NCD980602163_19830803_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_PCB Regulations Under TSCA - Over 100 Questions and Answers-OCR

&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Toxic Substances
The PCB Regulations
Under TSCA:
Over 100 Questions and
Answers .to Help You
Meet These Requirements
Prepared by:
TSCA Assistance Office and -
Exposure Evaluation Division
Office of Toxic Substances
November 1983
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Revised Edition No. 3
August 1983
The PCB Regulations
.Under TSCA:
Over 100
Questions and Answers
To Help You Meet
These Requirements
Prepared by:
TSCA Assistance Office and
Exposure Evaluation Division
Office of Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Revised Edition No. 3
August 1983
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this publication* is to provide
an easy-to-use guide, in addition to a package of key information,
which assists the sector of industry that needs to know about, and
comply with, EPA's regulations for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The Guide, within its "Q&A" format, both addresses the
major requirements and presents answers to frequently asked
questions concerning the PCB rules.
Two earlier PCB "Q&A" booklets precede this publication, each
one with the intention of providing timely assistance to industry
on the PCB control measures.
Once again, the PCB rulemaking activity has progressed, and
therefore, the need for a third, updated "Q&A". At this point in
the PCB rulemaking activities, we have several notices that make
up the final PCB control actions. To be specific, there are now
four (4) final Federal Register notices incorporated into the
control of PCBs (and a fifth to be completed in July 1984). This
publication not only presents the requirements and issues con-
cerning the PCB control measures, but it also is a "package" of
all the key official information concerning PCBs. In fact, almost
every answer is cross-referenced to the actual Federal Register
notice in the Appendix.
ORGANIZATION: This publication consists of four (4) distinct
sections:
(1) A Background/Summary of PCB Regulatory Actions to date;
(2) Q&A's: General PCB Information;
(3) Q&A's: Requirements of the Final PCB Rules;
(4) Appendix: Key Official Documents concerning Final PCB
Rules.
HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE: If you are familiar with the PCB rules you
can go directly to the "Table of Contents" to locate the item of
interest to you.
However, if the PCB rules are new or unfamiliar to you, you
may want to take this approach:
(1) Read the general PCB information Q&As (pp. 9-49).
(2) Read the Background/Summary of the PCB Regulatory Actions;
*This publication has been prepared by the TSCA Industry
Assistance Office and the Exposure Evaluation Division within
EPA's Office of Toxic Substances. It is an informal document, and
persons are directed to the PCB Final Rules for specific legal
requirements.
-i-
{3} Read the "Introductory Information" portion of each of
the O&A notice sections:
{ 4} Refer to the "Subject Index" to find the i tern of interest
to you.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For further assistance on the PCB issue,
or add1t1onal copies of this publication or other documents
mentioned, call the TSCA Assistance Office Toll Free Number:
800-424-9065 {in Washington, D.C. area: 554-1404}.
*********************************
-ii-
Table of Contents
TOPIC PAGE
0
0
0
0
0
SURJECT INDEX ••••••••••••.••...•••••••••.••••••••• 1
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF PCB REGULATORY ACTIONS ••••• ·•
**** O&A Format Section Begins****
GENERAL PCB INFORMATION••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9
o Introductory Facts .••••••••.•••••.•.•••••••.•.• 9
o Spills/Clean up .••.•••••..••••••.••••.•.••...•. 12
o PCBs in the Workplace • • • • • • • • • . . . • • • • • • . • • . • . • • 15
MAY 31, 1979 PCR RULE •••••••••••••••••.••••••••••• 17
o Introductory Information .•...••••••..•..••••••• 17
o Mark i ng ( La be 1 i ng) • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 9
o Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
o Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
o Exemption Petitions •••••••••.••••..•.•••••.••.• 26
o Import/Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
o Authorized Uses:
o Heat Transfer Systems ••••••••••••.•...•••••• 28
o Hydraulic Systems ••••••.••.••••.•••.•••••••• 29
o Microscopic Mounting Medium • • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • 29
o Research and Development • • . • . • . • . • • • • • • . . • • • 2 9
o Carbonless Copy Paper....................... 30
AUGUST 25, 1982 ELECTRICAL-USE RULE ••••••••.•••••• 31
o Introductory Information • . • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • 31
o Definition of "Posing An Exposure
Risk to Food or Feed" ••••••••••••••••••••. 32
o Electrical Equipment (Transformers,
Capacitors, Electromagnets)--that
Pa;e an Exposure Risk to Food or Feed ••••• 34
o Transformers (Non-rai lroad)--that do
not Pa;e an Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 5
o Capacitors that do not Pa;e an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed............. 3R
o Electromagnets, Switches, and Voltage
Regulators--that do not Pose an
ExposOre Risk to Food or Feed .•.•••••••••• 39
o Circuit Breakers, Reclosers and Cable--
that do not Pa;e an Exposure Risk
to Food or Feed •••.••••••••••••••••••••••• 40
-iii-
TOPIC PAGE
0
0
0
OCTOBER 21, 1982 CLOSED AND CONTROLLED
WASTE RU LE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 41
o Introductory Information • • • • . • . . • . • . • • • • • • • • 41
o Byproduct PCR Formation ••. ..•••••••••.•••••• 42
o Qualifying for an Exclusion as a
Closed or Controlled Waste Process •••••••• -43
o What "Controlled" Disposal Is • . • . . • • • • • • • • • • 43
o Recordkeeping/Reporting Requirements •••••••• 44
JANUARY 3, 1983 AMENDMENT TO THE USE
AUTHORIZATION FOR RAILROAD TRANSFORMERS 46
o Introductory Information •••••••••••••••••••• 46
o Interim Performance Deadlines............... 47
o Recordkeeping Requirements .•••••••••.••••••• 48
"UNCONTROLLED" PCB RULEMAK ING ••••••••••••••••••••• 48
o Introductory Information •.•••••••••••••••••• 48
o Rulemaking Schedule......................... 49
**** Q&A Format Section Ends****
o APPENDICES
A Recodification Chart for May 31, 197q
PCB Ban Rule: New Designations for
Part 761
B Federal Register, Thursday, May 31, 1979,
Part VI, Environmental Protection Agency,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Criteria
Modification: Hearings
C Federal Register, Wednesday, August 25, 1982
Part II, Environmental Protection Agency,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use Prohibitions: Use in
Electrical Equipment
D Federal Register, Thursday, October 21, 1982,
Part II, Environmental Protection Agency,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use Prohibitions: nse in Closed
and Controlled Waste Manufacturing Processes
-iv-
TOPIC
E Federal Register, Monday, January 3, 1983
Part IV, Environmental Protection Agency,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions: Amendment
to Use Authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers
F Commercial Landfills Approved for Land
Disposal
G Disposal Companies
H Comparative Tables on Mpterials Used to
to Protect Against Dermal Exposure
to PCBs
I Status for the "Uncontrolled" PCB Rulemak ing,
in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, Civ.
No. 79-1580
-v-
SUBJECT INDEX
To further assist those who need to know about the PCB rule
requirements, the following index was prepared. The subjects
dealt with throughout the Q&A portion of the publication are
listed alphabetically, along with the specific questions that
address them.
SUBJECT QUESTION NOS.
o Amendment to Use Authorization
for Railroad Transformers
(January 3, 1983) ..•••••••••••.•••••••.••• 120-125
o Authorized Uses ••••.••••••••••.•••.•.••• ·•••• 21
o Byproduct, PCB Formation.................... 105
o Cable, that does not Pose
An Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 9 9
o Capacitors, that Do not Pose an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed •••..••..•.•• 92-95
o C arbonless Copy Paper • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • 6 5
o Chemical/Physical Properties • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 1, 4
0
0
Circuit Breakers, that Do Not Pose
an Exposure Risk to Food or Feed
Clean up of Spills ..........................
o Closed and Controlled Waste
Rule (October 21, 1982) ••.•..•.•••.••.••••
0 Controlled Disposal
o Dielectric Fluids, for Retrofilling
Railroad Transformers •••....•.•...•..•.••.
o Disposal ................................... .
o Disposal, Containers with Low
PCB Concentrations •.•••..•..••••..••••..••
99
9
100-119
108, 109
122
30-42
41
o Disposal, Dielectric Fluid . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32
o Disposal, Hydraulic Machines................ 35
o Disposal, Large PCB Capacitors •••••••••••••• 33
o Di s po s a 1 , Non -Liq u id PCB s . . . • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 7
-1-
SUBJECT
o Disposal, Other Liqu.id Wastes
with 500+ ppm, 50-500 ppm,
QUESTION NOS.
less than 50 ppm.......................... 36
o Decontamination, PCB Container •••••••••••••• 38-40
o Disposal, PCB Transformers • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • 32
0
0
Disposal, Small PCB
Disposal Facilities
Capacitors ••••••••••••.•
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
31, Appendix
o Disposal Site Requirements . • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • 42
0 Electrical-Use Rule (August 25, 1982)
o Electromagnets, that Do Not Pose an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed ..•••••••••••
o Exclusion, Qualification as a Closed
0
0
or Controlled Waste Process •••••••••••••••
Exemptions, Class Categories
Exemptions, Phase I/Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o Exemption Petitions ••.•••...••.••••.••••••.•
o Export ..................................... .
o Fifty (50) ppm Cutoff, Closed and
Controlled Waste Rule •••••••••••••••••••••
o Food or Feed Facility .••••••••••••••••.•••••
66-99
96-98
106, 107, 115, 119
55
53, 54
53-56
57
103-104
70-74
o Further Information •••.••••••••••••••.•.•••• 8
o Health/Environmental Effects •••••.••••••••••
o Heat Transfer Systems •••••.••••.•••••••.•.••
o Hydraulic Systems •••••••••••••••••••.•••••••
o Import ..................................... .
o In-Service, Transformer Use .•••••.••••••••••
o Inspection/Maintenance Requirements,
Capacitors that Do Not Pose an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed •••••••••••••
-2-
6
58-60
61, 62
57
90 I 91
95
SUBJECT
o Inspection Procedures, Transformers
that do not Pose an Exposure Risk
QUESTION NOS.
to Food or Feed ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 81
o Inspection Requirements, for
Electrical Equipment that Does Pose
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed •••••••••.•••
o Interim Performance Deadlines,
Railroad Transformers •••••••••••••••••••••
o Labeling ................................... .
0 Leaks, PCB Storage Area
o Maintenance Procedures, Transformers
that Do Not Pose an Exposure Risk
15, 77
123, 124
22-29, 109
50
to Food or Feed • . • • • . . . . . • . • . . • • • . • . . • • • . • 8 2
o Marking •••••••..••.•.••••.•.•••••••...•.•...
o Microscopic Mounting Medium •••••••••••••••••
o Monitoring PCB Levels, Closed or
0
0
0
Controlled Waste Process •••••••••••••••••.
Notifying EPA, of Exclusion
Qualification as a Closed
or Controlled Waste Process
PCB Ban Rule (May 31, 1979)
Posing an Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed, Definition
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o Protective Clothing ......................... .
o Reclassification, Transformer •••••••••••••••
0 Reclosers, that Do Not Pose an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed
o Recordkeeping Requirements, Closed
or Controlled Waste Process •••••••••••••••
o Recordkeeping Requirements, Electrical
Equipment"that Poses Exposure Risk
22-29
63
113, 114
115, 116
15-65
70-74
14
89-91
99
110-119
to Food or Feed........................... 76
o Recordkeeping Requirements, Railroad
Transformers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
-3-
SUBJECT
o Recordkeeping Requirements,
Transformers that Do Not
Pose an Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed .••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••
o Reporting Requirements, Closed or
Controlled Waste Process •••••••.••••••••.•
o Railroad Transformers, Amendment to Use
Authorization (January 3, 1983) •••••••••••
o Railroad Transformers, Interim
Performance Deadlines •••.••••••••••••.••••
o Regulatory Action Summary •••••••••••••••••••
o Reporting Spills •••••••.••••••••••••••••••••
0 Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 Restrictions, Electrical Equipment
o Servicing, Transformers that
Do Not Pose an Exposure Risk
to Food or Feed •••••.•..••••••••••.•••••••
o Spills ..................................... .
0
0
0
Storage
Storage
.....................................
Containers ......................... .
Storage, Non-Liquid PCB Wastes
o Storage, PCBs and PCB Items
for Disposal ............................. .
o Storage, PCB Liquids Low
0
0
0
Concentration ............................ .
Storage, Small PCB Quantities
Switches, that Do Not Pose an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Testing, for Transformer Classification
o Theoretical Assessment, Closed or
Control led Waste Process •••.••••••••.•••••
o Time Restrictions, Capacitors that Do
Not Pose an Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
-4-
QUESTION NOS.
82-84
110-119
120-125
123, 124
7
9, 10
64
68, 69
85, 8 7,
9-11
43-47
44-45
46
43
47
48
96-98
82
88
110-112, 117
92, 94
SUBJECT
o Time Restrictions for Electrical
Equipment that Poses Exposure
Risk to Food or Feed ••••••••••••••••••••••
o Trade Names •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
o Transformers, that Do Not Pose an
Exposure Risk to Food or Feed •••••••••••••
o Uncontrolled PCB Rulemaking •••••••••••••••••
0 Uses, Authorized by May 1979 Rule
o Voltage Regulators, that Do Not
Pose an Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed •••••••••.•.•.•..•....•••••••.
0 Workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-5-
QUESTION NOS.
7 5, 78
3
79-91
126-130
58-65
96-98
12-14
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF PCB REGULATORY ACTIONS
In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) and specifically directed EPA to regulate polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). While other provisions of TSCA direct EPA to
regulate chemicals that present an "unreasonable risk of injury to
health and the environment," section 6(e) is the only provision of
TSCA that directly controls the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of specific chemical
substances, PCBs.
Congress took this action because it believed that the
chemical and toxicological properties of PCBs were such that their
continued manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce and
use would pose significant risks to public health and the
environment.
Section 6(e) of TSCA not only bans the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs, but also
controls the disposal of PCBs. The Act directly bans the manu-
facture of new PCBs, prohibits the processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of all PCBs in other than a totally enclosed
manner, and requires proper disposal of PCBs. Although PCBs are
banned, Congress did give EPA the authority to grant certain
limited exceptions to the total ban. EPA can: (1) authorize a
particular use of PCBs (provided the use does not present an
unreasonable risk to public health and the environment), and
(2) exempt certain activities from the ban on the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs (provided the
activity does not present an unreasonable risk to public health
and the environment and that good faith efforts have been made to
find a substitute for the PCBs).
Use authorizations are initiated by EPA through rulemaking.
Exemptions to the ban on the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs can only be granted upon
petition, on a case-by-case basis through rulemaking. Further,
exemptions cannot be granted for more than one year. Exemptions
must be reviewed on an annual basis.
There are two major categories of PCBs: (1) PCBs
intentionally manufactured for use in electrical and other types
of equipnent and (2) PCBs produced inadvertently as byproducts and
impurities. The intentional manufacture of PCBs for other than
research purposes no longer occurs. However, PCBs are contained
in electrical equipment and other types of equipment that are
currently in use, and PCBs are present in the environment as a
result of the manufacture and use of PCBs in electrical equipment
for over 50 years. "Byproduct PCBs" can be produced when
chlorine, hydrocarbon, and elevated temperatures or catalysts are
present together. Since this combination of conditions is quite
prevalent in the organic chemical industry, EPA believes that this
industry may be a major source of byproduct PCBs.
-6-
EPA's strategy for regulating PCBs has, then, taken two
distinct pathways: (1) the regulation of PCBs in electrical
equipment, and (2) the regulation of byproduct PCBs.
In May of 1979, EPA issued final rules covering the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and
disposal and marking of PCBs. The rule:
(1) classifies the use of PCBs in transformers, capacitors,
and electromagnets as "totally enclosed;"
(2) establishes requirements for the marking and disposal of
PCBs in concentrations over 50 ppm;
(3) establishes a regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm for the manu-
facture, processing, distribution in commerce and use of PCBs; and
(4) authorizes the use of PCBs in eleven different
activities.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF} sought judicial review
of provisions 1, 3, and 4 above, in the u.s. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. The court ruled that EPA lacked
substantial evidence to support:
(1) the classification of transformers, capacitors, and
electromagnets as "totally enclosed;" and
(2) the regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm for the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs.
Had the court's decision gone into effect, the use of all
transformers, capacitors, and electromagnets containing PCBs would
have been immediately banned; and, the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and unauthorized use of any amount of
PCBs would have been immediately banned. Since most electrical
transformers and capacitors contained PCBs and since PCBs are
pervasive chemicals, this would have resulted in major economic
impacts on industry and consumers alike. Therefore, EPA and EDF
filed a joint motion with the court requesting a stay of the
court's mandate until additional rulemaking could be completed.
The court granted EPA's request~ and directed EPA to begin
rulemaking.
EPA set up three separate rulemaking schedules to deal with
this additional rulemaking. The first rulemaking was to address
PCBs in electrical equipment and be completed by August 1982. The
second and third rulemakings were to address the remanded 50 ppm
regulatory cutoff.
EPA initiated a two-part rulemaking to address the remanded
50 ppm cutoff. This occurred as a result of a series of
discussions held after the court's decision between EDF, EPA and
certain industry representatives. During these discussions,
-7-
certain industry representatives suggested that the majority of
PCB formation occurs in processes that produce PCBs but do not
release PCBs (closed processes) or in processes that produce PCBs
but release PCBs only to wastes that are properly disposed of
(controlled waste processes). The industry representatives
explained that although PCBs are created in these process
situations, no PCBs are released to the environment from these
processes. EPA agreed to pursue a separate rulemaking to exclude
these types of processes from regulation.
On ~ugust 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule on the use of
PCBs in electrical equipment. This rule authorizes the use of
PCBs in eight different types of electrical equipment. On
October 21, 1982, EPA issued a final rule excluding PCBs produced
in closed and controlled waste manufacturing processes from the
ban on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and
use of PCBs. Further rulemaking to address byproduct PCBs that
are not excluded from regulation by the October 21, 1982 rule is
currently being initiated.
In addition to conducting rulemaking in response to the
court's October 1980 decision, EPA also issued a Final Rule
amending the May 1979 Railroad Transformer Use Authorization.
This Final Rule was issued January 3, 1983. EPA is also currently
in the process of making a change in the approval process for
mobile disposal facilities. The authority to grant approval is
being transferred from the regions to headquarters.
-8-
GENERAL PCB INFORMATION
INTRODUCTORY FACTS
1. 11'1IAT ARE PCBS?
The term PCB is short for polychlorinated biphenyl. PCBs
belong to a broad family of organic chemicals known ·as chlorinated
hydrocarbons. PCBs are produced by attaching one or more chlorine
atoms to a biphenyl molecule-Virtually all PCBs in ex~stence
today have been synthetically manufactured.
2 • no IIANUFAC'l'CJRBS PCBS?
Monsanto Corporation was the principal domestic manufacturer
of PCBs for use as a dielectric fluid in electrical equipment and
heat transfer equipment. They began production of PCBs in 1935.
In 1971, Monsanto voluntarily ceased all sales of PCBs for all
uses except certain electrical transformer and capacitor uses
which at the time were thought to be "totally enclosed" uses. In
1977, they voluntarily ceased production because of the widespread
environmental concerns about PCBs.
PCBs are currently being inadvertently produced as process
impurities and byproducts during the production of certain organic
chemicals. PCBs can be formed as byproducts when chlorine,
carbon, elevated temperatures or catalysts are present together in
a process.
3 • 11'1IAT TRADE NAJIBS 'flBRE PCBS SOLD UNDER THAT ffBRB IIANUFAC'l'CJRED AS
DIELECTRIC ( INSULATING) FWIDS?
Monsanto, the principal domestic producer of PCBs, sold PCBs
under the trade name "Aroclor." However, companies who used PCBs
in the manufacture of transformers and capacitors, and for other
uses, often used other trade names. Common trade names for PCBs
include:
Aroclor
Aroclor B
Abestol
Askarel*
Adkarel
Chlorextol
Chlorinol
Clorphen
Diaclor
Qykanol
Elemex
Eucarel
Hyvol
Inerteen
No-Flamol
Pyranol
Pyroclor
Saf-T-Kuhl
Sanotherm
*Askarel is also the gene-ric name used for non-flammable
insulating liquid in transformers and capacitors.
-9-
4 • JIIIAT ARB 'ffIB PHYSICAL AND CIIEllICALS PROPERTIES OF PCBS?
"Askarel" PCBs are chemical mixtures containing many
different PCB congeners. They have a heavy, liquid, oil-like
consistency, and weigh 10-12 pounds per gallon. They are very
stable, exhibit low water solubility, low vapor pressure, low
flammability, high heat capacity, low electrical conductivity, and
have a favorable dielectric constant.
When PCBs were intentionally manufactured as dielectric
fluid, they were often mixed with certain organic solvents, such
as chlorinated benzenes. Thus, the dielectric fluids present in
electrical equipment containing PCBs is not, in general, 100
percent PCB. The presence of these other chemicals influences the
physical/chemical properties of the Askarel fluid.
PCBs that are produced as byproducts and process impurities
may vary from a single isomer to a variety of congeners and
display different physical and chemical properties depending upon
the number of isomers and the degree of chlorination (the number
of chlorine atoms attached to the biphenyl molecule). PCBs with
fewer chlorine atoms are, in general, less persistent, more water
soluble, and more flammable than PCBs with more chlorine atoms.
5 • llOlf ARB PCBS USEIJ'l
The primary use of PCBs has been in electrical equipment.
The majority of PCBs marketed in the United States are still in
service, primarily in electrical equipment.
PCBs can also be present as byproducts in many different
organic solvents and other chemicals.
6 • 'flIIY ARB PCBS IIARIIFUL 70 BUIIAN HEALTH AND THE BNVIRONIIENT?
PCBs are harmful because, once released into the
environment, they do not break apart into new chemical
arrangements. However, PCBs with fewer chlorine atoms are
generally less persistent and display less of a tendency to
bioconcentrate and bioaccumulate. Instead, they persist,
bioaccumulate and bioconcentrate in organisms. EPA has concluded
that PCBs are toxic and persistent. PCBs cause chloracne (a
painful, disfiguring skin illness), and EPA has found, based on
animal data, that reproductive effects, developmental toxicity,
and oncogenicity are areas of concern to humans exposed to PCBs.
It also has been demonstrated that PCBs are toxic to fish at very
low levels of exposure. The survival rate and the reproductive
success of fish can be adversely affected in the presence of PCBs.
7. JIIIAT REGULATORY ACTION HAS I!PA TAKEN AGAINST PCBS?
In 1976, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), which directed EPA to control the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, disposal, and marking of PCBs.
Section 6(e) of TSCA requires proper disposal of PCBs, and prohibits
-10-
' I
I
the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs. Further, section 6(e) of TSCA requires EPA to develop
regulations implementing these provisions.
Final Marking and Disposal Rules appeared in the Federal
Register on February 17, 1978 (clarifying amendments to this Rule
appeared in the August 2, 1979 Federal Register).
1978, the Proposed PCB Ban Rule appeared in the
The Final PCB Ban Rule appeared in the Federal
1979 (44 FR 31514); this Rule superseded the
On June 7,
Federal Register.
Register on May 31,
February 17, 1978 Marking and Disposal Rule, and included provisions
banning the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and
use of PCBs. The May 1979 Rule took effect on July 2, 1979.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) challenged several
provisions of the May 1979 Rule, and in October of 1980 the u.s.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that
there was insufficient evidence in the record to support several
provisions of the May 1979 Rule. Specifically, the court struck
down the classification of transformers, capacitors, and electro-
magnets as "totally enclosed", and the regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm
for the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use
of PCBs. All other provisions of the May 1979 Rule remain in
effect.
Since the court's decision would have resulted in great
economic and personal hardship, EPA, EDF, and certain industry
intervenors in the case filed a joint motion seeking a stay of the
court's mandate until further rulemaking could be completed. The
court granted EPA's request.
On April 22, 1982, EPA issued a Proposed Rule governing the
use and servicing of electrical equipment containing PCBs. The
Final Rule appeared in the Federal Register of August 25, 1982.
This Final Rule was issued as a result of the court's decision to
strike down the May 1979 Rule's classification of transformers,
capacitors, and electromagnets as "totally enclosed".
On October 21, 1982, EPA issued part one of a two-part rule-
making to address the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff. This Final Rule,
addressed closed and controlled waste manufacturing processes.
EPA submitted a plan to the court on November 1, 1982, which
requested a further extension of the stay of mandate for the 50 ppm
cutoff, and presented plans for additional rulemaking on this
issue. The court granted a further extension of the stay, but is
requiring EPA to submit quarterly reports to the court. EPA
anticipates that a Final Rule will be effective in the Fall of 1984.
In addition to issuing rules as a result of the court decision
in October 1980, EPA has also issued an amendment to the Use
Authorization for Railroad Transformers (which originally appeared
in the May 1979 Rule). On January 3, 1983, EPA issued a Final Rule
amending, and extending the use authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers.
-11 -
On March 30, 1983, EPA issued a procedural change in the
approval process for mobile disposal facilities. The authority for
granting or denying approval of these facilities was transferred
from the regions to Headquarters. (See the March 30, 1983 Federal
Register in the Appendix of this publication.)
8 • 'lf1lBRB CAN I GB'T <DPIBS OF T1IB FINAL RBGULATIORS?
Copies of the Final Rules are contained in the Appendix to
this document. Additional copies, and support documents (at a cost
of 20~ a page) for these rulemakings can be obtained from: The TSCA
Assistance Office (TS-799), Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-543, 401 "M" Street, s.w.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, Toll free: (800-424-9065), in Washington
D.C.: (554-1404),
SPILLS/CLEAN UP
9. IX) PCB SPILLS HAVB 2U BB RBPORTBD?
Under the authority of TSCA section 8(e), PCB spills have to
be reported whenever the incident poses a substantial risk to human
health or the environment. Since "substantial risk" cannot be
precisely defined, any spill should be reported when people come
into direct and uncontrolled contact with PCBs, or the extent of the
spill is large enough to expose a significant number of animals.
These reports should be directed to the following TSCA 8(e) National
Response Centers:
Region I (Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire),
617-223-7265.
Region II (New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands), 201-548-8730.
Region III (Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, District of
Columbia), 215-597-9898.
Region IV (Kentucky, Tennessee, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Florida), 404-881-3865.
Region V
Michigan,
Region VI
Arkansas,
(Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Minnesota), 312-353-2318.
(New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma,
Louisiana), 214-767-2666.
Region VII (Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas),
816-374-3778.
Region VIII (Colorado, Utah,
North Dakota, South Dakota),
-12-
Wyoming, Montana,
303-837-2468.
I
I
i Region IX (California, Nevada, Arizona,
Hawaii, Guam), 41 5-556-6254.
Region X (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska),
206-442-1359.
There are several Federal laws which have PCB spill
reporting requirements. The most stringent of these is section
103(a) of CERCLA (48 FR 23552-23605). CERCLA requires that any
person in charge of any vessel or any facility, as soon as he has
knowledge of the release of a reportable quantity of any haz~rdous
substance to the environment (over a 24 hour period), must
immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC). The NRC,
which is operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, can be contacted by
calling a toll free number 800-424-8802. (In the District of
Columbia, call 426-2675.) The RQ for PCBs is presently set at 10
pounds by statute under CERCLA for releases into all environmental
media (land, air, water). The Agency, however, has proposed an RQ
of 1 pound in its May 25, 1983, Federal Register notice. DOT
(49 CFR 171.15 + 171.17) and CWA (40 CFR 117.2) also have release
reporting requirements for PCBs.
1 0 • IIJIAT HAPPENS 'flilEN I REPORT A PCB SPILL? CAN I GET
INFORJIATION OR ADVICE OIi fl1IAT ro IXJ AJJOCrr THE SPILLS?
If reportable quantity (RQ) of PCBs is released into the
environment, the responsible party is required to call the NRC
pursuant to CERCLA section 103. Failure to notify is a criminal
violation with a penalty of a $10,000 fine and/or up to one year
in prison.
When a call is received by the NRC, the duty officer will
ask for information including the name, address, and telephone
number of the reporting individual; the identity, location, and
nature of the release (e.g. the source, cause, quantity and
duration of release); the identity of the transporter or owner of
the facility or vessel; the nature of injuries or property damage,
and any other relevant information. The National Response Center
relays release information directly to either an On-Scene-
Coordinator at the appropriate EPA Regional Office or the Coast
Guard District Office. The OSC evaluates the situation, gives
appropriate information to State and local officials and decides
whether and how the Federal government should respond.
Section 111 (g) of CERCLA currently requires published
(newspaper) notifications to warn potential injured parties of
releases of hazardous substances.
CHEMTREC (800-424-9300) may have useful information for
advice on how to handle the spills.
1 1 • IF I HAVE A SPILL, flHAT SHOULD I IX) ro CONTROL OR CLEAN UP
THE SPILL?
The first priorities are: To report the spill (see Question
9); and control the spread of the spill by damming or diki~g ~he
leak. Any threats to water should be given the highest priority.
-13-
Once a spill is contained, clean up measures can begin.
Clean up can be simply the removal and subsequent disposal of
contaminated soil or debris. In some cases, more complex
techniques may be required, such as special PCB sorbents or
special filtration. Since levels required for clean-up sometimes
vary, depending upon the region in which the spill occurred,
regional EPA PCB experts should be contacted to obtain guidance on
the extent of PCB clean up. These contacts are:
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 1 O
Paul Heffernan
617-223-0585
John Brog a rd
212-264-2637
Ed Cohen
215-597-7668
Ralph Jennings
Constance Allison
404-881-3864
Karl Bremer
312-353-2291
Dr. Norman Dyer
Karl Mount
214-767-2734
Leo J. Alderman
816-374-3036
Steve Farrow
303-837-3926
Gerry Gavin-General PCB
Questions 415-974-7032
Raym~nd Seid-permits
415-974-8389
Jim Everts
206-442-1090
Water and complicated spills should be cleaned up by trained
and experienced personnel. Organizations who frequently handle
PCBs should develop contingency plans and conduct training for
dealing with spi lls. Commercial firms are also available on a
contract basis to clean up spills. The officials listed above can
provide information on such firms.
Since PCBs controlled by TSCA, are not controlled under RCRA
(45 FR 33086 and 33173; 46 FR 2846, 7668, and 22145) there are no
RCRA requirements for the cleanup of PCB spills. If a fully
permitted RCRA facility releases PCBs (as a hazardous constituent
(40 CFR 264.93)) the release may be subject to the groundwater
protection standards of 40 CFR 264 Subpart F.
-14-
PCBS IN THE WORKPLACE
1 2 • ARE THERE ANY OSHA ROLES OOVERNING PCBS IN THE fiORKPLACE?
Yes, there are OSHA regulations governing PCBs in the work-
place. OSHA has in place two 8-hour time-weighted averages
(TWA's) for chlorodiphenyl. For chlorodiphenyl containing
42 percent chlorine, the TWA is 1 milligram per cubic meter of
workplace air. For chlorodiphenyl containing 54 percent chlorine,
the TWA is 0.5 milligram per cubic meter of workplace air. An
employee's exposure to PCBs in any 8-hour workshift of a 40-hour
work week cannot exceed these concentrations. Further, employers
are required to ensure a safe work place under OSHA regulations.
If specific standards are not applicable, this general requirement
for a safe workplace would apply.
1 3 • HOii IXJES THE OSHA srANDARD RELATE ro EPA• S PCB REGULATIONS?
EPA's PCB Rules do not directly regulate workers, but the
Rules do restrict or prohibit certain PCB activities which reduce
the number of workers exposed. The EPA Rules prohibit PCB trans-
former and capacitor manufacture, as well as PCB transformer
rebuilding (except for railroad transformers), which includes
removal of the transformer's coil. These prohibitions terminated
these activities that resulted in the major long-term occupational
exposures to high concentration PCBs.
Worker exposure can also occur as a result of PCB spills and
authorized servicing operations for PCB transformers.
1 4 • NHAT KIND OF PROTECTIVE CIUrHING SHOULD BB fiORN "fiIIBN NORKING
NITH PCBS?
The type of protective clothing which should be worn when
working with PCBs is dependent on the individual circumstances.
Worker protective clothing and equipment is intended to prevent
skin and eye contact, and control respiratory exposure.
In any operation where workers may come into contact with
PCBs, protective clothing impervious to PCBs should be worn.
Gloves, boots, overshoes, and bib-type aprons that cover boot tops
should be provided when necessary.
Skin protection can usually be achieved by wearing non-
porous gloves and boots and heavy overalls. For major spill clean
up activities,.a full suit of non-porous clothing may be appro-
priate. Also, non-porous aprons can be effective in reducing
contamination of worker clothing. The Appendix to this booklet
contains two comparative tables on materials used to protect
against dermal exposure to PCBs.
Eye protection (chemical safety goggles, face shields with
goggles or safety glasses with side shields) should be worn during
any operation in which PCBs are present. If liquid or solid PCBs
contact the eyes, the eyes shall be irrigated immediately with
large quantities of water and then examined by a physician or
other responsible medical personnel.
-15-
Respiratory exposure control (whether individual protection
or workplace control) is most relevant for long-term production
operations or major spills, when concentrations of airborne PCBs
may exceed the recommended occupational exposure limit. PCB
transformer spills might pose respiratory problems because of
solvents, such as trichlorobenzene, that are mixed with the
PCBs. Small spills, such as capacitor failures, seldom pose
respiratory problems, but protection should be provided for
incidents in confined areas.
-16-
THE MAY 3 1 , 1 9 7 9 RULE*
INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
1 5 • "1IAr '/XJBS fflB IIAY 1979 PCB BAR BULB 00?
The May 1979 Final Rule:
(1) Classifies the use of the transformers, capacitors, and
electromagnets as "totally enclosed." Therefore, in accordance
with section 6(e) of TSCA, PCBs used in transformers, capacitors
and electromagnets were excluded from the statutory ban.
(2) Establishes requirements for the marking and disposal of
PCBs, and sets a regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm for the marking and
disposal of PCBs under TSCA (PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm
are not required by TSCA to be marked or disposed of in any
special manner except that these PCBs cannot be used as a dust
control agent or as a pesticide carrier). [Note: PCBs may be
regulated at different concentrations under the Clean Water Act
and/or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.]
(3) Establishes a regulatory cutoff at 50 ppm for the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs
(in a totally enclosed manner).
(4) Authorizes the use of PCBs in eleven different
activities (see Question 21).
16. I fflOUGff fflB IIAY 1979 BULB IIAS CilALLBIIGllD IN fflB BIIVIRtJllllllffAL IZYDSB
P'IJll1) (BDP). fflll3 IS 'fflB srA'l!US OF 'fflB IIAY 1979 BULB?
EDF challenged three major provisions of the May 1979
Rule:
(1) The classification of transformers, capacitors, and
electromagnets as "totally enclosed".
(2) The 50 ppm regulatory cutoff for the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs.
(3) The eleven Use Authorizations.
*Included in several of the answers are cross-referenced
citations (e.g., Sec. 761.30(d)) which refer you to actual
sections of the May 31, 1979 Federal Register notice. It i .s
important to note that since the publication of the May 31, 1979
PCB Ban Rule, that 40 CFR Part 761 has been recodified. The
citations referenced here are the new ones. Therefore, when you
want to refer to the actual May 1979 notice first go to the
"Recodification Table" in the Appendix to find the old code that
appears in the May 31, 1979 Federal Register Notice-.--
•17-
The court ruled in October of 1980 that EPA lacked
substantial evidence in the Rulemaking Record to support both the
classification of electrical transformers, capacitors, and
electromagnets as "totally enclosed", as well as the 50 ppm cutoff
for the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use
of PCBs. Thus, these provisions were struck down by the court.
1 7 • DOES THIS 1IEA1I THAT ELECTRICAL EJ(}UIPIIENT CDNTAINING PCBS IS
NOii BIINNEUl
No, because EPA, EDF, and industry intervenors in the case
requested and received a stay of the court's mandate until further
rulemaking could be completed. Further, as of August 25, 1982,
EPA amended The PCB Ban Rule to authorize the continued use and
servicing of seven types of electrical equipment containing PCBs,
including transformers, capacitors, electromagnets, switches,
cable, and voltage regulators.
1 8 • CAN A PCB TRANSFORIIER BE RESOLD?
Yes, if it was sold or bought for purposes other than resale
before July 1, 1979 and if it is intact and non-leaking. EPA also
recommends that any buyer be advised that he is buying a PCB
transformer containing 7,500 ppm PCBs. The transformer is also
required to be marked (40 CFR 761 .40(a)(2) and 40 CFR
761.2(c)(1)).
1 9. DOES THE CDURT'S IECISION 1IEA1I THAT THE IIANUFACTURE, PROCESSING,
DISTRIBUTION IN COllllERCE, AND USE OF PCBS IN CDNCENTRATIONS BEUJII SO PPII
IS NOii BIINNEUl
No. EPA, EDF, and certain industry intervenors requested a
stay of mandate for the 50 ppm cutoff as well, until further rule-
making could be completed. EPA has issued part one of a two-part
rulemaking in response to the court's October 1980 remand of the 50
ppm regulatory cutoff. This rule is the Closed and Controlled Waste
Process Exclusion, issued in the Federal Register of October 21,
1982 (47 FR 46980). Further rulemaking on the 50 ppm regulatory
cutoff is ongoing and is expected to be proposed by Fall of 1983.
2 0 • DOES THE caJRT' S DECISION STRIKING 1XMN THE SO PPII REGULATORY aJTOFF FOR.
THE IIANUFACTURE, PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COIIJlERCE, AND USE OF PCBS
AFFECT THE 50 PPII REGULATORY aJTOFF FOR THE IIARKING AND DISPOSAL OF PCBS?
No. These provisions were not challenged, and thus, remain
in effect.
2 1 • THE .IIAY 1979 RULE SAYS THAT EPA CAN GRANT EXCEPTIONS, KN<MN AS
AUTHORIZATIONS, ro ENABLE THE CDNTINUED USE OF PCBS IN A NON-TOTALI3
ENCWSED IIANNER. JfIIAT USES HAVE BEEN AIJTHORIZEUl
EPA may propose and grant an authorization without a
specific request from those who will benefit from the author-
ization. Also, the authorization can be valid for any time period
that EPA finds appropriate.
The following non-totally enclosed PCB activities were
authorized with restriction by EPA in the May 1979 Rule (beside
each is the Rule section to refer to for details). Some of these
-18-
authorizations have either been amended or have expired (this is
indicated when applicable):
o servicing PCB Transformers and PCB-Contaminated Trans-
formers (Sec. 761.30(a)) (amended by August 25, 1982
Rule) ;
o use in and servicing of Railroad Transformers (Sec.
761.30(b)) (amended by January 3, 1983 Rule);
o use in and servicing of Mining Equipment (Sec. 761.30(c))
(expired);
o use in Heat Transfer Systems (Sec. 761.30(d));
o use in Hydraulic Systems (Sec. 761.30(e));
o use in Carbonless Copy Paper (Sec. 761.30(f));
o use in Pigments (Sec. 761.30(g)) (expired);
o servicing Electromagnets (Sec. 761.30(h)) (amended by
August 25, 1982 Rule);
o use in Small Quantities for Research & Development (Sec.
761.30(j));
o use in Microscopy Mounting Medium (Sec. 761.30(k)).
MARKING (LABELING)
2 2 • DO ALL TRANSFORJIERS CONTAINING PCBS HAVE ro BB IABBLBD?
PCB Transformers (transformers that contain 500 ppm or
greater PCBs) are required to be labeled. PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment (electri~al equipment that contain 50-500 ppm
PCBs) are not required to be labeled. Non-PCB Transformers
(transformers containing less than 50 ppm PCBs) are also not
required to be labeled (see §761 .40(c) ( 1)).
2 3 • NHBRB IXJ TilB IABBLS HAVE ro BB PLACED?
All labels are to be placed on the exterior of PCB items and
appropriate transport vehicles in a place that can be easily seen
and read by anyone inspecting or servicing them (see §761.40(h)).
PCB transport vehicles must be marked on all four sides if
they are loaded with containers that contain more than 45 kg.
(99.4 lbs) of liquid PCBs in concentrations over 500 ppm.
2 4 • DO ALL CAPACITORS HAVE ro BE IABBLBD?
All large (greater than three pounds dielectric fluid) high
voltage PCB capacitors have to be labeled, including those in-
service (see §761.40(a)(3)). Large, low voltage capacitors have
to be labeled when they are taken out of service for disposal
(see §761.40(a)(5)). Small capacitors do not have to be marked.
-19-
However, equipment containing small PCB capacitors has to be
labeled as not containing PCBs if it is manufactured after
January 1, 1979 (see §761.40(d)).
25. ARB CAPACI'rORS ON POLES RBQUIRBD ftJ BB LABELED?
If a PCB capacitor is installed in a "protected area" the
pole, structure, or fence must be labeled in a place that can be
easily seen by interested persons, such as service persons (see
§761.40(c)(2)(ii)).
26. I HAVE A LARGE RACK OF CAPACI'rORS. IF I LABEL ONE INDIVIIXJAL
CAPACimR, IXJES THIS LABEL IIEff THE IIARKING RBQUIREIIENTS OF THE 'IVLE?
No. It is acceptable to mark the rack itself with a PCB
label but not to mark one capacitor. If the racks are in a fenced
in area, such as an electrical substation, the fence may carry the
lab e 1 •
2 7 • I llANlJFACffJRE PCBS AS A BYPROIXJCT WRING THE PROIXJCTION OF AN CEGANIC
SJLVENT. IXJ I HAVE ftJ LABEL IIY PROIXJCTS?
Products must be labeled if: (1) they contain greater than
50 ppm PCBs, or (2) labeling is required by EPA as part of its
response to a petition for exemption (§761.40(i)).
2 8 • OOES A '.MUCK CARRYING PCB<ONTAllINATED TRANSFORJIERS AND CAPACimRS NEBD
ft) BB IIARKED?
No. Only if the truck carries PCB tranformers or is loaded
with PCB containers that contain more than 45 kg (99.4 lbs.) of
liquid PCBs must it be marked. (44 FR 31548).
2 9 • 'll1IEN "fiERE THE LAST PCB FWORESCEN'r LIGHT BALLASTS #ADE? HCM CAN I TELL
IF THE BALLASTS I HAVE CDNTAIN PCBS?
The manufacture and distribution of PCBs in commerce was
banned July 1, 1979. All light ballasts manufactured since 1978
which do not contain PCBs are marked by the manufacturer with the
statement "No PCBs". (40 CFR 761.20(g)).
DISPOSAL
3 0 • I NEED ftJ DISPOSE OF SJIIE OIL CDNTAINING PCBS. fi1IAT OPTIONS IXJ I HAVE
FOR Glf'rTING RID OF THESE PCBS?
PCBs in concentrations over 500 ppm must be disposed of only
by high temperature incineration (§761.60(a) (1)). PCBs in concen-
trations between 50 and 500 ppm must be disposed of in high effi-
ciency boilers, in approved chemical waste landfills, or in high
temperature incinerators (§761.60(a)(2)). PCBs in concentrations
below 50 ppm are not required to be disposed of in any special
manner under TSCA (§761 .1 (b)), except that they may not be used as
a coating, sealant, or dust control agent, or as a pesticide
carrier.
-20-
3 1 • '11lBRE ARB THE APPROVED DISPOSAL FACILITIES?
A list of EPA-approved (as of March 1983) PCB disposal
facilities is included in the Appendix to this publication.
3 2 • BOIi DO I DISPOSE OF A 'TRANSFORIIER. '.rIIAT COBTAINS PCBS? DO THE
'TRANSFORIIER AND DIELBC'rRIC FUJID HAVE ro BE DISPOSED OF DIFFERENTLY?
There are two ways to dispose of a PCB Transformer (trans-
formers that contain PCB concentrations in excess of 500 ppm). The
transformer and the dielectric fluid can be burned together in a
high temperature incinerator approved by EPA (§761.60(b)(l)(i)(A)),
or the liquid can be drained out of the transformer first. If the
liquid is drained, the transformer must be flushed with solvent for
18 hours; the solvent and the dielectric fluid must then oe disposed
of in an EPA-approved high temperature incinerator. The drained
transformer, after it is resealed, must be disposed of in a chemical
landfill which has been approved by EPA (§761 .60(b)(1 )(i)(B)).
If the transformer is PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment
(containing more than 50 ppm and less than 500 ppm PCB), the
transformer and the liquid can also be incinerated or the
dielectric liquid can first be drained. If the liquid is drained,
it can be disposed of in a high temperature incinerator, a
chemical landfill which has been approved by EPA, or in a high
efficiency boiler. The drained transformer can be disposed of as
scrap or in a disposal facility whose practices are equivalent to
good municipal solid waste disposal practices (§761.60(b)(1)(ii)).
For non-PCB transformers (with less than 50 ppm PCBs) there
are no PCB disposal requirements for the transformer (e.g.,
dispose of it in a municipal waste site). For the fluid there is
only one disposal restriction, and that is that it cannot be used
as a sealant, coating, or dust control agent if it contains any
detectable PCBs (§761.20(d)).
Used non-PCB transformers would, however, meet the
definition of a solid waste (40 CFR 261.2) and might be hazardous
if they display one of the characteristics listed in 40 CFR 261
Subpart c. The fluids and rinsates from these transformers
typically display either the characteristics of EP Toxicity (40
CFR 261.24), ignitability (40 CFR 261.21) or both. As a result,
disposers of non-PCB transformers in municipal landfills may be
required under CERCLA to notify the NRC of a release of a
hazardous substance.
3 3 • BOIi DO I DISPOSE OF IARGE PCB CAPACITORS?
PCB capacitors must be disposed of by high temperature
incineration (§761.60(b)(2)(iii)(A)), or by any other method which
EPA has permitted under the disposal permitting program.
3 4 • ARB '.MERE SPECIAL DISPOSAL REQUIREKENTS FOR SIIALL PCB CAPACITORS
CONTAINED PRIIIARILY IN SIIALL APPLIANCES AND FUJORESCENT LIGHT BALLASTS?
WIIAT ABOUT A IIANUFACTURBR OF SIIALL PCB CAPACITORS?
No, small capacitors can be disposed of as municipal waste by
householders and other infrequent disposers (§761.60(b)(2)(ii)).
-21-
However, the disposal of large quantities (greater than 25)
of small PCB capacitors by commercial and industrial activities
poses a larger enviromental risk. Therefore, EPA encourages these
persons to establish voluntarily a collection and disposal program
that would result in the waste capacitors going to chemical waste
landfills or high temperature incinerators.
On the other hand, the manufacturer of small PCB capacitors,
or of an item which contains small PCB capacitors, must dispose -0f
them in an approved PCB incinerator (761.60(b)(2)(iv)).
3 5 • HOii ARE HYDRAULIC IIACHINES CONTAIIINATED WITH PCBS ro BB DISPOSED?
In general, only a relatively small portion of these
machines are contaminated with PCBs, in particular those used in
die-casting and forging operations. Therefore, instead of
requiring disposal in a chemical waste landfill, the final rule
permits disposal of hydraulic systems as municipal solid waste and
salvaging of these machines after draining. First, the machines
must be drained of all free-flowing liquid. If the fluid contains
more than 1,000 ppm PCBs, the machine must be flushed with a
solvent and thoroughly drained before disposal. The liquid must
be disposed of by high temperature incinerators or, if the PCB
concentration is 50 to 500 ppm, by high efficiency boilers or in
chemical waste landfills (§761.60(b)(3)).
36. ffHBRB CAN arHBR LIQUID WASTES WITH OVER 500 PPII PCBS BB DISPOSED?
BBT'fiBEN 50 ro 500 PPII PCBS? LESS THAN 50 PPII PCBS?
The same disposal options apply as for transformer
dielectric fluid. (Refer to Question 32).
3 7 • ffHBRB CAN NON-LIQUID PCBS BB DISPOSED?
Non-liquid PCBs at any concentration (e.g., contaminated
rags and absorbent materials, and contaminated soils and other
solids recovered from spills or removed from old disposal sites)
can be disposed in chemical waste landfills approved under
§761.75. However, the Rule forbids the processing of liquid PCBs
into non-liquid forms in order to circumvent the high temperature
incineration requirements.
38. HOii 1IAY I DBCONTAIIINATE A PCB CONTAINER?
Any PCB container may be decontaminated by flushing the
internal surface of the container three times with a solvent
containing less than 50 ppm PCBs. The solubility of PCBs in the
solvent must be five (5) percent or more by weight. Each rinse
shall use a volume of the normal diluent equal to approximately
ten (10) percent of the PCB container capacity. The solvent may
be reused until it contains 50 ppm PCBs.
-22-
The solvents normally recommended for decontamination of PCB
containers are Xylene, Toluene, and Kerosene (44 CFR 31546). If
the PCB levels do not exceed 50 ppm, these "rinsates" would
probably be hazardous wastes under RCRA (F003, FOOS, ignitable, EP
toxic or a combination thereof). Releases of unidentified
hazardous wastes are reportable under CERCLA if an RQ of the
wastes has been released to the environment. Presently, the RQ
for such unidentified hazardous wastes exhibiting ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity and extraction procedure toxicity is one
pound by statute. The Agency proposed to adjust this level in the
May 25, 1983 Federal Register notice: ICR wastes have RQs
proposed at 100 pounds; EP toxic wastes have RQs proposed based on
individual contaminates.
3 9 • CAN IIBCONTAIIINATED PCB CONTAINERS BB DISPOSED OF IN A IVNICIPAL '1ASrB
LANDFILL SITE?
Yes, decontaminated PCB containers may be disposed of in
ordinary landfill sites, rather than in EPA approved chemical
waste landfills.
4 0 • CAN IIBCOl!ITAJIINATED PCB CON'r.AINBRS BB REUSED?
Containers decontaminated in accordance with §761.79 can be
reused for general use.
4 1 • HOii CAN PCB COl!ITAINBRS USED ONI3 ro OOLD UM PCB CONCENTRATIONS BB
DISPOSED?
PCB containers used only to contain materials or fluids with
PCB concentrations between 50 to 500 ppm can be disposed of as
municipal waste.
4 2 • "fiIIAT ARB 'rIIE RB(}UIRBIIBN'rS POR DISPOSAL SITES?
Incinerators used to dispose of PCBs must be approved by the
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator. The approved incinerators
must meet the requirements set out in the May 1979 Rule
(§761 .70(a)).
Likewise, chemical waste landfills used for the disposal of
PCBs and PCB items must be approved by the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator, and must meet the requirements established
in the May 1979 Rule (§761.75(a)).
Mobile disposal facilities, which will be operated in more
than one region, must be approved by the Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides and Toxic Substances (see 48 FR 13181 ).
-23-
STORAGE
4 3 • lf1lllRB CAIi I srDRB PCIJS AND PCB :ITEIIS FOR DISPOSAL?
Unless these items qualify for 30-day temporary storage or
other alternative storage requirements, these items must be
located in a storage for disposal facility which meets the
following re qui remen ts :
o Adequate roof and walls to prevent rain water from
reaching the stored PCBs and PCB items.
o Adequate floor with at least 6 inch continuous curbing.
(The floor and curbing must provide a containment volume
equal to at least two times the internal volume of the
largest PCB item or container stored therein or 25 percent
of the total internal volume of all PCB articles or
containers stored therein, whichever is greater.)
o No drain valves, floor drains, expansion joints, sewer
lines, or other openings that would permit liquids to flow
from the curbed area.
o Floors and curbing constructed of continuous smooth and
impervious materials.
o Not located at a site that is below the 100 year flood
water elevation.
4 4 • "1lA'J! ICIBDS OF CONTAINERS ARB APPROPRIATE FOR sroRAGB?
The PCB regulations permit 5 container types (5, 5B, 6D, 17C
and 17E) which comply with Department of Transportation (DOT)
specifications set out in 49 CFR 173.346, to be used to store
liquid PCBs.
Non-liquid PCBs may be stored in 5, 5B, or 17C drums.
4 5 • CAN IARGB CDl.f'rAINBRS, SJCB AS sroRAGB TANKS, BB USED FOR ffIB sroRAGB OF
PCB LIQUIDS?
EPA decided in the May 1979 Rule to permit large containers,
such as storage tanks, to be used to store bulk PCB liquids. This
is to allow safe transfer and storage of large PCB liquid
quantities; and to reduce storage costs. In other words, the
transfer of stored bulk PCBs from tanks to other tanks or tank
trucks will lessen the spill risks as opposed to having to transfer
these large quantities from a number of smaller storage drums into
transfer tanks.
These storage tanks must meet design and construction
standards adopted by OSHA (29 CFR 1910.106). Also the storage
facilities must have a spill prevention control and counter measure
plan similar to the plans required for oil spill prevention.
Owners and operators of bulk storage facilities will have to
keep records of the amounts added to and removed from bulk
-24-
containers. These records will be important in tracing waste
shipments and enforcing the disposal and storage requirements.
4 6 • CAN PCB CONTAINERS OF CONTAJIINATBD &JIL BB TEIIPORARILY Sl'ORED?
Yes, non-liquid PCB wastes, such as contaminated soil, can be
temporarily stored for up to 30 days, provided that a notation is
attached to the item indicating the date that it was stored for
disposal.
4 7 • CAN PCB LIQUIDS OF UM CONCENTRATIONS BB ffllPORARILY Sl'ORED? "ffEIAT
ABOUT PCB LIQUIDS OF HIGH CONCENTRATION?
Low concentration PCB liquids (50 to 500 ppm) can be
temporarily stored for up to 30 days. All temporary storage areas
containing liquids between 50 and 500 ppm, must have a spill
prevention control and counter measure plan. The items contained
in this area must bear a notation of when they were stored for
disposal, and a notation that the items do not contain 7500 ppm
PCBs (761.65).
However, the May 1979 Rule does not allow temporary storage
for high concentration PCB liquids (above 500 ppm) because of the
potential harm from a spill.
48. I HAVE A SIIALL QUANTITY OF PCBS (I.E., A FEIi &JAKBD RAGS AND ONE GALLON
OF PCBS IN AN APPROVED CONTAINER), AND I IXJN'T flANT TO SEND THEIi A WNG
DISTANCE FOR DISPOSAL. CAN I Sl'ORE THEIi UNTIL A PCB sroRAGB SITE CWSB
TO 11B IS APPROVED?
Small PCB quantities, such as a few soaked rags, may be
stored in a "storage for disposal facility" until the last day of
1983. After December 31, 1983, the small quantity of PCBs would
be required to be disposed of in accordance with the Marking and
Disposal Regulations in the May 197.9 Rule. The Rule requires
items stored after January 1, 1983 to be disposed of within one
year of the date the items wer~ placed in storage for disposal.
PCB electrical equipment stored for reuse must be handled and
inspected according to use authorizations covered in 40 CFR
761.30.
4 9 • ONCE PCB ARTICLES ARE TAKEN CDT OF SERVICE, WM WNG CAN TllBY BB KEPT
BEFORE BEING PLACED IN AN APPROPRIATE Sl'ORAGB AREA?
Non-leaking PCB articles and PCB containers containing
leaking articles can be temporarily stored for up to 30 days,
provided that a notation is attached indicating the date the item
was removed from service.
5 0 • lfBBN PCB CAPACITORS OR CONTAINERS ARE Sl'ORED IN AN APPROPRIATE STORAGE
AREA, "ffEIAT HAPPENS JiIIBN ONE OF THESE ITBIIS srAirrs 'l'O UAK?
A leaking PCB capacitor should be immediately placed in a
non-leaking Department of Transportation approved drum and any
spillage cleaned up using sorbent or suitable solvents. It is a
good practice to add sorbent material, such as sawdust, to the
container to soak up any liquid that continues to leak out of the
capacitor.
-25-
When a container develops a leak, the contents should
ihmediately be transferred· to another, non-leaking container or to
special "overpack" containers, such as those used in the chemical
industry for leaking containers.
5 1 • ONCE A PCB srDRAGE AREA IS IDILT, IIIJsr "EPA IBSPBC'r IT BEFORE ff CAN BE
USED?
No, it is the responsibility of the organization storing the
PCBs to ensure that the storage area meets the specifications.
5 2 • DO PCB sroRAGB AREAS HAVE ro BE PERIODICALIX CHECKED POR LEAKS OR arHER
PROBLBIIS? fillAT ABOUT PCB ARTICLES, SUCH AS TRARSFORJIERS, ffIA'r ARB IN
SERVICE?
PCB storage areas must be checked by the owner or operators
at least every 30 days. Certain in-service articles are required
by the August 25, 1982 Electrical-Use Final Rule to be inspected.
EXEMPTION PETITIONS
5 3 • THE 1IAY 1979 RULE SAYS ffIA'r "EPA CAN GRANT EXEJIPTIONS FROII THE BAN OIi THE
IIARUPAC"J.'URE, PllOCESSING, AND DisrRIBUTION IN OJIIIIERCE OF PCBS. Hal CAN I
GE'T AN EXEIIP'PION? BAS "EPA GRANTED ANY EXEIIPTIONS?
Anyone wanting an exemption must petition EPA for it. An
exemption must by statute be renewed annually through formal
rulemaking. In some instances, individuals may not have to seek
separate exemptions when the Agency grants "class" exemptions for
some bans on processing and distribution in commerce.
In the November 1, 1978 Federal Register, EPA published
interim rules for submitting exemption petitions from the July 2,
1979 PCB manufacturing/importation prohibition; over 70 petitions
have been received. EPA announced, in the January 2, 1979 Federal
Register, that it would not enforce the ban against those who had
submitted petitions until action had been taken on them. Subse-
quently, in the May 31, 1979 (44 FR 31514) Federal Register
notice, EPA published a Notice of 'proposed Rulemaking which
identifies each exemption petition received, and the action EPA
proposed to take on most of them.
Also, in the May 31, 1979 Federal Register, EPA has
published procedural rules for submitting exemption petitions from
the July 1, 1979 processing/distribution in commerce
prohibitions. These procedures include the categories eligible
for class exemptions.
On March 5, 1980 EPA announced that it will decide on a
case-by-case basis whether or not to accept for consideration all
manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemption
petitions submitted after the filing deadline.
Since the publication of the May 1979 Federal Register
notice, EPA has contacted all previous petitioners for exemptions
and requested updated information, in preparation for the
processing of the petitions. EPA has sorted the responses into
-26-
j
1
groups for rulemaking: Phase I petitions are those petitions
which are not affected by the ongoing rulemaking with regard to
the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff. Phase II petitions are those that
may be affected by the ongoing rulemaking on the 50 ppm cutoff.
EPA is currently in the process of evaluating Phase I
petitions in preparation for a proposed rule during ~he summer of
1983.
5 4 • flBAT PB".tI'rIONS ARB IN PllASB I?
Phase I petitions include requests to:
o Import PCB equipment, and
o Manufacture PCBs for research and development.
Phase I petitions also include requests for exemptions to:
o Process and distribute PCBs for research and development,
o Process and distribute PCBs for Microscopy,
o Distribute PCB small capacitors for repair purposes,
o Distribute PCB equipment,
o Process PCB articles and PCB equipment into other
equipment,
o Export PCBs,
o Distribute PCB and PCB-Contaminated Transformer Fluid,
and
o Buy, service, and sell transformers and PCB-Contamined
Transformers.
5 5 • fiIIBRB CAN I DBTBRJIINB WllA'r CA'nlGORIBS ARB ELIGIBLE POR CLASS BXBIIPTIONS?
You should make a careful review of section 750.31(a) of the
Interim Procedural Rules for the processing and distribution in
commerce exemptions. These rules are published in the May 31,
1979 Federal Register. Section 750.31 (a) lists and describes the
categories that may file class exemption petitions. If your
activity is not listed in section 750.31 (a), you must file a
petition on an individual basis.
5 6 • IF SOIIBONB IIANUFAC'l.'IJRBS PCB OOlffAlfINA'.rBD CHBIIICALS, Brr DID lKJT APPI:I
!'O EPA POR AN BXEIIPTION, CAN '.r1lBY ~ILL RB(pBST ONE?
Anyone in that situation should apply to EPA for an
exemption using the procedures EPA published in the Federal
Register on NOVftmber 1, 1978.
EPA will decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to
accept for consideration all exemption petitions submitted after
their respective filing deadline. See the March 5, 1980, Federal
Register Notice for more details.
-27-
(If you want a copy of either of the Federal Register
notices mentioned in this answer, call the TSCA Industry
Assistance Office toll free: 800-424-9065, in Washington, D.C.:
554-1404.)
IMPORT/EXPORT
5 7 • CAN PCBS BB EXPORTED OR IJIPORTED? WHAT ABOUT PCB EQUIPIIENT? WHAT
ABOUT IIIPORTING OR EXPORTING PCBS FOR DISPOSAL?
Because TSCA considers the term "import" to be synonomous
with "manufacture," no PCB Equipment can be imported after July 2,
1979, unless an exemption is obtained from EPA. Persons wishing
to export PCBs for use must also file a TSCA section 12 export
notice, and file an exemption petition, in accordance with the
requirements of section 761.30(c), for processing and distribution
in commerce. No PCBs may be exported until and unless EPA grants
an exemption to export. (See the May 1, 1980 Federal Register in
the Appendix; 45 FR 29115.)
The Open Border Policy for PCB disposal expired May 1, 1980;
therefore, no PCBs may be exported or imported for disposal until
new rules are in effect.
USES AUTHORIZED BY THE MAY 1979 RULE
USES IN HEAT TRANSFER SYSTEMS
5 8 • ARB HEAT TRANSFER SYsrEIIS REGULATED UNDER TSCA?
PCBs have been used in heat transfer systems because of
their high heat retention capacity. These systems are regulated
under TSCA, and their use has been authorized through July 1, 1984
through a provision of the May 1979 PCB Ban Rule.
59. ARB 'rHERE ANY CONDITIONS PLACED ON THEIR CONTINUED USE WTSIDE OF
FOOD PLANTS?
Yes. (1) Heat transfer systems were required to be tested
initially by Novembe~ 1, 1979, and annually thereafter. All
sampling must b• perforaed at least three months after the most
recent fluid refilling. When a test shows PCBs in concentrations
below 50 ppm, all testing may cease. (2) Six months after the
initial test of PCB concentration in the heat transfer system,
heat transfer systems were required to be drained of the PCBs and
refilled with fluid containing less than 50 ppm PCBs. (3) Heat
transfer systems containing greater than 50 ppm PCBs cannot be
used in the manufacture, or processing of any food, drug,
cosmetic, or device as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
-28-
,, .
60 • I TESTED NY 11EAT TRANSFER SYSTEII IN 1979, alAINED AND REFILLED rr, AND
CONTINUE ft> IVNITOR TIIB PCB CDNCENTRATION. HCM UJNG IX) I HAVE ffJ RETAIN
THE ll,\TA I GATHERED IN 1979?
Data obtained through monitoring must be retained for five
years after the heat t r ansfer system reaches a PCB concentration
of 50 ppm.
USE IN HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
6 1 • JIIJI ARE HYDRAULIC SYSTEIIS REGULATED?
EPA authorized the use of PCBs in hydraulic systems through
a provision of the May 1979 Rule until July 1, 1984
(§761.31(e)). These systems may be used until this date, provided
a corrective program of testing, draining, refilling, and/or
topping off--similar to that described in Question 59 for heat
transfer systems--is undertaken.
6 2 • IX) ALL HYDRAULIC SYSTEIIS CDN'rAIN PCBS?
Probably not. PCB hydraulic fluid was developed for use in
machines that were subject to high temperatures, such as aluminum
qie-casting machines and hydraulic machines in steel mills.
Because of their low flammability, PCBs provide an extra measure
of fire protection. The use of these high concentration fluids
was discontinued several years ago by most users, because of
serious water pollution problems. However, residues of the
original fluid remain in some hydraulic systems in sufficient
quantities to be of continuing environmental concern.
MICROSCOPIC MOUNTING MEDIUM
6 3 • CAN PCBS BE USED AS A KJUNTING IIEDIUII POR IIICROSCOPIC SLIDES?
Yes, until July 1, 1984. EPA is currently in the process of
deciding whether to propose an extension of this authorization.
If EPA decides to extend this authorization, a proposed amendment
will be issued in the fall of 1983.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
6 4 • CAN PCBS CDN'rINUE 70 BB USED IN SIIALL (PANTirIBS POR RESEARCH AND
DBVEWPIIEN'r?
Yes, until July 1, 1984. As with microscopy slides, EPA is
currently in the process of deciding whether to extend the
authorized time for use.
-29-
CARBONLESS COPY PAPER
65. IN 'rllB BARI3 1970'S CARBOBLBSS aJPY PAPER JiAS IIADB JIITH IRK aJIITAIBING
PCBS. "fl1IAT PROVISIONS OOBS ffIB PCB BAR RDLB IIAKB fflR ffIIS PAPER?
Although carbonless copy paper is no longer made with PCBs,
supplies of this paperstock still exist; most are in files. EPA
has authorized the use of existing PCB carbonless copy paper
indefinitely.
Under the disposal permitting program, EPA has permitted
certain disposal organizations to dispose of larger quantities of
PCBs. This is allowed under the permit issued by EPA for disposal
of PCBs.
-30-
THE AUGUST 25, 1982 ELECTRICAL-USE RULE*
INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
66. 'IIIIY DID EPA ISSUE THE AIJGUsr 25, 1982 ELBC'rIUCAL-USB RIJLB1
EPA issued the August 25, 1982 Electrical-Use Rule after
earlier regulations had been invalidated by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Without this
further rulemaking, the use of PCBs in electrical equipment would
have been completely banned under section 6(e) of TSCA. Since
PCBs are present in many different types of widely used electrical
equipment, the immediate ban of PCBs would have created great
economic and personal hardship. EPA, therefore, pursued rule-
making to modify the total ban.
6 7 • fiIA.'l' IXJBS THE AIJGUsr 25, 1982 ELECTRICAL-USE RULE IXJ?
Generally, the rule allows the continued use of eight
different types of electrical equipment. Specifically, the rule:
(1) authorizes the use of PCBs in capacitors,
(2) authorizes the use and servicing of PCBs in
transformers, electromagnets, circuit breakers, voltage
regulators, reclosers, cable, and switches, and
(3) allows the distribution in commerce (in a totally
enclosed manner) of transformers, capacitors, electromagnets,
circuit breakers, voltage regulators, reclosers, cable, and
switches that contain PCBs.
6 8 • ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS Oil THE USE OF 'l'HIS ELEC'l'RICAL BJ(pIPIIBtrr?
Yes. However, the kinds of use restrictions are dependent
on the type of equipment (e.g., transformer, capacitor, electro-
magnet), as well as the equipment's location. These two factors,
type and location, determine the conditions for use, which
include:
(1) time limitations on the use authorizations,
(2) inspection and maintenance requirements, and
(3) recordkeeping requirements.
69. fiIA'l' ARB 'l'HE •LOCATION• REsrRICTIONS fiHICH AFFECT 'l'HB USE OF ELECTRICAL
E(JUIPIIBN'l'?
The "location" res tri c ti ons have to do with whether or not
the electrical equipment's location "poses an exposure risk to
food or feed." Therefore, along this same line, EPA has divided
electrical equipment into two categories:
*Included in several of the answers are cross-reference
citations (e.g., Sec. 760.30(h)(l)(i) or 47 FR 37351) which
refers you to actual sections or pages of the August 25, 1982
Federal Register notice, included in the Appendix of this
publication.
-31-
(1) transformers, capacitors, and electromagnets that do
pose an exposure risk to food or feed;
(2) transformers, capacitors, and electromagnets that do
not pose an exposure risk to food or feed.
The use restrictions (e.g., authorization times, inspection/
maintenance requirements, and recordkeeping requirements) are,
thus, dealt with along these lines (e.g., recordkeepi ng require-
ments for PCB transformers that do pose an exposure risk to food
or feed, or maintenance requirements for PCB capacitors that do
not pose an exposure risk to food or feed, etc.).
DEFINITION OF "POSING AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED"
7 0 • IIITH RESPBC'r 'l\'.J PCB ELECTRICAL B(}UIPIIENT, fiHA'r IS llEANT BY •POSING AN
EXPOSURE RISK 'l\'.J FOOD OR FEED-?
By definition within the August 25, 1982 rule PCB items pose
an exposure risk to food or feed only when there exists a
potential pathway for PCBs discharged from the item to contaminate
food or feed products. (See Statement of General Policy, February
18, 1983 Federal Register; 48 FR 7172.)
Food and feed covered by this definition include items
regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and
Drug Administration as food or feed, including intentional food
additives. Food and feed is exc 1 uded from this defi ni ti on if it
is used or stored in private residences by the public. This
definition does cover food and feed that are held in all
facilities including grocery stores, restaurants, warehouses,
barns, bins, sheds, silos, and other structures, and in feedlots,
open fields, and animal grazing areas. This definition does not
include electrical equipment located near or above commercia,1 or
recreational fishing areas.
71. SHOULD A PERSON <DNSIDER CATASTROPHIC FAIUJRE, SJCH AS ROPTURES,
EXPUJSIONS, OR FIRE IIIIBN TRYING 'l\'.J MTERJIINB IIHETHER OR 1KYr PCB
ELECTRICAL 1!QUIPJIENT (A PCB TRANSFORJIER, POR EXAIIPLB) POSES AN EXPOSURE
RISK 'l\'.J FOOD OR FEED?
The exposure risk from a PCB item to food or feed products
is clearly dependent on the specific location of the applicable
PCB item in relation to food or feed products. If, after
considering the location of a specific PCB item and all other
available information, there is a reasonable possiblity of contact
between PCBs and food or feed, the PCB item will be considered to
pose an exposure risk to food or feed.
In evaluating the exposure risk from a particular PCB item,
it is useful to consider a hypothetical situation in which PCBs
are discharged in any way from the PCB item, such as through an
equipment leak or rupture. Assuming such a discharge occurred,
releasing all or a portion of the contained PCBs and considering
the PCB item's location and any relevant factors, the que~t~on to
be asked is whether contact between PCBs and food ~nd feed i~
reasonably possible. PCB items that are located directly adJacent
-32-
to, or above, food or feed products pose an exposure risk to food
or feed unless there is some type of secondary containment, or
other physical structures, that prevent discharges of PCBs from
contaminating food or feed.
For purposes of determining if electrical equipment poses
exposure risks to food or feed, it is not necessary to· consider
rare events. The standard to be applied is a reasonable
possibility of contamination of food or feed by PCBs.
7 2 • IS A PLANT 'rlIAT IIANUFACffJRBS PACKAGING INCWDBD UllDBR 'rllB DBFINffION OF
A FOOD OR FBBD FACILrrY?
No. A plant that manufactures packaging is not included
under the definition of a food or feed facility unless food or
feed products are actually packaged at the same facility. If the
food packaging manufacturer is not packaging, proc es sing, using or
storing food or feed on site, the electrical equipment would not
be considered an exposure risk.
7 3 • ARB AGRICUL'rURAL CHBIIICAL AND FERTILIZER PLANTS INCWDBD UNDBR 'rilB
DEFINITION OF A FOOD OR FEBD FACILrrY?
Agricultural chemical plants and fertilizer plants are not
included (see 47 FR 37351 ). The rule (1) does not recognize
agricultural chemicals and fertilizers as intentional food or feed
additives, or (2) require any other special provisions for PCB
items that pose an exposure risk to agricultural chemicals.
7 4 • ARB PBARIIACEUTICALS INCWDBD UllDBR 'rllB DEFINITION OF FOOD OR FBBD?
No, unless the manufactured pharmaceutical is used as an
intentional food additive.
-33-
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (TRANSFORMERS, CAPACITORS, ELECTRO-
MAGNETS)--THAT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED.
7 5 • HOii IS ELECTRICAL Bl(JIJIPIIENT THAT POSES AN EXPOSURE RISK ro KJOD OR FEED
REGULATED UNDER THE AIJGUST 25 RULE?
Type of
Equipment
PCB Transformers
w/Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed
(>500 ppm PCBs)
Large PCB Capacitors
w/Exposure Risk to
Food or Feed
(>500 ppm PCBs)
PCB-Filled
Elec tromag nets
(containing >500 ppm
PCBs) w/Exposure Risk
to Food or Feed
Time
Restrictions
use Prohibited
After Oc t ob er 1 , 1 9 8 5
(see 761 .30(a)(l)(i))
Use Prohibited
After October 1, 1988
(see 761 .30(1 )(1 )(i))
Use Prohibited
After October 1, 1985
(see 761.30(h)(l)(i))
Inspection and
Recordkeeping Requirements
Weekly Inspections
( see 7 6 1 • 3 O ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) )
Recordkeepi ng
No Inspec ti ans
weekly Inspections
(see 761.30(h)(1 )(ii))
Record keeping
7 6 • ARB THBRE ANY RECORDKEBPING RE(}UIRBIIENTS FOR ELECTRICAL Bl(JlJIPIIENT POSING
AN EXPOSURE RISK ff> KJOD OR FEED?
For PCB transformers, records of the inspection and
maintenance history are to be maintained for at least three years
after disposing of a transformer. The records to be maintained
are:
( 1 ) The location of the PCB trans former.
(2) The date of each visual inspection, and the date that a
leak was discovered if the date is different from the scheduled
inspection date.
(3) The person performing the inspection.
(4) The location of any leaks.
(5) An estimate of the amount of dielectric fluid released
from any leak.
(6) The date of any clean up, containment, or repair
performed.
(7) The results of any containment and daily inspection
required for uncorrected active leaks. (For more details see
761.30(a)(l)(iv)).
-34-
7 7 • no IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING, AND IIAINTENANCB
REQCJIREIIENTS OF A PCB TRANSFORJIER 'IIIIICH POSES AN EXPOSURE RISK ro FOOD OR
FEED?
The user of a PCB transformer that poses an exposure r i sk to
food or feed is responsible for the inspection, recordkeeping, and
maintenance requirements until the user notifies the owner that
the transformer may pose an exposure risk to food or feed.
Following such notification, it is the owner's ultimate
responsibility to determine whether the PCB transformer poses an
exposure risk to food or feed Lsee 761.30(a)(1)(vi)), and to keep
required records. -.
7 8 • IF A PCB TRANSFORJIER POSES AN EXPOSURE RISK ro FOOD OR FEED, WES IT
HAVE ro BE REIIOVED FROII SERVICE BY OCTOBER 1, 1985?
Not in all cases. If other measures remove the risk of
exposure to food or feed, the transformer may be used for the
remainder of its useful life. For example, transformers may be
relocated to a site that does not pose an exposure risk to food or
feed or may be provided with secondary containment (see 47 FR
37350). Once relocated or provided with secondary contai nment,
the transformer becomes subject to quarterly or an nual inspections
(see 761.30(a)(1)(v)).
One other measure that an individual could take to red uce
the exposure risks, is to retrofill a PCB transformer. Af t er a
period of three months if the PCB concentration remains under 500
ppm, the transformer can be reclassified as a PCB contaminated
transformer which would not have to be removed or relocated by
Oc t ob er 1 , 1 9 8 5 •
TRANSFORMERS--THAT DO NOT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED
7 9 • 1IOI/ ARE TRANSFORJIERS T1lA'1' IXJ NOT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK ro FOOD OR FEED
REGULATED UNDER THE AlJGUST 25, 1982 RULE?
The August 25, 1982 rule allows the use and servicing of
transformers that do not pose an exposure risk to food or feed for
the remainder of their useful lives (see 761.30(a )).
80. IS A PCB TRANSFORJIER NOT aJRRENTI3 IN USE, BIT IN USEABLE CONDITION AND
KEPT AS A SPARE, ALSO AUTHORIZED FOR THE REIIAINDER OF ITS USEFUL LIFE?
Yes, a PCB transformer which is not in use, but is intended
for re-use, is considered an in-service transformer for purposes
of the rule and is authorized for the remainder of its useful
service life.
-35-
81 • ARB 'l.'1lERB AllY INSPEC'rION AND/OR IIAINTENANCB PROCBIXJRES RB!}UIRBD POR
'rRAJISPORIIERS fflAT IX) NOr POSE AN 'EXPOSURE RISK ft> FOOD OF FEED?
The rule requires inspection and maintenance procedures in
accordance with the following chart:
Transformer Type
PCB Transformers
w/>60,000 ppm PCBs
PCB Transformers
w/500-60,000 ppm PCBs
PCB Transformers
w/Secondary Containment
PCB Contaminated
Transformers w/50-500
ppm PCBs
Inspection/Maintenance
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Frequency
Quarterly
(761.30(a))
Annually
(761.30(a) ( 1) (v) {B))
Annually
(761 .30(a)(1 )(v)(A))
N/A
8 2 • DO 7.'RANSPORIIERS HAVE ft> 1JB TESTED ft> JErBRJIINE THEIR PCB CONCENTRATION?
IF 'l«J'r, JIM CAN I JErBRJIINE A TRA.NSFORIIER'S CLASSIFICATION?
The PCB rule does not require that transformers be tested to
determine the PCB concentration of the fluid. However, in the
absence of a test, certain assumptions should be made about the
transformer. If the name plate indicates that the transformer
contains PCB dielectric fluid, or if there is any reason to
believe that the transformer contains PCB dielectric fluid, then
the transformer must be assumed to be a PCB transformer. I-A-..
transformer designed-to u se minera r -6T l -d ferect-r i c fl u1.d--; must be
assumed to be contaminated with between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs. This
transformer is classified as a PCB-contaminated transformer.
83. DO I HAVE ft> KEEP AllY RECORDS OF THE INSPECTIONS AND IIAINTENANCE
OPERATIONS I UNDERTAKE?
The August 25, 1982 Rule requires that an inspection and
maintenance history be maintained for each PCB transformer. If a
transformer is removed from service and disposed of, the records
for that transformer must be maintained for at least three years
after disposal. Any form of records is acceptable as long as a
paper copy of the required information is available upon request
by EPA. The records required to be kept are the same as those
listed under the answer to question 77 for PCB transformers posing
an exposure risk to food or feed.
8 3 a • All I REQUIRED ft> KEEP AllY OTHER RECORDS ON PCB Bl(}UIPIIEIIT fflAT
IS srcJRBD OR IN USE?
Yes, an owner or operator of a facility using or storing at one time
at least 45 kg. (99.4 pounds) of PCBs contained in PCB containers or
50 or more PCB large capacitors must maintain records on all PCBs
and PCB items. An annual document must be prepared for each
facility covering the records of the previous year ( 40 CFR 761 180) •
-36-
8 4 • DO RECORDS HAVB ro BB IDUND?
No, records can be in any form, including microfiche, as
long as the company can produce a paper copy upon request by EPA.
8 5 • ARE '171BRE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON '171B SERVICING OF TRANSFORJIBRS ffDO 1XJ IK1'r
POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK ro FOOD OR FEED?
Yes. Any servicing of a PCB-Transformer (a transformer
containing >500 ppm PCBs) that requires the removal of the
transformer coil from the transformer case is prohibited (see
761 .30(a) (2)(ii)). PCB-contaminated transformers (transformers
containing 50-500 ppm PCBs) may only be serviced with dielectric
fluid containing less than 500 ppm PCBs (see 761.30(a)(2)(i)).
8 6 • DOES '171B AUTHORIZATION OF srDRAGE OF CER'rAIN PCB TRANSFORJIBRS AND LARGE
CAPACITORS ON PALLETS WTSIDE OF A "S'l'ORAGE POR DISPOSAL FACILITY"
llEAN '.fflA.T I IXJN'T HAVB ro DISPOSE OF THESE ITEIIS tiITHIN A YEAR?
No. The August 25, 1982 Rule authorizes temporary storage
up to 30 days on pallets with inspection safeguards. Individual
PCB items must still be disposed of within a year.
8 7 • J/IlAT 1111ST I 1XJ "fiITH THE PCBS RBIIOVBD FROII A PCB TRANSFORIIER.?
PCBs removed during any servicing activity must be captured
and either reused as dielectric fluid or disposed of (see
761.30(a)(2)(iii)). PCBs from PCB Transformers (transformers
containing greater than 500 ppm PCBs) may not be mixed with or
added to dielectric fluid from PCB-contaminated electrical
equipment (see 761. 30 (a) ( 2) (iii)).
8 8 • CAN I ADD DIELECTRIC FWID aJNTAINING PCBS IN aJNCENTRATIONS BBYJI 50
PPII ro A PCB TRANSFORIIER.?
Yes.
8 9 • CAN I aJNVERT A PCB TRANSFORJIER. INTO A PCB aJIITAIUNATED TRANSFORIIER.?
B<Jf CAN I 1XJ THIS?
A PCB transformer can be reclassified by draining, refilling
or otherwise servicing the transformer. In order to reclassify,
the transformer's dielectric fluid must contain less than 500 ppm
PCBs after a minimum of three months in-service use. The in-
service use period must be right after the last servicing done to
reduce the PCB concentration in the transformer (see
761.30(a)(2)(v)).
9 0 • Ji1lAT IXJES IN-SERVICE llEAN?
In-service means that the transformer is used under loaded
conditions that raise the temperature of the dielectric fluid to
at least 50 degrees Centigrade (see 761.30(a)(2)(v)).
-37-
9 1 • CAN I SIIICJLA'rB 'rllB WADED CONDITIONS fl) RECLASSIFY A 'rRABSP'ORIIBR?
EPA's Assistant Administrator of the Office of Pesticides
and Toxic Substances may grant, without further rulemaking,
approval for the use of alternate methods that simulate the loaded
conditions of in-service use. A request for such approval must be
submitted to the Assistant Administrator, and must contain a
complete description of the alternate method (see
761.30(a) (2) (v)).
CAPACITORS THAT DO NOT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED
9 2 • 1KM ARB CAPACITORS TlIA'r IXJ NO'r POSE AN BXPOSURB RISK ro POOD OR P'BBD
REGULATED UNDER 'rllB AIJGUsr 25 RULE?
The rule allows the use of capacitors that do not pose an
exposure risk to food or feed according to the following restric-
tions:
Type of Capacitor
Large PCB Capacitors (~3 pounds
dielectric fluid) in Restricted Access
Indoor Installations and in Restricted
Access Outdoor Electric Substations
Large PCB Capacitors (~3 pounds
dielectric fluid) in Other Than
Restricted Access Areas
Small Capacitors (<3 pounds
Dielectric fluid)
Time Restrictions
For Remainder of
Useful Lives
(761.30(1)(1)(ii))
October 1, 1988
(761.30(1) (1 )(ii))
For Remainder of
Useful Lives
(761.30(1))
9 3 • CAN A POLB-IICXJN'rBD LARGE PCB CAPACITOR IJB WTFiffBD OR RBIDCA!'ED !D TlIA'r
IT IDES N()r HAVE ff> IJB PHASE~?
A pole mounted large PCB capacitor in the field may be
relocated to a contained and restricted access indoor installation
or to a restricted access electrical substation (see 47 FR 37358;
sec. 761.30(1)(1)(ii)). Although probably not practical, these
capacitors could be outfitted to meet the criteria of a contained
and restricted indoor installation.
94. IF A LARGE PCB CAPACITOR IS IN srDRAGB POR RB-USE, IXJES rr ·HAVE fl) BB
PHASED WT 1JY OCTOBER 1, 1988?
No, large PCB capacitors in storage for re-use do not have
to be phased out by 1988. If returned to service, it must,
however, be located in an outdoor, restricted access electrical
substation, or in a contained and restricted access indoor
installation.
-38-
9 5 • ARB 'ffIBRB ANY INSPBC'rIOlf OR IIAiffBNANCB RB(}UIRBlfBNTS POR PCB CAPACITORS
'rHAT IX) NOr POSE AN BXPOSUR.B RISK 'l'O FOOD OR FEED?
No.
ELECTROMAGNETS, SWITCHES AND VOLTAGE REGULATORS
THAT DO NOT POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED
9 6. 1l(M ARB BLBCTROIIAGNBTS, SIITCIIBS, AND V'OL'rAGB RBGULA'l'ORS ('rHA'r IX) lKYr
POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK ro FOOD OR FEED) RBGULA'rBD UNDER 'ffIB NJGUS'f 25, 1982
RULB?
PCBs at any concentration may be used in electromagnets, in
switches, and in voltage regulators (that do not pose an exposure
risk to food or feed), and may be used for purposes of servicing
this equipment for the remainder of their useful lives (see
761.30(h)). Electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators that
contain PCBs are grouped into three categories: ( 1) those
containing over 500 ppm PCBs, (2) those containing 50-500 ppm
PCBs, and (3) those containing below 50 ppm.
9 7 • fl1IA'r RBS'rRIC'rI0NS APPI3 ro 'rllB SERVICING OF BLEC'rROIIAGNBTICS, !MITCHBS,
AND V'OL'rAGB RBGULA'l'ORS?
( 1) Servicing any electromagnet, switch, or voltage
regulator with a PCB concentration above 500 ppm that requires the
removal and rework of the internal components is prohibited (see
761.30(h)(2)(i)). (2) PCBs removed as a result of servicing must
be captured and reused as dielectric fluid or disposed of properly
(see 761.30(h)(2)(iii)). (3) PCBs removed from electromagnets,
switches, and voltage regulators with a PCB concentration of at
least 500 ppm cannot be mixed with dielectric fluid from equipment
containing PCBs in concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm (see
761.30(h)(2)(iii). (4) Dielectric fluids containing less than 500
ppm PCBs cannot be mixed with dielectric fluid containing greater
than 500 ppm PCBs and then used as dielectric fluid (see
761.30(h) (2) (iv)).
9 8 • CAN I CONVBR'r A PCB BLBC'rROIIAGNBT, !MITCH, OR V'OL'rAGB RBGULA'l'OR
(CON'rAINING GRBA'rBR ffIAN 500 PPII PCBS) fl> A PCB~N'rAIIINA'rBD BLBC'rRO-
IIAGIIBT, SIITCB, OR V'OL'rAGB RBGULA'l'OR (CONTAINING 50-500 PPII PCBS)?
A PCB-electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator can be
reclassified as a PCB-contaminated electromagnet, switch ,or
voltage regulator by draining, refilling, and/or otherwise
servicing the equipment (see 761.30(h)(2)(v)). In order to be
reclassified, the equipment must contain less than 500 ppm PCBs
after a minimum of three months in-service use subsequent to the
last servicing conducted for purposes of reducing the PCB concen-
tration in the equipment. (See.questions 91 and 92 for informa-
tion on the requirement for in-service use.)
-39-
CIRCUIT BREAKERS, RECLOSERS AND CABLE ••• THAT DO NOT
POSE AN EXPOSURE RISK TO FOOD OR FEED.
99. IIIIA'r RB(pIBBIIBllTS APPLY ff> 'rBB USB AND SBRVICING OF CIRCUI'r Bl&ICDS,
RBCUJSBRS, AND CABLB?
PCBs at any concentration may be used in circuit breakers,
reclosers, and cable for the remainder of their useful lives.
Servicing of this equipment may only be conducted with dielectric
fluids containing PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm (see
761.30(m)). Further, for circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable
containing 50 ppm PCBs or greater, the servicing restrictions
listed in 761.30(h)(2) apply.
-40-
THE OCTOBER 21, 1982 CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE*
INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
100. fiHY DID EPA ISSUE THE OCTOBER 21, 1982 CWSED AND aJNTROLLBD WASTE RULE?
The Closed and Controlled Waste Rule was issued as part one
of a two-part rulemaking initiated in response to the Court's
decision to strike down the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff.
1 0 1 • fiHY WES THE CWSED AND aJNTROLLED WASTE RULE ADDRESS ONI:f THOSE 7.ffO
TYPES OF PROCESSES?
Following the remand of the 5 0 ppm regulatory cutoff, the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), EPA, and certain industry
intervenors held a series of discussions. During these
discussions, the industry representatives suggested that certain
manufacturing processes should be excluded from regulation because
they result in little risk to health and the environment. These
process situations were called "closed manufacturing processes"
and "controlled waste manufacturing processes." "Closed
processes" were described as processes that produce PCBs but do
not release PCBs. "Controlled waste processes" were described as
processes that produce PCBs but release PCBs only as wastes that
are properly disposed.
EPA agreed to pursue rulemaking to exclude PCBs created in
these processes from the section 6(e) requirement to obtain annual
exemptions from EPA. EPA decided to set up a two-part rulemaking,
with part one addressing closed and controlled waste manufacturing
processes, and part two addressing all remaining PCBs.
102. WHAT WES THE OCTOBER 21, 1982 CWSED AND aJNTROLLED flASTE RULE IXJ?
Briefly, the October 21, 1982 Closed and Controlled Waste
Rule is a voluntary rule that excludes PCBs produced in these
categories of manufacturing processes from the TSCA section 6(e)
ban on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and
use of PCBs. Persons who qualify for exclusion have the option of
taking advantage of it.
The rule defines what is meant by a closed manufacturing
process, and a controlled waste manufacturing process by setting
PCB concentration limits for PCB levels in air emissions, water
effluents, products, and wastes. The rule also defines what is
meant by disposal in a "controlled" manner. Finally, the rule
sets up recordkeeping and reporting requirements for persons who
desire exclusion and whose processes qualify for exclusion.
*Included in some of the answers are cross-referenced
citations (e.g., Sec. 761.3(mm) or 47 FR 46994) which refer you
to actual sections or pages of the October 21, 1982 Federal
Register notice, included in the Appendix of this publication.
-41-
1 0 3 • fl1IAT BAPPBBBD 1'0 THE 50 PPII REGULATORY a17.'0FF?
Although EDF successfully challenged the Agency's 50 ppm
regulatory cutoff in the May 1979 rule, the court stayed its
mandate with respect to the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff. This means
that persons manufacturing, processing, distributing in commerce,
and using PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm may continue until
the stay is lifted. EPA expects the stay to be lifted following
the completion of a rulemaking on uncontrolled PCBs below 50 ppm.
At that time, any person not specifically covered under the Closed
and Controlled Waste Rule, or the third rule (to be issued in the
summer of 1984), will be required to file annual petitions for
exemption to manufacture, process, or distribute PCBs. Further,
EPA must authorize the use of any PCBs not excluded by regulation.
1 0 4 • SINCE THE 50 PPII a17.'0FF REIIAINS IN EFFECT BECAUSE OF THE COURT'S srAY OF
IIANDATE, IXJES THE CWSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE IIENEFIT ANYONE NCM?
For now, the Closed and Controlled Waste Rule benefits those
manufacturers who produce PCBs in concentrations over 50 ppm in
their manufacturing process stream, but who do not release PCBs
(to other than controlled wastes) in concentrations above the PCB
levels established in the Closed and Controlled Waste Rule. Under
the May 1979 Rule, persons meeting this description would have
been required to file a petition for exemption, since the 50 ppm
cutoff applied to PCBs present at any point in the manufacturing
process. Depending upon the results of the third rulemaking, and,
specifically, the effect of the third rulemaking on the 50 ppm
regulatory cutoff, the Closed and Controlled Waste Rule may
eventually benefit more persons than this.
BYPRODUCT PCB FORMATION
1 0 5 • I IXJN'T KR<M IF HY IIANOFACTURING PROCESS IXJES OR IXJES NO'r PROIXJCE PCBS
AS A BYPROIXJCT • IS ffIERE ANY INFORIIATION ON THE ffPES OF PROCESSES THAT
PROIXJCE PCBS?
Yes. First, PCBs can be formed in situations where carbon,
chlorine, and high temperatures or catalysts are present together.
EPA has compiled several lists of processes that have the
potential to produce PCBs as byproducts. These lists are support
documents to the Closed and Controlled Waste Rule. Useful
references include document numbers 29 and 30 in 47 FR 46994 (full
titles are listed in 47 FR 46994). In addition, the Chemical
Manufacturers Association conducted a survey of the chemical
industry which may provide some information. This survey is part
of the rulemaking record for the closed and controlled waste
rule. In addition, EPA continues to research this area in
preparation for the next rulemaking (to be completed in the summer
of 1984.)
-42-
QUALIFYING FOR AN EXCLUSION AS A CLOSED
OR CONTROLLED WASTE
1 0 6 • NHAT JXJ I HAVE 7U JXJ 7U (PALIFY FOR THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE ROLE
EXCWSION?
The Closed and Controlled waste Rule requires persons who
desir e to qualify for exclusion to:
( 1) review their processes (analyze or estimate) (see
761.185(a)(1 )),
(2) record the basis for a determination that a process
qua lifies for exclusion and maintain these records (see 761.185(a )(2 )
and 7 6 1 • 1 8 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) ,
(3) certify that the process qualifies for exclusion, see
761.1 85(b), 761.185(c), 761.185(d), and 761.185(e)), and
(4) notify EPA of processes that qualify and of the basis
for t he determination (see 761.185(f)).
1 07. I IIANUFACTURE PCBS IN CONCENTRATIONS BEUM 50 PPII, AND RELEASE PCBS IN
IIY PRODUCT IN CONCENTRATIONS ABOVE THE LEVEL SET IN THE OCTOBER 21, 1982
CLOSED AND CONTROLLED 'fiASTE ROLE, BIT BEUM 50 PPII. All I 1KM REQUIRED 7U
REDUCE PCB LEVELS IN IIY PRODUCTS 7U BEUM THE CONCENTRATION LIIIITS SET IN
THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE ROLE?
No. The Closed and Controlled Rule is a voluntary exclusion.
Perso n s who operate processes that qualify for exclusion have the
option of taking advantage of the exclusion or of not taking ad va n t ag e
of i t (see 47 FR 46981)). Persons who operate processes that prod uce
PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm and release PCBs in products,
emissi ons or effluents in concentrations above the limits set in the
Clos e d and Controlled Waste Rule (but below 50 ppm) have the opti on of
red ucing PCB levels in releases from the processes. Or they can d e l ay
thei r decision on whether to qualify for the closed and controlled
wa s te exclusion until the completion of the third rulemaking.
WHAT "CONTROLLED" DISPOSAL IS
1 0 8 • IXJES THE CLOSED AND CONTROLLED RULE 1IEAN THAT THE HARKING AND DISPOSAL OF
ALL PCBS IN CONCENTRATIONS OVER 2 PPII IS REQUIRED UNDER TSCA?
No. The 50 ppm cutoff contained in the regulations covering t he
Mar king and Disposal of PCBs is still in effect. Under TSCA, PCBs i n
concentrations below 50 ppm (excluding dilutions of higher level PCB s)
are not required to be disposed of in any special manner. The Closed
and Co ntrolled Waste Rule for PCBs allows persons to manufacture,
process, distribute in commerce and use products which are generated
in c ontrolled or controlled processes (761.l(f)).
Solid wastes with PCB concentrations of less than 50 ppm may
sti ll be subject to RCRA regulation for disposal or recycling
pu rposes.
-43-
1 0 9 • KHAT IS CONTROLLED DISPOSAL?
For PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm, controlled disposal
is one of the following:
(1) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB incinerator.
(2) Disposal in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)-approved incinerator.
(3) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB high efficiency boiler.
(4) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB landfill.
For PCBs in concentrations between 50 ppm and 500 ppm,
controlled disposal is one of the following:
i s :
(1) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB incinerator.
(2) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB high efficiency boiler.
(3) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB landfill.
For PCBs in concentrations over 500 ppm, controlled disposal
(1) Disposal in an EPA-approved PCB incinerator.
RECORDKEEPING/REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1 1 0 • All I REQUIRED B'f THE RULE ro CIIBIIICALLY ANAIXZE IIY AIR EIIISSIONS, ffATER
EFFWENTS, AND PRODUCTS FOR PCBS?
No. The closed and controlled rule provides for theoretical
assessments in lieu of actual chemical analysis of emissions and
effluents (see 761 .185(a)(1 )).
11 1 • ffllAT IS A THEORETICAL ASSESSIIENT?
The objective of conducting a theoretical assessment is to
use reason, logic, and chemical/mathematical calculations to make
correct determinations about whether chemical manufacturing
processes qualify for exclusion under the closed and controlled
waste rule. Specifically, the objective is to determine whether
PCB levels in releases from a process exceed the limits set by EPA
in the Closed and Controlled Waste Rule, without actually
monitoring these levels through chemical analysis (see 47 FR
46991).
11 2. KHAT HAPPENS IF I CONDUC'r A THEORETICAL ASSESSIIENT AND IT 'ltlRNS WT ro
BE ffRONG ffHEN EPA IVNITORS COIIPLIANCE ffITH THE RULE?
First, EPA will hot be utilizing theoretical assessments in
enforcing this rule ( see 4 7 FR 46981 and 46982). Second, if' EPA
finds a theoretical assessment to be wrong, and the process does
not qualify for exclusion, then that process will be considered to
be out of compliance, regardless of the results of the theoretical
-44-
assessment. The need to undertake actual chemical analysis and
monitoring of PCB levels can be determined only by each manu-
facturer and will depend upon the expected level of release, its
relationship to the limits set by the Closed and Controlled Waste
Rule, and the level of confidence placed in the accuracy of the
estimate. The ultimate burden of making a correct decision to
rely on theoretical assessments rests on each manufacturer.
1 1 3 • IF I IVNITOR PCB LEVELS IN EIIISSIONS, IIFFIDENTS, AND PROIXJC'rS FROII llY
PROCESS, All I RBQUIRED TO USE ANY PARTICULAR ANAYTICAL IIETHOD?
No. However, EPA will be using capillary gas chromatography
coupled to electron impact mass spectrometry (CGC/EIMS) to enforce
the provisions of this rule. EPA recommends this method for
analyzing process streams for byproduct PCBs.
1 1 4 • IF I IVNITOR PCB LEVELS IN RELEASES FROII llY PROCESS, All I REQUIRED ro
SBLBCT A CERTAIN NUIIBBR OF SAJIPLBS AT SPECIFIC liJCATIONS?
No. However, EPA will be using a sequential sampling scheme
to enforce the provisions of this rule. This approach should
result in a considerable savings over standard statistical
sampling methods without adding to the risks of making incorrect
decisions. EPA recommends a sequential sampling scheme involving
the selection of a maximum of seven samples (see 47 FR 46992).
1 1 5 • 1'0 fiHOII IX) I SEND THB NO'rIFICATION IE.r.rER?
If the letter notifying EPA that a certain process qualifies
for exclusion contains Confidential Business Information (CBI),
then the sender should follow all CBI procedures in transmitting
the package, and send it to:
Lois Riley
Document Control Office
E-409
u.s.E.P.A
401 "M" Street, s.w.
Was hi ng ton , D • C • 2 0 4 6 0
The internal envelope should direct the package to the OPTS
Exposure Evaluation Division, TS-794, E-345.
