Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[OPPTS-66009A; FRL-4167-1]

RIN 2070-AC01

Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to its rules under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Changes are being proposed for the requirements for determining PCB

concentration; marking, storage, and disposal; decontamination levels

and procedures; and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for

PCBs, PCB Items, environmental media (e.g., soil, sediments, rivers,

and lakes) contaminated with PCBs or PCBs in association with

radioactive materials. In addition, EPA proposes to insert additional

definitions and references, include new authorizations and exemptions,

require the registration of certain electrical transformers, regulate

combustion in industrial furnaces, regulate the disposal of liquids in

landfills, coordinate PCB disposal approvals with other Federal and

State programs, and revise the reportable quantity in the spill cleanup

policy. EPA is also proposing to coordinate strategies for the

remediation of PCB spills and other disposal sites, including cleanup

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective

Action provisions and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) remedial programs.

DATES: Written comments must be received by April 6, 1995. Any comment

received after the close of the comment period will be considered

``late'' and may not receive full consideration. EPA intends to conduct

one or more informal public hearings in the Washington, DC area on the

different parts of the proposal which will take place after closure of

the comment period. The exact time and location of the informal public

hearings will be announced in a separate Federal Register Notice and

may also be obtained by telephoning the Environmental Assistance

Division at the telephone number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Written requests to make a short (less than 15 minutes)

presentation at the informal public hearing must be received by the

Environmental Assistance Division not later than 21 days prior to the

scheduled dates of the informal public hearings. Please refer to the

Federal Register Notice announcing the informal public hearings for

more details.

ADDRESSES: Three copies of comments identified with the document

control number (OPPTS-66009A; FRL-4167-1) must be submitted to: TSCA

Nonconfidential Information Center, ATTN: TSCA Docket Receipts (7407),

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Rm. B-607 Northeast Mall,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

A public record has been established and is available in the TSCA

Public Docket Office at the above address from 12 noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.

Please submit comments separately on the RCRA portion of today's

proposed rules. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed rule only to

the extent that it would amend or change existing regulations. EPA is

not soliciting comment on provisions of existing regulations that would

not be changed by this proposal. Unit V of this preamble explains how

commenters may make claims of business confidentiality for information

included in comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Rm. E-543B, Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554-1404, TDD (202) 554-0551.

For general information relating to the RCRA Corrective Action and

CERCLA Remedial Programs which are discussed at Unit II.A.7. of this

document, contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 or (703)

412-9810. For technical information relating to Unit II.A.4. of this

document, contact Lisa Askari, Corrective Action Programs Branch,

Office of Solid Waste (5303W), at the address listed above or by

telephone at (703) 308-8654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Purpose of this Proposed Rule

On June 10, 1991 (56 FR 26738), EPA published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit comments on possible changes to

the PCB disposal regulations promulgated under the authority of TSCA

section 6(e) and codified in 40 CFR part 761. Comments and supporting

data on the issues outlined in the ANPRM, a number of other topics

pertaining to the PCB regulations, and the interface between those

regulations and other Federal and State programs affecting PCBs were

received from more than 90 respondents. EPA has considered all of the

comments. Based on these comments, EPA is including in this proposal

changes in a number of areas of the PCB regulations that were not

addressed in the ANPRM.

Several commenters submitted information concerning the toxicity of

PCBs and the methods used by EPA to determine exposure to PCBs. EPA is

currently conducting a review of the toxicity and mechanisms of action

associated with PCBs and several structurally related chemicals. This

review may not be complete until after the promulgation of these

amendments. Since EPA cannot predict the outcome of the toxicity review

and does not want to delay the promulgation of these rules, it is

proposing flexibility in certain disposal regulations to allow for

changes in EPA's position on PCB toxicity. In a similar fashion, EPA is

proposing flexibility in certain disposal regulations to allow site-

specific exposure data and changes in EPA's risk assessment methods to

serve as the basis for making a determination regarding the selection

of acceptable disposal technologies for certain PCB wastes.

B. Reproposal of Dry Weight Measurement

On April 6, 1990, EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal

Register (``Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Wet Weight/Dry Weight

Clarification, 55 FR 12866) to amend a portion of the PCB regulations

codified at 40 CFR 761.1(b) that addresses the analysis of PCBs on a

dry weight basis. The comment period for the April 6, 1990 proposal

ended on May 7, 1990. Comments on that proposal were received from 16

respondents. In today's Federal Register, EPA is issuing a reproposal

of the wet weight/dry weight rule. All comments received on the April

6, 1990 proposal were considered in the preparation of this proposed

rule, and those comments are included in the rulemaking record for this

proposed rulemaking. The comments received for the April 6, 1990

proposal and any comments received on this proposed rule will be

considered in the final rule. Today's reproposal would clarify the

requirements for determining PCB concentrations in liquids, non-

liquids, and multiphasic combinations of liquids and non-liquids (see

unit III. M. of this preamble).

C. Waste Minimization and Combustion Strategy

On May 18, 1993, EPA announced a draft strategy to address waste

minimization and combustion of hazardous waste under RCRA. The strategy

is designed to stimulate a broad national dialogue on how:

(1) To better integrate waste minimization into EPA's hazardous

waste management program.

(2) To determine the appropriate role of combustion in that

program.

(3) To ensure that hazardous waste combustion standards are fully

protective of human health and the environment. The draft strategy sets

forth a series of short- and long-term activities that EPA would

undertake in pursuing these three areas, among which are rulemakings to

address technical standards for hazardous waste combustion and public

participation in the RCRA permitting process. The draft strategy also

sets forth EPA's intention to use RCRA's case-by-case omnibus

permitting authority where necessary to protect health and the

environment, and to impose upgraded permit conditions in newly issued

permits. In addition to other potential areas, these permit conditions

may address emissions of dioxins, furans, and particulate matter.

Finally, the draft strategy announced EPA's intentions over the

succeeding 18 months to give permitting priority to existing, operating

RCRA combustion units.

The PCB program under TSCA is different from RCRA in several

aspects. The manufacture of PCBs is generally banned, and the use of

PCBs is heavily restricted. Therefore, any disposal issues are limited

to a finite, although widely dispersed, universe. The PCB program

mandates the burning of certain high-risk wastes. It also allows

wastes, such as low concentration liquids and drained transformer

carcasses, with a lower potential risk of exposure, to be disposed of

in other types of combustion units (e.g., industrial boilers) to

provide disposal capacity.

EPA proposes to make the following adjustments in the PCB disposal

program under TSCA in response to issues raised in the combustion

strategy. For fixed-site incinerators, approval conditions (for new

units or at the time of renewal) would be adjusted to reflect new

standards and procedural requirements adopted under RCRA. For mobile

incinerators, approval conditions (for new units or at the time of

renewal) would be adjusted to reflect new standards and procedural

requirements adopted under RCRA where applicable. Unique to the PCB

disposal program under TSCA is the concept of mobile incinerators. A

single multi-year approval, that imposes the same technical standards

applicable to fixed-site incinerators, is issued to these units. State

and local governments receive prior notification and can impose

additional restrictions on the mobile units using their own

authorities. The TSCA approval generally limits the operating time at

any one site unless additional assessment of risk and public notice are

conducted. However, EPA has not adopted site-specific risk assessments

and public participation in the permit development process for mobile

incinerators because EPA and the public would lose the considerable

benefits derived from mobile disposal units considering these units

allow only minimal exposure due to their high destruction efficiency

and limited operating time at each site.

The current industrial boiler rules at 40 CFR 761.60(a)(2)(iii) and

761.60(a)(3)(iii) and industrial furnace rules, proposed at

Sec. 761.60(a)(4), limit both the concentration and volume of PCBs

which can be treated in these units. Industrial boilers and furnaces

are units that were built to perform other functions such as power

generation or materials recycling, with the combustion of PCBs and

hazardous wastes as a secondary function. The primary function poses a

separate risk which should be considered when addressing the overall

risk posed by the combustion of low concentration, low volume PCBs in

industrial boilers and furnaces. Therefore, EPA proposes to impose

uniform technology-based standards, instead of site-specific permit

conditions, on industrial boilers and furnaces due to the low risk

posed from the combustion of low concentration, low volume PCBs and

because these units are constructed and operated for other purposes.

EPA specifically requests comment on how best to implement the

combustion strategy given the controls already imposed, or proposed in

this rulemaking on the quantities and concentrations of PCBs which can

be disposed of in industrial boilers and furnaces.

EPA believes that the regulations that currently apply to PCBs,

along with those proposed, are sufficient under TSCA to protect the

public and the environment from unreasonable risk of injury. Although

EPA's May 18, 1993, draft strategy on waste minimization and combustion

of waste extends only to RCRA hazardous wastes, its overall objectives

were carefully considered in the development of this proposed rule. EPA

requests comment on its overall plan for implementing the Agency's

combustion strategy for the PCB program under TSCA.

D. Coordination of Programs

PCBs are regulated under several statutes administered by EPA. In

particular, PCBs are subject to the corrective action provisions of

RCRA. In an effort to harmonize standards for the cleanup of PCBs under

both RCRA and TSCA, EPA is today proposing cleanup programs under both

statutes for comparison and comment. The Agency's goal is to harmonize

action levels for PCBs under RCRA with the target standards for

approval of risk-based remediation actions under proposed

Sec. 761.61(c). (See Unit II.A.7. for the RCRA proposal.)

E. Statutory Authorities

The TSCA portion of this proposed rule is issued pursuant to

sections 6(e)(1), 6(e)(2)(B), 6(e)(3)(B) and 18(b) of TSCA. Section

6(e)(1)(A) gives EPA the authority to promulgate rules prescribing the

methods for the disposal of PCBs (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(A)). TSCA

section 6(e)(1)(B) provides broad authority for EPA to promulgate rules

that would require PCBs to be marked with clear and adequate warnings

(15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)). TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) gives EPA the

authority to authorize the manufacture, processing, distribution in

commerce, and use of PCBs in other than a totally enclosed manner (15

U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(B)). TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) provides that any person

may petition EPA for an exemption from the prohibition on the

manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs (15

U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)). EPA may by rule grant an exemption if the

Administrator finds that: ``(i) an unreasonable risk of injury to

health or the environment would not result, and (ii) good faith efforts

have been made to develop a chemical substance which does not present

an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which

may be substituted for such polychlorinated biphenyl.'' TSCA section

18(b) gives EPA the authority to exempt, by rule, any State from

subsection (a)(2) (15 U.S.C. 2617(b)). EPA may by rule grant a State

the authority to, among other things, regulate any aspect of PCBs in

use, such as requiring a notification of that use.

The RCRA portion of this rule (discussed in Unit II.A.7. of this

preamble) is issued pursuant to sections 1006, 2002(a), 3004(u),

3004(v), 3005(c) and 3007 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended by the Hazardous

and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 6924).

