HD69.P6         United States         Office of           November 1983 ^1 '
lie            Environmental Protection     Toxic»Si!*>sf.inif3s
1983           ^	:	;	 740R83101
x>EPA       The PCB Regulations
             Under TSCA:

             Over 100 Questions and
             Answers to Help You
             Meet These Requirements
             Prepared by:
             TSCA Assistance Office and
             Exposure Evaluation Division
             Office of Toxic Substances
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

             Revised Edition No. 3
             August 1983

-------
                                       740R83101
         The PCS Regulations

             Under TSCAt
              Over  100
        Questions and Answers
          To Help You  Meet
         These Requirements
            Prepared  by:

     TSCA Assistance  Office  and
    Exposure Evaluation Division
     Office of Toxic  Substances
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
        Revised Edition No. 3
             August 1983
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                      230 S^ii; [.V^ern Street
                      Chicago, Illinois  60604.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Aggne?

-------
                           INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE;  The primary purpose of this publication* is to provide
an easy-to-use guide, in addition to a package of key information,
which assists the sector of industry that needs to know about, and
comply with, EPA's regulations for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs).  The Guide, within its "Q&A" format, both addresses the
major requirements and presents answers to frequently asked
questions concerning the PCB rules.

     Two earlier PCB "Q&A" booklets precede this publication, each
one with the intention of providing timely assistance to industry
on the PCB control measures.

     Once again, the PCB rulemaking activity has progressed, and
therefore, the need for a third, updated "Q&A".  At this point  in
the PCB rulemaking activities, we have several notices that make
up the final PCB control actions.  To be specific, there are now
four  (4) final Federal Register notices incorporated into the
control of PCBs  (and a fifth to be completed in July 1984) .  This
publication not only presents the requirements and issues con-
cerning the PCB control measures, but it also is a "package" of
all the key official information concerning PCBs.  In fact, almost
every answer is cross-referenced to the actual Federal Register
notice in the Appendix.

ORGANIZATION:  This publication consists of four  (4) distinct
sections:

    (1)  A Background/Summary of PCB Regulatory Actions to date;
    (2)  Q&A's:  General PCB Information;
    (3)  Q&A's:  Requirements of the Final PCB Rules;
    (4)  Appendix:  Key Official Documents concerning Final PCB
         Ru 1 e s.

HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE;  If you are familiar with the PCB rules you
can go directly to the "Table of Contents" to locate the item of
interest to you.

     However, if the PCB rules are new or unfamiliar to you, you
may want to take this approach:

    (1)  Read the general PCB information Q&As (pp. 9-49).
    (2)  Read the Background/Summary of the PCB Regulatory Actions;
     *This publication has been prepared by the TSCA Industry
Assistance Office and the Exposure Evaluation Division within
EPA's Office of Toxic Substances.  It is an informal document, and
persons are directed to the PCB Final Rules for specific legal
requirements.


-------
    (3)  Read the "Introductory Information" portion of each  of
         the Q&A notice sections;
    (4)  Refer to the "Subject Index" to find the item of  interest
         to you.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION;  For further assistance on the PCB issue,
or additional copies of this publication or other documents
mentioned, call the TSCA Assistance Office Toll Free Number:

        800-424-9065  (in Washington,  D.C.  area:   554-1404).

                 *********************************
                                -11-

-------
                         Table of Contents
TOPIC                                                      PAGE

O   SUBJECT INDEX  	      1

O   BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF PCR REGULATORY  ACTIONS  	-.      6

                **** O&A Format  Section Begins ****

O   GENERAL PCB INFORMATION	      9

    o  Introductory Facts 	      9
    o  Spills/Clean up  	     12
    o  PCBs in the Workplace  	     15

o   MAY 31, 1979 PCB RULE 	     17

    o  Introductory Information  	     17
    o  Marking (Labeling) 	     19
    o  Disposal	     20
    o  St orage 	     24
    o  Exemption Petitions  	     26
    o  Import/Export 	     28
    o  Authorized Uses:
       o  Heat Transfer Systems  	     28
       o  Hydraulic Systems  	     29
       o  Microscopic Mounting Medium  	     29
       o  Research and Development  	     29
       o  Carbonless Copy Paper  	     30

o   AUGUST 25, 1982 ELECTRICAL-USE  RULE  	     31

       o  Introductory Information  	     31
       o  Definition of "Posing An  Exposure
            Risk to Food or  Feed"  	     32
       o  Electrical Equipment (Transformers,
            Capacitors, Electromagnets)--that
            Pose an  Exposure  Risk  to Food  or  Feed   	     34
       o  Transformers  (Non-railroad)--that do
            not Pose an Exposure Risk to
            Food or Feed 	     35
       o  Capacitors that do  not Pose  an
            Exposure Risk to Food or Feed  	     38
       o  Electromagnets, Switches, and Voltage
            Regulators—that do not Pose  an
            ExposOre Risk to Food or Feed  	     39
       o  Circuit Breakers,  Reclosers and  Cable--
            that do not Pose an Exposure  Risk
            to Food or Feed  	     40
                               -ill-

-------
TOPIC                                                   PAGE
    OCTOBER 21, 1982 CLOSED AND CONTROLLED
      WASTE RULE 	    41

       o  Introductory Information 	    41
       o  Byproduct PCB Formation 	    42
       o  Qualifying for an Exclusion as a
            Closed or Controlled Waste Process 	    43
       o  What "Controlled" Disposal Is 	    43
       o  Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements 	    44

    JANUARY 3, 1983 AMENDMENT TO THE USE
      AUTHORIZATION FOR RAILROAD TRANSFORMERS  	    46

       o  Introductory Information  	    46
       o  Interim Performance Deadlines  	    47
       o  Recordkeeping Requirements  	    48

    "UNCONTROLLED" PCB RULEMAKING  	    48
       o  Introductory Information  	    48
       o  Rulemaking Schedule  	    49

                 ****  OSeA Format  Section Ends  ****

    APPENDICES

       A  .Recodification Chart for May  31, 1979
            PCB Ban Rule:  New Designations for
            Part 761

       B  Federal Register, Thursday, May 31, 1979,
            Part VI, Environmental Protection Agency,
            Polychlorinated Biphenyls;  Criteria
            Modification; Hearings

       C  Federal Register, Wednesday,  August 25, 1982
            Part II, Environmental Protection Agency,
            Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCBs)
            Manufacturing, Processing,  Distribution in
            Commerce,  and Use  Prohibitions; Use  in
            Electrical Equipment

       D  Federal Register, Thursday, October 21, 1982,
            Part II, Environmental Protection Agency,
            Polychlorinated Biphenyls  (PCBs);
            Manufacturing, Processing,  Distribution in
            Commerce,  and Use  Prohibitions; Use  in Closed
            and Controlled Waste Manufacturing Processes
                                -iv-

-------
TOPIC
       E  Federal Register, Monday, January 3, 1983
            Part IV, Environmental Protection Agency,
            Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
            Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
            Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Amendment
            to Use Authorization for PCB Railroad
            Transformers

       F  Commercial Landfills Approved for Land
            Disposal

       G  Disposal Companies

       H  Comparative Tables on Materials Used to
            to Protect Against Dermal Exposure
            to PCBs

       I  Status for the "Uncontrolled" PCB Rulemaking,
            in the United States Court of Appeals for
            the District of Columbia Circuit, Civ.
            No. 79-1580
                                -v-

-------
                           SUBJECT INDEX
To further assist those who need to know about the  PCS rule
requirements, the following index was prepared.  The subjects
dealt with throughout the Q&A portion of the publication are
listed alphabetically, along with the specific questions that
address them.

SUBJECT                                          QUESTION NOS,

o Amendment to Use Authorization
     for Railroad Transformers
     (January 3, 1983) 	    120-125

o  Authorized Uses 	    21

o  Byproduct, PCB Formation 	    105

o  Cable, that does not Pose
     An Exposure Risk to
     Food or Feed 	    99

o  Capacitors, that Do not Pose an
     Exposure Risk to Food or Feed  	    92-95

o  Carbonless Copy Paper 	    65

o  Chemical/Physical Properties 	    1,4

o  Circuit Breakers, that Do Not Pose
     an Exposure Risk to Food or Feed 	    99

o  Clean up of Spills 	    9

o  Closed and Controlled Waste
     Rule (October 21, 1982) 	    100-119

o  Controlled Disposal 	    108, 109

o  Dielectric Fluids, for Retrofilling
     Railroad Transformers 	    122

o  Disposal 	    30-42

o  Disposal, Containers with Low
     PCB Concentrations 	    41

o  Disposal, Dielectric Fluid 	    32

o  Disposal, Hydraulic Machines 	    35

o  Disposal, Large PCB Capacitors 	    33

o  Disposal, Non-Liquid PCBs 	    37
                                — 1 —

-------
SUBJECT
QUESTION NOS.
o  Disposal, Other Liquid Wastes
     with 500+ ppm, 50-500 ppm,
     less than 50 ppm	   36

o  Decontamination, PCB Container  	   38-40

o  Disposal, PCB Transformers  	   32

o  Disposal, Small PCB Capacitors  	   34

o  Disposal Facilities 	   31, Appendix

o  Disposal Site Requirements  	   42

o  Electrical-Use Rule (August 25, 1982)  	   66-99

o  Electromagnets, that Do Not Pose an
     Exposure Risk to Food or  Feed 	   96-98

o  Exclusion, Qualification as a Closed
     or Controlled Waste Process 	   106, 107,  115,  119

o  Exemptions, Class Categories 	   55

o  Exemptions, Phase I/Phase II 	   53, 54

o  Exemption Petitions 	   53-56

o  Export 	   57

o  Fifty  (50) ppm Cutoff, Closed and
     Controlled Waste Rule 	   103-104

o  Food or  Feed Facility 	   70-74

o  Further  Information 	   8

o  Health/Environmental Effects 	   6

o  Heat Transfer Systems 	   58-60

o  Hydraulic Systems 	   61, 62

o  Import 	   57

o  In-Service, Transformer Use 	   90, 91

o  Inspection/Maintenance Requirements,
     Capacitors that Do Not Pose an
     Exposure Risk to Food or  Feed 	   95
                                -2-

-------
SUBJECT                                           QUESTION NOS.
o  Inspection Procedures, Transformers
     that do not Pose an Exposure Risk
     to Food or Peed 	    81

o  Inspection Requirements,  for
     Electrical Equipment that Does  Pose
     Exposure Risk to Food or Feed  	    75,  77

o  Interim Performance Deadlines,
     Railroad Transformers 	    123,  124

o  Labeling 	    22-29,  109

o  Leaks, PCB Storage Area	    50

o  Maintenance Procedures, Transformers
     that Do Not Pose an Exposure Risk
     to Food or Feed 	    82

o  Marking 	    22-29

o  Microscopic Mounting Medium 	    63

o  Monitoring PCB Levels, Closed or
     Controlled Waste Process 	    113,  114

o  Notifying EPA, of Exclusion
     Qualification as a Closed
     or Controlled Waste Process 	    115,  116

o  PCB Ban Rule (May 31, 1979) 	    15-65

o  Posing an Exposure Risk to
     Food or Feed, Definition 	    70-74

o  Protective Clothing	^	    14

o  Reclassification, Transformer 	    89-91

o  Reclosers, that Do Not Pose an
     Exposure Risk to Food or Feed  	    99

o  Recordkeeping Requirements, Closed
     or Controlled Waste Process 	    110-119

o  Recordkeeping Requirements, Electrical
     Equipment "that Poses Exposure Risk
     to Food or Feed 	    76

o  Recordkeeping Requirements, Railroad
     Transformers 	    125
                                -3-

-------
SUBJECT                                          QUESTION NOS.
o  Recordkeeping Requirements,
     Transformers that Do Not
     Pose an Exposure Risk to
     Food or Feed 	    82-84

o  Reporting Requirements, Closed or
     Controlled Waste Process 	    110-119

o  Railroad Transformers, Amendment to Use
     Authorization (January 3, 1983)  	    120-125

o  Railroad Transformers, Interim
     Performance Deadlines 	    123, 124

o  Regulatory Action Summary 	    7

o  Reporting Spills  	    9,  10

o  Research and Development 	    64

o  Restrictions, Electrical Equipment 	    68,  69

o  Servicing, Transformers that
     Do Not Pose an  Exposure Risk
     to Food or Feed 	    85,  87, 88

o  Spills 	    9-11

o  Storage 	    43-47

o  Storage Containers 	    44-45

o  Storage, Non-Liquid PCB Wastes 	    46

o  Storage, PCBs and PCB  Items
     for Disposal 	    43

o  Storage, PCB Liquids Low
     Concentration 	    47

o  Storage, Small PCB Quantities  	    48

o  Switches, that Do Not  Pose an
     Exposure Risk to Food or Feed  	    96-98

o  Testing, for Transformer Classification  	    82

o  Theoretical Assessment, Closed or
     Controlled Waste Process 	    110-112,  117

o  Time Restrictions, Capacitors  that Do
     Not Pose an Exposure Risk to
     Food or Feed 	    92,  94
                                -4-

-------
SUBJECT                                           QUESTION NOS,
o  Time Restrictions for Electrical
     Equipment that Poses Exposure
     Risk to Food or Feed 	    75,  78

o  Trade Names 	    3

o  Transformers, that Do Not Pose an
     Exposure Risk to Food or Feed  	    79-91

o  Uncontrolled PCB Rulemaking  	    126-130

o  Uses, Authorized by May 1979 Rule  	    58-65

o  Voltage Regulators, that Do  Not
     Pose an Exposure Risk to
     Food or Feed 	    96-98

o  Workplace 	    12-14
                                -5-

-------
           BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF PCB REGULATORY ACTIONS


     In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)  and specifically directed EPA to regulate polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).  While other provisions of TSCA direct EPA to
regulate chemicals that present an "unreasonable risk of injury to
health and the environment," section 6(e)  is the only provision of
TSCA that directly controls the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of specific chemical
substances,  PCBs.

     Congress took this action because it believed that the
chemical and toxicological properties of PCBs were such that their
continued manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce and
use would pose significant risks to public health and the
environment.

     Section 6(e) of TSCA not only bans the manufacture,
processing,  distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs, but also
controls the disposal of PCBs.  The Act directly bans the manu-
facture of new PCBs, prohibits the processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of all PCBs in other than a totally enclosed
manner, and requires proper disposal of PCBs.  Although PCBs are
banned, Congress did give EPA the authority to grant certain
limited exceptions to the total ban.  EPA can:  (1) authorize a
particular use of PCBs  (provided the use does not present an
unreasonable risk to public health and the environment), and
(2) exempt certain activities from the ban on the manufacture,
processing,  and distribution in commerce of PCBs (provided the
activity does not present an unreasonable risk to public health
and the environment and that good faith efforts have been made to
find a substitute for the PCBs).

     Use authorizations are initiated by EPA through rulemaking.
Exemptions to the ban on the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs can only be granted upon
petition, on a case-by-case basis through rulemaking.  Further,
exemptions cannot be granted for more than one year.  Exemptions
must be reviewed on an annual basis.

     There are two major categories of PCBs:   (1)  PCBs
intentionally manufactured for use in electrical and other types
of equipment and  (2) PCBs produced inadvertently as byproducts and
impurities.  The intentional manufacture of PCBs for other than
research purposes no longer occurs.  However, PCBs are contained
in electrical equipment and other types of equipment that are
currently in use, and PCBs are present in the environment as a
result of the manufacture and use of PCBs in electrical equipment
for over 50 years.  "Byproduct PCBs" can be produced when
chlorine, hydrocarbon, and elevated temperatures or catalysts are
present together.  Since this combination of conditions is quite
prevalent in the organic chemical industry, EPA believes that this
industry may be a major source of byproduct PCBs.


                                -6-

-------
     EPA's strategy for regulating PCBs  has,  then,  taken  two
distinct pathways:  (1) the regulation of  PCBs  in electrical
equipment, and  (2) the regulation of byproduct  PCBs.

     In May of  1979, EPA  issued final rules covering  the
manufacture, processing,  distribution in commerce,  use, and
disposal and marking of PCBs.  The rule:

     (1) classifies the use of PCBs  in transformers,  capacitors,
and electromagnets as "totally enclosed;"

     (2) establishes requirements for the  marking and disposal  of
PCBs in concentrations over 50 ppm;

     (3) establishes a regulatory cutoff at 50  ppm  for the manu-
facture, processing, distribution in commerce and use of  PCBs;  and

     (4) authorizes the use of PCBs  in eleven different
activities.

     The Environmental Defense Fund  (EOF)  sought  judicial review
of provisions 1, 3, and 4 above, in  the  U.S.  Court  of Appeals  for
the District of Columbia  Circuit.  The court  ruled  that EPA  lacked
substantial evidence to support:

     (1) the classification of transformers,  capacitors,  and
electromagnets  as "totally enclosed;" and

     (2) the regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm for  the manufacture,
processing, distribution  in commerce, and  use of PCBs.

     Had the court's decision gone into  effect, the use of all
transformers, capacitors, and electromagnets  containing PCBs would
have been immediately banned; and, the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and unauthorized use  of any amount of
PCBs would have been immediately banned.   Since most  electrical
transformers and capacitors contained PCBs and  since  PCBs are
pervasive chemicals, this would have resulted in major economic
impacts on industry and consumers alike.   Therefore,  EPA  and EOF
filed a joint motion with the court  requesting  a stay of  the
court's mandate until additional rulemaking could be  completed.
The court granted EPA's request, and directed EPA to  begin
rulemaking.

     EPA set up three separate rulemaking  schedules to deal  with
this additional rulemaking.  The first rulemaking was to  address
PCBs in electrical equipment and be  completed by August 1982.  The
second and third rulemakings were to address  the remanded 50 ppm
regulatory cutoff.

     EPA initiated a two-part rulemaking to address the remanded
50 ppm cutoff.   This occurred as a result  of a  series of
discussions held after the court's decision between EOF,  EPA and
certain industry representatives.  During  these discussions,


                                -7-

-------
certain industry representatives suggested that the majority of
PCB formation occurs in processes that produce PCBs but do not
release PCBs (closed processes) or in processes that produce PCBs
but release PCBs only to wastes that are properly disposed of
(controlled waste processes).  The industry representatives
explained that although PCBs are created in these process
situations, no PCBs are released to the environment from these
processes.  EPA agreed to pursue a separate rulemaking to exclude
these types of processes from regulation.

     On August 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule on the use of
PCBs in electrical equipment.  This rule authorizes the use of
PCBs in eight different types of electrical equipment.  On
October 21, 1982, EPA issued a final rule excluding PCBs produced
in closed and controlled waste manufacturing processes from the
ban on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and
use of PCBs.  Further rulemaking to address byproduct PCBs that
are not excluded from regulation by the October 21, 1982 rule is
currently being initiated.

     In addition to conducting rulemaking in response to the
court's October 1980 decision, EPA also issued a Final Rule
amending  the May 1979 Railroad Transformer Use Authorization.
This Final Rule was issued January 3, 1983.  EPA is also currently
in the process of making a change  in the approval process  for
mobile disposal facilities.  The authority to grant approval  is
being transferred from the regions to headquarters.
                                -8-

-------
                        GENERAL PCB INFORMATION
                          INTRODUCTORY PACTS
  1.  am AT ARE PCBS?

      The  term  PCB is short for polychlorinated  biphenyl.   PCBs
belong to  a broad  family of organic chemicals known  as  chlorinated
hydrocarbons.   PCBs  are produced by attaching one  or more  chlorine
atoms to a biphenyl  molecule.  virtually all PCBs  in existence
today have been synthetically manufactured.

  2 .  WHO MANUFACTURES PCBS?

      Monsanto  Corporation was the principal domestic manufacturer
of PCBs  for use as a dielectric fluid in electrical  equipment and
heat transfer equipment.  They began production  of PCBs in 1935.
In 1971, Monsanto  voluntarily ceased all sales of  PCBs  for all
uses except certain electrical transformer and capacitor uses
which at the time  were  thought to be "totally enclosed" uses.  In
1977, they voluntarily  ceased production because of  the widespread
environmental concerns  about PCBs.

      PCBs are  currently being inadvertently produced as process
impurities and  byproducts during the production  of certain organic
chemicals.  PCBs  can be formed as byproducts when  chlorine,
carbon,  elevated  temperatures or catalysts are present  together in
a process.

  3 . WHAT TRADE NAMES WERE PCBS SOLD UNDER THAT WERE MANUFACTURED AS
     DIELECTRIC (INSULATING) FLUIDS?

      Monsanto,  the principal domestic producer  of PCBs, sold PCBs
under the  trade name "Aroclor,"  However, companies  who used PCBs
in the manufacture of transformers and capacitors, and  for other
uses, often used  other  trade names.  Common trade  names for  PCBs
i nclude:

              Aroclor                  Elemex
              Aroclor B                Eucarel
              Abestol                  Hyvol
              Askarel*                  Inerteen
              Adkarel                  No-Flamol
              Chlorextol               Pyranol
              Chlorinol                Pyroclor
              Clorphen                  Saf-T-Kuhl
              Diaclor                  Sanotherm
              liykanol
      *Askarel  is  also the gene-ric name used for  non-flammable
insulating liquid  in  transformers and capacitors.
                                -9-

-------
  4.  WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICALS PROPERTIES OF PCBS?

      "Askarel"  PCBs  are  chemical mixtures containing  many
different PCB  congeners.   They have a heavy,  liquid,  oil-like
consistency, and weigh 10-12 pounds per gallon.   They  are very
stable, exhibit  low water solubility, low vapor  pressure, low
flammability,  high  heat capacity, low electrical  conductivity, and
have a favorable dielectric constant.

      When  PCBs  were  intentionally manufactured  as  dielectric
fluid, they were often mixed with certain organic  solvents,  such
as chlorinated benzenes.   Thus, the dielectric fluids  present in
electrical  equipment  containing PCBs is not,  in  general,  100
percent PCB.   The presence of these other chemicals  influences the
physical/chemical properties of the Askarel  fluid.

      PCBs  that  are produced as byproducts and process impurities
may vary  from  a  single isomer to a variety of  congeners and
display different physical and chemical properties  depending upon
the number  of  isomers and the degree of chlorination  (the number
of chlorine  atoms attached to the biphenyl molecule).   PCBs  with
fewer chlorine atoms  are, in general, less persistent, more  water
soluble, and more flammable than PCBs with more  chlorine  atoms.

  5 .  HOW ARE PCBS USED?

      The primary use of  PCBs has been in electrical  equipment.
The majority of  PCBs  marketed in the United  States  are still in
service, primarily  in electrical equipment.

      PCBs  can also be present as byproducts  in  many  different
organic solvents and  other chemicals .

  6.  WHY ARE PCBS HARMFUL TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT?

      PCBs  are harmful because, once released  into  the
environment, they do  not  break apart into new  chemical
arrangements.  However, PCBs with fewer chlorine  atoms are
generally less persistent and display less of  a  tendency  to
bioconcentrate and  bioaccumulate .  Instead,  they  persist,
bioaccumulate  and bioconcentrate in organisms.   EPA has concluded
that PCBs are  toxic and persistent.  PCBs cause  chloracne (a
painful, disfiguring  skin illness), and EPA  has  found, based on
animal data, that reproductive effects, developmental  toxicity,
and oncogenicity are  areas of concern to humans  exposed to PCBs.
It also has  been demonstrated that PCBs are  toxic  to  fish at very
low levels  of  exposure.  The survival rate and the  reproductive
success of  fish  can be adversely affected in  the  presence of PCBs.

  7 .  WHAT REGULATORY ACTION HAS EPA TAKEN AGAINST PCBS?

      In  1976, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances  Control Act
(TSCA), which  directed EPA to control the manufacture, processing,
distribution in  commerce, use, disposal, and  marking  of PCBs.
Section 6(e) of  TSCA  requires proper disposal  of  PCBs, and prohibits
                                -10-

-------
the manufacture,  processing,  distribution in commerce, and  use  of
PCBs.   Further,  section 6(e)  of TSCA requires EPA to develop
regulations  implementing these provisions.

      Final  Marking  and Disposal Rules appeared in the Federal
Register  on  February 17, 1978 (clarifying amendments to this  Rule
appeared  in  the  August 2,  1979 Federal Register).

      On  June  7,  1978, the Proposed PCB Ban Rule appeared in  the
Federal Register.  The Final  PCB Ban Rule appeared in the Federal
Register  on  May  31,  1979 (44  FR 31514); this Rule superseded  the
February  17,  1978  Marking  and Disposal Rule, and included provisions
banning the  manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce,  and
use of  PCBs.   The May 1979 Rule took effect on July 2, 1979.

      The  Environmental Defense Fund (EOF) challenged several
provisions of  the  May  1979 Rule, and in October of 1980 the U.S.
Court of  Appeals  for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that
there was  insufficient evidence in the record to support several
provisions of  the  May  1979 Rule.  Specifically, the court struck
down the  classification of transformers,  capacitors, and electro-
magnets as "totally  enclosed", and the regulatory cutoff at 50  ppm
for the manufacture,  processing, distribution in commerce,  and  use
of PCBs.   All  other  provisions of the May 1979 Rule remain  in
effect.

      Since  the  court's decision would have resulted in great
economic  and personal  hardship,  EPA, EOF, and certain industry
intervenors  in the case filed a joint motion seeking a stay of  the
court's mandate  until  further rulemaking  could be completed.  The
court granted  EPA's  request.

      On  April 22, 1982, EPA  issued a Proposed Rule governing the
use and servicing  of  electrical  equipment containing PCBs.  The
Final Rule appeared  in the Federal Register of August 25,  1982.
This Final Rule  was  issued as a  result of the court's decision  to
strike  down  the  May  1979 Rule's  classification of transformers,
capacitors,  and  electromagnets as "totally enclosed".

      On  October 21,  1982,  EPA issued part one of a two-part rule-
making  to  address  the  50 ppm  regulatory cutoff.  This Final Rule,
addressed  closed and  controlled  waste manufacturing processes.

      EPA  submitted  a  plan to the court on November 1,  1982, which
requested  a  further  extension of the stay of mandate for the 50 ppm
cutoff,  and presented  plans for  additional rulemaking on this
issue.  The  court  granted  a further extension of the stay, but  is
requiring  EPA  to submit quarterly reports to the court.  EPA
anticipates  that a Final Rule will be effective in the  Fall of  1984.

      In addition  to issuing  rules as a result of the court decision
in October 1980, EPA has also issued an amendment to the Use
Authorization  for Railroad  Transformers (which originally  appeared
in the May 1979  Rule).   On  January 3,  1983,  EPA issued  a Final  Rule
amending,   and  extending the use  authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers .
                                -1 1-

-------
      On March  30,  1983,  EPA issued a procedural change  in  the
approval process  for  mobile disposal facilities.  The  authority for
granting or denying  approval of these facilities was  transferred
from the regions  to  Headquarters.   (See the March 30,  1983  Federal
Register in the  Appendix  of this publication.)

  8.  WHERE CAN i (XT COPIES OF THE FINAL REGULATIONS?

      Copies  of  the  Final Rules are contained in the  Appendix to
this document.   Additional copies, and support documents  (at a cost
of 20
-------
          Region IX (California,  Nevada, Arizona,
          Hawaii,  Guam), 415-556-6254.

          Region X (Washington,  Oregon,  Idaho, Alaska),
          206-442-1359.

      There  are several Federal  laws  which have PCB  spill
reporting  requirements.  The  most  stringent of these  is  section
103(a)  of  CERCLA (48 FR 23552-23605).   CERCLA requires  that any
person  in  charge of any vessel  or  any  facility, as soon  as he has
knowledge  of the release of a reportable quantity  of  any hazardous
substance  to the environment  (over a  24 hour period), must
immediately  notify the National  Response Center (NRC).   The NRC,
which is  operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, can be  contacted by
calling a  toll  free number 800-424-8802.  (In the  District of
Columbia,  call  426-2675.)  The  RQ  for  PCBs is presently  set at 10
pounds  by  statute under CERCLA  for releases into all  environmental
media (land,  air, water).  The  Agency,  however, has  proposed an RQ
of 1 pound in its May 25,  1983,  Federal Register notice.  DOT
(49 CFR 171.15  + 171.17) and  CWA (40  CPR 117.2) also  have  release
reporting  requirements for PCBs.

 1 0 . WHAT  HAPPENS WHEN I REPORT A PCB SPILL?  CAN I GET
     INFORMATION OR ADVICE ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE SPILLS?

      If  reportable quantity  (RQ)  of  PCBs is released into the
environment,  the responsible  party is  required to  call  the NRC
pursuant  to  CERCLA section 103.   Failure to notify is a  criminal
violation  with  a penalty of a $10,000  fine and/or  up  to  one year
i n pri son.

      When a call is received by the  NRC, the duty officer will
ask for information including the  name, address, and  telephone
number  of  the reporting individual;  the identity,  location, and
nature  of  the release (e.g. the  source, cause, quantity  and
duration  of  release); the identity of  the transporter or owner of
the facility or vessel; the nature of  injuries or  property damage,
and any other relevant information.  The National  Response Center
relays  release  information directly to  either an On-Scene-
Coordinator  at  the appropriate  EPA Regional Office or the  Coast
Guard District  Office.  The OSC  evaluates the situation, gives
appropriate  information to State and  local officials  and decides
whether and  how the Federal government  should respond.

      Section 1 1 1 (g ) of CERCLA  currently requires  published
(newspaper)  notifications to  warn  potential injured  parties of
releases  of  hazardous substances.

      CHEMTREC  (800-424-9300) may  have  useful information  for
advice  on  how to handle the spills.

 11. IF I  HAVE A SPILLf WHAT SHOULD I DO TO CONTROL OR CLEAN OP
     THE SPILL?

      The  first priorities are:   To report the spill  (see  Question
9); and control the spread of the  spill by damming or diking the
leak.   Any threats to water should be  given the highest  priority.

                                 -1 3-

-------
      Once  a  spill is contained,  clean up measures can  begin.
Clean up  can  be simply the removal  and subsequent disposal  of
contaminated  soil or debris.   In  some cases, more complex
techniques  may be required, such  as special PCB sorbents  or
special filtration.  Since levels required for clean-up sometimes
vary, depending upon the region in  which the spill occurred,
regional  EPA  PCB experts should be  contacted to obtain  guidance on
the extent  of PCB clean up.  These  contacts are:
      Region  1


      Region  2


      Region  3
Paul Heffernan
617-223-0585

John Brogard
212-264-2637

Ed Cohen
215-597-7668
      Region  4
Ralph Jennings
Constance Allison
404-881-3864
      Region  5


      Regi on  6
Karl Bremer
312-353-2291

Dr. Norman Dyer
Karl Mount
214-767-2734
      Region  7
Leo J. Alderman
816-374-3036
      Region  8
Steve Farrow
303-837-3926
      Region  9
Gerry Gavin-General  PCB
Questions  415-974-7032
Raymond Seid-permits
415-974-8389
      Regi on  10
Jim Everts
206-442-1090
      Water  and  complicated spills  should be cleaned  up  by trained
and experienced  personnel.  Organizations who frequently handle
PCBs should  develop contingency  plans  and conduct training for
dealing with spills.  Commercial  firms are also available on a
contract basis  to clean up spills.   The officials listed above can
provide information on such firms.

      Since  PCBs controlled by TSCA,  are not controlled  under RCRA
(45 FR  33086 and 33173; 46 FR 2846,  7668, and 22145)  there are no
RCRA requirements for the cleanup of  PCB spills.  If  a  fully
permitted  RCRA  facility releases  PCBs  (as a hazardous  constituent
(40 CFR 264.93)) the release may  be  subject to the groundwater
protection standards of 40 CFR 264  Subpart F.
                                 -14-

-------
                        PCBS  IN  THE WORKPLACE'

 1 2 .  ARE THERE ANY OSHA SOLES GOVERNING PCBS IN THE WORKPLACE?

      Yes,  there are  OSHA regulations governing  PCBs in the work-
place.   OSHA  has in place two 8-hour time-weighted averages
(TWA's)  for chlorodiphenyl.  For chlorodiphenyl  containing
42 percent  chlorine,  the TWA is 1 milligram  per  cubic meter of
workplace air.   For chlorodiphenyl containing  54 percent chlorine,
the TWA   is 0.5  milligram per cubic meter of  workplace air.  An
employee's  exposure to PCBs in any 8-hour workshift of a 40-hour
work week cannot exceed these concentrations.   Further, employers
are required  to  ensure a safe work place  under  OSHA regulations.
If specific standards are not applicable, this  general requirement
for a safe  workplace  would apply.

 1 3 .  OOff DOES THE OSHA STANDARD RELATE TO EPA'S PCS REGULATIONS?

      EPA's PCB  Rules do not directly regulate  workers, but the
Rules do  restrict  or  prohibit certain PCB activities which reduce
the number  of  workers exposed.  The EPA Rules  prohibit PCB trans-
former and  capacitor  manufacture, as well as  PCB transformer
rebuilding  (except  for railroad transformers),  which includes
removal  of  the  transformer's coil.  These prohibitions terminated
these activities that resulted in the major  long-term occupational
exposures to  high  concentration PCBs.

      Worker  exposure can also occur as a result of PCB spills and
authorized  servicing  operations for PCB transformers.

 1 4 . WHAT KIND OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING SHOULD BE WORN WHEN WORKING
     WITH PCBS?

      The type of  protective clothing which  should be worn when
working with  PCBs  is  dependent on the individual circumstances.
Worker protective  clothing and equipment  is  intended to prevent
skin and  eye  contact, and control respiratory  exposure.

      In  any  operation where workers may  come  into contact with
PCBs,  protective clothing impervious to PCBs should be worn.
Gloves, boots, overshoes, and bib-type aprons  that cover boot tops
should be provided  when necessary.

      Skin  protection can usually be achieved  by wearing non-
porous gloves  and  boots and heavy overalls.  For major spill clean
up activities,.a full suit of non-porous  clothing may be appro-
priate.   Also, non-porous aprons can be effective in reducing
contamination  of worker clothing.  The Appendix  to this booklet
contains  two  comparative tables on materials used to protect
against dermal exposure to PCBs.

      Eye protection  (chemical safety goggles,  face shields with
goggles or  safety  glasses with side shields) should be worn during
any operation  in which PCBs are present.  If liquid or solid PCBs
contact the eyes,  the eyes shall be irrigated  immediately with
large  quantities of water and then examined by  a physician or
other  responsible  medical personnel.

                                -1 5-

-------
      Respiratory exposure control  (whether  individual  protection
or workplace control) is most relevant  for long-term  production
operations or major spills, when concentrations  of  airborne  PCBs
may exceed the recommended occupational exposure  limit.   PCB
transformer spills might pose respiratory problems  because  of
solvents, such as trichlorobenzene,  that are mixed  with  the
PCBs.  Small spills, such as capacitor  failures,  seldom  pose
respiratory problems, but protection should  be provided  for
incidents in confined areas.
                                -1 6-

-------
                        THE  MAY 31,  1979 RULE*

                       INTRODUCTORY  INFORMATION

  1 5 .  WHAT DOES TBS HAS  1979 PCS BAH BULB DO?

      The May 1979 Final Rule:

       (1) Classifies  the use  of the transformers,  capacitors, and
electromagnets  as "totally enclosed."  Therefore,  in accordance
with  section 6(e) of  TSCA,  PCBs used in transformers,  capacitors
and electromagnets were excluded from the statutory  ban.

      (2) Establishes  requirements for the marking and disposal of
PCBs, and sets  a regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm for  the marking and
disposal  of PCBs under  TSCA (PCBs  in concentrations  below 50 ppm
are not  required by TSCA to be  marked or disposed  of in any
special  manner  except  that these PCBs cannot be used as a dust
control  agent or as a  pesticide carrier).  [Note:  PCBs may be
regulated at different  concentrations under the Clean  Water Act
and/or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.]

      (3)  Establishes  a regulatory cutoff at 50  ppm for the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs
(in a totally enclosed  manner).

      (4) Authorizes  the use  of PCBs in eleven different
activities (see Question 21).

  1 6 . J THOUGHT THE MAY 1979 RULE HAS CHALLENGED Of THE SNVIROmENTAL DEFENSE
          (EOF).   WHAT IS THE  STATUS OF THE MAY 1979 RULE?
       EOF  challenged three  major  provisions of the  May  1979
Rule :

       (1)  The classification  of  transformers, capacitors,  and
electromagnets  as "totally  enclosed".

       (2)  The 50 ppm regulatory  cutoff for the manufacture,
processing,  distribution in commerce,  and use of PCBs.

       (3)  The eleven Use Authorizations.
     *Included  in several of  the  answers are cross-referenced
citations  (e.g.,  Sec. 761.30(d))  which refer you to actual
sections of  the May 31, 1979  Federal  Register notice.   it i s
important  to  note that since  the  publication of the May  31,  1979
PCB Ban Rule,  that 40 CFR Part  761  has been recodified.  The
citations  referenced here are the  new ones.  Therefore,  when you
want to refer  to  the actual May 1979  notice fi rst go to  the
"Recodi f icati on Table" in the Appendix to fi~naTh~e old  code  that
appears in the  May 31, 1979 Federal Register Notice.

                                 -17-

-------
      The  court ruled  in  October of 1980  that EPA lacked
substantial  evidence in  the  Rulemaking  Record to support  both the
classification of electrical transformers,  capacitors,  and
electromagnets as "totally enclosed", as  well as the  50 ppm cutoff
for the  manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce,  and use
of PCBs.  Thus, these provisions were struck down by the court.

 1 7 . HOES THIS MEAN THAT ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CONTAINING PCBS IS
     NOff BANNED?

      No,  because EPA,  EOF,  and industry  intervenors  in the case
requested  and  received  a  stay of the court's mandate  until  further
rulemaking could be completed.  Further,  as of August  25,  1982,
EPA amended  The PCB Ban  Rule to authorize  the continued use and
servicing  of seven types  of  electrical  equipment containing PCBs,
including  transformers,  capacitors, electromagnets, switches,
cable,  and voltage regulators.

 1 8 .  CAW A PCB TRANSFORMER BE RESOLD?

      Yes, if  it was sold or bought for purposes other  than resale
before  July  1, 1979 and  if it is intact and non-leaking.   EPA also
recommends that any buyer be advised that  he is buying  a  PCB
transformer  containing  7,500 ppm PCBs.  The transformer is  also
required  to  be marked  (40 CFR 761.40(a)(2)  and 40 CFR
761.2(c)(1 )) .

 1 9 . DOES TOE COURT'S DECISION MEAN THAT THE MANUFACTURE, PROCESSING,
     DISTRIBUTION IV COMMERCE, AND USE OF PCBS IN  CONCENTRATIONS BELOW 50 PPM
     IS NOW BANNED?

      No.   EPA, EOF, and  certain industry intervenors  requested a
stay of  mandate for the  50 ppm cutoff as  well, until  further rule-
making  could be completed.  EPA has issued  part one of  a  two-part
rulemaking in  response  to the court's October 1980 remand of the 50
ppm regulatory cutoff.   This rule  is the  Closed and Controlled Waste
Process  Exclusion, issued in the Federal  Register of  October 21,
1982  (47  FR  46980).  Further rulemaking on  the 50 ppm regulatory
cutoff  is  ongoing and  is  expected  to be proposed by Fall  of 1983.

 20. DOES THE COURT'S DECISION STRIKING  DOWN THE SO PPM REGULATORY  CUTOFF FOR
     THE MANUFACTURE, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN  COMMERCE, AND USE OF PCBS
     AFFECT THE 50 PPM REGULATORY CUTOFF FOR THE MARKING AND DISPOSAL OF PCBS?

      No.   These provisions  were not challenged, and  thus,  remain
in effect.

 21 . THE MAY  1979 RULE SAYS THAT EPA CAN GRANT EXCEPTIONS, KNOWN AS
     AUTHORIZATIONS, TO ENABLE THE CONTINUED USE OF PCBS IN A NON-TOTALLY
     ENCLOSED MANNER.  WHAT USES HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED?

      EPA may propose  and grant an authorization without  a
specific  request  from  those  who will benefit from the  author-
ization.   Also, the authorization  can be  valid for any  time period
that  EPA finds appropriate.

      The  following non-totally enclosed  PCB activities were
authorized with restriction by EPA in  the May 1979 Rule (beside
each  is the  Rule  section to refer  to  for  details).   Some  of  these
                                  -18-

-------
authorizations  have either been amended  or  have expired (this is
indicated when  applicable):

      o  servicing PCB Transformers and  PCB-Contaminated Trans-
         formers  (Sec. 761.30(a))  (amended  by  August 25, 1982
         Rule);

      o  use  in  and servicing of Railroad  Transformers  (Sec.
         761.30(b)) (amended by January  3,  1983 Rule);

      o  use  in  and servicing of Mining  Equipment (Sec. 761.30(c))
         (expired);

      o  use  in  Heat Transfer Systems  (Sec.  761.30(d));

      o  use  in  Hydraulic Systems  (Sec.  761.30(e));

      o  use  in  Carbonless Copy Paper  (Sec.  761.30(f));

      o  use  in  Pigments (Sec. 761.30(g))  (expired);

      o  servicing Electromagnets  (Sec.  761.30(h))  (amended by
         August  25, 1982 Rule);

      o  use  in  Small Quantities for Research  & Development (Sec.
         761 .30(j ));

      o  use  in  Microscopy Mounting Medium  (Sec. 761.30(k)).


                         MARKING (LABELING)

 22.  DO ALL TRANSFORMERS CONTAINING PCBS HAVE TO BE LABELED?

      PCB Transformers (transformers that contain 500 ppm or
greater  PCBs) are  required to be labeled.   PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment (electrical equipment  that contain 50-500 ppm
PCBs) are not required to be labeled.  Non-PCB Transformers
(transformers containing less than 50 ppm PCBs)  are  also not
required to be  labeled (see $761.40(c)(1)).

 2 3 .  WHERE DO THE LABELS HAVE TO BE PLACED?

      All labels  are  to be placed on the exterior of PCB items and
appropriate transport vehicles in a place that can  be easily seen
and read by anyone inspecting or servicing  them (see $761.40(h)).

      PCB transport vehicles must be marked  on all  four sides if
they are loaded with  containers that contain more than 45 kg.
(99.4 Ibs) of liquid  PCBs in concentrations  over 500 ppm.

 24 .  DO ALL CAPACITORS HAVE TO BE LABELED?

      All large  (greater than three pounds  dielectric fluid) high
voltage  PCB capacitors have to be labeled,  including those  in-
service  (see  §761.40(a)(3)).  Large,  low voltage capacitors have
to be labeled when they are taken out of service for disposal
(see §761.40(a)(5)).   Small capacitors do not  have  to be marked.

                                -1 9-

-------
However,  equipment  containing small PCB capacitors has to be
labeled  as  not containing PCBs if  it is manufactured after
January  1,  1979  (see  §761.40(d)).

 25 .  ARE CAPACITORS OH POLES REQUIRED TO BE LABELED?

      If  a  PCB capacitor is installed in a  "protected area"  the
pole, structure, or  fence must be  labeled in  a  place that can be
easily seen by interested persons,  such as  service persons  (see
§761 ,40(c)(2)(ii)).

 26 . J HAVE A LARGE RACK OF CAPACITORS.  IF I LABEL ONE INDIVIDUAL
     CAPACITORf DOES THIS LABEL MEET THE MARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ROLE?

      No.  It is acceptable to mark the rack  itself with a  PCB
label but not to mark one capacitor.  If the  racks are in a  fenced
in area,  such as an  electrical substation,  the  fence may carry the
label .

 27. X MANUFACTURE PCBS AS A BYPRODUCT DURING THE PRODUCTION OF AS ORGANIC
     SOLVENT.  DO I HAVE TO LABEL IK PRODUCTS?

      Products must  be  labeled if:   (1) they  contain greater  than
50 ppm PCBs, or  (2)  labeling is  required by  EPA as part of  its
response  to a petition  for exemption  ( §76 1 . 40 ( i ) ) .

 2 8 . DOES A TRUCK CARRYING PCS-CONTAMINATED TRANSFORMERS AND CAPACITORS NEED
     TO BE MARKED?

      No.  Only if  the  truck carries PCB tranformers or is  loaded
with PCB  containers  that contain  more than  45 kg  (99.4 Ibs.)  of
liquid PCBs must it  be  marked.   (44 FR 31548).

 29 . WHEN VERB THE LAST PCB FLUORESCENT LIGHT BALLASTS  MADE?  HOW CAN I TELL
     IF THE BALLASTS I HAVE CONTAIN PCBS?

      The manufacture and distribution of PCBs  in  commerce  was
banned July  1,  1979.   All light  ballasts manufactured since  1978
which do  not contain  PCBs are marked by the  manufacturer with the
statement "No PCBs".   (40 CFR 761.20(g)).
                               DISPOSAL
 30. J NEED TO DISPOSE OF SOME OIL CONTAINING PCBS.  WHAT OPTIONS DO I HAVE
     FOR GETTING RID OF THESE PCBS?

      PCBs in concentrations  over  500 ppm must be disposed  of only
by high  temperature incineration  ( §761.60(a) (1 )).  PCBs in  concen-
trations  between  50 and  500 ppm  must be disposed  of in  high effi-
ciency boilers, in  approved chemical waste  landfills, or  in high
temperature incinerators ( §761 . 60(a)(2)) .   PCBs in concentrations
below 50  ppm are  not required  to be disposed  of in any  special
manner  under TSCA (§761.1(b)), except  that  they may not be  used as
a coating, sealant, or dust control agent,  or as  a pesticide
carri er.


                                  -20-

-------
 3 1 .  WHERE ARE THE APPROVED DISPOSAL FACILITIES?

      A list of EPA-approved (as of March 1983) PCS disposal
facilities is included  in the Appendix  to this publication.

 3 2 . HOW DO I DISPOSE OF A TRANSFORMER THAT CONTAINS PCBS?  DO TBS
     TRANSFORMER AND DIELECTRIC FLUID HAVE TO BE DISPOSED OF DIFFERENTLY?

      There are two  ways  to dispose of  a  PCB Transformer (trans-
formers that contain PCB  concentrations in excess of  500 ppm). The
transformer and the  dielectric fluid can  be burned together in a
high temperature incinerator approved by  EPA (§761 .60 (b)(1 )(i)(A)) ,
or  the  liquid can be drained out of the transformer first.   If the
liquid  is  drained,  the  transformer must be flushed with  solvent for
18  hours;  the solvent and the dielectric  fluid must then be disposed
of  in an  EPA-approved high temperature  incinerator.   The drained
transformer, after it is  resealed, must be disposed of in  a chemical
landfill  which has been  approved by EPA ( §76 1 . 60 (b ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ( B ) ) .

      If  the transformer  is PCB-Contaminated Electrical  Equipment
(containing more than 50  ppm and less than 500 ppm PCB),  the
transformer and the  liquid can also be  incinerated or  the
dielectric liquid can first be drained.   If the liquid is  drained,
it  can  be  disposed  of in  a high temperature incinerator,  a
chemical  landfill which  has been approved by EPA,  or  in  a  high
efficiency boiler.   The  drained transformer can be disposed of as
scrap or  in a disposal  facility whose practices are equivalent to
good municipal solid waste disposal practices  (§761.60(b)(1)(ii)).

      For  non-PCB transformers (with less than 50 ppm  PCBs) there
are no  PCB disposal  requirements for the  transformer  (e.g.,
dispose of it in a municipal waste site).  For the fluid  there is
only one  disposal restriction, and that is that it cannot be used
as  a sealant, coating,  or dust control  agent if it contains any
detectable PCBs (§761.20(d ) ) .

      Used non-PCB  transformers would,  however, meet  the
definition of a solid waste (40 CFR 261.2)  and might be  hazardous
if  they display one  of  the characteristics listed  in  40  CFR 261
Subpart C.  The fluids  and rinsates from  these transformers
typically  display either  the characteristics of EP Toxicity (40
CFR 261.24), ignitability (40 CFR 261.21)  or both.  As a  result,
disposers  of non-PCB transformers in municipal landfills  may be
required  under CERCLA to  notify the NRG of a release  of  a
hazardous  substance.
 33 .  HOW DO I DISPOSE OF LARGE PCB CAPACITORS?

                                           by  high temperature
                                                                 whi ch
      PCB  capacitors must  be  disposed of by  high temperature
incineration (§761.60(b)(2)(iii)(A)), or by  any other method
EPA has permitted under  the  disposal permitting program.
 34. ARE THERE SPECIAL DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL PCB CAPACITORS
     CONTAINED PRIMARILY IN SMALL APPLIANCES AND FLUORESCENT LIGHT BALLASTS?
     WHAT ABOUT A MANUFACTURER OF SMALL PCB CAPACITORS?
      No,  small capacitors  can be disposed  of  as municipal
householders  and other infrequent disposers  (§761 . 60(b)(2 ) (
                                 -21 -
                                                               waste t> y
                                                               ii ) ) .
                                 -21-

-------
       However, the disposal of large  quantities  (greater than 25)
of small  PCB capacitors  by commercial  and industrial  activities
poses  a  larger enviromental risk.   Therefore, EPA  encourages these
persons  to establish  voluntarily a  collection and  disposal program
that would result in  the waste capacitors going  to  chemical waste
landfills or high temperature incinerators.

       On  the other hand, the manufacturer of small  PCB  capacitors,
or of  an  item which contains small  PCB capacitors,  must dispose of
them in  an approved PCB  incinerator  (761 .60(b ) (2)(iv) ) .

 3 5 .   BOW ARE HYDRAULIC  MACHINES CONTAMINATED WITH PCBS TO BE DISPOSED?

       In  general, only a relatively  small portion  of  these
machines  are contaminated with PCBs,  in particular  those used in
die-casting  and forging  operations.   Therefore,  instead of
requiring  disposal in a  chemical waste landfill,  the  final rule
permits disposal of hydraulic systems  as  municipal  solid waste and
salvaging  of these machines after draining.  First,  the machines
must be drained of all  free-flowing  liquid.  If  the  fluid contains
more than 1,000 ppm PCBs, the machine  must be flushed  with a
solvent and  thoroughly drained before  disposal.   The  liquid must
be disposed  of by high  temperature  incinerators  or,  if  the PCB
concentration is 50 to  500 ppm, by  high efficiency  boilers or in
chemical  waste landfills ( §761 . 60 (b ) (3 ) ) .

 3 6 . WHERE CAN OTHER LIQUID WASTES WITH OVER 500 PPM PCBS BE DISPOSED?
     BETWEEN  50 TO 500 PPM PCBS?  LESS THAN 50 PPM PCBS?

       The same disposal  options apply  as  for transformer
dielectric fluid.  (Refer to Question  32).

 3 7 .   WHERE CAN NON-LIQUID PCBS BE DISPOSED?

       Non-liquid PCBs at any concentration (e.g.,  contaminated
rags and  absorbent materials, and contaminated soils  and other
solids recovered from spills or removed from old  disposal sites)
can be disposed in chemical waste landfills approved  under
§761.75.   However, the  Rule forbids  the processing  of  liquid PCBs
into non-liquid forms in order to circumvent the  high  temperature
incineration requirements.

 3 8 .   HOW MAY X DECONTAMINATE A PCB CONTAINER?

       Any PCB container  may be decontaminated by  flushing the
internal  surface of the  container three times with  a  solvent
containing less than  50  ppm PCBs.   The solubility  of  PCBs in the
solvent  must be five  (5) percent or  more  by weight.   Each rinse
shall  use a  volume of the normal diluent  equal to  approximately
ten  (10)  percent of the  PCB container  capacity.   The  solvent may
be reused until it contains 50 ppm  PCBs.
                                 -22-

-------
       The solvents  normally recommended  for decontamination of PCB
containers are Xylene,  Toluene, and Kerosene (44 CFR  31546).   If
the  PCB  levels do not  exceed 50 ppm,  these  "rinsates"  would
probably be hazardous  wastes under RCRA  (F003,  F005,  ignitable,  EP
toxic  or a combination  thereof).  Releases  of unidentified
hazardous wastes are reportable under  CERCLA if an RQ of  the
wastes  has been released  to the environment.  Presently,  the  RQ
for  such unidentified  hazardous wastes exhibiting ig ni tabi li ty,
reactivity, corrosivity and extraction procedure toxicity  is  one
pound by statute.   The  Agency proposed to  adjust this  level in the
May  25,  1983 Federal Register notice:  ICR  wastes have  RQs
proposed at 100 pounds;  EP toxic wastes  have RQs proposed  based  on
individual contaminates.

 39 . CAN DECONTAMINATED PCB CONTAINERS BE DISPOSED OF IN A MUNICIPAL WASTE
     LANDFILL SITE?

      Yes, decontaminated  PCB containers may be disposed  of in
ordinary landfill sites,  rather than in  EPA approved  chemical
waste  landfills.

 40.  CAN DECONTAMINATED PCB CONTAINERS BE REUSED?

      Containers decontaminated in accordance with §761.79  can be
reused  for general  use.

 41 . HOW CAN PCB CONTAINERS USED ONLY TO BOLD LOW PCB CONCENTRATIONS BE
     DISPOSED?

      PCB containers used  only to contain materials or  fluids with
PCB  concentrations between 50 to 500 ppm can be disposed  of as
municipal waste.

 4 2 .  WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISPOSAL SITES?

      Incinerators used  to dispose of PCBs  must be approved by the
appropriate EPA Regional  Administrator.  The approved incinerators
must meet the  requirements set out in the May 1979 Rule
(§761 .70(a)).

      Likewise, chemical  waste landfills used for the disposal of
PCBs and  PCB items must be approved by the  appropriate  EPA
Regional  Administrator,  and must meet the requirements  established
in the May 1979 Rule (§761 . 75(a)) .

      Mobile disposal  facilities, which will  be operated in more
than one  region,  must be  approved by the Assistant Administrator
for  Pesticides  and Toxic  Substances (see 48 FR  13181).
                                 -23-

-------
                               STORAGE

 43 .  WHERE CAN I STORE PCBS ABD KB ITEMS FOR DISPOSAL?

      Unless  these items qualify for 30-day temporary  storage or
other alternative storage  requirements, these items  must be
located in a  storage for disposal facility which meets  the
following  requirements:

      o  Adequate roof and walls to prevent rain water  from
         reaching the stored  PCBs and PCB items.

      o  Adequate floor with  at least 6 inch continuous  curbing.
          (The floor and curbing  must provide a containment volume
         equal  to at least two  times the internal  volume of the
         largest PCB item  or  container stored therein  or 25 percent
         of the  total internal  volume of all PCB articles or
         containers stored therein, whichever is greater.)

      o  No drain valves,  floor drains, expansion  joints, sewer
         lines,  or other openings that would permit  liquids to flow
         from the curbed area.

      o  Floors  and curbing constructed of continuous  smooth and
         impervious materials.

      o  Not  located at a  site  that is below the 100 year flood
         water  elevation.

 44.  MEAT KINDS Of CONTAINERS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR STORAGE?

      The  PCB regulations  permit 5 container types  (5,  5B, 6D, 17C
and 17E) which  comply with Department of Transportation  (DOT)
specifications  set out in  49  CFR 173.346, to be used to  store
liquid PCBs.

      Non-liquid PCBs may  be  stored in 5, 5B, or 17C drums.

 45 . CAN LARGE CDNTAJffERS,  SUCH AS STORAGE TANKS, BE USED FOR THE STORAGE OF
     PCB LIQUIDS?

      EPA  decided in the May  1979 Rule to permit large  containers,
such as storage  tanks, to  be  used to store bulk PCB  liquids.  This
is to allow safe transfer  and  storage of large PCB  liquid
quantities; and  to reduce  storage costs.  In other  words, the
transfer of stored bulk PCBs  from tanks to other tanks  or tank
trucks will lessen the spill  risks as opposed to having  to transfer
these large quantities from a  number of smaller storage  drums into
transfer tanks.

      These storage tanks  must  meet design and construction
standards  adopted by OSHA  (29  CFR 1910.106).  Also  the  storage
facilities must  have a spill  prevention control and  counter measure
plan similar  to  the plans  required for oil spill prevention.

      Owners  and operators of  bulk storage facilities  will have  to
keep records  of  the amounts added to and removed from  bulk
                                 -24-

-------
containers.  These  records will  be important  in tracing  waste
shipments and enforcing the disposal and  storage requirements.

 46 .   CAN PCB CONTAINERS OF CONTAMINATED SOIL BE TEMPORARILY STORED?

       Yes,  non-liquid PCB wastes,  such as contaminated  soil, can be
temporarily stored  for up to  30  days, provided that a notation is
attached  to the item indicating  the date  that it was stored for
di sposal .

 47 . CAN PCB LIQUIDS OF LOW CONCENTRATIONS BE TEMPORARILY STORED? WHAT
     ABOUT PCB LIQUIDS OF HIGH CONCENTRATION?

       Low concentration PCB liquids  (50 to  500 ppm) can be
temporarily stored  for up to  30  days.  All  temporary storage areas
containing  liquids  between 50  and  500 ppm,  must have a  spill
prevention control  and counter measure plan.   The items contained
in  this  area must bear a notation  of when they were stored  for
disposal, and a notation that  the  items do  not contain  7500 ppm
PCBs  (761.65).

       However, the  May  1979 Rule does not allow temporary  storage
for high  concentration PCB liquids (above 500 ppm) because  of the
potential harm from a spill.

 48 . J HAVE A SMALL QUANTITY OF PCBS  (I.E., A FEW SOAKED RAGS AND ONE GALLON
     OF PCBS IN AN APPROVED CONTAINER), AND I DON'T WANT TO SEND  THEM A LONG
     DISTANCE FOR DISPOSAL.  CAN I STORE THEM UNTIL A PCB STORAGE SITE CLOSE
     TO ME IS APPROVED?

       Small PCB quantities, such as a few soaked rags,  may  be
stored in a "storage for disposal  facility"  until the last  day of
1983.  After December 31,  1983,  the small quantity of PCBs  would
be  required to be disposed of  in accordance  with the Marking and
Disposal  Regulations in the May  1979 Rule,   The Rule requires
items  stored after  January 1,  1983 to be disposed of within one
year of  the date the items were  placed in storage for disposal.
PCB electrical equipment stored  for reuse must be handled  and
inspected according to use authorizations covered in 40 CFR
761.30.

 49 . ONCE PCB ARTICLES ARE TAKEN OUT  OF SERVICE, BOW LONG CAN THEY BE KEPT
     BEFORE BEING PLACED IN AN APPROPRIATE STORAGE AREA?

       Non-leaking PCB articles and PCB containers containing
leaking  articles can be temporarily stored  for up to 30 days,
provided  that a notation is attached indicating the date the item
was removed from service.

 50 . WHEN PCB CAPACITORS OR CONTAINERS ARE STORED IN AN APPROPRIATE STORAGE
     AREA, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE OF THESE ITEMS STARTS TO LEAK?

       A  leaking PCB capacitor  should be immediately placed  in a
non-leaking Department of  Transportation approved drum  and  any
spillage  cleaned up using  sorbent  or suitable solvents.   It is a
good practice to add sorbent  material, such  as sawdust,  to  the
container to soak up any liquid  that continues to leak  out  of the
capaci tor .
                                  -25-

-------
      When a container  develops a  leak,  the contents  should
immediately be transferred to another,  non-leaking  container or  to
special  "overpack" containers, such  as  those used in  the chemical
industry  for leaking  containers.

 5 1 . OSCS A PCB STORAGE AREA IS BUILT,  MOST SPA INSPECT IT BEFORE IT CAN BE
     USED?

      No,  it is the responsibility of  the organization  storing  the
PCBs to  ensure that the storage area meets the specifications.

 52. DO PCB STORAGE AREAS HAVE TO BE PERIODICALLY CHECKED FOR LEAKS OR OTHER
     PROBLEMS?  WHAT ABOUT PCB ARTICLES, SUCH AS TRANSFORMERSf THAT ARE IN
     SERVICE?

       PCB  storage areas  must be checked  by the owner  or operators
at least  every 30 days.   Certain in-service articles  are required
by the  August 25, 1982  Electrical-Use  Final Rule  to be  inspected.


                         EXEMPTION  PETITIONS

 5 3 . THE MAY 1979 ROLE SAYS THAT EPA CAN GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM THE BAN ON THE
     MANUFACTURE, PROCESSING, AND DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE OF PCBS. HOW CAN I
     GET AN EXEMPTION? HAS EPA GRANTED ANT EXEMPTIONS?

       Anyone  wanting an  exemption  must  petition  EPA  for it.  An
exemption  must by statute be renewed  annually through formal
rulemaking.  In some instances, individuals may  not  have to seek
separate  exemptions when  the Agency grants "class" exemptions  for
some bans  on  processing  and distribution in commerce.

       In  the  November  1,  1978 Federal  Register,  EPA  published
interim rules for submitting exemption  petitions  from the July 2,
1979 PCB  manuf ac turi ng/importati on prohibition;  over  70 petitions
have been  received.  EPA  announced, in  the January 2,  1979 Federal
Register,  that it would  not enforce the  ban against  those who  had
submitted  petitions until action had  been taken  on them.  Subse-
quently,  in the May 31,  1979 (44 FR 31514) Federal Register
notice,  EPA published  a  Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking  which
identifies each exemption petition received, and  the  action EPA
proposed  to take on most  of them.

       Also, in the  May 31,  1979 Federal  Register,  EPA has
published  procedural rules  for submitting exemption  petitions  from
the July  1, 1979 processing/distribution in commerce
prohibitions.  These procedures include  the categories  eligible
for class  exemptions.

       On  March 5, 1980 EPA  announced  that it will  decide on a
case-by-case  basis  whether  or not  to  accept for  consideration  all
manufacturing, processing,  and distribution in commerce exemption
petitions  submitted after the filing  deadline.

       Since the publication of the May  1979 Federal  Register
notice,  EPA has contacted all previous  petitioners for  exemptions
and requested updated  information, in preparation  for the
processing of the petitions.  EPA  has sorted the  responses into
                                 -26-

-------
groups  for  rulemaking:   Phase  I petitions are  those petitions
which are  not affected by  the  ongoing rulemaking  with regard to
the 50  ppm  regulatory cutoff.   Phase II petitions are those that
may be  affected by the ongoing  rulemaking on the  50 ppm cutoff.

      EPA  is  currently in  the  process of evaluating Phase I
petitions  in  preparation for a  proposed rule during "the summer of
1983.

 54 .  WHAT PETITIONS ARE IN PHASE I?

      Phase I petitions  include requests to:

      o  Import PCB equipment,  and
      o Manufacture PCBs  for  research and development.

      Phase I petitions  also include requests  for exemptions to:

      o  Process and distribute PCBs for research and development,
      o Process and distribute PCBs for Microscopy,
      o  Distribute PCB  small  capacitors for repair purposes,
      o Distribute PCB  equipment,
      o  Process PCB articles  and PCB equipment into other
         equipment,
      o  Export PCBs,
      o Distribute PCB  and PCB-Contaminated Transformer Fluid,
         and
      o Buy, service, and  sell transformers and  PCB-Contamined
         Transformers.

 55 .  WHERE CAM I DETERMINE WHAT CATEGORIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CLASS EXEMPTIONS?

      You  should make a  careful review of section 750.31(a) of the
Interim Procedural Rules for the processing and distribution in
commerce exemptions.  These rules are published in the May 31,
1979 Federal  Register.   Section 750.31(a) lists and describes the
categories  that may file class  exemption petitions.  If your
activity is not listed in  section 750.31 (a), you  must file a
petition on an  individual basis.

 56. If SOMEONE MANUFACTURES PCB CONTAMINATED CHEMICALSf BUT DID NOT APPLY
     TO EPA  FOR AN EXEMPTION f CAN THEY STILL REQUEST ONE?

      Anyone  in that situation  should apply to EPA for an
exemption  using the procedures  EPA published in the Federal
Register on November 1,  1978.

      EPA  will  decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to
accept  for  consideration all exemption petitions  submitted after
their respective filing deadline.   See the March  5,  1980,  Federal
Register Notice for more details.
                                 -27-

-------
       (If  you want a copy  of  either of  the  Federal Register
notices  mentioned in this  answer, call  the  TSCA Industry
Assistance Office toll  free:   800-424-9065,  in  Washington, D.C.
554-1404.)
                            IMPORT/EXPORT

 5 7 . CAN PCBS BE EXPORTED OR IMPORTED?  WHAT ABOUT PCB EQUIPMENT?  WHAT
     ABOUT IMPORTING OR EXPORTING PCBS FOR DISPOSAL?

      Because  TSCA considers  the term  "import"  to be synonomous
with "manufacture," no  PCB  Equipment can be  imported after  July  2,
1979, unless  an exemption is  obtained  from  EPA.   Persons wishing
to export  PCBs for use  must  also file  a TSCA section 12 export
notice,  and  file an exemption petition, in  accordance with  the
requirements  of section  761.30(c),  for  processing and distribution
in commerce.   No PCBs may be  exported  until  and  unless EPA  grants
an exemption  to export.   (See the  May  1, 1980 Federal Register in
the Appendix;  45 FR 29115.)

      The  Open Border Policy  for PCB disposal expired May  1,  1980;
therefore,  no  PCBs may be exported  or  imported  for disposal  until
new rules  are  in effect.
                USES AUTHORIZED BY THE MAY  1979  RULE
                    USES IN HEAT  TRANSFER SYSTEMS
 58 .  ARE HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEMS REGULATED UNDER TSCA?

      PCBs  have been used  in  heat transfer  systems because  of
their high  heat retention  capacity.  These  systems are regulated
under TSCA,  and their use  has been authorized  through July  1,  1984
through  a  provision of  the May 1979 PCB  Ban Rule.

 59.  ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS PLACED ON THEIR  CONTINUED  USE OUTSIDE OF
      FOOD PLANTS?

      Yes.   (1) Heat transfer systems were  required to be tested
initially by November 1,  1979, and annually thereafter.  All
sampling  must  be performed at least three months  after the  most
recent fluid refilling*  When a test shows  PCBs  in concentrations
below 50  ppm,  all testing  may cease.  (2) Six  months after  the
initial  test of PCB concentration in the heat  transfer system,
heat transfer  systems were required to be drained of the PCBs  and
refilled  with  fluid containing less than 50 ppm  PCBs.  (3)  Heat
transfer  systems containing greater than 50 ppm  PCBs cannot be
used in  the manufacture,  or processing of any  food, drug,
cosmetic,  or device as  defined in section 201  of  the Federal  Food,
Drug, and  Cosmetic Act  (FFDCA).
                                 -28-

-------
 60. X TESTED MY HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEM IS 1979f DRAINED AND REFILLED IT, AND
     CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE KB CONCENTRATION.  HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO RETAIN
     THE DATA J GATHERED IN 1979?

      Data obtained  through  monitoring  must  be  retained for five
years after the heat transfer  system reaches a  PCB concentration
of  50 ppm.
                       USE IN HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
 61 .  HOW ARE HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS REGULATED?

      EPA  authorized  the use of  PCBs in hydraulic  systems  through
a provision of the  May 1979 Rule  until July  1,  1984
(§761 . 31 (e ) ) .  These  systems may  be  used until  this date,  provided
a corrective program  of testing,  draining, refilling, and/or
topping  off — similar  to that described in Question 59 for  heat
transfer  systems--is  undertaken.

 62.  DO ALL HYDRAULIC Sf STEMS CONTAIN PCBS?

      Probably not.   PCB hydraulic  fluid was developed for use  in
machines  that were  subject to high  temperatures,  such as aluminum
die-casting machines  and hydraulic  machines in  steel mills.
Because  of their  low  flammability,  PCBs provide  an extra measure
of  fire  protection.   The use of  these high concentration fluids
was discontinued  several years ago by most users,  because  of
serious  water pollution problems.   However, residues of the
original  fluid remain in some hydraulic systems  in sufficient
quantities to be  of continuing environmental concern.
                     MICROSCOPIC MOUNTING  MEDIUM
 6 3 .  CAN PCBS BE USED AS A MOUNTING MEDIUM FOR MICROSCOPIC SLIDES?

      Yes,  until July  1,  1984.  EPA  is  currently  in the process  of
deciding  whether to  propose an extension of this  authorization.
If  EPA decides to extend  this authorization, a proposed amendment
will be  issued in the  fall of 1983.
                       RESEARCH AND  DEVELOPMENT
 64 . CAN PCBS CONTINUE TO BE USED IN SMALL QUANTITIES FOR RESEARCH AND
     DEVELOPMENT?

      Yes,  until July  1,  1984.  As  with microscopy  slides, EPA  is
currently  in  the process  of deciding whether to  extend  the
authorized  time for use.
                                 -29-

-------
                        CARBONLESS COPY PAPER

 65 . IV THE EARLT 1970'S CARBONLESS COPT PAPER HAS MADE WITH INK CONTAINING
     PCBS.   WHAT PROVISIONS DOES TOE KB BAN SOLE MAKE FOR THIS PAPER?

       Although carbonless  copy paper  is  no longer  made  with PCBs,
supplies  of this paperstock still  exist;  most are  in  files.  EPA
has authorized the use  of  existing PCB  carbonless  copy  paper
indefi ni tely.

       Under the disposal  permitting program,  EPA  has  permitted
certain  disposal organizations to  dispose of  larger quantities  of
PCBs.   This is allowed  under the permit  issued by  EPA for disposal
of PCBs.
                                  -30-

-------
              THE AUGUST  25,  1982 ELECTRICAL-USE RULE*

                       INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION

 66.  WHY DID EPA ISSUE TOE AUGUST 25, 1982 ELECTRICAL-USE SOLE?

      EPA  issued the  August  25,  1982 Electrical-Use Rule  after
earlier  regulations  had  been invalidated  by the U.S. Court  of
Appeals  for the District of  Columbia Circuit.  Without  this
further  rulemaking,  the  use  of PCBs in  electrical equipment  would
have been  completely  banned  under section 6(e)  of TSCA.   Since
PCBs are  present in  many different types  of widely used electrical
equipment,  the immediate ban of  PCBs would  have created great
economic  and personal  hardship.   EPA, therefore, pursued  rule-
making  to  modify the  total ban.

 6 7 .  WHAT DOES TOE AUGUST 25, 1982 ELECTRICAL-USE SOLE DO?

      Generally, the  rule allows the continued  use of  eight
different  types of electrical equipment.   Specifically, the  rule:

      (1)  authorizes  the use of  PCBs in capacitors,

      (2)  authorizes  the use and servicing  of PCBs in
transformers, electromagnets, circuit breakers, voltage
regulators, reclosers, cable, and switches, and

      (3)  allows the  distribution in commerce (in a totally
enclosed  manner) of  transformers, capacitors, electromagnets,
circuit breakers, voltage regulators, reclosers, cable, and
switches  that contain  PCBs.

 68.  ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF THIS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT?

      Yes.   However,  the kinds of use restrictions are dependent
on  the  type of equipment (e.g.,  transformer,  capacitor, electro-
magnet),  as well as  the  equipment's location.  These two  factors,
type and  location, determine the conditions for use, which
i nclude:

      (1)  time limitations on the use authorizations,

      (2)  inspection  and  maintenance requirements,  and

      (3)  recordkeepi ng  requirements.

 69. MEAT ARE THE "LOCATION' RESTRICTIONS WHICH AFFECT  THE USE OF ELECTRICAL
     EQUIPMENT?

      The  "location"  restrictions have to do  with whether or  not
the electrical equipment's location "poses  an exposure risk  to
food or feed."  Therefore, along this same  line, EPA has divided
electrical  equipment into two categories:
     *Included  in several  of  the answers are  cross-reference
citations  (e.g.,  Sec. 760 . 30 ( h ) (1 ) ( i )  or 47  FR  37351)  which
refers you  to  actual sections  or pages of the August 25, 1982
Federal  Register  notice, included  in the Appendix of this
pub licati on .
                                 -31 -

-------
          (1)  transformers,  capacitors, and  electromagnets  that  do
pose an  exposure risk  to  food  or feed;

          (2)  transformers,  capacitors, and  electromagnets  that  do
not pose  an exposure risk to food or feed.

       The use restrictions  (e.g., authorization times, inspection/
maintenance requirements,  and  recordkeeping  requirements)  are,
thus,  dealt with along  these lines  (e.g.,  recordkeepi ng  require-
ments  for PCS transformers  that do pose  an  exposure risk  to  food
or feed,  or maintenance  requirements for  PCB capacitors  that  do
not pose  an exposure risk to food or feed,  etc.).
      DEFINITION  OF  "POSING AN  EXPOSURE RISK. TO  FOOD  OR FEED"

 7 0 . WITH RESPECT TO PCB ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, HEAT IS MEANT Of "POSING AN
     EXPOSURE RISK TO WOOD OR FEED"?

       By  definition within the August  25,  1982 rule PCB items  pose
an  exposure risk to food  or feed only  when  there exists a
potential  pathway for PCBs discharged  from  the item to contaminate
food or  feed  products.   (See  Statement of  General Policy,  February
18,  1983  Federal Register; 48 FR 7172.)

       Food and feed covered by this definition include items
regulated  by  the U.S. Department of Agriculture  and the Food and
Drug Administration as  food or feed, including intentional  food
additives.  Food and feed is  excluded  from  this  definition  if  it
is  used  or stored in private  residences by  the public.  This
definition does cover food and feed that  are  held in all
facilities including grocery  stores, restaurants, warehouses,
barns, bins,  sheds, silos, and other structures, and in feedlots,
open fields,  and animal grazing areas.  This  definition does not
include  electrical equipment  located near  or  above commercial  or
recreational  fishing areas.

 7 1 . SHOULD A PERSON CONSIDER CATASTROPHIC FAILURE, SUCH AS RUPTURES,
     EXPLOSIONS, OR FIRE WHEN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR HOT PCB
     ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (A  PCB TRANSFORMER, FOR EXAMPLE) POSES AN EXPOSURE
     RISK TO FOOD OR FEED?

       The  exposure risk from  a PCB item to  food  or feed products
is  clearly dependent on the specific location of the applicable
PCB  item  in relation to food  or feed products.  If, after
considering the location  of a specific PCB  item  and all other
available  information,  there  is a reasonable  possiblity of  contact
between  PCBs  and food or  feed, the PCB item will be considered to
pose an  exposure risk to  food or feed.

       In  evaluating the exposure risk  from  a  particular PCB item,
it  is  useful  to consider  a hypothetical situation in which  PCBs
are  discharged in any way from the PCB item,  such as through an
equipment  leak or rupture.  Assuming such  a discharge  occurred,
releasing  all or a portion of the contained PCBs and considering
the  PCB  item's location and any relevant  factors, the  question to
be  asked  is whether contact between PCBs  and  food and  feed  is
reasonably possible.  PCB items that are  located d.rectly  adDacent
                                 -32-

-------
to,  or  above, food  or  feed products  pose an exposure risk to  food
or feed  unless there is some type  of secondary  containment, or
other physical structures, that prevent discharges  of PCBs  from
contaminating food  or  feed.

      For purposes  of  determining  if electrical  equipment poses
exposure risks to  food  or feed, it is  not necessary to" consider
rare events.  The  standard to be applied is a reasonable
possibility of contamination of food or feed by  PCBs.

 72. IS A PLANT THAT MANUFACTURES PACKAGING INCLUDED UNDER THE DEFINITION Of
     A FOOD OR FEED FACILITY?

      No.  A plant  that manufactures packaging  is  not included
under the definition of a food or  feed  facility  unless food or
feed products are  actually packaged  at  the same  facility.   If the
food packaging manufacturer is not packaging, processing, using  or
storing  food or feed on site, the  electrical equipment would  not
be considered an exposure risk.

 7 3 . ARE AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER PLANTS INCLUDED UNDER THE
     DEFINITION OF A FOOD OR FEED FACILITY?

      Agricultural  chemical plants and  fertilizer  plants are  not
included (see 47 FR 37351).  The rule  (1) does  not  recognize
agricultural chemicals  and fertilizers  as intentional food  or feed
additives,  or (2)  require any other  special provisions for  PCB
items that  pose an  exposure risk to  agricultural chemicals.

 74.  ARE PHARMACEUTICALS  INCLUDED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF FOOD OR FEED?

      No,  unless the manufactured  pharmaceutical is used as an
intentional food additive.
                                 -33-

-------
      ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT  (TRANSFORMERS,  CAPACITORS,  ELECTRO-
      MAGNETS ) --THAT POSE  AN EXPOSURE  RISK TO FOOD OR  FEED.

 7 5 . HOW IS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT THAT POSES AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED
     REGULATED UNDER THE AUGUST 25 RULE?
 Type of
Equipment
    Time
Restri c ti ons
       Inspection and
Recordkeeping  Requirements
PCB Transformers
w/Exposure  Risk to
Food or  Feed
(>500 ppm PCBs)

Large PCB Capacitors
w/Exposure  Risk to
Food or  Feed
(>500 ppm PCBs)

PCB-Filled
Electromagnets
(containing  >500 ppm
PCBs) w/Exposure Risk
to Food  or  Feed
Use Prohibited
After October 1,  1985
(see 761 .30(a)(1 ) (i ) )
Use Prohibited
After October 1,  1988
(see 761 . 30 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) (i ) )
Use Prohibited
After October 1,  1985
(see 761 .30(h) (1 )(i) )
Weekly  Inspections
(see 761.30(a ) (1 )(vi))
Recordkeepi ng
No Inspections
Weekly  Inspections
(see 761.30(h)(1)(ii))
Recordkeepi ng
 76. ARE THERE ANY RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT POSING
     AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED?

      For  PCB transformers,  records of  the  inspection  and
maintenance  history are  to be maintained  for at least  three years
after disposing of a transformer.  The  records to be maintained
are :

      (1)  The location  of the PCB transformer.

      (2)  The date of each visual inspection,  and the  date that a
leak was  discovered if  the date is different from the  scheduled
inspection date.

      (3)  The person performing the inspection.

      (4)  The location  of any leaks.

      (5)  An estimate of  the amount of  dielectric fluid  released
from any  leak.

      (6)  The date of any clean up, containment, or  repair
performed.

      (7)  The results of  any containment  and daily inspection
required  for uncorrected  active leaks.   (For more details  see
761 .30(a) (1 ) (iv)) .
                                 -34-

-------
 7 7 . WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING, AND MAINTENANCE
     REQUIREMENTS OF A PCS TRANSFORMER WHICH POSES AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR
     FEED?

       The user of  a PCB transformer that poses an exposure  risk to
food or  feed is responsible  for  the inspection,  recordkeeping,  and
maintenance requirements until  the user notifies the  owner  that
the  transformer may pose an  exposure risk  to  food or  feed.
Following such notification, it  is the owner's ultimate
responsibility to  determine  whether the PCB  transformer  poses an
exposure  risk to  food or feed  (see 761 .30(a) (1 )(vi) ), and  to keep
required  records.

 78. IF A PCB TRANSFORMER POSES AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED,  DOES IT
     HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM SERVICE BY OCTOBER 1, 1985?

       Not in all  cases.   If  other  measures  remove the risk  of
exposure  to food  or feed, the transformer  may  be used for  the
remainder of its  useful  life.   For example,  transformers may be
relocated to a site that does not  pose an  exposure risk  to  food or
feed or may be provided  with secondary containment (see  47  FR
37350).   Once relocated  or provided with secondary containment,
the  transformer becomes  subject  to quarterly  or  annual inspections
(see 761.30(a)(1)(v)).

       One other measure  that an  individual could take to reduce
the  exposure risks,  is  to retrofill a PCB  transformer.   After a
period of three months  if the PCB  concentration  remains  under 500
ppm, the  transformer  can be  reclassified as a  PCB contaminated
transformer which  would  not  have  to be removed or relocated  by
October  1,  1985.
  TRANSFORMERS — THAT DO NOT  POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO  FOOD OR FEED

 7 9 . HOW ARE TRANSFORMERS THAT DO NOT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED
     REGULATED UNDER THE AUGUST 25,  1982 RULE?

      The  August  25,  1982 rule  allows  the use and  servicing  of
transformers that do  not  pose an  exposure risk  to  food or  feed for
the remainder  of  their  useful lives (see 761.30(a)).

 80. IS A PCB TRANSFORMER NOT CURRENTLY IN USE, EOT IN USEABLE CONDITION  AND
     KEPT AS A SPARE,  ALSO AUTHORIZED FOR THE REMAINDER OF ITS USEFUL LIFE?

      Yes,  a PCB  transformer which is  not in use, but is intended
for re-use, is considered an in-service transformer for purposes
of the  rule and is  authorized for  the  remainder  of  its useful
service  life.
                                 -35-

-------
 81 . ARE THERE ANY INSPECTION AND/OR MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES REQUIRED FOR
     TRANSFORMERS THAT DO NOT POSE AS EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OF FEED?
       The  rule requires  inspection  and  maintenance  procedures in
accordance with the  following chart:
Transformer Type
Inspection/Maintenance    Frequency
PCB  Transformers
w/>60,000  ppm PCBs

PCB  Transformers
w/500-60,000 ppm PCBs

PCB  Transformers
w/Secondary Containment

PCB  Contaminated
Transformers w/50-500
ppm  PCBs
          yes
          Yes
          Yes
          No
Quarterly
(761 .30(a))

Annually
(761 .30(a)(1 ) (v)(B))

Annually
(761 ,30(a) (1 )(v) (A))

N/A
 82. DO TRANSFORMERS HAVE TO BE TESTED TO DETERMINE THEIR PCB CONCENTRATION?
     IF NOT,  HOW CAN I DETERMINE A TRANSFORMER'S CLASSIFICATION?

       The PCB rule  does  not require that transformers  be tested  to
determine the PCB  concentration  of  the  fluid.  However, in the
absence  of a test,  certain assumptions  should be  made  about the
transformer.  If  the  name plate  indicates that the  transformer
contains  PCB dielectric  fluid, or if  there is any reason to
believe  that the  transformer contains  PCB dielectric  fluid, then
the  transformer must  be  assumed  to  be  a PCB transformer.  A
transformer  designed  to  use mineral oil dielectric  fluids must be
assumed  to be contaminated with  between 50 and 500  ppm PCBs.  This
transformer  is classified as a PCB-contaminated  transformer.

 83 . DO I HAVE TO KEEP ANY RECORDS OF THE INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE
     OPERATIONS I UNDERTAKE?

       The August  25,  1982 Rule requires that an  inspection and
maintenance  history be  maintained for  each PCB transformer.   If  a
transformer  is removed  from service and disposed  of,  the records
for  that  transformer  must be maintained for at least  three years
after  disposal.   Any  form of records  is acceptable  as  long as a
paper  copy of the  required information  is available upon request
by  EPA.   The records  required to be kept are the  same  as those
listed under the  answer  to question 77  for PCB transformers posing
an  exposure  risk  to food or feed.

 8 3  a. AM I REQUIRED TO KEEP ANY OTHER RECORDS ON PCB EQUIPMENT THAT
        IS STORED OR IN  USE?
Yes,  an owner or  operator of a  facility using  or  storing at  one  time
at  least 45 kg.  (99.4 pounds) of  PCBs contained in PCB containers  or
50  or more PCB  large capacitors  must maintain  records on all  PCBs
and PCB items.   An annual document must be prepared for each
facility covering  the records of the previous  year (40 CFR  761  180).
                                  -36-

-------
 84.  BO RECORDS HAVE TO BE BOUND?

      No,  records  can be in  any form, including microfiche, as
long as  the company  can produce a paper  copy upon request by EPA.

 8 5 . ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THE SERVICING OF TRANSFORMERS THAT LO NOT
     POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED?

      Yes.   Any servicing of  a PCB-Transformer (a transformer
containing  >500 ppm  PCBs) that requires  the  removal  of the
transformer coil  from the transformer case  is prohibited (see
761 .30(a)(2 ) (ii )) .   PCB-contaminated transformers (transformers
containing  50-500  ppm PCBs)  may only be  serviced with  dielectric
fluid containing  less than  500 ppm PCBs  (see 761 .30(a)(2 ) (i ) ) .

 86 . DOES THE AUTHORIZATION OF STORAGE OF CERTAIN PCS TRANSFORMERS AND LARGE
     CAPACITORS  ON PALLETS OUTSIDE OF A "STORAGE FOR DISPOSAL FACILITY"
     MEAN TEAT I DON'T HAVE TO DISPOSE OF THESE ITEMS WITHIN A YEAR?

      No.   The August 25, 1982 Rule authorizes temporary storage
up  to 30  days  on  pallets with inspection safeguards.   Individual
PCB  items  must still be disposed of within  a year.

 87 .  WHAT MOST  I DO WITH THE PCBS REMOVED FROM A PCB TRANSFORMER?

      PCBs  removed during any servicing  activity must  be captured
and  either  reused  as dielectric fluid or disposed of  (see
761.30(a) ( 2 ) (iii ) ) .   PCBs from PCB Transformers (transformers
containing  greater  than 500  ppm PCBs) may not be mixed with or
added to  dielectric  fluid from PCB-contaminated electrical
equipment  (see 761 .30(a){2 ) (iii ) ) .

 88. CAN I ADD DIELECTRIC FLUID CONTAINING PCBS IN CONCENTRATIONS BELOW 50
     PPM TO  A PCB TRANSFORMER?

      Yes .

 89 . CAN I CONVERT A PCB TRANSFORMER INTO A PCB CONTAMINATED TRANSFORMER?
     HOW CAN I DO THIS?

      A  PCB transformer can be reclassified  by draining, refilling
or  otherwise servicing  the  transformer.  In  order to  reclassify,
the  transformer's  dielectric  fluid must  contain less  than 500 ppm
PCBs after  a minimum of three months in-service use.   The in-
service  use period must be  right after the  last servicing done to
reduce  the  PCB concentration  in the transformer (see
761 .30(a)(2)(v)) .

 9 0 .  WHAT DOES  IN-SERVICE MEAN?

      In-service  means  that  the transformer  is used  under loaded
conditions  that raise the temperature of the dielectric  fluid to
at  least  50 degrees  Centigrade (see 761.30(a)(2)(v)).
                                  -37-

-------
 91
      OUT J SIMULATE THE WADED CONDITIONS TO RECLASSIFY A TRANSFORMER?
       EPA's Assistant  Administrator  of  the Office  of  Pesticides
and  Toxic  Substances may grant, without further  rulemaking,
approval  for the use of  alternate  methods that simulate the loaded
conditions  of in-service use.  A request for such  approval must be
submitted  to the Assistant Administrator, and must contain a
complete  description of  the alternate  method (see
761,30(a)(2)(v)).
   CAPACITORS THAT  DO  NOT POSE AN  EXPOSURE RISK  TO  FOOD OR FEED

 9 2 . BOW ARE CAPACITORS THAT DO HOT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED
     REGULATED UNDER THE AUGUST 25 RULE?

       The  rule allows  the use of capacitors that  do not pose  an
exposure  risk to  food  or feed according  to the following  restric-
ti ons :
Type  of  Capacitor
                                               Time Restrictions
Large  PCB Capacitors  (^3 pounds
dielectric fluid) in  Restricted  Access
Indoor  Installations  and in Restricted
Access  Outdoor Electric  Substations
                                               For Remainder of
                                               Useful  Lives
                                               (761 .30(1)(1 ) (ii ) )
Large  PCB Capacitors  (^3 pounds
dielectric fluid) in  Other Than
Restricted Access Areas

Small  Capacitors  (<3  pounds
Dielectric fluid)
                                               October  1 ,  1988
                                               (761.30(2)(1 )(ii ) )
                                               For Remainder of
                                               Useful  Lives
                                               (761 .30(1))
 9 3 . CAN A POLE-MOUNTED LARGE PCB CAPACITOR BE OUTFITTED OR RELOCATED SO THAT
     IT DOSS NOT HAVE TO BE PHASBD-OUT?

       A  pole mounted large PCB capacitor in the  field may be
relocated to a contained  and restricted access indoor installation
or  to  a  restricted  access electrical  substation  (see 47 FR  37358;
sec. 761 . 30 (1 ) ( 1 ) (ii ) ) .   Although probably not practical,  these
capacitors could be  outfitted to  meet  the criteria of a contained
and  restricted indoor  installation.
 94. IF A LARGE PCB CAPACITOR IS IN STORAGE FOR RE-USEf DOES IT HAVE TO BE
     PHASED OUT BY OCTOBER 1, 1988?
                      capacitors in  storage for  re-use do not  have
                      1988.  If returned to service,  it must,
                      in an outdoor,  restricted  access electrical
substation, or in  a  contained and  restricted access indoor
      No,  large PCB
to be phased out by
however, be located
i ns tallati on .
                                  -38-

-------
 9 5 . ARE THERE ANY INSPECTION OR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PCS CAPACITORS
     THAT DO HOT POSE AH EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED?

       No.
       ELECTROMAGNETS,  SWITCHES  AND  VOLTAGE  REGULATORS
       THAT DO NOT  POSE AN EXPOSURE  RISK TO  FOOD  OR FEED

 9 6 . BOW ARE ELECTROMAGNETS, SWITCHES, AND VOLTAGE REGULATORS (THAT DO NOT
     POSE AH EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED) REGULATED UNDER THE AUGUST 25, 1982
     RULE?

       PCBs at any  concentration  may be used in  electromagnets,  in
switches,  and in voltage regulators (that do  not pose an exposure
risk  to  food or feed),  and may be used for  purposes of servicing
this  equipment for  the remainder  of their useful lives (see
761.30(h)).  Electromagnets,  switches, and  voltage regulators  that
contain  PCBs are grouped into three categories:   (1) those
containing over 500  ppm PCBs, (2) those containing 50-500 ppm
PCBs,  and  (3) those  containing below 50 ppm.

 9 7 . MEAT RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO THE SERVICING OF ELECTROMAGNETICS, SWITCHES,
     AND VOLTAGE REGULATORS?

       (1)  Servicing  any electromagnet, switch,  or voltage
regulator  with a PCB concentration  above 500  ppm that requires  the
removal  and rework  of  the internal  components is prohibited  (see
761.30(h)(2)(i)).   (2)  PCBs removed as a result  of servicing must
be  captured and reused  as dielectric fluid  or disposed of properly
(see  761.30(h)(2)(iii)).  (3) PCBs  removed  from  electromagnets,
switches,  and voltage  regulators  with a PCB concentration of at
least  500  ppm cannot be mixed with  dielectric fluid from equipment
containing PCBs in  concentrations between 50  and 500 ppm (see
761,30(h)(2)(iii).   (4)  Dielectric  fluids containing less than  500
ppm PCBs  cannot be  mixed with dielectric fluid  containing greater
than  500  ppm PCBs and  then used  as  dielectric fluid (see
761 .30(h)(2)(iv)}.

 98. CAN I CONVERT A  PCB ELECTROMAGNETt SNITCHf OR VOLTAGE REGULATOR
      (CONTAINING GREATER THAN 500  PPM PCBS) TO A PCB-CONTAMINATBD ELECTRO-
     MAGNET, SWITCH,  OR VOLTAGE REGULATOR (CONTAINING 50-500 PPM PCBS)?

       A  PCB-electromagnet, switch,  or voltage regulator can be
reclassified as a PCB-contaminated  electromagnet,  switch ,or
voltage  regulator by draining, refilling,  and/or otherwise
servicing  the equipment  (see  761.30(h)(2)(v)).   In order to be
reclassified, the equipment must  contain less than 500 ppm PCBs
after  a  minimum of  three months in-service  use  subsequent to the
last  servicing conducted for purposes of reducing  the PCB concen-
tration  in the equipment.  (See questions  91  and 92 for informa-
tion on  the requirement  for in-service use.)
                                 -39-

-------
      CIRCUIT BREAKERS,  RECLOSERS AND CABLE...  THAT DO NOT
      POSE  AN EXPOSURE RISK  TO FOOD OR FEED.

 99 . WHAT REQUIREMENTS APPLY" ID THE USE AND SERVICING OF CIRCUIT BREAKERS,
     RECLOSERS, AND CABLE?

      PCBs  at any concentration may be used in  circuit breakers,
reclosers,  and cable for the  remainder of  their useful lives.
Servicing of  this equipment  may only be conducted  with dielectric
fluids containing PCBs in  concentrations below  50  ppm (see
761.30(m)).   Further,  for  circuit breakers, reclosers, and  cable
containing  50 ppm PCBs or  greater,  the servicing  restrictions
listed in 761.30(h)(2) apply.
                                 -40-

-------
       THE OCTOBER  21,  1982 CLOSED  AND CONTROLLED  WASTE RULE*

                       INTRODUCTORY  INFORMATION

 100.  WHY DID EPA ISSUE THE OCTOBER  21, 1982 CLOSED ASD CONTROLLED WASTE SOLE?

       The Closed and Controlled  Waste Rule  was issued as part  one
 of  a  two-part rulemaking  initiated  in response to the Court's
 decision to strike  down  the 50 ppm  regulatory cutoff.

 101.  WHY DDES THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE SOLE ADDRESS ONLY THOSE TWO
      TYPES OF PROCESSES?

       Following the  remand of  the  50  ppm regulatory cutoff, the
 Environmental Defense  Fund (EOF),  EPA,  and  certain industry
 intervenors held a  series of discussions.   During  these
 discussions, the industry representatives suggested that certain
 manufacturing processes  should be  excluded  from regulation because
 they  result in little  risk to  health  and the environment.  These
 process  situations  were  called "closed  manufacturing  processes"
 and  "controlled waste  manufacturing processes."   "Closed
 processes" were described as processes  that produce PCBs but do
 not  release PCBs.   "Controlled waste  processes" were  described as
 processes that produce  PCBs but  release  PCBs only as  wastes that
 are properly disposed.

       EPA agreed to  pursue rulemaking to exclude  PCBs created in
 these processes from the  section 6(e) requirement  to  obtain annual
 exemptions from EPA.  EPA decided  to  set up a two-part rulemaking,
 with  part one addressing  closed  and controlled waste  manufacturing
 processes, and part  two  addressing  all  remaining  PCBs.

 102.  WHAT BOBS THE OCTOBER 21, 1982 CLOSED  AND CONTROLLED  WASTE RULE  DO?

       Briefly, the  October 21,  1982 Closed and Controlled Waste
 Rule  is  a voluntary  rule  that  excludes  PCBs produced  in these
 categories of manufacturing processes from the TSCA section 6(e)
ban on  the manufacture,  processing, distribution  in commerce,  and
 use of  PCBs.  Persons  who qualify for exclusion have  the option of
 taking  advantage of  it.

       The rule defines what is  meant  by  a closed  manufacturing
process,  and a controlled waste manufacturing process by setting
 PCB concentration limits  for  PCB levels  in air emissions, water
 effluents, products, and  wastes.  The rule also defines  what is
meant by  disposal in a  "controlled" manner.  Finally, the rule
 sets  up  recordkeeping  and reporting requirements  for  persons who
desire  exclusion and whose processes  qualify for  exclusion.
     *Included in some  of  the answers  are  cross-referenced
citations  (e.g., Sec. 761.3(mm) or 47  FR  46994) which  refer you
to actual  sections or pages  of the October 21, 1982  Federal
Register  notice, included  in the Appendix  of this publication.

                                 -41 -

-------
103.  MOAT HAPPENED TO TOE 50 PPM REGULATORY CUTOFF?

      Although EOF  successfully challenged  the Agency's  50  ppm
regulatory cutoff in  the  May 1979 rule,  the court stayed  its
mandate  with respect  to  the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff.  This  means
that persons manufacturing, processing,  distributing in  commerce,
and using  PCBs in concentrations below  50 ppm may continue  until
the stay is lifted.   EPA  expects the stay to be lifted following
the completion of a rulemaking on uncontrolled PCBs below 50  ppm.
At that  time, any person  not specifically covered under  the  Closed
and Controlled Waste  Rule,  or  the third  rule (to be issued  in the
summer of  1984), will be  required to file annual petitions  for
exemption  to manufacture,  process, or distribute PCBs.   Further,
EPA must authorize  the use of  any PCBs  not  excluded by regulation.

104. SINCE TOE 50 PPM CUTOFF REMAINS IN EFFECT BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S STAY  OF
     MANDATE, DOES THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE BENEFIT ANYONE NOW?

      For  now, the  Closed  and  Controlled Waste Rule benefits  those
manufacturers who produce  PCBs in concentrations over 50  ppm  in
their manufacturing process stream, but  who do not release  PCBs
(to other  than controlled  wastes) in concentrations above the PCB
levels established  in the  Closed and Controlled Waste Rule.   Under
the May  1979 Rule,  persons meeting this  description would have
been required to file a  petition for exemption, since the 50  ppm
cutoff applied to PCBs present at any point in the manufacturing
process.  Depending upon  the results of  the third rulemaking, and,
specifically, the effect  of the third rulemaking on the  50  ppm
regulatory cutoff,  the Closed  and Controlled Waste Rule  may
eventually benefit  more  persons than this.
                       BYPRODUCT  PCB FORMATION
105. X DON'T KNOW IF MY MANUFACTURING PROCESS DOES OR DOES NOT PRODUCE PCBS
     AS A BYPRODUCT.  IS THERE ANY INFORMATION ON TOE TYPES OF PROCESSES THAT
     PRODUCE PCBS?

       Yes.   First,  PCBs  can  be formed  in situations where  carbon,
chlorine,  and high  temperatures or catalysts are present  together.
EPA  has  compiled  several lists of processes  that have  the
potential  to produce PCBs  as byproducts.  These lists  are  support
documents  to the  Closed  and  Controlled  Waste Rule.  Useful
references  include  document  numbers  29  and  30 in 47 FR 46994 (full
titles  are  listed  in 47  FR 46994).   In  addition, the  Chemical
Manufacturers Association  conducted  a  survey of the chemical
industry which may  provide some information.  This survey  is part
of the  rulemaking  record for the closed and  controlled waste
rule.   In  addition,  EPA  continues to research this area in
preparation for the  next rulemaking  (to be  completed  in the summer
of 1984.)
                                 -42-

-------
               QUALIFYING FOR  AN EXCLUSION AS A  CLOSED
                          OR  CONTROLLED  WASTE

106. WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO QUALIFY FOR THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE WJLE
     EXCLUSION?

