Reassessment of Use Authorizations: Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)

Proposed Rules

Page 17645-17667

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

DOCID:fr07ap10-22

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 761

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757; FRL-8811-7

RIN 2070-AJ38

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of Use

Authorizations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing an ANPRM for the use and distribution in commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB items

Page 17646

and certain other areas of the PCB regulations under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations to address: The use, distribution in commerce, marking, and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment; the use of the 50 parts per million (ppm) level for excluded PCB products; the use of non-liquid PCBs; the use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces; and the marking of PCB articles in use. Also in this document, EPA is also reassessing the definitions of ``excluded manufacturing process,''

``quantifiable level/level of detection,'' and ``recycled PCBs.'' EPA is soliciting comments on these and other areas of the PCB use regulations. EPA is not soliciting comments on the PCB disposal regulations in this document.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2010.

See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting dates and other deadlines associated with the meetings.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification

(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA

East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT- 2009-0757. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be

Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e- mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e- mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the

Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is

(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

See Unit XIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for meeting locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460- 0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-

Hotline@epa.gov.

For technical information contact: John H. Smith, National Program

Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0512; e-mail address: smith.johnh@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

1. Does this Action Apply to Me?

   You may be potentially affected by this action if you you manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs.

   Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

   Utilities (NAICS code 22), e.g., Electric power and light companies, natural gas companies.

   Manufacturers (NAICS codes 31-33), e.g., Chemical manufacturers, electroindustry manufacturers, end-users of electricity, general contractors.

   Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS codes 48-49), e.g.,

   Various modes of transportation including air, rail, water, ground, and pipeline.

   Real Estate (NAICS code 53), e.g., People who rent, lease, or sell commercial property.

   Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS code 54), e.g., Testing laboratories, environmental consulting.

   Public Administration (NAICS code 92), e.g., Federal,

   State, and local agencies.

   Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS code 562), e.g., PCB waste handlers (e.g., storage facilities, landfills, incinerators), waste treatment and disposal, remediation services, material recovery facilities, waste transporters.

   Repair and Maintenance (NAICS code 811), e.g., Repair and maintenance of appliances, machinery, and equipment.

   This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part 761. If you have any

   Page 17647

   questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER

   INFORMATION CONTACT.

2. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or

   CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of

   Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

   II. Background

1. What Action is the Agency Taking?

   With this document, EPA is issuing an ANPRM for the use and distribution in commerce of certain classes of PCBs and PCB items and certain other areas of the PCB regulations under TSCA. EPA is reassessing its TSCA PCB use and distribution in commerce regulations, 40 CFR part 761, subparts B and C, to address: 1. The use, distribution in commerce, marking, and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric and non-electric equipment. 2. The use of the 50 ppm level for excluded PCB products. 3. The use of non-liquid PCBs. 4. The use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in porous surfaces. 5. The marking of PCB articles in use.

   EPA is also reassessing the definitions of ``excluded manufacturing process,'' ``quantifiable level/level of detection,'' and ``recycled

   PCBs'' in 40 CFR part 761, subpart A.

2. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

   The authority for this action comes from TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B) and (C)) as well as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). Section 6(e)(2)(A) of

   TSCA provides that ``no person may manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce or use any polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than in a totally enclosed manner'' after January 1, 1978. However, TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) provides EPA with the authority to issue regulations allowing the use and distribution in commerce of PCBs in a manner other than in a totally enclosed manner if the EPA Administrator finds that the use and distribution in commerce ``will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.'' (EPA's authority to allow distribution of PCBs in commerce is limited to those PCB items that were ``sold for purposes other than resale'' before April 1978

   (TSCA section 6(e)(3)(C) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(C))). Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA defines ``totally enclosed manner'' as ``any manner which will ensure that any exposure of human beings or the environment by the polychlorinated biphenyl will be insignificant as determined by the

   Administrator by rule.'' Section 6(e)(1)(B) of TSCA directs EPA to promulgate rules to require PCBs to be marked with clear and adequate warnings and instructions (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).

   III. Context of this ANPRM

   In the 1970s, commercial manufacture of PCBs in the United States ceased. A substantial portion of the PCBs that had already been manufactured were still in use in many areas of the country; in 1976

   EPA estimated that of 1.4 billion pounds (lbs.) of PCBs produced in the

   United States, 750 million lbs. remained in service in the country.

   Approximately 75% of the PCBs produced were for use as liquids in electrical or industrial equipment (Ref. 1). For some specific types of equipment, such as electrical capacitors, virtually all of the large number of units manufactured and in use contained PCBs, but for other types of equipment, such as electromagnets, only a small number of units contained PCBs (Ref. 2).

   TSCA became effective on January 1, 1977. Section 6(e) of TSCA generally prohibited the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs and charged EPA with issuing regulations for the marking and disposal of PCBs. EPA published the first regulations addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 1979 (Ref. 3). Over the 30 years since then, many changes have taken place in the industry sectors that use such equipment, and EPA believes that the balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending the regulations.

1. Regulatory History

   On December 30, 1977, EPA published a notice in the Federal

   Register stating that implementation of the January 1, 1978 ban imposed by TSCA was being postponed until 30 days after the promulgation of new regulations (Ref. 4). On May 31, 1979, EPA promulgated these regulations (Ref. 3). The regulations found that PCB liquid-filled capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad transformers) met the statutory definition of ``totally enclosed,'' and were exempt from the ban in TSCA section 6(e)(2)(A) on manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, or use. This EPA finding meant that it was not necessary to specifically authorize the use of these types of PCB-containing equipment. In this same regulation, EPA also authorized, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B), the use of other liquid-filled equipment that was not totally enclosed (railroad transformers, heat transfer systems, and hydraulic systems), based on a finding that the use would pose no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, subject to conditions. One of the conditions

   EPA imposed on the authorization of most non-totally enclosed uses was a time limit on the use of PCBs at or above the established 50 ppm PCB regulatory cutoff. In the June 7, 1978 (Ref. 5), proposed rule for the use authorizations, EPA discussed its authority and rationale for establishing use limits:

   Page 17648

   Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA permits EPA to authorize by rule the manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of PCBs in a non-totally enclosed manner if these activities will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

   EPA has determined that certain non-totally enclosed PCB use activities will not present an unreasonable risk and proposed to authorize these use activities for a period of 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. At that time, EPA will examine the need for continuing these authorizations.

   (Ref. 5, p. 24807)

   EPA has not previously undertaken a reassessment. In making this determination to make a reassessment, EPA weighed the effects of PCBs on health and the environment, the magnitude of exposure, and the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule. This determination is fully discussed in the support/voluntary draft environmental impact statement. These proposed time limits were, with minor modifications, adopted in the final rule:

   Unlike all other activities that may 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 should 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; however, no such limit was proposed on the use authorization for PCBs in electric equipment.

   (Ref. 3, p. 31530)

   After the May 31,1979, rule was published, the Environmental

   Defense Fund, Inc., (EDF) petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

   District of Columbia Circuit to review the portion of the 1979 regulation which designated the use of ``intact and non-leaking'' PCB liquid filled capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers (other than railroad transformers) as ``totally enclosed.'' On October 30, 1980, the court decided that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the Agency's classification of the equipment as ``totally enclosed'' (Ref. 6). The court vacated this portion of the rule and remanded it to EPA for further action. EPA, EDF, and certain industry interveners petitioned the court to stay the mandate while EPA conducted rulemaking beginning with an ANPRM, and a utility industry group agreed to develop factual information necessary for the rulemaking. The court granted the request for a stay and the text of the court order was published with EPA's ANPRM on March 10, 1981 (Ref. 7). On August 25, 1982, EPA issued a final rule authorizing the use of capacitors, electromagnets, and transformers other than railroad transformers, in accordance with TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) (Ref. 8). Time limits were imposed on the use of certain types of PCB equipment posing an exposure risk to food and feed. Since 1982 there have been additional rulemakings (e.g., Refs. 9 and 10), which, with certain exceptions, have continued to allow the use of PCB-containing equipment, the passive removal of PCB-containing equipment from use through attrition, and to require the disposal of PCBs and PCB- containing equipment in an environmentally sound manner.

