UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204«0
OFFICE OP
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
APR -8 ''-;B3
oUBJECT; Late Report. Explanation
'"< v-*-JL«_^ i_>r "V*N >V^v«^,C
FROM: ij^ Kenneth 0. Hockman
Divisional Inspector General for Audit
Internal Audit Division (A- 109)
rO; Bert Anker
Chief, Field Operations Unit (A-109)
ATC3 Report 777 showed our report on the PCB Transformer
Fire Rule (Report 880780) as being 140 days late. Our
explanation for a portion of this delay is presented below.
1. During May 1987, Team Leader worked full time on
congressional request concerning Superfund cost
recovery .
2. During July 1987, Team Leader was on military leave
for two weeks.
3. During July 1987, program officials in Regions 3 and 6
attended a national conference. Field visits to these
regions were delayed two weeks.
4. Unlixke Region 3, Region 6 did not have a universe
of fire departments for us to contact. Therefore, we
had to work with Federal Emergency Management Agency
officials and the six state fire marshals. This proces
took two weeks longer than expected.
The above factors resulted in a total delay of about 2-
1/2 months. While we cannot explain the total delay calculated
by ATCS , we wish to point out that the report was issued per
our commitment to Mr. Bradley. Ln addition', we formally briefed
not only the AIGA and the Inspector General but also the Acting
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
The report is scheduled to appear in the next semiannual report
as one of the top internal and management audits. We completed
this multi-location audit with a team of two auditors.
-------
*
* Jt
• .ff
HW
fy <22
4
o:
o_
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1
ACTION REQUIRED 4
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 4
BACKGROUND 5
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7
1. MANY SMALL AND VOLUNTEER FIRE
COMPANIES ARE UNAWARE OF THE
RULE 7
2. NEED FOR MORE AGGRESSIVE
OUTREACH EFFORTS TO COMMERCIAL
BUILDING OWNERS 12
3. ACTIONS WHICH WILL INCREASE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
INSPECTIONS 19
EXHIBIT A - RESULTS OF OIG TELEPHONE
SURVEY OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS
IN REGION 3 23
EXHIBIT B - RESULTS OF OIG TELEPHONE
SURVEY OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS
IN REGION 6 29
APPENDIX 1 - MARCH 3, 1988, RESPONSE TO DRAFT AUDIT REPORT
FROM THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PESTICIDES
AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 35
APPENDIX 2 - ADDITIONAL OIG COMMENTS TO ASSISTANT ADMINI-
STRATOR'S RESPONSE DATED MARCH 3, 1988 39
APPENDIX 3 - DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT REPORT ' 40
-------
-;tO 37ii>,
*' *
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH^NGTC^4. D.C, 20460
MAR I T 1S88
E OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit Report E1E57-11-0024-80780
Review of the EPA Rule Regulating
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)
Transformer Fires
FROM: Ernest E. Bradley 1 1 l
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (A-109)
TO: John A. Moore
Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (TS-788)
S-BMMAKY OF FINOI-NGS
The Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS) needs
to conduct an awareness campaign and make other management
improvements to better protect the public and fire response
personnel from the significant dangers posed by PCB trans-
former fires. Our review of the implementation of the
Transformer Fires Rule (Rule) by Headquarters and Regions 3
and 6 found that: (1) 62 of 100 small and volunteer fire
departments we contacted were unaware of the Rule's require-
ments; (2) insufficient attention had been devoted to
commercial buildings where public exposure to a PCB fire
would likely be the greatest; and (3) the effectiveness of
inspections to monitor compliance with the .Rule was limited
by the process used to select facilities and a lack of guid-
ance. Unless OPTS takes actions to address these problems,
fire personnel and the public could be unnecessarily exposed
to the toxic by-products of PCB fires.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a family of highly toxic
compounds which people absorb through food, skin contact, and
inhalation. Beginning in the 1930s, PCBs were primarily used
for insulation purposes in electrical equipment. Research has
shown that exposure to PCBs can harm reproductive and develop-
mental processes and cause skin lesions, brain damage, tumors,
and gastric disorders.
-------
Until the early 1980s, the Agency believed the major risk
of exposure to PCBs was due to leaks, spills, and improper
disposal practices. However, after a PCB transformer caught
fire in Binghamton, New York in 1981, monitoring identified
the presence of dioxins and furans, fire by-products which
are significantly more toxic than the PCB material itself.
PCB fires subsequently occurred at a number of locations.
Because transformer fires were occurring more frequently than
anticipated and presenting a greater health risk than origi-
nally thought, OPTS issued the Rule in July 1985. The Rule
was designed to limit exposure during fires and the frequency
of PCB-related fires. To accomplish this, the Rule required
the: (1) registration of PCB transformers with fire depart-
ments and commercial building owners by December 1, 1985; and
(2) removal of certain transformers or the installation of
"enhanced electrical protection" for other transformers used
in or near commercial buildings by October 1, 1990. The Rule
defined a commercial building as any non-industrial structure
readily accessible by the general public.
Regions 3 and 6 have conducted activities to inform some
fire response personnel about the Rule's requirements. Both
regions concentrated their efforts in the larger urban areas
where public exposure in the event of a fire would likely be
the greatest. However, small and volunteer fire companies
which can also be called to respond to PCB fires were generally
unaware of the Rule approximately two years after the registra-
tion requirement was to have been complied with. Our contacts
with a total of 100 small and volunteer fire companies in
Regions 3 and 6 during August and September 1987, disclosed
that 62 companies were not aware of the Rule. Fire personnel
who are unaware of the dangers posed by PCB fires could be
unnecessarily exposed to extremely toxic chemicals unless
appropriate actions, such as the wearing of protective
clothing, are taken.
AlthoughAQFFS was particularly concerned about fires occurring
during peak-use periods in commercial buildings which could
expose hundreds of people to toxic chemicals, Agency outreach
efforts have been limited. Neither Headquarters nor Regions 3
and 6 have conducted an awareness effort aimed at commercial
building owners even though fires in or near these structures
have occurred. Lack of knowledge about the Rule and the danger:
posed by PCB fires may have already resulted in unnecessary
exposure to toxic chemicals. According to the Deputy Fire Chie:
in Shreveport, Louisiana, fire personnel were unnecessarily
exposed when they arrived on the scene of a .fire at a power
plant near the Louisiana State University Medical Center. The
Deputy Chief said that the facility had not informed the fire
department that a PCB transformer was on the premises. Accord-
ingly, fire personnel did not take precautions when entering
the structure and are now being monitored for adverse health
effects.
2
-------
Commercial buildings as defined in the Rule are varied and
numerous, making it difficult for the Agency to identify a
complete universe. Outreach efforts have essentially been
limited to inspections performed by regional personnel and
State inspectors under cooperative agreements. However, the
number of facilities which have been or plan to be inspected
is dwarfed by the number of buildings which could be inspected.
Moreover, for fiscal 1988, OPTS has directed the regions to
decrease the number of inspections so that additional resources
can be devoted to enforcement cases. Given the seriousness of
PCB fires and the demands placed on limited Agency resources,
the Agency needs to conduct an awareness campaign aimed specif-
ically at commercial buildings owners.
As the regulated community is made aware, the Agency needs an
effective program to monitor compliance. Compliance inspec-
tions can be made more effective by obtain-ing and using
registration information and developing guidance for regional
inspectors to use. Because the regions are not always certain
where PCB equipment, including transformers, may be found, they
have targeted locations for inspection which had no PCB equip-
ment. The PCB coordinators in Regions 3 and 6 estimated that
no PCB equipment is found at approximately half of the loca-
tions visited. They told us that other high priority work
had prevented them from making a concerted effort to obtain
transformer location information available at some fire depart-
ments and incorporate this information into their inspection
strategy. As a result, these regions were not able to use a
valuable *-r\ai to imcrove their inspection program.
i '.1 \
OPTS also needs to provide guidance on what "enhanced electri-
cal protection" entails. The PCB coordinators in Regions 3
and 6 said that their inspectors have little formal training
in electrical systems and need guidance to offer advice to
the regulated community and determine during their inspections
whether electrical enhancements are acceptable.