       The Closed  and Controlled Waste Rule  requires  persons who
desire to qualify for  exclusion to:

       (1) review  their  processes  (analyze  or  estimate)  (see
761.185(a ) ( 1 ) ) ,

       (2) record  the basis  for a  determination  that  a  process
qualifies for  exclusion and maintain these  records  (see  761.185(a)(2)
and  761 . 185 (a)(3 ) ),

       (3) certify that  the  process  qualifies  for exclusion, see
761.185(b),  761.185(c),  761.185{d),  and  761.185(e)), and

       (4) notify  EPA of processes  that qualify  and  of  the basis
for  the determination  (see  761.185(f)).

107. J MANUFACTURE  PCBS IN CONCENTRATIONS BELOW 50 PPM, AND RELEASE PCBS IN
     ICf PRODUCT IN  CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE LEVEL SET IN THE OCTOBER 21, 1982
     CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE,  BUT BBLOtt 50 PPM.  AM I NOW REQUIRED TO
     REDUCE PCB LEVELS IW MY PRODUCTS TO BELOW  THE CONCENTRATION LIMITS SET IN
     THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED  WASTE RULE?

       No.  The  Closed  and  Controlled Rule  is  a  voluntary exclusion.
Persons who  operate  processes  that  qualify  for  exclusion have the
option of taking  advantage  of  the  exclusion  or  of not  taking advantage
of  it  (see 47  FR  46981 )) .   Persons  who operate  processes that produce
PCBs in concentrations  below 50 ppm  and  release PCBs in  products,
emissions or  effluents  in  concentrations above  the  limits set in  the
Closed and Controlled  Waste Rule  (but below  50  ppm)  have the option  of
reducing  PCB  levels  in  releases from the processes.  Or  they can  delay
their  decision  on whether  to qualify for the  closed  and  controlled
waste  exclusion until  the  completion of  the  third rulemaking.


                       WHAT "CONTROLLED" DISPOSAL  IS
108. DOES THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED RULE MEAN THAT THE MARKING AND DISPOSAL OF
     ALL PCBS IN CONCENTRATIONS OVER 2 PPM IS REQUIRED UNDER TSCA?

       No.   The  50 ppm cutoff  contained in  the  regulations covering  the
Marking  and Disposal of  PCBs  is still  in effect.  Under  TSCA, PCBs in
concentrations  below 50  ppm  (excluding dilutions of higher level  PCBs)
are  not  required  to be disposed of  in  any  special manner.  The  Closed
and  Controlled  Waste Rule  for PCBs  allows  persons to  manufacture,
process,  distribute in commerce and  use  products which  are generated
in controlled  or  controlled  processes  (761.1(f)).

       Solid wastes  with  PCB  concentrations  of  less than  50 ppm  may
still  be  subject  to RCRA regulation  for  disposal or recycling
purposes .


                                  -43-

-------
109. WHAT IS CONTROLLED DISPOSAL?

       For  PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm, controlled disposal
is one  of  the following:

       (1)  Disposal in  an  EPA-approved  PCB incinerator.

       (2)  Disposal in  a  Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act
(RCRA)-approved incinerator.

       (3)  Disposal in  an  EPA-approved  PCB high efficiency boiler.

       (4)  Disposal in  an  EPA-approved  PCB landfill.

       For  PCBs in concentrations between 50 ppm  and  500 ppm,
controlled disposal is  one of the  following:

       (1)  Disposal in  an  EPA-approved  PCB incinerator.

       (2)  Disposal in  an  EPA-approved  PCB high efficiency boiler.

       (3)  Disposal in  an  EPA-approved  PCB landfill.

       For  PCBs in concentrations over  500 ppm, controlled disposal
i s
       (1)  Disposal in  an EPA-approved  PCB incinerator.
                RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

110. AW J REQUIRED BY THE RULE TO CHEMICALLY ANALYZE MY AIR EMISSIONSr WATER
     EFFLUENTSf AND PRODUCTS FOR PCBS?

      No.   The closed  and controlled  rule provides  for theoretical
assessments in lieu  of  actual chemical analysis  of  emissions and
effluents  (see 76 1 . 185(a ) (1 ) ) .

111. WHAT IS A THEORETICAL ASSESSMENT?

      The  objective  of  conducting  a  theoretical  assessment is  to
use  reason, logic,  and  chemical/mathematical calculations  to make
correct  determinations  about whether  chemical manufacturing
processes  qualify  for  exclusion  under the closed  and  controlled
waste rule.  Specifically, the objective is to determine whether
PCB  levels in releases  from a process exceed the  limits set by EPA
in the Closed and  Controlled Waste Rule, without  actually
monitoring these  levels  through  chemical analysis  (see 47  FR
46991 ) .

112. WHAT HAPPENS IF I CONDUCT A THEORETICAL ASSESSMENT AND IT  TURNS OUT  TO
     BE WRONG WHEN EPA MONITORS COMPLIANCE  WITH THE RULE?

      First,  EPA  will  hot be utilizing theoretical  assessments in
enforcing  this rule  (see 47 FR 46981  and 46982).   Second,  if EPA
finds a  theoretical  assessment to  be  wrong, and  the  process does
not  qualify for exclusion, then  that  process will  be  considered  to
be out of  compliance,  regardless  of  the results  of  the theoretical
                                 -44-

-------
assessment.  The need  to  undertake actual  chemical analysis and
monitoring  of PCB levels  can be determined only by each  manu-
facturer  and will depend  upon the expected level of  release, its
relationship to the  limits set by the  Closed and Controlled Waste
Rule,  and  the level  of  confidence placed  in the accuracy of the
estimate.   The ultimate burden of making  a correct decision to
rely  on  theoretical  assessments rests  on  each manufacturer.

113. IF I MONITOR PCB LEVELS HI  EMISSIONS, EFFLUENTS, AND PRODUCTS FROM MT
     PROCESS, AM I REQUIRED TO USE ANY PARTICULAR ANALYTICAL METHOD?

       No.   However,  EPA will be using  capillary gas  chromatog raphy
coupled  to  electron  impact mass spectrometry (CGC/EIMS)  to  enforce
the provisions of this  rule.  EPA recommends this method for
analyzing  process streams for byproduct  PCBs.

114. IF I MONITOR PCB LEVELS IN  RELEASES FROM MY  PROCESS, AM I REQUIRED TO
     SELECT  A CERTAIN NUMBER OF  SAMPLES AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS?

       No.   However,  EPA will be using  a  sequential sampling scheme
to enforce  the provisions of this rule.   This approach  should
result in  a considerable  savings over  standard statistical
sampling  methods without  adding to the  risks of making incorrect
decisions.   EPA recommends a sequential  sampling scheme  involving
the selection of a maximum of seven samples  (see 47  PR  46992).

1 1 5 . TO HHOM DO I SEND  THE NOTIFICATION LETTER?

       If  the letter  notifying EPA that a  certain process qualifies
for exclusion contains  Confidential Business Information (CBI),
then  the  sender should  follow all CBI  procedures in  transmitting
the package, and send it  to:
                               Loi s Riley
                               Document  Control Office
                               E-409
                               U.S.E.P.A
                               401 "M" Street,  S.W.
                               Washington,  D.C.  20460

       The internal envelope  should direct  the package to the OPTS
Exposure  Evaluation  Division, TS-794,  E-345.

       If  the notification letter does  not  contain CBI, then it
should be sent directly to:

                               Exposure  Evaluation Division  (TS-794)
                               Chemical  Regulation Branch
                               U.S.E.P.A.
                               401 "M" Street,  S.W.
                               Washington, D.C.   20460

       The Chemical Regulation B'ranch within  EPA' s  Office of Toxic
Substances  will retain a  copy of the letter  and transmit the
letter to the  appropriate regional office.
                                 -45-

-------
116.  THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE REQUIRES PERSONS OPERATING CLOSED
      AND CONTROLLED WASTE PROCESSES TO NOTIFY EPA OF, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE
      NUMBER, TYPE,  AND LOCATION OF THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE PROCESSES.
      HOW MUCH INFORMATION IS NEEDED BY EPA ON THE TYPE OF MANUFACTURING
      PROCESS?

       Since  the  objective of  the  reporting  requirement  is  to
provide EPA  with  information  for  compliance  monitoring  purposes,
enough information on  the type of  process(es)  should be  provided
to allow EPA to  locate  the specific  process(es)  that qualifies  for
exclusion.   Generic descriptions,  such as  "a chlorination
reaction" may  not suffice if, for  example,  more  than one
chlorination reaction  is  operating  at  a single  location.

117.  THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE REQUIRES EITHER THEORETICAL
      ASSESSMENTS OR ACTUAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTS, EMISSIONS, AND
      EFFLUENTS TO SUPPORT EXCLUSIONS.  IF I  HAVE BOTH TYPES OF DATA, WHICH DO
      I RETAIN?

       Analytical  data  must always  be retained  (see 47  FR 46991).
If the theoretical assessment contains additional supporting
information,  essential  to the determination  that the process
qualifies for  exclusion,  then this  should  also be retained.

118.  DO I HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE DISPOSAL FACILITY IN WHICH MY WASTES ARE
      DESTROYED?

       Section  761.185(f)  requires  that operators of controlled
waste processes  notify  EPA of the  type,  name,  and location  of  the
waste disposal facility.

119.  WHEW SHOULD I  NOTIFY EPA THAT MY PROCESS QUALIFIES  FOR EXCLUSION?

       The exclusion is  voluntary,  and  therefore, there  is  no set
date  by which  all notification letters are  to be submitted  to  EPA.
However,  a manufacturer  is not fully in compliance with  the  closed
and controlled waste exclusion until these  letters are  received by
EPA.

         JANUARY  3,  1983  AMENDMENT  TO THE USE AUTHORIZATION
                      FOR  RAILROAD  TRANSFORMERS*

                       INTRODUCTORY  INFORMATION
120. ARE RAILROAD TRANSFORMERS REGULATED UNDER TSCA?

       Certain  railroad  transformers  contain  PCBs,  thus,  they are
regulated under TSCA.   However, section 6(e)(2)(B) of  TSCA
provides  EPA with the authority to  create certain  limited
exceptions to  the ban on  the use  of  PCBs.  Specifically,  EPA can
      *Included  in several  of the  answers are  cross-reference
citations (e.g.,  sec. 76 1 . 30 (b ) ( 2 ) ( ii )  which  refer you  to actual
sections of  the January  3,  1983 Federal Register notice,  included
in the  Appendix of this  publication.

                                   -46-

-------
authorize  the use of PCBs  in  certain circumstances  provided their
use does  not present an  unreasonable risk of injury to health  or
the environment.  EPA  first  authorized the  use  and  servicing of
railroad  transformers  that contain PCBs in  the  May  1979 PCB Rule.

121. BOH ARE RAILROAD TRANSFORMERS REGULATED?

       Since the May 1979 Rule,  EPA has amended  the  authorization
covering  the use and servicing  of railroad  transformers containing
PCBs.   The amendment to  the  May 1979 use authorization was issued
Janurary  3, 1983.  Generally,  it:

       (1 )  Requires railroad  organizations to meet  a 60,000 ppm
concentration level in their  transformers by July  1,  1984.

       (2)  Requires railroad  organizations to meet  a 1,000 ppm
concentration level in their  transformers by July  1,  1986.

       (3)  Authorizes the use  of PCBs for the remaining useful  life
of the  railroad transformers  at concentrations  below 1,000 ppm.

       (4)  Permits railroad organizations to service railroad
transformers to reduce PCB concentrations.

122. WHAT DIELECTRIC FLUIDS  ARE AVAILABLE FOR RETROFITTING OF RAILROAD
     TRANSFORMERS?

       The  railroad companies  involved have identified  substitutes
for PCB dielectric fluid.
                    INTERIM PERFORMANCE  DEADLINES
123. ARE THERE ANY INTERIM PERFORMANCE DATES THAT MUST BE MET?

       Yes.   In the January  3,  1983,  amendment to  the  May 1979 use
authorization, two sets of  three  interim performance  deadlines are
established  to meet the 60,000  ppm and 1,000 ppm  PCB  concentration
levels .

       The  three performance  deadlines that the  railroad organi-
zations  must achieve to meet the  60,000 ppm level  are;

       (1)  After July 1, 1983,  the  number of railroad  transformers
containing PCB concentration greater than 60,000  ppm  in use by any
railroad organization cannot exceed  two-thirds  of  the  total rail-
road transformers containing  PCBs  in use by that  organization on
January  1, 1982 (761 . 30(b ) (1 ) (i ) ) .

       (2)  After January 1,  1984,  the number of  railroad trans-
formers  containing a PCB  concentration greater  than  60,000 ppm in
use by any affected railroad  organization may not  exceed one-third
of the total railroad transformers  containing PCBs in  use by that
organization on January 1,  1982  ( 761 . 30 (b ) ( 1 ) (ii ) ) .

       (3)  After July 1, 1984,  the  use of railroad  transformers
that contain dielectric fluid  with  a PCB concentration  greater
than 60,000  ppm is prohibited  (761.30(b)(1 ) (iii ) ) .
                                 -47-

-------
      The  three performance  deadlines that  the  railroad
organizations  must achieve  to  meet the  1,000  ppm level are;

      (1)  After July  1,  1985,  the number  of  railroad transformers
containing  a PCB concentration greater  than  1,000 ppm in  use  by
any affected railroad organization may  not  exceed two-thirds  of
the total  railroad transformers containing  PCBs in use by that
organization on July  1,  1984 ( 76 1 . 30 (b ) (1 ) ( i v ) ) .

      (2)  After January  1,  1986, the number  of  railroad trans-
formers  containing a  PCB  concentration  greater  than 1,000 ppm in
use by any affected railroad organization  may not exceed  one-third
of the total railroad transformers containing PCBs in use by  that
organization on July  1,  1984 ( 7 6 1 . 30 (b ) ( 1 ) ( v) ) .

      (3)  After July  1,  1986,  the use of  railroad transformers
that contain dielectric  fluids with a PCB  concentration greater
than 1,000 ppm is prohibited (761 . 30(b)(1 )(vi)).

124. OTHER  THAN THE PERFORMANCE DEADLINES, ARE THERE ANY OTHER  CONDITIONS ON
     THE RAILROAD TRANSFORMER USE AUTHORIZATION?

      Yes.   PCB concentrations must be  measured:  (1)  immediately
after servicing for purposes of reducing  PCB concentration levels,
and (2)  between 12 and  24 months after  each  servicing  to  reduce
PCB concentrations (761 . 30(b ) (1 )(vii) ) .
                     RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

125. DO I HAVE TO KEEP RECORDS OF THE PCB CONCENTRATIONS I MEASURE?

       Yes.   These data must  be retained  until January  1,  1991
(761 .30(b) ( 1 )(vii)(C)).

                  THE  "UNCONTROLLED"  PCB RULEMAKING
                       INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION

126. WHAT DOES THE "UNCONTROLLED" PCB RULEMAKING COVER?

       The "Uncontrolled"  PCB Rulemaking  covers PCBs as  impurities
in  other  than closed  or  controlled waste manufacturing  processes.

127. WHY IS SPA DOING ANOTHER RULEMAKING?

       As  a result  of  the  EOF challenge  to  the May 1979  PCB  Ban
Rule,  the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff for  the  manufacture,  pro-
cessing,  distribution  in  commerce, and  use  of PCBs was  struck
down.   Without addition  rulemaking,  all  PCBs manufactured in other
than closed and controlled waste manufacturing processes  would be
banned  in accordance  with the prohibitions  of section 6(e)  of
TSCA.   Since PCBs  are  inadvertently  created in many chemical
manufacturing processes  that do  not  qualify as closed or
controlled waste processes, a total  ban  would have a significant
economic  impact.   EPA  is  conducting  rulemaking to reduce  the
impact  of TSCA section 6(e) ban  on the  manufacture of PCBs  as
byproducts or impurities.
                                 -48-

-------
128. WILL THE RULEMAKING UNDER WAT FOR PCBS UNDER 50 PPM ALSO AFFECT
     ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT?

       No.   The  August 25,  1982 Electrical  Use Rule  regulates  the
use of  PCBs in  Electrical  Equipment.
                          RULEMAKING  SCHEDULE
129. WHEN IS THE "UNCONTROLLED' PCB RULEMAKING TO BE COMPLETED?

       EPA intends  to issue  a  Proposed  Rule  by December of  1983,
and a  Final Rule by July of 1984.

130. JS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THIS RULEMAKING?

       Yes.  EPA submitted a report to  the  court outlining  its  plans
for further rulemaking on "uncontrolled" PCBs on  November  1,  1982.
This report is contained in the Appendix  to this  booklet.   Quarterly
reports  to the Court are required starting  on March  31,  1983.
Recently  (April 1983), EPA  received a  joint proposal  from  EDF/NRDC
and CMA  for the uncontrolled  PCB rulemaking.   This proposal  is being
reviewed  by EPA; and,  EPA is  considering using considerable  portions
of it  as  the framework for  this rulemaking.   Copies  of the  proposal
are available from  the EPA  TSCA Assistance  Office.
                                  -49-

-------
                                                        Appendix A
        RECODIFICATION CHART FOR MAY 31, 1979 PCB BAN RULE
                   NEW DESIGNATIONS FOR PART 761
(Since the publication of the May 1979 PCB Ban Rule, the 40 CFR
Part 761 has been recodified.  This chart compares the new
designations with the former designations.  All citations
referenced in this text are the recodified sections.)

New Section                                        Old Section
(referenced in                                      (appears  in  the
Q&A's)                                              May 31, 1979
                                                    Federal Register)

                    Subpart A—General Provisions

761.1     Applicability.                            761.1

761.3     Definitions.                              761.2

          Subpart  B—Manufacturing,  Processing, Distribution
              in Commerce,  and  Use of PCBs and PCB Items

761.20    Prohibitions.                             761.30

761.30    Authorizations.                           761.31

          Subpart C—Making of PCBs and PCB Items

761.40    Marking requirements.                     761.20

761.45    Marking formats.                          761.44

                   Subpart D—Storage and Disposal

761.60    Disposal requirements.                    761.10

761.65    Storage for disposal.                     761.42

761.70    Incineration.                             761.40

761.75    Chemical waste landfills.                 761.41

761.79    Decontamination.                          761.43

-------
                                                           Appendix A

              Subpart  E--Tests and  Methods of  Analysis

761.82    References for analytical methods
          for detecting PCBs in air and water.      761.46

761.90    References for analytical methods for
          detecting PCBs in closed process
          waste  streams.                           761.47

761.95    References for analytical methods for
          detecting PCBs in closed process
          waste  streams.                           761.48

                       Subpart F—I [Reserved]


                    Subpart  J—Records  and  Reports

761.180   Records and monitoring.                  761.45

761.185   Self-certification program and
          retention of special records by
          persons incidentially generating
          PCBs in closed and controlled waste
          manufacturing processes.                 761.45(g)

-------
Thursday
May 31, 1979
APPOMX B
Part VI



Environmental

Protection Agency

Polychlorinated Blphenyls;
Criteria Modification; Hearings

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations       31515
 major comments that were made on the
 proposed rule during-the comment
 period In many cases these comments
 led to changes to the proposed PCS Ban
 Rule. There are also two versions of the
 economic impact analysis that have
 been prepared by Versar, Inc. The -first
 Versar Report was made available at
 the time of the proposed PCS Ban Rule.
 The second, or final Versar Report, has
 been incorporated into the  final Support
 Document. Copies of the final Support
 Document can be obtained from the
 Industry Assistance Office  identified
 above.
 T«H» I— Content! of Preamble
 1. Summary of the Rule's Organization
 Q. Changes in Major Definitions
  A. "PCB" and "PCS  Items"
  B. Regulation of PCBs at the  50 ppm
    Concentration Level
  C. Classification of Transformers Under
    This Rule
 1. PCB Transformers
 2. PCB-Contanunated Transformer*
 3. Non-PCB Transformers
 4. Discussion of Transformer Categoric*
 a. Determining Appropriate Categories
 b. Significance of Transformer Categorie
  0. Totally rinlosnd Manner mr*\
    Exposure
  E. Sale {or Purposes Other Than fleeels
  F. Other Definitions.
in.  Changes in Subpart ft Dispose* of PCBs
  and PCB Items
  A. Mineral Oil Dielectric fluid wttfa GO to
    500 ppm PCB
1. High Efficiency  Boilers
2. Conditions for Boilers
3. Other Disposal Alternative*
  a Other Liquid Wastes with 50 to 500 ppm
    PCB
  C. Disposal of 50 to 500 ppm PCB Liquids in
    Chemical Waste Landfills
  D. Disposal of Non-Liquid PCBs in
    Chemical Waste landfills
  E. Batch Testing of Mineral Oil DieUctr.o
    Fluid
  F. Other Changes in the Disposal
    Requirements
IV.  Changes in Subpart C Marking of PCBs
  and-PCB Items
V. Changes in Subpart B: Annexes
  A. Annex I: incineration
  a Annex H: Chemical Waste l-nn^fi"*
  C. Annex OL Storage
1. Container Specifications
2. Bulk Storage
3. Spill Prevention Procedures
4. Flood Protection
5. Temporary Storage
a. Revisions
b. Action on Petitions to Amend Rule on
  Temporary Storage Requirements
  D. Annex IV: decontamination
  E. Annex VI: Records and Monitoring
VI. Subpart D: Manufacturing, Processing,
  Distribution in Commerce, and Use Bans
  A. Prahibftions
1. Waste Oil Bans
  E Changes in i 781.3ft Prohibitions
1. Change in Scope of Manufacturing Ban
a. "Manufacturing" versus "Processing" of
  PCB Items
 b. Manufacture and Import of PCB Items
 2. Import and Export of PCBs and PCB Items
   for Disposal
   C. Other Issues
 1. PCB Impurities and Byproducts
 2. Disposal of Small PCB Capacitors
 3. State Preemptions
 VIL Relationship of § 6(e)(2) to § 8(e)(3) in
   TSCA
 VOL Authorizations and Exemptions
   A. Explanation of Authorizations and
     Exemptions
 1. Manufacturing Exemptions
 2. Processing and Distribution in Commerce
   Exemptions
   B. General Changes in $ 701.31:
     Authorizations
 1. Reporting and Recordkeeping
   Requirements
 2. Length of Use Authorizations
 3. Changes in i 761.46: Annex VQ
 DC. Specific Authorizations
   A. Servicing Transformers (Other Than
     Railroad Transformers)
 1. General Discussion of Transformer
   Servicing
 2. PCB Transformers
 3. PCB-ConUnunated Transformers
 4. Rebuilding PCB Transformer*
 5. Contents of Authorization
   a Use and Servicing of Railroad
    Transformers
   C Use and Servicing of Mining Equipment
   D. Use in Heat Transfer Systems
   E. Use in Hydraulic Systems
   F. Use in Carbonless Copy Paper
   G. Pigments
   H. Use and Servicing of Electromagnets
   L Use in Natural Gas Pipeline Compressors
   f. Use of Small Quantities for Research and
    Development
   K. Use in Microscopy
 X. PCB Activities  Not Authorized by this Rule
   A. Manufacture of PCB Capacitors
   a Manufacture of PCB Transformers
   C Other PCB Activities
 XL Manufacturing, Processing, and
                Distribution in Commerce of PCBs for
                Export
              XIL Test Procedures for PCB
              XQL Compliance and Enforcement
              XIV. Relationship of PCB Disposal Under
                TSCA to Hazardous Waste Disposal Under
                RCRA
              XV. Summary of Economic Consequences
              1. Summary of the Rule's Organization
                Subpart A (§§ 761.1 and 781.2) of this
              rule contains general provisions
              applicable to all other Subparts. Section
              761.1 states the applicability of the
              provisions of the rule. Section 761.2
              contains definitions of terms used in the
              rule. Subparts B (| 761.10) and C
              (§ 761.20) contain disposal and marking
              requirements. Subpart D (85 761.30 and
              761.31) concerns the manufacturing,
              processing, distribution in commerce,
              and use of PCBs. Section 761.30 contains
              prohibitions on activities while § 761.31
              sets out authorizations under TSCA
              section 6(e)(2)(B). Subpart E contains
              Annexes to the rule concerning
              incineration of PCBs. chemical waste
              landfills, storage for disposal,
              decontamination, marking, and records
              and monitoring.
                The preamble to this rule primarily
              describes changes from the proposal
              Except to the extent that it is
              inconsistent with this final rule
              preamble, the preamble to the proposed
              rule (43- ft 24802. June 7,1978) is
              incorporated by reference into this
              document and should be consulted for
              additional information (see 43 FR 24602-
              24812. June 7,1978). The contents of this
              preamble are summarized in Table 1.
              The amount of PCBs used in different
              PCB activities and  the impact this rule
              will have on these PCBs is summarized
              in Table 2.
               TOM* *.—QUOTUM vi «*• MM ti fCt MtwWM'
                                        **jnm union
. 2MOOOOOO
. -400.000
. S.000.000
 MOOB.
. 790-3400
. 40.000-IOUOO
. .   t'l
 1 TOO/*
                                        205000000     0
                                        .400000  ..   . I
                                        1000000    .. S.000.000'
                                        14000 _  .  . 14000'
                                      _ 790-0900  ..  . 790 MOO •
                                      . 40.000-tmMO .  •0.000-HO.
                                           C>      *.
                                        9.700V       J 700/w '
                                        MOOO-JO.OOO . _ a.
                                                    (•!
.MLOOO-OOS) 	2« 500 000 .
ioo.orxMoo.oor.wy
32.000/v*
-7SO.WO.OOO
           32.000/yr .  „
           - U3.300.0001
                                                  U.OQO/V
                                                  - 9 430 000
0. Changes in Major Definitions
A. "PCBa " and "PCB Items "
  This final rule changes the definition
of "PCB" from that contained in the
proposal in two significant respects. In
the proposed rule, $ 7613(qj defined
"PCB" and "PCBs" to include PCB
Chemical Substances. PCB Mixtures,
PCB Articles, PCB Equipment, PCB
Containers, and PCB Sealants, Coatings,
             and Dust Control Agents. Section
             761.2(8) of the final rule defines "PCB"
             and "PCBs" to mean any chemical
             substance or combination of substances
             that is limited to the brphenyl molecule
             that has been chlorinated to varying
             degrees. This definition is essentially
             what the proposal defined as "PCB
             Chemical Substance". This  term and the
             term "PCB Mixture" have been deleted

-------
31516      Federal  Register / Vol. 44.  No. 106  /  Thursday,  May 31, 1979  /  Rules and Regulations
from the rule. Because some provisions
in the rule apply to concentrations of
PCBs below SO ppm (e.g., the ban on the
use of PCBs as sealants, coatings, and
dust control agents), the applicability
section (§ 761.1(bJ) explains that
wherever the term "PCB" or "PCBs" is
used in this rule, it means PCBs at a
concentration of 50 ppm or greater
unless otherwise specified.
  The second principal change is the
addition of a new term, "PCB Item",
defined  as "any PCB as it is a part'of, or
contained in, any TCB Article', 'PCB
Article Container', 'PCB Containers' or
'PCB Equipment', at a concentration of
50 ppm or greater" (see 5 761.2(x)). This
change significantly affects the scope of
the  manufacturing ban. (See preamble
section VU3.1. below.)
B. Regulation of PCBs at the SO ppm
Concentration Level
  To implement this rule in a practical
manner, it is essential that  EPA adopt a
regulatory cut-off point based upon the
concentration of PCBs. PCBs are widely
dispersed in the environment and are
found worldwide at low concentration.
This wide dispersion has occurred
because hundreds of millions of pounds
of PCBs have been used in  the past with
little or no attempt to control their use or
disposal. Because PCBs are now so
pervasive, the effect of not  having a cut-
off concentration would be to extend the
prohibitions and other requirements of
section 6(e) of TSCA to almost all
human activity. Many foods, such as
fish and milk, as well as the human
body often contain detectable
concentrations of PCBs.
  The final rule applies to any
substance, mixture, or item with 50 ppm
or greater PCB. This 50 ppm cut-off was
proposed as a change from the Disposal
and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150, February
17,1978), which specified a 500 ppm cut-
off. (See definition of "PCB Mixture" in
that rule (5 761.2(w). 43 FR 7157).}
  Where td set the cut-off point for the
PCB rule has been an issue throughout
the development of both the Disposal
and Marking Rule and the Ban Rule. The
preamble to the proposed Disposal and
Marking Rule (see 42 FR 28564, May 24.
1977) first discussed the issue under the
heading "PCB Mixtures, Waste
Materials, and Sludges". The preamble
to the final Disposal and Marking Rule
discussed the issue further under the
heading "Changes in S 761.2 Definitions"
(see 43  FR 7151. February 17,1978). This
discussion stated that EPA was
seriously considering lowering the PCB
concentration in the definition of "PCB
Mixture" from 500 ppm to possibly 50
ppm. The preamble to the proposed Ban
Rule emphasized that EPA must select a
cut-off point that it can reasonably
administer in order to attain the
objectives of §6(e) of TSCA (see 43 FR
24804, June 7,1978).
  Before selecting 50 ppm PCB as the
cut-off point, EPA considered several
other options, including retaining the SCO
ppm PCB cut-off originally specified in
the Disposal and Marking Rule, and
lowering the cut-off concentration to 10
ppm or even 1 ppm. The 500 ppm PCB
option was favored by affected
industries because it would reduce the
costs of complying with the rule, but no
evidence was presented that indicated
that industry is technologically or
economically unable to comply with the
more stringent standard. In fact in this
final rule, EPA is easing the economic
burden of complying with the more
stringent standard by allowing
alternative disposal  methods for certain
wastes containing between 50 ppm and
500 ppm PCB.
  Lowering the PCB cut-off point from
500 ppm to 50 ppm will result in
substantially increased health and
environmental protection. Using data
developed by Versar, Inc. of Springfield.
Virginia, EPA estimates that
approximately one million additional
pounds of existing PCBs will be
controlled by lowering the cut-off to 50
ppm. In addition, from 100,000 to 500,000
pounds per year (estimated from
manufacturing exemption petitions) of
new PCBs will be controlled. Because
Congress intended that EPA address the
problem of contamination of the
environment by PCBs to the greatest
extent possible, EPA believes that
regulating this substantial additional
amount of PCBs is justified.
  Lowering the cut-off concentration to
10 ppm PCB would provide an
additional degree of environmental
protection but would have a grossly
disproportionate effect on the economic
impact and would have a  serious
technological impact on the organic
chemicals industry. Although firm data
are not available, investigations have
indicated that a number of chlorinated
organic chemicals are produced with
PCB concentrations  of 10 ppm to 30 ppm
and that it may be very difficult
technically to alter the production
processes to produce lower levels of
PCBs or eliminate them. In addition, a 10
ppm concentration cut-off would also
substantially increase the scope of the
disposal requirements, especially for
soils, debris, and solvents contaminated
with low concentrations of PCBs. Those
wastes would be added to the total
quantity of waste at these PCB disposal
sites. Since PCB disposal site capacity is
limited, these additional wastes would
add to the volume of wastes stored at
PCB storage facilities. Illegal disposal of
PCB wastes and inadvertent releases of
PCBs into the environment are more
likely to occur when disposal capacity is
not readily available.
  EPA recognizes that increased
environmental benefits could result if
additional PCBs were destroyed or
controlled by regulating PCBs at very
low concentrations. These potential
benefits would be negated, however, if
high-concentration PCB wastes are not
properly disposed of because the limited
disposal capacity for PCB wastes and
EPA's surveillance and enforcement
efforts are diverted to low concentration
wastes. In addition, other authorities
administered  by EPA, such as the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act can be used to regulate low
concentrations of PCBs. EPA has the
ability to control environmental releases
of certain low concentration PCBs
through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (section 402 of
CWA), through  dredging permits (§ 404
of CWA) and through toxic effluent
standards and prohibitions (section
307(a)ofCWA).
  The arguments against a cut-off of 10
ppm are pertinent to a cut-off of 1 ppm
to an even greater extent. Foods, such as
milk and fish, and even the human body
itself often contain PCBs at this low
concentration. For these reasons, EPA
also decided not to adopt a cut-off of 1
ppm.
  After reviewing the public comments,
informal hearing testimony, and other
information in the rulemaking record
and then evaluating  the available
options, EPA concludes that retaining
the PCB cut-off limit at 50 ppm provides
adequate protection for human health
and the environment while defining a
program that EPA can effectively
implement.
  The major exception in the rule to the
50 ppm limit is the prohibition of the use
of waste oil as a sealant coating, or dust
control agent  if the waste oil contains
any detectable concentration of PCB.
This prohibition is necessary to prevent
the use of PCB-contaminated materials
in ways that result in direct and-
widespread environmental
contamination. Road oiling, other dust
control, pipe coating, and spraying of
vegetation permit substantial direct
entry of PCBs into the air and
waterways and may introduce PCBs into
the food chain.

-------
           Federal Register / VoL 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May  31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations       31517
C. Classification of Transformer* Under
This Rule

  This role establishes four categories of
transformers: 1) PCB Transformers; 2)
PCB-Contaminated Transformers; 3)
Non-PCB Transformers; and 4> Railroad
Transformers. Railroad Transformers
are discussed in the preamble section
DCJJ. The other three categories are
discussed immediately below.

  PCB Transformers

  PCB Tranformers are transformers
tha* contain PCBs at a concentration of
500 ppm or greater. This category
includes transformers that were
designed to use concentrated PCBs (40
percent or greater PCBs) as a dielectric
fluid, as well as transformers that wen
not designed to use concentrated PCBs
but contain 500 ppm or greater PCB. The
higher concentration of PCB could result
from an unusual contamination incident
at the manufacturing facility, from
careless servicing operations, or from
deliberate attempts to use concentrated
PCBs as a dielectric fluid. The selection
of 500 ppm as the lower limit defining a
PCB Transformer is directly related to
the selection of limits for defining PCB-
Contaminated Transformers. This is
discussed in section C.2 immediately
below.
  A transformer must be assumed to be
a PCB Transformer if any one of the
following conditions exist: (1) the
nameplate indicates that the transformer
contains PCB dielectric fluid: (2) the
owner or operator has any reason to
believe that the transformer contains
PCB dielectric fluid; or (3) the
transformer's dielectric fluid has been
tested and found to contain 500 ppm or
greater PCB. If a transformer does not
have a nameplate or if there is no
information available to indicate the
type of dielectric fluid in it, the
transformer must be assumed to be a
PCB Transformer unless it is tested and
found to contain less than 500 ppm PCB.
This category of transformers is defined
in the rule in § 761.2(y).

2. PCB-Contaminated Transformers

  PCB-Contaminated Transformers are
transformers that contain between 50
ppm and 500 ppm PCB. This category
includes transformers that were
designed to use PCB-free mineral oil
dielectric fluids but now contain
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm of PCBs
because of contamination that occurred
in manufacturing or servicing
operations. Available data indicate that
as many as 38 percent of the 35,000,000
mineral oil transformers contain
between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs but that
PCB concentrations above 500 ppm in
such transformers are rare. Based on
these data. EPA is specifying 50 to 500
ppm as the range of PCB concentration
defining PCB-Contaminated
Transformers. The data also support the
requirement that all mineral oil
transformers must be assumed to be
PCB-Contaminated Transformers unless
tested and found not to contain between
50 and 500 ppm PCB.
  The upper limit of 500 ppm is a
practical cut-off because it includes
virtually  all mineral oil transformers
that are substantially contaminated with
PCBs and it coincides with the February
17,1978 PCB Disposal and Marking Rule
limit for defining a "PCB Transformer".
Because most of the requirements of this
rule apply only to PCB concentrations of
50 ppm or greater {see preamble section
H.B above), 50 ppm is the logical choice
for a lower limit for PCB-Contaminated
Transformers.
  As discussed  in section C.4 below.
PCB Transformers may be converted to
PCB-Contaminated Transformers by
draining and replacing the dielectric
fluid as long as the replacement Quid is
between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs after
three months of in-service use. The term
PCB-Contaminated Transformer is
defined in § 761.2(z).

3. Non-PCB Transformers

  Non-PCB Transformers are
transformers that contain less than 50
ppm PCB. No transformer may ever be
considered to be a Non-PCB
Transformer unless its dielectric fluid
has been tested or otherwise verified to
contain less than 50 ppm PCB. A person
who tests his transformers to classify
them as Non-PCB Transformers should
also take precautions to insure that
these transformers are not later
contaminated in servicing operations.
Addition  of PCB-contaminated fluid, for
example, may result in PCB levels over
50 ppm.
  Non-PCB Transformers are not
specifically covered by this rule.
However, it is possible that the
dielectric fluid in these transformers
may contain a detectable, but less than
50 ppm PCB concentration. In this case,
the rule's prohibition of the use of waste
oil containing any detectable PCBs as a
sealant, coating, or dust control agent
would be applicable when the dielectric
fluid is removed from the transformer.
The term Non-PCB Transformer is not
defined in the rule.

4. Discussion of Transformer Categories
  The owner or operator of a
transformer must ascertain which of
these three categories, PCB Transformer,
 PCB-Contaminated Transformer, or
 Non-PCB Transformer, is applicable. In
 determining this, a person must make
 certain assumptions, as discnssnd
 below.

 a. Determining Appropriate Categories

   Transformers originally designed to
 use concentrated PCBs usually have a
 nameplate indicating that they contain
 PCB dielectric fluid. Such transformers
 must be assumed to be PCB
 Transformers unless tested and found to
 contain less than 500 ppm PCB. The
 same assumption must also be made if
 there is any other reason to believe that
 a transformer was designed to use
 concentrated PCB fluid or was ever
 filled with such fluid. If a transformer
 does not have a nameplate or if there is
 no information available to indicate the
 type of dielectric fluid in it the
 transformer must be assumed to be a
 PCB Transformer.
  If the owner or user has serviced the
 transformer to reduce the PCB
 concentration below 500 ppm, he cannot
 simply assume that the PCB reduction
 process was successful. Because PCBs
 can continue  to leach out of transformer
 windings after refilling with dielectric
 fluid containing less than 50 ppm PCB.
 the owner must test to determine the
 PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid
 if he wants to reclassify such a
 transformer. The test must be performed
 only after the transformer has been in
 use for three months or longer after the
 most recent servicing intended to reduce
 the PCB concentration. If this test shows
 the transformer dielectric fluid to
 contain between 50 ppm and 500 ppm
 PCB, then the transformer can be
 reclassified as a PCB-Contaminated
 Transformer.  If the PCB reduction was
 successful enough to reduce the PCB
 concentration below 50 ppm, then the
 transformer would be a Non-PCB
 Transformer.  Owners or operators of
 reclassified transformers must retain
 records of their tests in order to be able
 to demonstrate compliance with the
 redassification requirements.
  Because of the widespread PCB
 contamination of transformers that were
 designed to use PCB-free mineral oil
 dielectric fluid, all such mineral oil
 dielectric fluid transformers must be
 assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
 Transformers, unless reasons exist to
 believe that a transformer was filled
 with greater than 500 ppm PCB fluid (in
 which case the assumption is that the
 transformer is a PCB Transformer). The
 owner or operator has the option of
 testing the dielectric fluid to determine if
 the PCB concentration is below 50 ppm.
This testing must be performed on the

-------
31518      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday, May 31.  1979 / Rules and  Regulations
dielectric fluid that is in the transformer.
If the PCS concentration in the dielectric
fluid is below 50 ppm, then the
transformer may be considered a Non-
PCB Transformer.
  If any 500 ppm or greater PCS fluids
are added to a collection tank, the entire
tank contents must be considered to be
greater than 500 ppm PCBs and be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements found in Annex I of the
rule. (In other parts of this preamble this
will be referred to as an Annex I
incinerator.) The tank contents cannot
be used as dielectric fluid; the tank
contents must be disposed of. In
addition, PCB-free or low concentration
PCB fluids cannot be added to the tank
in order to dilute the tank contents to a
level below 50 ppm PCBs and avoid
more stringent disposal requirements.
High concentration PCBs must be
disposed of in accordance with the
applicable requirements even if the
concentration of PCBs could be or is
actually lowered by dilution. This
requirement is intended to prevent the
deliberate dilution of concentrated PCBs
to evade the more stringent disposal
requirements  that apply to such liquids.
In addition, to permit dilution in this
way would result in greater
dissemination of PCBs and,
consequently, greater human and
environmental exposure to PCBs. The
use of collection tanks for mineral oil
dielectric  fluid is discussed further in
preamble  section OLE.
b. Significance of Transformer
Categories
  The three categories of transformers
are subject to different disposal,
rebuilding, and storage requirements
under these rules. Fluids from Non-PCB
Transformers (with less than 50 ppm
PCBs) have one disposal restriction:
they cannot be used as a sealant,
coating, or dust control agent if they
contain any detectable PCB. Fluids  from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers (with
50 ppm or 500 ppm PCBs) must be
disposed of in high efficiency boilers,  in
approved chemical waste landfills,  or in
Annex I incinerators. (See section III.A
below). Fluids from PCB Transformers
(concentrations of 500 ppm or greater)
must be disposed of only by high
temperature incineration.
  Other significant activities for which
the categories have different
requirements are servicing (including
rebuilding) and disposal (of the
transformer coil and casing). PCB-
Contaminated Transformers are subject
to no restrictions on servicing (including
rebuilding) or coil and casing disposal
except that after July 1.1979. servicing
of PCB-Contaminated Transformers
must be performed either by the owner
or operator or by someone who has an
exemption from the processing and
distribution in commerce bans. The
major advantage of recategorizing a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer to Non-
PCB Transformer is that no exemption
would be needed for servicing and that
simpler dielectric fluid disposal
requirements would apply.
  The servicing and disposal of PCB
Transformers are subject to more
stringent restrictions. Any servicing of
PCB Transformers that requires the
removal of the coil from the casing is
prohibited and PCB Transformer coils
and casings must be disposed of either
in an Annex Q chemical waste landfill
or in an Annex I high temperature
incinerator. Any fluid removed from a
PCB Transformer being serviced must
either be reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in an Annex I incinerator.
Any fluid removed from a PCB
Transformer that is being disposed of
must be disposed of in an Annex I
incinerator. Servicing that does not
require the removal of the coil can  be
performed, but persons who process or
distribute PCBs in commerce for
purposes of servicing must be granted
an exemption by EPA. Consequently,
recategorizing a PCB Transformer to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer by
lowering the PCB concentration would
permit rebuilding of the transformer,
simplify future disposal, and permit
salvage of the casing and coil.
Rebuilding may be especially important
to owners of transformers that are  used
in special applications or have unique
design characteristics and that cannot
be readily replaced in the event of a
failure.

D. Totally Enclosed Manner and
Significant Exposure

  The definitions of these terms are
basically unchanged from those
contained in the proposed rule. See the
preamble to the proposed rule (43 FR
24805-6, June 7,1978) for a discussion of
these terms.

E. Sale for Purposes Other Than Resale

  Two modifications have been made to
this definition. First, sale for purposes of
research and development is not
considered to be for purposes other than
resale. The proposed rule excluded all
activities involving small quantities of
PCBs for research and development (as
defined in § 7B1.2(ee)). The final rule
includes such activities within its scope
and authorizes the processing and
distribution in commerce of small
quantities for research and development
until July 1.1979 (after which
exemptions would be required to
continue thetfe activities) and authorizes
use of such quantities until July 1,1984
(see preamble section IX.J).
  The second change concerns leasing
of PCB Equipment. The proposed rule
would have required that PCB
Equipment be leased for a minimum of
one year. The final rule provides that the
lease period may be for any period of
time provided that the lease begins
before July 1,1979. The import and
export of leased equipment will require
an exemption after July 1,1979 (see
preamble section VLB.l.b).

F. Other Definition Changes

  The definitions of "Chemical Waste
Landfill" {§ 781.21(f)) and "Incinerator"
(§ 761.2(1)) have been modified in a
minor way to reflect more closely the
proposed definitions developed for these
facilities under the Hazardous Waste
Regulations developed pursuant to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The changes do not affect
the criteria for these facilities in
Annexes I and II of the PCB Disposal
and Marking Rule.
  Definitions for "Byproducts"
(§ 761.2(c)) and "Impurity"  (§ 761.2(k))
have been added. These definitions are
the same as those promulgated in EPA's
inventory regulation under  section 8 of
TSCA (42 FR 84572). (See preamble
section VI.C.1.J

m. Changes in Subpart B: Disposal of
PCBs and PCB Items

A. Mineral Oil Dielectric Fluid With 50
to 500 ppm PCB

  The proposed rule would have
changed the PCB Disposal and Marking
Rule by requiring all PCBs containing 50
ppm or more PCB  to be disposed of in  an
incinerator meeting the requirements of
Annex I. This requirement would have
increased the quantity of liquid to be
incinerated over the next 30 to 40 years
from 300 million pounds to  at least 3
billion pounds, with proportional
increases in costs (see the Versar
Report). This increase would also have
severely strained available incineration
capacity. EPA was concerned about the
impact of this requirement  and
requested comments on the use of high
temperature boilers for incinerating PCB
contaminated mineral oil

1. High Efficiency Boilers

  A substantial number of  comments
stated that power generation facilities
could provide an environmentally safe
alternative for burning PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. EPA reviewed

-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31.  1979 / Rules and Regulations       31519
 the comments and investigated the
 feasibility of permitting the use of
 boilers as a disposal option. After
 exploring this  matter with combustion
 experts. EPA concluded that there are
 boilers capable of adequately
 incinerating PCB-contaminated mineral
 oil. These boilers (which can be referred
 to as "high efficiency boilers") include
 power generation boilers and industrial
 boilers that operate at a high
 combustion efficiency (99.9%). as
 defined by the carbon monoxide
 concentrations and excess oxygen
 percentages in the combustion
 emissions.
  These boilers are capable of achieving
 a PCB destruction efficiency of 99.9% or
 greater. This destruction efficiency is
 somewhat lower than the estimated
 99.9999% or greater destruction
 efficiency that an Annex I incinerator
 can achieve. However, this disposal
 alternative is restricted to PCB-
 contaminated mineral oil of low PCB
 concentration  (50-500 ppm) and offers a
 substantial reduction in disposal costs
 (over $13 million per year). Given the
 99.9% destruction efficiency for PCBs in
 high efficiency boilers, only 10 more
 pounds of PCB would enter the
 environment annually as compared to
 the amount released from high
 temperature incinerators under Annex I.
 (This estimate  is derived from Versar
 data).
  After considering these factors. EPA
 concluded that disposing of PCB-
 contaminated mineral oil containing  50
 to 500 ppm PCB in high efficiency boilers
 does not present an unreasonable risk to
 human health or the environment.
 However, for the reasons explained in
 section in.B, only PCB-contaminated
 mineral oil will be permitted to be
 burned in boilers without specific
 approval by the appropriate EPA
 Regional  Administrator. A discussion of
 the burning of other low concentration
 PCB wastes also is found in section III.B.
2. Conditions for Boilers

  Based on the conclusions stated
 above, the final rule permits the burning
 of PCB-contaminated mineral oil with a
 concentration below 500 ppm in high
 efficiency boilers if the following
 conditions are  met: (1) the boiler is rated
 at a minimum of 50 million BTU/hour,
(2) the mineral  oil is no more than ten
 percent of the total fuel feed rate; (3)  the
mineral oil is not added to the
 combustion chamber during boiler start-
 up or shut-down operations; (4) before
commencing the burning of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. the owner or
operator has conducted tests and
determined that the combustion
 emissions contain at least three percent
 (3%) excess oxygen and the carbon
 monoxide concentration does not
 exceed 50 ppm for oil or gas-fired boilers
 or 100 ppm for coal-fired boilers: (5) the
 company has notified the appropriate
 EPA Regional Administrator at least 30
 days before the company uses its high
 efficiency boiler for this purpose and
 has supplied the notice with the
 combustion emissions data as specified
 in (4) above; (6) the combustion process
 is monitored either continuously or,  for
 boilers burning less than 30,000 gallons
 of mineral oil annually, at least once
 each hour that PCB-contaminated
 mineral oil is burned,  to determine the
 percentage of excess oxygen and,the
 carbon monoxide level in the
 combustion emission; (7) the primary
 fuel and mineral oil feed rates are
 monitored at least every 15 minutes
 whenever burning PCB-contaminated
 mineral oil; (8) the carbon monoxide and
 excess oxygen levels are checked at
 least once an hour and. if they fall
 below the specified levels, the flow of
 mineral oil to the boiler is immediately
 stopped: and (9) records are maintained
 that include the monitoring data in (6)
 and (7) above and the quantities of PCB-
 contaminated mineral oil burned each
 month. When burning mineral oil
 dielectric fluid, the boiler must operate
 at a level of output no less than the
 output at which the reported carbon
 monoxide and excess  oxygen
 measurements were taken. The Regional
 Administrator has to be notified only
 before the first burning of PCB-
 contaminated mineral oil in the boiler.
 The conditions are intended to prevent
 the introduction of PCBs into boilers
 when combustion conditions are not
 optimum for the destruction of PCBs.
 The level of 30,000 gallons per year was
 chosen as the cut-off for continuous
 monitoring because, (1) EPA believes
 that boilers burning 30.000 gallons or
 more per year of PCB-contaminated
 mineral oil would be burning on a
 regular basis and therefore should
 continuously monitor CO and excess O*
 and (2) a boiler burning this quantity of
 mineral oil annually will incur more
 than sufficient savings- over high
 temperature incineration or chemical
 waste landfill disposal costs to offset
 the added costs of continuous
 monitoring. However, a person whose
 boiler does not meet these requirements
 but who can demonstrate that the boiler
 will destroy PCBs as efficiently as a high
 efficiency boiler may seek specific
 approval from the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator under
 § 761.10(aK2)(iv).
   EPA plans to monitor the use of these
 boilers closely and will carefully
 analyze the effectiveness of this
 disposal option.

 3. Other Disposal Alternatives
   Alternatively, any PCB-contaminated
 mineral oil dielectric fluid (with a PCB
 concentration less than 500 ppm) may be
 disposed of either in an incinerator
 complying with Annex I or, under
 special conditions (see section UI.C
 below),  in a chemical waste landfill
 complying with Annex Q. These landfills
 will provide a disposal option less costly
 than Annex I incineration for owners or
 users of PCB-contaminated mineral oil
 who do not have access to high
 efficiency boilers. EPA believes that
 only small quantities of dielectric fluid
 will be disposed of in landfills because
 high efficiency boilers or incinerators
 will be available for most of the waste
 fluids.
  The impact on human health and the
 environment from disposing -of these
 wastes in chemical waste landfills is
 discussed in the preamble section III.B
 below.

 B. Other Liquid Wastes With 30 to 500
 pom PCB

  To provide thermal destruction
 alternatives for other low concentration
 liquid wastes containing less than 500
 ppm PCB. EPA has included in the rule a
 procedure that is comparable to the
 disposal alternatives for PCB-
 contaminated mineral oil. This
 procedure permits the disposal of these
 non-mineral oil fluids on a case-by-case
 basis in high efficiency boilers.
  Such approval can be granted if: (l)
 the boiler is rated at a minimum of 50
 million BTU/hour (2) the PCB-
 contaminated waste comprises no more
 than ten  percent (10%) of the total
 volume of fuel: (3) the waste will not be
 added  to the combustion chamber
 during  boiler start-up or shut-down
 operations; (4) the combustion emissions
 will contain at least three percent (3%)
 excess oxygen and the carbon monoxide
 concentration will be less than 50 ppm
 for oil or gas-fired boilers or 100 ppm for
 coal-fired boilers; (5) the combustion
 process will be monitored continuously
 or at least once  each hour that the PCB-
 contaminated wastes are being burned
 to determine the percentage of excess
 oxygen and the carbon monoxide level
in the combustion emissions; (6) the
 primary fuel and waste feed rates are
monitored at least every 15 minutes
whenever burning the waste; (7) the
carbon monoxide and excess oxygen
levels are monitored at least once an
hour and if they fall below the levels

-------
31520      Federal  Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
specified, the flow of wastes to the
boiler is stopped immediately: and (8)
records are maintained that include the
monitoring data in (5) and (6) above and
the quantities of PCB-contaminated
waste burned each month. When
burning PCS wastes, the boiler must
operate at a level of output no less than
the output at which the reported carbon
monoxide and excess oxygen
measurements were taken. These
requirements are similar to those for
high efficiency boilers used to burn PCB-
contaminated mineral oil.
  Persons seeking approval to use this
disposal alternative must submit an
application to the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator. The application
must contain information describing the
quantity of waste expected to be
disposed of each month, descriptive
information about the waste including
the concentrations of PCBs and other
chlorinated hydrocarbons, the results of
a number of standard fuel analyses to
determine the nature of the waste, BTU
heat value and flash point of the wastes,
and an explanation of the procedures to
be followed to insure that burning the
waste in the boiler will not adversely
affect the operation of the boiler such
that the combustion efficiency will
decrease. The information contained in
the applications will help the Regional
Administrator to assess whether these
high efficiency boilers will adequately
destroy these low concentration PCS
wastes.
  The cost of this alternative is greater
than the mineral oil disposal alternative
because approval application costs and
analytical costs are greater. However,
these costs will be less than the cost for
Annex I incineration or Annex n
chemical waste landfills. As a result the
quantity of low concentration PCB
wastes going to Annex I and Annex II
facilities should be reduced. In addition,
a person whose boiler does not meet
these requirements but who can
demonstrate that the boiler will destroy
PCBs as efficiently as a high efficiency
boiler may seek specific approval from
the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator under § 761.10(a)(3)(iv).
  These wastes are treated differently
than PCB-contaminated mineral oil
dielectric fluid because they tend to be
more varied in composition than
contaminated mineral oil. In many
cases, these fluids are fire or heat
resistant and could reduce PCB
destruction efficiency. For example,
unlike mineral oil, PCB-contaminated
hydraulic fluid wilt require the addition
of more primary fuel for it to burn in the
manner necessary to destroy the PCBs.
C. Disposal of 50 to SOOppm PCB
Liquids in Chemical Waste Landfills

  The rule also provides another new
disposal alternative not permitted in the
proposed rule. All liquid wastes with
less than 500 ppm PCB may be disposed
of in chemical waste landfills that
comply with the requirements of Annex
n. Allowing this additional disposal
option for low concentration liquid
wastes will reduce disposal costs and
increase the availability of Annex I
incinerators to destroy high
concentration wastes.
  This disposal alternative is limited to
those low  PCB concentration (50-500
ppm) wastes that are not considered
ignitable wastes. A waste is considered
ignitable if its flash point is less than 60*
C (140* F). This limitation is consistent
with the proposed Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
rules for disposal of hazardous  wastes
(43 FR 58948, December 18,1978).
  Properly designed and operated
chemical waste landfills are capable of
containing liquid wastes when the
liquids are stabilized in the disposal
process or contained in cells of sorbent
material, as required by this rule. EPA's
Office of Solid Waste recommends
mixing liquids with soils or solid wastes
in order to stabilize liquid wastes.
Alternatively, containers of the liquids
may be surrounded by enough inert,
sorbent material to absorb all of the
liquid in the container should the
container leak. These techniques will
effectively control the migration of PCBs
from the landfill site.  Use of such
landfills will result in only limited
exposures to PCBs. Almost all of the
exposure will occur during the liquid
stabilization process. This use of
chemical waste landfills is consistent
with hazardous waste disposal  policies
being proposed by EPA under RCRA
(see 43 FR 58946).
  Incineration of low concentration PCB
wastes is much more costly. To destroy
a small percentage of PCBs, a significant
volume of contaminated material must
be destroyed. The cost of incineration
per pound of PCB may be very high.
Disposal of low concentration liquid
PCBs in an Annex 0 chemical waste
landfill will greatly reduce these
disposal costs, free incineration
facilities for burning of high
concentration wastes, and produce little
increase in environmental or human
exposure to PCBs.
  Owners or operators of chemical
waste landfills already approved by
EPA for disposal of non-liquid PCBs and
PCB Items will have to request
additional approval to dispose of liquids
with low-concentrations of PCBs.
Guidance on proper procedures for
requesting such approval will be
provided for these owners or operators.
Owners and operators of chemical
waste landfills not yet approved for
disposal of PCBs will also have to
request specific permission to dispose of
such liquids.
D. Disposal of Non-Liquid PCBs in
Chemical Waste Landfills
  EPA has decided to permit the
disposal of non-liquid PCBs at any
concentration in chemical waste
landfills that meet the requirements of
Annex IL The Disposal and Marking
Rule permitted only persons with
contaminated soils and other solids
recovered from spills or removed from
old disposal sites to use this disposal
option. It would be inconsistent not to
permit this same disposal option for
other non-liquid PCB wastes such as
contaminated rags and absorbent
materials. These additional solids are
estimated to be only a small fraction of
the total non-liquid PCB wastes
generated. Providing this alternative
disposal method wiU permit more of the
currently available incineration capacity
to be used for high concentration liquid
wastes and will result in little additional
human or environmental exposure to
PCBs. For these reasons, EPA has made
this change in § 761.10(a){4) of the rule.
  In addition to disposal in Annex I
incinerators or Annex II chemical waste
landfills, dredge materials and
municipal sewage sludges that contain
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm PCB may
also be disposed of by any alternative
method approved by the  appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator (see
§ 761.10(a)(5){iii)). This provision is
unchanged from the Disposal and
Marking Rule, except that it now covers
these materials down to 50 ppm.
  EPA has received a petition from the
State of North Carolina regarding the
disposal of contaminated soil and debris
from spills (44 FR 13575, March 12.1979).
EPA is required to respond to the
petition by June 4.1979.
  The storage requirements of § 761.42
Subpart E apply to all of the low
concentration wastes discussed above
including substances containing
between 50 and 500 ppm PCB and will
help provide adequate protection
against spills.

E. Batch Testing of Mineral Oil
Dielectric Fluid

  Testing of mineral oil dielectric fluid
and waste oil from sources that are
otherwise assumed to contain PCBs at a
concentration between 50 ppm and 500

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday, May  31, 1979 / Rules  and Regulations
                                                                      31521
ppm can be performed on samples taken
from collection tanks ("batch testing"].
This is permitted so that oils from
multiple sources can be collected and
tested without requiring a separate test
of each transformer each time a disposer
wants to evaluate his disposal options.
  The prohibition against dilution.
however, has not changed. The new
testing option does not permit the
deliberate dilution of the collected oil
(assumed to contain PCBs above 50
ppm)  with PCB-free or low-PCB fluids to
reduce the concentration of PCBs in the
resultant mixture below SO ppm. Further,
the option does not permit the deliberate
addition of PCS wastes with
concentrations greater than 500 ppm to
the tank in order to avoid the m,ore
stringent disposal requirements for high-
concentration wastes. If such high-
concentration wastes are added to the
tank,  then the entire tank contents  must
be disposed of in compliance with
requirements for wastes containing 500
ppm PCBs or greater, even if a sample of
the aggregate tank contents reveals a
concentration below 500 ppm. In this
circumstance, the  tank contents cannot
be used as dielectric fluid; the tank
contents must be disposed of in a high
temperature incinerator.
  These restrictions are essential to
ensure that appropriate measures are
taken to destroy or dispose of PCB-
contaminated wastes. In developing the
final rule. EPA developed a balanced
approach to disposal by considering the
most appropriate means of disposing of
wastes with different PCS
concentrations in light of the risks to
human health and the environment.
Diluting or mixing PCB wastes as
described above to avoid proper
disposal upsets this balance and is a
violation of this rule. The proposed rule
would have required testing of each
transformer's fluid. The cost of batch
testing is substantially less than
individual source testing. In addition,
permitting testing from collection tanks
will result in very little additional
exposure of humans or the environment
to PCBs.
F. Other Changes in the Disposal
Requirements
  The disposal requirements for PCB
chemical substances and PCB mixture*
have been replaced by disposal
requirements for PCBs (5 781.10(a)). This
was necessary because of the revised
definition of PCBs  and the elimination of
the definitions of "PCB Chemical
Substances" and "PCB Mixtures".
  The disposal requirements for PCB
Articles other than PCB Transformers
and PCB Capacitors have been changed
 to permit these articles to be disposed of
 in a chemical waste landfill as well as in
 high temperature incinerators
 (§ 781.10(b)(4J). Examples of these
 articles include pipes, hoses, parts of
 heat transfer systems, electromagnets,
 and electric motors. Altogether, these
 articles account for less than one
 percent (1%) of the PCBs currently in use
 in the United States. When these
 articles are disposed of in chemical
 waste landfills, they must be drained of
 free flowing liquid. As a consequence,
 these articles will contain only small
 amounts of PCBs. Disposal of these
 articles in chemical waste landfills will
 add only small quantities of PCBs to the
 landfills and will result in little or no
 additional human and environmental
 exposure of PCBs.
  The final rule has a special disposal
 provision for hydraulic machines. These
 machines are difficult to transport as
 they frequently weigh many tons and
 can be'as large as a small building. In
 general, only a relatively small portion
 of the machine is contaminated with
 PCBs. For these reasons, instead of
 requiring disposal in a chemical waste
 landfill, the final rule permits disposal of
 hydraulic systems as municipal solid
 waste and salvaging of these machines
 after draining. The machines must first
 be drained of all free-flowing liquid. If
 the fluid contains more than 1000 ppm
 PCBs. the machines must be flushed
 with a solvent and thoroughly drained
 before disposal. After considering the
 cost of disposing of these machines in
 chemical waste landfills and the small
 quantities of PCBs that would remain in
 a properly drained machine. EPA
 concluded that disposal as municipal
 solid waste did not represent an
 unreasonable risk to health or the
 environment. For these same reasons, no
 special storage requirements have been
 included for properly drained machines.
  The final rule also permits PCB
 Containers that were used only to
 contain materials or fluids with PCB
 concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm
 to be disposed of as municipal solid
 waste. If these containers are well
 drained, as required by the rule, only
very small quantities of PCBs would
remain and these containers could be
 safely disposed of as municipal solid
 waste with little added exposure to
humans or the environment. For
example, if a drum containing 500 ppm
liquid waste is drained of 99% of the-
liquid. less than one gram of PCB would
remain in the drum. Disposers of these
containers will have to be able to
demonstrate that the containers only
contained PCBs-in concentrations of 50
to 500 ppm.
 IV. Changes in Subpart C: Marking of
 PCBs and PCB Items

   The PCB Disposal amd Marking Rule,
 as promulgated in February 1978,
 applied only to PCB and PCB Items that
 contained 500 ppm or greater PCBs.
 These requirements now extend to all
 PCB Items (including PCB Containers,
 PCB Article Containers. PCB Articles.
 PCB Equipment and PCB transport
 vehicles) that contain 50 ppm or greater
 PCBs. This modification makes the
 marking and disposal requirements
 consistent with the  final prohibition rule,
 which generally extends to all PCB
 Items with 50 ppm or greater PCBs, as
 discussed above.
   The extension of the disposal and
 marking requirements is essential to
 ensure that PCB Items regulated under
 this rule are properly identified,
 handled, and disposed of to minimize
 the potential risks of exposure to PCBs.
 To provide sufficient time to identify
 and mark PCB Items containing between
 50 and 500 ppm PCB. $ 761.20(e)
 provides that these PCB Items must be
 marked by October 1,1979.
   PCB-Contaminated Transformers are
 an exception to the policy described
 above and are not required to be
 marked. The cost of marking a very
 large number of PCB-Contaminated
 Transformers while they are in service
 would be extremely high. There are
 about 35 million PCB-Contaminated
 Transformers and. if it cost $10 to label
 each one. the total labeling cost would
 be about $350 million. Also, because
 EPA assumes that all transformers  other
 than PCB Transformers (which are
 required to be marked) are PCB-
 ContaaJnated Transformers, labels are
 not necessary.  An unmarked mineral oil
 transformer will automatically be
 assumed to be  a PCB-Contaminated
 Transformer unless it meets one of the
 criteria listed in preamble section II.C.1
 above. Although transformers at any
 time can be properly tested and found to
 be either a Non-PCB Transformer or a
 PCB Transformer, such testing would
 generally be performed only when
 disposal is contemplated. Consequently,
 labeling to differentiate such
 transformers from PCB-Contaminated
 Transformers would-have little practical
 value.
  Some PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may have already been
marked with the PCB Transformer mark
(especially in Michigan where State law
requires marking for trans-formers with
100 ppm PCB or greater). There is some.
concern that the label on the
transformer will determine the disposal
alternatives. This is to clarify that when

-------
31522      Federal Register / Vol.  44. No. 106 / Thursday. May  31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
a transformer is ready to be disposed of,
the owner or operator may choose
among the alternative disposal methods
applicable to the transformer in question
and permitted by this rule. (See
preamble section ILC, "Classification of
Transformers Under This Rule".}
  Marking of large capacitors is
relatively straightforward because
virtually all large capacitors were PCB-
filled until the past few years. Therefore,
any capacitor that cannot be shown to
be PCB-free by examining label or
nameplate information, must be
assumed to be a PCS Capacitor and
must be marked with the PCS mark.
  A new paragraph § 761.20(h). has
been added that requires that marks (or
labels) be placed on the exterior of PCB
Items and transport vehicles so that the
marks can be seen by interested
persons. This addition corrects an
oversight in the original Disposal and
Marking Rule.
  Section 781.20(1) has been added to
clarify that any marking requirements
for PCBs at concentrations less than 500
ppm manufactured after [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register],
including PCBs that are byproducts or
impurities, will be contained in the
exemption EPA grants to permit such
manufacture. However, any PCB Article
or PCB Equipment into which the PCBs
are processed must be marked in
accordance with the requirements found
elsewhere in Subpart C Those persons
who have submitted petitions to
manufacture chemicals with PCB
contamination pursuant to the
rulemaking procedures for the
manufacturing exemptions (43 PR 50905,
Novemoer 1.1978) are not required to
label any chemical that contains less
than 500 ppm PCB until EPA acts on
their petition. For example, persons who
have petitioned because they
manufacture PCBs as a contaminant at
less than 500 ppm or a pigment or other
commercial chemical product do not
have to label that product as containing
PCBs until after EPA acts on their
petition. Conversely, any containers of
any product that contains 500 ppm or
greater  PCBs must be labeled. This latter
requirement was included in the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule (43 PR 7150,
February 17,1978).

V. Changes hi Subpart Si Annexes

A. Annex L Incineration

   Section 761.40(a){2) establishes a new
value of 09.8% for the combustion
efficiency required of incinerators. This
is a correction of the earlier vahie of 99%
efficiency that waa specified in the
Disposal and Marking Rule. Specifically
incinerators operating at the
temperatures, dwell times, and excess
oxygen concentrations specified in
Annex I normally operate at a
combustion efficiency of 99.9% or
greater. A combustion efficiency of
99.9% thus more accurately represents
the true combustion efficiency of Annex
I incinerators. All incinerators that have
been approved or that are under
consideration for approval by EPA are
capable of operating at 99.9%
combustion efficiency; accordingly, this
modification should not disqualify these
incinerators or result in additional
operating expenses for these facilities.
finis change does not mean that those
incinerators already approved will be
required tojca^ply for approval to
operate.) Combustion efficiency is an
effective parameter for evaluating the
degree of destruction that occurs in an
incinerator, and it is essential that the
required value for this parameter
accurately reflect expected combustion
conditions.
  A change has been made to the CO*
monitoring requirement of § 781.40(a)(7).
The Disposal and Marking Rule required
continuous monitoring of the COt
concentration in the stack gas of the
incinerator. The rule has been changed
to require periodic CO, monitoring as
specified by the Regional Administrator.
This change was made for two reasons:
(1) the high  cost of the equipment
needed to continuously monitor CO*;
and (2) the inaensitivity of the
combustion efficiency calculation to
variations in the CO, concentration.
  The automatic shutoff of waste flow
that was required by the Disposal and
Marking Rule when certain operating
deficiencies occurred has been modified.
Owners or operators of an incinerator
may submit to the Regional
Administrator, when they apply for the
approval to incinerate PCBs, a
contingency plan outlining the corrective
steps they will take when operating
problems occur. This change provides
for greater flexibility for incinerator
operators and will result in no increased
human or environmental exposure since
the contingency plans will be examined
on a case-by-case basis by the Regional
Administrator for proper safeguards
before approval
  A new paragraph, S 761.40{d)(8), has
been added to clarify the responsibility
of the owner or operator of an approved
facility when the ownership of the
facility is transferred.

B. Annex Ik Chemical Waste Landfills

  Section 761.41(b) specifies
requirements for operational plans for
chemical waste landfills. These
requirements have been modified to
require delineation of the procedures to
be used for the disposal of liquids
containing between 50 ppm and 500 ppm
PCB. After EPA approves an operational
plan, the affected landfill operator must
follow those  procedures in disposing of
PCB wastes.
  Section 781.41(b){3) specifies that the
bottom of a chemical waste landfill must
be at least fifty feet above the historical
high water table. Because the distance
between the  bottom of the chemical
waste landfill and the water table in
many areas east of the Mississippi River
is far less than fifty feet EPA Regional
Administrators have had to waive this
criterion in several situations. While the
criterion in the final rule is unchanged
from the Disposal and Marking Rule.
EPA is proposing a modification of this
provision in a separate notice of
proposed rulemaking.
  The provisions in Annex 0 of the
Disposal and Marking Rule establishing
monitoring requirements for surface   "
water (§ 781.41(b)(8)(i)) have been
modified to allow the Regional
Administrator to designate the surface
watercourses that are to be sampled.
This minor change eliminates any
uncertainty about which watercourses
are to be sampled.
  Section 761.41(b)(7) includes
provisions for leachate collection in
chemical waste landfills. The Disposal
and Marking Rule specified that the
collection system be located under the
landfill liner system. The final rule
corrects this  provision and specifies that
the collection system be above the
landfill liner system. Collection systems
are placed above the liner to capture
liquids to protect and reduce hydraulic
pressure on the liner system. All
chemical waste landfills currently in use
have collection systems above the liner.
  A new paragraph, { 781.41(c)(7J. has
been addrato clarify the responsibility
of the owner or operator of an approved
facility when the ownership of the
facility is transferred.

C Annex III: Storage
1. Container Specifications

  The requirements of S 781.42(c)(6)
have been modified to clarify the five
types of Department of Transportation
(DOT)-approved containers that can be
used to store PCBs and ?<~J Items. The
Disposal and Marking Rule
(§ 781.42(c)(6)) stated that containers
used to store liquid PCBs must comply
with the DOT specifications set out in 49
CFR 173.346, which describe a broad
range of containers varying in size from
less than one gallon containers to

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979  / Rules and Regulations	31523
 railroad tank can. Since only five of
 these container specification! (5, 5B, 6D,
 17C, and 17ET) are appropriate for such
 PCS storage, the rule has been modified
 to refer only to these five DOT container
 specifications. This change should not
 be disruptive as industry already
 generally uses the containers included in
 these five DOT_specification« for PCS
 storage and handling.
  In addition, on August 2,1978. EPA
 published a clarification of § 761.42(c)(6)
 concerning PCS containers that
 provided for the use of special-sized
 containers for oversized PCS Articles  or
 PCB Equipment (43 PR 33918). This
 clarification is incorporated in the final
 rule.

 2. Bulk Storage

  A new subparagraph, § 781.42(c)(7).
 has been added to permit the use of
 large containers, such as storage tanks,
 for the storage of PCB liquids. This
 change is designed to allow safer
 transfer and storage of bulk PCBs. While
 the greatest risks of spills and exposure
 to PCBs may occur during transfer
 operations, transfers in bulk from
 storage tank (or tank truck) to storage
 tank are usually better controlled than
 transfers to or from drums. Accordingly,
 the modification should reduce the
 number of spills and the extent of
 exposure to PCBs during transfer
 operations.
  To permit bulk storage of liquid PCBs.
 EPA has had to add to the rule suitable
 standards for the containers or storage
 tanks that would be used. The
 Occupational Safety and Health
 Administration (OSHA) has prepared
 comprehensive tank specifications (29
 CFR Part 1910.106). These specifications
 are based on standards developed by
 Organizations such as the American
 Society of Mechanical Engineers
 (ASME) and the American Petroleum
 Institute (API) and are widely
 recognized as reasonable standards  that
 provide for  safe storage of hazardous
 substances. These specifications.
 however, are oriented to flammable and
 combustible liquids, which usually have
 a specific gravity of less than one. As
provided in the OSHA rules, when a
liquid's specific gravity is greater than
1.0 (which is the case with PCBs),
precaution must be taken to insure that
an adequate factor of safety exists when
designing new tanks or when evaluating
 the structural strength of existing tanks.
Liquids with such specific gravities are
heavier than water and will put greater
stress on the tanks. Accordingly,
 { 781.42(c)(7)(i) requires that this  factor
be taken into account to insure adequate
 structural safety of storage tanks used
 for PCBs.
   Owners or operators of bulk storage
 facilities will have to keep a record of
 the amounts added to and removed from
 the bulk containers. The records will be
 important in tracing waste shipments
 and enforcing the disposal and storage
 requirements. This requirement is
 similar to the requirement promulgated
 in the Disposal and Marking Rule for
 individual containers.
   Another factor in EPA's decision to
 allow bulk storage was the high cost of
 not permitting it. Considering just
 mineral oil dielectric fluid, there are
 about 1.73 billion gallons presently in
 use (see Versar Report). Assuming this
 oil would be disposed of over a 40 year
 period and that the cost of storing each
 55 gallon drum is $145 (see Versar
 Report Disposal and Marking  Rule), the
 annual storage cost would have been
 about $132 million. This value would
 have been larger in practice since new
 mineral oil brought into use after this
 year would also have been stored in the
 same way because of contamination
 from residual PCBs in the equipment.
 3. Spill Pnrontion Procedures

  Spill prevention procedures are
 necessary to provide adequate
 environmental protection during the use
 of PCB storage tanks permitted by
 § 761,42(c)(7). Some of the substances
 contained in these tanks may qualify as
 oils under section  311 of the Clean
 Water Act and. therefore, may be
 subject to the spill prevention provisions
 of 40 CFR Part 112. In order to provide
 equivalent control of PCB liquids that do
 not qualify as oils, the Spill Prevention
 Control and  Counter-measures (SPCC)
 provisions of the 40 CFR Part 112 have
 been incorporated with certain
 modifications into this rule. A wide
 cross section of U.S. industry is now
 using these procedures to protect
 against oil spills. Extending these
 requirements to non-oil PCBs should
 provide substantial environmental
 protection and should be easily
 complied with by industry.
  Those provisions of 40 CFR Part 112
 incorporated in this PCB rule have been
 modified to adapt them to the PCB
 activities regulated by § 761.42(c)(7) of
 this rule. Specifically, the Part 112 oil
 spill prevention requirements do not
 apply to tanks smaller than OWgallons
 and underground tanks smaller than
42,000 gallons. Because of the risks
 associated with spills of PCBs, these
 tank size exemptions do not apply to
containers or tanks containing PCBs at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. The
PCB rule also adds the requirement that
 the area between a storage tank and
 secondary containment dikes must be
 impervious to PCBs to prevent
 groundwater contamination.
   One provision of 40 CFR Part 112, the
 SPCC plan amendment procedures, is
 not currently applicable to PCBs. These
 procedures are triggered by a
 notification- requirement for oil spills.
 Because these notification requirements
 do not now apply to PCB spills, the
 SPCC plan amendment procedures are
 not applicable.
   EPA has proposed a spill prevention
 rule for hazardous substances (including
 PCBs) under section 311 of the Clean
 Water Act (43 FR 39276. September 1.
 1978). When this spill prevention rule is
 promulgated, the spill prevention
 provisions of this PCB rule will be
 revised to eliminate duplications or
 inconsistencies.

 4. Flood Protection

   The Disposal and Marking Rule
 required that storage areas be above the
 100 year flood level. The Agency is
 considering modifying the PCB rule to
 include the flood protection guidelines
 developed by the National Flood
 Insurance Administration (NFIA) which
 is part of the Department of Housing
 and Urban Development The Agency
 decided not to change the PCB rule at
 this time because the Hazardous Waste
 Regulations proposed under the
 Resource Conservation and Recovery
 Act have included a flood protection
 approach based on the NFIA program. If
 that approach is adopted when the
 Hazardous Waste Regulations are
 promulgated, the Agency will consider
 adopting a similar flood protection
 approach for PCB storage areas.

 5.  Temporary Storage
 a. Revisions

  The temporary storage of non-leaking
 PCB Articles and PCB Containers
 containing leaking articles was
 permitted for 30 days under the
 provisions of the Disposal and Marking
 Rule. This would enable electric utilities
 and others to consolidate their PCB
Items in a central facility and improve
management and recordkeeping for PCB
wastes. The proposal did not however,
permit PCB Containers of non-liquid
wastes, such as contaminated soil, to be
placed in temporary storage. Because
these containers of non-liquid waste do
not pose any greater hazard than the
containers of leaking articles,
§ 781.42fc)(l} of this rule modifies the
storage requirements to permit PCB
Containers of non-liquid waste to be

-------
31524      Federal Register / Vol 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
held in temporary storage for up to 30
days.
  Under the final rule, large quantities
of low concentration PCS liquids from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers must
be properly disposed of. The logistics of
immediately transporting liquids
drained from these transformers to a
single, permanent storage facility are
frequently difficult. Even though these
liquids pose less of a threat to health
and the environment when spilled than
do more highly concentrated PCB
liquids,  adequate spill prevention
remains essential. The final rule permits
the 30 day temporary storage of low
concentration (50 to 500 ppm PCBs)
liquids at facilities that have a SPCC
plan. That SPCC Plan must adequately
address storage of PCBs in relatively
small containers, such as 55-gallon
drums, which is not normally included
in such plans. This approach will insure
adequate environmental and human
health protection and will place little or
no additional burdens on facility owners
or operators.
  The final rule does not allow
temporary storage for high
concentration PCS liquids (above 500
ppm). Because of the potential harm
from an uncontrolled spill, temporary
storage of these concentrated liquids is
not permitted.
b. Action on Petitions To Amend Rule
on Temporary Storage Requirements
  Subsequent to the close of the reply
comment period. EPA received petitions
under section 21 of TSCA from
Commonwealth Edison. Consolidated
Edison Company, and the Edison
Electric Institute to amend § 761.42(c)(l)
(43 FR 7150, 7182, February 17,1978 and
43 FR 339ia 33920. August 2.1978) to
allow temporary storage of PCS
substances, mixtures, and PCB-
contaminated materials, such as rags
and  soil. Representatives of EPA met
with petitioners on January 24.1979 and
received written materials on that date
in support of the petitions. EPA wrote to
petitioners on February 9.1979 and
advised them that the Agency
considered the petitions to have been
filed on January 24.1979, the date when
written-and oral information in support
of the petitions was received.
  The actions on temporary storage of
PCBs and PCB Items described in
section V.C.5.a. above grant the
petitions in part and deny them in part.
The petitions are granted as to
temporary storage of PCB Containers of
non-liquid wastes, such as contaminated
soil  and rags. Such temporary storage is
now permitted under the conditions of
i 781. 42(c)(l)(iii). Similarly, the
 petitions are granted as to temporary
 storage of low concentration (50 to -500
 ppm PCBs) liquids. Such temporary
 storage is permitted under the
 conditions of § 761.42(c)(l)(iii).
 However, the petitions are denied as to
 temporary storage of high concentration
 PCB liquids (above 500 ppm). As noted
 in section V.C.S.a. of this preamble, the
 risk of potential harm from an
 uncontrolled spill, or a leak, is too great
 to permit temporary storage of such high
 concentration PCB liquids.

 D. Annex IV: Decontamination

  The decontamination requirements in
 Annex IV were changed in this rule to
 require flushing with a solvent
 containing less than 50 ppm PCB rather
 than 500 ppm PCB as previously
 promulgated. This change is based on
 lowering the cut-off concentration of
 PCBs from 500 ppm to 50 ppm. This
 change will further reduce the amount of
 residual PCBs in decontaminated
 containers.

 3. Annex V: Records and Monitoring

  A new paragraph. 5 761.45(d), has
 been added specifically to require
 chemical waste  landfill operators to
 retain records concerning the operation
 of the landfill. These records include the
 identity of the wastes they receive and
 where the wastes are placed in the
 landfill. This paragraph does not require
 the development of any new records but
 corrects an omission from the Disposal
 and Marking Rule.
  The final rule modifies § 781.45(b) and
 adds § 761.45(e) to provide for retention
-of records by owners or operators of
 high efficiency boilers. The requirements
 are similar to recordkeeping
 requirements for other PCB waste
 disposal alternatives, such as
 incinerators or chemical waste landfills,
 and are necessary for enforcement.

 VI. Subpart O: Manufacturing,
 Processing, Distribution in Commerce,
 and Use Bans

 \. Prohibitions

   Section 7B1.30(a) implements TSCA
 section 6(e)(2)(A), which prohibits the
 manufacture (including importation),
 processing, distribution in commerce,
 and use of PCBs and PCB Items in a
 manner other than a totally enclosed
 manner unless authorized under § 761.31
 of this rule. This prohibition also applies
 to the manufacture, processing,  and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs  and
 PCB Items intended solely for export
 (see preamble section XI below).
   Section 781.30(b) implements  TSCA
 $ 8(e)(3)(A)(i), which prohibits the
manufacture (including importation into
the United States) of PCBs after January
1.1979 unless an exemption is granted
for such manufacturers. This prohibition
applies to the manufacture (and
importation) of PCBs regardless of
whether they are manufactured in a
totally enclosed manner or they are
manufactured solely for export. This
prohibition does not apply to PCBs that
are imported solely for disposal (see
section B.2 below).
  Section 761.30(c) implements TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii), which prohibits
both the processing and the distribution
in commerce of PCBs and PCB Items
after July 1,1979 unless exemptions are
granted for such activities. This
prohibition applies to the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items regardless of whether the
Items are processed or distributed in a
totally enclosed manner or solely for
export. There are three exceptions to
these prohibitions.
  First, as provided in section 6(e)(3)(C]
of TSCA, PCBs or PCB Items that have
been sold for purposes other than resale
before July 1.1979. may continue to be
distributed after July 1,1979 in a totally
enclosed manner. Therefore, a person
who purchases before  July 1,1979, PCB
Equipment (such as computers,
television sets, or microwave ovens
containing PCB Capacitors) for his own
use, rather than for resale, may sell that
equipment after June 30,1979.
  Second, after July 1.1979; anyone may
process or distribute in commerce PCBs
or PCB Items for purposes of disposal  in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.10. Because TSCA treats disposal
separately from processing and
distribution in commerce,  the processing
and distribution in commerce
requirements generally are not intended
to interfere with the disposal
requirements. Section 761.30(c)(2)
explicitly states that processing and
distribution for purposes of disposal in
accordance with § 761.10 may continue
after July 1,1979.
  Third. PCBs or PCB Items may be
exported for disposal purposes despite
the general ban on export of PCBs and
PCB Items in § 761.30(c). Section
761.30(C)(3) requires persons to notify
EPA at least 30 days before they first
intend to export PCB wastes. This
provision is discussed further in section
B.2. below.

1. Waste Oil Bans
  Section 7B1.30(d) prohibits the use of
waste oil containing any detectable
concentration of PCBs as a sealant
coating, or dust control agent. Prohibited
uses include road oiling, general dual

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations       31525
 control, as a pesticide or herbicide
 carrier, and as a mat preventaUve on
 pipes. Waste oil is defined as used
 products primarily derived from
 petroleum, which include, but are not
 limited to, fuel oils, motor oils, gear oils.
 cutting oils, transmission Quids,
 hydraulic fluids, and dielectric fluids. In
 the proposed rule. "PCB Sealant
 Coating, and Dust Control Agent" was
 defined (§ 781.2(cc). 43 FR 24813) and
 was included in the term "PCB" for  the
 purpose of regulating these activities.
 Because the term "PCB Sealant, Coating.
 and Dust Control Agent" was deleted
 from the definition of "PCB" (see
 preamble section U.A.), it became
 necessary to specifically regulate these
 activities in § 781.30.
  Persons who process, distribute in
 commerce, or use waste oil must assume
 it contains PCBs unless the waste oil has
 been tested and found to contain no
 PCBs. Batch testing of waste oils is
 permitted. Waste oils that contain
 detectable concentrations of PCBs less
 than 50 ppm may be used as a fuel, as a
 feedstock in the production of re-refined
 oils and lubricants, or for any other
 purpose except as a sealant, coating, or
 dust control agent
  The use of waste oil containing any
 detectable concentration of PCBs as a
 sealant, coating, or dust control agent is
 banned because these uses result in
 rapid, direct entry of PCB into the
 environment. For example, the run-off
 from road surfaces frequently goes
 directly to rivers or streams. Once in the
 environment, PCB enters the food chain.
 causing a number of adverse effects.
 The dumping of waste oil (e.g., in a field)
 is considered use as a dust control agent
 and is prohibited by this rule. Waste oil
 is also used to coat water pipes  and  as a
 carrier for pesticides and herbicides.
 These uses  also result in  substantial
 direct entry of PCBs into  the
 environment and are prohibited.
 Although the PCB concentration in
 waste oil may be low, the large volume
 of waste oil that is used in these
 activities results in a large quantity of
 PCBs entering the environment.
 Approximately 8,500 pounds of PCB
enter the environment annually just
 from road oiling activities (see the
 Versar Report).

B. Changes in § 761.30: Prohibitions
  The following changes have been
made to § 761.30:

 /. Change in the Scope of the
Manufacturing Ban

  The proposed rule would have
considered the manufacture (and
importation) of PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment as the manufacture and
 import of PCBs. This approach would
 have had the effect of prohibiting the
 production (and importation) of PCB
 Articles and PCB Equipment after
 January 1,1979, under the provisions of
 section 6(e)(3)(A)(i) of TSCA. A targe
 number of commentors argued that to
 consider the production of PCB Articles
 and PCB Equipment to be
 "manufacture" was inconsistent with
 TSCA and other rules promulgated
 under TSCA. In addition, it was argued
 that if these activities are considered to
 be "manufacturing" PCBs, the term
 "processing" would have no meaning, as
 almost all commerical activities using
 PCBs prior to final sale or end use would
 be manufacturing activities.

 a. "Manufacturing" Versus "Processing"
 of PCB Items

   After considering the comments, EPA
 reexamined the "manufacturing" versus
 "processing" issue and concluded that
 PCB Article and PCB Equipment
 production is "processing" of PCBs, not
 "manufacture" of PCBs. This conclusion
 is based on an analysis of the activities
 of manufacturing, processing.
 distribution in commerce, and use with
 respect to chemical substances. EPA
 determined that "manufacturing" a
 chemical substance involves only the
 actual creation of the chemical
 substance (or of a substance
 contaminated with PCBs). The other
 activities are distinguished from
 "manufacturing" because  they involve
 the use of the already existing
 substance.  "Processing" PCBs includes
 activities such as placing previously
 manufactured PCBs into capacitors or
 transformers. While these activities may
 be referred to as "manufacturing" of
 PCB Articles, they do not involve the
 "manufacture" of the PCBs, only-the
 "processing" of PCBs. The "distribution
 in commerce" and "use" of PCBs
 generally coincides with the distribution
 and use of the PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment. Thus, the ban of PCB
 "manufacture" applies solely to the
 manufacture of PCBs, as defined in
 § 761.2(s). Bans of all other activities,
 namely processing, distribution  in
 commerce,  and use. apply  both to PCBs
 as a substance and PCB Items. This
 interpretation of the terms
 "manufacture" and "process" also
 accords with the manner in which
 Congress intended the requirements of
 section 6(e)(3) of TSCA to  be "phased-
 in" over time.
  The change in EPA's use of the terms
"manufacturing" and "processing" is
reflected in the definition of PCBs. The
proposed definition of "PCB" and
 "PCBs" included both PCB Article and
 PCB Equipment (see § 761.2(q) at 43 FR
 24813). The final rule changes the
 definition of "PCB" and "PCBs" in
 J 781.2(s) by applying these terms only
 to chemical substances (see preamble
 section H-A. for more detailed
 discussion). PCB Equipment and PCB
 Articles are no longer included in the
 definition of "PCB" and "PCBs" but are
 included in a separate term, "PCB
 Items", which is defined in § 781-2(x).

 b. Manufacture and Import of PCB Items

   The revised interpretation of
 "manufacture" and "processing" has
 two main effects. The first is to postpone
 the effective date of the prohibition
 under section 6(e)(3) of the manufacture
 of PCB Articles and PCB Equipment to
 July 1.1979 (unless EPA grants an
 exemption under section 6(e)(3)(B] of
 TSCA for continuation of such activities
 beyond that date). The continued
 production of PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment until July 1.1979, must
 however, be performed in a totally
 enclosed manner in order to avoid the
 prohibition on non-to tally enclosed
 processing of PCBs of section 8(e)(2). As
 a practical matter, this means that
 production of PCB Articles will be
 prohibited after July 2,1979, under
 section 6(e)(2) as a non-totally enclosed
 processing of PCBs. In general. PCB
 Equipment is produced in a totally
 enclosed manner and so this activity
 would not be prohibited until July 1,
 1979. The practical effect of the change,
 then, will be to allow continued
 production of PCB Equipment (such as
 television sets and microwave ovens)
 until July 1.1979 (see preamble section
 Vffl below).
  A second effect relates to the
 importation of PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment; here the issues are more
 complex. The TSCA definition of
 "manufacture" includes importation (see
 section 3(7) of TSCA). This means that
 the importation of any PCB or PCB Item
 is equated with manufacture, A literal
 interpretation of this definition in
 implementing TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(i)
 would mean that no person would be
 able to import any PCB or PCB Item
 after [30 days after publication in the
 Federal Register]. This would create an
 inequity between domestic
manufacturers and importers of PCB
Items. Specifically, domestic
manufacturers of PCB Items could
continue to manufacture and distribute
those PCB Items in commerce until July
1,1979. when the ban under section
6(e)(3)(A)(ii) is effective, while importers
would be prohibited from conducting the

-------
31526      Federal Regwter / Vol. 44, No.  106 / Thursday, May 31.  1979 / Rules and Regulations
same activity after [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register].
  The most straightforward way to
eliminate this inequity is to delay the
effective date of the prohibition on the
importation of PCS Items until July 1,
1979. This approach would eliminate the
inequity for importers of PCB Equipment
but create a different inequity for the
importers of PCB Articles. Domestic
production of PCB Articles, such as PCB
Capacitors and PCB Transformers, is
banned as of [30 days after publication
in the Federal Register] (even though
such production is PCB processing)
because this type of production cannot
be performed in a totally enclosed
manner. (Non-totally  enclosed
processing and other  activities are
prohibited after July 2,1979, by section
6(e)(2) of TSCA.) If the import
prohibition for PCB Articles is delayed.
PCB Articles could be imported into the
U.S. even though they could not be
manufactured in the U.S. The continued
importation of PCB Articles would
increase both the disposal problem
associated with PCB Capacitors and the
problems associated with use and
disposal of PCB fluids in transformers.
  Because of the inequities and disposal
problems associated with continued
importation, EPA is banning importation
of PCB Articles after July 2,1979.
Persons wishing to import PCB Articles
may petition EPA for an exemption from
this ban. This rule does permit
continued importation until July 1,1979,
of PCB Equipment, such as television
sets and microwave ovens, since these
items can be manufactured domestically
during  this period as they involve
"processing" PCB in a totally enclosed
manner. The effect of this rule is
essentially to treat domestic and foreign
manufacturers of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment equally. Such equal
treatment was intended and desired by
Congress.
  From a strict statutory perspective.
any importation of PCBs in any form,
including in PCB Items, is
"manufacturing" of PCBs -and prohibited
after [30 days after publication in the
Federal Register], by  TSCA section 6(e)
(2) and (3). Although domestic
production of PCB Items is best
described as PCB "processing",
importation of such items is best
described as importation of PCBs in the
item. The alternative would be to wholly
exclude such importation from the
coverage of section 6(e), a manifest
absurdity. But just as Congress
obviously did not intend such exclusion,
so too  it did not intend discriminatory
treatment. EPA, therefore, construes
section 6(e) as authorizing it to impose
parallel restrictions on PCB Item
production and importation and this is
what has been done.
  While domestic manufacturers and
importers both may continue to build or
import PCB Equipment (but not PCB
Articles) until July 1,1979. EPA will
strictly enforce the prohibition under
TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of processing
and distribution in commerce of PCBs
and PCB Items, including PCB
Equipment, after July 1,1979.
Accordingly, no one will benefit by
creating stockpiles of these items in the
next several months. The only
exceptions to these July 1,1979
prohibitions will be those activities for
which EPA grants an exemption.
  Any PCBs or PCB Items imported
pursuant to this rule must comply with
the import requirements and all other
requirements of this rule.

2. Import and Export of PCBs and PCB
Items for Disposal
  The proposed rule would have
prohibited any import or export of  PCBs
or PCB Items for any purpose. EPA has
reviewed this proposed policy and has
decided that because of the many
potential advantages of an open border
policy with respect to disposal of PCBs,
that EPA will adopt such a policy for at
least one year.
  In  theory, an open border policy
would be advantageous to  both the
United States and foreign countries,
especially Canada. Generators of PCB
wastes would be able to select the PCB
disposal site that offers the most
reasonable transportation and disposal
costs. The success of such a policy
depends, however, upon the availability
of facilities in'other countries to safely
dispose of PCB wastes. EPA is
concerned that foreign disposal
alternatives may not adequately destroy
the PCBs and create a threat to human
health  and the environment in the
United States.
  To date,  the United States has
approved seven PCB disposal sites and
is actively involved in evaluating other
potential sites. Other nations have not
made as much progress. If the United
States  were to adopt an open border
policy  without any qualifications, there
may be no  incentive for other nations to
develop PCB disposal sites. The United
States  would  probably receive a
disproportionate share of the
international PCB wastes. This disparity
could overload existing U.S. capacity
and impede public acceptance of PCB
disposal sites.
   The  one year time limit on the open
border policy will provide other nations
an opportunity to establish PCB disposal
sites. At the end of the one year period.
EPA will examine the progress made by
other nations in establishing and
operating safe PCB disposal sites and
determine if extension of the open
border policy is appropriate.
  The final rale, therefore, allows the
import and export of PCB wastes for
disposal for one year. All imported PCB
wastes must be disposed of in
accordance with Subpart B of this rule.
In preparing this final rule, EPA has
reviewed whether regulation of
imported and exported PCB wastes for
disposal should be accomplished under
section 6(e)(l) of TSCA or under section
6(e)(3). While section 6(e)(3)(A)(i) could
be read to allow regulation of the import
of PCB wastes for disposal, section 6(e)
treats PCB disposal as a  separate matter
under section 6(e)(l). Both the import
and export of PCB wastes for disposal
may be regulated under section 6(e)(l),
which allows  comprehensive regulation
of the disposal of PCBs. Accordingly,
EPA has elected to regulate import and
export of PCB wastes for disposal under
section 6(e)(l). Since the requirements
governing  disposal of PCB wastes must
be complied with for all imported PCB
wastes, no unreasonable risks should
result. Moreover, proper  disposal in this
country provides protection against
possible hazards from improper disposal
elsewhere.
  Other imports and exports of PCBs
and PCB Items are regulated as
elsewhere described in this preamble
under sections 6(e)(2), 6(e)(3), and/or
section 12. All imports and exports of
PCBs and PCB Items remain subject to
the applicable disposal and marking
requirements under section 6(e)(l).
  Under RCRA. EPA expects to
establish a manifest system for
hazardous wastes that will monitor the
disposal of PCBs and other hazardous
wastes imported into the U.S. This
system should be in  effect in 1980. No
notification system for imports of PCB
wastes for disposal will be established
in this rule because of potential
confusion with the forthcoming RCRA
program. All importers of PCB wastes
will be required to maintain records, as
provided in Annex VI of this rule.
  With respect to exports, § 761.30(c)(3)
of this rule requires that persons
exporting PCBs and  PCB Items for
disposal notify EPA  at least 30 days
before the first export of wastes. The
initial notice should identity the owner
of the waste, the expected annual
volume of wastes to be exported, a
description of the intended methods of
disposal, the precautions to be taken to
control release into the environment
and the identity of the receiver of the

-------
           Federal  Register /  VoL  44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations      31527
 wastes. Quarterly reports of actual
 waste shipments are also required For
 each successive year, the volume of
 wastes to be exported, if any, must be
 estimated. These reports are required
 pursuant to the authority in section 6(e)
 and 12(a) of TSCA. Additional reports
 under section 12(b) of TSCA would not
 be required for the export of these
 wastes. Unlike other exports of PCBs,
 export for disposal under this rule will
 not present an unreasonable risk to the
 United States because of the controls on
 such export contained in the rula and
 the fact that such export will only be for
 the purpose of disposal or destruction of
 PCBs.
   EPA will carefully monitor th* results
 of allowing the import and export of
 PCB waste. One future alternative may
 be to allow disposal only in countries
 whose facilities meet certain criteria
 arrived at through bilateral agreements.
 Closing the United States bonier to
 shipments of PCB wastes at this-time.
 however, could have serious advene
 effects on the environment by making
 safe disposal of PCBs more difficult In
 particular, barring import of PCBs for
 disposal could  make export for disposal
 impossible and thereby eliminate what
 in many cases would be the most
 desirable disposal alternative. Many
 generators of hazardous waste materials
 located near the U.S.-Canadian border
 find that the nearest disposal site is in
 the other country. An open border policy
 will allow import and export of such
 wastes to continue and maximize the
 opportunities for appropriate disposal.
  For a general discussion of exports of
 PCBs, see preamble section XL below.
 Import or export of PCBs or PCB Items
 for purposes of disposal remain subject
 to the other provisieu of this rule.

