Implementing Climate Resilience in PCB Cleanup, Storage, Treatment and/or Disposal Approvals
Public Comment Summary
Comment
Commenter
Public Comments Summary
Response
Edits to Memo
l
EPA Region 2
The commenter notes that mapping
resources on the linked Superfund
webpage are not clearly identified.
They recommend including a list of
climate adaptation mapping
resources for use in a PCVA.
EPA recognizes the importance of
clearly identifying useful tools and
mapping resources and agrees to
update the footnote and add a list
of recommended climate mapping
tools as an attachment.
Additionally, EPA recommends the
use of climate mapping tools
developed by state, regional, or
local government agencies, as
these tools can include a higher
degree of local accuracy.
Attachment 5, which lists
suggested mapping tools, was
added to the memo. Footnote 9
on page B-l was edited to
include language on state,
regional, and local tools.
2
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page 2, paragraph 3, last sentence:
The memorandum would allow use
of the PCVA methodology set forth in
the memorandum or "an alternative
PCVA methodology." By whom and
when in the process would this be
determined?
EPA finds that this sentence is self-
explanatory. The alternative
methodology can be any that
EPA/responsible parties want to
use, as long as it evaluates the
climate impacts with respect to no
unreasonable risk.
None
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
^1 Agency
1
-------
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page 2, Paragraph 4, first sentence:
"EPA may require additional
information." Is this information
separate from the PCVA? If so, how
does this differ and how will it be
used?
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024
Agency
The basis for this language comes
from the regulatory provisions
identified in Attachment 1, which
give EPA discretion to make a
determination of no unreasonable
risk based on the information
submitted to EPA by the approval
applicant. The additional
information may be supplemental
to a PCVA, but may be requested
regardless of whether a PCVA is
conducted or not. It will be used to
determine if the submitted plan
poses no unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment
with respect to climate impacts.
Page 3, paragraph 2, first
sentence: This sentence was
edited to emphasize that
additional information may be
requested of applicants in order
for EPA to make a no
unreasonable risk determination.
The phrase "when conducting a
PCVA" was deleted from the
sentence because EPA may
request additional information
regardless of whether a PCVA is
conducted or not.
EPA 530-R-24-007
2
-------
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page 3, Paragraph 3, First Sentence:
The Memorandum states that
"Generally, the PCVA should utilize
high impact modeling scenarios and
conservative assumptions to account
for uncertainties." SSP and RCAP are
concerned this statement is likely to
result in overly conservative
assumptions and decisions. In
general, modeling already uses
conservative inputs. By emphasizing
conservatism, there is a significant
chance that decisions will be based
on multiple, compounding
conservative assumptions and
decisions will not be reasonable. To
help address this concern, EPA will
need to develop tools (i.e., models)
that support decisions that are
scientifically defensible and cost
effective.
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024
Agency
EPA agrees in part with the
commenter, and is indicating in the
final memo that intermediate to
high impact modeling scenarios are
recommended for the PCVA, and
that high impact modeling
scenarios are recommended for the
vulnerability screening step. These
scenarios allow the decision-
making on adaptation measures to
be responsive to risk tolerance (the
willingness to accept potential
climate impacts to a project or
remedy). The high impact screening
scenario allows EPA to assess
whether damage would have major
health or environmental
consequences, giving greater
certainty about a project's
protectiveness. If there are backup
measures that would limit the
severity of consequences, a higher
risk tolerance can be adapted with
an intermediate to high impact
scenario for the project. These risk
tolerance considerations are
applicable to PCB cleanup actions,
since risk tolerance considers the
potential adverse impacts of
climate change regardless of the
nature of contamination at the site.
Climate modeling and remedy
decisions also should be made with
Edits were made throughout the
memo to recommend
"intermediate to high impact"
modeling scenarios for the PCVA.