If the notification letter does not contain CBI, then it
should be sent directly to:
Exposure Evaluation Division (TS-794)
Chemical Regulation Branch
u.s.E.P.A.
401 "M" Street, s.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
The Chemical Regulation Branch within EPA's Office of Toxic
Substances will retain a copy of the letter and transmit the
letter to the appropriate regional office.
-45-
1 1 6 • THE CWSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE REQUIRES PERSONS OPERATING CWSED
AND CONTROLLED WASTE PROCESSES ro IIOTIFY EPA OF, AIIONG OTHER THINGS, THE
NUIIBER, ff'PE, AND llJCATION OF THE CWSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE PROCESSES.
HON IIUCH INFORIIATION IS NEEDED BY EPA ON THE ff'PE OF IIANUFACffJRING
PROCESS?
Since the objective of the reporting requirement is to
provide EPA with information for compliance monitoring purposes,
enough information on the type of process(es) should be provided
to allow EPA to locate the specific process(es) that qualifies for
exclusion. Gene~ic descriptions, such as "a chlorination
reaction" may not suffice if, for example, more than one
chlorination reaction is operating at a single location.
1 1 7 • THE CWSED AND CONTROLLED WASTE RULE REQUIRES EITHER THEORETICAL
ASSESSIIENTS OR ACTUAL CHEIIICAL ANAllfSIS OF PROWCTS, 'EIIISSIONS, AND
EFFWENTS ID SUPPORT EXCWSIONS. IF I HAVE «JTH ff'PES OF IlATA, 'ffHICH 1XJ
I RETAIN?
Analytical data must always be retained (see 47 FR 46991 ).
If the theoretical assessment contains additional supporting
information, essential to the determination that the process
qualifies for exclusio_n, then this should also be retained.
11 8. 00 I HAVE ID IDENTIFY THE DISPOSAL FACILITY IN 'ffHICH llY WASTES ARE
DESTROYED?
Section 761.185(f) requires that operators of controlled
waste processes notify EPA of the type, name, and location of the
waste disposal facility.
1 1 9 • N1IEN SHOULD I NO'rIFY EPA THAT 1IY PROCESS QUALIFIES FOR EXCWSION?
The exclusion is voluntary, and therefore, there is no set
date by which all notification letters are to be submitted to EPA.
However, a manufacturer is not fully in compliance with the closed
and controlled waste exclusion until these letters are received by
EPA.
JANUARY 3, 1983 AMENDMENT TO THE USE AUTHORIZATION
FOR RAILROAD TRANSFORMERS*
INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
1 2 0 • ARE RAILROAD TRANSFORIIERS REGULATED UNDER TSCA?
Certain railroad transformers contain PCBs, thus, they are
regulated under TSCA. However, section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA
provides EPA with the authority to create certain limited
exceptions to the ban on the use of PCBs. Specifically, EPA can
*Included in several of the answers are cross-reference
citations (e.g., sec. 761.30(b)(2)(ii) which refer you to actual
sections of the January 3, 1983 Federal Register notice, included
in the Appendix of this publication.
-46-
authorize the use of PCBs in certain circumstances provided their
use does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment. EPA first authorized the use and servicing of
railroad transformers that contain PCBs in the May 1979 PCB Rule.
1 2 1 • IlOfl ARE RAILROAD TRANSFORJIERS REGULATED?
Since the May 1979 Rule, EPA has amended the authorization
covering the use and servicing of rai 1 road transformers con tai ni ng
PCBs. The amendment to the May 1979 use authorization was issued
Janurary 3, 1983. Generally, it:
(1) Requires railroad organizations to meet a 60,000 ppm
concentration level in their transformers by July 1, 1984.
(2) Requires railroad organizations to meet a 1,000 ppm
concentration level in their transformers by July 1, 1986.
(3) Authorizes the use of PCBs for the remaining useful life
of the railroad transformers at concentrations below 1,000 ppm.
(4) Permits railroad organizations to service railroad
transformers to reduce PCB concentrations.
1 2 2 • IIIIAT DIELECTRIC FWIDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR RBTROFILLING OF RAILROAD
TRANSFORJIERS?
The railroad companies involved have identified substitutes
for PCB dielectric fluid.
INTERIM PERFORMANCE DEADLINES
1 2 3 • ARE THERE ANY IBTERIII PERFORJIANCE DATES THAT IDST 1lB IIET?
Yes. In the January 3, 1983, amendment to the May 1979 use
authorization, two sets of three interim performance deadlines are
established to meet the 60,000 ppm and 1,000 ppm PCB concentration
levels.
The three performance deadlines that the railroad organi-
zations must achieve to meet the 60,000 ppm level are:
(1) After July 1, 1983, the number of railroad transformers
containing PCB concentration greater than 60,000 ppm in use by any
railroad organization cannot exceed two-thirds of the total rail-
road transformers con tai ni ng PCBs in use by that org ani za ti on on
January 1, 1982 (761.30(b)(l)(i)).
(2) After January 1, 1984, the number of railroad trans-
formers containing a PCB concentration greater than 60,000 ppm in
use by any affected railroad organization may not exceed one-third
of the total railroad transformers containing PCBs in use by that
organization on January 1, 1982 (761.30(b){l){ii)).
(3) After July 1, 1984,
that contain dielectric fluid
than 60,000 ppm is prohibited
the use of railroad transformers
with a PCB concentration greater
(761.30(b)(1 ){iii)).
-47-
The three performance deadlines that the railroad
organizations must achieve to meet the 1,000 ppm level are:
(1) After July 1, 1985, the number of railroad transformers
containing a PCB concentration greater than 1,000 ppm 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 July 1, 1984 (761.30(b)(1)(iv)).
( 2 ) A f t e r Jan u a r y 1 , 1 9 8 6 , the numb e r of r a i 1 road tr a n s -
formers containing a PCB concentration greater than 1,000 ppm in
use by any affected railroad organization may not exceed one-third
of the total railroad transformers containing PCBs in use by that
organization on July 1, 1984 (761.30(b)(1)(v)).
(3) After July 1, 1986, the use of railroad transformers
that contain dielectric fluids with a PCB concentration greater
than 1,000 ppm is prohibited (761.30(b)(1)(vi)).
1 2 4 • OTHER THAN THE PERFORJIANCE DEADLINES, ARE THERE ANY <YrHER CONDITIONS ON
THE RAILROAD 'l!RANSP'ORJIER USE AIJTHORIZATION?
Yes. PCB concentrations must be measured: (1) immediately
after servicing for purposes of reducing PCB concentration levels,
and (2) between 12 and 24 months after each servicing to reduce
PCB concentrations (761 .30(b) ( 1) (vii)).
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
1 2 5 • DO I HAVE ro KEEP RECORDS OF THE PCB <XJNCENTRATIONS I lfEASURE?
Yes. These data must be retained until January 1, 1991
( 7 6 1 • 3 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) ( C ) ) •
THE "bNCONTROLLED" PCB RULEMAKING
INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION
1 2 6 • 'IIIIAT DOES THE •uNCONTROLLJW• PCB RIJLEIIAKING <XJVER?
The "Uncontrolled" PCB Rulemaking covers PCBs as impurities
in other than closed or controlled waste manufacturing processes.
1 2 7 • flHY IS EPA DOING ANOTHER RIJLEIIAKING?
As a result .of the EDF challenge to the May 1979 PCB Ban
Rule, the 50 ppm regulatory cutoff for the manufacture, pro-
cessing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs was struck
down. Without addition rulemaking, all PCBs manufactured in other
than closed and controlled waste manufacturing processes would be
banned in accordance with the prohibi .tions of section 6(e) of
TSCA. Since PCBs are inadvertently created in many chemical
manufacturing processes that do not qualify as closed or
controlled waste processes, a total ban would have a significant
economic impact. EPA is cond uc ting rulemaki ng to reduce the
impact of TSCA section 6(e) ban on the manufacture of PCBs as
b yprod uc ts or i mpuri ti es.
-48-
1 2 8 • fl'ILL TllB RULBIIAKING UNDER JiAY FOR PC&S UNDER 50 PPII ALSO AFFECT
ELEC'rRICAL EQUIPIIENT?
No. The August 25, 1982 Electrical Use Rule regulates the
use of PCBs in Electrical Equipment.
RULEMAKING SCHEDULE
1 2 9 • fiIIEN IS THE "UNCONTROLLED" PCB RIJLEJIAKING ro BB COIIPLETED?
EPA intends to issue a Proposed Rule by December of 1983,
and a Final Rule by July of 1984.
1 3 0 • IS 'rHBRE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORIIATION AVAILABLE al THIS RULEIIAKING?
Yes. EPA submitted a report to the court outlining i ts plans
for further rulemaki ng on "uncontrolled" PCBs on November 1, 1982.
This report is contained in the Appendix to this booklet. Quarterly
reports to the Court are required starting on March 31, 1983.
Recently (April 1983), EPA received a joint proposal from EDF/NRDC
and CMA for the uncontrolled PCB rulemaking. This proposal is being
reviewed by EPA; and, EPA is c onsi d eri ng using c onsi d erab le portions
of it as the framework for this rulemaking. Copies of the proposal
are available from the EPA TSCA Assistance Office.
-49-
Appendix A
RECODIFICATION CHART FOR MAY 31, 1979 PCB BAN RULE
NEW DSSIGNATIONS FOR PART 761
(Since the publication of the May 1979 PCB Ban Rule, the 40 CFR
Part 761 has been recodified. This chart compares the new
designations with the former designations. All citations
referenced in this text are the recodified sections.)
New Section
(referenced in
Q&A's)
761.1
761. 3
Subpart A--General Provisions
Applicability.
Definitions.
Old Section
(appears 1n the
May 31, 1979
Federal Register)
761. l
761. 2
Subpart B--Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce, and Use of PCBs and PCB Items
761. 20
761.30
761. 40
761. 45
761. 60
761.65
761. 70
761. 75
761. 79
Prohibitions.
Authorizations.
Subpart c--Making of PCBs and PCB Items
Marking requirements.
Marking formats.
Subpart D--Storage and Disposal
Disposal requirements.
Storage for disposal.
Incineration.
Chemical waste landfills.
Decontamination.
761. 30
761.31
761. 20
761. 44
761.10
761. 42
761. 40
761. 41
761.43
761. 82
761.90
761..95
761.180
761.185
Appendix A
Subpart E--Tests and Methods of Analysis
References for analytical methods
for detecting PCBs in air and water.
References for analytical methods for
detecting PCBs in closed process
waste streams.
References for analytical methods for
detecting PCBs in closed process
waste streams.
Subpart F--I [Rese rved]
Subpart J--Records and Reports
Records and monitoring.
Self-certification program and
retention of special records by
persons incidentially generating
PCBs in closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes.
761.46
761.47
761.48
761. 45
761.45(g)
'5j
==--= -----a a ,a --------------·---
---=, = =----= ::.. = == -----~
--
-= ----
-----------------------
Thursday
May 31, 1979
Part VI
APPr:mrx B
Environmental
Protection Agency
Pofychlorlnated Blphenyls;
Criteria Modification; Hearings
Fed~ Register / VoL 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31515
major comments that were made on the
proposed rule during·the comment
period. In many cases these comments
led to changes to the proposed PCB Ban
Rule. There are also two veraiona of the
economic impact analysis that have
been prepared by Veraar, Inc. The-first
Versar Report was made available at
the time of the proposed PCB Ban Rule.
The second. or final Versar Report. has
been incorporated into the final Support
Document. Copies of the final Support
Document can be obtained from the
Industry Assistance Office identified
above.
Tabht 1--Coatenta of Pream.bla
I. Summary of the Rule's Orsaoization n_ Changes in Major Definitiom
A. "PCB" and "PCB Items"
B. Regulation of PCBe at the 50 ppm
Concentration Level
C. Classification of Tramformen Under
Thi• Rule
1. PCB Tramformers
Z. PCB-Contaminated Tramformen
3. Non-PCB Transformers
4. Discussion of Tramformer Categorin
a. Determining Appropriate Cates,oriea
b. Significance of Tranaforma Catepies
D. Totally Eocloeect Mannar aad Sipdk•ot
Expc,91119
E. Sale for PurpoNS Otbar Thu a-.
F. Oth81' De&itiana.
Ill. Changes In Subpart B: Di.-& oI PC8I
and PCB Itema
A. Mineral 011 Dlelectnc flaid wttll &Oto
500ppmPCB
1. High Efficiency Boilen
z. Conditiom for Boilers
3. OthC!r Diapoaa.l Altemativ•
B. Othl!I' Uquid Waatea with 50 to 500 ppm
.PCB
C. Diaposal of 50 to 500 ppm PCB Uquida in
Chemical Waste Landfiila ·
D. Disposal of Non-Liquid PCBI in
Chemical W &1te Landfilll
E. Batch Testing of Mineral Oil Die~.a
Fluid
F. Other Clnmsu in the Diapoaal
Requirementa
IV. Changes in Subpart C: Maricing of PCBa
and-PCB Itema
V. Changee in Subpart E: Annexe,
A. Annex I: loc:ineration
B. Annex II: Chemical Wuteo Landfill•
C. Annex Ill; Storage
1. Container Specificatiom z. Bulle Storap-
3. Spill Prevention Procedurea
4. Flood Protection
5. Tempora,y Storage
a. Revuion■
b. Action on Petition■ to Amend Rule 011
TempoMl)' 5tc>rqe Requiremellta
D. Annex JV:-Uecontamination
E. Annex VI: Recorda and Monitoring
VI. Subpart D: Manufacturing. Proc:euin&
Di1tribution In Commerce, and U■-Bua
A. Prohibitions
1. W&1te Oil Bua
B. Chanae■ in t 781.30: Probibitiona
1. Change in Scope of ManufactuJin8 Ban
a. "ManufacturiJ18" ver■ua "Proce-■inl" of
PCB Item■
b. Manufacture and Import of PCB Item■
2. hn~rt and Export of PCB1 and PCB Item■
for Di•po•al
C. Other laaue•
1. PCB hnpuritiee and Byproducta
Z. Dl1posal of Small PCB Capacitor■
3. State Preemptions
VIL Re!atiomhip oft 6(e)(2) to § 6(e)(3) in
TSCA vm. Authorizations and Exemptiom
A. Explanation of Authorizatiom and
Exemp!ions
1. Manufacturing Exemption■
Z. Proce11in8 and Di•tribution in Commerce
Exemptiom
B. General Change■ in t 781.31:
Authorizadom
1. Reporting and Recordkeepinl
Requirementa
Z. l.ell8th of Use Authorizations
3. Change, in t 781.48: Annex VU
IX. Specific Authorization■
A. Servic:iq Tramformer■ (Qt.bar Than
Railroad Tramformer■)
1. General Di1c:uuion of Transfurrn11r
Servic:iq
Z. PCB Tramformer■
3. PCB-Contaminated Tremformera
4-Rebuildloa PCB Tr"mlaformare
5. ConteDt■ of Authorization
B. u. and ServiciD8 of Railroad
Tramform ..
C. Uae and Semcina oi MiniDg P.quipmaat
D. UN in Heat Traaafar Sy1tam■
E. UH in Hydraulic: Sy1tema
P. UM in Carbonl-■ Copy Pap•
C. Plgmenta
KU■-andSemcinrofmec:tromagnet■
L Uae in Natunl Gu Pipeline Comprweon
J. Use of Small Quantftiel for ReNU'dt and
Development
IC. u .. in Mic:r01COpy
X. PCB Activitie• Not Authorized by thia Rule
A. Manufacture of PCB Capacitors
B. Manufacture of PCB Tramformer■
C. Other PCB Activitie•
XL Manufacturing. Proce11inll, and
Dl•tribution in Commerce of PCBa for
Export
Xll. Test Procedure■ for PCB xm. Compliance and Enforcement
XIV. Relatiomhip of PCB Disposal Under
TSCA to Hazardoua W&1te Dlspo•al Under
RCRA
XV. Summary of Economic Conaequence■
I. Summary of the Rule's 01"1anlzation
Subpart A (§I 761.1 and 761 • .Z) of this
rule contains general provisions
applicable to all other Subparts. Section
7~1.1 states the applicability of the
provisions of the rule. Section 761.2
contains definitions of terms used in the
rule. Subparts B ( § 761.10) and C
(§ 761..20) contain disposal and marking
requirements. Subpart D (U 761.30 and
761.31) concerns the manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs. Section 761.30 contains
prohibitions on activities while I 761.31
sets out authorizations under TSCA
section 6(e)(.Z)(B). Subpart E contains
Annexe■ to the rule concerning
incineration of PCBa, chemical waste
landfilla, storage for disposal.
decontamination. marking. and recorda
and monitoring.
The preamble to this rule primarily
deacribea chaoses from the propoaa1.
Except to the extent that it ia
lnconaiatant with this final rule
preambli!! the preamble to the proposed
rule (43 PR 24802. June 7, 1~8) is
incorporated by reference into this
document and should be consulted for
additional information (see 43 FR 24802-
2481.Z. June 7, 1978). The contents of this
preamble are awnmarized in Table 1.
The amount of PCBa used in different
PCB activities and the impact this rule
will have on these PCBa ia summarized
in Table .Z. .
P'C8 r,........ __ as.ooo.ooa moao.ooo o.
~ • ,,.. __ .. ·--·---·-...... ···---.00.000.. --.00 ....... -.......... Q.
"--,,... ..... ·-•·--··· ..... ·····• 5.000.000 5.000.0GD ........... _ • $.000.000'
............................. _._ .. _ ..... -... --•····· .. -.......... -. M.OCID... . ....... lo'OCI:) ............. )il.OQO.• ..,.._ S,-.·-····-··-·---•·-.. -···••··•-·· ····-··-7!5Q,,,,JJOD . _ 750,.J.500 .............. 750.JIOD.•
"'-,,...., ............. _ -··--··-......... -.-···. . ....... ··-tO.CIQO,o.1&0GD. -.a.oao.,eo.aoo. ·-·· ~, .... . C....C:00,_ .. ______ ............. _ .... _. t'I l'I 0.
,..... ...... _ ._ ..... _ ........ -... .................... . ••......•.. S.7m/"flf ...... S,700IY' ........ S."'°"'. • .............. _._ 2D.~·--·· 20.~ ........ -0.
~·········-····--······--................................ ,,... ..................... Al... Al.' _______ ........ ·-···-·····•·-··•··•··· ..,._., ......... -··---M l't
MIii-, ..... -............. -.................... . ....... v ................. M ..................... 1•1 ,ca-.,-_______ --.ooo.aae ........ _. ZU.!i00.000 .•......•.
....... ~ .. -····--··········· .. ····· ............. --.......... 100.~.0001¥t 100.aoo-.500.000/'f" ,00.000-,00:,,000,., ' Ololllc..et. ....... 0Ddllll ... -01 .....• ---·-l2.00D/wf ....... --·--JZ_OQII.,. .................. :J.2.ca:)l'I" -150.IIO.OOO . -513.300.0001.. ..... -5.4.J0.000.
'0...• ..... ,... '"--to • ......_. "'Olti9-............ •u. ....... -.-.................... •0rawat-,..,.,.....~.sa-. ''"_,.. . . ..,,,.....,ca ___ __,,.. ........ ........._ ua• ....... ~ ,,,_ ...... .....,.,_,,_ ____ NCIOMll'IION ... ■llt,rcal'I.,.,. .......... MIOI .. ~ -·om ... _...,,.... •0111-.............................. ....
IL Cbanps in Major Deflnitiou
A. "PCBs" and "PCB Items"
This final rule changes the definition
of "PCB" from that contained in the
proposal in two significant respects. In
the proposed rule, § 761;2(qj defined
"PCB" and "PCB■" to include PCB
Chemical Subatancea,·PCB Mixtures,
PCB Artic:J.. PCB Equipment. PCB
Containere, and PCB Sealants, Coatings,
and Dust Control Agents. Section
761.2(s) of the final rule defines "PCB''
and "PCBa" to mean any chemical
substance or combination of substances
that is limited to the biphenyl molecule
that has been chlorinated to varying
degrees. This definition is essentially
what the proposal defined aa "PCB
Chemical Substance". Thii term and the
term "PCB Mixture" have been deleted
31518 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
from the rule. Because aom.r proviaiona
in the rule apply to concentration, of
PCBa below 50 ppm ( e.g., the ban on the
use of PCBa as sealants, coatings, and
dust control agents), the applicability
section (I 761.l(bl) explains that
wherever the term "PCB" or "PCBa" is
used in this rule, it meam PCBa at•
concentration of 50 ppm or greater
unless otherwise specified.
The second principal change is the
addition of a nENt term. "PCB Item",·
defined as "any PCB as it is a part'of, or
contained in. any 'PCB Article', 'PCB
Ar_ticle Container', 'PCB Containers' or
'PCB Equipment', at a concentration of
50 ppm or greater" (see I 761.2(xl). Thia
change significantly affects the scope of
the manufacturing ban. (See preamble
section VI.B.1. below.)
B. Regrilation of PCBs at the SO ppm
Concentration Level
To implement this rule in a practical
manner, it is essential that EPA adopt a
regulatory cut-off point baaed upon the
concentration of PCBa. PCBs are widely
dispersed in the environment and are
found worldwide at low concentration.
Thia wide dispersion has occurred
because hundreds of millions of pounds
of PCBa have been used in the past with
little or no attempt to control their use or
disposal. Because PCBs are now so
pervasive. the effect of not having a cut-
off concentration would be to extend the
prohibitions and other requirements of
section 6( e) of TSCA to almost all
human activity. Many foods. such as
fish and milk. as well as the human
body often contain detectable
concentrations of PCBa.
The final rule applies to any
substance, mixture, or item with 50 ppm
or greater PCB. Thia 50 ppm cut-off was
proposed as a change from the Disposal
and Marking Rule (43 FR 7150, February
17, 1978), which specified a 500 ppm cut-
off. (See definition af "PCB Mixture'' in
that rule (I 761.2(w). 43 FR 7157).)
Where to set the cut-off point for the
PCB rule has been an issue throughout
the development of both the Disposal
and Marking Rule and the Ban Rule. The
preamble to the proposed Disposal and
Marking Rule (see 42 FR 26564, May 24.
1977) first discussed the issue under the
heading "PCB Mixtures, Waste
Materials, and Sludges". The preamble
to the final Disposal and Marking Rule
discussed the issue further under the
heading "Changes in§ 761.2 Definitions"
(see 43 FR 7151, February 17, 1978). This
discussion stated that EPA was
seriously conaidering lowering the PCB
concentration in the definition of "PCB
Mixture" from 500 ppm to possibly 50
ppm. The preamble to the proposed Ban
Rule emphasized that EPA must select a
cut-off point that it can reasonably
administer in order to attain the
objectives of §6(e)ofTSCA (see 43 FR
24804, June 7, 1978).
Before selecting 50 ppm PCB as the
cut-off point, EPA considered several
other options. including retaining the 500
ppm PCB cut-off originally specified in
the Disposal and Marking Rule, and
lowering the cut-off concentration to 10
ppm or even 1 ppm. The 500 ppm PCB
option was favored by affected
industries because it would reduce the
coats of complying with the rule. but no
evidence was presented that indicated
that industry is technologically or
economically unable to comply with the
more stringent standard. In fact. in this
final rule. EPA is easing the economic
burden of complying with the more
stringent standard by allowing
alternative disposal methods for certain
wastes containing between 50 ppm and
500ppmPCB.
Lowering the PCB cut-off point from
500 ppm to 50 ppm will result in
substantially increased health and
environmental protection. Using data
developed by Versar. Inc. of Springfield.
Virginia, EPA eatimatea that
approximately one million additional
pounds of existing PCBs will be
controlled by lowering the cut-off to 50
ppm. In additi_on. from 100,000 to 500,000
pounds per year (estimated from
manufacturing exemption petitions) of
new PCBa will be controlled. Because
Congreaa intended that EPA addrea■ the
problem of contamination of the
environment by PCBs to the greatest
extent poaaible, EPA believes that
regulating this substantial additional
amount of PCBs is justified.
Lowering the cut-off concentration to
10 ppm PCB would provide an
additional degree of environmental
protection but would have a groaaly
disproportionate effect on the economic
impact and would have a serious
technological impact on the organic
chemicals industry. Although firm data
are not available, investigations have
indicated that a number of chlorinated
organic chemicals are produced with
PCB concentrationa of 10 ppm to 30 ppm
and that it may be very difficult -
technically to alter the production
proceaaes to produce lower levels of
PCBa or eliminate them. In addition. a 10
ppm concentration cut-off would also
11ubatantially increase the scope of the
disposal requirements, especially for
soils. debris. and solvents contaminated
with low concentrations of PCBs. Those
wastes would be added to the total
quantity of waste at these PCB disposal
sites. Since PCB disposal site capacity is
limited. these additional wastes would
add to the volume of wastes stored at
PCB storage facilities. Wegal disposal of
PCB wastes and inadvertant releases of
PCBa into the environment are more
likely to occur when disposal capacity is
not readily available.
EPA recognizes that increased
environmental benefits could result if
additional PCBs were destroyed or
controlled by regulating PCBa at very
low concentration,. These potential
benefits would be negated, however, if
high-concentration PCB wastes are not
properly disposed of because the limited
disposal capacity for PCB wastes and
EPA'a surveillance and enforcement
efforts are diverted to low concentration
wastes. In addition. other authorities
administered by EPA. such as the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and the Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act. can be used to regulate low
concentrations of PCBs. EPA has the
ability to control environmental releases
of certain low concentration PCBa
through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (section 402 of
CWA). through dredging permits(§ 404
of CW A) and through toxic effluent
standards and prohibitions (section
307(a) ofCWA).
The arguments against a cut-off of 10
ppm are pertinent to a cut-off of 1 ppm
to an even greater extent. Foods, such as
milk and fish. and even the human body
itself often contain PCBa at this low
concentration. For these reasons, EPA
also decided not to adopt a cut-off of 1
ppm.
After reviewing the public comments,
informal hearing testimony, and other
information in the rulemaking record
and then evaluating the available
options. EPA concludes that retaining
the PCB cut-off limit at 50 ppm provides
adequate protection for human health
and the environment while defining a
program that EPA can effectively
implement.
The major exception in the rule to the
50 ppm limit is the prohibition of the use
of waste oil as a sealant. coating, or dust
control agent if the waste oil contains
any detectable concentration of PCB.
This prohibition is necessary to prevent
the use of PCB-contaminated materials
in ways that result in direct and·
widespread environmental
contamination. Road oiling, other dust
control. pipe coating. and spraying of
vegetation permit substantial direct
entry of PCBa into the air and
waterways and may introduce PCBs into
the food chain.
Fedlral ~ / Vol. 4-t. No. 106 / Thunday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Resu}atlona 31517
C. CJauification of Tr:vnaform,,n Under
This Rule
Thil rule utabliahet four catasorfes of
transformers: 1) PCB Transformers: 2}
PCB-Contaminated Tl'amfonnen: 3)
Non-PCB Tramformen; aad 4► Railroad
Tranafomiers. Railroad Tramformen
are disc:uued in the preamble NCtion
IX.B. The other three categories are
1iscuased immed!ately below.
PCB Transformen
PCB Tranformera are transformers
thac..contain PCB, at a concentration of
500 ppm or greater. This category
includes transformers that were
designed to use concentrated PCBa (40
percent or greater PCBa) aa a dielectric
fluid. as well aa. transformera that were
not designed to use concentrated PCB,
but contain 500 ppm or greater PCB. The
higher concentration of PCB could result
from an unusual contamination incident
at the manufacturing facility, from
careless servicing operations, or from
deliberate attempts to use concentrated
PCBs as a dielectric fluid. The selection
of 500 ppm as the lower limit defining a
PCB Transformer is directly related to
the selection of limits for defining PCB-
Contaminated Transformers. This is
discussed in section C.2 immediately
below.
A transformer must be assumed to be
a PCB Transformer if any one of the
following conditions exist: (1) the
nameplate indicates that the transformer
contains PCB dielectric fluid; (2) the
owner or operator has any reason to
believe that the transformer contains
PCB dielectric fluid: or (3) the
transformer's dielectric fluid has been
tested and found to contain 500 ppm or
greater PCB. Ha transformer does not
have a nameplate or if there is no
information available to indicate the
type of dielectric fluid in it. the
transformer must be assumed to be a
PCB Transformer unless it is tested and
found to contain less than 500 ppm PCB.
This category of transformers is defined
in the rule in § 761.Z(y).
2. PCB-Contaminated Transformers
PCB-Contaminated Transformers are
transformers that contain between 50
ppm and 500 ppm PCB. This category
includes transformers that were
designed to use PCB-free mineral oil
dielectric fluids but now contain
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm of PCBs
because of contamination that occurred
in manufacturing or servicing
operations. Available data indicate that
as many as 38 percent of the 35,000,000
mineral oil transformers contain
between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs but that
PCB concentrationa above 500 ppm In
such tranaformera are rare. Bued on
these data. EPA.ii specifyms 50 to 500
ppm aa the range of PCB concentration
defining PCB-Contaminated
Transformen. The data alao support the
requirement that all mineral oil
tranaformera muat be auumed to be
PCB-Contaminated Tl'amformera unleu
teated and found not to contain between
50 and 500 ppm PCB.
The upper limit of 500 ppm ia a
practical cut-off because it includes
virtually all mineral oil trailaformera
that are substantially contaminated with
PCBs and it coincides with the February
17, 1978 PCB Diapoaal and Marking Rule
limit for defining a "PCB Transformer".
Becauae most of tho requirements of thia
rule apply only to PCB concentrations of
50 ppm or greater {He preamble section
ILB above), 50 ppm ia the logical choice
for a lower limit for PCB-Contaminated
Transformers.
As diacuased i.D. section C.4 below.
PCB Tranaformera may be converted to
PCB-Contaminated Tranaformera by
draining and replacing the dielectric.
fluid as Ions as the replacement fluid ia
between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs after
three montha of in-service use. The term
PCB-Contaminated Transformer ia
defined in § 761.2(z).
3. Non-PCB Transfonners
Non-PCB Transformers are
transformers that contain less than 50
ppm PCB. No transformer may ever be
considered. to be a Non-PCB
Transformer unless its dielectric fluid
has been tested or otherwise verified to
contain less than 50 ppm PCB. A penon
who tests his transformers to classify
them as Non-PCB Transformera should
also take precautions to insure that
these transformers are not later
contaminated in servicing operations.
Addition of PCB-contaminated fluid, for
example, may result in PCB levels over
50ppm.
Non-PCB Transformers are not
specifically covered by this rule.
How!!.ver. it is possible that the
dielectric fluid in these transformers
may contain a detectable, but less than
50 ppm PCB concentration. In this case,
the rule's prohibition of the use of waste
oil containing any detectable PCBs as a
sealant. coating, or dust control agent
would be applicable when the dielectric
fluid is removed from the transformer.
The term Non-PCB Transformer is not
defined in the rule.
4. Discussion of Transformer Categories
The owner or operator Df a
transformer must ascertain which of
these three categories, PCB Transformer,
PCB-Contaminated Tran.aforms, or
Non-PCB Tranafomier, ia applicable. In
determining thia. a penon muat make
certain uaumptiona. u ditcuaaed
below.
a. Dt1tsrminins Appropriats Catesori11s
Tranaformera originally designed to
use concentrated PCBa uaually have a
nameplate indicating that they contain
PCB dielectric fluid. Such tranaformera
must be auumed to be PCB
Transformen unless teated and found to
contain leu than 500 ppm PCB. The
same assumption muat also be made if
there ia any other i,tason to believe that
a transformer was designed to uae
concentrated PCB fluid or was ever
filled with such fluid. If a transformer
does not have a nameplate or if there ia
no information available to indicate the
type of dielectric fluid in it. the
transformer must be assumed to be a
PCB Transformer.
H the owner or user haa serviced the
transformer to reduce the PCB
concentration below 500 ppm. he cannot
simply assume that the PCB reduction
procesa was successful. Became PCBa
can continue to leach out of transformer
windings after refilliDg with dielectric
fluid containing leSB than 50 ppm PCB.
the owner must test to determine the
PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid
if he wants to reclassify such a
n-ansformer. The test must be performed
only after the transformer has been in
use for three months or longer after the
most recent servicing intended to reduce
the PCB concentration. If this test shows
the transformer dielectric fluid to
contain between 50 ppm and 500 ppm
PCB. then the transformer can be
reclassified as a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer. If the PCB reduction was
successful enough to reduce the PCB
concentration below 50 ppm, then the
transformer would be a Non-PCB
Transformer. Owners or operators of
reclassified transformers must retain
recorda of their tests in order to be able
to demonstrate compliance with the
reclassification requirements.
Because of the widespread PCB
contamination of transformers that were
designed to use PCB-free mineral oil
dielectric fluid. ail such mineral oil
dielectric fluid transformers must be
assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
Transformers, unless reasons exist to
believe that a transformer was filled
with greater than 500 ppm PCB fluid (in
which case the assumption is that the
transformer is a PCB Transformer). The
owner or operator has the option of
testing the dielectric fluid to determine if
the PCB concentration is below 50 ppm.
This testing must be performed on the
31518 Federal Resister / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 19711 / Rules and Regulations
dielectric Duid that is in the transformer.
II the PCB concentration in the dielectric
Duid ls below 50 ppm. then the
transformer may be considered a Non-
PCB Transformer.
If any 500 ppm or greater PCB fluids
are added to a collection tank. the entire
tank contents must be considered to be
greater than 500 ppm PCB, and be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements found in Annex I of the
rule. (In other parts of this preamble this
will be referred to as an Annex I
incinerator.) The tank contents cannot
be used as dielectric fluid: the tank
contents must be disposed of. In
addition, PCB-free or low concentration
PCB fluids cannot be added to the tank
in order to dilute the tank contents to a
level below 50 ppm PCBs and avoid
more stringent disposal requirements.
High concentration PCBa must be
disposed of in accordance with the
applicable requirements even if the
concentration of PCBs could be or is
actually lowered by dilution. This
requirement is intended to prevent the
deliberate dilution of concentrated PCB1
to evade the more stringent disposal
requirements that apply to such liquids.
In addition, to permit dilution in this
way would result in greater
dissemination of PCBs and.
consequently, greater human and
environmental exposure to PCBs. The
use of collection tanks for mineral oil
dielectric fluid is discussed further in
preamble section Ill.E.
b. Significance of Transformer
Categories
The three categories of transformers
are subject to different disposal.
rebuilding, and storage requirements
under these rules. Fluids from Non-PCB
Transformers (with less than 50 ppm
PCBs) have one disposal restriction:
they cannot be used as a sealant,
coating. or dust control agent if they
contain any detectable PCB. Fluids from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers (with
50 ppm or 500 ppm PCBs) must be
disposed of in high efficiency boilers, in
approved chemical waste landfills, or in
Annex I incinerators. (See section III.A
below). Fluids from PCB Transformers
(concentrations of 500 ppm or greater)
must be disposed of only by high
temperature incineration.
Other significant activities for which
the categories have different
requirements are servicing (including
rebuilding) and disposal ( of the
transformer coil and casing). PCB-
Contaminated Transformers are subject
to no restrictions on servicing (including
rebuilding) or coil and casing disposal.
except that after July 1. 1979, servicing
of PCB-Contaminated Transformers
must be performed either by the owner
or operator or by someone who has an
exemption from the processing and
distribution in commerce bans. The
major advantage 9f recategorizing a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer to Non-
PCB Transformer is that no exemption
would be needed for servicing and that
simpler dielectric fluid disposal
requirements would apply.
The servicing and disposal of PCB
Transformers are subject to more
stringent restrictions. Any servicing of
PCB Transformers that requires the·
removal of the coil from the casing is
prohibited and PCB Transformer coils
and casings must be disposed of either
in an Annex ll chemical waste landfill
or in an Annex I high temperature
incinerator. Any fluid removed from a
PCB Transformer being serviced must
either be reused as dielectric fluid or
dispo~ed of in an Annex I incinerator.
Any fluid removed from a PCB
Transformer that is being disposed of
must be disposed of in an Annex I
incinerator. Servicing that does not
require the removal of the coil can be
performed, but persons who process or
distribute PCBs in commerce for
purposes of servicing must be granted
an exemption by EPA. Consequently,
recategorizing a PCB Transformer to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer by
lowering the PCB concentration would
permit rebuilding of the transformer.
simplify future disposal. and permit
salvage of the casing and coil.
Rebuilding may be especially important
to owners of transformers that are used
in special applications or have unique
design characteristics and that cannot
be readily replaced in the event of a
failure.
D. Totally Enclosed Manner and
Significant Exposure
The definitions of these terms are
basically unchanged from those
contained in the proposed rule. See the
preamble to the proposed rule ( 43 FR
24805-6. June 7, 1978) for a diacussion of
these terms.
E. Sale for Purposes Other Than Resale
Two modifications have been made to
this definition. First, sale for purposes of
research and development is not
considered to be for purposes other than
resale. The proposed rule excluded all
activities involving small quantities of
PCBs for research and development (as
defined in § 761.2(ee}). The final rule
includes such activities within its scope
and authorizes the processing and
distribution in -:ommerce of small
quantities for research and development
until July 1, 1979 (after which
exemptions would be required to
continue theie activities) and authorizes
118e of such quantities until July 1, 1984
(see preamble section IX.D,
The second change concerns leasing
of PCB Equipment. The proposed rule
would have required that PCB
Equipment be leased for a minimum of
one year. The final rule provides that the
lease period may be for any period of
time provided that the lease begins
before July 1, 1979. The import and
export of leased equipment will require
an exemption after July 1, 1979 (see
preamble section VI.B.1.b}.
F. Other Definition Changes
The definitions of "Chemical Waste
Landfill" (§ 761.21(£)) and "Incinerator"
(§ 761.2(1)) have been modified in a
minor way to reflect more closely the
proposed definitions developed for these
facilities under the Hazardous Waste
Regulations developed pursuant to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The changes do not affect
the criteria for these facilities in
Annexes I and II of the PCB Disposal
and Marking Rule.
Definitions for "Byproducts"
(§ 761.2(c}) and "Impurity"(§ 761.2(k})
have been added. These definitions are
the same as those promulgated in EPA's
inventory regulation under section 8 of
TSCA (42 FR 64572). (See preamble
section Vl.C.1.]
m. Changes in Subpart B: Disposal of
PCBs and PCB Items
A. Mineral Oil Dielectric Fluid With 50
to 500 ppm PCB
The proposed rule would have
changed the PCB Disposal and Marking
Rule by requiring all PCBs containing 50
ppm or more PCB to be disposed of in an
incinerator meeting the requirements of
Annex I. This requirement would have
increased the quantity of liquid to be
incinerated over the next 30 to 40 years
from 300 million pounds to at least 3
billion pounds, with proportional
increases in costs (see the Versar
Report). This increase would also have
severely strained available incineration
capacity. EPA was concerned about the
impact of this requirement and
requested comments on the use of high
temperature boilers for incinerating PCB
i;ontaminated mineral oil.
1. High Efficiency Boilers
A substantial number of comments
stated that power generation facilities
could provide an environmentally safe
alternative for burning PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. EPA reviewed
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31519
the comments and investigated the
feasibility of permitting the uae of
boilers as a disposal option. After
exploring this matter with combuation
experts. EPA concluded that there are
boilers capable of adequately
incinerating PCB-contaminated mineral
oil. These boilers (which can be referred
to as "high efficiency boilers") include
power generation boilers and industrial
boilers that operate at a high
combustion efficiency (99.9"). as
defined by the carbon monoxide
concentrations and excess oxygen
percentages in the combustion
emissions.
These boilers are capable of achieving
a PCB destruction effiQency of 99.9% or
greater. This destruction efficiency is
somewhat lower than the estimated
99.9999% or greater destruction
efficiency that an Annex I incinerator
can achieve. However, this dispoaa.l
alternative ia restricted to PCB-
contaminated mineral oil of low PCB
concentration (50-500 ppm) and offers a
substantial reduction in disposal coats
(over $13 million per year). Given the
00.9% destruction efficiency for PCBs in
nigh efficiency boilers, only 10 more
pounds of PCB wowd enter the
environment annually as compared to
the amount released from high
temperature incinerators under Annex I.
(This estimate is derived from Versar
data).
After considering these factors. EPA
concluded that disposing of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil containing 50
to 500 ppm PCB in high efficiency boilers
does not present an unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment.
However, for the reasons explained in
section III.B, only PCB-contaminated
mineral oil will be permitted to be
burned in boilers without specific
approval by the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator. A discussion of
the burning of other low concentration
PCB wastes also is found in section III.B.
2. Conditions for Boilers
Based on the conclusions statpd
above, the final rule permita the burning
of PCB-contaminated mineral oil with a
concentration below 500 ppm in high
efficiency boilers if the following
conditions are met: (1) the boiler is rated
at a minimum of 50 million BTU/hour;
(2) the mineral oil is no more than ten
percent of the total fuel feed rate: (3) the
mineral oil is not added to the
combustion chamber during boiler start-
up or shut-down operationa: (4) bef01"8
commencing the burning of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. the owner or
operator has conducted teata and
determined that the com.buation
emissions contain at least three percent
(3%) excess oxygen and the carbon
monoxide concentration does not
exceed 50 ppm for oil or gas-fired boilers
or 100 ppm for coal-fired boilers: (5) the
company has notified the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator at least 30
days before the company uses its high
efficiency boiler for this purpose and
has supplied the notice with the
combustion emissions .data as specified
in (4) above; (6) the combustion process
is monitored either continuously or, for
boilers burning less than 30,000 gallons
of mineral oil annually, at least once
each hour that PCB-contaminated
mineral oil is burned; to determine the
percentage-of excess oxygen and.the
carbon monoxide level in the
combustion emission: (7) the primary
fuel and mineral oil feed rates are
monitored at least every 15 minutes
whenever burning PCB-contaminated
mineral oil: (8) the carbon monoxide and
excess oxygen levels are checked at
least once an hour and. if they fall
below the specified levels, the flow of
mineral oil to the boiler is immediately
stopped: and (9) records are maintained
that include the monitoring data in (6)
and (7) above and the quantities of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil burned each
month. When burning mineral oil
dielectric fluid. the boiler must operatt!
at a level of output no less than the
output at which the reported carbon
monoxide and excess oxygen
measurements were taken. The Regional
Administrator has to be notified only
before the first burning of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil in the boiler.
The conditions are intended to prevent
the introduction of PCBs into boilers
when combustion conditions are not
optimum for the destruction of PCBa.
The level of 30.000 gallons per year was
chosen as the cut-off for continuous
monitoring because. (1) EPA believes
that boilers burning 30,000 gallons or
more per year of PCB-contaminated
mineral oil would be burning on a
regular basis and therefore should
continuously monitor CO and excess 0.;
and (2) a boiler burning this quantity of
mineral oil annually will incur more
than sufficient savings-over high
temperature incineration or chemical
waste landfill disposal costs to offset
the added costs of continuoua
monitoring. However, a person whose
boiler does not meet these requirements
but who can demonstrate that the boiler
will destroy PCBa aa efficiently as a high
efficiency boiler may seek spec:i&
approval from the appropriate EPA
Regional Adminiatrator under
§ 781.10(a){2){iv).
EPA plans to monitor the use of these
boilers closely and will carefully
analyze the effectiveness of this
disposal option.
3. Other Disposal Alternatives
Alternatively, any PCB-contaminated
mineral oil dielectric fluid (with a PCB
concentration less than 500 ppm) may be
disposed of either in an incinerator
complying with Annex I or, under
special conditions (see section III.C
below), in a chemical waste landfill
complying with Annex II. These landfills
will provide a disposal option less costly
than Annex I incineration· for owners or
users of PCB-contaminated mineral o;I
who do not have access to high
efficiency boilers. EPA believes that
only small quantities of dielectric fluid
will be disposed of in landfills because
high efficiency boilers or incinerators
will be available for most of the waste
fluids.
The impact on human health and the
environment from disposing .of these
wastes in chemical waste landfills is
discussed in the preamble section ID.B
below.
B. Other Liquid Wastes With 50 to 500
pomPCB
To provide thermal destruction
alternatives for other low concentration
liquid wastes containing less than 500
ppm PCB. EPA has included in the rule a
procedure that is comparable to the
disposal alternatives for PCB-
contaminated mineral oil. This
procedure permits the disposal of these
non-mineral oil fluids on a case-by-case
basis.in high efficiency boilers.
Such approval can be granted if: (1)
the boiler is rated at a minimum of 50
million BTIJ/hour; (2) the PCB-
contaminated waste comprises no more
than ten percent (10%) of the total
volume of fuel: (3) the waste will not be
added to the combustion chamber
during boiler start-up or shut-down
operations: (4) the combustion emiHions
will contain at least three percent (3%)
excess oxygen and the carbon monoxide
concentration will be !es, than 50 ppm
for oil or gas-fired boilers or 100 ppm for
coal-fired boilers: (5) the combustion
process will be monitored continuously
or at lt!ast once each hour that the PCB-
contaminated wastes are being burned
to determine the percentage of excess
oxygen and the carbon monoxide level
in the combustion emissions: (6) the
primary fuel and waste feed rates are
monitored at leaat every 15 minutes
whenever burning the waste: (7) the
carbon monoxide and exceH OX)'88D
levels are monitored at leut once an
hour and if they fall below the levela
31520 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No .. 108 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rutes and Regulations
specified, the flow of wastes to the
boiler is stopped immediately; and (8)
records are maintained that include the
monitoring data in (5) and (6) above and
the quantities of PCB-contaminated
waste burned each month. When
burning PCB wastes, the boiler must
operate at a level of output no leu than
the output at which the reported carbon
monoxide and excess oxygen
measurements were taken. These
requirements are similar to those for
high efficiency boilers used to bum PCB-
contaminated mineral oil.
Persons seeking approval to use this
disposal alternative must submit an
application to the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator. The application
must contain information describing the
quantity,of waste expected to be
disposed of each month, descriptive
information about the waste including
the concentrations of PCBs and other
chlorinated hydrocarbons. the results of
a number of standard fuel analyses to
detennine the nature of the waste, BTIJ
heat value and flash point of the wastes.
and an explanation of the procedures to
be followed to insure that burning the
waste in the boiler will not adversely
affect the operation of the boiler such
that the combustion efficiency will
decrease. The information contained in
the applications will help the Regional
Administrator to assess whether these
high efficiency boilers will adequately
destroy these low concentration PCB
wastes.
The cost of this alternative is greater
than the mineral oil disposal alternative
because approval application costs and
analytical costs are greater. However,
these costs will be less than the cost for
Annex I incineration or Annex ll
chemical. waste landfills. As a result. the
quantity of low concentration PCB
wastes going to Annex I and Annex ll
facilities should be reduced. In addition,
a person whose boiler does not meet
these requirements but who can
demonstrate that the boiler will destroy
PCBs as efficiently as a high efficiency
boiler may seek specific approval from
the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator under § 761.10(a)(3)(iv).
These wastes are treated differently
than PCB-contaminated mineral oil
dielectric fluid because they tend to be
more varied in composition than
contaminated mineral oil. In many
cases, these fluids are fire or heat
resistant and could reduce PCB
destruction efficiency. For example,
unlike mineral oil, PCB-contaminated
hydraulic fluid will require the addition
of more primary fuel for it to burn in the
manner necessary to destroy the PCBs.
C. DispCJsal of 50 to 5lXJ ppm PCB
Liquids in Chemical Waste Landfills
The rule also provides another new
disposal alternative not permitted in the
proposed rule. All liquid wastes with
less than 500 ppm PCB may be disposed
of in chemical waste landfills that
comply with the requirements of Annex
IL Allowing this additional disposal
option for low concentration liquid
wastes will reduce disposal costs and
increase the availability of Annex I
incinerators to destroy high
concentration wastes.
This disposal alternative is limited to
those low PCB concentration (50-500
ppm) wastes that are not considered
ignitable wastes. A waste is considered
ignitable if its flash point is less than 60°
C (140" F). This limitation is consistent
with the proposed Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
rules for disposal of hazardous wastes
(43 FR 58946. December 18, 1978).
Properly designed and operated ,
chemical waste landfills are capable of
containing liquid wastes when the
liquids are stabilized in the disposal
process or contained in cells of sorbent
material. as required by this rule. EPA's
Office of Solid Waste recommends
mixing liquids with soils or solid wastes
in order to stabilize liquid wastes.
Alternatively, containers of the liqwds
may be surrounded by enough inert,
sorbent material to absorb all of the
liquid in the container should the
container leak. These techniques will
effectively control the migration of PCBs
from the landfill site. Use of such
landfills will result in only limited
exposures to PCBs. Almost all of the
exposure will occur during the liquid
stabilization process. This use of
chemical waste landfills is consistent
with hazardous waste disposal policies
being proposed by EPA .under RCRA
(see 43 FR 58946).
Incineration of low concentration PCB
wastes is much more costly. To destroy
a small percentage of PCBs, a significant
volume of contaminated material must
be destroyed. The cost of incineration
per pound _of PCB may be very high.
Disposal of low concentration liquid
PCBs in an Annex II chemical waste
landfill will greatly reduce these
disposal costs, free incineration
facilities for burning of high
concentration wastes, and produce little
increase in environmental or human
exposure to PCBs.
Owners or operators of chemical
waste landfills already approved by
EPA for disposal of non-liquid PCBs and
PCB Items will have to request
additional approval to dispose of liquids
with low-concentrations of PCBs.
Guidance on proper procedures for
requesting such approval will be
provided for these owners or opera tors.
Owners arid operators of chemical
waste landfills not yet approved for
disposal of PCBs will also have to
request specific permission to dispose of
such liquids.
D. Disposal of Non-Liquid PCBs in
Chemical Waste Landfills
EPA has decided to permit the
disposal of non-liquid PCBs at any
concentration in chemical waste
landfills that meet the requirements of
Annex ll. The Disposal and Marking
Rule permitted only persons with
contaminated soils and other solids
recovered from spills or removed from
old disposal sites to use this disposal
option. It would be inconsistent not to
permit this same disposal option for
other non-liquid PCB wastes such as
contaminated rags and absorbent
materials. These additional solids are
estimated to be only a small fraction of
the total non-liquid PCB wastes
generated. Providing this alternative
disposal method will permit more of the
currently available incineration capacity
to be used for high concentration liquid
wastes and will result in little additional
human or environmental exposure to
PCBs. For these reasons, EPA has made
this change in § 761.10(a)(4) of the rule.
In addition to disposal in Annex I
incinerators or Annex II chemical waste
landfills, dredge materials and
municipal sewage sludges that contain
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm PCB may
also be disposed of by any alternative
method approved by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator (see
§ 761.l0(a)(S}{iii)). This provision is
unchanged from the Disposal and
Marking Rule, except that it now covers
these materials down to 50 ppm.
EPA has received a petition from the
State of Nort.'l Carolina regarding the
disposal of contaminated soil and debris
from spills (44 FR 13575. March 12. 1979).
EPA is required to respond to the
petition by June 4, 1979.
The storage requirements of § i61.4Z
Subpart E apply to all of the low
concentration wastes discussed above
including substances containing
between 50 and 500 ppm PCB and will
help provide adequate protection
against spills.
E. Batch Testing of Mineral Oil
Dielectric Fluid
Testing of mineral oil dielectric fluid
and waste oil from sources that are
otherwise assumed to contain PCBs at a
concentration between 50 ppm and 500
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31521
ppm can be performed on sample& taken
from collection tanks {"batch teating").
Thia is permitted so that oila from
multiple sources can be collected and
teated without requiring a separate test
of each transformer each time a di1po1er
wants to evaluate his disposal options.
The prohibition against dilution.
however, has not changed. The new
testing option does not permit the
deliberate dilution of the collected oil
(assumed to contain PCBs above 50
ppm) with PCB-free or low-PCB fluids to
reduce the concentration of PCBs in the
resultant mixture below 50 ppm. Further,
the option does not permit the deliberate
addition of PCB wastes with
concentrations greater than 500 ppm to
the tank in order to avoid the i:qore
stringent disposal requirements for high-
concentration wastes. II such high-
concentration wastes are added to the
tank, then the entire tank contents must
be disposed of in compliance with
requirement& for wastea containing 500
ppm PCBs or greater. even if a sample of
the aggregate tank contents reveals a
concentration below 500 ppm. In this
circumstance, the tank contents cannot
be used as dielectric fluid; the tank
contents must be disposed of in a high
temperature incinerator.
These restrictions are essential to
ensure that appropriate measures are
taken to, destroy or dispose of Pea-
contaminated wastes. In developing the
final rule. EPA developed a balanced
approach to disposal by conaidering the
most appropriate means of dispoaing of
waste• with different PCB
concentrations in light of the riaks to
human health and the environment.
Diluting or mixing PCB wastea aa
described above to avoid proper
disposal upaets thia balance and ie a
violation of this rule. The proposed rulP
would have required testing of each
transformer's fluid. The cost of batch
testing is substantially less than
individual source testing. In addition.
permitting testing from collection tanks
will result in verv little adciitionaJ
exposure of humans or the environment
to PCBs.
F. Other Changes in the Disposal
Requirements
The disposhl requirements for PCB
chemical substances and PCB mixture•
have been replaced by disposal
requirements for PCBs (§ 781.lO(a)). Thi■
was necessary because of the revised
cfefirJtton of PCB• and the elimination of
the definitions -of "PCB Chemical
Sub1tance1" and "PCB Mixturee".
The diaposal requirement& for PCB
Articles other than PCB Tramformen
and PCB Capaciton have been changed
to permit these articles to be dispoaed of
in a chemical waate landfill as well as in
high temperature incinerators
(§ 781.10(b}(4)). Examples of these
articles inaude pipes, hosea. parts of
heat transfer systems. electromagnets,
and electric motors. Altogether, these
articles account for less than one
percent {l'R,) of the PCBs CWTently in use
in the United Statea. When these
articles are dispoaed of in chemical
waste landfills. they must be drained of
free flowing liquid. As a consequence.
these articles will contain only small
amounts of PCBs. Disposal of these
articles in chemical waste landfills will
add only small quantities of PCBs to the
landfills and will result in little or no
additional human and environmental
exposure of PCBs.
The final rule has a special dispoaal
provision for hydraulic machines. These
machine, are difficult to transport a&
they frequently weigh many tons and
can be ·as large as a small building. In
general. only a relatively small portion
of the machine is contaminated with
PCBa. For these reasons. instead of
requiring diaposal in a chemical waste
landfill, the final rule permits disposal of
hydraulic syatema as municipal solid
waste and salvaging of these machine,
after draining. The machines must first
be drained of all free-flowing liquid. If
the fluid contains more than 1000 ppm
PCBs, the machines must be flushed
with a solvent and thoroughly drained
before disposal. After considering the
cost of disposing of these machines in
chemical waate landfills and the small
quantities of PCBs that would remain in
a properly drained machine. EPA
concluded that disposal as municipal
solid waste did not represent an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment. For these same reasons, no
special storage requirements have been
included for properly df.a.ined machine&.
The final rule alao permits PCB
Containers that were used only to
contain materials or fluids with PCB
concentrations between 50 and 500 ppm
to be disposed of as municipal solid
waste. II these containers are well
drained. as required by the rule, only
very small quantities of PCBs would
remain and these containers could be
safely disposed of as municipal solid
waste with little added exposure to
humans or the environment. For
example. if a drupi containing 500 ppm
!iQuid waste is drained of 99% of the-
liquid. leH than one gram of PCB would
remain in the drum. Disposers of these
containen will have to be able to
demonstrate that the containen only
contained PCBa-iD concentrationa of 50
to 500ppm.
IV. Changes In Subpart C: Markins of
PCBs and PCB Items
The PCB Disposal amd Marking Rule,
as promulgated in February 1978.
applied only to-PCB and PCB Items that
contained 500 ppm or greater PCBs.
These requirements now extend to ail
PCB Items (including PCB Containers,
PCB Article Containers. PCB Articles,
PCB Equipment. and PCB transport
vehicles) that contain 50 ppm or greater
PCBs. This modification makes the
marking and disposal requirements
consistent with the final prohibition rule.
which generally extends to all PCB
Items with 50 ppm or greater PCBs, as
discussed above.
The extension of the disposal and
marking requirements is essential to
ensure that PCB Items regulated under
this rule are properly identified.
handled. and disposed of to minimize
the p~tential risks of exposure to PCBs.
To provide sufficient time to identify
and mark PCB Items containing between
50 and 500 ppm PCB,§ 761.Z0(e)
provides that these PCB Items must be
marked by October 1, 1979.
PCB-Contaminated Transformers are
an exception to the poli_cy described
above and are not requirt!d to be
marked. The coat of marking a very
large number of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers while they are in service
would be extremely high. There are
about 35 million PCB-Contaminated
Transformers and. if it cost $10 to label
each one, the total labeling cost would
be about $350 million. Also, because
EPA assumes that all transformers other
than PCB Transformers (which are
required to be marked) are PCB-
Contan..inated Transformers. labels are
not necessary. An unmarked mineral oil
transformer will automatically be
aHumed to be a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer unieSB it meets one of the
criteria listed in preamble section II.C.1
above. Although transformers at any
.time can be properly tested and found to
be either a Non-PCB Transformer or a
PCB Transformer. such testing would
generally be performed only when
disposal is contemplated. Cor,11equently,
labeling to differentiate such
transformers from PCB-Contaminated
Transfol'Dl1!rs would-have little practical
value.
Some PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may have already been
marked with the PCB Transformer mark
(especially in Michigan where State law
requires marking for transformers with
100 ppm PCB or greater!. There is some.
concern that the label on the
transformer will determine thtt disposal
alternatives. Thia ia to clarify that when
31522 Fed.eral Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
• transformer ia ready to be disposed of.
the owner or operator may choose
among the altemative disposal methods
applicable to the transformer in question
and permitted by this rule. (See
preamble sectio-; ll.C. "Classification of
Transformers Under Thia Rule".}
Marking oi large capacitors ia
relatively straightforward becaue
virtually all large capacitors were PCB-
filled until the past few years. Therefore,
any capacitor that cannot be shown to
be PCB-free by examining label or
nameplate information, must be
a■aumed to be a PCB Capacitor and
must be marked with the PCB mark.
A new paragraph § 781 . .ZO(h), has
been added that requires that marks (or
labels) be placed on the exterior of PCB
Items and transport vehicles so that the
marks can be seen by interested
persons. Thia addition corrects an
oversight in the original Diapoaal and
Marking Rule.
Section 781 • .ZO(i) baa been added to
clarify that any mar.king requirements
for PCBa at concentrations Jess than 500
ppm manufactured after [30 days after
publication in the Federal Register),
including PCBa that are byproducts or
lmpurittea, will be contained in the
exemption EPA grants to permit such
manufacture. However, any PCB Article
or PCB Equipment into which the PCBa
are proceaaed must be m.arked in
accordance with the requirements found
elsewhere in Subpart C. Those persons
who have submitted petitiom to
manufacture chemicals with PCB
contamination pursuant to the
rulemaking procedures for the
manufacturing exemptions (43 FR 50905,
Novemoer 1, 1978} are not required to
label any chemical that contains len
than 500 ppm PCB until EPA acts on
their petition. For example, persona who
have petitioned becauae they
manufacture PCB■ u a contammant at
leaa than 500 ppm or a pigment or other
commercial chemical product do not
have to label that product as containing
PCBa until after EPA acts on their
petition. Conversely, any containers of
any product that contains 500 ppm or
greater PCBs must be labeled. This latter
~uirement was included in the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule ( 43 FR 7150,
February 17, 1978).
V. Cbaagea in Subpart E: AmlexN
A. Annei I: Incint1ration
Section 781.40{•)(2} establishes a new
value of w.a for the combustion
efficiency requimd of incinerators. Thia
ta a correction of the earlier value of ~
efficiency that wu specified iD ,the
Diapoaal and Marking Rule. Specifically
incinerators operating at the
temperatures. dwell times, and excess
oxygen concentrations specified in
Annex I normally operate at a
combustion efficiency of 99.a ·or
greater. A combustion efficiency of
99.9'1' thus more accurately represents
the true combustion efficiency of Annex
I incinerators. All incinerators that have
been approved or that are under
consideration for approval by EPA are
capable of operating at 99.9'1'
combustion efficienay; accordingly, this
modification should not disqualify these
incinerators or result in additional
operating expenses for these facilities.
(This change does not mean that those
incinerators already approved will be
required to..J9a~ply for approval to
operate.) Combustion efficiency is an
effective parameter for evaluating the
degree of destruction that occura in an
incinerator, and it is eHential that the
required value for this parameter
accurately reflect expected combustion
conditions.
A change has been made to the COt
monitoring requirement of§ 761.40(a)(7).
The Disposal and Marking Rule required
continuous monitoring of the co.
concentration in the stack gas of the
incinerator. The rule bu been changed
to require periodic co. monitoring aa
specified by the Regional Administrator.
This change was made for two reasons:
(1) the high coat of the equipment
needed to continuous(y monitor CO.;
and (2) tha imenaitivity of the
combustion efficiency calculation to
variations in the co. concentration.
The automatic shutoff of waste flow
that was required by the Diaposal and
Marking Rule when certain operating
deficiencies occurred baa been modified.
Owners or operators of an incinerator
may submit to the Regional
Administrator, when they apply £or the
approval to incinerate PCB■, a
contingency plan outlining the corrective
steps they will take when operating
problems occur. Thia change provides
for greater flexibility for incinerator
operators and will result in no increased
human or environmental exposure since
the contingency plans will be examined
on a case-by-case basis by the Regional
Administrator for proper safeguards
before approval.
A new paragraph. § 761.40{d)(8), has
been added to clarify the responsibility
of the owner or-operator of an approved
facil1ty when the ownership of the
facility is transferred.
B. Annex ll: Chemical Wasts landfills
Section 161.41(b) specifies
requirements for operational plans for
chemical waste landfilla. These
requirements have been modified to
require delineation of the procedures to
be used for the disposal of liquids
containing between 50 ppm and 500 ppm
PCB. After EPA approves an operational
plan, the affected landfill operator must
follow those procedures in disposing of
PCBwutea.
Section 781.41(b)(3) apecifles that the
bottom of a chemical waste landfill must
be at least fifty feet above the historical
high water table. Because the distance
between the bottom of the chemical
waste landfill and the water table in
many areas east of the MiHiuippi River
is far leH than fifty feet. EPA Regional
Administrators have had to waive this
criterion in several situations. While the
criterion ~ the final rule is unchanged
from the Disposal and Marking Rule,
EPA is proposing a modification of this
provision in a separate notice of
proposed rulemaking.
The provisions in Annex ll of the
Disposal and Marking Rule establishing
monitoring requirements for surface ..
water(§ 761.41(b}(6)(i)) have been
modified to allow the Regional
Administrator to designate the surface
watercourses that are to bi sampled.
Thia minor change eliminates any
uncertainty about which watercourses
are to be sampled.
Section 761.41(b)(7) includes
provisions for leachate collection in
chemical waste landfills. The Disposal
and Marking Rul~ specified that the
collection system be located under the
landfill liner system. The final rule
corrects this provision and specifies that
the collection system be above the
landfill liner system. Collection systems
are placed above the liner to capture
liquids to protect and reduce hydraulic
preHure on the liner system. All
chemical wute landfills currently in use
have collection systems above the liner.
A new paragraph. § 781.41(c)(7J, baa
been added to clarify the responsibility
of the owner or opera tor of an approved
facility when the ownership of the
facility is tranafe?Ted.
C Annex Ill: StoragB
1. Container Specifications
The requirements of§ 781.42(c)(8J
have been modified to clarify the five
typesofDeparlment of~portation
(DOT)-approved containers that can be
used to store PCB■ and z.;r ..J Itema. The
Disposal and Marking Rule
(§ 781.42(c)(8)) stated that containers
used to store liquid PCBe must comply
with the DOT, speciflcationa set out in 49
CFR 113.348, which describe a broad
range of containers varying in size from
less thm one gallon containen to
Federal Repster / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31523
railroad tank can. Since only five of
these container speciflcatiODI (S. 58. 60,
17C, and 17E) are appropriate for such
PCB storage, the rule ha1 been modified
to refer only to these five DOT container
specification,. This change should not
be disruptive as induatry already
generally uses the containers included in
these five D01:.apeciflcatiom for PCB
storage and handling.
In addition, on August z. 1978. EPA
published a clarification of§ 761.4Z(c}(6)
concerning PCB containers that
provided for the use of special-sized
containers for oversized PCB Articles ar
PCB Equipment (43 FR 33918). Thia
clarification is incorporated in the final
rule.
2. Bulk Storage
A new subparagraph. § 761.42(c)(7),
has been added to permit the uae of
large containers. such as storage tanks,
for the storage of PCB liquids. Thia
change is designed to allow safer
transfer and storage of bulk PCBa. While
the greatest risks of apills and exposure
to PCB, may occur durins traDafv
operationa, tranafen in bulk ma
storage tank (or tank truck) to •tA:lll'a88
tank are UM1ally better coatron.d than
transfers to or from druma. Accordin&lJ,
the modification should reduce the
number of spills and the extent al
exposure to PCB, during transfer
opera lions.
To permit bulk storage of liquid PCBs,
EPA has had to add to the rule suitable
standards for the containers or storage
tanks that would be uaed. The
Oecupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) bu prepared
comprehensive tank specificationa {29
CFR Part 1910.106). These speciflcatioua
are baaed on standarda developed by
9rganizationa such as the American
Society of Mechanical Ensmeers
(ASME) and the American Petroleum
Institute (API} and are widely
recosmzed as reasonable standards that
provide for safe storage of hazardous
substances. These specificatioua,
however, are oriented to flammable and
combustible liquids, which usually have
a specific gravity of less than one. As
provided in the OSHA rules. when a
liquid'• specific gravity is greater ~an
1.0 ( which is the case with PCBa ),
precaution muat be taken to inlure that
an adequate fac:tor of safety exiata when
designing new tan.ks or when evaluating
the structural strength of existing tanks.
Uquida with such specific gravities are
heavier than water and will put greater
streaa on the tanks. Accordinsly,
I 781.42(c){7)(i) requires that thil factor
be taken into account to iuaure adequate
structural safety of storage tanks used
for PCB,.
Owners or operators of bulk storage
facilities will have to keep a record of
the amounts added to and removed from
the bulk containers. The records will be
important in tracing waste shipments
and enforcing the disposal and storage
requirements. Thia requirement is
similar to the requirement promulgated
in the Disposal and Marking Rule for
individual containers.
Another factor in EPA's decision to
allow bulk storage was the high coat of
not pennitting it. Considering just
mineral oil dielectric fluid. there are
about 1.73 billion gallons presently in
use (see Versar Report). Assuming this
oil would be disposed of over a 40 year
period and that the cost of storing each
55 gallon drum is $145 (see Versar
Report. Disposal and Marking Rule), the
annual storage coat would have been
about $132 million. Thia value would
have been larger in practice since new
mineral oil brought into use after this
year would also have been stored in the
same way because of contamination
from reeidual PCBa in the eqaipmmt.
3. Spill Prenntion Proceduret1
Spill prevention procedures are
neceN81')' to provide adequate
environmental protection during the uae
of PCB storage tanks permitted by
§ 761.42(c)(7). Some of the substances
contained in these tanks may qualify as
oils under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act and. therefore, may be
subject to the spill prevention provisions
of 40 CFR Part 112. In order to provide
equivalent control of PCB liquids that do
not qualify as oils, the Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures (SPCC)
provisions of the 40 CFR Part 112 have
been incorporated with certain
modifications into this rule. A wipe
cross section of U.S. induatry is now
using these procedures to protect
against oil spills. Extending these
requirements to non-oil PCBs should
provide substantial environmental
protection and should be easily
complied with by industry.
Those provisions of 40 CFR Part 112
incorporated in this PCB rule have been
modified to adapt them to the PCB
activities regulated by § 761.42(c)(7) of
this rule. Specifically, the Part 112 oil
spill prevention requirements do not
apply to tanks smaller than 661Ygallon1
and underground tan.ks smaller than
42.000 gallons. Because of the risks
usociated with spills of PCBa. these
tank size exemptions -do not apply to
containers or tanks containing PCB, at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. The
PCB rule alao add• the requirement that
the area between a storage tank and
secondary containment dikes must be
impervioua to PCBs to prevent
groundwater contamination.
One provision of 40 CFR Part 112. the
SPCC plan amendment procedures, is
not currently applicable to PCBs. These
procedures are triggered by a
notification-requirement for oil spills.
Becauae these notification requirements
do not now apply to PCB spills, the
SPCC plan amendment procedures are
not applicable.
EPA has proposed a spill prevention
rule for hazardous substances (including
PCBs) under section 311 of the Clean
Water Act (43 FR 39276, September 1,
1978). When this s~ill prevention rule is
promulgated, the spill prevention
provisions of this PCB rule will be
revised to eliminate duplications or
inconsistencies.
-I. Flood Protection
The Disposal and Marking Rule
required that storage areas be above tbe
100 year flood level. The Agency is
considering modifying the PCB rule to
include the ftood protection guidaliaes
developed by the National Flood
Insurance Administration (NFIA) which
is part of the Department of Houaing
and Urban Development. The Agency
decided not to change the PCB rule at
this time because the Hazardoua Waste
Regulations proposed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act have· included a flood protection
approach baaed on the NFIA program. If
that approach is adopted when the
Hazardous Waste Regulations are
promulgated, the Agency will consider
adopting a similar flood protection
approach for PCB storage areas.
5. Temporary Storage
a. Revisions
The temporary storage of non-leaking
PCB Articles and PCB Containers
containing leaking articles was
permitted for 30 days under the
provisions of the Disposal and Marking
Rule. Tltis would enable electric utilities
and others to consolidate their PCB
Items in a central facility and improve
management and recordkeeping for PCB
wastes. The proposal did not, however,
permit PCB Containers of non-liquid
wastes, such as contaminated soil, to be
placed in temporary storage. Because
these containers of non-liquid waste do
not pose any greater hazard than the
containers of leaking articles,
§ 761.42(c)(lt of this rule modi.fies the
storage requirements to permit PCB
Containers of non-liquid waste to be /
31524 Federal Register / VoL 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
held in temporary storage for up to 30
aaya.
Under thermal rule, large quantities
of low concentration PCB liquids from
PCB-Contaminated Transfonners must
be properly disposed of. The logistics of
immediately transporting liquids
drained from these transformers to a
single, pennanent storage facility are
frequently difficult. Even though these
liquids pose less of a threat to health
and the environment when spilled than
do more highly concentrated !>CB
liquids, adequete spill prevention
remains essential. The final rule pennits
the 30 day temporary storage of low
coRcentration (50 to 500 ppm PCBs)
liquids at facilities that have a SPCC
plan. l'Jtat SPCC Plan must adequately
address storage of PCBs in relatively
small containers, such as 55-gallon
drums, which is not normally included
in such plans. This approach will insure
adequate environmental and human
health protection Gd will placi; little or
no additional burdens on facility owners
or operators.
The final rule does not allow
temporary storage for high
concentration PCB liquids (above 500
ppm). Because of the potential hann
from an uncontrolled spill. temporary
storage of these concentrated liquids is
not permitted.
b. Action on Petitions To Amer.d Rule
on Temporary Storage Requirements
Subsequent to the close of the reply
comment :,eriod, EPA received petitions
under section 21 of TSCA from
Commonwealth Edison. Consolidated
Edison Company, and the Edison
Electric Institute to amend§ 761.4Z(c](l)
(43 FR 7150, 7162. February 17, 1978 and
43 FR 33918. 33920, August 2. 1978) to
allow temporary storage of PCB
substances. mixtures, and PCB-
contaminated materials, such as rags
and soil. Representatives of EPA met
with petitioners on January 24, 1979 and
received written materials on that date
in support of the petitions. EPA wrote to
petitioners on February 9, 1979 and
advised them that the Agency
considered the petitions to have been
filed on January 24, 1979, the date when
written-and oral information in support
of the petitions was received. •
The actions on temporary storage of
PCBs and PCB Items described in
section V.C.5.a. above grant the
petitions in part and deny them in part.
The petitiom are granted ao to
temporary 1torage of PCB Containers of
non-liquid wastes, such as contaminated
1oil and raga. Such temporary storage is
now permitted under the conditions of
I 761. 42(c)(!)(iii). SiJriilarly, the
petitions are granted .as to temporary
storage of low concentration (50 to 500
ppm PCBa) liquids. Such temporary
storage is permitted under the
conditions of§ 761.42(c)(l)(iii).
However. the petitions are denied as to
temporary storage of high concentration
PCB liquids (above 500 ppm]. As noted
in section V .C.S.a. of this preamble, the
risk of potential harm from an
uncontrolled spill, or a leak. is too great
to permit temporary storage of such high
concentration PCB liquids.
D. Annex IV: Decontamination
The decontamination requirements in
Annex IV were changed in this rule to
require flushing with a solvent
containing less than 50 ppm PCB rather
than 500 ppm PCB as previously
promulgated. Thia change is based on
lowering the cut-off concentration of
PCBs from 500 ppm to 50 ppm. This
change will further reduce the amount of
residual PCBs in decontaminated
containers.
E. Annex V: Records and Monitoring
A new paragraph. § 761.45(d), baa
been added specifically to require
chemical waste landfill operators to
retain records concerning the operation
of the landfill. These records include the
identity of the waste, they receive and
where the wastes are placed in the
landfill. This paragraph does not require
the dev~lopment of any new records but
corrects an omission from the Disposal
and Marking Rule.
The final rule modifies § 761.45(b I and
adds § 761.45(e) to provide for retention
-of records by owners or operators of
high efficiency boilers. The requirements
are similar to recordkeeping
require??ents for other PCB waste
disposal alternatives, such 88
incinerators or chemical waste landfills,
and are necessary for enforcement.
VI. Subpart D: Manufacturing,
Procnaing, Distribution in Commerce,
and Use Bans
.½. Prohibitions
Sectfon 761.30{a] implements TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(A), which prohibits the
manufacture (including importation),
processing, distribution in commerce.
and use of PCBs and PCB Items in a
manner other than a totally enclosed
manner unless authorized under § 761.31
of this rule. This prohibition also applies
to the manufacture, processin~. and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items intended solely for export
( ,ee preamble section XI below).
Section 761.30(b] implements TSCA
§ 6{e](3)(A)(i), which probibits the
· manufacture (including importation into
the United States) of PCBa after January
1, 1979 unless an exemption is granted
for such manufacturers. Thia prohibition
applies to the manufacture (and
importation) of PCBs regardless of
whether they are manufactured in a
totally enclosed manner or they are
manufactured solely for export. Thia
prohibition does not apply to PCBa that
are imported solely for disposal (see
section B.2 below).
Section 761.30(c) implements TSCA
section 6(e}(3)(A]{ii), which prohibits
both the processing and the distribution
in commerce of PCBs and PCB ltems
after July 1, 1979 •.m.less exemptions are
granted for such activities. This
prohibition applies to the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items regardless of whether the
Items are processed or distributed in a
totally enclosed manner or solely for
export. There are three exceptions to
these prohibitions.
Fint, 88 provided in section 6(e)(3)(C)
of TSCA, PCBa or PCB Items that have
been sold for purposes other than resale
before July 1. 1979, may continue to oe
distributed after July 1, 1979 in a totally
enclosed manner. Therefore, a person
who purchases before July 1, 1979, PCB
Equipment (such u computers,
television sets, or microwave ovens
containing PCB Capacitors) for his own
use. rather than for resale, may sell that
equipment after June 30, 1979.
Second, after July 1. 1979; anyone may
process or distribute in commerce PCBs
or PCB Items for purposes of disposal in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.10. Because TSCA treats disposal
separatlllY from processing and
distribution in commerce, the processing
and distribution in commerce
requirements generally are not intended
to interfere with the disposal
requirements. Section 761.30(c){Z)
explicitly states that processing and
distribution for purposes cf disposal in
accordance with § 761.10 may continue
after July 1, 1979.
Third. PCBs or PCB Items may be
exported for disposal pUJ:!)oses des!]ite
the general ban on export of PCBs ar.d
PCB Items in § 761.JO(c}. Section
;"61.30(c)(3} requires persons to notify
EPA at least 30 days before they fL.,t
intend to export PCB wastes. This
provision is discussed further in secticr,
B.2. below.
1. Waste Oil Bans
Section 761.30(d] prohibits the u1e of
waste oil containing any detectable
concentration of PCBa as a sealant.
coating, or dust control agent. Prohibited
uses include road oiling, general dU3t
Federal Retliatar / Vol 44. No. 106 / Th111'8day, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31525
control. aa a pesticide or herbicide
carrier, and as a rust preventative on
pipes. W aate oil ii defined as used
products primarily derived from
petroleum. which include, but are not
limited to, fuel oila, motor oila. gear oila.
cutting oila. mmsrniHion ftuida.
hydraulic ftuida. and dielectric ftuida. In
the proposed rule, "PCB Sealant.
Coating. and Dust Control Agent" was
defined(§ 761.Z(cc), 43 FR 24813) and
was included in the term "PCB" for the
purpose of regulating these. activities.
Because the term "PCB Sealant. Coating.
and Dust Control Agent" was deleted
from the definition of "PCB" (see
preamble section II.A.). it became
necessary to specifically regulate these
activities in § 761.30.
Persons who process, distribute in
commerce, or use waste oil mUBt assume
it contains PCBs unleH the waste oil has
been tested and found to contain no
PCBs. Batch testing of waste oila ii
permitted. Waste oils that contain
detectable concentrations of PCBs less
than so ppm may be used as a fuel. as a
feedstock in the production of re-refined
oils and lubricants. or for any other
purpose except as a sealant. coating, or
dust control agent
The use of waste oil containing any
detectable concentration of PCBs as a
sealant. coating, or dust control agent is
banned because these uses result in
rapid, direct entry of PCB into the
environment. For example, the run-off
from road surfaces frequently goes
directly to riven or streams. Once in the
environment, PCB enten the food chain.
causing a number of adverse effects.
The dumping of waste oil (e.g .• in a field)
is considered use as a dust control agent
and is prohibited by this rule. Waste oil
is also used to coat water pipes and as a
carrier for pesticides and herbicides.
These uses also result in substantial
direct entry of PCBs into the
environment and are prohibited.
Although the PCB concentration in
waste oil may be low, the large volume
of waste oil that is used in these
activities results in a large quantity of
PCBs entering the environment.
Approximately 8,500 pounds of PCB
enter the environment annually just
from road oiling activities (see the
Versar Report). -
B. Changes in § 761.30: Prohibitions
The following changes have been
made to § 761.30:
1. Change in the Scope of the
Manufacturing Ban
The proposed rule would have
considered the manufacture ( and
importation) of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment aa the manufacture and
import of PCBs. Thia approach would
have had the effect of prohibitina the
production (and importation) of PCB
Articles and PCB Equipment after
I anuary 1, 1979, under the provisiona of
section 6(e)(3)(A}{i} ~fTSCA. A large
number of.commentors argued that to
conaider the production of PCB Articles
and PCB Equipment to be
"manufacture" was inconsistent with
TSCA and other rules-promulgated
under TSCA. In addition. it was argued
that if these activities are conaidered to
be "manufacturing" PCBs. the term
"proceHi.ng" would have i:io meaning. aa
almost all commerical activities uaing
PCBs prior to final sale or end uaa would
be manufacturing activities.
a. "ManufacJuring" Versu., "Processing"
of PCB Items
After considering the comments. EPA
reexamined the "manufacturing" veraua
"processing" issue and concluded that
PCB Article and PCB Equipment
production is "processing" of PCBs. not
"manufacture" of PCBs. This conclusion
is based on an analysis of the activities
of manufacturing, processing.
distribution in commerce. and use with
respect to chemical substances. EPA
determined that "manufacturing" a
chemical substance involves only the
actual creation of the chemical
substance (or of a substance
contaminated with PCBs). The other
activities are distinguished from
"manufacturing" because they involve
the use of the already existing
substance. "Processing" PCBs includes
activities such as placing previously
manufactured PCBs into capacitors or
transformers. While these activities may
be referred to as "manufacturing" of
PCB Articles. they do not involve the
"manufacture" of the PCBs. only-the
"processing" of PCBs. The "distribution
in commerce" and "use" of PCBs
generally coincides with the distribution
and use of the PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment. Thus. the ban of PCB
"manufacture" applies solely to the
manufacture of PCBs. as defined in
§ 761 .2(s). Bans of all other activities,
namely processing. distribution in
commerce. and use. apply both to PCBs
as a substance and PCB Items. This
interpretation of the terms
"manufacture" and "process" also
accords with the manner in which
Congress intended the requirements of
section 6(e}(3} ofTSCA to be "phased•
in" over time.
The change in EPA's use of the terms
"manufacturing" and "processing" is
reflected in the definition of PCBs. The
proposed definition of "PCB" and
"PCBe" included both PCB Article and
PCB Equipment (see f 761.Z(q) at 43 FR
24813). The final rule changes the
definition of "PCB" and "PCBa" in
I 761..z(s) by applying these terms only
to chemical substances (se~ preamble
section ILA. for more detailed
diacuaaion). PCB Equipment and PCB
Articles are no longer included in the
definition of "PCB" and "PCBs" but are
included in a separate term. "PCB
Items", which is defined in § 761.Z(x) ..
b. Manufacture and Import of PCB Items
The reviseci interpretation of
"manufacture" and "processing" has
two main effects. The first ia to postpone
the effective date of the prohibition
under section 6{e)(3) of the manufacture
of PCB Articles and PCB Equipment to
July 1, 1979 (-unleu EPA grants an
exemption under section 6{e)(3}(B) of
TSCA for continuation of such activities
beyond that date). The continued-
production of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment until July 1. 1979, must.
however, be performed in a totally
enclosed manner in order to avoid the
prohibition on non-totally enclosed
processing of PCBs of section 6(e)(2). As
a practical matter, this means that
· production of PCB Articles will be
prohibited after July 2. 1979, under
section 6(e)(2) as a non-totally enclosed
processing of PCBs. In general. PCB
Equipment is produced in a totally
enclosed manner and so this activity
wouid not be prohibited until July 1.
1979. The practical effect of the change.
then. will be to allow continued
production of PCB Equipment (such as
television sets and microwave ovens)
until July 1, 1979 (see preamble section
Villbelow).
A second effect relates to the
importation of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment: here the issues are more
complex. The TSCA definition of
"manufacture" includes importation (see
section 3(7) of TSCA). This means that
the importation of any PCB or PCB Item
is equated with manufacture. A literal
interpretation of this definition in
implementing TSCA section 6(e}(3}(A)(i)
would mean that no person would be
able to import any PCB or PCB Item
after [30 days after publication in the
Federal Register]. This would create an
inequity between domestic
manufacturen and importers of PCB
Items. Specifically, domestic
manufacturers of PCB Items could
continul! to manufacture and distribute
those PCB Items in commerce until July
1. 1979. when the ban under section
6(e)(3)(A)(ii) is effective. while importen
would be prohibited from conducting the
31528 Fedenl Resister / Vol. 44, No. 108 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
same activity after (30 days after
publication in the Federal Register).
The most straightforward way to
eliminate this inequity is to delay the
effective date of the prohibition on the
importation of PCB Items until July 1,
1979; Thia approach would eliminate the
inequity for importers of PCB Equipment
but create a different inequity for the
importers of PCB Articles. Domestic
production of PCB Articles, such aa·PCB
Capacitors and PCB Transformers, is
banned as of [30 days after publication
in the Federal Register) (even though
such production is PCB processing)
because this type of production cannot
be performed in a totally enclosed
manner. (Non-totally enclosed
processing and other activities are
prohibited after July 2, 1979, by section
6(e)(2) of TSCA.) If the import
prohibition for PCB Articles is delayed,
PCB Article!! could be imported into the
U.S. even though they could not be
manufactured in the U.S. The continued
importation of PCB Articles would
increase both the disposal problem
associated with PCB Capacitors and the
problems associated with use and
disposal of PCB fluids in transformers.
Because of the inequities and disposal
problems associated with continued
importation, EPA is banning importation
of PCB Articles after July 2, 1979.
Persons wishing to import PCB Articles
may petition EPA for an exemption from
this ban. This rule does permit
continued importation until July 1, 1979,
of PCB Equipment, such as television
sets and microwave ovens. since these
items can be manufactured domestically
during this period as they involve
"processing" PCB in a totally enclosed
manner. The effect of this rule is
essentially to treat domestic and foreign
manufacturers of PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment equally. Such equal
treatment was intended and desired by
Congress.
From a strict statutory perspective,
any importation of PCBs in any form,
including in PCB Items, is
"manufacturing" of PCBs .and prohibited
after [30 days after publication in the
Federal Register), by TSCA section 6(e)
[2) and (3). Although domestic
production of PCB Items is best
described as PCB "processing",
importation of such items is best
described as importation of PCBs in the
item. The alternative would be to wholly
exclude such importation from the
coverage of section 6(e), a manifest
absurdity. But just as Congress
obviously did not intend such exclusion.
so too it did not intend discriminatory
treatment. EPA. therefore. construes
section 6{e) as authorizing it to impose
parallel restrictions on PCB Item
production and importation and this is
what has been done.
While domestic manufacturers and
importers both may continue to build or
import PCB Equipment (but not PCB
Articles} until July 1, 1979, EPA will
strictly enforce the prohibition under
TSCA section 6(e}(3}(A)(ii) of processing
and distribution in commerce of PCBs
and PCB Items, including PCB
Equipment, after July 1, 1979.
Accordingly, no one will benefit by
creating stockpiles of these items in the
next several months. The only
exceptions to these July 1, 1979
prohibitions will be those activities for
which EPA grants an exemption.
Any PCBs or PCB Items imported
pursuant to this rule must comply with
the import requirements and all other
requirements of this rule.
2. Import and Export of PCBs and PCB
Items for Disposal
The proposed rule would have
prohibited any import or export of PCBs
or PCB Items for any purpose. EPA has
reviewed this proposed ·policy and has
decided that because of the many
potential advantages of an open border
policy with respect to disposal of PCBs.
that EPA will adopt such a policy for at
least one year.
In theory, an open border policy
would be advantageous to both the
United States and f9reign countries,
especially Canada. Generators of PCB
wastes would be able to select the PCB
disposal site that offers the most
reasonable transportation and disposal
costs. The success of such a policy
depends. how!i!ver, upon the availability
of facilities in other countries to safely
dispose of PCB wastes. EPA is
concerned that foreign disposal
alternatives may not adequately destroy
the PCBs'and create a threat to human
health and the environment in the
United States.
To date, the United States has
approved seven PCB disposal sites and
is actively involved in evaluating other
potential sites. Other nations have not
made as much progress. Uthe United
States were to adopt an open border
policy without any qualifications. there
may be no incentive for other nations to
develop PCB disposal sites. The United
States would probably receive a
disproportionate share of the
international PCB wastes. This disparity
could overload existing U.S. capacity
and impede public acceptance of PCB
disposal sites.
The one year time limit on the open
border policy will provide other nations
an opportunity to establish PCB disposal
sites. At. the end of the one year period.
EPA will examine the progress made by
other nations in establishing and
operating safe PCB disposal sites and
determine if extension of the open
border policy is appropriate.
The final rule, therefore, allows the
import and export of PCB wastes for
disposal for one year. All imported PCB
wastes must be disposed of in
accordance with Subpart B of this rule.
In preparing this final rule, EPA has
reviewed whether regulation of
imported and exported PCB wastes for
disposal should be accomplished under
section 6(e)(1) ofTSCA or under section
6(e)(3). While section 6(e)(3)(A)(i) could
be read to allow regulation of the import
of PCB wastes for disposal, section 6(e)
treats PCB disposal as a separate matter
under section 6{e)(1). Both the import
and export of PCB wastes for disposal
may be regulated under section 6(e)(1),
which allows comprehensive regulation
of the disposal of PCBs. Accordingly,
EPA has elected to regulate import and
export of PCB wastes for disposal under
section 6(e)(1). Since the requirements
governing disposal of PCB wastes must
be complied with for all imported PCB
wastes, no unreasonable risks should
result. Moreover, proper disposal in this
country provides protection against
possible hazards from improper disposal
elsewhere.
Other imports and exports of PCBs
and PCB Items are regulated as
elsewhere described in this preamble
under sections 6(e)(2), 6(e)(3). and/or
section 12. All imports and exports of
PCBs and PCB Items remain subject to
the applicable disposal and marking
requirements under section 6(e)(1).
Under RCRA. EPA expects to
establish a manifest system for
hazardous wastes that will monitor the
disposal of PCBs and other hazardous
wastes imported into the U.S. This
system should be in effect in 1980. No
notification system for imports of PCB
wastes for disposal will be established
in this rule because of potential
confusion with the forthcoming RCRA
program. All importers of PCB wastes
will be required to maintain records. as
provided in Annex VI of this rule.
With respectto exports, § 761.30(c)i3}
of th.is rule requires that persons
exportirig PCBs and PCB Items for
disposal notify EPA at least 30 davs
before the first export of wastes. The
initial notice should identity the owner
of the waste, the expected annual
volume of wastes to be exported. a
description of the intended methods of
disposal, the precaut:ons to be taken to
control release into the environment,
and the identity of the receiver of the
Federal Resister / VoL 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31527
waates. Quarterly reports of actaal
waste shipments are also required. For
each successive year, the volume of
waates to be exported, if any, must be
estimated. Then reports are required
punuant to the authority in section 6(e)
and 12(a} of TSCA. Addittonal reports
under section U(b) of TSCA would not
be required for the export of the•
wastes. Unlike other exports of PCBs.
export for diaposal under tbia rule will
not present an unreasonable risk to the
United States becauae of the controls on
such export contained in the ruJa and
the fact that such export will only -be for
the purpoee of diapoMl or destruction of
PCBs.
EPA will carefully monitor the results
of allowing the import and export of
PCB waste. One future alternative may
be to allow diaposal only in COUDtries
whose facilities meet certain criteria
arrived at through bilateral qreements.
Closing the United States border to
shipments of PCB wutea at thia·time,
however. could have aerioua adverse
effects on the environment by making
safe disposal of PCBs more difflc:u.lt In
particular. barring import of PCBs for
disposal could make export for diapoaal
impossible and thereby eliminate wiaat
in many cases would be the most
desirable disposal altemattn. Many
generators of hazardous waate materials
located near the U.S.-Canadfan bonier
find that the nearest diapoeal site is in
the other country. An open border policy
will allow import and export of such
wastes to continue and lllll'lOmize the
opportunities for appropriate disposal.
For a general discuasion of exports of
PCBs, see preamble section XL below.
Import or export of PCBs or PCB l&ems
for purposes of disposal remain subject
to the other proviaias of this rule.
C. Other Issues
1. PCB Impurities and Byproducts
The prohibitions in § 710.30 include a
prohibition of the "manufacture" of
"PCB" or "PCBs" as defined in
§ 161.2(s). Thia prohibition applies to the
deliberate production of PCBs whether
in large quantities for use in
transformers and capacitors or in small
quantities for research. Furthermore, the
prohibition applies to the manufacture
of any substance or mixture that
contain.a PCB at so ppm or sreater.
including PCB that ia an filtermediate or
"impurity" or "byproduct'". u defined
by .I 761.2{k) and (c). rupedinly. Wh11t
the productiaa olPCBa Ullds mch
circ:amlltallCN may not be iDtatiallal
and may have DD indepeadaat
commercial vame. -=timl e(e) of TSCA
applla to oar prodacticm o£ PCBa and.
therefore, coven nc:h acti'l'itfes.
Similarly, proCNsing. distribution ID
commerce, and uae of PCBs which are
impurities or byproducts are subject to
sectiona 8(e}(2) and (3) ofTSCA.
The propoaed rule prohibited
activities iDvoiviq PCB -intermediates.
impuriUu and byproducts under
sectiom 6(e}{2) and (3) ofTSCA. In
respoue to queatiou on tbia point at
the informal bearing. EPA made clear
that such activities are subject to the
rule. Thia diacu.-ioa ia intended to
clarify further that the manafacturins,
processing. dlstrtbation in commerce,
and uae bana of sections 6(e}(Z) and (3)
of TSCA apply whenever PCB• are
present as intermediates, impurities, or
byproducts at a cG11centration of SO ppm
or greater.
Some manufacturers COIDID8Dted that
they interpreted the proposed rule to
allow the creation of PCBs in
concentratiom sn,at. than SO ppm u
an intermediate. impurity, precanar, or
byproduct in a reaction proceu u long
88 the PCB concentration in any final
byproduct or end product ia below SO
ppm. The intent of the proposed rule
waa to prohibit such manufacture. All
manufacturing or processing operatiom
must be adequately controlled so that
PCBs are not present at concentrations
greater than SO ppm at any point in the
manufacturing proceH except when
concentratma wute atreama. u
discuaaed below.
As diacuased earlier in section ILB. of
this preamble, several processes for the
manufacture of chlorinated organic
substances unintentionally create PCBs.
EPA is aware of several cases in which
the PCBs appear u impurities at
concentratiom greater than SO ppm in
the final product. To reduce the lave! of
PCBs that are impurities in these
chemical products. selection of
ingredients and proce88 techniques
usually have to be altered. In some
cases, more careful quality control of the
production operations can help avoid
unwanted impurities and byproduc:ta.
Two groups of chemical products are
most affected by controls on impurities
and byproducts: pigments and other
chlorinated chemicals. The impact on
pigments is better understood becauae
the industry became aware of the
problem earlier than other potentially
affected induatriea and provided
extmaive information and cornmenta on
the impact of the proposed rule. The
PCB CODtamiDatioll of pismmats ia
dleaatwi furtbar in pnamb1e uctim
IX.G. The impact GD the prodnc;Hoa ol
other organic chenrit:ala ia aot u WIIII
known. Oalf a few companiM
commented on the proposed rule, and
available data are limited.
The manufacture of PCBs as
intermediates, impurities and
bypl"Oducts almost always involves
some human and environmental
exposure. Unless the PCBs are created
in a totally enclosed. continuous
reaction process. production workers
will be exposed and there may be PCBs
in air emia1ions and other effluents. The
processing. distribution in commerce,
and use of the chemicala containing
PCBs will aho caUH exposure to PCB1
among proceu workers and others who
handle and use the chemicala. Controls
that exist on worker exposure and/ or
handling and diaposal practices are
usually related to the primary chemical,
not the PCBs contained ill the chemical.
which-meana that exposure to the .PCBs
often is uncontrolled.
A. explained below, penom may
petition for an exemption from this
manufacturing ban pursuant to the
Agency's interim procedures ( 43 FR
50905, November 1, 1978). In addition.
the processing. distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs in a non-
totally enclosed manner is prohibited
after July 2. 1979, unleu authorized and
ail pl'OCelling and distribution of such
PCBs u byproducts and impurities are
prohibited aft_er July 1, 1979, unless a
specific ex.emption from the ban is
granted by EPA.
Section 761.30(c}(2) provides that
PCBs may be processed and distributed
in commerce for purposes of disposal in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 781.10. Thia provision is intended to
apply to the concentration of waste
streams and allow the concentration of
PCBs to exceed 50 ppm in waste stream
as long u the waste stream is diaposed
of in accordance with this rule. The
following illustratea this. A product is
manufactured that contains 20 ppm PCB.
It is then proceHed to reduce the PCB
concentration to 5 ppm. As a result of
the proceHing. a waste stream is
created that contain.a 100 ppm PCB. As
long 88 this waste stream is disposed of
in accordance with this rule, the
manufacturer does not have to apply for
an exemption. II the initial product
contains more than 50 ppm PCB,
however, the manufacturer must apply
for an exemption from the
manufacturing prohibition. Section
761.30{cJ(2) only applies to byproducts
or other wastes that are intended for
disposal.
To clarify the relationahip of the
prohibitiODS of sections 6(e) (2) and (3)
to intermediatea, byproducts. and
lmpuritial. the terms "manufacture for
commercial purposes" and "proceH for
31528 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
commercial purposes". defined in I 761.2 (bb) and (dd) of the proposed
rule. have been deleted. These
definition, were intended to exclude
from the rule a very limited number of
activities (e.g., the chlorination oi
municipal sewage di1chargea) that may
result in or involve PCB concentrationa
below 50 ppm. In the applicability
section (I 761.t(b)) the final rule state,
that unle11 otherwiae specified in the
rule itself, the term "PCB", aa used in the
rule. i1 intended to include only
1ub1tance1 or combinationa of
sub1tance1 with 50 ppm or greater PCBa.
Accordingly, it should be clear that such
activities are not within the scope of the
rule. As a consequence, the definitions
concerning "commercial purposes" are
not necessary and may be confusing,
especially becauae I 6(e) is not limited
by the statute to activities "for
commercial purposes"
2. Disposal of Small PCB Capacitors
The PCB Disposal and Marking Rule
excluded moat small PCB Capacitors,
primarily those contained in small
appliances and fluorescent light
ballasts. from special disposal
requirements. These small capacitors
may be disposed of as municipal solid
waste. Only small capacitors owned by
persona who manufacture capacitors or
PCB Equipment are subject to special
disposal requirements.
These requirements are not changed
by this final rule. EPA has not identified
a feasible regulatory alternative that
would result in disposal of a substantial
portion of the remaining small PCB
Capacitors in facilities other than
municipal solid waste sites. In addition.
the random disposal of PCB Equipment
in municipal solid waste sites by
houaeholdera and other infrequent
disposers does not present an
environmental hazard. Accordingly,
EPA has no current plans to further
regulate the disposal of these small
capacitors.
However, the disposal of large
quantities of small PCB Capacitors by
commercial and industrial activities
poses a somewhat larger environmental
risk. Therefore. EPA encourages
commercial and industrial firms that use
and dispose of large quantities of small
PCB Capacitors to establish voluntarily
a collection and disposal program that
would result in the waste capacitors
going to chemical waste landfills or high
temperature incinerators. Proper
disposal of small PCB Capacitors is
mandatory for all manufacturers of PCB
Equipment. Thia would result in better
environmental control than normal
municipal solid waste disposal by
preventing large concentrations of
capacitors from being placed in sanitary
landfills. It should also be noted that
any PCB spillage that might result from
failure of or from damage to a large
number of amall capacitors could be
considered as illegal disposal, .which is
the case for other spill• of PCBs.
3.-State Preemptions
In the Disposal and Marking Rule,
EPA stated that State and local
requirements regarding disposal of PCBa
are exempt from Federal preemption as
long as the requirements are not leaa
restrictive than tho1e preacribed by
EPA. EPA took thi1 position to avoid
interfering with existing PCB disposal
requirement■ in Michigan. Oregon,
Indiana. Minnesota, and Wisconsin,
where the State requirements are at
least aa stringent aa the Federal
requirements.