To correct the problems described above, we are recommending
that the Agency: (1) conduct an awareness program for small
and volunteer fire departments and commercial building owners;
and (2) use available information and develop guidance to
improve the inspection program.
OPTS COMMENTS AND PIG EVALUATION
The Assistant Administrator (AA) for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances provided formal written comments on our draft
audit report in a memorandum dated March 3, 1988. The AA
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations and
indicated that OPTS will be taking actions to implement our
report recommendations. We have summarized the AA's position
after each finding and included the complete response as
appendix 1. Appendix 2 provides additional comments on the
-------
AA's response. We discussed the results of our audit with
senior OPTS officials on February 25, 1988. The Director,
Exposure Evaluation Division, said that an exit conference
was not necessary because the Office of Inspector General
agreed with the corrective actions planned by OPTS.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, the action official
is retired to provide this office a written response to the
audit report within 90 days of the audit report date. For
corrective actions planned but not completed, reference to
specific milestone dates will assist this office in closing
this report.
SCOPS-. AMD— QBJECTI-VES-
The overall purpose of this audit was to assess the effective-
ness of Headquarters and regional controls for implementing
portions of the Rule. Specifically, we evaluated Agency actions
to: (1) monitor compliance with the Rule's registration require
ment; and (2) ensure compliance with future milestone dates.
cfe conducted ou-r work within OPTS in EPA Headquarters and the
Hazardous Waste Management divisions of Regions 3 and 6. We
also visited two locations — Binghamton, New York and Santa Fe,
New Mexico — which experienced major PCB transformer fires. For
our purposes, a major fire incident involved: (1) total cleanup
costs in excess of $1 million; (2) the evacuation of several
hundred people; and (3) several gallons of PCB material being
released. During our visits, we obtained information from
State, local, and fire response officials concerning the extent
and cost of cleanup measures taken as well as. health studies
done on those exposed to the fires.
To accomplish, o**.!.- audit objectives, we- also interviewed
regional and Headquarters officials about actions taken to:
(1) inform the regulated community and affected parties of
the Rule's intent and requirements; and (2) monitor compliance
We also reviewed the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Rule,.
and regional and Headquarters internal controls, including
policies and procedures, relating to our areas of concern.
To assess the effectiveness of EPA outreach efforts, we tele-
phonically contacted, during August and September 1987, 50 fire
departments each in Regions 3 and 6 to question them on +**eir
knowledge of the Rule and Agency outreach activities. We^ judg-
mentally selected the fire departments contacted and avoided
ones included in regional analyses. We chose a sample of depart
ments from each State in each region. The departments contacted
represented a mix of volunteer groups or departments -located in
-------
cities other than major population centers. In each case,
we attempted to interview the top official' within each depart-
ment. If this person was not available, we contacted the next
highest official available at the time we called. Because
Region 6 did not have a universe of fire departments, .we....
judgmentally selected the departments we contacted. For this
reason, we- make no projections to the universe.
We conducted our field work from February to October 1987.
The scope of our review generally covered Headquart'?''"' ind
regional activities during fiscal 1986 and 1987. We aj?e not
aware of any prior audit reports addressing our audit objec-
tives.
We performed this audit in accordance with the Standards For
Audit of Governmental Organizations. Programs. Activities, and
Functions (1981 Revision) issued by the Comptroller Genera-1 of
the United States. Significant weaknesses in internal administra-
tive controls are disclosed in the Findings and Recommendations
section of this report. No other issues came to our attention
which we believed warranted detailed audit work.
BACKGROUND
Beginning in the 1930s, PCBs were primarily used for insula-
tion purposes in electrical equipment. Thay are a family of
highly toxic industrial compounds which people absorb through
food, skin contact, and inhalation. PCBs gather in fatty -
tissues and body organs, where they remain even after direct
exposure ceases. Research has shown that PCBs can harm repro-
ductive and developmental processes and cause skin lesions,
brain damage, tumors, and gastric disorders.
Based on the mounting health evidence, the Congress, through
section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1977 (TSCA),
required EPA to implement a regulatory program for PCBs. At
the same time, TSCA prohibited the manufacture, processing,
distribution and use of PCBs unless they were used in a "totally
enclosed manner" or in a way that did not present unreasonable
risk of injury to health and the environment.
Until recently, the major risk of exposure to PCBs was believed
to be from: (1} leaks and spills; and (2) disposal of PCBs and
used PCB equipment. However, fires in Binghamton, New York;
Tulsa, Oklahoma; San Francisco, California; Miami, Florida;
Santa Fe, New Mexico and other locations have shown that fires
involving PCB transformers may pose an even greater risk for
humans. For example, monitoring conducted after the Binghamton
fire identified the presence of dioxins and furans. Dioxins
are acutely toxic and carcinogenic. Presently, there are no
approved disposal facilities for dioxins in the United States.
Furans, whose chemical properties are similar to dioxins,.are
-------
also assumed to b& extremely toxic. These fire by-products
are significantly more toxic than the PCB material itself.
The health dangers posed by PCB fires have often resulted in
multi-year, multimillion dollar cleanup efforts before the
buildings can be reopened for use.
Because fires were occurring at a greater rate than EPA
anticipated and releasing byproducts more toxic than the PCB
material itself, the Agency issued the Rule on July 17, 1985.
The Rule, which is designed to limit exposure during fires
and the frequency of PCB-related fires, retires that:
— PCB transformers be registered with fire departments
by December 1, 1985;
— PCB transformers located in or near commercial
buildings be registered with the building owner by.
December 1, 1985;
— network PCB transformers of 480 volts or greater in
or near commercial buildings be removed from service
by October 1, 1990;
— network transformers of less than 480 volts and radial
transformers of 480 volts or greater used in or near
commercial buildings should have enhanced electrical
protection installed by October 1, 1990; and
— the National Response Center be immediately notified
in the event of a PCB transformer fire-related incident.
Within OPTS, the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) and the
Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) are responsible for
implementing the corrective actions recommended in this report.
OTS is responsible for providing operational guidance on the
Rule to regional offices and for evaluating the activities of
EPA's ten regional offices as they implement the rule. Within
OTS, the Toxic Substances Control Act Assistance Office is
responsible for disseminating information on regulations address-
ing toxic substances, including the Rule. OCM establishes
compliance priorities and provides program policy direction
to regional offices.
Regional personnel can also conduct additional awareness efforts
The regional offices are responsible for monitoring compliance
with the Rule's requirements.
-------
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. MANY SMALL AND VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES
ARE UNAWARE OF THE RULE
Despite efforts to inform fire response personnel about the
Rule, many small and volunteer fire companies were unaware of
the Rule's intent and requirements approximately two years
after the Rule became effective. Of the 100 small and volun-
teer companies we contacted in Regions 3 and 6, 62 said they
were not aware of the Rule. Fire personnel unfamiliar with the
dangers posed by PCS transformer fires could be unnecessarily.
exposed to toxic chemicals during fires unless appropriate
precautions are taken. OPTS needs to conduct an awareness
effort directed specifically at small and volunteer departments
Issued in .July 1985, the Rule required the owners of PCB
transformers' to register this equipment with the local fire
department having primary response duties. Registration of
all PCB transformers was to be completed by December 1, 1985.
In registering, the owner was to indicate the: (l) physical
location of the transformer; (2) type of dielectric fluid in
the transformer; and (3) name and phone number of a person
the fire department should contact in the event of a fire
involving the equipment. The registration requirement was
designed to help prepare fire response personnel for the
unique conditions (i.e., the release of highly toxic by-
products such as dioxins and furans) presented by PCB fires.
When called to respond to a fire involving a PCB transformer,
fire departments could take appropriate measures to protect
fire fighters, select the appropriate means for extinguishing
the fire, and where possible, de-energize the equipment.
In issuing the Rule, OPTS concluded that fire departments were
too numerous and geographically dispersed to permit a national
notification program. Accordingly, OPTS decided that regional
offices would be responsible for notifying fire personnel and
monitoring implementation of the Rule. Since OPTS viewed the
Rule as essentially a regional responsibility, it did not
provide the regions any guidance on notifying fire personnel
and it did not establish a national monitoring program.