2. PCB Use Authorizations

   Currently, under 40 CFR 761.30, the following liquid-filled PCB equipment is authorized for use in a non-totally enclosed manner:

   Electrical transformers.

   Railroad transformers.

   Mining equipment.

   Heat transfer systems.

   Hydraulic systems.

   Electromagnets.

   Switches.

   Voltage regulators.

   Electrical capacitors.

   Circuit breakers.

   Reclosers.

   Liquid-filled cable.

   Rectifiers.

   The servicing, in accordance with specified conditions, of the following liquid-filled equipment is also authorized:

   Electrical transformers.

   Railroad transformers.

   Electromagnets.

   Switches.

   Voltage regulators.

   Circuit breakers.

   Reclosers.

   Liquid-filled cable.

   Rectifiers.

   Liquid PCBs are authorized for use where they are a contaminant in the following equipment:

   Natural gas pipeline systems.

   Contaminated natural gas pipe and appurtenances.

   Other gas or liquid transmission systems.

   There are also use authorizations for certain non-liquid PCBs applications: Carbonless copy paper and porous surfaces contaminated with PCBs regulated for disposal by spills of liquid PCBs. There are other use authorizations for research and development (40 CFR 761.30(j)), for scientific instruments (40 CFR 761.30(k)), and for decontaminated materials (40 CFR 761.30(u)).

   However, there are no use authorizations for non-liquid PCB- containing products if they contain PCBs at concentrations > 50 ppm, including but not limited to adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint, rubber or plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, and waxes.

   In 40 CFR 761.35, storage for reuse of authorized PCB articles is allowed for up to 5 years, or longer if kept in a storage unit complying with TSCA or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

   (RCRA) requirements.

3. Distribution in Commerce Regulations

   Section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA states, ``The term `totally enclosed manner' means 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.'' The definition established by rule in 40 CFR 761.3 is, ``Totally enclosed manner means any manner that will ensure no exposure of human beings or the environment to any concentration of PCBs.''

   EPA has found that the distribution in commerce of intact and non- leaking equipment is ``totally enclosed.'' See 40 CFR 761.20 (Ref. 3, p. 31542). Therefore, no authorization is required for the distribution in commerce for use of intact and non-leaking, liquid-filled electrical equipment, so long as the equipment was sold for purposes other than resale before July 1, 1979. Section 40 CFR 761.20 states:

   In addition, the Administrator hereby finds, for purposes of section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, that any exposure of human beings or the environment to PCBs, as measured or detected by any scientifically acceptable analytical method, may be significant, depending on such factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the exposure, the likelihood of exposure to humans and the environment, and the effect of exposure. For purposes of determining which PCB Items are totally enclosed, pursuant to section 6(e)(2)(C) of TSCA, since exposure to such Items may be significant, the Administrator further finds that a totally enclosed manner is a manner which results in no exposure to 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

   Page 17649

   containing an intact, nonleaking PCB Capacitor.

   Since then, EPA has gathered information showing measurable emissions of PCBs from some otherwise intact and non-leaking equipment, which is not energized (providing or receiving electricity), to the ambient air (Ref. 11). ``Weeps'' and ``seeps'' and other leaks are visual indicators that the distribution in commerce of some of this equipment could result in exposure to humans or the environment to

   PCBs.

4. PCB Health Effects

   The following information about the health effects of PCBs is taken directly from the 1996 EPA document entitled ``PCBs: Cancer Dose

   Response Assessment and Application to Environmental Mixtures'' (Ref. 12), which is the source document for the 1997 EPA Integrated Risk

   Information System (IRIS) file for PCBs. The information is referenced in the 1997 EPA IRIS file for PCBs under heading II.A.2 (Human

   Carcinogenicity Data), it states in part:

   Occupational studies show some increases in cancer mortality in workers exposed to PCBs. Bertazzi et al. (1987) found significant excess cancer mortality at all sites combined and in the gastrointestinal tract in workers exposed to PCBs containing 54 and 42 percent chlorine. Brown (1987) found significant excess mortality from cancer of the liver, gall bladder, and biliary tract in capacitor manufacturing workers exposed to Aroclors 1254, 1242, and 1016. Sinks et al. (1992) found significant excess malignant melanoma mortality in workers exposed to Aroclors 1242 and 1016.

   Some other studies, however, found no increases in cancer mortality attributable to PCB exposure (ATSDR, 1993). The lack of consistency overall limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions from these studies. Incidents in Japan and Taiwan where humans consumed rice oil contaminated with PCBs showed some excesses of liver cancer, but this has been attributed, at least in part, to heating of the PCBs and rice oil, causing formation of chlorinated dibenzofurans (ATSDR, 1993; Safe, 1994).

   A study of rats fed diets containing Aroclors 1260, 1254, 1242, or 1016 found statistically significant, dose-related, increased incidences of liver tumors from each mixture (Brunner et al., 1996).

   Earlier studies found high, statistically significant incidences of liver tumors in rats ingesting Aroclor 1260 or Clophen A 60

   (Kimbrough et al., 1975; Norback and Weltman, 1985; Schaeffer et al., 1984). Partial lifetime studies found precancerous liver lesions in rats and mice ingesting PCB mixtures of high or low chlorine content.

   Several mixtures and congeners test positive for tumor promotion

   (Silberhorn et al., 1990). Toxicity of some PCB congeners is correlated with induction of mixed-function oxidases; some congeners are phenobarbital-type inducers, some are 3-methylcholanthrene-type inducers, and some have mixed inducing properties (McFarland and

   Clarke, 1989). The latter two groups most resemble 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in structure and toxicity.

   Overall, the human studies have been considered to provide limited (IARC, 1987) to inadequate (U.S. EPA, 1988a) evidence of carcinogenicity. The animal studies, however, have been considered to provide sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity (IARC, 1987; U.S.

   EPA, 1988a). Based on these findings, some commercial PCB mixtures have been characterized as probably carcinogenic to humans (IARC, 1987; U.S. EPA, 1988a). There has been some controversy about how this conclusion applies to PCB mixtures found in the environment.

   (Ref. 13)

   In addition to cancer, the 1996 document states, ``Although not covered by this report PCBs also have significant ecological and human health effects other than cancer, including neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. Toxic effects have been observed from acute and chronic exposures to PCB mixtures with varying chlorine content'' (Ref. 12).

   The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

   Toxicological Profile for PCBs of November 2000 (2000 ATSDR

   Toxicological Profile) is a more recent review of the toxicity of PCBs.

   The study's summary of health effects (chapter 2.2) states:

   The preponderance of the biomedical data from human and laboratory mammal studies provide strong evidence of the toxic potential of exposure to PCBs. Information on health effects of PCBs is available from studies of people exposed in the workplace, by consumption of contaminated rice oil in Japan (the Yusho incident) and Taiwan (the Yu-Cheng incident), by consumption of contaminated fish, and via general environmental exposures, as well as food products of animal origin....[H]ealth effects that have been associated with exposure to PCBs in humans and/or animals include liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular changes, immunological alterations, neurodevelopmental changes, reduced birth weight, reproductive toxicity, and cancer. The human studies of the Yusho and Yu-Cheng poisoning incidents, contaminated fish consumption, and general populations are complicated by the mixture nature of PCB exposure and possible interactions between the congeneric components and other chemicals.... Therefore, although PCBs may have contributed to adverse health effects in these human populations, it cannot be determined with certainty which congeners may have caused the effects. Animal studies have shown that PCBs induce effects in monkeys at lower doses than in other species, and that immunological, dermal/ocular, and neurobehavioral changes are particularly sensitive indicators of toxicity in monkeys exposed either as adults, or during pre- or postnatal periods.

   (Ref. 14)

   EPA continues to examine more recent scientific studies on the health effects of PCBs and seeks comments and/or information on the health effects of PCBs available since the 1997 EPA update of IRIS and since the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile. Any proposed or final PCB rulemaking which relies on PCB health effects will use information subject to EPA's rigorous peer-review process.