 C. Other Issues
 L PCB Impurities and Byproducts
  The prohibitions in 5 710.30 include a
prohibition of the "manufacture" of
 "PCB" or "PCBs" as defined in
 § 781.2(0). This  prohibition applies to the
deliberate production of PCBs whether
in large quantities for use in
transformers and capacitors or in small
quantities for research. Furthermore, the
prohibition applies to the manufacture
of any substance or mixture that
contains PCB at 50 ppm or greater.
including PCB that is an intermediate or
"impurity" or "byproduct", as defined
by J 761-2(k} and (c). respectively. While
the production of PCBs under such
rj TfunnmtoMff^ may not be intentional
and may have no independent
commercial value, section B(e) of TSCA
applies to any production of PCBs and,
 therefore, coven snch activities.
 Similarly, processing, distribution in
 commerce, and use of PCBs which are
 impurities or byproducts are subject to
 sections 6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA.
   The proposed rule prohibited
 activities involving PCB intermediates,
 impurities and byproducts under
 sections 6(e)(2) and (3) of TSCA. In
 response to questions on this point at
 the informal
 that such activities are subject to the
 rule. This discussion is intended to
 clarify further that the manufacturing,
 processing, distribution in commerce,
 and use bans of sections 6(eK2) and (3)
 of TSCA apply whenever PCBs are
 present as intermediates, impurities, or
 byproducts at a concentration of 50 ppm
 or greater.
   Some manufacturers commented that
 they interpreted the proposed rula to
 allow the creation of PCBs in
 concentrations greater than 50 ppm- as
 an intermediate, impurity, precursor, or
 byproduct in a reaction process as long
 as the PCB concentration in any final
 byproduct or end product is below 50
 ppm. The intent of the proposed rule
 was to prohibit such manufacture. All
 manufacturing or processing operations
 must be adequately controlled so that
 PCBs an not present at concentrations
 greater than 50 ppm at any point in the
 manufacturing process except when
 concentrating waste streams, as
 discussed below.
   As discussed earlier in section IT.R of
 this preamble, several processes for the
 manufacture of chlorinated organic
 substances unintentionally create PCBs.
 EPA is aware of several cases in which
 the PCBs appear as impurities at
 concentrations greater than 50 ppm in
 the final product To reduce the level of
 PCBs that are impurities in these
 chemical products, selection of
 ingredients and process techniques
 usually have to be altered. In some
 cases, more careful quality control of the
 production operations can help avoid
 unwanted impurities and byproducts.
  Two groups of chemical products are
 most affected by controls on impurities
 and byproducts: pigments and other
 chlorinated chemicals. The impact on
 pigments is better understood because
 the industry became aware of the
problem earlier than other potentially
affected industries and provided
extensive information «nrf comments on
the impact of the proposed rule. The
PCB contamination of pigments is
discussed furtliec in preamble sw*Hffli
K.G. The impact on the production of
other orga
known. Only a few «**T«I"««
 commented on the proposed rule, and
 available data are limited.
   The manufacture of PCBs as
 intermediates, impurities and
 byproducts almost always involves
 some human and environmental
 exposure. Unless the PCBs are created
 in a totally enclosed, continuous
 reaction process, production workers
 will be exposed and there may be PCBs
 in air emissions and other effluents. The
 processing, distribution in commerce,
 and use of the ^hnTT^irnl^ containing
 PCBs will also cause exposure to PCBs
 among process worken and others who
 handle and use the chemicals. Controls
 that exist on worker exposure and/or
 hAnriling and disposal practices are
 usually related to the primary  chemical.
 not the PCBs contained in the  chemical.
 which-means that exposure to the PCBs
 often is uncontrolled.
   As explained below, persons may
 petition for an exemption from this
 manufacturing ban pursuant to the
 Agency's interim procedures (43 FR
 50905, November 1,1978). In addition.
 the processing, distribution in
 commerce, and use of PCBs in  a non-
 totally enclosed manner is prohibited
 after July 2,1979, unless authorized and
 all processing and distribution of such
 PCBs as byproducts and impurities are
 prohibited after July 1.1979. unless a
 specific exemption from the ban is
 granted by EPA.
   Section 7B1.30(c)(2) provides that
 PCBs may be processed and distributed
 in commerce for purposes of disposal in
 accordance with the requirements of
 § 761.10. This provision is intended to
 apply to the concentration of waste
 streams and allow the concentration of
 PCBs to exceed 50 ppm in waste stream
 as long as the waste stream is disposed
 of in accordance with this rule. The
 following illustrates this. A product is
 manufactured that contains 20 ppm PCB.
 It is then processed to reduce the PCB
 concentration to 5 ppm. As a result of
 the processing, a waste stream  is
 created that contains 100 ppm PCB. As
 long as this waste stream is disposed of
 in accordance with this rule, the
 manufacturer does not have to  apply for
 an exemption. If the initial product
 contains more than 50 ppm PCB,
 however, the manufacturer must apply
 for an exemption from the
 manufacturing prohibition. Section
781 -30(c}(2J only applies to byproducts
or other wastes that are intended for
disposal
  To clarify the relationship of the
prohibitions of sections 6(e) (2)  and (3)
to intermediates, byproducts, and
impurities, the terms "manufacture for
commercial purposes" and "process for

-------
31528
Federal Register /  Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules  and  Regulations
     commercial purposes", defined in
     § 761.2 (bb) and (dd) of the proposed
     rule, have been deleted. These
     definitions were intended to exclude
     from the rule a very limited number of
     activities (e.g., the chlorination of
     municipal sewage discharges) that may
     result in or involve PCS concentrations
     below 50 ppm. In the applicability
     section (J 7Bl.l(b)) the final rule states
     that unless otherwise specified in the
     rule itself, the term "PCS", as used in the
     rule, is intended to include only
     substances or combinations of
     substances with 50 ppm or greater PCBs.
     Accordingly, it should be clear that such
     activities are not within the scope of the
     rule. As a consequence, the definitions
     concerning "commercial purposes" are
     not necessary and may be confusing,
     especially because J 6(e) is not limited
     by the statute to activities "for
     commercial purposes"
     2. Disposal of Small PCB Capacitors
       The PCB Disposal and Marking Rule
     excluded most small PCB Capacitors,
     primarily those contained in small
     appliances and fluorescent light
     ballasts, from special disposal
     requirements. These small capacitors
     may be disposed of as municipal solid
     waste. Only small capacitors owned by
     persons who manufacture capacitors or
     PCB Equipment are subject to special
     disposal requirements.
       These requirements are not changed
     by this final rule. EPA has not identified
     a feasible regulatory alternative that
     would result in disposal of a substantial
     portion of the remaining small PCB
     Capacitors in facilities other than
     municipal solid waste sites. In addition.
     the random disposal of PCB Equipment
     in municipal solid waste sites by
     householders and  other infrequent
     disposers does not present an
     environmental hazard. Accordingly,
     EPA has no current plans to further
     regulate the disposal of these small
     capacitors.
       However, the disposal of large
     quantities of small PCB Capacitors by
     commercial and industrial  activities
     poses a somewhat larger environmental
     risk. Therefore. EPA encourages
     commercial and industrial firms that use
     and dispose of large quantities of small
     PCB Capacitors to establish voluntarily
     a collection and disposal program that
     would result in the waste capacitors
     going to chemical  waste landfills or high
     temperature incinerators. Proper
     disposal  of small PCB Capacitors is
     mandatory for ail  manufacturers of PCB
     Equipment. This would result in better
     environmental control than normal
     municipal solid waste disposal by
     preventing large concentrations of
     capacitors from being placed in sanitary
     landfills. It should also be noled that
     any PCB spillage that might result from
     failure of or from damage to a large
                                number of small capacitors could be
                                considered as illegal disposal, which is
                                the case for other spills of PCBs.

                                3. State Preemptions
                                  In the Disposal  and Marking Rule,
                                EPA stated that State and local
                                requirements regarding disposal of PCBs
                                are exempt from Federal preemption as
                                long as the requirements are not less
                                restrictive than those prescribed by
                                EPA. EPA took this position to avoid
                                interfering with existing PCB disposal
                                requirements in Michigan, Oregon,
                                Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin,
                                where the State requirements are at
                                least as stringent as the Federal
                                requirements.
                                  In the past several months. EPA has
                                become concerned that actions by local
                                and State governments to prohibit
                                disposal of PCBs and other substances
                                in their jurisdictions could frustrate the
                                national goal of properly disposing of
                                hazardous chemical substances. While
                                EPA has always believed that States
                                should have the right to set pollution
                                control standards more restrictive than
                                the Federal standards, it would be a
                                matter of national concern if this
                                principle were to become the basis for
                                refusal by States to share in the national
                                responsibility for  finding safe means for
                                the proper disposal of hazardous
                                substances. EPA has decided not to
                                make any changes in its PCB preemption
                                policy at this time. However, EPA will
                                be considering the preemption issue
                                further in its administration of the
                                Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                Act.
                                VII Relationship of Section 6(e)(2) to
                                Section 6
-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106  /  Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations	31529
 ban of non-totally enclosed activities.
 To authorize an activity, EPA must find
 that continuation of the activity does not
 present an unreasonable risk of injury to
 human health or the environment Since
 the intent of the law is for PCB activities
 to be banned, it must be clearly evident
 that the risk from an activity is not
 unreasonable. In the absence of such
 evidence, an activity is banned.
   Although not subject to section 0(c)(l)
 of TSCA. EPA used the criteria in
 section 6(c)(l) to determine whether or
 not the risk from a non-totally enclosed
 activity is "unreasonable". These factors
 include: (1) the effect of such substance
 or mixture on health and the magnitude
 of exposure of human beings to such
 substance or mixture, (2) the effects of
 such substance or mixture on the
 environment and the magnitude of the
 exposure of the environment to such
 substance and mixture. (3) the benefits
 of such substance or mixture for various
 uses and the availability of substitutes
 for such uses, and (4) the reasonably
 ascertainable economic consequences of
 the rule, after consideration of the effect
 on the national economy, small
 business, technological innovation, the
 environment, and public health.
   An exemption is an exception to
 either (1) the TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(i)
 January 1.1979 complete ban of all PCB.
 manufacture or (2) the TSCA section
 6(e)(3HA)(ii) July 1.1979 complete ban of
 all PCB processing and distribution in
 commerce. To grant an exemption, EPA
 must determine both that an
 unreasonable risk is not present and
 that good faith efforts have been made
 to develop substitutes for the PCBs used
in the activity to be exempted.
  In addition to the difference in criteria
for granting these two exceptions, there
are several other important distinction/
between an authorization and an
exemption.
  First an authorization may be valid
for any time penod that EPA finds
appropriate,  but an exemption is only
valid for one year and must be granted
annually through a formal rulemaking.
However, the complete bans of
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce contained in
 section 6(e)(3) of TSCA supersede the
corresponding bans contained in section
9(e)(2), as explained above. Since EPA
 must make more stringent findings
 under section 9(e)(3) than under section
 8{e)(2). there is no reason to require
 petitioners to have an authorization if
 they have been granted an exemption
 for the same activity (see preamble
 section VH). Therefore, a PCB
 processing or distribution in commerce
 activity cannot be authorized after July
 1.1979. After this date, persons who
 process or distribute PCBs mutt petition
 for and be granted an exemption
 annually by EPA in order to continue
 these activities.
   Second. EPA may propose and
 promulgate an authorization without a
 specific request from the persons who
 will benefit from the authorization. This
 is not the case for exemptions, which
 must be petitioned for by those who
 would benefit from them. The
 requirements regarding exemption
 petitions are discussed below.
   Third, because section 6(e)(3) of TSCA
 completely bans the manufacture.
 processing, and distribution in
 commerce of PCBs and not the use of
 PCBs, all PCB use activities are covered
 only by section 8(e)(-) of TSCA. This
 means that a use activity never needs an
 exemption, and, therefore, must fall into
 one of three categories: (1) totally
 enclosed with no need for an
 authorization: (2) not totally enclosed
 and authorized: or (3) not totally
 enclosed and not authorized. Only the
 third group of use activities is prohibited
 by this rule. Activities that are included
 in the first two categories are described
 in section IX of the preamble, while
 those in the third category are described
 in section X
 1. Manufacturing Exemptions

  No exemptions are promulgated in
 this rule. These are being handled in a
 separate rulemaking. The rulemaking
 procedures for PCB manufacturing
 exemptions were printed in the Federal
 Register on November 1,1978. at page
 50905.  Examples of manufacturing
 activities that require an exemption to
 continue after July 2,1979, include, but
 are not limited to: the manufacture of
 PCB for use in transformers or
 capacitors: the manufacture of PCB in
 small quantities for research and
 development: the manufacture of PCB
 for use in microscopy; the manufacture
 of PCB as an impurity or byproduct in or
 associated, with other chemicals (e.g.,
 pigments); and the importation of PCBs.
 including bulk form or in mixtures and
 PCB Articles for any purpose other than
 disposal. As discussed in section VI.B.l
 above, importation of PCB Equipment
 may continue until July 1,1979.
  Persons who have submitted petitions
 for a manufacturing exemption in
 accordance with the November 1.1978,
 rulemaking procedures will not be
 subject to the PCB manufacturing ban
 until EPA acts upon their petitions (see
 44 FR 108. January 2,1979). Many of the
 petitions are moot because of changes in
 the final rule that permit the
 manufacture of PCB Equipment until
 July 1,1979. These manufacturers are
 required to comply with all other
 applicable portions of this rule, such as
requirements for disposal, marking,
 storage, and recordkeeping.

2. Processing and Distribution in
Commerce Exemptions
  In the near future. EPA will issue
procedures for applications for
 exemptions from the processing and
 distribution bans, which are effective
 July 1,1979. The procedures may
 incorporate revisions from those
 applicable to manufacturing exemptions.
 Under the existing procedures, each
 person who wants an exemption must
 submit a separate petition. EPA is
 considering revising this requirement to
 reduce the number of individual
 petitions because substantially more
 persons will be affected by the
 processing and distribution bans than
 by the manufacturing ban. In addition.
 EPA anticipates that the petitions will
 fall into several principal categories.
 Instead of requiring petitioners to
 duplicate efforts in cases where their
 requests  are essentially identical. EPA
 may accept certain class petitions
 submitted on behalf of more than one
 petitioner. Trade associations for
 example, may be permitted to develop a
 single petition, as appropriate, on behalf
 of their members, or manufacturers or
 processors may be permitted to petition
 on behalf of persons distributing their
 products.
   Activities that will require an
 exemption from the July 1,1979,
 processing and distribution in commerce
 bans include, but are not limited to: the
 manufacture of PCB Equipment; the sale
 of PCB Equipment: the sale of PCB
 Capacitors: the processing and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs for
 servicing PCB Transformers, PCB-
 Contanunated Transformers, railroad
 transformers, mining equipment,
 electromagnets, and hydraulic
 equipment: the processing and
 distribution in commerce of pigments
 and other chemicals that contain 50 ppm
 or greater PCB; and the processing and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs for
 microscopy and in small quantities for
 research and development

 B. General Changes in § 761.31:
 Authorizations

   Three changes have been made from
 the proposal that affect all
 authorizations.  These changes are
 discussed here while changes in
 individual authorizations are discussed
 in section IX of this preamble.

 1.  Reporting and Recordkeeping
 Requirements

   Virtually all reporting and
 recordkeeping requirements have been
 deleted from § 781.31. Several proposed
 authorizations would have required
 persons to submit reports to EPA and to
 retain records for a variety of non-
 totally  enclosed activities. EPA
 recognizes the burden on manufacturers
 and others who  would have been
required to prepare and maintain these
records and has determined that these
requirements are largely unnecessary.
because most of the information will be
submitted in the annual petitions for

-------
31530      Federal Register / Vol.  44. No. 106 /  Thursday.  May 31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations
exemptions. The only exceptions to this
policy are owners of railroad
transformers, hydraulic systems, and
heat transfer systems who must retain
records of the PCB analyses that they
are required to perform.
2. Length of Use Authorizations

  Unlike all other activities that may be
subject to an authorization under TSCA
section 8(e)(2)(B), use activities are not
prohibited under TSCA section
6(e)(3)(A). Accordingly, there is no
automatic limit tc the length of use
authorizations.  In deciding how long to
authorize each use, EPA believes that it
should have the opportunity to review
each use in a timely way to ensure that
there is no unreasonable risk associated
with its continuation. In addition,
improved technology or development of
new PCB substitutes could reduce  the
need for the authorization. Accordingly,
EPA proposed a five-year limit on most
use  authorizations. The final rule has
generally extended this period to five
and one-half years so that the expiration
date for authorizations will coincide
with the expiration of the processing
and distribution exemptions. This
change  will permit EPA to combine
administrative procedures, and thereby
reduce administrative costs. Several use
authorizations have shorter periods as
explained under section IX below.
  Since, as-noted earlier, the processing
and distribution prohibitions of TSCA
section 6(e)(2) expire on July 1,1979,
authorizations for these activities will
expire on the same date. Thereafter,
these activities will be subject to TSCA
section 6(e)(3) and will require annual
exemptions to continue.
3. Changes in \ 761.46: Annex VII
  Annex VTL which provided for PCB
Exposure and Control Plans, has been
deleted. The proposed Annex would
have imposed special requirements on
persons authorized to continue activities
in other than a totally enclosed manner.
Specifically, Annex VH would have
required detailed plans for handling
PCBs, preventing spills, and otherwise
reducing human and environmental
 exposure. The final rule no longer
requires such plans because EPA is
 developing similar requirements under
 section 311 of the Clean Water Act (see
 proposed Spill Prevention Control and
 Countermeasure Plan Rule. 43 FR 39276.
 September i, 1978).
DL Specific Authorizations

  Activities that an regulated by this
rule and the affect of the rule on these
activities an summarized  in Table 3.
The data referred to in this section an
in the Venar Report, which is available
from EPA's Office of Industry
Assistance at the address given at the
beginning of the preamble.
  In relationship to activities regulated
by this rule, dilution of PCBs is
prohibited unless otherwise specifically
provided for in the rule. This prohibition
is necessary to prevent an unreasonable
risk of human and environmental
exposure to PCBs. If dilution was
permitted, it would be possible to dilute
all PCB liquids so that their disposal
would no longer be controlled by this
rule. This is clearly an unacceptable
alternative since it could result in all
existing PCBs entering the environment
However, for several authorized
activities, dilution of PCBs is essential to
the intended performance of the
activities and is not performed with the
intent of evading the disposal
requirements for PCBs. For these
activities only, dilution of PCBs is
permitted and the disposal of liquid is
governed by its final PCB concentration
rather than its beginning PCB
concentration. The following authorized
activities are permitted to dilute PCBs:
(1) Servicing of transformers (with
restrictions); (2) Servicing of railroad
transformers; (3) Use in heat transfer
systems; (4) Use in hydraulic systems;
(5) Processing and use of pigments; and
(6) Use in natural gas.
  The exemption review process for the
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce bans will also
evaluate the need for dilution in the
performance of PCB activities. Any
decisions to permit dilution in exempted
activities will be stated in the
exemption, if granted.

A. Servicing Transformers (Other Than
Railroad Transformers)

  EPA considers the use of transformers
as use in a totally-enclosed manner.
Accordingly, the use of PCBs in
transformers may continue indefinitely.
In addition, in this rule EPA authorizes
the routine servicing of PCB
Transformers (as defined in § 761.21(y))
and the routine servicing and rebuilding
of PCB-Contaniinated Transformers (as
defined in § 761.2(z))  subject to certain
conditions. The rule also authorizes the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for servicing transformers. The
following is a summary of EPA's
findings and reasoning behind these
decisions.
  Most large electrical transformers are
designed to operate with the current-
carrying coils immersed in a dielectric
fluid. In the past, most transformers
used in buildings cr other critical fire
control locations were filled with non-
flammable dielectric  fluids containing
PCBs as a major component. These PCB
dielectric fluids are known by the
generic term "askarei" and have been in
common use since the 1930's. Currently,
some 140,000 transformers, or less than
one percent of all large electrical
transformers in service, use askarei
dielectric fluid.
                              PCB BM RuM ActfOM
                                 root,
                    Enmottn  Typ» o« PCB
                    ragund     acntty*
                                                              	pea.
Mfrwt) FqulpiTunl 	

Hydrate SvMira 	 	 	 	
	 ... , 	 P. n ii_pm («MPI tar


Owl Conwot SHtoni A CMtap (tan
              UM of "JM*" PCBi <*«,
              Mn 60 ppffl to rarwPCB
                                                               pca<

-------
           Federal Register / VoL 44. No. 106 / Thursday.  May 31. 1979  /  Rules and Regulations       31531
  A transformer is essentially a large.
 sealed can. The only time the can is
 deliberately opened is when the
 transformer requires certain types of
 servicing. Except in the event of a
 catastrophic failure or other .
 extraordinary circumstance, use (except
 servicing) of transformers is performed
 in a totally enclosed manner and. as
 such, does not require an authorization.
 Under this rule, use of PCBs in
 transformers may continue indefinitely
 because this is a totally enclosed use.

 1. General Discussion of Transformer
 Servicing

  Servicing of transformers does result
 in exposure  to PCBs. There are two
 gen«ral categories of servicing: routine
 servicing and rebuilding. Routine
 servicing includes testing the dielectric
 fluid, filtering the fluid, and replacing
 gaskets. Routine servicing often requires
 the removal  of some dielectric fluid and
 then the return, or replacement, of that
 fluid. These activities result in some
 human and environmental exposure, but
 the exposure is usually limited  to
 exposure of workers to small quantities
 of PCS. Good management practices and
 protective clothing should result in only
 very low levels of exposure to PCBs
 during routine servicing.
  Rebuilding occurs after a transformer
 has failed or after an inspection
 indicates that it will soon fail.
 Rebuilding is an open process that
 involves draining the transformer,
 removing and disassembling the core,
 reworking the coil or rewinding a new
 coil, reassembling the core, and refilling
 the  transformer with new fluid. Unless
 extraordinary precaution is taken, the
 shop personnel responsible for
 rebuilding the transformer are exposed
 to PCBs since the inner parts of the
 transformer are saturated with  PCBs.
 Volatilization of the PCBs and leaks
 from both  the transformer and PCS
 handling result in environmental
 exposure to PCBs.
  Worker exposure during rebuilding
 can be moderated by protective
 equipment, but is inevitably greater than
the exposures during routine servicing.
Volatilization is difficult to control
because of the large surface area
exposed. Unless carefully controlled, the
leaks may contaminate work areas and
storage yards and may reach
watercourses through uncontrolled
runoff and drainage systems. Cleaning
 the inner surfaces of the transformers
with solvents during the rebuilding
process, cleanup  of spillage and
drippings,  and scrapping of
unserviceable components all increase
 the production of liquid and non-liquid
 PCB wastes. In addition, the old coil
 must be disposed of separately from the
 casing, potentially increasing the
 environmental exposure to PCBs.

 2. PCB Transformers

   In developing the proposed rule, EPA
 considered three principal options for
 PCB Transformers: (1) prohibit both
 routine servicing and rebuilding; (2)
 permit routine servicing but prohibit
 rebuilding; and (3) permit both routine
 servicing and rebuilding. Option l would
 result in the greatest reduction of
 potential PCB exposure. Prohibition of
 routine servicing would, however,
 probably significantly increase the
 chances  of catastrophic transformer
 failure because of inadequate
 maintenance. This hazard and the
 resulting exposure to PCBs may present
 far greater risks to health and the
 environment than that associated with
 the minimal PCB exposure during
 routine servicing. Option 3 could result
 in significant human and environmental
 exposure to  PCBs from rebuilding
 transformers, as explained above. For
 these reasons, EPA has chosen a course
 of action based upon Option 2,
 permitting routine servicing but
 prohibiting rebuilding of PCB
 Transformers.
  Routine servicing will result in
 minimal exposures to PCBs and allow
 the use of most existing transformers to
 continue through their useful lifetimes.
 EPA has concluded that this activity
 does not pose an unreasonable risk to
 human health or the environment.
 However, any servicing (including
 rebuilding) of PCB Transformers that
 involves  removing the coils from the
 casing is prohibited by the rule. This
 prohibition will cost about S12 million
 the first year and steadily less each year
 thereafter. Removing the coils
 substantially increases PCB exposure.
 Considering  the PCB exposure that
 would result if such servicing (including
 rebuilding) was permitted. EPA believes
 that these costs are justified by the
 increased risks of harni to human health
 and the environment and concludes that
 such servicing of PCB Transformers
presents an unreasonable risk.

3. PCB-Contaminated Transformers

  As explained below, rebuilding
 transformers with less than 500 ppm
PCB is  permitted. Because of the
relatively low concentrations of PCBs,
EPA believes that the risks of further
contamination of the environment with
PCBs due to such rebuilding will be
negligible. Because  these transformers
comprise over 99% of all large  electrical
transformers, the economic impact of a
rebuilding prohibition on transformers
with less than 500 ppm PCBs could be
 extremely high. Comparing these
 potential costs to the relatively low
 threat to human health and the
 environment under the conditions
 required under the rule, EPA concludes
 that this activity should be authorized to
 continue because it does not pose an
 unreasonable risk to human health or
 the environment
   Unless there is reason to believe a
 transformer contains PCB (askarel)
 dielectric fluid or otherwise has 500 ppm
 PCB or greater, it may be assumed to
 have 50 to 500 ppm PCB. In practical
 terms, this means that mineral oil
 transformers need not be tested to
 determine whether they contain more
 than 500 ppm PCB. Available
 information indicates that virtually no
 mineral oil (non-askarel) dielectric fluid
 will be contaminated with PCBs above
 500 ppm. Even if a small percentage of
 such fluid might contain somewhat more
 than 500 ppm PCB. EPA does not believe
 that the cost of testing needed to
 identify fluids with these slightly greater
 amounts is justified. Specifically, there
 are some 35 million transformers that
 would be subject to such a testing
requirement With each  test costing
between $50 and $100, the total cost of
 such testing would be as great as $3.5
billion. The additional health or
environmental benefits that may result
from requiring such  testing and applying
more stringent requirements in those
few cases with more than 500 ppm
would be extremely small compared to
these testing costs.
  For all practical purposes, testing of
mineral oil dielectric fluid will only be
used to determine whether the mixture
contains less than 50 ppm PCB and is
therefore exempt from the disposal
requirements for mineral oil with over 50
ppm PCB. No testing is needed if the
mineral oil will be burned in a high
efficiency boiler or disposed of in any
other way permitted for mineral oil
contaminated with PCBs up to 500 ppm.
  Many commentors questioned
whether they would have to test the
fluid from each transformer to determine
the level of PCB contamination. Under
the final rule, because such testing is
optional EPA anticipates that most
persons will instead assume that the
transformer contains between 50 ppm
and 500 ppm PCB. If a person chooses to
test, the final rule permits collection of
mineral oil dielectric fluid into a single
tank from more than one PCB-
Contaminated Transformer. The mixture
of fluids can then be sampled in a
manner that reasonably represents the
composite contents to determine PCB
concentrations. (See preamble sections
II.C and III.E above.) Draining a PCB

-------
31532      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday.  May 31. 1979  /  Rules and Regulations
Transformer into such a tank is
prohibited.

4. Rebuilding PCB Transformers

  The transformer service industry and
several transformer owners commented
that PCB Transformer rebuilding should
be permitted. The industry was
particularly concerned with the
economic impact on owners of specially
designed transformers. Because of the
time required to build a new transformer
on special order, a prohibition of
rebuilding PCB Transformers could
significantly disrupt their operations if a
transformer should unexpectedly fail.
However, some transformer failures are
so extensive that the transformer cannot
be rebuilt. In these instances, the
transformer owner must do without-a
transformer until it can be replaced with
either a new or used transformer. Even
when a failed transformer can be
rebuilt, the transformer owner still must
do without a transformer  for the length
of time required to rebuild the
transformer. In both situations, the
transformer owner must either operate
at a reduced output or shut-down for
some period of time. This may cause
some economic hardships for owners of
transformers; however, considering the
substantial human exposure during
rebuilding, the Agency believes that
exposure to PCBs from rebuilding
presents an unreasonable risk.
  The other changes in the final rule,
however, will reduce some of the
economic impact on transformer users.
The final rule peimits the
reclassification of PCB Transformers as
PCB-Contaminated Transformers if they
have been drained  and refilled with
non-PCB dielectric fluid and if they are
tested and found to contain less than
500 ppm PCB after at least three months
of in-service use. Three months is the
minimum amount of time necessary to
ensure that the PCBs trapped in the
interior parts of the transformer leach
out into the dielectric fluid. After
reclassifying a PCB Transfonner to a
PCB-Contammated Transformer in this
way, an owner would be  permitted to
rebuild that transformer.  This
reclassification option reduces the risk
of disruption of operations that could
result from the prohibition of rebuilding
PCB Transformers.
   If a PCB Transformer owner takes
advantage of the reclassification option
described above and converts it to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer, the
transformer could be rebuilt. The
alternative of rebuilding  has several
economic advantages. In general,
rebuilding will be cheaper than
replacement. In addition, the production
losses will probably be less if a failed
transformer can be rebuilt rather than
replaced. On the other hand, rebuilding
PCB Transformers may result in a
substantial increase in human and
environmental PCB exposure.
Considering these factors, EPA has
decided to permit rebuilding but only of
PCB-Contaminated Transformers. To
rebuild the PCB Transformer the owner
would first have  to reduce the
concentration of PCBs to less than 500
ppm according to the schedule
contained in §  7B1.31(a)(5) and then
rebuild.
5. Contents of Authorization

  The previous discussion explains
EPA's rationale for authorizing the
servicing of transformers and the
processing and distribution  in commerce
of PCBs for such  servicing. The
authorization, contained in § 761.31(a),
is valid for persons who service their
own transformers until July  1.1984.
Persons who process or distribute PCBs
in conjunction  with servicing
transformers must be granted an
exemption by EPA to continue these
activities after July 1.1979.
  The authorization for servicing
(including rebuilding) is subject to the
following six conditions. First,
regardless of its PCB concentration,
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB that is mixed with fluids
containing 500 ppm or greater PCB must
not be used as dielectric fluid in any
transformer. This condition-is intended
to prevent deliberate dilution of PCBs.
Dielectric fluid from PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may be assumed to have
less than 500 ppm. Second, persons
servicing or rebuilding PCB-
Contaminated Transformers must use
dielectric fluids that contain less than
500 ppm PCB. Third, any servicing
(including rebuilding) of PCB
Transformers that requires the removal
of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. Fourth,
PCBs removed in servicing or rebuilding
must be captured and either reused as
dielectric fluid or disposed of in
accordance with the requirements of
Subpart B.  Fifth, a PCB Transformer may
be converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer, as  described above. Sixth,
any PCB dielectric fluid that is used to
service or repair any PCB Transformer
must be stored in accordance with the
storage for disposal requirements of
Annex III (§ 761.42 of this rule). This
requirement is intended to minimize the
possibility of spills and other Accidental
releases of PCBs in the environment as
they are stored prior to use. Finally, any
person who wishes to process and
distribute in commerce PCBs for
purposes of servicing transformers after
July 1,1979, may do so only if granted an
exemption by EPA. Persons may
continue to service transformers that
they own without such an exemption.

B. Use and Servicing of Railroad
Transformers

  Transformers in approximately 1.000
electric railroad locomotives  and self-
powered cars operated in the
northeastern United States by Amtrak.
Conrail and five intracity transit
authorities  contain PCB fluid. PCB fluids
are frequently spilled onto roadbeds
when these transformers overheat and
when rocks and debris damage these
transformers. Workers and other
persons near rail lines are potentially
exposed to  PCBs as a result of these
spills. In addition, runoff from roadbeds
probably contains increased PCB
concentrations. PCBs are also
volatilized during overheating and
servicing. PCB exposure from servicing
operations is similar to non-railroad
transformer servicing and is laregely
confined to service shops. Because of
the human and environmental exposure
to PCB that results from these activities,
neither the  use nor the servicing of
railroad transformers is considered to be
totally enclosed.
  EPA considered various regulatory
options for PCB-containing railroad
transformers in implementing section
6(e) of TSCA. In proposing the rule. EPA
assumed that the 1,000 railroad
transformers could not be immediately
replaced without an unacceptably
severe curtailment of railroad service.
especially in the Northeast Corridor, and
attendant adverse economic and social
consequences. The proposed rule would
have authorized the use of the
transformers if PCB concentrations were
lowered to  four percent in 15  months
and then to 1,000 ppm in 36 months. In
addition, the proposed authorization
would have allowed servicing or
rebuilding if non-PCB dielectric fluid
was used. While the proposal would not
have disrupted service, the affected
railroad and transit companies would
have had to invest an estimated $12.2
million over a three-year period to
comply.
  The affected parties criticized the
timetable for lowering PCB
concentrations. A recently initiated
study of the safety of PCB-containing
railroad transformers that have been
refilled with non-PCB fluids is nfit
expected to be completed until late 1979.
The comments emphasized the
importance of first assessing the
feasibility of refilling with respect to

-------
transformer performance and potential
hazards from explosion and fires as a
result of the use of alternate fluids.
Some comments also questioned
whether a residual concentration of four
percent PCB could be routinely achieved
by refilling. These comments stated that
a slightly higher level of six percent
could be met on a routine basis. Other
comments explained that consistent
with the Railroad Revitaiization and
Recovery Act of 1976, the Northeast
Corridor railroads are changing the
power supply specifications in mid-1981.
Accordingly, some transformers are
scheduled to be replaced and these
comments suggested that to require the
refilling of these transformers would
impose a needless cost As explained
below, the 1981 date has changed.
  The final rule takes these comments
into account and authorizes continued
use and servicing (including rebuilding)
of these transformers as a non-totally
enclosed use until July 1,1984, subject to
requirements that EPA believes will
promote conversion  to other types of
transformers or dielectric fluids at thi
earliest feasible time. Persons may
process or distribute PCBs in
conjunction with servicing railroad
transformers but must be granted an
exemption by EPA to continue these
activities after July 1.1979. EPA is
requiring that railroad transformers
contain no more than six percent PCB
by January 1,1962. about 21 months
later than proposed.  This will give EPA
more time to evaluate the safety of
refilling these transformers with non-
PCB fluid and will substantially reduce
the costs of compliance. These
transformers must either be replaced or
be drained, flushed,  and refilled with
non-PCB fluid by that deadline.  Before
than, the use of PCB  dielectric fluid for
servicing (including rebuilding]  railroad
transformers is authorized. After that
date, railroad transformers may only be
serviced with fluid containing 0 percent
PCBs or less.
  By January 1.1984, the concentration
of PCBs in the transformers must not
exceed 1.000 ppm. This is approximately
18 months later than proposed. EPA
believes that the environmental and
health risks that may be associated with
continued use of PCB in these
transformers over this period are
outweighed by: (1) the yet undetermined
safety risks of fire and explosion that
may be associated with use of non-PCB
fluid in refilled transformers;  (2) the
approximately $90 million cost that
would be imposed if immediate
conversion or replacement was  required;
and (3) the additional costs resulting
from the disruption of critical
transportation services. Therefore, EPA
finds that this activity, as authorized.
does not present an unreasonable risk.
  Railroad transformers must be tested
for PCBs immediately after the
completion of any servicing conducted
for the purpose of reducing the PCB
concentration in the transformer's
dielectric fluid and between one and
two yean after such servicing. Records
of the results of this testing must be
retained until January 1,1991, which is
five years after the last testing
requirement of this rule.
  EPA estimates that the total cost of
complying with the final rule will be no
more than $12^ million over a five year
period. Although comments indicated
that some of the equipment will have
been scrapped as a result of the planned
change-over in mid-1981, the
Department of Transportation has
recently announced that this change-
over will not occur until at least the Fall
of 1983. The requirement to refill these
transformers by January 1,1982 provides
at least 20 months of use before the
change-over forces the older units out of
service. Accordingly, these units could
be in use for well over two years before
phase-out would be required.

C. Use and Servicing of Mining
Equipment

  Under this authorization, PCBs may
be used in mining equipment, including
for purposes of servicing (including
rebuilding] until January 1.1982.
However, rebuilding of continuous
miner motors is permitted only until
December 31,1979. In addition, PCBs
may be processed and distributed in
commerce for purposes of servicing
mining equipment in a manner other
than a totally enclosed manner until July
1,1979. After July 1.1979, persons who
process and distribute in commerce
PCBs in conjunction with the servicing
or use of mining equipment may do so
only if granted an exemption by EPA to
continue these activities.
  There are two types of mining
equipment that use PCBs as a coolant in
electric motors: loaders and continuous
miners. Although the manufacture of
mining equipment using PCB fluids has
ceased,  approximately 517 such motors
in loaders and 72 such motors for
continuous miners are either in use or in
existing inventories. PCBs may leak
while the equipment is in service in
underground mines or during servicing
procedures, performed either in the shop
or in the field. Exposure to PCBs during
servicing primarily results from
volatilization, spills, and direct human
contact with PCBs when the inner parts
 of the motor are removed or rebuilt
 Thus, the use and servicing of these
 motors are not totally enclosed
 activities.
   To require replacement of these
 motors by the effective date of this rule
 would not be technically and
 economically feasible. There is only one
 company that currently converts PCB
 loader motors to air-cooled or other non-
 PCB motors, and PCB motors in
 continuous miners cannot be converted
 to non-PCB motors. Because of the
 location of the motor in continuous
 miners, this means that the entire
 machine has to be replaced. In both
 cases, lead time is essential to convert
 or replace the equipment Prohibiting
 use of the equipment in the interim
 could result in a shut-down of
 approximately ten percent of the
 underground bituminous coal production
 in the United States. The impact of a
 prohibition of the use of PCB mining
 equipment can be significantly reduced
 by permitting more time for a phase-out
 EPA believes that a phased approach is
 reasonable. As compared to an
 immediate prohibition, the risks to
 human health and the environment are
 only slightly increased, while the costs
 are substantially lower.
  The final rule is essentially the same
 as proposed. To avoid the adverse
 consequences caused by an immediate
 use ban, EPA proposed a phase-out of
 these PCB motors. Different compliance
 schedules for loaders and continuous
 miners were proposed since they pose
 different problems. Because of the
 cutting head design, the motors on
 continuous miners cannot be rebuilt as
 non-PCB motors. The only feasible
 alternative is replacement of the entire
 continuous miner unit Because of the
 lead time necessary to order and
 manufacture this type of equipment,
 EPA proposed to permit the rebuilding
 of PCB continuous miner motors until
 December 31.1979. Rebuilding differs
 from servicing in that rebuilding
 involves removing the motor from the
 miner and disassembling the motor.
 Servicing is permitted until January 1.
 1982. Service companies and others who
 want to process or distribute PCBs for
 rebuilding or servicing these motors
 after June 30,1979, may do so only if
granted an exemption by EPA to
 continue these activities. The use of
 continuous miners containing PCBs after
January 1,1982, is prohibited.
  The PCB motors on loaders can be
replaced with, or rebuilt as, air-cooled
or other non-PCB motors. EPA is
requiring that these motors be replaced
or be rebuilt  as air-cooled or other non-
PCB motors when they are returned to

-------
31534      Federal  Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May  31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations
service shops for maintenance, but. in
no event, can PCB motors be used later
than January 1.1982. Rebuilding or
replacement of existing PCB motors
using normal maintenance patterns
should take no longer than three y_ears.
Accordingly, use of these loaders is
authorized until January 1,1982.
  Since normal maintenance practities
will permit an orderly rebuilding or
replacement of motors with relatively
modest costs, and with little additional
exposure to PCBs, this gradual
replacement requirement is a reasonable
approach. However, no justification
exists for permitting any  PCB motors on
loaders to remain in service after
January 1,1982, and therefore the use is
prohibited after that date. Topping-off
the motor fluid levels in the field with
PCB fluids is also prohibited after
January 1,1982.
  The authorization for mining
equipment is essentially unchanged
from the proposed rule. The estimated
cost to owners of the equipment is
estimated to be S2.8 to $4.3-million
spread over 3 years.
D. Use in Heat Transfer Systems
  Section 78l.31(d) of the final rule
authorizes the use of PCBs in heat
transfer systems until July 1.1984,
subject to conditions regarding testing
and reducing PCB concentrations. This
authorization for use includes  servicing
of heat transfer systems. Heat transfer
systems that are used in  the
manufacture or processing of any food,
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in
§ 201 of the Federai»Food. Drug, and
Cosmetic  Act. are authorized to use heat
transfer fluid containing  50 ppm or
greater PCB only until November 1,1979.
  PCBs were used as a heat transfer
fluid in certain applications from 1962 to
1972. In the perio'd from 1970 to 1972.
approximately 90% of the heat transfer
systems that used PCB fluid were
refilled with non-PCB fluid. In spite of
this refilling, most systems contain
residual PCB concentrations. Heat
transfer systems are, by  and large,
relatively, but not totally, enclosed
systems and therefore their use of PCBs
is not in a totally enclosed manner. The
primary source of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs from
these systems comes from leaks in pump
motor seals. However, good
maintenance practices will minimize the
quantity of fluids that may be lost. For
most systems, the loss of PCB fluid is
well controlled and the corresponding
amount of top-off fluid added  to these
systems is very small.
   An authorization for the use of heat
 transfer systems containing PCBs was
not proposed because EPA had
insufficient data to judge whether the
use of these systems would pose an
unreasonable risk. The preamble to the
proposed rule solicited comments on
this issue. According to the comments
received, the PCB problem in heat
transfer systems is generally one of
residual PCB contamination of the non-
PCB replacement fluids. In many
respects, heat transfer systems are
similar to hydraulic systems. For these
reasons, the conditions of this
authorization regarding the reduction of
PCB concentrations are identical to
those contained in the authorization for
hydraulic systems: (1) any heat transfer
system that ever contained PCB heat
transfer fluid must be tested by October
1,1979, and at least annually thereafter
until the system reaches 50 ppm PCB; (2)
any system that contains 50 ppm PCB or
greater must be drained of the PCBs and
refilled with non-PCB fluid (i.e.. fluid
containing less than 50 ppm PCB) within
six months of the test showing the PCB
concentration is 50 ppm or greater; (3)
PCBs may not be added to heat transfer
systems; and (4) records of the testing
required under (1) must be retained for
five years after the heat transfer system
reaches 50 ppm PCB. The testing under
(V) must be  done at least three months
after the most recent servicing
conducted to reduce the PCB
concentration. This time delay is to
permit residual PCBs to leach out into
the fluid before  it is tested.
  An exception to these requirements
has been made for heat transfer systems
used in the  manufacture or processing of
any food, drug, cosmetic, or device, as
defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. These
systems are authorized to use dielectric
fluid containing 50 ppm or greater PCB
only until November 1,1979. After this
date, these  systems must contain less
than 50 ppm PCB. This exception was
made because, in the event of a heat
transfer system rupture. PCBs would
contaminate a product that would come
in direct contact with humans, either
through ingestion or through application
to the skin. Unlike the rupture of a heat
transfer system used in the manufacture
of a product that is rarely in contact
with humans, leakage of PCBs into a
food, drug,  cosmetic, or device provides
a direct avenue for PCBs to enter the
human body. Since the Food and Drug
Administration required the removal of
PCB heat transfer fluids from these
systems several years ago. this
restricted authorization should not
present a problem to companies owning
these systems.
  EPA finds that this activity, as
authorized, does not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment The total cost for the
requirements described above is
estimated to range from $12^ to $17.8
million spread over three yean.
K Use in Hydraulic Systems
  Under this authorization. PCBs may
be used in hydraulic systems until July 1,
1984, subject to conditions regarding
testing and reducing PCB
concentrations. This authorization for
use includes servicing of hydraulic
systems. Processing and distribution in
commerce for purposes of servicing,
such as filtering, distilling, or otherwise
reducing the concentration of PCBs in
hydraulic systems, is authorized only
until July 1,1979. After July 1,1979.
persons are prohibited from processing
and distributing in commerce PCBs for
this purpose unless EPA grants them an
exemption.
  This authorization is necessary
because a large number of die casting
systems currently in use were once filled
with PCB hydraulic fluid. Although this
use of PCBs has been discontinued,
equipment containing PCB hydraulic
fluid is still in service. Some systems
have been topped-off with non-PCB
fluids, and others have been drained
and flushed in an attempt to reduce PCB
contamination. However, systems may
still be contaminated with residual PCBs
that either remain after flushing or are
gradually released from interior
surfaces. As a  consequence, hydraulic
systems can contain concentrations of
PCB ranging from less than 10 ppm to
thousands of parts per million PCB.
These systems normally leak fluid, even
when properly maintained. In addition.
some of the fluid volatilizes as a result
of the high operating temperatures.
These losses result in PCB-contaminated
water effluents as well as air emissions,
both of which have contributed to
existing levels of PCB contamination in
the environment. Therefore, this use of
PCBs is clearly not use in a totally
enclosed manner.
  Mandatory immediate removal of
these systems  from service to remove
the PCBs could affect as many as one
thousand companies and disrupt
important sectors of industry, especially
those using die castings. The extent of
PCB exposure  from these systems does
not justify incurring such severe costs.
On the other hand, the continued
uncontrolled use of these systems would
result in releases of substantial  amounts
of PCBs into the environment and
cannot be allowed to continue. EPA
proposed authorizing the continued

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31.  1979 / Rules and  Regulations       31535
 servicing and use of PCB-contaminated
 hydraulic fluid in hydraulic die casting
 systems subject to certain conditions.
 One condition was that any system that
 contained 50 ppm or more PCS had to be
 drained and refilled with non-PCB fluid
 within one year. In addition, testing and
 servicing or replacement of the fluid was
 required at least every six months until
 the PCS concentration was  consistently
 below 50 ppm.
   The authorization in the final rule
 makes certain changes from the
 proposal. First, the proposed
 authorization covered only hydraulic die
 casting systems. Comments indicated
 that there are other types of hydraulic
 systems that  used PCBs in high
 temperature environments such as in
 steel mills and foundries. Accordingly,
 the authorization has been extended to
 apply to the use of PCBs in all hydraulic
 systems.
   Under the final rule, each hydraulic
 system must be tested no later than
 November 1.1979. If the concentration
 of PCBs is found to be greater than 50
 ppm, the whole system must be drained
 and refilled with non-PCB fluid within
 six months of the test. EPA anticipates
 that most of the PCBs will be removed
 during the initial refilling process.
 Subsequent draining and refilling may
 be necessary  to remove residual PCBs.
 Under the final rule, persons who own
 hydraulic systems are required to test
 for the concentration of PCS annually
 instead of every six months  as under the
 proposal. Comments indicated that
 removing a hydraulic system from use
 every six months would be disruptive.
 Most systems undergo repair or
 overhaul at least annually. The revised
 requirement would be consistent with
 these practices and. accordingly, result
 in substantial first year cost  savings
 with little increase in PCS exposure.
 Records of this testing must be retained
 for five years  after the hydraulic system
 reaches 50 ppm.
  Many comments emphasized that
 requiring the draining of hundreds of
 gallons of fluids that may contain
residual quantities of PCBs is not a cost-
 effective way to achieve reduction in
PCB concentrations. Hydraulic systems
 are routinely topped-off with non-PCB
hydraulic fluids. Comments argued that*
 the addition of non-PCB fluids  should
 effectively reduce the concentrations of
PCBs. While topping-off is permitted for
purposes of reducing the levels of PCBs
at any time, EPA believes that an annual
requirement to test and drain any fluids
 that contain more than 50 ppm is
essential to reduce, as expeditiously as
possible, the potential for PCB exposure.
Although EPA does not believe that
 topping-cff alone will reduce PCB
 concentrations quickly enough in all
 systems, many systems will be able to
 meet the requirements of the rule solely
 by topping-off. Allowing concentrations
 of PCBs above 50 ppm in these systems
 over time is not acceptable to EPA in
 terms of the significant risks to health
 and the environment associated with the
 leakage from these systems.
   It is estimated that the costs to
 owners of affected hydraulic systems
 will total S14.6 to $25 million spread
 over the first two years, with
 insignificant costs in the subsequent
 years. These costs are similiar to the
 total cost of $19.7 million estimated in
 the proposal, but the final rule
 considered 1750 machines rather than
 the 1000 machines estimated in the
 proposal. This reduction in cost per
 machine is due to the annual, rather
 than semi-annual, testing requirement
 and more accurate cost information
 obtained as a result of the proposal.
 These costs are reasonable in light of
 the resulting reduction in human and
 environmental exposure to PCBs.
   EPA finds that this activity, as
 authorized, does not present an
 unreasonable risk to health or the
 environment.

 F. Use in Carbonless Copy Paper

   Under this authorization, existing PCB
 carbonless copy paper may be used
 indefinitely. Prior to 1971. carbonless
 copy paper distributed by NCR
 Corporation was made with ink
 containing PCBs. There does not appear
 to be a way to distinguish PCB
 carbonless copy paper from non-PCB
 carbonless copy paper except perhaps
 by dates or other indications on unused
 inventories. A large portion of the PCB
 carbonless copy paper that has not been
 destroyed is probably in files. An
 enormous undertaking would be
 required of both business and
 government to purge existing files of
 PCB carbonless copy paper. Moreover,
 the amount of PCB on each sheet of
 carbonless copy paper is extremely
 small. In view of these practical
 considerations and because the
 potential PCB exposure and risks to
 human health or the environment are
 negligible, EPA has concluded that  this
 activity does not present an
 unreasonable risk and is authorizing the
 continued use of existing PCB
 carbonless copy paper.
  In the proposal, EPA limited this
 authorization to five years. However.
EPA does not now believe that a method
for inexpensively separating PCB from
non-PCB carbonless copy paper will be
developed in the near future.
  Accordingly, EPA is authorizing the use
  of existing PCB carbonless copy paper
  indefinitely.

  G. Pigments

   This rule authorizes the use of
  diarylide and phthaiocyanine pigments
  containing more than 50 ppm PCB until
  January 1,1962, and the processing and
  distribution in commerce of these
  pigments until July 1,1979. After July 2.
  1979, these pigments cannot be
  manufactured and after July 1,1979,
  these pigments cannot be processed or
  distributed in commerce unless EPA
  grants exemptions for these activities.
   Diarylide and phthaiocyanine
  pigments contain PCBs as an impurity in
  concentrations ranging from several
  thousand parts per million to less then
  50 ppm. Most of these pigments have
  PCB concentrations in the range of
  several hundred parts per million. These
  PCBs cannot easily be separated from
  the pigments because of the structural
  similarity of the PCBs to the pigments.
  Once manufactured, the pigments are
 mixed with other substances to form
 paints, inks, and a variety of other
 products. The PCB concentrations in
 these final products are less than 50
 ppm.
   Competitive pressure to market
 pigments with decreased PCB
 contamination is causing pigment
 manufacturers to change their
 processes. Comments indicate that
 within two years the industry will have
 made the changes necessary to reduce
 PCB contamination levels to less then 50
 ppm.
   In deciding whether to authorize
 pigment activities, EPA considered the
 relatively limited exposure and the
 economics associated with use of these
 pigments. The greatest potential for
 exposure is in the application of paints
 and inks using these pigments. These
 products contain far less than 50 ppm
 PCB because of the dilution that takes
 place when the pigment is mixed with
 the medium it is coloring. As a result,
 the health and environmental risks are
 not unreasonable. As discussed above,
 the industry is changing its processes to
 reduce the level of PCB contamination
 to below 50 ppm in the next two years.
 At the present time, these particular
 pigments are a major segment of the
 pigment market. For example, diarylide
 pigments form about 80% of the yellow
 pigment market This ban will therefore.
 affect a substantial number of pigment-
related industries. However, the impact
of the regulation of the pigment industry,
 as well as its customers in the paint and
graphic arts industries, will be further

-------
31536      Federal  Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May  31, 1979 / Rules  and  Regulations
considered during the nilemaking on
manufacturing exemptions.
  The potential costs of compliance are
greatly reduced if the requirements are
implemented over a few years. The
increased health  and environmental risk
is relatively small. If exemptions are
granted to permit more time for the
conversion to alternative manufacturing
processes, the cost of conversion will
total $5.6 million. Based on these
considerations, EPA has concluded that
the processing and distribution in
commerce until July 1,1979, and the use
of these pigments until January 1,1982,
will not present an unreasonable risk to
health and the environment and should
be permitted.
H. Use and Servicing of Electromagnets

  As explained below, EPA considers
the use of electromagnets containing
PCBs to be used in a totally enclosed
manner. Accordingly, this use does not
require authorization. Processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs  to
service electromagnets is authorized, as
explained below.
  While no new PCS electromagnets
have been manufactured since mid-1976,
historically PCBs have been used  in
some electromagnets to reduce fire
hazard. PCS electromagnets are used
primarily over conveyor belts to remove
tramp iron from non-magnetic
commodities such as coal. PCB-
contaming electromagnets still in  use
are found in enclosed areas such as coal
mines, coal preparation plants, and coal-
fired generating stations where  there is
a danger of producing explosive dusts.
PCB electromagnets may also be used
over conveyor belts in grain handling
systems, but EPA does not have
information on specific locations at  this
time.
  Electromagnets are similar to
transformers in construction. An
electromagnet is  a  completely welded
piece of equipment. Any leakage would
be the result of deteriorating equipment
or accidental damage rather than design
characteristics. EPA has concluded  that
use of PCBs in electromagnets under
normal circumstances is a use in a
totally enclosed manner. For coal-
handling systems, if leakage does occur,
there will be negligible risks as the coal
is handled automatically and eventually
burned in combustion devices capable
of destoying almost all of the PCBs.
While EPA is not certain that
electromagnets containing PCBs are
currently in use over grain conveyors.
accidental leakage in such situations
may contaminate food supplies and thus
pose a threat to human health. For these
reasons. EPA will consider use of
electromagnets over grain conveyors
that leak to.be a violation of this rule as
a non-totally enclosed use of PCBs. In
addition, EPA is notifying the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Food
and Drug Administration of this
potential problem.
  The servicing of PCB electromagnets
is similar to servicing of PCB
Transformers. Accordingly,  this rule
authorizes the same type of servicing of
PCB electromagnets with PCB dielectric
fluid. As in the case of PCB
Transformers, any servicing (including
rebuilding) that requires the removal of
the coil from the casing is prohibited.
Most of the discussion of the servicing
of PCB Transformers in section IX.A of
this preamble pertains to servicing PCB
electromagnets. EPA has similarily
concluded that this servicing, as long as
it does not include removal of the coil
from the casing, will not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment Because of limited
information. EPA was unable to
ascertain the costs of not granting such
authorization.

/. Use in Natural Gas Pipeline
Compressors

  The final rule authorizes the use,
including servicing, of PCBs in natural
gas pipeline compressors until May 1,
1980. An authorization was not
proposed for this use of PCBs because
EPA had virtually no knowledge of it.
Several comments on the proposed rule
indicate that compressors used in
natural gas pipelines contain residual
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm.
In general, these systems were drained
of high concentration PCB fluid several
years ago, thereby removing most of the
PCBs. This authorization will allow
these compressors to be drained and
refilled with non-PCB fluid to further
reduce the PCB concentration until it is
below 50 ppm. The authorization is
effective until May 1.1980, giving
persons time to work on the systems to
reduce the concentration of PCBs during
the summer months when demand for
natural gas is lower. Use and servicing
of these compressors are not a totally
enclosed activity because of limited
environmental exposure that may occur
during servicing and use.
  An immediate use prohibition could
have a serious effect on natural gas
distribution. Permitting more than a half
a year to complete the draining and
refilling significantly reduces costs and
disruptions in service while causing
little or no increase in exposure to PCBs.
The total cost of these decontamination
operations is $200,000. Because of the
small quantities and low concentrations
of PCBs involved. EPA believes that this
authorization will not result in exposure
to PCBs that presents an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment.
/. Use of Small Quantities for Research
and Development
  EPA is authorizing the use of PCBs in
"small quantities for research and
development", as defined in § 761.12(ee),
until July 1,1984. Processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
this purpose is authorized until July 1.
1979. After July 2.1979. PCBs cannot be
manufactured for this use, and after July
1,1979, they cannot be processed or
distributed in commerce, unless persons
interested in continuing these activities
have been granted an exemption.
  Because of the importance of on-going
research on the effects of PCBs and the
need to have reference standards for
analytical purposes. EPA believes that
the extremely limited exposures
associated with these activities do not
present an unreasonable risk to health
and the environment. The term "Small
Quantities for Research and
Development" is defined very narrowly.
Specifically, PCBs must be contained in
hermetically-sealed, five milliliter
containers. EPA believes this constraint
is sufficient precaution against the risks
of human or environmental exposure to
justify such use in light of the possible
benefits of continued research. The
proposed rule would have excluded
these activities from the prohibitions in
§ 761.30: however, EPA believes it is
more appropriate to authorize (and if
appropriate exempt) these activities.
K. Use in Microscopy
  EPA is authorizing the use of PCBs as
a mounting medium for microscopic
slides until July 1.1984, and the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for this purpose until July 1,
1979. After July 1.1979, persons who
want to continue processing and
distribution in commerce activities must
be granted an exemption by EPA.
Persons who want to manufacture PCBs
for this use after July 2,1979, must also
be granted an exemption by EPA.
  When PCBs are used as a mounting
medium for slides, extemely small
quantities are used on each slide. This
use is particularly important to
scientists who need to preserve, for
future reference, a microscope particle.
PCBs are also used in air pollution and
criminology labs for microscopic particle
identification and they play a vital role
in the study and conservation of art and
historic objects through use of
microscopic slides. In mounting, a
particle is placed in a PCB medium and

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 /  Rules and Regulations	31537
 covered with a cover slip, usually for
 permanent reference. No substitutes
 with the necessary physical properties
 exist for this use.
  Because of the small quantities of
 PCBs used at any one time and the
 careful nature of laboratory work,
 exposure to PCBs used as a mounting
 medium is minimal. Because of the
 substantial benefits of this use of PCBs
 and the very limited risks involved, EPA
 believes that this activity will not
 present an unreasonable risk and that it
 is appropriate to authorize this use of
 PCBs.

 X. PCB Activities Not Authorized by
 This Rule

 A. Manufacture of PCB Capacitors

  PCBs have been used as a dielectric
 fluid in alternating current capacitors
 manufactured in the United States from
 the mid-1930's through the mid-1970's.
 Although the manufacture of PCB
 Capacitors is considered to be
 "processing" of PCBs and could
 continue under section 8(e)(3)  until July
 1,1979, the activity is not totally
 enclosed and accordingly is prohibited
 under section 6(e)(2) after July 2,1979.
  In the past, manufacture of PCB
 Capacitors has been a major source of
 PCB release into the environment. For
 example, the upper reaches of the
 Hudson River are closed to fishing
 because of PCB contamination caused
 by capacitor manufacturing. The
 Support Document to the final rule
 (Chapter II) discusses this and other
 examples of environmental damage
 caused by this activity. In addition,
 there are substitutes available as
 discussed in Chapter IE of the Support
 Document to the final rule. For these
 reasons, EPA has determined that the
 continued manufacture of PCB
 Capacitors presents an unreasonable
 risk to human beings and the
 environment and has not authorized it
 under section 6(e)(2). It is EPA's
 understanding that no company is
 planning to manufacture PCB Capacitors
 after the effective date of this rule.

 B. Manufacture of PCB Transformers

  The use of PCBs as a transformer
 dielectric fluid dates back to the 1930's.
 The manufacture of PCB Transformers is
 also considered to be "processing" PCBs
 under TSCA but  is not a  totally enclosed
 activity. Under section 6{e){2), it may
 not continue after July 2,1979.
Significant quantities of PCB may enter
 the environment  during the manufacture
 of PCB Transformers. Production of PCB
 Transformers has been responsible for
 major river damage, notably the Coosa
 River in Northwest Georgia. Because of
 the environmental and human exposure
 to PCBs that occurs in the manufacture
 of these transformers and because of the
 availability of substitutes, EPA has
 determined that the manufacture of PCB
 Transformers presents an unreasonable
 risk and, therefore, has not authorized
 this activity. It is EPA's understanding
 that the manufacture of PCB
 Transformers in the United States
 ceased in 1977.

 C. Other PCB Activities

  All manufacturing of PCBs is
 prohibited after July 2,1979. Persons
 who have submitted a petition for a
 manufacturing exemption in accordance
 with the November 1,1978 rulemaking
 procedures (43 FR 50905) will not be
 subject to this ban until EPA acts upon
 their petitions (see 44 FR 108, January 2,
 1979).
  All processing, distribution in
 commerce,  and use of PCBs in other
 than a totally enclosed manner is
 prohibited after July 2,1979, unless
 specifically authorized in J 761.31 of this
 rule.
 XI. Manufacturing, Processing, or
 Distribution in Commerce of PCBs for
 Export

  Section 12(a) of TSCA states, in
 general, that no provision of TSCA shall
 apply to the manufacture, processing, or
 distribution in commerce of a chemical
 intended solely for export from the
 United States. However, if the
 Administrator finds that the
 manufacture, processing, or distribution
 in commerce of a chemical substance
 solely for export presents an
 unreasonable risk to health or the
 environment in the United States, those
 activities may be regulated under TSCA.
  It is the clear intent of TSCA to
 minimize the addition of PCBs to the
 environment of the United States. The
 extreme persistence of this substance
 and the ease with which it is
 transported has made it a global
 problem. There is considerable evidence
 of PCB contamination that is far from
 any known source (see Chapter II of the
Final Support Document). Therefore,
 PCBs used outside the United States can
 cause PCB contamination of this
 country. Moreover, manufacturing,
processing,  and distribution in
commerce of PCBs in this country for
 purposes of export is likely to cause
 significant release of PCBs in this
 country through air and water
 emissions, leaks and spills, and other
means. Instances of severe PCB releases
from manufacturing, processing,
transportation, and other activities
 involving PCBs are well documented.
 Because of these factors, EPA has
 determined that the manufacture,
 processing, and distribution in
 commerce of PCBs for export constitutes
 an unreasonable risk to health and the
 environment in the United States.
   The final rule prohibits: (1) any
 manufacture of PCBs for export after the
 effective date of this rule; and (2) the
 non-totally enclosed processing and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs for
 export as of the effective date of this
 rule; and (3) any processing or
 distribution in commerce of PCBs for
 export after July 1,1979, except solely
 for purposes of disposal in accordance
 with § 761.10. These prohibitions  are
 essentially the same as proposed. Like
 domestic manufacturers, processors,
 and distributors in commerce, persons
 wishing to manufacture, process,  or
 distribute in commerce PCBs or PCB
 Items solely for export may petition EPA
 for an exemption as discussed in  the
 preamble section VIII.A above.
   In addition, section 12(b)(2) of TSCA
 requires any person who exports  or
 intends to export a chemical substance
 or mixture for which a rule has been
 proposed under section 6 to notify the
 Administrator of such export or intent to
 export. This requirement applies to  any
 export of PCBs except the export  of
 wastes which require a special  report an
 discussed in VI.B.2 above. The
 requirement does not apply to the export
 of PCB Equipment, although the export
 of such equipment requires an
 exemption after July 1,1979. The export
 of PCBs in small quantities for research
 and development (as defined in
 § 761.2(ee)), for example, does require
 notice to EPA.
  Interim procedures regarding this
 requirement can be found at 43  FR 24818
 (June 7,1978). In summary,  these
 procedures require that notices be
 submitted for the exports of all  PCBs
 and PCB Items (except PCB Equipment),
 and the following information is to be
 included:
  (a) The name and address of the
 exporter; (b) the dates of each shipment
 or intended shipment; (cj the country
 (countries) of import; and (d) a
 statement that notice is being submitted
pursuant to Section 12(b) and 40 CFR
Part 761.
  Notices  shall be sent to the Document
Control Officer, (TS-793), Office of
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460.

XII. Test Procedures for PCB
  Test procedures for determining the
PCB concentration in various media

-------
31538      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May  31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
were not included in the proposed PCB
Ban Role. A number of comments on *^*
rule suggested that EPA provide
additional information on test method*,
  EPA ha« been involved in the
development of test method* far several
nnnfl»a and t»«f made modi of this
information available to the poetic.
Specifically, test procedures have been
made available for determining PCB
concentrations in air. soil, water, and
sediments using an American Society of
Testing and Materials method (ASTM D
33Ot) and in industrial effluents using
EPA method* (primarily for low   	
concentration of PCB in water) (40 CFR
138). In addition, an interim guidance
package containing two test procedures
(one for spills in soil and one for water)
was made available to EPA Regional
Offices in February 1978 for distribution
to the public. In the final step of
analyzing the sample, ail of these
procedures rely on a gas ctromatograph
with an electron capture detector. The
primary differences between the
procedures are in the methods used to
separate the water-soluble fraction from
the organic-soluble fraction. The latter
fraction contains the PCBs and is the
portion used in the gas chromatograph.
  Several comments wen critical that
EPA did not have more specific test
procedures for PCBs, in particular for
mineral oil dielectric fluid and pigments.
The contamination of mineral on
dielectric Bold with PCBs is a major
subject of mis rule and the problem
affects a large number of utilities and
industries. EPA has experience in the
analysis of contaminated oik and has
t~4^Af^ a test procedure (described
below) in an additional guidance
package thatwJil be distributed to EPA
Regional Offices. Pigments represent a
different type of smryaod problem.
Pigments are a complex analytical
media, and analytical chemists in that
industry who have the most knowledge
on reserving analytical i hi alinf
problems with that sabstance have
developed techmqnes to (purify PCBs
in pigments.
           lanafactnrers have
procedures and are
validate one ef them. With,

be contaninaled with PCS*
presumes that persons .who

analy»titairprn»Ktanri are best
                               to
                         EPA also
whet extent, imnr fMdftc* to
contaminated with PCB.
  EPA will aakrvse of industry-
                                      from such tests in enforcement actions
                                      where appropriate. EPA may also
                                      examine industry-developed test
                                      procedures and make modifications, if
                                      possible, that would increase the
                                      accuracy and sensitivity of the test.
                                      Such modifications wul be made
                                      publicly available. Persons who
                                      manufacture or process chemicals in a
                                      manner that could result in the
                                      production of PCBs as a primary
                                      product, imparity, intermediate,
                                      precursor, or byproduct are responsible
                                      for determining whether PCBs have
                                      been produced. They wifl have to
                                      conduct tests using good analytical
                                      chemistry and investigate ways to
                                      improve their ability to detect and
                                      quantify PCBs.
                                        For the testing of PCB contaminated
                                      oils, EPA uses the following analytical
                                      procedure which consists of three
                                      successive clean-up steps: at least one
                                      run through an activated silica gel
                                      column, a ran through an activated basic
                                      alumina ft^inn, and a final run through
                                      an activated silica gel column followed
                                      by analysis on the gas chromatograph
                                      equipped with an electron capture
                                      detector. This procedure can be used on
                                      any waste oil. For a mineral oil
                                      dielectric Quid that is relatively clean,
                                      an alternative procedure that would
                                      yield a less accurate PCB concentration
                                      with less effort and lower cost would be
                                      to substitute a uquid-aquid dean-up
                                      step for the cotanm dean-up. This clean-
                                      up involves muting the oil sample with
                                      concentrated settnric acid and then
                                      draining of the oil fraction. The oil
                                      fraction is then ran through the gas
                                      chromatograph. This clean-up step
                                      removes T"fft*»«t «gg«nrr material,
                                      thiophenes, and ssoistaTe from the oil
                                      sample. This attemaove-is not as
                                      accurate as the cohxna dean-op
                                      method, but for "dean" oils, it provides
                                      a less expensive, ;aore expedient test
                                      procedure.
                                        EPA ••""g"*— mat these procedures
                                                     perBnentsl errors and
                                                        BO matter bow
are subject to
that any p:
simple, can be ran faBjJfopetiy. However,
persons who are subject to this rale wul
be expelled to excsaee good lodgment
on testing decisions. Par example, if, in
the case of Ike I
oils, 1
yield leastis of ±1 ppat PCS while the
quicker jjiugssai ii auryyiekiitsmtU of
±tt ppmi
-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 44, No. 106  / Thursday. May  31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations	31539
 and employees, as well as violating
 companies. EPA takes the position that
 persons may not contract away their
 responsibility or liability for violation of
 these rules, i.e. a PCS user who
 contracts for PCS disposal or storage
 with a company that he knows or should
 know has inadequate disposal or
 storage facilities, may himself be the
 subject of an enforcement action. This
 policy applies to all remedies EPA may
 seek for a violation.
  EPA will be directing its resources to
 the discovery of significant instances of
 exposures of PCBs to the environment
 and developing accurate information
 depicting the flow of PCBs to proper
 disposal. Using information developed
 during inspections and using the records
 required to be kept under § 761.45, EPA
 will be able to focus its efforts upon
 areas which show the greatest potential
 for violation.

 XIV. Relationship of PCB Disposal
 Under TSCA to Hazardous Waste
 Disposal Under RCRA

  The disposal requirements of this rule
 specify the actions that must be taken
 when disposing of PCBs.
  In addition, the rule contains Annexes
 that delineate specifications for disposal
 facilities that are to be used for the
 disposal of PCBs. These facilities are
 also addressed in the hazardous waste
 disposal rules proposed under the
 Resource Conservation and Recovery
 Act (RCRA) on December 18,1978 (43
 FR 58946). Several options for
 integrating the PCB rule with the RCRA
 rules are discussed in  the preamble to
 the RCRA rules at 43 FR 58993 and
 comments were requested on the
 alternatives. Prior to the promulgation of
 the RCRA rules. EPA will resolve the
 differences between these two rules.
 Because of the special disposal
 problems presented by PCBs, EPA could
 choose to continue  special provisions for
 the disposal of PCBs. EPA's decision
 will be announced when the rules under
 RCRA are promulgated.

 XV. Summary of Economic
 Consequences

  Section 6(e) of TSCA prohibits (1) the
 use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed
 manner unless the use is authorized and
 (2) ail manufacture, processing, and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs unless
 they are otherwise exempted by the
Administrator. These authorizations and
 exemptions, however,  are discretionary
and can be granted only upon a finding
 that a particular PCB activity does not
pose an unreasonable risk to  health or
 the environment
   The impacts of both the statute and
 the regulation have been assessed and
 are discussed below. Additional
 information on these impacts is
 contained in PCB Manufacturing.
 Processing. Distribution IP Commerce.
 and Use Ban Regulation: Economic
 Impact Analysis (the Versar Report)
 which can be obtained from the Industry
 Assistance Office of the Office of Toxic
 Substances upon request (see the
 beginning of this preamble for the
 address and telephone number).

 A. Impact of the Statute

   It was the clear intent of Congress, as
 expressed in Section 6(e) and in the
 pertinent legislative history,  that the
 manufacture of PCBs should cease.
 Since no more PCBs will be made
 (unless exemptions are granted), it
 follows that there can be no future
 manufacturing of PCB Transformers or
 Capacitors. Consequently, the costs
 attributed to the cessation of the
 manufacture of PCB chemical substance,
 PCB Transformers, and PCB Capacitors
 are considered impacts of the statute,
 not of the regulation.
  These costs are attributable to the
 statute and not to the regulation and
 include $12-$30 million per year in
 increased capacitor costs that will be
 borne by utility and industrial users.
 This results from an across-the-board
 increase in capacitor prices of 10-20
 percent due to the higher costs of PCB
 substitutes. This cost will continue
 indefinitely, unless the cost of these
 substitutes falls. Purchasers of Non-PCB
 Transformers will incur increased costs
 of up to $10 million per year, depending
 on the particular substitute dielectric
 fluid selected. This cost will also
 continue indefinitely. These increased
 costs of transformers and capacitors
 will be passed on through a minimal
 increase in the cost of electricity to
 consumer and industrial users.

8. Impact of the Rule

  The total first year cost of this rule is
 expected to range between $58 million
 and S105 million. By 1985 the  annual
costs will  drop to between S30 million
 and $37 million. Annual costs should
continue to diminish subsequent to 1985
 as the use of PCBs is discontinued.
  The largest annual economic impact
of this regulation may result from the
prohibition of the use of waste oil
containing any detectable amount of
PCB for dust control on roads. Since
most waste oil contains very low PCB
levels, as much as 300,000,000 gallons of
waste oil per year will be diverted from
this use. Highway departments and
private road owners will have to use
 substitute products which could cost
 them as much as $31.7 million per year
 for the first several years of this rule.
 Note that the manufacturers of
 substitute products assert that use of
 their products will substantially reduce
 road maintenance costs when compared
 to the use of waste oil for road oiling
 and that such a reduction would directly
 reduce the net cost of the rule. However,
 EPA is not able to verify the potential
 savings involved.
   The ban on rebuilding transformers
 which contain dielectric fluid with a 500
 ppm or greater PCB concentration will
 cost  the owners of these transformers
 approximately $12 million in the first
 year of the rule. This annual cost will be
 gradually reduced over  a period of 30 to
 40 years as the transformers are
 replaced. Included in the $12 million
 estimate is an estimated $2.4 million in
 costs attributed to a projected increase
 in down-time. In other words, when a
 power delivery is interrupted by an
 electrical failure of a PCB Transformer
 the rule's effective requirement that the
 failed PCB Transformer be replaced by  a
 new, rather than a rebuilt transformer,
 will cause a longer than normal
 interruption. About two thirds of these
 transformers are owned by commercial
 and industrial firms and the remainder
 by utilities. The impact of this rule with
 respect to transformers is expected to
 have  a negligible effect on the cost of
 electricity, and no significant impact on
 non-utility owners.
   The cost of disposing of PCB-
 contaminated mineral oil will be
 significantly less than under the
 proposed rule. The final  rule modifies
 the proposed requirement and allows
 disposal in high efficiency boilers. It is
 expected that the annual costs under the
 changed disposal requirements will be
 between $3.2 million and $17.0 million.
 Included in both the low and the high
 estimates is an estimated annual
 disposal cost of $11.1 million which
 could be incurred by disposers of
 contaminated mineral  oil who do not
 own high efficiency boilers. In addition,
 the owners of high efficiency boilers will
 likely incur some capital costs in the
 first year of the rule in order to take
 advantage of the new provisions.
  Seven railroad and transit companies
 which are affected by this rule will incur
 total additional operating costs of S12.2
 million. These costs will  be spread over
 the next five years. The costs will be
 incurred because of refilling of PCB-
Containing Transformers used on
locomotives and self-powered cars with
 substitute non-PCB fluid, and in
periodically removing residual PCB
contamination from the new fluid. Since

-------
31540      Federal Register / Vol.  44,  No. 106 / Thursday. May  31.  1979 /  Rules and Regulations
oniy electrically-powered units are
involved, the costa will be borne solely
by railroad* and puboc transit
author, ties la the Northeast. These
companies are in finAnriat trouble;
however, funding may be available
through Federal subsidies.
  Underground mining equipment will
be impacted because of an older design
electric motor which osed PC3s as a
cooianL The use of these motors will be
banned as of January 1,1382, and the
total cost to users of PGB mining
equipment will be 42Uyo SA2 million.
Since the ban is designed to allow a
phase-out of the use of the equipment
through conversion or obsolescence, it
ihould cause no interruption of coal
production. These costs are not
expected to cause •ig"iRf'a"* problems
for the equipment owners.
  Owners of hydraulic systems with
PCB-containing hydraulic fluid will  have
to test, drain, and refill these systems
periodically. As many as 1.750 systems
including imrti^ die f"f*Mffl end foundry
equipment are believed to b* affected
by the rule and coats for  the initial two
years are expected to total between
314.8 and $25 million; coats for
subsequent years should be  '
  Owners of beat transfer systems with
PCB-conUiittfig heat transfer Said will
also have to test, drain, and refill these
systems periodically. As many as 600
systems are believed to be affected by
the rule, and costs for the first three
years are expected to total between
$12.2 and $17A auQion; cost for
subsequent years should be
insignificant.
  Threre are a number of commercial
chemical process** which produce PCBe
as an unintentional byproduct in
concentrations over 90 ppm. For
instance, the presence of PCBs (in
excess of 50 ppm) in phthalocyanine and
diarylide yellow pigments has been
detected. It is estimated that the pigment
industry can change its production
process within two years at a coat of
approximately SSJBt million so that
unintentional PCB production will no
longer be a problem. Little ta known
about the cost or feasibility of
eliminating PCB contamination from
other cfoamiratt production processes.
However, since all of these problem* at
PCs-contamination in the production of
pigments *""* other chemical products
will be dealt with on a case-by-case
basis in exemption mlf making*, the
Agency will be able to assist these
economic-impecU at that time. ,
  Also, this regulation could potentially
have a very costly impact on sellers of
electrical equipment containing PCB
Capacitors if EPA does net provide
exemptions from the prohibition on
distribution m commerce of PCS
Equipment These costs will be carefully
considered in toe separate rulemakirig
concerning exemptions to ;he July 1,
1979. distribution in commerce ban.
  Several other very minor impacts
which will be incurred only during 1973
have been identified. These impacts
include owners of natural gas pipeline
pump compressors who are expected to
spend $200.000 in 1979 to remove PCB
fluid from those compressors. The ban
on rebuilding the approximately 200
electromagnets containing PCBs is
expected to cost users 3100,000 annually
and have a total cost of less than $1
million.
  Most of the coats discussed above
result from requirements that are part of
the authorizations to permit continued
use of mixtures, articles and equipment
containing PCBs in a manner protective
of health and the environment If these
authorizations were  not promulgated.
the cost and economic impact on the
affected industries could be
considerably greater than the costs
discusted above. EPA has carefully
examined the coats of this rule and does
not expect any severe economic or
social impacts.
  D°tMfc April 18. Mffa
Dougtea si. Caste,
Admnuttfotor.
                      kiag-PCS 3aa
                                         Official Record of RuJa
                                         Reyuiauaaa '
                                           Section IflUKd) olTSCA defines the tens
                                         "rutaaaking recced" lot purpoM* of judicial
                                         review u fallows;
                                           (A] The rule being reviewed under this
                                         section;
                                           (B) In the case of a rale under section 4(a>.
                                         the flatting tcqaiied by men section, in the
                                         case of • rate inter MCOOB 5(bM4). the
                                         Finding refpond by each section, in UM CSM
                                         of a rule under urtina «(•). Ihe finding
                                         required by section 5(f] or 6(a), as the case
                                         may be. in, the case of a rale under -section
                                         8(a), the statement required by section d(c)(l).
                                         and in the case of a mis under section 6(e).
                                         the findings rwraired by paragraph 2»B1 or
                                         j(B) of men section.  M the com* may Oe:
                                           (O Any transcript required to b« osc'e of
                                         oral pnMBtaoiMS ntwifo in proceedings for
                                         'he pronutejanoa of saca rote;
                                           (u} Any written vlhriinptm of interested
                                         parties rejecting the promulgation of such
                                         rule: and
                                           1 The official record of raiemaldng for the
                                         PolyJiK>ii»rtm» Rptanrti McrMng and Dtoponi
                                         Regulation <4aranSD.P«braiy 17. UTS) fcpiri of
                                         the wort at thfc ntaauHf*. Th« official racomi oi
  (E) Any other intormetion which the
AdminiAtfator considers to be relevant to
such rule and which the Administrator
identified, on or before the date of u*e
promulgation of such rule, in a notice
published in the Federal Raspsror.
  In accordance with the 'wjuiremenrt oi
section 19(a^3KE) qnoted above. EPA to
publishing the tbDoiring list ol doaaneiffs
constituting She record of this mfnnaiasf .
Tlii« list does not indmie public conuaerux
the tmssaipt of tile ruiemaking hearing, or
submissions made at the mieaiaki&g hearing
or in connection with it These acxanaenU arr
exempt from Fadetal Register listing under
section 19faJ(3). A full list of these materials
wiQ be available on request from the Record
and Hearing Qeric.

Fadstai Hegistet Ntttices Pwttintet t» Thia
Rui»
  43 PR 2MB. fane 7, 1978. USEPA.
•PoiychhBuwUd Biphenyl. (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Pracessin(> DtetnbanoB is
Commerce, and Use Bans Proposed
Regulation."
  42 FR32MS. fan* 27,1877. USEPA.
•Polycblornmted Hpbenytei Opea Pukbc
Meeting; Solicitation of CoaHMals."
  42 FR 81259, December  2, 1977. USEPA.
"fttKedmes for Rutaneking Under Sectfc* a
of the Toxic *T-*«f*"r"" Control Act"
  42 FR 85264, December 30, 1877. USEPA.
••Polyduanaatad BioUnyU: Policy for
impUaweUaoa of Swltea &(e)(2) of the Toxic
Substance* Control Act (TSCAV'
  43 FR 38057, August 25. ISTH. USEPA.
'•Polychlorinated BiphenyU: Manufacbiring.
Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and
Use Bans; Clarification,"
  43 PR 43048. September 22, 1978. USEPA.
•Potychlorinated Di|jtieiiyt«. MacafectnriBg,
Processuig, Oiteibatiaa in Commerce, and
Use Bans: attention of Reply Comments."
  44 FR 10s, ^nuary 2. 1378. USEPA.
•PolycokriuatMi Siptaryis: Poucy for
ImplemeatauoB and HnteeeBeat d Serttoas
6(eM2) and *eM3i of the Toxic SubMancea
Control Aet (TSCA)."

Support Docunoots
  USEPA. OTS. "PCB Manufacturing.
Processing, Distribution in Conrmsrcf and
itstf-Ban Rcgaiation-PmpcyetfAeticm-Sapport
Document. "/Voluntary Orvft Brrwrronatmtal
Impact Statement, Snrironatental Protection
fyency (40 CFR fart 701). May 197«.
  USEPA. OTS. Envircr.s&ntai Protection
Agency Support DocuTr.irt'.fVoiantarf
Environmental Impact Statement for
Paijchhrinated Biphenyis (PCB)
Manufacturing. Processing Distribution in
Commerce and Use San Regulation. March
1979.
  USEPA, OPM. MicToeconomic Impacts of
f/te Proposed 'PCS Ban RegntotiODs'c Aftry,
1978. EPA S60/8-77-035. Versar. be Contract
No. 88-01-*771.
                                         the official record for th* Adminntrator'i.
                                         procmrft»*Jii of tedc poflcriaiN lAiMrt tlmterdi
                                         for                             ~
                                         Act (4i FI
                                         Procetmag. Datribatioa in Cuuomca, atd
                                         Us* Bam Aagufaamr Economic Impact
                                         Anafytm. March 30. 1978. H?A-jau-U/7a-
                                         008. Versar. Inc. Contract Ne. 6a-«l-0n.

-------
            Federal Register /  Vol. 44.  No.  106  /  Thursday. May  31.  1979 / Rules  and Regulations        31541
Other Information

Other "Federal Register" Noticet
  41 FR 7552. February 19.1976. "Velsicol
Chemical Company et al., Consolidated
Heptachlor/Chlordane Hearing."
  41 FR 21402. May 25.1970. "Health Risk
and Economic Impact Assessments of
Suspected Carcinogens: Interim Procedures
and Guidelines."
  42 FR 55028. October 12.1977. "TSCA
Interagency Testing Committee-Initial Report
to the Administrator. EPA."
  43 FR 7150. February 17.1978.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Disposal
& Marking Final Regulation."
  43 FR 33918. August 2.1978. "Addendum to
Preamble and Corrections to Final Rule
(PCBs),"

USEPA-Non "Federal Register" Statements
  Region IV. News release in reference to
fishing in Lake Hartwell and Twelve Mile
Creek in Pickins County. South Carolina.
Dated about September 10.1976.
  Statement of Honorable Russell E. Train.
Administrator. EPA, before the Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment, Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, House of
Representatives. January 28, 1978.
  Remarks by the Honorable Russell E.
Train. Administrator, EPA prepared for
delivery at the National Conference on PCBs.
Chicago. Illinois. Wednesday, November 19.
1975.10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.
Environmental Protection: fix for Public
Health.
  Region I News Release: September 14 1976.
  USEPA. OTS. CAD. Proposed PCS Baa
Rule Summary. Apnl 30,1978.
  USEPA. Press Office. EPA Proposed Rule
To Ban Poivchlonnated Biphenyls (PCBs).
June 7. 1978.

Pre-Proposal Publicly Announced Meetings
  USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings: Public
Meeting on the Ban of Polychlonnated
Biphenyls. Washington. D.C.. July 15,1977.
  USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings in the
Special Meeting of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  Region V-Chicago. ILL.
July 19. 1978.
Documents Suomitted at the fuly 19. 1977
Public Meeting
  Statement on Retrofitting Made at Public
Meeting on the Implementation of the
Environmental Protection Agency s Proposed
PCB Ban. July 19. 1977. Dow Corning Corp.
  Presentation to Environmental Protection
.\xencv. Public Meeting-July 19. 1977 |ov
Manufacturers.

Communications
  These include, but'are not limited to.
mtragovernmental memoranda, letters, and.
memoranda of telephone conversations.

Reports
  1. 'Alvares. Alvito P. "Alterations in Drug
Metabolism in Workers Exposed to
 Polychlorinated Biphenyls." Clinical
 Pharmacology and Therapeutics 22:2
 (undated): 140-148.
  2. 'Bahn. Anita K. Report on Paulsboro,
 N.J. Mobil OilPlant Study. Philadelphia:
 Department of Community Medicine.
 University of Pa., School of Medicine. (April
 27,1978).
  3. 'Bertha, Richard, and Pramer. David.
 "Pesticide Transformation to Aniline and Azo
 Compounds in Soli" Science 156 (June 23.
 1976): 1617-1618.
  4. 'Berlin, Mathi Gage. John, and Holm.
 Stina. "Distribution and Metabolism of
 2,4,5,2',5-Pentachiorobiphenyl." Archives of
 Environmental Health 30 (March 1975): 141-
 147.
  5. 'Bidleman. T. F.. and Olney, C. E.
 "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso
 Sea Atmosphere  and Surface Water."
 Science 183 (October 1.1973): 516-418.
  8. 'Blau. G. E..  and Neely, W. Brack.
 "Mathematical Model Building with an
 Application to Determine the Distribution of
 Dursban Insecticide Added to a Simulated
 Ecosystem." Adv. Ecology Res. 2 (1975): 133-
 163.
  7. -Bowes. G. W.. and /onkelv Charles J.
 "Presence and Distribution of Polychlorinated
 Biphenyls (PCB) in Arctic and Subarctic
 Marine Food Chains."/. Fish. Res. 3d. Cem.
 32:11 (1975): 2111-2123.
  8. 'Canada. Environment Canada.
Background to the Regulation of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in  Canada.
Ottawa: Task Force on PCB. Technical
Report 78:1 (April 1. 1978): 41-42.
  9. 'Denbigh, Kenneth. The Principles of
Chemical Equilibrium with Applications in
Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.
 (Cambridge: University P. ess, 1955),  268-272.
  10. Dow Coming Corporation. A Material
Balance Study of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
in Lake Michigan. Midland. MI:
Environmental Sciences Research, by Neely,
 W. Brock. The Science of the  Total
Environment 7(1977): 117-129.
  11. ~Dow Corning Corp. Removal of PCBs
from Dow Corning 561 Silicone Transformer
Liquid by Charcoal Filtration. Midland. MI:
Joint Protect of Dow Corning,  Transformer
Consultants. DC Filter and Chemical. Inc..
(undated).
  12. "EC&G. Fathead Minnow Egg and Fry
Study, Summary of. Wareham. MA:
Bionamics Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory,
(August 26. 1977).
  13. "Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protect ion Agency, 510 F2d
1292. 1298 (DC Or. 1972).
  14. 'Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 548 F2d
998, 1008 (DC Cir. 1976).
  15. 'Environmental Defense Fund (EOF)
and New York Public Interest Research
Group, Inc. (PIRG). Troubled Waters: Toxic
Chemicals in the  Hudson River IV (1977): 6-
11.
  I5.a Flonda Power and Light Company.
Report on PCB Sampling Program for Florida
Power and Light Company. Miami: Edward E.
  'Denotes documents cited in the Environmental
Protection Agency's PCB Manufacturing.
Processing. Distribution in Commerce and Use Ban
Regulation: Proposed Rule—Support Document/
Voluntary Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
  'Denotes documents cited in 43 F.R. 24802. June 7.
1978, "EPA. Polychlonnated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing. Processing Distribution in
Commerce and Use Bans." Proposed Rule.
 Clark. Engineers-Scientists. (August 4.1978).
 Submitted to Jeffrey G. Miller,. USEPA. OAA
 for Water Enforcement by Robert E. Uhrig,
 VP, Advanced Systems and Technology,
 September 25.1978.
   16. *Furr. A. Keith: Lawerence, Alonzo W.;
 Tong. Steven S. C, Gradolfo, Marian C;
 Hofstader. Robert A.; Bache. Carl A^
 Gutenmann. Walter Usk, Donald J.
 "Multielement and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
 Analysis of Municipal Sewage Sludges of
 American Cities." Environmental Science
 and Technology. 10:7 (July 1976): 683-687.
   17. General Electric Co. Perspectives on
 PCB Substitutes For Power Capacitors.
 Hudson Falls. NY: Capacitor Products Dept,
 (October 17,1977). Submitted to Peter P.
 Principe, USEPA, OTS by Ruth K. Amman.
 Materials Science Lab.. March 9.1978.
   18. "General Electric Co. Silicones in
 Transformers Presented to the
 Environmental Protection Agency.
 Waterford. NY: Silicones Products Dept.
 (September 6,1977).
   19.  'Hamelink. Jerry L: Waybrant Ronald
 C.; Ball. Robert C "A Proposal: Exchange
 Equilibria Control the Degree Chlorinated
 Hydrocarbons an Biologically Magnified in
 Lentic Environments." Transactions of the
 American Fisheries Society 100:2 (April
 1971): 207-214.
   20.  'Hague, Rizwanul; Schmedding, David
 W.: and Freed. Virgil M. "Aqueous Solubility
 Adsorption and Vapor Behavior by
 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclor 1254." Env.
 Set. » Tech. 6-2 (February 1974): 139-141.
   21.  'Harvey, George R.. and Steinhauer,
 William G. "Atmospheric Transport of
 Poiychlorobiphenyis to the North Atlantic."
 Atmospheric Environment 8 (1974): 777-782.
   22.  'Holden. A.  V. "Source of
 Polychlonnated Biphenyl Contamination in
 the Marine Environment." Nature 228
 (December 19.1970): 1220-1221.
   23. Hutzmger. O.: Safe. S.: and Zitko. V.
 "Polychlonnated Biphenyls." Anaiabs
 Research Notes 12:2 (July 1972): 1-15.
   24.  'Jansson. B.; Jensen. S.: Olsson, M.:
 Sundstrom. G.: and Vaz. R. "Identification by
 GC-MS of Phenolic Metabolites of PCB and
 p.p'-DDE Isolated  from Baltic Guillemot and
 Seal." Ambio 4:2 (1975): 93-96.
   funge. C. E.  See  Suffet. I. H.. gen. ed.
   25.  'Lunde.  Golbrand.  'Long-Range Aerial
 Transmission of Organic Micropollutants."
Ambio 5-6 (1976):  207-208.
   26.  'Mackay, Donald: Lemonen. Paul J.
 "Rate of Evaporation Low-Solubility
Contaminants from Water Bodies to
 Atmosphere." Environmental Science and
 Technology 9  (December 1975): 1178-1180.
  27. 'Maugh. Thomas H. II. "DDT: An
 Unrecognized Source of Poiychlonnated
Biphenyls." Science 180 (May 1973): 578-579.
  2a 'MetcaJf. Robert L; Sanborn. James: Po
Yung Lu: Nye. Donald. "Laboratory Model
Ecosystem Studies of the Degradation and
Fate of Radio labeled Tri-, Tetra-, and
Pentachlorobiphenyl Compared with DDE."
Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 3:2 (1975): 151-165.
  29. 'Monsanto Chemical Company. Aroclor
Plasticizers. St. Louis. MO: Organic
Chemicals Division. Technical Bulletin O/PL-
306A (Undated).

-------
31342       Federal Register. /  VoL 44. No. 106 / Thursday.  May  31.  1979 / Rales and  Regulations
  30. *Mon*anto Chemical Company.
Monsanto To Shut Dovm PCS Unit. But
Business by October 31. 1877. SL Louis, MOs
(October 5, 1977%
  31. 'Murphy, Thomas J. PndnitatianiA
Significant Source of Phosphorus ondPQts
to Lake Michigan. Evanatoo. ID.: iota, ACS
Great Lake* Regional Meeting, (Jane 17,
1978).
  32. * National Electric Mwiufacturers
Association. Report of Transformer
Dielectric fluid Study Cttoi&hg Croup.
Washington. OC^OcUkbu 18. IS77).
  33. 'National Swedish Environmental
Protection Board. PCB Conference H
Stockholm: Pub. 1073: 4E. q?f— •**•• 14.
19721.
  34. 'Nebon. N.  "PCB^&iviraHMatBi
Impact." Environmental Research & (1872):
273-287.
  35. "New  York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Hudson, River
PCS Study Description and Detailed Work
Plan. Albany: Bureau of Water Research.
  38. 'Nisbet. Ian C T. and Sarofia*. Ada* P.
"Rate* and Route* of Transport of PCBe in
the Environment." Environmental Health and
Perspectives (Apni 1972): 21-38.
  37. 'GOofi*. P. C; Albright. L. fc Seat* S. Y.
and Law. f. 'Factors Affecting the Behavior
of Fire Chlorinated Hydrocarbon* in Two
Natwal Water* and Their Sediment*."
Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
SQrtl (1873): 1614-1823.
Mr. Bofaerta,
  38. + TCBs spread by waste oil we?"
Chemical Week (January 25, ISTBfc 15.
  39. + Peakafl, D. a TCBt and Their
Environmental Meets." CRC-Qitfca/
Reviews in Environmental Control &4
(September 1975): 489-508.
  40. '"Report of a New Chemical Hazard.'*
.Vew Scientist (December 15. 1908): 81Z
  41. 'Risebrough. R. W.: WaHcer. W. ft
Schmidt, T. T.: de Lappe, B. W.; Cannon. C.
W. 'Transfer of Chlorinated JBiphenyia , to
Antarctica." Nature 284 (December 23/30,
19781: 738-739.
  42. 'Sodergren. A. "Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Residue* in Airborne Fallout."
Mature 236: (Apnl 21. 1972J: 395-397.
  43. Spagnoli. John {„ and Skinner,
Lawrence C. "PCBs in Rsh Prom Selected
Waters of New York State," Pesticides
Monitoring Journal 11:2. (September 1977]: 69-
87.
  44. 'Buffet. I. H, gen. ed. fate of Pollutants
in the Air and Water Environments. New
York: ]ohn Wiley 4 Sons, 1977, Vol. & "Basic
Consideration about Trace«Constiruents in
the Atmosphere as Related to the Fate of
Global Pollutants." C. E. Junge. 7-25.
  45. Tucker. E. S.; U tschgt W. J.; Mees. W.
M. "Migration of Polychlorinated Biphenyts
in Soil Induced by Percolating Water."
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination S-
 Toxicology 111 (1975): 88-83.
   46. -r University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
College Program. "ABCs of PCB*." Madison:
Public Information Report WIS SG 78-125.
(April 1976).
   47. -r University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
 College Program. "PCBs and the FDA. Parts I
 and II." Madison: Earthwatch/Wisconsin.
 -May 8 and May 13. 1977).
  48. + USDHEW. Final Report of the
Subcommittee on the Health Effects of
Polychlorinated Bfpherryls and
Polybroaunated Biphenyls. Washington, (July
1978).
  48. ** USDHEW. Center for Disease
Control. Exposure to Pa/ycAIatinated
Bipfienyls in Bloomington, Indiana. Atlanta:
Public Health Service. EPI-77-^JS-a. (May 28,
1978], Submitted by Request of EPA during
Reply Comment Period.
  50. 'USDHEW, NIOSH. Criteria fora
Recommended SUmdard'b .
Expomtre to PoIycUarinated Bipheayls
fPCBs}. Wa»hingtoni [SepUanbar 1977)
  SL 'USDHEW. NIOSH. The Toxic
Substances List-1973 Edition. RockviHe, MD:
(June 18731. 95.
  52. ' •USDHEW. PHS. NIH. NO. Bioaamay
ofArodor 1254 for Potsible Carcinogaaicity.
Washington: National Cancer Instituta, Tech,
Report Seriee No. 38. (Uff&\.
  53. + USDOC, Mariame Adminutration.
Final £"*"'*"»*"">'**n^ imp"?* StotetnenL
                                                      rVf"j'-' Waata Incinerator
Ship Project. VoL 1 of 2 MA-OS 730a-78O4lF,
(July 2, 1978).
  54. +USDOrT.TranaportaticmSyateiM
Center. Smtiuatum of SHicame fluid for
Replacement of PCS CoolantM in Railway
Industry. Waaomgtos Preaanted by
Wesdnghouse Electnc Corp, {j»ly 1977).
  55. +USEPA. Pntrrmitiags In the Matter of
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standard*. Docket
No. 1 rWPCAjyr). Arlington, V A. (May a.
1974).
  56. + USEPA. Proceedings In the Matter of
Toxic Pollutant Sffhent Standards. Docket
No. 1 FWPCAJX7). Arlington, VA. (May 9,
1974).
  57. 'USBPA. Proceedings tn the Matter- of
Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards. Docket
No. 1 FWPCAO07L Arlinfton. VA. (May 2O.
1974).
  5ft. 'USEPA, EBTironmental Reaearcfa
Center. Table of PCB* in Sewage Sludge.
Cincinnati. OH: OSWMP. Unpnbiianed
Report (Undated).
  59, 'USEPA. Environmental Research
Laboratory. PorytMorobipaeayls in
Precipitation in the Late Michigan Basin-
Draft. Durum. Minn. Office of Research A
Development. (Undated).
  00. 'USEPA. OAWM. EnvirorunentaJ
Assessment of PCS* in the Atmosphere.
Research Triangle Park. NC. Mitre
Corporation £PA 450/3-77-45, (November
1977).
  61. ' USEPA. OSWMP. Municipal Sludge
Agricultural Utilization Practices: An
Environmental Assessment VI— Table 49.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Concentrations in
Stablized Sludge. SCS Engineers, (Undated).
  62. USEPA. OTS. Assessment of the
Environmental and Economic Impacts of the
Ban on Imports of PCBs. Versar. Inc. EPA
560/8-77-007. (July 1977).
  63. ' USEPA, OTS. Destruction of PCBs in
Sewage Sludge Daring Incineration.
Springfield. VA, Verwr, inc. PB-25B-162.
(1976).
  "Denote* document* cJtfd in the Environmental
 Protection Agency'* Support Oocaaeat/Vofanuay
 Environmental Impact Statmtnt far
 Poiychlonnoted Bipa**jt* (PCB) Manufacturing
 Processing. Distribution in Commerce and Use Ban
 Regulation: March 3979
  64. USEPA, OTS. Environmental
Assessment of PCBs Near New Bedford,
Mass. Municipal landfill Phml Draft.
Waahington. DC (May 187B).
  65. 'VSBfr^«BiiM>, Caherex  Dust
Retardant Agent. Bakenfieid, CA: Golden
Bear Division. (Undated).
  74. 'World Almanac & Book of Fact*.
"Meteorological Monthly Temperature and
Precipitation." (1977): 794-795.
  75. + WorW Health Organization.
Environmental Health Criteria 2. PCBs and
Terphenyls. Geneva. (1976): 43-46.
  78. 'World Hearth Organization.
Environmental Health Criteria far PCBs-
Draft. EHE/EHC/WP. 75.2 Rev. 220
(November 1975): 29.4.
  T7.*Wyndham. O; Devenish. {4  and Safe S
"The In Vitro Metabolism. MacroBoieeaiar
Binding and Bacteria Mutagenicity of 4—
ChlorobiphenyL. A Modal PCB Substrata."
Research Communications in Chemical
^thokrgy and Pharmacology 15J (November
1976): 563-S7a
  73. 'Yoshimura. Hidetoahi, and  Yamomoto.
Hiroaki. "Metabolic Studies oa PCBs. L
Metabolic Fate of 3,4.3', 4'-
tetrachlorobiphenyl in Rats." Cfiem. Pharm.
Bulletin 21:5 (1973): 1168-116a
  Part 761 is revised to read as followr

PART 761—POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBa)
MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING,
DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND
USE PROHIBITIONS

Sufapart'A—Generai
 Sec
 761.1  Applicability,
 761.2  Definitions.