During our field work, we visited Regions 3 and 6 to assess
the effectiveness of their outreach efforts. Both regions had
undertaken certain activities designed to inform fire response
personnel about the Rule. In both regions the efforts were
primarily directed at fire departments in the larger urban
areas where public exposure in the event of a fire would
likely be the greatest. The following sections contain our
analyses of actions taken by Regions 3 and 6.
-------
Region 3
In 1986, the Toxics and Pesticides Branch, Hazardous Waste
Management Division, purchased a list of known fire depart-
ments in the region from a trade association. Using this
list, the branch contacted approximately 70 departments by
telephone. Many of the departments served large cities such
as Philadelphia and Baltimore. The departments were asked:
(1) if they were aware of the Rule; (2) how they became aware
of it; (3) how many registrations they had received; and (4)
whether they were using the registrations in their fire pro-
grams-. After analyzing the responses received, the branch
concluded that the small and volunteer departments were
generally unaware of the Rule and additional measures were
needed to notify them.
The branch then prepared a notice which explained.the Rule's
intent, the registration requirement, and the dangers involved
with PCB fires. From February to June 1987, the branch sent
the notice to all 3,800 fire departments located within the
region. However, because the Branch was devoting significant
resources to enforcement cases, it was not able to followup
to determine whether the notice had been received and its
contents understood.
Since no followup effort had been done, we telephonically
contacted, during August and September 1987, 50 small and
volunteer departments which Ware not included in the branch's
phone survey. Of the 50 departments contacted, 26 told us
that they were not aware of the Rule. In addition, of the 24
departments who indicated they were aware of the Rule, only
11 recalled having seen the notice. Those who knew of the
Rule had gained their knowledge by reading various documents,
word of mouth, and miscellaneous other sources. Exhibit A
provides the results of our phone survey for Region 3. During
our field work, we provided branch officials with the results
of our survey. The PCB coordinator told us that they would
use the results to improve their program.
Region 6
In September 1985, Region 6 officials conducted six seminars
for State and local government personnel, fire officials and
private industry. The seminars discussed PCB regulations,
including the recently published Rule. Beginning in February
1986, the Pesticides and Toxics Branch; Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Division, began to address the Rule directly. The
branch sent a package on the Rule to State fire marshals and
fire training schools, 67 fire departments and 25 utilities.
The fire departments chosen were those from the larger cities
in each State. The package included a copy of the Rule and
its summary. The package also asked the addressee to provide
8
-------
the branch with registration information including the number
of registrations received, who the owners were, and how the
fire departments were using the registration information.
Also, beginning in February 1986, the region began a proce-
dure designed to increase the coverage of its outreach efforts.
Inspectors conducting asbestos inspections would also visit
local fire response personnel to discuss the Rule and safety
issues involving PCS fires. Approximately one week prior to
a visit, a regional inspector contacts the fire department to
briefly discuss the Rule and inform fire officials that infor^
mation on the Rule is being sent to them. We inguired about
the degree of awareness existing at the time Region 6 made
its initial contacts, while awareness statistics were never
formally recorded, the branch estimated that of the 51 depart-
ments visited through July 27, 1986, 75 percent were unaware
when initially contacted.
As we had done in Region 3, we contacted by telephone 50 fire
departments during August and September 1987, to assess the
effectiveness of the region's outreach efforts. The depart-
ments contacted were obtained from a list provided by the
fire marshal in each State. Of the 50 departments contacted,
3.6 told us they were not aware of the Rule. Exhibit B provides
the results of our phone survey for Region 6. Thus, despite
awareness efforts, including the 223 asbestos inspector visits
made through August 1987, 72 percent of the fire companies we
contacted were unaware of the Rule approximately two years
after it was issued.
During our field work, we sent the results to branch officials.
The PCB Coordinator stated that they would use the results in
their program.
CONCLUSION
Regions 3 and 6 have taken certain actions to inform fire
response personnel about the Rule. These regions concentrated
their efforts on the larger urban areas where significant public
exposure to PCB fires is more likely to occur. Despite the pro-
gress made, small and volunteer fire departments were generally
unaware of the Rule's intent and requirements approximately two
years after the Rule was issued. Of the 100 small and volunteer
fire departments we contacted, 62 told us they were unaware of
the Rule.
Small and volunteer fire departments can be called to respond
to fires involving. PCB transformers. A lack of awareness to
the dangers posed by the highly toxic by-products of PCB fires
could unnecessarily expose fire personnel and seriously damage
their health. Because of the significant lack of awareness our
phone survey identified, OPTS needs to conduct a special aware-
ness effort directed at small and volunteer fire departments.
-------
The awareness effort should involve the distribution of
written materials concerning the Rule and the need to take
special precautions in fighting PCB fires, in addition,
regional seminars for fire personnel would increase awareness
of the Rule. Conducting an effective awareness program will
provide fire personnel with knowledge about the dangers posed
by PCB transformer fires and the Rule's requirements. Armed
with this knowledge, fire personnel could develop plans for
responding to transformer fires, even if they are not sure a
PCB transformer is involved.
To monitor whether the awareness program has been successful
in informing fire personnel about the Rule, the regions should
selectively followup with fire departments to determine
whether the -Rule and the reasons for its issuance are clearly
understood. Priority attention should be given to contacting
departments who would respond to fires at locations known to
have PCB transformers. Had Region 3 done this after distri-
buting its notice on the Rule, the lack of awareness we
identified would have been found and corrective action could
have been taken. In addition, the outreach program will be
enhanced if other regions adopt practices such as Region 6's
use of abestos inspectors to inform fire personnel about the
Rule. Similar innovative activities, which require a minor
investment of resources, should be made part of the Agency's
awareness program.
OPTS—€OMM£NTS AND-QIC EVALUATION
In his March 3, 1988, memorandum, the Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides and Toxic Substances stated that it is important
for all fire response personnel, including small and volunteer
departments, to be aware of the Rule. To promote awareness for
fire departments, the Assistant Administrator said that OPTS
would place articles in pertinent trade journals and magazines.
In addition, OPTS will use asbestn= ; -.*-•??+?r:p. to inform fire
personnel *wout the Rule. While we agree-, wVcu'Vhs iiwtions
planned, we believe that the regions and Headquarters need to
selectively followup with fire response personnel to ensure
that the Rule's reouirements and reasons for issuance ^^n
understood. - > - ' : -
RECOMMENDATIONS•
•we recommend: that the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances^'
i% Conduct, in conjunction with the regions, an aware-
ness program specifically directed at small and
volunteer fire departments. To accomplish this, the
Assistant Administrator should develop a plan which:
10
-------
— assigns specific duties and responsibilities to
regional and Headquarters personnel;
— contains milestone dates for accomplishing major
tasks;
— includes activities requiring a minor investment
of resources, such as using asbestos inspectors to
inform fire personnel about the Rule; and
-- requires the regions to followup with fire person?-
nel, particularly with those who- would respond to
fires at known PCB transformer locations.
2. Monitor progress against— the
11
-------
2. NEED FOR MORE AGGRESSIVE OUTREACH EFFORTS
TO COMMERCIAL BUILDING OWNERS
Since OPTS first distributed the Rule in July 1985, neither
OPTS nor Regions 3 and 6 have conducted additional awareness
efforts or directed monitoring activities specifically aimed
at commercial building owners. During 1987, two fires occurred
in Region 6 near commercial buildings. According to fire
officials or EPA records, the registration requirement was
not followed in either incident. For one of the incidents, a
fire department official told us that the failure to register
resulted in fire personnel being unnecessarily exposed to toxic
chemicals. Also, the PCB coordinator•in Region 3 estimated
that violations of the Rule, primarily involving the registra-
tion requirement, are found in half of the commercial building
inspections. The seriousness of the health risks posed by
PCB fires in commercial buildings warrants a more aggressive
awareness campaign for commercial building owners.