5. PCB Environmental Effects

   The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile for PCBs summarizes the environmental fate, transport, and bioaccumulation of PCBs as follows:

   Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down and therefore may remain for very long periods of time. They can easily cycle between air, water, and soil. For example, PCBs can enter the air by evaporation from both soil and water. In air, PCBs can be carried long distances and have been found in snow and sea water in areas far away from where they were released into the environment, such as in the arctic. As a consequence, PCBs are found all over the world. In general, the lighter the type of PCBs, the further they may be transported from the source of contamination. PCBs are present as solid particles or as a vapor in the atmosphere. They will eventually return to land and water by settling as dust or in rain and snow. In water, PCBs may be transported by currents, attach to bottom sediment or particles in the water, and evaporate into air. Heavy kinds of PCBs are more likely to settle into sediments while lighter PCBs are more likely to evaporate to air. Sediments that contain PCBs can also release the PCBs into the surrounding water. PCBs stick strongly to soil and will not usually be carried deep into the soil with rainwater. They do not readily break down in soil and may stay in the soil for months or years; generally, the more chlorine atoms that the PCBs contain, the more slowly they break down. Evaporation appears to be an important way by which the lighter PCBs leave soil. As a gas, PCBs can accumulate in the leaves and above-ground parts of plants and food crops. PCBs are taken up into the bodies of small organisms and fish in water. They are also taken up by other animals that eat these aquatic animals as food.

   PCBs especially accumulate in fish and marine mammals (such as seals and whales) reaching levels that may be many thousands of times higher than in water. PCB levels are highest in animals high up in the food chain.

   (Ref. 14)

   The 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile also summarizes ecotoxicological effects of PCBs in wildlife (Ref. 14). Information in the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile is gathered from experimental studies and field

   Page 17650

   observations of wildlife, specifically outlining PCB effects in fish, bird, and mammal species. The biological responses in wildlife to exposures to individual PCB congeners and commercial PCB mixtures vary widely in these studies, possibly reflecting not only variability in susceptibility among species, but also differences in the mechanism of action or selective metabolism of individual congeners. Noteworthy impacts on fish, birds, and mammals from this collective data include neurological/behavioral, immunological, dermal, and reproductive/ developmental effects. Observed PCB effects related to neurological impairment include alterations in central nervous system neurotransmitter levels, retarded learning, increased activity, and behavioral changes. Immunological effects consist of morphological changes in organs related to the immune system, as well as functional impairment of humoral- and cell-mediated immune responses. Dermal effects in species include adverse effects on fins and tails in fish, and abnormal skin, hair, and nail growth in mammals. Lastly, reproductive and developmental impacts consist of increased embryo/ fetal loss through effects such as decreased egg hatchability and reduced embryo implantation (Ref. 14).

   EPA seeks information on the environmental effects of PCBs that became available after the 2000 ATSDR Toxicological Profile (Ref. 14).

   IV. Objective of this ANPRM

   The objective of this ANPRM is to announce the Agency's intent to reassess the current use authorizations for certain PCB uses to determine whether they may now pose an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. This reassessment will be based in part upon information and experience acquired in dealing with PCBs over the past 3 decades. This ANPRM solicits information from the public on several topics to assist EPA in making this reassessment.

   Since the Agency first promulgated its PCB use regulations in 1979,

   EPA's knowledge about the universe of PCB materials has greatly increased. The Agency has gained valuable knowledge and experience regarding the various sources and uses of PCB materials. Over the past 30 years, EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate and draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the PCB regulations in preventing an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment from exposure to

   PCBs, as well as their economic impact. This document details EPA's observations on why there is reason to make changes in the regulations.

   At the present time, EPA is investigating whether some authorized uses of PCBs should be eliminated or phased-out and whether more stringent use and servicing conditions would be appropriate. EPA is also re- examining the geographical and numerical extent of PCBs and PCB items, which are subject to the use regulations. The objective of the anticipated rulemaking would be to modify any of the regulations that apply to PCBs or PCB items, as necessary, if these uses present an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment, taking into account conditions as they exist and as they are likely to exist in the future.

   EPA seeks information that will be useful in making the findings required by TSCA section 6. By prohibiting the use of PCBs (except in a totally enclosed manner), Congress established a statutory presumption that use of PCBs poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. In order to assess whether a use poses ``no unreasonable risks,'' EPA would include an assessment of impacts on the economy, electric energy availability, and all other health, environmental, or social impacts that could be expected from adoption of alternatives to

   PCBs. There is a list of several questions related to EPA's reassessment in Unit XIV. Responses to the questions will provide EPA with information needed to assist in its reassessment; other information, of course, is also welcome.

   EPA recognizes that there may be differences in the maintenance operations, inventories, planning, funding, and budgets for different owners of electrical equipment and does not make any assumptions about these differences. For example, when compared to very large interstate utilities, small municipal and cooperative utilities may have a very different approach to address the replacement of leaking equipment.

   Where applicable and appropriate, small municipal and cooperative utility responders should provide information about the impacts a phaseout of PCB-containing equipment might have on their operations and their customers. In particular, EPA encourages small municipal and cooperative utilities to take the time to answer the questions in Unit

   XIV. or otherwise provide details about maintenance operations, inventories, planning, funding, budgets, or any other information related to the cost of addressing the sound environmental management of the PCBs in their equipment and measures they have taken or planned to take and how these measures will help to safely manage their PCBs. EPA also is interested in exploring a range of incentives or programs that might facilitate organizations with limited budgets to remove regulated

   PCBs and PCB equipment from their systems and facilities.

   In this document, EPA is also announcing plans to involve stakeholders in gathering information to inform EPA's determination of the scope of the problem, and EPA's decision on the best ways to address risks that may be present from current PCB use authorizations.

   EPA will sponsor a series of public meetings around the country to solicit stakeholder comments on this document. Specific information regarding the locations, dates, and times of the public meetings are included in Unit XIII.

   V. EPA's Reasons for Reassessing Existing Use and Distribution

   Provisions

1. Attrition, Aging of Equipment, and Spills

   All of the PCB-containing equipment in current use, which has been operating in accordance with the 1979 and subsequent use authorizations, is at least 30 years old. Since the ban on manufacturing in 1979, no new equipment containing PCBs at concentrations greater than or equal to (>=) 50 ppm has been manufactured. The total number of PCB transformers in the United States is decreasing (Ref. 15) but there are still many PCB transformers in use (Ref. 16). Also, all but the most recently manufactured PCB- containing equipment may be nearing the end of its expected useful life, although the useful life of some equipment may have effectively been extended by extensive maintenance and re-building. The useful life of transformers is typically no more than 30-40 years (Ref. 2).

   Equipment is increasingly vulnerable to leaks the older it becomes.

   For example, between 2002 and 2005, two large, aging electrical transformers located on Exxon Mobil's offshore oil and gas platform,

   Hondo, in the Santa Barbara Channel, leaked nearly 400 gallons of PCB- contaminated fluid. Exxon allowed one of the transformers to leak for almost 2 years before repairing it (Ref. 17).

   Several statutes and regulations require reporting of spills of hazardous chemicals, including PCBs, to the United States Coast Guard

   National Response Center. EPA contacted the National Response Center

   (Ref. 18) to find out how many PCB spills have been reported historically. The National

   Page 17651

   Response Center advised EPA that there were a total of 5,578 spills associated with PCBs reported from 1990 through August 19, 2009 (Ref. 19).

2. International Developments

   PCBs are persistent chemicals and it is internationally recognized that they pose a risk to health and the environment and need to be removed from use. As of October 6, 2009, 166 countries have signed and ratified, accepted, approved, or accessed the Stockholm Convention on

   Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm Convention), which among other things requires parties to make determined efforts to phaseout certain ongoing uses of PCBs by the year 2025. The United States is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention but has not yet ratified it (Ref. 20). A similar agreement, which has an earlier date relating to the phaseout of certain ongoing uses of PCBs, is the 1998 Aarhus Protocol on

   Persistent Organic Pollutants of the 1979 Convention on Long-Range

   Transboundary Air Pollution, which the United States signed in 1998. As with the Stockholm Convention, the United States is a signatory to the

   Aarhus Protocol, but has not yet ratified this agreement (Ref. 21).

   On September 17, 2008, Canada published PCB ban and phaseout regulations with bans starting in 2009 for high concentration PCBs

   (Ref. 22). In the Canadian regulations, low-level (Require testing of equipment which is stored for reuse or removed from service for any reason, and which is assumed to contain

   PCBs at concentrations >= 50 ppm in accordance with Sec. 761.2.