In the paat several months, EPA haa
become concerned that actions by local
and State governments to prohibit
dispoaal of PCB1 and other substances
in their jurisdictions could frustrate the
national goal of properly disposing of
hazardous chemical substances. While
EPA has alway, believed that States
should have the right to set pollution
control standards more restrictive than
the Federal standards. it would be a
matter of national concern if this
principle were to become the basis for
refuaal by States to share in the natic;mal
responsibility for finding safe means for
the proper disposal of hazardous
substances. EPA has decided not to
make any changes in its PCB preemption
policy at this time. However. EPA will
be considering the preemption issue
further in its administration of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
Vll Relationship of Section 6(e)(2) to
Section 6(e)(3)
Section 6(el(Z) of TSCA prohibits
manufacturing, procesaing, distribution
in commerce. and use of PCBs after
January 1, 1978. unless conducted in a
totally enclosed manner. Sei:tion
6(e-j(Zl(B) provides that the
Administrator may, by rule. authorize
continuation of an otherwise prohibited
activity if the Administrator finds that
the activity ''will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment"
Section 6(e)(3) prohibits all
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs
(including activities conducted in a
totally enclosed manner). The
manufacturing prohibition is effective on
July Z. 1979 and the other prohibitions
are effective on July 1, 1979. Section
6(e)(3)(B) authorizes the Administrator
to exempt activitie1 from section 6(e)(3)
prohibitions if he finds that the activity
will not result in an unreasonable risk to
health or the environment and that good
faith effort• have been made to develop
a substitute for the PCB.
It is obvious that. with respect to
manufacturing, procesaing, and
distribution in commerce, the provision■
of section 6(e)(Z) are entirely duplicative
of the corresponding provisions of
section O(e)(3) once these provisions of
section 6(e)(3) become effective. For
example. once the manufacturing
prohibition of section 6(e)(3) is effective
the manufacturing prohibition of section
6(e)(Z) adds nothing whatever to
protection of health and the
environment since section 6(e)(3) is
broader in coverage and somewhat
more restrictive in terms of waivers
(exemptions). Similarly. on July 1. 1979.
the section 6(e)(3) prohibitions of
procesaing and distribution in commerce
entirely supersede the corresponding
prohibitions in section 6(e)(2). It is clear
that with respect to manufacturing,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs, Congress intended
section 6(e)(ZJ 89 only an interim
measure. Moreover. to continue to
implement the section 6(e)(Z)
prohibitions on these activities after the
corresponding prohibitions of section
6(e)(3) are effective would result in
waste and confusion with absolutely no
increase in protection from PCBs.
Therefore. EPA will consider the
prohibitions in section 6(e){Z) to be
superceded and no longer in effect when
the corre,ponding-prohibitions of
section 6(e}(3) for each PCB activity go
into effect. What this means is that the
section 6(e)(2) prohibition on
manufacturing of PCBs is considered to
be no longer in effect now that the
section 6(e)(3) prohibition on
manufacturing 1s in effect. The
provisions of section 6(e)(3) wili be
considered the exclusive authority
under section 6(e) to prohibit PCB
manufacturing. However. the section
6(e)(Zl prohibitions on processing,
distribution in commerce and use are
effective as of July 2. 1979. The
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions of section 6(el(2) will be
considered to continue ir. effect until
July 1. 1979. when '.hey will be
superceded by section 6(e)(3). Because
the section 6(e)(2) use proiubition ha& no
counterpart in section 6(eJ(3] it rema ins
in effect indefinitely.
VIII. Authorizations and Exemptions
A. Explanation of Authorizations and
Exemptions
Section 6( e) of TSCA provides for two
types of exceptions to the prohibitions
of PCB activities: authorization■ and
exemptions. The purpose of thia
discu11ion is to clarify the distinctions
between these exceptions and explain
EPA's policy to simplify implementation
by having a combined procedure for
authorizations and exemptions.
An authorization is an exception to
the TSCA section 6(e)(Z) January 1. 1378
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31529
ban of non-totally encloaed activities.
To authorize an activity, EPA must finci
that continuation of the activity doe■ not
present an unrea■onable risk of injury to
human health or the environment. Since
the intent of the law i1 for PCB activitin
to be baMed. it must be clearly evident
that the risk from an activity ia not
wuea,onable. In the ab■ence of such
evidence, an activity i1 banned.
AJthoqh not aubject to section 6(c)(1)
ofTSCA. EPA used·the criteria in
section 6(c)(l) to determine whether or
not the risk from a non-totally encloaed
activity is "unreasonable". These factors
include: (1) the effect of such substance
or mixture on health and the magnitude
of exposure of human beinga to such
substance or mixture, (2) the effecta of
such substance or mixture on the
environment and the magnitude of the
exposure of the environment to such
substance and mixture, (3) the benefits
of such substance or mixture for varioua
uae1 and the availability of subatitutea
for such uses, and (4) the reasonably
aacertainable economic consequences of
the rule, after con1ideration of the effect
on the national economy, small
busineH, technological innovation. the
environment, and public health.
An exemption is an exception to
either (1) the TSCA section 6(e)(3)(A)(i)
January 1, 1979 complete ban of all PCR.
;nanufacture or (2) the TSCA section
6(e)(3)(A)(ii) July 1, 1979 complete ban of
all PCB processing and distribution in
commerce. To grant an exemption, EPA
must determine both that an
unreasonable risk is not present and
!hat good faith efforts have been made
!o develop ,ubstitutes for the PCB1 uaed
in the activity to be exempted.
ln addition to the difference in criteria
for granting these two exceptions, there
are several other important diatinction,
between an authorization and an
exemption.
First. an authorization may be valid
for any time period that EPA finda
appropriate, but an exemption ia only
valid for one year and muat be granted
annually through a formal rulemaldng.
However, the complete bana of
manufacture. proceasing. and
distribution in commerce contained in
section 6(e)(3) of TSCA supercede the
corresponding bans contained in section
6(e)(2), 81 explained above. Since EPA
muat make piore stringent findings
under section S(e)(3) than under section
6(e)(2), there i■ no reason to require
petitlonen to have an authorization if
they have been granted an exemption
for the same activity (aee preamble
NCtion Vll). Therefore, a PCB
procnaing or di■tribution in _commerce
acUvity cannot be authorized after July
1, 1979. After thia date, penons who
proceu or distribute PCBa mU6t petition
for and be granted an exemption
annually by EPA in order to continue
tbaN activitiea.
Second. EPA may propose and
promulgate an authorization without a
specific request from the persons who
will benefit from the authorization. This
is not the case for exemptiona, which
muat be petitioned for by those who
would benefit from them. The
requirementa regarding exemption
petitiona ant diacuseed below.
Third, becauae section 6(e)(3) ofTSCA
completely bana the manufacture,
proceaainl, and distribution in
commerce of PCB■ and not the use of
PCBs, all PCB use activities are covered
only by section 6(e)(~) of TSCA. Thia
means that a use activity never needs an
exemption. and. therefore. must fall into
one of three categories: (1) totally
enclosed with no need for an
authorization: (2) not totally enclosed
and authorized: or (3) not totally
enclosed and not authorized. Only the
third group of use activities is prohibited
by this rule. Activities that are included
in the first two categories are described
in section IX of the preamble. wbil_e
those in the third category are described
in section X.
1. Manufacturing Exemptions
No exemption., are promulgated in
this rule. These are being handled in a
separate rulemaking. The rulemak.ing
procedures for PCB manufacturing
exemptions were printed in the Federal
Reliatm' on November 1, 1978, al page
50905. Examples of manufacturing
activities that require an exemption to
continue after July 2. 1979, include, but
are not limited to: the manufacture of
PCB for use in transformers or
capacitors: the manufacture of PCB in
small quantities for research and
development: the manufacture of PCB
for use in microscopy: the manufacture
of PCB aa an impurity or byproduct in or
uaociated. with other chemicals (e.g ..
pigmenta): and the Importation of PCBe,
including bulk form or in mixtures and
PCB Articles for any purpose other than
disposal. Aa discussed in section Vl.B.1
above. importation of PCB Equipment
may continue until July 1, 1979.
Persons who have submitted petitions
for a manufacturing exemption in
accordance with the November 1, 1978,
rulemaking procedures will not be
subject to the PC:S manufactwing ban
until EPA acts upon their petitions (see
44 FR 108. January 2, 1979). Many of the
petitions are moot because of changes in
the final rule that permit the
manufacture of PCB Equipment until
July 1, 1979. These manufacturers are
required to comply with all other
applicable portions of thia rule, such as
requirement■ for disposal, marking,
storage, and recordkeeping.
2. Processing and Distribution in
Cornmerr:e Exemptions
In the near future, EPA will iasue
procedures for applii::,ationa for
exemptiona from the proce11ing and
distribution bans, which are effective
July 1, 1979. The procedures may
incorporate revi1ion1 from thoae
applicable to manufacturing axemptiona.
Under the existing procedures, each
person who wants an exemption must
submit a separate petition. EPA is
considering revising this requirement to
reduce the number of individual
petitions because substantially more
persons will be affected by the
proceaaing and distribution bans than
by the manufacturing ban. In addi.tion.
EPA anticipates that the petitions will
fall into several principal categories.
Instead of requiring petitioners to
duplicate efforts in caaes where their
requesta are eaaentially identical, EPA
may accept certain class petitions
submitted on behalf of more than one
petitioner. Trade a11ocialions for
example; may be permitted lo develop a
single petition. 81 appropriate, on behalf
of their members, or manufacturers or
proce11ors may be permitted to petition
on behalf of persona distributing their
products.
Activities that will require an
exemption from the July 1. 1979,
processing amt distributior. in commerce
bans include, but are not limited to: the
manufacture of PC'l3 Equipment: the sale
of PCB Equipment: the sale of PCB
Capacitors: the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
servicing PCB Transformers. PCB-
Contaminated Transformers. railroad
transformers, mining equipment.
electromagnets, and hydraulic
equipment: the processing and
distribution in commerce of pigments
and other chemicals thal contain 50 ppm
or greater PCB: and the processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
microscopy and in small quantities for
research and development.
B. General Changes in § 761.31:
AuthorizatioM
Three changes have been made from
the proposal that affect all
authorizations. These changes are
discussed here while changes in
individual authorizations are diacusaed
in section IX of this preamble.
1. Reporting and Recordkseping
Requirements
Virtually all reporting and
recordkeeping requirements have been
deleted from § 761.31. Several proposed
authorizations would have required
persona to submit reports to EPA and to
retain records for a variety of non-
totally enclosed activities. EPA
recognizes the burden on manufacturen
and others who would have been
required to prepare and maintain these
records and haa determined that these
requirementa are la11ely unnecessary,
becauae moat of the information Will be
1ubmitted in the annuaJ petitiona for
31530 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
exemptions. The only exceptions to this
policy are owners of railroad
transformers, hydraulic systems, and
heat transfer systems who must retair.
records of the PCB analyses that they
are required to perform.
2. Length of Use Authorizations
Unlike all other activities. that 11111y be
subject to an authorization under TSCA
section 6(e)(2){B), use activities are not
prohibited under TSCA section
6(e)(3)(A). Accordingly, there is no
automatic limit to the length of use
authorizations. In deciding how long to
authorize each use. EPA believes that it
shouid have the opportunity to review
each use in a timely way to ensure that
there is no unreasonable risk associated
with its continuation. In addition,
improved technology or development of
new PCB substitutes could reduce the
need for the authorization. Accordingly,
EPA proposed a five-year limit on most
use authorizations. The final rule has
generally extended this period to five
and one-half years so that the expiration
date for authorizations will coincide
with the expiration of the processing
and distribution exemptions. This
change will permit EPA to combine
edministrative procedures, and thereby
reduce administrative costs. Several use
authorizations have shorter periods as
explained under section IX below.
Since, as ·noted earlier, the processing
and distribution prohibitions of TSCA
section 6(e)(2) expire on July 1, 1979,
authorization, for these activities will
expire on the same date. Thereafter,
these activilies will be subject to TSCA
section 6(e)(3) and will require annual
exemptions to continue.
3. Changes in I 781.48: Annex VII
Annex VIL which provided for PCB
Exposure and Control Plana. has been
deleted. The proposed Annex would
have imposed special requirements on
persona authorized to continue activities
in other than a totally enclosed manner.
Specifically, Annex VII would have
required detailed plans for handling
PCBs, preventing spills, and otherwise
reducing human and environmental
exposure. The final rule no longer
requires such plana because EPA is
developing 1imilar requirements under
section 311 of the Clean Water Act (1ee
proposed Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeaeure Plan Rule, 43 FR 39278.
September 1, 1978).
IX Sped& Aldbamadam
Activities that are regulated by thi1
rule and the .effect of the rule on th...,
activiti• are ll1IDlll8rized In Table 3.
The data referred to In thia Nction are
In tbe Venar Report. which i1 available
&om EPA'• Office of lnduatry
Assistance at the address given at the
beginning of the preamble.
In relationship to activities regulated
by this rule, dilution of PCBs is
prohibited unless otherwise specifically
provided for in the rule. This prohibition
is neceHary to prevent an unreasonable
risk of human and environmental
exposure to PCBs. If dilution was
permitted. it would be possible to dilute
all PCB liquids so that their disposal
would no longer be controlled by this
rule. This is clearly an unacceptable
alternative since it could result in all
existing PCBs entering the environment.
However. for several authorized
activities, dilution of PCBs is essential to
the intended performance of the
activities and is not performed with the
intent of evading the disposai
requirements for PCBs. For these
activities only. dilution of PCBs is
permitted and the disposal of liquid is
governed by its final PCB concentration
rather than its beginning PCB
concentration. The following authorized
activities are permitted to dilute PCBs:
(1) Servicing of transformers (with
restrictions); (2) Servicing of railroad
transformers: (3) Use in heat transfer
systems: (4) Use in hydraulic systems:
(SJ Processing and use of pigments: and
( 6 l Use in natural gas.
The exemption review procesa for the
manufacturing, processing, and
distribution in commerce bans will also
evaluate the need for dilution in the
performance of PCB activities. Any
decisions to permit dilution in exem~ted
activities will be stated in the
exemption. if granted.
A. Servicing Transformers (Other Than
Railroad Transformers)
EPA considers the use of transformers
as use in a totally.enclosed manner.
Accordingly, the use of PCBs in
transformers may continue indefinitely.
In addition. in this rule EPA authorizes
the routine servicing of PCB
Transformers (as defined in § 761.21(y))
and the routine servicing and rebuilding
of PCB-Contaminated Transformers ('is
defined in § 781.2(z)) subject to certain
conditions. The rule also authorizes the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for servicing transformers. The
following is a summary of EPA's
findings and reasoning behind these
decisions.
Most large electrical transformers are
designed to operate with the current-
carrying coils immersed in a dialectric
fluid. In the past. most transformers
used in buildings er other critical fire
control locationa were filled with non-
flammable dielectric fluids containing
PCBs as a major component. These PC3
dielectric fluids are known by the
generic term "askarel" and have been in
common use since the 1930'1. Currently,
some 140,000 transformers, or less than
one percent of all large electrical
transformers in service, uae askarei
dielectric fluid.
PC8 Ban Rule Actlone
TO!all' -,.._ e-T-of PCB 9IICiDNd 11yru1e• t,ynae _. ICIMly'
PCBT,w .... .:ca U(-P,O,U 111. Flallulldlng P, 0 _____ .,_ P'CB.
__,., c--.i, PC&Qa:a,•-r,.,_,._11am11••-----u (-P, o, u P. o .. ·---... -~---., (---», lion. R.-...iT __________ ---·-·----P,0.U._ ,._y ___ P,0 .... __ PCS&
Conlai,w,e, -~~--------____ P,O.U-11 ...,_ P, 0 .. , __ , PCS.
1/ll. ~
(1/Vl!O). i.-r,_ _________ ----U,,. ___ W.P,O, _______ eo.-,;,,..
:iOn. ~~---------____ P.o,u_, __ .,, ___ P,0 ___ c--.
DOIi. ~CO!'J"-------___ U-..-. M,P,0_ PCS.
~ P, 0, U-11 W M, P.O .. __ eom-
1/12. 110ft.
Ow:eca,t...yr u (--P, 0, U W. ~ P, 0 ... __ ,_ PCS. ...,.._ ---'-lnlO.. ,,_...~ U-411/IO:,_ W. P. 0 ___ ., ___ ~
llan.
Small 0.... tar RIO P, 0, U -M W. P, 0--·-PCS.
Mlcraa:l:IP, P, Q, U -W W, P. 0 __ P'CB.
PC8 C.-.--------o, u__ w. "--o ___ P'CB. PCB~--------W. P, 0, U-P, 0 __ P'CB. ,._ Cea•••-w. P, D. u~ w. P. 0 __ ~ -...... .,..., _____________ ----W.P,0--M,P;0 __ PCB&
ecw...,
tlan.
~Oarftl.S...&Cola\W("--al ------M,P,D.U-___ Cea-. _.,,flCBI, tlan.
·~----................. 1.,w.~ ............ lit_,.... _____ ... t.1119.
'"Per litll!W-CII ,.._. PC8II {e,e,. _ .._., ......... -0..--(' 1n111W PCB-••--• www-.•.-1U1&01111111111,-,,ca.--«,__.,_cn,,lala_CII.Jllft"PC8a.
'M,e --= M I• C ,.. p...jlf 4. o-a,ee,e,-._ c:ai..-, u-4Jau.
Federal Register / Vol 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31531
A transformer is essentially a large,
sealed can. The only time the can is
deliberately opened is when the
transformer requires certain types of
servicing. Except in th1t event of a
catastrophic failure or other .
extraordinary circumstance, use ( except
servicing} of transformers is performed
in a totally enclosed manner and. as
such. does not require an authorization.
Under this rule. use of PCBs in
transformers may continue indefinitely
because this is a totally enclosed use.
1. General Discussion of Transformer
Servicing
Servicing of transformers does result
in exposure to PCBs. There are two
gen"ral categories of servicing: routine
servicing and rebuilding. Routine
servicing includes testing the dielectric
fluid, filtering the fluid. and replacing
gaskets. Routine servicing often requires
the removal of some dielectric fluid and
then the return, or replacement, of that
fluid. These activities result in some
human and environmental exposure, but
the exposure is usually limited to
exposure of workers to small quantities
of PCB. Good management practices and
protective clothing should result in only
very low levels of exposure to PCBs
during routine servicing.
Rebuilding occurs after a transformer
has failed or after an inspection
indicates that it will soon fail.
Rebuilding is an open process that
involves draining the transformer,
removing and disassembling the core,
reworking the coil or rewinding a new
coil, reassembling the core, and refilling
the tran6former with new fluid. Unless
extraordinary precaution is taken, the
shop personnel responsible for
rebuilding the transformer are exposed
to PCBs since the inner parts of the
transformer are saturated with PCBs.
Volatilization of the PCBs and leaks
from both the transformer and PCB
handling result in environmental
exposure to PCBs.
Worker exposure during rebuilding
can be moderated by protective
equipment, but is inevitably greater than
the exposures during routine servicing.
Volatilization is difficult to control
because of the large surface area
exposed. Unless carefully controlled. the
leaks may contaminate work areas and
storage yards and may reach
watercourses through uncontrolled
runoff and drainage systems. Cleaning
the inner surfaces of the transformers
with solvents during-the rebuilding
process, cleanup of spillage and
drippings, and scrapping of
unserviceable components all increase
the production of liquid and non-liquid
PCB wastes. In addition. the old coil
must be disposed of separately from the
casing. potentially increasing the
environmental exposure to PCBs.
2. PCB Transformers
In developing the proposed rule, EPA
considered three principal options for
PCB Transformers: (1) prohibit both
routine servicing and rebuilding: (2)
permit routine servicing but prohibit
rebuilding: and (3) permit both routine
servicihg and rebuilding. Option 1 would
result in the greatest reduction of
potential PCB exposure. Prohibition of
routine servicing would. however,
probably significantly increase the
chances of catastrophic transformer
failure because of inadequate
maintenance. This hazard and the
resulting exposure to PCBs may present
far greater risks to health and the
environment than that associated with
the minimal PCB exposure during
routine servicing. Option 3 could result
in significant human and environmental
exposure to PCBs from rebuilding
transformers, as explained above. For
these reasons, EPA has chosen a course
of action based upon Option 2.
permitting routine servicing but
prohibiting rebuilding of PCB
Transformers.
Routine servicing will result in
minimal exposures to PCBs and allow
the use of most existing transformers to
continue through their useful lifetimes.
EPA has concluded that this activity
does not pose an unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment.
However, any servicing (including
rebuilding} of PCB Transformers that
involves removing the coils from the
casing is prohibited by the rule. This
prohibition·will cost about $12 million
the first year and steadily less each year
thereafter. Removing the coils
substantially increases PCB exposure.
Considering the PCB exposure that
would result if such servicing (including
rebuilding} was permitted, EPA believes
that these costs are justified by the
increased risks of hatm to human health
and the environment and concludes that
such servicing of PCB Transformers
presents an unreasonable risk.
3. PCB-Contaminated Transformers
As explained below, rebuilding
transformers with less than 500 ppm
PCB is permitted. Because of the
relatively low concentrations of PCBs,
EPA believes that the risks of further
contamination of the environment with
PCBs due !o such rebuilding will be
negligible.-Because these transformers
comprise over 999& of all large electi-ical
transformers, the economic impact of a
rebuildi.ng prohibition on transformers
with less than 500 ppm PCBs could be
extremely high. Comparing these
potential costs to the relatively low
threat to human health and the
environment under the conditions
required under the rule. EPA concludes
that this activity should be authorized to
continue because it does not pose an
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environmenL
Unless there is reason to believe a
transformer contains PCB (askarel)
dielectric fluid or otherwise has 500 ppm
PCB or greater, it may be assumed to
have SO to 500 ppm PCB. In practical
terms, this means that mineral oil
transformers need not be tested to
determine whether they contain more
than 500 ppm PCB. Available
information indicates that virtually no
mineral oil (non-askarel) dielectric fluid
will be contaminated with PCBs above
500 ppm. Even if a small percentage of
such fluid might contain somewhat more
than 500 ppm PCB, EPA does not believe
that the cost of testing needed to
identify fluids with these slightly greater
amounts is justified. Specifically, there
are some 35 million transformers that
would be subject to such a testing
requiremenL With each test costing
between $50 and $100, the total cost of
such testing would be as great as $3.5
billion. The additional health or
environmental benefits that may result
from requiring such testing and applying
more stringent requirements in those
few cases with more than 500 ppm
would be extremely small compared to
these testing costs.
For all practical purposes, testing of
mineral oil dielectric fluid will only be
used to determine whether the mixture
contains less than 50 ppm PCB and is
therefore exempt from the disposal
requirements for mineral oil with over 50
ppm PCB. No testing is needed if the
mineral oi.l will be burned in a high
efficiency boiler or disposed of in any
other way permitted for mineral oil
contaminated with PCBs up to 500 ppm.
Many commentors questioned
whether they would have to test the
fluid from each transformer to determine
the level of PCB contamination. Under
the final rule, because such testing is
optionaL EPA anticipates that most
persons will instead assume that the
transformer contains between SO ppm
and 500 ppm PCB. If a person chooses to
test. the final rule permits collection of
mineral oil dielectric fluid into a s~le
tank from more than one PCB-
Contaminated Transformer. The mixture
of fluids can then be sampled in a
manner that reasonably represents the
composite contents to determme PCB
concentrations. (See preamble sections
II.C and IIl.E above.) Draining a PCB
31532 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulations
Transformer into such a tank is
prohibited.
4. R.ebwlding PCB Transformers
The II ... nsformer service industry and
several transformer owners commented
that PCB Transformer rebuilding should
be permitted. The industry was
particularly concerned with the
economic impact on owners of specially
designed transformers. Because of the
time required to build a new transformer
on special order, a prohibition of
rebuilding PCB Transformers could
significantly disrupt their operations if a
transformer should unexpectedly fail.
However. some transformer failures are
so extensive that the transformer cannot
be rebuilt. In these instances. the
transformer owner must do without-a
transformer until it can be replaced with
either a new or used transformer. Even
when a failed transformer can be
rebuilt, the transformer owner still must
do without a transformer for the length
of time required to rebuild the
transformer. In both situations, the
transformer owner must either operate
at a reduced output or shut-down for
some period of time. This may cause
some economic hardships for owners of
transformers: however, considering the
substantial human exposure during
rebuilding, the Agency believes that
exposure to PCBs from rebuilding
presents an unreasonable risk.
The other changes in the final rule.
however. will reduce some of the
economic impact on transformer users.
The final rule pe1mits the
reclassification of PCB Transformers as
PCB-Contaminated Transformers if they
have been drained and refilled with
non-PCB dielectric fluid and if they are
tested and found to contain Jes, than
500 ppm PCB after at least three months
of in-service use. Three months is the
minimum amount of time necessary to
ensure that the PCBs trapped in the
interior parts of the transformer leach
out into the dielectric fluid. After
reclassifying a PCB Transf01:mer to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformar in this
way, an owner would be permitted to
rebuild that transformer. This
reclassification option reduces the risk
of disruption of operations that could
result frem the prohibition of rebuilding
PCB Transformers.
If a PCB Transformer owner takes
advantage of the reclassification option
described above and converts it to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer. the
transformer could be rebuilt. The
alternative of rebuilding has several
economic advantages. In general,
rebuilding will be cheaper than
replacement. In addition, the production
losses will probably be less if a failed
transformer can be rebuilt rather than
replaced. On the other hand. rebuilding
PCB Transformers may result in a
substantial increase in human and
environmental PCB exposure.
Considering these factors. EPA has
decided to permit rebuilding but only Qf
PCB-Contaminated Transformers. To
rebuild the PCB Transformer the owner
would first have to reduce the
concentration of PCBs to less than 500
ppm according to the schedule
contained in § 761.31(a)(5) and then
rebuild.
5. Contents of Authorization
The previous discussion explains
EPA's rationale for authorizing the
servicing of transformers and the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for such servicing. The
authorization. contained in § 761.31(a),
is valid for persons who service their
own transformers until July 1. 1984.
Persons who process or distribute PCBs
in conjunction with servicing
transformers must be granted an
exemption by EPA to continue these
activities after July 1, 1979.
The authorization for servicing
(including rebuilding) is subject to the
following six conditions. First.
regardless of its PCB concentration,
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB that is mixed with fluids
containing 500 ppm or greater PCB must
not be used as dielectric fluid in any
transformer. This condition.is intended
to prevent deliberate dilution of PCBs.
Dielectric fluid from PCB-Contaminated
Transformers may be assumed to have
Jess than 500 ppm. Second. persons
servicing or rebuilding PCB-
Contaminated Transformers must use
dielectric fluids that contain less than
500 ppm PCB. Third. any servicing
(including rebuilding) of PCB
Transformers that requires the removal
of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. Fourth.
PCBs removed in servicing or rebuilding
must be captured aod either reused as
dielectric fluid or disposed of in
accordance with the requirements of
Subpart B. Fifth. a PCB Transformer may
be converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer, as described above. Sixth,
any PCB dielectric fluid that is used to
service or repair any PCB Transfo1mer
must be stored in accordance with :..'le
storage for disposal requirements of
Annex III(§ 761.42 of this rule). This
requirement is intended to minimize the
possibility of spills and other 4ccidental
releases of PCBs in the environment as
they are stored prior to use. Finally, any
person who wishes to process and
distribute in commerce PCBs for
purposes of servicing transformers after
July 1, 1979, may do so only if granted an
exemption by EPA. Persons may
continue to service transformers that
they own without such an exemption.
B. Use and Servicing of Railroad·
Transfonners
Transformers in approximately 1.000
electric railroad locomotives and self-
powered cars operated in the
northeastern United States by Amtrak.
Conrail and five intracity transit
authorities contain PCB fluid. PCB fluids
are frequently spilled onto roadbeds
when these transformers overheat and
when rocks and debris damage· these
transformers. Worke:s and other
persons near rail lines are potentially
exposed to PCBs as a result of these
spills. In addition, runoff from roadbeds
probably contains increased PCB
concentrations. PCBs are also
volatilized during overheating and
servicing. PCB exposure from servicing
operations is similar to non-railroad
transformer servicing and is laregely
confined to service shops. Because of
the human and environmental exposure
to PCB that results from these activities,
neither the use nor the servicing of
railroad transformers is considered to be
totally enclosed.
EPA considered various regulatory
options for PCB-containing railroad
transformers in implementing section
6( e) of TSCA. In proposing the rule. EPA
assumed that the 1.000 railroad
transformers could not be immediately
replaced without an unacceptably
severe curtailment of railroad service.
especially in the Northeast Corridor, and
attendant adverse economic and social
consequences. The proposed rule would
have authorized the use of the
transformers if PCB concentrations were
lowered to four percent in 15 months
and then to 1,000 ppm in 36 months. In
addition. the proposed authorization
would have allowed servicing or
rebuilding if non-PCB dielectric fluid
was used. While the proposal wouid not
have disrupted service, the affected
railroad and transit companies would
have heel to inv?.st an estimated $12.2
million over a three-year period to
comply.
The affected parties criticized the
timetable for lowering PCB
concentrations. A recently initiated
study of the safety of PCB-containing
railroad transformers that have been
refilled with non-PCB fluids is n~t
expected to be completed until late 1979.
The comments emphasized the
importance of first assessing the
feasibility of refilling with respect to
Fedenl Resister / Vol 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31533
transformer performance and potential
hazai,ia from explosion and fires a1 a
result of the use of alternate fluids.
Some comments al80 questioned
whether a residual concentration of four
percent PCB could be routinely achieved
by refilling. These comments stated that
a slightly higher level of six percent
could be met on a routine basis. Other
comments explained that. consistent
with the Railroad Revitalization and
Recovery Act of 1976, the Northeaat
Corridor railroads are changins the
power supply specifications in mid-1981.
Accordingly, some transformers are
scheduled to be replaced and these
comments suggested that to require the
refilling of these transformer■ would
impose a needless coat. As explained
below, the 1981 date baa changed.
The final rule takes these comments
into account and authorizes continued
use and servicing (including rebuilding)
of these transformers as a non-totally
enclosed use until July 1, 1984, subject io
requirement.a that EPA believes will
promote conversion to other types of
transformers or dielectric fluid.a at th,
earliest feasible time. Persona may
process or distribute PCBs in
conjunction with servicing railroad
transformers but must be granted an
exemption by EPA to continlle these
activities after July 1, 1979. EPA is
requirins that railroad transformers
contain no more than six percent PCB
by January 1, 1982. about 21 months
later than proposed. This will give EPA
more time to evaluate the safety of
refilling these transformers with non-
PCB fluid and will substantially reduce
the costs of compliance. These
transformers must either be replaced or
be drained. flushed. and refilled with
non-PCB fluid by that deadline. Before
than, the use of PCB dielectric fluid for
servicing (including rebuilding) railroad
transformers is authorized. After that
date, railroad transformers may only be
serviced with fluid containing 6 percent
PCBs or less.
By January 1. 1984. the concentration
of PCBs in the transformers must not
exceed 1.000 ppm. Thia is approximately
18 months later than proposed. EPA
believes that the environmental and
health risks that may be associated with
continued use of PCB in these
transformers over this period are
outweighed by: (1) the yet undetermined
safety risks of fire and explosion that
may be associated with use of non-PCB
fluid in refilled transformers: (2) the
approximately $90 million coat that
would be imposed if immediate
conversion or replacement was required:
and (3) the additional costs resulting
from the disruption of critical
transportation services. Therefore, EPA
finda that this activity, aa authorized.
doe• not preaent an unreuonable risk.
Railroad tramformen 1DU1t be teated
for PCB■ immediately after the
completion of any servicing conducted
for the purpose of reducing the PCB
concentration in the transformer'■
dielectric fluid and between one and
two years aft..-such servicing. Recorda
of the results of this testing must be
retained until January 1, 1991, which ia
five years after the last testing
requirement of this rule.
EPA estimates that the total cost of
complying with the final rule will be no
more than $12.2 million over a five year
period. Although comments indicated
that some of the equipment will have
been ■crapped a1 a result of the planned
change-over in mid-1981, the
Department of Transportation has
recently announced that this change-
over will not occur until at least the Fall
of 1983. The requirement to refill these
tramformers by January 1, 1982 provides
at least 20 mootha of use before the
change-over forces the older units out of
service. Accordingly, these units could
be in use for well over two years before
phase-out would be required.
C. Use and Servicing of Mining
Equipment
Under this authorization, PCBs may
be used in mining equipment. including
for purposes of servicing (including
rebuilding) until January 1. 1982.
However, rebuilding of continuous
miner motors is permitted only until
December 31, 1979. In addition. PCBs
may be processed and distributed in
commerce for purposes of servicing
mining equipment in a manner other
than a totally enclosed manner until July
1, 1979. After July 1, 1979, persona who
proce11 and distribute in commerce
PCBs in conjunction with the servicing
or use of mining equipment may do so
only if granted an exemption by EPA to
continue these activities.
There are two types of mining
equipment that use PCBs as a coolant in
electric motors: loaders and continuous
miners. Although the manufacture of
mining equipment using PCB fluids has
ceased, approximately 517 such motors
in loaders and 72 such motors for
continuous miners are either in use or in
existing inventories. PCBs may leak
while the equipment is in service in
underground mines or during servicing
procedures, performed either in the shop
or in the field. Exposure to PCBs during
servicing primarily results from
volatilization, spill■• and direct human
contact with PCBs when the inner parts
of the motol' are removed or rebuilL
Thus. the use and servicing of these
motors are not totally enclosed
activitin.
To require replacement of these
motor■ by the effective date of this rule
would not be technically and
economically feasible. There la only one
company that currently converts PCB
loader motor■ to air-cooled or other non-
PCB motor■• and PCB motors in
continuous miner■ cannot be converted
to non-PCB motors. Because of the
location of the motor in continuous
miners. this means that the entire
machine baa to be replaced. In both
cases, lead time is essential to convert
or replace th& equipment Prohibiting
use of the equipment in the interim
could result in a shut-down of
approximately ten percent of the
underground bituminous coal production
in the United States. The impact of a
prohibition of the use of PCB minins
equipment can be significantly reduced
by permitting more time for a phase-out.
EPA believe■ that a phased approach ia
reasonable. As compared to an
immediate prohibition. the risks to
human health and the environment are
only slightly increased. while the costs
are substantially lower.
The final rule is essentially the same
as proposed. To avoid the adverse
consequences caused by an immediate
use ban. EPA proposed a phase-out of
these PCB motors. Different co.mpliance
schedules for loaders and continuous
miners were proposed since they pose
different problems. Because of the
cutting head design. the motors oo
continuous miners cannot be rebuilt as
non-PCB motors. The only feasible
altemative is replacement of the entire
continuous miner unit Because of the
lead time necessary to order and
manufacture this type of equipment,
EPA proposed to permit the rebuilding
of PCB continuous miner motors until
December 31, 1979. Rebuilding differs
from servicing in that rebuilding
involves removing the motor from the
miner and disassembling the motor.
Servicing is permitted until January 1.
1982. Service companies and others who
want to process or distribute PCBs for
rebuilding or servicing these motors
after June 30, 1979, may do so only if
granted an exemption by EPA to
continue these activities. The use of
continuous miners containing PCBs after
January 1, 1982. is prohibited.
The PCB motors on loaders can be
replaced with. or rebuilt as, air-cooled
or other non-PCB motors. EPA is
requiring that these motors be replaced
or be rebuilt as air-cooled or other non-
PCB motors when they are returned to
31534 Federal Register / VoL 44. No. 108 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
service shops for maintenance, but, in
no event, can PCB motors be used later
than January 1, 1982. Rebuilding or
replacement of existing PCB motors
using normal maintenance patterns
should take no longer than three ~ara.
Accordingly, use of these loaders ia
authorized until January 1, 1982.
Since normal maintenance practicies
will permit an orderly rebuilding or
replacement of motors with relatively
modest costs, and with little additional
exposure to PCBs, this gradual
replacement requirement is a reasonable
approach. However, no justification
exists for permitting any PCB motors on
ioaders to remain in service after
January 1, 1982. and therefore the use is
prohibited after that date. Topping-off
the motor fluid levels in the field with
PCB fluids is also prohibited after
January 1, 1982.
The authorization for mining
equipment is essentially unchanged
from the proposed rule. The estimated
cost to owners of the equipment is
estimated to be $2.6 to $4.J.million
spread over 3 years.
D. Use in Heat Transfer Systems
Section 761.31( d) of the final rule
authorizes the use of PCBs in heat
transfer systems until July 1. 1984,
subject to conditions regarding testing
and reducing PCB concentrations. This
authorization for use includes servicing
of heat transfer systems. Heat transfer
systems that are used in the
manufacture or processing of any food,
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined in
§ 201 of the Federa.ltFood, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, are authorized to use heat
transfer fluid containing 50 ppm or
greater PCB only until November 1, 1979.
PCBs were used as a heat transfer
fluid in certain applications from 1962 to
1972. In the peri~d from 1970 to 1972.
approximately 90% of the heat transfer
systems that used PCB fluid were
refilled with non-PCB fluid. In spite of
this refilling, most systems contain
residual PCB concentrations. Heat
transfer systems are, by and large,
reiatively, but not totally, enclosed
svstems and therefore their use of PCBs is not in a totally enclosed manner. The
primary source of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs from
these systems comes from leaks in pump
motor seals. However, good
maintenance practices will minimize the
quantity of fluids that may be lost. For
most systems. the loss of PCB fluid is
well controlled and the corresponding
amount of top-off fluid added to these
systems is very small.
An authorization for the use of heat
transfer systems containing PCBs was
not proposed because EPA had
insufficient data to judge whether the
use of these systems would pose an
wueasonable riak. The preamble to the
proposed rule solicited comments on
this iasue. Acco~ to the comments
received, the PCB problem in heat
tnmsfer systems is generally one of
residual PCB contamination of the non-
PCB replacement fluids. In many
respects, heat transfer systems are
similar to hydraulic systems. For these
reasons, the conditions of this
authorization regarding the reduction of
PCB concentrations are identical to
those contained in the authorization for
hydraulic systems: (1) any heat transfer
system that ever contained PCB heat
transfer fluid must be tested by October
1, 1979, and at least annually thereafter
until the system reaches 50 ppm PCB; (2)
any system that contains 50 ppm PCB or
greater must be drained of the PCBs and
refilled with non-PCB fluid (i.e., fluid
containing less than SO ppm PCB) within
six months of the test showing the PCB
concentration is 50 ppm or greater; (3)
PCBs may not be added to heat transfer
systems; and ( 4) records of the testing
required under (1) must be retained for
five years after the heat transfer system
reaches 50 ppm PCB. The testing under
(1-J must be done at least three months
after the most recent servicing
conducted to reduce the PCB
concentration. This time delay is to
permit residual PCBs to leach out into
the fluid before it is tested.
An exception to these requirements
has been made for heat transfer systems
used in the manufacture or processing of
any food, drug, cosmetic, or device. as
defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. These
systems are authorized to use dielectric
fluid containing 50 ppm or greater PCB
only until November 1, 1979. After this
date, these systems 'must contain less
than SO ppm PCB. This exception was
made because. in the event of a heat
transfer system rupture. PCBs would
contaminate a product that would come
in direct contact with humans, either
through ingestion or through application
to the skin. Unlike the rupture of a heat
transfer system used in the manufacture
of a product that is rarely in contact
with humans, leakage of PCBs into a
food, drug, cosmetic. or device provides
a direct avenue for PCBs to enter the
human body. Since the Food and Drug
Administration required the removal of
PCB hea~ transfer fluids from these
systems several years ago, this
restricted authorization should not
present a problem to companies owning
these systems.
EPA finds that this activity, as
authorized, does not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment. The total cost for the
requirements described above is
estimated to range from $12.2 to $17.8
million spread over three yelll'S,
E. Use in Hydraul~c Systems
Under this autborization, PCBs may
be used in hydraulic systems until July 1,
1984, subject to conditions regarding
testing and reducing PCB
concentrations. This authorization for
use includes servicing of hydraulic
systems. Processing and distribution in
commerce for purposes of servicing,
such as filtering, distilling, or otherwise
reducing the concentration of PCBs in
hydraulic systems, is authorized only
until July 1, 1979. After July 1, 1979,
persons are prohibited from processing
and distributing in commerce PCBs for
this purpose unless EPA grants them an
exemption.
This authorization is necessary
because a large number of die casting
systems currently in use were once filled
with PCB hydraulic fluid. Although this
use of PCBs has been discontinued,
equipment containing PCB hydraulic
fluid is still in service. Some systems
have been topped-off with non-PCB
fluids, and others have been drained
and flushed in an attempt to reduce PCB
contamination. However, systems may
still be contaminated with residual PCBs
that either remain after flushing or are
gradually released from interior
surfaces. As a consequence, hydraulic
systems can contain concentrations of
PCB ranging from less than 10 ppm to
thousands of parts per million PCB.
These systems normally leak fluid, even
when properly maintained. In addition,
some of the fluid volatilizes as a result
of the high operating temperatures.
These losses result in PCB-contaminated
water effluents as well as air emissions,
both of which have contributed to
existing levels of PCB contamination in
the environment. Therefore. this use of
PCBs is clearly not use in a totally
enclosed manner.
Mandatory immediate removal of
these systems from service to remove
the PCBs could affect as many as one
thousand companies and disrupt
important sectors of industry, especially
those using die castings. The extent of
PCB exposure from these systems does
not justify incurring such severe costs.
On the other hand. the continued
uncontrolled use of these systems would
result in releases of substantial amounts
of PCBs into the environment and
cannot be allowed to continue. EPA
proposed authorizing the continued
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 108 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31535
servicing and use of PCB-contaminated
hydraulic fluid in hydraulic die casting
system.a subject to certain conditions.
One condition was that any system that
contained 50 ppm or more PCB had to be
drained and refilled with non-PCB fluid
within one year. In addition. testing and
servicing or replacement of the fluid was
required at least every six months until
the PCB concentration was consistently
below 50 ppm.
The authorization in the final rule
makes certain changes from the
proposal. First, the proposed
authorization covered only hydraulic die
casting system.a. Comments indicated
that there are other types of hydraulic
systems that used PCBs in high
temperature environments such as in
steel mil1a and foundries. Accordingly,
the authorization has been extended to
apply to the use of PCBs in all hydraulic
systems.
Under the imal rule, each hydraulic
system must be tested no later than
November 1, 1979. If the concentration
of PCBs is found to be greater than 50
ppm, the whole system must be drained
and refilled with non-PCB fluid within
six months of the test. EPA anticipates
that most of the PCBs will be removed
during the initial refilling process.
Subsequent draining and refilling may
be necessary to remove residual PCBs.
Under the final rule, persons who own
hydraulic systems are required to test
for the concentration of PCB annually
instead of every six months as under the
proposal. Comments indicated that
removing a hydraulic system from use
every six months would be disruptive.
Most systems undergo repair or
overhaul at least annually. The revised
requirement would be consistent with
these practices and, accordingly, result
in substantial first year cost savings
with little increase in PCB exposure.
Records of this testing must be retained
for five years after the hydraulic system
reaches 50 ppm.
Many comments emphasized that
requiring the draining of hundreds of
gallons of fluids that may contain
residual quantities of PCBs is not a cost-
effective way to achieve reduction in
PCB concentrations. Hydraulic systems
are routinely topped-off with non-PCB
hydraulic fluids. Comments argued that·
the addition of non-PCB fluids should
effectively reduce the concentrations of
PCBs. While topping-off is permitted for
purposes of reduci:ig the levels of PCBs
at any time, EPA believes that an annual
requirement to test and drain any fluids
that contain more than 50 ppm is
essential to reduce, as expeditiously as
possible, tha potential for PCB exposure.
Altboqb EPA does not believe that
topping-cff alone will reduce PCB
concentrations quickly enough in all
systems, many systems will be able to
meet the requirements of the rule solely
by topping-off. Allowing concentrations
of PCBs above 50 ppm in these systems
over time is not acceptable to EPA in
terms of the significant risks to health
and the environment associated with the
leakage from these systems.
It ia estimated that the costs to
owners of affected hydraulic system.a
will total $14.6 to $25 million spread
over the first two years, with
insignificant costs in the subsequent
years. These costs are similiar to the
total cost of $19.7 million estimated in
the proposal, but the final rule
considered 1750 machines rather than
the 1000 machines estimated in the
proposal. This reduction in cost per
machine is due to the annual, rather
than semi-annual. testing requirement
and more accurate cost information
obtained as a result of the proposal.
These costs are reasonable in light of
the resulting reduction in human and
environmental exposure to PCBs.
EPA finds that this activity, as
authorized, does not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment.
F. Use in Carbonless Copy Paper
Under this authorization. existing PCB
carbonless copy paper may be used
indefinitely. Prior to 1971, carbonless
copy paper distributed by NCR
Corporation was made with ink
containing PCBs. There does not appear
to be a way to distinguish PCB
carbonless copy paper from non-PCB
carbonless copy paper except perhaps
by dates or other indications on unused
inventories. A large portion of the PCB
carbonless copy paper that has not been
destroyed is probably in files. An
enormous undertaking would be
required of both business and
government to purge existing files of
PCB carbonless copy paper. Moreover,
the amount of PCB on each sheet of
carbonless copy paper is extremely
small. In view of these practical
considerations and because the
potential PCB exposure and risks to
human health or the environment are
negligible, EPA has concluded that this
activity does not present an
unreasonable risk and is authorizing the
continued uae of existing PCB
carbonle11 copy paper.
In the proposal. EPA limited this
a1,1thorization to five years. However,
EPA does not now believe that a method
for inexpensively separating PCB from
non-PCB carbonlea1 copy paper will be
developed in tbe near future.
Accordingly, EPA is authorizing the use
of existing PCB carbonless copy paper
indefinitely.
G. Pigments
This rule authorizes the use of
diarylide and phthaiocyanine pigments
containing more than 50 ppm PCB until
January 1, 1982. and the processing and
distribution in commerce of these
pigments until July 1, 1979. After July 2,
1979, these pigments cannot be
manufactured and after July 1, 1979,
these pigments cannot be processed or
distributed in commerce unless EPA
grants exemptions for these activities.
Oiarylide and phthalocyanine
pigments contain PCBs as an impurity in
concentrations ranging from several
thouaand parts per million to less then
50 ppm. Most of these pigments have
PCB concentrations in the range of
several hundred parts per million. These
PCBs cannot easily be separated from
the pigments becauae of the structural
similarity of the PCB• to the pigments.
Once manufactured.. the pigmell,ts are
mixed with other substances to form
paints, inks, and a variety of other
products. The PCB concentrations in
these final products are less than 50
ppm.
Competitive pressure to market
pigments with decreased PCB
contamination is causing pigment
manufacturers to change their
processes. Comments indicate that
within two years the industry will have
made the changes necessary to reduce
PCB contamination levels to less then 50
ppm.
In deciding whether to authorize
pigment activities, EPA considered the
relatively limited exposure and the
economics associated with use of these
pigments. The greatest potential for
exposure is in the application of paints
and inks using these pigments. These
products contain far le11 than 50 ppm
PCB because of the dilution that takes
place when the pigment is mixed with
the medium it is coloring. As a result,
the health and environmental risks are
not unreasonable. As discussed above,
the industry is changing its processes to
reduce the level of PCB contamination
to below 50 ppm in the next two years.
At the present time, these particular
pigments are a major segment of the
pigment market. For example, diarylide
pigments form about 809' of the yellow
pigment market. Thia ban will. therefore,
affect a substantial number of pigment-
related industries. However, the impact
of tbe regalation of tbe pigment industry,
u well u its cuatomen in tbe paint and
graphic arts induatriea. will be further
31538 Federal Register / Vol 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
considered during the rulemaking on
manufacturing exemptions.
The potential costs of compliance are
greatly reduced if the requirements are
implemented over a few years. The
increased health and environmental risk
is relatively small. If exeinptiona are
granted to permit more time for the
conversion to alternative manufacturing
processes, the cost of conversion will
total $5.6 million. Based on these
considerations. EPA has concluded that
the processing and distribution in
commerce until July 1, 1979, and the use
of these pigments until January 1, 1982,
will not present an unreasonable risk to
health and the environment and should
be permitted.
H. Use and Servicing of Electromagnets
As explained below, EPA considers
the use of electromagnets containing
PCBs to be used in a totally enclosed
manner. Accordingly. this use does not
require authorization. Processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs to
service electromagnets is authorized. as
explained below.
While no new PCB electromai.znets
have been manufactured since mid-1976.
historically PCBs have been used in
some electromagnets to reduce fire
hazard. PCB electromagnets are used
primarily over conveyor belts to remove
tramp iron from non-magnetic
commodities such as coal. PCB-
containing electroma~ets still in use
are found in enclosed areas such as coal
mines, coal preparation plants. and coal-
fired generating stations where there is
a danger of producing explosive dusts.
PCB electromagnets may also be used
over conveyor belts in grain handling
systems. but EPA does not have
information on specific locations at this
time.
Electromagnets are similar to
i.ransformers in construction. An
electromagnet is a completely welded
piece of equipment. Any leakage would
be the result of deteriorating equipment
or accidental damage rather than design
characteristics. EPA has concluded that
use of PCBs in electromagnets under
normal circumstances is a use in a
totally enclosed manner. For coal-
handling systems. if leakage does occur,
there will be negligible risks as the coal
is handled automatically and eventually
burned in combustion devices capable
of destoying almost all of the PCBs.
While EPA is not certain that
electromagnets containing PCBs are
currently in use over grain conveyors,
accidental leakage in such situation,
may contaminate food supplies and thua
pose a threat to human health. For these
reasons, EPA will consider use of
electromagnets over grain conveyors
that leak to.be a violation of this rule as
a non-totally enclosed use of PCBs. In
addition. EPA is notifying the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Food
and Drug Administration of this
potential problem.
The servicing of PCB electromagnets
is similar to servicing of PCB
Transformers. Accordingly, this rule
authorizes the same type of servicing of
PCB electromagnets with PCB dielectric
fluid. As in the case of PCB
Transformers, any s~rvicing (including
rebuilding} that requires the removal of
the coil from the casing is prohibited.
Most of the discussion of the servicing
of PCB Transformers in section IX.A of
this preamble pertains to servicing PCB
electromagnets. EPA has similarily
concluded that this servicing. as long as
it does not include· removal of the coil
from the casing, will not present an
unreasonable risk to health or the
environment Because of limited
information. EPA was unable to
ascertain the costs of not granting such
authorization.
L Use in Natural Gas Pipeline
Compressors
The final rule authorizes the use,
including servicing, of PCBs in natural
gas pipeline compressors until May 1,
1980. An authorization was not
propaaed for this use of PCBs because
EPA had virtually no knowledge of it.
Several comments on the proposed rule
indicate that compressors used in
natural gas pipelines contain residual
PCB concentrations greater than 50 ppm.
In general, these systems were drained
of high concentration PCB fluid several
years ago. thereby removing most of the
PCBs. This authorization will allow
these compressors to be drained and
refilled with non-PCB fluid to further
reduce the PCB concentration until it is
below 50 ppm. The authorization is
effective until May 1. 1980, giving
persons time to work on the systems to
reduce the concentration of PCBs during
the summer months when demand for
natural gas is lower. Use and servicing
of these compressors are not a totally
enclosed activity because of limited
environmental exposure that may occur
during servicing and use.
An immediate use prohibition could
have a serious effect on natural gas
distribution. Permitting more than a half
a year to complete the draining and
refilling significantly reduces costs and
disruptions in service while causing
little or no increase in exposure to PCBs.
The total cost of these decontamination
operations is $200,000. Because of the
small quantities and low concentrations
of PCBs involved. EPA believes that this
authorization will not result in exposure
to PCBs that presents an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment.
f. Use of Small Quantities for Research
and Development
EPA is authorizing the use of PCBs in
"small quantities for research and
development", as defined in § 781.lZ(ee),
until July 1, 1984. Processing and
distribution in commerca of PCBs for
this purpose is authorized until July 1,
1979. After July 2. 1979. PCBs cannot be
manufactured for this use, and after July
1. 1979, they cannot be processed or
distributed in commerce. unless persons
interested in continuing these activities
have been granted an exemption.
Because of the importance of on-going
research on the effects of PCBs and the
need to have reference standards for
analytical purposes, EPA believes that
the extremely limited exposures
associated with these activities do not
present an unreasonable risk to health
and the environment. The term "Small
Quantities for Research and
Development" is defined very narrowly.
Specifically, PCBs must be contained in
hermetically-sealed. five milliliter
containers. EPA believes this constraint
is sufficient precaution against the risks
of human or environmental exposure to
justify such use in light of the possible
benefits of continued research. The
proposed rule would have excluded
these activities from the prohibitions in
§ 781.30: however. EPA believes it is
more appropriate to authorize (and if
appropriate exempt) these activities.
K. Use in Microscopy
EPA is authorizing the use of PCBs as
a mounting medium for microscopic
slides until July 1, 1984, and the
processing and distribution in commerce
of PCBs for this purpose until July 1.
1979. After July 1, 1979, persons who
want to continue processing and
distribution in commerce activities must
be granted an exemption by EPA.
Persons who want to manufacture PCBs
for this use after July 2, 1979, must also
be granted an exemption by EPA.
When PCBs are used as a mounting
medium for slides, extemely small
quantities are used on each slide. This
use is particularly important to
scientists who need to preserve. for
future reference, a microscope particle.
PCBs are also used in air pollution and
criminology labs for microscopic particle
identification and they play a vital role
in the study and conservation of art and
historic objects through use of
microscopic slides. In mounting, a
particle is placed in a PCB medium and
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31537
covered with a cover slip, usually for
permanent reference. No substitutes
with the necessary physical properties
exist for this use.
Because of the small quantities of
PCBs used at any one time and the
careful nature of laboratory work,
exposure to PCBs used as a mounting
medium is minimal. Because of the
substantial benefits of this use of PCBs
and the very limited risks involved, EPA
believes that this activity will not
present an unreasonable risk and that it
is appropriate to authorize this use of
PCBs.
X. PCB Activities Not Authorized by
This Rule
A. Manufacture of PCB Capacitors
PCBs have been used as a dielectric
fluid in alternating current capacitors
manufactured in the United States from
the mid-1930's through the mid-1970's.
Although the manufacture of PCB
Capacitors is considered to be
"processing" of PCBs and could
continue under section 6(e)(3) until July
1, 1979, the activity is not totally
enclosed and accordingly is prohibited
under section 6(el(2) after July 2. 1979.
In the past, manufacture of PCB
Capacitors has been a major source of
PCB release into the environment. For
example, the upper reaches of the
Hudson River are closed to fishing
because of PCB contamination caused
by capacitor manufacturing. The
Support Document to the final rule
(Chapter ll) discusses this and other
examples of environmental damage
caused by this activity. In addition,
there are substitutes available as
discussed in Chapter ill of the Support
Document to the final rule. For these
reasons, EPA has determined that the
continued manufacture of PCB
Capacitors presents an unreasonable
risk to human beings and the
environment and has not authorized it
under section 6f e)(2). It is EPA's
understanding that no company is
planning to manufacture PCB Capacitors
after the effective date of this rule.
B. Manufacture of PCB Transformers
The use of PCBs as a transformer
dielectric fluid dates back to the 1930's.
The manufacture of PCB Transformers is
also considered to be "processing" PCBs
under TSCA but is not a totally enclosed
activity. Under section 6(e)(2), it may
not. continue after July 2, 1979.
Significant quantities of PCB may enter
the environment during the manufacture
of PCB Transformers. Production of PCB
Transformers has been responsible for
major riverdamage, notably the Coosa
River in Northwest Georgia. Because of
the environmental and human exposure
to PCBs that occurs in the manufacture
of these transformers and because of the
availability of substitutes, EPA has
determined that the manufacture of PCB
Transformers presents an unreasonable
risk and, therefore, has not authorized
this activity. It is EPA's understanding
that the manufacture of PCB
Transformers in the United States
ceased in 1977.
C. Other PCB Activities
All manufacturing of PCBs is
prohibited after July 2, 1979. Persons
who have submitted a petition for a
manufacturing exemption in accordance
with the November 1, 1978 rulemaking
procedures (43 FR 50905) will not be
subject to this ban until EPA acts upon
their petitions (see 44 FR 108, January 2,
1979).
All processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs in other
than a totally enclosed manner is
prohibited after July 2, 1979, unless
specifically authorized in § 761.31 of this
rule.
XI. Manufacturing, Processing, or
Distribution in Commerce of PCBs for
Export
Section 12(a) of TSCA states, in
general, that no provision of~ shall
apply to the manufacture, processing,. or
distribution in commerce of a chemical
intended solely for export from the
United States. However, if the
Administrator finds that the
manufacture, processing, or distribution
in commerce of a chemical substance
solely for export presents an
unreasonable risk to health or the.
environment in th-e United States, those
activities may be regulated under TSCA.
It is the clear intent of TSCA to
minimize the addition of PCBs to the
environment of the United States. The
extreme persistence of this substance
and the ease with which it is
transported has made it a global
problem. There is considerable evidence
of PCB contamination that is far from
any known source (see Chapter ll of the
Final Support Document). Therefore,
PCBs used .>utside the United States can
cause PCB contamination of this
country. Moreover, manufacturing,
proce99ing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs in this country for
purposes of export is likely to cause
significant release of PCBs in this
country through air and water
emissions, leaks and spills, and other
means. Instances of severe PCB releases
from manufacturing, processing,
transportation. and other activities
involving PCBs are well document,9d.
Because of these factors, EPA has
determined that the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for export constitutes
an unreasonable risk to health and the
environment in the United States.
The final rule prohibits: (1) any
manufacture of PCBs for export after the
effective date of this rule; and (2) the
non-totally enclosed processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
export as of the effective date of this
rule; and (3) any processing or
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
export after July 1, 1979, except solely
for p•irposes of disposal in accordance
with § 761.10. These prohibitions are
essentially the same as proposed; Like
domestic manufacturers, processors,
and distributors in commerce, persons
wishing to manufacture, process, or
distribute in commerce PCBs or PCB
Items solely for export may petition EPA
for an exemption as disgussed in the
preamble section VIlI.A above.
In addition, section 12(b )(2) of TSCA
requires any person who exports or
intends to export a chemical substance
or mixture for which a rule has been
proposed under section 6 to notify the
Administrator of such export or intent to
export. This requirement applies to any
export of PCBs except the export of
wastes which require a special report as
discussed in VI.B.2 above. The
requirement does not apply to the export
of PCB Equipment, although the export
of such equipment requirt?s an
exemption after July 1, 1979. The export
of PCBs in small quantities for research
and development (as defined in
§ 761.2(ee)), for example, does require
notice to EPA.
Interim procedures regarding this
requirement can be found at 43 FR 24818
Uune 7, 1978). In summary, these
procedures require that notices be
submitted for the exports of all PCBs
and PCB Items (except PCB Equipment),
and the following information is to be
included:
(a) The name and address of the
exporter; [b) the dates of each shipment
or intended shipment; (c) the country
(countries) of import; and (d) a
statement that notice is being submitted
pursuant to Section 12(b) and 40 CFR
Part 761.
Notices shall be sent to the Document
Control Officer, (TS-793), Office of
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460.
xn. Test Procedures for PCB
Test procedures for determining the
PCB concentration in various media
31538 Feder&:l Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
were not included in the proposed PCB
Ban Rule. A number cl cm,menu on tbe
rule sagested that BPA provide
additional infonution on teat metboda.
EPA baa been inwhed in the
development of test metbodl ior aewral
media and has made much of this
information nailable to the pablic.
Speci6cally, teat proa:dme,. have been
made availabie for determining PCB
concentrations in air. soil, water, and
sediments uiDg an American Society of
Testing and Materials method (AS'l'M D
330f) and in industrial effluents using
EPA methode (primarily for low
concentration of PCB in water) {4D CPR
138). In addition. an interim snmmv;e
pacbse containing two teat procedures
( one for apilla in soil and one for water)
wu made available to BPA Regional
Officn in February 19'18 for distribmian
to the pab}ic. In the fmal atep of
anal,zins the sample. all of these
procedures ~ GD a gaa chromatograph
with au dectnm ..aptme detector. The
primary diff~ between the
procedurea are in the methods used to
separate the wate~ &.:tion from
the Cll'gmric•aiue &actioo. The latter
fractiOD contaim the PC& 8Jld is the
portion uud in the gas duunatograph.
Sevenl · c:mnmeon 1lftN aitical that
EPA did not ban more apecific test
procedures for PCBe. in perticlllar for
mineral oil di.Irie fluid and pismmta.
~ cnntamineticm of mineral oil
dielectric ftoid with Palaia• major
nb;ect of thisnde and tae.prahiem
aifecta a larp mmaber oi militia ud
industries. EPA au aperienca ill tbe
mwyai• ofa:JDCaminaled aila and -lndoded a 1Nt pn,aedue {de9CZ"ad
below) in an edctttia«wl p;,t...,._
pacbp that will be diatrilNlad lo EPA
Regional-Offices. Pigmenta npresea! •
different type oi --,tk:al ,.,SC ) CT
Jllsments are ... fH1e1#4 ..aal)'tical
medi~. and aaaiJtica1 r......,_ hi-tut
indwitry wbo aaft1he _,.UiJWM dee
on naoMll8...,.... da_a,tlttj
plObAems wilh tla.at Abetaace have
developed lldu,i,qw tD......, JICBa
in pigments.
Pigment·.....,..,,,_.. hne
deceta.pad·--•.....tat
pto d w .md ar. rmwdy liCldilc •
validate -of lbem. Wtdu1111p11a to
--at t:e••-----... .., ~ matw,,irwted wi1bfCIII. IPA__,
preaumu that persona :who ma,.,,_ 1
_. .... wwbafttuap,idiNID.
anal,atllairIA I 4.aoduwl.-«. !J j.Jid I_ Jwp IM -dz 1dlis. nd1D
.wllllt ...... tlmrjii,iidi,u»
contaminated wi1II Pal,·
BPA willaaknaae of imluau:y~
~ 1est procedurea inc:omfaotfng
1awpalm;1cHDPie..,wGl·-data
ft-om such tests in enforcement actions
where appropriate. BPA may ala
examine iadastry-devldoped tat
procedures and Diab modifications. if
pouible. that wauld increue the
accuracy and aemitivity of the test.
Staeh modifications will be made
pablicly available. Penou who
manufacture or proc:en chemicals in a
manner that could result in the
production of PCBs u a primary
product. impurity. intermediate.
precursor, or byproduct are reaponsibut
for determining whether PCBa'have
been produced. They will have to
conduct tests using good analytical
chemistry and investigate wa:,a to
improve their ability to detect and
quantify PCB&.
For the testing of PCB contaminated
oils. HPA Uae9 the-followmg analytical
procedure which canmta of three
auccenive clean-up stepa: at least one
run through an activated silica gel
column, a nm throusb an activated basic
alumina column, and a final nm through
an activated silica gel cohmm followed
by an,uysia on th6? gu chramatCJ8NPD
equipped with m electron captme
detector. This procedure can be used •
any waste ail. For a mineral oil
dielectric fluid that is relatively clean.
an alternative procedure that would
yield a less accurate PCB concentration
with less effort and lower CMt would :be
to aabstltnte a liquid-liquid dean-up
step for the cohmm dean-ap. Thia dean-
.. imolftS aixiDS the oil Mmpie with
concmtrated nlfwic acid ad Ulen
draining of the ail fractian. The oil
fraction is tbm nm tbraup die.-
~ Thia dea-irp step
relllilffl!S cnimwri orpnic mataial.
thiophenes. and aaistue from the oal
sample. Tw .......,allft-tll oat•
aoc1nte .. the cohm ciealHlp
method. bllt fur .. dean" oils. it prcmdea
a less expeuai,e.)DGN expedient iest
procedure.
BPA rec,.,,.,. tlaat.tbae pn,cedarea
ate aab;ect to npaiuwulal enon aad
that any pn.caiate. IIO -tter .,_
simple, am be nm. iwapaopaly. Huweaa,
pel'm wbo al'e ..t,;ed tD tbia nde wiH
be .......... d to a_.. 11-◄i jadpwot
-tm1in8 +eie+we llw--■aph, ii. iD
them• ai dletlfo pnoadww
daalled...,. iaPCBcart I ated
oil,. the..,._.....-illl •• aq
yield ....... ai±tppaPCBwbilelile
quicker Jll'l ,I I • ..., ,.w ..... of
~lippaFCB.._mttcsaeaaianr
are ..t,aad•-ttw .,.......,
and are aot bued• _...·taaldldlsl
and a samp)e ii...._ bJ dlit ssan aocaata pn::: I. sri:ha·a1.tca a
...... m,..PCB.dlaa,-.aa could be ne Hy.._._._._
sample falls into the less than 50 ppm
categQll'J. Howner, ii 111818 tbe 1na
accurate pn,c:edure resulta iru YBlae m
45 ppm, then a person baa two dllDicec
either treat the sample u a ~ater tban
50 ppm PCB or teat the aamp1,e apin
with the IDOl"e ac:cu.rate teat pncedwe.
In this cue, EPA will not comider it to
be good judgment to aaaume that the
sample baa Lesa than 50 Pllll1 PCB
becBllse the axperimental error of the
procedure overlape the cut-off poinL
XIIL Compliance and_ Enf111c.emeul
EPA will devote a ma,or enforcement
effort to ensure compliance with the
requirements of these regulations. EPA
intends to take vigorous action to a95ure
that all facilities which manufacture,
process, distribute iD commerce, or use
PCBs, handle and dispose of PCBs
properly. While EPA will be rea-.ahle
in interpreting tire applicaticm of these
requ:irementa. penom who are« may
be subject 1o these regulationa shoald be
aware that failure to properiy cmnply
with these regulatiam 11111y subject them
to serioua civil and criminaJ aaoctiam
Section 18 of TSCA eutbarizes the,
imposition of a civil penalty of11p to
$25.000 for each Yioiatioo of thue nues.
Each day a Yiolation cootfuaea
constitutes a aeparate Yiolatiaa far the
pwpoee oi I 16. A knowing or willful
violatiim of tbeee rum may. in aodilian
to any dvif pmalty. lead to the
impoaitima of criminal penalties in the
IDIKmlt of up to &1.5.000 far each day of
violaticm and hnptt--· WHl for up to
one year. In addition, F.PA bu the
authority alder aectiaD 17 of TSCA to
compel penom b:t take adiGu to rectify
or claaa ap after Yiolaoaoa.
EPA willNe&fihlg IJl'PNlbie•in any aitaatioa m whio aipificaot
dispeniaa m PCBs occun dae to a
vicutiaa. Civil penaltia will be ac:aled
according ia tbe eeftrity af the
violation. Facilities dmt vioiate
approval,-exe,,._ or aatborization
COP!dtticws w)l ala, be abject to
penalties ander H 15 and IA af TSCA.
as weH • the!ffm:atilm ef tlasir
appaa,aL exemptim a ■-dtaisation. In
additia..ia dieae ....,_..,.. IPA will
use TSCA sectien 11 injunctive and
seizure powen to reduce or eliminate
the riab ola PCB-..-tiaa vimatian,
Par~ 1NicamkJDdincl c:·.,a,im 1'PCBs.BPAia ... liu:ly ta
•• ..... ...i ... racwtiee .. , be
--.lfpllt-llOtiaeolcatain
~adc,wq llddtondifJarry
observed'ft11iaUODL .. ,..,,... ..........
1 J} Na wilNl8bjecttuan
•1'1 rt -cdo& n. hriwJes
ladhtt· b --•◄i.llpcaaa r:fl I ·
j
l
I
l
I
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31539
and employees, as well as violating
companies. EPA takes the position that
persons may not contract away their
responsibility or liability for violation of
these rules, i.e. a PCB user who
contracts for PCB disposal or storage
with a company that he knows or should
know has inadequate disposal or
storage facilities, may himself be the
subject of an enforcement action. This
policy applies to all remedies EPA may
seek for a violation.
EPA will be directing its resources to
the discovery of significant instances of
exposures of PCBs to the environment
and developing accurate information
depicting the flow of PCBs to proper
disposal. Using information developed
during inspections and using the records
required to be kept under § 761.45, EPA
will be able to focus its efforts upon
areas which show the greatest potential
for violation.
XIV. Relationship of PCB Diaposal
Under TSCA to Hazardous Waste
Disposal Under RCRA ,
The disposal requirements of this rule
specify the actioos that must be taken
when diaposing of PCBs.
In addition. tha rule contains Annexes
that delineate specifications for disposal
facilities that are to be used for the
disposlil of PCBs. These facilities are
also addressed in the hazardous waste
disposal rules proposed under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) on December 18. 1978 (43
FR 58946). Several options for
integrating the PCB rule with the RCRA
rules are discussed in the preamble to
• ilie RCRA rules at 43 FR 58993 and
comments were requested on the
alternatives. Prior to the promulgation of
the RCRA rules, EPA will resolve the
differences between t.hese two rules.
Because of the special disposal
problems presented by PCBs, EPA.could
choose to continue special provisions for
the dispoHl of PCBs. EPA's decision
will be announced when the rules under
RCRA are promulgated.
XV. Summary of Economic
Conser.iuences
Section 6( e) of TSCA prohibits (1) the
use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed
manner ~less the use is authorized and
(2) all manufacture. processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs unless
they are otherwise exempted by 1\e
Administrator. These authorizations and
exemptions, however, are discretionary
and can be granted only upon a finding
\hat a particular PCB activity does not
pose an unreasonable risk to health or
the environment.
The impacts of both the statute and
the regulation have been assessed and
are discussed below. Additional
information on these impacts is
contained in PCB Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Comme,"Ce,
and Use Ban Regulation: Economic
Impact Analysis (the Versar Report)
which can be obtained from the Industry
Assistance Office of the Office of Toxic
Substances upon request (see the
beginning of this preamble for the
address and telephone number).
A. Impact of the Statute
It was the clear intent of Congress, as
expressed in Section 6(e) and in the
pertinent legislative history, that the
manufacture of PCBs should cease.
Since no more PCBs will be made
(unless exemptions are granted), it
follows that there can be no future
manufacturing of PCB Transformers or
Capacitors. Consequently, the costs
attributed to the cessation of the
manufacture of PCB chemical substance,
PCB Transformers, and PCB Capacitors
are considered impacts of the statute,
not of the regulation.
These ooats are attributable to the
statute and not to the regulation and
Include Sl.2-$30 million per year in
increased capacitor costs that will be
borne by utility and industrial users.
This results from an across-the-board
increase in capacitor prices of 10-20
percent due to the higher costs of PCB
substitutes. This cost will continue
indefinitely. unless the cost of these
substitutes falls. Purchasers of Non-PCB
Transformers will incur increased costs
of up to $10 million per year, depending
on the particular substitute dielectric
fluid selected. This cost will also
continue indefinitely. These increased
costs of transformers and capacitors
will be passed on through a minimal
increase in the cost of electricity to
consumer and industrial users.
8. Impact of the Rule
The total first year cost of this rule is
expected to range between $58 million
and $105 million. By 1985 the annual
costs will drop to between 530 million
and $37 million. Annual costs should
continue to diminish subsequent to 1985
as the use of PCBs is discontinued.
The largest annual economic impact
of this regulation may result from the
prohibition of the use of waste oil
containing any detectable amount of
PCB for dust control on roads. Since
most waste oil contains very low PCB
levels. as much as 300,000,000 gallons of
waste oil per year will be diverted from
this use. Highway departments and
private road owners will have to use
substitute products which could cost
them as much as $31.7 million per year
for the first several years of this rule.
Note that the manufacturers of
substitute products assert that use of
their products will substantially reduce
road maintehance costs when compared
to the use of waste oil for road oiling
and that such a reduction would directly
reduce the net cost of the rule. However,
EPA is not able to verify the potential
savings involved.
The ban on rebuilding transformers
which contain dielectric fluid with a 500
ppm or greater PCB concentration will
cost the owners of these transformers
approximately S12 million in the first
year of the rule. This annual cost will be
gradually reduced over a period of 30 to
40 years as the transformers are
replaced. Included in the $12 million
estimate is an estimated $2.4 million in
costa attributed to a projected increase
in down-time. In other words, when a
power delivery is intemipted by an
electrical failure of a PCB Transformer
the rule's effective requirement that the
failed PCB Transformer be replaced by a
new, rather than a rebuilt transformer,
will cause a longer than normltl
interruption. About two thirds of these
transfunners are owned by commercial
and industrial firms and the remainder
by utilities. The impact of this rule with
respect to transformers is expected to
have a nesJigible effect on the cost of
electricity, and no significant impact on
non-utility owners.
The cost of disposing of PCB-
contaminated mineral oil will be
significantly less than under the
proposed rule. The final rule modifies
the proposed requirement and allows
disposal in high efficiency boilers. It is
expected that the annual costs under the
changed disposal requirements will be
between $3.2 million and $17.0 million.
Included in both the low and the high
e~timates is an estimated annual
disposal cost of $11.1 million which
could be incurred by disposers of
contaminated mineral oil who do not
own high efficiency boilers. In addition,
the owners of high efficiency boilers will
likely incur some c~pital costs in the
first year of the rule in order to take
advantage of Lie new pro,.;sions.
Seven railroad and transit companies
which are affected by this rule will incur
total additional operating costs of $12.2
million. These costs will be spread over
the next five years. The costs will be
incurred because of refilling of PCB-
Containing Transformers used on
locomotives and self-powered cars with
substitute non-PCB fluid. and in
periodically removing residual PCB
contamination from the new fluid. Since
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 21, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
cr.iy electrically-po111,·end Wlita are
;nvolved, the cos.ta will be bor::le solely
by r&ilroada and pub.iic :rana,l
authorities in the Northeaat. These
companies are in financial trouble;
however, funding may be .:mu)P.i)le
through Federal aubsidiu.
Underground mining equipment will
be impacted becauae of an older desip
electric motor whicb ~ Pena u a
cooiuL The use of these motan will be
baruied as of January 1. 1982. and the
total coat to wiera of PCB minin8
eq!lipment will be~ SU milliOD.
Since the ban ia deaigned to allow a
phaae-out of the use of the eqwpment
through coaveraion or obaolncenu, it
!lhoa.id cause no intermptian of coal
production. Theae coata are DOt
expected to cawie ■gnifk.ant problem.a
for the equipment ownen.
Owners of hydraulic ayaaema with
PCB-containing hydraulic iluiid will ban
to test. drain. and refill tbeM .,..ma
periodically. Aa many as 1.750 a,atema
includiua metal die cutiaa 11111d foundry
equipment are believed-ID ,be affected
by tbe nile and coa&a fm the initial two
yeara are expected to total between
$14.6 and $2S milliaa: coa&a f~
suhaeqwmtyemaabowdbe'
ilwgnifu:aot
Ow-. oi. heat t.ranaiar ayatema with
PC!kcmtaiuiag heat tranaiar 1laid will
'ilso haw to test. drain. and refill tbe.M
systema periodkally. Aa 1111111J aa 600
syatems an believed to be affected by
the rule, and costs for lhe fint tbn,e
years are expected to total belweeA
$12.2 and 111.8 ~ coat for
subsequent yeara ahollki be
insigDificanL
Threre are a nwnber of cammercial
chemical proceues wmch prochice PC&
as an &nintenlional byproduct in
concentratiooa over 50 ppm. Fa,
instance. the presence of PCBe (in
exceu of 50 ppm) in phtba1ocyanine and
diarylide yellow ~ta baa been
deteEed. ll ia estimated that the pigmerit
ind Stry can cilamce itl pn,ductiOD
pro within two yean at a C0llt of
approximately $5.6 million ao that
umnteotiollal PCB jll'Oduction will no
longer be a prob)em. Little iia imown
about the coat or feeaibility of
eliminating PCS coniamioatioD fr.-
;)~ chero\cal prod&ctiOD pl'OCIIN8L
However. aince all of thase problema of
PC:5-c:ant~tMJD in !he production of
pigment& &Did o1her cheuucal products
will be dull wila on a caae-b~
basis in exempama n•ieroakinp. tbe
Agency will be able to ...... th._
ec:anomic,impec*• at that time. .
Also. tlua regu.Jatiaa c:aalo pow,tiaHy
have a vm, coedy impact OIi Nlm af
elemical ecttupaaat CDDlaimna PCB
Capacitors if EPA does not provicie
exemptions from the prohibition on
distribution in commerce of PCB
Equipment T'oeae coats will ;Je carefully
considered in the aepn.rate rulemakir.g
concerning exemptior,g to 1b.e July 1.
1979. distribution in commerc,1 ban.
Several other very minor impacts
which will be iu.curred only .during 1978
have been identified. These impects
include owners of natural gas pipeline
pur.tp compre::wora who are expeded to
spend $200,000 in 1979 to remove PCB
fluid from those compressors. The ban
on rebuilding the approximateiy 200
electrcmaagire ta containing PC& is
expected to coat uaera $100,000 annually
and have a total coat of !e&a than $1
million.
Most of the coaia diacusaed above
result frr:m requirements iliat are part of
the authorizations to permit continued
uae of rnixtmea. articles and equipment
contaioin8 PC& in. a maDOel' protective
of health and the enviromnent. If tlleaa
.uthorizatiooa were DOt promwaated.
the coat and ecanomic impad on the
affected. induatriea could be
considerably greater than the coau
diaCUAed above. EPA hu carefully
examined the coata of'thia rule and doea
not expeci any severe ec~ or
social iapacta.
D• tlld: April 111. 11ll'l1L
Oouat-M.C.....
Adm11UIUGtor.
PCB Remrd
Official RIICOl'd of R~PC8 lJaD
~ati-•
Sedi«a lllt•~) oi TSCA ciefmaa &be 1ea1
.. ~~ .. forpll&'pOM9oljudiciaJ
review u foilowa;
(Al The nw, being revieweJ under this
section:
(B) In the ca11t1 af a rale tm~ Sl!Ction 4(at,
the ~ relp8ired t,, 9adt INllfflOII, in the
case al• nm lmda--=tioa 5(b)f4). die
finding req1lind bJ IUdl NCtian. ill 1M caae
of a rule under NCtim e(al, the fimiin8
required by section 5(f) or 6{a), as the case
may be. in. the case of !I nde ande,-~on
6(a). the statement required by eectJon o(c}ll).
and in :he cue of a ruie under section 6( e ).
the findings ~d hy paragrvpb Z!Bl or
J(BJ oi iradt section, n the ClttN!' may oe:
i C} i\Df tr'lmlCript reqaire,d to be Claeie af
oral prmmtatima made ill p....-tt,,!P for
•ae~tilao/.-=ilnda;
[DJ Any wntte--eehneie-inrl of werea&ed
parties reapecti.:lg the promulgation of i.uch
rule:and
' The official record a{ rulemaldng for the
Pc,lycldu.~ Blpti.n,lw Maririnlam Dl9panl
Reguiaa-44.\ n 71111.1ablai7 17, mNt ■ ,ut al
the~-Ila,.-':'al 11111 aillau .--ol
'9!emeki .. far 1M l'CD baa rqailftli.aa. ela.o uiaudea
th■ offlicial nicord for Ille Admini11?ator'1L pl'lllfflliallflaal"'-.pohtant ..... .....,.
forPCBll_.,_.....,_lafdlaCllmW.._
Act(41ft&'lt ... ,._,a.~
{E) Any other intonw.!ion which the
Administrator considers to be reievant to
such rule 11nd wt,Jch the Administrator
:dentified. on or before the date of tJ,e
promulgation of ~uch n:1e. in a notice
:,ubliahed in the federal ~-
In acconiance with tfte ~uirements ot
,ecrion 19(e/f:3}{E) quoted abaYe, EPA fa
i>ubliahing the ioDowing li■t of docmnent,
:onstihltiJl8 the record al thia rv/emamr.
Thia liat does not iDdade pd,Jic COIDlllolml&.
the tramcnpt oi ilia ruwnaking heal"iq. or
submissions made at the rul~ :'!ltaring
or in connection with iL Thae ::i0c:m:lenta ar.-
~xempt from Federal Register liating wider
iection 19( a ){3 J. A lull list oi thue materiw
will be available on request from the Record
and Heartns Clerk.
F..i..ia.pa.N....P----.al'laia
Ru.la
43 PR Z'8DZ. June '1, 1911. US.EPA.
"Poiychlmuunad Bi.-aJ.11 cPC&l
Mamifac:mrint, P-ccr ... DillUibuDII ia
Commerce. and Use Bans Propoead
Regulation."
42 FR 3Z55i. Jue r,, 'l1Tl"I. USBPA.
"Polychiariaatecl Bipaallyis Ope Paal,ac
Meeting; Solicitation of C-t&. ..
42 FR 61259, December Z.1977. USEPA.
''Pra:edurea far Rwemakintr Under Sedfaa 6
of the Toxic:~--Qiatroi Act."
42 FR 65264, Decamber 30. l111'/. USBPA.
"Polychlcmated Biphmyl& PoiicJ far
!m~weioll ol S.C... 6(el(2) al Illa Toxic
Substancu Cantral Ad {TSCA)."
43 FR 380i7, Auguat 25. 197&. USEPA.
"Polychlorina&ed Bipaenyla: Manufac:turir.g.
Processin&, Distribution in Commerce. and
Use Bans: Clarification.•
43 PR 430l8, September ZZ. tfflt. USEPA.
''Polycblorinated !Kphenylt. MIIL:4faclming
Process~ Oiatribaooa in Coatnlerm. end
t:ae Bua: Exteatioa olR.eply Cammmta. •
M FR 108. Ja,nu.7 Z. lSl7'II. USEPA.
·'Polyc.hlartimed m,b,myta: J1u1it:r !.Jr
!mplemematMm 1111d .Eaaa ,t cl~
8(e )(2) ud 1(•)(3j ol the Toxic: S\Wt ....
Control Ad (TSCA)."'
Suppmt no-ts
USEPA, O'J'S. "!'CB Manufacturing.
.~sing, !)i~tnbutimr in Commel'Ct! and
tlse-Ban Reguiation-Pn,1.-ose.:1 Action-Support
Document. • /Voluntary Draft Enffl"DIIIIW1ltal
l.'ffpoct ~ 11nnl'OIUMffto/ Protl!Ction
~gencr (40 CPR Pan '1'fl1). w., 111'1'1.
USEPA. OTS. Env,rcr.!Jll!Dtai Pro,ection
Age!1cy Supporr Dot::-.ir.,'!.'1!/Volurr:ary
Envir.Jn:nenwl lmpcct ::itacement .fr:Jr
PoJycJ,Jorinalsd Biphtmyia iPCBJ
Marwfacw..ring. .Processing. Disuil,uuan in
Commerca and i.lse Ban Regulation. Maren
1979.
USEPA.OlflM.,'-,fiCT'Of!Conomiclmpacuof
tbe Prap<ned "PCB Ban Rt!gr:rlation6': May.
1978. !PA sm/~7'~. Vener. Inc. Contnrc:t
No.e&-Ol--4771.
USIPA. OPM. PCB ~
Pmceeins, 1-triln,tita ill c-.m,, tad
Us• Ba Rat,uJolioc Ecaooauc lmpoct
Ana/pa& Much 30. lift. iP~U/7►
008. Venar. Inc. Contract Ne. aa.-oi-c,n.
l
Federal Repster / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31511
Otber laformatioa
Other "Federal Re,iater" Nati~•
41 FR 7552. February 19, 1976.."Velsicol
Chemical Company et al .. Conaolldated
Heptachlor / Chlordane Hearing."
41 FR 21402. May 25. 1978. "Health Risk
and Economic Impact Aaae11menta of
Suspected Carcinopn,: Interim Procedures
and Guidelines."
42 FR 55028. October 12. 1977. ''TSCA
lnteragency Testing Committee-Initial Report
to the Administrator. EPA."
43 FR 7150, February 17, 1978.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBI) Disposal
& Marking Final Regulation."
43 FR 33918. August 2. 1978. "Addendum to
Preamble and Corrections to Final Rule
(PCBa),"
USEPA-Non "Federal Register" Statements
Region IV. News release in reference to
fishing in Lake Hartwell and Twelve Mile
Creek in Pickina County, South Carolina.
Dated about September 10, 1978.
Statement of Honorable Ru11ell E. Train.
Administrator, EPA. before the Subcommittee
on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment. Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fi9heries. House of
Representatives. January 28, 1978.
Remarks by the Honorable Russell E.
Train. Adminiatrator. EPA prepared for
delivery at the National Conference on PCBa.
Chicago. lllinois, Wednesday, November 19.
1975. 10 a.m. Ea1tem Standard Time.
Environmental Protection: Rx for Public
Health.
Region I News Release: September 14. 1978.
USEPA. OTS. CAD. Proposed PCB Ban
Rufe Summary. A:pril 30, 1978.
USEPA. Press Office. EPA Proposed Rule
Tu Ban Pol_vchlorinated Biphenyfs (PCBsJ.
lune 7. 1978.
Pre-Propoaal Publicly Announced Meetins&
USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings: Public
,\feeting on the Ban of Pofychlorinated
Biohenv/s. Washington. O.C .. July 15. 1977. ·usEPA. Transcript of Proceedilli/s 111 the
Special Meeting of U.S. Environmental
ProtP.ction Agency. Region V-Chicago. ILL..
luly 19. 1978.
Documents Submitted at the July 19. 197'!
Public Meeting
Statement on Retrafi//ing Made at Public
Meeting on the Implementation of the
En n ronmental Protection Agency ·s Proposed
PCB Ban. Julv 19. 1977. Dow Corning Corp.
Presencat,~n to Environmental Protection
.h:t!nCI'. Public ,\feeting-/uly 19. 1977. lov
~t'anui acturers.
Communications
These include. but' are not limited to.
intragovemmental memoranda. letters. and.
memoranda of telephone conversations.
Reports
1. • Ah·ares. Alvito P. "Alterations in Drug
Metabolism in Workers Exposed to
'Denotes documents cited in the Environmental
Protecuon A3ency·1 PCB Manufacturing.
Procening. Distribution m Comm11rce and Us11 Ban
Rejulat:on: Propos«i Ruf-Support Document/
Volumary Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Polychlorinated Blphenyla." Clinical
PharmacolOIJY and Therapeutics 22:2
(undated): 1~146.
2. *Bahn. Anita JC. Report on Paulsboro,
N.f. Mobil Oil Plant Study. Philadelphia:
Department of Community Medicine.
University of Pa., School of Medicine, (April
'1.7, 1976).
3. *Bartha, Richard. and Pramer, David.
;~Pesticide Transformation to Aniline and Azo
Compounds in Soil." Science 158 Uune 23.
1978): 1817-1818. ,
4. 'Berlin. Matha. Gage. John. and Holm.
StinL "Distribution and Metabolism of
2.4.S.Z' ,5-PentachloroblphenyL" Archive• of
Environmental Health 30 (March 1975): 141-
147.
s. 'Bldleman. T. F .. and Olney, C. E.
"Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso
Sea Atmosphere and Surface Water."
Science 183 (October 1. 1973): 518-ol&.
6. 'Blau. G. E.. and Neely. W. Brock.
"Mathematical Model Building with an
Application to Determine the Distribution of
Ouraban lnaecticide Added to a Simulated
Ecosystem." Adv. Ecology Res. 2 (1975): 133-
183.
7. 'Bowes. C. W .. and Jonkel~Charles J.
"Presence and Distribution of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB) in Arctic and Subarctic
Marine Food Chains."/. Fish. Re•. Bd. Cem.
32:11 (1975): 2111-2123.
8. 'Canada. Environment CanadL
Background to tht1 Rt!flulation of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB/ in Canada.
Ottawa: Task Force on PCB. Technical
Report 78:1 (April 1, 1978): 41-42.
9. 'Denbigh. Kenneth. The Principles of
Chemical Equilibrium with Applications in
Chemistrv and Chemical Engineering.
(Cambridge: University P1·ess, 1955), 268-272.
10. Dow Coming Corporation. A Material
Balance Study of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
111 Laice Michigan. Midland. Ml:
Environmental Sciences Research. by Neely,
W. Brock. The Science of the Total
Environment 7 (1971): 117-129.
11. -Uow Coming Corp. Removal of PCBs
from Dow Corning 561 Silicone Transformer
Liquid by Charcoal Filtration. Midland. MI:
Joint Project of Dow Coming, Transformer
Consultants. DC Filter and Chemical. Inc ..
(undated).
12. "EG&G. Fathead Minnow Egg and Fry
Study. Summary of Wareham. MA:
Bionamics Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory.
(August 26, 1977).
13. • Environmental Defense Fund v.
E11v1ronmental Protection Agency, 510 F2d
1292. 1298 (DC Cir. 1972).
14. • Enn'ronmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agenc}·, 548 F2d
998. 1006 (DC Cir. 1978).
15. 'Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
and New York Public Interest Research
Group. Inc. (PIRC). Troubled Waters: Toxic
Chemicals in the Hudson River IV (1977): 6-
11.
15.a Florida Power and Light Company.
Report on PCB Sampling Program for Florida
Power and Light Company. Miami: Edward E.
'Denotes documeoia cited in 43 F.R. 2480Z. June 7.
1978. "EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyla (PCBsl
Manufacturing. Procee1in3 Di■tribution in
Commerce and U■e Ban■." Propo■ed Rule.
Clark. EnginHra-Scient11ta, (August 4, 1978).
Submitted to Jeffrey G. Miller,. USEPA. DAA
for Water Enforcement by Robert E. Uhrig.
VP. Advanced Sy1tema and Technology,
September 25. 1978.
16. 'Furr. A. Keith: Lawerence. Alonzo W.;
Tong, Steven S. c.; Gradolfo, Marian C.;
Hofstader, Robert A.; Bache, Carl A.:
Gutenmann. Walter: Lisk. Donald J.
"Multielement and Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Analysis of Municipal Sewaae Sludges of
American Cities." Environmental Science
and Technology. 10:1 Uuly 1978): 883-M7.
17. General Electric Co. Penpective:, on
PCB Substitutn For Power Capacitors.
Hudson Falls. NY: Capacitor Pr:9ducts Dept..
(October 17, 1971). Submitted to Peter P.
Principe. USEPA. OTS by Ruth JC. Arisman.
Materials Science Lab .• March 9, 1978.
18. •General Electric Co. Silicone• in
Transformers Presented to the
Environm11ntal Protection Agency.
Waterford. NY: Silicones Product■ Dept..
(September 6, 197'1).
19. 'Hamelink. Jerry I..; Waybrant. Ronald
C.; Ball, Robert C. "A Proposal: Exchange
Equilibria Control the Degree Chlorinated
Hydrocarbom are Biologically Magnified in
Lentic Environments." Transaction:, of the
Amen·can Fisht1rin Society 100:2 (April
1971): 207-214.
20. 'Hape, Rlzwanul; Schmedding. David
W .; and Freed. Virgil M. "Aqueo1111 Solubility
Adsorption and Vapor Behavior by
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Aroclor 1254." Env.
Sci. fr Tech. 8:2 (February 1974): 13~141.
21. 'Harvey, George R.. and Steinhauer.
William G. "Atmospheric Transport of
Polychlorobiphenyls to the North Atlantic."
Atmospheric Environment 8 (1974): 771-782.
22. 'Holden. A. V. "Source of
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contamination in
the Marine Environment." Na tum 228
[December 19. 1970): 1220-1221.
23. Hutzinger. 0 .: Safe. S.: and Zitko. V.
''Polychlorinated Biphenyls." .4nalabs
Research Notes 12:2 (July 1972): 1-15.
24. 'Jansson. B.: Jensen. S.: Olsson, M.:
Sundstrom. G.; and Vaz. R. "Identification by
GC-MS of Phenolic Metabolites of PCB and
p.p'-DDE Isolated from Baltic Guillemot and
Seal." Ambia 4:2 (1975): 93-96.
Junge. C. E. See Suffet. I. H .. gen. ed.
25. 'Lunde. Gu!brand. "Long-Range Aerial
Transmission of Organic Micropollutants."
Ambia 5-6 (1976): 207-208.
26. 'Mackay. Donald: Leinonen. Paul J.
"Rate of Evaporation Low-Solubility
Contaminants from Water Bodies to
Atmosphere." Environmental Science and
Technology 9 [December 1975): 1178-1180.
27. ·Maugh. Thomas H. II. ''DOT: An
Unrecosnized Source of Polychlorinated
Biohenyls ... Science 180 (May 1973): 578-579. 28. •Metcalf. Robert L : Sanborn. James: Po
Yung Lu; Nye. Donald. "Laboratory Model
Ecosystem Studies of the Degradation and
Fate of Radio labeled Tri-, Tetra-, and
Pentachlorobiphenyl Compared with ODE."
Archives of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology 3:2 (1975): 151-165.
29. •Monsanto Chemical Company. Araclor
Plasticizers. St. Louis. MO: Organic
Chemicals Division. Technical Bulletin O/PL-
308A (Undated).
315G Federal Rapts_ / Vol 46. No. 108 / Thunday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Replatiom
30. •Monaanto Chemical Company.
Moll6aZJt1' Ta SJ,r,t Dorm 1'CI/ Unit. l!Jlit
Bustna. by October 31, 19". St. Louia. MO
(October 5, 197'7'). ....
31. "M~hy, T'1oma1 J. Precipitation: A
SignifiCOIJJ Source of Phmpbol'V8 and PClh
to Lou Michigan. Evanatoa. m.: lotb ACS
Great Laku Regiaul Meetlq. (Jane 17,
1976).
32.. •Natianal EledricManwactwwa
Asaocfatian. Report of Tran.formar
Die/ectni; Fluid Study Wo.rim:, Group.
W aahington. DC: .{Oci.obu 18. IJ'11).
33. •National Swedish Envilaamanlal
Protectioa Boa.rd. PCB COll(ereDI» a.
Stockholm; Pub. 11173: 4& (December 14.
19'2}.
34. •NelsOD. N. ''PCBa-&a,""--o-m'::l
Impact." Ellv~tai Rasan:Ja 5 (U11~
273-281.
35. '!'-lew York S&ate OepartlDIDl of
Environmental ConaavaUO& HutiMMJ Rivv
PCB Study Dacripu'olJ and Dftlaiied War&
Plan. Albany: Bureau of Walar a.-ca.
Uuly 19771-
36. "Niabet. lu C. T. aad Sarofia. Adal P.
"Rate& and Routa oi Tnmapan oi PCBa ill
the~ .. EnlfU'fJIIIIIIUII ~-'
Perspective. (April un~ Zl-31.
37. '01,aifa, P. ~ Albrigbt. L.).. S..&o. S. Y.
and Law. f. "Factors Affecting Iba Blawiar
oi Fin Chkirulaled Hy~ iD Two
Nablnl Wal.era aad TDl!ir Sedimaatll. y
foumai FW.llli• &.alca /loflld of C-..
J0:11 (l!lt13): 161~1!123.
Mr.a......
38. + '"PCBlr spread by waste ail ase?"
Chemical Wttk Uanuary ZS, 1978~ 15.
39. + Pee.lcall, D. B. '"PCBr md Their
Eimronmental "Effects." CllC-Critical
Reviews in Envirommmtai Control 5:4
(Septimlber 1975}: 489-50&
40. "'Report o{ a New Chemical Hazard.•
New Scientist {December 15. 19"8}: 61%.
41. "Risebrough, R. W.; WaJkl!r. W. D:
Schmidt. T. T.: de Lappe. B. W.; Camion. C.
W. "Transfer of Chlorinated.Blphenyij ,to
Antarctica.• Nature 284 (December Z'J('JD.
l!m!J: 73&-;'39.
4%. 'Sodergren. A. '"Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Residuet in Airborne Fallout.•
.Vature 236: (April Zl. 1972J:" 395-397.
43. Spagnoli. John f. and Skinner.
Lawrence C. MPCBa in Ffsh Prom Selected
Waters of New York State.• Pestic.ide!I
,\1onitoring Joumal11:.2. (September 1977): 69-
67.
44. ·suffet. I. J--L gen. ed. Fate of Pollutants
in the Air and Water Environments. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977, Vol. 8: '"Basic
Consideration about Ttace'Constituents in
the Atmosphere aa Related ta the Fate of
Global Pollutants.• C. E. Junge, 7-25.
45. Tucker. E. S.; Litschgi. W. J.; Mees, W.
M. "Migration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
in Soil Induced by Percolating Water."
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination ff
Toxicology 13:1 (19'TS): 118-93.
46. + University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
College Program. ·ABCs of PCBa." Madison:
Public Information Report WIS SG 76-125,
(April 1976).
47. + Univenity of Wwconain Sea Grant
College Program. "PCBs and the FDA. Parts I
and 11.·• Madison: Earthwatch/Wisconsin.
(May 6 lind May 13. 19771.
48. + USDHEW. Final &port of the
Subco11111Jilt1Nr on tJ,e l-lll!ald, /!Jf8':t6 of
Polychlorinated Bip/11,ny/s and
PoiybrolllinaJad Biphayl& Wuliiqtaa. Uuly
lfflSJ.
48. •• USDI--IEW. Center for Dfaea■e
ControL Expofl"1'fl ta Po/-yd,lorizl.atMJ
Bipl,tmyla in Bloomington, Indiana. A11an~
Public Health Service. iPl-77~.a. (May 28,
19711}. Submitc.d by Requeac of EPA duiina
Reply COIIIDl,Ut Period.
50. •usnHEW. NIOSH.. CniMiD far a
RectJauaezzdad Slandard'9 •. Occupational
Expoeure to PolyclllarinaJIJd Bjp/Mwyla
(PC&J. Wulwaatan; (September 1977)
SL •usmmw. NIOSH. 77Mt Ta.x.ic
Substances List-1973 Edition. Rockville. MD:
Oune 19731, a5. sz. ··usmmw. PHS. NIH. NCI. Bi~
of Aroclar U54 for Poaibia Carcillopaic.iq.
Waa~Natiaaal ea-laatiwta. Tedi.-
Report SeEial No. JI, (1!1178}.
53. + USDOC. Maritilu ActwiowratjQg_
Final EJJ..,iraoauklJ /mpacl St.oulmeat.
Wa1bw&MW Chemic•! WutelDciaerator
SWp Pru;ect. Vol.1 of 2.MA-EJS 7302.-7~.
Owy z. 19761.
SL +USDOT, Tn1111110rtaliOD Syaten.