No additions or changes are proposed at 40 CFR part 300 in this

rule under CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601-9657).

F. Summary of Proposal

Consistent with these authorities described in Unit I.E., EPA is

proposing a number of modifications to the PCB disposal rules to

provide flexibility in addressing the disposal of PCBs where specific

conditions would allow for different waste management activities than

are currently available under the regulations, while still providing

protection from unreasonable risk of injury. EPA is also proposing

modifications to the disposal regulations that would allow for the

recognition of PCB waste management activities undertaken under other

Federal or State authorities. Furthermore, EPA is proposing a number of

changes to the regulations to delete out-of-date provisions, modify the

regulations to address problems in their applicability or

implementation, make certain policies and provisions consistent with

the requirements of other Federal statutes, and reduce requirements for

PCB disposal activities which present a de minimis risk. Finally, EPA

is proposing certain authorizations and exemptions which would address

the need for the scientific community to conduct research as well as

health and environmental studies on PCBs and on media contaminated by

PCBs (to include processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs) for

the development of innovative disposal technologies which otherwise

would require issuance of a disposal approval.

The topics to be addressed through this proposed rulemaking include

the 16 issues identified in the ANPRM plus a number of additional

issues that have either come to the Agency's attention through the

submission of comments or from experience in implementing the PCB

Notification and Manifesting Rule (40 CFR part 761 subparts A, D, J,

and K) published in the Federal Register of December 21, 1989 (54 FR

52716). Several changes to the PCB regulations proposed today are in

support of EPA's effort to significantly reduce the risk of release to

the environment posed by PCBs still in use. The provisions affected

include the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal, State

enhancement provisions, restrictions on storage for reuse,

decontamination, and the previously proposed changes to transformer

reclassification procedures (58 FR 60970, November 18, 1993). EPA's

efforts to promote the phase-out of PCBs still in use, especially those

in electrical equipment, go beyond changes in the PCB rules. They

include contemplated changes to various compliance monitoring and

enforcement strategies and policies, a greater effort to inform the

regulated community of the Agency's position on PCBs still in use, and

expanded cooperation with other Federal and State agencies and

departments. EPA is also proposing a definition at Sec. 761.3 of the

term ``PCB-Contaminated'' that would apply across the PCB program. PCB-

Contaminated would mean anything that contains or contacts PCBs at

concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) to less than 500 parts per

million (ppm). In the event that no PCB liquids or non-liquids are

present on surfaces for measurement, then surfaces with PCB

concentrations greater than 10 micrograms per 100 square centimeters

(>10 g/100 cm2) and less than 100 micrograms per 100

square centimeters (g/100 cm2), would be defined as

PCB-Contaminated. EPA would also apply the term ``PCB-Contaminated'' to

classes of PCBs or PCB Items meeting the levels of contamination

specified in the definition.

The following outline is provided to assist the reader in locating

topics of interest in the preamble.

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Large Volume, PCB Wastes

1. Anti-dilution

2. Status of pre-1978 Disposal

3. Alternatives to landfilling

4. Proposed remediation strategy for PCBs, including cleanup

under the RCRA corrective action and CERCLA remedial programs

a. Background

b. CERCLA program policy for cleanup of PCBs

c. Proposed approach for cleanup of PCBs under RCRA

d. Today's proposed remediation strategy for PCB spills under

TSCA

i. Self-implementing option

ii. Performance-based option

iii. Risk-based option

e. Implementation of PCB remediation programs

5. PCB remediation wastes

6. PCB non-remediation wastes

a. Risk-based disposal

b. Leachability-based disposal

c. Performance-based disposal

7. Decontamination standards and procedures

8. Distribution in commerce and use of decontaminated equipment,

structures, and materials

9. Processing for disposal

B. Large Volume PCB Articles

1. Disposal

2. Open burning and industrial furnaces

3. Characterization of PCB articles

4. Characterization of natural gas pipelines

C. PCB/Radioactive Wastes

D. Issues Not Addressed When the Rules Were Originally Promulgated

1. Household waste exemption

a. Broadly define exemption

b. Impact on recycling activities

c. Limit scope of the exemption

d. Other disposal considerations

2. Unauthorized use

a. PCB-impregnated materials used in duct systems

b. PCB-impregnated insulation materials

c. Agency experience

d. Reuse of natural gas pipelines

3. Disposal issues

a. Disposal of PCB-bound material

b. Disposal of cable insulation containing PCBs

c. Disposal of small capacitors

d. Large volume PCB liquids

e. Abandonment and disposal of natural gas pipeline

f. Disposal of solvents

g. Disposal of waste generated during the chemical analysis of

PCBs

h. Transboundary Movement of PCBs for disposal

i. Landfilling of liquid PCBs

III. Other Regulatory Changes and Clarifications

A. Marking

B. DOT Containers for Storage of PCB Waste

C. Definition of PCB Transformer and PCB-Contaminated Equipment

D. Drained PCB-Contaminated Transformers

E. Transfer of Totally Enclosed PCBs

F. Change in the Reportable Quantity--Spill Cleanup Policy

G. PCB Storage Requirements

1. Indefinite storage of PCB articles designated for reuse

2. Clarification of the 1-year time limit for storage and

disposal

3. Situations which warrant an extension or waiver of the 1-year

time limit for storage and disposal

4. Temporary storage of PCB liquid at 500 ppm or greater

5. Storage of large PCB capacitors and PCB-contaminated

equipment on pallets next to a qualified storage area

6. Alternate storage of PCBs

7. Storage requirements for PCB article containers

8. Recordkeeping requirements for storage unit operators

9. Revision to storage unit criteria

H. ASTM References

I. Manufacture of PCBs for Disposal-Related Studies

J. PCB Samples and Standards

1. Use authorization

2. Class exemption

K. State Enhancement Activities

1. Coordinated approval

a. Interactive approach

b. Self-implementing approach

2. PCB state enhancement grants

L. Clarification of Requirement to Request Approval for Alternate

Methods of Disposal

M. Wet Weight/Dry Weight Clarification

1. Liquids, including organic liquids and wastewater

2. Non-liquid PCBs

3. Mixtures of liquids and/or non-liquids

N. Oil-filled Equipment Manufactured After the Ban

O. PCB Voltage Regulators

P. Registration Requirement for PCB Transformers 500 ppm

PCBs

Q. Rectifiers

R. Use of PCBs in Scientific Equipment

S. Remove Outdated CFR Material

T. Chart of Marking and Recordkeeping Requirements

IV. Proposed Amendments to the Notification and Manifesting Rule

A. Small Quantity Exemption for Solids

B. Clarification of Exception Reporting

C. Timing for Submission of the Certificate of Disposal

D. Manifest Requirements for Pre-1978 10 - g/

100cm2). The regulations that EPA is proposing, in several

sections of this notice, codify the relationship between surface

contamination and the existing regulations based on milligrams of PCBs

per liter of liquid on a dry weight basis.

In the ANPRM, EPA requested comments on the effectiveness of the

current PCB regulations in preventing an unreasonable risk of injury to

health and the environment from the disposal of ``large volume, non-

liquid PCB wastes'' such as wastes from the shredding of automobiles,

white goods, and industrial scrap, and certain classes of soils,

sludges, and sediments. Currently, large volume wastes derived from an

authorized original source containing 50 ppm PCBs may only

be disposed of in an incinerator that complies with 40 CFR 761.70, in a

chemical waste landfill that complies with 40 CFR 761.75, or pursuant

to an approved alternate method of destruction equivalent to

incineration at 40 CFR 761.60(e), regardless of their current PCB

concentration or the risk of exposure they may pose. The Agency

believes that there are additional disposal methods and other waste

management techniques for large volume wastes that would not pose an

unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. These

additional disposal methods and other waste management techniques are

the subject of this section of today's proposed rule. For different

kinds of large volume waste, such as soils, liquids, and surfaces

contaminated with PCBs, EPA is proposing several self-implementing

disposal options at Secs. 761.61, 761.62 and Sec. 761.79. If followed

exactly as written, the self-implementing disposal options would not

require prior approval from EPA. These options are detailed and

specific. The sampling portions of the self-implementing procedures

appear in Appendices I-III. Placement of the proposed sampling

procedures in appendices is intended to provide better continuity and

should facilitate understanding of the overall self-implementing

procedures of which they are a part.

The term ``large volume'' is used to describe wastes that, in

general, are generated or managed in greater volumes than when they

were originally placed in service. Large volume wastes would include

dredged materials, contaminated environmental media, municipal sewage

treatment sludges, industrial waste water treatment sludges, auto

shredder waste, demolition wastes, and specifically listed materials

containing PCBs that may not be authorized for use, such as PCB

impregnated insulation or gaskets.

Large volume PCB wastes would not include wastes that are PCB

Items, PCB Articles, and PCB liquids being removed from service. PCB

liquids include, but are not limited to, dielectric fluid and solvents

used to flush PCB Transformers prior to landfilling (GE Solvent

Distillation Case [Docket No. TSCA-IV-890016]). Large volume PCB wastes

would not include the more traditional PCB wastes which are typically

generated and managed in discrete, relatively small volumes associated

with individual pieces of electrical, mechanical, heat transfer, or

other equipment.

Large volume PCB wastes are frequently heterogenous in nature and

contaminated with low (i.e., -6. As additional information becomes available

during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process,

the PRGs may be modified due to consideration of exposure, technical,

or other factors (55 FR 8713 and 8717). The use of PRGs does not

preclude development and consideration or selection for alternatives

that attain risk levels other than those represented by the PRG. Final

selection of the appropriate level of risk is made based on the

balancing of criteria in the remedy selection step of the process.

Along the same lines, the 1990 CERCLA PCB guidance documents

explain that exceedance of a PRG for PCBs does not mean that action is

required. Rather, once the CERCLA program decides that action is

necessary at a site, the PRGs for PCBs should be used to identify areas

at which response action should be considered. ``These goals may be

refined throughout the RI/FS process; final remediation goals are

determined in the remedy selection.'' (PCB Guide, p.2).

According to the CERCLA PCB guidance, the concentration of concern

for PCBs in soil differs depending on the type of exposure that is

expected (e.g. residential or industrial) The guidance documents point

out that site-specific conditions may warrant departure from the basic

framework outlined in the guidance, due to factors such as the

potential for PCBs to migrate to groundwater and to affect

environmental receptors. The guidance recommends that in most cases,

the preliminary remediation goals (or ``analytical starting points''

for setting remedial levels) for PCBs in soil under CERCLA are as

follows:

The TSCA PCB Spill Policy at Sec. 761.120, recommends PCB spills be

cleaned up to the following levels: For current and reasonably-expected

future residential and other non-restricted access areas: less than 1

ppm on the surface to a depth of 10 inches and 10 ppm at depths below

10 inches; for industrial and other restricted access areas: 25 ppm;

and for outdoor electrical substations: 25 ppm, or 50 ppm with

labelling warning of presence of PCBs (not expected at CERCLA sites).