   Require that where such equipment is found to contain PCBs at concentrations >= 50 ppm after testing, within 30 days of receiving the test results the owner must either reclassify the equipment to Eliminate all currently authorized PCB equipment servicing except for reclassification.

   Require marking of all equipment which is known or assumed

   (in accordance with Sec. 761.2) to contain PCBs at >= 50 ppm.

   Increase the inspection frequency to a minimum of once every month for non-leaking known or assumed >= 500 ppm PCB equipment in use.

   Before the final phaseout date(s), broaden the prohibition on the use of PCBs in transformers that pose an exposure risk to food or feed to include use of PCB-contaminated transformers.

   Broaden the definition of PCB article (this would also require changing other definitions) to include all equipment containing

   > 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid with >= 50 ppm PCBs, in place of the current definition which regulates transformers and capacitors containing >= 3 lbs. of dielectric fluid.

   Require registration of PCB large capacitors containing a specified volume of dielectric fluid or having a specified external volume or dimensions.

   Eliminate the authorization for storage of PCB equipment for reuse.

   Eliminate the use authorization for PCBs in carbonless copy paper.

   Eliminate totally enclosed determination for distribution in commerce.

   Require reporting/notification to EPA Regional

   Administrators when PCBs are found in any pipeline system, regardless of the source of PCBs or the owner of the pipeline.

2. Potential Time Frames for Completing the Removal of PCB Equipment

   From Service

   These measures would phaseout all PCB-electrical equipment uses with interim deadlines by equipment concentration and type.

   By 2015, eliminate all use of askarel equipment (>= 100,000 ppm PCBs), removing from service the equipment in high potential exposure areas first. EPA is considering allowing exceptions on a case-by-case basis based on hardship and no unreasonable risk.

   Exceptions may be granted based on an application and approved exceptions may be published on the PCB website.

   By 2020, eliminate all use of oil-filled PCB equipment (>= 500 ppm) and the authorization for use of PCBs at >= 50 ppm in pipeline systems.

   By 2025, eliminate all use of any PCB contaminated equipment (>= 50 ppm), which is still authorized for use.

   VII. Information to Be Considered During EPA Reassessment of PCB Use

   Authorizations

   This unit outlines what information EPA believes is important to consider when reassessing PCB use authorizations. EPA seeks comment on any other information, which may not be included in this unit, but which you believe is important for EPA to consider when reassessing PCB use authorizations.

1. Liquid-filled Electrical Equipment (Except Railroad Transformers and

   Mining Equipment)

   EPA seeks information on the specific population of any electrical equipment that contains greater than 2 fluid ounces of dielectric fluid with PCBs >= 1 ppm and that was manufactured prior to July 31, 1979:

   Transformers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), electromagnets (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(a)), switches (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), voltage regulators (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(h)), electrical capacitors

   (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(l)), circuit breakers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), reclosers (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), liquid-filled cable (regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(m)), and rectifiers (regulated at 40

   CFR 761.30(r)). Each unit describes specifically what information EPA solicits. EPA encourages small business owners and small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB-containing electrical equipment population characteristics and their management activities for the equipment. 1. Population characteristics for transformers, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid-filled cable, and rectifiers. Information that EPA seeks about the use of this equipment appears in questions, which are located in Unit XIV.A.-E. 2. Servicing. Since the first use regulations for liquid-filled

   PCB-containing equipment, EPA has continued to prescribe conditions for authorized servicing (maintaining or repairing) this equipment, which facilitated extending the life of the equipment, in order to ease the hardship an immediate ban would have caused owners. Most life-extending use conditions are included in the authorization for servicing:

   Draining, repairing, and putting back into service PCB- contaminated electrical equipment.

   Topping off and putting back into service PCB-electrical equipment.

   Blending the oil drained from multiple pieces of PCB- containing equipment for servicing.

   Adding blended or other PCB-containing oil into repaired, drained equipment.

   Reclassifying.

   Distributing PCB-containing equipment in commerce for repair without manifesting.

   Storing company-owned equipment for servicing without any conditions to protect against leaks or spills.

   Page 17654

   Servicing equipment which is owned by others, without having commercial storage approvals.

   EPA believes that this equipment is nearing the final stages of useful life, after a minimum of 30 years of use. When this aging equipment fails to function in use or is otherwise removed from service, and if there is a need to prolong the life of the equipment,

   EPA believes that the PCBs should be removed from the equipment and disposed of in accordance with the regulations in 40 CFR part 761, subpart D. The reclassification of out-of-service equipment could be considered preventive maintenance and does not require service interruption, lost revenue, or liability costs of losses to other parties. In the brochure, entitled ``Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down of PCB-Containing Equipment,'' published in October 2005 by the

   Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) (Ref. 42), it states that:

   Many utility companies across the country have procedures in place to ensure that most equipment containing PCBs in concentrations > 50 ppm identified after removal from the field is either disposed of and not returned to service or retrofilled before being returned to service. This practice helps ensure the accelerated retirement from service of a large class of potentially

   PCB-containing equipment (e.g., distribution pole-top and padmount transformers) that could otherwise lawfully be placed back into service. USWAG will continue to actively promote these systematic practices of voluntarily identifying and retiring PCB-containing equipment from service.

   On April 2, 2001, EPA provided new reclassification procedures which include refilling mineral oil filled equipment with liquid containing How often any equipment (PCB-containing or non-PCB- containing) of the same age or size is replaced per year and the costs for replacement.

   Costs for replacement include cheapest source, foreign, or domestic, including transport and transaction costs.

   The price for replacement of various types and classes of equipment each year over the last 30 years, as well as estimated or projected future prices.

   EPA seeks information that explains:

   The impact of changes in system distribution and transmission voltage on the potential obsolescence of mineral oil-filled equipment, which was manufactured before 1979 would be useful.

   The cost impact of replacing mineral oil-filled equipment, which was manufactured before 1979, with more modern equipment with respect to efficiency, longevity, or any other attribute which would create an economic incentive to hasten the phaseout of older equipment.

   Further, EPA solicits information on the numbers of these units manufactured before 1979 that are:

   Expected to be replaced or excessed during system voltage changes.

   Planned for distribution in commerce for use. EPA would also like to know to whom these excessed units would most likely be sold.

   EPA seeks information on the costs of service interruptions and revenue loss which may result from equipment replacement, either scheduled or unplanned. Similarly, EPA solicits comments on the current and estimated future supply of replacement equipment, when PCB-containing equipment is moved out of service before the end of its useful life.

   Reclassification options and procedures in the regulations were broadened in 2001 (Ref. 10) and EPA seeks comments on the costs and advantages found for this option, as opposed to disposal. EPA encourages small business owners, and small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their PCB-containing electrical equipment replacement schedules and costs. EPA's questions about PCB equipment removal and replacement costs are located in Unit XIV.J. 8. Current PCB waste disposal capacity. EPA solicits comments on the availability of disposal capacity for PCBs in liquids at concentrations >= 50 ppm by weight, and for other materials in drained electrical equipment. EPA also seeks comments on the economic benefits of decontamination and recycling of liquids or non-liquids in this equipment, where possible. In 1979, PCB disposal options and capacity were limited and the potential demand on disposal capacity from a ban or phaseout of PCB-containing equipment would have been high. EPA also seeks information on whether there currently is a charge to the equipment owner (waste generator) for disposing of equipment which will be decontaminated and then sold as scrap metal. EPA also seeks information on the cost for disposing of mineral oil contaminated with

   PCBs. EPA has seen a continuous decrease in the numbers of PCB disposal approvals issued over the last 10 years. EPA seeks comment on what the disposal industry predicts with respect to the future number of approved PCB disposal and storage companies, future disposal and storage capacity, and the future cost of commercial storage and disposal of electrical equipment waste as compared to current disposal costs. EPA's questions about PCB waste disposal capacity are located in

   Unit XIV.K. 9. Current equipment management practices. EPA solicits information on the current management practices intended to reduce the risk from

   PCBs in the following types of equipment that contain PCBs at concentrations of >= 1 ppm: Electrical transformers, railroad transformers, mining equipment, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid- filled cable, and rectifiers. EPA encourages small business owners, small municipal and cooperative utilities to provide details on their