Center. ~ of sm-Fluid for
RepiOl:IUllaJt of PCB CllOJut-. iD Railway
lndu6try. Waahillctaa: Prwated by
We■tinghouee Electri1oi Colp.. {jaly 1il'17).
55. +USEPA. P-vce«u.., Ja the Manero{
Toxic Pailulllllt Efflaat SlalldanJ& Dtlcafll
No.. J FWPCA(:Jm). Arimctan. VA. (Mey~
1974).
56. + USEPA. Promedings la tb11 ltlaUM of
To,uc .PollullUlt Slf]uent Sumdards. Doci<l!t
No. 1 FWPCA.{307). Ar.lingtaa. VA. (Mey 9.
1974).
57. •usm,A. Pnwdings m thttMattff-af
Ta,u,c Pollutant Effl-r,l Stzlndald8. Docb,t
Na. 1 FWPCA/307). AriiDft,:m. VA. (May 2.0..
1974).
sa. •USEPA. l!a"riloammtal Research
Center. Tabitt of PC& in S-0,. Sludga
Cincinnati. OH: OSWMP, Urrpllbliahed
Report. (Undated).
Sil. 'USF.PA. &mranmentel ReRen:h
Lebaretary. Pofyr;hlombip,b,,tryJ. in
l'recipitaOOII in the Lau Mic/usaD Ba.
Draft. Duhilh. Mina.. Office of Research 6
Development. (Undated). ea. ·uSEPA. OA WM. Ennronmenlal
Assessment of PCB. in th• Atmo.pi,ere.
Reanrch Triangle Park. NC. Mitre
Corporation.EPA 450/3-77~ (Novemb.r
1977).
61. 'USEPA. OSWMP. Municipal Sludge
Agricuituroi Utllization Practices: An
Environmtmtol ~I VJ-Tobie 49.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Concentmtiona in
Stabiized Sludge. SCS E'nsineers. (Undated}.
62. USEPA. or.;. ASllff8rntmt of tlH,
Environmental and Economic lmpacu of the
Ban on Jmporu of PCB!I. Versar. Inc. EPA
S&0/&-"77-001. Ouly 1971).
63. 'USEP.-\, OTS. Destroction of PCBs in
Sewage Sludge During Incineration.
Springfield, VA~ Versar, Inc. PB-258---162.
f197eJ.
•• Dent,tn·docu..mt, ciled ii, the EnvU'ONIMlltaJ
Prottt:aon As-c-,'• Support ~I/Volant41y
Environmt111taJ llllflOd Sl::.Ls:c..f far
Poiychlorinal«J Bi,,..,/• {PCB! M<Vlu/a,t:turinr
Processing. Distnbution in Commerce and Use Ba11
Regulation: March 1979
84. USEPA. OTS. Enviroa!Natoi
As1111Sament of PCB, Near New Bedford,
Mas,. Municipal Landfill Pino/ Draft.
W~OC.(Mq1971).
85. •USBPA.--ars. ~ Llffela of
PCB!I. Wa■~ DC:~ a.,..t·
by Dms J. Raopp ud Vbraal J. D9Cario.
(Undated). .
II& •USBPA. C7l'S. A J1lnt Ordr!r MoN
8aianst1 Model for Sources, Dlnribrrtltm anti
Fatl1 qf l'CBI i1t tlM Errrirtmmtmt.
Wnhington. DC. Verur, me. EPA 5l10/&-'1'1-
006. Uwy 1977l-
67. USEPA. ars. Idt111ti'fjcation and
Ana/ysi!I of Polyc./Jorill.at.at/ Bipnl,nyJ. alJII
Other ilMctMJ ~ iD MUIJicjpal
Sewaa,,Sluds, SaPl,?iH R...an:a ~
Institute. EPA 560/~"77~21. (Augual 1977).
68. *USEPA. Region 1--0SWMP. PC& in
5-a6fl Shidgt1. Repm rs Solid Waaht
Propm'a PCB Samptias Pn,pam. Pedm
En'ffNl!'---,,1 (Updatad).
69. "USEPA. Repoa VD. S/A DIT. ~
Data Sum.mu,.• (July 1, 19111).
,o. 'USEPA. Worting Groa)'1J11 P'N1fcides.
Groand o;,,,-1 qf !wtit:idrtJr.,,,. ~llllff
and Criteria fm' Gaiwlina. Washington. DC.
PB t97-14t. [March lS'JOJ.
71. 'Veith. G. D~ and Comstock. V. M.
"Apparatus far Canmmouly Sataratfng
Water with Hydrophobic Organic
Ciamicala. • /. &h. Res. Bd. CanadJ 3%: 1G
(1975}: 184~18151.
72. + Weaioahcul&e Elactric Corporatica·
Propoml Ta: Thll Departmat of
Transportation: Retrofilling of Railway
Trarm/ormva. Sharon. ~ H. A. Pean:a.,
Project Maaager, (Decembft Zl. 1917).
73. + Witco Clrnnical Caliet'U Dua
/l.etardant J\JaL Bllken&Jd. CA: Goldat
Bear nm.-. (Uadatwd).
74. 'World Almanac & Book of Pact&.
"Meteorological Monthly Tempvature and
Precipitation.• (1977']: 79t-79S.
75. + Worid Health Orpnfntian.
Environmtmta/ Ht,a/tl, Critena z PC1b and
Terplrt!f1y/s. Gemmr. (19'18}: ~-
78. ·wortd Health Orpnizadon.
Environmental Healtlr Cri~ria for PCJJs-
Drafr. EHE/EHC/WP. 75.% Rev. z:2.11
(November 1975): 29.4.
11.•wyndbem. c.; Dffenish. J.; and Safes.
"The In Vitro Metabolism. M~
Bindint and Bacteria Mutagenicity of 4-
Chlorobiphenyl. A Modal PCB Subatrata."
&searcb Communication£ ilJ ChemieiJJ
l'r.:.haiogy and PhannacoJogy 15:3 (November
1976~ 563-670.
7& 'Yoehiraara. Hidetoahi. and Y■momoto,
Hiroaki. "Metabolic Studies oo PCB■• L
Metabolic Fate of 3.4.3'. 4'-
tetrachlorobiphenyl in Rats.• Chem. Pharrn.
Bulletin zt:5 !1973}: 11~1169.
Part 761 is revised to read as follow~
PART 761-POLYCHLOAINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBa)
MANUFACTURI~ PROCESSING,
DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE. AND
USE PROHIBITIONS
~"A-Generai
Sec.
761.1 Applicability.
761.2 Definitions.
i I
Federal R .. ter / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31543
Subpart B-Olsposal of PCBa and PCB
ltema
761.10 Disposal requirements.
~ C----eartdng of PC8a and PCB
Items
761.20 Marking requirement
5wapart D-Manufacturtn9 PrOCNaing.
DlstrfbuUon In Commerce, and UN of PC8s
and PCB Items
761.30 Prohibitiona.
761.31 Authorizationa.
761.32 [Reserved)
~ E-uatof AnnexN
Annex No. I
761.40 lncineration.
A.ann No. [I
761.41 Chemical waate landfilla.
Annex No.OJ
781.42 Storage for disposal.
AunaxNo.lV
761.43 Decontamination.
AnuxNo.V
781.44 Marlting formats.
Annex No. VI
761.45 Records and Monitoring.
Authority: Section 6. S. and 12. Toxic
Substances Control Act. 15 U.S.C. 2605, Zl'Df.
and 2811.
Subpart A-General
§ 781.1 AppiclltNlty.
(a) This part establishes prohibitions
of. and requirements for. the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, disposaL storage, and
marking of PCBa and PCB Items.
(b} This part applies to all persons
who manufacture, process, distribute in
commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs or
PCB Items. Unless it is otherwise
specifically provided. the terms PCB and
PCBs are used in this rule to refer to any
chemical substance.ct and combinations
of substances that contain 50 ppm (on a
dry weight basis) or greater of PCBs, as
defined in § 761.2(s), including any
byproduct. intermediate, or impurity
manufactured at any point in a process.
Any chemical substances and
combinations of substances that contain
less than 50 ppm PCBs because of any
dilution. shall be included as PCB and
PCBs unless otherwise specifically
provided. Substances that are regulated
by this rule include, but are not limited
to, dielectric fluids. contaminated
solvents, oils. waste oils. heat transfer
fluids. hydraulic fluids. paints, sludges,
slurries, dredge spoils. soils, materials
contaminated as a result of spills, and
other chemical substances or
combination of substances, including
impurities and byproducts.
(c} Definitions of the terms used in
these regulation, are in Subpart A. The
basic requirements applicable to
disposal and marking of PCBs and PCB
Items are set forth in Subpart ~
Disposal of PCBs and PCB Items and in
Subpart C-Marking of PCBs and PCB
Items. Prohibitions applicable to PCB
activities are set forth in Subpart D-
Manufacture, Processing. Distribution in
Commerce, and Use of PCBs and PCB
Items. Subpart D also includes
authorizations Crom the prohibitions.
The Annexes in Subpart E set forth the
specific requirements for disposal and
marking of PCBa and PCB Items.
(d) Section 15 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA} states that failure to
comply with theae regulations is
unlawful. Section 16 imposes liability for
civil penalties upon any person who
violates theae regulations, and the
Adminiatrator can establish appropriate
remedies for any violations subject to
any limitations included in § 16 of
TSCA. Section 16 also subjects a person
to criminal prosecution.for a violation
which is knowing or willful. In addition.
§ 17 authorizes Federal district courts to
enjoin activities prohibited by these
regulations. compel the taking of actions
required by these regulations. and issue
orders to seize PCBa and PCB Items
manufactured. procesaed or distributed
in violation of these regulations.
(e) These regulations do not preempt
other more stringent Federal statutes
and regulatioos.
§ 761.2 0.flnltlonL
For the purpose of this part
(al "Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, or any employee of
the Agency to whom the Administrator
may either herein or by order delegate
his authority to carry out his functions.
or any person who shall by operation of
law be authorized to carry out such
functions.
(bl "Agency" means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(cl "Byproduct" means a chemical
substance produced without separate
commercial intent during the
manufacturing or processing of another
chemical substance(s) or mixture(s}.
(d) "Capacitor" means a device for
accumulating and holding a charge of
electricity and consisting of conducting
surfaces separated by a dielectric.
Types of capacitors are as follows:
(1) "Small Capacitor" means a
capacitor which contains less than 1.36
kg (3 lbs.) of dielectric fluid.
(2} "Large High Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 lbs.) or more of dielectic fluid and
which operates at 2000 volts a.c. or
above.
(3} "Large Low Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 lbs.) or more of dielectric fluid and
w-hich operatea below 2000 volts a.c.
(e)(l} "Chemical Substance", except
as provided in subparagraph (Z) of this
paragraph, means any organic or
inorganic substance of a particular
molecular identity, including:
(i) Any combination of such
substances occurring in whole or part aa
a result of a chemical reaction or
occurring in nature, and
(ii) Any element or uncombined
radical.
(2) Such term does not include:
(!) Any mixture,
(ii) Any pesticide (as defined in the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act) when manufactured.
processed. or distributed in commerce
for use as a pesticide,
(iii) Tobacco or any tobacco product.
(iv} Any source material. special
nuclear material, or by product material
( as such terms are defined in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and regulations
issued under such Act),
(v) Any arcticle the sale of which is
subject to the tax imposed by section
4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 (determined without regard to any
exemptions Crom such tax provided by
section 4182 or section 4221 or any
provisions of such -'.:ode), and
(vi) Any food. food additive. drug,
cosmetic. or device (as such terms are
defined in section 201 of the Federal
Food. Drug. and Cosmetic Act) when
manufactured, processed. or distributed
in commerce for use as a food, food
additive, drug.-cosmetic. or device.
(f) "Chemical Waste Landfill" means
a landfill at which protection against
risk of injury to health or the
environment Crom migration of PCBs to
land. water, or the atmosphere is
provided from PCBs and PCB Items
deposited therein by locating,
engineering, and operating the landfill
as specified in § 761.41.
(g) "Commerce" means trade, traffic.
transportation, or other commerce:
(1) Between a place in P-State and any
place outside of such State. or
(2) Which affects trade, traffic.
transportation. or commerce described
in subparagraph (1} of this paragraph.
(h) "Disposal" means to intentionally
or accidentally discard. throw away, or
otherwise complete or terminate the
useful life of PCBs and PCB Items.
Disposal includes actions related to
315" Federal hpstm / Vol 44. No. 106 / Thutsday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Rqula.Uom
containing.· tramporting. destroying,
degradiil& decontaminating. or
confining PCBa and PCB Itema.
(i) "Distribute in Commerce" and
"Distribution I.Ji Commerce'' when used
to describe an action ta.ken with respect
· to a chemical substance, mixture. or
article containing a substance or
mixture meana to sell. or the sale of. the
111bstance, mixture. or article in
commerce; to introduce or deliver for
introduction into commerce, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction
into commerce of the substance,
mixture. or article: or to hold or the
holding of, the substance. mixture. or
article after its introduction into
commerce.
(j} "Fluorescent Light Ballast" means a
device that electrically control■
fluorescent light fixtures and that
includes a capacitor containin3 0.1 kg or
less of dlelectic.
(k) "Impurity" means a chemical
substance which is unintentionally
present with another chemical
substance.
(I) "Incinerator" meana an engineered
device using controlled fi&IJle
combustion to thermally degrade PCBs
and PCB Items. Examples of devices
used for incineration include rotary
kilns. liquid injection incinerators,
cement kilns. and high temperature
boilers.
(m) "Leak" or "leaking" means any
instance in which a PCB Article, PCB
Container, or PCB Equipment has an.,y
PCBa on any portion of ita external
surface.
(n) "Manufacture" means to produce,
manufacture. or import into the customs
territory of the United States.
(o) "Mark" means the descriptive
name. instructions, cautions, or other
information applied to PCBs and PCB
llems, or other objects subject to these
regulations.
(p) "Marked" means the marking of
PCB Items and PCB storage areas and
transport vehicles by means of applying
a legible mark by painting, fixation of an
adhesive label. or by any other method
that meets the requirements of these
regulations.
(q) "Mixture" means any combination
of two or more chemical substances if
the combination does not occur in
nature and is not, in whole or in part.
the result of a chemical reaction; except
that such term does include any
combination which occurs. in whole or
in part. as a result of a chemical reaction
if none of the chemical substances
comprising the combination is a new
chemical substance and if the
combination could have been
manufactured for commercial purpoaes
without a chemicai reaction at the time
•he chemical substances comprising the
combination were combined.
(r} "Municipal Solid Wastes" means
garbage, refuse, sludges, wastes. and
other discarded materiala resulting from
residential and non-indUBtrial
operations and activities. such as
hoUBehold activities. office functions,
and commercial hoUBekeeping wastes.
(s) "PCB" and "PCBs" meam any·
chemiCB1substance that is limited to the
biphenyl molecule that has been
chlorinated to varying degrees or any
combination of substatlces which
contains such substance. (See § 761.l(b)
Applicability for applicable
concentrations of PCBs). PCB and PCBs
as contained in PCB Items are defined in
§ 761.Z(x).
(t) "PCB Article" means any
manufactured article, other than a PCB
Container that containa'PCBs and
whose surface(s) has been in direct
contact with PCBe. "PCB Article"
includes capacitors, transformers,
electric motors, pumps, pipes and any
other manufactured item (1) which is
formed to a specfflc shape or design
du.ring manufacture, (Z) which has end
use function(s) dependent in whole or in
part upon ·its shape or design during end
use, and (3) which has either no change
of chemical composition during its end
use or only those changes of
composition which have no commercial
purpose separate from that of the PCB
Article.
(u) "PCB Article Container" means
any package, can. bottle, bag, barrel,
drum. tank or other device used to
contain PCB Articles or PCB Equipment.
and whose surface(s) has not been in
direct contact with PCBs.
(v) "PCB Container" means any
package, can. bottle, bag, barrel, drum.
tank, or other device that contains PCBs
or PCB Articles and whose aurface(s)
has been in direct contact with PCBs.
(w) "PCB Equipment" means any
manufactured item. other than a PCB
Container or a PCB Article Container.
which contains a PCB Article or other
PCB Equipment. and includes
microwave ovens, electronic equipment.
and fluorescent light ballasts and
fixtures.
(xi "PCB Item" is defined as any PCB
Article, PCB Article Container, PCB
Container, or PCB Equipment. that
deliberately or unintentionally contains
or has as a part of it any PCB or PCBs at
a concentration of SO ppm or greater.
(y) "PCB Transformer" means any
transformer that contains 500 ppm PCB
or greater.
(z) "PCB-Contaminated TJ'&DBformer"
means any transformer that contains 50
ppm or greater of PCB but lea■ than 500
pp!Q PCB (See I 781.31(a}(S) for
provisions permitting reclassifying PCB
Transformers to PCB-Contaminated
Transformers).
(aa) "Person" meana any natural ar
judicial person including any individual.
corporation. partnerah1p, or association:
any State or political subdivision
thereof: any interstate body: and any
department. agenc.'Y, or instrumentality
of· the Federal Govemment.
(bb) "Procesa" means the preparation
of a chemical substance or mixture, after
its manufacture, for distribution in
commerce:
(1) In the same form or physical state
aa, or in a different form or physical·
state from. that in which it was received
by the person so preparing such
substance or mixture, or
(Z) As part of an article containing-the
chemical substance or mixture.
(cc) "Sale for Purposes Other than
Resale" means sale of PCBa for
purposes of disposal and for purposes of
use, except where use involves sale for
distribution in commerce. PCB
Equipment which is first leased for
purposes of use any time before July 1,
1979, will be conaidered sold for
purposes other than resale.
(dd) "Significant Exposure" meana
any exposure of human beings er the
environment to PCBs as measured or
detected by any scientifically
acceptable analytical method.
( ee) "Small Quantities for Research
and Development" means any quantity
of PCBs (1) that is originally packaged in
one or more hermetically sealed
containers of a volume of no more than
five (5.0) milliliters, and (Z) that is used
only for purposes of scientific
experimentation or analysis, or chemical
research on, or analysis of, PCBs, but
not for research or analysis for the
development of a PCB product.
(ff) "Storage for Disposal" means
temporary storage of PCBs that have
been designated for disposal.
(gg) ''Transport Vehicle" means a
motor vehicle or rail car used for the
transportation of cargo by any mode.
Each cargo-carrying body (e.g., trailer,
railroad freight car) is a separate
transport vehicle.
(hh) ''Totally Enclosed Manner"
means any manner that will ensure that
any exposure of human beings or the
environment to any concentration of
PCBs will be insignificant that is, not
measurable or detectable by any
scientifically acceptable analytical
method.
(ii) "Waste Oil" means used products
primarily derived from petroleum. which
include, but are not limited to, fuel oila.
)
federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31515
motor oila. gear oila. cutting oils.
transmission fluids, hydraulic fluids. and
dielecttjc fluids.
SUbpart B-Olspoem of PCSa and PCB
ltema
Note.-Thi1 Subpart does not n,quint
remonJ of PCBa and PCB Items from 1rricl
and dilpoaaJ earlier than wouJd norm.ally be
the cue. However, when PCBa and PCB
Items are l"IIIDOVed from aervic:e and diapoNd
of. dilposaJ mut be andert.abn in
accordance with theN rep!ationa. PCBI
(includins aoila and debris) and PCB Items
which have been placed in a diapoNl ate are
considered to be "in service" for purposes of
the applicability of thia Subpart. Thia Subpart
does not require PCBs and PCB ltem1
landfilled prior to February 17, 1978 to be
removed for disposaJ. However, if nch PCBe
or PCB lteme are removed from the dispoaaJ
site, th91 must be dlspoeed of in accordaDc:e
with dais Subpart. Other Subparts ....
dintc:ted to the maauiactun, procnlliq.
di1triblltion in commen:e. aaci -af PCBe
and may result in some ca ... in diapoaaJ at
an earlier date thaD would otberwiN occur.
§711.10 ~~
(a) PCBs. (1) Except aa provided in
subparqraphs (2), (3). (4). and (5) of this
paragraph. PCBs muat be disposed of in
an incinerator wbich compliea with
AnnexL
(2) Mineral OH dielectric Bu.id from
PCB-Contaminated Tranaformen
containins a PCB concentration of 50
ppm or greater. but less than 500 ppm.
must be disposed of in one of the
following:
(i) ID an incinerator that complies with
Annex I § 761.40!
{ii) ID• chemical waste landfill that
complies with Annex Il § 781.41 if
information ia provided to the owner or
operator of the chemical waste landfill
that ahows that the mineral oil dielectric
fluid does not exceed 500 ppm PCB and
ia not an ignitable wute u described in
§ 781..41 (b) (8) (ill) of Annex II;
(iii) In a high efficiency boiler
provided that
(A) The boiler complies with the
following criteria:
(1) The boiler is rated at a minimmn of
50 million BTIJ hours;
(2) If the boiler uaea natural gas or oil
aa the primary fueL the carbon
JDODOXide concentration in the atack ia
50 ppm or less and the ex.ceu oxygen is
at least three-{3) percent wham PCBa are
beiq burneci;
{3) If the boiler uaes coal u tbe
primary fuel. tbe CUOOil manoxida
CIIIIClllltratioa in the stack is 100 ppm or
• •d the excae OXJ88D is at leut
..... (at,-caat when PCBs ... baiq
bumad:
(41 The mineral oil dielectric fluid
does not compriae more than ten (10)
percent (on a volume baais) of the total
fuel feed rate:
(5} The mineral oil dielectric fluid is
not fed into the boiler unlesa the boiler
is operating at its normal operating
temperature (thia prohibita feeding these
fluids duriD& either start up or shut
down operations);
(8) The owner or operator of the
boiler:
(11 ContiDaoasly moniton and reco.rda
the carbon monoxide com:entration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas while bumins mineral oil dielectric
fluid: or
(ill If the boiler will bum less than
30,000 gallons of mineral oil dielectric
fluid ps year, measures and recorda the
carbon monoxide concentration and
exceu oxysen percentage in the alack
gas at regular intervala of no lanser than
60 miDutea while burniq mineral oil
dielectric fluid.
( 7) The primary fuel feed rates.
mineral oil dielectric fluid feed rates.
and total quantities of both primary fuel
and mineral oil dielectric fluid fed to the
boiler are meaeured and recorded at
regular intervals of no lonpr than 15
minutes while burning mineral oil
dielectric Ouid.
(8) The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess OX}'8ell
percentage are checked at least once
f!!Vf?rJ hour that mineral oil dielectric
fluid is burned. If either me■IAU'IRDent
falls below the levels specified in this
rule, the flow of mineral oil dielectric
fluid to the boiler shall be stopped
immediately.
(B) Thirty day,r before any penon
bums mineral oil dielectric fluid in the
boiler, the person gives written notice to
the EPA Regional Administrator for the
EPA Region in which the boiler is
located and that the notice contaim the
following information:
(1) The name and address of the
owner or operator of the boiler and the
address of the boiler:
(2) The boiler rating in units of BTU/
hour.
(3) The carbon monoxide
concentration and the e»:es. oxygen
percentage in the stack of the boiler
when it is operated in a manner similar
to the manner in which it will be.
operated when mineral oil dielectric
fluid is burned: and
(4l The type of equipment. apparatua.
and procaduru to bo uaed to cootnM the
feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to the
boiler ud to monitor and recrard the
carbon moDDXide coocentration aad
excess oxygen-percentage iD the stack.
(C) When burning mineral oil
diel~ctric fluid. the boiler must operate
at a level of output no less than the
output at which the measurement.
required under subparagraph (BJ(3) were
taken.
(DJ Any person burning mineral pil
dielectric fluid in a boiler obtains the
following information and retains the
information for ftve yean at the boiler
location:
(1) The data required to be collected
under subparagraph& (A)(8) and (A)(7}
of this paragraph; and
(2) The quantity of mineral oil
dielectric fiuid burned in the boiler each
month;
(iv) In a facility that ia approved in
accordance with I 761.lO{e). For the
purpose of burniq mineral oil dielectric
fluid. an applicant under I 781.l0(e)
must show that hia combustion process
destroys PCBs aa efficiently aa does a
high efficiency boiler, as defined in
subparagraph (ill), or an Annex I
approved incinerator.
(3) Liquids. other than mineral oil
dieJectric fluid. containing a PCB
concentratioo of 50 ppm..._or greater, 6ut
less than 500 ppm. shall be dlspoaed'of:
(i) In an incinerator which compilla
with ADnex I:
(ii) ID a chemical waate landfill \4411ich
oompliea with Annex II if information ia
provided to the owner or operator of the
chemical wute landfill that sbowa that
the wute does not exceed 500. ppm JllCB
and is not an ignitable waste as
desc:ribed in I 761.41(b)(8J!lii)of Annex
II.
(iii) ID a high efficiency boiler
provided that
(A) The boiler complies with the
following criteria:
(1) The boiler is rated at a minimum of
50 million BTU /hour.
(2) If the boiler uses natural gu or oil
as the primary fuel, the carbon
mODOXicle concentration in the stack is
50 ppm or leaa and the excess oxygen ia
at leaat three (3) percent when PCBa are
being burned:
(3) If the boiler llSes coal as1he
primary fueL the carbon monoxide
conuntration in the stack is 100 ppm or
less and the excess oxygen is at least
three (3) percent when PCBs are being
burned:
(4) The waste does not comprise more
than ten (10) perceat (on a volume basia)
of the total ful fud rate: ·
[5} The wute is not fed into the boiler
uuleas tbe boiler ii oparattng at tts
normal operattng temperature (this
prohibita feeding daae fluida during
aitller ltart up or shut down' operattomt;. (BJ The OWDIII' or operator of the boiler
muat:
31546 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
(11 Continuously monitor and record
the carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack
gas while burning waste fluid: or
(i1l If the boiler will burn less than
30,000 gallons of waste fluid per year,
measure and record the carbon
monoxide concentration and excess
oxygen percentage in the stack gas at
regular intervals of no longer than 60
minutes while burning waste fluid:
(7) The primary fuel feed rate, waste
fluid feed rate, and total quantities of
both primary fuel and waste fluid fed to
the boiler must be measured and
recorded at regular intervals of no
longer than 15 minutes while burning
waste fluid: and
(Bl The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage must be checked at least
once every hour that the waste is
burned. If either measurement falls
below the levels specified in this rule,
the flow-of waste to the boiler shall be
stopped immediately.
(B) Prior to any person burning these
liquids u1 the boiler, approval must be
obtained from the EPA Regional
Administrator for the EPA Region in
which the boiler is located and any
persons seeking such approval must
submit to the EPA Regional
Administrator a request containing at
least the following information:
(1) The name and address of the
owner or operator of the boiler and the
addre88 of the boiler:
(2) The boiler rating in UDits of 'BTU/
hour:
(J) The carbon monoxide
concentration and the excess oxygen
percentage in the stack of the boiler
when it is operated in a manner similar
to the manner in which it will be
operated when low concentration PCB
liquid is burned;
(4) The type of equipment apparatus,
and procedures to be used to control the
feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to the
boiler and to monitor and record the
carbon monoxide concentration and
excess oxygen percentage in the stack:
(5) The type of waste to be burned
(e.g., hydraulic fluid. contaminated fuel
oil, heat tranafer fluid. etc.):
(6) The concentration of PCBs and of
any other chlorinated hydrocarbon in
the waste and the results of analyses
using the American Society of Testing
and Materiala (ASTM) methods as
referenced below. carbon and hydrogen
content uaing·:ASTM 0-3178. nitrogen
content using ASTM E-258. sulfur
content using ASTM 0-2784. 0-1268. or
0-129, chlorine content using ASTM 0-
808. water and sediment content uaing
either ASTM D-2709 or 0-1798. ash
content using D-482. calorific value
using ASTM D-240. carbon residue
using either ASTM D-2158 or D-524, and
flash point using ASTM D-93:
(7) The quantity of wastes estimated
to be burned in a thirty (30) day period:
(BJ An explanation of the procedures
to be followed to insure that burning the
waste will not adversely affect the
operation of the boiler such that
combustion efficiency will decrease.
(C) On the basis of the information in
(B) above end any other available
information, the Regional Administrator
may, at his discretion, find that the
alternate disposal method will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and approve
the use of the boiler:
(D) When burning PCB wastes, the
boiler must operate et a level of output
no less than the output at which the
measurements required under
subparagraph (B)(J) were taken: and
(E) Any person burning liquids in
boilers approved as provided in (C)
above, must obtain the following
information and retain the information
for five years at the boiler location:
(1) The date required to be collected
in subparegraphs (A)(6) and (A)(7) of
this paragraph:
(2) The quantity of low concentration
PCB liquid burned in the boiler each
month.
(J) The analysis of the waste required
by subparagraph (B)(B) of this paragraph
taken once a month for each month
duri~ which low concentration PCB
liquid is burned in the boiler.
(iv) In a facility that is approved in
accordance with§ 761.l0(e,. For the
purpose of burning liquids, other than
mineral oil dielectric fluid. containing 50
ppm or greater PCB. but less than 500
ppm PCB, an aJ:>plicant under§ 761.l0(e)
must show that his combustion process
destroys PCBs as efficiently as does a
high efficiency boiler, as defined in
§ 761.10(a)(2)(iii), or an Annex I
incinerator.
(4) Any non-liquid PCBs in the form of
contaminated soil. rags, or other debris
shall be disposed of:
(i) In an incinerator which complies
with Annex I: or
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex II.
Note: Except as provided in
§ 761,4l(b )(8)(ii), liquid PCBs shall not
be processed into non-liquid forma to
circumvent the high temperature
incineration requirements of I 781.lO(a),
(5) A1l dredged materials and
municipal sewage treatment sludgea that
contain PCBa shall oe diapoaed of:
(I) In an incinerator which compllu
with Annex I:
(ii) In a chemical waste landfill which
complies with Annex II: or
(iii) Upon application. using a disposa1
method to be approved by the Agency's
Regional Administrator in the EPA
Region in which the PCBs are located.
Applications for disposal in a manner
other than prescribed in (i) or (ii) above
must be made in writing to the Regional
Administrator. The application must
contain information that. based on
technical, environmental. and economic
considerations, indicates that disposal
in an incinerator or chemical waste
landfill is not reasonable and
appropriate, and that the alternate
disposal method will provide adequate
protection to health and the
environment. The Regional
Administrator may request other
information that he or she believes to be
necessary for evaluation of the alternate
disposal method. Any approval by the
Regional Administrator shall be in
writing and may contain any
appropriate limitations on the approved
alternate method for disposal. In
addition to these regulations, the
Regional Administrator shall consider
other applicable Agency guidelines,
criteria, and regulations to ensure that
the discharges of dredged material and
sludges that contain PCBs and other
contaminants are adequately controlled
to protect the environment. The person
to whom such approval is i88ued must
comply with all limitations contained in
the approval.
(6) When storage is desired prior to
disposal, PCBs shell be stored in a
facility which complies with Annex Ill.
(b) PCB Articles. (1) Transformers.
(i) PCB Transformers shall be
disposed of in accordance with either of
the following:
(A) In an incinerator that complies
with Annex I: or
(B) In a chemical waste landfill which
• complies with Annex II: provided that
the transformer is first 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 in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section. Solvents
may include kerosene, xylene, toluene
and other solvents in which PCBs are
readily soluble. Precautionary measuree
should be taken. however, that the
solvent flushing procedure la conducted
in accordance with appllcablr, safety
and health standards .as required by
Federal or State regulatiom.
(ii) PCB-Contaminated Tramformera
shall be diapoaed of by draining all free
flowing liquid Crom the transformer and
disposing of the liquid in accordance
Federal Repdar / Vol. 44, No. 108 / '.l'hursday. May 31. 1979 / Rules and Regulatfom 31547
with paragrapha (a)(2) above. The
diaposal of the drained transformer ia
not regulated by this nde.
(2) PCB Capacitors. (i) The diapoul of
any capacitor normally used in
alternating cunent circuits shall comply
with all requirementa of this nbpart'
unleu it is known from label or
nameplate information. manufacturer's
literature. or chemical analyaia that the
capacitor doea not contain PCBa.
(ii} Any person may diapoee of PCB
Small Capacitora u municipal solid
waste, unleu that person ia subject to
the requirementa of subparagraph (iv).
(iii} Any PCB Large High or Low
Voltage Capacitor owned by any Per90J1
shall be dispoaed ofin accordance with
either of the following:
(A) Diapoaal in an incinerator that
complies with Annex I; or
(BJ Until January 1, 1980, diapoeal in a
chemical wute landfill that ccapliu
with Annex ll.
(iv) &y PCB Small Capacitor owned
by any pe,aon who manufactures or at
any time manufactured PCB Capacitors
or PCB Eqwpmeut and acquired the PCB
Capaciton in the coune of auch
manufacnarins aball be diapoaed of in
accordance with either of the folloWUIIF
(A) Disposal in an inc:mei'lltor which
compliea with Annex I; or
(B) Until January 1, 198D, disposal in a
cbemicaJ wute landfill which compliea
with Annex n.
(3) PCB Hydraulic Machinu. PCB
hydraulic machines aach as die casting
machines may be dispoaed of aa
municipaJ solid waate or salvage
provided that the machine• are drained
of all free-fiowing liquid and the liquid is
dispoaed of in ac:cordaace with the
proviaiooa of I 761.lO(a). If the PCB
liquid containa 1000 ppm PCB or greater,
then the hydraulic machine muat be
fiuahed prior to diaposal with a solvent
containing.lea than 50 ppm PCB (see
transformer aolventa at
I 761.lO(b)(l)(i)(Bl) and tha solvent
diapoaed of in accordance with
I 781.lO(a}.
(4) Other PCB Articles mut be
diapoaed of:
(i) ID an incinerator that compliea with
Annaxl; or
(ii} In a chemicaJ waste landfill that
complies with Annex II, provided that
all free-fiowiq liquid PCBe have been tbarousblJ drainad fna UlY llftidea
before. the articles ae placed in the
chemical waate landfill and that the
drained liquids are dfapond of in an
IDcinarator that c:ampti88 'Wida AIIDllx I.
(1) 5ton&e of PCB ArtidD--Except
far a PCB Artic:le dumbed iD
lllbparasraph\(b)(Z)(llJ ad hydnailc
nr hlzw dlllt oaaaply wUb tbe
municipal solid waate diapoaal
proviaicma described in aubparagraph
(b}(3};, any PCB Article shall be atored in
accordance with Annex m prior to
diapoaaL
·cc) PCB Containers. (1) Unlesa
decontaminated in compliance with
Annex IV or aa provided in (2) below, a
PCB Contamer aball be diapoeed of:
(i) In an incinerator which compliea
with Annex I, or
(ii} In a chemical waate landfill that
complies with Annex ll: provided that if
there are PCBa in a liquid atate, the PCB
Container shall first be drained and the
PCB liquid disposed of in accordance
with paragraph (a} of thia section:
(2} Any PQI Container used to
contain only PCBa at a concentration
leaa than 500 ppm ahall be diaposed of
as municipal solid wastes: provided that
if the PCBa are in a liquid atate, the PCB
Container shall first be drained and the
PCB liquid shall be diapoaed of in
accordance with paragraph (a) of thia
section.
(3) Prior to dispoaaJ. a PCB container
shall be stored in a facility which
complies with Annex Ill.
(d} Spil)a. (1) Spills and other
UDCODtrolled discharges of PCBa
comtitute the diapoaal of PCBa.
(2) PCBs reaulttng from spill clean-up
and removal operationa shall be stontd
and diapoaed of in accordance with
paragraph (a} of this lf!Ction. In order to
determine if a spill of PCBa bu resulted
in a contamination level that ia-50 ppm
of PCBs or greater in soil. gravel sludge,
fill. rubble. or other land bued
substances. the penon who spills PCBe
should coualt with the appropriate EPA
Regional Administrator to ob&ain
information on aampq methods and
analytical procedures for determining
the PCB contamination lnei auociated
with the spilt
(3) This paragraph does not exempt
any person from any actiona or liability
under other atatutary authorities.
inc:huiiq section 311 of the Clean Water
Act and the Re9ource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
( e) Any peraoa who ia required to
incinerate any PCBs and PCB ltema
under thia aubpart and who can
demaaatra.te that an alternative method
of destroying PCBs and PCB Itema exists
and that' this aJtemative method can
achine a level of periannaace
equivalent to Annex I incinerators or
high efficieacy bailan u provided in
l 781.lO(a)(Z)(ivJ uid t 781.10(aK3)(iv).
may sabmit a written request to tbe
Regional Administrator for an
exemptiaD from the inciDaa.Ciml
reqairem,eDDoi A111Mix L Tbe applic:ant
1D11St show that Ida metbod oi dntlutiaa
PCBa will not present an unreaaonable
risk of injury to health or the
environment. On the baaia of such
information and any available
information. the Regional Administntor
may, in his diacretion. approve the use
of the alternate if he finds that the
alternate diapoaal methoctprovides PCB
deatruction equivalent to diapoaal in an
Annex I incinerator and will not present
an unreaaoaable risk of injury to health
or the environment. Any approval must
be stated in writing and may contain
such conditiona and proviaiona as the
Regional Administrator deema
appropriate. The person to whom such
waiver is issued muat comply with all
limitations contained in such
deterµunation.
(f)(l) Each operator of a themical
waste landfill. incinerator, or alternative
to incineration approved under·
paragraph (e) shall give tha followins
written notices to tha state and local
governments within whoae juriadiction
the diapoaal facility is located:
(i) Notice at least thirty (30) days
before a facility ia first used for diapoaal
of PCBa required by theae regulations:
and
(ii} At the requeat of any state or local
government. annual notice of the
quantitiea and general deac:ription of
PCBs diapoaed of during the year. Thia
annual notice shall be given oo more
than .thirty (30) days after the end of the
year covered.
(2) Any person who diapoaea of PCBs
under a §761.lO(a){S)(ili} incineration or
chemical wute landfilling waiver shall
give written notice at leut thirty (30)
daya prior to conducting the dispoaal
activitiea to the state and local
govemmenta within whose juriadiction
the disposal is to take place.
(g} Testing Procedures.
(1) Owners or uaera of mineral oil
dielectric fluid transformers may uae the
following procedures to determine the
concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
Ouid:
(i) Dielectric fluid removed from
mineral oil dielectric fluid transformers
may be collected in a common
container, provided that no other
chemical 1111batancea or mixtures are
added to tbe container.
(ii) Fo. pmpoaea of complyin11 with the
marlcing and diapeaaJ '1'11q11irementa,
representative samples may be taken
from either the common coat.aiaen or
the individual transf()J'IDeJ'S to . .detennine
the PCB oooceotnttioa. except that if
any PCBa at a CDIICIIDtration of 500 ppm
or areater ha• been added to the
contaimr dlell the total CODtainer
contmta muat be considered u haYing a
PCB concentration of 500 ppm or peater
31548 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rw1cs 1 nd Regulations
ror purposes or complying with the
disposal requirements of this subpart.
For purposes of this subparagraph,
representative samples of mineral oil
dielectric fluid are either samples taken
in accordance with American Society of
Testing and Materials method D-923 or
samples taken from a container that has
been thoroughly mixed in a manner such
that any PCBs in the container are
uniformly distributed throughout the
liquid in the container.
(2) Owners or users of waste oil may
use the following procedures to
determine the PCB concentration of
waste oil:
(i) Waste oil from more than one
source may be collected in a common
container, provided that no other
chemical substances or mixtures, such
as non-waste oils, are added to the
container.
(ii) For purposes of complying with the
marking and disposal requirements,
representative samples may be taken
from either the common container or
individual containers to determine the
PCB concentration except that if any
PCBs at a concentration of 500 pm or
greater have been added to the
container then the total container
contents must be considered as having a
PCB concentration of 500 ppm or greater
for purposes of complying with the
disposal requirements of this subpart.
For purposes of this subparagraph.
representative samples of waste oil are
either samples taken in accordance with
American Society of Testing and
Materials-D-923 method or samples
taken from a container that has been
thoroughly mixed in a manner such that
any PCBs in the container are uniformly
distributed throughout the liquid in the
container.
(h) Requirements for export and
import of PCBs for purposes of disposal
and PCB Items for purposes of disposal
are found in § 761.30.
Subpart C-Marklng of PCBa and PCB
Item•
§ 761.20 MartclnQ requlrementa.
(a) Each of the following items in
existence on or after July 1, 1978 sh&il be
marked as illustrated in Figure 1 ip
Annex V-§· 761.44(a): The mark
illustrated in Figure 1 is referred to as
ML throughout this subpart.
(1) PCB Containers:
(2) PCB Transformers at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked. and
at the time of removal from use if not
already marked. [Marking of PCB-
Contaminated Transformers is not
required}:
(3) PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors at the time of manufacture,
at the time of distribution in commerce if
not already marked. and at the time of
removal from use if not already marked:
(4) Equipment containing a PCB
Transformer or a PCB Large High
Voltage Capacitor at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked. and
at the time of removal of the equipment
from use if not already marked:
(S) PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors
at the time of removal from use:
(6) Electric motors using PCB coolants
(See also § 761.20(e)).
(7) Hydl'aulic systems using PCB
hydraulic fluid (See also § 761.20(e)):
(BJ Heat transfer systems (other than
PCB Transformers) using PCBs (See also
§ 761.20( e )):
(9) PCB Article Containers containing
articles or equipment that must be
marked under provisions (1) through (6)
above:
(10} Each storage area used to store
PCBs and PCB Items for disposal.
(b) As of October 1, 1978, each
transport vehicle shall be marked on
each end and side with ML as described
in Annex V-§ 761.44(a) if it is loaded
with PCB Containers that contain more
than 45 kg (99.4 lbs.} of PCBs in the
liquid phase or with one or more PCB
Transformers (See also § 761.20( e )).
(c) As of January 1, 1979, the following
PCB Articles shall be marked with mark
Mt as described in Annex V-
§ 761.44(a}:
(1) All PCB Transformers not marked
under paragraph (a) of this section
[Marking of PCB-Contaminated
Transformers is not required):
(2) All PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors not marked under paragraph
(a} of this section
(i) Will be marked individually with
mark Mt, or
(ii) If one or more PCB Large High
Voltage Capacitors are installed in a
protected location such as on a power
pole, or structure. or behind a fence: the
pole, structure. or fence shall be marked
with mark ML, and a record or
procedure identifying the PCB
Capacitors shall be maintained by the
owner or operator at the protected
location.
(d) As of January 1. 1979, all PCB
Equipment containing a PCB Small
Capacitor shall be marked at the time of
manufacture with the statement. "'Th.is
equipment contains PCB Capacitor(s)".
The mark shall be of the same size as
the mark ML.
(el As of October 1, 1979, applicable
PCB Items in paragraphs (a)(1), (6), (7),
and (8) containing PCBs in
concentrations of SO to 500 ppm and
applicable transport vehicles in
paragraph (b) loaded with PCB
Containers that contain more than 45 kg
(99.4 lbs.) of liquid PCBs in
concentrations of SO ppm to 500 ppm
shall be marked with mark ML as
described in Annex V-§ 761.44(a).
(f) Where mark ML is specified but the
PCB Article or PCB Equipment is too
small to accomodate the smallest
permissible size of mark Mt, mark Ms as
described in Annex V-§ 761.44(b), may
be used instead of mark ML.
(g) Each large low voltage capacitor,
each small capacitor normally used in
alternating current circuits, and each
fluorescent light ballast manufactured
("manufactured", for purposes of this
sentence, means built) between July 1,
1978 and July 1, 1998 that do not contain
PCBs shall be marked by the
manufacturer at the time of manufacture
with the statement, "No PCBs". The
mark shall be of similar durability and
readability as other marking that
indicate electrical information, part
numbers, or the manufacturer's name.
For purposes of this subparagraph
marking requirement only is applicable
to items built domestically or abroad
after June 30. 1978.
(h) All marks required by this subpart
must be placed in a position on the
exterior of the PCB Items or transport
vehicles so that the marks ciin be easily
read by any persons inspecting or
servicing the marked PCB Items or
transport vehicles.
(i) Any chemical substance or mixture
that is manufactured after the effective
date of this rule and that contains less
than 500 ppm PCB (0.05% on a dry
weight basis), including PCB that is a
byproduct or impurity, must be marked
in accordance with any requirements
contained m the exemption granted by
EPA to permit such manufacture and is
not subject to any other requirement in
this Subpart unless so specified in the
exemption. This paragraph applies only
to containers of chemical substances or
mixtures. PCB articles and equipment
into which the chemical substances or
mixtures are processed. are subject to
the marking requirements contained
elsewhere in this Subpart.
Subpart D-Manufacturlng,
Process.Ing, Distribution In Commerce,
and Use of PCB• and PCB Item•
§ 761.30 Prohibitions.
Except as authorized in § 761.31, the
activities listed in paragraphs (a) and (d)
of this section are prohibited pursuant to
section 6(e)(2) of TSCA. The
requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)
Fedaral ~ / VoL ¾,No. 106 / ThU1'3day, May. 31, 1979 / Rules and R~ationa.
Uld (c) of tbia section concerning e;cpc;rt
filld Import of PCBa for purpoaea GI
Jicposal and PCB ltema for purposes of
:ii11posaJ are eatahliabed pursuant to
section 8(e)(1) ofTSCA. Subject to aiw
sxemptiona granted pursuant to :ute:Uon
6(e)(3}(B) of TSCA. the activities !iated
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
are prohibited pursuant to section
3{a)(3)(A) ofTSCA. In addition. the
Ad.-niniatrator hereby finda. under the
authority of section 1Z(a)(2) ofTSCA.
· ~at the manufacture, proceuing, and
tfiatribution in commerce of PCBa and
PCB Items for export from the United
States pnaents an unreasonable riak of
injury to health within the United States.
Thia find.Ins ia baaed upon the well-
docmMDted human health and
environmental. hazard of PCB exposure:
the high probability of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs and
PCB Iteim !rom manufacturing.
procesains, ar dbtribuUon activitiea; the
potential hazard of PCB exposure posed
by the transportation of PCB• or PCB
Items within the United States: and the
evidence that contamination of the
environment by PCBa ia spread far
beyond the areaa where they are used.
In addition. the Administrator hereby
finds that any expoaure of human beinga
or the environment to PCBs aa measured
or detected by any scientifically
acceptable,malyticaJ method ia a
significant exposure. as defined in
§ 781.2(dd). Section 781.2(hh) and TSCA
aection 6(e}(2l(C) define the term totally
enclosed manner as "any manner which
will ensure that any exposure of human
beings or the· environment to a
polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insigJ;li.ficant. . . . " Since any exposure
to PCBs is found to be a significant
exposure. a totally enclosed manneris a
manner that results in no exposure of
humans or the environment to PCBs. The
following activities are considered
totally enclosed: distribution in'
commerce and use ( except servicing) of
intact. non-leaking PCB Transformers or
PCB-Contaminated Transformers
( except those used in railroad
!ocomotives or self-propelled cars):
distribution in commerce and use
(except servicingJ of intact. non-leaking
PCB electromagnets: distribution in
commerce and usl! of intact. non-leaking
PCB Capacitors: and processing.
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCB Equipment containing an intact.
non-leaking PCB Capacitor.
'€»No person may process. distribute
in commerce, or use any PCB or PCB
Item in any manner other than in a
totally enclosed manner within the
United States or export any such PCB or
PCB Item from the United States unless
authorind under 5 781.31 of this
Subpffl. Sectio!"! ·'.il'.1 .SO{a) is superaeded
by~-781.30(c) ~or :.:;roccssing and
iliatrib\i tion in ,;ommerce of PCBs and
PCB items on the datei when that
section beoome~ P.ffective.
(b) No parson .xiay manufacture PCBa
for UN within the United States or
manufacture PCB» for export from the
United States without an exemption
except that:
(1) PCBa or PCB·Items may be
imported for purposes of disposal until
May 1. 1980. provided that the disposal
ia in accordance with I 761.10: and
(2) PCBe or PCB Items ma:y be
exported for diapoaal until May 1, 1980,
in accordance with the requirementl of
§ 781.30(c}{3).
(c).Effective July 1, 1979, no parson
may proceu or distribute in commerce
any PCB cir PCB Item for uaa within the
United States or for export from the
United States without an exemption
except that
(1) PCB• or PCB Items sold before July
t. 1979. for purposes other than resale
may be diatrib11ted in commerce only in
a totally endosed manner after that
date:
(2) PCBs or PCB Items may be
proceaaed and distributed in commerce
in compliance with the requirements of
this Part for purposes of disposal in
accordance with the requirements of
I 781.10:
(3) PCBs or PCB Items may be
exported for disposal until May 1, !980,
if an export notice is submitted at least
thirty (30) days before the first shipment
in· any calendar year leaves the irustoma
territory of the United States. Export
notices must be submitted to the
Document Control Officer ~793},
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street. S.W .• Washington, D.C. 20460.
The generator of the PCB waste material
intended for disposal. or an agent acting
on his behalf, must certify to the best of
his knowledge and belief that the
information is complete and accurate.
Each notice should contain the following
information:
(i) Name. company name, address. .
and telephone number of the owner of
the PCB waste material to be exported
and the name and address of any person
or agent acting on his behalf:
(ii) Estimated quantity of wastes to be
shipped during the calendar year and
the estimated number of shipments to be
made and the dates when such
shipments are expected to leave the
customs territory of the United States:
(ill) Description of the PCBs or PCB
Items being exported:
(iv) Country(s) of destinatiGn for the
shipments;
(v} Name and add.".'l'.IOS offacili':::~}
receiving the ai-Jpment and persor.(3)
re!iponsible for ;ecF.:!Vi!!g the
shlpm1:nt(s).
(vi) Method(s} c: c;;.:spcul and
precautions taken to coritroi relea~a into
the environment.
(vii} No len than SC days after the end
of each calendar quarter (March 31, June
30, September 30, and December Sl}
during• which PCBs Here exported for
disposal. each person exportL-:.g the
PCBs must submit 'l report to t.~
Document Control Officer {TS-793),
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection ,4.gency, 401 M
Street. S.W., Washington. D.C. :0460.
The report shall list the quantity of PCB
wastes in each shipment made during
the quarter and include the date when
each shipment left the cuatom,p territory
of the United States and the information
specified in subparagrapha (i) and (iii)
through "{vi} above. II the quantity of
wastes shipped during the calendar year
exceeds by 25 percent or more the
estimated quantities reported in (ii)
above, a special export notice must be
submitted to the Document Control
Officer ~793) at the address given in
paragraph {3) at least 30 days before any
additional shipments leave the customs
territory of the United States and the
notice ehall include the infonnation
specified-in subparagraphs (i) tli.rough
(vi) above.
(viii) Any person expecting to export
PCB wastes for disposal in calendar
year 1980 must submit an export notice
at least thirty (30) days before the first
shipment leaves the customs territory of
the United States to the Document
Control Officer (TS-793} at the address
given in paragraph (3), and the notice
shall contain the information listed in
subparagraphs (i) ilirough (vi).
(d) The use of waste oil that contains
any detectable concentration of PCB as
a sealant, coating. (}r dust control agent
is prohibited. Prohibited uses include,
but are not limited to. road oiling,
general dust control, use as a pesticide
or herbicide carrier. and use as a n:st
preventative on pipes.
§ 781.31 AuthortntlonL
The following non-totally enclosed
PCB activities are authorized pursuant
to § 6(e)(2)(B} of TSCA:
(a) Servicing Transfonners (Other
Than Railroad Transfonnersj. PCBs
.nay be processed. distributed in
commerce, and used for the purposes of
servicing including rebuilding
transformers (other than transformers
for railroad locomotives and self-
31550 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and lugulations
propelled railroad can} in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until July 1, 1984. subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Regardle11 of its PCB
concentration. dielectric fluids
conWJllll8-lesa than 500 ppm PCB that
are mixed with fluids that contain 500 ppm or greater PCB muat not be used as
dielectric fluid in any transformer.
Dielectric fluid from PCB-Contaminated
Transform.en may be assumed to have
less than 500 ppm PCBa.
(2) PCB-Contaminated Transformers
(as defined in§ 781.2{z)) may only be
serviced {includi:Jg rebuilding} with
dielectric fluid containing leas than 500
ppm PCB.
(3) Any servicing (including
rebuilding} of PCB Transformers (as
defined in § 761.2(y)) that requires the
removal of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing ia prohibited. PCB
Transformers may be topped off with
PCB dielectric fluid.
(4) PCBa removed during servicing of
a PCB Tranaformer or PCB-
Contaminated Transformer or during
rebuilding of a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer must be captured and
either reUBed as diel~c fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of Subpart B. PCBs from
PCB Transformers must not be mixed
with or added to dielectric fluid from
PCB-Contaminated Transformers.
(5) A PCB Transformer may be
converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer by draining, refilling, and
otherwise servicing the transformer with
non-PCB dieiectric fluid so that after a
minimum of three months of in-service
use subsequent to the last servicing
conducted for the purpose of reducing
the PCB concentration in the •
transformer. the transformer's dielectric
fluid contains less than 500 ppm PCB (on
a dry weight basis).
(6) Any PCB dielectric fluid that is on
hand to service a PCB Transformer or a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer must be
stored in accordance with the storage
for disposal requirements of Annex III
(§ 761.42).
(7) After July 1. 1979. processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing transformers is
pel'I:l.itted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6(e}(3)(B).
(b) Use in and Servicing of Railroad
Tra.nsformers. PCBs may be used in
transformers in railroad locomotives or
railroad self-propelled cars ('~ad
transformers'1 and may be processed
and distributed in commerce for
purposes of servicing these transformer■
in a maDDer other than a totally
enclosed manner until July 1. 1984.
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Use Restrictions:
(i) After January 1, 1982. use of
railroad transformers that contain
dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 60,000 ppm
(6.m& oil a dry weight basis) is
prohibited:
(ii) After January 1, 1984. use of
railroad transformers which contain
dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 1000 ppm
(O.lm& on a dry weight baaia) is
prohibited;
(iii) The concentration of PCBa in the
dielectric fiajd contained in railroad
transformers must be meaaured:
(A) Immediately upon completion of
any authorized servicing of a railroad
transformer conducted for the purpose
of reducing the PCB concentration in the
dielectric fillid in the transformer: and
(BJ Between 1% and 24 months after
each servicing conducted In accordance
with subparagraph (A):
(C) The data obtained u a result of
subparagrapha (A) and (Bl above shall
be retaimld until January 1. 1981.
(2) Servicing /latrictiOllll:
(i) If the coil is removed from the
casing of a railroad tran.aformer ( e.g., the
transformer is rebuilt), after January 1.
1982. the railroad transformer may not
be refilled with dielectric fluid
containing a PCB concentration greater
than 50 ppm;
(ill After January 1, 1982. railroad
transformers may only be serviced with
dielectric fluid containing lesa than
60,000 ppm PCBs. except as provided in
(i) above:
(iii) After January 1, 1984, railroad
transformers may only be serviced with
dielectric fluid containing less than 1000
ppm PCB. except as provided in (i)
above:
(iv) Dielectric fluid may be filtered
through activated carbon or otherwise
industrially processed for the purpose of
reducing the PCB concentration in the
fluid:
(v) Any PCB dielectric fluid that is
used to service PCB railroad
t'ansformers must be stored in
accordance with the storage for disposal
requirements of Annex III (§ 761.42);
(vi) After July 1. 1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing railroad
transformers is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCA section 6(e}(3)(B).
(c) Use in and Servicing of Mining
Equipment PCBa may be used in mining
equipment and may be processed and
diatributed in commerce for purpose■ of
servicing mining equipment in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until January 1. 1982, subject to the
followi:lg conditions:
(1) PCBs may be added to motors in
mining equipment .in mines or mining
areas until January 1. 1982:
(2) PCB motors in loader-type mining
equipment muat be rebuilt as air-cooled
or other non-PCB-containing motors
whenever the motor ia returned to a
service shop for servicing:
(31 PCB motors in continuous miner--
type equipment-may b1t.rebuilt aa PCB
motors 1IDtil Jan~ary 1, 1980:
{4) Any PCBa that are on hand to
service or repair mining equipment must
be stored in accordance with the storage
for disposal requirements of Annex m
(§ 761.42):
(5) After July 1, 1979. processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for.
purposes of servicing mining equipment
ia permitted only for persons who ate
granted an exemption under, TSCA
section 6(e)(3l(B).
( d) Use in Heat Transfer Systems.
PCBa may be uaed in heat tran.afer
systems in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner until July 1, 1984,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each penon who owm a heat
transfer system that ever contained
PCBs must test for the concentration of
PCBs in the heat transfer fluid of such a
system no later than Novamber1., 1979,
and at least annually thereafter. All test
sampling must be performed at least
three months after the most recent fluid
refilling. When a test shows that the
PCB concentration is less than 50 ppm.
testing under this subparagraph is no ·
longer required:
(2) Within six (6) months of a test
performed under subparagraph (1) that
indicates that a system's fluid contains
50 ppm or greater PCB (0.005% on a dry
weight basis), the system must 1:-e
drained of the PCBs and refil!ed with
flmd containing less than 50 ripm PCB.
Topping:off with non-PCB heat transfer
fluids to reduce PCB concentrations is
permitted:
(3) After November 1. 1979. Il.O heat
trar.sfer system that is used in the
manufacture or processing of any food.
drug, cosmetic, or device, as defined L'l
§ :01 of the Federal Food. Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, may contai.., heat transfer
fluid with 50 ppm or greater PCB (0.005%
on a dry weight basis);
(4) Addition of PCBs to a heat transfer
system is prohibited.
(5) Data obtained as a result of
subparagraph (1) mwst be retained for
five (5) years after the. heat transfer
system reaches 50 ppm PCB:
( e) Us11 in Hydraulic Systems. PCBs
may be used in hydraulic systems and
f I I,
Federal Rasiater / VoL 4'. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31511
may be proceued and diatributed in
commerce for purpoan of fllterins,
diatillins, 01' otherwise reciuciq the
CODC111tration of·PCBI in hydraulic
fluids in a manner other than a totally
encloaed mapner until July 1, 1984,
1Ubjec:t to the following coaditiom:
(1) Each penlOll. who owns a hydraulic
1y1tem that ever contained PCBa muat
teat for.the concentration of PCBa in the
hydraulic fluid of each 11ug,. system no
later than November 1, 1979, and at-least
annually thereafter. All teat sampling
must be performed at leaat three montha
after the moat recent fluid refilling.
When a test shows that the PCB
concentration is leas than 50 ppm.
testing under this subparagraph is no
longer required;
(2) Within six (6) months of a test
wider subparagraph (1) that indicates
ihat a system's fluid contains 50 ppm or
greater PCB (0.005~ on a dry weight
baais), the system must be drained of
the.PCBs and refilled with fluid
containing !~sa than 50 ppm PCB.
Topping-off with non-PCB hydraulic
fluids to reduce PCB concentrations is
permitted:
(3) Addition of PCBa to a hydraulic
aystem is prohibited:
(4) Hydraulic fluid may be drained
from a hydraulic system and filtered.·
distilled. or otherwise serviced in order
tl.l reduce the PCB concentration below
50 ppm:
(5) After July 1, 1979, procesaing and
distribution in commerce of PCBa for
purposes of servicing hydraulic systems
is permitted only for persons who-are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6(e)(3)(B);
(6) Data obtained as a result of
subparagraph (1) above must be
retained for five years after the
hydraulic system reaches 50 ppm.
(f) Use in Carbonless Copy Paper.
Carbonless copy paper containing PCBs
may be used in a manner other than a
totally enclosed manner Indefinitely.
1g) Pigments. Diarylide and
Phthalocyanin pigments that contain 50
ppm or greater PCB may be processed.
distributed in commerce, and used in a
manner other than a totally enclosed
manner until January 1, 1982. except that
after July 1, 1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of diarylide or
phthalocyanin pigments that contain 50
ppm or greater PCB is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCA,section 6(e)(3)(B).
(h) Servicing Electromagnets. PCBa
may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used for the purpose of
servicing electromagnets until July 1,
198', in a manner other than a totally
enclONd manner subject to the
following requirements:
(1) PCBa removed during aerviciq
muat be capturee and either returned to
the elec;tromagnet. reWJed u a dielectric
fluid. or disposed of in accordance with
Subpart B (I 781.10);
(2) Serviciq of PCB electro~ets
(includins rebuildins} which requires the
removal of the coil from the casing i•
prohibited.
(3) Any PCBs that are on hand to
service a PCB electromagnet muat be
stored in accordance with the storqe
for disposal requirements of Annex m
(1761.42);
(4) After July_ 1, 1979, processing and
distribution in commerce of PCBs for
purposes of servicing electromagnets is
permitted only for persona who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6{e)(3)(B).
(i) Use in Natural Gas Pipeline
Compressors. PCBa may be used in
natural gas pipeline compressors until
May 1, 1980, in a manner other than a
totally enclosed manner.
U) Small Quantities for Research and
Development. PCBs may be processed.
distributed in commerce, and used in
small quantitie&for research and
development, as defined in § 760.2(ee),
in a manner other than .a totally
enclosed manner until July 1, 19&4,
except that after July 1, 1979, processing
and distribution in commerce of PCBs in
small quantities for research and
development is pennitted only for
persons who have been granted an
exemption under TSCA section
6(e)(3)(B).
(kl Microscopy Mounting Medium.
PCBs may be processed, distributed in
commerce, and used as a mounting
medium in microscopy in a manner
other than a totally enclosed manner
until July 1, 1984, except that after July 1,
1979, processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for purposes of use
as a mounting medium in microscopy
are pennitted only for persons who are
granted an exemption under TSCA
section 6( e )(3 )(B).
SUbpart E-Ust of AnnexH
Annex I
§ 781.40 lnclnentlon.
(a) Liquid PCBs. An incinerator 1Ised
for incinerating PCBs shall be approved
by the Agency Regional Administrator
pursuant to paragraph ( d} of this section.
The incinerator shall meet all of the
requirements specified in subparagraph
(1) through 19) of this paragraph, unless
a waiver ~m these requirements is
obtained pursuant to paragraph (d)(S) of
thia section. In addition. the incinerator
shall meet any other requireD)ents which
may be prescribed pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(1) Combustion criteria shall be either
of the following:
(i} Maintenance of the•introduced
liquids for a 2-aecond dwell time at
1200•cc±1oo•q and 3 percent exce&1
oxygen in the stack gas: or
(ii} Maintenance oi the introduced
liquids for a 11/a second dwell time at
1600.C(±too•q and 2 percent exce111
oxygen in ~e stack gas.
(2) Combustion efficiency shall be at
least 99.9 percent computed as follows:
Combustion efficiency =Cc0s/Cc0s +Ceo x 100
where
Cco,-Concentration of carbon dioxide.
Ceo-Concentration of carbon monoxide.
(3) The rate and quantity of PCBs
which are fed to the combustion system
shall be measured and recorded at
regular intervals of no longer than 15
minutes.
(4) The temperatures of the
incineration process shall be
continuously measure<! and recorded.
The combustion temperature of the
incineration procesa shall be based en
either direct (pyrometer) or indirect
(wall thermocouple-pyrometer
correlation) temperature readings.
(5) The flow of PCBs to the incinerator
shall stop automatically whenever the
combustion temperature drops below
the temperatures specified in
subparagraph (1) of this paragraph.
(6) Monitoring of stack emission
products shall be conducted: ·
(i) When a"n incinerator is first used
for the disposal of PCBs under the
provisions of this regulation:
(ii) When an incinerator is first used
for the disposal of PCBs after the
incinerator has been modified in a
manner which mav affect the
characteristics of the stack emission
products: and
(iii) At a minimum such monitoring
shall be conducted for the following
parameters: (a)O,~(b) CO: (cl CO.; (d)
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO,); (e)
Hydrochloric Acid (HCl); (f) Total
Chlorinated Organic Content (RC!): (g}
PCBs: and (h) Total Particulate Matter.
(7) At a minimum monitoring and
recording of combustion products and
incineration operations shall be
conducted for the following parameters
whenever the incinerator is incinerating
PCBs: (i) 01: (ii) CO: and (iii) CO,. The
monitoring for 0, and CO shall be
continuous. The monitoring for co.
shall be periodic, at a frequency
specified by the Regional Administrator.
31552 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 108 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
(8) The flow of PCBs to the incinerator
ahall stop automatically when any one
or more of the followins conditions
occur unleaa a contingency plan is
submitted by the incinerator owner or
operator and approved by the Regional
Admini1trator and the contingency plan
indicates what alternative-measures the
incinerator ownu or operator would
take if any of the following conditions
occur:
(i) Failure of monitoring operations
specified in subparagraph (7) of this
paragraph:
(ii) Failure of the PCB rate and
quantity measuring and recording
equipment specified in subparagraph (3)
of this paragraph: or
(iii} Excess oxygen falls below the
percentage specified in subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph.
(9) Water scrubbers shall be used for
HCl control during PCB incineration and
shall meet any perfonnance
requirements specified by the
appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator. Scrubber effluent shall
be monitored and shall comply with
applicable effluent or pretreatment
standards. and any other State and
Federal laws and regulations. An
alternate method of HCl control may be
used if the alternate method has be-1n
approved by the Regional
Administrator. (The HCl neutralizing
capability of cement kilns is considered
to be an alternate method.)
(b) Non-liquid PCBs. An incinerator
used for incinerating non-liquid PCBs.
PCB Articles. PCB Equipment. or PCB
Containers shall be approved by the
Agency Regional Administrator
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
The incinerator shall meet all of the
requirements specified in subparagraphs
(1) and (2) of this paragraph unless a
waiver from these requirements is
0btained pursuant to paragraph (rl)(S) of
this section. In addition. the incinerator
shali meet any other requirements that
may be prescribed pursuant to
paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(1) The mass air emissions from the
incinerator shall be no greater than
0.OOlg PCB/kg of the PCB introduced
into the incinerator.
(2) The incinerator shail comply with
the provisions of§ 761.40(a)(Z), (3), (4),
(6), (7), (8)(i) and (ii), and (9).
(c) A1aintenance of data and records.
All data and records required by this
section shall be maintained in
accordance with Annex VI-§ 781.45,
Records and Monitoring.
(d) Approval of incineratcrs. Pri01:-to
the incineration of PCBs and PCB Item.a
the owner or operatcr of an incinerator
shall receive the written approval of the
Agency Regional Administrator for the
Region in which the incinerator is
located. Such approval ah.all be obtained
in the following manner:
(1) Initial Report. The owner or
operator shall submit to the Regional
administrator an initial report which
contains:
(i) The location of the incmerator:
(ii) A detailed description of the
incinerator including general site plans
and design drawings of the incinerator;
(iii) Engineering reports or other
information on the anticipated
performance of the incinerator:
(iv) Sampling and monitoring
equipment and facilities available;
(v) Waste volumes expected to be
incinerated;
(vi) Any local. State. or Federal
permits or approvals: and
(vii) Schedules and plana for
complying with the approval
requirements of this regulation.
(2) Trial burn. (i) Following receipt of
the report described in subparagraph (1)
of this paragraph. the Regional
Administrator shall detennine if a trial
bum is required and notify the person
who submitted the repQrt whether a trial
bum of PCBs and PCB Items must be
conducted. The Regional Administrator
may require the submission of any other
information that the Regional
Administrator finds to be reasonably
necessary to detennine the need for a
trial burn. Such other information shall
be restricted to the types of information
required in subparagraph (l)(i) through
(l)(vii) of this paragraph.
(ii) If the Regional Administrator
determines that a trial bum must be
held. the person who submitted the
report described in subparagraph (1) of
this paragraph shall submit to the
Regional Administrator a detailed plan
for conducting and monitoring the trial
bum. At a minimum. the plan must
include:
(A) Date trial bum is to be conducted;
(BJ Quantity and type of PCBs and
PCB Items to be incinerated:
(C) Parameters to be monitored and
location of sampling points:
(D) Sampling frequency and methods
and schedules for sample analyses: and
(El Name, address. and qualifications
of persons who will re,,;ew analytical
results and other pertinent data, and
who will perform a technical evaluation
of the effectiveness of the trial burn.
(iii) Following receipt of the plan
described in subparagraph (Z)(ii) of thi,
paragraph. the Regional Administrator
will approve the plan. require additions
or modifications to the plan. or
disapprove the plan. If the plan is
disapproved. the Regional Administrator
will notify the person who submitted the
plan of such disapproval. together with
the reaaona why it is disapproved. That
person may thereafter submit a new
plan in accordance with auJ>t,arqraph
(Z)(ii) of th.i., paragraph. II the plan is
approved (with any additions or
modifications which the Regional
Administrator may Prescribe), the
Regional Administrator will notify the
person who subl_Ditted the plan of the
approval. Thereafter the trial bum shall
take piace at a date and time to be
agreed upon between the Regional
Administrator and the persona who
submitted the plan.
(3) Other information. In addition to
the information contained in the report
and plan described m subparagraph& (1)
and {2} of this paragraph. the Regional
Administrator may require the owner or
operator to submit any other
information that the Regional
Administrator finds to be reaaonably
necessary to determine whethu an
incinerator shall be approved.
No~The Regional Adminiatrator will
have available for nrvt.w and lnapection an
Agency manuaJ containina information on
,ampl.iq methoda and anaJyticaJ procedures
for the parametera required in I i'81.40(a)(3J,
(4), (6), and (i'J plia any other parametera he
may determine to be appropriate. Ownera or
operatora an, encourqed to review thia
manuaJ prior to aubmitting any report
required in thia Annex.
(4) Contents of Approval. (i) Except as
provided in subparagraph {5) of this
paragraph. the Regional Administrator
may not approve an incinerator for the
disposal of PCB and PCB Items unless
he finds that the incinerator meets all of
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and(
or (b) of this section.
(ii) In addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and/or (b) of this section.
the Regional Administrator may include
in an approval any other requirements
that the Regional Administrator finds
are necessary to ensure that operation
of the incinerator does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment from PCBs. Such
requirements may include a fixed period
of time for which the approval is valid.
(5) Waivers. An owner or operator of
the incinerator may submit evidence to
the Regional Administrator that
operation of the incinerator will not
prese_nt an unreasonable risk of injury tO"
health or the environment from PCBs,
when one or more of the requirements of
paragraphs {a) and/or (b) of this section
are not met. On the basis of such
evidence and any other available
information. the Regi.Jnal Administrator
may in his discretion find that any
requirement of paragraph (a) and (b) is
Federal Resfater / VoL 44, No. 106 / ThW'lday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31553
not necesaary to protect againat such a
risk. and may waive the requirementa in
any approval for that incinerator. Any
finding and waiver under thia
subparagraph must be stated in writing
and included as part of the appronL
(8) Persons Approved. An approval
will designate the persona who own and
who are authorized to operate the
incinerator, and will apply only to such
persons, except as provided in
paragraph (8) below.
(7) Final Approval. Approval of an
incinerator will be in writing and signed
by the Regional Administrator. The
approval will atate·all requirementa
applicable to the approved incinerator.
(8) Transfer of Property. Any p8l'90n
who owns or operates an approved
incinerator muat notify EPA at least 30
days before transferring ownership in
the incinerator or the property it atanda
upon. or tranaferring the right to operate
the incinerator. The tranaferor muat also
submit to EPA. at_leaat 30 days before·
such tranafer, a notarized affidavit
signed by the tramferee which atates
that the tranaferee will abide by the
tranaferor'• EPA incinerator approval
Within 30 days of receiving such
notification and affidavit. EPA will iaaue
an amended approval .;ubatituting the
tramferee'a name for the tranaferor'a
name, or EPA may require the tranaferee
to apply for a new incinerator approval.
In the latter case, the tranaferee muat
abide by the tranaferor'• EPA approval
until EPA iaaues the new approval to the
transferee.
Amaexll
f711A1 Chem6cat__..landllla.
(a) General. A chemical waate landfill
uaed fer the diapoaal of PCB• and PCB
Itema •hall be approved by the A&ency
Regional Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (c) of thia section. The landfill
shall meet all of the requirementa
specified in paragraph (b) of thia
section. unlesa a waiver from .theH
requirementa is obtained pursuant to
paragraph (c)(4) of this section. In
addition. the landfill shall meet any
other requirementa that may be
prescribed pursuant to paragraph (c)(3)
of thia section.
(b) Technical Requiremenu.
Requirementa for chemical wute
landfilla uaed for the disposal of PCBa
and PCB-Itema are 81 follows:
(1) Soils. The landfill aiteahall be
located in thick. relatively impermeable
formationa auch u large-area clay pans.
Where thia ia not pouible. the 10il ahall
have a high clay and .-Ut content with
tbe followiq parameters:
I
(i} In-place soil thickneaa, 4 feet or
compacted soil liner thickness, 3 feet:
(ii} Permeability (cm/sec), equal to or
leaa than 1-x10-~
(iii} Percent soil passing No. 200 Sieve,
>30:
(iv) Uquid Limit. >30: and
(v) Plasticity Index > 15.
(2) Synthetic Membrane Liners.
Synthetic membrane liners shall b~ uaed
when. in the judgment of the Regional
Adminiatrator, the hydrologi~ or
geologic condition. at the landfill
require such a liner tn order to provide
at least a permeability equivalent to the
soils in (1) above. Whenever a synthetic
liner ia uaed at a landfill site, special
precautions shall be taken to insure that
its integrity is maintained and that it is
chemically compatible with PCBs.
Adequate soil underlining and soil cover
iha11 be provided to prevent exceaaive
atreaa on the liner and to prevent
rupture of the liner. The liner muat have
c. minimum thickness of 30 mils.
(3) Hydrologic Condition& The bottom
of the landfill shall be above the
historical high groundwater table u
provided below. Floodplains.
shorelanda. and groundwater recharse
areaa shall be avoided. There shall be
no hydraulic connection between the
site and standing or flowing surface
water. The site shall have monitoring
wells and leachate collection. The
bottom of the landfill liner system or
natural in-place soil barrier shall be at
leaat fifty feet from the historical high
water table.
(4) Flood Protection. (i) II the landfill
site is below the 100-year floodwater
elevation. the operator shall provide
aurfaa, water diversion dikes around
the perimeter of the landfill site with a
minimum height equal to two feet above
the 100-year floodwater elevation.
(ii) II the landfill site is above the 100-
year floodwater elevation. the operators
shall provide diversion structures
capable of diverting all of the surface
water runoff from a 24-hour. 25-year
storm.
(5) Topography. The landfill site shall
be located in an area of low to moderate
relief to minimize eroaion and to help
prevent landslides or slumping.
(6) Monitoring Systems. (i) Water
Sampling. (A) For all aitea receiving
PCBa. the ground and surface water
from the dispoaal site area shall be
sampled prior to commencing operations
under an approval provided in
I 781.41(c) for UH 81 baseline data.
(B} Any surface watercourse
designated by the Regio&aj
Administrator uaing the authority
provided in I 781;41(c)(3)(ii) shall be
aampled at leut monthly when the
landfill ia beins uaed for disposal
operationa.
(CJ Any surface watercourse
designated by the Regional
Administrator using the authority
provided in I 781.41(c)(3)(ii} shall be
sampled for a time period specified by
the Regional Adminiatrator on a
frequency of no leaa than once every six
months after final closure of the
dispoaal area.
(ti) Groundwater Monitor Wells. [A) If
underlying earth materials are
homogenoua, impermeable, and
uniformly sloping in one direction. only
three sampling pointa shall be
necessary. These three pointa phall be
equally spaced.on a line through the
center of the dispoaal area and
extending from the area of highest water
table elevation to the area of the lowest
water table elevation on the property.
(BJ All monitor wella shalt be cued
arid the annular apace between the
monitor zone (zone of saturation) and
the surface shall be completely
bacldilled with Portland cement or an
equivalent material and pluged with
Portland cement to effectively prevent
percolation of surface water into the
well bore. The well opening at the
surface shall have a removable cap to
provide accna and to prevent entrance
of rainfall or atormwater runoff. The
well shall be pumped to remove the
volume of liquid initially contained in
the well before obtaining a sample for
analyaia. Tlfe discharge ahall be treated
to meet applicable State or Federal
discharge atandarda or.recycled to the
chemical wute landfill.
(iii) Water Analysis. Aa a minimum.
all samples shall be analyzed for the
following parameters. and all data and
records of the aampllng and analyaia
shall be maintained as required in
Annex.VI-I 781.45{d}(l). Sampling
methoda and analytical procedures for
these parameters shall comply with
those specified in 40 CFR Part 138 u
amended in 41 FR 52719 on December 1,
1976.
(A) PCBa.
(B) pH.
(C) Specific. Conductance.
(DrChlorinated Organics.
(7) Lsachats Coilection. A leachate
collection monitoring system shall be
Installed above the chemical waste
landfill. Leachate collection ayatema
shall be monitored monthly for quantity
and phyaicochemical characteristics of
leachate produced. The leachate should
be either treated to acceptable limita for
diacharp in accordance with a State or
Federal permit or dl.apoaed of by another
State Qr Federally approved method.
Water analym shall be conductecl u
31554 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
provided in subparagraph (6) (iii) of this
paragraph. Acceptable leachate
monitoring/collection systems shall be
any of the following designs, unleH a
waiver is obtained pursuant to
paragraph (c}(4) of this section.
(i) Simple Leachate Collection. 11lis
system consists of a gravity flow
drainfield installed above the waste
disposal facility liner. This design is
recommended for use when semi-solid
or leachable solid wastes are placed in a
lined pit excavated into a relatively
thick. unsaturated. homogenous layer of
low permeability soil.
(ii) Compound Leachate Collection.
This system consists of a gravity flow
drainfield installed above the waste
disposal facility liner and above a
secondary installed liner. This design is
recommended for use when semi-liquid
or leachable solid wastes are placed in a
lined pit exc.avated into relatively
permeable soil.
(ii) Suction Lysimeters. This system
consists of a network of porous ceramic
cups connected by hoses/tubing to a ·
vacuum pump. The porous ceramic cups
or suction lysimeters are installed along
the sides and under the bottom of the
waste disposal facility liner. This type of
system works best when installed in a
relatively permeable unsaturated soil
immediately adjacent to the bottom
and/or sides of the dispoaal facility.
(8) Chemical Wasts Landfill
Operations. (i) PCBs and PCB Items
shall be placed in a landfill in a manner
that will prevent damage to containers
or articles. Other wastes placed in the
landfill that are not chemically
compatible with PCBs and PCB Items
including organic solvents shall be
segregated from the PCBs throughout the
waste handling and disposal proceH.
(ii) An operation plan shall be
developed and submitted to the
Regional Administrator for approval as
required in paragraph (c) of this section.
This plan shall include detailed
explanations of the procedures to be
used for recordkeeping, surface water
handling procedures, excavation and
backfilling, waste segregation burial
coordinates, vehicle and equipment
movement. use of roadways, leachate
collection systems, sampling and
monitoring procedures. monitoring
wells, environmental emergency
contingency plans, and security
measures to protect against vandaliam
and unauthorized waste placements.
EPA guidelines entitled ''Thermal
ProceuiDg and Land Disposal of Solid
Wute" (39 FR 29337, Auguat 14. 1974)
are a uaeful reference in preparation of
this pl111t. lf the facility is to be uaed to
dlapou· of liquid wutH ccuitaining
between 50 ppm and 500 ppm PCB, the
operations plan must include procedures
to determine that liquid PCBs to be
disposed of at the landfill do not exceed
500 ppm PCB and meaures to prevent
the migration of PCBs from the landfill.
Bulle liquids not exceeding 500 ppm
PCBs may be disposed of provided such
waste is pretreated and/or stabilized.
(e.g .• chemically fixed, evaporated.
mixed.with dry inert absorbant} to
reduce its liquid content or increase its
solid content so that a non-flowing
consistency is achieved to eliminate the
presence of free liquids prior to final
disposal in a landfill. PCB Container of
liquid PCB• with a concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm PCB may be
disposed of if each container is
sWTOunded by an amount of inert
sorbant material capable of absorbing
all of the liquid contents of the
container.
(iii} Ignitable wastes shall not be
disposed of in chemical waste landfills.
Liquid ignitable wastes are wastes that
have a flash point less than 60 degrees C
(140 degrees F) as determined by the
following method or an equivalent
method; Flash point of liquids shall be
determined by a Pensky-Martens Closed
Cup Tester, using the protocol specified
in ASTM Standard D-93, or the
Setaflash Closed Tester using the
protocol specified in ASTM Standard D-
3278.
(iv} Records shall be maintained for
all PCB disposal operations and shall
include information on the PCB
concentration in liquid wastes and the
three dimensional burial coordinates for
PCBs and PCB Items. Additional records
shall be·developed and maintained as
required in Annex VI.
(9) Supporting Facilities. (i] A six foot
woven mesh fence, wall. or similar
device shall be placed around the site to
prevent UDauthorized persons and
animals from entering.
(ii} Roads shall be maintained to and
within the site which are adequate to
support the operation and maintenance
of Lite site without causing safety or
nuisance problems or hazardous
conditions.
(iii) The site shall be operated and
maintained in a manner to prevent
safety problems or hazardous conditions
resulting from spilled liquids and
windblown materials.
(c} Approval of Chemical Wasts
Landfills. Prior ta the disposal of any
PCBs and PCB Items in a chemical
waste landfill. the owner or operator of
the landfill shall receive written
approval of the Agency-Regional
Adminiatrator for. the Re@on in which
the landflll Is located. The approval
shall be obtained in the following
manner:
(1) initial Report. The owner or
operator shall submit to the Regional
Administrator an initial report which
contains:
(i) The location of the landfill:
(ii} A detailed description of the
landfill including general site plans and
design drawings:
(iii} An engineering report describing
the manner is which the landfill
complies with the requirements for
chemical waste landfills specified in
paragraph (b) of this section:
(iv} Sampling and monitoring
equipment and facili1ies available:
(v) Expected waste volumes of PCBs:
(vi) General description of waste
materials other than PCBa that are
expected to be disposed of in the
landfill:
(vii} Landfill operations plan as
required in paragraph (b) of this section;
(viii} Any local, State, or Federal
permits or approvals: and
(ix} Any schedules or plans for
complying with the approval
requirements of these regulations.
(2) Other Information. In addition to
the information contained in the report
described in ~1bparagraph (1) of this
paragraph. the Regional Administrator
may require the owner or operator to
submit any other information that the
Regional Administrator finds to be
reasonably necessary to determine
whether a chemical waste landfill
should be approved. Such other
information shall be restricted to the
types of information required in
subparagraphs (l)(i] through (l)(ix} of
this paragraph.
(3) Contents of Approval. (i) Except as
provided in subparagraph (4) of this
paragraph the Regional Administrator
may not approve a chemical waste
landfill for the disposal of PCBs and PCB
ltecs. unlesa he finds that the landfill
meets all of the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this Annex.
(ii} In addition to the req•lirements of
paragraph (b} of this section. the
Regional Administrator may include in
an approval any other requirements or
provisions that the Regional
Administrator finds are neceHary to
ensure that operation of the chemical
waste landfill dou not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment from PCBa. Such
provisions may include a fixed period of
time for which the approval is valid.
The approval may also include a
stipulation that the operator of the
chemical waste landfill report to the
Regional Administrator any instance
when PCBa are detectable durinp
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31555
monitoring activities conducted
pursuant to paragraph (b)(6) of this
section.
(4) Waivers. An owner or operator of
a chemical waste landfill may submit
evidence to the Regional Administrator
that operation of the landfill will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment from PCBs
when one or more of the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section are not met.
On the basis of such evidence and any
other available information, the
Regional Administrator may in his
discretion find that one or more of the
requirements of§ 761.41(b) is not
necessary to protect against such a risk
and may waive the requirements in any
approval for that landfill. Any finding
and waiver under this paragraph will be
stated in writing and included as part of
the approval.
(5) Persons Approved. Any approval
will designate the persons who own and
who are authorized to operate the
chemical waste landfill. and will apply
oply to such persons, except as provided
by paragraph (7) below.
(6) Final Approval. Approval of a
chemical waste landfill will be in
writing and will be signed by the
Regional Administrator. The approval
will state all requirements applicable to
the approved landfill.
(7) Transfer of Property. Any person
who owns or operates an approved
chemical waste landfill must notify EPA
at least 30 days before transferring
ownership in the property or
transferring the right to conduct the
chemical waste landfill operation. The
transferor must also submit to EPA, at
least 30 days before such transfer, a
notarized affidavit signed by the
transferee which states that the
transferee will abide by the transferor's
EPA chemical waste landfill approval.
Within 30 days of receiving such
notification and affidavit. EPA will issue
an amended approval substituting the
transferee's name for the transferor's
name, or EPA may require the transferee
to apply for a new chemical waste
landfill approval. In the latter case. the
transferee must abide by the transferor's
EPA approval until EPA issues the new
approval to the transferee.
Annexm
§ 711.42· Storage for dlspoe&
(a) Any PCB Article or PCB Container
stored for disposal before January 1.
1983, shall be removed from storage and
disposed of u required by this Part
before January 1, 1984. Any PCB Article
or PCB Container stored for disposal
after January 1, 1983, shall be removed
from storage and disposed of as
required by Subpart B within one year
from the date when it was first placed
into storage.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c) of this section, after July 1, 1978,
owners or operators of any facilities
used for the storage of PCBs and PCB
Items designated for disposal shall
comply with the following requirements:
(1) The facilities shall meet the
following criteria:
(i) Adequate roof and walls to prevent
rain water from reaching the stored
PCBs and PCB Items:
(ii) An adequate floor which has
continuous curbing with a minimum six
inch high curb. 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:
(iii) No drain valves, floor drains.
expansion joints, sewer lines, or other
openings that would permit liquids to
flow from the curbed area:
(iv) Floors and curbing constructed of
continuous smooth and impervious
materials, such as Portland cement
concrete or· steel. to prevent or minimize
penetration of PCBs: and
(v) Not located at a site that is below
the 100-year flood water elevation.
(c)(l) The following PCB Items may be
stored temporarily in an area that does
not comply with the requirements of
paragraph (b) for up to thirty days from
the date of their removal from service,
provided that a notation is attached to
the PCB Item or a PCB Container
(containing the item) indicating the date
the item was removed from service:
(i) Non-leaking PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment
(ii) Leaking PCB Articles and PCB
Equipment if the PCB Items are placed
in a non-leaking PCB Container that
contains sufficient sorbent materials to
absorb any liquid PCBs remaining in the
PCB Items:
(iii) PCB Containers containing non-
liquid PCBs such as contaminated soil.
rags, and debris: and
(iv) PCB Containers containing liquid
PCBs at a concentration between 50 and
500 ppm, provided a Spill Prevention.
Control and Countermeasure Plan has
been prepared for the temporary storage
area in accordance with 40 CFR 112. In
addition. each container must bear a
notation that indicates that the liquids in
the drum do not exceed 500 ppm PCB.
(2) Non-leaking and structurally
undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
Transformers that have not been
drained of free flowing dielectric fluid
may be stored on pallets next to a
storage facility that meets the
requirements· of paragraph (b) until
January 1, 1983. PCB-Contaminated
Transformers that have been drained of
free flowing dielectric fluid are not
subject to the storage provisions of
Annex Ill. Storage under this
subparagraph will be permitted only
when the storage facility has
immediately available unfilled storage
space equal to 10 percent of the volume
of capacitors and transformers stored
outside the facility. The capacitors and
transformers temporarily stored outside
the facility shall be checked for leaks
weekly.
(3) Any storage area subject to the
requirements of paragraph (b) or
subparagraph (c)(l) of this section shall
be marked as required in Subpart C-
§ 761.20(a)(10).
(4) No item of movable equipment that
is used for handling PCBs and PCB Items
in the storage facilities and that comes
in direct contact with PCBs shall be
removed from the storage facility area
unless it has been decontaminated u
specified in Annex IV. § 781.43.
(5) All PCB Arttclea 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 non-leaking containers. Any
spilled or leaked materials shall be
immediately deaned up, using sorbents
or other adequate means, and the PCB-
contaminated materials and residues
shall be disposed of in accordance with
§ 761.10(a)(4).
(6) Except as provided in
subparagraph (7) below, any container
used for the storage of liquid PCBs shall
comply with the Shipping Container
Specification of the Department of
Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR 178.80
(Specification 5 container without
removable head), 178.82 (Specification
5B container without removable head),
178.102 (Specification 6D overpack with
Specification 25(§ 178.35) or
2SL(§ 178.35a) polyethylene containers)
or 178.116 (Specification 17E container).
Any container used for the storage oi
non-liquid PCBs shall comply with the
specifications of 49 CFR liB.80
(Specification 5 container), 178.82
(Specification 5B container) or 1711.115
(Specification 17C container). As an
alternate. containers larser than those
specified in DOT Specifications 5, SB. or
17C may be used for non-liquid PCBa if
the containers are designed and
constructed in a manner that will
31558 Federal Regieter / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
provide as much protection against
leaking and exposure to the
environment as the DOT Specification
containers, and are of the same relative
strength and durability as the DOT
Specification containers.
(7) Stora89 containers for liquid PCBa
can be larger than the containers
specified in (6) above provided that:
(i) The cqntainers are designed,
constructed, and operated in compliance
with Occup&tional Safety and Health
Standards. 29 CFR 1910.106, Flammable
and combustible liquids. Before using
these containers for storing PCBs. the
design of the containers must be
reviewed to determine the effect on the
structural safety of the containers that
will result from placing liquids with the
specific gravity of PCBa into the
containers (see 29 CFR 1910.106(b)(i)(f)).
(ii) The owners or operato.rs of any
facility using containers described in (i)
above shall prepare and implement a
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan as
described in 40 CFR 112. In complying
with 40 CFR 112. the owner or operator
shall read "oil(s)" as "PCB(s)" whenever
it appears. The exemptions for storage
capacity, 40 CFR 112.1(d)(2); and the
amendment of SPCC plans by the
Regional Administrator, 40 CFR 112.4,
shall not apply unless some fraction of
the liquids stored in the container are
oils as defined by section 311 of the
Clean Water Act.
(8) 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.
Storage containers provided in
subparagraph (7) above 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
PCBa removed from the container.
(9) Owners or operators of storage
facilities shall establish and maintain
re~ords as provided in Annex VL
Annex IV
§ 761.43 Dec:ontarnlnadon.
(a) Any PCB Container to be
decontaminated shall be
decontaminated by flUBhing the intemal
surfaces of the container three times
with a solvent containing less than 50
ppm PCB. The solubility of PCBa in the
solvent must be five percent or more by
weighL Each rinse ahail use a volume of
the normal diluent equal to
approximately ten (10) percent of the
PCB Container capacity. The solvent
may be reused for decontamination until
it contaim 50 ppm PCB. The solvent
shall then be disposed of as a PCB in
accordance with § 781.lO(a). Non-liquid
PCBs resulting from the
decontamination procedures shall be
disposed of in aa:ordance with the
provision,a of§ 761.10(a)(4).
(b) Movable equipment used in
storage areas shall be decontaminated
by swabbing surfaces that have
contacted PCBs with a solvent meeting
the criteria of paragraph (a) of this
section.
Note.-Precautionary meaeures should be
taken to ensure that the solvent meets safety
and health standazda as required by
applicable Federal regulations.
AnnexV
§ 781.44 llartclnfl format&.
The following formats shall be used
for marking:
(a) large PCB Mark-ML, Mark Mt
shall be as shown in Figure 1, letters and
striping on a white or yellow
background and shall be sufficiently
durable to equal or exceed the life
(including storage for disposal) of the
PCB Article. PCB Equipment. or PCB
Container. The size of the mark shall be
at least 15.25 cm (6 inches) on each side.
If the PCB Article or PCB Equipment is
too small to accommodate this size, the
mark may be reduced in size
proportionately down to a minimum of 5
cm (2 inches) on each side.
(b) Small PCB Marlc-M.. Mark M.
shall be as shown in Figure 2. letters and
striping on a white or yellow
background. and shall be sufficiently
durable to equal or exceed the life
(including storage for disposal) of the
PCB Article, PCB Equipment, or PCB
Container. The mark shall be a rectangle
2.5 by 5 cm (1 inch by 2 inches). If the
PCB Article or PCB Equipment is too
small to accommodate this size, the
mark may be reduced in size
proportionately down to a minimum of 1
by 2 cm (.4 by .8 inches). ,,.,.,.CAEoN,.,.,.1
I PCBs I I (PDlychlariMted Biphenytst I
llii. A roxie environmenroJ conrominonr requinng ~ ~ spedol handling and dispc4ol in occordonce wifh I.
~ U. 5. Envlronmenrol Proreaion Agency ~lotions ~ ~ 40 CfR 7 61-for Disposal lnfofmotion conrocr I ~ m.~ U.S. E.P.A Offic•. ~
~ In~ of ocddenr 0t splff. caJI roll frff TM U.S. ~
~ C00Sf Guard Notional P.esponse CenN!f: ~ ~ 600: 424-C,802 ~ I ~~= I
L. ............................................................ J
Figure l
t------------, 1-CAUTlON cmnua PCBs • I ... ,, ... 1,......, I FOIi NIOf'SI OISl'OSAL INFORMATION ! I CONTACT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL : I P'IIOTECTION AGENCY ;
i..------------Figure 2
Fedaral ....... / Vol. -Mt No. 108 / ThUl'lday. May st. 19'19 / Ruin and Ragulaticma S15l1
AnaexVI
f71UI ,._.andfflOI....._
(a) PC3s OJJd PCB IIIIJM in Hrviotl or
projectlld for disposal. Besumms July Z.
1978. aach owner or operator of a
facility uaq or _storing at one time at
leut 45 kilogram, (91U pounda) of PCBa
contained in PCB Container(•) or one or ·
more PCB Tranaformen, or SO or more
PCB Lars• High or Low Voltage
Capaciton 1hall develop and maintain
recorda on the diapoaiUon of PCBe and
PCB Items. These recorda ■6all form the
baaia of an annual document prepared
for each facility by July 1 covering the
previous calendar year. Ownen or
operaton with one or more facilitiea
that uae or store PCBa and PCB Items in
the quantities described'" above may
maintain the records and documenta at
one af the facilltia that ii normally
occupied for 8 boars a day, provided the
identity of this facility ia available at
each facility uaing or storing PCBa and
PCB Items. The record.a and document■
shall be maintained for at leaat five
yean after the facility ceaaea uaing or
storing PCBa and PCB Items in the
prescribed quantities. The following
infonnation for each facility shall be
included in the ,umual document:
(11 The date• when PCBa and PCB
Items are removed from service. are
placed into storage for disposal, and are
placed into transport for disposal. The
quantities of the-PCB, and PCB Items
shall be indicated usin8 the following
breakdown:
(i) Total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs and PCB Items in PCB Containen
including the identification of container
:ontents such as liquids and capacitors;
(ii) Total number of PCB Transformers
and total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs contained in the transformers: and
(iii) Total number of PCB Large High
or Low Voltase Capacitors.
(2) For PCBs and PCB Items removed
from service. the location of the initial
disposal or storase facility and the name
of the owner or operator of the facility.
(3) Total quantities of PCBs and PCB
Items remaining in service at the end of
the calendar year usins the followins
breakdown:
(i) Total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs and PCB Items in PCB Containers,
includins the identification of container
contents such as liquid!! and capaciton:
(ii) Total number of PCB Transfonnera
and total weight in kilograms of any
PCBs contained in the transformen: and
(ill} Total niµnber of PCB Larp ~
or Low Voltage Capaciton.
(b) Dispoaal tJnd storap facilitiu.
Bach owner or operator i>f a facility
(including high efficiency boiler
operation.a) used for the storage or
dispoaal of PCBa and PCB Items shall by
July 1, 19"19 and aach July l thereafter
prepare and maintain a document that
includes the information required ill
subparagraph. (1) thra (4} below for
PCBa and PCB Items that-were handled
at-the facility during the previoua
calendar year. The document shall be
retained at each :acility for at leut S
ye&l'S after the facility ia no lonser uaed
for the storage llr dispoaai cf PGBa and
PCB Items except that in t!le r.ue of
chemical waste landfill•. the document
ahall be maintained at leaat 20 yelll'I
after the chemical wute landfill ii no
lonser uaed fQr the disponl of PCB• and
PCB Itema. The documenta shall be
available at the facility for impaction by
authorized repreaentaUvn of the
Environmental Protection Agency. If the
facility ceues to be uaed for PCB
storage or disposal, the owner or
operator .of auch facility shall notify
within eo days the EPA Regional .
Administrator of the region in which th.e
facility ia located that the faciliJy haa
ceased storage or dispoaal operation.a.
The notice shall specify where the
documents that are required to be
maintained by thil paragraph are
located. The following information shall
be included in each document:
(1) The date when any PCB• and PCB
Items were received by the facility
during the previou1 calendar year for
storage or disposal, and identification of
the facility and the owner or operator of
the facility from whom the PCBa were
received:
(2) The date when any PCBs and PCB
Items were disposed of at the disposal
facility or tran:1ferred to another
disposal or atorase facility, includins the
icumti(ication of the specific types of
PCBs and PCB Items that were stored or
disposed of:
(3) A summary of the total weight in
kilosrams of PCBs and PCB Articles in
containen and the total weis}lt of PCBa
contained in PCB Transformers, that
have been handled at the facilit-/ during
the previous caiendar year. This
summary shall provide totals of the
above PCBs and PCB Items which have
been:
(i) Received during the year:
(ii) Transferred to other facilities
during the year: and
(llilJ{etained at the facility at the end
af the year. In addition the CQDtentl ei
PCB Containers ahall be identified.
When PCB Containen and PCBa
contained· in a tramformer are
transferred to-other 1torage or disposal
facilitie1. the identificatign of the facility
to which auch PCB■ and PClhtema were
tranaferred shall be included in the
document. '
(4) Total number of any-PCB Articlu
or PCB Equipment not in PCD--
Containara. received'during the calendar
year, tramferred to other storage or
disposal facilitiea during the calendar
year, or remaining on ,the facility site at
the end of the ~endar year. The
identification of the ~c types of
PCB Articln and PCB Equipment
received. transferred. or remaining on
the facility sits ahall be indicated. When
PeB Articles and PCB Equipment are
transferred to other stotap-or dispou1
facilities. the identification of the facility
to which the PCB Articln and PCB
Equipment were transfemid mw1t be
Included.
Noa AAy reqwremaata for weiahta in.
lcilOll'Ul9 of PCe. may be calculated valuaa
If the internal YOluma of containen Uld
tnmformen la known and Included in the
fll1)0rta. toptbar with aay uawnptiom on the
denGty of the PCe. coatained in the
containen or traDlformen.