In enacting the Rule, OPTS cited numerous incidents across the
country that prompted the office to reassess its early thinking
about the frequency of PCB fires. When the Rule was published,
EPA estimated that 50 structure-related transformer fires would
occur over the remaining useful life of PCB transformers. Of
these, 44 would happen in or near commercial buildings. OPTS
was particularly concerned about fires occurring during peak-
use periods in commercial buildings because hundreds of building
occupants could be exposed to smoke and soot from the fire during
evacuation of the buildings. If the transformer involved in
the fire is located near the building's ventilation system and
duct work, the chance for exposure is increased.
Because of these concerns, the Rule required owners of PCB
transformers located in or near commercial buildings to regis-
ter the equipment with the primary fire response group and
the building owner. For purposes of this Rule, EPA defined
commercial buildings as non-industrial buildings typically
accessible to members of the general public. Commercial build-
ings would include apartments, office buildings, schools, meeting
halls, and stores. EPA determined that PCB transformer fires,
particularly those occurring in or near commercial buildings,
presented risks to human health and to the environment.
Aaencv Outreach Efforts Have Been Limited
After the final Rule was approved, OPTS contracted to mail the
Rule to entities including environmental groups, industries,
insurance associations, insurance companies, buildings associa-
tions, and State governments. OPTS hoped that these entities
would "spread the word" through their various publications.
12
-------
Shortly thereafter, OPTS held a one-day seminar to explain
the Rule. Various groups including industry and trade associ-
ations, Stst» governments, universities and fire officials
were invited. However, the session was not well attended.
OPTS did not conduct any additional awareness efforts for
commercial building owners until April 1986, when it deve-
loped a pamphlet explaining the intent and requirements of
the Rule. In emphasizing the seriousness of PCB fires in
commercial buildings, the pamphlet stated that:
It is critically important (underscoring
added) that commercial building owners
register PCB transformers with local fire
departments or brigades. PCB fires pose
serious risks to building occupants and
fire fighters. If fire fighters and
other personnel know they may be dealing
with PCBs, they can be prepared and
equipped to deal with the fire. Both
fire fighters and building owners also
should be aware of the need to quickly
evacuate occupants in an emergency
situation, and of the need to ensure that
proper and adequate cleanup occurs prior
to recccupation of the building.
While OPTS sent copies of the pamphlet to the regional
offices, it did not.provide any guidance for distribution of
the pamphlets. The PCB Coordinators in Regions 3 and 6 told
us that they only mailed the pamphlet to parties who requested
information on the Rule. These regions did not do a mass
distribution because they were: (1) uncertain where the
information should be sent; and (2) involved in other priority
work.
PCB Transformer Fires Continue to Occur
While the health effects of those exposed during actual
incidents are still being studied, the seriousness of PCB
transformer fires can be demonstrated by the cost and time
involved in cleanup prior to reoccupancy. The Binghamton,
New York incident contributed to the Rule's development. On
February 5, 1981, an electrical fire occurred in the basement
of the 18-floor State Office Building. Oil containing PCBs
spilled into the fire and was changed by the heat into dioxin.
The dioxin was drawn into the soot and dispensed through the
ventilation system to virtually every part of the building.
Pictured on the next page is the toxic material covering an
office after the fire.
13
-------
The contamination resulting from the Binghamton fire was so
severe that the cleanup efforts are still underway. In
February 1987, State officials estimated that about $37 million
in cleanup costs had been expended. The building cost $13
million to construct. Current plans call for reoccupancy in
early 1989, over eight years after the fire occurred.
The Binghamton fire was not an isolated incident. More
recently, transformer fire incidents have occurred in the
following locations within the Regions 3 and 6—Santa Fe, New
Mexico; Norfolk, Virginia; Shreveport, Louisiana; and Garland,
Texas.
14
-------
In Santa Fe, an overheated PCS transformer developed smoke at
the New Mexico State Highway Building on June 17, 1985. While
there were no flames, the extreme heat caused the PCS oil to
vaporize producing dioxins and furans. Smoke entered the air
intake duct and was distributed throughout the building. The
picture on the bottom of the previous page shows the cleanup
activities undertaken. Workers are wearing protective clothing
worn during PCS fire cleanups.
Reoccupancy of the State Highway Building began in December 1986,
and was completed in January 1987, or approximately a year and
a half after the incident occurred. State officials estimated
that they spent about $16 million in cleanup costs.
In another incident, a PC3 transformer was struck by lightning
at the U.S. Navy Rework Facility in Norfolk, Virginia on April 29,
1986. The resultant fire occurred on the ground floor of a build-
ing used as a combination workshop, packaging and engineering
office building. Smoke and soot spread through the building and
adjacent areas. The Navy is now deciding whether to perform the
necessary cleanup activities to. permit reoccupancy or replace
the building. Regardless of the option chosen, estimated costs
are likely to be at least 520 million.
Still another incident occurred on April 4, 1987, at the
Louisiana State University Medical Center in Shreveport,
Louisiana. An estimated 470 gallons of PCB oil was released
from a power plant transformer when it overheated and ruptured.
PCB oil was sprayed over the entire second floor of the power
plant building and spread into the majority of the first floor
generator room. Air sample results indicated that the fire
was contained within the plant building because no airborne
PCBs were detected outside the power plant. The Shreveport
Fire Department responded to the incident. According to the
Deputy Fire Chief, the department had not received a registra-
tion for the PCB transformer at the facility. Firemen who
entered the building initially did so without protective gear
worn when responding to PCB fires. Eight firemen were admitted
to the hospital. Three plant workers were also exposed. The
Deputy Chief told us that, while all persons exposed were
released from the hospital after a short stay, all will undergo
longterm medical monitoring.
Finally, the most recent incident we are aware of occurred
on July 30, 1987, in Garland, Texas. A PCB transformer in an
outside vault near Memorial Hospital overheated. Apparently
the smoke was confined to the vault area. In this case, the
fire department knew a PCB transformer was on the premises.
However, registration occurred only after an EPA inspection.
15
-------
In January 1987, Region 6 cited the owner for failing to
register the transformer with the fire department and the
building owner, which should have been done by December 1,
1985. As a result of the inspection and the subsequent Notice
of Violation, the owner registered the equipment.
An Awareness Program Is Needed
After initial outreach efforts, the Agency has primarily
relied on inspections to inform commercial building owners
about the Rule. Considering the number of buildings which
could be inspected and the competing demands for Agency
resources, this approach is not sufficient to achieve the
level of awareness necessary to protect against the dangers
posed by PCS fires.
The number of commercial buildings which could be inspected
greatly exceeds the number of inspections that can be done
with limited Agency resources. Annually, the regions allocate
the total number of inspections they will do among various
categories. Commercial buildings, one of the categories,
will represent from 15 to 25 percent of the total regional
inspections during fiscal 1988. For fiscal 1988, OPTS directed
the regions to decrease the number of inspections so that
additional resources could be devoted to enforcement cases.
For example. Regions 3 and 6 will reduce the total number of
compliance inspections during fiscal 1988 as shown below:
Number of Inspections
Region
FY 87
185
175
FY 88
150
130
Competing priorities have also slowed regional efforts to
use transformer location information in selecting which facili-
ties to inspect. For example, during 1986 and 1987, Region 3
asked utility companies to provide location information on
their customers. Also, during this period, Region 6 obtained
transformer location information from certain fire departments
who had received registrations. However, a major effort
directed at developing enforcement cases had prevented both
regions from using the information obtained by the time we
completed our field visits. Similar priority projects are
likely to occur in the future.
In our opinion, the demands placed on the Agency's limited
resources to regulate a large universe necessitates the need
for additional awareness efforts. From the records reviewed
or discussions held, PCS transformers involved in'the Garland,
16
-------
Texas and Shreveport, Louisiana incidents had not been registered
by the Rule's December 1, 1985, deadline. The PCB Coordinator
in Region 3 estimated that inspectors fir.d violations of the
Rule, primarily involving the registration requirement, in 50
percent of the commercial buildings inspected. A program is
needed to increase awareness and promote compliance with the
Rule's requirements, particularly concerning registration.