   PCB-containing electrical equipment management activities. EPA's questions addressing the information that EPA seeks about equipment current management practices are located in Unit XIV.L. 10. Electrical equipment which contains non-liquid PCBs at concentrations = 1 ppm. EPA seeks information on electrical equipment, such as tar-filled equipment, which was manufactured prior to July 31, 1979, in the following categories: Containing non-liquid

   PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm and = 50 ppm and = 500 ppm and = 100,000 ppm. EPA seeks this information for the following non-liquid filled equipment types:

   Transformers, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, rectifiers, and any other equipment populations (such as paper insulated lead cable and bushings). EPA's questions about electrical equipment which contains non-liquid PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm are located in Unit XIV.M. 11. Impact of vandalism and theft on the risk from PCBs. The presence of PCBs in equipment subject to vandalism incidents could increase potential risk not only to the vandal, but to others in the area. In particular, EPA is concerned about areas which may not be directly contaminated from the nearby equipment impacted by vandalism but also areas where spilled PCBs from that

   Page 17656

   vandalism might be expected to migrate and accumulate such as low-lying residential neighborhoods and cropland. EPA solicits data on the number of units lost and the cost from losses from vandalism and theft of electrical transformers, railroad transformers, mining equipment, heat transfer systems, hydraulic systems, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, electrical capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, liquid- filled cable, and rectifiers. EPA seeks information on the rate of occurrence of vandalism events involving PCB-containing equipment in each calendar year starting from 1998 until 2008, including how many gallons of oil have been lost from equipment and what has been the cost from this loss of oil. EPA's questions about the impact of vandalism and theft on the risk from PCBs are located in Unit XIV.N. 12. Fraudulent export for scrap metal recovery. EPA is concerned about the potential for incidents where used electrical equipment is exported for purported reuse, but where the equipment is actually scrapped or smelted for recovery of metal components. Elimination of the totally enclosed determination for distribution in commerce will restrict the fraudulent practice of export of equipment in the guise of reuse, when the exported equipment will not be used, properly reclassified/decontaminated, or disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. EPA is concerned that metal recycling facilities may not manage the exported equipment and the PCBs in an environmentally sound manner; and scrap metal management workers may not be protected from exposure to PCBs or even know that PCBs are present in the exported equipment. 13. Reclassification of askarel transformers. EPA is concerned that reclassification of askarel transformers (which were manufactured to contain >= 500,000 ppm PCBs) is generally ineffective because PCBs leach back out of internal components several years after the active processing to reclassify is completed. This seems plausible because of the nature of the inner structure of transformers. EPA is considering whether to restrict the reclassification option to electrical equipment which at the time of manufacture contains 1 ppm. EPA's questions about mining equipment are located in Unit XIV.Q.

4. Heat Transfer Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(d)) and Hydraulic

   Systems (Regulated at 40 CFR 761.30(e))

   Heat transfer systems and hydraulic systems have been authorized for use since 1984, when they contain PCBs at concentrations = 50 ppm, but they could not reduce these concentrations to levels 50 ppm in natural gas pipeline systems, effective as of May 1, 1980.

   In the early 1980s, PCBs were found in a cold trap in the gas line outside a home in New York. In 1981, EPA entered into agreements with 13 natural gas transmission companies which had PCBs at concentrations

   >= 50 ppm in their systems but outside of turbine compressors (Ref. 48).

   It is not clear exactly how the PCBs entered the systems if they did not come from the turbine compressors. After nearly 30 years of operations and after all known sources of PCBs were removed from these systems, EPA has information indicating that PCBs at levels >= 50 ppm continue to be found in natural gas pipeline systems including within equipment which is not specifically designed to collect such material.

   EPA believes that the authorized use conditions in the current regulations should have resulted in companies removing PCBs to the extent that there no longer are PCBs in the systems at concentrations

   >= 50 ppm.

   EPA is considering requiring sampling and analyzing individual condensate samples (not composites or accumulations) to determine the extent of the PCB contamination when any person finds PCBs in any pipeline system at concentrations >= 1 ppm. Owners would be required to analyze condensate from surrounding areas to confirm that regulated

   PCBs were not present in the system. Regardless of the original or current source of the PCBs, owners would report results of >= 50 ppm findings to EPA. EPA is also considering whether to propose ending the use authorization for PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm in these systems by 2020 or an earlier date. In this phase-down approach, owners would also be required to analyze current condensate in areas having historical PCB measurements to confirm the absence of PCBs during the period prior to the final phaseout date. If PCBs are found, owners would have to demonstrate they have reduced PCB concentrations to = 0.05 liters (approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid. Definitions for Capacitor, PCB

   Capacitor, PCB Transformer, and PCB-contaminated Electrical Equipment would be adjusted accordingly. This revision would correspond to minimum volumes for liquid-filled equipment found in the Stockholm

   Convention.

   EPA seeks information on the type and volume of PCB products that would be affected by such changes in the definition, as well as the cost, economic, and other impacts of these changes.

2. Excluded Manufacturing Process

   The current definition states, ``The concentration of inadvertently generated PCBs in products leaving any manufacturing site or imported into the United States must have an annual average of less than 25 ppm, with a 50 ppm maximum.'' EPA is considering whether to eliminate the annual average and whether the maximum concentration should be set at = 50 ppm PCBs, and all storage areas. Some >= 50 ppm PCBs items are already required to be marked in 40 CFR 761.40:

   Above-ground sources of PCB liquids in natural gas pipeline systems.

   PCB containers.

   Electric motors using PCB coolants.

   Hydraulic systems using PCB hydraulic fluid.

   PCB heat transfer systems.

   PCB article containers.

   Areas used to store PCBs and PCB items for disposal.

   Transportation vehicles transporting more than 45 kg or 99.5 lbs of items containing >= 50 ppm liquids, containers of >= 50 ppm liquids, or one (or more) PCB transformers.

   EPA discussed concerns about PCB releases from liquid-filled equipment, regardless of concentration, during natural disasters in

   Unit VII.A.5. The consequences of natural disasters and other events such as automobile collisions with equipment and vandalism (e.g., shots from firearms), may be more significant when damaging older and over- loaded electrical equipment. In addition to those persons who might be accidentally exposed, it is important that public emergency responders as well as owners/maintainers be advised of the PCB content of PCBs in use or those catastrophically released from use as quickly as possible.

   In addition, residents and the public in proximity to regulated equipment have the right to know of the presence of PCBs. Many owners already know the locations of and have already marked PCB-contaminated equipment. EPA believes that marking of PCB-contaminated equipment also aids in planning management of equipment during transportation and storage for disposal. A possible requirement under consideration is for owners to locate and label PCB-contaminated equipment. This would require an owner to take additional labeling action beyond what is required in the current regulations for the use of PCB-contaminated equipment and the assumptions in 40 CFR 761.2. Once equipment was marked for use, it would not need to be re-marked at the time of disposal. In Unit XIV.A.-E., M., P., Q., and S. EPA has asked for specific numbers of PCB-contaminated equipment and the size of populations of equipment which is assumed by regulation to contain PCBs

   >= 50 ppm.

   XIII. Public Participation

   In addition to the requests for information and comments contained in this document, EPA intends to involve stakeholders through a series of public meetings taking place in locations across the country. The purpose of these meetings is to receive stakeholder comments on the issue of EPA's reassessment of PCB use authorizations, including the questions described in Unit XIV.

1. Meeting Dates and Locations

   The meetings will be held as follows: 1. New York, NY, May 4, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at EPA Region 2 offices, Room 2735, Conference Room A (27\th\ Floor), 290 Broadway. 2. Chicago, IL, May 18, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at the EPA

   Region 5 offices, Lake Michigan Room (12\th\ Floor), 77 West Jackson

   Blvd. 3. Atlanta, GA, May 25, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA Region 4 offices, Rooms 9D and 9E, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

   St., SW. 4. Washington, DC, May 27, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., at EPA

   Headquarters, EPA East, Room 1153, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.

2. Meeting Procedures

   For additional information on the scheduled meetings, please see the PCB website (http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/index.htm) or contact Christine Zachek at (202) 566-2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov.

   The meetings will be open to the public. To ensure that all interested parties will have an opportunity to comment in the allotted time, oral presentations or statements will be limited to 10 minutes.