These edits were made at the
following places in the memo:
• Page 3, paragraph 4, first
sentence
• Page B-l, first bullet
point under "Step 1"
• Page B-2, question 1 of
"Step 1: Questions to
Address"
• Page B-2, second bullet
point under "General
Factors"
• Page B-4, question 3 of
"Step 3: Questions to
Address"
• Page B-5, sixth bullet
point under "Site-Specific
Factors"
Page 3, paragraph 4, sentence 2:
This sentence was added to
further justify use of
"intermediate to high impact"
modeling scenarios for
implementation of climate
adaptation measures.
Page 3, paragraph 4, sentences 3
and 4: Edits were made to these
sentences to further qualify
EPA 530-R-24-007
3
-------
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024
Agency
long-term management of PCBs in
mind, which gives flexibility to the
timeframe and assumptions used
during the assessment based on
the PCB activity at the site (e.g.,
storage facility vs. onsite disposal).
assumptions made to account for
long-term uncertainties specific
to expected climate scenarios
and the long-lasting nature of
PCBs.
EPA 530-R-24-007
4
-------
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page 3, Paragraph 3, Third Sentence:
For consistency with other EPA
contaminated sites modeling
horizons, a 30-year climate scenario
projection would be most
appropriate. If EPA determines that is
not adequate, modeling projections
to the year 2100 is a reach given the
degree of uncertainty associated with
current model projections through
2050. At a maximum, projections
should be over a 50-year horizon (i.e.,
2025-2075) which would be more
reasonable and no less useful.
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024
Agency
The longer time frame for
projection scenarios acknowledges
that in-place disposal of PCBs is in
perpetuity. PCBs degrade very
slowly over time, thus EPA believes
that looking at long-term climate
projections is reasonable given that
the PCBs will not have degraded for
the most part.
Additionally, EPA's goal is to ensure
that PCB cleanup actions are as
effective as possible in the initial
approval, as opposed to waiting for
an update to climate modeling and
then modifying the approval.
Having a general "order of
magnitude" idea of climate impacts
in 2100 allows EPA to
contemporaneously evaluate the
long-term effectiveness of the
proposed remedial action. Given
the need for long-term site
monitoring in the case of PCBs
disposed in place, it is reasonable
to utilize climate scenarios that
represent the farthest out
projections available (as updated
models allow).
Edits were made throughout
page 3, paragraph 4 (carrying
over into page 4, paragraph 1) to
emphasize that long-term
projections are necessary when
there is long-term management
of PCBs left onsite, and
projections should be specific to
climate scenarios and factor in
uncertainty.
Page 3, paragraph 4, sentence 6:
This sentence beginning with
"Climate modeling uncertainty..."
was moved from a footnote to
the main text of the memo.
EPA 530-R-24-007
5
-------
6
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page 3, Paragraph 3, Fifth Sentence:
The Memorandum anticipates
updating modeling as mapping tools
are updated with the projected
timeframe for the PCVA being
extended accordingly. While SSP and
RCAP agree that using the most up to
date science is preferable, the
Memorandum should identify a
reasonable frequency for conducting
such updates.
EPA agrees that clarification on the
frequency of updated modeling is
needed, as well as additional
language on the circumstances that
may trigger such updates.
Page 4, paragraph 1, sentence 5:
This sentence was added to
clarify that reevaluation may be
done 1) at the time of
renewal/modification, or 2) as
needed to address significant
changes in climate projections
used to evaluate the climate
vulnerability of an approved PCB
activity.
7
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page 4, Paragraph 3, Second
Sentence: SSP and RCAP recommend
deletion of the statement, "In
general, EPA should give preference
to short-term climate resilience
measures that remove contamination
and have long-term permanence,
where appropriate." This statement
pushes towards a result rather than
allowing the regulators and
remediating parties to evaluate the
site-specific situation and respond
appropriately. SSP and RCAP request
EPA delete the sentence as it implies
a course that may not be necessary
or appropriate depending on the site,
the nature and extent of a release,
the potential climate change impact
and other facts and circumstances.
