FINAL REPORT
COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
PCB REGULATION
December 6, 1994
Nishkam Agarwal
Regulatory Impacts Branch
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
US. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared with the assistance of:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173
The work of the Eastern Research Group was performed under Contract No, 68-D2-0132/22,
Work Assignment 3-11.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ix
SECTION ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) AMENDMENTS 1-1
1.1 Physical Properties and Effects of PCBs 1-1
1.2 Industrial and Other Uses of PCBs 1-2
13 Summary of Existing PCB Regulations 1-3
1.4 Compliance Costs and Cost Savings 1-4
SECTION TWO BACKGROUND ON PCB USES AND SOURCES OF
PCB WASTES 2-1
2.1 Physical and Chemical Properties of PCBs 2-1
2.2 Health and Environmental Effects of PCBs 2-2
2.3 Industrial and Other Uses of PCBs 2-3
2.3.1 Use of PCBs in Electrical Equipment 2-3
2.3.2 Other Uses of PCBs 2-6
2.3.3 PCBs in Natural Gas Pipelines 2-9
2.3.4 Buildings 2-12
2.3.5 Ships 2-13
2.3.6 PCBs Used in Research 2-14
2.4 PCB Wastes 2-14
2.4.1 Wastes Associated with Electrical Equipment 2-15
2.4.2 Remediation Wastes 2-15
2.43 Nonremediation Wastes 2-16
2.4.4 Radioactive PCB Wastes 2-21
2.4.5 Other Sources of PCB Waste 2-23
2.5 References 2-24
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
Page
SECTION THREE SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PENDING REGULATIONS
ON POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS 3-1
3.1 PCB Regulations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act 3-1
3.1.1 Disposal and Marking Rule 3-14
3.12 PCB Ban Rule 3-15
3.13 PCB Electrical Equipment Use Rules 3-18
3.1.4 Rules Addressing PCB Byproducts and Impurities 3-21
3.1.5 Exemption Petition Rulings 3-24
3.1.6 Notification and Manifesting Rule 3-25
3.1.7 Proposed Permit Revocation Rule 3-26
3.1.8 PCB Spill Cleanup Policy 3-26
3.1.9 TSCA PCB Rules as They Relate to the Workplace 3-27
3.1.10 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
New PCB Disposal Options 3-27
3.1.11 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the PCB
Disposal Amendments (Unpublished) 3-28
3.2 PCB Regulation Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act 3-32
33 PCB Regulation Under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act 3-34
3.4 PCB Regulation Under the Clean Air Act 3-34
3.5 PCB Regulation Under the Safe Drinking Water Act 3-34
3.6 PCB Regulation under the Clean Water Act 3-35
3.7 PCB Regulation Under the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act 3-36
3.8 PCB Regulation Under the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act 3-36
3.9 PCB Regulation Under the Atomic Energy Act 3-37
3.10 PCB Regulation Under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act 3-37
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
Page
3.11 PCB Regulation Under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act and NIOSH Recommendations 3-37
3.12 PCB Regulation Under Food Inspection Acts 3-38
3.13 References 3-38
SECTION FOUR COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PCB REGULATION 4-1
4.1 Cost Estimation Methodology 4-1
4.2 Aggregate Cost Estimates 4-4
4.2.1 Areas of Additional Cost 4-4
4.2.2 Areas of Cost Savings 4-8
4.3 Paragraph-by-Paragraph Cost Estimates 4-14
§761.20(b)(3)—Import for Disposal 4-14
§761.20(c)(5)—Use or Distribution in Commerce
of Decontaminated Equipment and Assets 4-28
§761.20(c)(6)—Use or Distribution of PCB-contaminated
Water 4-31
§761.20(c)(7)—Use or Distribution of Solid Nonporous
Surfaces 4-31
§761.20(c)(8)—Prohibition on Open Burning 4-32
§761.30(a)(l)(vii)—Transformer Registration 4-33
§761.30(a)(l)(xvi)—Use Authorizations for Mineral Oil
Transformers and Voltage Regulators 4-36
§761.30(b)(l)—Railroad Transformer Use Restrictions 4-36
§761.30(c)—Use in and Servicing of Mining Equipment 4-37
§761.30(d)—Use in Heat Transfer Systems : 4-37
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
Page
§761.30(e)—Use in Hydraulic Systems 4-38
§761.30(h)(l)(iii)—Use in and Servicing of Electromagnets,
Switches, and Voltage Regulators 4-39
§761.30(i)—Use in Natural Gas Pipeline Systems 4-40
§761.30(|)—Limited Quantities for Research and
Development 4-42
§761.30(q)(l),(2), and (3)—Continued Use of Pre-TSCA PCBs 4-49
§761.30(r)—Use In and Servicing of Rectifiers 4-53
§761.30(s)—Use of PCBs in Scientific Equipment 4-54
§761.40(d)—Marking During Transport 4-55
§761.40(e)—Marking Containers and Items 4-56
§761.40(h)—Marking Requirements for PCB
Storage Facilities 4-56
§761.40(k)—Marking Requirements for PCB Large
Low-Voltage Capacitors and Equipment Containing
PCB Transformers or Large High- or Low-Voltage
Capacitors 4-57
§761.60—Disposal Requirements for Pre-1978 Spills 4-59
§761.60(a)(4)(i)—Specifications of Operating
Capabilities and Practices for Industrial Furnaces 4-60
§761.60(b)(l)(i)(B)—PCB Transformers Disposal 4-61
§761.60(b)(2)(iv) Disposal of Small Capacitors 4-62
§761.60(b)(2)(vi)—Any DOT-authorized Containers
Allowed for Chemical Landfilling of Large and
Small PCB Capacitors 4-63
§761.60(b)(2)(vii)—Limitations on Number of Fluorescent
Light Ballasts Containing PCBs that Can Be Disposed Of ". 4-64
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont)
Page
§761.60(b)(3)—PCB Hydraulic Machines 4-67
§761.60(b)(4)—PCB-contarainated Electrical Equipment 4-68
§761.60(b)(5)—Abandonment and Disposal of Natural
Gas Pipeline 4-70
§761.60(b)(6)(ii)—Proper Disposal of Drained
PCB Articles 4-90
§761.60(b)(6)(iii)—Disposal of PCB-contaminated
Nonporous Surfaces 4-91
§761.60(g)(l)(iii) and (g)(2)(iii)—PCB Testing
Procedures Using Gas Chromatography 4-94
§761.60Q)—Self-Implementing Approvals for Research
and Development (R&D) for PCB Disposal 4-95
§761.61 (a), (b), and (c)—Disposal of PCB
Remediation Waste 4-99
§761.62—Disposal of Nonremediation PCB Wastes 4-111
§761.63—Household Waste Exemption 4-116
§761.64—Disposal of Wastes Generated as a Result of the
Chemical Analysis of PCBs 4-117
§761.65(a)—Extended Storage Period Allowed for
PCB Waste 4-118
§761.65(b)(l)(ii)—Special Storage Requirements
for Radioactive Wastes 4-120
§761.65(b)(2)—PCB Storage in RCRA
Facilities Allowed 4-121
§761.65(c)(l)(iv)—Temporary Storage of Liquid
PCB Wastes >.500 ppm in Noncomplying Area 4-123
§761.65(e)(5)—Checking for Leaky PCB Items 4-124
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (conk)
Page
§761.65(c)(6)—Container Requirements for PCBs 4-125
§761.65(c)(6)(i)—Containers for PCB Fissionable
Radioactive Wastes 4-126
§761,65(c)(7)—Stationery Storage Containers 4-127
§761.65(e)(8)—Containers for PCB Items 4-128
1761.65(g)(9)—Financial Assurance for Closure 4-129
§761.650)—Requirements for the Transfer of
Interim Status 4-130
§761.67(a)—Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles
for No More Than 3 Years 4-131
1761.67(b)—Storage for Reuse Over 3 Years 4-132
§761.75(8)(ii>—Chemical Waste Landfills 4-133
§761.77—Coordinated Approval 4-134
§761.79(a)(l)—Decontamination Procedures and
Disposal of Rinses 4-135
1761.79(a)(2)—Distribution and Use of Decontaminated
Equipment 4-136
§761.79(a)(3)—Written Record of Decontamination
Action 4-137
1761.79(a)(4)—No Disposal Approvals Required for
Separating PCBs from Surfaces or Liquids 4-137
1761.79(a)(5)—Protection Against Dermal Contact or
Inhalation of PCBs 4-138
§761.79(d)—Decontamination Standard and
Requirements for Nonporous Surfaces 4-139
§761.79(e) and (f)—Decontamination Procedures for
Nonporous Surfaces 4-139
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (ami.)
Page
§761.79(g) and (h)—Decontamination Standard for
PCB-contaminated Water and Organic Liquids 4-140
§761.80(e)—Manufacturing of PCBs for Research
and Development 4-141
§761.80(g)—Processing and Distribution in Commerce
Exemptions for Limited Quantities of PCBs 4-143
§761-80(i)—Exemptions for Processing and
Distributing in Commerce Limited Quantities of PCB-
contaminated Media for Research and Development
Activities 4-144
§761-80(n)—Increase in the Amount of PCB-contaminated
Media to be Processed, Distributed, Imported (Manufactured),
or Exported for Research and Development Activities 4-145
§761.80(o)—Automatic Renewal for 1-Year Class Exemption 4-147
§761.80(p)—Automatic Renewal for 1-Year Class Exemption
for Processors of Limited Quantities of Media 4-148
§761.125—Requirements for PCB Spill Cleanup 4-148
§761.180(a)(l)(iii) and (iv)—Recordkeeping and Inventory
of PCB Items 4-149
§761.180(a)(2)(ix)—Records and Monitoring in
the Annual Log for PCB Items 4-150
§761.180(b)(l)(iii) and (iv)—Recordkeeping and
Inventory for Disposers and Commercial Storers
of PCB Waste 4-151
§761.180(b) (3)—Annual Reports 4-152
§761.205(f>—Notification of PCB Waste Activity 4-153
§761.207(j)—The Manifest—General Requirements 4-154
1761.215(b),(c)» and (d)—Exception Reporting for PCB
Waste Generators, Disposers, and Commercial Storers 4-155
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
4.4 Regulatory Impact on Small Businesses 4-155
4.4.1 Economic Impacts on Small Industrial Furnace Operations .. 4-156
4.42 Economic Impacts on Small Demolition Contractors ....... 4-157
4.43 Economic Impacts on Other Small Businesses 4-158
4.5 Sensitivity Analysis for Key Items 4-159
4.6 References 4-162
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1-1 Summary of Annual Compliance Costs of Proposed
PCB Amendments 1-5
Table 1-2 Summary of Annual Cost Savings of Proposed
PCB Amendments ; 1-6
Table 2-1 Applications of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, as Indicated
by Market Sales 2-5
Table 2-2 Industrial Uses of Polychlorinated Biphenyls 2-7
Table 2-3 Manufacture and Sales of PCBs (1957-1974) 2-8
Table 2-4 PCB Uses by Type of PCB 2-10
Table 2-5 National Priority List Sites With PCBs 2-17
Table 2-6 Summary of Total PCB Concentrations by Sample Type 2-20
Table 2-7 Total PCB Concentrations in Five Fluff Components 2-22
Table 3-1 Major PCB Rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act 3-4
Table 3-2 Major PCB Regulations and Revisions Proposed in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Unpublished) 3-5
Table 4-1 Aggregate Compliance and Cost Savings 4-5
Table 4-2 Summary of Annual Compliance Costs of Proposed
PCB Amendments 4-6
Table 4-3 Summary of Annual Cost Savings of Proposed
PCB Amendments 4-9
Table 4-4 Summary of Compliance Costs and Cost Savings of
Proposed PCB Amendments 4-15
Table 4-5 Existing and Proposed TSCA Authorizations for Using
PCBs and PCB-Contaminated Media in Limited Quantities
and Quantities That Exceed the Limitations for R&D
Nondisposal Activities 4-45
Table 4-6 Abandonment and Disposal Options for PCB-Contaminated
Natural Gas Pipelines Under the Existing and
Proposed Regulation 4-75
Table 4-7 Comparison of Costs to Abandon or Dispose of
PCB-Contaminated Natural Gas Pipes Under the
Existing and Proposed PCB Regulations 4-78
Table 4-8 Estimated Volumes of Remediation Wastes 4-105
Table 4-9 Costs of Methods to Address PCB-Contaminated Materials . . 4-107
Table 4-10 Sensitivity Analysis Derivation of Number of Years
and Annual Cost Savings for Cleanup of PCB Wastes 4-110
Table 4-11 Comparison of Annualized Costs Over Varying Timeframes
Part I - 3 Percent Discount Rate 4-160
ix
-------
SECTION ONE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB) AMENDMENTS
This report examines the costs and economic impacts of amendments to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations for handling and disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The report was prepared by the Eastern Research Group,
Inc. (ERG), under Contract No. 68-D2-0132, Work Assignment 2-13, Subcontract No. 22.
Beginning in 1977, EPA banned the manufacture, distribution, and use of PCBs (except
for specific exemptions) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Subsequent rules
allowed the use of PCBs in certain types of electrical equipment for the remainder of the
equipment's useful life and set conditions for disposal of PCBs and PCB-contaminated
equipment. The amendments addressed in this report will modify the requirements pertaining to
PCBs, PCB Items, and PCB wastes (1) for determining the PCB concentration; (2) for marking,
storage, and disposal; (3) for remediating PCB waste sites; and (4) for reporting and
recordkeeping.
1.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND EFFECTS OF PCBs
PCBs comprise a class of chlorinated hydrocarbons produced by the partial or complete
chlorination of the biphenyl molecule. Commercial PCBs, which were manufactured and
marketed by Monsanto under the trade name Aroclor, contain mixtures of biphenyl isomers that
are chlorinated to different degrees. Chemical properties include low vapor pressure, low
flammability, low electrical conductivity, a favorable dielectric constant, and suitable viscosity-
temperature relationships.
PCBs are very persistent chemicals that are widely distributed in the environment and
have been detected at background levels in air, soil, and water. They decompose slowly and are
1-1
-------
taken up and stored in fatty tissues of organisms. Human exposure to PCBs occurs through both
environmental and occupational avenues. The main environmental source of human exposure is
through consumption of PCB-contaminated fish. Occupational pathways include exposure to
employees in facilities manufacturing both PCBs or equipment using PCBs. In humans, a
number of studies have associated PCB exposure with possible liver damage, skin irritations,
reproductive and developmental effects, and cancer.
1.2 INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER USES OF PCBs
PCBs were used in a wide variety of industrial applications prior to the ban on PCB use
and manufacture. Electrical applications accounted for 60 percent of PCB use. The remainder
of PCB use involved a wide array of products that relied on the low flammability and thermal
stability of PCBs, including plasticizers, hydraulic and lubricant fluids, heat transfer fluids, and
carbonless copy paper. Primary electrical applications for PCBs are in capacitors and
transformers.
Little information is available about the specific nonelectrical applications of PCBs;
however, since these applications presumably ceased once PCBs became unavailable, only those
products with extended lifetimes are likely to be still in use today. Some products reported to
have used PCBs include hydraulic and heat transfer fluids, lubricants, gasket sealers, plasticizers,
surface coatings (paints), adhesives, pesticide extenders, carbonless copy paper, flame retardants,
brake linings, and asphalt. Nevertheless, several nonelectrical PCB applications have been
documented, including use in gas pipelines, buildings, and ships, and for research purposes.
The use of PCBs in dielectric fluids and other industrial applications has resulted in the
generation of a variety of PCB-contaminated wastes. Those wastes contaminated at 50 ppm or
more PCBs must be disposed of in a manner specified in the EPA PCB regulations. The
categories of such wastes include:
¦ Wastes associated with electrical equipment
1-2
-------
¦ Radioactive PCB wastes
¦ PCB-impregnated insulation and gasket materials
¦ PCB-contaminated equipment
¦ Household-generated, PCB-contaminated wastes
¦ Other PCB materials
1J SUMMARY OF EXISTING PCB REGULATIONS
The vast majority of PCB regulations were issued under the authority of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, which was originally passed in 1976. Section 6(e) of TSCA, effective
January 1,1977, directs EPA to develop a schedule and write provisions for phasing out and
controlling the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, disposal, and storage of
PCBs and for requiring the marking of PCB containers to warn that the chemicals could cause
significant risk to health or the environment. Pursuant to this legislation, EPA has issued
numerous regulations governing all aspects of PCB manufacture, use, and disposal, including the
Disposal and Marking Rule, PCB Ban Rule, Notification and Manifesting Rule, and the PCB
Spill Cleanup Policy.
PCBs also are regulated under the authority of other EPA laws as well as laws issued by
other Federal departments and agencies. Within EPA, the laws governing PCBs include the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA);
the Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA). PCB regulation also fells under the Occupational Safety and Health Act within the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act (HMTA), within the Department of Transportation (DOT); the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA), under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and several food
processing acts under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
1-3
-------
1.4 COMPLIANCE COSTS AND COST SAVINGS
Several amendments that prohibit specific actions or require other changes will generate
compliance costs for several industry sectors. The most significant impacts are:
¦ An estimated 100 firms that currently recover metals from PCB-contaminated
transformer carcasses do not meet the amended requirements for operating
temperatures and furnace specifications. These firms, most of which are small
family-owned businesses, will now be prohibited from handling such transformer
carcasses and face an estimated average revenue reduction of 15 percent. Firms
that ship PCB-contaminated transformers to these firms will incur increased costs
for alternative disposal methods.
¦ Various recordkeeping, marking, and registration requirements will generate
compliance costs for owners of PCB Items, including electric utilities, industrial
facilities, and others. In total, however, all compliance items amount to
approximately $11.6 million annually across all industries.
Table 1-1 presents the annual compliance costs industry will incur as a result of the
proposed PCB amendments, and Table 1-2 presents annual cost savings.
Several paragraphs of the proposed regulation will codify an EPA policy that had been
developed in response either to new information received by EPA or to concerns about specific
compliance problems. For these cases, two independent estimates of the applicable costs or cost
savings were prepared. The first uses the actual EPA policy or practice as the baseline, and the
other uses the strict language of the existing regulation as the baseline. For each estimate, a
strict application of the existing standard would have produced extremely onerous disposal
problems. The alternative EPA policies allowed greater flexibility for handling or disposing of
the waste. Thus, the cost savings when the existing standard is used as the baseline is higher
than when the existing policy is the baseline.
The proposed amendments provide much greater flexibility to the disposal requirements
for PCB remediation and nonremediation wastes. The former categoiy of wastes includes PCB-
contaminated soils at Superfund sites, while the latter includes PCB-contaminated wastes
generated by automobile shredding operations and building demolition sites. The increased
disposal flexibility is projected to save on average several hundred dollars per ton in disposal
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COSTS
OF PROPOSED PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual
Section Compliance
Number Topic/ Comments Costs
761.180(a)(1) Recordkeeping and inventory for PCB Items $3,771
(iii—iv)
761.60(b) Disposal of drained PCB Articles $3,500
(6)(ii)
761.40(k) Marking requirements for PCB Large Low—Voltage $1,300
Capacitors, Transformers
76130(a) Transformer registration $1,080
(l)(vii)
761j67(a) Storage for reuse of PCB Articles for < 3 years S920
761.180(b) Recordkeeping and inventory for PCB Items S372
(l)(iii-iv)
761.40(d) Marking during transport $236
761.60(b)(4) PCB—contaminated Electrical Equipment $131
76130(h) Use in and servicing of electromagnets, switches, and
(l)(iii) voltage regulators $81
761.79(a)(3) Written record of decontamination actions $79
761.180(b)(3) Annual reports $64
761205(f) Notification of PCB Waste Activity $48
761j67(b) Storage for reuse over 3 years $21
761j65(j) Requirements for transfer of interim storage $8
761£0(p) Automatic renewal for 1—year class exemption for processors of $1.03
limited quantities of media
761.65(g)(9) Financial assurance for closure $0.71
761.180(a) Records and monitoring in the annual log $0.22
(2)(ix)
Total $11,613
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-2
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST SAVINGS OF
PROPOSED PCB AMENDMENTS (S000)
Section
Number Topic/ Comments
Annual Cost Savings
EPA Policy
as Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.61
761.62
761.77
761.65(c)
(l)(iv)
761.65(a)
761.63
761.79(a)(4)
761.65(b)(2)
761.65(c)(6)
761.60(b)(5)
76120(b)(3)
761.65(c)
(6)(0
76120(c)(5)
76130(q)
761.60(b)
(6)(iii)
761.60(j)
761.65(b)
(1)(")
76130(j)
Disposal of remediation waste
Disposal of nonremediation PCB wastes
Coordinated Approval
Temporary storage of liquid PCB wastes in
noncomplying areas
Extended storage period allowed for PCB waste
Household waste exemption
No Disposal Approvals required for separating PCBs
from surfaces or liquids
PCB storage in RCRA facilities allowed
Container requirement for PCBs
Natural gas pipeline regulations
Import for disposal
Containers for PCB fissionable, radioactive wastes
Use and distribution in commerce of decontaminated assets
Continued use of pre—TSCA PCBs
Disposal of PCB—contaminated nonporous surfaces
Self—implementing approvals for R&D for PCB disposal
Special storage requirements for radioactive wastes
Limited quantities for R&D
$4,001,179
$150,000
$10,553
$3,000
$1,057
$840
$732
$696
$570
$387
$170
$109
$28
$4,001,179
$150,000
$10,553
$3,000
$1,057
$840
$732
$696
$570
$62,775
$170
$109
$113
$500,000
$37,500
$60
$55
$4
Total
$4,169321
$4,769,413
1-6
-------
costs for such wastes. Given the large quantities of PCB-contaminated soils disposed annually,
the estimated cost savings for the proposed amendments was calculated at $4 billion per year.
The proposed amendments authorize a variety of PCB uses that previously had not been
recognized in the PCB regulations, including use of PCB-impregnated gaskets in insulation, and
in various other products used in both building and vessel construction. Under the existing
regulations these unauthorized uses would have to be terminated, with all such buildings or
vessels demolished and sent for disposal. By recognizing such uses, the proposed regulations
generate a huge cost savings over the existing regulation. Data for quantifying these savings are
extremely limited, however.
The total compliance costs generated by the amendments are estimated at $11.6 million
per year. The annual cost savings, however, are estimated at $4.2 billion when EPA policy is
used as a baseline, and $4.8 billion when the existing standard is used as the baseline. The net
cost savings are over $4 billion in either case. As noted, these estimates might not capture the
full value of substantial cost savings due to the recognition in the proposed amendments of
previously unauthorized uses.
1-7
-------
SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND ON PCB USES AND SOURCES OF PCB WASTES
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a family of organic chemicals that were marketed in
the United States for over 60 years prior to being banned by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 USC 2601-2671) passed in
1976. Because of their favorable chemical properties, PCBs were used extensively in dielectric
fluids for transformers and capacitors. Other applications included uses in hydraulic and heat
transfer systems,1 as a plasticizer,2 in surface coatings, in the manufacture of carbonless copy
papers, and in pattern waxes for investment casting.
As a result of increasing concern about the chronic toxicity of PCBs, the sole U.S.
manufacturer of PCBs, Monsanto, voluntarily terminated sales of its PCB formulation to all but
closed electric systems applications in 1971. TSCA banned the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs (except for specific exemptions), effective January
1977. Subsequent EPA rulemaking permitted the me of PCBs in certain types of electrical
equipment for the life of the equipment. Currently, EPA is considering further modifications to
these PCB rules to address PCB contamination from nonremediation wastes, from recently
discovered historical uses in buildings and ships, from natural gas pipelines, and from other PCB-
related issues.
2.1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF PCBs
PCBs compromise a class of chlorinated hydrocarbons produced by the partial or
complete chlorination of the biphenyl molecule. Commercial PCBs are mixtures of isomers of
chlorinated biphenyls, exhibiting varying degrees of chlorination. Of the more than 200 possible
'Some motor cooling systems used a coolant that contained PCBs.
2Plasticizers are substances added to a plastic material to keep it soft and viscous.
2-1
-------
degrees of chlorination, about 100 individual isomers are likely to occur at significant
concentrations in commercial PCB mixtures.
In their pure form, the individual chlorobiphenyl isomers are colorless crystals. The
commercial mixtures, however, are liquid because melting points are lowered by the interaction
of the different isomers. The physical and chemical properties of the individual isomers vary
widely according to the degree and type of chlorination. PCB compounds have low solubilities in
water but are soluble in most organic solvents, oils, and fats. The compounds are stable (i.e.,
resist breakdown into acids and bases) and resist oxidation, but are subject to photo-
dechlorination when exposed to sunlight. Other chemical properties include low vapor pressure,
low flammability, low electrical conductivity, a favorable dielectric constant, and suitable
viscosity-temperature relationships.
Commercial PCB-containing products were widely distributed in the period preceding the
EPA ban. Between 1957 and 1977, large quantities of PCBs were manufactured by Monsanto in
the United States and marketed under the trade name of Aroclor. The Aroclor products were
assigned numbers such as 1016, 1221, 1242,1248, 1254, and 1260, where the last two digits
represent the approximate percent by weight of chlorine in the mixtures.
2.2 - HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PCBs
Human exposure to PCBs occurs through both environmental and occupational avenues.
PCBs are veiy persistent chemicals that are widely distributed in the environment. Background
PCB levels can be found in outdoor air, soil, and water. PCBs decompose veiy slowly and are
taken up and stored in the fatty tissues of organisms. PCBs seem to affect the productivity of
phytoplankton (the primary food source, directly or indirectly, of all sea organisms), cause
deleterious effects on freshwater invertebrates, and impair the reproductive success in birds and
mammals.
The main environmental source of PCB exposure to humans is the consumption of
contaminated fish. PCBs in fish originate from contaminated water and sediments and in PCB-
2-2
-------
contaminated prey eaten by fish. Occupational exposure to PCBs has occurred in PCB
manufacturing facilities and in facilities that used PCBs in manufacturing other products. The
best documented cases of such exposure are studies of employees at capacitor manufacturing
facilities that used PCBs in the dielectric fluid contained by the capacitors.3 According to a
number of studies, exposure to some PCB mixtures can cause adverse human health effects.
These studies have associated PCB exposure with possible liver damage, skin irritations,
reproductive and developmental effects, and cancer. Generally, these studies have considered
health effects from occupational exposure levels rather than the exposure levels faced by the
general population. EPA's Office of Research and Development is currently sponsoring a review
of the toxicity of dioxins and furans, which also will include an evaluation of the health effects of
some of the most toxic PCB forms.
2.3 INDUSTRIAL AND OTHER USES OF PCBs
PCBs were used in a wide variety of industrial applications prior to the Congressional ban
of PCB use and manufacture. More than 50 percent of all PCBs manufactured were used in
dielectric fluids for transformers and capacitors. Because of their low flammability and stable
viscosity under wide temperature ranges, PCBs were used in numerous other applications,
including flame retardants, plasticizers, and hydraulic fluids. The discussion below addresses the
range of present and historical PCB use and the presence (currently) of PCBs in products,
buildings, and equipment.
2.3.1 Use of PCBs in Electrical Equipment
PCBs were used extensively in electrical capacitors and transformers because of their
thermal stability, low flammability, and dielectric capability. Electrical equipment designed for
high voltage was used in the electric utility industry and in other commercial industrial applica-
tions. In addition, small capacitors containing PCBs were commonly used in household
'See, for example, Lawton et al., 1985.
2-3
-------
appliances such as television sets, air conditioners, and fluorescent light fixtures. As shown in
Table 2-1, electrical applications accounted for 60 percent of the total PCB use prior to 1971. In
1971, Monsanto terminated PCB sales for nonelectrical applications. Nevertheless, PCBs
continued to be used in nonelectrical applications as manufacturers exhausted their inventories of
PCB-containing materials.
Capacitors are used in a variety of high- and low-voltage applications. High-voltage
capacitors allow for precise control of voltage levels. They are widely used by electric utilities
and industrial power users. EPA estimated in 1982 that utility-owned high-voltage capacitors
accounted for 85 percent of the total in service (U.S. EPA, 1982). Virtually all such capacitors
manufactured prior to 1978 were filled with a PCB-containing dielectric fluid.4 Low-voltage
capacitors are used in industrial, commercial, and residential applications. Capacitors also are
used for voltage control starting circuits in industrial motors and certain appliances (e.g., air
conditioning units). Capacitors are also used in the ballast in fluorescent lighting fixtures.
Larger sizes of low-voltage capacitors and those used in light fixtures were generally filled with
PCBs.
Transformers are used by electric utilities and other electric power providers to transform
voltage levels in electric transmission or distribution systems. Such transformers may be used to
step up (i.e., increase) voltages at a power-generating facility or to reduce high-transmission
voltages to levels appropriate for distribution circuits and customer use. These transformers
typically are located in substations or on utility poles. In some cases they are placed in
underground vaults. Transformers also are used onboard electric locomotives in railroad
applications. High-voltage transformers are filled with a dielectric fluid that prior to the EPA
ban, typically contained a relatively high PCB concentration. This fluid absorbed and transferred
the heat produced by the transformer and provided electric insulation within the transformer.
PCBs were used in transformer fluids because of their electrical properties and because of their
nonflamraability, chemical stability, and low viscosity.
4Dielectrical materials do not conduct electricity and are used as insulation between the
conducting plates of a capacitor. PCBs were used as dielectric Quids because of their superior
electrical properties and because of their stability in the presence of high temperatures and
intense electrical fields.
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1
APPLICATIONS OF POLY CHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS, AS INDICATED BY MARKET SALES [a]
Percent of Total Use
PCB Uses Prior to 1971 1971 to 1976
Closed Electrical Systems 61% 100%
Transformers
Capacitors
Other
Nominally Closed Systems 13% 0% [b]
Hydraulic fluids
Heat transfer fluids [c]
Lubricants
Open—End Applications 26% 0% [b]
Plasticizers
Surface coatings
Ink and dye carriers
Adhesives
Pesticide extenders
Carbonless copy paper
Dyes
Pattern waxes
Totals 100% 100%
Source: National Academy of Sciences, 1979.
[a] Monsanto ceased sales of PCBs for nonelectrical applications in 1971.
[bj Use of PCBs in these applications continued well past 1971 as manufacturers
exhausted inventories of PCB—containing materials.
[c] Refers to fluids used in heat transfer systems such a motor cooling systems.
-------
2.3.2 Other Uses of PCBs
PCB sales for nonelectrical applications accounted for about 40 percent of total PCB use
prior to the 1971 termination of such sales by Monsanto. From 1930 to 1975, nonelectrical
applications accounted for an estimated 300 million lb of PCBs or about 23 percent of the total
(U.S. EPA, 1976). A review of the literature yielded a listing of PCB uses for nonelectrical
applications, including;
Hydraulic fluids
Heat transfer fluids
Lubricants
Gasket sealers
Plasticizers
Surface coatings (paints)
Ink and dye carriers
Adhesives
Pesticide extenders
Carbonless copy paper
Dyes
Pattern waxes (for metal casting)
Synthetic rubber
Flame retardants
Floor tile
Paper and fabric coatings
Brake linings
Automobile body sealants
Asphalt
Machine tool cutting oils
Little information is available about the specific characteristics of these PCB-containing
products. Furthermore, since PCB use in these applications presumably ceased after 1971, only
those with extended lifetimes and a portion of those manufactured for durable goods are likely to
be in use today.5 A 1975 EPA report provided estimates of cumulative levels of PCB
production for a number of aggregated categories of nonelectrical PCB uses (U.S. EPA, 1976).
These estimates, presented in Table 2-2, indicate that plasticizers, hydraulic fluids, and lubricants
were the largest nonelectrical uses for PCB mixtures from 1930 to 1975, accounting for an
estimated 195 million lb or 15.6 percent of the total purchases of PCBs over the 45-year period.
PCBs used in the manufacture of carbonless copy paper accounted for an additional 45 million lb
of PCBs or 3.6 percent of the total. Table 2-3 presents annual domestic PCB production and
sales levels for the period 1957 to 1974 (prior to the EPA ban). PCB production and sales
overall and by use category show a consistently upward trend over the period 1957 through 1970
sAlthough sales of PCBs for nonelectrical applications terminated in 1971, the possibility of
inventories of PCB formulations and stockpiles of PCB-related products means that some of
these PCB applications may have been introduced into the economy after 1971.
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2
INDUSTRIAL USES OF POLY CHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
(1930-1975)
Pounds
PCB Uses
(millions)
Percent
Capacitors
630
50.3
Transformers
335
26.7
Petroleum additives
1
0.1
Heat transfer fluids
20
1.6
Carbonless copy paper
45
3.6
Hydraulics and lubricants
80
6.4
Plasticizer uses
115
9.2
Miscellaneous industrial uses
27
2.2
Totals
1,253
100.0
Source: U.S. EPA, 1976
Note: Totals may not add due rounding.
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-3
MANUFACTURE AND SALES OF PCBs
1957 - 1974
(thousands of lb)
Sales by PCB Category
U.S. Production
Domestic
Heat Transfer
Hydraulics and
Plasticizer
Miscellaneous
Electrical
Year
of PCBs
Sales of PCBs [a]
Fluids
Lubricants
Applications
Industrial Uses
Equipment
1957
[b]
32,299
M
1,612
[b]
704
29,983
1958
[b]
26,061
[c]
1,549
3,939
755
19,818
1959
[b]
31,310
M
2,685
4,573
1,569
22,483
1960
37,919
35,214
[C]
2,523
6,244
1,559
24,888
1961
36,515
37,538
[C]
4,110
9,098
2,114
22,216
1962
38,353
37,043
157
3,915
8,924
1,681
23,366
1963
44,734
38,132
582
3,945
9,181
1,528
22,896
1964
50,833
44,869
929
4,374
10,337
1,692
27,537
1965
60,480
51,796
1,237
4,616
11,696
1,841
32,406
1966
65,849
59,078
1,766
4,258
13,481
1,779
37,794
1967
75,309
62,466
2,262
4,643
13,361
1,426
40,774
1968
82,854
65,116
2,529
5,765
14,404
1,283
41,135
1969
76,389
67,194
3,050
8,039
16,460
2,518
37,127
1970
82,054
73,061
3,958
7,403
19,537
1,627
40,536
1971
34,994
34,301
3,060
1,552
3,259
1,155
25,275
1972
38,600
26,408
752
0
0
0
25,656
1973
42,178
37,742
Id]
Id]
Id]
[d] .
37,742
1974
40,466
34,406
[d]
[d]
Id]
[d]
34,406
Totals ¦
807,527
794,034
20,282
60,989
144,494
23,231 •
546,038
[a] The difference between production and sales is accounted for by exports.
[b] Data not available.
[c] Sales negligible.
[d] Sales of domestically produced PCBs for nonelectrical uses were discontinued after 1971.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1976
-------
(prior to the discontinuation of sales for nonelectrical uses). The only exception is the sale of
PCBs for miscellaneous industrial uses, which shows no trend at all over this period. PCB sales
peaked in 1970 at 73.1 million lb, with sales for electrical applications accounting for about 55
percent of the total, and the leading nonelectrical use, plasticizer applications, accounting for 27
percent.
Table 2-4 presents information regarding the end uses of the different types of PCB
formulations. Aroclor 1016 accounted for roughly half of PCB sales in the 1970s. This
formulation was used primarily for capacitors. Aroclor 1242 was the leading PCB grade
manufactured and sold by Monsanto (the sole U.S. producer) during the 15-year period prior to
the 1971 termination of PCB sales for nonelectrical uses (U.S. EPA, 1976). During this period a
large .percentage of Aroclor 1242 production was used for plasticizer applications and other
nonelectrical uses. Aroclor 1242 sales declined drastically after 1971, and its use was limited to
transformer production until the EPA ban. Aroclor 1254 was used primarily in transformer
applications and accounted for less than 20 percent of PCB sales in the 1970s. Sales of Aroclor
1260 accounted for about 7 percent of total sales in 1970 and declined to zero by 1973. Aroclor
1260 also was used in transformers as well as other nonelectrical applications (see Table 2-4).
233 PCBs in Natural Gas Pipelines
The use of PCB lubricants in pipeline compressors in natural gas transmission systems
has resulted in the contamination of natural gas pipelines with a PCB oil and the migration of
PCBs from the contaminated lines into other systems and end-user applications. This has led to
the PCB contamination of natural gas pipes, compressors, and other equipment, as well as the
liquid condensate generated during the operation of the pipeline. These liquids are carried in
the gas stream and condense out during temperature or pressure changes inside the pipeline.
In one case, following several fires at compressor stations in the late 1950s, a gas
transmission company installed a synthetic PCB-containing fire-retardant lubricant in its gas
compressors. This practice was discontinued in the mid-1970s following the termination of PCB
sales for such uses. Nevertheless, this practice led to the PCB contamination of pipeline
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-4
PCB USES BY TYPE OF PCB
PCB End Use Category
PCB Aroclor Number
1016
1221
1232
1242
1248
1254
1260
1262
1268
Dielectric Fluids for Electrical
Equipment
¦ Capacitors
X
X
X[a]
¦ Transformers
X
X
X[a]
Heat Transfer Fluids
X
Hydraulics and Lubricants
¦ Hydraulic fluids
X
X
X
X
X
¦ Vacuum pumps
X
X
¦ Gas-transmission turbines
X
X
Plasticizers
¦ Rubber
X
X
X
X
X
¦ Synthetic resins
X
X
X
X
X
¦ Carbonless paper
X
Miscellaneous Industrial Applications
¦ Adhesives
X
X
X
X
X
¦ Wax extenders
X
X
X
-------
TABLE 2-4 (cont.)
PCB End Use Category
PCB Aroclor Number
1016
1221
1232
1242
1248
1254
1260
1262
1268
Miscellaneous Industrial Applications
(cont.)
¦ Dedusting agents
X
X
¦ Inks
X
¦ Cutting oils
X
¦ Pesticide extenders
X
Source: U.S. EPA, 197677.
[a] Use through 1971.
-------
equipment and liquids. Some PCBs apparently escaped past compressor seals and dissolved and
accumulated in the pipeline liquids (Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 1991).
The use of PCB-containing lubricants was apparently a common practice among other
natural gas pipeline companies. After PCBs were discovered in pipeline liquids in 1981, EPA
conducted an extensive pipeline testing program. As a result of this survey, EPA determined
that at least 13 of the 24 major interstate natural gas pipeline companies' pipeline systems had
been exposed to PCBs in concentrations exceeding 50 ppm. Subsequently, EPA established with
these companies a compliance monitoring program that permitted PCB use in the systems at
concentrations greater than 50 ppm. In addition, EPA has entered into agreements with gas
transmission companies that require them to characterize the nature and extent of PCB
contamination and to conduct extensive cleanup programs.
2.3.4 Buildings
PCBs were also used in the fabrication of gaskets used in building ventilation systems.
In at least one case, a PCB-containing material was used to impregnate gaskets to meet
specifications for resistance to flames and high temperatures and for an adhesive coating. The
Department of Energy (DOE) has reported that gaskets used in heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems in several of its installations were impregnated with such a PCB-containing
material. The original specifications for gaskets (intended for ducts wider than 54 inches) at
these installations required that the gasket be impregnated with a
nondrying, non-oxidizing, flame resistant, water resistant, anticorrosive compound, which
shall remain stable at operating temperatures up to 200 °F. and shall be sufficiently
pliable for installation at temperatures down to 0°F. One side of the gasket shall be
coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive (Thompson, 1992a).
Vendors providing gaskets apparently used a PCB-containing material to meet these
specifications. According to DOE, these specifications were considered standard in the late
1940s and 1950s (U.S. DOE, 1991).
2-12
-------
The leaching of lubricating oil through the gaskets resulted in the release of PCB-
contaminated material and the subsequent contamination of the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) equipment in the DOE buildings. Given the generic nature of the
specification for the gaskets used in the DOE buildings, such use of PCBs in gaskets installed in
commercial and industrial buildings presumably could have been a common practice during this
period. Further, DOE representatives have indicated that to their knowledge no activities at
these facilities would have warranted special requirements for ventilation systems installed there
(Thompson, 1992b). To date, however, the DOE facilities are the only documented instance of
such PCB use and resultant contamination in buildings. None of the building and ventilation
systems experts and gasket suppliers contacted were knowledgeable about methods used to meet
heat resistant requirements for gaskets prior to the cessation of PCB sales for nonelectrical uses
in 1971 or were aware of any PCB use in gaskets for ventilating systems. The U.S. Navy,
however, found that ventilation gaskets similarly impregnated with PCBs had been installed on
Navy vessels, as discussed below.
23jS Ships
The U.S. Department of the Navy has reported the discovery of PCB-impregnated
insulation and gasket materials installed on Navy vessels. During submarine deactivation work in
1989, the Navy discovered a certain type of wool felt widely used as an insulating material in
Navy vessels contained high concentrations of PCBs. These PCBs originated in an intermediate
material used to impregnate the insulation to enhance its fire-resistant capability. According to
the Navy, these PCBs were used by insulation manufacturers to meet a performance
specification, which neither mentioned nor required the use of PCBs (U.S. Department of the
Navy, 1991).
Subsequent to this discovery, the Navy conducted extensive testing of shipboard materials
for the presence of PCBs. This testing found that a number of common materials, many of them
"off-the-shelf," products that are no longer commercially available contained PCBs at
concentrations above 50 ppm. These materials included plastics, paints, small rubber parts,
adhesive tape, and insulating materials such as the insulation in electrical cabling. As a" result of
2-13
-------
the widespread use of products containing PCBs, many equipment and metal ship surfaces were
also found to be contaminated with PCBs.
As in the case of the PCB-contaminated ventilation systems, no available evidence
indicates that PCB-containing insulation such as that used in Navy applications was installed in
industrial or commercial buildings or used in any other nonmaritime applications. Given the
generic specifications for the insulation, however, such material presumably could have been used
in older industrial settings.
2-3.6 PCBs Used in Research
Since small amounts of PCBs are currently authorized for use in various research
activities, the manufacture, processing, and distribution of PCBs for this purpose may be granted
an exemption from EPA's PCB rules. These research activities include toxicological and
environmental testing, such as analyzing PCBs in the air, soil, rivers, and sediments. In addition,
small amounts of PCBs are needed to conduct bioassays and toxicological studies and to produce
reference standards for identifying PCBs using gas chromatography. PCBs also are used in
studying effective remediation technologies for PCB-contaminated wastes and in developing new
techniques for measuring the PCB contamination level in waste materials.
2.4 PCB WASTES
The use of PCBs in dielectric fluids and other industrial applications has resulted in the
generation of PCB-contaminated wastes. In general, those wastes contaminated at
concentrations ^50 ppm must be disposed of in a manner specified in the EPA PCB regulations.
The various categories of such PCB-contaminated wastes are discussed below.
2-14
-------
2.4.1 Wastes Associated with Electrical Equipment
As discussed in Section 2.3, electrical applications account for the major share of PCBs
used domestically. The EPA PCB Ban Rule, promulgated in 1979 and subsequently amended
and modified, specifies requirements for the disposal of PCB fluids and contaminated PCB
equipment. These regulations require dielectric fluids contaminated at levels greater than or
equal to 50 ppm to be disposed of in an approved incinerator, a chemical landfill, or a high-
efficiency boiler, depending on the PCB concentration. In 1984, an estimated 1.1 million lb of
fluid were contained within in-use high-voltage transformers and capacitors (U.S. EPA, 1986).
Mineral oil transformers for which PCB concentration levels are less than 500 ppm accounted for
over 60 percent of this total. In 1990, an estimated 75,000 PCB Transformers (i.e., transformers
that contained fluids at PCB concentrations ^500 ppm) remained in service (U.S. EPA, 1992).
In addition to dielectric fluids from electrical equipment, the contaminated equipment
itself is subject to EPA disposal regulations. PCB Transformers must be disposed of in
incinerators or chemical landfills. Those that contained fluids with PCBs between 50 and 499
ppm may be disposed of by draining and properly disposing of the fluids; disposal of these
drained PCB-contaminated transformers currently is not regulated. According to EPA's annual
PCB report, 23,000 PCB Large Capacitors and 30,000 transformers contaminated in excess of 50
PPM were disposed of in 1990 at permitted facilities (U.S. EPA, 1992).
2.42 Remediation Wastes
Remediation wastes consist of contaminated media, dredged materials, municipal sewage
treatment sludges, and commercial and industrial sludge, as well as soil, rags, and other debris
generated as the result of spill cleanup activities. A major source of PCB wastes is PCB-
contaminated remediation wastes from historical sites of PCB disposal. While the exact number
of these disposal sites is not known, a 1991 review by EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response of the 1,218 sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the 29,461 sites in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) found that PCBs were characterized as the predominant waste type at approximately
2-15
-------
20 percent of the NPL sites and 7 percent of CERCLIS sites.6 The NPL sites were estimated to
contain 34 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated material-
Data collected as part of this effort indicate that 255 NPL sites contain some PCBs. A
listing of the number of such sites by state is presented in Table 2-5. As shown, there, 41 states
are identified as having NPL sites with PCBs. Eleven states were identified as having ten or
more sites, with New York and Florida having more than 20 sites each.
Another source of information about hazardous waste sites with PCB contamination is
the EPA Records of Decision System (RODS) data base. RODS represents the agreement
reached between EPA and the responsible parties regarding remediation measures to be taken at
Superfund sites. Currently, approximately 800 records of decisions have been reached for NPL
sites. A total of 150 NPL sites with PCB contamination have signed records of decision.
Abstracts describing the sources of pollution at these sites indicate that waste oil handling and
storage were the primary sources of PCB contamination. In other cases, chemical production
and storage and disposal of industrial scrap are implicated.
2.4.3 Nonremediation Wastes
Nonremediation wastes include the residues from the shredding of automobiles,
appliances, and other equipment; bulk wastes or debris from the demolition of buildings; and
other commercial and industrial wastes. Junk automobiles, home appliances (termed "white
goods"), and other metal products are commonly shredded for the purpose of recovering
commercially valuable scrap metals. The shredding of automobiles, appliances, and other metal
products produces a nonmetallic residue comprised of plastics, rubber, fibers, fabrics, paper,
glass, wood, tar, dirt, rocks, sand, oil, moisture, and small amounts of metals that are not
recovered in the shredding operation. Such residues typically are disposed of in landfills. Also,
shredder residues, commonly called "fluff," often are used as a covering material in landfills.
Concern has been raised that in some cases such residues may be contaminated with PCBs.
'National Priority List sites are a subset of those contained in CERCLIS.
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-5
NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST SITES WITH PCBs
State Number of Sites
Alabama
2
Alaska
2
Arkansas
3
California
16
Colorado
1
Connecticut
1
Delaware
3
Florida
21
Georgia
2
Idaho
3
Illinois
16
Indiana
11
Iowa
1
Kentucky
4
Louisiana
1
Massachusetts
11
Maine
4
Michigan
16
Minnesota
5
Missouri
4
Nebraska
1
New Hampshire
3
New Mexico
1
New Jersey
18
New York
29
North Carolina
4
North Dakota
1
Ohio
12
Oklahoma
3
Pennsylvania
15
Rhode Island
3
South Carolina
4
South Dakota
1
Tennessee
2
Texas
9
Utah
1
Virginia
1
Vermont
1
Washington
12
Wisconsin
6
West Virginia
1
Total Number of Sites
255
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991a.
2-17
-------
According to industry sources, approximately 200 shredding machines are currently in
operation in the scrap recycling industry. Most are believed to be run by firms that operate a
single shredding machine (Cutler, 1992). These shredder operations vary according to the
volume of materials handled and the type of input scrap. Some shredders process automobiles
exclusively while others accept a mix of automobiles, white goods, and other scrap.
Automobiles represent the largest single source of recovered ferrous scrap, although
other source materials such as refrigerators, washing machines, and miscellaneous appliances also
contribute to the supply of recovered metals. In 1988, the shredder industry was left with 2.5
million tons of residue. Combustible materials such as plastics, fibers, wood, and rubber typically
account for 40 to 50 percent of automobile shredder residues (ASR). The plastic content of
ASR is typically 15 to 30 percent by weight. Due primarily to the increasing plastic content of
automobiles, the quantity of recovered metals relative to ASR has been decreasing. In 1960, the
average automobile weighed approximately 3,800 lb and contained less than 40 lb of plastics. By
1980 the average automobile weight was 3,200 lb, of which 175 lb were plastics (Jody and
Daniels, 1991).
Although shredder residues have been implicated as a possible source of PCB
contamination, the specific sources of the PCBs are unclear. One possibility is PCB capacitors in
appliances. Equipment requiring higher starting voltages (e.g., air conditioners) were often
manufactured with PCB capacitors. Since such capacitors were banned in 1979, however, only
those pieces of equipment manufactured prior to this date are likely to contain PCBs. The share
of older equipment in the supply of scrap appliances therefore should determine potential
magnitude of the PCB problem from this source.
PCBs have been used in automobile body sealers and brake linings, and as plasticizers in
plastics that might have been installed in automobiles. PCB use in these applications in the
United States ceased in the early 1970s and only relatively small amounts of plastics were used in
automobiles. Thus, among domestically manufactured automobiles currently being scrapped,
only those manufactured in the early 1970s could be contributing to PCB contamination of
shredder wastes. According to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, fewer than 20
percent of automobiles currently being scrapped were manufactured prior to 1973 (Motor
2-18
-------
Vehicle Manufacturers Association, 1989). PCB use in foreign automobiles and foreign-made
automobile parts, however, continued well into the 1980s. Thus, recent models of foreign
automobiles going to scrap could be contributing to the PCB contamination.
Further, since many shredding operations accept scrap metal from diverse sources, PCB
contamination could result from numerous additional sources. PCB contamination of shredder
residues also could result from illegal shredding of PCB-contaminated transformers and other
electrical equipment or other attempts at illegal disposal. Although EPA has received anecdotal
information regarding PCB contamination of shredder wastes, no comprehensive information
exists regarding the extent or level of contamination of shredder operations. Discussions with
state environmental officials, however, indicate that there are documented cases of contaminated
shredder wastes above the 50 ppm level (Koziar, 1992). Also, in at least one case, independent
researchers found PCBs in analyzing the composition of shredder fluff, though neither the PCB
concentration in the shredder residue nor the source of the PCBs was determined (Jody, 1992).
In a recent pilot study of current PCB contamination levels in shredder output streams,
EPA tested fluffy metallic outputs, and soil where fluff is stored. The tests were conducted at
seven sites, each in a different EPA region. EPA examined the following types of samples: fresh
fluff, ferrous metal, nonferrous metals, spillover, stored fluff, and soil. These samples came from
three types of input material: (1) white goods; (2) automobiles and other vehicles; and (3) mixed
inputs, including white goods, automobiles, materials from demolition sites, and other scrap.