   EPA therefore recommends that stakeholders who present oral comments also submit written comments following the instructions provided under

   ADDRESSES. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the technical person at least 10 days prior to the meeting to schedule presentations.

   Since seating for outside observers will be limited, those wishing to attend the meetings as observers are also encouraged to contact the technical person at the earliest possible date, but no later than 10 days before the meetings, to ensure adequate seating arrangements.

   To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Christine

   Zachek at (202) 566-2219 or zachek.christine@epa.gov, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

   XIV. Request for Comment and Additional Information

   EPA invites public comment and any additional information in response to the questions identified in Unit XIV.A through Unit XIV.AA.

   Unit I.B. contains a description of points commenters should consider when preparing comments for submission to EPA, including how to submit any comments that contain CBI. No one is obliged to respond to these questions, and anyone may submit any information and/or comments in response to this request, whether or not it responds to every question in this unit.

1. Populations of Transformers (Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 1. What percentage of your entire transformer inventory in use or storage for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to date? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What percentage of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, and 50 years old? 2. Of the inventory information provided in the previous question, how does the percentage differ for the following applications:

   Transmission, substation, pole top, and pad mount? 3. What percentage of your transformer population consists of PCB transformers? How many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, municipal utilities, cooperative utilities, industrial owners, and other groups? 4. What percentage of your transformer population consists of PCB- contaminated transformers? How many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially (based on year of manufacture and other information) contaminated equipment? Do you know where all regulated PCB equipment is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB transformers? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB transformers? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB- contaminated transformers? 6. What percentage of the transformer population consists of transformers which contain measurable PCBs between 1 and 50 ppm and were manufactured before July 31, 1979? How

   Page 17660

   many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 7. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within 10 years the PCBs from the transformers through reclassification and disposing of the transformers, versus disposing of the transformers without reclassification at the end of their useful life? 8. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used outdoors? 9. Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the PCB-containing equipment located? What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of these locations? 10. What active or passive safety systems and equipment are installed and operating for PCB-containing equipment, including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, remote monitoring systems and capture basins?

2. Populations of Electromagnets, Switches, and Voltage Regulators

   (Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 1. What percentage of your entire electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators inventory in use or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What percent of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, and 50 years old? 2. What percentage of the electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators population contains dielectric fluid with PCB concentrations

   >= 50 ppm PCB? How many units are in each population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 3. The original use authorization for electromagnets was for a very restricted number of known applications in coal mine processing operations. How many electromagnets in these coal mining operations still use PCBs? 4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially (based on year of manufacture and other information) contaminated electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Do you know where all regulated PCB-containing electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators are currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? Have you removed all mineral oil containing

   PCB-contaminated electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators? 5. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the

   PCB-containing electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators and disposing of them within 10 years, versus disposing of the electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators at the end of their useful life? 6. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the

   PCB-containing equipment located? 7. What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of these locations? 8. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed and operating, including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, and capture basins?

3. Populations of Electrical Capacitors (Containing Greater Than 2

   Fluid Ounces of Dielectric Fluid) 1. What percentage of your entire capacitor inventory in use or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What percentage of the entire transformer inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, or 50 years old? 2. How does the percentage differ of these 30, 40, and 50 year-old and older capacitors for the following applications: Transmission, substation, pole top, and pad mount? 3. What percentage of the total capacitor population is made up of

   PCB large capacitors? How many units are in this population? How does the percent and population compare for major interstate utilities, municipal cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 4. What percentage of your capacitor population is PCB- contaminated? How many units are in this population? How does the percentage and population compare for major interstate utilities, municipals cooperatives, industrial owners, and other groups? 5. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially (based on year of manufacture and other information) contaminated equipment? Do you know where all regulated PCB equipment is currently located? Have you removed all askarel containing PCB capacitors? Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB capacitors?

   Have you removed all mineral oil containing PCB-contaminated capacitors? 6. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing the regulated PCB capacitors and disposing them within 10 years as opposed to at the end of the useful life of the capacitors? 7. How many PCB capacitors which are still in active use (not stored for reuse) contain >= 2 ounces of dielectric fluid and = 2 ounces of dielectric fluid other than reading a nameplate or actually draining and weighing the dielectric fluid? 9. What are the most likely minimum dimensions of a capacitor, which contains 2 or more ounces of PCB dielectric fluid? 10. What percentage of the total population of PCB capacitors that are currently in use contain >= 0.05 liters (or approximately 1.7 fluid ounces) of dielectric fluid and 1.36 kg. (= 50 ppm is PCB? How many units are in each population? 3. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially contaminated breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables?

   Do you know where all regulated PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid- filled cables are currently located? Have you removed all circuit breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables containing mineral oil with >= 50 ppm PCBs-contaminated circuit breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables? 4. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within 10 years the PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables and disposing of them versus disposing of the PCB breakers, reclosers, and liquid-filled cables at the end of their useful life? 5. How much equipment is being used indoors? How much equipment is being used outdoors? Geographically and topographically exactly where, in the form of global positioning system coordinates or maps, is the

   PCB-containing equipment located? 6. What is the age of the PCB-containing equipment at each of these locations? 7. What active or passive safety systems and equipment is installed and operating, including dikes, berms, safety valves, expansion chambers, and capture basins?

5. Populations of Rectifiers (Containing Greater Than 2 Fluid Ounces of

   Dielectric Fluid) 1. What percentage of your rectifiers inventory in use or stored for reuse was manufactured each year between 1950 and 1980, all years up to 1949, and all years from 1981 to 2007? If this information is not available, please provide alternative information, such as: What percentage of the entire rectifier inventory is 30 years old, 40 years old, and 50 years old? 2. What percentage of your rectifier population contains dielectric fluid with PCB concentrations >= 50 ppm PCBs? How many units are in this population? 3. What percentage of your rectifier population is PCB- contaminated? How many units are in this population? 4. For electrical utilities and other owners, have you tested all potentially contaminated rectifiers? Do you know where all regulated

   PCB rectifiers are currently located? Have you removed all askarel PCB rectifiers? Have you removed all rectifiers containing mineral oil with

   >= 500 ppm PCBs? Have you removed all rectifiers containing mineral oil with >= 50 ppm and = 50 ppm and = 500 ppm to 100,000 ppm PCBs at the end of each year for the last 10 years? 6. What has been the average cost per ton for disposing of drained, oil-filled equipment, which contained >= 50 ppm and = 500 ppm PCB at the end of each year for the last 10 years? 8. What has been the average cost per ton for disposing of drained askarel-filled equipment > 100,000 ppm PCB at the end of each year for the last 10 years? 9. What has been the average cost per pound, per ton, or per kilovolt amp (KVA) been for recycling the metal from drained oil-filled transformers which contained >= 50 ppm and 500 ppm

   PCBs? i. Recorded the locations of all of a particular type of equipment, such as transformers containing > 50 ppm PCBs? j. Recorded the locations of all of a particular type of equipment, such as transformers containing > 1 ppm PCBs? k. Tested all mineral oil containing equipment, or a particular type of equipment (such as transformers), which was manufactured before 1979? l. Labeled all PCB-containing equipment, even though PCB equipment containing = 1 ppm and = 50 ppm and = 500 ppm and

   = 100,000 ppm?

   For example, fill in the following table:

   Number of non-liquid

   Total number of liquid filled units with >= 1 Number of non-liquid Number of non-liquid Number of non-liquid

   Category

   filled plus non-liquid

   parts per million

   filled units with >= filled units with >= filled units with >= filled units in

   (ppm) and = 500 ppm for each unit? 2. What was the cost of each unsuccessful reclassification? 3. How many askarel transformers or other askarel PCB articles

   (such as voltage regulators) have you reclassified successfully to PCB- contaminated status or non-PCB status? 4. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled equipment, how many times was it necessary to drain and refill the equipment? 5. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled equipment, if the equipment was also flushed, what flushing procedure did you use? 6. For each piece of successfully reclassified askarel-filled equipment, how long did it take to reclassify the equipment from the first drain and refilling to a permanent PCB measurement at the new regulatory status of PCB-contaminated or non-PCB? How often was reclassification later proven to be unsuccessful, because PCBs leached back above the target reclassification level? 7. What was the cost of each successful reclassification?

