905R83117
Remarks by Valdas V. Adamkus
Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 5
Chicago, Illinois
* * *
PCB PHASEOUT: MEETING WITH UTILITY CEO's
Metcalfe Federal Building
August 10, 1993
(Approx. 7:20 min.)
Good morning and welcome to EPA Region 5.
I appreciate very much your taking the time to meet with us, and I am honored to be
here before you.
In the past, I've had occasion to address larger audiences, but none perhaps so
distinguished. As executive officers of your respective utilities, you supply electric
power to some 80 percent of the population in the Great Lakes Basin of Region 5.
And, as decision-makers in your companies arid as leaders in your communities, you
have an enormous capacity to do some lasting good for the environment we all share.
What brings us together here this morning is a pesky and persistent pollutant that
continues to vex the industry and the EPA as well. I am talking about PCB's, of course.
More to the point—what you and I can do about them.
-------
And here is where the voluntary phaseout of RGB's comes in, as I mentioned in my
letter to you. The phaseout program aims to encourage utilities in the Great Lakes
Basin to get rid of their PCB transformers. Since this is not required by regulations, the
voluntary aspect of the PCB phaseout is paramount to its success. Your cooperation,
in fact, is vital.
I would like to go one step further and ask that you also consider PCB capacitors and
other PCB electrical equipment in your phaseout. In addition, with the example you
set for others, I hope to see the PCB phaseout embraced by all industries and
businesses in the Great Lakes Basin and beyond. If you show the way, as some of
you have already, others will follow. That's how confident I am of your leadership, your
technical expertise, and that most American of traits-—volunteer action.
The voluntary PCB phaseout neatly dovetails into the concept of pollution prevention--
a keystone of EPA policy emphasized again and again by EPA Administrator Carol
Browner. Three weeks ago in Chicago she said: "Before, we practiced end-of-pipe
control, but now we need to look upstream, to incorporate pollution prevention in
everything we do."
I can only say "Amen" to that, because I am on record of having said more than once:
The future of environmental protection lies not in more regulatiorCbut in pollution || %
I-*1' • *at-'"> *«*" ' ^ '' ' * >'^^F^^^^^^^^' ' |5$ !%,-»• llasll.*-^'*' '" -
prevention. And the sooner everyone subscribes to the idea of nfi manufacfuring
pollution, the better and cheaper it will be for all of us.
-------
Two other keystones of EPA policy also come into play with our voluntary PCB
phaseout. One is the idea of actively seeking partnerships between EPA on one hand
and utilities, industries, and private businesses on the other. The second is the
concept of protecting entire ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes Basin, not just
merely this river or that lake or the air umbrella over a particular city.
The EPA has singled out the Great Lakes Basin because, along with other toxicants,
many PCB's wind up in the Great Lakes. And the Great Lakes-—despite their huge
size and irreplaceable value—-represent a very fragile ecosystem. A system
especially vulnerable to PCB and other types of pollution.
The Great Lakes form what amounts to a closed basin. Less than 1 percent of their
water flows out into the Atlantic through the St. Lawrence River every year. And a
computer model has figured out that a glob of PCB's dropped, for example, into Lake
Superior today would not be flushed out for some 190 years.
Another problem with PCB's is that they do not dissolve in water, yet become quite
soluble in the fatty tissues of animals and fish. So that, through the process of
bioaccumulation along the food chain, the concentration of PCB's in big |sh—like the
W
coho salmon—can exceed the concentration of PCB's in water by as much as 10
• . ' . ••$
million times.
-------
In fact, PCB's have been the most persistent and consistent cause of fish advisories in
the Great Lakes. PCB's- — from single doses to long-term exposure— are also the
dominant cause of toxicity in birds and wildlife of the Great Lakes Basin. And because
some 30 million people in the United States alone depend on Great Lakes for their
drinking water and other needs, the effect of PCB's on potable water is not an
exaggerated concern.
Then, too, leaks and spills from PCB electrical equipment present a major source of
contamination on land ...... and a true Excedrin headache when it comes to cleanup.
, :,*•:• ,4;
• -4SK- *;*:<«
Why the sudden concern about PCB's? It's just another overreaction on the part of
some flaming environmentalists, I heard it said the other day.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the concern about PCB's has been anything but sudden.
