) of
TSCA for continuation of such activities
beyond that date). The continued
production of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment until July 1,1979, must,
however, be performed in a totally
enclosed manner in order to avoid the
prohibition on non-totally enclosed
processing of PCBs of section 6(e)(2). As
a practical matter, this means that
production of PCB Articles will be
prohibited after July 2,1979, under
section 6(e)(2) as a non-totally enclosed
processing of PCBs. In general, PCB
Equipment is produced in a totally
enclosed manner and so this activity
would not be prohibited until July 1,
1979. The practical effect of the change,
then, will be to allow continued
production of PCB Equipment (such as
television sets and microwave ovens)
until July 1,1979 (see preamble section
VHI below).
A second effect relates to the
importation of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment; here the issues are more
complex. The TSCA definition of
"manufacture" includes importation (see
section 3(7) of TSCA). This means that
the importation of any PCB or PCB Item
is equated with manufacture. A literal
interpretation of this definition in
implementing TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(i)
would mean that no person would be
able to import any PCB or PCB Item
after [30 days after publication in the
Federal Register]. This would create an
inequity between domestic
manufacturers and importers of PCB
Items. Specifically, domestic
manufacturers of PCB Items could
continue to manufacture and distribute
those PCB Items in commerce until July
1,1979, when the ban under section
6(e)(3)(A)(ii) is effective, while importers
would be prohibited from conducting the
250
-------
31526 Federal Regiater / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
same activity after [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register].
The most straightforward way to
eliminate this inequity is to delay the
effective date of the prohibition qn the
importation of PCB Items until July 1,
1979. This approach would eliminate the
inequity for importers of PCB Equipment
but create a different inequity for the
importers of PCB Articles. Domestic
production of PCB Articles, such as PCB
Capacitors and PCB Transformers, is
banned as of [30 days after publication
in the Federal Register] (even though
such production is PCB processing)
because this type of production cannot
be performed in a totally enclosed
manner. (Non-totally enclosed
processing and other activities are
prohibited after July 2.1979, by section
6(e)(2) of TSCA.) If the import
prohibition for PCB Articles is delayed,
PCB Articled could be imported into the
U.S. even though they could not be
manufactured in the U.S. The continued
importation of PCB Articles would
increase both the disposal problem
associated with PCB Capacitors and the
problems associated with use and
disposal of PCB fluids in transformers.
Because of the inequities and disposal
problems associated with continued
importation, EPA is banning importation
of PCB Articles after July 2,1979.
Persons wishing to import PCB Articles
may petition EPA for an exemption from
this ban. This rule does permit
continued importation until July 1,1979,
of PCB Equipment, such as television
sets and microwave ovens, since these
items can be manufactured domestically
(I iring this period as they involve
"processing" PCB in a totally enclosed
manner. The effect of this rule is
essentially to treat domestic and foreign
manufacturers of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment equally. Such equal
'reatment was intended and desired by
Congress.
From a strict statutory perspective,
any importation of PCBs in any form,
including in PCB Items, is
"manufacturing" of PCBs and prohibited
after [30 days after publication in the
Federal Register], by TSCA section 6(e)
(2) and (3). Although domestic
prod 'ction of PCB Items is best
described as PCB "processing",
importation of such items is best
described as importation of PCBs in the
item The alternative would be to wholly
exclude such importation from the
coverage of section 6(e), a manifest
absurdity. But just as Congress
obviously did not intend such exclusion,
so too it did not intend discriminatory
treatment. EPA, therefore, construes
section 6(e) as authorizing it to impose
parallel restrictions on PCB Item
production and importation and this is
what has been done.
While domestic manufacturers and
importers both may continue to build or
import PCB Equipment (but not PCB
Articles) until July 1.1979, EPA will
strictly enforce the prohibition under
TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of processing
and distribution in commerce of PCBs
and PCB Items, including PCB
Equipment, after July 1,1979.
Accordingly, no one will benefit by
creating stockpiles of these items in the
next several months. The only
exceptions to these July 1,1979
prohibitions will be those activities for
which EPA grants an exemption.
Any PCBs or PCB Items imported
pursuant to this rule must comply with
the import requirements and all other
requirements of this rule.
2. Import and Export of PCBs and PCB
Items for Disposal
The proposed rule would have
prohibited any import or export of PCBs
or PCB Items for any purpose. EPA has
reviewed this proposed policy and has
decided that because of the many
potential advantages of an open border
policy with respect to disposal of PCBs,
that EPA will adopt such a policy for at
least one year.
In theory, an open border policy
would be advantageous to both the
United States and foreign countries,
especially Canada. Generators of PCB
wastes would be able to select the PCB
disposal site that offers the most
reasonable transportation and disposal
costs. The success of such a policy
depends, however, upon the availability
of facilities in other countries to safely
dispose of PCB wastes. EPA is
concerned that foreign disposal
alternatives may not adequately destroy
the PCBs and create a threat to human
health and the environment in the
United States.
To date, the United States has
approved seven PCB disposal sites and
is actively involved in evaluating other
potential sites. Other nations have not
made as much progress. If the United
States were to adopt an open border
policy without any qualifications, there
may be no incentive for other nations to
develop PCB disposal sites. The United
States would probably receive a
disproportionate share of the
international PCB wastes. This disparity
could overload existing U.S. capacity
and impede public acceptance of PCB
disposal sites.
The one year time limit on the open
border policy will provide other nations
an opportunity to establish PCB disposal
sites. At the end of the one year period,
EPA will examine the progress made by
other nations in establishing and
operating safe PCB disposal sites and
determine if extension of the open
border policy is appropriate.
The final rule, therefore, allows the
import and export of PCB wastes for
disposal for one year. All imported PCB
wastes must be disposed of in
accordance with Subpart B of this rule.
In preparing this final rule, EPA has
reviewed whether regulation of
imported and exported PCB wastes for
disposal should be accomplished under
section 6(e)(l) of TSCA or under section
6{e)(3). While section 6(e)(3){A)(i) could
be read to allow regulation of the import
of PCB wastes for disposal, section 6(e)
treats PCB disposal as a separate matter
under section 6{e)(l). Both the import
and export of PCB wastes for disposal
may be regulated under section 6(e)(l),
which allows comprehensive regulation
of the disposal of PCBs. Accordingly,
EPA has elected to regulate import and
export of PCB wastes for disposal under
section 6(e)(l). Since the requirements
governing disposal of PCB wastes must
be complied with for all imported PCB
wastes, no unreasonable risks should
result. Moreover, proper disposal in this
country provides protection against
possible hazards from improper disposal
elsewhere.
Other imports and exports of PCBs
and PCB Items are regulated as
elsewhere described in this preamble
under sections 6(e){2), 6(e)(3), and/or
section 12. All imports and exports of
PCBs arfd PCB Items remain subject to
the applicable disposal and marking
requirements under section 6(e)(l).
Under RCRA, EPA expects to
establish a manifest system for
hazardous wastes that will monitor the
disposal of PCBs and other hazardous
wastes imported into the U.S. This
system should be in effect in 1980. No
notification system for imports of PCB
wastes for disposal will be established
in this rule because of potential
confusion with the forthcoming RCRA
program. All importers of PCB wastes
will be required to maintain records, as
provided in Annex VI of this rule.
With respect to exports, § 761.30(c)(3)
of this rule requires that persons
exporting PCBs and PCB Items for -
disposal notify EPA at least 30 days
before the first export of wastes. The
initial notice should identity the owner
of the waste, the expected annual
volume of wastes to be exported, a
description of the intended methods of
disposal, the precautions to be taken to
control release into the environment,
and the identity of the receiver of the
251
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31527
wastes. Quarterly reports of actual
waste shipments are also required. For
each successive year, the volume of
wastes to be exported, if any, must be
estimated. These reports are required
pureuant to the authority in section 6{e)
and 12(a) of TSCA. Additional reports
under section 12(b) of TSCA would not
be required for the export of these
wastes. Unlike other exports of PCBs,
export for disposal under this rule will
not present an unreasonable risk to the
United States because of the controls on
such export contained in the rule and
the fact that such export will only be for
the purpose of disposal or destruction of
PCBs.
EPA will carefully monitor the results
of allowing the import and export of
PCB waste. One future alternative may
be to allow disposal only in countries
whose facilities meet certain criteria
arrived at through bilateral agreements.
Closing the United States border to
shipments of PCB wastes at this time,
however, could have serious advene
effects on the environment by making
safe disposal of PCBs more difficult. In
particular, barring import of PCBs for
disposal could make export for disposal
impossible and thereby eliminate what
in many cases would be the most
desirable disposal alternative. Many
generators of hazardous waste materials
located near the U.S.-Canadian border
find that the nearest disposal site is in
the other country. An open border policy
will allow import and export of such
wastes to continue and maximize the
opportunities for appropriate disposal.
For a general discussion of exports of
PCBs, see preamble section XL below.
Import or export of PCBs or PCB Items
for purposes of disposal remain subject
to the other provisins of this rule.
C. Other Issues
1. PCB Impurities and Byproducts
The prohibitions in { 710.30 include a
prohibition of the "manufacture1* of
"PCB" or "PCBs" as defined in
{ 761.2(8). This prohibition apphes to the
deliberate production of PCBs whether
in large quantities for use in
transformers and capacitors or in small
quantities for research. Furthermore, the
prohibition applies to the manufacture
of any substance or mixture that
contains PCB at 60 ppm or greater.
including PCB that is an Intermediate or
"impurity" or "byproduct", as defined
by i 761-200 and (c\ respectively. While
the production of PCBs under such
circumstances may not be intentional
and may have no Independent
commercial value, section 6(e) of TSCA
applies to any production of PCBs and,
therefore, covers such activities.
Similarly, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs which are
impurities or byproducts are subject to
sections 6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA.
The proposed rule prohibited
activities involving PCB intermediates,
impurities and byproducts under
sections 6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA. In
response to questions on this point at
the informal hearing, EPA made dear
that such activities are subject to the
rule. This discussion is intended to
clarify further that the manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use bans of sections 6(eX2) and (3)
of TSCA apply whenever PCBs are
present as intermediates, impurities, or
byproducts at a concentration of 50 ppm
or greater.
Some manufacturers commented that
they interpreted the proposed rule to
allow the creation of PCBs in
concentrations greater than 50 ppm- as
an intermediate, impurity, precursor, or
byproduct in a reaction process as long
as the PCB concentration in any final
byproduct or end product is below 50
ppm. The intent of the proposed rule
was to prohibit such manufacture. All
manufacturing or processing operations
must be adequately controlled so that
PCBs are not present at concentrations
greater than 50 ppm at any point in the
manufacturing process except when
concentrating waste streams, as
discussed below.
As discussed earlier in section ILB. of
this preamble, several processes for the
manufacture of chlorinated organic
substances unintentionally create PCBs.
EPA is aware of several cases in which
the PCBs appear as impurities at
concentrations greater than 50 ppm in
the final product. To reduce the level of
PCBs that are impurities in these
chemical products, selection of
ingredients and process techniques
usually have to be altered. In some
cases, more careful quality control of the
production operations can help avoid
unwanted impurities and byproducts.
Two groups of chemical products are
most affected by controls on impurities
and byproducts: pigments and other
chlorinated chemicals. The impact on
pigments is better understood because
the industry became aware of the
problem earlier than other potentially
affected industries and provided
extensive information and comments on
the impact of the proposed rule. The
PCB contamination of pigments is
discussed further in preamble section
IX.G. The impact on the production of
other organic chemicals is not as well
known. Only a few companies
commented on the proposed rule, and
available data are limited.
The manufacture of PCBs as
intermediates, impurities and
byproducts almost always involves
some human and environmental
exposure. Unless the PCBa are created
in a totally enclosed, continuous
reaction process, production workers
will be exposed and there may be PCBs
in air emissions and other effluents. The
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of the chemicals containing
PCBs will also cause exposure to PCBs
among process workers and others who
handle and use the chemicals. Controls
that exist on worker exposure and/or
handling and disposal practices are
usually related to the primary chemical,
not the PCBs contained in the chemical,
which means that exposure to the PCBs
often is uncontrolled.
As explained below, persons may
petition for an exemption from this
manufacturing ban pursuant to the
Agency's interim procedures (43 FR
50905, November 1.1978). In addition,
the processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs in a non-
totally enclosed manner is prohibited
after July 2,1979, unless authorized and
all processing and distribution of such
PCBs as byproducts and impurities are
prohibited after July 1,1979, unless a
specific exemption from the ban is
granted by EPA.
Section 761.30(c)(2) provides that
PCBs may be processed and distributed
in commerce for purposes of disposal in
accordance with the requirements of
{ 761.10. This provision is intended to
apply to the concentration of waste
streams and allow the concentration of
PCBs to exceed 50 ppm in waste stream
as long as the waste stream is disposed
of in accordance with this rule. The
following illustrates this. A product is
manufactured that contains 20 ppm PCB.
It is then processed to reduce the PCB
concentration to 5 ppm. As a result of
the processing, a waste stream is
created that contains 100 ppm PCB. As
long as this waste stream is disposed of
in accordance with this rule, the
manufacturer does not have to apply for
an exemption. If the initial product
contains more than 50 ppm PCB,
however, the manufacturer must apply
for an exemption from the
manufacturing prohibition. Section
761JO(c)(2) only applies to byproducts
or other wastes that are intended for
disposal.
To clarify the relationship of the
prohibitions of sections 6(e) (2) and (3)
to intermediates, byproducts, and
impurities, the terms "manufacture for
commercial purposes" and "process for
252
-------
31528 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
commercial purpose*", defined in
{ 761.2 (bb) and (dd) of the proposed
rule, have been deleted. These
definitions were intended to exclude
from the rule • very limited number of
activities (e.g.. the chlorination of
municipal sewage discharges) that may
result in or involve PCB concentrations
below 50 ppra. In the applicability
section (| 761.1(b)) the final rule states
(hat unless otherwise specified in the
rule itself, the term "PCB". as used in the
rule, is intended to include only
substances or combinations of
substances with 50 pptn or greater PCBa.
Accordingly, it should be clear that such
activities are not within the scope of the
rule. As a consequence, the definitions "
concerning "commercial purposes" are
not necessary and may be confusing.
especially because 16(e) is not limited
by the statute to activities "for
commercial purposes"
2. Disposal of Small PCB Capacitors
The PCB Disposal and Marking Rule
excluded most small PCB Capacitors,
primarily those contained in small
appliances and fluorescent light
ballasts, from special disposal
requirements. These small capacitors
may be disposed of as municipal solid
waste. Only small capacitors owned by
persons who manufacture capacitors or
PCB Equipment are subject to special
disposal requirements.
These requirements are not changed
by this final rule. EPA has not identified
a feasible regulatory alternative that
would result in disposal of a substantial
portion of the remaining small PCB
Capacitors in facilities other than
municipal solid waste sites. In addition,
the random disposal of PCB Equipment
in municipal solid waste sites by
householders and other infrequent
disposers does not present an
environmental hazard. Accordingly,
KPA has no current plans to further
regulate the disposal of these small
capacitors.
However, the disposal of large
quantities of small PCB Capacitors by
commercial and industrial activities
poses a somewhat larger environmental
risk. Therefore. EPA encourages
commercial and industrial firms that use
and dispose of large quantities of small
PCB Capacitors to establish voluntarily
a collection and disposal program that
would result in the waste capacitors
going to chemical waste landfills or high
temperature incinerators. Proper
disposal of small PCB Capacitors is
mandatory for all manufacturers of PCB
Equipment. This would result in better
environmental control than normal
municipal solid waste disposal by
preventing large concentrations of
capacitors from being placed in sanitary
landfills. It should also be noted that
any PCB spillage that might result from
failure of or from damage to a large
number of small capacitors could be
considered as illegal disposal, which is
the case for other spills of PCBs.
3. State Preemption*
In the Disposal and Marking Rule,
EPA stated that State and local
requirements regarding disposal of PCBs
are exempt from Federal preemption as
long as the requirements are not less
restrictive than those prescribed by
EPA. EPA took this position to avoid
interfering with existing PCB disposal
requirements in Michigan, Oregon,
Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin,
where the State requirements are at
least as stringent as the Federal
requirements.
In the past several months. EPA has
become concerned that actions by local
and State governments to prohibit
disposal of PCBs and other substances
in their jurisdictions could frustrate the
national goal of properly disposing of
hazardous chemical substances. While
EPA has always believed that States
should have the right to set pollution
control standards more restrictive than
the Federal standards, it would be a
matter of national concern if this
principle were to become the basis for
refusal by States to share in the national
responsibility for finding safe means for
the proper disposal of hazardous
substances. EPA has decided not to
make any changes in its PCB preemption
policy at this time. However, EPA will
be considering the preemption issue
further in its administration, of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
VU Relationship of Section 6(e)(2) to
Section 6(e)(3)
Section 6(e)(2) of TSCA prohibits
manufacturing, processing, distribution
in commerce, and use of PCBs after
January 1,1978, unless conducted in a
totally enclosed manner. Section
6(e}(2)(B) provides that the
Administrator may, by rule, authorize
continuation of an otherwise prohibited
activity if the Administrator finds that
the activity ''will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment"
Section 6(e}(3) prohibits all
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs
(including activities conducted in a
totally enclosed manner). The
manufacturing prohibition is effective on
July 2,1979 and the other prohibitions
are effective on July l, 1979. Section
6(e)(3)(B) authorizes the Administrator
to exempt activities from section 6(e)(3)
prohibitions if he finds that the activity
will not result in an unreasonable risk to
health or the environment and that good
faith efforts have been made to develop
a substitute for the PCB.
It is obvious that, with respect to
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce, the provisions
of section 0(e)(2) are entirely duplicative
of the corresponding provisions of
section 6(e)(3) once these provisions of
section 6(e)(3) become effective. Fqr
example, once the manufacturing
prohibition of section 6(e)(3) is effective
the manufacturing prohibition of section
6(e){2) adds nothing whatever to
protection of health and the
environment since section 6(e)(3) is
broader in coverage and somewhat
more restrictive in terms of waivers
(exemptions). Similarly, on July 1,1979,
the section 6(e)(3) prohibitions of
processing and distribution in commerce
entirely supersede the corresponding
prohibitions in section 6(e)(2). It is clear
that with respect to manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs, Congress intended
section 6(e)(2) as only an interim
measure. Moreover, to continue to
implement the section 6(e)(2)
prohibitions on these activities after the
corresponding prohibitions of section
6(e)(3) are effective would result in
waste and confusion with absolutely no
increase in protection from PCBs.
Therefore, EPA will.consider the
prohibitions in section 6(e)(2) to be
superceded and no longer in effect when
the corresponding-prohibitions of
section 6(e)(3) for each PCB activity go
into effect. What this means is that the
section 6(e)(2) prohibition on
manufacturing of PCBs is considered to
be no longer in effect now that the
section 6(e)(3) prohibition on
manufacturing is in effect. The
provisions of section 6(e)(3) will be
considered the exclusive authority
under section 6(e) to prohibit PCB
manufacturing. However, the section
6(e)(2) prohibitions on processing,
distribution in commerce and use are
effective as of July 2, 1979. The
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions of section 6(e)(2) will be
considered to continue in effect until
July 1,1979, when they will be
superceded by section 6(e)(3). Because
the section 6(e)(2) use prohibition has no
counterpart in section 6(eJ(3) it remains
in effect indefinitely.
VIII. Authorizations and Exemptions
A. Explanation of Authorizations and
Exemptions
Section 6(e) of TSCA provides for two
types of exceptions to the prohibitions
of PCB activities: authorizations and
exemptions. The purpose of this
discussion is to clarify the distinctions
between these exceptions and explain
EPA's policy to simplify implementation
by having a combined procedure for
authorizations and exemptions.
An authorization is an exception to
the TSCA section 6(e)(2) January 1.1978
253
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. M;iy 31, 1979 / Rul«s and Reguhitions 3J529
ban of non totally enclosed activities.
To authorize an activity, EPA must find
thai continuation of the activity does not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
human health or the environment. Since
the intent of the law is for PCB activities
to be banned, it must be clearly evident
that the risk from an activity is not
unreasonable. In the absence of such
evidence, an activity is banned.
Although not subject to section 6(c)(l)
of TSCA, EPA used the criteria in
section 6(c)(l) to determine whether or
not the risk from a non-totally enclosed
activity is "unreasonable". These factors
include: (1) the effect of such substance
or mixture on health and the magnitude
of exposure of human beings to such
substance or mixture, (2) the effects of
such substance or mixture on the
environment and the magnitude of the
exposure of the environment to such
substance and mixture, (3) the benefits
of such substance or mixture for various
uses and the availability of substitutes
for such uses, and (4) the reasonably
ascertainable economic consequences of
the rule, after consideration of the effect
on the national economy, small
business, technological innovation, the
environment, and public health.
An exemption is an exception to
either (1) the TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(i)
January 1,1979 complete ban of all PCS.
manufacture or (2) die TSCA section
6(e)(3)(A)(ii) July 1,1979 complete ban of
all PCB processing and distribution in
commerce. To grant an exemption, EPA
must determine both that an
unreasonable risk is not present and
that good faith efforts have been made
to develop substitutes for the PCBs used
in the activity to be exempted.
In addition to the difference in criteria
for granting these two exceptions, there
are several other important distinction;
between an authorization and an
exemption.
First, an authorization may be valid
for any time period that EPA finds
appropriate, but an exemption is only
valid for one year and must be granted
annually through a formal rulemaking.
However, the complete bans of
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce contained in
section 6(e)(3) of TSCA supercede the
corresponding bans contained in section
6(e)(2), as explained above. Since EPA
must make jnore stringent findings
under section B(e)(3] than under section
6(e)(2), there is no reason to require
petitioners to have an authorization if
they have been granted an exemption
for the same activity (see preamble
section VII). Therefore, a PCB
processing or distribution in commerce
activity cannot be authorized after July
1,1979. After this date, persons who
process or distribute PCBs must petition
for and be granted an exemption
annually by EPA in order to continue
these activities.
Second, EPA may propose and
promulgate an authorization without a
specific request from the persons who
will benefit from the authorization. This
is not the case for exemptions, which
must be petitioned for by those who
would benefit from them. The
requirements regarding exemption
petitions are discussed below.
Third, because section 6(e)(3) of TSCA
completely bans the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs and not the use of
PCBs, all PCB use activities are covered
only by section 6{e)('.} of TSCA. This
means that a use activity never needs an
exemption, and, therefore, must fall into
one of three categories: (1) totally
enclosed with no need for an
authorization; (2) not totally enclosed
and authorized; or (3) not totally
enclosed and not authorized. Only the
third group of use activities is prohibited
by this rule. Activities that are included
in the first two categories are described
in section IX of the preamble, while
those in the third category are described
in section X.
1. Manufacturing Exemptions
No exemptions are promulgated in
this rule. These are being handled in a
separate rulemaking. The rulemaking
procedures for PCB manufacturing
exemptions were printed in the Federal
Register on November 1,1978, at page
50905. Examples of manufacturing
activities that require an exemption to
continue after July 2,1979, include, but
are not limited to: the manufacture of
PCB for use in transformers or
capacitors; the manufacture of PCB in
small quantities for research and
development; the manufacture of PCB
for use in microscopy; the manufacture
of PCB as an impurity or byproduct in or
associated with other chemicals (e.g.,
pigments); and the importation of PCBe,
including bulk form or in mixtures and
PCB Articles for any purpose other than
disposal. As discussed in section VI.B.l
above, importation of PCB Equipment
may continue until July 1,1979.
Persons who have submitted petitions
for a manufacturing exemption in
accordance with the November 1,1978,
rulemaking procedures will not be
subject to the PCB manufacturing ban
until EPA act* upon their petitions (see
44 FR 108. January 2,1979). Many of the
petitions are moot because of changes in
the final rule that permit the
manufacture of PCB Equipment until
July 1,1979. These manufacturers are
required to comply with all other
applicable portions of this rule, such as
requirements for disposal, marking,
storage, and recordkeeping.
2. Processing and Distribution in
Commerce Exemptions
In the near future. EPA will issue
procedures for applications for
exemptions from the processing and
distribution bans, which are effective
July 1. 1979. The procedures m«y
incorporate revisions from those
applicable to manufacturing exemptions.
Under the existing procedures, each
person who wants an exemption must
submit a separate petition. EPA IK
considering revising this requirement to
reduce the number of individual
petitions because substantially more
persons will be affected by the
processing and distribution bans than
by the manufacturing ban. In addition,
EPA anticipates that the petitions will
fall into several principal categories.
Instead of requiring petitioners to
duplicate efforts in cases where their
requests are essentially identical, EPA
may accept certain class petitions
submitted on behalf of more than one
petitioner. Trade associations for
example, may be permitted to develop a
single petition, as appropriate, on behalf
of their members, or manufacturers or
processors may be permitted to petition
on behalf of persons distributing their
products.
Activities that will require an
exemption from the July 1,1979,
processing and. distribution in commerce
bans include, but are not limited to: the
manufacture of PCB Equipment; the sale
of PCB Equipment; the sale of PCB
Capacitors; the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
servicing PCB Transformers, PCB-
Contaminated Transformers, railroad
transformers, mining equipment,
electromagnets, and hydraulic
equipment; the processing and
distribution in commerce of pigments
and other chemicals that contain 50 ppm
or greater PCB; and the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
microscopy and in small quantities for
research and development.
B. General Changes in I 761.31:
Authorizations
Three changes have been made from
the proposal that affect all
authorizations. These changes are
discussed here while changes in
individual authorizations are discussed
in section IX of this preamble.
1. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
Virtually all reporting and
recordkeeping requirements have been
deleted from { 761.31. Several proposed
authorizations would have required
persons to submit reports to EPA and to
retain records for a variety of non-
totally enclosed activities. EPA
recognizes the burden on manufacturers
and others who would have been
required to prepare and maintain these
records and baa determined that these
requirements are largely unnecessary.
because most of the information will be
submitted in the annual petitions for
254
-------
31530 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
exemptions. The only exceptions to this
policy are owners of railroad
transformers, hydraulic systems, and
heat transfer systems who must retair.
records of the PCB analyses that they
ore required to perform.
2. Length of Use Authorizations
Unlike all other activities that may be
subject to an authorization under TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(B). use activities are not
prohibited under TSCA section
0(e)(3)(A). Accordingly, there is no
automatic limit to the length of use
authorizations. In deciding how long to
authorize each use, EPA believes that it
should have the opportunity to review
each use in a timely way to ensure that
there is no unreasonable risk associated
with its continuation. In addition,
irr.proved technology or development of
new PCB substitutes could reduce the
need for the authorization. Accordingly,
EPA proposed a five-year limit on most
use authorizations. The final rule has
generally extended this period to five
and one-half years so that the expiration
date for authorizations will coincide
with the expiration of the processing
and distribution exemptions. This
change will permit EPA to combine
administrative procedures, and thereby
reduce administrative costs. Several use
authorizations have shorter periods as
explained under section IX below.
Since, as noted earlier, the processing
and distribution prohibitions of TSCA
section 6(e){2) expire on July 1,1979,
authorizations for these activities will
expire on the same date. Thereafter,
these activities will be subject to TSCA
section 6{e)(3) and will require annual
'jxemptions to continue.
3. Changes in § 781.46: Annex VII
Annex VII, which provided for PCB
Exposure and Control Plans, has been
deleted. The proposed Annex would
have imposed special requirements on
persons authorized to continue activities
in other than a totally enclosed manner.
Specifically, Annex Vn would have
required detailed plans for handling
PCBs, preventing spills, and otherwise
reducing human and environmental
exposure. The final rule no longer
ret, 'ires such plans because EPA is
developing similar requirements under
section 311 of the Clean Water Act (see
proposed Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan Rule, 43 FR 39276.
September 1,1970).
IX. Specific Authorization*
Activities that are regulated by this
rule and the effect of the rule on these
activities are summarized in Table 3.
The data referred to in this section are
in the Versar Report, which is available
from EPA's Office of Industry
Assistance at the address given at the
beginning of the preamble.
In relationship to activities regulated
by this rule, dilution of PCBs is
prohibited unless otherwise specifically
provided for in the rule. This prohibition
is necessary to prevent an unreasonable
risk of human and environmental
exposure to PCBs. If dilution was
permitted, it would be possible to dilute
all PCB liquids so that their disposal
would no longer be controlled by this
rule. This is clearly an unacceptable
alternative since it could result in all
existing PCBs entering the environment.
However, for several authorized
activities, dilution of PCBs is essential to
the intended performance of the
activities and is not performed with the
intent of evading the disposal
requirements for PCBs. For these
activities only, dilution of PCBs is
permitted and the disposal of liquid is
governed by its final PCB concentration
rather than its beginning PCB
concentration. The following authorized
activities are permitted to dilute PCBs:
(1) Servicing of transformers (with
restrictions); (2) Servicing of railroad
transformers; (3) Use in heat transfer
systems; (4) Use in hydraulic systems;
(5) Processing and use of pigments; and
(6) Use in natural gas.
The exemption review process for the
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce bans will also
evaluate the need for dilution in the
performance of PCB activities. Any
decisions to permit dilution in exempted
activities will be stated in the
exemption, if granted.
A. Servicing Transformers (Other Than
Railroad Transformers)
EPA considers the use of transformers
as use in a totally enclosed manner.
Accordingly, the use of PCBs in
transformers may continue indefinitely.
In addition, in this rule EPA authorizes
the routine servicing of PCB
Transformers (as defined in S 761.21(y))
and the routine servicing and rebuilding
of PCB-Contaminated Transformers (as
defined in § 781.2(z)J subject to certain
conditions. The nile also authorizes the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for servicing transformers. The
following is a summary of EPA's
findings and reasoning behind these
decisions.
Most large electrical transformers are
designed to operate with the current-
carrying coils immersed in a dielectric
fluid. In the past, most transformers
used in buildings or other critical fire
control locations were filled with non-
flammable dielectric fluids containing
PCBs as a major component. These PCB
dielectric fluids are known by the
generic term "askarel" and have been in
common use since the 1930's. Currently,
some 140,000 transformers, or less than
one percent of all large electrical
transformers in service, use askarel
dielectric fluid.
PCB Ban Rut* Action*
Activity
PC8-ContaTjnfnated Transformer*
RaftriMad Transformer _ „ _
Mining Equipment _ .._
tfeat Transfer.- .
Hy*au*c Systems „
Carbonless Copy Paper . „ ...
Pt0menti „ _
Natural Oat Plpatna Comprmora
Sma« QuintltlM (Of R4D _
Mtcr»copy _
PCB Capacftori
PC8 Egj^pmani _'._
Pncaaa ConSarrtfnatfon
Import! » Export* (axoapt tar «apoaaQ
Dual Control, ftiidnti 4 Co««ng» (from w»aa ol
••Jury PCS).
'Unlaaa oOwwta* nmad. •! «u(hartn*n. -1/
i/az.
(aarvtdng).
U— 6/1 /*>
p o, u
P. D, U
^__. .
Prooibrted
by rula
M
Mlnar
RabuMng
(1/z/ao).
U P D
y
M, P O
M __
M, P, D
M
M
M.P .
M,P.Q,U__
M.P, 0
M, P. D. U
Erampdon
requrad
P D
p. D
P O
P. 0 ,
M. P, 0
M. P 0
M.P. 0 _.
0
P 0
M. P, 0
M, P. 0
Typaof PC3
•ctjvtty '
p . ^^
ton.
PCB*
Contanan*.
ten.
boa
Contamina-
tion.
ContamMt-
tton.
ContamK*.
Hon.
PCS.
PCS
PC8
Contan**-
ton.
PCS*
Contifnlrav
Don.
Contamina-
tion.
'"PC8" macatat ua* of -pw»- PC8a (•.», aaferal JalicHi. (Uda) «Ma -CorttnvnaSorT Hitram PCB
viamftNia graattr tian SO pom In non-PC8 aubatancM or ntoftna Irom pravtoua uaa ot •>»•" PCBa,
AMmMMonc M Moniifartmno, P-Prooaaalng. O-OMrtjuvon ta Commarca, U-Uaa.
255
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31531
A transformer is essentially a large,
sealed can. The only time the can is
deliberately opened is when the
transformer requires certain types of
servicing. Except in the event of a
catastrophic failure or other
extraordinary circumstance, use (except
servicing) of transformers is performed
in a totally enclosed manner and, as
such, does not require an authorization.
Under this rule, use of PCBs in
transformers may continue indefinitely
because this is a totally enclosed use.
1. General Discussion of Transformer
Servicing
Servicing of transformers does result
in exposure to PCBs. There are two
general categories of servicing: routine
servicing and rebuilding. Routine
servicing includes testing the dielectric
fluid, filtering the fluid, and replacing
gaskets. Routine servicing often requires
the removal of some dielectric fluid and
then the return, or replacement, of that
fluid. These activities result in some
human and environmental exposure, but
the exposure is usually limited to
exposure of workers to small quantities
of PCB. Good management practices and
protective clothing should result in only
very low levels of exposure to PCBs
during routine servicing.
Rebuilding occurs after a transformer
has failed or after an inspection
indicates that it will soon fail.
Rebuilding is an open process that
involves draining the transformer,
removing and disassembling the core,
reworking the coil or rewinding a new
coil, reassembling the core, and refilling
the transformer with new fluid. Unless
extraordinary precaution is taken, the
shop personnel responsible for
rebuilding the transformer are exposed
to PCBs since the inner parts of the
transformer are saturated with PCBs.
Volatilization of the PCBs and leaka
from both the transformer and PCB
handling result in environmental
exposure to PCBs.
Worker exposure during rebuilding
can be moderated by protective
equipment, but is inevitably greater than
the exposures during routine servicing.
Volatilization is difficult to control
because of the large surface area
exposed. Unless carefully controlled, the
leaks may contaminate work areas and
storage yards and may reach
watercourses through uncontrolled
runoff and drainage systems. Cleaning
the inner surfaces of the transformers
with solvents during the rebuilding
process, cleanup of spillage and
drippings, and scrapping of
unserviceable components all increase
the production of liquid and non-liquid
PCB wastes. In addition, the old coil
must be disposed of separately from the
casing, potentially increasing the
environmental exposure to PCBs.
2. PCB Transformers
In developing the proposed rule, EPA
considered three principal options for
PCB Transformers: (1) prohibit both
routine servicing and rebuilding; (2)
permit routine servicing but prohibit
rebuilding; and (3) permit both routine
servicing and rebuilding. Option 1 would
result in the greatest reduction of
potential PCB exposure. Prohibition of
routine servicing would, however,
probably significantly increase the
chances of catastrophic transformer
failure because of inadequate
maintenance. This hazard and the
resulting exposure to PCBs may present
far greater risks to health and the
environment than that associated with
the minimal PCB exposure during
routine servicing. Option 3 could result
in significant human and environmental
exposure to PCBs from rebuilding
transformers, as explained above. For
these reasons, EPA has chosen a course
of action based upon Option 2,
permitting routine servicing but
prohibiting rebuilding of PCB
Transformers.
