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Rulemaking for New PCB Disposal Options 3-27 3.1.11 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the PCB Disposal Amendments (Unpublished) 3-28 3.2 PCB Regulation Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 3-32 33 PCB Regulation Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,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 ------- |