In the case of remediation for residential, unrestricted land use at

CERCLA sites, 1 ppm soil PCBs at the surface is recommended by the

Superfund program as a PRG to address threats posed by direct contact.

Where soil with concentrations greater than 1 ppm PCBs is left in place

for residential land use, the depth of soil cover is determined by

site-specific conditions. In such cases, appropriate deed restrictions

or other institutional controls are generally implemented.

In the case of remediating for industrial, restricted land use at

CERCLA sites, a range of 10 ppm soil PCBs to 25 ppm soil PCBs at the

surface is recommended by the Superfund program as a PRG to address

threats posed by direct contact.

c. Proposed approach for cleanup of PCBs under RCRA corrective

action authorities. In the July 27, 1990, proposed RCRA Corrective

Action Rule, 55 FR 30798, EPA introduced the concept of ``action

levels'' as trigger levels for further study and subsequent remediation

at RCRA facilities. In the RCRA Corrective Action Program, a remedial

investigation may indicate that levels of contamination from a past

release are unlikely to present a threat to health and the environment.

EPA proposed that measured levels in the environment be compared to

action levels, and that in situations where measured levels are below

action levels, EPA would not normally require either further study

(i.e., a Corrective Measures Study) or remediation.

In the proposed RCRA Corrective Action Rule, EPA proposed using

maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) promulgated under the Safe Drinking

Water Act as action levels for ground water. For other media (including

soils) and for constituents in ground water that do not have

established MCLs, the following criteria were proposed for establishing

action levels. First, the concentration for a hazardous constituent

must be derived in a manner consistent with Agency guidelines for risk

assessment. Second, the studies used to derive action levels must be

scientifically valid. Third, the concentrations used as action levels

would be (for carcinogens) associated with a 1 x 10-6 upperbound

excess cancer risk for Class A and B carcinogens (PCBs are Class B

carcinogens), and a 1 x 10-5 risk level for Class C carcinogens.

For systemic toxicants, the action level would be a concentration to

which humans could be exposed on a daily basis without appreciable risk

of adverse effects during a lifetime. The exposure scenario used for

calculating the action levels was direct contact (i.e., ingestion),

assuming residential land use. EPA's proposal included in

Sec. 264.521(d) a separate provision establishing criteria for

establishing action levels for soil, assuming exposure through

consumption of the soil contaminated with a hazardous constituent.

However, EPA proposed to make an exception to this approach where EPA

has already established standards for remediation of spilled PCBs under

the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy. In the preamble, EPA explained that

the Agency had determined that the standards in the TSCA PCB Spill

Cleanup Policy should be used as action levels and cleanup standards

for soil in RCRA corrective actions (55 FR 30819).

Proposed Appendix A, to part 264, subpart S, provided examples of

concentration levels that meet the above criteria for action levels for

more than 150 hazardous constituents. However, EPA erred in setting out

the concentration level for PCBs in soil in Appendix A (55 FR 30867).

EPA had intended to list 1 ppm, the cleanup goal recommended by the

TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy for residential land use, as the action

level for PCBs. Instead the action level listed in Appendix A for PCBs

in soil was 0.09 ppm. EPA is requesting comment on correcting this

erroneous listing. EPA believes that adding the following clarifying

language to the end of Sec. 264.521(d): ``Action levels for PCBs in

soils shall be defined as 1 ppm consistent with the TSCA PCB Spill

Cleanup Policy at part 761 subpart G,'' would correct the error.

EPA believes that it is appropriate to adopt the TSCA 1 ppm level

for PCBs as the action level for use under the RCRA corrective action

program. As previously discussed, 1 ppm is the cleanup goal recommended

by the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy for residential land use. Thus, the

TSCA spill cleanup level is approximately one order of magnitude

greater than the action level identified in the subpart S preamble.

However, the Agency believes that adopting the 1 ppm level for RCRA may

be appropriate, for several reasons. For one thing, the 1 ppm TSCA

level is based on the same residential land use scenario and

essentially the same exposure assumptions used in deriving the RCRA

action levels. It also represents the same general ``conservativeness''

as an action level, in that it equates to a 10-5 excess lifetime

cancer risk. In addition, the TSCA level was developed based on

substantial studies conducted by the Agency that focused specifically

on the risks posed by PCBs, as well as other relevant factors relating

to cleanup of PCBs. Finally, 1 ppm is close to the analytical detection

limit for soil, whereas the action level of 0.09 ppm identified in the

subpart S proposal may often be below detection limits.

The Agency recognizes that adopting the TSCA 1 ppm level as an

action level under RCRA would depart somewhat from how other soil

action levels are set. It would be a level established under another

regulatory program and, as such, may reflect certain factors that were

not otherwise considered in developing the action level concept under

RCRA. On the other hand, adopting the TSCA level for soils would be

very much analogous to using MCLs as action levels for ground water as

discussed in the July 27, 1990 proposal (see 55 FR 30819 and 30853).

It should also be noted that adopting the 1 ppm action level for

PCBs requires certain explicit revisions to the proposed subpart S

regulations. Specifically, as discussed above, the proposed criteria

for soil action levels that were specified in proposed Sec. 264.521(d)

would need to be revised to explicitly identify the 1 ppm level for

PCBs. In addition, Appendix A to part 264 subpart S would require an

amendment to identify the new PCB action level.

The Agency solicits comment on today's proposal for adopting 1 ppm

as the action level for PCBs in soil for the purpose of implementing

corrective actions at RCRA regulated facilities.

Although the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy identifies other numbers that

are generally appropriate for certain land use settings, the Agency

believes that these levels are inappropriate for use as action levels,

because they may often require substantial site-specific information

and determinations by the Agency about current and future land use and

exposure potential. This is inconsistent with the action level concept,

which requires identifying conservative, presumptive levels that can be

established without this type of site-specific information.

However, the Agency believes that many of the provisions of the PCB

Spill Cleanup Policy may be appropriate in making decisions regarding

cleanup levels in the context of RCRA corrective action. In the

preamble to the proposed subpart S regulations, EPA stated that the

cleanup levels and practices in the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy would

generally be appropriate for use in addressing PCB releases under RCRA

corrective actions. The Agency wishes to reaffirm its intention to use

the 1987 spill policy as guidance for cleanup of PCBs in the corrective

action program in essentially the same manner as has been identified in

the Superfund guidance discussed above.

It should be noted that the Superfund guidance on PCBs focused

primarily on the use of the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy in establishing

preliminary remediation goals, or PRGs. The subpart S proposal did not

provide an explicit regulatory framework for setting PRGs during the

corrective action process; however, the preamble to the proposal did

acknowledge that establishing such preliminary cleanup goals may often

be appropriate in a RCRA context. The Agency may address this issue

more thoroughly in subsequent RCRA rulemakings. In any case, EPA

intends to use the general approach outlined in the Superfund PCB

guidance in establishing preliminary cleanup goals (when appropriate),

as well as ``final'' cleanup levels for PCB contamination at RCRA

facilities. As explained in the CERCLA guidance, the levels specified

in the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy would generally be examined in

light of site-specific information, and that the Agency would preserve

the flexibility inherent in the subpart S provisions for establishing

cleanup standards, to select a cleanup level for PCBs that may depart

from the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy, when appropriate. (See proposed

Sec. 264.525(d), 55 FR 30877, July 27, 1990.)

The Agency solicits comment on the concept, as outlined above, of

using the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy as general guidance for

establishing cleanup levels under RCRA corrective action authorities.

The Agency also solicits comment on specific provisions of the TSCA PCB

Spill Cleanup Policy for which it may be appropriate to modify or

supplement for use in establishing cleanup levels under RCRA.

d. Today's proposed remediation strategy for PCB spills under TSCA.

EPA is today proposing a new strategy under TSCA for cleanup of all

PCBs in the environment that is closely modeled after the 1987 TSCA PCB

Spill Cleanup Policy for new PCB spills from electrical equipment. The

Agency believes that adopting such a strategy is warranted, for several

reasons. EPA's experience with PCB cleanups under CERCLA has shown that

the general approach and the specific cleanup goals expressed in the

1987 Policy are generally appropriate for cleanup of PCBs not directly

addressed under the policy, as long as flexibility is provided for

factoring site-specific conditions into final cleanup decisions. In

addition, cleanup of PCBs not directly addressed currently under the

policy must be addressed under TSCA on a case-by-case basis, with

oversight of the cleanup action by EPA Regions. This can require

considerable paperwork and lengthy negotiations between regulators and

responsible parties over cleanup goals and procedures at individual

sites. Adopting a simpler, more uniform yet flexible strategy for

cleanup of PCBs in the environment under TSCA would thus serve to

reduce administrative and other transactional costs and accelerate the

cleanup process.

EPA is not convinced that there is any compelling technical or

environmental rationale for having several separate and inconsistent

methods for cleaning up PCB spills, based simply on when the spill

occurred. Under TSCA, the new strategy and administrative procedures

propose to address the problem of PCBs in the environment through a

flexible, tiered approach.

EPA is proposing that PCBs disposed of, placed in a land disposal

facility, spilled, or otherwise released into the environment prior to

April 18, 1978 would be presumed to be disposed of in a manner which

does not present a risk of exposure (i.e., the PCBs are presumed to be

safely disposed of) unless EPA makes a finding that there is a risk of

exposure (see Sec. 761.60 proposed revised introductory text in the

codified portion of this document). EPA could then require that an

application be submitted for approval of remediation and proper

disposal of those PCB remediation wastes under the proposed

Sec. 761.61(c). All other PCB remediation wastes would be addressed by

one of several alternatives proposed today.

In certain scenarios PCBs could be remediated to specified levels

and treated under the self-implementing provisions proposed at

Sec. 761.61(a). This activity would be conducted with a minimum of

interaction between EPA and the party conducting the remediation, but

it would require that the specified conditions be followed without

variance.

Any PCB remediation waste could be cleaned up under the risk-based

provisions proposed at Sec. 761.61(c). This new provision would be

harmonized with the RCRA and CERCLA programs. Any changes of the levels

under RCRA and CERCLA would be reflected in a change under TSCA in the

target standards. While Sec. 761.61(c) would provide flexibility based

on site-specific assessment of the risks posed, it would also be the

most resource intensive and time consuming to implement. All actions

addressing PCBs under Superfund would use Sec. 761.61(c) as the

relevant requirement under TSCA thus providing the flexibility

necessary to implement site-specific remedial actions.