The toxic effects in people exposed to PCB's on the job have been documented as
early as 1 937. And in 1 968 headlines around the world announced the poisoning of
1 ,400 people by PCB-contaminated rice in Japan. In 1976 Congress passed the Toxic
Substances Control Act, which specifically charged EPA with PCB control. And in
1979 — the very year that EPA banned the production, and commercial
distribution of PCB's in the United States — some 2,000 people were poisoned by
. v • ; ,"f
PCB-contaminatedjng oil in Taiwan. --_ ' ^^llto-v*' •«
-------
There is no doubt about PCB's being a crippling pollutant in the environment and a
health hazard to people. That's why it's so important that we voluntarily—and
aggressively—phase out the PCB equipment still in legal use.
Today, hundreds of companies are two jumps ahead of everybody else with their
pollution prevention programs. And I salute those of you who already have a PCB
phaseout program under way. Let me assure you: Your efforts have not gone
unnoticed or unappreciated. I only hope that your leadership and your civic
conscience rubs off on others.
The benefits could be truly substantial. Consider a PCB spill. Even if it's quickly
cleaned up, there might be scores of people claiming to be injured by it. The resulting
litigation could cost you hundreds of millions of dollars. Eliminate that spill—and you
eliminate those staggering costs Not to mention bushels of grief and aggravation.
And the elimination of potential liability in case of PCB fires—where dioxins and
dibenzofurans may surface as unwanted byproducts—could yield even greater all-
around dividends.
Finally, tot us recognize the immense public goodwill that could accrue through your
* •"***if''t
voluntary actions. And who can put a dollar figure on that? Well, it's something to
think
•*> aMpt" "-'-"-:*4. '«H;^. 'VS«r" -• v" "4V
'Kr
-------
At this point, however, I would like to introduce Phyllis Reed, chief of our Pesticides
and Toxic Substances Branch, who will present to you our proposed PCB phaseout
plan in more detail. Phyllis
WA—CONCLUDING REMARKS
(Approx. 2 min.)
Now that you've heard about our PCB phaseout plan, discuss it with your respective
staffs back at the office. But don't limit your discussions to ideas and suggestions you
have heard at this meeting. Explore new avenues. Be innovative. You and your
experts know your PCB electrical equipment—and your customers—-far better than
EPA or anyone else ever will. Take full advantage of the unique situation you're in.
We have come a long way in our efforts to remove PCB's from the environment. And
now I urge you to join EPA in taking the final steps toward complete PCB elimination.
In this regard, I am asking you to make a three-pronged commitment for the next 5
years:
1. To phase out all the remaining PCB-labeled equipment.
2. To develop and carry out an aggressive testing program in vaults,
-- - :'":V ' *%&' \'*7-r'.
substations, and power plants for non-labeled equipment,
<• '-$!&.., ;-/:t-'f: -^_ y
phasing out all those with a PCB content greater than 500 parts per million.
* ;;,. t»r.. *i'.^ ** -Xsirtk, i&i*?, . *$&$i&<&f jjr, ** '.'•*' i. •"" ^ . L->{..&^ • ."*,, " *V sSnA...-.^ -
3. To develop and carry out an aggressive testing program in sensitive areas-
-------
such as agricultural lands, schools, hospitals, waterways, and wetlands— and
phase out any transformers or voltage regulators with a PCB content greater
than 500 parts per million.
By the way, non-labeled electrical equipment— -where manufacturers' data or
previous tests show PCB's at less than 500 parts per million-— does not have to be
retested or inluded in our phaseout program.
In addition, it would be very helpful if you could provide me with two types of data
within the next 60 days:
A. Measurable results of your PCB phaseout programs to date. And ......
B. Details of what your company can do — how specifically it can help EPA to
eliminate PCB's in the Great Lakes Basin.
Before we go to questions--and--answers momentarily, I would like once again to
thank you for coming here this morning. The voluntary PCB phaseout in the six Great
Lakes States of this Region is one of my highest priorities. And the success of that
phaseout depends almost entirely on you. That's why I'm asking for-— and am heavily
counting on — your traditionally thoughtful and generous support.
•
-> i *- *
\- *". "j|;'; ^-mt^,/ • - '"•
I know you wont tot me down.
***
------- |