PCB HEARING



            July  19,  1977

             10:00  a.m.
         Pick  Congress  Hotel
          Chicago,  Illinois

             PCB HEARING



            July 19, 1977

             10:00 a.m.
         Pick Congress Hotel
          Chicago, Illinois
                    Diane HrofflSfc --
                    Court Reporter

Regulations Development
Office of Toxio Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Organic Laboratory Section
Central Regional Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1819 West Pershing Road
Chicago, Illinois

Waste Management Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Toxics Strategy Implementation Unit
Office of Enforcement Division
Washington, D.C.

Toxic Substances Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Permit Branch, Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Permit Branch, Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Environmental Engineer
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Office of Environmental Affairs
Interagency Work Group on PCBs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Attorney of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

SPEAKERS:                            PAGE
E. M. FREEGARD                         13
Advance Transformer Company

E. M. WARNER                           26
Joy Manufacturing Company

JOHN L. HESSE                          71
Michigan Department of Natural

RICHARD ROLLINS                        99
Electronic Industries Association

Lawyer - Joy Manufacturing Company

PCB Task force
Edison Electric Company

Manager, Electronic Division
Northern States Power Company

Association of Home Appliance

General Motors Corporation

Dow Corning Corporation

Deputy Regional Administrator
Chicago Region V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

     MR. BREMER:  Good morning, I'm Karl Bremer.

I am the Toxic Substances Coordinator for the

Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago.

          The meeting this morning will be

opened by Mr. Val Adamkus. Mr. Adamkus is the

Deputy Regional Administrator of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency in Chicago.

          Mr. Adamkus has been active in overall

administration of Toxic Substances programs since

1970, starting with programs to haul mercury

contamination in on the Ohio Basin.

          His continual persistence and attenta-

tiveness to PCS problems as well aa other toxic

problems has enabled us to actively respond to

the Toxic Substances Control Act.

          Mr. Adamkus.

     MR. ADAMKUS:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen

          I would like to take thi* opportunity to

welcome you here today.

          We hope that today's meeting will be

extremely informative to all from industry,

citizen groups, the general public, and of course

to Environmental Protection Agency.

          We consider this meeting a necessity

                                            • 4-
in our rulemaking procedure to arrive at a balance

and objective viewpoint.

          With a recent enactment of the Toxic

Substances Control Act, the first compounds of

concern are polychlorinated biphenyls.

          In fact, the Act made special provisions

for PCBs requiring the Environmental Protection

Agency to issue labeling and disposal regulations

by July, 1977, to restrict use to close systems

by January of 1978, to prohibit all production by

January 1979, and to prohibit all distribution

of PCBs in commerce by July,  '79.

          Why then have PCBs received special


          To the unique physical and chemical

properties of PCBs include low vapor pressure at

ambient temperatures, resistance to combustion,

remarkable chemical stability, high dielectric

constant, and high specific electrical stability

and flow water solubility.

          At the same time, PCBs are liquid

solubles, and hence the potentials for absorption

into fatty tissue and into the liver is high.

          Thus once ingested, PCBs are retained

                                           — 5*"
by most organisms rather than excreted.
          The qualities of resistance which
made PCBs useful for industrial purposes greatly
aggravate their potential for harm in the eco
          The principal uses for PCBs today aro
enclosed electrical systems.  PCBs have been
used over the years resulting in great and greater
direct contamination of the environment.
          These uses includes an additive in
investment casting waxes, lubricant additives,.
hydraulic and compressor fluids, carbonless paper,
plasticizers, paints, heat exchange fluids,
certain types of paper and sealants.
          Most of these uses have been substantially
curtailed by the PCBs which have entered the
environment, will be here for many years.
          Hater and sediments seem to be the
final major thing for PCBs when they are supported
by contributory streams, municipal and industrial
outfalls or transported by the atmosphere.
          Because PCBs are extremely persistent,
we may expect to deal with this problem over a
long period of time.

          In today's presentations/ and during

each question period/ we are asking for objec-

tive facts/ facts which will give the Environ-

mental Protection Agency adequate input prior

to proposing PCBs ban regulations under the

Toxic Substance Control Act*

          I am positive that your contribution

will be of great significance*

          At this time I would like to introduce

to you Mr. George Wirth.

          Mr. Wirth is the Chairman of our PCB

Board group in Washington and has been actively

involved in PCBs in EPA's office of Toxic


          Mr. Wirth will chair today's meeting and

will explain the meeting's objectives/ procedures,

and the rules.

          Mr. Wirth?


          Good morning^ladies and gentlemen.

          As Mr. Adamkus pointed out/ the meeting

this morning concerns PCBs and specifically it

concerns the development of regulations surrounding

the various bans on manufacturing/ processing/

diatribution and commerce and use proposed

starting January 1st, 1978, and the final

distribution commerce ban that will take effect

July 1st, 1979.

          The Environmental Protection Agency

has recently proposed rules on the labeling and

disposal requirements for PCBs as a requirement

of the Toxic Substance Control Act, and we havo

also completed the Informal Hearing requirement

specified by the Toxic Substance Control Act

in the end of June of last month.

          Those regulations now are in final

consideration and comment period, and we anticipate

that we will promulgate such regulations sometime

toward the end of August or September.

          So basically we have progressed to

the point that we just about have regulations

on labeling and disposal and this general meeting

is to discuss the future bans on manufacturing

and use and other activities.

          The panel this morning consists of

representatives from Region  V, the Chicago Region •

that have been involved in the PCBs in the

Environmental Protection Agency, and representa-

tives from Washington who form the major core

of the Work Group involving this regulation.

          This Work Group has probably 25 members

strong and roughly a third of that Work Group

here with us appear today to hear your points.

          This meeting is an informal meeting,

public participation meeting*  It is not the

Informal Hearing required by the Toxic Substance


          So generally this meeting will be less

formal in nature than that meeting, and it is

a meeting intended for the public to have input

to the agency before we go actively propose a

regulation or consider how a regulation should

be constructed.

          This is the sixth such meeting we have

had in the Toxic Substance Control area.  This

will be the fourth one on PCBs, the second one

on manufacture.

          There was one last Friday in Washington

on this same subject* and we have had two

previously on chloroflourocarbona, banning of use

on chloroflourocarbons, and aersol sprays.

          The general procedures that we will

follow for today is that the people that have

previously signed up to make a presentation

at this meeting will be called in the order of

their sign up, and be allowed to make whatever

general statement they would like.

          When they complete that statement, wo

will go down the panel to ask various questions

concerning our testimony, and concerning our

interest, and when we complete that, we will be

happy, as time allows, to ask any question of

the witness from the general audience so that

during the individual's presentation or during

his questioning by the panel, we invite the

audience to formulate whatever question they

would like to ask, and raise their hand at

some point that is opportune and it will be

brought to the panel to be asked of the witness.

          When we complete all witnesses, if

time allows, we will be happy to have any

general statement or additional question or any

comment that anyone would like to make from

the audience for the record.

          Concerning the rules on or procedure

on calling individual witnesses, we will call

you and we essentially allow four options on

your request to take the podium.

          You may, of course, speak.  You may

yield your time to anyone else that you wish.

You may cancel your time or you may pass if you

wish for whatever reason you may have,

          If anyone passes, he will be recalled

after we have gone through the entire witness

list, and we will keep calling the passes in

the order in which they pass until everyone

either passes or cancels and then we will end

the testimony for today.

          It is very similar to a Midwestern

poker game called 7/27.  Those types of rules

X am sure many of you out there understand ~-

and having grown-up in this part of the country


          If there are no general questions

on today's procedures, X think we are prepared

to call the first witness and proceed with

this meeting.

          Yes, I am sorry, thank you, Karl.

          I forgot the procedure of this myself

— and that is to introduce the panel —

essentially tell you what thair interest is

in this particular regulatory activity.

          Starting at my extreme right,

I have Mr. Gary Burin who is out of the  Office

of Toxic Substance, and is assigned to work

on the PCS manufacturing and banning regulations.

          He is an engineer and scientist, and

background in public health administration.

          Next to Mr. Burin is Dr. Emilio Sturino

who is out of the Chicago Central Regional Lab

of EPA from the Organic Section and background

in doing analytical work on finding PCBs and

determining levels of PCBs.

          Next to him is Mr. Jay Goldstein of

the Solid Waste Program in Chicago Region.

          Next to him Mr. Hal Snyder out of the

Office of Enforcement in Washington, D.C.

          Formerly out of the Office of Toxic

Substance and basically the author of the

labeling and disposal regulations, if we have

a single author.

          To my immediate right is Mr. Karl

Bremer, the Toxic  Substance Coordinator for

Region V in Chicago, and he also  is a member of

our PCB Work Group, and the Regional representa-

tive on that work.

          On my immediate left is Mr. Blake Biles

from the Office of General Counsel who has been

involved with PCBs for quite a number of years

and is also a member of the Work Group on PCBs.

          Next to him is Mr. Brian Davis, the

Regional Counsel's Office in Chicago.

          Next to him is Mr. Edwin Shykind,

Director of Environmental Affairs and Bureau

of Domestic Commerce in the Department of Commerce.

          He is one of the representatives to

the PCB Work Group and he is also a member of

the Chloroflourocarbon Work Group and was

involved in the regulatory activity.

          Next to him is Mr. Peter Principe,

Environmental Engineer out of the Office of

Toxic Substance, primary responsibility in my

office for writing second phase PCBs, to


          Next to Mr. Principe is Mr. Glenn

Pratt who is out of the Enforcement Division

in the Chicago Regional Office.  And he is

Chief of the National pollution discharge elimination

system in Chicago -- the water pollution control


          And next to him, Mr. Pratt, is Mr.

Robert Pearson out of the Office of Enforcement

in Chicago Region.

          With that, then, we call the first

witness,  Mr. E. M. Freegard of the Advance

Transformer Company of Chicago, Illinois.

          Is he here?  Mr. Freegard, feel free,

as all witnesses, to bring whoever you like with

you to the podium for whatever reason you like .

     MR.  FREEGARD:  Good morning, ladies and


          I am Ernest Freegard, and these

comments are presented by the Advance Transformer

Company of Chicago, Illinois.

          We are a company of the North American

Philips  Corporation which is a corporation of


          The Advance Transformer Company is

one of the largest consumers of small oil-filled

capacitors for AC application in the lighting


          And we are directly affected by any

rulemaking regarding polychlorinated biphenyls.

          This testimony pertains to informa-

tion regarding PCBs printed in the Federal

Register Volume 42, Number 123, dated Monday,

June 27th, 1977 — Page 32555.

          This document indicates that Section 6(e)

of the Toxic Substances Control Act provides

that after January 1, 1978, PCBs may not be

manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce

or used in other than a totally enclosed manner.

          No PCBs may be manufactured after

January 1, 1979, and PCBs may not be processed

or distributed in commerce after July 1, 1979.

          Since the small AC capacitors utilized

by the lighting industry are hermetically sealed,

I assume that these are considered to utilize

PCBs in a quote totally enclosed manner unquote.

          If there is no disagreement on this,

then I assume the proposed January 1, 1978 ban

does not affect the distribution in commerce

of capacitors used in the lighting industry.

          I am, however, concerned regarding

the intention of the Act with respect to the

January 1 and July 1, 1979 bans.

          Let me take a minute to explain

just how discharged lamp lighting fixture*

works their way through the manufacturing and

distribution chain before they finally reach

the user.

          First, the capacitor industry manu-

factures the hermetically sealed small AC

capacitors and sells them to the many companies

who are in the business of manufacturing and

selling discharge lamp ballasts.

          The Advance Transformer Company is

one of more than a dozen companies who make


          Second, the ballast industry makes

ballasts, utilising these capacitors and sells

them to about 500 lighting fixture companies

who build the ballasts into their lines of

lighting fixtures.

          Third, the lighting fixture industry

produces a nearly endless variety of lighting

fixtures which are typically sold to about 4,000

electrical distributors located throughout all

of the 50 states.

          And last, the electrical distributor

sells the lighting fixtures to thousands of

electrical contractors who subsequently install
the lighting system for the user.

          There are, then, in this manufacturing

and distribution chain, no less than five

separate industries involving thousands of

business enterprises.

          Obviously, this pipeline is long and

involved at each step are product inventories.
          As a ballast manufacturer, I can say

that we have ballasts with PCB capacitors in

stock which will not be sold to the fixture

industry for several years.
          Likewise, the fixture industry builds

for stock and many items will remain in their
inventory for some time.

   x       The electrical distributor also stocks
lighting fixtures, and many of these will be

in a slow-moving category.  I believe that this
illustrates why I am concerned about what is
 • i
intended in the Act.

          I would hope that the Agency would
agree that the important ban involved here is

the one affecting future production processing

and distribution of the PCB fluid and PCD


          Ballasts intended for lighting fixture

applications, which have already been produced,

or will be produced in the process of using up

capacitor inventories must not be subject to

further restrictions on their distribution and


          These are small capacitors containing

less than one pound of PCB fluid in sealed


          Any exposure to human beings or the

environment to PCBs from these capacitors must

certainly be deemed insignificant.

          Once these capacitors are produced,

legally, in conformance to whatever rules are

promulgated by the Agency, it makes no sense

to say that they cannot be used.

          The lighting industry is a large one,

consuming 20 percent of our total electrical


          It should not be surprising that it

has tremendous inertia.

          It cannot be stopped and restarted

without a devasting effect on the several

industries involved.

          Referring now to Section 4, Resale of

PCBs, under General Issue on Page 32556 of the

Register, it appears to me that this issue

is made difficult by our use of the letters "PCB".

          Some of the earlier documents which we

have studied introduced more restrictive terms

such as "PCB Articles" and "PCB Equipment".

          I believe we might achieve better

understanding if we make use of these more

restrictive terms.

          As a manufacturer of discharge lamp

ballasts, fluorescent as well as HID, we purchased

PCB articles, that is capacitors, and we sell

PCB equipment, those are ballasts.

          Likewise, the fixture manufacturer,

the electrical distributor, and the electrical

contractor all deal with PCB equipment — at

least this would be my understanding of the

definition of these terms.

          Certainly lighting fixtures are sold

more than once.

          They are sold to the electrical

distributor,  to the contractor, and to the


          Since the ballast is included in the

lighting fixture, it also is sold more than


          But both ballasts and fixtures are

PCB equipment, and there should be no ban on

distribution in commerce of such equipment.

          It is this very process of buying and

reselling wich can take years to accomplish

and makes any date limiting distribution in

commerce of PCB equipment unworkable in my view.

          I suggest to the Agency that if we

have bans on the manufacture and distribution

in commerce of PCB fluid and PCB articles that

will be affective as far as the lighting industry

is concerned, additional bans affecting use

or distribution in commerce of PCB equipment

such as ballasts or lighting fixtures will

provide no additional safeguards and will be

extremely disruptive and costly to the lighting

industry and ultimately to the consumer.

          This concludes my prepared remarks

and I thank you for the opportunity to present

than today.


          Thank you, Mr. Freegard.

          Okay/ let1* begin with questions

starting on the left end of the table down here

at my left with Mr. Pearson.

          Do you have any questions?

     MR. PEARSON:  No.


     MR. SHYKIND:  I would just like to know

if you estimated any costs versus the January

versus July bans on these articles.  Do you have

any idea what the construction would be economically?

     MR. FREEGARD:  Well, if — if the rule

finally became that PCB equipment could not be

distributed in commerce after July 1, 1979,

it would be extremely difficult for me to estimate.

But this — this would involve not only the

ballast industry but, as I mentioned the lighting

fixture industry, some 500 companies, electrical

distributors, even contractors who would have

their inventories frozen, if you will, and this

equipment would either have to be modified or


          Certainly if it is scrapped we don't

get away from the disposal problem of the PCB

article which is inside.

          I have -- Z have not attempted to make

any estimate of total cost of such a ban at that

time, but it would be very, very high.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  I would like to ask a


          Does Advance Transformer make capacitors?

     MR. FREBGARD:  Mo, we do not.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  You buy capacitors?

     MR. FREBGARD:  We purchase capacitors.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Do you — if you purchase

capacitors, you could make an estimate of the

cost impact for your own company given different

possible regulatory approaches, couldn't you?

     MR. FREEGARD:  I made an estimate which

I presented on June 27th, I believe, in Washington.

          Assuming that I would have to go into

our inventory, and now this would not be to

remove capacitors, this was simply on the basin

of having to label them.

          I reckoned the cost to my company of

something in the neighborhood of $150,000.

          Now, that number would not be applicable

in this instance because in this case we would

have to replace the capacitors and purchase

new ones to replace them and handle the disposal

problem of the old ones.  It would be much,

much higher.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  How many capacitors do you

have in inventory right now, do you know?

     MR. FREEGARD:  I really couldn't tell you.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Could you give me any idea

of the dollar — I don't know if this is practical,

but do you know what the dollar value is?

     MR. FREEGARD:  If I had the number, I would

consider it to be proprietary.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Has Advance Transformer

made any efforts to purchase capacitors that

do not contain PCBs?

     MR. FREEGARDs  We do purchase some that do

not contain PCBs.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  How long would it take you

to change over to purchase all of your capacitors?

     MR. FREEGARD:  Non-PCB capacitors are not

necessarily generally available to the extent

that they are needed by the Industry.

          In other worda,  they are in short supply.

          They also cost more.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Okay.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Along that same line,

Mr. Freegard, could you give us any idea of

how much of the ballast industry or what percentage

of the market your company represents, roughly?

Is it 57, 5, 30, 10?

     MR. FREEGARD:  No, I know that number.

but I couldn't give it to you.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  You wouldn't care

to give a range at all?

     MR. FREEGARDt  We are one — we are one of

the largest.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  One of the largest?


     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Do you have any more?

     MR. SHYKINDi  No more.


          Mr. Davis?  No?

     MR. DAVIS:  No.


     MR. BILES:   In manufacturing ballasts  for

fixtures, and so forth, is there any contact

with the liquid PCB mixtures in the — chemical

substances themselves?

     MR. FREEGARDi  No.

     MR. BILES:  Do you have any economic use

for those that are leaking other than —

other than disposing of them?

     HR. PREEGARD:  No.

     MR. BILES:  Is there anything you — in which

you can do in which there is liquid PCB coming out

of it?

     MR. FREEGARD:  No, no.

     MR. BILES:  Do you think it would be possible

for a company such as your own to sell all of

your ballasts prior to July, 1979, have contracts

and make the sale of them?

     MR. FREEGARD:  No.

     MR. BILES:  Approximately how long do you

think it would take given your current inventories

and your projection of sales before you think

you could have contracted the last sales?

     MR. FREEGARD:  I really —

     MR. BILES:  Or would that be possible to

come up with some information?

     HR. FREBGARD:  It would be — it would be

— any answer I would give you would be rather


          X can say that we have ballasts in

stock that we have had for five years.

     MR. BILESi  Okay.

     MR. FREEGARD:  If that is any indication

of what night happen in the future, I don't know,

That is about as good as I could do.

     MR. BILESi  As far as you know, are any of

the ballasts that you sell resold as ballasts

as opposed to being resold after they have been

incorporated into a fixture?

          Do you think — in terms of the

industry you are talking about?

     MR. FREEGARD:  There is — a very small

segment of the market that deals with replace-

ments in existing lighting fixtures.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

     MR. FREEGARD:  Now those products moved to

their final application directly from us to

electrical distributors to either the user or

to a contractor who is going to replace the


          That is a rather small segment.

     MR. BILES:  So by and large, when you sell

them, you sell then?

     MR. FREEGARD:  To lighting fixture manufacturers

     MR. BILES:  Who then puts them in their

fixtures and resells them to distributors?

     MR. PREEGARD:  Right.

     MR. BILES:  All right, thank you.


     MR. BREMER:  I have nothing.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Tom, questions?

None?  Okay.

          Questions from the audience, anyone?

          Excuse me one second.

          All right, if there is no further

questions, thank you very much.

     MR. FREEGARD:  Thank you.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  The next witness

is Mr. E. M. Warner of the Joy Manufacturing

Company of Franklin, Pennsylvania.

     MR. WARNER:  Good morning, ladies and


     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Excuse me, sir,

we have a question here.

          Is Mr. Steinberg to speak with you?

     MR. STEINBERG:  I am signed up to --

I think fourth or fifth this morning.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   Yes, that's


          Do you want to speak with Mr. Warner?

          I have a note on the card here,

Frederick W. Steinberg to speak with E. M.

Warner of Joy Manufacturing.

     MR. STEINBERG:  I am going to hold my

position as fifth.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   That is fine,

that is fine.

          Mr. Warner, would you state and

spell your name and your association?

     MR. WARNER:  My name is Edward Warner,

E. M. Warner.  I am with the Joy Manufac-

turing Company, Mining Machinery Division.

I am the Director of Engineering.

          We are a leading manufacturer of

underground mining machinery.

          Our company has only one use for

PCBs.  It is used as a coolant internally

in electrical motors.


          While new machinery has not been

produced using PCB motors since 1973,

hundreds of motors are still in operation

in underground coal mines.

          It is the continued utilization

of the equipment using these PCB-filled

motors that concerns Joy and our customers.

          We believe that EPA should be

informed as to the economic impact and the

production and dislocations in the coal

industry that could occur if total ban

were being placed on PCBs beginning in 1978.

          As long ago as March, 1972, our

company advised our customers of the need

for special care in handling and disposal

of PCBs.

          Joy first used petroleum hydraulic

oil as a cooling fluid internally in motors

in 1960.  But the flammability of the oil

concerned mine safety authorities.

          Even though these mine motors

were explosion tested and could not emit

sparks or flame to the mine atmosphere/ it

was decided that a flame-resistant coolant


was required.

          After exhaustive testing, Monsanto

Aroclor  1242, the PCB fluid was chosen.

          May I have the first slide?

          Ultimately PCB fluid was used in

three different motors.

          Because of the great heat transfer •

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   Excuse me one

second, can the panel see this?  If not,

why don't we take one second?

     MR. WARNER:  It is difficult to see,

I know, in this area.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   Just take chairs

out here if you like.

     MR. WARNER:  Surely.

          I have about nine slides.

          Because of the greatly superior

heat transfer qualities of PCB liquid as

compared to air, it was possible to dramati-

cally reduce the physical size of motors.

          This illustration shows one com-

parison of two, 100 horsepower motors, one

PCB-filled and the other of conventional

air-filled construction.

          The first application was on a

continuous mining machine known as a CU-4.1.

          Fifteen of these continuous miners

were built over a four-year period beginning

in 1963.

          The approximate selling price

of this machine was $105,000.

          Three motors were used on each


          Due to the motor's location and

size constraints, it was not possible to

build these miners using conventional motor


          Seven of these machines remained

in operation as of this time mining coal

in two small coal companies in West Virginia

and Pennsylvania.

          The second application of PCB-filled

motors was made in 1963 •— excuse me — 1965.

          In this design two motors were

used to provide traction power for a coal

loading machine.  The approximate selling

price of these loaders was $60,000.

          The size of the motors was not


reduced because of the very high operating

temperatures experienced with this motor.

          PCB was added internally to the

motors to greatly reduce the operating


          One thousand and twenty-eight of

these motors were used on loaders shipped

between 1965 and 1973 to 83 different


          Many of these users are small coal

operators.  In fact, 36 companies own only

one machine.

          Sixty companies own one, two, or

three machines.

          Because of the wide distribution

of these loaders, rulings affecting the

distribution and use of PCB would have a

substantial effect on small coal operators.

          The third application of PCB-fillecI

motors was  on another continuous miner

called the  9 CM.

          These miners sold for approximately


          In this design, two cutter-head


motors were completely hidden inside the

cutting element at the front of the machine.

          The third PCB motor was used as

a hydraulic pump motor.

          As with the CU-43 shown previously,

the motor size was shrunk in order to locate

it in its position.

          From 1967 until 1970, 64 of these

miners were constructed.  It is estimated

that 30 of these machines are still in


          Beginning ir-, 1974, Joy provided a

conversion kit to our service centers to

change PCB loader motors to conventional


          It was recognized that regulations

were forthcoming to prohibit the use of


          To date, 353 motors have been

converted or approximately one-third of

the total.

          Loader users have not been receptive

to this change because the conventional

motors run much hotter and the service life

is shorter.

          There is no conversion possible

for either the CU-43 or the 9 CM motors.

          Conventional motors of adequate

horsepower cannot be installed on these

machines because of their increased size.

          Beginning in 1972, Joy Manufacturing

and our motor supplier, Reliance Electric

Company, in Cleveland, began a search for a

substitute for a Aroclor 1242.

          Nineteen different chemical companies

were contacted and 21 fluids were evaluated

in the search for replacement.

          The cost of this program was

approximately $60,000.

          Heat stability and compatibility

with electrical insulation were primary


          Only one fluid was found to meet

the test, but unfortunately it gave a very

pungent odor while operating, while under

operating conditions.  And consequently,

it was abandoned.

          We are convinced that a suitable

substitute does not exist for our require-

ments.  We are continuing to evaluate

possibilities as they become available.

          Our company believes that continued

use of PCB fluid in mining motors constitutes

a minimal risk to the environment.

          Although PCB-filled mine motors

cannot be classed as totally enclosed,

great efforts have been expended to assure

low loss of PCB from the motors.

          The liquid is contained within

an explosion-tested enclosure under a pressure

of 20 pounds per square inch.

          Under very extreme conditions,

such as a motor-winding failure, PCB vapor

may be emitted from a pressure relief valve.

          The only other possible leakage

point is around the motor shaft seal.

          If the seal becomes badly worn.

PCB can leak, but it would go into a gear

reducer to which the motor is connected.

          In normal operation, the loss of

PCB from the motor is zero.

          Joy sells PCB in one-gallon

containers to customers who need small

amounts to replenish losses from motors.

          The primary risk of environmental

contamination is during motor repair.

          PCS handling and disposal at Joy's

service center in Bluefield, West Virginia,

is being done in accordance with suggestions

from EPA.

          This is the facility that repairs


          This facility has been examined

twice by EPA and has not been cited for any

misuse or contamination of the environment.

          Used PCB is accumulated and returned

to the Monsanto Company for incinceration.

          Additional detailed safeguards

have been adopted as a result of visits

by EPA personnel.

          The quantity of PCB used in each

motor is small averaging about four gallons.

          Handling is restricted to a few

people who are carefully instructed and


          At the present time our company

is repairing PCB motors at three different

locations, but It has proposed to consoli-

date all repairs of service center.

          As a final conslderatior.,  we would

like EPA to be aware of the impact on the

coal industry -- if an outright ban  on the

use of PCB for mine motors were to be imple-

mented, underground coal mining is a sequential

process.  It is accomplished by the  use or

the machines to do certain Jobs in sequence.

          One system known as conventional

mining uses a group of six machines, the

cutting, machine, a face drill, a loader, two

coal haulage vehicles known as shuttle cars,

and a roof bolter.

          It is obvious that when any single

machine becomes inoperative, the mining of

coal stops .

          In additions to the loss of produc-

tivity, five other machines must cease operation

-- with no consequent return on their capital


          The cost of downtime varies.  However,

an average production loss might well be 500 ton

of coal in a single working shift.

          Which at today's prices would be

worth at least $10,000.

          The value of the group of machine*

involved would total $300,000 to $450,000

depending on their age and condition.

          In continuous mining, the mining

sequence is simpler, and only four machines

are used.

          One continuous miner, two shuttle

cars, and a roof bolter.

          Again, loss of operation of any

machine stops the mining process.

          Loss of coal production is comparable

to that in conventional mining.

          The capital investment would only

be slightly less than that for conventional


          It is for these economic reasons

that coal mine operators exert maximum effort

to keep all machines in operation simultaneously

          Taking mining machines out of

operation to make conversions obviously would

be a costly procedure.

          In conclusion, Joy Manufacturing

proposes that use authorization be granted

by EPA to us and our customers for three

years beyond January 1st, 1978.

          This authorization would be con-

tingent upon the following:

          One, no additional PCBs to be imported

by Joy Manufacturing.