PCBs were found in all the shredder materials analyzed. The highest mean levels of PCB
concentration were found in fresh fluff from mixed inputs and from white goods. The lowest
concentration levels were found in the metal outputs from the shredding operations. Table 2-6
summarizes these findings. The findings show a divergence in the statistical mean and median in
most cases indicating a skewed sample. Thus, a relatively large number of samples had low
concentrations, but relatively few samples had high levels.
EPA also tested PCB concentrations in individual fluff components. Using subsamples
from four fresh fluff samples (two from automobile shredding, one from shredding of white
goods, and one from shredding of mixed inputs), EPA examined the relative concentration of
PCBs in the different fluff components (e.g., metals, plastics, fabrics). The level of PCBs varied
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-6
SUMMARY OF TOTAL PCB CONCENTRATIONS BY SAMPLE TYPE
(ppm)
Sample Type
Input Type
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Number of
Samples
Number
of Sites
Fresh fluff
Auto
32
43
13
1.70
210
28
7 .
Fresh fluff
White goods
80
190
21
0.67
760
15
5
Fresh fluff
Mixed input
180
170
88
12
500
9
3
Stored fluff
NA
68
43
52
16
150
10
5
Spillover (from
shredding opera-
tion)
NA
28
25
28
4
65
5
5
Ferrous metals
NA
0.20
0.11
0.21
0.10
0.42
8
6
Nonferrous
metals
NA
1.0
1.10
0.09
0.13
2.60
5
3
Soil (at shredder
location)
NA
44
38
32
0.13
100
8
4
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991b.
-------
according to the input material as well as the fluff constituent material. These test results are
shown in Table 2-7. The tests, albeit limited, reveal substantial variation in PCB levels even
among fluff component classes drawn from the same input material. Finally, EPA attempted to
determine the concentration of specific PCB formulations in the fluff samples. The samples were
analyzed for concentrations of PCB Aroclors 1242, 1254, and 1260. These tests indicated that
Aroclor 1242 was dominant in almost every sample, comprising more than half of the PCBs in
each sample category. This information, however, produced no definitive information about the
original sources of PCB contamination. EPA researchers also found a degree of correlation
between the composition of PCBs in successive samples tested. This finding suggests that the
levels of PCBs in the samples were not independent of one another and that the shredding
process may act to spread PCB contamination among residues generated by different runs of the
shredding operation (Reinhart, 1992).
Given the limited nature of the EPA shredder waste pilot study, the findings cannot be
used to estimate how frequently wastes generated by shredder operations exceed the 50 ppm
level imposed by the EPA PCB regulations. The findings, however, indicate that at least some
shredding operations might be expected to exceed the action level.
2.4.4 Radioactive PCB Wastes
Some radioactive wastes also have been found to be contaminated with PCBs, thus
creating special disposal problems. The major sources of such wastes are DOE facilities engaged
in uranium enrichment and other processing of radioactive materials. In some cases, radioactive
PCB wastes are generated when PCBs, or oils and fluids containing PCBs, spill onto radioactive
materials. In other cases, the outer surfaces of plant equipment, such as electrical transformers
that have contained PCBs, may become radioactively contaminated.
Other sources of radioactive PCB wastes include nuclear power generating facilities and
Navy nuclear propulsion system operations. The extent of radioactive wastes from nuclear power
plants is not known. In one instance, however, a mixture of PCBs and radioactive resins were
found in the sediments from the cleanup of a nuclear plant's water treatment pond (Isley and
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-7
TOTAL PCB CONCENTRATIONS IN FIVE FLUFF COMPONENTS
(ppm)
Concentration
Component
Automobile Sample 1
Automobile Sample 2
White Goods
Mixed Inputs
% of Total
Sample
(by weight)
PCB
Concen-
tration
(ppm)
% of Total
Sample
(by weight)
PCB
Concen-
tration
(ppm)
% of Total
Sample
(by weight)
PCB
Concen-
tration
(ppm)
% of Total
Sample
(by weight)
PCB
Concen-
tration
(ppm)
Metals, wire, glass
11%
13
2%
9.9
3%
0.6
2%
390
Soft plastics,
foams, soft rubber,
vinyl
17%
66
14%
7
8%
35
17%
260
Fabrics, paper,
wood
17%
37
28%
12
9%
24
26%
63
Hard materials,
hard plastics, hard
rubber
9%
11
2%
24
10%
5.5
5%
46
Fines too small to
classify, dirt, dust
40%
43
38%
29
65%
62
45%
140
Other, not classifi-
able
6%
Not
analyzed
16%
Not
analyzed
5%
Not
analyzed
5%
Not
analyzed
Total sample
weight (g)
1,090
1,260
859
• 1,080
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991b.
-------
Edison, 1989). In the case of Naval operations, the Navy reports small quantities of radioactive
PCB wastes are generated from laboratory operations associated with the testing, maintenance,
and repair of nuclear propulsion systems. The Navy currently has 25 drums of certified
radioactive PCB wastes consisting of oil and oily rags and expects more such wastes as PCB-
containing test equipment is decommissioned (Megargle, 1992).
Currently there is a severe shortfall in disposal capacity for such wastes. DOE operates a
RCRA- and TSCA-permitted (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) disposal facility at Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, for PCB radioactive wastes with a maximum disposal rate of 3.09 million lb
per year. Over 50 million tons of such wastes, however, are currently in storage awaiting
disposal, and generation rates are in excess of 5 million tons per year.
2.4.5 Other Sources of PCB Waste
Some of the historical nonelectrical uses of PCBs also have resulted in the generation of
PCB-contaminated materials. Although PCBs were used in a variety of industrial applications
(see Section 2.32), only a few specific uses have raised issues regarding the disposal method of
the resultant PCB-contaminated waste, as discussed below.
¦ PCB-impregnated insulation and gasket materials. Both DOE and the Navy have
reported the presence of insulating and gasket materials impregnated with PCB-
containing materials. The disposal of such materials, if PCB concentrations are
;>50 ppm, must be done in accordance with EPA regulations. Currently, only the
Navy is generating such wastes as they remove and dispose of PCB-contaminated
insulation when dismantling older vessels. Additional wastes will be generated as
DOE replaces gasket materials in its installations, and if similar PCB-
contaminated materials are found in industrial or commercial buildings.
¦ PCB-contaminated equipment. PCB-containing materials can contaminate nearby
equipment and other metal surfaces. In gas transmission systems and on Navy
vessels, PCB use has resulted in surface contamination of pipe, shipboard
surfaces, and other equipment. Depending on the level of surface contamination,
EPA regulations require that such equipment be decontaminated with solvents
before smelting, or be disposed of by incineration or by placement in a chemical
landfill.
2-23
-------
¦ Other PCB materials. As noted above, PCBs were used in the fabrication and
manufacture of a variety of products for commercial, industrial, and residential
use. These products include plastics, paints, rubber parts, adhesives, caulking, and
others. PCB use in these products, however, was terminated in the early 1970s.
While a number of these PCB-containing products may be in use today, the
magnitude of their current use is unknown. Such items could result in PCB
wastes, such as wastes generated from building demolition. While the potential
for this type of PCB waste exists, there is no evidence that these uses have
resulted in a significant level of PCB contamination.
¦ Household-generated PCB-contaminated wastes. Several categories of PCB-bearing
products were likely to be used in residential applications and therefore may
result in the PCB contamination of household-generated wastes. Although
nonelectrical PCB uses (e.g., paints) may contribute to the PCB content of
household wastes, PCB use in appliance capacitors and fluorescent light ballasts
has been implicated as a primary source of PCB contamination. For example, a
recent analysis of scrapped household appliances at an Iowa landfill found that air
conditioners, light fixture ballasts, and microwave ovens manufactured prior to
1978, contained oil-filled capacitors contaminated with PCBs. Appliances
containing electrolyte-type capacitors were found to be free of PCBs regardless of
manufacturing date. Dryers, washers, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, and
dishwashers were found to contain these electrolyte-type capacitors. Ballasts of 15
watts or less removed from conventional ovens also were found to be free of
PCBs (University of Illinois, 1992). Also, a recent study of used white goods
management by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources estimated that
10 to 25 percent of all household white goods contain capacitors with PCBs
(University of Illinois, 1992).
2.5 REFERENCES
Cutler, H. 1992. Telephone conversation between Herschel Cutler of the Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries and Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 21.
Isley, D.A., and T. Edison. 1989. Cleanup of a PCB Spill in a water treatment plant. Nuclear Plant
Journal 7(6).
Jody, B., and E. Daniels. 1991. Automobile shredder residue: Treatment options. Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous Materials 8(3). Summer.
Jody, B. 1992. Telephone conversation between Bassam Jody of Argonne National Laboratoiy and
Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 1.
Koziar P. 1992. Telephone conversation between Paul Koziar of the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources and Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 9:
2-24
-------
Lawton, R., M. Ross, J. Feingold, and J. Brown. 1985. Effects of PCB exposure on biochemical
and hematological findings in capacitor workers. Environmental Health Perspectives, vol.
60.
Megargle, L. 1992. Telephone conversation between Lisa Megargle of the Navy Nuclear Propulsion
Program and Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 15.
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. 1989. Motor vehicle facts and figures. Detroit, MI.
National Academy of Sciences. 1979. Polychlorinated biphenyls: A report prepared by the
Committee on the Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Environment.
Reinhart, D. 1992. Telephone conversation between Dan Reinhart of the U.S. EPA Office of Toxic
Substances, Exposure Evaluation Division and Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group,
Inc. July 10.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation. 1991. Comments of Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls. August 9.
Thompson, C. 1992a. Master specification for heating and ventilating for the Atomic Energy
Commission (undated). Provided by Carolyn Thompson of the Department of Energy to
Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 20.
Thompson, C. 1992b. Telephone conversation between Carolyn Thompson of the U.S. Department
of Energy and Chester Fenton of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 17.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 1991. Navy comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on polychlorinated biphenyls. August
7.
U.S. DOE. 1991. U.S. Department of Energy. Comments on disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. August 9.
U.S. EPA. 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PCBs in the United States industrial use
and environmental distribution. EPA 560/6-76-005. EPA Contract No. 68-01-3259.
Februaiy.
U.S. EPA. 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use prohibitions; final rule.
Federal Register 44:31514-31567. May 31.
U.S. EPA. 1982. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory impact assessment of the
proposed rule for PCB-containing equipment. April.
U.S. EPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Agency. Evaluation of PCB disposal capacity. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-4235. September 12.
2-25
-------
U.S. EPA. 1991a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL characterization project.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PCB, lead, and cadmium levels in
shredder waste materials: A pilot study. April.
U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PCB environmental indicators: Final
report for 1990. Chemical Regulations Branch. April.
University of Illinois. 1992. Important developments in the management of white goods. Solid
Waste Management Newsletter. University of Illinois Center for Solid Waste
Management and Research. June.
2-26
-------
SECTION THREE
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PENDING REGULATIONS
ON POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
The regulation of PCBs began in 1976 with the passage of TSCA. While most PCB
regulations fall within this program, several other laws, both administered by EPA and other
Federal departments and agencies, contain provisions that regulate PCBs. Within EPA, the laws
governing PCBs include RCRA; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA);
the Clean Air Act (CAA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Clean Water Act (CWA);
and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). Other PCB regulations
fall under the Occupational Safety and Health Act within the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA); the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), within the
Department of Transportation (DOT); the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), under the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), under the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA); and several food processing acts under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).
This section describes existing and pending regulations governing the use and disposal of
PCBs and issues being discussed by EPA for future PCB regulation. The following sections are
organized according to the Agency programs that comprise the regulations.
3.1 PCB REGULATIONS UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
Section 6(e) of TSCA, effective January 1,1977, directs EPA to develop a schedule and
write provisions for phasing out and controlling the manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, disposal, and storage of PCBs and for controlling the marking of PCB containers
to warn that the chemicals could cause significant risk to health or the environment. Section
6(e) differs from other TSCA sections in that it directs EPA to regulate a specific chemical
3-1
-------
substance. The regulations define PCBs as "any chemical substance that is limited to the
biphenyl molecule that has been chlorinated to varying degrees or any combination of substances
which contains such substance" (40 CFR 761.3). The definition encompasses PCB Articles,
Containers, and Equipment, including materials such as dielectric fluids, contaminated solvents,
waste oils, heat transfer fluids, hydraulic fluids, pigments, sludges, slurries, dredge spoils, soils,
materials contaminated as a result of spills, and other chemical substances or combinations of
substances.
Specifically, TSCA called for the complete prohibition of the manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs within 1 year after passage of the law (i.e., by
October 1977), except those activities conducted in a totally enclosed manner (that is, any
manner that will prevent exposure of human beings or the environment to any concentration of
PCBs) (40 CFR 761.3, revised November 8, 1984, in 49 FR 46634). Totally enclosed activities
include the processing and distribution of intact, nonleaking electrical equipment that contains
PCBs in any concentration. TSCA's definition of electrical equipment includes transformers,
including those in railway locomotives and self-propelled railway cars; capacitors; electromagnets;
voltage regulators; switches, including sectionalizers and motor starters; circuit breakers; and
reclosers and cable.
TSCA Section 6(e) also prohibited the manufacture of PCBs 2 years after the Act's
effective date (i.e., by January 1,1979) and the processing and distribution of PCBs after 2-1/2
years (i.e., by July 1,1979). To be exempt from the manufacturing, processing, and distribution
bans, interested parties must submit a petition to EPA. The Agency then must determine
whether the activity presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment
in the United States and that the petitioner has made a good faith effort to develop substitutes
for the PCBs used in the activity to be exempted. The Agency evaluates petitions on a case-by-
case basis and, through rulemaking, grants exemptions for up to 1 year, subject to annual
reviews.
Since 1978, EPA has issued 12 major regulations related to the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, disposal, storage, and marking of PCBs, not including the
numerous exemption petition rulings under which EPA has issued or denied exemptions for
3-2
-------
many PCB uses and classes of uses. Table 3-1 lists the major PCB regulations and amendments
in order of their publication in the Federal Register.
In general, PCB regulations cover the two major categories of PCBs: PCBs intentionally
manufactured for use in electrical and other types of equipment, and PCBs produced
inadvertently as byproducts and impurities. The rules for PCBs in electrical and other types of
equipment place restrictions on the use of electrical transformers that contain PCBs in
concentrations of 500 ppm or greater in an effort to prevent transformer fires and authorize the
use of PCBs in railroad transformers within specified concentrations. The regulations for PCB
byproducts and impurities allow PCB byproducts and impurities to be produced by certain
processes in concentrations below 50 ppm, to be produced by processes that release PCBs below
concentrations that can practically be quantified, and/or to be released to wastes that are
properly disposed of. All other categories are banned, except if EPA grants an exemption by
petition through the rulemaking process.
PCB storage, disposal, and marking rules address PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm and
above. As the rules now stand, PCBs can be stored for up to 1 year before they must be
disposed of. The marking rules specify how, for instance, containers, equipment, and transport
vehicles, must be labeled or marked. The disposal regulations address PCB disposal in
incinerators, chemical waste landfills, high efficiency boilers. Similar to wastes regulated under
RCRA, PCBs are subject to notification and manifesting rules that regulate the disposal of PCBs
from the cradle to grave. PCB regulations also provide for the cleanup of intentional and
unintentional spills, leaks, and other uncontrolled discharges of materials containing PCBs in
concentrations at 50 ppm or above.
More recently, the Agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) for New PCB Disposal Options and drafted the corresponding Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that addresses over 50 issues concerning disposal and other aspects of the PCB
program either identified in the ANPRM or brought to the Agency's attention through
comments or identified in implementing the PCB rules. Table 3-2 lists the main provisions of
the PCB regulations, the corresponding Federal Register notices, and the sections proposed to be
amended by the as yet unpublished Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Disposal of PCBs.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
MAJOR PCB RULES UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT*
TSCA Rule
Federal
Register
Citation
Date
Disposal and Marking Rule
43 FR 7150
February 17, 1978
PCB Ban Rule (also the Disposal and
Marking Rule Amendments)
44 FR 31514
May 31,1979
Electrical Equipment Use Rule
47 FR 37342
August 25,1982
Closed and Controlled Waste Manufacturing
Processes Rule
47 FR 46980
October 21,1982
Use Authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers
48 FR 124
January 3,1983
Uncontrolled Rule
49 FR 28172
July 10, 1984
PCB Transformer Fires Rule
50 FR 2910
July 17, 1985
Notice of Interpretation of Transformer
Fire Regulations
51 FR 47241
December 31,1986
PCB Spill Cleanup Policy
52 FR 10688
April 2, 1987
Uncontrolled Rule Amendments
53 FR 24206
June 27, 1988
PCB Transformer Fires Rule Amendments
53 FR 27322
July 19,1988
Notification and Manifesting Rule
54 FR 52716
December 21,1989
PCB Wet Weight/Diy Weight Clarification
(Proposed)
55 FR 12866
April 6, 1990
Permit Revocation Rule (Proposed)
55 FR 46470
November 2,1990
Transformer Fires Rule Amendment
55 FR 49043
November 26,1990
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for New PCB Disposal Options
56 FR 26738
June 10,1991
'Does not include exemption rules.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-2
MAJOR PCB REGULATIONS AND REVISIONS PROPOSED IN THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (UNPUBLISHED)*
(Citations from the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Datesb
(Unpublished)
SUBPART A - GENERAL
§761.3
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979°
Revising the definitions of "Capacitor," "Commercial storer of PCB
Definitions
47 FR 46980, October 21, 1982d
waste," "PCB-contaminated Electrical Equipment," "PCB Item,"
49 FR 25239, June 20, 1984, as amended at 49 FR 28172,
and "PCB Transformer."
July 10, 1984°
49 FR 29066, July 18, 1984
Adding definitions for "Cap," "Dry," Dry Surface," "Dry weight
49 FR 44638, November 8, 1984
basis," "High exposure area," "Household waste," "Industrial
50 FR 29199, July 17, 1985f
furnace," "Liquid PCBs," "Low- exposure areas,"
50 FR 32176, August 9, 1985
"Microencapsulation," "Nonliquid PCBs," "Nonporous surfaces,"
53 FR 24226, June 27, 1988*
"Open burning," "PCB Contaminated," "PCB field screening test,"
53 FR 27322, July 19, 1988h
"PCB/Gssionable radioactive waste or PCB radioactive waste,"
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
"PCB nonremediation waste," "PCB remediation waste," "Porous
surface," "Remediation site or site," "Treatability study," and
"Vitrification."
Removing definitions for "Emergency situation" and "Small
quantities for research and development."
SUBPART B - MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE OF PCBs AND PCB ITEMS
§761.20
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,e redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
Deleting paragraphs containing deadlines that had passed for
Prohibitions and
May 6, 1982, and amended at 49 FR 25241, June 20,
export disposal.
Exclusions
1984
47 FR 37342, August 25, 1982'
Adding paragraph (b)(3) that allows shipping of PCBs for disposal.
49 FR 28172, July 10,1984e
49 FR 44638, November 8,1984
Revising paragraph (c)(5) to allow distribution in commerce of
53 FR 12524, April 15, 1988
equipment, structures, and other materials if they were
¦
53 FR 24220, June 27,1988s
decontaminated per TSCA protocols, and add paragraphs (c)(6)
and (c)(7) that allow the use or distribution of PCB-contaminated
water and solid nonporous surfaces.
Adding paragraph (c)(8) that prohibits open burning of PCBs
unless allowed or approved under §761.60 (a) or (e).
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Datesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
§761.30
Authorizations
4 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982, and amended at 47 FR 37357, August 23,
1983
47 FR 37356, August 25, 1982j
48 FR 135, January 3, 1983"
49 FR 25241, 25242, and 28202, July 10, 1984'
50 FR 29199, July 17, 1985f
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
53 FR 24206, June 27, 1988*
53 FR 27322, July 19, 1988"
55 FR 49043, November 26, 19901
Deleting and amending paragraphs in (a)(l)(iii) and (b)(l)(i)-(iv),
(b)(2)(i)-(ii), and (c), (d), and (e) related to requirements that had
been superseded.
Adding paragraph (a)(l)(vii) to require all PCB Transformers to
be registered with EPA, paragraph (a)(l)(xvi) to regulate the use
of PCBs for mineral oil transformers and voltage regulators, and
paragraphs (d), (e), (h), and (i) to allow the use of PCBs in heat
transfer systems; hydraulic systems; electromagnets, switches and
voltage regulators; and natural gas pipeline systems.
Revising (j) on the use of limited quantities of PCBs and PCB-
contaminated media for research and development.
Adding paragraph (q) allowing the use of PCBs as applied prior to
1978 and the passage of TSCA regulations and (r) and (s) allowing
the use in and servicing of rectifiers and the use in scientific
equipment.
SUBPART C - MARKING OF PCBS AND PCB ITEMS
§761.40
Marking requirements
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982, and amended at 47 FR 37342, August 25,
1982J
50 FR 29201, July 17, 1985f
50 FR 32176, August 9, 1985
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
53 FR 27322, July 19, 1988h
Revising paragraph (a), (d), (e), (h), and (k) clarifying the
requirements for marking PCB Items in concentrations of 50 to
500 ppm.
§761.45
Marking formats
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,° redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982
No changes proposed.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Datesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
SUBPART D - STORAGE AND DISPOSAL
§761.60
Disposal requirements
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c as amended at 44 FR 54297,
September 19, 1979
45 FR 20475, March 28, 1980, redesignated at 47 FR
19527, May 6, 1982, and amended at 47 FR 37342,
August, 25, 1982'
49 FR 5730, February 8, 1983
48 FR 13185, March 30, 1983
48 FR 15125, April 7, 1983
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984*
49 FR 36648, September 19, 1984
53 FR 10391, March 31, 1988
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
53 FR 21641, June 9, 1988
Adding provisions at (a)(4) for disposal of PCB Items by industrial
furnace.
Clarifying at (b)(l)(i)(B) the disposal requirements for PCB
liquids drained from transformers.
Adding specifications at (b)(2)(vii) that disposal of fluorescent
light ballasts containing PCBs as municipal solid waste is subject to
CERCLA reportable quantity requirements.
Revising (b)(2)(iv) and (vi) to codify DOT container requirements
for disposal of large and regulated small PCB Capacitors; (b)(3) to
allow for disposal of PCB Hydraulic Machines in industrial
furnaces as well as previously allowed options; and (b)(4) to
establish regulation of drained equipment.
Adding specifications at (b)(5) for the abandonment in place and
removal with subsequent action of natural gas pipelines
contaminated with PCBs.
Adding specifications for the disposal of drained PCB Articles at
(b)(6)(ii) and for metal ship and submarine hulls contaminated by
PCBs at (b)(6)(iii).
Adding (g) specifying that PCBs can be analyzed using gas
chromatography according to EPA and ASTM methods, and (j)
allowing self-implementing approvals for research and
development for PCB disposal.
§761.61
PCB remediation
waste
Proposed new section.
Adding new section to establish disposal options for PCB
remediation wastes.
§761.62
PCB nonremediation
waste
Proposed new section.
Adding new section to establish disposal options for PCB
nonremediation wastes.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Datesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
§761.63
Household waste
Proposed new section.
Adding new section exempting household wastes from disposal
regulation under specified conditions.
§761.64
PCB chemical analysis
waste
Proposed new section.
Adding new section to establish disposal options for wastes
generated as a result of PCB sample analysis.
§761.65
Storage for disposal
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982, and amended at 47 FR 37342, August 25,
1982J
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984e
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
Removing at (a) reference to January 1984 deadlines and allowing
longer storage upon EPA approval.
Including storage requirements at (b)(l)(ii) for PCB radioactive
wastes and, at (b)(2), allowing storage of PCBs and PCB Items
designated for disposal in RCRA storage facilities or state waste
management units.
Revising (c)(l)(iv) on the restriction requiring notice of PCB
Containers with liquid PCBs at 50 ppm or more; (c)(5) on
checking for leaking PCB items; (c)(6) to refer to DOT
regulations; and (c)(6)(i) on specifications for containers other
than DOT containers and (c)(7) on the size of stationary storage
containers.
Revising (c)(8) requiring PCB Items to be dated upon removal
from service for disposal.
Adding specifications on financial insurance at (g)(9) and
specifications at (j) regarding changes in ownership or operational
control of a storage facility.
§761.67
PCB Articles storage
for reuse
Proposed new section.
Adding specifications at (a) and (b) for storage for reuse of PCB
Articles.
§761.70
Incineration
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982, and amended at 48 FR 13185, March 30,
1983
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984e
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
No changes proposed.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and I)atesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
§761.75
Chemical waste
landfills
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982, and amended at 48 FR 5730, February 8,
1983
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984'
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
53 FR 21641, June 9, 1988
Revising paragraph (b)(8)(H) to delete references to the disposal
of liquid PCBs at chemical waste landfills.
§761.77
Coordinated approval
Proposed new section.
Adding specifications for coordinated approval of PCB disposal by
land disposal, incinerators, research and development (for
developing PCB disposal methods), alternative disposal
technologies, and site remediation, as well as approval of
commercial storage facilities.
§761.79
Decontamination
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,c redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982
Clarifying the disposal options at (a)(1) for solvent used for
decontamination.
Adding (a)(2) allowing distribution and use of decontaminated
materials; (a)(3) requiring written records of decontamination
actions and no disposal approvals for separating PCBs from
surfaces or liquids; and (a)(4) exempting decontamination actions
from requiring disposal approvals.
Codifying at (a)(5) policies to protect workers from PCB
inhalation and dermal contact with PCBs.
Adding a decontamination standard for nonporous surfaces at (d),
decontamination procedures for nonporous surfaces at (e) and (f),
and decontamination standards for PCB-contaminated water and
organic liquids at (g) and (h).
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Datesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
SUBPART E ¦ EXEMPTIONS
§761.80
Manufacturing,
processing, and
distribution in
commerce exemptions
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984,* as amended at 51 FR 28556,
August 8, 1986
53 FR 125222, April 15, 1988
55 FR 21023, May 22, 1990
Adding paragraph (e) to grant petitions for manufacturing 1
pound of PCBs for use in research to develop disposal
technologies.
Revising at (g) the class exemption for processors and distributors
of small quantities of PCB-contaminated media for use as
standards in chemical analysis and for research and development
under specified conditions.
Adding at (i) a class exemption for processors and distributors of
limited quantities of PCB-contaminated media for research and
development.
Clarifying at (n) that exemptions must be filed for changes in PCB
activity beyond those currently authorized.
Adding at (o) an automatic renewal for 1-year class exemptions
granted to processors and distributors of PCBs in limited
quantities for research and development, and at (p) conditions for
granting class exemptions for processors of limited quantities of
media containing PCBs.
SUBPART G - PCB SPILL CLEANUP POLICY
§761.120
Scope
52 FR 10688, April 2, 1987™
52 FR 23397, June 19, 1987
No changes proposed.
§761.125
Requirements for
PCB spill cleanup
52 FR 10688, April 2, 1987"
Revising at (a)(1) the amount of PCBs spilled that require cleanup
from 10 pounds to 1 pound.
§761.130
Sampling
requirements
52 FR 10688, April 2, 1987"
No changes proposed.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and batesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
§761.135
Effect of compliance
with this policy and
enforcement
52 FR 10688, April 2, 1987"
No changes proposed.
SUBPART J - RECORDS AND REPORTS
§761.180
Records and
monitoring
44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979,e redesignated at 47 FR 19527,
May 6, 1982, and further redesignated at 47 FR 37342,
August 25, 1982'
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984e
53 FR 12522, April 15, 1988
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
Adding at (a)(l)(iii) and (iv) requirements to inspect, clean up,
and inventory PCBs and PCB Items for all commercial disposers
or storers of PCB wastes.
Adding at (a)(2)(ix) reporting requirements for totally enclosed
PCBs, PCB-contaminated Transformers, and large high- and low-
voltage capacitors that are distributed in commerce for reuse.
Adding (b)(l)(iii) and (iv) a requirement to inspect, clean up, and
inventory PCBs and PCB Items for generating facilities (other
than commercial disposers or storers of PCB wastes).
Revising (b)(3) to clarify the annual reporting requirements for
owners and operators of PCB disposal facilities and commercial
storage facilities.
§761.185
Certification and
retention of records
by importers and
persons generating
PCBs in excluded
manufacturing
processes
47 FR 46980, October 21, 1982"
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984"
49 FR 33109, August 20, 1984, as amended at 53 FR
12522, April 15, 1988
No changes proposed.
§761.187
Reporting by
importers and by
persons generating
PCBs in excluded
manufacturing
processes
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984,' as amended at 53 FR 12522,
April 15, 1988
No changes proposed.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Datesb
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
§761.193
Maintenance of
monitoring records by
persons who import,
manufacture, process,
distribute in
commerce, or use
chemicals containing
inadvertently
generated PCBs
49 FR 28172, July 10, 1984°
No changes proposed.
SUBPART K - PCB WASTE DISPOSAL RECORDS AND REPORTS
§761.202
EPA identification
numbers
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
No changes proposed.
§761.205
Notification of PCB
waste activity
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
Adding at (f) a requirement for facilities to resubmit Form 7710-
53 when business changes or activities are modified.
§761.207
The manifest—
general requirements
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
Specifying in (j) that certain pre-TSCA wastes are exempt from
manifest requirements.
§761.208
Use of the manifest
54 FR 52716, December 21, 1989s
No changes proposed.
§761.210
Manifest
discrepancies
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
No changes proposed.
§761.211
Unmanifested waste
report
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
No changes proposed.
§761.215
Exemption reporting
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
Revising at (b), (c), and (d) the introductory reporting
requirements for PCB waste generators, disposers, and storers.
-------
TABLE 3-2 (cont.)
Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR)
Section Number
Federal Register (FR) Citations and Dates'*
Revisions Proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Unpublished)
§761.218
Certificate of disposal
54 FR 52716, December 21, 19891
No changes proposed.
Notes Tor Table 3-20
'Table does not include all exemption petitions.
bDates reflect either the date listed on the first page of the Federal Register notice or the date listed on the page where revisions to the section appear.
The Disposal and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150, February 17, 1978) regulations were issued in the following CFR sections, all of which were amended by the
PCB Ban Rule (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979): §761.1 Applicability; §761.2 Definitions; §761.10 Disposal requirements; §761.20 Marking requirements; §761.40
Incineration; §761.41 Chemical waste landfills; §761.42 Storage for disposal; §761.43 Decontamination; §761.44 Marking formats; and §761.45 Records and
monitoring.
dClosed and Controlled Waste Manufacturing Processes Rule.
•Uncontrolled Rule.
fPCB Transformer Fires Rule.
^Amendments to the Uncontrolled Rule.
hPCB Transformer Fires Rule Amendments.
'Notification and Manifesting Rule.
^Electrical Equipment Use Rule.
kUse Authorization for PCB Railroad Transformers.
'Final Transformer Fires Rule.
mPCB Spill Cleanup Policy.
-------
The following sections discuss the major existing and proposed regulations covering PCBs
intentionally manufactured for use in electrical and other types of equipment; PCBs produced
inadvertently as byproducts and impurities; PCB disposal, storage, and marking; PCB spill
cleanup; and TSCA PCB rules as they relate to the workplace.
3.1.1 Disposal and Marking Rule
PCB regulation began on Februaiy 17,1978 (43 FR 7150), with the issuance of the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule. The regulations address PCB storage, disposal, and marking for
four categories of waste, including transformers containing over 500 ppm of PCBs in the
transformer fluid; transformers contaminated with PCBs in concentrations between 50 and 500
ppm; non-PCB Transformers containing less than 50 ppm, a category defined by exclusion; and
railroad transformers. In general, the regulations vaiy according to the source, physical state,
and the concentration of PCBs in the waste material. Higher concentrations of PCB materials
(greater than or equal to 500 ppm) are regulated more stringently since these materials
presumably pose the greatest risks to human health and the environment.
An initial provision of the storage regulations required any PCB Article or Container
stored before January 1,1983, to be removed from storage and disposed of before January 1,
1984- (40 CFR 761.65). A storage provision still in effect states that PCB Articles and Containers
that were stored for disposal after January 1, 1983, must be disposed within 1 year from the date
when they were first placed in storage. A November 17, 1983 (48 FR 52304), rule announced a
policy that continued to prescribe a 1-year time limit on storage of PCB Articles and Containers
prior to their eventual disposal and assigned liability to the waste generator and disposer for
failing to meet the deadline.
The marking regulations require PCB Containers, Electrical Equipment, hydraulic
systems, heat transfer systems, storage areas, and transport vehicles to be marked with clear and
adequate warnings (40 CFR 761.40). The regulations specify formats for large and small PCB
marking labels, referred to as ML and Ms labels (40 CFR 761.45).
3-14
-------
The Disposal and Marking regulations provides specifications for the disposal of PCBs,
PCB Transformers, PCB Capacitors, other PCB Articles, and PCB Containers in incinerators, in
chemical waste landfills, and as municipal solid waste. The rule stipulates that EPA Regional
Administrators (RAs) must approve all indnerator and chemical waste landfill sites before the
sites can be used for disposing PCBs. The RAs also have the authority to waive any particular
condition imposed on an incinerator or landfill operation, waive the incineration method entirely,
and approve disposal methods other than incineration and landfilling that will not result in any
additional risk of injury to health or the environment. PCB incinerators that have been
permitted under TSCA may operate anywhere within the EPA Region where the permit was
issued, if the permit was issued by the RAs, or in all 10 EPA Regions, if the permit was issued
by the assistant administrator for pesticides and toxic substances. The authority to issue these
permits was subsequently redelegated to the director of the Exposure Evaluation Division of the
Office of Toxic Substances.
The Disposal and Marking Rule also addresses disposal requirements for spills and
uncontrolled releases as well as notification requirements for new facilities. The regulations
specified procedures for decontaminating PCB Containers, for recordkeeping, and for the
monitoring of PCBs in service or projected for disposal, disposal and storage facilities, and
incineration facilities. A rule promulgated on March 30,1983 (48 FR 13181), transferred
authority for granting or denying approval of mobile and nonunique disposal facilities from the
regions to EPA headquarters.
3.1.2 PCB Ban Rale
On May 31,1979 (44 FR 31514), EPA issued the PCB Ban Rule that amended the
Disposal and Marking Rule and stipulates measures for banning the manufacture, use,
production, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The elements of the Ban Rule that amended
the Disposal and Marking Rule allow the following additional disposal options that the Agency
determined would reduce disposal costs but would not present unreasonable risks to human
health or the environment:
3-15
-------
PCB-contaminated mineral oil containing 50 to 500 ppm PCB in high-efficiency
boilers that meet specified operating conditions.
¦ Liquids, other than mineral oil dielectric fluid, containing a PCB concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm in incinerators and chemical landfills that comply with
specified conditions.
¦ Liquid containing less than 500 ppm PCB in high-efficiency boilers that meet
certain operating conditions, on a case-by-case basis.
¦ PCB liquids in concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm and nonliquid PCBs in
any concentration in chemical waste landfills that comply with the requirements
specified in the regulations.
The elements of the Ban Rule that address PCB manufacture, processing, distribution,
and use retain the essential aspects of the mandated prohibitions to ban the manufacture,
processing, distribution, and use of PCBs in addition to adding several provisions aimed at
preventing extreme economic consequences that were well beyond those first envisioned in the
passage of TSCA. Specifically, the May 31, 1979, rule:
¦ Calls the use of all electrical equipment totally enclosed, which allows its
continued use. EPA had noted that large amounts of electrical equipment
emitted modest amounts of PCB or PCB-contaminated materials and thus were
not totally enclosed. EPA, therefore, defined these as totally enclosed to allow
their continued use.
. ¦ Establishes a regulatory cutoff to allow for the manufacturing, processing,
distribution, and use of materials containing PCBs in concentrations less than 50
ppm. EPA found that a variety of chemical manufacturing processes, such as
those involving chlorine and aromatics (i.e, compounds derived from benzene,
characterized by their distinctive odors) produced small amounts of PCB as an
unintended by-product of their production process. An estimated 25 percent of
chemical manufacturers in the United States were producing by-product PCBs and
thus were technically in violation of the statute (Arbuckle et al., 1987). The 50
ppm cut off level for regulation was based on health, economic, practical, and
administrative considerations and reflected the consensus of authorities that the
concentration threshold is essential for PCB regulation because PCBs are
ubiquitous in the environment and virtually all wastes contain trace concentrations
of PCBs.
¦ Authorizes the use of PCBs for 11 nontotally enclosed activities under specific
conditions and time constraints, including the servicing of transformers (other
than railroad transformers) and electromagnets; the use and servicing of railroad
transformers and mining equipment; and the use in heat transfer systems,
3-16
-------
hydraulic systems, carbonless copy paper, pigments, natural gas pipeline
compressors; and the use of small quantities for research and development and as
a mounting medium in microscopy. Conditions apply to PCB concentrations,
equipment condition, available storage facilities, servicing schedules, and the like.
¦ Establishes requirements for marking PCB containers and disposing of PCBs in
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater.
Hie Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) challenged several provisions of the May 1979
implementing rule in court, and in October 1980 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia agreed with elements of the suit Hie court struck down the classification of electrical
equipment as totally enclosed and the exemption from the ban for materials containing less than
50 ppm PCBs, finding insufficient evidence in the record to support these provisions. For
example, EPA had not shown a scientific basis for setting a regulatoiy exemption at 50 ppm.
The 11 exempted activities, however, were allowed to stand as defined.
The court ruling and the resulting imposition of a near complete ban on PCBs threatened
significant economic hardships on the affected enterprises. For example, under the strict ban,
very modest sweating (i.e., minor leakage) from an electrical installation would require that the
installation be replaced. In many cases, compliance would have cost companies a lot while
yielding an uncertain and modest environmental benefit. Thus, EPA, EDF, and industiy
representatives filed a joint motion for a stay of the court's mandate, pending further study and
regulatory development by EPA. Had this stay not gone into effect, all concentrations of PCBs
would have been banned except when used in the 11 authorized activities.
After a series of chemical and electric utility industry surveys, EPA proposals (47 FR
34976, June 8,1982), and public hearings, EPA promulgated three sets of rules that addressed
the court's decision to strike down the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff. The first rule dealt with the use
and servicing of electrical equipment containing PCBs. The second and third rules addressed
PCBs produced inadvertently as byproducts and impurities. The three rules and their
amendments are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
3-17
-------
3.1.3 PCB Electrical Equipment Use Rules
The Electrical Equipment Use Rule, published on August 25, 1982 (47 FR 37342),
responded favorably to the court's decision to strike down the May 1979 classification of
transformers, capacitors, and electromagnets as totally enclosed through measures that:.
¦ Authorized the continued use of large PCB Capacitors; the use and servicing of
PCB Transformers, electromagnets, circuit breakers, voltage regulators, reclosers,
cable, and switches; and PCB-containing, mineral oil-filled Electrical Equipment
for the remainder of the equipment's useful life, subject to time limitations and
inspection, maintenance, and recordkeeping requirements.
¦ Allowed the distribution of transformers, capacitors, electromagnets, circuit
breakers, voltage regulators, reclosers, cable, and switches that contain PCBs in a
totally enclosed manner.
¦ Allowed storage for disposal of nonleaking PCB Large Capacitors and PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment outside of qualified storage facilities.
¦ Prohibited the use of PCB-filled equipment near food and feed after October
1985.
3.1.3.1 PCB Transformer Fires Ride
Authorizing the continued use and distribution of electrical transformers through the
Electrical Equipment Use Rule led to increased concern that the rule did not do enough to
prevent transformer fires that could emit large volumes of dangerous fumes in heavily populated
areas (Arbuckle et al., 1987). To address these concerns, EPA issued a final rule on July 17,
1985 (50 FR 29170), called the PCB Transformer Fires Rule, that aimed to reduce the fire-
related risks posed by use of these transformers. The rule amended portions of the August 1982
Electrical Use Rule by placing additional restrictions and conditions on the use of electrical
transformers in or near commercial buildings that contain PCBs in concentrations of 500 ppm or
greater. The rule prohibited further installation of PCB Transformers in or near commercial
buildings after October 1, 1985, and included the following additional requirements:
3-18
-------
¦ Owner registration of PCB Transformers with fire response personnel as of
December 1, 1985.
¦ Marking of all PCB Transformer locations.
¦ Removal of all stored combustibles located near PCB Transformers.
The Transformer Fires Rule also prohibited the use of higjier secondary-voltage (480
volts and above) network PCB Transformers in or near commercial buildings after October 1,
1990, and required the installation of enhanced electrical protection on lower secondary-voltage
network PCB Transformers and radial PCB Transformers installed in or near commercial
buildings. This protection required complete deenergization of all phases of a transformer within
a given time frame to prevent the transformer from rupturing. Under the rule, owners of PCB
Transformers involved in fire-related incidents must immediately notify the National Response
Center (NRC), operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, and take measures as soon as possible to
contain any potential releases of PCBs or incomplete combustion products to water.
On December 31,1986 (51 FR 47241), EPA published a rule that clarified several
provisions of the Transformer Fires Rule, including the PCB Transformer registration
requirement, the requirements for the removal of stored combustibles, the requirement to notify
the NRC of fire-related incidents, the definition of commercial building, the status of mineral oil
transformers found to have PCBs in concentrations of 500 ppm or greater, the ban on the
installation of PCB Transformers in or near commercial buildings, and the requirement for
labeling of exterior access to PCB Transformer locations.
3.132 PCB Transformer Fires Rule Amendments
On July 19,1988 (53 FR 27322), EPA issued amendments to the Transformer Fires Rule
that:
¦ Added the option to remove nonsidewalk lower secondary-voltage network PCB
Transformers in or near commercial buildings by October 1, 1993, instead of
requiring the enhancement of the electrical protection of electrical equipment by
October 1, 1990.
3-19
-------
¦ Prohibited the use of all lower secondary-voltage network PCB Transformers in
sidewalk vaults, as of October 1,1993.
¦ Replaced the word "failure" with "rupture."
¦ Allowed the installation of PCB Transformers in or near a commercial building
for reclassification or emergency purposes only.
¦ Allowed the use under certain limited conditions of an alternate label (other than
the large PCB mark, [40 CFR 761.45(a)]) on the exterior of PCB Transformer
locations.
¦ Set up a compliance schedule for recordkeeping and reporting, labeling, and
registration regulations for mineral oil transformers thought to be contaminated
with PCBs in levels from 50 to 499 ppm, later determined to be transformers
containing levels of PCBs greater or equal to 500 ppm.
The preamble to the amendments also induded a response to comments regarding
deenergization of transformers, submitted in response to the proposed amendments issued
August 21,1987 (52 FR 31738). In the response, the Agency said it had not received sufficient
information indicating that partial deenergization of only the faulted phases of a transformer was
sufficient to prevent the transformer from rupturing. The regulation requiring complete
transformer deenergization thus remained in effect.
The most recent amendment to the PCB Transformer Fires Rule, issued November 26,
1990 (55 FR 49043), amended EPA's regulations concerning enhanced electrical protection for
low-voltage radial transformers that contain PCBs and extended the deadline for compliance for
these types of transformers to February 25,1991. Also, the rule further addressed transformer
deenergization based on an Agency review of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 1985 Fires
Rule, correspondence from the regulated community, supplemental information, and additional
comments received in response to the proposed PCB Transformer Fires Rule Amendments. The
rale states that partial deenergization of a low-voltage radial transformer may be equivalent to
total deenergization of these transformers during a high-current fault, if the configuration of the
transformer and associated safety factors demonstrate that partial deenergization can avoid fault-
related failures, tank ruptures, and fires. Owners and operators of low-voltage radial
transformers in or near commercial buildings who wish to utilize partial deenergization are
3-20
-------
required to install this type of electrical protection using good engineering practices. The rule
does not change any other enhanced electrical protection requirements currently in place.
3.1.33 Use Authorization for PCB Railroad Transformers
EPA first authorized the use and servicing of railroad transformers that contain PCBs in
the May 1979 PCB Ban Rule. On January 3, 1983 (48 FR 124), EPA issued a final rule
amending and extending the use authorization for PCB railroad transformers. The rule:
¦ Required railroad organizations to meet a 60,000 ppm concentration level in their
transformers by July 1, 1984.
¦ Required railroad organizations to meet a 1,000 ppm concentration level in their
transformers by July 1, 1986.
¦ Authorized the use of PCBs for the remaining useful life of the railroad
transformers at concentrations below 1,000 ppm.
¦ Permitted railroad organizations to service railroad transformers to reduce PCB
concentrations.
3.1.4 Rules Addressing PCB Byproducts and Impurities
The second and third rules that addressed the 1980 court decision to strike down the 50
ppm regulatory cutoff was actually a two-part rule that dealt with PCB byproducts and
impurities. The first part of the rule addressed the generation of PCB byproducts that takes
place entirely within closed manufacturing processes or controlled waste processes. Closed
manufacturing processes might produce PCBs, but release them only in concentrations below
limits that can be practically quantified (i.e., limits of quantitation, or LOQs) in air emissions,
water effluents, products, and process wastes. Controlled waste processes produce PCBs and
release them only to wastes that are properly disposed of or are separated as designated waste
for disposal by EPA-approved methods. The second rule addressed all remaining PCB
3-21
-------
byproducts and impurities produced by uncontrolled processes (i.e., processes that are not closed
or controlled).
3.1.4.1 Closed and Controlled Waste Manufacturing Processes Rule
The first part of the two-part rule, the Closed and Controlled Waste Manufacturing
Processes Rule, was issued October 21, 1982 (47 FR 46980). The rule exempted activities that
take place entirely within closed manufacturing processes or controlled waste processes. The
rule also set LOQs for PCB levels in air emissions, water effluents, products, and process wastes.
Under the rule, controlled disposal for PCBs in concentrations greater than or equal to 500 ppm
includes disposal in an EPA-approved incinerator. Controlled disposal of PCBs in
concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm is allowed in EPA-approved incineration as well as
disposal in high-efficiency boilers and EPA-approved PCB landfills. Disposal of PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm is not regulated by TSCA.
3.1.4.2 Uncontrolled Rule
Part two of the two-part rulemaking, the Uncontrolled Rule, was issued July 10, 1984 (49
FR 28172), and addressed all remaining PCB byproducts and impurities produced by
uncontrolled processes in concentrations below 50 ppm. The rule amended the October 1982
Closed and Controlled Rule by excluding additional processes from regulation based on EPA's
determination that these processes do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health
or the environment. Specifically, the rule allowed the manufacture, processing, distribution, and
use of inadvertently generated and recycled PCBs and PCB byproducts. Activities that
inadvertently generate PCBs include the manufacturing, processing, distribution, and use of
detergent bars (soaps) that contain PCB concentrations of less than 5 ppm, and all other
products that contain an annual average PCB concentration of 25 ppm with a maximum
concentration of 50 ppm. Further, inadvertently generated PCBs that are vented into the outside
air must not exceed concentrations of 10 ppm, and discharges to water must be limited to
concentrations of less than 0.1 ppm for any resolvable gas chromatographic peak.
3-22
-------
Recycled PCBs are PCBs that were intentionally generated and may enter certain limited
manufacturing processes as PCB-contaminated raw materials. In general, recycled PCBs are
PCBs present in low concentrations. The only recycled PCBs that the rule authorized were
Aroclors (i.e., a chlorinated diphenyl mixtures of PCBs) that entered paper or asphalt roofing
manufacturing processes. Recycled PCBs that are discharged to water are limited to less than 3
/xg/L of total Aroclor.
In the Uncontrolled Rule, the term excluded manufacturing process, referring to those
processes involving the inadvertent generation of PCBs, replaced the term closed manufacturing
process. The rule also authorized PCBs in hydraulic and heat transfer fluid and in the
compressors and liquid of natural gas pipeline systems.
When the July 1984 Uncontrolled Rule went into effect on October 1,1984, the court-
mandated stay on the 50 ppm cutoff was lifted. This meant that operations must file annual
petitions to gain exemption from the manufacturing, processing, distribution, or use ban for any
PCB activities not specifically allowed under the Closed and Controlled Waste Manufacturing
Processes Rule or the Uncontrolled Rule. It also meant that EPA must authorize the use of any
PCBs not excluded by the regulation. In effect, this action made illegal many activities involving
PCBs generated before the 1979 ban went into effect that EPA did not anticipate or evaluate
when developing the Uncontrolled Rule, regardless of whether the activity presented no greater
risk than activities allowed in that rule.
3.1.4,3 Amendments to the Uncontrolled Rule
Several companies submitted petitions seeking judicial review of the Uncontrolled Rule.
As a result of a settlement agreement, EPA published amendments to the rule that excluded
additional materials containing less than 50 ppm PCBs from regulation on June 27,1988 (53 FR
24206). In effect, the rule allowed the use, processing, and distribution of all PCBs in
concentrations less than 50 ppm under circumstances that would not present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment. The amendments:
3-23
-------
¦ Eliminated the requirement that maintenance workers wear Viton elastomer
gloves when servicing heat transfer and hydraulic systems.
¦ Allowed the use of and distribution of materials, equipment, and structures that
have been adequately decontaminated according to the applicable PCB Spill
Cleanup Polity in effect at the time of the cleanup (see Section 3.1.8).
¦ Maintained the 3 ppb water discharge limit from paper processing mills or
allowed an equivalent limitation for water discharges to be met, based on daily
wastewater flow and the weight of the product (i.e., a mass-based limitation).
¦ Prohibited the burning for fuel of oil containing 2 to 49 ppm PCBs in
nonindustrial boilers and furnaces.
¦ Excluded products containing less than 50 ppm PCBs from the ban on processing,
distribution, and use that were legally manufactured, processed, distributed, or
used prior to October 4,1984.
The only remaining prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of
PCBs in concentrations less than 50 ppm concern its use in dust control agents, sealants,
coatings, inert ingredient in pesticides or herbicides, road oiling agents, rust preventatives, and
fuel in nonindustrial boilers and furnaces. PCBs and PCB Items exhibiting contamination at
levels less than 50 ppm are regulated if the original PCB material was contaminated at levels of
50 ppm or above. That is, no provision may be avoided as a result of any dilution, unless
specifically authorized.
In a proposed rule, published April 6,1990 (55 FR 12866), EPA proposes to add the
phrase "on a dry weight basis" to §761.1(b) of the PCB regulation. Inadvertently omitted from
the July 10, 1984 (49 FR 28172), final rule, the phrase indicates the method by which PCB
concentrations are to be analyzed for determining the appropriate method for PCB disposal.
3.1.5 Exemption Petition Ratings
EPA continually has evaluated petitions requesting exemption from the PCB ban rules.