Routine servicing Will result in
minimal exposures to PCBs and allow
the use of most existing transformers to
continue through their useful lifetimes.
EPA has concluded that this activity
does not pose an unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment.
However, any servicing (including
rebuilding) of PCB Transformers that
involves removing the coils from the
casing is prohibited by the rule. This
prohibition will cost about $12 million
the first year and steadily less each year
thereafter. Removing the coils
substantially increases PCB exposure.
Considering the PCB exposure that
would result if such servicing (including
rebuilding) was permitted, EPA believes
that these costs are justified by the
increased risks of hayn to human health
and the environment and concludes that
such servicing of PCB Transformers
presents an unreasonable risk.
3. PCB-Contaminated Transformers
As explained below, rebuilding
transformers with less than 500 ppm
PCB is permitted. Because of the
relatively low concentrations of PCBs,
EPA believes that the risks of further
contamination of the environment with
PCBs due to such rebuilding will be
negligible. Because these transformers
comprise over 99% of all large electrical
transformers, the economic impact of a
rebuilding prohibition on transformers
with less than 500 ppm PCBs could be
extremely high. Comparing these
potential costs to the relatively low
threat to human health and the
environment under the conditions
required under the rule, EPA concludes
that this activity should be authorized to
continue because it does not pose an
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment.
Unless there is reason to believe a
transformer contains PCB (askarel)
dielectric fluid or otherwise has 500 ppm
PCB or greater, it may be assumed to
have 50 to 500 ppm PCB. In practical
terms, this means that mineral oil
transformers need not be tested to
determine whether they contain more
than 500 ppm PCB. Available
information indicates that virtually no
mineral oil (non-askarel) dielectric fluid
will be contaminated with PCBs above
500 ppm. Even if a small percentage of
such fluid might contain somewhat more
than 500 ppm PCB, EPA does not believe
that the cost of testing needed to
identify fluids with these slightly greater
amounts is justified. Specifically, there
are some 35 million transformers that
would be subject to such a testing
requirement. With each test costing
between $50 and $100, the total cost of
such testing would be as great as $3.5
billion. The additional health or
environmental benefits that may result
from requiring such testing and applying
more stringent requirements in those
few cases with more than 500 ppm
would be extremely small compared to
these testing costs.
For all practical purposes, testing of
mineral oil dielectric fluid will only be
used to determine whether the mixture
contains less than 50 ppm PCB and is
therefore exempt from the disposal
requirements for mineral oil with over 50
ppm PCB. No testing is needed if the
mineral oil will be burned in a high
efficiency boiler or disposed of in any
other way permitted for mineral oil
contaminated with PCBs up to 500 ppm.
Many commentors questioned
whether they would have to test the
fluid from each transformer to determine
the level of PCB contamination. Under
the final rule, because such testing is
optional, EPA anticipates that most
persons will instead assume that the
transformer contains between 50 ppm
and 500 ppm PCB. If a person chooses to
test, the final rule permits collection of
mineral oil dielectric fluid into a single
tank from more than one PCB-
Contaminated Transformer. The mixture
of fluids can then be sampled in a
manner that reasonably represents the
composite contents to determine PCB
concentrations. (See preamble sections
II.C and III.E above.) Draining a PCB
256
-------
31532 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
Transformer into such a tank is
prohibited.
4 Rebuilding PCS Transformers
The ti unsformer service industry and
several transformer owners commented
that PCB Transformer rebuilding should
be permitted. The industry was
particularly concerned with the
economic impact on owners of specially
designed transformers. Because of the
time required to build a new transformer
on special order, a prohibition of
rebuilding PCB Transformers could
significantly disrupt their operations if a
transformer should unexpectedly fail.
However, some transformer failures are
so extensive that the transformer cannot
be rebuilt. In these instances, the
transformer owner must do without a
transformer until it can be replaced with
either a new or used transformer. Even
when a failed transformer can be
rebuilt, the transformer owner still must
do without a transformer for the length
of time required to rebuild the
transformer. In both situations, the
transformer owner must either operate
at a reduced output or shut-down for
some period of time. This may cause
some economic hardships for owners of
transformers; however, considering the
substantial human exposure during
rebuilding, the Agency believes that
exposure to PCBs from rebuilding
presents an unreasonable risk.
The other changes in the final rule,
however, will reduce some of the
economic impact on transformer users.
The final rule peimits the
reclassification of PCB Transformers as
PCB-Contaminated Transformers if they
have been drained and refilled with
non-PCB dielectric fluid and if they are
tested and found to contain less than
500 ppm PCB after at least three months
of in-service use. Three months is the
minimum amount of time necessary to
ensure that the PCBs trapped in the
interior parts of the transformer leach
out into the dielectric fluid. After
reel ossifying a PCB Transfocmer to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer in this
way, an owner would be permitted to
rebuild that transformer. This
reclassification option reduces the risk
of f''sniption of operations that could
result from the prohibition of rebuilding
PCB Transformers.
If a PCB Transformer owner takes
advantage of the reclassification option
described above and converts it to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer, the
transformer could be rebuilt. The
alternative of rebuilding has several
economic advantages. In general,
rebuilding will be cheaper than
replacement. In addition, the production
losses will probably be less if a failed
transformer can be rebuilt rather than
replaced. On the other hand, rebuilding
PCB Transformers may result in a
substantial increase in human and
environmental PCB exposure.
Considering these factors, EPA has
decided to permit rebuilding but only of
PCB-Contaminated Transformers. To
rebuild the PCB Transformer the owner
would first have to reduce the
concentration of PCBs to less than 500
ppm according to the schedule
contained in § 761.31(a){5) and then
rebuild.
5. Contents of Authorization
The previous discussion explains
EPA's rationale for authorizing the
servicing of transformers and the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for such servicing. The
authorization, contained in § 761.31(a),
is valid for persons who service their
own transformers until July 1,1984.
Persons who process or distribute PCBs
in conjunction with servicing
transformers must be granted an
exemption by EPA to continue these
activities after July 1,1979.
The authorization for servicing
(including rebuilding) is subject to the
following six conditions. First,
regardless of its PCB concentration,
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB that is mixed with fluids
containing 500 ppm or greater PCB must
not be used as dielectric fluid in any
transformer. This condition.is intended
to prevent deliberate dilution of PCBs.
Dielectric fluid from PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may be assumed to have
less than 500 ppm. Second, persons
servicing or rebuilding PCB-
Contaminated Transformers must use
dielectric fluids that contain less than
500 ppm PCB. Third, any servicing
(including rebuilding) of PCB
Transformers that requires the removal
of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. Fourth,
PCBs removed in servicing or rebuilding
must be captured apd either reused as
dielectric fluid or disposed of in
accordance with the requirements of
Subpart B. Fifth, a PCB Transformer may
be converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer, as described above. Sixth,
any PCB dielectric fluid that is used to
service or repair any PCB Transformer
must be stored in accordance with the
storage for disposal requirements of
Annex III (§ 761.42 of this rule). This
requirement is intended to minimize the
possibility of spills and other Accidental
releases of PCBs in the environment as
they are stored prior to use. Finally, any
person who wishes to process and
distribute in commerce PCBs for
purposes of servicing transformers after
July 1, 1979, may do so only if granted an
exemption by EPA. Persons may
continue to service transformers that
they own without such an exemption.
B. Use and Servicing of Railroad
Transformers
Transformers in approximately 1,000
electric railroad locomotives and self-
powered cars operated in the
northeastern United States by Amtrak,
Conrail and five intracity transit
authorities contain PCB fluid. PCB fluids
are frequently spilled onto roadbeds
when these transformers overheat and
when rocks and debris damage these
transformers. Workers and other
persons near rail lines are potentially
exposed to PCBs as a result of these
spills. In addition, runoff from roadbeds
probably contains increased PCB
concentrations. PCBs are also
volatilized during overheating and
servicing. PCB exposure from servicing
operations is similar to non-railroad
transformer servicing and is laregely
confined to service shops. Because of
the human and environmental exposure
to PCB that results from these activities,
neither the use nor the servicing of
railroad transformers is considered to be
totally enclosed.
EPA considered various regulatory
options for PCB-containing railroad
transformers in implementing section
6(e) of TSCA, In proposing the rule, EPA
ossumed that the 1,000 railroad
transformers could not be immediately
replaced without an unacceptably
severe curtailment of railroad service,
especially in the Northeast Corridor, and
attendant adverse economic and social
consequences. The proposed rule would
have authorized the use of the
transformers if PCB concentrations were
lowered to four percent in 15 months
and then to 1,000 ppm in 36 months. In
addition, the proposed authorization
would have allowed servicing or
rebuilding if non-PCB dielectric fluid
was used. While the proposal would not
have disrupted service, the affected
railroad and transit companies would
have had to invest an estimated $12.2
million over a three-year period to
comply.
The affected parties criticized the"
timetable for lowering PCB
concentrations. A recently initiated
study of the safety of PCB-containing
railroad transformers that have been
refilled with non-PCB fluids is n5t
expected to be completed until late 1979.
The comments emphasized the
importance of first assessing the
feasibility of refilling with respect to
257
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31533
transformer performance and potential
hazards from explosion and fires as a
result of the use of alternate fluids.
Some comments also questioned
whether a residual concentration of four
percent PCB could be routinely achieved
by refilling. These comments stated that
a slightly higher level of six percent
could be met on a routine basis. Other
comments explained that, consistent
with the Railroad Revitalization and
Recovery Act of 1976, the Northeast
Corridor railroads are changing the
power supply specifications in mid-1981.
Accordingly, some transformers are
scheduled to be replaced and these
comments suggested that to require the
refilling of these transformers would
impose a needless cost. As explained
below, the 1981 date has changed.
The final rule takes these comments
into account and authorizes continued
use and uervicing (including rebuilding)
of these transformers as a non-totally
enclosed use until July 1,1984, subject to
requirements that EPA believes will
promote conversion to other types of
transformers or dielectric fluids at the
earliest feasible time. Persons may
process or distribute PCBs in
conjunction with servicing railroad
transformers but must be granted an
exemption by EPA to continue these
activities after July 1,1979. EPA Is
requiring that railroad transformers
contain no more than six percent PCB
by January 1,1982, about 21 months
later than proposed. This will give EPA
more time to evaluate the safety of
refilling these transformers with non-
PCB fluid and will substantially reduce
the costs of compliance. These
transformers must either be replaced or
be drained, flushed, and refilled with
non-PCB fluid by that deadline. Before
than, the use of PCB dielectric fluid for
servicing (including rebuilding) railroad
transformers is authorized. After that
date, railroad transformers may only be
serviced with fluid containing 8 percent
PCBs or less.
By January 1,1984, the concentration
of PCBs in the transformers must not
exceed 1,000 ppm. This is approximately
18 months later than proposed. EPA
believes that the environmental and
health risks that may be associated with
continued use of PCB in these
transformers over this period are
outweighed by: (1) the yet undetermined
safety risks of fire and explosion that
may be associated with use of non-PCB
fluid in refilled transformers; (2) the
approximately $90 million cost that
would be imposed if immediate
conversion or replacement was required;
and (3) the additional costs resulting
from the disruption of critical
transportation services. Therefore, EPA
finds that this activity, as authorized,
does not present an unreasonable risk.
Railroad transformers must be tested
for PCBs immediately after the
completion of any servicing conducted
for the purpose of reducing the PCB
concentration in the transformer's
dielectric fluid and between one and
two years after such servicing. Records
of the results of this testing must be
retained until January 1,1991, which is
five years after the last testing
requirement of this rule.
EPA estimates that the total cost of
complying with the final rule will be no
more than $12.2 million over a five year
period. Although comments indicated
that some of the equipment will have
been scrapped as a result of the planned
change-over in mid-1981, the
Department of Transportation has
recently announced that this change-
over will not occur until at least the Fall
of 1983. The requirement to refill these
transformers by January 1,1982 provides
at least 20 months of use before the
change-over forces the older units out of
service. Accordingly, these units could
be in use for well over two years before
phase-out would be required.
C. Use and Servicing of Mining
Equipment
Under this authorization, PCBs may
be used in mining equipment, including
for purposes of servicing (including
rebuilding) until January 1,1982.
However, rebuilding of continuous
miner motors is permitted only until
December 31,1979. In addition, PCBs
may be processed and distributed in
commerce for purposes of servicing
mining equipment in a manner other
than a totally enclosed manner until July
1,1979. After July 1,1979, persons who
process and distribute in commerce
PCBs in conjunction with the servicing
or use of mining equipment may do so
only if granted an exemption by EPA to
continue these activities.
There are two types of mining
equipment that use PCBs as a coolant in
electric motors: loaders and continuous
miners. Although the manufacture of
mining equipment using PCB fluids has
ceased, approximately 517 such motors
in loaders and 72 such motors for
continuous miners are either in use or in
existing inventories. PCBs may leak
while the equipment is in service in
underground mines or during servicing
procedures, performed either in the (hop
or in the field. Exposure to PCBs during
servicing primarily results from
volatilization, spills, and direct human
contact with PCBs when the inner parts
of the motor are removed or rebuilt.
Thus, the use and servicing of these
motors are not totally enclosed
activities.
To require replacement of these
motors by the effective date of this rule
would not be technically and
economically feasible. There is only one
company that currently converts PCB
loader motors to air-cooled or other non-
PCB motors, and PCB motors in
continuous miners cannot be converted
to non-PCB motors. Because of the
location of the motor in continuous
miners, this means that the entire
machine has to be replaced. In both
cases, lead time is essential to convert
or replace the equipment. Prohibiting
use of the equipment in the interim
could result in a shut-down of
approximately ten percent of the
underground bituminous coal production
in the United States. The impact of a
prohibition of the use of PCB mining
equipment can be significantly reduced
by permitting more time for a phase-out.
EPA believes that a phased approach is
reasonable. As compared to an
immediate prohibition, the risks to
human health and the environment are
only slightly increased, while the costs
are substantially lower.
The final rule is essentially the same
as proposed. To avoid the adverse
consequences caused by an immedia te
use ban, EPA proposed a phase-out of
these PCB motors. Different compliance
schedules for loaders and continuous
miners were proposed since they pose
different problems. Because of the
cutting head design, the motors on
continuous miners cannot be rebuilt as
non-PCB motors. The only feasible
alternative is replacement of the entire
continuous miner unit Because of the
lead time necessary to order and
manufacture this type of equipment,
EPA proposed to permit the rebuilding
of PCB continuous miner motors until
December 31,1979. Rebuilding differs
from servicing in that rebuilding
involves removing the motor from the
miner and disassembling the motor.
Servicing is permitted until January 1.
1982. Service companies and others who
want to process or distribute PCBs for
rebuilding or servicing these motors
after June 30,1979, may do so only if
granted an exemption by EPA to
continue these activities. The use of
continuous miners containing PCBs after
January 1,1982, is prohibited.
The PCB motors on loaders can be
replaced with, or rebuilt as, air-cooled
or other non-PCB motors. EPA is
requiring that these motors be replaced
or be rebuilt as air-cooled or other non-
PCB motors when they are returned to
258
-------
31534 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulation
service shops for maintenance, but in
no event, can PCS motor* be used later
than January 1,1982. Rebuilding or
replacement of existing PCB motors
using normal maintenance patterns
should take no longer than three years.
Accordingly, use of these loaders is
authorized until January 1,1982.
Since normal maintenance practicies
will permit an orderly rebuilding or
replacement of motors with relatively
modest costs, and with little additional
exposure to PCBs, this gradual
replacement requirement is a reasonable
approach. However, no justification
exists for permitting any PCB motors on
loaders to remain in service after
January l, 1982, and therefore the use is
prohibited after that date. Topping-off
the motor fluid levels in the field with
PCB fluids is also prohibited after
January 1,1982.
The authorization for mining
equipment is essentially unchanged
from the proposed rule. The estimated
cost to owners of the equipment is
estimated to be $2.6 to $4.3-million
spread over 3 years.
D. Use in Heat Transfer Systems
Section 781.31(d) of the final rule
authorizes the use of PCBs in heat
transfer systems until July 1,1984,
subject to conditions regarding tasting
and reducing PCB concentrations. This
authorization for use includes servicing
of heat transfer systems. Heat transfer
systems that are used in the
manufacture or processing of any food,
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in
5 201 of the FederaWood, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, are authorized to use heat
transfer fluid containing 50 ppm or
greater PCB only until November 1, 1979.
PCBs were used as a heat transfer
tluid in certain applications from 1962 to
1972. In the period from 1970 to 1972,
approximately 90% of the heat transfer
systems that used PCB fluid were
refilled with non-PCB fluid. In spite of
this refilling, most systems contain
rnsidual PCB concentrations. Heat
transfer systems are, by and large,
relatively, but not totally, enclosed
systems and therefore their use of PCBs
is iot in a totally enclosed manner. The
pi unary source of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs from
thuse systems comes from leaks in pump
motor seals. However, good
maintenance practices will minimize the
quantity of fluids that may be lost. For
most systems, the loss of PCB fluid is
well controlled and the corresponding
amount of top-off fluid added to these
systems is very small.
An authorization for the use of heat
transfer systems containing PCBs was
not proposed because EPA had
insufficient data to Judge whether the
use of these systems would pose an
unreasonable risk. The preamble to the
proposed rule solicited comments on
this issue. According to the comments
received, the PCB problem in heat
transfer systems is generally one of
residual PCB contamination of the non-
PCB replacement fluids. In many
respects, heat transfer systems are
similar to hydraulic systems. For these
reasons, the conditions of this
authorization regarding the reduction of
PCB concentrations are identical to
those contained in the authorization for
hydraulic systems: (1) any heat transfer
system that ever contained PCB heat
transfer fluid must be tested by October
1,1979, and at least annually thereafter
until the system reaches 50 ppm PCB; (2)
any system that contains 50 ppm PCB or
greater must be drained of the PCBs and
refilled with non-PCB fluid (i.e., fluid
containing less than 50 ppm PCB) within
six months of the test showing the PCB
concentration is 50 ppm or greater; (3)
PCBs may not be added to heat transfer
systems; and (4) records of the testing
required under (1) must be retained for
five years after the heat transfer system
reaches 50 ppm PCB. The testing under
(1-) must be done at least three months
after the most recent servicing
conducted to reduce the PCB
concentration. This time delay is to
permit residual PCBs to leach out into
the fluid before it is tested.
An exception to these requirements
has been made for heat transfer systems
used in the manufacture or processing of
any food, drug, cosmetic, or device, as
defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. These
systems are authorized to use dielectric
fluid containing 50 ppm or greater PCB
only until November 1,1979. After this
date, these systems must contain less
than 50 ppm PCB. This exception was
made because, in the event of a heat
transfer system rupture, PCBs would
contaminate a product that would come
in direct contact with humans, either
through ingestion or through application
to the skin. Unlike the rupture of a heat
transfer system used in the manufacture
of a product that is rarely in contact
with humans, leakage of PCBs into a
food, drug, cosmetic, or device provides
a direct avenue for PCBs to enter the
human body. Since the Food and Drug
Administration required the removal of
PCB heat transfer fluids from these
systems several years ago, this
restricted authorization should not
present a problem to companies owning
these systems.
EPA finds that this activity, as
authorized, does not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment. The total cost for the
requirements described above ia
estimated to range from $12.2 to $17.8
million spread over three years.
E. Use in Hydraulic Systems
Under this authorization, PCBs may
be used in hydraulic systems until July 1,
1984, subject to conditions regarding
testing and reducing PCB
concentrations. This authorization for
use includes servicing of hydraulic
systems. Processing and distribution in
commerce for purposes of servicing,
such as filtering, distilling, or otherwise
reducing the concentration of PCBs in
hydraulic systems, is authorized only
until July 1,1979. After July 1,1979,
persons are prohibited from processing
and distributing in commerce PCBs for
this purpose unless EPA grants them an
exemption.
This authorization is necessary
because a large number of die casting
systems currently in use were once filled
with PCB hydraulic fluid. Although this
use of PCBs has been discontinued,
equipment containing PCB hydraulic
fluid is still in service. Some systems
have been topped-off with non-PCB
fluids, and others have been drained
and flushed in an attempt to reduce PCB
contamination. However, systems may
still be contaminated with residual PCBa
that either remain after flushing or are
gradually released from interior
surfaces. As a consequence, hydraulic
systems can contain concentrations of
PCB ranging from less than 10 ppm to
thousands of parts per million PCB.
These systems normally leak fluid, even
when properly maintained. In addition,
some of the fluid volatilizes as a result
of the high operating temperatures.
These losses result in PCB-contammated
water effluents as well as air emissions,
both of which have contributed to
existing levels of PCB contamination in
the environment. Therefore, this use of
PCBs is clearly not use in a totally
enclosed manner.
Mandatory immediate removal of
these systems from service to remove
the PCBs could affect as many as one
thousand companies and disrupt
important sectors of industry, especially
those using die castings. The extent of
PCB exposure from these systems does
not justify incurring such severe costs.
On the other hand, the continued
uncontrolled use of these systems would
result in releases of substantial amounts
of PCBs into the environment and
cannot be allowed to continue. EPA
proposed authorizing the continued
259
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31535
servicing and use of PCB-contaminated
hydraulic fluid in hydraulic die casting
systems subject to certain conditions.
One condition was that any system that
contained 50 ppm or more PCB had to be
drained and refilled with non-PCB fluid
within one year. In addition, testing and
servicing or replacement of the fluid was
required at least every six months until
the PCB concentration was consistently
belo* 50 ppm.
The authorization in the final rule
makes certain changes from the
proposal. First, the proposed
authorization covered only hydraulic die
casting systems. Comments indicated
that there are other types of hydraulic
systems that used PCBs in high
temperature environments such as in
steel mills and foundries. Accordingly,
the authorization has been extended to
apply to the use of PCBs in all hydraulic
systems.
Under the final rule, each hydraulic
system must be tested no later than
November 1,1979. If the concentration
of PCBs is found to be greater than 50
ppm, the whole system must be drained
and refilled with non-PCB fluid within
six months of the test. EPA anticipates
that most of the PCBs will be removed
during the initial refilling process.
Subsequent draining and refilling may
be necessary to remove residual PCBs.
Under the final rule, persons who own
hydraulic systems are required to test
for the concentration of PCB annually
instead of every six months as under the
proposal. Comments indicated that
removing a hydraulic system from use
every six months would be disruptive.
Most systems undergo repair or
overhaul at least annually. The revised
requirement would be consistent with
these practices and, accordingly, result
in substantial first year cost savings
with little increase in PCB exposure.
Records of this testing must be retained
for five years after the hydraulic system
reaches 50 ppm.
Many comments emphasized that
requiring the draining of hundreds of
gallons of fluids that may contain
residual quantities of PCBs is not a cost-
effective way to achieve reduction in
PCB concentrations. Hydraulic systems
are routinely topped-off with non-PCB
hydraulic fluids. Comments argued that
the addition of non-PCB fluids should
effectively reduce the concentrations of
PCBs. While topping-off is permitted for
purposes of reducing the levels of PCBs
at any time, EPA believes that an annual
requirement to test and drain any fluid*
that contain more than 50 ppm is
essential to reduce, as expeditiously as
possible, the potential for PCB exposure.
Although EPA does not believe that
topping-cff alone will reduce PCB
concentrations quickly enough in all
systems, many systems will be able to
meet the requirements of the rule solely
by topping-off. Allowing concentrations
of PCBs above 50 ppm in these systems
over time is not acceptable to EPA in
terms of the significant risks to health
and the environment associated with the
leakage from these systems.
It is estimated that the costs to
owners of affected hydraulic systems
will total $14.6 to $25 million spread
over the first two years, with
insignificant costs in the subsequent
years. These costs are similiar to the
total cost of $19.7 million estimated in
the proposal, but the final rule
considered 1750 machines rather than
the 1000 machines estimated in the
proposal. This reduction in cost per
machine is due to the annual, rather
than semi-annual, testing requirement
and more accurate cost information
obtained as a result of the proposal.
These costs are reasonable in light of
the resulting reduction in human and
environmental exposure to PCBs.
EPA finds that this activity, as
authorized, does not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment.
F. Use in Carbonless Copy Paper
Under this authorization, existing PCB
carbonless copy paper may be used
indefinitely. Prior to 1971, carbonless
copy paper distributed by NCR
• Corporation was made with ink
containing PCBs. There does not appear
to be a way to distinguish PCB
carbonless copy paper from non-PCB
carbonless copy paper except perhaps
by dates or other indications on unused
inventories. A large portion of the PCB
carbonless copy paper that has not been
destroyed is probably in files. An
enormous undertaking would be
required of both business and
government to purge existing files of
PCB carbonless copy paper. Moreover,
the amount of PCB on each sheet of
carbonless copy paper is extremely
small. In view of these practical
considerations and because the
potential PCB exposure and risks to
human health or the environment are
negligible, EPA has concluded that this
activity does not present an
unreasonable risk and is authorizing the
continued use of existing PCB
carbonless copy paper.
In the proposal, EPA limited this
authorization to five yean. However.
EPA does not now believe that a method
for inexpensively separating PCB from
non-PCB carbonless copy paper will be
developed in the near future.
Accordingly, EPA is authorizing the use
of existing PCB carbonless copy paper
indefinitely.
C. Pigments
This rule authorizes the use of
diarylide and phthalocyanine pigments
containing more than 50 ppm PCB until
January 1,1982, and the processing and
distribution in commerce of these
pigments until July 1.1979. After July 2,
1979, these pigments cannot be
manufactured and after July 1,1979,
these pigments cannot be processed or
distributed in commerce unless EPA
grants exemptions for these activities.
Diarylide and phthalocyanine
pigments contain PCBs as an impurity in
concentrations ranging from several
thousand parts per million to less then
50 ppm. Most of these pigments have
PCB concentrations in the range of
several hundred parts per million. These
PCBs cannot easily be separated from
the pigments because of the structural
similarity of the PCBs to the pigments.
Once manufactured, the pigments are
mixed with other substances to form
paints, inks, and a variety of other
products. The PCB concentrations in
these final products are less than 50
ppm.
Competitive pressure to market
pigments with decreased PCB
contamination is causing pigment
manufacturers to change their
processes. Comments indicate that
within two years the industry will have
made the changes necessary to reduce
PCB contamination levels to less then 50
ppm.
In deciding whether to authorize
pigment activities, EPA considered the
relatively limited exposure and the
economics associated with use of these
pigments. The greatest potential for
exposure is in the application of paints
and inks using these pigments. These
products contain far less than 50 ppm
PCB because of the dilution that takes
place when the pigment is mixed with
the medium it is coloring. As a result,
the health and environmental risks are
not unreasonable. As discussed above,
the industry is changing its processes to
reduce the level of PCB contamination
to below 50 ppm in the next two years.
At the present time, these particular
pigments are a major segment of the
pigment market For example, diarylide
pigments form about 80% of the yellow
pigment market This ban will, therefore,
affect a substantial number of pigment-
related industries. However, the impact
of the regulation of the pigment industry,
as well as its customers in the paint and
graphic arts industries, will be further
260
-------
31536 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
considered during the rulemaking on
manufacturing exemptions.
The potential costs of compliance are
greatly reduced if the requirements are
implemented over a few years. The
increased health and environmental risk
is relatively small. If exemptions are
granted to permit more time for the
conversion to alternative manufacturing
processes, the cost of conversion will
total $5.6 million. Based on these
considerations, EPA has concluded that
the processing and distribution in
commerce until July 1,1979, and the use
of these pigments until January 1,1982,
will not present an unreasonable risk to
health and the environment and should
be permitted.
H. Use and Servicing of Electromagnets
As explained below, EPA considers
the use of electromagnets containing
PCBs to be used in a totally enclosed
manner. Accordingly, this use does not
require authorization. Processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs to
service electromagnets is authorized, as
explained below.
While no new PCB electromagnets
have been manufactured since mid-1978,
historically PCBs have been used in
some electromagnets to reduce fire
hazard. PCB electromagnets are used
primarily over conveyor belts to remove
tramp iron from non-magnetic
commodities such as coal. PCB-
containing electromagnets still in use
are found in enclosed areas such as coal
mines, coal preparation plants, and coal-
fired generating stations where there is
a danger of producing explosive dusts.
PCB electromagnets may also be used
over conveyor belts in grain handling
systems, but EPA does not have
information on specific locations at this
time.
Electromagnets are similar to
transformers in construction. An
electromagnet is a completely welded
piece of equipment. Any leakage would
be the result of deteriorating equipment
or accidental damage rather than design
characteristics. EPA has concluded that
use of PCBs in electromagnets under
normal circumstances is a use in a
totally enclosed manner. For coal-
han lling systems, if leakage does occur,
there will be negligible risks as the coal
is handled automatically and eventually
burned in combustion devices capable
of destoying almost all of the PCBs.
While EPA is not certain that
electromagnets containing PCBs are
currently in use over grain conveyors,
accidental leakage in such situations
may contaminate food supplies and thus
pose a threat to human health. For these
reasons, EPA will consider use of
electromagnets over grain conveyors
that leak to.be a violation of this rule as
a non-totally enclosed use of PCBs. In
addition, EPA is notifying the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Food
and Drug Administration of this
potential problem.
The servicing of PCB electromagnets
is similar to servicing of PCB
Transformers. Accordingly, this rule
authorizes the same type of servicing of
PCB electromagnets with PCB dielectric
fluid. As in the case of PCB
Transformers, any servicing (including
rebuilding) that requires the removal of
the coil from the casing is prohibited.
Most of the discussion of the servicing
of PCB Transformers in section IX.A of
this preamble pertains to servicing PCB
electromagnets. EPA has similarily
concluded that this servicing, as long as
it does not include'removal of the coil
from the casing, will not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment. Because of limited
information, EPA was unable to
ascertain the costs of not granting such
authorization.
/. Use in Natural Gas Pipeline
Compressors
The final rule authorizes the use,
including servicing, of PCBs in natural
gas pipeline compressors until May 1,
1980. An authorization was not
proposed for this use of PCBs because
EPA had virtually no knowledge of it.
Several comments on the proposed rule
indicate that compressors used in
natural gas pipelines contain residual
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm.
In general, these systems were drained
of high concentration PCB fluid several
years ago, thereby removing most of the
PCBs. This authorization will allow
these compressors to be drained and
refilled with non-PCB fluid to further
reduce the PCB concentration until it is
below 50 ppm. The authorization is
effective until May 1,1980, giving
persons time to work on the systems to
reduce the concentration of PCBs during
the summer months when demand for
natural gas is lower. Use and servicing
of these compressors are not a totally
enclosed activity because of limited
environmental exposure that may occur
during servicing and use.
An immediate use prohibition could
have a serious effect on natural gas
distribution. Permitting more than a half
a year to complete the draining and
refilling significantly reduces costs and
disruptions in service while causing
little or no increase in exposure to PCBs.
The total cost of these decontamination
operations is $200,000. Because of the
small quantities and low concentrations
of PCBs involved, EPA believes that this
authorization will not result in exposure
to PCBs that presents an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment.
/. Use of Small Quantities for Research
and Development
EPA is authorizing the use of PCBs in
"small quantities for research and
development", as defined in § 761.12(ee),
until July 1,1984. Processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
this purpose is authorized until July 1,
1979. After July 2,1979, PCBs cannot be
manufactured for this use, and after July
1,1979, they cannot be processed or
distributed in commerce, unless persons
interested in cemtinuing these activities
have been granted an exemption.
Because of the importance of on-going
research on the effects of PCBs and the
need to have reference standards for
analytical purposes, EPA believes that
the extremely limited exposures
associated with these activities do not
present an unreasonable risk to health
and the environment. The term "Small
Quantities for Research and
Development" is defined very narrowly.
Specifically, PCBs must be contained in
hermetically-sealed, five mittiliter
containers. EPA believes this constraint
is sufficient precaution against the risks
of human or environmental exposure to
justify such use in light of the possible
benefits of continued research. The
proposed rule would have excluded
these activities from the prohibitions in
§ 761.30; however, EPA believes it is
more appropriate to authorize (and if
appropriate exempt) these activities.
K. Use in Microscopy
EPA is authorizing the use of PCBs as
a mounting medium for microscopic
slides until July 1,1984, and the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for this purpose until July 1,
1979. After July 1,1979, persons who
want to continue processing and
distribution in commerce activities must
be granted an exemption by EPA.
Persons who want to manufacture PCBs
for this use after July 2,1979, must also
be granted an exemption by EPA.
When PCBs are used as a mounting
medium for slides, extemely small
quantities are used on each slide. This
use is particularly important to
scientists who need to preserve, for
future reference, a microscope particle.
PCBs are also used in air pollution and
criminology labs for microscopic particle
identification and they play a vital role
in the study and conservation of art and
historic objects through use of
microscopic slides. In mounting, a
particle is placed in a PCB medium and
261
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31537
covered with a cover slip, usually for
permanent reference. No substitutes
with the necessary physical properties
exist for this use.
Because of the small quantities of
PCBs used at any one time and the
careful nature of laboratory work,
exposure to PCBs used as a mounting
medium is minimal. Because of the
substantial benefits of this use of PCBs
andthe very limited risks involved, EPA
believes that this activity will not
present an unreasonable risk and that it
is appropriate to authorize this use of
PCBs.
X. PCS Activities Not Authorized by
This Rule
A. Manufacture ofPCB Capacitors
PCBs have been used as a dielectric
fluid in alternating current capacitors
manufactured in the United States from
the mid-1930's through the mid-1970's.
Although the manufacture of PCS
Capacitors is considered to be
"processing" of PCBs and could
continue under section 8(e)(3) until July
1,1979, the activity is not totally
enclosed and accordingly is prohibited
under section 6(e)(2) after July 2,1979.
In the past, manufacture of PCS
Capacitors has been a major source of
PCB release into the environment. For
example, the upper reaches of the
Hudson River are closed to fishing
because of PCB contamination caused
by capacitor manufacturing. The
Support Document to the final rule
(Chapter II) discusses this and other
examples of environmental damage
caused by this activity. In addition,
there are substitutes available as
discussed in Chapter in of the Support
Document to the final rule. For these
reasons, EPA has determined that the
continued manufacture of PCB
Capacitors presents an unreasonable
risk to human beings and the
environment and. has not authorized it
under section 6(e)(2). It is EPA's
understanding that no company is
planning to manufacture PCB Capacitors
after the effective date of this rule.
B. Manufacture of PCB Transformers
The use of PCBs as a transformer
dielectric fluid dates back to the 1930's.