          We have been importing PCBs in the


          Two, if recommended by EPA, Joy

could sell part of our present inventory of

PCBs to our customers before January 1st,


          This would eliminate future reed

to transport PCB.

          Three, Joy would handle all future

motor repairs at a single service center

operating under rules prescribed by EPA.

          Pour, conversion of loader traction

motors would continue at a rate to complete

the remaining 675 motors by January 1st, 1981.

          The program would be planned to make

conversions as motors fail and not to convert

the good PCB motors while they are still

in operation.

          Five, coal operators using CU~43

or 9 CM continuous miners with PCB-filled

motors would be advised to phase out this

equipment by 1981.

          In case of the 9 CM, a conversion

kit could be designed for a new cutter head

at approximate cost of $80,000 to $100,000.

          We thank you for this opportunity

to present our views on this important

subject, thank you.


Mr. Warner.

          Questions, starting on my right,


     MR. BURIN:  I have two questions.

          One is who owns the 9 CM machines?

Are those also the small operators' or are

those —

     MR. WARNER:  The 9 CM miners.

          This is -- these are owned by

actually a number of larger customers.

          The distribution of continuous miners

quite frequently go to the larger coal


          I am sorry I don't have a statistical

count who has the 9 CM continuous miners,

but we could provide EPA with such information.

     MR. BURIN:  Okay.

          And how often are loaders routinely


     MR. WARNER:  This varies depending upon

the application that is involved.

          In the case of a loading machine,

which is the application in which we have

the largest numbers, the average life as

defined by when 50 percent failures would

take place would be somewhere between 18 and 24


          The life of the motors on the 9 CM

and the CU-43 is somewhat shorter.

          I am not sure of the figure on this,

but I would guess it was probably closer to

one year.

     MR. BURIN:  And it would be in the

course of this repair that the conversions

would take place?

     MR. WARNER:  The conversion is possible

only with the loading machine motor.

          It is not possible to convert the

continuous miner motor, but referred to as

CU-43 or 9 CM no conversion is possible

on those motors.

          It is an engineering problem in

which the motor has been located on the

machine in such a way and shrunk to such a

size that if you attempt to substitute a

conventional motor, this space is not


     MR. BURIN:  Thank you.

     DR. STURINO:  What is the total amount

of PCB in any of those machines?

     MR. WARNER:  The total amount in any

one machine?

     DR. STURINO:  Total in any one operation

— are we talking about 5,000 gallons a year?

Are we talking  about millions a year?

     MR. WARNER:  I don't think I can give

you a direct answer to that because it i*

not calculated.

          I can tell you ^hat our present

inventory of Aroclor  is approximately 9,000


          There are four gallons used in

each motor on the average, and since we are

talking 30 machines in the — say 37 machines

on the continuous miners, we could take 37

times 4 and end up with the approximate

amount of PCS in use on the continuous miners.

          All or nearly all of the loading

machines are in operation and this would be

514 machines.

          So we could, in that case, average

it out by saying 514 machines times 2 -•-

there are two motors, multiply that by four

gallons each and that would be the amount

that is presently in use in underground mines.

          I am not sure what that figure would

be —

     DR. STURINO:  All right, thank you.

     MR. SNYDER:  My questions are oriented

towards the kinds of environmental exposures

that might occur from the use of the motor

in mining.

          You have indicated that the motor

shaft seal problem and the vapor pressure

relief point,  pressure relief valve,  are ycu

aware of any cases where there has been

what I would call a rather catastrophic

failure or some rupture of the case,  something;

of that nature, where one of these motors

and if so what was referred to -- where do the

PCBs go or where would they go?

     MR. WARNER:  I am aware of the catastrophic

failures when  we had hydraulic motors,  yes,

I am aware of  this.

          This is one of the things that really

concerns us and one of the reasons why  mine-

safety authorities wanted a fire-resistant

fluid in the motor.

          This did occur in the early days

of the CU-^3.

     MR. SNYDER:  And those motors caught fire?

     MR. WARNER:  Pardon?

     MR. SNYDER:  Did those motors catch fire?

Was there oil-filled motors —

     MR. WARNER:  No, to my — to the best

of my knowledge, there was no actual fire

resulting from this, but there was a rupture

of the enclosure.

     MR. SNYDER:   Okay.

          And you  are not aware of any --

with any of the PCB motors?

     MR. WARNER:   I am not aware of any

catastrophic failure on the PCB motor.

     MR. SNYDER:   You have indicated two

sources, one the  pressure relief valve and

then a motor shaft seal failure?

     MR. WARNER:   Right.

     MY. SNYDER:   Are you aware of any other

kinds of failures  when motors were in service

to cause PCBs to  go out of the motor either

into some other part of the machine or on

the floor around?

     MR. WARNER:   There are check level plugs

in the motors,  and I feel sure that at some

point in time,  mine maintenance people could

possibly overfill  the motor.  In which case,

if it does, it  could expel that much to get

down to the proper level.

          It would be difficult to say how

many cases like that took place.  It is like

the man perhaps overfilling your radiator.


It does happen once in a while.

          And under those circumstances,

the excess could be expelled to  the pressure

relief valve.

     MR. SNYDER:  What kind of programs  do

you have relative to educating and informing

the users when they are involved in some  sort

of a topping-off process?

          You have indicated you sold one-

gallon quantities of PCBs to various users

and the presumption is for them to fill

motors overheated and whatever.

          Is there any kind of program that

you have undertaken to improve the level  of

environmental control, reduce burn procedures

— that sort of thing?

     MR. WARNER:  No, we have no actual

training program to train mining people  in

such an endeavor.

          This could be accomplished, however,

through the simple procedure including it

in our company sponsored training schools.

          We have treatment activity wher^

we bring our customers into our plant and

train them for maintenance and operating


          And this could be included in such

a program.

          I might add, though, going back

to the early days, we did spell out in

considerable detail the type of advice that

we offer to our customers.

          I believe it was in 1972 on a

precautionary measures in handling and


          For instance, if there was a need

to dispose of it to -- going back or to ship it

back to our shipment center.  Consequent

return for consideration.

          If EPA does not have a copy of that

document, we would be glad to supply this.

          I believe it was dated 1972.

     MR. SNYDER:  Well, the purpose of my

questioning is -- is oriented towards your

request, suggestion, that some extended

period of time, several years, what have you,

be allowed for further use of the motors.

And my thought is what — what kind of a

prograra could be developed, in a cooperative

way, perhaps, in cooperation with the Agency

or the Agency serving some sort of advisor

role, critique what you may have done to

enhance the degree of environmental safety

that might be possible in actual use situations

          And so — it sounds like you are

leaning towards that and just expanding a bit

on my question, would that be the kind of

thing that you would consider to be a reason-

able venture in any decision by the Agency

that would extend the use of the motor?

     MR. WARMER:  Yes, Mr. !3ayder, I am sure

this could be done.

          As a matter of fact, at the present

time, when we have our training schools

for customers, we already have participation

by Department of the Interior, MESA, the

Bureau of Mines, and other people in offering

to mine maintenance and operating people,

special precautionary and safety measures

that would be practiced in underground mines.

          It would be a reasonably simple

procedure to set up in conjunction with EPA,

a suitable training program for mine people

that were directly involved in maintaining

this equipment about proper handling and

disposal procedures.

     MR. SNYDER:  I have no further questions.

     MR. BREMER:  Two short ones — this is

Karl Bremer.

          Primarily/ which Aroclor  is used?

     MR. WARNER;  Sir?

     MR. BREMER:  Which Aroclor  are you using?

     MR. WARNER:  Aroclor?  1242.

     MR. BREMER:  Okay, 1242?

          You don't use any 1016, then?

     MR. WARNER:  I am sorry -- I apologize

— I have a hearing problem.

     MR. BREMER:  Okay.

          It is just an Aroclor 1242?

     MR. WARNER:  Just.

     MR. BREMER:  No other, 1016 or any other?

     MR. WARNER:  I should, I should qualify

that to the extent that we did import PCBs

as EPA knows, and of course when we imported,

it was to our knowledge, a direct substitute

chemically for Aroclor 1242.

          I believe -- this one case,  it  was

-- I had a trade name of Pyrolene or

something of this nature.

          But when we used an Aroclor  fluid

purchased in the U.S.A., it was Aroclor

Monstanto 's 12*12.

     MR. BREMER:  Uh-huh.

          And offhand, are there -- can you

name any of the substitutes which you  have

attempted to evaluate?

     MR. WARNER:  I could specifically pinpoint

for you the substitute which we say they  tried

and was not successful.

          This was TCB, trichlorobenzene,

and we found that this would have been

acceptable in all respects except for  this

very pungent odor.

          For this reason, we did abandon

that one.

          We also evaluated a number of

silicone oils,  for example, and unfortunately

the silicone oil will not pass the flame-

resistant properties required by -- the

Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration.

          And the other problems were mostly

with regard to the compatibilities of the

fluid with the insulation system in the motor.

     MR. BREMER:   So this mine safety organi-

zation has tested the silicone oils and they

don't come up to  snuff?

     MR. WARNER:   That is my best recollection,

Mr. Bremer, that  is my best recollection.

     MR. BREMER:   Because we would be interested

in seeing those documents, If they are

available.  Okay?

          I have  no further questions.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Okay, Mr. Biles?

     MR. WARNER:   Perhaps I should say this way

-- I can't categorically state that MESA tested

silicone oil and  said that it was not flame-

resistant .

          This could have  been a matter of

compatibility with the insulation.

          I am really not prepared, at the

moment, to speak  in detail on those fluids

which were tested and the results.

          However, we would be very willing


to provide EPA with any listing of the

fluids that were tested and the exact

reasons why they were not utilized.

     MR. BILES:  First couple of questions,

to understand what you said/ it is my under-

standing that several hundred of the loaders

have been converted.

          Does that mean that they no longer

use PCBs?

     MR. WARNER:  That's right.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          And do you know how many companies

use the 9 CM miners?

     MR. WARNER:  The 9 CM miners, we do not

have an exact count.

          As close as we can tell, there are

30 -- approximately 30 of these machines

still in operation.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          And how many motors are there on

each one of the loaders?

     MR. WARNER:  On the 9 CM?

     MR. BILES:  No, on the loaders?

     MR. WARNER:  On the loading machine?

     MR. BILES:  Yes?

     MR. WARNER:  There are two traction

motors each.

          On each of the two continuous

miners/ there were three motors each.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          How, it is my understanding that,

you know, you are not currently, you -- are

not currently processing the machines and

you have no anticipated future production

of them?

     MR. WARNER:  No, sir, we are not producing

any new equipment or shipping any motors.

     MR. BILES:  To your knowledge, I know

we can ask Reliance, but as far as you know,

are they continuing to make the motors or

have they ceased production, too?

     MR. WARNER:  Oh, Reliance?

     MR. BILES:  Reliance?

     MR. WARNER:  No, they are making no

motors with PCBs in them.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          When I took the figures that you

have suggested on how many gallons per machines,

it sounded like if you take away the loader,

which you maintain the conversion kit for

and I guess it is mainly a matter of economics?

     MR. WARNER:   Excuse me?

     MR. BILES:  That that leaves approximately

450 gallons being used in the continuous


          That the overwhelming amount of PCBs

being used right  now is used in loaders which

you say  there is  a conversion, kit available

which --

     MR. WARNER:   And we are converting

these currently.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          What — could you talk a little bit

about what you mean when you said that you

recognized that this is not a totally enclosed


          Did you mean by that that — I

recognize you said there were ? or 3 means of

escaping PCBs but it sounded like you said

that under normal operating -- operations,

there were no PCBs getting out?

     MR. WARNER:   Mr. Steinberg asked the

same question.

          The reason that I made my statement

that -- the mine motor could not be classed

as a totally enclosed application for PCBs

is simply because I read the article, In

the Federal Register that the EPA had already

concluded that it was not.

          And I was simply accepting; what

I believed to be your definition to be

totally enclosed.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          Part of this hearing and the rule-

making is to define that term.

     MR. WARNER:  I see.

     MR. BILES:  Actually what WP are trying

to define is what is significant exposure.

          So, what I am asking in that

practical application of these machines,

what kind of exposure is there of PCBs beyond

the fact that they might get out through

vapors or as through the leaking through

the motor shafts?  Does that -- PCBs escaping

in that manner go anywhere other than first

of all the leaking?

          You seemed to indicate that those

may be caught somehow — the ones that were

leaking through the motor shaft?

     MR. WARNER:  Well, the ones that were

leaking through the motor shaft --

     MR. BILES:  Yes?

     MR. WARNER:  This leaks into the gear

case -- the gear — a gear box — that is

located directly in front of the motor/ in

each case.  That is true for all applications.

     MR. BILES:  Then where does it go?

          Does it just stay there?

     MR. WARNER:  It goes into the lubrication

systems for the machine and that is a gear

case in which lubricants are periodically


          It is not usual mine procedure

ever to drain lubricants out purposely.

          The mine people normally just

keep adding to the lubricant.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          Then, under what conditions would

you see the vapor escape?

          Is that normal or is that --

     MR. WARNER:  With the number one assumption

that the motor is not overfilled,

     MR. BILES:  Yes?

     MR. WARNER:  If the motor is  properly

filled, there is an expansion provision

provided for the PCS.

          And under those circumstances,

the only expelling would be under  a severe

condition such as a winding failure.

          Now, even that can be qualified

because it has to be a sustained electrical

fault inside the motor.

          Normally, normally the electrical

protection on the machine will isolate that

motor very quickly.

          But mining machine maintenance

being such as it is, you can't be  100 percent

sure that that protection is there and


     MR. BILES:  To your knowledge, have

either state officials or federal officials,

employees, labor unions, any of those kinds

of groups expressed any concern to you about

PCBs associated with the use of machines?

     MR. WARNER:  I am sorry, I didn't hear.

          Something about expressing concern?

     MR. BILES:   Yes, have unions or state

officials —

     MR. WARNER:  Unions.

     MR. BILES:   Or other officials expressed

any concern to you or to your knowledge to

the companies using these machines about

any possible risks associated with PCBs as

far as you are --

     MR. WARNER:  No, sir, not as far as I

am aware in our engineering department.

     MR. BILES:   Okay.

          The last question goes to -- the

three year phase-out that you proposed.

          From what I gather, your main

argument for needing the phase-out is an

economic one.

          That if you were required to do it

-- in other words, you are not going to be

producing these machines any more in the

future  even whether or not you have a substitute

right now, that you want to have a phase-out

over a  period of time so mainly the economic

impact  will not be as great as if today you  —

were forced to say, "No more machines,"

and the companies out there couldn't use


          Is that the main reason that you

think the phase-out is needed over a three

year period?

     MR. WARNER:   Yes.

          The reason for displaying the

sequential slides there was to Indicate

that It is highly necessary to keep all this

equipment operating simultaneously.

          Now, even though a conversion is

available, for example --

     MR. BILES:  Right.

     MR. WARNER:   In the case of a loading

machine, if you didn't make this conversion

at the time that  the motor failed, for some

other reason, this would be additional down-

time -- additional time that the equipment

would be out of operation.

          Therefore, our proposal is to

convert the motor at the time that it electrical!


          It was  going to be out of operation



     MR. BILES:  If EPA granted you a use

operation as you propose and three years

from now there wasn't a substitute for the

continuous miners,  what — then what do you

think would or should happen?

     MR. WARNER:  Well, we have taken the

position that -- at the end of three years

it will be necessary to advise those customers

that those machines can no longer be used.

     MR. BILESs  Okay, fine, thank you

very much.


Mr. Principe?

     MR. PRINCIPE:  What is the useful life

of a loader -- approximately in years?

     MR. WARNER:  I am sorry -- again, I am

having  trouble.

          The  useful life of —

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  A little  louder,


     MR. PRINCIPE:  What is the useful life

of the  loaders?

     MR. WARNER:  Of the loading machine?

     HR. PRINCIPE:  Yes?

     MR. WARNER:  Are you referring now to

the loading machine itself or the motor on

the loading machine?

     MR. PRINCIPE:  The machine itself?

     MR. WARNER:  The machine itself —

we have to answer that question in the context

of how many times it is rebuilt.

          It is common practice in coal mines

to rebuild such specific machinery.

          A loading machine, such as the one

here that uses PCBs, motors, might well load

a million tons of coal before the machine

was brought out for a rebuild.

          That may take a year or two.

          The criteria really can be expressed

in another way and that is to say that we

have many machines out.

          They are still operating -- still

being rebuilt.  They are 20 and 25 years old.

          In fact, in some of the cutting

machine lines, there is equipment in operating

-™ in underground coal mines that is probably

more than 30 years old.


     MR, PRINCIPE:  Okay.

          What is the useful life of the

miners — continuous miners — like the

9 CM?

     MR. WARNER:  The 9 CM?

     MR. PRINCIPE:  And the CU-43?  What is

their useful life?

     MR. WARNER;  Continuous miners -- tend

to be taken out of operation more frequently

than something like a loading machine --

simply because the technology and the develop-

ment of continuous miners is such -- that what

you -- the coal operator very often finds is

that he must dispose of that machine and

buy a higher productivity machine.

          One of the reasons that we state

that it is probably reasonable to assume

phasing-out of these machines by 1981 is

there are much more powerful, more highly

productive continuous miners available so

that in the case of asking  the age of the

continuous miner, as far as their actual

utilization is  concerned,  I am sure they are

good for many more years.


          Again, in the case of continuous

miners are continuous miners that have been

in operation for 10, 15 or 20 years.  But

coal operations tend to obsolete these

machines themselves simply because they can

buy higher productivity machines.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  And you think that by

1981 that point would be reached for those


     MR. WARNER:  There are already machines

available at much higher productivity --

machines either the CU-43 or the 9 CM, they

are already available today.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Is there a secondhand

market available for these machines, like

could a coal miner resell it to a --

     MR. WARNER:  Yes, yes, there is quite

an active used machine market for machines

and very often the small operator will tend

to buy a -- secondhand machinery.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  All right.

          How long does it take to use the

kit  or to — when the loader motor, traction

motor dies, and it's got to be rebuilt, how


long does it take to do that problem?

     MR. WARMER:   To rebuild it?

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Yes — using — using

the conversion time?

     MR. WARNER:   It would depend a great

deal/ at one — any one time, what happens

at the service center as to what their backlog

and repair were.

          But, I  would say that — from the

time a motor was  taken off the machine,

shipped back to a service center, repair,

return and install the machine, it would be

fair to say that — at best, a week would

take place.

          It could be longer, but I would

say that a week would be a reasonable period

of time.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  So all three rebuilding

of these motors is done at your facility?

     MR. WARMER:  Yes.

          We have three facilities,  actually,

now, that — are rebuilding and we are pro-

posing consolidating this rebuilding in a

single facility.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Does it take longer

to convert the engine or is it -- does it

take longer to convert the engine back to

air than to do the normal rebuild that you do?

     MR. WARNER:  No, actually the rebuild

or the conversion to the conventional con-

struction is such that you supply a lot of

new parts for the motor internally.

          So that I would say there is not

a great deal of difference between the time

that it would take to restore it to its

original PC built construction or whether

you would actually convert it.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Well the miner is out

of use for the week that it is dead, aside

waiting for another engine, another motor,

I assume there are additional loaders or

shuttle cars available to take its place

in the mines, is that correct?

     MR. WARNER:  In some instances -- for

a large coal producer, you could have expected

him to have possibly a stand-by machine,

and if not, possibly a spare motor or two.

          Now, for those people who have

that investment, and have that capability,

obviously they don't get hurt from the time

point of view.

          But, my point in outlining the

profile of a smaller customer was to indicate

that we had 36 customers that had only one


          You can be quite sure they don't

have any backup.

     MR. 3ILES:  During the rebuilding opera-

tion, is there a significant exposure to be

-- not exposure to the workers, that is not

our concern, I guess, but is there a loss

of PCE at any point during the rebuilding

process -- a conversion process?

     MR. WARNER:  In the rebuilding process,

this is something that has been discussed

in quite considerable detail between our

service center personnel and EPA personnel.

          As I have said, we have had two

visits from EPA and they have made a number

of suggestions which we have adopted.

          These are such things as concentra-

ting the area -- restricting the area during to

which the  repair work is confined and to

also confining the number of personnel that

are actually involved in the procedures.

          They have screened such things as

our activity to return for insertion

and also the disposal methods that are

presently used on the solid waste that is

hooked up that may have PCB contaminated

in it.

          But all of these things have been

reviewed by EPA and to the best of my know-

ledge is in accordance with your recommenda-

tions .

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Is it within the scope

of your company to rebuild all of the loaders

in the space of one year -- if that was


     MR. WARNER:  There have been in the

past  -- a small number of competitive facilities

that have attempted to repair these motors.

          But they are handicapped two ways,

          One is they don't know the technology

of the compatibility between the fluid and

the insulation system and customers who


have tried these competitive repairs find

that the life is so short that not many

of them have stayed in business.

          The other thing is, of course,

the difficulty of these people getting PCB

to replenish the rebuilt motor.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  My question is is that -•

if we required that all of the loader motors

be converted within the space of one year,

could your company do that?  In other words,

do you have the facilities to convert all

of the PCB loader motors to non-PCB loader

motors in the space of one year?

     MR. WARNER:  Here I am attempting to

speak to our service center facility.

          We are presently doing this in

three service centers now.

          So, if you concentrate it in a

single facility, it becomes more difficult.

          The other thing is that the rate

-- we -- this is obviously only one motor

that we convert or excuse me, rebuild.

          We rebuild all of the various

motors on Joy mining equipment  so the PCB

motors only represent a small part of what

is done.

          Your question is could we clo

this in a single year period -- I assume

at a single facility.

          The answer to this might be yes,

but it would be highly dependent, I am sure,

on expanding the present facility that we have

-- because at the present time, we don't

have capability to do it all in one year.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Okay.

          Suppose that at the end of three

years we said that you couldn't use continuous

miners any more, and they would have to be,

you know, removed from the mines -- do you

have any idea of what would happen to those

miners if they just were left off to the

side to rust or what does a mining company

normally do with old equipment?

     MR. WARNER:  I am not sure I could tell

you the answer to that.

          When machines are taken out of

operation, they are very often brought

outside the mine.


          I suppose all ultimately dismantled

for scrap -- that's usually what happens

to a -- to a used piece of machinery that

is no longer in operation.

     MR.  PRINCIPE:  Okay,  one more question.

          Did the 9 CM cutters have the --

redesigned cutter head?

          You suggest it is possible to use

a non-PCB motor head that  cost $80,000 to

$100,000  -- it feels much  more reasonable

to buy a  new machine, wouldn't it?

     MR.  WARNER:  Yes, obviously the 9 CM

originally sold for $120,000.

          And the figure I gave you on a

conversion just for the cutter head was

$80,000 to $100,000.

          He would have to -- want it pretty

bad to convert that machine in order to

make that kind of investment.

     MR.  PRINCIPE:  That you.

     MR.  WARNER:  In other words, it is

really not a practical conversion from a

dollar point of view.

     MR.  PRINCIPE:  Thank you.


Mr. Pearson?

          I just have one question, Mr. Warner.

          In calculating on the numbers you gave

for the number of motors -- there are roughly

3,000 gallons in the machines that are in

current use that is the miners and the loaders.

          If I understand you correctly,

you said your current inventory was 9,000


     MR. WARNER:  Yes, sir.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  How long would

it take to go through that 9,000 gallons --

in let's say current rates on rebuilds?

          Do you have any idea on that?

     MR. WARNER:  Again, I am afraid I would

have to go to some arithmetic, Mr. Wirth,

to answer your question.

          I do know this, that when we

looked at our inventory, we felt quite sure

that the 9,000 gallons was far more than

adequate to complete our program on the

basis proposed.

          Because obviously, as you convert


motors, the use both in the service center

and the small amount used by a customer

is declining.  So there is no question in

our mind whatsoever that the 9,000 gallons

is completely adequate -- in fact, we end

up with, I am sure, with a surplus.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  You in fact

end up with a surplus?

     MR. WARNER:  Oh, sure.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Have you in fact

heard of miners -- I take it you would not

then be importing any PCBs or —

     MR. WARNER:  I am sure we will be

importing no more.


          Is there any question from the


          Okay, thank you very much.

          The next witness is Mr. John Hesse,

the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

     MR. HESSE:   My name  is John  Hesse

with the Michigan Department of Natural


           I  think most of  the panelists

are aware that Michigan has in effect now

legislation already banning PCBs for many

uses and we have talked to you many tines

about this.

          I'll address or have a few comments

regarding the announcement in the Federal

Register of this meeting.

          I will take the general issues

pretty much in the order in which they

were outlined.

          First, the totally enclosed manner

or issue over significant versus insignificant


          We don't believe that there is

adequate information to determine that

there is some type or level of exposure to

PCBs which could be called insignificant.

          For an example, fish in Lake

Superior are accumulating PCBs up to 60 parts

per million and their tissue has been

exposed to less than one part per trillion

in the water.

          This type of biomagnification

potential for PCBs alone negates the

probability of insignificant exposure.

          To my knowledge, also, Dr. James

Allen from the University of Wisconsin has

not yet determined a no-affect level in

his rhesus monkeys exposed to PCBs in

their diet and also supports the conclusion

that we simply do not know enough about

the effects to deem any exposure insignificant

          From language in 6(e)(2)(a) of the

Act, it appears clear to us that exposure

during manufacturing processes was intended

also to be relevant to the definition of

the totally enclosed manner.

          And we questioned whether the

manufacturing industry has the capability

to eliminate all environmental  losses or

employee exposure so as to qualify under

the definition.

          If not, then it seems that the

one year and the two year phase-out dates

of the ban are sort of redundant.

          But Michigan can't speak  to this

with authority because we haven't had to

address this question because  we  don't

have any PCS manufacturers  in  our state.

          Under the Category 2, 1978, of

exemptions in Michigan, we have limited

our definition of PCB use enclosed systems --

says that in electrical transformers and

capacitors and therefore allow for the

continued use of PCBs for these applications.

          Although we recognized that environ-

mental losses can occur through accidental

rupture or leakage from these devices, or

through incorrect disposal practices, we

have chosen to allow these uses but apply

strict control in reporting requirements

upon the user thereby minimizing environmental

losses .

          These requirements in our program

require that -- include the filing of pollution

incident prevention plans covering such

actions as diking around transformers or

relocation of capacitors away from drains

or water courses and also the development

of cleanup and disposal procedures.

          From past experience, we do not

think other or any other categories of PCB

use can be similarly controlled and we

strongly encourage that no other use exemptions

be allowed.

          Hydraulic fluid applications and

heat transfer system uses were among the

most commonly detected sources of PCB losses

in Michigan surveys and especially should

not be considered.

          But to allow for continued use of

PCB-filled transformers, we feel special

provisions need to be made for transformer

service companies who provide routine maintenance

for such units.

          Without servicing, we would expect

that the life span of the units would be

shortened drastically and unnecessary

fires may result.

          Yet we still believe that a high

risk of exposure and environmental losses

likely exist in such facilities.

          We will be interested in hearing

additional testimony on this subject and

encourage EPA to require  strict spill control

measures and disposal requirements if

this activity is allowed.


          Under the 1979 exemption category

or issue, the 1979 ban against manufacturing,

it appears that it may be academic since

Monsanto plans to phase out the manufacturing

of PCBs by this fall.

          The ban against distribution would

still seem to be pertinent, though, in

order to limit importation.

          With regard to existing stacks,

we feel they should be used for servicing

of transformers only.

          And that any excess that would

be left over from that should be destroyed

by incineration.

          Under category 4 or Item 4, the

resale of PCBs, it appears that the phrase,

"sold for purposes other than resale" ,

should be interpreted to allow transformer

servicing companies and individual industries

who buy stockpiles of PCS fluids for

servicing of transformers to use these

fluids following the July 1979 deadline

on distribution.

          Strict control over the storage


areas,  though, must be a prerequisite.

          In addition to our comments on

these specific issues, we feel some provision

needs to be made for residuals of PCBs

remaining and retrofitted equipment such as

heat transfer systems, hydraulic systems

and transformers.