EPA is also proposing to retain the traditional disposal options

under proposed Sec. 761.61(b) for incineration, alternate treatment

technologies, and chemical waste landfilling. This section could be

used where all PCB remediation waste would be removed from the

environment, or where remediation levels were established elsewhere in

these rules. Section 761.61(b) could also be used where a mechanism

such as a State established cleanup was recognized by EPA through a

coordinated approval under proposed Sec. 761.77, where a State had

already established a site characterization and/or remediation plan

requiring off-site disposal in a facility with a TSCA disposal approval

for PCBs.

The current TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy would still be available

to address recent spills from electrical equipment. The party

responsible for a spill which was eligible for cleanup under the spill

policy would also have the option of using one of the alternatives

available under proposed Sec. 761.61 or Sec. 761.79 (Decontamination),

where applicable. It should be noted that, in accordance with the anti-

dilution provisions of Sec. 761.1(b), if the contamination was from an

authorized use, then the PCB remediation waste is regulated based on

the regulatory status of the PCBs at the time of their release into the

environment. The following illustrates this point. A transformer

contains PCB dielectric fluid at 1,000 ppm. The unit leaks its

dielectric fluid, and all resulting PCB remediation waste is regulated,

regardless of concentration, because the original dielectric fluid was

regulated at the time of the leak. However, if the same PCB Transformer

is first reclassified to non-PCB status (i.e., less than 50 ppm PCB in

the dielectric fluid) and non-PCB dielectric fluid leaks, none of the

resulting remediation waste is regulated under TSCA (but not

necessarily other laws or regulations) because the dielectric fluid was

unregulated at the time of the leak.

There are two questions associated with any cleanup. The first

question is to what level must contamination be cleaned and the second

question is what are the disposal requirements for the contaminated

material. In general, the current PCB rules address the disposal

question by stating that PCBs diluted through acts such as spilling or

processing for disposal must be disposed of based on the disposal

requirements for that PCB concentration at the time the PCBs came out

of service or were spilled. However, except for those scenarios

addressed by the TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy, the current rules

require complete removal of spilled or otherwise improperly disposed of

PCBs. Most commenters to the ANPRM were very supportive of the Agency's

desire to amend the current rules to allow the management of

remediation wastes based on their current PCB concentrations and the

site-specific risk from exposure.

Several commenters asked that EPA address the question of cleanup

levels by establishing, in this rule, national standards for specific

exposure scenarios, with provisions for variances that would be

binding, for remediation of wastes containing PCBs for all Federal

programs that would be preemptive of State and local requirements.

These commenters suggested that this approach could reduce the

``transactional'' costs associated with site-by-site negotiations,

promote voluntary remediation activities and, in general, speed the

cleanup of sites. EPA has limited authority under TSCA to preempt State

or local requirements for the cleanup or disposal of PCB remediation

wastes. With regard to establishing uniform standards for specific

exposure scenarios for the remediation of PCBs and other hazardous

substances or constituents, EPA has contemplated the following options:

(a) Setting specific standards, (b) using a uniform decision-making

process with target standards, but allowing site-specific variances, or

(c) using a uniform decision-making process with a general goal and

site-specific application. EPA believes that specific standards are

most appropriate when dealing with common disposal scenarios and

limited disposal options. Favoring site-specific approaches to

remediate old spills is most appropriate when there is little

commonality at the various sites among the problems being addressed and

the available disposal options. Except for the limited scenarios

proposed in Sec. 761.61(a), EPA does not believe that it has sufficient

experience or information to establish additional self-implementing

cleanup and disposal options. EPA is seeking comments, supported by

technical information from those engaged in remedial actions; other

Federal, State or local entities responsible for the implementation or

oversight of remedial actions; and the general public on all three

approaches including the following proposal.

Several remedial approaches could be proposed for any given site

which is contaminated with PCBs. In this section, EPA is proposing

three alternatives for the cleanup and disposal of PCB remediation

waste under TSCA. The first alternative would be self-implementing. The

term self-implementing means that EPA approval under TSCA would not be

necessary as long as the entire remediation conformed to the procedures

and standards of the first alternative at proposed Sec. 761.61(a). The

second alternative, performance-based disposal, is the use of

``traditional'' disposal technologies of incineration and chemical

waste landfilling, according to the approval process and standards as

proposed at Sec. 761.61(b). The third alternative, risk-based disposal,

is a process and decision document not unlike the Superfund remedial

action decision-making process and record of decision (ROD). Each step

would be approved by the Regional Administrator having jurisdiction

over the site which is contaminated with PCBs, including a risk

assessment and any onsite treatment, or redisposition of treated or

untreated remediation waste at the site. Treatment levels would be

based on a site-specific risk assessment described at proposed

Sec. 761.61(c). Those seeking a PCB disposal approval could also avail

themselves of the ``Coordinated Approval'' provision (see Unit III.K.1.

of this preamble). This alternative would allow the recognition of a

cleanup action conducted under another authority such as a RCRA

corrective action permit or in compliance with a CERCLA ROD or

enforcement decision document.

i. Self-implementing option. The self-implementing alternative is

patterned after the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy (40 CFR part 761, subpart

G), which sets standards for cleaning up spills shortly after they

occur. Like the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy, this proposed alternative

requires that risk-based surface and soil levels be achieved. However,

an important distinction between subpart G and the proposed self-

implementing alternative is that for non-recent spills, there may be

limited information concerning the concentration and amount of PCBs

released to the environment and the time, nature, and extent of that

release and any subsequent migration. Subpart G established spill

cleanup requirements addressing the concentration and amount of spilled

materials based on the location of the spill and potential exposure to

the spilled PCBs. Spill cleanup in this proposal is based on the

current concentration in the material onto which a spill occurred. The

extent of migration of the spill is likely to be greater for an old

spill than for a more recent or new spill. This difference plus the

requirement for rapid initiation and containment of the spill were

partly responsible for the provision at 40 CFR 761.135 which creates a

presumption against an enforcement action for penalties for the act of

illegal disposal. While the self-implementing proposal allows disposal

of remediation waste according to the waste's current existing

concentration, the proposal does not create a presumption against

enforcement action for penalties for the act of unauthorized disposal.

Another significant difference from subpart G is that the self-

implementing disposal requirements would not apply to certain

environmental and exposure scenarios having the potential for a high

risk of exposure. Subpart G allows certain residual levels to remain

after cleanup based on the potential future use of the site, including

the imposition of physical or institutional restrictions limiting

access, which could have been incorrectly assumed to always directly

correlate with exposure in those areas. Today's proposal addresses

residual levels based not only on access to areas, but also potential

exposure to residual PCB levels within those areas. For example, a

restricted access commercial area might limit who could be exposed, but

might not limit how much a person with access could be exposed.

In this proposal, concrete is not considered a non-porous surface

as it is in subpart G (see the proposed definition of ``non-porous

surface'' at Sec. 761.3). Consequently, concrete containing PCBs would

have to be removed rather than just wiped off. The size of the

remediation area is not an issue with today's self-implementing

proposal as it is with subpart G.

The self-implementing option differentiates between the cleanup of

a site and the disposal of PCB remediation waste from the site. Cleanup

means the identification and reduction of the PCB concentrations, and/

or removal of PCB remediation waste to a specified residual PCB

concentration at its existing location. The cleanup portion of this

alternative allows remediation waste with specified PCB levels to

remain undisturbed at the site and not be disposed of. Cleanup may be

followed by either (or both) off-site disposal of a certain amount of

PCB remediation waste, or treatment of a certain amount of remediation

waste at the site. Disposal means the movement of PCB remediation

wastes from the site of contamination to another location for

destruction or containment (off-site disposal) or the destruction or

containment of PCB remediation waste at the cleanup site (on-site

disposal). Section 761.61 would apply to the cleanup and disposal of

all PCB remediation wastes regardless of when the disposal, spill, or

contamination occurred. Subpart G would continue to apply to recent

spills from electrical equipment; however, the party responsible for

the spill and cleanup could choose to follow Sec. 761.61. There are

other conforming changes which could be made to 40 CFR part 761,

subpart G, resulting from this proposal. These changes have not been

made because those who were a party to the negotiation of subpart G

have not been a direct party to the development of this proposal.

Nevertheless, the conforming changes to subpart G have been accounted

for in this proposal and the proposal is consistent with the conforming

changes, especially with respect to references of ``old'' spills.

Section 761.61 specifically applies to ``old'' spills.

The self-implementing remediation option proposes on-site disposal

to specified cleanup levels of residual PCBs in the PCB remediation

waste. Cleanup levels would be more stringent for high exposure areas

than for low exposure areas, as these terms would be defined in

Sec. 761.3. Three self-implementing on-site options are proposed:

capping higher residual levels (a definition of ``cap'' is proposed at

Sec. 761.3), ``treating down'' from higher levels to lower levels on-

site using a non-chlorinated solvent washing process; and

microencapsulation or vitrification (definitions of these terms are

proposed at Sec. 761.3). These last two immobilization technologies are

being proposed because they have been promulgated under RCRA for debris

which is contaminated with both RCRA hazardous waste and TSCA PCB waste

(see 57 FR 37194 -37282, August 18, 1992). Based on EPA's experience

with approving PCB disposal technologies, the solvent washing process

is the only currently available destruction or physical separation PCB

disposal process considered generally effective in a variety of

situations, commercially feasible at ambient temperatures (i.e., no

external heat source), and safe enough to be conducted without prior

approval. EPA will consider these factors, along with the general

statutory requirement to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to health

and the environment, in considering the addition, under Sec. 761.61(c),

of other processes, procedures, or technologies to Sec. 761.61(a). EPA

specifically requests comments on the best method to expeditiously

include new universally acceptable risk-based treatment technologies as

self-implementing treatment options prior to amendment of

Sec. 761.61(a) in the Federal Register. The kind of solvent washing

process EPA proposes for treating PCBs removes PCBs from the waste,

separates the PCBs from the solvent, and reuses the solvent while

disposing of the PCBs. Residual levels of solvent in the treated PCB

remediation waste must correspond to allowable levels under all other

Federal and local regulations, including requirements under RCRA and

regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA). For other techniques such as vitrification, EPA is concerned

about additional issues such as the release of volatile products of

incomplete combustion (PICs) especially when the process is conducted

in-situ. If EPA cannot devise a procedure or prescribe a technology for

addressing the issue of volatile PICs, vitrification will be deleted

from option (a) and only considered under option (c) in a risk-based

approval. EPA specifically requests comment and supporting technical

information on this issue.