(c) ln~ration facilities. Bach owner
or operator of a PCB incinerator facility
shall collect and maintain for a period of
5 ye81'9 from the date of collection the
following information. in addition to the
information required in paragraph (b) of
this section: ·
(1) When PCB• are being incinerated.
the following continuous and short-
interval data:
(i) Rate and quantity of PCBs fed to
the combuation system a1 required in
Annex I-§ 761.40(a)(3);
(ii) Temperature of the combustion
proceH as required in Annex I-
§ 761.40(a)(4): and
(iii) Stack emisaion product to include
0,, CO. and CO, as required in Annex
1-§ 761.40(a}(7).
(2) When PCBs are beins incinerated.
data and records on the monitoring of
1taclt emissions as required in Annex
I-§ 761.40(a)(6).
(3) Total weight in kilosrams of any
solid residues senerated by the
incineration of PCBs and PCB Items
durins the calendar year, the total
weight in kilograms of any solid
residues disposed of by the facility in
chemical waste landfills, and the total
weight in kilograma of any solid
reaidue• remaioins on the facility site.
31558 Federal hgilter / VoL 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and ll:e1:,tiom
{4) When PCBa and PCB Items are
being IDcinerated. additional periodic
data shall be collected and maintained
aa specified by the Regional
Admyustrator pursuant to I 781.40(d)(4).
(5) Upon any fllSJ)8DliOD of the
operation ot any incinuator punaant to
I 761.40(a)(8}, th9 owner or operator of
auch an incinerator shall pnrpare ~
document. The document shall. at a
minimum. include the date and ·ttme of
the suspension and m explanation of
the circumatancea cau,iag the
suspension of operation. The document
shall be sent to the appropria1e Regional
Administrator within 30 dayw of any
such suspension.
( d) Chemical waste landfill facilities.
Each owner or operator of a PCB
chemical waste landfill facility shall
collect and maintain until at leaat 20
years after the chemical waate landfill ia
no longer used for the disposal of PCB•
the following information in addition to
the information required in paragraph
(b) of this section:
(1) Any water analysis obtained in
compliance with § 76Ul(b )(6)(ili}; and
(2) Any operations records including
burial coordinates of wastes obtained in
compliance with § 761.41{b)(8)(ii).
( e) High efficiency boiler facilities.
Each 0!'ller or operator af a high
efficiency boi~er used for the disposal of
liquids between 50 and 500 ppm PCB
shall collect and maintain for-a period of
5 years the fQilowing information. in
addition to the information required in
paragraph (b} of this section:
(1) For each month PCBs are burned in
the boiler the carbon monoxide and
excess oxygen data required in
§ 761.10(a)(2)(iii)(A)(B) and
§ i61.10(a)(3)(iii)(A)(B);
(2) The quantity of PCBs burned each
month as required in
§ 761.10{a)(2)(ili)(A)(7) and
§ 761.10(a)(3)(ili)(A)(7); and
(3) For each month PCB, (other than
mineral oil dielectric fluid) are burned.
chemical analysis data of the waste as
required in § 761.10(a)(3](iii](B](6).
(f} Retention of Special Records by
Storage and Disposal Facilities. In
addition to the information required to
be maintained under paragraphs (b). (c).
(d) and (e) of this section. each owner or
operator of a PCB storage or disposal
facility (including high efficiency boiler
operations) ahall collect and maintain
for the time period specified in
paragraph (b} of this NCtioD the
following data:
(1) All document.I. COrTeepondence.
and data that have been provided ta the
owner or operator of the facility by any
State or local government agency and
that pertain-to the ator.age or disposal of
·PCBa and PCB Items at the facility.
(Z) All document-. correspondence.
and data that have been provided by the
owner or operator of the facility to any
State or local 8(>Vemment agency and"
that pedai.D to the storage or diapoaal of
PC& ud PCB Items at the facility.
(3) Any apl)licationa and related
correapcmdeuce aent by the ownar or.
operator of the facility to any local.
State. or Federal anthoritin in regard to
waste water.ducharp permit&, aolid
waste permits. buildfus permit&. or other
permita.or authorizatiocla such aa those
required by Annex 1-§ 75UO(d}«D.d
Annex-II-§. 781.41{c).
(FR Doc. ~I-Plied~ 1>11....,
8IU.ING C0aa Ma-4MI
40 CFA Part 750
[FAL 1227-6)
Procedurn for R....,._.ng lJnd•
Section I of the Toxic Suostancea
Controt Act; lntertm Procedura Rutea
for Exemptlone From the
"Polychlortnated Blphenyl (PCS)
Procaein9 and Distribution In
Commerce Prohlbttlona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
Acnotc Interim procedw-es for filing and
processing petitions for exemptions from
the PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitiona under section
6(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substance&
Control Act (TSCA).
SUMMARY: Section 6{e)(3}{B) ofTSCA
allows EPA to grant. by rule. exemptions
from the prohibitions on manufacturing,
processing. and distribution in
commerce of PC.Bs established pursuant
to section 6(e)(3)lA) of TSCA. Since the
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions will become
effective July 1, 1979, EPA wishes to
inform affected parties of the procedures
that will be followed for the filing and
processing of petitions for exemptions
from the processing and distribution in
commerce bans imposed by section
6(e)(3)(Al(ii) ofTSCA. As this notice is
strictly procedural. notice and public
comment are unnecessary, and it is
effective upon publication.
DATE Petitions for exemptions from the
1979 processing and distribution in
commerce prohibitions must be received
by July 2. 1979.
ADDRESS: Petitions, preferably in
triplicate. are to be sent to: Document
Control Officer, (TS-?'93), Office of
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W ..
Washington. D.C. 20480, Attn.:
Document No. OTS/066002{PCB/PDE).
,011 IIURTHU INPOIIIIATION CONTACT:
John B. Ritch. Jr .. Director, office of
Indmtry-Asaiatance, Office ofTox1c:-
Substances, (TS-798), Environmen.W
Protectfoa Agency, 401 M Street. S. W:;,
Waahinaton,-D.C. 20460. Gall the toll
free number {800) 4U-9085 (ill
-,,Yashington. D.C.. 554-1404j.
SUPPl,lllllff AIIY INl'OmlATION:
Elsewhere iD today's,___-..._,
_the fiDaJ PCB Bu Rule ia promaJgated.
the PCB Ban Row impJfflMOt,a the PCB
manafacturias, proaeNing. dfstribu.tioD
in commerce. and uae prohibitiona of
section e(e) of TSCA. On November 1.
1978{43 FR 50906),·EPA pubU.hed a
notice similar to tJm one which
pruvided an opportunity for the filins of
petitiona for exemptions from the PCB
manufacturing prohibition. wbicb ban ia
effective July 2, 197& The·PCB
processing and-d.iatribution tn commerce
prohibitiona are effective July 1. 19'/9.
Section 6(e}{3}(B) providu an
opportunity for affected persons to
petition for an exemption from the
prohibitiom on procesams and
distribution in commerce of PCBa.
Accordingly, EPA la iHuing theaa
procedures to describe the required
contents of petitions. who may submit a
-class petition. and the procedures that
EPA will follow in proceaaing petitions
for exemptions from the PCB proceaaing
and distribution in commerce
prohibitions.
Unless EPA grants exemptions. all
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce will be banned after July 1.
1979 pursuant to section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of
TSCA. These activities include, but are
not necessarily limited to: the proceesing
and distribution in commerce of .
dielectric fluid for PCB Transformers.
PCB-Contaminated Transformers, PCB
Railroad Transformers. and PCB
Electromagnets; the distribution in
commerce of PCB Articles (such aa
small PCB Capacitors}; the processing
(i.e .. building) and distribution in
commerce of PCB Equipment (including
the. manufacture of fluorescent light
ballasts, television sets, air conditioners
and microwave ovens and the sale of
such PCB Equipment): the processing
and distribution in commerce of PCB--
contaminated hydraulic flu.id; the
procesa!Dg and distribution iD commerce
of PCBs for servicing mining equipment
the proc:essing and d.iatribution iD
commerce of chemical subetances and
mixturN that contain 50 ppm or greater
PCB as impuritiea or contaminants
(including diarylida and phthalocyanina
Fedim ........ , Val. 44. No. 10l / ~y. May 31, 1919 / Rulee and JlesulaUam 111111
pJsmen18, .-. ahnntnmn r.blaride. and
-phmJ!dtloroeij•oett).
In contrut to the Intettm Procedural
Rula for Exemptiona from the PCB
Manufacturiog Prohibition, the
proced1U'lll rules published today for
exemptiooa from the procea1ing and
distribution in commerce probibitiooa
provide for clu1 petttiou tia certain
limited circumataDcel. Allowance of
some cJue petitions is an adminiltrative
necellity. EPA eatimatn that there are
thouaands of potential petitooen for
exemptiom from the probibttiam on
PCB proceuing and ~button in
commerce. The great majority of these
petitions are expected to be
concentrated in the area, of di1tribution
of PCB Equipmeot and di1tribution of
'?CB-cootaminated substances and
mixture■• For example. virtually every
retaij appliance store, appliance repair
service, and wholes,ije distributor of
electrical equipment couJd need an
exemptioo. ThUB, allowing use of clu1
petitions for such persons ii a matter of
practical reaJi~
In-addition to the sheer number of
possible petitioners in a given potential
class, EPA evaluated the serioUBneH of
potential risk of injury to health and the
environment that couJd resuJt from
permitting a PCB activity to continue if it
were granted an exemption. Those
persons not allowed to submit clu1
petitions are generally those whose
activities involve significant quantitiea
and/or highly concentrated PCB fluids
proceHed or diatributed in a non-totally
enclosed manner. A. a resuJt. the
potential risk aaaociated with these
activities is relatively high. In such
cases it is more imnortant. that EPA
evaluate petitions iniilvidually.
Petitions concerning the manufacture
(i.e., processing} of PCB Equipment
involving incorporation of PCB Articles
into equipment must be submitted on an
individual basia. Although this activity
in itself may present a low potential
risk. the activity resuJt1 in the wide
dissemination of small PCB Capacitors.
The disposal of such capacitors ;s not
controlled once the capacitora are
processed into PCB Equipment Since
moat PCB Equipment manufacturera
have converted to non-PCB CapacitOl'f,
the number of potential petitioners for
exemptions to manufacture PCB
Equipment shouJd be small.
These Interim Procedural RuJea
provide for two types of claa'I petitions
and limit the UBe ef each type to certain
activitiea. The two types of claaa
petitiona are: (1) a claaa petition
requiring a listing of, 8J!d certain.
information about. each J>el'IOD covered
by the petition: and (2) a cla11 petition
that don not require a lilting of persona
coverwd by the-petition.
Once·EPA had detmniDed to allow
c1ul petltiooa for certain activities, !he ume facton previou■Jy dacribed
(number of potential petitionen and
extent of rilk) were again evaluated to
detmnine which cla11 petitiooa would
have to identify each petitioner covered
by the cla• petition. In general. thoae
petition, thoupt likely to i:epresent
large numbers of potential'petitionera
engqed in encloaed or low
concentration PCB distribution activitie1
are tboae allowed to file claA petition•
without listing each individual
petitioner.
Clas, petition■ are not required for
persona engaged in tho1e activi.ties
permitted to submit cla88 petitionL An
individual involved in one of these
activitie1 ha1 the choice of either
submitting an individual petitlon or
joining with others to submit a clan
petition. For claaa petitiona. EPA will
accept petitiona prepared by one
company (to which other companies
may provide the required information),
by a trade a&1ociation on behalf of its
membera ( as well as others), or by any
other person on behalf of a group of
person, requiring exemption■.
Persona who have already submitted
petitions for exemptions to manufacture
or import PCB Equipment pursuant to
the Interim Procedural Rules of
November 1, 19i8 (43 FR 50905) need not
submit new petitions. but must advise
EPA if they still wish the Agency to act
on their pending petitions. If they wish,
such petitioners may submit additional
information concerning their petitions.
Similarly, EPA may request additional
information concerning such petitions
by lett.er to the petitioners.
All petitions for exemptions from the
1979 processing and distribution in
commerce bans must be received by
EPA by JuJy 1, 1979. This deadline is
beiDg imposed to permit consolidation of
all rulemaldng on these petitions and to
expedite the rulema.ldng to the greatest
extent possible. The deadline is also the
date on which tile proceHing and
distribution in commerce prohibitions of
section 6{e)(3) ofTSCA become
effective. EPA estimates that a Notice of
Proposed RuJemaking concerning
exemptions from the processing and
distribution in commerce bans will be
published in September 1979, that the
public hearing, if requested. will be held
in October 1979, and that the Final RuJe
concerning exemptions will be
published in January 1980. Any person
who petitions EPA by JuJy 1, 1979 to-
continue prooeHing or distributioa tll
commerce after JuJy 1, 1979 may
continue his activity until EPA rul8I Oil
bis petition. Penona wbo do DOt • ·
petition EPA will be lab~ to the July
1. t979'ban on all proceamns ud
distribution in commerce of PCB. and
PCB Item&
In aeterminiq whether to-grant a
petition for exemption to the-PCB ban.
EPA will apply the standards .
enunciated in section 6{e)(3}{B) of
TSCA. Section 6(e)(3)(B) reads in
pertineot part u follows:
• • • the Adminiatrator may grant by rule
auch an exemption if the Administratoi Jinda
that-
(!) an umeaaonable risk of injury ta health
or e!l,vironment would not raault, and
(ill good faith efforts have been made to
develop a chemical aubstance which don not
present an unreucmable rule of Injury to
health or the environment and which may be
1ub1titutad for auch polychlortnatad
biphenyL
Although EPA is not issuing a form for
petitions, petitions mUBt include the
information described in i 750.31(d) of
the Interim Procedural RuJes.
Due to the need to grant or deny
petitions on an expedited basis, and
pursuant to the delegation of authority
by the Administrator in the Preamble to
the Final PCB Ban RuJe, authority baa
been delegated to the Asliltant
Administrator for Toxic Substances to
grant or deny petitions under section
6(e)(:J}(B) of TSCA submitted pursuant
to these interim procedures. The
Assistant Administrator will rule on
petitions subsequent to opportunity for
an informal b.earing.
The Interim Procedural Rules
applicable to section 6(e) exemption
proceediQ8s are adapted from the TSCA
section 6 procedural rules (40 CFR Part
750, 42 FR 61259, December 2, 1977, now
titled Subpart A-General Proced1U'81
Rules).
EPA ii aware that many participants
at the informal hearings on the proposed
PCB Ban and Marking and Disposal
Rules presented information directly
applicable to a PCB exemption
rulemaking. To expedite Agency action
on exemption petitions, participanta•in
the PCB exemption informal hearing are
permitted and encouraged to designate
testimony from prior EPA informal
rulemaking hearings on PCBs under
TSCA. The exemption hearing panel is
specifically authorized by the Interim
Procedural RuJea-to reject repetitive
testimony submittted earlier to EPA at a
TSCA PCB informal hearing.
These rules are issued under authority
of section 6(e} of the Toxic Substance,
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605(e}.
315&0 Fedel'al Resister / Vol 44. No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Roles and Regulations
Dated: Ma1 u. 19'111.
MmilyaC. ...... ·
Acting AMutont AdminimaJor for rcwc
Substan~
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Resulationa is amended by adding two
Subpart headings, Subpart A-General
Procedural Rules for 11 7S0.1-750.9 and
Subpart I>-Manufacturing Exemption
Procedural Rules for I§ 7S0.1~750.%1. to
the Table of Contenta and a new
Subpart C as 11et forth below:
Subpart A~Wff .tor RulemaJcint
under s.ctioa 6 of the To}dc Subatancet
Control Act. [II 750.1-750.9-Added at ta PR
61259. Dec:emher %. 1977}.
Subpart 8-;-mtarim Procedw,u Rules far.
Manulac:turing Exemptiona. [H 750.10-
iS0.21-Added at 43 FR 501105. November 1.
1978I,
s.,bpart~~~-
Proc111lnt aw Dlldl.....,.ln eon-
EJCemptlona
Sec.
750.30 Applicahllity.
750.31 Filina of petiliom for e:umplion.
750.32 Consolidation of ruiemaking.
750.33 Notice of proJ>Oaed ndemeJdng.
750.34 Record.
750.35 Public commenta.
750.38 Confidentiality.
750.J7 Subpoenaa.
750.38 Participation i.a informal hearing.
750.39 Conduct of informal bearing.
7S0.40 Crosa-examination.
750.41 Final rule.
Authority: Section S(e). Toxic Substances
Control Act. 15 U.S.C. 2605(e).
Subpart C-ProcealUng and
Distribution In Commerce Exemption
ProceduraJ RuJes
§ 750.30 AppllcaoHlty.
Sections 750.30-750.41 apply to all
rulemakings under authority of section
6(e)(3)(B) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C.
2605(e)(3)(B) with respect to petitiana for
PCB processing and distribution in
commerce exemptions filed pursuant to
§ i50.31(a) of this Part.
§ 750.31 Flllng of petition• ~exemption.
(a) Who May File. Any person
seeking an exemption from the PCB
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions imposed by section
B(e)(3)(A)(ii) ofTSCA may file a petiJion
for exemption. Petitions must be
submitted on an individual basis for
each processor, distributor, seller or
individual affected by the 1979
processing and distribution in commerce
prohibitions. except as described in
subparagraphs (1) through (9) below.
(1) Processing and Distribution in
Commerce of PCB-Contaminated
Transformer Dittlectric Fluid. Persons
who p,oceas or distribute i.n commerce
dielectric fluid containing 50 ppm or
greater PCB (but leu than 500 ppm PCB}
for aae in PCB-Contaminated
Trrmsformers may submit a-single
consoltdated petitic,a on behalf of any
-number of petitioners. The name and
addresa of each petitioner must !>.
stated in the petition.
(2) Contaminated Substances and
Mixtun,~sing. Pel'90nll who
procesa the same chemical subatanc:e or-
the same mixture containing 50 ppm or
greater PCB u an impurity or
contaminant may submit a comolidated
petition if the chemical substance or
mixture is processed for the same use by
each person represented by the petition.
For exampje, persona who process a
PCB-contaminated pigment into printing
inks may combine their petitions ilato
one petition. The name and addresa of
each petitioner must be stated ill the
petition.
(3) Contaminated Substances and
Mixtures-Distribution in G.1mmerce.
Persons who distribute in commerce the
same chemical substance or the same
mixture eontaining 50 ppm or greater
PCB as an Impurity or contaminant may
submit a consolidated petition if the
chemical substance or mixture is
distributed in commerce for a common
use. Such a petition is not required to
name each person who distributes in
commerce the chemical ~ubstance or
mixture.
(4) PCB Capacitor Distribution for
Purposes of Repair. Persons who
distribute in commerce PCB capacitors
for servicing (repair) of PCB Equipment
may submit a single consolidated
petition on behalf of any number of
petitioners engaged in such distribution
in commerce ior purposes of repair. The
name of each petitioner need not be
stated in the petition.
(5) Small Quantities for Researcn and
Dei·e!rJpment. Persons who procesa or
distribute in commerce small quantities
of PCBs for research and development
may submit a single consolidated
petition. The name and address of each
petitioner must be stated in lhe petition.
[B) Microscopy. PeA!ons who process
or distribute in commerce ?CDs for use
as a mounting medium ;n microscopy
may submit a sin1;le consolidated
peti!ion on behalf of any number of
petitioners. The name and address of
eac!:i petitioner must be stated in the
petition.
(7) Processing of PCB Articles into
PCB Equipment. A person who
processes (incorporates) PCB Articles
[such as small PCB Capacitors) into PCB
Equipment may submit a petiti_on on
behalf of himself and all persons who
further process or distribute in
commerce PCB Equipment built by the
petitioner. For example, a builder of
motors who places small PCB
Capacitors in the motors may submit a
petition on behalf of all persona who
pl'OC8N or incor,,orate motors built by
the petitioner .into other pieces of PCl3
Equipment and all those who sell the
equipment. Such-a petition is not
required to identify the persons who
distribute in commerce or further
pcocen the PCB Equipment. A separate
petition m1111t be filed. however, by each
processor of PCB Articles into PClt
Equipment.
(8) Processing of PCB Equipment into
Other PCB Equipment. A person who
processes (incorporates} PCB Equipment
into other PCB Equipment may submit a
petition on behalf of himaelf and all
persons who further process or
distribute in commel'Ce PCB Equipment
built by the petitioner. Such a petition is
not required to identify the persons who
distribute in commerce or furthel'
process ~e PCB Equipment. If a petition
has been filed under subparagraph (a)(7)
by the builder of the original PCB
Equipment. no other petitio~ is required.
(9) Distribution of PCB Equipment.
Distributors-in commerce of PCB ·
Equipment may submit a consolidated
petition on behalf of persons who
distribute in commerce PCB Equipment
of one type (such as air conditioners).
The petition is not required to name the
persons who distribute in commerce the
affected PCB Equipment.
(bl Petition Filing Date. All petitions
for exemptions from the 1979 procesaing
and distribution in commerce
prohibitions under section B(e)(3)(A)(ii)
must be received by the Hearing Clerk
by July 2. 1979.
(c} Where to FilB. All petitions must
be submitted tc the following location:
Document Control Officer (TS-793),
Office of Toxic Substances. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Streat. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attn.: Docket Number OTS/066002
(PCB/PDE).
[d) Content of Petition. Each petition
must contain the following:.
(1) Name, address and telephone
number of petitioner. See also
subparagraphs (al(1H9) for additional
identification reGuirements applicable to
certain consolidated petitions.
(2) Description of PCB processing or
distribution in commerce exemption
requested, including a description of the
chemical substances, mixtures or items
to be processed or distributed in
commerce and. if processing is involved,
the nature of the. processing.
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31581
(3) For processing petitions,
location(s} of sites requiring exemption.
(4) Length of time requested for
exemption (maximum length of
exemption is one year).
(5) Estimated amount of PCBs (by
pound and/ or volume) to be proceSBed.
distributed in commerce, or used during
requested exemption period arid the
manner of release of PCBs into the
environment associated with such
processing, distribution in commerce. or
use. Where the PCB concentration ia
less than 500 ppm. both the total liquid
volume and the total PCB volume must
be provided.
(6) The basis for the petitioner's
contention that under section
6(e}(3)(B)(i) ofTSCA "an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or environment
would not result" from the granting of
the petition for exemption.
(7) The basis for the petitioner's
contention that under section
6(e}(3l{B)(ii) "good faith efforts have
been made to develop a chemical
substance which does not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment and which may be
substituted for" the PCB.
(8) Quantification of the reasonably
ascertainable economic conaequencea of
denying the petition for exemption and
an explanation of the manner of
computation.
(9) In addition to the information in
subparagraphs (1) throulJh (8), certain
petitions must contain additional
infQrmation as follows:
(i} Persona who process or distribute
in commerce dielectric fluids containing
50 ppm or greater PCB for use in PCB
Transformers, railroad transformers. or
PCB electromagneta must also state the
expected number of PCB Transformers.
railroad transforme~ or PCB
electromagneta to be serviced under the
exemption. In addition. a person must
identify all the facilities. which he owna
or operates where he services PCB
transformen, railroad transformers, or
PCB electro!!. agnets.
(ii) Persons filing petitona under
subparagraph (a}(1} {Processing and
Distribution in Commerce of PCB-
Contaminated Transformer Dielectric
Fluid) mu.at also provide the expected
number of PCB-Contaminated
Tranaformen to be serviced under the
requested exemption and the expected
method of disposal of waste Jilelectric
fluid. In addition. a penion inust identify
all the facilities which he owns or
operates where he servioea ec:B-
Contaminated Trimaformers. This
informatiQ.n. u well as the information
req~ by BUbparagrapha (d}{l), ld)(3)
and (dK5J, mmt be provided for each
person represented by the petition. AH
other information may be provided on a
gi:oup basisl
(iii) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph& (a)(2) (Contaminated
Substances and Mixtures-Processing)
and (a)(3) (Contaminated Substances
and.Mixtures-Distribution in Commerce)
must also provide a justification for the
class grouping selected and a
description of the uses and the human
and environmental exposure a.saociated
with e~ch use of the PCB-contaminated
chemical substance or mbtture for which
an exemption is sought. Information
may be provided on a group basis,
except that the information required by
subparagraphs (d)(l), (d)(3) and (d)(S),
must be provided for each person
represented by a petition under
subparagraph (a)(2).
(iv) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph (a)(4HPCB Capacitor
Distribution for Purposes of Repair)
must also provide an estimate of the
expected total number of PCB
Capacitors to be distributed in
commerce under the requested
exemption. All information may be
provided on a group basis.
(v) Persona filing petitions unde•
subparagraph (a)(7) and (a}(B)
(Processing of PCB Articles into PCB
Equipment IIJld ProcesBllllJ of PCB
Equipment into Other PCB Equipment)
must provide a description of each type
of PCB Equipme11t (including the amount
of PCB■ by pound&lJ8 and/or volume in
the PCB Equipment} to be procesaed
and/ or distributed in commerce under
the exemption. _the number of each type
of equipment expected to be processed
and/or distributed in commerce, and the
approximate number of distributors or
further processon covered by the
petition. All information may be
provided on a group basis. However, in
the case of a petition under
subparagraph (a)(7), the proceSBor of
PCB Articles into PCB F.quipment must
be identified in the petition. In the case
of a petition under subparagraph (a)(8),
the processor of PCB Equipment who
files the petition mµat be identified.
(vi) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph (a)(9) (Distribution of PCB
Equipment) must provide a description
of each type of PCB Equipment
(including the amount of PCBs by
poundage and/or volume in the PCB
Equipment) to.be distributed in
commerce under the exemption. the
number of each type of equipment to be
distributed in-commerce, and the
approximate mQDber of diatributol'II
covered by the petition. All lnfonnatton
may be provided OD a group buia.
(vii) Persons filing petitions under
subparagraph& (a}(S) and (a}(6) must
provide the information required by
subparagraphs (d)(l) through (d)(B) for
each petitioner named in the petition.
(e} EPA reserves the right to request
further information as to each petition
where neceuary to determine whether
the petition meets the statutory teats of
section 6( e }(3)(B) of TSCA prior to or
after publication of the notice of
proposed rulemaking required by
§ 750.33 of these rules.
f 750.32 Conllolldatlon of ~
All petitiom received pursuant to
§ 750.31(a) will be consolidated into one
rulem~ with one informal hearlnlJ
held on all petitiom.
f 750.33 Notice of propoeed rulemaldng.
Rulemaking.for PCB processing and
distribution in commerce exemptiom
filed pursuant to § 750.3tfal will begin
with the publication of a Notice of
Proposed Rulem~ in the Fedezal
R91iater. Each notice will contain:
(a) A summary of the information
required in §750.31(d):
(b) A statement of the time and place
at which the informal hearing required
by section 8(c)(2)(C) ofTSCA shall
begin. or, to the extent these are not
specified. a statement that'they will be
specified later in a separate Federal
Register notice provided that Federal
Register notice of the date and city at
which any informal hearing ,hall begin
will be given. at least 30 days in
advance:
(c) A statement identifying the place
· at which the official record of the
rulem~ is located. the hours during
which lt will be open for public
inspection. the documents contained in
it u of the date the Notice of Proposed
Rulem~ was isaued. and a statement
of the approximate times at which
additional materials such as public
commenta, hearing transcripta. and
Agency studies in progress will be
added to the record. ff any material
other than public commenta or material
generated by a hearing is added to the
record after publication of the notice
required by this action. and notice of its
future addition was not given at the lime
of that initial publication. a separate
Federal Resiater notice announcing its
addition to the record and inviting
comment will be publiahed:
(d) The due date for public commenta.
which.will be (1) 30 days after
publication of the notice of proposed
ru.lemeAdoa for main comments~ (2)
one week after the informal hearilJI for
reply-commnt"l
31582 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
( e) The name, address, and office
telephone number of the Record Clerk
and the Hearing Clerk for the
rulemaking in question; and
(f) A nonbinding target date for
issuing the final rule.
§ 750.34 RuletnMlnfa record.
(a) No later than the date of proposal
of a rule subject to this Subpart. a
rulemaking record for that rule will be
established. It will consist of a separate
identified filing space containing;
(1) All documents required by
§ 750.31(d);
(2) All public comments timely
received:
(3) All public hearing tranacripts;
(4) All material received during an
informal hearing and accepted for the
record of that hearing; and
(5) Any other information that the
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances considers to be relevant to
such rule and.that the Aaaiatant
Administrator identified. on or before
the date of the promulgation of the rule.
in a notice publiabed In the Federal
Register.
(b} All material in the record will be
appropriately indexed. Each record will
be available for public inspection during
n_ormal ·EPA busineH hours. Appropriate
arransementa allowing members of the
public to copy record materials that do
not risk the permanent losa of such
materiala will be made. All material
required to be included in the record
will be added to the record aa soon u
feasible after its receipt by EPA.
-(c) The Record Clerk for each
rulemaldng will be responsible for EPA
compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (a} of this section.
§ 750.35 Pubic CGWIIIMdL
(a} Main comments must be
postmarked or received no later than the
time specified in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and must contain all
comments on and criticisms of that
Notice by the commenting person. based
on information which is or reuonably
could have been available to that person
at the time.
(b} Reply co~enta must be
postmarked or received no later than
one week after the close of all informal
hearinga on the proposed rule and muat
be restricted to comments on:
(1} Other comments;
(2) Material in the he~g record: 8:J1d
(3) Material wbich wa111 not and could
not reasonably have been available to
the commenting party a 111ufflcient time
before main comments were dae.
( c) Extensions of the time £or filing
comments may be granted In writing by
the Hearing Chairman. Application for
an extension must be made in writing.
Comments submitted after the comment
period and all extensions of it have
expired need not be added to the
rulema.king record and need not be
considered in decisions concemins the
rule.
( d) Unless the Notice o{ Propol!led
Rulemaking states otherwise, lour
copies of all commenta must be
submitted.
§ 750.3I Coafldentlalty.
EPA encourages the submiHion of
non-confidential information by
petitionen and commentors. EPA doe111
not wi111h to have unnecessary
restrictions on accesa to the ru.lemaking
record. However, if a petitioner or
commentor believes that he can only
state hi111 po111ition through the uae of
information claimed to be confidential.
he may submit it. Such information must
be separately submitted for the
rulemaking record and marked
"confidential" by the submitter. For tha
information claimed to be confidential.
EPA will list only the date and the name
and addresa of the petitioner or
comm1111tor in the public file. noting that
the petitioner or commentor bu
requested confidential ~atmenL The
informatiw claimed to be confidential
will be placed in a coofidential file. A
petitioner must alao file a nan-
confidential petition with a non-
confidential summary of the confidential
information to be placed in the public
file. Similarly, a commentor must aapply
a non-confidential swnmuy of..tba
informatiDn claimed to be confidential
to be placed In the public file. AJ¥Y
information not marked a111 confidential
will be placed in the public file.
Information marked confidential will be
treated in accordance with the
procedures in Part z. Subpart B of thia
Title.
§750.37 ~
(a} Where necessary, subpoenu
requiring the production of documentary
material, the attendance of persona at
the hearing. or response111 to written .
questions may be issued. Subpoenas
may be tasued either upon request as
provided in·paragraph (b) or by EPA on
ita own motion.
(b) All subpoena requeata mwst be in
writing. Hearing participant.I may
request the i.nllance of subpoenaa u
follows:
(1) Subpoenas for the attendance of
person111 or for the production of
documeats or re111pomee to quel!ltiona at
the legislative hearing may be requested
at any time up to the .deadline for filing
main comments.
(2) Subpoen&111 for production of
documents or answers to que111tion111 after
the legislative hearing may be requested
at any time between the beginning of the
legislative hearing and the deadline for
submitting reply comments.
(c) EPA-will rule on all subpoena
requests filed under paragraph (b)(t) no
later than the beginning of the Informal
hearing. Such request111 may be granted.
denied. or deferred. EPA will rule on all
subpoena requests filed under
paragraph (b)(2) and all deferred
subpoena N!quests filed under
paragraph (b)(1) no later than the
promulgation of the final rule. Sucl
requests will be either granted or
denied.
§ 750.31 Panlctpation In lnformaf hwlng.
(a) Each person or organization
desiring to participate in the informal
hearing required by section 6{c)(2)(C) of
TSCA muat file a written request to
participate with the Hearing Clerk. This
request muat be received.no later than
seven days prior to the scheduled start
of the hearing. The hearing will begin
seven daya after the close of the thirty
day comment period or u soon
thereafter u practicable. The request
must include:
(1) A brief statement of the interest of
~e person or organization in the
proceeding:
(2) A brief outline of the points to be
addressed:
(3) An estimate of the time required:
and
( 4) If the request comes from an
organization, a nonbinding li111t of the
perso~ to take part in the preHntation
Organizations are requested to bring
with them. to the extent pouible,
employees with individual expertise in
and responsibility for each of the areas
to be addressed. No organization not
filing main comments in the rulernaking
will be allowed to participate at the
hearing, unlesa a waiver of thia
requirement ia granted in writing by the_
Hearing Chairman oi: the organization is
appearing at the request of EPA or under
subpoena.
(b) No later than three days prior to
the start of the hearing, the Hearing
Clerk will make a hearing schedule
publicly available and mail or deliver it
to each of the pel'90ns who requested to
appear at the hearing. Thia schedule will
be subject to change during the course
of the hearing at the diacretioll of thou
presiding over iL · -
( c) Openins lltatements should be
brief. and ~stricted either to pointa that
could not have been made in main
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 31583
comments or to emphasizing points
which are made in -main comments, but
which the participant believes can be
more forcefully ursed in the hearing
context.
t 750.31 ConduGt of Informal hNrtng.
(a) A panel of EPA employees shall
preside at each hearing conducted under
section 6(c)(2}(C) ofTSCA. In
appropriate cases. other Executive
Branch employees may also sit with and
assist the panel. The membership of the
panel may change as different topics
arise during the hearing. In general the
panel membership will consist of EPA
employees with special responsibility
for the final rule or special expertise in
the topics under discussion. One
member of the panel will be named to
chair the proceedings and will attend
throughout the hearing, unless
unavoidably prevented by sickness or
similar persunal circumstances.
(b) The panel may question any
individual or group participating in the
hearing o~ any subject relating to the
rulemak.ing. Cross-examination by
others will normally not be permitted at
this stage. It may be granted in
compelllng circumatances at the sole
discretion of the hearing panel.
However, persons in the hearing
audience may submit questions in
writing for the hearing panel to ask the
participants, and the hearing panel may,
at their discretion, ask these questions.
(c) Participants in the hearing may
submit additional material for the
hearing record and shall submit such
additional material aa the hearing panel
may request. All such submissions will
become part of the record of the hearing.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
shall be made. Participants will be
allowed to designate testimony from
prior EPA informal rulemaldng hearings
concerning PCBa under TSCA. The
hearing panel may reject repetitive
testimony previously presented at such
hearings.
§ 750.40 Crou-eumtnatton.
(a) After the close of the informal
hearing conducted under § 750.39, any
participant in that hearing may submit a
written request for p-oas-exammation.
The request must be received by EPA
within one week after a full transcri12.t of
the informal hearing becomes available
and must specify:
(1) The disputed i88ue(s) of material
fact u to which crou-examination is
requested This must include an
explanation of why the questions at
ftlaue are "factual", rather than of an
ailalytical or policy nature, the extent to
wbicb they are in "dispute" in tbe light
of the record made thus far, and the ·
extent to which and why they can
reasonably be considered ''material" to
the decision on the finel rule: and
(2) The person(s) the participant
desires to cross-examine, and an
estimate of the time necessary. This
must include a statement as to how the
crosa-examination requested· can be
expected to·l'.9sult in "full and true
disclosure" resolving the i88ue of
material fact involved
(b) Within one week after receipt of
all requests for cross-examination under
subparagraph (a), the hearing panel will
rule on them. The ruling will be served
by the Hearing Clerk on all participants
who have requested cross-examination
and will be inserted in the record. ·
Written notice of the ruling will be given
to all persons requesting croas-
examination and all persona to be croaa-
examined. The ruling will specify:
(1) The issues as to which cross-
examination is granted:
(2) The persons to be cross-examined
on each issue:
(3) The persons to be allowed to
conduct cross-examination: and
(4) T'ime limits for the examination of
each witness by each cross-examiner.
(c) In issuing this ruling. the panel
may determine that one or more
participants who have requested cross-
examination have the same or similar
interests and should be required to
choose a single representative for
purposes of cross-examination by that
single representative without identifying
the representative further. Subpoenas
for witneHes may be issued where
necessary.
(d) Within one week after the
insertion into the record of the ruling
under subparagraph (b), the hearing at
which the cross-examination will be
conducted will begin. One or more
members of the original panel will
preside for EPA. The panel will have
authority to conduct cross-examination
on behalf of any participant. although as
a general rule this right will not be
exercised. The panel will also have
authority to modify the governing ruling
in any respect and to make new rulings
on group representation under section
6(c)(3)(C) of TSCA. A verbatim
transcript of the hearing will be made.
(e)(l) No later than the time set for
requesting croH-examination, a hearing
participant may request that other
alternative methods of clarifying_ the
record (such u informal conferences or
the submittal of additional information)
be und. Such requestl may be ·
submitted either in lieu of cross-
examiuatiOD requeeta, or iD amjUDA:tion
with them.
(2) The panel in passing on a cross-
examination request may, as a,
precondition to ruling on its merits,
require that alternative means of
clarifying the record be used whether or
not that has been requested under
subparagraph (e)(l). In such a case. the
results of the use of such alternative
means will be made available to the
person requesting cross-examination for
a one-week comment period, and the
panel will malce a final ruling on croH-
examination within one week thereafter.
(f) Waivers or extensions of any
deadline in this section applicable to
persons other than EPA may be granted
on the record of the hearing by the
person chairing it or in writing by the
Hearing Chairman.
§ 750.41 Flnat nde.
(a) All soon as feasible after the
deadline for submittal of reply
comments, EPA will issue a final rule.
EPA will also publish at that time:
(1) A list of all material added to the
record ( other than public comments and
material from the hearing record) which
has not previously been listed in a
Federal Regiater document. and
(2) The effective date of the rule.
(b) Pursuant to the delegation of
authority made in the Preamble to the
Final -Kegwation for the PCB
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce and Use Prohibitions, the
Assistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances will grant or deny petitions
under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA
submitted pursuant to. § 750.31. The
Assistant Administrator will act on such
petitions subsequent to opportunity for
an informal hearing pursuant to this
rule.
(c) In determining whether to grant an
exemption to the PCB ban, EPA will
apply the two standards enunciated in
section 6(e)(3}(B) of TSCA.
(PR Doc. ,.1_. PUecl -79: 8>16 •ml
31584 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 106 / Thursday, May 31, 1979 / Proposed Rules
·ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFA Part 781)
[FRL 1227-7; OT'S4tl001J
Polychlortnated Bfphen)1e (PCBa);
PropoNd Rulematdng for PCB
Manutacturtng Ex.nptione
AGENCY: EnviJ'Onmental Protection
Agency.
ACT1ON: Proposed PCB exemption rule:
notice of informal hearing.
SUMMARY: This notice lists the petitions
received by EPA for exemption from the
prohibition on PCB manufacturing and
importation pursuant to section 6(e)(3)
of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 1S U.S.C. 2605(e)(3). The notice
also indicates. the most cases, which
petitions for exemption EPA proposes to
grant and which petitions the Agency
proposes to deny.
DATES: Written comments. preferably in
triplicate, must be received by the
Hearing Clerk by July 2. 1979. Hearing
Date and Time: July 9, 1979 at 10:00 a.m.
in Washington. O.C. Requeata to
participate in the hearing muat be
received by the Hearing Clerk by July Z.
1979.
ADDRESSES: Send. comment. and
requests to participate in the hearing to:
Ms. Linda Thomson. Hearing Cleric.
Office of Toxic Substances (TS-7'94),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
401 M Street. S.W .. Washington. O.C.
20460. Attention: Docket Number OTS/
066001 (PCB/ME). The hearing will be
held in Washington. D.C. The exact
location of the hearing will be made
available by calling the toll-free number ·
800-424-9065.
FOR l'URTHER INFOMIATION CONTAC'r.
John B. Ritch, Director. Office of
Cndustry Assistance (TS-799}. Office of
Toxic Substances, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street. S.W .•
Washington. D.C. 20460, telephone
(800H24-0065. or in Washington. O.C.
call 554-1404.
SUP9l.EMENTARY INFORMAT10IC Section
6( e )(3 )(A) of TSCA [Pub. I... 94-469, 90
Stat. 2003, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.)
prohibits all manufacture (including
importation) of PCBs as of January 1,
1979. EPA's regulation entitled PCB
Manufacturing. Processing. Distribution
in Commerce. and Use Prohibition Rule
(PCB Prohibition Rule) which
-implements the prohibitions of section
6( e )(3) of TSCA. appears elsewhere in
today's Federal Register. Section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA allows affected
persona to petition EPA for: exemptions
from the section 6(e)(3)(A) PCB
prohibitions. On November 1, 1978. EPA
published Interim Procedural Rules (43
FR 50905) for the filing and processing of
petitions for exemptiona from the PCB
manufacturing prohibition of section
6(e)(3) ofTSCA. More than 1ewnty
petitions for exemption have been
received. These petitions have been
consolidated into one rulemaking in
accordance with § 750. U of the Interim
Procedural Rules (43 FR at 50906).
On January 2. 1979, the Agency
announced (44 FR 108) that persona who
had filed petitions for exemptions from
the PCB manufacturing ban under
section 6(e)(3)(B} ofTSCA could
continue the manufacturing or
importation activity for which the
exemption is sought until EPA has acted
on the applicable petition.
The Interim Procedural Rules for
manufacturing exemptiona (43 FR 50905)
will be applicable to this rulemaldag.
The official record of rulemaking is
located in Room 447, East Tower.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. S.W., Washington. D.C. 20460,
telephone (202}-755-6956. It will be
available for viewing and copying Cron.
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. Hearing
transcrjpts, hearing materials and
submissions received will be added to
the record as they become available.
To facilitate informed comment. EPA
is indicating its proposed action on most
exemption petitions. For EPA to grant a
requested-exemption. the Agency must
make the findings required by section
6(e)(B)(3) of TSCA. That section reads
as foHows:
• • • the Administrator may grant by rule
such an exemption if the .Adriainutrator finds
that-
(i) An unreaaonable risk of injury to health
or environmeat would not reeuJL and
(ii) Good faith efforts have been made to
develop a chemical 1ub1tance which do• not
preaent an unreasonable ri.ak of injury to
health or the environment and which may be
substituted for such polychlorinated
biphenyL
EPA wishes to advise commentors
that for each exemption petition the
Agency may request by letter additional
information from the petitioner
concerning his petition. This informatian
would be supplementary to information
requested in this Notice. The Agency
will make such requests if it determines
that it requires the information in order
to adequately aHeH the petition.
Accordingly, persona may wish to file
reply comments under§ 750.15 of the
Interim Procedural Rules (43 FR 50996)
on any additional material filed by
petitioners in respon•• to inform~tion
requests from EPA.
Section 7S0.11(b} of the Interim
Procedural Rules established a filing
date of December 1, 1978 for all petitions
for exemption from the TSCA section
6(e)(3) PCB manufacturing (and
important) prohibition. Subsequent to
the filing date. additional petitions have-
been rec;eived by the Agency. Due to the
shortness· of the original fUing period of
thirty days, EPA has accepted all late
petitions. The Agency will decide on a
case-by-case whether petitions for
exemptions for PCB manufacturing and
importation activities filed subsequent
to the date of thia Notice should also be
accepted. If a PCB manufacturer or
importer subject to the final PCB
regulation (1) now wishes to ftle a
petition for exemption and (2) did not
earlier file a petition becauae he had
good cauae to believe his PCB activity
was not subject to the proposed
regulation (43 FR 24802. June 7, 1978), he
should indicate the basis for his prior
failure to file a petition and should
request EPA to accept his late petition.
No late petition will be accepted unJeBS
good cause can be shown for the failure
to file on time. Whether or not late
petitions are accepted will be .
announced at the informal hearing for
this rulemaking. A supplemental notice
of proposed rulema.king probably will
not be iBBued as to such petitions.
Cn the preamble to the final PCB
Prohibition Rule (see preamble section
VI.C.1.), EPA states: " ... the
prohibition applies to the manufacture
of any substance or mixture that
contains PCB at.SO ppm or greater,
includCng PCB that is an intermediate or
'impurity' or 'byproduct'. . . . While the
production of PCBs under such
circumstances may not be intentional
and may have no independent
commercial value, section 6( e) of TSCA
applies to any production of PCB1 and,
therefore. covers such activities:• EPA ia
aware that although the proposed rule
included such PCB1 in its coverage.
some manufacturers may not have
interpreted the proposed rule to include
such PCB1 and, therefore. may not have
submitted a petition for an exemption
from the manufacturing prohibition. Aa
disCUB8ed above. EPA will accept
petitions from such persona during the
comment period for this rule, if the
required showing of good faith in not
filing earlier ia made.
Several persona requested that
petitions be accepted on a cJaa1 baail.
They argued that PCB equipment
manufacturers should be able to petition
for exemptiona on behalf of those
· cuatomers who are also PCB equipmant
Fedaral a...-, Vol. t4. No..108 / 11wnday. May 31, 19'/9 f l'ropoMd Ruin
maafactu,nn or·diatrtbutOl"I •• deOned
ila lbe propoeed reswatton. • In view of
1be cbuie"wbich bu been made
concendag restrtctiom on the
manufacture of PCD equipment in the
ftnal PCB Prohibition Rule,•• EJ>A will
not accept exem.ptioo petitlom -~ •
clue buia in thi1 rwemaking However,
the Asency baa addresNd the ctueatlaa
of clua petiti9111 in the Interim
Procedural Rule1 which establish
procedures for filing and proceuing
examption petitlom from the July 1, 1979
PCB.proce11ins and distribution in
commerce prohibitiom. 11ulee Interim
Procedural Rules are found elsewhere in
today'• Federal Jlesilter. •
It ia the ~tent of EPA to grant or deny
tmr petitions for exemption from the
prohibition of the manufacture
(inclu.dJng importation) of_ PCBs subject
to thi1 rulemakins prior to August 1.
1979.
Below are listed the exemption
petitions that ~A has received. Tbeee
exemptiooa have been categorized
according to !he nature of the petition.
and the categories are indicated-by a
numbered key. The Agency's proposed
action on the petitions follo'W'I thP.
liat?,na,
~titiDllflr amJ !Jasis for Petition
Abolite Llplin8, Inc.: P.O. Box Z37. West
Lafayette, OH 43845:'
Advance Tranaformer Co .• 2850 North
WHtern Ave.. Chicqo. IL tl08'l&.1
Alumillum Company of America, 1&01 Alcoa
· Buildinl, Plttab\11'8h. PA 15Z19.1
American Hoeclut Corp .• RGute 2.02-208
North, Somerville. NJ 08876. •
Binney and Smith, lac., 1100 Church Lane.
P.O. Box 431, Euton. PA 18042. •
Borden, Inc.. Borden Chemical Oiviaion. 830
Glendale-Milford Rd~ Cincinnati, OH
45.."15 ••
•s.e the definition of '"PCB" in Seatfon 7111~ q) of
the propoeed PCB Prohibition Rule (43 FR at 2tllt3.
June 7; 111781 and the deftnltlen of '"PCB Equipment"
in Sec:t1011 7&1.2(v) of :he final PCE Diapoeal end
Muking Rule (43 FR at 1157, February 11, 19181.
• •Tbi, cbeJ1119 clu■ifln the manufacture of PCB
.iqaii:;iMDt H "proce■aing" 1Ubject to prohibition H
of }uly'l, 1117'11 under Section Ole)(3)(A)[ti) of TSCA.
The propoud n!gWatlon clauified auch activtty u
"rnanufactu.-e" aubject to prohibition 118 of1anaary
i . 19'11 under Section e(e)(3J(A)(l), For further
,liac1111■ion. -Section VUU.a. of the pr11emble to
the final r".:ll Prohibition Rule. which ar,;,ean
eiarwhere m to,fay'a Fedenl Rasi■ta-
1 ileqllflta an exemptior: in order to menu.facture
either fiuorncenl or High lntemlty Dlacha~ (HID)
lii!btina fixture■ with a PCB capacitor or PCB ballut
tnnefonner.
• l?equc,t1 en eumption in order to manufacture • :s Lai!a,t l:'&m!or:uen whl::h can be ueed by itl
1:1:,:omcrt In tlie menufacture ,;f fill0r'C9cent and
HID ltgbtlt.& fiaturH.
• ktt0ue~t1 en exemption In order to continue
r>anJft·ch:rir.JI allllllillwn chloride which i■
c.cnt.tminr.te<! wtth PCl!s.
•R~nett~ u exemption to either manufacture or
i ~pot! dilirylld• yeUow or phthalocy11nlne pismentl.
Cbwwwtaw Plplanta. Dl'rilioli of Ch--. . C.,.. m Colwabill Ave.. Holland. Ml
4NZ1.•
Qaemteel Wat..Me .......... t Limited. m Kins SlrNt. P.O. Bax 12111. St. Cadlartn-.
Ontario. Caneda L2R.1A1.'
Cbia, Mei U.8.A. Ltd.. SIIO Plltb Aw.. Im.
1825. l'Jew York. NY 10001. •
Chv:lnnati Milacron Inc:.. 4201 Mubuq A~ ..
Clnc:innat\ OH '5ZOI. •
Colt lndutri-. Inc.. Fairbanka Morw Pump
Oiviaion. 3801 Fairbanka Ave.. Kanau City,
KSee110.'
Columbia l.Jptlns Inc.. Terminal Anna. Box
'J:lft1 • Spokane, w A. I
Control Data Corporation. Autocon !ndU1trin
Inc.. Subsidiar, of Control Data Corp.. 2300 Berkahire Lane. Minneapoll.a. MN ss+n.'
Copeland Corp~ Sidney, OH 46385.'
CrouN-Hind1 Co .. P.O. Box 4898, Wolf and
Sevmth North St., SyraCUH, NY 13%21. 1
DainichiNWl Color & Chemical,. America.
Inc.. 20 Hook Mountain R~ Pine Brook. NJ
07058..
Dainippon Ink & Chemical, Am9rica._ Inc.. 200
Pvlt Ave., New York; NY 10017. •
Day-Brite Lighting. 1015 South Green SL. P.O.
Drawer 1687, Tupelo. MS 38801.'
Dow Coming Corp .. Midland, MI 48840. •
Ounham-Buah. Inc.. 101 Buraua Road.
Hamaonbutg. VA 22801. 1•
Emel'90n Quiet Kool Corp .. 400 Woodbine
Ave .. Woodbridp, NJ 0'108i.1
.Emeraon Electric Co .. Industrial Control
Divilion. 3300 S. Standard St., P.O. Box
1879, Santa Ana. CA 92701.1•
Emel'90n Electric Company, Gearmaa&er
Diviaion. 111011 S. Route 31, Mc:Hen,y, IL
ll0050."
General Electric Company, 3135 Easton
Turnpike, Fairfield. CT 08431. 1 n 2 ,.
Globe Wumination Company, 1515 W. 178th
St.. Gardena. CA~'
Guardian Chemical Corp .• EHt1lffl Chemical
Diviaioa. 230 Man:u Blvd., Hauppauge, NY
11787 ...
Guardian Lil!ht Co~ SUS W. Lake SL,
Chlc:qo, IL 60844. '
Halstead Induatrie1, Inc., Halateacf al'ld
Mitcbell/Divi1ion. Hil!hway 72 Weat.
Scottsboro, AL 35788. 11
Harmon Color■ Corp., 560 Belmont Ave.,
Haledon. NJ ~508. •
Harvey Hubbell, Inc., (Lishting Diviaion), 2000
Electric Way. Chriltianinq, VA 24073. 1
• Requeeta a .umiition in ordar to import into
the United Stltn PCB wa■te material for diaoolal.
• 11.equat■ an exemption In order to·iDCCl'Jklr■te
!'CBI ■1 en additive component In rtlld PVC
,·il>ration damping device■ ueed in lari,e machine
tool■•
'Requnta an exemption in order tn u•e PCB
capacitora in the mmu.facture of electri:: pum?• and
water and WHte water control ay■tema.
'Rr.iueats en.exemption in order to u■e PCB
capaatton in the 111anufacture of air condltionera or
eir conditioner 1Uo-ueemblle1.
• Req-1■ m exemption in 01-der to continue
manufac:turinl en unapecifled chemical ueing • PCB
contaminated iDtermediate.
•• Requo■ta 11.11 eio.emptlon in wear to manufacture
motOl'II 111ing • PCB capeci1or or to manufactl!NI
a:icther product or ayllem uaq IDCb • motor.
11 R■'IUHta m exemption In order to continue
manufeclllJ'Ul8 phat1ylchloroeiluN witil
unu:tentioncl PCB lmpurttie1.
:: Requesta an C!XPIIIJition in order t:. sci: & 11r.ell
quantity ('( PCB.
Hercul-. Inc.. noMaubt s~ WUJl!rintloa
. DE 111111.•
Hilla-McCenna Co.. 400 Maple·Aw..
~lllrffilla. iL 80110. ••
Hilton-Davia Cbmaical Co~ DIYialcm of
Stedma 0rua Inc.. Z235 Lenadon Pum Road. Cm:lmlatl, OH 45237; •
Houywell. lac.. m, Smitb St.. Weltbam. MA
OZ15'. ..
.ICJ ~1, Inc.. Wilmiagtoa. DB 1889'/. 4
International Telephone & Telearaph Corp.,
280 C:ochituate Road. Suite 109,
Pramington. MA 07101. 1
Intsel Corp~ 825 Third Ave~ New York. NY
10022.1♦
Keene Corporation-Lil!htins Divilior ..
!ndU1trial Way, Wilmington. MA 01887.1
Keyatone Lighting Corp., Inc., U.S. 13 &
Beaver Street,. BriatoL PA 19007. 1
Kramer Trenton Co., Box 820. Trenton. NJ oaeos.••
Lightolier. Inc.. 348 Claremont Ave~ Jeraey
City, NJ 07305. I
Litton Induatrial Products, Inc.. Loui1 Allis
Diviaion. 16555 West Ryerson Road. New
Berlin. WI 53151. ••
Litton Microwave CookiD8, Utton Sy1tim1.
Inc.. P.O. Box 9481, Minneapolia. MN
55-14(). ,. -
Litton Systems Inc., Jeffert10n Electric
Diviaion. 840 South 25th AYe .. Bellwood. It
601CK.'
Marathon Electric Manufacturi[1€ Ccrp .• P:O.
Box 1407, Wamau. W1 54401."
McGraw-Ediaon Co~ Area Lighting Olv., 7801
Durand Ave .. Racine, W1 53405.1
McGraw-Ediaon Ca., ICitcben Applian01
Divilion. P.O. Box 1111, Cbattanoo8a, TN"
37401. ,.
Metelux Corp~ P.O. Box 1207, Americua. GA
31709.1
The Miller Company, Lll!hting Divilion, 99
Center Street. Meridian. CT 08450. 1
Montedieon USA. Inc.. 1114 Ave. of the
Americu, New York City, NY 10038. •
Nagaae America Corp~ 50IU"lfth Ave~ New
York. NY 10036. •
National Service■ lncwstrie■, Utbonia
Lighting Div .. 1335 lnduatrial Blvd. NW.,
Conyera. GA 30207. 1
National Solid Waate Management
Association. 1120 Connecticut Ave.,NW .•
Wa■hinRton. DC 20036.'
Phillipa Petroleum Company, 10 C2 Phillipa
Bldg;, Bartle■ville. OK 74004."
Pbthalchem Inc .. 6675 Beecblands Dr .•
Cincinnati, OH 45237. •
Pope Chemical Corp .• 33 Sixth Ave .. Paterson. NJ 07524.'
Prescolite. 1251 Doolittle Drive, San Leandio,
CA 94557.'
11 Requeata en exemption in order to import PCB
equipment end ■mall PCB capacitol'9 for p.:rpo■e1 o(
repair. r11plecement and trade-in.
"Requa1t■ an exemption in order to import a
dielectric called EIEctrephenyl T-60 wbicb i:.
r.unfaminated with PCl3.
11 Reque1t1 m exemption in order to aae PCB
capa,citora in the manu.facture of power converaion
eqwpmenL
•• Reque1ta an exemption In order to u»e PCB
capac11ora in the menufactunt cf mioroweve oven,.
"P.equest■ &.n exemption in order to l::iport PCB¥
for u■e in l'ftNrch end de·,elopment o( en
unq,ecified chemical il:ti,rmediate.
31588 Federal Raplts / VoL 44. No. 108 / Thursday,-MaJ 31. 1919 l Propoaed Rules
Rldpway Color• Chemical of
WheeJabrator-Fry~ Inc.. 75 Front St..
Rldpway, PA 1W3. •
RoWna P.nvironmental s.mc.. IDc., One
Rollina Plua. P.O, Box~ Wilrnlnpon
DE 191111.1
Sandoz. Inc.. Sandos Colon and Chemlcala
Dlviaion, 58 Route 10. Ea,at Hanover, NJ
0793a.•
Sim-Kar Lilhtlna FixtuN Co.. IDc.. 601 Eut
Cayup Sa.t. Philadelphia, ?.A 19UD.1
Spero Electric Corp.. 18ZZZ Lanken Ave..
Cleveland, OH 44119. 1 ·
Sta-Rite lndutriN Inc., Suita 3300, 'i1/7 Ea1t
Wllcomin Ave., Milwaukee, wt 53202.'
Stauffer ChlDlicaJ Company, on behalf of
SWS SWCOIIH Corp. Sub■ldfary, We■tport.
CT08880 ...
Steelca■e lnc.. 1120 38dt Street. Grand
Rapid-. Ml 49110l. 1
Stemw Liahtm& Sy1tem1, Inc.. 351 Lewie
Ave., NW .. WiDltead. MN 553915.1
Sun Chemical Corp., Plpientl Dtvl1ian.
Re■earch Ii Operatiom Center, 4825 Eut
Ave., Clndnn•H,, OH 45232.4
Sumitomo Carpontkm of A---. 315 Pua
Ave., New York. NY lOOZZ. • ·
Tappan AJr Conditlon1nt-Smith Jonea, Inc..
2011 Woodford Ave., Elyira. OH 44035.'
Tlvian Chemical ANociate1, 720 Union
Street. Mam:be■ter. NH an~,.
Thoma Indu■trie■• Inc.. Benjama Oivllion.
P.O. Box ieo. Sparta. TN 381583. 1
Toyo Ink America. Inc.. 580 Sylvan Ave.,
Englewood Cliff■• NJ 07832. •
Univenal Manufactunna Corp., 28 E. Ith
Street. P•teno.i. NJ i'0508. I
Vivitar Corp .. 11130 Stewart Street. Santa
Monica. CA 90408. •
Weatherldns, Inc.. P.O. Box 20434, Orl1111do.
FL 32814.'
We■tinshoUN Elec1ric Corp .. Lighting
B111ine11 Unit. P.O. Box 8Zt. Vickaburg. MS
39180.1 19
Whiteway Manufacturing Co .. 1738 Dreman
Avenue. CinciDDatL OH 45223.1
Wide-Ute Corp .. P.O. Box 1101S. Redwood Rd.
& lli35, San Man:oa, TX 7881111.1
Wylain. lnc;, Mold Caal f.iahtina Dtviuon. 1-
80 at Maple Avenue, Pine Brook, NJ 07058. 1
EPA baa completed a preijminary
analysis of the above-listed petitions for
exemption from the PCB Prohibition
Rule which was promalgated elsewhere
in today's Fedenlllegiater. The Agency
has decided that It will not evaluate at
this lime any of the 49 requests for
exemption from the prohibitions on
manufacturing equipment which
contains a PCB capacitor. (The requests
"Requntl an exemptloa in order to continue
lmpc>l1lna a polyliloxana intarmediate which la UNd
ill the manufac:ture .of heat curable ailicona rubber
product& and which "la coataminated with 800 ppm
PCBa. Chemical (poly1iloxa111 lntenudlateJ la
dnc:ribed ...-ncailJ ~-:,,:uu.a Jiu
claimed conlldanClal IN far ldaadl:J ol
chemical
"Requm 1111 aampClaa ID arda to CQD&mM
unapedllad acth1Ty wllidl may be aubfect to eidia
JanuarJ 1. 1m ar J,dy t. 1ffll pvbibi!t-'iN ..._
diKuaionlllebl■Nolia
•Raqunt■ 111 ~ Ill order ID UN PCB
capacitara ID ttae _,__.«~c aawaen-
which fall in dUII category are tboae
footnoted with .numben 1. Z. '1, a. 10, 13.
15, 18. 20.) EP.A ia not proceuing these
requests tn the pnsent Proceedlns
becauae, u prnioualy noted, the
Agency definee iil the final PCB
Prohibition Rule the activity ol
"manufacturiq" eq)lipment utiliziq a
PCB capacitor as "proc:eaaiq'" of PCBL
Procetaing of-PCBs i1 not subject 1o
aect1oD 8(e)(3) until July 1, 1979.
EPA will comidar patitiou
conceming PCB proc;eaaiog ac:tmti•. iia
a subaequent procaediq. Penam wbo
flied requnta far examptiom far th.ta
activity will .not be required to refile.
However, they will be required under
Interim Procedural Rules, found
elsewhere in today61 Fedanl Repam, ta
indicate to EPA-in writing if they wiaa.
their petitio1111 to be conaidered aa
requata for exemption Crom the July 1,
1979 prohibfttOQ. on proceestra or
diatribution iQ co111111erce 1lf PCEle.
Impom ol PClt_W __
Chemical Wute Manqement. Ltd..
the National Solid W..te Mavp •·'
Association. and tba Rollina
Eoviromnmtal SemcN. Inc., peUlioned
to continue. ~tiaa olPCB WMte
material into the U.S. far parpoN9 ol
dispoaal. These petftiom have hem
mooted by the PCB Prohibition Rule
published el.aewhere in today'■ F..._
Regist•. For the reuona explained in
the preamble to that.regulatiaa, EPA has
decided to allow: import■ and export■ of
PCB waste for dlspoaal (10 lCJDR o such
disposal is in accordance with Subpart B
of the regulation) until May 1. 1980.
Aacordingly, no petitions for
impmation of PCB wastes for diapoaal
are required.
Manufacture and Import of _Jl'lgm,mts
EPA proposes to grant all of the
requests to either manufacture or import
diarylide and phthalocyanine pigments
containing more than 50 ppm PCB.
(These petitiom are identified ~ the
above Ii.at with ~ootnote number 4).
Information submitted with the requeats
and testimony and written comments
received during the n1lemaki"8 for the
PCB ManufacturiJJ& ProceaaiD&
Distribution in Commerce and Use
Prohibition Rule which EPA
promulgated today indicates (1) granting
these exemption requeats would not
result iD an umeuonable riak otl iDjary
to health or the environment and (Z}
good faith efforts are being made by the
pigmeat industry to develop aJtemattve
proc.,_ far IDIIIDlillCbarmS tbe
diarylide and ~ pjgm,anta
without PCB coatammatlaa. Moat of
these pigments have PCB COllClldNtiam
in the nmse of ■evera1 hundred puta per
million. Theee PCBa cannot auily I» .
separated ~ the pi.,,..,,, beGauae ·of
the structural similarity ol the PCBa with
the pigmeota. Once mamzfactured. the
pigJDenta are mixad with other
substanee, to form paints. iDb, and a
variety otl other prodw:ta.
ID dacidiog whetbec to peaait
continued pigment manufacture. EPA_
has conaiclereJi the relatively limited
humu and environmental expoaura to
PCBe involved and the economic effects
associated with protiibiting manufacture-
of thne pigments. The great.eat poteatiaJ
far exposure ~ in the appllcatioD of the
paints and inks-using tbeN pigmeilta.
These products _contain far lea than SO
ppm PCB because of the dilution that
tale• place when the pigment ia mixad
with the medium it ia coloring. A.a a
result, the health and enviromneotaL -
risks are relatively sma1L At the preaea.t
time, these partfcu4tr pigm.ents account
for moat of the yellow and·blue pigmeota
in uae and a significant portion of the
total pigment market. If the manufacture
of the11:9 pigments ia not permitted until
the conversion to alternative pl'OCNIU
is complete, th.-e will be a anere
impact OD the pigment µMiuatry as well
as Its cuatomera lo the paint and graphic
arts industries.
The potential costa of compliance will
be greatly reduced if an exemption ia
granted while proceH changes to reduce
PCB contamination are made. It is
anticipated lhat such changes can be
made over a period of a year or two.
The increased health and environmental
risk will be relatively small aa there will
be limited exposure to PCBs a, a result
of the exemption.
Furthermore, the granting of these
exemption requests will be consistent
with the authorization for continued use
of phthalocyaniDe and diarylide yellow
pigments which is contained lo the final
PCB Prohibition& Rule.
EPA especially invites comment not
only on the merits of granting 1he. above
described petitions. but also on the
terms and conditions which the Agency
should apply to such exemptions if
granted.
Import of PCB F.quipmeat
Honeywell lnc.'s request to be
permitted to continue importing.PCB
equipment will not ht! evaluated in this
proceeding but will be evaluated (if
requested) tn the future ru1emaking
dealiag with exempttom from the
prohibition on processing and
distribatian m oonun,rce J PCBa. The
PCB Prohfbittan Rule wldch EPA
prouwjpted lodaJ treats importation of
PCB eqai.-mt -iD the ame mmmw aa
hderal .._ / Vol 44. No. 106 / Thursday. May 31, 1979 / Pft>P._Oted Rules 31581
1be domestic HU1Dbly of 1Uch
eqalpmmt and. therefore. IUCh activily
la not prohibited until July 1, 197'9.
OdmPlillllou
Guardian Chemical Corporaticm'a
•aqueet to be pannitted to •ll nuill
·~ of 4.4'-Dichlorodlpbenyl-_,._ _.a Ja---,. l'Upllt aJao will
not be naluated 1IOW but will be
evaluated (if requeated) in the
prorming and diatnbution iD commer,:e
exemption proceeding. Guardian did not
indicate that they in any way
manufacture PCBa. However, it doee
appear that the activity which ia eeeka
to continue is the "distribution in
commerce" of PCBs.
Similarly, the petition submitted by
Cincinnati Milacron which. if granted.
would permit the company to continue
to UH PCBa 88 an edditive component in
their manufacture of polyvinyl chloride
vibration damping devices will not be
considered now but will be considered
in the future proceeding. if requested.
The reason for delayins the processing
of Cincinnati Milacron'• petition is that
EPA haa detennined that the company's
use of PCBs is "processing" 88 that term
is defined by the PCB Prohibition Rule
and ii therefore not subject to this
proceedins-
Exampdoa Requests PropoNd To Be
Denied
EPA proposes to deny Intsel
Corporation's request to import
Electrophenyl T-60 and Phillips
Petroleum Company's request to import
significant quantities of PCBs for
unspecified research and development
purposes. Neither of the requestora have
shown that they are maJdns a sood faith
effort to develop substitutes which do
not contain SO ppm or greater PCBs, nor
that the adverse economic or other
consequences ofEPA's denying the
requNts outweigh the potential harm to
health and the environment of EPA'.s
granting the request.a.
Exemption Rec;uests for Which a
Detennination B Not Propoaed
EPA has not proposed its disposition
of the requests received from Alcoa
which respect to its manufacture of
aluminum chloride and the General
Electric Co. with respect to its
manufacture of phenylchlorosilanes due
to the technical complexity of the
activities for which exemptions are
sought
Before making a determination with
respect to these exemption.petitions, the
Agency will seek. by means of written
requests to the companies and by this
notice, !urther comment.a and/ or data.
Additional information on tbeN
petttiou is given below.
Alcoa requested a one-year
exemption for the manufacture of
approximately-132.77 million poanda of
aluminum 1:hlorida at-ita facility in
AnCWl'IIOD County, Texn. The proceaa
WOllld result in the annual production of
appnximately 9.21M pounda of PCBa.
95,. of which is concentrated and
disposed of as a PCB mixture. The
remaining 5" represents an impurity in
the aluminum chloride which Alcoa sells
for a variety of uses. Comments and
data are requested on the health and
environmental riaka that would be posed
by grantin3 Alcoa's exemption and also
on the riaka aHociated with using the
aluminum chloride for applicationa other
than smeltins aluminum. In particular,
EPA ia interested in information
resardins processes for the production
of aJ~um chloride which do not
produce PCBa. In addition. EPA invites
comments on the economic or other
adverse impacts, that denial of the
exemption would have on Alcoa's users
of thia product.
General Electric seeks an exemption
to continue the manufacture of
phenyichlorosilanes with unintentional
PCB impurities. The manufacturing
proceBS results in approximately 50,000
pounds per year of PCBs which are
removed and concentrated· for disposal
in an on-site incineration facility in
Waterford, New York. The
phenylchlorosilanea are used in the
production of a number of high
performance silicone products for
various industrial. aerospace, and
defense !lPPlications. Comments and
data are requested on the health and
environmental risk associated with
granting or denying General Electric's
exemption petition, on alternative
methods of manufacturing
phenylchlorosilanes without PCB
contamination, and on the impact of
denying this petition on the users of this
chemical.
EPA has also not proposed its
disposition of the petition of Tivian
Chemical Associates. EPA is seeking to
clarify whether Tivian's activity for
which exemption is sought is subject to
the January 1, 1979 prohibition on PCB
manufacture and importation. or rather
to the July 1, 1979 prohibition on PCB
processing and distribution in
commerce. ·
In addition. EPA has not proposed its
disposition of the petitions of Dow
Coming Corporation and Stauffer
Chemical Company. EPA currently does
not have sufficient information to
determine whether exemptions should
be proposed for these companies. Dow
Comins bu not identified •th• substance
which it wiabes to manufacture and the
amount of PCB<:ontaminetion iD the
chemical intermediate. Stauffer baa not
provided sufficient j.nformation
concernios the identity of products
which may be Sllbjet;:t to PCB
contamination. !YA will seek. by meana
of writtea requeata to both companies.
to clarify tbe identity of the products
identified in the petitiona of the
companies. and the nature of the
manufacturing processes, which
includes determining whether
intermediates are contaminated during
the manufacturing proceu;
Section 750.13-of the Interim
Procedural Rules does not require EPA
to &Mounce its proposed disposition of
exemption petitions in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemakins, Due to the need
to expedite action on the exemption
petitions. EPA will not publish a
subsequent notice conceming the Alcoa.
General Electric. Tivian. Dow Coming
and Stauffer petitions.
Dated: May 11, 1979.
Mati!YD C. Bracbn,
Acting Auistant Administrator for Toxic
Substances.
(FR Dae. ,.._1_ PUed ..,_711: e,ea amt
a.&.INCI am -..1-11
(40 CFR Part 781)
[FRL 1227-tJ
Polychlortnated Blphenyla (PCBa>;
Amendment to Criteria for Chemlcal
Wute Landfllla
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed amendment to final
rule: notice of informal haanns.
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would
modify Annex ll of Subpart E of the
Polychlorinated Biphenyls regulation
promulgated elsewhere in today's
Federal Register unijer the authority of
section 6(e} of the Toxic Substances
Control Act. The proposed rule would
amend the criteria for chemical waste
landfills by reducing the required
distance between the bottom of the
chemical waste landfill liner system and
the historical high water table from fifty
feet to five feet.
DATU: Written comments, preferably in
triplicate, must be received prior to the
close of busine11 July 16, 1979. Informal
hearing date and time (if a hearing is
requested}: Ausust 6, 1979, at 10:00 a.m.
in Washington, DC. Requests to hold a
hearins and to participate in the hearing
must be received prior to the close of
31511 Fedaal ...... / Vol '4. No. 108 / Th.Ul'lday, May 31. 1919 / Rules and Rqulatiom
buaineu on July 18. 197'9. See
Supplementary Ia!ormation below.
ADDM-• Send comrnear• to:
Document Control Offlcar {TS-793).
Office of Toxic Subatancu.-U.S.
· F.:r.ironme::ital Protectioo Agency, 401 M
Street. SW, Wuhingtcm. DC-20t08. Attn:
Docket NlllllbK OTS/066000{PCB/RR).
The infomw hearina {if a bearins ~
requuted) will be held in Wuhiagtoa.
DC. The exact location of to bearing
will be made available by calling the
toll-free number ~ Addrw
requeeta to participate to Ma. Linda
Thomson. Hearing Clerk. Office of_Toxic
Substances {'I'S-794). U.S.
En'VP'Onrneotel ~tection Asency, 401 M
Street. SW, Wuhiogton. DC 20480. Attn:
Docket Number OTS/oeeooo(PCB/RR)
The telephone number for Ma. Thomson
ia (202}-75&-1188.
ffOII l'UIITHD NICIMIA110N CONTACT:
John B. Ritch. Jr .. Director, Office of
Industry Assistance. Office of Toxic
Subatancea (TS-799}. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street. SW,
W aahington. DC 20460. Call the toll free
number (800}-424-9065, (in Washington. oc. 5~1404).
SUPPUMIYff AIIY INPORIIATIOIC The
Environmental Protection Agency
proposes this rule pursuant to the
authority of section 6{e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (Pub. L. 94-469:
90 Stat. 2003; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.,
hereinafter referred to aa TSCA). The
procedures for rulemaking under section
6 ofTSCA (40 CPR Part 750), 42 FR 61269
(December Z. 1977), will be followed.
The official record of rulemaking is
located in Room 447, East Tower.
Environmental Protection ~ency, 401 M
Street, SW. Washington, DC 20460,
(202)-755-6956. It will be available for
viewing and copyingfrom 9 a.m. to 4
p.m .. Monday through Friday, excluding
holidays. Hearing transcripts and other
hearing materials will be added to the
record as they become available.
I. Chemical Waste Landfill Criteria
In Annex II of Subpart E of the PCB
Rule (published elsewhere in today's
Feder&I R~ster), the Agency specifies
criteria for chemica l waste landfills to
be used for the disposal of PCBs. Section
761.41(b)l3), Hydrologic Conditions,
·states that the bottom of the landfill
liner system or natural in-place soil
barrier must be at least fifty feet from
the historical high water table. This
requirement ia e88entially the same aa
the provisions contained in
§ 761.41(b)(2), Hydrology, of the PCB
Disposal and Marking Rule ( 43 FR 7150,
7161. February 17, 1978). The earlier
version of the PCB Rules will be
auperaeded in thirty daya by the llCB
Rule published in final form today.
Becauae the diatance betwlHm the
bottom of a chemical wute laudfU1 and
the liiatorical hiah water table cannat be
fifty feet or more in many areu eat of
the Mlui.alippi River due t.o the
cloaeneu of the water table to the
surface, EPA Regional Adminiatraton
have had to uae the waiver proviafona of
I 761.41(c)(4) to waive this criterion in
order to be able to-approve PCB
chemical waste landfllla. The Regional
Adminiatratorll have been able to grant
these waivera because the aborter
separation between the bottom of the
landfill and the groundwater wu foUDd
not to present an umeuooable risk of
injury to health or the envil:oomen~ from
PCBs. After ll!'Qffliuing the
circumBtaoces related to these waivers.
EPA has concluded. for the reuone
stated below, that the fifty foot criterion
in the rule ia too stringen~...and that the
rule should be modified accerdingiy.
The state of the art in the design and
construction of chemical waste landfill
liner systema and leachate detection
and collection ayatema baa advanced
sufficiently 80 that the bottom of the
liner system can be aa close aa five feet
from the historical high water table. The
liner systems are designed to be
virtually impermeable, and the leachate
collection systems are designed as a
back-up measure to help insure that the
liner system is not penetrated by liquids.
This approach has also been included in
the proposed EPA Hazardowa Waste
Guidelines and Regulations (40 CFR Part
250) [see 43 FR 58946-59028, December
18. 1978) in § 250.~2(a)(2) proposed
under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
This proposed change would modify
§ 761.41(b](3), Hydrologic Conditions. of
the PCB Rule, to change from fifty feet to
five feet the required minimum distance
between the bottom of the liner system
and the historical high water table.
II. Effective Date
It is the intent of EPA to make the
final version of this proposed
amendment effective thirty days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register. The final 1>romulgation of this
rule is expected in September 1979.
Dated: May 11, 1979.
Marilyn C. Bracbn.
Acting As.istant Administrator for Toxic
Substo.'lces.
Pursuant to the Toxic Substances
Control Act 15 U.S.C. 2605, and
pursuant to authority dlllegated in the
Bac;lcground section of the Preamble to
the Final PCB Regulation publiahed
elsewhere in today's FedeNl .._...,
the following amendment to 40 CFR
Chapter I. Part 761 la propoNd.
SUbpart E-u.t of Annnee
Annexll
Section 781.41 ia amended by reviains
subparagraph (b)(3) to read u follows:
1711.41 Cllelnlcal ............
• •
(b) •••
(3) Hydrologic Condition& The bottom
of the landfill liner system or natural in-
place soil barrier shall be at least five
feet above the historical high
groUD4water table. Floodplains,
shorelan~ and groundwater recharge
areu shall be avoided. There shall be
no hydraulic connection between the
,ita and. standing or flowing surface
water. The site shall have monitoring
wells and leachate collection.
(Pll Daa. ,.._,_fllacl --...
N.&.NICON .........
--'E.. ---
--------------:::
---
--------
Wednesday
August 25, ·1982
Part II
AP PENDIX C
Environmental
Protection Agency
Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution In
Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Electrical Equipment
37342 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[OPT$-(62015C); TSH-FRL 2184-6)
. Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution In Commerce an~ Use
Prohibitions; tlse In Electrical
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends
portions of the existing PCB rule; this
action is being taken in response to an
order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. This
rule authorizes the use of PCBs in
capacitors and the use and servicing of
PCBs in electromagnets, circuit
breakers, voltage regulators, reclosers,
cable, switches (including sectionalizers
and motor starters), and transformers
other than railroad transformers. It also
provides for the distribution in
commerce and disposal of this electrical
equipment.
DATES: These amendments shall be
considered promulgated for purpose of
judicial review under section 19 of
TSCA at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
on September 8, 1982. These
amendments shall be effective on
September 24, 1982. As of August 19,
1982, the previsions of the PCB rule (44
FR 31514, May 31, 1979; recodified at 47
FR 19527, May 6, 1982) amended by this.
action and the Interim Measures
Program (46 FR 16090), March 10, 1981)
are no longer in effect unless the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit has acted to stay
further its mandate. EPA has asked the
court for a stay of the mandate that
would leave the i979 rule as it appliei; to
electrical equipment and the Interim_
Measures Program in effect until these
amendments becc1me effective. The
court has not acted as of the date of
-signature of these a~ndments. If the
court does grant EPA's request, the
court's action will likely be retroactive
to August 19, 1982. As a matter of
Agency policy, EPA will not enforce the
provisions of section 6( e) of TSCA
against any person who complies with
the pro\'_isions of the 1979 rule and the
Interim Measures Program between the .
expiration of the current stay, August 19,
1982, and the date when the court grants
EPA's re.quest of this rule becomes
effective,•whichever comes first.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas G. Bannerman, Acting
Director, Industry Assistance Office
(TS-799), Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
E-509, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, Toll free: (800-424-9065), In
Washington, D.C. {554-1404), Outside
the USA: (Operator-202-554-1404).
Copies of this rule and its support
documents can be obtained from the
Industry Assistance Office listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
0MB Control Number: 2070-0003.
I. Recodification of 40 CFR Part 761
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 761, which regulates
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), has
been reorganized. Notice of the ·
recodification appears in the Federal
Register of May 6, 1982 (47 FR 19527).
This final rule uses the following new
designa Uons:
Old designation New designation
Subpart A, §761.2 .................................. Subpart A, §761 .3.
Subpart B, §761.10 ................................ Subpart D, §7il,60.
Subpart C, § 761.20 ................................ Subpart C, § 761 .40.
Subpart 0, § 761.30 ................................ Subpart B, §761.20.
Sullpart 0, §761.31.. .............................. Subpart B, §7.61.30 ..
Subpart E, §761.42 ................................ Subpart D, §_761.65.
II. Background
Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) generally prohibits
the use of PCBs after January 1, 1978.
The statute-sets forth two exceptions
under which EPA may, by rule, allow a
particular use of PCBs to continue.
Under section 6(e)(2) of TSCA, EPA may
allow PCBs to be used in a "totally
enclosed manner." A "totally enclosed
manner" is defined by TSCA to be "any
manner which will ensure that any
exposure of human beings or the
environment to a polychlorinated
biphenyl will be insignificant, as
determined by the Administrator by
rule." TSCA also allows EPA to
authorize the use of PCBs in a manner
other than a "totally enclosed manner"
if the Agency finds that the use "will not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment."
EPA promulgated a rule, which was
published in the Federal Register of May
31, 1979 (44 FR 31514), to implement
sections 6(e) (2) and (3) ofTSCA. This
rule is listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations under_40 CFR Part 761. The
rule designated all'intact, nonleaking
capacitors;electromagnets. and
transformers other than railroad
transformers as "totally enclosed", thus
permitting their use without specific
authorization or conditions: The
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appea1s for
the District of Columbia Circuit to
review that portion of the PCB rule that.
designated the use of intact, nonleaking
capacitors, electromagnets and
transformers (other than railroad
transformers) as "totally enclosed.'-'
(Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 636
F.2d 1267). On October 30, 1980, the
court decided that there was insufficient
evidence in the record to support the '
Agency's classification of transformers,
capacitors, and electromagnets as
totally enclosed. The court invalidated
this portion of the rule and remanded it
to EPA for further action. The effect of
this decision would have been to make
the use of capacitors, electromagnets,
and transformers other than railroad.
transformers, containing any
concentration of·PCBs a vi,olatjon of
section 6(e) of TSCA. An immediate ban
of these uses would not only have
disrupted electric service but would also
have caused severe economic hardship
for the public and United States
industry. Therefore, EPA concluded that
it was completely impractical to ta~e no
action and allow a total ban on the U{le
of this equipment to go into effect
immediately.
· On January 21, 1981, EPA, EDF, and
cl!rtain industry intervenors in EDFv.
EPA filed a joint motion with the court.
The motion asked for a stay cif the
court's mandate setting aside the·
classification of transformers, -
capacitors, and electromagnets as
totally enclosed. During the period of the
stay, EPA agreed to conduct a
ru!-emaking on the use of PCBs in·
electrical equipment beginning with an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (A,NJ>R). In addition, the
Edison Electric Institute (EEi) through
the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
(USWAG) agreed to develop some of the
factual material ne·cessary for the '
rulemaking. The parties also agreed on
interim risk-reduction measures (the
Interim Measures Program) for
transformers containing PCBs at 50 ppm
or greater. They suggested that the court
make these measures a condition of.the
eighteen-month stay.
On February 12, 1981, the court
granted the requests of the joint motion
and entered an order. The text of the
court's order was published in the
Federal Register of March tU, 1981, along
with EPA's ANPR on the use of PCBs in ··
electrical equipment (46 FR' 16090 and 46
FR 16096, respectively): The court's .
order allows the totally enclosed ·
plassification (40 CFR 761.20), to remain
in effect for'. the duration of the stay.
Therefore, persons who use PCB-
containing transformers, capacitors, and
Feder,I Register / VqL 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 37343·.
electromagnets may use this electrical
equipment during the stay of the court's
mandate, providing that tbey comply
with the PCB rule and the Interim
Measures Program which is detailed in
the court's order.
The February 12, 1981, court order
required EPA to promulgate a final rule
within six months of receipt of the study
from EEf/USWAG. Since the final report
of the EEI/USWAG study was received
on February 19, 1962, EPA was required
to promulgate this final rule on the use
of PCBs in electrical equipment by
August 19, 1982. EPA's proposed rule
regarding the use of PCBs in electrical
equipment was published in the Federal
Register of April Z2.. 1982 (41 FR 17426).
This final rule will become effective
on September 24, 1982. The court-
ordered stay of mandate is currently
scheduled t.9 expire on August 19, 1982.
ff that mandate were fo issue before this
rule becomes effective. the use of PCB's
in electrical equipment covered by the
use authorizations contained in this rule
would be a violation of secUoo 6(e)(2) of
TSCA until the rule becomes effective.
Therefore, on August 5, 1982, EPA
requested that the court further stay its
mandate until November 1, 1982. As of
the date of signature of these
amendments, the court has not acted on
·EPA,'s request. EPA expects that the
court will grant the further stay and that
the 11tay will be retroactive to August 19,
· 1982. However, until the court grants
EPA's r~quest or these amendments
become effectiv.e, persons affected by
· the amendments will be uncertain about
what rules to follow. As a matter of
Agency policy, EPA will l}ot enforce the
provisions of section 6( e) of TSCA
against any person who complies with
the provisions of the 1919 rule and the
lnteriµt Measure Program between the
expiration of Uie CUl'l'ent stay, August 19,
1982, and the date when the court grants
EPA's request or this rule becomes
effective, whiohev.er comes first
In order to avoid' a "raoe· to the
cou,rthousf' by persons seeking judicial .
review of this rule, EPA.has decided to
designat~ .the time and date of
"promulgatioµ" ofthis rwe as 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on September 8,
1982. The Agency has previously taken
this approach for rules promulgated.
under the Clean Water Act (see ~Q-'R.
100.01, 45 FR' 26048). The Agency wil! be
considerin,g·a general rule ~or TSCA
similar to ~ CFR 100.01.
m. Electrical Equipment Contaioin,
PClls
Tliis rulemaklng was initiated to deal
with those uses of PCBs which £PA had
formerly cla1sffied as fotally enclosed
(.transformers other than railroad
transformers, capacitors, and
electromagnets). (Any reference to
transformers in this rule does not
include transformers used on
locomotives and self-propelled railroad
cars unless otherwise specified.) In
general. this equipment falls into two
categories: (1) Equipment designed to
contain PCBs at a high concentration
and (2) equipment designed to contain
mineral oil. Because of past
manufacturing and servicing practices,
the mineral oil-filled equipment often
contains i>CBs at low concentrations.
The 1979 rule defined a PCB
Transformer as one containing more
than 500 ppm and a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer as one containing between
50 aI)d 500 parts per million (ppm). Very
little mineral oil equipment contains
PCBs at a concentration of 500 ppm or
greater. This final rule makes frequent
reference to the three ranges of PCB
contamination: o-50 ppm, 50-500 ppm,
and greater than 500 ppm.
\\'.bile administering the May 1979
PCB rule and gathering information for
this rulemaking, EPA has identified five
additional categories of oil-filled
electrical equipment that contain PCB's.
Those are: voltage regulators, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), circuit breakers, reclosers, and
cable. These uses were not addressed in
the May 1919 PCB rule because EPA
was not aware that these devices
contained PCBs.
IV, Summary of the F'mal Rule
This final rule modifies and clarifies
some of the requirements presented in
the proposed rule because of
information obtained during the
comment period and the ,Public hearing
(June 1-10,'1982) on the proposed rule.
EPA's responses to various issues raised
during this rulemaking are discussed in
this "preamble" and are presented in
more detail in a document titled
"Support Document for the Electrical
·Equipment Use Rule/Response to
Comments." The major elements of the
final rule are summarized in the
following list, with changes from the
proposed rule highlighted. This final
rule:
1. Uses the recodified version of the
PCB rule (40 CFR Part 161).
2. Prohibits the use of PCB
Transformers and PCB-filled
electromagnets (with a PCB
concentration of 500 'ppm or greater)
posing an exposure·risk to food or feed,
after October 1, 1985;and requires a
weekly inspection of this equipment for
leaks of dielectric fluid until that date.
{The proposed rule would have
authorized the use of this equipment
indefinitely, with a requirement for
weekly inspections).
3. Authorizes the use of all other PCB
Transformers for the remainder of their
useful lives, and requires a quarterly·
inspection of this equipment for leaks of
dielectric fluid.
4. Authorizes the use of large PCB
Capacitors that are located in restricted-
access electrical substations for the
remainder of their useful lives. (The
proposed rule would have only
authorized the use of this equipment for
ten years.)
5. Authoriz1ls the use of large PCB
Capacitors that are located in contained
and restricted-access indoor
installations for the remainder of their
useful lives. (The proposed rule would
have authorized the use of this
equipment for only ten years.)
6. Prohibits the use of all other large
PCB Capacitors .after October 1, 1988.
(The proposed rule would have ·
authoriz~d the use of this equipment for
ten years.}
7. Eliminates the proposed inspection
requirements for all large PCB
Capacitors.
8. Authorizes the use of all PCB-
containing, mineral oil-filled electrical
equipment for its remaining useful life.
9. Clarifies what constitutes electrical
equipment posing an exposure risk to
food or feed.
10. Allows oil-filled cable to be
assumed to contain less than 50 ppm
PCBs if the actual PCB concentration is
unknown. (The proposed rule would
have required that the concentration be
assumed to be between 50 and 500 ppm
if it were unknown.)
11. Allows storage for disposal of
nonleaking PCB Large High Voltage
Capicators and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment outside of qualified
storage facilities {lfter January 1, 1983.
The proposed rule prohibited this
storage after January 1, 1983.
12. Requires records of inspection and
maintenance histories to be maintained
for at least 3 years after disposing of
PCB Transformers. (The proposed rule
would have required record retention for
five years.) '
13. Clarifies that "disposal" includes
leaks of PCBs. •
14. Does not include the language
contained in the proposed rule regarding
the required extent of cleanup of PCB
spills. Comments urged EPA to postpone
consideration.of this language, and the
extent'of cleanup of PCB spills will not
be dealt with at this time.
V. Use Authorizations
As previously described, section
. 6(e)(2) of TSCA allows uses of PCBs in a
87$M ·. · Fede,.I: ~-~tel' 1 · VQL . ,1, · No. 165 I W.ednesday, August 25, .1982 I -Rules and Regulations
totally enclosed miliiner to continue·
without restriction. Section 8(e){2)(C)·
defines the term "totally enclosed" to
mean ~any maimer which will ens~re
that any exposure of human beings or
the ·epvltorunent to a polychlorinated:
bipbenyl will be insignificant as
tjeterm~ed by the Administrator by
rule." In the May 31, 1979 role, EPA
de!liied·~significant expostil'.e as "not
. mea11urable or detectable by any
·•cientifically acceptable analytical ·
. method.!' After ex!lmining the .
1nf:ormation sub~itted in response: to
this_ rulemaklng, EPA has decided that
-~ electrital equipment use&' should be
categorized as usa in a totally enclosed
ma~er. The leahge dafa contained.in .. thui information show that all type11 of
• electrical equipment leak during normal
operaflo:n. Sim;e 1his leakage could
re11uWin abnie detectable .exposure of
humans andlhe · environment to PCBs,
EPA ~elievei t,bat It is•not appropr;iate to
~~•l!ify the u11e of this equipment as use
in .a :totaJly enclosed manner. ·
· '11ihrQ1ui) .~ all,ows the use of
c~tain _elec_trio'al equipment containing
I>C::Bs to continue under specified
conditions because,EPA has concluded
·that the'.u~. will not pre1Jent an
UQ1'888o0a~li; risk of'injury.to human .
heal~ oi tbe. enviror;iment. This finding
is in acqoi:<f~~ce "1ithJhe provisions of·
section·6{e){2)(B) ofTSCA:'the specific
~a,o,nable rillk ,firid.iqgs are mhpe Jor
,ach aqthorized u1Je in later sections of.
.this .pr~~tjib.le:. ·
To' detennine whether a risk is
urlrea~on~b\e,, EPA bala,nced the
probability .that harm will occur from .
the lJSe against the benefits to society of
the proposed regulatory action. In do/ng
this, EPA has considered the following
factors: ·
, 1. The effects of PCBs on human
health and the e'nvironment.
2. The magnitude ·of PCB exposure to
humans and the· environment
3. The benefits of using i>CBs and. the
availability.of substitutes for PCB uses.
' 4-. The economifimpad resulting from
1he rule's effect upon riatlo~al economy,
ama,11 business, technological · ·
. innovati«;m, !he ·enviromiie.nt, and public
health;~·· .
-Theae are the same types of
considerations Hsted in secti6n 6(c) of
TSCA, which describe factors EPA n1\ist
consider in deciding whether a chemical
presents an unreasonable cisk under
eectio'n.6{a) of TSCA.
· A. Effects on Human Health and the .
1E11vironment
-In any regulatory co.ntext, agencies .
liave linperfect data, but they still must
·regulate on Uie oasis· oJ the best data
avai~al:)le. 11ier.e are differing
·. interpretations of data regarding the-
potential risks of PCBs to human health
and the environment. Although
additional study may be suggested, EPA
is concerned about the health and
environmental effects of PCBs on the
basis of the data available now. These
. data are suffitient to support EPA's
approach in this rule ..
· foEDFv. EPA, EPA's regulatory cuto.ff
of 50 ppm was set aside by the court. All
a result, other rulemakil!S activities are
currently underway which deal w-ith
PCBs in low concentrations. EPA has·
been ordered by the D.C. Court of
Appeals to submit, by November 1, 1982,
a plan for dealing with certain PCBs in
concen.trations under 50 ppm. EPA
expects that the implementation of this
plan will lea.d to additional rulemaking.
The health effects data base for PCBs
is continuously increasing. The Agency
will consider any additional pertinent
information on health and
environmental effects and information
on risks associated with PCBs during the
development of that future rulemaking.
Should new information on health
effects or «;>ther areas of concern with
PCBs become kpown; Section 21 of
TSCA pro"ides a mechanism for
interested persons to petition the
Agency to initiate new i:ulemaking or
modify existing rules.
In .determining whether authorizations
are warranted, EPA considered
information regarding th~ effects of
PCBs on human health· and the
environment. The effects of PCBs were
described iri various documents which
are part ofthe rulemaking record for the
May 31;-1979, rule: EPA evaluated this
·information, new information su.bmitted
fo the Agency, as well as other recent
literature on the effects of PCBs; The
results are presented in the document
"Response to Comments on Health
Effects of J>CBs". This document is
included in the rulemaking record.
Copies of this/document are available
.through the Industry Assistance· Office
(see the "FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CON'(ACT"
paragraph).
1. Health effects. Document!! on health
effects were submitted to EPA by(1) the
Edison Electric Institute (EEi) together
with the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (USWAG),and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA), (2) the National Electripal
M,anufacturers Association (NEMA),
and (3) the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA). 1')1ese documents
are included in the rulemaking record.
These documents concluded that the use
of PCBs in electrical equipment does not
presenf a significant risk to human
health,
EPA has reached conclusions different
from those presented in the documents
submitted. While PCBs have not been
found to be uniquely toxic, EPA
concludes that they are toxic and
persistent.
EPA agrees with the comments
submitted that chloracne occurs in
humans exposed to PCBs. Although the
effects of chloracne are reversible, EPA
does not consider it insignificant.
Chloracne is painful, disfiguring and
may require a long period of time before ·
symptomatology disappear.s. Other
areas of major concern have been
identified by EPA. EPA finds that
reproductive effects, developmental
toxicity, and oncogenicity are areas of
concern and may produce effects in
humans exposed to PCBs.
Available data show that some PCBs
have the ability to alter reproductive
processes in mammalian species, ·
sometimes even at doses that do not
cause other signs of toxicity. Animal
data and limited available human data
indicate that prenatal exposure to PCBs
can result in various degrees of
developmentally toxic effects. Postnatal
effects have also been demon&trated on
immature animals following exposure
prenatally and via breast mjlk.
Available animai studies.indicate an
oncogenic potential (the degree of wl:iich
would be dependent on exposure).
Available epidemiolpgy d,ata are not
adeqµate to confirm or negate O[).Cggenic
potential in humans at this till}e, Further
epidemiological research is needed in
order to correlate human and animal
data, but EPA does pot find any
evidence to suggest that the animal data
would not be predictive of human
potential. ·
EP,c\ agrees that little or no mutagenic
activity from PCBs is indicated from
available. data. It is EPAs opinion that
more information is peeded to draw a
•final conclusion on the possibility of
mutagenic effects from PCBs.
EPA does not attribute all the effects
observed with PCBs to be due to toxic
impurities. Relatively pure PCB ·
congeners_ have been shown to produce
toxicity equivalent to that found when
testing commercial PCB mixtures
containing higher levels. of impurities.
EPA also does not assume that all
PCBs are ·equivalent toxicologioally. It
cannot be assumed that if one PCB
congener is positive·or negative for a
specific health effect, then all PCB
congeners are also positive or negative
for that specific health effect. Research
is just beginning in this area; many more
studies need to ,be conducted on specific
congeners before conylusions can he
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 37345
reached on an isomer or congener
specific basis.
2. Environmental effects. Very little
information was submitted during the
comment period with regards to the
environmental effects of PCBs. EPA has
conducted a Hterature search to provide
additional information on the
environmental effects of PCBs.
PCBs have been shown to affect the
productivity of phytoplankton and the
composition of phytoplankton
communities. Deleterious effects on
environmentally important freshwater
invertebrates from PCBs have been
demonstrated. PCBs have also been
shown to impair reproductive success in
birds and mammals.
It has been demonstrated that PCBs
are toxic to fish at very low exposure
levels. The survival rate and the
reproductive success of fish can be
adversely affected in the presence of
PCBs. Various sublethal physiological
effects attributed to PCBs have been
recorded in the literature. Abnormalities
in bone development and reproductive
organs have also been demonstrated.
EPA concludes that PCBs ·can be ·
concentrated .and trans'ferred in
freshwater and marine organisms.
Transfer up the food chain from
phytoplankton to invertebrates, fish, and
mammals can result ultimately in human
exposure through consumptio~ of PCB-
containing food sources.
3. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are
the two basic components of risk. As
indicated above, EPA concludes that in
addition to chloracne there is the
potential for reproductive effects and
developmental toxicity as well as
oncogenic effect13 in humans based on
animal data. EPA also concludes that
PCBs do present a hazard to the
environment. Potential for exposure of
the environment to PCBs was included
in EPA's consideration of each category
of use of PCBs in electrical equipment.
Minimizing exposure to PCBs should
minimize any potential risk. The
requirements of this rule will result in
the reduction of exposure, and in some
uses eliminate exposure to PCBs,
relative to present exposure levels from
electrical equipment use. EPA's analysis
of alternative conditions for use
authorizations includes examining the
effectiveness of.each condition in
reducing exposure, thereby reducing the
associated risk.
B. General Benefits of Using Electrical
Equipment
The electrical equipment being
considered in this rulemaking is used
· extensively by electric utilities and
other industries to provide efficient and
reliable electrical energy. There are
currently millions of pieces of electrical
equipment in use which contain PCBs.