EPA issues exemptions if the Agency determines that the activity does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment and that the petitioner- has made
3-24
-------
a good faith effort to develop substitutes for the PCBs used in the activity to be exempted. For
example, in the July 10, 1984, Exemptions Rule (49 FR 28154), EPA denied 50 exemption
petitions and granted 59 petitions; 18 petitions were withdrawn. In an August 8, 1986 (51 FR
28556), rule, EPA granted 10 individual petitions and 1 class petition that included 6 individual
petitions, granted in part and denied in part 1 petition, and denied 3 individual petitions. In a
May 22,1990 (55 FR 21023), rule, EPA granted an additional 5 exemption petitions, denied 4
petitions, and withdrew 3 petitions. This rule contained an interpretation requiring entities to
obtain an exemption for buying and selling intact, nonleaking PCB and PCB-Contaminated
Equipment [40 CFR 761.20(c)(1)]. On September 13, 1990 (55 FR 37714), EPA issued a stay
of this interpretation, but withdrew the stay on November 7,1990 (55 FR 46790), by rescinding
its earlier interpretation. In a March 2, 1992, proposed rule, EPA denied 2 petitions, granted 3
petitions, authorized 1 use category, and withdrew 1 petition.
3.1.6 Notification and Manifesting Rule
Congressional oversight committees had expressed concern that the PCB waste disposal
regulations lacked an effective system for tracking PCB wastes from cradle to grave and lacked
sufficient oversight of the activities and qualifications of the PCB waste brokers and other
intermediate parties who could store PCB wastes owned by others. Amendments to the disposal
and storage regulations, called the Notification and Manifesting Rule, were issued December 21,
1989 (54 FR 52716), and added a PCB waste tracking system to the regulations. The system
requires all generators of PCB wastes at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater to manifest their
waste shipments.
The waste tracking system is based on the RCRA model for tracking hazardous wastes
and specifically requires PCB waste handlers (i.e., disposers, commercial storers, transporters,
and generators with PCB storage areas) to notify EPA of their PCB waste activities and to use
the RCRA Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest in connection with their shipments of regulated
PCB wastes.
3-25
-------
The Notification and Manifesting Rule also adds to the existing PCB storage facility
standards a requirement that commercial storers of PCB wastes over 500 liquid gallons obtain
written approval from the EPA RAs to operate, based on an evaluation of the applicant's
qualifications, submission of closure plans, and proof of financial responsibility for proper closure
of PCB storage areas. Another requirement of the rule calls for additional recordkeeping and
reporting that will complete the PCB waste tracking function and facilitate the Agency's
enforcement of the PCB disposal regulations.
3.1.7 Proposed Permit Revocation Rule
On November 2,1990 (55 FR 46470), EPA proposed the PCB Permit Revocation Rule
which established procedures for revoking or suspending permits for storing and disposing of
PCBs under 40 CFR 761.60. The criteria and procedures for suspensions and revocations
proposed in the rule apply to the commercial storers of PCB wastes who have obtained operating
approval, as well as those facilities that have been granted disposal approval currently required
by the regulations. Under this proposed rule, EPA may revoke an approval where there has
been a violation of TSCA its implementing regulation, or an approval issued pursuant to the
PCB regulations at 40 CFR 761.
3.1.8 PCB Spill Cleanup Policy
The PCB Cleanup Policy (40 CFR 761 Subpart G) was published on April 2, 1987 (52
FR 10688). The policy establishes requirements for the cleanup of intentional and unintentional
spills, leaks, and other uncontrolled discharges of materials containing PCBs at concentrations at
50 ppm or greater, as well as the contamination resulting from those releases. The policy
specifies numerical decontamination standards for vaiying levels of PCB spills, based on spill
location, the potential for exposure to residual PCBs remaining after the cleanup, the
concentration of the PCBs initially spilled, and the nature and size of the population potentially
at risk of exposure. The most stringent requirements are imposed on areas where the potential
is greatest for human exposure to spilled PCBs. The least stringent requirements are in effect
3-26
-------
where potential is small for any direct human exposure. EPA uses these standards to determine
the adequacy of cleanup measures.
While the PCB Cleanup Policy applies to the immediate cleanup of spills from electrical
equipment, spills directly into surface water, drinking water, sewers, grazing lands, and vegetable
gardens are excluded from the final numerical cleanup standards. These types of spills are
subject to notification requirements and measures designed to minimize further environmental
contamination and may require either additional cleanup or less stringent standards at the
discretion of the EPA regional office.
3.1.9 TSCA PCB Rules as They Relate to the Workplace
Although EPA rules do not directly regulate workers, they do restrict or prohibit certain
PCB activities and reduce the amount of PCBs in the workplace and the number of workers
exposed to PCBs. These prohibitions have terminated activities that could lead to major long-
term occupational exposures to high concentrations of PCBs. Worker exposure still can occur as
a result of PCB spills and authorized servicing of PCB Electrical Equipment, however.
3.1.10 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for New PCB Disposal Options
On June 10,1991 (56 FR 26738), EPA issued an ANPRM. The objective of the
proposed rule is to modify the current PCB disposal regulations (40 CFR 761.60) based on
information and experience acquired over the past 12 years in dealing with PCBs, The proposed
rule allows for maximum flexibility in controlling PCBs and associated risks, while providing the
opportunity for the Regions to make site-specific decisions about PCB disposal options to the
maximum extent possible.
In the ANPRM, EPA solicited comments on the effectiveness of various disposal
alternatives (e.g., biodegradation, solvent extraction from soils, and in situ vitrification) in
reducing the toxicity, volume, or mobility of PCBs; the range of environmental media applicable
3-27
-------
to each disposal alternative; and the potential for any environmental impact resulting from the
use of the disposal alternative (e.g., cross-media pollution, incidental environmental impact).
The Agency also requested comments on the uses of PCBs and PCB Items that EPA had not
authorized when it promulgated the existing regulations. These items include PCB-contaminated
insulation in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HAVC) systems and gaskets. Further,
EPA solicited comments on the disposal of currently regulated classes of PCBs and PCB Items
for which no adequate regulatory disposal alternatives exist. These classes include large-volume,
nonliquid PCB wastes, such as contaminated shredder wastes; large-volume PCB Items, such as
natural gas pipelines; and mixed wastes, such as PCB/radioactive wastes.
3.1.11 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the PCB Disposal Amendments (Unpublished)
Based on comments the Agency received in response to the ANPRM and Agency
research concerning PCB waste generation and disposal, EPA is proposing over 50 changes to
the PCB regulations. Although the focus of the proposed rule is on disposal, the rule will impact
all areas of the PCB program. Table 3-2 lists specific sections of the PCB regulations this rule
proposes to amend.
The rule proposes to allow the manufacture or import of PCBs in limited quantities for
use in scientific studies of health effects, innovative disposal technologies, and analytical
techniques, including treatability studies. The proposed rule also responds favorably to the
Supelco, Inc. petition of July 1980 to manufacture small quantities of PCBs as analytical
standards. Proposed changes related to PCB distribution rules would allow laboratories to
distribute samples for multilaboratory quality assurance work. The rule also proposes to codify
the EPA policy by which EPA laboratories and the National Institute for Standards and Testing
(NIST) process and distribute PCB standards and reference materials to support compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities.
The notice proposes to authorize the continued use of PCB-impregnated gaskets and
similar materials used in air handling systems based on the fact that these materials were put into
use before TSCA was issued and that removing these items would not significantly reduce risk,
3-28
-------
but would significantly increase expense. The notice also proposes to allow the use of PCBs in
the compressors, appurtenances, and liquids of natural gas pipelines at concentration levels of
less than 50 ppm. Another proposal is to authorize the use of encapsulated PCB-contaminated
nonporous solid surfaces, solid nonporous surfaces with no free-flowing liquids that have come in
contact with PCBs at concentrations less than 50 ppm, regardless of the original PCB
concentration of the fluid, and water containing PCBs decontaminated to or now meeting
decontamination standards. The proposal also will allow PCBs and PCB-contaminated media to
be used in limited quantities for research and development.
One significant proposed change to the PCB disposal regulations is to separate large-
volume wastes, such as remediation wastes (i.e., any contaminated environmental media, dredged
materials, municipal sewage treatment sludges and industrial sludges removed from disposal sites
or pollution control devices, and other debris) from traditional PCB wastes, (e.g., transformers,
dielectric fluids, capacitors). The Agency also is proposing that the cleanup and disposal of
remediation waste in any quantity, concentration, or physical state and the disposal of
nonremediation wastes (e.g., nonliquid bulk wastes derived from white goods, auto and precious
metal recovery shredding operations, and demolition wastes) be managed on the basis of risk as
opposed to its original PCB concentration. The notice does not change the prohibition against
dilution as a means of disposal, however.
EPA also is proposing the following in relation to PCB disposal:
¦ Greater flexibility in approving a mix of destructive and nondestructive disposal
options by proposing criteria for decision-making as opposed to promulgating one
cleanup level or waste management technique for all situations.
¦ A cleanup level for nonporous surfaces contaminated at PCB levels of 10 /xg per
100 cm2 due to the unchanging nature of these surfaces.
¦ Special notification provisions when disposing of PCB/radioactive wastes,
PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes, or RCRA wastes.
¦ Exemption for PCB wastes generated from normal household activities.
¦ Provisions for abandonment in place and removal with subsequent action of
natural gas pipelines containing PCBs at concentrations less than 500 ppm via
methods other than chemical landfilling or incineration.
3-29
-------
¦ Allowance of the use of an industrial furnace for disposal of drained PCB Articles
in concentrations between 50 and 499 ppm without a permit, including ship hulls,
pipelines, and transformers, but not PCB Capacitors or PCB Articles containing
500 ppm or greater PCBs.
¦ Banning the open burning of PCBs, but allowing their disposal in an industrial
furnace with a Clean Air Act or RCRA permit or at a facility that meets certain
operating parameters established in §761.60(a)(4) and has the approval of the RA.
¦ Codification of the general practice of disposing of PCB wastes generated as a
result of chemical analysis of PCBs as TSCA wastes.
¦ Recognition of PCB waste-disposal activities regulated under other EPA
programs, including RCRA corrective actions (see Section 3.2), CERCLA (see
Section 3.3), and state TSCA look-alike regulations.1
¦ Allowance of PCB disposal or commercial storage facilities to operate under state
hazardous waste permits and other federal permits issued under programs inside
and outside of EPA's jurisdiction, including RCRA, CERCLA, and the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) under which Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) low-level
waste disposal permits are issued (see Section 3.9). This rule would recognize
that these permits are equivalent in protection to a TSCA PCB disposal approval.
¦ Reduced TSCA permitting requirements for various types of research on health
and environmental effects, treatability of wastes, and development of disposal
technologies for PCBs.
¦ Codification of EPA's policy that anything decontaminated in accordance with a
TSCA disposal approval may be reused.
¦ Clarification of the requirements for the disposal of liquids (rinsates) used in
certain decontamination procedures and liquids from transformer rinsing, flushing,
or reclassification.
The rule also proposes to amend and clarify 12 provisions of the Notification and
Manifesting Rule, in response to problems identified during the implementation of the rule. One
major change offers businesses that deal with limited quantities of solid PCB waste (e.g., as those
that perform treatability studies and laboratories affiliated with PCB handling companies), an
According to a 1990 EPA telephone survey, 29 states have the authority to regulate some aspect
of PCB disposal, although most often it is not the full range of activities regulated under TSCA.
Twenty-four states have active programs, 9 states have requirements that overlap with TSCA
programs, and 14 states have regulations in place that extend beyond TSCA regulations (i.e., they
regulate lower concentrations of PCB wastes) (U.S. EPA, 1991f).
3-30
-------
exemption from the requirement to be approved as a commercial storage facility. Other
proposed changes relate to clarification of exception reporting, the timing for submitting
Certificates of Disposal, clarification of no manifest for pre-1978 spills less than 50 ppm,
notification by transporters, renotification when facility operation changes, modifications to
storage facilities, clarification of which disposers must submit an annual report, clarification of
the term "facility," and insertion of an additional financial assurance mechanism. The notice also
proposes to require treatability studies to comply with notification and recordkeeping regulations
and allow wastes to be returned to the site of origin within the United States after each study.
The notice proposes to revise PCB storage regulations as follows:
¦ Allow case-by-case extensions to the provision 1-year time limit for storage for
disposal.
¦ Waive the 1-year storage requirement for certain generators and commercial
storage facilities that enter into a multiyear agreement with the RA and a disposal
facility for disposal of wastes.
¦ Specify a 3-year time limit for storing PCB Articles for reuse with provisions for
extension.
¦ Include liquid PCBs at any concentration in the 30-day temporary storage grace
period.
¦ Defer all decisions related to the use of containers for the storage and transport
of PCBs to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
¦ Establish requirements for transferring ownership of commercial storage facilities
to ensure continuity of the closure financial assurance mechanism, qualifications
and compliance histories of transferees, and correction of deficiencies identified
in the approval application. '
¦ Incorporate by reference a RCRA rule expanding the definition of corporate
guarantor for financial assurance mechanisms.
¦ Allow storage in any RCRA-permitted or TSCA look-alike container storage area.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (unpublished) proposes to change the reporting
requirements for PCB spills by lowering the quantity that must be reported to the NRC
3-31
-------
{reportable quantity, RQ) to one pound or more of pure PCBs. This change would make TSCA
regulations consistent with CERCLA regulations (refer to Section 3.3).
Other issues encompassed by the proposed regulation are as follows:
¦ A specific definition for treatment, indicating that treatment is a form of disposal
under TSCA.
¦ A definition of PCB Transformer to clarify the circumstances under which a
transformer must be assumed to be 500 ppm PCBs or greater.
¦ A clarification of the definition of state because §3 of TSCA has two definitions
that encompass different areas.
¦ A recordkeeping requirement for the sale of totally enclosed PCBs (i.e.,
transformers and capacitors) to add a simple notation in the annual record when
a sale or transfer occurs.
¦ Two decontamination procedures for nonporous surfaces to address contaminated
surfaces that can not be sampled for analysis.
¦ A 1-year class exemption to all research and development (R&D) facilities that
manufacture PCBs and all processors and distributors of PCBs in limited
quantities for R&D.
3.2 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT
Under RCRA, any solid waste (as defined in 40 CFR 261.2) including those containing
PCBs, is a hazardous waste if it exhibits a characteristic identified in Subpart C of §261 or is
listed in Subpart D of §261 (see 40 CFR 261.3). This can subject a PCB waste generator,
transporter, or disposer to the requirements of RCRA regardless of their status under TSCA
The RCRA regulations, however, contain a series of exclusions and exemptions from the
definition and the application of its regulations (see CFR Parts 260-270). In addition, PCBs are
subject to regulation under RCRA outside the definition at §261 Appendix VIII (see 40 CFR
264 Subpart F and Subpart O).
3-32
-------
The RCRA Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR), published on May 20, 1992
(57 FR 21515, 40 CFR 261.24), proposed two approaches to characterizing hazardous wastes.
One way is through concentration-based exemption criteria (CBEC), which are single risk-based
numbers determined by estimating residual risk, the performance of treatment technology, or
some combination of both (57 FR 21515, 40 CFR 261.4). The regulation proposes specific
CBECs, exemption levels, and criteria for quantifying exemptions for PCB leachates. The second
approach proposed in the regulations for characterizing hazardous wastes is to establish
"characteristics" levels for hazardous wastes (the expanded characteristics option, or ECHO).
One ECHO is the proposed maximum concentration of contaminants for toxicity characteristics.
For PCBs, this level is 0.05 mg/L.
RCRA defaults to TSCA rules for disposing of authorized PCB-containing dielectric
fluids and associated Contaminated Electrical Equipment (55 FR 11798). Other PCB-containing
wastes that are hazardous (i.e., those listed in RCRA 40 CFR 261 Subpart D or that exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic) are subject to all applicable RCRA Subtitle C standards.
Hazardous wastes that are liquids containing PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 ppm or
solids containing PCBs listed in Appendix III of 40 CFR 268 at concentrations greater than 1,000
mg/kg are prohibited from land disposal under 40 CFR 268. PCB wastes and PCBs mixed with
other wastes also must comply with RCRA cleanup standards and the requirements listed in the
regulation proposed to address corrective action at RCRA facilities (55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990).
When the TSCA rule for Notification and Manifesting was proposed (54 FR 52716,
December 21,1989), the Agency discussed the potential for transferring some aspects of PCB
regulation to RCRA. When the rule was finalized December 21,1989 (54 FR 52716), it
incorporated a tracking system parallel to RCRA's, but did not transfer authority to RCRA.
3-33
-------
3.3 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT AND SUPERFUND
AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
CERCLA has a stringent PCB spill reporting requirement. Section 103(a) of CERCLA
(48 FR 23552-23605) requires that as soon as any person in charge of any vessel or any facility
becomes aware of the release of an RQ of any hazardous substance to the environment (over a
24-hour period), he or she must immediately notify the NRC. The RQ for PCBs, originally set
at 10 lb (4.54 kg) for releases into all environmental media (land, air, water), is now set at 1 lb
(0.454 kg) (54 FR 33426, August 14, 1989). Failure to notify the NRC of a RQ of PCBs is a
criminal violation with a penalty of a $10,000 fine and/or up to 1 year in prison.
The NCP, under SARA, provides the organizational structure and procedures for
preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants, and contaminants. Under the NCP, actions to remove wastes (termed removal
actions) must attain to the extent practical all state and federal applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). For regulating the release of PCBs, the NCP ARARs policy
defers to TSCA regulations (see Section 3.1.8). The Agency also has issued guidance, not
regulation, on remedial actions at Superfund sites with PCB contamination (U.S. EPA, 1990e, f).
3.4 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PCB is listed as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) under the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, but the Agency has not developed an emission standard for PCBs at this time
[CAA Amendments, November 15, 1990, Title 3, Section 112(b)].
3.5 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
EPA Drinking Water Standards are contained in 40 CFR 141.61 of SDWA. The
proposed maximum containment level (MCL) for allowable levels of PCBs in community
drinking water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems is 0.0005 mg/L. The
3-34
-------
proposed maximum containment level goal (MCLG) is 0 mg/L, which is a nonenforceable health
target indicating the maximum level of a contaminant at which no known or anticipated adverse
effects to the health of a person would occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.
3.6 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The Clean Water Act in 1972 established effluent standards, and in 1973 proposed a list
of nine pollutants for regulation, one of which was PCBs. A suit and settlement agreement with
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and others led to the 1977 CWA Amendments
and regulations. One of the amendments was a ban on the production-based discharge of PCBs
[Section 307(A)(1)]. Several other CWA regulations and programs grant EPA the authority to
control environmental releases of certain low concentration PCBs, as follows:
¦ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (Section 402).
¦ Dredging permits (Section 404).
¦ Toxic pollutant effluent standards and prohibitions [Section 307(a), 40 CFR
129.4].
The Act also contains reporting requirements, for which RQs of PCBs and PCB mixtures
are subject to the same reporting conditions as those listed for CERCLA discussed above. As
under CERCLA, the RQ for PCBs under the CWA is 1 lb or 0.454 kg (40 CFR 117.21,117.3,
302.4).
The following specific criteria are included in CWA PCB regulations:
¦ EPA Water Quality Criteria for human consumption of fish containing PCBs is
0.045 ng/L (U.S. EPA, 1989a).
¦ EPA Drinking Water Health Advisory levels for Aroclor 1016 (a PCB mixture) is
1 g/L (for long-term exposure to a 10 kg child) and 4 g/L (for long-term exposure
to a 70 kg adult) (U.S. EPA, 1987c).
3-35
-------
¦ EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for acute exposure of aquatic organisms to
PCBs is 2.0 /xg/L (freshwater) and 10.0 /xg/L (saltwater). The chronic exposure
levels are 0.014 /xg/L (freshwater) and 0.03 /xg/L (saltwater) (U.S. EPA, 1976).
A proposed rulemaking on November 19,1991 (56 FR 58420), the National Toxics
Regulation, proposed to promulgate chemical-specific numeric criteria for priority toxic'
pollutants, including PCBs, necessary to bring all states into compliance with CWA regulations.
3.7 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND
SANCTUARIES ACT
MPRSA established procedures and criteria for issuing permits to dump wastes in the
oceans. Under the Act, anyone applying for a permit to dump PCBs into the ocean in
concentrations less than 50 ppm must demonstrate that the waste does not show significant
mortality or adverse sublethal effects, including bioaccumulation, based on the results of specific
bioassay testing. If the waste passes the tests, the PCBs can be disposed of in approved disposal
sites. For PCBs with concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, the MPRSA defaults to TSCA for
regulation. PCB wastes typically fail these bioassay tests because they are high bioaccumulators
even in small concentrations.
3.8 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
ACT
The Department of Transportation also has released reporting requirements for PCBs
under HMTA (49 CFR 171.15 and 171.17). In regulations issued December 21,1990 (55 FR
52402), PCBs are classified as materials that present a hazard during transport and are subject to
special packaging and quantity limitations for passenger aircraft, railcars, and vessels. The
regulations default to TSCA, 40 CFR 761.60 and 761.65, for packaging of certain PCBs for
storage and disposal. By October 1,1996, however, only containers that meet the performance
standards established by the December 1990 regulations may be used when transporting PCBs.
3-36
-------
3.9 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
Under AEA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates the use and disposal of low-
level radioactive wastes and byproducts. These radioactive byproducts might contain (among
other items) PCBs made radioactive by exposure to a radiation incident or PCBs manufactured
with radioactive isotopes of carbon, hydrogen, or chlorine. As part of its mission, the NRC has
the authority to issue licenses to applicants seeking to use byproduct materials for research and
development purposes related to medical therapy and industrial and agricultural uses. The
Department of Energy (DOE) also controls these same radioactive PCBs at DOE facilities.
3.10 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
The FDA, authorized by the FFDCA, has in place Tolerance Levels for PCB residues in
several types of foods, which limit the allowable levels of PCBs in these foods. The levels are 1.5
ppm in milk, 3 ppm in poultry, 0.3 ppm in eggs, 0.2 ppm in finished animal feed for food
processing animals, 2 ppm in animal feed components of animal origin, 2 ppm in fish and
shellfish, 0.2 ppm in infant and junior foods, and 10 ppm in paper food packaging material (21
CFR 109.30).
3.11 PCB REGULATION UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
AND NIOSH RECOMMENDATIONS
OSHA governs PCBs in the workplace under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
OSHA regulations have in place two 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations for
chlorodiphenyl (i.e., mixtures of PCBs, or Aroclors) that worker exposure cannot exceed in any
8-hour workshift of a 40-hour week. For chlorodiphenyl containing 42 percent chlorine, the
TWA is 1.0 mg/m3 of workplace air. For chlorodiphenyl containing 54 percent chlorine, the
TWA is 0 J mg/m3 of workplace air. Further, OSHA requires employers to ensure a safe
workplace (that is, a place of employment free from recognized hazards that cause or are likely
3-37
-------
to cause death or serious harm to its employees [section 5(a)(1)]). If the specific standards for
PCBs are not applicable, the general requirement for a safe workplace would apply.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends a more
stringent air standard for worker exposure of 1.0 At-g/m3.
3.12 PCB REGULATION UNDER FOOD INSPECTION ACTS
An October 17, 1980 (45 FR 68914), rule under 7 CFR 285 and 9 CFR 308 and 381
prohibited equipment and machinery containing over 50 ppm liquid PCBs on the premises of
plants regulated by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, or the
Egg Products Inspection Act.
3.13 REFERENCES
When an NHS number is cited in a reference, that document is available from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
' 703-487-4650
Arbuckle, J.G. et al. 1987. Environmental law handbook, 9th ed. Rockville, MD: Government
Institutes, Inc.
U.S. Congress. 1954. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, pt 1. Pub. L. No. 83-703.
U.S. DOT. 1990. U.S. Department of Transportation. Performance-oriented packaging
standards; changes to classification, hazard communication, packaging and handling
requirements based on un standards and agency initiative. Final rule. Federal Register
55:52402-52729. December 21.
U.S. EPA. To be issued. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs): Notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Register.
3-38
-------
U.S. EPA. Undated. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final drinking water criteria
documents for polychlorinated biphenyls. ECACO-CIN-414. Washington, DC: Office of
Water.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste management
system; identification and listing of hazardous waste: Proposed rule. Federal Register
57:21450-21522. May 20.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemptions and use
authorization. Federal Register 57:7349. March 2.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Bioaccumulation of selected
pollutants in fish: A national study, volume n. Draft (December). EPA 506/6-90/1001b.
Washington, DC: Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Amendments to the water quality
standards regulation: Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). Proposed rule.
Federal Register 56:58420-58478. November 19.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste management
system; identification and listing of hazardous waste. Removal of final rule. Federal
Register 56:58312. November 19.
U.S. EPA. 1991d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Navigable waters. Code of Federal
Regulations 220.1-228:178-225. July 1.
U.S. EPA. 1991e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs): Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and availability of draft
guidance. Federal Register 56:26738-26745. June 10.
U.S. EPA. 1991f. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of state PCB management
programs. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, Environmental Assistance
Division. February 19.
U.S. EPA. 1990a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls in
electrical transformers. Federal Register 55:49043-49045. November 26.
U.S. EPA. 1990b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce, partial rescission of exemption
rule. Federal Register 55:46790. November 7.
U.S. EPA. 1990c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls: Criteria
and procedures for terminating storage and disposal approvals. Proposed rule. Federal
Register 55:46470-46485. November 2.
3-39
-------
U.S. EPA. 1990d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce, stay of interpretation. Federal
Register 55:37714. September i3.
U.S. EPA. 1990e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on remedial actions at
Superfund sites with PCB contamination: Full report. NTIS PB91-921206. August 20.
U.S. EPA. 1990f. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on remedial actions at
Superfund sites with PCB contamination: Summary report. NTIS PB90-274432. August
20.
U.S. EPA. 1990g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemptions. Federal Register
55:21023-21031. May 22.
U.S. EPA. 1990h. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste management
system; identification and listing of hazardous waste; toxicity characteristics revisions.
Final rule. Federal Register 55:11798-11877. March 29.
U.S. EPA. 1990i. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls: Wet
weight/dry weight clarification. Federal Register 55:12866-12868. April 6.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System
(IRIS). Online. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls;
notification and manifesting for PCB waste activities. Final Rule. Federal Register
54:52716-52755. December 21.
U.S. EPA. 1988a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls in
electrical transformers. Final Rule. Federal Register 53:27322-27334. July 19.
U.S. EPA. 1988b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use prohibitions. Code of
Federal Regulations. 40.761:190-243. July 1.
U.S. EPA. 1988c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Exclusions, exemptions and use authorizations. Final rule. Federal Register 53:24206-
24221. June 27.
U.S. EPA. 1987a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls in
electrical transformers. Proposed rule. Federal Register 52:31738-31747. August 21.
U.S. EPA. 1987b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls spill
cleanup policy. Federal Register 52:10688-10710. April 2.
3-40
-------
U.S. EPA. 1987c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls: A
bibliography of regulatory action and EPA-related research. Washington, DC:
Information Management Division, Office of Toxic Substances. January.
U.S. EPA. 1986a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Clarification on use of electrical transformers. Federal Register 51:47241. December 31.
U.S. EPA. 1986b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous waste management
system. Final codification rule: Technical corrections. Federal Register 51:28556. August
8.
U.S. EPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Final rules and notice of request for additional comments on certain individual and class
petitions for exemption. Federal Register 49:28154-28209. July 10.
U.S. EPA. 1983a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The PCB regulations under TSCA:
Over 100 questions and answers to help you meet these requirements. Washington, DC:
TSCA Assistance Office and Exposure Evaluation Division, Office of Toxic Substances.
November.
U.S. EPA. 1983b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemptions. Federal Register
48:50486. November 1.
U.S. EPA. 1983c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use prohibitions: Amendment
to use authorization for PCB railroad transformers. Federal Register 48:124-136. January
3.
U.S. EPA. 1982a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
. manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use prohibitions: Use in dosed
and controlled waste manufacturing processes. Federal Register 47:46980-46996. October
21.
U.S. EPA. 1982b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use prohibitions: Use in
electrical equipment. Federal Register 47:37342-37358. August 25.
U.S. EPA. 1982c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls:
Manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemption and use
authorization. Proposed rule. Federal Register 47:7349-7355.
U.S. EPA. 1979. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls: Criteria
modification. Hearings. Federal Register 44:31514-31588. May 31.
U.S. EPA. 1978. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs):
Disposal and marking. Federal Register 43:7150-7164. February 17.
3-41
-------
U.S. EPA 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality criteria for water.
Washington, DC: Office of Water and Hazardous Materials.
3-42
-------
SECTION FOUR
COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PCB REGULATION
The proposed amendments to the PCB regulations will generate a variety of regulatoiy
and deregulatoiy impacts on the diverse entities and industries affected by PCB handling and
disposal requirements. This section examines the compliance costs and cost savings the regulated
community will experience as a result of the proposed amendments.
4.1 COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
This section describes compliance costs and cost savings estimated for each paragraph of
the proposed revisions to the PCB regulations. The cost estimates use various economic data
inputs. In several cases, wage rate estimates were used for estimating the labor costs or cost
savings from regulatoiy changes. The EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
provided the wage rates, which were derived from an EPA study and represent standard wage
rate estimates used in OPPT studies (U.S. EPA, 1993b). The hourly wage rates used are:
Managerial
Scientific
$60.42
$5239
Technical/Foreman $43.80
Legal
Clerical
$80.69
$21.73
Several additional factors were considered in the cost analysis, including:
Treatment of compliance costs for paragraphs that codify an existing EPA policy
(i.e., elements that are presently in effect but are not part of the existing
regulation).
Compliance with the existing and the proposed standard.
4-1
-------
¦ Treatment of the effect of the proposed amendments on disposal capacity and
disposal prices.
¦ Consideration of the time horizon for compliance costs, given the declining
quantities of PCBs in use.
¦ Cost annualization methods.
Each topic is discussed below.
Treatment of Costs for Paragraphs That Codify EPA Policy. In several instances, an
EPA policy has been developed in response to new information received by EPA or concerns
about compliance problems, and the proposed rule will codify these policies. Because the
existing regulation differs from EPA's policies, two sets of cost estimates were prepared based on
two different baselines. The strict language of the existing regulation served as the first baseline,
which was used to generate cost estimates for all sections of the proposed regulation. Actual
EPA policy or practice was used as the baseline for 29 sections of the amendments. In cases
where the current EPA policy and the existing regulation do not differ, a single cost estimate was
prepared and applied in either case.
Compliance with the Existing and the Proposed Standard. All cost estimates were
prepared assuming full compliance with the existing and the proposed standard, although in
reality, many companies are not in full compliance with the existing standard. This study is
designed only to estimate the costs of the proposed regulation; the actions necessary to achieve
compliance with the existing standard are not considered.
Treatment of the Effect of the Proposed Amendments on Disposal Capacity and Disposal
Prices. The analysis does not reflect possible effects of the proposed amendments on either the
market for disposal services or disposal costs for PCB wastes. The proposed amendments
include several elements that could reduce demand for disposal of PCB wastes in chemical
landfills, such as allowing for longer storage of some wastes and for use of alternative disposal
technologies. It is reasonable to anticipate that the availability of alternatives to TSCA-permitted
landfills and incinerators will lower costs for disposal at those facilities. Nevertheless, these
market changes were not modeled in this study.
4-2
-------
Consideration of Future Declines in the Volume of PCB Waste Requiring Disposal. In
future years the amount of PCB waste will decline. Discussions with various industry
representatives, however, indicated that this waste stream still would be substantial for a number
of years. Disposal of PCB-contaminated soils from remediation sites, one of the major
categories of wastes addressed in the proposed regulations, is likely to continue for several
decades.1 Given that the time horizon for waste disposal remains so long, a declining time
horizon for compliance costs or cost savings was not taken into account for this study.
Cost Annualization. In several cases, the compliance costs or cost savings will be
incurred solely in the first year after regulatoiy implementation. Examples of such regulations
include one-time requirements for the registration of transformers. Since most new elements
create recurring annual costs or cost savings, it was convenient also to present the one-time
elements in annualized form. Also, since the benefits of performing any substantial undertaking
to comply with one-time regulatory requirements means that compliance is maintained for many
years, it is reasonable to annualize those costs over several years. The one-time items were
annualized over 5 years at 3 percent per year (annualization factor of 0.2184). The 5-year time
horizon was chosen as most appropriate for the administrative and recordkeeping tasks most
numerous among the first-year requirements. A longer annualization schedule would have
suggested long-term investments, such as the purchase of durable assets or equipment; a shorter
term annualization schedule would suggest regulatory requirements that need to be renewed.
The resulting compliance costs are a combination of annual and annualized costs.
Alternatively, compliance costs can be divided between annual and first-year-only costs. The size
of the first-year-only costs are described in Section 4.5. All cost savings are estimated in annual
terras, i.e., they represent annual streams of cost savings (or benefits) generated by the regulatory
amendments.
'The estimated time horizon for disposal of PCB wastes from remediation sites is based partly
on estimates of the time needed for remediating hazardous waste sites in the Superfund program.
EPA estimated that at the current rate of cleanup, remediation of the sites on the National Priority
List will take 48 more years (U.S. EPA, 1993).
-------
4.2 AGGREGATE COST ESTIMATES
Table 4-1 presents the aggregate net cost savings for the PCB regulation under the two
baselines. The net cost impact of the proposed amendments, using current EPA policy as the
baseline, is a cost savings of $4.2 billion per year. This figure was based on cost savings of $4.2
billion minus the incremental regulatory costs of $11.6 million. When the existing regulation is
used as the baseline, the net cost savings are estimated at $4.8 billion. This figure is based on
cost savings of $4.8 billion and, again, regulatoiy costs of $11.6 million. As noted in the previous
section, these cost savings will likely extend indefinitely into the future. The difference between
the two baselines occurs because current EPA policy takes into account a number of compliance
difficulties that arose as new sources of PCB contamination were discovered. A strict
interpretation of the existing PCB regulations in several areas generates large compliance costs.
The specific areas of additional costs and cost savings are discussed below.
4.2.1 Areas of Additional Cost
The total incremental costs for new compliance requirements in the proposed regulation
were estimated to be $11.6 million. This estimate does not include certain cost items that are
included in paragraphs that show a net cost savings. The effect of these additional items on the
total compliance costs, however, is quite modest. The compliance cost estimate is the same for
either baseline since the existing regulatory environment does not influence the cost of new
requirements. Table 4-2 lists the sections of the proposed regulation that will lead to additional
costs.
The most costly new compliance requirement is generated by new recordkeeping or
reporting requirements for facilities with PCB equipment or wastes. The two most costly of
these requirements are under §761.180(a)( 1 )(iii) and (iv), which require recordkeeping and the
preparation of an inventory of PCB equipment. These two sections will generate estimated
annual compliance costs of $3,771,180.
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-1
AGGREGATE COMPLIANCE AND
COST SAVINGS ($000 PER YEAR)
Baseline Assamption
EPA Existing
Policy Regulation
Compliance Costs [a] $11,613 $11,613
Cost Savings $4,169,321 $4,769,413
Net Cost Savings $4,157,708 $4,757,800
[a] Compliance costs are the same regardless of the baseline used. All regulatory
amendments generating compliance costs are entirely new, and thus no firms are
in compliance. *
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-2
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE COSTS
OF PROPOSED PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
761.180(a)(1)
(iii—iv)
761.60(b)
(6)(ii)
761.40(k)
76130(a)
(l)(vii)
761.67(a)
761.180(b)
(l)(iii—iv)
761.40(d)
761.60(b)(4)
Recordkeeping and inventory for PCB Items $3,771
Requires records of inspection, cleanup, and an inventory
of PCBs and PCB Items for all commercial disposers or storers
of PCB wastes.
Disposal of drained PCB Articles $3,500
Specifies acceptable disposal methods for drained PCB Articles.
Previous language did not regulate disposal of drained PCB
Articles. These costs are generated by incremental PCB
Transformer disposal costs.
Marking requirements for PCB Large Low—Voltage $1300
Capacitors, Transformers
Requires all PCB Large Low-Voltage Capacitors and all PCB
equipment not marked under paragraph (a) of this section but
containing a PCB Transformer or Capacitor to be marked.
Transformer registration $1,080
Requires all PCB Transformers (in use or in storage for reuse)
to be registered with the Office of Enforcement and Assurance.
Registration requirements expected to affect 3,226 utilities and
94,000 nonutility PCB Transformers.
Storage for reuse of PCB Articles for < 3 years $920
Allows for the storage of PCB Articles for reuse for no more than
3 years. Establishes requirements for storage and prevents
indefinite storage of equipment.
Recordkeeping and inventory for PCB Items $372
Requires records of inspection and cleanup and an inventory
of PCBs and PCB Items for generating facilities (other than
commercial disposers or storers of PCB wastes).
Marking during transport $236
Transport vehicles with PCB Containers over 45 kg, with
concentrations <50 ppm, or with one or more PCB Transformer
shall be marked. Changes extend marking requirements to
carriers of nonliquid PCBs.
PCB—contaminated Electrical Equipment $131
Specifies the time to be taken in draining equipment, except
capacitors; inserts language to indicate appropriate
options for the disposal of drained equipment.
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-2 (cont.)
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
76130(h)
761.79(a)(3)
Use in and servicing of electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators
Voltage regulators with PCB concentrations of 500 ppm or
over are subject to all applicable provisions of Part 761
which are applicable to PCB Transformers.
Written record of decontamination actions
Requires written record for decontamination actions.
$81
761.180(b)(3) Annual reports
Requires owners and operators of PCB disposal facilities to
submit annual reports (regardless of whether they also are
generators).
$79
$64
761205(0
761.67(b)
761.65(j)
761£0(p)
761.65(g)(9)
761.180(a)
(2)(ix)
Notification of PCB Waste Activity
Adds a reporting requirement for firms that change their PCB
activity (e.g., cease handling operations, relocate, or change in
nature of business).
Storage for reuse over 3 years
With written approval from the RA, PCB Articles can be stored
longer than the 3 year limit if stored in compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
Requirements for transfer of interim storage
Establishes procedures for transfers in ownership of storage
facilities. Existing regulation has no such provision.
Automatic renewal for 1 —year class exemption for processors of
limited quantities of media
The 1—year class exemption to all processors shall be renewed
pursuant to Section 75031(e)(1). The Director, Chemical Management
Division, may grant approval, without further rulemaking, to
any processor.
Financial assurance for closure
Requires new financial assurances whenever modifications are
made to a PCB storage facility. Existing regulation includes no
language to address facility modifications.
Records and monitoring in the annual log
Adds minor recordkeeping and marking requirement for owners
of PCB Items, Containers, and Equipment
$48
$21
$8
$1.03
$0.71
$0.22
Total
$11,613
4-7
-------
Another cost increment will be generated by §761.60(b)(6)(ii), the disposal of drained
PCB Articles. While the existing policy did not regulate the disposal of these articles, the
proposed regulation specifies acceptable disposal means. The total additional costs are estimated
to be $3.5 million, generated primarily by greater costs for disposing of PCB-contaminated
Transformers. Most transformers now are disposed of via industrial furnace, but these facilities
will not meet the furnace standards specified in the proposed section, §761.60(a)(4), and the
furnaces no longer will be able to accept this equipment. It is likely that most of these PCB
Articles will be incinerated or chemical landfilled.
Costs of $13 million and $1.1 million per year were estimated for §761.40(k) and
§761.30(a)(l)(vii), which cover the marking of PCB Large Low-Voltage Capacitors and
Transformers and the registration with EPA of PCB Transformers in use, respectively. Many
facilities are estimated to require from 4 hours to locate and mark these items. The transformer
registration requirement will generate some costs as well.
Other sections estimated to generate incremental cost include:
¦ §761.67(a)—Limits the storage for reuse of PCB Articles to less than 3 years and
prevents the indefinite storage of equipment. Incremental costs are estimated to
be $0.9 million per year.
¦ §761.40(d)—Extends marking requirements to cover transport vehicles carrying
nonliquid PCBs. Incremental annual costs are estimated to be $236,000.
¦ §761.60(b)(4)—Specifies the amount of time PCB-contaminated Electrical
Equipment must be drained and adds language to indicate appropriate options for
the disposal of drained equipment. The added costs are estimated to be $131,400
per year.
4.2.2 Areas of Cost Savings
A total cost savings of $4.2 billion to $4.8 billion per year was estimated, using either
EPA policy or the existing standard, respectively, as the baseline. The areas of estimated cost
savings are summarized in Table 4-3.
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST SAVINGS OF
PROPOSED PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
EPA Policy
as Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.77
761.65(c)
(l)(iv)
761.61 Disposal of remediation waste $4,001,179
Allows alternative disposal options for some remediation wastes.
Private cleanup operations can proceed without obtaining EPA
approval. Establishes self—implementing, performance-based,
and risk—based disposal options.
761 j62 Disposal of nonremediation PCB wastes $150,000
Establishes additional disposal options for nonremediation PCB
wastes, including incineration, chemical landfill, municipal
landfill (if PCB level is < 50 micrograms/kg), or any other disposal
method approved by EPA upon application. Under existing
disposed of by incineration or chemical landfill.
Coordinated Approval $10,553
Acknowledges permits for PCB facilities issued under other
state and federal environmental programs.
Temporary storage of liquid PCB wastes in $3,000
no ncom plying areas
Allows for temporary storage of PCB containers with liquid PCBs
at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, provided that a Spill
Prevention Plan has been prepared. Existing measures allow for
temporary storage only when concentrations are between 50
and 500 ppm.
761j65(a) Extended storage period allowed for PCB waste $1,057
Requires disposal 1 year after the date that the PCB waste was
removed from service. This measure eases the timetable for
waste owners, since EPA can grant extensions in cases where
the owner has shown due diligence in trying to dispose of waste.
761.63 Household waste exemption $840
Allows for the disposal of PCB—containing household wastes
in a municipal or industrial landfill or furnace. Although only a
small portion of household wastes contain PCBs, they were not
previously addressed.
761.79(a)(4) No Disposal Approvals required for separating PCBs S732
from surfaces or liquids
Filtering, soaking, wiping, stripping, chopping, scraping
or the use of abrasives to remove or separate PCBs from contaminated
surfaces or liquids does not require a Disposal Approval under Subpart D.
761.65(b)(2) PCB storage in RCRA facilities allowed $696
Provides for additional storage option that is not addressed
in existing regulations.
$4,001,179
$150,000
$10,553
$3,000
$1,057
$840
$732
$696
4-9
-------
TABLE 4—3 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST SAVINGS OF
PROPOSED PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
EPA Policy
as Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.65(c)(6) Container requirement for PCBs
Allows for use of a wider range of DOT—approved containers for
the storage of liquid and nonliquid PCBs. Refers container
language to DOT regulations, thus avoiding the need for revisions
after each DOT change.
761.60(b)(5) Natural gas pipeline regulations
New paragraph addresses the characterization, washing,
abandonment, and disposal of drained natural pipelines with
PCBs in concentrations >50 ppm. Allows for more lenient
disposal and abandonment options than under either the existing
policy or the current regulation.
Import for disposal
Allows for import of PCBs from U.S. territories for disposal.
Containers for PCB fissionable, radioactive wastes
Acknowledges the special characteristics of radioactive waste
by allowing unique container designs for such wastes.
Use and distribution in commerce of decontaminated assets
Allows distribution in commerce of equipment if it is
decontaminated per TSCA protocols. Avoids unnecessary
disposal of contaminated items.
Continued use of pre—TSCA PCBs
Stipulates that nonliquid materials that contain PCBs (such as
HVAC gaskets, plastic, plasticizers, electrical cable, and others)
are authorized for use for the remainder of their useful life
provided that certain monitoring, notification, and marking
requirements are met. Savings estimated based on avoided
costs for contaminated DOE buildings.
761.60(b) Disposal of PCB—contaminated nonporous surfaces
(6)(iii) Identifies disposal options for nonporous surfaces (including
metal ship and submarine hulls, and air handling systems) whose
surface is contaminated by PCBs (< 100 micrograms/100 sq cm).
Under existing policy, materials were to be handled as any
PCB wastes (i.e., required incineration or chemical landfill).
761j60(j) Self—implementing approvals for R&D for PCB disposal
Eliminates the requirement for facilities disposing of R&D disposal
activity wastes within specified material and time limitations
to obtain R&D disposal approvals.
$570
$570
$387
$62,775
76120(b)(3)
761j65(c)
(6)0)
76120(c)(5)
76130(q)
$170
$109
$28
S170
$109
$113
5500,000
$37,500
$60
4-10
-------
TABLE 4-3 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COST SAVINGS OF
PROPOSED PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
EPA Policy
as Baseline -
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.65(b)
(l)(ii)
Special storage requirements for radioactive wastes
Allows for storage of PCB fissionable radioactive wastes in
containments with less than the 6-inch—high curbing required
under existing regulations.
—
$55
76130(j)
Limited quantities for R&D
Allows for the continued use of limited quantities of PCBs (in
5 mL hermetically sealed containers or as contaminated media)
in nondisposal research applications, provided that various
conditions are met.
$4
Total
$4,169,321
$4,769,413
4-11
-------
The section producing the largest cost savings, estimated at $4.0 billion per year, is
§761.61, which covers the disposal of remediation wastes. This section allows an expanded set of
disposal options and simplified administrative procedures, where the existing regulation allowed
only chemical landfilling and incineration. The disposal of nonremediation waste, covered in
§761.62, is estimated to generate another large annual cost savings ($150 million) compared to
either the existing regulation or EPA policy. This savings is based on the proposed rule
establishing disposal options other than chemical landfilling or incineration for nonremediation
wastes containing PCBs in concentrations <50 ^ig/L (or 50 ppm).
Further cost savings of the PCB amendments was estimated at $500 million per year for
§761.30(q), the Continued Use of Pre-TSCA PCBs. The new section stipulates that PCB Items
(such as HVAC gaskets, plastic, plasticizers, electric cable, and others) are authorized for use for
the remainder of their useful life, whereas the existing regulation banned the use of these items.
The savings for this section are based on the estimates of the number of buildings with PCB
contamination for which continued use is allowed under the regulatory amendments. The
number of these locations is not known, however, and thus the cost savings can only be roughly
approximated.
Another section that would result in cost savings is §761.60(b)(5), which covers the
abandonment and disposal of PCB-contaminated natural gas pipelines. An annual cost savings of
close to $63 million is generated because the proposed regulation will allow considerably greater
latitude in dealing with this waste stream than did the existing regulation. Under the existing
regulation, all PCB-contaminated natural gas pipelines that are inaccessible for characterization
or that contain PCBs in concentrations >500 ppm require excavation and either incineration or
chemical waste landfilling. Based on existing EPA policies, which are similar to the proposed
regulation, the annual cost savings is much smaller—$387,310.
Another area of cost savings is estimated for §761.60(b)(6)(iii), which identifies disposal
options for nonporous surfaces, including metal ship and submarine hulls and air handling
systems contaminated by PCBs at concentrations <100 /xg/100 cm2. The existing regulations
require these materials to be disposed of via chemical landfilling or incineration. The annual
4-12
-------
cost savings of this section was estimated to be $37.5 million, using the existing regulation as the
baseline.
A cost savings of $10.6 million per year was estimated for §761.77, Coordinated
Approval, using either the existing regulation or EPA policy as the baseline. This proposed
regulation will acknowledge permits for PCB facilities (i.e, for land disposal, incineration,
research and development, alternative disposal technologies, commercial storage, or site
remediation) issued under other State and Federal environmental programs, including RCRA,
and where states classify PCBs as hazardous wastes or regulate PCBs in a similar fashion to the
TSCA regulations.
Additional sections estimated to generate significant cost savings include:
¦ §761.65(c)(l)(iv)—Allows temporary storage of PCB containers with liquid PCBs
at concentrations ^50 ppm, provided that a Spill Prevention Plan has been
prepared. Existing measures allow temporary storage only when concentrations
are between 50 and 500 ppm. The estimated annual savings is $3.0 million, using
either the existing regulation or EPA policy as the baseline.
¦ §761.65(a)—Extends the allowable storage period for PCB wastes and allows EPA
to grant storage time extensions in cases where the owner has shown due diligence
in trying to dispose of wastes. The estimated savings compared to either the
existing regulation or EPA policy, is $1.1 million per year.
¦ §761.63—Allows the disposal of PCB-containing household wastes at municipal
and industrial landfills. Only a small portion of household hazardous wastes
contain PCBs; they previously were not addressed in the regulations. The annual
savings is estimated to be $840,000.
¦ §761.65(c)(6)—Allows the use of a wider range of DOT-approved containers for
storing liquid and nonliquid PCBs, and thereby avoids the need to revise the PCB
regulations after each change to the DOT regulations. A cost savings of $565,000
per year was estimated for this section.
¦ §761.65(c)(6)(i) acknowledges the special characteristics of radioactive waste by
allowing unique container designs for such waste and generates an estimated
annual cost savings of $109,000, compared to the existing regulation.
Refer to Table 4-3 for a list of several additional cost savings estimates related to PCB
import, use, storage, and exemption.
4-13
-------
4J PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH COST ESTIMATES
The proposed amendments are presented paragraph-by-paragraph to describe the impacts
of each change in the regulatory language. For each paragraph, several elements are provided:
¦ A summary or the exact language of the paragraph of the proposed standard.
¦ A summary or the exact language of the corresponding paragraph of the existing
standard.
¦ A brief interpretation of the differences between the two versions.
¦ A description of the cost impacts.
In cases where only part of the existing language was modified, the changed or added language is
indicated with italics. Each paragraph was titled for easy reference. Table 4-4 summarizes the
topic of each paragraph and shows the net cost or cost saving of each paragraph or that there
was no significant cost impact.
§76120(b) (3)—IMPORT FOR DISPOSAL
Proposed Regulation. PCBs at any concentration may be shipped for purposes of
disposal, between States, as defined by Section 3(13) of TSCA.
Existing Regulation. Under the existing Closed Border Policy, imports of PCB waste for
disposal are prohibited. (The U.S. Customs Tariffs schedule defines imports as shipments to the
50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Thus, shipments of
PCB wastes from other U.S. territories are prohibited as imports.)
Changes. The change will allow U.S. territories to ship PCB wastes to the United States
for disposal. Such shipments currently are prohibited.
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendments will allow U.S. territories, which generally do
not have disposal facilities, to ship wastes to the United States for disposal. Alternatively, these
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-4
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
• PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
76120(b)(3)
76120(c)(5)
76120(c)(6)
76120(c)(7)
76120(c)(8)
76130(a)(l)(vii)
Import for disposal
Allows for import of PCBs from U.S. territories for disposal.
Use and distribution in commerce of decontaminated assets
Allows distribution in commerce of equipment if it is
decontaminated per TSCA protocols. Avoids unnecessary
disposal of contaminated items.
Use or distribution of PCB—contaminated water
Allows the use of PCB-decontaminated water that meets
standards without further restrictions.
Use or distribution of solid nonporous surfaces
Allows the use and distribution of solid nonporous
surfaces that have come in contact with PCBs
in concentrations <50 ppm.
Prohibition of open burning
Prohibits open burning of PCBs unless allowed or
approved under 761.60(a)(l—7).