The idea behind this statement is
to support EPA project managers
to, as appropriate, remove
contaminants from sensitive
environments with a higher
potential of offsite mobilization in
the future (e.g., right next to a
creek), rather than disposal in place
which results in potential re-
contamination and human
exposure, and a long-term
obligation on EPA to monitor the
situation for the next 100+ years.
As such, EPA is retaining this
statement with minor edits.
Page 4, paragraph 2, last
sentence: Moved "as
appropriate" from the end of the
sentence to the sentence's
introductory phrase and changed
"EPA should" to "EPA may."
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
^1 Agency
6
-------
8
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page D-l: The Condition to modify,
revoke or reissue, or terminate the
approval includes the statement that
"EPA will make efforts, taking into
account the nature of the risk, to
provide reasonable advance notice to
[insert responsible party's/owner's
name] and to provide opportunity for
[insert responsible party's/owner's
name] to comment on any proposed
modification, revocation, or
termination of the Approval." SSP
and RCAP urge EPA to make such
notice and opportunity for comment
mandatory.
The language in Attachment 4
includes examples of general
approval conditions, which closely
mirror current standard language
used in EPA approvals.
None
9
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page D-l: The Condition to modify,
revoke or reissue, or terminate the
approval includes the statement that
"EPA may require [insert responsible
party's/owner's name] to
immediately suspend [insert
approved action(s), e.g., storage,
treatment, disposal, or remediation
activities] while the Agency is
deciding whether to modify, revoke
and reissue, or terminate this
Approval." SSP and RCAP suggest that
there be some threshold evaluation,
such as a determination of imminent
and substantial endangerment, prior
to immediate suspension.
The language in Attachment 4
includes examples of general
approval conditions, which closely
mirror current standard language
used in EPA approvals.
None
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
^1 Agency
7
-------
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page D-l: The Condition to require
additional information is confusing.
First, the addition of the language
regarding environmental justice
communities appears superfluous.
EPA is presumably interested in
evaluating risks or impact on
surrounding communities whether
environmental justice communities
or not. Second, are the findings in the
second sentence (does not present
an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment) different
from the findings in the third
sentence (action(s) are resilient to
climate change impacts and whether
vulnerability to climate change
impacts do not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment)?
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024
Agency
The language in Attachment 4
includes examples of general
approval conditions. In this
example condition, EPA may
require additional information to
determine if proposed actions do
not present unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the
environment. Climate change
impacts and environmental justice
considerations are included as
examples of when and how this
example standard conditions may
apply. The specific language in this
example standard condition may
be applied and modified on a case-
by-case basis.
EPA 530-R-24-007
-------
11
Superfund
Settlements
Project (SSP)
and the RCRA
Corrective
Action Project
(RCAP)
Page D-l to D-2: The Condition to
provide additional information is too
broad and burdensome. The second
sentence needs to include the
"substantive" qualifier indicated in
the first sentence ("This may include
information related to the
substantially increased risks or
impacts . . In addition, again the
addition of the language regarding
environmental justice communities
appears superfluous. EPA is
presumably interested in evaluating
risks or impact on surrounding
communities whether environmental
justice communities or not. Inclusion
of cumulative impacts of
environmental and other burdens is
vague and overly burdensome,
particularly since this Condition
would require an affirmative duty on
the responsible party.
The language in Attachment 4
includes examples of general
approval conditions. In this
example condition, the responsible
party/owner may be obligated to
provide additional information on
EPA's no unreasonable risk
determination. Climate change
impacts and environmental justice
considerations are again included
as examples of when and how this
example standard condition may
apply. The specific language in this
example standard conditions may
be applied and modified on a case-
by-case basis.
None
12
Utility Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(USWAG);
American
Public Power
Association
(APPA)
TSCA does not grant EPA authority to
condition PCB approvals on
hypothetical climate impacts.
EPA authority to include approval
conditions necessary to ensure the
approved activity will not present
an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment are
derived from existing regulations,
as cited in Attachment 1.