-------
           Federal Register  /  Vol. 44.  No. 106  / Thursday, May 31.  1979 / Rules and Regulations	31543
Subpart 8—Disposal of PCBs and PCS
761.10  Disposal requirements.
Subpart C—Marking of PCS* and PCS
781.20  Marking requirement

Subpart D—Manufacturing, Processing.
Distribution In Commerce, and Us* of PCBs
and PC8 Items
761.30  Prohibition*.
7S1.31  Authorizations.
761.32  [Reserved]

Subpart E—Us* of AMWXM

Annex No. I
701.40  Incineration.

Annex No. H
781.41  Chemical waste landfills.

Annex No. Ill
781.42  Storage for disposal.

AnnaxNo.IV
781.43  Decontamination.

Annex No. V
761.44  Marking formats.

Annex No. VT
781.45  Records and Monitoring.
  Authority: Section 6, a, and 12. Toxic
Substances Control Act. 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607,
and 2611.

Subpart A—General

§ 761.1  AppHcabUKy.
  (a) This part establishes prohibitions
of, and requirements for. the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, disposal storage, and
marking of PCBs and PCS Items.
  fb) This part applies to all persons
who manufacture, process, distribute in
commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs or
PCS Items. Unless it is otherwise
specifically provided, the terms PCB  and
PCBs are used in this rule to refer to any
chemical substance? and combinations
of substances that contain 50 ppm (on a
dry weight basis) or greater of PCBs. as
defined in § 761.2(s), including any
byproduct, intermediate, or  impurity
manufactured at any point in a process.
Any chemical substances and
combinations of substances that contain
less than 50 ppm PCBs because of any
dilution, shall be included as PCB and
PCBs unless otherwise specifically
provided. Substances that are regulated
by this rule include, but are  not limited
to, dielectric fluids, contaminated
solvents, oils, waste oils, heat transfer
fluids, hydraulic fluids, paints, sludges,
slurries, dredge spoils, soils, materials'
contaminated as a result of  spills, and
other chemical substances or
 combination cf substances, including
 impurities and byproducts.
   (c) Definitions of the terms used in
 these regulations are in Subpart A. The
 basic requirements applicable to
 disposal and marking of PCBs and PCB
 Items are set forth in Subpart B—
 Disposal of PCBs and PCB Items and in
 Subpart C—Marking of PCBs and PCB
 Items. Prohibitions applicable to PCB
 activities are set forth in Subpart D—
 Manufacture, Processing. Distribution in
 Commerce, and Use of PCBs and PCB
 Items. Subpart D also includes
 authorizations from the prohibitions.
 The Annexes in Subpart E set forth the
 specific requirements for disposal and
 marking of PCBs and PCB Items.
   (d) Section 15 of the Toxic Substances
 Control Act (TSCA) states that failure to
 comply with these regulations is
 unlawful. Section 16 imposes liability for
 civil penalties upon any person who
 violates these regulations, and the
 Administrator can establish appropriate
 remedies for any violations subject to
 any limitations included in 5 16 of
 TSCA. Section 16 also subjects a person
 to criminal prosecution.for a violation
 which is knowing or willful. In addition.
 § 17 authorizes Federal district courts to
 enjoin activities prohibited by these
 regulations, compel the taking of actions
 required by these regulations, and issue
 orders to seize PCBs and PCB Items
 manufactured, processed or distributed
 in violation of these regulations.
  (ej These regulations do not preempt
 other more stringent Federal  statutes
 and regulations.

 §761.2  Definitions.
  For the purpose of this part:
  (a) "Administrator" means the
 Administrator of the Environmental
 Protection Agency, or any employee of
 the Agency to whom the Administrator
 may either herein or by order delegate
 his authority to carry out his functions.
 or any person who shall by operation of
 law be authorized to carry out such
 functions.
  (b) "Agency" means the United States
 Environmental Protection Agency.
  fc) "Byproduct" means a chemical
 substance produced without separate
 commercial intent during the
 manufacturing or processing of another
 chemical substance(s) or mixture(s).
  (d) "Capacitor" means a device for
 accumulating and holding a charge of
electricity and consisting of conducting
 surfaces separated by a dielectric.
Types of capacitors are as follows:
  (1) "Small  Capacitor" means a
 capacitor which contains less than 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) of dielectric fluid.
   (2) "Large High Voltage Capacitor"
 means a capacitor which contains 1.36
 kg (3 Ibs.] or more of dialectic fluid and
 which operates at 2000 volts a.c. or
 above.
   (3) "Large Low Voltage Capacitor-
 means a capacitor which contains 1.38
 kg (3 Ibs.) or more of dielectric fluid and
 which operates below 2000 volts a.c.
   (e)(l) "Chemical Substance", except
 as provided in subparagraph (2) of this
 paragraph, means any organic or
 inorganic substance of a particular
 molecular identity, including:
   (i) Any combination of such
 substances  occurring in whole or part as
 a result of a chemical reaction or
 occurring in nature, and
   (ii) Any element or uncombined
 radical.
   (2) Such term does not include:
   (i) Any mixture.
   (ii) Any pesticide (as defined in the
 Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and
 Rodenticide Act) when manufactured.
 processed, or distributed in commerce
 for use as a  pesticide,
   (iii) Tobacco or any tobacco product.
   (ivj Any source material special
 nuclear material, or by product material
 (as such terms are defined in the Atomic
 Energy Act of 1954 and regulations
 issued under such Act).
   (v) Any arctide the sale of which is
 subject to the tax  imposed by section
 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of
 1954 (determined without regard to any
 exemptions  from such tax provided by
 section 4182 or section 4221 or any
 provisions of such Code), and
  (vi) Any food, food additive, drug,
 cosmetic, or device (as such terms are
 defined in section 201 of the Federal
 Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act) when
 manufactured, processed, or distributed
 in commerce for use as a food, food
 additive, drug, cosmetic, or device.
  (f) "Chemical Waste  Landfill" means
 a landfill at which protection against
 risk of injury to health or the
 environment from migration of PCBs to
 land, water,  or the atmosphere is
 provided from  PCBs and PCB Items
 deposited therein by locating,
 engineering,  and operating the landfill
 as specified  in § 761.41.
  (g) "Commerce" means trade, traffic.
 transportation, or other commerce:
  (1) Between a place in a State and any
place outside of such State, or
  (2) Which  affects trade, traffic,
 transportation, or commerce described
in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
  (h) "Disposal" means to intentionally
or accidentally discard, throw away, or
otherwise complete or terminate the
useful life of PCBs and PCB Items.
Disposal includes actions related to

-------
31544      Federal Register /  Vol.  44, No. 106 / Thursday. May 31.  1979 / Rules and  Regulation!
containing, transporting, destroying,
degrading, decontaminating, or
confining PCBs and PCS Items.
  (i) "Distribute in Commerce" and
"Distribution in Commerce" when used
to describe an action taken with respect
to a chemical substance, mixture, or
article containing a substance or
mixture means to sell, or the sale of. the
substance, mixture, or article in
commerce; to introduce or deliver for
introduction into commerce, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction
into commerce of the substance,
mixture, or article: or to hold or the
holding of, the substance, mixture, or
article after its introduction into
commerce.
  (j) "Fluorescent Light Ballast" means a
device that electrically controls
fluorescent light fixtures and that
includes a capacitor containing 0.1 kg or
less of dialectic.
  (k) "Impurity" means a chemical
substance which is unintentionally
present with another chemical
substance.
  (1] "Incinerator" means an engineered
device using controlled flame
combustion to thermally degrade PCBs
and PCS Items. Examples of devices
used for incineration include rotary
kilns, liquid injection incinerators,
cement kilns, and high temperature
boilers.
  (m) "Leak" or "leaking"  means any
instance in which a PCS Article. PCS
Container, or PCS Equipment has any
PCBs  on any portion of its external
surface.
  (n)  "Manufacture" means to  produce,
manufacture, or import into the customs
territory of the United States.
  (o)  "Mark" means the descriptive
name, instructions, cautions, or other
information applied to PCBs and PCB
Hems, or other objects subject  to these
regulations.
  (p)  "Marked" means the marking of
PCB Items and PCB storage areas and
transport vehicles by means of applying
a legible mark by painting, fixation of an
adhesive label, or by any other method
that meets the requirements of these
regulations.
  (qj  "Mixture" means any combination
of two or more chemical substances if
the combination does not occur in
nature and is not. in whole or in part,
the result of a chemical reaction; except
that such term does include any
combination which occurs, in whole or
in part, as a result of a chemical reaction
if none of the chemical substances
comprising the combination is  a new
chemical substance and if the
combination could have been
manufactured for commercial purposes
without a chemical reaction at the time
*he chemical substances comprising the
combination were combined.
  (r) "Municipal Solid Wastes" means
garbage, refuse, sludges, wastes, and
other discarded materials resulting from
residential and non-industrial
operations and activities, such as
household activities, office functions.
and commercial housekeeping wastes.
  (s) "PCB" and "PCBs" means any
chemical~Bubstance that is limited to the
biphenyl molecule that has been
chlorinated to varying degrees or any
combination of substances which
contains such substance. (See 5 781.1(b)
Applicability for applicable
concentrations of PCBs). PCB and PCBs
as contained in PCB Items are defined in
§ 781.2(x).
  (t) "PCB Article" means any
manufactured article, other than a PCB
Container that contains PCBs and
whose surface(s) has been in direct
contact with PCBs. "PCB Article"
includes capacitors, transformers,
electric motors, pumps, pipes and any
other manufactured item (1) which is
formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture, (2) which has end
use function(s) dependent in whole or in
part upon its shape or design during end
use. and (3) which has either no change
of chemical composition during its end
use or only those changes of
composition which have no commercial
purpose separate from that of the PCB
Article.
  (u) "PCB Article Container" means
any package, can.  bottle, bag, barrel.
drum, tank or other device used to
contain PCB Articles or PCB Equipment.
and whose surface(s) has not been in
direct contact with PCBs.
  (v) "PCB Container" means any
package, can. bottle, bag, barrel, drum,
tank, or other device that contains PCBs
or PCB Articles and whose surface(s)
has been in direct  contact with PCBs.
  (w) "PCB Equipment" means any
manufactured item, other than a PCB
Container or a PCB Article Container.
which contains a PCB Article or other
PCB Equipment and includes
microwave  ovens, electronic equipment.
and fluorescent light ballasts and
fixtures.
  (x) "PCB Item" is defined as any PCB
Article. PCB Article Container, PCB
Container, or PCB Equipment that
deliberately or unintentionally contains
or has as a part of it any PCB or PCBs at
a concentration of 50 ppm or greater.
  (y) "PCB Transformer" means any
transformer that contains 500 ppm PCB
or greater.
  (z) "PCB-Contaminated Transformer"
means any transformer that contains 50
ppm or greater of PCB but less than 500
ppm PCB (See S 761.31(a)(5) for
provisions permitting redassifying PCB
Transformers to PCB-Contaminated
Transformers).
  (aa) "Person" means any natural or
judicial person including any individual,
corporation, partnership, or association:
any State or political subdivision
thereof; any interstate body, and any
department agency, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government
  (bb) "Process" means the preparation
of a chemical substance or mixture, after
its manufacture, for distribution in
commerce:
  (l) In the same form or physical state
as, or in a different form or physical
state from, that in which it was received
by the person so preparing such
substance or mixture, or
  (2) As part of an article containing the
chemical substance or mixture.
  (cc) "Sale for Purposes Other than
Resale" means sale of PCBs for
purposes of disposal and for purposes of
use, except where use involves sale for
distribution in commerce. PCB
Equipment which is first leased for
purposes of use any time before July l,
1979, will be considered sold for
purposes other than resale.
  (dd) "Significant Exposure" means
any exposure of human beings or the
environment to PCBs as measured or
detected by any scientifically
acceptable analytical method.
  (ee) "Small Quantities for Research
and Development" means any  quantity
of PCBs (1)  that is originally packaged in
one or more hermetically sealed
containers of a volume of no more than
five (5.0) milliliters, and (2) that is used
only for purposes of scientific
experimentation or analysis, or chemical
research on, or analysis of. PCBs, but
not for research or analysis for the
development of a PCB product
  (ff) "Storage for Disposal" means
temporary storage of PCBs that have
been designated for disposal.
  (gg) 'Transport Vehicle" means a
motor vehicle or rail car used for the
transportation of cargo by any mode.
Each cargo-carrying body (e.g., trailer,
railroad freight car) is a separate
transport vehicle.
  (hh) 'Totally Enclosed Manner"
means any manner that will ensure that
any exposure of human beings or the
environment to any concentration of
PCBs will be insignificant; that is, not
measurable or detectable by any
scientifically acceptable analytical
method.
  (ii) "Waste Oil" means used products
primarily derived from petroleum, which
include, but are hot limited to, fuel oils.

-------
           Federal Register  / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May  31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
                                                                        31545
motor oils, gear oils, cutting oils.
transmission fluids, hydraulic fluids, and
dielectric fluids.

Subpart B—Disposal of PCBs and PCS
Item*

  Note.—This Snbpart does not require
removal of PCBs and PCS Items from service
and dispose! earlier than would normal}? be
the case. However, when PCBs and PCB
Items are removed from service aad disposed
at disposal must be undertaken in
accordance with these regulations. PCBs
(including Mils and debris) and PCS Items
which have been placed in a disposal site are
considered to be "in service" for purposes of
the applicability of this Subpart. This Subpart
does not require PCBs and PCB Items
landfilled prior to February 17,1978 to be
removed for disposal However, if such PCBs
or PCB Items are removed from the disposal
site, they must be disposed of in accordance
with this Subpart Other Subperts are
directed to toe manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and «se of PCBs
and may result in some cases in disposal at
an earlier date than would otherwise occur.

$761.10  Dtepoee* requirements.
  (a) PCBs. (1) Except as provided in
subparagraphs (2). (3), (4J. and (5) of this
paragraph. PCBs must be disposed of in
an incinerator which complies with
Annex L
  (2) Mineral oA dielectric fluid from
PCB-Containinated Transformers
containing a PCB concentration of SO
ppm or greater, but less than 500 ppm.
must be disposed of in one of the
following:
  (i) In an incinerator that complies with
Annex I § 761.40:
  (ii) In a chemical waste landfill that
complies with  Annex JJ } 781.41  if
information is provided to the owner or
operator of the chemical waste landfill
that shows that the mineral oil dielectric
fluid does not exceed 500 ppm PCB and
is not an igmtable waste as described in
$ 761.41 (b) (8) (iii) of Annex It
  (iii) In a high efficiency boiler
provided that
  (A) Tte boiler complies with the
following criteria:
  (1} The boiler is rated at a minimum of
50 million BTU hours;
  (2} If the boiler uses natural gas or oil
as the primary fuel, the carbon
         concentration in the stack is
50 ppm or less and the excess oxygen is
at least three <3) percent when PCBs are
being burned:
  (3) If the boiler uses coal as the
primary fuel, the carbon monoxide
concentratian hi the stack is 100 ppm or
lest and the excess oxygen is at least
»hwt (9) peccant when PCB* are being
burned:
   (4\ The mineral oil dielectric fluid
 does not comprise more than ten (10)
 percent (on a volume basis] of the total
 fuel feed rate:
   [5} The mineral oil dielectric fluid is
 not fed into the boiler unless the boiler
 is operating at its normal operating
 temperature (this prohibits feeding these
 fluids during either start up or shut
 down operations);
   (8) The owner or operator of the
 boiler
   (/) Continuously monitors and records
 the carbon monoxide concentration and
 excess oxygen percentage in the stack
 gas while burning mineral oil dielectric
 Said; or
   (if) If the boiler will bum less than
 30.000 gallons of mineral oil dielectric
 fluid per year, measures and records the
 carbon monoxide concentration and
 excess oxygen percentage in the stack
 gas at regular intervals of no longer than
 60 minutes while  burning mineral oil
 dielectric  fluid.
   (7) The primary fuel feed rates,
 mineral oil dielectric fluid feed rates,
 and total quantities of both primary fuel
 and mineral oil dielectric fhrid fed to the
 boiler are measured and recorded at
 regular intervals of no longer than 15
 minutes while burning mineral oil
 dielectric fluid.
   (0) The carbon  monoxide
 concentration and the excess oxygen
 percentage are checked at least once
 every hour that mineral oil dielectric
 fluid is burned.  If either measurement
 falls below the levels specified in this
 rule, the flow of mineral oil dielectric
 fluid to the boiler shall be stopped
 immediately.
  (B] Thirty days  before any person
 burns mineral oil  dielectric fluid in the
 boiler, the person gives written notice to
 the EPA Regional Administrator for the
 EPA Region in which the boiler is
 located and that the notice contains the
 following information;
  (1) The name  and address of the
 owner or operator of the boiler and the
 address of the boiler
  (2} The boiler rating in units of BTU/
 hour.
  (3} The carbon monoxide
 concentration and the exces* oxygen
percentage in the  stack of the boiler
 when it is  operated in a manner similar
 to the manner in which it will be
operated when mineral oil dielectric
fluid is burned: and
  (4\ The type of equipment, apparatus.
and procedures to be used to control the
feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to  the
boiler and to monitor and record the
carbon iu°noxMifr  concentration an^
excess oxyger* percentage in the stack.
   (C) When burning mineral oil
 dielectric fluid, the boiler must operate
 at a level of output no less than the
 output at which the measurements
 required under subparagraph (B)(J) were
 taken.
   (D) Any person burning mineral pil
 dielectric fluid hi a boiler obtains the
 following information and retains the
 information for Sve yean at the boiler
 location:
   (1} The data required to be collected
 under subparagrapha (A)(5) and (A)(7)
 of this paragraph; and
   [2] The quantity of mineral oil
 dielectric fluid burned in the boiler each
 month:
   (iv) In a facility that is approved in
 accordance with g 781.10{e). For the
 purpose of burning mineral oil dielectric
 fluid, an applicant under § 7B1.10(e)
 must show that his combustion process
 destroys PCBs as efficiently as does a
 high efficiency boiler, as defined in
 subparagraph (iii). or an Annex I
 approved incinerator.
   (3) Liquids, other than mineral oil
 dielectric fluid, containing a PCB
 concentration of 50 ppnvpr greater, out
 less than 500 ppm. shall be disposed*1 of.
   (i) In an incinerator which complies
 with Annex I;
   (ii) In a chemical waste landfill v^kich
 complies  with Annex n if information is
 provided  to the owner or operator of the
 chemical  waste landfill that shows that
 the waste does not exceed 500. ppm PCB
 and is not an ignitable waste as
 described in J 78l.41(b)(8)'.iii)of Annex
 H.
   (iii) In a high efficiency boiler
 provided that
   (A) The boiler complies with the
 following criteria:
   (/) The boiler is rated at a mfniTmnn of
 50 million BTU/houn
   (2} S the boiler uses natural gas or oil
 as the primary fuel, the carbon
 monoxide concentration in the stack is
 50 ppm or less and the excess oxygen is
 at least three (3) percent when PCBs are
 being burned;
  [3] If the boiler uses coal as "the
 primary fuel the carbon monoxide
 concentration in the stack is 100 ppm or
 less and the excess oxygen is at least
 three (3) percent when PCBs are being
 burned;
  [4] The waste does not comprise more
 than ten (10) percent (on a volume basis)
 of the total fnel feed rate;
  (5) The waste is not fed into the boiler
 unless the boiler is operating at its
 normal operating temperature (this
prohibits feeding these fluids during
 either start up or shut dowtf operations);
  (fl) The owner or operator of the boiler
must

-------
31546      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
  (/) Continuously monitor and record
the carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas while burning waste Quid; or
  (if) If the boiler will burn less than
30.000 gallons of waste fluid per year,
measure and record the carbon
monoxide concentration and excess
oxygen percentage in the stack gas at
regular intervals of no longer than 60
minutes while burning waste fluid;
  (7) The primary fuel feed rate, waste
fluid feed rate, and total quantities of
both primary fuel and waste fluid fed to
the boiler must be measured and
recorded at regular intervals of no
longer  than 15 minutes while burning
waste fluid; and
  {8} The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage must be checked at least
once every hour that the waste is
burned. If either measurement falls
below  the levels specified in this rule,
the flow-of waste to the boiler shall be
stopped immediately.
  (B) Prior to any person burning these
liquids iu the boiler, approval must be
obtained from the EPA Regional
Administrator for the EPA Region in
which  the boiler is located and any
persons seeking such approval must
submit to the EPA Regional
Administrator a request containing at
least the following information:
  (1) The name and address of the
owner  or operator of the boiler and the
address of the boiler
  (2) The boiler rating in units of BTU/
hour,
  (3) The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage in the stack of the boiler
when it is operated in a manner similar
to the manner in which it will be
operated when low concentration PCB
liquid is burned;
  (4) The type  of equipment apparatus.
and procedures to be used to control the
feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to the
boiler and to monitor and record the
carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack;
  (5) The type of waste to be burned
(e.g., hydraulic fluid, contaminated fuel
oil, beat transfer Quid, etc.);
  (6) The concentration of PCBs and of
any other chlorinated hydrocarbon in
the waste and the results of analyses
using the American Society of Testing
and Materials  (ASTM) methods as
referenced below: carbon and hydrogen
content using ASTM D-3178, nitrogen
content using ASTM E-258, sulfur
content using ASTM D-2784, D-1288, or
D-129. chlorine content using ASTM D-
808. water and sediment content using
either  ASTM D-2709 or D-1796, ash
content using D-482. calorific value
using ASTM D-240, carbon residue
using either ASTM D-2158 or D-524. and
flash point using ASTM D-93;
  (7) The quantity of wastes estimated
to be burned in a thirty (30) day period;
  (8) An explanation of the procedures
to be followed to insure that burning the
waste will not adversely affect the
operation of the boiler such that
combustion efficiency will decrease.
  (C) On the basis of the information in
(B) above and any other available
information, the Regional Administrator
may, at his discretion, find that the
alternate disposal method will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and approve
the use of the boiler
  (D) When burning PCB wastes, the
boiler must operate at a level of output
no less than the output at which the
measurements required under
subparagraph (B)(3) were taken; and
  (E) Any person burning liquids in
boilers approved as provided in (C)
above, must obtain the following
information and retain the information
for five years at the boiler location:
  (1) The data required to be collected
in subparagraphs (A)(0) and (A)[7] of
this paragraph:
  (2) The quantity of low  concentration
PCB  liquid burned in the boiler each
month.
  (3) The analysis of the waste required
by subparagraph (B)(6) of this paragraph
taken once a month for each month
during which  low concentration PCB
liquid is burned in the boiler.
  (iv) In a facility that is approved in
accordance with § 781.10(e^. For the
purpose of burning liquids, other than
mineral oil dielectric fluid, containing 50
ppm or greater PCB, but less than 500
ppm PCB. an applicant under § 761.10(e)
must show that his combustion process
destroys PCBs as efficiently as does a
high efficiency boiler, as defined in
§.761.10(a)(2)(iii), or an Annex I
incinerator.
  (4) Any non-liquid PCBs in the form of
contaminated soil, rags, or other debris
shall be disposed of:
  (i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I; or
  (ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex II.
  Note: Except as provided in
§ 761.41(b)(8)(ii), liquid PCBs shall not
be processed into non-liquid forms to
circumvent the high temperature
incineration requirements of i 761.10(a).
  (5) All dredged materials and
municipal sewage treatment sludges that
contain PCBs shall be disposed of:
  (i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I;
  (ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex II: or
  (iii) Upon application, using a dispose1
method to be approved by the Agency's
Regional Administrator in the EPA
Region in which the PCBs are located.
Applications for disposal  in a manner
other than prescribed in (i) or (ii) above
must be made in writing to the Regional
Administrator. The application must
contain information that, based on
technical, environmental,  and economic
considerations, indicates that disposal
in an incinerator or chemical waste
landfill is not reasonable and
appropriate, and that the alternate
disposal method will provide adequate
protection to health and the
environment. The Regional
Administrator may request other
information that he or she believes to be
necessary for evaluation of the alternate
disposal method. Any approval by the
Regional Administrator shall be in
writing and may contain any
appropriate limitations on the approved
alternate method for disposal, hi
addition to these regulations, the
Regional Administrator shall consider
other applicable Agency guidelines,
criteria, and regulations to ensure that
the discharges of dredged material and
sludges that contain PCBs and other
contaminants are adequately controlled
to protect the environment The person
to whom such approval is issued must
comply with all limitations contained in
the approval.
  (6) When storage is desired prior to
disposal, PCBs shall be stored in a
facility which complies with Annex QL
  (b) PCB Articles. (1) Transformers.
  (i) PCB Transformers shall be
disposed of in accordance with either of
the following:
  (A) In an incinerator that complies
with Annex I; or
  (B) hi a chemical waste  landfill which
complies with Annex II; provided that
the transformer is first drained of all
free flowing  liquid, filled with solvent
allowed to stand for at least 18 hours,
and then drained thoroughly. PCB
liquids that are removed shall be
disposed of in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section. Solvents
may include kerosene, xylene. toluene
and other solvents in which PCBs are
readily soluble. Precautionary measures
should be taken, however, that the
solvent flushing procedure is conducted
in accordance with applicable safety
and health standards .as required by
Federal or State regulations.
  (ii) PCs-Contaminated Transformers
shall be disposed of by draining ail free
flowing liquid from the transformer and
disposing of the liquid in accordance

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979  /  Rales and Regulations       31547
 with paragraphs (a)(2) above. The-
 disposal of the drained transformer is
 not regulated by this rale.
   (2) PCS Capacitors, (i) The disposal of
 any capacitor normally used in
 alternating current circuits shall comply
 with all requirements of this snbpart'
 unless it is known from label or
 namepiate information, manufacturer's
 literature, or chemical analysis that the
 capacitor does not contain PCS*.
   (ii) Any person may dispose of PCS
 Small Capacitors as municipal solid
 waste, unless that person is subject to
 the requirements of subparagraph (iv).
   (iii) Any PCB Large High or Low
 Voltage Capacitor owned by any person
 shall be disposed of in accordance with
 either of the following:
   (A) Disposal in an incinerator that
 complies with Annex i or
   (B) Until January 1.1960, disposal in a
 chemical waste landfill that complies
 with Annex IL
   (iv) Any PCB Small Capacitor owned
 by any person who manufactures or at
 any time manufactured PCB Capacitors
 or PCB Equipment <""i acquired *h^ PCB
 Capacitors in the course of such
 manufacturing shall be disposed of in
 accordance with either of the following:
   (A) Disposal in an incinerator which
 complies with Annex I: or
   (B) Until January 1.1980.  disposal in a
 chemical waste landfill which complies
 with Annex IL
  (3) PCB Hydraulic Machines* PCB
 hydraulic machines soch as die casting
 machines may be disposed  of as
 municipal solid waste or salvage
 provided that the machines are drained
 of all free-flowing liquid and the liquid is
 disposed of in accordance with the
 provisions of S 7B1.10(a). If  the PCB
 liquid contains 1000 ppm PCB or greater,
 then th* hydraulic machine must be
 flushed prior to disposal with a solvent
 containing .less than SO ppm PCB (see
 transformer solvents at
 5 78L10(b)(lKiPH  and the  solvent
 disposed of in accordance with
 S 761.10(aJ.
  (4) Other PCB Articles most be
 disposed of:
  (i)  In an incinerator that complies with
 Annex I; or
  (ii) In a chemical waste landfill that
 complies with Annex II, provided that
 all free-flowing liquid PCBs have been
 thoroughly drained from any articles
 before, the articles «re placed in the
 chemical waste landfill and that the
 drained liquids are disposed of in an
 tadnmtor that compoas with Annex I.
  (5) Storage of PCB Articles—Except
 for a PCB Article described in
aobpangranh\(b)(2XU) and hydraulic
        i that comply with m*
 municipal solid waste disposal
 provisions described in subparagraph
 (b}(3);. any PCB Article shall be stored in
 accordance with Annex ni prior to
 disposal
   (c) PCB Containers. (1) Unless
 decontaminated in compliance with
 Annex IV or as provided in (2) below, a
 PCB Container shall be disposed of:
   (i) In an incinerator which complies
 with Annex I. or
   (ii) In a chemical waste landfill that
 complies with Annex H provided that if
 there an PCBs in a liquid state, the PCB
 Container shall first be drained and the
 PCB liquid disposed of in accordance
 with paragraph (a) of this section,
   (2) Any PCB Container used to
 contain only PCBs at a concentration
 less than 500 ppm shall be disposed of
 as municipal solid wastes; provided that
 if the PCBs are in a liquid state, the PCB
 Container shall first be drained and the
 PCB liquid shall be disposed of in
 accordance with paragraph (a) of this
 section.
   (3) Prior to disposal, a PCB container
 shall be stored in a facility which
 complies with Annex OL
   (d) Spills. (1) Spills and other
 uncontrolled discharges of PCBs
 constitute the disposal of PCBs.
   (2) PCBs resulting from spill clean-up
 and removal operations shall be stored
 and disposed of in accordance with
 paragraph (a) of this section. In order to
 determine if a spill of PCBs has resulted
 in a contamination level that is 50 ppm
 of PCBs or greater in soil, gravel, sludge.
 fill, rubble, or other land based
 substances, the person who spills PCBs
 should consult with die appropriate EPA
 Regional Administrator to obtain
 information on sampling methods and
 analytical procedures for determining
 the PCB contamination level associated
 with the spiiT
  (3) This paragraph does not exempt
 any person from any actions or liability
 under other statutory authorities.
 including section 311 of the Clean Water
 Act and the Resource Conservation and
 Recovery Act.
  (e) Any person who is required to
 incinerate any PCBs and PCB Items
 under this subpart and who can
 demonstrate that an alternative method
 of destroying PCBs and PCB Items exists
 and that this alternative method can
 achieve a level of performance
 equivalent to Annex I incinerators or
 high efficiency boilers as provided in
 S 7B1.10(aK2)(iv) and < 7B110(aK3KivJ.
 may submit a written request to the
Regional Administrator for an
 exemption from the incineration
requirements of Annex L The applicant
must show that his method of destroying
 PCBs will not present an unreasonable
 risk of injury to health or the
 environment On the basis of such
 information and any available
 information, the Regional Administrator
 may, in his discretion, approve the use
 of the alternate if be finds that the
 alternate disposal method provides PCB
 destruction equivalent to disposal in an
 Annex I incinerator and will not present
 an unreasonable risk of injury to health
 or the environment Any approval must
 be stated in writing and may contain
 such conditions and provisions as the
 Regional Administrator deems
 appropriate. The person to whom such
 waiver is issued must comply with all
 limitations contained in such
 determination.
   (f)(l) Each operator of a chemical
             , incinerator, or alternative
 to incineration approved under
 paragraph (e) shall give the following
 written notices to the state and local
 governments within whose jurisdiction
 the disposal facility is located:
  (i) Notice at least thirty (30) days
 before a facility is first used for disposal
 of PCBs required by these regulations:
 and
  (ii) At the request of any state or local
 government annual notice of the
 quantities and general description of
 PCBs disposed of during the year. This
 annual notice shall be given no more
 than .thirty (30) days after the end of the
 year covered.
  (2) Any person who disposes of PCBs
 under a j761.10(aK5)(iu) incineration or
 chemical waste laiwtfilling waiver shall
give written notice at least thirty (30)
days prior to conducting the disposal
activities to the state and local
governments within whose jurisdiction
the disposal is to take place.
  (g) Testing Procedures.
  (I) Owners or users of mineral oil
dielectric fluid transformers may use the
following procedures to determine the
concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
fluid:
  (i) Dielectric fluid removed from
mineral oil dielectric fluid transformers
may be collected in a common
container, provided that no other
chemical substances or mixtures are
added to the container.
  (ii) For purposes of complying with die
marking and dispesalTequirementa,
representative samples may be taken
from either the common containers or
the individual transformers to determine
the PCB concentration, except that if
any PCBs at a^oonosaitration of 500 ppm
or greater have been added to the
container then the total container
contents must be considered aa having a
PCB concentration of 500 ppm or greater

-------
31548      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May  31. 1979 / Ruk-&  -nd  Regulations
for purposes of complying with the
disposal requirements of this subpart.
For purposes of this subparagraph,
representative samples of mineral oil
dielectric fluid are either samples taken
in accordance with American Society of
Testing and Materials method D-923 or
samples taken from a container that has
been thoroughly mixed in a manner such
that any PCBs in the container are
uniformly distributed throughout the
liquid in the container.
  (2) Owners or users of waste oil may
use the following procedures to
determine the PCB concentration of
waste oil:
  (i) Waste oil from more than one
source may be collected in a common
container, provided that no other
chemical substances or mixtures, such
as non-waste oils, are added to the
container.
  (ii) For purposes of complying with the
marking and disposal requirements,
representative samples may be taken
from either the common container or
individual containers to determine the
PCB concentration except that if any
PCBs at a concentration of 500 pm or
greater have been added to the
container then the total container
contents must be considered  as having a
PCB concentration  of 500 ppm or greater
for purposes of complying with the
disposal requirements of this subpart.
For purposes of this subparagraph.
representative samples of waste oil are
either samples taken in accordance with
American Society of Testing and
Materials- D-Q23 method or samples
taken from a container that has been
thoroughly mixed in a manner such that
any PCBs in the container are uniformly
distributed throughout the liquid in the
container.
   (h) Requirements for export and
import of PCBs for purposes of disposal
and PCB Items for purposes of disposal
are found in 5  761.30.

Subpart C—Marking of PCBa and PCB
Items

§ 761.20  Marking requirements.
   (a) Each of the following items in
existence on or after July 1.1978 shall be
marked as illustrated in Figure 1 ip
Annex V—§ 761.44(a): The mark
illustrated in Figure 1 is referred to as
ML throughout this subpart.
   (1) PCB Containers;
   (2) PCB Transformers at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked, and
at the time of removal from use if not
already marked [Marking of PCB—
Contaminated Transformers is not
required];
  (3) PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors at the time of manufacture,
at the time of distribution in commerce if
not already marked, and at the time of
removal from use if not already marked;
  (4) Equipment containing a PCB
Transformer or a PCB Large High
Voltage Capacitor at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked, and
at the time of removal of the equipment
from use  if not already marked;
  (5) PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors
at the time of removal from use;
  (6) Electric motors using PCB coolants
(See also § 761.20(e)).
  (7) Hydraulic systems using PCB
hydraulic fluid (See also § 761.20(e));
  (8) Heat transfer systems (other than
PCB Transformers) using PCBs (See also
5 7B1.20(e));
  (9) PCB Article Containers containing
articles or equipment that must be
marked under provisions (1) through (8)
above;
  (10) Each storage area used to store
PCBs and PCB Items for disposal.
  (b) As of October 1.1978, each
transport vehicle shall be marked on
each end and side with ML as described
in Annex V—§ 761.44(a) if it is loaded
with PCB Containers that contain more
than 45 kg (99.4 Ibs.) of PCBs in the
liquid phase or with one or more PCB
Transformers (See also i 781.20(e)).
  (c) As of January 1,1979, the following
PCB Articles shall be marked with mark
ML as described in Annex V—
§ 761.44(a):
  (1) All PCB Transformers not marked
under paragraph (a)  of this section
(Marking of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers is not required);
  (2) All PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors not marked under paragraph
(a) of this section
  (i) Will be marked individually with
mark Mu or
  (ii) If one or more PCB Large High
Voltage Capacitors are installed in a
protected location such as on a power
pole, or structure, or behind a fence; the
pole, structure, or fence shall be marked
with mark ML, and a record or
procedure identifying the PCB
Capacitors shall be maintained by the
owner or operator at the protected
location.
  (d) As of January 1.1979, all PCB
Equipment containing a PCB Small
Capacitor shall be marked at the time of
manufacture with the statement "This
equipment contains  PCB Capacitor(s)".
The mark shall be of the same size as
the mark ML.
  (e) As of October 1,1979, applicable
PCB Items in paragraphs (a)(l), (6). (7),
and (8) containing PCBs in
concentrations of 50 to 500 ppm and
applicable transport vehicles in
paragraph (b) loaded with PCB
Containers that contain more than 45 kg
(99.4 Ibs.) of liquid PCBs in
concentrations of 50 ppm to 500 ppm
shall be marked with mark ML as
described in Annex V—$ 761.44(a).
  (f) Where mark ML is specified but the
PCB Article or PCB Equipment is too
small to accomodate the smallest
permissible size of mark ML, mark Ma as
described in Annex V—§ 761.44(b). may
be used instead of mark ML.
  (g) Each large low voltage capacitor,
each small capacitor normally used in
alternating current circuits, and each
fluorescent light ballast manufactured
("manufactured", for purposes of this
sentence, means built) between July 1,
1978 and July 1,1998 that do not contain
PCBs shall be marked by the
manufacturer at the time of manufacture
with the statement. "No PCBs". The
mark shall be of similar durability and
readability as other marking that
indicate electrical information, part
numbers, or the manufacturer's name.
For purposes of this subparagraph
marking requirement only is applicable
to items built domestically or abroad
after June 30,1978.
  (h) All marks  required by this subpart
must be placed in a position on the
exterior of the PCB Items or transport
vehicles so that the marks can be easily
read by any persons inspecting or
servicing the marked PCB Items or
transport vehicles.
  (i) Any chemical substance or mixture
that is manufactured after the effective
date of this rule and that contains less
than 500 ppm PCB (0.05% on a dry
weight basis), including PCB that is a
byproduct or impurity, must be marked
in accordance with any requirements
contained in the exemption granted by
EPA to permit such manufacture and is
not subject to any other requirement in
this Subpart unless so specified in the
exemption. This paragraph applies only
to containers of chemical substances or
mixtures. PCB articles and equipment
into which the chemical substances or
mixtures are processed, are subject to
the marking requirements contained
elsewhere in this Subpart.

Subpart 0—Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce,
and Use of PCBs and PCB Items

§761.30 Prohibition*.
  Except as authorized in § 761.31. the
activities listed  in paragraphs (a) and (d)
of this section are prohibited pursuant to
section 6(e)(2) of TSCA. The
requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)

-------
           Fedarat RaflUter / Vgl. 44; No. 106 / Thursday. May' 31. 1979 / Jlules  and Regulation*       31549
 and (c) of thia section concerning expert
 sad import of PCBt for purposes of
 disposal and PCB Items Tor purposes of
 disposal are established pursuant to
 section 8(e)(l) of TSCA. Subject to any
 sxemptions granted pursuant to section
 6(ej(3}(B) of TSCA. the activities listed
 in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
 are prohibited pursuant to section
 3(a)(3KA) of TSCA. In addition, the
 Administrator hereby finds, under the
 authority of section 12(a)(2) of TSCA.
 tliat the manufacture, processing, and
 •iistribution in commerce of PCBs and
 PCB Items for export  from the United
 States presents an unreasonable risk of
 injury to health within the United States.
 This finding is based  upon the well-
 documented human health and
 environmental hazard of PCB exposure:
 the high probability of human and
 environmental exposure to PCBs and
 PCS Items from manufacturing,
 processing, dr distribution activities; the
 potential hazard of PCB exposure posed
 by the transportation  of PCBs or PCB
 Items within the United States: and the
 evidence that contamination of the
 environment by PCBs is spread far
 beyond the areas where they an used.
 In addition, the Administrator hereby
 finds that any exposure of human beings
 or the environment to PCBs as measured
 or detected by any scientifically
 acceptable analytical method is a
 significant exposure, as defined in
 3 781.2(dd). Section 781.2(hb) and TSCA
 section 8(e)(2)(C) define the term totally
 enclosed manner as "any manner which
 will ensure that any exposure of human
 beings or the environment to a
 polychlohnated biphenyl will be
 insignificant.  . ." Since any exposure
 to PCBs is found to be a significant
 exposure, a totally enclosed manneris a
 manner that results in no exposure of
 humans or the environment to PCBs. The
 following activities are considered
 totally enclosed: distribution in'
 commerce and use (except servicing) of
intact non-leaking PCB Transformers or
PCB-Contaminated Transformers
 (except those used in railroad
 locomotives or self-propelled cars);
distribution in commerce and use
 (except servicing) of intact non-leaking
PCB electromagnets; distribution in
commerce and use of intact non-leaking
PCB Capacitors: and processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCB Equipment containing an intact
non-leaking PCB Capacitor.
  (a) No person may process, distribute
in commerce, or use any PCB or PCB
Item in any manner other than in a
totally enclosed manner within the
United States or export any such PCB or
PCB Item from the United States unless
 authorized under 5 761.31 of this
 Subpsrt. Seclio". r81.30(a) is superseded
 by 5 781.30(c) for processing and
 distriburfon In commerce of PCBs and
 PCB Items on the dates when that
 section become? effective.
   (b) No person omy manufacture PCBs
 for use within the United States or
 manufacture PCS* for export from the
 United States without an exemption
 except that:
   (1) PCBs or PCB Items may be
 imported for purposes of disposal until
 May 1,1980,  provided that the disposal
 is in accordance with $ 781.10: and
   (2) PCBs or PCB Items may be
 exported for  disposal until May l, i960,
 in accordance with the requirement* of
 S 781.30(cK3).
   (c).Effective July 1.1979, no person
 may process  or distribute in commerce
 any PCB or PCB Item for use within the
 United States or for export from the
 United States without an exemption
 except that
   (1) PCBs or PCB Items sold before July
 1.1979, for purposes other than resale
 may be distributed in commerce only in
 a totally enclosed manner after that
 date;
   (Z) PCBs or PCB Items may be
 processed and distributed in commerce
 in compliance with the requirements of
 this Part for purposes of disposal in
 accordance with the requirements of
 5 781.10:
  (3) PCBs or PCB Items may be
 exported for disposal until May 1,1980,
 if an export notice is submitted at least
 thirty (30) days before the first shipment
 in any  calendar year leaves  the customs
 territory of the United States. Export
 notices must be submitted to the
 Document Control Officer (TS-793),
 Office  of Toxic Substances. U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
 Street S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
 The generator of the PCB waste material
 intended for disposal, or an agent acting
 on his behalf, must certify to the best of
 his knowledge and belief that the
 information is complete and  accurate.
 Each notice should contain the following
 information:
  (i) Name, company name, address,
 and telephone number of the owner of
 the PCB waste material to be exported
 and the name and address of any person
 or agent acting on his behalf;
  (ii) Estimated quantity of wastes to be
 shipped during the calendar year and
 the estimated number of shipments to be
made and the dates when such
 shipments are expected to leave the
customs territory of the United States;
  (Hi) Description of the PCBs or PCB
Items being exported;
   (Iv) Country(s) of destination for the
 shipments:
   (v) Name and address of'facili*-';1!}
 receiving the shipment and person^)
 responsible for receiving the
 shiprnfcnt(s}.
   (vi) Mfithod(s) a: cLspcsal and
 precautions taken to control release into
 the environment.
   fvii) No less than 3C days after the end
 of each calendar quarter (March 31, June
 30, September 30, and December 51}
 during- which PCBs *rere exported for
 disposal each person exporting the
 PCBs must submit a report to the
 Document Control Officer (TS-793),
 Office of Toxic Substances. U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
 Street S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460.
 The report shall list the quantity of PCB
 wastes in each shipment made during
 the quarter and include the date when
 each shipment left the customs territory
 of the United States and the information
 specified in subparagraphs (i) and (iii)
 through -(vi) above. If the quantity of
 wastes shipped during the calendar year
 exceeds by 25 percent or more the
 estimated quantities reported in (ii)
 above, a special export notice must be
 submitted to the Document Control
 Officer (TS-793) at the address given in
 paragraph (3) at least 30 days before any
 additional shipments leave the customs
 territory of the United States and the
 notice shall include the information
 specified-in subparagraphs (i) through
 (vi) above.
   (viii) Any person expecting to export
 PCB wastes for disposal in calendar
 year 1980 must submit an export notice
 at least thirty (30) days before the first
 shipment leaves the customs territory of
 the United States to the Document
 Control Officer (TS-793) at the address
 given in paragraph (3), and the notice
 shall contain the information listed in
 subparagraphs [i] through (vi).
  (d) The use of waste oil that contains
 any detectable concentration of PCB as
 a sealant, coating, or dust control agent
 is prohibited. Prohibited uses include.
 but are not limited to, road oiling,
 general dust control, use as a pesticide
 or herbicide earner, and use as a rust
 preventative on pipes.

 § 761.31   Authorization*.
  The following non-totaily enclosed
 PCB activities are authorized pursuant
 to§6(e)(2)(B)ofTSCA:
  (a) Servicing Transformers (Other
 Than Railroad Transformers). PCBs
may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used for the purposes of
servicing including rebuilding
transformers (other than transformers
for railroad locomotives and self-

-------
31550      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
propelled railroad cars) in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until July 1.1984, subject to the following
conditions:
  (1) Regardless of its PCB
concentration, dielectric fluids
containing-less than 300 ppm PCB that
are mixed with fluids that contain 500
ppm or greater PCB must not be used as
dielectric fluid in any transformer.
Dielectric fluid from PCs-Contaminated
Transformers may be assumed to have
less than 500 ppm PCBs.
  (2) PCB-Contaminated Transformers
(as defined in § 781.2(z)) may only be
serviced (including rebuilding) with
dielectric Quid containing less than 500
ppm PCB.
  (3) Any servicing (including
rebuilding) of PCB Transformers (as
defined in § 781.2(y)) that requires the
removal of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. PCB
Transformers may be topped off with
PCB dielectric fluid
  (4) PCBa removed  during servicing of
a PCB Transformer or PCB-
Contaminated Transformer or during
rebuilding of a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer must be captured and
either reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of Subpart B. PCBs from
PCB Transformers must not be mixed
with or added to dielectric fluid from
PCX-Contaminated Transformers.
  (5) A PCB Transformer may be
converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer by draining, refilling, and
otherwise servicing the transformer with
non-PCB dielectric fluid so that after a
minimum of three months of in-service
use subsequent to the last servicing
conducted for the purpose of reducing
the PCB concentration in the     •
transformer, the transformer's dielectric
fluid contains less than 500 ppm PCB (on
a dry weight basis).
  (6) Any PCB dielectric fluid that is on
hand to service a PCB Transformer or a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer must be
stored in accordance with the storage
for disposal requirements of Annex III
(§ 761.42).
  (71 After July 1,1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing transformers is
permitted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(B).
  (b) Use in and Servicing of Railroad
Transformers. PCBs may be used in
transformers in railroad locomotives or
railroad self-propelled cars ("railroad
transformers"! and may be processed
and distributed in commerce for
purposes of servicing these transformers
in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner until July 1.1984.
subject to the following conditions:
  (1) Use Restrictions:
  (i) After January 1,1982. use of
railroad transformers that contain
dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 60,000 ppm
(6.0% otf a dry weight basis) is
prohibited;
  (ii) After January 1.1964. use of
railroad transformers which contain
dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 1000 ppm
(0.10% on a dry weight basis) is
prohibited;
  (Hi) The concentration of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid contained in railroad
transformers must be measured:
  (A) Immediately upon completion of
any authorized servicing of a railroad
transformer conducted for the purpose
of reducing the PCB concentration in the
dielectric fluid in the transformer; and
  (B) Between 12 and 24 months after
each servicing conducted in accordance
with subparagraph (A);
  (C) The data obtained as a result of
aubparagraphs (A) and (B) above shall
be retained until January 1,1991.
  (2) Servicing Restrictions:
  (i) If the coil is removed from the
casing of a railroad transformer (e.g., the
transformer is rebuilt), after January 1.
1982, the railroad transformer may not
be refilled with dielectric fluid
containing a PCB concentration greater
than 50 ppm;
  (ii) After January 1,1982, railroad
transformers may only be serviced with
dielectric fluid containing less than
60,000 ppm PCBs. except as provided in
(i) above:
  (iii) After January 1,1984, railroad
transformers may only be serviced with
dielectric fluid containing less than 1000
ppm PCB, except as provided in (i)
above:
  (iv) Dielectric fluid may be filtered
through activated carbon or otherwise
industrially processed for the purpose of
reducing  the PCB concentration in the
fluid;
  (v) Any PCB dielectric fluid that is
used to service PCB railroad
transformers must be stored in
accordance with the storage for disposal
requirements of Annex HI (5 761.42);
  (vi) After July 1,1979. processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing railroad
transformers is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCA section 8(e)(3)(B).
  (c) Use in and Servicing of Mining
Equipment. PCBs may be used in mining
equipment and may be processed and
distributed hi commerce for purposes of
servicing mining equipment in a manner
 other than a totally enclosed manner
 until January 1, 1982, subject to the
 following conditions:
  (1) PCBs may be added to motors in
 mining equipment in mines or mining
 areas until January 1, 1982;
  (2) PCS motors in loader-type mining
 equipment must be rebuilt as air-cooled
 or other non-PCB-containing motors
 whenever the motor is returned to a
 service shop for servicing;
  (3) PCB motors in continuous miner-
 type equipment may bej-ebuilt as PCB
 motors until January 1, 1980;
  (4) Any PCBs that are on hand to
 service or repair mining equipment must
 be stored in accordance with the storage
 for disposal requirements of Annex IH
 (§ 781.42);
  (5) After July 1, 1979. processing and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs foe.
 purposes of servicing mining equipment
 is permitted only for persons who are
 granted an exemption under TSCA
 section 6(e){3)(B).
  (d) Use in Heat Transfer Systems.
 PCBs may be used  in heat transfer
 systems in a manner other than a totally
 enclosed manner until July 1. 1984,
 subject to the following conditions:
  (1) Each person who owns a heat
 transfer system that ever contained
 PCBs must test for  the concentration of
 PCBs in the heat transfer fluid of such a
 system no later than November!. 1979,
 and at least annually thereafter. All test
              be performed at least
three months after the most recent fluid
refilling. When a test shows that the
PCB concentration is less than 50 ppm,
testing under this subparagraph is no
longer required;
  (2) Within six (6) months of a test
performed under subparagraph (1) that
indicates that a system's fluid contains
50 ppm or greater PCS (0.005% en a dry
weight basis), the system must be
drained of the PCBs  and refilled with
fluid containing less than 50 ppm PCB.
Toppingroff with non-PCB heat transfer
fluids to reduce PCB concentrations is
permitted;
  (3) After November 1. 1979. no haat
transfer system that  is used in the
manufacture or processing of any food.
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in
§ C01 of the Federal Food Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, may contain heat transfer
fluid with 50 ppm or greater PCB (0.005%
on a dry weight basis):
  (4) Addition of PCBs to a heat transfer
system is prohibited
  (5) Data obtained as a result of
subparagraph (1) must be retained for
five (5) years aifter the heat transfer
system reaches 50 ppm PCB;
  (e) Use in Hydraulic Systems. PCBs
may be used hi hydraulic systems and

-------
            Federal Ragistor /  VoL 44.  No. 106  /  Thursday. May 31. 1979  /  Rules and Regulations       31581
 may be processed and distributed in
 commerce for purposes of filtering,
 distilling, or otherwise reducing the
      utration of PCBs in hydraulic
 fluids in a manner other than a totally
 enclosed manner until July 1,1984.
 subject to the following conditions:
   (1) Each person who  owns a hydraulic
 system that ever contained PCBs must
 test for the concentration of PCBs in the
 hydraulic fluid of each  such system no
 later than November 1,1979, and at least
 annually thereafter. All test sampling
 must be performed at least three months
 after the most recent fluid refilling.
 When a test shows that the PCS
 concentration is less than 50 ppm.
 testing under this subparagraph is no
 longer required:
   (2) Within six  (8) months of a test
 uuder subparagraph (1) that indicates
 ihat a system's fluid contains SO ppm or
 greater PCS (0.005% on  a dry weight
 basis), the system must be drained of
 the PCBs and refilled with fluid
 containing less than 50  ppm PCS.
 Topping-off with non-PCB hydraulic
 fluids to reduce PCS concentrations is
 permitted;
   (3) Addition of PCBs to a hydraulic
 system is prohibited:
   (4) Hydraulic fluid may be drained
 from a hydraulic system and filtered.
 distilled, or otherwise serviced in order
 to reduce the PCB concentration below
 50 ppm;
   (5) After July 1,1979, processing and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs for
 purposes of servicing hydraulic systems
 is permitted only for persons who-are
 granted an exemption under TSCA
 section 8(e)(3)(B);
   (6) Data obtained as a result of
 subparagraph (1) above must be
 retained for five years after the
 hydraulic system reaches SO ppm.
   (f) Use in Carbonless  Copy Paper.
 Carbonless copy paper containing PCBs
 may be used in a manner other than a
 totally enclosed manner Indefinitely.
  ]g) Pigments. Diarylide and
 Phthalocyanin pigments that contain 50
 ppm or greater PCB may be processed,
 distributed in commerce, and used in a
manner other than a totally enclosed
manner until January 1,1982, except that
after July l, 1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of diarylide or
phthalocyanin pigments that contain 50
ppm or greater PCB is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCAxsectron 6(e)(3)CB).
  (h) Servicing Electromagnets. PCBs
may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used for the purpose of
servicing electromagnets until July 1,
1984. in a manner other than a totally
 enclosed manner subject to the
 following requirements:
   (1) PCBs removed during servicing
 must be captured and either returned to
 the electromagnet reused as a dielectric
 fluid, or disposed of in accordance with
 Subpart B (9 781.10);
   (2) Servicing of PCB electromagnets
 (including rebuilding) which requires the
 removal of the coil from the casing is
 prohibited.
   (3) Any PCBs that are on hand io
 service a PCB electromagnet must be
 stored in accordance with the storage
 for disposal requirements of Annex in
 (i 781.42);
   (4) After July 1.1979. processing and
 distribution in commerce of PCBs for
 purposes of servicing electromagnets is
 permitted only for persons who are
 granted an exemption under TSCA
 section 6(e)(3)(B).
   (i) Use in Natural Gas Pipeline
 Compressors. PCBs may be used in
 natural gas pipeline compressors until
 May 1.1980, in a manner other than a
 totally enclosed manner.
  (j) Small Quantities for Research and
 Development. PCBs may be processed,
 distributed in commerce, and used in
 small quantities^ for research and
 development, as defined in § 760.2(ee).
 in a manner other than -a totally
 enclosed manner until July 1,1984.
 except that after July 1.1979. processing
 and distribution in commerce of PCBs in
 small quantities for research and
 development is permitted only for
 persons who hav» been granted an
 exemption under TSCA section
 6(e)(3)(B).
  (k) Microscopy Mounting Medium.
 PCBs may be processed, distributed in
 commerce, and used as a mounting
 medium in microscopy in a manner
 other than a  totally enclosed manner
 until July 1,1984, except that after July l,
 1979. processing and distribution in
 commerce of PCBs for purposes of use
 as a mounting medium in microscopy
 are permitted only for persons who are
 granted an exemption under TSCA
 section 6(e)(3j(B).

 Subpart E—Ust of Annexes

 Annex I

 §761.40   Incineration.
  (a) Liquid PCBs. An incinerator ffsed
for incinerating PCBs shall be approved
by the Agency Regional Administrator
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
The incinerator shall meet all of the
requirements specified in subparagraph
(1) through 19) of this paragraph, unless
a waiver from these requirements is
obtained pursuant to paragraph (d)(5) of
 this section. In addition, the incinerator
 shall meet any other requirements which
 may be prescribed pursuant to
 paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
   (1) Combustion criteria shall be either
 of the following:
   (i) Maintenance of the'introduced
 liquids for a 2-second dwell time at
 1200°C(±100*C] and 3 percent excess
 oxygen in the stack gas; or
   (ii) Maintenance of the introduced
 liquids for a 1V4 second dwell time at
 1600'C(±100'C) and 2 percent excess
 oxygen in the stack gas.
   (2) Combustion  efficiency shall be at
 least 99.9 percent  computed as follows:

 Combustion efficiency=Ccoj/Cco»+Ccox 100

 where
 Ccoi» Concentration of carbon dioxide.
 Ceo=Concentration of carbon monoxide.
   (3) The rate and quantity of PCBs
 which are fed to the combustion system
 shall be measured and recorded at
 regular intervals of no longer  than 15
 minutes.
   (4) The temperatures of the
 incineration process shall be
 continuously measured and recorded.
 The combustion temperature of the
 incineration process shall be based an
 either direct (pyrometer) or indirect
 (wall thermocouple-pyrometer
 correlation) temperature readings.
   (5) The flow of PCBs  to the incinerator
 shall stop automatically whenever the
 combustion temperature drops below
 die temperatures specified in
 subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
   (6) Monitoring of stack emission
 products shall be conducted:
   (i) When ah incinerator is first used
 for the disposal of PCBs under the
 provisions of this regulation;
   (ii) When an incinerator is first used
 for the disposal of PCBs after the
 incinerator has been modified in a
 manner which may affect the
 characteristics of the stack emission
 products; and
   (iii) At a minimum such monitoring
 shall be conducted for the following
 parameters: (a)O»r(b) CO: (c) COw (d)
 Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,); (e)
 Hydrochloric Acid  (HC1); (f) Total
 Chlorinated Organic Content (RC1); (g)
 PCBs; and (h) Total Particulate Matter.
  (7) At a minimum monitoring and
recording of combustion products and
incineration operations  shall be
conducted for the following parameters
whenever the incinerator is incinerating
PCBs: (i) O,; (ii) CO: and (iii) CO,. The
monitoring for Of and CO shall be
continuous. The monitoring for COt
shall be periodic, at a frequency
specified by the Regional Administrator.

-------
31552      Federal Register / Vol.  44, No. 106 / Thursday.  May 31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations
  (8) The flow of PCBs to the incinerator
shall stop automatically when any one
or more of the following conditions
occur unless a contingency plan is
submitted by the incinerator owner or
operator and approved by the Regional
Administrator and the contingency plan
indicates what alternative measures the
incinerator owner or operator would
take if any of the following conditions
occur:
  (i) Failure of monitoring operations
specified in subparagraph (7) of this
paragraph:
  (ii) Failure of the PCB rate and
quantity measuring and recording
equipment specified in subparagraph (3)
of this paragraph; or
  (iii) Excess oxygen falls below the
percentage specified in subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph.
  (9) Water scrubbers shall be used for
HCl control during PCB incineration and
shall meet any performance
requirements specified by the
appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator. Scrubber effluent shall
be monitored and shall comply with
applicable effluent or pretreatment
standards, and any other State and
Federal laws and regulations. An
alternate method of HC1 control may be
used if the alternate method has been
approved by the Regional
Administrator. (The HC1 neutralizing
capability of cement kilns is considered
to be an alternate method.)
  (b) Non-liquid PC3s. An incinerator
used for incinerating non-liquid PCBs.
PCB Articles. PCB Equipment or PCB
Containers shall be approved by the
Agency Regional Administrator
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
The incinerator shall meet all of the
requirements specified in subparagraphs
(1) and (2) of this paragraph unless a
waiver from these requirements is
obtained pursuant to paragraph (d)(5)  of
this section.  In addition, the incinerator
shall meet any other requirements that
may be prescribed pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this  section.
  (1) The mass air emissions from the
incinerator shall be no greater than
O.OOlg PCB/kg of the PCB introduced
into the incinerator.
  (2) The incinerator shall comply with
the provisions of § 761.40(a)(2), (3), (4),
(6), (7),  (8)(i) and (ii), and (9).
  (c) Maintenance of data and records.
All data and records required by  this
section shall be maintained hi
accordance with Annex VI—f 781.45.
Records and Monitoring.
  (d) AporovaJ of incinerators. Prior to
the incineration of PCBs and PCB Items
the owner or operator of an incinerator
shall receive the written approval of the
Agency Regional Administrator for the
Region in which the incinerator is
located. Such approval shall be obtained
in the following manner
  (1) Initial Report The owner or
operator shall submit to the Regional
administrator an initial report which
contains:
  (i) The location of the incinerator;
  (ii) A detailed description of the
incinerator including general site plans
and design drawings of the incinerator
  (iii) Engineering reports or other
information on the anticipated
performance of the incinerator:
  (iv) Sampling and monitoring
equipment and faculties available;
  (v) Waste volumes expected to be
incinerated;
  (vi) Any local. State, or Federal
permits or approvals; and
  (vii) Schedules and plans for
complying with the approval
requirements of this regulation.
  (2) Trial bum. (i) Following receipt of
the report described in subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph, the Regional
Administrator shall determine if a trial
burn is required and notify the person
who submitted the report whether a trial
burn of PCBs and PCB Items must be
conducted The Regional Administrator
may require the submission of any other
information that the Regional
Administrator finds to be reasonably
necessary to determine the need for a
trial burn. Such other information shall
be restricted to the types of information
required in subparagraph (l)(i) through
(l)(vii) of this paragraph.
  (ii) If the Regional Administrator
determines that a trial burn must be
held, the person who submitted the
report described in subparagraph (1) of
this paragraph shall submit to the
Regional Administrator a detailed plan
for conducting and monitoring the trial
burn. At a minimum, the plan must
include:
  (A) Date trial bum is to be conducted;
  (B)  Quantity and type of PCBs and
PCB Items to be incinerated;
  (C) Parameters to  be monitored and
location of sampling points;
  [D] Sampling frequency and methods
and schedules for sample analyses; and
  (E)  Name, address, and qualifications
of persons who will review analytical
results and other pertinent data, and
who will perform a technical evaluation
of the effectiveness of the trial burn.
  (iii) Following receipt of the plan
described in subparagraph (2)(ii) of this
paragraph, the Regional Administrator
will approve the plan, require additions
or modifications to the plan, or
disapprove the plan. If the plan is
disapproved, the Regional Administrator
will notify the person who submitted the
plan of such disapproval together with
the reasons why it is disapproved. That
person may thereafter submit a new
plan in accordance with subparagraph
(2)(ii) of laid paragraph. If the plan is
approved (with any additions or
modifications which the Regional
Administrator may Prescribe), the
Regional Administrator will notify the
person who submitted the plan of the
approval. Thereafter the trial burn shall
take place at a date and time to be
agreed upon between the Regional
Administrator and the persons who
submitted the plan.
  (3) Other information. In addition to
the information contained in the report
and plan described in subparagrapha (1)
and (2) of this paragraph, the Regional
Administrator may require the owner or
operator to submit any other
information that the Regional
Administrator finds to be reasonably
necessary to determine whether an
incinerator shall be approved.
  Note/—The Regional Administrator will
have available for review and Inspection an
Agency manual containing information on
sampling methods and analytical procedures
for the parameters required in i 781.40(a)(3),
(4), (B), and (7) plus any other parameters he
may determine to be appropriate. Owners or
operator* are encouraged to review thi»
manual prior to submitting any report
required in this Annex.

  (4) Contents of Approval, (i) Except as
provided hi subparagraph (5) of this
paragraph, the Regional Administrator
may not approve an incinerator for the
disposal of PCB and PCB Items unless
he finds that the incinerator meets all of
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and/'
or (b) of this  section.
  (ii) In addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of this section,
the Regional Administrator may include
in an approval any other requirements
that the Regional Administrator finds
are necessary to ensure that operation
of the incinerator does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment from PCBs. Such
requirements may include a fixed period
of time for which the approval is valid.
  (5) Waivers. An owner or operator of
the incinerator may submit evidence to
the Regional Administrator that
operation of the incinerator will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment from PCBs,
when one or more of the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of this section
are not met. On the basis of such
evidence and any other available
information, the Regional Administrator
may in his discretion find that any
requirement of paragraph (a) and (b) is

-------
           Federal Register / Vol 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations       31553
not necessary to protect against such a
risk, and may waive the requirements in
any approval for that incinerator. Any
finding and waiver under this
subparagraph must be stated in writing
and included as part of the approval
  (6) Persona Approved. An approval
will designate the persona who own and
who are authorized to operate the
incinerator, and will apply only to such
persons, except as provided in
paragraph (8) below.
  (7) Final Approval. Approval of an
incinerator will be in writing and  signed
by the Regional Administrator. The
approval will state'all requirements
applicable to the approved incinerator.
  (8) Transfer of Property. Any person
who owns or operates an approved
incinerator must notify EPA at least 30
days before transferring ownership in
the incinerator or the property it stands
upon, or transferring the right to operate
the incinerator. The transferor must also
submit to EPA. at least 30 days before
such transfer, a notarized affidavit
signed by the transferee which states
that the transferee will abide by the
transferor's EPA incinerator approval
Within 30 days of receiving such
notification and affidavit EPA will issue
an amended  approval substituting the
transferee's name for the transferor's
name, or EPA may require the transferee
to apply for a new incinerator approval.
In the latter case, the transferee must
abide by the  transferor's EPA approval
until EPA issues the new approval to the
transferee.

Annexn

5761.41  Chemical was*** lamMOs.
  (a) General. A chemical waste landfill
used fer the disposal of PCBs and  PCB
Items shall be approved by the Agency
Regional Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section. The landfill
shah* meet all of the requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, unless a waiver from these
requirements is obtained pursuant to
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. In
addition, the landfill shall meet any
other requirements that may be
prescribed pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)
of this section.
  (b) Technical Requirements.
Requirements for chemical waste
landfills used for the disposal of PCBs
and PCB-Items are as follow*:
  (1) Soils. The landfill site shall be
located in thick, relatively impermeable
formations such as large-area day pans.
Where this is not possible, the soil shall
have a high clay and silt content with
the following parameters:
   (i) In-place soil thickness, 4 feet or
 compacted soil liner thickness, 3 feet;
   (ii) Permeability (cm/sec), equal to or
 less than 1X10"*
   (iii) Percent soil passing No. 200 Sieve,
 >30;
   (iv) Liquid Limit >30; and
   (v) Plasticity Index >15.
   (2) Synthetic Membrane Linen.
 Synthetic membrane liners shall be used
 when, in the judgment of the Regional
 Administrator, the hydrologic or
 geologic conditions at the landfill
 require such a liner in order to provide
 at Least a permeability equivalent to the
 soils in (1)  above. Whenever a synthetic
 liner is used at a landfill site, special
 precautions shall be taken to insure that
 its integrity is maintained and that it is
 chemically compatible with PCBs.
 Adequate soil underlining  and soil cover
 shall be provided to prevent excessive
 stress on the liner and to prevent
 rupture of the liner. The liner must have
 u minimum thickness of 30 mils.
  (3) Hydrologic Conditions. The bottom
 of the landfill shall be above the
 historical high groundwater table as
 provided below. Floodpiains,
 ahorelands, and groundwater recharge
 areas shall be avoided. There shall be
 no hydraulic connection between the
 site and standing or flowing surface
 water. The  site shall have monitoring
 wells and leachate collection. The
 bottom of the landfill liner  system or
 natural ID-place soil barrier shall be at
 least fifty feet from the historical high
 water table.
  (4) Flood Protection, (i) If the landfill
 site is below the 100-year floodwater
 elevation, the operator shall provide
 surface water diversion dikes around
 the perimeter of the landfill site with a
 minimum height equal to two feet above
 the 100-year floodwater elevation.
  (ii) If the  landfill site is above the 100-
 year floodwater elevation,  the operators
 shall provide diversion structures
 capable of diverting all of the surface
 water runoff from a 24-hour. 25-year
 storm.
  (5) Topography. The landfill site shall
be located in an area  of low to moderate
relief to minimise erosion and to help
prevent landslides or slumping.
  (6) Monitoring Systems, (i) Water
Sampling. (A) For ail sites receiving
PCBs. the ground and surface water
from the disposal site area shall be
sampled prior to commencing operations
under an approval provided in
 { 761.41(c) for use aa baseline data.
  (B) Any surface watercourse
designated by the Regional
Administrator using the authority
provided in 5 781.41(c)f3)(ii) shall be
sampled at least monthly when the
 landfill is being used for disposal
 operations.
   (C] Any surface watercourse
 designated by the Regional
 Administrator using the authority
 provided in $ 781.41(c)(3)(ii) shall be
 sampled for a time period specified by
 the Regional Administrator on a
 frequency of no less than once every six
 months after final closure of the
 disposal area.
   (ii) Groundwater Monitor Wells.  (A) If
 underlying earth materials are
 homogenous, impermeable, and
 uniformly sloping in one direction, only
 three sampling points shall be
 necessary. These three points shall be
 equally spaced.on a  line through the
 center of the disposal area and
 extending from the area of highest water
 table elevation to the area of the lowest
 water table elevation on the property.
   (B) All monitor wells shall be cased
 and the annular space between the
 monitor zone (zone of saturation) and
 the surface shall be completely
 backfilled with Portland cement or an
 equivalent material and plugged with
 Portland cement to effectively prevent
 percolation of surface water into the
 well bora. The well opening at the
 surface shall have a removable cap to
 provide access and to prevent entrance
 of rainfall or stormwater runoff. The
 well shall be pumped to remove the
 volume of liquid initially contained in
 the well before obtaining a sample for
 analysis. The discharge shall be treated
 to meet applicable State or Federal
 discharge  standards or recycled to the
 chemical waste landfill
   (iii) Water Analysis, As a minimum
 all samples shall be analyzed for the
 following parameters, and all data and
 records of the sampling and analysis
 shall be maintained aa required in
 Annex .VI—$ 781.45(d)(l). Sampling
 methods and analytical procedures for
 these parameters shall comply with
 those specified in 40 CFR Part 138 as
 amended in 41FR S2779 on December 1.
 1978.
  (A) PCBs.
  (B)pH.
  (C) Specific Conductance.
  (D)'Chlorinated Organics.
  (7) Leachate Collection. A leachate
 collection monitoring system shall be
 installed above the chemical waste
 landfill  Leachate collection systems
 shall be monitored monthly for quantity
 and physicochemical  characteristics of
 leachate produced. The leachate should
be either treated to acceptable limits for
discharge in accordance with a State or
Federal  permit or disposed of by another
State or Federally approved method.
Water analysis shall be conducted aa

-------
31554      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.  106 / Thursday. May  31. 1979 / Rules  and  Regulations
provided in subparagraph (6) (iii) of this
paragraph. Acceptable leachate
monitoring/collection systems shall be
any of the following designs, unless a
waiver is obtained pursuant to
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
  (i) Simple Leachate Collection. This
system consists of a gravity flow
drainfield installed above the waste
disposal facility liner. This design is
recommended for use when semi-solid
or leachable solid wastes are placed in a
lined pit excavated into a relatively
thick, unsaturated. homogenous layer of
low permeability soil.
  (iij Compound Leachate Collection.
This system consists of a gravity flow
drainfield installed above the waste
disposal facility liner and above a
secondary installed liner. This design is
recommended for use when semi-liquid
or leachable solid wastes are placed in a
lined pit excavated into relatively
permeable soil.
   (ii) Suction Lysimeters. This system
consists of a network of porous ceramic
cups connected by hoses/tubing to a
vacuum pump. The porous ceramic cups
or suction lysimeters are installed along
the sides and under the bottom of the
waste disposal facility liner. This type of
system  works best when installed in a
relatively permeable unsaturated soil
immediately adjacent to the bottom
and/or  sides of the disposal facility.
   (8) Chemical Waste Landfill
Operations, (i) PCBs and PCS Items
shall be placed in a landfill in a manner
that will prevent damage to containers
or articles. Other wastes placed in the
landfill that are not chemically
compatible with PCBs and PCS Items
including organic solvents shall be
segregated from the PCBs throughout the
waste handling and disposal process.
   (ii) An operation plan shall be
developed and submitted to the
Regional Administrator for approval as
required in paragraph (c) of this section.
This plan shall include detailed
explanations of the procedures to be
used for recordkeeping, surface water
handling procedures, excavation and
backfilling, waste segregation burial
 coordinates, vehicle and equipment
 movement, use of roadways, leachate
 collection systems, sampling and
 monitoring procedures, monitoring
 wells, environmental emergency
 contingency plans, and security
 measures to protect against vandalism
 and unauthorized waste placements.
 EPA guidelines entitled "Thermal
 Processing and Land Disposal of Solid
 Waste" (39 FR 29337, August 14,1974)
 are a useful reference in preparation of
 this plan; If the facility is to be used to
 dispose of liquid wastes captaining
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm PCS, the
operations plan must include procedures
to determine that liquid PCBs to be
disposed of at the landfill do not exceed
500 ppm PCS and meaures to prevent
the migration of PCBs from the landfill.
Bulk liquids not exceeding 500 ppm
PCBs may be disposed of provided such
waste is pretreated and/or stabilized
(e.g., chemically fixed, evaporated,
mixed-with dry inert absorbent) to
reduce its liquid content or increase its
solid content so that a non-flowing
consistency is achieved to eliminate the
presence of free liquids prior to final
disposal in a landfill. PCS Container of
liquid PCBs with a concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm PCS may be
disposed of if each container is
surrounded by an amount of inert
sorbant material capable of absorbing
all of the liquid contents of the
container.
  (iii) Ignitable wastes shall not be
disposed of in chemical waste landfills.
Liquid ignitable wastes are wastes that
have a flash point less than 60 degrees C
(140 degrees F) as determined by the
following method or an equivalent
method: Flash point of liquids shall be
determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed
Cup Tester, using the protocol specified
in ASTM Standard D-93, or the
Setaflash Closed Tester using the
protocol specified in ASTM Standard D-
3278.
  (iv) Records  shall be maintained for
all PCS disposal operations and shall
include information on the PCS
concentration in liquid wastes and the
three dimensional burial coordinates for
PCBs and PCB Items. Additional records
shall be developed and maintained as
required in Annex VI.
  (9) Supporting Facilities, (i) A six foot
woven mesh fence, wall, or  similar
device shall be placed around the site to
prevent unauthorized persons and
animals from entering.
  (ii) Roads shall be maintained to and
within the site which are adequate to
support the operation and maintenance
of the site without causing safety or
nuisance problems or hazardous
conditions.
   (iii) The site shall be operated and
maintained in a manner to prevent
safety problems or hazardous conditions
resulting from spilled liquids and
windblown materials.
   (c) Approval of Chemical Waste
Landfills. Prior to the disposal of any
PCBs and PCB Items in a chemical
waste landfill the owner or operator of
the landfill shall receive written
approval of the Agency Regional
Administrator for. the Region in which
 the landfill is located The approval
shall be obtained in the following
manner.
  (1) Initial Report. The owner or
operator shall submit to the Regional
Administrator an initial report which
contains:
  (i) The location of the landfill:
  (ii) A detailed description of the
landfill including general site plans and
design drawings;
  (iii) An engineering report describing
the manner is which the landfill
complies with the requirements for
chemical waste landfills specified in
paragraph (b) of this section:
  (iv) Sampling and monitoring
equipment and facilities available;
  (v) Expected waste volumes of PCBs:
  (vi) General description of waste
materials other than PCBs that are
expected to be disposed of in the
landfill;
  (vii) Landfill operations plan as
required in paragraph (b) of this section;
  (viii) Any local. State, or Federal
permits or approvals; and
  (ix) Any schedules or plans for
complying with the approval
requirements of these regulations.
  (2) Other Information. In addition to
the information contained in the report
described in subparagraph (1) of this
paragraph, the Regional Administrator
may require the owner or operator to
submit any other information that the
Regional Administrator finds to be
reasonably necessary to determine
whether a chemical waste landfill
should be approved. Such other
information shall be restricted to the
types of information required in
subparagraphs (l)(i) through (l)(ix) of
this paragraph.
  (3) Contents of Approval, (i) Except as
provided in subparagraph (4) of this
paragraph the Regional Administrator
may not approve a chemical waste
landfill for the disposal of PCBs and PCB
Items, unless he finds that the landfill
meets all of the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this Annex.
  (ii) In addition to the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section, the
Regional Administrator may include in
an approval any other requirements or
provisions that the Regional
Administrator finds are necessary to
ensure that operation of the chemical
waste landfill does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment from PCBs. Such
provisions may include a fixed period of
time for which the approval is valid.
   The approval may also include a
stipulation that the operator of the
chemical waste landfill report to the
Regional Administrator any instance
when PCBs are detectable durinp

-------
           Federal Register / Vol.  44.  No. 106  /  Thursday. May 31. 1979  / Rules and Regulations	31555
 monitoring activities conducted
 pursuant to paragraph (b)(6) of this
 section.
   (4) Waivers. An owner or operator of
 a chemical waste landfill may submit
 evidence to the Regional Administrator
 that operation of the landfill will not
 present an unreasonable risk of injury to
 health or the environment from PCBs
 when one or more of the requirements of
 paragraph (b) of this section are not met.
 On the basis of such evidence and any
 other available information, the
 Regional Administrator may in his
 discretion find that one or more of the
 requirements of § 781.41 (b) is not
 necessary to protect against such a risk
 and may waive the requirements in any
 approval for that landfill. Any finding
 and waiver under this paragraph will be
 stated in writing and included as part of
 the approval.
  (5) Persons Approved. Any approval
 will designate the persons who own and
 who are authorized to operate the
 chemical waste landfill, and will apply
 only to such persons, except as provided
 by paragraph (7) below.
  (6) Final Approval. Approval of a
 chemical waste landfill will be in
 writing and will be signed by the
 Regional Administrator. The approval
 will state all requirements applicable to
 the approved landfill.
  (7) Transfer of Property. Any person
 who owns or operates an  approved
 chemical waste landfill must notify EPA
 at least 30 days before transferring
 ownership in the property or
 transferring the right to conduct the
 chemical waste landfill operation. The
 transferor must also submit to EPA, at
 least 30 days before  such transfer, a
 notarized affidavit signed by the
 transferee which states that the
 transferee will abide by the transferor's
 EPA chemical waste landfill approval.
 Within 30 days of receiving such
 notification and affidavit EPA will issue
 an amended approval substituting the
 transferee's name for the transferor's
name, or EPA may require the transferee
 to apply for a new chemical waste
landfill approval. In the latter case, the
 transferee must abide by the transferor's
 EPA approval until EPA issues the new
 approval to the transferee.

Annexm

§761.42 Storage for dlspoMi.
  (a) Any PCB Article or PCB Container
stored for disposal before January 1,
1983, shall be removed from storage and
disposed of as required by this Part
before January 1.1984. Any PCB Article
or PCB Container stored for disposal
 after January 1,1983, shall be removed
 from storage and disposed of as
 required by Subpart B within one year
 from the date when it was first placed
 into storage.
   (b) Except as provided in paragraph
 (c) of this section, after July 1,1978,
 owners or operators of any facilities
 used for the storage of PCBs and PCB
 Items designated for disposal shall
 comply with the following requirements:
   (1) The facilities shall meet the
 following criteria:
   (i) Adequate roof and walls to prevent
 rain water from reaching the stored
 PCBs and PCB Items;
   (ii) An adequate floor which has
 continuous curbing with a minimum six
 inch high  curb. The floor and curbing
 must provide a containment volume
 equal to at least two times the internal
 volume of the largest PCB Article or PCB
 Container stored therein or 25 percent of
 the total internal volume of all PCB
 Articles or PCB Containers stored
 therein, whichever is greater
   (iii) No drain valves, floor drains.
 expansion joints, sewer lines, or other
 openings that would permit liquids to
 flow from the curbed area:
   (iv) Floors and curbing constructed of
 continuous smooth and impervious
 materials, such as Portland cement
 concrete or steel, to prevent or minimize
 penetration of PCBs; and
   (v) Not located at a site that is below
 the 100-year flood water elevation.
   (c)(l) The following PCB Items may be
 stored temporarily in an area that does
 not comply with the requirements of
 paragraph (b) for up to thirty days from
 the date of their removal from service,
 provided that a notation is attached to
 the PCB Item or a PCB Container
 (containing the item) indicating the date
 the item was removed from service:
   (i) Non-leaking PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment'
   (ii) Leaking PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment if the PCB Items are placed
 in a non-leaking PCB Container that
 contains sufficient sorbent materials to
 absorb any liquid PCBs  remaining in the
 PCB Items:
  (iii) PCB Containers containing non-
 liquid PCBs such as contaminated soil.
 rags, and debris: and
   (iv) PCB Containers containing liquid
 PCBs  at a  concentration between 50 and
 500 ppm. provided a Spill Prevention.
Control and Countermeasure Plan has
been prepared for the temporary storage
 area in accordance with 40 CFR112. In
addition, each container must bear a
notation that indicates that the liquids in
the drum do not exceed 500 ppm PCB.
  (2) Non-leaking and structurally
undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
 Transformers that have not been
 drained of free flowing dielectric fluid
 may be stored on pallets next to a
 storage facility that meets the
 requirements of paragraph (b) until
 January 1,1983. PCB-Contaminated
 Transformers that have been drained of
 free flowing dielectric fluid are not
 subject to die storage provisions of
 Annex 01. Storage under this
 subparagraph will be permitted only
 when the storage facility has
 immediately available unfilled storage
 space equal to 10 percent of the volume
 of capacitors and transformers stored
 outside the  facility. The capacitors and
 transformers temporarily stored outside
 the facility shall be checked for leaks
 weekly.
   (3) Any storage area subject to the
 requirements of paragraph (b) or
 subparagraph (c)(l) of this section shall
 be marked as required in Subpart C—
 § 781.20(a)(10).
   (4) No item of movable equipment that
 is used  for handling PCBs and PCB Items
 in the storage facilities and that comes
 in direct contact with PCBs shall be
 removed from the storage facility area
 unless it has been decontaminated as
 specified in  Annex IV, § 761.43.
   (5) All PCB Article* and PCB
 Containers in storage shall be checked
 for leaks at least once every 30 days.
 Any leaking PCB Articles and PCB
 Containers and their contents shall be
 transferred immediately to properly
 marked non-leaking containers. Any
 spilled or leaked materials shall be
 immediately cleaned up, using sorbents
 or other adequate means, and the PCB-
 contaminated materials and residues
 shall be disposed of in accordance with
 § 781.10(a)(4).
   (6) Except as provided in
 subparagraph [7] below, any container
 used for the  storage of liquid PCBs shall
 comply  with the Shipping Container
 Specification of the Department of
 Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 178.80
 (Specification 5 container without
 removable head). 178.82 (Specification
 5B container without removable head),
 178.102  (Specification 6D overpack with
 Specification 2S(§ 178.35) or
 2SL(§ 178.35a) polyethylene containers)
 or 178.116 (Specification 17E container).
 Any container used for the storage of
 non-liquid PCBs shall comply with the
 specifications of 49 CFR 178.80
 (Specification 5 container), 178.82
 (Specification SB container) or 178.115
 (Specification 17C container). As an
 alternate, containers larger than those
specified in DOT Specifications 5. SB, or
17C may be used for non-liquid PCBs if
 the containers are designed and
constructed in a manner that will

-------
31556      Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106  /  Thursday,  May 31.  1979 / Rules  and Regulations
provide as much protection against
leaking and exposure to the
environment as the DOT Specification
containers, and are of the same relative
strength and durability as the DOT
Specification containers.
  (7) Storage containers for liquid PGBs
can be larger than the containers
specified in (6) above provided that:
  (i) The containers are designed,
constructed, and operated in compliance
with Occupational Safety and Health
Standards, 29 CFR 1910.106, Flammable
and combustible liquids. Before using
these containers for storing PCBs. the
design of the containers must be
reviewed to determine the effect on the
structural safety of the containers that
will result from placing liquids with the
specific gravity of PCBs into the
containers (see 29 CFR 1910.10B(b)(iKf)}.
  (ii) The owners or operators of any
facility using containers described in (i)
above shall prepare and implement a
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as
described in 40 CFR 112. In complying
with 40 CFR 112, the  owner or operator
shall read  "oil(s)" as "PCB(s)" whenever
it appears. The exemptions for storage
capacity, 40 CFR 112.1(d)(2), and  the
amendment of SPCC plans by the
Regional Administrator, 40 CFR 112.4,
shall not apply unless some fraction of
the liquids stored in the container are
oils as defined by section 311 of the
Clean Water Act.
  (8) PCB Articles and PCB Containers
shall be dated on the article or container
when they are placed in storage.  The
storage shall be managed so that the
PCB Articles and PCB Containers can be
located hy the date they entered storage.
Storage containers provided in
subparagraph (7) above shall have a
record that includes  for each batch of
PCBs the quantity of the batch and date
the batch was added to the container.
The record shall also include the date,
quantity, and disposition of any batch of
PCBs removed from the container.
  (9) Owners or operators of storage
facilities shall establish and maintain
records as provided  in Annex VL

Annex IV

$761.43 Decontamination.
  (a) Any PCB Container to be
decontaminated shall be
decontaminated by flushing the internal
surfaces of the container three times
with a solvent containing less than SO
ppm PCB. The solubility of PCBs in the
solvent must be five percent or more by
weight Each rinse shall use  a volume of
the normal diluent equal to
approximately ten (10) percent of the
PCB Container capacity. The solvent
may be reused for decontamination until
it contains 50 ppm PCB. The solvent
shall then be disposed of as a PCB in
accordance with 8 781.10(a). Non-liquid
PCBs resulting from the
decontamination procedures shall be
disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of § 761.10(a)(4).
  (b) Movable equipment used in
storage areas shall be decontaminated
by swabbing surfaces that have
contacted PCBs with a solvent meeting
the criteria of paragraph (a) of this
section.
  Note.—Precautionary measures should be
taken to ensure that the solvent meets safety
and health standards as required by
applicable Federal regulations.

Annex V

J 761.44  Harking formats.
  The following formats shall be used
for marking:
  (a) Large PCB Mark—ML. Mark Mt
shall be as shown in Figure 1, letters and
                                   striping on a white or yellow
                                   background and shall be sufficiently
                                   durable to equal or exceed the life
                                   (including storage for disposal) of the
                                   PCB Article, PCB Equipment, or PCB
                                   Container. The size of the mark shall be
                                   at least 15.25 cm (6 inches) on each side.
                                   If the PCB Article or PCB Equipment is
                                   too small to accommodate this size, the
                                   mark may be reduced in size
                                   proportionately down to a minimum of 5
                                   cm (2 inches) on each side.
                                    (b) Small PCB Mark—M,.  Mark M.
                                   shall be as shown in Figure 2, letters and
                                   striping on a white or yellow
                                   background, and shall be sufficiently
                                   durable to equal or exceed the life
                                   (including storage for disposal) of the
                                   PCB Article, PCB Equipment, or PCB
                                   Container. The mark shall be a rectangle
                                   2.5 by 5 cm (1 inch by 2 inches). If the
                                   PCB Article or PCB Equipment is too
                                   small to accommodate this size, the
                                   mark may be reduced in size
                                   proportionately down to a minimum of 1
                                   by 2 cm (.4 by .3 inches).
                CAUTION
I
                        CONTAMS
            (PofvchlonwrtBd Biphmyts)
  A toxic environmental conraminanr requiring
special handling and disposal in accordance with
U.S.  Environmental Prorecnon Agency Regulations
  40 CFR 761—For Disposal Information conroa
          the neatest U.S. E.P.A. Office.

 In case of ocddent or spin, coil roll free the U.S.
     Coast Guard National Response Center:
                 600:424,3802
  Also Contact
  Tei. No.
I
                      Figure  1
               FOR PftOPtft DISPOSAL INFORMATION
                 CONTACT U S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                    PROTECTION AGENCY
                      Figure  2

-------
            Federal Ragbtar  /  Vol 44.  No. 106  / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulation*       81557
 Annex VI
 1791.46
   (a) PCSa and PCS Item in service or
 projected for disposal. Beginning July 2,
 1978, aach owner or operator of a
 facility using or .storing at one time at
 least 45 kilograms (99.4 pounds) of PCBs
 contained in PCS Containers] or one or
 more PCS Transformers, or SO or more
 PCS Large High or Low Voltage
 Capacitor* shall develop and maintain
 records on the disposition of PCBe and
 PCS Items. These records snail form the
 basis of an annual document prepared
 for each facility by July \ covering the
 previous calendar year. Owners or
 operators with one or more facilities
 that use or store  PCBs and PCS Items in
 the quantities described'above may
 maintain the records and documents at
 one of the facilities that is normally
 occupied for 8 hours a day, provided the
 identity of this facility is available at
 each facility using or storing PCBs and
 PCS Items. The records and documents
 shall be maintained for at least five
 yean after the facility ceases using or
 storing PCBs and PCS Items in the
 prescribed quantities. The following
 information for each facility shall be
 included in the annual document:
   (1} The dates when PCBs and PCS
 Items are removed from service, are
 placed into storage for disposal, and are
 placed into transport for disposal. The
 quantities of the  PCBs and PCB Items
 shall be indicated using the following
 breakdown:
   (i) Total weight in kilograms of any
 PCBs and PCB Items in PCB Containers
 including the identification of container
 contents such as  liquids and capacitors;
   (ii) Total number of PCB Transformers
 and total weight  in kilograms of any
 PCBs contained in the transformers; and
   (iii) Total number of PCB Large High
 or Low Voltage Capacitors.
   (21 For PCBs and PCB Items removed
 from service, the  location of the initial
 disposal or storage facility and the name
 of the owner or operator of the facility.
   (3) Total quantities of PCBs and PCB
 Items remaining in service at the end of
 the calendar year using the following
 breakdown:
  (i) Total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs and PCB Items in PCB Containers.
including the identification  of container
contents such as  liquids and capacitors;
  (ii) Total number of PCB Transformers
and total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs contained in the transformers; and
   (ill) Total number of PCB Large High
 or Low Voltage Capacitors.
   (b) Disposal and storage facilities.
 Each owner or operator of a facility
 (including high efficiency boiler
 operations) used for the storage or
 disposal of PCBs and PCB Items shall by
 July 1,1979 and aach July 1 thereafter
 prepare and maintain a document that
 includes the information required in
 subparagraphs (1) thru (4) below for
 PCBs and PCB Items that-were handled
 at-fee facility during the previous
 calendar year. The document shall be
 retained at each facility for at least 5
 years after {he facility is  r.o longer used
 for the storage or disposal of PCSa and
 PCB Items except that in the case of
 chemical waste landfills, the document
 shall be maintained at least 20 years
 after the chemical waste landfill is no
 longer used for the disposal of PCBs and
 PCB Items. The documents shall be
 available at the facility for inspection by
 authorized representative* of the
 Environmental Protection Agency. If the
 facility ceases to be used for PCB
 storage or disposal, the owner or
 operator of such facility shall notify
 within 80 days the EPA Regional
 Administrator of the region in which the
 facility is located that the facility has
 ceased storage or disposal operations.
 The notice shall specify where the
 documents that are required to be
 maintained by this paragraph are
 located. The fallowing information shall
 be included in each document
   (1) The date when any PCBs and PCB
 Items were received by the facility
 during the previous calendar year for
 storage or disposal, and identification of
 the facility and the owner or operator of
 the facility from whom the PCBs were
 received;
   (2) The date when any PCBs and PCB
 Items were disposed of al the  disposal
 facility or transferred to another
 disposal or storage facility, including the
 identification of the specific types of
 PCBs and PCB Items that  were stored or
 disposed of:
   (3) A summary of the total weight in
 kilograms of PCBs and PCB Articles in
 containers and the total weight of PCBs
 contained in PCB Transformers, that
 have been handled at the facility during
 the previous calendar year. This
 summary shall provide totals of the
 above PCBs and PCB Items which have
 been:
  (i) Received during the yean
  (ii) Transferred to other facilities
during the year and
   (iiilRetained at the facility at me end
 ofthe year. In addition the contents of
 PCB Containers shall be identified.
 When PCB Containers and PCBs
 contained hi a transformer are
 transferred to-other storage or disposal
 facilities, the identification of the facility
 to which such PCBs and PCdttems wen
 transferred shall be included in the
 document*
   (4) Total number of any PCB Articles
 or PCB Equipment not in PCB*
 Containers, received during the calendar
 year, transferred to other storage or
 disposal facilities during the calendar
 year, or remaining on the facility site at
 the end of the calendar year. The
 identification of the specific types of
 PCB Articles and PCB Equipment
 received, transferred, or remaining on
 the facility site shall be indicated. When
 PCB Articles and PCB Equipment are
 transferred to other storage or disposal
 facilities, the identification of the facility
 to which the PCB Articles and PCB
 Equipment were transferred must be
 included.
   Note*—Any requirement* for weights in
 kilogram* of PCB* may be calculated values
 if the internal volume of container* and
 transformer* i* known and included in the
 report*, together with any assumption* on the
 density of the PCB* contained in the
 container* or transformer*.
   (c) Incineration facilities. Each owner
 or operator of a PCB incinerator facility
 shall collect and maintain for a period of
 5 years from the date of collection the
 following information, in addition to the
 information required in paragraph (b) of
 this section:
   (1) When PCBs are being incinerated.
 the following continuous and short-
 interval data:
   (i) Rate and quantity of PCBs fed to
 the combustion system as required in
 Annex I—$ 761.4O(a)(3);
   (ii) Temperature ofthe combustion
 process as required in Annex I—
 i 761.40(a)(4); and
   (iii) Stack emission product to include
 Ot. CO, and COi as required in Annex
 I—§ 7B1.40(a)(7).
   (2) When PCBs are being incinerated.
 data and records on the monitoring of
 stack emissions as required in Annex
 1—5 761.40(a)(6).
   (3) Total weight in kilograms of any
 solid residues generated by the
 incineration of PCBs and PCB Items
 during the calendar year, the total
weight in kilograms of any solid
residues disposed of by the facility in
chemical waste landfills, and the total
weight in kilograms of any solid
                 on the facility site.

-------
31558      Federal Register / Vol 44. No. 106  / Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
  (4) When PCBs and KB Items are
being incinerated, additional periodic
data shall be collected and maintained
as specified by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to § 7B1.40(d){4).
  (5) Upon any suspension of the
operation of any incinerator pursuant to
S 761.40(a)(8), the owner or operator of
such an incinerator shall prepare a
document The document shall, at a
minimum, include the date and time of
the suspension and an explanation of
the circumstances causing the
suspension  of operation. The document
shall be sent to the appropriate Regional
Administrator within 30 days of any
such suspension.
  (d) Chemical waste landfill facilities.
Each owner or operator of a PCB
chemical waste landfill facility shall
collect and maintain until at least 20
years after the chemical waste landfill is
no longer used for the disposal of PCBs
the following information  in addition to
the information required in paragraph
(b) of this section:
  (1) Any water analysis obtained in
compliance with § 781.41(b)(8](iii); and
  (2) Any operations records including
burial coordinates of wastes obtained in
compliance with I 781.41(b)(8)(ii).
  (e) High efficiency boiler facilities.
Each owner or operator of a high
efficiency boiler used for the disposal of
liquids between 50 and 500 ppm PCB
shall collect and maintain for a period of
5 years the following information, in
addition to the information required in
paragraph (b) of this section:
  (1) For each month PCBs are burned in
the boiler the carbon monoxide and
excess oxygen data required in
5 761.10(a)(2)(iii)(A)(a) and
§ 761.10(a)(3)(iii)(A)(5);
  (2) The quantity of PCBs burned each
month as required in
§ 761.10(a)(2)(iii)(A)(7) and
§ 761.10(a)(3)(iii)(A)(7}; and
  (3) For each month PCBs (other than
mineral oil dielectric fluid) are burned.
chemical analysis data of the waste as
required  in  § 761.10(a)(3)(iii)(B)(e).
  (f) Retention of Special Records by
Storage and Disposal Facilities.  In
addition  to  the information required to
be maintained under paragraphs (b).  (c),
(d) and (e) of this section, each owner or
operator of a PCB storage or disposal
facility (including high efficiency boiler
operations) shall collect and maintain
for the time period specified in
paragraph (b) of this section the
following data:
   (1) All documents, correspondence,
and data that have been provided to the
owner or operator of the facility by any
State or local government agency and
that pertain' to the storage or disposal of
PCBs and PCB Items at the facility.
  (2) All documents, correspondence,
and data thai have been provided by the
owner or operator of the facility to any
State or local government agency and"
that pertain to the storage or disposal of
PCBs and PCB Items at the facility.
  (3) Any applications and related
correspondence sent by the owner or
operator of the facility to any local.
State, or Federal authorities in regard to
waste water discharge permits, solid
waste permits, building permits, or other
permits-or authorizations such as those
required by Annex I—5 79L40(d>and
Annex-B—5 761.41(c),
(FK Doc 79-lWB PU«d 5-30-7* MS un|
MLUNO COOI M40-01-M
40 CFH Part 750

[FRL 1227-6]

Procedures for RuMMraUng Under
Section 8 of the Toxic Substance*
Control Act; Interim Procedural Rules
for Exemptions From the
PoJychtortnated Blpnenyl (PCS)
Processing and Distribution In
Commerce Prohibition*

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim procedures for filing and
processing petitions for exemptions from
the PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions under section
a(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).