CONCLUSIONS
Both in establishing the registration requirement for commer--
cial buildings-and in the April 1986, pamphlet, OPTS expressed
concern about public exposure to PCB fires in commercial
buildings. To help building owners and fire fighters prepare
for fire-related incidents, owners of PCB transformers located
in or near commercial buildings were required to register the
equipment by December 1, 1985. Actual fire incidents have-
occurred at or near locations which have not complied with
the registration requirement. For one incident, a fire
official told us that the failure to register resulted in
fire fighters being unnecessarily exposed to toxic chemicals.
The PCB Coordinator in Region 3 estimated a 50 percent
noncompliance rate with the Rule, primarily involving the
registration requirement. To increase awareness and promote
compliance with the Rule's requirements, the Agency needs to
conduct an outreach effort aimed at commercial building owners.
The increased demands placed on Agency resources which could
be used for awareness further supports the need for outreach
activities.
Identifying a complete universe of commercial buildings, as
defined in the Rule, is a difficult task. Commercial buildings
are numerous and geographically dispersed. However, some
information is already available. For example, Regions 3 and
6 obtained information on transformer locations from certain
utilities and fire departments. In addition, the regions could
use inspection reports for commercial buildings to identify
types of entities most likely to have PCB transformers. This
information could be supplemented by data gathered from building
associations, chambers of commerce, and school districts.
OPTS should also explore ways to supplement Agency resources
by requesting the assistance of other groups concerned with
health and safety issues. For example, the Agency could
request that State and local health and safety inspectors and
fire safety inspectors expand their inspections to emphasize
the Rule's importance and determine whether the registration
requirement has been complied with. A procedure could then
be established to inform the local fire department about
facilities which have not registered. In addition, the Agency
could contact insurance companies, expressing the seriousness
of PCB fires, in the hope that the companies will pressure
those they insure to comply with the Rule's requirements.
17
-------
OPTS CnMMTTjjTS_AND PIG EVALUATION
In his, memorandum of Marca j, 1988, tne Assistant Administra-
tor stated that risks to health and the environment, as well
as cleanup costs, in the event of a fire involving a PCS
transformer in a commercial building are well documented.
Accordingly, OPTS believes that is is important for owners of
PCB transformers located in or near commercial buildings to
register the equipment with building owners and fire departments,
To promote awareness and compliance, OPTS plans to place arti-
cles in pertinent trade journals and magazines whose audience
is affected by the Rule, e.g., building owners and insurance
companies. Also, OPTS will work with the regions to conduct
an awareness program directed at commerical building owners.
Lastly, OPTS plans to publish an amendment to the Rule in
July 1988. OPTS plans an extensive distribution which will
include information on commerc^i buildings. We agree with
the actions planned by OPTS.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We- recommend-: that the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances:
L. Conduct, in conjunction with the regions, an aware-
ness program for commercial building owners. To
accomplish this, the Assistant Administrator should
develop a plan which:
— assigns specific duties and responsibilities to
regional and Headquarters personnel; and
— considers ways of supplementing Agency resources
through the use of groups such as health and
safety inspectors and fire inspectors.
2.. Monitor progress against—the—pian-.-
-------
3. ACTIONS WHICHWILL INCREASE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF INSPECTIONS
To increase the effectiveness of its inspections, the Agency
needs to" improve its process for selecting which facilities to
inspect and provide guidance which regional inspectors can use
to perform inspections. Regions 3 and 6: (1) had not always
contacted fire departments to obtain registration information;
(2) did not record key inspection information in an automated
management information system; and (3) lacked guidance con-
cerning enhanced electrical protection. Unless these actions.
are taken, the Agency will continue to allocate a portion of
its limited inspection resources to facilities which have no
PCB equipment and be unable to determine compliance with the
electrical protection requirement.
The Rule requires that network PCB transformers of 480 volts
or greater located in or near commercial buildings must be
removed from service by October 1, 1990. In addition, network
transformers of a lesser voltage and radial transformers of
480 volts or more used in or near commercial buildings should
have enhanced electrical protection installed by the same
date. EPA believed these actions would significantly reduce
the fire-related risks posed by the use of PCB transformers.
Since the Toxic Substances Control Act did not require owners
of PCB equipment to submit location information to EPA, the
Agency has had to rely on other means -to develop a universe
of regulated entities. For example, a list of purchasers of
PCB material was obtained from the major manufacturer. Based
on this information and working knowledge developed over time,
the Agency identified types of industries most likely to have
PCB equipment, including transformers. OPTS' annual inspec-
tion guidance directs the regions to allocate- their inspections
among these major industry categories. The regions then decide
which facilities within these categories to inspect. Inspec-
tions have been one of the Agency's means for: (1) developing
a universe of entities with PCB transformers; (2) conducting
outreach efforts; and (3) monitoring compliance. PCB inspec-
tions are comprehensive; not only does the inspector check
for compliance concerning marking, storage, and disposal but
also for adherence to the Rule's requirements. As discussed
in Finding Number 2, the Agency has used inspections to inform
those who are unaware about the Rule's requirements.
Available Information Not Used
To Select Facilities For Inspection
Because the Agency is not always certain where PCB equipment,
including transformers, may be found, it has targeted loca-
tions for inspection which had no PCB equipment. The PCB
Coordinators in Regions 3 and 6 estimated that, for approxi-
19
-------
mately half of the locations visited, no PCS equipment has
been found. Concern over the low rate for finding PCS equip-
ment caused OPTS to contract with a consultant to obtain
advice on how limited inspection resources could be better
utilized. The consultant's study, dated August 1985, con-
cluded that in light of resource constraints "... narrowing
the size of the regulated community to a manageable number of
priority sources and inspecting those most likely to be in
violation of Federal requirements are central to achieving
EPA's mandate concerning these hazardous substances."
In June 1986, OPTS amended the PCS Compliance Monitoring Stra-
tegy to urge the regions to obtain registration information
from fire departments in urban areas within their jurisdiction.
Primary attention was to be directed at information for trans-
formers located in or near commercial buildings, obtaining
this information would assist the regions in estimating the
resources needed to inspect commercial buildings and in desig-
ning a strategy to inspect for compliance with future Rule
requirements.
The PCS Coordinators in Regions 3 and 6 told us that other
high priority work, primarily involving enforcement cases,
had prevented them from conducting a concerted effort to
obtain information from fire departments who received registra-
tions and incorporate this information into their selection
process for inspections. As a result, these regions had not
been able to use a valuable resource in developing an inspec-
tion strategy. As the number of inspections decreases (see
page 16 of this report), it becomes even more important to
target inspection resources to facilities having PCB equipment,
including transformers.
Selection Process Can
Be More Efficent
When inspections are performed, key data including whether a
PCB transformer was found, its type, and location are not
recorded in an automated management information system in
Regions 3 and 6. Therefore, at the point when the Agency
begins to check for compliance with the 1990 milestone dates,
regional personnel will have to manually review hundreds of
inspection files to determine which facilities should be
included in the inspection scheme. Automating inspection
results would provide for a quick review with a small invest-
ment of resources.
In discussing this issue, the regions believed a master,
automated inventory of locations with PCB equipment would be
of limited value. The PCB Coordinators in Regions 3 and 6
told us that an inventory would only list locations that had
PCB equipment as of the date of the inspection. The owner
20
-------
could subsequently dispose of the equipment. Moreover, they
told us that obtaining information from fire departments
would only identify locations that complied with the registra-
tion requirement; it would not identify those that did not
comply. We continue to believe that automating inspection
information will assist the regions in targeting a portion of
their limited inspection resources to those locations having
PCB equipment which must be modified or replaced by October 1,
1990.
Guidance Needed For
Enhanced Electrical Protection
OPTS has not provided guidance describing safety enhancements
that would represent acceptable "enhanced electrical protec-
tion". An OPTS official stated that guidance has not been
developed because of other priorities, limited resources and
the absence of immediate need, since compliance is not
required until 1990.