Although allowing the statutory ban to
become effective is theoretically one
available alternative, EPA believes an
immediate ban on these uses would be
unacceptable since it would disrupt
electric service throughout the United
States. An adequate supply of non-PCB
replacement equipment and storaJ!,e/
disposal capacity is not immediately
available. The resulting economic
impact associated with an immediate
ban has been conservatively estimated
at about $175 billion in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis prepared for this
ruleinaking.
The other factors that EPA considered
to determine whether uses of PCBs in
electrical equipment warrant
authorization, the balancing of these
factors, and EPA's conclusions regarding
unreasonable risks are discussed
separately in this notice for each ·
category of electrical equipment.
C. Use and Servicing of Transformers
This unit on the use and servicing of
transformers analyzes only those
transformers that do not pose an
exposute risk to food or feed. The
analysis of equipment posing an
exposure risk to food or feed is found in
Unit E of this portion of the preamble.
Transformers are used extensively by
electric utilities and other industries to
transmit and distribute electric power
efficiently. The use of PCBs in
transformers has resulted in the
dielectric fluid of some transformers
containing between 60 and 70 percent
PCBs by design. Transformers designed
to contain mineral oil dielectric fluid
have been contaminated with PCBs ·
during p11st servicing and manufacturing
activities.
EPA estimates that there are 39,600
PCB Transformers designed to contain
PCBs in use in the electric utility
industry and approximately 91,600 in all
other applications. EPA also estimates
that there are over 20 million mineral oil
transformers in use in the electric utility
industry and about 5 million in all other
applications. These estimates are for the
end of 1981 and are summarized in the
proposed rule for this rulemaking (47 FR
17426, April 22, 1982).
Transformers are located throughout
the nation's electrical generation,
transmission, and distribution systems,
many of which are loeated near
consumers of electric power. However,
transformers designed to contain PCBs
are more restricted in their distribution
than other transformers. These PCB
Transformers are located in secure
indoor locations and in electrical
substations and are not mounted on
utility poles throughout electric service
areas.
1. Magnitude of exposure. EPA is
concerned about releases of PCBs from
all transformers because of the potential
to expose humans and the environment
to PCBs. In general, PCB Transformers
pose greater exposure risks due to the
use of higher concentration and larger
quantities of PCBs than mineral oil-filled
transformers. A release of PCBs into the
environment has the potential to reach
acquatic systems, build up in the food
chain and ultimately expose humans
through ingestion of PCBs.
Although it is impossible to measure
exactly the effectiveness of an .
inspection and maintenance program in
avoiding releases of PCBs to the
environment, such a program will
reduce the actual amount of PCBs
released from PCB Transformers by
correcting otherwise undetected leaks of
dielectric fluid and reducing the number
of transformer failures due to improper
maintenance. Additional benefits of this
program include containment of active
leaks which are discovered and cleanup
and disposal of leaked material. All of
these benefits will result in reduced
exposure to PCBs. EPA estimates that
without an inspection and maintenance
prpgram as many as 1.3 million pounds
of PCBs could be released from PCB
Transformers over their entire lifetimes.
2. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
substitutes. Although the electrical
properties of PCBs are not as good as
mineral oil, PCBs have ~ higher fire
point than mineral oil. It is the fire
resistance of PCBs that makes them an
excellent dielectric fluid in transformers
located where concerns for fire safety
are paramount.
PCB Transformers can be replaced by
comparably rated mineral oil
transformers evep where fire safety is
· an issue as long as fire codes and
insurance requirements allow it. In most
cases these restrictions require ·
additional fire prevention measures,
such as vaults, sprinklers, or alarms.
A number of other substitute
dielectric fluids have been developed to
replace PCBs. These fluids can be used
in replacement transformers or used to
refill transformers which contain PCB
dielectric fluid. Many of these fluids
appear to possess acceptable
characteristics. The National Electrical
Manufacturers Association estimates
that new transformers to replace all PCB
Transformers could be manufactured in
five years or less using these substitute
fluids. Substitute fluids for PCBs offer
satisfactory electrical properties and
flammability characteristics which are
much better than mineral oil. The
'37346 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982. / Rules and Regulations
persistence and bioaccumulative
properties of PCB substitute fluids are
less those of PCBs.
Persons owning mineral oil
transformers containing PCBs may
substitute for the PCBs by purchasing
new equipment that does not contain
PCBs, replacing the contaminated fluid
with new fluid that does not contain
PCBs, or otherwise servicing the existing
dielectric fluid in order to reduce the
PCB concentration.
3. Economic and environmental
impocts of regulatory requirements. As
discussed under "Magnitude of
Exposure," the actual environmental
impact of a quarterly inspection program
for PCB Transformers that do not pose
an exposure risk to food or feed is
impossible to measure. However, a
quarterly inspection and maintenance
program has been demonstrated for
more than one year under the Interim
Measures Program to be an effective
measure in reducing total releases of
PCBs from these transformers. This fact
was confirmed by comments in response
to the ANPR and the proposed rule.
Comments Indicated that this inspection
and maintenance program reduced
releases of PCBs from transform~rs and
supported it as an effective risk
reduction measure.
EPA estimates that the cost of a
quarterly inspection and maintenance
program is $28.8 million for the electric
utility industry and $47.9 million for
nonutility industries. These estimates
represent total costs of the required
program over the entire useful lives of
the transformers. Additional costs and
. benefits associated with the use
authorization and conditions are
disc~ssed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis developed for this final rule.
This document also contains an analysis
of costs and benefits of other regulatory
options considered but mil adopted,
including some options which were
considered in the development of the
proposed rule. . ·
. 4. Findings. on the use and servicing of
transformers. In the proposed rule, EPA
discussed whether the use 6f PCBs in
transformers· should continue and
analyzed options that wo6ld effectively
reduce the risks of exposure from the
use of PCB-containing transformers. The
proposed rule authorized the use of
PCBs in-transformers for the remainder
of their useful lives. subject to certain
conditions. ·
Several comments disagreed with
EPA's proposed rule. These comments
suggested a wide range of alternatives,
from phasing out the use of PCBs in all
transformers in a very short period of
time to authorizing them with no
conditions. However, no comments
provided information that leads EPA to
conclude that its findings in the
proposed ruled were inappropriate.
The cost of imposing the more
restrictive conditions suggested by some
comments are not reasonable in
comparison to the benefits of such
conditions. For example, one comment
suggested that the use of'PCBs in all
mineral oil transformers should be
phased out in a very short period of
time, perhaps as short as three years.
Such an approach would cost millions of
dollars per pound of PCB release
avoided. EPA concludes that the
imposition of such a condition is not
reasonable.
On the other hand, some comments
suggested the raising of the upper limit
of the range of contamination of PCB-
Contaminated Transformers from 500
ppm to 5000 ppm. Such an approach
would result in unnecessary and
avoidable exposure to PCBs since there
is information in the rulemaking record
that indicates that technology is
available at reasonable cost to reduce
. the PCB concentration in transformers to
below 500 ppm. Comments at the
hearing by people who have performed
such operations or have studied the
subject indicate that concentrations
below 500 ppm have been achieved by
draining, flushing, and refilling followed
by additional servicing.
After reviewing all of the information
submitted in response to the proposed
rule and other information in the
rulemaking record, EPA concludes that
the requirements presented in the
proposed rule for transformerii not
posing an exposure risk to food or feed
were reasonable. Details of the
calculations of costs and benefits which
led EPA to this conclusion are found in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA's
responses to specific comments are
contained in the Support Document for
the Electrical Use Rule-Response to
Comments.
This final rule does not make any
major changes to the proposed
conditions of the use authorization for
PCB-containing transformers that do not
pose an exposure risk to food or feed.
The few minor changes that were made
are explained in subsequent paragraphs.
To reduce the risks associated with
the release of PCBs from PCB
Transformers, this rule re.quires
inspection and maintenance procedures
as a condition to the use authorizati.on
for all PCB Transformers. These
conditions vary with the potential for
exposure to PCBs. A quarterly
inspection and maintenance program is
required for all PCB Transformers that
do not pose an exposure risk to food or
feed. However, the inspection frequency
is reduced to annually for any PCB
Transformer which contains less than
60,000 ppm PCBs or has secondary
containment capable of holding at least
100 percent of the transformer's fluid
volume. No inspection or follow-up
maintenance procedures are required for
transformers containing less than 500
ppm PCBs because of the low
concentration of PCBs involved.
A program of inspection and
maintenance for PCB Transformers
reduces the amount of PCBs released
a_nd resultant PCB exposure by finding,
stopping, and cleaning up small leaks of
dielectric.fluid. Properly maintained
transformers are less likely to
experience leaks, spills, or equipment
failure. An inspection program also
keeps company personnel informed and
alert to the potential impact of PCBs
discharged from electrical equipment.
Although some data submitted in
response to the proposed rule indicated
that certain government-owned PCB
Transformers leak more than
transformers owned by others, EPA
believes that the required follow-up
maintenance to correct leaks addresses
this problem. In addition, owners of
transformers that have high service
costs to repair recurring leaks have an
incentive to replace it as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment or
reclassify the transformer.
· Servicing restrictions also. apply as a
condition to the·use authorization for
transformers that contain PCBs. Any
servicing o( a PCB Transformer
(including rebuilding) that requires the
removal of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. This
condition not only reduces the exposure
risks to service personnel, but, also
prevents the use of PCB Transformers
beyond their normal operating lives.
Other servicing conditions primarily
prevent the further contamination of
PCB-containing transformers.
EPA believes that authorizing the use
of PCB-filled transformers and mineral
oil-filled transformers containing PCBs
according to the proposed conditions
does not present an unreasonable risk
for the 'following reasons:
a. IfEPA did not authorize the use·of
PCBs in tranformers, it would cost the
public and United States industry
billions of dollars, primarily as a result
of the disruption of electrical service.
The resulting reduction in risk ·would not
outweigh these substantial costs.
b. The required inspection and
maintenance program reasonably
reduces the exposure risks associated
with the use of PCBs in PCB
Transformers, and the servicing·
conditions prevent further PCB
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 3734'7
contamination of transformers. These
measures are much less costly than a
ban on the use of PCBs in transformers
would be.
c. Releases of PCBs to the
environment and exposure to humans
and biological organisms from mineral
oil transformers are minimal. EPA
estimates that these transformers
contain less than 0.15 percent of all the
PCBs used lri transformers and release
less than one half of a percent of these
PCBs on an annual basis.
d. The costs associated with other risk
reduction measures such as accelerated
phase-out, reducing the PCB
concentration in the dielectric fluid, or
providing containment for transformers
are not reasonable when compared to
the potential reduction in release of
PCBs achieved if any of these measures
were required for all PCB Transformers.
Several comments said that even
though phase-out, containment, and
reduction of PCB concentration are not
warranted as regulatory requirements,
each of these measures mig~t be cost-
effective in individual situations -on a .
voluntary basis. In fact, some companies
have already initiated such efforts
because of benefits in their specific
cases. EPA agrees with these comments,
and, to recognize the positive effect
those actions have in reducing risks
from PCB Transformers, this rule
provides for less frequent inspections
for those PCB Transformers. For a PCB
Transformer with secondary
containment capacity of at least 100
percent of the transformer's total
dielectric fluid volume, or a PCB
Transformer which contains less than
60,000 ppm (6 percent) PCBs, a visual
inspection is required only once eve,ry
12 months. Secondary containment of at
least 100 percent of the transformer's
total dielectric fluid volume will contain
virtually all releases of PCBs from the
transformer. Draining, flushing, and
refilling a PCB Transformer reduces the
amount of PCBs in a transformer by·a
factor of between 10 !ind 15, leaving a
residual PCB concentration of between
30,000 and 80,000 ppm. EPA believes
that, for transformers with these kinds
of reduced risks, it is reasonable to•
inspect no more often then once per
year. EPA chose a 60,000 ppm PCB
concentration cutoff because, on the
basis of numerous demonstrations, it
has been shown to be a consistently
achievable concentration after one
carefully conducted fluid replacement
for a PCB Transformer. Additional
incentives {such as reduced or
eliminated use, servicing and disposal
requirement!)) exist in the PCB rules ,
which encouragJ further reduction in
PCB concentration to 50 and 500 ppm.
Several persons commented that the
visual inspection required by this final
rule could pose an electrical shock
hazard to unqualified personnel. It has
always been EPA's intent that the extent
of a visual inspection should be only as
complete as safely possible. This will
vary, depending on the physical
constraints. of each transformer
installation. No visual inspection should
require an electrical shutdown of the
transformer being inspected.
Transformers that require electrical
isolation (shutdown) to be inspected
thoroughly (due to safety precautions,
enclosures, etc.) may be inspected as
completely as possible without
disconnecting the transformer. Future
inspections should then be coordinated
when possible with equipment outages
from the power system so that more.
thorough inspections can be completed.
The proposed rule did not specify the
time period in which quarterly and
annual inspections must take place.
Several comments suggested that
inspection frequencies should be
flexible in order to take advantage of
equipment outages which oan occur at
irregular intervals. EPA agrees with this
comment and, for quarterly in9J>ections,
has added regulatory language that
allows inspections for leaks of dielectric
fluid to take place any time during the
quarter (i.e. January-March, April-June,
July-September, and October-
December) as long as there is a
minimum of 30 days between
inspections. Inspections may also take
place any time during the calendar year
for annual inspections ai, long as there is
a minimum of 180 days between
inspections.
Follow-up maintenance activities to
repair a leak are required only if
corrective action is necessary to stop
the leak. EPA recognizes that some
small leaks of dielectric fluid are
unavoidable in the operation of a
transformer and repairs are not always
required to stop a leak. A leak of
p.ielectric fluid which has run off or is
about to run off the external sµrf'ace of
the transformer clearly needs repair to
prevent further leaking. A leak of
dielectric fluid which does not form a
run or drip, i.e. a sweat or a weep, and
does not require repair to prevent
further leaking, only requires proper
cleanup. All leaks must be cleaned up
within 4.8 hours and the PCB-
contaminated materials properly
disposed of in a timely fashion. If
dielectric fluid is actively leaking, the
leak must be contained to prevent the
PCBs from entering the.environment and
· inspected daily to verify that the leak Is
being contained until the leak is
corrected.
This final rule requires recordkeeping
of each PCB Transformer's inspection ·
and maintenance history. This
requirement will assist companies in the
operation of their Inspection and
maintenance program and help
management determine that the
company is meeting the conditions of
the use authorization. These records
may be maintained in any form or
format as long as all of the required
information is available (in hard copy)
upon request by EPA. These records
must be maintained for at least three
years after disposing of the transformer ·
. and should be coordinated with oth~r ·
records required for the transformer
under the PCB rule (formerly 40 CFR
761,45 and correctly recodified in this
document to 40 CFR 761.180). This time
period was reduced from the five-year
requirement in the proposed rule.
Several comments indicated that five
years was excessive and resulted in
unnecessary costs.,EPA has reduced the
period in response to these comments
and because ii believes that the three-
year time period provides a sufficient ·
history for EPA to monitor oom.plianc:e
with a reasonable interval betweeia
oompliance Inspections.
Bec,ause reporting of PCB spills ate
mandated under§ 311 of the Clean
Water Act for discharges to navigable
waters, and under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(Superfund) for discharges to other
media, this rule does not require ;my
additional reporting.
D. Use of Capacitors
This section on the use of capacitors
analyzes only those capacitors that do
not pose an exposure risk to food or
feed; Analysis of the exposure risk!'
associated with equipment that poses an
exposure risk to food or feed is found in
sectfon E. .
Large PCB Capacitors (PCB Large
High Voltage and PCB Large Low
Voltage) are also used extensively by
electric utilities and other industries.
· Large PCB Capacitors contain more than
3 pounds of dielectric fluid and are
commonly used to improve the voltage
and power factor· of.the electric power
system. Virtually all capacitoI'b (large'
and small) manufactured prior to 1978
were filled with PCB fluid at a
concentration near 100 percent.
Capacitors manufactured.after 19_78 did
not use PGB dielectric fluid.
. EPA estima.tes that there were
2,800,009 utility•owned large PCB
37348 Federal Register / Voi. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules anct Regulatie>ns
Capacitors in service at the end of 1981.
EPA also estimates that the total
population of in-service nonutility-
. owned large PCB Capacitors was
490,000 af the end of 1981.
Large PCB Capacitors ar(! located
within fenced electrical substations,
within buildings, and on utility poles
throughout the service areas of electric
utilities. Many comments pointed out
that there are significant differences
between the risk posed by Large
Capacitors depending upon their
location. Therefore, this final rule
recognizes the widespread distribution
of large PCB Capacitors and
distinguishes two different exposure risk
categories by capacitor location. The
two categories are: (1) capacitors used
within restricted-access electrical
substations or used in contained and
restricted-access indoor installations,
and (Z) capacitors used in all other
locations (primarily in electric utility
distribution systems).
1. Magnitude of exposure. Large PCB
Capacitors used within restricted-access
electrical substations and in contained
and restricted-access indoor locations
pose comparatively low exposure risk.
A restricted-access electrical substation
is a fenced or walled-in facility that is
restricted to public access and used in
the transmission or distribution of
electric power. Releases of PCBs from
capacitors in these substations beyond
the confines of the substation are
extremely limited. In most cases, PCBs
become intimately bound to the gravel
and soil and very little PCBs evaporate
or dissolve or are driven off by rain. In a
report by Dr. Donald Mackay titled
Environmental Pathwa)".s of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Volume IV
of the EEI/USWAG study). Dr. Mackay
calculates that the likely extent of
evaporation from a "typical" pure PCB
spill into soil is 0.16 percent per day and
the'dissolution rate of a spill into water
is typically a Jactor of 100 slower than
evaporation. Many comments indicated
that substations are inspected at regular
Intervals, often at intervals of one week
or less. Because of these frequent
inspections and b.ecause there is
evidence that PCBs usually migrate
slowly from a spill within a substation,
EPA concludes that a very high
percentage of all PCB releases from
capacitors in these locations can be
identified and cleaned up quickly with
very little risk of exposure to humans or
the environment. EPA estimates that
41,073 pounds of PCBs could be released
from large PCB Capacitors in Restricted-
access electrical substations.
Silnilarly, certain other facilities,
d~scribeq in this rule as contained and
restricted-access indoor installations,
also present limited exposure risk
potential. An installation meeting this
description has a roof, walls, and floors
that will contain any release of PCBs
within the indoor installation. This typ~
of installation also prevents rain from
· reaching the large PCB capacitors and
has controlled access to these PCB
capacitors. A building which prevents
PCB releases from escaping, including
escape through drains or expansion
joints, would be acceptable. This type of
contained and restricted-access
installation al~.>ws proper cleanup of
PCBs with very little exposure to
humans or the environment. EPA
estimates that 25,728 pounds of PCBs
could ·be released from large PCB
capacitors in contained and restricted-·
access indoor installations.
The second category of large PCB
Capacitodocations represents all other
locations. The capacitors in this .
category are primarily located on utility
poles throughout electric service areas.
The exposure risks associated with
those capacitors vary due to their
widespread use. These capacitor
installatloris are used in-residential
neighborhoods, industrial areas, rural
areas, public areas (such as shopping
centers, schools, etc.), and even near
waterways. The capacitors, because of
their locations, have a greater potential
for exposing humans, animals, and the
environment during their use than other
large PCB Capacitors. EPA estimates
that without any risk reduction
measures these capacitors could release
as many as 730,110 pounds of PCBs
during their remaining useful life.
Z. Benefits of PCBs and availability Oj
substitutes. The electrical properties of
PCBs are so well suited as a dielectric
fluid for capacitors that no other fluids
were commonly used in c@pacitors prior
to 1978. Since 1978, electric utilities and
other industries have been installing
non-PCB Capacitors with no apparent
replacement or operational problems.
Under this fihal rule EPAestimates
that 1.087 million large PCB Capacitors
(or 108.7 million KVAR. assuming an
average size of 100 KVAR) will require
removal due to the accelerated phase-
out requirements. (KV AR is the
abbreviation for reactive kilovolt-
ampers, which is a standard power
rating for capacitors.) EPA assumes that
companies will take one year to plan for
the phase-out and five year~ to
implement it. Considering the additional
capacitors that will require replacement
due to failure or obsolescence, EPA
estimates that a peak annual power
capac:itor·manufaotur.ing capacity of 29
million KV AR (.about 145,000 ZOO-KV AR
units) will be required to meet the total
demand for replacements. EPA's ·
estimates for the demand for new power
capacitor applications (unrelated to· any
demand for replacements) range from .
9.7 million KV AR to 20.3 million KV AR
per year. Therefore, the maximum total
annual demand for power caP-acitors
should be between 38.7 and 49.3 million
KV AR under this final rule.
In a survey of domestic capa~tor
manufacturers by the National Elect,:ical
Manufacturers Association in response
to this rulemaking, four respondents
indicated that production could be
Increased 66 percent by 1983 or earlier.
With this increase in production, the
total annual power capacitor
manufacturing capacity would be 47.85
million KV AR. · ·
According to these estimates,
manufacturing capacity is adequate for
companies to comply with the
requirement to phase out these
capacitors over the ne?(t six years .. 1 ne
derivation of the estimates and a further
discussion of the methodology used to
arrive at this conclusion is found in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis prepared for
this final rule. ·
· 3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requir.emerits. The
economic impact of this final rule was
c'alculated in terms of the lost economic
value assoc;iated with removing PCB ·
Capacitors before the end of their useful
lives. EPA estimates thi11 cost to be
$135.8 million. EPA estimates that the
net present value of the phase-our cost
for the .electric utility industry Is only
0.05 percent of the 1979 net value of
assets in electric pla1;1t nationally.
It should be noted that the direct costs
of the regulatory requirements for large .
PCB Capacitors do not include the
en,ergy savings associated with the use
of more efficient replacement
capacitors. This savings is very
significant for capaci.tors that were
·manufactured using paper insulation
(approximately pre-1966). pie
Regulatory Impact Analysis ptepared for
this final rule estimates that the
payback period for capacitors with
paper insulation Is approximately 11 ·
years, assuming that the capacitors' are
in use 50 percent of the time.
. By removing large PCB Capacitors
before the end of their useful service
lives it prevents the release of PCBs
during the remaining-years of use:EPA
estimates that this-final rule avoids an
estimated 672,000 poµnds·of PCBs·from
release from large PCB Capacitors that
doe not pose an exposure risk ·to food
and feed. A more complete discussion of
the costs and benefits associated with
the regulatory requirements ls-pi'eliented
-P@der~: Register./ Vot 47,, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25; 1982 / Rules and Regulations 37349
in the, Eegulatory Impact AnalyJJis
prepare'd for this final rule. .
· 4. FindiiWs an t/le use of capacitors.
Th.e propqsed rul~ ~tscµssed whether
the us·e of PC~s In capacitors should
continue and the options EPA
considered to reduce the risks from the
use of PCBs fn capacitors. The proposed
rule authorized the use of capacitors for
ten years. Severa;! comments.suggested
·that capacitors should be categorized on
the basis of difference tn· potential for
exposure. ·These differences arise
because of differences In the
acoessability of the capacitor location
and differences in the degree of
containment of any PCB spills or leak's
which rnay occur. EPA agrees with these
comm:ents,and has'created categories
based on the comments. Other
comments urged EPA to eltminate the
phase-out requirement altogether. With
respect to those capacitors in the
category with comparatively low
exposure potential, EPA agrees with
these comments and has eliminated the
phase-out, but with respect to other
capacitors, EPA lies concluded that the
cost of a 'Six-year phase•out is
reasonable because or-the large qo.antity
of PCBs release which will be avoided
and because of !_he comparatively high
potential for exposure in these locations.
· This final rule prohibits the 11se of
large ~B CapaCitors,afterOct9ber 1,
1988, unless the capacitors are used in
restricted-acceu outdoor electrical
substations, or in contained and,
restricted-access indoor installations.
EPA finds that the more limited
potential for exposure in these
restricted-accest locations warrants
authorizing their use for the remainde
of their useful lives.
A very large ,number of comments
stated that. the benefits of an inspection
·programfor capacitors do not outweigh
the costs. In most cases. large releases
of PCBs from capacitors (ruptures)
happen.very suddenly aa a result of a
large amount of energy entering the
capacitor in a very short time period.
Inspections of in-•ervice capacitors
cannot detect cliaracteristios which
indicate a capacitor's potential to
release PCBs. EPA agrees that the
effectiveness of an inspection program
for. large PCB Capacitors is very limited
in prevepting future ,;eleasea of PCBa..
Theriifore, this final rule eliminates the
proposed r~quirement.that large PCB
CapacitQCs must \)e inspected for leaks
of dielectric fluid on a quarterly basis ..
· An inspection pl'.Ogram can speed the
detection .. and tjeanup of PCBs in ,casea
where a release has already oc~red
and the,release has-11ot been detected or
cleaned up. However/EPA has learned
from comments on ,the proposed rule,
that for large capacitors located on
~Hstribution systems that a utility
company or other owner is almost
· always notified of PCB releases by the
public or company personnel within a
much shorter time period than the
proposed quarterly inspection
frequency. Furthermore, large PCB
Capacit9rs located in electrical
substations and indoors are typically
inspected by company crews more
frequently than the proposed quarterly
inspection due to existing concerns for
system efficiency and stability.
EPA fin~ that authorizing the use of
PCBs in capacitors not posing an
exposure risk to food or feed, under the
required conditions, does not present an
unreasonable risk for the following
reasons:
a. The use of PCBs in large PCB
Capacitors that are located in restricted-
access indoor installations for their
remaining useful lives Is such that PCBs
released from these capacitors are
readily identified and cleaned up with
limited-exposure potential to humans
and the environment.
b. The required six-year phase-out
period for large PCB Capacitors should
prevent more fhan 500,000 pounds of
PCBs from entering the environment and
some unknown percentage of that·
quantity from entering the food chain.
This time period also avoids any
disruption of electrical service.
c. The cost of the phase-out
requirement is reasonable when
compared to the large amount of PCBs it
prevents from entering the environment
and the costs -and benefits of alternative
risk reductiorrmeasureli. This cost is
only $237 per pound of PCB release
avoided.
~-Small capacitors. PCB Small
Capacitors contain less than 3 pounds of
dielectric fluid. These capacitors
commonly contain between 0.1 and 0.6
pounds of PCBs and are used in
fluourescent light ballasts, household
appliances, and industrial equipment. In
most applications, the equipment
containing the small capacitor in its
.circuitry cannot function without it. In
1976,' an EPA study estimated that 870
million small capacitors, containing 275
million pounds of PCBs, were in use in a
wide variety ofapplications. Today,
EPA estimates that approximately 500
million of these small capacitors are still
in us.e. EPA calculated this figure
assuining that 10 peroent of these
capacitors are removed from service
annually due to equipment or appliance
obsolescence and capacitor failure.
No data ha11 been submitted to EPA
which indicate that small capacitors
have a different propensity to leaJc, than
other capacitors. Additionally, no
comments have identified· any practical
and cost-effective use restrictions
regarding the use of PCB Small
Capacitors. Because of the widespread
and diverse nature ortheir use and the
small amount of PCBs contained within
each individual small capacitor, all
regulatory approaches targeted at
controlling releases from these
capacitors are very expensive when
compared to the potential quantity of
PCBs kept from the environment.
Consequently, EPA has not identified a
reasonable cost-effective regulatory
alternative that would result in
significantly reducing the risks
associated with the remaining PCB
Small Capacitors in service. Therefore,
this final rule does not require any
restrictions regarding the use of PCBs in
small capacitors. However, EPA
encourages c_ommercial and industrial
firms that use and dispose of large
quantities of PCB Small Capacitors to
establish voluntarily a collection and
disposal program that results in waste
capacitors being disposed of in an EPA-
approved incinerator or chemical1waste
landfill. Such programs could be
expanded to encourage yoluntary
collection and disposal of PCB Small
Capacitors from the public and other
firms. Any firm which desires more
information about identifying and
disposing of PCB Small Capacitors·
should contact the nearest EPA regional
· office or the Industry Assistance Office
at 800-424-9065 for assistance.
Since these capacitors contain small
quantities of dielectric fluid and
significant amounts ofabsorbant
material such as paper;and because
many of these capacitors are .
encapsulated, PCBs are rarely released
from these capacitors during their use or
from the equipment using the capacitors.
Therefore, exposure risks to humans,
food, feed, water, or the environment
from the use of these capacitors are low.
In conclusion. EPA finds that the use of
small capacitors containing PCBs is not
unreasonable because their use provides
society with the benefits from the use of
millions of pieces of electronic,
equipment and consumer products, it
avoids billions of dollars in replacement
costs, and there appear to be no
practical, cost-effective risk reduction
measures.
E. Use of PCB Transformers, Capacitors,
and Electromagnets That Pose an
Exposure Risk to Human Food and
Animal Feed
EPA estimates that at the end of 1979
there, were approximately 47,500 large
PCB Capacitors and 9,580 PCB
Transformers .in use· on the premises of
37350 Feder_al_,_egisterj Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and ~egulations
footl and·feed fadflities. Because of
comments that much of this equipment
n_ever posed an exposure risk to food or
feed and that, for rriuch of the rest of it,
ateps have been taken to eliminate the
risk, EPA estimates that ten percent of
_the ·equipment used o_n th_e premises of
food and feed f{lcilities poses an
exposure risk to food or feed products.
Since publication of the proposed rule,
EPA has received a comment that.
indicated that electromagnets designed
Jo tontain PCBs· are still in ·use over
grain elevators. EPA was unaware that
this use still existed at the time of the
proposed rule. In 1979, EPA estimated
that a total of 200 PCB-filled
ele<itrom:agriets were in use with an
unknown percentage of these in use in
colil operations.
1. Magn_itude of exposure. Human
food and anlmaHeed represent EPA's·
greatest concemJor exposure because
of the increased health risks aesociated
· wft}dhe ingestion of PCBs.·Electrical
equipment filled with askarel dielectric
Duid ptellents the greatest exposure
risks to food and feed due to the high
·concentratlonir"arid large quantities of
PCBs. Any 1-eaka"ge from such equipment
hp11 the·poten,Ual to cause severe harm.
One incident_ involving a single PCB .
Transformer, occurred at a plant
manufaciurhig animal feed ingredients.
The contaminated feed was fed to
_pqultry and livestock, resulting In·
millions of dollars of damages.
lmplioated 'food and feed products were
distributed to nineteen states' and two
fol"3ign ~untries.
2.Benefits of PCBs and availability of
fJubstitates. The benefits of using PCBs
, a&1d the availability of substitutes for
PC8s In transformers and capacitors
.that pose an exposure •risk to foo<;l anc.
feed are identical to those discussed for
PCB Transformers and PCB C~pacitors.
The benefit of using PCBs In
electromagnets is the safety provided by
the fire ri:isi~tant properties ()f the PCBs.
The substitutes. for PCBs in transformers
are also -available. and suitable for use 'in
electromagnets. a. Bcononiio and environmental
impacts of regulatory requitemehts. The
food·contamination incident previously
described which involved a single -PCB
Transformer demonstrates that the cost
to society of a PCB spill affecting food or
Ieed can be more than one million
dollars per p9un·d of PCBs spilled.·
Therefore, .only a very small reduction in
PCB leakage is needed for a risk
.reduction measure to be cost effective in
food and feed facilities. The Regulatory
Impact Analysis qonta:ins an
examination of the cost effectiveness of
different accelerated phase-out tinm
periods and inspection program
frequencies.
The impact of replacing the affected
PCB Transformers 11nd large PCB
Capacitors in food and feed facilities is
estimated to be $16.04 million, and the
impact of replacing the affected
electromagnets is $0.38 million. These
estimates assume that ten percent of the
PCB Transformers and Capacitors used
by the food and feed industry pose an
exposure risk to food and feed and that
ten percent of the estimated 200 PCB-
filled electromagnets in service in 1979
pose an exposure risk to food and feed.
4. Findings on the use of PCBs posing
an exposure risk to food and feed. In the
proposed rule, EPA found that it was
reasonable to require weekly inspection
of all PCB Transformers and Large PCB
Capacitors that pose an exposure risk to
food or feed and to prohibit the use of
these capacitors after October 1, 1992.
Several comments suggested that EPA
categorize equipment according to
differences in the risk of exposure.
Other comments expressed concern that
EPA was proposing to allow indefinite
use of PCBs in transformers in the areas
of greatest risk. A'fter further analysis of
the cost-effectiveness of various
accelerated phase-out periods and
consideration of these comments, EPA
has decided to establish a prohibition o
the use of PCB Transformers, PCB Larg"
Capacitors, and PCB-filled
electromagnets that pose an exposure
risk to food and feed. This prohibition
becomes effective in three years for PCB
Transformers and PCB-filled
electromagnets and in six years for PCB
Large Capacitors. The cost-effectiveness
calculations are contained in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Other comments urged EPA not to
prohibit the use of any electrical
equipment in food or feed
establishments, but to rely on the
effectiveness of an inspection and
maintenance program. EPA did not
choose this option because, although an
inspection and maintenance program
does have benefits, the need to avoid
contamination of human food with PCBs
justifies· the imposition of additional
protective measures.
The three-year time period for
transformers and electromagnets is
based on an estimated one year to
analyze the specifics of the individual
situation, to choose the method to be
used to eliminate the exposure risk to
food or feed, and to develop a plan for
compliance with the regulation and two
years fo implement the plan. Given the
comparatively small amount of
equipment· involved, EPA believes that
this period of time is sufficient for
affected persons to avoid logistical
difficulties.
The six-ye_ar time period for PCB
Large Capacitors is based on an
estimated one year for planning for
compliance and five years for
implementation of the plan. EPA
decided not to shorten this period any
further for these capacitors because the
quantity of PCBs involved is much less
than the quantity of PCBs in
transformers posing this exposure risk
and because the cost per pound of
preventing PCB release was higher than
for the transformers.
Prohibiting the use of PCB-containing
equipment in a location that poses an
exposure risk to fo6d or feed represents
the most effective risk reduction
measure of the alternatives EPA has
considered. Persons subject to this
requirement actually have several
choices as to how to comply. They may
replace the equipment. They may
provide secondary containment so that
the exposure risk to food or feed is
eliminated. They may relocate the
equipment to a location which does not
presen~ an exposure risk. For
transformers and electromagnets, they
may service the equipment to reduce the
PCB concentration to less than 500 ppm.
Many comments agreed with EPA's
finding in the proposed rqle that a
weekly inspection frequency is not
unrbasonable primarily because it is an
effective risk reduction measure for
equipment such as transformers and
electromagnets and because of the large
exposure risks associated with the use
of PCB Transformers and PCB-filled
electromagnets near food or feed. As
discussed in an earlier section of this
preamble, the effectiveness of an
inspection program for capaci_tors is
very limited and in most cases ruptures
of this equipment are identified in
shorter time frames than the inspection
frequency. Therefore, this final rule
eliminates the proposed weekly
inspection requirement for Large PCB
Capacitors and retains this program for
PCB Transformers and PCB-filled
electromagnets.
Most comments in response to the
proposed rule did not support any use
restrictions for mineral oil-filled
electrical equipmenfposing an exposure
risk to food or feed since very little of
this equipment is used in food and feed
facilities. In most cases, mineral oil
equipment contains very little PCBs, and
it is expensive to test all the equipment
to determine which items actually
Jontains PCBs. Therefore, EPA made no
:hanges in the proposed authorization
Jr this equipment which allows its use
lfithout restriction.
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 /. Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 37351
Other comments in response to the
proposed rule recommended that EPA
include in the fmal rule clarifications
that were issued under the Interim
Measures Program. These clarifications
have been incorporated into thf! final
rule where appropriate and are
dis~ussed in this preamble.
The proposed rule required special
inspection procedures for transformers
which are in a location that pose a risk
of exposure to human food or animal
feed. This exposure risk is presumed to
exist in any facility manufacturing.
processing, packaging, or holding humall
food or animal feed, or in any federally
inspected meat, poultry product or egg
product establishment. Because several
comments pointed out a need for more
specificity as to which equipment is
subject to inspection requirements, EPA
has further clarified the definition of
posing an exposure risk to food or feed
in this rule under 40 CFR 761.3(11).
This new definition clarifies that PCB
Items pose an exposure risk to· food or
feed only when there exists a potential
pathway for PCBs discharged from the
item to contaminate food or feed
products. Food and feed covered by this
definition includes items regulated by
USDA and FDA as food or feed
including additives. Food and feed is
excluded from this definition if it is used
or stored in private residences by the
public because a very small amount of
food would be potentially exposed in a
single incident in a private residence·
and because the enforcement of this
requirement iri private residences would
place a very large demand on EPA
enforcement resources. This definition,
does cover food and feed that are held
in all other facilities including grocery
stores, restaurants, warehouses, barns,
bins, sheds, silos, and other structures,
and in feedlots, open fields, and animal
grazing areas.
Comments also encouraged the
· clarification of the responsibilities
between users and owners of PCB-
containing electrical equipment that
. pose an exposure risk to food and feed.
As in the Interim Measures Program it is
the responsibility of the user of a PCB
Transformer to fulfill all appropriate
inspection, recordkeeping and
maintenance requirements until the
owner is notified that the transformer
may pose an exposure risk to food or
feed, or until the owner has other
knowledge indicating that the
transformer may pose an \JXposure risk
to food or feed. It is the ultimate
responsibility of the owner of the PCB-
containing electrical equipment to
determine if it poses an exposure risk to
food or feed. Although users of PCB ..
Transformers, PCB capacitor,, and PCB-
filled electromagnets are not responsible
for phasing-out.any of this equipment,
users should contact the owner if they
feel that this equipment poses an
exposure risk to food or feed. In any
event, the wier still has responsibility
under other Federal laws to insure that
food and feed distributed in commerce
are not contaminated.
In the Federal Register of May 9, 1980,
EPA proposed a rule amendment which
would have prohibited the use of PCB
Items in facilities manufacturing,
processing, or storing fertilizers or
agricultural pesticides. EPA received
comment upon this proposed rule and,
on May 6, 1981, in light of the court-
ordered rulemaking on the use of PCBs
in electrical equipment, EPA put that
proposed rule in abeyance. Because the
promulgation of this final rule deals with
PCBs that pose an exposure risk to food
or feed, EPA has decided not to issue a
final rule from the May 9, 1980 proposed
rule. The final rule on the use of PCBs in
electrical equipment does not recognize
agricultural pesticides and fertilizers as
food or feed additive or require
additional provisions for PCB Items
which pose an exposure risk to
agricultural pesticides and fertilizers.
The rulemaking reford from the May 9,
1980, proposed amendment has been
incorporated into the record for this
final rule.
F. Use and Servicing of Voltage
Regulators, Switches (Including
Sectionalizers and Motor Starters), and
Electromagnets
Voltage regulators and switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters) are used by electric utilities
and industry to control, transmit, and
distribute electric power efficiently.
Almost all of this eleckica1 equipment is
mineral oil-filled and not designed to
contain PCB dielectric fluid. Very few
items are contaminated with greater
than 500 ppm PCBs. Electromagnets are
primarily used over conveyor belts to
remove iron from non-magnetic
commodities and are not commonly
used by the electric utility industry.
Electromagnets designed to contain
PCBs are used in areas such as coal
mines, coal preparation plants, and coal-
fired generating stations. PCB-filled
electromagnets that pose an exposure
risk to food or feed are discussed in
section E. '
1. Magnitude of exposure. The total
pounds of PCBs in oil-filled voltage .
regulators, switches, and electromagnets
represent less than 0.01 percent of the
total PCBs in-service in electrical
equipment. EPA estimates from data in
the rulemaking record that the annual
leakage of oil,filled. voltage regulators
and switches would amount to a release
of approximately 85 pounds of PCBs per
year.
Leaks-of dielectric fluid from oil-filled
electrical equipment. have the potential
for exposing humans or the environment
to low concentrations (parts per million)
of PCBs because some of this equipment
is used in the Nation's electrical
distribution system which is located
near consumers of electric power. In
addition, releases of PCBs anywhere in
the environment have the potential to
reach aquatic systems, build up in the
food chain, and ultimately result in
human exposure. Leaks of PCBs from
electromagnets used in coal-handling
systems, however, present negligible
risks since the coal in these systems is
handled automatically and eventually is
burned in combustion devices (such as
high efficiency boilers) capable of
destroying PCBs.
Z. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
substitutes. The PCBs in almost all of
this electrical equipment serve no
specific purpose since the PCBs are in
such small concentrations and are the
result of contamination from servicing
arid manufacturing activities. For this
equipment, the PCBs provide no
significant benefits. For any equipment
designed to contain PCBs, the use of
PCBs in the equipment provides the
same safeguards against fire hazards as
that described for transformers.
The availability of substitutes wa!I
discussed in the proposed rule.
3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements. This
final rule reduces the amount of worker
and environmental exposure associated
with servicing (including rebuilding) this
equipment. This rule also prevents
further PCB contamination of this
equipment.
The economic impacts are discussed
in further detail in the proposed rule and
the Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared for this final rule. There are no
significant changes from the analysis
done for the proposed rule .
4. Findings on the use and servicing of
this electrical equipment. The proposed
rule contained an authorization for the
use of PCBs in voltage regulators,
switches (including sectionalizers and
motor starters), and electromagnets for
their remaining useful li.ves with no use
restrictioJ18. It also restricted servicing
activities in order to prevent this
equipment from being further
contaminated with PCBs and to reduce
PCB exposure of servicing personnel
and the environment during these
activities. Comments in response to the
proposed rule did not raise any new
37362 Federal Reglstel' / V9L 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Issues that warranted changes in the
. proposal. Therefore, EPA reaffirms its
proposed findings in this final rule.
EPA finds that authorizing the use of
PCBs in voltage regulators, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), and electromagnets with the
servicing conditions does not present an
unreasonable .risk for the following
reasons:
a. Allowing this use of PCBs to
continue avoids disruption of electric
service and the costs associated with a
prohibition. (This reason does not apply
to electromagnets.)
b. There is little PCB contamination of
this oil-filled equipment and very small
amounts of PCBs are expected to be
released annually.
c. EPA does not believe that the cost
associated with restrictions regarding
the use of this equipment is justified by
the small PCB exposure that would be
prevented by such measures.
d. The servicing restrictions will
prevent easily avoidable human
exposure to PCBs.
This rule authorizes the servicing of
electrical equipment not previously
mentioned in the PCB rule, such as
voltage regulators and switches. Persons
who service this equipment should note
that any processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for servicing this
equipment requires an exemption from
the July 1, 19791ian of these activities.
Procedures for submitting a petition for
· exemption from the PCB processing and
distribution in commerce prohibitions
under section 6( e )(3)(B) of TSCA are
described in 40 CFR Part 750. (44 FR
31558, May 31, 1979).
G. Use and Servicing of Circuit
Breakers, Re~losers, and Cable
Circuit breakers, reclosures, and cable
are used primarily by electric utilities to
protect other equipment in the electric
power system from damage caused by
electrical faults and to transmit electric
power. Circuit breakers, reclosers, and
cable are types of oil-filled electrical
equipment generally not designed to
contain PCBs. However, available data
indicate that a small percentage of this
electrical equipment contains PCBs
resulting from past servicing and
manufacturing pn)ctices.
1. Magnitude of exposure. Although
approximately 26.3 percent of all oil-
filled circuit breakers can be expected
to leak during an average year, this
could amount to a release of only 50.88
pounds of PCBs, according to the EEi/
USWAG study. This same study
indicates that releases of dielectric fluid
from reclosers could amount to 6.64
pounds of PCBs per year. As with other
oil-filled electrical equipment, leaks of
dielectric fluid have the potential for
exp_osing humans and the environment
to low concentrations of PCBs because
of the equipment's location throughout
electric power system service areas.
2. Benefits of PCBs and availability of
substitutes. Both the benefits and
availability of substitutes for PCBs in
circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable are
the same as that discussed for other ·
mineral oil-filled equipment
(transformers, voltage regulators,
switches, etc.).
3. Economic and environmental
impacts of regulatory requirements.
Since this electrical equipment may be
assumed to contain less than 50 ppm
PCBs, the ·economic and environmental
impact of the servicing and disposal
requirements is minimal and difficult to
measure. These requirements would
only apply to equipment that is known
to contain PCBs in excess of 50 ppm (e.g.
from test results). Additional discussion
of the costs and benefits associated with
the regulatory requirements is found in
the proposed rule and the Regulatory
Impact Analysis prepared for this final
rule. There are no significant changes
from the analysis done for the proposed
rule.
·4, Findings on the use and servicing of
this electrical equipment. The proposed
rule contained an authorization, with
servicing conditions, which would have
allowed the use of PCBs in circuit
breakers and reclosers for the remaining
useful life of this equipment. No
comments contained data which would
warrant changing this part of the
proposal.
The proposed rule also authorized the
use of oil-filled cable and contained a
requirement that oil-filled cable must be
assumed to contain between 50 and 500
ppm PCBs if the concentration were
unknown. This requirement was
included In the proposal because there
was virtually no data in the rulemaking
record on PCB concentrations in cable.
Comments in response to the proposed
rule contained additional data on the
PCBs concentrations of oil-filled cable.
indicating that virtually none of the
cable is contaminated in excess of 50
ppm. Therefore, tliis final rule allows the
assumption that oil0filled cable contains
less than 50 ppm PCBs if the actual
concentration is unknown.
EPA authorizes the use and servicing
of PCBs in circuit breakers. reclosers.
and cable for the remainder of their
useful lives, according to the servicing
re~trictions of§ 761.30(m)(l). These
servicing conditions prevent further PCB
contamination of equipment containing
less than 50 ppm PCBs. The disposal
requirements of 40 CFR 761 .60 and the
servicing requirements of 40 CFR
761.30(h) apply to any oil-filled circuit
breaker, recloser, or cable found to
contain 50 ppm or greater PCBs. zyA
believes that this use authorization with
servicing conditions does not present an·
unreasonable risk for the following
reasons:
a. Allowing this use of PCBs to
continue avoids disruption of electric
service and the costs associa.ted with a
prohibition.
b. There is little PCB contamination of
this oil-filled equipment and very small
amounts of PCBs are expected to .be
released annually.
c. EPA does not believe that the cost
associated with restrictions regarding
th~ use of this equipment is justified by
the small PCB exposure that would be
prevented by such measures.
d. The servicing restrictions will
prevent easily avoidable human
exposure to PCBs and further
contamination of thrs equipment.
VI. Other Amendments·to the PCB Rule
A. PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment
Because this rulemaking has identified
electrical equipment containing PCBs
that was not previously recognized in
the PCB rule, changes have been made
to definitions presented in the rule. This
final rule deletes the definition of a
"PCB-Contaminated Transformer" (40
CFR 761.3(z)) and substitutes a definition
titled "PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment'. .
"PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment" means any electrical
equipment that contains at least 50 ppm.
but less than 500 ppm PCB.
Electrical equipment includes
transformers (including those 1,1sed on
·railway locomotives and self-propelled
cars), capacitors, voltage regulators,
electromagnets, cable, circuit breakers
reclosers, and switches (including
sectionalizers and motor starters).
Although the use of PCBs in certain
electrical equipment is authorized
regardless of PCB concentration. the
disposal requirements of the May 1979
PCB rule make certain distinctions on
the basis of PCB concentration. That is,
different disposal requirements apply to
PCBs lit concentrations of 500 ppm or
greater and at concentrations between
50 and 500 ppm. The definition of PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment was
developed in order to refer to the
electrical equipment that contains
between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs.
Prior to publication of the proposed
rule, EPA had received data regarding
the actual PCB concentrations in
different types of electrical equipment.
Federal ·Register / Vot 47, No. 165 / Wednesday; August 25; _ 1982 / Rules ·a11~:'Resulations . srsss,
These data indicate that approximately·
12 to 14 percent ofoil-filled
transformers, voltage regulators, and
switches contain PCB concentrations of
50 ppm or greater, but PCB
concentrations greater than 500 ppm in
this equipment are rare, estimated to
occur in less than 2 percent of the
equipment. Because the contamination
was caused by unintentional
manufacturing and servicing practices, it
is impossible to determine for certain
which pieces of equipment are
contaminated without testing them all.
· EPA estimates the cost of such testing to
be over two billion dollars, based on a
total of cost of $100 per test. Based on
these data, EPA requires that all oil-
·filled transformers, voltage regulators,
switches, and electromagnets must be
assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment unless the oil has
been tested, or otherwise verified, and
found not to contain between 50 and 500
ppm PCBs. In other word!!, if the actual
PCB concentra.tion of any oil-filled
transformer, voltage regulator, switch, 01
electromagnet is unknown, the
equipment must be assumed to contain
more than 50 ppm PCBs and may be
assumed to contain less than 500 ppm
PCBs for purposes of servicing and
disposing of this equipment. This will
allow owners of this equipment to avoid
the cost of testing if they choose.
Little monitoring data were available
to EPA prior to publicati_pn of the
proposed rule regarding the PCB
concentration in oil-filled
electromagnets. Comments on the
proposed rule added little additional
information. Because electroma~netA
use the same kind of oil and are
serviced In the same manner as other
types of oil-filled equipment, there is no
reason to believe its PCB concentr<1tion
would frequently exceed 500 ppm.
Therefore, EPA requires that oil-filled
electromagnets be included in thP.
category of PCB-Contaminated
mectrical Equipment so that they must
be assumed to have a PCB concentration
between 50 and 500 ppm if the
concentration is unknown. ·
Data in the rulemaking record indicate
that less than two percent of oil-filled
circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable are
contaminated with PCB concentrations
of 50 ppm or greater. EPA estimates that
it would qost approximately forty
million dollars to indentify all of the
circuit breakers, reclosers, and cable
whose PCB contamination exceeds 50
ppm. Because the cost of either testing
all the equipment or treating it as
contaminated in excess of 50 ppm is
high relative to the number of pieces of
equipment that are likely to contain
greater than 50 ppm;EPA allows that
-oil-filled circuit breakers, reclosers and
cable need not be classified as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment if
the PCB concentration is unknown.
B. Clarification of Existing Definitions
This final rule retains, as proposed,
changes to the definitions of "Large High
Voltage Capacitor", "Large Low Voltage
Capacitor", "Small Capacitor", and PCB
Article (40 CFR 761.3(d) (1), (2), and (3)
and 761.3{t), respectively). No commen.iJ
on the proposed rule raised any new
issues regarding these changes.
C. Distribution in Commerce
EPA in its April 22, 1982 Federal
Register notice proposed changes to the
listof PCB activities it found to be in a
totally enclosed manner, due to new
information submitted prior to the
proposal. This final rule is identical to
the proposal. To assure that PCBs are
not rel,eased from electrical equipment
being distributed in commerce under-the
provisions of section 6(e)(3)(C), EPA
finds the distribution in commerce of
only intact and nonleaking transformers
-(including transformers used on railway
locomotives and self-propelled cars), ·
capacitors, electromagnets, voltage
'regulators; circuit breakers, reclosers,
switches (including sectionalizers and
sw'ltches), and cable to be totally
enclosed activities. Coupled with 40
CFR 761.30(c)(1), this will restrict the
applicability of section 6(e)(3)(C) to
intact, nonleaking equipment. Persons
wishing to distribute in commerce
electrical equipment which ls not intact
and nonleaking must apply for an
exemption from the ban on distribution
in commerce, using the exemption
procedures found in 40 CFR Part 750.
D. Disposal Requirement'!
Since this rulemaking has identified
uses of PCB-containing electrical
equipment not recognized in the earlier
PCB regulations, changes have been
made to the disposal requirements for
PCBs and PCB ltelDB. The maj~r
difference between thi1 final rule and
the proposal is that language specifying
the extent of cleanup required for a PCB
spill has been deleted.
1. Minero/oil dielectric fluid. This
final rule allows mineral oil dielectric
fluid from any type of PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment to
be disposed following the requirements
of 40 CFR 761.60(a)(2). All mineral oil
from transformers, electromagnets,
voltage regulators, and switches is
subject to the disposal ·requiremerits of
this section, unleis the oil baa been
tested (or otherwisevetified) and found
to contain leas ·than 50 ppm PCBi. No
comments ·on t1\is proposed than.si, ·
affected EPA's condus!?~s r,e.~a,rdlOR 'the
degree of ccmta'.ni)n·atlon cif1h1s .
equipment. _
2. PCB items. The proposed nile
established disposal requirements fOl'
PCB-Contaminated mectrlcal
Equipment. This equipment must be
drained of all free flowing liquid, and
the liquid must be disposed of under 40
CFR 761.6Q(a)(2). The proposed rule also
regulated the disposal of PCB Articles.
with a PCB concentration of sop ppm or
more under 40 CFR 761.60(b)(5), ,but did
_not regulate the disposition'of a PCB
Article containing less tha,;i 500 ppm,
once all free flowing liquid has been
drained from the PCB Article. Comments ·
received generally agreed with thes~.
requirements, and this final rule retains
them,as.proposed. However, one
comme,:it stated that some capacitol'I!
have been found fo contain between &O
and 500 ppm PCBs. These comments
pointed out that capiu;itors ~re.not
designed to be drained of.~electric fluid
and wo~d have to be punctured or cut ·
open. Puncturing or cutting open II Larae
PCB Capacitor poses a pote1:1tial -PCB
· exposure risk to workers and the
environment due to the sudden release
ofintemal.~ressure ~a~ may have built
up in a failed capacitor. Jn order to
discoura8e; this. pptentiil,lly hazardous
activity, this final rule requires disposal
of capacitors containing between:$ and.
500 ppm PCBs,in an incinerator that · _ ·
complies with I 761.70,or in a qhemical
waste landfill that complies with .
§ 761.75.
Although this rule does not require
testing of mineral oil dielectric fluid for-
-PCB concentration, some people may'.
choose to do so. In order to reduce the"
costs associated with testihg for PCB_
concentrations ihmineral oil&electri<i
fluid, this ·rule allows, as proposed,·
common container colleotion"("batch
testing") of mineral oil dielectric fluid
from all electrical equipriient containing
mineral oil dielectric Duid (see 40'CFR ·
761.60(g)(1)).'Commort container
collection is permitted so that mineral
oil from multiple sources can be
collected and tested without requiting'a:
separate test of each individual piece of-
electrical equipment to determine
disposal options. However, in ordet'to
prevent persons from using dilution to
circumvent the disposal rules, dielectric
fluid from ·oU.:fllled circuit breakel'3.
fQClosers, or cable,_collectea in a
common container with untested -
dielectric ftuid from other oil-filled'
equipment 'int1st1>e·asswrted 'to contain_
at least 50 ppm PCBs. · ·
3. Spills aiid1~aks:The pi'()Jtosed ro,._
clarified the definition. of dis_Poslil by .
37354 Federal Register ./ Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and RegulatiQna
including leaks in the definition. The
final rule refines this clarification. A
number of comments stated that it was
· unfair to charge a party with · ,
unauthorized disposal when PCBs are
spilled or leaked during authorized U8e
of electrical equipment but prompt
cleanup is initiated. It is not the
Agency's intention that § 761.J(h) and
§ 761.60(d) should be applied in this
way. Where the responsible party
shows that: (1) The spill, leak, or
uncontrolled discharge occurred during
authorized use of electrical equipment
and (2) adequate cleanup measures
were initiated within 48 hours, the
Agency will not charge the party with a
disposal violation.
The proposal also contained,
requirements for cleanup of PCB
contamination resulting from spills,
leaks, and other uncontrolled discharges
of PCBs. Comments in response to these
provisions varied. Some comments
stated that a requirement for level of
cleanup should.be set, but that cleanup
to a concentration of 50 ppm was
always appropriate. Other comments
expressed concern about setting any
specific requirements for level of
cleanup at this time and about how ·
these levels would be determined in the
field. Still others approved of the
standards set in the proposed rule.
The Agency has decided, not to
include language regarding the required
level of cleanup in this final rule. A part
of§ 76L60(dl{2] (formerly§ 761.10(d)(2)],
which was sometimes construed as
setting a required level of cleanup has
been deleted.
4. Storage for dispasal. The storage for
disposal of nonleal<lng ane structurally
undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
Transformers on pallets next to
qualified slorage facilities was
permitted until January 1, 1983, under
the May 31, 1979, PCB rule (formerly 40
CFR 761.42{c](2)}. This provision was
designed lo relieve the burden on PCB
storage facilities until EPA-approved
incinera lion facilities were
commercially available.
. A number of comments pointed out
that if EPA were going to require
accelerated phase-out of capacitors,
there would be additional storage
needed for phased-out equipment
awaiting disposal. After considering
these comments, EPA has decided to
allow this type.of storage for disposal
for nonleaking and structurally
undamaged PCB Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment after January 1.
1983. _
The May 31, 1979, PCB rule did not
envision an accelerated phase-out for
certain PCB Transformers and large PCB . ·experimentally to \le assoomted;wjth e
Capacitors or the use of PCB-containing · condition of light electriool loadin.8 and
oil-filled electrical equipment other than to cause release. of PCBs from the
transformers. In ·order to lessen the internal components of the .transformer
burden on existing storage facilities and into the dielectric fluid. This
reduce the need to build additional clarification also provides guidan~ ail facilities, this final rule allows this type to what constitutes adequate in-aervice
of storage for disposal to continue use.
indefinitely, according to the provisions
of 40 CFR 761.65(c)(2).
The May 1979 rule exempted PCB
Small Capacitors from the storage
requirements. In the April 22, 1982,
proposed rule, this exemption
(§ 761.10(b)(6)) was printed erroneously.
This error made it appear that EPA was
proposing to exempt PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment from storage
requirements instead of PCB Small
Capacitors. EPA did not intend to
propose any change in the language of
this paragraph. The introductory text to
§ 761.60(b)(6] in this final rule corrects
this error.
E. Reclassification of Electrical
Equipment Containing PCBs
The May 1979 rule prohibits rebuilding
of PCB Transformers and allows the
PCB concentration in electrical
equipment to be reduced for purposes of
reclassifying the equipment. The
proposed rule retained these prnvisions.
Under the provisions for reclassification
the equipment must be put back into
service for three months before testing
the PCB concentration. Comments on
the proposed rule pointed out that the
proposed servicing restrictions prohibit
reclassification of PCB Transformers
which have failed electrically because
failed transformers can not be put back
into service unless rebuilt. In response
to this comment. EPA has added a
provision to the final rule which allows
the Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances to
approve a method of simulating the
loading conditions associated with in-
service use. To apply Jor approval of
any method which uses conditions other
than in-service use, a letter should be
sent to the Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (TS-
794), Envirom~ental Protection Agency,
401 M.Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. Responses to any applications for
approval will be in writing, All
applications should show that
alternative conditions result in
equivalent or greater release of PCB~
from the internal components of the
equipment into the dielectric fluid as
three months of in-service use.
This final rule also clarifies the
definition of in-serrvice use for
transformers by specifying a minimum
dielectric fluid temperature of so• C.
This temperature has been shown
VII. Executive. OrdM 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, issued
February 17, 1981, EPA must juci8e
whether a rule is a "major rule" irnd,
therefore, subject to the requirement.
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
prepared. EPA has determined that this
amendment to the PCB rule is .not a
major rule as the term is defined in
section l{b) of the Executive Order.
EPA has concluded that the
amendment is not "major" undel' the
criteria of section 1{b) because the
annual eff~ of the rule on the ~nomy
will be less than $100 million; it will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices
for any sector of the eco11omy or for any
geographic region; and it wW not re.suit
in any signifi~nt. adv~~ effects 011 .
competition, employment. iDvestment,
productivity, or innov~tion or.on.the
ability of United Sta.)es enterprises to
compete with foreign enterprises in .
domestic or foreign markets. In fact, this
rule allows uses of PCBs in electrical
equipment to continue that would .
otherwise be prohibited by section 6(e)
of TSCA. Th.is rule avoids the severe
disruption of electric service to the
public and industry that would occur i.f
the use were prohibited. It al!io sreatly
reduces the economic impact that would
result from a requirement to replace the
equipment as• soon as, possible ..
However, although this proposal is 110, a
major rule, EPA has prepared a
Regulatory impact Analysis using the
guidance in the Executive Order to the
extent possible within the.time
constraints of the court's order.
This final rule amendment was
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) prior to public;ption
as required by the Executive Order. ·
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section.694 of the. Regulatory
FlexibilHy &t, 5 U,S.C. 604, requjr'38
EPA \o prepare .and mak~ available for
comment a "regulatory .flexibility
· analysis." in connection with any
rulemaking _for whi9h .there is a stat\ltory
requirem,ent.,that a general noticl) q.f,.
proposed rulemaki11g be published, .The
"regulatory flexibility analysis"
describes the effect of a final rule on
small business entHies.
Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, however,. provides .that
~ I I
l
f
Federal Register l Vol. 47, ,No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1.982 / Rule~ and Regulatiotl8 37355
section .604 of the Act "shall not apply to·
any proposed or final rule if the head of
the Agency certifies that the rule will
not, if pr0!Jlulgated, have a significant
·economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities."
· The effect or this final rule is to avoid
sever!? disruption of electric service t(!
industry and the public and to reduce
the costs of complying With TSCA. In
general; this rule will reduce the burden
on.small businesses that would
. :otherwise be encountered if an .
, immediate ban on PCS-containjng
electrical equipment were to take effect.
U an immediate ban were imposed, large
costs \VOuld be incurred by all producers
and users of electricity, Including small
.businesses. · ,, · ·
Since the actual distribution of
electrical equipment ownership is
unknown, EPA estimated the effect of
the capacitor pnase-out on different
groups of utilities, including the rural .
electric cooperatives, using number of
customers as a predfotor of number of
capacitors owned by the utility group.
Four groups were analyzed: private
Investor-owned utilities, local public
utilities; rural electric cooperatives, and --
federally o_wned utilities. The rm-al
electric cooperative ~oup·would be
expected. to include· the. most small
--utilities. Using a· number of measures of
fmpact, none-of th& groups analyzed;
inchidirig the rural electric cooperatives,
would be significantly affected by this
final rule. EPA estimated.that the total
C0!3ts' of the capac;itor phase-out for rural
electric cooperatives woJild be $13.97
million. or 0:012 percent-of the _net value
of assets In electric plant ~ 1979. The
maximum annual-Increase in capitalized
costs as a percent of net investment
w:ould be 0.31 percent for the rural
.electric CO<~peratives. The maximum
revenue requirement Increase over the
phase-out period for the rural electric
cooperatives would be-0.084 percent of
· 1979 revenues. · ·
The impact of the regulation on the
food arid feed Industries should also be
very smail since most of the Industry .
has voluntarily m_oyed or replaced their
PCB Transformel'8 and l.at"Re Capacttors.
· Further, the Impact on small food'and
feed companies will be negligible since
most small firms do not own their own
. transformers and capacitors.,
Stnce the effect of this rule avoids tlie ·
economic Impact aHociated with a
disruption of electric service and based
on the regulatory anatysis which
indicates that there is a net benefit from
the rule, I certify that this rule will-not ,
· have a significant economic Impact on a
substantial number of amall entities.
~erefore, a ''regulatory flexibility
analysis" is nof required and will not be
prepared for this ~leqiaking.
. VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction ~t of 1980
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., authorizes
the Director of the bMB to review
certain information collection requests _
by Federal agencies, EPA has
determined that the recordkeeping
requirements set out in 40 CFR 761.30
constitute a "collection of information,"
as defined in 44 U.S.C 3502(4), making
these requirements subject to the terms
of the PRA. , . . .
In 40 CFR 761.30(a) EPA grants
authorizations for the use of PCB-
containing transforme.rs provided that
records are kept which lndic~te when
the equipment was inspected for leaks,
. whether any leaks were found, and
-what action it took if any leaks were
found, The person is required to keep
· the records until three years after
disposing of the equipment, and upon
request, to make them avaUable to EPA
for inspection. This requirement has
been reduced from the five-year period
that was In the proposal.
These recordkeeping requirements
minimize paperwork burden and are
designed to obtain o'~y information
necessary to assure,that companies are
·complying with the rule. By eliminating
the inspection requirements for ·
capacitors, the paperwork burden of this
final rule has been reduced to less than
six percent of the burden for the
_requirements in the proposed rule.
This final rule amendment has been
forwarded. to the Director of 0MB for
r~view under the terms of the PRA.
0MB has assigned the following control
number to this final rule: 2070--0003.
IX. Official Record of Rulemaklng
In accordance with the requirements
of section 19(a}(3}(E) of TSCA. EPA is
.publishing the following list of
documents, which constitute the record
of this rulemaldng. However, public
comments. the transcript of the
ntlemaking hearing, or submissions
made at the rulemaking hearing or In
connection with it will not be nsted
because these documents are exempt
from Fedenl Register listing under
section 19(a)(3). A full list of these
materials is available on request by
contacting the Industry Assistance
Office (see listing under "For Further
lnfonnatlon Contact").
A. Pre~ou• Rulemaklng· Record,
1. Official Rulemaldftg Record from
"Polychlorlnated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Proceeslng, Distribution In
Commerce and Use Prohibitions Rule"
published In the Federal Register of May 31,
1979, (44 FR 31514).
' 2. Official R11lemaking Record 'from
"Polychtorlnated Biphenyls (PCBa,J; Proposed
Restrictions op Use a.t.AgriculturarPesticide
and Fertilizer Facilit!es,"-1>ublished in the
Federal Register of May 9, 1980, (45 FR
30989).
B. Federal Register Notices
3. 44 FR 31514, May at, 1979. USEPA.
"Polychlorina ted.,Biphenyls WCBs)
Manufacturing; ProceiJslng, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use Prohibitions."
4. 45 FR 1.232, March 5, 1980. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (J>CBs): Request
for Information on PCB Transformers."
5. 46 FR 16096, March 10, 1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing. Processing, l)istributlon in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Electrical Equipment; Court Order on
· Inspection and Maintenance."
6. 46 FR 160!,!6, March 10, 1981. USEPA .
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs~ Use In
Ele<:trical Equipment." -·
· 7. 46 FR 25411, May 6, 1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Propose$!
Restrlct\ons on Use at Agricultural Pesticide
and Fertilizer Facilltle11; Abeyance of
Proposed Rule Amendment."
8. -46 FR 27614, May 20, 1981. USEPA.
"Polychlorinated Blphenyls (PCBs): Use in
mectrical Equipment; Interim Measures
Program." .
~-47 FR 17426, April 22, 1982. USEPA.
"Polychloririated Biphenyls (PCBs); Use in
mectrical Equipment."
C. Support Documents
10. USEPA, OTS, "Regulatory Impact
Aiialysis-(c;,r the Proposi!d PCB-Containing
Electrical Equ.ipm~µt i'{ulemak,ing.'' , _
. '11. USEPA, OTS "Re~atory 'ropact ._ . ·
-Analysis of the Use Rule for PCB-Containing
mectrical Equipment." . · . . ,
12. U$EPA. OTS "Response to Comments
on Health Effects of.PCBs submitted by the
Chemical Manufacturers Association and the
Edison .Electric Institute."
13. USEPA, OTS "Support Document for· ,
the mectrical Equipment Use Rule-Response
to Comments."
D.Reports
14. Chemical Manufacturers Association,
"Summ'ary of the Health Effects of PCBs."
Prepared by Ecology and the Envlronm·ent,
Inc. ·
15. Edison mectric Institute and Utilities·
Solid Waste Activities Group, "Comments
and Studle, on the Use of Polychlorlnated
Blphenyls (PCBs) In Response to an Order of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit."
Vol L-Executive Summary and 'Integrated
Commenta (02/12/82) .
Vol. n.-Potential Health Effect, In the
Human from Exposure fo P9lychlorinate~
Blphenyls and Related Impurities (2/12/82)
Prepared under contract to DrUI; Friess,
}:fays, Lo.aims & ·snaffer. inc. -
Vol. in.-Report' of the Study on PCBs In
Equipment Owned by the mectric Utility
Industry (02/12/82). Prepared under
contract to ·Resource Plantung:Corp.
3_7~~'. ·r~'4fP'.a!)l,oglster /. Vol~ ,47.-No .. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
. I
Vol IV ~viro,lllllental Pa~a,)'• of
.. Polychlwtnate41Hpli~'yla (qzj12/ez).
'Pi-eparedby DonaldMacXay,D~t. of
Chemical Eng. anti Applied Chemistry, ln11t ..
of EnVironrnentat Stutlies, Untv. ofTmnrito.
CA.
·to. Edi!IOD Electric )natltute, "Initial Cost ,
Impact to Utility Com~ of the Regulation
of PCBs in Food-Related Industries.:"
(December 1980) Prepared by Resource . .
Planning Corp.
17. Edison mectric lnstltute arid Utilities
Solid Waste Activities Group, "Preliminary
Findings of the Study of PCB11 'Iii Equipment
Owned by the Electric Utilities Industry,
Task I and nu {10/29/81). Prepared by
Resource Plaru.ling Corp.
. 16. Electric Power Research Institute,
"Equilibrium Swdy of PCBs Between
Transformer Oil and Tre.nsformer Solid
Materials" (December 3, 1981). Prepared by
.RTECorp. ,
19. ENSCO, "Em~ion Testing During ·
1ncineration of PC& at Energy Sys• Co."
(December 1981). Prepared by tRW, Inc.,
Env. Div.
2(). National Electric Manufacturers
Association, "Potential Health Effects In the
Human from Exposure to Polychlorinated·
Biphenyls (PCBsJ and Related lmp_urltle.ij"
(01/25/82}. Prepared by Drll\,,Friess, l:lays,
Loomis & Shaffer, Inc ..
21. Northeast Uttiitiell Service Co.,
"Capacitor Protective Schemes Investigated
by Northeast Utilities." Presented to EPRI
PCB Seminar, Oa\la,1, TX {Oecember 1~.
1981).
22. Rollins Env. Services, ,"TI1e J>CB
Incineration Test Made by R<>llins
Environmental Services,(TX), lnc. at Deer
Park, TX."-tNove,mber 10-12, 1981).
23. OSEPA, OT$,. "Summary Data on
"Substitutes for Polycholorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)" (February;1981). Prepared by SRI
International. .
24. USEPA, OTS, "Assessment of the Use
of Selected ;Replacement Fluids for PCBe In
Electrical Equipment" (March 1979). Prepared
by Verser, Inc. ·
25. USEPA, Reg. 6, AHMD, Solid Waste
Division, Hlnclneration of PCBs Summary of
Approval Actions---Energy Systems Co.
(ENSCO~ El Dorado Park, TX" (02/06/81).
26. USEl>A, WH, Marine Proteciion,
"Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (lnrlneration at Sea) Permit."
~-Statutory.Authority
Under section 6(e) ofTSCA (15 U.S.C.
2605), the Administrator may by rule
authorize the manufacture, processing,
distribution In commerce or use {or any
combination 9f such activ1~ies) of any
PCBs In other than a ·totally enclos~d
manner if the Administrator finds tha,t it
will not present an unreasonable risk of
injury t~ health Of the ~llv4'oninen~ The
. Administrator alao has authority to
amend or modi.fy the PCB .
Manufacturing. .Pr9ce11sing, Distribution
in Commerce, and \hie Prohibition Rule
.. (40 CF'R Part 7-61), published in the .
Federal.Reglster'ofMay_31, 1979, {44 FR
31514). ·. . .
list of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 781
Hazardous materials, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting
end recordkeeptng requirements,
Environmental protection.
Dated: August 18, 1982.
John W. Hernandez.
Acting Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR Pert 761 is
amended as follows:
PART t&1-POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBa) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN
COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS
1. In § 761.3, paragraphs (d)(l}, (2), and
(3), (h), (t), and {z) are revised and
paragraph (ll) is added to read as
follows:
§ 761.3 Definitions.
• •
(d) • • •
(1) "Small Capacitor" means a
capacitor which contains less than 1.36
kg {3 lbs.) of dielectric fluid. The
following assumptions may be used if
the actual weight of the dielectric fluid
is unknown. A capacitor whose total
volume is less than 1,639 cubic
centimeters {100 cubic inches) may be
considered to contain less than 1.36 kg
(3 lbs.) of dielectric fluid and a capacitor
whose total volume Is more than 3,278
cubic centimeters (200 cubic inches)
must be considered to contain more than
1,36 kg (3 lbs.) of dielectric fluid. A
capacitor whose volume is between
1,639 and 3,278 cubic centimeters may ·
be considered to contain less than 1.36
kg (3 lbs.) of dielectric fluid if the total
weight of the capacitor is less than 4.08
kg {9 lbs.).
(2) "Large High Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 lbs.) or more of dielectric fluid and
which operates at 2000 volts (a.c. or d.c.}
or-above.
(3) "Large Low Voltage Capacitor"
means a capacitor which contains 1.36
kg (3 lbs.) or more of dielectric fluid and
which operates below WOO volts (a.c. or
d:c.).
(h) "Disposal" means intentionally or
accidentally to discard, throw away, or
otherwise complete or terminate the
useful life of PCBs and PCB Items.
Disposal includes spills, leaks, and other
uncontrolled discharges o( PCBs as well
as actions related to containing,
transporting, destroying, degrading,
decontaminating, or tonfining PCBs and
PCBHems. .
•
ft) "PCB Article" means any
manufactured article, other than a .PCB
Container, that contains PCBs and
whose surface(s) has been in direct
contact with PCBs. "PCB Article"
includes capacitors, transformers,
electric motors. pumps, pipes and any
other manufactured Hem {1) which is
formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture, (2) which has end
use functlon(s) dependent in whole or in
part upon its shape or design during end
use, and (3) which has either no change
of chemical composition during its end
use or only those changes of
composition which have no comrnerical
purpose separate from that of the PCB
Article ..
•
(z) "PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment" means any electrical
equipment, including but not limited to
transformers (including those used in
railway locomotives and self-propelled
cars), capacitors, circuit breakers,
reclosers, voltage regulators, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), electromagnets, and cable, that
contain 50 ppm or greater PCB, but less
than 500 ppm PCB. Oil-filled electrical
equipment other than circuit breakers,
reclosers, and cable whose PCB
concentration is unknown must be
assumed to be PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment. (See § 761.30{a)
and (h) for provisions permitting
reclassification of electrical equipment
containing 500 ppm or greater PCBs to
PCB-Contaminated Electrical
. Equipment). .
•
(ll) "Posing an Exposure Risk to Food
or Feed" means being in any location
where human food or aninial feed
products could be exposed to PCBs
released from a PCB Item. A PCB Item
poses ari exposure risk to food or feed if
PCBs released in any way from the PCB
Item have a potential pathway to human
food or animal feed. EPA considers
human food and animal feed to include
items regulated by the lJ.S. Department
of Agriculture or the Food and Drug
Administration as human food or animal
feed; this includes additives. Food or
feed is excluded from this definition if it
is· used or stored in private homes.
2. The introductory text of § 761.20 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 761..20 Prohibitions.
Except as authorized in § 761.30 the
activities listed.in paragraphs (a) and (d)
of this section are prohibited pursuant to
section 6(e)(2) ofTSCA. The
.requirements set forth in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section concerning export
and .import of PCBs for purposes of ·
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and .Regulations 37357
disposal _and P~B Items for pW])oses of
disposal are established pursuant to
section 6(e)(1) of TSCA. Subject to any
exemptions granted pursuant to section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, the activities listed
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
are prohibited pursuant to section
6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA. In addition, the
Administrator hereby finds, under the
authority of section 12(a)(2) of TSCA,
that the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs and
PCB Items for export from the United
States presents an unreasonable risk of.
injury to health within the United States.
This finding is based upon the well-
documented human health and
• environmental hazard of PCB exposure;
the high probability of human and
environmental exposure to PCBs and
PCB Items from manufacturing, .
processing, or distribution activities; the
potential hazard o{ PCB exposure posed
by the transportation of PCBs or PCB
Items within the United States; and the
evidence that contamination of the
environment by PCBs is spread far
beyond the areas where they are used.
In addition, the Administrator hereby
finds that any exposure of human beings
· or the environment to PCBs as measured
or detected by any scientifically
acceptable anjilytical method is a
significant exposure, as defined in
§ 761.3(dd). Section 761.3(hh) and TSCA
section 6(e)(2)(C) define the term totally
enclosed manner as "any manner which
will ensure that any exposure of human
beings or the environment to a
polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insignificant * ~ * ." Since any exposure
to PCBs is found to be a significant
exposure, a totally enclosed manner is a
manner that results in no exposure of
humans or the environment to PCBs. The
following activities .are considered
totally enclosed: distribution In
commerce of intact, nonleaking
electrical equipment such as
transformers (including transformers
used in railway locomotives and self-
propelled cars), capacitors,
electromagnets, voltage regulators,
switches (including sectionalizers and
motor starters), circuit breakers,
reclosers, and cable that contain PCBs
at any concentration and processing and
distribution in commerce of PCB
Equipment containing an intact,
nonleaking PCB Capacitor. See
paragraph (c) (1) of this section for
provisions allowing the distribution in
commerce of PCBs and PCB Items.
3. Section 761.30 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (h) and
adding paragraphs (1) and (m) to read as
follows:
§ 761.30 Authorizations.
• •
(a) Use in and servicing of
transformers (other than railroad
transformers). PCBs at any
concentration may be used in
transformers ( other than transformers
for railroad locomotives and self-
propelled railroad cars) and may be
used for purposes of servicing including
rebuilding these transformers for the
remainder of their useful lives, subject
to the following conditions:
(1) Use conditions_-(i) After October 1,
1985, the use and storage for reuse of
PCB Transformers that pose an
exposure risk to food or feed is
prohibited.
(ii) A visual inspection of each PCB
Transformer (as defined in § 761.3(y)) in
use or stored for reuse shall be
performed at least once every three
months. These inspections may take
place any time during the three month
periods; January-March, April-J~ne,
July-September, and October-December
as long as there is a minimum of 30 days
between inspections. The visual
inspection must include investigation for
any leak of dielectric fluid on or around
the transformer. The extent of the visual
inspections will depend on the physical
constraints of each transformer .
installation and s~ould not require an
electrical shutdown of the transformer
being inspected.
. (iii) If a PCB Transformer is found to
have a leak which results in any
quantity of PCBs running off or about to
run off the external surface of the
transformer, then the transformer must
be repaireq. or replaced to eliminate the
source of the leak. In all cases any
leaking material must be cleaned up and
properly disposed of according to
disposal requirements of § 761.60.
Cleanup of the released PCBs must be
initiated as soon as possible, but _in no
case later than 48 hours of its discovery.
Until appropriate action is completed,
any active leak of PCBs must be
contained to prevent exposure of
humans or the environment and
inspected daily to verify containment of
the leak. Trenches, dikes, buckets, and
pans are examples of proper
containment measures.
(iv) Records of inspection and
maintenance history shall be maintained
at least 3 years after disposing of the
transformer and shall be made available
for inspection, upon request, by EPA
(0MB Control Number: 2070-0003). Such
records shall contain the following
information for each PCB Transformer:
(A) Its location.
(B) The date of each visual inspection
and the date that a leak was discovered,
if different from the inspection date.
(C) The person performing the
inspection.
(D) The location of any leak(s).
(E) An estimate of the amount of
dielectric fluid released from any leak.
(F) The date of any cleanup,
containment, repair, or replacement.
· (G) A description of any cleanup,
containment, or repair performed.
(H) The results of any containment
and daily inspection required for
uncorrected active leaks.
(v) A reduced visual inspection
frequency of at least once every 12
months applies to PCB Transformers
that utilize either of the following risk
reduction measures. These inspections
may take place any time during the
calendar year as long as there is a
minimum of 180 days between
inspections.
(A) a PCB Transformer which has
impervious, undrained, secondary .
containment capacity of at least 100
percent of the total dielectric fluid
volume of all transformers so contained,
or
(B) A PCB Transformer which has
been tested and found to contain less
than 80,000 ppm PCBs (after three
months of inservice use if the
transformer has been serviced for
purposes of reducing the PCB
concentration).
(vi) An increased visual inspection
frequency of at least once every week
applies to any PCB Transformer in use
or stored for reuse which poses an
exposure risk to food or feed. The user
of a PCB Transformer posing an
exposure risk to food or feed is
responsible for the inspection,
recordkeeping, and maintenance
requirements under this section until the
user notifies the owner that the
transformer may pose an exposure risk
to food or feed. Following such
notification, it is the owner's ultimate
responsibility to determine whether the
PCB Transformer poses an exposure risk
to food or 'feed.
(2) Servicing conditions. (i)
Transformers classified as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment (as
defined in § 761.3(z)) may be serviced
(including rebuilding) only with
dielectric fluid .containing less than 500
ppm PCB.
(ii) Any servicing (including
rebuilding) of PCB Transformers (as
defined in § 761.3(y)) that requires the
remov.al of the transformer coil from the
transformer casing is prohibited. PCB
Transformers may be serviced
37358 ·Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(including topping off) with dielectric
fluid at any PCB concentration.
(iii) PCBs removed during any
servicing activity must be captured and
either reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of § 761.60. PCBs from PCB
Transformers must not be mixed with or
added to dielectric fluid from PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment.
(iv) Regardless of its PCB
concentration, dielectric fluids
containing less than 500 ppm PCB that
are mixed with fluids that contain 500
ppm or greater PCB must not be used as
dielectric fluid in any electrical
equipment. The entire mixture of
dielectric fluid must be considered to be
greater than 500 ppm PCB and must be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements in § 761.70.
(v) A PCB Transformer may be
converted to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment or to a non-PCB
Transformer and a transformer that is
classified as PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment may be reclassified
to a non-PCB Transformer by draining,
refilling and/ or otherwise servicing the
transformer. In order to reclassify;the
transformer's dielectric fluid must
contain less than 500 ppm PCB (for
conversion to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment) or less than 50
ppm PCB (for conversion to a non-PCB
Transfomer) after a minimum of three
months of in-service use subsequent to
the last servicing conducted for the
purpose of reducing the PCB
concentration in the transformer. In-
service means that the transformer is
used. electrically under loaded
conditions that raise the temperature of
the dielectric fluid to at least 50° ·
Centigrade. The Assistant Administrator
may grant, without further rulemaking,
approval for the use of alternative
methods that simulate the loaded
conditions of in-service use. All PCBs
removed from transformers for purposes
of reducing PCB concentrations are
subject to the disposal requirements of
§ 761.60.
(vi) Any dielectric fluid containing· 50
ppm or greater PCB used for servicing
transformers must be stored in
accordance with the storage for disposal
requirem.ents of § 761.65.
(vii) Processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for purposes of
servicing transformers is permitted only
for persons who are granted an
exemption under TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
•
(h) Use in and servicing of
electromagnets, s~itches and voltage
regulators. PCBs at any concentration
may be used in electrorpagnets, switches
(including sectionalizers and motor
starters), and voltage regulators and
may be used for purposes of servicing
this equipment (including rebuilding) for
the remainder of their useful lives,
subject to the following conditions: .
(1) Use conditions. (i) After October 1,
1985, the use and storage for reuse of
any electromagnet which poses an
exposure risk to food or feed is
prohibited if the electromagnet contains
greater tha 500.ppm PCBs.
(ii) A visual inspection of each
electromagnet subject to paragraph
(h)(1)(i) shall he performed at least once
every week according to the conditions
contained in § 761.30(a)(1)(iii) and (iv).
(2) Servicing conditions. (i) Servicing
(including rebuilding) any --
electromagnet, switch, or voltage
regulator with a PCB concentration of
500 ppm or greater which requires the
removal and rework of the internal
components is prohibited. ·
(ii) Electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators classified as PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment (as
defined in § 761.3(z)) may be serviced
(including rebuilding) only with
dielectric fluid containing less than 500
ppm PCB.
(iii) PCBs removed during any
servicing activity must be captured and
either reused as dielectric fluid or
disposed of in accordance with the
requirements of § 761.60. PCBs from
electromagnets switches, llnd voltage
regulators with a PCB concentration of
at least 500 ppm must not be mixed with
or added to dielectric fluid from PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment.
(iv) Regardless of its ·pcB
(concentration, dielectric fluids
containing less than 500 ppm PCB) that
are mixed with .fluids that contain 500
ppm or greater PCB must not be used as
dielectric fluid in any electrical
equipment. The entire mixture of
dielectric fluid must be considered lo be
greater than 500 ppm PCB and must be
disposed of in an incinerator that meets
the requirements of§ 761.70.
(v) An electromagnet, switch or
voltage regulator with a PCB
concentration of at least 500 ppm may
be converted to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment or to a non-PCB
classification and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment may be reclassified
to a non-PCB classification by draining,
refilling and/ or otherwise servicing the
equipment. In order to be reclassified,
the equipment's dielectric fluid must
contain less than 500 ppm PCB (for
conversion to PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment) or less than 60
ppm PCB (for conversion to a non-PCB
classification) after a minimum of three
months of in-service use subsequent fo
the last servicing conducted for the
purpose of reducing the PCB ; ,
concentration in the equipment. In-
service use means the equipment is used
electrically under loaded conditions.
The Assistant Administrator may grant,
without further rulemaking, approval for
the use of alternative methods that
simulate the loaded conditions of in-
service use. All PCBs removed from this
equipment for purposes of reducing PCB
concentrations are subject to the
disposal requirements of § 761.60.
(vi) Any dielectric fluid containing 50
ppm or greater PCB used for servicing
electromagnets, switches, or voltage
regulators must be stored in accordance
with the storage for dispos<;il
requirements of § 761.65.
(vii) Processing and distribution in
commerce of PCBs for purposes of ·
servicing electromagnets, switches or
voltage regulators is permitted only for
persons who are granted an exemption
under TSCA 6(e)(3)(B).
(1) Use in capacitors. PCBs at any
concentration may be used in_
capacitors, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Use conditions. (1) After October 1,
1988, the use and storage for reuse of
PCB Large High Voltage Capacitors and
PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors
which pose an exposure risk to food or
feed is prohibited.
(ii) After October 1, 1988, the use of
PCB Large High Voltage Capacitors and
PCB Large Low Voltage Capacitors is
prohibited unless the capacitor is used
within a restricted-access electrical
substation or in a contained and
restricted-access indoor installation. A
restricted-access electrical substation is
an outdoor, fence.d or walled~in facility
that restricts public access and is used
in the transmission or distribution of
electric power. A contained and
restricted-access indoor installation
does not have public access and has an
adequate roof, walls, and floor to
contain any release of PCBs within the
indoor location. ·
(2) [Reserved]
(m) Use in and servicing of circuit
breakers, reclosers and cable. PCBs at
any concentration may be used in circuit
breakers, reclosers, and cable and may
be used for purposes of servicing this
electrical equipment (including
rebuilding) for the remainder of their
useful lives, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) Servicing conditions. (i) Circuit
breakers, reclosers, and cable may be
serviced (including rebuilding) only with
dielectric fluid containing less than 50
ppm PCB.
l
\
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, August 25, 1962 / Rules and Regulations 37359·
(ii) Any circuit breaker, recloser or
cable found to contain at least 50 ppm
PCBs may be serviced only in
accordance with the conditions
contained in 40 CFR 761.30(h)(2).
(2) [Reserved]
4. In § 761.40, paragraphs (a)(2) and
(c)(l) are.revised to read as follows:
§ 761.40 Marking reqµlrements.
(a) • • •
(2) PCB Transformers at the time of
manufacture, at the time of distribution
in commerce if not already marked, and
at the time of removal from use if not
already marked. [Marking of PCB-
Contaminated Electrical Equipment is
not required];
• •
(c) • • •
(1) All PCB Transformers not marked
under paragraph (a) of this section
[marking of PCB-Contaminated ,
Electrical Equipment is not required];
5. The heading for Subpart D is
revised to read as follows:
Subpart 0-Storage and Disposal
6. In§ 761.60 paragraph (b)(l)(ii) is
removed and reserved and the
introductory text of paragraph (a)(2),
paragraph (b)(2)(i), the introductory text
of paragraph (b)(2){1ii), paragraph {b)(4)
and (5), paragraph (d), and paragraph
(g)(l) are revised and paragraph (b)(6) is
added to read a:s follows:
§ 761.60 Dlapoaal requirements.
(a) • • •
(2) Mineral oil dielectric fluid from
PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment
containing a PCB concentration of 50
ppm or greater, but less than 500 ppm,
must be disposed of in one of the
following:
(b) • • • .
(2) PCB Capacitors. (i) The disposal of
any capacitor shall comply with all
requirements of this subpart unless it is
known from label or nameplate
information, manufacturer's literature
(including documented communications
with the manufacturer), or chemical
analysis that the capacitor does not
contain PCBs.
(iii) Any PCB Large High or Low
Voltage Capacitor which contains 500
ppm or greater PCBs, owned by any
person, shall be disposed of in
accordance with either of the following:
(4) PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment. 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 in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2) or (3)
of this section. The disposal of the
drained electrical equipment is not
regulated by this rule. Capacitors that
contain between 50 and 500 ppm PCBs
shall be disposed of in an incinerator
that complies with § 761.70 or in a
chemical waste landfill that complies
with § 761.75.
(5) Other PCB Articles. (i) PCB
Articles with a PCB concentration of 500
ppm or greater must be disposed -of:
(A) In an incinerator that complies
with § 761.70; or
(B) In a chemical waste landfill that
complies with § 761.75, provided that all
free-flowing liquid PCBs have been
thoroughly drain.ad from any articles
before the articles are placed in the
chemical waste landfill and that the
drained liquids are disposed of in an
incinerator that complies with § 761.70.
(ii) PCB Articles with a J>CB
concentration between 50 and 500 ppm
must be disposed of by draining all free
flowing liquid from the article and
disposing of the liquid in accordance
with paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this
section. The disposal ·of the drained
article is not regulated by this rule.
(6) Storage of PCB Articles. Except for
a PCB Article described in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) of this section and hydraulic
machines that comply with the
municipal solid waste disposal
provisions described in paragraph (b)(3)
of this section, any PCB Article shall be
stored in accordance with § 761.65 prior
to disposal.
(d) Spflls. (i) Spills, leaks, and other
uncontrolled· discharges of PCBs
constitute the disposal of PCBs.
· (2) PCBs resulting from the clean-up
and removal of spills, leaks, or other
uncontrolled <Uscharges, must be stored
and disposed of in accordapce with
·paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) These regulations do not ~xempt
any person from any actions or liability
under other statutory authorities,
including but not limited to the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980.
(g) Testing-procedures. (1) Owners or
users of mineral oil dielectric fluid
electrical equipment may use the
following procedures to determine the
concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
fluid:
(i) Dielectric fluid removed from
mineral oil dielectric fluid electrical
-,quipment m_ay be collected in a
common container, provided that no ,
other chemical substances or mixtures
are added to the container. This
·common container option does not
permit dilution of. the collectec! oil.
Mineral oil that is assumed or known to
contain at least 50 ppm PCBs must not
be mixed with mineral oil that is known
or assumed to contain less than 50 ppm
PCBs to reduce the concentration of ·
PCBs in the common container. If
dielectric fluid from untestedroil-filled
circuit breakers,-reclosers, or-cable is
collected in a common container with
dielectric fluid from other oil-filled ·
electrical equipment, the entire contents
of the container must be treated as PCBs
at a concentration of at least 50 ppm,
unless all of the fluid from the other oil-
filled electrical equipment has been
tested and shown to contain less than 50
ppmPCBs.
(ii) For purposes of complying with the
marking and disposal requirements;
representative samples may be taken
from either the common containers.or
the individual electrical eqUipment to
determine the PCB concentration, except
that if any PCBil at a concentration of
500 ppm or g~eater have be~n lidded to
the container or equipment then ,the
total container contents must be ·
considered as having a ~B ·
concentration 9-f500 ppm1i)r greater f9r
purposes of coµiplyip.g with the diapo11al··
requirements of this subpart. For ·
purposes of this subparagraph,
representative samples of mineral oil
dielectric fluid are either samples taken
in accordance with American Socie!y of
Testing and Materials method D-923 or
samples taken from a container that has
been thoroughly mixed in a mariner such
that any PCBs in the container 'are '
uniformly distributed throughout the·
liquid in the container.
• •·
7. In § 761.65, paragraph (c)(2) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 761.65 Storage for cttapoaal.
•
(c)* • •
(Z) Non-leaktng and structurally
undamaged PCB. Large High Voltage
Capacitors and PCB-Contaminated ·
Electrical Equipment that have not been
drained of free flowing dielectric fluid
may·be stored on pallets next to a
storage facility that meets the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
.section. PCB-Contaminated Electrical
Equipment that has been drained of free
flowing dielectric fluid is not subject.to
the storage provisiqns of I 761.65.
· Storage under this subparagraph wiH I.le
permitted only when the storage facility
37360 Federal Register j Vol. 47, No. 165 / Wednesday, At1gus1 25, 1982 J Rules and Regulations
has immediately avaifable unfilled
storage ·space equal ,t0 ;10 per-ceFJt 1of the
volume -0f capacitors .and equipment
stored outside ~he facility. The
c<1pacitors and equipment ternpora11ily
stored outside the faciiHy -shaJI be
checked for iJeaks •weekly.
§ 761.45 Cor,ectly designated as
§ 761.180.
8. Section 761.45 which was
incor.redly ·reaesignated as :§ 761.80 in
the Federal Register .of May ,6. 1982 :( 47
FR 19527:) is ,correctly ,redes•ig.na ted as
§ 761.180 in Sul>part J.
!Fil Do,: 82-23284 !'tied S..24-82: 8145 •ml
91LLING CODE 6580-S~M
I
--

-
---

-
----
--
-
-----
Thursday
October 21 1982
Part Ill
APPENDIX D
Environmental
Protection Agency
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Closed and Controlled Waste
Manufacturing Processes
46980 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[OPT&-620178; TSH-FRL 2217-6]
Polychlortnated Blphenyls (PCBs);
Manufacturing, Processing,
Dlatrlbutlon In Commerce, and Use
Prohibition•; Use In Closed and
Controlled Waste Manufacturing
Procenes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule amends
portions of an existing EPA rule
concerning certain chemical substances
known as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). The Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), generally
prohibits the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs. This rule excludes PCBs produced
in certain limited manufacturing
processes from the TSCA prohibitons.
Appropriate safeguards arc included to
ensure compliance with the conditions
for exclusion provided by the rule.
DATES: These amendments shall be
considered promulgated for purpose of
judicial review under section 19 of•
TSCA at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
on October 27, 1982. These amendment11
shall be effective on November 22, 1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas G. Bannerman, Acting Director,
Industry Assistance Office (TS-799),
Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
E-509, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, Toll Free: (800-424-9065), In
Washington, D.C.: (554-1404), Outside
the USA: (Operator-202-554-1404).
Copies of this rule and its support
documents can be obtained from the
Industry Assistance Office listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0MB
Control Number: 2070--0008.
I. Recodification of 40 CFR Part 761
Notice of the recodification of 40 CFR
Part 761 appears in the Federal Register
of May 6, 1982 (47 FR 19527). This final
rule contains the new designations:
N-designation Forme,
designation
Subpart e ............................................. ........ .... Subpart o. t 761.185 ............................................................ t 761.45.
§761.3................................................... § 761.2.
§761.65................................................. §761.42. f 761.70 ............................................................ § 761.40.
f 761.75 ................................................ ············· § 761.41.
II. Background
Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) prohibits the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). However, the statute
enables EPA to promulgate rules to
reduce the Impact of the ban. EPA
promulgated a rule, published in the
Federal Register of May 31, 1979 (44 FR
31514), to implement section 6(e) of
TSCA. This rule is listed in the Code of
Federal Regulations under 40 CFR Part
761. This rule, among other things,
generally excluded from the ban
materials containing PCBs in
concentrations under 50 parts per
million (ppm).
The Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) obtained judicial review of the
rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. EDF
challenged the provision described
above, among others. On October 30,
1980, the court invalidated the
regulatory exclusion for PCB
concentrations below 50 ppm
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA,
636 F.2d 1267. The court remanded the
rule to EPA for further action consistent
with the opinion. The court's decision
placed industries that had relied upon
the PCB Ban Rule in a difficult position.
Issuance of the court's mandate would
have activated section 6(e)'s broad
prohibitions on the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs, resulting in the
disruption of many activities in
industries throughout the United States.
Accordingly, the parties to the lawsuit
filed a joint motion on February 20, 1981,
to seek a stay of the court's mandate.
The joint motion proposed that during
the period encompassed by the stay: (1)
EPA would conduct new rule making
with respect to PCBs, and (2) industry
groups would initiate studies to provide
information for the new rulemaking.
During discussions which led up to
this joint motion, representatives of
some affected industries stated that
some of the processes which produce
PCBs are designed and operated so that
no releases of PCBs occur or that the
PCBs formed in the processes are
released only in wastes that are
disposed of appropriately.
Consequently, virtually no risk to
humans or the environment is
associated with such processes because
the likelihood of exposure is so low.
Therefore, the joint motion proposed
that EPA would publish an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
requesting comments on the possible
exclusion of these PCBs from the
provisions of section 6( e) of TSCA.
In addition to dealing with closed ant'
controlled waste processes, the
February 20 joint motion also proposed
to publish an ANPR requesting
information on all other manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs in low concentrations.
PCBs generated in and released from
other than closed or controlled waste
processes are referred to as
"uncontrolled PCBs."
On April 13, 1981, the court entered an
order in EDFv. EPA, in response to the
February 20 joint motion. The text of the
court's order is set forth in the Federal
Register of May 20, 1981 (46 FR 27615).
The April 13 order stayed issuance of
the court's mandate with respect to
activities relating to PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm. Thus, the
50 ppm regulatory cutoff remains in
effect for the duration of the stay, and
persons who manufacture, process,
distribute in commerce, and use PCBs in
concentrations less than 50 ppm may
continue these activities during the stay.
The order also adopted a plan for
further actions by EPA and industry
groups leading toward new EPA
rulemaking on the regulation of PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm. The April
13 order required EPA: (1) to publish two
ANPRs on developing rules to cover
PCils in concentrations below 50 ppm:
(2) to promulgate a final rule, within 18
months from the date of the order (i.e.,
October 13, 1982), with respect to
exclusion of the generatiQH of PCBs in
closed and controlled-waste
manufacturing processes from the
prohibitions of section 6(e)(3), or to
explain the reasons for not proceeding
with such a rule; and (3) to advise the
court, within 11 months after the date ot
the order (i.e., March 13, 1982), of EPA's
plan and schedule for further action on
PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm
generated as uncontrolled PCBs.