The manufacture of PCB Transformers is
also considered to be "processing" PCBs
under TSCA but is not a totally enclosed
activity. Under section 6(e)(2), it may
not continue after July 2,1979.
Significant quantities of PCB may enter
the environment during the manufacture
of PCB Transformers. Production of PCB
Transformers has been responsible for
major riverdamage, notably the Coosa
River in Northwest Georgia. Because of
the environmental and human exposure
to PCBs that occurs in the manufacture
of these transformers and because of the
availability of substitutes, EPA has
determined that the manufacture of PCB
Transformers presents an unreasonable
risk and, therefore, has not authorized
this activity. It is EPA's understanding
that the manufacture of PCB
Transformers in the United States
ceased in 1977.
C. Other PCB Activities
All manufacturing of PCBs is
prohibited after July 2,1979. Persons
who have submitted a petition for a
manufacturing exemption in accordance
with the November 1,1978 rulemaking
procedures (43 FR 50905) will not be
subject to this ban until EPA acts upon
their petitions (see 44 FR 108, January 2,
1979).
All processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs in other
than a totally enclosed manner is
prohibited after July 2,1979, unless
specifically authorized in 5 761.31 of this
rule.
XI. Manufacturing, Processing, or
Distribution in Commerce of PCBs for
Export
Section 12(a) of TSCA states, in
general, that no provision of TSCA shall
apply to the manufacture, processing, or
distribution in commerce of a chemical
intended solely for export from the
United States. However, if the
Administrator finds that the
manufacture, processing, or distribution
in commerce of a chemical substance
solely for export presents an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment in the United States, those
activities may be regulated under TSCA.
It is the clear intent of TSCA to
minimize the addition of PCBs to the
environment of the United States. The
extreme persistence of this substance
and the ease with which it is
transported has made it a global
problem. There is considerable evidence
of PCB contamination that is far from
any known source (see Chapter II of the
Final Support Document). Therefore,
PCBs used outside the United States can
cause PCB contamination of this
country. Moreover, manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs in this country for
purposes of export is likely to cause
significant release of PCBs in this
country through air and water
emissions, leaks and spills, and other
means. Instances of severe PCB releases
from manufacturing, processing,
transportation, and other activities
involving PCBs are well documented.
Because of these factors, EPA has
determined that the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for export constitutes
an unreasonable risk to health and the
environment in the United States.
The final rule prohibits: (!) any
manufacture of PCBs for export after the
effective date of this rule; and (2) the
non-totally enclosed processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
export as of the effective date of this
rule; and (3) any processing or
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
export after July 1,1979, except solely
for purposes of disposal in accordance
with § 761.10. These prohibitions are
essentially the same as proposed. Like
domestic manufacturers, processors,
and distributors in commerce, persors
wishing to manufacture, process, or
distribute in commerce PCBs or PCB
Items solely for export may petition EPA
for an exemption as discussed in the
preamble sectio'n VIII.A above.
In addition, section 12(b)(2) of TSCA
requires any person who exports or
intends to export a chemical substance
or mixture for which a rule has been
proposed under section 6 to notify the
Administrator of such export or intent to
export. This requirement applies to any
export of PCBs except the export of
wastes which require a special report as
discussed in VI.B.2 above. The
requirement does not apply to the expor!
of PCB Equipment, although the export
of such equipment requires an
exemption after July 1,1979. The export
of PCBs in small quantities for research
and development (as defined in
S 761.2(ee)), for example, does require
notice to EPA.
Interim procedures regarding this
requirement can be found at 43 FR 24818
(June 7,1978). In summary, these
procedures require that notices be
submitted for the exports of all PCBs
and PCB Items (except PCB Equipment).
and the following information is to be
included:
(a) The name and address of the
exporter; (b) the dates of each shipment
or intended shipment; (c) the country
(countries) of import; and (d) a
statement that notice is being submitted
pursuant to Section 12(b) and 40 CFR
Part 761.
Notices shall be sent to the Document
Control Officer, (TS-793). Office of
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington. DC 20460.
XII. Test Procedures for PCB
Test procedures for determining the
PCB concentration in various media
262
-------
31538 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 108 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
were not included in the proposed PCB
Ban Role. A number of comments on the
rule suggested thai EPA provide
additional information on test methods.
EPA hat been involved in the
development of test methods for several
media and has made orach of this
information available to the public.
Specifically, test procedure* hare been
made available for determining PCB
concentrations in air. soil, water, and
sediments using an American Society of
Testing and Materials method (ASTM D
33O4) and in industrial effluents using
EPA methods- (primarily for low
concentration of PCB in water) (40 CFR
136). hi addition, an interim guidance
package containing two teat procedure*
(one for spill* in soil and one for water)
was made available to EPA Regional
Offices in February 1978 for distribution
to the public. In the final step of
analyzing the sample, all of these
procedures rely on a gas chromatograph
with an electron capture detector. The
primary differences between the
procedures are in the methods used to
separate the water-floloble fraction from
the oceanic-soluble fraction. The latter
fraction contains die PCB* and is the
portion used in the gas chromatograph.
Several comments were critical that
EPA did not have more specific test
procedures for PCBs, hi particular for
mineral oil dielectric Quid and pigment*.
The contamination of mineral oil
dielectric fluid with PCB* is a major
*^h;ec* of this rule and the problem
affects a large number of utilities and
industries. EPA ha* experience in the
analysis of contaminated oils and has
included a test procedure (described
below) in an adidnional guidance
package that will be distributed to EPA
Regional Offices. Pigments represent a
different type of analytical problem.
Pigments are a complex analytical
media, and analytical chemist* in that
industry who have the moat knowledge
on reach/ing analytical chemistry
problem* with that substance have
developed technique* to quantify PCBs
in pigments.
Pigment manufacturer* have
developed thus far **veral test
pr xa. ions and arc uuitauly wonting ID
validate one of mem. With ir opart to
other snbstaaces or mUiute* ln*t suy
be contaminated with FCBfe. EPA also
presumes that persons who maflssntcism
such substances have the expertise to
analyze tlunr product and are beat
equipped to determine whether, soul to
what extent their nroonek I*
contaminated with PCS.
EPA will nvaluS use of industry-
developed test procedures in conducting
r {unctions **d wOJ **• data
from such tests In enforcement actions
where appropriate. EPA may also
examine industry-developed test
procedures and make modifications, if
possible, that would increase the
accuracy and sensitivity of the test
Such modifications will be made
publicly available. Persons who
manufacture or process chemicals in •
manner that could result in the
production of PCBs a* a primary
product, impurity, intermediate.
precursor, or byproduct are responsible
for determining whether PCBs, have
been produced. They will have to
conduct testa using good analytical
chemistry and investigate ways to
improve their ability to detect and
quantify PCBa.
For the testing of PCB contaminated
oils, EPA uses the following analytical
procedure which consists of three
successive clean-up steps: at least one
run through an activated silica gel
column, a run through an activated basic
alumina column, and a final run through
an activated silica gel cohmm followed
by analysis on the gas chromatograph
equipped with en electron capture
detector. This procedure can be used on
any waste oil. For a mineral ail
dielectric fluid that is relatively clean.
an alternative procedure that would
yield a less accurate PCB concentration
with less effort and Lower cast would be
to substitute • liquid-liquid clean-up
step for the cohmm dean-op. This clean-
up involve* mixing the oil sample with
concentrated soUnric acid and then
draining of the oil fraction. The ofl
fraction is then ran through the gn*
chromatograph. This dean-op step
remove* oxidised organic material,
thiophenes, and moisture from the oil
sample. This alternative-is not as
accurate a* the column clean-up
method, but tor "dean" oils, it provides
a less expensive,jaon expedient test
procedure.
EPA recognise* that these procedure*
are subject to experimental errors and
that any procedure, no matter now
simple, can be ran fanproperry. However,
persons who arc subject to this rule wiU
be expected to exercise good judgment
on testing lUi iuiiai* For example, if. in
the ca*a of the two procedures
described above tor PCS contamtawted
oil*, the men rigorous atuueduiB nay
yield reanlts of ±1 ppm PCS white the
quicker procaonre may yield revolt* of
±14 ppm PCB (meat estimate* of i
are only aaed a* ffiastrntn
and are not based on acted teat data)
and a sample i* tasted by the •race
accurate puxjedmu and nvaita in a
vam* of 30 ppm PCBL then • person
could be reaaonahty eeitant thai Ike
sample falls into the less than 50 ppm
category. However, if using the less
accurate procedure results in a value of
45 ppm. then a person has two choices:
either treat the sample as a greater than
50 ppm PCB or test the sample again
with the more accurate test procedure.
In this case, EPA will not consider it to
be good judgment to assume that the
sample has lea* than 50 ppm PCB
because the experimental error of the
procedure overlap* the cut-off point
XllL CompCance and finfoi leimut
EPA will devote a major enforcement
effort to ensure compliance with the
requirements of these regulations. EPA
intends to take vigoroo* action to assure
that all facilities which manufacture,
process, distribute in commerce, or use
PCBs, handle and dispose of PCBs
properly. While EPA will be reasonable
in interpreting the application of these
requirements, persons who are or may
be subject to these regulations should be
aware that failure to property comply
with these regulations may subject them
to serious civil and criminal sanctions.
Section 16 of TSCA authorizes the
imposition of a civil penalty of op to
$25,000 for each violation of these rules.
Each day • violation continues
constitutes a separate violation for the
purpose of § 16. A knowing or willful
violation of these rules may. in addition
to any civil penalty, lead to the
imposition of criminal penalties in the
amount of up to $25,000 for each day of
violation and imprisonment for up to
one year. In addition, EPA ha* the
authority under section 17 of TSCA to
compel person* to take action* to rectify
or clean up after violations.
EPA will seek suuiggtit penalties in
any situation hi which significant
disperskm of PCBs ocean due to a
violation. Civil penalties) wfil be scaled
according to the seventy of the
violation. Facilities that violate
approval-exemption, or authorization
condition* shah1 also be subject to
penalties under g| 15 and 1ft of TSCA.
as weU a* the revocatioB of their
approval, exemption or aatfcarixation. bt
addition, in these situation*. EPA wifl
use TSCA section 17 injunctiva and
seizure powers to reduce or eliminate
the risk* of • PCB ragsBBtten violation.
For violation* which riak no direct
dispersion of PCB*. EPA is leu likely to
seek severe penalties, Ftailiae* m*y be
•imply pat an notice of certain
violation* and oocapeUed to rectify any
observed violation*.
"Any person" who violates DMM*
regulation* wit) be •abject to an
Indtvidsnk, sndi u oorporate
263
-------
Federal Register
/Vol. 44. No. IOC / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Ruins and Regulations
31539
and employees, as well as violating
companies. EPA takes the position that
persons may not contract away their
responsibility or liability for violation of
these rules, i.e. a PCB user who
contracts for PCB disposal or storage
with a company that he knows or should
know has inadequate disposal or
storage facilities, may himself be the
subject of an enforcement action. This
policy applies to all remedies EPA may
seek for a violation.
EPA will be directing its resources to
the discovery of significant instances of
exposures of PCBs to the environment
and developing accurate information
depicting the flow of PCBs to proper
disposal. Using information developed
during inspections and using the records
required to be kept under § 761.45, EPA
will be able to focus its efforts upon
areas which show the greatest potential
for violation.
XIV. Relationship of PCB Disposal
Under TSCA to Hazardous Waste
Disposal Under RCRA
The disposal requirements of this rule
specify the actions that must be taken
when disposing of PCBs.
In addition, the rule contains Annexes
that delineate specifications for disposal
facilities that are to be used for the
disposal of PCBs. These facilities are
also addressed in the hazardous waste
disposal rules proposed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) on December 18,1978 (43
FR 58946). Several options for
integrating the PCB rule with the RCRA
rules are discussed in the preamble to
the RCRA rules at 43 FR 58993 and
comments were requested on the
alternatives. Prior to the promulgation of
the RCRA rules, EPA will resolve the
differences between these two rules.
Because of the special disposal
problems presented by PCBs, EPA could
choose to continue special provisions for
the disposal of PCBs. EPA's decision
will be announced when the rules under
RCRA are promulgated.
XV. Summary of Economic
Consequences
Section 6(e) of TSCA prohibits (1) the
use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed
manner unless the use is authorized and
(2) all manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs unless
they are otherwise exempted by the
Administrator. These authorizations and
exemptions, however, are discretionary
and can be granted only upon a finding
that a particular PCB activity does not
pose an unreasonable risk to health or
the environment.
The impacts of both the statute and
the regulation have been assessed and
are discussed below. Additional
information on these impacts is
contained in PCB Manufacturing.
Processing, Distribution in Commerce,
and Use Ban Regulation: Economic
Impact Analysis (the Versar Report)
which can be obtained from the Industry
Assistance Office of the Office of Toxic
Substances upon request (see the
beginning of this preamble for the
address and telephone number).
A. Impact of the Statute
It was the clear intent of Congress, as
expressed in Section 6(e) and in the
pertinent legislative history, that the
manufacture of PCBs should cease.
Since no more PCBs will be made
(unless exemptions are granted), it
follows that there can be no future
manufacturing of PCB Transformers or
Capacitors. Consequently, the costs
attributed to the cessation of the
manufacture of PCB chemical substance,
PCB Transformers, and PCB Capacitors
are considered impacts of the statute,
not of the regulation.
These costs are attributable to the
statute and not to the regulation and
include $12~$30 million per year in
increased capacitor costs that will be
borne by utility and industrial users.
This results from an across-the-board
increase in capacitor prices of 10-20
percent due to the higher costs of PCB
substitutes. This cost will continue
indefinitely, unless the cost of these
substitutes falls. Purchasers of Non-PCB
Transformers will incur increased costs
of up to $10 million per year, depending
on the particular substitute dielectric
fluid selected. This cost will also
continue indefinitely. These increased
costs of transformers and capacitors
will be passed on through a minimal
increase in the cost of electricity to
consumer and industrial users.
B. Impact of the Rule
The total first year cost of this rule is
expected to range between $58 million
and $105 million. By 1985 the annual
costs will drop to between $30 million
and $37 million. Annual costs should
continue to diminish subsequent to 1985
as the use of PCBs is discontinued.
The largest annual economic impact
of this regulation may result from the
prohibition of the use of waste oil
containing any detectable amount pf
PCB for dust control on roads. Since
most waste oil contains very low PCB
levels, as much as 300,000,000 gallons of
waste oil per year will be diverted from
this use. Highway departments and
private road owners will have to use
substitute products which could cost
them as much as $31.7 million per year
for the first several years of this rule.
Note that the manufacturers of
substitute products assert that use of
their products will substantially reduce
road maintehance costs when compared
to the use of waste oil for road oiling
and that such a reduction would directly
reduce the net cost of the rule. However,
EPA is not able to verify the potential
savings involved.
The ban on rebuilding transformers
which contain dielectric fluid with a 500
ppm or greater PCB concentration will
cost the owners of these transformers
approximately $12 million in the first
year of the rule. This annual cost will be
gradually reduced over a period of 30 to
40 years as the transformers are
replaced Included in the $12 million
estimate is an estimated $2.4 million in
costs attributed to a projected increase
in down-time. In other words, when a
power delivery is interrupted by an
electrical failure of a PCB Transformer
the rule's effective requirement that the
failed PCB Transformer be replaced by a
new, rather than a rebuilt transformer,
will cause a longer than normal
interruption. About two thirds of these
transformers are owned by commercial
and industrial firms and the remainder
by utilities. The impact of this rule with
respect to transformers is expected to
have a negligible effect on the cost of
electricity, and no significant impact on
non-utility owners.
The cost of disposing of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil will be
significantly less than under the
proposed rule. The final rule modifies
the proposed requirement and ajlows
disposal in high efficiency boilers. It is
expected that the annual costs under the
changed disposal requirements will be
between $3.2 million and $17.0 million.
Included in both the low and the high
estimates is an estimated annual
disposal cost of $11.1 million which
could be incurred by disposers of
contaminated mineral oil who do not
own high efficiency boilers. In addition,
the owners of high efficiency boilers will
likely incur some capital costs in the
first year of the rule in order to take
advantage of the new provisions.
Seven railroad and transit companies
which are affected by this rule will incur
total additional operating costs of $12.2
million. These costs will be spread over
the next five years. The costs will be
incurred because of refilling of PCB-
Cnntaining Transformers used on
locomotives and self-powered cars with
substitute non-PCB fluid, and in
periodically removing residual PCB
contamination from the new fluid. Since
264
-------
31540 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
only electrically-powered units are
involved, the coats will be borne solely
by railroad* and public transit
authorities in the Northeast. These
companies are in financial trouble;
however, funding may be available
through Federal subsidies.
Underground mining equipment will
be impacted because of an older design
electric motor which naed PCB« at a
coolant The use of these motors will be
banned as of January 1» 1582. and the
total cost to users of PCB mining
equipment will be $2.6yto $4JZ million.
Since the ban is designed to allow a
phase-out of the use of the equipment
through conversion or obsolescence, it
should cause no interruption of coal
production. These costs are not
expected to cause significant problem*
for the equipment owners.
Owners of hydraulic systems with
PCB-containing hydraulic fluid will have
to test, drain, and refill these systems
periodically. As many as 1,750 systems
including metal die casting and foundry
equipment are believed to be affected
by the rule and costs for the initial two
years are expected to total between
$14.6 and $25 million; costs for
subsequent years should be '
insignificant
Owners of beat transfer systems with
PCB-containing heat transfer fluid will
also have to test, drain, and refill these
systems periodically. As many as 800
systems are believed to be affected by
the rule, and costs for the first three
years are expected to total between
$12.2 and $17.8 minion; coot for
subsequent years should be
insignificant.
Fhrere are a number of commercial
chemical processes which prodace PCBe
as an unintentional byproduct in
;;uncenlfjl»oa» over 50 ppm. For
instance, the presence of PCBc (in
,>xi.R3* of 50 ppm) in phthalocyanine and
d-arylide yellow pigments has been
detected. It is estimated that the pigment
industry can change its production
prri.';ef>* within two years «t a coat of
dpproximately $541 million so that
unintentional PCB production will no
longer be a problem. Little is known
about the cost or feasibility of
elirni. iting PCB contamination from
Oliver chemical p*oductioa processes.
1 towever. since all of these problems of
PCB-contaRunation in the production of
i igments and other chemkal products
will be dealt with on a ca&e-by-case
basis in exemption rule makings, the
Agency will be able to asses* these
economic impacts at that time.
Also, this regulation could potentially
have a very costly impact oa sellers of
electrical equipment containing PCB
Capacitors if EPA does not provide
exemptions from the prohibition on
distribution in commerce of PCB
Equipment. These costs will be carefully
considered in the separate rulemaking
concerning exemptions to the July 1,
1979, distribution in commerce ban.
Several other very minor impacts
which will be incurred only during 1978
have been identified. These impacts
include owners of natural gas pipeline
pump compressors who are expected to
spend $200,000 in 1979 to remove PCB
fluid from those compressors. The ban
on rebuilding the approximately 200
electromagnets containing PCBs is
expected to cost users $100,000 annually
and have a total cost of less than $1
million.
Most of the co*ts discussed above
result from requirements that are part of
the authorizations to permit continued
use of mixtures, articles and equipment
containing PCBs in a manner protective
of health and the environment If these
authorizations were not promulgated.
the cost and economic impact on the
affected industries could be
considerably greater than the costs
discussed above. EPA has carefully
examined the costs of this rule and does
not expect any severe economic or
social impacts.
D?te chlorinated Bipteiryts: Pobcy far
Implementation and Enforcement oi Sections
rHeXZ) and a(e)(3i of the Toxic SubMances
Control Ad (TSCAV
Support Documents
USEPA. OTS, -KB Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce and
Use-Ban RegufatJon-Prvposed Action-Support
Document. "/Voluntary Draft Enrironmental
Impact Statement, Enrirotunenlal Protection
Agency (40 CFR Part 791). May 187S.
USEPA, OTS, Environmental Protection
Agency Support Document /Voluntary
Environmental Impact Statement for
Polychioriaated Biphenyl* (PCB)
Manufacturing. Procet&iiijL Distribution in
Commerce and Use Ban Regulation. March"
1979.
USEPA. OPM. Microeconomic Impacts of
the Proposed 'PCB Ban Regulations': May,
1978. EPA 560/8-77-035. Versar, rnc. Contract
No. 95-OI-I771.
USEPA, OPM. PCB Manufacturing,
Processing. Distribution in Caaunercc. md
Use Baa Regulation: Economic Impact
Analysis. March 30,1870. EPA-23O-12/7&-
006. Versar. Inc. Contract N«. flft-Ol-CTl.
265
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31541
Other Information
Other "Federal Register" Notices
41 FR 7552. February 19.1976. "Velsicol
Chemical Company et al., Consolidated
Heptachlor/Chlordane Hearing."
41 FR 21402, May 25.1976. "Health Risk
and Economic Impact Assessments of
Suspected Carcinogens: Interim Procedures
and Guidelines."
42 FR 55026, October 12, 1977. "TSCA
Interagency Testing Committee-Initial Report
to the Administrator, EPA."
43 FR 7150, February 17,1978.
"Polychlonnated Biphenyls (PCBs) Disposal
ft Marking Final Regulation."
43 FR 33918, August 2,1978. "Addendum to
Preamble and Corrections to Final Rule
(PCBs),"
USEPA -Non "Federal Register" Statements
Region IV. News release in reference to
fishing in Lake Hartwell and Twelve Mile
Creek in Pickins County, South Carolina.
Dated about September 10,1976.
Statement of Honorable Russell E. Train,
Administrator, EPA, before the Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment, Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, House of
Representatives. January 28,1976
Remarks by the Honorable Russell E.
Train, Administrator, EPA prepared for
delivery at the National Conference on PCBs,
Chicago, Illinois, Wednesday, November 19.
1975.10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Environmental Protection: Rx for Public
Health.
Region I News Release: September 14,1976.
USEPA, OTS, CAD. Proposed KB Ban
Rule Summary. April 30,1978.
USEPA, Press Office, EPA Proposed Rule
To Ban Pulychhrinated Biphenyls (PCBs).
June 7,1978.
Pre-Proposal Publicly Announced Meetings
USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings: Public
Meeting on the Ban of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls. Washington, D.C.. July 15. 1977.
USEPA Transcript of Proceedings in the
Special Meeting of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V-Chicago, ILL,
July 19, 1978.
Documents Submitted at the July 19, 1977
Public Meeting
Statement on Retrofitting Made at Public
Meeting on the Implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed
PCB Ban. July 19,1877. Dow Corning Corp.
Presentation to Environmental Protection
Agency. Public Meeting-July 19, 1977, Joy
Manufacturers.
Co mm unications
These include, but are not limited to,
mtragovernmental memoranda, letters, and,
memoranda of telephone conversations.
Reports
1. *Alvares, Alvito P. "Alterations in Drug
Metabolism in Workers Exposed to
Polychlorinated Biphenyls." Clinical
Pharmacology and Therapeutics 22:2
(undated): 140-146.
2. 'Bahn. Anita K. Report on Paulsboro,
N.J. Mobil Oil Plant Study. Philadelphia:
Department of Community Medicine,
University of Pa., School of Medicine, (April
27,1976).
3. 'Bartha, Richard, and Pramer, David.
"Pesticide Transformation to Aniline and Azo
Compounds in Soil." Science 156 (June 23,
1976): 1617-1618.
4. 'Berlin, Maths, Gage, John, and Holm,
Stina. "Distribution and Metabolism of
2,4,5,2',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl." Archives of
Environmental Health 30 (March 1975): 141-
147.
5. 'Bidleman, T. F., and Olney, C. E.
"Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso
Sea Atmosphere and Surface Water."
Science 183 (October 1,1973): 516-518.
6. *Blau, G. E., and Neely, W. Brock.
"Mathematical Model Building with an
Application to Determine the Distribution of
Dursban Insecticide Added to a Simulated
Ecosystem." Adv. Ecology Res. 2 (1975): 133-
163.
7. 'Bowes, G. W., and JonkelvCharles J.
"Presence and Distribution of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB) in Arctic and Subarctic
Marine Food Chains." /. Fish. Res. Bd. Cem.
32:11 (1975): 2111-2123.
8. 'Canada, Environment Canada.
Background to the Regulation of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in Canada.
Ottawa: Task Force on PCB, Technical
Report 76:1 (April 1, 1976): 41-42.
9. 'Denbigh, Kenneth. The Principles of
Chemical Equilibrium with Applications in
Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.
(Cambridge: University Piess, 1955), 268-272.
10. Dow Coming Corporation. A Material
Balance Study of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
in Lake Michigan. Midland, MI:
Environmental Sciences Research, by Neely,
W. Brock, The Science of the Total
Environment 7 (1977): 117-129.
11. *Dow Corning Corp. Removal of PCBs
from Dow Coming 561 Silicone Transformer
Liquid by Charcoal Filtration. Midland, MI:
Joint Project of Dow Corning, Transformer
Consultants, DC Filter and Chemical, Inc.,
(undated).
12. *EG&G. Fathead Minnow Egg and Fry
Study, Summary of. Wareham, MA:
Bionamics Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory,
(August 26,1977).
13. 'Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection 'Agency, 510 F2d
1292,1298 (DC Cir. 1972).
14. 'Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 548 F2d
998,1006 (DC Cir. 1976).
15. 'Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
and New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc. (PIRG). Troubled Waters: Toxic
Chemicals in the Hudson River IV (1977): 6-
11.
15.a Florida Power and Light Company.
Report on PCB Sampling Program for Florida
Power and Light Company. Miami: Edward E.
•Denotes documents cited hi the Environmental
Protection Agency's PCB Manufacturing.
Processing. Distribution in Commerce-and Use Bon
Regulation: Proposed Rule—Support Document/
Voluntary Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
"Denotes documents cited in 43 F.R. 24802. June 7,
1978. "EPA, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing Distribution in
Commerce and U>e Bans." Proposed Rule.
Clark, Engineers-Scientists, (August 4.1978).
Submitted to Jeffrey G. Miller, USEPA, DAA
for Water Enforcement by Robert E. Unrig,
VP. Advanced Systems and Technology.
September 25, 1978.
16. *Furr, A. Keith; Lawerence, Alonzo W.;
Tong, Steven S. C.: Gradolfo, Marian C.;
Hofstader, Robert A.; Bache, Carl A.;
Gutenmann, Walter; Lisk, Donald J.
"Multielement and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludges of
American Cities." Environmental Science
and Technology. 10:7 (July 1976): 683-687.
17. General Electric Co. Perspectives on
PCB Substitutes For Power Capacitors.
Hudson Falls, NY. Capacitor Products Dept.,
(October 17.1977). Submitted to Peter P.
Principe, USEPA. OTS by Ruth K. Arisman,
Materials Science Lab., March 9,1978.
18. ^General Electric Co. Silicones in
Transformers Presented to the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Waterford, NY: Silicones Products Dept.,
(September 6,1977).
19. 'Hamelink, Jerry L.; Waybrant, Ronald
C.; Ball, Robert C. "A Proposal. Exchange
Equilibria Control the Degree Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons are Biologically Magnified in
Lentic Environments." Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 100:2 (April
1971): 207-214.
20. 'Hague, Rizwanul; Schmeddmg, Da%id
W.; and Freed. Virgil M. "Aqueous Solubility
Adsorption and Vapor Behavior by
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclor 1254." Env.
Sci. 6- Tech. 6-2 (February 1974) 139-141
21. 'Harvey, George R , and Steinhauer,
William G. "Atmospheric Transport of
Polychlorobiphenyls to the North Atlantic."
Atmospheric Environment 8 (1974). 777-782.
22. 'Holden, A. V. "Source of
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contamination in
the Marine Environment." Nature 228
(December 19,1970): 1220-1221.
23. Hutzinger. O.; Safe, S.; and Zitko, V.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls." Analabs
Research Notes 12:2 (July 1972): 1-15.
24. 'Jansson. B.; Jensen, S.; Olsson, M ,
Sundslrom, G.; and Vaz, R. "Identification by
GC-MS of Phenolic Metabolites of PCB and
p.p'-DDE Isolated from Baltic Guillemot and
Seal." Ambio 4:2 (1975): 93-96.
Junge, C. E. See Suffet, I. H.. gen. ed.
25. 'Lunde, Gulbrand. "Long-Range Aerial
Transmission of Organic Micropollutants "
Ambio 5-6 (1976): 207-208.
26. 'Mackay, Donald; Leinonen, Paul J
"Rate of Evaporation Low-Solubility
Contaminants from Water Bodies to
Atmosphere." Environmental Science and
Technology 9 (December 1975): 1178-1180.
27. 'Maugh, Thomas H. II. "DDT: An
Unrecognized Source of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls." Science 180 (May 1973): 578-579.
28. 'Metcalf, Robert L; Sanborn, James; Po
Yung Lu; Nye, Donald. "Laboratory Model
Ecosystem Studies of the Degradation and
Fate of Radio labeled Tri-, Tetra-, and
Pentachlorobiphenyl Compared with DDE."
Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 3:2 (1975): 151-165.
29. 'Monsanto Chemical Company. Aroclor
Plasticizers. St. Louis, MO: Organic
Chemicals Division, Technical Bulletin O/PL-
306A (Undated).
266
-------
31542 Federal Register. / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1978 / Rules and Regulation*
SO. *Monsanto Chemical Company. -
Monsanto TO Shot Dawn PCS UaH Exit
Business by October 31.1077. St. Louis. WO
(October 5.1977%
31. 'Murphy, Thomas J.PrecipitatiorLA
Significant Source of Phosphorus and PCBs
to Lake Michigan. Evanatoo. ffl.: 10th ACS
Great Lakes Regional Meeting, (June 17..
1978).
32. 'National Electric Manufacturer*
Association. Report ef Transformer
Dielectric Fluid Study Working Group.
Washington. DC {October 18.U77},
33. 'National Swedish Environmental
Protection Board. PCS Conference H.
Stockholm; Pub. 1873:4K. [December 14.
1972).
34. "Nelson. N. '•PCBs-EnviraiKaeiUal
Impact" Environmental Research 5 (1872):
273-287.
35. 'New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, fiudsaa River
PCB Study Description and Detailed Work
Plan. Albany: Bureau of Water Research.
(]ulyl»77).
38. 'Nisbet. Ian C T. and Sarorha. Add P.
"Rates and Routes of Transport of PCBs ia
th* Environment." En viranmenlal Health aad
Perspectives (April 1872): 21-38.
37. 'OlofI*. P. C; Albright, L k Santo. S. T^
and Law, J. "Factors Affecting the Behavior
of Fire Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Two
Natural Water* and Their Sediment*."
Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
3OT11 (1973): 1619-1823.
Mr. Roberts.
38. + "PCBs spread by waste oil tree?"
Chemical Week (January 25,1978> 15.
39. + Peaks!!. D. R TCBf and Their
Environmental Effects.'" CRC-Crftical
Reviews in Environmental Controls*
(September 1975): 409-50R.
40. '"Report of a New Chemical Hazard."
New Scientist (December 15,1986): 012.
41. •Risebrough, R. W.; Wafker, W. E;
Schmidt, T. T.; de Lappe, B. W.; Connors, C.
W. "Transfer of C2ilorijratedBiphenyla to
Antarctica." Nature 284 (December 23/30,
1976): 738-739.
42. 'Sodergren, A. "CWorinated
Hydrocarbon Residues in Airborne Fallout."
Nature 236: (April 21.1972J: 395-337.
43. Spagnoli. John J, and Skinner,
Lawrence C. "PCBs in F!sh From Selected
Waters of New York State." Pesticides
Monitoring Journal'11:2 (September 1977): 89-
87.
44. 'Suffet, L H, gen. ed. Fate of Pollutants
in the Air and Water Environments. New
York. John Wiley i Sons, 1977. VoL & "Basic
Cons; 'eration about Trace'Constiruen.ls in
the Atmosphere as Related to the Fate of
Global Pollutants." C. E. funge, 7-25.
45 Tucker, E. S.; Lilschgi, W. ].; Mees, W.
M "Migration of Porychlorinated Biphenyls
in Soil Induced by Percolating Water."
fiLif/etin of Environmental Contamination &
Toxicology 13:1 (1975): 88-93.
46. + University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
College Program. "ABCs of PCBs." Madison:
Public Information Report WIS SG 78-125,
(Apnl 1976).
47. 4 University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
College Program. "PCEs and the FDA, Parts I
and II " Madison: Earthwatch/Wisconsin.
[May b and May 13. 1C77)
«. + USDHEW. Final Report of tht
Subcommittee on the Health Effects of
PolycMarinated Brphenyt* and
Polybrominated Bipheayl*. Washington, (fury
1978).
40. " USDHEW. Center for Disease
Control Exposure Co Polychlorioated
Biphenyh in Bloomfngton, Indiana. Atlanta:
Public Health Service. EP1-77-3S-J. {May 28,
1878J. Submitted by Request of EPA during •
Reply Comment Period
50. 'USDHEW, NIOSH. Criteria for a
Recommended Standard t. . Occupational
Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs}. Washington. (September 1977).
51. 'USDKEW. fOOSH. The Toxic
Substances List-1973 Edition. Rockville, MD:
(June W3(. 85.
52. * 'USDHEW. PH3. NDH. NO. Biaassoy
of Arodor 1254 for Possible Carcinogen/city.
Washington: National Cancer Institute, Tedu
Report Sexiest No. 38. (19TO).
53. + USDOC, Maritime AAoinistration.
Final Environmental Impact Stoteateni.
Washington: Chemical Waste Incinerator
Sfaip Project, VoL 1 of 2 MA-JOS 73O2-78041F,
Quly 2, 1976).
54. +USJX>T,Transportati(m Systems
Center. Svaiaatioa of Silicon* Fluid fat
Replacement of PCB Coolants in Railway
Industry. Washiagtonc Preaented by
Westinghouse Electric Corp, {July 1977).
55. -t-USEPA. Proceeding* hi lite Matter of
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards. Docket
No. 1 FWPCA{307). Arlingtoo. VA. (May B.
1974).
56. + USEPA. Proceedirq* la the Matter of
Toxic Pollutant Effhant Standards. Docket
No. J FWPCA(3O7). ArlingUm. VA. (May 9.
1974).
57. *USEPA. Proceedings In tfio Matter of
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards. Docket
No. 1 FWPCA(3a7). Arlington. VA. (May 2ft
1974).
5& 'USEPA. Environmental Research
Center. Table of PCBs in Sewage Sludge.
Cincinnati, OH: OSWMP. Unpublished
Report (Undated).
59. 9US£PA, Environmental Research
Laboratory. Pofychlorobiphenyls in
Precipitation in the Lake Michigan Basin-
Draft. Duhitfa. Minn, Office of Research A
Development, (Undated).
m. *USEPA, OAWM. Environmental
Assessment of PCBs in the Atmosphere.