RCRA uses the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),

(40 CFR part 261 Appendix II, Method 1311), its model for co-disposal

of potentially hazardous wastes with municipal solid waste in a

landfill. Under RCRA regulations, the assumption is that if a waste

does not exhibit the toxicity characteristic (and is otherwise not

hazardous), it does not need to be disposed of as a hazardous waste;

thus, it can be placed in a solid waste landfill (40 CFR 261.3). EPA is

drawing a parallel to the RCRA rules for disposal of certain treated

remediation wastes under TSCA. EPA is proposing to use the RCRA TCLP as

a measure of effectiveness of microencapsulation or vitrification of

PCB containing remediation wastes. Using the RCRA model for

establishing toxic contaminant levels, EPA is proposing 50 micrograms

per liter (i.e., approximately 50 parts per billion [ppb]) as the

treatability level for extractable PCBs. (The Toxicity Characteristic

(TC) level for PCBs was proposed and subsequently withdrawn (see 57 FR

21520, May 20, 1992 and 57 FR 49280, October 30, 1992)). If adopted

under TSCA, any PCB remediation waste that has been microencapsulated

or vitrified and subsequently shown to leach PCBs at less than 50 ppb,

as measured by the TCLP, would be considered appropriate for disposal

in a municipal solid waste landfill, after written notice to the

municipal solid waste landfill, or disposal could be at a TSCA approved

disposal facility. The treated PCB remediation waste would still be

subject to all prohibitions in the PCB rules including, but not limited

to, use, reuse, export, or the proposed ban on open burning. One

commenter to the ANPRM proposed that EPA use the American National

Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society leachability test (ANSI/

ANS 16.1) to determine the effectiveness of microencapsulation or

vitrification technologies. The major technical differences between the

two leaching procedures are the amount of surface area exposed to the

leaching medium and the neutral (versus the TCLP's mildly acidic)

nature of the leaching medium in the ANSI/ANS Standard. As stated in

its introduction, the ANSI/ANS standard serves only as a basis for

indexing releases from the encapsulant and does not apply to any

specific environmental situation. The commenter noted that a variety of

contaminant release tests and test conditions should be developed to

assess the potential for release of specific contaminants in given

situations. Since this proposal is focused on the release of a toxic

constituent from a matrix when co-disposed with other solid waste in a

municipal solid waste landfill, EPA believes that the question of which

test to use is more properly addressed in the solid and hazardous waste

regulations under RCRA than the PCB rules under TSCA.

Today's proposed self-implementing option for disposal of PCB

remediation waste includes a different way to evaluate PCB

concentrations during site remediation. Some field screening tests have

been developed and approved for use under EPA's ``Test Methods for

Evaluating Solid Waste'' (SW-846) and have otherwise been widely used.

Chemicals other than PCBs at the remediation site may interfere with

the tests and indicate that PCBs are not present when in fact PCBs are

present (a false negative). The correct application of the tests may

still not inform or warn the user of the presence of such

interferences. This proposal includes the use of several kinds of PCB

field screening tests during remediation, so long as confirmatory

sampling is used to guard against false negatives and to demonstrate

the absence of interferences which would render the analytical results

invalid. The ability to obtain acceptable analytical results in a very

short time on-site and while remediation is under way can complete

remediation goals more quickly and at lower costs.

The self-implementing option for the disposal of PCB remediation

waste would offer one new consideration for PCB disposal at

Sec. 761.61(a)(4)(v): allowing non-liquid wastes generated by the

cleanup process (e.g., spent abrasives) to be disposed of at their

existing concentration (i.e, at a concentration less than the maximum

concentration of PCBs found at the remediation waste site). Solvents

used in remediation activities could be reused according to provisions

proposed in Sec. 761.79(a)(1) and Sec. 761.61(a). During use of the

solvents, secondary containment would have to be provided to ensure no

solvent releases to soil or water. A general requirement for protection

for workers engaged in decontamination activities is also proposed.

Decontamination activities could not proceed until those workers

conducting the decontamination are protected from exposure to PCBs and

the materials used to decontaminate. EPA requests comments on this

proposal and technical information on the performance and effectiveness

of other treatment technologies the Agency could include in the self-

implementing option.

ii. Performance-based option. The performance-based disposal option

proposed at Sec. 761.61(b) includes the traditional disposal

technologies of high-temperature incineration, high efficiency boilers,

chemical waste landfills, and alternate destruction methodologies that

are currently approved by the Director of the EPA Chemical Management

Division for mobile, transportable, and non-unique fixed-site disposal

units, and by the Regional Administrator for unique fixed-site disposal

units. These technologies are based on their performance as required in

the existing PCB disposal regulations. No specific changes are being

proposed for these standards.

iii. Risk-based option. The risk-based remediation option proposed

at Sec. 761.61(c) bases disposal requirements for PCB remediation waste

on the potential risks to health and the environment resulting from

residual PCBs in the PCB-remediation waste. Performance requirements

could include destruction, containment, restriction of access to the

disposal site, deed restrictions, and other short- and long-term

management controls. The risk-based disposal standard would continue to

be one of no unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.

The application and approval process for a risk-based remediation

approval would be essentially the same as the current process for

application for a performance-based PCB disposal approval. New

approvals would be classified as performance-risk based approvals under

proposed Sec. 761.61(c). Written applications would be required and the

approving official (i.e., the Regional Administrator having

jurisdiction over the site of remediation) would document in the

approval: the reasons for the approval, the approval conditions, and

EPA's findings. The process, criteria, and standards for decision-

making would be similar to EPA's site remediation program under CERCLA.

It is EPA's desire to limit the use of this time consuming and resource

intensive proposed option in favor of the self-implementing provisions

proposed in Sec. 761.61(a) or the decontamination procedures proposed

as additions to Sec. 761.79. To assist the applicant in developing an

approach for the risk-based disposal application, EPA's general

principles for reviewing a PCB remediation approval application are

stated here in the form of four preferences. The first preference would

be to have a permanent remedy that allows for the least restrictive

access and land use restrictions at each site. The second preference

would be to impose greater protection of sensitive ecosystems such as

water resources, croplands, grazing lands, and residential areas than

the target standards, expressed as cleanup levels in the self-

implementing option (at proposed Sec. 761.61(a)), would provide. The

third preference would be for destruction or extraction instead of land

disposal. The fourth preference would be for using on-site or existing

off-site disposal facilities versus developing new off-site land

disposal facilities. Microencapsulation or vitrification would not be a

preferred technology for PCBs if it caused unacceptable increases in

the overall volume of wastes being sent off-site to chemical waste

landfills, resulted in a liquid phase, or allowed unacceptable levels

of leaching of PCBs.

The evaluation criteria for site-specific variances from the target

standards would include: (1) Risk factors associated with the waste

(e.g., volume, concentration, physical state, toxicity, mobility), and

(2) risk factors associated with the proposed waste management option

(e.g., safety, reliability, effectiveness, possibility of discharge to

surface or ground water, current and reasonably expected future site

use, technical feasibility, resource value, proposed institutional

controls, permanence of remedy, potential for concentration of PCBs and

waste minimization). While this paragraph reflects some factors

associated with each criterion, these unranked factors would only

provide notice and assistance in defining the criterion. EPA would not

be limiting itself to the factors listed or require that each factor

listed be considered.

e. Implementation of PCB remediation programs. Currently, based on

the results of site sampling, historical, or other data, EPA may

presume that PCBs are illegally disposed of at a site and require

remediation under TSCA. In that case, the burden is on the site owner

or operator to establish, through persuasive evidence, that the PCBs

are not illegally disposed of under TSCA. Today, EPA proposes to

address all PCB remediation waste, regardless of concentration,

physical state or date of disposal (see proposed introductory text at

Sec. 761.60) under Sec. 761.61, based on the risk of exposure or injury

they now pose. EPA would apply the current ``anti-dilution'' provision

at Sec. 761.1(b) to retain regulatory authority over PCB remediation

waste even where the PCB concentration is now below 50 ppm, unless the

dilution was authorized (e.g., as the result of a transformer

reclassification under Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)) and the authorized

dilution occurred prior to disposal. Anti-dilution would not mandate

disposal requirements for PCB remediation waste under proposed

Sec. 761.61 (or Sec. 761.62 for PCB non-remediation waste). Again, the

burden would be on the site owner or operator to establish, through

persuasive evidence, that the PCB remediation wastes, regardless of

current concentration or date of disposal are legally disposed of under

TSCA and in the case of wastes disposed of before April 18, 1978, which

are now 50 ppm PCBs, do not pose a risk of injury. PCBs at

any concentration are subject to remediation under CERCLA or corrective

action under RCRA. This is not an inconsistency in application of the

various statutes because the 50 ppm PCB level under TSCA is based in

part on the economic impacts of the PCB regulations and not solely on

risk. EPA is not precluded from taking action under any other statute

it administers simply because it has chosen not to regulate use or

disposal or take remedial action under TSCA. For example, a party

begins a cleanup of a historic pre-1978 spill. This site would not fall

under 40 CFR part 761, subpart G and would require Regional approval

for cleanup levels for PCBs at 50 ppm. The soil at the site

is found to vary in concentration between 10 ppm and 100 ppm PCBs. Upon

application to the Regional Administrator, under proposed

Sec. 761.61(c), the site could be cleaned to a specified level, and the

resulting PCB remediation waste treated by chemical dechlorination. Or,

under the proposal, the Regional Administrator could, upon application

and upon a site-specific evaluation, determine that an immobilizing

procedure such as in situ vitrification was a viable alternative. A

disposal application would then be judged by EPA on its overall ability

to protect health and the environment from unreasonable risk of injury

from PCBs. PCBs at levels 10 micrograms PCBs

(g)/100 square centimeters (cm2) (as measured by standard

wipe tests, Sec. 761.123) for a non-porous surface (see proposed

definition at Sec. 761.3) and two decontamination procedures for non-

porous surfaces. The decontamination standard may be achieved using any

disposal or cleaning technique which, in some instances, may require

prior approval by EPA. Although activities such as filtering, soaking,

wiping, stripping of insulation, chopping, scraping, or the use of

abrasives to remove or separate PCBs from contaminated surfaces or

liquids may be processing for disposal as opposed to disposal, EPA is

proposing to waive any requirement to obtain prior approval under TSCA

for these listed activities. EPA also considered whether to include

distillation in this exemption but remains concerned about releases of

volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds to the environment. EPA is

seeking comment on the inclusion of distillation. All residues

containing PCBs from these and other ``disposal'' activities would

remain regulated.

The proposed standard for decontamination of solid surfaces is the

standard in the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy at Sec. 761.125(c)(2)(i). EPA

believes that 10 g PCB/100 cm2 is protective

for disposal or subsequent reuse of the decontaminated surface. This

standard has also been demonstrated to EPA through the PCB disposal

approval process to be achievable through a wide variety of techniques.

The residual cleaning materials containing PCBs would be managed and

disposed of as a PCB waste in accordance with the applicable PCB

disposal regulations in part 761, subpart D. The ``Note'' currently

following Sec. 761.79 would be inserted as introductory text under

Sec. 761.79 to warn those conducting decontamination operations that

compliance with this section would not relieve them of their duty to

comply with other Federal, State, or local requirements for the use and

disposal of solvents. One example is the requirement to comply with the

rules for the disposal of wastes identified or listed under RCRA or

State or local laws as solid, hazardous, or otherwise regulated wastes.