The PCB coordinators in Regions 3 and 6 said that they and
their inspectors were not sure what "enhanced electrical
protection" would entail. Both officials said that, as the
milestone date approaches, they expect to receive inquiries
from transformer owners about the protection requirement.
Unless specific guidance is developed, the regions will not
be able to adequately respond to inquiries or determine whether
enhancements are acceptable. The officials added that guidance,
supplemented by training, is essential because inspectors
have little formal training in electrical systems.
CONCLUSION
Collecting and automating inspection and registration
information wiir provide for a more effective and efficient
identification of those locations subject to the 1990 date
and other PCB regulations. In addition, OPTS needs to explain
what "enhanced electrical protection" entails so that regional
inspectors will be able to assist the regulated community and
determine compliance.
OFFS COMMENTS-AND PIG EVALUATION
In his memorandum of March 3, 1988, the Assistant Administra-
tor for Pesticides and Toxic Substances concurred vicn. o«*
recommendations. The Office of Compliance Monitoring within
OPTS -has prepared a draft Compliance Strategy amendment which
recommends that the regions: (1) obtain registration informa-
tion; and (2) record key inspection information on their
computers. In addition, OPTS will work with the regions to
develop guidance explaining what enhanced electrical protection
entails. While we agree, with the intent of the actions planned,
we ace concerned that the draft amendment only recommends and
does not require the regions to take these actions.
21
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS •
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and
Toxic Substances:
1. Require the regions to use transformer registration
information in selecting which facilities to inspect.
J. Direct the regions to record inspection results in an
automated management information system.
j. Issuo guidance explaining what enhanced electrical
protection entails.
22
-------
EXHIBIT A
RESULTS OF PIG TELEPHONE
SURVEY OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN
REGION 3
NAME/ADDRESS OF AWARE OF EPA SAW EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULE
DELAWARE
Bethany Beach Vol. Fire Co. Yes No
P.O. Box 142
Bethany Beach, De. 19930
Contacted Member
Carlisle Vol. Fire Dept. No No
P.O. Box 292
Milford, De. 19963
Contacted Engineer
Georgetown Fire Co. Yes Yes
P.O. Box 132
Georgetown, De. 19947
Contacted 2nd Asst. Fire Chief
Robbins Hose Fire Co. #1 Yes No
103 South Governors Avenue
Dover, De. 19901
Contacted Fire Chief
Roxana Vol. Fire Co. No No
Box 420
Frankford, De. 19945
Contacted Member
Talleyville Fire Co. No No
3919 Concord Pike
Wilmington, De. 19803
Contacted. Member
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington Airport Fire Dept. Yes Yes
West Lab Bldg., Room 175
Washington, D.C. 20001
Contacted Fire Chief
Dist. of Columbia Fire Dept. Yes No
1923 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Contacted Fire Chief
23
-------
EXHIBIT A
NAME/ADDRESS OF AWARE OF EPA SAW EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULE FLYER
MARYLAND
Brandywine Vol. Fire Dept. No No
P.O. Box 216
Brandywine, Md. 20613
Contacted Actg. Lieutenant
Greenbelt Vol. Fire Dept. Yes Yes
125 Crescent Road
Greenbelt, Md. 20770
Contacted Firefighter
Hereford Vol. Fire Co. No No
510 Monkton Road
Monkton, Md." 21111"
Contacted Engineer
Ocean City Vol. Fire Co. No No
P.O. Box 27
Ocean City, Md. 21842
Contacted Member
Odenton Vol. Fire Co. Yes Yes
1425 Annapolis Road
Odenton, Md. 21113
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Rescue Fire Co. No No
P.O. Box 364
Cambridge, Md. 21613
Contacted Member
Sharptown Vol. Fire Dept. No No
P.O. Box 307
Sharptown, Md. 21861
Contacted Fire Chief
West Lanham Hills Vol. Fire No No
7609 Annapolis Road
Hyattsville, Md. 20784
Contacted Lieutenant
PENNSYLVANIA
American Hose Co. #1 No No
39 Mauch Chunk Street
Tamaqua, Pa. 18252
Contacted Fire Chief
24
-------
EXHIBIT A
NAME/ADDRESS OF AWARE OF EPA SAW EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULE FLYER"
Eastvale Vol. Fire Dept. No No
321 3rd 'Avenue
Eastvale Beaver Falls, Pa. 15010
Contacted Fire Chief
Highland Firemens Assn. No No
8705 Harold Place
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15237
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Lock Four Vol. Fire Co. No No
560 Isabella Avenue
North Charleroi, Pa. 15022
Contacted Fire Chief
McDonald Vol. Fire Dept. No No
150 North McDonald Street
McDonald, Pa. 15057
Contacted 2nd Lieutenant
North Bessemer Vol. Fire Co. Yes No
1917 Leechburg Road-
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15235
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
VIRGINIA
Amelia County Vol. Fire Dept. No No
P.O. Box 307
Amelia, Va. 23002
Contacted Fire Serv. Coord.
Arlington County Fire Dept. Yes No
1020 N. Hudson Street
Arlington, Va. 22201
Contacted Captain
Central King & Queen Fire Yes No
King & Queen Courthouse, Va.
23085
Contacted Fire Chief
Falls Church Fire Dept. Yes No
555 N. Washington Street
Falls church, Va. 22046
Contacted Fire Marshal
25
-------
EXHIBIT A
NAME/ADDRESS OF AWARE OF EPA SAW EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULE FLYER
Franconia Vol. Fire Dept. Yes No
6300 Beulah Street
Alexandria, Va. 22310
Contacted Lieutenant
King George Vol. Fire Dept. No No
P.O. Box 466
King George, Va. 22485
Contacted Fire Chief
London Bridge Vol. Fire Yes Yes
2310 Va. Beach Blvd.
Virginia Beach, Va. 23454
Contacted Captain
London County Fire Dept. No No
209 Gibson Street, N.W.
Leesburg, Va. 22075
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Mt. Vernon Vol. Fire Dept. Yes No
2675 Sherwood Hall Lane
Alexandria, Va. 22306
Contacted Lieutenant
Shenandoah Vol. Fire Co. No No
201 Pennsylvania Avenue
Shenandoah, Va. 22849
Contacted Member
Sperryville Vol. Fire Dept. No No
Route 522
Sperryville, Va. 22740
Contacted Fire chief
USA Vint Hills Farm station Yes ' No
US Army Garrison
Warrenton, Va. 22186
Contacted Member
USAF Langley Base Fire Dept. Yes Yes
Langley AFB, Va. 23365
Contacted Fire Chief
USMC Quantico Fire Dept. Yes No
Security BN Fire Protection
Prevention Division
Quantico, Va. 22134
Contacted Fire Chief
26
-------
EXHIBIT A
NAME/ADDRESS OF ' AWARE OF EPA SAW EPA
rEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULE ' FLYER
USN Amphibious Base Fire Dept. Yes Yes-
Bldg. 3029 Little Creek
Norfolk, Va. 23521
Contacted Fire Chief
Vienna Fire Dept. Yes Yes
P.O. Box 1115
Vienna, Va. 22180
Contacted Lieutenant
Williamsburg Fire Dept. Yes Yes
440 North Boundary Street
Williamsburg, Va. 28185
Contacted Batallion Chief
WEST VIRGINIA
Gary Fire Dept. Yes No
P.O. Box 310
Gary, WV. 24830
Contacted Training Officer
Harrisville Fire Dept. No No
612 East Main Street
Harrisville, WV. 26362
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Hinton Fire Dept. No No
Park Avenue
Hinton, WV. 25951
Contacted Engineer
Jefferson Vol. Fire Dept. No No
6313 MacCorkel Avenue
Saint Albans, WV. 25177
Contacted Firefighter
Kenova Fire Dept. Yes Yes
615 15th Street
Kenova, WV. 25530
Contacted Firefighter
Logan Fire Dept. No No
219 Dingess Street
Logan, WV. 25601
Contacted Fire Chief
27
-------
EXHIBIT A
NAME/ADDRESS OF
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED
Marlinton Fire Dept.