Research Triangle Park, NC. Mitre
Corporation £PA 450/3-77-45, (November
1977).
Cl. 'USEPA, OSWMP. Municipal Sludge
Agricultural Utilization Practices: An
Environmental Assessment Vf—Table 49.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Concentrations in
Stablized Sludge, SCS Engineers, (Undated).
62. USEPA, CrrS. Assessment oflne
En vironmsntal and Economic Impacts of the
Ban on Imports of PCBs. Versar, Inc. EPA
560/8-77-O07. (July 1977). /
63. "USF.PA, OTS. Destruction of PCBs in
Sewage Sludge During Incineration.
Springfield, VA, Versar, Inc. PB-2S8-lfle,
(1978).
" 'Denotes document* cited tit the Environmental
Protection Agency's Support Docwaeal/Yohmtary
Environmental Impact Statement for
Polychlorrnated Btptanjfs {PCB) Manufacturing
Processing, Distribution in Commerce and Use Ban
Regulation: March 1379
64. USEPA, OTS. Enviroaaental
Assessment ofPCBf Near New Bedford,
Mast. Municipal Landfill Final Draft
Washington. DC, (May 1078).
65. *USHPA»OTS. EurironmentoJ I^reJs of
PCBs. Washington. DO wqmUiahed Report
by Doris \. Rnopp and Vincent). DoCviov
(Undated). /•
ea 'USEPA, OTS. A first Order Most
Balance Model for Sources, Distribution and
Fate of PCB* in the Environment.
Washington, DC. Versar, fcc. EPA 500/8-77-
006, (July 1977).
67. USEPA. OTSl Identification and
Analysis of PolyctJormated BiphenyU and
Other Related ChemicoJs in Municipal
Sewage Sludge Samples. Research Triangl*
Institute. EPA 560/6-77-O21. (August 1B77).
68. ' USEPA, Region I-OSWMP. PCBs in
Sewtrgc Sfudge. Region Ts Sofld Waste
Program's PCB Sampling Program, Pedoo
Environmental [Updated).
69. 'USEPA, Region VT1, S/A Div. -Srodg*
Data Summary." (July 1,1977),
70. 'USEPA, Working Group on Pesticides,
Ground Disposal of Pesticides: The Problem
and Criteria for Guidelines. Washington, DC
PB 197-144, [March T970).
71. 'Veith. G. D, and Comstock. V. M.
"Apparatus for Continuously Saturating
Water with Hydrophobic Organic
Chemicals." / Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 32:10
(1975): 1849-185L
72. + Westinghouae Electric Corporation.
Proposal TK The Department of
Transportation: Retrofitting of Railway
Transformer*. Sharon, Pa^ H. A. Pearce,
Projed Manager. [December 21.1877).
73. + Witco Chemical. Cohere* Dust
Retardant Agent. Bakersfield, CA: Goldm
Bear Dtvmon, (Undated).
74. "World Almanac & Book of Facts.
"Meteorological Monthly Temperature and
Precipitation." (19777: 794-795.
75. + World Health Organization.
Environmental Health Criteria Z PCBs and
Terpfrenyls. Geneva. (1978): 43-45.
78. 'World Health Organization.
EnvironmentalHeafth Criteria far PCBs-
Draft. EHE/EHC/WP 75.2 Rev. 2^8
(November 1975): 29.4.
77.'Wyndnam. CL; Devenish. J^ and Safe S.
"The In Vitro Metabolism, Macroroolecular
Binding and Bacteria Mutagcnkity of 4—
Chlorobiphenyl, A Model PCB Substrata."
Research Communications in Chemical
Pathology and Pharmacology 153 (November
1976): 5e3-57CX
70. 'Yoshimnra. Hidetoahi. and Yamomoto,
Hiroaki. "Metabolic Studies on PCBs. L
Metabolic Fate of 3,4,3', 4'-
tetrachlorobiphenyl in Rats." Chem. Pharm.
Bulletin 21:5 (1973): 1168-1168.
Part 761 is revised to read as follows:
PART 761—POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCB8)
MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING,
DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND
USE PROHIBITIONS
Sutopart A—Gsrwrai
Sec.
761.1
7612
Applicability.
Definitions.
267
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
31543
Subpart B—Disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items
761.10 Disposal requirements.
Subpart C—Marking of PCBs and PCB
Items
761.20 Marking requirement.
Subpart D—Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution In Commerce, and Use of PCBs
and PCB Items
76130 Prohibition*.
761.31 Authorizations.
761.32 [Reserved]
Subpart E—List of Annexes
Annex No. I
761.40 Incineration.
Annex No. II
761.41 Chemical waste landfills.
Annex No. HI
781.42 Storage for disposal.
Annex No. IV
761.43 Decontamination.
Annex No. V
761.44 Marking formats.
Annex No. VI
761.45 Records and Monitoring.
Authority: Section 6, B, and 12, Toxic
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2805, 2807,
and 2611.
Subpart A—General
§761.1 AppftcabUty.
(a) This part establishes prohibitions
of, and requirements for, the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, disposal storage, and
marking of PCBs and PCB Items.
(b) This part applies to all persona
who manufacture, process, distribute in
commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs or
PCB Items. Unless it is otherwise
specifically provided, the terms PCB and
PCBs are used in this rule to refer to any
chemical substances and combinations
of substances that contain SO ppm (on a
dry weight basis) or greater of PCBs, as
defined in $ 761.2(s), including any
byproduct, intermediate, or impurity
manufactured at any point in a process.
Any chemical substances and
combinations of substances that contain
less than 50 ppm PCBs because of any
dilution, shall be included as PCB and
PCBs unless otherwise specifically
provided. Substances that are regulated
by this rule include, but are not limited
to, dielectric fluids, contaminated
solvents, oils, waste oils, heat transfer
fluids, hydraulic fluids, paints, sludges,
slurries, dredge spoils, soils, materials
contaminated as a result of spills, and
other chemical substances or
combination of substances, including
impurities and byproducts.
(c) Definitions of the terms used in
these regulations are in Subpart A. The
basic requirements applicable to
disposal and marking of PCBs and PCB
Items are set forth in Subpart B—
Disposal of PCBs and PCB Items and in
Subpart C—Marking of PCBs and PCB
Items. Prohibitions applicable to PCB
activities are set forth in Subpart D—
Manufacture, Processing. Distribution in
Commerce, and Use of PCBs and PCB
Items. Subpart D also includes
authorizations from the prohibitions.
The Annexes in Subpart E set forth the
specific requirements for disposal and
marking of PCBs and PCB Items.
(d) Section 15 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) states that failure to
comply with these regulations is
unlawful. Section 16 imposes liability for
civil penalties upon any person who
violates these regulations, and the
Administrator can establish appropriate
remedies for any violations subject to
any limitations included in 5 16 of
TSCA. Section 16 also subjects a person
to criminal prosecution.for a violation
which is knowing or willful. In addition,
$ 17 authorizes Federal district courts to
enjoin activities prohibited by these
regulations, compel the taking of actions
required by these regulations, and issue
orders to seize PCBs and PCB Items
manufactured, processed or distributed
in violation of these regulations.
(e) These regulations do not preempt
other more stringent Federal statutes
and regulations.
$761.2 Definitions.
For the purpose of this part:
(a) "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, or any employee of
the Agency to whom the Administrator
may either herein or by order delegate
his authority to carry out his functions,
or any person who shall by operation of
law be authorized to carry out such
functions.
(b) "Agency" means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) "Byproduct" means a chemical
substance produced without separate
commercial intent during the
manufacturing or processing of another
chemical substance(s) or mixture(s).
(d) "Capacitor" means a device for
accumulating and holding a charge of
electricity and consisting of conducting
surfaces separated by a dielectric.
Types of capacitors are as follows:
(1) "Small Capacitor" means a
capacitor which contains less than 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) of dielectric fluid.
(2) "Large High Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) or more of dielectic fluid and
which operates at 2000 volts a.c. or
above.
(3) "Large Low Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) or more of dielectric fluid and
which operates below 2000 volts a.c.
(e)(l) "Chemical Substance", except
as provided in subparagraph (2) of this
paragraph, means any organic or
inorganic substance of a particular
molecular identity, including:
(i) Any combination of such
substances occurring in whole or part as
a result of a chemical reaction or
occurring in nature, and
(ii) Any element or uncombined
radical.
(2) Such term does not include:
ji) Any mixture,
(ii) Any pesticide (as defined in the
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act) when manufactured,
processed, or distributed in commerce
for use as a pesticide,
(iii) Tobacco or any tobacco product,
(iv) Any source material, special
nuclear material, or by product material
(as such terms are defined in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and regulations
issued under such Act),
(v) Any arcticle the sale of which is
subject to the tax imposed by section
4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 (determined without regard to any
exemptions from such tax provided by
section 4182 or section 4221 or any
provisions of such Code), and
(vi) Any food, food additive, drug,
cosmetic, or device (as such terms are
defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) when
manufactured, processed, or distributed
in commerce for use as a food, food
additive, drug, cosmetic, or device.
(f) "Chemical Waste Landfill" means
a landfill at which protection against
risk of injury to health or the
environment from migration of PCBs to
land, water, or the atmosphere is
provided from PCBs and PCB Items
deposited therein by locating,
engineering, and operating the landfill
as specified in § 761.41.
(g) "Commerce" means trade, traffic,
transportation, or other commerce:
(1) Between a place in a State and any
place outside of such State, or
(2) Which affects trade, traffic,
transportation, or commerce described
in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
pi) "Disposal" means to intentionally
or accidentally discard, throw away, or
otherwise complete or terminate the
useful life of PCBs and PCB Items.
Disposal includes actions related to
268
-------
31644 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
containing, transporting, destroying,
degrading, decontaminating, or
confining PCB« and PCS Items.
(i) "Distribute in Commerce" and
"Distribution In Commerce1' when used
to describe an action taken with respect
to a chemical substance, mixture, or
article containing a substance or
mixture means to sell, or the sole of, the
substance, mixture, or article in
commerce; to introduce or deliver for
introduction into commerce, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction
into commerce of the substance,
mixture, or article; or to hold or the
holding of, the substance, mixture, or
article after its introduction into
commerce.
(j) "Fluorescent Light Ballast" means a
device that electrically controls
fluorescent light fixtures and that
includes a capacitor containing 0,1 kg or
less of dialectic.
fk) "Impurity" means a chemical
substance which is unintentionally
present with another chemical
substance.
(1) "Incinerator" means an engineered
device using controlled flame
combustion to thermally degrade PCBs
and PCB Items. Examples of devices
used for incineration include rotary •
kilns, liquid injection incinerators,
cement kilns, and high temperature
boilers.
(m) "Leak" or "leaking" means any
instance in which a PCB Article, PCB
Container, or PCB Equipment has ar\y
PCBs on any portion of its external
surface.
(n) "Manufacture" means to produce,
manufacture, or import into the customs
territory of the United States.
(o) "Mark" means the descriptive
name, Instructions, cautions, or other
information applied to PCBs and PCB
Items, or other objects subject to these
regulations.
(p) "Marked" means the marking of
PCB Items and PCB storage areas and
transport vehicles by means of applying
a legible mark by painting, fixation of an
adhesive label, or by any other method
that meets the requirements of these
regulations.
(q) ''. lixture" means any combination
of two or more chemical substances if
the combination does not occur in
nature and is not, in whole or in part,
the result of a chemical reaction; except
that such term does include any
combination which occurs, in whole or
in part, as a result of a chemical reaction
if none of the chemical substances
comprising the combination is a new
chemical substance and if the
combination could have been
manufactured for commercial purposes
without a chemical reaction at the time
the chemical substances comprising the
combination were combined.
(r) "Municipal Solid Wastes" means
garbage, refuse, sludges, wastes, and
other discarded materials resulting from
residential and non-industrial
operations and activities, such as
household activities, office functions,
and commercial housekeeping wastes.
(s) "PCB" and "PCBs" means any"
chemicatsubstance that is limited to the
biphenyl molecule that has been
chlorinated to varying degrees or any
combination of substances which
contains such substance. (See J 781.1(b)
Applicability for applicable
concentrations of PCBs). PCB and PCBs
as contained in PCB Items are defined in
S 781.2(x).
(t) "PCB Article" means any
manufactured article, other than a PCB
Container that contains PCBs and
whose s'urface(s) has been in direct
contact with PCBe. "PCB Article"
includes capacitors, transformers,
electric motors, pumps, pipes and any
other manufactured item (1) which is
formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture, (2) which has end
use function(s) dependent in whole or in
part upon its shape or design during end
use, and (3) which has either no change
of chemical composition during its end
use or only those changes of
composition which have no commercial
purpose separate from that of the PCB
Article.
(u) "PCB Article Container" means
any package, can, bottle, bag, barrel,
drum, tank or other device used to
contain PCB Articles or PCB Equipment,
and whose surface(s) has not been in
direct contact with PCBs.
(v) "PCB Container" means any
package, can, bottle, bag, barrel, drum,
tank, or other device that contains PCBs
or PCB Articles and whose surface(s)
has been in direct contact with PCBs.
(w) "PCB Equipment" means any
manufactured item, other than a PCB
Container or a PCB Article Container,
which contains a PCB Article or other
PCB Equipment and includes
microwave ovens, electronic equipment,
and fluorescent light ballasts and
fixtures.
(x) "PCB Item" is defined as any PCB
Article, PCB Article Container, PCB
Container, or PCB Equipment, that
deliberately or unintentionally contains
or has as a part of it any PCB or PCBs at
a concentration of 50 ppm or greater.
(y) "PCB Transformer" means any
transformer that contains 500 ppm PCB
or greater.
(z) "PCB-Contaminated Transformer"
means any transformer that contains 50
ppm or greater of PCB but less than 500
ppm PCB (See § 761.31(a){5) for
provisions permitting reclassifying PCB
Transformer! to PCB-Contaminated
Transformers).
(aa) "Person" means any natural or
judicial person including any individual,
corporation, partnership, or association;
any State or political subdivision
thereof; any interstate body; and any
department, agency, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government.
(bb) "Process" means the preparation
of a chemical substance or mixture, after
its manufacture, for distribution in
commerce:
(1) In the same form or physical state
as, or in a different form or physical
state from, that in which it was received
by the person so preparing such
substance or mixture, or
(2) As part of an article containing the
chemical substance or mixture.
(cc) "Sale for Purposes Other than
Resale" means sale of PCBs for
purposes of disposal and for purposes of
use, except where use involves sale for
distribution in commerce. PCB
Equipment which is first leased for
purposes of use any time before July 1,
1979, will be considered sold for
purposes other than resale.
(dd) "Significant Exposure" means
any" exposure of human beings or the
environment to PCBs as measured or
detected by any scientifically
acceptable analytical method.
(ee) "Small Quantities for Research
and Development" means any quantity
of PCBs (1) that is originally packaged in
one or more hermetically sealed
containers of a volume of no more than
five (5.0) milliliters, and (2) that is used
only for purposes of scientific
experimentation or analysis, or chemical
research on, or analysis of, PCBs, but
not for research or analysis for the
development of a PCB product
(ff) "Storage for Disposal" means
temporary storage of PCBs that have
been designated for disposal.
(gg) "Transport Vehicle" means a
motor vehicle or rail car used for the
transportation of cargo by any mode.
Each cargo-carrying body (e.g., trailer,
railroad freight car) is a separate
transport vehicle.
(hh) "Totally Enclosed Manner" -
means any manner that will ensure that
any exposure of human beings or the
environment to any concentration of
PCBs will be insignificant; that is, not
measurable or detectable by any
scientifically acceptable analytical
method.
(ii) "Waste Oil" means used products
primarily derived from petroleum, which
include, but are hot limited to, fuel oils.
269
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31545
motor oils, gear oils, cutting oils,
transmission fluids, hydraulic fluids, and
dielectric fluids.
Subpart B—Disposal of PCBa and PCB
Items
Note.—This Subpari does not require
removal of PCBe and PCB Items from let-vice
and disposal earlier than would normally be
the case. However, when PCBs and PCS
Items are removed from service and disposed
of, disposal must be undertaken in
accordance with these regulations. PCBs
(including soils and debris) and PCB Items
which have been placed in a disposal site are
considered to be "in service" for purposes of
the applicability of this Subpart. This Subpart
does not require PCBs and PCB Items
landfilled prior to February 17,1978 to be
removed for disposal. However, if such PCBs
or PCB Items are removed from die disposal
site, they must be disposed of in accordance
with this Subpart Other Subptrts are
directed to the manufacture, processing.
distribution in commerce, and MC of PCBs
and may result in some cases in disposal at
an earlier date than would otherwise occur.
$761.10 Disposal roqutr amenta.
(a) PCBs. (1) Except as provided in
subparagraphs (2). (3), (4), and (5) of this
paragraph. PCBs must be disposed of in
an incinerator which complies with
AnnexL
(2) Mineral oil dielectric fluid from
RGB-Contaminated Transformers
containing a PCB concentration of 50
ppm or greater, but less than 500 ppm.
must be disposed of in one of the
following:
(i) In an incinerator that complies with
Annex I § 761.40;
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill that
complies with Annex D } 761.41 if
information is provided to the owner or
operator of the chemical waste landfill
that shows that the mineral oil dielectric
fluid does not exceed 500 ppm PCB and
is not an ignitable waste as described in
{ 761.41 (b) (B) (iii) of Annex II:
(iii) In a high efficiency boiler
provided that:
(A) The boiler complies with the
following criteria:
(; j The boiler is rated at a minimum of
50 million BTU hours;
(2) If the boiler uses natural gas or oil
as the primary fuel, the carbon
monoxide concentration in the stack is
50 ppm or less and the excess oxygen is
at least three {3) percent when PCBs are
being burned;
(3) If the boiler uses coal as the
primary fuel, the carbon monoxide
concentration in the stack is 100 ppm or
less and the excess oxygen is at least
three (8) percent when PCBs are being
burned;
(4) The mineral oil dielectric fluid
does not comprise more than ten (10)
percent (on a volume basis) of the total
fuel feed rate;
(5) The mineral oil dielectric fluid is
not fed into the boiler unless the boiler
is operating at its normal operating
temperature (this prohibits feeding these
fluids during either start up or shut
down operations);
[6] The owner or operator of the
boiler
(i) Continuously monitors and records
the carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas while burning mineral oil dielectric
fluid; or
(if] V the boiler will burn less than
30.000 gallons of mineral oil dielectric
fluid per year, measures and records the
carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas at regular intervals of no longer than
60 minutes while burning mineral oil
dielectric fluid.
(7) The primary fuel feed rates,
mineral oil dielectric fluid feed rates.
and total quantities of both primary fuel
and mineral oil dielectric fluid fed to the
boiler are measured and recorded at
regular intervals of no longer man 15
minutes while burning mineral oil
dielectric fluid.
{0} The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage are checked at least once
every hour that mineral oil dielectric
fluid is burned. If either measurement
falls below the levels specified fa this
rule, the flow of mineral oil dielectric
fluid to the boiler shall be stopped
immediatelyT
(B) Thirty days before anypenon
bums mineral oil dielectric fluid in the
boiler, the person gives written notice to
die EPA Regional Administrator for the
EPA Region hi which the boiler is
located and that the notice contains die
following informatidri:
(7) The name and address of die
owner or operator of the boiler and die
address of the boiler
[2] The boiler rating in units of BTU/
hour.
[3} The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage in the stack of the boiler
when it is operated in a manner similar
to the manner in which it will be
operated when mineral oil dielectric
fluid is burned; and
(4) The type of equipment, apparatus.
and procedures to be used to control die
feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to the
boiler and to monitor and record die
carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in die stack.
(C) When burning mineral oil
dielectric fluid, the boiler must operate
At a level of output no less than the
output at which the measurements
required under subparagraph (B)(J) were
taken.
(Dj Any person burning minornf oil
dielectric fluid in a boiler obtains the
following information and retains the
information for five years at the boiler
location:
(1) The data required to be collected
under subparagraphs (A)(6) and (A)(7)
of this paragraph; and
(2\ The quantity of mineral oil
dielectric fluid burned in the boiler each
month;
(iv) In a facility that is approved in
accordance with $ 761.10(e). For the
purpose of burning mineral oil dielectric
fluid, an applicant under 5 761.10(e)
must show dial his combustion process
destroys PCBs as efficiently as does a
high efficiency boiler, as defined in
subparagraph (iii), or an Annex I
approved incinerator
(3) Liquids, other than mineral oil
dielectric fluid, containing a PCB
concentration of 50 ppnvor greater, but
less than 500 ppm, shall be disposed of:
(i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I;
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex fj if information is
provided to die owner or operator of the
chemical waste landfill that shows that
die waste does not exceed 500 ppm PCB
and is not an ignitable waste as
described in fi 761.41(b)(8)(ir)of Annex
II.
(iii) In a high efficiency boiler
provided that
(A) The boiler complies with the
following criteria:
[1] The boiler is rated at a minimum of
50 million BTU/hour,
(2) If the boiler uses natural gas or oil
as die primary fuel, die carboc
monoxide concentration in die stack is
50 ppm or less and die excess oxygen is
at least three (3) percent when PCBs are
being burned;
(3} If die boiler uses coal as die
primary fuel, die carbon monoxide
concentration in die stack is 100 ppm or
less and die excess oxygen is at least
diree (3) percent when PCBs are being
burned;
(4) The waste does not comprise more
than ten (10) percent (on a volume basis)
of die total fael feed rate;
(S\ The waste is not fed into die boiler
unless die boiler is operating at its
normal operating temperature (this
prohibits feeding diese fluids during
either start up or shut down' operations);
(fl) The owner or operator of the boiler
must
270
-------
31546 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
(/) Continuously monitor and record
the carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas while burning waste fluid; or
[ii] If the boiler will burn less than
30,000 gallons of waste fluid per year,
measure and record the carbon
monoxide concentration and excess
oxygen percentage in the stack gas at
regular intervals of no longer than 80
minutes while burning waste fluid:
[/) The primary fuel feed rate, waste
fluid feed rate, and total quantities of
both primary fuel and waste fluid fed to
the boiler must be measured and
recorded at regular intervals of no
longer than 15 minutes while burning
waste fluid; and
(8) The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage must be checked at least
once every hour that the waste is
burned. If either measurement falls
below the levels specified in this rule,
the flow of waste to the boiler shall be
stopped immediately.
(B) Prior to any person burning these
liquids in the boiler, approval must be
obtained from the EPA Regional
Administrator for the EPA Region in
which the boiler is located and any
persons seeking such approval must
submit to the EPA Regional
Administrator a request containing at
least the following information:
(1} The name and address of the
owner or operator of the boiler and the
address of the boiler,
[2] The boiler rating in units of BTU/
hour;
(3} The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage in the stack of the boiler
when it is operated in a manner similar
to the manner in which it will be
operated when low concentration PCB
liquid is burned;
(4) The type of equipment, apparatus,
and procedures to be used to control the
feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to the
boiler and to monitor and record the
carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack:
(5) The type' of waste to be burned
(e.g., hydraulic fluid, contaminated fuel
oil, heat transfer fluid, etc.);
(6) \\e concentration of PCBs and of
any other chlorinated hydrocarbon in
the waste and the results of analyses
using the American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) methods as
referenced below: carbon and hydrogen
content using ASTM D-3178, nitrogen
content using ASTM E-258, sulfur
content using ASTM D-2784, D-1286, or
D-129, chlorine content using ASTM D-
608, water and sediment content using
either ASTM D-2700 or D-1796, ash
content using D-482, calorific value
using ASTM D-240, carbon residue
using either ASTM D-2158 or D-524, and
flash point using ASTM D-93;
(7) The quantity of wastes estimated
to be burned in a thirty (30) day period;
(S) An explanation of the procedures
to be followed to insure that burning the
waste will not adversely affect the
operation of the boiler such that
combustion efficiency will decrease.
(C) On the basis of the information in
(B) above and any other available
information, the Regional Administrator
may, at his discretion, find that the
alternate disposal method will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and approve
the use of the boiler;
(D) When burning PCB wastes, the
boiler must operate at a level of output
no less than the output at which the
measurements required under
subparagraph (B)(3) were taken; and
(E) Any person burning liquids in
boilers approved as provided in (C)
above, must obtain the following
information and retain the information
for five years at the boiler location:
(1) The data required to be collected
in subparagraphs (A)(0) and (A){7) of
this paragraph;
(2) The quantity of low concentration
PCB liquid burned in the boiler each
month.
(3) The analysis of the waste required
by subparagraph (B)(6) of this paragraph
taken once a month for each month
during which low concentration PCB
liquid is burned in the boiler.
(iv) In a facility that is approved in
accordance with § 761.10(ej. For the
purpose of burning liquids, other than
mineral oil dielectric fluid, containing 50
ppra or greater PCB, but less than 500
ppm PCB, an applicant under 8 761.10(e)
must show that his combustion process
destroys PCBs as efficiently as does a
high efficiency boiler, as defined in
S 761.10(a)(2)(iil), or an Annex I
incinerator.
(4) Any non-liquid PCBs in the form of
contaminated soil, rags, or other debris
shall be disposed of:
(i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I; or
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex Q.
Note: Except as provided in
S 781.41(b)(8)(ii), liquid PCBs shall not
be processed into non-liquid forms to
circumvent the high temperature
incineration requirements of i 761.10(a).
(5) All dredged materials and
municipal sewage treatment sludges that
contain PCBs shall be disposed of:
(i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I;
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex II; or
(iii) Upon application, using a dispose'
method to be approved by the Agency's
Regional Administrator in the EPA
Region in which the PCBs are located.
Applications for disposal in a manner
other than prescribed in (i) or (ii) above
must be made in writing to the Regional
Administrator. The application must
contain information that, based on
technical, environmental, and economic
considerations, indicates that disposal
in an incinerator br chemical waste
landfill is not reasonable and
appropriate, and that the alternate
disposal method will provide adequate
protection to health and the
environment. The Regional
Administrator may request other
information that he or she believes to be
necessary for evaluation of the alternate
disposal method. Any approval by the
Regional Administrator shall be in
writing and may contain any
appropriate limitations on the approved
alternate method for disposal. In
addition to these regulations, the
Regional Administrator shall consider
other applicable Agency guidelines,
criteria, and regulations to ensure that
the discharges of dredged material and
sludges that contain PCBs and other
contaminants are adequately controlled
to protect the environment. The person
to whom such approval is issued must
comply with all limitations contained in
the approval.
(6) When storage is desired prior to
disposal, PCBs shall be stored in a
facility which complies with Annex HL
(b) PCB Articles. (1) Transformers.
(i) PCB Transformers shall be
disposed of in accordance with either of
the following:
(A) In an incinerator that complies
with Annex I; or
(B) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex II; provided that
the transformer is first drained of all
free flowing liquid, filled with solvent,
allowed to stand for at least 18 hours,
and then drained thoroughly. PCB
liquids that are removed shall be
disposed of in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section. Solvents
may include kerosene, xylene, toluene
and other solvents in which PCBs are -
readily soluble. Precautionary measures
should be taken, however, that the
solvent flushing procedure is conducted
in accordance with applicable safety
and health standards as required by
Federal or State regulation!.
(ii) PCB-Contaminated Transformers
shall be disposed of by draining all free
flowing liquid from the transformer and
disposing of the liquid in accordance
271
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31547
with paragraphs (a)(2) above. The
disposal of the drained transformer it
not regulated by this rale.
(2) PCB Capacitors, (i) The disposal of
any capacitor normally used in
alternating current circuits shall comply
with all requirements of this subpart
unless it is known from label or
nameplate information, manufacturer's
literature, or chemical analysis that the
capacitor does not contain PCBs.
(ii) Any person may dispose of PCB
Small Capacitors as municipal solid
waste, unless that person is subject to
the requirements of subparagraph (iv).
(iii) Any PCB Large High or Low
Voltage Capacitor owned by any person
shall be disposed of in accordance with
either of the following-
(A) Disposal in an incinerator that
complies with Annex I; or
(B) Until January 1, I960, disposal in a
chemical waste landfill that complies
with Annex II.
(iv) Any PCB Small Capacitor owned
by any person who manufactures or at
any time manufactured PCB Capacitors
or PCB Equipment and acquired the PCB
Capacitors in the course of such
manufacturing shall be disposed of in
accordance with either of the following:
(A] Disposal in an incinerator which
complies with Annex I; or
(B) Until January 1,1980, disposal in a
chemical waste landfill which complies
wi'h Annex II.
13) PCB Hydraulic Machines. PCB
hydraulic machines such as die casting
machines may be disposed of as
municipal solid waste or salvage
provided that the machines are drained
of all free-flowing liquid and the liquid is
disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of ( 761.10(a). If the PCB
liquid contains 1000 ppm PCB or greater,
then the hydraulic machine must be
flushed prior to disposal with a solvent
containing less than SO ppm PCB (see
transformer solvents at
{ 761.10{b)(l)(i)(B)) and the solvent
disposed of in accordance with
$ 761.10(o).
(4) Other PCB Articles must be
disposed of:
(i) In an incinerator that complies with
Annex I; or
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill that
complies with Annex II, provided that
all free-flowing liquid PCBs have been
thoroughly drained from any articles
before, the articles are placed in the
chemical waste landfill and that the
drained liquids are disposed of in an
incinerator that compile* with Annex I.
(5) Storage of PCB Article*—Except
for a PCB Article described in
subparagraphr (bKZXii) and hydraulic
machines that comply with the
municipal solid waste disposal
provisions described in subparagraph
(b)(3), any PCB Article shall be stored in
accordance with Annex III prior to
disposal.
(c) PCB Containers. (1) Unless
decontaminated in compliance with
Annex IV or as provided in (2) below, a
PCB Container shall be disposed of:
(i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I, or
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill that
complies with Annex II; provided that if
there are PCBs in a liquid state, the PCB
Container shall first be drained and the
PCB liquid disposed of in accordance
with paragraph (a) of this section'.
(2) Any PCB Container used to
contain only PCBs at a concentration
less than 500 ppm shall be disposed of
as municipal solid wastes; provided that
if the PCBs are in a liquid state, the PCB
Container shall first be drained and the
PCB liquid shall be disposed of in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this
section.
(3) Prior to disposal, a PCB container
shall be stored in a facility which
complies with Annex IIL
(d) Spills. (1) Spills and other
uncontrolled discharges of PCBs
constitute the disposal of PCBs.
(2) PCBs resulting from spill clean-up
and removal operations shall be stored
and disposed of in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section. In order to
determine if a spill of PCBs has resulted
in a contamination level that is 50 ppm
of PCBs or greater in soil, gravel, sludge,
fill, rubble, or other land based
substances, the person who spills PCBs
should consult with the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator to obtain
information on sampling methods and
analytical procedures for determining
the PCB contamination level associated
with the spilt
(3) This paragraph does not exempt
apy person from any actions or liability
under other statutory authorities,
including section 311 of the Clean Water
Act and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
(e) Any person who is required to
incinerate any PCBs and PCB Items
under this subpart and who can
demonstrate that an alternative method
of destroying PCBs and PCB Items exists
and that this alternative method can
achieve, a level of performance
equivalent to Annex I incinerators or
high efficiency boilers as provided in
5 781.10(a)(2Miv) and $ 761.10(a)(3){iv),
may submit a written request to the
Regional Administrator for an
exemption from the incineration'
requirements of Annex L The applicant
must show that his method of destroying
PCBs will not present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the
environment. On the basis of such
information and any available
information, the Regional Administrator
may, in his discretion, approve the use
of the alternate if he finds that the
alternate disposal method provides PCB
destruction equivalent to disposal in an
Annex I incinerator and will not present
an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Any approval must
be stated in writing and may contain
such conditions and provisions as the
Regional Administrator deems
appropriate. The person to whom such
waiver is issued must comply with all
limitations contained in such
determination.
(f)(l) Each operator of a chemical
waste landfill, incinerator, or alternative
to incineration approved under
paragraph (e) shall give the following
written notices to the state and local
governments within whose jurisdiction
the disposal facility is located-
(i) Notice at least thirty (30) da;, s
before a facility is first used for disposal
of PCBs required by these regulation;,,
and
(ii) At the request of any state or local
government annual notice of the
quantities and genera] description of
PCBs disposed of during the year. This
annual notice shall be given no more
than thirty (30) days after the end of the
year covered.
(2) Any person who disposes of PCBs
under a §761.10{a)(5)(ui) incineration or
chemical waste landfilling waiver shall
give written notice at least thirty (30)
days prior to conducting the disposal
activities to the state and local
governments within whose jurisdiction
the disposal is to take place.
(g) Testing Procedures.
(1) Owners or users of mineral oil
dielectric fluid transformers may use the
following procedures to determine the
concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
fluid:
(i) Dielectric fluid removed from
mineral oil dielectric fluid transformers
may be collected in a common
container, provided that no other
chemical substances or mixtures are
added to the container.
(ii) For purposes of complying with the
marking and disposal requirements,
representative samples may be taken
from either the common containers or
the individual transformers to determine
the PCB concentration, except that if
any PCBa at a concentration of 500 ppm
or greater have been added to the
container then the total container
contents must be considered as having a
PCB concentration of 500 ppm or greater
272
-------
31548 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / RvVs and Regulations
for purposes of complying with the_
disposal requirements of this subpart
For purposes of this subparagraph,
representative samples of mineral oil
dielectric fluid are either samples taken
in accordance with American Society of
Testing and Materials method D-923 or
samples taken from a container that has
been thoroughly mixed in a manner such
that any PCBs in the container are
uniformly distributed throughout the
liquid in the container.
(2) Owners or users of waste oil may
use the following procedures to
determine the PCB concentration of
waste oil:
(i) Waste oil from more than one
source may be collected in a common
container, provided that no other
chemical substances or mixtures, such
as non-waste oils, are added to the
container.
(ii) For purposes of complying with the
marking and disposal requirements,
representative samples may be taken
from either the common container or
individual containers to determine the
PCB concentration except that if any
PCBs at a concentration of 500 pm or
greater have been added to the
container then the total container
contents must be considered as having a
PCB concentration of 500 ppm or greater
for purposes of complying with the
disposal requirements of this subpart.
For purposes of this subparagraph,
representative samples of waste oil are
either samples taken in accordance with
American Society of Testing and
Materials D-923 method or samples
f,i'*en from a container that has been
thoroughly mixed in a manner such that
any 1'CBs in the container are uniformly
distributed throughout the liquid in the
container.
(h) Requirements for export and
import of PCBs for purposes of disposal
and PCB Items for purposes of disposal
are found in § 761.30.