          It is important to remove ~- no,

it is impossible to remove all PCBs in

these systems.

          Michigan's experience indicates

that with the conscientious effort toward

repeated flushings of hydraulic systems,

the residual can be reduced below the 500

parts per million cutoff selected by EPA

in its proposed disposal and labeling


          We have a number of them that ~-

a number of industries that have reported

concentrations in these transformed hydraulic

systems that  range between 100  and 300 parts

per million.

          Records on  one heat transfer system

in a Michigan  industry show a PCB residual


after flushing of 3,750 parts per million.

          Retrofitted transformers are

likely to have a residual of one to two

percent PCBs.

          Michigan has exempted some of

these systems  and allowed their continued

use, but these are not exempt from our

labeling requirements and the retrofitted

fluid containing the PCB quantity must be

ultimately disposed of as if it were a PCB.

          In Michigan our law automatically

allows for use of products containing 100

parts per million or less.

          Through the implementation of

our PCB Control Act which went into effect

in April, 1977, we will soon be able to

supply EPA with a breakdown of total PCB

quantities being used in capacitors con-

taining more than 3,000 PCBs in Michigan

and transformers, their average size and

the number of industries reporting use of


          Our questionnaire booklets were

mailed to about 15,000 facilities in

                                      — 79 ~
Michigan and through a single follow-up

letter, to those non-respondents who have

received an extremely high percentage


          When availablef and we expect

this might be available within a couple

of weeks,  we can provide you with a

statistical summary of this information.

          And that is the end of my prepared


     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Okay, thank

you very much, Mr. Hesse.

          Questions, Gary?

          Questions?  Mr. Biles has a question

     MR. BILES:  Do you have any regulations

right  now concerning maintenance operations

and how it is to be performed?

     MR. HESSE:  Servicing of transformers?

     MR. BILES:  Yes?

          Do your regulations say how it

should take place?

     MR. HESSE:  Not specifically addressing

the servicing.

          This  is something  that we did  not


take into consideration in terms of our law

that -- where we realize we are allowing

the continued use of PCBs in those closed

systems, but we have not made provisions

for the servicing.  So we have considered

that we were going to have to make exceptions

for the transformer servicing industry.

          Our only regulations would be those

involving the filing of a pollution incident

prevention plan at each of those facilities

and also the disposal of the materials from

the operation.

     MR. BILES:  Do you think it is practical

for the federal government to try to

specify some minimal procedures to be


     MR. HESSE:  I would hope so, yes.

     MR. BILES:  Michigan and several other

states in this area have enacted laws or

have enacted regulations on PCBs.

          I think that was partly the fact

that there was no official regulation in

this area.

          Do you have any feel for what the

state's attitude is going to be now if EPA

or when EPA promulgates its regulations as

to whether yours should continue in effect,

whether you are going to want some exemption

to continue yours in effect?

          I am not asking you to go through

your regulation and tell us reg by reg or

just your general feeling about the federal

government's role as compared to the state's?

     MR. HESSE:  Well, I think Michigan's Act

is every bit as — I was going to say every

bit as restrictive as the Federal regulations

appear to be going, but we will have some

areas of conflict.

          In terms of the lower limit that

we allow, at 100 parts per million rather

than 500, I think we will go ahead and

adopt the 100 parts per million.

          In terms of the labeling, it

appears that our label will not be in conformance

with Federal regs.

          We would probably choose to adopt

the Federal label  in  that case because we

want to be, right  from the  start, we want

to be in conformity on a national basis

with that.

     MR. BILES:  With regard to hydraulic

fluids, if we prescribed any kind of

requirements on systems that previously

had PCS containing hydraulic fluids, if

we did anything, should we do anything

beyond prescribing some kind of flushing


          I know that there are some companies

in this area that have some kind of distilla-

tion processes for systems.

     MR. HESSE:  I don't know, it is bothering

some that we know of continued losses ~~

it is hard to decide what is continued losses

from the new, from the residual of the left

and the new fluids from what it might be

losses from the existing discharge lines

and so on.

          We do note, in some of these

discharges, from plants where the hydraulic

systems are used to have PCBs -- we still

see PCBs coming out in the discharge.

          And I don't know what the solution

to that is.

          They would not be meeting the

zero discharge limitation of the federal —

or the -- the effluence guidelines if they

were divided across the board to all industries

     MR. BILES:  Do you think that EPA

should continue -- should authorize to

continue the manufacture of transformer

capacitors during  '78?

     MR. HESSE:  The manufacture?

     MR. BILES:  Of the capacitors and of

the transformers?

          I recognize that there are none

of those operations in your state?

     MR. HESSE:  Yes.

          I don't  know how effective the

controls can be within these manufacturing


          Just judging from what we have

read about the Hudson Falls plants in

New York, we have  quantities of PCBs that

were being lost there.

           It just  didn't seem reasonable

that you could interpret those  as being in


totally enclosed operations.

          Now the manufacturing operation --

so we see that there is some  conflict there

appearing in the 1978 phase,  in step.

          But I don't know for sure what

you ought to do.

          I — Just supply the best control

as possible if you do allow it.

     MR. BILES:  Okay, and the last question,

have you expressed any of the waste problems

or sludge problems and what do you suggest

we do, if anything, in those  areas?

     MR. HESSE:  Back in about 1971 or 1972,

I expect that we had, prior to looking, we

probably had concentrations of PCBs in some

of the municipal sludges in the neighborhood

of a thousand parts per million.

          But in 1973, when we first made

a general survey of municipal sludges, the

highest we have found was 350 parts per

million, and we had already instituted a

control on the industry that was contributing

greatest to that source.

          Since that time, the level in

that plant, and all the other plants

have decreased to in the neighborhood of

one to five parts per million, maximum,

in municipal sledges.

          And so we don't view this as a

real critical situation, in Michigan, right


          We have no existing guidelines

on the use of sludges in terms of the maximum

value of PCBs in them.

          I have heard some statements that

10 parts per million is being considered as

maximum level.

          I don't think we would see that very


          What was your other question?

     MR. BILES:  Waste oils?

     MR. HESSE:  The waste oil -- we have

made a survey of the concentrations of PCBs

in waste oil in Michigan, and it appears

that  the general level is very commonly in

the range of 1 to  20 parts per million.

          This falls below the 100  parts

per million maximum  in our law, and, there-

                                      — Q £ ~
                                       O D
fore, we don't know that we can legally

go after that unless we consider it a secondary

contamination that was caused by the

particular industry owning the oil at that


          Then we would have some authority

over it, and we do plan on implementing

that authority where it is practical.

          So that that oil is used in the

-- in a manner so as to minimize the environ-

mental losses from it.

          Where a waste oil is received

by another industry that was not responsible

for the inclusion of PCBs, I think our

position would be, at this point, to exempt

them through our incidental PCB contamination

clause in our Act.

     MR. BILES:  Thank you.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  I want to ask

a question along the same  line.

          Are you aware of any other products

that have contaminants —  in your surveys

at work -- what products have contaminants

of PCBs which are within the a hundred to

100 and 500 parts per million level?

          When you move from 500 to 100,

what things would you include as a definition

of a PCS?

     MR. HESSE:  Well, I think the trans —

the hydraulic systems have been converted,

they do fall between 100 and 500 in some cases.

So they would be affected by our Act and not


          Another one, there is a foreign-

made compound used by some industries in

the United States that we have not investigated

very extensively, but it has come to our

attention that in some cases it has PCBs

entered as a contaminant.  And this is

diphenylacetylene, dial, I am not sure how

it is pronounced.

          This appears addicting.  The con-

centrations range anywhere from 200 to 1,500

parts per million of the lower chlorinated

forms of PCBs.



     MR. HESSE:   I was unaware that hexa-

chlorobenzene  had PCB contaminants in it

                                      _„ ft o _
                                       o O
until just recently.  And I think I did read

somewhere, but I have no personal knowledge

of it.

     HEARING OFFICER WJRTH:  And you say

moat of your sludges with a pre-treatment

program of some type or a control on indus-

trial discharges to it -- now all less than

five parts per million?

     MR. HESSE:  Yes.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  In all cases,

to bring them down to that level, it was a

point source of discharge in your municipal

systems that you had to go against runoff.

     MR. HESSE:  That's right.

          In our — in the plants that had

the highest levels, we went into the distribution

systems, the interceptor system with treat-

ment facilities, and were able to trace back

to the originating source and apply controls

at that point.

          And apparently it's been effective.


questions?  Mr. Pratt?

     MR. PRATT:  Yes, I have a couple, I have


a couple of questions, John.

          In Michigan's problera -- two

questions in part.

          In following-up on industries,

the automotive industry and some of the

others, who are tremendous purchasers of

PCBs and with millions of pounds of PCBs

were lost in the Great Lakes or Great Lakes

environment, there has been substitutes

that have been instituted for these.

          What work has the State of Michigan

done, one in following-up the specific plans

with the substitutes and what potential

it does have and two, in the manufacture

within the state of Michigan who are pro-

ducing substitutes as to potential effect

of these?

     MR. HESSE:  Well, the primary substitute

for the hydraulic fluids appears to be the

phosphate esters -- the ones that we are

aware of, anyhow, that have converted.

          And we have not done  any environ-

mental sampling for the triorial phosphates

that these belong to.


          And we arc -- have been communi-

cating with the federal government frequently

on this subject and we will be glad to

participate in any kind of a study that

EPA might want to do.

          And we are aware that there is

apparently contracts have been let to study

phosphate esters.

          In terns of the substitutes by

manufacturers in Michigan, I assume you

are talking about the silicone fluids and

the Dow products for capacitors.

          We haven't done any environmental

testing on those substitutes.

     MR. PRATT:  As far as on the disposal

of sludge/ back when you found that some of

the sludge contained 350 or 1,000 milligrams

per liter of PCBs, what has been the

ultimate disposal of the sludge and what

steps has the state taken in this?

     MR. HESSE:  Likely, I don't believe

any of the high contaminated sludges was

used for agricultural purposes.


          The worst situation that we had,

the sludge was being incinerated in the

municipal incinerator and probably not

satisfactorily to completely destroy the


          But I imagine if a percentage

was destroyed, the rest went into the

atmosphere was redistributed.

          We are in the developmental

stages of sludge disposal guidelines at

this point.  And we find it very difficult

to adjust the PCB issue from lack of guidance

in terms of what is significant being applied

in various applications.

     MR. PRATT:  Looking at the Great Lakes

at some data from some other people, where

there has not been a particular decline in

the Great Lakes, like DOT which is quite

similar biologically to this, it has dropped

off quite rapidly.

          It appears that there are  still

major sources of PCBs getting into the Great


          And since, shall we say the  auto-


motive industry and others have not used it

for several years, would you attribute this

in large part to things like incineration

of sludge to PCBs in waste oil to the

incineration of electrical appliances, to

all of these various sources or what ideas

do you have on this as far as controls of


     MR. HESSE:  Well, it appears through

the various math balance studies of two or

three firms have come up with, that the point

source losses that we were finding in your

surveys directly to water were very insigni-

ficant contributions to the Great Lakes

environment in terms of total PCS input.

          That the majority of the input

was coming from atmospheric deposition.

          And this atmospheric contamination

undoubtedly was the composite of all types

of sources such as those you mentioned.

          This is why we felt that the ban

on the usage was entirely necessary to

bring the Great Lakes contamination problem

under control.  And that it had to be more

than on a single state basis that it had

to be on either at least a regional basis

or a national basis and finally we do

have it on that basis.

          So we are hopeful that now, when

this Act goes into effect, we will start

seeing the same decline that we did for DDT.

          But I don't think we have had

complete control on PCBs up to this point

that we had with DDT in 1969 and  '71.

     MR. PRATT:  On the level of PCBs and

waste oils and other materials, you initially

said that as far as like Lake Superior is

shown that you needed to get as near as

possible -- wouldn't, therefore, these levels

residuals of 500 or even 100 parts per million

of waste oils released still be a significant

source both as far as to the Great Lakes or

other water waste contributing to the whole

atmosphere of the earth as well as possible

worker impairment?

     MR. HESSE:  Well, we haven't seen any

as high as 100 or 500 in waste oils.

          I think 20  is the maximum  -- 20 parts

per million.

          It's been very difficult to

evaluate what kind of environmental impact

that 20 parts per million has.

          In terms of the Great Lakes environ-

ment or any other portion of the environment

— I just can't put it in terms that I can

easily grasp.

          I think we figured out that 20 parts

per million — in Michigan's waste oil

stream, if we use that as a maximum or an

average, even, that this would only amount

to 100 pounds or so of PCBs which is equiva-

lent to maybe one transformer.

          Spread out over the entire Great

Lakes area, I don't know how significant

that is.

          I am sure it adds to the problem,

but I don't know whether we can -- we can

really do anything about it at this point

other than make sure that no additional

disposal of PCBs is made so that it gets

into the waste oil stream -- attack it at

its source rather than the already contaminated


     MR. PRATT:  We found in a couple of

the Great Lakes states such as Ohio, where

they have commonly had 500 million grams

per liter and why it is almost in a deliberate

combination of the transformer fluid or

other materials into the waste oils, to lend

them down to quote acceptable levels, as they

saw it, how much have you seen of this in

Michigan of the potential problem?

     MR. HESSE:  I suspect that the purpose-

ful addition of PCBs to waste oils was very

common in the past, before the high level

of concern became apparent or well publicized.

          I have not seen any evidence that

people are intentionally diluting it down

into waste oils now to get under the maximum

limits of our law.

          This could be going on, but this

is not an acceptable way of disposal of

PCBs even if they are diluting it down to

less than 100 parts per million, our law

forbids  such an application,  and I  just


don't have any records that it is being

done — I hope that it isn't.

          But I assume that waste oils

were probably much higher in PCBs in the I960'

than they are now with all the publicity.

          It may have contributed very much

to our atmospheric loading of PCBs, I feel.

     MR. PRATT:  Does Michigan, this is

the last question —

          Does Michigan have a program, and

I should be more familiar with it than I

am, but in Michigan, what controlling do you

have over waste oils that come across state

lines that come into the state of Michigan?

          In other words, do you require

any type of certification on these?

     MR. HESSE:  No, I am not aware of any.

     MR. PRATT:  As we know in this last

fuel crisis we had last winter where we had

waste oils that were shipped from Ohio to

Minnesota to Arkansas that contains PCBs,

hexa wastes, and a number of other highly

toxic material.

          You have no program for evaluating


this as they come into Michigan?

     MR. HESSE:  No.

     MR. PRATT:  Thank you.


     MR. PEARSON:  Yes, I have one.


     MR. PEARSON:  You mentioned that you

have -- advocate allowing the service centers

to continue to use them for stockpiles of

PCS fluids in servicing transformers, is

that correct?

     MR. HESSE:  I felt that that was a

reasonable action — if we are going to allow

the continued use of transformers, we have

got to allow some servicing other than --

it seems like the two decisions go hand in


          We could go — say — okay, let's

say we will take all of the transformers out

of use right now or ~- let's let them be

used throughout their entire lii'espan, and

if we go one way, we might as well go, all

the way and allow them to be serviced, but

apply appropriate controls on that servicing.

     MR. PEARSON:  But that use extends to

used transformer fluids that have been


          Have  you thought about that?

     MR. HESSE:  As long as the reconditioned

fluids were going back into transformers,

I see no difference there.

          We are aware of at least one

situation where transformer oil has been

taken out of transformers, and put into

another application, and we very much

oppose the use of transformer oils in open-

ended systems such as the one we have found.

     MR. PEARSON:  Had you considered the

possibility that it may be advisable to

continue manufacture of PCB fluids in order

to service these transformers?

     MR. HESSE:  No, I think at that point,

we have got to draw a line and as soon as

the existing stocks of PCB fluids are depleted,

then let's don't, let's stop the use of

those transformers, let's let that be

their natural lifespan at that point.

     MR. PEARSON:  Okay, that is it.



that all, Mr. Pearson?

     MR. PEARSON:  Yes.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   Any questions

from the audience?

          Thank you, Mr. Hesse.

          He v/ill take one more witness

before we adjourn for lunch to get everyone

in today.

          Mr. Richard Rollins of the

Electronic Industries Association or Richard -•

     MR. ROLLIMS:  No, Mr. Tylenos (phonetic)

will not be here.


     MR. ROLLINS:  My name is Richard Rollins,

and I am speaking today on behalf of the

Electronics  Industries Association and its

committee on the PC8, yes.

          Today, we would like to offer

comments on  two  issues that were contemplated

in your  subject  request.

          One  is the  intended meaning of

"totally enclosed manner", and two,  the

intended meaning of,  "for purposes other


than resale".

          Number one,  the question on the

first issue, does totally enclosed manner

refer to exposure resulting from the manu-

facture of PCBs or articles containing


          It is our contention that the

legislative record is clear and eliminates

this question ambiguity.

          Senator Nelson, for example, when

introducing his PCB amendment in the daily

edition of the Congresional Record in the

Senate, March 26th, 1976, indicated that the

use of non-enclosed PCBs such as carbonless

paper, paints, coatings, soaps, and coffee

and ink toners quote would be banned in one

year after enactment comma while end of quote.

".All PCBs used comma including closed uses

such as electrical capacitors and transformers

would be banned in two and a half years

after enactment".

          Senator Tony (phonetic), in the

above-referenced to the Congressional Record,

also understood that the amendment phases


PCBs out by eliminating non-closed systems.

          Non-closed systems uses, within

one year, and eliminated PCBs altogether

within two years .

          Further clarification is shown

by Representative Dingle's (phonetic)


          Upon introducing his PCB amendment

in the daily edition of the Congressional

Record, August 9, 1976, where he indicated

quote "This proposal would prohibit any

person from manufacturing, processing or

distributing in commerce any PCB for any

use other than a use in a totally enclosed

manner" end of quote.

          In the Joint Conference between

the House and the Senate on the PCB Amendment

to the Toxic Substances Control Act, no

disagreement existed in the fine language,

and it is thus apparent that only cosmetic

changes  occurred there with no attempt to

alter the meaning from the original  versions.

          We, therefore,  conclude and suggest

to the EPA that the words,  "totally  enclosed


manner", were intended by Congress to refer

only to the product uses and not to the

manufacture of the product.

          Point two.  The intent of the

Congress as to the meaning of the phrase,

"for purposes other than resale", is made

clear by examining the Representative Goods's

(phonetic) supporting arguments for

Representative Dingle's PCB amendment and

I quote, "As my colleague, the gentleman

from Michigan, Mr. Dingle, has pointed out,

this amendment does not specify replacement

of PCBs in existing equipment or the equip-

ment itself."

          New language that we have added

to the Amendment makes it clear that the

distribution as well as the resale of PCB

containing equipment manufactured prior

to the ban is not prohibited.

          This would apply to such everyday

products as air conditioners.

          Subpoint, the PCB ad hoc committee

of the EIA further urges that the EPA classify


distributors of replacement capacitors in

the category of purposes other than resale

for the following reasons:  One.  Distributors

of replacement components such as capacitors

provide a valuable service to the consumer

by facilitating care in installing equipment.

          Without this service, the consumer

cost of the function equipment could increase

significantly due to premature purchasing

of replacement equipment as the manufacturers

could not supply the distributors.

          Minimum inventories of a wide range

of capacitor ratings must be available at

the distributor's in order to service his


          Two, between January, 1978, and

July, 1979, only one full selling season

for distributors will have occurred.

          Thus, much of  the present inventory

at the distributor level will exist in mid-'79

          As there are many distributors,

the potential  exists for quantities of

capacitors  containing PCBs to be  improperly

disposed if their inventories are not

committed to diminish by attrition.

          Three.  Further, not permitting

the gradual reduction of inventories,  may

cause a retrofit problem since the PCB

substitute capacitors will be too large

to be installed in some applications,

again hastening the discarding of equipment.

          Four.  Finally the impracticality

of enforcing the ban at this level suggests

the allowance of a more appropriate alterna-


          This concludes my remarks and I

thank you for your attention.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Thank you very


          Any questions -- Gary?

     MR. BURIN:  No.


     DR. STURINO:  No.



     MR. BILES:  On your discussion of "totally

enclosed manner", the -- obviously you

have hold, as we have with legislative


history, you are trying to get some feel

for what Congress intended for us to even

reach these regulations are.

          The language before the -- is

quite different than that that appeared

in the  final Bill.

          The House and the Senate Bills both

said that totally enclosed manner, any

manner  which insures any leakage from any

closure is significant.

          And, as you know, the final Bill

said, "any manner in which exposure of

human beings or the environment is insignifi-


          Now, our question is -- is a  lot

of the  issues that EPA over the last two

years has faced dealing with PCBs have

been associated not only with the fact  of

you all putting PCBs in a sealed components

-- in fact I doubt that you have seen EPA

trying  to build a strong argument that  once

in a capacitor it represents a great risk

during  the time the capacitor is being

used -- obviously we feel that the disposal

                                      -10 6 -

problems are significant.

          A lot of the problems we have

faced have dealt with the facilities and

the surrounding contamination of the

environment itself.

          And my question is is it your

position that Congress did not intend to

-- TSCA to be directed towards the problems

associated with your facilities?

     MR. ROLLINS:  That's correct.

     MR. BILES:  So that your position

would be that during 1978 as long as some-

body is making capacitors or transformers,

TSCA doesn't even apply?

     MR. ROLLINS:  That's correct.

          We would like to add that we, as

manufacturers, had taken many steps and you

are aware of them to control the effluence

containing of these PCBs both air and water

and we are all voluntarily living with the

guidelines as reported out of the American

National Standards Institute back in 1974,

and we believe that no useful purpose is

going to be served by going further on


the manufacturing operation in this particular

time span of January of '78 through January

of '79.

     MR. BILES:  What do you think Congress

was addressing when it changed the language

from "no leakage from an enclosure to no

significant exposure to humans or the


          That certainly is a change in the


          And the first specifically addresses

leakage from a discreet component of this

oil — I think.

          And the second, of exposure to

humans and the environment?

     MR. ROLLINS:  We believe it was more

of a cosmetic change rather than the intent

to change the meaning of the two versions

that were in the House and the Senate.

          If we go back to the record/ both

in the House and the Senate, we see  that  --

the attention  seems to be  the same,  and to

make a modification there, a conference

without having a report out as to why that


change occurred, seems to imply that the

intention was not changed.

     MR. BILES:  Although both versions had

— both versions were changed in conference,

do you think that that was a cosmetic


     MR. ROLLINS:  Yes, we do.

     MR. BILES:  There was no intent to

make any change?

     MR. ROLLINS:  No, we did not believe

there was.

     MR. BILES:  If EPA took the position

that states from your facilities, associated

with manufacturing, are covered by this Act,

that does not mean that EPA is saying you

therefore cannot manufacture capacitors?

     MR. ROLLINS:  Yes.

     MR. BILES:  We had discussed those


          If EPA took that position, how

long do you think it would take for either

your company or, I guess representing

capacitors' manufacturers, how long would

it take the industry to use up the liquid


PCBs that are in utock either as of now,

or as of the beginning of next year,

putting them in the capacitors?

     MR. ROLLINS:  Within a year.

     MR. BILES:  Do you believe that it

will take you —

     MR. ROLLINS:  The maximum of one year.

     MR. BILESs  Do you think that it will

take less time?

     MR. ROLLINS:  Yes.

     MR. BILES:  Do you have any idea how


     MR. ROLLINS:  That will be an individual

company's decision, but it will be less

than one year, probably significant.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

          The last question goes to your

issue of people that are handling capacitors.

          To understand what you are saying,

are you saying that if somebody purchases

capacitors prior to the middle of  '79 and

then uses those capacitors to repair the

equipment of some sort, and in that second

transaction there is some kind of, you know.


money exchange, you know somebody is paying

for that service, that that person is not

reselling a capacitor?

     MR. ROLLINS:  We are asking you to

review that language under that guideline

because we believe it would cause more

disruption than would provide any benefits

to the environment.

     MR. BILES:  Okay, thank you.


     MR. SHYKIND:  I have a question.

          One point which disturbs me greatly

is the -- the secondary market for replace-

ment to capacitors.

          We have, in this room, that elegant

TV set they are taking our pictures with,

and the last 10 or 15 years we have been

making most of the electronic components

for commercial specifications or industrial

specs as well as with PCB capacitors with


          If we cut off the manufacture,

is it possible to develop in terms of

electrical capacity, safety, exact replace-


ments for January inspection, multi-inspection,

capacitors that will fill the replacement

of secondary --

     MR. ROtLItfS:  The question is a matter

of tine rather than whether it is a functional


          We have heard this morning, we

have mentioned many times before, that the

polychlorinated biphenyl has a special

characteristic in its unflammability and

the substitutes will not have that.  It is the

requirement upon the manufacturers to insure

that the capacitor enclosure does not allow

this fluid to get out in the environment

and cause potential fires.

          And this is a major concern of the

capacitor manufacturers.

          We are in the evaluation stages

at this moment, and there are some people

who have the — a substitute available, but

there are many others who are not yet ready

with their substitute.

          The question of, if you were to

stop today, would you have an adequate


supply, the answer is absolutely not.

     MR. SHYKIND:  What happens to the

raultimillion or multibillion dollar

secondary business in surplus electronics

either in the government or some manufacturer's


          They are companies that specialize

in capacitors and transformers.

          Would they then be out of business

in July of '79?

     MR. ROLLINS:  We believe that there

as John Hesse from Michigan has indicated,

that there is --• there should be controls

on the addition of equipment containing PCBs

into new applications, even if it is on a

resale basis.

          But on a small capacitor, we believe

that the -- to allow distributors to buy

attrition to get rid of their product is

probably the best way on an environmental


          We feel that to try to indoctrinate

the people at the distributor level on what

is the proper way of disposal, is an endless


task, and in that short: span of time to

get r:.d of this product probably is not

going to be terribly beneficial.

     MR. SHYKIND:  Would you favor some sort

of, porhaps adhesive label to be slapped on

the small power supply capacitors, that

sort of thing, this would accommodate that

to say, "dispose of this environmentally


     MR. ROLLINS:  We, In the capacitor

industry, under the American National Standards

Institute, are beginning to identify the

product that contains PCBs, in accordance

with the State of Michigan rules and will

eventually honor marketing disposal require-

ments, adhere to whatever policy as it is set.

          So, the product will be identified,

yes, sir.

     MR. SHYKIND:  That would include the

many miles of relatively large capacitors

with power supplies and things like that

that are in surplus?

     MR. ROLLINS:  Well, you indicate large

capacitors and cost-wise, there are large


capacitors used in the corrective action.

          Those have, been labeled for

some time, ever since the American National

Standards Institute got its guidelines

back in 1974.

          The smaller the capacitors with

the advocation essentially encloses the

capacitor -- there are no identifications

shown in that capacitor or on that piece of

equipment as it now stands.

     MR. SHYKIND:  Thank you.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Okay, Mr. Pearson?

          Anyone on this side?

          Mr. Biles, you have another question?

     MR. BILES:  Assuming we take the

position you advocate on what is "totally

enclosed matter"?  There are still a number of

other industries that we are talking about

so — something affected by these regula-

tions .

          Your industry is certainly as

much as any industry is affected by EPA

and other federal agencies related by PCBs,

          Do you have any idea what the


exposvtre should be for somebody else?

          In other words, how do you think

it is possible to regulate the different

media of release with the type of manufac-

turing operation you are talking about?

          Because even if we took the

position with regard to your industry, EPA

in itH rulemaking, I believe, cannot escape

the requirements that it comes up with some

definition of the significance of exposure?

     MR. ROLLINS:  I really can't give you

a good answer to that — not being knowledge-

able in the area of the identifying airborne

contaminants and what levels, I not being a

toxicologist, is what level is not harmful.

          I really couldn't give you a good


     MR. BILES:  Okay, thank you.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  I have a few

questions, Mr. Rollins,

          The firat one is basically how

well stocked is the industry, your industry,

with ?CBs?