In the Federal Register of May 20, 1981
(46 FR 27617 and 46 FR 27619), EPA
issued two ANPRs on the 50 ppm
regulatory cutoff. The ANPRs
established bifurcated rulemaking
proceedings with respect to PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm. The first
ANPR announced rulemaking on PCBs
generated in closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes. The
second ANPR announced the framework
for the Agency's exploration of the
scope of the problem presented by PCBs
in concentrations below 50 ppm in other
than closed or controlled waste
processes.
On March 11, 1982, EPA submitted, in
accordance with the April 13, 1981 court
order, a report to the court that
contained its plans for further regulatory
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46981
action on uncontrolled PCBs. EPA
requested that the court allow EPA to
report on its further plans for regulatory
action on uncontrolled PCBs following
the completion of the rulemaking on
dosed and controlled waste processes
(but no later than November 1, 1982).
EPA also requested that the court
extend its stay of mandate until
December 1, 1982, to allow EPA time to
present its plans for regulatory action on
uncontrolled PCBs to the court and for
the court to respond. On April 9, 1982,
the court granted EPA's requests.
In its report to the court on
uncontrolled PCBs, due November 1,
1982, EPA intends to describe its plans
for regulatory action on uncontrolled
PCBs and at the same time, request a
further extension of the court's stay of
mandate, until the completion of
rulemaking on uncontrolled PCBs.
After considering all comments
submitted to the Agency in response to
the first ANPR, EPA issued a proposed
rule in the Federal Register of June 8,
1982 (47 FR Z4976), which would exclude
PCBs produced in closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes from the
TSCA ban on the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs. EPA received 48
comments on the proposed rule and, on
July 26, 1982, held a public hearing in
Washington, D.C. At the hearing, three
participants provided testimony on
various aspects of the proposed rule.
EPA has considered all the comments
received on the proposed rule and has
modified the proposed rule where
appropriate. Further, EPA has prepared
a support document for this rulemaking
which addresses all major comments
made on the proposed rule and includes
EPA's responses to suggestions which
were not incorporated in the final rule.
This document, entitled "Response to
Comments on the Closed and Controlled
Waste Rule," is available by contacting
the Industry Assistance Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
In order to avoid a "race to the
courthouse" by persons seeking judicial
review of this rule, EPA has decided to
designate the time and date of
"promulgation" of this rule as 1:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on October 27,
1982. The Agency has previously taken
this approach for rules promulgated
under the Clean Water Act (sec 40 CFR
100.01, 45 FR 26048). The Agency will be
considering a general rule for TSCA
similar to 40 CFR 100.01.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
The objective of this final rule is to
exclude certain process situations from
the prohibitions and requirements of
section 6(e) of TSCA. This exclusion is
voluntary: manufacturers are not
required by this rule to take advantage
of the exclusion.
This final rule modifies and clarifies
some of the requirements presented in
the proposed rule because of
information obtained during the public
comment period and at the public
hearing on the proposed rule. Briefly, in
the proposed rule: (1) EPA defined the
absence of PCBs in releases from closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes by referencing an analytical
technique, (2) EPA defined controlled
wastes as wastes disposed of in
facilities approved by EPA for the
disposal of PCB wastes under 40 CFR
761.60, and (3) EPA required
recordkeeping by persons taking
advantage of the exclusion.
In the final rule: (1) EPA is setting
numerical cutoffs for purposes of
defining the absence of PCBs in releases
from closed and controlled waste
processes, (2) EPA is adding additional
disposal mechanisms to the list of
acceptable mechanisms for the dispose.I
of controlled wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations between the limit of
quantitation and 50 ppm, and (3) EPA is
instituting a new recordkeeping .
requirement and a reporting requirement
in addition to the recordkeeping
requirements listed in the proposed rule.
In this final rule, EPA is excluding
from the requirements of section 6(e) the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs created in
closed manufacturing processes and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes. A closed manufacturing
process is defined as a manufacturing
process that produces PCBs, but
releases PCBs only in concentrations
below the practical limits of quantitation
for PCBs in air emissions, water
effluents, products, and process wastes.
Similarly, a controlled waste
manufacturing process is a
manufacturing process that produces
PCBs, but releases PCBs only in
concentrations below the practical
limits of quantitation for PCBs in air
emissions, water effluents, and
products, and all remaining PCBs are
disposed of in accordance with methods
for disposal specified in this rule.
Controlled wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations between the practical
limit of quantitation and 50 ppm, must
be disposed of in a qualified incinerator
(see discussion under IV.A.5.), or in an
EPA-approved PCB landfill, or be stored
for incineration or landfilling in
accordance with§ 761.65(b)(1).
(Controlled wastes, containing PCBs in
concentrations above 50 ppm, must be
handled like all PCB waste above 50
ppm, in accordance with the existing
PCB disposal and marking rule (43 FR
7150)).
For purposes of this rule, the practical
limit of quantitation for PCBs in any
release to air is ten micrograms per
cubic meter (roughly 0.01 part per
million (ppm)) per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak; in any release to
water, the limit is 100 micrograms per
liter (roughly 0.1 ppm) per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak; and in any
product or waste, the limit is two
micrograms per gram (2 ppm} per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak.
(See discussion of the practical limit of
quantitation of PCBs under IV.A.3.c. for
more details.) These PCB concentrations
represent the lowest concentrations of
PCBs which EPA believes can be
practically quantified in air, water,
products, and process waste streams.
EPA believes that for all practical
purposes, it would be impossible to
determine whether regulation of PCBs
below these levels had any effect on
actually reducing releases of PCBs.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that
there would be no measurable gain in
protecting the environment or public
health by attempting to regulate PCB at
levels that are not practically
measurable.
In specifying the methods for the
disposal of controlled wastes containing
less than 50 ppm PCBs, EPA is confident
that these wastes will be disposed of in
a manner that will result in little or no
environmental contamination. At the
same time, EPA believes that this rule
will not place unreasonable burdens on
existing disposal facilities or create
excessive disposal costs for
manufacturers disposing of wastes
containing PCBs in concentrations
between the practical limit of
quantitation and 50 ppm.
In addition to meeting the criteria for
eligibility described above,
manufacturers who want to take
advantage of the exclusion must fulfill
certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. These include: (1)
certifying that their processes qualify,
(2) notifying EPA that they have made
this certification and how they have
made the determination, and [3)
maintaining a record of the
determination that their processes
qualify for exclusion. Manufacturers ar ..
provided the option of conducting
theoretical assessments to support
certification or of conducting actual
monitoring of PCB levels in releases.
Recertification and renotification of EPA
are required upon significant process
changes.
In providing for theoretical
assessments in lieu of actual monitoring
46982 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
of PCB levels, EPA has concluded-that
such determinations may be possible in
certain process situations; therefore, it
would be unreasonable to require actual
monitoring of PCB levels in all
situations. Manufacturers have the
burden of making the decisio~ about
when a theoretical assessment in lieu of
actual monitoring of PCB levels is
appropriate. Because of the difficulty of
estimating actual PCB levels, EPA
recommends that a theoretical
assessment be used to qualify for the
exclusion only when the results of the
theoretical assessment indicate that PCB
concentrations in releases will be
substantially below the practical limits
of quantitation.
EPA is issuing some general
guidelines for conducting a theoretical
assessment to aid manufacturers in
completing this assessment.
Nonetheless, EPA expects that each
individual manufacturer will exercise
judgment in choosing the methodology
to be used in conducting a theoretical
assessment, and in deciding when to
undertake chemical analysis of process
streams to determine if a process
qualifies for exclusion.
EPA will not be performing theoretical
assessments in enforcement inspections
to determine whether a process qualifies
for exclusion, but rather, will be
conducting chemical analysis of process
streams. In monitoring compliance with
this rule, if EPA identifies a pro_cess that
is supported by a complete theoretical
assessment but is determined to be ,.
operating in violation of TSCA section
6(e) (through chemical an~ysis of
process releases), then the process will
be ineligible for exclµsion, regardless of
the results of the manufacturer's
theoretical assessrri'ent.
EPA believes that recordkeeping and
reporting are necessary to ensure that
only processes which meet the
definitions of closed and controlled
waste processes are permitted to
operate under this exclusion. A
reporting requirement also enables EPA
to develop an effective compliance
monitoring program. Thus, EPA has
determined that the benefits of
instituting a reporting requirement far
outweigh the costs to manufacturers of
submitting this information to EPA.
TSCA explicitly provides only for
case-by-case exceptions to the ban on
the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs. However, Federal courts have
recognized the "de minimis" exception
to legislative mandates. Although the
court in EDFv. EPA overturned portions
of the Agency's PCB regulations, it
nevertheless noted that administrative
agencies have the power "inherent in
most statutory schemes, to overlook
circumstances that in context may fairly
be considered de minimis." 636 F. 2d
1283. Courts-and agencies should be
reluctant to apply a statute literally in
pointless expenditure of effort, where
regulation would yield a g1:1in of trivial
or no value. EPA has evaluated closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes in this context and finds that
circumstances surrounding these
processes may fairly be considered de
minimis situations.
A substantial number of industry
comments have criticized EPA for
failure, in this rule, to deal with the
entire universe of PCBs generated in low
concentrations. Some would have the
Agency use this rule as a vehicle to
create exclusions from the regulatory
ambit of section 6(e) for all low
concentration PCBs on the basis that
they present de minimis risks to health
or the environment. EPA emphasizes
that this rule has a more limited
purpose. It is intended only to exclude a
specific class of chemical processes
from further regulation. This rule does
not establish a single PCB concentration
below which all PCBs are excluded from
regulation and above which all PCBs
will always be regulated.
EPA is not prepared at this time to
make any decisions on processes
releasing PCBs in concentrations above
the practical limits of quantitation. For
those instances in which PCBs are
generated and released in
concentrations below 50 ppm, but are
not excluded by this rule, EPA intends
to request a further stay of the D.C.
Circuit Court's mandate until an
additional rule can be promulgated.
Under the terms of such a stay, PCBs
produced in processes not qualifying as
closed or controlled waste processes
under this regulation could continue to
be generated in the interim period. In
any case, until that further stay is
granted, a manufacturing process not
qualifying as a closed or controlled
waste process under this regulation, but
producing and/ or releasing PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm, may
continue, at least for the period of the
current stay of the Court's mandate. The
current stay extends to December 1,
1982.
EPA intends to submit a plan for
addressing other than closed and
controlled waste processes to the court
by November 1, 1982. In the next PCB
rulemaking, EPA intends to determine
whether other PCBs may present de
minimis risks, whether some other forms
of administrative exclusion might be
appropriate, or whether any exclusion at
all is appropriate.
Since the closed and controlled waste
process exclusion is voluntary,
manufacturers who believe they qualify
for the exclusion set out in this final rule
have the option of delaying their
decision on whether to take advantage
of the exclusion until the next PCB ·
ruiemaking is completed.
IV. Major Elements of the Final Rule
A. Definitions of Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes
1. Historical perspective. During the
course of discussions among EPA, EDF,
and industry immediately after the
court's decision, industry suggested that
manufacturing processes that produce
PCBs but do not release PCBs be
excluded from the TSCA section 6[e)
ban on the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, and use of
PCBs. EPA and EDF agreed. From the
literal definitions of these process types,
it logically follows that if no PCBs are
released from a process or if PCBs are
released only to wastes that are
destroyed or otherwise properly
disposed of, then the exposure and risk
to humans and the environment from
these processes must be extremely
small. There would be little or no benefit
from regulating the processes under
section 6(e) since there could be no
reasonable means of determining
whether any regulatory actions could
actually reduce human or environmental
exposure.
The practical application of this
conr;ept requires an understanding of
the way chemical processes work.
Chemical manufacturing processes are
generally made up of a series of unit
operations. Each unit operation causes
chemical and/or physical changes in the
material passing through the process.
These changes are brought about by the
chemical reactions or various types of
physical manipulations that are never
one hundred percent effective or
complete.
In some processes which manufacture
PCBs in low concentrations, virtually all
the PCBs are destroyed in the process or
are drawn off in a waste stream.
However, there inevitably will be at
least a few molecules of PCBs in every
product or effluent that exits the
process.
EPA recognized at the time of
proposal the need to define, in a
practical sense, the absence of PCBs in
releases to the environment from these
processes. Specifically, EPA recognized
that it had to establish how the absence
of PCBs is defined in air emissions,
water effluents, products, and wastes
from closed processes; and how the
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46983
absence of PCBs is defined in air
emissions, water effluents, and products
from controlled waste processes.
Further, EPA recognized the need to
specify appropriate methods for
disposal of process wastes from
controlled waste processes to insure
that PCBs and the toxic decomposition
products which can result from
incomplete combustion would not be
released to the environment from
disposal operations.
2. Defining the absence of PCBs in
products, wastes, emissions and
effluents. In the June 8, 1982, proposed
rule, EPA specified in analytical method
and procedures to be used to determine
the absence of PCBs. If PCBs were
absent from all releases to air, water,
and products (and wastes from closed
processes), using EPA's method and
procedures, the process would be
eligible for exclusion. Under this
approach, EPA gave some general
guidance concerning the PCB
concentrations it expected its
procedures to be capable of quantifying
(see 47 FR 24980).
EPA proposed this approach for
several reasons. The Agency believed
that the choice of analytical method was
· one of the major sources of variability
when attempting to measure PCHs.
During the fall of 1981, the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA)
conducted a round robin experiment in
which five different samples of material
from processes which manufacture PCBs
as a byproduct were analyzed by eight
different laboratories using a total of ten
different analytical methods. The round
robin experiment shows considerable
variability in the results obtained by the
ten different methods. Specifying the
analytical method would eliminate one
of the sources of this variability.
EPA also believed that specifying a
method was preferable to specifying a
cutoff because the difficulty of analyzing
products and wastes varies ·
considerably among processes. EPA
believed that with a numerical cutoff
specified. some companies would be
able easily to measure PCBs in their
process streams below the cutoff, and
other companies might have extreme
difficulty measuring PCBs at the cutoff
due to chemical matrix effects. In this
regard, a numerical cutoff might put
greater burdens on some manufacturers.
EPA believed that specifying an
analytical procedure would mitigate this
problem.
The majority of comments submitted
in response to the proposed rule
criticized the proposed approach, and
suggested alternate means for defining
the absence of PCBs in releases from
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. These
comments maintain that the approach
proposed by EPA provides no target for
the analytical chemist because, with
enough resources, a chemist would
ultimately be able to measure any level
of PCBs. These comments indicate that
with improving analytical techniques, it
would be virtually impossible to state
that any substance is absent from a
particular matrix. In the case of PCBs,
they believe that by investing greater
and greater resources in the extraction,
cleanup, and analysis of given samples,
lower and lower amounts of PCB
congeners will become quantifiable,
almost without limit. In light of this, the
comments state that it is not possible for
a chemist simply to stop analyzing his
samples at a particular point and
honestly certify that the PCBs are not
quantifiable. A chemist can only certify
that PCBs are not present above a
specific preestablished concentration.
EPA agrees with these comments and
has concluded that "nonquantifiable"
PCBs could be defined differently by
different parties, even if the analytical
hardware to be used for the analysis is
specified by regulation. Further, EPA
also agrees with other comments that
maintain that the limits of PCB
quantitation will vary depending on the
particular CGC/EIMS instrument used
for analysis. These comments have
pointed out that several instrument
manufacturers currr.ntly market a
variety of CGC/EIMS instruments, each
of which has its own characteristics and
inherent sensitivity.
Several comments have suggested
that EPA specify the sample size, the
extraction protocol, the cleanup
procedures, and other details of the
analytical method by regulation, to
eliminate some of these sources of
variability in measuring PCBs. Other
comments have supported EPA's efforts
to keep these parameters open and
flexible, to accommodate various
situations. Still other comments have
suggested that it may be ultimately
impossible to specify these parnmeters
given the wide range of sample types
which require analysis.
EPA agrees that given the wide
variety of matrices in which PCBs are
found, it is not practical or feasible to
establish detailed procedures for the
analysis of PCBs, especially in the areas
of extraction and cleanup of samples for
analysis. This is because different types
of samples require different types and
degrees of extraction and cleanup prior
to anlaysis. EPA further agrees with
testimony provided at the public hearing
which suggested that the proposed
approach was not practical and that a
preferred approach would be for EPA to
set a numerical cutoff, and thereby
allow each individual laboratory to
develop the appropriate procedures
specific to the analysis of particular
process samples.
Even if EPA could establish standards
for the rigor of extraction and cleanup,
an alternative suggested by some
comments, many comments on the
proposed rule have criticized EPA's
proposed approach on separate grounds.
Specifically, many persons have
maintained that with advanqes in
analytical procedures for the extraction
and cleanup of samples, and
technological improvements in the
actual analytical hardware, in tiine,
lower and lower levels of PCBs will be
subject to regulation under section 8(e)
of TSCA. Thus, specifying an analytical
technique in the absence of a numerical
cutoff would result in a moving
regulatory target. These comments
argue, then, that a numerical cutoff is
not only preferable, but necessary to
avoid the problems which would be
encountered by adopting an approach
that would result in a moving regulatory
target.
In response to the comments received
on the proposed rule, EPA has
concluded. that using an analytical
method to define the absence of a
chemical may result in substantially
different limits of quantitation for
different process samples, and therefore,
substantially different levels of release.
Depending upon the analyst, the
analytical hardware, and the specific
techniques used, especially in the·areas
of extraction and cleanup of samples
prior to analysis, limits of quantitation
could vary by several ,-rders of
magnitude. Further, EPA agrees. with
comments that suggest that
nonquantifiable levels could vary over
time, as new developments in cleanup
and extraction protocols and
improvements in analytical hardware
occur. Therefore, EPA has decided to
establish numerical cutoffs for purposes
of defining the absence of PCBs in air
emissions, water effluents, products,
and process wastes from closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes.·
Although EPA beliexes that with a
numerical cutoff specified some
companies will be able easily to
measure PCBs in their process streami.
at the cutoff, others may have extreme
difficulty quantifying PCBs at the cutoff
due to chemical matrix effects.
However, comments on the proposed
rule acknowledged the advantages and
disadvantages of the available
alternatives and expressed clear
preference for the approach set out in
46984 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
this final mle. Thus, EPA has concluded
that there are substantial merits in
setting numerical cutoffs. First,
numerical cutoffs are fixed and will not
move in time independent of EPA
intervention. Second, numerical cutoffs
are not open to widely differing
interpretations. Finally, numerical
cutoffs. provide targets for the analytical
chemist. In addition to specifying
numerical cutoffs, EPA is also
recommending an analytical technique
and methods for the analysis of air
samples, water samples, and product
and process waste samples for
byproduct PCBs (see discussion under
IV.A.3.b.).
3. Establishing the numerical
cutoffs-a. Limit of Detection (LODJ v.
Limit of Quantitation (LOQ). The
analytical system most often used to
monitor PCB's includes a gas
chromatograph with a suitable detector.
The detector response is con·1erted to an
electrical signal which is recorded on a
strip chart, and the quantity of material
present can be determined by measuring
the intensity of the respose. When only
the matrix is passing the detector, the
detector generates an electrical signal,
referred to as "background" or "noise."
Detecting and confirming the presence
the PCBs depends on the analyst's
ability to measure an increase in the
recorded electrical signal above this
noise.
The lowest concentration of a
substance than an anaiytical process
can detect is referred to as the limit of
detection (LOD). A commonly used
standard is that an LOD should be
based on a ratio of at least three
between the average magnitude of the
electrical signal from the sample and the
standard deviation of the electrical
signal from the background. This ratio is
called the signal-to-noise ratio.
The lowest concentration of a
substance that an analytical process can
reproducibly quantify with a known
level of precision is referred to as the
limit of quantification (LOQ). A
commonly used standard is that an LOQ
should be based on a signal-to-noise
ratio of at least ten.
One comment expressed preference
for the use of "nondetectable" PCBs
versus "nonquantifiable" PCBs as the
definition of the absence PCBs for
purposes of defining closed and
controlled waste manufacturing process.
The comment suggested that EPA
require that releases be tested at the
limit of detection (LOD) for the presence
of PCBs, primarily because the statutory
ban speaks in terms of "any" PCBs. EPA
has concluded, as explained in IV.B.
below, that PCBs present in
concentrations below the LOQ present a
de minimis risk to public health and the
environment. Furthermore, it is not
practical to test releases of PCBs at the
LOT because it may be impossible to
confirm the identity of the PCBs at that
level. This is particularly important in
the analysis of PCBs present as
byproducts and impurities because in
many instances chemically similar
compounds are also present in the
sample undergoing analysis. For
compliance monitoring purposes, a PCB
concentration at or near the LOQ is
needed to confirm the identity of the
chlorinated bipheny!. For this reason,
EPA has selected LOQ instead of LOD
for purposes of defining the absence of
PCBs in releases from closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes.
b. Selecting the analytical technique.
LOQs, in general, vary with: (1) the
analytical technique, (2) the analytical
method, and (3) the type of chemical
matrix in which the PCBs are found. For
purposes of this rule, an analytical
technique is defined as the type of
analysis. Thin-layer chromatography,
gas chromatography coupled to mass
spectrometry, and high performance
liquid chromatography are all examples
of analytical techniques. In order to
determine what the practical LOQ is for
PCBs, EPA first evaluated several
different types of analytical techniques
(with varying degrees of sophistication),
and considered the complexities of the
chemical matrices in which the PCBs are
found, the availability and cost of
analytical hardware, and the cost of
conducting analyses. As a general rule,
more sophisticated analytical
techniques are more costly and less
readily available, but are capable of
measuring PCBs at lower concentrations
(i.e., these techniques have very low
LOQs) than less sophisticated
techniques. (See "Methods of Analysis
for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations" for a further
discussion of available analytical
techniques for PCB analysis.)
In selecting the most appropriate
analytical technique, EPA first identified
analytical techniques that were specific
for PCB byproduct analysis. EPA then
considered the sensitivity of the
identified techniques, the availability of
the instrumentation, and the cost of
obtaining the instruments and
conducting the analyses.
In the proposed rule, EPA selected
capillary gas chromatography (CGC)
coupled to electron impact mass
spectrometry (EIMS) as the analytical
technique to be used in determining
whether PCBs were quantifiable iri
releases from a manufacturing process.
For purposes of this rule, EPA selected
CGC/EIMS because: (1) it is cost
effective for the analysis of air, water,
products, and process waste samples,
(2) it is reproducible, and (3) it provides
confirmatory evidence for PCBs. EPA
expected this technique to supply
reliable data of known quality if users
implemented an appropriate and
documented quality assurance plan. The
vast majority of comments on the
proposed rule that addressed this point
agreed with EPA that CGC/EIMS is the
preferred technique for the analysis of
PCB byproducts.
During the public comment period for
the proposed rule, and during the
development of the final rule, EPA
sponsored preliminary analytical
method validation studies to test the
efficacy of CGC/EIMS for the analysis
of PCBs. The method validation exercise
was undertaken to check the validity of
the proposed protocol for the analysis of
PClls in commercial products and
process waste streams in particular.
Data are presented in the analytical
method validation study from the
evaluation of the efficiency of cleanup
and extraction protocols as well as from
the actual (CGC/EIMS) analyses of
process samples (See MRI reports:
"Analytical Methods for Incidentally
Genera led PCBs-Preliminary
Validation and Interim Methods"). The
data generated from the analysis of
PCBs in the matrices studied indicate
that the method is applicable and useful
for the analysis of PCBs. Although
additional validation work is continuing
and additional data will be gathered,
this technique is the most reasonable
analytical procedure currently available
for the analysis of PCBs generated as
byproducts and is thus appropriate for
use in implementing this regulation.
Testimony provided at the public
hearing on the proposed rule supported
the method validation trials conducted
by the Midwest Research Institute (MRI)
as technically competent.
Since the majority of comments that
addressed this point supported the
proposed selection of CGC/EIMS as the
preferred technique, EPA has selected
CGC/EIMS as the analytical technique
' from which it would estimate the
practical LOQs of PCBs in air emissions,
water effluents, products, and process
. waste streams for purposes of defining
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes in this final
rule.
c. Establishing the practical LOQs of
PCBs. For purposes of this rule, an
analytical method is defined as a series
of procedures used when chemically
analyzing a sample. Analytical methods
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46985
include procedures for sample
collection, protocols for the extraction
and cleanup of samples, and procedures
for the analysis of the specimen by the
analytical technique. The limit of
quantitation of a particular analytical
method is a function of six major
factors: (1) the inherent sensitivity·of the
analytical instrument, (2) the size of the
sample taken for analysis, (3) the
volume extracted, (4) the volume
injected into the instrument, (5) the
amount of interferences, and (6) the
degree of the chemical matrix effects.
The LOQ of an analytical method
depends upon the values selected for the
factors Listed above. For each variable,
values could be selected that would
ultimately minimize (or maximize) the
overall LOQ of .an analytical method.
However, there is a Limit to the degree to
}Vhich the LOQ can be minimized
without significantly increasing the cost
and difficulty of analysis. To select
reasonable values to assign to each of
these variables (for purposes of
calculating the practical LOQ of PCBs),
EPA balanced the benefits of increased
sensitivitv versus the resultant
increased costs and practical
considerations associated with
minimizing the LOQ.
The class of PCBs is made up of 209
individual chemical compounds.
individually referred to as chlorinated
biphenyl congeners. Using CGC, each
separate resolvable peak on a gas
chromatograph may represent a single
e;hlorinated biphenyl congener, or it may
represent more than one chlorinated
biphenyl co_ngener. Comments on the
proposed rule have pointed out that all
209 PCB congeners cannot, for all
practical purposes, be individually
resolved by CGC/EIMS, or by any other
single analytical instrument currently in
exi!itence. Thus, although it may be most
desirable to define the absence of PCBs
on a per congener basis, this is not
'possible because this separation cannot
be accomplished for every sample. To
accommodate this situation, EPA is
defining the absence of PCBs by setting
numerical cutoffs according to PCB
levels represented by resolvable gas
chromatographic peaks. To qualify for
exclusion, no single peak on a gas
chromatogram can register PCBs at or in
excess of the numerical cutoffs set by
EPA for PCBs in air, water, or products
( or wastes from closed processes).
1. Instrument sensitivity. Depending
upon the particular CGC/EIMS
instrument used to analyze for PCBs, the
instrument's sensitivity (or limit.of·
quantitation) may be one picogram per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak,
one microgram per resolvable peak, or
an intermediate fovel. Although this
wids range of sensitivities exists for
CGC/EIMS equipment, highly sensitive
equipment is very costly and not
generally available in most analytical
laboratories. To calculate tlrn practicc1l
LOQ of PCBs, EPA selected a value for
the sensitivity of CGC/EIMS that is
representative of the average minimum
sensitivity of this type of analytical
technique. This ·requ.ired a balancing of
sensitivity versus costs and availability.
EPA selected ten nanograms (ng) per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak as
a reasonable estimate of the average
sensitivity of CGC/EIMS. This number
represents the smallest amount of a
substance that a typical ElMS system
can meas\ll'e and is EPA's estimate of
the average mini.mum amount of PCBs
expected to be measured.
The determination that ten ng per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak
represents the average minimum amount
expected to be measured was based
upon contacts with a manufacturer of
GC/MS equipment about the
sensitivities and costs of available
CGC/EIMS instruments; more costly
instruments are capable of measuring
PCBs at lower levels. Available data
indicate that the cost of CGC/EIMS
equipment ranges from $87,000 for the
least sensitive equipment, through
$380,000 for the most sensitive
equipment (see records of telephone
communications between Redford and
Moll of EPA and Finnigan MAT]. EPA
selected this level of sensitivity as
representative of an average sensitivity
of CGC/EIMS because it is intermediate
in sensitivity, and CGC/EIMS
instruments capc1ble of measuring this
level are reaclily available. are of
moderate cost, and are expected to be
currently av;iilable in most analytical
laboratories.
This estimate of the average system
sensitivity is also supported by ~esearch
results reported by Dr. E. Pellizari of
Research Triangle Institute in his 1981
report entitled: "State-of-the-Art
Instrumental Analysis in Environmental
Chemistry," which appeared in Chapter
10 of "Environmental Health
Chemistry." Dr. Pellizari reports a
minimum detection range for EIMS from
one nanogram through .1 milligram.
EPA'e estimate of ten ng/peak as an
average sensitivity falls within the range
of Dr. Pellizari's reported detection
limits for any peak on an EIMS (since
limits of quantitation are often at least
three times as high as limits of
detection).
Further, the Dry Color Manufacturers
Association's (DCMA's) research on the
analysis of PCBs in organic pigments
reports the sensitivity of CGC/EIMS as
ten ng per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak (see page 5 of
"An Analytical Procedure for the
Determination of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in Dry Phthi!.locyanine Blue.
Phthalocyanine Green and Diarylide
Yellow Pigments; Proposed by the Dry
Color Manufacturers A&'!ociation").
2. Sample size. The actual minimum
quantitatable level for an analytical
method depends on not only the
inherent sensitivity of the analytical
instrument, but also the am@unt of
original sample that had its PCB
contents extracted and condensed for
analysis by CGC/EIMS. For instance, a
sample that is ten times larger than
another from the same source would
contain the same concentration (ug/
volume) of PCBs but would actually
contain ten times the mass of PCBs
(nanograms). When both are
concentrated to one milliliter, the
extract resulting from the larger sample
would be ten times more concentrated
than the other, and when injected into
the detector. it would yield a response
ten times greater. This would translate
to a quantitation limit in the larger
sample that was ten times lower than in
the smaller sample.
However, there is a limit to the extent
to which one can maximize the sample
size (in an attempt to minimize the LOQ)
without encountering substantial
additional costs in collection and
exiraction, and experiencing handling
difficulties. Larger sample sizes require
longer collection times (especially
pertinent in air sampling), more effort
(resources) in extra(l(fon and cleanup.
and in some cases, may require
specialized equipment.
With this relationship in mind, EPA
has estimated reasonable sample size.s,
ones that would provide enough
material for a reasonable determination
as to whether PCBs are present without
presenting sampling and handling
problems. These estimated sample sizes
are: Ten cubic meters for air, one liter
for water, and fifty grams for products
or process waste streams. Then cubic
meters of air, and one liter of water are
commonly accepted sample sizes for
these media, considering the type of
chemical undergoing analysis (i.e.
halogenated aromatics).
In selecting 50 grams as a reasonable
sample size for products and process
wastes, EPA analyzed available data
and developed a list of expected
products containing PCBs as impurities
or byproducts. For each product on the
list, EPA considered.various sample
sizes, ranging from one gram to 100
grams, and selected the most
46986 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate sample size for each
individual product. EPA considered "the
capacity of typical laboratory
equipment, the physical and chemical
properties of the product/sample,
handling problems, measurement
problems, the inherent cost of the -
material to be analyzed, and other
related factors in determining the most
appropriate.sample sizes for each _
individual product. After consideting
appropriate sample sizes for individual
products, EPA selected 50 grams as
representative of a reasonable sample
size for product .. and process wastes
(see "Rationale for Levels of
Quantitation for CGC/EIMS,"
"Rationale for Choosing a Reasonable
Sample Size and Matrix Interference
Allowance for the PCB Analytical
Method," "PCB Quantitation List
Parameters," and "Transmittal ofMRI's
PCB Quantitation List Parameters
Memorandum with Additional
Comments").
3. Extract and injection volumes. For
air, water, products, and process waste
samples, typical extract and injection
volumes would be one milliliter and one
microliter, respectively. The Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), in conducting
CGC/EIMS method validation trials (see
"Analytical Methods for Incidentally
Gener1;1.ted PCBs-Preliminary
Validation and Interim Methods"),
considered several extraction volumes
and injection volumes. The volumes
selected as reasonable by EPA were
determined to be most appropriate
during, these trials. Larger injection
volumes either might damage the mass
spectrometer or the chromatographic-
column. Smaller injection volumes,
below one microliter, would increase the
likelihood of measurement errors,
decreasing the accuracy of any·
measured PCB level. Increases in the
extract volume or greater concentra-tion
of the extract either lowers recovery
efficiency, overly conqentrates the
injection, or requires excessive efforts to
extract and condense the extract. With
extraction volumes be!.ow one milliliter,
· the potential for measurement 1!rrors
and losses from evaporation increases,
decreasing the accuracy of the PCB
levels measured (see "PCB Quantitatiqn
List Parameters," and ''Transmittal of
MRI's PCB Quantitation List Parameters
Memorandum with Additional
Comments").
4. Interferences and matrix effects. In
the abse.n.QI!_ of interferences and matrix
effects, the estimated lower limits of
. quantitation of PCBs in air, water,
products; an_d process wastes, using
CGC/EIMS,'reasonable sample sizes,
and reasonable extract and injection
volumes, would be one microgram per
cubic meter (roughly 0.001 ppm) in air,
ten micrograms per liter (roughly 0.01
ppm) in water, and .2 microgram pE!r
gram (0.2 ppm) in products and pr6cess
waste streams, per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak. These lower
limits of quantitation assume an
instrument sensitivity of ten ng per
resolvable gas chromatographic peak,
reasonable sample sizes, and
reasonable extract and injection
volumes.
However, interferences and matrix
effects are commonly experienced in the
analysis of PCB byproducts because of
the similarity in chemical structure
. between the PCBs produced in the
process and the matrix of chemical
substances in which the PCBs are found.
In byproduct PCB analysis, these factors
influence an ·analytical instrument's
ability to measure accurately low level
PCBs. Therefore, an allowance for these
considerations must be made in
calculating the practical LOQ for PCBs
in air, water, products and process
waste streams.
To accommodate this situation, EPA
assumed an upper quantitation limit of
100 ng per resolvable peak as a·
reasonable allowance for interferences
and matrix effects. This allowance is
supported by experimental data
produced by MRI through method
validation trials (see "Analytical
Methods for Incidentally Generated
PCBs-Preliminary Validation and
Interim Methods," "PCB Quantitation
List Parameters," "Rationale for
Choosing a Reasonable Sample Size and
Matrix Interference Allowance for the
PCB Analytical Method," and
"Transmittal of MRI's PCB Quantitation
List Parameters, Memorandum _with
Additional Comments"). MRI found that
in the analysis of some samples,
i'lterferences and matrix effects were
negligible, thus, the LOQ approximated
the lower quantitation limHof the
analytical instrument. However, in the
analysis of other samples, interferences
and matrix effects were significant, and
resulted in a LOQ that was two orders
of magnitude higher than the lower
quantitation limit of the analytical
instrument. EPA's estimate of a
reasonable allowance for interferences
and matrix effects is one order of
magnitude higher than the average
l9w~r quantitation limit of CGC/EIMS
as estimated by EPA.
5. Conclusion. Per peak then, the
practical LOQ of PCBs in air
corresponds to ten micrograms per cubic
meter (roughly 0.01 ppm); in water, 100
·micrograms per liter (roughly 0.1 ppm);
and,, in products arid process waste
streams, two micrograms per gram (2
ppm). This means that for a process to
be eligible for exclusion under the
closed and controlled W!lste process
exclusion, no single peak on a gas
chromatogram registers PCBs in excess
of: ten micrograms per cubic meter in air
emissions, 100 micrograms per liter in
water effluents, and two micrograms per
gram in products and uncontrolled
waste streams, regardless of the number
of PCB congeners known to be or
expected to be represented by the peak
(See Unit IV.B. for a discussion of the
extremely low exposure which will
result from setting cutoffs at these
levels.)
EPA considered setting numerical
cutoffs based on total PCBs, instead of
setting numerical cutoffs according to
levels represented by resolvable gas
chromatographic peaks. Under that
approach, EPA would attempt to
estimate an average number of gas
chromatographic peaks that would be
resolved upon analysis of process
samples, and then multiply that average
number by the practical limits of
quantitation per resolvable peak. This
approach would result in 1Jeparate ·
numerical cutoffs for total PCB levels in
air emissions, water effluents, products,
and wastes from closed processes.
After evaluating this approach, EPA
concluded that there is insufficient
information upon which to base an
estimate of the average number of PCB
congeners created in manufacturing
processes. Although some information
on PCB concentrations in products and
processes is available, little
comprehensive factual data are
available on the type and number of
different congeners created in these
processes. Without this type of
information, EPA could not support any
estimate of the average number of
congeners created in manufacturing
processes.
d. Aroclor v. non-Aroclor PCB
analysis. The limits of quantitation of
PCBs in air, water, products, and
wastes, discussed in the preceding unit,
are EPA's estimates of the practical
limits of quantitation of PCBs produced
as byproducts and impurities (non-
Aroclor PCBs). These PCBs are not
easily measured in air emissi,ons, water
effluents, products, or process waste
streams, because up to 209 different
chemical compounds can be produced
and be present in different
concentrations in a sample undergoing
analysis. Before these PCBs can be
measured in a sample, they must first be -
identified as PCBs.
In contrast, PCBs produced for use as
dielectric fluids (Aroclors) are much
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and· Re,gulations . 46987
more easily measured. These PCBs_
display characteristic patterns upon
analysis that are easily recognizable -as
representing PCBs. Unlike these PCBs,
PCB!! produced as bypl'oducts and
impurities do not display characteristic
or easily recognizable patterns upon
analysis. (See "Methods of Analysis for
Incidentally Generated PCBs Literature
Review and Preliminary
Recommendations" for a comparison of
the methods for Aroclor vs. non-Aroclor
PCB analysis.) ·
Because of this fact, and the need to
_identify byproduct PCBs as truly PCBs,
the limits of quantitation of byproduct
PCBs in different media may be several
orders of magnitude higher than the
limits of quantitation of Aroclor PCBs in
these same media. Thus, other
environmental regulations pertaining to
the release of Aroclor PCBs (such as
under the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C.
466 et oeq.) may place limits on the
release of PCBs that are orders of
magnitude below the practical limit of
quantitation for byproduct PCBs as
established in this final rule.
4. Determining what constitutes a
process. In the proposed rule, EPA
applied the exclusion to any person who
produces·PC8s in a chemical
manufacturing "process" which qualifies
as a closed manufacturing process or a
controlled waste manufacturing process.
Comments received in response to the
proposed rule requested clarification of
the term "process" in the definitions of
closed and controlled waste
·manufacturing processes. The comment
said thaf the term "process" Gould be
open to differing interpretations; it
could, at one extreme, mean a single
unit of a multisunit operation operating
at a site, or, at the othet extreme, it
could mean the entire senes of-
operations (possibly operating at
different geographic localities) leading
to the production of a final commercial
product.
EPA defines the term "process" in this
final rule to mean all the unit operations
operating at a site. Therefore, PCB-
containing isolated intermediates
manufactured at one location on a plant
site can be processed further at some
different on:site location. Analytical or
theoretical analyses of PCB levels in the
product would take place only prior to
its 'removal from the site. Similarly, PCB
concentrations in water effluents and
process wastes would be analytically
determined or theoretically estimated
only prior to the release from a site.
Because it is difficult to define too
boundaries of the atmosphere
surrounding a facility, for air emissions,
PCB concentrations would be.
determined at the most convenient
sampling point prior to release to the
atmo11phere. .
For water effluents, PCB levels would
be.determined prior to relea11e from the-
site. For example, if deep well injection
is used to disp<;>se of water effluents
from _a process, PCB levels would need
to be determined at some point prior to
injection. The objective is to allow
companies to determine PCB levels in
the water effluent ~s close to the final
point of release to the environment as
possible-:"lf on-site water treatment
occurs, PCB levels would need to be
analytically or theoretically determined
only prior to release to the receiving
body of water (i.e., at the point of
outflow from the on-site water treatment
facility).
EPA uses the term site to mean a
contiguous property unit. Property
divided only by a public.right-of-way is
considered one site. There may be more
than one manufacturing plant on a
single site (See 40 CFR 710.l(a)).
5. Determining appropriate methods
for disposal. EPA already has in effect a
Disposal and Marking Rule {40 CFR
761.60) which requires PCBs in
concentrations over 50 ppm to be stored
and disposed of in accordance with the
criteria prescribed under § § 716.65,
761.70, and 761.75. These are the same
disposal criteria that EPA proposed for
the disposal of wastes (containing any
concentration of PCBs) from controlled
waste processes in the proposed rule.
EPA proposed these mechanisms for
disposal of controlled wastes on the
premise that EPA must be reasonably
confident that the wastes from
controlled waste processes are disposed
of in a manner which results in
negligible environmental -contamination.
Although this basic premise remains
valid, EPA has concluded that certain
less costly, alternate disposal
mechanisms woulq result in negligible
environmental contaminati,Qp as well.
Several comments criticized·the
proposed requirement that wastes from
controlled waste manufacturing
processes be incinerated in EPA-
approved PCB incinerators_. They ·
maintain that in selecting this regulatory
option, EPA did not consider the
enormous potential costs of disposing of
wastes containing PCBs in ·
concentrations between the LOQ and 50
ppm in EPA-approved PCB incinerators.
Data were provided by the CMA which
indicate that the costs of destroying
liquid wastes containing PCBs in EPA-
approved PCB incinerators is $0.23 per
pound of waste. Thus, as the
concentration of PCBs in the wastes
decreases, the cost of disposal per
pound of PCB increases substantially.
At PCB concentrations near the
practical limit of quantitation in wastes,
the cost of disposal in EPA-awroved
PCB incinerators per pound of PCB
could be very high.
Further, comments indicate that unlike
mineral oil contaminated with low level
PCBs, chemical manufacturing process
waste streams with similarly low levels
of PCBs cannot, in general, be used as
fuel in high efficiency, energy generating
boilers because of their high chlorine ·
content. Finally, certain comments
indicate that since toore are so few EPA-
approved PCB incinerators in existence,
priority should be given to the
destruction of higher concentration
wastes in these facilities. Restricting tl_!e
incineration of controlled wastes
containing less than 50 ppm PCBs to
EPA-approved PCB incinerators would
place demands on these facilities, which
could result in a shortage of PCB
disposal capacity.
One comment, however, strongly
supported EPA's proposal to require the
incineration of controlled wastes in
EPA-e1pproved PCB incinerators.
Specifically, the comment stated that
incinerators used for too destruction of
PCBs should be required to meet certain
standards to prevent the formation and
release of dibenzofurans and other
potentially toxic products of incomplete
combustion.
. As a result of too comments received
in response to the proposed rule, EPA
has decided to modify the requirement
that wastes from controlled waste
manufacturing processes be disposed of
in EPA-approved PCB incinerators.
Certain less costly disposal mechanisms
should result in negligible environmental
contamination ae well, and further,
should preclude the formation of toxic
incomplete combustion products.
Thus, in this final rule, EPA is
allowing PCB wastes {containing PCBs
in concentrations below 50 ppm) to be
destroyed in incinerators which have
t.een approved under section 3005(c) of
Ute Resource Conservation and
Reep.very Act (RCRA) 42 U.S.C. 6925{c).
The incinerator must be capable of
destroying compounds which are less
readily burned than the PCB homologs
in the waste. The manufacturer of PCBs
who wishes to qualify for exclusion
under the controlled waste exclusion by
disposing of PCB wastes in a RCRA-
approved incinerator is responsible for
determining that the incinerator is ,
capable of destroying the PCBs, and for
certifying that this is the case (see
IV.D.). The manufacturer is also
responsible for obtaining reasonable
assurances that the incinerator, when
burning PCB waste, will be operated
under conditions_ that have been sho~n
46988 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
to enable the incinerator to destroy less
readily burned compounds.
Manufacturers may use heat of
combustion er other indicators of ease
of incinerability addressed in the
"RCRA Guidance for Hazardous Waste
Incineration," to support this
certification. This approach should
ultimately increase the number of
incinerators qualified for the destruction
of PCBs and should also prevent the
formation of toxic products of
incomplete combustion during
incineration.
One of the factors used to determine
how efficiently a substance may be
destroyed is the heat of combustion.
Heat of combustion is the heat evolved
when a definite quantity of a substance
is completely burned. According to
classical thermodynamics, compounds
with lower heats of combustion should
be less readily burned and should
require higher temperatures for
destruction than compounds with higher
heats of combustion. Heat of
combustion values are measured under
controlled laboratory conditions or
derived from theoretical calculations.
Under RCRA, EPA has developed a
ranking of hazardous constituents based
on heat of combustion values. This
hierarchy allows the applicant for a
permit to incinerate hazardous wastes to
demonstrate the required level of
performance for a large number of
constituents of a waste stream by
successfully burning one or several of
those which are most difficult to
destroy. In the permitting of facilities,
EPA does not intend to use the
incinerability ranking alone, but rather,
to use it in conjunction with the permit
writer's engineering judgment. The list
provides the permit writer.and the
applicant for the permit with a useful
means of identifying the constituents of
a waste which are likely to be most
difficult to destroy, and may be used in
conjunction with other information
relating to the incinerability of an
organic constituent, when available (see
"RCRA Guidance for Hazardous Waste
Incineration").
The "RCRA Guidance for Hazardous
Waste Incineration" contains this list of
compounds, including the PCB
homologs, ranked according to heats of
combustion. While EPA has little
experimental data that indicate that
heat of combustion is the best criteria
(or the only criteria) to be used in
judging the relative ease of destruction
. of chemical compounds, it can be used
as an indicator (see "A Method for
Designation of the Principal Organic
Hazardous Constituents for Hazardous
Waste Incineratior" "Heats of
Formation and Combustion from the
Method of Handrick," "Comparison of
Ranking Factors," and "RCRA Guidance
for Hazardous Waste Incineration").
Thus, manufacturers may use heat of
combustion values to support their
determination that a particular RCRA-
approved facility is capable of
destroying their PCB wastes.
Although RCRA requires a minimum
destruction and removal efficiency of
99.99 percent for the incineration of
chemical wastes, and the TSCA
requirements will result in a minimum
destruction efficiency of 99.9999 percent
(for the incineration of PCBs in
concentrations over 50 ppm) EPA
believes that for PCBs in concentrations
below 50 ppm, a destruction and
removal efficiency of 99.99 percent is
adequate to insure only negligible
environmental release. If one assumes
that all the PCBs created in closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes (approximately 56,000 pound)
will be incinerated annually in these
RCRA-approved incinerators, then the
difference in destruction efficiencies
between the proposed requirement and
the final rule will result in a maximum of
an additional 5.54 pounds of PCBs
release.cl annually throughout the entire
United States as a result of the
modification to the proposed
requirement.
In addition to allowing the destruction
of controlled wastes in certain RCRA-
approved incinerators, EPA is also
adding to the list of acceptable disposal
mechanisms, the destruction of
controlled wastes (containing PCBs in
concentrations between the limit of
quantitation and 500 ppm) in any high
efficiency boiler that has been
specifically.approved to burn PCBs
present in fluid other than mineral oil, in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.60(a)(3). This will create an
additional mechanism for the disposal of
controlled wastes, while providing
continued protection against the
formation of toxic incomplete
con;ibustion products during
incineration. Wastes containing PCBs in
concentrations between the practical
limit of quantitation and 50 ppm may
also be destroyed in EPA-approved PCB
incinerators as well, and would qualify
as controlled wastes. This rule does not
change the requirements of the PCB
Marking and Disposal Rule (40 CFR
761.60) for the disposal 6£ PCBs in
concentrations over 50 ppm.
Thus, these modifications will: (1)
Increase the number of incinerators
ultimately available for the destruction
of PCB wastes; (2)_reduce the potential
for accidents during the transport of
wastes; (3) ultimately provide for less
costly disposal alternatives to
manufacturers disposing of controlled
wastes; and (4) should continue to
provide protection against the formation
of toxic incomplete combustion productc:
during incineration.
B. The De Minimis Determination
1. Exposure Analysis. EPA's rough
estimate of the amount of PCBs
produced in closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes is less 56,000
pounds per year. Of these roughly 56,000
pounds of PCBs, extremely small
quantities of PCBs in concentrations
below the practical limits of quantitation
will be released to the environment in
wastes from closed processes and in air
emissions, water effluents, and
products. Actual environmental releas·es
from products are expected to be in
concentrations even less than the limits
of quantitation, since the PCBs in many
products are bound in solid matrices
(e.g., paints and polymers). Although
wastes from controlled waste processes
will contain higher concentrations of
P.CBs, the requirements for handling
these wastes will prevent significant
releases to the environment.
Based on available information
(supplied by CMA), EPA estimates that
less than one thousand pounds of
byproduct PCBs are likely to actually
enter the environment each year from
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. The estimated
actual releases to the environment from
closed and controlled waste processes is
only 0.0006 percent of the estimated
150,000,000 pounds of PCBs that
currently exist in the environment as
free PCBs. Further, this amount is only
0.0001 percent of the estimated
750,000,000 pounds of PCBs currently in
use in electrical equipment in the United
States.
EPA is imposing both recordkeeping
and reporting requirements (see IV.D.)
to reduce the likelihood of processes
being mislabeled as closed or controlled
waste manufacturing processes when
releases are actually above the practical
limits of quantitation. These
· requirements help to ensure that PCBs
released to the environment as a result
of this exclusion remain below the
practical limits of quantitation.
2. De Minimis Finding. TSCA section
6(e) specifically bans the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and use of PCBs in other than a totally
enclosed manner. To be eligible for
exclusion from the provisions of section
6(e), processes must meet EPA's
definitions of closed or controlled waste
manufacturing processes. This means
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46989
that releases of PCBs in products, air
emissions, and water effluents are
below practical limits of quantitation.
For closed manufacturing processes,
releases of PCBs in wastes are also
below the practical liII\it of quantitation .•
Wastes from controlled waste processes
are disposed of in qualified incinerators
(see .discussion under IV.A.5.) or in
landfills approved under § 761.75 or are
stored for incineration or landfilling in
compliance with the standards and
requirements prescribed in
§ 761.65(b){1). Recordkeeping and
reporting by manufacturers helps to
ensure that releases of PCBs from these
processes are actually below the
practical limits of quantitation, and that
exposure to PCBs as a result of EPA
creating this exclusion remains
negligible.
EPA believes that for all practical
purposes, it would be impossible to
determine whether regulation of PCB
concentrations below the practical
limits of quantitation had any effect on
actually reducing releases of PCBs. EPA
believes that PCBs present in
concentrations below the practical
limits of quantitation are of such low
concentration, and the total amount of
PCBs released would be so low, that it
would be impossible to determine if
regulation of these levels provided
anything greater than trivial benefits.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that
there would be no measurable gain in
protecting the environment or public
health by attempting to regulate PCBs at
levels that are unmeasurable for.all
practical purposes.
EPA finds that closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes
represent de minimis situations and
should not be subject to the prohibitions
and other provisions of section 6{e) of
TSCA because: (1) releases of PCBs
from closed and controlled waste
processes (excluding controlled wastes)
are below the practical limits of
quantitation,, (2) the estimated amount of
PCBs released from these processes per
year is only 0.0006 percent of the
estimated 150,000,000 pounds of PCBs
present in the environment as fr;-ee PCBs,
(3) controlled wastes are disposed of in
a manner that should result in negligible
environmental contamination, and {4)
manufacturers operating these processes
are required to keep records and notify
EPA of processes that qualify for
exclusion.
C. Determination of No Unreasonable
Risk
EPA has concluded that there would
be no measurable benefits to public
health or the environment by regulat.ing
closed and controlled waste processes
(as defined in this rule) under section
6(e) ofTSCA. Therefore, as previously
noted, these processes are eligible for
exclusion under the de minimis
principle. Nonetheless, the Agency has
also considered whether closed and
controlled waste processes present an
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment. To determine whether
a risk is unreasonable, EPA balances the
probability that harm will occur from
the activity against the adverse effect on
society from regulation. In making a
determination of whether an
unreasonable risk is present from these
processes, EPA considered the following
factors:
1. The effects of PCBs on human
health and the environment.
2. The magnitude of PCB exposure to
humans and the. environment.
3. The benefits from products
containing PCBs, the availability of
substitutes, and the ability to prevent
the formation of PCBs.
4. The economic impact resulting from
the rule upon the national economy,
small business, technological
innovation, the environment, and public
health.
After considering all available
information, within the context of the
factors listed above, EPA finds that
excluding closed and controlled waste
processes. presents no '1Jll'easonable risk
to human health or the environment.
This findin.g is based on the following
analysis.
1. Health andtmvironmental effects
and expoBure to PCBe. Toxicity and
exposure are the two basic components
of risk. During this rulemaking, EPA has
conducted an analysis of the health and
environmental effects of PCBs (see
"Response to Comments on Health
Effects of PCBs" for details). EPA has
concluded that in addition to chloracne,
there is a potential for reproductive
effects and developmental toxicity as
well as oncogenic effects in humans,
based on animal data. EPA has also
concluded that PCBs do present a
hazard to the environment.
However, PCBs are not uniquely toxic,
and minimizing exposure to PCBs will
minimize any potential risk. EPA
evalu&_ted the potential for exposure to
PCBs from closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes, and has
determined that the exposure to PCBs
from closed and controlled waste
processes is so low as to be
unmeasurable for all practical purposes.
In calculating the practical limits·of
quantitation of PCBs, EPA considered
setting lower levels. While lower
numerical cutoffs would theoretically
further reduce the risks posed from
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes, it would not
be practicaJly possible to measure this
reduction in risk afforded by the lower
levels of release (see IV.A.3.c.). Thus,
regulating PCBs at levels below the
practical limits of quantitation provides
no measurable benefits to public health
or the environment.
As part of the de minimis
determination, EPA also considered the
public health and environmental
benefits of recordkeeping and reporting
and their effect on reducing the risks
posed from closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes. EPA
concluded that recordkeeping and
reporting by manufacturers operating
closed and controlled waste processes
would substantially reduce the
likelihood that processes would be
mislabeled and, therefore, would result
in a reduction in the actual amount of
PCBs released to the environment as a
result of this exclusion (see IV.D.). Thus,
recordkeeping and reporting would help
to ensure that only de minimis situations
are allowed to operate as a result of this
exclusion.
2. Benefits of products generated in
closed and controlled waste processes,
the availability of substitutes, and
economic impacts. If the ban on all
manufacturing, processing, distribution
in commerce, and use of PCBs was made
effective for all closed and controlled
waste processes, there co'Jld be a major
disruption of the chemical industry and
several other industries in the United
States. Since there could be a large
number of controlled waste processes,
an immediate ban could cost billions of
dollars. An immediate ban could disrupt
the manufacture of a wide variety of
products including paints, varnishes,
enamels, agricultural chemicals,
adhesives and sealants, printing ink,
plastic materials, drugs, and soaps and
cosmetics. Such products have great
societal value, and a ban of this nature
would create great hardship for the
public and industry due to the
unavailability of these products and
would have a severe economic impact.
Should such proce~es be subject to the
section 6{e) ban, all manufacturers
utilizing close-cl and controlled waste
manufacturing processes which generate
PCBs as byproducts would be required
to conform with the prohibitions and
requirements of section 6{e). Industry
has commented that, in general,
substitutes are not available for
products contaminated with low level
PCBs at the same or equivalent costs es
PCB-contaminated products, and that
processes cannot be~modified to prevent
the formation of any PCBs. CMA has
46990 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
commented that research'programs to
study ways to reduce incidental PCB
formation are very costly and have met
with limited success. CMA provided an
example of a process adjusted to reduce
formation of PCBs to below 50 ppm, and
estimated that the cost of this project
was on the order of $800,000.
Although TSCA does provide a
mechanism for obtaining relief from the
total ban of PCBs, industry has
commented that the statutory process
for obtaining an exemption is
unworkable for the many operations
that manufacture, process, or distribute
in commerce PCBs in low
concentrations. Since TSCA requires a
company to obtain an annual
exemption, industry representatives
indicated that the uncertainty
associated with knowing whether they
would be able to continue operations
and the large cost of submitting petitions
each year would be a burder.. A quick
survey of companies which filed PCB
exemption petitions with EPA in the
past showed that the annual costs of
developing the information required by
an exemption petition plus the cost of
filing the petition may cost between
$16,000 and $132,440 per process.
Although EPA does not know precisely
how many processes meet the definition
of closed and controlled waste
processes, if 500 processes were eligible,
the avoided cost of submitting petitions
for exemption could range from $8
million to $66 million per year. These
estimates will vary depending upon the
actual number of processes eligible for
the exclusion. Administering exemption
petitions for closed and controlled
waste processes could require extensive
EPA resources.
This rule has no significant negative
economic impact. Although for those
companies who choose to take
advantage of ii, ii imposes additional
burdens, it avoids the larger burdens
imposed on industry by the prohibitions
of section 6(e). As discussed in the
fo llowing unit, EPA is requiring
manufacturers who operate closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes and who desire exclusion to
certify that their processes are closed or
controlled waste processes, and to
notify EPA that the processes qualify for
exclusion. EPA has concluded that
recordkeeping and reporting by
manufacturers affords substantial
human health and environmental
benefits that greatly outweigh the costs
of recordkeeping (see IV.D. for further
analysis).
EPA is providing manufacturers the
option of conducting a theoretical
analysis or of actually monitoring
releases for PCB levels. EPA estimates
the cost of conducting a theoretical
analysis to be on the order of $1,014 per
process. EPA estimates 'the cost of ·
recordkeeping and certification to be on
the order of $374 per process per year. If
actual monitoring of PCB levels is
undertaken, using the EPA
recommended method, EPA estimates
the costs of monitoring to range between
$120 and $770 per sample. Total costs
per process range from $844 to $45,990,
depending on the frequency of sampling
and the actual costs of testing (see
support document entitled "Economic
Analysis for the Final Rule to Exclude
Closed and Controlled Processes from
the PCB Ban" for details). The upper
estimate of the cost per process of
monitoring incorporates $32,000 for air
sampling. In adding this amount into its
calculation of the upper estimate, EPA
assumed that monitoring of air
emissions is not currently ongoing for
other purposes. Therefore, all costs
associated with air emission monitoring
have been added to the costs of
recordkeeping and reporting under this
rule. Since ii is unlikely that this is the
case for most manufacturing facilities,
the upper estimate provided by EPA
may be artifically high. For most
companies, EPA expects that the costs
will not exceed $26,600 per process. This
assumes that sampling equipment
preparation and data reduction/report
writing are the only costs of air
emissions monitoring that would be
directly attributable to this rule.
3. Unreasonable risk determination.
EPA has evaluated the human health
and environmental effects and exposure
to PCBs from closed and controlled
waste processes, the benefits of the
processes producing the PCBs, and the
economic impact of regulating these
processes under section 6( e) of TSCA.
EPA has concluded that closed and
controlled waste processes represent de
minimis situations because: (1) The
PCBs released from closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes are released at low
concentrations, (2) the estimated amount
of PCBs released from these processes
per year is only 0.0006 percent of the
150,000,000 pounds of PCBs currently in
existence in the environment as free
PCBs, (3) controlled wastes are disposed
of in a manner that should result in
negligible environmental contamination,
and (4) manufacturers operating these
processes are required to keep records
and notify EPA of proce!lses operating
under the exclusion.
EPA has considered the benefits of
closed and controlled waste processes
and found them to be substantial.
Further, EPA has considered the
statutory process of petitioning for
yearly exemptions from the TSCA ban
and found it to be resource intensive.
Finally, EPA has considered the costs of
recordkeeping and reporting by
manufacturers operating closed and
controlled waste processes. EPA has
found that these costs do not represent
an excessive burden.
Thus, after balancing the risks to
human health and the environment
created as a result of this exclusion
against the benefits afforded by thH
exclusion, EPA concludes that the.
exclusion of closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes poses no
unreasonable risks to public health and
the environment.
D. Recordkeeping and Reporting
1. Summary of requirements. In the
proposed rule, EPA proposed certain
recordkeeping requirements for closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes. EPA proposed that either
theoretical assessments or actual
monitoring of PCB levels in releases be
completed in order to qualify for
exclusion, that the records of the
analysis be maintained at the facility,
and that manufacturers certify that their
processes qualify for exclusion. The
certification was to be completed by a
responsible corporate officer, who was
also required to certify that the analysis
was true and accurate to the best of his
knowledge and that the analysis had
been conducted by qualified personnel.
The certifications (and records to
support the certifications) were to be
maintained at the facility for three years
after a process ceased operation or for
seven years, whichever was shorter. The
submission of these records and
cerifications to EPA was not required in
the proposed rule.
EPA proposed these recordkeeping
requirements to: (1) Reduce the
likelihood of processes being mislabeled
as closed or controlled waste
processses, and (2) to aid EPA in
monitoring compliance with the rule.
In addition to the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule, in the
final rule, EPA is requiring: (1) That
manufacturers using RCRA-approved
facilities for the disposal of controlled
wastes certify that the facility qualifies
for the disposal of the PCB wastes, and
document the basis for the
determination, and (2) that EPA be
notified of any processes operating
under the closed and controlled waste
manufacturing process exclusion.
Manufacturers are also required to
notify_EPA of the basis for the
determination that a process is
r
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulai.iOilS 46991
excluded, by indicating whether a
theoretical assessment or actual
monitoring of PCB levels has been
completed. If the process is a .controlled
waste process, manufacturers are also
required to notify EPA of the type, the
name, and the locati6n of the disposal
facility. Manufacturers have the option,
as provided under TSCA section 14(c),
of declaring any of this informa lion to
be confidential. Manufacturers desiring
exclusion would: (1) identify processes
which they believe generate PCBs as
impurities or by-products; (2) determine
if the processes are closed processes or
controlled waste processes; (3) place
data and records of their determinations
in files at the facility: (4) certify that the
process qualifies; and (5) transmit a
letter to EPA notiiying EPA that
processes are excluded and the bases of
the determinations. Should
manufacturers periodically undertake
monitoring of PCB levels in processes or
in releases from the processes, these
data are also retained at the facility.
EPA is requiring that such records be
maintained for at least three years after
the particular process being used at the
facility ceases operations or for seven
years, whichever is shorter. Further,
EPA is requiring that processes be
reevaluated and that a new certification
be filed upon significant process
changes that invalidate the previous
certification. Significant process
changes include .changes that are likely
to change the concentration of PCBs in
releases from the processes ( except in
controlled wastes) outside the values in
the original assessment and changes in
the facility in which PCBs are disposed.
The costs of recordkeeping and
reporting to manufacturers operating
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes will vary
depending upon the m~ture of the
manufacturing process. Processes that
are frequently changed or are known to
release PCBs in air emissions, water
effluents, or products in concentrations
that approach the limit of quantitation
will probably require more frequent
analyses than other types of processes.
• Manufacturers are not required to use
this rule. They can use the statutory
exemption process as an.alternative to
taking advantage of this exclusion.
2. Recordkeeping and monitoring
requirements. In the proposed rule, EPA
proposed certain recordkeeping
requirements. EPA proposed: (1) That
either theoretical analyses or actual
monitoring of PCB levels be conducted;
(2) that the records of the analysis be
maintained at the facility: (3) that
manufacturers certify that the processes
qualify for exclusion; and (4) that all
records be maintained for three years
after a process ceased operation or for
seven yea,11. w.hiohevei: was shorter.
Certain comments on the proposed
rule suggested that EPA should impose a
reporting requirement in addition to the
proposed recordkeeping requirements
(see IV.D.3.). Other comments, however,
questioned the need for even the
proposed recordkeeping requirements.
They maintained that since closed and
controlled waste manufacturing
processes by definition have been
determined to represent de minimis
situations, recordkeeping by
manufacturers operating such processes
creates an unnecessary burden.
However, EPA has concluded that the
benefits to public health and the
environment of recordkeeping are
substantial, and further, that an
additional recordkeeping requirement is
warranted as a result of the
modification to the disposal
requirements (see IV.A.5.).
In addition to the recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule, in the
final rule, EPA is requiring that
manufacturers disposing of controlled
wastes in RCRA-approved incinerators
certify that the incinerator is capable of
destroying the PCB wastes and maintain
records of the basis of the
determination. EPA believes that this
additional recordkeeping requirement is
needed to ensure that controlled wastes
are disposed of in qualified RCRA-
approved facilities. Manufacturers may
use any generally accepted criteria to
demonstrate the capability of the
incinerator to destroy the PCBs,
including the use of heat of combustion
valu~s and other parameters addressed ·
in the "RCRA Guidance for Hazardous
Waste Incineration."
With recordkeeping requirements in
place, fewer processes will be
mislabeled by manufacturers as
qualifying for exclusion. With fewer
processes being mislabeled, less total
PCBs will be released to the
environment as a result of EPA creating
this exclusion. The recordkeeping
requirements help to ensure that only
situations that have been determined to
be de minimis are excluded from
regulation under TSCA section 6(e).
Further, such recordkeeping is necessary
to the development of an effective
compliance monitoring program·by EPA.
Without records (and notification of
EPA), EPA will have little or no
information upon which to develop an
effective compliance monitoring
program.
EPA estimates the cost of
recordkeeping alone to be on the order
of $374 per process per year. This cost
does not include the costs associated
with conducting the theoretical
assessment or monitoring PCB levels in
releases.
In view of the substantial benefits
afforded public health !ind the
environment described above and the
relatively low costs of recordkeeping to
manufacturers, EPA has concluded that
the benefits, in terms of public health
and environmental protection, far
outweigh the costs.
In the proposed rule, EPA provided
manufacturers the option of utilizing a
theoretical assessment to support a
determination that a process qualified
for exclusion. However, a number of
comments criticized the portion of the
proposed rule that provided for
theoretical assessments in lieu of actual
monitoring of PCB levels. Several
comments on the proposal maintained
that many manufacturers may be either
unable to complete a theoretical
assessment or uncomfortable with
relying on this means of analysis. Other
comments suggest that EPA should
impose strict monitoring requirements
for manufacturers taking advantage of
this exclusion.
EPA does not agree that monitoring of
process releases is necessary in all
process situations. EPA believes that
theoretical assessments which correctly
conclude that PCBs are not released
above the practical limits of quantitation
will be possible in some _process
situations and that it would be
unreasonable to require actual
monitoring of PCB levels when reason
and logic alo,1e clearly dictate that a
process qualifies for exclusion. Further,
EPA has concluded that it is not
reasonable for EPA to eliminate this
option for all manufacturers simply
because certain manufacturers have
commented that they would be .
uncomfortable relying on a theoretical
analysis.
The objective of conducting a
theoretical assessment is to use reason,
logic, and chemical/mathematical ·
calculations to make a correct
determination of whether a
manufacturing process is a closed or
controlled waste manufacturing process
and, therefore, qualifies for exclusion.
Specifically, the objective is to
determine if PCB levels in releases from
a process to other than controlled
wastes exceed certain levels (the
practical limits of quantitation of PCBs)
without actually monitoring these
releases. Obviously, if the expected
concentration of PCBs itfreleases
(derived through a theoretical
calculation) approaches the level set as
the regulatory cutoff, actual monitoring
48992 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
of PCB levels would be advisable. The
need to actually undertake monitoring of
releases can be determined only by each:
manufacturer and will depend upon the
expected level of release, its
relationship to the cutoff, and the level
of confidence placed in the accuracy of
the estimate. The ultimate burden of
making a correct dec;ision to rely on
theoretical analyses rests on each
manufacturer.
A primary consideration in completing
a theoretical assessment is determining
the probable point{s) of manufacture of
PCBs, the likely mechanism{s) of
formation, and the probable identity and
concentrations of the PCB congeners
formed. Once these have been
determined, the fate of the PCBs is
traced from the point{s) of manufacture,
through the process, to the point{s) of
release. Factors to be considered in
projecting the movement of the PCBs
through the process include: (1) The
concentrations of PCBs at ch'fferent .
points in the manufacturing process, (2)
the solubility, volatility, and density of
the PCB congeners relative to the other
process components, (3) the ·
temperatures and pressures at different
points in the process, (4) the potential
for the PCBs to be transformed into
other compounds or destroyed prior to
release, and (5) the physical
characteristics of the process and the
processing equipment used within the
process. Additional guidance on
conducting a theoretical assessment is
provided in a support document to this
rulemaking entitled: "Guidance for
Conducting a Theoretical Assessment."
This document is available in the
rulemaking record, and by contacting
the Industry Assistance Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
A theoretical assessment is to
address: (1) The reaction or reactions
believed to be producing the PCBs, (2)
the levels of PCBs generated and
released, (3) the bases for estimates of
PCB concentrations in releases, and (4)
the name and qualifications of the
person or persons performing the
analysis.
If actual monitoring of PCB levels is
undertaken, records are to be
maint~ined and must include: (1) The
method(s) of analysis, (2) the results of
the analysis for PCB levels in releases,
including data from the quality
assurance plan, (3) the name of the
analyst or analysts, and (4) the date and
time of the analysis.
A determination that PCBs are absent
by actual monitoring of PCB levels
should take into account the statistical
variability in analytical results which
will always occur. Recognizing that
there will'be variation in results of,.
series of samples taken from a particular
stream. EPA is recommending a
sampling procedure that uses·a
sequential saml)li.n8 scheme. (See
support document entitled "Guidance
for SampleCollection.")
This approach should result in a
considerable savings over standard
statistical aampling methods without
adding to the risks of making incorrect
decisions. Sequential sampling is a
procedure where, unlike other statistical
methods, the sample size is not fixed in
advance. After every sample or group of
samples is analyzed, the sequential
sampling procedure indicates whether
sufficient samples have been gathered to
make a decision oi' whether additional
samples are needed. On the average,
fewer samples are required for this
procedure than with other methods;
In general, for any statistical method,
two decision errors are possible: (1)
declaring processes which are qualified
for an exclusion to be not qualified fa.-
exclusion, and (2) declaring processes
which are not qualified for exclusion to
be qualified for exclusion. The
sequential sampling scheme
recommended by EPA eliminates any
significant likelihood of &ommitting an
error of the first type. The recommended
maximum number of samples (seven)
was chosen because, when several PCB
peaks are present, it results in an
acceptably low probability of the
second type of error without
necessitating an excessive amount of
sampling to declare a process qualified
for exclusion.
Manufacturers are required to certify
that their processes qualify for
exclusion, certify that the analysis ·
completed is accurate to the best of their
knowledge, and maintain these records
and certifications for three years after a
process ceases operation or for seven
years, whichever is shorter.
EPA estimates that cost of conducting
a theoretical analysis to be.on the order
of $1,014 per process. EPA estimates the
cost of certification without actual
monitoring of PCB levels in releases to
be on the order of $374 per process per
year. If actual monitoring of PCB levels
is undertaken, using the EPA-
recommended method, EPA estimates
the costs of monitoring to range between
$120 and $770 per sample. Total costs
per process are estimated to range from
$844 to $45,990, depending upon the
frequency and actual cost of sampling
(see "Economic Analysis for the Final
Rule to Exclude Closed and Controlled
Processes from the PCB Ban" for
detailed assessment).
3. Reporting requirement. In the
proposed rule, EPA did not propose that
reporting of data to the Agency be
required. However, ht response to the
pro)fflsed rule, EPA received several
comments that suggested that a
reporting requirement should be
imposed in addition to the proposed
recordkeeping requirements. These
comments maintain that the cost to
manufacturers of notifying EPA that
. certain processes qualify for exclusion is
trivial {less than $1.00 per process), and
the benefits to EPA of developing an
effective compliance monitoring
program far outweigh these trivial costs.
Other comments, however, question the
. need for even the proposed
recordkeeping requirements {see IV.O.1.)
for situations that have been determined
to be de minimis. These comments
suggest that reporting and recordkeeping
requirements impose unnecessary
burdens on industry.
After considering these comments,
EPA is instituting a reporting
requirement in the final rule. The final
rule requires manufacturers to notify
EPA that closed and controlled waste
processes are operating at their
facilities. Further, manufacturers are
required to indicate, in the notification
letter, whether a theoretical assessment
or actual monitoring of PCB levels was
used to make the determination that the
processes qualify for exclusion. If the
manufacturing process is a controlled
waste process, the manufacturer must
also notify EPA of the type, the name,
and the location of the disposal facility.
Manufacturers have the option of
declaring this information to be
confidential, under TSCA section 14(c).
Manufacturers also have the option to
sending a copy of the actual assessment
to\EPA.
EPA has concluded that requiring
notification ·of EPA that processes are
excluded and submission of information
on the general bases for the
determinations that the processes are
excluded provides a relatively low cost
incentive for manufacturers to carefully
evalute their processes for eligibility for
exclusion. Further, EPA believes, as
several comments have suggested, that
such a reporting requirement would
provide benefits which greatly outweigh
the costs to manufacturers of
transmitting letters to EPA. Specifically,
the letters could be used by EPA fo
developing an enforcement strategy and
in monitoring compliance with the rule.
EPA agrees with these comments and
has concluded that establishing a
reporting requirement of the nature
described here does not place
unreasonable burdens on the regulated
community.
I I
I:
rl
i
I
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46993
E. The EPA Recommended Analytical
Method for Quantifying PCBs
For purposes of this rule only, EPA
has designated capillary gas
chromatography coupled to an
electronic impact mass spectrometer
(CGS/EIMS) as the EPA recommended
analytical technique for quantifying
PCBs in air emissions, water effluents
and product/process streams. (Different
analytical techniques may be more
appropriate for other situations). This is
the analytical technique which EPA will
use in monitoring compliance with this
final rule and which manufacturers may
very well choose to use. To qualify for
the closed and controlled waste process
exclusion, PCBs must be below practical
limits of quantitation for PCBs in air,
water, and products (and wastes from
closed processes). It should be
emphasized that actual monitoring of
releases is not required as a condition
for exclusion (theoretical analyses are
acceptable), and this method is not
required if monitoring is elected.
1. Chemical analytical methodology.
True confirmation of chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in specimens which
may contain other chlorinated aromatic
compounds can reliably be
accomplished by capillary gas
chromatography coupled to mass
spectrometry. In order to obtain the
selectivity to use this analytical
technique, specific separation,
extraction, and cleanup steps are a
necessary part of the chemical analysis
process. There are many analytical
procedures for separation, extraction,
cleanup, and detection which can
successfully be used to indicate the
presence of PCBs. Some suggested
protocols appear in the support
document: "Analytical Methods for
Incidentally Generated PCBs-Initial
Validation and Interim Methods."
2. Quality assurance plan for
measurement of incidentally generated
chlorinated biphenyls. An integral part
of CGC/EIMS analysis is the quality
assurance program (QAP). QAPs insure
the integrity of the data produced.
A QAP includes the following: (1)
History and disposition of samples, (2)
sampling and sample collection
procedures and (3) extraction and
instrumental analysis procedures. A
QAP documents how a laboratory
intends to demonstrate its capability to
produce data of acceptable quality. A
QAP is essential for establishing the
validity of the analytical data generated.
In monitoring compliance, EPA will use
CGC/EIMS in conjunction witn a QAP
to verify the accuracy of the data
generated.
3. Guidelines. EPA has issued
guidance on: (1) Sample collection and
homogenizatiop_ of the sample, (2). · ·
addition of s~irogale compounds to the
sample, (3) extraction and cleanup, (4)
concentration or dilution of the extract,
(5) analysis of the final extract, (6)
reporting the results of the chemical
analysis as specific PCB isomers or total
PCBs, (7) developing a QAP, and (8)
performing a theoretical assessment. In
addition, the "RCRA Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Incineration" is also
available. These guidance documents
are support documents for this
rulemaking and are available by
contacting the Industry Assistance
Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
F. Relationship of the Final Rule to
Other PCB Rules
1. Disposal and marking rule. The
Disposal and Marking'Rule, published in
the Federal Register of February 17, 1978
( 43 FR 7150), as Part 761 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations,
requires that when PCBs al).d PCB items
are removed from service, disposal be in
accordance with specific criteria.
Briefly, PCBs in concentrations below 50
ppm are not required to be disposed of
in any special manner; liquid PCBs in
concentrations between 50 ppm and 500
ppm are required to be disposed of in an
incinerator which complies with certain
standards, in a chemical waste landfill,
or in a high efficiency boiler; non-liquid
PCBs are required to be disposed of in .
an incinerator which complies with
certain standards or in a chemical waste
landfill; and liquid PCBs in
concentrations at or above 500 ppm are
required to be disposed of in an
incinerator which complies with certain
standards. .
This rule has no direct effect on the
existing marking and disposal
regulations. PCBs created in other than
closed and controlled waste
manufacturing processes in
concentrations between the LOQ and 50
ppm are not required by this rule to be
disposed of in any special manner. This
rule simply excludes PCBs generated in
controlled waste manufacturing
processes from the section 6(e) ban
when all PCBs generated and released
above the LOQ are handled in a manner
specified in this rule.
2. Regulatory exclusion at 50 ppm.
The PCB Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use
Prohibition rule, published in the
Federal Register of May 31, 1979, ( 44 FR
31514), as Part 761 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations basically
prohibits the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce and use of
PCBs in concentrations above 50 ppm in
other than a totally enclosed manner. As
discussed under the Background unit in
this preamble, this exclusion of PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm was
successfully challenged by the
Environmental Defense Fund. The court
granted a stay of mandate with respect
to the 50 ppm cutoff, and persons
manufacturing, processing, distributing
in commerce and using PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm were
permitted to continue these activities.
The initial stay of mandate was
scheduled to expire on October 13, 1982.
However, in its report to the court on
uncontrolled PCBs, filed in March of
1982, EPA requested and was
subsequently granted an extension of
this stay of mandate until December 1,
1982. Prior to that time (but no later than
November 1, 1982), EPA will submit a
plan to the court for rulemaking on ·
uncontrolled PCBs. EPA anticipates that
its plan will include a schedule for
rulemaking for uncontrolled PCBs and a
request for an additional extension of
the stay of mandate for processes
covered by the rulemaking until it is
completed.
V. Official Rulemaking Record PCB
Regulations for Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes
In accordance with the requirements
of section 19(a)(3)(E) of TSCA, EPA is
publishlhg the following list of
documents constituting the record of this
rulemaking. This list does not include
public comments, the transcript of the
rulemaking hearing, or submissions
made at the ruleniaking hearing or in
connection with it. These documents are
exempt from Federal Register listing
under section 19(a)(3).
A. Previous Rulemaking Records
1. Official Rulemaking Record from
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Disposal
and Marking Final Regulation," 43 FR7150,
February 17, 1978.
2. Official Rulemaking Record from
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions Rule," 44 FR
31514, May 31, 1979.
3. Official Rulemaking Record from
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Electrical Equipment," 47 FR 37342. August
25, 1982.
B. Federal Register Notices
1. 46 FR 27617, May 20, 1981, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);
Manufacture of PCBs in Concentrations
Below 50 Parts.Per Million; Possible
Exclusion From Manufacturing Prohibition;
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking."
46994 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
2. 46 FR 27815, May 2.0, 1981, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyl1 (PCBs): Court
Order Regarding PCBI in Concentrations
Below 50 Parts Per Million."
3. 47 FR 24976. June 8, 1982, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacture, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce, and Use in Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes, Proposed
Rule."
4. 47 FR 25555. June 14, 1982, USEPA,
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and
Use In Closed and Controlled Waste
Manufacturing-Processes, Correction."
5. 47 FR 30082, July 12, 1982, USEPA,
"Notice of Availability of Guidelines for the
Analysis of PCBs."
C. Support Documents
1. USEPA. OPTS, CCD, "Summary of
Comments [on ANPRJ Received Concerning
the Exclusion of PCBs in Concentrations
Below 50 ppm, and In Closed Manufacturing
Processes from Regulation Under Sections
6(e)(2) and 6(e)(3) of Toxic Substances
Control Act" (undated).
2. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Occupational
Exposure to Inadvertently Produced PCBs-
Preliminary Report" (April 22, 1982).
3. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations. Draft Interim Report,
Revision 2" (April 21, 1982).
4. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, "Draft: Cost
Analysis for the Proposal to Exclude
Controlled Processes from the PCB Ban"
(April 1982).
5. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, "Cost Analysis for
the Proposal to Exclude Controlled Processes
from the PCB Ban-2nd Draft''·(May, 1982).
6. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, "Economic Analysis
for the Final Rule to Exclude Closed and
Controlled Processes from the PCB Ban"
(September 1982).
.7. USEPA. OPTS, HERD, "Review of
Studies of Health Effects of PCBs" (December
31, 1981).
8. USEPA, OPTS, HERD, "Proposed Rule on
(PCBs) Use in Electrical Equipment. Review
of Potential Health Effects in Humans from
Exposure to PCBs and Related Impurities"
(April 12, 1982).
9. USEPA. OPTS, EEO, "Quality Assurance
Guidelines" (April 22, 1982).
_ 10. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Memo from
Redford to Halper, "Rationale for Levels of
Quantitation for CGC/EIMS" (April 21, 1982).
11. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Estimation of
Releases from Spills of Inadvertently
Produced PCBs" (April, 1982).
12. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Analytical
Methods for Incidentally Generated PCBs-
lntitial Validation and Interim Protocols.
Preliminary Draft, Draft Interim Report #4"
Uune 24, 1982).
13. USEPA, OPTS, EED, "Guidance for
Sample Collection, Preliminary Draft"
(July 8, 1982).
14. USEPA. OPTS, CCD, "Response to
Comments on the Closed and Controlled
Waste Rule" (October 12, 1982).
15. USEPA. OPTS, EEO, Memo from
Redford to Kutz. "Rationale for Choosing a
Reasonable Sample Size and Matrix
interference Allowance for the PCB
Analytical Method" (September 13, 1982).
16. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Telephone
Communication between David Redford of
EPA and Ben Heyden of Finnigan MAT,
"Sensitivity of CGC/EIMS" (August 11, 1982).
17. USEPA. OPTS, ETD, Telephone
Communication between Amy Moll of EPA
and Ben Heyden of Finnigan MAT, "Cost of
CGC/EIMS" (September 2, 1982).
18. USEPA, OPTS, "Guidance for
Conducting a Theoretical Assessment"
(October 6, 1982).
19. USEPA. OPTS, HERD, "Response to
Comments on Health Effects of PC&"
(August 19, 1982).
20. USEPA. OPTS, EEO, Memo from Martin
Halper to Don Clay, "Disposal Requirements
for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) from
Controlled Waste ManufacturinP Processes"
(August 3, 1982).
21. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Analytical
Methods for Incidentally Generated PCB&-
Preliminary Validation and Interim Methods-
Draft Interim Report #4. Revision #1"
(September 13, 1982).
22. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Peer Review and
Author's Replies to ''Methods of Analysis for
Incidentally Generated PCBs-Literature
Review and Preliminary Recommendations,
Draft Interim Report #2" Uune 11, 1982).
23. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Response to Peer
Review of "Analytical Methods for
Incidentally Generated PCBs Initial
Validation and Interim Protocols" (August 16,
1982).
24. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Memo to CMA
from Smith "Sample Collection" (July 26,
1982).
25. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "List of Products
That May Contain PCBs Generated as
Impurities or Byproducts" (Angus~ 11, 1982).
26. USEPA. OPTS, EEO, "Evaluation of PCB
Isomers Identified in Chemical Manufacturing
Processes Producing PCBs as Impurities"
(September 2, 1982).
. 27. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Investigation of
Personal Protective Equipment in Relation to
Occupational Exposure to PCBs Generated u
Impurities" (August 4, 1982).
28. USEPA, OPTS, EEO "Update on
Protective Garment Materials Resistant to
PCBs" (August 17, 1982).
29. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "rtevised Materials
Balance for Inadvertently Produced PCBs"
(April 22, 1982).
30. USEPA, OSW, "Working Paper:
Problems with POHCS" (Undated).
31. USEPA. OPTS, EEO, "IJ1t of Plants and
Chemical Manufacturing Processes Known or
Suspected to Generate PCBs as Impurities"
(September 9, 1982).
32. USEPA, OSW, "Comparison of Ranking
Methods" (May 14, 1982).
33. USEPA, OSW, "A Method for
Designation of the Principal Organic
Hazardous Waste Incineration" (Undated).
34. Reid and Sherwood, ed. "Methods of
Handrick Used to Calculate Heats of
Combustion,'' The Properties of Gases and
Liquids (1966).
35. USEPA. OSW, Memo from the Mitre
Corporation to Robert Olexsey (EPA), "Logic
for Defining lncinerability a1 Relative Ease of
Flame Oxidation" (January 21, 1981).
38. USEPA, OPTS, EED, Memo from
Erickson and Stanley to Redford, "PCB
Quantitation List Parameters" (September 24,
1982).
37. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Memo from
Redford to Halper, "Transmittal of MRI'• PCB
Quantitation List Parameters Memorandum
with Additional Comments" (September 30,
1982).
36. USEPA. OPTS, EED, Memo from
Redford to Kutz, "Rationale for Choosing a
Reasonable Sample Size and Matrix
Interference Allowance for the PCB
Analytical Method" (September 13, 1982).
39. USEPA, OPTS, ETD, Memo from
Kingsley to Moll, ''Cost Estimates for
Implementation of MRI Analytical Protocol
for Incidentally Generated PCBs" (August 23,
1982).
40. USEPA, OPTS, Memo to the Record,
"Schedule for PCB Rule on Closed and
Controlled Processes" (April 29, 1982).
41. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, Memo from
Guimond to Cox, "Response to CMA's
Questions" (August 3, 1982).
42. USEPA, OPTS, "Response to CMA'11
Request for Cross Examination" (August 17,
1982).
43. USEPA, OPTS, "Response to CMA's
Request for Dr. Erickson to Testify at the July
26 PCB Hearing" (July 22, 1982).
44. USEPA, "EPA Report in Accordance
with this Court'• April 13, 1982 Order
Concerning EPA Proposal for Action on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Concentrations
Below 50 Parts Per Million Resulting From
Uncontrolled PCBs and Motion for Extension
of Stay of Mandate 81 to EPA Action on
Uncontrolled PCBs Until December 1, 1982"
(March 11, 1982).
45. CMA, Letter to Gunter (EPA) from
Fensterheim (CMAJ, "Summary of Discussion
on Erickson Testimony" (July 13, 1982).
46. CMA, Letter to Clay (EPA) from Zoll
(CMA), "Request for Cross Examination and
an Informal Hearing on EPA's Proposed Rule
Concerning PCBs in Closed and Controlled
Waste Manufacturing Processes" (August 9,
1982).
47. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Guidance for
Sample Collection". (October 1982).
48. USEPA, OSW, "RCRA Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Incineration."
49. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Draft Interim Report"
(April 6, 1982).
50. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Draft Interim Report,
Revision #1" (April 16, 1982).
51. USEPA, OPTS. EEO, "Methods ot
AnalJisis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Literature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Draft Interim Report,
Revision #3" (June 17, 1982).
52. USEPA. OPTS, EED, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBi
Llterature Review and Preliminary
Recommendations, Final Report" (October 12,
1982).
53. USEPA. Om'S, EEO, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBI-
Synthesis of ia C-PCB Surrogates, Draft
Interim Report #3" (June 29, 1982).
I
Federal ,Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 46995
54. USEPA, OPTS, EEO, "Methods of
Analysis for Incidentally Generated PCBs
Preliminary Validation and Interim Methods"
(October 12, 1982).
55. USEPA, Memo from R.G. Bell to Don
Clay, "OTS Obligations Under the
Environmental Research, Development and
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978"
(July 30, 1982).
D. Reports
1. Chemical Manufacturers Association, "A
Report of a Survey on the Incidental
Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and
Use of Polychlorinated Biphenyl at
Concentrations Below 50 ppm."
2. Chemical Manufacturers Association,
"The Analysis of Chlorinated Biphenyls."
3. Ecology and Environment, Incorporated,
"Summary of the Health Effects of PCBs."
VI. Authority
Section 6(e) ofTSCA [15 U.S.C. 2605J.
The Administrator of EPA has authority
to amend or modify the PCB
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce and Use Prohibition Rule
(40 CFR Part 761), published in the
Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31,
1979).
VII. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, issued
February 17, 1981, EPA must judge
whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
therefore, subject to the requirement
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
prepared. EPA has determined that this
final rule is not a major rule as the term
is defined in section l(b) of the
Executive Order. Therefore, EPA has not
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis
for this proposed rule.
EPA has concluded that this final rule
is not "major" under the criteria of
section l(b) because the annual effect of
the rule on the economy will be less
than $100 million; it will not cause a
major increase in costs or prices for any
sector of the economy or for any
geographic region; and it will not result
in any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or innovation or on the
ability of United States enterprises to
compete with foreign enterprises in
domestic or foreign markets. In fact, this
final rule allows certain uses of PCBs
that would otherwise be prohibited by
section 6( e) of TSCA and, therefore,
reduces the overall costs and economic
impact of section 6(e).
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Administrator may
certify that a rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities
and, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis. The
amendment to the PCB rule excludes
persons who manufacture PCBs in
closed and contr.nllerl waste
manufacturing processes from the ban
on manufacture of PCBs. For those
persons who qualify for the exclusion,
the effect of this rule is to avoid the
economic impact associated with the
ban. Since no negative economic effect
is expected upon any business entity
from the promulgation of this rule, I
certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on small
entities.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq (the Act),
authorized the Director of the 0MB to
review certain information collection
requests by Federal agencies. EPA has
determined that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of this rule
constitute a "collection of information,"
as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(4). In
accordance with the Act, the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements of this rule have been
submitted to 0MB under section 3504(6)
of the Act. .OMB has assigned the
control number 207(H)(){)8 to this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Hazardous materials, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls,
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, Environmental protection.
Dated: October 12, 1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
PART 761-POLYCHLORINATED
BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN
COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS
Therefore, 40 CFR Part 761 is
amended as follows~
1. Paragraph (f) is added to § 761.1, to
read as follows:
§ 761.1 Applicablllty.
(f) Persons who manufacture, process,
distribute in commerce, or use PCBs
generated as byproducts, impurities or
intermediates in closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes (as
defined in § 761.3 (ii) and (kk)) are
exempt from the requirements of
Subpart B. To qualify for this exclusion,
such processes must also fully comply
with § 761.185.
2. Paragraphs (ii). (kk), (mm), and (nn)
are added to § 761.3, to read as follows:
§ 761.3 Definitions
• • •
(jj) "Closed manufacturing process"
meanit a manufacturing process in which
PCBs are generated but from which less
than 10 micrograms per cubic meter
from any resolvable gas
chromatographic peak are contained in
any release to air; less than 100
micrograms per liter from any resolvable
gas chromatographic peak are contained
in any release to water; and less than 2
micrograms per gram from any
resolvable gas chromatographic peak
are contained in any product, or any
process waste.
(kk) "Controlled waste manufacturing
process" means a manufacturing
process in which PCBs are generated but
from which less than 10 micrograms per
cubic meter from any resolvable gas
chromatographic peak are contained in
any release to air; less than 100
micrograms per liter from any resolvable
gas chromatographic peak are contained
in any release to water; less than 2
micrograms per gram from any
resolvable gas chromatographic peak
are contained in any product, and the
remainder of PCBs generated are
incinerated in a qualified incinerator,
landfilled in a landfill approved under
the provisions of § 761.75, or stored for
such incineration or landfilling in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.65(b)(1).
(11) [ReservedJ
(mm) "Manufacturing process" means
all of a series of unit operations
operating at a site, resulting in the,
production of a product.
(nn) "Qualified incinerator" means
one of the following:
(1) An incinerator approved under the
provisions of § 761.70.
(2) A high efficiency boiler approved
under the provisions of§ 761.60(a)(3).
(3) An incinerator approved under
section 3005(c) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 6925(c)) (RCRA). The
manufacturer seeking to qualify a
process as a controlled waste process
by disposing of wastes in a RCRA-
approved incinerator must make a
determination that the incinerator is
capable of destroying less readily
burned compounds than the PCB
homologs to be destroyed. The
manufacturer may use the same
guidance used by EPA in making such a
determination when issuing an approval
under section 3005(c) of RCRA. The
manufacturer is also responsible for
obtaining reasonable assurances that
the incinerator, when burning PCB
wastes, will be operated under
conditions which have been shown to
enable the incinerator to destroy the
less readily burned compounds
48996 Federal. Register / Vol. 47, No. 204 / Thursday, October 21, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
3. Section 761.185 is added to read as
follows: ·
t 781.115 Certification program and
retention of special records by persons
feMl'lltlng PCBs In closed manufacturing
proc:esMS and controlled waste
manufacturing proces..._
(a) In addition to meeting the basic
requirements of I 761.1(f), PCB-
generating manufacturing processes
shall be considered "closed
manufacturing processes" or "controlled
waste manufacturing processes" (and
thus, be excluded from the TSCA
section 6(e) ban on manufacture), only if
the owner/operator of the
manufacturing facility:
(1) Performs either a theoretical
analysis of PCB levels in releases or
conducts actual sampling of PCB levels
in releases.
(2) Determines that the disposal
facility is qualified for the disposal of
controlled wastes under I 761.3(nn) (for
controlled waste processes only).
(3) Maintains (for a period of 3 years
after a process ceases operations or for
7 years, whichever is shorter) records
containing the following information on
the processes:
(i) Theoretical analysis. (A) The
reaction or reactions believed to be
producing the PCBs, the Jevels of PCBs
generated, and the levels of PCBs
released.
(B) The basis for all estimations of
PCB concentrations.
(C) The name and qualifications of the
person or persons performing the
theoretical analysis.
(ii) Actual monitoring. (A) The method
of analysis.
(B) The results of the analysis,
including data from the Quality
Assurance Plan.
· (C) The name of the analyst or
analysts.
(D) The date and time of the analysis.
(iii) Qualifications of the disposal
facility. (A) The type of disposal facility.
(BJ The name of the disposal facility.
(C) The location of the disposal
facility.
{D) If the disposal facility is a RCRA-
approved incinerator, the basis for the
determination that the incinerator
qualifies for the destruction of the PCB
wastes to be destroyed.
(b) The data collected, and the
analysis performed under paragraph (a)
of this section must support the
following certification if the processes
are to be excluded under the closed
manufacturing process and controlled
waste manufacturing process exclusion.
Persons desiring exclusion of a PCB-
generating process under the closed and
controlled waste process exclusion shall
certify that:
(1) An analysis of the manufacturing
process for PCB levels .and releases
(either theoretical or through actual
monitoring for PCBs) has been
completed.
(2) The analysis of the manufacturing
process is on record at the facility.
.(3) The concentration of PCBs in air
emissions is below 10 micrograms per
cubic meter per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak; in water
effluent's, below 100 micrograms per liter
per resolvable gas chromatographic
peak; and in products, below 2
micrograms per gram per resolvable gas
chromatographic peak.
(4) Either:
(i) The concentration of PCBs in
process wastes is below 2 micrograms
per gram resolvable gas
chromatographic peak.
(ii) All process wastes are either
incinerated in a qualified incinerator
(see § 761.3(nn)), landfilled in a landfill
approved under § 761.75, or stored for
such incineration or landfilling in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 761.65(b)(1).
(c) The certification must be signed by
a responsible corporate officer. This
certification must be filed at each
facility in which a closed or controlled
waste process is operating for a period
of three years after a process ceases
operation or for seven years, whichever
is shorter, and mu~t be made available
to EPA upon request. For the purpose of
this section, a responsible corporate
officer means:
(1) A president, secretary, treasurer,
or vice president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function,
or any other person who performs
similar policy or decision-making
functions for the corporation.
(2) T-he m~nager of one or more
manufacturing, production, or operating
facilities employing more than 250
persons or having gross annual sales or
-expenditures exceeding $25,000,000 (in
second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority
to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
(d) This certification process must be
repeated whenever process conditions
are significantly modified to make the
previous certification no longer valid.
Significant modifications include
changing disposal mechanisms or
facilities for the disposal of controlled
wastes.
(e) Any person signing a document
under paragraph {b) (1) through (4) of
this section shall also make "the
following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or 8Upervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate information. Based on my inquiry of
the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persona directly responsihle
for gathering information, the information is,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for falsifying
information, including the possibility of fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Dated:-------
Signature -------
(f) Manufacturers operating closed
and controlled waste manufacturing
processes shall transmit a letter to EPA
notifying EPA of:
(1) The number, the type, and the
location of the closed and controlled
waste manufacturing processes.
(2) Whether the determinations that
the processes qualify for exclusion are
based on theoretical assessments or on
actual monitoring of PCB levels in
releases.
(3) The type, the name, and the
location of the waste disposal facility, if
the process is a controlled waste
manufacturing process.
(FR Doc. S2--Z8779 Filed to--211-82: 11:45 ■m)
BILLING CODE t5'CMCMI
---s.
:. -====:_ = === : ~ === 3 ---=
-------
--- -
M9nday
January 3, 1983
Part IV
APPENDIX E
Environmental
Protection Agency
Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in
Commerce and Use Prohibitions;
Amendment . To Use Authorization for
PCB Railroad Transformers
124 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[OPTs-62020A; TSH-FRL 2205-7)
Polychlorlnated Blphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution In Commerce and Use
Prohibitions; Amendment To Use
Authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On May 31, 1979, EPA
promulgated a rule under section 6(e) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) that authorizes the use of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
railroad transformers until July 1, 1984.
Under this authorization, these
transformers may not contain dielectric
fluids with a PCB concentration
exceeding 60,000 parts per million (ppm)
(6 percent) after January 1, 1982, and
exceeding 1,000 ppm (0.1 percent) after
January 1, 1984. This rule amends the
use authorization by: (1) Requiring these
railroad organizations to meet the 60,000
ppm concentration level by July 1, 1984;
(2) requiring these railroad organizations
to meet the 1,000 ppm concentration
level by July 1, 1986; and (3) authorizing
the use of PCBs for the remaining useful
life of these transformers at
concentrations below 1,000 ppm. Finally,
EPA is also amending the May 1979 rule
to permit railroad organizations to
service these transformers to reduce
PCB concentrations and thereby to
reduce the costs of disposal. The two
primary reasons for these amendments
are: (1) The. majority of the affected
railroad organizations did not select an
adequate non-PCB substitute until ·
October 1981, and (2) for certain
organizations, necessary Federal
funding for this activity was not
received in time to perform the required
servicing on PCB railroad transformers.
DATES: These amendments shall be
considered promulgated for purposes of
judicial review under section 19 of
TSCA at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
on January 17, 1983. These amendments
shall be effective on February 2, 1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas G. Bannerman, Acting Director,
Industry Assistance Office (TS-799),
Office of Toxic Substances,
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm.
· E-509, 401 M St., SW., Washington, D.C.
20460; toll free: (600-424-9065); in
Washington, D.C.: (554-1404); outside
the USA: (Operator 202-554-1404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
regulation at 40 CFR Part 761 have been
recodified. Notice of the recodification
appeared in the Federal Register of May
6, 1982 (47 FR 19527). As a result of this
recodification, the revised sectiOll
· numbers will be used in this rule. Refer
to the Fttderal Register Notice of May 6,
1982 to determine equivalent provisions
under the former codification.
I. Background
On January 1, 1982, there were 756
railroad transformers in service that ·
contained PCB dielectric fluid. Of this
equipment, 730 transformers are used in
self-propelled railroad cars and 26
transformers are used in locomotives.