Subpart C—Marking of PCBs arwj PCB
Items
§ 781.20 Marking requirement*.
(a) EacK of the following items in
existence on or after July 1, 1978 shall be
marked as illustrated in Figure 1 in
Annex V—§ 761.44(a): The mark
illustrated in Figure 1 is referred to as
ML throughout this aubpart.
(Ij PCB Containers;
(2) PCB Transformers at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked, and
at the time of removal from use if not
already marked. [Marking of PCB—
Contaminated Transformers is not
requiredj;
(3) PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors at the time of manufacture,
at the time of distribution in commerce if
not already marked, and at the time of
removal from use if not already marked;
(4) Equipment containing a PCB
Transformer or a PCB Large High
Voltage Capacitor at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked, and
at the time of removal of the equipment
from use if not already marked;
(5) PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors
at the time of removal from use;
(6) Electric motors using PCB coolants
(See also S 761.20(ej).
(7) Hydraulic systems using PCB
hydraulic fluid (See also 5 761.20(e));
(8) Heat transfer systems (other than
PCB Transformers) using PCBs (See also
S 781.20(e));
(9) PCB Article Containers containing
articles or equipment that must be
marked under provisions (1) through (8)
above;
(10) Each storage area used to store
PCBs and PCB Items for disposal.
(b) As of October 1.1978, each
transport vehicle shall be marked on
each end and side with ML as described
in Annex V—§ 761.44(a) if it is loaded
with PCB Containers that contain more
than 45 kg (99.4 Ibs.) of PCBs in the
liquid phase or with one or more PCB
Transformers (See also J 761.20(e)).
(c) As of January 1,1979, die following
PCB Articles shall be marked with mark
ML as described in Annex V—
§ 761.44(a):
(1) All PCB Transformers not marked
under paragraph (a) of this section
(Marking of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers is not required);
(2) All PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors not marked under paragraph
(a) of this section
(i) Will be marked individually with
mark ML, or
(ii) If one or more PCB Large High
Voltage Capacitors are installed in a
protected location such as on a power
pole, or structure, or behind a fence; the
pole, structure, or fence shall be marked
with mark ML, and a record or
procedure identifying the PCB
Capacitors shall be maintained by the
owner or operator at the protected
location.
(d) As of January 1,1979. all PCB
Equipment containing a PCB Small
Capacitor shall be marked at the time of
manufacture with the statement, "This
equipment contains PCB Capacitor(s)".
The mark shall be of the same size as
the mark ML.
(e) As of October 1,1979, applicable
PCB Items in paragraphs (a)(l), (6), (7),
and (8) containing PCBs in
concentrations of 50 to 500 ppm and
applicable transport vehicles in
paragraph (b) loaded with PCB
Containers that contain more than 45 kg
(99.4 Ibs.) of liquid PCBs in
concentrations of 50 ppm to 500 ppm
shall be marked with mark ML as
described in Annex V—$ 761.44{a).
(f) Where mark ML is specified but the
PCB Article or PCB Equipment is too
small to accomodate the smallest
permissible size of mark ML, mark M, as
described in Annex V—$ 761.44(b), may
be used instead of mark ML.
(g) Each large low voltage capacitor,
each small capacitor normally used in
alternating current circuits, and each
fluorescent light ballast manufactured
("manufactured", for purposes of this
sentence, means built) between July 1,
1978 and July 1,1998 that do not contain
PCBs shall be marked by the
manufacturer at the time of manufacture
with the statement, "No PCBs". The
mark shall be of similar durability and
readability as other marking that
indicate electrical information, part
numbers, or the manufacturer's name.
For purposes of this subparagraph
marking requirement only is applicable
to items built domestically or abroad
after June 30,1978.
(h) All marks required by this subpart
must be placed in a position on the
exterior of the PCB Items or transport
vehicles so that the marks can be easily
read by any persona inspecting or
servicing the marked PCB Items or
transport vehicles.
(i) Any chemical substance or mixture
that is manufactured after the effective
date of this rule and that contains less
than 500 ppm PCB (0.05% on a dry
weight basis), including PCB that is a
byproduct or impurity, must be marked
in accordance with any requirements
contained in the exemption granted by
EPA to permit such manufacture and is
not subject to any other requirement in
this Subpart unless so specified in the
exemption. This paragraph applies only
to containers of chemical substances or
mixtures. PCB articles and equipment
into which the chemical substances or
mixtures are processed, are subject to
the marking requirements contained
elsewhere in this Subpart.
Subpart D—Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution In Commerce,
and Use of PCBs and PCB Items
$ 761.30 Prohibition*.
Except as authorized in § 761.31, the
activities listed in paragraphs (a) and (d)
of this section are prohibited pursuant to
section 8(e)(2) of TSCA. The
requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)
273
-------
Federal Renter / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, Mey 31, 1979 / Rules and Regu'ctions
31549
and (c) of this section concerning expert
&rd import of PCBs for purpose;; of
d't.posal and PCB Items for purposes cf
disposal are established pursuant to
aection 6(e)(l) of TSCA. Subject to any
exemptions granted pursuant to section
f.(p)[3)(B) of TSCA, the activities listed
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
are prohibited pursuant to section
6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA. In addition, the
Ad-ninistrator hereby finds, under the
sulhority of section 12(a)(2) of TSCA,
that the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items for export from the United
States presents an unreasonable risk of
injury to health within the United States.
This finding is based upon the well-
documented human health and
environmental hazard of PCB exposure;
the high probability of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs and
PCB Items from manufacturing,
processing, ot distribution activities; the
potential hazard of PCB exposure posed
by the transportation of PCBs or PCB
Items within the United States; and the
ev dence that contamination of the
environment by PCBs is spread far
beyond the areas where they are used.
In addition, the Administrator hereby
finds that any exposure of human beings
or the environment to PCBs as measured
or detected by any scientifically
acceptable analytical method is a
significant exposure, as defined in
§ 761.2(dd). Section 761,2(hh) and TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(C) define the term totally
enclosed manner as "any manner which
will ensure that any exposure of human
beings or the environment to a
polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insignificant.. . ." Since any exposure
to PCBs is found to be a significant
exposure, a totally enclosed manneris a
manner that results in no exposure of
humans or the environment to PCBs. The
following activities are considered
totally enclosed: distribution in'
commerce and use (except servicing) of
intact, non-leaking PCB Transformers or
PCB-Contaminated Transformers
(except those used in railroad
locomotives or self-propelled cars);
distribution in commerce and use
(except servicing) of intact, non-leaking
PCB electromagnets; distribution in
commerce and use of intact, non-leaking
PCB Capacitors; and processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCB Equipment containing an intact,
non-leaking PCB Capacitor.
(a) No person may process, distribute
in commerce, or use any PCB or PCB
Item in any manner other than in a
totally enclosed manner within the
United States or export any such PCB or
PCB Item from the United States unless
authorized undrr J 761.31 of this
Subpart. Section 761.3O(a) is superseded
hy { 761.30(c) for processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items on the dates when thn*
section becomes effective.
(b) No person may manufacture PCBs
for use within the United States or
manufacture PCBs for export from the
United States without an exemption
except that:
(1) PCBs or PCB Items may be
imported for purposes of disposal until
May 1,1980, provided that the disposal
is in accordance with § 761.10; and
(2) PCBs or PCB Items may be
exported for disposal until May 1,1980,
in accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.30(c)(3).
(c) Effective July 1,1979, no person
may process or distribute in commerce
any PCB or PCB Item for use within the
United States or for export from the
United States without an exemption
except that:
(1) PCBs or PCB Items sold before July
1,1979, for purposes other than resale
may be distributed in commerce only in
a totally endosed manner after that
date;
(2) PCBs or PCB Items may be
processed and distributed in commerce
in compliance with the requirements of
this Part for purposes of disposal in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.10;
(3) PCBs or PCB Items may be
exported for disposal until May 1,1980,
if an export notice is submitted at least
thirty (30) days before the first shipment
in any calendar year leaves the customs
territory of the United States. Export
notices must be submitted to the
Document Control Officer (TS-793),
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The generator of the PCB waste material
intended for disposal, or an agent acting
on his behalf, must certify to the best of
his knowledge and belief that the
information is complete and accurate.
Each notice should contain the following
information;
(i) Name, company name, address,
and telephone number of the owner of
the PCB waste material to be exported
and the name and address of any person
or agent acting on his behalf;
(ii) Estimated quantity of wastes to be
shipped during the calendar year and
the estimated number of shipments to be
made and the dates when such
shipments are expected to leave the
customs territory of the United States;
(iii) Description of the PCBs or PCB
Items being exported;
(iv) Country(s) of deetinatic": far the
shipments;
(v) Name and addn-f of fdr.i! (•, (• j
receiving the shipment and pcrscn(s)
rPrponsible for receiving tho
siiipment(s).
(vi) Method(s) of cl.rpoi il and
precautions taken to contr jl rein,- . into
the environment.
(vii) No less than 30 days after the end
of each calendar quarter (March 31, June
30, September 30, and DecfmLor °1]
during which PCBs were exported for
disposal, each person exporting the
PCBs must submit a report 'o lVi«
Document Control Officer (TS-79C),
Office of Toxic Substances U.7..
Environmental Protection Ager.-cy, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20400.
The report shall list the quantity of PCB
wastes in each shipment made during
the quarter and include the date when
each shipment left the customs territory
of the United States and the information
specified in subparagraphs (i) arid (iii)
through (vi) above. If the quantity of
wastes shipped during the calendar year
exceeds by 25 percent or more the
estimated quantities reported in (ii)
above, a special export notice must be
submitted to the Document Control
Officer (TS-793) at the address given in
paragraph (3) at least 30 days before any
additional shipments leave the customs
territory of the United States and the
notice shall include the information
specified in subparagraphs (i) through
(vi) above.
(viii) Any person expecting to export
PCB wastes for disposal in calendar
year 1980 must submit an export notice
at least thirty (30) days before the first
shipment leaves the customs territory of
the United States to the Document
Control Officer (TS-793) at the address
given in paragraph (3), and the notice
shall contain the information listed in
subparagraphs (i) through (vi).
(d) The use of waste oil that contains
any detectable concentration of PCB as
a sealant, coating, or dust control agent
is prohibited. Prohibited uses include,
but are not limited to, road oiling,
general dust control, use as a pesticide
or herbicide carrier, and use as a rust
preventative on pipes.
§ 761.31 Authorizations.
The following non-totally enclosed
PCB activities are authorized pursuant
to§6(e)(2)(B)ofTSCA:
(a) Servicing Transformers (Other
Than Railroad Transformers). PCBs
may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used for the purposes of
servicing including rebuilding
transformers (other than transformers
for railroad locomotives and self-
274
-------
31550 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
propelled railroad cars) in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until July 1.1984, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Regardless of its PCS
concentration, dielectric fluids
containing less than 500 ppm PCB that
are mixed with fluids that contain 500
ppm or greater PCB must not be used as
dielectric fluid in any transformer.
Dielectric fluid from PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may be assumed to have
less than 500 ppm PCBs.
(2) PCB-Contaminated Transformers
(as defined in } 761.2(z)) may only be
serviced (including rebuilding) with
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB.
(3) Any servicing (including
rebuilding) of PCB Transformers (as
defined in § 781.2(y)) that requires the
removal of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. PCB
Transformers may be topped off with
PCB dielectric fluid.
(4) PCBs removed during servicing of
a PCB Transformer or PCB-
Contaminated Transformer or during
rebuilding of a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer must be captured and
either reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of Subpart B. PCBs from
PCB Transformers must not be mixed
with or added to dielectric fluid from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers.
(5) A PCB Transformer may be
converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer by draining, refilling, and
otherwise servicing the transformer with
non-PCB dielectric fluid so that after a
minimum of three months of in-service
use subsequent to the last servicing
conducted for the purpose of reducing
the PCB concentration in the
transformer, the transformer's dielectric
fluid contains less than 500 ppm PCB (on
a dry weight basis).
(6) Any PCB dielectric fluid that is on
hand to service a PCB Transformer or a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer must be
stored in accordance with the storage
for disposal requirements of Annex III
(§ 761.42).
(7) After July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purp ->ses of servicing transformers is
permitted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(B).
(b) Use in and Servicing of Railroad
Transformers. PCBs may be used in
transformers in railroad locomotives or
railroad self-propelled cars ("railroad
transformers") and may be processed
and distributed in commerce for
purposes of servicing these transformers
in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner until July 1,1984,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Use Restrictions:
(i) After January 1,1982. use of
railroad transformers that contain
dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 80,000 ppm
(8.0% oil a dry weight basis) is
prohibited;
(ii) After January 1.1984, use of
railroad transformers which contain
dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 1000 ppm
(0.10% on a dry weight basis) is
prohibited;
(iii) The concentration of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid contained in railroad
transformers must be measured:
(A) Immediately upon completion of
any authorized servicing of a railroad
transformer conducted for the purpose
of reducing the PCB concentration in the
dielectric fluid in the transformer; and
(B) Between 12 and 24 months after
each servicing conducted hi accordance
with subparagraph (A);
(C) The data obtained as a result of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) above shall
be retained until January 1.1991.
(2) Servicing Restrictions:
(i) If the coil is removed from the
casing of a railroad transformer (e.g., the
transformer is rebuilt), after January 1,
1982, the railroad transformer may not
be refilled with dielectric fluid-
containing a PCB concentration greater
than 50 ppm;
(ii) After January 1,1982. railroad
transformers may only be serviced with
dielectric fluid containing less than
60,000 ppm PCBs, except as provided in
(i) above;
{iii) After January 1,1984, railroad
transformers may only be serviced with
dielectric fluid containing less than 1000
ppm PCB, except as provided in (i)
above;
(iv) Dielectric fluid may be filtered
through activated carbon or otherwise
industrially processed for the purpose of
reducing the PCB concentration in the
fluid;
(v) Any PCB dielectric fluid that is
used to service PCB railroad
transformers must be stored in
accordance with the storage for disposal
requirements of Annex III (§ 761.42);
(vi) After July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing railroad
transformers is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B).
(c) Use in and Servicing of Mining
Equipment. PCBs may be used in mining
equipment and may be processed and
distributed in commerce for purposes of
servicing mining equipment in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until January 1,1982, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) PCBs may be added to motors in
mining equipment .in mines or mining
areas until January 1,1982;
(2) PCB motors in loader-type mining
equipment must be rebuilt as air-cooled
or other non-PCB-containing motors
whenever the motor is returned to a
service shop for servicing:
(3) PCB motors in continuous miner-
type equipment may bejrebuilt as PCB
motors until January 1,1980;
(4) Any PCBs that are on hand to
service or repair mining equipment must
be stored in accordance with the storage
for disposal requirements of Annex ffl
(§ 761.42);
(5) After July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs foe
purposes of servicing mining equipment
is permitted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under-TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(B).
(d) Use in Heat Transfer Systems.
PCBs may be used in heat transfer
systems in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner until July 1,1984.
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each person who owns a heat
transfer system that ever contained
PCBs must test for the concentration of
PCBs in the heat transfer fluid of such a
system no later than Novemberl, 1979,
and at least annually thereafter. All test
sampling must be performed at least
three months after the most recent fluid
refilling. When a test shows that the
PCB concentration is less than 50 ppm.
testing under this subparagraph is no
longer required;
(2) Within six (6) months of a test
performed under subparagraph (1) that
indicates that a system's fluid contains
50 ppm or greater PCB (0.005% on a dry
weight basis), the system must be
drained of the PCBs and refilled with
fluid containing less than 50 ppm PCB.
Toppingzoff with non-PCB heat transfer
fluids to reduce PCB concentrations is
permitted;
(3) After November 1,1979, no heat
transfer system that is used in the
manufacture or processing of any food,
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in
§ 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act. may contain heat transfer
fluid with 50 ppm or greater PCB (0.005%
on a dry weight basis);
(4) Addition of PCBs to a heat transfer
system is prohibited.
(5) Data obtained as a result of
subparagraph (1) must be retained for
five (5) years after the heat transfer
system reaches 50 ppm PCB;
(e) Use in Hydraulic Systems. PCBs
may be used in hydraulic systems and
275
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 /Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31551
may be processed and distributed in
commerce for purposes of filtering,
distilling, or otherwise reducing the
concentration of PCBs in hydraulic
fluids in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner until July 1,1984,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each person who owns a hydraulic
system that ever contained PCBs must
test for the concentration of PCBs in the
hydraulic fluid of each such system no
later than November 1,1970, and at least
annually thereafter. All test sampling
must be performed at least three months
after the most recent fluid refilling.
When a test shows that the PCB
concentration is less than 50 ppm,
testing under this subparagraph is no
longer required;
(2) Within six (6) months of a test
under subparagraph (1) that indicates
that a system's fluid contains 50 ppm or
greater PCB (0.005% on a dry weight
basis], the system must be drained of
the PCBs and refilled with fluid
containing less than 50 ppm PCB.
Toppmg-off with non-PCB hydraulic
fluids to reduce PCB concentrations is
permitted;
(3) Addition of PCBs to a hydraulic
system is prohibited;
(4) Hydraulic fluid may be drained
from a hydraulic system and filtered,
distilled, or otherwise serviced in order
to reduce the PCB concentration below
50 jp; i;
1-5) After July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing hydraulic systems
is permitted only for persons who-are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section B(e)(3)(B);
(6) Data obtained as a result of
subparagraph (1) above must be
retained for five years after the
hydraulic system reaches 50 ppm.
(f) Use in Carbonless Copy Paper.
Carbonless copy paper containing PCBs
may be used in a manner other than a
totally enclosed manner Indefinitely.
\g] Pigments. Diarylide and
Phthalocyanin pigments that contain 50
ppm or greater PCB may be processed,
distributed in commerce, and used in a
manner other than a totally enclosed
manner until January 1,1982, except that
after July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of diarylide or
phthalocyanin pigments that contain 50
ppm or greater PCB is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCAvseption 6(e)(3)(B).
(h) Servicing Electromagnets. PCBs
may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used for the purpose of
servicing electromagnets until July 1,
1984, in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner subject to the
following requirements:
(1) PCBs removed during servicing
must be capture*) and either returned to
the electromagnet, reused as a dielectric
fluid, or disposed of in accordance with
Subpart B (§ 761.10);
(2) Servicing of PCB electromagnets
(including rebuilding) which requires the
removal of the coil from the casing is
prohibited.
(3) Any PCBs that are on hand to
service a PCB electromagnet must be
stored in accordance with the storage
for disposal requirements of Annex II!
(§ 761.42);
(4) After July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing electromagnets is
permitted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(B).
(i) Use in Natural Gas Pipeline
Compressors. PCBs may be used in
natural gas pipeline compressors until
May 1,1980, in a manner other than a
totally enclosed manner.
(j) Small Quantities for Research and
Development. PCBs may be processed,
distributed in commerce, and used in
smal) quantities- for research and
development, as defined in § 760.2(ee),
in a manner other than,a totally
enclosed manner until July 1,1984,
except that after July 1,1979, processing
and distribution in commerce of PCBs in
small quantities for research and
development is permitted only for
persons who have been granted an
exemption under TSCA section
6[e)(3)(B).
(k) Microscopy Mounting Medium.
PCBs may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used as a mounting
medium in microscopy in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until July 1,1984, except that after July 1,
1979, processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for purposes of use
as a mounting medium in microscopy
are permitted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
sectibn 6(e)[3)(B).
Subpart E—List of Annexes
Annex I
$761.40 Incineration.
(a) Liquid PCBs. An incinerator rised
for incinerating PCBs shall be approved
by the Agency Regional Administrator
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
The incinerator shall meet all of the
requirements specified in subparagraph
(1) through {9) of this paragraph, unless
a waiver from these requirements is
obtained pursuant to paragraph (d)(5) of
this section. In addition, the incinerator
shall meet any other requirements which
may be prescribed pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(1) Combustion criteria shall bt- either
of the following:
(i) Maintenance of the introduced
liquids for a 2-second dwell t-me at
1200°C(±100°C) and 3 percent excess
oxygen in the stack gas, or
(ii) Maintenance of the introduced
liquids for a 1 Vz second dwell time at
1600°C(±100°C) and 2 percent excess
oxygen in the stack gas.
(2) Combustion efficiency shall be at
least 99.9 percent computed ar, follows:
Combustion efficiency = Ccch/Cc(>- J-Ceo xlOO
where
Cco, = Concentration of carbon ciioxiC"
Ceo —Concentration of carbon monoxide
(3) The rate and quantity of PCBs
which are fed to the combustion system
shall be measured and recorded at
regular intervals of no longer than 15
minutes.
(4) The temperatures of the
incineration process shall be
continuously measured and recorded.
The combustion temperature of the
incineration process shall be based on
either direct (pyrometer) or indirect
(wall thermocouple-pyrometer
correlation) temperature readings.
(5) The flow of PCBs to the incinerator
shall stop automatically whenever the
combustion temperature drops below
the temperatures specified in
subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
(6) Monitoring of stack emission
products shall be conducted:
(i) When a"n incinerator is first used
for the disposal of PCBs under the
provisions of this regulation;
(ii) When an incinerator is first used
for the disposal of PCBs after the
incinerator has been modified in a
manner which may affect the
characteristics of the stack emission
products; and
(iii) At a minimum such monitoring
shall be conducted for the following
parameters: (a)O,r (b) CO; (c) CO»; (d)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,); (e)
Hydrochloric Acid (HC1); (f) Total
Chlorinated Organic Content (RC1); (g)
PCBs; and (h) Total Particulate Matter.
(7) At a minimum monitoring and
recording of combustion products and
incineration operations shall be
conducted for the following parameters
whenever the incinerator is incinerating
PCBs; (i) O,; (ii) CO; and (iii) CO,. The
monitoring for O, and CO shall be
continuous. The monitoring for COj
shall be periodic, at a frequency
specified by the Regional Administrator.
276
-------
31552 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
(8) The flow of PCBs to the incinerator
shall stop automatically when any one
or more of the following conditions
occur unless a contingency plan is
submitted by the incinerator owner or
operator and approved by the Regional
Administrator and the contingency plan
indicates what alternative measures the
incinerator owner or operator would
take if any of the following conditions
occur
(i) Failure of monitoring operations
specified in subparagraph (7) of this
paragraph;
(ii) Failure of the PCB rate and
quantity measuring and recording
equipment specified in subparagraph (3)
of this paragraph; or
(iii) Excess oxygen falls below the
percentage specified in subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph.
(9) Water scrubbers shall be used for
HC1 control during PCB incineration and
shall meet any performance
requirements specified by the
appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator. Scrubber effluent shall
be monitored and shall comply with
applicable effluent or pretreatment
standards, and any other State and
Federal laws and regulations. An
alternate method of HC1 control may be
used if the alternate method has been
approved by the Regional
Administrator. (The HC1 neutralizing
capability of cement kilns is considered
to be an alternate method.)
(b) Non-liquid PCBs. An incinerator
used for incinerating non-liquid PCBs,
PCB Articles, PCB Equipment, or PCB
Containers shall be approved by the
Agency Regional Administrator
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
The incinerator shall meet all of the
requirements specified in subparagraphs
(1) and (2) of this paragraph unless a
waiver from these requirements is
obtained pursuant to paragraph (d)(5) of
this section. In addition, the incinerator
shall meet any other requirements that
may be prescribed pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(1) The mass air emissions from the
incinerator shall be no greater than
O.OOlg PCB/kg of the PCB introduced
into the incinerator.
(2) Tt. • incinerator shall comply with
the provisions of § 761.40(a)(2), (3), (4).
(6), (7), (8)(i) and (ii), and (9).
(c) Maintenance of data and records.
All data and records required by this
section shall be maintained in
accordance with Annex VI—§ 761.45,
Records and Monitoring.
(d) Approval of incinerators. Prior to
the incineration of PCBs and PCB Items
the owner or operator of an incinerator
shall receive the written approval of the
Agency Regional Administrator for the
Region in which the incinerator is
located. Such approval ahall be obtained
in the following manner
(1) Initial Report. The owner or
operator shall submit to the Regional
administrator an initial report which
contains:
(i) The location of the incinerator,
(ii) A detailed description of the
incinerator including general site plans
and design drawings of the incinerator;
(iii) Engineering reports or other
information on the anticipated
performance of the incinerator;
(iv) Sampling and monitoring
equipment and facilities available;
(v) Waste volumes expected to be
incinerated;
(vi) Any local. State, or Federal
permits or approvals; and
(vii) Schedules and plans for
complying with the approval
requirements of this regulation.
(2) Trial bum. (i) Following receipt of
the report described in subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph, the Regional
Administrator shall determine if a trial
burn is required and notify the person
who submitted the report whether a tridl
burn of PCBs and PCB Items must be
conducted. The Regional Administrator
may require the submission of any other
information that the Regional
Administrator finds to be reasonably
necessary to determine the need for a
trial burn. Such other information shall
be restricted to the types of information
required in subparagraph (l)(i) through
(l)(vii) of this paragraph.
(ii) If the Regional Administrator
determines that a trial burn must be
held, the person who submitted the
report described in subparagraph (1) of
this paragraph shall submit to the
Regional Administrator a detailed plan
for conducting and monitoring the trial
burn. At a minimum, the plan must
include:
(A) Date trial burn is to be conducted;
(B) Quantity and type of PCBs and
PCB Items to be incinerated;
(C) Parameters to be monitored and
location of sampling points;
(D) Sampling frequency and methods
and schedules for sample analyses; and
(E) Name, address, and qualifications
of persons who will review analytical
results and other pertinent data, and
who will perform a technical evaluation
of the effectiveness of the trial burn.
(iii) Following receipt of the plan
described in subparagraph (2)(ii) of this
paragraph, the Regional Administrator
will approve the plan, require additions
or modifications to the plan, or
disapprove the plan. If the plan is
disapproved, the Regional Administrator
will notify the person who submitted the
plan of such disapproval together with
the reasons why it is disapproved. That
person may thereafter submit a new
plan in accordance with subparagraph
(2)(ii) of this paragraph. If the plan is
approved (with any additions or
modifications which the Regional
Administrator may Prescribe), the
Regional Administrator will notify the
person who submitted the plan of the
approval. Thereafter the trial burn shall
take place at a date and time to be
agreed upon between the Regional
Administrator and the persons who
submitted the plan,
(3) Other information. In addition to
the information contained in the report
and plan described to subparagraphs. (1)
and (2) of this paragraph, the Regional
Administrator may require the owner or
operator to submit any other
information that the Regional
Administrator finds to be reasonably
necessary to determine whether an
incinerator shall be approved.
Note.—The Regional Administrator will
have available for review and Inspection an
Agency manual containing information on
sampling methods and analytical procedures
for the parameters required in i 761.40(a)(3),
(4), (0), and (7) plus any other parameters he
may determine to be appropriate. Owners or
operators are encouraged to review this
manual prior to submitting any report
required in this Annex.
(4) Contents of Approval, (i) Except as
provided in subparagraph (5) of this
paragraph, the Regional Administrator
may not approve an incinerator for the
disposal of PCB and PCB Items unless
he finds that the incinerator meets all of
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and^
or (b) of this section.
(ii) In addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of this section,
the Regional Administrator may include
in an approval any other requirements
that the Regional Administrator finds
are necessary to ensure that operation
of the incinerator does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment from PCBs. Such
requirements may include a fixed period
of time for which the approval is valid.
(5) Waivers. An owner or operator of
the incinerator may submit evidence to
the Regional Administrator that
operation of the incinerator will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment from PCBs,
when one or more of the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of this section
are not met. On the basis of such
evidence and any other available
information, the Regional Administrator
may in his discretion find that any
requirement of paragraph (a) and (b) is
277
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31553
not necessary to protect against such a
risk, and may waive the requirements in
any approval for that incinerator. Any
finding and waiver under this
subparagraph must be stated in writing
and included as part of the approval.
(6) Persons Approved. An approval
will designate the persons who own and
who are authorized to operate the
incinerator, and will apply only to such
persons, except as provided in
paragraph (8) below.
(7) Final Approval. Approval of an
incinerator will be in writing and signed
by the Regional Administrator. The
approval will state'all requirements
applicable to the approved incinerator.
(8) Transfer of Property. Any person
who owns Or operates an approved
incinerator must notify EPA at least 30
days before transferring ownership in
the incinerator or the property it stands
upon, or transferring the right to operate
the incinerator. The transferor must also
submit to EPA, at least 30 days before
such transfer, a notarized affidavit
signed by the transferee which states
that the transferee will abide by the
transferor's EPA incinerator approval.
Within 30 days of receiving such
notification and affidavit, EPA will issue
an amended approval substituting the
transferee's name for the transferor's
name, or EPA may require the transferee
to apply for a new incinerator approval.
In the latter case, the transferee must
abide by the transferor's EPA approval
until EPA issues the new approval to the
transferee.
Annexn
{761.41 Chemical wast* landfills.
(a) General. A chemical waste landfill
used for the disposal of PCBs and PCS
Items shall be approved by the Agency
Regional Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section. The landfill
shall meet all of the requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, unless a waiver from .these
requirements is obtained pursuant to
paragraph (c){4) of this section. In
addition, the landfill shall meet any
other requirements that may be
prescribed pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
(b) Technical Requirements.
Requirements for chemical watte
landfills used for the disposal of PCBs
and PCB Items are as follows:
(1) Soils. The landfill site'shall be
located in thick, relatively impermeable
formations such as large-area day pans.
Where this is not possible, me soil shall
have a high clay and lilt content with
the following parameters;
(i) In-place soil thickness, 4 feet or
compacted soil liner thickness, 3 feet;
(ii) Permeability (cm/sec), equal to or
less than IX 10" *
(iii) Percent soil passing No. 200 Sieve,
(iv) Liquid Limit. >30; and
(v) Plasticity Index >15.
(2) Synthetic Membrane Liners.
Synthetic membrane liners shall be used
when, hi the judgment of the Regional
Administrator, the hydrologic or
geologic conditions at the landfill
require such a liner in order to provide
at least a permeability equivalent to the
soils in (1) above. Whenever a synthetic
liner is used at a landfill site, special
precautions shall be taken to insure that
its integrity is maintained and that it is
chemically compatible with PCBs.
Adequate soil underlining and soil cover
shall be provided to prevent excessive
stress on the liner and to prevent
rupture of the liner. The liner must have
a minimum thickness of 30 mils.
(3) Hydrologic Conditions. The bottom
of the landfill shall be above the
historical high groundwater table as
provided below. Floodplains,
shorelands, and groundwater recharge
areas shall be avoided. There shall be
no hydraulic connection between the
site and standing or flowing surface
water. The site shall have monitoring
wells and leachate collection. The
bottom of the landfill liner system or
natural in-place soil barrier shall be at
least fifty feet from the historical high
water table.
(4) Flood Protection, (i) If the landfill
site is below the 100-year floodwater
elevation, the operator shall provide
surface water diversion dikes around
the perimeter of the landfill site with a
minimum height equal to two feet above
the 100-year floodwater elevation,
(ii) If the landfill site is above the 100-
year floodwater elevation, the operators
shall provide diversion structures
capable of diverting all of the surface
water runoff from a 24-hour, 25-year
storm.
(5) Topography. The landfill site shall
be located in an area of low to moderate
relief to minimize erosion and to help
prevent landslides or slumping.
(6) Monitoring Systems, (i) Water
Sampling. (A) For all sites receiving
PCBs, the ground and surface water
from the disposal site area shall be
sampled prior to commencing operations
under an approval provided in
{ 761.41(c) for use as baseline data.
(B) Any surface watercourse
designated by the Regional
Administrator using die authority
provided in { 761.41(c)(3)(ii) shall be
sampled at least monthly when the
landfill is being used for disposal
operations.
(C) Any surface watercourse
designated by the Regional
Administrator using the authority
provided in 5 7B1.41(c)(3)(il) shall be
sampled for a time period specified by
the Regional Administrator on a
frequency of no less than once every six
months after final closure of the
disposal area.
(ii) Groundwater Monitor Wells. (A) If
underlying earth materials are
homogenous, impermeable, and
uniformly sloping in one direction, only
three sampling points shall be
necessary. These three points shall be
equally spaced.on a line through the
center of the disposal area and
extending from the area of highest water
table elevation to the area of the lowest
water table elevation on the property.
(B) All monitor wells shalT be cased
and the annular space between the
monitor zone (zone of saturation) and
the surface shall be completely
backfilled with Portland cement or an
equivalent material and plugged with
Portland cement to effectively prevent
percolation of surface water into the
well bore. The well opening at the
surface shall have a removable cap to
provide access and to prevent entrance
of rainfall or stormwater runoff. The
well shall be pumped to remove the
volume of liquid initially contained in
the well before obtaining a sample for
analysis. The discharge shall be treated
to meet applicable State or Federal
discharge standards orjrecycled to the
chemical waste landfill.
(iii) Water Analysis. As a minimum,
all samples shall be analyzed for the
following parameters, and all data and
records of the sampling and analysis
shall be maintained as required in
Annex VI— { 781.45(d)(l). Sampling
methods and analytical procedures for
these parameters shall comply with
those specified in 40 CFR Part 136 as
amended in 41FR 52779 on December 1,
1976.
(A) PCBs.
(B)pH.
(C) Specific Conductance.
(D) Chlorinated Organics.
{7} Leachate Collection. A leachate
collection monitoring system shall be
Installed above the chemical waste
landfill. Leachate collection systems
shall be monitored monthly for quantity
and physicochemical characteristics of
leachate produced. The leachate should
be either treated to acceptable limits for
discharge in accordance with a State or
Federal permit or disposed of by another
State or Federally approved method.
Water analysis shall be conducted as
278
-------
31554 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
provided in subparagraph (6) (iii) of this
paragraph. Acceptable leachate
monitoring/collection systems shall be
any of the following designs, unless a
waiver is obtained pursuant to
panigraph (c){4) of this section.
(i) Simple Leachate Collection. This
system consists of a gravity flow
drainfield installed above the waste
disposal facility liner. This design is
recommended for use when semi-solid
or leachable solid wastes are placed in a
lined pit excavated into a relatively
thick, unsaturated, homogenous layer of
low permeability soil.
(ii) Compound Leachate Collection.
This system consists of a gravity flow
drainfield installed above the waste
disposal facility liner and above a
secondary installed liner. This design is
recommended for use when semi-liquid
or leachable solid wastes are placed in a
lined pit excavated into relatively
permeable soil.
(ii) Suction Lysimeters. This system
consists of a network of porous ceramic
cups connected by hoses/tubing to a
vacuum pump. The porous ceramic cups
or suction lysimetera are installed along
the sides and under the bottom of the
waste disposal facility liner. This type of
system works best when installed in a
relatively permeable unsaturated soil
immediately adjacent to the bottom
and/or sides of the disposal facility.