          My question is that should we follow


your argument that manufacture or proces3ing

the PCB capacitors was not meant to be

restricted in '78, not until '79, was that

being cut off?  That if with the regulation,

would your industry have sufficient PCBs

to operate through '78 to make or really

transfer over to the substitutes — would

we have sufficient PCBs in current stock?

My question is would they be importing PCBs?

     MR. ROLLINS:  The Monsanto Company,

as you know, it will cease shipping the

product on the last day of October of this


          Each company has -- set up its own

plans on this, but I think you will find

that the concensus is that they will have

enough material on hand from Monsanto to

finish off the use of PCBs in the capacitors

and, therefore, that the attrition of the

PCB-type capacitor will continue very quickly

after the mid-'78.


anticipate of any cutoff of PCBs in the

United States on the market?

                           /          -117-

     MR. ROLLINS:  I do not.

          It appears to be rather orderly

at the; moment, in its transition.


          The bottom question I have is

you nuide a reference to the fact that the

manufacturing process now, which would be

subject to the toxic effluent guideline

as of next February, that the industry was

confirming to have standards of emissions.

          You mentioned the ANSI standard.

          Would you elaborate a little bit

on that and explain certainly what air

emissions -- my question is air emission

standards are self-imposed or federally

imposed standards that you mentioned?

     AR. ROLLINS:  OSHA, in its Act, has

put i.o a requirement over air emissions over

work stations of one milligram per cubic


          The maximum concentration on an

eight hour average exposure.

          And there has been no violations

at any of the vaster operations that we are


familiar with on this particular point.

          The effluent guidelines, both

capacitor companies and tha EPA are very

familiar with what is being done there.


          So the companies are conforming

to the OSHA work place standard of guidelines.

          Have there been, to your knowledge,

any air emission standards imposed on any

of your manufacturers through state implementa


     MR. ROLLINS:  Yes.  The answer is yes,

some states have had that ••- the state of

New Jersey, for instance, and there have

been some measurements, and the measurements

have been found to be negligible,  insignifi-

cant to the point of no measurement detected

-- no level detected.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  There is no —

no levels detected emitting from the plant


     MR. ROLLINS:  That's right.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Are you familiar

with any place at any time when detectable


levela of PCBs were —

     MR. ROLLINS:  I have no record other

than that one particular incident reported

to me .

          So I can't tell you whether other

plans have been—-

     MR. BILES:  If we, again, assume the

particular position, do you anticipate

you would be asking for an exception in '79?

     MR. ROLLINS:  No.

     MR. BILES:  So you think your position

is now that if federal government did not

put out regulations regarding the purchase

of transformers in  '78, that is all that is

needed — that there would be no need

afterwards to make them with PCBs, I am

specifically referring to —

     MR. ROLLINS:  Capacitors, because on

transformers I can't, sir.

          But the answer is January of '78

I would anticipate every capacitor company

in th«a United States would be out of the

use of PCBs.

     MR. BILES:  Okay, fine, thank you.


     HEARING OFFICER WIRTHs   Are there any

more?  Do you have one question?

     MR. PRATT:  If I could  adjust one thing

that there were several areas in -~ where

we found air emissions from  capacitor plants

and you said you had not found any -~ to

our knowledge, there are several within the

six states where there has been a emission.

     MR. ROLLINS:  I only indicated that I

knew of none.

     MR. SNYDER:  My question relates to

the toxic effluent standards that become

applicable in February for capacitors and

transformer manufacture facilities that

discharge directly in the stream.

          For those plants that discharge

to municipal systems, what do you think

the impact would be if those standards,

through some mechanism, were made applicable

on capacitor manufacturers who were discharging

to municipal systems?

     MR. ROLLINS:  As you know, the 307-A

is in appeal by our group, by our committee,

and we, therefore, are not sure what tha


final outcome is.

          But, on the — if the 307-B that is

the discharge to the treatment facilities,

is the same as those, as presently proposed

by 307-A, there would be requirements in

some cases for additional treatments.

     MR. SNYDER:  Your comment that it is

under appeal making the assumption that you

would have to comply with those standards

by February or direct discharges, were you

not discharging into municipal system?

          If you may --• if you are going to

make :some assumption, 1 perhaps I shouldn't,

that your industry will be able to do that

at least physically from an engineering point

of view, would you be able to do the same

thing with those operations in your discharging

to municipal systems?

     MR. ROLLINS:  If the — if we are forced

to say, if we are forced to live with a

standard that says,  "No detectable levels

can exist", even after being through passive

treatment, it is going to be an extremely

difficult task.


     MR. SNYDER:  Do you see both problems,

both conditions essentially similar?

     MR. ROLLINS:  Yes.

     MR. SNYDER:  In their difficulty and

also ability to meet, be very similar?

     MR. ROLLINS:  Absolutely.

     MR. SNYDER:  All right.


          Are there any questions from the


          Okay, thank you very much, Mr.


          And with that we will adjourn for

lunch and we convene promptly at 1:30.

                      (WHEREUPON, a luncheon

                       recess was had until

                       1:30 p.m.)


         	PUBLIC MEETING - JULY 19,  1977	

         My name is Ed Warner,  I am Director of Engineering for the

 Mining Machinery Division of Joy Manufacturing Company.   We are a

 leading manufacturer of underground mining  machinery.

         Our company has only one use for  PCB's.   it  is  used as a

 coolant internally in electrical motors.  While  new  machinery  has

 not been produced using PCB  motors,  since 1973,  hundreds  of motors

 are still  in operation in underground coal  mines.  It is  the con-

 tinued utilization of the equipment using these  PCB  filled  motors

 that concerns Joy and our customers.

         We believe that  EPA  should be informed as to the  economic

 impact  and production  dislocations  in the coal industry that could

 occur,  if a  total ban  were to be placed on  PCB's beginning  in  1978.

 As long  ago  as March,  1972,  our company advised  our customers  of  th

 need for special care  in handling and disposal of PCB's.


        Joy  first used petroleum hydraulic oil as a cooling fluid

 internally in motors in 1960, but the flammability of the oil con-

cerned mine safety authorities.  Even though these mine motors were

explosion tested and could not emit sparks or flames to the mine

 atmosphere,  it was  decided that a flame  resistant  coolant  was  re-
 quired.   After exhaustive  testing Monsanto  Aroclor 1242, a PCB
 fluid was chosen.   Ultimately,  PCB fluid was used in  three differ-
 ent motors designs.   Because  of the greatly superior heat  transfer
 qualities of PCB  liquid  as compared to air,  it was possible to
 dramatically reduce  the  physical size of the motors.   This illus-
 tration  shows  one comparison  of two 100  H.P. motors -  one  PCB  fillec
 and the "other  of conventional air filled construction.  The first
 application  was on a continuous mining machine known as the CU43.
 Fifteen  of these continuous miners were  built over a four  year
 period beginning in  1963.  The  approximate  selling price of this
 machine was  $105,000.  Three motors were used on each machine.
 Due to the motor's location and size constraints,  it was not possi-
 ble to build these miners  using conventional motor construction.
 Seven of  these machines  remain  in operation  as of  this time, mining
 coal at two  small coal companies  in West Virginia  and Pennsylvania.
        The  second application  of PCB filled motors was made in
 1965.  The approximate selling price of  these loaders was  $60,000.
 In  this design, two motors were used to provide traction power for
 a coal loading machine.  The size of the motors was not reduced
because of the very high operating temperatures experienced with
 this motor.  PCB was added internally to the motors to greatly
 reduce operating temperature.   1,028 of  these motors were used
 on  loaders shipped between 1965 and 1973, to 88 different customers,


 Many of these users are small coal operators,   in fact,  36

 companies own only one  machine,   sixty companies own one, two,

 or three machines.  Because of the wide distribution of  these

 loaders,  rulings affecting the distribution and use of PCB in

 mines  would have a substantial effect on small  coal operators.

         The third application of  PCB  filled motors was on  another

 continuous  miner called the 9CM.   These miners  sold for  approx-

 imately $120,000 each.   In this design,  two cutter head  motors we;

 completely  hidden inside the cutting  element at the front  of  the

 machine.  A third PCB  filled motor was  used as  a hydraulic pump

 motor.  AS  with  the  CU43,  the motor size was shrunk in order  to

 locate  it in  these positions.   Prom 1967 until  1970,  sixty-four

 of  these miners  were constructed,   it is estimated that  30 of thes

 machines are  still in operation.

 Conversion  Program

        Beginning  in 1974, Joy provided  a conversion kit to our

 Service centers  to change  PCB  filled loader motors  to  conventional

 construction.  It was recognized that regulations were forth-

 coming to prohibit the use of PCB's.  To date,  353 motors have

been converted,  or approximately one third of the  total.  Loader

users have not been receptive to this change because the con-

ventional motors run much hotter,  and the service  life is shorter.


        There  is no conversion possible  for either  the CU43 or

 9CM miner motors.  Conventional motors of adequate  H.P. cannot

 be installed on these machines, because  of their increased size.

        Beginning in 1972, Joy Manufacturing and our motor supplier.

 Reliance Electric Company, began a search for a substitute for Aroclt

 1242  (PCB).  Nineteen different chemical companies  were contacted am

 twenty-one fluids were evaluated in the  search for  a replacement,  fl

 cost  of this program was approximately $60,000.  Heat stability and

 compatibility with electrical insulation were primary requirements.

 Only  one fluid was found to meet the test, but unfortunately it

 gave  a very pungent odor under operating conditions, so it was


        We are convinced that a suitable substitute does not exist

 for our requirements.  We are continuing to evaluate possibilities

 as -they become available.

Minimal Risk

        Our company believes that continued use of PCB fluid in

nine motors constitutes a minimal risk to the environment.  Although

 PCB filled mine motors cannot be classed as totally enclosed,  groat

 efforts have been expended to assure low loss of PCB from the motors

 The liquid is contained within an explosion tested enclosure,  under

 a pressure of 20 pounds per square inch.  Under very extreme condi-


 tions,  such as a motor winding failure,  PCB vapor may be emitted

 from a  pressure relief valve.   The only  6ther possible leakage poir

 is  around  the  motor shaft  seal.   If this seal becomes badly worn,

 PCB can leak but it would  go into a gear reducer  to which the  motor

 is  connected.   In normal operation,  the  loss of PCB from the motor

 is  zero.   Joy  sells PCB in one gallon  containers  to customers  who

 need small amounts  replenish losses  from the motors.

        The primary risk of environmental contamination  is  during

 motor repair.   PCB  handling and disposal  at Joy's  service center in

 Bluefield,  West  Virginia is being done in accordance  with suggestioi

 from EPA.   This  facility has been examined  twice by EPA  and has

 not  been cited  for  any misuse  or  contamination of  the  environment.

 Used PCB is accumulated and returned to  the Monsanto  Company for

 incineration.  Additional detailed safeguards have been  adopted

 as the  result of the visits by EPA personnel.  The quantity of PCB

used on each motor  is small, averaging about  four gallons.  Handling

is restricted to a  few people who are carefully instructed and


        At the present time, our company is repairing PCB motors at

three different locations,  but it is proposed to consolidate all

repairs  at a single Service Center.

 Consequences  of PCS Ban

         As  a  final  consideration, we would  like  EPA  to be  aware of

 the  impact  on the coal industry, if an  outright  ban  on use of PCB

 for  mine motors  were to be  implemented,  underground coal mining

 is a sequential  process.  It  is accomplished by  the use of a group

 of machines to do certain jobs in sequence.  One system, known as

 "conventional mining" uses  a  group of six machines:  A cutting

 machine, a  face  drill, a loader, two coal haulage vehicles

 known as shuttle cars, and  a  roof bolter.   It is obvious that

 when any single  machine becomes inoperative, the mining of coal

 stops.   In addition to the  loss of productivity, five other

 machines must cease operation, with no consequent return on their

 capital  investment.  The cost of down time varies, however an

 average production loss might well be 500 tons of coal in a

 single working shift, which at today's prices would be at least

 $10,000.  The value of the group of machines involved would total

 $300,000 to $450,000, depending upon age and condition.

        In continuous mining,  the mining sequence is simpler,

and  only four machines are used:  One continuous miner,  two

shuttle cars,  and a roof bolter.  Again, loss of operation of any

machine stops the mining procedure.   Loss of coal production  is

comparable to that in conventional mining.   The capital  invest-

ment would be only slightly less than for conventional machines.


         It  is  for these economic reasons  that coal mine  operators

 exert maximum  effort to keep all machines in operation simultaneously

 Taking mining  machines out of operation to make conversions  obviously

 would be a  costly procedure.


         Joy Manufacturing Company proposes that "use authorization"

be granted by  EPA to us, and our customers for three years beyond

January  1, 1978.  This authorization would be contingent upon the


1. No additional PCB to be imported by Joy Manufacturing.

2. If recommended by EPA,  Joy could sell part of our present inventory

   of PCB to our customers before January, 1, 1978.  This would

   eliminate future needs to transport PCB.

3. Joy would handle all future motor repairs at a single Service

   Center operating under rules prescribed by EPA.

4. Conversion of loader traction motors would continue at a

   rate to complete the remaining 675 motors by January 1,  1981.

   The program would be planned to  make conversions as motors fail,

   and not to convert good PCB  motors while still  in  operation.


5. Coal operators using CU43 or 9CM continuous miners with PCB

   filled motors would be advised to phase out this equipment by

   1981.  In case of the 9CM, a conversion kit could be designed
   for a new cutter head at an approximate cost of $80,000 tp


        We thank you for this opportunity to present our views on

this important subject.

                                               Environmental Activities Staff
                                               General Motors Corporation
                                               General Motors Technical Center
                                               Warren, Michigan 48090
                                  July 18,  1977
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
401 M Street,  S. W.
Washington, DC   20460

          Re:   Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCB's)

In response to the solicitation of comments published in 42  FR 32555,
June 27, 1977, General Motors Corporation requests that the following
comments be placed in the record for consideration of proposed 40 CFR,
Part 761.

General Issues

1.   Is any type or level of exposure to PCB's  "insignificant"?

    Surveying the data in the EPA's "Criteria Document on PCB's"
    (EPA 440/9-76-021),  most toxicological information seems to
    have been developed on short-term, high-dose exposure to PCB's.
    There appears to be relatively little information on long-term,
    low-dose exposures.  Thus,  it seems impossible to state that
    a specific exposure level is "insignificant. "  It appears concen-
    trations  on the order of 10 to 20 parts per million (ppm) may give
    certain long-term deleterious effects in various mammalian species.
    However, the general population has been exposed to levels in the
    low parts per billion (10~^ parts per million) for periods  of at
    least  10  to 15 years with no apparent adverse  effects.  At least
    there are no data at present which would indicate adverse effects
    in humans at the low parts per billion exposure level.  Therefore,
    an "insignificant" human exposure level might be in the low parts
    per billion range.

Offico of Toxic Substances      -2-              July 1 H. I «>77
     We presume that any discussion of exposure includes exposure
     of all portions of the environment.  Thus, establishing a single,
     no effect exposure level becomes very difficult.  It is well known
     that different organisms  react differently to PCB's. An "insignificant1
     exposure level for a clam could be very different than that for a
     human.  Therefore,  in our opinion, "insignificant" exposure levels
     should be related to the specific organism (i. e. , plants, worms,
     clams,  birds,  man,  etc. ) most likely to be exposed.

2.   Does "totally enclosed manner" refer to exposure  resulting from
     the manufacture  of PCB's; e.g.,  escape of PCB's  from manufacturing
     processes,  or only the end use of PCB's?

     The  term "totally enclosed manner" is used in Section 6(e) of the
     Act in relation to "manufacture, " "processing, " "distribution, "
     and "use. M  Therefore, the statute  contemplates that all of those
     activities can occur in a totally enclosed manner and regulations
     should be drafted accordingly.  It is,  of course,  possible  that the
     term "totally enclosed manner" could be defined differently depending
     on which of the four classes of activities the term  is applied to.

     GM does not manufacture or process  PCB's.  Therefore,  these
     comments do not address  the question of how "totally enclosed
     manner" should be defined in relation to "manufacture"  or "pro-
     cessing. "  However, GM does "use"  PCB's in electrical capacitors
     and transformers,  which are closed and sealed units.  We recommend
     that  such units be defined as "totally  enclosed" even though they
     arc physically capable of being  opened by some means.  Likewise,
    we recommend that electrical devices which contain PCB's and
    are factory-sealed at the time of manufacture also be classified
    as totally enclosed when used with their original seals intact.

    An additional consideration in defining "totally enclosed" is the
    incidental contamination by PCB's of certain fluids used in heat
    transfer and hydraulic systems.  Specifically, until 1972,  PCB's
    were widely used as fire  resistant hydraulic fluids.  When the
    environmental risks associated with PCB's became known, GM
     ceased using PCB hydraulic fluids.   Typically, PCB-containing
    hydraulic systems were drained,  flushed,  and refilled with non-
     PCB fluids.  After  nearly five years, we  still find  PCB  contamina-
    tion present in many hydraulic systems at the parts per  million
    level.  Hydraulic systems are,  by nature, not permanently scaled.

  U.S. EPA
  Office of Toxic Substances       -3-              July ! S,  1<>77
      However,  they are sealed when in normal operation.  The same
      is true of heat transfer systems used in some GM operations.
      Heat transfer systems are less susceptible to leakage because they
      are not subject to the pressures present in hydraulic systems.
      We, therefore, request the EPA to establish a PCB concentration
      of 500 ppm or  less as being considered incidental contamination,
      and exempt such situations from the "totally enclosed manner"

 1978 Exemptions

 As  stated above, an exemption should be granted for any type of incidentally
 contaminated system.  The EPA has recognized, in the proposed  PCB
 disposal regulations (40 CFR 761.4, proposed on May 24,  1977),  that
 incidental contamination of various systems has occurred.  A cutoff
 of 500 ppm is proposed in the definition of "PCB Mixture" for disposal
 purposes.  This definition should also pertain to all exemptions authorized
 under Section 6(e) of the Act.

 A hydraulic system containing residual PCB concentrations of less than
 500 ppm does not pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
 The system is enclosed, and, therefore, workers are shielded.  Water-
 borne discharges from the system are controlled under the provisions
 of the NPDES permit program and other discharge regulations.  We
 expect that systems which once held mixtures containing 60 percent to
 90 percent PCB's will continue to show low levels of residual contamina-
 tion for many years,  even after being cleaned.

 It is unreasonable,  in our opinion, to require industry to reclean hydraulic
•or other fluid systems presently containing less  than  500 ppm PCB.
 The incremental reductions in PCB content gained by successive draining
 of a system below about one percent residual PCB are small (on the order
 of 25 percent reduction with each  clean out).

 The material costs  of cleaning a system are about $2. 45/litre (L)  of
 fluid replaced.  In a facility having 500, 000 L of hydraulic fluid, the
 materials cost alone would be over $1 million.  (This cost is based on
 new hydraulic fluid  at $2. 00/L,  flushing fluid at  $0. 30/L, and disposal
 at $0. 15/L.)  Labor and parts replacement would be additional costs.
 It is apparent that the costs of removing residual PCB concentrations
 are very high and the expected benefits are minimal.  In our opinion,
 residually contaminated fluid systems containing less than 500 ppm
 PCB should be exempted from the provisions  of Section 6(e).

 Office of Toxic Substances       -4-               July 18, 1977
 Resale of PCB's
 As a general position,  GM believes PCB's should not be recycled.
 Once a PCB-containing system reaches the end of its useful service
 life,  it should be properly discarded.  However, there should be a
 small stockpile of PCB dielectric fluid available for routine maintenance
 of transformers.  This would help avoid costly,  premature scrapping
 of transformers due to the unavailability of dielectric fhiids.

                 Specific PCB Activities and Uses

 Existing Transformers

 Transformers  require  different types of scheduled maintenance.  Some
 units require no maintenance over their service  lives, while for others
 the maintenance schedule varies with the unit type and use conditions.
 Some require annual checking;  others may go five years between service

 During maintenance, one to two gallons of dielectric arc rrmovod,
 tested, and discarded.   The scrap fluid is  normally incinerated.  If
 the technician performing the test exercises normal precautions to
 prevent spillage, the risks of PCB loss are minimal.  The precautions

          testing to be performed only by trained, qualified individuals,

          use of an absorbent blanket to catch any drippage,  and

          scrap fluid and the absorbent blanket to be placed in labeled
          containers for proper disposal.

 Dielectric testing is required to maintain the proper characteristics
of the fluid so that the transformer will continue  to function.  There
are commercial techniques for  filtering the fluid to  remove suspended
 solids and other contaminants.  The dielectric constant is checked to
 see if it is adequate to  prevent arcing within the transformer (arcing
or short circuiting can cause the transformer to  explode).  Thus, fluid
testing according to manufacturer's specification is  absolutely necessary
to protect the transformer.

  U.S. EPA
  Office of Toxic Substances       -5-               July 18, 1977
 The release of PCB's resulting from transformer maintenance is negli-
 gible.  As stated earlier, if proper,  common sense care is exercised
 during maintenance,  there is no reason to expect any uncontrolled
 release of PCB's.  Consequently,  the health and environmental impacts
 of transformer maintenance are also negligible. If routine maintenance
 is prohibited, the rate of transformer failures could increase significantly.
 A certain percentage of the failures could result in rupture of a trans-
 former and release of PCB's to the environment. Therefore, trans-
 former maintenance must be allowed as long as PCB transformers  are
 in service.   Common sense precautions to prevent spillage should be
 exercised.  Disposal of scrap fluid and other contaminated articles
 should conform to EPA's rules on PCB disposal.

 Existing Stockpiles

 As  stated earlier, some amount of PCB should be available only to
 supply the maintenance needs of existing transformers.


 GM produces dies el-electric locomotives. There are several small
 capacitors used in the locomotives which have contained PCB's.  Those
 capacitors contain paper impregnated with approximately 0. 2 kilograms
 (kg) of liquid PCB.  The capacitors are obtained from outside suppliers
 who are in the process of converting to non-PCB dielectric materials.
 GM has initiated a program to completely phase out all use of PCB-
 containing capacitors in diesel-electric locomotives by January 1,  1979.
 Thus, there does not presently appear to be a need for GM to seek an
 exemption from the July 1, 1979,  ban on distribution of PCB's.
 The main reason for using PCB's in locomotives is fire protection.
 Railroads are concerned over the possibilities of an electrical fire
 igniting dies el fuel while a locomotive is  in a crowded train station or
 going through a tunnel. It has been our experience that electrical fires
 in locomotives are rare.

 At this time, GM sees no compelling need to use PCB's in diesel-electric
 locomotives, but neither do we see a compelling need to retrofit locomo-
 tives presently in service with non-PCB capacitors.  Electrical gear
 in locomotives should be allowed to remain in use until the end of its
 normal service life and be replaced with non-PCB gear at that time.
 The amount of PCB's  in a diesel-electric locomotive is small (a total

 Office of Toxic Substances       -6-               July 1 8, 1977
of about 1 kg PCB per locomotive) and is well protected.  Allowing
continued use of PCB-containing electrical components in locomotives
does not present any unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
By alloxving  conversion to non-PCB components on a scheduled main-
tenance basis (rather than retrofit),  unnecessary costs and rail service
disruption can be avoided.

                       Other PCB Activities

The apparent intent of this inquiry is to determine if PCB-contaminated
articles  should be removed from service.  It is unreasonable to expect
industry to literally tear down a manufacturing facility which may contain
pipes,  pumps,  concrete, etc. incidentally contaminated with small
amounts of PCB.  The economic and environmental costs of demolishing
a building to remove a few kilograms of PCB are totally unreasonable.
Manufacturing  buildings cost millions of dollars to construct.  Chemical
landfills simply could not handle the quantities of construction rubble
which would  result from wholesale demolition of incidentally contaminated

Disposal of PCB contaminated solid waste is covered by other EPA
regulations (40 CFR 761.4, proposed on May 24,  1977).  It is obvious
that building materials  secondarily or incidentally contaminated with
PCB's must  bo exempted if the material does not qualify as a "PCB
Mixture" under EPA's proposed disposal regulations.  Therefore, we
recommend that EPA abide by its proposed definition of "PCB Mixture"
and specifically exempt any material containing less than 500 ppm
PCB from the provisions of TSCA Section 6(e).

We hope these  comments will be considered by EPA during formulation
of regulations affecting the ban on PCB's required by TSCA.

                                 Very  truly yours,

                                 '.0  •?

                                 W. R. Jolinson, Director
                                 Plant Environment


                PCB HEARING



              July 19, 197''

                1:30 p, EI .
        Pick Congress Hotel
           Chicago, Illinois
                      Susan A, Dime
                      Court Reporter

Regulations Development
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, O.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Organic Laboratory Section
Central Regional Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1819 West Pershing Road
Chicago, Illinois

Waste Management Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Toxics Strategy Implementation Unit
Office of Enforcement Division
Washington, D.C.

Toxic Substances Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Permit Branch, Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Permit Branch, Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Environmental Engineer
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Office of Environmental Affairs
Interagency Work Group on PCBs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

Office of Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois

Attorney of General Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

     MR.  MIRTH:  Let's get started, gentlemen.
                     Good afternoon,, ladies
and gentlemen* we wll reconvene this session
on the polychlorinated biphenyl marketing and
— excuse me, manufacturing ban regulation.
We finished with the marketing and disposal
                     If there is no procedural
question or announcements we will proceed with
the next witness.
                     The next witness then is
Fredrick w.  Steinberg, a lawyer.  Is he here?
                     Would you state your name
and would you spell your last name for the
clerk and your association* sir?
     MR.  STEINBURG:  My name is Fredrick W.
Steinburg, S-t-e-i-n-b-u-r-g.  I am associated
with the law firm of Rose, Schmidt,. Dixon, Hasley
and White from Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, the
law firm of which represents Joy Manufacturing
Company who was represented earlier this morning by
Mr. E.  M.  Warner, the Director of Engineering.

                                         •    127

                    I am going to restrict

my comments which will be very brief to a

couple of the questions that Mr. Warner was

asked by members of the panel.

                    I believe it was Mr.

Burin who inquired about the identities of

the owners of the 9 CM, Continuous mining

machines and Mr. Warner did not have with

him at that time a copy of the Joy Manufacturing

Company's submittal to the EPA, dated

September 22, 1975, which is a fairly thick

document, but it was submitted to the EPA and

I would direct Mr. Burin to documents seven

and nine in that compilation which does state

— which do state the identity of those


                    I think it was Mr. Breraor

who inquired about the types of fluids that

were evaluated by Reliance Electric Company

who is working in conjunction with Joy

Manufacturing Company in attempting to locate

a suitable substitute for PCBs in the mining

machinery category.

                    I have two volumes which

                                          — 7 -
were prepared by Reliance Electric Company

which essentially reflect that work.  And I

would be happy to share it with anybody at ths

EPA who would wish to look into this matter


                    It is my understanding

that the EPA is continuing attempts to identify

potential substitutes of PCBs in almost every

application imaginable.  So, I don't think

Reliance Electric would have any objection to

our supplying them to you.

                    A point that Mr. Warner

mentioned this morning was that Joy Manufacturing

Company would be happy if the EPA deemed it

desirable to consolidate its loader motor

conversion program at a single facility rather

than the three facilities that are now being

used or have been used in the past.

                    I think that such a

consolidation of activities would probably

involve a trade-off that the EPA would be

concerned about.  By restricting the conversion

activities to a single facility I think it is

safe to assume that unless Joy was required to

                                        - -   129

dedicate a very large amount of their re-

sources of that Bluefield facility strictly

to that conversation program that ultimately

the conversion program would be slower than

if three facilities were utilized.

                    The counter-balance factor

that the EPA may wish to think about here is

that if a single facility is involved, it is

quite likely that the number of Joy employees

who would be participating in the conversion

would be reduced.  I don't think that Joy

itself has a preference.  But, this is something

that I simply offer for the EPA's consideration

at this time.