SUMMARY: Section 6{e)(3KB) of TSCA
allows EPA to grant by rule, exemptions
from the prohibitions on manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs established pursuant
to section 6(e)(3)tA) of TSCA. Since the
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions will become
effective  July 1,1979, EPA wishes to
inform affected parties of the procedures
that will be followed for the filing and
processing  of petitions for exemptions
from the processing and distribution in
commerce bans imposed by section
8(e)(3)(A)(ii) of TSCA. As this notice is
strictly procedural, notice and public
comment are unnecessary, and it is
effective  upon publication.
DATE: Petitions for exemptions from the
1979 processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions must be received
by July 2.1979,
ADDRESS: Petitions, preferably in
triplicate, are te be sent to: Document
Control Officer, (TS-793), Office of
Toxic Substances. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street. S.W.,
Washington. D.C 20480, Attn.:
Document No. OTS/0880Q2(PCB/PDE).
FOR FURTHCR INFORMATION CONTACT;
John B. Ritch. Jr.. Director. Office of
Industry- Assistance. Office of Toxic
Substances, (TS-79B). Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street 3.W.-,
Washington. D.C 20460. Gafl the toll
free number (BOO) 424-8065 (in
Washington. D.C, 554-1404].
sumjMorrARY INFORMATION:
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
the fina^ PCS **•** Rule is promulgated.
the PCB Ban Rok implements the PCB
             , proosssiiig. distribution
in commerce, and use prohibitions of
section 6(e) of TSCA. On November 1,
1978 {43 FR 50905), EPA published a
notice """I*"" to *h
-------
           Federai Renter / VoL 44. No, 106 / Thoraday. May 31. 1879 /  Rules and Regulations
 pigment*! some aluminum chloride, and
 some pbenyiefaloRMiianes).
   In contrast to th« Integra Procedural
 Rules for Exemptions from the PCB
 Manufacturing Prohibition, the
 procedural rules published today for
 exemptions from the processing and
 distribution in commerce prohibitions
 provide for class petitions in certain
 limited circumstances. Allowance of
 some class petitions is an administrative
 necessity. EPA estimates that then an
 thousands of potential petitoners for
 exemptions from the prohibitions on
 PCB processing and distribution in
 commerce. The gnat majority of these
 petitions are expected to be
 concentrated in the areas of distribution
 of PCB Equipment and distribution of
 PCB-contaminated substances and
 mixtures. For example, virtually every
 retaif appliance store, appliance repair
 service, and wholesale distributor of
 electrical equipment could need an
 exemption. Thus, allowing use of class
 petitions for such persons is a matter of
 practical reality.
  In addition to the sheer number of
 possible petitioners in a given potential
 class, EPA evaluated the seriousness of
 potential risk of injury to health and the
 environment that could result from
 permitting a PCB activity to continue if it
 were granted an exemption. Those
 persons not allowed to submit class
 petitions are generally those whose
 activities involve significant quantities
 and/or highly concentrated PCB fluids
 processed or distributed in a non-totaily
 enclosed manner. As a result the
 potential risk associated  with these
 activities is relatively high. In such
 cases it is more important that EPA
 evaluate petitions individually.
  Petitions concerning the manufacture
 (i.e.. processing) of PCB Equipment
 involving incorporation of PCB Articles
 into equipment must be submitted on an
 individual basis. Although this activity
 in itself may present a low potential
 risk, the activity results in the wide
 dissemination of small PCB Capacitors.
 The disposal of such capacitors is not
 controlled once the capacitors are
 processed into PCB Equipment. Since
 most PCB Equipment manufacturers
 have converted to non-PCB Capacitor;,
 the number of potential petitioners for
 exemptions to manufacture PCB
 Equipment should be small.
  These Interim Procedural Rules
 provide for two types of class petitions
 and limit the use of each type to certain
 activities. The two types of class
petitions are: (1) a class petition
requiring a listing of. and  certain
information about, each person covered
 by the petition: and (2) a class petition
 that does not require a listing of persons
 covered by the petition.
   Once-EPA had determined to allow
 class petitions for certain activities, the
 same factors previously described
 (number of potential petitioners and
 extent of risk) were again evaluated to
 determine which class petitions would
 have to identify each petitioner covered
 by the class petition. In general, those
 petitions thought likely to represent
 large numbers of potential petitioners
 engaged in enclosed or low
 concentration PCB distribution activities
 are those allowed to file class petitions
 without listing each individual
 petitioner.
   Class petitions are not required for
 persons engaged hi those activities
 permitted to submit class petitions. An
 individual involved in one of these
 activities has the choice of either
 submitting an individual petition or
 joining with others to submit a class
 petition. For class petitions, EPA will
 accept petitions prepared by one
 company (to which other companies
 may provide the required information),
 by a trade association on behalf of its
 members (as well as others), or by any
 other person on behalf of a group of
 persons requiring exemptions.
   Persons who have already submitted
 petitions for exemptions to manufacture
 or import PCB Equipment pursuant to
 the Interim Procedural Rules of
 November 1.1978 (43 FR 50905) need not
 submit new petitions, but must advise
 EPA if they still wish the Agency to act
 on their pending petitions. If they wish,
 such petitioners may submit additional
 information concerning their petitions.
 Similarly, EPA may request additional
 information concerning such petitions
 by letter to the petitioners.
   All petitions for exemptions from the
 1979 processing and distribution in
 commerce bans must be received by
 EPA by July 1.1979. This deadline is
 being imposed to permit consolidation of
 all rulemaking on these petitions and to
 expedite the rulemaking to the greatest
 extent possible. The deadline is also the
 date on which the processing and
 distribution in commerce prohibitions of
 section 6(e)(3) of TSCA become
 effective. EPA estimates that a Notice of
 Proposed Rulemaking concerning
 exemptions from the processing and
 distribution in commerce bans will be
 published in September 1979, that the
 public hearing, if requested, will be held
in October 1979, and that the Final Rule
concerning exemptions will be
published in January 1960. Any person
who petitions EPA by July 1.1979 to-
continue processing or distribution to
commerce after July 1,1979 may
  continue his activity until EPA rales on
  his petition. Persons who do not so
  petition EPA will be subject to the July
  1,1979 ban on all processing and
  distribution in commerce of PCBs and
  PCB Items.
   In determining whether to grant a
  petition for exemption to the PCB ban.
  EPA will apply the standards
  enunciated in section 6(e)(3){B) of
  TSCA. Section 6(e)(3)(B] reads in
  pertinent part as follows:
   *  *  * the Administrator may grant by rule
  such an exemption if the Administrator .finds
  that—
   (i) an unreasonable risk of injury to health
  or environment would not result, and
   (ii) good faith efforts have been made to
 develop a chemical substance which does not
 present an unreasonable risk of injury to
 health or the environment and which may be
 substituted for such polychlorinated
 biphenyl.

   Although EPA is not issuing a form for
 petitions, petitions must include the
 information described in § 750.31(d) of
 the Interim Procedural Rules.
   Due to the need to grant or deny
 petitions on an expedited basis, and
 pursuant to the delegation of authority
 by the Administrator in the Preamble to
 the Final PCB Ban Rule, authority has
 been delegated to the Assistant
 Administrator for Toxic Substances to
 grant or deny petitions under section
 6(e)(3](B) of TSCA submitted pursuant
 to these interim procedures. The
 Assistant Administrator will rule on
 petitions subsequent to opportunity for
 an informal hearing.
  The Interim Procedural Rules
 applicable to section 6(e) exemption
 proceedings are adapted from the TSCA
 section 6 procedural rules (40 CFR Part
 750.  42 FR 81259. December 2,1977, now
 tided Subpart A—General Procedural
 Rules).
  EPA is aware that many participants
 at the informal hearings on the proposed
 PCB Ban and Marking and Disposal
 Rules presented information directly
 applicable to a PCB exemption
 rulemaking. To expedite Agency action
 on exemption petitions, participants'in
 the PCB exemption informal hearing are
 permitted and encouraged to designate
 testimony from prior EPA informal
 rulemaking hearings on PCBs under
 TSCA. The exemption hearing panel is
 specifically authorized by the Interim
Procedural Rules- to reject repetitive
testimony submittted earlier to EPA at a
TSCA PCB informal hearing.
  These rules are issued under authority
of section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances
 Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2e05(e).

-------
31580      Fadacal  Rugate / Vol 44. No. 106 /Thursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules  and Regulations
  Dated May 11.197ft
Marilyn C. BsMkm;
Acting Assistant Administrator far Toxic
SvbstancM.

  Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by adding two
Subpart headings, Subpart A—General
Procedural Rules for §§ 750.1-750.9 and
Subpart B—^Manufacturing Exemption
Procedural Rules for 5$ 750.10-750.21. to
the Table of Contents and a new
Subpart C as set forth below;
  Subpart A—Procedures for Rutanaking
under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act [55 750.1-750*—Added at 42 PR
81259. December 2.1977).
  Subpart ft—totenm Procedural Role* for
Manufacturing Exemption*. [J J 750,10-
750.21—Added at 43 FR 50BOS, November 1.
1978J.
SubpsrtC—tatenm Procedural Rutae tor
ProceeelnQ and OtetrlbultOQlA Comsflefce
Exemptions

S*c
750.30  Applicability.
750.31  Filing of petitions for exemption.
750.32  Consolidation of ruiemaking.
750.33  Notice of proposed ruiemaking.
750.34  Record.
750.35  Public comments.
750.36  Confidentiality.
750J7  Subpoenas.
750.38  Participation in informal hearing.
750.39  Conduct of informal hearing.
750.40  Cross-examination.
750.41  Final rule.
  Authority: Section 6(e), Toxic Substances
Control Act. 15 U.S.C 2605(e).

Subpart C—Processing and
Distribution in Commerce Exemption
Procedural Rule*

§750.30 Applicability.
  Sections 750.30-750.41 apply to  all
rulemakings under authority of section
6(ej(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). 15 U.S.C.
2605(e)(3)(B) with respect to petitions for
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce exemptions Sled pursuant to
§ 750.31(a) of this Part.

§ 750.31  Filing of petitions f<* exemption.
   (a) Who May File. Any person
seeking an exemption from the PCB
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions imposed by section
6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of TSCA may file a petition
for exemption. Petitions must be
submitted on an individual basis  for
each processor, distributor, seller or
individual affected by the 1979
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions,  except as described in
subparagraphs (1) through (9) below.
   (1) Processing and Distribution in
Commerce of PCB-Contaminated
 Transformer Dielectric Fluid. Persons
who process or distribute in commerce
dielectric fluid containing 30 pom or
greater PCB (but IBM than 500 ppm PCB)
for use in PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may submit a-single
consolidated petition on behalf of any
number of petitioners. The name and
address of each petitioner must be
stated in the petition.
  (2) Contaminated Substances and
Mixtures—Processing. Persons who
process the same chemical substance or
the same mixture containing 50 ppm or
greater PCB as an impurity or
contaminant may submit a consolidated
petition if the chemical substance or
mixture is  processed for the  same use by
each person represented by  the petition.
For example, persons who process a
RGB-contaminated pigment into printing
inks may combine their petitions into
one petition. The name and address of
each petitioner must be stated ia the
petition.
  (3) Contaminated Substances and
Mixtures—Distribution in Commerce.
Persons who distribute in commerce the
same chemical substance or the same
mixture containing 50 ppm or greater
PCB as an impurity or contaminant may
submit a consolidated petition if the
chemical substance or mixture is
distributed in commerce for  a common
use. Such a petition is not required to
name each person who distributes in
commerce the chemical substance or
mixture.
  (4) PCB Capacitor Distribution for
Purposes of Repair. Persons who
distribute in commerce PCB  capacitors
for servicing (repair) of PCB Equipment
may submit a single consolidated
petition on behalf of any number of
petitioners engaged  in such distribution
in commerce for purposes of repair. The
name of each petitioner need not be
stated in the petition.
  (5) Small Quantities for Research and
Development. Persons who process or
distribute  in commerce small quantities
of PCBs for research and development
may submit a single consolidated
petition. The name and address of each
petitioner must be stated in  ihe petition.
  (6) Microscopy. Pewons who process
or distribute in commerce PCHs for use
as a mounting medium in microscopy
may submit a single consolidated
petition on behalf of any number of
petitioners. The name and address of
each petitioner must be stated in the
petition.
   (7) Processing of PCB Articles into
PCB Equipment. A person who
processes (incorporates) PCB Articles
(such as small PCB Capacitors) into PCB
Equipment may submit a petition on
behalf of himself and all persons who
further process or distribute hi
commerce PCB Equipment built by the
petitioner. For example, a builder of
motors who places small PCB
Capacitors in the motors may submit a
petition on behalf of all persons who
process or incorporate motors built by
the petitioner into other pieces of PCB
Equipment and all those who sell the
equipment Such-a petition is not
required to identify the persons who
distribute in commerce or further
process the PCB Equipment A separate
petition most  be filed, however, by each
processor of PCB Articles into PCB"
Equipment
  (8) Processing of PCB Equipment into
Other PCB Equipment. A person who
processes (incorporates) PCB Equipment
into other PCB Equipment may submit a
petition on behalf of himself and all
persons who further process or
distribute in commerce PCB Equipment
built by the petitioner. Such a petition is
not required to identify the persons who
distribute in commerce or further
process the PCB Equipment. If a petition
has been filed under subparagraph (a)(7)
by the builder of the original PCB
Equipment, no other petition is required.
  (9) Distribution of PCB Equipment.
Distributors in commerce of PCB
Equipment may submit a consolidated
petition on behalf of persons who
distribute in commerce PCB Equipment
of one type (such as air conditioners).
The petition is not required to name the
persons who distribute in commerce the
affected PCB Equipment.
  (b) Petition Filing Date. All petitions
for exemptions from the 1979 processing
and distribution in commerce
prohibitions under section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii]
must be received by the Hearing Clerk
by July 2.1979.
  (c) Where to File. All petitions must
be submitted  to the following location:
Document Control Officer (TS-793),
Office of Toxic Substances. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
Attn.: Docket Number OTS/066002
(PCB/PDE).
  (d) Content of Petition. Each petition
must contain the following:.
  (1) Name, address and telephone
number of petitioner. See also
subparagraphs (a}(l}-{9) for additional
identification requirements applicable to
certain consolidated petitions.
  (2) Description of PCB processing or
distribution in commerce exemption
requested, including a description of the
chemical substances, mixtures or items
to be processed or distributed in
commerce and, if processing is involved.
the nature of the processing.

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 44, No.  106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
                                                                     31561
  (3) For processing petitions,
 location(s) of sites requiring exemption.
  (4) Length of time requested for
 exemption (maximum length of
 exemption is one year).
  (5) Estimated amount of PCBs (by
 pound and/or volume) to be processed,
 distributed in commerce, or used during
 requested exemption period and the
 manner of release of PCBs into the
 environment associated with such
 processing, distribution in commerce, or
 use. Where the PCB concentration is
 less than 500 ppm, both the  total liquid
 volume and the total PCB volume must
 be provided.
  (6) The basis for the petitioner's
 contention that under section
 8(e)(3)(B)(i) of TSCA "an unreasonable
 risk of injury to health or environment
 would not result" from the granting of
 the petition for exemption.
  (7) The basis for the petitioner's
 contention that under section
 8(e)(3UB)(ii) "good faith efforts have
 been made to develop a chemical
 substance which does not present an
 unreasonable risk of injury to health or
 the environment and which  may be
 substituted for" the PCB.
  (8) Quantification of the reasonably
 ascertainable economic consequences of
 denying the petition for exemption and
 an explanation of the manner of
 computation.
  (9) In addition to the information in
 subparagraphs  (1) through (6), certain
 petitions must contain additional
 information as follows:
  (i) Persona who process or distribute
 in commerce dielectric fluids containing
 50 ppm or greater PCB for use in PCB
Transformers, railroad transformers, or
 PCB electromagnet* must also state the
 expected number of PCB Transformers,
 railroad transformers* or PCB
 electromagnets to be serviced under the
 exemption. In addition, a person must
 identify all the facilities.which he owns
 or operates where he services PCB
 transformers, railroad transformers, or
 PCB electron agnets.
  (ii) Persons filing petitons under
subparagraph (a)(l) {Processing and
Distribution in Commerce of PCB-
Contaminated Transformer Dielectric
Fluid] most also provide the expected
number of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers to be serviced under the
requested exemption and the expected
method of disposal of waste ^dielectric
fluid. In addition, a person must identify
ail the facilities which: he owns or
operates where he services PJCB-
Contaminated Transformers. This
information, as well as the information
required by subparagraphs (dKl). (d)(3)
and (dK5), must be provided for each
 person represented by the petition. AH
 other information may be provided on a
 group basis!
   (iii) Persons filing petitions under
 subparagraphs (a)(2) (Contaminated
 Substances and Mixtures-Processing)
 and (a)(3) (Contaminated Substances
 and.Mixtures-Distribution in Commerce)
 mnst also provide a justification for the
 class grouping selected and a
 description of the uses and the human
 and environmental exposure associated
 with each use of the PCB-contaminated
 chemical substance or mixture for which
 an exemption is sought. Information
 may be provided on a group basis,
 except that the information required by
 subparagraphs (d)(l), (d)(3) and (d)(S),
 must be provided for each parson
 represented by a petition under
 subparagraph (a)(2).
   (iv) Persons filing petitions under
 subparagraph (a)(4).(PCB Capacitor
 Distribution for Purposes of Repair)
 must also provide an estimate of the
 expected total number of PCB
 Capacitors to be distributed in
 commerce under the requested
 exemption. All information may be
 provided on a group basis.
  (v) Persons filing petitions under
 subparagraph (a)(7) and (a)(8)
 (Processing of PCB Articles into PCB
 Equipment and Processing of PCB
 Equipment into Other PCB Equipment)
 must provide  a description of each type
 of PCB Equipment (including the amount
 of PCBa by poundage and/or volume in
 the PCB Equipment) to be processed
 and/or distributed in commerce under
 the exemption, the number of each type
 of equipment  expected to be processed
 and/or distributed in commerce, and the
 approximate number of distributors or
 further processors covered by the
 petition. All information may be
 provided on a group basis. However, in
 the case of a petition under
 subparagraph (a)(7), the processor of
 PCB Articles into PCB Equipment must
 be identified in the petition. In the case
 of a petition under subparagraph (a)(8),
 the processor of PCB Equipment who
 files the petition must be identified.
  (vi) Persons filing petitions under
 subparagraph (a)(9) (Distribution of PCB
Equipment) must provide  a description
 of each type of PCB Equipment
 (including the amount of PCBs by
 poundage and/or volume  in the PCB
 Equipment) to be distributed in
 commerce under the exemption, the
number of each type of equipment to be
distributed in  commerce, and the
 approximate number of distributors
covered by the petition. All information
may be provided on a group bans.
   (vii) Persons filing petitions under
 subparagraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) must
 provide the information required by
 subparagraphs (d)(l) through (d)(8) for
 each petitioner named in the petition.
   (e) EPA reserves the right to request
 further information as to each petition
 where necessary to determine whether
 the petition meets the statutory tests of
 section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA prior to or
 after publication of the notice of
 proposed rulemaking required by
 § 750.33 of these rules.

 ! T5&32  Consolidation of nitarakfng.
   All petitions received pursuant to
 § 750.31(a) will be consolidated into one
 rulemaking with one informal hearing
 held on ail petitions.

 §750.33  Motto* of propoeed nitomaMng.
   Rulemaking. for PCB processing and
 distribution in commerce exemptions
 filed pursuant to i 750-31(a) will begin
 with the publication of a Notice of
 Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
 Register. Each notice will contain:
   (a) A summary of the information
 required in §750.31(d);
   (b) A statement of the time and place
 at which the informal hearing required
 by section a(c)(2)(Q of TSCA shall
 begin, or, to the extent these are not
 specified, a statement that they will be
 specified later in a separate Federal
 Register notice provided that Federal
 Register notice of the date and city at
 which any informal hearing shall begin
 will be given at least 30 days in
 advance;
  (c) A statement identifying the place
 at which the official record of the
 rulemaking is located, the hours during
 which it will be open for public
 inspection, the documents contained in
 it as of the date the Notice of Proposed
 Rulemaking was issued, and a statement
 of the approximate times at which
 additional materials such as  public
 comments, hearing transcripts, and
 Agency studies in progress will be
 added to the record. If any material
 other than public comments or material
 generated by a hearing is added to the
 record after publication of the notice
required by this action, and notice of its
 future addition was not given at the time
 of that initial publication, a separate
Federal Register notice announcing its
 addition to the record and inviting
comment will be published:
  (d) The due date for public comments,
which will be (1) 30 days after
publication of the notice of proposed
ruiemaking for main comments ^nrf (2)
one week after the informal hearing for
reply-comments;

-------
31562      Federal Register /  Vol.  44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31,  1979 / Rules  and Regulations
  (e) The name, address, and office
telephone number of the Record Clerk
and the Hearing Clerk for the
rulemaking in question;  and
  (f) A nonbinding target date for
issuing the final rule.

§750.34 Rulemaking record.
  (a) No later than the date of proposal
of a rule subject to this Subpart a
rulemaking record for that rule will be
established. It will consist of a separate
identified filing space containing:
  (1) All documents required by
§ 750.31(d);
  (2) Ail public comments timely
received:
  (3) All public hearing  transcripts:
  (4) All material received during an
informal hearing and accepted for the
record of that hearing; and
  (5) Any other information that the
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances considers to be relevant to
such rule and that the Assistant
Administrator identified, on or before
the date of the promulgation of the rule,
in a notice published in  the Federal
Register.
  (b) All material in the record will be
appropriately indexed. Each record will
be available for public inspection during
normal EPA business hours. Appropriate
arrangements allowing members of the
public to copy record materials that do
not risk the permanent loss of such
materials will be made.  All material
required to be included  in the record
will be added to the record as soon as
feasible after its receipt by EPA.
  (c) The Record Clerk for each
rulemaking will be responsible for EPA
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 750.35  PutoMe comments.
  (a) Main comments must be
postmarked or received no later than the
time specified in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and must contain all
comments on and criticisms of that
Notice by the commenting person, based
on information which is or reasonably
could have been available to that person
at the time.
  (b) Reply comments must be
postmarked or received no later than
one week after the close of afl informal
hearings on the proposed rule and must
be restricted to comments on:
  (1) Other comments:
  (2) Material in the hearing record: and
  (3) Material which was not and could
not reasonably have been available to
the commenting party a sufficient time
before main comments were due.
  (c) Extensions of the time for filing
comments may be granted in writing by
the Hearing Chairman. Application for
an extension must be made in writing.
Comments submitted after the comment
period and all extensions of it have
expired need not be added to the
rulemaking record and need not be
considered in decisions concerning the
rule.
  (d) Unless the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking states otherwise, four
copies of all comments must be
submitted

§750J»  Confidentiality.
  EPA encourages the submission of
non-confidential information by
petitioners and commentors. EPA does
not wish to have unnecessary
restrictions on access to the rulemaking
record. However, if a petitioner or
commentor believes that he can only
state his position through the use of
information claimed to be confidential
he may submit it Such information must
be separately submitted for the
rulemaking record and marked
"confidential" by the submitter. For the
information claimed to be confidential.
EPA will list only the date and the name
and address of the petitioner or
commentor in the public file, noting that
the petitioner or commentor has
requested confidential  treatment The
Information claimed to be confidential
will be placed in a confidential file. A
petitioner must also file a non-
confidential petition with a non-
confidential summary of the confidential
information to be placed in the public
file. Similarly, a commentor must supply
a non-confidential summary of-the
information claimed to be confidential
to be placed In the public file. Any
information not marked as confidential
will be placed in the public file.
Information marked confidential will be
treated in accordance with the
procedures in Part 2, Subpart B of this
Title.

§ 750.37  Subpoenas.
  (a) Where necessary, subpoenas
requiring the production of documentary
material, the attendance of persons at
the hearing, or responses to written
questions may be issued. Subpoenas
may be issued either upon request as
provided in paragraph  (b) or by EPA on
its own motion.
  (b) All subpoena requests must be in
writing. Hearing participants may
request the issuance of subpoenas as
follows:
   (1) Subpoenas for the attendance of
persons or for the production of  '
documents or responses to questions at
the legislative hearing  may be requested
at any time up to the deadline for filing
main comments.
  (2) Subpoenas for production of
documents or answers to questions after
the legislative hearing may be requested
at any time between the beginning of the
legislative hearing and the deadline for
submitting reply comments.
  (c) EPA "will rule on all subpoena
requests filed under paragraph (b)(l) no
later than the beginning of the informal
hearing. Such requests may be granted.
denied, or deferred. EPA will rule on all
subpoena requests filed under
paragraph (b)(2) and all deferred
subpoena requests filed under
paragraph (b)[l) no later than the
promulgation of the final rule. Suet
requests will be either granted or
denied.

§750.38   Participation In Informal hearing.
  (a) Each person or organization
desiring to participate in the informal
hearing required by section 6(c)(2)(C) of
TSCA must file a written request to
participate with the Hearing Clerk. This
request must be received no later than
seven days prior to the scheduled start
of the hearing. The hearing will begin
seven days after the close of the thirty
day comment period or as soon
thereafter as practicable. The request
must include
  (1) A brief statement of the interest of
'.he person or organization in the
proceeding;
  (2) A brief outline of the points to be
addressed;
  (3) An estimate of the time required:
and
  (4) If the request comes from an
organization, a nonbinding  list of the
persons to take part in the presentation
Organizations are requested to bring
with them, to the extent possible.
employees with individual expertise in
and responsibility for each  of the areas
to be addressed. No organization not
filing main comments in the rulemaking
will be allowed  to participate at the
hearing, unless a waiver of this
requirement is granted in writing  by the
Hearing Chairman or the organization is
appearing at the request of EPA or under
subpoena.
  (b) No later man three days prior to
the start of the hearing, the Hearing
Clerk will make a hearing schedule
publicly available and mail or deliver it
to each of the persons who requested to
appear at the hearing. This schedule will
be subject to change during the course
of the hearing at the discretion of those
presiding over it
  (c) Opening statements should  be
brief, and restricted either to points that
could not have been made in main

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31.1979 / Rules and Regulations       . 31S63
comments or to emphasizing points
which are made intaain comments, but
which the participant believes can be
more forcefully urged in the hearing
context.

5 75O39  Conduct of Informal hearing.
  (a) A panel of EPA employees shall
preside at each hearing conducted under
section 6(c)(2}(C) of TSCA. In
appropriate cases, other Executive
Branch employees may also sit with and
assist the paneL The membership of the
panel may change as different topics
arise during the hearing. In general, the
panel membership will consist of EPA
employees with special responsibility
for the final rule or special expertise in
the topics under discussion. One
member of the panel will be named to
chair the proceedings and will attend
throughout the hearing, unless
unavoidably prevented by sickness or
similar personal circumstances.
  (b) The panel may question any
individual or group participating in the
hearing oi) any subject relating to the
rulemaking. Cross-examination by
others will normally not be permitted at
this stage. It may be granted in
compelling circumstances at the sole
discretion of the hearing panel.
However, persons in the hearing
audience may submit questions in
writing for the hearing panel to ask the
participants, and the hearing panel may,
at their discretion, ask these questions.
  (c) Participants in the hearing may
submit additional material for the
hearing record and shall submit such
additional material as  the hearing panel
may  request All such submissions will
become part of the record of the hearing.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
shall be made. Participants will be
allowed to designate testimony from
prior EPA informal rulemaking hearings
concerning PCBs under TSCA. The
hearing panel may reject repetitive
testimony previously presented at such
hearings.

§750.40  CroM-axMninatlon.
  (a) After the dose of the informal
hearing conducted under § 750.39, any
participant in that hearing may submit a
written request for cross-examination.
The request must be received by EPA
within one week after a full transcript of
the informal hearing becomes available
and must specify:
  (1) The disputed issues) of material
fact as to which cross-examination is
requested. This moat include an
explanation of why the questions at
issue an "factual", rather than of an
analytical or policy nature, the extent to
which they an in "dispute" in the light
 of the record made thus far, and the
 extent to which and why they can
 reasonably be considered "material" to
 the decision on the finel rule; and
   (2) The person(s) the participant
 desires to cross-examine, and an
 estimate of the time necessary. This
 must include a statement as to how the
 cross-examination requested can be
 expected to result in "full and true
 disclosure" resolving the issue of
 material fact involved.
   (b) Within  one week after receipt of
 all requests for cross-examination under
 subparagraph (a), the hearing panel will
 rule on  them. The ruling will be served
 by the Hearing Clerk on all participants
 who have requested cross-examination
 and will be inserted in the record.
 Written notice of the ruling will be given
 to all persons requesting cross-
 examination and all persons to be cross-
 examined.  The ruling will specify:
   (1) The issues as to which cross-
 examination is granted:
   (2) The persons to be cross-examined
 on each issue;
   (3) The persons to be allowed to
 conduct cross-examination; and
   (4) Time  limits for the examination of
 each witness by each cross-examiner.
   (c) In issuing this ruling, the panel
 may determine that one or more
 participants who have requested cross-
 examination have the same or similar
 interests and  should be required to
 choose a single representative for
 purposes of cross-examination by that
 single representative without identifying
 the representative further. Subpoenas
 for witnesses may be issued where
 necessary.
   (d) Within one week after the
 insertion into the record of the ruling
 under subparagraph (b), the hearing at
 which the cross-examination will be
 conducted will begin. One or more
 members of the original panel will
 preside  for EPA. The panel will have
 authority to conduct cross-examination
 on behalf of any participant although as
 a general rule this right will not be
 exercised. The panel will also have
 authority to modify the governing ruling
 in any respect and to make new rulings
 on group representation under section
 8(c)(3)(C] of TSCA. A verbatim
 transcript of the hearing will be made.
  (e)(l) No  later than the time set for
 requesting cross-examination, a hearing
participant may request that other
 alternative  methods of clarifying, the
 record (such as informal conferences or
 the submittal  of additional information)
be used. Such requests may be
 submitted either in lieu of cross-
examination requests, or in conjunction
with them.
   (2) The panel in passing on a cross-
 examination request may, as a-
 precondition to ruling on its merits,
 require that alternative means of
 clarifying the record be used whether or
 not that has been requested under
 subparagraph (e)(l). In such a case, the
 results of the use of such alternative
 means will be made available to the
 person requesting cross-examination for
 a one-week comment period, and the
 panel will make a final ruling on cross-
 examination within one week thereafter.
   (f) Waivers or extensions of any
 deadline in this section applicable to
 persons other than EPA may be granted
 on the record of the hearing by the
 person chairing it or in writing by the
 Hearing Chairman.

 f 750.41  Fins* rate.
   (a) As soon as feasible after the
 deadline for submittal of reply
 comments, EPA will issue a final rule.
 EPA will also publish at that  time:
   (1) A list of all material added to the
 record (other than public comments and
 material from die hearing record) which
 has not previously been listed in a
 Federal Register document and
  (2) The effective date of the rule.
  (b) Pursuant to the delegation of
 authority made in the Preamble to the
 Final Regulation for the PCS
 Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
 in Commerce and Use Prohibitions, the
 Assistant Administrator for Toxic
 Substances will grant or deny petitions
under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA
submitted pursuant to § 750.31. The
Assistant Administrator will act on such
petitions subsequent to opportunity for
an informal hearing pursuant  to this
rule.
  (c) In determining whether to grant an
exemption to the PCS ban, EPA will
apply the two standards enunciated in
section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA.
[PR Doe. 7S-1WOB filed S-JO-7* *4* «D|
              01-M

-------
 31564
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106  / Thursday, May 31.1979 / Proposed Rules
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 [40 CFR Part 761]

 [FRL 1227-7; OTS-066001]

 PofycfclorinatMl Btph«ny1» (PCflafc
 PropOMd RuMOTtakJng for PCS
 Manufacturing Exemption*

 AQEMCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Proposed PCS exemption rule:
 notice of informal hearing.

 SUMMARY: This notice lists the petitions
 received by EPA for exemption from the
 prohibition on PCS manufacturing and
 importation pursuant to section 6(e)(3)
 of the  Toxic Substances Control Act
 (TSCA). IS U.S.C. 2605(e)(3). The notice
 also indicates, the most cases, which
 petitions for exemption EPA proposes to
 grant and which petitions the Agency
 proposes to deny.
 DATES: Written comments, preferably  in
 triplicate, must be received by the
 Hearing Clerk by July 2,1979. Hearing
 Date and Time: July 9.1979 at IftOO ajn.
 in Washington. D.C. Requests to
 participate in the hearing must be
 received by the Hearing Clerk by July  2.
 1979.
 ADDRESSES: Send comments and
 requests to participate in the hearing to:
 Ms. Linda Thomson. Hearing Clerk,
 Office of Toxic Substances (TS-794),
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
 401 M  Street S.W.. Washington, D.C
 20460,  Attention: Docket Number OTS/
 066001 (PCB/ME). The hearing will be
 held in Washington, D.C. The exact
 location of the hearing will be mada
 available by calling the toll-free number •
 800-424-9065.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
 John B. Ritch, Director, Office of
 Industry Assistance (TS-799), Office of
 Toxic Substances, Environmental
 Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W..
 Washington. D.C. 20460, telephone
 (800H24-9065.  or in Washington, D.C.
 call 554-1404.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA [Pub. L 94-469, 90
 Stat. 2003r 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.j
 prohibits all manufacture (including
 importation) of PCBs as of January 1,
 1979. EPA's regulation entitled PCB
 Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
 in Commerce, and Use Prohibition Rule
 (PCB Prohibition Rule) which
 implements the prohibitions of section
 S(e)(3) of TSCA. appears elsewhere in
 today's Federal Register. Section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA allows affected
persons to petition EPA fot exemptions
                      from the section 6(e)(3)(A) PCB
                      prohibitions. On November 1,1978, EPA
                      published Interim Procedural Rules (43
                      FR 50905) for the filing and processing of
                      petitions for exemptions from the PCB
                      manufacturing prohibition of section
                      6(e)(3) of TSCA. More than seventy
                      petitions for exemption have been
                      received. These petitions have been
                      consolidated into one rulemaking in
                      accordance with § 750.12 of the Interim
                      Procedural Rules (43 FR at 50906).
                        On January 2.1979, the Agency
                      announced (44 FR 108) that persons who
                      had filed petitions for exemptions from
                      the PCB manufacturing ban under
                      section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA could
                      continue the manufacturing or
                      importation activity for which the
                      exemption is sought until EPA has acted
                      on the applicable petition.
                        The Interim Procedural Rules for
                      manufacturing exemptions (43 FR 50905)
                      will be applicable to this rulemaking.
                      The official record of rulemaking is
                      located in Room 447, East Tower,
                      Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
                      Street S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
                      telephone (202J-755-6956. It will be
                      available for viewing and copying fron.
                      9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
                      Friday, excluding holidays. Hearing
                      transcripts, hearing materials and
                      submissions received will be added to
                      the record as they become available.
                        To facilitate informed comment, EPA
                      is indicating its  proposed action on most
                      exemption petitions. For EPA to grant a
                      requested'exemption, the Agency must
                      make the findings required by section
                      6(e)(B)(3) of TSCA. That section reads
                      as follows:
                        * * ' the Administrator may grant by role
                      such an exemption if the Administrator finds
                      that—
                        (i) An unreasonable risk of injury to health
                      or environment would not mult and
                        (ii) Good faith efforts have been made to
                      develop • chemical substance which does not
                      present an unreasonable risk of injury to
                      health or the environment and which may b*
                      substituted for such polychlorinated
                      biphenyL

                        EPA wishes to advise commenton
                      that for each exemption petition the
                      Agency may request by  letter additional
                      information from the petitioner
                      concerning his petition. This information
                      would be supplementary to information
                      requested ia this Notice. The Agency
                      will make such requests if it determines
                      that it requires the information in order
                      to adequately assess the petition.
                     Accordingly, persons may wish to file
                     reply comments  under 5 750.15 of the
                     Interim Procedural Rules (43 FR 50906)
                     on any additional material filed by
 petitioners in response to information
 requests from EPA.
   Section 750.11(b) of the Interim
 Procedural Rules established a filing
 date of December 1,1978 for all petitions
 for exemption from the TSCA section
 6(e)(3) PCB manufacturing (and
 important] prohibition. Subsequent to
 the filing date, additional petitions have-
 been received by the Agency. Due to the
 shortness of the original filing period of
 thirty days, EPA has accepted all late
 petitions. The Agency will decide on a
 case-by-case whether petitions for
 exemptions for PCB manufacturing and
 importation activities filed subsequent
 to the date of this Notice should also be
 accepted. If a PCB manufacturer or
 importer subject to the final PCB
 regulation (1) now wishes to file a
 petition for exemption and (2) did not
 earlier file a petition because he had
 good cause to believe his PCB activity
 was not subject to the proposed
 regulation (43 FR 24802, June 7,1978). he
 should indicate the basis for his prior
 failure to file a petition and should
 request EPA to  accept his late petition.
 No late petition will be accepted unless
 good cause can be shown for the failure
 to file on time. Whether or not late
 petitions are accepted will be
 announced at the informal hearing for
 this rulemaking. A supplemental notice
 of proposed rulemaking probably will
 not be issued as to such petitions.
   In the preamble to  the  final PCB
 Prohibition Rule (see preamble section
 VLC.1.), EPA states: ". .  . the
 prohibition applies to the manufacture
 of any substance or mixture that
 contains PCB at.50 ppm or greater,
 including PCB that is an intermediate or
 'impurity' or 'byproduct'. . . . While the
 production of PCBs under such
 circumstances may not be intentional
 and may have no independent
 commercial value, section 6(e) of TSCA
 applies to any production of PCBs and.
 therefore, covers such activities." EPA is
 aware that although the proposed rule
 included  such PCBs in its coverage.
 some manufacturers may not have
 interpreted the proposed  rule to include
 such PCBs and, therefore, may not have
 submitted a petition for an exemption
 from the manufacturing prohibition. As
 discussed above, EPA will accept
 petitions from such persons during the
 comment period for this rule, if the
 required showing of good faith in not
 filing earlier is made.
  Several persons requested that
 petitions be accepted on a class basis.
They argued that PCB equipment
manufacturers should be able to petition
for exemptions on behalf of those
customers who are also PCB equipment

-------
                   Federal Rogbtar  /  VoL  44, No. 106 / Thursday,  May 31, 1979  / PropoMd Rules
                                                                                51585
  manufacturers or distributors as defined
  in tha proposed regulation.* IB view of
  the change which has bean made
  Miimtuniqg restrictions on the
  manufacture of PCS equipment in the
  final PCB Prohibition Rule," EPA will
  not accept exemption petitions on a
  class basis in this rofamaking. However,
  the Agency has addressed the question
  of class petitions in the Interim
  Procedural Rules which establish
  procedures for filing and processing
  exemption petitions from the July 1.1979
  PCR processing and distribution in
  commerce prohibitions. These Interim
  Procedural Rules are found elsewhere hi
  today's Federal Register.*
    It is the intent of EPA to grant or  deny
  thv petitions for  exemption from the
  prohibition of the manufacture
  (including  importation) of PCBs subject
  to this rolemaking prior to August 1,
  1979.
    Below are listed the exemption
  petitions that EPA has received. These
  exemptions have been categorized
  according to the nature of the petition,
  and the categories are indicated by  a
  numbered key. The Agency's proposed
  action on the petitions follows the
  listing.
  Petitioner and Basis fat Petition
  AboUte Lighting, lac.', P.O. Box 237. West
   Lafayette. OH 43845.'
  Advance Transformer Co.. 2950 North
   Western Ave_ Chicago, IL 00818.*
  Aluminum Company of America. 1501 Alcoa
   Building. Pittsburgh. PA 15219.*
  American Hoechst Corp.. Route 202-208
   North. Somerville, N] 08878.'
  Blnney aad Smith, tec.. 1100 Church Lane.
   P.O. Box 431. Easton, PA 18042.«
  Borden. Inc_ Borden Chemical Division, 630
   Glendale-Milford Rd.. Cincinnati. OH
   45215. *
                   a. Division of Ghametran
    Corp* 481 Columbia Ave. Holland, Kfl
   •See the definition of "PCB" in Section 701.2,'q) of
 me proposed PCB Prohibition Rule (43 PR at 24813,
 June 7,1978) and the definition of "PCB Equipment"
 in Section m.2(-») of the final PCE Disposal and
 Meriting Rule (43 FR at 7157, February 17.19781.
   * "This change classifies the manufacture of PCB
 dqaipment at "processing" subject to prohibition ai
 of July 1.1979 under Section •
  Hilton-Davis Chemical Co- Division of
    Sterling Drag Int. 2235 Langdon Farm
    Road, dndnaati. OH 45237.*
  Honeywell, lac. 200 Smith St_ Waltbam. MA
  .  02154.u
  1Q Americas. Int. Wilmington. DE 18887.4
  IntemationeJ Talephone ft Telegraph Corpn
    260 Cochituate Road. Suite 108,
    Framington, MA OTiOl.'
  Intsel Corp, 825 Third Ave., New York, NY
    10022."
  Keene Corporation-Lighting Division.
    Industrial Way, Wilmington. MA 01887.'
  Keystone Lighting Corp.. Inc.. U.S. 13 &
    Beaver Streets, Bristol, PA 19007.'
  Kramer Trenton Co.. Box 820, Trenton. N]
    08605. »•
  Lightolier. Inc.. 346 Qaremont Ave.. Jersey
    City. N] 07305.'
  Utton Industrial Products, Inc., Louis AUta
    Division. 18555 West Ryerson Road. New
    Berlin. WI 53151."
  Litton Microwave Cooking. Litton Systems.
    Inc.. P.O. Box 9461. Minneapolis. MN
    55440."
  Litton Systems Inc.. Jefferson Electric
    Division. S40 South 25th Ave.. Bellwood, 1C
    60104.'
  Marathon Electric Manufacturing Corp., P.O.
    Box 1407. Wausau, W! 54401."
  McGraw-Edison Co, Area Lighting Div., 7801
    Durand Ave.. Racine, WT 53405.'
  McGraw-Edison Co., KUchen Appliance
    Division. P.O. Box nil, Chattanooga, TN"
    37401.'*
  Metalux Corp.. P.O. Box 1207, Americus, GA
    31709.'
  The Miller Company, Lighting Division, 98
    Center Street, Meridian. CT 06450.'
  Montedison USA. Inc.. 1114 Ave.  of the
    Americam, New  York City, NY 10036.4
  Nagase America Corp., 500-Fifth Ave.. New
    York. NY 10038.4
  National Services  Industries, Lithonia
    Lighting Div.. 1335 Industrial Blvd. NW.,
    Conyers. GA 30207.'
 National Solid Waste Management
    Association, 1120 Connecticut Ave.,NW..
   Washington, DC 20036.*
 Phillips Petroleum Company, 10 C2 Phillips
   Bidg., Bartlesviile. OK 74004."
 Phthalchem Inc.. 6675 Beechlands Dr..
   Cincinnati, OH 45237.4
 Pope Chemical Corp., 33 Sixth Ave.. Paterson.
   NJ 07524.'
 Prescolite, 1251 Doolittle Drive. San Leandio,
   CA 94557.r
   "Requests an exemption in order to import PCS
 equipment and small PCB capacitors for purposes of
 repair, replacement and trade-m.
   " Requests an exemption in order to import a
 dielectric called Hectrephenyl T-60 which ii
 nuntasmnated with PCB
   "Requests an exemption in order to use PCB
 capacitors in the manufacture of power conversion
 equipment.
  "Requests an exemption in order to use PCB
 capacitors in the manufacture of microwave ovens.
  " Requests in exemption in order to import PCB»
 for use m research and development of an
unspecified chemical intermediate.

-------
31888	Fedaral Register /  VoL 44.  No. 106 / Thursday. May 31. 1979 /  Proposed Rule*
Ridgewy Color k Chemical of
  Wheelabrator-Frjr, Int. 75 Front St.
  Ridgaway, PA 15BS3.4
Roilin* EnvironminUl StnricM. ID&, One
  Rollins Plan. P.O. Box 234*. Wilmington.
  DE 1980ft •
Sandox. Inc. Sandra Coton and Ch«nical»
  Division. 50 Route 1ft East Hanover. NJ
  07936.4
Slm-Kar Lighting Fixture Co- Int, 801 East
  Cayuga Street Philadelphia, PA 19120.'
Spera Electric Corp* 18222 Lankan Ave,
  Cleveland, OH 44110.'
Sta-Rite Industries Inc, Suite 3300,977 East
  Wisconsin Ave^ Milwaukee, WI53202.T
Stauffor Chemical Company, on behalf of
  SWS Sillconea Corp. Subsidiary. Weetport
  CT 08880."
Steelcase Ine, 1120 38t» Street, Grand
  Rapid*. MI 49501.l
Sterner Llghttofl Systems. SBC., 351 Lewis
  Ave, NWH Winstead. MN 55395.«
Sun Chemical Corp., Pigments Division.
  Research ft Operations Center. 4829 East
  Ave, Cincinnati. OH 48232.4
Sumitomo CocporatioB of Ametiea, 346 Park
  Ave, New York, NY 10022.*
Tappan Air Conditioning-Smith Jones. Inc.
  208 Woodford Ave, Elvira, OH 44035.'
Tivian Chemical Associates. 720 Union
  Street Manchester. NH 03104;»
Thomas Industries, Inc. Benjamta Division,
  P.O. Box 180, Sparta. TN 38683.'
Toyo Ink America, Inc_ 580 Sylvan Ave,
  Englewood CUffs. NJ 07832,4
Universal Manufacturing Corp, 28 E. 8th
  Street Patersoa. NJ 70508.'
Vivitar Corp, 1830 Stewart Street Santa
  Monica. CA 90408.'*
Weatherking. Inc, P.O. Box 20434, Orlando.
  FL 32814.'
Westinghouse Electric Corp.. Lighting
  Business Unit P.O. Box 824. Vicksburg, MS
  39180.'"
Whiteway Manufacturing Co, 1738 Dreman
  Avenue. Cincinnati. OH 45223.'
Wide-Lite Corp, P.O. Box 800. Redwood Rd.
  4 IH35, San Marcos. TX 78008.'
Wylain, Inc. Mold Cast Lighting Division. I-
  80 at Maple Avenue. Pine Brook, NJ 07058.'

  EPA has completed a preliminary
analysis of the above-listed petitions for
exemption from  the PCS Prohibition
Rule which was  promulgated elsewhere
in today's FederaTRegister. The Agency
has decided that it wiU not evaluate at
this time any of the 49 requests for
exemption from  the prohibitions on
manufacturing equipment which
contains a PCS capacitor. (The requests
  "Requests an exemption in order to continue
importing s polysiloxana intermediate which a used
in the manufacture «f heat curable itncone rubber
product* and which is contaminated, with 600 pom
PCS*. Chemical (polytiloxana intermediate) 1*
described genetically bacsas* oetfflooer has
claimed confidential treelmeni tor identity of
chemical
  "Reojoests sn exemption la order to ooaUoss)
uniped&ed ectrrtty wMca may be subfeet to oitnar
January 1.1979 or (nrjr 1. MM prohibitions. Sec later
discussion to mis Notice.
  'Requests an exemption la order to use PCS
cspeaten to the mnrafscftm e/paDtafnphic
enlergen.
which fall in mis category an those
footnoted with numbers 1. 2. 7. a, 10. ia
IS, 16, 20.) EPA is not processing these
requests to the present proceeding
because, as previously noted, the
Agency Arfhi^* in the fo"l TCM
Prohibition Rule the activity of
"manufacturing" equipment utilizing a
PCS capacitor as "processing*' of PCBs.
Processing of -PCBs is not subject to
section a(e)(3) until July 1. 1979.
  EPA will consider petitions
concerning PCS processing activities in
a subsequent proceeding. Persons who
filed requests for exemptions for this
activity will not be required to refile.
However, they will be required under
Interim Procedural Rules, found
elsewhere in today's Federal Register, to
indicate to EPA-in writing if they wish,
their petitions to be considered as
requests for exemption from the July 1,
1979 prohibition, on processing or
distribution in commerce of PCBs.

Imports of PCB" Wastes

  Chemical
the National Solid Waste
Association, and the Rollins
Bnviroinnental Services, Inc, petiti
                                    d
to continue importation of PCS waste
material into the U.S. for purposes of
disposal These petitions have been
mooted by the PCB Prohibition Role
published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. For the reasons explained in
the preamble to that regulation. EPA has
decided to allow imports and exports of
PCB waste for disposal (so long as such
disposal is in accordance with Subpart B
of the regulation) until May 1. 1880.
Accordingly, no petitions for
importation of PCB wastes for disposal
are required.

Manufacture and Import of Pigments

  EPA proposes to grant all of the
requests to either manufacture or import
diarylide and pbthalocyanine pigments
containing more than 50 ppm PCB.
(These petitions are identified in the
above list with footnote number 4).
Information  submitted with the requests
and testimony and written comments
received during the mlatnnkin  for the
PCB Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce and Use
Prohibition Rule which EPA
promulgated today indicates (1J granting
these exemption requests would not
result in an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment and (2)
good faith efforts are being made by the
pigment industry to develop alternative
processes for msamfactarmg 010
diarylide and pBthalocyantoe pigments
Without PCB rrmhimMatfrlTl MoSt of
these pigments have PCB concentrations
 hi the range of several hundred parts per
 million. These PCBs cannot easily b*
 separated from the pigments because of
 the structural similarity of the PCBs with
 the pigments. Once manufactured, the
 pigments are mixed with other
 substances to form paints, inks, and a
 variety of other products.
  In deeding whether to permit
 continued pigment manufacture, EPA
 has considered the relatively limited
 human and environmental exposure to
 PCBs involved and the economic effects
 associated with prohibiting manufacture-
 of these pigments. The greatest potential
 for exposure is in the application of the
 paints and inks^ising these) pigments.
 These products contain far less than 50
 ppm PCB because of the dilution that
 takes place when the pigment is mixed
 with the medium it is coloring. As a
 result, the health and environmental.
 risks are relatively small At the present
 time, these particular pigments account
 for most of the yellow and blue pigments
 in use and a significant portion of the
 total pigment market If the manufacture
 of these pigments is not permitted until
 the conversion to alternative processes
 is complete, there will be a severe
 impact on the pigment industry as wefl
 as its customers in the paint and graphic
 arts industries.
  Tha potential costs of compliance will
 be greatly reduced if an exemption is
 granted while process changes to reduce
 PCB contamination are made. It is
 anticipated that such changes can be
 made over a period of a year or two.
 The increased health and environmental
 risk will be relatively small as there will
 be limited exposure to PCBs as a result
 of the exemption.
  Furthermore, the granting of these
 exemption requests will be consistent
 with the authorization for continued use
 of phthalocyanine and diarylide yellow
 pigments which is  contained in the final
 PCB Prohibitions Rule.
  EPA especially invites comment not
 only on the merits  of granting the above
 described petitions, but also on the
 terms and conditions which the Agency
 should apply to such exemptions if
 granted.

 Import of PCB Equipment
  Honeywell Inc.'s request to be
 permitted to continue importingJCB
 equipment will not be evaluated in this
proceeding but will be evaluated (if
requested) in the future rulemaking
dealing with exemptions from the
prohibition on processing and
distribution ia commerce of PCBs. The
PCB Prohibition Rule which EPA
promulgated today treats  importation of
PCB equipment in the same manner as

-------
                Federal  Register  /  VoL 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Proposed Rules
                                                                     31587
 the domestic assembly of such
 •qwpment and, therefore, such activity
 is not prohibited until July 1.1879.

 Other Petitions
   Guardian daaucal Corporation's
 tequest to be permitted to ceil email
 ejMntrrlee of 4,4'-Dichiorodiphenyl-
 suifsae asa laboratory reagent also will
 not be evaluated now but will be
 evaluated (if requested) in the
 processing and distribution in commerce
 exemption proceeding. Guardian did not
 indicate that they in any way
 manufacture PCBs. However, it does
 appear that the activity which is seeks
 to continue is the "distribution in
 commerce" of PCBs.
   Similarly, the petition submitted by
 Cincinnati Milacron which,  if granted,
 would permit the company to continue
 to use PCBs as an additive component in
 their manufacture of polyvinyl chloride
 vibration damping devices will not be
 considered now but will be  considered
 in the future proceeding, if requested.
 The reason for delaying the processing
 of Cincinnati Milacron's petition is that
 EPA has determined that the company's
 use of PCBs is "processing"  as that term
 is defined by the PCB Prohibition Rule
 and is therefore not subject  to this
 proceeding.
 Exemption Requests Proposed To Be
 Denied

   EPA proposes to deny Intsel
 Corporation's request to import
 Electrophenyl T-60 and Phillips
 Petroleum Company's request to import
 significant quantities of PCBs for
 unspecified research and development
 purposes. Neither of the requestors have
 shown that they are making a good faith
 effort to develop substitutes which do
 not contain 50 ppm or greater PCBs, nor
 that the adverse economic or other
 consequences of EPA's denying the
 requests outweigh the potential harm to
 health and the environment of EPA's
 granting the requests.
 Exemption Requests for Which a
 Determination Is Not Proposed

   EPA has not proposed its disposition
 of the requests received from Alcoa
 which respect to its manufacture of
 aluminum chloride and the General
 Electric Co. with respect to its
 manufacture of phenylchlorosilanes due
 to the technical complexity of the
 activities for which exemptions are
 sought
  Before making a determination with
 respect to these exemption-petitions, the
 Agency will seek, by means of written
requests to the companies and by this
notice, further comments and/or data.
 Additional information on these
 petitions is given below,
   Alcoa requested a one-year
 exemption for the manufacture of
 approximately 132-77 million pounds of
 ahniinum^hloridfl at its facility in
 Anderson County, Texas. The process
 would result in the annual production of
 approximately 9,284 pounds of PCBs.
 95% of which is concentrated and
 disposed of as a PCB mixture. The
 remaining 5% represents an impurity in
 the aluminum chloride which Alcoa sells
 for a variety of uses. Comments and
 data are requested on the health and
 environmental risks that would be posed
 by granting Alcoa's exemption and also
 on the risks associated with using the
 aluminum chloride for applications other
 than smelting aluminum. In particular,
 EPA is interested in information
 regarding processes for the production
 of aluminum chloride which do not
 produce PCBs. In addition, EPA invites
 comments on the economic or other
 advene impacts, that denial of the
 exemption would have on Alcoa's users
 of this product
   General Electric seeks an exemption
 to continue the manufacture of
 phenylchlorosilanes with unintentional
 PCB impurities. The manufacturing
 process results in approximately 50,000
 pounds per year of PCBs which are
 removed and concentrated for disposal
 in an on-site  incineration facility in
 Waterford. New York. The
 phenyichlorosilanes are used in the
 production of a number of high
 performance silicone products for
 various industrial aerospace, and
 defense applications. Comments and
 data are requested on the health and
 environmental risk associated with
 granting or denying  General Electric's
 exemption petition,  on alternative
 methods of manufacturing
 phenylchlorosilanes without PCB
 contamination, and on the impact of
 denying this petition on the users of this
 chemical.
   EPA has also not proposed  its
 disposition of the petition of Tivian
 Chemical Associates. EPA is seeking to
 clarify whether Tivian's activity for
 which exemption is sought is subject to
 the January 1,1979 prohibition on PCB
 manufacture and importation, or rather
 to the July 1,1979 prohibition on PCB
 processing and distribution in
 commerce.
  In addition, EPA has not proposed its
 disposition of the petitions of Dow
 Coming Corporation and Stauffer
 Chemical Company.  EPA currently does
not have sufficient information to
determine whether exemptions should
be proposed for these companies. Dow
 Coming hat not identified the substance
 which it wishes to manufacture and the
 amount of PCB contamination in the
 chemical intermediate. Stauffer has not
 provided sufficient information
 concerning the identity of products
 which may be subject to PCB
 contamination. EPA will seek, by mean*
 of written request* to both companies,
 to clarify the identity of the products
 identified in the petitions of the
 companies, and the nature of the
 manufacturing processes, which
 includes determining whether
 intermediates are contaminated during
 the manufacturing process:
   Section 75D.l&of the Interim
 Procedural Rules does not require EPA
 to announce its proposed disposition of
 exemption petitions in a Notice of
 Proposed Rulemaking. Due to the need
 to expedite action on the exemption
 petitions. EPA will not publish a
 subsequent notice concerning the Alcoa,
 General Electric. Tivian. Dow Corning
 and Stauffer petitions.
   Dated: May 11,1970.
 Manjyn C. Bnckan.
 Acting Assistant Administrator for Toxic
 Substances.
 [TO Doe. r*-i(»n Plkd *-3O-7* «*S «n|
 BHUHQ CODE MSS «1 M
 [40 CFR Part 761]

 [FHL 1227-61

 Polychtortnated Biphenyls (PCBs);
 Amendment to Criteria for Chemical
 Waete Landfills

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Proposed amendment to final
 rule; notice of informal hearing.

 SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
 modify Annex II of Subpart E of the
 Polychlorinated Biphenyls regulation
 promulgated elsewhere in today's
 Federal Register under the authority of
 section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
 Control Act The proposed rule would
 amend the criteria for chemical waste
 landfills by reducing the required
 distance between  the bottom of the
 chemical waste landfill liner system and
 the historical high water table from fifty
 feet to five feet.
 DATES: Written comments, preferably  in
 triplicate, must be received prior to the
dose of business July 16,1979. Informal
hearing date and time (if a hearing is
requested): August 6,1979, at 10:00 a.m.
in Washington. DC. Requests to hold a
hearing and to participate in the hearing
must be received prior to the dose of

-------
31568        Fedatal Begbter / VoL 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31.1979 / Rules and Regulations
business on July 16,1979. See
Supplementary Information below.

Document Control Officer (TS-793),
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW, Washington. DC-20406, Attn:
Docket Number. OTS/oaeoooCPCB/RR).
The informal hearing (if a hearing is
requested) will be held in Washington.
DC The exact location of the hearing
will be made available by calling the
toll-free number 800-424-9085. Address
requests to participate to Ms. Linda
Thomson. Hearing Clerk. Office of Toxic
Substances (TS-794). US,
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street SW. Washington. DC 20400. Attn:
Docket Number OTS/086000(PCB/RR)
The telephone number for Ms. Thomson
is (2021-755-1188.
                                        superseded hi thirty days by the PCB
                                        Rule published in final form today.
                                          Because the distance between the
                                        bottom of a chemical waste lAnrfBH and
 TO* FUfrrxn MPOMMTMM CONTACT
 John B. Ritoh. Jr., Director. Office of
 Industry Assistance. Office of Toxic
 Substances fTS-799). Environmental
 Protection Agency. 401M Street SW,
 Washington, DC 20480. Call the toll free
 number (800J-424-9065, (in Washington.
 DC. 554-1404).
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
 Environmental Protection Agency
 proposes this rule pursuant to the
 authority of section 6(e) of the Toxic
 Substances Control Act (Pub. L 94-469;
 90 Stat. 2003; 15 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.,
 hereinafter referred to as TSCA). The
 procedures for rulemaking under section
 8 of TSCA (40 CFR Part 750),  42 FR 81269
 (December 2,1977), will be followed.
 The official record of rulemaking is
 located in Room 447, East Tower.
 Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
 Street, SW, Washington. DC 20460,
 (202}-7S5-6956. It will be available for
 viewing and copyingfrom 9 a.m. to 4
 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
 holidays. Hearing transcripts and other
 hearing materials will be added to the
 record as they become available.

 I. Chemical Waste Landfill Criteria

  In Annex II of Subpart E of the PC3
 Rule (published elsewhere in today's
 Federal Register), the Agency specifies
 criteria for chemical waste landfills to
 be used for the disposal of PCBs. Section
 781.41(b)(3), Hydrologic Conditions,
 states that the bottom of the landfill
 liner system or natural ia-place soil
 barrier must be at least fifty feet from
 the historical high water table. This
 requirement is essentially the same as
 the provisions contained in
 § 761.41(b)(2), Hydrology, of the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150,
7161. February 17.1978). The earlier
version of the PCB Rules will  be
 the historical high water table cannot be
 fifty feet or more in many area* east of
 the Mississippi River due to the
 closeness of the water table to the
 surface. EPA Regional Administrators
 have had to use the waiver provisions of
 5 781.41(c)(4) to waive this criterion hi
 order to be able to-approve PCB
 chemical waste landfills. The Regional
 Administrators have been able to grant
 these waivers, because the shorter
 separation between the bottom of the
 landfill and the groundwater was found
 not to present an unreasonable risk of
 injury to health or the environment from
 PCBs. After examining the
 circumstances related to these waivers,
 EPA has concluded, for the reasons
 stated below, that the fifty foot criterion
 in the rule is too stringent, and that the
 rule should be modified accordingly.
  The state of the art in the design and
 construction of chemical waste landfill
 liner  systems and leachate detection
 and collection systems has advanced
 sufficiently so that the bottom of the
 liner  system can be as close as five feet
 from  the historical high water table. The
 liner  systems are designed to be
 virtually impermeable, and the leachate
 collection systems are designed as a
 back-up measure to help insure that the
 liner  system is not penetrated by liquids.
 This approach has also been included in
 the proposed EPA Hazardous Waste
 Guidelines and Regulations (40 CFR Part
 250) (see 43 FR 58946-59028, December
 18, 1978] in $ 250.45-2(a)(2) proposed
 under the authority of the Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA).
  This proposed change would modify
 § 761.41(b)(3), Hydrologic Conditions, of
 the PCB Rule, to change from fifty feet to
 five feet the required minimum distance
 between the bottom of the liner system
 and the  historical high water table.

 II. Effective Date

  It is the intent of EPA to make the
 final version of this proposed
 amendment effective thirty days after
 the date of publication in the Federal
 Register. The final promulgation of this
 rule is expected in September 1979.
  Dated: May 11. 1979.
 Marilyn C. Bracken.
 Acting Assistant Administrator for Toxic
 Substances.

  Pursuant to the Toxic Substances
 Control  Act 15 U.S.C. 2605, and
 pursuant to authority delegated in the
Background section of the Preamble to
the Final PCB Regulation published
elsewhere hi today's Federal Regfarter,
the following amendment to 40 CFR
Chapter L Part 761 is proposed.

Subpart E—Uat of Anrwxw
Annex II
  Section 781.41 is amended by revising
subparagraph (b){3) to read as follows:

STStUt Chemicrf waste lamrflRa,
•    «    .     •     *
  (b)  * *  *
  (3) Hydrologic Conditions. The bottom
of the landfill liner system or natural in-
place  soil barrier shall be at least five
feet above the historical high
groundwater table. Floodplains.
shorelands, and groundwater recharge
areas  shall be avoided. There shall be
no hydraulic connection between the
site and standing or flowing surface
water. The site shall have monitoring
wells and leachate collection.
(FK DM TO-iaaotPibd s-ao-nt MI «4
BUJMO CODE MM-M-M

-------
Wednesday
August 25, 1982
APPENDIX C
Part II



Environmental

Protection  Agency

Potychlorlnated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Electrical Equipment

-------
37342     Federal Register /  Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday. August 25.1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

(OPTS-(62015C); TSH-FRL 2184-6]

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution In Commerce and Use
Prohibitions; Use in Electrical
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends
portions of the existing PCB rule; this
action is being taken in response to an
order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. This
rule authorizes the use of PCBs in
capacitors and the use and servicing of
PCBs in electromagnets, circuit
breakers, voltage regulators, reclosers,
cable, switches (including sectionalizers
and motor starters), and transformers
other than railroad transformers. It also
provides for the distribution in
commerce and disposal of this electrical
equipment.
DATES: These amendments shall be
considered promulgated for purpose of
judicial review under section 19 of
TSCA at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
on September 8,1982. These
amendments shall be effective on
September 24,1982. As of August 19,
1982, the previsions of the PCB rule (44
FR 31514, May 31,1979, recodified at 47
FR 19527, May 6, 1982) amended by this
action and the Interim Measures
Program (46 FR 16090), March 10,1981)
are no longer in effect unless the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit has acted to stay
further its mandate. EPA has asked the
court for a stay of the  mandate that
would leave the 1979 rule as it applies to
electrical equipment and the Interim
Measures Program in effect until these
amendments beco'me effective. The
court has not acted as of the date of
signature of these amendments. If the
court does grant EPA's request, the
court's action will likely be retroactive
to August 19,1982. As a matter of
Agency policy, EPA will not enforce  the
provisions of section 6(e) of TSCA
against any person who complies with
the provisions of the 1979 rule and the
Interim Measures Program between the
expiration of the current stay, August 19,
1982, and the date when the court grants
EPA's request of this rule becomes
effective/whichever comes first.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Douglas G. Bannerman, Acting
Director, Industry Assistance Office
(TS-799), Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
E-509, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, Toll free: (800-424-9065), In
Washington, D.C. .(554-1404), Outside
the USA: (Operator-202-554-1404).
  Copies of this rule and its support
documents can be obtained from the
Industry Assistance Office listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  OMB Control Number: 2070-0003.
I. Recodification of 40 CFR Part 761
  Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 761, which regulates
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), has
been reorganized. Notice of the
recodification appears in the Federal
Register of May 6,1982 (47 FR 19527).
This final rule uses the following new
designations:
Old designation
Subparl A § 761 2
Subpart B § 761 10
Subparl C, § 761 20 	
Subpart D § 761 30 	
Subpart D 5 761 31 . .
Subpart E § 761 42

New designation
Subpart A § 761 3
Subpart D § 7%1 60
Subpart C, $ 761 40.
Subpart B §761.20
Subpart B § 761 30
Subpart D § 761 65

II. Background
  Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) generally prohibits
the use of PCBs after January 1,1978.
The statute sets forth two exceptions
under which EPA may, by rule, allow a
particular use of PCBs to continue.
Under section 6(e)(2) of TSCA, EPA may
allow PCBs to be used in a "totally
enclosed manner." A "totally enclosed
manner" is defined by TSCA to be "any
manner which will ensure that a"ny
exposure of human beings or the
environment  to a polychlorinated
biphenyl will be insignificant, as
determined by the Administrator by
rule." TSCA also allows EPA to
authorize the use of PCBs in a manner
other than a "totally  enclosed manner"
if the Agency finds that the use "will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the  environment."
  EPA promulgated a rule, which was
published in the Federal Register of May
31,1979 (44 FR 31514), to implement
sections 6(e)  (2) and  (3) of TSCA. This
rule is listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations under 40 CFR Part 76-1. The
rule designated all intact, nonleaking
capacitors, electromagnets, and
transformers other than railroad
transformers as "totally enclosed", thus
permitting their use without specific
authorization or conditions. The
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit to
review that portion of the PCB rule that
designated the use of intact, nonleaking
capacitors, electromagnets and
transformers (other than railroad
transformers) as "totally enclosed."
(Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 636
F.2d 1267). On October 30,1980, the
court decided that there was insufficient
evidence in the record to support the
Agency's classification of transformers,
capacitors, and electromagnets as
totally enclosed. The court invalidated
this portion of the rule and remanded it
to EPA for further action. The effect of
this decision would have been to make
the use of capacitors, electromagnets,
and transformers other than railroadv
transformers, containing any
concentration of-PCBs a violation of
section 6(e) of TSCA. An immediate ban
of these uses would not only have
disrupted electric  service but would also
have caused severe economic hardship
for the public and United States
industry. Therefore, EPA concluded that
it was completely impractical to take no
action and allow a total ban on the use
of this equipment  to go into effect
immediately.
   On January 21,1981, EPA, EDF, and
cBrtain industry intervenors in EDF v.
EPA filed a joint motion with the court.
The motion asked for a stay of the
court's mandate setting aside the
classification of transformers,
capacitors, and electromagnets as
totally enclosed. During the period of the
stay, EPA agreed to conduct a
rutemaking on the use of PCBs  in
electrical equipment beginning With an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR). In addition, the
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) through
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG) agreed to develop some of the
factual material necessary for the
rulemaking. The parties also agreed on
interim risk-reduction measures (the
Interim Measures Program) for
transformers containing PCBs at 50 ppm
or greater. They suggested that the court
make these measures a condition of the
eighteen-month stay.
   On February 12,1981, the court
granted the requests of the joint motion
and entered an order. The  text of the
court's order was published in the
Federal Register of March ID, 1981, along
with EPA's ANPR on the use of PCBs in
electrical equipment (46 FR 16090 and 46
FR 16096, respectively). The court's
order allows the totally enclosed
Classification (40 CFR 761.20), to remain
in effect for the duration of the stay.
Therefore, persons who use PCB-
containing transformers, capacitors, and

-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25. 1982 / Rules and  Regulations    37343
electromagnets may use this electrical
equipment during the stay of the court's
mandate, providing that they comply
with the PCB rule and the Interim
Measures Program which is detailed in
the court's order.
  The February 12,1981, court order
required EPA to promulgate a final rule
within six months of receipt of the study
from EEl/USWAG. Since the final report
of the EE1/USWAG study was received
on February 19,1982, EPA was required
to promulgate this final rule on the use
of PCBs in electrical equipment by
August 18,1962. EPA's proposed rule
regarding the use of PCBs in electrical
equipment was published in the Federal
Register of April 22.1982 (47 PR 17426).
  This final rule will become effective
on September 24,1982. The court-
ordered stay of mandate is currently
scheduled to expire on August 19,1982.
If that mandate were to issue before this
rule becomes effective, the use of PCB's
in electrical equipment covered by the
use authorizations contained in this rule
would be a violation of section 6(e)(2) of
TSCA until the rule becomes effective.
Therefore, on August 5,1982, EPA
requested that the court further stay its
mandate until November 1,1982. As of
the date of signature of these
amendments, the court has not acted on
EPA's request. EPA expects that the
court will grant the further stay and that
the stay will be retroactive to August 19,
1982. However, until the court grants
EPA's request or these amendments
become effective, persons affected by
the amendments will be uncertain about
what rules to follow. As a matter of
Agency policy, EPA will not enforce the
provisions of section 8(e)  of TSCA
against any person who complies with
the provisions of the 1979 rule and the
Interim Measure Program between the
expiration of the current stay, August 19,
1982, and the date when the court grants
EPA's request or this rule becomes
effective, whichever comes first
  .In order to avoid a "race to  the
courthouse" by persons seeking judicial
review of this rule, EPA has decided to
designate the time and date of
"promulgation" of this rule as 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on September 8,
1982. The Agency has previously taken
this approach for rules promulgated
under the dean Water Act (see 40 QFR
100.01,45 FR 26048). The Agency will be
considering a general rule for TSCA
similar to 40 CFR 100.01.

ffl. Electrical Equipment Containing
PCBs
  This rulemaking was initiated to deal
with those uses of PCBs which EPA had
formerly classified as totally enclosed
(transformers other than railroad
transformers, capacitors, and
electromagnets), (Any reference to
transformers in this rule does not
include transformers used on
locomotives and self-propelled railroad
cars unless otherwise specified.) In
general, this equipment falls into two
categories: (1) Equipment designed to
contain PCBs at a high concentration
and (2) equipment designed to contain
mineral oil. Because of past
manufacturing and servicing practices,
the mineral oil-filled equipment often
contains PCBs at low concentrations.
The 1979 rule defined a PCB
Transformer as one containing more
than 500 ppm and a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer as one containing between
50 and 500 parts per million {ppm). Very
little mineral oil equipment contains
PCBs at a concentration of 500 ppm or
greater. This final rule makes frequent
reference to the three ranges of PCB
contamination: 0-50 ppm, 50-500 ppm,
and greater than 500 ppm.
  While administering the May 1979
PCB rule and gathering information for
this rulemaking, EPA has identified five
additional categories of oil-filled
electrical equipment that contain PCB's.
Those are: voltage regulators, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), circuit breakers, reclosers, and
cable. These uses were not addressed in
the May 1979 PCB rule because EPA
was not aware that these devices
contained PCBs.

IV. Summary of the Final Rule
  This final rule modifies and clarifies
some of the requirements presented in
the proposed rule because of
information obtained during the
comment period and the public hearing
(June 7-10,1982) on the proposed rule.
EPA's responses to various issues raised
during this rulemaking are discussed in
this "preamble" and are presented in
more detail in a document titled
"Support Document for the Electrical
Equipment Use Rule/Response to
Comments/' The major elements of the
final rule are summarized in the
following list, with changes from the
proposed rule highlighted. This final
rule:
  1. Uses the recodified version of the
PCB rule (40 CFR Part 761).
  2. Prohibits the use of PCB
Transformers and PCB-filled
electromagnets (with a PCB
concentration of 500 ppm or greater)
posing an exposure risk to food or feed,
after October 1,1985,-and requires a
weekly inspection of this equipment for
leaks of dielectric fluid until that date.
(The proposed rule would have
authorized the use of this equipment
indefinitely with a requirement for
weekly inspections).
  3. Authorizes the use of all other PCB
Transformers for the remainder of their
useful lives, and requires a quarterly
inspection of this equipment for leaks of
dielectric fluid.
  4. Authorizes the use of large PCB
Capacitors that are located in restricted-
access electrical substations for the
remainder of their  useful lives. (The
proposed rule would have only
authorized the use of this equipment for
ten years.)
  5. Authorizes the use of large PCB
Capacitors that are located in contained
and restricted-access indoor
installations for the remainder of their
useful lives. (The proposed rule would
have  authorized the use of this
equipment for only ten years.)
  6. Prohibits the use of all other large
PCB Capacitors after October 1,1988.
(The proposed rule would have   '
authorized the use of this equipment for
ten years.)
  7. Eliminates the proposed inspection
requirements for all large PCB
Capacitors.
  8. Authorizes the use of all PCB-
containing, mineral oil-filled electrical
equipment for its remaining useful life.
  9. Clarifies what constitutes electrical
equipment posing an exposure risk to
food or feed.
  10.  Allows oil-filled cable to be
assumed to contain less than 50 ppm
PCBs if the actual PCB concentration is
unknown. (The proposed rule would
have required that the concentration be
assumed to be between 50 and 500 ppm
if it were unknown.)
  11. Allows storage for disposal of
nonleaking PCB Large High Voltage
Capicators and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment outside of qualified
storage facilities after January 1,1983.
The proposed rule  prohibited this
storage after January 1,1983.
  12. Requires records of inspection and
maintenance histories to be maintained
for at least 3 years after disposing of
PCB Transformers. (The proposed rule
would have required record retention for
five years.)
  13. Clarifies that "disposal" includes
leaks  of PCBs.
  14. Does not include the language
contained in the proposed rule regarding
the required extent of cleanup of PCB
spills. Comments urged EPA to postpone
consideration of this language, and the
extent of cleanup of PCB spills will not
be dealt with at this time.

V. Use Authorizations

  As previously described, section
6(e)(2) of TSCA allows uses of PCBs in a

-------
37344    Federal Register /  VoL  47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
totally enclosed manner to continue
without restriction. Section 6(e)(2)(C)
defines the term "totally enclosed" to
mean "any manner which will ensure
that any exposure of human beings or
the environment to a polychlorinated
biphenyl will be insignificant as
determined by the Administrator by
rule." In the May 31,1979 rule, EPA
defined insignificant exposure as "not
measurable or detectable by any
scientifically acceptable analytical
method/' After examining the
information submitted in response to
this rulemaking, EPA has decided that
no electrical equipment uses should be
categorized as use in a totally enclosed
manner. The leakage data contained in
this information show that all types of
electrical equipment leak during normal
operation. Since this leakage could
result in some detectable exposure of
humans and the environment to PCBs,
EPA believes that it is not appropriate to
classify the use of this equipment as use
in a totally enclosed manner.
   This final rule allows the use of
certain electrical equipment containing
PCBs to continue under specified
conditions because EPA has concluded
that the uses will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to human
health or the environment. This finding
is in accordance with the provisions of
section 8(e)(2)(B) of TSCA. The specific
Unreasonable risk findings are made for
each authorized use in later sections of
this preamble.
   To determine whether a risk is
unreasonable, EPA balanced the
probability .that harm will occur from
the use against the benefits to society of
the proposed regulatory action. In doing
this, EPA has considered the following
factors:
-   1. The effects of PCBs on human
health and the environment.
   2. The magnitude of PCB exposure to
humans and the environment.
   3. The benefits of using PCBs and the
availability of substitutes for PCB uses.
;   4. The economic impact resulting from
the rule's effect upon national economy,
small business, technological
innovation, the environment, and public
health.
   These are the same types of
considerations listed in section 6(c) of
TSCA, which describe factors EPA nftist
consider in deciding whether a chemical
presents ah unreasonable risk under
section 6(a) of TSCA,
4. Effects on Human Health and the
.Environment
-   In any regulatory context, agencies
have imperfect data, but they still must
regulate on the basis of the best data
available. There are differing
interpretations of data regarding the'
potential risks of PCBs to human health
and the environment. Although
additional study may be suggested, EPA
is concerned about the health and
environmental effects of PCBs on the
basis of the data available now. These
data are sufficient to support EPA's
approach in this rule.
  In EOF v. EPA, EPA's regulatory cutoff
of 50 ppm was set aside by the court. As
a result, other rulemaking activities are
currently underway which deal with
PCBs in low concentrations. EPA has
been ordered by the D.C. Court of
Appeals to submit, by November 1,1982,
a plan for dealing with certain PCBs in
concentrations under 50 ppm. EPA
expects that the implementation  of this
plan will lead to additional rulemaking.
  The health  effects data base for PCBs
is continuously increasing. The Agency
will consider  any additional pertinent
information on health and
environmental effects and information
on risks associated with PCBs during the
development  of that future rulemaking.
  Should new information on health
effects or pther areas of concern with
PCBs become known, Section  21 of
TSCA provides a mechanism for
interested persons to petition the
Agency to initiate new rulemaking or
modify existing rules.
  In determining whether authorizations
are warranted, EPA considered
information regarding the effects of
PCBs on human health and the
environment. The effects of PCBs were
described in various documents which
are part of the rulemaking record for the
May 31,1979, rule. EPA evaluated this
information, new information  submitted
to the Agency, as well as other recent
literature on the effects of PCBs. The
results are presented in the document
"Response to Comments on Health
Effects of PCBs". This document is
included in the rulemaking record.
Copies of this/document are available
through the Industry Assistance  Office
(see the "FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT"
paragraph).
  1. Health effects. Documents on health
effects were submitted to EPA by (1) the
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) together
with the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (USWAG) and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA), (2) the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA),
and (3) the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA). These documents
are included in the rulemaking record.
These documents concluded that the use
of PCBs in electrical equipment does not
present a significant risk to human
health.
  EPA has reached conclusions different
from those presented in the documents
submitted. While PCBs have not been
found to be uniquely toxic, EPA
concludes that they are toxic and
persistent.
  EPA agrees with the comments
submitted that chloracne occurs in
humans exposed to PCBs. Although the
effects of chloracne are reversible, EPA
does not consider it insignificant.
Chloracne is painful, disfiguring and
may require a long period of time before
symptomatology disappears. Other
areas of major concern have been
identified by EPA. EPA finds that
reproductive effects, developmental
toxicity, and oncogenicity are areas of
concern and may produce effects in
humans exposed to PCBs.
  Available data show that some PCBs
have the ability to alter reproductive
processes in mammalian species,
sometimes even at doses that do not
cause other signs of toxicity. Animal
data and limited available human data
indicate that prenatal exposure to PCBs
can result in various degrees of
developmentally toxic effects. Postnatal
effects have also been demonstrated on
immature animals following exposure
prenatally and via breast milk.
  Available animal studies indicate an
oncogenic potential (the degree of which
would be dependent on exposure).
Available epidemiology data are not
adequate to confirm or negate oncogenic
potential in humans at this time. Further
epidemlological research is needed in
order to correlate human and animal
data, but EPA does not find any
evidence to suggest that the animal data
would not be predictive of human
potential.
  EPA agrees that little or no mutagenic
activity from PCBs is indicated  from
available data. It is EPAs opinion that
more information is needed to draw a
final conclusion on the possibility of
mutagenic effects from PCBs.
  EPA does not attribute all the effects
observed with PCBs to be due to toxic
impurities. Relatively pure PCB
congeners have been shown to produce
toxicity equivalent to that found when
testing commercial PCB mixtures
containing higher levels of impurities.
  EPA also does not assume that all
PCBs are equivalent lexicologically. It
cannot be assumed that if one PCB
congener is positive or negative for a
specific health effect, then all PCB
congeners are also positive or negative
for that specific health effect. Research
is just beginning in this area; many more
studies need to be conducted on specific
congeners before conclusions can be

-------
          Federal  Register / Vol. 47, No.  165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982  /  Rules and Regulations   37345
reached on an isomer or congener
specific basis.
  2. Environmental effects. Very little
information was submitted during the
comment period with regards to the
environmental effects of PCBs. EPA has
conducted a literature search to provide
additional information on the
environmental effects of PCBs.
  PCBs have been shown to  affect the
productivity of phytoplankton and the
composition of phytoplankton
communities. Deleterious effects on
environmentally important freshwater
invertebrates from PCBs have been
demonstrated. PCBs have also been
shown to impair reproductive success in
birds and mammals.
  It has been demonstrated that PCBs
are toxic to  fish at very low exposure
levels. The survival rate and the
reproductive success of fish can be
adversely affected in the  presence of
PCBs. Various sublethal physiological
effects attributed to PCBs have been
recorded in  the literature. Abnormalities
in bone development and reproductive
organs have also been demonstrated.
  EPA concludes that PCBs can be
concentrated and transferred in
freshwater and marine organisms.
Transfer up the food  chain from
phytoplankton to invertebrates, fish, and
mammals can result ultimately in human
exposure through consumption of PCB-
containing food sources.
  3. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are
the two basic components of risk. As
indicated above, EPA concludes that in
addition to chloracne there is the
potential for reproductive effects and
developmental toxicity as well as
oncogenic effects in humans  based on
animal data. EPA also concludes that
PCBs do present a hazard to  the
environment. Potential for exposure of
the environment to PCBs  was included
in EPA's consideration of each category
of use of PCBs in electrical equipment.
  Minimizing exposure to PCBs should
minimize any potential risk. The
requirements of this rule will result in
the reduction of exposure, and in some
uses eliminate exposure to PCBs,
relative to present exposure levels from
electrical equipment use.  EPA's analysis
of alternative conditions for use
authorizations includes examining the
effectiveness of each condition in
reducing exposure, thereby reducing the
associated risk.

B. General Benefits of Using Electrical
Equipment
  The electrical equipment being
considered in this rulemaking is used
extensively by electric utilities and
other industries to provide efficient and
reliable electrical energy. There are
currently millions of pieces of electrical
equipment in use which contain PCBs.
Although allowing the statutory ban to
become effective is theoretically one
available alternative, EPA believes an
immediate ban on these uses would be
unacceptable since it would disrupt
electric service throughout the United
States. An adequate supply of non-PCB
replacement equipment and storage/
disposal capacity is not immediately
available. The resulting economic
impact associated with an immediate
ban has been conservatively estimated
at about $175 billion in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis prepared for this
rulemaking.
  The other factors that EPA considered
to determine whether uses of PCBs in
electrical equipment warrant
authorization, the balancing of these
factors, and EPA's conclusions regarding
unreasonable risks are discussed
separately in this notice for each
category of electrical equipment.
C. Use and Servicing of Transformers
  This unit on the use and servicing of
transformers analyzes only those
transformers that do not pose an
exposure risk to  food or feed. The
analysis of equipment posing an
exposure risk to  food or feed is found in
Unit E of this portion of the preamble.
  Transformers are used extensively by
electric utilities and other industries to
transmit and distribute electric power
efficiently. The use of PCBs in
transformers has resulted in the
dielectric fluid of some transformers
containing between 60 and 70 percent
PCBs by design. Transformers designed
to contain mineral oil dielectric fluid
have been contaminated with PCBs
during past servicing and manufacturing
activities.
  EPA estimates that there are 39,600
PCB Transformers designed to contain
PCBs in use in the electric utility
industry and approximately 91,600 in all
other applications. EPA also estimates
that there  are over 20 million mineral oil
transformers in use in the electric utility
industry and about 5 million in all other
applications. These estimates are for the
end of 1981 and are summarized in the
proposed rule for this rulemaking (47 FR
17426, April 22,1982).
  Transformers are located throughout
the nation's electrical generation,
transmission, and distribution systems,
many of which are located near
consumers of electric power. However,
transformers designed to contain PCBs
are more restricted in their distribution
than other transformers. These PCB
Transformers are located in secure
indoor locations and in electrical
substations and are not mounted on
 utility poles throughout electric service
 areas.
   1. Magnitude of exposure. EPA is
 concerned about releases of PCBs from
 all transformers because of the potential
 to expose humans and the environment
 to PCBs. In general, PCB Transformers
 pose greater exposure risks due to the
 use of higher concentration and larger
 quantities of PCBs than mineral oil-filled
 transformers. A release  of PCBs into the
 environment has the potential  to reach
 acquatic systems, build up in the food
 chain and ultimately expose humans
 through ingeetion of PCBs.
   Although  it is impossible to measure
 exactly the effectiveness of an
 inspection and maintenance program in
 avoiding releases of PCBs to the
 environment, such a program will
 reduce the actual amount of PCBs
 released from PCB Transformers by
 correcting otherwise undetected leaks of
 dielectric fluid and reducing the number
 of transformer failures due to improper
 maintenance. Additional benefits of this
 program include containment of active
 leaks which are discovered and cleanup
 and disposal of leaked material. All of
 these benefits will result in reduced
 exposure to PCBs. EPA estimates that
 without an inspection and maintenance
 program as many as 1.3 million pounds
 of PCBs could be released  from PCB
 Transformers over their entire  lifetimes.
   2. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
 substitutes. Although the electrical
 properties of PCBs are not as good as
 mineral oil, PCBs have a higher fire
 point than mineral oil. It is the  fire
 resistance of PCBs that makes them an
 excellent dielectric fluid in transformers
 located where concerns for fire safety
 are paramount.
  PCB Transformers can be replaced by
 comparably rated mineral oil
 transformers even where fire safety is
 an issue as long as fire codes and
 insurance requirements allow it. In most
 cases these restrictions require
 additional fire prevention measures,
 such as vaults, sprinklers, or alarms.
  A number of other substitute
 dielectric fluids have been  developed to
 replace PCBa. These fluids can be used
 in replacement transformers or used to
 refill transformers which contain PCB
 dielectric fluid. Many of these fluids
 appear to possess acceptable
 characteristics. The National Electrical
Manufacturers Association estimates
 that new transformers to replace all PCB
Transformers could be manufactured in
 five years or less using these substitute
fluids. Substitute fluids for PCBs offer
satisfactory electrical properties and
flammability characteristics which are
much better than mineral oil. The

-------
37346   Federal Register / Vol.  47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 /  Rules and Regulations
persistence and bioaccumulative
properties of PCB substitute fluids are
less those of PCBs.
  Persons owning mineral oil
transformers containing PCBs may
substitute for the PCBs by purchasing
new equipment that does not contain
PCBs, replacing the contaminated fluid
with new fluid that does not contain
PCBs, or otherwise servicing the existing
dielectric fluid in order to reduce  the
PCB concentration.
  3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements. As
discussed under "Magnitude of
Exposure," the actual environmental
impact of a quarterly inspection program
for PCB Transformers that do not pose
an exposure risk to food or feed is
impossible to measure. However, a
quarterly inspection and maintenance
program has been demonstrated for
more than one year under the Interim
Measures Program to be an effective
measure in reducing total releases of
PCBs from these transformers. This fact
was confirmed by comments in response
to the ANPR and the proposed rule.
Comments indicated that this inspection
and maintenance program reduced
releases of PCBs from transformers and
supported it as an effective risk
reduction measure,
  EPA estimates that the cost of a
quarterly inspection and maintenance
program is $28.8 million for the electric
utility industry and $47.9 million for
nonutility industries. These estimates
represent total costs of the required
program over the entire useful lives of
the transformers. Additional costs and
benefits associated with the use
authorization and conditions are
discussed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis developed for this final  rule.
This document also contains an analysis
of costs and benefits of other regulatory
options considered but ndt adopted,
including some options which were
considered in the development of the
proposed rule.
  4. Findings on the use and servicing of
transformers. In the proposed rule, EPA
discussed whether the use of PCBs in
transformers should continue and
analyzed options that would effectively
reduce the risks of exposure from the
use of PCB-containing transformers. The
proposed rule  authorized the use of
PCBs in transformers for the remainder
of their useful lives, subject to certain
conditions.
   Several comments disagreed with
EPA's proposed rule. These comments
suggested a wide range of alternatives,
from phasing out the use of PCBs in all
transformers in a very short period of
time to authorizing them with no
conditions. However, no comments
provided information that leads EPA to
conclude that its findings in the
proposed ruled were inappropriate.
  The cost of imposing the more
restrictive conditions suggested by some
comments are hot reasonable in
comparison to the benefits of such
conditions. For example, one comment
suggested that the use of PCBs in all
mineral oil transformers should be
phased out in a very short period of
time, perhaps as short as three years.
Such an approach would cost millions of
dollars per pound of PCB release
avoided. EPA concludes that the
imposition of such a condition is not
reasonable.
  On the other hand, some comments
suggested the raising of the upper limit
of the range of contamination of PCB-
Contaminated Transformers from 500
ppm to 5000 ppm. Such an approach
would result in unnecessary and
avoidable exposure to PCBs since there
is information in the rulemaking record
that indicates that technology is
available at reasonable cost to reduce
the PCB concentration in transformers to
below 500 ppm. Comments at the
hearing by people who have performed
such operations or have studied the
subject indicate that concentrations
below 500 ppm have been achieved by
draining, flushing, and refilling followed
by additional servicing.
  After reviewing all of the information
submitted in response to the proposed
rule and other information in the
rulemaking record, EPA concludes that
the requirements presented in the
proposed rule for  transformers not
posing an exposure risk to food or feed
were reasonable. Details of the
calculations of costs and benefits which
led EPA to this conclusion are found in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA's
responses to specific comments are
contained in the Support Document for
the Electrical Use Rule—Response to
Comments.
  This final rule does not make any
major changes to the proposed
conditions of the use authorization for
PCB-containing transformers that do not
pose an exposure risk to food or feed.
The few minor changes that were made
are explained in subsequent paragraphs.
  To reduce the risks associated with
the release of PCBs from PCB
Transformers, this rule  requires
inspection and maintenance procedures
as a condition to the use authorization
for all PCB Transformers. These
conditions vary with the potential for
exposure to PCBs. A quarterly
inspection and maintenance program is
required for all PCB Transformers that
do not pose an exposure risk to food or
feed. However, the inspection frequency
is reduced to annually for any PCB
Transformer which contains less than
60,000 ppm PCBs or has secondary
containment capable of holding at least
100 percent of the transformer's fluid
volume. No inspection or follow-up
maintenance procedures are required for
transformers containing less than 500
ppm PCBs because of the low
concentration of PCBs involved.
  A program of inspection and
maintenance for PCB Transformers
reduces the amount of PCBs released
and resultant PCB exposure by finding,
stopping, and cleaning up small leaks of
dielectric fluid. Properly maintained
transformers are less likely to
experience leaks, spills, or equipment
failure. An inspection program also
keeps company personnel informed and
alert to the potential impact of PCBs
discharged from electrical equipment.
  Although some data submitted in
response to the proposed rule indicated
that certain government-owned PCB
Transformers leak more than
transformers owned by others, EPA
believes that the required follow-up
maintenance to correct  leaks addresses
this problem. In addition, owners of
transformers that have high service
costs to repair recurring leaks have an
incentive to replace it as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment or
reclassify the transformer.
  Servicing restrictions also apply as a
condition to the use authorization for
transformers that contain PCBs. Any
servicing of a PCB Transformer
(including rebuilding) that requires the
removal of the transformer coil from  the
transformer casing is prohibited. This
condition not only reduces the exposure
risks to service personnel, but, also
prevents the use of PCB Transformers
beyond their normal operating lives.
Other servicing conditions primarily
prevent the further contamination of
PCB-containing transformers.
  EPA believes that authorizing the use
of PCB-filled transformers and mineral
oil-filled transformers containing PCBs
according to the proposed conditions
does not present an unreasonable risk
for the following reasons:
  a. If EPA did not authorize the use of
PCBs in tranformers, it would cost the
public and United States industry
billions of dollars, primarily as a result
of the disruption of electrical service.
The resulting reduction in risk would not
outweigh  these substantial costs.
  b. The required inspection and
maintenance program reasonably
reduces the exposure risks associated
with the use of PCBs in PCB
Transformers, and the servicing
conditions prevent further PCB

-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday,  August 25. 1982 / Rules and  Regulations    37347
contamination of transformers. These
measures are much less costly than a
ban on the use of PCBs in transformers
would be.
  c. Releases of PCBs to the
environment and exposure to humans
and biological organisms from mineral
oil transformers are minimal. EPA
estimates that these transformers
contain less than 0.15 percent of all the
PCBs used in transformers and release
less than one half of a percent of these
PCBs on an annual basis.
  d. The costs associated with other risk
reduction measures such as accelerated
phase-out, reducing the PCB
concentration in the dielectric fluid, or
providing containment for transformers
are not reasonable when compared to
the potential reduction in release of
PCBs achieved if any of these measures
were required for all PCB Transformers.
  Several comments said that even
though phase-out, containment, and
reduction of PCB concentration are not
warranted as regulatory requirements,
each of these measures might be cost-
effective in individual situations on a
voluntary basis. In fact, some companies
have already initiated such efforts
because of benefits in their specific
cases. EPA agrees with these comments,
and, to recognize the positive effect
those actions have in reducing risks
from PCB Transformers, this rule
provides for less frequent inspections
for those PCB Transformers.  For a PCB
Transformer with secondary
containment capacity of at least 100
percent of the transformer's total
dielectric fluid volume, or a PCB
Transformer which contains  less than
60,000 ppm (6 percent) PCBs, a visual
inspection is required only once every
12 months. Secondary containment of at
least 100 percent of the transformer's
total dielectric fluid volume will contain
virtually all releases of PCBs from the
transformer. Draining, flushing, and
refilling a PCB Transformer reduces the
amount of PCBs in a transformer by a
factor of between 10 and 15, leaving a
residual PCB concentration of between
30,000 and 80,000 ppm. EPA believes
that, for transformers with these kinds
of reduced risks, it is reasonable to
inspect no more often then once per
year. EPA chose a 60,000 ppm PCB
concentration cutoff because, on the
basis of numerous demonstrations, it
has been shown to be a consistently
achievable concentration after one
carefully conducted fluid replacement
for a PCB Transformer. Additional
incentives (such as reduced or
eliminated use, servicing and disposal
requirements) exist in the PCB rules
which encourage further reduction in
PCB concentration to 50 and 500 ppm.
  Several persons commented that the
visual inspection required by this final
rule could pose an electrical shock
hazard to unqualified personnel. It has
always been EPA's intent that the extent
of a visual inspection should be only as
complete as safely possible. This will
vary, depending on the physical
constraints of each transformer
installation. No visual inspection should
require an electrical shutdown  of the
transformer being inspected.
Transformers that require electrical
isolation (shutdown) to be inspected
thoroughly (due to safety precautions,
enclosures, etc.) may be inspected as
completely as possible without
disconnecting the transformer.  Future
inspections should then be coordinated
when possible with equipment  outages
from the power system so that more
thorough inspections can be completed.
  The proposed rule did not specify the
time period in which quarterly and
annual inspections must take place.
Several comments suggested that
inspection frequencies should be
flexible in order to take advantage of
equipment outages which can occur at
irregular intervals. EPA agrees with this
comment and, for quarterly inspections,
has added regulatory language  that
allows inspections for leaks of dielectric
fluid to take place any time during the
quarter (i.e. January-March, April-June,
July-September, and October-
December) as long as there is a
minimum of 30 days between
inspections. Inspections may also take
place any time during  the calendar year
for annual inspections as long as there is
a minimum of 180 days between
inspections.
  Follow-up maintenance activities to
repair a leak are required only if
corrective action is necessary to stop
the leak. EPA recognizes that some
small leaks of dielectric fluid are
unavoidable in the operation of a
transformer and repairs are not always
required to stop a leak. A leak of
dielectric fluid which has run off or is
about to run off the external surface of
the transformer clearly needs repair to
prevent further leaking. A leak of
dielectric fluid which does not form a
run or drip, i.e. a sweat or a weep, and
does not require repair to prevent
further leaking, only requires proper
cleanup. All leaks must be cleaned up
within 48 hours and the PCB-
contaminated materials properly
disposed of in a timely fashion.  If
dielectric fluid is actively leaking, the
leak must be contained to prevent the
PCBs from entering the environment and
inspected daily to verify that the leak is
being contained until the leak is
corrected.
  This final rule requires recordkeeping
of each PCB Transformer's inspection  '
and maintenance history. This
requirement will assist companies in the
operation of their inspection and
maintenance program and help
management determine that the
company is meeting the conditions of
the use authorization. These records
may be maintained in any form or
format as long as ail of the required
information is available (in hard copy)
upon request by EPA. These records
must be maintained for at least three
years after disposing of the transformer
and should be coordinated with other
records required for the transformer
under the PCB rule (formerly 40 CFR
761,45 and correctly recodified in this
document to 40 CFR 761.180). This time
period was reduced from the five-year
requirement in the  proposed rule.
Several comments  indicated that five
years was excessive and resulted in
unnecessary costs. EPA has reduced the
period hi response  to these comments
and because it believes that the three-
year time period provides a sufficient
history for EPA to monitor compliance
with a reasonable interval between
compliance inspections.
  Because reporting of PCB spills are
mandated under § 311 of the Clean
Water Act for discharges to navigable
waters, and under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(Superfund) for discharges to other
media, this rule does not require any
additional reporting.