(8) Chemical Waste Landfill
Operations, (i) PCBs and PCS Items
shall be placed in a landfill in a manner
that will prevent damage to containers
or articles. Other wastes placed in the
landfill that are not chemically
compatible with PCBs and PCB Items
including organic solvents shall be
segregated from the PCBs throughout the
waste handling and disposal process.
(11) An operation plan shall be
developed and submitted to the
Regional Administrator for approval as
required in paragraph (c) of this section.
This plan shall include detailed
explanations of the procedures to be
used for recordkeeping, surface water
handling procedures, excavation and
backfilling, waste segregation burial
coordinates, vehicle and equipment
r.-ovemjnt, use of roadways, leachate
collection systems, sampling and
monitoring procedures, monitoring
wells, environmental emergency
contingency plans, and security
measures to protect against vandalism
and unauthorized waste placements.
EPA guidelines entitled "Thermal
Processing and Land Disposal of Solid
Waste" (39 FR 29337, August 14,1974)
are a useful reference in preparation of
this plan. If the facility is to be used to
dispose of liquid wastes containing
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm PCB, the
operations plan must include procedures
to determine that liquid PCBs to be
disposed of at the landfill do not exceed
500 ppm PCB and meaures to prevent
the migration of PCBs from the landfill
Bulk liquids not exceeding 500 ppm
PCBs may be disposed of provided such
waste is pretreated and/or stabilized
(e.g., chemically fixed, evaporated,
mixecVwith dry inert absorbent) to
reduce its liquid content or increase its
solid content so that a non-flowing
consistency is achieved to eliminate the
presence of free liquids prior to final
disposal in a landfill. PCB Container of
liquid PCBs with a concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm PCB may be
disposed of if each container is
surrounded by an amount of inert
sorbant material Capable of absorbing
all of the liquid contents of the
container.
(iii] Ignitable wastes shall not be
disposed of in chemical waste landfills.
Liquid ignitable wastes are wastes that
have a flash point less than 60 degrees C
(140 degrees F) as determined by the
following method or an equivalent
method: Flash point of liquids shall be
determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed
Cup Tester, using the protocol specified
in ASTM Standard D-93, or the
Setafiash Closed Tester using the
protocol specified in ASTM Standard D-
3278.
(iv) Records shall be maintained for
all PCB disposal operations and shall
include information on the PCB
concentration in liquid wastes and the
three dimensional burial coordinates for
PCBs and PCB Items. Additional records
shall be developed and maintained as
required in Annex VI.
(9) Supporting Facilities, (i) A six foot
woven mesh fence, wall, or similar
device shall be placed around the site to
prevent unauthorized persons and
animals from entering.
(ii) Roads shall be maintained to and
within the site which are adequate to
support the operation and maintenance
of the site without causing safety or
nuisance problems or hazardous
conditions.
(iii) The site shall be operated and
maintained hi a manner to prevent
safety problems or hazardous conditions
resulting from spilled liquids and
windblown materials.
(c) Approval of Chemical Waste
Landfills. Prior to the disposal of any
PCBs and PCB Items in a chemical
waste landfill, the owner or operator of
the landfill shall receive written
approval of the Agency Regional
Administrator for the Region hi which
the landfill is located. The approval
shall be obtained in the following
manner
(1) Initial Report. The owner or
operator shall submit to the Regional
Administrator an initial report which
contains:
(i) The location of the landfill;
(ii) A detailed description of the
landfill including general site plans and
design drawings;
(iii) An engineering report describing
the manner is which the landfill
complies with the requirements for
chemical waste landfills specified in
paragraph (b) of this section;
(iv) Sampling and monitoring
equipment and facilities available;
(v) Expected waste volumes of PCBs:
(vi) General description of waste
materials other than PCBs that are
expected to be disposed of in the
landfill;
(vii) Landfill operations plan as
required in paragraph (b) of this section;
(viii) Any local, State, or Federal
permits or approvals; and
(ix) Any schedules or plans for
complying with the approval
requirements of these regulations.
(2) Other Information, In addition to
the information contained in the report
described in lubparagraph (1) of this
paragraph, the Regional Administrator
may require the owner or operator to
submit any other information that the
Regional Administrator finds to be
reasonably necessary to determine
whether a chemical waste landfill
should be approved. Such other
information shall be restricted to the
types of information required in
subparagraphs (l)(i) through (l)(ix) of
this paragraph.
(3) Contents of Approval, (i) Except as
provided in subparagraph (4) of this
paragraph the Regional Administrator
may not approve a chemical waste
landfill for the disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items, unless he finds that the landfill
meets all of the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this Annex.
(ii) In addition to the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section, the
Regional Administrator may include hi
an approval any other requirements or
provisions that the Regional
Administrator finds are necessary to
ensure that operation of the chemical -
waste landfill does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment from PCBs. Such
provisions may include a fixed period of
time for which the approval is valid.
The approval may also include a
stipulation that the operator of the
chemical waste landfill report to the
Regional Administrator any instance
when PCBs are detectable during
279
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31555
monitoring activities conducted
pursuant to paragraph (b)(8) of this
section.
(4) Waivers. An owner or operator of
a chemical waste landfill may submit
evidence to the Regional Administrator
that operation of the landfill will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment from PCBs
when one or more of the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section are not met.
On the basis of such evidence and any
other available information, the
Regional Administrator may in his
discretion find that one or more of the
requirements of § 761.41(b) is not
necessary to protect against such a risk
and may waive the requirements in any
approval for that landfill. Any finding
and waiver under this paragraph will be
stated in writing and included as part of
the approval.
(5) Persons Approved. Any approval
will designate the persons who own and
who are authorized to operate the
chemical waste landfill, and will apply
only to such persons, except as provided
by paragraph (7) below.
(6) Final Approval. Approval of a
chemical waste landfill will be in
writing and will be signed by the
Regional Administrator. The approval
will state all requirements applicable to
the approved landfill.
(7) Transfer of Property. Any person
who owns or operates an approved
chemical waste landfill must notify EPA
at least 30 days before transferring
ownership in the property or
transferring the right to conduct the
chemical waste landfill operation. The
transferor must also submit to EPA, at
least 30 days before such transfer, a
notarized affidavit signed by the
transferee which states that the
transferee will abide by the transferor's
EPA chemical waste landfill approval.
Within 30 days of receiving such
notification and affidavit, EPA will issue
an amended approval substituting the
transferee's name for the transferor's
name, or EPA may require the transferee
to apply for a new chemical waste
landfill approval. In the latter case, the
transferee must abide by the transferor's
EPA approval until EPA issues the new
approval to the transferee,
Annex III
{761.42 Storage for dlspoML
(a) Any PCB Article or PCB Container
stored for disposal before January 1,
1983, shall be removed from storage and
disposed of as required by this Part
before January 1,1984. Any PCB Article
or PCB Container stored for disposal
after January 1,1963, shall be removed
from storage and disposed of as
required by Subpart B within one year
from the date when it was first placed
into storage.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, after July 1,1978,
owners or operators of any facilities
used for the storage of PCBs and PCB
Items designated for disposal shall
comply with the following requirements:
(!) The facilities shall meet the
following criteria:
(i) Adequate roof and walls to prevent
rain water from reaching the stored
PCBs and PCB Items;
(ii) An adequate floor which has
continuous curbing with a minimum six
inch high curb. The floor and curbing
must provide a containment volume
equal to at least two times the internal
volume of the largest PCB Article or PCB
Container stored therein or 25 percent of
the total internal volume of all PCB
Articles or PCB Containers stored
therein, whichever is greater;
(iii) No drain valves, floor drains,
expansion joints, sewer lines, or other
openings that would permit liquids to
flow from the curbed area;
(iv) Floors and curbing constructed of
continuous smooth and impervious
materials, such as Portland cement
concrete or steel, to prevent or minimize
penetration of PCBs; and
(v) Not located at a site that is below
the 100-year flood water elevation.
(c)(l) The following PCB Items may be
stored temporarily in an area that does
not comply with the requirements of
paragraph (b] for up to thirty days from
the date of their removal from service.
provided that a notation is attached to
the PCB Item or a PCB Container
(containing the item) indicating the date
the item was removed from service:
(i) Non-leaking PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment;
(ii) Leaking PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment if the PCB Items are placed
in a non-leaking PCB Container that
contains sufficient sofbent materials to
absorb any liquid PCBs remaining in the
PCB Items;
(iii) PCB Containers containing non-
liquid PCBs such as contaminated soil,
rags, and debris; and
(iv) PCB Containers containing liquid
PCBs at a concentration between SO and
500 ppm, provided a Spill Prevention,
Control and Counter-measure Plan has
been prepared for the temporary storage
area in accordance with 40 CFR112. In
addition, each container must bear a
notation that indicates that the liquids1 in
the drum do not exceed 500 ppm PCB.
(2) Non-leaking and structurally
undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
Transformers that have not been
drained of free flowing dielectric fluid
may be stored on pallets next to a
storage facility that meets the
requirements of paragraph (b) until
January 1,1983. PCB-Contaminated
Transformers that have been drained of
free flowing dielectric fluid are not
subject to the storage provisions of
Annex III. Storage under this
subparagraph will be permitted only
when the storage facility has
immediately available unfilled storage
space equal to 10 percent of the volume
of capacitors and transformers stored
outside the facility. The capacitors and
transformers temporarily stored outside
the facility shall be checked for leaks
weekly.
(3) Any storage area subject to the
requirements of paragraph (b) or
subparagraph (cj(l) of this section shall
be marked as required in Subpart C—
§ 7B1.20(a)(10).
(4) No item of movable equipment that
is used for handling PCBs and PCB Items
in the storage facilities and that comes
in direct contact with PCBs shall be
removed from the storage facility area
unless it has been decontaminated as
specified in Annex IV, $ 761.43.
(5) All PCB Articles and PCB
Containers in storage shall be checked
for leaks at least once every 30 days.
Any leaking PCB Articles and PCB
Containers and their contents shall be
transferred immediately to properly
marked non-leaking containers. Any
spilled or leaked materials shall be
immediately Cleaned up, using sorbents
or other adequate means, and the PCB-
contaminated materials and residues
shall be disposed of in accordance with
S 761.10{a)(4).
(6) Except as provided in
subparagraph (7) below, any container
used for the storage of liquid PCBs shall
comply with the Shipping Container
Specification of the Department of
Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 178.80
(Specification 5 container without
removable head), 178.82 (Specification
5B container without removable head),
178.102 (Specification 6D overpack with
Specification 2S(§ 178.35) or
2SL(§ 178.35a) polyethylene containers)
or 178.116 (Specification 17E container).
Any container used for the storage of
non-liquid PCBs shall comply with the
specifications of 49 CFR 178.80
(Specification 5 container), 178.82
(Specification 5B container) or 176.115
(Specification 17C container). As an
alternate, containers larger than those
specified in DOT Specifications 5, SB, or
17C may be used for non-liquid PCBs if
the containers are designed and
constructed in a manner that will
280
-------
31556 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thuraday. May 31. 1979 / Rides and Regulationa
provide as much protection against
leaking and exposure to the
environment as the DOT Specification
containers, and are of the same relative
strength and durability as the DOT
Specification containers.
(?} Storage containers for liquid PCBs
can be larger than the containers
specified in (6) above provided that:
(i) The containers are designed,
constructed, and operated in compliance
with Occupational Safety and Health
Standards, 29 CFR 1910.106, Flammable
and combustible liquids. Before using
these containers for storing PCBs, the
design of the containers must be
reviewed to determine the effect on the
structural safety of the containers that
will result from placing liquids with the
specific gravity of PCBs into the
containers (see 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(i)(f)).
(ii) The owners or operators of any
facility using containers described in (i)
above shall prepare and implement a
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as
described in 40 CFR 112. In complying
with 40 CFR 112, the owner or operator
shall read "oil(s)" as "PCB(s}" whenever
it appears. The exemptions for storage
capacity, 40 CFR 112.1(d)(2}, and the
amendment of SPCC plans by the
Regional Administrator, 40 CFR 112.4,
shall not apply unless some fraction of
the liquids stored in the container are
oils as defined by section 311 of the
Clean Water Act.
(8) PCB Articles and PCB Containers
shall be dated on the article or container
when they are placed in storage. The
storage shall be managed so that the
PCB Articles and PCB Containers can be
located by the date they entered storage.
Storage containers provided in
subparagraph (7) above shall have a
record that includes for each batch of
PCBs the quantity of the batch and date
the batch was added to the container.
The record shall also include the date,
quantity, and disposition of any batch of
PCBs removed from the container.
(9) Owners or operators of storage
facilities shall establish and maintain
records as provided in Annex VL
>»nnex "V
§761.43 Decontamination.
(a) Any PCB Container to be
decontaminated shall be
decontaminated by flushing the internal
surfaces of the container three times
with a solvent containing less than 50
ppm PCB. The solubility of PCBe in the
solvent must be five percent or more by
weight Each rinse shall use a volume of
the normal diluent equal to
approximately ten (10) percent of the
PCB Container capacity. The solvent
may be reused for decontamination until
it contains 50 ppm PCB. The solvent
shall then be disposed of as a PCB in
accordance with 5 761.10{a). Non-liquid
PCBs resulting from the
decontamination procedures shall be
disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of } 761.10(a)(4).
(b) Movable equipment used in
storage areas shall be decontaminated
by swabbing surfaces that have
contacted PCBs with a solvent meeting
the criteria of paragraph (a) of this
section.
Note.—Precautionary measures should be
taken to ensure that the solvent meet* safety
and health standards as required by
applicable Federal regulations.
Annex V
§ 761.44 Marking format*.
The following formats shall be used
for marking:
(a) Large PCB Mark—ML. Mark ML
shall be as shown in Figure 1, letters and
striping on a white or yellow
background and shall be sufficiently
durable to equal or exceed the life
(including storage for disposal) of the
PCB Article, PCB Equipment, or PCB
Container. The size of the mark shall be
at least 15.25 cm (6 inches) on each side.
If the PCB Article or PCB Equipment is
too small to accommodate this size, the
mark may be reduced in size
proportionately down to a minimum of 5
cm (2 inches) on each side.
(b) Small PCB Mark—M,. Mark M.
shall be as shown in Figure 2, letters and
striping on a white or yellow
background, and shall be sufficiently
durable to equal or exceed the life
(including storage for disposal) of the
PCB Article, PCB Equipment, or PCB
Container. The mark shall be a rectangle
2.5 by 5 cm (1 inch by 2 inches). If the
PCB Article or PCB Equipment is too
small to accommodate this size, the
mark may be reduced in size
proportionately down to a minimum of 1
by 2 cm (.4 by .8 inches).
1
CAUTION
COOTMNS
(Pofychlorinated Biphenyls)
A foxfc environmental contaminant requiring
special handling and disposal in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations
40 CFR 761—For Disposal Information conroo
fheneoresr U.S. E.P.A. Office.
In case of ocddenr or spill, call roll free the U.S.
Coasf Guard National Response Center:
600:424^802
Abo Conroo
Tel. No.
Figure 1
CAUTION Co™** PCBs
KM MOW OISMSAI INFORMATION
CONTACT U S ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Figure 2
281
-------
Federal RegUtet / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31557
Annex VI
1761.45 ftooords and monrtodnfl
(a) PCBs andPCB Items in service or
projected for disposal Beginning July 2.
1978, each owner or operator of a
facility using or storing at one time at
least 45 kilograms (99.4 pounds) of PCBs
contained in PCB Containers) or one or
more PCB Transformers, or 50 or more
PCB Large High or Low Voltage
Capacitors shall develop and maintain
records on the disposition of PCBs and
PCB Items. These records shall form the
basis of an annual document prepared
for each facility by July 1 covering the
previous calendar year. Owners or
operators with one or more facilities
that use or store PCBs and PCB Items in
the quantities described'above may
maintain the records and documents at
one of the facilities that is normally
occupied for 8 hours a day, provided the
identity of this facility is available at
each facility using or storing PCBs and
PCB Items. The records and documents
shall be maintained for at least five
years after the facility ceases using or
storing PCBs and PCB Items in the
prescribed quantities. The following
information for each facility shall be
included in the annual document:
(1) 'Hie dates when PCBs and PCB
Items are removed from service, are
placed into storage for disposal, and are
placed into transport for disposal. The
quantities of the PCBs and PCB Items
shall be indicated using the following
breakdown:
(i) Total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs and PCB Items in PCB Containers
including the identification of container
contents such as liquids and capacitors;
(ii) Total number of PCB Transformers
and total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs contained in the transformers; and
(iii) Total number of PCB Large High
or Low Voltage Capacitors.
(2) For PCBs and PCB Items removed
from service, the location of the initial
disposal or storage facility and the name
pf the owner or operator of the facility.
(3) Total quantities of PCBs and PCB
Items remaining in service et the end of
the calendar year using the following
breakdown:
(ij Total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs and PCB Items in PCB Containers,
including the identification of container
contents such as liquids and capacitors;
(ii) Total number of PCB Transformers
and total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs contained in the transformers; and
(ill) Tota! number of PCB Large High
or Low Voltage Capacitors
(b) Disposal and storage facilities.
Each owner or operator of a facility
(including high efficiency boiler
operations) used for the storage or
disposal of PCBs and PCB Items shall by
July 1,1979 and each July 1 thereafter
prepare and maintain a document that
includes the information required in
subparagraphs (1) thru (4) below for
PCBs and PCB Items that -were handled
at the facility during the previous
calendar year. The document shall be
retained at each facility for at least 5
years after the facility is no longer used
for the storage or disposal of PGBs and
PCB Items except that in the case of
chemical waste landfills, the document
shall be maintained at least 20 years
after the chemical waste landfill is no
longer used for the disposal of PCBs and
PCB Items. The documents shall be
available at the facility for inspection by
authorized representatives of the
Environmental Protection Agency. If the
facility ceases to be used for PCB
storage or disposal, the owner or
operator of such facility shall notify
within 60 days the EPA Regional .
Administrator of the region in which th,e
facility is located that the facility has
ceased storage or disposal operations.
The notice shall specify where the
documents that are required to be
maintained by this paragraph are
located. The following information shall
be included in each document:
(1) The date when any PCBs and PCB
Items were received by the facility
during the previous calendar year for
storage or disposal, and identification of
the facility and the owner or operator of
the facility from whom the PCBs Were
received;
(2) The date when any PCBs and PCB
Items were disposed of at the disposal
facility or transferred to another
disposal or storage facility, including the
identification of the specific types of
PCBs and PCB Items that were stored or
disposed of;
(3) A summary of the total weight in
kilograms of PCBs and PCB Articles in
containers and the total weight of PCBs
contained in PCB Transformers, that
have been handled at the facility during
the previous calendar year. This
summary shall provide totals of (he
above PCBs and PCB Items which have
been:
(i) Received during the yean
(ii) Transferred to other facilities
during the year, and
(Iii) Retained at the facility at the end
of the year. In addition the contents of
PCB Containers shall be identified.
When PCB Containers and PCBs
contained in a transformer are
transferred to-other storage or disposal
facilities, the identification of the facility
to which such PCBs and PCfrltems were
transferred shall be included in the
document.
(4) Total number of any PCB Articles
or PCB Equipment not in PCB
Containers, received during the calendar
year, transferred to other storage or
disposal facilities during the calendar
year, or remaining on the facility site at
the end of the calendar year. The
identification of the specific types of
PCB Articles and PCB Equipment
received, transferred, or remaining on
the facility site shall be indicated. When
PCB Articles and PCB Equipment are
transferred to other storage or disposal
facilities, the identification of the facility
to which the PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment were transferred must be
included.
Note.—Any requirements for weights in
kilograms of PCBs may be calculated values
if the internal volume of containers and
transformers Is known and Included in the
reports, together with any assumptions on the
density of the PCBs contained in the
containers or transformers.
(c) Incineration facilities. Each owner
or operator of a PCB incinerator facility
shall collect and maintain for a period of
5 years from the date of collection the
following information, in addition to the
information required in paragraph (b) of
this section:
(1) When PCBs are being incinerated,
the following continuous and short-
interval data:
(i) Rate and quantity of PCBs fed to
the combustion system as required in
Annex 1—5 761.40(a)(3);
(ii) Temperature of the combustion
process as required in Annex I—
{ 761.40(a){4); and
(iii) Stack emission product to include
O,, CO, and CO» as required in Annex
1—8 761.40(a)(7).
(2) When PCBs are being incinerated,
data and records on the monitoring of
•tack emissions as required in Annex
1—8 761.40(a)(6).
(3) Total weight in kilograms of any
solid residues generated by the
incineration of PCBs and PCB Items
during the calendar year, the total
weight in kilograms of any solid
residues disposed of by the facility in
chemical waste landfills, and the total
weight in kilograms of any solid
residues remaining on the facility site.
282
-------
31558 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulation*
(4) Whefi PCBs and PCB Item* are
being incinerated, additional periodic
data shall be collected and maintained
as specified by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to { 761-40(d)(4}.
(5) Upon any suspension of the
operation of any incinerator pursuant to
J 761.40(aX8), the owner or operator of
such an incinerator shall prepare a
document. The document shall, at a
minimum, include the date and time of
the suspension and an explanation of
the circumstances causing the
suspension of operation. The document
shall be sent to the appropriate Regional
Administrator within 30 days of any
such suspension.
(d) Chemical waste landfill facilities.
Each owner or operator of a PCB
chemical waste landfill facility shall
collect and maintain until at least 20
years after the chemical waste landfill is
no longer used for the disposal of PCBs
the following information in addition to
the information required in paragraph
(b) of this section:
(1) Any water analysis obtained in
compliance with } 761.41(b}(6)(iii); and
(2) Any operations records including
burial coordinates of wastes obtained in
compliance with 5 761.41(b)(8](ii).
(e) High efficiency boiler facilities.
Each owner or operator of a high
efficiency boiler used for the disposal of
liquids between 50 and 500 ppm PCB
shall collect and maintain for a period of
5 years the following information, in
addition to the information required in
paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) For each month PCBs are burned in
the boiler the carbon monoxide and
excess oxygen data required in
| 761.10(a)(2)(iii)(Ap] and
§ 761.10(a)(3)(iii)(A)(5);
(2) The quantity of PCBs burned each
month as required in
| 761.10(a)(2)(iii)(A){7) and
§ 761.10(a)(3)(iii)(A){7]; and
(3) For each month PCBs (other than
mineral oil dielectric fluid) are burned,
chemical analysis data of the waste as
required in § 761.10(a)(3](iii)(B)(6).
(f) Retention of Special Records by
Storage and Disposal Facilities. In
addition to the information required to
be mai- tained under paragraphs (b), (c),
(d) and le) of this section, each owner or
operator of a PCB storage or disposal
facility (including high efficiency boiler
operations) ahall collect and maintain
for the time period specified in
paragraph (b) of Ihifl section the
following data:
(1) All documents, correspondence,
and data that have been provided to the
owner or operator of the facility by any
State or local government agency and
that pertain to the storage or disposal of
i>CBs and PCB Items at the facility.
(2} All documents, correspondence,
and data that have been provided by the
owner or operator of the facility to any
State or local government agency and
that pertain to the storage or disposal of
PCBs and PCB Items at the facility.
(3) Any applications and related
correspondence sent by the owner or
operator of the facility to any local.
State, or Federal authorities in regard to
waste water discharge permits, solid
waste permits, building permits, or other
permits or authorizations such as those
required by Annex I—9 76L40(d} and
Annex D—8 761.41(c).
[FR Dot 7»-16880 Piled t-30-Tft £«3 unj
MLUMQ CODE tMO-01-M
40 CFR Part 750
[FRL 1227-5]
Procedures for Rutemaklng Under
Section 6 of the Toxic Substance*
Control Act; Interim Procedural Rufo*
for Exemption* From the
Polychlorinated Blphenyl (PCB)
Processing and Distribution In
Commerce Prohibition*
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim procedures for filing and
processing petitions for exemptions from
the PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions under section
8(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).
SUMMARY: Section 6{e)(3)(B) of TSCA
allows EPA to grant, by rule, exemptions
from the prohibitions on manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs established pursuant
to section 6{e)(3)(A) of TSCA. Since the
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions will become
effective July 1,1979, EPA wishes to
inform affected parties of the procedures
that will be followed for the filing and
processing of petitions for exemptions
from the processing and distribution in
commerce bans imposed by section
6{e)(3)(A)(ii) of TSCA. As this notice is
strictly procedural, notice and public
comment are unnecessary, and it is
effective upon publication.
DATE: Petitions for exemptions from the
1979 processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions must be received
by July 2. 1979.
ADDRESS: Petitions, preferably in
triplicate, are to be sent to: Document
Control Officer, (TS-793), Office of
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington. D.C. 20480, Attn.:
Document No. OTS/066002(PCB/PDE).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John B, Ritch, Jr., Director, Office of
Industry Assistance, Office of Toxic
Substances, fTS-799), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.;
Washington, D.C 2O460. CaD the toll
free number (800) 424-0065 (in
Washington, D.C., 554-1404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
the final PCB Ban Rule is promulgated.
The PCB Ban Rule implements the PCB
manufacturing, processing, distribution
in commerce, and use prohibitions of
section 6{e) of TSCA. On November 1.
1978 {43 FR 50905), EPA published a
notice similar to this one which
provided an opportunity for the filing of
petitions for exemptions from the PCB
manufacturing prohibition, which ban is
effective July 2.1979. The PCB
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions are effective July 1.1979.
Section 8(e)(3)(B) provides an
opportunity for affected persons to
petition for an exemption from the
prohibitions on processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs.
Accordingly, EPA is issuing these
procedures to describe the required
contents of petitions, who may submit a
class petition, and the procedures that
EPA will follow in processing petitions
for exemptions from the PCB processing
and distribution in commerce
prohibitions.
Unless EPA grants exemptions, all
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce will be banned after July 1.
1979 pursuant to section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of
TSCA. These activities include, but are
not necessarily limited to: the processing
and distribution in commerce of
dielectric fluid for PCB Transformers,
PCB-Contaminated Transformers, PCB
Railroad Transformers, and PCB
Electromagnets; the distribution in
commerce of PCB Articles (such as
small PCB Capacitors); the processing
(i.e., building) and distribution in
commerce of PCB Equipment (including
the manufacture of fluorescent light
ballasts, television sets, air conditioners
and microwave ovens and the sale of
such PCB Equipment); the processing -
and distribution in commerce of PCB-
contaminated hydraulic fluid; the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for servicing mining equipment;
the processing and distribution in
commerce of chemical substances and
mixture* that contain 50 ppm or greater
PCB as impurities or cnntaminanfo
(including diarylide and phthalocyanine
283
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
91859
pigments, tome aluminum chloride, and
tome phenylchlorostianes).
In contrast to the Interim Procedural
Rules for Exemptions from the PCS
Manufacturing Prohibition, the
procedural rules published today for
exemptions from the processing and
distribution in commerce prohibitions
provide for class petitions In certain
limited circumstances. Allowance of
some class petitions is an administrative
necessity. EPA estimates that there are
thousands of potential petitoners for
exemptions from the prohibitions on
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce. The great majority of these
petitions are expected to be
concentrated in the areas of distribution
of PCB Equipment and distribution of
PCB-contaminated substances and
mixtures. For example, virtually every
retail appliance store, appliance repair
service, and wholesale distributor of
electrical equipment could need an
exemption. Thus, allowing use of class
petitions for such persons is a matter of
practical reality.
In addition to the sheer number of
possible petitioners in a given potential
class, EPA evaluated the seriousness of
potential risk of injury to health and the
environment that could result from
permitting a PCB activity to continue if it
were granted an exemption. Those
persons not allowed to submit class
'petitions are generally those whose
activities involve significant quantities
and/or highly concentrated PCB fluids
processed or distributed in a non-totally
enclosed manner. A» a result, the
potential risk associated with these
activities is relatively high. In such
cases it is more important that EPA
evaluate petitions individually.
Petitions concerning the manufacture
(i.e.. processing) of PCB Equipment
involving incorporation of PCB Articles
into equipment must be submitted on an
individual basis. Although this activity
in itself may present a low potential
risk, the activity results in the wide
dissemination of small PCB Capacitors.
The disposal of such capacitors is not
controlled once the capacitors are
processed into PCB Equipment Since
most PCB Equipment manufacturers
have converted to non-PCB Capacitors.
the number of potential petitioners for
exemptions to manufacture PCB
Equipment should be small.
These Interim Procedural Rules
provide for two types of class petitions
and limit the use of each type to certain
activities. The two types of class
petitions are: (I) a class petition
requiring a listing of, and certain
Information about, each person covered
by the petition; and (2) a class petition
that does not require a listing of persons
covered by the petition.
Once EPA had determined to allow
class petitions for certain activities, the
same factors previously described
(number of potential petitioners and
extent of risk) were again evaluated to
determine which class petitions would
have to identify each petitioner covered
by the class petition. In general, those
petitions thought likely to represent
large numbers of potential petitioners
engaged in enclosed or low
concentration PCB distribution activities
are those allowed to file class petitions
without listing each individual
petitioner.
Class petitions are not required for
persons engaged in those activities
permitted to submit class petitions. An
individual involved in one of these
activities has the choice of either
submitting an individual petition or
joining with others to submit a class
petition. For class petitions, EPA will
accept petitions prepared by one
company (to which other companies
may provide the required information),
by a trade association on behalf of its
members (as well as others), or by any
other person on behalf of a group of
persons requiring exemptions.
Persons who have already submitted
petitions for exemptions to manufacture
or import PCB Equipment pursuant to
the Interim Procedural Rules of
November 1,1978 (43 FR 50905) need not
submit new petitions, but must advise
EPA if they still wish the Agency to act
on their pending petitions. If they wish,
such petitioners may submit additional
information concerning their petitions.
Similarly, EPA may request additional
information concerning such petitions
by letter to the petitioners.
All petitions for exemptions from the
1979 processing and distribution in
commerce bans must be received by
EPA by July 1.1979. This deadline is
being imposed to permit consolidation of
all rulemaking on these petitions and to
expedite the rulemaking to the greatest
extent possible. The deadline is also the
date on which the processing and
distribution in commerce prohibitions of
section 6(e)(3) of TSCA become
effective. EPA estimates that a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking concerning
exemptions from the processing and
distribution in commerce bans will be
published in September 1979, that the
public hearing, if requested, will be held
in October 1979, and that the Final Rule
concerning exemptions will be
published in January 1980. Any person
who petitions EPA by July 1,1979 to-
continue processing or distribution in
commerce after July 1,1979 may
continue his activity until EPA rules on
his petition. Persons who do not so
petition EPA will be subject to the July
1,1979 ban on all processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items.
In determining whether to grant a
petition for exemption to the PCB ban,
EPA will apply the standards
enunciated in section 6(e)(3)(B) of
TSCA. Section 6{e)(3)(B) reads in
pertinent part as follows:
* * * the Administrator may grant by rule
such an exemption if the Administrator .finds
that—
(i) an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or environment would not result, and
(iij good faith efforts have been made to
develop a chemical substance \vhich does not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and whJch may be
substituted for such polychlorineted
biphenyl.
Although EPA is not issuing a form for
petitions, petitions must include the
information described in § 750.31(d) of
the Interim Procedural Rules.
Due to the need to grant or deny
petitions on an expedited basis, and
pursuant to the delegation of authority
by the Administrator in the Preamble to
the Final PCB Ban Rule, authority has
been delegated to the Assistant
Administrator for Toxic Substances to
grant or deny petitions under section
6(e)(3")OB} of TSCA submitted pursuant
to these interim procedures. The
Assistant Administrator will rule on
petitions subsequent to opportunity for
an informal hearing.
The Interim Procedural Rules
applicable to section 8(e) exemption
proceedings are adapted from the TSCA
section 6 procedural rules (40 CFR Part
750, 42 FR 61259, December 2,1977, now
titled Subpart A—General Procedural
Rules).
EPA is aware that many participants
at the informal hearings on the proposed
PCB Ban and Marking and Disposal
Rules presented information directly
applicable to a PCB exemption
rulemaking. To expedite Agency action
on exemption petitions, participants in
the PCB exemption informal hearing are
permitted and encouraged to designate
testimony from prior EPA informal
rulemaking hearings on PCBs under
TSCA. The exemption hearing panel is
specifically authorized by the Interim
Procedural Rules to reject repetitive
testimony submitted earlier to EPA at a
TSCA PCB informal hearing.
These rules are issued under authority
of section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act 15 U.S.C. 2605(e).
284
-------
31560 Fedewd Register / Vol. 44, No. 108 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: May 11,1978.
Marilyn C Bracicea,
Acting Auistant AdmMttivlor for Toxic
Substance*.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by adding two
Subpart headings, Subpart A—General
Procedural Rules for 55 750.1-750.9 and
Subpart B—Manufacturing Exemption
Procedural Rules for 5 J 750.10-750.21. to
the Table of Contents and a new
Subpart C as set forth below:
Subpart A—4>rocediire« for Rolemaking
under Section 8 of the Toxic Substance*
Control Act. [5 J 750.1-750.9—Added at 42 FR
61259, December 2. 1977J.
Subpart B-^lnterim Procedural Rules for
Manufacturing Exemptions. [JS 750.10-
750.21—Added at 43 FR 50905, November 1,
1978J.
Subpart C—4nterlm Procedural Rules for
Processing and OtotrttxitlOQ In Commerce
Exemptions
Sec.
750.30 Applicability.
750.31 Filing of petitions for exemption.
750.32 Consolidation of rulemaking.
750.33 Notice of proposed rulemaking.
750.34 Record.
750 35 Public comments.
750.36 Confidentiality.
750.37 Subpoenas.
750.36 Participation in informal hearing.
7G0.39 Conduct of informal hearing.
7.SO 40 Cross-examination.
7'M 41 Final rule.
Authority: Section 6(e), Toxic Substances
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605(e).
oubpart C—Processing and
Distribution In Commerce Exemption
Procedural Rules
§ 750.30 Applicability.
Sections 750.30-750.41 apply to all
rule-makings under authority of section
C(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C,
?.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
31561
(3) For processing petitions,
location(s) of sites requiring exemption.
(4) Length of time requested for
exemption (maximum length of
exemption is one year).
(5) Estimated amount of RGBs (by
pound and/or volume) to be processed,
distributed in commerce, or used during
requested exemption period and the
manner of release of PCBs into the
environment associated with such
processing, distribution in commerce, or
use. Where the PCS concentration is
less than 500 ppm, both the total liquid
volume and the total PCB volume must
be provided.
(6) The basis for the petitioner's
contention that under section
6(e)(3)(B)(i) of TSCA "an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or environment
would not result" from the granting of
the petition for exemption.