                    Similarly the offer that

Mr. Warner made this morning with respect to

the willingness of the company to conclude its

direct sales of PCBs to customers in one-gallon

containers which are now used to top off

motors in operation also involves a trade-off

perhaps.  In making the offer Joy in no way

means to attempt to end one round of any ^?

tho deadlines contained in the act, but direct

pales if concluded before the statutoru deadlines

may simplify transportation of the fluids

which presumably will also be in areas regulated

                    In talking with Mr. Warner

at lunch in connection with the company's

willingness to divise an instructional program

for customers, Mr. Warner or other appropriate

associates at Joy will be happy to discuss

with officials of the EPA at any time the

contents of such a program, how it might best

be implemented.

                    Those are the only remarks

I have.  I'd be happy to address myself to

any questions that a lawyer is competent to

answer in this field if there are any.

     MR. WIRTHI  Okay.

                    Thank you very much.

                    Professional competency

is not a question here.  The questions here

are that we have a lot of problems in this

entire work.

                    Okay questions?

                    No questions -- any


                    I guess there are no

                                          »    131

questions.  I guess we exhausted Mr. Warner

this morning on the subject.

                    Of course, we won't

respond at this time.  We will not respond

on any of these particular comments, at this

time we are not prepared to.  I think the main

issue here is for us to understand what your

capabilities are; what Joy's capabilities are

and what substitutes are available and write

the regulations accordingly relative to the

environmental risks associated with the operation

and use of PCBs.

                    I have one question, I

guess it concerns the three facilities versus


                    Is there any comment you

would care to make about the relative

environmental risk of three facilities versus

one?  Do you consider one environmentally

safer, easier to operate or control than three?

     MR. STEINBERG:  Let me begin by saying

that I have not personally visited any of

the three facilities that have participated

in the conversion program.

                    Mr. Warner stated this
morning that EPA officials have visited the
Bluefield, West Virginia facility on two
prior occasions in the very recent past.
                    It is my understanding
from hearing summaries of those visits that
they were essentially satisfied with the
handling procedures at that facility.  There
were some recommendations made and it is my
understanding that they are now being im-
                    Except to say that -- as
I previously indicated that if you can limit
the number of persons participating in that
kind of a conversion program I think it may
be safe to conclude that those relatively
small numbers of people will be more impressed
with the hazards involved in handling PCBs.
                    I don't know that the
physical facilities of those three plants
vary to such an extent that the physical
plant would make one more properly a
subject of that kind of activity.
     MR. WIRTHt  DO we know where the other

-- where all three facilities are?  One is
Bluefield —
     MR.  STEINBURG:  One is Bluefield, West
Virginia, the second is the Meadowlanes facility,
I believe, in Cannonsburg, Pennaylvannia, and
the third is the Mount Vernon facility which
ia here in Illinois.
     MR.  WlRTHt  Okay.  Thank you.  Any
                     We will call our next
witness, Mr.  Haryy Onishi, from the PCB Task
Force of the Edison Electric Institute.
     MR.  ONISHIt  Good afternoon.  My name is
Harry Onishi, O-N-I-S-H-I, and I am Manager of
Transmission Engineering for Commonwealth Edison.
I am appearing today as a member of the Edison
Electric Institute.
                     And this task force is
somewhat unique.  It is comprised of representa-
tives from investor-owned and municipal-owned
utilities as well as TVA, BPA and REA.
                     The task force has had.
several meetings with BPA concerning the

                                         -  •  13-

problems of handling and disposal of PCBs,

I guess this goes back to early 1976.

                    At that time we proposed

that an affective control program encompass

the following basic considerations:  nuraber

one war, that existing "closed system*' usas

such as transformers and power capacitors

reraain in service for the remainder of their

usaful life and that the PCB control efforts

be directed towards maintaining adequate records

of in-service equipment and establishing

procedures and methods for the handling, con-

taining, clean up and disposal of PCBs in an

environmentally acceptable manner.

                    We believe this recommended

course of action is appropriate and consistent

with the Toxic Substances Control Act.  Ami

accordingly wa have stated in the hearings on

the promulgation of regulations covering the

labelling and disposal of PCSs and PCB articles.

                    We also recognize that

there arn additional requirements associated

with the promulgation of reqv.lations concerning

the manufacture, processing and distribution

of PCBs in commerce.

                    I think we have a few

comments in this area.  We do recommend

that the exemption for closed-system uses

continue.  I think that has been fairly

clear that the intent is there.

                    Our past experiences

show that the transformers and capacitors

are extremely reliable.  The failure rates

are very low.  The releases to the environment

because of inadvertant catastrophic failure is

very small.  This finding is supported by the

Versor   study.  And I think it has been

stated that probably the safest place for PCBs

in any instances is in transformers or

capacitors that are in normal operating


     The ban on the manufacture, processing

and distribution of PCBs will have some impact

on utility operations.  And it already has

some impact.  For example, on capacitors now

most suppliers, to my knowledge, have in-

dicated that they will not supply PCB-filled

capacitors.  So, we are purchasing non-PCB

power capacitors and transformers.  I think

there may be one or two suppliers that will

still supply an askarel-filled transformer,

bat most companies are changing.  And I would

think the ordering of new askarel-filled

transformers is very rare.

                    The unavailability of

PCB does not directly affect power capacitors.

As you know these units are hermetically

sealed and there are no make-up fluid require-

ments.  It does require that non PCB

capacitors be available and they apparently

are.  I think we -- to my knowledge they are

in service.  We have not had time to effectively

evaluate their in-service operation and we will

be doing this over the period of years.

                    For PCB-filled transformers,

however, there ar^ nominal nake-up fluid

requirements.  I think the industry intends

to provide these make-up requirements by

using in-stock PCBs initially and ultimately

as we go look down the roacl, we figure it will

have  to be done by reclaiming PCBs from

existing transformers that are ronoved fron

                                              I 3 •
                                              J. O »

                    Co, with this in mind

we would recommend that the proposed

regulations provide for the use of PCBs

both from an inventory initially and then

allow reclamation of PCBs from all transformers

for future use.  And these uses can be

accomplished in an environmentally acceptable


                    I think that is the

extent of my comments.  I'd be happy to answer

any questions.

     MR.  V7IRTK:  Thank you very much.

                    fary, do you have any


     MR.  BURIN:  No.

     DR.  STURIHO:  My only question is does

any of the companies you deal with have any

programs where they do recycle the PCBs or

are they sent directly to scone other proper

disposal facility at this time?

     MR.  ONZSHI:  Well, for disposal I think

most companies are sending them to a suitable

disposal facility, whether it be Rollins or


whether it be Monsanto for recycling or

reclamation of PCBs.  There is equipment

available to do that.

                    I think some companies,,

maybe the large utilities can do that.

Certainly large transformer manufacturers

can recycle.

     DR. STURIHO:  Is anybody doing it at

this time?

     MR. O1IISHI:  I would imagine they are,


     MR. SNYDER:  You commented earlier about

the make-up procedures for transformers.

There seen to be some question at some point

down the road we won't have enough PC3s to

satisfy this make-up requirement.

                    In what ways do PCBs

escape from a transformer in a normal use

situation such that make-up fill would be


     MR. ONISHI:  Well, many utilities

will santplo periodically the Dielectric

fluid to make sure it is maintaining its

properties.  r?his would be a small quantity

but over the period of time this could have

some impact.

                    In many other cases you

may have oh, a loose gasket or something of

this sort where moisture would enter into a

transformer and you would then have to recycle

that fluid, or perhaps even drain it and

replace it with additional PCB fluid.

                    So, there are different

ways in which you could have some loss of

fluid or have need for added fluid.

     MR. SNYDER:  Do you feel that any of the

practices present have perhaps been more on

the side of why not go ahead and change

because there is an adequate supply of PCBs

to undertake such a change versus future

situation where supplies would be limited for

all reasons that we have discussed here today,

and by virtue of this limitation that one

might find that they don't have to undergo

the change of Dielectric flxiids that they

rri=iy have undergone before; meaning that you

sort of decide maybe life is getting a little

tougher, raaybo w«a don't, have to fiddle around

                                            14 0

BO much with these fluids.

                    Is there any basis for

that kind of a thought?

     MR. ONISHI:  I den't know.  I think it

is possible that some ~-  in some instances

we might consider replacement of the trans-

former rather than say changing the fluid or

something of this sort.  I think most utilities

would intend to continue  their program of

periodic saiaple of the fluid just to make

sure that the Dielectric  is adequate and thers

is no contaminents in this sort thing,

because it is far more economical in nost

oases to keep a transformer serviced that it

is to replace it.

     MR. SttYDER:  What are some of the

consequences of PCBs becoming contaminated,

•whether it is raoistare -- or perhaps -- you

have mentioned moisture as a contaminantr

what other kinds o" contaminants would you

describe and for those contaminants what

kind of ill effects would oc^ur if they were

not corrected?

     MR. ONISHI:  Well, it would lead to


failure of the transformer, and the failure

would be ralated to the level of contaminants

and location of those contaminants, it could

be rather quick and it could stretch over

some period of time.

                    But the emphasis on

insuring the Dielectric strength would be

to maintain the life of the transformer and

prevent any equipment failure.

     MR. SNYDER:  Can you mention any other

contaminents other than moisture at this time

that you would expect to find?

     MR. ONISHI:  There undoubtedly are but

I am not aware of them.

     MR. SNYDER:  Are you aware of any way

in which -•- well, my understanding is that

you can lose some PCBs from a transformer,

this would contribute both f:o an environmental

release and also a lowering of the level whicn

may require nake-up, that there is an off

aspect of the transformer, it becomes overheated,

for whatever reason —

     MR. ONISHI:  You mean to an operation of

a pressure ralief device or something of this

                    Normally, I should say
on most transformers from the distribution
level  that have pressure relief devices.
                    However, on the askarel
type transformers/ network type transformers
generally this pressure relief device is a
frangible diaphragm.  It is sealed, it dees
not release unless you have -- generally it
is a failure that will crack or rupture that
device, it is not a breathing device.
     MTl. SNYOER:  If in the course of
developing these ban regulations we wero to
Jevelo£j essentially spill-protection regulations
which might involve things !?uoh a.s secondary
containment meaning diking or curbing or
something of that nature around transformers,
a•  whit would be your thoughts on the use-
fulness of that and b• the practicality and
c-  in a sonawhat rel.Vced way, what some of
the cost impact vru\y  ;>e?
     MR. OSISHI:  '-Tali, I tl.ink -.he usefulness
of some sort o*~ spill prevention — nost
utilities I think -re very actively looking

in that area.
                    We clo have a problem,
many of our transformers are located in sub-
surface locations, and many of them have either
sumpumps or direct connections to the drain
                    There is a lot of
investigation going on on how you are going
to seal those.  Some companies are looking at
                    When you are in a sub-
surface condition diking is not effective
because you can have water levels.
                    I think it ir probable
in our opinion it is necessary to do that.
                    When you're in an
above inside building vault location, most of
these either the drains -- if there are drains
they can be plugged, ar.d in many of the newer
vaults there are no drain facilities so that
if you would have a leak or a spill they
would be contained within tJat area.
                    What is your third part
of the question?

                                        •  -  14

     MR. SNYDKR:  The cost impact of this

sort of program in relation to current


     MR. ONISHI:  The cost impact of adding

invirob to this sort of a thing I think is

relatively nominal.

                    If you have to go into

the redesigning of vaults and that sort of

thing then it gets rather astronomical and

we are trying to avoid that.

     MR. SNYDER:  Are you aware of any way

to improve this accident or stroke of any

potential other than secondary containment

such as diking?

     MR. OiJISHI:  Well, let me say first

tae tyt*3 of occurrance or failure where you

would have a tank raptare or something is '

extremel; rare.

                    The way of improving

that, of course, is if you do have a failure

to have your protective equipment, remove that

equipment from aarvice rapidly.

                    I think most utilities

do have equipment that operates in a matter

of secondc.  And that does not preclude the

possibility of having a catastrophic rupture

under certain conditions.  7Vnd in most cases

I think you have to rely on the secondary


     MR. SNYDER:  Are you aware of any

cases whore utilities, or users for that

matter, that may not be utilities to the

extent you are familiar in that area, where

a transformer -- PCB transformer, for whatever

reason they decide they won't go into service,

in examining the cost of disposal or in-

convenience or whatever, elect really to

bypass that unit, tako it out of services

electrically but allow it to remain in place,

assuming that it's cheaper than haggling with

the unit, are you aware of that kind of


     MR. ONICHI:  *Io, I am not aware of it.

Personally I could force the situations under

which that might occur.

     MR. SNYDER:  Would you consider it

unreasonable if wa had requirements tha': would

preclude that  sort  of  practice>  in  othier  wordg

truly define the useful life of the transformer

as one that somehow relates to its useful lif.3

in its electrical system or as time passes

properly removing the item from service on

the assumption that it has become some greater

risk whether it is corrosion or damage,

incidental damage or something like that that

might resxilt in a leak?

     MR. CNXSHI:  Well, I would think — I

would thir.k it would probably be -- we would

think it would be unreasonable to take that oat

                    I think if you have that

equipment on a standby basis, standing there

idle, we would tMr-!c that it would be perfectly

secure as far as environmental releases to the

environment.  And I don't thin?< it would bo

nocessary to pull that out. and dispose of it.

     !-'?.. S'lVDE^r  ..y "standby" are you su

that it could be back into service until such

tine as it has no further useful service 3ife

     MH. OMISHT:  Well, if it has no further

aseful  Iif3 I thin'--, it should ba disposed of.

     M3. 3HBMER:  Mr. Onishi., you indicated

that a  good majority of comparie- are not


ordering PCBs or askarcl-filled transformers

and capacitors at this time?

     MR. OUXSHI:  That is correct.  Most of

our capacitors -- power capacitor suppliers

have indicated that PCB-filled legal supply/

only non-PCB capacitors and this has been in

effect for some time.

                    Many of the transformer

manufacturers have indicated that they will

no longer supply PCB-filled transformers.

     MR. BREMER:  What replacement is either

Commonwealth Edison using or is the Edison

Electric Institute recommending at this tine

fox both transforraers and capacitors?

     MR. ONISHI:  For capacitors Edison

Electric Institute is not recommending any-

thing.  They are relying on the manufacturers

of power capacitors and many of the manufacturers

have come out with substitute fluid, General

Electric, KoGraw Edison, Westinghouse ~-

     MR. BR2MER:  They're letting the actual

manufacturers wake their owi; recommendations


     ?IR. OiJIClI:  That is correct.


     MR. BREMER:  They haven't select rid any?

     MR. ONISHI:  Mo.

     MR. BREMER:  I thought that the Institute

was going to select, in fact they had some

tyi>e of a survey going/ to evaluate replacement


     MR. ONISHI:  Well, I think we will monitor

the performance of the substitute fluids arul

just to determine whether or not their

reliability or whether or not there are other


                    I don't think it's the

Institute's position to dictate the type of

substitute fluid that should be used.

                    As far as transformers

IE concerned, again this would be a similar

situation and there e.re several substitv.te

fluids, most prominent being silicone, that

har been a rcplacertcrt fluid for askarcls.

     MR. BRTMFR:  f>J:ay.

                    Let's say foz example

Commonwealth Edicon has to replace a trans-

former  in. the city of Chicago in a public

building that was required by electrical

                                       -    149

code to have an askarel-filled transformer

in a particular situation you would use a

silicone base fluid transformer oil at this

time or would you use an askarel?

     MR. ONZSHZ:  Well, it would depend on

circumstances.  In many of the locations where

we have askarel-filled transformers we do

have -- they are installed in class A fire-

proof vaults, so we could be ready to substitute

an oil-filled transformer there.

     MR. BREMEN:  Let's say for example on a

new building, what would you put in now?

     MR. ONISHI:  In a new building we would

probably go to oil and in some cases we are

trying out some silicone transformers.

     MH. BREMERs  So, the Electrical Code

doesn't keep you frost using say mineral oil

inside a building?

     MR. ONISHI s  No,. I dees not.

     MR. DREMSR:  Maybe seme of us were

confused because when the --

     MR. ONISHI:  It does require --

     MR. BREMER:  — NC Guideline was being

developed they indicated that there were

specific places, public places where a  number

of people would be exposed to, you know,  let's

say fire from a trans former that they were

required to vise an askarel -filled transform®::.

     MR. ONISHI:  That is correct.

     MR, BREMER:  But, now you are saying that

you can go to oil-filled?

     MR. QNIEHI:  Well, in our locations  we

do have the transformers installad in a fire-

proof vault.  In many locations the transforners

are not installed in a fire-proof vault,  whicsh

means that it does have to be a non-flammablo

or f ire-resi&tant type tramsf orm-ar ,  In thoso

cases you would have to go ':o as>.arel or  sili.cone

or something that is approved from an electrical

code standpoint.

     MR. BREMER:  Is the siLlieone-filled

acceptable at this time?

     MR. ONISHI:  My u,nderutandi:ig is that

the National Electrical Co
     MH. ONISHI:  I don't think it has been

formalized, but indications are that it will


     MR. BREME2:  Thank you.

     MR. BILES:  If we are going to accommodate

transformers, it's certainly being urged upon

us as a policy matter, we are going to try to

fit  this within what six(e)allows us to do.

                    And there are two or three

questions that I want to Hea how ypu can help

us interpret this.

                    One torm that this act

uses throughout, not only in sixty is the

term due process, not fron a legal standpoint,

but  just fron a standpoint of how people

actually use transformers, do you consider the

repair of the transformer to be the processing

of the PCB liquid itaelf?

     MR. QNTSHI:  What wa:? that question again?

     MR. BILES:  Do you consider the handling

of liquids and putting th«m in a transformer

to repair and maintain a transformer, is that

processing of the liquid.  Do you think it is

reasonable or not reasonable to say that that

activity is processing?
     MR. ONI3HI:  I think if you are in
an extensive repair, where, say you are in
a rewind operation or something of this sort,
major repair, refilling the fluid, that
would be part of the processing.
     MR. BILES:  Okay.
                    That loads into ray next
question.  X am assuming that there are various
kinds of activities that people would call
servicing or maintenance, some of which may
involve essentially building a new transformer,
others of which may involve kind of routine
maintenance, whatever that means.
                    Do you think we are
going to have — how difficult it is going to
b« for this agency to try to distinguish
batween what is necessary for routine
maintenance to keep things for their current
life and the activity necessary and associated
with really building new transformers.  Is
that going to be a hard line for us to draw
in your opinion?
     MR. ONXSIII:  I don't think so.  I think

                                           1 ^ 1
                                           jL J o

on routine maintenance and servicing would

be an analysis of the fluid, perhaps a bushing

change, something like that.

                    I think whenever you have

to open a transformer and get into the:

internals and start doing repairs within

the windings and something like that, that

would be a major repair and could be differen-

tiated between service and maintenance*.

     MR. BILESi  Do you think that second

activity is also the kind of activity that

should be authorized for the next ten, twenty,

thirty years, or are you directing your

comments to the first kind of activity?

     MR. OSfXSHX:  I am directing ray comments

to the first activity.  The repair facility

or operation is generally not part of the

utility operations and our position r:.ght now

would be it is going to ba pretty much on an

economic decision whether you can havu a

transformer repaired or whether you purchase

a new one.

     MR. BILES;  If we attempt to wri^:e soire

regulations that account, for repair, however

                                        "   154

we define that term, another issue that we

have got to face is how we project the amount

of PCBs needed if they refer to the fact that

you thought reclamation might be one source

of the liquid?

                    How reasonable is it for

EPA to try to project for the amount of

transformers that are out there and we think

may be out there for the next thirty to forty

years to try to project the amount of liquid*

that could be needed and promulgate the

regulations as opposed to being ailent on th&

issue and just assume that you can't make

any new ones, you can't import, ao it has to

come from reclamation/ that is one of the issues

that we have to allow the import to let people

build up stock specifically for that purpose.

     MR. ONXSBZ:  Well, I think it would be

vary difficult to project what the requirements

are going to be.  And I think most companies

have some difficulty with the situation

since Monsanto went out of business they

certainly don't intend to stockpile adequate

amounts of PCBs to handle their needs for

the next thirty yearn.
     MR. BILES:  One of the things I have
coma to understand I si that a lot of reclamation
processes may be a source of a lot of sloppy
handling of PCB, T am not saying that is
true of some of the major companies who do
that, but a lot of the stuff we have heard
had indicated to us fn the past that night
be where a lot of PCBs are getting into the
environment, not by the large companies that
have their repair sho s.
                    I am just wondering if
you took all the recommendations of the
source of the liquid and effectively stay
you can't make any now ones or import any
pure ones, to what extent we are buying a
bigger problem in twrsnty years or ten years.
Laave that to the market.
     MR. ONISHI:  I think we le.ive it to
the market, but I don't think it is going
to be a real problem.  Ths requirements or
restraints on handling FC3s are so rerstrictive
that I think repair of transformer facilities
is going to be fairly costly.

     MR. BILES:  The other provision we have

to deal with and people have commented on is

the provision on resale.  I think it is

obvious that one of the things it was in-

tended to cover in the maintenance of the


                    The Act says that you

can distribute in commerce the liquids if

in effect they ware sold prior to the middle

of '79 and are for purposes other than re-


                    How possible is it for

industry now to essentially get in stock

the FCBs it is going to neei because otherwise

wo face the problem of having to grant some

kind of real exemptions for people who buy

PCBs later and reduce them in granting the

1979 type of exemption time is difficult.

                    What I am here to say

is that on hand all the things -- getting

sold in the hands of repairers all the liquid

they are going to need by the end of  '79

doesn't make sense.

     MR. OIIISHI:  I am not sure I understood

                                         •    157

the question,  but T would say that few,  if

not any of the utilities I know of,  intand  to

try to stockpile adequate amounts of PCBs for

any repairs or reclamation they may anticipate

in the future.

     MR. BILES:  What I am referring to is

that the legislation says you cannot dis-

tribute into commerce any PCBs after July 1st,

'79 unless they wero sold prior to that date

for purpose of resale.

                    It sounds like you are

going to have PCBs being sold after July 1

of '79, which in itself can —

     MR, OHXSRI:  Wait a minute, I don't

quite follow you.

     MR. BILES:  You are talking about

reclamation then in selling ~-

     MR. OWTSHI:  I am not talking about

reclaiming and selling, I am just talking

about reclaiming an3 reusing.

     MR. BILES:  Just one -- the one .repair'

so yon are not different entities?

     MR. ONISHI:  No.

     MR. BILE?:  Than* vou.

     MR. PRINCIPE;  On the maintenance of

transformers, it is my understanding that

when they take a sample of liquid to teat,

that it is approximately a pint. Do you know

if that is some magic amount or would it

be possible to reduce that -amount?

     MR. OHXSHI:  I think I understand

our sample quantities to bo a half a pint.

But, I think you would hav.a to have an

adequate sample to make the analysis.  But,

I wouldn't see too much benefit to be gained

by having to reduce that amount further.

     MR. PRINCIPE:  I have read .something

about trichlorobensene to dilute PCBs in

transformers to the point where you have

approximately 60 percent TCB solution to

40 percent PCB.  Is it possible that instead

of using TCB to replace PCUts you take out to

test, let me say the Dielectric fluid you take

out to test instead of replacing that with

PCBs you replace it with trichlorrobenzene,

and then over the life of ^lie equipment it

wouldn't really iaa,ke much difference because

your distribution factor its so  small.

     MR. ONISHI:  You are correct,
trichlorobenzene is added to PCB and PCB
fluids, but it is a mixture at present..  We
have baen looking at the cse of trichlorobenzene
as an additive rathe): than PCBs.  Certainly  if
it is feasible we intend to do it.
                    There are some  supply
problems with trichlorobenzene and  a few
other properties tluit they have some
difficulti«2:5 with, a); least in my last, review
of this literature i<: indicated that they
had some difficulties:;.
     MR. PRINCIPE;  Could you elaborate- what
the difficulties wer»; arts they safety?
     MR. ONISHI:  Safety, I think there was
a pour problem, tenparature and a few problems
of that nature, chemical problems.
     fiR. PHINCIPE:  Do you have any i3ea
what stockpile in a normal utility  wojld
have today of PCBs, that is what quantity?
     V.3.. CXMISHI:  No, I think you would find
considerable variations, but it would
probably raug« froir. a few gallons to maybe
a couple of thousand gallons.

                                        -    160

     MR. PRINCIPE:  Thank you.

     MR. PEARSON:  This may be a little

repetitive, but have you looked into the

possibility of thes difficulties that smaller

electrical utilities and cooperative*? and

municipal electrical companies are going to

have with this?

     MR. ONISHI:  Moat of the smaller utilities

have a very limited number of transformers.

Almost all utilities use capacitors nnd

capacitors are primarily a replacement and

the new product would not be PCB problems, you

would not have make-up fluLds in this sort

of thing.

                    As long as the capacitor.**

have the same electrical characteristics and

possibly the same physical dimensions the

ra:ijor problem facing those utilities is record

keeping and disposal.

     MR. PEARSON:  Well, tae way I looked at

it though waa at  what point whera concern is

going down to prevent the  Last drop of PCB

to get out to the environment ani the small

electrical company hag only one r>r two trans-

                                       -   161
formers it would still be important.

     MR. ONISHI:  Well, that ie correct,

     MR. PEARSONj   Would they have had to --

would you fore»ee them having a great deal of

difficulty having the transformers serviced

or replacing PCBs in them in the future?

     MR. ONISHI:  Ho, I would think that the

small utilities would have very little in

number, they would he in ;i position to phase

out their transformers more quickly.

     MR. WIRTH:  Okay, thank you.

                    Any more questions?

Any questions from the audience?

     MR. RICE;  Dan :*ice, R~i~c~e, from the

Illuminating Company, Clearwater, Ohio, and

I address the question we had on repair here

for transformers,  basause I think when we're

talking about the larger power transformers

most of them go back to the manufacturer or

the repair shop.

                    At least in some companies

what we might call minor repairs is doing :.t

in a shop within the facility of the utility

and minor repairs might be replacing bushings,

repainting the case to make it last longer and

in general just refurbishing the transformer,,

putting in new oil if that is what is required.

                    I am not sure if you're

trying to find an interpretation of what

repair actually i» for this.  But/ there are

levels of repair as I see it,.

     MR. BILES:  That is why I was asking th«s

question for further opinions about processing

and using because the statute allows us to

authorize uses of PCBs in a non-totally-enclosed

manner indefinitely.  3?hen» is no 1979 ban

on the uses.

                    But, H: that particular

activity also contains processing then there

is a '79 ban on processing.  And the question

we have is if EPA wantu to adopt a policy of

allowing the continuing usoJrul life of the

transformer and therefore allowing the handli.ng

of the PCS liquid and transporting of the

transformers, where- do we draw the line betw

say in one activity constitutes actually

really manufacturing the transformer which

xve're trying to prevent and the other allows

                                        * -  163

the continuing of th« useful life of it.

                    I was still trying to

find out where do you draw the line between

those that constitute making a new transformer

and those which are just, you know, routine

maintenance operations.  That is the kind of

definition we are probably going to need.

     MR. RICE:  Mayba frou a utility stand-

point if you have to rewind the transformer

to the core now you are talking about some

type of raraanufactoringt but if you are just

painting the case or if you have got a force

on a bushing and you're replacing a bushing,

or you're filtering the oil this, at least

from our standpoint, would be maintenance to keep

the useful life and that is all and it wouldn't

-- from our standpoint wouldn't be remanufacturing

                    I don't know if that is

clear on both aides, but it is just bringing

the point ao it is clear.

     MR. WIRTH:  I think it is clear now.

                    Is there another question?

     MR. DONZALs  My name is Dav« Donzal,

D-o-n-z-a-l, front Toledo Edison Company.  I

                                       •••-  164

just want to make one comment in regards to

the spill prevention problem.

                    Generally opaaking, wo

have no problems with developing spill

prevention as we have for oil, obviously PCBs

are a lot worse environmentally than oil.

                    The two problems we have

found in getting our thoughts together and.

developing these plans mai-aly are network

transformers and precipitator transformers.