D. Use of Capacitors
  This section on the use of capacitors
analyzes only those capacttors that do
not pose an exposure risk to food or
feed. Analysis of the exposure risks
associated with equipment that poses an
exposure risk to food or feed is found in
sectfon E,
  Large PCB Capacitors (PCB Large
High Voltage and PCB Large Low
Voltage) are also used extensively by
electric utilities and other industries.
Large PCB Capacitors contain more than
3 pounds of dielectric fluid and are
commonly used to improve the voltage
and power factor of the electric power
system. Virtually all capacitors (large
and small) manufactured prior to 1978
were filled with PCB fluid at a
concentration near 100 percent.
Capacitors manufactured after 1978 did
not use PCB dielectric fluid.
  EPA estimates that there were
2,800,000 utility-owned large PCB

-------
37348    Federal Register / Vol. 47, No.  165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982  /  Roles and Regulations
Capacitors in service at the end of 1981.
EPA also estimates that the total
population of in-service nonutility-
owned large PCB Capacitors was
490,000 at the end of 1981.
  Large PCB Capacitors are located
within fenced electrical substations,
within buildings, and on utility poles
throughout the service areas of electric
utilities. Many comments pointed out
that there are significant differences
between the risk posed by Large
Capacitors depending upon their
location. Therefore, this final rule
recognizes the widespread distribution
of large PCB Capacitors and
distinguishes two different exposure risk
categories by capacitor location. The
two categories are: (1) capacitors used
within restricted-access electrical
substations or used in contained and
restricted-access indoor installations,
and (2) capacitors  used in all other
locations (primarily in electric utility
distribution systems).
  1. Magnitude of exposure. Large PCB
Capacitors used within restricted-access
electrical substations and in contained
and restricted-access indoor locations
pose comparatively low exposure risk.
A restricted-access electrical substation
is a fenced or walled-in facility that is
restricted to public access and used in
the transmission or distribution of
electric power. Releases of PCBs from
capacitors in these substations beyond
the confines of the substation are
extremely limited. In most cases, PCBs
become intimately bound to the gravel
and soil and very little PCBs evaporate
or dissolve or are driven off by rain. In a
report by Dr. Donald Mackay titled
Environmental Pathways of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Volume IV
of the EEI/USWAG study), Dr. Mackay
calculates that the likely extent of
evaporation from a "typical" pure PCB
spill into soil is 0.16 percent per day and
the'dissolution rate of a spill into water
is typically a factor of 100 slower than
evaporation. Many comments indicated
that substations are inspected at regular
intervals,  often at intervals of one week
or less. Because of these frequent
inspections and because there is
evidence that PCBs usually migrate
slowly from a spill within a substation,
EPA concludes that a very high
percentage of all PCB releases from
capacitors in these locations can be
identified and cleaned up quickly with
very little risk of exposure to humans or
the environment. EPA estimates that
41,073 pounds of PCBs could be released
from large PCB Capacitors in Restricted-
access electrical substations.
  Similarly, certain other facilities,
described in this rule as contained and
restricted-access indoor installations,
also present limited exposure risk
potential. An installation meeting this
description has a roof, walls, and floors
that will contain any release of PCBs
within the indoor installation. This type
of installation also prevents rain from
reaching the large PCB capacitors and
has controlled access to these PCB
capacitors. A building which prevents
PCB releases from escaping, including
escape through drains or expansion
joints, would be acceptable. This type of
contained and restricted-access
installation allows proper cleanup of
PCBs  with very little exposure to
humans or the environment. EPA
estimates that 25,728 pounds of PCBs
could be released from large PCB
capacitors in contained and restricted-'
access indoor installations.
  The second category of large PCB
Capacitor locations represents all other
locations. The capacitors in this  -
category are primarily located on utility
poles  throughout electric service areas.
The exposure risks associated with
those capacitors vary due to their
widespread use. These capacitor
installations are used in residential
neighborhoods, industrial areas, rural
areas, public areas (such as shopping
centers, schools, etc.), and even near
waterways. The capacitors, because of
their locations, have a greater potential
for exposing humans, animals, and the
environment during their use than othei
large  PCB Capacitors. EPA estimates
that without any risk reduction
measures these capacitors could release
as many as 730,110 pounds of PCBs
during their remaining useful life.
  2. Benefits of PCBs and availability Oj
substitutes. The electrical properties of
PCBs  are so well suited as a dielectric
fluid for capacitors that no other fluids
were  commonly used in capacitors prior
to 1978. Since 1978, electric utilities and
other industries have been installing
non-PCB Capacitors with no apparent
replacement or operational problems.
  Under this fihal rule EPA estimates
that 1.087 million large PCB Capacitors
(or 108.7 million KVAR, assuming an
average size of 100 KVAR) will require
removal due to the accelerated phase-
out requirements. (KVAR is the
abbreviation for reactive kilovolt-
ampers, which is a standard power
rating for capacitors.) EPA assumes that
companies will take one year to plan for
the phase-out and five years to
implement it. Considering the additional
capacitors that will require replacement
due to failure or obsolescence, EPA
estimates that a peak annual power
capacitor manufacturing capacity of 29
million KVAR (about 145,000 200-KVAR
units) will be required to meet the total
demand for replacements. EPA's
estimates for the demand for new power
capacitor applications (unrelated to any
demand for replacements) range from
9.7 million KVAR to 20.3 million KVAR
per year. Therefore, the maximum total
annual demand for power capacitors
should be between 38.7 and 49.3 million
KVAR under this final rule.
  In a survey of domestic capacitor
manufacturers by the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association in response
to this rulemaking, four respondents
indicated that production could be
increased 65 percent by 1983 or earlier.
With this increase in production,  the
total annual power capacitor
manufacturing capacity would be 47.85
million KVAR.
  According to these estimates,
manufacturing capacity is adequate for
companies to comply with  the
requirement to phase out these
capacitors over the next six years, i ne
derivation of the estimates and a further
discussion of the methodology used to
arrive at this conclusion is found in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for
this final rule.
"  3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements. The
economic impact of this final rule was
calculated in terms of the lost economic
value associated with removing PCB'
Capacitors before the end of their useful
lives. EPA estimates this cost to be
$135.8 million. EPA estimates that the
net present value of the phase-out cost
for the .electric utility industry is only
0.05 percent of the 1979 net value of
assets in electric plant nationally.
  It should be noted that the direct costs
of the regulatory requirements for large
PCB Capacitors do not include the
energy savings associated with the use
of more efficient replacement
capacitors. This savings is very
significant for capacitors that were
manufactured using paper insulation
(approximately pre-1966). The
Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for
this final rule estimates that the
payback period for capacitors with
paper insulation is approximately 11
years, assuming that the capacitors are
in use 50 percent of the time.
  By removing large PCB Capacitors
before the end of their useful service
lives it prevents the release of PCBs
during the remaining years of use. EPA
estimates that this* final rule avoids an
estimated 572,000 pounds of PCBs from
release from large PCB Capacitors that
doe not pose an exposure risk to  food
and feed. A more complete discussion of
the costs and benefits associated with
the regulatory requirements Is presented

-------
         Federal Register  / Vol. 47. No. 165 / Wednesday,  August 25,  1982 / Rules and Regulations    37349
in the. Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared for this final rule.
  4. Findings on the use of capacitors.
The proposed rule discussed whether
the use of PCBs in capacitors should
continue and the options EPA
considered to reduce the risks from the
use of PCBs In capacitors. The proposed
rule authorized the use of capacitors for
ten years. Several comments suggested
that capacitors should be categorized on
the basis of difference in potential for
exposure. These differences arise
because of differences in the
accessibility of the capacitor location
and differences in the degree of
containment of any PCB spills or leak's
which may occur. EPA agrees with these
comments and has created categories
based on the comments. Other
comments urged EPA to eliminate the
phase-out requirement altogether. With
respect to those capacitors in the
category with comparatively low
exposure potential, EPA agrees with
these comments and has eliminated the
phase-out, but with respect to other
capacitors, EPA has concluded that the
cost of a six-year phase-out is
reasonable because of the large quantity
of PCBs release which will be avoided
and because of the comparatively high
potential for exposure in these locations.
  This final rule prohibits the use .of
large PCB Capacitors after October 1
1986, unless the capacitors are used in
restricted-access outdoor electrical
substations, or in contained and,
restricted-access indoor installations.
EPA finds that the more limited
potential for exposure in these
restricted-access locations warrants
authorizing their use for the remainde
of their useful lives.
  A very large number of comments
stated that  the benefits of an inspection
program for capacitors do not outweigh
the costs. In most cases, large releases'
of PCBs from capacitors (ruptures)
happen.very suddenly as a result of a
large amount of energy entering the
capacitor in a very short time period.
Inspections of in-service capacitors
cannot detect characteristics which
indicate a capacitor's potential to
release PCBs. EPA  agrees that the
effectiveness of an inspection program
for large PCB Capacitors is very limited
in preventing future releases of PCBs.
Therefore, this Final rule eliminates the
proposed requirement that large PCB
Capacitors  must be inspected for leaks
of dielectric fluid on a quarterly basis.
  An inspection program can speed the
detection and cleanup of PCBs in cases
where a release has already occurred
and the release has not been detected or
cleaned up. However, EPA has learned
from comments on  the proposed rule
that for large capacitors located on
distribution systems that a utility
company or other owner is almost
always notified of PCB releases by the
public or company personnel within a
much shorter time period than the
proposed quarterly inspection
frequency. Furthermore, large PCB
Capacitprs located in electrical
substations and indoors are typically
inspected by company crews more
frequently than the proposed quarterly
inspection due to existing concerns for
system efficiency and stability.
  EPA finds that authorizing the use of
PCBs in capacitors not posing an
exposure risk to food or feed, under the
required conditions, does not present an
unreasonable risk for the following
reasons:
  a. The use of PCBs in large PCB
Capacitors that are located in restricted-
access indoor installations for th'eir
remaining useful lives is such that PCBs
released from these capacitors  are
readily identified and cleaned up with
limited exposure potential to humans
and the environment.
  b. The required six-year phase-out
period for large PCB Capacitors should
prevent more than 500,000 pounds of
P"CBs from entering the environment and
some unknown percentage of that
quantity from entering the food chain.
This time period also avoids any
disruption of electrical service.
  c. The cost of the phase-out
requirement is reasonable when
compared to the large amount of PCBs it
prevents from entering the environment
and the costs and benefits of alternative
risk reduction measures. This cost is
only $237 per pound of PCB release
avoided.
  5. Small capacitors. PCB Small
Capacitors contain less than 3 pounds of
dielectric fluid. These capacitors
commonly contain between 0.1  and 0.6
pounds of PCBs and are used in
fluourescent light ballasts, household
appliances, and industrial equipment. In
most applications, the equipment
containing the  small capacitor in its
circuitry cannot function without it. In
1976, an EPA study estimated that 870
million small capacitors, containing 275
million pounds of PCBs, were in use in a
wide variety of-applications. Today,
EPA estimates that approximately 500
million of these small capacitors are still
in use. EPA calculated this figure
assuming that 10 percent of these
capacitors are removed from service
annually due to equipment or appliance
obsolescence and capacitor failure.
  No data has  been submitted to EPA
which indicate that small capacitors
have a different propensity to leak than
other capacitors. Additionally, no
comments have identified any practical
and cost-effective use restrictions
regarding the use of PCB Small
Capacitors. Because of the widespread
and diverse nature of* their use and the
small amount of PCBs contained within
each individual small capacitor, all
regulatory approaches targeted at
controlling releases from these
capacitors are very expensive when
compared to the potential quantity of
PCBs kept from the environment.
Consequently, EPA has not identified a
reasonable cost-effective regulatory
alternative that would result in
significantly reducing the risks
associated with the remaining PCB
Small Capacitors in service. Therefore,
this final rule does not require any
restrictions regarding the use of PCBs in
small capacitors. However, EPA
encourages commercial and industrial
firms that use and dispose of large
quantities of PCB Small Capacitors to
establish voluntarily a collection  and
disposal program that results in waste
capacitors being disposed of in an EPA-
approved incinerator or chemical waste
landfill. Such programs could be
expanded to encourage voluntary
collection and disposal of PCB Small
Capacitors from the public and other
firms. Any firm which desires more
information about identifying and
disposing of PCB Small Capacitors
should contact the nearest EPA regional
office or the Industry Assistance Office
at 800-424-9065 for assistance.
   Since these capacitors contain small
quantities of dielectric fluid and
significant amounts of absorbent
material such as paper, and because
many of these capacitors are
encapsulated, PCBs are rarely released
from these capacitors during their use or
from the equipment using the capacitors.
Therefore, exposure risks to humans,
food,  feed, water, or the environment
from the use of these capacitors are low.
In conclusion, EPA finds that the use of
small capacitors containing PCBs is not
unreasonable because their use provides
society with the benefits from the use of
millions of pieces of electronic.
equipment and consumer products, it
avoids billions of dollars in replacement
costs, and there appear to be no
practical, cost-effective risk reduction
measures.

E. Use of PCB Transformers, Capacitors,
and Electromagnets That Pose an
Exposure Risk to Human Food and
Animal Feed

  EPA estimates that at the end of 1979
there  were approximately 47,500 large
PCB Capacitors and 9,580 PCB
Transformers in use on the premises of

-------
37350   Federal Register  /  Vol. 47,  No. 165  /  Wednesday, August 25, 1982  / Rules and Regulations
food and feed facilities. Because of
comments that much of this equipment
never posed an exposure risk to food or
feed and that, for much of the rest of it,
steps nave been taken to eliminate the
risk, EPA estimates that ten percent of
the equipment used on the premises of
food and feed facilities poses an
exposure risk to food or feed products.
  Since publication of the proposed rule,
EPA has received a comment that
indicated that electromagnets designed
to {contain PCBs are still in use over
grain elevators. EPA Was unaware that
this use still existed at the time of the
proposed rule. In 1979, EPA estimated
that a total of 200 PCB-filled
electromagnets were in use with an
unknown percentage of these in use in
coal operations.
  1. Magnitude of exposure. Human
food and animal feed represent EPA's
greatest Concern for exposure because
of the increased health risks associated
with the ingestion of PCBs. Electrical
equipment filled with askarel dielectric
fluid presents the greatest exposure
risks to food and feed due to the high
concentrations and large quantities of
PCBs. Any leakage from such equipment
has the potential to cause severe harm.
One incident, involving  a single PCS
Transformer, bccurred at a plant
manufacturing animal feed ingredients.
The contaminated feed was fed to
poultry and livestock, resulting in
millions of dollars of damages.
Implicated food and feed products were
distributed to nineteen states and two
foreign countries.
  2. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
substitutes. The benefits of using PCBs
and the availability of substitutes for
PCBs in transformers and capacitors
that pose an exposure risk to food ana
feed are identical to those discussed for
PCB Transformers and PCB Capacitors.
The benefit of using PCBs in
electromagnets is the  safety provided by
the fire resistant properties of the PCBs.
The substitutes for PCBs in transformers
are also available and suitable for use in
electromagnets.
   3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements. The
food contamination incident previously
described which involved a single PCB
Transformer demonstrates that the cost
to society of a PCB spill affecting food or
feed can be more than one million
dollars per pound of PCBs spilled.
Therefore, only a very small reduction in
PCB leakage is needed for a risk
reduction measure to be cost effective in
food and feed facilities. The Regulatory
Impact Analysis contains an
examination of the cost effectiveness of
different accelerated phase-out time
periods and inspection program
frequencies.
  The impact of replacing the affected
PCB Transformers and large PCB
Capacitors in food and feed facilities is
estimated to be $18.04 million, and the
impact of replacing the affected
electromagnets is $0.38 million. These
estimates assume that ten percent of the
PCB Transformers and Capacitors used
by the food and feed industry pose an
exposure risk to food and feed and that
ten percent of the estimated 200 PCB-
filled electromagnets in service in 1979
pose an exposure risk to food and feed.
  4. Findings on the use of PCBs posing
an exposure risk to food and feed. In the
proposed rule, EPA found that it was
reasonable to require weekly inspection
of all PCB Transformers and Large PCB
Capacitors that pose an exposure risk to
food or feed and to prohibit the use of
these capacitors after October 1,1992.
Several comments suggested that EPA
categorize equipment according  to
differences in the risk of exposure.
Other comments expressed concern thai
EPA was proposing to allow indefinite
use of PCBs in transformers in the areas
of greatest risk. After further analysis of
the cost-effectiveness of various
accelerated phase-out periods and
consideration of these comments, EPA
has decided to establish a prohibition o
the use of PCB Transformers, PCB Largp
Capacitors, and PCB-filled
electromagnets that pose an exposure
risk to food and feed. This prohibition
becomes effective in three years for PCB
Transformers and PCB-filled
electromagnets and in six years  for PCB
Large Capacitors. The cost-effectiveness
calculations are contained in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
  Other comments urged EPA not to
prohibit the use of any electrical
equipment in food or feed
establishments, but to rely on the
effectiveness of an inspection and
maintenance program. EPA did not
choose this option because, although an
inspection and maintenance program
does have benefits, the need to avoid
contamination of human food with PCBs
justifies the imposition of additional
protective measures.
  The three-year time period for
transformers and electromagnets is
based on an estimated one year to
analyze the specifics of the individual
situation, to choose the method  to be
used to eliminate the exposure risk to
food or feed, and to develop a plan for
compliance with the regulation and two
years to implement the plan. Given the
comparatively small amount of
equipment involved, EPA believes that
 this period of time is sufficient for
 affected persons to avoid logistical
 difficulties.
   The six-year time period for PCB
 Large Capacitors is based on an
 estimated one year for planning for
 compliance and five years for
 implementation of the plan. EPA
 decided not to shorten this period any
 further for these capacitors because the
 quantity of PCBs involved is much less
 than the quantity of PCBs in
 transformers posing this exposure risk
 and because the cost per pound of
 preventing PCB release was higher than
 for the transformers.
   Prohibiting the use of PCB-containing
 equipment in a location that poses an
 exposure risk to food or feed represents
 the most effective risk reduction
 measure of the alternatives EPA has
 considered. Persons subject to this
 requirement actually have several
 choices as to how  to comply. They may
 replace the equipment. They may
 provide secondary containment so that
 the exposure risk to food or feed is
 eliminated. They may relocate the
 equipment to a location which does not
 present an exposure risk. For
 transformers and electromagnets, they
 may service the equipment to reduce the
 PCB concentration to less than 500 ppm.
   Many comments agreed with EPA's
 finding in the proposed ri^le that a
 weekly inspection frequency is hot
 unreasonable primarily because it is an
 effective risk reduction measure for
 equipment such as transformers and
 electromagnets and because of the large
 exposure risks associated with the use
 of PCB Transformers and PCB-filled
 electromagnets near food or feed. As
 discussed in an earlier section of this
 preamble, the effectiveness of an
 inspection program for capacitors is
 very limited and in most cases ruptures
 of this equipment are identified in
' shorter time frames than the inspection
 frequency. Therefore, this final rule
 eliminates the proposed weekly
 inspection requirement for Large PCB
 Capacitors and retains this program for
 PCB Transformers and PCB-filled
 electromagnets.
   Most comments in response to the
 proposed rule did not support any use
 restrictions for mineral oil-filled
 electrical equipment posing an exposure
 risk to food or feed since very little of
 this equipment is used in food and feed
 facilities. In most cases, mineral oil
 equipment contains very little PCBs, and
 it is expensive to test all the equipment
 to determine which items actually
 contains PCBs. Therefore, EPA made no
  •hanges in the proposed authorization
   or this equipment which allows its use
   without restriction.

-------
          Federal Register  / Vol. 47, No.  165 / Wednesday,  August 25,  1982 / Rules and Regulations   37351
  Other comments in response to the
proposed rule recommended that EPA
include in the final rule clarifications
that were issued under the Interim
Measures Program. These clarifications
have been incorporated into the final
rule where appropriate and are
discussed in this preamble.
  The proposed rule required special
inspection procedures for transformers
which are in a location that pose a risk
of exposure to human food or animal
feed. This exposure risk is presumed to
exist in any facility manufacturing,
processing, packaging, or holding humar
food or animal feed, or in any federally
inspected meat, poultry product or egg
product establishment. Because several
comments pointed out a need for more
specificity as to which equipment is
subject to inspection requirements, EPA
has further clarified the definition of
posing an exposure risk to food or feed
in this rule under 40 CFR 761.3(11).
  This new definition clarifies that PCB
Items pose an exposure risk to food or
feed only when there exists a potential
pathway for PCBs discharged from the
item to contaminate food or feed
products. Food and feed covered by this
definition includes items regulated by
USDA  and FDA as food or feed
including additives. Food and feed is
excluded from this definition if it is used
or stored in private residences by the
public because a very small amount of
food would be potentially exposed in a
single incident in a private residence
and because the  enforcement of this
requirement in private residences would
place a very large demand on EPA
enforcement resources. This definition,
does cover food and feed that are held
in all other facilities including grocery
stores,  restaurants, warehouses, barns,
bins, sheds, silos, and other structures,
and in  feedlols, open fields, and animal
grazing areas.
  Comments also encouraged the
clarification  of the  responsibilities
between users and owners of PCB-
containing electrical equipment that
pose an exposure risk to food and feed.
As in the Interim Measures  Program it is
the responsibility of the user of a PCB
Transformer to fulfill all appropriate
inspection, recordkeeping and
maintenance requirements until the
owner is notified that the transformer
may pose an exposure risk to food or
feed, or until the  owner has other
knowledge indicating that the
transformer may pose an exposure risk
to food or feed. It is the ultimate
responsibility of the owner of the PCB-
containing electrical equipment to
determine if  it poses an exposure risk to
food or feed. Although users of PCB-
Transformers, PCB capacitors, and PCB-
filled electromagnets are not responsible
for phasing-out any of this equipment,
users should contact the owner if they
feel that this equipment poses an
exposure risk to food or feed. In any
event, the user still has responsibility
under other Federal laws  to insure that
food and feed distributed in commerce
are not contaminated.
  In the Federal Register of May 9,1980,
EPA proposed a rule amendment which
would have prohibited the use of PCB
Items in facilities manufacturing,
processing, or storing fertilizers  or
agricultural pesticides. EPA received
comment upon this proposed rule and,
on May 6,1981, in light of the court-
ordered rulemaking on the use of PCBs
m electrical equipment EPA put that
proposed rule in abeyance. Because the
promulgation of this final rule deals with
PCBs that pose an exposure risk to food
or feed, EPA has decided  not to  issue a
final rule from the May 9,1980 proposed
rule. The final rule on the use of PCBs in
electrical equipment does not recognize
agricultural pesticides and fertilizers as
food or feed additive or require
additional provisions for PCB Items
which pose an exposure risk to
agricultural pesticides and fertilizers.
The rulemaking record from the  May 9,
1980, proposed amendment has been
incorporated into the record for  this
final rule.

F. Use and Servicing of Voltage
Regulators, Switches (Including
Sectionalizers and Motor Starters), and
Electromagnets
  Voltage regulators and switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters) are used by electric utilities
and industry to control, transmit, and
distribute electric power efficiently.
Almost all of this electrical equipment is
mineral oil-filled and not designed to
contain PCB dielectric fluid. Very few
items are contaminated with greater
than 500 ppm PCBs. Electromagnets are
primarily used over conveyor belts to
remove iron from non-magnetic
commodities and are not commonly
used by the electric utility industry.
Electromagnets designed to contain
PCBs are used in areas such as coal
mines, coal preparation plants, and coal-
fired generating stations. PCB-filled
electromagnets that pose an exposure
risk to food or feed are discussed in
section E.
  1. Magnitude of exposure. The total
pounds of PCBs in oil-filled voltage
regulators, swiiches, and electromagnets
represent less than 0.01 percent of Ihe
total PCBs in-service in electrical
equipment. EPA estimates from data in
the rule-making record that the annual
leakage of oil-filled voltage regulators
and switches would amount to a release
of approximately 85 pounds of PCBs per
year.
  Leaks of dielectric fluid from oil-filled
electrical equipment have the potential
for exposing humans or the environment
to low concentrations (parts per million)
of PCBs because some of this equipment
is used in the Nation's electrical
distribution system which is located
near consumers of electric power. In
addition, releases of PCBs  anywhere in
the environment have the potential to
reach aquatic systems, build up in the
food chain, and ultimately result in
human exposure. Leaks of PCBs from
electromagnets used in coal-handling
systems, however, present negligible
risks since the coal in these systems is
handled automatically and eventually is
burned in combustion devices (such as
high efficiency boilers) capable of
destroying PCBs.
  2. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
substitutes. The PCBs in almost all of
this electrical equipment serve no
specific purpose since the PCBs are in
such small concentrations  and are the
result of contamination from servicing
and manufacturing activities. For this
equipment, the PCBs provide no
significant benefits. For any equipment
designed to contain PCBs, the use of
PCBs in the equipment provides the
same safeguards against fire hazards as
that described for transformers.
  The  availability of substitutes was
discussed in the proposed rule.
  3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements. This
final rule reduces the amount of worker
and environmental exposure associated
with servicing (including rebuilding) this
equipment. This rule also prevents
further PCB contamination of this
equipment.
  The  economic impacts are discussed
in further detail in die proposed rule and
the Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared for this final rule. There are no
significant changes from the analysis
done for the proposed rule.
  4. Findings on the use and servicing of
this electrical equipment. The proposed
rule contained an authorization for the
use of PCBs in voltage regulators,
switches (including sectionalizers and
motor starters), and electromagnets for
their remaining useful  lives with no use
restrictions. It also restricted servicing
activities in order to prevent this
equipment from being  further
contaminated with PCBs and to reduce
PCB exposure of servicing personnel
and the environment during these
activities. Comments in response to the
proposed rule did not raise any new

-------
37352   Federal Register  /  Vol. 47. No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25.  1982 / Rules and Regulations
issues that warranted changes in the
proposal. Therefore, EPA reaffirms its
proposed findings in this final rule.
  EPA finds that authorizing the use of
PCBs in voltage regulators, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), and electromagnets with the
servicing conditions does not present an
unreasonable risk for the following
reasons:
  a. Allowing this use of PCBs to
continue avoids disruption of electric
service and the costs associated with a
prohibition. (This reason does not apply
to electromagnets.)
  b. There is little PCB contamination of
this oil-filled equipment and very small
amounts of PCBs are expected to be
released annually.
  c. EPA does not believe that the cost
associated with restrictions regarding
the use of this equipment is justified by
the small PCB exposure that would be
prevented by such measures.
  d. The servicing restrictions will
prevent easily avoidable human
exposure to PCBs.
  This rule authorizes the servicing of
electrical equipment not previously
mentioned in the PCB rule, such as
voltage regulators and switches. Persons
who service this equipment should note
that any processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for servicing this
equipment requires an exemption from
the July 1,1979~ban of these activities.
Procedures for submitting a petition for
exemption from  the PCB processing and
distribution in commerce prohibitions
under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA are
described in 40 CFR Part 750, (44 FR
31558, May 31,1979).
G. Use and Servicing of Circuit
Breakers, Reclosers, and Cable
   Circuit breakers, reclosures, and cable
are used primarily by electric utilities to
protect other equipment in the electric
power system from damage  caused by
electrical faults and to transmit electric
power. Circuit breakers, reclosers, and
cable are types of oil-filled electrical
equipment generally not designed to
contain PCBs. However, available data
indicate that a small percentage of this
electrical equipment contains PCBs
resulting from past servicing and
manufacturing practices.
   1. Magnitude of exposure. Although
approximately 26.3 percent of all oil-
filled circuit breakers can be expected
to leak during an average year, this
could amount to a release of only 50.88
pounds of PCBs, according to the  EEI/
USWAG study.  This same study
indicates that releases of dielectric fluid
from reclosers could amount to 6.64
pounds of PCBs per year. As with other
oil-filled electrical equipment, leaks of
dielectric fluid have the potential for
exposing humans and the environment
to low concentrations of PCBs because
of the equipment's location throughout
electric power system service areas.
  2. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
substitutes. Both the benefits and
availability of substitutes for PCBs in
circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable are
the same as that discussed for other
mineral oil-filled equipment
(transformers, voltage regulators,
switches, etc.).
  3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements.
Since this electrical equipment may be
assumed to contain less  than 50 ppm
PCBs, the  economic and environmental
impact of the servicing and disposal
requirements is minimal and difficult to
measure. These requirements would
only apply to equipment that is known
to contain PCBs in excess of 50 ppm (e.g.
from test results). Additional discussion
of the costs and benefits associated with
the regulatory requirements is found in
the proposed rule and the Regulatory
Impact Analysis prepared for this final
rule. There are no significant changes
from the analysis done for the proposed
rule.
  4. Findings on the use and servicing of
this electrical equipment. The proposed
rule contained an authorization, with
servicing conditions, which would have
allowed the use of PCBs in circuit
breakers and reclosers for the remaining
useful life of this equipment. No
comments contained data which would
warrant changing this part of the
proposal.
  The proposed rule also authorized the
use of oil-filled cable and contained a
requirement that oil-filled cable must be
assumed to contain between 50 and 500
ppm PCBs if the concentration were
unknown. This requirement was
included in the proposal because there
was virtually no data in the rulemaking
record on PCB concentrations in cable.
Comments in response to the proposed
rule contained additional data on the
PCBs concentrations of oil-filled  cable,
indicating that virtually none of the
cable is contaminated in excess of 50
ppm. Therefore, th'is final rule allows the
assumption that oil-filled cable contains
less than 50 ppm PCBs if the actual
concentration is unknown.
  EPA authorizes the use and servicing
of PCBs in circuit breakers, reclosers.
and cable for the remainder of their
useful lives, according to the servicing
restrictions of § 761.30(m)(l). These
servicing  conditions prevent further PCB
contamination of equipment containing
less than 50 ppm PCBs. The disposal
requirements of 40 CFR 761.60 and the
servicing  requirements of 40 CFR
761.30(h) apply to any oil-filled circuit
breaker, recloser, or cable found to
contain 50 ppm or greater PCBs. EPA
believes that this use authorization with
servicing conditions does not present an
unreasonable risk for the following
reasons:
  a. Allowing this use of PCBs to
continue avoids disruption of electric
service and the costs associated with a
prohibition.
  b. There is little PCB contamination of
this oil-filled equipment  and very small
amounts of PCBs are expected to be
released annually.
  c. EPA does not believe that the cost
associated with restrictions regarding
the use of this equipment is justified by
the small PCB exposure  that would be
prevented by such measures.
  d. The servicing restrictions will
prevent easily avoidable human
exposure to PCBs and further
contamination of this equipment.

VI. Other Amendments to the PCB Rule

A. PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment

  Because this rulemaking has identified
electrical equipment containing PCBs
that was not previously  recognized in
the PCB rule, changes have been  made
to definitions presented  in the rule. This
final rule deletes the definition of a
"PCB-Contaminated Transformer" (40
CFR 761.3(z)) and substitutes a definition
titled "PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment.
  "PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment" means any electrical
equipment that contains at least 50 ppm.
but less than 500 ppm PCB.
Electrical equipment includes
transformers (including those  used on
railway locomotives and self-propelled
cars), capacitors, voltage regulators,
electromagnets,  cable, circuit  breakers
reclosers, and switches (including
sectionalizers and motor starters).
  Although the use of PCBs in certain
electrical equipment is authorized
regardless of PCB concentration, the
disposal requirements of the May 1979
PCB rule make certain distinctions on .
the basis of PCB concentration. That is,
different disposal requirements apply to
PCBs at concentrations of 500 ppm or
greater and at concentrations between
50 and 500 ppm.  The definition of PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment was
developed in order to refer to  the
electrical equipment that contains
between 50 and  500 ppm PCBs.
   Prior to publication of the proposed
rule, EPA had received data regarding
the actual PCB concentrations in
different types of electrical equipment.

-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 47. No.  165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 /Rules and Regulations   37353
These data indicate that approximately
12 to 14 percent of oil-filled
transformers, voltage regulators, and
switches contain PCB concentrations of
50 ppm or greater, but PCB
concentrations greater than 500 ppm in
this equipment are rare, estimated to
occur in less than 2 percent of the
equipment. Because the contamination
was caused by unintentional
manufacturing and servicing practices, it
is impossible to determine for certain
which pieces of equipment are
contaminated without testing them all.
EPA estimates the cost of such testing to
be over two billion dollars, based on a
total of cost of $100 per test. Based on
these data, EPA requires that all oil-
filled transformers, voltage regulators,
switches, and electromagnets must be
assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment unless the oil has
been tested, or otherwise verified, and
found not to contain between 50 and 500
ppm PCBs. In other words, if the actual
PCB concentration of any oil-filled
transformer, voltage regulator, switch, 01
electromagnet is unknown, the
equipment must be assumed to contain
more than 50 ppm PCBs and may be
assumed to contain less than 500 ppm
PCBs for purposes of servicing and
disposing of this equipment. This will
allow owners of this equipment to avoid
the cost of testing if they choose.
  Little monitoring data were available
to EPA prior to publicatipn of the
proposed rule regarding the PCB
concentration in oil-filled
electromagnets. Comments on the
proposed rule added little additional
information. Because electromagnets
use the same kind of oil and are
serviced in the same manner as other
types of oil-filled equipment, there is no
reason to believe its PCB concentration
would frequently exceed 500 ppm.
Therefore, EPA requires that oil-filled
electromagnets be included in the
category of PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment so that they must
be assumed to have a PCB concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm if the
concentration is unknown.
  Data in the rulemaking record indicate
that less than two percent of oil-filled
circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable are
contaminated with PCB concentrations
of 50 ppm or greater. EPA estimates that
it would post approximately forty
million dollars to indentify all of the
circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable
whose PCB contamination exceeds 50
ppm. Because the cost of either testing
all the equipment or treating it as
contaminated in excess of SO ppm is
high relative to the number of pieces of
equipment that are likely to contain
greater than 50 ppm, EPA allows that
oil-filled circuit breakers, reclosers and
cable need not be classified as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment if
the PCB concentration is unknown.
B. Clarification of Existing Definitions
  This final rule retains, as proposed,
changes to the definitions of "Large High
Voltage Capacitor", "Large Low Voltage
Capacitor", "Small Capacitor", and PCB
Article (40 CFR 761.3(d) (1), (2), and (3)
and 761.3{t), respectively). No comment
on the proposed rule raised any new
issues regarding these changes.
C. Distribution in Commerce
  EPA in its April 22,1982 Federal
Register notice proposed changes to the
list of PCB activities it found to be in a
totally enclosed manner, due to new
information submitted prior to the
proposal. This final rule  is identical to
the proposal. To assure that PCBs are
not released from electrical equipment
being distributed in commerce under the
provisions of section 6(e)(3)(C), EPA
finds the distribution in commerce of
only intact and nonleaking transformers
(including transformers used on railway
locomotives and self-propelled cars),
capacitors, electromagnets, voltage
regulators, circuit breakers, reclosers,
switches (including sectionalizers and
switches), and cable to be totally
enclosed activities. Coupled with 40
CFR 761.30(c)(l), this will restrict the
applicability of section 6(e)(3)(C) to
intact, nonleaking equipment. Persons
wishing to distribute in commerce
electrical equipment which is not intact
and nonleaking must apply for an
exemption from the ban  on distribution
in commerce, using the exemption
procedures found in 40 CFR Part 750.
D. Disposal Requirements
  Since this rulemaking has identified
uses of PCB-containing electrical
equipment not recognized in the earlier
PCB regulations, changes have been
made to the disposal requirements for
PCBs and  PCB Items. The major
difference between this final rule and
the proposal is that language specifying
the extent of cleanup required for a PCB
spill has been deleted.
  1. Mineral oil dielectric fluid. This
final rule allows mineral oil dielectric
fluid from any type of PCB
Contaminated Electrical Equipment to
be disposed following the requirements
of 40 CFR  761.60(a)(2). All mineral oil
from transformers, electromagnets,
voltage regulators, and switches is
subject to  the disposal requirements of
this section, unless the oil has been
tested (or otherwise verified) and found
to contain less than SO ppm PCBs. No
 comments on this proposed change
 affected EPA's conclusions regarding the
 degree of contamination of this
 equipment.
   2. PCB items. The proposed rule
 established disposal requirements for
 PCB-Contaminated Electrical
 Equipment.  This equipment must be
 drained of all free flowing liquid, and
 the liquid must be disposed of under 40
 CFR 761.60(a)(2). The proposed rule also
 regulated the disposal of PCB Articles
 with a PCB  concentration of 500 ppm or
 more under 40 CFR 761.60(b)(5), but did
 not regulate the disposition of a PCB
 Article containing less than 500 ppm
 once all free flowing liquid has been
 drained from the PCB Article. Comments
 received generally agreed with these
 requirements, and this  final rule retains
 them, as proposed. However, one
 comment stated that some capacitors
 have been found to contain between 50
 and 500 ppm PCBs. These comments
 pointed out that capacitors are not
 designed to be drained of dielectric fluid
 and would have to be punctured or cut
 open. Puncturing or cutting open a Large
 PCB Capacitor poses a potential PCB
 exposure risk to workers and the
 environment due to the sudden release
 of internal pressure that may have built
 up in a failed capacitor. In order to
 discourage this potentially hazardous
 activity, this final rule requires disposal
 of capacitors containing between SO and
 500 ppm PCBs, in an incinerator that
 complies with I  761.70 or in a chemical
 waste landfill that complies with
 i 761.75.
   Although this rule does not require
 testing of mineral oil dielectric fluid for
-PCS concentration, some people may
 choose to do so. In order to reduce the
 costs associated with testing for PCB
 concentrations in mineral oil dielectric
 fluid, this rule allows, as proposed,
 common container collection ("batch
 testing") of mineral oil  dielectric fluid
 from all electrical equipment containing
 mineral oil dielectric fluid (see 40 CFR
 761.60(g)(l)). Common container
 collection is permitted so that mineral
 oil from multiple sources can be
 collected and tested without requiring^ a
 separate test of each individual piece of
 electrical equipment to determine
 disposal options. However, in order to
 prevent persons from Using dilution to
 circumvent die disposal rules, dielectric
 fluid from oil-filled circuit breakers,
 reclosers, or cable, collected in a
 common container with untested
 dielectric fluid from other oil-filled
 equipment must be assumed'to contain
 at least 50 ppm PCBs.
   3.  Spills and leaks. The proposed rule
 clarified the definition of disposal by

-------
37354    Federal Register / Vol. 47, No.  165 / Wednesday. August 25. 1982  / Rules  and Regulations
including leaks in the definition. The
final rule refines this clarification. A
number of comments stated that it was
unfair to charge a party with
unauthorized disposal when PCBs are
spilled or leaked during authorized use
of electrical equipment but prompt
cleanup is initiated. It is not the
Agency's intention that § 761.3(h)  and
§ 761.80(d) should be applied in this
way. Where the responsible party
shows that: (1) The spill, leak, or
uncontrolled discharge occurred during
authorized use of electrical equipment
and (2) adequate cleanup measures
were initiated within 48 hours, the
Agency will not charge the party with a
disposal violation.
  The proposal also contained,
requirements for cleanup of PCB
contamination resulting from spills,
leaks, and other uncontrolled discharges
of PCBs. Comments in response to these
provisions varied. Some comments
stated that a requirement for level of
cleanup should be set, but that cleanup
to a concentration of 50 ppm was
always appropriate. Other comments
expressed concern about setting any
specific requirements for level of
cleanup at this time and about how
these levels would be determined in the
field. Still others approved of the
standards set in the proposed rule.
   The Agency has decided not to
include language regarding the required
level of cleanup in this final rule. A part
of § 761.60(d)(2) (formerly § 761.10(d)(2)),
which was sometimes construed as
setting a required level of cleanup has
been deleted.
   4. Storage for disposal. The storage for
disposal of nonleaking and structurally
undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
Transformers on pallets next to
qualified storage facilities was
permitted until January 1,1983, under
the May 31, 1979, PCB rule (formerly 40
 CFR 761.42{c}(2)). This provision was
designed 1o relieve the burden on PCB
 storage facilities until EPA-approved
' incineration facilities were
commercially available.
   A number of comments pointed out
 that if EPA were going to require
 accelerated phase-out of capacitors,
 there would be additional storage
needed for phased-out equipment
 awaiting disposal. After considering
 these comments, EPA has decided to
 allow this type of storage for disposal
 for nonleaking and structurally
 undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
 Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
 Electrical Equipment after January 1,
 1983.
   The May 31,1979, PCB rule did not
 envision an accelerated phase-out for
certain PCB Transformers and large PCB
Capacitors or the use of PCB-containing
oil-filled electrical equipment other than
transformers. In order to lessen the
burden on existing storage facilities and
reduce the need to build additional
facilities, this final rule allows this type
of storage for disposal to continue
indefinitely, according to the provisions
of 40 CFR 761.65(c}(2).
  The May 1979 rule exempted PCB
Small Capacitors from the storage
requirements. In the April 22,1982,
proposed rule, this exemption
(§ 761.10(b)(6)) was printed erroneously.
This error made it appear that EPA was
proposing to exempt PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment from storage
requirements instead of PCB Small
Capacitors. EPA did not intend to
propose any change in the language of
this paragraph. The  introductory text to
§ 761.60(b)(6) in this final rule corrects
this error.

E. Reclassification of Electrical
Equipment Containing PCBs
  The May 1979 rule prohibits rebuilding
of PCB Transformers and allows the
PCB concentration in electrical
equipment to be reduced for purposes of
reclassifying the equipment. The
proposed rule retained these provisions.
Under the provisions for reclassification
the equipment must be put back into
service for three months before testing
the PCB concentration. Comments on
the proposed rule pointed out that the
proposed servicing restrictions prohibit
reclassification of PCB Transformers
which have failed electrically because
failed transformers  can not be put back
into service unless rebuilt. In response
to this comment, EPA has added a
provision to the final rule which allows
the Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides  and Toxic Substances to
approve a  method of simulating the
loading conditions associated with in-
service use. To apply .'for approval of
any method which uses conditions other
than in-service use, a letter should be
sent to the Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (TS-
794), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M .Street S.W.. Washington, D.C.
20460. Responses to any applications for
approval will be in writing. All
applications should show that
alternative conditions result in
equivalent or greater release of PCBs
from the internal components of the
equipment into the dielectric fluid as
three months of in-service use.
   This final rule also clarifies the
definition of in-serrvice use for
transformers by specifying a minimum
dielectric fluid temperature of 50° C.
This temperature has been shown
experimentally to be associated with 8
condition of light electrical loading and
to cause release of PCBs from the
internal components of the transformer
into the dielectric fluid. This
clarification also provides guidance as
to what constitutes adequate in-service
use.
VII. Executive Order 12291
  Under Executive Order 12291, issued
February 17,1981, EPA must judge
whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
therefore, subject to the requirement
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
prepared. EPA has determined that this
amendment to the PCB rule is not a
major rule as the term is defined in
section l(b) of the Executive Order.
  EPA has concluded that the
amendment is not "major" under the
criteria of section l(b) because the
annual effect of the rule  on  the economy
will be less than $100 million; it will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices
for any sector of the economy or for any
geographic region; and it will not result
in any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or innovation  or .on the
ability of United Sta/es enterprises to
compete with foreign enterprises in
domestic or foreign markets. In fact, this
rule allows uses of PCBs in electrical
equipment to continue that  would
otherwise be prohibited by section 6{e)
of TSCA. This rule avoids the severe
disruption of electric service to the
public and industry that would occur if
the use were prohibited. It also .greatly
reduces the economic impact that would
result from a requirement to replace the
equipment as soon as possible.
However, although this proposal is not a
major rule, EPA has prepared a
Regulatory Impact Analysis using the
guidance in the Executive Order to the
extent possible within the.time
constraints of the court's order.
   This final rule amendment was
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) prior to  publication
as required by the Executive Order.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
   Section 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, requires
EPA to prepare and make available for
comment a "regulatory flexibility
analysis" in connection with any
rulemaking for which there is a statutory
requirement that a general  notice of ,
proposed rulemaking be published. The
"regulatory flexibility analysis"
describes the effect of a final rule oa
small business entities.
   Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, however, provides that

-------
          Federal Register / Vol.  47,  No. 165 / Wednesday, August  25,  1982 / Rules and Regulations   37355
 section 604 of the Act "shall not apply to
 any proposed or final rule if the head of
 the Agency certifies that the rule will
 not, if promulgated, have a significant
 economic impact on a substantial
 number of small entities."
   The effect of this final rule, is to avoid
 severe disruption of electric service to
 industry and the public and to reduce
 the costs of complying with TSCA. In
 general, this rule will reduce the burden
 on small businesses that would
 otherwise be encountered if an
 immediate ban on PCB-containing
 electrical equipment were to take effect.
 If an immediate ban were imposed, large
 costs would be incurred by all producers
 and users of electricity,  including small
 businesses.       x
   Since the actual  distribution of
 electrical equipment ownership is
 unknown, EPA estimated the effect of
 the capacitor phase-out  on different
 groups of utilities, including the rural
 electric cooperatives, using number of
 customers as a predictor of number of
 capacitors owned by the utility group.
 Four groups were analyzed: private
 investor-owned utilities, local public
 utilities, rural electric cooperatives, and
 federally owned utilities. The rural
 electric cooperative group would be
 expected to include the  most small
 utilities. Using a number of measures of
 impact, none of the groups analyzed,
 including the rural electric cooperatives,
 would be significantly affected by this
 final rule. EPA estimated that the total
 costs of the capacitor phase-out for rural
 electric cooperatives would be $13.97
 million, or 0.072 percent of the net value
 of assets in electric plant in 1979. The
 maximum annual increase in capitalized
 costs as a percent of net investment
 w.ould be 0.31 percent for the rural
 electric cooperatives. The maximum
 revenue requirement increase over the
 phase-out period for the rural electric
 cooperatives would be 0.084 percent of
 1979 revenues.
   The impact of the regulation on the
 food and feed industries should also be
 very small since most of the industry
 has voluntarily moved or replaced their
 PCS Transformers and Large Capacitors.
 Further, the impact on small food and
 feed companies will be negligible since
 most small firms do not  own their own
• transformers and capacitors:
   Since the effect of this rule avoids tfie
 economic impact associated with a
 disruption of electric service and based
 on the regulatory analysis which
 indicates that there is a  net benefit from
 the rule, I certify that this rule will not
 have a significant economic impact on a
 substantial number of small entities.
 Therefore, a "regulatory flexibility
analysis" is not required and will not be
prepared for this rulemaking.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., authorizes
the Director of the OMB to review
certain information collection requests
by Federal agencies. EPA has
determined that the recordkeeping
requirements set out in 40 CFR 761.30
constitute a "collection of information,"
as defined in 44 U.S.C 3502(4), making
these requirements subject to the terms
of the  PRA.
  In 40 CFR 761.30(a) EPA grants
authorizations for the use of PCB-
containing transformers provided that
records are kept which indicate when
the equipment was inspected for leaks,
whether any leaks were found, and
what action it took if any leaks were
found. The person is required to keep
the records until three years after
disposing of the equipment, and upon
request, to make them available to EPA
for inspection. This requirement has
been reduced from the five-year period
that was in the proposal.
  These recordkeeping requirements
minimize paperwork burden and are
designed to obtain only information
necessary to assure that companies are
complying with the rule. By eliminating
the inspection requirements for
capacitors, the paperwork burden of this
final rule has been reduced to less than
Six percent of the burden  for the
.requirements in the proposed rule.
  This final rule amendment has been
forwarded to the Director of OMB for
review under the terms of the PRA.
OMB has assigned the following control
number to this final rule: 2070-0003.
IX. Official Record of Rulemaking
  In accordance with the  requirements
of section 19(a)(3)(E) of TSCA, EPA is
publishing the following list of
documents, which constitute the record
of this rulemaking. However, public
comments, the transcript of the
rulemaking hearing, or submissions
made at the rulemaking hearing or in
connection with it will not be listed
because these documents are exempt
from Federal Register listing under
section 19(a)(3). A full list of these
materials is available on request by
contacting the Industry Assistance
Office (see listing under "For Further
Information Contact").
A. Previous Rulemaking Records
  1. Official Rulemaking Record from
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions Rule"
published in the Federal Register of May 31,
1979, (44 FR 31514).
  2. Official Rulemaking Record from
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Proposed
Restrictions on Use at Agricultural Pesticide
and Fertilizer Facilities," published in the
Federal Register of May 9,1980, (45 FR
30989).

B. Federal Register Notices
  3.44 FR 31514, May 31,1979. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated ,Biphenyls {PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use Prohibitions."
  4. 45 FR 14232, March 5,1980. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Request
for Information on PCB Transformers."
  5. 46 FR 16096, March 10,1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Electrical Equipment; Court Order on
Inspection and Maintenance."
  6. 46 FR 16096, March 10,1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Use in
Electrical Equipment."
  7. 46 FR 25411, May 6,1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Proposed
Restrictions on Use at Agricultural Pesticide
and Fertilizer Facilities; Abeyance of
Proposed Rule Amendment"
  8.46 FR 27614, May 20,1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Use in
Electrical Equipment; Interim Measures
Program."
  9.47 FR 17426, April 22,1982. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Use in
Electrical Equipment."

C. Support Documents
  10. USEPA, OTS, "Regulatory Impact
Analysis—for the Proposed PCB-Containing
Electrical Equipment Rulemaking."
  ll. USEPA, OTS "Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Use Rule for PCB-Containing
Electrical Equipment."
  12. USEPA, OTS "Response to Comments
on Health Effects of PCBs submitted by the
Chemical Manufacturers Association and the
Edison Electric Institute."
  13. USEPA, OTS "Support Document for
the Electrical Equipment Use Rule—Response
to Comments."

D. Report*
  14. Chemical Manufacturers Association,
"Summary of the Health Effects of PCBs."
Prepared by Ecology and the Environment,
Inc.
  15. Edison Electric Institute and Utilities
Solid Waste Activities Group, "Comments
and Studies on the Use of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) in Response to an Order of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit."
Vol I.—Executive Summary and Integrated
  Comments (02/12/82)
Vol. II.—Potential Health Effects in the
  Human from Exposure to Polychlorinated
  Biphenyls and Related Impurities (2/12/82)
  Prepared under contract to Drill, Friess,
  Hays, Loomis & Shaffer, Inc.
Vol. III.—Report of the Study on PCBs in
  Equipment Owned by the Electric Utility
  Industry (02/12/82). Prepared under
  contract to Resource Planning Corp.

-------
37356    Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 165  / Wednesday.  August 25. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
VoL IV.—Environmental Pathways of
  Polychlorintrted ffiphenyh (02/12/82).
  Prepared by Donald MacKay, Dept. of
  Chemical Eng. and Applied Chemistry, Inst.
  of Environmental Studies, Univ. of Towmto.
  CA.
  16. Edison Electric Institute, "Initial Cost
Impact to Utility Companies of the Regulation
of PCBs in Food-Related Industries."
(December 1980) Prepared by Resource
Planning Corp.
  17. Edison Electric Institute and Utilities
Solid Waste Activities Group, "Preliminary
Findings of the Study of PCBs in Equipment
Owned by the Electric Utilities Industry,
Task I and II" (10/29/81). Prepared by
Resource Planning Corp.
  IB. Electric Power Research Institute,
"Equilibrium Study of PCBs Between
Transformer Oil and Transformer Solid
Materials" (December 3,1981). Prepared by
RTE Corp.
  19. ENSCO, "Emission Testing During
Incineration of PCBa at Energy Systems Co."
(December 1981). Prepared by TRW, Inc..
Env. Div.
  20. National Electric Manufacturers
Association, "Potential Health Effects in the
Human from Exposure to Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) and Related Impurities"
(01/25/82). Prepared by Drill.,Friess, Hays.
Loomis ft Shaffer, Inc.
  21. Northeast Utilities Service Co.,
"Capacitor Protective Schemes Investigated
by Northeast Utilities." Presented to EPRI
PCB Seminar, Dallas, TX (December 1-3,
1981).
  22. Rollins Env. Services, "The PCB
Incineration Test Made by Rollins
Environmental Services (TX), Inc. at Deer
Park, TX."iNovember 10-12,1981).
  23. USEPA, OTS, "Summary Data on
Substitutes for Polycholorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)" (February,'1981). Prepared by SRI
International.
  24. USEPA, OTS, "Assessment of the Use
of Selected Replacement Fluids for PCBs in
Electrical Equipment" (March 1979). Prepared
by Verear, Inc.
  25. USEPA, Reg. 6. AHMD, Solid Waste
Division, "Incineration of PCBs Summary of
Approval Actions—Energy Systems Co.
(ENSCO), El Dorado Park, TX" (02/06/81).
  26. USEPA, WH, Marine Protection,
"Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (InHneration at Sea) Permit."

•X. Statutory Authority
   Under section 6(e) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2605), the Administrator may by rule
authorize the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce or use (or any
combination of such activities) of any
PCBs in other than a totally enclosed
manner if the Administrator finds that it
will not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment The
Administrator also has authority to
amend or modify the PCB
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce, and Use Prohibition Rule
(40 CFR Part 761), published in the
Federal Register of May 31,1979, (44 PR
31514).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
  Hazardous materials, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls. Reporting
end recordkeeping requirements,
Environmental protection.
  Dated: August 18, 1982.
John W. Hernandez,
Acting Administrator.
  Therefore, 40 CFR Part 761 is
amended as follows:

PART 761— POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN
COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS

  1. In § 761.3. paragraphs (d)(l), (2), and
(3), (h), (t), and (z) are revised and
paragraph (11) is added to read as
follows:

§761.3  Definitions.
*****
  (d) * *  *
  (1) "Small Capacitor" means a
capacitor which contains less than 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) of dielectric fluid. The
following assumptions may be used if
the actual weight of the dielectric fluid
is unknown. A capacitor whose total
volume is less than 1,639 cubic
centimeters (100 cubic inches) may be
considered to contain less than 1.36 kg
(3 Ibs.) of dielectric fluid and a capacitor
whose total volume is more than 3,278
cubic centimeters (200 cubic inches]
must be considered to contain more than
1.36 kg (3 Ibs.) of dielectric fluid. A
capacitor whose volume is between
1,639 and 3,278 cubic centimeters may
be considered to contain less than 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) of dielectric fluid if the total
weight of the capacitor is less than 4.08
kg (9 Ibs.).
  (2) "Large High Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) or mere of dielectric fluid and
which operates at 2000 volts (a.c. or d.c.)
or above.
  (3) "Large Low Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 Ibs.) or more of dielectric fluid and
which operates below 2000 volts (a.c. or
   (h) "Disposal" means intentionally or
 accidentally to discard, throw away, or
 otherwise complete or terminate the
 useful life of PCBs and PCB Items.
 Disposal includes spills, leaks, and other
 uncontrolled discharges of PCBs as well
 as actions related to containing,
 transporting, destroying, degrading,
 decontaminating, or confining PCBs and
 PCB Items.
 «    *    *     *     *
   (t) "PCB Article" means any
 manufactured article, other than a HCB
Container, that contains PCBs and
whose surface(s) has been in direct
contact with PCBs. "PCB Article"
includes capacitors, transformers,
electric motors, pumps, pipes and any
other manufactured item (1) which is
formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture, (2) which has end
use function(s) dependent in whole or in
part upon its shape or design during end
use, and (3) which has either no change
of chemical composition during its end
use or only those changes of
composition which have no commerical
purpose separate from that of the PCB
Article.
*****

  (z) "PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment" means any electrical
equipment, including but not limited to
transformers (including those used in
railway locomotives and self-propelled
cars), capacitors, circuit breakers,
reclosers, voltage regulators, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), electromagnets, and cable, that
contain 50 ppm or greater PCB, but less
than 500 ppm PCB. Oil-filled electrical
equipment other than circuit breakers,
reclosers, and cable whose PCB
concentration is unknown must be
assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment. (See § 761.30(a)
and (h) for provisions permitting
reclassification of electrical equipment
containing 500 ppm or greater PCBs to
PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment).  •
*****

   (11) "Posing an Exposure Risk to Food
or Feed" means being in any location
where human food or animal feed
products could be exposed to PCBs
released from a PCB Item. A PCB Item
poses  an exposure risk to food or feed if
PCBs released in any way from the PCB
Item have a potential pathway to human
food or animal feed. EPA considers
human food and animal feed to include
items regulated by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture or the Food and Drug
Administration as human food or animal
feed; this includes additives. Food or
feed is excluded from this definition if it
is used or stored in private homes.
*****

   2. The introductory text of § 761.20 is
revised to read as follows:

§761.20  Prohibitions.
   Except as authorized  in §  761.30 the
activities listed in paragraphs (a) and (d)
of this section are prohibited pursuant to
section 6(e)(2) of TSCA. The
requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section concerning export
and import of PCBs for purposes of

-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 47, No.  165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations   37357
disposal and PCS Items for purposes of
disposal are established pursuant to
section 6(e)(l) of TSCA. Subject to any
exemptions granted pursuant to section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, the activities listed
in paragraphs  (b) and (c) of this section
are prohibited pursuant to section
8(e)(3)(A} of TSCA. In addition, the
Administrator hereby finds, under the
authority of section 12{a)(2) of TSCA,
that the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items for  export from the United
States presents an unreasonable risk of..
injury to health within the United States.
This finding is based upon the well-
documented human health and
environmental hazard of PCB exposure;
the high probability of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs and
PCB Items from manufacturing,
processing, or  distribution activities; the
potential hazard of PCB exposure posed
by the transportation of PCBs or PCB
Items within the United States; and the
evidence that contamination of the
environment by PCBs is spread far
beyond the areas where they are used.
In addition, the Administrator hereby
finds that any  exposure of human beings
or the environment to PCBs as measured
or detected by any scientifically
acceptable analytical method is a
significant exposure, as defined in
§ 761.3(dd). Section 761.3(hh) and TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(C) define the term totally
enclosed manner as "any manner which
will ensure that any exposure of human
beings or the environment to a
polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insignificant *  -* *." Since  any exposure
to PCBs is found to be a significant
exposure, a totally enclosed manner is a
manner that results in no exposure of
humans or the environment to PCBs. The
following activities are considered
totally enclosed: distribution in
commerce of intact, nonleaking
electrical equipment such as
transformers (including transformers
used in railway locomotives and self-
propelled cars), capacitors,
electromagnets, voltage regulators,
switches (including sectionalizers and
motor starters), circuit breakers,
reclosers, and  cable that contain PCBs
at any concentration  and processing and
distribution in  commerce of PCB
Equipment containing an intact,
nonleaking PCB Capacitor. See
paragraph (c) (1) of this section for
provisions allowing the distribution in
commerce of PCBs and PCB Items.
*****
  3. Section 761.30 is  amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (h) and
adding paragraphs (1) and (m) to read  as
follows:
§761.30  Authorization*.
*****

  (a) Use in and servicing of
transformers (other than railroad
transformers}, PCBs at any
concentration may be used in
transformers (other than transformers
for railroad locomotives and self-
propelled railroad cars) and may be
used for purposes of servicing including
rebuilding these transformers for the
remainder of their useful lives, subject
to the following conditions:
  (1) Use conditions, (i) After October 1,
1985, the use and storage for reuse of
PCB Transforniers that pose an
exposure risk to food or feed is
prohibited.
  (ii) A visual inspection of each PCB
Transformer (as defined in § 761.3(y)) in
use or stored for reuse shall be
performed at least once every three
months. These inspections may take
place any time during the three month
periods; January-March, April-June,
July-September, and October-December
as long  as there is a minimum of 30 days
between inspections. The visual
inspection must include investigation for
any leak of dielectric fluid on or around
the transformer. The extent of the visual
inspections will depend on the physical
constraints of each transformer
installation and should not require an
electrical shutdown of the transformer
being inspected.
 . (iii) If a PCB Transformer is found to
have a leak which results in any
quantity of PCBs running off or about to
run off the external surface of the
transformer, then the transformer must
be repaired or replaced to eliminate the
source of the leak. In all cases any
leaking  material must be cleaned up and
properly disposed of according to
disposal requirements of § 761.60.
Cleanup of the released PCBs must be
initiated as soon as possible, but in no
case later than 48 hours of its discovery.
Until appropriate action is completed,
any active leak of PCBs must be
contained to prevent exposure of
humans or the environment and
inspected daily to verify containment of
the leak. Trenches, dikes, buckets, and
pans are examples of proper
containment measures.
  (iv) Records of inspection and
maintenance history shall be maintained
at least  3 years after disposing of the
transformer and shall be made available
for  inspection, upon request, by EPA
(OMB Control Number: 2070-0003). Such
records  shall contain the following
information for each PCB Transformer:
  (A) Its location.
   (B) The date of each visual inspection
 and the date that a leak was discovered,
 if different from the inspection date.
   (C) The person performing the
 inspection.
   (D) The location of any leak(s).
   (E) An estimate of the amount of
 dielectric fluid released frorh any leak,
   (F) The date of any cleanup,
 containment, repair, or replacement.
   (C) A description of any cleanup,
 containment, or repair performed.
   (H) The results of any containment
 and daily inspection required for
 uncorrected active leaks.
   (v) A reduced visual inspection
 frequency of at least once every 12
 months applies to PCB Transformers
 that utilize either of the following risk
 reduction measures. These inspections
 may take place any time during the
 calendar year as long as there is a
 minimum of 180 days between
 inspections.
   (A) a PCB Transformer which has
 impervious, undrained, secondary
 containment capacity of at least 100
 percent of the total dielectric fluid
 volume of all transformers so contained,
 or
   (B) A PCB Transformer which has
 been tested and found to contain less
 than 60,000 ppm PCBs (after three
 months of inservice use if the
 transformer has been serviced for
 purposes of reducing the PCB
 concentration).
   (vi) An increased visual inspection
 frequency of at least once every week
 applies to any PCB Transformer in use
 or stored for reuse which poses an
 exposure risk to food or feed. The user
 of a PCB Transformer posing an
 exposure risk to food or feed is
 responsible for the inspection,
 recordkeeping, and maintenance
 requirements under this section until the
 user notifies the owner that the
 transformer may pose an exposure risk
 to food or feed. Following such
 notification, it is the owner's  ultimate
 responsibility to determine whether the
PCB Transformer poses an exposure risk
 to food or feed.
   (2) Servicing conditions, (i)
Transformers classified as PCB-
 Contaminated Electrical Equipment (as
defined in § 761.3(z)J may be  serviced
(including rebuilding) only with
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB.
  (ii) Any servicing (including
rebuilding) of PCB Transformers (as
defined in § 761.3(y)) that requires the
removal of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. PCB
Transformers may be serviced

-------
37358    Federal Register / Vol. 47. No.  165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules  and Regulations
(including topping off) with dielectric
fluid at any PCB concentration.
  (iii) PCBs removed during any
servicing activity must be captured and
either reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of § 761.60. PCBs from PCB
Transformers must not be mixed with or
added to dielectric fluid from PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment.
  (iv) Regardless of its PCB
concentration, dielectric fluids
containing lesa than 500 ppm PCB that
are mixed with fluids that contain 500
ppm or greater PCB must not be used as
dielectric fluid in any electrical
equipment. The entire mixture of
dielectric fluid must be considered to be
greater than 500 ppm PCB and must be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements in § 761.70.
  (v) A PCB Transformer may be
converted to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment or  to a non-PCB
Transformer and a transformer that is
classified as PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment may be reclassified
to a non-PCB Transformer by draining,
refilling and/or otherwise servicing the
transformer. In order to  reclassify, the
transformer's dielectric fluid must
contain less than 500 ppm PCB (for
conversion to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment) or less than 50
ppm PCB (for conversion to a non-PCB
Transfomer) after a minimum of three
months of in-service use subsequent to
the last servicing conducted for the
purpose of reducing the  PCB
concentration in the transformer. In-
service means that the transformer is
used electrically under loaded
conditions that raise the temperature of
the dielectric fluid to at  least 50°
Centigrade. The Assistant Administrator
may grant, without further rulemaking,
approval for the use of alternative
methods that simulate the loaded
conditions of in-service  use. All PCBs
removed from transformers for purposes
of reducing PCB concentrations are
subject to the disposal requirements of
§ 761.60.
  (vi) Any dielectric fluid containing 50
ppm or greater PCB used for servicing
transformers must be stored in
accordance with the storage for disposal
requirements of § 761.65.
  (vii) Processing and distribution in
commerce  of PCBs for purposes of
servicing transformers is permitted only
for persons who are granted an
exemption under TSCA  6(e)(3)(B).
*    *     *     *    *
  (h) Use in and servicing of
electromagnets, switches and voltage
regulators. PCBs at any  concentration
may be used in electromagnets, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), and voltage regulators and
may be used for purposes of servicing
this equipment (including rebuilding) for
the remainder of their useful lives,
subject to the following conditions:
  (1) Use conditions, (i) After October 1,
1985, the use and storage for reuse of
any electromagnet which poses an
exposure risk to food or feed is
prohibited if the electromagnet contains
greater tha 500"ppm PCBs.
  (ii) A visual inspection of each
electromagnet subject to paragraph
(h)(l)(i) shall be performed at least once
every week according to the conditions
contained in § 761.30(a)(l)(iii) and (iv).
  (2) Servicing conditions, (i) Servicing
(including rebuilding) any "
electromagnet, switch, or voltage
regulator with a PCB concentration of
500 ppm or greater which requires the
removal and rework of the internal
components is prohibited.
  (ii) Electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators classified as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment (as
defined in § 761.3(z)) may be serviced
(including rebuilding) only with
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB.
  (iii) PCBs removed during any
servicing activity must be captured and
either reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of § 761.60. PCBs from
electromagnets  switches, &nd voltage
regulators with  a PCB concentration of
at least 500 ppm must not be mixed with
or added to dielectric fluid from PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment.
  (iv) Regardless of its PCB
(concentration,  dielectric fluids
containing less  than 500 ppm PCB) that
are mixed with  fluids that contain 500
ppm or greater PCB must not be used as
dielectric fluid in any electrical
equipment. The entire mixture of
dielectric fluid must be considered to be
greater than 500 ppm PCB and must be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements of § 761.70.
  (v) An electromagnet, switch or
voltage regulator with a PCB
concentration of at least 500 ppm may
be converted to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment or to a non-PCB
classification and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment may be reclassified
to a non-PCB classification by draining,
refilling and/or otherwise servicing the
equipment. In order to be reclassified,
the equipment's dielectric fluid must
contain less than 500 ppm PCB (for
conversion to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment) or less than 50
ppm PCB (for conversion to a non-PCB
classification) after a minimum of three
months of in-service use subsequent to
the last servicing conducted for the
purpose of reducing the PCB
concentration in the equipment. In-
service use means the equipment is used
electrically under loaded conditions.
The Assistant Administrator may grant,
without further rulemaking, approval for
the use of alternative methods that
simulate the loaded conditions of in-
service use. All PCBs removed from this
equipment for purposes of reducing PCB
concentrations are subject to the
disposal requirements of § 761.60.
  (vi) Any dielectric fluid containing 50
ppm or greater PCB used for servicing
electromagnets, switches, or voltage
regulators must be stored in accordance
with the storage for disposal
requirements of § 761.65.
  (vii) Processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for purposes of
servicing electromagnets, switches or
voltage regulators is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
*****
  (1) Use in capacitors. PCBs at any
concentration may be used in
capacitors, subject to the following
conditions:
  (1) Use conditions, p) After October 1,
1988, the use and storage for reuse of
PCB Large High Voltage Capacitors and
PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors
which pose an exposure risk  to food or
feed is prohibited.
  (ii) After October 1,1988, the use of
PCB Large High Voltage Capacitors and
PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors is
prohibited unless the capacitor is used
within a restricted-access electrical
substation or in a contained and
restricted-access indoor installation. A
restricted-access electrical substation is
an outdoor, fenced or walled-in facility
that  restricts public access and is used
in the transmission or distribution of
electric power. A contained and
restricted-access indoor installation
does not have public access and has an
adequate roof, walls, and floor to
contain any release of PCBs within the
indoor location.
  (2) [Reserved]
  (m) Use in and servicing of circuit
breakers, reclosers and cable. PCBs at
any concentration may be used in circuit
breakers, reclosers, and cable and may
be used for purposes of servicing this
electrical equipment (including
rebuilding) for the remainder of their
useful lives, subject to the following
conditions:
  (1) Servicing conditions, (i) Circuit
breakers, reclosers, and cable may be
serviced (including rebuilding) only with
dielectric fluid containing less than 50
ppm PCB.

-------
          Federal  Register / Vol.  47, No. 165  /  Wednesday, August  25, 1982 / Rules and  Regulations    37359
  (ii) Any circuit breaker, recloser or
cable found to contain at least SO ppm
PCBs may be serviced only in
accordance with the conditions
contained in 40 CFR 761.30(h){2).
  (2) [Reserved]
  4. In § 761.40. paragraphs (a)(2) and
(c)(l) are revised to read as follows:

§ 761.40  Marking requirements.
  (a)  *  *  *
  (2) PCS Transformers at the time of
manufacture, at  the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked, and
at the time of removal from use if not
already marked. [Marking of PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment is
not required];
*     *    *     #     *
  (c)  *  .   .
  (1) All PCS Transformers not marked
under paragraph (a) of this section
[marking of PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment is not required];
*****
  5. The heading for Subpart D is
revised to read as follows:

Subpart 0—Storage and Disposal

  6. In § 761.60 paragraph (b)(lp) is
removed and reserved and the
introductory text of paragraph (a)(2),
paragraph (b)(2)(i), the introductory text
of paragraph (b)(2Hiii). paragraph (b)(4)
and (5), paragraph (d), and paragraph
(g)(l) are revised and  paragraph (b)(6) is
added to read as follows:

f 761.60  Disposal requirements.
  (a) * * *
  (2] Mineral oil dielectric fluid from
PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment
containing a PCB concentration of 50
ppm or greater, but less  than 500 ppm,
must be disposed of in one of the
following;
*****
  (b) * * *
  (2) PCB Capacitors, (i) The disposal of
any capacitor shall comply with all
requirements of this subpart unless it is
known from label or nameplate
information, manufacturer's literature
(including documented communications
with the manufacturer),  or chemical
analysis that the capacitor does not
contain PCBs.
*****
  (Hi) Any PCB Large  High or Low
Voltage Capacitor which contains 500
ppm or greater PCBs, owned by any
person, shall be disposed of in
accordance  with either of the following:
*****
  (4) PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment. All PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment except capacitors
shall be disposed of by draining all free
flowing liquid from the electrical
equipment and disposing of the liquid in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) or (3)
of this section. The disposal of the
drained electrical equipment is not
regulated by this rule. Capacitors thatt
contain between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs
shall be disposed of in an incinerator
that complies with § 761.70 or in a
chemical waste landfill that complies
with § 761.75.
  (5) Other PCB Articles, (i) PCB
Articles with a PCB concentration of 500
ppm or greater must be disposed oft
  (A) In an incinerator that complies
with | 761.70; or
  (B) In a chemical waste landfill that
complies with § 761.75, provided that all
free-flowing liquid PCBs have been
thoroughly drained from any articles
before the articles are placed in the
chemical waste landfill and that the
drained liquids are disposed of in an
incinerator that complies with  § 761.70.
  (ii) PCB Articles with a PCB
concentration between 50 and 500 ppm
must be disposed of by draining all free
flowing liquid from the article and
disposing of the liquid in accordance
with paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this
section. The disposal of the drained
article is not regulated by this rule.
  (6) Storage of PCB Articles. Except for
a PCB Article described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section and hydraulic
machines that comply with the
municipal solid waste disposal
provisions described in paragraph (b)(3)
of this  section, any PCB Article shall be
stored in accordance with § 761.65 prior
to disposal.
*****
  (d) Spills. (1) Spills, leaks, and other
uncontrolled'discharges of PCBs
constitute the disposal of PCBs.
  (2) PCBs resulting from the clean-up
and removal of spills, leaks, or other
uncontrolled discharges, must be stored
and disposed of in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
  (3) These regulations do not exempt
any person from any actions or liability
under other statutory authorities,
including but not limited to the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980.
*****
  (g) Testing-procedures. (1) Owners or
users of mineral oil dielectric fluid
electrical equipment may use the
following procedures to determine the
concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
fluid:
  (i) Dielectric fluid removed from
mineral oil dielectric fluid electrical
equipment may be collected in a
 common container, provided that no ,
 other chemical substances or mixtures
 are added to the container. This
 common container option does not
 permit dilution of the collected oil.
 Mineral oil that is assumed or known to
 contain at least 50 ppm PCBs must not
 be mixed with mineral oil that is known
 or assumed to contain less than 50 ppm
 PCBs to reduce the concentration of
 PCBs in the common container. If
 dielectric fluid from untestedr oil-filled
 circuit breakers, -reclosers, or cable is
 collected in a common container with
 dielectric fluid from other oil-filled
 electrical equipment, the entire contents
 of the  container must be treated as PCBs
 at a concentration of at least 50 ppm,
 unless all of the fluid from the other oil-
 filled electrical equipment has been
 tested and shown to contain less than 50
 ppm PCBs.
   (ii) For purposes of complying with the
 marking and disposal requirements,
 representative samples may be taken
 from either the common containers or
 the individual electrical equipment to
 determine the PCB concentration, except
 that if any PCBs at a concentration of
 500 ppm or greater have been added to
 the container or equipment then the
 total container contents must be
 considered as having a PCB
 concentration of 500 ppm or greater for
 purposes of complying with the disposal
 requirements of this subpart. For
 purposes of this subparagraph,
 representative samples of mineral oil
 dielectric fluid are either samples taken
 in accordance with American Society of
 Testing and Materials method D-923 or
 samples taken from a container that has
 been thoroughly mixed in a manner such
 that any PCBs in the container are
 uniformly distributed throughout the
 liquid in the container.
 *****
   7. In § 761.65, paragraph (c)(2) is
 revised to read as follows:

 §761.65  Storage for disposal.
 *****

   (c)*  *  *
   (2) Non-leaking and structurally
 undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
 Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
 Electrical Equipment that have not been
 drained of free flowing dielectric fluid
 may be stored on pallets next to a
 storage facility that meets the
 requirements of paragraph (b) of this
 section. PCB-Contaminated Electrical
 Equipment that has been drained of free
 flowing dielectric fluid is not subject to
 the storage provisi9ns of § 761.65.
 Storage under this subparagraph will be
 permitted only when the storage facility

-------
37360    Federal  Register J Vol.  47. No. 165  ,/ Wednesday,  August 25, 1982 /  Rules and Regulations
has immediately available unfilled
storage space equal 1o 10 percent of the
volume of capacitors and equipment
stored outside the facility. The
capacitors and equipment temporarily
stored outside the facility shall be
checked for -leaks we«kly.
§761.45  Correctly designated as
§761.180.
  8. Section 761.45 which was
incorrectly redesignated as § 761.80 in
the Federal Register of May fi, 1982 ,(47
FR 19527) is correctly ^designated as
§ 761.180 in Subpart J.
iFB Uoi 82-23284 Piled 8-^4-82 8.45 ^m|
BILLING CODE 6560-50-1*

-------
Thursday
October 21 1982
                     APPENDIX D
Part III



Environmental

Protection  Agency

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Closed and Controlled Waste
Manufacturing Processes

-------
46980      Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21,1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[OPTS-62017B; TSH-FRL 2217-6]

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution In Commerce, and Use
Prohibitions; Use in Closed and
Controlled Waste Manufacturing
Processes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends
portions of an existing EPA rule
concerning certain chemical substances
known as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs}. The Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), generally
prohibits the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs. This rule excludes PCBs produced
in certain limited manufacturing
processes from the TSCA prohibitons.
Appropriate safeguards are included to
ensure compliance with the conditions
for exclusion provided by the rule.
DATES: These amendments shall be
considered promulgated for purpose of
judicial review under section 19 of"
TSCA at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
on October 27,1982. These amendments
shall be effective on November 22,  1982,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas G. Bannerman, Acting Director,
Industry Assistance Office (TS-799),
Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
E-509, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, Toll Free: (800-424-9065), In
Washington, D.C.: (554-1404), Outside
the USA: (Operator-202-554-1404).
Copies of this rule and its support
documents can be obtained from the
Industry Assistance Office listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB
Control Number: 2070-0008.

I. Recodification of 40 CFR Part 761

   Notice of the recodification of 40 CFR
Part 761 appears in the Federal Register
of May 6,1982  (47 FR 19527). This final
rule contains the new designations:
New designation
Subpart B .. 	
§ 761 185 •• • •
8 7R1 3 	
§ 761 65 	
§ 761 70 	
ft 761 75 	

Former
designation
Subpart D
§ 761 45
5761.2
5 761 42.
{76140
5761.41.

II. Background
  Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) prohibits the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). However, the statute
enables EPA to promulgate rules to
reduce the impact of the ban. EPA
promulgated a rule, published in the
Federal Register of May 31,1979 (44 FR
31514), to implement section 6(e) of
TSCA. This rule is listed in the Code of
Federal Regulations under 40 CFR Part
761. This rule, among other things,
generally excluded from the ban
materials containing PCBs in
concentrations under 50 parts per
million (ppm).
  The Environmental Defense Fund
(EOF) obtained judicial review of the
rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. EOF
challenged the provision described
above, among others. On October 30,
1980, the court invalidated the
regulatory exclusion for PCB
concentrations below 50 ppm
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA,
636 F.2d 1267. The court remanded the
rule to EPA for further action consistent
with the opinion. The court's decision
placed industries that had relied upon
the PCB Ban Rule in a difficult position.
Issuance of the court's mandate would
have activated section 6(e)'s broad
prohibitions on the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs, resulting in the
disruption of many activities in
industries throughout the  United States.
  Accordingly, the parties to the lawsuit
filed a joint motion on February 20,1981,
to seek a stay of the court's mandate.
The joint motion proposed that during
the period encompassed by the stay: (1)
EPA would conduct new rulemaking
with respect to PCBs, and (2) industry
groups would initiate studies to provide
information for the new rulemaking.
  During discussions which led up to
this joint motion, representatives of
some affected industries stated that
some of the processes which produce
PCBs are designed and operated so that
no releases of PCBs occur or that the
PCBs formed in the processes are
released only in wastes that are
disposed of appropriately.
Consequently, virtually no risk to
humans or the environment is
associated with such processes because
the likelihood of exposure is so low.
Therefore, the joint motion proposed
that EPA would publish an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
requesting comments on the possible
exclusion of these PCBs from the
provisions of section 6(e) of TSCA.
  In addition to dealing with closed and
controlled waste processes, the
February 20 joint motion also proposed
to publish an ANPR requesting
information on all other manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs in low concentrations.
PCBs generated in and released from
other than closed or controlled waste
processes are referred to as
"uncontrolled PCBs."
  On April 13,1981, the court entered an
order in EDF\. EPA, in response to the
February 20 joint motion. The text of the
court's order is set forth in the Federal
Register of May 20,1981 (46 FR 27615).
The April 13 order stayed  issuance of
the court's mandate with respect to
activities relating to PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm. Thus, the
50 ppm regulatory cutoff remains in
effect for the duration of the stay, and
persons who manufacture, process,
distribute in commerce, and use PCBs  in
concentrations less than 50 ppm may
continue these activities during the stay.
The order also adopted a plan for
further actions by EPA and industry
groups leading toward new EPA
rulemaking on the regulation of PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm. The  April
13 order required EPA: (1) to publish two
ANPRs on developing rules to cover
PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm;
(2) to promulgate a final rule, within 18
months from the date of the  order (i.e.,
October 13,1982), with respect to
exclusion of the generation of PCBs in
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes from the
prohibitions of section 6(e)(3), or to
explain the reasons for not proceeding
with such a rule; and (3) to advise the
court, within 11 months after the date ot
the order (i.e., March 13,1982), of EPA's
plan and schedule for further action on
PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm
generated as uncontrolled PCBs.
   In the Federal Register of May 20,1981
(46 FR 27617 and 46 FR 27619), EPA
issued two ANPRs on the 50 ppm
regulatory cutoff. The ANPRs
established bifurcated rulemaking
proceedings with respect to  PCBs in
concentrations below  50 ppm. The first
ANPR announced rulemaking on PCBs
generated in closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes. The
second ANPR announced the framework
for the Agency's exploration of the
scope  of the problem presented by PCBs
in concentrations below 50 ppm in other
than closed or controlled waste
processes.
   On March 11,1982, EPA submitted, in
accordance with the April 13,1981 court
order, a report to  the court that
contained its plans for further regulatory

-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations    46981
action on uncontrolled PCBs. EPA
requested that the court allow EPA to
report on its further plans for regulatory
action on uncontrolled PCBs following
the completion of the rulemaking on
closed and controlled waste processes
{but no later than November 1,1982).
EPA also requested that the court
extend its stay of mandate until
December 1,1982, to allow EPA time to
present its plans for regulatory action on
uncontrolled PCBs to the court and for
the court to respond. On April 9,1982,
the court granted EPA's requests.
  In its report  to the court on
uncontrolled PCBs, due November 1,
1982, EPA intends to describe its plans
for regulatory action on uncontrolled
PCBs  and at the same time, request a
further extension of the court's stay of
mandate, until the completion of
rulemaking on uncontrolled PCBs.
  After considering all  comments
submitted to the Agency in response to
the first ANPR, EPA issued a proposed
rule in the Federal Register of June 8,
1982 (47 FR 24976), which would exclude
PCBs  produced in closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes from the
TSCA ban on the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs. EPA received 48
comments on the proposed rule and, on
July 26, 1982, held a public hearing in
Washington, D.C. At the hearing, three
participants provided testimony on
various aspects of the proposed rule.
  EPA has considered all the comments
received on the proposed rule and has
modified the proposed rule where
appropriate. Further, EPA has prepared
a support document for this rulemaking
which addresses all major comments
made on the proposed rule and includes
EPA's responses to suggestions which
were not incorporated in the final rule.
This document, entitled "Response to
Comments on the Closed and Controlled
Waste Rule," is available by contacting
the Industry Assistance Office (see FOR
FURTHER  INFORMATION CONTACT).
  In order to avoid a  "race to the
courthouse" by persons seeking judicial
review of this rule, EPA has decided to
designate the time and date of
"promulgation" of this rule as 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on October 27,
1982. The Agency has previously taken
this approach for rules promulgated
under the Clean Water  Act (see 40 CFR
100.01, 45 FR 26048). The Agency will be
considering a general rule for TSCA
similar to 40 CFR 100.01,

III. Summary of the Final Rule
  The objective of this final rule is to
exclude certain process situations from
the prohibitions and requirements of
section 6(e) of  TSCA. This exclusion is
voluntary; manufacturers are not
required by this rule to take advantage
of the exclusion.
  This final rule modifies and clarifies
some of the requirements presented in
the proposed rule because of
information obtained during the public
comment period and at the public
hearing on the proposed rule. Briefly, in
the proposed rule: (1) EPA defined the
absence of PCBs in releases from closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes by referencing an analytical
technique, (2) EPA defined controlled
wastes as wastes disposed of in
facilities approved by EPA for the
disposal of PCB wastes under 40 CFR
761.60, and (3) EPA required
recordkeeping by persons taking
advantage of the exclusion.
  In the final rule: (1) EPA is setting
numerical cutoffs for purposes of
defining the absence of PCBs in releases
from closed and controlled waste
processes, (2) EPA is adding additional
disposal mechanisms to  the list of
acceptable mechanisms for the disposal
of controlled wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations between  the limit of
quantitation and 50 ppm, and (3) EPA is
instituting a new recordkeeping
requirement and a reporting requirement
in addition to the recordkeeping
requirements listed in the proposed rule.
  In this final rule, EPA is excluding
from the requirements of section 6(e) the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs created in
closed manufacturing processes and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes. A closed manufacturing
process is defined as a manufacturing
process that produces PCBs, but
releases PCBs only in concentrations
below the practical limits of quantitation
for PCBs in air emissions, water
effluents, products, and process wastes.
  Similarly, a controlled waste
manufacturing process is a
manufacturing process that produces
PCBs, but releases PCBs only in
concentrations below the practical
limits of quantitation for PCBs in air
emissions, water effluents, and
products, and all remaining PCBs are
disposed of in accordance with methods
for disposal specified in  this rule.
Controlled wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations between  the practical
limit of quantitation and 50 ppm, must
be disposed of in a qualified incinerator
(see discussion under IV.A.5.), or in an
EPA-approved PCB landfill, or be stored
for incineration  or landfilling in
accordance with § 761.65(b)(l).
(Controlled wastes, containing PCBs in
concentrations above 50 ppm, must be
handled like all  PCB waste above 50
ppm, in accordance with the existing
PCB disposal and marking rule (43 FR
7150)).
  For purposes of this rule, the practical
limit of quantitation for PCBs in any
release to air is ten micrograms per
cubic meter (roughly 0.01 part per
million (ppm)) per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak; in any release to
water, the limit is 100 micrograms per
liter (roughly 0.1 ppm) per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak; and in any
product or waste, the limit is two
micrograms per gram (2 ppm) per
resolvable gas chromatographic paak.
(See discussion of the  practical limit of
quantitation of PCBs under IV.A.3.C. for
more details.) These PCB concentrations
represent the lowest concentrations of
PCBs which EPA believes can be
practically quantified in air, water,
products, and process waste streams.
EPA believes that for all practical
purposes, it would be impossible to
determine whether regulation of PCBs
below these levels had any effect on
actually reducing releases of PCBs.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that
there would be no measurable gain in
protecting the environment or public
health by attempting to regulate PCB at
levels that are not practically
measurable.
  In specifying the methods for the
disposal of controlled wastes containing
less than 50 ppm PCBs, EPA is confident
that these wastes will be disposed of in
a manner that will result in little or no
environmental contamination. At the
same time, EPA believes that this rule
will not place unreasonable burdens on
existing disposal facilities or create
excessive disposal costs for
manufacturers disposing of wastes
containing PCBs in concentrations
between the practical limit of
quantitation and 50 ppm.
  In addition to meeting the criteria for
eligibility described above,
manufacturers who want to take
advantage of the exclusion must fulfill
certain recordkeeping  and reporting
requirements. These include: (1)
certifying that their processes qualify,
(2) notifying EPA that they have made
this certification and how they  have
made the determination, and (3)
maintaining a record of the
determination that their processes
qualify for exclusion. Manufacturers art
provided the option of conducting
theoretical assessments to support
certification or of conducting actual
monitoring of PCB levels in releases.
Recertification and renotification of EPA
are required upon significant process
changes.
  In providing for theoretical
assessments in lieu of actual monitoring

-------
46982
Federal  Register / Vol. 47, No.  204 / Thursday, October  21, 1982 / Rules  and  Regulations
of PCB levels, EPA has concluded that
such determinations may be possible in
certain process situations; therefore, it
would be unreasonable to require actual
monitoring of PCB levels in all
situations. Manufacturers have the
burden of making the decision about
when a theoretical assessment in lieu of
actual monitoring of PCB levels is
appropriate. Because of  the difficulty of
estimating actual PCB levels, EPA
recommends that a theoretical
assessment be used to qualify for the
exclusion only when the results of the
theoretical assessment indicate that PCB
concentrations  in releases will be
substantially below the practical limits
of quantitation.
  EPA is issuing some general
guidelines for conducting a theoretical
assessment to aid manufacturers in
completing this assessment.
Nonetheless, EPA expects that each
individual manufacturer will exercise
judgment in choosing the methodology
to be used in conducting a theoretical
assessment, and in deciding when to
undertake chemical analysis of process
streams to  determine if a process
qualifies for exclusion.
   EPA will not be performing theoretical
assessments in enforcement inspections
to determine whether a process qualifies
for exclusion, but rather, will be
conducting chemical analysis of process
streams. In monitoring compliance with
this rule, if EPA identifies a process that
is supported by a complete theoretical
assessment but is determined to be  -
operating in violation of TSCA section
6(e) (through chemical anajysis of
process releases), then the process will
be ineligible for exclusion, regardless of
the results of the manufacturer's
theoretical assessment.
   EPA believes that recordkeeping and
reporting are necessary to ensure that
only processes which meet the
definitions of closed and controlled
waste processes are permitted to
operate under this exclusion. A
reporting requirement also enables EPA
to develop an effective compliance
monitoring program. Thus, EPA has
 determined that the benefits of
instituting a reporting requirement far
outweigh the costs to manufacturers of
 submitting this information to EPA.
   TSCA explicitly provides only for
 case-by-case exceptions to the ban on
 the manufacture, processing,
 distribution in  commerce, and use of
 PCBs. However, Federal courts have
 recognized the "de minimis"  exception
 to legislative mandates. Although the
 court in EDFv. EPA overturned portions
 of the Agency's PCB regulations, it
 nevertheless noted that administrative
 agencies have  the power "inherent in
                             most statutory schemes, to overlook
                             circumstances that in context may fairly
                             be considered de minimis." 636 F. 2d
                             1283. Courts-and agencies should be
                             reluctant to apply a statute literally in
                             pointless expenditure of effort, where
                             regulation would yield a gain of trivial
                             or no value. EPA has evaluated closed
                             and controlled waste manufacturing
                             processes in this context and finds that
                             circumstances surrounding these
                             processes may fairly be considered de
                             minimis situations.
                                A substantial number of industry
                             comments have criticized EPA for
                             failure, in this rule, to deal with the
                             entire  universe of PCBs generated in low
                             concentrations. Some would have the
                             Agency use this rule as a vehicle to
                             create exclusions from the regulatory
                             ambit  of section 6(e) for all low
                             concentration PCBs on the basis that
                             they present de minimis risks to health
                             or the  environment. EPA emphasizes
                             that this rule has a more limited
                             purpose. It is intended only to exclude a
                             specific class of chemical processes
                             from further regulation. This rule does
                             not establish a single PCB concentration
                             below which all PCBs are excluded from
                             regulation and above which all PCBs
                             will always be regulated.
                                EPA is not prepared at this time to
                             make any decisions on processes
                             releasing PCBs in concentrations above
                             the practical limits of quantitation. For
                             those instances in which PCBs are
                             generated and released in
                             concentrations below 50 ppm, but are
                             not excluded by this rule, EPA intends
                             to request a further stay of the D.C.
                             Circuit Court's mandate until an
                              additional rule can be promulgated.
                             Under the terms of such a stay, PCBs
                             produced in processes not qualifying as
                              closed or controlled waste processes
                             under this regulation could continue to
                             be generated in the interim period. In
                              any case, until that further stay is
                             granted, a manufacturing process not
                              qualifying as a closed or controlled
                              waste process under this regulation, but
                              producing and/or releasing PCBs in
                              concentrations below 50 ppm, may
                              continue, at least for the period of the
                              current stay of the Court's mandate. The
                              current stay extends to December 1,
                              1982.
                                EPA intends to submit a plan for
                              addressing other than closed and
                              controlled waste processes to the court
                              by November 1,1982. In the next PCB
                              rulemaking, EPA intends to determine
                              whether other PCBs may present de
                              minimis risks, whether some other forms
                              of administrative exclusion might be
                              appropriate, or whether any exclusion at
                              all is appropriate.
  Since the closed and controlled waste
process exclusion is voluntary,
manufacturers who believe they qualify
for the exclusion set out in this final rule
have the option of delaying their
decision on whether to take advantage
of the exclusion until the next PCB
rulemaking is completed.