As an alternative to decontamination followed by sampling, for non-

porous surfaces, especially those that cannot be accessed for sampling,

EPA is proposing two non-aggressive procedures for decontamination. The

first procedure is for surfaces contaminated with mineral oil

dielectric fluid (MODEF) with PCB concentrations 10,000 ppm

(see proposed Sec. 761.79(e)). The second procedure is for surfaces

contaminated with higher concentrations of PCBs in MODEF and askarel

PCBs (see proposed Sec. 761.79(f)). Each procedure involves a 15-hour

non-aggressive soaking (i.e., no agitation of the kerosene or movement

of the contaminated surface in the kerosene). Proposed Sec. 761.79(f)

would require a second soak with clean kerosene.

After decontamination using one of these procedures, the

decontaminated surface would not be regulated for disposal and could be

reused except in association with food, feed, or drinking water in

accordance with proposed Sec. 761.20(c)(5). EPA's research demonstrates

that these two non-aggressive procedures using kerosene should

decontaminate surfaces to a level 10 g/100

cm2. Therefore, confirmatory sampling would not be required. EPA

is requesting comment, supported by laboratory data, on aggressive

versus the proposed non-aggressive decontamination techniques

especially where the volume of kerosene or another solvent proposed by

the commenter can be reduced. EPA recognizes that there is a

possibility that the proposed decontamination procedure may not result

in final surface levels at or below 10 g/100cm2. For

purposes of implementation, if EPA subsequently sampled a

decontaminated surface and found levels above 10 g/100

cm2, the surface would be regulated unless it could be shown by

the owner (i.e., through laboratory documentation) that the original

PCB concentrations were determined, the prescribed procedures in

Sec. 761.79(e) or (f) were followed for those concentrations of PCBs,

and the prescribed volume of PCB rinseate was used and properly

disposed of (i.e., through copies of the manifests and certificates of

disposal).

EPA is also proposing additional language at Sec. 761.79(a) to

clarify that the disposal of solvents, abrasives, or equipment used in

decontamination procedures is regulated and is proposing another

disposal option, specifically disposal in an industrial boiler, for

certain of those solvents. The proposal would also require at

Sec. 761.79(a)(5) that all decontamination activities be conducted with

containment adequate to prevent releases of PCBs to the environment.

EPA is proposing that any decontamination activities conducted in

accordance with the provisions of Sec. 761.79 would not require a PCB

disposal approval from EPA. Workers would have to be protected against

exposure through dermal contact or inhalation; however, EPA is not

specifying what measures must be taken.

The proposal establishes a decontamination standard for water of

0.5 micrograms PCB per liter (0.5 g/l) or approximately 0.5

ppb PCB (see proposed Sec. 761.79(g)). This standard is consistent with

EPA drinking water levels for PCBs at 40 CFR 141.61(c). EPA is

proposing a 0.5 ppb decontamination standard because it is difficult to

ensure that the decontaminated water will not be reused in association

with food or feed or as drinking water for livestock or humans. A

conforming amendment at proposed Sec. 761.20(c)(6) would allow the

unrestricted reuse of water decontaminated in accordance with the level

established in Sec. 761.79(g). The Agency believes that uses of water

at or below the proposed decontamination level would not pose an

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The proposal

also establishes a decontamination standard for organic liquids, not

associated with remediation wastes, of less than 2 milligrams PCB per

liter (i.e., 50 ppm by allowing its

continued use until thw surface exceeded the appropriate

decontamination standard, at which point it would have to be

decontaminated or disposed of. The Agency believes that the further

use, or distribution in commerce of items decontaminated or cleaned up

to specific standards established in applicable EPA PCB spill cleanup

policies, Sec. 761.79, or a TSCA approval would not present an

unreasonable risk of injury if the decontaminated items are not used or

reused in association with food, feed, or drinking water. For water, a

standard is being proposed at Sec. 761.20(c)(6) that is stringent

enough to allow unrestricted distribution or reuse of the

decontaminated water. In Sec. 761.20(c)(7), the Agency is proposing to

allow the restricted distribution or reuse of solid, nonporous surfaces

that have been contaminated by regulated PCBs if the final PCB

concentration meets the decontamination standard proposed at

Sec. 761.79(d), regardless of the original concentration of the PCBs.

Although any liquid (e.g., a solvent) or solid (e.g., an abrasive) used

for decontamination would remain regulated, the decontaminated surface

could be distributed or reused pursuant to proposed Sec. 761.20(c)(5)

and (6).

9. Processing for disposal. Current Sec. 761.20(c)(2) says in part

that PCBs ``may be processed . . . in compliance with the requirements

of this part for purposes of disposal in accordance with the

requirements of Sec. 761.60.'' The preamble language addressing this

section (see 44 FR 31527, May 30, 1979) explained that the provision

was intended to apply to the concentration of PCBs in a manufacturing

waste stream where the wastes resulted from the manufacture and

processing of PCBs for use. EPA is clarifying how this paragraph

applies to the disposal of all PCBs, including those removed from use.

Today, EPA is broadening the exemption for processing for disposal by

identifying which processing for disposal does not require an approval

and which processing for disposal does require a PCB disposal approval.

EPA clarifies that processing activities which are primarily associated

with and facilitate the storage and transportation of PCBs for disposal

would not require an approval. Processing activities which are

primarily associated with and facilitate treatment, as defined in

Sec. 261.10, or land disposal, rather than storage or transportation

for disposal would require an approval unless the processing was part

of an activity already included in an approval or other authorization

in subpart D of this part, for example in Secs. 761.61(a), 761.62(b),

or 761.79.

Specifically, EPA is implementing the existing provisions at

Sec. 761.20(c)(2) as follows:

(a) Processing activities which are primarily associated with and

facilitate storage or transportation for disposal do not require a TSCA

PCB disposal approval. Examples include, but are not limited to

removing PCBs from service (e.g., draining liquids), packaging or

repackaging PCBs for transportation for disposal, or combining

materials from smaller containers into larger containers in accordance

with Sec. 761.1(b).

(b) Processing activities which are primarily associated with and

facilitate treatment or land disposal require an approval unless they

are part of an existing approval or are part of a self-implementing

activity such as Sec. 761.61(a) and Sec. 761.79 or otherwise

specifically allowed under 40 CFR part 761, subpart D. Examples include

but not limited to microencapsulation; pulverization; particle size

separation; employing augers or hoppers to facilitate feeding non-

liquid PCBs into a disposal unit; and directly piping liquid PCBs into

a disposal unit from PCB items, storage containers or bulk transport

vehicles; or directly introducing non-liquid PCBs from containers, bulk

transport vehicles or on pallets into a disposal unit, such as an

incinerator, a high efficiency boiler, industrial furnace, alternate

destruction method, or chemical waste landfill.

(c) With the exception of provisions in Sec. 761.60(a)(2) or (3),

in order to meet the intent of Sec. 761.1(b), processing, diluting or

otherwise blending of waste prior to being introduced into a disposal

unit for purposes of meeting a PCB concentration limit shall be

included in a disposal approval or comply with the requirements of

Sec. 761.79.

(d) The rate of delivering liquids or non-liquids into a PCB

disposal unit shall be part of the conditions of the PCB disposal

approval for the unit when an approval is required.

B. Large Volume PCB Articles

Section 761.3 currently defines ``PCB Article'' as any manufactured

article, other than a PCB Container, that contains PCBs and whose

surface(s) has been in direct contact with PCBs. ``PCB Article''

includes capacitors, transformers, electric motors, pumps, pipes, and

any other manufactured item (1) that is formed to a specific shape or

design during manufacture, (2) that has end use function(s) dependent

in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and (3)

that has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or

only those changes of composition that have no commercial purpose

separate from that of the PCB Article.

The large volume article disposal proposals differ from the

existing PCB Article disposal regulations in two ways: they focus more

on the presence of PCBs rather than on the presence of PCB containing

liquids; and the proposed changes focus more on the decontamination of

portions of the articles for purposes of another use (metal recovery)

or reuse (by verifying the absence of PCBs presumed present), rather

than for outright disposal (i.e., destruction or landfilling) of the

article.

1. Disposal. The current Sec. 761.60(b)(5) would be redesignated as

Sec. 761.60(b)(6). The new Sec. 761.60(b)(6)(ii) would be amended to

include language allowing disposal in industrial furnaces (as defined

in the proposed Sec. 761.3) of drained PCB-Contaminated Articles. A new

Sec. 761.60(b)(6)(iii) would be added to address PCB Articles with

surfaces contaminated with PCBs, but which contain no liquids by which

to characterize the article.

With respect to Sec. 761.60(b)(6)(ii), although not explicitly

provided for in the current regulations, EPA in the past, has

interpreted disposal in an industrial furnace, as defined in proposed

Sec. 761.3, as an appropriate method of disposal also for drained PCB-

Contaminated Transformers and drained PCB-Contaminated natural gas

pipeline (see Ref. 25).

Currently, the regulations specifically state that ``salvage'' is

an acceptable form of disposal for ``PCB hydraulic machines''

containing PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm

(Sec. 761.60(b)(3)). The word ``salvage'' has been interpreted by EPA

to allow smelting of ``PCB hydraulic machines'' that have been drained

of all free flowing liquid. (See Ref. 21) In addition to disposal of

hydraulic machines, which have been drained of hydraulic fluids, in

municipal or industrial landfills, EPA is proposing to amend

Sec. 761.60(b)(3) to allow salvage by disposal in industrial furnaces,

as defined in proposed Sec. 761.3. It should be noted that PCBs, not

just free flowing liquids, associated with the PCB Articles must be

removed from the surface of the item before the item may be

reintroduced into commerce. EPA is seeking comments and data on

disposal techniques such as disposal in industrial furnaces for

inclusion in this amendment.

The new Sec. 761.60(b)(6)(iii) addresses PCB Articles with surfaces

contaminated with PCBs, but which contain no liquids by which to

characterize the article. This category of PCB Articles would include,

but not be limited to, ship hulls, air handling systems, and other

articles that could be characterized by a wipe sample. As a point of

clarification, EPA believes that PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment

with porous material in its core will probably not rapidly be able to

meet the requirement of being drained, because the porous core will

continue to release liquid for an extended period of time after the

initial liquid is drained from the unit. In these cases EPA recommends

that the core and any other sorbent material be removed and placed in a

TSCA approved chemical waste landfill.