                    Mr. OnLshi mentioned sorao

ol: the problems with network transforraersr

in that a lot of tiraea you iiave atandpipes ox*

you have puraps.  What we a;:e looking at right;

now is trying to got sorae ;jort oE adequate

sensing device sucli that you can determine

when you have a detectable amount: of PCB in

the water, the rain water that coraes into

the vault, like in a downtown application,

determining when it is safe to pump the watex'


                    The other problem  which  1

air, told that we do have is the physical location

of souie precipitator translformersj which are

aakarel containers, contain askarels because

they're in an indoor enclosure, obviously in a

power plant.  And I guess there are sorao

problems physically in developing an adequate

spill prevention plan for this type of situation

     MR. WIRTU:  What were the two terms you

used, network transformers as one where, if Z

understand it correctly, the utility company

owns that is part of its distribution system?

     MR. DONZAL:  That is generally what I

was referring to.

     MR. W1HTH:  Whuc was the other ttsrm?

     MR. DGHZAL:  The thing I was pointing

out is that the object right now is developing

a spill prevention plan for PCBs, obviously

it is coming up  in the future.

                    We do have two problems,

one with network vaults and one with alectro-

static precipitator transformers.  And the

only point I was trying to make was to point

out to the agency that there are some physical

problems associated not only with the network

transformers, as Mr. Onishi has pointed out:,

but also in tha case of the -- when you have

a transformer in ei power plant, you know,

perhaps on top of the boilars or something.

     M2. WIRTil:  Okay,, fine.

                    Any further questions?

                    Would you coma forward a*:

loast to the middle of the room so the

reporter can hear.

     MR. PEW:  Yes, I am Paul Few, from Ohio

Transformer Company.  Wo do repair transformers

an you were discussing her 2.

                    I'd lice to :>ffer this

advice that prices may be the separation in

the repairs we ares talking .about.  We get into

major repairs* of an askare L -f illad transf orraor ?

today the coat of aakarel La rising and

practically puts us out of tho market in every

major repair of transformers.  Y3U may be

limiting the major repairs in that aspect and

still allow the service to <;jo on without

additional ruling on  the tiing.

                    I'l appreciate it if you

would consider that.  It i;3 hard enough  to

try to compete in business without -- you know,

without the additional rulings on things.

     MR. WIRTHs  Okay, thnnk you.

                    Any further questions?

                    Moving on to the r;«xt

witnesa, Mr. Williari Curtis, Manager of

the Electronic Diviuion Northern States Power

Company/ Minneapolis;.

     MR. CURTISs  I just got a promotion

I wasn't aware of*

                    My name is William

Curtis and X am Manager of Electronic

Distribution for NSI\, we're an electric

utility located in Minneapolis, Minnesota,

and we serve a four-atate area, Minnesota,

Wisconsin, North ami South Dakota, an£ our

headquarters are in Minneapolis.

                    It is enjoyable to follow

Harry because he generated all the questions

that I was going to bring forth.  3ut, I have

a couple of coauaents I'd like to address

myself to here.

                    ?ls fa:c as duration,

extent of use for existing equipment, it is

our recommendation that all field products

such as capiicitors and transformers containing

ankarels be allowed to remain in service for

their useful life.

                    The following reasons

support our recommendation:  the cost of thin

replacement would be prohibitive.  We have

1000 capacitor banks and approximately 900

transformers in service that if we were to

replace them immediately or in t.ie near future

would cost approximately $ 30,000,000    to

our repairs, environmental costs are passed

on to repairs.

                    We feel that we have

already made strides in the requirement of

40 CFR 761 to implement programs in handling..

storage and disposal.  It would oe impractical

and wasteful use of our resources at this

time to change all usable 
                                         *    163

maintenance was answered very good by the

gentlemen that ware here, but I think at MSP

we would look at maintenance of transformers

and relate the question to economic decisions

whether the transformer would be scrapped or

repaired would be an economic decision, so I

see no reason to elaborate on that.

                    Some of the areas that

we have worked with, at NSP we have an

environmental department approximately fifty

people that work on all the regulations/ we

audit and check on our division operating

people to make sure they're abiding by our

policy that we have established, we work with

other customers such as primary customers that

have PCD type transformers relating tc them

»O;HG of the problems* they are faced with ani

trying to indoctrinate and educate.

                    That :.s the extent of ray

comments and I wouJlc be willing to answer

some questions.

     MR. WIRTH:  Thank you, Mr. Curtis.

                    J. am c/oing to take the chair's

perogative to a&k the firs;t one or twc questions.

                    I understood Mr. Onishi,

I guess it is a point I_wanl: to make absolutely

straight in my miricl, that in an askarel-filled

transformer there is not a blow off or  an

expansion device that under norn.al conditionn

that would normally would be releasing  PCBs

to the environment, that the only type  of  escape

from the tank was through a pressure valve in

the case or massifs overheating or failure,

i« this correct?

     MR. CURTIS:  That is correct.

     MR. WXRTHt  So that there should be no

formal -- there should be no release from  a

trans£ormer -•- askarel-f il L<3d transformer

unless it just completely  Bailed on rare


     MR. CURTIS:  That is oorrecb.

     i*!R. WIRTII;  The sdcoti'l question is back

on the trichlorobonzene ad'lltionr io there aiiy

ruason in the world why th 2 nake-up fluid  ha:j

to be askarel in all cases or draw off  only

for testing purposes in pints?   I mean, the

size of most of thase trans fforn-.etrs, in  my

understanding, would ba that  it  vould  be  almost

non detectable replacement make-up fluid th;it

you would draw for analytical testing purposes,

     MR. CURTIS:  Well, we would draw a half

pint o£ fluid too.

                    i £ I understand ycur

question — would you repeat .It, I am sorry

1 lost you a minute there.

     MR. WIRTH:  I ai.i making sorae assumption

here that if a transformer has a thirty or

forty year life, I presume you test more than

once a yaar?

     MR. CURTIS:  We draw fluid once a year,


     HR. WZRTU:  Yoi are drawing off a half a

pint, even over forty years is ten pints,

two and a half gallons that is make-up fluid

and that ten gallons were other than ^Clia

that will have a very voluble impact on the

performance of the traauformer; is thare any-

thing wrong with that assumption?

     MR. CURTISs  Ho, that would depend on

the size of tho transformer, and they vary

from sixty gallons up to five hundred.  So,

I can't see that that is such a low percentage

that it would cause such a problem.

     MR. WXRTH:  Okay.

                    la there any reason that

the J?CBs should bo removed from the transformer

other than complete rebuilding; in other words

operations involving the rewinding or  for th
from it could be destroyed and it continues

on in that way for its entire useful life?

     M^. CURTIS:  I i.jan't see a problem

personally in my experience,

     MR. WIRTH:  It nakos it relatively safer

environmentally to withdraw it and ser.cl it to

disposal and in my opinion it would greatly

reduce the possibility of environment*,1 ex-

posure to it than if you -cum around ctncl

attempt to put some back in, is that a correct


     MR. CURTIS:  I think so, yes.

     MP. WIRTH:  Let's start fr/ith questions

at the oth^r end of the table.

                    Mr. Pearson do you have


     MR. PEARSON:  SD.

     Mil, PRATT:  Realizing this may not be

totally appropriate since the Twin Ci:y area

is in the middle of a drought as I understand

it; but, if I recollact correctly 1-iSP had a

problem with PCB transformers with flooding

conditions awhile ba.sk.

                    I wan wondering what


type of procedures have you instituted to

ensure that this would not reoccur in all

of your facilities?

     MR. CURTIS:  I am not aware of & drought

in the Twin City area.  I am not aware of

flooding problems either.

                    But, w« have instituted

policies that our distribution people follow

on handling, storage and disposal of PCIis;

wo have forms that we fill out; we work very

close with the State, we record avery spillover,

so many gallons; and as 1 said we work very

closely with the State on this.

                    So, I am not aware of

the problem that you are referring to, but

I can sure check when I get back.  Maybe it

happened while I was gone.

     MR. BILES:  Does MSP parfora any repair

or maintenance operations for non-HSP trans-

former s?

     MR. CURTIS: No, no we don't.

     MR. BILES:  Do you foresee that, assuming

you aren't going to be buying any new trans-

formers after the aiddle oi  '7i> which is  the


date we ara looking at/ do you see any nead

for NSP to buy or aell triinsformers other than

if you are soiling them in tho sense c£ sending

them for disposal arid money changes hands or

you sell a whole facility that contains a

transformer; is thare any reason for you to

buy or sell any trarutformors after that now

or in the future?

     MR. CURTIS:  W« wouldn't sell a trans-

former if it had uatti'ul life, if there, is

any economics to it we keep it in useful


                    Che only other ca*e, and

I think you are reforring to this, is where

a municipality wanta to buy us out anc we are

willing to sell.

     MR. BILES:  And is the major work on your

transformers done by the people who m&ke the

transformer, if you have laajor work to be done?

     MR. CURTIS:  Moat of the major work is

done/ yes.

     MR. BRKMER:  I have had the opportunity

about a year ago of testifying at the

Minnesota Senate Hearings on PCDleg iylation


for the St&tit-j of Minnesota.  And I was under

tha impression at that meeting that Northern

States Power strongly objected to a ban on

PCBs because of a very Icir^a facility that was

in the planning stage for  a sing a large number

of power factor correction capacitors.  And

at that tiioe tha individual stated that they

definitely had to be askar.al-filied ana that

this type of, you know/ they'd huve to have

exemptions to get thia facility in some type

oil order.

                    Now/ I was wondering

do you have other replacements at this time

that you thii;k ~- or have  you solved  that

problem or is; this ban proposing a great

problem for your particular utility or do

you have replacements at this time for

power factor correction capacitors?

     HR. CURTIS:  Well, as Harry mentioned  in

his testimony, we no longer are buying askarul-

fillad capacitors or transformers.  We are

buying a silicone oil.

     MR. tJRKMER:  Also for capacitors?

     i'l.'i. CURTIS:  Capaoito:::3, ^e.J.


     MR. BREWERj   They're filled with silJcone?

     MR. CURTIS:   QUJ: shipment coming this

year will be silicorx. oil,

     MR. SREMER:   So, then, silicone can be

USQ..I in power factor type capacitors?

     H3. CURTIS:   That is what the bulk of

our capacitors are for, power factor correction

for our system.

                    I am not familiar with

that testimony/ but I auroly can chec}:, I am

not familiar with that instance that you are


     MR. BRiSMEU:   Weil, you know, 1 just

remembered that the::e waa, you knov, a very

large problem by the very fact that they

said there was no r&plaeexaent:, but your

position now is that: there are replacements

that can take over in the situation?

     MR. CURTIS:   This could have boon the

case last year on our order with the manu-

facturers on the power factor correction type

capacitors.  We ordered quite a fev; of then

every year and it could have been tha case,

But, this year we are yetting non pcB type


     :ra. BREMCR:  Ver/ gooi.   Thank you.

     DP.. S'i'URNOi  I have  one  question.

                    You have  indicated,  as

well as Mr. Onish, that about half a pint

of PCB is withdrawn for the tost.   Do they

use the whole halt" pint to 3o the  teat,  or

do you use a siaal}. portion of it afterwards?

I raean, what Jo  thoy do with  it after they

tested it?

     MR. CURTIS:  They use  the whole half

pint for tasting.  The*/ ha/ 2  uo test such

things as pour point, aciJi t ^  of the J'luit!,

Dielectric strength/ they .c an a aoupie

Dielectric strength ttistt.  The whol« --

taere  isn't nuch  left when  they finiish

their  toscs.

     OK. STURINO:  So, then the sawple is

consumed during  this  Last.lag?

     !R. CURTIS:  Jo, it  i.sn't consuaied, then

it. is  dispoacs:d according  to the .stato

regulations in Minnesota.

     O.-.I. STURINO:  What  I iwan by consumed

if. thvi physical  characteristics \Tore changed

that it aou?.d not be  ucuvl  any  nore?

                    'it  soesns to  roe  .1 lot of
people have been talking  ttbout  adding the

trichlorobortzene bui. nobody  has indicated

any toxicity or any of  the. other problems

which are posed by triehlorobenzene;  and it

seems to me after touting if the PCS  is still

maintained in Its characteristics I don't see

any reason why it can't b

     MR. ONISHI:   V&s,  I  just  wanted to

comment.  As I understood you,  you are

drivinj at since  the  araounc  of fluid that

you 'cook out of the saraplo is  very small

and the transformer is  totally enclosed then

the make-up fluid  requirement  ought to be

V€»ry small.  I think  I  made  the assumption

that in some casas th~  flu;.:l itsalf might be

contaiainated by moisture  or  something, the

transformer itself might  bo,   In those cases

we would have to  drain  the !:l.uid and refill

it so, in chose cases we  wo.ild have t :> use a

roach greater amount o.f  make;  -up f.'.uid than is

taken out during  chemical c.nalys:.s.

     MI*. 7JIRTH:   Yes, sir, If  I ciidn' t maka

it clear I understood that if  thii fluid test

poorly, or malfunctioned  hhe entj.ro fluid

would have to be  replaced.

                    Mr. Brerr.er?

     MR. BREWER:   On  the  sar.e  line thare,

if you have a lot of  moisture  contamination

in a transforner,  isn't it rather an  open


        .  O'JEGHT:   Mo, It does  moan you

probaMy  have a leaky aoal  aomt»wh«re r.round

the bushinj.

     ".I*.  SSSMEr-::   Whtsrci i-  would have takan

the v/atar fron the outside  it  vroulcln't. be

takan  aut of  the  air then it would have been,

say, from rain water'*

     MR.  0:;?rSHT:   I-*; coal:1,  be  rain vat.er.

If you  ha. I a  situation whora you ha-Jl .«. loaky

3-sal it voald be  accumulating  in

t-he transformer.   Of cour-.se, there is no

•-- that is not a  normal condition but it

could  happen.

     MR.  VTi:iTH:  Do VTOM replace-
     M3.  or'TISHI:   T,': thay are  faulty, y»s.

     Mrs.  T7TRTH:   Is that "?n  in-place servicing

or is the transformer usually  hauled c-u'..  for

service at that
     I!?..  OMISHIt   Wo. t.haj:  coul'l he ddn* in

place .

     .MR.  PRINCIPE:  7?his is  properly s

caestion  cor  both of you, but  I  will x;r>e
your numbors.
                     .'lo1':, you  indicated iliat

you had 900 transformers in use, of those

900 transformers about how many each year

do you find that you UAVO to replace or

regenerate the fluids because of contamination;

do you have any idea what ttiat number would toe?

     MR. CUKTIS:  It depends.  Vary few, I

wouldn't even want to guess.

                    Looking back over the

past year I can't even recollect pulling a

transformer out of: a vault .and moving it to

another location except only in. ::ases where v;he

load -- the customer reduced his load and we

had an oversized transform a:r and economically

it would have been better o~f sonawhere else.

I can't recollect one case of this type of


     HR. WIRTH:  Do you recall t.io last time

you had to replace a transformer fluid in your


     MR. CURTIS:  I'd only be ouassing, but

in the last year 1 can't really recall going

through any process ot: replacing -- these

are completely  sealed and aaless we 3iave  -~

the roof falls  in or a catastrophic failure,


which I can't recoJ.l-.jet,  there is nothing

that can -jec in or  oat  to cause contamination,

especially moisture,

     ii;*. P3INCIPE;   I 'ju<->;»s ray question then

has to go to Mr.  o?i:'.»hi,  cheja.

                     We  have heard on ei number

uf oceations people have  testified that

contamination can cake-  .^lace aau it appears

that contamination  — chat that Ly^e of

contauiiaaciou wher*j yoxt have got to regenerate

the Dielectric  fluid is very rare, is that

a sound conclusion?

     MR. OXIS1II:   Y.is,  I  think it is f!air.

     MR. CURTIS:   Tiie tests that we go through/

just to add to  it,  are  for a specific purpose,

and that is to  determine  the chemical properties

oC the material whicu i*  our insala i.ijvv. laecia.

And, Li thare is  uoiaething off, for our corr.pany's

standards, then we  33 through t'ais pr<.'cec*me.

It is a normal  procedure  tryiny to malntairi.

the reliability of  the  electric dist.r LLution

systen to better  serve  our customers.

     MR. RICE:  Dan Rice  again.

                     I just have one comment./


you mentioned buying or selling transformers.

And maybe for some utilities it is rare, I

guess it is for all utilities, it is rare, bat

occasionally we buy cr aell a transformer to

another utility where for some reason they

have a particular emergency need for that

transformer and it may not be available frora

a supylier for some period of time, we have

purchased and gold equipment such ac this.

     MR. WIRTH:  okay.  Thank you.

                    Any other comments?

                    Thank /ou very much.

     MR. CURTIS:  Thank yoa.

                    Would you coiae forward,

and state yoxir name and aEEiliation?

     MR. POWKLL:  My name is Walter Powell

from Midwest Technical.

                    v4« do a lot. of work for

private industries as opposed to utilities.

Okay.  Anci I think the pri/ate industry isn'c

represented enought right now.   ?a do work for

manulaoturiny processors, industrial customers

who have their own transformers, own theii ovr»



                    Utilities watch their

equipment very closely so they may not aave

that much of a problem.  We get involved with

these customers, quite often in the repair of

transformers — PCB-filled transformers.

Quite often we have to take the fluid out

of the transformer right on site  and repair

it for whatever reason, ii: may be because the

bushing leaks, because of a. broken seal, or

because of moisture contamination.

                    In th«s private sector,

moisture contamination is not uncommon.  I

mean you are not talking about a large: per-

centage at all, you are talking about a

relatively low content of moisture, you aren't

talking about water as you might visualize it.

                    So, in the private area

as opposed to the utility, there is a 1 t of

on-the-site repair that involves taking out

fluid, putting it back in, you have a certain

amount of loss in th® volume of gallons when

you do that because of the pumping equipment

that you use, this has to be replaced ,

                    Another area is when ycu

have broken seals of gaskets, there may be a

loss.  This may not show up for two or three

years because the private area does not watch

their equipment that closely as opposed to


                    So, I want to make sure

you aren't underemphaaising the need for on-

site repair and replacement of fluid that hail

been lost from maybe a period of ten years.

                    Have I made ray point?

     MR. BILES:  The question on that is

if we follow a process of getting the PCBs

over the next several year:j to reclamation

where do you reclaim your PCBs from?  You

obviously don't own transformers of your own?

     MR. POWELLi  No, we just aro a service


     MR. BILES:  So, where in the future

would you get the PCBa to make up the difference

you take out?

     MR. POWELLi  Where will we?

     MR. BILES:  Would you buy your transformers

and drain them?

     MR. POWELLt  No.  No.   If we had a

customer and that customer had a transformer

who is low fluid, I don't know where we would

get it.  That is going to be a problem.

     MR. BILES:  That is going to be a. very

critical issue if we try to project some way

to maintain transformers.

                    Ita under the impression

that people like NSP got their transformers

repaired all the tine.  In fact, that was one

of the responses that I think one of the

transformer manufacturers who do perform that

work gave.

     MR. POWELL:  One area that we arts looking

forward to or our hopes are in is retro fitting

area.  We are hoping that this become» a

viable solution.

     MR. BILES:  What would you do if there

was a ban on the manufacture and import of

liquids after a couple of years?

     MR. POWELL:  If we have a circuniBtance

where a customer was low on fluid and we

could not get replacement fluid the only thing

we could do would be to advise the customer

to replace the transformer.


     MR. BILES:  Okay.

     MR. POWELL:  But, just he aware of the

fact that there are a lot of customers in

the private sector who have this equipment

and these are the customers that you are

going to be careful of because they don't

watch the equipment as the utilities do.

And if you are very strict the customer may

get themselves in a bind where he is going

to say, "if I bring this up I am going to

have a major expense and a large can of worra.3."

     MR. BILES:  Do you have a suggestion

on what we should do in terms of dealing witi

that problem, in terms of allowing you or

anybody else in your position to meet his


     MR. POWELL:  Well, I'd like to see you

work with the utilities or people who are

pushing the retro fitting idea, that is our

only real hope.  And, possibly, if retro

fitting may be viable if you had to take

down a thousand parts per million instead

of five hundred, something in that area.

     MR. WIRTH:  Okay.


                    Are there any othor


                    It is eight rainuttss

to three.  We will take a strict eighl:-

rcinute break.

                    (WHEREUPON, a short

                     recess was had.)

     MR. WIRTH:  Ok.ay.  We will reconvene.

                    The next witness is

John Weizeorick, is that correct, from

the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers?

                    I will reiterate to

spell your name and also the pronounciation.

     MR. WEIZEORICK:  All right, ray n.ame is

John Weizeorick, W-e-i-z-e-o-r-i-c-k.  I am

Assistant General Manager for the AssDciation

of Home Appliance Manufacturers and I have

with me Mr. William Beard, who is Director of

Engineering of Room Air Conditioners Engineering

for Whirlpool Corporation.

                    AHAM is a national trade

association representing the appliance industry,

The comments which we are presenting are the

consensus viewpoints o r J;he Association no::her-


ship and particularly those members who use

small capacitors.

                    AHAM recognizes that

the American public should be protected

against unreasonable risks of injury associated

with consumer products.  In accordance with

this, it is the policy and intent of every

AHAM member to discontinue the use of PCBs

in its products just as soon as adequate

substitutes are available.

                    Section 6 (e) (3) (A) (i.i)

of the Toxic Substance Control Act states

that after July 1st, 1979 no person may

process or distribute in commerce any PCB.

AHAM interprets this to mean that any product

manufactured prior to that date and containing

a PCB article is prohibited from being sold.

                    Even though the appliance

industry will stop using PCB small capacitor*!

in its products during 1973, some products

manufactured during or prior to 1978 and

containing PCB small capacitors are likely to

b€s in inventories throughout the nation  for

a substantial period after the July 1st,  1979


cut-off date.  It would be impossible to

locate all products and prohibitively expensive

to change even some of these PCB small capacitors

to non-PCB capacitors.

                    When Issuing rules* con-

cerning the phased ban of PCB, AHAM requests

the EPA to consider an exemption for TCB

small capacitors in the household appliances

including room air conditioners and micro-

wave ovens.

                    AHAM believes that the

household appliance industry has made a good-

faith effort to eliminate PCB small cs.pacitor

usage.  Microwave ov«n manufacturers indicate

that they will be fu^.ly changed over by July

1st, 1978.  Room air conditioner manufacturers

have been working diligently with capa.citor

manufacturers to develop replacements for the

PCB small capacitors: and present estimates

indicate that sixty-seven percent of the 1978

model line will be equipped with non-FC3

capacitors.  The complete changeover will be

accomplished during 1.978 no that the 1979

model line will be non-PCB capacitors.

So, again, we urge that consideration of an

exemption, for small ~- for PCB s-tiall capacitors

used in household appliances be considered.

                    Mr. Chairman, that concludes

the statement regarding the PCB ban.

                    However, ARAM does have

some concern with the labelling requirements

which were published under the proposed rules*

for regulation:  would a statement on this

be in order at this particular time?

     MR. WIRTH:  Mr. Weizesorick, the informal.

hearing has been concluded on the labelling

arid disposal regulations.  The reply comment

period to comment or to statements made in

the hearing is in order to discuss.

                    Because that entire

process was accelerated even over our own

stated procedures EPA has stated that it

would consider all comments basically relevant

to that regulation done until the final closet

of the reply comment or the twenty-fifth of

this month.  I think -under that general rule

we would entertain a short statement on the

labelling and disposal.  The panel will not

comment nor ask any questions on that sub-

ject because the hearing is closed.

                    And we would also like

to invite you to submit those comment!? in

writing, identify it as a reply comment

for the record before the two r. ty --f i fth

to ensure that they are given full consider-


     MR. WKI2EORICK:  This comment was

submitted in writing to the EPA at the time

of the hearing.  Our problem was was that we

had so many conflicts that we couldn't

shake anybody free to go there to present

the information and thought it. might appropriate

at this time to reiterate this position so that

it is on the record very definitely.

                    If that is appropriate,

then, according to AHAM's interpretation --

     MR. BILES:  If you submitted written

comments then it is on the record.  You will

not have any problem with that.

     MR. WEIZEORICK:  The-.re is some additional

information I have which was not contained in

our comments which wo gathered since that

point and I have here.

                    Would you like that?

     MR. WIRTH:  Well, I might say I think

we will be happy to take that.

     MR. WEIZIORICK:  Or should I just file

it with the authority?  I can do that.

     MR WIRTH:  Yes, I think it would be

better to submit it in writing because I

do think it would be out of order for us

to comment on this.

                    This is another transcript

and we won't have it available probably for

seven to ten days and today is the 19th; that

makes it the 29th which is four days after

the close of that period.

                    I think, we would rather

have it submitted, even if you have it

available I will be happy to take it for

that specific record if you will identify

it as a reply comment for PCB labelling and


     MR. WEIZIORICK:  Okay.

                    We would be glad to answer

any questions on the PCB bein.


     MR. WIRTH:  Themk you.

                    >r;aryr do you have any


     MR. BURIN:  Have; there been any

technical problems that you are aware of

that they had to change over to non-PCB-built


     MR. WE1ZIORICK:;  I can answer ths.t, yes.

I think Bill might b« able to provide additional

detail if you'd lik«,

     MR. BEARD:  Th«jre have been a number of

technical details and some of the eaps.citor

manufacturers are h«re in this room and they

know the problems of finding a substitute


                    But, from a user's: stand-

point air conditioners -- room air conditioners

went through a period some years back of poor

reliability on capacitors and the whole

industry got stung pretty badly.  So, we have

a natural concern for going through that sort

of thing again.  So, reliability has been

a primary consideration, so that the new

materials that have been proposed and tried

in the capacitors have had to be tested.

                    And because of the

accelerated nature of the program we have

been trying to go as fast as we can and I

have to say from my own experience that we

have even moved probably a little bit too

fast in some cases and started production

on capacitors with a given material and run

into reliability problems i;i our testing

which was going on concurrently and had to

back up.

                    And, so, I would say

from that standpoint there has been a

problem, we are continuing to work on it,

we're moving as fast as we can in monitoring

the results of those non-PCB capacitors that

we put in the field during this past year.

It has been an accelerated program.

     MR. BURIN:  What is it that you mean

by "reliability"?

     MR. BEARD:  In this particular case we

are talking about the capacitor performing

its function.  It is a loss of Ceipacitance

due to degradation of the fi.uid, it is not


a problem of rupture or failure of thc.t

nature, it is a failure of the thing


     y-.R. iULKS;  In your industry is there

any reason whatsoever to use any capacitors

that are leaking other than disposing of


     MR. WEIZEORICK:  None whatsoever,

     MR, 3ILES:  Putting together the test,

your statement along with what Mr. Rollins

said this morning, I am understanding then

that you saying thafc the fact that the

capacitors -•- the maaufacturers of the small

capacitors feel that they can be out of the,t

business by the end of '78, you feel that that

is adequate to meet your needs?

                    He this morning made a

statement that they did not anticipate at

least at this time that at that point they d

need an extension beyond 1978 to manufacture


     MR. V?EIZEORICKr  Present plans of all of

the members of AHAM are to be out of PCD t'/pe

capacitors during model year 1973; that wcrild

                                        •    138

put them into a non-PCB capacitor about the

fall of '78, August,  September, October, and

about that time when  they start making their

1979 model line, totally.

     MR. BILES:  Okay.

                    So, then, you would be

able to buy all your  capacitors prior to

the middle of  '79.

                    Would there be any need

for you after the middle of  '79 to be selling

any capacitors?  Do you sea any reason what-

soever to be selling  any small capacitors as

small capacitors, not just soiling the air

conditioners, but small capacitors?

     MR. WEISBORICK:   Present indications

are that even replacement capacitors in the

field will be non-PCB, which would mean that

wo would have no use for PC3 capacitors.

     MR. BILES:  Would you be able to have

sold most of your air conditioners and micro-

wave ovens prior to the middle of  '79?

     MR. WEIZEORICK:   No.

     MR. BILES:  Or capacitor  sales?

     MR. WEIZEORICK:  That is  our  problem.