(7) The basis for the petitioner's
contention that under section
6(e)(3)(B)(ii) "good faith efforts have
been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment and which may be
substituted for" the PCB.
(8) Quantification of the reasonably
aocertainable economic consequences of
denying the petition for exemption and
an explanation of the manner of
computation.
(9) In addition to the information in
subparagraphs (1) through (8), certain
petitions must contain additional
information as follows:
(i) Persons who process or distribute
in commerce dielectric fluids containing
50 ppm or greater PCB for use In PCB
Transformers, railroad transformers, or
PCB electromagnets must also state the
expected number of PCB Transformers,
railroad transformers? or PCB
electromagnets to be serviced under the
exemption. In addition, a person must
identify all the facilities which he owns
or operates where he services PCB
transformers, railroad transformers, or
PCB electron signets.
(ii) Persons filing petitons under
Bubparagraph (a)(l) (Processing and
Distribution in Commerce of PCB-
Contaminated Transformer Dielectric
Fluid) must also provide the expected
number of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers to be serviced under the
requested exemption and the expected
method of disposal of waate^dielectric
fluid. In addition, a person must identify
all the facilities which he owns or
operates where he services ECB-
Contamlnated Transformers. This
information, as well as the information
required by subparagraphs (d){l). (d)(3)
and (dp), most be provided for each
person represented by the petition. AM
other information may be provided on a
group basis.'
(iii) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraphs (a)(2) (Contaminated
Substances and Mixtures-Processing)
and (a)(3) (Contaminated Substances
and .Mixtures-Distribution in Commerce)
must also provide a justification for the
class grouping selected and a
description of the uses and the human
and environmental exposure associated
with each use of the PCB-contaminated
chemical substance or mixture for which
an exemption is sought. Information
may be provided on a group basis,
except that the information required by
subparagraphs (d)(l), (d](3) and (d)(5),
must be provided for each person „
represented by a petition under
subparagraph (a)(2).
(iv) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph (a}(4\ (PCB Capacitor
Distribution for Purposes of Repair)
must also provide an estimate of the
expected total number of PCB
Capacitors to be distributed in
commerce under the requested
exemption. All information may be
provided on a group basis.
(v) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph (a)(7) and (a)(8)
(Processing of PCB Articles into PCB
Equipment and Processing of PCB
Equipment into Other PCB Equipment)
must provide a description of each type
of PCB Equipment (including the amount
of PCBs by poundage and/or volume in
the PCB Equipment) to be processed
and/or distributed in commerce under
the exemption, .the number of each type
of equipment expected to be processed
and/or distributed in commerce, and the
approximate number of distributors or
further processors covered by the
petition. All information may be
1 provided on a group basis. However, in
the case of a petition under
subparagraph (a)(7), the processor of
PCB Articles into PCB Equipment must
be identified in the petition. In the case
of a petition under subparagraph (a)(6),
the processor of PCB Equipment who
files the petition must be identified.
(vi) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph (a)(9) (Distribution of PCB
Equipment) must provide a description
of each type of PCB Equipment
(including the amount of PCBs by
poundage and/or volume La the PCB
Equipment) to.be distributed in
commerce under the exemption, the
number of each type of equipment to be
distributed in commerce, and the
approximate number of distributors
covered by the petition. All information
may be provided on a group basis.
(vii) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) must
provide the information required by
subparagraphs (d)(l) through (d)(8) for
each petitioner named in the petition.
(e) EPA reserves the right to request
further information as to each petition
where necessary to determine whether
the petition meets the statutory tests of
section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA prior to or
after publication of the notice of
proposed rulemaking required by
§ 750.33 of these rules.
§750.32 Consolidation of mlemaUng.
All petitions received pursuant to
§ 750.31(a) will be consolidated into one
rulemaking with one informal hearing
held on all petitions.
{ 750.33 Notice of proposed rutomaking.
Rulemaking for PCB processing and
distribution in commerce exemptions
filed pursuant to § 750.31(a) will begin
with the publication of a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register. Each notice will contain:
(a) A summary of the information
required in §750.31(d);
(b) A statement of the time and place
at which the informal hearing required
by section 8(c)(2)(C) of TSCA shall
begin, or, to the extent these are not
specified, a statement that they will be
specified later in a separate Federal
Register notice provided that Federal
Register notice of the date and city at
which any informal hearing shall begin
will be given at least 30 days in
advance;
(c) A statement identifying the place
" at which the official record of the
rulemaking is located, the hours during
which It will be open for public
inspection, the documents contained in
it as of the date the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking was issued, and a statement
of the approximate times at which
additional materials such as public
comments, hearing transcripts, and
Agency studies in progress will be
added to the record. If any material
other than public comments or material
generated by a hearing is added to the
record after publication of the notice
required by this action, and notice of its
future addition was not given at the time
of that initial publication, a separate
Federal Register notice announcing its
addition to the record and inviting
comment will be published;
(d) The due date for public comments,
which will be (1) 30 days after
publication of the notice of proposed
rulemaking for main comments and (2)
one week after the informal hearing for
reply comments;
286
-------
31562
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
(e) The name, address, and office
telephone number of the Record Clerk
and the Hearing Clerk for the
rulemaking in question; and
(f) A nonbinding target date for
issuing the final rule.
5 750.34 Hufemaklns record
(a) No later than the date of proposal
of a rule subject to this Subpart, a
rulemaking record for that rule will be
established. It will consist of a separate
identified filing space containing;
(1) All documents required by
5 750.31(d);
(2) All public comments timely
received;
(3) All public hearing transcripts;
(4) All material received during an
informal hearing and accepted for the
record of that hearing: and
(5) Any other information that the
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances considers to be relevant to
such rule and that the Assistant
Administrator identified, on or before
the date of the promulgatioa of the rule,
in a notice published in the Federal
Register.
(b) Ah1 material in the record will be
appropriately indexed. Each record will
be available for public inspection during
normal EPA business hours. Appropriate
arrangements allowing members of the
public to copy record materials that do
not risk the permanent loss of such
materials will be made. All material
required to be included in the record
will be added to the record as soon as
feasible after its receipt by EPA.
(c) The Record Clerk for each
rulemaking will be responsible For EPA
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section,
§ 750.35 PwbBc comment*.
(a) Main comments must be
postmarked or received no later than the
time specified in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and must contain all
comments on and criricisma of that
Notice by the commenting person, based
on information which is or reasonably
could have been available to that person
at the time.
(b) Reply comments must be
postal ked or received no later than
one week after the close of afl informal
hearings on the proposed rale and must
be restricted to comments ore
(1) Other comments;
(2) Material in the hearing record; and
(3) Material which was not and could
not reasonably have been available to
the commenting party a sufficient time
before main comments were dn«.
(c) Extensions of the time for filing
comments may be granted in writing by
the Hearing Chairman, Application for
an extension must be made in writing.
Comments submitted after thb comment
period and aiS extensions of it have
expired need not be added to the
rulemaking rer-ord and need not ba
considered k: •laciwicms concerning the
rule.
(d) (f'-,!-;- ""• •'-' •••-;. •-•• :v.-uae?
comment o. i;^!:0/;'- tr , " - 'i-'i only
state his position 'Hwijh the ". ' tr- )>:• rnnHential,
he may ci.'braH 't S 'cb. i«<'cT<">3?'oa must
be separate^ ^r^t-H.:^3 *rs- fj,o
i/K rf-c '«£ ;;r " -it •'»;-*.'•:
"eonfirk'SN.'S'i" u _' ! ' ;;-, -, !, noting that
the petUinv-ir 'i: ffi^mcrar'.' b«s
requested confidential treatment The
information daisied tc be confidential
will be placed u~, ;. oonKcfaatial file. A
petitioner inu.-'t sJ:«0 PI? n too-
confidjential pe'diioxi v/ith i n.-w-
confidential aummtry of fhc: confidential
information to be placed in the public
fjle. Similarly, a oommoitor ijau&t sopply
a non-confidentsal summary of the
informatipo r'awed to he confidential
to be pk>« u ,;.. ib'- "v,M c s"i'.*
will be placed !..i the public file.
InformatioD msiked confidential will be
treated lo Jir.c-^friHnw.' with She
procedures \:- !-"i 2, Suhpar'f B of this
Title.
(a) Where necessary . subpix;na»
requiring the production of documentary
material, O.e sitiiiidanob of parson* at
the hearing, or responses to written
questions may be issued. Subpoenas
may be issued either upon request as
provided in puragrpph fb* 01 by EPA on
its own moticta,
(b) All subpoena requests must be in
writing. Hearing participants may
request the issuance of subpoenas as
follows:
(1) Subpoenas for the attendance of
persons or for the production of -
document* or responses to questions at
the legislative hearing may be requested
at any time up to the deadline for filing
main comments.
(2) Subpoenas for production of
documents or answers to questions after
the legmlalive hearing may be requested
at any time between thi',i"n 'o ipkr. nart in the presentation
Orgaruzahons are requested to bring
with them, to the extent possible,
employees with individual expertise in
and responsibility for each of the areas
to be addressed No organization not
filing main comments in the rulemaking
will be allowed to participate at the
hearing, unless s waiver of this
requirement is granted in writing by the
Hearirg Chairman or the organization is
appearing at the request of EPA or under
subpoena,
(b) No later than three days prior to
the start of the hearing, the Hearing
Clerk mil make a hearing schedule "
publicly available and mail or deliver it
to each of the persons who requested to
appear at the hearing. Thk schedule will
be subject to change during the course
of the hearing at the discretkxt of those
presiding over it
(c) Opening statements should be
brief, and restricted either to points that
could not have been made in main
287
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31.1979 / Rules and Regulations 31563
comments or to emphasizing points
which are made in Aiain comments, but
which the participant believes can be
more forcefully urged in the hearing
context.
5750.39 Conduct of Informal hearing.
(a) A panel of EPA employees shall
preside at each hearing conducted under
section 6{c)(2}(C) of TSCA. In
appropriate cases, other Executive
Branch employees may also sit with and
assist the panel. The membership of the
panel may change as different topics
arise during the hearing. In general, the
panel membership will consist of EPA
employees with special responsibility
for the final rule or special expertise in
the topics under discussion. One
member of the panel will be named to
chair the proceedings and will attend
throughout the hearing, unless
unavoidably prevented by sickness or
similar personal circumstances.
(b) The panel may question any -
individual or group participating in the
bearing oq any subject relating to the
rulemaking. Cross-examination by
others will normally not be permitted at
this stasje. It may be granted in
compelling circumstances at the sole
discretion of the hearing panel.
However, persons in the hearing
audience may submit questions in
writing for the hearing panel to ask the
participants, and the hearing panel may,
at their discretion, ask these questions.
(c) Participants in the hearing may
submit additional material for the
hearing record and shall submit such
additional material as the hearing panel
may request All such submissions will
become part of the record of the hearing.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
shall be made. Participants will be
allowed to designate testimony from
prior EPA informal rulemaking hearings
concerning PCBs under TSCA. The
hearing panel may reject repetitive
testimony previously presented at such
hearings.
§ 760.40 Crow-examination.
(a) After the close of the informal
hearing conducted under $ 750.39, any
participant in that hearing may submit a
written request for cross-examination.
The request must be received by EPA
within one week after a full transcript of
the Informal hearing becomes available
and must specify:
(1) The disputed issuefs) of material
fact as to which cross-examination Is
requested. This must include an
explanation of why the questions at
issue are "factual", rather than of an
analytical or policy nature, the extent to
which they are in "dispute" in the light
of the record made thus far, and the
extent to which and why they can
reasonably be considered "material" to
the decision on the final rule; and
(2) The person(s) the participant
desires to cross-examine, and an
estimate of the time necessary. This
must include a statement as to how the
cross-examination requested can be
expected to result in "full and true
disclosure" resolving the issue of
material fact involved.
{b} Within one week after receipt of
all requests for cross-examination under
subparagraph (a), the hearing panel will
rule on them. The ruling will be served
by the Hearing Clerk on all participants
who have requested cross-examination
and will be inserted in the record.
Written notice of the ruling will be given
to all persons requesting cross-
examination and all persons to be cross-
examined. The ruling will specify:
(1) The issues as to which cross-
examination is granted;
(2) The persons to be cross-examined
on each issue;
(3) The persons to be allowed to
conduct cross-examination; and
(4) Time limits for the examination of
each witness by each cross-examiner.
(c) In issuing this ruling, the panel
may determine that one or more
participants who have requested cross-
examination have the same or similar
interests and should be required to
choose a single representative for
purposes of cross-examination by that
single representative without identifying
the representative further. Subpoenas
for witnesses may be issued where
necessary.
(d) Within one week after the
insertion into the record of the ruling
under subparagraph (b), the hearing at
which the cross-examination will be
conducted will begin. One or more
members of the original panel will
preside for EPA. The panel will have
authority to conduct cross-examination
on behalf of any participant, although as
a genera] rule this right will not be
exercised. The panel will also have
authority to modify the governing ruling
in any respect and to make new rulings
on group representation under section
6{c)(3)(C) of TSCA. A verbatim
transcript of the hearing will be made.
(e)(l) No later than the time set for
requesting cross-examination, a hearing
participant may request that other
alternative methods of clarifying, the
record (such as informal conferences or
the submittal of additional information)
be used. Such requests may be
submitted either in lieu of cross-
examination requests, or in conjunction
with them.
(2) The panel in passing on a cross-
examination request may, as a
precondition to ruling on its merits,
require that alternative means of
clarifying the record be used whether or
not that has been requested under
subparagraph (e)(l). In such a case, the
results of the use of such alternative
means will be made available to the
person requesting cross-examination for
a one-week comment period, and the
panel will make a final ruling on cross-
examination within one week thereafter.
(f) Waivers or extensions of any
deadline in this section applicable to
persons other than EPA may be granted
on the record of the hearing by the
person chairing it or in writing by the
Hearing Chairman.
{750.41 Final rule.
(a] As soon as feasible after the
deadline for submittal of reply
comments, EPA will issue a final rule.
EPA will also publish at that time:
(1) A list of all material added to the
record (other than public comments and
material from the hearing record) which
has not previously been listed in a
Federal Register document, and
(2) The effective date of the rule.
(b) Pursuant to the delegation of
authority made in the Preamble to the
Final Regulation for the PCB
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce and Use Prohibitions, the
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances will grant or deny petitions
under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA
submitted pursuant lf\ § 750.31. The
Assistant Administrator will act on such
petitions subsequent to opportunity for
an informal hearing pursuant to this
rule.
. (c) In determining whether to grant an
exemption to the PCB ban, EPA will
apply the two standards enunciated in
section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA.
(TO Doc. 7V-1MB Filed S-W-7» t4S mm]
288
-------
31564
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31,1979 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 761]
[FRL 1227-7; OTS-066001]
Polychkxtaated Blprwnyto (PCBs);
Proposed Rulemaking for PCB
Manufacturing Exemption*
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed PCB exemption rule;
notice of informal hearing.
SUMMARY: This notice lists the petitions
received by EPA for exemption from the
prohibition on PCB manufacturing and
importation pursuant to section 6(e)(3)
of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3). The notice
also indicates, the most cases, which
petitions for exemption EPA proposes to
grant and which petitions the Agency
proposes to deny.
DATES: Written comments, preferably in
triplicate, must be received by the
Hearing Clerk by July 2,1979. Hearing
Date and Time: July 9,1979 at IftOO ajn,
in Washington, D.C. Requests to
participate in the hearing mast be
received by the Hearing Clerk by July 2.
1979.
ADDRESSES: Send comments and
requests to participate in the hearing to:
Ms. Linda Thomson, Hearing Clerk,
Office of Toxic Substances (TS-794),
U S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street. S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, Attention: Docket Number OTS/
066001 (PCS/ME). The hearing will be
held in Washington, D.C. The exact
location of the hearing will be made
available by calling the toll-free number •
WXM24-9065.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John B. Ritch, Director, Office of
Industry Assistance (TS-799), Office of
Toxic Substances, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone
(800)-424-9065, or in Washington. D.C.
call 554-14O4.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
6(e](3)fA) of TSCA (Pub. L 94-^69, 90
Stat. 2003,15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.J
prohibits all manufacture (including
importation) of PCBs as of January 1,
1979. EPA's regulation entitled PCB
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce, and Use Prohibition Rule
(PCB Prohibition Rule) which
implements the prohibitions of section
6(e)(3) of TSCA, appears elsewhere in
today's Federal Register. Section
8(e)(3)(B) of TSCA allows affected
person* to petition EPA for exemptions
from the section 6(e)(3)(A) PCB
prohibitions. On November 1,1978, EPA
published Interim Procedural Rules (43
FR 50905) for the filing and processing of
petitions for exemptions from the PCB
manufacturing prohibition of section
6(e)(3) of TSCA. More than seventy
petitions for exemption have been
received. These petitions have been
consolidated into one rulemaking in
accordance with § 750.12 of the Interim
Procedural Rules (43 FR at 50908).
On January 2,1979, the Agency
announced (44 FR 108) that persons who
had filed petitions for exemptions from
the PCB manufacturing ban under
section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA could
continue the manufacturing or
importation activity for which the
exemption is sought until EPA has acted
on the applicable petition.
The Interim Procedural Rules for
manufacturing exemptions (43 FR 50905)
will be applicable to this rulemaking.
The official record of rulemaking is
located in Room 447, East Tower,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
telephone (202J-755-6956. It will be
available for viewing and copying from
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. Hearing
transcripts, hearing materials and
submissions received will be added to
the record as they become available.
To facilitate informed comment, EPA
is indicating its proposed action on most
exemption petitions. For EPA to grant a
requested"exemption, the Agency must
make the findings required by section
6(e)(B)(3) of TSCA. That section reads
as follows;
* * * the Administrator may grant by rule
Huch an exemption if the Administrator finds
that—
(i) An unreasonable risk of injury to health
or environment would not result, and
(ii) Good faith efforts have been made to
develop a chemical substance which doe* not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and which may be
substituted for such polychlorinated
biphenyL
EPA wishes to advise commentora
that for each exemption petition the
Agency may request by letter additional
information from the petitioner
concerning his petition. This information
would be supplementary to information
requested in this Notice. The Agency
will make such requests if it determines
that it requires the information in order
to adequately assess the petition.
Accordingly, persons may wish to file
reply comments under 5 750.15 of the
Interim Procedural Rules (43 FR 50906)
on any additional material filed by
petitioners In response, to Information
requests from EPA.
Section 750.11(b) of the Interim
Procedural Rules established a filing
date of December 1,1978 for all petitions
for exemption from the TSCA section
6(e)(3) PCB manufacturing (and
important) prohibition. Subsequent to
the filing date, additional petitions have
been received by the Agency. Due to the
shortness of the original filing period of
thirty days, EPA has accepted all late
petitions. The Agency will decide on a
case-by-case whether petitions for
exemptions for PCB manufacturing and
importation activities filed subsequent
to the date of this Notice should also be
accepted. If a PCB manufacturer or
importer subject to the final PCB
regulation (1) now wishes to file a
petition for exemption and (2) did not
earlier file a petition because he had
good cause to believe his PCB activity
was not subject to the proposed
regulation (43 FR 24802, June 7,1978), he
should indicate the basis for his prior
failure to file a petition and should
request EPA to accept his late petition.
No late petition will be accepted unless
good cause can be shown for the failure
to file on time. Whether or not late
petitions are accepted will be
announced at the informal hearing for
this rulemaking. A supplemental notice
of proposed rulemakirig probably will
not be issued as to such petitions.
In the preamble to the final PCB
Prohibition Rule (see preamble section
VI.C.l.), EPA states: ". . . the
prohibition applies to the manufacture
of any substance or mixture that
contains PCB at.50 ppm or greater,
including PCB that is an intermediate or
'impurity' or 'byproduct'. . . . While the
production of PCBs under such
circumstances may not be intentional
and may have no independent
commercial value, section 6(e) of TSCA
applies to any production of PCBs and,
therefore, covers such activities." EPA is
aware that although the proposed rule
included such PCBs in its coverage,
some manufacturers may not have
interpreted the proposed rule to include
such PCBs and, therefore, may not have
submitted a petition for an exemption
from the manufacturing prohibition. As
discussed above, EPA will accept -
petitions from such persons during the
comment period for this rule, if the
required showing of good faith in not
filing earlier is made.
Several persons requested that
petitions be accepted on a class basis.
They argued that PCB equipment
manufacturers should be able to petition
for exemptions on behalf of those
customers who are also PCB equipment
289
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
31565
manufacturers or distributors at defined
tai the proposed regulation.* In view of
the change which has been made
concerning restrictions on the •
manufacture of PCB equipment in the
final PCB Prohibition Rule,** EPA will
not accept exemption petitions oh a
class basis in this rulemaking. However,
the Agency has addressed the question
of class petitions in the Interim
Procedural Rules which establish
procedures for filing and processing
exemption petitions from the July 1,1979
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions. These Interim
Procedural Rules are found elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.'
It is the intent of EPA to grant or deny
the petitions for exemption from the
prohibition of the manufacture
{including importation) of PCBs subject
to this rulemaking prior to August 1,
1979. .
Below are listed the exemption
petitions that EPA has received. These
exemptions have been categorized
according to the nature of the petition.
and the categories are indicated by a
numbered key. The Agency's proposed
action on the petitions follows the
listing.
I'etitioner and Basis for Petition
Abolite Lighting, Inc.! P.O. Box 237. West
Lafayette. OH 43845.' '
Advance Transformer Co., 2950 North
Western Ave., Chicago, IL 60618.*
Aluminum Company of America, 1601 Alcoa
Building, Pittsburgh. PA 15219.*
American Hoechst Corp.. Route 202-206
North. Somerville. NJ 08876.4
Binney and Smith, Inc., 1100 Church Lane,
P.O. Box 431, Easton, PA 18042.4
Borden, bio. Borden Chemical Division, 630
Glendale-Milford Rd., Cincinnati, OH
45215.«
•See the definition of "PCB" in Section 7S1.2(q) of
the proposed PCB Prohibition Rule (43 FR at 24813,
|une 1,1978) and the definition of "PCB Equipment"
In Section 761.2(v) of the final PCB Disposal and
Marking Rule (43 FR at 7157, February 17.1978).
"This change classifies the manufacture of PCS
equipment as "processing" subject to prohibition as
of July!, 1979 under Section 6le)(3)(A)(ii) of TSCA.
The proposed regulation classified such activity as
"manufacture" subject to prohibition a» of-fanuary
1.1979 under Section 6(e)(3)(A)(l). For further
discussion, see Section VLB.l j. of the preamble to
the final PCB Prohibition Rule, which appears
elsewhere In today's Federal Register.
1 Requests an exemption in order to manufacture
either fluorescent or High Intensity Discharge (HID)
lighting fixture* with • PCB capacitor or PCB ballast
transformer.
'Requests an exemption In order to manufacture
PCB ballast transformers which can be used by its
cuUomprj In the manufacture of fluorescent and
USD lighting fixtures.
' Requests an exemption In order to continue
nc nufscturing aluminum chloride which is
contaminated with PCBs.
'Requests an exemption to either manufacture or
U-iport diaryllde yellow or phthalocyanlne pigments.
Chemetroo Pigments, Division of Chemetron
' Corp- «W Columbia Ave, Holland, MI
4*423,'
Chemical Waste.Management Limited. 211
King Street P.O. Box 1288. SL Catherines.
Ontario, Canada L2R7A7.*
Cfalng Mei U.S.A. Ltd.. 390 Fifth Ave., Rm.
1825. New York, NY 10001.4
Cincinnati Milacron Inc., 4701 Marburg Ave.,
Cincinnati, OH 45209.' -
Colt Industries, Inc., Fairbanks Morse Pump
Division, 3601 Fairbanks Ave., Kansas City,
KS 66110.'
Columbia Lighting Inc., Terminal Annex. Box
2787, Spokane, W A.1
Control Data Corporation, Autocon Industries
Inc.. Subsidiary of Control Data Corp., 2300
Berkshire Lane, Minneapolis, MN 55441.'
Copeland Corp.. Sidney. OH 45385.*
Grouse-Hind* Co., P.O. Box 4999, Wolf and
Seventh North St., Syracuse, NY 13221.'
Dainichiseika Color & Chemicals, America,
Inc.. 20 Hook Mountain Rd., Pine Brook, NJ
07058.*
Dainippon Ink A Chemicals America, Inc., 200
Park Ave.. New York. NY 10017.4
Day-Brite Lighting. 1015 South Green St., P.O.
Drawer 1687, Tupelo, MS 38801.'
Dow Coming Corp., Midland, MI 48640.'
Dunham-Bush, Inc., 101 Burgess Road,
Harrisonbufg, VA 22801. '•
Emerson Quiet Kool Corp., 400 Woodbine
Ave.. Woodbridge, NJ 07096. •
Emerson Electric Co., Industrial Control
Division, 3300 S. Standard St., P.O. Box
1678, Santa Ana, CA 92702. '•
Emerson Electric Company, Gearmaster
Division, 1809 S. Route 31, McHenry, IL
60050."
General Electric Company, 3135 Easton
Turnpike, Fan-field, CT 06431.' " »>0
Globe Illumination Company, 1515 W. 178th
St. Gardens, CA 90248.' -'
Guardian Chemical Corp., Eastern Chemical
Division, 230 Marcus Blvd., Hanppauge. NY
11787."
Guardian Light Co, 5125 W. Lake St.
Chicago, IL 60644.'
Halstead Industries, Inc., Ha Is tea J and
Mitchell/Division, Highway 72 West,
Scottsboro, AL 35768. '•
Harmon Colors Corp., 550 Belmont Ave.,
Haledon, NJ 07508.4
Harvey Hubbell, Inc., (Lighting Division), 2000
Electric Way. Christianburg, VA 24073.'
'Requests an exemption in order to import into
the United States PCB waste material for disposal
'Requests an exemption In order to incorporate
PCBs as in additive component In rigid PVC
vibration damping devices used in large machine
tools.
'Requests an exemption in order to use PCB
capacitor* in the manufacture of electric pumps and
water and waste water control systems.
•Requests an.exemption in order to use PCB
capacitors In the manufacture of air conditioners or
air conditioner sub-assemblies.
'Requests an exemption in order to continue
manufacturing an unspecified chemical using a PCB
contaminated intermediate.
"Requests an exemption In order to manufacture
motors using a PCS capacitor or to manufacture
another product or system using such a motor.
11 Requests an exemption In order to continue
manufacturing phanylchlorosilanes with
unintentional PCB impurities.
"Request* an exemptior In order to sell a small
quantity of PCB.
Hercules. Inc.. BIO Market St. Wilmington,
DE19889.'
Hills-McCanna Co.. 400 Maple Ave.,
Carpentenvilla, 0.60110."
Hilton-Davis Chemical Co., Division of
Steding Drug Inc., 2235 Langdon Farm
Road, Cincinnati, OH 45237.'
Honeywell. Inc., 200 Smith St.. Waltham. MA
02154."
Id Americas. Inc., Wilmington, DE 19897.'
International Telephone ft Telegraph Corp.,
260 Cochituate Road, Suite 109,
Framington, MA 07101.'
Intsel Corp., 825 Third Ave., New York, NY
10022."
Keene Corporation-Lighting Division,
Industrial Way, Wilmington, MA 01887.' .
Keystone Lighting Corp.. Inc.. U.S. 13 &
Beaver Streets, Bristol, PA 19007.'
Kramer Trenton Co., Box 820, Trenton, N]
08605."
Lightolier, Inc., 346 Claremont Ave., Jersey
City, NJ 07305.'
Litton Industrial Products, toe., Louis All is
Division. 18555 West Ryerson Road. New
Berlin, WI 53151."
Litton Microwave Cooking. Litton Systems,
Inc., P.O. Box 9461, Minneapolis, MN
55440."
Litton Systems Inc., Jefferson Electric
Division, 640 South 25th Ave., Bellwood, IL
60104.'
Marathon Electric Manufacturing Corp , P O.
Box 1407, Wausau, Wl 54401. '•
McGraw-Edison Co., Area Lighting Div , 7601
Durand Ave., Racine, WI 53405.'
McGraw-Edison Co., Kitchen Appliance
Division, P.O. Box 1111, Chattanooga, TN
37401."
Metalux Corp.. P.O. Box 1207, Americus, GA
31709.'
The Miller Company, Lighting Division, 99
Center Street, Meridian, CT 06450.'
Montedison USA, Inc., 1114 Ave. of the
Americas, New York City, NY 10036.4
Nagase America Corp., 500-Fifth Ave., New
York. NY 10036.'
National Services Industries, Lithonia
Lighting Div., 1335 Industrial Blvd. NW.,
Conyers, GA 30207.'
National Solid Waste Management
Association, 1120 Connecticut Ave.,N'W.,
Washington. DC 20036.'
Phillips Petroleum Company. 10 C2 Phillips
Bldg.. Bartlesville, OK 74004."
Phthalchem Inc., 6675 Beechlands Dr.,
Cincinnati, OH 4S237.4
Pope Chemical Corp., 33 Sixth Ave., Paterson,
NJ 07524.4
Prescolite, 1251 Doolittle Drive, San Leandio,
CA 94557.*
" Requests an exemption in order to import PCB
equipment and small PCB capacitors for purposes of
repair, replacement and trade-in.
" Requests an exemption in order to import a
dielectric called Electraphenyl T-60 which is
contaminated with PCB.
" Requests an exemption in order to use PCB
capacitors in the manufacture of power conversion
equipment
"Requests an exemption In order to use PCB
capacitors in the manufacture of microwave ovens.
" Requests an exemption in order to import PCB«
fur use In research and development of en
unspecified chemical intermediate.
290
-------
31566 Federal RegUter / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 3t,1979 / Proposed Rule*
Ridgeway Color ft Chemical of
Wheel«bretor-Fiy. UMX, 75 Front St.
Rldgeway, PA 16653.'
Ratlin* Environmental Service*. IML, One
Rollins Plaza. P.O. Box 234a Wilmington,
DE 19899.'
Sandoz, Inc, Sandos Colon and Chemical*
Division, SO Route 10, East Hanover. N]
0793H4
Slm-Kar Lighting Future Co. Inc. 601 Ba»t
Cayuga Street. Philadelphia, PA 19120.'
Spero Electric Corp, 18222 Lankan Ave,
Cleveland, OH 44119.'
Sta-Rite Industries Inc. Suite 3300, 977 East
Wisconsin Ave.. Milwaukee, WI 53202.'
Stauffer Chemical Company, on behalf of
SWS Silicones Corp. Subsidiary, \Veatport,
CT 06880.M
Steelcase Inc., 1120 36tl» Street Grand
Rapid*, MI 49501.'
Sterner Ughting Systems, Inc. 351 Lewis
Ave, NW., Winstead, MN 55395.1
Sun Chemical Corp., Pigments Division,
Research A Operations Center, 4625 East
Ave, Cincinnati. OH 45232,*
Sumitomo Corporation of America, 345 Park
Ave, New York. NY 10022.4
Tappan Air Conditioning-Smith Jones, Inc,
206 Woodford Ave, Hyire, OH 44035.*
Tivian Chemical Associates, 720 Union
Street, Manchester, NH 03104;"
Thomas Industries, IDC, Benjamia Division,
P.O. Box 180, Sparta. TN 36583.'
Toyo Ink America, Inc, 500 Sylvan Ave,
Englewood Cliffs, N] 07632.'
Universal Manufacturing Corp, 29 E. 6th
Street. Paterson, N] 70509.*
Vivitar Corp., 1630 Stewart Street. Santa
Monica. CA 90406."
Weatherking. Inc, P.O. Box 20434. Orlando,
FL 32814. •
Westinghouse Electric Corp., Lighting
Business Unit, P.O. Box 824. Vicksburg, MS
39180. "•
Whiteway Manufacturing Co, 1736 Oreman
Avenue, Cincinnati. OH 45223.'
Wide-Lite Corp.. P.O. Box 808. Redwood Rd.
* FH35, San Marcos, TX 78688.'
Wylain, Inc., Mold Cast Lighting Division, I-
80 at Maple Avenue, Pine Brook. N] 07058.'
EPA has completed a preliminary
analysis of the above-listed petitions for
exemption from the PCB Prohibition
Rule which was promulgated elsewhere
in today's Federal Register. The Agency
has decided that it will not evaluate at
this time any of the 49 requests for
exemption from the prohibitions on
manufacturing equipment which
contains a PCB capacitor. (The requests
"Request! an exemption In order to continue
'mportii.! a polytiloxane intermediate which [» uaed
in the manufacture of heat curable «Uicon» rubber
products and which la contaminated with 600 ppta
PCB*. Chemical (polyjiloxane Intermediate) U
described ganerlcalr/ becawe mUttoner Da*
claimed confidential treatment fcr Identity of
chemical.
"Reqneiti an exemption In order to continue
iu»p«cifiwl •ctfvtty whtcfc may be tubfec* to either
January 1.107V or July 1,1978 prohibition*. See later
discoaston tn this Nottca.
*Keqt*«t« an exemption In order to UM PCB
capacitors In the manufacture of photographic
enlargera.
which fall in this category are thoM
footnoted with numbers 1, 2. 7, 8, 10, 11
IS, 16, 20.) EPA is not processing these
request! m the present proceeding
because, as previously noted, the
Agency defines in the final PCB
Prohibition Rule the activity of.
"manufacturing" equipment utilizing a
PCB capacitor as "processing" of PCBs.
Processing of PCBs is not subject to
section 6(e){3) until July 1, 1979.
EPA will consider petitions
concerning PCB processing activities in
a subsequent proceeding. Persona who
filed requests for exemptions for mis
activity will not be required to refile.
However, they will be required under
Interim Procedural Rules, found
elsewhere in today's Federal Register, to
indicate to EPA in writing if they wish
their petitions to be considered as
requests for exemption from the July 1,
1979 prohibition, on processing or
distribution in commerce of PCB*.
Imports of PCB Wastes
Chemical Waste Management. Ltd.,
the National Solid Waste Management
Association, and the Rollins •
Environmental Services, Inc, petitioned
to continue importation of PCB waste
material into the U.S. for purposes of
disposal These petitions have been
mooted by the PCB Prohibition Rule
published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. For the reasons explained hi
the preamble to that regulation, EPA has
decided to allow Imports and exports of
PCB waste for disposal (so long as such
disposal is in accordance with Subpart B
of the regulation) until May 1. 1980.
AsKiordingly, no petitions for
importation of PCB wastes for disposal
are required.
Manufacture and Import of Pigments
EPA proposes to grant all of the
requests to either manufacture or import
diary lide and pbthalocyanine pigments
containing more than SO ppm PCB.