PCB-Contaminated Articles regulated under proposed

Secs. 761.60(b)(6)(ii) or (iii) would be required to be disposed of in:

a facility permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage

municipal or industrial solid waste (excluding thermal treatment

units), an industrial furnace (defined in proposed Sec. 761.3)

operating in compliance with the requirements of Sec. 761.60(a)(4), or

other TSCA approved disposal facilities.

As a point of clarification, the phrase ``is not regulated for

disposal'' at current Secs. 761.60(b)(4) and (b)(5)(ii) does not mean

that drained PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment and PCB Articles may

be sold, distributed in commerce for sale or use, or reused without an

exemption under these rules. The phrase only means that a waste can be

disposed of, in accordance with the definition of disposal at

Sec. 761.3, without a TSCA PCB approval.

2. Open burning and industrial furnaces. Currently,

Sec. 761.60(b)(4) and (b)(5)(ii) provide that drained PCB-Contaminated

Electrical Equipment (except capacitors) and drained PCB-Contaminated

Articles are not regulated for disposal. EPA chose not to regulate the

disposal of certain PCBs because it found that the risks were not

unreasonable. However, EPA is aware that certain PCBs have been

disposed of through ``open burning'' (e.g., the burn-out of core

materials in PCB-Contaminated Transformers) without adequate provision

for efficient combustion and control of gaseous combustion products.

EPA currently controls the combustion of PCBs through incinerator and

industrial boiler criteria set out at Sec. 761.70, to limit the release

of PCBs and the production or release of byproducts of the incomplete

combustion of PCBs such as dioxins and furans. EPA is proposing at

Sec. 761.3 a definition of ``open burning'' that is consistent with

RCRA's definition at 40 CFR 260.10, a ban on the practice of open

burning. Open burning can result in the volatilization of PCBs and

several toxic products of incomplete combustion including

polychlorinated dibenzofurans; 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran;

polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins; and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-

dioxin.

This provision would prevent open burning of regulated PCBs in

State permitted, licensed, or registered municipal solid waste

combustors (i.e., thermal treatment unit) unless the combustor met the

requirements for an industrial furnace set out at proposed Sec. 761.3

and Sec. 761.60(a)(4). To facilitate the Regional Administrator's

review of the operation of an industrial furnace, a site-specific risk

assessment would need to accompany any request for a Regional

Administrator's determination of no unreasonable risk. This risk

assessment could be in the form of a permit issued under RCRA or the

Clean Air Act, or as a separate determination issued by the Regional

Administrator prior to combustion of PCBs.

Industrial furnaces, as defined in 40 CFR 260.10, are being

proposed as an acceptable form of disposal when as industrial furnace

combusting PCBs does not release unreasonable levels of PCBs to the

environment. To help ensure that PCBs disposed of in an industrial

furnace do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the

environment, EPA is proposing at Sec. 761.60(a)(4) that industrial

furnaces used for disposal of PCBs be operated under either a RCRA

permit (40 CFR part 266, subpart H and 40 CFR 270.66) for industrial

furnaces or a valid State air permit that includes a standard for PCBs,

and that the industrial furnaces be in compliance with the conditions

of their permit. Where an industrial furnace does not meet the permit

requirements, upon written request by the owner or operator of the

industrial furnace, the Regional Administrator may make a finding, in

writing, that the combustion of PCBs in certain industrial furnaces

would not pose an unreasonable risk to health or the environment if the

industrial furnace is operating in compliance with the proposed

conditions discussed below even though it does not have RCRA or State

air permits. EPA is amending Form 7710-53, ``Notification of PCB

Activity,'' to include a category for industrial furnaces and is

proposing that owners of this equipment comply with the notification

requirements of Sec. 761.205 by notifying the Agency that their

equipment is used to dispose of PCBs. (For the reader's convenience, a

copy of the revised form is reproduced at unit III.J. of this preamble

and may be used to notify EPA of PCB waste handling activities. The

form will nolonger be shown in 40 CFR part 761.)

The following operating conditions are being proposed at

Sec. 761.60(a)(4) for industrial furnaces disposing of PCB-Contaminated

Items. The conditions are: (1) The operating temperature of the

industrial furnace must be at least 1,000 deg. C (centigrade) at the

time it is charged; (2) each charge must be fed into molten metal or

metal at or above 1,000 deg. C; (3) successive charges must not be

introduced into the hearth in less than 15 minute intervals, (4) there

shall be no visible particulate emissions from the stack during PCB

disposal (as determined by Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A), (5)

there shall be no visible fugitive particulate emissions from the

industrial furnace building during PCB disposal (as determined by

Method 9, in 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A); (6) the industrial furnace

must have an operational device which accurately measures, directly or

indirectly, the temperature in the hearth; and (7) a reading of the

temperature in the hearth at the time it is charged must be taken,

recorded, and retained at the facility for 3 years from the date each

charge is introduced. If EPA ever determined that an industrial furnace

was not operating in compliance with one or more of the conditions

proposed in Sec. 761.60(a)(4), was not operating under and in

compliance with a valid RCRA permit or State air permit (with an

emissions standard for PCBs) or a finding by the Regional

Administrator, the owner or operator of that industrial furnace would

be deemed to be conducting ``open burning'', and would be, among other

things, prohibited from introducing any additional PCB wastes into the

unit. Examples of acceptable industrial furnaces which could meet the

proposed operating conditions include, but are not limited to, electric

arc furnaces, blast furnaces, and open hearth furnaces. If drained PCB-

Contaminated Items are charged at less than 1,000 deg. C into a furnace

chamber and the furnace gas emissions from this chamber passed through

a secondary combustion chamber, this kind of furnace shall be approved

according to Sec. 761.60(e). This disposal option would not be

available for TSCA regulated PCB liquids.

As a conforming change, due to the proposed ban on open burning,

EPA is proposing to delete the phrase ``is not regulated by this rule''

from the PCB regulations at Sec. 761.60(b)(4), governing disposal of

drained PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment, except capacitors and

(b)(5), governing disposal of drained PCB-Contaminated Articles. The

proposal would substitute the phrase ``may be disposed of in a facility

permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to manage municipal or

industrial solid waste (excluding thermal treatment units), an

industrial furnace as defined in Sec. 761.3, operating in compliance

with the requirements of Sec. 761.60(a)(4), or a disposal facility

approved under this part.'' The purpose of these proposals is to

promote, with minimal regulatory burden, certain recycling practices

such as smelting for the recovery of metals and to stop such practices

as the unapproved burning of PCB liquids, contaminated wood or paper

cores, or contaminated insulation even where there may be a claim of

energy recovery unless specifically allowed elsewhere by these

regulations.

Some commenters to the ANPRM advised EPA against proposing controls

on industrial furnaces, stating that current processes were adequate.

However, another group of commenters recommended that either additional

controls be placed on industrial furnaces or that drained PCB-

Contaminated Items be otherwise regulated for disposal. These

commenters suggested environmental harm could be caused by the

unregulated combustion of PCB-Contaminated Items.

EPA believes that responsibly run industrial furnaces provide a

valuable recycling benefit and that the current Federal regulatory

matrix in conjunction with the proposed operating standards would

provide adequate controls on any potential emissions.

3. Characterization of PCB Articles. Under Sec. 761.60(b)(5) of the

current rules, PCB Articles are characterized by the PCB concentration

found in the free flowing liquid. This method is appropriate for

electrical equipment containing PCBs and some other articles containing

PCBs. However, it may not be appropriate for PCB Articles whose

surfaces may be contaminated with a very light coating of liquid which

is not free flowing. In these instances, EPA is proposing at

Sec. 761.60(b)(6) that the standard wipe test be used to characterize

these articles. Nonporous surfaces including, but not limited to, ship

hulls and air handling systems could be wipe sampled under proposed

Sec. 761.60(b)(6)(iii), pursuant to the wipe sampling guidelines, at

locations that accurately characterize the article. Areas directly in

contact with PCBs would have to be sampled. Any nonporous surface found

to be contaminated with PCBs at 100

micrograms per 100 square centimeters must be disposed of in a TSCA

approved incinerator or placed in a TSCA approved chemical waste

landfill. EPA is proposing to limit the application of the wipe test to

characterize items for disposal to certain articles. The wiped surface

must be non-porous for the test to accurately characterize the

contamination level of the article. However, a standard wipe test may

be applicable to other PCB Articles with porous surfaces under an

alternative disposal approval (Sec. 761.60(e)). Any article may also be

disposed of through decontamination under proposed Sec. 761.79, as

applicable.

4. Characterization of natural gas pipeline. A new

Sec. 761.60(b)(5) and Appendix I would be created to address disposal,

including abandonment in place, and removal of natural gas pipeline.

This section proposes the characterization of natural gas pipeline by

direct analysis of pipeline fluids, commonly found in pipeline

``drips'' and geographic low points or the use of the standard wipe

test for characterization purposes, if liquid samples are not

available. Natural gas pipeline being removed from service which is

characterized as PCB-Contaminated, that is, between 50 and less than

500 ppm PCBs in pipeline fluids or, for drained pipe, those segments

which are greater than 10 to less than 100 micrograms PCB per 100

square centimeters, as characterized by the standard wipe test, may be

disposed of in a facility which is permitted, licensed, or registered

by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste (except

thermal treatment units), in an industrial furnace operating in

compliance with the requirements of Sec. 761.60(a)(4), or in a TSCA

approved disposal facility. Natural gas pipeline characterized at 500

ppm PCB or greater in its condensate liquids or 100 g/

100cm2 PCB or greater in a standard wipe sample could be removed

and managed in a TSCA approved disposal facility, as a PCB non-

remediation waste under proposed Sec. 761.62 or decontaminated under

proposed Sec. 761.79. Natural gas pipeline with an inside diameter of 4

inches or less is proposed to be disposed of in the same manner as PCB-

Contaminated pipeline.

The natural gas pipeline industry routinely takes segments of

pipeline out of service by abandoning the segments in the right-of-way.

EPA is proposing several options for natural gas pipeline that would be

abandoned in place. Natural gas pipeline at any concentration of PCBs,

containing no free-flowing liquid and with an inside diameter of 4

inches or less, could be abandoned in place by filling the pipe to 50

percent of the volume with cement or other materials listed in proposed

Sec. 761.60(b)(5) or placing the abandoned segment in a public service

notification program and under either option, sealing the ends shut.

PCB-Contaminated natural gas pipeline of any diameter could be

abandoned in place if it contained no free flowing liquids and each end

was sealed shut. Natural gas pipeline at concentrations of 500 ppm PCBs

or greater, or 100 /100cm2 PCBs or greater could be

abandoned in place if it was either washed once with diesel fuel or

filled to 50 percent of its volume with cement or other materials

listed in proposed Sec. 761.60(b)(5) and, in either case, each end was

sealed. Where natural gas pipeline of any diameter or PCB concentration

is abandoned in certain listed locations that could be difficult to

sample, the segments would be filled to 50 percent with cement or other

materials listed in proposed Sec. 761.60(b)(5), unless cement was

specified as a requirement for abandonment.