16. Railroad Transformers 1. In what railroad systems are PCB transformers and PCB- contaminated transformers still in use as railroad transformers? 2. What percentage of railroad transformers are PCB transformers? 3. How many railroad transformers are PCB transformers? 4. What percentage of railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated transformers? 5. How many railroad transformers are PCB-contaminated transformers? 6. What is the expected life of a transformer now in service as a railroad transformer before it requires routine servicing of the dielectric fluid? 7. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within 10 years the PCBs from the railroad transformers through reclassification and disposing of them versus disposing of the railroad transformers without reclassification at the end of their useful life?

17. Mining Equipment 1. At what locations and for what applications are PCBs currently used in mining equipment? 2. What percent of these pieces of equipment, which are found in these applications, contain PCBs? 3. How many pieces of equipment in these applications contain PCBs? 4. What would be the difference in cost (and why) for removing within 10 years the PCBs from the mining equipment and disposing of them versus disposing of the mining equipment at the end of their useful life?

18. Use of Contaminated Porous Surfaces 1. What has the average per ton, drum, or cubic yard disposal cost been to dispose of contaminated non-liquid material (such as soil or concrete) from a spill of PCB oil containing >= 50 ppm each year for the last 10 years? Please differentiate costs based on PCB concentration (e.g., = 50 ppm, etc.) and based on type of disposer (e.g., landfill, incinerator, etc.). 2. How often is there a planned major outage to equipment mounted on concrete pads or floors? How long is such a planned outage?

19. Use in Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems 1. How many gallons of >= 50 ppm condensate have been removed and disposed of annually from natural gas pipelines owned by each individual gas transmission company and distribution company starting in 1998? 2. Do transmission companies regularly test the condensate for

    PCBs? If so, what is done with the PCBs when found? 3. What locations in the system have the most condensate removed?

    Page 17664

    4. What time of year is most condensate removed? 5. How do natural gas transmission and distribution companies test for PCBs in dry systems?

20. Storage for Reuse of PCB Articles 1. How many pieces of in-use equipment are the stored equipment items being kept to replace? 2. Where is the equipment which is to be replaced by the stored equipment located with respect to other potential indoor secure storage areas? 3. What is the historical lifetime and turnover (removal from storage for disposal) rate per year of the in-use equipment? 4. When do owners plan to replace this in-use equipment with non-

    PCB equipment or reclassify this in-use equipment? 5. When do owners plan to replace the stored equipment with non-PCB equipment or reclassify this stored equipment? 6. What is the annualized cost of storing and managing this equipment? 7. What would be the cost of replacement of this equipment? 8. What would be the cost of reclassifying this equipment, where authorized? 9. What is the likelihood and consequences of service interruptions and loss of revenue if these replacement devices were not available at the site of the equipment to be replaced? 10. What is the history (number of occurrences, dates, amounts and cost to clean up) of spills or other releases of PCBs from this equipment, which is being stored for reuse?

21. Distribution in Commerce 1. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the number of units which were distributed in commerce each year over the last 5 years of used but working askarel-filled equipment? 2. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the number of units which were distributed in commerce each year over the last 5 years of used but working mineral oil filled PCB (>= 500 ppm) equipment? 3. What is the annual sale price or dollar value and what is the number of units which were distributed in commerce each year of used but working mineral oil filled PCB-contaminated (>= 50 ppm and 250 KVA) transformer, a smaller (1.36 kg [3 lbs.] of dielectric fluid) capacitors?

    V. Excluded Manufacturing Processes 1. How many excluded manufacturing processes are currently operating or, if not currently operating, expect to be operating in the next 5 years? 2. What is the estimated total annual weight in tons of PCBs produced each year over the last 5 years and in the next 5 years in each of the following categories: Products, solid waste, waste water, and air emissions? 3. What are the type and volume of PCB products that would be affected by such changes in the definition, as well as the cost, economic, and other impacts of these changes?

23. Recycled PCBs 1. In any of the last 5 years have you anyone found PCBs at concentrations >= 1 ppm in recycled paper? How often? What was the source of the feedstock paper? 2. What steps can be taken or have been taken to reduce the PCB concentration in recycled paper? 3. What is the cost of implementing these steps to reduce the PCB concentration in recycled paper if they have not already been implemented? 4. What are the type and volume of PCB products that would be affected by a potential change in the definition of recycled paper

    (required to contain less than 1 ppm PCBs), as well as the cost, economic, and other impacts of these changes?

    X. Reconsideration of the Use of the 50 ppm Level for Excluded PCB

    Products (e.g., Caulk) 1. What should the maximum PCB concentration, if any, be for the

    ``excluded PCB products'' as defined in 40 CFR 761.3? 2. What should the minimum PCB concentration be for the ``excluded

    PCB products'' as defined in 40 CFR 761.3? 3. Should there be a new separate use authorization for certain currently excluded PCBs found in certain products such as paint, gaskets, or caulk? 4. What types of non-liquid products (adhesives, caulk, coatings, grease, paint, rubber/plastic electrical insulation, gaskets, sealants, waxes, etc.), which were manufactured before 1979 and are currently in use, contain PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 ppm? 5. What types of liquid products (pump oil, solvent, or other fluid), other than those authorized for use in 40 CFR 761.30, contain

    PCBs at concentrations between 1 ppm and 50 ppm? 6. For each class of non-liquid and liquid product, what percent of the overall product market share is taken by the PCB-containing product? a. What is the estimated total weight or volume of each type of product in current use? b. What kinds of use has each product been applied to, on, or in? c. What is the geographic distribution of each product use? d. What is the average expected lifetime of the product? e. When would the product normally be replaced as part of preventive maintenance?

25. Use of PCB-Containing Electrical Equipment Parts 1. What PCB-containing spare parts, such as bushings and other ancillary equipment, are currently needed for what equipment? 2. What is the feasibility of reclassifying PCB-containing spare parts? 3. What is the annualized cost of storing and managing PCB- containing spare parts? 4. What would be the cost of replacement of PCB-containing spare parts? 5. What are the likelihood and consequences of service interruptions and loss of revenue if the PCB-containing spare parts were not available? 6. Where are these spare parts located geographically in relation to the equipment they will be used on?

    Page 17665

    7. In what industrial or commercial settings can the equipment, which the spare parts will be used on, be found?

26. Reassessment of the Possible Authorization of the Use of Some Non-

    Liquid PCB-Containing Products 1. What comments can you provide that will inform EPA as to whether to authorize or not authorize the use of caulk, paint, or other non- liquid PCB product at concentrations exceeding the level of 50 ppm currently provided in the PCB regulations for excluded PCB products? 2. What data or other information is available on which to evaluate the risks and benefits of the use of PCB-containing caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB product? 3. What PCB concentrations should be authorized for the use of PCB- containing caulk, paint, or other non-liquid PCB products?

    AA. PCBs on Maritime Vessels 1. In what vessel systems is PCB-containing equipment still in use on vessels? 2. What percentage of vessel equipment uses liquid PCBs? 3. What percentage of vessel equipment uses non-liquid PCBs? 4. What is the expected life of equipment containing PCBs on vessels now in service before it requires routine servicing? 5. What is the difference in the locations used for liquid filled equipment, versus non-liquid filled equipment located? 6. How much does it cost to identify and test (sample collection, extraction, chemical analysis, and recordkeeping) liquid filled equipment and/or non-liquid filled equipment on vessels to determine the PCB concentration? 7. Other than chemical analysis, what methods (such as application type, nameplate, model number, manufacturer name, etc.) can be used to identify PCB-containing equipment? 8. Do non-liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling pose any greater risk to the health of the public than liquid PCBs enclosed in cabling? 9. Should the ``totally enclosed'' exemption accorded to liquid

    PCBs enclosed in cabling be extended to solid PCBs?