EPA has sufficient authority to
consider climate impacts in PCB
approval conditions in the context
of the no unreasonable risk
None. No edits were made to the
memo to address this comment,
because the TSCA regulations
cited in Attachment 1 give EPA
authority to use any information
deemed necessary to make a
determination of no
unreasonable risk.
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
^1 M ^Agency
-------
determination provided by the
regulations.
13
Utility Solid
EPA must adhere to APA
The memo does not equate to
Edits were made throughout the
Waste
requirements for a new rulemaking
regulatory changes, nor does it
memo to ensure that the
Activities
and publish this policy through the
impose any additional
language cannot be
Group
Federal Register
requirements on EPA or the
misinterpreted as imposing new
(USWAG);
regulated community. As such, APA
regulations or new requirements
Omaha Public
requirements do not apply, nor is
on EPA or the regulated
Power District
there a need to publish through the
community. These edits include:
(OPPD);
Federal Register.
American
• Page 1, paragraph 1, last
Public Power
EPA finds that some language in
sentence: "Additional
Association
the draft memo could have been
information may be
(APPA)
misinterpreted as stating that a
required" was edited to
climate assessment or PCVA are
"Additional information
required as part of the PCB
may be needed" to make
approval process. EPA has made
a determination of no
edits to the final memo to dispel
unreasonable risk.
any misinterpretation of this
• Page 2, paragraph 4,
language.
sentence 6: This
sentence was reworded
to emphasize that EPA
may choose to conduct a
climate vulnerability
screening to determine if
a PCVA is needed, and to
remove language
implying that a facility
must submit additional
information for EPA to
conduct a PCVA.
United States
Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
\r hI Agency
10
-------
• Page 3, paragraph 2, first
sentence: "EPA may
require additional
information" was edited
to "EPA may need
additional information."
Edits were also made to clarify
that the scope of the memo
applies to all PCB activity and
approvals that are cited in the
regulations in Attachment 1.
These edits were made by
changing every mention in the
memo of "PCB approvals" to
"PCB cleanup, storage,
treatment, and disposal
approvals."
14
Utility Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(USWAG);
Omaha Public
Power District
(OPPD);
American
Public Power
Association
(APPA)
Concerns that the memo would
significantly delay and complicate
PCB spill response actions
EPA recognizes the commenters'
concerns with the memo's impact
on PCB cleanup response.
However, the scope of the memo
applies to PCB cleanup actions that
must meet the standard of no
unreasonable risk and require EPA
approval, as cited in Attachment 1
of the memo. By nature, these
cleanup actions must be preceded
by an approval process, which may
be lengthy and complex, between
the facility and EPA, during which
the climate screening and
None
£% United States
iJV^pUfl Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
Agency
-------
assessment, if necessary, would
occur.
The scope of the memo does not
apply to, for example, PCB cleanup
actions initiated under the PCB Spill
Cleanup Policy in 40 CFR Part 761
Subpart G. PCB cleanups such as
these would not be affected or
delayed by climate considerations
related to EPA's implementation of
climate resilience in PCB approvals.
As such, EPS does not see any need
to edit the memo in response to
the concerns raised by this
comment.
15
Utility Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(USWAG);
Omaha Public
Power District
(OPPD);
American
Public Power
Association
(APPA)
The commenter expressed concerns
regarding the subjectivity of having
to speculate about future site
conditions many years into the
future. Many assumptions are
required to be factored in when
deciding what could be in 50 years
when there is no basis for
considering what in fact those
potential conditions may be.
Commenter had concerns about
modeling risk of hypothetical
conditions, which raises questions
about how this can be achieved
successfully with modeling.
Responses to comments 4, 5, and 6
above address concerns similar to
those raised in this comment.
Edits were made throughout the
memo. Please see the edits made
to the memo for comments 4, 5,
and 6 above.
United States _
Environmental Protection September 2024 EPA 530-R-24-007
hI Agency
------- |