Transformer registration
Requires all PCB Transformers (in use or in storage for reuse)
to be registered with EPA. Registration requirements
expected to affect 3,226 utilities and 94,000 nonutility
PCB Transformers.
$170
$28
$170
$113
$1,080
76130(a)(l)(xvi) Use authorization for voltage regulators
Specifies that mineral oil transformers and voltage regulators
found to be contaminated at 500 ppm or more must be
brought into compliance.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
76130(b)(1)
76130(c)
76130(d)
76130(e)
76130(h)(l)(iii)
76130(i)
76130(j)
Railroad Transformer Use Restrictions
The revision removes outdated language from the regulation.
Use In and Servicing of Mining Equipment
The revision removes outdated language from the regulation.
Use in heat transfer systems
Allows the use of PCBs in these systems at
concentrations <50ppm.
Use in hydraulic systems
Allows the use of PCBs in hydraulic systems only at a
concentration of <50 ppm.
Use in and servicing of electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators
Voltage regulators with PCB concentrations of 500 ppm or
over are subject to all applicable provisions of Part 761
which are applicable to PCB Transformers.
Use in natural gas pipeline systems
Specifies conditions under which PCB-contaminated natural gas
pipeline systems can continue to be operated.
Limited quantities for R&D
Allows for the continued use of limited quantities of PCBs (in
5 mL hermetically sealed containers or as contaminated media)
in nondisposal research applications, provided that various
conditions are met.
$81
$4
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annua! Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761 J0(q)
Continued use of pre—TSCA PCBs
Stipulates that nonliquid materials that contain PCBs (such as
HVAC gaskets, plastfc, plasticizers, electrical cable, and others)
are authorized for use for the remainder of thei useful life
provided that certain monitoring, notification, and marking
requirements are met. Savings estimated based on avoided
costs for contaminated DOE buildings.
$500,000
76U0(r)
Use in and servicing of rectifiers
Allows the use of PCBs in rectifiers for the purpose of servicing
electrical equipment, subject to servicing conditions.
76130(s)
Use of PCBs in scientific equipment
Allows use of PCBs in selected types of
laboratory equipment.
761.40(d)
Marking during transport
Transport vehicles with PCB Containers over 45 kg, with
concentrations <50 ppm, or with one or more PCB Transformer,
shall be marked. Changes extend marking requirements to
carriers of nonliquid PCBs.
$236
761.40(e) Marking containers and items
PCB items with concentrations from 50 ppm up to 500 ppm
shall be marked with the mark M(L). Change eliminates
regulatory duplication.
761.40(h) Marking requirements for PCB storage facilities
Requires PCB items, storage facilities, and transport vehicles
to be clearly marked on the exterior. The change extends
existing requirement to include storage facilities.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.40(k)
761.60
761.60(a)(4)(i)
Marking requirements for PCB Large Low-Voltage
Capacitors, Transformers
Requires all PCB Large Low-Voltage Capacitors and all PCB
equipment not marked under paragraph (a) of this section but
containing a PCB TVansformer or Capacitor to be marked.
Disposal requirements for pre—1978 Spills
Has the effect of designating pre-1978 dumps, landfills, waste
piles, sediments, and spill-contaminated areas as being disposed
of in a manner that does not present a risk. Change clarifies
EPA policy and existing regulation.
Specifications for industrial furnaces
Sets specifications of operating capabilities and practices for
industrial furnaces used to dispose of PCB-contaminated items.
$1,300
761.60(b)(l)(i)(B) PCB Transformer disposal
Clarifies existing requirements for disposal of PCB Transformers
and specifies that solvents used to rinse transformers must
also be handled according to 761.60(a).
761.60(b)(2)(iv)
761.60(b) (2) (vi)
Disposal of Small Capacitors
Requires that Small PCB Capacitors be placed in DOT-
authorized containers prior to incineration.
Any DOT—Authorized Containers allowed
Allows for a greater range of container choices by using DOT
specifications rather than EPA.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.60(b)(2)(vii)
761.60(b)(3)
761.60(b)(4)
761.60(b)(5)
761.60(b)(6) (ii)
Limitations on number of fluorescent light ballasts
containing PCBs that can be disposed of
Establishes a limit of 24 on the number of intact and nonleaking
PCB Small Capacitors that may be disposed of as industrial or
municipal solid waste, unless they arc subject to 761.60(b)(2)(iv).
Incremental costs result primarily from disposal of light ballasts.
PCB Hydraulic Machine disposal
Allows for disposal of PCB Hydraulic Machines in industrial
furnaces as well as by previously allowed options.
PCB-contaminated Electrical Equipment
Specifies the time to be taken in draining equipment, ejeept
capacitors; inserts language to indicate appropriate
options for the disposal of drained equipment.
Natural gas pipeline regulations
New paragraph addresses the characterization, washing,
abandonment, and disposal of drained natural pipelines with
PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or more. Allows for more lenient
disposal and abandonment options than under either existing
policy or the current regulation.
Disposal of drained PCB Articles
Specifies acceptable disposal methods for drained PCB Articles.
Previous language did not regulate disposal of drained PCB
Artfcles. These costs are generated by incremental PCB
Transformer disposal costs.
$131
$387
$62,775
$3,500
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.60(b) (6) (iii)
Disposal of PCB—contaminated nonporous surfaces
Identifies disposal options for nonporous surfaces (including
metal ship and submarine hulls, and air handling systems) whose
surface is contaminated by PCBs (<100 micrograms/100 sq cm).
Materials were previously to have been handled as any PCB
wastes (i.e., required incineration or chemical landfill).
$37,500
761.60(g)(l)(iii)
and (2)(iii)
PCB testing procedures — gas chromatography
Codifies EPA policy that PCB analysis shall be conducted
using gas chromatography.
761.60(j) Self-implementing approvals for R&D for PCB disposal - - $60
Eliminates the requirement for facilities disposing of R&D disposal
activity wastes within specified material and time limitations to obtain
R&D disposal approvals.
761.61(a-c) Disposal of remediation waste - $4,001,179 $4,001,179
Allows alternative disposal options for some remediation wastes.
Private cleanup operations can proceed without obtaining EPA
approval. Establishes self-implementing, performance-based,
and risk-based disposal options.
761.62 Disposal of nonremediation PCB wastes - $150,000 $150,000
Establishes additional disposal options for non-remediation PCB
wastes, including incineration,chemical landfill, municipal
landfill (if PCB level is <50 micrograms/kg), or any other disposal
method approved by EPA upon application. Under existing
regulations, nonremediation waste of 50 ppm or more PCBs must be
disposed of by incineration or chemical landfill.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cool.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.63 Household waste exemption - $840 $840
Allows for the disposal of PCB-containing household wastes
in a municipal or industrial landfill or furnace. Only a small
portion of household wastes contain PCBs; they were not addressed
previously.
761.64 Disposal of PCB chemical analysis wastes - - -
Specifies disposal requirements for wastes generated
as a result of PCB sample analysis.
761.65(a) Extended storage period allowed for PCB waste - $1,057 $1,057
Requires disposal 1 year after the date that the PCB waste was
removed from service for disposal. This measure eases the timetable
for waste owners, since EPA can grant extensions in cases where
the owner has shewn due diligence in trying to dispose of waste.
761.65(b)(1)(ii) Special storage requirements for radioactive wastes - - $55
Allows for storage of PCB fissionable radioactive wastes in
containments with less than the 6-inch-high curbing required
under existing regulations.
761.65(b)(2) PCB storage in RCRA facilities allowed - $696 $696
Provides for additional storage option that is not addressed
in existing regulations.
761.65(c)(l)(iv) Temporary storage of liquid PCB wastes in
noncomplying areas - $3,000 $3,000
Allows for temporary storage of PCB containers with liquid PCBs
at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, provided that a Spill
Prevention Plan has been prepared. Existing measures allow for
temporary storage only when concentrations are from 50 ppm
to 500 ppm.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as Existing Reg.
Baseline as Baseline
761.65(c)(5) Checking for leaking PCB items
All PCB items in storage shall be checked at least once every 30
days for leaks. Only minor wording changes from existing provision.
761.65(c)(6) Container requirement for PCBs
Allows for use of a wider range of DOT approved containers for
the storage of liquid and nonliquid PCBs. Refers container
language to DOT regulations, thus avoiding the need for revisions
after each DOT change.
761.65(c)(6)(i) Containers for PCB fissionable, radioactive wastes
Acknowledges the special characteristics of radioactive waste
by allowing unique container designs for such wastes.
761.65(c)(7) Stationary storage containers
Removes mobile containers from requirements for
stationary containers.
761.65(c)(8) Containers for PCB Items
Requires PCB Items to be dated upon removal from service for disposal.
New language replaces "PCB Articles and PCB Containers" with
"PCB Items."
$570
$570
$109
$109
761.65(g)(9)
761.65(j)
Financial assurance for closure
Requires new financial assurances whenever modifications arc
made to a PCB storage facility. Existing regulation includes no
language to address facility modifications.
Requirements for transfer of interim storage
Establishes procedures for transfers in ownership of storage
facilities. Existing regulation has no such provision.
$1
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OP PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.67(a)
761.67(b)
761.75(8)(ii)
761.77
761.79(a)(1)
Storage for reuse of PCB Articles for <3 years
Allows for the storage of PCB Articles for reuse for no more than
3 years. Establishes requirements for storage and prevents
indefinite storage of equipment.
Storage for reuse over 3 years
With written approval from the RA, PCB Articles can be stored
longer than the 3 year limit if stored in compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section.
Chemical Waste Landfills
Removes provisions dealing with the disposal of liquid
PCBs in chemical waste landfills, which is not allowed by policy.
Coordinated Approval
Acknowledges permits for PCB facilities issued under other
state and federal environmental programs.
Decontamination procedures
Allows for reuse of decontamination solvents until they contain
<50 ppm of PCBs. Rule also clarifies disposal methods for such
solvents.
$920
$21
$10,553
$10,553
761.79(a)(2) '
761.79(a)(3)
Distribution and use of decontaminated equipment
Allows distribution in commerce and use of properly
decontaminated equipment.
Written record of decontamination actions
Requires written record for decontamination actions.
$79
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.79(a)(4) No Disposal Approvals required for separating PCBs - $732 $732
from surfaces or liquids
Filtering, soaking,wiping, stripping,chopping, scraping
or the use of abrasives to remove or separate PCBs from contaminated
surfaces or liquids does not require a Disposal Approval under Subpart D.
761.79(a)(5) Protection against dermal contact or inhalation of PCBs - - -
Any person conducting decontamination activities must take
appropriate measures to ensure that no solvent, dust, or
particulate emissions containing PCBs are released into the environment.
Workers must wear or use protective clothing or equipment against
dermal contact or inhalation of PCBs or PCB-contaminated material.
761.79(d) Decontamination standard for nonporous surfaces
Sets the decontamination standard for impervious solid surfaces
not associated with food, feed, or drinking water at 10 micrograms
per 100 sq cm.
761.79(c)and (f) Decontamination procedures for nonporous surfaces
Establishes protocol for decontamination of solid nonporous
surfaces that have been contaminated with PCB fluids.
761.79(g) and (h) Decontamination standard for
PCB—contaminated water, organic liquids
Sets the decontamination standard for PCB-contaminated water
at 0.5 micrograms/L and 2micrograms/L for PCB-contaminated
organic liquids.
761.80(c) Manufacturing of PCBs for R&D
Provides industry with a class exemption for manufacturing PCBs
in small quantities for R&D as opposed to individual exemptions
required under the existing regulation.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.80(g) Processing and distribution exemptions for small quantities
Grants a class exemption and specifies the types of records to be
maintained for manufacturers of small quantities of PCBs used
as standards.
761.80(i) Exemptions for processing and distribution
of PCB—contaminated media for R&D
Grants a class exemption to all processors and distributors of
small quantities of PCB-contaminated media for R&D provided
that certain conditions are met.
761.80(n) Increase in the amount of PCB-contaminated media to be processed -
The 1-year class exemption for petitioners under paragraphs (a) through
(c)(1), (d), (f), and (m)(l-6) are renewed automatically under existing
terms; if there is an increase in use, a new petition is required.
761.80(o) Automatic renewal for 1—year class exemption for users for chem. analysis -
The 1-year class exemptions granted to processors and distributors
of PCBs in limited quantities for research and development
shall be renewed automatically unless a petition is subm itted
seeking to change the type of activities performed.
761.80(p) Automatic renewal for 1—year class exemption for processors of $1
limited quantities of media
The 1-year class exemption to all processors shall be renewed
pursuant to Section 75031(e)(1). The Director, Chemical Management
Division, may grant approval, without further rulemaking, to
any processor.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as
Baseline
Existing Reg.
as Baseline
761.125
Requirements for PCB spill cleanup
To be consistent with CERCLA, this measure lowers the amount
of pure PCBs that must be reported in the event of a spill from
10 to 1 lb.
761.180(a)(l)(iii)
and (iv)
Recordkeeping and inventory for PCB Items
Requires records of inspection and cleanup and an inventory
of PCBs and PCB Items for all commercial disposers or storers
of PCB wastes.
$3,771
o
761.180(a)(2)(ix)
Records and monitoring in the annual log
Adds minor recordkeeping and marking requirement for owners
of PCB Items, Containers, and Equipment.
761.180(b)(l)(iii) Recordkeeping and inventory for Disposers and Commercial Storers
and (iv) Requires records of inspection and cleanup and an inventory
of PCBs and PCB Items currently in storage for disposal.
$0.22
$372
761.180(b)(3) Annual reports
Requires owners and operators of PCB disposal facilities to
submit annual reports (regardless of whether they are
generators as well).
761.205(f) Notification of PCB Waste Activity
Adds a reporting requirement for firms that change their PCB
activity (e.g., cease handling operations, relocate, or change in
nature of business).
$64
$48
761.207(j)
The manifest — general requirements
Exempts pre-TSCA PCB wastes from manifest requirements.
Affects facilities with PCB disposal, leaks, or spills prior to TSCA.
-------
TABLE 4-4 (conl.)
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
COST SAVINGS OF PROPOSED
PCB AMENDMENTS ($000)
Annual Cost Savings
Section
Number
Topic/ Comments
Annual Compliance Costs
EPA Policy as Existing Reg.
Baseline as Baseline
761.215(b-d) Exemption reporting
Establishes 30 day reporting requirement for exemption reporting.
Existing regulation includes no such time limits.
Total
$11,613
$4,169321
$4,769,413
-------
territories must ship wastes to other countries for disposal, store wastes indefinitely, or locate
alternative disposal methods within their own borders. The proposed amendments are likely to
generate a cost savings to such operations because of the additional disposal option. The size of
the cost savings is likely to be modest, however, since disposal in the U.S. territories or in other
foreign countries often may not be more expensive than disposal in the United States. .Further,
the amount of wastes affected is estimated to be modest, based on the volume of industrial
activities in U.S. territories. It was estimated that there would be an average cost savings of
$25/ton for PCB wastes imported and that such imports amount to 0.1 percent of all PCB wastes
disposed, or 6,769 tons out of 676,900 tons disposed in 1990. The cost savings were then
calculated at $169,900 per year.
§761.20(c)(5)—USE OR DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE OF DECONTAMINATED
EQUIPMENT AND ASSETS
Proposed Regulation. Equipment, structures, or other materials that were contaminated
with PCBs because of spills from, or by proximity to, a PCB Item containing 50 ppm of PCBs or
greater, and which are not otherwise authorized for use or distribution in commerce, may be
distributed in commerce or used provided that: (1) these materials were decontaminated in
accordance with a TSCA PCB approval, EPA decontamination standard, or procedure in part
761.79, or applicable EPA PCB spill cleanup policies in effect at the time of the
decontamination or, if not previously decontaminated, at the time of distribution in commerce or
use, or that now meet a decontamination standard established in §761.79 and (2) these materials
shall not be used or reused in association with food, feed, or drinking water.
Existing Regulation. Equipment, structures, or other materials that were contaminated
with PCBs because of spills from, or by proximity to, a PCB Item containing 50 ppm of PCBs or
greater and which are not otherwise authorized for use or distribution in commerce may be
distributed in commerce or used provided these materials were decontaminated in accordance
with applicable EPA PCB spill cleanup policies in effect at the time of the decontamination or at
the time of distribution in commerce or use.
4-28
-------
Changes. The change codifies current EPA policy under which equipment and materials
could continue to be used and/or distributed in commerce after the equipment owner properly
completed decontamination as specified on a case-by-case basis by the EPA Regional
Administrator. The proposed revision will allow companies to proceed with decontamination of
such equipment without obtaining case-by-case EPA approval.
Cost Impacts. The proposed revision (1) sets forth alternative methods for
decontaminating equipment, and (2) allows companies to proceed to decontamination without
first requesting EPA approval. Using EPA policy as a baseline, cost savings were identified only
for the second of these two elements. Using the existing standard as the baseline, cost savings
are generated for only the first of these elements as described below.
Savings in decontamination actions. Under current EPA policy, companies propose
methods to EPA of decontaminating equipment and, after issuance of an alternate disposal
approval may proceed with such actions. Via this mechanism, companies can reuse equipment
that had been contaminated as a result of PCB spills or transformer ruptures that release PCBs
to nearby equipment and materials. An example of such an incident is the rupturing of an
electrical transformer in a substation that contaminates nearby equipment. Under the existing
standard, any contaminated equipment or assets would have to be disposed.
Using EPA policy as the baseline, the industry's cost of decontaminating equipment will
not change under the proposed revision. The proposed revision and EPA policy are similar in
terms of the technical level of decontamination required. EPA intended to specify approximately
the same level of decontamination as is currently negotiated through the case-by-case analysis of
decontamination needs. Thus, the proposed standard's technical decontamination requirements
do not generate either a compliance cost or cost savings because the extent of decontamination
activity is unchanged.
When the existing standard is used as the baseline, however, there is no provision for
reuse of contaminated equipment or assets. Nearby contaminated equipment would have to be
disposed. Equipment contamination of this type occurs infrequently, but regularly, among the
PCB spill incidents that occur. National Response Center data from 1991 show that
4-29
-------
approximately 450 PCB spills were reported for the year. A review of the spill incident reports
showed very few in which nearby equipment or other assets appear to have been contaminated; it
is quite possible, however, that the initial PCB spill reports upon which the data is based are not
complete and thus wider contamination might have occurred in some cases. It was estimated
that 5 percent of the spills per year cause contamination of equipment and assets. The value of
such assets cannot be estimated with accuracy but it is likely that such equipment and assets
would include on occasion electrical cabinetry; building surfaces such as floors, walls, structural
steel; and vehicles. A value of $5,000 per contamination episode was used to represent the value
of such assets. Combining these values produced a cost savings of $112,500 per year (450 x 5
percent x $5,000).
Savings in transactional costs (Le., the costs of negotiating cleanup arrangements with EPA).
Using EPA policy as the baseline, the proposed revision will eliminate the need for the owners of
contaminated equipment to request a case-by-case approval of their decontamination method.
Companies currently take several steps in preparing to decontaminate equipment including; (1)
sampling of the contaminated item, (2) research on possible approaches to decontamination as
may be appropriate or necessary, (3) preparation of a decontamination workplan, and (4)
attending meetings and preparing written communications with EPA. Under the proposed
revision, companies would not need prior approval from EPA to proceed. They still would
perform item (1), however, and possibly items (2) and (3) albeit less formal versions. The
amount of effort undertaken would vary with the incident and the company, but based on
discussions with industry consultants, it was estimated that senior staff would commonly save 8 to
32 hours of time in dealing with EPA on such issues. Valuing such time at $60.42 per hour, and
taking an average savings of 20 hours produces a cost savings of $1,208.40 per incident (20 hr x
$60.42/hr). Applying this savings to 23 incidents a year (5 percent of the 450 reportable spill
incidents result in equipment contamination) produces a total cost savings of $27,793 ($1208.40 x
23 incidents).
No equivalent savings occurs using the existing standard as the baseline since the
decontamination procedures as proposed at §761.79 do not currently exist.
4-30
-------
§761.20(c)(6)—USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF PCB-CONTAMINATED WATER
Proposed Regulation. Water containing PCBs decontaminated to or now meeting the
standards established in §761.79(h) may be distributed in commerce or used, without further
restriction, under these rules.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph in the existing regulation. In
some cases, EPA has allowed decontamination of water, although eventual discharge of such
water required an National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Changes. The proposed regulation represents a deregulatory action in that individuals
can now decontaminate and reuse water without special oversight by EPA.
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendment would lead to modest administrative cost
savings to industiy and EPA in that individuals would not have to prepare and submit requests to
decontaminate or to reuse previously PCB-contaminated water. While EPA RAs do not tally the
inquiries received annually concerning water decontamination,, the number of such requests is
estimated to be quite small. Overall, the proposed amendment will create a negligible cost
savings.
§761.20(c) (7)—USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF SOLID NONPOROUS SURFACES
Proposed Regulation. Solid nonporous surfaces (with no free-flowing liquids) that have
come in contact with PCBs at a concentration <50 ppm, regardless of the original PCB
concentration of the fluid, may be distributed in commerce or reused except in association with
food, feed, or drinking water.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph in the existing regulation.
While the PCB concentration of fluids that have come in contact with solid nonporous surfaces
may currently be <50 ppm, these surfaces may be regulated at a higher concentration through
4-31
-------
the application of the anti-dilution provision, if a higher PCB concentration ever comes in
contact with the surface.
The existing Section 761.20(c)(5) allows materials that were contaminated with PCBs at
50 ppm or more, which are not otherwise authorized for use or distribution in commerce, to be
distributed provided that the materials are decontaminated in accordance with EPA's PCB spill
cleanup policy.
Changes. The proposed regulation authorizes the use of solid nonporous surfaces that
come in contact with PCBs in concentrations <50 ppm; the existing regulation requires a
determination be made as to whether the <50 ppm PCB concentration is due to dilution of the
PCB waste from a higher concentration source. If so, the existing regulation does not specifically
allow this use. In general practice, however, all PCB-contaminated surfaces above and below 50
ppm are decontaminated (i.e., common practice is to clean all surfaces rather than make
determinations about surface concentrations of PCBs). The decontaminated surfaces can then be
reused or distributed. Although some facilities may be motivated to sample additional PCB-
contaminated nonporous surfaces to determine if any are contaminated with PCBs in
concentrations <50 ppm, most likely an insignificant number of facilities will do so and most
facilities will continue to clean all surfaces. Thus, the solid nonporous surfaces that have come in
contact with PCBs at concentrations <50 ppm will be treated as they are now.
Cost Impacts. This proposed regulation likely will have a negligible cost impact.
Estimates of savings based on the proposed amendments for decontaminating materials such as
solid nonporous surfaces are included in the savings estimates described above under
§761.20(c)(5), Use and Distribution of Decontaminated Equipment and Assets.
§761.20(c) (8)—PROHIBITION ON OPEN BURNING
Proposed Regulation. Open burning of PCBs is prohibited. Combustion of PCBs
allowed or approved under §761.60(a) or (e) is not open burning. Open burning means
4-32
-------
combustion of any PCB regulated for disposal, not approved or otherwise allowed under §761
Subpart D, without the following controls:
¦ Control of combustion of air to maintain adequate temperature for efficient
combustion.
¦ Containment of the combustion-reaction in an enclosed device to provide
sufficient residence time and mixing for complete combustion.
¦ Control of emission of the gaseous combustion products.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph in the existing regulation.
Changes. This change restricts burning of PCBs in any device lacking controls such as
those defined above.
Cost Impacts. This change will eliminate certain open burning activities such as are
currently practiced in recovering metal from PCB-contaminated transformer carcasses. These
operations and the resulting cost impacts are discussed in §761.60(a)(4).
§761.30(a)(l) (vii)—TRANSFORMER REGISTRATION
Proposed Regulation. No later than (insert the date 90 days after the effective date of
this rule) all owners of PCB Transformers (including PCB Transformers in storage for reuse)
must have registered their transformer(s) with the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance. Any PCB Transformer identified or received from another location after the same
date must be registered in writing with EPA no later than 30 days after identification or receipt
(unless a previous written registration can be demonstrated).
(A) The registration must include: (1) the location, address, and number of PCB
transformers; (2) the kilograms of PCB liquid in each PCB Transformer, (3) the name,
address, telephone number, and signature of the owner, operator, or other authorized
representative certifying the accuracy of the information submitted.
4-33
-------
(B) A record of the registration for each PCB Transformer at each location (e.g., a copy
of the registration and the return receipt signed by EPA) must be retained with the
records of inspection and maintenance for each PCB Transformer required under 40
CFR 761.30 (a)(l)(xii).
(C) The requirements identified in paragraphs (a)(l)(vii)(A) of this section must be
complied with to continue the authorization for use or reuse of PCB Transformers under
Section 761.30, pursuant to section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA.
(D) All owners or operators of transformers must comply with any State transformer
registration requirements.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. Adds a notification requirement for owners of PCB Transformers.
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendments will require owners of PCB Transformers to
make a one-time submission to EPA to register their PCB Transformers and to notify EPA of
their existence, location, the kilograms of PCB liquid in each PCB Transformer, and the
identifying information for the owner of each PCB Transformer. Owners of such equipment
were required in 1985 to notify local fire departments of the location of PCB Transformers so
the locational information to be reported should already be compiled. Owners of such
equipment currently are also required to maintain records on the kilograms of PCBs contained in
the PCB Transformers and the number of PCB Transformers in service. Thus, the registration
requirements will require respondents only to provide data that they currently are maintaining
and have previously submitted.
It was estimated that assembling the necessary information and reporting would require
on average 4 to 8 hours, with an average of 6 technical hours for electric utilities, including
smaller rural electric cooperatives. Industrial facilities are likewise required to have the
information available and should also require limited resources to comply with the registration
requirement. Industrial facilities are somewhat more likely to have difficulty compiling the
necessary information, but generally have fewer transformers. It was estimated that the affected
facilities would spend approximately 1 hour per PCB transformer registration. No utilities or
4-34
-------
industrial facilities are currently in compliance with this requirement since EPA has not
previously requested this information.
An estimated 3,226 electric utility companies will be affected by this requirement (EIA,
1992) if all electric utility establishments submit a report. Estimating 6 technical hours at
$43.80/hr per notification, the electric utility sector will generate costs of $0.85 million (3,226
utilities x 6 hr x 43.80/hr).
The most recent estimate of the number of outstanding PCB Transformers among non-
utilities (i.e., industrial facilities) was approximately 125,000 as of 1988 (U.S. EPA, 1989b).2 The
percentage of PCB Transformers taken out of service in the intervening 5 years was estimated to
be 25 percent of this total (31,250).3 The remaining notification requirement is estimated at
93,750 hours for non-utilities, at 1 technical hour per notification ($43.80/hr). The costs for the
non-utility sector were then calculated at $4.11 million.
In summary, the calculations are as follows:
For electric utilities: 3,226 utilities x 6 hours per utility x $43.80/hr = $0.85 million
For industrial facilities: 125,000 - 31,250 = 93,750 transformers; 93,750 transformers x 1
notification/transformer x 1 hr/notification x $43.80/hr = $4.11 million
The combined first-year registration cost is $4.96 million ($0.85 million + $4.11 million = $4.96
million). Annualizing over 5 years, the annualized cost is approximately $1.08 million ($4.96 x
0.2184 annualization factor = $1.08 million).
^timate includes askarel transformers and mineral oil transformers contaminated at over
500 ppm PCBs. Reported in Table B-5 in source.
3This estimate is based on a presumption that the PCB transformers are all at least 10 years
old and that their expected life is 30 years. Therefore, one quarter of the transformers will be
retired every 5 years until they have all been removed.
4-35
-------
§761.30(a) (I) (xvi)—USE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR MINERAL OIL TRANSFORMERS AND
VOLTAGE REGULATORS
Proposed Regulation. In the event that a mineral oil transformer or a voltage regulator,
assumed to contain less than 500 ppm of PCBs, is tested and found to be contaminated at 500
ppm or greater PCBs, it is subject to all the requirements of Part 761. Voltage regulators which
are marked or otherwise known to contain 500 ppm PCBs or greater are also subject to the
provisions of this paragraph. In addition, efforts must be initiated to bring the transformer or the
voltage regulator into compliance.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation does not include use authorizations for
voltage regulators.
Changes. The proposed regulation subjects voltage regulators containing ^500 ppm
PCBs to use authorization regulations.
Cost Impacts. The costs associated with meeting Part 761 requirements for voltage
regulators are addressed under section §761.30(h)(l)(iii).
§76IJ0(b)(l)—RAILROAD TRANSFORMER USE RESTRICTIONS
Proposed Regulation. After July 1, 1986, use of railroad transformers that contain dielectric
fluids with a PCB concentration greater than 1,000 ppm is prohibited.
Existing Regulation. 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.
Changes. The changes remove outdated language from the regulation. No substantive
changes are made.
4-36
-------
Cost Impacts. No costs will be incurred.
§761.30(c)—USE IN AND SERVICING OF MINING EQUIPMENT
Proposed Regulation. After January 1, 1982, PCBs may be used in mining equipment only
at a concentration level of less than 50 ppm
Existing Regulation. PCBs may be used in raining equipment and may be processed and
distributed in commerce for purposes of servicing mining equipment in a manner other than a
totally enclosed manner until January 1, 1982, subject to conditions for adding PCBs to mining
equipment motors and storing, processing, and distributing PCBs.
Changes. The changes remove outdated language from the regulation. No substantive
changes were made.
Cost Impacts. No costs will be incurred.
§761.30(d)—USE IN HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEMS
Proposed Regulation. After July 1,1984, PCBs may be used in heat transfer systems only
at a concentration level of less than 50 ppm. Heat transfer systems that were in operation after
July 1, 1984, with a concentration of less than 50 ppm may be serviced to maintain a concentration
level of less than 50 ppm PCBs. Heat transfer systems may only be serviced with fluids containing
less than 50 ppm PCBs.
Existing Regulation. After July 1, 1984, intentionally manufactured PCBs may be used in
heat transfer systems in a manner other than totally enclosed at a concentration level of less than
50 ppm provided that the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section for
annual testing, servicing, and recordkeeping are met.
4-37
-------
Changes. The proposed amendment clarifies the wording associated with the conditions
for using heat transfer systems such that heat transfer systems that are in compliance (i.e., they
contain <50 ppm PCBs in their fluids) can be serviced to maintain PCB levels at <50 ppm
should the PCB levels rise above 50 ppm because of leaching from the systems. The proposed
amendment also deletes obsolete recordkeeping requirements (d)(1) through (d)(5) (i.e., they
expired on July 1, 1989).
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendment clarifies that servicing of these heat transfer
systems is allowed. This position was implied by the existing language. There are no cost
impacts or savings associated with this proposed amendment.
§761.30(e)—USE IN HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
Proposed Regulation. After July 1, 1984, PCBs may be used in hydraulic systems only at
a concentration level <50 ppm. Hydraulic systems that were in operation after July 1, 1984, with a
concentration level <50 ppm PCBs may be serviced to mountain a concentration level <50 ppm
PCBs. Hydraulic systems may only be serviced with fluids containing <50 ppm PCBs.
Existing Regulation. After July 1,1984, intentionally manufactured PCBs may be used in
hydraulic systems in a manner other than totally enclosed at a concentration level of less than 50
ppm provided that the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this section for annual
testing, servicing, and recordkeeping are met.
Changes. This proposed amendment clarifies the language regarding the use of hydraulic
systems so that hydraulic systems that are in compliance (i.e., they contain <50 ppm in their
fluids) can be serviced to maintain PCB levels at <50 ppm should the PCB levels rise above 50
ppm because of leaching from the systems. The proposed amendment also deletes obsolete
recordkeeping requirements (e)(1) through (e)(5).
4-38
-------
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendment clarifies that servicing of these hydraulic
systems is allowed. This position was implied by the existing language. There are no cost
impacts or savings associated with this proposed amendment.
§76130(h) (1) (iii)—USE IN AND SERVICING OF ELECTROMAGNETS, SWITCHES, AND
VOLTAGE REGULATORS
Proposed Regulation. Voltage regulators which are ^500 ppm PCBs are subject to all
applicable provisions of Part 761 which are applicable to PCB Transformers.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The proposed amendments add language that indicates that voltage regulators
that are found to contain PCBs at 500 ppm or greater are subject to the same requirements as
PCB Transformers. Thus, voltage regulators are subject to the labelling, marking, registration,
and maintenance of in-service record requirements.
Cost Impacts. The most recent available data, based on electric utility industry data from
1982, indicates that there are 2,468 voltage regulators at 500 ppm or greater in place. Assuming
that the equipment typically remains in service for 30 years, and that therefore, approximately
one-third of the equipment in place in 1982 has now been removed, there remain approximately
1,700 voltage regulators in place.
The cost impacts are based on an estimated labor effort per voltage regulator to comply
with the various elements of the Part 761 regulations. To locate, label, and mark each voltage
regulator was estimated to require 2 hours. Another hour is allowed to register the voltage
regulator with the fire department. To comply with the annual reporting requirements,
establishments were estimated to take 2 hours to initialize the necessary record entries in the first
year. Subsequent reporting for these items, however, was judged to generate negligible costs. In
summary, a total of 5 hours was estimated per PCB Voltage Regulator to comply with the
applicable Part 761 requirements in the first year. Any recurring annual costs will be negligible.
The five hours will be expended by technical personnel (earning $43.80 per hour). This
4-39
-------
translates to a first-year cost of $219 ($43.80 x 5) per PCB Voltage Regulator. Multiplying by
the number of voltage regulators produces a total first-year cost of $372,000 (1,700 x $219,
rounded). Annualized over 5 years this cost is calculated at approximately $81,228 per year.
§761.30(i)—USE IN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SYSTEMS
Proposed Regulation. Natural gas pipeline systems are substation areas that include
natural gas pipe, pipeline appurtenances, and air compressor systems. PCBs may be used
indefinitely in natural gas pipeline systems under the following conditions:
¦ PCBs may be used in the compressors, appurtenances, and liquids of natural gas
pipelines at a PCB concentration level of <50 ppm.
¦ Pipeline and appurtenances contaminated with PCBs at levels <100 /ig/100 cm2
may be reused in natural gas pipeline systems provided that all free-flowing
liquids have been removed and disposed of in accordance with §761.60. Pipeline
may also be used or distributed in commerce for use in transporting bulk
hydrocarbons and chemicals; as secondary containment casing under
transportation systems; as industrial structural material (e.g., fence posts, sign
posts, or bridge supports); and as temporary flume at construction sites,
equipment skids, culverts (<80 ft in length) in intermittent flow situations, sewage
service (with written consent of the publicly owned treatment works [POTW]),
steam service, irrigation systems (<20 inches in diameter and <200 miles in
length), and totally enclosed compressed air systems.
¦ Natural gas air compressor systems (i.e., air compressor, piping, receiver tanks,
and other pressurized large volume tanks) contaminated with PCBs at levels of
5:100 /xg/100 cm2 may be used as natural gas air compressor systems provided the
equipment has been decontaminated. All free-flowing liquids must be drained
from the system at existing drain points; all liquids and solvents used during the
decontamination process must be disposed of as 2:500 ppm PCBs pursuant to the
disposal requirements at §761.79(a). All carbon filters must be disposed of as
nonliquid PCBs with a concentration of 2:50 ppm.
The air compressors, piping, and air lines in the air compressor system must be filled with
kerosene and decontaminated according to one of the two following procedures:
¦ Let the kerosene sit for 8 hours. Drain and capture residual kerosene by
circulating the air under positive pressure, first throughout the system and then
4-40
-------
through the carbon filter at all points in the air system where air is vented to the
atmosphere. The carbon filter must be of sufficient integrity to withstand three
times the venting air pressure through the filter.
¦ Circulate the kerosene through the items at a rate and time sufficient to 10 total
containment volumes of the items, then drain the kerosene. Refill the system
with clean kerosene and repeat the circulation and drain process.
The air receivers and other pressurized large volume tanks must be decontaminated using
one of the following two methods:
¦ Fill the tanks with kerosene containing <2 ppm PCBs. Then follow one of the
procedures outlined above.
¦ Rinse the tanks three times, each with a volume of clean kerosene ^ 10 percent of
the total internal volume of the tank. Each of the first two rinses must be drained
before adding the next successive kerosene rinse solvent. Each rinse shall either
be sprayed under a pressure of at least 100 psi such that the spray makes at least
three passes over the entire internal surface of the tank or contact, at atmospheric
pressure, each part of the surface area for 1 hour. This may be accomplished by
filling the tank, totally enclosing the tank, and using either of the following
procedures:
Rotating the tank continuously such that all interior surfaces are contained
in a single rotation.
Placing the tank in a stationary position and waiting 1 hour at a sufficient
number and configuration of positions so as to cover the entire interior
surface of the tank.
Natural gas air compressor systems also may be decontaminated in accordance with
§761.79. This authorization also applies to other pipeline and air compressor systems
contaminated with PCBs and drained of all free-flowing liquids, with the written consent of the
RA for the EPA region in which it is located.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation does not authorize the use of natural gas
pipeline systems contaminated with PCBs. These PCB Articles require disposal by incineration
or chemical landfilling. Existing compliance programs for natural gas transmission companies,
however, allow uses similar to the provisions in the proposed regulation.
4-41
-------
Changes. The proposed regulation allows a greater number of options for using natural
gas pipeline systems. It also authorizes the use of other pipelines and air compressor systems
contaminated with PCBs, although it does not specify any other particular systems.
Cost Impacts. Industry representatives estimated that: (1) 70 to 100 natural.gas pipeline
systems or substation areas (85 average) possibly may be contaminated with PCBs; (2) each
system weighs several tons; and (3) most systems that require disposal will be chemical landfilled
(Kinne, 1993; Farmer, 1993). Using an estimated weight of 2 tons/system and $450/ton to
dispose of these articles in a chemical waste landfill, then the estimated cost to dispose of these
articles under the existing regulation is $76,500 (85 stations x 2 tons/station x $450/ton).
Discussions with industry indicate that decontamination and disposal of these systems is
well underway under compliance programs. Thus, no significant cost savings are anticipated
from the proposed regulation, compared to the compliance program baseline.
§761300)—LIMITED QUANTITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Regulation. The proposed amendments define permissible R&D activities as
including, but not limited to, chemical analysis of PCBs for purposes of determining PCB
concentrations; scientific experimentation on the physical properties and chemical reactions of
PCBS (other than the evaluation of the disposal or destruction of PCBs); and testing to
determine environmental transport processes, biochemical transport processes, the effects of
PCBs on the atmospheric environment, aquatic environments, and terrestrial environments, and
the health effects of PCBs such as general toxicity, subchronic and chronic toxicity, specific
organ/tissue toxicity, neurotoxicity, genetic toxicity, and metabolic products. The section does not
authorize research or analysis for developing a PCB product. Additionally, this section does not
authorize R&D disposal activities, including, but not limited to, demonstrations for PCB disposal
approvals, predemonstration tests, testing major modifications to approved PCB technologies,
treatability studies, the development of new disposal technologies, and research on
transformation processes such as biodegradation. R&D for disposal technologies are addressed
4-42
-------
in §761.600"). R&D activities conducted under this section are subject to all other applicable
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
PCBs may be used for R&D in limited quantities originally packaged in hermetically
sealed containers of 5 mL or less, or as samples of environmental media in containers larger than
5 mL containing PCBs that have been packaged pursuant to DOT performance standards in a
manner other than totally enclosed. The following conditions apply to each of these use
categories:
¦ The RA is notified in writing at least 30 days prior to beginning of the R&D
activity authorized under this section. Notifications shall identify the site(s) of
PCB R&D activities, the quantity of PCBs to be used, the type of R&D
technology to be used, the kind of material being treated, and an estimate of the
duration of the PCB activity.
¦ No more than 1 gram of pure PCBs is used at a facility annually.
¦ All PCB wastes (e.g., spent lab samples, residuals, unused samples, contaminated
media/instrumentation, clothing) are stored in a unit that complies with the
storage requirements of §761.65(b).
¦ Manifests are used for all R&D PCB wastes being transported from the R&D
facility to a commercial storage and/or disposal facility, unless the residuals or
unused samples are returned to the site of generation.
¦ All PCB wastes are disposed of according to the 1-year storage for disposal time
limit requirements under §761.65.
¦ Manifesting according to §761.205-215 is required for transporting PCB waste
generated through this authorized use, but is not required for transporting PCBs
to the facility for the use authorization.
The proposed amendments also require facilities that wish to conduct nondisposal R&D
activities using PCBs or PCB-contaminated media in quantities that exceed the numerical
limitations to obtain written approvals from the RA. The request to obtain RA approvals must
include a justification for using the additional quantity or concentration needed and must specify
the quantity and concentration of PCB material needed and the duration of the activity.
4-43
-------
Existing Regulation. The existing regulations allow PCBs to be used in small quantities
for R&D indefinitely in a manner other than totally enclosed. Section 761.3, Definitions, defines
small quantities for research and development as any quantity of PCBs that is originally packaged
in one or more hermetically sealed containers of 5 Ml or less and is used only for scientific
experimentation or analysis of PCBs. The rule does not limit the number of vials that may be
used.
The present regulations do not address the use of PCB-contaminated media. Facilities
that want to use PCB-contaminated media in any quantity for nondisposal R&D activity must
petition EPA to develop rulemaking to authorize the use of such material by submitting a TSCA
§21 petition. Rulemaking is a lengthy process. However, one facility could petition EPA for the
class of R&D facilities.
Table 4-5 compares the existing and proposed TSCA authorizations for using PCBs and
PCB-contaminated media in limited quantities and quantities that exceed the limitations for
R&D nondisposal activities.
Changes. For using PCBs and PCB-contaminated media within the limitations for
nondisposal activities, the proposed regulation adds notification, storage, manifesting, and
disposal requirements. For PCB-contaminated media, the provision obviates the statutory
requirement to submit a §21 petition (and wait for rulemaking). The amendments require
facilities that wish to exceed the limitations for conducting nondisposal activities with PCBs or
PCB-contaminated media to obtain approval from the RA.
Cost Impacts. The following costs were estimated for this analysis:
¦ Complying with the use conditions for RA notification.
¦ Obtaining RA approvals.
¦ Submitting §21 petitions.
4-44
-------
TABLE 4-5
EXISTING AND PROPOSED TSCA AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USING PCBS AND PCB-CONTAMINATED MEDIA IN LIMITED QUANTITIES
AND QUANTITIES THAT EXCEED THE LIMITATIONS FOR R&D NONDISPOSAL ACTIVITIES [§761.30(J)]
Use
Authorization :
Type
.PCBs
PGB-Contaminated Media
Existing Regulation
Proposed Amendments
Existing Regulation
Proposed Amendments
Within the
Numerical
Limitations
Original packages of
hermetically sealed
containers of 5 mL or
less can be used
indefinitely.
Original packages of hermetically
sealed containers of 5 mL or less can
be used indefinitely within
established conditions for notifying
RA and storing, manifesting, and
disposing of contaminated waste.
TSCA §21 Petition (and
rulemaking process).
No petition required. Must comply with
conditions for notifying RA; storing,
manifesting, and disposing of media; and
meeting quantity limitations (i.e., annual
use may not exceed 500 gallons of liquid
or 70 cubic feet of nonliquid PCBs and
does not exceed a maximum
concentration of 10,000 ppm PCBs).
Exceeding the
Numerical
Limitations
Can be used indefinitely.
RA Approval.
TSCA §21 Petition (and
rulemaking process).
RA Approval.
-------
The following estimates also were made:
¦ Number of facilities that will use PCBs in quantities within the limitations and
quantities that exceed the limitations for R&D nondisposal activities.
¦ Number of facilities that will use limited quantities of PCB-contaminated media
for nondisposal activities.
These estimates do not consider that some facilities may engage in more than one activity
and thus incur lower costs overall due to overlapping compliance actions, such as for storage and
disposal activities.
Using PCBs for R&D Activities
Using PCBs within the limitations. The proposed amendments include new notification,
storage, manifesting, and disposal requirements for using PCBs within the limitations for
nondisposal activities. Because the existing regulations presently require PCB wastes to be stored
properly, manifested, and disposed of, the proposed requirements for storage, manifesting, and
disposal would not lead to increased costs. The cost for notifying the RA for conducting
nondisposal activities using PCBs within the limitations was calculated as follows:
¦ The facility manager will require 2 hours to prepare the information at a rate of
$60.42 per hour for a total of $120.84 (2 hr x $60.42), and clerical support
personnel must spend 2 hours typing, copying, filing, and mailing the report at a
rate of $21.73 per hour for a total of $43.46 (2 hr x $21.73). The total for
notification thus is $164 ($120.84 + $43.46 = 164.30).
EPA estimates that about 25 companies, universities, and other R&D facilities conduct
PCB R&D activities using PCBs. Applying this information and the per-facility costs estimated
above, the costs to industry will be $4,100 per year (25 x $164).
Using PCBs that exceed the limitations. The costs to obtain an RA approval were
calculated for estimating the costs associated with using PCBs for nondisposal activities in
quantities that exceed the limitations, as follows:
4-46
-------
¦ A facility manager requires 8 hours to compile the necessary information at
$60.42 per hour for a total of $483 (8 x $60.42) and a clerical support person
requires 1 hour to process the information at $21.73 per hour. Thus each facility
must spend $505 ($483 + $22) to obtain an RA approval.
If 25 companies, universities, and other R&D facilities conduct these activities, then the
industiy-wide costs would be $12,625 (25 x $505).
Using PCB-Contaminated Media for R&D Activities
Using PCB-contaminated media within the limitations for nondisposal activities. The cost
impacts associated with this section were estimated by comparing the costs for submitting a §21
petition versus complying with conditions for notifying the RA and storing, manifesting, and
disposing of the material.
For submitting a §21 petition, it was estimated that a facility manager requires 8 hours to
compile the information necessary for the petition at $60.42 per hour for a total of $483 (8 x
$60.42) and a clerical support person requires 1 hour to process the information at $21.73 per
hour for a rounded total of $22. Thus, each facility must spend $505 ($483 + $22) to submit a
§21 petition. Using the same estimate that about 25 companies, universities, and other R&D
facilities conduct these activities, the existing cost for submitting §21 petitions is $12,625 per year.
The anticipated costs for complying with the proposed requirements for RA notification,
storage, manifesting, and disposal were estimated to involve only the costs for notification,
because the existing regulation presently requires all wastes to be properly stored, manifested,
and disposed of. The cost for notification was estimated to be $164 per facility and $4,100 for 25
facilities, as described above. Thus the cost savings to comply with the proposed conditions,
compared to filing for §21 petitions is $8,525 ($12,625 - $4,100). These costs do not take into
consideration that the EPA rulemaking process to authorize a new PCB use can take up to 2
years and that facilities that engage in nondisposal PCB R&D using PCB-contaminated media in
limited quantities will experience economic advantages in several ways. First, the facility will be
4-47
-------
able to implement an R&D project more quickly, and, second, they will be able to pursue a
greater number of R&D opportunities that become available during what would have been the
waiting period. The potential benefits from the more timely process proposed by the
amendments were not quantified, however, because of the lack of data about the economic value
of the R&D activities.
Using PCB-contaminated media for nondisposal R&D in quantities that exceed the
limitations. For conducting nondisposal R&D activities using PCB-contaminated media in
quantities that exceed the limits, the analysis compares the cost of submitting a §21 petition
versus obtaining an RA approval. As estimated above, these estimated costs are the same (i.e.,
$505 per facility).
Although the costs for applying for these use authorizations is similar under the existing
regulation and proposed amendments, as discussed above, it is estimated that these facilities will
have the additional economic benefits of not having to wait for the rulemaking process to take
place (or wait for EPA to grant a class exemption). They will be able to implement R&D
projects more quickly and also to pursue a greater number of R&D opportunities that become
available during what would have been the waiting period. As above, the potential benefits from
the more timely process proposed by the amendments were not quantified, however, because of
the lack of data about the economic value of the R&D activities.
According to a summary of the costs associated with this amendment, the industry-wide
savings would be $4,425 in addition to the benefits related to industry not being required to
undergo a time-consuming rulemaking process. This total was obtained as follows:
-$4,100 for using PCBs within the limitations for nondisposal activities.
+$8.525 for using limited quantities of PCB-contaminated media for
nondisposal activities.
$4,425 Total
4-48
-------
§76U0(q)(I), (2) and (3)—CONTINUED USE OF PRE-TSCA PCBs
Proposed Regulation. Nonliquid materials that contain PCBs at any concentration
(including, but not limited to, HVAC gaskets, plastics, plasticizers, electrical cable, dried paints,
small rubber parts, roofing and siding materials, insulation, caulking, waterproofing compounds,
ceiling tile coatings, and adhesive tape) in use prior to July 2, 1979, may continue to be used at
their existing locations for the remainder of their useful life, subject to the conditions in
paragraph (q)(l) of this section. Failure to provide documentary evidence that substantiates the
historical use of such PCB materials as required in paragraph (q)(l)(i)(A) of this section may
result in the rejection of such claims by the Regional Administrator.
The owner or operator of such PCB-containing material [(q)(l)(A)] shall provide a
written notification within 30 days of discovery, to the Regional Administrator that a pre-TSCA
PCB use has been discovered. Each notification shall include the location of the material, a
description of the use, an estimate of the amount of material in use (e.g., number, square
footage, pounds), PCB concentration, expected useful life of the material, condition of the
material (e.g., potential for exposure), and any additional information that may be useful to the
Regional Administrator. The owner shall mark such PCB-containing material [(q)(l)(B)] and
shall make available to any potentially exposed employee information on the health risks involved
[(q)(i)(c)]-
Owners also shall conduct air monitoring, perform wipe sampling, and record all
measurements and inspections of the PCB-containing materials [(q)(l)(ii-iii)]. Air monitoring
measurements and wipe samples are to be prepared quarterly for the first year and annually
thereafter. If the PCB-containing material exhibits environmental releases above specified levels,
the materials are to be removed or contained. Records of all measurements are to be
maintained for review by Agency personnel for 3 years after the material has been removed.
Nonliquid materials that contain PCBs at any concentration [(q)(2)], that would meet the
definition of household waste at §761.3 when disposed of, are authorized for continued use and
are not subject to the requirements of paragraph (q)(l) of this section.
4-49
-------
Nonliquid materials [(q)(3)], other than those authorized for continued use under
paragraph (q)(2) of this section, that contain PCBs at any concentration, but which leach PCBs
at less than 50 micrograms/liter as measured by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP), 40 CFR part 261, Appendix II, Method 1311, are authorized for continued use and are
not subject to the use requirements of (q)(l) except for paragraphs (q)(l)(i)(B) and (q)(l)(i)(C)
of this section.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation has no equivalent paragraph. Since use of
these items was not authorized specifically, their continued use was in violation of the existing
regulation.