These PCB railroad transformer• are
operated in the northeastern United
States by the NafionaJ Railroad
Passenger Corporatfop (Amtrak) and
four State and metropolitan transit
authorities.
Section 6 (e) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq .• prohibit the manufacture,
processing. distribution in commerce,
and use of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). In section 6(e) (2), there are two
exceptions under which EPA may, by
rule, allow a particular use of PCBs to
continue. First, EPA may find that the
use is in a "totally enclosed" manner. A
"totally enclosed" manner is defined in
section 6 (e) (2) (C) to be "any manner
whifh will ensure that any exposure of
human beings or the environment to a
polychlorinated biphenyl will be
insignificant as determined by the
Administrator by rule." Second, EPA
may authorize PCBs to be used in a
manner other than in a "totally enclosed
manner" if.the Agency finds that the use
"will not present an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment."
A. Other PCB Regulations
EPA isaued in the Federal Register of
May 31, 1979 (44 FR 31514) final rules to
modify the general ban on the
manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs. The May
1979 rule, inter alia: (1) Excluded from
regulation PCBs in concentrations less
than 50 ppm: (2) defined all electrical
capacitors, electromagnets, and non-
railroad transformers as "totally
enclosed," thus automatigally exempting
them from regulation under the Act; and
(3) authorized 11 non-totally enclosed
uses based on consideration of the
health and environmental effects of
PCBs, the exposure to PCBs resuning
from these activities, the availability of
substitutes for the PCBs, and the-'
economic impact of restricting those
uses. Included in the non-totally
enclosed uses was an authorization to
use PCBs in railroad transformers until
July 1, 1984, with certain use a~d
servicing restrictions. This authorization
provided that railroad transformers in
active service may not,contain dielectric
fluid with a PCB concentration
exceeding 60,000 ppm (6.0 percent on a .
dry weight basis) after January 1, 1982,
may not contain greater than 1,000 ppm
(0.1 percent on a dry weight basis) after
January 1, 1984, and may not contain
PCBs after July 1, 1984.
The Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) obtained judical review of the
provisions described above in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit. Environment Defense
Fund v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 636 F.2d 1267. As a result of the
lawsuit, the court invalidated the 50 ppm
regulatory exclusion and the EPA
determination that the use of PCBs in
electrical equipment was "totally
enclosed" and remanded these issues to
EPA for further action consistent with
its opinion. The court upheld all PCB use
authorizations including the use
authorization for railroad transformers.
Accordingly, this rulemaking is not
'affected by the PCB litigation.
Invalidation of the 50 ppm regulatory
cutoff and the "totally enclosed" use
finding would have made effective the
general statutory ban on PCBs. This
would have caused significant
disruption in the electrical industry,
which heavily depends on PCB
equipment in current use, and in the
chemical industry, which uses a large
number of processes that inadvertently
generate PCBs in very low
concentrations. To avoid this disruption,
parties to the lawsuit sought a stay of
the court's mandate pending further
rulemaking. As a result, the court
entered orders for futher actions by EPA
and industry groups leading toward
future rulemakings o;YPCBs. These
court-ordered activities do not affect
this final rule on the use, of PCBs in
railroad transformers. In response to the
court order, EPA issued a proposed rule
on the use of PCBs in electrical
equipment which was published in the
Federal Register of April 22, 1982 (47 FR
17426). The final rule for this use of
PCBs was published in the Federal
Register of August 25, 1982 (47 FR
37342). In addition, EPA issued a
proposed rule excluding from regulation
certain PCBs manufactured under
conditions of very low risk, which was
published in the Federal Register of June
8, 1982 (47 FR 24976). The final rule for
this regulatory exclusion was published
in the Federal Register of October 21,
1982 (47 FR 46960).
Federal Regist~r l Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 125
B. EPA Rulemaking Acti~itie&o1'_the
Use of PCBs in RailroadTransforrrters
Several railroad orga~izati()JIJ ·~lid
indicated to EPA that they coulch)oJ
comply with the deadlines affeGtiDS.
railroad transformers in the May 19'71
rule. As a result: EPA proposed to'
extend the deadlines as published in the
Federal Register of November 18, 1981
(46 FR 56626). The proposed deadline
. extension for the 60,00!) parts per million
(ppm) concentration level was based on
a schedule submitte~ by the ·
Southeastern Pennsylvania .
'fransportation Authority (SEPTA) on
february 5, 1981. Under that schedule,
SEPTA estimated that the earliest that it
could complete its servicing ("retrofill")
program to meet the 6 percent PCB
concentration level was October 1, 1983.
(The term "retrofill" is us_ed to denote
the entire process of draining, flushing,
and refilliqg a transformer with a non-
PCB fluid.) This date was based on
SEPT A's assumption .that Federal
funding for this retrofill aF_tivity would
be received by October.1, 1981. SEPTA
later requested ai:i extension of tludirst
two performance deadlin'es tr/ July 1, ·
1984 and July 1, 1986, respectiv~ly. ·1n
addition, ii requested an amendment of
the second performance ijeadline·lo .
require a 20,000 ppm (a percen'tJ pcs
concentration level. T~e November 1981
proposed amendment fo :the ~.a.Y 1979
rule also requested cQmmenf on the
compliance deadline_ for achieving a
1,000 ppm concentration level. · .
Following a comment·p.eriod fo~_.these
proposed amendments, an informal ·
hearing was held o,:i Jamiari5; 1'82.
Participants includeilSEP'.f A; other·
affected railroad organizations,
representatives from tr~ri~fc:>fmeJi,:
servicing firms, a~ n'i.(inuf~iidei1 of
substitute dielectric' ·Oti~ds'. ~eply
comments were reeeiWJd·thro1'gh.
January 19, 1982. Many;e>.fthe.,: "
participants in the Jaim~ry q, i~f"
hearing contribute.cl reply comments.
II. Specific Amendments,,to thJ Railroad
Transformer Use Auth()tfii:atioi't
EPA considered three 9ptions i~ this
rulemaking: (1) Tei malnt~in the .
deadlines in the May 1979 rule and
thereby prohibit the us(pf PCBs in
railroad transformers in.violation. bf the
January 1, 1982 deadfine;:'(2J: tot~scind
the deadlines in the MayM79 rul~ iµid ·
to allow the use of PC& in railroad
transformers at their ptes1mt -. -.
concentration level; and{3) to l[!~tend
the deadlines in the MayJ979.i:ule, With
respect to the third option; there were
three additional considerations:11}
whether to change the 'PGB · ·
concentration levels manda,ted !or,the
respective deadlines; (2) whether to
require a phased schedule for the
lowering of the PCB concentration levels
in railroad transformers and thereby to
require six performance deadlines rather
than two deadlines; and (3) whether to
delete the expiration deadline of July 1,
1984 and thereby allow the use of PCBs
for the remaining useful life of these
transformers at a concentration level at
or below 1,000 ppm. In this rule, EPA has
chosen: (1) To extend the deadlines in
the May 1979 rule; (2) to require a six-
stage schedule of deadlines for lowering
the PCB concentration levels in railroad
transformers; and (3) to allo}V the use of
PCBs at a concentration level at or
below 1,000 ppm for the remaining
useful lives of the railroad transformers.
In addition, EPA is adding a provision to
the servicing conditions of this use rule
to allow for the reclassification of
railroad transformers using PCBs.
A. Deadlines for Attaining PCB
Concentration Levels
In this amendment to the May 1979
rule, two sets of three performance
deadlines are established to meet the
60,000 ppm and 1,000 ppm PCB
concentration levels, respectively. The
three performance deadlines that these
railroad organizations must achieve to
meet the 60,000 ppm level are: (1) After
July 1, 1983, the number of railroad
transformers containing a PCB
concentration greater than 60,000 ppm in
use by any railroad oganization ma.y not
exceed two-thirds of the total railroad
transformers containing PCBs in use by
that organization on January 1, 1982; (2)
after January 1, 1984, the number of
railroad transformers containing a PCB
concentration greater than 60,000 ppm in
use by any railroad organization may
not exceed one-third of the total railroad
transformers containing PCBs in use by
·that organization on January 1, 1982; and
(3) after July 1, 1984, the use of railroad
transformers that contain dielectric
fluids with a PCB concentration level of
greater than 60,000 ppm is prohibited.
The environmental risks and economic
impacts involved in these three
performance deadlines for the 60,000
ppm concentration level are discussed
in Unit IV.D.3. of this preamble.
The three performance deadlines for
the 1,000 ppm concentration level follow
a schedule that parallels that set.for the
60,000 ppm level: (1) After July 1, 1985,
the number of railroad transformers
containing a PCB concentration greater
than 1,000 ppm 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 July 1, 1984; (2)
after January 1, 1986, the number of
railroad transformers containing a PCB
concentration greater than 1,000 ppm in
use by any affected railroad
organization may not exceed one-,third
of the total railroad transformers
containing PCBs in use by that
organization on July 1, 1984; and (3) after
July 1, 1986, use of railroad transformers
that contain dielectric fluids with a PCB
concentration greater than 1,000 ppm is
prohibited. The environmental risks and
economic impacts involved in these
three performance deadlines for the
1,000 ppm concentration level are
discussed in Unit IV.D.3. of this
preamble.·
As required by section 6(e)(2)(B) of
TSCA, the Agency has balanced the
public health and environmental risks of
this use of PCBs with the benefits and
economic impacts of this use. In
addition, EPA has compared the risks
and benefits involved in the pl'oposed
amendment with the comparable risks
and benefits of the alternative
regulatory options. This analysis is
discussed, together with the Agency's
unreasonable risk determination and
findings in Unit IV of this preamble.
B. Provision for the Reclassification of
Railroad Transformers Subject to This
Use Rule
EPA has added a provision lo the PCB
rules to permit these railroad
organizations to service PCB railroad
transformers in order to change their
classification and thereby reduce
burdens associated with disposal. Thus,
railroad transformers will be serviced in
a manner consistent with other
transformers under 40 CFR 761.30(a)(5).
Section 761.30(a)(5) allows the
conversion of a PCB Transformer to a
PCB-Contaminated Transformer or a
non-PCB Transformer by draining,
refilling, and otherwise servicing the
non-railroad transformer. In order to
reclassify, the non-railroad
transformer's dielectric fluid must
contain less than 500 ppm PCB (for
conversion to a PCB-Contaminated ·
Transformer) or less than 50 ppm (for
conversion to a non-PCB Transformer)
after a minimum of three months of in-
service use subsequent to the last
servicing conducted for the purpose of
reducing the PCB concentration in the
transformer. Therefore, paragraph
(b)(2)(vii) of§ 761.30 has been added to
this use rule to provide similar
reclassification procedures for both
railroad and non-railroad transformers.
This amendment is intended to provide
an additional incentive for railroad
organizations to conduct the necessary
retrofill operations to lower the PCB
concentration levels in their railroad
126 Federal ltegister / VQL 46, No.-1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
transformers below 1,000 ppm. These
organizations can re~Iize cost savings
through lower disposal costs for'PCB-
Contaminated and non-PCB · ·
Transformers under EPA regulations a_t
40 CFR 761.60. By providing further
incentive for railroad organizations to
lower PCB concentrations in:these
transformers below 1,000 ppm: this
provision will also aid in ensuring' that
unreasonable risks are not presented by
the promulgation of this rule.
C. Date of Promulgation for This Rule
In order to avoid a "race to the
courthouse" by persons seeking judicial
review of this rule, EPA has dedded to
designate the time and date of
promulgation of this rule as i:(M,i,p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time on Jan1,1ary 17,
1983. The Agency has previously tilken
this approach for rules promitlgated
under the Clean Water Act (se'e 40 CF~
100.01, 45 FR 26048). The Agel)cy w.iJI be
considering a general rule fOrTSCA ·
similar to 40 CFR 100.01.
The remainder of this preambl~
includes three primary units. {)nit Ill of
the preamble presents a review of ·
significant information submitteQ by the
railroad organizations during thil!
rulemaking activity. Unit IV includes a
discussion of the specific factors -
considered in the unreasonabJe:risk
determination with respect to lhesi:
changes in the use rule. Finally, in lJnit
V, the Agency will respond io'other
proposed amendments pre-se~Jed by
railroad organizations in this ...
rulemaking.
III. Information Submitted by the
Railroad Organizations on Technical
Problems of Retrofilling PCB Railroad
Transformers
During this rulemaking activity, the
affected railroad organizations .
contributed information direcUy related
to EPA concerns in promulgating the
May 1979 rule. The following ,categories
of information have been relied on by
the Agency in the development of this
rule.
-A. Compliance Problems With the May
1979Rule
The affected railroad organizations
contributed significant information with
respect to specific performance deadline
requirements. These organizations
provided two primary reasons f9r their
failure to comply with the performance
deadlines in the May 1979 rule: (1) The
majority of these railroad organizations
did not select an adequate non-PCB.
substitute until October 15, 1981, and (2)
for certain organizations, necessary
Federal funding for this activity was not
received in time to perform the required
retrofiils on transformers. The factors in
the respective choices of substitute
· dielectric fluids are discussed in Unit
IV.C:·of this preamble. The issue of
Fede,ral funding for .this activity is of
particular importance for one of these
organizations, the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA). Of these organizations. SEPTA
owns the largest number of PCB railroad
transformers. As a result of the liJnited
amourit of non.,Federal funds for its
maintenance projects, SEPT A depends
significantly on funding from the Urban
Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) of
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
SEPT A's delay in receiving necessary
UMTA funds was due to several factors:
(1) Its failure to receive the necessary
mati.hing funds from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and its constituent
localities: (Z) alterations in the UMTA
procedure for funding applications for
capital modification projects: and (3) the
· delay tn the submission of the SEPT A
application for the first phase of
retrofil.ling which was not formally
re_.ceived by UMT A until April 8, 1982.
B. Restrictions in Conducting the
Necessary Retrofilis
In its consideration of specific
compliance dates for the 60,000 ppm and
1,0QOppm concentr"dtion levels, EPA has
re\ied on information from the railroad
organizations with respect to the
maximum amount' of railroad
transformers that can be serviced each
week..SEPTA has stated that only four
of its cars per week can be properly
retrofilled by its servicing contractor. In
addition, SEPT A commented that, if the
New Ycirk Metropolitan 'Transportation
Authority (New York MTA) and the
New Jersey Transit Corporation (New
Jersey Transit) are each planning to
retrofill one transformer per week, in
addition to SEPTA's four transformers
per week, the General Electric service
shop in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
would probably be at its limit of
capacity. Hence, the most rapid retrofill
schedule that can be conducted for the
transformers in violation of the January
1, 1982 deadline of the May 1979 rule is 6
transformers per week. (This calculation
disregards Amtrak which performs its
own retrofilling operations.)
SEPT A and other railroad
organizations have commented that
certain factors limit their capacity to
retrofill their railroad transformers.
First. they believe that only "quality"
retrofills will result in meeting the
compliance deadlines. This process
requires removal of the transformer,
application of a proper retrofill process,
and the subsequent reattachment of the
transformer to the respective vehjcles.
SEPTA has stated that if retrofilling is
performed on a transformer attached to
a self-propelled car, approximately 15
percent of the total dielectric fluid
would still remain. As a result, any non-
PCB substitute used to retrofill a
transformer would become
contaminated with the remaining PCB
fluid. Hence, SEPTA has concluded that
removal of the transformer from the car
can decrease the amount of PCB fluid
remaining in the transformer after
draining. Second, with the exception of
Amtrak. these r.ailroad organizations
rely on the General E!ectric service shop
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as their
sole contractor for these retrofilling
operations_ In particular, SEPTA
believes that the General Electric shop
is the only service facility that is
capable of providing the required
retrofill services with the removal of the
transformers from the respective cars.
Third, the "drop tables" at each of the
railroad orga.1ization's facilities used to
remove the transformers from the cars
cannot be used exclusively for
retrofilling, because these facilities are
also required for routine maintenance
and repairs resulting from collisions or
other non-routine maintenance damage.
At least 10 percent or each of these
railroad organization's cars are out of
service for routine inspection and
maintenance.
The maximum retrofill schedule might
be accelerated by the entry of additional
service contractors with the capacity to
perform retrofills with the removal of
the transformer from the car. Comments
from Westinghouse Electric Corporation
and Energy Optimization Incorporated
(EOI) indicated that.other retrofill
servicing firms might be able to provide
the required retrofill services in the near
future. Amtrak has also provided
information that it could perform these
retrofill services for other railroad
organizations. Despite the possible entry
of these firms to provide retrofilling
services for these railroad organizations.
a large number of railroad cars or
locomotives to be retrofilled cannot be
removed from service within any single
period. ·
According to SEPT A and the other
railroad organizations, the
aforementioned constraints on their
compliance with the respective PCB
concentration levels require that they
proceed on a phased, uniform retrofilling
schedule. Any clustering of retrofilling
operations resulting in the removal of a
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday,. January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations U7
large number of self-propelled cars from
commuter service is not possible.
C. Necessary Retrofill Operations To
Achieve Compliance With tlre 1,000
PPM PCB Concentration Level
In their comments, all of the railroad
organizations agreed that the 60,000 ppm
PCB concentration level could he
achieved in one retrofill. Prior to recent
results from a SEPTA demonstration
project, howevt!r, there was concern
whether the 1,000 ppm concentration
level could be met in two retrofills. A
demonstration project by SEPTA oil a
PCB railroad transformer in operation
since June 1979 has contributed
important information following the first
and second retrofills of this transformer
with a non-PCB dielectric Ruid (IRA-
LEC Tl). After one retrofill, in February
1980, the PCB concentration level was
measured at 15,600 ppm (1.56 percent
PCB concentration level). Following a
second retrofill, the transformer was
measured in August 1981 as containing•
PCB concentratfon level of 137 ppm.
Later measurements in November 1981
and February 1982 showed levels of
approximately 480 ppm and 489 ppm,
respectively.
Comments have also been received
that in addition to traditional
technologies that use liquid solvents as
a flushing medium, there exists an
alternative method for the railroad
organizations to meet the 1,000 ppm
concentration level requirement. This
alternative retrofill methcid uses an
electrical 8fade non-PCB flushing fluid
which is chemically equivalent to
standard freon refrigerant!l. This method
transforms the fluid into a gas for
penetration of the transfol!mer interior.
(The freon product used in· this method
is commercially known as ''freon 113.")
According to the developer of this
method, the process depends on a
combination of liquid sprays, rinses, and
soaks, interspersed with freon gss
bombardment of the transformer
interiors. The process vvill require
approximately five days per railroad
transformer. This method can be applied
"Nith the transformer in place under the
railroad car.
The developer of this system
conducted a demonstration on a 750
KV A network kansformer containing
270 gallons of PCB dielectric fluid. The
trend in the leaching rate for PCBs into
transformer fluid used in this
demonstration indicates that after 53
days of operation, the PCB
concentration lfas leveled off and
remained under 500 ppm.
IV. Specific Factors Considered in This
Unreasonable Risk Determination
Concemina PCB Railroad Transfonners
To authorize any use of PCBs under
section 6(e)(2)(B) ofTSCA. EPA must
find that the activity will not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to human
health or the environment. This
determination involves balancing the
probability that harm will occur from
the use of PCBs and the magnitude and
severity of that harm against the
benefits to society that would result
from the proposed regulatoty action. In
determining whether an unreasonable
risk is present, EPA has considered the
following factors:
1. The effects of PCBs on human
health and the environment, including
the magnitude of PCB exposure.
2. The benefits of PCBs in railroad
transformel'9.
3. The adequacy of the available
substitute dielectric fluids.
4. The reasonably ascertainable
economic impact of the rule after the
consideration of impacts on the national
economy, small business, technological
innovation, the environment, end· public
health.
These factors are listed in section 6(c)
of TSC~ and are applicable to
determinations concerning whether a
chemical presents en unreasonable risk
under section 6(a) and 6(e) of TSCA.
This unit will discuss these key
factors in the unreasonable risk
determination for this use rule. Finally,
it will present specific findings for the ·
determination that this use of PCBs does
not present an unreasonable risk.
A. Human Health and En11ironmental
Risks
In determining whether this
amendment to the May 1979 rule is
warranted, EPA considered information
concerning the effects of PCBs on human
health and the environment. The effects
of PCBs were described in various
documents wnich were pert of the
rulell)aking record for the May 1979 rule.
EPA evaluated this information, new
information submitted to the Agency, es
well as other recent literature on the
effects of PCBs. The results are
presented in the document "Response to
Comments mi Health Effects of PCBs."
This document is included in the
rulemaking record. Copies of this
document are available through the
Industry Assistance Office [see the "POii
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT''
paragraph).
·1. Hea/Jh effects. In sum, EPA has
determined that while PCBs have not
been found to be uniquely toxic, they
are toxic and persistent.
Chloracne occurs .in humans exposed
to PCBs. Although the effects of ·
chloracne ere reversible, EPA does not
consider ifinsigniflcant. Chloracne is
painful, disfiguring. and may require a
long period of time before
symptomatology disappears. Other
areas of major concern have been
identified by EPA. EPA finds that
reproductive effects, developmental
toxicity, and oncogenicity are areas of
concern and may produce effects in
humans exposed to PCBs.
Available data show that some PCBs
have the ability to alter reproductive
processes in mammalian species,
sometimes even at doses that do not
cause other signs of toxicity. Animal
data and limited available human data
indicate that prenatal exposure to PCBs
can result in various degrees of
developmentally toxic effects. Postnatal
effects have also been demonstr:ated on
immature animals following exposure
prenatally and via breast milk.
Available animal studies indicate an
oncogenic potential (the degree of which
would be dependent on exposure).
Available epidemiological data are not
adequate to confirm or negate oncogenic
potential in humans at this time. Further
epidemiological research is needed in
order ta correlate human and animal
data, but EPA does not find any
evidence to suggest that the animal data
would not be predictive of human
potential.
EPA agrees that little or no mutagenic
activity from PCBs is indicated from
available data. It is EPA's opinion thal
more information is needed to draw a
final cenclusion on the possibility of
mutagenic effects from PCBs.
EPA does not attribute all the effects
observed with PCBs to be due to toxic
impurities. Relatively pure PCB
congeners have been shown to produce
toxicity equivalent to that found when
testing commercial-PCB mixtures
containing higher-levels of impurities.
EPA also does not assume that all
PCBs are equivalent toxicologically. It
cannot be assumed that if one PCB
congener is positive or negative for a
specific health effect; then all PCB
congeners are also positive or negative
for that specific health effect. Research
is just beginning in this area; many more
studies need to be conducted on specific
congeners before conclusions can be
reached on an isomer or co~ener
specific basis. Until such time, however,
based on long-standing EPA policy, the
Agency has determined that under
section 6( e} all PCB congeners will be
regulated uniformly.
2. Environmental effects. PCBs have
been shown tq affect the productivity of
128 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
phytoplankton and the composition of
phytoplankton com mu. ii ties. Deleterious
effects on environmentally important
freshwater invertebrates from PCBs
have been demonstrated. PCBs have
also been shown to impair reproductive
success in birds and mammals.
It has been demonstrated that PCBs
arc toxic to fish at very low exposure
lf,vels. The survival rate and the
reproductive success of fish can be
adversely affected in the presence of
PCBs Various sublethal physiological
effects attributed to PCBs have been
recorded in the literature. Abnormalities
in bone development and reproductive
organs have also been demonstrated.
EPA concludes that PCBs can be
concentrated and transferred in
freshwater and marine organisms.
Transfer up the food chain from
phytoplankton to invertebrates, fish, and
mammals can result ultimately in human
exposure through consumption of PCB-
containing food sources.
3. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are
the two basic components of risk. As
indicated above. EPA concludes that in
addition to chloracne, there is the
potential for reproductive effects and
developmental toxicity as well as
oncogenic effects in humans based on
Hnimal data. EPA also concludes that
PCBs do present a hazard to the
environment.
Minimizing exposure to PCBs should
minimize any potential risk. The
requirements in this amendment to the
May 1979 rule will result in the
reduction of exposure relative to present
exposure levels from railroad
transformer use. EPA's analysis of
regulatory options in section D. of this
unit includes examining the·
effectiveness of each option in reducing
exposure. thereby reducing the
associated risk.
Hwnan health and environmental
risks involved in this use authorization
relate to several categories of activity.
Through normal operation of railroad
cars, certain concentrations of PCBs in
dielectric fluid are frequently spilled
onto railroad beds. These spills can
occur as a result of overheating or
electrical failure in the transformers and
of damage to these transformers from
rocks and debris on the railroad bed.
The transformers on self-propelled
railroad cars are hung beneath their
mainframes, and they are consequ·ently
vulnerable to puncture and other
damage when the trains strike debris on
the tracks. These activities result in
risks to human health and the
environment. As noted in the preamble
to the proposed PCB ban rule published
in the Federal Register of June 7, 1978 (43
FR 24808), PCBs in railroad transformers
are released during servicing and
volatilized during overheating in
operation. The design of these
transformers, to fit within confined
spa_ces on locomotives and self-
propelled cars, has compounded the
overheating problem.
There are two categories of persons
that could be exposed to PCBs by the
continuation of this use authorization:
(1) Workers in service shops and
railroad lines, and (2) persons ex·posed
to PCBs leaked or spilled on railroad
lines. PCB exposure from servicing
operations is largely confined to
workers in service shops. EPA believes
that current service practices will result
in minimal human exposure to PCBs.
According to comments submitted in
this rulemaking proceeding by various
railroad organizations, adequate
workplace controls to reduce risks from
exposure to PCBs are provided by the
marking and disposal requirements in 40
CFR Part 761, together with procedures
for the handling and disposal of PCBs
used by the Consolidated Rail
Corporation (Conrail). Conrail is a
railroad organization created by
Congress in the Regional Rail
Reorganization Act of 1973, 45 U.S.C.
741, which provides maintenance and
other operational services to the
railroad organizati_ons subject to this
rule except for Amtrak. Amtrak has
de\'eloped its own procedures for tlie
handling and disposal of PCBs. The
railroad organizations have stated that
when Conrail ceases to provide
operational service after January 1, 1983,
Conrail's servicing procedures will be
continued by servicing contractor{s). It
is also anticipated that at least a portion
of the present servir.ing obligations of
Conrail will be replaced by the recently
incorporated Commuter Services
Corporation which was created by
Congress in 1981 to replace Conrail's
maintenance and other operational
services. Included in these procedures
are guidelin_es concerning: (1) Protective
clothing to minimize exposure during
retrofills and normal shop maintenance
functions; (2) workplace procedures for
conducting retrofills; (3) precautionary
measures, including cleanup procedures,
to prevent skin contact with or ingestion
of PCBs; (4) floor and curbing
specifications; (5) inspection of storage
areas for leaks; and (6) handling and
storage of PCBs in yard and shop areas.
In addition to these general guidelines,
there exist more detailed procedures
that have been designed by railroad
organizations for certain railroad work
sites and retrofill/repair shops. These
general and particular servicing
practices, and strict compliance with
EPA marking and disposal requirements
in 40 CFR Part 761 will significantly
reduce any potential exposure to PCBs
suffered by workers who service
transformers.
Because leaks and moderate spills do
not cause the immediate failure of
railroad transformers, railroad
transformer leaks and spills can spread
PCBs over extensive distances along the
railroad beds. Hence, persons can be
exposed to PCBs leaked or spilled on
these railroad lines. Westinghouse
Electric Corporation has indicated that
as much as 30 percent of the dielectric
fluid of a railroad transformer can leak
before the unit fails.-SEPTA has
commented that its self-propelled cars
operate from one to twenty miles
between stops. There are some express
commuter cars in SEPT A's system that
could run twenty miles without stopping.
In Amtrak's experience, punctures
frequently result in leaks of dielectric
fluid along the right of way.
The magnitude of exposure to PCBs
from railroad transformers relates to the
amount and concentration of PCBs in
dielectric fluid that are released from
these transforn:iers. The capacity of self-
·propelled cars and locomotives varies in
the ranges of 130-220 gallons and 420-
750 gallons of dielectric fluid,
respectively. The magnitude of exposure
to PCBs in these· tr'ansformers resulting
from leaks and spill events will vary by
the concentration levels of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid of these transformers and
by the amounts of PCBs which are
leaked or spilled. For example, at a
550,000 ppm PCB concentration level (a
typical PCB concentration in a railroad
transformer in violation of the May 1979
rule}, the maximum leakage of PCBs and
expo~ure to PCBs from a single spill
event would be approximately 268
pounds. In contrast, at a concentration
of 60,000 ppm, the maximum leakage of
PCBs from a transformer would be
l9wered to 29 pounds. Further, at a
concentration of 1,000 ppm, the
maximum leakage of PCBs from a
transformer would be lowered to about
0.5 pounds. (Under 4o CFR 761.3(m),
"leaks" refer to instances in which any
electrical equipment, including PCB
railroad trirnsformers, have any PCBs on
any portion of their external surface(s).
Hence, the Agency views "leaks" as any
release of PCBs on any portion of the
railroad transformer. "Spill events" refer
to significant leaks of dielectric fluid
that can be identified by the railroad
organizations in their normal
operational practices.)
EPA has extrapolated to determine
the maximum PCB leakage from the
operation--Qf railroad transformers.
Given the information received during
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 129
this rulemaking activLty, EPA has
determined that if no restrictions were
required for railroad transformers, a
maximum of approximately 231,000
pounds would be released over the
remaining useful lives of the PCB
railroad transformers in active service
on January 1, 1982. This determination is
based on the following assumptions: (1)
773,000 pounds of PCBs are present in
railroad transformers in active service
on January 1, 1982, and (2) a maximum
of 30 percent of the total dielectric fluid
In a railroad transformer can be
released as leaks or spills before the
transformers fail. This amount of PCBs
potentially released in railroad beds or
workplaces could cause a significant
risk of injury to human health or the
environment.
Data concerning recorded spill events
experienced by certain railroad
organizations support the finding that
thiS' use of PCBs presents a risk of injury
to human health or the environment. The
New York Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (New York MTA) has
submitted information that in 1980 and
1981, there were 11 recorded spills in 'the
New York MT A/Connecticut
Department of Transportation
(ConnDOT) systems. SEPTA has
submitted data that in 1981, there were
15 recorded spill events in its system,
with 168 gallons of dielectric fluid
(approximately 1,155 pounds of PCBs)
discharged into the environment as a
result of these events.
B. Benefits of PCB Use in Railroad
Transformers
The benefits of PCB use in railroad
transformers include: (1) The unique
properties of PCBs as a dielectric fluid,
and (2) the benefits derived from
allowing their continued use in railroad
transformers, i.e., avoidance of further
retrofilling or replacement costs and of
service interruptions.
Perhaps the most important attribute
of PCBs as a dielectric fluid for railroad
transformers is their nonflammability.
Prior to the enactment of section 6(e) of
TSCA in 1976, these railroad
organizations had relied on PCBs as a
liquid coolant and as an insulating
medium in railroad transformers. PCBs
have good heat transfer and dielectric
properties.
At present, these railroad
organizations do not have a sufficient
number of locomotives and self-
propelled cars equipped with non-PCB
railroad transformers to enable them to
retire those equipped with PCB
transformers. Transformers in 756
electric railroad self-propelled cars and
locomotives operated in the
northeastern United States by Amtrak
and four State/metropolitan commuter
transit authorities contain PCBs. The
respective railroad organizations'
reliance on PCB railroad transformers
varies among the organizations. The
respective levels of reliance on PCB
railroad transformers include: (1) 53
percent for Amtrak's commuter service
in the Northeast Corridor; (2) 86 percent
for SEPTA's metropolitan Philadelphia
commuter service; and (3) 100 pet"cent
for the New Haven, Connecticut to New
York City line of New York MTA and
ConnDOT. New Jersey Transit relies on
its self-propelled cars and locomotives
with PCB transformers for its South
Amboy, New Jersey to New York City
line. Removal of these transformers
without adequate replacements would
seriously disrupt necessary commuter
rail service areas. In addition, these
organizations do not have adequate
funding to replace these transformers.
Moreover, the accquisition of new
transformers or entire new self-
propelled cars by these organizations
cannot be accomplished within the time
frame of the 1979 use authorization.
The aforementioned problems of these
railroad organizations are particularly
significant as related to the number of
PCB railroad transformers operating in
these specific service areas. According
to information submitted during this
rulemaking, SEPTA owns 319
transformers in self-propelled cars. New
York MT A and ConnDOT own 244 PCB
transformers in self-propelled cars. New
Jersey Transit owns 106 PCB
transformers used in self-propelled cars
and 11 PCB transformers in its
locomotives. Amtrak owns 87 PCB
transformers, with 61 transformers in
self-propelled cars and 26 transformers
in locomotives. The 61 transformers in
self-propelled cars were in compliance
with the January 1, 1982 deadline. The 26
transformers in locomotives are not in
compliance with that deadline. In
addition, Conrail and the Maryland
Department of Transportation own PCB
railroad transformers in inactive service.
Because of the reliance of these
organizations on PCB railroad
transformers to maintain commuter
service;,it is important that EPA provide
performance deadlines that allow for the
continuation of this use of PCBs with
consideration for the minimization of
risks to public health or the
environment.
C. Adequacy of the Available Substitute
Dielectric Fluids
At the time of promulgation of the
May 31, 1979 rule, railroad organizations
had been testing for potential substitute
dielectric fluids. By that date, no PCB
substitutes had performed satisfactorily
in tests in railroad transformers. When
the performance' deadlines in the May
1979 rule were promulgated. EPA had
expected timely testing and selection of
an adequate PCB substitute from these
continuing tests. In this testing, several
non-PCB dielectric fluids successfully
used for retrofilling non-railroad
transformers overheated or created
pumping problems in railroad
applications. The failure of these
common PCB substitutes considerably
delayed the process of selecting a
suitable non-PCB dielectric fluid for PCB
railroad transformers. In the preamble to
the proposed amendment to this use
rule, EPA stated that certain dielectric
fluids appeared to be feasible PCB
substitutes: IRA-LEC, FR-15, Midel
7131, and RTEmp Blend (Rail Temp).
Subsequent to the publication of the
proposed amendment on November 18,
1981, Rail Temp (a trichlorobenzene
product) has been canceled by its
distributor. In its comments concerning
this decision, the distributor of Rail
Temp cited a 1979 report concerning
certain public health and environmental
risks that might result from the
incineration of chlorobenzenes at high
temperatures. Following a review of this
report, the distributor chose to
concentrate its marketing efforts on a
synthetic ester substitute, Envirotemp
100. During this peri od, EPA has been
informed of other substitute fluids that
have been introduced to the mark et.
1. Information Concer9ing Non-PCB
Dielectric Fluids. a. IRA-LEC/FR-15.
IRA-LEC and FR-15 have been tested
by SEPTA and other railroad
organizations and have been found to be
suitable dielectric fluids for PCB
railroad transformers. Unlike substitute
dielectric fluids with synthetic esters,
IRA-LEC and FR-15 are non-flammable.
According lo SEPT A and other railroad
organizations, these fluids possess good
dielectric properties and thermal
characteristics. IRA-LEC and FR-15 are
mixtures of 1,2.3-trichlorobenzene; 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene; 1,2,3,4-
tetrachlorobenzene; and other
hydrocarbons.
Certain railroad organizations have
expressed concern that the toxicity and
persistence of the chlorinated benzenes
contained in FR-15 and IRA-LEC may
make them subject to future regulatory
action. One of the trichlorobenzenes
contained in these fluids. 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene, is listed as a
"hazardous constituent" for EPA
regulations, 40 CFR Part 261 , under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6902. Therefore, given this
possibility of future Federal regulation,
certain railroad organizations have been
130 Federal: Regis~r / Volt 4'_\, ·No:. 1t /. Monday, fanuary. 3. 1993 / Rules and Re8lllations
reluctant to use these· fluids for·
retrofilling. At'.thi11,pmnt1.howeuer, these
fluids,are•suitabie for meeting the
performance deadlines,iJT this UBe:rule.
EPA,is in the·process a[mrgoiiating an
agreement with-producers 0£.certain
isomers of chlorinated'henzeneata.
conduct specific healtlreffectssteste,;of
these immel'8, including 1~2.4-
trichlorobenzene containedinFR-15
and IRA-bEC .. he .notice. d811oribing"the
terms,of this agreement·will be
published fmrpubliccomment in:tlm:
FaderalR.egister.prior to the•
commencenumt·of these. health :effests
tests. An evahurtion,of the·res.ults of
thesa tests will determine whether asy•
regulatory-action ismecassacy under
sectiortli of.TSCA to proie!!t;public
heal tk.ancL the environment: from
exposum to trichlorobt1nzene;
b~Midel 7101, Midel.7131ilrcomposed
of pentaerythritol esters.and is
manufactured in the UnitedKingdbm
and. the United.States. Ac.cording'.lo
SEPT Aandi other railroad organiza lions,
Midel:provides:.good dielentrin strength
and:is non-toxic and hiodagradable;
However, certain milroad organizations
have-expressed concem:about:Mldel' s
fire•point of 310° C. which is close to the
minimum standard of section 450-23'of
the National Electrical Code of the
National Fire Pro.teciion Association,
i.e., 300° C. This standard has been
accepted by these railroad organizations
as their minimum standard for dielectric
fluids in passenger applications,
According to Amtrak, Midel's fire
point is sufficiently higher than the
minimum standard of the-National
Ehtctric:al Code. In addition. Amtrak has
cited the Sllccessful use af.Midel'as,a
sulmtitute for PCB fluids-.in .enclosed
switches-in the Dartford-Tunnel,
London. According to Amtrak's.
comment. this applii;ation of Midel·
demonstratesc-its high resistance to
repeated arcing-in the fluid as compared
with the arcing,whichwould.be
experienced, mainly under fault
conditions, in a PC::B railroad
transformer.
Based on a review of tests-of the,
flammability of Midel in.railroad
transformers.as aonducted b}l Factory
Mutual Research Corp.oration, the.
Federal Railroad Administration h.es
conduded that Midel is-satisfaciocy as a
non-PCB dielectric fluid fonailr011d
transformer use.
c. Other non-PCB dielectric flw'ds.
Envirotemp 100,is compos.ed of.
pentaei:yth-ritol esteni, and its dielectric
prop.erties and chemical.aomposition are
similar to Midei 713!: Like•Midal
Envirotemp is biodegradable:. non.
bioaocumulating, and non-toxic.
GiMeft..collllllltlltir received from a
majorranppllim'Gf..sl'Jl!hetic•based
lubricant!lifqi,-j,ren81DeB. another
tranllNIIIUlr.fluuilwith a,chemicaJ
compOliffi>JLaml• citelee.tcic. properties
similamtn,.Midel-nrwla;be introduced in
the nea.rfubua
2.-'Ia1lmaJt,aj.Mal,feasibility of
acbiLwiO£ tim· J!OOIJ. T/PID, DCB
conUlltmlum lilveL As des.cr-ibed· in
Unit W,.C_of this=greamble,. the Agency
haa.r:eeind•infomurtion,that1ca:wfirms
that theae-Pf:B mHooad traasfonners, rum
achieve the lWOO,gpm.PCB.
coneantratisn-1.nel,in,twa retwfills. As
a result•:of iPcimnons.tratio.rrproject
condw:.ted·bwSEP.Tbcon a RCB rmlroad
transfo~ ill'.OR,IH1itiom since June 1879,
there:-is. suhatanti.al &Vidence that. the
PCB c:onoentration,leve.Lhas be&n
lowered, tmbalow-·~000.,ppm after twQ
retrofilla-usingFR.-15' OI IRA.--LEC. The
last recorded reading of thi&
demonsblation, conducted eight months
after the sesond-.ratrafill, has shown that
the leaching·of PCBa-. frmn,the
transfermer.has.nc,tresulted in.a PCB
concentr.atiomlevel.ex.ceeding the,1,000
ppm lev.el .• AB d&SCiribed in Unit III.C. of
this preamble, the:res:wts of the SEPTA
demonstration project indicate. that the
PCB concentrationJevel in the
transformer has leveled off and
remained under 500 ppm. Although EPA
believes that this-demonstration
confirms that the 1,000 ppm level is
feasible as a mandated concentration
level for the second set of performance
deadlines, the. results from this
demonstration have.not yet provided
sufficient da.ta to confirm the feasibility
of a 500 ppm manWKed concentration
level.
D. Economic and_.Environmental
Impacts ofRegulatory CJptians
EPA considerruf thr.ee pr.imary
regulatory options-in amending this use
rule. These options,were: (l} Ta
mainta4n the deadlines in,the May 1979
rule, (?) to. rescind the performance
deadlines of the May 1979 rule, and (3)
to extend the deadlines in thaMay 1979
rule. This unit will consider the
economic and environmental impacts of
these regulatory options.
1. Maintenance of thepeiformance
deadlines in-the,May.1978 use rule.
Without this amendment to the. current
performance dearllines1 approximately
669 transformers would be in.violation
of the January 1, 1982 performance
deadline. These transformers provjde
most of the daily commuter service to
the metmpolitan areas of the
northeastern-United·Sta!Bs. If
transformers wer.e-.ramovedJrom
service, th.ere, would,be severe.·
interruptions in daily commuter service
which could,affect both users of the,
railroads andrailroad workens,.and·
would have secondary effects 01r,related
businesses. For example, small
businesses serving metropolitan are.as of
the northeastern United.Statei.,c011ld.
suffw, significant.cammeocial loss.es,
resultins,from a temRarary• ces.sation .af
public transit. This effect on srnsll.
businesses would result from the.
dependency. of busineSBes in these-'
commercial area'!t:on µublio transil
oparationa conducted. by these: railmad
organizations. These publiG. transit.
opera lions,-provide necessarY., access for
residents af the affectetbnatro.politan
areas to· sbop,in commeroial.ar-eas
served by,public:rail tram.it.
Withoutamextension of the,
performance deadlines in the May 1979
rule, there would'be increased vehicular
traffic in th-a affected metropolitan areas
resulting from reduced railroad
commuter traffic. Congestion. woulwbe
increased in·these-metropaUtan areas,
witlt increased air pollution and a higher
risk of automobile acc:idents;.If the
current pedbrmance deadlinll6;are not
extended' and these raili'oad
organizations,ceased commuter service,
SEPTA has estimated that the following
impacts would-result in its service area:
(1) Approximately 73,000 increased auto
trips per day: (2) approximately
32.500.000 aggregate pounds per year in
increased air pollution through
emissions of carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxide; and
(3) an increase of approximately 61,000
gallons in daily regional gasoline
consumption. Similar impacts could be
expected for other affected metropolitan
areas in the·no.rtheastern United· States.
Existing ser'1ice capacity for
commuters could be maintained only, by
these organizations incurring significant
costs to replace existing PCB railroad
transformers. Given cost estimates
provided by SEPT A and the other
affected org_anizations, the total
incremental'replacement costs for these
transformers. would-rang!! from
approximately $28 million..assuming a
useful life of 15 years for a transformer,
to $63 million assuming a usefullife of
30 :v.ears for a transfarme1;.
The advantages of maintaining the
performance deadlines of the May 1979
rule include the prevention-o£PCB
exposure to railroad, workers and
persons affected by PCB leaks and.spills
along the.railroad,!ines, and the
avoidance of-cleanup cos.ts that.result
from releases of PCB& durin&-this use.
2. ReSJ;J.ssion of the-perfarman(;J]
deadlines in the May 1979 rule: This
option was prQRosed b:v. certain railroad
organization&, including SEPTA and
1 I
Federat' Register / V6l. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 131
New York MTA, as an alternative to
their proposed modification of the
performance deadlines in the May 1979
rule. It was presented in conjunction
with their argument that PCB railroad
transformers should qualify as "totally
enclosed" uses under section 6(e)(2)(C)
of TSCA. (For a discussion of this issue,
see Unit V.A. of this preamble.)
Under this option, 773,000 pounds of
PCBs in railroad transformers would be
used in active service for the remaining
useful lives of these transformers.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
. estimated that a maximum of 30 percent
of the total dielectric fluid in a railroad
transformer might be released as leaks
and spills before the transformer fails.
Hence, a maximum of approximately
231,000 pounds of PCBs could be
released into the environment under this
alternative. Compared with the other
options, this alternative would represent
the greatest magnitude and risk of
exposure from the use of PCBs in
railroad transformers.
The advantage of this option is the
avoidance of the cost of performing one
or two retrofills for these transformers.
The total costs of retrofilling these PCB
railroad transformers to meet the 1,000
ppm concentration level ranges from
$8.3 to $23 million. Under this option,
however, small businesses that could
provide retrofilling functions for these
railroad organizations would lose the
opportunity to perform these services.
These cost estimates are described in
greater detail in the Agency's economic
analysis prepared for this rulemaking.
3. Extension of the performance
deadlines in the May 1979 rule. As
described in Unit II, in their comments
for this rulemaking, the railroad
organizations presented the following
proposal for the extension of the
performance deadlines in the May 1979
rule. In sum, they urged EPA to: (1)
Order the reduction of PCB
concentrations in railroad transformers
to 60,000 ppm by July 1, 1984; (2) order
the reduction of PCB concentrations in
railroad transformers to 20,000 ppm by
July 1, 1986; and (3) allow the use of
PCBs for the remaining useful lives of
these transformers below 20,000 ppm.
This amendment to the use rule differs
from the proposed rule in the following
requirements. First, the amendment
establishes a set of three performance
deadlines for these transformers to
achieve a 60,000 ppm level. Under these
deadlines, one-third of the transformers
in active service by each railroad
organization must reach this level by
July 1, 1983; another third by January 1,
1984; and the final third by July 1, 1984.
Second, the amendment establishes a
. set of three performance deadlines for
meeting the 1,000 ppm level. Under these
deadlines, one-third of the transformers
in active service by each railroad
· organization must reach this level by
July 1, 1985; another third by January 1,
• il986; and the final third by July 1, 1986.
Finally, the amendment deletes an
~xpiration deadline for this use of PCBs
at or below 1,000 ppm, allowing this use
of PCBs for the remaining useful lives of
these transformers below 1,000 ppm.
This unit will analyze the economic
impacts and environmental risks of each
of the principal requirements of this
amendment to the May 1979 rule.
a. Extension of the performance
deadlines for the 60,000 and 1,000 ppm
concentration levels. In its joint petition
of October 15, 1981, SEPTA together
with New Jersey Transit, New York
MT A, and ConnDOT has provided
certain cost assumptions which the
Agency has used to calculate the
economic impact of this amendment. In
addition, the Agency has applied other
assumptions in calculating the total cost
of retrofilling railroad transformers
under the deadlines of this amendment.
These costs were estimated based on
present value calculations. (These
present value calculations take into
account the opportunity costs of
expenditures that are deferred by
railroad organizations and shifted into
retrofilling operations required under
this rule.) The total costs of retrofilling
these PCB railroad transformers to meet
the 1,000 ppm concentration level ranges
from $8.3 million to $23 million. For
SEPT A, the range is between $3 million
and $9.65 million. The estimate ranges of
costs for the other railroad organizations
are: $3 million to $7.4 million for New
York MTA/ConnDOT, $938,000 to $3.2
million for New Jersey Transit, and
$654,000 to $2.4 million for Amtrak.
According to the Agency's economic
analysis, the average cost-effectiveness
of this amendment, excluding clean-up
cost savings, ranges from $85 to $1,205
per pound of PCBs saved from the
environment. The assumptions and
calculations supporting these estimates
are presented in the economic analysis
prepared for this rulemaking.
The developer of the freon retrofill
method has commented that through
application of its method, the 1,000 ppm
PCB concentration level can be met in
one retrofill. Under cost assumptions
presented by Positive Technologies Inc.
(PTI), the total cost for the railroad
·organizations to meet the 1,000 ppm PCB
concentration level could range from
approximately $8.3 million, assuming a
15-year useful life for transformers, to
$9.7 million, assuring a 30-year useful
life. At this lime, the Agency cannot
confirm the accuracy of the cost
assumptions presented by PTI.
The extension of these performance
deadlines would also have economic
implications for small businesses. This
amendment to the use rule for PCB
railroad transformers would avoid any
adverse economic impact on small
businesses. This amendment should
provide incentives for the development
of non-PCB substitute fluids and
alternative retrofill technologies, a ·
portion of which is provided by small
businesses. In addition, this amendment
will provide a stimulus for continued
improvements in existing alternative
retrofill methods including those retrofill
methods provided by small businesses.
Compliance by railroad organizations
under the performance deadlines of this
amendment would remove most of the
PCBs in the dielectric fluid of railroad
transformers. On January 1, 1982, there
were 773,000 pounds of PCBs in railroad
transformers used in active service.
Under the performance deadlines of this
rule, by July 1, 1984, there should be
93,000 pounds of PCBs remaining in
railroad transformers used in active
service (60,000 ppm PCB concentration).
Under the 1,000 ppm concentration
requirement, by July 1, 1986, there would
be only 1,550 pounds of PCBs remaining
in railroad transformers used in active
service. This will represent the
maximum pounds of PCBs remaining in
railroad transformers used in active
service with the elimination of an
expiration.deadline under this rule.
Therefore, with full compliance by
railroad organizations, 99.8 percent of
the PCBs present in the transformers on
January 1, 1982 will be eliminated by
this rule. This will greatly reduce the
potential for contamination of the
environment and exposure to humans
from the continued use of railroad
transformers.
The aforementioned estimates have
been derived from data provided by
several railroad organizations. A key
assumption for these estimates was an
average PCB concentration in railroad
transformers, with the exception of
transformers used in Amtrak self-
propelled cars, of 550,000 ppm (55.0
percent on a dry weight basis). Arntr~k
was able to retrofill the 61 transformers
in its self-propelled cars to meet the
60,000 ppm (6 percent) concentration
level by January 1, 1982. Hence, for
these estimates, the average PCB
concentration in these transformers is at
a 6 percent PCB level, rather than at a 55
percent PCB level. Amtrak did not,
however, retrofill the 26 PCB railroad
transformers in its locomotives by that
date. The average PCB concentration in
132 Fedeu.l Register / Vol. 48, No, 1 / Monday, January 31 19&3 / Rules and Reg!Jlations
these transformers i• at a· 55 pel'.Ql!Ilt
concentration.fn.td ..
The-po.uibre · reliane bfrcertain..
railroad1QJl(l&lli11:11ti.ons.cm the freon.gas
methodrto,supplmnmrt .th& rttltofillins'. of
these tranli>rmers. with a-.no11-PCB
substitute: fluid,will.p11esent no -known
risks to public.healtb.01> thee
envirolllllent. Given ihf.o11Il8tf1tn,
prowded by the develapa£.of this,
method, Ei,JA,ha.11.d•tarminet!I that as
used in the.retrofill of.tlnme
transformer&; an insignificant amount of
this, freon pr-0.duct-will be ·released into
the environment. After eaoh retrofill of a
transfonmer with this pro.cess, the freon
gas•is recycled·and_:used.for. other.
retrofills. Givan the minimai exposure
risk presented by the use of the freon
productin this retrofill process,.no
regulatory action by the-Agency under
section 6 of TSCA will be initiated.
b. Performance deadlines.for lowering
PCB concentration levels in railroad
transformers to 60,000 ppm and 1,000
ppm. The Agency considered three.
options for the establishment of
performance deadlines for. lowering PCB
concentration levels in railraad
transformers to 1,000 ppm by July 1.
1986. These options were: (1) Requiring
only a single performance deadline of
July 1, Hl86, for compliance with the
1.000 ppm concentration leve l; (2)
wquiring one pPrformance deadline foJ
compliance with the 60,000 ppm level
(July 1. 1984) and one pr.rform1mce
deadline for compliance with the 1,000
ppm level (July 1, 1988); and (3) requiring
three performance deadlines for
compliance with the 60,000 ppm level
Hnd three additional deadlines fur
compliance with the 1,000 ppm level.
The Agency also considered-requiring
periodic reports of progress together
with each-of these options.
Under any of these·approaches, with
traditional retroffll technology, these
organizations will conduct tworetrofills
of their railroad transformers to meet
the 1,000 ppm PCB concentration level
by July 1, 1986: Tha testing. inspection,
and maintemmce costs:should be
identical under any of·these· approaches.
EPA has-determined that options with
more performance deadlines ensure the
reduction of risk to·human health-and
ihe envfronment associllh.-d with this
use of PCBs in a shorter period than-
op1 ions with fewer. deadlines,.Because
lhere are significant differences in.thu-
risks involved with use of PC:Bs at
different concentrations; the.six-stage
PCB reduction schedule-has been
promulgated in this amendment to
hasten retrofill progress. Given the
present concentration level in most PCB
railrolld transformers,.there would be a
maximum releasc-of:268 pounds of·PCBs
from a• maximum spill of 39 gallons of
dielectric fluid. With~the 60,00(lppm
level, thene would be a maximum
release,of ap_.proximately 29 pounds of
PCBs from a similar transformer. With
the 1,,000 ppm.Ill~. there would be a
maximum,releasa:of approximately <15
pound Qf·PCBa from a•similar
transformer. It is HPA.:s concern for the
minimization of, risks from a single spill
event that makes a schedule with more
performance deadlines more desirable.
Requiring periodic reports of pr.ogress
from these organizations would not.
contribute.to the reduction-of risks. Su.ch
a requirement would.merely provide
information. rather than risk-
minimization.
EPA ha5 determined that of the
options considered, a schedule with six
performance deadlines provides the
greatest assurance that these railroad'
organizations will not fall beliind in
their retrofill schedule. This safeguard is
important.because, according to the
comments provided'by-these
organizations, each of them is limited as
to the rate at which cars can lreremoved
from service. Because of the limitation,
it is necessary for the retrofilllng to
proceed at a steady rate. Options which
theoretically would provide greater
flexibility for the railroad orga niza tions
by speci fying fewer interim deadlines
arc not desirable because such
flexibility has no practical value. This
conclusion is supported by the
comments of the railroad orga nizations
that the maximum rate of removal of
cars from service cannot be exceeded.
Therefore, to comply with the final
deadline, railroad organizations must'
not fall behind schedule. Requiring
compliance with interim-deadlines
provides incentive for these
organizations to stay. on schedule.
Requiring periodic reports of progress
from these organizations would not'
provide-addltional:incentive,for-them to
maintain tHeir schedule, and'would
impose unnecessary·costs.
Given ttlese>considerations, EPA has
decided that a total of six perfbrmance
deadlines should be requirecHor
compliance with the rule. Perfodic
progress reports will not be required.
The six performance-deadlines in this
rule are easily achievable by, any. of the
railroHd organizations hecauae the
dcadlinee;have'.been,developed to
follow the schedule.•prop.osed by them.
EPA has determined that no adverse
economic. impacta: will ms.ult from the
promulgation·af-a uniformly phased
schedule of six·.performance deadlines
as compared w ith the performance
deadlines that would be established
under. any of the other options,
Compared with these options; the
establishment of six performance
deadlines wiil not-impose any additional
costs on the affected railroad
organizations.
c. Deletion of the eJt{Jiration deadline
for this use of PCBs at a concentration
levetbelow 1,000 ppm .. The use
authorir;ation fur PCB railroad
transformem in the May 191,9 rule
expires on July 1, 1984, six months after
the-performance deadline fur the 1,000
ppm concentratton ll!vel. This
amendment will delete the expiration
deadline-for this use of PCBs below a
concentration of 1,000 ppm,
This deletimtof the expir-atl'on
deadline will allow these railroad
organizations to avoid the cost of at
least an additionahetrofill of their
transformers to further reduce PCB
concentrations below 1,000·ppm. ~PA
has estimated thatthe cost ofa third
retro fill for these transformers to further
reduce PCB concentrations below 1,000
ppm would range from approximately
$6.7 million to $9.1 million.
Alternatively, the replacement costs for
these transformers would range from
approximately $28 million to $63 million.
Finally, the Agency cannot determine
that it is technologically possible to
completely eliminate PCBs from railroad
transformers through retrofil_ling
operations. including the freon gas
method.
After the last performance deadline of
this rule, July 1. 1986, there will remain a
maximum of approximately 1,550
pounds of PCBs in active service in
these transformers. These transformers
can lose at most 30 percent of their
dielectric fluid before they fail. Hence,
approximately 460 pounds of PCBs as a
portion of the total dielectric fluid pf
these transformers could be released
through leaks and spills on railroad beds
before the transformers fai l: Similarly,
under the 1,000 ppm concentration level,
the maximum leakage of PCBs from a
railroad transformer for a single spill
event will be approximately 0.5 pound
of PCBs.
E. Findings,on the Use of PCOs in
Ra,'/road·Tronsformers
The Ag~ncy has concluded that th,
risks associated with extending the
deadlines and allowing the use of PCBs
for the useful remaining lives of railroad
transformers at a concentration level at
or below 1,000 ppm are outweighed by
the.benefits of continued operption of
commuter rail service in the
northeastern United States and the costs
tha t.are avoided by not mquiring the
reduction.of the PCB concentration level
below .l ,000 ppm. Therefore,.EPA finds
that authorizing the use of PCBs in
_Federal Register / Voi. 411, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1988 / Rules and Regulations 133
railroad transformers with the
performance deadlines specified in this
rule does not present an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment for the
following reasons:
1. These performance deadlines
showd progressively reduce the human
health and.environmental risks involved
in this use oi OCBs. By July 1. 1986, PCB
concentration levels in.dielectric fluid in
railroad transformers will be at or below
1,000 ppm. At this concentration level; a
minimal amount of PCBs (approximately
1,550 pounds) will remain in railroad
transformers. This amount constitutes
0.2 percent Qf the amount of PCBs used
in railroad transformers in active service
on January 1, 1982. Under this schedule,
the risks involved in a release of PCBs
from these transformers will decrease
'from a maximum release of 268 pounds
of PCBs from a single spill event under
present concentration levels to a
maximum release of 0.5 pound of PCBs
under the 1,000 ppm concentration level.
Further reductions in risk should occur
as a res~t of servicing provisions
permitting transformer reclassifications.
Railroad organizations w.ill have the
incentive to reduce PCB concentrations
in transformers below 500 ppm, if
feasible, in order to reduce their
disposal burdens.
2. The risks from continued use of
PCDs in railroad transformers would be
low, given the amount and
concentrations of PCBs remaining after
July 1, 1986. existing railroad workplace
controls, and EPA disposal requirements
in 40 CFR Part 761.
3. The estimated costs for the
necessary retrofill operations under this
amendment will range between $8.3
million and $23 miliion.
4. The costs to these railroad
organizations associated with
· retrofilling under these performance
deadlines are not excessive compared to
the amount of PCBs that are removed
· from potential release into the
environment.
5. Compared with the alternative of
two final compliance dates for the 60,000
ppm and 1,000 ppm PCB concentration
levels, the establishment of six
performance deadlines will not impose
any additional costs for testing,
inspection, and maintenance of these
transformers under requirements in 40
CFR Part 761.
6. The continued use of PCBs in
railroad transformers under the
performance deadlines of this rule
would avoid a disruption of necessary
commuter rail service. in the
northeastern United States.
7. The continued 11Se of PCBs in
railroad transformer., under the
performance deadlines of this rule
would avoid increased vehicular traffic
in affec'ted metropolitan a.-eas with
related congestion and air pollution.
8. There exist adeqimte non-PCB
dielectric fluids for. use in railroad
transformers to lower the PCB
concentr.ation level in railroad
transformers balow 1,000. ppm. In
addition,. there is evidence that railroad
organizations might be able lo lower
PCB concentraticm leveis to below 500
ppm. These organizationa are
encou.N1.gad to reach this level in order
to reduce their disposal buraens.
9. The elimination of PCBs from these
railroad transformers might not be
technologically. feasible through retrofill
operations. Hypothetically, oosuming
that additional retrofffis could eliminate
all PCB fluid from these transformers,
the costs of such retrofills (at least $6.7
million to $9.1 million) would be.
excessive. It would cost approximately
as much to eliminate the last 0.2 percent
of the PCB fluid as the fil'!t 99.8 percent
In addition. the cost of replacement for
these transformers (between $28 million
and $63 million) would be an
unreasonable burden considering the
small amount of PCBs (a maximum of
1,550 pounds) that would be eliminated.
Under the 1,000 ppm concentration level,
the maximum release of PCBs from
these transformers for a single spill
event would be only 0.5 pound of PCBs.
V. Other Proposed Amendments
Presented by Railroad Organizatiol15 in
This Rulemaking
Through the comment periods and
informal hearing relate'd to the proposed
amendments to this use rufe as ·
published in the Fedend Register of
November Hl, 1981, the affected railroad
organizations·presented se~al
regulamry optron1 not adopted in this
final use rule. This·section presents
summaries of these,proposed
amendments 1it8 presented by· the
affected r-ailroa<i c:,rganizatiom1 and EPA
determinations on the r.didity of these
pr<>JJOSed c,ptioin.
A. Iss11e Concerning Whether PCB
Railroati Transformers Should Qualify
as "Totally Enclosed".Uses Under
Sec/jon 6{e)(2)(C} of the Toxic
Substances Control Act
Repiy; cCJmmenlB presenred b.y SEPT A
and New Yonk. MTA pmpcmed that their
PCS tailrolld tcansf~ sit<JUld be
defined as "tota!IJ enclosed" uses and
thereby excluded' fmm. this use-rule ..
Under s.ection 6{'ej{.Z,{q,af TSCA, the
con linued u&e of PC&-in a "totaHy
enclosed" manner is permitted. TSCA
defines that category as "aft&' manner
which wilt ensure thatany exposure of.
human beingi. or the environment to a
polychlorinateci bipltenyl, will be:
insignific.ant as determined by tne
Administc-ator." As presaoted-in EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 761.20, the Agency
found-that aay ex,poaw-e of ru.unans ar
the enviraament to PCBs.as measured or
detected: by any, scientifically,
acce~ble au.alytical meth..:l is.a
significant 11xposare.
In the comments of SEPFAand New
York MI'A. no informauon was provided
by these ~anizatiorul thal the use of
their railroad transfoR11ers would result
in oo· exposure to humarui or the
environment. Documentation was
provided cwncerning the. number of
recorded spill.accidents during 1980 and
1981. Accorcflng to these data, in 1980
and 1981-, there were ele\/l!n re£orded
spill events in the New, York MTA and
ConnDOT service system· (five recorded
spills in 1980, six recorded spiUs in
1981). In 1981, there were 16 recorded
spill events of 168 gallons of dielectric
fluid. incltKiing PCBs-, in the SEPTA
system.
Tltrough,data received during this
rulemakin1 activity from the affected
railroad organizations, estimates of
maximum leakage from these PCB
transformers in active service have been
developed. These estimates are
presented in Unit IV of this preamble.
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals-for
the District of Columbia in
Environmental Defenge Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, 636
F.2d 1267 (1980}, has reviewed the legal
status of the current use rule for PCB
railroad transformers. In footnote 31 of
that dec:isitm, the.Court acknowledged
the Agency conclusion tlaat railroad
transfonnm-11. cannot be considered
totally enclosed.. In addition, the Court
stated that "[b]ecause c,f the strenuous
conditions under. which they operate,
railroad transformers often.leak PCBs
onta railroad beds, risking exposure to
the env:iironment aad to. workers and
other persons niear rail lines." 636 F.2d
at 1279.
B. Transfer of PCB Railroad
Transform~s to Museums orlllstorical
Societies
In its.-comment& Amtrak has proposed
amendments to 40 CFR rot.20
•concerrwtg the distribution ins commerce
of PCB e~pment, including PCB
railroad transk>rmers. First. Amtrak
propoaea that the-owner of II' r.ailmad
locomotive or self-propelled cai: wjlh a
PCB railroad, tr.ansfcJrmer IRQH at ~
time seU or-otherwise diatnibute in.
COlllfflel'Ce-or e:,;port the locomati.ve IV
car pr:,owided that certain conditiou are
met These eanliitions: are that ther.e.
Amtm transformers must cantain
134 Federal Register / VoL 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
dielectric fluid with either: (1) A
concentration level no greater than
60,000 ppm or (2) the concentration level
set by EPA for the first retrofill
requirement in effect six months after
the date of sale, distribution, or export,
whichever is lower. Second, Amtrak
proposed that the owner of an electric
locomotive or self-propelled car
containing a PCB Transformer may at
any time transfer ownership of such
locomotive or car to a "reputable
historical society or institution" for
premanent display. This transfer would
be permitted provided that certain
precautions were met prior to the
transfer. These precautions would be:
(1) All free-flowing dielectric fluid would
be drained from the transformer; (2) the
transformer would be filled with an
appropriate non-PCB solvent and
allowed to stand for a period of not less
than 18 hours; (3) a sufficient quantity of
appropriate absorbent material would
be placed in the transformer to absorb
any remaining fluid; (4) the transformer
would be sealed by welding or another
process to insure that it is totally
enclosed within the statutory definition;
and (5) the transformer must be
prominently marked as a PCB
Transformer, consistent with EPA
marking rules presented in 40 CFR
i61.40(a)(2).
The first proposal of Amtrak should
be submitted in the form of an
exemption petition under section 6(e) of
TSCA for the distribution in commerce
of railroad cars and locomotives
equipped with railroad transformers
with PCB fluid. Section 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) of
TSCA prohibits the distribution in
commerce of PCBs after July 1, 1979
unless the agency has granted an
exemption for the activities. Section 6 of
TSCA provides exemption procedures
applicable to Amtrak's proposal for the
distribution in commerce of locomotives
or self-propelled cars equipped with a
PCB railroad transformer. Exemption
petitions must be consistent with
procedures presented in section
6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA and EPA regulations
at 40 CFR Part 750.
EPA regulatory provisions in 40 CFR
Part 761 are applicable to Amtrak's
second proposal for the transfer of
ownership of GG-1 locomotives to
historical institutions and the related
retirement of these locomotives with
their PCB railroad transformers. PCB
Transformers must be disposed in
accordance with the disposal
requirements of the PCB rule, 40 CFR
761.60. Section 761.60(b) of the disposal
requirements states that drained PCB
Transformers must be sent either to an
incinerator under § 761.70 or to an EPA-
approved chemical waste landfill. EPA
rules at 40 CFR 761.65 provide
requirements for transformers in
locomotives or cars that are stored for
disposal. Furthermore, if the
transformers were not disposed of, the
museums and historical societies would
be using PCBs in a manner not found to
be totally enclosed or authorized by the
PCB rule. Such uses are banned under
section 6(e)(2)(A) of TSCA.
The use authorization for PCBs in
electrical equipment in the May 1979
rule has recently been amended. The
final amendment to the use
authorization was published in the
Federal Register of August 25, 1982 (47
FR 37342). Included in this final
amendment are modifications to the
distribution in commerce provisions in
40 CFR 761.20 for electrical equipment
with PCB fluid. This provision allows
the distribution in commerce of all
intact, nonleaking electrical equipment
with PCB fluid including PCB railroad
transformers. Hence, under this
provision, in order to transfer ownership
of these GG-1 locomotives, Amtrak
must ensure that these locomotives are
"intact" and "n9nleaking."
VI. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, issued
February 17, 1981, EPA must judge
whether a rule is a "major rule" and,
therefore, subject to the requirement
that a Regulatory Impact Analysis be
prepared. EPA has determined that this
amendment to th'e PCB rule is not a
"major rule"·as ~hat term is defined in
section l(b) of the Executive Order.
Therefore, EPA has not prepared a
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this rule.
EPA has conc:luded that the
amendment is not "major" under the
criteria of section i(b) because the
annual effect o'f the .rule on the economy
will be less than $100 million; it will not
cause a major increase in costs or prices
for any sector of tlie economy or for any
geographic region; and it will not result
in any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or .innovation or on the
ability of United S.tates enterprises to
compete in domestic. or foreign markets.
Indeed, it wfll reduce the burden on
railroad organizations to comply with
the PCB rule.'By extending the
performance deadlines in the May 1979
rule and eliminating an expiration
deadline for this use of PCBs at or below
1,000 ppm, this amendment should
reduce costs for the railroad industry
and for governmental bodies that
operate railroads.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Section 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 604) requires
EPA to prepare a "regulatory flexibility
analysis" in connection with any
rulemaking for which there is a statutory
requirement that a general notice of
proposed rulemaking shall be published.
The "regulatory flexibility analysis"
describes the effect of a final rule on
small business entities.
Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),
however, provides that section 604 of
the Act "shall not apply to any proposed
or final rule if the head of the agency
certifies that the rule will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities."
Since the effect of this rule avoids the
economic impact associated with a
disruption of passenger railroad service,
and no negative economic effect is
expected upon any business entity from
this amendment, the Administrator of
EPA has certified that promulgation of
this amendment will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, a "regulatory flexi bility
analysis" is not required and will not be
prepared for this rulemaking.
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires
Federal agencies to submit certain
collection of information requests to the
Office of Management and Budget
(0MB) for its review and approval.
Without appropriate approval from
0MB under the Act, agencies may not
impose penalties for noncompliance
with certain types of collection of
information requests, including
recordkeeping requirements. Based on a
review of the specific recordkeeping
requirements under this use rule, EPA
has determined that these requirements
do not meet the threshold criteria for
"collection of information" under the
PRA.
The recordkeeping requirements of
this use rule are presented in 40 CFR
761.30(b)(l)(iii). This provision requires
that the concentration of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid of railroad transformers
must be measured at two points in time:
(1) Immediately upon completion of
any authorized servicing of a railroad
transformer conducted for the purpose
of reducing the PCB concentration in the
transformer, and (2) between 12 and 24
months after each servicing conducted
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, Januar~ 3. 1983 / Rules and Regulations 135
under this rule. In addition, these
measurements must be recorded'and
retained until January 1, 1991.
This amendment does not alter the
recor<lkeeping requirements contained
in 40 CFR 761.30 (b)(l)(iii) of the current
rule. The only change in the
rec:ordkeeping requirements from the.
current rule refers to the extension of
the performance deadlines and the
related extension of the period for
railroad organizations to measure the
concentration of PCBs in the dielectric
fluid of railroad transformers. Under this
change. these organizations would be
required to measure the concentration of
PCBs for compliance with the respective
performance deadlines through July 1,
1986. rather than through July 1, 1984.
under the current rule.
Under section 3502(4) of the Act,
"collection of information" includes "the
obtaining or soliciting of facts or
opinions by an agency through the use
of written report forms. application
forms. schedules, questionnaires.
reporting or recordkeeping
requirements, or other similar methods."
In addition, to meet the statutory
definit ion of "collection of information,"
any recordkeeping requirements under
this use rule must request either of the
foll owing responses: (1) "Answers to
identical questions posed to, or identical
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
imposed on, ten or more persons, other
than agencies. instrumentalities. or
employees of the United States" or (2)
"answers to questions posed to
agencies, instrumentalities. or
employees of the United States which
are to be used for general statistical
purposes." The recordkeeping
requirements under this use rule do not
meet either of these categories. With
respect to the first response category,
the requirements in the use rule are
applicable to less than 10 affected
railroad organizations with PCB railroad
transformers in either active or inactive
service. With respect to the second
category, none of the affected railroad
organizations are "agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the
United States." In addition. the testing
records concerning PCB concentration
levels that must be maintained through
J,muary 1, 1991 are to measure
compliance with the performance
deadlines, and are not to be used for
general statistical purposes.
IX. Official Record of Rulemaking
In accordance with the requirements
of section 19 (a)(Jl(E) of TSCA, EPA is
issuing the following list of documents
constituting the record of this
rulemaking. However. thi s list does not
include public comments, th e tra nscript
of the rulemak4hg, boring, CR'
submissione.made -at the·!lllh!m,dcing
hearing or in COWlllci:liJn.wtth it. These
documents a11t:exampttfram.Eederal
Register listing wrdmuetilion,19{-a}(3j: A
full !is t of'. these~ will· be
available on reqwesHrem:the Industry
Assistance Office listed under "FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT." ..
A. Previous Rulemaking REJcords ·
1. Official Rulemaking Record from
"Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution
in Commerce and Use Prohibitions
Rule" published in the Federal Register
of May 31, 1979, (44 FR 31514).
2. Official Rulema,king Record from
"Proposed Amendment to Use
Authorization for PCB Railroad
Transformers" published in the Federal
Register of November 18, 1981, (46 FR
56626).
B. Support Documents
3. USEPA, OTS, "Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis for the PCB Railroad
Transformer Rule Amendment."
4. USEPA, OTS, "Response to
Comments on Health Effects of PCBs."
5. USEPA, OTS, "Support Document
for the PCB Railroad Transformer R0ule:
Response to Comments."
C. Reports
6. Buser. H. R., "Formation of
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans (PCDFs)
and Dibenzo-p-dioxine (PCDDs) from
the Pyrolysis of Chlorobenzenes," 8
Chemosphere. 415 (1979).
X. Statutory Authority
Under section 6{e) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2605). the Administrator may by rule
authorize the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce, or use (or any
combination of such activities) of any
PCBs in other than a totally enclosed
manner if the Administrator finds that it
will not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to human health or the
environment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Hazardous materials, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls,
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, Environmental protection.
Dated: December 2Q, 1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
PART 761-[AMENDEDJ
Therefore, in 40 CFR 761.30, ·the
introductory text in paragraph(b) and
paragraph(b)(1) are revised, and
paragraph(b)(2)(vii) is added to read as
follows:
§ 761.30 Authorizations.
(b) Use in and servicing of railroad
transformers. PCBs may be used in
transformers in railroad locomotives or
railroad self-propelled cars ("railroad
transformers") and may be pl'O"cessed
and distributed in commerce for
purposes of servicing these transformers
in a manner other than a totally
enclosed manner subject to the
following conditions:
(1) Use restrictions. (i) 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.
(ii) After January 1, 1984, the number
of railroad transformers containing a
PCB concentration greater than 60,000
ppm in use by any &ffected railroad
organization may not exceed one-third
of the total railroad transformers
containing PCBs in use by that
organization on January 1, 1982.
(iii) After July 1, 1984, use of railroad
transformers that contain dielectric
fluids with a PCB concentration greater
than 60,000 ppm is prohibited.
(iv) After July 1. 1985. the number of
railroad transformers containing a PCB
toncentration greater than 1,000 ppm
(0.1 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 July 1. 1984.
(v) After January 1, 1986, the number
of railroad transformers containing a
PCB concentration greater than 1,000
ppm in use by any affected railroad
organization may not exceed one-third
of the total railroad transformers
containing PCBs in use by that
organization on July 1, 1984.
(vi) After July 1, 1986, use of railroad
transformers that contain dielectric
fluids with a PCB concentration greater
than 1,000 ppm is prohibited.
(vii) The concentration of PCBs in the
dielectric fluid contained in railroad
transformers must be measured:
(A) Immediately upon completion of
any authorized servicing of a railroad
transformer conducted for the purpose
of reducing the PCB concentration in the
dielectric fluid in the transformer, and
(BJ Between 12 and 24 months after
each servicing conducted in accordance
with paragraph (b)(l)(vii)(A) of this
section;
(C) The data obtained as a result of
paragraph (b)(l)(vii) (A) and (BJ of this
138 Federal Regi•ter / Vol. 48, No. 1 / Monday, January 3, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
section shall be re\ained ·until January J,
1991.
(2) •••
(vii) A PCB Transformer may be
converted to a PCB-Contaminated
Transformer or to a non-PCB
Transformer by draining, refilling, and/
or otherwise servicing the railroad
transformer. ln order to reclassify, the
railroad transformer's dielectric fluid
must contain less than l500 ppm (for
conversion to PCB-Contaminated
Transformer) or less than 50 ppm PCB
(for conversion to a non-PCB
Transformer) after a minimum of three
months of inservice use subsequent to
the last servicing conducted for the
purpose of reducing the PCB
concentration in the transformer. • • • •
IFR Doc. ~115211 Flied 12-31>-82: 1:46 •ml
IIIWNQ COOi .......
June 13, 1983 STATE Alabama California COMMERCIAL LANDFILLS APPROVED FOR PCB DISPOSAL Section 6(e) requires EPA to control the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce and use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Under the _PCB rule (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979) disposal of many PCBs, as defined in the rule, is prohibited, except at EPA approved facilities. All facility approvals are granted in writing by the appropriate EPA regional administrator. Listed below is the latest -information on commercial landfills approved for PCB disposal. CORPORATE INFORMATION (Site Location) Chemical Waste Mgmt. Alabama Inc. Box 55 Emelle, AL 35459 [phone] .................... (Sales Office) Chemical Waste Mgmt. Marietta, GA 30061 Box 3065 [phone] ATTN: Al McCoy (Site Location) Casmalia Resources Casma NTU Rd. Casmalia, CA ( 805) 937-8449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Site mailing address) Box Er Casmalia, CA 93429 ........................ (Corporate Headquarters) Casmalia Resources 539 San Ysidro Rd.), A~~~l 9§i;5~6Jride EPA CONTACT Ralph Jennings ( 404) 251-3864 Raymond Se id [phone] • Drained transformers & containers • Contaminated soil, dirt, rag~ and other debris • Dredge soil and municipal sludges • Contaminated aS£halt X X Liquid PCBs 50-500 £Em X i:; 'ti t'l a H X "l
STATE California Idaho Nevada New York CORPORATE INFORMATION (Site Location) Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. Box 157, Kettleman City, CA 93239 [phone] (Sales Office) Box 1104 Coalinga, CA 93210 [phone] ATTN: Craig McKenzie/ Mark Langowski Envirosafe Services, Inc. of Idaho Box 936, Mt. Home, ID 83647 ( 208) 587-8434 ATTN: Dave Ralston (Site Location) U.S. Ecology Inc. Box 578 Beatty, NV 89003 ( 702) 553-2203 ATTN: Steve Carpenter .......................... (Corporate Headquarters) U.S. Ecology Inc. 9200 Shelbyville Rd. Louisville, KY 40222 [phone]/[phone] ATTN: Jackie Dickenson (Site Location) CECOS International 56th St. & Niagara Falls Blvd. ( 716) 282-2676 ............................. (Corporate Headquarters) CECOS International Box 619 Niagara Falls N,Y, 14302 [phone] ATTN: Customer Services EPA CONTACT Raymond Se id [phone] Roger Fuentes [phone] Raymond Se id ( 415) 974-8389 John Brogard [phone] • Drained transformers & containers • Contaminated soil, oirt, rags and other debris • Dredge soil and municipal sluoges • Contaminated asEhalt X X X X Liquid PCBs 50-500 12..[l_m X ~ 'ti ~ H :>< "l
STATE New York Ohio Oregon CORPORATE INfORMATION (Site Location) SCA Chemical servicP.s Box 200 Model City N. Y. 14107 [phone] ATTN: Customer Service (Site Location) CECOS/International 5092 Aber Road Williamsburg, Ohio ( 513) 720-6114 ................... CECOS/International 4879 Spring Grove Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45232 [phone] ATTN: Customer Services (Site Location) Chem-Security Systems, Inc • Star Route Arlington, OR 98712 ( 503) 454-2777 ATTN: Denis Sapiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Corporate Headquarters) Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. Box 1866 Rellevue, WA 98009 [phone] ATTN: Roger Nelson/Alex Cook EPA CONTACT John Brogard ( 212) 264-2637 Y.J. Kim ( 312) 353-1428 and W.E. Muno [phone] Roger ~'uentes ( 206) 442-1254 • Drained transformers & containers • Contaminated soil, dirt, rags and other debris • Dredge soil and municipal sludges • Contaminated as2halt X X X Ligu id PCRs 50-500 22m X X i:; .., ~ H >( ..,
COMPANY
Incinerator
ENSCO
Rollins
Vulcanus
Chemical waste Mgt.
Pyrotech Systems
General Electric
Chemical
Acurex
General Electric
PCB Destruction
PPM
Rose Chemical
Sunohio Inc.
DISPOSAL COMPANIES*
ADDRESS
P.O. Box 1975
ElDorado, AK, 71730
P.O. Box 609
Deer Park, TX, 77536
c/o Waste Mgt. Inc.
600 Maryland Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20004
P.O. BOX 1653
Tullahoma, TN 37388
100 Woodlawn Ave.
Pittsfield, MA 01201
485 Clyde Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94042
1 River Road
Schenectady, N.Y. 12345
304 N. Baltimore
Kansas City, MO 64116
8220 Travis
overland Park, KA
2459 Charolotte St.
Kansas City, MO 64108
1700 Gateway Blvd., S.E.
Canton, OH 44707
APPENDIX G
PHONE
501-863-7173
713-479-6001
202-347-4023
615-455-9954
413-494-3729
415-964-3200
518-385-3134
816-474-1661
913-648-0448
816-471-7227
216-452-0837
* This listing, compiled in March 1983, is subject to change.
For a status check of the above call the Industry Assistance
Office's Toll-Free Number 800-424-9065 (in Washington D.C.
area: 554-1404).
COMPANY
Capacitor Disposal
Environmental
International
SED, Inc.
ADDRESS
912 Scott
Kansas City, KS 66105
Box 1306
Waukesha, WJ
APPENDIX G
PHONE
800-255-0154
414-784-3740
COMPARATIVE TABLES ON
MATERIALS USED TO PROTECT
AGAINST DERMAL EXPOSURES TO PCBs
APPENDIX H
715-M-135
August 17, 1982
*Table 1. Recommendations for Protection Against Aroclor 1254
Undiluted and Paraffin Oila
Highly Recommended
Vitron
Recommended
Teflon b,c
Polyvinbl alcohol
Nitrile
Not Recommended
Surgical rubber
Polyethylene Vitron SF
Vitrile
Neoprene
Saran5xb
Butyl
Table 2. Recommendations for Protection Against Aroclor 1254 in
Trichlorobenzene: _?_ 58 percent Aroclor 1254a
Highly Recommended Recommended Not Recommended
Vitrol
Vitron SF
Teflon
Nitrile
Saranex
Butyl
a
b
C
Polyvinyl alcohol
Vitrile
Neoprene
Polyethylene
Surgical rubber
"Highly recommended" materials showed no breakthrough in 24
hours. Breakthrough time was 8 to 24 hours for the
"recommended" category. Breakthrough time was less than 8
hours for the "not recommended" category. These
recommendations assume comparable thickness, thus are based
on normalized breakthrough times.
Investigators noticed what appeared to be defects in both
butyl and Saranex-laminated tyvek and nitrile: in one
Teflon thumb, penetration appeared to occur through a seam • ..
Teflon is not highly recommended because when it is flexed,
as it would be when worn, permeation sometimes takes place
due to physical defects which flexing produces.
*From the EPA/OTS TSCA Public Files: Versar, Inc. OPTS 62017 PCBs
Controlled Wastes Communication N 23 File.
TABLE 2. -ltBREMCTBROOGB TJMES FOR VARIOOS PROTECTIVE GARNET MATERIALS EXPOSED 'l'O SELECTED HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS Type of Material Homogeneous, nonbonded materials butyl rubber Neoprene rubber latex nitrile rubber latex nitrile rubber milled polyethylene, medium density poly(vinyl alcohol), unsupported surgical rubber latex Treflon crumpled noncrumpled Vi ton e las tome r Coated/bonded materials* butyl-coated nylon** polyethylene-coated Tyvek Tyvek toward H20 polyethylene toward H20 polyurethane-coated nylon poly(vinyl chloride)-coated nylon Thickness 22 mils 23 8 1 2 2 15 8 2 2 10 15 5 4 10 1,2-dichloroethane 140 mins. 20 2.5 2.5 2.3 22 1.5 90 1440+ 820 70 Test Reagent 1,1,1-trichloroethane 60 mins. 45 30 3 4 1440+ 25 10 1 2 2 3 1,1,2-trichlorethane 50 mins. 7 3.5 15 1 175 1440+ 1440+ 45 <1 PCB 2.5 mins. 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.3 60. 3 0.5 0.5 The report notes that the coated/bonded materials are not commonly used for glove materials. They are in the prototype stage, or are used exclusively for other protective garments, such as aprons. * These are also referred to as composite or multilayered materials. ** Mil C-12189. Testing was not performed. Not all materials were tested against all chemicals because of contract limitations. The decision about which tests were not conducted was based on the utility of the findings. For example, most of the coated materials were tested only against a representative of the halogenated ethanes. Source: Weeks and McLeod 1980. [*From the EPA/OTS TSCA Public Files; Versar Inc. OPTS 62017 PCB. Controlled Wastes ~ "Cl tt:J s H :>< ::x:
APPENDIX I
STATUS FOR THE •UNCONTROLLED• PCB RULEMAKING
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent,
AD HOC COMMITTEE ON LIQUID DIELECTRICS
OF THE ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATIONS,
et al.,
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, et al.
Intervenors.
------------------------
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civ. No. 79-1580
EPA REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COURT'S
APRIL 9, 1982, ORDER CONCERNING EPA'S PROPOSAL FOR
ACTION ON POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN CONCENTRATIONS
BELOW 50 PARTS PER MILLION RESULTING FROM UNCONTROLLED PCB
PROCESSES AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF STAY OF MANDATE AS TO
EPA ACTION ON UNCONTROLLED PCB PROCESSES UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 1984
In accordance with this Court's order of April 9, 1982, the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") hereby reports its plans
for further regulatory action with respect to manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce and use of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) at concentrations less than 50 parts per million
- 2 -
APPENDIX I
(ppm), in other than closed manufacturing processes ("closed
processes") and processes producing only controlled wastes
("controlled processes").!:._/ For the purposes of this document, we
have referred to this aspect of the PCB rulemaking as dealing with
"uncontrolled PCB processes."
EPA intends to promulgate a final rule regulating
uncontrolled PCB processes by July 1, 1984, and hereby requests
extension until October 1, 1984, of this Court's stay of its
mandate affecting such PCBs. The reasons for EPA's determination
to suggest this course of action for further rulemaking on
uncontrolled PCB processes is explained below.
I. BACKGROUND
A. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THIS LITIGATION
Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), 15
u.s.c. §2605(e), authorizes EPA, among other things, to adopt
rules governing the manufacturing, processing, distribution in
commerce, and use of PCBs. On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated such
rules, called the "PCB Ban Regulations," 44 Fed. Reg. 31542-58, 40
CFR Part 761. The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. ("EDF")
obtained judicial review of the PCB Ban Regulations. On
October 30, 1980, this Court held, inter alia, that two aspects of
*/ A "closed manufacturing process" is one which generates PCBs
but which releases PCBs only in concentrations below the
practical limits of quantification. In a "controlled waste
process," PCBs may be released in concentrations above the
practical limits of quantification only as constituents of wastes
which are incinerated or disposed of in EPA approved
facilities. See 47 Fed. Reg. 46981 (1982).
APPENDIX I
- 3 -
the PCB Ban Regulations were invalid. EDF v. EPA, 636 F.2d
1267.~
This Court set aside the portion of the PCB Ban Regulations
that, generally, had limited the applicability of those rules to
materials containing PCBs in concentrations of at least 50 ppm.
636 F.2d at 1279-1284. In addition, the Court set aside EPA's
determination that certain uses of PCBs were "totally enclosed"
uses and, therefore, exempt from regulation under Section 6(e).
636 F.2d at 1284-6. The rules were then remanded for further
rulemaking by EPA, consistent with the Court's op{nion. 636 F.2d
at 1284.**/
The Court's decision placed industries that had relied upon
the PCB Ban Regulations in a difficult position. EPA and EDF
believed that issuance of the Court's mandate would have activated
Section 6(e)'s broad prohibitions on the manufacture, processing,
distribution in commerce and use of PCBs. It was believed that
numerous manufacturing activities created PCBs in low
concentrations. The parties, therefore, filed a series of joint
motions with the Court to seek a stay of the Court's mandate,
proposing that during such a stay: (1) EPA would conduct new
rulemaking with respect to PCBs; (2) industry groups would
undertake activities related to the new rulemaking; and (3) users
*/ The Court also upheld the PCB Ban Regulations'
authorization of eleven non-enclosed uses of PCBs. 636 F.2d at
1275-9.
**/ On August 25, 1981, in response to this Court's order with
respect to uses of PCBs in electrical equipment, EPA published in
the Federal Register final regulations which deal comprehensively
with such uses. See 47 Fed. Reg. 37342.
APPENDIX I
-4 -
of transformers containing PCBs would institute an interim
inspection and reporting program.
The Court responded in several orders, one of which is
germane to this filing. On April 13, 1981, the Court issued an
order in response to a joint motion that was submitted on
February 20, 1981 (the "April 13 Order"). The April 13 Order
stayed issuance of the Court's mandate with respect to activities
relating to PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm. The order also
adopted a plan for further actions by EPA and industry groups
leading toward new EPA rulemaking on the regulation of PCBs in
concentrations below 50 ppm. The April 13 Order required EPA:
( 1) to publish two Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking ( "ANPR")
on developing rules to cover PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm;
(2) within 18 months from the date of the order (i.e., October 13,
1982), to promulgate a final rule with respect to exclusion from
the prohibitions of Section 6(e)(3) of the generation of PCBs in
"closed manufacturing processes" or only as constituents of
"controlled wastes," or to explain the reasons for not proceeding
with such a rule; and (3) within eleven months after the date of
the order (i.e., March 13, 1982), to advise the Court of EPA's
plans for further action on PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm
generated in uncontrolled PCB processes.
For the uncontrolled PCB processes described in item 3, EPA
needed to collect a range of additional factual information in
order to develop an adequate rulemaking record consistent with the
Court's opinion of October 30, 1980. This need for collection and
evaluation of additional data accounts for the relatively greater
APPENDIX I
-

5

-
difficulties EPA will face ·in completing rulemaking on
uncontrolled PCB processes as compared with the "closed" and
"controlled" processes.
B. EPA ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PCBs IN CONCENTRATIONS LESS
THAN 50 PPM
1. Publication of ANPRs and Related Notices.
On May 20, 1981, EPA published in the Federal Register ANPRs
establishing bifurcated rulemaking proceedings with respect to
PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm, 46 Fed. Reg. 27614. The
first ANPR announced activities that would lead to rulemaking on
PCBs generated in the "closed manufacturing" processes and
"controlled waste" processes. The second ANPR announced the
framework for the Agency's exploration of the scope of the problem
presented by PCBs in concentrations below 50 ppm in uncontrolled
PCB processes. EPA there stated that it needed to develop a
substantial factual basis to support rulemaking on these PCBs._y
4 6 Fed. Reg. 2 7 619.
The comment period for both ANPRs expired on November 16,
1981. Approximately 50 public comments were submitted in response
to the two ANPRs published on May 20th.
2. Report to the Court of March 1982
On March 11, 1982, EPA filed its report on the Agency's plans
for regulation of uncontrolled PCB processes. Review of available
information indicated that the initiation of rulemaking for
*/ On May 20, 1981, EPA also had published in the Federal
Register a summary and the full text of the April 13 Order. 46
Fed. Reg. 27615.
APPENDIX I
- 6 -
uncontrolled PCB processes should not begin until the Agency was
better able to estimate how many processes would be subject to
such rulemaking.
This estimation rested in turn, on an understanding of how
many processes could be considered "closed" or "controlled."!:...!
Accordingly, EPA requested a short time after promulgation of the
"closed" and "controlled" rule to report further to the Court on
final plans for completing rulemaking on the uncontrolled PCB
processes. EPA requested that it be allowed to report its plans
on uncontrolled PCB processes on or about November 1, 1982, and
that the Court extend its stay of mandate until December 1, 1982,
with respect to uncontrolled PCB processes at levels below 50 ppm
concentration. The period between November 1, and December 1,
would allow sufficient time for review of the Agency's plans
before of April 9, 1982, this Court extended the stay of its
mandate until December 1, 1982.
3. The "Closed" and "Controlled" Rule.
On October 12, 1982, EPA promulgated a final rule for
"closed" and "controlled" PCBs (47 Fed. Reg. 46980). If a PCB-
generating process meets the rule's definitions of "closed
manufacturing process" or "controlled waste manufacturing
process," the manufacturer may have that process excluded from
regulation under section 6(e) of TSCA.
*/ In its March 1982 report, ~he Agency pointed out that, if the
number of "uncontrolled PCB" processes were very large, resources
for formulating and administering the rules could be severely
strained. Larger numbers of processes would make it more
difficult to develop definitions of terms or recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that could uniformly apply to the persons
subject to the rule. See March 1982 Report at 8-14.
APPENDIX I
- 7 -
The rule defines "closed processes" as those that produce
PCBs in concentrations below the practical limits of quantifi-
cation for PCBs in specified media: approximately 10 micrograms
per cubic meter in air emissions, approximately 0.1 ppm in water
effluent and 2 ppm in products and waste streams. See 47 Fed.
Reg. 46995.
In addition, if wastes are disposed of in a manner specified
in the rule, a process may still be excluded from regulation even
if it produces PCBs above 2 ppm in its waste stream, as long as
PCBs are below the limits, described above, in ambient air, water
effluent and products. These latter processes are called
"controlled waste" processes. Controlled waste processes are for
practical purposes divided into two categories: (1) those with
PCBs in the wastes in concentrations above 50 ppm, and (2) those
with PCB waste concentrations below 50 ppm. Under the rule
disposal of the first group of wastes continues to be controlled
by TSCA regulations set out at 40 C.F.R. Part 761. For the second
group, certain facilities approved under the provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 u.s.c. 6901, et
seq., may also be used. See 47 Fed. Reg. 46995.
EPA determined that excluding these small amounts of PCBs
from regulation, at the option of the chemical manufacturer, will
present de minimis risks to health and the environment. A
certification and reporting process is established for
manufacturers wishing to take advantage of the rule. See 47 Fed.
Reg. 46996.
APPENDIX I
- 8 -
II. THE REGULATORY PLAN FOR UNCONTROLLED PCB PROCESSES
A. FACTORS EPA CONSIDERED IN DEVELOPING THE PLAN
Comments submitted during the rulemaking process leading to
the October 12, 1982, rule have given the Agency a better grasp on
the number of processes that are likely to produce PCBs as
byproducts or impurities. On the basis of that information and
other information obtained since EPA's March 1982 report to this
Court, EPA staff estimates that there are approximately 120
chemical plants generating PCBs as byproducts or impurities in
approximately 500 processes throughout the United States. EPA
staff anticipates that several hundred of these processes may be
classified as uncontrolled PCB processes.
In view of the large number of great diversity of processes
that must be considered, EPA intends to consider a variety of
regulatory options. Regardless of which option is eventually
selected, EPA intends to fashion a regulatory scheme that will
direct available resources and administrative attention to those
processes which present the greatest environmental or health
concerns.
To support rulemaking EPA is currently considering
assessments of the risks presented for particular processes that
produce PCBs. For many aspects of these assessments EPA can rely
on data accumulated in the course of its previous PCB
rulemakings. Useful data have been submitted in comments on the
- 9 -
prior rules adopted pursuant to this Court's stay of its
mandate._y
APPENDIX I
As the focus of EPA's inquiry has narrowed, however, the
Agency staff has decided that additional information, particularly
on PCB exposure, should be obtained. In particular, EPA will seek
additional data concerning the actual or estimated levels of PCBs
that may be present in products, air emissions, and wastewater
streams, or that may be released in accidents. EPA also will
consider information on the pathways that these PCBs take and on
their ultimate fate. EPA will seek the assistance of interested
industry groups in the collection of any necessary data.
B. Time Periods Necessary To Complete Rulemaking.
EPA staff reports that the various phases of rulemaking
should be reasonably completed in the following time periods:
(1) April 1, 1983, four months from the current date of
expiration of the stay of mandate, to complete
preliminary information gathering;
(2) December 1, 1983, eight months from submission of
information described in item one, to issue a
proposed rule;
*/ In particular, EPA received extensive data on PCBs generated
Tn concentrations below 50 ppm from the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA) in connection with the rule on "closed" and
"controlled" PCBs. EPA described CMA's data --contained in a
document titled, A Report of A Survey on the Incidental Manufac-
turing, Processing, Distribution, and Use of Polychlorinated
Biphenyl at Concentrations Below 50 ppm [hereafter "CMA Survey
Report"] --1n the Agency's March 11, 1982, report to this
Court. A copy of the CMA Survey Report was attached as an
Appendix to the EPA March 1982 report. CMA had collected
information from eighty-five member firms, representing between
36 and 51 percent of total U.S. chemical industry sales. As
explained in EPA's March 1982 report, the CMA data were very
helpful in developing the "closed" and "controlled" rule.
APPENDIX I
-10 -
(3) July 1, 1984, seven months from signing of the
proposed rule, to issue a final rule (assuming a 90-
day period for public comment).
Notwithstanding these time periods, EPA staff hopes to expedite
the rulemaking schedule to the maximum extent possible. Following
information collection, EPA staff anticipates that it will take
approximately eight months to collate and review all relevant data
and to fashion proposed rules, given the complexities of the
technical issues and the diverse industrial categories involved.
Following proposal of rules, EPA staff expects that seven months
will be needed for adoption of final rules for uncontrolled PCB
processes. EPA also requests that the stay of the mandate expire
approximately three months after issuance of the final rule to
allow EPA Regional Offices, the regulated community and other
interested persons to prepare for compliance. The stay of
mandate, accordingly, would expire on October 1, 1984.
Counsel for Respondent, EPA, has been advised that Petitioner
EDF does not oppose this plan.
' I
I I
I
APPENDIX I
-11 -
Wherefore, EPA requests that this Court extend its stay of
mandate on uncontrolled PCB processes until october 1, 1984.
Respectively submitted,
David T. Buente, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Department of Justice, Room 1736
Tenth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
[phone]
Alan H. Carpien, Esq.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, s.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
[phone]
APPENDIX I
-12 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "EPA Report In
Accordance With This Court's April 9, 1982, Order ••• " have been
served by first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 1st day of
November 1982, upon the following:
Stevens. Rosenthal, Esquire
Morrison & Foerster
1920 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Jacqueline M. Warren, Esquire
Natural Resources Defense
Council
122 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10168
Khristine L. Hall, Esquire
Environmental Defense Fund
1525 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Edward Warren, Esquire
Kirkland & Ellis
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Toni K. Allen, Esquire
Wald, Harkrader & Ross
1300 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Jeffrey o. Cerar, Esq.
Squire, Sanders, & Dempsey
1201 Penn. Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
*u.s . GOV ER NME NT PRI NTI NG OFFICE • 1983-421"545 /3 083
David Zoll, Esquire
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
2501 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Donald L. Morgan, Esquire
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
and Hamilton
1752 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
John w. Ubinger, Jr. Esquire
Eckert, Seamans, Cherin
and Mellott
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Edwards. Shipper, Jr., Esquire
Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley,
White & Hardesty
1575 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Lawrence A. Demase, Esquire
Rose, Schmidt, Dixon, Hasley,
White & Hardesty
900 Oliver Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Alan H. Carpien, Esq.