709 2nd Avenue
Marlinton^ WV. 24954
Contacted Captain
Meadow Bridge Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 32
Meadow Bridge, WV. 25976
Contacted Lieutenant
Pineville Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 200
Pineville, WV. 24874
Contacted Fire Chief
Stonewood Fire Dept.
112 Southern Avenue
Stonewood, WV. 26301
Contacted Fire Chief
Summerville Fire Dept.
400 Broad Street
Summerville, WV. 26651
Contacted Fire Chief
AWARE OF EPA
FIRES RULE
No
SAW EPA
FLYER
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
NO
No
No
RESULTS
AWARE OF EPA
FIRES RULE
No = 26 (52%)
Yes - 24 (48%)
SAW EPA
FLYER
No = 39 (78%)
.Yes = 11 (22%)
28
-------
EXHIBIT B '
RESULTSOF PIG TELEPHONE
SURVEY OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS
IN REGION 6
NAME/ADDRESS OF AWARE OF EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED ' FIRES RULE
ARKANSAS
Earle Vol. Fire Dept. Yes
1121 2nd Street
Earle, Ar. 72331
Contacted Fire Chief
Fordyce Vol. Fire Dept. Yes
201 S. Moseley
Fordyce, Ar. 71742
Contacted Fire Chief-
Grady Vol. Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 181
Grady, Ar. 71644
Contacted Fire Chief
Junction City Vol. Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 41
Junction City, Ar. 71749
Contacted Fire Chief
Mansfield Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 476
Mansfield, Ar. 72944
Contacted Fire Chief
Siloam Springs Fire Dept. Yes
100 Mount Olive
Siloam Springs, Ar. 72761
Contacted Fire Chief
Texarkana Fire Dept. - No
P.O. Box 2711
Texarkana, Ar. 75504
Contacted Fire Chief
Van Buren .Fire Dept. No
408 Mt. Vista
Van Buren, Ar. 72956
Contacted Captain
29
-------
EXHIBIT B
NAME/ADDEESS OF AWARE OF EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULJT
Hominy Fire Dept. "• No
111 S. Regan
Hominy, Ok. 74035
Contacted Firefighter
Mannford Vol. Fire Dept. Yes
P.O. Box 327
Mannford, Ok. 74044
Contacted Fire Chief
Mustang Fire Dept. No
470 W. Highway #152
Mustang, Ok. 73064
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Ringling Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 900
Ringling, Ok. 73456
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
The Village Fire Dept. No
2201 W. Britton Road
The Village, Ok. 73120
Contacted Deputy Fire Chief
TEXAS
Greenville Fire Dept. Yes
P.O. Box 1049
Greenville, Tx. 75401
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Kenedy Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 720
Kenedy, Tx. 78119
Contacted Fire Chief
Lewisville Fire Dept. No
151 West Church Street
Lewisville, Tx. 75067
Contacted Fire Chief
Mabank Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 545
Mabank, Tx. 75147
Contacted Fire Chief
33
-------
EXHIBIT B
NAME/ADDRESS OF
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED
Marshall Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 698
Marshall, Tx. 75671
Contacted Fire Chief
Midlothian Fire Dept.
235 North 8th
Midlothian, Tx. 76065
Contacted Firefighter
Palmer Volunteer Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 430
Palmer, Tx. 75152
Contacted Lieutenant
Venus Vol. Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 183
Venus, Tx. 76084
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Victoria Vol. Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 1758
Victoria, Tx. 77901
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
White Settlement Fire Dept.
214 Meadowpark
White Settlement, Tx. 76108
Contacted Fire Chief
AWARE OF EPA
FIRES RULE
Yes
Yes
No
NO
No
NO
RESULTS
AWARE OF EPA
FIRES
No = 36 (72%)
Yes » 14 (28%)
34
-------
APPENDIX 1 -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460 C
MAR 3 1388
tee. OF
PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
OPTS Response on Draft Audit Report E1E57-11-0024,
Review of the EPA Rule Regulating Polychlorinated
Biphenyl (PCB) Transformer Fires
John A. Moore
Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances (TS-788)
Ernest E. Bradley III
Assistant Inspector General for Audit (A-1Q9)
The Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS)
welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Inspector
General's February 2, 1988 Draft Audit Report, which indicated a
need for improving the existing awareness campaign for the PCS
Transformer Fires Rule. OPTS is well aware of the potential
risks associated with PCB transformer fires and the need to
ensure compliance with the provisions of the rule in order to
minimize these risks. We will first summarize our outreach
efforts to date and then address the areas of concern
specifically identified in the draft report, followed by our
plans to upgrade future outreach efforts.
As you know, the PCB Transformer Fires Rule was published in
the Federal Register on July 17, 1985, and became effective on
August 16, 1985. Outreach efforts began, however, shortly after
publication of the proposed PCB Transformer Fires Rule in October
1984; copies of the proposed rule were sent for comment to all
members listed on the International Association of Fire Fighters
mailing list. In the Spring of 1985 the Chief of the Chemical See Appendi
Regulation Branch (CRB) held a conference call with the Regional'Note l
PCB Coordinators indicating they should implement an outreach
effort by identifying fire departments as a source of
information. Also at that time, CRB made presentations to the
Apartment Owners and Builders Association, Building Owners and
Managers Association, and the Apartment Owners and Managers
Association, in an attempt to inform this segment of the
regulated community about the PCB Transformer Fires Rule.
35
-------
EXHIBIT B
NAME/ADDRESS OF
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED
Viola Volunteer Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 75-
Viola, Ar. 72583
Contacted Fire Chief
Y-City Volunteer Fire Dept.
HCR 69, Box 328
Boles, Ar. 72926
Contacted Fire Chief
LOUISIANA
Bastrop Fire Dept.
City Hall Complex
P.O. Box 431
Bastrop, La. 71220
Contacted Acting Fire Chief
Bogalusa Fire Dept.
200 Arkansas Avenue
Bogalusa, La. 70427
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Hammond Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 1595
Hammond, La. 70404
Contacted Hazardous Mat.
Team Leader
Iota Volunteer Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 890
Iota,. La. 70543
Contacted Fire Chief
Kenner Fire Dept.
1801 Williams Blvd.
Kenner, La. 70062
Contacted Asst. Fire Chief
Morgan City Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 2622
Morgan City, La. 70381
Contacted Fire Chief
Sicily Island Vol. Fire Dept,
P.O. Box 45
Sicily Island, La. 71368
Contacted Actg. Fire Chief
AWARE OF EPA
FIRES RULE
Yes
No
NO-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
30
-------
EXHIBIT B
NAME/ADDRESS OF
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED
Turkey Creek Vol. Fire Dept,
P.O. Box 98
Turkey Creek, La. 70585
Contacted Fire Chief
Winnfield Fire Dept.
306 South Abel Street
Winnfield, La. 71483
Contacted Fire Chief
Winnsboro Fire Dept.
905 Harvard Street
Winnsboro, La. 71295
Contacted Fire Chief
NEW MEXICO
Central Vol. Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 316
Central, NM. 88026
Contacted Fire Chief
Columbus Vol. Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 412
Columbus, NM. 88029
Contacted Captain
Espanola Fire Dept.
P.O. Drawer 37
Espanola, NM. 87532
Contacted Firefighter
Glenco-Palo Verde Fire Dept.
Star Route/Coe Ranch
Glenco, NM. 88324
Contacted Fire Chief
Loco Hills Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 56
Loco Hills, NM. 88255
Contacted Fire Chief
Milan Vol. Fire Dept.
P.O. Box 2727
Milan, NM. 87021
Contacted Fire Chief
AWARE OF EPA
FIRES RULE
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
NO
No
31
-------
EXHIBIT B
NAME/ADDRESS OF AWARE OF EPA
DEPARTMENT CONTACTED FIRES RULE
San Jon Vol. Fire Dept. No
P.O. BOX 222
San Jon, NM. 88434
Contacted Fire Chief
Socorro Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box K
Socorro, NM. 87801
Contacted Fire Chief
Turquoise Trial Vol. Fire NO
Rt. 2, Box 150M
Santa Fe, NM. 87505
Contacted Fire Chief
Vaughn Vol. Fire Dept. No.