Changes. The proposed regulation allows the continuation of previously unauthorized
uses that were not addressed in previous PCB regulations. It imposes monitoring and
notification requirements on facilities other than households that discover PCBs on the premise.
The overall paragraph, however, is deregulatoxy since the existing regulation would require that
such uses be disallowed and that the PCB material be removed.
Cost Impacts. These paragraphs will generate net cost savings for facilities, locations, and
households that discover PCB contamination due to these previously unrecognized uses. The
owners of PCB-containing material will now be given the option of continuing to use the
material. Previously, they would have been required to immediately dispose of such materials.
For locations other than households, the cost savings are offset to a degree by requirements for
marking, notification, and monitoring of the PCB-containing material.
The most complete information is available for two instances of contamination, U.S. Navy
vessels and certain Department of Energy (DOE) buildings. The Navy vessels contamination is
due to onboard use of cable and insulation. The cost analysis for Navy vessels is considered
below under paragraph §761.60(b)(6)(iii), which covers disposal of metal equipment found to
have surface PCB contamination. Apart from the Navy vessels, certain DOE buildings and
selected private buildings are known to have PCB contamination (Thompson, 1992).
4-50
-------
This paragraph's impacts can be defined under either the EPA policy baseline or the
existing standard baseline. First, the current EPA policy was compared with the proposed
amendments. Current EPA policy has been defined through negotiations with owners of
facilities that have these PCB materials in place. A Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement
(FFCA) requires DOE to decommission and decontaminate affected buildings and to monitor
for employee exposures to PCBs. In this case, the proposed amendments will generate no costs
or cost savings, based on the general equivalence between the FFCA and the requirements of the
proposed amendments.
Using the existing standard as a baseline, the cost savings generated by this requirement
would be the difference between the costs of removing and disposing of PCBs under the existing
regulation and the sum of costs generated by the various requirements posed under the proposed
amendments. Under the existing regulation DOE would be required to vacate, and then
decommission and decontaminate, certain buildings. (Under the FFCA, DOE is allowed to
continue operations in certain buildings but must decommission and decontaminate other
buildings.) This change would lead to increased Federal building rental costs to obtain
replacement office space for large numbers of DOE employees as well as additional costs for
conducting decommissioning and decontamination activities. If the incremental costs are
approximately the same as the costs of decommissioning and decontaminating the buildings that
have been vacated, DOE will save over $500 million under the proposed amendments, based on
DOE's preliminary estimate of the decontamination and decommissioning costs. This cost
savings will be offset by the costs for various monitoring and reporting requirements defined in
the proposed amendments, including costs for periodic wipe sampling and periodic inspections of
potential contamination locations, air sampling, eventual removal or containment of PCBs when
indicated by monitoring results, and requirements for reporting to EPA. Data were not adequate
to specify the significance of these costs over time, relative to the cost savings generated by
continued building use.
As noted, while the DOE facilities are not the only buildings with the same PCB-
containing materials, the number of additional PCB-contaminated buildings is not known. Most
building owners do not test for PCB contamination or do so only in the course of renovations or
demolition. The proposed amendment does not require owners to test their buildings for PCBs
4-51
-------
and no costs were estimated for such tests. Given the lack of information about the extent of
PCB contamination in buildings, considerable uncertainty envelopes any estimated cost savings
generated by this paragraph. It is likely that numerous buildings contain the PCBs covered by
this extended use authorization. It was estimated that since the one time savings for a complex
of buildings in the DOE case was $500 million, total savings would be several times that figure
given the probable number of buildings with PCB contamination. It was judged also that dozens
or hundreds of buildings could be affected. Conservatively, it was estimated that 100 buildings
would be discovered annually. Cost savings were estimated at $5 million per building for the
benefits of continued use and the avoided costs of decontamination and disposal of the
structures. Thus, a cost savings of $500 million per year was derived although, as noted, there is
veiy little data to substantiate this estimate.
Partially offsetting these savings are various administrative costs associated with notifying
EPA of the presence of PCBs and monitoring the continuing safety of building use. It was
estimated that 100 notifications (covering the contaminated buildings discovered annually) to
EPA would be made, each requiring approximately 9 hours to prepare. The notifications cover
the nature, location, and condition of the PCB-bearing materials found in each facility. As
mentioned, the cost of these notifications are subsumed in the net savings. The notification costs
are provided separately only to describe the recordkeeping elements of the proposed
amendments. Additionally, affected property owners must monitor, inspect, and record quarterly
wipe sampling and air monitoring results associated with the pre-TSCA uses of PCBs in their
facilities. Since such monitoring is a substantial undertaking, EPA estimated that it would
require approximately 200 technician hours to perform these tasks for a per-facility cost of
$8,760. Assuming again that 100 facilities are affected, this calculates to a total industiy cost of
$876,000 per year.
Since the cost savings are quite approximate and veiy large relative to the compliance
costs, it was inappropriate to reduce the cost savings estimate by the costs related to notifications
and monitoring required for continued building use. The cost savings estimate of $500 million
per year was used as the overall net cost savings.
4-52
-------
EPA has no information indicating that PCBs were routinely used in formulation of
consumer products. Nevertheless, EPA believes that consumers could occasionally obtain
products such as industrial enamels or marine paints which were formulated with PCBs through
purchase of these items as surplus. Under the existing regulation, households were required to
dispose of any PCB-containing material, which might have led to disposal or demolition of
significant pieces of personal property. The proposed regulation will allow homeowners to
continue to use PCB-containing materials, should they discover them in their homes or on their
property. Since there is no information on the extent of use of such materials or on the value of
their use in households, no estimates of the cost savings of this provision could be made.
Similarly, paragraph (q)(3) allows continued use of nonliquid PCB-containing materials
(other than those used in the household) that leach PCBs at less than 50 ng/L. The extent to
which such materials will be found is not known, and the associated cost savings, therefore, have
not been estimated.
76130(r) USE IN AND SERVICING OF RECTIFIERS
Proposed Regulation. PCBs at any concentration may be used in rectifiers and may be
used for purposes of servicing this electrical equipment (including rebuilding) for the remainder
of their useful life, subject to the following conditions: (1) Rectifiers may be serviced (including
rebuilding) only with dielectric fluid containing less than 50 ppm PCB.
Existing regulation. The existing regulation has no equivalent paragraph. Since use of
rectifiers was not authorized specifically, their continued use was in violation of the existing
regulation.
Changes. The proposed regulation allows the continuation of previously unauthorized
uses that were not addressed in previous PCB regulations. The action is deregulatoiy since the
existing regulation would require that use of the affected rectifiers be disallowed and that the
PCB material be removed.
4-53
-------
Cost impacts. Electric utility industry personnel indicated that rectifiers, which are
associated with rectifier-type transformers, were captured in the transformer data reported for
their PCB equipment (Rose, 1994). This data underlies the estimates of the number of PCB
Transformers owned by utilities and industry that were used in estimating compliance costs for
§761.30(a)(l)(vii) above. Thus, this equipment is included (to an unknown extent) in the
compliance cost estimates.
This change in the regulation is a deregulatory action in that a previously unauthorized
use has now been allowed. Electric utilities and industries need not incur the costs to
discontinue use of the affected equipment. Among the utility and industrial firms contacted,
however, rectifier equipment has not been itemized or handled separately from transformer
equipment, and information was unavailable on the quantity of equipment in place or the cost of
its removal and disposal. The quantity of such equipment is quite limited, however, and is
restricted to the use of rectifier transformers in electrostatic precipitators, a type of air pollution
equipment. No estimate of the cost savings could be prepared.
§761.30(s)—USE OF PCBS IN SCIENTIFIC EQUIPMENT
Proposed Regulation. PCBs at any concentration may be used in scientific equipment,
including but not limited to oscillatoiy flow birefringence and viscoelasticity instruments, to study
the physical properties of polymers, if the PCBs are in use in a specific scientific instrument as of
the date of this rule, and a maximum of 100 mL is used in a scientific instrument at any one
time.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The proposed regulation authorizes the use of PCBs in scientific equipment
under specific conditions.
Cost impacts. EPA estimates that this paragraph authorizes an existing use of specific
types of laboratory equipment. An estimated three or four companies produce this equipment.
4-54
-------
The paragraph produces a cost savings equal to the net economic benefit of using such
equipment, which could be approximated as the annual value added for sales of these selected
items. Data were not collected, however, on the market sales of this equipment and no estimate
of the cost savings was prepared.
§761.40(d)—MARKING DURING TRANSPORT
Proposed Regulation. Transport vehicles carrying PCB Containers with over 45 kg of
PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, or with one or more PCB Transformer(s), shall be
marked on each end and each side with the mark mL.
Existing Regulation. Each transport vehicle shall be marked on each end and side with
mL if it is loaded with PCB Containers that contain more than 45 kg (99.4 lb) of PCBs in the
liquid phase or with one or more PCB Transformers.
Changes. The proposed amendment extends the marking requirement to carriers of both
liquid and nonliquid PCBs.
Cost Impacts. Numerous PCB waste transporters (including those generators that
sometimes transport PCB waste from the field to their own storage facilities or to commercial
storage facilities) must mark their nonliquid waste loads under this requirement. The lowest cost
compliance method is estimated to be the purchase of metallic signs for trucks that can be placed
or removed conveniently with the PCB waste loads. The cost per set of four signs was estimated
at $60 (Lab Safety Supply, 1992).4
The number of transport vehicles affected was estimated at four times the number of
generation facilities. While not all facilities are affected, some facilities might have numerous
vehicles that transport PCB nonliquid wastes at least occasionally. This estimate amounts to
Approximate cost based on costs for similar aluminum signs.
4-55
-------
18,000 vehicles (4,500 affected facilities x 4). The aggregate cost of this revision is calculated at
$1.08 million in the first year; annualized over 5 years, the annual cost is $235,823.
§761.40(e)—MARKING CONTAINERS AND ITEMS
Proposed Regulation. PCB Items containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 to 500 ppm
shall be marked with mark mL.
Existing Regulation. PCB Items containing PCBs in concentrations of 50 to 500 ppm and
applicable transport vehicles in paragraph (d) of this section loaded with PCB Containers that
contain more than 45 kg of liquid PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm to 500 ppm shall be marked
with mark mL.
Change. The revision to this paragraph and to paragraph §761.40(b) eliminates
regulatory duplication of the transport vehicles. The changes cause no substantive cost-impact
modifications to the requirements of this section.
Cost Impact. There is no cost impact from this proposed change.
§761.40(h)—MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PCB STORAGE FACILITIES
Proposed Regulation. PCB Items, Storage units, and transport vehicles must be marked
on the exterior so that the marks can be easily read by any person inspecting or servicing the
items, Storage units, or transport vehicles.
Existing Regulation. Provides this requirement for PCB Items and transport vehicles at
this location in the regulation. Other sections, however, also cover marking requirements for
storage facilities.
4-56
-------
Changes. This change brings similar requirements together but makes no change to the
requirements of the standard.
Cost impacts. No costs are incurred.
§761.40(k)—MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PCB LARGE LOW-VOLTAGE CAPACITORS AND
EQUIPMENT CONTAINING PCB TRANSFORMERS OR LARGE HIGH- OR LOW-VOLTAGE
CAPACITORS
Proposed Regulation. Requires all PCB Large Low-Voltage Capacitors and all PCB
Equipment not marked under paragraph (a) of this section but containing a PCB Transformer or
PCB High- or Low-Voltage Capacitor to be marked with mL as described in §761.45(a). Either
the Large Low-Voltage Capacitor will be marked individually, or the power pole, structure, or
fence that provides a protected location for the capacitors will be marked with mL. The owner or
operator of the protected location must maintain a record or procedure for identifying the PCB
Capacitors.
Existing Regulation. These marking requirements were not addressed in the existing
regulation.
. Changes. This section adds marking requirements for PCB Large Low-Voltage
Capacitors and PCB Transformers (defined as those with PCB concentrations of 500 ppm or
more) that are not subject to the other marking requirements of this section. This section adds a
marking requirement to various equipment in utility, industrial, and other electrical transmission
and distribution facilities. The existing regulation's marking requirements apply only at the time
equipment is taken out of service. Thus, equipment that is still in place for use, or stored for
reuse currently is not subject to marking requirements.
Cost Impacts. The proposed revision will generate compliance costs for industrial and
commercial facilities that now must examine their electrical equipment, and particularly their
Large Low-Voltage Capacitors, to determine if they contain PCBs. Facilities also might find they
4-57
-------
have unmarked PCB Transformers, although PCB Transformers are much more likely to be
marked. Electric utilities also might incur some costs for this requirement.
According to EPA reports, the estimated number of large low-voltage capacitors in
nonutility facilities was 400,000 in 1984 (U.S. EPA, 1986a); many of these items, however, have
been retired. Estimating that approximately one-half of these capacitors have been disposed of
in the intervening period, approximately 200,000 capacitors are in place in nonelectric utility
installations. Further, using an estimate that the typical nonutility has 6 to 8 PCB Large
Capacitors, then 25,000 to 33,333 facilities would have such equipment in place (200,000 divided
by 6 or 8) (U.S. EPA, 1989b). For the cost analysis, a point estimate of 30,000 facilities that will
have such PCB Capacitors in place was used. Similarly, approximately 2.4 million PCB Large
Capacitors were in utility service in 1984. If a similar rate of removal from service applies, an
estimated 1.2 million PCB Capacitors remain in service in utility locations. There are 3,226
utilities, all of whom are likely to have such equipment.
Not all industrial and commercial facility managers will be aware of whether their
equipment contains PCBs. Each facility will require an estimated 4 hours to identify the
equipment, locate original equipment manufacturers, and otherwise search for information about
such equipment. This task is believed to be necessary even though facilities are covered by other
regulations that require knowledge of any PCB content in electrical equipment they are removing
from service.5
The number of labor hours expended at the rate of 4 hours per facility is 132,904 (4 x
[30,000+3,226]). Estimating a technical staff cost of $43.80 per hour, the aggregate cost of this
requirement is $5.82 million ($43.80 x 132,904). Facilities will incur a small additional cost to
place PCB labels on the equipment identified. The cost for such adhesive labels is approximately
$0.10 per label. With the estimated 1.4 million PCB Large Capacitors still in use, the cost of the
5While this discussion focuses only on industrial facilities, other organizations, such as
commercial facilities, universities, prisons, and other large installations, might have such
equipment as well. The cost analysis, however, is not affected significantly by the nature of the
installations involved since the overall estimate of the number of PCB Large Capacitors is fixed.
4-58
-------
labels will add $140,000 to the total for an aggregate cost of $5.96 million. Annualized over 5
years, the estimated cost of this amendment is $1.30 million per year.
§761.60—DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PRE-1978 SPILLS
Proposed Regulation. PCBs that have been disposed of, placed in a land disposal facility,
spilled, or otherwise released into the environment prior to April 18,1978, are considered to be
disposed of in a manner that does not present a risk of exposure, and therefore, require no
further disposal action, unless the RA determines that a risk is present. In such cases, the RA
may require the submission of an application for a risk-based disposal approval as per §761.61 or
§761.62. Liquid PCBs shall not be processed into nonliquid forms to circumvent the high
temperature incineration requirements of §761.60(a). Except as authorized in §761.30 or
prohibited in §761.20, PCB waste must be disposed of according to the provisions of this
Subpart. Any person disposing of PCBs is also responsible for determining and complying with
all other applicable Federal, State, or local laws and regulations.
Existing Regulation. A prefatoiy note to §761.60 stated that §761.60 did not require
PCBs and PCB Items that were landfilled prior to Februaiy 17,1978, to be removed for disposal.
Consulting with Federal or State regulatory authorities is not required when determining
conditions for disposal of PCB/radioactive wastes, PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes, or RCRA
wastes. The existing regulation currently stipulates that liquid PCBs shall not be processed into
nonliquid forms to circumvent the high temperature incineration requirements of §761.60(a).
Changes. The proposed revision designates pre-1978 dumps, landfills, land treatment
units, waste piles, sediments, and areas of PCB contamination from spills, or other releases as
not presenting a risk. The language allows the RA to require a risk-based disposal approval in
cases where there is a potential risk of injuiy to health or the environment. The language
clarifies EPA policy which was modified by EPA's Chief Judicial Officer in an August 1990
ruling on a PCB disposal case. The judicial ruling limited the coverage of the existing prefatoiy
note to only designated disposal sites such as landfills, thereby forcing the cleanup of other spjll
sites.
4-59
-------
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendment clarifies EPA policy and the meaning of the
existing regulation. The language will generate a cost savings by eliminating the need to cleanup
certain old spill sites and other old PCB contamination areas that were not designated as landfills
or disposal areas. The elimination of the need to clean up such sites, except where additional
risk factors necessitate a cleanup, generates a cost savings. This savings could not be separated,
however, from a separate cost analysis performed on remediation wastes in §761.61. See that
section for an analysis of private sector cleanup costs.
§761.60(a)(4)(i)—SPECIFICATIONS OF OPERATING CAPABILITIES AND PRACTICES FOR
INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
Proposed Regulation. An industrial furnace used to dispose of PCB-Contaminated Items
(i.e., 50 to <500 ppm in the contaminating fluid or 10 to <100 /tg/100 cm2 as measured by a
standard wipe sample [§761.123] of a nonporous surface) must comply with standard operating
temperature, time between charges of PCB-Contaminated Items, stack and furnace emission
standards, temperature controls, and recordkeeping of temperatures, and it must have a final
RCRA permit or be operated under a valid State air emissions permit that includes a standard
for PCBs. Industrial furnaces also must be in compliance with all applicable provisions under
Subparts J and K (for recordkeeping and reporting) as well as other applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations. In lieu of an existing RCRA or State air emissions permit, the
owner or operator may request the RA to determine whether the industrial furnace poses an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The request shall include a site-specific
risk assessment.
PCB liquids at concentrations ^50 ppm may not be disposed of in an industrial furnace
unless approved or otherwise allowed under §761.60. Failure to comply with the requirements of
this section during the combustion of PCBs shall constitute open burning.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding regulation.
4-60
-------
Changes. This proposed regulation defines the operating requirements for the industrial
furnaces that will be allowed as a disposal option for certain PCB wastes. The operating
requirements are linked to the prohibition on open burning (i.e., furnaces that do not meet these
requirements are considered to be open burning facilities and cannot be used for disposal of
PCB-contaminated items). The proposed regulation also allows a furnace owner and/or operator
to submit written requests to the RA to make a finding that the furnace does not pose an
unreasonable risk, if the furnace is in compliance with the provisions of this section and the
requests include a site-specific risk assessment.
Cost Impacts. These paragraphs define the conditions for industrial furnace operations
defined in other paragraphs. Although this paragraph influences the disposal options for PCB-
contaminated wastes, the associated cost impacts are considered in §761.60(b)(6)(ii) in which
proper disposal of PCB-contaminated equipment is required.
No information was identified that would indicate the number of facilities that would
choose to conduct site-specific risk assessments versus those that currently have a RCRA or State
air emissions permit. It was estimated, however, that extremely few and probably no facilities
would conduct site-specific risk assessments; the cost impacts or savings, therefore, are estimated
to be zero. Should one or more facilities actually undertake a site-specific risk assessment, the
cost of the study and report was estimated at $50,000 to $75,000. Assuming that the labor to
produce the risk assessment study is approximately $60 per hour, a total of 625 to 937 hours
(midpoint of 797 hours) would be required to produce the study. As noted, however, it was
judged that no such studies would be undertaken.
§761.60(b) (1) (i) (B)—PCB TRANSFORMERS DISPOSAL
Proposed Regulations. The proposed amendments state that PCB Transformers shall be
disposed of in a chemical waste landfill that complies with §761.75 provided that the transformer
is drained first for at least 48 continuous hours of all free-flowing liquid, filled with solvent,
allowed to stand for at least 18 continuous hours, and then drained thoroughly. PCB liquids,
which include both the dielectric fluid and the solvents used as a flush, that are removed from the
4-61
-------
transformer shall be disposed of according to paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Solvents may
include kerosene, xylene, toluene, and other solvents in which PCBs are readily soluble.
Precautions must be taken so that the solvent flushing procedure is conducted in accordance with
applicable safety and health standards, as required by Federal or State regulations.
Existing Regulation. PCB Transformers shall be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
that complies with §761.75 provided that the transformer first is 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 according to paragraph (a) of this section.
Changes. This proposed section adds a phrase that clarifies that in draining and rinsing
the transformers, the PCB liquid requiring disposal pursuant to §761.60(a) includes the drained
PCB liquid and the solvent used to rinse the transformer. In addition, this section imposes a
minimum timeframe of 48 hours for draining the transformer.
Cost Impacts. Based on discussion with transformer disposal services, consultants, and
electric utilities, current practices for such operations are already in compliance (i.e., they dispose
of the solvents with the liquid PCB wastes). This clarification in the wording of the regulation
will have no cost impact.
§76L60(b)(2)(iv)—DISPOSAL OF SMALL CAPACITORS
Proposed Regulation. Any PCB Small Capacitor owned by a current or former
manufacturer of PCB Capacitors or PCB Equipment and who acquired the PCB Capacitors in
the course of such manufacturing shall be placed in a DOT-authorized container and disposed of
in accordance with ...
Existing Regulation. Any PCB Small Capacitor owned by a current or former
manufacturer of PCB Capacitors or PCB Equipment and who acquired the PCB Capacitors in
the course of such manufacturing shall be disposed of in accordance with ...
4-62
-------
Changes. The proposed amendments require that Small PCB Capacitors be placed in
DOT-authorized containers prior to incineration.
Cost Impacts. Discussions with electric utilities (the largest industrial faction that must
dispose of capacitors), incineration companies, and waste disposal consultants indicated that most
incineration facilities already require that capacitors be placed in DOT-authorized containers
prior to incineration. Other capacitor owners use other container types, such as wooden crates
and plastic wraps.
The proposed revisions will require affected owners of Small PCB Capacitors to purchase
DOT-authorized containers where they are not currently using them. PCB waste trucking and
disposal firms reported that they occasionally transport shipments of small PCB Capacitor waste,
but the share of these capacitors owned by manufacturers of PCB Capacitors or PCB equipment
is not known. It is likely that few manufacturers of such equipment still hold inventories of
capacitors. Further, as noted above, the facilities receiving any such waste are quite likely to be
requiring use of DOT-authorized containers. Given the very small number of affected waste-
generating companies and the relatively high existing compliance rate, it was estimated that the
compliance costs of this paragraph are negligible.
§76l60(b)(2)(vi)—ANY DOT-AUTHORIZED CONTAINERS ALLOWED FOR CHEMICAL
LANDFILLING OF LARGE AND SMALL PCB CAPACITORS
Proposed Regulation. Prior to disposal in a §761.75 chemical waste landfill, all Large
PCB Capacitors and all Small PCB Capacitors described in §761.60(b)(2)(iv) shall be placed in a
container meeting DOT packaging specifications.
Existing Regulation. Prior to disposal in a §761.75 chemical waste landfill, all Large PCB
Capacitors, and all Small PCB Capacitors described in §761.60(b)(2)(iv) shall be placed in a
container identified in §761.65(c)(6) or in 17H containers.
4-63
-------
Changes. This proposed regulation is a deregulatory action that allows a greater range of
container choices by referring the reader to DOT regulations, rather than to EPA-specified
regulations.
Cost Impacts. Under present practice, some companies accumulate small capacitors in
DOT-authorized drums for some time until there are enough to warrant transporting the wastes
to a disposal site. Other companies might dispose of PCB wastes so rarely that only one or two
capacitors are in each shipment. Intact and nonleaking PCB Large Capacitors may be shipped
without being in a container, or several may be placed in one container. While numerous small
capacitors may be placed in one container, the numbers shipped per container varies widely. For
1990, EPA determined that 22,760 large capacitors were disposed of; the number of small
capacitors disposed of was not measured.
Given the lack of an accurate count of containers used to dispose of capacitors, the
savings cannot be estimated. The cost savings is likely to be quite modest since the new choices
for containers likely are not much cheaper than the existing containers.
§761.60(b) (2) (vii) —LIMITATIONS ON NUMBER OF FLUORESCENT LIGHT BALLASTS
CONTAINING PCBS THAT CAN BE DISPOSED OF
Proposed Regulation. Any person may dispose of less than 25 intact and nonleaking
fluorescent light ballasts containing PCBs within a one-year time period starting from the date
when the first fluorescent light ballast was removed in a facility which is permitted, licensed or
registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste (excluding thermal treatment
units). Disposal of PCBs as municipal or industrial solid waste is subject to the CERCLA
reportable quantity requirement at 40 CFR 302.6. The disposal of fluorescent light ballasts as
PCB Equipment is subject to the restrictions of paragraph (iv) of this section (for placing PCB
Equipment in DOT-authorized containers and disposing them accordingly).
Existing Regulation. No corresponding paragraph. Small capacitors, such as those found
in fluorescent light ballasts containing PCBs, are unregulated for disposal except by individuals
4-64
-------
that had manufactured small capacitors or equipment containing small capacitors. Fluorescent
light ballasts with "potting" material containing PCBs in concentrations 50 ppm or more are
regulated for disposal as a PCB Article and must be incinerated.
Changes. The proposed regulation clarifies that there is an exemption for disposal
activities for a specified number of fluorescent light ballasts, and that the CERCLA reporting
requirements apply. No substantive change is made to disposal requirements for small capacitors
or fluorescent light ballasts. Fluorescent light ballasts are regulated for disposal at the present
time if the PCB concentration of the potting material surrounding the small capacitors in the
ballasts equals or exceeds 50 ppm. In those cases, fluorescent light ballasts are currently
regulated for disposal as PCB Articles and must be incinerated. The new language also informs
the public of CERCLA reporting requirements at §302.6, but does not add or change that
requirement.
Cost Impacts. Based on discussions with industry, it was estimated that about 100 million
light ballasts must be disposed of each year, of which approximately one-half contain PCBs.
Approximately 60 percent (30 million out of 50 million) of the ballasts are estimated to be
disposed of as municipal solid waste (MSW) (McCagg, 1993). The remaining PCB-containing
ballasts (20 million) are being disposed of safely because of industry concern and through
voluntary industry programs, such as the EPA Office of Air and Radiation's Green Lights
Program. Of the capacitors being disposed of through the Green Lights program or other
industry efforts, an estimated 70 to 75 percent are chemical landfilled because this option is the
least expensive at an estimated $1.00 per ballast. Another option is incineration at about $6.00
per ballast. An estimated 5 percent are incinerated at a cost of about $6.00 per ballast, and
about 20 to 25 percent are stripped of recyclable metal and then disposed of by incineration, at
an estimated $1.50 per ballast (Salmela, 1993; McCagg, 1993). With volume discounts
considered, the average per ballast cost for recycling with incineration was estimated at $1.40 per
ballast. The recycling option costs considerably less than simple incineration because recycling
separates the metal components of the light ballasts, thereby reducing the quantity of material
being incinerated. The combustibility of the incinerated material also is improved.
4-65
-------
To summarize, the current disposal cost for light ballasts other than those going for
municipal solid waste is estimated as follows:
¦ Chemical landfllling—$15 million (0.75 x 20 million ballasts x $1.00/ballast).
¦ Incineratiod—$6 million (0.05 x 20 million ballasts x $6.00/ballast).
¦ Recycling then incineration—$5.6 million (0.20 x 20 million ballasts x
$1.40/ballast).
It was thus estimated that the current total disposal costs for light ballasts are $26.6 million per
year ($15 million + $6 million + $5.6 million) or $1.33 per ballast average ($26.6 million -5- 20
million ballasts). The current cost of disposal as MSW was estimated to be negligible.
Current disposal costs, however, are not fulfy indicative of current disposal requirements.
Disposal of most fluorescent light ballasts as municipal solid waste or by chemical landfill is not
currently allowed, assuming that many fluorescent light ballasts include PCB concentrations of 50
ppm or more in the "potting" material (a layer of epoxy resin around the small capacitor in the
ballast). Such ballasts represent PCB Articles and should be sent to disposal. Therefore,
according to estimates submitted to EPA, as high as 70 percent of light ballasts contain potting
material at 50 ppm or more PCBs and should be sent to incineration.
The proposed amendments do not modify the disposal requirements for small capacitors
or fluorescent light ballasts and no incremental costs are incurred. Costs to upgrade disposal of
those ballasts currently being disposed illegally as municipal solid waste or by chemical landfllling
(i.e., those that have PCBs 50 ppm or more in the potting material) are not attributable to the
proposed regulation. A small cost savings would actually be generated relative to the existing
regulation since, under this proposal, small quantities of fluorescent light ballasts may be
disposed of as municipal solid waste. This cost savings was not quantified.
4-66
-------
§761.60(b)(3)—PCB HYDRAULIC MACHINES
Proposed Regulation. The proposed regulation inserts language to indicate that disposal
of PCB Hydraulic Machines is acceptable by burning in an industrial furnace, disposal in a
permitted municipal or industrial landfill, or in a TSCA-approved disposal facility.
Existing Regulation. PCB Hydraulic Machines containing PCBs at concentrations of 50
ppm or greater such as die casting machines may be disposed of as municipal solid waste or
salvage provided that the machines are drained of all free-flowing liquid and the liquid is
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this section of the regulation.
Changes. This revision modifies the disposal options for PCB hydraulic equipment by
making the regulation more specific. The principal disposal options remain disposal as municipal
solid waste or to salvage in an industrial furnace. The revision defines each option more exactly,
however, noting that disposal as a solid waste shall occur in a facility licensed to manage
municipal or industrial solid waste, and that salvage shall occur only in an industrial furnace
meeting the specifications of paragraph §761.60(a)(4). This will increase the costs of disposal
because only a restricted set of industrial furnaces can accept these wastes.
Cost impacts. PCB contamination occurred in hydraulic machines, particularly die casting
machines and power presses, that used PCB-containing hydraulic oils. PCB-containing oils also
were used in a variety of other hydraulic equipment not designed specifically to accept PCB-
containing hydraulic oils. This equipment would become contaminated with PCB oils because
PCB-containing oils were used as replacements for non-PCB-containing oils when convenient.
Several elements combine to make the cost impacts of this change quite minor. First,
since PCBs have not been used in hydraulic oil for more than 20 years, virtually all equipment
made since that time is not contaminated. While some older hydraulic equipment is
contaminated, the amount of such equipment in place is quite limited. Several PCB-waste
disposal firms indicated that they received veiy little equipment with PCB-containing hydraulic
oils. Hydraulic and machine tool servicing companies indicated that they were unaware of PCB-
4-67
-------
contamination issues. Finally, PCB-waste incinerating companies indicated that they received
very little PCB-contaminated hydraulic oil or PCB-contaminated hydraulic equipment.
To the extent that such waste is generated, the proposed standard will reduce the disposal
options. The principal change—the increased requirements for industrial furnaces—might reduce
the extent to which PCB-contaminated hydraulic machines are salvaged in industrial furnaces.
Nevertheless, the infrequency with which such equipment is salvaged indicates that the cost of
compliance for this paragraph is negligible.
§761.60(b)(4)—.PCB-CONTAMINATED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Proposed Regulation. This proposed regulation specifies that all PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment except capacitors shall be disposed of by draining all free-flowing liquid
from the electrical equipment for a period of not less than 48 hours and disposing of the liquid in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section. The regulation also specifies that the
drained equipment shall be disposed of in a facility that is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State
to manage municipal or industrial solid wastes (excluding thermal treatment units), an industrial
furnace, or a TSCA-approved facility. Capacitors that contain between 50 and <500 ppm PCBs
shall be disposed of in an approved incinerator, by chemical landfill, as per §761.70 and §761.75, or
by an alternate destruction method approved under §761.60(e).
Existing Regulation. 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 according to paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section. The disposal of the drained
electrical equipment is not regulated by this rule.
Changes. This proposed amendment adds a specification that electrical equipment must
be drained for at least 48 hours. The amendment also specifies disposal options for the drained
equipment, whereas the existing regulation does not cover the disposal of drained electrical
equipment and may allow for inappropriate disposal.
4-68
-------
Cost Impacts. Estimates were based on current equipment draining methods and those
required under the proposed standard. Estimates were made based on discussions with electrical
utilities and electrical equipment storage and disposal installations.
Utility officials indicated that drained electrical equipment already is disposed of
according to TSCA regulations and that every transformer slated for disposal is drained (and
otherwise decontaminated) before disposal. They noted, however, that drainage times ranged
from 30 minutes to 1-1/2 days with an average of about 1 day. Facility managers and operators
indicated that costs associated with draining equipment for 48 hours would increase the labor
hours needed for monitoring the equipment to ensure draining operations are proceeding
adequately (no leaks have occurred in pipes or other equipment). Also technicians would have
to monitor equipment for longer periods of time in some cases because fewer units will be able
to be drained simultaneously due to the longer draining time. The exact amount of additional
labor required per equipment item depends on the draining methods used and the number of
equipment items being drained simultaneously.
For large transformer service companies, the incremental labor required to monitor
draining equipment would be modest because a number of equipment items could be monitored
simultaneously through walk-through inspections of the drainage areas. The larger companies
also use larger and more sophisticated equipment that can drain the articles more rapidly. For
smaller operations, monitoring the draining operation may require a special effort for each
equipment item. Overall, it was estimated that this proposed regulation would increase labor
time by 0.5 hour per transformer.
According to EPA's 1990 annual report on PCB disposal activities, 30,003 transformers
were disposed of that year (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Estimating that 10 percent of these transformers
are PCB-contaminated, and that approximately the same number of transformers will be disposed
of annually, then the added number of labor hours to drain PCB Equipment for an additional
day will be approximately 1,500 hours. A labor rate of $43.80 per hour was used for technical
operations. The annual report does not cover transformers sent for salvage for their scrap metal
content. It was estimated that an equivalent number of transformers were disposed of in this
manner, thereby adding an additional 1,500 hours in drainage time. The added costs of draining
4-69
-------
PCB Electrical Equipment for an additional day was then calculated at $131,400 per year (3,000
hr x $43.80/hr).
§761.60(b) (5)—ABANDONMENT AND DISPOSAL OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE
Proposed Regulation. Proposed new paragraph §761.60 (b)(5) addresses the
abandonment in place6 and removal and disposal of drained natural gas pipelines that contain
PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or more and the disposal of all PCB-containing liquids removed
from natural gas pipeline segments. The PCB concentrations in pipeline shall be determined by
measuring condensate collected at existing condensate collection/removal points. When no
condensate or free-flowing liquid is present, surface level concentrations shall be measured.
Organic and aqueous condensate liquids shall be separated by decantation and the components
separately analyzed using EPA Method 8080 or equivalent. There is no general requirement to
test natural gas pipelines or to assume that they contain PCBs, although some interstate pipelines
are assumed to be contaminated.
Pipe abandonment. The abandonment amendments allow PCB-containing natural gas
pipes that are 4 inches or less in inside diameter to be abandoned in place, if either end of each
pipe is sealed closed, and each pipe is included in a public service notification program. Such
notification programs include one-call systems1 described under 49 CFR 192.614 (a) and (b).
Alternatively, the pipe may be abandoned in place if it is filled to 50 percent of the pipe's
volume with grout (i.e., a hardening sluny-like cement, bentonite, or clay) or high-density foam
Abandonment in place refers to those pipes that are abandoned in the place they were used
to transport natural gas.
1One-call systems are programs run by utility companies to inform landowners that they
should contact the utilities before beginning any excavation work on their property to avoid
disturbing any underground utility pipes. Usually, there is one central phone number the public
can call to inform all relevant utilities about a potential dig. This call activates the process for all
utilities to visit the site and inform the landowner of precisely where underground pipes are
located. Most states already require each natural gas company to be part of a one-call system
for protecting active natural gas lines. The proposed regulation would require decommissioned
pipes contaminated with PCBs to be included in these programs if the grouting option was not
used.
4-70
-------
and is sealed in place. (These pipes are too small in diameter to be characterized by wipe
samples.)
Natural gas pipeline of any diameter containing a PCB concentration between 50 to less
than 500 ppm in the contaminating fluids (or shown to be 10 to <100 /tg/100 cm2) may be
abandoned in place if it contains no free-flowing liquids and each end is sealed dosed.
Natural gas pipeline of any diameter may be abandoned in place, under the following
conditions: (1) it contains no free-flowing liquid, (2) the interior surface of each pipe is cleaned
using a single wash of diesel fuel with a 95 percent recovery of the volume of diesel wash
introduced into the system for washing and less than 50 ppiji in the recovered wash or the
pipeline is filled to 50 percent of its volume with grout or high-density polyurethane foam, and
(3) each end is sealed closed. (This option applies to all natural gas pipes, including those
containing ^500 ppm PCBs in the contaminating fluids [or shown to be >100 /tg/100 oil2]).
Sections of natural gas pipeline contaminated with PCBs at any concentration may be
abandoned in place as long as the sections:
¦ Contain no free-flowing liquids.
¦ Are located under rivers or streams, paved highways, parking lots, sidewalks,
permanent buildings not associated with the pipelines, under the adjoining rights-
of-way or in rights-of-way shared with municipal drinking water mains, municipal
sewer systems, or telephone or electric utilities.
¦ Are filled to 50 percent of the volume of the pipe with grout or high-density
polyurethane foam and each end of this section is sealed, with the additional
specification that cement shall be used as grout under rivers or streams.
Pipe removal with subsequent action. Natural gas pipelines that contain no free-flowing
liquids but fluids known to have been in contact with PCB fluids at concentrations from 50 to
less than 500 ppm PCBs or found to have PCB surface concentrations from 10 to less than 100
Hg/100 cm2 as determined prior to or during removal may be disposed of as follows:
4-71
-------
¦ In a facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or
industrial solid waste (excluding thermal treatment plants).
¦ In an industrial furnace as defined in §761.3 and operating in compliance with
proposed §761.60 (a)(4).
¦ In other TSCA-approved disposal facilities.
Natural gas pipes having an inside diameter of <4 inches and containing PCBs in any
concentration but no free-flowing liquids also may be disposed of as listed above.
Natural gas pipelines containing PCBs at any concentration also may be disposed of as
follows:
¦ In an incinerator that complies with §761.70.
¦ In a chemical waste landfill that complies with §761.75, provided that all free-
flowing liquid PCBs have been drained thoroughly from the pipe.
¦ Using an alternate TSCA-approved disposal technology as defined in §761.60(e).
¦ As a nonremediation waste in compliance with §761.62.
The pipes also can be decontaminated in accordance with the standards and procedures specified
in §761.79.
Proposed §761.60(b)(5)(iii) specifies that all liquids removed from a segment of natural
gas pipe must be disposed of according to §761.60(a), based on the concentration of liquid at the
time of removal from the pipe. To demonstrate compliance with the abandonment and disposal
options, natural gas pipeline segments must be characterized for PCB contamination by analyzing
liquids found in the segment or by standard wipe samples according to the methods described in
Appendix I.
Existing Regulation. Section 761.60(b)(5)(i) requires that natural gas pipes (i.e., PCB
Articles) contaminated with PCBs in concentrations >.500 ppm be disposed of by chemical
landfilling, incineration, or other TSCA-approved methods. Section 761.60(b)(5)(ii) states that
4-72
-------
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 the liquid according to paragraphs
(a)(2) or (3). The disposal of the drained articles is not regulated by this rule. As such, the
articles can be abandoned in place, or excavated and disposed of by a municipal or industrial
solid waste facility or industrial furnace. According to DOT pipe abandonment rules, 49 CFR
192.727 (b), (c), and (d)(3), inactive gas pipes can be abandoned in place if they are purged of
the gas, filled with water or inert materials, and then sealed closed. Although not required by
the regulation, industry practice is to characterize pipes suspected of PCB contamination to
determine contamination levels and required means of disposal. The common procedure is to
conduct standard wipe samples, as described in §761.123 under Subpart G, the PCB Spill Cleanup
Policy.
EPA also has developed policies by which natural gas companies could more readily
decrease the amount of PCBs in their systems, increase the level of disposal of PCB-
contaminated material, and maintain the level of service provided to their customers. Interstate
transmission companies that own and operate long-distance natural gas pipelines that have been
shown to be contaminated with PCBs at levels of 50 ppm or more are monitored under a
voluntary compliance program, managed by the Office of Compliance Monitoring of the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Local distribution companies (LDCs) that have provided
natural gas to the end users through PCB-contaminated pipelines are monitored under
agreements with the RAs. These policies specify methods for pipe characterization and
requirements for pipes containing PCBs in concentrations <50 ppm; from 50 to less than 500
ppm; and 500 ppm or more and are similar to the proposed regulation.
The existing regulations and policies for pipes from PCB-contaminated systems that are
inaccessible for characterization or too small in diameter to be accurately sampled, but where a
presumption can be made that the pipe came in contact with ^500 ppm PCBs, may require pipe
excavation and disposal by chemical landfilling, incineration, or another TSCA-approved method.
Systems in which PCB contamination has not been found are not subject to PCB regulation.
EPA also has issued permits under §761.60(e) to companies that have demonstrated that
an alternative method of destroying PCBs can achieve a level of performance equivalent to
4-73
-------
TSCA-approved incinerators or high-efficiency boilers (U.S. EPA, 1992c; Porter, 1993; Vocke,
1993a). These permits address pipe testing, abandonment in place, decontamination, and
disposal of pipes containing all levels of PCB contamination, among other provisions.
The existing policies also require the characterization of pipes, according to the
procedures described in §761.123 under Subpart G, the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy.
Table 4-6 lists the abandonment and disposal options under the existing and proposed
regulations.
Changes. Overall, the proposed regulation is more lenient in the disposal and
abandonment of PCB-contaminated natural gas pipelines, more in line with the provisions
included in the permits, policy statements, and enforcement agreements for abandonment,
disposal, decontamination, and characterization.
Instead of requiring natural gas pipes <4 inches in diameter (i.e., pipes that are too small
in diameter to be sampled or characterized accurately) to be placed in a chemical landfill,
incinerated, or disposed of by another TSCA-approved method, the proposed amendments allow
these pipes to be sealed and included in a one-call system or to be handled with the grouting (or
filling with foam) and sealing option.
The regulation of natural gas pipes contaminated with PCBs in concentrations between 50
and 500 ppm and from which all free-flowing liquids have been removed remains relatively
unchanged from the existing regulations, policies, and agreements with the RAs. Pipe
abandonment (with sealing) and disposal by a municipal or industrial solid waste facility,
industrial furnace, or TSCA-approved facility are allowed in the current regulation and policies
as with the proposed regulation, although the proposed amendment more clearly codifies these
options. The policies and proposed regulations also more clearly define the requirements for
wipe-sample characterization of the pipes.
For pipes found or presumed to contain PCBs in concentrations above 500 ppm, the
proposed amendments allow new options for pipe decontamination using a diesel wash;
4-74
-------
TABLE 4-6
ABANDONMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR PCB-CONTAMINATED NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
UNDER THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED REGULATION - §761.60(b)(5)
Pipeline T^pe
Existing Regulation
Proposed Regulation
Pipelines <4 inches in
diameter (The PCB
concentration in these
pipelines cannot be
measured)
Drain and place in chemical landfill.
Incinerate.
Use other TSCA-approved methods.
Abandon in place, seal ends, and include in one-
call systems.
For pipes that contain no free-flowing liquid:
Abandon in place and fill halfway with
grout or high-density foam.
Dispose of in municipal or industrial solid
waste facility.
Dispose of in industrial furnace, as per
§761.3.
Use TSCA-approved disposal facility.
Pipelines of any
diameter contaminated
with PCBs in
concentrations 50 to
<500 ppm (or 10 to
< 100 /xg/100 cm2) in
wipe samples
§761.60(b)(5)(ii), Other PCB Articles: Drain Articles of
all free-flowing liquid and dispose the liquid in
accordance with §761.60(a)(2) or (3). Rule does not
regulate the disposal of the drained article (i.e., pipes can be
abandoned in place or disposed of in a municipal or
industrial solid waste facility or other TSCA-approved
methods).
DOT regulation, 49 CFR 192.727 (b), (c), and (d)(3):
Can abandon in place inactive natural gas pipelines if
pipes are purged of all gas, filled with water or inert
materials, and then sealed closed.
Natural gas pipeline abandonment and disposal also
defined in voluntary compliance programs and RA
agreements.
For pipes that contain no free-flowing liquid:
Abandon in place and seal ends.
Dispose of in a municipal or industrial
solid waste facility.
Dispose of in an industrial furnace, as per
§761.3.
Use a TSCA-approved disposal facility, as
per §761.60(e).
-------
TABLE 4-6 (Cont)
4^
¦
ON
Pipelines of any
diameter contaminated
with PCBs in
concentrations >.500
ppm (or >.100 /xg/100
cm2) in wipe samples
Drain and place in chemical landfill.
Incinerate.
Use other TSCA-approved methods.
For pipes that contain no free-flowing liquid:
Abandon in place, wash with dicscl fuel,
and seal ends.
Abandon in place, fill halfway with grout
or high-density foam, and seal ends.
Place in chemical landfill, as per §761.75.
Incinerate, as per §761.70.
Use a TSCA-approved disposal technology, as per
§761.60(e).
Dispose of as a nonremcdiation waste in
compliance with §761.62.
Inaccessible pipelines
Drain and place in chemical landfill.
Incinerate.
Use other TSCA-approved methods.
For pipes that contain no free-flowing liquid:
Abandon in place, fill halfway with grout
or high-density foam, and seal ends.
Fill pipes situated under rivers or streams
with cement only and seal ends.
-------
abandonment, grouting (or filling with foam), and sealing; or disposal as a nonremediation waste.
The compliance programs and RA agreements allow for decontamination, filling these pipes with
water (in some regions), chemical landfilling, and incineration.
The proposed amendments allow pipes that are difficult to access and/or excavate to be
grouted, etc., instead of being chemical landfilled, incinerated, or disposed of via another TSCA-
approved method as required by the existing regulations, compliance programs, and RA
agreements.
The proposed amendments also codify the requirements for pipe characterization that are
addressed in the existing policies.
Cost Impacts/Savings. While current EPA policy (as defined by the compliance
programs, RA agreements, and alternate disposal approvals) is roughly similar to the proposed
regulation, it varies by EPA region and company affected. Since a single definition of EPA
policy baseline cannot be developed for use in estimating the costs of these activities, the cost
savings of the proposed regulation when compared to the existing regulation baseline was
estimated. To approximate costs under the EPA policy baseline, it was estimated that the
proposed regulations will be 20 percent less costly than the current EPA policy, because the
current compliance programs and RA agreements typically require more pipeline disposal via the
more costly options of chemical landfilling or incineration (see below). The 20 percent figure
represents the best estimate of cost differences varying by situation and location between the
existing policy and the proposed amendments.
Most of the discussion covers the comparison of costs under the existing and proposed
regulations. These costs are summarized in Table 4-7. The cost savings under the EPA policy
baseline is calculated at the end of this discussion.
It was estimated that the proposed regulation will result in a major cost savings to
industry due to the more lenient and less costly provisions relative to the existing regulation for
the disposal of the following types of pipes:
4-77
-------
TABLE 4-7
COMPARISON OF COSTS TO ABANDON OR DISPOSE OF PCB-CONTAMINATED
NATURAL GAS PIPES UNDER THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED PCB REGULATIONS
Method of
Disposal*
Pipe Typeb
Units of
Pipe (mi)
Unit Cost and
Other
Conversion
Factors
Total Annual
Cost®
Excavation and Disposal Costs Under the Existing Regulations
Pipe Excavation
LD*
$87/ft; 5,280,. : ?
ft/mi
LDC*
118.22
$87/ft; 5,280 ....
ft/mi
$54,305,539. :,::i
Total
123.48
$56,721,773
Chemical
Landfilling
LD
3.95
$200,000/mid
$790,000
LDC
88.67
$150/ton;e 75
tons/mi
$997,538
Total
92.62
NA
$1,787,538
Incineration
LD.
$2,500/ton;e 75 v
tons/rai
$660,000
LDC
$2,500/idn;'-75 . •
tons/mi
Total
30.84
na
$6,202,500
Total Cost of
Existing
Regulation
Total
123.48
NA
$64,711,811
Abandonment and Disposal Costs Under the Proposed Regulations
Abandonment in
Place and
Inclusion in
One-Call System
LD
NA
LDC «S4 in.
: 82.63 ,
$2.00/ft;f 5,280 :
ft/mi
•, '$87£573-;::.
4-78
-------
TABLE 4-7 (cont.)
Method of
Disposal*
Pipe Type*
Units of
Pipe (mi)
Unit Cost and
Other
Conversion
Factors
Total Annual
Cost®
Abandonment and Disposal Costs Under the Proposed Regulations (cont.)
Filling with
Grout
LD
4.34
$1438/ft;« 5,280
ft/mi
$329,521 ...
LDC
26.70
$3.27/ft;k 5,280
ft/mi
$460,992/
:T6tal
31,04
NA'
$790^513!.i
Filling with
Foam
LD
0.79
$15.96/ftg
$66,572
LDC
8.83
$3.62/ft;h 5,280
ft/mi
$168,773
Total
9.62
NA
$235,345
1AV^hmig:with.-
Fuel
o.n
$8/ff;'5,280.
.ft/mi .
$4,646
mMBnSrn:
SK8MSS8E1!!l
NA
$1,690
ilI8KN,3
mm
$6,336
Chemical
Landfilling,
Including
Excavation
LD and LDC
excavation
0.037
$87/ft; 5,280
ft/mi
$16,996
LD
0.02
$200,000/mid
$4,000
LDC
0.017
$150/ton;e 75
tons/mi
$191
Total
0.037
NA
$21,187
i i • L
F^yatipn;-:'
excavation
0.013
87/ft; 5,280
ft/ml r
0.007
$2,500/ton;e200 .
tons/tar
$3,500
0.006
$2,500/ton;e75
tons/mi
$1,125
Total
0.Q13 i /.
NA
; 10,597 :
4-79
-------
TABLE 4-7 (conl.)
Method of
Disposal*
Pipe Typeb
Units of
Pipe (mi)
Unit Cost and
Other
Conversion
Factors
Total Annual
Costc
Abandonment and Disposal Costs Under the Proposed Regulations (cont.)
Total Cost for
Proposed
Regulation
NA
: NA ¦
$1,936,551
Potential Cost
Savings for
Proposed
Regulation
$64,711,811 - $1,936,551 = $62,775,260
Source: Estimates were generated from various sources. See text for specific references.
The pipes abandoned and disposed of by these methods contain PCBs at concentrations ^500 ppm
(SrlOO /jg/100 cm2) or levels that could not be determined due to inaccessibility of the pipes. Disposal
methods and costs for pipes that contain PCBs at concentrations 50 to <500 ppm (10 to <100 /tg/100 cm2)
are not shown because it is estimated that these costs will not change significantly.
bInterstate gas transmission companies typically own and operate large-diameter (LD) pipes that are
24 in. or more in diameter, are covered 6 to 8 ft deep, and cover long distances. Local distribution company
(LDC) pipes typically are small-diameter pipes <4 in. in diameter, are buried about 2 ft deep, and have
numerous joints, tees, elbows, and cross-overs.