    XV. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757. The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA in developing this ANPRM, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

    CONTACT. 1. Hutzinger, O.; Safe, S.; and Zitko, V. Chemistry of PCBs. Robert

5. Krieger Publishing Company. 1983. 2. EPA. Microeconomic Impacts of the Proposed ``PCB Ban

   Regulation.'' EPA 560/6-77-035. 3. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,

   Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule. Federal

   Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979) (FRL-1075-2). 4. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Toxic Substances Control;

   Notice. Federal Register (42 FR 65264, December 30, 1977) (FRL-837-1). 5. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,

   Distribution in Commerce, and Use Bans; Proposed Rule. Federal Register

   (43 FR 24802, June 7, 1978) (FRL-886-6). 6. Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency. 636 F2d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 7. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Use in Electrical

   Equipment; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register (46

   FR 16096, March 10, 1981) (FRL-1773-2). 8. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,

   Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Use in Electrical

   Equipment Final Rule. Federal Register (47 FR 37342, August 25, 1982)

   (FRL-2184-6). 9. EPA. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Electrical Transformers Final

   Rule. Federal Register (50 FR 29170, July 17, 1985) (FRL-2835-6). 10. EPA. Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical

   Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register (66 FR 17602, April 2, 2001)

   (FRL-5790-7). 11. Mills III, William James. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of

   Philosophy in the Graduate College Public Health Sciences of the

   University of Illinois at Chicago. Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Dioxins and Furans in Ambient Air During the Smithville PCB Incineration

   Project. 2001. 12. EPA. PCBs: Cancer Dose Response Assessment and Application to

   Environmental Mixtures (EPA/600/P-96/001F). Available on-line at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12486. 13. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Polychlorinated

   Biphenyls (PCBs) (CASRN 1336-36-3). June 1, 1997. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0294.htm. 14. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls

   (PCBs). November 2000. Available on-line at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ toxprofiles/tp17.html. 15. EPA. Compilation of Total Annual PCB Large Capacitors and Total

   PCB Trnsformers Disposed in the United States From Annual Reports from

   Commercial PCB Disposal Companies from 1991-2007. 16. EPA. PCB Transformer Registration Database. January 2008.

   Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/ data.htm. 17. EPA. Region 9. Exxon Transformer Case Press Release. Available on-line at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ 2dd7f669225439b78525735900400c31/66964079fdc4700e852574ac006f4537. 18. United States Coast Guard. National Response Center. Available on-line at: http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/nrclegal.html. 19. E-mail messages from Nichaulus C. Threatt of the National

   Response Center to John Smith, dated 8-19-2009 and 9-10-2009. 20. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

   Ratification Status. Available on-line at: http://chm.pops.int/

   Countries/StatusofRatification/tabid/252/language/en-US/Default.aspx. 21. The 1998 Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants

   (LRTAP POPs). Available on-line at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/ status/98pop_st.htm. 22. Environment Canada. PCB Regulations Canada Gazette. Part II,

   Vol. 142, No. 19, pp. 2078-2140. September 17, 2008. 23. Bartley, W. Life Cycle Management of Utility Transformer

   Assets. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company. October 10-11, 2002. 24. EPA. Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-

   Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds National

   Academy Sciences (NAS) Review Draft. October 2004. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/nas-review. 25. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Stakeholder Forum-1998,

   Implementing the Binational Toxics

   Page 17666

   Strategy, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Workshop Great Lakes

   Monitoring. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/ pcbsrce/pcbsrce.html. 26. Panero, M.; Boehme, S.; and Mu[ntilde]oz, G. Pollution

   Prevention and Management Strategies for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. Report from the Harbor Consortium of the New York Academy of Sciences. February 2005. 27. Covaci, A.; Voorspoels, S; Schepens, P.; Jorens, P.; Blust, R.; and Neels, H. The Belgian PCB/dioxin crisis-8 years later: An overview.

   Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. Vol. 25, Issue 2. March 2008. 28. van Larebeke, N.; Hens, L.; Schepens, P.; Covaci, A.; Baeyens,

   J.; Everaert, K.; Bernheim, J.; Vlietinck, R.; and De Poorter, G. The

   Belgian PCB and Dioxin Incident of January-June 1999: Exposure Data and

   Potential Impact on Health. Environmental Health Perspectives. 109:265- 273. 2001. 29. Buzby, J. and Chandran, R. Chapter 8, The Belgian Dioxin Crisis and Its Effects on Agricultural Production and Exports. International

   Trade and Food Safety/AER-828 Economic Research Service, USDA. 30. Reuters. Used Oil May have Caused Irish Food Crisis: Paper.

   December 10, 2008. 31. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) News. Irish pork contaminations probed. December 8, 2008. Available on-line at: http:// news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7770476.stm. 32. Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Recall Information last reviewed March 9, 2009. Available on-line at: http://www.fsai.ie/food_ businesses/topics_of_interest/recall_of_pork_dec08/recall_ information.html. 33. EPA, OPPT. PCB Spill Cleanup in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. EPA- 745-N-98-001. OPPT Tribal News. Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 1-2. September 1998. 34. Senator Byron Dorgan text from the Congressional Record. pp.

   S2914-2915. Available on-line at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S2914&dbname=1998_record. 35. EPA. John H. Smith personal communication with J. Gidner, BIA.

   September 1999. 36. EPA, Office of Water. Guidance for conducting fish and wildlife consumption surveys. EPA-823-B-98-007. 1998. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/fishadvisories/files/fishguid.pdf. 37. EPA. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. Washington, DC: Office of Water.

   EPA-822-B-00-004. 2000. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/ waterscience/criteria/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf. 38. Fitzgerald, E.; Hwang, S.; Gomez, M.; Bush, B.; Yang, B.; and

   Tarbell, A. Environmental and occupational exposures and serum PCB concentrations and patterns among Mohawk men at Akwesasne. Journal of

   Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 17:269-278. 2007. 39. Tribal Rights and Fish Consumption Workshop, University of

   Washington School of Public Health. August 12-13, 2009. Available on- line at: http://depts.washington.edu/tribalws/index.php?doc=schedule. 40. Hardy, J. Evaluation of Contaminants in Puget Sound Fish and

   Resulting Fish Advisory. Washington State Department of Health.

   November 2, 2009. Available on-line at:http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/ fish/forum/2009/day1d.ppt. 41. Sandau, C.; Ayotte, P.; Dewailly, E.; Duffe, J.; and Norstrom,

18. Analysis of Hydroxylated Metabolites of PCBs (OH-PCBs) and Other

    Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds in Whole Blood from Canadian Inuit.

    Environ Health Perspect. 108:611-616. July 2000. Available on-line at:

    Online 25 May 2000

    http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2000/108p611- 616sandau/108p611.pdf. 42. USWAG. Promoting the Voluntary Phase-Down of PCB-Containing

    Equipment. October 2005. 43. EPA. Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for

    Disposal; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 11096, March 18, 1996)

    (FRL-5354-8). 44. Helmick, R. W. and Zemanek, J. H. How Entergy Battled Back-to- back Hurricanes. Entergy Corporation, Electric Light and Power. January 2006. 45. EPA. EPA Personnel Deployed to Greensburg, Kansas, for Tornado

    Response. May 7, 2007. Available on-line at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ opa/admpress.nsf/8b770facf5edf6f185257359003fb69e/ c0b30985df7b3cac852572d5006f3917!OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=5&Expand=1. 46. ASTM International. D2233-86 (1997). Standard Specification for

    Chlorinated Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Askarels) for Capacitors (Withdrawn in 2003). 47. EPA. Support Document/Voluntary Environmental Impact Statement and PCB Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use

    Ban Regulation: Economic Impact Analysis. pp. 32-43. April 1979. 48. EPA. Information on the Natural Gas Pipeline Agreement with

    Texas Eastern. pp. 33. 1981. 49. EPA. PCBs in Caulk in Older Buildings. Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/pcbsincaulk.

    XVI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

    Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes to the document that were made in response to OMB comments received by EPA during that review have been documented in the docket as required by the Executive Order.

    Since this document does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various other review requirements that apply when an agency imposes requirements do not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of your comments on this document, you may include any comments or information that you have regarding the various other review requirements.

    In particular, EPA is interested in any information that would help the Agency to assess the potential impact of a rule on small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); to consider environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from

    Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or to consider human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled

    ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

    Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any subsequent proposed rule as it takes appropriate steps to address any applicable requirements.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling,

    Polychlorinated

    Page 17667

    biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 31, 2010.

    Lisa P. Jackson,

    Administrator.

    FR Doc. 2010-7751 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am

    BILLING CODE 6560-50-S