     MR. BILES:  Hovr long do you thin/; that

will take for you to complete your sale-; o"

what you manufactured prior to that date, what

is the period --

     MR. WEI2EORICX::  Well, if the aumnor

continues the way it has .and we have another

summer like this next year, it is likoly tc

be no problem with room air conditioners.

Howevesr, our past history indicates that we

have products floating around for up co  four

years out in the fiald after they are manu-

factured at various locations.

                    This industry, as a

matter of fact, is fairly unique in its

handling of inventories.  At the end of  the

season it buys back much of the dealer and

distributor inventory, which is something

that isn't normally done by other industries.

Although it buys it back, it doesn't always

take physical poasession of that material,

it is stored somewhere out in the field

and some of it might even be shipped from

the Northern states to the Southern states

and re-financed and resold down there;.   And,

so, you do get models which are three,

four years old to get mixed in with other

units and end up getting stuck in a warehouse

and get dug out somewhere three, four, or

five years later.

                    So, it is likely to be

around and it would be very difficult to get

your hands on it.

     MR. BILES:  Maybe this is a question th.it

goes to your supplier;  do you have any idea

of the percent of small capacitor market room

air conditioners and microwave ovens cover?


     MR. BILES:  I will ask: that later.

                    The Ias3t question is;

are you aware of any importation of PCB

capacitors or air conditioners or microwave

ovens that have PCB in them that arc competing

with your products?

     MR. WEIEEORICK:  Mo, I am not.

     MR. BILES:  That doesn't mean it doesn't

existr you are saying you are not aware of


     MR. WEIZEORICK:  I am not aware of any.

     MR. WIHTH:  Anv questions from the
     MR. GOLDSTEIN:  Do you anticipate any
problems with your warranty procedure because
of the change from PCB to some other l:ype of
material, an alteration ot your warranty
policy on your small appliances?
     MR. WEIZEORICK:  No, we wouldn't plan
on it.  That is one of th9 reasons we are
very concerned with reliability of th
would like to see them, otherwise in the

interest of time I will just brisfly sumnariise

our formal comments.

                    The first issue ~-

     MR. WIRTH:  Excuse me, Mr. Ward.  Are

you going to read from your comments?

     MR. WARD:  I am going to read selected

portions of them.

     MR. WIRTH:  Can WQ hav<» a copy of this?

     M«. WARD:  Certainly.

                    I am sorry I only have

three copies here, but I d:.d give the original

to the hearing clerk previously.

                    The firsjt itfim I would

like to address myself to i« the issue of the;

totally enclosed manner.

                    GM doeft not nanufacture cr

process PCBs.  However, GM does use PCBs in

electrical capacitors and transformers, which

arc closed and sealed unitsi,  We recommend that

such units be designed as  * totally enclosed"

even though they are physically capable of

being opened  in some means.  But are  sealed

during normal operation.   Likewise, we


recommend that electrical devices which

contain PCBs and are factory sealed at the

time of manufacture also be classified as

totally enclosed when used with their original

seals intact.

                    An additional connideration

in defining "totally enclosed* is the in-

cidental contamination by PCBs of certain

fluids used in heat transfer and hydraulic

systems.  Specifically, until 1972, PCBs were

widely used as fire-resistant hydraulic fluids.

When the environmental risks associated with

PCBs became known, General Motors ceased

purchasing PCB hydraulic fluids.  Typically,

PCB-containing hydraulic systems were drained,

flushed, and refilled with non-PCB fluid.

After nearly five years, we still find PCB

contamination present in many hydraulic systems

at the parts-per-million.  Hydraulic systems

are, by nature, not permanently sealei.

However, they are sealed when in normal

operation.  The same is true of heat transfer

systems used in some GM operations.  Heat

transfer systems are less susceptible to


leakage because they are not subject to the

pressures present In hydraulic systems.

Therefore, we request the EPA establish a

PCS concentration of five hundred parts-per-

million or less as being considered incidental

contamination and exempt such situations from

the "totally enclosed wanner" limitation.

                    Speaking to the exemption

provisions, an exemption should be granted

for any type of incidentally contaminated

system.  The EPA has recognized, in the

proposed PCB disposal regulations, those

published on May 24, 1977, that incidental

contamination of various systems has occurred.

A cut-off of five hundred parts-per-million

is proposed in the definition of "PCB mixture"

for disposal purposes.  This definition should

also pertain to all exemptions authorized

under Section 6E of the Act.

                    A hydraulic system

containing residual PCB concentrations of

less than five hundred parts-per-million

does not pose an unreasonable risk to health

or the environment.  The system is enclosed,

                                       -    205

and, therefore, workers are shielded.  Waterborne

discharges from the systems are controlled

under the provisions of the NPDES permit program

and other discharge regulations.  We expect

that systems which once held mixtures containing

60 percent to 90 percent PCBs will cor.tinue

to show low levels of residual contamination

for many years, even after being cleaned.

                    It is unreasonable, in

our opinion, to require industry to r<»-clean

hydraulic or other fluid systems presently

containing leps than five hundred part.-s-per-

million PCS.  The incremental reductions

in PCB content gained by successive draining

of a system below about one percent residual

PCB are minimal.

                    The material costs of

cleaning a system are about $2.45 per litr«

of fluid replaced.  In a facility having say

five hundred thousand litres of hydraulic

fluid the material cost alone would be over

one million dollars.  I base this cost on a

$2.00 per litre new hydraulic fluid cost,

flushing fluid at $.30 per litre and a disposal

                                       -    206

cost of $.15 per litre.   Labor and part

replacement would be an  additional cost.

                    It is apparent that

the costs of removing residual PCB con-

centrations are very high and the expected

benefits are minimal.  In our opinion,

residually contaminated  fluid systems

containing less that five hundred parts-

per-raillion PCB should be exempted from

the provision of Section 6E.

                    As a general position,

General Motors believes  PCB should not be

recycled.  However, there should be a

small stockpile of PCB Dielectric fluids

available for routine maintenance of

transformers.  This would help avoid costly,

premature scrapping of transformers due to

the unavailability of Dielectric fluids.

                    Transformers require

different types of scheduled maintenance.

Some units require no maintenance at all/

other units do require maintenance, some

once a year, others may go as much as five

years between scheduled maintenance or service



                    During the maintenance,

as it has been pointed out, a small amount

of Dielectric is removed, tested, and

discarded.  If the technician performing the

teat exercises normal precautions to prevent

spillage, the risks of PC3 loss are minimal.

In our opinion, these precautions include:

testing to be performed only by trained

qualified individuals; use of an absorbant

blanket to catch any drippage; and scrap

fluids and the absorbent blanket to be

placed in labelled containers for proper


                    The release of PCBs

resulting from the transformer maintenance

is negligible, if proper, common sanso care

is exercised during maintenance there is no

reason to expect any uncontrolled release of

PCBs.  Consequently, the health and environ-

mental impact of transformer maintenance

are also negligible.

                    Turning now to locomotives

— GM produces diesol-electric locomotives.


There are several small capacitors used in

locomotives which have contained PCBs.  Thosei

capacitors contain paper impregnated with

approximately two kilograms, zero point two

kilograms of liquid PCS.  The capacitors are

obtained from outside suppliers who are in

the process of converting to non-PCB Dielectric


                    GM has initiated a

program to completely phase out all use of

PCS-containing capacitors and diosel-electric

locomotives by January 1st, 1979,  Thus,

there does not presently appear to be a

need for GM to seek an exemption from the

July 1, 1979, ban on distribution of PCBs.

                    At this time, GM sees

no propelling need to use PCBs in diesel-

electric locomotives, but neither do we see

a compelling need to retrofit locomotives

presently in service with non-PCB capacitors.

Electrical gear in locomotives should be

allowed to remain in use until the end of its

normal service life and be replaced with non-

PCB gear at that time.


                    Th® anount of PCB& in

a diesel-electric locomotive is sraall, a

total of about one kilogram PCB per locomotive

and is well-protected by the body of the

locomotive.  Allowing continued use of PCB-

containing electrical components in locomotives

does not present any unreasonable risk to

health or the environment.  And by allowing

conversion to non-PCD components on a

scheduled maintenance basis rather the.n retrofit,

unnecessary cost an rail service disrxiption

can be avoided.

                    In closing we recommend

that EPA allow existing PCB-containincf electrical

gear to remain in usse for the remainder of its

useful service life-  We also recommend that

EPA abide by its proposed definition of PCB

mixture and specifically exempt any materials

containing less than five hundred parts-per-

million PCB as a result of incidental PCB

contamination from the previsions of the

Toxic Substances Control -\ct Section GE.

                    I'd be happy to answer

any question.

     MR. BILES:  Thank you, Mr. Ward.       2|.Q

We will start at this end with any questions.

     MR. SNYDER:  Does GM make electric

locomotives other than diesel electric?

     MR. WARD:  We are currently producing

only diesel electric: locomotives.

     MR. SNYDER:  So, you are not involved

in transformer issues as far as locomotives

are concerned?  Do diesel electric locomo-

tives have transformers?

     MR. WARD:  They do not have what you

would normally consider a transformer.

     MR. SNYDER:  Okay.

                    Do you have any

scientific basis for considering less than

500 parts per million to be insignificant?

     MR. WARD:  I don't believe I used

500 parts per million as insignificant.

I believe I used the EPA definition  of PCB

mixtures in the lower cutoff as a basis

for exempting secondary incidentally

contaminated systems.

                    I am using  the same

rationale that  the EPA used in  establishing

                                                    *    Ell
p2          a 500 part per million cutoff.

                 MR.  SNYDER:   So,  you are saying then

            you consider that to be reasonable exposure

            rather than classifying it as insignificant?

                 MR.  WARD:  I would say that a 500

            part per  million cutoff for secondarily

            or incidentally contaminated systems is a

            reasonable cutoff.

                 MR.  BILES:  You indicated in your

            written comments, I don't think you mentioned

            this, but you provided some comments on

            what is insignificant exposure?

                 MR.  WARD:  Yes.

                 MR.  BILES:  And a couple of the comments

            you made  are that because most of the data

            is short-time high-dosage data it is hard

            to say with any kiad of quantitative data

            to back up any conclusions as to what would

            be an appropriate level of significance.

            You also  say it is impossible to state

            the specific exposure level that is insigni-

            ficant.  And further you conclude that an

            insignificant human exposure level might

            be in the lower parts per million range.

                    Is this based mostly

on — or exclusively I guess on your re-

view of our criteria document?

     MR. WARD:  This is based on the lack

of data at present.

     MR. BILES:  You state again in that

discussion surveying the data, indicates

of EPA criteria document; is that basically

where you derived any of your comments


     MR. WARD:  That and bibliography are

my main sources.  There are other sources.

     MR. BILES:  In terms of hydraulic

fluid and system it is unclear to me the

position you are taking.

                    I understand you are

saying that anything lower than 500 ppm

should not require any flushing or cleaning

besides possibly preforming them?

     MR. WARD:  Right.  Right.

     MR. BILES:  Do you believe that above

that figure we should prescribe some kind

of flushing, cleaning or whatever require-

ments on systems that previously were using

p4          PCB hydraulics?
                 MR. WARD:  Above about 500 parts per

            million of cleaning and flushing will

            give you -- one cleaning and flushing would

            give you some significant decreases.

            Below 500 parts per million, or actually

            the number is something like a thousand,

            but below this point there is a very definite

            cutoff, you no longer have good economics

            in terms of getting much PCB removal per


                                To go from 500 to 100

            requires much more extensive cleaning than

            going from 90 percent to 500 parts per


                 MR. BILES:  Do you have any idea how

            those cost figures might vary depending

            on the size of the facility or the type

            of system the fluids were used in?

                 MR. WARD:  It might be $2.45 per litre

            cost figure is based on $2.00 per litre

            as a current price for non-PCB fire-

            resistant hydraulic fluid; 30 cents per

            litre for a typical flushing fluid,

straight mineral oil; and 15 cents per litre

for disposal.  That would be --• those

would be invariable constants.

     MR. BILES:  It appears that we have

at least three options if we want to say

anything about those kinds of systems;

we can either — we have a fourth option;

we can do nothing; the three options if we

want some kind of regulation is either to

prescribe some kind of a process such as

anybody using that previously flushing

must go through the following procedure

or we can prescribe a number of achieve

such as 500 parts per million of above

or below that, or we prescribe a foundation

a combinationr flush and in the event get

down to 500 parts per million.

                    What is your feeling

about EPA prescribing the process for

cleaning or for saying that you have to

do this if you haven't done it in the past

rather  than prescribing a number, but

essentially saying to everybody,  "You have

to flush and  clean your systems to  a


p6          certain procedure and we are going to

            assume that it will get you to a certain


                 MR. WARD:  I can envision a circumstance

            where there would be a system which would

            have contained a 90 percent PCB mixture or

            a 60 percent PCB mixture at one time which

            never would have been flushed but would

            still be below say a thousand or 500 parts

            per million, whatever the cutoff would

            happen to be, even though it had never

            been flushed, it would simply be a very

            leaky system; such systems are not unknown.

            In that case what is the use of flushing,

            you have already achieved a number.

                 MR. BILES:  A couple of other questions,

            one is that EPA may dispute that 500 parts

            per million is an adequate number to

            achieve, and the other is I know that in

            your written comments you state one of

            the reasons for not requiring even below

            500 parts per million i« the NPDES permit

            program is handling that.

                 MR. WARD:  Ho, the NPDES program will

handle any water-borne discharge from a
facility which may at one time have con-
tained PCB hydraulic fluids.
     MR. BILES:  Are you aware at any of
your facilities is there an NPDES permit
which does contain such a limitation?
     MR. WARD:  Yes, there are.
     MR. BILES:  Do you know how many
facilities you have in which that permit
would contain a PCB limitation?
     MR. WARD:  I could stop and count,
one, two — we have two definite, we have
one monitor only and we have one proposed.
     MR. BILES:  Okay.
                    The last couple of
questions deal with your transformer
Maintenance, because that is the subject
we got in with the last couple of people*
                    Who performs your trans-
former maintenance; do you do this?
     MR. WARD:  No, we do not, we contract it.
     MR. BILES:  Do you contract back to
the people who sold you the transformer
or is it more  the kind of people who have

p8          spoken this afternoon in terms of -- are

            you dealing with GE or Westinghouse or

            whoever you buy transformers from or are

            you going to local transformer repair


                 MR. WARD:  Yes to both.

                 MR. BILES:  Do you have any idea which

            you use more?

                 MR. WARD:  No.  I couldn't tell you

            what the breakdown is on that, that is

            simply by local plant option and done on a

            contract basis on a purchase contract.

                 MR. BILES:  You state in here that

            you should be allowed to maintain a stock-

            pile of PCBs for performing this maintenance.

            Do you have any suggestion on where this

            PCS should come from?  We talked about

            reclamation, they said retrofilling would

            handle that problem, but some of us believe

            that we may find ourselves 10 years from

            now having a lot of people to maintain

            that but having no PCB to maintain it with,

            that is a possibility.

                 MR. WARD:  That is a very definite



     MR. BILESi   Do you have any thoughts

on how we can deal with that now rather

than 10 years from now and where those

PCBs should come from?

                    I assume for a corpora-

tion of your size this is not an insignifi-

cant problem —

     MR. WARD:  No, it is not.

     MR. BILESi  — saying you can't

maintain stockpiles but EPA turning around

and banning the manufacture and import

of liquids; do you know where you are going

to get them?

     MR. WARD:  We are going to find our-

self pretty much in the same position

as the service contractors.

                    Since we rely on service

contractors to the greatest extent, we

rely on service contractors we do not

as a rule maintain and service our own

transformers there will be transformers

pulled out  of service at  the given Decatur

rate on transformers you  lose X number

plO         per year.  The fluid in these transformers

            possibly could be reclaimed or reused by

            commercial entities specializing in trans-

            former maintenance.

                                I am not saying that

            this is the preferable way to go.   I don't

            intend or pretend to speak for the transformer

            service segment of industry.

                 MR. BILES:  Does most of the  service

            take place at your facilities?

                 MR. WARD:  Yes.

                 MR. BILES:  Almost all of it  would.

                                Would you consider

            once that transformer leaves your  facility

            that you are not going to get it back?

                 MR. WARD:  Generally, yes.  We would

            rarely send one out for rebuild.

                 MR. BILES:  What do you do with them

            when they leave the facility, do they go

            to disposal or do you sell them to somebody

            else to rebuild?

                 MR. WARD:  It depends on whether or

            not the transformer can be used by someone

            else, does it have any service life left.

     MR. BILES:  I am assuming that if it

has service life you will want to use it?

     MR. WARD:  Not necessarily.  In the

case of electrical monitors where for

example you had a plant that was using

4.8 kilovolt primary service and suddenly

they find it more advantageous to use

14.2 kilovolt electrical service they

would have to abandon their 4.8 transformers

and replace them.

                    These units still nay

be perfectly good serviceable units for

someone else in which case they would have

some salvage value.

     MR. BILES:  I just want to make a

comment that one of the problems we're

having today is the future availability

of the liquids for maintenance.  And, if

you, as well as anybody else have any

thoughts in the future, particularly

during the proposal as to where these

should come from I think it would be

very helpful to us in particular because

I think you and some other industries.


p!2         some other users of transformers represent

            industry that by and large have not been

            represented throughout the PCB hearing

            that the EPA has conducted over the past

            year and a half.

                 MR. WARD:  This is very true.   We

            have not heard from the smaller transformer

            repair shops and from the non-utility

            industrial users.

                 MR. WARD:  We have been there.  We

            have been listening and we have submitted

            comments from time to time.

                 MR. BILES:  Thank you.

                 MR. SHYKINDs  It occurred to me that

            you have the same hydraulic systems, same

            problems presented to u« by the Outboard

            Marine Company that has 100 hydraulic

            die cast press typo of thing where they

            grind and still have problems.

                                How much real leaking

            do you have out of these, are they real

            serious sources of contamination?

                 MR. WARD:  Leakage from a hydraulic

            system is a function of many, many things.

It is a function of system design, system

age, the cycle rate of the system, the

maintenance that is performed on the system,

the type of fluid used in the system, many,

many things bear on the leak rate.

                    within a single given

location you can find hydraulic systems

that are virtually leak-tight and you can

find other systems that have very high

leak rates.  One of the most -- let's say

that probably one of the major problems

that you would have would be a hose rupture,

this would cause you to lose the largest

volume of fluid at a given time if you

rupture a hydraulic hose.

     MR. SHYKIND:  So, you then collect it

or do you have facilities in case of a

rupture to pick it up?

     MR. WARD:  Basically the machines

are -- do sit on pans so that normal leakage

is collected.

                    If a machine breaks

a hydraulic hose you have oil under

several thousand pounds per square-inch

p!4         pressure and it will go almost anyplace.
                                Generally within a
            General Motors plant any drain within the
            facility which is opened to the plant
            floor to receive any type of drainage does
            go to a process or trade waste treatment
            system and any oils would be admitted to
            the sewer in that direction would be
            collected in the trade drain system and
                 MR. PRATT:  Just to continue that
            when you say they'd be removed do you have
            a specific disposal handling system in line
            now for that type of waste oil so that
            they would be separated out and disposed
                 MR. WARD:  A typical manufacturing
            plant would have a waste treatment system
            which would be designed specifically for
            the type of waste that would be encountered

            in the plant.  If it is a plating operation
            it would be designed to treat plating
            solutions.  If it is a machining plant

            it would be designed specifically to treat

oily waste.

                    So, in ft situation

where you have a need for higher-resistant

hydraulic fluids you would probably have

a waste treatment system that would be

compatible with oily waste.

     MR. PRATT:  Ho, the question was not

how you remove them, but what you did

with them once you removed them.

                    I would assume that

in many of the General Motors operation

you would have a lot of ordinary oily waste

that these would become mixed with, and

therefore these would be a combination,

therefore you might end up with 1,000

gallons of oil and 10 gallons of PCBs.

                    If at General Motors

practice now would you take those and have

them shipped down to Monsanto or some

other facility for proper incineration?

     MR. WARD:  First-off I don't think

we can  use Monsanto anymore since  they're

getting out of the incineration business


p!6                             Our practice is to

            collect waste oils/ hold them and than

            have them removed by a person specializing

            in reclaiming waste oils if the waste oils

            do have a reclaim value.

                 MR. PRATT:  Are they notified that

            these contain PCBs and that they rnay be


                 MR. WARD:  Generally in the waste oils

            there is not a sufficient concentration

            of PCBs.  We are talking about a fraction

            of a percent of the waste oil stream being

            contaminated with a few parts per million

            of PCB.  So, when we dilute the thing

            down in the waste treatment system we no

            longer have any significant quantity of

            PCB that is identifiable in the oil.

                                Now,, there are ~-

            there are commercial concerns that can

            take waste oils and convert them into

            fuel oil in which case the fuel oil would

            be burned, any trace of PCBs in the fuel

            oil would be incinerated along with the

            combustion process.  Are you aware t:hen

if GM has incinerated waste oil containing

PCB that these materials are merely

volatilized and not destroyed they are

merely put into the air and come back down

to the city nearby or into the Great Lakes?

     MR. WARD:  I don't believe that is

true at all.

     MR. PRATT:  Do you have information

that says during normal process as GM is

employed there is significant destruction

of PCBs?

     MR. WARD:  I don't think I am in a

position to answer that question at the


                    I can't say that wa

have applied to the proper state air

pollution control agencies for permits to

incinerate PCBs that may be contained

and are contained in fuel oil.

     MR. PRATT:  That is not my understand-

ing but I don't think I will go into it

any further.

                    As  far as going back

to the original thing,  you are saying that

p!8         hydraulic systems are basically a "closed

            system".  If they are a closed system

            how do you explain the discharge of hundreds

            of thousands of gallons of PCBs from General

            Motors'facilities in Michigan, Indiana,

            Wabash River, the Great Lakes?  Isn't it

            sort of incongruous when you say that

            they are very tightly closed and yet thera

            have been massive quantities of PCBs that

            have come out of General Motors' facilities

            via this source?

                 MR. WARD;  I don't think I'd like to

            address that question in this forum,

            I would be more than happy to discuss that

            with you, at your convenience, outsi.de

            this forum.

                                I simply do not have

            the type of information that you aru

            alluding to at my command at this moment.

                 MR. PRATTs  What type of testing

            procedures does GM have to check as far as

            — you said that oftentimes PCBs or PCB

            materials would go down through the normal

            collection system and would be mixed with


the normal oil waste from that facility.

                    What type of a normal

procedure do you have for checking these

for PCB concentration before they would

be incinerated or otherwise discharged?

     MR. WARD:  If we have reason to suspect

that there are concentrations of PCBs in

any given material we have in-house

analytical capabilities to determine the

concentration of PCBs in those materials.

                    If there is a concern

over the material/ the material may be

contaminated to the point where it is not

desirable to leave the material in service

or to allow the material to remain in the

environment the material will be disposed


     MR. PRATT:  What type of program

does General Motors presently have for

evaluating say landfills  where PCB waste

materials may have been disposed of

to determine whether or not they would be

making  a long-term environmental affect

as far  as getting out into waterways?

     MR. WARD:  We currently do not own

»20         or operate any landfill  disposal facilities
           at all.
                               I believe that you
           would be speaking to landfill  operators
           who are professionals in the field.
                MR. PRATT:  I am speaking of the normal
           municipal waste facilities.
                MR. WARD:  ID most places industrial
           waste does not necessarily go to a municipal
           facility.  There are places of course,
           where this in not true.  There are cur
           municipalities that will receive industrial
                               If we have a waste
           which is a known hazard our procedures
           are to  landfill  it if it is — if that is
           the proper disposal  landfill,  to hev« it
            landfilled  at a properly permitted and
           licensed facility.
                MR. PRATT:  Thank you.
                HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Mr. Pearson,
           do you have any questions?
                               I have just one
           clarification on ny part and I thinX another

                                      '    230

                    In the collection of

your waste oils does GM itself burn any

of those waste oils in any of its boilers

or do any other heat process, and if you

do not what do you do with them; do you

sell them to waste oil collectors and

in turn take them to burn?

     MR. WARD:  We burn some waste oils

in our boilers.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTHi  From your own

collection system?

     MR. WARD:  Some from our own collection

facilities, yes.

                    As Mr. Hesse pointed

out earlier today the State of Michigan

has found a massive concentration of

approximately 25 parts per million PCB

in waste oils.  We find substantially the

same level maximum in our testing.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTHi  And you have

burned some of these oils?

     MR. WARD:  We have burned  some of  those-

oils.  When you get to a point  where you

p22         have no more oil and you call the oil

            company and say, "We need oil" and they

            ship you a load and you have no idea

            where that load came from and it is not

            until you are burning it that someone saya,

            "Did you ever stop to think there might be

            PCBs in it because it may contain waste

            oils" and you run out and grab a sample

            and you're halfway through the tank

            and you say, "Gees, it does contain PCBs."

            So, we do have to adjust our combustion

            temperatures for it.

                 HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  It is commercial

            oil you buy for fuel?

                 MR. WARD:  Yos, we have found PCB

            contamination in commercially purchased


                 HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  And that was

            in fact waste oil, blended waste oil?

                 MR. WARD:  The only thing we can

            conclude is that it may have had some

            waste oil blended in it.

                 HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  That i.g a

            conclusion you have never been able to

                                         -    232
verify whether you were receiving raw-
data refinery product or whether it had
been blended with waste oil?
     MR. WARD:  Let's say it is a strong
possibility it probably contained waste
     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Do you ever
have an oversupply of this that you sell
to waste oil collectors?
     MR. WARD:  Wait a minute, would you
clarify that?
     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Well, on one
hand you burn some of it, do you burn all
of it, hold it until you can burn it,
or do you essentially sell or transfer it
to waste oil collectors of one type or
     MR. WARD:  In many locations we do
transfer the oil to waste oil collectors.
     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Are you aware
of the  fate of that?  Do most of them sell
it as waste fuel?
     MR. WARD:  Many of them re-refine
the oil and sell it back to us as  functionable

»24          fluid, cutting oil, lubricating oil.

                               I should clarify one

            point here.  I get the feeling from the

            panel that you're regarding us as having

            X number of manufacturing operations that

            are contaminating the walls with PCBsr

            this is hardly the case, this is not at

            all true.

                               We had very few facilities

            within the corporation that ever used PCB

            hydraulic fluids, very few locations.  So,

            as a general rule we do not have PCB contamina-

            tion coming from within the plants.

                               There are like I say a

            few shops that did at one tine use PCBs.

                MR. PRATT:  But, I think it should

            be noted that there is 7 million pounds of

            PCBs.  Just as we heard from OMC there is

            one facility there that has 106 million

            pounds, it doesn't, take very much  facility

            to have that massive loss.

                MR. WARD:  I'd like to know where you

            got your figures.

                MR. BILES:  One other question that

I have.

                    You have urged that

we adopt a 500 parts per million cutoff

below which we wouldn't require anything

in terms of cleaning hydraulic systems,

and it appears that you base that number

on the fact that we proposed a definition

of PCB mixture of 500 parts per million.

                    If we change our

definition of mixture to 300 or so, 100

parts per million then should we do the

same thing from this number.  In other words,

is this number tied to anything other than

the proposed definition that we proposed?

     MR. WARD:  No, it is tied to your


     MR. BILES:  For consistency only.

     MR. WARD:  For consistency only.

     MR. BILES:  Thank you.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  Any questions

from the audience?

                    Thank you, Mr. Ward,

we appreciate you coming in and explaining

GM's use of PCBs.  And it  is important


p26         information for us as Mr.  Biles pointed out

            that we have not heard from the industrial

            side in any great numbers.

                                Our apologies if we

            made this appear that it was any investiga-

            tion specifically into GM's program.

            That is not our intent.

                                The next witness is

            William Page of Dow Corning Corporation.

                 MR. PAGE:  I am Bill  Page, from Midland,

            Michigan, and I want to introduce in the

            audience a gentleman in the third row,

            with the tan suit is Thor  Orbeck; he is

            here with me and he is the manager of

            our dielectric liquid development program

            and I may call on Thor to  help with some

            of the questions during the question

            and answer period.