Totals may not add up precisely because of rounding.
dCosts include transporting, cutting, and landfilling the pipes.
'Cost does not include shipping costs.
'Costs for sealing pipe ends and for including the pipes in one-call systems consider costs for renting
and mobilizing equipment, paying labor, and revising existing one-call programs to include decommissioned
pipes but do not consider costs for restoring the area, controlling traffic, paying labor for working during
restricted hours, or sealing service lines or vent pipes, because these costs vary widely from site to site.
'Costs account for renting and mobilizing equipment, paying labor for excavation and pumping, and
buying grouting or foam compounds and supplies, but not for working during restricted hours, sealing service
lines or vent pipes, or containing and disposing of the liquid slurry that is forced out of the pipe as the grout
is being pumped in.
bCosts account for mobilization, labor and equipment, and grouting or foam compound.
'Costs account for mobilization, labor and equipment, and disposing of the contaminated wash liquid.
4-80
-------
¦ Pipes that are too small in diameter to be characterized.
¦ Pipes found or presumed to contain PCBs in concentrations greater than 500
PPm.
¦ Pipes that are difficult to access or excavate.
The costs to dispose of pipes that contain PCBs in concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm will
be negligible because the existing regulations and policies provide similar provisions as the
proposed amendments.
The cost savings for both interstate gas transmission companies and LDCs was analyzed.
Transmission companies typically own and operate large-diameter pipes that are 24 inches or
more in diameter, are buried 6 to 8 feet deep, and cover long distances (Kinne, 1992). LDC
pipes typically are small-diameter pipes (i.e., <4 inches in diameter), are buried about 2 feet
deep in both rural and highly urban areas, and have numerous joints, tees, elbows, and cross-
overs. The American Gas Association (AGA) estimates that about 65 percent of the
decommissioned LDC pipe is ^4 inches in diameter, and 35 percent of the pipe is >4 inches in
diameter (Traweek, 1992).
To estimate costs for this amendment, estimates for the following data elements were
developed:
¦ Length of pipe of various diameters that is decommissioned each year.
¦ Length of pipe that is known or presumed to contain PCBs at various levels of
contamination.
¦ Length of pipe that will be handled by each option.
¦ Cost of filling pipes with grout and foam, sealing the ends, adding
decommissioned pipes to one-call systems, washing pipes, and chemical landfilling
and incinerating pipes.
¦ Length of regulated pipe that will be disposed of by the various options.
¦ Cost of excavating pipes, included to indicate the overall cost savings that can be
generated by the proposed pipe abandonment options, which do not require
4-81
-------
excavation, as compared to the existing disposal options that require excavation
and then further handling of the pipes.
Because at present, the industry generally does not grout pipes or fill them with foam,
data sources are limited (Kinne, 1992; Sadler, 1992; Traweek, 1992). Costs for approved
alternative methods of disposal were not estimated because discussions with industry personnel
indicated that alternative methods are just as costly as chemical landfilling, and only a very small
percentage of pipes are disposed of by alternative means. Costs for disposing pipes as a
nonremediation waste also were not estimated due to the unpredictability of determining the
specific methods that might be used.
Although industry estimates for pipe characterization were $200/mile (Vocke, 1993a),
these estimates also were not included in this analysis because industry has been conducting
characterization activities under the existing regulation and policies and there would be negligible
cost impacts associated with the proposed amendments. Nor were the costs to drain pipes or
dispose of the liquid drained from the pipes estimated, except for the diesel-wash option, because
this activity is covered under §761.60(a). Also, some estimates have imbedded in them the costs
for transporting pipes to disposal facilities and other estimates do not account for transportation
costs.
Industry activities in pipe decommissioning. The natural gas industry decommissions miles
of pipe each year, most of which do not show PCB contamination and are not subject to PCB
regulation. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) estimates that 300 to
400 miles of large-diameter pipe (350 miles average) must be decommissioned each year (Kinne,
1992). Transmission companies excavate most large-diameter decommissioned pipes, although
short distances of pipes that run underneath waterways, roadways, and buildings are abandoned
in place in lieu of excavation and further disposal. Data from an informal AGA survey indicated
that in 1989, LDCs removed from service about 2,542 miles of small-diameter pipe, of which
approximately 97 percent (2,457 miles) were abandoned in place and the remainder (85 miles)
were removed from the ground (Traweek, 1993).
4-82
-------
Pipe disposal under the existing regulation. Based on discussion with industry, it was
estimated that of the 350 miles of pipes decommissioned by transmission companies, 5 percent of
the pipes (17.5 miles) are contaminated with PCBs and fall under PCB regulation, of which 70
percent (12.25 miles) contain 50 to 500 ppm PCBs, 15 percent (2.63 miles) contain 500 ppm or
more PCBs, and 15 percent (2.63) miles are inaccessible for testing. Industry representatives
stated that for the pipes that are inaccessible for testing and the pipes that are contaminated with
PCBs over 500 ppm, chemical landfilling is the favored disposal option over incineration because
of the availability of facilities and lower costs (Kinne, 1992; Traweek, 1992). Therefore, it was
estimated that of the 5.26 miles (2.63 + 2.63 miles) of transmission company pipe per year that
require excavation and disposal, 75 percent (3.95 miles) of pipes are chemical landfilled and 25
percent (132 miles) are incinerated.
For the 2,542 miles of LDC pipes decommissioned annually, it was estimated that 5
percent of all pipe sizes (127.1 miles), whether or not the pipe has been removed from the
ground, must be regulated and disposed of via the PCB rules. Of this 127.1 miles of LDC pipe
that are contaminated with PCBs, it was estimated that 65 percent (82.62 miles) are <4 inches in
diameter and 35 percent (44.49 miles) are >4 inches in diameter. Of the 82.62 miles of smaller
diameter pipe, it was estimated that:
¦ 75 percent (61.97 miles) are inaccessible for removal.
¦ 25 percent (20.66 miles) are accessible for removal.
Of the 44.49 miles of > 4-inch diameter pipe, the following estimates were made:
¦ 75 percent (3337 miles) are inaccessible for testing.
¦ 20 percent (8.9 miles) contain PCBs in concentrations between 50 and 500 PCBs.
¦ 5 percent (2.22 miles) contain PCBs in concentrations 500 ppm or more.
Of the 118.22 miles (61.97 + 20.66 + 33.37 + 2.22 miles) of pipe that require excavation
and disposal under the existing regulation, 75 percent (88.67 miles) are chemical landfilled and
4-83
-------
25 percent (29.56 miles) are incinerated. The costs associated with excavating, chemical
landfilling, and incinerating natural gas pipes are as follows:
¦ Excavating pipes—AGA estimated that excavating natural gas pipes can cost from
$24 to $150/ft ($87/ft average), depending on whether the pipe is located in a
rural or urban area. Therefore, it would cost $2,416,234/yr to excavate all 5.26
miles of large-diameter pipes that require disposal (5.26 miles x 5,280 ft/mile x
$87/ft) and $54,305,539/yr to excavate all 118.22 miles of small-diameter pipe that
require disposal (118.22 miles x 5,280 ft/mile x $87/ft). The total estimated annual
cost for excavating natural gas pipelines is $56,721,773.
¦ Chemical landfilling—In 1988, INGAA reported that one chemical landfill in
Ohio estimated that it would cost $200,000 per mile of pipe to transport, cut, and
landfill a 20-inch pipe (Kinne, 1992). One mile of this pipe weighs 180 tons and
occupies 11,000 ft3 of space. The estimated annual cost of chemical landfilling
3.95 miles of large-diameter transmission company pipe, therefore, is $790,000
(3.95 miles x $200,000/mile).
AGA estimated that it costs $780 per load to ship pipe segments and up to $150
per ton to dispose of pipes via chemical landfilling (Traweek, 1992). Shipping
costs increase significantly as the distance to the nearest TSCA chemical waste
landfill increases. The estimated annual cost of chemical landfilling 88.67 miles of
small-diameter pipe, therefore, is close to $1 million (88.67 miles x 75 tons/mile x
$150/ton = $997,538), plus shipping.
The estimated total cost to chemical landfill natural gas pipes per year is
$1,787,538 ($790,000 + $997,538).
¦ Incineration—Although several sources, including incineration companies,
indicated that it is not technically feasible to incinerate natural gas pipes, one
AGA member company received an estimate of $1.25 per pound or $2,500 per
ton to incinerate LDC pipes (Traweek, 1992). This estimate was used for large-
diameter transmission company pipes as well.
Large-diameter pipe is estimated to weigh an average of 200 tons/mile, and small-
diameter pipe is estimated to weigh about 75 tons/mile. Therefore, incinerating
1.32 miles of large-diameter transmission company pipe would cost $660,000/year
(1.32 miles x 200 tons/mile x $2,500/ton). Incinerating 29.56 miles of LDC pipe
would cost over $5.5 million each year (29.56 miles x 75 tons/mile x $2,500/ton =
$5,542,500). (These incineration costs do not include transportation costs.)
The total estimated annual cost to incinerate natural gas pipes under the existing
regulation is $6,202,500 ($660,000 + $5,542,500).
Thus the estimated total cost to excavate and dispose of natural gas pipes under the
existing regulation is close to $65 million per year as follows:
4-84
-------
+ $56,721,773 for excavating.
+ $1,787,538 for chemical landfilling.
4- $6,202.500 for incineration.
= $64,711,811.
Pipe abandonment and disposal under the proposed regulations. The proposed
amendments will regulate the same number (i.e., 17.5 miles) of decommissioned transmission
company large-diameter pipe. Based on discussions with industry related to the availability of
disposal facilities, likelihood of companies making investments in new disposal-related
equipment, and potential costs, the following levels of pipe abandonment and disposal were
estimated for the pipe that require abandonment or disposal:
¦ Of the 15 percent (2.63 miles) contaminated with ^500 ppm, it was estimated
that 4 percent (0.11 miles) will be washed with a diesel ftiel; 90 percent (237
miles) will be grouted and sealed; 5 percent (0.13 miles) will be filled with foam
and sealed; 0.75 percent (0.02 miles) will be chemical landfilled; and 0.25 percent
(0.007 miles) will be incinerated. These option preferences are based on cost (see
below).
¦ Of the 15 percent (2.63 miles) of pipe that are inaccessible, it was estimated that
75 percent (1.97 miles) will be grouted and sealed and 25 percent (0.66 miles) will
be filled with foam and sealed. For pipes that are not easy to excavate, the
grouting option is more favored over the foaming option because it is less costly
(see below).
Thus, it was estimated that the 5.26 miles of transmission company pipe that can be handled
differently under the proposed amendments will be disposed of according to the following
percentages:
¦ 4.34 miles (237 + 1.97 miles) (82.5 percent)—Filled with grout.
¦ 0.79 miles - (0.13 + 0.66 miles) (15 percent)—Filled with foam.
¦ 0.11 miles (2.1 percent)—Washed using a single diesel fuel wash.
¦ 0.02 miles (038 percent)—Excavated and chemical landfilled.
¦ 0.007 miles (0.13 percent)—Excavated and incinerated.
4-85
-------
Likewise, approximately the same percentage of LDC pipe most likely will come under
the proposed regulation than the existing regulation. Thus for the 118.22 miles of LDC pipe that
will fall under new PCB regulation, the following estimates were made:
¦ Of the 82.63 miles of LDC pipe <4 inches in diameter (accessible and.
inaccessible), all will be abandoned, sealed, and included in a one-call program.
¦ Of the 2.22 miles of LDC pipe >4 inches in diameter that will contain 500 ppm
or more PCBs, 2 percent (0.04 miles) will be washed with diesel fuel; 75 percent
(1.67 miles) will be filled with grout; 22 percent (0.49 miles) will be filled with
foam; 0.75 percent (0.017 miles) will be excavated and chemical landfilled; and
0.25 percent (0.006 miles) will be excavated and incinerated.
¦ Of the 33.37 miles of LDC pipe >4 inches in diameter that are inaccessible, 75
percent (25.03 miles) will be filled with grout, and 25 percent (834 miles) will be
filled with foam.
It was therefore estimated that the 118.22 miles of LDC pipe will be disposed of as
follows:
¦ 82.63 miles—Sealed closed and a part of a one-call program.
¦ 26.70 miles (1.67 + 25.03 miles)—Filled to 50 percent volume with grout.
¦ 8.83 miles (0.49 + 8.34 miles)—Filled with high-density foam.
¦ 0.04 miles—Washed with diesel fuel.
¦ 0.017 miles—Excavated and chemical landfilled.
¦ 0.006 miles—Excavated and incinerated.
Each option for the disposal of natural gas pipes is listed below, along with estimated
costs:
¦ Sealing ends closed and including pipes in one-call system—Cost estimates to
seal pipes include the costs for renting and mobilizing equipment, paying labor,
and revising the one-call programs to include decommissioned pipes. The
estimates do not account for the costs for restoring the area, controlling traffic,
paying labor for working during restricted hours, or sealing service lines or vent
pipes, because these costs would vary widely from site to site. Based on industry
4-86
-------
information, it was estimated that it would cost an average of $2.00 per foot of
natural gas pipe and $872,573 per year to comply with this option ($2.00/ft x 5,280
ft/mile x 82.63 miles of LDC pipe).
¦ Filling pipes with grout—Cost estimates to fill decommissioned pipes with grout
include the costs for renting and mobilizing equipment, paying labor for
excavation and pumping, and buying grouting compound and supplies, but not the
costs for restoring the area, controlling traffic, paying labor for working during
restricted hours, sealing service lines or vent pipes, or containing and disposing of
the liquid slurry forced out of the pipe as the grout is being pumped in.
Transmission company average estimates for grouting pipes are (Vocke, 1993b;
Farmer, 1993a and b):
$2.88 and $5.65/ft ($4.27/ft average) to fill 12-in. pipe
$11.50 and $13.50/ft ($12.50/ft average) to fill 24-in. pipe
$25.98 and $26.75/ft ($26.37/ft average) to fill 36-in. pipe
Lower rates indicate abandonment work being conducted in conjunction with
other work in the project area. Higher rates indicate costs for pipe abandonment
work exclusively in the area. These costs average $14.38 to fill a variety of large-
diameter pipes with grout. According to industry representatives, filling the pipes
100 percent with grout is less expensive. The above estimates reflect this grouting
method versus filling pipes 50 percent with grout (Farmer, 1993a).
Using information obtained from companies in the business of grouting pipes, the
following average costs were estimated (Anders, 1992; Tucker, 1992):
$3.72/ft to fill 5,000 ft of 8-in. pipe 50 percent with grout
$2.76/ft to fill 10,000 ft of 6-in. pipe 50 percent with grout
One AGA member estimated that the cost of filling 3,867 ft of 18-in. diameter
clay pipe with a fire ash/bentonite grouting mixture is $12,875 ($2,000 + $6,000 +
$4,875) and the cost per foot is $3.33 ($12,875 -5- 3,867 ft) as follows (Traweek,
1992):
$2,000 for mobilization
$6,000 for labor and equipment ($2,000/day for 3 days)
$4,875 for grout ($110ftd3 x 44.32 yd3)
The average of $3.72, $2.76, and $333, or $3.27, was used as the estimated cost
per foot to fill LDC pipes.
According to estimates, the annual cost of grouting 4.34 miles of large-diameter
transmission company pipe is $329,521 (4.34 miles x 5,280 ft/mile x $14.38/ft) and
the cost of grouting 26.70 miles of LDC pipe is $460,992 (26.70 miles x 5,280
ft/mile x $3.27/ft). The total annual cost, therefore, would be $790,513 ($329,521
+ $460,992).
4-87
-------
Filling pipes with high-density foam—According to discussions with industry
representatives, the costs of mobilizing equipment and paying for labor and
equipment would be about equivalent to grouting costs, but the cost of the foam
would be $135/yd3 and not $110/yd\
Inserting foam costs for grout costs in the AGA data just examined for LDC
pipes, it was estimated that the cost for filling 44.32 yd3 of pipe with foam would
be $5,983 (135/yd3 x 44.32); the cost of filling 3,867 ft of 18-in. diameter pipe
would be $13,983 ($2,000 + 6,000 + $5,983); and the cost per foot would be
$3.62 ($13,983 -h 3,867). It was thus estimated that the cost to fill 8.83 miles of
LDC pipe to 50 percent volume with foam would be $168,773 per year (8.83 miles
x $3.62/ft x 5,280 ft/miles).
If the increase in cost to fill pipes with foam over grout increases the same ratio
for transmission company pipes as for LDC pipes, it would cost 11 percent more
to fill transmission company pipes ($3.63/ft -h $3.27/ft) and $15.96/ft to fill
transmission company pipes (1.11 x $14.38).
Thus, the estimated annual cost to fill 0.79 miles of transmission company pipes
with foam is $66,572 (0.79 miles x $15.96/ft x 5,280 ft/mile).
The total estimated annual cost to fill natural gas pipes to 50 percent volume with
foam is $235,345 ($168,773 + $66,572).
Washing pipes with diesel fuel—Based on discussion with industry, the estimated
cost for washing natural gas pipes via this method is $8/ft, including the costs of
mobilization, labor and equipment, as well as disposal of the contaminated wash
liquid. Thus the estimated annual cost for washing 0.11 miles of transmission
company pipes and 0.04 miles of LDC pipes is $6,336 ([0.11 + 0.04 miles] x $8/ft
x 5,280 ft/mile).
Excavating and chemical landfilling pipes—The estimated annual cost of
excavating 0.02 miles of transmission company pipe and 0.017 miles of LDC pipe
is $16,996 ([0.02 + 0.017 miles] x 5,280 ft/mile x $87/ft).
The estimated annual cost of chemical landfilling 0.02 miles of transmission
company pipe is $4,000 (0.02 miles x $200,000/mile). The estimated annual cost
for landfilling 0.017 miles of LDC pipe is $191 (0.017 miles x 75 tons/mile x
$150/ton), plus shipping.
Thus the estimated annual cost for excavating and chemical landfilling pipes under
the proposed amendments is $21,187 ($16,996 + $4,000 + $191).
Excavating and incinerating pipes—The annual cost of excavating 0.007 miles of
transmission company pipe and 0.006 miles of LDC pipe would be $5,972 ([0.007
+ 0.006 miles] x 5,280 ft/mile x $87/ft).
4-88
-------
Incinerating 0.007 miles of transmission company pipe would cost $3,500 per year
(0.007 miles x 200 tons/mile x $2,500/ton). Incinerating 0.006 miles of LDC pipe
would cost $1,125 each year (0.006 miles x 75 tons/mile x $2,500/ton). These
incineration costs do not include transportation costs.
The total estimated annual cost of excavating and incinerating natural gas pipes
would be $10,597 ($5,972 + $3,500 + $1,125).
The total annual cost to dispose of natural gas pipes under the proposed regulation was
estimated to be close to $2 million as follows:
+
$872^73
for sealing pipes and including in one-call systems.
+
$790,513
for filling pipes with grout.
+
$235,345
for filling pipes with foam.
+
$6,336
for washing pipes with diesel fuel.
+
$21,187
for excavating and chemical landfilling.
+
$10,597
for excavating and incinerating.
$1,936,551
Summary of pipe disposal costs. The annual cost for disposing of transmission company
and local distribution company natural gas pipes under the existing regulations was estimated to
be $64,711,811. The annual costs associated with abandoning in place and disposing of the pipes
via the proposed amendment would be $1,936,551. Thus, the estimated annual cost savings to
industry for abandoning or disposing of pipes under the proposed amendments is $62,775,260
($64,711,811 - $1,936,551). Refer to Table 4-7 for a summary of these costs.
Using the estimate that EPA policy (as defined by the compliance programs and RA
agreements) is 20 percent more costly than the proposed regulations, then the disposal cost
under current policy is estimated at $2,323,861 (1,936,551 x 1.20 = $2,323,861). The proposed
regulation would result in cost savings of close to $400,000 per year over EPA polity, using this
approach ($2323,861 - $1,936,551 = $387,310).
4-89
-------
§761.60(b) (6) (ii)—.PROPER DISPOSAL OF DRAINED PCB ARTICLES
Proposed Regulation. Disposal of PCB Articles drained for 48 continuous hours with a
concentration of 50 to <500 ppm or 10 to clOO/xg/lOO cm2 as measured by a standard wipe
sample (§761.123) is allowed in a facility licensed to manage municipal and industrial solid waste
(excluding thermal treatment units), an industrial furnace, or a TSCA-approved disposal facility.
The drained liquids must be disposed of in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
section.
Existing Regulation. Previous language said that the disposal of drained PCB Articles
was not regulated.
Changes. The proposed revision specifies the acceptable methods of disposal of drained
PCB Articles.
Cost Impacts. The principal compliance costs are incurred in meeting the additional
disposal requirements. PCB Articles include all PCB-contaminated electrical equipment, such as
capacitors, transformers, and any other manufactured article (other than a PCB container) the
surfaces of which have been in direct contact with PCBs (e.g., natural gas pipelines).
A large share of PCB Transformers currently are sent to industrial furnaces. The
industrial furnaces burn insulation off the transformer core and allow recovery of the metal
components. The components then are sent to metal smelters. Many of the furnaces now used
for PCB-contaminated electrical equipment, particularly transformers, are made by Aljon-United
of Topeka, Kansas. The furnaces have a hearth temperature of 1,400 to 1,600 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F), with an afterburner for combustion of volatilized gases that reaches
temperatures of 2,200 to 2,400°F. These characteristics do not meet the proposed criteria for
such furnaces given in §761.60(a)(4) and the furnaces will no longer be able to accept this
equipment. In particular, the furnaces do not satisfy the hearth temperature requirements of
1,800°F of the proposed standard.
4-90
-------
The furnaces also do not convert the transformer components into molten metal, as
required by the proposed amendments. To do so would make the transformer components
unsuitable for the smelting furnaces and, thus, destroy the value of the metal recoveiy
operations. This facet of transformer recovery means that these furnace makers are very unlikely
to convert their furnaces to achieve the temperatures required by the proposed.amendments.
Because the recovery of copper or aluminum components of transformers currently is
profitable, industrial furnaces and metal recovery firms do not charge their electric utility
suppliers the full costs of picking up, transporting, and combusting PCB-contaminated
transformers. Electric utilities currently may dispose of PCB-contaminated transformers at a cost
of approximately $15 per pole-top transformer or $50 per pad-mounted transformer. For the
cost analysis, an average of $25 per transformer was used. With the industrial furnaces no longer
accepting such equipment, it is likely that the transformers now would be shipped to chemical
waste landfills or incinerators. To represent the new unit cost of disposal, incineration costs were
estimated to be approximately $175 per transformer ($0.50/lb for an average of 350 lb per
transformer) plus an additional $28 for transportation ($0.08/lb per 1,000 miles traveled,
estimating 1,000 miles to incineration site) for a combined cost of $203, rounded to $200. The
change in disposal prices is estimated to affect disposal of approximately 20,000 PCB-
contaminated transformers per year.8 The aggregate annual cost of compliance is estimated at
$3.5 million ([$200-25] x 20,000).
§761.60(b)(6)(ui)—DISPOSAL OF PCB-CONTAMINATED NONPOROUS SURFACES
Proposed Regulation. PCB-Contaminated articles that are not in contact with liquid
PCBs such as non-porous surfaces including but not limited to ship and submarine hulls, and air
handling systems and other articles which can be characterized by a standard wipe test, as
8ERG estimated this value as equivalent to the number of PCB-contaminated transformers
being disposed of annually through commercial disposal operations. ERG estimated the latter
quantity at two-thirds of the 30,003 transformers reported disposed of in the most recent annual
EPA Annual Report on PCB disposal activity, PCB Environmental Indicators: Final Report for
1990 (U.S. EPA, 1992b).
4-91
-------
defined in §761.123, and whose PCB contamination is 50 to less than 500 ppm in the original
contaminating fluid or 10 to less than 100 /ig PCB/100 cm2 centimeters may be disposed of in a
facility permitted, licensed or registered to manage municipal and industrial waste (excluding
thermal treatment units), an industrial furnace operating in compliance with the requirements of
§761.60(a)(4) or other TSCA-approved disposal facility. Anyone with access to, or in direct
contact with, surfaces contaminated with PCBs at levels of 10 to less than 100 fig PCB/100 cm2
centimeters must be protected from dermal exposure to those surfaces.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation contains no directly corresponding
paragraph, and had no provision for characterizing the contamination of materials according to
their surface contamination. If it could be determined that these materials were contaminated in
excess of acceptable levels, they were then to be treated like any PCB wastes. In that event,
incineration was required if PCB contamination levels were 500 ppm or more PCB, and chemical
waste landfilling was required if PCB levels were <500 ppm.
Changes. This action codifies the regulatory control for surface contamination at 100 /ig
PCB/100 cm2, and establishes that it is the same as controls for liquids at 500 ppm. It adds a
requirement to protect potentially exposed persons from dermal exposures.
Cost Impacts. This paragraph is intended to codify EPA policies that have developed
since the existing regulation was established. The analysis focuses on U.S. Navy vessels, which
are explicitly mentioned in the proposed amendments. Other equipment and facilities (including
possibly quantities of other government owned and privately owned vessels and other large
industrial equipment) also will be affected, but no data is available about the quantity of these
other items.
Cost impacts using EPA policy as the baseline. EPA and the U.S. Navy are negotiating an
FFCA governing the requirements for decontaminating and decommissioning Navy vessels. The
proposed amendments were judged likely not to exceed the FFCA requirements, although the
FFCA has not been completed as of this publication. No incremental compliance costs were
estimated for moving from EPA policy to the proposed amendments.
4-92
-------
Cost impacts using the easting regulation as the baseline. This paragraph affects Navy and
other vessels found to be contaminated with PCBs. Under the existing regulation, hulls or other
components of Navy vessels contaminated with PCBs are not authorized for use, and must be
incinerated or sent to a chemical landfill. This requirement, therefore, would lead to forced
deactivation and disposal of major portions of the Navy fleet. Under §761.30(q) of the proposed
amendments, use of the contaminated vessels is allowed under certain conditions and in
conjunction with a monitoring and reporting program to ensure that contamination levels do not
become a health hazard.
The costs of "disposal" for PCB-contaminated vessel components are not known since the
action has never been taken. Based on contacts with naval shipyards, the weight of Navy surface
vessels varies from 7,000 to 50,000 tons for a battle ship. Using an average for surface vessels of
30,000 tons of metal, the disposal cost for an entire deconstructed vessel, at an estimated average
of $100 per ton for chemical landfilling, would be $3 million. (This estimate does not include the
cost to disassemble and cut the hull for shipping to the chemical landfill, transportation costs, or
State and local taxes that could be applicable. These additional charges could raise disposal
costs to $600/ton.)
Under the proposed amendments at §761.79(d), EPA set a decontamination standard for
non-porous surfaces. In this case, the Navy can decontaminate its vessels to the specified level
and resume their use in any fashion it deems suitable. At the end of active service, the Navy
could proceed to decommission these ships. In current practice, decommissioned Navy vessels
are handled in one of three ways: sold for scrap, kept in use as museums or other nonmilitaiy
uses, or exported. Because the proposed amendments allow both continued active service, and
the various options after decommissioning, a large cost savings would result. The savings for
decontaminated vessels are generated by (1) the value of the extended use of the vessels, (2) the
value of potentially productive use or sale (of the vessel or its metal components) after
decommissioning, and (3) the reduction in disposal costs between existing regulations and the
proposed amendments.
These savings are offset to a degree by the cost of decontaminating the vessels, which is
substantial; the Navy estimates $0.25 million to $2 million for submarines, depending upon the
4-93
-------
decontamination levels to be achieved. Surface vessels are not decontaminated in the same
fashion, however, and no equivalent cost estimates were prepared for surface vessels. The Navy
has decommissioned six or more submarines, but as many as sixty surface vessels annually in
recent years. In 1995, approximately 30 surface vessels are scheduled for decommissioning, but
approximately 10 vessels are scheduled in subsequent years. For the cost analysis, an average
cost of vessel decontamination of $0.5 million was subtracted from the total avoided disposal
costs of $3 million per vessel to derive a cost savings per vessel. A total of 15 vessels per year
were judged to be decommissioned.
Among the various cost savings (benefits) generated by the proposed amendments, only
the savings from a reduction in disposal costs has been estimated. Neither the value of an
extended vessel life, or of post-decommissioning uses could be estimated with any reliability.
With the estimates defined above, a cost savings per vessel was calculated at approximately $2.5
million per vessel ($3 million for avoided disposal costs less $0.5 million for decontamination
costs). If 15 vessels are decontaminated annually, the total annual savings is $37 J million. This
annual cost savings might be less than the savings generated by an extended useful life and the
other benefits of the proposed amendments. Further, large additional savings might be
generated for government vessels, private vessels and other industrial equipment. No
quantification of the scale of these additional cost savings was attempted.
§761.60(g) (I) (iii) and (g)(2)(Ui)—PCB TESTING PROCEDURES USING GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY
Proposed Regulation. This section establishes criteria for determining the concentration
of PCBs in dielectric fluid or waste oil and states that PCB analyses shall be conducted using gas
chromatography (GC). Since several methods may be used depending on the material being
analyzed, the regulation does not require the use of a specific gas chromatography procedure.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation contains no corresponding paragraph.
4-94
-------
Changes. This proposed regulation codifies EPA policy that PCB analysis shall be
conducted using GC.
Cost Impacts. Since existing EPA policy has been well-known for many years, there is
no incremental requirement generated by this requirement. No costs are estimated.
§76L60Q)—SELF-IMPLEMENTING APPROVALS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(R&D) FOR PCB DISPOSAL
Proposed Regulation. In the proposed amendments, approved PCB R&D disposal
activities include, but are not limited to, demonstrations for PCB disposal approvals, pre-
demonstration tests, testing major modifications to approved PCB technologies, treatability
studies, the development of new disposal technologies, and research on transformation processes
such as biodegradation. This section does not authorize research or analysis for developing a
PCB product or the R&D activities authorized in §76130(j).
PCBs may be disposed through a PCB R&D disposal approval in limited quantities
without written EPA approval and for a limited time period under the following conditions:
¦ The RA is notified in writing 30 days prior to beginning of the R&D activity to be
approved under this section. Notifications shall identify the site(s) of the activity,
the quantity of PCBs to be used, the type of R&D technology to be used, the kind
of material being treated, and an estimate of the duration of the PCB activity.
The RA may impose additional conditions by issuing a TSCA R&D approval (also
referred to as an R&D permit) if he or she determines that approving the
requested increase may present potential risks to health or the environment.
¦ When transported, all materials containing PCBs regulated for disposal are
packaged pursuant to DOT performance standards.
¦ The amount of material containing PCBs used annually by the facility during
R&D for PCB disposal activities does not exceed 500 gallons of liquid or 70 ft3 of
nonliquid PCBs and does not exceed a maximum concentration of 10,000 ppm
PCBs.
¦ No more than 1 kg of pure PCBs is used at a facility annually.
4-95
-------
¦ R&D for PCB disposal approvals under this section are limited to one calendar
year or less.
¦ All PCB wastes (e.g., treated or untreated PCB materials, testing samples, spent
laboratory samples, residuals, unused samples, contaminated
media/instrumentation, clothing) are stored in a unit that complies with the
storage requirements of §761.65(b) and are disposed of according to the
pretreatment PCB concentration. Only PCB materials not treated in the R&D
for PCB disposal activity may be returned to the site of generation.
¦ Manifests are used for all R&D PCB wastes being transported from the R&D
facility to a commercial storage and/or disposal facility, unless the residuals or
unused samples are returned to the site of generation.
¦ All PCB wastes are disposed of according to the 1-year storage and disposal
requirements under §761.65.
¦ All facilities that conduct R&D for PCB disposal must comply with all applicable
requirements of this part, including the notification requirements of Subpart K
(i.e., to notify EPA headquarters), recordkeeping requirements of §761.180
(annual reports), the storage and disposal requirements of Subpart D, and all
applicable Federal and State regulations.
Facilities that wish to exceed the numerical or time limitations must obtain either a
waiver in writing for an increase in: volume of PCB material, the maximum concentration of
PCBs, the total amount of pure PCBs, or the duration of the R&D activity or obtain an RA
approval. Requests to obtain RA approvals to exceed the material limitations must include a
justification for using the additional quantity or concentration needed, and must specify the
quantity and concentration of PCB material needed and the duration of the activity. Requests to
exceed the time limitations must include a report on the accomplishments and progress of the
previously approved R&D for PCB disposal activity for which the extension is sought.
Before or after granting a waiver, the RA may require the requestor to obtain an R&D
approval according to the requirements in sections 761.60(e), 761.60(i)(2) or 761.70(a) or (b), if
he or she determines that a specific R&D disposal activity may pose an unreasonable risk to
health or the environment.
Existing Regulation. Under the existing regulations for disposing of PCB materials in any
quantity for R&D disposal activities, facilities must file for R&D approvals (R&D permits)
4-96
-------
according to the requirements in sections 761.60(e), 761.60(i)(2) or 761.70(a) or (b). These
regulations state that if the R&D disposal activity involves <500 pounds of PCB material, the
disposal activity will be reviewed by the appropriate RA. If the activity involves disposing of 500
pounds of PCB materials or more, the requests for R&D disposal approval will be reviewed by
EPA headquarters. Facilities submit applications for R&D approvals in accordance with
guidelines provided by EPA (U.S. EPA, 1986b). The applications must be sufficient to
demonstrate that the R&D activity will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment. EPA may take from 3 to 6 months to review requests for disposal approval.
Changes. For disposal of PCB R&D materials in limited quantities and for disposal of
materials that will not involve a risk to health or the environment (as determined by the RA),
the proposed amendment eliminates the requirement for facilities to obtain R&D approvals.
These facilities will be able to comply with self-implementing RA notification, transporting,
manifesting, storing, and disposing of the PCB R&D disposal wastes. Although the conditions
for transporting, manifesting, storing, and disposing of the wastes remain the same as under the
existing regulations, the notification process is less time-consuming than the procedure to apply
for an R&D approval. Additionally, facilities will be able to commence activities after
notification and will not have to wait the 3 to 6 months for R&D disposal approval requests to
be reviewed. To dispose of PCB materials that the RA determines will involve risk, facilities
must continue to request R&D approvals according to the procedures presently required in the
existing regulations.
In situations where facilities wish to dispose of R&D disposal activity wastes in quantities
that exceed the specified material limitations or for an extended period of time, the amendments
require facilities to obtain either written waivers or approvals from the RA. The information
that these facilities must submit to the RA is similar to information presently requested for
obtaining R&D disposal approvals. It is estimated that the time frame for EPA review of these
requests will decrease from the present 3 to 6 month period, however.
In some instances where a facility wishes to exceed the material or time limitations for
disposing of PCB R&D disposal wastes, the RA may determine that the facility must obtain an
4-97
-------
R&D approval. These facilities must continue to comply with the requirements as contained in
the existing regulation.
Cost Impacts. The costs for obtaining R&D and RA approvals were estimated for this
analysis. The number of facilities that will dispose of PCB materials from R&D disposal
activities also was estimated. These estimates do not consider that some facilities may engage in
more than one activity and thus incur lower costs overall due to overlapping compliance actions,
such as notification.
The cost for notifying the RA about PCB R&D disposal activities within the material and
time limitations was compared to the costs associated with submitting an R&D approval
application. The costs for notifying the RA were calculated as follows:
The facility manager will require 2 hours to prepare the information at a rate of $60.42
per hour for a total of $120.84 (2 hr x $60.42), and clerical support personnel must spend
2 hours typing, copying, filing, and mailing the report at a rate of $21.73 per hour for a
total of $43.46 (2 hr x $21.73). The total for notification thus is $164 ($120.84 + $43.46
= 164.30).
EPA estimates that about 25 companies, universities, and other R&D facilities dispose of
PCB R&D disposal activity wastes and that about 20 of these facilities dispose of the wastes in
limited quantities, in time frames within the specified limitations, and without risk as determined
by the RA. Applying this information and the per-facility costs estimated above, the costs to
industiy will be $3,280 per year (20 x $164).
Based on a review of sample R&D approval applications, facility managers must spend
about 40 hours preparing an application at $60.42 per hour for a total of $2,417 (40 hr x $60.42);
a foreman must spend 15 hours at $43.80 per hour for a total of $657 (15 hr x $43.80); and
clerical support must spend a minimum of 5 hours on the report at $21.73 per hour for a total of
$109 (5 hr x $21.73). The per-facility total to compile and submit the information thus is $3,183
(2,417 + $657 + $109). The cost for 20 companies to submit applications for R&D disposal
permits thus is $63,660 (20 x $3,183).
4-98
-------
The overall annual savings to industry under the proposed amendments would be $60,380
($63,660 - $3,280), not considering the savings associated with self-implementation and not
having to wait for EPA to review R&D approval applications.
The costs associated with disposing of PCB materials from R&D disposal activities in
quantities that exceed the limitations, in instances where the time frame will be exceeded, or in
cases where the RA determines that there is a risk associated with the activity, will not change
significantly. In these instances, facilities will still be required to submit information similar to
that required for R&D approval applications.
§761.61 (a), (b), and (c)—DISPOSAL OF PCB REMEDIATION WASTE
Proposed Regulation. PCB Remediation wastes are defined as environmental media
containing PCBs, dredged materials, municipal sewage treatment sludges, commercial or
industrial sludge contaminated as the result of a spill of PCBs located or removed from any
pollution control device, soil, rags, and other debris generated as a result of a spill cleanup, site
removal, remediation, or corrective action in liquid or nonliquid form at any volume or
concentration. PCB remediation wastes shall be removed or otherwise disposed of under a set of
self-implementing disposal requirements, by performance-based disposal approval, or by risk-based
disposal approval, as defined below. Any person disposing of PCBs is also responsible for
determining and complying with all other applicable Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
The self-implementing site remediation and disposal option [§761.61 (a)] allows cleanup and
disposal of remediation waste without written approval from EPA, except for the following
circumstances: (1) spills that directly contaminate surface and ground water; sediments in lakes,
ponds, rivers, or streams; sewers and sewage treatment systems; drinking water sources; grazing
lands; vegetable gardens; areas having sensitive exposed human populations (e.g., residential
dwellings, hospitals, schools, parks, day care centers); and animal populations (such as
endangered species); (2) PCBs that have migrated and contaminated the above mentioned areas;
and (3) any site that appears on the CERCLA National Priorities List, is subject to permitting
4-99
-------
under Subtitle C of RCRA or approval under TSCA, or involves cleanup conducted under 40
CFR 761 Subpart G, or is the subject of any EPA enforcement action.
The self-implementing disposal option also requires the owner or operator of the
property where a spill is located to notify the EPA RA and the appropriate State and local
environmental agencies 30 days prior to beginning the cleanup of the spill. Notification
information includes where the remediation will be conducted, the nature and extent of the
contamination, the kinds of material contaminated, procedures used to sample the contaminated
and adjacent areas, location and supposed extent of the contaminated area, the PCB
concentrations measured, and the proposed remediation and disposal options for contaminated
materials. This option also includes recordkeeping in accordance with 40 CFR 761.125(c)(5).
Anyone conducting a remediation activity under this section will be deemed to have a waiver of
the 30-day notification requirement if and when they receive a separate waiver in writing from
each of the three agencies they are required to notify under this section.
The self-implementing disposal rule also specifies sampling methods and cleanup levels
and procedures for Bulk PCB Remediation Waste (i.e., everything other than the nonporous
surfaces, such as soil, sediment, dredged materials, debris, muds, municipal sludge, industrial
sludge, and porous surfaces) and nonporous surfaces in high and low exposure areas. Self-
implementing disposal must be conducted off site according to their existing concentration.
Onsjte disposal requires an approval according to 40 CFR 761.61(b) and/or (c).
The performance-based disposal approval options [§761.61(b)] allow disposal of liquid
remediation wastes according to 40 CFR 761.60(a)(1), (2), (3), or 40 CFR 761.60(e), and
disposal of nonliquid remediation waste in an incinerator or a chemical waste landfill.
The risk-based disposal approval option [§761.61(c)] involves applying to the RA for
approval and submitting information that the proposed cleanup levels will not pose an
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.
Existing Regulation. Any nonliquid PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in the
form of contaminated soil, rags, or other debris shall be disposed of in an incinerator or in a
4-100
\.
-------
chemical waste landfill. Also §761.60(a)(5) specifies that dredged materials and municipal
sewage treatment sludges that contain PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater shall be
disposed of in an incinerator, in a chemical waste landfill, or using a method approved by the
RA.
Changes. Under this deregulatory action, alternative disposal options are allowed for
some remediation wastes (i.e., contaminated media, commercial or industrial sludge removed
from disposal sites, soil, rags, or other debris generated from spill cleanups). Generally, the
minimum necessary cleanup and disposal technologies that provide adequate environmental
protection will be available for use; previously only incineration of wastes or disposal in a
chemical waste landfill could be used. Also, private cleanup operations can proceed without
obtaining approval from EPA. The latter change expands current EPA policy regarding private
cleanup operations from the limited applicability of the EPA Spill Cleanup Policy.
Cost Impacts. For costing purposes, the proposed revisions will generate several changes.
For this item, there is no existing EPA policy that is distinct from the standard as written.9
¦ Changes To Administrative Requirements - The proposed revision allows private
sector cleanup work to proceed much more rapidly. It allows a self-implementing
cleanup provision that is similar to the existing EPA spill cleanup policy. The
revision generates a savings in the transactional costs (i.e., the costs of negotiating
legal and technical details) and eliminates delays for firms conducting private
cleanup actions. The savings in transactional costs are offset to a degree by
various notification and other administrative requirements.
¦ Changes to Technical Disposal Requirements - The proposed revision makes
several changes in defining the disposal requirements for remediation wastes and,
in general, will give EPA latitude to allow the minimum cleanup efforts necessary
to protect human health and the environment, thereby greatly reducing disposal
costs in many cases. Thus, for operations including NPL sites, CERCLIS sites,
RCRA Corrective Actions, and TSCA enforcement, and private cleanup
operations, the proposed amendments allow the consideration of alternative
cleanup levels and disposal techniques based on site-specific risk assessment
studies. The proposed amendments will allow specific treatment and containment
In some cases, EPA has allowed use of alternative remediation technologies, but exercise of this
enforcement discretion does constitute an EPA policy that is separate and distinguishable from the
existing standard as written.
4-101
-------
techniques or combinations of techniques that achieve an acceptable level of risk
(i.e., that pose no unreasonable risk to human health and the environment).
Changes to Administrative Requirements
First, cost savings are generated from the reduced transactional dealings between private
firms and EPA. For the purposes of calculating these cost savings, it was assumed that most
cleanup operations will be initiated under the self-implementing option. At present private firms
seeking to perform major site cleanups prepare a description of the anticipated cleanup workplan
and provide EPA with copies of sampling results. Hazardous waste and cleanup consultants are
often brought in to assist in preparing the workplan and negotiating legal details of any cleanup
agreement. Under the proposed revisions, EPA will require only a notification of intended
activities. A workplan for the cleanup will not need to be submitted. Sampling of the
contaminated site will, however, continue to be performed both before and after operations in
order for the private firm to ensure that it achieves the cleanup goals. Additionally, much of the
workplan that is otherwise submitted to EPA might still be used for directing the internal
cleanup operations.
It was estimated that 30 to 60 hours are needed (an average of 45 hours) of technical and
legal staff time to prepare a one-time submission to EPA. Numerous additional or revised
submissions, however, are often made during negotiations, and these were estimated to consume
twice the hours of the original submission. Overall, therefore, 135 hours of technical and legal
staff time were estimated for all submissions. This time requirement will be reduced to 10 to 20
hours (an average of 15 hours) for necessary internal planning and documentation. A savings of
120 hours (135 less 15) will occur, divided equally among managerial, technical, legal, and clerical
hours. (For the purposes of this item, legal costs were assumed to be incurred at the same cost
as managerial time). This translates to a cost savings of $7,500 per site ([80 hours at $60.42] +
[40 hours at $43.80] + [40 hours at $21.73] = $7,455, rounded to $7,500). The cost savings for
EPA staff from not having to perform case-by-case reviews were not estimated.
The number of individual private cleanup operations performed per year is not known at
the EPA headquarters or regional level. It was judged, however, that there are approximately
4-102
-------
200 cleanups per year. (This estimate includes only the cleanup actions where EPA is notified.
Where no notification occurs, there is no savings in transactional costs. It should be noted that
information on these cleanups among EPA regional staff is very limited and, therefore, the
estimate is subject to considerable uncertainty.) The aggregate cost savings is $1,500,000 per year
($7,500 x 200 cleanups).
A minor new requirement is also added under this amendment for property owners to
attach a notice to the deed for any property where a remediation project has been conducted
onsite that required the use of a fence or a cap. This notice is to become a permanent
attachment to the deed. Submitting the deed restrictions is estimated to require 1 hour at
approximately 100 sites (or one-half the cleanup actions) per year. Assuming a clerical hour is
needed (at $21.73 per hour) the annual cost for these submissions is $2,173.
Additionally, a portion of those using the self-implementing option will choose to ship
wastes to municipal or industrial solid waste landfills and will, therefore, be subject to a new
requirement to notify facilities prior to making such shipments. Assuming that one-half of those
facilities using the self-implementing option must make such notifications, 100 operations will be
affected. The notification is estimated to require 2 hours by a technician or foreman (at $43.80
per hour) for a total cost of $8,760.
The cost savings from reduced transactional costs between EPA and private industry also
will be offset to some extent by requests to Regional Administrators (RA) for permission to
dispose of wastes under the risk-based option. It was estimated that a relatively small number of
such requests will be made since (as noted above) most disposal will occur under the self-
implementing option. Nevertheless, a small number of requests (estimated at 10 per year) were
assumed to be made. The cost to prepare such submissions was estimated by EPA staff familiar
with this process at 700 hours, distributed among management personnel (70 hours), technical
personnel (592 hours), and clerical personnel (38 hours). The associated costs are $30,985 per
applicant, for a total of $309,850.
The net cost savings for the reduction in transactional costs and the minor offsetting
expenses for various submissions to EPA is $1,179,217 per year.
4-103
-------
Cost Savings from Changes in Technical Disposal Requirements
Cost savings are generated by the difference between current disposal costs and those
generated when the wider set of options under the proposed regulation are considered. Data on
the total quantity of remediation waste was compiled and then the differential, disposal
requirements under the existing and proposed regulations were examined.
Remediation waste includes wastes from National Priority List (NPL) sites, CERCLIS
sites, RCRA Corrective Action sites, TSCA Enforcement Sites, and from private cleanup
operations undertaken without government involvement. Table 4-8 summarizes the quantity
estimates for each category of waste, and the range of uncertainty around each quantity estimate.
As noted in Table 4-8, the best information is available about the NPL sites and very little is
known about the extent of any private inventory of waste sites that are not recognized in any of
the other totals. The total quantity of PCB waste was estimated at 382 million tons, with the
possible range of the estimate defined as 168 million tons to 597 million tons.
The proposed regulation makes a number of changes in disposal requirements for
remediation wastes:
¦ Wastes would be regulated on an "as found" basis, instead of according to the
original concentration of materials. This change allows much more waste to be
disposed of using techniques less stringent than chemical landfilling or
incineration.
¦ Liquid wastes would be regulated in the same manner as nonliquid wastes;
Because liquid PCB wastes are currently regulated more strictly, this change
reduces the stringency of the disposal requirements.
¦ Wastes may be disposed in the minimum technique necessary to protect human
health and the environment. Since large quantities of PCB remediation wastes
are found in low concentrations (including large quantities of wastes found in
concentrations of less than 50 ppm), substantial quantities will be disposed in
municipal solid waste landfills. Other PCB-contaminated soils will be subjected to
washing technologies and replaced on site, eliminating the need to identify off-site
disposal capacity.
4-104
-------
TABLE 4-8
ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF REMEDIATION WASTES
Source of
Remediation Estimated Volume Range of Low High
Wastes (millions of tons) Uncertainty Estimate Estimate Comments Source(s)
NPL Sites
34
+/- 25%
26 43 Based on existing data indicating 20
percent of 1,218 sites contain PCB contamination.
U.S. EPA, 1991a
CERCL1S Sites
193
+/- 50%
96 289 Estimate based on PCB contamination at 7 percent of sites; assumes U.S. EPA, 1991b/
pcr-sitc PCB contaminated waste volumes are 2/3 as much as for Project estimate
NPL sites.
RCRA Corrective
Actions
28
+/- 50%
14 41 Estimate assumes a similar PCB volume
for RCRA Corrective Action sites as for Nl'L sites;
250-300 of these sites have PCBs.
OPPT
TSCA Enforcement
Sites
+/- 50%
Estimate assumes TSCA enforcement sites are on average
1,000 tons per site for approximately 500 sites.
Project estimate
Private Cleanup
Operations
127
+/- 75%
32 223 Estimated to equal one-half of all government-supervised
cleanup operations
Project estimate
o
LA
Total
382
168
597
-------
The new regulatory language will allow a portion of the wastes now incinerated to be
disposed by chemical waste landfills, and for a portion of the wastes disposed by chemical waste
landfills to be disposed in municipal waste landfills. Additionally, the change in disposal
requirements will expand use of various alternative disposal techniques which, under the present
requirements are not sufficiently effective to meet the more stringent incineration standard. The
effects of the regulation among various cleanup sites can vary substantially. Nevertheless, the
cost effect can be summarized as two questions, the share of remediation wastes for which
disposal methods will be changed, and the average cost differential for the change in disposal
methods.
Table 4-9 summarizes a selection of the cost estimates obtained for the disposal options.
The cost estimates for a given technique can vary widely depending upon the circumstances of
disposal, the cleanup level being targeted, and the source of the estimates. For example, as the
table indicates, incineration costs can vary from several hundred to several thousand dollars per
ton. Incineration costs have been quoted as high as $2,300 per ton. The actual incineration
costs for an individual site (and a given incineration job), however, can vary substantially
depending upon the waste characteristics and combustibility. Chemical waste landfill costs can
also vaiy widely. Transportation costs can add $100 to $200 per ton in many cases. Costs also
vary, for example, state by state depending upon the level of State taxes placed on PCB waste
disposal. In some cases State and local taxes can exceed $100 per ton. As noted in Table 4-9,
chemical waste landfilling costs can vary from under $100 per ton to as high as $600 per ton.
To compare costs of disposal under the existing and proposed regulations, the waste
quantities must be distributed across the disposal options and then an aggregate cost of disposal
is calculated. There is, however, insufficient data to distribute wastes across these options under
the existing regulation. Similarly, there is little basis for projecting the disposal choices under the
proposed amendments since many of the alternative options have not been used extensively.