(These petitions are identified in the
above list with footnote number 4),
Information submitted with the requests
and testimony and written comments
received during the mlomqlfing for the
PCB Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce and Use
Prohibition Rule which EPA
promulgated today indicates (1) granting
these exemption requests would not
result in an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment and (2J
good faith efforts are being made by the
pigment industry to develop alternative
proceases for tnaxtufacturing the
diarylide and phthalocyanine pigments
without PCB contamination. Most of
these pigments have PCB concentrations
in the range of several hundred parts per
million. These PCBs cannot easily b*>
separated from the pigments because of
the structural similarity of the PCBs with
the pigments. Once manufactured, the
pigments are mixed with other
. substances to form paints, inks, and a
variety of other products.
In deciding whether to permit
continued pigment manufacture, EPA
has considered the relatively limited
human and environmental exposure to
PCBs involved and the economic effects
associated with prohibiting manufacture-
of these pigments. The greatest potential
for exposure is in the application of the
paints and inks rising these pigments.
These products,con tain far less than 50
ppm PCB because of the dilution that
takes place when the pigment is mixed
with the medium it is coloring. As a
result, the health and environmental
risks are relatively small At the present
time, these particular pigments account
for most of the yellow and blue pigments
in use and a significant portion of the
total pigment market If the manufacture
of these pigments is not permitted until
the conversion to alternative processes
is complete, there will be a severe
impact on the pigment industry as weQ
as its customers in the paint and graphk
arts industries.
The potential costs of compliance will
be greatly reduced if an exemption is
granted while process changes to reduce
PCB contamination are made. It is
anticipated that such changes can be
made over a period of a year or two.
The increased health and environmental
risk will be relatively small as there will
be limited exposure to PCBs a; a result
of the exemption.
Furthermore, the granting of these
exemption requests will be consistent
with the authorization for continued use
of phthalocyanine and diarylide yellow
pigments which is contained in the final
PCB Prohibitions Rule.
EPA especially invites comment not
only on the merits of granting the above
described petitions, but also on the
terms and conditions which the Agency
should apply to such exemptions if
granted
Import of PCB Equipment
Honeywell Inc.*s request to be
permitted to continue hnportingJ'CB -
equipment will not be evaluated in this
proceeding but will be evaluated (if
requested) ta the future ruleraakirtg
dealing with exemptions from the
prohibition on processing and
distribution ta commerce of PCBs. The
PCB Prohibition Ride which EPA
promulgated today treats importation of
PCB equipment in the same manner as
291
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 /x Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules 31567
the domestic assembly of such
equipment and. therefore, such activity
U not prohibited until July 1,1979.
Other Petitions
Guardian Chemical Corporation's
request to be permitted to sell small
quantities of 4,4'-DichIorodiphenyl-
•ulfane as a laboratory reagent also will
not be evaluated now but will be
evaluated (if requested) in the
processing and distribution in commerce
exemption proceeding. Guardian did not
indicate that they in any way
manufacture PCB*. However, it does
appear that the activity which is seeks
to continue is the "distribution in
commerce" of PCBs.
Similarly, the petition submitted by
Cincinnati Milacron which, if granted,
would permit the company to continue
to use IKIBs as an additive component in
their manufacture of polyvinyl chloride
vibration damping devices will not be
considered now but will be considered
in the future proceeding, if requested.
The reason for delaying the processing
of Cincinnati Milacron's petition is that
KPA has determined that the company's
vse of I'CBs is "processing" as that term
is defined by the FOB Prohibition Rule
and is therefore not subject to this
proceeding.
Exemption Requests Proposed To Be
Denied
EPA proposes to deny Intsel
Corporation's request to import
Electrophenyl T-60 and Phillips
Petroleum Company's request to import
significant quantities of PCBs for
unspecified research and development
purposes. Neither of the requestors have
shown that they are making a good faith
effort to develop substitutes which do
not contain 50 ppm or greater PCBs, nor
that the adverse economic or other
consequences of EPA's denying the
requests outweigh the potential barm to
health and the environment of EPA'a
granting the requests.
Exemption Requests for Which a
Determination Is Not Proposed
EPA has not proposed its disposition ,
of the requests received from Alcoa
which respect to its manufacture of
aluminum chloride and the General
Electric Co. with respect to its
manufacture of phenylchlorosilanes due
to the technical complexity of the
activities for which exemptions are
sought
Before making a determination with
respect to these exemption-petitions, the
Agency will seek, by means of written
requests to the companies and by this
notice, further comments and/or data.
Additional information on these
petitions is given below.
Alcoa requested a one-year
exemption for the manufacture of
approximately 132.77 million pounds of
aluminum chloride at its facility in
Anderson County, Texas. The process
would result in the annual production of
approximately 9,294 pounds of PCBs,
95% of which is concentrated and
disposed of as a PCB mixture. The
remaining 5% represents an impurity in
the aluminum chloride which Alcoa sells
for a variety of uses. Comments and
data are requested on the health and
environmental risks that would be posed
by granting Alcoa's exemption and also
on tiie risks associated with using the
aluminum chloride for applications other
than smelting aluminum. In particular,
EPA is interested in information
regarding processes for the production
of aluminum chloride which do not
prdduce PCBs. In addition, EPA invites
comments on the economic or other
adverse impacts.that denial of the
exemption would have on Alcoa's users
of this product.
General Electric seeks an exemption
tq continue the manufacture of
phenylchlorosilanes with unintentional
PCB impurities. The manufacturing
process results in approximately 50,000
pounds per year of PCBs which are
removed and concentrated for disposal
in an on-site incineration facility in
Waterford, New York. The
phenylchlorosilanes are used in the
production of a number of high
performance silicone products for
various industrial, aerospace, and
defense applications. Comments and
data are requested on the health and
environmental risk associated with
granting or denying General Electric's
exemption petition, on alternative
methods of manufacturing
phenylchlorosilanes without PCB
contamination, and on the impact of
denying this petition on the users of this
chemical.
EPA has also not proposed its
disposition of the petition of Tivian
Chemical Associates. EPA is seeking to
clarify whether Tivian's activity for
which exemption is sought is subject to
the January 1,1979 prohibition on PCB
manufacture and importation, or rather
to the fuly 1,1979 prohibition on PCB
processing and distribution in
commerce.
In addition, EPA has not proposed its
disposition of the petitions of Dow
Coming Corporation and Stauffer
Chemical Company. EPA currently does
not have sufficient information to
determine whether exemptions should
be proposed for these companies. Dow
Coming has not identified the substance
which it wishes to manufacture and the
amount of PCB contamination in the
chemical intermediate. Stauffer has not
provided sufficient information
concerning the Identity of products
which may be subject to PCb
contamination. EPA will seek, by mnans
of written requests to both companies,
to clarify the identity of the products
identified in the petitions of the
companies, and the nature of the
manufacturing processes, which
includes determining whether
intermediates are contaminated during
the manufacturing process.
Section 75D.13-of the Interim
Procedural Rules does not require EPA
to announce its proposed disposition of
exemption petitions in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Due to the need
to expedite action on the exemption
petitions, EPA will not publish a
subsequent notice concerning the Alcoa,
General Electric, Tivian, Dow Corning
and Stauffer petitions.
Dated: May 11, 1979.
Marilyn C. Bracken,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Tonic
Substances.
(FR Doc. T9-16901 Filed S-3O-78; e 45 am)
BIUJNO CODE U60-01-M
[40 CFR Part 761]
[FRL 1227-6]
Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs);
Amendment to Criteria for Chemical
Waste Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed amendment to final
rule; notice of informal hearing.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
modify Annex II of Subpart E of the
Polychlorinated Biphenyls regulation
promulgated elsewhere in today's
Federal Register under the authority of
section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The proposed rule would
amend the criteria for chemical waste
landfills by reducing the required
distance between the bottom of the
chemical waste landfill liner system and
the historical high water table from fifty
feet to five feet.
DATES: Written comments, preferably in
triplicate, must be received prior to the
close of business July 16,1979. Informal
'hearing date and time (if a hearing is
requested): August 6,1979, at 10:00 a.m.
in Washington, DC. Requests to hold a
hearing and to participate in the hearing
must be received prior to the close of
292
-------
31568
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31.1979 / Rules and Regulations
business on July 16.1979. See
Supplementary Information below.
ADOWMC*: Send comment* to:
Document Control Officer (TS-793).
Office of Toxic Substances. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street. SW. Washington. DC204O8. Attru
Docket Number OTS/066000(PCB/RRJ.
The informal hearing (if a hearing is
requested) will be held in Washington,
DC The exact location of the hearing
will be made available by calling the
toll-free number 800-424-6065. Address
requests to participate to Ms. Linda
Thomson, Hearing Clerk. Office of Toxic
Substances fTS-794). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street. SW. Washington. DC 20460. Attau
Docket Number OTS/060000(PCB/RR}
The telephone number for Ms. Thomson
is (202}-755-1188.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
John E Ritch. Jr., Director, Office of
Industry Assistance. Office of Toxic
Substances (TS-799). Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Call the toll free
number (800)^424-9065, (in Washington,
DC. 554-1404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Environmental Protection Agency
proposes this rule pursuant to the
authority of section 6{e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (Pub. L 94-469;
90 Stat. 2003; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.,
hereinafter referred to as TSCA). The
procedures for rulemaking under section
6 of TSCA (40 CFR Part 750), 42 FR 61269
(December 2,1977), will be followed.
The official record of rulemaking is
located in Room 447, East Tower,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460,
(202J-755-6956. It will be available for
viewing and copying from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays. Hearing transcripts and other
hearing materials will be added to the
record as they become available.
I. Chemical Waste Landfill Criteria
In Annex n of Subpart E of the PCS
Rule (published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register), the Agency specifies
criteria for chemical waste landfills to
be used for the disposal of PCBs. Section
761.41 |b)(3). Hydrologic Conditions,
states that the bottom of the landfill
liner system or natural in-place soil
barrier must be at least fifty feet from
the historical high water table. This
requirement is essentially the same as
the provisions contained in
§ 761.41 (b)(2), Hydrology, of the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150,
7161. February 17,1978). The earlier
version of the PCB Rules will be
superseded in thirty days by the PCB
Rule published in final form today.
Because the distance between the
bottom of a chemical waste landfill and
the historical high water table cannot be
fifty feet or more in many areas east of
the Mississippi River due to the
closeness of the water table to the
surface, EPA Regional Administrators
have had to use the waiver provisions of
} 761.41(c)(4] to waive this criterion In
order to be able to-approve PCB
chemical waste landfills. The Regional
Administrators have been able to grant
these waivers because the shorter
separation between the bottom of the
landfill and the groundwater was found
not to present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment from
PCBs. After examining the
circumstances related to these waivers,
EPA has concluded, for the reasons
stated below, that the fifty foot criterion
in the rule is too stringent and that the
rule should be modified accordingly.
The state of the art in the design and
construction of chemical waste landfill
liner systems and leachate detection
and collection systems has advanced
sufficiently so that the bottom of the
liner system can be as close as five feet
from the historical high water table. The
liner systems are designed to be
virtually impermeable, and the leachate
collection systems are designed as a
back-up measure to help insure that the
liner system is not penetrated by liquids.
This approach has also been included in
the proposed EPA Hazardous Waste
Guidelines and Regulations (40 CFR Part
250) (see 43 FR 58946-59028, December
18,1978] in § 250.45-2(a)(2) proposed
under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
This proposed change would modify
§ 761.41(b)(3), Hydrologic Conditions, of
the PCB Rule, to change from fifty feet to
five feet the required minimum distance
between the bottom of the liner system
and the historical high water table.
II. Effective Date
It is the intent of EPA to make the
final version of this proposed
amendment effective thirty days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register. The final promulgation of this
rule is expected in September 1979.
Dated: May 11, 1979.
Marilyn C. Bracken.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances.
Pursuant to the Toxic Substances
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605, and
pursuant to authority delegated in the
Background section of the Preamble to
the Final PCB Regulation published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
the following amendment to 40 CFR
Chapter I, Part 761 is proposed.
Subpart E—List of ArawxM
Annex D
Section 761.41 is amended by revising
subparagraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
{ 761.41 Chemical waste tandfflts.
• • « » •
(b) * * *
(3) Hydrologic Conditions. The bottom
of the landfill liner system or natural in-
place soil barrier shall be at least five
feet above the historical high
groundwater table. Floodplains,
shorelands, and groundwater recharge
areas shall be avoided. There shall be
no hydraulic connection between the
site and standing or flowing surface
water. The site shall have monitoring
wells and leachate collection.
(FR Doc. 70-10002 fOfd S-JO-7* &4S «m|
BILLING CODE MM-OV-M
293
-------
APPENDIX B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PCB entry into the environment can occur by vaporation into the
atmosphere (and by subsequent deposition into land and water) and by spilling
or dumping into water or onto land. It has been established that of the 1970
sales of PCBs in North America, only 20% represented a net increase in the
total amount in service. Estimated loss of PCBs for that year was 0.9 to
1.8 Gg by evaporation; 3.6 tl 4.5 Gg from leaks and disposal of fluids;
and 20 Gg from disposal by incineration and burial (1). The cumulative
input to the environment between 1930 and 1970 was estimated to be 27 Gg
to air; 55 Gg to fresh and coastal waters; and 270 Gg to dumps and land-
fills. In that time, up to 1/3 of the PCBs released to air and 1/2 of
those released to water were probably degraded (1). Degradation in land-
fills is more difficult to estimate.
B.I SOURCES
Environmental contamination of the atmosphere from PCB losses has in
the past occurred during:
• Disposal of PCBs, e.g., incomplete incineration and burning
of PCB-containing wasted
• Accidental spills and leaks, e.g., spillage from PCB-containing
products such as transformers
t Wear and weathering of PCB-containing products
The loss of PCBs as a consequence of incomplete incineration and burning
of PCB-containing wastes has now been severely restricted and, where allowed,
carefully monitored and regulated. The possibility of accidental release
to the atmosphere from spills and leaks will, however, continue to pose a
threat as long as PCBs exist, but, by the implementation of available control
technology, it is possible to minimize PCB loss during transfer, storage,
and disposal.
PCBs are transported either as a vapor or adsorbed onto particulates
and are deposited on land or into bodies of water by particle fallout and
294
-------
precipitation. Most of the PCBs reaching the water are removed by particle
scavenging, followed by sedimentation, and are only slowly released; small
amounts remain dissolved and are subject to re-evaporation. Successive
cycles of evaporation, adsorption, and deposition eventually carry the PCBs
initially released on land to the coast and to their ultimate sink, the
sediment of the Oceanic floor.
Nisbet and Sarofim (1) proposed a transport model which has help
up reasonably well in the face of evidence, both experimental and analytical.
It must be noted that they assumed PCBs to be similar in behavior to DDT.
They predicted that PCBs are released directly to the atmosphere via evapora-
tion from products, evaporation from themselves or incomplete incineration.
The PCBs are carried through the air predominantly in the vapor phase or
adsorbed onto particulates and may travel great distances in these forms.
It is thought that the atmosphere provides the major route of transport for
PCBs throughout the environment. PCBs are then deposited on land or into
fresh and marine waters by particle sedimentation. The greatest loss to the
atmosphere occurs in urban areas, and decreasing concentration gradients in
air are observed from the coast out to the open ocean. Fallout onto land
and water is also greatest in these areas, close to the sources of emission.
Re-evaporation from the bodies of water and soil is a further source of
atmospheric contamination. The extent of vaporization from the soil depends
upon many factors, including the nature of the surface. Losses will be
greatest from surfaces such as sand and small from soils with a high organic
matter content. Evaporation and codistination from the surface layer of
bodies of water where PCBs accumulate in high lipid content surface micro-
layers may be significant. Shallow, fast-flowing rivers and streams where
depleted surface layers are constantly renourished will experience the
greatest loss of PCBs by this route.
Accidental spills and leaks and dumping of solid and liquid wastes are
further sources of contamination of both water and soil. Although leaching
from sanitary landfills is theoretically possible, evidence suggests that
losses by this route are, in fact, negligible. Leaching from certain soil
surfaces such as sand and creviced bedrock into groundwater supplies is,
however, a more likely source of contamination. Contamination of soil by
295
-------
irrigation is also possible, especially if the water is taken from a conta-
minated source.
The fate of PCBs delivered to both fresh and marine waters is adsorp-
tion onto participate matter and, ultimately, deposition into bottom sedi-
ment. Transport of PCBs in rivers to estuaries and the open sea takes place
by solution and readsorption onto particulates and by the transport of
sediment itself.
PCBs dissolved in relatively shallow water, in which there is close
contact with bottom sediment, will adsorb onto the sediment rather than move
to the surface layer and evaporate into the atmosphere. Only in deep waters
does evaporation compete successfully with particulate scavenging and
sedimentation.
B.2 MODELING
B.2.1 Air Pollution
To evaluate the impact of emissions, the relationship between atmos-
pheric emissions and air quality must be established and the spatial dis-
tribution of atmospheric pollution in the vicinity of the pollution sources
must be determined. One approach to determine this relationship is to
assume that a change in emissions would cause a proportionate change in air
quality. This approach, however, does not explicitly include the effects
of meteorology, topography, and stack gas parameters and therefore does not
insure an accurate estimate of the impact of emissions on the overall air
quality. In response to this deficiency, the air quality "dispersion model"
has become an accepted method for estimating the spatial distribution of
pollutant concentrations.
Dispersion models simulate the effects of stack height, stack flow
parameters, source distributions, and atmospheric elements, such as air flow
and mixing, on the transport and dispersion of pollutants emitted into the
atmosphere. Dispersion models are useful for calculating the spatial dis-
tribution of concentrations that result from various sources and can be
manipulated to estimate ground-level concentrations for extreme meteogolo-
gical conditions. If calibrated, the model can be used to predict concen-
trations for future expected emissions and meteorological situations. If
296
-------
uncalibrated, the model is useful for predicting the relative change in air
quality as a result of varying emission parameters, meteorological condi-
tions, and source distributions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed several
dispersion models which use the Gaussian diffusion equation. The basic
formulation of the Gaussian equation assumes that the ground-level concen-
tration is inversely proportional to the mean wind speed. The Gaussian
distribution describes the horizontal and vertical pollutant dispersion in
a plane normal to the wind direction.
In the prediction of the maximum concentration of pollutants such as
PCBs it is common practice to model the "worst case" conditions that could
occur as well as the most probable conditions. This worst case approach
involves using not only the maximum pollutant concentration possible emitted
but also assumes the pollutant will be dispersed under the meteorological
conditions that are least favorable to its dilution. In this case the worst
case would be of no PCB destruction at all during the combustion process,
and the second and more probable condition would be that of 99.9% destruc-
tion of PCBs during combustion.
It is generally impossible to predict the exact meteorological condi-
tions, but a very realistic estimate can be made based on historical data.
It is also difficult to determine the exact atmospheric conditions of wind
direction, wind speed, and stability that will result in the maximum concen-
tration for a given source. However, for elevated sources, maximum concen-
trations generally occur near the source with unstable conditions. Under
stable conditions, maximum concentrations occur some distance away from the
source.
In some cases, the aerodynamic turbulence induced by a building can
cause a pollutant emitted from an elevated source to be mixed rapidly toward
the ground, resulting in higher ground level concentrations. This is
particularly true when the source stack height does not meet Good Engineering
Practice (GEP) criteria established by EPA. A simple rule of thumb may be
applied to determine the source stack height which meets GEP requirements
and is capable of avoiding downwash problems:
hs > hb + 1.5a
297
-------
where hfa is the building height and "a" is the lesser of either building
height or maximum building width. In other words, if the source stack
height is equal to or greater than hfa + 1.5a, downwash is unlikely to be a
problem. If there is more than one stack at a given facility, the above
rule may be successfully applied to each stack.
A guide that recommends air quality modeling techniques with respect
to 1) air quality models, 2) data bases, and 3) general requirements for
concentration estimates is available from the EPA. This document is entitled
"Guideline on Air Quality Models" and can be obtained from the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C.. For a better
understanding of air pollution modeling it is recommended that this document
be carefully studied.
B.2.2 Water Pollution
To evaluate the impact of PCB waste disposal by thermal destruction, the
relationship between liquid wastes and the physical water environment must
be established. In most cases, water pollution models are developed to de-
termine dispersion patterns on a site specific basis. There is no guide
available from the EPA or other sources that recommends water modeling tech-
niques with respect to water quality models or data bases.
In general, a model is developed so that it can calculate the dilution ef-
fect of a water body such as a river or ocean on the effluent flow given a set
of input conditions. The resulting dispersion patterns are examined, and con-
clusions and recommendations are made. In most cases it is preferred to verify
these results with monitoring and sampling data.
Conceptually, models treat the liquid effluent as a plume emanating from
what is effectively a point source. The plume is assumed to initially have
some momentum and a density discontinuity with the ambient density. As soon
as it is predicted to leave the discharge structure, entrainment of ambient
fluid is assumed to begin, and the extent of this dilution is used to determine
concentrations and temperatures within the plume. The essential purpose of
the model is to calculate dilution factors for a number of points along the
centerline of the plume so that actual physical parameters can be determined.
298
-------
Mixing in the plume is achieved largely through shear forces acting on
the walls of the plume initially generated by the relative momentum of the
plume to the ambient fluid. After the plume loses momentum, ambient turbu-
lence begins to play an important role. Plumes may reach the air-water
interface if discharged close to the water surface. In such cases, the
assumed geometry of the plume becomes semicircular and it acts as a surface
jet.
B.2.3 Sampling and Analysis
PCB Regulations of thermal destruction of PCBs require the following
stack gas constituents be monitored: On, CO, C0n> NO , HC1, organic chlo-
rides, PCBs, and total particulates. Continuous monitoring is required of
02, CO, and C02. Other performance standards are stipulated regarding
temperature, residence time, combustion efficiency, maximum allowable stack
emission (when incinerating non-liquid PCB wastes), and automatic cutoff
systems for below optimal conditions.
Although no specific requirement for ambient air monitoring under PCB
regulation is listed, however, regulations to be established as a part of
RCRA require not only monitoring of various incinerator parameters (e.g.,
temperature, concentrations of 02, C02 and CO, etc.) but also monitoring
of ambient air (at the facility's perimeter) and scrubber water.
Ambient air sampling for PCBs involves collection via filtration. The
low concentrations of PCBs generally found in the ambient atmosphere require
that a large volume of air be sampled. Three primary techniques are usually
used for sampling of PCBs: liquid absorption methods, liquid phases on
solid supports, and solid adsorbents. A description of the equipment re-
quired for these techniques and their application is discussed in Section 2.
It is recommended that ambient air sampling be performed around the facility
on a year round basis. Samplers should be placed so that they are either
upwind or downwind from the incinerator or high efficiency boiler facility.
If the wind direction shifts more than 30° from the original direction,
samplers should be repositioned at reasonable time intervals.
Monitoring of the stack effluent, spent scrubber water, and solid com-
bustion residue should also be performed. Stack concentrations of carbon
299
-------
monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen should be determined as specified in
40 CFR 60, EPA Method Number 3 (this method may not be sufficiently sensitive
for CO). Stack concentration for hydrogen chloride should be determined by
collecting the hydrogen chloride in an impinger filled with a caustic solu-
tion, such as dilute sodium hydroxide or sodium bicarbonate.
This solution should then be analyzed for chloride ion concentrations
using the mercuric nitrate method. This method is described in Methods of
Air Sampling and Analysis, 2nd Edition, and in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Waste and Wastewater. Both are publications of the American
Public Health Association.
Samples for analysis of total chlorinated organic content (which in-
cludes PCBs) should be collected on solid sorbent trap, such as XAD-2.
Temperature control must be maintained since the absorptive characteristics
of the trap change with temperature differences. The solid sorbent trap
should be located in the sampling train downstream from the heated filter
and upstream of the first impinger. After extraction, the sample can be
analyzed for PCB content by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Mass emission rates of total particulate matter should be determined
in accordance with method specified in 40 CFR 60, Method 5.
Samples of the quench/scrubber water can be taken from several points
depending upon the facility design. Listed in decreasing order of preference
for obtaining a composite sample are: 1) a holding tank for ponds con-
taining all the scrubber solution used during a burn, 2) recirculation
tank for scrubber solutions being recycled, and 3) a pipe through which
these scrubber solutions are being pumped. The advantage of collecting a
sample from holding tanks or ponds is that it is a composite sample and, as
such, can be obtained without the requirement for collecting frequent grab
samples or using automated sampling equipment.
The solid residues remaining after combustion of the wastes should
also be sampled. Samples can be taken from the accumulated residue after
each run.
A compendium of sampling methods and analytical procedures, which may
be referred to and used by the PCB disposal facility owner/operators to
300
-------
assist them with any sampling and analytical testing required under 40 CFR
Part 761, Polychlorinated Biphenyls, is provided in an EPA interim report
published in February 1978 entitled "Sampling Methods and Analytical Proce-
dures Manual for PCB Disposal: Interim Report". Copies of this document can
be obtained from the Industry Assistance Office, Office of Toxic Substances,
Washington, D.C. Toll free numbers are: Toxic Substances, (800)-424-9Q65 and
Hazardous Waste, (800)-336-4563.
B.3 CONTROL METHODS
During transportation of PCBs and PCB-contaminated materials to disposal
facilities, accidental spillage or leakage can occur. To control surface
transportation of hazardous materials, the Department of Transportation pub-
lished Code of Title 49, Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 170-178. For air
transport, more specific controls were deemed necessary and the Federal Avia-
tion Regulations (FAR), Vol. VI, Part 103 were drafted to modify 49 CFR. In
some cases the more restricted procedures proposed by airlines in their air-
line tariffs to the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) are applicable. All the
regulations are designed to prevent spills from occurring and to protect life
and property. An EPA document entitled "Manual for the Control of Hazardous
Material Spills: Volume 1 - Spill Assessment and Water Treatment Techniques"
lists information regarding all the activities that are necessary. Spill
prevention procedures have also been listed in the PCB Regulations (Annex III-
3). EPA has also proposed a spill prevention rule for hazardous substances
(including PCBs) under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (43 FR 39276, Sept-
ember 1, 1978). When this spill prevention rule is promulgated, the spill
prevention provision of the PCB rule will be revised.
However, if spills do occur and a good faith attempt is not made to clean
up the spill, then this constitutes improper disposal of PCBs and is a vio-
lation of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Violations of this sort can re-
sult in civil and criminal penalties. Federal regulations require that non-
liquid PCB-contaminated materials such as rags and sorbent materials (e.g.,
sawdust or imbiber beads that have been used to absorb spilled fluids) be
packed in drums before shipment to appropriate landfills. Liquid wastes in-
cluding cleanup solvents such as kerosene and fuel oil must be packed in
steel drums of appropriate wall thickness and then must be put into secured
301
-------
storage areas until disposal can be arranged. It is recommended that pro-
tective clothing be used by the personnel during the cleanup operation.
While it is unlikely that high temperature PCBs will be encountered during
cleanup, it is advisable that personnel use some kind of self-contained
breathing apparatus because PCB fumes can be easily inhaled during this
process. A comprehensive inventory of protective clothing is available in
the U.S. Government Printing Office publication "A Survey of Personnel Pro-
tective Equipment and Respiratory Apparatus for Use by Coast Guard Personnel
in Response to Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals".
If a spill drains into the soil then it is required that many tons of
the soil be excavated and transported to chemical landfills. Complete re-
moval of PCBs in this manner may, however, never be achieved.
Storage areas at commercial incinerators are also needed for temporary
storage of fluids and contaminated materials prior to incineration. Storage
facilities at disposal plants are required to comply with Federal Regulations.
These requirements are listed in Annex III-5 of the PCB Regulations (40 CFR
Part 761).
B.3.1 Air Pollution Control
If one assumes that commercial incinerators and high efficiency boilers
operate properly, then these units will achieve greater than 99.9% destruc-
tion and will not be sources of PCB contamination of the atmosphere. However,
previous studies have indicated (2) that fly ash and residue fines contain PCBs,
Control devices have been found to effectively remove complete and in-
complete combustion products prior to venting from the stacks. These include
cyclones, venturi scrubbers, high energy scrubbers, electrostatic precipita-
tors and fabric filters. Charged droplet scrubbers can also be used to re-
move fine particulates in the micron and submicron size range. In most in-
cinerators, however, the only scrubbing that occurs is when exit gas contain-
ing fly ash passes into a baffle system that has water running down the wall.
PCB vapor removal from the emissions is performed by alkaline scrubbing
at pH 11 to pH 12. Packed-bed scrubbers are also effective in eliminating
vapors.
302
-------
A by-product of scrubbing is PCB contaminated absorbent liquid. The
absorbent liquid includes PCBs associated with the particulates that dis-
solve in the liquid while the particles are settling in the clarifier as
well as the PCB vapor that is scrubbed.
B.3.2 Water and Solid Waste Pollution Control
Residues and fly ash from incinerators or high efficiency boilers, and
sludge and absorbent liquid from the scrubbers which contain PCBs are usual-
ly deposited in landfills. These materials are packed in proper containers
(refer to 40 CFR Part 761 Annex III for container specifications under PCB
Regulations) to prevent leaks and spills and also the leaching of PCBs. In
addition, any hardware which contained PCBs should be drained and then
washed with solvents to remove all traces of PCBs prior to disposal by
burial or recycling of metal.
When burial is the method of disposal, a Class I landfill site is usual-
ly used. Such a site may accept any type of waste including toxic and
hazardous materials because the fill will not enter the groundwater. Class
I landfill sites are located in special geologic areas or in special struc-
tures such as deep wells or empty missile silos. A list of EPA approved
chemical waste landfills can be obtained from the November 21, 1979 issue
of the Federal Register.
Properly designed and operated chemical waste landfills are capable of
containing liquid wastes when the liquids are stabilized in the disposal
process or contained in cells of sorbent material as required by PCB Regula-
tions, 40 CFR Part 761. EPA's Office of Solid Waste recommends mixing
liquids with soils or solid wastes in order to stabilize liquid wastes. In
addition, containers of the liquids should be surrounded by inert sorbent
material to absorb all of the liquid contained in the container if it should
leak. These techniques have been found to effectively control the migration
of PCBs from the landfill site. Use of such landfills results in only
limited exposures to PCBs. Almost all of the exposure occurs during the
liquid stabilization process. Such use of chemical waste landfills is
consistent with hazardous waste disposal policies being proposed by EPA under
RCRA (43 FR 58946).
303
-------
PCBs can enter the soil by runoff of rainwater and from improper dis-
posal of PCBs and PCB-contaminated materials. Leaching has also caused the
transfer of PCBs from water to soil. Another source of soil contamination
is the absorbent liquid from scrubbers.
Carbon adsorption units have been used for the removal of PCBs from
aqueous effluent (up to 500 ppt). However, complete removal can seldom be
achieved. Again, the most common method of disposal of solid waste is burial
in approved chemical waste landfills. EPA has decided to permit the dis-
posal of non-liquid PCBs at any concentration in chemical waste landfills
that meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 761 Annex II.
304
-------
REFERENCES
1. Nisbet, C.T. and A.F. Sarofim, "Rates and Routes of Transport of PCBs
in the Environment," Environ. Health. Perspect., 1,21 (1972).
2. "Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale Incinerators Facility
Report #6," by TRW Inc. for U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-01-2966, June
1977.
305
-------
APPENDIX C. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
C.I COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY CALCULATION
Combustion efficiency is defined as % CE = 100 x % C02/% C02 + % CO
where % C02 is the percentage C02 composition of the combustion effluent,
and % CO is the percentage CO composition of the combustion effluent.
Assume that C02 is 9% of the combustion effluent and CO is 9 parts per
million (ppm) or 0.0009%.
Therefore, combustion efficiency is
% C02
% CE = % C02 + % CO x 10° = 9 + 0.0009 X10° = "•"*
C.2 RESIDENCE TIME CALCULATION
Residence or dwell time is usually calculated as follows.
* = Q (T/Tstd)
where:
t = residence time (sec)
3
V = volume of furnace chamber (m )
3
Q = volumetric flow rate (m /sec) at standard temperature and
pressure
T = combustion temperature (°K), and
Tstd = standard temperature (°K)
Because the furnace chamber volume is generally larger than the volume
in which the gases are at the required temperature, this method of calcula-
tion produces an upper bound estimate. The true volume can only be deter-
mined by sophisticated tracer studies.
3
Assume an incinerator unit has a furnace volume of 120 m and an air
3
supply of 90,000 m /hr at normal temperature and pressure. Therefore, for
a furnace combustion chamber temperature of 1200°C the residence time will
be:
306
-------
t = JL = 120/(90,000/3600)(1473/293) = 0.95 seconds
C.3 DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY CALCULATION
Destruction efficiency is defined as
% DE = 100 l-^n-
whero:
Q. = amount of PCBs into the incinerator or high efficiency boiler
1 (m3/sec or kg/hr)
Q . = amount of PCBs exiting the incinerator or high efficiency
3 . = amount of PCBs exiting t
boiler (m3/sec or kg/hr)
Assume that 1015 g/min of PCBs are input into an incinerator, the flue
3
gases contain 0.005 mg/m of PCBs, the scrubber effluent contains undetec-
table amounts of PCBs, and the flow rate of the flue gas is 630 dry standard
cubic meter per minute. Therefore, the destruction efficiency is:
% DE = 100 [Qin " Q°ut]
yin
= 100 x ((1015 g.min"1 - 630 n^.mirf1 x 0.005 mg.nf3 x 10"3 g.mg"1)
/1015 g.min"1) = 99.99%
307
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-81-022
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Guidelines for the Disposal of PCBs and PCB Items
by Thermal Destruction
5. REPORT DATE
February 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
D. G. Ackerman,L. L. Scinto, P. S. Bakshi,
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
D. L. Anderson .R.G.Delumyea, R.J.Johnson,
G.Richard, and A.M.Takata
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRW, Inc.
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
C1YL1B
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3174, Taskl
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD O
Task Final; 10/79-4/80
OVER6D
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ffiRL-RTP project officer is David C. Sanchez, Mail Drop 62,
919/541-2547.
i6. ABSTRACT The report is a resource and guidelines document to aid EPA Regional
Offices in interpreting and applying polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) regulations to
the thermal destruction of PCBs. As background material, the report describes
fundamental processes of combustion, thermal destruction systems, sampling and
analysis methodology, and flame chemistry relative to PCB incineration. Adminis-
trative considerations, including public involvement, are discussed. Detailed guide-
lines on the evaluation of Annex I incinerators, high efficiency boilers, and the
several stages of the approval process are presented and discussed.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Combustion
Chlorine Aro- Pyrolysis
matic Compounds Sampling
Biphenyl Analyzing
Incinerators
Boilers
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Polychlorinated Bi-
phenyls
Flame Chemistry
13B
07C
13A
2P
07D
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
317
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
308
------- |