P.O. Box 278
Vaughn, NM. 88353
Contacted Fire Chief
OKLAHOMA
Agra Volunteer Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 222
Agra, Ok. 74824
Contacted-Fire Chief
Bixby Fire Dept. No
116 W. Needles
Bixby, Ok. 74008
Contacted Fire Marshal
Bluejacket Vol. Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 124
Bluejacket, Ok. 74333
Contacted Member
Canute Volunteer Fire Dept. No
P.O. Box 184
Canute, Ok. 73626
Contacted Firefighter
Cheyenne Fire Dept. No
.P.O. Box 532
Cheyenne, Ok. 73628
Contacted Fire Chief
32
-------
On July 19, 1985, TAO mailed copies of the Final Rule, a
fact sheet on the Final Rule, and the Press Release to nearly
1,000 contacts including trade associations, industry groups,
utilities, and national fire fighter and building associations.
In addition, TAO set up an informal informational meeting in the
early Fall of 1985 to explain the rule. While this was an
opportunity for various trade associations, state governments,
universities, and fire officials to obtain information on the See Append
rule, the session was not well attended. In April of 1986 thejfote 2
pamphlet "PCS Transformers and the Risk of Fire - A Guide for
Building Owners" was sent in bulk to the EPA Regional Offices to
help facilitate awareness and outreach to commercial building
owners. In December of 1986, prior to the publication of the
Notice of Interpretation of Transformer Fire Regulation (FR
December 31, 1986), TAO mailed over. 350 copies to those listed on
their PCS Comprehensive mailing list a copy of -a pamphlet
announcing the availability of a videotape explaining the PCS
regulations. This video includes the provisions on the PCS
Transformer Fires Rule.
Lastly, during the summer and fall of 1985, the peak
interest time, the TSCA Hotline provided guidance to thousands of
callers concerning the provisions of the PCS Transformer Fires
Rule, and thousands more have received guidance to date. While
this is not outreach per se, it is a means by which information
on the rule was and is obtained.
Your office found that many small and volunteer fire
departments are unaware of the rule, despite Regional efforts to
inform fire response personnel about the rule. OPTS agrees it is
important that all fire response personnel including small and
volunteer departments be aware of the rule. It must be noted,
however, that these small and volunteer fire departments are
primarily located within rural areas where mineral oil
transformers are generally in use. Mineral oil transformers
generally contain relatively low concentrations of PCBs, compared
with askarel transformers, therefore, the danger of high
exposures to PCBs is minimal. This is one reason mineral oil
transformers, which can be assumed to contain 50-499 ppra PCBs,
are not subject to the marking requirements or other provisions
of the PCS Transformer Fires Rule.
Secondly, the rule calls for registration "with fire
response personnel with primary jurisdiction {that is, the fire
department or brigade which would normally be called upon for the
initial response (emphasis added) to a fire involving the
equipment." Reference cited in 40 CFR 761. 30 (a) (1) (vi) . If a
small or volunteer fire department is called to respond to a fire
where an askarel transformer was involved they would, in most
cases, not be the initial response team. They would, most
likely, be assisting the initial response team who are generally
aware of the PCB Transformer Fires Rule and would take the
necessary precautions when fighting the fire.
36 - ---
.
PPen •
-------
OPTS agrees that it is important for owners of PCB
Transformers located in or near a commercial building to register
these units with building owners and fire departments. The risks
to health and the environment, as well as cleanup costs, in the
event of a fire involving a PCB Transformer are well documented.
We concur with your suggestion that an automated information
system to record inspection results will assist in determining
whether the registration requirements, as well as phase-out Sge
requirements of the rule are adhered to. The function of OTS is #oce 4
to provide technical program guidance. It is the function of the
Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) to provide compliance
monitoring guidance and their amended Compliance Monitoring
Strategy urges the Regions to obtain registration information
from fire departments in urban areas within their jurisdiction.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) is in
the process of developing an automated system to record this
registration and inspection information.
It must be noted that there has been a shift in focus for Sse APP«nd:l
inspections due to the Administrator's request for a risk-based Note 5
enforcement strategy. Inspection resources are being more
closely focused on the disposal process where there is an overall
greater risk to health and the environment due to releases of
PCBs from illegal disposal than from violations of the
requirements of the PCB Transformer Fires Rule.
Plans to Upgrade OPTS* Awareness Program
OPTS is cognizant that public awareness/notification is an
agency-wide pjoblem and not unique to the PCB Transformer Fires
Rule. Further, the Agency, because of budget constraints has
difficulty budgeting follow-up procedures on a continuing
basis. However, there are some things that we could do better
within these budget constraints. They include:
(1) CRB staff is coordinating with TAO to place
articles in pertinent trade journals and magazines
whose audience is affected by the rule, i.e. volunteer
fire departments, building owners, insurance companies,
etc. In addition, we hope to upgrade our current
mailing lists by adding additional groups who may be
affected by the rule. Meetings have been held with the
Office of External Affairs' Community and
Intergovernmental Relations Branch to meet this end;
(2) In the past, civil actions have been used as a See. Append]
vehicle to initiate educational programs. We would l
like to expand the use of this mechanism in the future;
37
-------
APPENDIX 1
(3) Inspection data compiled by the Regions on an
automated data system; as indicated in OCM's draft
compliance monitoring strategy amendment will help to
target Fires Rule compliance inspections after October
of 1990; .
(4) Use asbestos inspectors to inform fire personnel
about the Transformer Fires Rule;
(5) OCM will work with OTS and the Regions to conduct
an awareness program for commercial building owners as
well as developing inspector guidance explaining what
enhanced electrical protection entails; and
(6) OPTS plans to use the publication of the PCS .
Transformer Fires Rule Amendment (July 1988) to
initiate some of the new notification steps mentioned
above. We could supplement the planned notification
package with additional information on other aspects of
the rule/ i.e. the guide for building owners pamphlet.
If you have any questions or further suggestions as to how
we may improve or implement this plan, please feel free to
contact Thomas Simons of my staff at 382-3788.
38
-------
APPENDIX 2
ADDITIONAL PIG COMMENTS TO OPTS' RESPONSE
DATED MARCH 3. 1988
The following notes present the OIG's response to OPTS1
comments which were not addressed in the body of the report:
As pointed out on pages 8 and 9, each region
implemented its own awareness program without
Headquarters guidance on the minimum elements
necessary for an acceptable program.
As pointed out on page 13, neither Region 3
nor Region 6 distributed the pamphlet because
they were- (1) not sure who it should be distri-
buted to and (2) involved in other work.
Some of the fire departments who indicated that
they were unaware of the Rule are not located in
rural areas. For example, fire departments in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Ocean City, Maryland, and
Santa Fe, New Mexico were among those who told us
that they were net aware of the Rule.
We were concerned that OCM's 1986 strategy only urged
the regions to obtain the information. As discussed
on page 20, we believe that using registration informa-
tion to select facilities to inspect will improve the
Agency's inspection program.
Reference to the "Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring" should read the "Office of Compliance
Monitoring."
As discussed in the note above, we believe that
registration information will assist the Agency in
inspecting other than disposal facilities. If
inspection resources continue to be directed to
disposal facilities, it becomes even more important
to conduct an effective awareness program to promote
compliance with the Rule's requirements.
The Assistant Administrator is describing a situation
that allows an inspected company to either eliminate
or reduce a fine from a PCB related inspection. In
turn, the company promises to conduct an education
program in the community; for example, on the risks
posed by PCBs to health and the environment.
39
-------
APPENDIX 3
DISTRIBUTION
Associate Administrator for Regional
Operations (A-101)
Comptroller (PM-225)
Agency Followup Official
Attn: Resource Management Staff (PM-208)
Regional Administrators
Director, Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
Director, Office of Compliance Monitoring
OPTS (EN-342)
Director, Office of Toxic Substances (TS-792)
Director, TSCA Assistance Office (TS-798)
Director, Exposure Evaluation Division (TS-798)
Chief, Chemical Regulation Branch (TS-798)
40
------- |