The potential cost savings clearly could be quite large at many sites, including some of
the largest Superfund sites. At sites where incineration would no longer be required, the cost
savings could be above $1,000 per ton. To date, slightly more than one-half of the wastes
disposed from the National Priorities List sites have been classified as industrial sludges and have
4-106
-------
TABLE 4-9
COSTS OF METHODS TO ADDRESS PCB-CONTAMTNATED MATERIALS
Cleanup
Method
Cost per ton (a)
Range
Source(s) (b)
Comments
Incineration
$2,300
Oberacker, 1992
Involves fixed incineration facilities; upper bound
on incineration costs
$500-800
EPA Record of Decision for
Bridgeport, CT, Superfund
site, other sources
Assumes using a mobile incinerator
$200-900
Oberacker, 1992
Assumes using a mobile incinerator
$250-300
Kinder, 1992
Assumes using a mobile incinerator
Chemical Waste
Landfilling
$200-600
$70-90
Price quotes for small volume disposal
Kinder, 1992
Applicable to large volumes
Chemical waste landfills
Chemical waste landfills
Thermal Processing
$180-240
EPA SITE Newsletter, 11/89
Shirco Infrared Electric Thermal Processing
No full—scale operation
Dechlorination
$300-500
Rogers, 1992
KPEG reagents
$245
Rogers, 1992
BCD (base-catalyzed dechlorination)
$400-800
Kinder, 1992
Biodegradation
$200-600
Kinder, 1992
No full—scale operation
Muni., indus. solid waste landfill
$45
Horton Landfill, Springfield, VA
Disposal like any muni., indus. solid waste
(a) Costs include (unless otherwise specified) design, construction, operating, maintenance, monitoring, evaluation, and disposal.
(b) Sources refer to persons contacted during preparation of this study. See the reference list at end of this Section for the complete reference.
-------
been designated for incineration. Additional, large volumes of wastes now sent to chemical
waste landfills will now be sent to municipal or industrial solid waste landfills, where average
savings could be several hundred dollars per ton or more. Disposal costs for some wastes could
be unaffected, however, such as if the waste is quite hazardous and continues to require
incineration.
To develop the necessary cost estimates, it was necessary to estimate the average cost
savings per ton. The range of the cost differentials will be quite wide, and average savings could
range from $200 to $800 per ton. A conservative estimate of $400 per ton was used for the
overall estimated cost savings. (Some estimates of cost differentials among disposal techniques
indicate that the potential cost savings could be much higher. See U.S. Department of the Navy,
1991.)
Given the estimated range of waste quantities, the duration of cleanup efforts and the
average annual cost savings generated by the proposed amendments are dependent upon the
annual rate of cleanup. Historically, the average annual rate of remediation and waste disposal
at NPL sites amounts to approximately 1 million tons per year of contaminated soil and
contaminated solid waste.10 Since only a portion of this waste contains PCBs, the rate specific
to PCBs would be lower. This estimate does not capture, however, cleanup operations at
CERCLIS sites or private cleanup operations not included in the government inventory of sites.
The rate of remediation should increase considerably, however, with the liberalization of
disposal and administrative requirements under the proposed amendments. Technological
advancements should improve the speed and efficiency of cleanup operations. Further, since
cleanup operations are certain to take at least several decades, the role of technological change is
1(yThe estimate is based on data derived from the EPA publication, Superfund Progress, Spring,
1992. Superfund data shows the quantity of waste remediated or disposed at NPL sites throughout
the history of Superfund (1980-1991) at 4.13 million cubic yards of contaminated soil, 5.27 million
cubic yards of contaminated solid wastes, and additional quantities of contaminated liquid waste,
groundwater and surface water. Summing the soil and solid waste quantities, and dividing by the
twelve year history represented, the average annual rate of disposal is 0.78 million cubic yards per
year. Judging that a cubic yard of soil would weigh in the vicinity of 2,700 lbs., this calculates to 1.05
million tons per year.
4-108
-------
likely to be quite important. It remains, however, very speculative to estimate how great an
increase in remediation rates should occur. Order-of-magnitude increases might be possible, but
cannot be assumed.
Table 4-10 presents the range of estimates of the time required to remediate the
inventory of PCB wastes, as defined by a hypothetical range of remediation rates (millions of
tons remediated per year). Given the uncertainty in the estimates, the range of duration and the
range in annual cost savings are extremely large. At one extreme, combining the high-end
estimate of waste quantities and the lowest rate of remediation, the cleanup will require over 100
years. At the other extreme, which combines the low range estimate of waste quantities and the
highest remediation rate considered, cleanup would require just over a decade.
Table 4-10 also presents the total annual cost savings generated using the estimated
average savings of $400 per ton. At the lowest cleanup rate considered of 5 million tons per
year, the annual cost savings is $2 billion per year. At the highest cleanup rate shown, the
savings would be $6 billion per year. For a given annual rate of remediation, these cost savings
would be generated over a time period determined by the quantity of PCB waste to be
remediated. An estimated cost savings of $4 billion per year is used in the final cost totals.
Remediation waste also is being generated from dredged material disposal sites, such as
the Indian Harbor site in the Great Lakes and elsewhere. Most dredged material sites with
PCB-contamination do not reach the 50 ppra level of contamination, and most of the sites that
do reach this level are being addressed as Superfund sites. These wastes, therefore, are included
in the estimates for Superfund wastes. For the remaining sites that have PCB contamination at
50 ppra or greater regulated only under TSCA, the proposed amendments might reduce disposal
costs. EPA is currently allowing these wastes to be treated by using alternative treatment
methods; under the proposed regulation, they now may be disposed of under revised, risk-based
disposal standards. The effect of this change on disposal costs, however, could not be estimated
without case-by-case information on the new disposal sites and the probable risk-based disposal
standards that would be applied. A cost savings could also result if the proposed amendments,
by clarifying requirements, reduces the administrative and legal preparations needed before
disposal can occur. The significance of such changes, while probably quite substantial, could not
4-109
-------
TABLE 4-10
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DERIVATION OF NUMBER OF YEARS
AND ANNUAL COST SAVINGS
FOR CLEANUP OF PCB WASTES
Total Remediation Waste Quantities (millions of tons!
Annual
Remediation
Cost
Qnantity/Yr
Low Est.
High Est.
Savings(a)
(millions of tons)
168
300
450
597
($ millions)
(Years)
5
34
60
90
119
$2,000
10
17
30
45
60
$4,000
15
11
20
30
40
$6,000
(a) Annual cost savings are calculated at $400 per ton, times the annual rate of remediation
4-110
-------
be specified. Therefore, dredged material wastes and the potential cost savings generated under
the proposed amendments have not been included in the analysis.
Similarly, the remediation waste category includes municipal sewage treatment sludges.
Virtually none of this waste is contaminated at 50 ppm or more PCBs (EPA, 1988). Therefore,
no cost savings have been estimated.
These cost savings estimates do not explicitly capture the potential effect of reduced
penalties issued under the proposed regulation. Owners of sites with PCB-remediation wastes
frequently receive penalties (which are based on the cost differential between the required
disposal practices and the disposal practices used) regarding past disposal practices, and the
proposed amendments will eliminate many of these charges.
Adding the savings in transactional costs to the savings in disposal costs, the total cost
savings is $4,001,179,217.
§761.62—DISPOSAL OF NONREMEDIATION PCB WASTES
Proposed Regulation. Any person disposing of PCBs is also responsible for determining
and complying with all other applicable Federal, State or local laws or regulations. PCB
nonremediation wastes shall be disposed of: (1) In an incinerator that complies with §761.70; (2)
In a chemical waste landfill that complies with §761.75; (3) (i) In a facility permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State as a municipal or industrial solid waste landfill if the concentration of PCBs
in a representative sample of the PCB nonremediation waste is <50 pg/L (i.e., 50 ppb), as
measured by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), 40 CFR 261, Appendix II,
Method 1311. The representative sample shall be collected according to the procedures in
Appendix III. (3)(ii) Nonremediation waste shall be sampled in accordance with the procedures
specified in Appendix III. Alternate sampling plans and procedures shall be used only after
being approved in writing by EPA as part of a disposal application under paragraph (a)(4) of this
section. (3)(iii) Written notice, including the quantity to be shipped and highest concentration
of PCBs (using extraction Method 3540 in SW-846 using the extraction solvent toluene/methanol
4-111
-------
and followed by chemical analysis using Method 8080), must be provided at least 15 days in
advance of shipment from the generator, to any facility receiving PCB nonremediation waste
pursuant to paragraph (3) (i) of this section. (3)(iv) The applicable recordkeeping provisions of
§761.180 must be adhered to with regard to all sampling and analysis of PCBs under this section;
(4) Upon application, using a disposal method or at a location to be approved by the RA for the
EPA Region in which PCBs will be disposed of. The proposed amendments specify the
information to be provided to the RA for approval of alternative disposal methods.
PCB nonremediation wastes include nonliquid bulk wastes or debris from the demolition
of building and other manmade structures manufactured or serviced with PCBs; wastes from the
shredding of automobiles, household and industrial appliances, or other white goods; PCB-
impregnated, electrical, sound-deadening, or other types of insulation and gaskets; and all other
PCB Items or PCBs for which disposal requirements are not otherwise specified in §761.60,
regardless of concentration where the concentration at the time of disposal was 50 ppm or more.
Existing Regulation. No specific coverage. Nonremediation wastes are regulated as any
other PCB waste. Since the PCBs in nonremediation wastes originate from currently
unauthorized uses, however, any wastes originating from sources with PCBs 50 ppm or greater
are regulated for disposal, regardless of the PCB concentration in the wastes. Such wastes must
be disposed of by incineration or by disposal in a chemical landfill.
Changes. This revision is deregulatory; it allows additional disposal options for
nonremediation wastes.
Cost Impacts. The cost saving is the difference between the cost of current disposal
choices and the cost of disposal choices under the proposed amendments. In this case, since no
EPA policies differ substantially from the existing standard, only one version of the cost analysis
was prepared.
The primary nonremediation PCB waste streams are PCB-contaminated building
demolition wastes and fluff from auto-shredding operations. Other types of nonremediation
wastes, such as PCB electrical, sound-deadening, or other types of insulation and gaskets also
4-112
-------
exist, but their volume is not known. This analysis focuses, therefore, on the first two sources of
nonremediation wastes to develop estimates of applicable cost savings. Building demolition
wastes can be contaminated by PCBs from light ballasts, or from PCBs in insulation.
Automobile shredder wastes can become contaminated from PCBs in capacitors in household
appliances included in the shredding inputs or from unknown PCB sources. The discussion
below describes the types and quantities of these wastes, current disposal costs, and cost savings
expected under the proposed standard. As will be shown, the potential cost savings for building
demolition wastes are quite uncertain because the usefulness of alternative disposal techniques
for these wastes is quite uncertain. A cost savings of $58.8 million per year is estimated for
automobile shredder wastes.
Demolition wastes. Veiy few estimates have been developed of the demolition waste
quantities. One source estimated construction and demolition waste quantities in the mid-1970s
at 33.5 million tons per year (Wilson et al., 1979). Although this estimate is quite dated, no
more recent estimate was found.
The quantity of demolition wastes likely to be PCB-contaminated is much less than the
aggregate total. This is partly the result of source-removal activities (i.e., the effect of removing
light ballasts and other known contaminants before demolition begins). In demolition work, it is
common for either the property owner or the demolition contractor to remove light ballasts from
a building before demolition. If this action is taken, the chance of PCB contamination is much
reduced and often is eliminated. The wastes from light ballast found to be leaking would be
subject to the PCB disposal regulations from the existing regulation. It was estimated that only 1
percent of building demolition wastes is found to be PCB-contaminated, using the PCB
limitations of either the existing or the proposed standard.
The existing standard allows only incineration or chemical landfill disposal of the
demolition wastes contaminated by PCBs. Other building demolition wastes are disposed of as
municipal solid waste or in building demolition waste sites. The proposed standard allows
disposal as municipal solid waste, when the leachate from the TCLP test is below 50 ppb, or
other techniques approved by the RA. Cost savings will be generated to the extent that disposal
under the proposed regulation is less costly for the PCB-contaminated portion of demolition
4-113
-------
wastes. Under the existing regulation, the disposal by chemical waste landfilling would cost an
estimated $100 per ton, although figures could reach to $600 per ton with disposal taxes,
transportation, and additional disposal company charges. Under the proposed standard, lower
cost options may exist. The applicability of other, lower cost options for this waste, however, is
uncertain as building demolition wastes are not now being subjected to testing .for alternative
disposal methods such as bioremediation, solvent extraction, or other efforts. In light of this
uncertainty, it is not possible to estimate the cost savings that might be accrued in building
demolition waste disposal. The expected cost savings can be calculated as a percentage of the
total disposal cost estimated under the existing standard, however (i.e., as a percentage of the
cost of sending PCB-contaminated building demolition wastes to chemical landfills). The total
cost of such current disposal is calculated at $33.5 million (33.5 million tons x 1 percent x
$100/ton). A cost savings of 10 percent of this amount would be $3.35 million. As noted,
however, data are not adequate to determine whether this type of cost savings would be
generated.
Shredder wastes. The quantity of fluff from automobile and appliance shredding
operations is estimated at approximately 3 million tons per year (Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries, 1991). The exact proportion of this material that is PCB-contaminated is not known,
although one EPAstudy (the "fluff" study) showed that one-third of the shredder fluff samples
tested equaled or exceeded 50 ppm (U.S. EPA, 1991c). The study also noted, however, that its
results should not be interpreted as statistically valid. In particular, PCB-contamination of the
shredding equipment appeared to have caused the separate waste sampling results to be
correlated (i.e., not independent, as is necessary for statistically reliable findings) since the level
of PCBs in each sample influenced the PCB level found in subsequent samples.
As for demolition wastes, the most effective method of compliance under both the
existing and the proposed regulations is source removal. In the shredder case, however, source
removal might not be adequate since the sources of PCBs in the shredder inputs cannot be
completely identified. In sampling efforts, removal of all known sources of PCBs before
shredding did not influence the level of PCBs found (U.S. EPA, 1991c).
4-114
-------
The proposed amendments increase the flexibility of shredder waste disposal because it
allows disposal using a method approved by the RA. The amendments also stipulate that
disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill is acceptable if the level of PCBs in the leachate is
less than 50 /ig/L (i.e., 50 ppb) as measured by the TCLP.
As for demolition wastes, cost savings will be generated to the extent that (1) a portion of
the shredder waste that requires high-cost disposal (i.e, incineration or chemical waste landfilling)
under the existing standard will not require it under the proposed standard, and (2) that portion
of the waste that requires costly disposal will now be handled with lower cost disposal methods.
Under the existing standard, most shredder wastes is subject to the high cost disposal
requirements since the PCB contamination is likely to have originated from unauthorized uses.
For the sake of simplification, it is asserted here that essentially all shredder waste currently
should be disposed of by incineration or chemical waste landfilling. Since chemical waste
landfilling is less expensive, it was assumed that it is used for all wastes under a strict
interpretation of the existing standard. Under the proposed regulation, auto shredders could test
their wastes using the TCLP and then, if the leachate is found not to pose an environmental risk
(i.e., does not equal or exceed 50 ppm), dispose of their wastes in municipal waste landfills. It is
anticipated that veiy little waste would not pass the TCLP. The cost of disposal by chemical
waste landfilling is estimated at $100 per ton, compared to a cost for municipal solid waste
disposal of $30 to $50 per ton. The cost of testing using the TCLP is estimated at approximately
$100.per test; since individual tests could be used to determine disposal for many tons of wastes,
the cost per ton for testing was estimated to be only a few dollars per ton. To capture the
combined cost of testing and municipal solid waste disposal, a $50 per ton cost was used to
represent the costs of the proposed amendments. A savings of $50 per ton would therefore be
generated for virtually all shredder wastes, generating a total cost savings of $150 million per
year (3 million tons per year x $50). This estimate does not include the savings in transportation
costs that also would result.
The proposed regulation also allows those disposing of PCB nonremediation waste to
petition the Regional Administrator to use alternative disposal methods or locations. Those
making such applications would do so in anticipation of saving money relative to their other
disposal options. This avenue for disposal, therefore, could also generate a cost savings:
4-115
-------
Nevertheless, the possible number of such applicants, the basis for their application, and the
significance of the cost savings was not predicted, and no estimate of cost savings was prepared.
§761.63—HOUSEHOLD WASTE EXEMPTION
Proposed Regulation. Household wastes may be disposed of in a facility permitted,
licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial waste or in an industrial
furnace in compliance with §761.60(a)(4).
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation contains no directly corresponding
paragraph.
Changes. This change is deregulatory. Household wastes were not specifically excluded
from the regulation and thus were expected to be handled and disposed of like other PCB
wastes.
Cost Impacts. PCB-containing household wastes may be disposed of under a municipal
solid waste collection program. Only a very small portion of household wastes includes PCBs.
Relatively few measurements have been made of the toxic constituents in household
wastes. One survey of wastes in Marin County, California, found that hazardous household
wastes are estimated at 0.4 percent of total residential landfilled wastes (Zielinski and Ehrenfeld,
1988). When all PCB-bearing household wastes are captured within this waste total, the share of
PCB-containing wastes must be estimated within the household hazardous waste total. PCBs are
not a major component of any of the major categories of household hazardous wastes, which
include household cleaners, automobile maintenance items, household maintenance items,
pesticides and yard maintenance products, batteries and electrical wastes, prescription drugs, or
selected cosmetics. The most evident concentrations of PCBs are those found in old paint and in
components of ham radios. Capacitors or PCB-containing light ballasts also might be found in
old household appliances, or light fixtures, although most appliances would be recovered for
salvage. Since PCB-containing materials have not been produced since the early 1970s for most
4-116
-------
applications, the PCBs in household wastes must be limited to very old cans of paint and small
amounts of very dated electrical components.
It is likely that the share of PCB-containing wastes in household hazardous wastes is no
more than 0.01 percent of the total. Using this value, and an estimate that the total quantity of
household hazardous wastes generated is 2.1 million tons per year, the quantity of household
PCB-containing wastes would be 210 tons. Under the existing regulation, these wastes should be
incinerated or sent to a chemical landfill, depending upon the PCB concentration. Estimating a
disposal cost of $2 per pound ($4,000/ton) for the wastes, the total avoided disposal costs, or cost
savings, is $840,000 per year. (Homeowners will be charged more per pound for PCB waste
disposal due to the small quantities involved. Therefore, the $2 per pound unit disposal cost was
used.)
§761.64—DISPOSAL OF WASTES GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
OF PCBs
Proposed Regulation. This section provides disposal requirements for wastes generated
at a chemical analysis laboratory during the analysis of samples containing PCBs. For
determining the presence of PCBs in samples, chemical analysis includes: sample preparation,
sample extraction, extract cleanup, extract concentration, addition of PCB standards, and
instrument analysis. The disposal provisions are as follows:
¦ The portions of samples extracted for determining the presence of PCBs or
concentration of PCBs are not regulated for PCB disposal.
¦ Aqueous solvents may be filtered through charcoal filters, the filters may be
disposed of as nonliquid PCBs according to §761.62, and the filtered water may be
disposed of according to §761.79(a) and (h).
¦ Nonliquid wastes that do not exceed a volume of 54 cubic feet or a weight of
1,000 kg per year are regulated for disposal according to 40 CFR
761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(l). Additional quantities of this waste may be decontaminated
according to 40 CFR 761.79 or disposed of without decontamination according to
the highest PCB concentration in the original sample materials.
4-117
-------
¦ Organic solvents used for the extraction of PCBs during chemical analysis may be
distilled and reused in chemical analysis laboratories without prior approval and
subject to specific distillation procedures, conditions, and limitations.
¦ Sulfuric acid used in the cleanup of sample extracts and containing less than 2
ppm PCBs is not regulated for disposal under TSCA.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph in the existing regulation.
Changes. The proposed amendment adds disposal requirements for the wastes generated
as a result of the chemical analysis of PCBs, however, general practice in the industry is to
dispose of these wastes as PCB wastes, according to either State or Federal standards (Shallice,
1992; Bolgar, 1992).
Cost Impacts. Because these wastes presently are disposed of as PCB wastes, there will
be no cost impacts.
§761.65(a)—EXTENDED STORAGE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR PCB WASTE
Proposed Regulation. The proposed regulation requires disposal 1 year after the date
that the PCB waste was removed from service for disposal. The proposed change also allows
storage beyond 1 year upon notifying the appropriate EPA RA. Additional extensions of the storage
time may require documentation of reasons for extension.
Anyone storing PCB waste that is subject to the 1-year time limit may provide written
notification to the RA that they have been unsuccessful in disposing or securing disposal of their
waste within the 1-year timeframe. The timeframe may be extended automatically for an
additional year under notification and recordkeeping conditions and if the efforts are continued
to secure a disposal site. The RA may grant additional extensions to the 1-year limitations upon
receiving a written request and justification for the extension.
Existing Regulation. Articles and containers stored are to be disposed of by January 1,
1984, or within 1 year from designation for disposal.
4-118
-------
Changes. This revision is a deregulatory action that eases the timetable for disposal of
PCB waste by allowing waste owners more time if they can show diligence in attempting to
dispose of their wastes promptly.
Cost Impacts. The revision allows waste owners greater flexibility in arranging for
disposal of their PCB wastes. Waste owners presently must attempt to have their waste disposed
of within 1 year of the time the waste is designated for disposal. During times of a shortage in
disposal capacity, one effect of this rule is that, as waste owners' disposal deadlines approach,
storage facilities can charge higher prices for disposal. With this increased flexibility in the
disposal deadline, the market and/or pricing leverage of the disposal facilities will be reduced and
disposal prices are less likely to rise as the 1-year deadline approaches.
The pricing change caused by the increased flexibility in the disposal deadline represents
a shift in the distribution of income between waste owners and storage facilities. As such, the
change is merely a transfer payment from one group to the other. It does not represent a
"social" cost in the sense that more of society's resources are being used. The size of the shift
between groups is not considered.
The increased disposal flexibility does create a social cost savings, however, because waste
owners can increase the efficiency with which they transport wastes for disposal. At present, in
order to meet the disposal deadline, smaller utilities and industrial facilities sometimes must ship
wastes for disposal in less-than-truckload amounts. (Large utilities reported that the revision will
have very little effect on their operations since they regularly generate full truckloads of PCB
wastes.) The cost of sending less-than-truckload shipments is considerably higher per unit of
waste because of the inefficient use of the truck capacity. The cost savings from more efficient
waste transportation will be offset to some extent by the notification requirements on efforts to
dispose of wastes set forth in the proposed revisions.
The cost savings from the increased flexibility in making transportation arrangements for
waste disposal was estimated using a series of estimations about PCB waste generation. Since
the bulk of the PCB waste originates from the larger electric utilities, most wastes will not be
affected. It was estimated that only 1 percent of waste would be transported in a different
4-119
-------
fashion under the proposed revision. It was also noted that transportation costs for less-than-
truckload shipments of PCB wastes from Boston to Chicago were approximately $0.13 to $0.18
per pound ($0,155 average) per 1,000 miles travelled. The Boston-to-Chicago trip most likely
represents the distances wastes would travel to final disposal. Costs for a full truckload are $0.05
to $0.10 per pound ($0,075) per 1,000 miles travelled. Therefore, a savings from the proposed
regulation of $0.08/lb per 1,000 trip was calculated ($0,155 minus $0,075). According to the most
recent disposal figures, 600 million kg (1.326 billion lb) of PCB waste was disposed of at
permitted facilities in 1990 (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Applying this savings to 1 percent of PCB waste
quantities disposed per year, a cost savings of $1.06 million per year ($1,060,800) was calculated.
The cost savings will be offset to some extent by the notification requirements to EPA to
demonstrate diligence in attempting to dispose of PCB wastes. The cost of preparing the
notification to EPA was estimated at 2 hours for a foreman at a waste owning facility ($43.80/hr),
with 1 additional hour of clerical assistance ($21.73) for a total notification cost of $10933 ([2 hr
x $43.80/hr] + $21.73). The notifications were estimated to be sent in by 1 percent of the
population of generation and storage facilities (38 of approximately 3,800 facilities). This
generates a total cost of approximately $4,142 (38 facilities x $109/facility). The cost to maintain
records for possible EPA inspection of continuing efforts to dispose of PCB wastes most likely
would generate little or no incremental costs beyond those of normal recordkeeping and
documentation of contacts with vendors, and thus this cost element is likely to be negligible.
Combining the cost savings of $1,060,800 with the cost of $4,142 generates a total savings
from this paragraph of $1,056,658 ($1,060,800 - $4,142).
§761.6S(b)(l)(ii)—SPECIAL STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Proposed Regulation. The proposed regulations specify that radioactive wastes must be
stored in an area that has an adequate floor with continuous curbing that is a minimum of 6 inches
high. 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:
4-120
-------
PCBlfissionable radioactive wastes are not required to have a minimum 6-inch high curbing.
However, the floor and curbing must still provide a containment volume equal to at least two times
the internal volume of the largest PCB Container or 25 percent of the total internal volume of all
PCB Containers stored therein, whichever is greater.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulations do not specifically address radioactive
wastes; therefore, as with any other PCB waste, they must be stored in an area with an adequate
floor and a continuous curbing that is a minimum of 6 inches high. 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.
Changes. The proposed change provides for the storage of fissionable PCB wastes.
Cost Impacts. This change was examined using the existing standard as the baseline.
Under the existing regulation, DOE would have had to modify its storage facilities substantially.
According to a DOE representative, the differences in design were based entirely on issues of
safety and not of costs. Nevertheless, if forced to meet the existing standard, DOE would incur
costs to redesign its PCB storage facilities. DOE has three different facilities with radioactive
wastes; the square footage of this area would not be determined, however. While the proposed
regulation will generate a cost savings of at least several hundred thousand dollars, a more exact
estimate could not be developed. It is likely that a cost savings of no less than $250,000 would
be generated. Annualizing this savings over 5 years produced an annual savings of $54,589 per
year.
§761.65(b)(2)—PCB STORAGE IN RCRA FACILITIES ALLOWED
Proposed Regulation. PCBs and PCB Items designated for disposal may be stored in a
RCRA storage facility or State waste management unit.
4-121
-------
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation contains no corresponding paragraph. PCBs
and PCB Items, therefore, may only be stored in TSCA facilities.
Changes. This deregulatory action allows an additional storage option.
Cost Impacts. This change increases the number of commercial storage facilities that will
compete for PCB wastes. The number of such additional storage facilities might be limited,
however, to the extent that State or local prohibitions on PCB storage limit the ability of RCRA
facilities to modify their operating permits. Nevertheless, with the increased number of storage
facilities available, storage prices charged for PCB wastes might decline. Also, firms may require
less time to arrange for storage since firms producing both hazardous and PCB waste will be able
to reduce the number of contractors they use for storage. On the other hand, RCRA facilities
may charge more than TSCA-approved facilities since they will need to make special
arrangements for disposal of this additional waste stream. With the possibility of offsetting
influences on prices, the net effect of this change probably would be negligible.
The proposed amendments also allow RCRA facilities to accept PCB wastes without
obtaining prior approval from EPA. This change allows facilities to avoid the costs they would
incur under the existing regulations to accept PCB wastes; Under the existing regulations, storage
firms would be required to develop a closure plan and meet financial assurance requirements.
EPA estimated that it costs $25,000 for a facility with a RCRA permit to prepare a closure plan
(U.S. EPA, 1989a). Firms also will have to upgrade their financial assurance mechanisms for any
expansion or substantial change in operation of their facility. The cost of this change will vary,
although EPA has estimated that the costs for obtaining a financial assurance to be between
$33,000 and $73,000. For this estimate, it was assumed that the lower end of the range should
be used ($33,000) as indicative of the cost savings under the proposed amendments. The total
avoided cost per industry is then $58,000 ($25,000 + $33,000) for each RCRA facility that
handles PCB wastes. The number of RCRA facilities that might now receive PCB wastes, and
therefore, would benefit from a cost savings is not known. Assuming at a minimum, however,
that approximately one dozen RCRA facilities per year initiate PCB storage, the cost savings per
year would be $696,000 ($58,000 x 12).
4-122
-------
§761.65(c)(l)(iv)—TEMPORARY STORAGE OF LIQUID PCB WASTES ^500 PPM IN
NONCOMPLYING AREA
Proposed Regulation. PCB containers containing liquid PCBs at concentrations of 50
ppm or greater, provided a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan has been
prepared for the temporary storage, may be stored in an area that has been prepared for
temporary storage in accordance with 40 CFR 112 and the liquid waste is in DOT specification
containers or stationary bulk tanks (excluding rolling stock, such as, but not limited to, tanker
trucks).
Existing Regulation. (From (c)(1).) The following PCB Items may be stored temporarily
in an area that does not comply with the requirements of... this section for up to 30 days from
the date of the their removal from service...) PCB Containers containing liquid PCBs at a
concentration between 50 and 500ppm, provided a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
Plan has been prepared for the temporary storage area...
Changes. The proposed changes allow greater latitude for the storage of liquid PCB
wastes at concentrations of 500 ppm or greater in noncomplying facilities.
Cost Impacts. The great majority of PCB-waste generators have prepared Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans and thus have the potential to benefit from the
increased flexibility regarding temporary storage of wastes in nonconforming storage areas.
The principal savings generated by this revision will occur among firms that are servicing
electrical equipment in the field. The labor saving from this convenience is a function of the
number of PCB Transformers still being serviced and the number of units for which servicing
cannot be completed within a day, thereby creating the benefit of temporary storage in the field.
The most recent data available indicated that there were 357,152 PCB Transformers in use in
1988 (U.S. EPA, 1989b). It was estimated that 25 percent of these units would have been taken
out of service in the intervening 5 years so that approximately 275,000 units remain. It was also
estimated that each of the remaining units is serviced once every 2 years and that in one-half of
these servicing jobs, the proposed temporary storage regulations would save workers time in
4-123
-------
moving liquid wastes to storage areas. One hour of time saving at $43.80 per hour was allowed
for each case. Combining these estimates, a labor saving of 68,750 hours (275,000 units x 0.5 x
0.5) was calculated. This labor savings would result in a cost saving of $3.01 million per year
(68,750 hr x $43.80/hour).
The cost savings is offset to the extent that a portion of the affected waste generators
have not prepared Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans. While the majority of
waste generators are very likely to have prepared such plans, it was estimated that 10 companies
might lack such plans. The cost of preparing these plans was estimated at $2,490 per plan,
encompassing 60 hours of effort. The hours requirement was distributed among management
personnel (5 hours), technical personnel (45 hours), and clerical hours (10 hours). The total cost
was calculated at $24,900 across the ten companies. This requirement was deemed to represent
an annual cost as different generators are affected by the regulation each year. The total net
cost savings for this requirement is estimated at $3.0 million ($3.01 million less $24,900).
§761.65(c)(5)—CHECKING FOR LEAKY PCB ITEMS
Proposed Regulation. All PCB Items in storage shall be checked for leaks at least once
every 30 days. Any leaking PCB Items and their contents shall be transferred immediately to
properly marked nonleaking containers. Any spilled or leaked materials shall be immediately
cleaned up, and the materials and residues containing PCBs shall be disposed in accordance with
§761.61(b). Records of inspections, maintenance, cleanup and disposal must be maintained in
accordance with §761.180(a)(b).
Existing Regulation. All PCB Articles and PCB Containers in storage shall be checked
for leaks at least once every 30 days. Any leaking PCB Articles and PCB Containers and their
contents shall be transferred immediately to properly marked nonleaking containers.
Changes. The proposed amendment expands the requirements for checking for leaks
over all PCB Items in storage. These PCB Items are to be checked monthly for leaks.
4-124
-------
Cost Impacts. This requirement expands the requirements for checking for leaks among
PCB Items. In so doing, affected utilities and industrial facilities will be required to increase
their surveillance for the possibility of leakage. The incremental cost of this requirement,
however, was judged to be negligible. The number of additional PCB Items brought under
coverage is judged to be quite small since PCB Articles (including (PCB Equipment) and PCB
Containers were covered previously.
§761.65(c) (6)—CONTAINER REQUIREMENTS FOR PCBs
Proposed Regulation. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section, any
container used for the storage of liquid or nonliquid PCBs shall be in accordance with the
requirements set forth in the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR)
at 49 CFR 171-180. PCBs not subject to the HMR (i.e., PCB wastes at concentrations of 20 ppm
or less than 1 lb of PCBs regardless of concentration) must be packaged in accordance with 49
CFR 173.203 (for liquids) or 173.213 (nonliquids).
Existing Regulation. Except as provided in this paragraph ..., any container used for
storage of liquid PCBs shall comply with the Shipping Container Specification of the DOT, 49
CFR 178.80 (Specification 5B container without removable head), 178.82 (Specification 5B
container without removable head)... Any container used for the storage of nonliquid PCBs shall
comply with the specifications of 49 CFR 178.80 (Specification 5 container)...
Changes. The deregulatory change eliminates references to specific DOT container
requirements, removing the need to update the regulation for each DOT change. By referring to
the DOT regulations, which include more options, firms are given a wider choice for their
purchases of PCB Containers. (Since DOT currently is phasing in performance standards and
phasing out the current technical specifications for containers, shippers may face a temporary
shortage of approved containers. This situation will be remedied quickly, however, once
manufacturers modify their product lines to meet the new DOT regulatory requirements.)
4-125
-------
Cost Impacts. This change reduces container costs since the existing EPA regulations, by
referring only selectively to more stringent DOT standards, are more restrictive than the DOT
standards themselves. Although any price decline is uncertain, container costs most likely will
decline by approximately 10 percent because firms can use DOT-authorized containers that cost
slightly less than the containers now required. The number of PCB containers disposed of in
1990 was estimated at 161,443 (U.S. EPA, 1992b). The average price per container was
estimated at approximately $35. Estimating a 10 percent reduction in price, the cost savings
would be $0.57 million per year (161,443 containers x $35 x 10 percent).
§761.6S(c)(6)(i)—CONTAINERS FOR PCB FISSIONABLE RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Proposed Regulation. Containers other than those meeting DOT performance standards
may be used for storage of PCB/fissionable radioactive waste provided all the following
conditions are met:
¦ Containers used for storage of liquid PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes must be
nonleaking.
¦ Containers used for storage of nonliquid PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes may
need to be designed to prevent the buildup of liquids if such containers are stored
in an area which meets the containment requirements of 761.65(b)(l)(ii).
¦ Containers used to store both liquid and nonliquid PCB/fissionable radioactive
wastes must be designed to meet Nuclear Criticality Safety requirements specified
in the ANSI Standard No. 8.1, American National Standard for Nuclear Criticality
Safety in Operations with Fissile Materials Outside Reactors. Acceptable
container materials currently include polyethylene and stainless steel, provided
that the container material is chemically compatible with the wastes being stored.
If other containers are to be used to store both liquid and nonliquid
PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes, the users must be able to demonstrate to the
appropriate Regional Administrator and/or the Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission
that the use of such containers is protective of health and the environment as well
as public health and safety.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation contains no separate treatment of
PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes.
4-126
-------
Changes. The change acknowledges the special character of radioactive wastes and
allows unique container designs.
Cost Impact. The proposed amendments generate a substantial cost savings when
compared to the existing regulation. Otherwise, DOE would have been required to repackage its
stored PCB wastes in new containers. DOE also might have had to take exceptional additional
measures to safeguard the storage areas, given the safety risks posed by using the original
mandated container design. In light of the uncertainty about how to store radioactive wastes
under the existing standard, a detailed estimate of the cost savings could not be made. A cost
savings of $500,000 for this paragraph was estimated, however, as an approximation of the cost to
DOE to design and construct a special waste storage area for PCB radioactive wastes that meets
the original EPA specifications and that somehow provides for safe storage of such wastes. This
estimate applies only when such a facility could possibly be constructed. Annualized over 5
years, the cost savings is $109,177.
§761.65(c) (7)-STA TIONARY STORAGE CONTAINERS
Proposed Regulation. Stationary storage containers for liquid PCBs can be larger than
containers specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section Provided that: [various specifications
given].
Existing Regulation. Storage containers for liquid PCBs can be larger than containers
specified in paragraph (c)(6) of this section provided that: [various specifications given]
Changes. The proposed regulation applies to stationary storage containers. It removes an
implied provision that nonstationary storage containers would have had to meet all of the
requirements of this paragraph.
Cost impact. There are no cost impacts. The scope of coverage of the paragraph is
reduced to only stationary storage containers. While mobile storage containers were technically
4-127
-------
required to meet certain requirements of this paragraph, no owners of those containers were
attempting to meet those requirements and EPA was not enforcing those requirements.
§761.65(c)(8)—CONTAINERS FOR PCB ITEMS
Proposed Regulation. PCB Items shall be dated on the item when they are removed from
service for disposal. The storage shall be managed so that the PCB Items can be located by the
date they were removed from service for disposal. Storage containers provided in paragraph
(c)(7) of this section, 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. (See also record
retention requirements at §761.180).
Existing Regulation. PCB Articles and PCB Containers shall be dated on the article or
container when they are placed in storage. The storage shall be managed so that the PCB
Articles and PCB Containers can be located by the date they entered storage.
Changes. The proposed amendment expands the dating requirement to include a wider
selection of equipment and initiates the dating process at the time the PCB Item is removed
from service for disposal.
Cost Impacts. This proposed amendment, by expanding the range of equipment covered,
may generate a small increase in the number of items regulated while in storage. Nevertheless,
the number of additional items now covered is quite small, since the great majority of PCB
Articles (including PCB Equipment) and PCB Containers were already covered. The change in
the dating requirement, similarly, will have a small impact on a limited population of items. The
cost impact of this amendment was judged to be negligible.
4-128
-------
§761.65(g)(9)—FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR CLOSURE
Proposed Regulation. The proposed regulation states that when a storage facility
undergoes modifications that warrant establishing a new financial assurance mechanism or
amending an existing financial assurance mechanism, the new or revised financial assurance
mechanism must be established and activated no later than 30 days after the RA or Director, CMD,
is notified of the completion of the modification to the facility but prior to use of the modified portion
of the facility. The RA must be notified within 7 days of completing the modification to the
facility.
Existing Regulation. This regulation states that a commercial storer of PCB wastes shall
establish financial assurance for closure of each PCB storage facility that he or she owns or
operates. Sections 761.65 (g)(1) through (7) provide specific mechanisms that can be used.
Changes. The proposed regulation stipulates the timeframe for owners and operators to
notify the RA about modified storage facilities and the timeframe for the owners and operators
to establish and activate the modified financial assurance mechanisms.
Cost Impacts. Discussion with several PCB storage facilities indicated that their
operating permits already stipulate the timeframes by which they must notify their RA about
modified storage facilities and establish and activate the financial assurance mechanisms. These
facilities would experience no cost impacts, if they were to modify facilities in ways that warrant
establishing new financial assurance mechanisms. Other facilities also indicated that these
timeframes would cause no significant changes or cost impacts to their operations. One facility
owner commented that he was unsure whether all the necessary documents could be forwarded
and signed by key company personnel within the timeframe specified.
Nevertheless, since no Federal regulation currently exists to ensure that timely revisions
are made to financial assurance mechanisms, there is a possibility that some facilities are not
currently covered by this type of requirement. It was assumed that a small number of facilities
(set at 10 facilities) will incur a minor expense (estimated at 1 hour of management time and 0.5
4-129
-------
hours of clerical time) to amend their current financial assurance mechanisms as specified. This
generates a cost of $713 per year.
§761.650)—REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TRANSFER OF INTERIM STATUS
Proposed Regulation. The date of transfer of interim status or final approval shall be the
date the RA or director, CMD, provides written notice of such transfer. EPA will recognize the
transfer of interim status or final approval for commercial storage facilities if the following
conditions are met:
¦ The transferee must demonstrate it has established, by the date of transfer,
financial assurance for closure pursuant to §761.65(g) using a mechanism effective
as of the date of final approval so that there will be no lapse in financial
assurance for the transferred facility.
¦ The new application must also include all the elements listed in paragraph (d) of
this section.
¦ The resolution of any deficiencies (e.g., technical operations, closure plan(s), cost
estimates) EPA has identified in the application of the transferor, either by the
transferor or by the transferee in the new application.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation has no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. This paragraph provides for continuity in environmental safeguards through the
process of transferring ownership.
Cost Impacts. The only additional compliance requirement under this section is likely to
be the requirement to modify the previously submitted application materials. The need to
maintain the instruments for financial responsibility and responsibility for correction of
deficiencies is already implicit in the existing requirements and does not generate incremental
cost impacts.
4-130
-------
It was estimated that respondents will need to prepare a portion of new application
materials. The new owner would be able to copy much of the application submitted by the
facility being purchased, but personnel time will be needed to review and revise the application
documents, which could run about 100 pages long (Linton, 1993). Forty hours of management
time at $60.42 per hour for $2,416.80, and 80 hours of clerical time at $21.73 for $1,728.40,
respectively, was allotted to prepare the revisions to the new application. The total cost of this
effort would be $4,155 per revised application ($2,416.80 + $1,728.40). Based on EPA estimates,
1 percent of the active storage facilities would change hands per year. The total number of PCB
storage facilities is 166, so it was calculated that two facilities a year would change hands ($166 x
0.01 = 1.66). Using these estimates, a compliance cost of $8,310 per year was calculated.
§76L67(a)—STORAGE FOR REUSE OF PCB ARTICLES FOR NO MORE THAN 3 YEARS
Proposed Regulation. Any PCB Articles may be stored for reuse in an area which is not
designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with §761.65(b) for no more than 3 years
from the date it was originally removed from use or 3 years from the effective date of this rule,
under use and labeling conditions.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation has no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The change prevents indefinite storage of equipment without monitoring of
equipment conditions and clarifies the requirements for storage.
Cost Impacts. This change may result in disposal costs to firms that have stored PCB
Articles for long periods of time. Electric utility companies indicated virtually no interest in
storing PCB Articles for as long as 3 years. Waste disposal contractors, however, indicated that
some industrial firms have been holding equipment for long periods without disposal even though
chances of reuse are very remote. Typically, these are industrial firms that hold reserve
transformers out from disposal since they do not wish to incur the expense. The total quantity of
items being stored indefinitely has not been estimated.
4-131
-------
If these items actually are being stored indefinitely, the disposal costs will represent an
incremental cost to the industry. That is, that without this regulatory change, the items now
brought forth essentially would never have been disposed of or that disposal would have been
delayed for so long that the present value of disposal costs would have been negligible. Based on
evidence from electric utility and industry consultants, it was estimated that these PCB Items,
which equal 10 percent of the total weight of PCBs known to be remaining in storage at the end
of 1990, now would be brought forth for disposal. The amount of PCB waste in storage at the
end of 1990 equaled 38 million kilograms or 84 million pounds. The additional amount to be
disposed of would then be 8.4 million pounds. The allotted disposal cost was $0.50 per pound.
This results in a compliance cost of $4.2 million, but greatly reduces the risks associated with
these PCBs being stored outside an approved storage area for an indefinite period of time. This
one-time charge, annualized over 5 years, is $0.92 million per year.
§761.67(b)—STORAGE FOR REUSE OVER 3 YEARS
Proposed Regulation. Any PCB Article may be stored in an area that does not comply
with §761.65(b) for reuse for a period of longer than 3 years, provided that the owner or
operator of the Article has requested and received written approval from the RA.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation has no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The proposed change allows greater latitude in storage of PCB Articles, subject
to the stated conditions.
Cost Impacts. None of the electric utility companies contacted indicated that their
operations would be adjusted in response to this requirement. The industrial equipment
maintained in long-term storage is likely to be disposed of rather than maintained under this
requirement. Nevertheless, it was judged that a small percentage of PCB waste generation and
storage facilities were likely to request extensions of storage time limits. The time needed to
request and obtain approval from the EPA Regional Administrator was estimated at 3 hours, for
an estimated 190 applicants (5 percent of the population of generating facilities). This annual
4-132
-------
cost was estimated at $20,773 per year (1 hour times $21.73 per hour + 2 hour times 43.80 per
hour times 190).
§761.75(8)(ii) CHEMICAL WASTE LANDFILLS
Proposed Regulation. An operation plan shall be developed and submitted to the RA for
approval as required in paragraph (c) of this section. The plan shall include detailed explanations of
the procedures to be used for recordkeeping, surface water handling, excavation and backfilling,
vehicle and equipment movement, and use of roadways. The plan also shall include details of waste
segregation burial coordinates, sampling and monitoring procedures, monitoring wells, environmental
emergency contingency plans, and security measures to protect against vandalism and unauthorized
waste placement. The EPA guide entitled "Thermal Processing and Land Disposal of Solid Waste"
(39 FR 29337, August 14, 1974) is a useful reference in preparing such a plan.
Existing Regulation. The existing section contains the above requirements, plus the
following provisions:
¦ For facilities that dispose of liquid wastes containing between 50 and 500 ppm
PCBs, chemical waste landfill operation plans must include procedures for
determining that liquid PCBs to be disposed of at the landfill do not exceed 500
ppm and measures to prevent the migration of PCBs from the landfill.
¦ Bulk liquids not exceeding 500 ppm PCBs may be disposed of providing that 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 nonflowing consistency is achieved to eliminate the presence of free-flowing
liquids prior to final disposal in a landfill.
¦ PCB Containers of liquid PCBs with a concentration between 50 and 500 ppm
PCB may be disposed of if each container is surrounded by an amount of inert
sorbent material capable of absorbing all of the liquid contents of the container.
Changes. By deleting the above provisions, this amendment removes references that
specified conditions under which PCB liquids could be disposed in chemical waste landfills.
Under present EPA policy, as expressed through the EPA permits of landfills, chemical, waste
4-133
-------
landfill operators are not allowed to dispose of liquid PCB wastes or waste containers in their
facilities and these wastes are incinerated (Brill, 1994; Goodwin, 1994; Miller, 1994; Pallo, 1994).
Cost Impacts. Given comments that no liquid wastes are being disposed of in chemical
waste landfills under existing permits, there will be no cost impacts or savings associated with this
amendment.
§761.77—COORDINATED APPROVAL
Proposed Regulation. EPA RAs may issue TSCA PCB Coordinated Approvals to
owner/operators of PCB facilities if they meet the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (g):
land disposal rules, incinerator rules, research and development rules, alternative disposal
technologies rules, commercial storage facility rules or site remediation rules.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulations contain no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The regulations acknowledge permits issued under other State and Federal
environmental programs.
Cost Impacts. The proposed language means that owner/operators of PCB waste
management facilities need not obtain additional approvals from EPA and are exempted from a
second round of permitting for handling PCB wastes if they have acquired associated hazardous
waste management permits under RCRA from EPA or under State hazardous waste regulations
(i.e., where States classify PCBs as a hazardous waste or regulate PCBs similar to the TSCA
requirements). Each facility also must submit a letter to EPA at the same time as seeking
another action (§761.77(a)(1)), which shall include identification numbers, point-of-contact
information, a description of the waste activity to be conducted, and certification that the facility
will adhere to TSCA reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The number of TSCA facilities potentially affected by this change is estimated to be 10
percent of the total PCB storage, and disposal facilities per year or 471 (0.10 x 4,710 facilities
4-134
-------
identified in the PADS data base). This estimate is intended to capture the costs of the periodic
permit renewal applications and new facility permit applications. The cost of original permit
submissions and permit renewals, where an earlier and similar submission had already been
prepared for another agency, was estimated at $22,811. This was based on an estimate that the
additional rewriting and restructuring of the permit information for a second agency would
require 320 hours (2 months) of management time and 160 hours (1 month) of clerical assistance
for costs calculated as follows:
320 hr x $60.42/hr = $19,334.
160 hr x $21.73/hr = $3,477.
19334 + $3,477 = $22,811.
These per facility cost savings would be somewhat offset by the added administrative costs of
sending EPA the notification letter, which were estimated to be $475 per facility as follows: a
facility manager spends 1 hour at $60.42 per hour and a technician spends 8 hours at $43.80 per
hour ($350.40 total) compiling the information and clerical support provides 3 hours of assistance
at $21.73 per hour ($65.19) for a total of $475 ($60 + 350 + 65 = $475). The total cost savings
each year per facility, therefore, would be $22,406 ($22,881 - $475) and the total annual savings
for 471 facilities would be $10,553,226 ($22,406 x 471).
§761.79(a)(l)—DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES AND DISPOSAL OF RINSES
Proposed Regulation. For purposes of decontamination under this section, the solubility
of PCBs in any solvent used must be 5 percent or more by weight. The solvent may be reused
for decontamination until it contains 50 ppm PCBs. Hydrocarbon solvent used or reused for
decontamination of less than 50 ppm PCB can be disposed of according to waste oil rules. All
chlorinated solvent at any concentration or other solvents greater than or equal to 50 ppm PCB
used for decontamination under this section shall be disposed of as a PCB in accordance with
1761.60(a). All other liquid or nonliquid PCBs resulting from decontamination under this
section shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of §761.60(a)(l)-(3) or §761.61
(a)(5)(i)(A)(2), respectively.
4-135
-------
Existing Regulation. Any PCB Container to be decontaminated shall be decontaminated
by flushing the internal surfaces of the container three times with a solvent containing less than
50 ppm PCB. Each rinse shall use a volume of the normal diluent equal to approximately 10
percent of the PCB Container capacity. The solvent may be reused for decontamination until it
contains 50 ppm PCB. Nonliquid PCBs resulting from the decontamination procedures shall be
disposed of as a PCB in accordance with 1761.60(a).
Changes. The change clarifies current disposal requirements under the anti-dilution
provision for solvents contaminated at less than 50 ppm, and clarifies the role of the waste oil
regulations for PCB-contaminated hydrocarbon-based solvents.
Cost Impacts. All parties contacted stated that rinse solutions were now treated as PCB-
contaminated wastes, and thus current practices are at least as rigorous as the requirements
stated here. It was estimated that this language would have a negligible cost impact.
§761.79(a)(2)—DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF DECONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT
Proposed Regulation. All equipment, structures, surfaces, liquids or other materials
decontaminated in accordance with the procedures and standards of this section may be
distributed in commerce or used in accordance with the provisions of §761.20(c)(5) or (6).
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph in the existing regulation.
Changes. The proposed amendments provides authorization to distribute in commerce
and use equipment, structure, surfaces, liquids, or other materials that have been properly
decontaminated.
Cost Impacts. This paragraph, in conjunction with paragraphs §761.20(c)(5) and (6),
allow materials that have been properly decontaminated to be used in commerce. The cost
savings associated with this change are summarized in the discussion for 1761.20(c)(5).
4-136
-------
§761.79(a) (3)—WRITTEN RECORD OF DECONTAMINA TION ACTION
Proposed Regulation. A written record must be established and maintained for 3 years
of decontamination actions taken.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The proposed amendment adds a recordkeeping requirement.