IV. Major Elements of the Final Rule

A. Definitions of Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes

  1. Historical perspective. During the
course of discussions among EPA, EDF,
and industry immediately after the
court's decision, industry suggested that
manufacturing processes that produce
PCBs but do not release PCBs be
excluded from the TSCA section 6(e)
ban on the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs. EPA and EDF agreed. From the
literal definitions of these process types,
it logically follows that if no PCBs are
released from a process or if PCBs are
released only to wastes that are
destroyed or otherwise properly
disposed of, then the exposure and risk
to humans and the environment from
these processes must be extremely
small. There would be little or no benefit
from regulating the processes under
section 6(e) since there could  be no
reasonable means of determining
whether any regulatory actions could
actually reduce human or environmental
exposure.
   The practical application of this
concept requires an understanding of
the way chemical processes work.
Chemical manufacturing processes are
generally made up of a series of unit
operations. Each unit operation causes
chemical and/or physical changes in the
material passing through the process.
These changes are brought about by the
chemical reactions or various types of
physical manipulations that are never
one hundred percent effective or
complete.
   In some processes which manufacture
PCBs in low concentrations, virtually all
the PCBs are destroyed in the process or
are drawn off in a waste stream.
However, there inevitably will be at
least a few molecules of PCBs in every
product or effluent that exits the
process.
   EPA recognized at the time of
proposal the need to define, in a
practical sense, the absence of PCBs in
releases to the environment from these
processes. Specifically, EPA recognized
that it had to establish how the absence
of PCBs is defined in air emissions,
water effluents, products, and wastes
from closed processes; and how the

-------
          Federal Register / Vol.  47. No. 204 /  Thursday.  October 21,  1982 / Rules and Regulations    469fl3
absence of PCBs is defined in air
emissions, water effluents, and products
from controlled waste processes.
Further, EPA recognized the need to
specify appropriate methods for
disposal of process wastes from
controlled waste processes to insure
that PCBs and the toxic decomposition
products which can result from
incomplete combustion would not be
released to the environment from
disposal operations.
  2. Defining the absence of PCBs in
products, wastes, emissions and
effluents. In  the June 8,1982, proposed
rule, EPA specified in analytical method
and procedures to be used to determine
the absence of PCBs. If PCBs were
absent from all releases to air, water,
and products (and wastes from closed
processes), using EPA's method and
procedures,  the process would be
eligible for exclusion. Under this
approach, EPA gave some general
guidance concerning the PCB
concentrations it expected its
procedures to be capable of quantifying
(see 47 FR 24980).
  EPA proposed this approach for
several reasons. The Agency believed
that the choice of analytical method was
one of the major sources of variability
when attempting to measure PCBs.
During the fall of 1981, the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA)
conducted a round robin experiment in
which five different samples of material
from processes which manufacture PCBs
as a byproduct were analyzed by eight
different laboratories using a total of ten
different analytical methods. The round
robin experiment shows considerable
variability in the results obtained by the
ten different methods. Specifying the
analytical method would eliminate one
of the sources  of this variability.
  EPA also believed that specifying a
method was preferable to specifying a
cutoff because the difficulty of analyzing
products and wastes varies
considerably among processes. EPA
believed that with a numerical cutoff
specified, some companies would be
able easily to measure PCBs in their
process streams below the cutoff, and
other companies might have extreme
difficulty measuring PCBs at the cutoff
due to chemical matrix effects. In this
regard, a numerical cutoff might put
greater burdens on some manufacturers.
EPA believed that specifying an
analytical procedure would mitigate this
problem.
  The majority of comments submitted
in response to  the proposed rule
criticized the proposed approach, and
suggested alternate means for defining
the absence  of PCBs in releases from
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. These
comments maintain that the approach
proposed by EPA provides no target for
the analytical chemist because, with
enough resources, a chemist would
ultimately be able to measure any level
of PCBs. These comments indicate that
with improving analytical techniques, it
would be virtually impossible to state
that any substance is absent from a
particular matrix. In the case of PCBs,
they believe that by investing greater
and greater resources in the extraction,
cleanup, and analysis of given samples,
lower and lower amounts of PCB
congeners will become quantifiable,
almost without limit. In light of this, the
comments state that it is not possible for
a chemist simply to stop analyzing his
samples at a particular point and
honestly certify that the PCBs are not
quantifiable. A chemist can only certify
that PCBs are not present above a
specific preestablished concentration.
  EPA agrees with these comments and
has concluded that "nonquantifiable"
PCBs could be defined differently by
different parties, even if the analytical
hardware  to be used for the analysis is
specified by regulation. Further, EPA
also agrees with other comments that
maintain that the limits of PCB
quantitation will vary depending on the
particular CGC/EIMS instrument used
for analysis. These comments have
pointed out that several instrument
manufacturers currently market a
variety of CGC/EIMS instruments, each
of which has its own characteristics and
inherent sensitivity.
  Several comments have suggested
that EPA specify the sample size, the
extraction protocol, the cleanup
procedures, and other details of the
analytical method by regulation, to
eliminate some of these sources of
variability in measuring PCBs. Other
comments have supported EPA's efforts
to keep these parameters open and
flexible, to accommodate various
situations. Still other comments have
suggested  that it may be ultimately
impossible to specify these parameters
given the wide range of sample  types
which require analysis.
  EPA agrees that given the wide
variety of matrices in which PCBs are
found,  it is not practical or feasible to
establish detailed procedures for the
analysis of PCBs, especially in the areas
of extraction and cleanup of samples for
analysis. This is because different types
of samples require different types and
degrees of extraction and cleanup prior
to anlaysis. EPA further agrees with
testimony provided at the public hearing
which suggested that the proposed
approach was not practical and that a
preferred approach would be for EPA to
set a numerical cutoff, and thereby
allow each individual laboratory to
develop the appropriate procedures
specific to the analysis of particular
process samples.
  Even if EPA could establish standards
for the rigor of extraction and cleanup,
an alternative suggested by some
comments, many comments on the
proposed rule have criticized EPA's
proposed approach on separate grounds.
Specifically, many persons have
maintained that with advances in
analytical procedures for the extraction
and cleanup of samples, and
technological improvements in the
actual analytical hardware, in time,
lower and lower levels of PCBs will be
subject to regulation under section 6(e)
of TSCA. Thus, specifying an analytical
technique in the absence of a numerical
cutoff would result in a moving
regulatory target. These comments
argue,  then, that a numerical cutoff is
not only preferable, but necessary to
avoid the problems which would be
encountered by adopting an approach
that would result in a moving regulatory
target.
  In response to the comments received
on the proposed rule, EPA has
concluded that using an analytical
method to define the absence of a
chemical may result in substantially
different limits of quantitation for
different process samples, and therefore,
substantially different levels of release.
Depending upon the analyst, the
analytical hardware, and the specific
techniques used, especially in the-areas
of extraction and cleanup of samples
prior to analysis, limits of quantitation
could vary by several #rders of
magnitude. Further, EPA agrees with
comments that suggest that
nonquantifiable levels could vary over
time, as new developments in cleanup
and extraction protocols and
improvements in analytical hardware
occur. Therefore, EPA has decided to
establish numerical cutoffs for purposes
of defining the absence of PCBs in air
emissions, water effluents, products,
and process wastes from closed  and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes.
  Although EPA believes that with a
numerical cutoff specified some
companies will be able easily to
measure PCBs in their process streams
at the cutoff, others may have extreme
difficulty quantifying PCBs at the cutoff
due to chemical matrix effects.
However, comments on the proposed
rule acknowledged the advantages and
disadvantages of the available
alternatives and expressed clear
preference for the approach set out in

-------
46984
Federal  Register / Vol. 47, No.  204 / Thursday, October  21, 1982 / Rules  and Regulations
this final rule. Thus, EPA has concluded
that there are substantial merits in
setting numerical cutoffs. First,
numerical cutoffs are fixed and will not
move in time independent of EPA
intervention. Second, numerical cutoffs
are not open to widely differing
interpretations. Finally, numerical
cutoffa provide targets for the analytical
chemist. In addition to specifying
numerical cutoffs, EPA is also
recommending an analytical technique
and methods for the analysis of air
samples, water samples, and product
and process waste samples for
byproduct PCBs (see discussion under
IV.A.S.b.).
  3. Establishing the numerical
cutoffs—a.  Limit of Detection (LOD) v,
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ). The
analytical system most often used to
monitor PCB's includes a gas
chromatograph with a suitable detector.
The detector response is converted to an
electrical signal which is recorded on  a
strip chart,  and the quantity of material
present can be determined by measuring
the intensity of the respose. When only
the matrix is passing the detector, the
detector generates an electrical signal,
referred to  as "background" or "noise."
Detecting and confirming the presence
the PCBs depends on the analyst's
ability to measure an increase in the
recorded electrical signal above this
noise.
  The lowest concentration of a
substance than an analytical process
can detect is referred to as the limit of
detection (LOD). A commonly used
standard is that an LOD should be
based on a ratio of at least  three
between the average magnitude of the
electrical signal from the sample and  the
standard deviation of the electrical
signal from the background. This ratio is
called the signal-to-noise ratio.
  The lowest concentration of a
substance that an analytical process can
reproducibly quantify with  a known
level of precision is referred to as the
limit of quantification (LOQ). A
commonly  used standard is that an LOQ
should be based on a signal-to-noise
ratio of at least ten.
  One comment expressed preference
for the use of "nondetectable" PCBs
versus "nonquantifiable" PCBs as the
definition of the absence PCBs for
purposes of defining closed and
controlled waste manufacturing process.
The comment suggested that EPA
require that releases be tested at the
limit of detection (LOD) for the presence
of PCBs, primarily because the statutory
ban speaks in terms of "any" PCBs. EPA
has concluded, as explained in IV.B.
below, that PCBs present in
concentrations below the LOQ present a
                             de minimis risk to public health and the
                             environment. Furthermore, it is not
                             practical to test releases of PCBs at the
                             LOT because it may be impossible to
                             confirm the identity of the PCBs  at that
                             level. This is particularly important in
                             the analysis of PCBs present as
                             byproducts and impurities because in
                             many instances chemically similar
                             compounds are also present in the
                             sample undergoing analysis. For
                             compliance monitoring purposes, a PCB
                             concentration at or near the LOQ is
                             needed to confirm the identity of the
                             chlorinated biphenyl. For this reason,
                             EPA has selected LOQ instead of LOD
                             for purposes of defining the absence of
                             PCBs in releases from closed and
                             controlled waste manufacturing
                             processes.
                               b. Selecting the analytical technique.
                             LOQs, in general, vary with: (1) the
                             analytical technique, (2) the analytical
                             method,  and (3) the type of chemical
                             matrix in which the PCBs are found. For
                             purposes of this rule, an analytical
                             technique is defined as the type  of
                             analysis. Thin-layer chromatography,
                             gas chrornatography coupled to mass
                             spectrometry, and high performance
                             liquid chromatography are all examples
                             of analytical techniques. In order to
                             determine what the practical LOQ is for
                             PCBs, EPA first evaluated several
                             different types of analytical techniques
                             (with varying degrees of sophistication),
                             and considered the complexities of the
                             chemical matrices in which the PCBs are
                             found, the availability and cost of
                             analytical hardware, and the cost of
                             conducting analyses. As a general rule,
                             more sophisticated analytical
                              techniques are more costly and less
                             readily available, but are capable of
                             measuring PCBs at lower concentrations
                             (i.e., these techniques have very low
                             LOQs) than less sophisticated
                             techniques. (See "Methods of Analysis
                             for Incidentally Generated PCBs
                             Literature Review and  Preliminary
                             Recommendations" for a further
                             discussion of available analytical
                             techniques for PCB analysis.)
                                In selecting the most appropriate
                              analytical technique, EPA first identified
                              analytical techniques that were specific
                              for PCB  byproduct analysis. EPA then
                              considered the sensitivity of the
                              identified techniques, the availability of
                              the instrumentation, and the cost of
                              obtaining the instruments and
                              conducting the analyses.
                                In the proposed rule, EPA selected
                              capillary gas chromatography (CGC)
                              coupled to electron impact mass
                              spectrometry (EIMS) as the analytical
                              technique to be used in determining
                              whether PCBs were quantifiable in
                              releases from a manufacturing process.
For purposes of this rule, EPA selected
CGC/EIMS because: (1) it is cost
effective for the analysis of air, water,
products, and process waste samples,
(2) it is reproducible, and (3) it provides
confirmatory evidence for PCBs. EPA
expected this technique to supply
reliable data of known quality if users
implemented an appropriate and
documented quality assurance plan. The
vast majority of comments on the
proposed rule that addressed this point
agreed with EPA that CGC/EIMS is the
preferred technique for the analysis of
PCB byproducts.
  During the public comment period for
the proposed rule, and during the
development of the final rule, EPA
sponsored preliminary analytical
method validation studies to test the
efficacy of CGC/EIMS for the analysis
of PCBs. The method validation exercise
was undertaken to check the validity of
the proposed protocol for the analysis of
PCBs in commercial products and
process waste streams in particular.
Data are presented in the analytical
method validation study from the
evaluation of the efficiency of cleanup
and extraction protocols as well as from
the actual (CGC/EIMS) analyses of
process samples (See MRI reports:
"Analytical Methods for Incidentally
Generated PCBs—Preliminary
Validation and Interim Methods"). The
data generated from the analysis of
PCBs in the matrices studied indicate
that the method is applicable and useful
for the analysis of PCBs. Although
additional validation work is continuing
and additional data will be gathered,
this technique is the most reasonable
analytical procedure currently available
for the analysis of PCBs generated as
byproducts and is thus appropriate for
use in implementing this regulation.
Testimony provided at the public
hearing on the proposed rule supported
the method validation trials conducted
by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI)
as technically competent.
  Since the majority of comments that
addressed this point supported the
proposed selection of CGC/EIMS as the
preferred technique, EPA has selected
CGC/EIMS as the analytical technique
from which it would estimate the
practical LOQs of PCBs in air emissions,
water effluents, products, and process
. waste streams for purposes of defining
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes in this final
rule.
   c. Establishing the practical LOQs of
PCBs. For purposes of this rule, an
analytical method is defined as a series
of procedures used when chemically
analyzing a sample. Analytical methods

-------
           Federal  Register / Vol. 47, No.  204 / Thursday, October 21.  1982 / Rules and  Regulations    46985
 include procedures for sample
 collection, protocols for the extraction
 and cleanup of samples, and procedures
 for the analysis of the specimen by the
 analytical technique. The limit of
 quantitation of a particular analytical
 method is a function of six major
 factors: (1) the inherent sensitivity of the
 analytical instrument, (2) the size of the
 sample taken for analysis, (3) the
 volume extracted, (4) the volume
 injected into the instrument, (5) the
 amount of interferences, and (6) the
 degree of the chemical matrix effects.
   The LOQ of an analytical method
 depends upon the values selected for the
 factors listed above. For each variable,
 values could be selected that would
 ultimately minimize (or maximize) the
 overall LOQ of an analytical method.
 1 lowever, there is a limit to the degree to
 vvhich the LOQ can be minimized
 without significantly increasing the cost
 and difficulty of analysis. To select
 reasonable values to assign to each of
 these variables (for purposes of
 calculating the practical LOQ of PCBs).
 EPA balanced the benefits of increased
 sensitivity versus the resultant
 increased costs and practical
 considerations associated with
 minimizing the LOQ.
   The class of PCBs is made up of 209
 individual chemical compounds,
 individually referred to as chlorinated
 biphenyl congeners. Using CGC, each
 separate resolvable peak on a gas
 chromatograph may represent a single
 chlorinated biphenyl congener, or it may
 represent more than one chlorinated
 biphenyl congener. Comments on the
 proposed rule have pointed out that all
 209 PCB congeners cannot, for all
 practical purposes, be individually
 resolved by CGC/EIMS, or by any other
 single analytical instrument currently in
 existence. Thus, although it may be most
 desirable to define the absence of PCBs
 on a per congener basis, this is not
~ possible because this separation cannot
 be accomplished for every sample. To
 accommodate this situation, EPA is
 defining the absence of PCBs by setting
 numerical cutoffs according to PCB
 levels represented by resolvable gas
 chromatographic peaks. To qualify for
 exclusion, no single peak on a gas
 chromatogram can register PCBs at or in
 excess of the numerical cutoffs set by
 EPA for PCBs in air, water, or products
 (or wastes from closed processes).
   1. Instrument sensitivity. Depending
 upon the particular CGC/EIMS
 instrument used to analyze for PCBs, the
 instrument's sensitivity (or limit of
 quantitation) may be one picogram per
 resolvable gas chromatographic peak,
 one microgram per resolvable peak, or
an intermediate tavel. Although this
wide range of sensitivities exists for_
CGC/EIMS equipment, highly sensitfve
equipment is very costly end not
generally available in most analytical
laboratories. To calculate the practical
LOQ of PCBs, EPA selected a value for
the sensitivity of CGC/EIMS that is
representative of the average minimum
sensitivity of this type of analytical
technique. This required a balancing of
sensitivity versus costs and availability.
  EPA selected ten nanograms (ng) per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak as
a reasonable estimate of the average
sensitivity of CGC/EIMS. This number
represents the smallest amount of a
substance that a typical  E1MS system
can measure and is EPA's estimate of
(he average minimum amount of PCBs
expected to be measured.
  The determination that ten ng per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak
represents the average minimum amount
expected to be measured was based
upon contacts with a manufacturer of
GC/MS equipment about the
sensitivities and costs of available
CGC/EIMS instruments; more costly
instruments are capable  of measuring
PCBs at lower levels. Available data
indicate that the cost of CGC/EIMS
equipment ranges from $87,000 for the
least sensitive equipment, through
$380,000 for the most sensitive
equipment (see records of telephone
communications between Redford and
Moll of EPA and Finnigan MAT). EPA
selected this level of sensitivity as
representative of an average sensitivity
of CGC/EIMS because it is intermediate
in sensitivity, and CGC/EIMS
instruments capable of measuring this
level are readily  available, are oi
moderate cost, and are expected to be
currently available in most analytical
laboratories.
  This estimate of the average system
sensitivity is alsrt supported by  research
results reported by Dr. E. Pellizari of
Research Triangle Institute in his 1981
report entitled: "State-of-the-Art
Instrumental Analysis in Environmental
Chemistry," which appeared in  Chapter
10 of "Environmental Health
Chemistry." Dr. Pellizari  reports a
minimum detection range for EIMS from
one nanogram through .1 milligram.
EPA's estimate of ten ng/peak as an
average sensitivity falls within the range
of Dr. Pellizari's reported detection
limits for any peak on an EIMS (since
limits of quantitation are often at least
three times as high as limits of
detection).
  Further, the Dry Color Manufacturers
Association's (DCMA's)  research on the
analysis of PCBs in organic pigments
reports the sensitivity of CGC/EIMS as
ten ng per resolvable gas
chromatograpbic peak (see page 5 of
"An Analytical Procedure for the
Determination of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in Dry Phthalocyanine Blue,
Phthalocyanine Green and Diarylide
Yellow Pigments; Proposed by the Dry
Color Manufacturers Association").
  2. Sample size. The actual minimum
quantitatable level for an analytical
method depends on not only  the
inherent sensitivity of the analytical
instrument, but also the ameunt of
original sample that had its PCB
contents extracted and condensed for
analysis by CGC/EIMS. For instance, a
sample that is ten times larger than
another from the same source would
contain the same concentration (ug/
volume) of PCBs but would actually
contain ten times the mass of PCBs
(nanograms). When both are
concentrated to one milliliter, the
extract resulting from the larger sample
would be ten times more concentrated
than the other, and when injected into
the detector, it would yield a response
ten times greater. This would translate
to a quantitation limit in the larger
sample that was ten times lower than in
the smaller sample.
  However, there is a limit to the extent
to which one can maximize the sample
size (in an attempt to minimize the LOQ)
without encountering substantial
additional costs in collection and
extraction, and experiencing  handling
difficulties. Larger sample sizes require
longer collection times (especially
pertinent in air sampling), more effort
(resources) in extraotfbn and cleanup.
and in some cases, may require
specialized equipment.
  With this relationship in mind, EPA
has estimated reasonable sample size.s,
ones that would provide enough
material for a reasonable determination
as to whether PCBs are present without
presenting sampling and handling
problems. These estimated sample sizes
are: Ten cubic meters for air, one liter
for  water, and fifty grams for products
or process waste streams. Then cubic
meters of air, and one liter of water are
commonly accepted sample sizes for
these media, considering the  type of
chemical undergoing analysis (i.e.
halogenated aromatics).
  In selecting 50 grams as a reasonable
sample size for products and  process
wastes, EPA analyzed available data
and developed a list of expected
products containing PCBs as impurities
or byproducts. For each product on the
list, EPA considered .various sample
sizes, ranging from one gram to 100
grams, and selected the most

-------
46986    Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204  /  Thursday. October 21.  1982 / Rules  and Regulations
appropriate sample size for each
individual product. EPA considered the
capacity of typical laboratory
equipment, the physical and chemical
properties of the product/sample,
handling problems, measurement
problems, the inherent cost of the
material to be analyzed, and other
related factors in determining the most
appropriate, sample sizes for each
individual product. After considering
appropriate sample sizes for individual
products, EPA selected 50 grams as
representative of a reasonable sample
size for products and process wastes
(see "Rationale for Levels of
Quantitation for CGC/EIMS,"
"Rationale for Choosing a Reasonable
Sample Size and Matrix Interference
Allowance for the PCB Analytical
Method," "PCB Quantitation List
Parameters," and  "Transmittal of MRI's
PCB Quantitation List Parameters
Memorandum with Additional
Comments").
  3. Extract and injection volumes. For
air, water, products, and process waste
samples, typical extract and injection
volumes would be one milliliter and one
microliter, respectively. The Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), in conducting
CGC/EIMS method validation trials (see
"Analytical Methods for Incidentally
Generated PCBs—Preliminary
Validation and Interim Methods"),
considered several extraction volumes
and injection volumes. The volumes
selected as reasonable by EPA were
determined  to be  most appropriate
during.these trials. Larger injection
volumes either might damage the mass
spectrometer or the chromatographic
column. Smaller injection volumes,
below one microliter, would increase the
likelihood of measurement errors,
decreasing the accuracy of any
measured PCB level. Increases in the
extract volume or greater concentration
of  the extract either lowers recovery
efficiency, overly concentrates the
injection, or requires excessive efforts to
extract and condense the extract. With
extraction volumes below one milliliter,
the potential for measurement errors
and losses from evaporation increases,
decreasing the accuracy of the PCB
levels measured (see "PCB Quantitatign
List Parameters," and "Transmittal of
MRI's PCB Quantitation List Parameters
Memorandum with Additional
Comments").
  4. Interferences and matrix effects. In
the absence of interferences and matrix
effects, the estimated lower limits of
. quantitation of PCBs in air, water,
products, and process wastes, using
CGC/EIMS, reasonable sample sizes,
and reasonable extract and injection
volumes, would be one microgram per
cubic meter (roughly 0.001 ppm) in air,
ten micrograms per liter (roughly 0.01
ppm) in water, and .2 microgram per
gram (0.2 ppm) in products and prdcess
waste streams, per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak. These lower
limits of quantitation assume an
instrument sensitivity of ten ng per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak,
reasonable sample sizes, and
reasonable extract and injection
volumes.
  However, interferences and matrix
effects are commonly experienced in the
analysis of PCB byproducts because of
the similarity in chemical structure
between the PCBs produced in the
process and the matrix of chemical
substances in which the PCBs are found.
In byproduct  PCB analysis, these factors
influence an analytical instrument's
ability to measure accurately low level
PCBs. Therefore, an allowance for these
considerations must be made in
calculating the practical LOQ for PCBs
in air, water,  products and process
waste streams.
  To accommodate this situation, EPA
assumed an upper quantitation limit of
100 ng per resolvable peak as a
reasonable allowance for interferences
and matrix effects. This allowance is
supported by experimental data
produced by MRI through method
validation trials (see "Analytical
Methods for Incidentally Generated
PCBs—Preliminary Validation and
Interim Methods," "PCB Quantitation
List Parameters,"  "Rationale for
Choosing a Reasonable Sample Size and
Matrix Interference Allowance for the
PCB Analytical Method," and
"Transmittal of MRI's PCB Quantitation
List Parameters, Memorandum with
Additional Comments"). MRI found that
in the analysis of some samples,
interferences and matrix effects were
negligible, thus, the LOQ approximated
the lower quantitation limit of the
analytical instrument. However, in the
analysis of other samples, interferences
and matrix effects were significant, and
resulted in a LOQ that was two orders
of magnitude higher than the lower
quantitation  limit of the analytical
instrument. EPA's estimate of a
reasonable allowance for interferences
and matrix effects is one order of
magnitude higher than the average
lower quantitation limit of CGC/EIMS
as estimated by EPA.
   5. Conclusion. Per peak then, the
practical LOQ of PCBs in air
 corresponds to ten micrograms per cubic
meter (roughly 0.01 ppm); in water, 100
micrograms per liter (roughly 0.1 ppm);
 and, in products and process waste
streams, two micrograms per gram (2
ppm). This means that for a process to
be eligible for exclusion under the
closed and controlled waste process
exclusion, no single peak on a gas
chromatogram registers PCBs in excess
of: ten micrograms per cubic meter in air
emissions, 100 micrograms per liter in
water effluents, and two micrograms per
gram in products and uncontrolled
waste streams, regardless of the number
of PCB congeners known to be or
expected to be represented by the peak.
(See Unit IV.B. for a discussion of the
extremely low exposure which will
result from setting cutoffs at these
levels.)
  EPA considered setting numerical
cutoffs based on total PCBs, instead of
setting numerical cutoffs according to
levels represented by resolvable gas
chromatographic peaks. Under that
approach, EPA would attempt to
estimate an average number of gas
chromatographic peaks that would be
resolved upon analysis  of process
samples, and then multiply that average
number by the practical limits of
quantitation per resolvable peak. This
approach would result in separate
numerical cutoffs for  total PCB levels in
air emissions, water effluents, products,
and wastes from closed processes.
  After evaluating this approach,  EPA
concluded that there is insufficient
information upon which to base an
estimate of the average number of PCB
congeners created in  manufacturing
processes. Although some information
on PCB concentrations in products and
processes is available, little
comprehensive factual data are
available on the type and number of
different congeners created in these
processes. Without this type of
information, EPA could not support  any
estimate of the average number of
congeners created in manufacturing
processes.
  d. Aroclor v. non-Aroclor PCB
analysis. The limits of quantitation of
PCBs in air, water, products, and
wastes, discussed in  the preceding unit,
are EPA's estimates of the practical
limits of quantitation of PCBs produced
as byproducts and impurities (non-
Aroclor PCBs). These PCBs are not
easily measured in air emissions, water
effluents, products, or process waste
streams, because up to 209 different
chemical compounds can be produced
and be present in different
concentrations in a sample undergoing
analysis. Before these PCBs can be
measured in a sample, they must  first be
identified as PCBs.
   In contrast, PCBs produced for  use as
dielectric fluids (Aroclors) are much

-------
           Federal Register  / Vol. 47.  No. 204  / Thursday. October 21. 1982 /  Rules and Regulations    46987
more easily measured. These PCBs
display characteristic patterns upon
analysis that are easily recognizable as
representing PCBs. Unlike these PCBs,
PCBs produced as byproducts and
impurities do not display characteristic
or easily recognizable patterns upon
analysis. (See "Methods of Analysis for
Incidentally Generated PCBs Literature
Review and Preliminary
Recommendations" for a comparison of
the methods for Aroclor vs. non-Aroclor
PCB analysis.)
  Because of this fact, and the need to
identify byproduct PCBs as truly PCBs,
the limits of quantitation of byproduct
PCBs in different media may be several
orders of magnitude higher than the
limits of quantitation of Aroclor PCBs in
these same media. Thus, other
environmental regulations pertaining to
the release of Aroclor PCBs (such as
under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.) may place limits on the
release of PCBs that are orders of
magnitude below the practical limit of
quantitation for byproduct PCBs as
established in this final rule.
  4. Determining what constitutes a
process. In the proposed rale, EPA
applied the exclusion to any person who
produces PCBs in a chemical
manufacturing "process" which qualifies
as a closed manufacturing process or a
controlled waste manufacturing process.
Comments received in response to the
proposed rule requested clarification of
the term "process" in the definitions of
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. The comment
said that the term "process" could be
open to differing interpretations; it
could, at one extreme, mean a single
unit of a multi-unit operation operating
at a site, or, at the other extreme, it
could mean the entire series of
operations (possibly operating ai
different geographic localities) leading
to the production of a final commercial
product.
  EPA defines the term "process" in this
final rule to mean all the unit operations
operating at a site. Therefore, PCB-
containing isolated intermediates
manufactured at one location on a plant
site can be processed further at some
different on-site location. Analytical or
theoretical analyses of PCB levels in the
product would take place only prior to
its removal from the site. Similarly, PCB
concentrations in water effluents and
process wastes would be analytically
determined or theoretically estimated
only prior to the release from a site.
  Because it is difficult to define the
boundaries of the atmosphere
surrounding a facility, for air emissions,
PCB concentrations would be
determined at the most convenient
 sampling point prior to release to the
 atmosphere.
   For water effluents, PCB levels would
 be determined prior to release from th»
 site. For example, if deep well injection
 is used to dispose of water effluents
 from a process, PCB levels would need
 to be determined at some point prior to
 injection. The objective is to allow
 companies to determine PCB levels in
 the water effluent as close to the final
 point of release to the environment as
 possibleTIf on-site water treatment
 occurs, PCB levels would need to be
 analytically or theoretically determined
 only prior to release to the receiving
 body of water (i.e., at the point of
 outflow from the on-site water treatment
 facility).
   EPA uses the term site to mean a
 contiguous property unit. Property
 divided only by a public right-of-way is
 considered one site. There may be more
 than one manufacturing plant on a
 single site (See 40 CFR 710.1(a)).
   5. Determining appropriate methods
 for disposal. EPA already has in effect a
 Disposal and Marking Rule (40 CFR
 761.60) which requires PCBs in
 concentrations over 50 ppm to be stored
 and disposed of in accordance with the
 criteria prescribed under §§ 716.65,
 781.70, and 761.75. These are the same
 disposal criteria that EPA proposed for
 the disposal of wastes (containing any
 concentration of PCBs) from  controlled
 waste processes in the proposed rule.
  EPA proposed these mechanisms for
 disposal of controlled wastes on the
 premise that EPA must be reasonably
 confident that the wastes from
 controlled waste processes are disposed
 of in a manner which results in
 negligible environmental contamination.
 Although this basic premise remains
 valid, EPA has concluded that certain
 less costly, alternate disposal
 mechanisms would result in negligible
 environmental contamination as well.
  Several comments criticized the
 proposed requirement that wastes from
 controlled waste manufacturing
 processes be incinerated in EPA-
 approved PCB incinerators. They
 maintain that in selecting this regulatory
 option, EPA did not Consider the
 enormous potential costs of disposing of
 wastes containing PCBs in
 concentrations between the LOQ and 50
 ppm in EPA-approved PCB incinerators.
 Data were provided by the CMA which
 indicate that the costs of destroying
 liquid wastes containing PCBs in EPA-
 approved PCB incinerators is $0.23 per
 pound of waste. Thus, as the
 concentration of PCBs in the wastes
 decreases, the cost of disposal per
 pound of PCB increases substantially.
At PCB concentrations near the
 practical limit of quantitation in wastes,
 the cost of disposal in EPA-approved
 PCB incinerators per pound of PCB
 could be very high.
   Further, comments indicate that unlike
 mineral oil contaminated with low level
 PCBs, chemical manufacturing process
 waste streams with similarly low levels
 of PCBs cannot, in general, be used as
 fuel in high efficiency, energy generating
 boilers  because of their high chlorine
 content. Finally, certain comments
 indicate that since there are  so few EPA-
 approved PCB incinerators in existence,
 priority should be given to the
 destruction of higher concentration
 wastes  in these facilities. Restricting the
 incineration of controlled wastes
 containing less than 50 ppm PCBs to
 EPA-approved PCB incinerators would
 place demands on these facilities, which
 could result in a shortage of PCB
 disposal capacity.
   One comment, however, strongly
 supported EPA's proposal to require the
 incineration of controlled wastes in
 EPA-&pproved PCB incinerators.
 Specifically, the comment stated that
 incinerators used for the destruction of
 PCBs should be required to meet certain
 standards to prevent the formation and
 release  of dibenzofurans and other
 potentially toxic products of incomplete
 combustion.
   As a result of the comments received
 in response to the proposed rule, EPA
 has decided to modify the requirement
 that wastes from controlled waste
 manufacturing processes be disposed of
 in EPA-approved PCB incinerators.
 Certain less costly disposal mechanisms
 should result in negligible environmental
 contamination as well, and further,
 should preclude the formation of toxic
 incomplete combustion products.
  Thus, in this final rule, EPA is
 allowing PCB wastes (containing PCBs
 in concentrations below 50 ppm) to be
 destroyed in incinerators which have
 been approved under section 3005(c) of
 the Resource Conservation and
 Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 U.S.C. 6925(c).
 The incinerator must be capable of
 destroying compounds which are less
 readily burned than the PCB homologs
 in the waste. The manufacturer of PCBs
 who wishes to qualify for exclusion
 under the controlled waste exclusion by
 disposing of PCB wastes in a RCRA-
 approved incinerator is responsible for
determining that the incinerator is
 capable of destroying the PCBs, and for
certifying that this is the case (see
 IV.D.). The manufacturer is also
responsible for obtaining reasonable
assurances that the incinerator, when
burning  PCB waste, will be operated
under conditions that have been shown

-------
46988    Federal Register / Vol.  47, No. 204 / Thursday,  October 21,  1982 / Rules and Regulations
to enable the incinerator to destroy less
readily burned compounds.
Manufacturers may use heat of
combustion or other indicators of ease
of incinerability addressed in the
"RCRA Guidance for Hazardous Waste
Incineration," to support this
certification. This approach should
ultimately increase the number of
incinerators qualified for the destruction
of PCBs and should also prevent the
formation of toxic products of
incomplete combustion during
incineration.
   One of the  factors used to determine
how efficiently a substance may be
destroyed is the heat of combustion.
Heat of combustion is the heat evolved
when a definite quantity of a substance
is completely burned. According to
classical thermodynamics, compounds
with lower heats of combustion should
be less readily burned and should
require higher temperatures for
destruction than compounds with higher
heats of combustion. Heat of
combustion values are measured under
controlled laboratory conditions or
derived from theoretical calculations.
   Under RCRA, EPA has developed a
ranking of hazardous constituents based
on heat of combustion values. This
hierarchy allows the applicant for a
permit to incinerate hazardous wastes to
demonstrate the required level of
performance for a large number of
constituents of a waste stream by
successfully burning one or several of
those which are most difficult to
destroy. In the permitting of facilities,
EPA does not intend to use the
incinerability ranking alone, but rather,
to use it in conjunction with the permit
writer's engineering judgment. The list
provides the permit writer and the
applicant for the permit with a useful
means of identifying the constituents of
a waste which are likely to be most
difficult to destroy, and may be used in
conjunction with other information
relating to the incinerability of an
organic constituent, when available (see
"RCRA Guidance for Hazardous Waste
Incineration").
   The "RCRA Guidance for Hazardous
Waste Incineration" contains this list of
compounds, including the PCB
homologs, ranked according to heats of
combustion.  While EPA has little
experimental data that indicate that
heat of combustion is the best criteria
 (or the only criteria) to be used in
judging the relative ease of destruction
of chemical compounds, it can be used
as an indicator (see "A Method for
Designation of the Principal Organic
Hazardous Constituents for Hazardous
 Waste Incineration " "Heats of
Formation and Combustion from the
Method of Handrick," "Comparison of
Ranking Factors," and "RCRA Guidance
for Hazardous Waste Incineration").
Thus, manufacturers may use heat of
combustion values to support their
determination that a particular RCRA-
approved facility is capable of
destroying their PCB wastes.
  Although RCRA requires a minimum
destruction and removal efficiency of
99.99 percent for the incineration of
chemical wastes, and the TSCA
requirements will result in a minimum
destruction efficiency of 99.9999 percent
(for the incineration of PCBs in
concentrations over 50 ppm) EPA
believes that for PCBs in concentrations
below 50 ppm, a destruction and
removal efficiency of 99.99 percent is
adequate to insure only negligible
environmental release. If one assumes
that all the PCBs created in closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes (approximately 56,000 pound)
will be incinerated annually in these
RCRA-approved incinerators, then the
difference in destruction efficiencies
between the proposed requirement and
the final rule will  result in a maximum of
an additional 5.54 pounds of PCBs
released annually throughout the entire
United States as a result of the
modification to the proposed
requirement.
  In addition to allowing the destruction
of controlled wastes in certain RCRA-
approved incinerators, EPA is also
adding to the list of acceptable disposal
mechanisms, the destruction of
controlled wastes (containing PCBs in
concentrations between the limit of
quantitation and 500 ppm) in any high
efficiency boiler that has been
specifically, approved to burn PCBs
present in fluid other than mineral oil, in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.60(a)(3). This will create an
additional mechanism for the disposal of
controlled wastes, while providing
continued protection against the
formation of toxic incomplete
combustion products during
incineration. Wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations between the practical
limit of quantitation and 50 ppm may
also be destroyed in EPA-approved PCB
incinerators as well,  and would qualify
as controlled wastes. This rule does not
change the requirements of the PCB
Marking and Disposal Rule (40 CFR
761.60) for the disposal bt PCBs in
concentrations over 50 ppm.
  Thus, these modifications will: (1)
Increase the number of incinerators
ultimately available for the destruction
of PCB wastes; (2)_reduce the potential
for accidents during the transport of
wastes; (3) ultimately provide for less
costly disposal alternatives to
manufacturers disposing of controlled
wastes; and (4) should continue to
provide protection against the formation
of toxic incomplete combustion product"
during incineration.

B. The De Minimi's Determination
  1. Exposure Analysis. EPA's rough
estimate of the amount of PCBs
produced in closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes is less 56,000
pounds per year. Of these roughly 56,000
pounds of PCBs, extremely small
quantities of PCBs in concentrations
below the practical limits of quantitation
will be released to the environment in
wastes from closed processes and in air
emissions, water effluents, and
products. Actual environmental releases
from products are expected to be in
concentrations even less than the limits
of quantitation, since the PCBs in many
products are bound in solid matrices
(e.g., paints and polymers). Although
wastes from controlled waste processes
will contain higher concentrations of
PCBs,  the requirements for handling
these wastes will prevent significant
releases to the environment.
  Based on available information
(supplied by CMA), EPA estimates that
less than one thousand pounds of
byproduct PCBs are likely to actually
enter the environment each year from
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. The estimated
actual releases to the environment from
closed and controlled waste processes is
only 0.0006 percent of the estimated
150,000,000 pounds of PCBs that
currently exist in the environment as
free PCBs. Further, this amount is only
0.0001 percent of the estimated
750,000,000 pounds of PCBs currently in
use in electrical equipment in the United
States.
   EPA is imposing both recordkeeping
and reporting requirements (see IV.D.)
to reduce the likelihood of processes
being mislabeled as closed or controlled
waste manufacturing processes when
releases are actually above the practical
limits  of quantitation. These
' requirements help to ensure that PCBs
released to the environment as a result
of this exclusion remain below the
practical limits of quantitation.
   2. De Minimi's Finding. TSCA section
6(e) specifically bans the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
 and use of PCBs in other than a totally
 enclosed manner. To be eligible for
 exclusion from the provisions of section
 6(e), processes must meet EPA's
 definitions of closed or controlled waste
 manufacturing processes. This means

-------
          Federal Register / Vol.  47, No. 204  /  Thursday, October 21, 1982 /  Rules and Regulations    46989
that releases of PCBs in products, air
emissions, and water effluents are
below practical limits of quantitation.
For closed manufacturing processes,
releases of PCBs in wastes are also
below the practical limit of quantitation..
Wastes from controlled waste processes
are disposed of in qualified incinerators
(see discussion under IV.A.5.) or in
landfills approved under § 761.75 or are
stored for incineration or landfilling in
compliance with the standards and
requirements prescribed in
§ 761.65(b)(l). Recordkeeping and
reporting by manufacturers helps to
ensure that releases of PCBs from these
processes are actually below the
practical limits  of quantitation, and that
exposure to PCBs as a result of EPA
creating this exclusion remains
negligible.
  EPA believes that for all practical
purposes, it would be impossible to
determine whether regulation of PCB
concentrations below the practical
limits of quantitation had any effect on
actually reducing releases of PCBs. EPA
believes that PCBs present in
concentrations below the practical
limits of quantitation are of such low
concentration, and the total amount of
PCBs released would be so low, that it
would be impossible to determine if
regulation of these levels provided
anything greater than trivial benefits.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that
there would be no measurable gain in
protecting the environment or public
health by attempting to regulate PCBs at
levels that are immeasurable for all
practical purposes.
  EPA finds that closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes
represent de minimis situations and
should not be subject to the prohibitions
and other provisions of section 6(e) of
TSCA because: (1) releases of PCBs
from closed and controlled waste
processes (excluding controlled wastes)
are below the practical limits of
quantitation, (2) the estimated amount of
PCBs released from these processes per
year is only 0.0006 percent of the
estimated 150,000,000 pounds of PCBs
present in the environment as free PCBs,
(3) controlled wastes are disposed  of in
a manner that should result in negligible
environmental contamination, and (4)
manufacturers operating these processes
are required to keep records and notify
EPA of processes that qualify for
exclusion.

C. Determination of No Unreasonable
Risk
  EPA has concluded that there would
be no measurable benefits to public
health or the environment by regulating
closed and controlled waste processes
(as defined in this rule) under section
6(e) of TSCA. Therefore, as previously
noted, these processes are eligible for
exclusion under the de minimis
principle. Nonetheless, the Agency has
also considered whether closed and
controlled waste processes present an
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment. To determine whether
a risk is unreasonable, EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur from
the activity against the adverse effect on
society from regulation. In making a
determination of whether an
unreasonable risk is present from these
processes, EPA considered the following
factors:
  1. The effects of PCBs on human
health and the environment.
  2. The magnitude of PCB exposure to
humans and the environment.
  3. The benefits from products
containing PCBs, the availability of
substitutes, and the ability to prevent
the formation of PCBs.
  4. The economic impact resulting from
the rule upon the national economy,
small business,  technological
innovation, the environment, and public
health.
  After considering all available
information, within the context of the
factors listed above, EPA finds that
excluding closed and controlled waste
processes presents no unreasonable risk
to human health or the environment.
This finding is based on the following
analysis.
  1. Health and environmental effects
and exposure to PCBs, Toxicity and
exposure are the two basic components
of risk. During this rulemaking, EPA has
conducted an analysts of the health and
environmental effects of PCBs (see
"Response to Comments on Health
Effects of PCBs" for details). EPA has
concluded that in addition to chloracne,
there is a potential for reproductive
effects and developmental toxicity as
well as oncogenic effects in humans,
based on animal data. EPA has also
concluded that PCBs do present a
hazard to the environment.
  However, PCBs are not uniquely toxic,
and minimizing  exposure to PCBs will
minimize any potential risk. EPA
evaluated the potential for exposure to
PCBs from closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes, and has
determined that the exposure to PCBs
from closed and controlled waste
processes is so low as to be
immeasurable for all practical purposes.
  In calculating the practical limits of
quantitation of PCBs, EPA considered
setting lower levels. While lower
numerical cutoffs would theoretically
further reduce the risks posed from
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes, it would not
be practically possible to measure this
reduction in risk afforded by the lower
levels of release (see IV.A.3.C.). Thus,
regulating PCBs at levels below the
practical limits of quantitation provides
no measurable benefits to public health
or the environment.
  As part of the de minimis
determination, EPA also considered the
public health and environmental
benefits of recordkeeping and reporting
and their effect on reducing the risks
posed from closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. EPA
concluded that recordkeeping and
reporting by manufacturers operating
closed and controlled waste processes
would substantially reduce the
likelihood that processes would be
mislabeled and, therefore, would result
in a reduction in the actual amount of
PCBs released to the environment as a
result of this exclusion (see IV.D.). Thus,
recordkeeping and reporting would help
to ensure that only de minimis situations
are allowed to operate as a result of this
exclusion.
  2. Benefits of products generated in
closed and controlled waste processes.
the availability of substitutes, and
economic impacts. If the ban on all
manufacturing, processing, distribution
in commerce, and use of PCBs was made
effective for all closed and controlled
waste processes, there could be a major
disruption of the chemical industry and
several other industries in the United
States. Since there could be a large
number of controlled waste processes,
an immediate ban could cost billions of
dollars. An immediate ban could disrupt
the manufacture of a wide variety of
products including paints, varnishes,
enamels, agricultural chemicals,
adhesives and sealants, printing ink,
plastic materials, drugs, and soaps and
cosmetics. Such products have great
societal value, and a ban of this nature
would create great hardship for the
public and industry due to the
unavailability of these products and
would have a severe economic impact.
Should such processes be subject to the
section 6(e) ban, all manufacturers
utilizing closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes which generate
PCBs as byproducts would be required
to conform with the prohibitions and
requirements of section 6(e). Industry
has commented that, in general,
substitutes are not available for
products contaminated with low level
PCBs at the same or equivalent costs as
PCB-contaminated products, and that
processes cannot be"modified to prevent
the formation of any PCBs. CMA has

-------
46990    Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday,  October 21.  1982 / Rules and  Regulations
commented that research programs to
study ways to reduce incidental PCS
formation are very costly and have met
with limited success. CMA provided an
example of a process adjusted to reduce
formation of PCBs to below 50 ppm, and
estimated that the cost of this project
was on the order of $800,000.
  Although TSCA does provide a
mechanism for obtaining relief from the
total ban of PCBs, industry has
commented that the statutory process
for obtaining an exemption is
unworkable for the many operations
that manufacture, process, or distribute
in commerce PCBs in low
concentrations. Since TSCA requires a
company to obtain an  annual
exemption, industry representatives
indicated that the uncertainty
associated with knowing whether they
would be able to continue operations
and the large cost of submitting petitions
each year would be  a burden. A quick
survey of companies which filed PCB
exemption petitions with EPA in the
past showed that the annual  costs of
developing the information required by
an exemption petition plus the cost of
filing the petition may cost between
$16,000 and $132,440 per process.
Although EPA does  not know precisely
how many processes meet the definition
of closed and controlled waste
processes, if 500 processes were eligible,
the avoided cost of submitting petitions
for exemption could range from $8
million to $66 million per year. These
estimates will vary depending upon the
actual number of processes eligible for
the exclusion. Administering exemption
petitions for closed  and controlled
waste processes could require extensive
EPA resources.
   This rule has no significant negative
economic impact. Although for those
companies who choose to take
advantage of it, it imposes additional
burdens, it avoids the  larger  burdens
imposed on industry by the prohibitions
of section 6(e). As discussed in the
following unit, EPA  is requiring
manufacturers who  operate closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes and who  desire exclusion to
certify that their processes are closed or
controlled waste processes, and to
notify EPA that the  processes qualify for
exclusion. EPA has  concluded that
recordkeeping and reporting by
manufacturers affords substantial
human health and environmental
benefits that  greatly outweigh the  costs
of recordkeeping (see  IV.D. for further
analysis).
   EPA is providing  manufacturers the
option of conducting a theoretical
analysis or of actually monitoring
releases for PCB levels. EPA estimates
the cost of conducting a theoretical
analysis to be on the order of $1,014 per
process. EPA estimates'the cost of"
recordkeeping and certification to be on
the order of $374 per process per year. If
actual monitoring of PCB levels is
undertaken, using the EPA
recommended method, EPA estimates
the costs of monitoring  to range between
$120 and $770 per sample. Total costs
per process range from  $844 to $45,990,
depending on the frequency of sampling
and the actual costs of testing (see
support document entitled "Economic
Analysis for the Final Rule to Exclude
Closed and Controlled Processes from
the PCB Ban" for details). The upper
estimate of the cost per process of
monitoring incorporates $32,000 for air
sampling. In adding this amount into its
calculation of the upper estimate, EPA
assumed that monitoring of air
emissions is not currently ongoing for
other purposes. Therefore,  all costs
associated with air emission monitoring
have been added to the costs of
recordkeeping and reporting under this
rule. Since it is unlikely that this is the
case for most manufacturing facilities,
the upper estimate provided by EPA
may be artifically high. For most
companies, EPA expects that the costs
will  not exceed $26,600 per process. This
assumes that sampling  equipment
preparation and data reduction/report
writing are the only costs of air
emissions monitoring that would be
directly attributable to  this rule.
  3.  Unreasonable risk determination.
EPA has evaluated the  human health
and  environmental effects and exposure
to PCBs from closed and controlled
waste processes, the benefits of the
processes producing the PCBs, and the
economic impact of regulating these
processes under section 6(e) of TSCA.
EPA has concluded that closed and
controlled waste processes represent de
minimis situations because: (1) The
PCBs released from closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes are released  at low
concentrations, (2) the estimated amount
of PCBs released from these processes
per year is only 0.0006 percent of the
150,000,000 pounds of PCBs currently in
existence in the environment as free
PCBs, (3) controlled wastes are disposed
of in a manner that  should result in
negligible environmental contamination,
and (4] manufacturers operating these
processes are required  to keep records
and notify EPA of processes operating
under the exclusion.
   EPA has considered the  benefits of
closed and controlled waste processes
and found them to be substantial.
Further, EPA has considered the
statutory process of petitioning for
yearly exemptions from the TSCA ban
and found it to be resource intensive.
Finally, EPA has considered the costs of
recordkeeping and reporting by
manufacturers operating closed and
controlled waste processes. EPA has
found that these costs do not represent
an excessive burden.
  Thus, after balancing the risks to
human health and the environment
created as a result of this exclusion
against the benefits afforded by the
exclusion, EPA concludes that the
exclusion of closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes poses no
unreasonable risks to public health and
the environment.
D. Recordkeeping and Reporting
  1. Summary of requirements. In the
proposed rule, EPA proposed certain
recordkeeping requirements for closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes. EPA proposed that either
theoretical assessments or actual
monitoring of PCB levels in releases be
completed in order to qualify for
exclusion, that the records of the
analysis be maintained at the facility,
and that manufacturers certify that their
processes qualify for exclusion. The
certification was to be completed by a
responsible corporate officer, who was
also required to certify that the analysis
was true and accurate to the best of his
knowledge and that the analysis had
been conducted by qualified personnel.
The certifications (and records to
support the certifications) were to be
maintained at the facility for three years
after a process ceased operation or for
seven years, whichever was shorter. The
submission of these records and
cerifications to EPA was not required in
the proposed rule.
  EPA proposed these recordkeeping
requirements to: (1) Reduce the
likelihood of processes being mislabeled
as closed or controlled waste
processses, and (2) to aid EPA in
monitoring compliance with the rule.
  In addition to the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule, in the
final rule, EPA is requiring: (1) That
manufacturers using RCRA-approved
facilities for the disposal of controlled
wastes certify that the facility qualifies
for the disposal of the PCB wastes, and
document the basis for the
determination, and (2) that EPA be
notified of any processes operating
under the closed and controlled waste
manufacturing process exclusion.
Manufacturers are also required to
notify EPA of the basis for the
determination that a process is

-------
          Federal Register  /  Vol. 47,  No. 204 / Thursday, October  21, 1982 / Rules and  Regulations     46991
excluded, by indicating whether a
theoretical assessment or actual
monitoring of PCB levels has been
completed. If the process is a controlled
waste process, manufacturers are also
required to notify EPA of the type, the
name, and the location of the disposal
facility. Manufacturers have the option,
as provided under TSCA section 14(c),
of declaring any of this information to
be confidential. Manufacturers desiring
exclusion would:  (1) identify processes
which they believe generate PCBs as
impurities or by-products; (2) determine
if the processes are closed processes or
controlled waste processes; (3) place
data and records  of their determinations
in files at the facility:  (4) certify that the
process qualifies; and (5) transmit a
letter to EPA notifying EPA that
processes are excluded and the bases of
the determinations. Should
manufacturers periodically undertake
monitoring of PCB levels in processes or
in releases from the processes, these
data are also retained at the facility,
EPA is requiring that such records be
maintained for at least three years after
the particular process being used at  the
facility ceases operations or for seven
years, whichever is shorter. Further,
EPA is requiring that processes be
reevaluated and that a new certification
be filed upon significant process
changes that invalidate  the previous
certification. Significant process
changes include .changes that are likely
to change the concentration of PCBs in
releases from the processes (except  in
controlled wastes) outside the values in
the original assessment  and changes in
the facility in which PCBs are disposed.
The costs of recordkeeping and
reporting to manufacturers  operating
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes will vary
depending upon the nature of the
manufacturing process. Processes that
are frequently changed or are known to
release PCBs in air emissions, water
effluents, or products in concentrations
that approach the limit of quantitation
will probably require more frequent
analyses than other types of processes.
   Manufacturers  are not required to use
this rule. They can use the statutory
exemption process as an alternative to
taking advantage of this exclusion.
   2. Recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements. In the proposed rule, EPA
proposed certain  recordkeeping
requirements. EPA proposed: (1)  That
either theoretical analyses  or actual
monitoring of PCB levels be conducted;
(2) that the records of the analysis be
maintained at the facility: (3) that
manufacturers certify that the processes
qualify for exclusion; and (4) that all
records be maintained for three years
after a process ceased operation or for
seven years, whichever was shorter.
  Certain comments on the proposed
rule suggested that EPA should impose a
reporting requirement in addition to the
proposed recordkeeping requirements
(see IV.D.3.). Other comments, however,
questioned the need for even the
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
They maintained that since closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes by definition have been
determined to represent de minimis
situations, recordkeeping by
manufacturers operating such processes
creates an unnecessary burden.
  However, EPA has concluded that the
benefits to public health and the
environment of recordkeeping are
substantial, and further, that an
additional recordkeeping requirement is
warranted as a result of the
modification to the disposal
requirements (see IV.A.5.).
  In addition to the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule, in the
final rule, EPA is requiring that
manufacturers disposing of controlled
wastes in RCRA-approved incinerators
certify that the incinerator is capable of
destroying the PCB wastes and maintain
records of the basis of the
determination. EPA believes that this
additional recordkeeping requirement is
needed to ensure that controlled wastes
are disposed of in qualified RCRA-
approved facilities. Manufacturers may
use any generally accepted criteria to
demonstrate the capability of the
incinerator to destroy the PCBs,
including the use of heat of combustion
values and other parameters addressed
in the "RCRA Guidance for Hazardous
Waste Incineration."
  With recordkeeping requirements in
place, fewer processes will be
mislabeled by manufacturers as
qualifying for exclusion. With fewer
processes being mislabeled, less total
PCBs will be released to the
environment as a result of EPA creating
this exclusion. The recordkeeping
requirements help to ensure that only
situations that have been determined to
be de minimis are excluded from
regulation under TSCA section 6(e).
Further, such recordkeeping is necessary
to the development of an effective
compliance monitoring progranvby EPA.
Without records (and notification of
EPA), EPA will have  little or  no
information upon which to develop an
effective  compliance  monitoring
program.
  EPA estimates the  cost of
recordkeeping alone  to be on the  order
of $374 per process per year.  This cost
does not include the costs associated
with conducting the theoretical
assessment or monitoring PCB levels in
releases.
  In view of the substantial benefits
afforded public health and the
environment described above and the
relatively low costs of recordkeeping to
manufacturers,  EPA has concluded that
the benefits, in terms of public health
and environmental protection, far
outweigh the costs.
  In the proposed rule, EPA provided
manufacturers the option of utilizing a
theoretical assessment to support a
determination that a process qualified
for exclusion. However, a number of
comments criticized the portion of the
proposed rule that provided for
theoretical assessments in lieu of actual
monitoring of PCB levels. Several
comments on the proposal maintained
that many manufacturers may be either
unable to complete a theoretical
assessment or uncomfortable with
relying on this means of analysis. Other
comments suggest that EPA should
impose strict monitoring requirements
for manufacturers taking advantage of
this exclusion.
  EPA does not agree that monitoring of
process releases is necessary in all
process situations. EPA believes that
theoretical assessments which correctly
conclude that PCBs are not released
above the practical limits of quantitation
will be possible in somejjrocess
situations and that it would be
unreasonable to require actual
monitoring of PCB levels when reason
and logic aloae clearly dictate that a
process qualifies for exclusion. Further,
EPA has concluded that it is not
reasonable for EPA to eliminate this
option for all manufacturers simply
because certain manufacturers have
commented that they would be
uncomfortable relying on a theoretical
analysis.
  The objective of conducting a
theoretical assessment is to use reason,
logic, and chemical/mathematical
calculations to make a correct
determination of whether a
manufacturing process is a closed or
controlled waste manufacturing process
and, therefore, qualifies for exclusion.
Specifically, the objective is to
determine if PCB levels in releases from
a process to other than controlled
wastes exceed certain levels (the
practical limits  of quantitation of PCBs)
without actually monitoring these
releases. Obviously, if the expected
concentration of PCBs in*'releases
(derived through a theoretical
calculation) approaches the level set as
the regulatory cutoff, actual monitoring

-------
40992    Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 204 / Thursday. October 21. 1982 / Rules  and Regulations
of PCB levels would be advisable. The
need to actually undertake monitoring of
releases can be determined only by eacS
manufacturer and will depend upon the
expected level of release, its
relationship to the cutoff, and the level
of confidence placed in the accuracy of
the estimate. The ultimate burden of
making a correct decision to rely on
theoretical analyses rests on each
manufacturer.
  A primary consideration in completing
a theoretical assessment is determining
the probable point(s) of manufacture of
PCBs, the likely mechanism(s) of
formation, and the probable identity and
concentrations of the PCB congeners
formed. Once these have been
determined, the fate of the PCBs is
traced from the point(s) of manufacture,
through the process, to the point(s) of
release. Factors to be considered in
projecting the movement of the PCBs
through the process include: (1) The
concentrations of PCBs at different
points in the manufacturing process, (2)
the solubility, volatility, and density of
the PCB congeners relative to the other
process components, (3) the
temperatures and pressures at different
points in the process, (4) the potential
for the PCBs to be transformed into
other compounds or destroyed prior to
release, and (5) the physical
characteristics of the process and the
processing equipment used within the
process. Additional guidance on
conducting a theoretical assessment is
provided in a support document to this
rulemaking entitled: "Guidance for
Conducting a Theoretical Assessment."
This document is available in the
rulemaking record, and by contacting
the Industry Assistance Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
  A theoretical assessment is to
address:  (1) The reaction or reactions
believed to be producing the PCBs, (2)
the levels of PCBs generated and
released, (3) the bases for estimates of
PCB concentrations in releases, and (4)
the name and qualifications of the
person or persons performing the
analysis.
  If actual monitoring of PCB levels is
undertaken, records are to be
maintained and must include: (1) The
method(s) of analysis, (2) the results of
the analysis for PCB levels in releases,
including data from the quality
assurance plan, (3) the name of the
analyst or analysts, and (4) the date and
time of the analysis.
  A determination that PCBs are absent
by actual monitoring of PCB levels
should take into account the statistical
variability in analytical results which
will always occur. Recognizing that
there wifrbe variation in results of *
series of samples taken from a particular
stream, EPA is recommending a
sampling procedure that uses a
sequential sampling scheme. (See
support document entitled "Guidance
for Sample Collection.")
  This approach should result in a
considerable savings over standard
statistical sampling methods without
adding to the risks of making incorrect
decisions. Sequential sampling is a
procedure where, unlike other statistical
methods, the sample size is not fixed in
advance. After every sample or group of
samples is analyzed, the sequential
sampling procedure indicates whether
sufficient samples have been gathered to
make a decision of whether additional
samples are needed. On the average,
fewer samples are required for this
procedure than with other methods.
  In general, for any statistical method,
two decision errors are possible: (1)
declaring processes which are qualified
for an exclusion to be not qualified for
exclusion, and (2) declaring processes
which are not qualified for exclusion to
be qualified for exclusion. The
sequential sampling scheme
recommended by EPA eliminates any
significant likelihood of committing an
error of the first type. The recommended
maximum number of samples (seven)
was chosen because, when several PCB
peaks are present, it results in an
acceptably low probability of the
second type of error without
necessitating an excessive amount of
sampling to declare a process qualified
for exclusion.
  Manufacturers are required to certify
that their processes qualify for
exclusion, certify that the analysis
completed is accurate to the best of their
knowledge, and maintain these records
and certifications for three years after a
process ceases operation or for seven
years, whichever is shorter.
  EPA estimates that cost of conducting
a theoretical analysis to be on the order
of $1,014 per process. EPA estimates the
cost of certification without actual
monitoring of PCB levels in releases to
be on the order of $374 per process per
year. If actual monitoring of PCB levels
is undertaken, using the EPA-
recommended method, EPA estimates
the costs of monitoring to range between
$120 and $770 per sample. Total costs
per process are estimated to range from
$844 to $45,990, depending upon the
frequency and actual cost of sampling
(see "Economic Analysis for the Final
Rule to Exclude Closed and Controlled
Processes from the PCB Ban" for
detailed assessment).
  3. Reporting requirement. In the
proposed rule, EPA did not propose that
reporting of data to the Agency be
required. However, in response to the
proposed rule, EPA received several
comments that suggested that a
reporting requirement should be
imposed in addition to the proposed
recordkeeping requirements. These
comments maintain that the cost to
manufacturers of notifying EPA that
certain processes qualify for exclusion is
trivial (less than $1.00 per process), and
the benefits to EPA of developing an
effective compliance monitoring
program far outweigh these trivial costs.
Other comments, however, question the
need for even the proposed
recordkeeping requirements (see IV.D.1.)
for situations that have been determined
to be de minimis. These comments
suggest that reporting and recordkeeping
requirements impose  unnecessary
burdens on industry.
  After considering these comments,
EPA is instituting a reporting
requirement in the final rule. The final
rule requires manufacturers to notify
EPA that closed and controlled waste
processes are operating at their
facilities. Further, manufacturers are
required to indicate, in the notification
letter, whether a theoretical assessment
or actual monitoring of PCB levels was
used to make the determination that the
processes qualify for  exclusion. If the
manufacturing process is a controlled
waste process, the manufacturer must
also notify EPA of the type, the name,
and the location of the disposal facility.
Manufacturers have the option of
declaring this information to be
confidential, under TSCA section 14(c).
Manufacturers also have the option to
sending a copy of the actual assessment
to EPA.
  EPA has concluded that requiring
notification of EPA that processes are
excluded and submission of information
on the general bases for the
determinations  that the processes are
excluded provides a relatively low cost
incentive for manufacturers to carefully
evalute their processes for eligibility  for
exclusion. Further,  EPA believes, as
several comments have suggested, that
such a reporting requirement would
provide benefits which greatly outweigh
the costs to manufacturers of
transmitting letters to EPA. Specifically,
the letters could be used by EPA in
developing an enforcement strategy and
in monitoring compliance with the rule.
EPA agrees with these comments and
has concluded that establishing a
reporting requirement of the nature
described here does not place
unreasonable burdens on the regulated
community.

-------
           Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules  and Regulations    46993
E. The EPA Recommended Analytical
Method for Quantifying PCBs

  For purposes of this rule only, EPA
has designated capillary gas
chromatography coupled to an
electronic impact mass spectrometer
(CGS/EIMS) as the EPA recommended
analytical technique for quantifying
PCBs in air emissions, water effluents
and product/process streams. (Different
analytical techniques may be more
appropriate for other situations). This is
the analytical technique which EPA will
use in monitoring compliance with this
final rule and which manufacturers may
very well choose to use. To qualify for
the closed and controlled waste process
exclusion, PCBs must be below practical
limits of quantitation for PCBs  in air,
water, and products (and wastes from
closed processes). It should be
emphasized that actual monitoring of
releases is not required as a condition
for exclusion (theoretical analyses are
acceptable), and this method is not
required if monitoring is elected.
  1. Chemical analytical methodology.
True confirmation of chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in specimens which
may contain other chlorinated aromatic
compounds can reliably be
accomplished by capillary gas
chromatography coupled to mass
spectrometry. In order to obtain the
selectivity to use this analytical
technique, specific separation,
extraction, and cleanup steps are a
necessary part of the chemical analysis
process. There are many analytical
procedures for separation, extraction,
cleanup, and detection which can
successfully be used to indicate the
presence of PCBs. Some suggested
protocols appear in the support
document: "Analytical Methods for
Incidentally Generated PCBs—Initial
Validation  and Interim Methods."
  2. Quality assurance plan for
measurement of incidentally generated
chlorinated biphenyls. An integral part
of CGC/EIMS analysis is the quality
assurance program (QAP). QAPs insure
the integrity of the data produced.
  A QAP includes the following: (1)
History and disposition of samples, (2)
sampling and sample collection
procedures and (3) extraction and
instrumental analysis procedures. A
QAP documents how a laboratory
intends to demonstrate its capability to
produce data of acceptable quality. A
QAP is essential for establishing the
validity of the analytical data generated.
In monitoring compliance, EPA will use
CGC/EIMS in conjunction with a QAP
to verify the accuracy of the data
generated.
   3. Guidelines. EPA has issued
guidance on: (1) Sample collection and
homogenize tion, of the sample, (2)
addition of surrogate compounds to the
sample, (3) extraction and cleanup, (4)
concentration or dilution of the extract,
(5) analysis of the final extract, (6)
reporting the results of the chemical
analysis as specific PCB isomers or total
PCBs, (7) developing a QAP, and (8)
performing a theoretical assessment. In
addition, the "RCRA Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Incineration" is also
available. These guidance documents
are support documents for this
rulemaking and are available by
contacting the Industry Assistance
Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

F. Relationship of the Final Rule to
Other PCB Rules
   1. Disposal and marking rule. The
Disposal and Marking Rule, published in
the Federal Register of February 17,1978
(43 FR 7150),  as Part 761 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations,
requires that when PCBs and PCB items
are removed  from service, disposal be in
accordance with specific criteria.
Briefly, PCBs in concentrations below 50
ppm are not required to be disposed of
in any special manner; liquid PCBs in
concentrations between 50 ppm and 500
ppm are required to be  disposed of in an
incinerator which complies with certain
standards, in a chemical waste landfill,
or in a high efficiency boiler; non-liquid
PCBs are required to be disposed of in
an incinerator which complies with
certain standards or in a chemical waste
landfill; and liquid PCBs in
concentrations at or above 500 ppm are
required to be disposed of in an
incinerator which complies with certain
standards.
  This rule has no direct effect on the
existing marking and disposal
regulations. PCBs created in other than
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes in
concentrations between the LOQ and 50
ppm are not required by this rule to be
disposed of in any special manner. This
rule simply excludes PCBs generated in
controlled waste manufacturing
processes from the  section 6(e) ban
when all PCBs generated and released
above the LOQ are handled in a manner
specified in this rule.
  2. Regulatory exclusion at 50 ppm.
The PCB Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use
Prohibition rule, published in the
Federal Register of May 31,1979, (44 FR
31514), as Part 761 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations basically
prohibits the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce and use of
 PCBs in concentrations above 50 ppm in
 other than a totally enclosed manner. As
 discussed under the Background unit in
 this preamble, this exclusion of PCBs in
 concentrations below 50 ppm was
 successfully challenged by the
 Environmental Defense Fund. The court
 granted a stay of mandate with respect
 to the 50 ppm cutoff, and persons
 manufacturing, processing, distributing
 in commerce and using PCBs in
 concentrations below 50 ppm were
 permitted to continue these activities.
 The initial stay of mandate was
 scheduled to expire on October 13,1982.
 However, in its report to the court on
 uncontrolled PCBs, filed in March of
 1982, EPA requested and was
 subsequently granted an extension of
 this stay of mandate until December 1,
 1982. Prior to that time (but no later than
 November 1,1982), EPA will submit a
 plan to the court for rulemaking on
 uncontrolled PCBs. EPA anticipates that
 its plan will include a schedule for
 rulemaking for uncontrolled PCBs and a
 request for an additional extension of
 the stay of mandate for processes
 covered by the rulemaking until it is
 completed.

 V. Official Rulemaking Record PCB
 Regulations for Closed and Controlled
 Waste Manufacturing Processes

  In accordance with the requirements
 of section 19(a)(3)(E) of TSCA. EPA is
 publishing the following list of
 documents constituting the record of this
 rulemaking. This list does not include
 public comments, the transcript of the
 rulemaking hearing, or submissions
 made at the rulemaking hearing or in
 connection with it. These documents are
 exempt from Federal Register listing
 under section 19(a)(3).
 A. Previous Rulemaking Records
  1. Official Rulemaking Record from
 "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Disposal
 and Marking Final Regulation," 43 FR 7150,
 February 17,1978.
  2. Official Rulemaking Record from
 "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
 Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
 Commerce and Use Prohibitions Rule," 44 FR
 31514, May 31,1979.
  3. Official Rulemaking Record from
 "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
 Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
 Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Use in
 Electrical Equipment," 47 FR 37342, August
 25,1982.
 B. Federal Register Notices
  1. 46 FR 27617, May 20.1981. USEPA,
 "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
 Manufacture of PCBs in Concentrations
 Below 50 Parts Per Million; Possible
 Exclusion From Manufacturing Prohibition;
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."

-------
46994     Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204  / Thursday, October 21,  1982  / Rules and Regulations
  2.46 FR 27815, May 20,1981, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Court
Order Regarding PCBs in Concentrations
Below SO Parts Per Million."
  3.47 FR 24976, June 8,1982, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Manufacture, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use in Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes, Proposed
Rule."
  4.47 FR 25559, June 14,1982, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and
Use in Closed and Controlled Waste
Manufacturing Processes, Correction."
  5.47 FR 30082, July 12,1982, USEPA.
"Notice of Availability of Guidelines for the
Analysis of PCBs."

C. Support Documents
  1. USEPA, OPTS, CCD, "Summary of
Comments (on ANPR] Received Concerning
the Exclusion of PCBs in Concentrations
Below 50 ppm, and in Closed Manufacturing
Processes from Regulation Under Sections
6(e)(2) and 6(e)(3) of Toxic Substances
Control Act" (undated).
  2. USEPA, OPTS, BED, "Occupational
Exposure to  Inadvertently Produced PCBs—
Preliminary Report"  (April 22,1982).
  3. USEPA, OPTS, BED. "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations. Draft Interim Report,
Revision 2" (April 21.1982).
  4. USEPA. OPTS, ETD, "Draft: Cost
Analysis for the Proposal to Exclude
Controlled Processes from the PCB Ban"
(April 1982).
  5. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, "Cost Analysis for
the Proposal to Exclude Controlled Processes
from the PCB Ban-2nd Draft" (May, 1982).
  6. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, "Economic Analysis
for the Final Rule to  Exclude Closed and
Controlled Processes from the PCB Ban"
(September 1982).
   7. USEPA, OPTS, HERD, "Review of
Studies of Health Effects of PCBs" (December
31,1981).
   8. USEPA, OPTS, HERD, "Proposed Rule on
(PCBs) Use in Electrical Equipment. Review
of Potential  Health Effects in Humans from
Exposure to PCBs and Related Impurities"
(April 12,1982).
   9. USEPA, OPTS, BED, "Quality Assurance
Guidelines" (April 22,1982).
   10. USEPA, OPTS, BED, Memo from
Redford to Halper, "Rationale for Levels of
Quantitation for CGC/EIMS" (April 21,1982).
   11. USEPA, OPTS, BED, "Estimation of
 Releases from Spills of Inadvertently
 Produced PCBs" (April, 1982).
   12. USEPA, OPTS, BED, "Analytical
 Methods for Incidentally Generated PCBs—
 Intitial Validation and Interim Protocols.
 Preliminary Draft Draft Interim Report #4"
 (June 24,1982).
   13. USEPA, OPTS, BED, "Guidance for
 Sample Collection, Preliminary Draft"
 (July 8.1982).
   14. USEPA, OPTS, CCD, "Response to
 Comments on the Closed and Controlled
 Waste Rule" (October 12,1982).
   15. USEPA, OPTS, BED, Memo from
 Redford to Kutz. "Rationale for Choosing a
 Reasonable Sample Size and Matrix
interference Allowance for the PCB
Analytical Method" (September 13,1982).
  16. USEPA. OPTS. EED. Telephone
Communication between David Redford of
EPA and Ben Heyden of Finnigan MAT.
"Sensitivity of CGC/EIMS" (August 11.1982).
  17. USEPA, OPTS. ETD, Telephone
Communication between Amy Moll of EPA
and Ben Heyden of Finnigan MAT, "Cost of
CGC/EIMS" (September 2.1982).
  18. USEPA, OPTS, '^Guidance for
Conducting a Theoretical Assessment"
(October 6,1982).
  19. USEPA, OPTS, HERD, "Response to
Comments on Health Effects of PCBs"
(August 19,1982).
  20. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Memo from Martin
Halper to Don Clay, "Disposal Requirements
for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) from
Controlled Waste Manufacturing Processes"
(August 3,1982).
  21. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Analytical
Methods for Incidentally Generated PCBs—
Preliminary Validation and Interim Methods-
Draft Interim Report #4. Revision #1"
(September 13,1982).
  22. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Peer Review and
Author's Replies to "Methods of Analysis for
Incidentally Generated PCBs—Literature
Review and Preliminary Recommendations,
Draft Interim Report #2" (June 11.1982).
  23. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Response to Peer
Review of "Analytical Methods for
Incidentally Generated PCBs Initial
Validation and Interim Protocols" (August Id,
1982).
  24. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Memo to CMA
from Smith "Sample Collection" (July 26,
1982).
  25. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "List of Products
That May Contain PCBs Generated as
Impurities or Byproducts" (August 11.1982).
  26. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Evaluation of PCB
Isomers Identified in Chemical Manufacturing
Processes Producing PCBs as Impurities"
(September 2,1982).
  27. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Investigation of
Personal Protective Equipment in Relation to
Occupational Exposure to PCBs Generated as
Impurities" (August 4,1982).
  28. USEPA. OPTS, EED "Update on
Protective Garment Materials Resistant to
PCBs" (August 17,1982).
  29. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Revised Materials
Balance for Inadvertently Produced PCBs"
(April 22,1982).
  30. USEPA, OSW, "Working Paper:
Problems with POHCS" (Undated).
  31. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "List of Plants and
Chemical Manufacturing Processes Known or
Suspected to Generate PCBs as Impurities"
(September 9,1982).
   32. USEPA. OSW, "Comparison of Ranking
Methods" (May 14,1982).
   33. USEPA, OSW, "A Method for
Designation of the Principal Organic
Hazardous Waste Incineration" (Undated).
   34. Reid and Sherwood, ed. "Methods of
Handrick Used to Calculate Heats of
Combustion," The Properties of Gases and
Liquids (1966).
   35. USEPA, OSW, Memo from the Mitre
 Corporation to Robert Olexsey (EPA), "Logic
 for Defining Incinerability as Relative Ease of
 Flame Oxidation" (January 21,1981).
   36. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Memo from
 Erickson and Stanley to Redford, "PCB
Quantitation List Parameters" (September 24,
1982).
  37. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Memo from
Redford to Halper, Transmittal of MRI'a PCB
Quantitation List Parameters Memorandum
with Additional Comments" (September 30,
1982).
  38. USEPA. OPTS, EED, Memo from
Redford to Kutz, "Rationale for Choosing a
Reasonable Sample Size and Matrix
Interference Allowance for the PCB
Analytical Method" (September 13,1982).
  39. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, Memo from
Kingsley to Moll. "Cost Estimates for
Implementation of MRI Analytical Protocol
for Incidentally Generated PCBs" (August 23,
1982).
  40. USEPA, OPTS, Memo to the Record,
"Schedule for PCB Rule on Closed and
Controlled Processes" (April 29,1982).
  41. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Memo from
Guimond to Cox, "Response to CMA's
Questions" (August 3,1982).
  42. USEPA, OPTS, "Response to CMA's
Request for Cross Examination" (August 17.
1982).
  43. USEPA, OPTS, "Response to CMA's
Request for Dr. Erickson to Testify at the July
26 PCB Hearing" (July 22.1982).
  44. USEPA, "EPA Report in Accordance
with this  Court's April 13,1982 Order
Concerning EPA Proposal for Action on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Concentrations
Below 50 Parts Per Million Resulting From
Uncontrolled PCBs and Motion for Extension
of Stay of Mandate as to EPA Action on
Uncontrolled PCBs Until December 1,1982"
(March 11.1982).
  45. CMA, Letter to Gunter (EPA) from
Fensterheim (CMA), "Summary of Discussion
on Erickson Testimony" (July 13,1982).
  46. CMA. Letter to Clay (EPA) from Zoll
(CMA), "Request for Cross Examination and
an Informal Hearing on EPA's Proposed Rule
Concerning PCBs in Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes" (August 9,
1982).
  47. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Guidance for
Sample Collection" (October 1982).
  48. USEPA, OSW. "RCRA Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Incineration."
  49. USEPA, OPTS. EED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Draft Interim Report"
(April 6,1982).
   50. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Draft Interim Report,
Revision #1" (April 16,1982).
   51. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Draft Interim Report,
Revision #3" (June 17,1982).
   52. USEPA. OPTS, EED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Final Report"  (October 12,
1982).
   53. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs-
Synthesis of "C-PCB Surrogates, Draft
Interim Report #3" (June 29,1982).

-------
          Federal Register / Vol.  47,  No. 204  /  Thursday, October 21, 1982 /  Rules and Regulations    46995
  54. USEPA, OPTS, BED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Preliminary Validation and Interim Methods"
(October 12,1982).
  55. USEPA, Memo from R.G. Bell to Don
Clay, "OTS Obligations Under the
Environmental Research, Development and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978"
(July 30,1982).
D. Reports
  1. Chemical Manufacturers Association, "A
Report of a Survey on the Incidental
Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and
Use of Polychlorinated Biphenyl at
Concentrations Below 50 ppm."
  2. Chemical Manufacturers Association,
"The Analysis of Chlorinated Biphenyls."
  3. Ecology and Environment, Incorporated,
"Summary of the Health Effects of PCBs."

VI. Authority
  Section 6(e)  of TSCA [15 U.S.C. 2605J.
The Administrator of EPA has authority
to amend or modify the PCB
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce and Use Prohibition Rule
(40 CFR Part 761), published in the
Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31,
1979).

VII. Executive Order 12291
  Under Executive Order 12291, issued
February 17,1981, EPA must judge
whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
therefore, subject to the requirement
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
prepared. EPA has determined that this
final rule is not a major rule as the term
is defined in section l(b) of the
Executive Order. Therefore, EPA has not
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis
for this proposed rule.
  EPA has concluded that this final rule
is not "major"  under the criteria of
section l(b) because the annual effect of
the rule on the economy will be less
than $100 million; it will not cause a
major increase in costs or prices for  any
sector of the economy or for any
geographic region; and it will not result
in any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or innovation or on the
ability of United States enterprises to
compete with foreign enterprises in
domestic or foreign markets. In fact,  this
final rule allows certain uses of PCBs
that would otherwise be prohibited by
section 6(e) of TSCA and, therefore,
reduces the overall costs and economic
impact of section 6(e).

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Administrator may
certify that a rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities
and, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis. The
amendment to the PCB rule excludes
persons who manufacture PCBs in
closed and controller! waste
manufacturing processes from the ban
on manufacture of PCBs. For those
persons who qualify for the exclusion,
the effect of this rule is to avoid the
economic impact associated with the
ban. Since no negative economic effect
is expected upon any business entity
from the promulgation of this rule, I
certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq (the Act),
authorized the Director of the OMB to
review certain information collection
requests by Federal agencies. EPA has
determined that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of this rule
constitute a "collection of information,"
as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(4). In
accordance with the Act, the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements  of this rule have been
submitted to OMB under section 3504(b)
of the Act.XDMB has assigned the
control number 2070-0008 to this final
rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
  Hazardous  materials, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls,
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, Environmental protection.
  Dated: October 12,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.

PART 761—POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN
COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS

  Therefore, 40 CFR Part 761 is
amended as follows.1'
  1. Paragraph (f) is added to § 761.1, to
read as follows:

§761.1  Applicability.
*****
  (f) Persons who manufacture, process,
distribute in commerce, or use PCBs
generated as byproducts, impurities or
intermediates in closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes (as
defined in § 761.3 (jj) and (kk)) are
exempt from the requirements of
Subpart B. To qualify for this exclusion,
such processes must also fully comply
with § 761.185.
  2. Paragraphs (jj), (kk), (mm),  and (nnj
are added to | 761.3, to read as  follows:

§761.3 Definitions
  (jj) "Closed manufacturing process"
means, a manufacturing process in which
PCBs are generated but from which less
than 10 micrograms per cubic meter
from any resolvable gas
chromatographic peak are contained in
any release to air; less than 100
micrograms per liter from any resolvable
gas chromatographic peak are contained
in any release to water; and less than 2
micrograms per gram from any
resolvable gas chromatographic peak
are contained in any product, or any
process waste.
  (kk) "Controlled waste manufacturing
process" means a manufacturing
process in which PCBs are generated but
from which less than 10 micrograms per
cubic meter from any resolvable gas
chromatographic peak are contained in
any release to air; less than 100
micrograms per liter from any resolvable
gas chromatographic peak are contained
in any release to water; less than 2
micrograms per gram from any
resolvable gas chromatographic peak
are contained in any product, and the
remainder of PCBs generated are
incinerated in a qualified incinerator,
landfilled in a landfill approved under
the provisions of § 761.75, or stored for
such incineration or landfilling in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.65(b)(l).
  (11) [Reserved]
  (mm) "Manufacturing process" means
all of a series of unit  operations
operating at a site, resulting in the-
production of a product.
  (nn) "Qualified incinerator" means
one of the following:
  (1) An incinerator approved under the
provisions of § 761.70.
  (2) A high efficiency boiler approved
under the provisions of § 761.60(a)(3).
  (3) An incinerator approved under
section 3005(c) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 6925(c)) (RCRA). The
manufacturer seeking to qualify a
process as a controlled waste process
by disposing of wastes in a  RCRA-
approved incinerator must make a
determination that the incinerator is
capable of destroying less readily
burned compounds than the PCB
homologs to be destroyed. The
manufacturer may  use the same
guidance used by EPA in making such a
determination when issuing an  approval
under section 3005(c) of RCRA. The
manufacturer is also responsible for
obtaining reasonable assurances that
the  incinerator, when burning PCB
wastes, will be operated under
conditions which have been shown to
enable the incinerator to destroy the
less readily burned compounds

-------
48996    Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 204  / Thursday. October 21. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
  3. Section 761.185 is added to read as
follows:

(761.185  Certification program and
retention of special records by persona
generating PCBs In dosed manufacturing
processes and controlled waste
manufacturing processes.
  (a) In addition to meeting the basic
requirements of § 761.1{f), PCB-
generating manufacturing processes
shall be considered "closed
manufacturing processes" or "controlled
waste manufacturing processes" (and
thus, be excluded from the TSCA
section 6(e) ban on manufacture], only if
the owner/operator of the
manufacturing facility:
  (1) Performs either a theoretical
analysis of PCB levels in releases or
conducts actual sampling of PCB levels
in releases.
  (2) Determines that the disposal
facility is qualified for the disposal of
controlled wastes under 5 761.3(nn) (for
controlled waste processes only).
  (3) Maintains (for a period of 3 years
after a process ceases operations or for
7 years, whichever is shorter) records
containing the following information on
the processes:
  (i) Theoretical analysis. (A) The
reaction or reactions believed to be
producing the PCBs, the levels of PCBs
generated, and the levels  of PCBs
released.
  (B) The basis for all estimations of
PCB concentrations.
  (C) The name and qualifications of the
person or persons performing the
theoretical analysis.
  (ii) Actual monitoring. (A) The method
of analysis.
  (B) The results of the analysis,
including data from the Quality
Assurance Plan.
  (C) The name of the analyst or
analysts.
  (D) The date and time of the analysis.
  (in) Qualifications of the disposal
facility. (A) The type of disposal facility.
  (B) The name of the disposal facility.
  (C) The location of the  disposal
facility.
  (D) If the disposal facility is a RCRA-
approved incinerator, the basis for the
determination that the incinerator
qualifies for the destruction of the PCB
wastes to be destroyed.
  (b) The data collected, and the
analysis performed under paragraph (a)
of this section must support the
following certification if the processes
are to be excluded under the closed
manufacturing process and controlled
waste manufacturing process exclusion.
Persons desiring exclusion of a PCB-
generating process under the closed and
controlled waste process exclusion shall
certify that:
  (1) An analysis of the manufacturing
process for PCB levels and releases
(either theoretical or through actual
monitoring for PCBs) has been
completed.
  (2) The analysis of the manufacturing
process is on record at the facility.
  (3) The concentration of PCBs in air
emissions is below 10 micrograms per
cubic meter per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak; in water
effluents, below 100 micrograms per liter
per resolvable gas chromatographic
peak; and in products, below 2
micrograms per gram per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak.
  (4) Either:
  (i) The concentration of PCBs in
process wastes is below 2 micrograms
per gram resolvable gas
chromatographic peak.
  (ii) All process wastes are  either
incinerated in a qualified incinerator
(see § 761.3(nn)), landfilled in a landfill
approved under § 761.75, or stored for
such incineration or landftlling in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.65(b)(l).
  (c) The certification must be signed by
a responsible corporate officer. This
certification must be filed at  each
facility in which a closed or controlled
waste process is operating for a period
of three years after a process ceases
operation or for seven years, whichever
is shorter, and must be made available
to EPA upon request. For the purpose of
this section, a responsible corporate
officer means:
   (1) A president, secretary,  treasurer,
or  vice president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function,
or  any other person who performs
similar policy or decision-making
functions for the corporation.
  (2) The manager of one or more
manufacturing, production, or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or
expenditures exceeding $25,000,000 (in
second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
  (d) This certification process must be
repeated whenever process conditions
are significantly modified to make the
previous certification no longer valid.
Significant modifications include
changing disposal mechanisms or
facilities for the disposal of controlled
wastes.
  (e) Any person signing a document
under paragraph (b) (1) through (4) of
this section shall also make the
following certification:
  I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate information. Based on my inquiry of
the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible
for gathering information, the information is,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I  am aware that there
are significant penalties for falsifying
information, including the possibility of fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
  Dated:	.
Signature	.
  (f) Manufacturers operating closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes shall transmit a letter to EPA
notifying EPA of:
  (1) The number, the type, and the
location of the closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes.
  (2) Whether the determinations that
the processes qualify for exclusion are
based on theoretical assessments or on
actual monitoring of PCB levels in
releases.
  (3) The type, the name, and the
location of the waste disposal facility, if
the process is a controlled waste
manufacturing process.
|FR Doc. 82-28779 Filed 1O-20-82: 8:45 am)
BIUING CODE «$*»-SO-M

-------
Mpnday
January 3, 1983
APPENDIX E
Part IV
Environmental

Protection  Agency

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions;
Amendment To Use Authorization for
PCB Railroad Transformers

-------
124            Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761
[OPTS-62020A; TSH-FRL 2205-7]

Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce and Use
Prohibitions; Amendment To Use
Authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On May 31,1979, EPA
promulgated a rule under section 6(e) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) that authorizes the use of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
railroad transformers until July 1,1984.
Under this authorization, these
transformers may not contain dielectric
fluids with a PCB concentration
exceeding 60,000 parts per million (ppm)
(6 percent) after January 1,1982, and
exceeding 1,000 ppm (0.1 percent) after
January 1,1984. This rule amends the
use authorization by: (1) Requiring these
railroad organizations to meet the 60,000
ppm  concentration level by July 1,1984;
(2) requiring these railroad organizations
to meet the 1,000 ppm concentration
level by July 1,1986; and (3) authorizing
the use of PCBs for the remaining useful
life of these transformers at
concentrations below 1,000 ppm. Finally,
EPA  is also amending the May 1979 rule
to permit railroad organizations to
service these transformers to reduce
PCB concentrations and thereby to
reduce the costs of disposal. The two
primary reasons for these amendments
are: (1) The. majority of the affected
railroad organizations did not select an
adequate non-PCB substitute until
October 1981, and (2) for certain
organizations, necessary Federal
funding for this activity was not
received in time to perform the required
servicing on PCB railroad transformers.
DATES: These amendments shall be
considered promulgated for purposes of
judicial review under section 19 of
TSCA at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
on January 17,1983. These amendments
shall be effective on February 2,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas G. Bannerman, Acting Director,
Industry Assistance Office (TS-799),
Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
E-509,401M St.. SW., Washington, D.C.
20460; toll free: (800-424-9065); in
Washington, D.C.: (554-1404); outside
the USA: (Operator 202-554-1404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
regulation at 40 CFR Part 761 have been
recodified. Notice of the recodification
appeared in the Federal Register of May
6,1982 (47 FR19527). As a result of this
recodification, the revised section
numbers will be used in this rule. Refer
to the Federal Register Notice of May 6,
1982 to determine equivalent provisions
under the former codification.
I. Background
  On January 1,1982, there were 756
railroad transformers in service that
contained PCB dielectric fluid. Of this
equipment, 730 transformers are used in
self-propelled railroad cars and 26
transformers are used in locomotives.
These PCB railroad transformer! are
operated in the northeastern United
States by the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and
four State and metropolitan transit
authorities.
  Section 6 (e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et
sag., prohibit the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). In section 6(e) (2), there are two
exceptions under which EPA may, by
rule, allow a particular use of PCBs to
continue. First, EPA may find that the
use is in a "totally enclosed"  manner. A
"totally enclosed" manner is defined in
section 6 (e) (2) (C) to be "any manner
why:h will ensure that any exposure  of
human beings or the environment to a
polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insignificant as determined by the
Administrator by rule." Second, EPA
may authorize PCBs to be used in a
manner other than in a "totally enclosed
manner" if the Agency finds that the  use
"will not present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment."
A. Other PCB Regulations
  EPA issued in the Federal Register of
May 31,1979 (44 FR 31514) final rules to
modify the general ban on the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs. The May
1979 rule, inter alia: (1) Excluded from
regulation PCBs in concentrations less
than 50 ppm: (2) defined all electrical
capacitors, electromagnets, and non-
railroad transformers as "totally
enclosed," thus automatically exempting
them from regulation under the Act; and
(3) authorized 11 non-totally enclosed
uses based on consideration of the
health and environmental effects of
PCBs, the exposure to PCBs resulting
from these activities, the availability of
substitutes for the PCBs, and the*
economic impact of restricting those
uses. Included in the non-totally
enclosed uses was an authorization to
 use PCBs in railroad transformers until
 July 1,1984, with certain use and
 servicing restrictions. This authorization
 provided that railroad transformers in
 active service may not contain dielectric
 fluid with a PCB concentration
 exceeding 60,000 ppm (6.0 percent on a
 dry weight basis) after January 1,1982,
 may not contain greater than 1,000 ppm
 (0.1 percent on a dry weight basis) after
 January 1,1984, and may not contain
 PCBs after July 1,1984.
   The Environmental Defense Fund
 (EDF) obtained judical review of the
 provisions described above in the U.S.
 Court of Appeals for the District of
 Columbia Circuit. Environment Defense
 Fund v. Environmental Protection
 Agency, 636 F.2d 1267. As a result of the
 lawsuit, the court invalidated the 50 ppm
 regulatory exclusion and the EPA
 determination that the use of PCBs in
 electrical equipment was "totally
 enclosed" and remanded these issues to
 EPA for further action consistent with
 its opinion. The court upheld all PCB use
 authorizations including the use
 authorization for railroad transformers.
 Accordingly, this rulemaking is not
• affected by the PCB litigation.
   Invalidation of the 50  ppm regulatory
 cutoff and the "totally enclosed" use
 finding would have made effective the
 general statutory ban on PCBs. This
 would have caused significant
 disruption in the electrical industry,
 which heavily depends on PCB
 equipment in current use, and in the
 chemical industry, which uses a large
 number of processes that inadvertently
 generate PCBs in very low
 concentrations. To avoid this disruption,
 parties to the lawsuit sought a stay of
 the court's mandate pending further
 rulemaking. As a result, the court
 entered orders for hither actions by EPA
 and industry groups leading toward
 future rulemakings on-PCBs. These
 court-ordered activities  do not affect
 this final rule on the use of PCBs in
 railroad transformers. In response to the
 court order, EPA issued  a proposed rule
 on the use of PCBs in electrical
 equipment which was published in the
 Federal Register of April 22,1982 (47 FR
 17426). The final rule for this use of
 PCBs was published in the Federal
 Register of August 25,1982 (47 FR
 37342). In addition, EPA issued a
 proposed rule excluding from regulation
 certain PCBs manufactured under
 conditions of very low risk, which was
 published in the Federal Register of June
 8,1982 (47 FR 24976). The final rule for
 this regulatory exclusion was published
 in the Federal Register of October 21,
 1982 (47 FR 46980).

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No. I  /  Monday,  January 3, 1983  / Rules  and Regulations
                                                                          125
 B. EPA Rulemaking Activitje&QQ the
 Use ofPCBs in Railroad Transformers
   Several railroad organizations bad
 indicated to EPA that they could &ot
 comply with the deadlines affecting
 railroad transformers in the May 1971
 rule. As a result, EPA proposed to'
 extend the deadlines as published in the
 Federal Register of November 18,1981
 (46 FR 56626). The proposed deadline
 extension for the 60,000 parts per million
 (ppm) concentration level was based on
 a schedule submitted by the
 Southeastern Pennsylvania
 Transportation Authority  (SEPTA) on
 February 5,1981. Under that schedule,
 SEPTA estimated that the earliest that it
 could complete its servicing ("retrofill")
 program to meet the 6 percent PCB
 concentration level was October 1,1983.
 (The term "retrofill" is used to denote
 the entire process of draining, flushing,
 and refilling a transformer with a non-
 PCB fluid.) This date was based on
 SEPTA'S assumption that Federal
 funding for this retrofill activity would
 be received by October 1,1981. SEPTA
 later requested an extensjon of thP.first
 two performance deadlines to'Jury 1,
 1984 and July 1,1986, respectively. In
 addition, it requested an amendment of
 the second performance deadline to
 require a 20,000 ppm (2 percent) PCB
 concentration level. The November 1981
 proposed amendment to the May 1979
 rule also requested comment on the
 compliance deadline for achieving a
 1,000 ppm concentration level.
   Following a comment-fferiod for,, these
 proposed amendments, ah informal
 hearing was held on January 5,1982.
 Participants included.SEPTA,  other
 affected railroad organizations,
 representatives from trs'risfprm.el'
 servicing firms, and manufacturer? of
 substitute dielectric fluids. Reply
 comments were received through
 January 19,1982. Many>of the-
 participants in the January 5,1982
 hearing contributed reply comments.
 II. Specific Amendments to the Railroad
 Transformer Use Authorization.
  EPA considered three Options In' this
 rulemaking: (1) To maintain the
 deadlines in the May 1979 rule and
 thereby prohibit the use, of PCBsJn
 railroad transformers in violation of the
 January 1,1982 deadline; (21 to resqind
 the deadlines in the May 1979  rule, and
 to allow the use of PCBjs in railroad
 transformers at their pr'esent
 concentration level; and {3) to  extend
 the deadlines in the May 1979  ruler With
 respect to the third option, there were
 three additional considerations: •{!}
whether to change the PCB
concentration levels mandated tot the
 respective deadlines; (2) whether to
 require a phased schedule for the
 lowering of the PCB concentration levels
 in railroad transformers and thereby to
 require six performance deadlines rather
 than two deadlines; and (3) whether to
 delete the expiration deadline of July 1,
 1984 and thereby allow the use of PCBs
 for the remaining useful life of these
 transformers at a concentration level at
 or below 1,000 ppm. In this rule, EPA has
 chosen; (1) To extend the deadlines in
 the May 1979  rule; (2) to require a six-
 stage schedule of deadlines for lowering
 the PCB concentration  levels in railroad
 transformers;  and (3) to allow the use of
 PCBs at a concentration level at or
 below 1,000 ppm for the remaining
 useful lives of the railroad transformers.
 In addition, EPA is adding a provision to
 the servicing conditions of this use rule
 to allow for the reclassification of
 railroad transformers using PCBs.

 A. Deadlines for Attaining PCB
 Concentration Levels
   In this amendment to the May 1979
 rule, two sets  of three performance
 deadlines are  established to meet the
 60,000 ppm and 1,000 ppm PCB
 concentration levels, respectively. The
 three performance deadlines that these
 railroad organizations must achieve to
 meet the 60,000 ppm level are: (1) After
 July 1,1983, the number of railroad
 transformers containing a PCB
 concentration  greater than 60,000 ppm in
 use by any railroad oganization may not
 exceed two-thirds of the total railroad
 transformers containing PCBs in use by
 that organization on January 1,1982; (2)
 after January 1,1984, the number of
 railroad transformers containing a PCB
 concentration  greater than 60,000 ppm in
 use by any railroad organization may
 not exceed one-third of the total railroad
 transformers containing PCBs in use by
•that organization on January 1,1982; and
 (3) after July 1,1984, the use of railroad
 transformers that contain dielectric
 fluids with a PCB concentration level of
 greater than 60,000 ppm is prohibited.
 The environmental risks and economic
 impacts involved in these three
 performance deadlines  for the 60,000
 ppm concentration level are discussed
 in Unit IV.D.3. of this preamble.
   The three performance deadlines for
 the 1,000 ppm concentration level follow
 a schedule that parallels that set for the
 60,000 ppm level: (1) After July 1,1985,
 the number of  railroad transformers
 containing a PCB concentration greater
 than 1,000 ppm in use by any affected
railroad organization may not exceed
 two-thirds of the total railroad
 transformers containing PCBs in use by
 that organization on July 1,1984; (2)
after January 1,1986, the number of
 railroad transformers containing a PCB
 concentration greater than 1,000 ppm in
 use by any affected railroad
 organization may not exceed one-third
 of the total railroad transformers
 containing PCBs in use by that
 organization on July 1,1984; and (3) after
 July 1,1986, use of railroad transformers
 that contain dielectric fluids with a PCB
 concentration greater than 1,000 ppm is
 prohibited. The environmental risks and
 economic impacts involved in these
 three performance deadlines for the
 1,000 ppm concentration level are
 discussed in Unit IV.D.3. of this
 preamble.
   As required by section 6{e)(2)(B) of
 TSCA, the Agency has balanced the
 public health and environmental risks of
 this use of PCBs with the benefits and
 economic impacts of this use. In
 addition, EPA has compared the risks
 and benefits involved in the proposed
 amendment with the comparable risks
 and benefits of the alternative
 regulatory options. This analysis is
 discussed, together with the Agency's
 unreasonable risk determination and
 findings  in Unit IV of this preamble.

 B. Provision for the Reclassification of
 Railroad Transformers Subject to This
 Use Rule

   EPA has added a provision to the PCB
 rules to permit these railroad
 organizations to service PCB railroad
 transformers in order to change their
 classification and thereby reduce
 burdens  associated with disposal. Thus,
 railroad transformers will be serviced in
 a manner consistent with other
 transformers under 40 CFR 761.30(a)(5).
 Section 761.30(a)(5) allows the
 conversion of a PCB Transformer to a
 PCB-Contaminated Transformer or a
 non-PCB Transformer by draining,
 refilling,  and otherwise servicing the
 non-railroad transformer. In order to
 reclassify, the non-railroad
 transformer's dielectric fluid must
 contain less than 500 ppm PCB (for
 conversion to a PCB-Contaminated
 Transformer) or less than 50 ppm (for
 conversion to a non-PCB Transformer)
 after a minimum of three months of in-
 service use subsequent to the last
 servicing conducted for the purpose of
 reducing  the PCB concentration in the
 transformer. Therefore, paragraph
 (b)(2)(vii) of § 761.30 has been added to
 this use rule to provide similar
 reclassification procedures for both
railroad and non-railroad transformers.
This amendment is intended to provide
an additional incentive for railroad
organizations to conduct the necessary
retrofill operations to lower the PCB
concentration levels in their railroad

-------
126	Federal  Register / Vol. 48. No. 1 /Monday, January 3, 1983  / Rules and Regulations
transformers below 1,000 ppm. These
organizations can realize cost savings
through lower disposal costs for PCB-
Contaminated and non-PCB
Transformers under EPA regulations at
40 CFR 761.60. By providing further
incentive for railroad organizations to
lower PCB concentrations in these
transformers below 1,000 ppmi this
provision will also aid in ensuring that
unreasonable risks are not presented by
the promulgation of this rule.
C. Date of Promulgation for This Rule
  In order to avoid a  "race to the
courthouse" by persons seeking judicial
review of this rule. EPA has decided to
designate the time and date of
promulgation of this rule as 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on January 17.
1983. The Agency has previously taken
this approach for rules promulgated
under the Clean Water Act (see 40 CFR
100.01, 45 FR 26048). The Agency will be
considering a general rule for TSCA
similar to 40 CFR 100.01.
  The remainder of this preamble
includes three primary units. Unit III of
the preamble presents a review of
significant information submitted by the
railroad organizations during this
rulemaking activity. Unit IV includes a
discussion of the specific factors
considered in the unreasonable risk
determination with respect to thest
changes in the use rule. Finally, in Unit
V, the Agency will respond to other
proposed amendments presented by
railroad organizations in this •
rulemaking.
III. Information Submitted by the
Railroad Organizations on Technical
Problems of Retrofilling PCB Railroad
Transformers
  During this rulemaking activity, the
affected railroad organizations
contributed information directly related
to EPA concerns in promulgating the
May 1979 rule. The following categories
of information have been relied on by
the Agency in the development of this
rule.
A. Compliance Problems With the May
1979 Rule
  The affected railroad organizations
contributed significant information with
respect to specific performance deadline
requirements. These organizations
provided two primary reasons for their
failure to comply with the performance
deadlines in the May 1979 rule: (1) The
majority of these railroad organizations
did not select an adequate non-PCB
substitute until October 15,1981, and (2)
for certain organizations, necessary
Federal funding for this activity was not
received in time to perform the required
retrofifls on transformers. The factors in
the respective choices of substitute
dielectric fluids are discussed in Unit
IV.C. of this preamble. The issue of
Federal funding for this activity is of
particular importance for one of these
organizations, the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA). Of these organizations, SEPTA
owns the largest number of PCB railroad
transformers. As a result of the limited
amount of nonJFederal funds for its
maintenance projects, SEPTA depends
significantly on funding from the Urban
Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) of
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
SEPTA'S delay in receiving necessary
UMTA funds was due to several factors:
(1) Its failure to receive the necessary
matching funds from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and its constituent
localities; (2) alterations in the UMTA
procedure for funding applications for
capital modification projects; and  (3) the
delay in the submission of the SEPTA
application for the first phase of
retrofilling which was not formally
received by UMTA until April 8,1982.
B. Restrictions in Conducting the
Necessary Retrofits
  In its consideration of specific
compliance dates for the 60,000 ppm and
l.OQO ppm concentration levels, EPA has
relied on information from the railroad
organizations with respect to the
maximum amount of railroad
transformers that can be serviced  each
week.,SEPTA has stated that only four
of its cars per week can be properly
retrot'illed by its servicing contractor. In
addition, SEPTA commented that,  if the
New York MetropolitanTransportation
Authority (New York MTA) and the
New Jersey Transit Corporation (New
Jersey Transit) are each planning to
retrofill one transformer per  week, in
addition to SEPTA'S four transformers
per week, the General Electric service
shop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
would probably be at its limit of
capacity. Hence, the most rapid retrofill
schedule that can be conducted for the
transformers in violation of the January
1,1982 deadline of the May 1979 rule is 6
transformers per week. (This calculation
disregards Amtrak which performs its
own retrofilling operations.)
  SEPTA and other railroad
organizations have commented  that
certain factors limit their capacity to
retrofill their railroad transformers.
First, they believe that only "quality"
retrofills will result in meeting the
compliance deadlines. This process
requires removal of the transformer,
application of a proper retrofill process,
and the subsequent reattachment  of the
transformer to the respective vehicles.
SEPTA has stated that if retrofilling is
performed on a transformer attached to
a self-propelled car, approximately 15
percent of the total dielectric fluid
would still remain. As a result, any non-
PCB substitute used to retrofill a
transformer would become
contaminated with the remaining PCB
fluid. Hence, SEPTA has concluded that
removal of the transformer from the car
can decrease the amount of PCB fluid
remaining in the transformer after
draining. Second,  with the exception of
Amtrak, these railroad organizations
rely on the General Electric service shop
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as their
sole contractor for these retrofilling
operations. In particular, SEPTA
believes that the General Electric shop
is the only service facility that is
capable of providing the required
retrofill services with the removal of the
transformers from the respective cars.
Third, the "drop tables" at each of the
railroad organization's facilities used to
remove the transformers from the  cars
cannot be used exclusively for
retrofilling, because these facilities are
also required for routine maintenance
and repairs resulting from collisions or
other non-routine  maintenance damage.
At least 10 percent of each of these
railroad organization's cars are out of
service for routine inspection and
maintenance.
  The maximum retrofill schedule might
be accelerated by the entry of additional
service contractors with the capacity to
perform retrofills with the removal of
the transformer from the car. Comments
from Westinghouse Electric Corporation
and Energy Optimization Incorporated
(EOI) indicated that other retrofill
servicing firms might be able to provide
the required retrofill services in the near
future. Amtrak has also provided
information that it could perform these
retrofill services for other railroad
organizations. Despite the possible entry
of these firms to provide retrofilling
services for these railroad organizations.
a large number of railroad cars or
locomotives to be retrofilled cannot bo
removed from service  within any single
period.