                                Now, Dow Corning

            currently the major supplier of dimethyl-

            silicone to the electrical industry as a

            replacement for askarel in small power

            transformers -

                                This material currently

                                       *   23G
has been utilized in two ways, by far the

largest having been by transformer manu-

facturers for use in the manufacture of

new transformers.  The other way the

material has been utilized has been in

retrofill and this has been a process —

and I have a prepared text here which I am

going to read, I have headings and I am

going to read the headings and go through


                    Definition:  In 1972

Dow Corning Corporation started using a

process we call retrofill to gain operating

experience on silicone transformer liquid

in various electrical devices.  In a retro-

fill the original dielectric coolant is

drained/ the device is solvent-flushed

for additional cleaning, and then the unit

is refilled with silicone transformer

liquid.  We have been involved in askarel-

to-silicone retrofills and small power

transformers, transformer rectifier units

for smokestack precipitators, and electro-

magnets .  We are not aware of any operating

                                                   •    237
p28         problems with any of these retrofilled
                                Second heading,
            What is Accomplished:  From an environmental
            point of view the most successful retrofill
            is one  which reduces the PCB content to a
            low level.  We have used thorough draining
            followed by solvent, usually trichlorobenzene,
            flushing to do this.  A key element to low
            PCB level is complete draining of all
            materials from the bottom of the transformer
            tank after the askarel draining and after
            each subsequent solvent flushing.
                                With the text I have
            handed  in there is an attached table.  Th
     pressboard and other areas where it
     was held.
     Item 2:   My second comment to the data
     is optimizing the current flushing
     techniques should allow routine
     retrofilling to produce transformers
     with post migration PCB in silicone
     liquid levels of around two percent.
                    The next heading,
Future Technology:  The above-mentioned
migration of PCB out of the core and coil
into the silicone transformer liquid offers
an opportunity to remove an additional
quantity of PCB from a transformer that would
otherwise be missed by simply draining
and flushing the unit.  We have been working
on simple maintenance procedures that could
be performed on retrofilled transformers
after this migration has taken place.
Very preliminary laboratory studies on
contaminated quantities of silicone trans-
former  liquid indicate filtering through
absorbing media can be used to greatly
reduce  the PCB  level.  In one study we

were able to clean up 50-plus gallons of

silicone liquid contaminated to 1.5 percent

down below 500 parts per million.

                    This study was

strictly experimental, but it is indicative

of the significant retrofill improvements

that will take place if this technology

develops further.

                    The next heading I have

is Toxic Substances Control Act Rules

Relating to Retrofill:  Rules:  In the

proposed rules you are considering allowing

the disposal of transformers in a chemical

waste landfill if no more than two percent

of the original volume of dielectric liquid

remains in the transformer.  Please Refer to

the Federal Register, Volume 42, Number 100,

Tuesday, May 24, 1977, Page 26567 for the

full text.  If this provision is accepted,

a person who owns a retrofilled transformer

will probably be able to simply drain out

the silicone transformer liquid and landfill

the unit in an approved manner at the 
                                       •   2.4.0
ease of disposal, the owner of that trans-
former will have greatly reduced the risk of re-
leasing a large quantity of PCB into the
environment during the operating life of
his transformer.  In many cases that life-
time will be 20 to 40 years.
                    A second consideration
of the rules is to define mixtures that
contain 0.05 percent or greater of PCB as
"PCB mixtures."  See Federal Register,
Volume 42, Number 100, Tuesday, May 24,
1977, Page 26565 for the full text.  We
support your maintaining this 0.05 level
but feel that an exemption should be
made in the case of retrofilled transformers.
In a retrofill you go from 60 to 100 percent
PCB to begin with approximately down to
two percent PCB.  The environmental gains
as we see them are as follows:  I have
five items:
     Item 1:  PCB that otherwise would
     be maintained for as many as 40 years
     will be properly disposed of.

     Item 2:  The potential of losing

     a large quantity of PCB into the

     environment is significantly reduced.

     Item 3:  Migration of PCB into tho

     ailicone will result in less total

     PCB going into landfill.  The PCB

     that migrates will either be removed

     and destroyed as part of a maintenance

     plan like the one mentioned above,

     or it will be destroyed along with

     the silicone transformer liquid at the

     end of the transformer's operating


     Item 4:  Spills from a retrofilled trans-

     former will float on waterways and thus

     should be easier to recover than spills

     of askarel which sink.

     Item 5:  No need to maintain a PCB

     top-off supply.

                    By exemption we do not

mean total protection from all PCB liability

but enough of a loosening to create some

incentive to do retrofilling.  We all stand

to gain as pointed out in the five items above.

Additionally, the development of more

sophisticated PCS handling and disposal

techniques will go a long way toward

solving some of the current PCB problems.

Creating this incentive is one way to

make development of this technology more

attractive to the people who have the

resources to do it.

                    The next heading is

When to Retrofill:  We do not support

across-the-board retrofilling nor do we

support legislating that retrofilling be

done.  However, there are some instances

where it is justified*  A good example is

a repair job when the askarel will need

replacement.  In this situation when askarels

are no longer available, that equipment can

be kept in service by retrofilling with

silicone transformer liquid.  The other

alternative would be to dispose of the

equipment by cleaning up, flushing and

landfill and then to purchase new equipment

to replace it.  A second justified situa-

tion is a transformer which creates a

special environmental risk due to its

location.  Examples of such units are ones

located on ditches, docks, or streams where

liquid loss would result in direct loss

of FCB into a waterway.

                    The  next heading,

Cost of Retrofillings  We currently know

of four service companies that are offering

the retrofill service.  Their prices vary

considerably depending on the specific work

to be done.  Most job bids we are aware of

have been in the $22 to  $32 per gallon

range.  This includes the total job, ail

materials plus disposal  of the PCB.  This

economic consideration alone eliminates

some transformer candidates.  In some older

transformers the gallons of dielectric

liquid per KVA is quite  large.  In many of

these units it is less expensive to replace

the old unit with a new  transformer rather

than retrofill.  However, many newer

units can be retrofilled far less expensively

than replacing them with new, particularly

when you also consider down time, delivery

time, cost of disposing  of the old unit

and many other factors.

                    Next heading,

Technical Efficacy:  Numerous technical

studies have been run substantiating the

efficacy of using silicone transformer

liquid to retrofill askarel-filled small

power transformers.  We feel the technology

is sound and are in fact in a program to

retrofill all of the askarel transformers

in all of our plants worldwide.  Written

materials exist supporting our arguments

regarding the efficacy of this application.

                    Summary:  Retrofilling

"change outs" from oil to askarel and

from askarel to oil using well known

methods has been used in the transformer

maintenance industry for many years.

Askarel-to-silicone retrofilling was first

used as a silicone transformer liquid develop-

ment tool in 1972 and since that time has

grown to be readily available commercial

service.  This process offers many advan-

tages to man and his environment.  We

request you strongly consider the effect

the rules you promulgate will have on

retrofilling as it exists today and the

effects they will have on the ultimate

technique development of the future.

                    Now, that is the end

of my comments.  I do have a slide serd.es

on retrofill if you are interested in seeing

specifics or if you prefer to go to questions

that is fine.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   Panel, do you

want to see the slides?

     MR. BILES:  Can we get  copies of

the slides?


slides do you have?

     MR. PAGE:  I don't know, it would

probably take seven to ten minutes to go



basically explaining ~~ showing the retro-

fill operation itself?

     MR. PAGE:  Just the mechanics of it,

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   If we can have

copies of that I'd appreciate that.


     MR. PAGE:   I will have to take

those and make  them, I cannot give them

to you today.


                    Questions?  Mr. Pearson,

Mr. Pratt, Mr.  Principe?

     MR. PRINCIPE:  The silicone fluid

that is in the  transformer once it has been

retrofilled contains say two to three

percent of PCBs.  How can you dispose of

that liquid, can it be incinerated?

     MR. PAGE:   The silicone liquid in

our own plant we have occasion to dispose

of some silicone material.  And the in-

silicone material we use incineration --

commercial incinerators in the area and

they have no trouble burning silicone,

it is a matter of burning a small amount

with other materials just to lower the

flash and fire point of the silicone

where it burns readily.

                    And in talking with

our waste disposal people they fill

the silicone trim retrofill that would

have PCS in it that could very readily be

burned in a PCB burning facility, in other
words one with proper temperature and so on.

     MR. BILES:  Maybe it is in your slides

so maybe you can tell us then.

                    You identified cost

of being $22 to $33 a gallon.  You indicate

that may eliminate some of the transformer

from application.
     MR. PAGE:  Yes.

     MR. BILES:  That strikes me that that

may eliminate not some but most?

     MR. PAGE:  It eliminates a fair

number but transformers used to -- you take
a 15 or 20-year old transformer and it

used to have oh, half to seven-tenths of a
gallon per KVA, a number of them have been

coming out lately with anywhere from .12 to  .15

gallons KVA.  If you figure that out on

that basis it does come to the fact that

with some newer ones it is an economic


     MR. BILES:  I am sure you have cost

analysis of comparing this to other alterna-

tives such as getting rid of transformers
or/ you know --
     MR. PAGE:  I think I just did by
comparison with purchasing a new one.
     MR. BILES:  Where does retrofilling
take place/ would it take place in GM's
operation or would they have to ship the
     MR. PAGE:  There are two types of
retrofill.  If you look at the table that
I have given you there you can see the
specifics, one is called a field job/
this is where you would move in on a trans-
former in a field.  And the other is
called a shop job.  And usually in a shop
job the core and coil are pulled out
because some other service is done on the
unit.  In that situation you do end up
with lower PCS levels.
     MR. BILES:  Would you anticipate
that this would lead to simplifying the
retrofill operation or would it be more
field operations like for GM's needs?
     MR. PAGE:  I don't know.

     MR. BILES:  If it's something that
industry itself could perform or some-
thing again to be specialized like a couple
of the other gentlemen representing that
they themselves are local transformer
repair operations.  Do you see GM being
able to take this over -- I am not trying
to pick out GM.
                    Do you see American
industry itself being able to do this
or is it something that will become localized
with a few operations?
     MR. PAGE:  Okay.
                    I have been involved
in a fair number of retrofills and they
have been done two ways, one by transformer
service companies and the other is I have
been involved in some private companies
doing it in their own repair shops.
And there are some companies that are
quite sophisticated and capable of doing
this, but I don't think it is something
that most companies who own a transformer
would want to do though, most of them would

contract it out.
     MR. BILES:  And then the solvent
silicone liquid I would assume those would
be disposed of?
     MR. PAGE:  Yes.
     MR. BILES:  Can the solvent -- is
there any way solvent can be reused?
     MR. PAGE:  Yes.  We have in fact —
usually we will use like three flushings
on a transformer and you can take the last
flush from one unit and use it as the first
flush on the next unit.
                    This was very definitely
maintained in the fact that that liquid
was good, has no particle test or dielectric
properties and so on.
                    The other thing we
have looked into, the PCB and trichloroben-
zene have a very different vapor pressures
and it would be simple distillation, but
this has not been done by anyone yet.
And actually in the long range retrofill
could be used as a PCB-making procedure
-- not a PCB, as a trichlorobenzene-making

procedure by simple distillation of the

askarels that come out, and at that

economically would cut the cost of the

solvent that is flushing and count the

amount of material that would need to be

burned also.

     MR. BILES:  Is there anybody else

in addition to your company who is in the

business and is advocating this kind of

a program?

     MR. PAGE:  Okay.

                    The one thing I can say

that is aware of that has been published

is that -- is that Union Carbide -- Union

Carbide, a man by the name of Bill Martin

recently wrote a paper -- a technical paper,

I can't even give you the reference on it,

but in it it did describe doing some

retrofilling in their own plant.  And,

he didn't call it retrofilling, but it

was draining the askarel from the unit

and putting silicone in, and he measured

some of the performance values of the unit.

     MR. BILES:  But, you are the ones

that have the silicone product?

     MR. PAGE:  Yes.

     MR. BILKS:  As far as you know,

are you the only ones right now who are

marketing that in this country?

     MR. PAGE:  There are four silicone

suppliers in the U.S. and -- or four major

ones, and of the four I would say we are

most actively promoting, but two of the

other three would be glad to sell to a

retrofiller if he wanted to purchase from


     MR. BILES:  I am not sure I understand

the intention of your request.

     MR. PAGE:  I can't say exactly what

I'd like, but if a person does a retrofill

he is doing the five things that I pointed

out.  And you have certain restrictions,

you are considering a .05 percent PCB

material as a -- what was it a PCB --

     MR. BILES:  A PCB mixture.

     MR. PAGE:  A PCB mixture.

                    No, I don't feel I can

define it.  I am just saying enough of a

change in the regulation to where there would

be some incentive to do a retrofill.

                    If a person does a

retrofill now I feel you gain the five

things I listed but that person really

gains nothing if he still is above the

500 part per million.  The only thing he

would gain would be the ease of waste


     MR. BILES:  Okay.

                    And you would want us

to raise that 500 part per million number

up to the two percent number, is that

what I am to understand?

     MR. PAGE:  Not that -- can you

elaborate on that, Thor?

     MR. ORBECK:  Basically the practicality

of the whole method is dependent on the

£PA's regulations.

                    Basically what we are

saying is that you can over a period of

time potentially reduce the amount of

the PCB in the transformer by regular

maintenance procedures.

                    I elaborated on this in

ray last statement in previous hearings

and the point is that we are basically

saying that allowing this to take place

over a natural process in certain

select areas where people have exposed

units you have to put some exemptions

on the retrofill unit; you have to

classify it differently than you classify

a mixture or classify a PCB material.

     MR. BILES:  That is for disposal


     MR. ORBECK:  Simply for the purpose

of giving that extension in accordance

with what for example Michigan Rule

dumber 66 I believe it is, Public Act 60

has made an exemption so you can apply

for an exemption for that particular

retrofill unit.

                    I think that is the

only thiny we are asking.

     MR. BILES:  The exemption would be

what you would do with the unit.

     MR. ORBECK:  No, that would --

no, that would be the way you classify it,


the certain systems -- you have PCB

mixtures or PCB materials.

     MR. BILL'S:  It is conceivable that

we could authorize use and maintenance

of transformers and that is sort of one

alternative to that, you are saying that

in fact in exception there is going to

be soiue traces of PCBs.   We can authorize

that anyway.

     MR. ORBECK:  You can authorize that,

the problem is that you would gradually

accomplish this reduction of PCBs by

regular maintenance, and that means that

you would at different time periods in

the time of that transformer you would have

different levels of PCBs in it.  So,

that the classification of that system

would change.

                    For that, I simply

suggest that you classify the retrofill

transformer as a specific classification;

do you see what --

     MR. BILES:  I am not sure I under-

stand a need for that if we're authorizing


the continued use of the transformers

anyway, that is what I am saying.

                    And the reason we won't

need to keep the number at 500 parts per

million is to cover the disposal of the

transformer.  I don't think even at this

point that we have taken the point that

you shouldn't be allowed to use the trans-

former with 100 percent PCS during its

useful life.  It is what you do with the

liquid in the transformer once you're done

with it.

                    All I can say is if

you raise the number then you are going to

let some of the liquid be exempt from the

disposal requirement.

     MR. ORBECK;  I think it is just a

matter of definition.  What you are saying

basically is that within the system you

are allowed to operate the unit whether

it is retrofilled or not retrofilled.

                    What we are saying

is basically to provide the incentive to

the industries that have the unit of a

large number and some of them on a small

basis, that we would like to have the

possibility of classifying that unit

somewhat differently if it is retrofilled

or not retrofilled because it allows

in that what we call method as recommended

by our department a way to gradually

reduce that PCB level to the level that

would be less than 500 parts per million

or possibly five percent, that is what

we are trying to do.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  If I understand

what you are saying that is — correct me

if I am wrong/ the labeling disposal

regulation and transformer that contains

PCBs ip drained and goes to a chemical

waste facility?

     MR. ORQSCK:  Transforner?

     HEARING OFFICER V7IRTII;  Now, you are

saying if an individual drains his trans-

former, PCB or askarel-filled transformer

he must incinerate that, if he retrofilled

with silicons and it ends up with two percent

PCBs in it after its useful life you must

also incinerate the silicone with two percent
PCBs in it after its useful life; are you
suggesting that there should be some
relief provided for him on that second
two percent PCB-contained silicone so that
he essentially doesn't end up with two
volumes of transformer fluid and incinerate
over its lifetime?
     MR. OR3ECK:  Basically I am saying
that when you do retrofill you have in fact
reduced from 90 percent PCS to 60 percent
PCB, that Mr. Page had mentioned but,
you are stuck with two percent, that by
your definition is what they call a PCB
     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:  That is correct.
     MR. ORBECK:  Okay.
                    So, this material now
in effect has to be treated by the utility
company or by the private industry in
the same manner as the unit was filled
with PCB, that means there is very little
incentive whatsoever or any reason to do
the retrofilling.

p50                             However,  we have
            already established a condition where
            we now over a six-month period leave a
            PCB leach a PCD out of the — a substantial
            amount of PCb out of the -- before
            winding into the silicons and establishing
            equal limit at a point where  you dispose
            of the thing you would get substantially
            less than the two percent that you established
            retrofilling for what you call landfill,
            that is one point.
                                The second point we
            are making is that our experience has
            shown that if you use activated charcoal
            at one point of the procedure and at that
            later point/ six months after, you may
            be able to reduce that PCD contact at least
            permanently to less than 500  parts per
            million which would qualify the unit to
            be less than that level that  you set
            for 500 parts per million.
                                Because we have not
            proved this we have not got enough time
            before you rule-setting is set so that

we don't even have an opportunity to continue

that work because of the lack of economic

incentive in the system, then, this will

never take place.  So, I am saying that

no rule or regulation will all determine

the go and no-go to the retrofill to those

specific units.  And the other alternative

is to be faced with in disposed areas and

to replace those units because the liability

associated in having those units in those

exposed places are too high.  That means

the economic impact is they have to go

buy a new unit if they can.

                    That is why we don't

support a massive retrofilling, we are

trying to help some specific customers

that have asked for them in this particular


     MR. BILES:  So, you do not advocate

that we should require retrofilling?

     MR. ORBECK:  All we want is an

exemption that on those few units that

need to be taken care of and for that

reason we want this to be under those type

>2         of circumstances.

               HEARING OFFICER WIRTli :  Any more


               MR. Si\l\'DER:  Do I  understand you

          correctly you  indicate  that  silicone filled

          can be used to top off  existing PCB trans-


               MR. PAGE:  I did not  say  that.

               MR. SWYDER:  Good.

                              What is  the effect

          when you -- the effect  on  a  transformer

          when you retrofill with silicone in

          terms of the electrical capacity of th«j

          transformer, is it reduced in  any way?

               MR. PAGE:  Okay.

                              Electrical capacity

          -- silicone -- if you take a liquid in

          a transformer  there are two  factors to

          determine how well that liquid cools

          that unit and one is the viscosity of the

          fluid, that gives you an idea  of how f&st

          the fluid flows through the  orifice and

          so on; the other one is a  coefficient of

          expansion of the liquid.

                              Why fluid  flows in a

device like this is the difference in

density between hot and cold, it is

called thermofusion,it heats up and gets

wider and bigger and so it flows, it is

a difference.

                    Well, silicone is a

considerably more viscous than askarel

and as such this would be a negative,

in other words this would cause it to flow

slower through the openings.  But, on the

other hand silicone has a greater coefficient

of expansion, it expands more when it's

heated and so this is a plus; you have

more push -- pushing the material through

and when you balance these out if you

throw it into a computer program it will

come out saying that you can overheat

your transformer tremendously -- and if

you actually put it in a transformer and

measure the values that you get, particularly

instrument the transformer you will

actually find some spots in the inside of a

silicone unit that are cooler than an

askarel unit and some spots vice versa.


54                              Overall  the  average

           temperature  will  be  slightly higher

           with the silicone unit.

                               We have  heard  manu-

           facturers make  the claim --  in fact  we

           have actually seen data  where they have

           gone anywhere from no percent D  rating

           to 10 percent O rating on the unit.

                MR. SrtYDLRt   Do silicone fluids have

           a  lower  prime point  than PCBs?

                MR. PAGE:  Not  much higher  than askarels.

                MR. SNYDER:   So, what problems  are

           you alluding to when you dispose of  PCBs

           with --  or silicone  contaminants?

                MR. PACK:  silicone has a high  fire

           point.   A fire  point is  a temperature

           that you heat a liquid to it,  put  a

           flame to it, take that flame off the

           liquid the liquid will continue  to burn.

           With silicone it  is  600  degrees  Fahrenheit.

           And if you take silicone and throw it into

           an incinerator, straight silicone-type

           material sometimes you don't get good


ignition on the silicone material.

                    What waste disposal

people that burn liquids will do is

take the silicone and other materials

that they're getting in from other

companies and mix it until it has a

particular BTU per pound ratio and they

will mix it so that there is a percent of

silicone with other material so that

the total mixture has the lower flash

and fire point so it will ignite more


     MR. BURIN:  I'd like to direct ray

question both to Mr. Page and to Mr. Orbeck.

                    Does Dow Corning to

your knowledge have any information con-

cerning the toxicity or environmental

persistence dimethylsilicone?

     MR. PAGE:  Thor ~- wo are going to

pass the buck, neither of us want it.

                    Tremendous amounts of

data and I guess rather than comment on it

we would like to make a submission to you.

     MR. ORBECK:  May I make one comment.

                    We have made a

submission to EPA of all the data that

we have and what we do know about in

the technical work and that has been

submitted to EPA.  That statement was

provided by Mr. Swaurter (phonetic)  and

his viewpoint.

                    And there was some

question with regard to the effect of

silicone that has and these are in the

investigation and interfaced in the

silicone industry and have taken place

and some of this has been resolved.

Some of it has been resolved by an

investigation.  Basically we have tried to

provide information that EPA has required

and that should be available to you.

     MR. BURIN:  Okay, thank you.

     MR. PAGE:  Do you want us to make a

submission to you?

     MR. BURIiJ:  Well, if you already

made a submission -- okay.

     MR. ORBECK:  May I make one very short


                    Dow Corning is not

really commercially so interested right

now.  We are a main supplier of silicone

to the manufacturers.

                    It has been at this

point where we ship silicone liquid trans-

formers in tankcars to the manufacturers

using it in the transformers, to us it

doesn't mean that tremendous in terms of

from shift to electrofilled to setting

new units.

                    But, basically we

started this type of thing to gain experience

in units because we were trying to learn

how silicone was in transformers, to

develop this technology to start our own

life-testing in transformers.

                    Now, we have, I think

Dill can verify, we have got 10 to 20

requests of this retrofill thing because of

people that are in special places.  What

we are trying to do is find a way to

communicate with you so that for these


particular people there is a way that they

can go as an alternative to buying a unit,

that's economics.

                    The only thing that

I can say -- the only thing that I can

see one way to go is to make some kind

of exemption on these retrofill units for

these particular cases that really check

in accordance with regulations that

there will be.

                    And there should be

an additional clause, that is all I am

going to ask for, to make it possible

for these and not to make what you call

regulations that require the retrofill.

I think that is wrong.  I think that

this is too much of an economical impact

but this had to be done because of --

to take care of it.


                    Are there any questions

from the floor?

     MR. AGIN:  My name is Jim Agin.  I

just have one question perhaps for the

people from Dow Corning.
                    It is my understanding,
this might be a simplistic understanding,
that there are sonie transformers that cannot;
be filled with material other than askarel
because -- or unless that material were
as fire-resistant as askarel.  In other
words, it wouldn't mean some National
Electrical Safety Code or something like
this .
                    Now, you mentioned
that Dow Corning was going to replace,
I think you said all — retrofill all of
its transformers.  Do you have instances
like this where -- or maybe you don't,
where there is a Code -- there is a Code
problem or an insurance problem or some-
thing like this?
     MR. PAGE:  No.
     MR. ORBECK:  You will have to explain
the Code change.
     MR. AGItf:  I mentioned the National
Electric Safety Code.  I am not familiar
with the details of it or with whatever

0         other State Regulations  there may be

          or whatever.   But,  it is just my basic

          understanding that  there might be some

          instances,  in fact  the company I work for,
          United Power Associates  has  some transformers

          within a power plant, in the basement of

          a power plant that  I understand couldn't
          be readily  retrofitted with  another liquid

          unless that liquid  substantially met the

          same specifications of the askarel.
               HEARING OFFICER WIRTH:   I personally

          have that same understanding or came to

          acquire it  somewhere along the way that

          the Electrical Code specifies askarel.

               MR. PAGE:  The NEC, National Electrical
          Code is written by  the National Fire
          Protection  Association every three years
          and in 1978 will be the  next revision,

          the old one is the  1975  one.  The HEC is
          a list of provisions which should give

          adequate safety to  an electrical installa-

          tion if it  is followed.

                              And  the  NEC in May

          of this year  in their National Convention

in Washington, D.C., approved — voted on

and approved a revision, I believe that

was May I am not certain on that,

rewriting a provision — I think that

is Article 450/23 and silicone will meet

the new provision as defined in the

National Electrical Code.

                    Now, what remains to be

done is that in September of this year,

the 1978 National Electric Code book

will be printed.

                    Now, the Code itself

is not law, but the federal government,

OSHA namely adopted the Code as a concensus

standard, meaning that the National

Electric Code was federal law and such to

put silicone in installation, because the

old Code said you would have to use

askarel inside of a building which would

have then been against the federal law,

but OSHA, the Department of Labor came

out with a program directive allowing

the use of silicone as a replacement for

askarel on a one-for-one basis and that

some time ago.
                    Perhaps in the briefcase
Thor can give us a reference on that.
                    We can send that to
you later.
                    But, we have no trouble
with insurance or Codes.
fact fait accompli other than to have it
printed, is that correct?
     MR. PAGE:  Right.
     HEARING OFFICER WIRTH.-  And it allows
one-to-one replacement with no additional
fire prevention?
     MR. PAGE:  It does not list the word
silicone.  The old Code listed askarel
which was kind of statutorily illegal
because it established a monopoly as such.
                    The new Code does list
a list of provisions and silicone does
nrset those provisions.  That are listed.
It doesn't eliminate other liquids;
it leaves it open to competition.

list provisions?                           etc

     MR. PAGE:  Yes.


how are those provisions stated?

     MR. PAGE:  It lists a fire point,

a propagation test and what is the third?

     MR. ORBECK:  The third test is signed

by the fact of mutual insurance to try

to verify the different aspects of high

fire point, fire propagation, fire spread,

but there is a difference — these are

words in the National Electric Code --

they are not authorized to be -•• not authorized

to be investigative tests, they are used

temporarily unless such a classification

system is established.

                    These three tests

function in the way to make sure that these

properties are not written into the Code

as a temporary situation until they get

it all.

     HEARING OFFICER WIRTii:  You Say this

is fire point, fire propagation, fire



     MR. PAGE:  We can submit a copy

of that text.


questions?  Okay.  Thank you very much.

                    That concludes the

previously registered witnesses which

brings us to the point to open the meeting

for any questions, statement or anyone

wishing to make any comment.

                    I would like to ask

if there is anybody in the room that

represents an environmental concern,

organization or group.  We have not heard

from any such group today.  Do they care

to make a comment on the things they

heard today or this proposed regulation?

                    If not the floor is

open for anyone who wishes to make any

sort of a statement.

                    Everybody is tired.

                    Okay, if there is nothing,

no further statements then this meeting is

adjourned.  Thank you very much.


                  }  SS
     SUSAN A. DIMC, being first duly sworn,

says that she is a court reporter doing

business in the City of Chicago, and that

she reported in shorthand the proceedings

had at the hearing of said cause, and the

foregoing is a true &nd correct transcript

of her shorthand notes, so taken as afore-

said, and contains all the proceedings of

said hearing.

before me this  ^7 ,: day

of   CWlA/      , A.D., 1977
     Notary Public