Cost Impacts. Electric utilities and other organizations dealing with PCBs will be
required to maintain a record of decontamination actions performed under this section of the
regulations. Since most spills by electric utilities will continue to be addressed under the EPA
spill cleanup policy, the number of cleanup actions addressed under this requirement will be
fairly modest. Further, the amount of incremental time needed to record such actions and
compile sampling results will be modest. It was estimated that 20 percent of the facilities
handling or disposing of PCBs in a given year (900 of 4,500 establishments listed in the PADS
data base, U.S. EPA, 1992a) will need to make entries to record decontamination actions taken.
The amount of time required per facility is estimated at 2 hours per incident for a total of 1,800
hours per year. The aggregate cost of this requirement is calculated at $78,840 (1,800 x $43.80).
§761.79(a)(4)—NO DISPOSAL APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR SEPARATING PCBs FROM
SURFACES OR LIQUIDS
Proposed Regulation. This proposed amendment states that for purposes of
decontamination under this section, filtering, soaking, wiping, stripping, chopping, scraping, or
the use of abrasives to remove or separate PCBs from contaminated surfaces or liquids does not
require a disposal approval under §761 Subpart D.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph, although EPA policy states
that approvals are needed to separate PCBs physically from surfaces or liquids.
4-137
-------
Changes. The proposed amendment clarifies that no disposal approvals are required to
conduct these activities and discontinues the EPA "PCB Separation Policy" that requires persons
conducting PCB physical separation activities to obtain a disposal approval.
Cost Impacts. Compared to the baseline of the existing PCB Separation Policy, the
proposed regulation would lead to cost savings for industry because it removes the requirement
to obtain disposal approvals under the stated circumstances. EPA estimates that it costs industry
approximately $61,000 to apply for a disposal approval, including the cost to submit the
application, conduct a field demonstration, and meet the financial assurance requirements. EPA
also estimates that it receives approximately one request per month for disposal permits.
Combining these estimates generates an annual cost savings of $732,000 ($61,000 x 12).
§761.79(a)(5)—PROTECTION AGAINST DERMAL CONTACT OR INHALATION OF PCBs
Proposed Regulation. This proposed amendment requires any person conducting
decontamination activities under this section to take appropriate measures to ensure that no
solvent, dust, or particulate emissions containing PCBs are released into the environment from
the decontamination area. Workers shall wear or use appropriate protective clothing or
equipment against dermal contact or inhalation of PCBs or PCB-contaminated material.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph in the existing regulation.
Changes. The proposed amendment adds provisions to prevent PCB air emissions and to
protect workers against dermal or inhalation exposure to PCBs. This section refers affected
parties to comply with other Federal and State occupational safety regulations.
Cost Impacts. Because other regulations already cover the activities under the proposed
section (and general industry practice is to follow the procedures described in the proposed
regulation), there would be no cost impact to industry due to the proposed regulation.
4-138
-------
§761.79(d)—DECONTAMINATION STANDARD AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NONPOROVS
SURFACES
Proposed Regulation. The decontamination standard for nonporous solid surfaces is <10
fig/100 cm2, as measured by a standard wipe test (§761.123).
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. This change supplements §761.20 which states that decontaminated materials
could be returned to service if decontaminated to TSCA-approved levels. This paragraph defines
the TSCA-approved levels.
Cost Impacts. This paragraph establishes what the decontamination standard is but does
not require any activity. Currently, this decontamination level is set through the use of
enforcement discretion, a TSCA PCB disposal approval, or the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy. Since
this rule would be self-implementing, the transactional costs of getting an approval or consent
agreement would be eliminated. These savings, however, already were considered in the analysis
of §761.20(c)(4). No additional cost impacts are calculated under this paragraph.
§761.79(e) and (f)—.DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES FOR NONPOROUS SURFACES
Proposed Regulation. Any smooth, unpainted nonporous surface in contact with free-
flowing mineral oil dielectric fluid (MODEF) containing 10,000 ppm PCBs or less may be
decontaminated according to a prescribed protocol.
Any smooth, unpainted nonporous surface in contact with free-flowing MODEF
containing over 10,000 ppm PCBs in MODEF or askarel PCBs (up to 70 percent PCBs in a
mixture of trichlorobenzenes and tetrachlorobenzenes) may be decontaminated according to a
prescribed protocol.
Existing Regulation. There are no corresponding paragraphs.
4-139
-------
Changes. This change supplements §761.20 which stated that decontaminated materials
could be returned to service if decontaminated to TSCA approved levels or with an applicable
decontamination standard or procedure(s). This paragraph defines a TSCA-approved
decontamination procedure.
Cost Impacts. The proposed standard allows companies to reuse equipment with
nonporous surfaces providing they meet these cleanup standards. The cost savings generated by
this regulation are considered in §761.20(c)(4). No additional cost savings is estimated here.
§761.79(g) and (h)—.DECONTAMINATION STANDARD FOR PCB-CONTAMINATED WATER
AND ORGANIC LIQUIDS
Proposed Regulation. The decontamination standard for PCB-contaminated water is
<0.5 fig/L (i.e., 0.5 ppb) PCBs; the decontamination standard for PCB-contaminated organic
liquids is 2 mg/L (i.e., 2 ppm) PCBs.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation does not include a decontamination standard
for water or organic liquids.
Changes. The proposed regulation will allow use of water or organic liquids cleaned to
the specified level.
Cost Impacts. The proposed amendments, by allowing reuse of contaminated water and
organic liquids if cleaned to the specified levels, may save natural resources or usable industrial
chemicals. No estimates could be prepared of the number incidents that will be affected by this
proposed standard. No cost estimates were performed.
4-140
-------
§761.80(e)—.MANUFACTURING OF PCBs FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Proposed Regulation. EPA proposes to grant a 1-year class exemption to all R&D facilities
to manufacture PCBs in quantities that do not exceed 454 g (or 1 lb) of PCBs, provided that the
facilities use the PCBs solely in their own research for the development of PCB disposal techniques
provided that: (1) the facility submits a notification in the form of a petition for exemption from
the PCB prohibition on manufacturing PCBs within 60 days of the rule's effective date or 60 days
prior to engaging in these activities; (2) the facility notifies the RA in writing 30 days prior to
beginning any R&D activity authorized under this section (the notification requirement will be
waived if EPA has issued a TSCA PCB R&D Approval that contains a provision regarding the
manufacture of PCBs); and (3) EPA will consider any properly filed request for the renewal of the
exemption by any member of the class as a renewal request for the entire class.
Existing Regulation. Under the current regulations, any person or facility wishing to
manufacture PCBs must file an exemption petition as specified under TSCA §6(e)(3)(B) and be
granted an exemption through the rulemaking process. Section 750.10 codifies the process for
filing petitions requesting manufacturing exemptions. These regulations require petitioners to
provide the following information:
¦ Name, address, and telephone number.
- ¦ Description of the PCB exemption requested, including items and substances to
be manufactured and nature of the manufacturing.
¦ Location(s) of sites requiring exemption.
¦ Length of time requested for exemption (up to 1 year).
¦ Amount to be manufactured during the requested exemption period and the
manner of release of PCBs into the environment associated with these activities.
¦ The basis for the petitioner's contention that the granting of the petition would
not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under
§6(e)(3)(B)(i).
¦ The basis of the petitioner's contention that good faith efforts have been made to
develop a chemical substance that does not present an unreasonable health or
4-141
-------
environmental risk and may be substituted for the PCB, according to
§6(e)(3)(B)(ii).
¦ Quantification of the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of EPA
denial of exemption petition and an explanation of the manner of computation.
Changes. The amendments provide industry with a class exemption for manufacturing
PCBs in small quantities for R&D in PCB disposal technologies as opposed to requiring each
facility to obtain a manufacturing exemption granted through rulemaking.
Cost Impacts. For this section, the estimated costs associated with waiting to be granted
or denied a petition versus being included in this class exemption were compared, and the
number of facilities per year that would be affected by this proposed amendment was estimated.
Considering that eight facilities have been granted exemptions to manufacture PCBs for
R&D, it is likely that the number of new applications to conduct activities regulated under this
section will be modest. Nevertheless, it was also judged possible that the liberalization of
requirements might generate new interest in manufacturing PCBs for R&D. It was estimated
that 25 facilities per year would file for this exemption each year. The cost of the filing is
estimated to be $505, since it was estimated to require 9 hours (8 management hours at $60.42
per hour and 1 clerical hour at $21.73) to prepare the submission to EPA. Industry would thus
experience a cost of $12,625 ($505 times 25).
Additionally, firms are required to notify EPA in writing prior to the initiation of R&D
activity authorized under this section. This notification is estimated to require 1.5 hours at a cost
of $71.29 (1 management hour at $60.42 and 0.5 clerical hour at $21.73/hour). An estimated 25
facilities per year are estimated to make such notifications, producing a total cost of $1,782.
The cost savings to these facilities in being a part of a class exemption is the reduced
waiting time to be granted an exemption via the rulemaking process, which can take about 2
years. Facilities will be able to initiate R&D projects more readily and take advantage of a
greater number of opportunities that become available during what would have been the waiting
period. This economic advantage, although expected to be significantly larger than the
4-142
-------
compliance costs, was not quantified. Since the cost savings could not be quantified, the net cost
savings were not determined.
§76L80(g)—PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED
QUANTITIES OF PCBs
Proposed Regulation. Under §761.80(g), Processing and Distribution Exemptions, the
Administrator grants a class exemption to all processors and distributors of limited quantities of
PCBs for use as standards in chemical analysis [as in §761.300] provided that they maintain
records of their PCB activities for a period of 3 years after ceasing processing and distribution
operations that include the source of the PCBs, the person to whom the PCBs were shipped, and
the amount of PCBs received and processed annually. To be included in the class exemption, an
individual or facility must submit the same information to EPA that presently is required for
being granted an exemption.
Existing Regulation. Under the existing regulation, the EPA Administrator grants a class
exemption to all processors and distributors of PCBs in small quantities (i.e., quantities that do
not exceed the 5 mL of PCBs in the hermetically sealed containers) for R&D providing that all
processors and distributors maintain records of their PCB activities for a period of 5 years.
Changes. The current class exemption is being amended to reflect the processing and
distribution of small quantities of PCBs for use as standards and specifies the types of records
EPA wants processors and distributors to maintain.
Cost Impacts. There is no cost impact associated with this amendment because EPA
presently requires facilities to maintain records, even though the types of records are not
specified in the regulations.
4-143
-------
§761.80(1)— EXEMPTIONS FOR PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTING IN COMMERCE UMITED
QUANTITIES OF PCB-CONTAMINATED MEDIA FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ACTTVTTIES
Proposed Regulation. Under §761.80(i), the Administrator grants a class exemption to all
processors and distributors of limited quantities of PCB-contaminated media for research and
development, provided that the following conditions are met:
¦ The processor/distributor submits an exemption petition to EPA within 60 days
prior to engaging in the activity.
¦ Processors/distributors maintain records of their PCB activities for a period of 3
years after ceasing processing and distribution operations that include the sources
of the PCBs, to whom the PCBs were shipped, and the amount of PCBs received
and processed annually.
¦ All PCB material is distributed in DOT-authorized packaging.
¦ The untreated regulated material and material coming into contact with the
regulated material are disposed of in an approved PCB disposal facility according
to Subpart D (i.e., storage and disposal).
¦ EPA will deem any properly filed request for the renewal of the exemption by any
member of the class as a renewal request for the entire class.
Existing Regulation. Under the current regulations, any person or facility wishing to
process or distribute PCB-contaminated media in limited quantities or in quantities that exceed
the 5 mL amount in the definition must file an exemption petition as specified under TSCA
§6(e)(3)(B). Section 75030 codifies the process for filing petitions requesting processing and
distribution exemptions, respectively. These regulations require petitioners to provide the
following information:
¦ Name, address, and telephone number.
¦ Description of the PCB exemption requested, including items and substances to
be processed or distributed and nature of the processing.
¦ Location(s) of sites requiring exemption.
¦ Length of time requested for exemption (up to 1 year).
4-144
-------
¦ Amount to be processed or distributed during the requested exemption period
and the manner of release of PCBs into the environment associated with these
activities.
¦ The basis for the petitioner's contention that the granting of the petition would
not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under
§6(e)(3)(B)(i).
¦ The basis of the petitioner's contention that good faith efforts have been made to
develop a chemical substance that does not present an unreasonable health or
environmental risk and may be substituted for the PCB, according to
§6(e)(3)(B)(ii).
¦ Quantification of the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of EPA
denial of exemption petition and an explanation of the manner of computation.
Changes. This section proposes to create a new class exemption for members of the
regulated community who wish to process and distribute in commerce limited quantities of PCB-
contaminated media for R&D purposes.
Cost Impacts. To be considered for the class exemption to process and distribute limited
quantities of PCB-contaminated media, facilities must submit the same information that is
presently required for exemptions, so there is no cost difference in this regard. Those obtaining
exemptions must also maintain certain records, a task that is estimated at only one hour per year
for the affected facilities. The major cost savings to industry would be due to the significantly
reduced time that facilities will have to wait to be granted an exemption via the rulemaking
process (i.e., they will be able to implement R&D projects after notification only). The cost
savings were estimated to exceed the incremental costs incurred under this requirement. Since
the economic advantages were not quantified, however, no net cost savings could be estimated.
§761.80(n)— INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF PCB-CONTAMINATED MEDIA TO BE
PROCESSED, DISTRIBUTED, IMPORTED (MANUFACTURED), OR EXPORTED FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Proposed Regulation. The 1-year exemption granted to petitioners in paragraphs (a)
through (c)(1), (d), (f), and (m)(l) through (m)(6) of this section shall be renewed automatically,
4-145
-------
as long as there is no increase in the amount of PCBs to be processed and distributed, imported
(manufactured), or exported nor any change in the manner of these activities. If there is such a
change, a new exemption petition must be submitted to EPA and it will be addressed in the next
exemption rulemaking. In such a case, the activities granted under the existing exemption may
continue until the new petition is addressed by rulemaking, but must conform to the terms of the
existing exemption approved by EPA. The 1-year exemption granted to petitioners in paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3), (f)(9), (h), and (m)(7) and (8) of this section may be extended pursuant to
§750.11(e) or §750.31(e).
Existing Regulation. The 1-year exemption granted to petitioners in paragraphs (a)
through (f) and (m) of this section shall be renewed automatically unless a petitioner notifies
EPA of any increase in the amount of PCBs to be processed and distributed, imported
(manufactured), or exported; or of any change in the manner of processing and distributing,
importing (manufacturing), or exporting of PCBs and unless EPA initiates rulemaking to
terminate the exemption. Until EPA acts on the petition, the petitioner will be allowed to
continue the activities for which it requests exemption.
Changes. The proposed amendment clarifies that an exemption petition must be filed for
changes in PCB activities beyond those currently authorized. It also clarifies that the petitioner
may proceed only with activities for which it is currently authorized.
Cost Impacts. This change clarifies language concerning renewal of class exemptions and
makes it clear that applicants wishing to exceed the limitations of their previous exemption must
wait for an EPA decision before proceeding with expanded activities. Under the existing
regulation, applicants were allowed to proceed with expanded activities as long as an exemption
request had been submitted. The restriction in activities only affects those holding exemptions
that wish to increase their level of activity, so very few among the limited number of companies
with exemption petitions are affected. No quantitative estimate could be made of the economic
costs of delaying the expansion of operations for the very small number of affected companies.
4-146
-------
§76l.80(o)—AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR 1-YEAR CLASS EXEMPTION
Proposed Regulation. The 1-year class exemption granted to all processors and
distributors of PCBs in limited quantities for use as standards in chemical analysis in paragraph (g)
of this section shall be renewed automatically. The Director, Chemical Management Division may
grant approval, without further rulemaking, to any processor and distributor in paragraph (g) of this
section, to increase the quantities of PCBs that are processed or distributed in commerce pursuant to
§761.80(g)(2).
Existing Regulation. The 1-year class exemption granted to all processors and
distributors of PCBs in small quantities for research and development in paragraph (g) of this
section shall be renewed automatically unless information is submitted affecting EPA's
conclusion that the class exemption, or the activities of any individual or company included in the
exemption, will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment- EPA will
evaluate the information, issue a proposed rule for public comment, and issue a final rule
affecting the class exemption or individual or companies included in the class exemption. Until
EPA issues a final rule, individuals and companies included in the class exemption will be
allowed to continue processing and distributing PCBs in small quantities for research and
development.
Changes. The change streamlines the renewal process, and allows applicants and EPA to
forego the rulemaking process for the affected operations.
Cost Impacts. The change in language, while streamlining the process of obtaining
approval to expand operations, has a very small effect on the affected companies. Under the
existing regulations, although companies had to obtain approval to expand operations through a
rulemaking process, they were not required to wait for approval before proceeding. Thus, while
there is a reduction in administrative burdens for applicants and EPA, the actual effect of the
change on activities is veiy small and no quantitative estimate of the cost savings was prepared.
4-147
-------
§761.80(p)-AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR 1-YEAR CLASS EXEMPTION FOR PROCESSORS OF
LIMITED QUANTITIES OF MEDIA CONTAINING PCBS
Proposed Regulation. The 1-year class exemption granted to all processors of limited
quantities of media containing PCBs for research and development in paragraph (i) of this
section shall be renewed pursuant to §750.31(e)(1). EPA will deem any properly filed request
for the renewal of the exemption by any member of the class as a renewal request for the entire
class. The Director, Chemical Management Division may grant approval, without further
rulemaking, to any processor and distributor in paragraph (i) of this section, to increase the
volume or concentration of PCB material specified at §761.30(j)(l).
Existing Regulation. No corresponding paragraph.
Changes. The proposed regulation specifies conditions for granting of the class
exemption.
Cost impacts. The proposed regulation establishes conditions regarding the renewal of
exemption petitions that did not exist previously. An estimated 25 applicants are required to
submit renewal applications that are estimated to require only 1 hour to submit (0.5 management
hours at $60.42 and 0.5 clerical hours at $21.73) at a cost of $41.08. Across all industry this is
estimated to generate an annual cost of $1,027.
§761.125—REQUIREMENTS FOR PCB SPILL CLEANUP
Proposed Regulation. To be consistent with CERCLA, the TSCA PCB provision
governing the reporting requirements for spill cleanups lowers the RQ (i.e., the amount of pure
PCBs spilled that must be reported to the National Response Center) from 10 to 1 lb.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation governing the reporting requirements for
spill cleanup requires that all spills involving 10 lb or more of pure PCBs be reported to the
National Response Center.
4-148
-------
Change. The RQ is lowered from 10 to 1 lb.
Cost Impacts. Because spill reporting already is required under CERCLA, this change to
the TSCA regulations will generate no cost impacts.
§761.180(a)(l)(iii) and (iv)—RECORDKEEPING AND INVENTORY OF PCB ITEMS
Proposed Regulation. For PCBs and PCB Items in service or projected for disposal, the
following additional records must be maintained: (1) records of inspections and cleanups
performed in accordance with §761.65 (c)(5); and (2) a current recorded inventory of PCBs and
PCB Items in storage for disposal. The inventory records must be maintained on site at the unit
and must be made available for inspection, upon EPA request.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. These revisions add two recordkeeping requirements for individuals who store
or dispose of their PCB wastes.
Cost Impacts. The revisions include two new requirements: Owners of PCB wastes must
include, with their annual document log, records of their inspections and cleanups of PCB wastes
and items, and they must maintain an inventory of PCBs and PCB items in storage for disposal.
The recordkeeping of inspections and cleanups was estimated to require additional
notations in the annual record and maintenance of files describing the performance and
outcomes of PCB inspections and cleanups. It was estimated that the time to perform monthly
inspections, and the less frequent cleanups, would be quite modest, amounting to 7 hours of
effort for facility technicians per year for each waste facility. This estimate is based on one-half
hour per monthly inspection to record results and 1 additional hour for overall maintenance of
the log book and to record other activities such as any necessary cleanup actions. It was further
estimated that one-half of all facilities are already recording their PCB activities in such a fashion
as to meet this requirement.
4-149
-------
The revisions also require an inventory of the PCBs and PCB Items in storage for
disposal. It was estimated that this activity would require 30 hours per year of effort for facility
managers, with 1 hour needed each quarter for overall maintenance of the log book. It also was
estimated that one-half of all affected facilities already are maintaining inventory records in such
a fashion as to satisfy the new regulations.
The number of affected facilities was estimated at approximately 4,200 establishments,
based on the number of facilities in the PADS data base less the commercial storers and disposal
facilities exempted from this requirement. Applying the combined time requirement of 41 hours
(7 + 30 + 4) at $43.80 per hour, and the estimated 50 percent compliance rate, generates a total
cost of $3,771,180 per year ([41 x $43.80] x 4,200 x 0.5).
§761.180(a) (2) (ix)—RECORDS AND MONITORING IN THE ANNUAL LOG FOR PCB ITEMS
Proposed Regulation. Whenever a PCB Item, excluding small capacitors with a
concentration of 50 ppm or greater, is distributed in commerce for reuse pursuant to
§761.20(c)(l), the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom the item was
transferred, the date of transfer, and the serial number of the item or the internal identification
number must be recorded in the company's annual document log. The regulation also requires
that the serial number or other internal identification number be marked permanently on the
equipment.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Change. The proposed revision adds a minor recordkeeping and marking requirement
for owners of PCB Items, such as capacitors, transformers, electric motors, pumps, pipes, and
PCB Equipment.
Cost Impacts. The cost impacts of this revision are very modest due to the limited
numbers of PCB Items distributed in commerce for reuse. According to various contacts with
4-150
-------
transformer service companies and utilities, very few companies purchase PCB Items for reuse.
Most companies are endeavoring to eliminate such equipment from their inventories.
It was estimated that the cost per item for necessary recordkeeping would be
modest—approximately 0.5 clerical hour ($21.73 per hour) per item. Although the number of
affected firms cannot be reliably predicted, an estimate of 20 firms (assuming two per EPA
region) were assumed to incur this cost. This generates an annual cost of $217.
§761.180(b)(l)(iii) and (iv)—RECORDKEEPING AND INVENTORY FOR DISPOSERS AND
COMMERCIAL STORERS OF PCB WASTE
Proposed Regulation. Disposers and commercial storers of PCB waste must maintain the
following additional annual records: (1) records of inspections and cleanups performed in
accordance with §761.65 (c)(5); and (2) a recorded inventory of PCBs and PCB Items currently
in storage for disposal. The inventory records must be maintained on site at the unit and must
be made available for inspection, upon EPA request.
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
Changes. These revisions add two recordkeeping requirements for generating facilities
(other than disposers and commercial storers of PCB wastes).
Cost Impacts. The revisions include two new requirements: Owners of PCB wastes must
include with their annual document log records of their inspections and cleanups of PCB wastes
and items, and they must maintain an inventory of PCBs and PCB Items in storage for disposal.
The recordkeeping of inspections and cleanups typically requires additional notations in
the annual record and maintenance of files describing the performance and outcomes of PCB
inspections and cleanups. It was estimated that the time to perform monthly inspections, and the
less frequent cleanups, would be quite modest, amounting to 7 hours of effort for facility
managers per year for each waste generator. This estimate is based on one-half hour per
4-151
-------
monthly inspection to record results and 1 additional hour for overall maintenance of the log
book and to record other activities such as any necessary cleanup actions. It is likely that about
one-half of all generators are already recording their PCB activities in such a fashion as to meet
this requirement.
The revisions also require an inventory of the PCBs and PCB items in storage for
disposal. It was estimated that this activity would require 30 hours per year of effort for facility
managers, with 1 hour needed each quarter for overall maintenance of the log book. It also was
estimated that one-half of all affected facilities are already maintaining inventory records in such
a fashion as to satisfy the new regulations.
The number of affected facilities was estimated at approximately 300 establishments
derived by subtracting the 4,200 establishments covered by §761.180(a)(l)(iii) and (iv) from the
4,500 total of the PADS data base. Applying the combined time requirement of 41 hours at
$60.42 per hour and the estimated 50 percent compliance rate generates a total cost of $371,583
per year ([41 x $60.42] x 300 x 0.5).
§761.180(b) (3)—.ANNUAL REPORTS
Proposed Regulation. EPA proposes to clarify §761.180 (b)(3) (Records and
Monitoring). Owners and operators of PCB disposal facilities must submit annual reports,
regardless of whether they dispose of their own waste or do not receive or generate manifests.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation requires owners and operators of a PCB
disposal or commercial storage facility to submit an annual report that summarizes the records
and annual documents required to be maintained according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of
this section to the RA in the EPA Region in which the facility is located.
Change. The proposed regulation clarifies that generators of waste who dispose of their
waste are also subject to the internal tracking and annual report requirements.
4-152
-------
Cost Impacts. The costs were developed by estimating the increased number of disposal
facilities that will be required to submit annual reports and the cost for a facility to prepare an
annual report. According to the EPA PADS data base, 84 PCB facilities were engaging in
disposal activities, including those that disposed of their own wastes and those that did not
receive or generate manifests. After a review of the PADS data base, EPA estimated that the
number of additional annual reports would increase by 15 percent of the population of disposal
facilities, or 13 facilities.
At present, the additional reporting facilities likely maintain internal tracking systems for
PCB activities, based on discussions with various facility operators about their modes of
operation regarding this and other requirements under the proposed amendments. Based on a
review of existing annual reports submitted to EPA, it was estimated that individual facility costs
for preparing annual reports and the industry-wide increase in costs are as follows:
¦ It will cost each facility about $263 to generate an annual report, estimating that it
takes 80 hours of a facility manager's time to access the files, analyze and
interpret the numbers, match manifests with other records, and fill in the form at
$60.42 per hour. It also will take 4 hours of clerical time to type, copy, file, and
send the report at $21.73 per hour ([80 x 60.42] + [4 x 21.73] = $4,921).
¦ It will cost industry an additional $63,973 for the additional 13 facilities to prepare
annual reports (13 x $4,921).
§761.205(f)—NOTIFICATION OF PCB WASTE ACTIVITY
Proposed Regulation. The rule proposes to add a requirement that a PCB waste
handling facility resubmit Form 7710-53 within 5 working days of when the business changes or
when activities or range of activities are modified. Examples of such changes include when a
company ceases waste-handling operations, relocates the facility, or changes the nature or range
of its PCB handling activities (e.g., it had previously notified that it was solely a commercial
storer of PCB waste but now wishes to transport PCB waste).
Existing Regulation. There is no corresponding paragraph.
4-153
-------
Change. This proposed regulation adds a reporting requirement for firms that change
their PCB activity.
Cost Impacts. It was estimated that in a given year, a small minority of companies would
be affected by the proposed amendments. It was also estimated that the number of companies
undergoing a change or modification per year would be between 5 and 25 percent of PCB
handling facilities. According to the PADS data base of September 1992, approximately 4,500
facilities handle PCBs (i.e., they are PCB generators, storers, transporters, and/or disposers)
(U.S. EPA, 1992a). Taking the midpoint of the estimate, 15 percent would undergo a change
each year. Thus 675 companies (4,500 facilities x 15 percent) will be affected by this regulation
and will be required to fill out Form 7710-53.
The cost of completing and submitting this form is estimated to be $71, if a facility's
business manager spends 1 hour to complete the form ($60.42/hr) and a clerical worker spends
0.5 hour to type, copy, and file the form ($21.73/hr) ($60.42 + [$21.73 x 0.5 hr]). The total cost
for this requirement per year is $47,925 ($71 x 675).
§761.2070)—THE MANIFEST—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Proposed Regulation. This proposed rule under §761.2070) makes a minor addition to
clarify that no manifest is required for material currently below 50 ppm that derives from pre-April
18, 1978, spills of any concentration, pre-Jufy 2, 1979, spills of less than 500 ppm PCBs, or materials
derived from spills decontaminated in accordance with EPA's Spill Cleanup Policy.
Existing Regulation. The existing regulation stipulates that the manifesting rules apply
only to PCB wastes as defined in §761.3.
Change. This is a deregulatory action that exempts pre-TSCA PCB wastes from manifest
requirements. The proposed ruling would affect facilities and organizations that had PCB
disposal, leaks, or spills prior to TSCA.
4-154
-------
Cost Impacts. The number of facilities handling pre-TSCA wastes is estimated to be
quite small. Nevertheless, a quantitative estimate of the number of such facilities could be
prepared, and no cost savings were estimated.
§761.215(b),(c), and (d)—.EXCEPTION REPORTING FOR PCB WASTE GENERATORS,
DISPOSERS, AND COMMERCIAL STORERS
Proposed Regulation. The proposed rule requires generators, disposers, commercial
storers of PCB wastes, or others subject to the manifesting requirements to submit Exception
Reports within 30 days of the events that trigger the requirement for the report.
Existing Regulation. The existing rule requires generators, disposers, and commercial
storers of PCB wastes to submit Exception Reports to the RA for the Region in which the
disposal facility is located. No time limit is specified.
Change. The rule removes the ambiguity on when this report must be submitted by
adding a specific timeframe.
Cost Impacts. The cost of submitting an exception report is small, estimated at 2 hours
or less for a facility manager. Since this clarification will affect the actions of veiy few facilities,
no additional cost impacts are anticipated.
4.4 REGULATORY IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
The PCB amendments will affect a variety of small businesses that handle and dispose of
PCB Items and PCB wastes. This section considers the economic impacts on those businesses
and addresses the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The RFA
requires agencies to explore options for minimizing small business impacts whenever there is a
"significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." While this discussion will
4-155
-------
consider the significance of the potential impacts, EPA's internal policy is to consider any
impacts on any small entities (U.S. EPA, 1992d).
According to EPA's guidelines, significant impacts are produced if:
¦ Annual compliance costs increase the costs of production by more than 5 percent;
¦ Costs of compliance as a percentage of sales are at least 10 percent higher than
for large entities;
¦ Capital costs represent a significant percentage of the total capital available; and
¦ The regulation is likely to shut down small entities.
4.4.1 Economic Impacts on Small Industrial Furnace Operations
The small industrial furnace operators handling PCB-contaminated transformers will
experience negative economic impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. It was estimated
that approximately 100 industrial furnace operations specialize in recovery of transformer
carcasses. Most of the businesses are small, ranging from owner-operated units with fewer than
10 employees, to larger operations approaching 100 employees. The major asset for these
facilities is their furnace which, in the case of Aljon-United furnaces, carries a capital cost of
over $100,000.
Through contacts with a selection of operators, their likely response to the PCB
amendments was estimated. In general, firms will not invest in the new furnace equipment that
would meet EPA specifications. The new equipment is quite costly and the high temperatures
required would make recovery of the metals impossible. It was estimated that, on average, these
operations derive approximately 15 percent of their inputs from PCB-contaminated transformers,
based on several contacts with industry personnel. The remainder of their inputs are non-PCB-
contaminated transformers and other electrical equipment. There are no financial statistics
available through conventional or other sources of industry data that can provide an overview of
the condition of the metal recovery furnace industry.
4-156
-------
Given these characteristics of the affected industrial furnace operations, the EPA criteria
to determine whether the economic impacts are significant were applied. None of the first three
criteria shown could be evaluated, however, because they all are defined by the size of the
compliance costs incurred. The industrial furnace operators will not incur direct compliance
costs, choosing instead to cease handling of the PCB-contaminated transformers. The last
criterion asks whether the small firms will cease operations. Based on discussions with industry
firms, it was estimated that few operations will shut down. As noted, the affected PCB
transformers represent approximately 15 percent of the inputs for metal recovery operations. A
corresponding 15 percent decline in profits, while representing a hardship, should not cause many
plant shutdowns. Most likely there will not be many firms whose inputs, owing to a peculiarity in
their sources of supply, contain a much higher portion of PCB-contaminated transformers than
other firms. Nevertheless, some firms might experience sharper profit declines. Also, firms that
are currently in poor financial condition could be weakened further as a result of the
amendments and might, therefore, now face closure. The extent or likelihood of such closures
cannot be estimated, however.
4.42 Economic Impacts on Small Demolition Contractors
Section 761.60(b)(2)(H) prohibits disposal of more than 24 light ballasts as municipal solid
wastes. Most waste light ballasts are generated during building demolition operations. Many
demolition contractors that handle the disposal of light ballasts, and their customers, will incur
increased disposal costs due to this regulation.
At present, most PCB light ballasts are disposed of as municipal solid waste. Demolition
contractors, however, will now be required to assemble and transport PCB-containing light
ballasts for transportation to and disposal at a PCB disposal facility. The aggregate economic
impact was estimated for this paragraph of the regulation at $54 million for disposal of
approximately 30 million PCB-containing light ballasts. This translates to an average incremental
cost of approximately $1.80 per PCB-containing light ballast, covering transportation and
disposal, as derived in the paragraph-specific cost estimates.
4-157
-------
The size of the incremental cost incurred on a specific demolition job will vary directly
with the size of the job. Thus, relatively small demolition jobs (those generating only slightly
more than 24 PCB-containing light ballasts; for example, those with 25 to 50 ballasts) will incur
incremental disposal costs of $45 to $90 (25 to 50 times $1.80). In contrast, large demolition
jobs, with thousands of light ballasts will incur additional disposal costs of several thousands of
dollars. Thus, the incremental costs are distributed among demolition jobs according to their
size, and the incremental costs are unlikely to be a large percentage increase in the cost of
demolition jobs.
Demolition contractors do not vary much in their ability to handle and dispose of PCB-
containing light ballasts, so there will not be much variation in the unit costs of compliance
among firms. For example, virtually all demolition firms will use commercial waste facilities to
dispose of light ballasts. This consistency of impacts among firms suggests that firms will not be
able to compete on their ability to dispose of PCB wastes, and therefore, will all face similar cost
increases. In competitive markets, where all firms face similar cost increases, the price of
services should increase to cover the increase in costs. Thus, demolition contractors are likely to
pass the incremental disposal costs to their customers, new building or land development
companies, and therefore, will be able to mitigate even minor cost impacts.
The EPA criteria on small business impacts were applied to the case of demolition
contractors. None of the four criteria are satisfied, however, by the regulatory impacts.
Compliance costs are estimated to be less than 5 percent of the costs of production and less than
10 percent of the cost of sales in all but very exceptional circumstances. Essentially no capital
cost expenditures will be required of the affected firms. Finally, few operations, if any, are likely
to fail due to these regulatory impacts.
4.4J Economic Impacts on Other Small Businesses
Small businesses in other industries also will be affected by the PCB amendments. These
costs were estimated, however, to be widely distributed among small firms, and generally will be
distributed in proportion to the level of PCB disposal activities. Also, the aggregate cost of these
4-158
-------
remaining items is not very large, and therefore, no significant impacts on small businesses are
forecast.
Among the businesses affected are a small number of companies that currently have
special EPA approvals to decontaminate various types of PCB-contaminated equipment,
including PCB Transformers, components of natural gas pipelines, and others. For these
businesses, the proposed amendments might generate additional competition because many more
companies will be able to decontaminate equipment without needing to obtain special EPA
approval. Based on conversations with two such companies, however, it was judged that impacts
are likely to be modest among such firms. The companies in question were either confident that
their clients would not be interested in decontaminating their own equipment (due either to the
capital investments required or the relative ease of using outside contractor personnel for these
functions) or the PCB-decontamination business represented a modest portion of their current
operations.
4.5 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR KEY ITEMS
Certain assumptions used in the regulatory analysis were varied to consider their potential
effect on the overall compliance costs.
The methodology for annualization of compliance costs was reconsidered with a different
discount rate, and with different time periods for annualization. Whereas the compliance costs
in the body of the text were based on a discount rate of 3 percent, an alternative set of estimates
were prepared with a discount rate of 7 percent. Further, whereas an annualization period of 5
years was used in the body of the text, both shorter (3 years) and longer (5 years) were used in
the alternative estimates. The alternative estimates are summarized in Table 4-11. The
annualization period is applicable to one-half of the regulatory amendments that produce a
compliance cost. The use of varying discount rates and annualization periods increases or
decreases the estimates of compliance costs in modest increments. Whereas the base case (3
percent discount rate, 5 year annualization period) produces a total compliance cost of $3.8
million for these items, varying the discount rate upward to 7 percent produces a compliance cos
4-159
-------
TABLE 4-11
COMPARISON OF ANNUALIZED COSTS
OVER VARYING TIMEFRAMES (a)
PART I - 3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE
Base Case
Paragraph
Content
Annual. Annualized Annual. Annualized Annual. Annualized
Total Factor Over Costs Over Factor Over Costs Over Factor Over Costs Over
Capital Cost 3 years 3 years 5 years 5 Years 7 years 7 Years
T\
D
761.30(a)(l)(vii)
761.30(h)(l)(iii)
761.40(d)
761.40(k)
761.65(b)(l )(ii)
761.65(c)(6)(i)
761.67(a)
Total
Transformer Registration
Use In and Servicing of Electromagnets,
Switches, and Voltage Regulators
Marking During Transport
Marking for PCB Large Low Voltage
Capacitors and Equipment Containing PCB
Transformers
Special Storage for Radioactive Wastes
Containers for PCB Fissionable
Radioactive Wastes
Storage for Reuse of Articles for More Than
3 Y ears
$4,960,000
$372,000
$1,080,000
$5,960,000
$250,000
$500,000
$4,200.000
$17,322,000
0.3535 $1,753,518
0.3535 $131,514
0.3535 $381,814
0.3535 $2,107,049
0.3535 $88,383
0.3535 $176,766
0.3535 $1,484,833
$6,123,878
0.2184 $1,083,040
0.2184
0.2184
0.2184
$81,228
$235,823
0.2184 $1,301,395
0.2184 $54,589
$109,177
0.2184 $917,091
$3,782,344
0.1605
0.1605
$796,080
0.1605 $59,706
0.1605 $173,340
0.1605 $956,580
0.1605 $40,125
$80,250
0.1605 $674,100
$2,780,181
-------
TABLE 4-11 (cont.)
COMPARISON OF ANNUALIZED COSTS
OVER VARYING TIMEFRAMES
PART II - 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE
Annual. Annualized Annual. Annualized Annual. Annualized
Total Factor Over Costs Over Factor Over Costs Over Factor Over Costs Over
Paragraph Content Capital Cost 3 years 3 years 5 years S Years 7 years 7 Years
761.30(a)(l)(vii)
761.30(h)(l)(iii)
761.40(d)
& 761.40(k)
761.65(b)(l)(ii)
761.65(c)(6)(i)
761.67(a)
Total
Transformer Registration
Use In and Servicing of Electromagnets,
Switches, and Voltage Regulators
Marking During Transport
Marking for PCB Large Low Voltage
Capacitors and Equipment Containing PCB
Transformers
Special Storage for Radioactive Wastes
Containers for PCB Fissionable
Radioactive Wastes
Storage for Reuse of Articles for More Than
3 Years
$4,960,000
$372,000
$1,080,000
$5,960,000
$250,000
$500,000
$4,200,000
$17,322,000
0.3811 $1,890,244
0.3811 $141,768
0.3811 $411,585
0.3811 $2,271,341
0.3811 $95,274
0.3811 $190,549
0.3811 $1,600,610
$6,601,372
0.2439 $1,209,744
0.2439
0.2439
0.2439
0.2439
0.2439
$90,731
$263,412
$1,453,644
$60,975
$121,950
0.2439 $1,024,380
$4,224,836
0.1856 $920,576
0.1856 $69,043
0.1856 $200,448
0.1856 $1,106,176
0.1856 $46,400
0.1856 $92,800
0.1856 $779,520
$3,214,963
(a) Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
of $4.2 million with the 5-year annualization period. Varying the annualization period between 3
and 7 years with the 3 percent discount rate produces a compliance cost total for these items of
$6.1 million and $2.8 million.
Sensitivity analysis was also employed for estimating the annual cost savings generated by
the liberalization of disposal requirements for PCB remediation wastes (§761.61(a), (b), and (c)).
In this case, the sensitivity analysis was incorporated into the body of the text and is summarized
in Table 4-10 above. The key assumptions determining the annual cost savings are the annual
tonnage of remediation waste being disposed of and the average cost savings per ton. As
described in the text, the annual tonnage disposed of is estimated at 5 to 15 million tons per
year. An estimate of 10 million tons per year was selected. The average cost savings per ton is
estimated at between $200 and $800 per ton; an average of $400 per ton was selected.
Combining these two figures, an annual cost savings of $4 billion is derived (10 million tons
average x $400 per ton). Also, as shown in Table 4-10, if the annual tonnage disposed is varied
(but the cost savings remains at $400 per ton), the range for the annual cost savings is $2 billion
to $6 billion. If the cost savings per ton is varied (but the annual tonnage disposed remains at 10
million), the range of annual cost savings is $2 billion to $6 billion.
4.6 REFERENCES
Addis, G. 1992. Telephone conversation between Gil Addis, project manager, Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Anders, N. 1992. Correspondence from Norris Anders, vice president and division manager,
Henkels & McCoy, Inc., Burlington, NJ, to Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group,
Inc. December 30.
Beale, D. 1992. Telephone conversation between Dale Beale, ABTUS, Coffeeville, KS, and
Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December.
Blalock, L. 1992. Telephone conversation between Lawrence Blalock, environmental specialist,
Sierra Pacific Power Company, Reno, NV, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research
Group, Inc. December.
Bolgar, M. 1992. Telephone conversation between Michael Bolgar, manager of PCB research
projects, Accu-Standard, New Haven, CT, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group,
Inc. November.
4-162
-------
Boomer, B. 1992. Telephone conversation between Bruce Boomer, manager of PCB research
projects, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, and Carol Wendel of Eastern
Research Group, Inc. November.
Booth, S. 1992. Telephone conversation between Steven Booth, president, Transformer
Services, Concord, NH, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December.
Brill, N. 1994. Telephone conversations between Neil Brill, technical representative, EnviroSafe
Services, Boise, ID, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. February 11.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1992. Average hourly earning for 1991 in Standard Industrial
Classification 491 - Electric Utilities. Unpublished statistic. Telephone communication
between Bureau of Labor Statistics personnel, Washington, DC, and Eastern Research
Group, Inc. staff. December.
Clarich, K. 1992. Telephone conversation between Kirk Clarich, hazardous waste administrator,
Idaho Power Company, Boise, ID, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
December.
Davidson, J. and K. Meede. 1992. Correspondence from J. Davidson and K. Meede of Hale
and Dorr, counsel for the American Gas Association, to Tony Baney, Chief, Chemical
Regulation Branch, U.S. Office of Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. August 24.
Doggendorf, M.W. 1992. Telephone conversation between M.W. Doggendorf, general
supervisor, High-Voltage Underground System, Baltimore Gas and Electric, Baltimore,
MD, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December.
Drouin, P. 1993. Telephone conversation between Pam Drouin, Analytic Laboratory
Department, Clean Harbors, Inc., Braintree, MA, and Carol Wendel, Eastern Research
Group, Inc. July 20.
Farmer, L. 1993a. Correspondence from Lauren Farmer, Texas Eastern Transmission Company,
Houston, TX, to Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July 28.
Farmer, L. 1993b. Telephone conversation between Lauren Farmer, Texas Eastern
Transmission Company, Houston, TX, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group,
Inc. July.
EIA. 1992. Energy Information Administration. Financial statistics of selected investor-owned
electric utilities, 1990. DOE/EIA-0437(90)/1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Energy. Januaiy.
Franco, J. 1993. Telephone conversation between John Franco, Quadrex, Inc., Palm Beach
County, FL, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. June.
Goodwin, P. 1994. Telephone conversation between Polly Goodwin, technical representative,
Chemical Waste Management, Emelle, AL, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research
Group, Inc. February 11.
4-163
-------
Helms, J. 1992. Telephone conversation between Jeff Helms, environmental specialist, Nebraska
Public Power District, Columbus, NE, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group,
Inc. December.
Hunnicut, L. 1993. Telephone conversation between Lyle Hunnicut, Quadrex, Inc., Palm Beach
County, FL, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. June.
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. 1991. Comments to EPA Docket No. OPTS-66009:
Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
August 9.
Kinder, M. 1992. Telephone conversation between Mike Kinder, OH Materials, Inc., and John
Reinhardt of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December 30.
Kinne, T. 1992 and 1993. Telephone conversations between Ted Kinne, vice president,
Intrastate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), Washington, DC, and Carol
Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. October 11 and 15, and December 3, 1992; and
July 19, 1993.
Lab Safety Supply. 1992. Personal and environmental safety. 1992 Spring Catalogue.
Linton, P. 1993. Telephone conversation between Pam Linton, president, Pollution Solutions,
Williston, VT, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July.
Manger, C. 1992. Telephone conversation between Carl Manger, general supervisor, Baltimore
Gas and Electric, Baltimore, MD, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
December.
McCagg, B. 1993. Telephone conversation between Brin McCagg, vice president, Full Circle
Ballast Recyclers, Cambridge, MA, and John Eyraud of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
July 29.
Milholland, K. 1993. Telephone conversation between Kent Milholland, Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation, Charleston, WV, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research
Group, Inc. January 8.
Miller, R. 1994. Telephone conversation between Randy Miller, technical manager, U.S.
Pollution Control Inc, Tooele County, UT, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research
Group, Inc. February 11.
Nelson, M. 1992. Telephone conversation between Mike Nelson, Pollution Solutions, Williston,
VT, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December.
Nicols, A. 1992. Telephone conversation between Alan Nicols, manager of PCB Research
Projects, Radian Corp., Austin, TX, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
November.
4-164
-------
Oberacker, D. 1992. Telephone conversation between Don Oberacker, Superfund Innovative
Technologies Program, Center for Environmental Research Information, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, and John Reinhardt of Eastern
Research Group, Inc. December 31.
Palermo, T. 1992. Telephone conversation between Tony Palermo of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Toxic Substances Control Section, Toxic Substances Permitting,
Boston, MA, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. November.
Pallo, J. 1994. Telephone conversation between Jenny Pallo, technical representative, U.S.
Ecology, Inc., Louisville, KY, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc.
February 11.
Petit, K. 1992. Telephone conversation between Kelly Petit, Aljon-United, Inc., Topeka, KS,
and John Eyraud of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December 29.
Porter, D. 1993. Telephone conversations between Don Porter, Texas Eastern Transmission
Company, Houston, TX, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. January 7.
Proctor, N. 1992. Telephone conversation between Nancy Proctor, Chemical Security Systems,
Arlington, OR, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December.
Rogers, C. 1992. Telephone conversation between Charles Rogers, Superfund Innovative
Technologies Program, Center for Environmental Research Information, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, and John Reinhardt of Eastern
Research Group, Inc. December 31.
Rose, Cairol. 1994. Telephone conversation between Carol Rose, Coordinator, Utilities Solid
Waste Activities Group, Edison Electric Institute, and John Eyraud, Eastern Research
Group, Inc. February 14.
Rucker, T. 1993. Telephone conversation between Thomas Rucker, principle, Rucker .
Associates, Charleston, WV, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July.
Sadler, C. 1992. Telephone conversations between Connie Sadler, Sidley and Austin, Counsel
for Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Washington, DC, and Carol Wendel of Eastern
Research Group, Inc. October 11 and 15, and December 3.
Salmela, L. 1992 and 1993. Telephone conversation between Lyle Salmela, supervisor.
Hazardous Wastes, Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, MN, and Carol
Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December 1992 and January 1993.
Shallice, C. 1992. Telephone conversation between Chris Shallice, manager of PCB Research
Projects, CF Systems Corporation, Wobum, MA, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research
Group, Inc. November.
4-165
t
-------
Simmons, K. 1992 and 1993. Telephone conversations between Kenneth Simmons,
environmental coordinator, Florida Power and Light, West Palm Beach, FL, and Carol
Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December 1992 and January 1993.
Thompson, Carolyn. 1993. Telephone conversation between Carolyn Thompson, Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Guidance, and John Eyraud, Eastern Research Group,
Inc. October 16, 1992.
Traweek, L. 1992 and 1993. Telephone conversations between Lori Traweek, director of
Engineering Services, American Gas Association, Arlington, VA, and Carol Wendel of
Eastern Research Group, Inc. December 3 and 17,1992; January 4 and 5, and July 1993.
Tucker, H. 1992. Telephone conversations between Harry Tucker, Henkels & McCoy, Inc., and
Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. December 12.
U.S. Department of the Navy. 1991. Base-catalyzed decomposition process (BCDP). Naval
Engineering and Environmental Support Activity, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory.
August.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Superfund Reauthorization:
NACEPT Subcommittee Handbook. EPA 540-R-93-072. June 18, 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimated compliance costs of
Comprehensive Assessment Rules. EPA Contract No. 68-D0-0020. March. 1993.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PADS data base.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PCB environmental indicators:
Final report for 1990. Chemical Regulations Branch.
U.S. EPA. 1992c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Permit to Texas Eastern Gas
Pipeline Company of Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation to remove polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) from natural gas pipelines. Washington, DC: Exposure Evaluation
Division, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. September 29.
U.S. EPA. 1992d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agency's revised guidelines for
implementing the Regulatoiy Flexibility Act. Memorandum. May 4.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPL characterization project:
National results. EPA/540/8-91/069. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
October.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CERCLIS characterization project:
National results. EPA/540/8-91/080. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
October.
4-166
-------
U.S. EPA- 1991c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PCB, lead, and cadmium levels in
shredder waste materials: A pilot study. EPA 560/5-90-008A. Office of Toxic
Substances.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Notification and Manifesting for PCB Waste
Activities. FR. Volume 54, No. 244:52716-52756. September 24.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances.
Regulatory impact analysis of proposed options for notification and manifesting of PCB-
containing wastes. EPA Contract No. 68-02-4235. July 28.
U.S. EPA. 1986a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economics and Technology Division,
Office of Toxic Substances. Evaluation of PCB disposal capacity: Final report. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-4235. Work Assignment 1-31. September 12.
U.S. EPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Draft guidelines for permit
applications and demonstration test plans for PCB disposal by nonthermal alternative
methods. Washington, DC: Office of Toxic Substances, Chemical Regulations Branch.
August 21.
Vocke, K. 1993a. Telephone conversation between Kathryn Vocke, Texas Eastern Transmission
Company, Houston, TX, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. January 7.
Vocke, K. 1993b. Telephone conversations between Kathryn Vocke, Texas Eastern
Transmission Company on temporary assignment with INGAA, Washington, DC, and
Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. July.
Watson, C. 1992. Telephone conversation between Cliff Watson, Rollins Environmental
Services, Deer Park, TX, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group, Inc. November.
Wilson, D., T. Davidson, and H.T.S. Ng. 1979. Demolition wastes: Data collection and
separation studies. Prepared under National Science Foundation Grant Number 76-
22048 AER. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wittmer, K. 1994. Telephone conversation between Kevin Wittmer, technical representative,
American Ecology, Inc. Louisville, KY, and Carol Wendel of Eastern Research Group,
Inc. February 15.
Zielinski, R. and J.R. Ehrenfeld. 1988. Unregulated hazardous waste quantities: The impact on
capacity planning. Center for Technology Policy and Industrial Development. Paper No.
HSMP-12. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
4-167
------- |