  According to SEPTA and the other
railroad organizations, the
aforementioned constraints on their
compliance with the respective PCB
concentration levels require that they
proceed on a phased, uniform retrofilling
schedule. Any clustering of retrofilling
operations resulting in the removal of a

-------
              Federal Register / Vol.  48, No. 1 / Monday. January 3, 1983 / Rules  and Regulations	127
 large number of self-propelled cars from
 commuter service is not possible.
 C. Necessary Retrofit! Operations To
 Achieve Compliance With the 1,000
 PPMPCB Concentration Level

   In their comments, all of the railroad
 organizations agreed that the 60,000 ppra
 PCB concentration level could be
 achieved in one retrofill. Prior to recent
 results from a SEPTA demonstration
 project, however, there was concern
 whether the 1,000 ppm concentration
 level could be met in two retrofills. A
 demonstration project by SEPTA on a
 PCB railroad transformer in operation
 since June 1979 has contributed
 important information following the first
 and second retrofills of this transformer
 with a non-PCB dielectric fluid (IRA-
 LEG Tl). After one retrofill, in February
 1980, the PCB concentration level was
 measured at 15,600 ppm (1.56 percent
 PCB concentration level). Following a
 second retrofill, the transformer was
 measured in August 1981 as containing »
 PCB concentration level of 137 ppm.
 Later measurements in November 1981
 and February 1982 showed levels of
 approximately 480 ppm and 489 ppm,
 respectively.
  Comments have also been  received
 that in addition to traditional
 technologies that use liquid solvents as
 a flushing medium, there exists an
 alternative method for the railroad
 organizations to meet  the 1,000 ppm
 concentration level requirement. This
 alternative retrofill method uses an
 electrical grade non-PCB flushing fluid
 which is  chemically equivalent to
 standard freon refrigerants. This method
 transforms the fluid into a gas for
 penetration of the transformer interior.
 (The freon product used in this method
 is commercially known as "freon 111")
 According to the developer of this
 method, the process- depends on  a
 combination of liquid sprays, rinses, and
 soaks, interspersed with freon gas
 bombardment of the transformer
 interiors. The process will require
 approximately five days per railroad
 transformer. This method can be applied
 with the transformer in place under the
 railroad car.
  The developer of this system
 conducted a demonstration on a  750
 KVA network transformer containing
 270 gallons of PCB dielectric fluid. The
 trend in the leaching rate for PCBs into
 transformer fluid used in this
demonstration indicates that after 53
days of operation, the PCB
concentration has leveled off and
remained under 500 ppm.
 IV. Specific Factors Considered in This
 Unreasonable Risk Determination
 Concerning PCB Railroad Transformers
   To authorize any use of PCBs under
 section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA, EPA must
 find that the activity wilt not present an
 unreasonable risk of injury to human
 health or the environment. This
 determination involves balancing the
 probability that harm will occur from
 the use of PCBs and the magnitude and
 severity of that harm against the
 benefits to society that would result
 from the proposed regulatory action. In
 determining whether an unreasonable
 risk is present, EPA has considered the
 following factors:
   1. The effects  of PCBs on human
 health and the environment, including
 the magnitude of PCB exposure.
   2. The benefits of PCBs in railroad
 transformers.
   3. The adequacy of the available
 substitute dielectric fluids.
   4. The reasonably ascertainable
 economic impact of the rule after the
 consideration of impacts on the national
 economy, small business, technological
 innovation, the environment, and public
 health.
   These factors  are listed in section 6(c)
 of TSCA and are applicable to
 determinations concerning whether a
 chemical presents an unreasonable risk
 under section 6(a) and 6(e) of TSCA.
   This unit will discuss these key
 factors in the unreasonable risk
 determination for this use rule. Finally,
 it will present specific findings for the
 determination that this use of PCBs does
 not present an unreasonable risk.

 A. Human Health and Environmental
 Risks
   In determining whether this
 amendment to the May 1979 rule is
 warranted, EPA considered information
 concerning the effects of PCBe on human
 health and the environment. The effects
 of PCBs were described in various
 documents which were part of the
 rulemaking record for the May 1979 rule.
 EPA evaluated this information, new
 information submitted to the Agency, as
 well as other recent literature on the
 effects of PCBs. The results are
 presented in the  document "Response to
 Comments on Health Effects of PCBs."
 This document is included m the
 rulemaking record. Copies of this
 document are available through the
 Industry Assistance Office (see the "FOB
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT"
paragraph).
  1. Health effects. In sum, EPA has
determined that while PCBs have not
been found to be uniquely toxic, they
are toxic and persistent.
   Chloracne occurs.in humans exposed
 to PCBs. Although the effects of
 chloracne are reversible, EPA does not
 consider it insignificant. Chloracne is
 painful, disfiguring, and may require a
 long period of time before
 symptomatology disappears. Other
 areas of major concern have been
 identified by EPA. EPA finds that
 reproductive effects, developmental
 toxicity, and oncogenicity are areas of
 concern and may produce effects in
 humans exposed to PCBs.
   Available data show that some PCBs
 have the ability to alter reproductive
 processes in mammalian species,
 sometimes even at doses that do not
 cause other signs of toxicity. Animal
 data and limited available human data
 indicate that prenatal exposure to PCBs
 can result in various degrees of
 developmentally toxic effects. Postnatal
 effects have also been demonstrated on
 immature animals following exposure
 prenatally and via breast milk.
   Available animal studies indicate an
 oncogenic potential (the degree of which
 would be  dependent on exposure).
 Available epidemiological data are not
 adequate  to confirm or negate oncogenic
 potential in humans at this time. Further
 epidemiological research is needed in
 order to correlate human and animal
 data, but EPA does not find any
 evidence to suggest that the animal data
 would not be predictive of human
 potential.
   EPA agrees that little or no mutagenic
 activity from PCBs is indicated from
 available data. It is EPA's opinion that
 more information is needed to draw a
 final conclusion on the possibility of
 mutagenic effects from PCBs.
   EPA does not attribute all the effects
 observed with PCBs to be due to toxic
 impurities. Relatively pure PCB
 congeners have been shown to produce
 toxicity equivalent to that found when
 testing commercial PCB mixtures
 containing higher-levels of impurities.
   EPA also does not assume that all
 PCBs are equivalent toxicologically. It
 cannot be assumed that if one PCB
 congener is positive or negative for a
 specific health effect, then all PCB
 congeners are also positive or negative
 for that specific health effect. Research
 is  just beginning in this area; many more
 studies need to be conducted on specific
 congeners before conclusions can be
 reached on an isomer or cogener
 specific basis. Until such time, however,
 based on long-standing EPA policy, the
 Agency has determined that under
 section 6(e) all PCB congeners will be
regulated uniformly,
  2. Environmental effects. PCBs have
been shown to affect the productivity of

-------
128         Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  1 / Monday, January 3,  1983 / Rules and  Regulations
phytoplankion and the composition of
phytoplankton commu lities. Deleterious
effects on environmentally important
freshwater invertebrates from PCBs
have been demonstrated. PCBs have
also been shown to impair reproductive
success in birds and mammals.
  It has been demonstrated that PCBs
yre toxic to fish at very low exposure
l(;vrE'!s. The survival rate and the
reproductive success offish can be
adversely affected in the presence of
PCTs  Various sublethal physiological
effects attributed to PCBs have been
recorded in the literature. Abnormalities
in bone development and reproductive
organs have also been demonstrated.
  EPA concludes that PCBs can be
concentrated  and transferred in
freshwater and marine organisms.
Transfer up the food chain from
phytoplankton 'o ''nvertebrates, fish, and
mammals can result ultimately in human
exposure through consumption of PCB-
containing food sources
  3. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are
the two basic components of risk. As
indicated above, EPA concludes that in
addition to chloracne, there is the
potential for reproductive effects and
developmental toxicity as well as
oncogenic effects in humans based on
animal data. EPA also concludes that
PCBs do present a hazard to the
environment.
  Minimizing exposure to PCBs should
minimize any potential risk. The
requirements in this amendment to the
May 1979 rule will result in the
reduction of exposure relative to present
exposure levels from  railroad
transformer use. EPA's analysis of
regulatory options in  section D. of this
unit includes examining the
effectiveness of each  option in reducing
exposure, thereby reducing the
associated risk.
  Human health and  environmental
risks involved in  this  use authorization
relate to several categories of activity.
Through normal operation of railroad
cars, certain concentrations of PCBs  in
dielectric fluid are frequently spilled
onto railroad beds. These spills can
occur as a result of overheating or
electrical failure in the transformers  and
of damage to these transformers from
rocks and debris on the railroad bed.
The transformers on self-propelled
railroad cars are hung beneath their
mainframes, and they are consequently
vulnerable to  puncture and other
damage when the trains strike debris on
the tracks. These activities result in
risks to human health and the
environment.  As noted in the preamble
to the proposed PCB ban rule published
in the Federal Register of June 7,1978 (43
FR 24808), PCBs in railroad transformers
are released during servicing and
volatilized during overheating in
operation. The design of these
transformers, to fit within confined
spaces on locomotives and self-
propelled cars, has compounded the
overheating problem.
  There are two categories of persons
that could be exposed to PCBs by the
continuation of this use authorization:
(1) Workers in service shops and
railroad lines, and (2) persons exposed
to PCBs leaked or spilled on railroad
lines. PCB exposure from servicing
operations is  largely confined to
workers in service shops. EPA believes
that current service practices will result
in minimal human exposure to PCBs.
According to  comments submitted in
this rulemaking proceeding by various
railroad organizations, adequate
workplace controls to reduce risks from
exposure to PCBs  are provided by the
marking and disposal requirements in 40
CFR Part 761, together with procedures
for the handling and disposal of PCBs
used by the Consolidated Rail
Corporation (Conrail). Conrail is a
railroad organization created by
Congress in the Regional Rail
Reorganization Act of 1973, 45 U.S.C.
741, which provides maintenance and
other operational services to the
railroad organizations subject to this
rule except for Amtrak. Amtrak has
developed its own procedures for the
handling and  disposal of PCBs. The
railroad organizations have stated that
when Conrail ceases  to provide
operational service after January 1,1983,
Conrail's servicing procedures will be
continued by  servicing contractors). It
is also anticipated that at least a portion
of the present servicing obligations of
Conrail will be replaced by the recently
incorporated Commuter Services
Corporation which was created by
Congress in 1981 to replace Conrail's
maintenance and other operational
services. Included in these procedures
are guidelines concerning: (1) Protective
clothing to minimize exposure during
retrofills and  normal shop maintenance
functions; (2)  workplace procedures for
conducting retrofills;  (3) precautionary
measures, including cleanup procedures,
to prevent skin contact with or ingestion
of PCBs; (4) floor and curbing
specifications; (5)  inspection of storage
areas for leaks; and (6) handling and
storage of PCBs in yard and shop areas.
In addition to these general guidelines,
there exist more detailed procedures
that have been designed by railroad
organizations for certain railroad work
sites and retrofill/repair shops. These
general and particular servicing
practices, and strict compliance with
EPA marking and disposal requirements
in 40 CFR Part 761 will significantly
reduce any potential exposure to PCBs
suffered by workers who service
transformers.
  Because leaks and moderate spills do
not cause the immediate failure of
railroad transformers, railroad
transformer leaks and spills can spread
PCBs over extensive distances along the
railroad beds. Hence, persons can be
exposed to PCBs leaked or spilled on
these railroad lines. Westinghouse
Electric Corporation has indicated that
as much as 30 percent of the dielectric
fluid of a railroad transformer can leak
before  the unit fails. SEPTA has
commented that its self-propelled cars
operate from  one to twenty miles
between stops. There are some express
commuter cars in SEPTA's system  that
could run twenty miles without stopping.
In Amtrak's experience, punctures
frequently result in leaks of dielectric
fluid along the right of way.
  The magnitude of exposure to PCBs
from railroad transformers relates to the
amount and concentration of PCBs in
dielectric fluid that are released from
these transformers. The capacity of self-
propelled cars and locomotives varies in
the  ranges of  130-220 gallons and 420-
750 gallons of dielectric fluid,
respectively. The magnitude of exposure
to PCBs in these transformers resulting
from leaks and spill events will vary by
the  concentration levels of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid of these transformers and
by the amounts of PCBs which are
leaked  or spilled. For example, at a
550,000 ppm PCB concentration level (a
typical PCB concentration in a railroad
transformer in violation of the May 1979
rule), the maximum leakage of PCBs and
exposure to PCBs from a single spill
event would be approximately 268
pounds. In contrast, at a concentration
of 60,000 ppm, the maximum leakage of
PCBs from a transformer would be
lowered to 29 pounds. Further, at a
concentration of 1,000 ppm, the
maximum leakage of PCBs from a
transformer would be lowered to about
0.5 pounds. (Under 40 CFR 761.3(m),
"leaks" refer  to instances in which any
electrical equipment, including PCB
railroad transformers, have any PCBs on
any portion of their external surface(s).
Hence, the Agency views "leaks" as any
release of PCBs on any portion of the
railroad transformer. "Spill events" refer
to significant  leaks of dielectric fluid
that can be identified by the railroad
organizations in their normal
operational practices.)
  EPA has extrapolated to determine
the maximum PCB leakage from the
operation-pf railroad transformers.
Given the information received during

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.  1 / Monday, January 3,  1983 / Rules and Regulations         129
this rulemaking activity, EPA has
determined that if no restrictions were
required for railroad transformers, a
maximum of approximately 231,000
pounds would be released over the
remaining useful lives of the PCS
railroad transformers in active service
on January 1,1982. This determination is
based on the following assumptions: (1)
773,000 pounds of PCBs are present in
railroad transformers in active service
on January 1,1982, and (2) a  maximum
of 30 percent of the total dielectric fluid
in a railroad transformer can be
released as leaks or spills before the
transformers fail. This amount of PCBs
potentially released in railroad beds or
workplaces could cause a significant
risk of injury to human health or the
environment.
  Data  concerning recorded  spill events
experienced by certain railroad
organizations support the finding that
this1 use of PCBs presents a risk of injury
to human health or the environment. The
New York Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (New York MTA) has
submitted information that in 1980 and
1981, there were 11 recorded spills in "the
New York MTA/Connecticut
Department of Transportation
(ConnDOT) systems. SEPTA has
submitted data that in 1981, there were
15 recorded spill events in its system,
with 168 gallons of dielectric fluid
(approximately 1,155 pounds of PCBs)
discharged into the environment as a
result of these events.

B. Benefits ofPCB Use in Railroad
Transformers
  The benefits of PCB use in railroad
transformers include: (1) The unique
properties of PCBs as a dielectric fluid,
and (2) the benefits derived from
allowing their continued use  in railroad
transformers, i.e., avoidance  of further
retrofilling or replacement costs and of
service interruptions.
  Perhaps the most important attribute
of PCBs as a dielectric fluid for railroad
transformers is their nonflammability.
Prior to  the enactment of section 6(e) of
TSCA in 1976, these railroad
organizations had relied on PCBs as a
liquid coolant and as an insulating
medium in railroad transformers. PCBs
have good heat transfer and dielectric
properties.
  At present, these railroad
organizations do  not have a sufficient
number of locomotives and self-
propelled cars equipped with non-PCB
railroad transformers to enable them to
retire those equipped with PCB
transformers. Transformers in 756
electric railroad self-propelled cars and
locomotives operated in the
northeastern United States by Amtrak
and four State/metropolitan commuter
transit authorities contain PCBs. The
respective railroad organizations'
reliance on PCB railroad transformers
varies among the organizations. The
respective levels of reliance on PCB
railroad transformers include: (1) 53
percent for Amtrak's commuter service
in the Northeast Corridor; (2) 86 percent
for SEPTA's metropolitan Philadelphia
commuter service; and (3) 100 percent
for the New Haven, Connecticut to New
York  City line of New York MTA and
ConnDOT. New Jersey Transit relies on
its self-propelled cars and locomotives
with PCB transformers for its South
Amboy, New Jersey to New York City
line. Removal of these transformers
without adequate replacements would
seriously disrupt necessary commuter
rail service areas. In  addition, these
organizations do not  have adequate
funding to replace these transformers.
Moreover, the accquisition of new
transformers or entire new self-
propelled cars by these organizations
cannot be accomplished within the time
frame of the 1979 use authorization.
  The aforementioned problems of these
railroad organizations are particularly
significant as related to the number of
PCB railroad transformers operating in
these specific service areas. According
to information submitted during this
rulemaking, SEPTA owns 319
transformers in self-propelled cars. New
York  MTA and ConnDOT own 244 PCB
transformers in self-propelled  cars. New
Jersey Transit owns 106 PCB
transformers used in  self-propelled cars
and 11 PCB transformers in its
locomotives. Amtrak owns 87  PCB
transformers, with 61 transformers in
self-propelled cars and 26 transformers
in locomotives. The 61 transformers in
self-propelled cars were in compliance
with the January 1,1982 deadline. The 26
transformers in locomotives are not in
compliance with that deadline. In
addition, Conrail and the Maryland
Department of Transportation own PCB
railroad transformers in inactive service.
  Because of the reliance of these
organizations on PCB railroad
transformers to  maintain commuter
service,^ is important that EPA provide
performance deadlines that allow for the
continuation of this use of PCBs with
consideration for the  minimization of
risks to public health or the
environment.

C. Adequacy of the Available Substitute
Dielectric Fluids
  At the time of promulgation  of the
May 31,1979 rule, railroad organizations
had been testing for potential substitute
dielectric fluids. By that date, no PCB
substitutes had performed satisfactorily
in tests in railroad transformers. When
the performance deadlines in the May
1979 rule were promulgated, EPA had
expected timely testing and selection of
an adequate PCB substitute from these
continuing tests. In this testing, several
non-PCB dielectric fluids successfully
used for retrofilling non-railroad
transformers overheated or created
pumping problems in railroad
applications. The failure of these
common PCB substitutes considerably
delayed the process of selecting a
suitable non-PCB dielectric fluid for PCB
railroad transformers. In  the preamble to
the proposed amendment to this use
rule, EPA stated that certain dielectric
fluids appeared to be feasible PCB
substitutes: IRA-LEC, FR-15, Midel
7131, and RTEmp Blend (Rail Temp).
Subsequent to the publication of the
proposed amendment on November 18,
1981, Rail Temp (a trichlorobenzene
product)  has been canceled by its
distributor. In its comments concerning
this decision, the distributor of Rail
Temp cited a 1979 report  concerning
certain public health and environmental
risks that might result from the
incineration of  chlorobenzenes at high
temperatures. Following a review of this
report, the distributor chose to
concentrate its  marketing efforts on a
synthetic ester  substitute, Envirotemp
100. During this period, EPA has been
informed of other substitute fluids that
have been introduced to the market.
  1. Information Concerning Non-PCB
Dielectric Fluids, a. IRA-LEC'/FR-15.
IRA-LEC and FR-15 have been tested
by SEPTA and  other railroad
organizations and have been found to be
suitable dielectric fluids for PCB
railroad transformers. Unlike substitute
dielectric fluids with synthetic esters,
IRA-LEC and FR-15 are non-flammable.
According to SEPTA and other railroad
organizations, these fluids possess good
dielectric properties and thermal
characteristics. IRA-LEC and FR-15 are
mixtures of 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene; 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene; 1,2,3,4-
tetrachlorobenzene; and other
hydrocarbons.
  Certain railroad organizations have
expressed concern that the toxicity and
persistence of the chlorinated benzenes
contained in FR-15 and IRA-LEC may
make them subject to future regulatory
action. One of the trichlorobenzenes
contained in these fluids, 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene, is listed as a
"hazardous constituent" for EPA
regulations, 40 CFR Part 261, under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6902. Therefore, given this
possibility of future Federal regulation,
certain railroad organizations have been

-------
130
Federal: Register / Voli. 4b, 'Jibe.  1 /< Monday, January &  1983 / Rules and Regulations
reluctant to use these fluids for
retrofitting.- At this paintt however, these
fluids-are^suitafale for meeting the
performance deadlines, iir this use rule.
EPA-is in the process ofmegoliating an
agreement with-producere of certain
isomers of chlorinated henzenea ta
conduct spacific health-effecls;testssof
these isomera., including l',2,4-
trichlorobenzene contained in FR-15"
and IRA-LEC. A notice, describing the
terms of this agreement'will be
published for public comment in-.the
Federal Register prior to the:
commencement of these  health effesis
tests. Aw evaluation of the'residts of
these tests will determine wheihei any
regulatory-action i&necaasacy under
section: ff of TSCA, to protect-public
health and. the environment from
exposure to trichlorobsnzene.
  h^ Midel 713& Midel 7131 ir composed
of pentaerythritol esters  and is
manufactured in the United Kingdom
and the United.States. According to
SEPTAiandiother railroad organizations,
Mi del provides good dielectric strength
and is non-toxic and biodegradable.
However, certain railroad organizations
have expressed concern  about Midel's
fire point of 310° C. which is close to the
minimum standard of section 450-23 of
the  National Electrical Code of the
National Fire Protection  Association,
i.e., 300° C. This standard has been
accepted by these railroad organizations
as their minimum standard for dielectric
fluids in passenger applications.
  According to Amtrak, Midel's fire
point is sufficiently higher than the
minimum standard of the-National
Electrical Code. In addition. Amtrak has
cited the successful use of.Midel as a
substitute for PCB fluids  in enclosed
switches in the Dartford,Tunnel,
London. According to Amtrak'a-
commenU this application of Midel
demonstrates its high resistance to
repeated arcing in the fluid as compared
with the  arcing: which would.be
experienced, mainly under fault
conditions, in a PCB railroad
transformer.
  Based  on a review of testa-of the.
flammability of Midel in railroad
transformers as conducted by Factory
Mutual Research Corporation, the
FederaJ Railroad Administration has
concluded that Midel is-satisfactory as a
non-PCB dielectric fluid  for railroad
transformer use.
  c. Other non-PCB dielectric fluids.
Envirotemp lOftis composed of
pentaerythritol estera, and its  dielectric
properties and chemical composition are
similar to Midel 7131; Like Midel
Envirotemp is biodegradable; non-
bioaccumuiating, and non-toxic.
                                                     from a
                           major-sap pUervafcsjinihetic-based
                           lubricant s*fpirjpt-efl#nes, another
                           tranatemerflttidbwith alchemical
                           compOMttoajand dieleolric. properties
                           similairto'Midei-caulditte introduced in
                           the nearfiuAuflc
                           achif&ia& the •#«». |#un. ffCB,
                           conoanttaiian level As described in
                           Unit ULC~of tfajs-grearoble, the Agency
                           ha&roeaitred information thai confirms
                           that theaefPCB neulroad transformera aan
                           achieve the HQOO.gpin.PGB.
                           coneantratienJ«««l,inttvarelEofills. As
                           a result-:of ^demonstration-project
                           condaEted-bySEET&on a PCB railroad
                           transfoDtnatuir operation- since June 1879,
                           thera-is. suhataniiftl evidence that, the
                           PCB concentration levelhas bean
                           lowered- ta below 1*000. ppm after two
                           retrofills using FR.-15 or IRA-LEC. The
                           last recorded reading of this-
                           demonstration, conducted eight months
                           after the second retrofill, has shown that
                           the leaching of PGBa from, the
                           transformer has. nat resulted in, a PCB
                           concentration-level. exceeding  the 1,000
                           ppm leveLAs described in Unit III.C. of-
                           this preamble, thfcEesults of the SEPTA
                           demonstration project indicate that the
                           PCB concentration level in the
                           transformer has leveled off and
                           remained under 500 ppm. Although EPA
                           believes that this demonstration
                           confirms that the 1,000 ppm level is
                           feasible as a mandated concentration
                           level for the second set of performance
                           deadlines, the results from this
                           demonstration have not yet provided
                           sufficient data to confirm the feasibility
                           of a 500 ppm mandated concentration
                           level.
                           D. Economic arid-Environmental
                           Impacts of Regulatory Options
                            EPA considered three primary
                           regulatory options- in amending this use
                           rule. These options-were: (1) To
                           maintain the deadlines ire the May 1&79
                           rule, (2) to. rescind the performance
                           deadlines of the May 1979 rule, and (3)
                           to extend the deadlines in the. May 1979
                           rule. This unit will consider the
                           economic and environmental impacts of
                           these regulatory options.
                            1. Maintenance of the performance
                           deadlines in the-May 1979 use rule.
                           Without this amendment to the current
                           performance deadlines-, approximately
                           669 transformers would be in violation
                           of the January 1, 1982 performance
                           deadline. These transformers provide
                           most of the  daily commuter service to
                           the metropolitan areas of the
                           northeastern United Slates. If
                           transformers were- removed, from
                           service, there.would.be severe'
                           interruptions in daily commuter service
which could>affeet both users of the?
railroads and railroad workers,.and
would have secondary effects onsnelated
businesses. For example, small
businesses serving metropolitan areas of
the northeastern United States, could
suffer significant commercial losses.
resulting, from a temporary cessation of
public transit. This effect on small.
businesses would result from the.
dependency of businesses in these
commercial area* on public transit
operations conducted.by these railroad
organizations. These public, transit.
operations-provide necessary-access for
residents of the affected-metropolitan
areas to shop in commercial areas
served by public-rail transit.
  Without an>extension of the*
performance deadlines in the May 1979
rule, there would' be increased vehicular
traffic in th» affected metropolitan areas
resulting from Deduced railroad
commuter traffic. Congestion wou'dbbe
increased in these metropolitan areas,
with increased air pollution and a higher
risk of automobile accidents; If the
current performance deadlines are not
expended and these  railroad
organizations-ceased commuter service,
SEPTA has estimated  that the following
impacts would-result in its service area:
(1) Approximately 73,000 increased auto
trips per day:  (2) approximately
32,500,000 aggregate pounds per year in
increased air  pollution through
emissions of carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxide; and
(3) an increase of approximately 61,000
gallons in daily regional gasoline
consumption.  Similar impacts could be
expected for other affected metropolitan
areas in the northeastern United States.
  Existing service capacity for
commuters could be maintained only by
these organizations  incurring significant
costs to replace existing PCB railroad
transformers.  Given cost estimates
provided by SEPTA and the other
affected organizations, the total
incremental'replacement costs for these
transformers would  rangp from
approximately $28 million,, assuming a
useful life of 15 years for a transformer,
to $63 million assuming a useful life of
30 years for a transformer,.
  The advantages of maintaining the
performance deadlines of the May 1979
rule include the prevention of PCB
exposure to railroad: workers and
persons affected by  PCB leaks and.spills
along the railroad-lines, and the
avoidance of  cleanup costs that result
from releases of PCBs during-this use.
  2. Rescission of the performance
deadlines in the May 1979 rule. This
option was proposed by certain railroad
organizations-, including SEPTA and

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 48,  No. 1 /  Monday. January 3. 1983  /  Rules and Regulations	131
 New York MTA, as an alternative to
 their proposed modification of the
 performance deadlines in the May 1979
 rule. It was presented in conjunction
 with th'eir argument that PCB railroad
 transformers should qualify as "totally
 enclosed" uses under section 6(e)(2)(C)
 of TSCA. (For a discussion of this issue,
 see Unit V.A. of this preamble,)
   Under this option, 773,000 pounds of
 PCBs in railroad transformers would be
 used in active service for the remaining
 useful lives of these transformers.
 Westinghouse Electric Corporation
 estimated that  a maximum of 30 percent
 of the total dielectric fluid in a railroad
 transformer might be released as leaks
 and spills before the transformer fails.
 Hence, a maximum of approximately
 231,000 pounds of PCBs could be
 released into the environment under this
 alternative. Compared with the other
 options, this alternative would represent
 the greatest magnitude and risk of
 exposure from the use of PCBs in
 railroad transformers.
   The advantage of this option is the
 avoidance of the cost of performing one
 or two retrofills for these transformers.
 The total costs  of retrofilling these PCB
 railroad transformers to meet the 1,000
 ppm concentration level ranges from
 $8.3 to $23 million. Under this option,
 however,  small businesses that could
 provide retrofilling functions for these
 railroad organizations would lose the
 opportunity to perform these services.
 These cost estimates are described in
 greater detail in the Agency's economic
 analysis prepared for this rulemaking.
   3. Extension of the performance
 deadlines in the May 1979 rule. As
 described in Unit II, in their comments
 for this rulemaking, the railroad
 organizations presented the following
 proposal for the extension of the
 performance deadlines in the May 1979
 rule. In sum, they urged EPA to: (1)
 Order the reduction of PCB
 concentrations in railroad transformers
 to 60,000 ppm by July 1,1984; (2) order
 the reduction of PCB concentrations in
 railroad transformers to 20,000 ppm by
 July 1,1986; and (3) allow the use of
 PCBs for the remaining useful lives of
 these transformers below 20,000 ppm.
  This amendment to the use rule differs
 from the proposed rule in the following
 requirements. First, the amendment
 establishes a set of three performance
 deadlines  for these transformers to
 achieve a 60,000 ppm level. Under these
 deadlines, one-third of the transformers
 in active service by each railroad
 organization must reach this level by
July 1,1983; another third by January 1,
 1984; and the final third by July 1,1984.
Second, the amendment establishes a
set of three performance deadlines for
  meeting the 1,000 ppm level. Under these
  deadlines, one-third of the transformers
  in active service by each railroad
  organization must reach this level by
  July 1,1985; another third by January 1,
  1986; and the final third by July 1,1986.
  Finally, the amendment deletes an
  expiration deadline for this use of PCBs
  at or below 1,000 ppm, allowing this  use
  of PCBs for the remaining useful lives of
  these transformers below 1,000 ppm.
  This unit will analyze the economic
  impacts and environmental risks of each
  of the principal requirements of this
  amendment to the May 1979 rule.
   a. Extension of the performance
  deadlines for the 60,000 and 1,000ppm
  concentration levels. In its joint petition
  of October 15,1981, SEPTA together
  with New Jersey Transit, New York
  MTA, and ConnDOT has provided
  certain cost assumptions which the
  Agency has used to calculate the
  economic impact of this amendment. In
  addition, the Agency has applied other
  assumptions in calculating the total cost
  of retrofilling railroad transformers
  under the deadlines of this amendment.
  These costs were estimated based on
  present value calculations. (These
  present value calculations take into
  account the opportunity costs of
  expenditures that are deferred by
 railroad organizations and shifted into
 retrofilling operations required under
  this rule.) The total costs of retrofilling
  these PCB railroad transformers to meet
 the 1,000 ppm concentration level ranges
 from $8.3' million to $23 million. For
 SEPTA, the range is between $3 million
 and $9.65 million. The estimate ranges of
 costs for the other railroad organizations
 are: $3 million to $7.4 million for New
 York MTA/ConnDOT, $938,000 to $3.2
 million for New Jersey Transit, and
 $654,000 to $2.4 million for Amtrak.
 According to the  Agency's economic
 analysis, the average cost-effectiveness
 of this amendment, excluding clean-up
 cost savings, ranges from $85 to $1,205
 per pound of PCBs saved from the
 environment. The assumptions and
 calculations supporting these estimates
 are presented in the economic analysis
 prepared for this  rulemaking.
   The developer of the freon retrofill
 method has commented that through
 application of its  method, the 1,000 ppm
 PCB concentration level can be met in
 one retrofill. Under cost assumptions
 presented by Positive Technologies Inc.
 (PTI), the total cost for the railroad
-organizations to meet the 1,000 ppm PCB
 concentration level could range from
 approximately $8.3 million, assuming  a
 15-year useful life for transformers, to
 $9.7 million, assuring a 30-year useful
 life. At this time, the Agency cannot
 confirm the accuracy of the cost
 assumptions presented by PTI.
   The extension of these performance
 deadlines would also have economic
 implications for small businesses. This
 amendment to the use  rule for PCB
 railroad transformers would avoid any
 adverse economic impact on small
 businesses. This amendment should
 provide incentives for the development
 of non-PCB substitute fluids and
 alternative retrofill technologies, a
 portion of which is provided by small
 businesses. In addition, this amendment
 will provide a stimulus for continued
 improvements in existing alternative
 retrofill methods including those retrofill
 methods provided by small businesses.
   Compliance by railroad organizations
 under the performance deadlines of this
 amendment would remove most of the
 PCBs in the dielectric fluid  of railroad
 transformers. On January 1,1982, there
 were 773,000 pounds of PCBs in railroad
 transformers used in active service.
 Under the performance deadlines of this
 rule, by July 1,1984, there should be
 93,000 pounds of PCBs  remaining in
 railroad transformers used in active
 service (60,000 ppm PCB concentration).
 Under the 1,000 ppm concentration
 requirement, by  July 1,1986, there would
 be only 1,550 pounds of PCBs remaining
 in railroad transformers used in active
 service. This will represent the
 maximum pounds of PCBs remaining in
 railroad transformers used in active
 service with the  elimination of an
 expiration.deadline under this rule.
 Therefore, with full compliance by
 railroad organizations,  99.8 percent of
 the PCBs present in the transformers on
 January 1,1982 will be  eliminated by
 this rule. This will greatly reduce the
 potential for contamination of the
 environment and exposure to humans
 from the continued use of railroad
 transformers.
  The aforementioned estimates have
 been derived from data provided by
 several railroad organizations. A key
 assumption for these estimates was an
 average PCB concentration  in railroad
 transformers, with the exception of
 transformers used in Amtrak self-
 propelled  cars, of 550,000 ppm (55.0
 percent on a dry weight basis). Amtrak
 was able to retrofill the 61 transformers
 in its self-propelled cars to meet the
 60,000 ppm (6 percent) concentration
 level by January  1,1982. Hence, for
 these estimates, the average PCB
concentration in  these transformers is at
 a 6 percent PCB level, rather than at a 55
percent PCB level. Amtrak did not,
however, retrofill the 26 PCB railroad
transformers in its locomotives by that
date. The average PCB concentration in

-------
 132	Federal. Register / Vol. 48, No>  1 / Monday. January 3t  1983 / Rules and Regulations
these transformers is at a 55 penoent
concentration. fov*l.
  Th* possible reliance by.'cartain.
railroadiaigankatioasam the fraon gas
methodftO'Supplemant th* retrofitting of
these transformers witn a noo-pCB
substitute flaid-wilLpnesent no known
risks to public health-on th€h
environment Given ihfoBnattvn,,
provided by th» develapatof this,
method, EPA, has .determined that as
used in  the netrofill of.these
transformers) an insignificant amount of
this-freon product-will be released into
the environment. After each netrofill of a
transformer with this process, the freon
gas-is recycled and used for other
retrofills. Given the minimal exposure
risk presented by  the use of the freon
product.in this retrofill process, no
regulatory action by the Agency under
section 6 of TSCA will be initiated.
  b. Performance  deadlinea-for lowering
PCS concentration levels in railroad
transformers to 60,000ppm and 1,000
ppm. The Agency  considered three-
options  for the establishment of
performance deadlines for,lowering PCB
concentration levels in railroad
transformers to 1,000 ppm by July 1.
1986. These options were: (1) Requiring
only a single performance deadline of
July 1.1986. for compliance with the
1.000 ppm concentration level; (2)
requiring one performance deadline fof
compliance with the 60,000 ppm  level
(July 1,1984) and one performance
deadline for compliance with the 1,000
ppm level (July 1,1988); and (3) requiring
three performance deadlines for
compliance with the 60,000 ppm  level
and three additional deadlines for
compliance with the 1,000 ppm level.
The Agency also considered-requiring
periodic reports of progress together
with each of these options.
  Under any of these approaches, with
traditional retrofill technology, these
organizations will conduct two retrofills
of their railroad transformers to  meet
the  1,000 ppm PCB concentration level
by July 1,1986. The testing, inspection,
and maintenance  costs should be
identical under any of'these approaches.
  EPA has-determined that options with
more performance deadlines ensure the
reduction of risk to-human health-and
the  environment associated with this
use of PCBs in a shorter period than
op'ions  with fewer deadlines. Because
there are significant differences  in (he-
risks involved with use of PCBs at
different concentrations! the six-stage
PCB reduction schedule has been
promulgated in this amendment  to
hasten retrofill progress. Given the
present  concentration level in most PCB
railroad transformers, there would be a
maximum release  of 268 pounds of-PCBs
from a maximum spill of 39 gallons of
dielectric fluid. With the 60,000 ppm
level, there would be a maximum
release of approximately 29 pounds of
PCBs from a similar transformer. With
the liOOO ppm Ifevei, there would be a
maximum^ release: of approximately 0.3
pound of PCBs from a-similar
transformer. It is EPA's concern for the
minimization of risks from a single spill
event that makes a schedule with more
performance deadlines more desirable.
Requiring periodic reports of progress
from these organizations would not.
contribute.to the reduction^ risks. Such
a requirement would merely provide
information, rather than risk-
minimization.
  EPA ha« determined that of the
options considered, a schedule with six
performance deadlines provides the
greatest assurance that these railroad'
organizations will not fall behind in
their retrofill schedule. This safeguard is
important because, according to the
comments provided1 by-these
organizations, each of them is limited as
to the rate at which cars can be removed
from service. Because of the limitation,
it is necessary for the retrofilling to
proceed at a steady rate. Options which
theoretically would provide greater
flexibility for  the railroad organizations
by specifying  fewer interim deadlines
are not desirable because such
flexibility has no practical value. This
conclusion is supported by the
comments of the  railroad organizations
that the maximum rate of removal of
cars from service cannot be exceeded.
Therefore, to comply with the final
deadline, railroad organizations must
not fall behind schedule. Requiring
compliance with  interim-deadlines
provides incentive for these
organizations to stay on schedule.
Requiring periodic reports of progress
from these organizations would not'
provide additional incentive'forthem to
maintain their schedule, and'would
impose unnecessary costs.
  Given rhese'considerations, EPA has
decided that a total of six performance
deadlines should be required-'for
compliance with  the rule; Periodic
progress reports will not be required.
The six performance deadlines in this
rule are easily achievable by, any. of the
railroad organizations because the
deadlines; have-been'developed to
follow the schedule-proposed by them.
  EPA has determined that no adverse
economic impacts: will result from the
promulgation of-a uniformly phased
schedule of six performance deadlines
as compared with the performance
deadlines that would be established
under any of the  other options.
Compared with these options; the
establishment of six performance
deadlines will not-impose any additional
costs on the affected railroad
organizations.
  c. Deletion of the expiration deadline
for this use of PCBs at a concentration
level below 1,000 ppm. The use
authorization for PCB railroad
transformers in the May 19T-9 rule
expires on July 1,1984, six months after
the-performance deadline for the 1,000
ppm concentration level. This
amendment will delete the expiration
deadline-for this use of PCBs below a
concentration of 1,000 ppm.
  This deletion of the expiration
deadline will allow these railroad
organizations to avoid the cost of at
least an additional retrofill of their
transformers to further reduce PCB
concentrations below 1,000 ppm. EPA
has estimated that the cost of a third
retrofill for these transformers to further
reduce PCB concentrations below 1,000
ppm would range from approximately
$6.7 million to $9.1 million.
Alternatively, the replacement costs for
these transformers would range  from
approximately $28 million to $63 million.
Finally, the Agency cannot determine
that it is technologically possible to
completely eliminate PCBs from railroad
transformers through retrofilling
operations, including the freon gas
method.
  After the last performance deadline of
this rule, July 1,1986, there will remain a
maximum of approximately 1,550
pounds of PCBs in active service in
these transformers. These transformers
can lose at most 30 percent of their
dielectric fluid before they fail. Hence,
approximately 460 pounds of PCBs as a
portion of the total dielectric fluid of
these transformers could be released
through leaks and spills on railroad beds
before the transformers fail. Similarly,
under the 1,000 ppm concentration level,
the maximum leakage of PCBs from a
railroad transformer for a single spill
event will be approximately 0.5 pound
of PCBs.

E. Findings-on the Use of PCBs in
Railroad' Transformers

  The Agency has concluded that thi
risks associated with extending  the
deadlines and allowing the use of PCBs
for the useful remaining lives of railroad
transformers at a concentration  level at
or below 1,000 ppm are outweighed by
the benefits of continued operation of
commuter rail service in the
northeastern United States and the costs
that are avoided by not requiring the
reduction of the PCB concentration level
below  1,000 ppm. Therefore,,EPA finds
that authorizing the use of PCBs in

-------
             Federal Register  /  Vol.  48.  No. 1 / Monday, January 3,  1988 / Rule* and Regulations	133
railroad transformers with the
performance deadlines specified in this
rule does not present an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment for the
following reasons:
  1. These performance deadlines
should progressively reduce the human
health and environmental risks involved
in this use of PCBs. By July 1,1986, PCB
concentration levels in dielectric fluid in
railroad transformers will be at or below
1,000 ppm. At this concentration level, a
minimal amount of PCBs (approximately
1,550 pounds) will remain in railroad
transformers. This amount constitutes
0.2 percent of the amount of PCBs used
in railroad transformers in active service
on January 1,1382. Under this schedule,
the risks involved in a release of PCBs
from these transformers will decrease
from a maximum release of 268 pounds
of PCBs from a single spill event under
present concentration levels to a
maximum release of 0.5 pound of PCBs
under the 1,000 ppm concentration level.
Further reductions in risk should occur
as a result of servicing provisions
permitting transformer reclassifications.
Railroad organizations will have the
incentive to reduce PCB concentrations
in transformers below 500 ppm, if
feasible, in order to reduce their
disposal burdens.
  2. The risks from continued use of
PCBs in railroad transformers would be
low, given the amount and
concentrations of PCBs remaining after
July 1. 1986, existing railroad workplace
controls, and EPA disposal requirements
in 40 CFR Part 761.
  3. The estimated costs for the
necessary retrofiH operations under this
amendment will range between $8.3
million and $23 million.
  4. The costs to these railroad
organizations associated with
retrofilling under these performance
deadlines are not excessive compared to
the amount of PCBs that are removed
from potential release into the
environment.
  5. Compared with the alternative of
two final compliance dates for the 60,000
ppm and 1,000 ppm PCB concentration
levels, the establishment of six
performance deadlines will not impose
any additional costs for testing,
inspection, and maintenance of these
transformers under requirements in 40
CFR Part 761.
  6. The continued use of PCBs in
railroad transformers under the
performance deadlines of this rule
would avoid a disruption of necessary
commuter rail service in the
northeastern United States.
  7. The continued use of PCBs in
railroad transformers under the
performance deadlines of this rule
would avoid increased vehicular traffic
in affected metropolitan areas with
related congestion and air pollution.
  8. There exist adequate non-PCB
dielectric fluids for use in railroad
transformers to lower the PCB
concentration level in railroad
transformers below 1,000 ppm. In
addition,, there is evidence that railroad
organizations might be able to lower
PCB concentration levels to below 500
ppm. These organizations are
encouraged to reach this level in order
to reduce their disposal burdens.
  9. The elimination of PCBs from these
railroad transformers might not be
technologically feasible through reirofiU
operations. Hypothetically, assuming
that additional retrofifls could eliminate
all PCB fluid from these transformers,
the costs of such retrofills (at least $6.7
million to $9.1 million) would be.
excessive. It would cost approximately
as much to eliminate the last 0.2 percent
of the PCB fhiid as the first 99.8 percent
In addition, the cost of replacement for
these transformers (between $28 million
and $63 million) would be an
unreasonable burden considering the
small amount of PCBs (a maximum of
1,550 pounds) that would be eliminated.
Under the 1,000 ppm concentration level,
the maximum release of PCBs from
these transformers for a single spill
event would be only 0.5 pound of PCBs.

V. Other Proposed Amendments
Presented by Railroad Organizations in
This Rulemaking
  Through the comment periods and
informal hearing related to the proposed
amendments to this use rule as
published in the Federal Register of
November 18,1981, the affected railroad
organizations presented several
regulatory options aot adopted in this
final use rule. This section presents
summaries of these-proposed
amendments as presented by the
affected railroad organizations and EPA
determinations on the validity of these
proposed options.

A. Issue Concerning Whether PCB
Railroad Transformers Should Qualify
as "Totally Enclosed" Uses  Under
Section 6(£)(2)(C) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act
  Reply comments presented hy SEPTA
and New York MTA proponed that their
PCB railroad transfocmers should be
defined as "totally endoaed" uses and
thereby excluded fnom this use rule.
Under section 6{fift23(Q of TSCA, the
continued uee of PCBs in a "totally
enclosed" manner is peiaiutted. TSCA
defines that category as "any manner
which will ensure that any exposure of
human beings or the environment to a
 polychlorinated biphenyi will be.
 insignificant as determined by the
 Administrator." As presented in EPA
 regulations at 40 CFR, 781.20, the Agency
 found that any exposure of humans or
 the environment to PCBs as measured or
 detected by any scientifically
 acceptable analytical method is.a
 significant exposure.
   In the comments of SEPTA and New
 York MTA, no information was provided
 by these organizations that the use of
 their railroad transformers would result
 in no-exposure to humane or the
 environment. Documentation was
 provided concerning the number of
 recorded spill accidents during I960 and
 19B1. According to these data, in 1980
 and 1881, there were eleven recorded
 spill events in the New York MTA and
 ConnDOT service  system (five recorded
 spills in 1980, six recorded spills in
 1981). In 1981, there were 16 recorded
 spill events of 168 gallons of dielectric
 fluid, incloding PCBs-, in the SEPTA
 system.
   Through data received during this
 rulemaking activity from the affected
 railroad organizations, estimates of
 maximum leakage from these PCB
 transformers in active service have been
 developed. These estimates are
 presented in Unit IV  of this preamble.
   The U.S. Circuit  Court of Appeals-for
 the District of Columbia in
 Environmental Defense Fund v.
 Environmental Protection Agency, 636
 F.2d 1267 (1980J, has  reviewed the legal
 status of the current use rule for PCB
 railroad transformers. In footnote 31 of
 that decision, the Court acknowledged
 the Agency conclusion that railroad
 transformers, cannot  be considered
 totally enclosed. In addition, the Court
 stated that "(bjecause of the strenuous
 conditions under which they operate,
 railroad transformers often leak PCBs
 onto railroad beds, risking exposure to
 the enuaxmrnent and to workers and
 other persons near rail lines." 636 F.2d
 at 1279.
 ff. Transfer of PCB ftailroad
 Transformers to Museums or Historical
 Societies
   In its comments, Amtrak has proposed
 amendments to 40  CFR 761.20
'concerning the distribution in commerce
 of PCB equipment, including PCB
 railroad transformers. FirsU Amtrak
 proposed that the-owner of a railroad
 locomotive or self-propelled can with a
 PCB railroad transformer may at any
 time sell or otherwise distribute in
 commerce or export the locomotive or
 car provided that certain conditions are
 met. These condition? are that these
 Amtrak transformers must contain

-------
134
Federal  Register / Vol. 48, No.  1  / Monday, January  3, 1983 / Rules  and Regulations
dielectric fluid with either: (1) A
concentration level no greater than
60,000 ppm or (2) the concentration level
set by EPA for the first retrofill
requirement in effect six months after
the date of sale, distribution, or export,
whichever is lower. Second, Amtrak
proposed that the owner of an electric
locomotive or self-propelled car
containing a PCS Transformer may at
any time transfer ownership of such
locomotive or car to a  "reputable
historical society or institution" for
premanent  display. This transfer would
be permitted provided that certain
precautions were met prior to the
transfer. These precautions would be:
(1) All free-flowing dielectric fluid would
be drained  from the transformer; (2) the
transformer would be filled with an
appropriate non-PCB solvent and
allowed to stand for a  period of not less
than 18 hours; (3) a sufficient quantity of
appropriate absorbent material would
be placed in the transformer to absorb
any remaining fluid; (4) the transformer
would be sealed by welding or another
process to insure that it is totally
enclosed within the statutory definition;
and (5) the  transformer must be
prominently marked as a PCB
Transformer, consistent with EPA
marking rules presented  in 40 CFR
761.40(a)(2).
  The first proposal of Amtrak should
be submitted in the form of an
exemption petition under section 6(e) of
TSCA for the distribution in commerce
of railroad cars and locomotives
equipped with railroad transformers
with PCB fluid. Section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of
TSCA prohibits the distribution in
commerce of PCBs after July 1,1979
unless the agency has granted an
exemption for the activities. Section 6 of
TSCA provides exemption procedures
applicable to Amtrak's proposal for the
distribution in commerce of locomotives
or self-propelled cars equipped with a
PCB railroad transformer. Exemption
petitions must be consistent with
procedures presented in section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA and EPA regulations
at 40 CFR Part 750.
  EPA regulatory provisions in 40 CFR
Part  761 are applicable to Amtrak's
second proposal for the transfer of
ownership of GG-1 locomotives to
historical institutions and the related
retirement of these locomotives with
their PCB railroad transformers. PCB
Transformers must be  disposed in
accordance with the disposal
requirements of the PCB rule, 40 CFR
761.60. Section 761.60(b) of the disposal
requirements states that drained PCB
Transformers must be  sent either to an
Incinerator under § 761.70 or to an EPA-
                           approved chemical waste landfill. EPA
                           rules at 40 CFR 761.65 provide
                           requirements for transformers in
                           locomotives or cars that are stored for
                           disposal. Furthermore, if the
                           transformers were not disposed of, the
                           museums and historical societies would
                           be using PCBs in a manner not found to
                           be totally enclosed or authorized by the
                           PCB rule. Such uses are banned under
                           section 6(e)(2)(A) of TSCA.
                             The use authorization for PCBs in
                           electrical equipment in the May 1979
                           rule has  recently been amended. The
                           final amendment to the use
                           authorization was published in the
                           Federal Register of August 25,1982 (47
                           FR 37342). Included in this final
                           amendment are modifications to the
                           distribution in commerce provisions in
                           40 CFR 761.20 for electrical equipment
                           with PCB fluid. This provision allows
                           the distribution in commerce of all
                           intact, nonleaking electrical equipment
                           with PCB fluid including PCB railroad
                           transformers. Hence, under this
                           provision, in order to transfer ownership
                           of these  GG—1 locomotives, Amtrak
                           must ensure that these locomotives are
                           "intact"  and "nonleaking."

                           VI. Executive Order 12291
                             Under Executive Order 12291, issued
                           February 17,1981, EPA must judge
                           whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
                           therefore, subject to the requirement
                           that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
                           prepared. EPA has determined that this
                           amendment to the PCB rule is not a
                           "major rule" as that term is defined in
                           section l(b) of the Executive Order.
                           Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
                           Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule.
                             EPA has concluded that the
                           amendment is not "major" under the
                           criteria of section l(b) because the
                           annual effect of the rule on the economy
                           will be less than $100 million; it  will not
                           cause a major increase in costs or prices
                           for any sector of the economy or for any
                           geographic region; and it will not result
                           in any significant adverse effects on
                           competition, employment, investment,
                           productivity, or innovation or on the
                           ability of United States enterprises to
                           compete in domestic, or foreign markets.
                           Indeed, it will reduce the burden on
                           railroad organizations to comply with
                           the PCB  rule.'By extending the
                           performance deadlines in the May 1979
                           rule and eliminating an expiration
                           deadline for this use of PCBs at  or below
                           1,000 ppm, this amendment should
                           reduce costs for the railroad industry
                           and for governmental bodies that
                           operate railroads.
                             This regulation was submitted to the
                           Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

  Section 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 604) requires
EPA to prepare a "regulatory flexibility
analysis" in connection with any
rulemaking for which there is a statutory
requirement that a general notice of
proposed rulemaking shall be published.
The "regulatory flexibility analysis"
describes the effect of a final rule on
small business entities.
  Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),
however, provides that section 604 of
the Act "shall not apply to any proposed
or final rule if the head of the agency
certifies that the rule will not, if
promulgated,  have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities."
  Since the effect of this rule avoids the
economic impact associated with a
disruption of passenger railroad service,
and no negative economic effect is
expected upon any business entity from
this amendment, the Administrator of
EPA has  certified that promulgation of
this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a "regulatory flexibility
analysis" is not required and will not be
prepared for this rulemaking.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

  The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires
Federal agencies to submit certain
collection of information requests to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for its  review and approval.
Without appropriate approval from
OMB under the Act, agencies may not
impose penalties for noncompliance
with certain types of collection of
information requests, including
recordkeeping requirements. Based on a
review of the specific recordkeeping
requirements  under this use rule, EPA
has determined that these requirements
do not meet the threshold criteria for
"collection of information" under the
PRA.
  The recordkeeping requirements of
this use rule are presented in 40 CFR
761.30(b)(l)(iii). This provision requires
that the concentration of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid of railroad transformers
must be measured at two points in time:
  (1) Immediately upon completion of
any authorized servicing of a railroad
transformer conducted for the purpose
of reducing the PCB concentration in the
transformer, and (2) between 12 and 24
months after  each servicing conducted

-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  48,  No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983  /  Rules and Regulations         135
 under this rule. In addition, these
 measurements must be recorded'and
 retained until January 1,1991.
   This amendment  does not alter the
 recordkeeping requirements contained
 in 40 CFR 761.30 (b)(l)(iii) of the current
 rule. The only change in the
 recordkeeping requirements from the
 current rule refers to the extension of
 the performance deadlines and the
 related extension of the period for
 railroad organizations to measure the
 concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
 fluid of railroad transformers. Under this
 change, these organizations would  be
 required to measure the concentration of
 PCBs for compliance with the respective
 performance deadlines through July 1,
 1986, rather than through July 1,1984,
 under the current rule.
  Under section 3502(4) of the Act,
 "collection of information" includes "the
 obtaining or soliciting of facts or
 opinions by an agency through the use
 of written report forms, application
 forms, schedules, questionnaires,
 reporting or recordkeeping
 requirements, or other similar methods."
 In addition, to meet the statutory
 definition of "collection of information,"
 any recordkeeping requirements under
 this use rule must request either of the
 following responses: (1) "Answers to
 identical questions posed to, or identical
 reporting or recordkeeping requirements
 imposed on, ten or more persons, other
 than agencies, instrumentalities, or
 employees of the United States" or (2)
 "answers to questions posed to
 agencies, instrumentalities, or
 employees of the United States which
 are to be used for general statistical
 purposes." The recordkeeping
 requirements under  this use rule do not
 meet either of these categories. With
 respect to the first response category,
 the requirements in  the use rule are
 applicable to less than 10 affected
 railroad organizations with PCB railroad
 transformers in either active or inactive
 service. With respect to the second
 category, none of the affected railroad
 organizations are "agencies,
 instrumentalities, or employees of the
 United States." In addition, the testing
 records concerning PCB concentration
 levels that must be maintained through
January 1,1991 are to measure
compliance with trie performance
deadlines, and are not to be used for
general statistical purposes.
 IX. Official. Record of Rulemaking
  In accordance with the requirements
of section 19 (a)(3)(E) of TSCA, EPA is
 issuing the following list of documents
constituting the record of this
rulemaking. However, this list does not
include public comments, the transcript
 of the rulemaking, hearing, or
 submissions made at the nul&meking
 hearing or in cuMuwction with it These
 documents are exanq>trfrom.F«deral
 Register listing und«rsealinn'19(a)(3j. A
 full listof tires*material* will be
 available on ntqvest fram  the Industry
 Assistance Office listed under "FOB
 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT."

 A. Previous Rulemaking Records
  1. Official Rulemaking Record from
 "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
 Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
 in Commerce and Use Prohibitions
 Rule" published in the Federal Register
 of May 31,1979, {44 FR 31514).
  2. Official Rulemaking Record from
 "Proposed Amendment to  Use
 Authorization for PCB Railroad
 Transformers" published in the Federal
 Register of November 18,1981, (46 FR
 56626).
 B. Support Documents
  3. USEPA, OTS, "Cost-Effectiveness
 Analysis for the PCB Railroad
 Transformer Rule Amendment."
  4. USEPA, OTS, "Response to
 Comments on Health Effects of PCBs."
  5. USEPA, OTS, "Support Document
 for the PCB Railroad Transformer Rule:
 Response to Comments."
 C. Reports
  6. Buser, H. R., "Formation of
 Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs)
 and Dibenzo-p-dioxins  (PCDDs) from
 the Pyrolysis of Chlorobenzenes," 8
 Chemosphere. 415 (1979).
 X. Statutory Authority
  Under section 6{e) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
 2605), the Administrator may by rule
 authorize the manufacture, processing,
 distribution  in commerce, or use (or any
 combination of such activities) of any
 PCBs in other than a totally enclosed
 manner if the Administrator finds that it
 will not present an unreasonable risk of
 injury to human health  or the
 environment.
 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
  Hazardous materials, Labeling,
 Polychlorinated biphenyls,
 Recordkeeping and reporting
 requirements, Environmental protection.
  Dated: December 20,1982.
 Anne M. Gorsuch,
 Administrator.

 PART 761—[AMENDED]

  Therefore, in 40 CFR 761.30, the
introductory text in paragraph(b) and
paragraph(b)(l) are revised, and
paragraph(b)(2)(vii)  is added to read as
follows:
 §761.30  Authorizations.
 *     *     *    *    *
   (b) Use in and servicing of railroad
 transformers. PCBs may be used in
 transformers in railroad locomotives or
 railroad self-propelled  cars ("railroad
 transformers") and may be processed
 and distributed in commerce for
 purposes of servicing these transformers
 in a manner other than a totally
 enclosed manner subject to the
 following conditions:
   (1) Use restrictions, (i) After July 1,
 1983, the number of railroad
 transformers containing a PCB
 concentration greater than 60,000 ppm
 (6.0 percent on a dry weight basis) in use
 by any affected railroad organization
 may not exceed two-thirds of the total
 railroad transformers containing PCBs in
 use by that organization on January 1,
 1982.
   (ii) After January 1,1984, the number
 of railroad transformers containing a
 PCB concentration greater than 60,000
 ppm in use by any affected railroad
 organization may not exceed one-third
 of the total railroad transformers
 containing PCBs in  use by that
 organization on January 1,1982.
   (iii) After July 1,1984, use  of railroad
 transformers that contain dielectric
 fluids with a PCB concentration greater
 than 60,000 ppm is prohibited,
   (iv) After July 1, 1985, the number of
 railroad transformers containing a PCB
 concentration greater than 1,000 ppm
 (0.1 percent on a dry weight  basis) m use
 by any affected railroad organization
 may not exceed two-thirds of the total
 railroad transformers containing PCBs in
 use by that organization on July 1.1984.
  (v) After January  1,1986, the number
 of railroad transformers containing a
 PCB concentration greater than 1,000
 ppm in use by any affected railroad
 organization may not exceed one-third
 of the total railroad transformers
 containing PCBs in use  by that
 organization on July 1,1984.
  (vi) After July 1,1986, use of railroad
 transformers that contain dielectric
 fluids with a PCB concentration greater
 than 1,000 ppm is  prohibited.
  (vii) The concentration of PCBs in the
 dielectric fluid contained in railroad
 transformers must be measured:
  (A) Immediately upon completion  of
 any authorized servicing of a railroad
 transformer conducted  for the purpose
 of reducing the PCB concentration in the
dielectric fluid in the transformer, and
  (B) Between 12 and 24 months after
each servicing conducted in accordance
with paragraph (b)(l)(vii)(A) of this
section;
  (C) The data obtained as a result of
paragraph (b)(l)(vii) (A) and (B) of this

-------
136        Federal Register /Vol. 48. No. 1  /  Monday. January 3.  1983 / Rules  and Regulations


section shall be retained until January l.   or otherwise servicing the railroad        Transformer) after a minimum of three
1991.                                   transformer. In order to reclassify, the     months of inservice use subsequent to
  (2) * * *                              railroad transformer's dielectric fluid      the last servicing conducted for the
  (vii) A PCB Transformer may be         must contain less than 500 ppm (for       purpose of reducing the PCB
converted to a PCB-Contaminated         conversion to PCB-Contaminated         concentration in the transformer.
Transformer or to a non-PCB              Transformer) or less than 50 ppm PCB     *
Transformer by draining, refilling, and/     (f°r conversion to a non-PCB             I™ "**• «WM» ™«i «-*«* *« •""!

-------
                                                 APPENDIX F


































I-J
<£


w
M
Q

H

ft
OS
O
Du

D
U
£>
O
OS
&
a.
^

en

j
HH
a.
Q
Z

J

fcj
<£
M
tj
as
M
£


O



















c
o
UJ 8) -rf
O CC JJ
O 01 ID
01 ft i- E
8) ID U
3 Si O
C 8) UJ
•D ID r-l C
C E ID -rt
ID >
UJ O JJ
0> O iJ 81
O Oi 0)
01 ID ID ID
E 81 i— f
E 0 >.
o a jj o)
O 8) -rf £
•-H ^ JJ
C "O ••-»
•rf o W
• — • ID -, 01 jj
•H ID -H 81
T3 S3 jj -r-i
•H ij
•.«•*-(
C -H O •
•H in io ij
1C -H UJ O
81 PO JJ
o> t ID
o a: 01 ij
0 £1- > JJ
>J 0 81
rr a c

O^ fO E
CO) -C
•rf -H < ID
1-130,
3 ^t &3 <~H •
jj ID ^H
U CC JJ C ID
ID O ID 0 8]
U-l u, -^ O
3 ' JJ Ol D,
c 0) a, 0) in
ID -C 01 >J "H
E jj o "O
X <
01 iJ 01 Q-, CQ
£ o) ta o
jj -o - ft,
C TJ 0)
^H 2 01 JJ IJ
0 JJ ID O
^ -
u i-i a o
o &, a o, u
jj ^ ID a
8i a
< 81 -H 01 ID
a, ^n JT
S3 >i - JJ 01
C 01 -H
M 01 •-< >i--l
01 JZ 3 JQ —i
^ a ij u-i

3 JO 0) C C
D1 JC -H (D
01 'O JJ JJ i~H
kj ai -H
4J C kJ -H
'^ ID -^ 3 ID
4) C -H
~--H -D C O
VO IJ 01 '^ V4
0 C 01
C -H .H T3 E
O £ UJ 01 E
JJ S1T3 C O
O iH ID
01 O CO lJ C
co a 10 01 o














in t>
iJ C
01 ID
c
-rt 81
ID Dl
JJ ID
C lJ
O
O «
JJ
i* U
•i-l
81 ic
k4
01 -
E <-t

O 0
uj in
Ul
C t3 81
ID 0) -rf
JJ ID 13
C 0)
*C -i~i "D
0) E
C ID lJ
•i-l JJ Ql
ID C C.
SJ 0 JJ
O U O


9 0














































8)
ffi E
0 Q
ft a

•0 0
•rt O
3 in
cr i
•rf 0
u in





8!
01
CT
•o
3
!—l
81

^H
ID
a
•f-<
o
•H JJ
C i-l
3 ID

a
•O 81
C ID
m
•D
rt 4)
O ID
in c
•f-i
fl; E
a> ID
•C JJ
0) C
(J O
a o


0 0













H
o
^J
H
< Z
a, c
Ii3 O





















Z
O
U i-l
H H
ai £
£g
as cu
O z
O M




X


























X








(













in T
DIVC
C 00
•H m
C 1
C —I
QJ 1/1
1^ (N
C" t~*.
Q,^1
pH 0
03 -fl-
OS ^












•
4J
E
Ol

^^
C 01
O JJ
•H 01
tig
u
Ort
J ID
O
01 -rf
JJ E
•rH 01
>"O































X






















VC
vc
•D 0
••H 00
41 1
U3 •«•
r**
'D <^
c
o ~
E IT.
>i^-<
(D ^f
OS ••— '












•
Lfl 4J ^H
in E <£> tn
CT O (U
X 0> E O O
O in fi Si *— ij
OOTTrt — 41 *f O C3
inm QIJJ ^"Cj 00
• nin u8ii^ ^o 'H8i
tl C^i -^IDCI OZ JJ01
c J I u-i 3 I ID o:
l-l^.-N UJ > CN'H O
in OMiominrt; ore
E 4) 81 O JJ O -H
ID41O I0411JXOE-I -H8)
tC ta ~— — U £ 33 ~^< ^'O









































































^
fN
*T ^~-
m 81

81 01
81 JJ
01 < kJ -~
W O ID 81 • 01
"O 3 01 *U 10
•c - cr o a: -rf
ID ID iO kJ tJ
^ -H ID 3 O r-£C
• <* D> fH 01 O ^ ^O
•D < « C ID X 81 T30CE
as o oo -HE 01 -^ in
1 -H 8) fll OS M | E
a >. r- -H ID JJ x rt
H ID ro ID O ID ID vffo
2 -i-l Cft £ iJ -H C CA
rH *• 0 —< ID
IDID^ 01M aiOt/3 — ••
8181O -rfX OOJC^ CH
IDIDOO COO UlD^ OOJ-i
O cj •— — ai — o in-ij
EL]
H
ID
E
ID

10
^H
<
                                    ID
                                    O

-------
                                                                                                            APPENDIX  F
         ffi  £
         o  a
         a,  Q

         •o o
         •H O
          3 i"
          cr i
         •rf O
          to
          0>
          a>
         •c
          3
         1C
         a
          C i-l
          3  ID

             a

          c  re
          1C

        i —I  0>
        I -H JJ
        i  o  re
        :  1C  C
 0)  E     0)  E
 C  10  ^i  Ol  10
•rt jj  o> T3 JJ
 
 JJ  ID
 O  -
   JJ
 01  -
 E -H

 o'o
u to
 VI

 re o> •
 ij jj






H
O

H
< Z
a. o
U 0
















O
U W
C£ £
2ft*
0
Qrt Cu
0 Z
o i-i




u

H
to
CO
•O ro
•rt CO
O1 1
to ^
r^
•o as
c
0 ^^
E ^"1
>-ii— i
ro ^
K-

O
,_)
. fsl
U ro
c * o^
*-t >^T-t
4J ,_) \
* •.-( P*  -H
• Cj ^ t»> *** -V
JJ 1 N U)
E C v£> " c 5
a> nj oo (0 a> o
Z £ rn O» ^ 0*
~ 0) CUC
C (U i— -i •— «• *-v .1-4 i— i S (Q
•2 M £o o'rep! oiJ
mz^^vnST'rot
o vu vo M re
hj 10 P~ ro o PO
o m   vc
cno
Ofs
D£ ~

P-
"^
vc
• ro
(J CO
C
trt
O
•. Irt
ID
0)
U 0)
"< E
> 0
Id X
$
jj
0) £
re o »
B) jS VO
o re «
•rt3 *
> X
C vw O
W O 35




0
x:
•a
M























c
0
jj
0)
p-l

1 >
p- m
co O
m

CO Z
0 H
2%









•o

0)
to

T3
C
o
g
^
re














***
c
O
re
3

01
JJ
•H
to



re
•D
re
o>
z
CO
ro
CO
1
•^
p^
OS

*-~.
tn
H^
v
"*-*





ro
O
o u
as o>
co jj
c
> 01
. z o.
o u
c > re
i-i > JJ  W (N >
O 0) 1 0)
0 in U3
u co in
U P*
CM Z
W X 0 H
* O r*** (H
O CD — <


^^
to
u
01
JJ •
1-i -0
re as
3 •
o1 o 0)
•o c »-i
ID M i-H
01 *rt
Oi ^
JJ rH i-l
ID O 0)
lJ O J=
o u to
a
h . O
o w o
O .fN
«-• 3 CM





















p-
,rt
ro
in
I
vo
fs c
vc o
CM (0
fM — C
(S O 0)
O O J£
TT CO O

\"o
SH O
btf VC 01
01 1 O
-H VC (0
-H
•rt (N Z
30 H
Q m H








ro
•D VO
*Vj C4
re i

0 VC
M 0)
X
*~.
C M
X i-H
°d











frt
ID
C
o
-^ -rt
C JJ
O re
•rt C
tJ U
10 0)
O JJ

So
•rt 
irt
OQ

in
i-H
i-l
re
tb

re
u
re
O!
re vc
•rt P-
Z vc
CN

ID
^
01 V)
JJ — 1
LjiH i— 1
rere re
3C CL,
O'O
•Q'rt (0
IOJJ u
vre re
Z C (Jt
OlV-rt
JJJJ Z
IDC
MM en
0 -H
osn vc
OO X
Ow o
~o ce


























10
01
o

>
^4
S

IJ
0 0)
0 E

-------
                                                                                                                   APPENDIX  F
           (0
           ffi E
           U Q
           a

           •u o
           •H O
           3 U1
           cr i
           •rt O
           J IS)
 oi  TJ
 u  c
 4>  1C
 c
— <  It!
 ID  a>
 jj  ra
 c  u
 0
 o   »
 to  >c
 Ll
 4)   -
 E  --i
 Ll  -H
 O  O
«-l  (I)
 K
 c  •c
 ID  CD
 Li  JJ
 JJ  ID
    C
T3  -H
 0)  £
 C  1C
— <  JJ
 m  c
 k  0
QU
    to

    U>

    3
   r-i
    tn

   rH

    a,

    o
   •rt  4J
    c  -H
    3  ffl

       a
   T3  tfl
    C  ID
    ID
K     T>
•rt rH  o>

£  O  CO
0>  tt  C
*C     •|~'
    0)  E
Li  O> ID
o> T:  -U
£  0)  C
4J  Li  0
o a  o
          a.  o
          U  Cj
      o
   U M
   H H

   °i
   GL4 O
   a: i.
   O z
   o M
              Ll CN
              CO  I

              O ^c
              Ll CN
              03

              C CN
              £ i-H
              OCN
                                                   CN        1*^
                                                   ^*        •—t

                                                   I         I
                                                   m     O  *c
                                                g  in i;  c  oo
                                               •in  c  3  oo
                                               X      co  z
                                                 . CN
                                                           •  CN
•-1 ^1  0)     CN
4J  ID  "O     00 .
 ID  O  O I"~  I

 0  g     r-H  in i
tj  fl)  O ^  t^-
   £.  O rH
 (1) O  <  -H i
WOO   •  r- I
*-* U3  »Q Z  '*^ '
                     Ll
                     0
                     0)
                                                C  4J T3    "



                                                ID  01     31
                                                O  4J  Ll .O O

                                               3  M £  | !

                                                4>  I
                                               'J3 63 O -H in
                                               — O l^> S -~
                                                                    to in
                                                                    O1 !N

                                                                    C  I
                                                                    0 csi
                                                                                        0) \O
                                                                                        310
                                                                                        O CN
                                                            -H  0 _


                                                             c
                                                             Ll  01
                                                                                            OlCNO
                                                                                 U -iH        f\ -H
                                                                                 ID Li  Q)   -I   C
                                                                                            i      c — •
                                                                                                     — <
                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                    • O
                                                                                                                   O 00
                                                                                                               •*"* C <9^
                                                                                                                ID M
                                                                                                                Li
                                                                                                                LlE
                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                     O

                                                                                                                      X
                                                                                                                      a>
                                                                                                                             c
                                                                                                                             to
01  o> CC   I
*j I-H     r-
10  O *B  fN I

0 Z 00
a i  -H  —
                                                                                                                   (_; CO ~
                                         o
                                        •H

                                        o
                                                                    c
                                                                    0
                                                                    
-------
                        DISPOSAL COMPANIES*
                                                       APPENDIX G
   COMPANY
     ADDRESS
  PHONE
Incinerator
ENSCO
Rollins
Vulcanus
Chemical Waste Mgt,
Pyrotech Systems
General Electric
P.O. Box 1975
ElDorado, AK, 71730

P.O. Box 609
Deer Park, TX, 77536

c/o Waste Mgt. Inc.
600 Maryland Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20004

P.O. Box 1653
Tullahoma, TN 37388

100 Woodlawn Ave.
Pittsfield, MA 01201
501-863-7173


713-479-6001


202-347-4023



615-455-9954


413-494-3729
Chemical

Acurex


General Electric


PCB Destruction


PPM


Rose Chemical


Sunohio Inc.
485 Clyde Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94042

1 River Road
Schenectady, N.Y. 12345

304 N. Baltimore
Kansas City, MO 64116

8220 Travis
Overland Park, KA

2459 Charolotte St.
Kansas City, MO  64108

1700 Gateway Blvd., S.E.
Canton, OH 44707
415-964-3200


518-385-3134


816-474-1661


913-648-0448


816-471-7227


216-452-0837
* This listing, compiled in March 1983,  is subject to change.
  For a status check of the above call the Industry Assistance
  Office's Toil-Free Number 800-424-9065 (in Washington D.C.
  area: 554-1404).

-------
                                                         APPENDIX G


   COMPANY                   ADDRESS                    PHONE


Capacitor Disposal

Environmental           912 Scott                     800-255-0154
International           Kansas City, KS  66105

SED, Inc.               Box 1306                      414-784-3740
                        Waukesha, WT

-------
                                                        APPENDIX H
                      COMPARATIVE  TABLES  ON
                    MATERIALS  USED TO  PROTECT
                 AGAINST DERMAL EXPOSURES TO PCBs
                                                         715-M-135
August 17, 1982

*Table 1.  Recommendations  for  Protection  Against  Aroclor  1254
           Undiluted and  Paraffin Oil3
Highly Recommended	Recommended	Not  Recommended

Vitron                     Teflon b/c              Surgical  rubber
Vitron SF                  Polyvinyl alcohol       Polyethylene
Vitrile                    Nitrile"
                           Neoprene
                           Saranex
                           Butylb
Table 2.  Recommendations for Protection Against  Aroclor  1254  in
          Trichlorobenzene:  >  58 percent Aroclor 1254a
Highly Recommended	Recommended	Not  Recommended

Vitrol                     Teflon                  Saranex
Vitron SF                  Nitrile                 Butyl
                           Polyvinyl alcohol       Neoprene
                           Vitrile                 Polyethylene
                                                   Surgical  rubber


a     "Highly recommended" materials showed no  breakthrough in  24
      hours.  Breakthrough time was 8 to  24 hours  for  the
      "recommended" category.  Breakthrough time was less than  8
      hours for the "not recommended" category.  These
      recommendations assume comparable thickness, thus  are based
      on normalized breakthrough times.

      Investigators noticed what appeared to be defects  in  both
      butyl and Saranex-laminated tyvek and nitrile; in  one
      Teflon thumb, penetration appeared  to occur  through a seam.

°     Teflon is not highly recommended because when it is flexed,
      as it would be when worn, permeation sometimes takes  place
      due to physical defects which flexing produces.
*From the EPA/OTS TSCA Public Files; Versar, Inc. OPTS  62017  PCBs
 Controlled Wastes Communication N 23 File.

-------

















1
J
,.
D
5
*
5
g
4
i
J5
q
•4
j
Q
I


w
8



n

2
•3
K
JN
•H
4
X
g
5
3
n
H

q
5
3d
j^.




3
2
^

1

10
5









t
w
i
2
EH


«
ft








4)
C
10
5
0)
o
rH
r?
0
•H
rl
4J
1
CN

*
"—




4)
nt
oethan
0) M
Oi O
m H
0) ,C
A 13
•H
4J rl
CO 4->
0) 1

^
t—
^
^-



0)
10
5
S
rl
o
H
O
•H
•O
CN

^-




01
CO
0)
2
3
•rl

£j







i-l
(0
•rl
b
0)
4J
10
MH
O
a
£
01
c
"i"
in in o oo \o ro it
• • • • • • i 1 •
CN O »- O O O O
vD









•
CQ
B in
t + +
Of-i M in T- moo
in r- t^- t t
.- ^r t
t— <—










01
C
•g
o m o <*) if i i o
iD t ro t
t
r—










CQ
C
B in in co in
• • • • «4-
o o CN CN CN CN «- ooo
r- rf CO









CO
,_{
-rJ
CN co oo CN CN inoo CNCNO
CN CS t- «- «-




CQ

«J X "O X
4) (0 4J rH rH 1C
4-> H (0 -H OH
§r^ B ^1 iC
LJ j I Q tj }j
0) VJ h -H O 4) 0)
-'Sriia.a.SoTe'ic'SB "S §
CO'OflJp.Q.QCO) 4-lp rH4J
O O J3 MHH >i O 4) B (0
fl) XJ j3 0) >iBCO 0 JJ
SH (0
>i 0
C 0
4) TJ 0)
•O D C
C 4J 0)
^S^
^V5-g
0) H 4) !>
4J >i >i >,
1C -P H H
O P 0
U 43 ft



i i in in

0 O













i i i
V















O CN CN C1
r— ^»
















III 1
lit 1












TJ- O
r-


o c
,
D >t <0 rH C
^55 &T3
•g £ 2 * 3
> H p •—• <0
>, 0 >, >i 0
EH ft H H O
O 0
ft ft



0)

^
^)
O
4J
0
^|
ft

0)
_rj
4->
C
•rl
0)
t-l
1C
S*,
0)
rj
r^

•
%
10
•H
Vl
0>

g!
0
rH
o>

o
MH

•0
4)
CO
p

S-
rV
C
Q
B
S
o
4->
O
C
^J
iC
r^
<0
•H
(-1
0)
4J
(rt
E

•a
-o
C
Q
(^
t
ii
(0
0
o
0)
>c
4J

4J
<0
CO
4)
4J
O
C
a
4)
t-l
0)
g


































•
Cfl
0
&
(d

CO


rt
Q
p
CO

CO
4J
C

n)

g!
•rl
U
S
0
i-l
ft

^J
0)

Q

^j
o
^"1
!— |
§!
•H

rj
rH
O

0)
0)
01

0)
o

i-H
g
rl
O

4)

•rl
01
O
a
e
o
o
01
1C

0
4J
•o
0)

rl
0)

0)
rl
o

10
0)
Ifl
0)
01
0)
g
«













































































•
CTi
00
»—
CN
CJ
rH
•H
*
•K







A
CO
C 4-*
O CO
•rl 0
•P B
1C
•P -
•rl 0)
e H
•H ft
H S
4. S
U 0)
rl Vl
4J O
C CM
0
O
MH CO
O O>
0) -rl
co >a
P C
H
0)
0 0)
S5
(0 MH
0 0
•H
1 4^*
X! -H
V H
•rl
H 4J
H p
1C
0)
•P *
01 4J
C
•rl C
(0 O
Oi
(0 -O
0)
t3 CO
9) 10
4J ^
CO
co 01
4-1 (0
0)
n >o
0) 0)
S 4-*
O
01 P
rH T}
(0 C
•rt O
rl O
0)
4J 4J
id O
e c

i-H fl)
H H
(0 0)
^
4J
O CO
>S 4-1
CO
4)
• 4->
•0
Sj-
Q
•rl
O A
MH >
IH
0) 4->
ftg
4J jQ
0 10
C
CO O
(0 -H
? ta
•rl
Oi U
C fl)
•H 'D
CQ 4)
fl) £
EH P
1
1
f





















•
CO
4)
C
(0
5
0)

T)
0)
4J
§
gi
O
H
10
,c
4)
4J

MH
O

4)
>
•rl
4J
10
4J
c
CO
4)
M
ft
0)
10

4J
CO
e
•rl
It)
Oi
1C

^t
rH
C
o

•s
-p
CO
0)
4->
4)
V4
0)
CO

tO.
•rl
V|
4)
4-1
g
•O
0)
4-1
8
O
0)
5
M-l
0

LPPENDI





















































•
Q

H
.^
at
IW

d)


CO CO
fl) QJ
Jj ^j
.'^1
O n
00 ^4 *O
2i5
*0 Qj O
O V-t
0) rf 4-)
i-i cj c
OR 0
Sfi U
*o w
C |H •

01 *£, CU
"fli & r-
0) t—
IS CO O
.£ N
Ji ID
a! g w
U 5 EH
M LJ CU
w-

-------
                                                      APPENDIX  I
           STATUS FOR THE "UNCONTROLLED" PCB RULEMAKING
               IN  THE  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
ENVIRONMENTAL  DEFENSE  FUND,  INC.,              )
                                               )
                       Petitioner,              )
                                               )
               v.                              )
                                               )
ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY,               )      Civ. No. 79-1580
                                               )
                       Respondent,              )
                                               )
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON  LIQUID DIELECTRICS        )
OF THE ELECTRONIC  INDUSTRIES  ASSOCIATIONS,     )
et al.,                                        )
                                               )
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, J5t_ jl_.              )
                                               )
                     Intervenors.               )
            EPA REPORT  IN  ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S
        APRIL 9,  1982,  ORDER  CONCERNING EPA'S  PROPOSAL FOR
       ACTION  ON POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN CONCENTRATIONS
    BELOW 50 PARTS PER  MILLION  RESULTING FROM  UNCONTROLLED PCB
    PROCESSES  AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF STAY OF MANDATE AS TO
  EPA ACTION ON UNCONTROLLED  PCB  PROCESSES  UNTIL OCTOBER 1,  1984

     In accordance with this  Court's order  of  April  9, 1982,  the

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")  hereby reports its plans

for further regulatory  action with  respect  to  manufacturing,

processing, distribution in commerce and use of  polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs)  at concentrations  less  than 50  parts  per  million

-------
                                                         APPENDIX I
                               - 2 -                     	   	
 (ppm),  in  other  than  closed manufacturing processes ("closed

 processes")  and  processes  producing only controlled wastes

 ("controlled processes") .jV  For the purposes of this document, we

 have  referred to this aspect of the PCB rulemaking as dealing with

 "uncontrolled PCB processes."

      EPA  intends to promulgate a final rule regulating

 uncontrolled PCB processes by July 1, 1984, and hereby requests

 extension  until  October  1, 1984, of this Court's stay of its

 mandate affecting such PCBs.  The reasons for EPA's determination

 to suggest this  course of  action for further rulemaking on

 uncontrolled PCB processes is explained below.



 I.    BACKGROUND

      A.  GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THIS LITIGATION

      Section 6(e)  of  the  Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), 15

 U.S.C.  §2605(e), authorizes EPA, among other things, to adopt

 rules governing  the manufacturing, processing, distribution in

 commerce,  and use of  PCBs.  On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated such

 rules,  called the "PCB Ban Regulations," 44 Fed. Reg. 31542-58, 40

 CFR Part 761. The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. ("EOF")

 obtained judicial review  of the PCB Ban Regulations.  On

 October 30,  1980,  this Court held, inter alia, that two aspects of
2JA  "closed  manufacturing  process"  is one which generates PCBs
but which  releases  PCBs  only  in concentrations below the
practical  limits  of quantification.   In a "controlled waste
process,"  PCBs  may  be  released in concentrations above the
practical  limits  of quantification only as constituents of wastes
which are  incinerated  or disposed of in EPA approved
facilities.   See  47 Fed. Reg. 46981  (1982).

-------
                                                         APPENDIX I
                               - 3 -
the PCB Ban  Regulations  were  invalid.   EOF v.  EPAf 636 F.2d

1267.V

     This  Court  set  aside  the portion  of the PCB Ban Regulations

that, generally,  had limited  the applicability of those rules to

materials  containing PCBs  in  concentrations of at least 50 ppm.

636 F.2d at  1279-1284.   In addition,  the Court set aside EPA's

determination  that certain uses of PCBs were "totally enclosed"

uses and,  therefore, exempt from regulation under Section 6(e).

636 F.2d at  1284-6.   The rules were then remanded for further

rulemaking by  EPA, consistent with the Court's opinion.  636 F.2d

at 1284.**/

     The Court's  decision  placed industries that had relied upon

the PCB Ban  Regulations  in a  difficult position.  EPA and EOF

believed that  issuance of  the Court's  mandate  would have activated

Section 6(e)'s broad prohibitions on  the manufacture, processing,

distribution in  commerce and  use of PCBs.  It  was believed that

numerous manufacturing activities created PCBs in low

concentrations.   The parties, therefore, filed a series of joint

motions with the  Court to  seek a stay  of the Court's mandate,

proposing  that during such a  stay:  (1) EPA would conduct new

rulemaking with  respect  to PCBs; (2)  industry  groups would

undertake  activities related  to the new rulemaking; and (3) users
_VThe Court  also  upheld  the  PCB Ban Regulations'
authorization of eleven  non-enclosed uses  of  PCBs.   636 F.2d at
1275-9.

**/   On August  25,  1981,  in response to this Court's order with
respect to uses  of  PCBs  in electrical equipment,  EPA published in
the Federal Register  final regulations which  deal comprehensively
with such uses.  See  47  Fed.  Reg.  37342.

-------
                                                         APPENDIX I
                              —  4  —
of transformers containing PCBs would  institute  an  interim

inspection and reporting program.

     The Court responded in  several  orders,  one  of  which is

germane to this filing.  On  April  13,  1981,  the  Court  issued an

order in response to a joint motion  that  was submitted on

February 20, 1981 (the "April  13 Order").   The April  13 Order

stayed issuance of the Court's mandate  with  respect to activities

relating to PCBs in concentrations below  50  ppm.  The  order also

adopted a plan for further actions by  EPA and industry groups

leading toward new EPA rulemaking  on the  regulation of PCBs in

concentrations below 50 ppm.   The  April 13 Order required EPA:

(1) to publish two Advance Notices of  Proposed Rulemaking ("ANPR")

on developing rules to cover PCBs  in concentrations below 50 ppm;

(2) within 18 months from the  date of  the  order  (i.e., October 13,

1982), to promulgate a final rule  with  respect to exclusion from

the prohibitions of Section  6(e)(3)  of  the generation  of PCBs in

"closed manufacturing processes" or  only  as  constituents of

"controlled wastes," or to explain the  reasons for  not proceeding

with such a rule; and (3) within eleven months after  the date of

the order (i.e., March 13, 1982),  to advise  the  Court  of EPA's

plans for further action on  PCBs in  concentrations  below 50 ppm

generated in uncontrolled PCS  processes.

     For the uncontrolled PCB  processes described in  item 3, EPA

needed to collect a range of additional factual  information in

order to develop an adequate rulemaking record consistent with the

Court's opinion of October 30,  1980.  This need  for collection and

evaluation of additional data  accounts  for the relatively greater

-------
                                                          APPENDIX I
                               - 5 -
difficulties  EPA will face in completing rulemaking on

uncontrolled  PCS processes as compared with the "closed" and

"controlled"  processes.


      B.   EPA  ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PCBs IN CONCENTRATIONS  LESS
          THAN 50 PPM

          1.   Publication of ANPRs and Related Notices.

      On  May  20,  1981, EPA published in the Federal Register ANPRs

establishing  bifurcated rulemaking proceedings with respect to

PCBs  in  concentrations below 50 ppm, 46 Fed. Reg. 27614.  The

first  ANPR announced activities that would lead to rulemaking on

PCBs  generated  in the "closed manufacturing" processes and

"controlled waste"  processes.  The second ANPR announced the

framework  for the Agency's exploration of the scope of the problem

presented  by  PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm in uncontrolled

PCB processes.   EPA there stated that it needed to develop a

substantial factual basis to support rulemaking on these PCBs,^_J

46 Fed.  Reg.  27619.

      The  comment period for both ANPRs expired on November 16,

1981.  Approximately 50 public comments were submitted in response

to the two ANPRs published on May 20th.

          2.   Report to the Court of March 1982

      On  March 11, 1982, EPA filed its report on the Agency's plans

for regulation of uncontrolled PCB processes.  Review of available

information indicated that the initiation of rulemaking for
2/    On May  20,  1981,  EPA also had published in the Federal
Register a  summary  and  the full text of the April 13 Order.  46
Fed. Reg.  27615.

-------
                                                         APPENDIX I
                               -  6  -
uncontrolled PCB processes  should  not  begin until the Agency was

better able to estimate  how many processes  would be subject to

such rulemaking.

     This estimation  rested in  turn, on  an  understanding of how

many processes could  be  considered "closed" or "controlled."JV

Accordingly, EPA requested  a  short time  after promulgation of the

"closed" and "controlled" rule  to  report further to the Court on

final plans for completing  rulemaking  on the uncontrolled PCB

processes.  EPA requested that  it  be allowed to report its plans

on uncontrolled PCB processes on or about November 1, 1982, and

that the Court extend its stay  of  mandate until December 1, 1982,

with respect to uncontrolled  PCB processes  at levels below 50 ppm

concentration.  The period  between November 1, and December 1,

would allow sufficient time for review of the Agency's plans

before of April 9,  1982, this Court extended the stay of its

mandate until December 1, 1982.

         3.  The "Closed" and "Controlled"  Rule.

     On October 12, 1982, EPA promulgated a final rule for

"closed" and "controlled" PCBs  (47 Fed.  Reg. 46980).  If a PCB-

generating process meets the  rule's definitions of "closed

manufacturing process" or "controlled  waste manufacturing

process," the manufacturer  may  have that process excluded from

regulation under section 6(e) of TSCA.
2/In  its  March  1982  report,  the  Agency pointed out that, if the
number  of "uncontrolled  PCB"  processes were very large, resources
for formulating and  administering  the rules could be severely
strained.   Larger  numbers  of  processes would make it more
difficult to develop definitions of terms or recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that could  uniformly apply to the persons
subject  to  the  rule.  See  March 1982 Report at 8-14.

-------
                                                          APPENDIX I
                               - 7 -
     The  rule  defines  "closed  processes"  as those that produce

PCBs in concentrations  below the  practical limits of quantifi-

cation for  PCBs  in  specified media:   approximately 10 micrograms

per cubic meter  in  air  emissions,  approximately 0.1 ppm in water

effluent  and 2 ppm  in products and waste  streams.  See 47 Fed.

Reg. 46995.

     In addition,  if wastes  are disposed  of in a manner specified

in the rule, a process  may still  be  excluded from regulation even

if it produces PCBs above  2  ppm in its waste stream, as long as

PCBs are  below the  limits, described above, in ambient air,  water

effluent  and products.   These  latter processes are called

"controlled waste"  processes.   Controlled waste processes are for

practical purposes  divided into two  categories:  (1) those with

PCBs in the wastes  in concentrations above 50  ppm, and (2)  those

with PCB  waste concentrations  below  50 ppm.  Under the rule

disposal  of the  first group  of wastes  continues to be controlled

by TSCA regulations set out  at 40  C.F.R.  Part  761.  For the  second

group, certain facilities approved under  the provisions of the

Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),  42 U.S.C.  6901, et

seq., may also be used.  See 47 Fed.  Reg.  46995.

     EPA determined that excluding these  small amounts of PCBs

from regulation, at the option of  the  chemical manufacturer,  will

present de minimis risks to  health and the environment.  A

certification  and reporting  process  is established for

manufacturers  wishing to take  advantage of the rule.   see 47  Fed.

Reg.  46996.

-------
                                                         APPENDIX I
                              -  8  -
     II.  THE REGULATORY PLAN  FOR  UNCONTROLLED  PCS  PROCESSES

         A.  FACTORS EPA CONSIDERED  IN  DEVELOPING THE  PLAN
     Comments submitted during the rulemaking process  leading  to
the October 12, 1982, rule have given the Agency a  better  grasp on
the number of processes that are likely to  produce  PCBs  as
byproducts or impurities.  On  the  basis of  that  information and
other information obtained since EPA's  March  1982 report to this
Court, EPA staff estimates that there are approximately  120
chemical plants generating PCBs as byproducts or  impurities in
approximately 500 processes throughout  the  United States.   EPA
staff anticipates that several hundred  of these  processes  may  be
classified as uncontrolled PCB processes.
     In view of the large number of  great diversity of processes
that must be considered, EPA intends to consider a  variety of
regulatory options.  Regardless of which option  is  eventually
selected, EPA intends to fashion a regulatory scheme that  will
direct available resources and administrative attention  to those
processes which present the greatest environmental  or  health
concerns.
     To support rulemaking EPA is  currently considering
assessments of the risks presented for  particular processes that
produce PCBs.  For many aspects of these assessments EPA can rely
on data accumulated in the course  of its previous PCB
rulemakings.  Useful data have been  submitted in  comments  on the

-------
                                                         APPENDIX I

                               - 9 -
prior  rules  adopted  pursuant to this Court's stay of its

mandate .jV

     As  the  focus  of EPA's  inquiry has narrowed, however, the

Agency  staff  has decided  that additional information, particularly

on PCB  exposure, should  be  obtained.  In particular, EPA will seek

additional data concerning  the actual or estimated levels of PCBs

that may be  present  in products,  air emissions,  and wastewater

streams, or  that may be  released  in accidents.   EPA also will

consider information on  the pathways that these  PCBs take and on

their  ultimate fate.  EPA will seek the assistance of interested

industry groups in the collection of any necessary data.

     B.  Time Periods Necessary To Complete Rulemaking.

     EPA staff reports that the various phases  of rulemaking

should  be reasonably completed in the following  time periods:


         (1)  April  1, 1983, four months from the current date of
              expiration  of the stay of mandate, to complete
              preliminary information gathering;

         (2)  December 1, 1983, eight months from submission of
              information described in item one, to issue a
              proposed rule;
*/In particular,EPA received  extensive data on PCBs generated
Th concentrations  below 50  ppm  from the  Chemical Manufacturers
Association  (CMA)  in connection with the rule on "closed" and
"controlled" PCBs.   EPA described CMA's  data — contained in a
document titled, A Report of  A  Survey on the Incidental Manufac-
turing, Processing,  Distribution, and Use of Polychlorinated
Biphenyl at  Concentrations  Below  50 ppm  [hereafter "CMA Survey
Report"]—  in  the Agency's March 11,T982,  report to this
Court.  A copy  of  the  CMA Survey  Report  was  attached as an
Appendix to  the EPA  March 1982  report.   CMA  had collected
information  from eighty-five  member firms, representing between
36 and 51 percent  of total  U.S. chemical industry sales.  As
explained in EPA's March 1982 report, the CMA data were very
helpful in developing  the "closed"  and  "controlled" rule.

-------
                                                         APPF.NDIX I

                              - 10 -
         (3)  July  I,  1984, seven months  from  signing  of  the
              proposed rule,  to  issue  a final  rule  (assuming a 90-
              day period for  public  comment).


Notwithstanding these  time periods,  EPA staff  hopes  to expedite

the rulemaking schedule to the maximum extent  possible.   Following

information collection, EPA staff anticipates  that  it  will  take

approximately eight months to collate  and  review  all relevant data

and to fashion proposed rules, given the  complexities  of  the

technical issues and the diverse  industrial  categories involved.

Following proposal  of  rules,  EPA  staff expects that  seven months

will be needed for  adoption of final rules for uncontrolled PCB

processes.  EPA also requests that the stay  of the mandate  expire

approximately three months after  issuance  of the  final rule to

allow EPA Regional  Offices, the  regulated  community  and  other

interested persons  to  prepare for compliance.   The  stay  of

mandate, accordingly,  would expire on  October  1,  1984.

     Counsel for Respondent,  EPA, has  been advised  that  Petitioner

EOF does not oppose this plan.

-------
                                                          APPENDIX  ;r
                              - 11 -
     Wherefore,  EPA  requests that this Court extend its stay of

mandate on uncontrolled  PCB processes until October I, 1984.



                              Respectively submitted,
                              David  T.  Buente, Jr., Esq.
                              U.S.  Department of -Justice, Room 1736
                              Tenth  and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
                              Washington,  D.C.  20530
                              (202)  633-2807
                              Alan  H.  Carpien,  Esq.
                              U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                              401 M Street,  S.W.
                              Washington,  D.C.   20460
                              (202)  382-7213

-------
                                                          APPKNDIX I

                              - 12 -



                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


     I hereby certify  that  copies of the foregoing "EPA  Report In

Accordance With This Court's April 9, 1982, Order ..." have been

served by first class  mail,  postage  pre-paid, this 1st day of

November 1982, upon the  following:
Steven S. Rosenthal,  Esquire
Morrison & Foerster
1920 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.   20036

Jacqueline M. Warren,  Esquire
Natural Resources  Defense
  Council
122 East 42nd Street
New York, New York   10168

Khristine L. Hall,  Esquire
Environmental Defense  Fund
1525 18th Street,  N.W.
Washington, D.C.   20036

Edward Warren, Esquire
Kirkland & Ellis
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.   20006

Toni K. Allen, Esquire
Wald, Harkrader &  Ross
1300 19th Street,  N.W.
Washington, D.C.   20036

Jeffrey 0. Cerar,  Esq.
Squire, Sanders, &  Dempsey
1201 Penn. Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.   20036
                                     David Zoll, Esquire
                                     Chemical Manufacturers
                                       Association
                                     2501 M Street, N.W.
                                     Washington, D.C.   20037

                                     Donald L. Morgan,  Esquire
                                     Cleary, Gottlieb,  Steen
                                       and Hamilton
                                     1752 N Street, N.W.
                                     Washington, D.C.   20036

                                     John W. Ubinger, Jr. Esquire
                                     Eckert, Seamans, Cherin
                                       and Mellott
                                     600 Grant Street
                                     Pittsburgh, PA  15219

                                     Edward S. Shipper, Jr.,  Esquire
                                     Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley,
                                       White & Hardesty
                                     1575 I Street, N.W.
                                     Washington, D.C.   20036

                                     Lawrence A. Demase, Esquire
                                     Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley,
                                       White & Hardesty
                                     900 Oliver Building
                                     Pittsburgh, PA  15222
 U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-421-545/308
                                        Alan H. Carpien, Esq.


                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]
                                     Region V, Libr-7                J
                                     ^230 South Dr , ;.,,;n  Street
                                     Chicago, Illinois 60604

-------