EPA proposes, in Appendix I, details on how to characterize natural

gas pipelines containing PCBs for abandonment and removal. Appendix I

would require that natural gas pipeline containing PCBs be wiped on the

lowest point on the inside surface of each end of a removed segment of

pipe as that point would be determined prior to removal from the

ground. Where the pipe was removed from the ground, the removed segment

to be sampled could not exceed 40 feet in length. Segments of natural

gas pipe removed from the ground for disposal would be required to be

sampled at each end. A length of pipe having seven or fewer segments

that was removed for disposal would have to be sampled at each end of

each segment. For removal of multiple contiguous segments, greater than

seven segments but less than 3 miles in total length, samples would be

required from both ends of the first and last segments removed and both

ends of five randomly chosen segments in between (with this scheme

producing seven sampled segments). For removal of multiple contiguous

segments more than 3 miles in total length, samples would be required

from both ends of the first segment and both ends of each segment that

is one-half mile distant from the segment previously sampled (with this

scheme producing a minimum of seven sampled segments).

For pipe to be disposed of, the analytical results of both samples

from each segment sampled would be averaged to determine the level of

contamination. If any average sample results from any segment removed

were greater than 10 to less than 100 micrograms PCB/100 square

centimeters, then that segment would be considered PCB-Contaminated. If

any average sample results from multiple contiguous segments removed

were greater than 10 micrograms PCB/100 square centimeters then all

unsampled segments in that removal would be presumed to be contaminated

with PCBs at that level. Other sampling regimes could be approved in a

disposal approval issued under Sec. 761.60(e) or Sec. 761.62(c).

C. PCB/Radioactive Wastes

The Agency solicited through the ANPRM information and comments

regarding the regulation under TSCA of the continued use, storage, and

disposal of mixtures, items, and wastes with both PCB and radioactive

constituents. Information was requested to be used to propose criteria

for developing an authorization for the continued use, storage, and

disposal of such materials, which would minimize risks to health and

the environment from PCBs. With respect to radioactive components, the

proposed criteria would achieve compliance with requirements

established under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) as

amended (42 U.S.C. 2011) and maintain doses from radioactive materials

regulated under the AEA at a level that is ``As Low As Reasonably

Achievable'' (ALARA) (40 FR 19442, May 5, 1975; 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix I).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of

Energy (DOE) participated in the identification of situations of

potential concern due to the presence of radionuclides and the

development of the proposed waste management options for PCB/

radioactive waste, as reflected in this section.

The ANPRM stated that neither TSCA nor the PCB regulations has

waiver provisions similar to those under RCRA and solicited comments on

amending the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal for PCBs at 40

CFR 761.65(a) where no disposal technology exists. An extension to the

1-year storage and disposal requirement could also be appropriate for

situations where the disposal capacity or the time necessary to

complete the disposal are insufficient. This approach would provide

flexibility on a case-by-case basis to address specific use scenarios

or storage requirements and issues unique to PCB/radioactive waste

management.

The majority of comments supported flexibility in extending the 1-

year time limit for storage and disposal, and concurred with the

proposal that such extensions or waivers should be determined on a

case-by-case basis. Some commenters suggested a general regulatory

waiver or variance to the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal

requirement. Still another commenter suggested that EPA grant an

exemption similar to the national capacity variance to RCRA's hazardous

waste land disposal restriction requirements. Other commenters proposed

a ``good faith'' showing by contacting disposal facilities nationwide

and certifying that disposal capacity is not available for wastes

remaining in storage. Many commenters also supported extending or

waiving the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal requirement for

materials like PCB/radioactive waste. Commenters recommended extensions

for problems such as: a lack of disposal or treatment technology, a

lack of disposal or treatment capacity, and a lack of sufficient time

to complete the disposal process (e.g., bioremediation).

EPA, in Unit III.G.3 of this preamble, is proposing to amend 40 CFR

761.65 to allow for self-implementing and case-by-case extensions to

the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal requirement for any PCB

wastes. PCB/radioactive wastes are included in that proposal.

Proposed Sec. 761.65(a)(2) would provide the Regional Administrator

for the Region where the waste is being stored, or the Director,

Chemical Management Division (CMD), authority to grant extensions to

the current 1-year time limit for storage and disposal of PCBs,

including PCB/radioactive wastes. An extension could be granted based

on a determination by the Regional Administrator or the Director, CMD,

that there was a demonstrated need or justification to store or conduct

disposal of wastes beyond 1 year and that no unreasonable risks of

injury to health or the environment would result from an extension of

the storage period. Criteria for extension would include, but not be

limited to, a demonstrated need to store wastes beyond the 1-year time

frame due to a lack of disposal capacity, the absence of a treatment

technology or insufficient time to complete the treatment/destruction

process, and a demonstration that relevant treatment or disposal

requirements are being pursued.

The problem of capacity shortfalls is expected to continue for some

time after the disposal technology has been developed because of the

large volume of stored PCB/radioactive wastes awaiting disposal. As an

example of capacity problems, DOE operates a Regional disposal facility

at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for PCB/RCRA/radioactive mixed wastes. Fifty

million pounds of wastes are currently in storage for disposal at

several Regional sites. Current generation rates at the various

facilities that rely on Oak Ridge for disposal are approximately 5

million pounds per year. The maximum disposal rate for the unit is

approximately 3.09 million pounds per year. Current projections

indicate that it will take 30 to 50 years to dispose of the current

materials in storage and all the wastes yet to be generated using the

facility as currently configured (Ref. 11). Therefore, DOE is not

expected to meet the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal

requirement even though it is pursuing additional capacity.

Several commenters requested that under TSCA, the PCB and

radioactive wastes in a mixture not be confused with the term ``mixed

wastes'' under RCRA. EPA agrees and proposes to apply the term ``PCB/

radioactive wastes'' or ``PCB/fissionable radioactive waste'' (See

proposed definition at Sec. 761.3) as opposed to ``mixed wastes'' to

wastes containing PCBs and radioactive constituents subject to

regulation under TSCA and the AEA.

EPA disagrees with those cementers indicating that there is no

disposal technology approved under TSCA for PCB/radioactive waste.

Incineration technology is available; however, there is no commercial

disposal capacity and only limited disposal capacity for incineration

of PCB/radioactive waste (e.g., the DOE incinerator at Oak Ridge, TN).

Therefore, facilities storing PCB/radioactive waste often cannot comply

with the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal because

insufficient disposal capacity exists. Until additional disposal

capacity becomes available, PCB/radioactive wastes will require

storage, generally exceeding the 1-year time limit for storage and

disposal for PCBs. Even as capacity increases, there will still be

requests for extensions of the 1-year time limit for storage and

disposal because of the sheer volume of materials in storage.

Therefore, EPA is not proposing to place a specific time limit on the

extension to the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal. Recipients

of an extension to the 1-year time limit for storage and disposal would

have to request, if needed, and receive from the Regional Administrator

or Director, CMD periodic renewals to their original extension. It is

possible that the same reasons that apply to an original extension

request may apply to any subsequent requests because no progress in

developing a disposal technology has occurred.

One commenter stated that annual status reports for PCB/radioactive

wastes in storage for disposal should be required and updated annually

on July 15 to coincide with the submission of the PCB Annual Report for

each facility. Status reports or reviews of existing extensions may be

conditions established by the Regional Administrator or Director, CMD

providing the extension.

Several commenters suggested that EPA amend Sec. 761.65 to

accommodate concerns relating to management and storage and the

uniqueness of PCB/radioactive wastes. There are certain elements

relating to storage of radioactive wastes containing plutonium or

enriched uranium that require consideration of criticality safety

(i.e., the prevention of nuclear reactions that would pose a threat to

health and the environment). All actions relating to criticality or

radiation protection issues must be coordinated through, and approved

by, the local office of the regulatory authority for radioactive

material regulation; for licensed nuclear facilities, this would be the

appropriate NRC Regional Office or State radiation protection authority

office. The issue of criticality relates to proper storage of

fissionable materials so that a continuous self-sustaining chain

reaction does not occur. [DOE Order 5480.5 states that ``nuclear

criticality is a self sustaining chain reaction, i.e., the state in

which the effective neutron multiplication constant of a system of

fissionable material equals or exceeds unity.''] Proper storage of

fissionable material is essential to avoid a criticality event. A self-

sustaining chain reaction (i.e., criticality) will not result in an

atomic explosion. However, it can result in the generation of harmful

radiation that can cause death or serious injury (Ref. 54).

The issue of criticality relates to the types of containers used to

store the fissionable materials or suspect fissionable materials and

the storage area. EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 761.65(c)(6) by

allowing an alternative to the container requirements approved by the

Department of Transportation (DOT) for PCB/fissionable radioactive

wastes. Containers used to store liquid PCB/fissionable radioactive

wastes would have to be nonleaking. Containers used to store both

liquid and non-liquid PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes would need to

be designed to meet nuclear criticality safety requirements such as

those specified in the American National Standard for Nuclear

Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissile Materials Outside

Reactors (ANSI Standard No. 8.1). The standard currently includes

polyethylene and stainless steel as acceptable container materials

providing they are chemically compatible with the wastes being stored.

Some containers designed to prevent the buildup of liquids could be

used to store non-liquid fissionable PCB/radioactive wastes, provided

they are stored in an area which would contain any spilled liquids. If

any such containers were found to be leaking, their contents would have

to be transferred immediately to non-leaking containers, and the leaked

or spilled materials cleaned-up taking into account relevant safety

procedures appropriate for radioactive materials.

EPA is also proposing to amend Sec. 761.65(b)(1)(ii) to allow

storage areas for PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes to meet

performance criteria for containment volume rather than specific

requirements for curb height. This amendment would retain the current

requirements that facilities storing PCB/fissionable radioactive wastes

store those materials in a storage area meeting the containment volume

requirements equal to at least two times the internal volume of the

largest PCB container stored therein or 25 percent of the total

internal volume of all PCB containers stored therein or whichever is

greater, but would not impose curb height requirements for these

wastes.

Several commenters stated that PCB/radioactive wastes may also

contain additional materials such as asbestos that cannot be

incinerated. EPA believes that technology exists which allows PCBs to

be separated from other materials (e.g., radioactive waste or

asbestos). EPA recommends that whenever possible PCBs be separated from

other wastes; however, today's proposal does not contain requirements

for separating PCBs because guidance for separating PCBs, from water

for example, already exists. EPA had developed a policy allowing the

physical separation of PCBs from other wastes, so long as all waste

parts separated from the original PCBs are regulated (TSCA Compliance

Program Policy 6-PCB-2).

One commenter indicated that EPA does not have the jurisdiction to

regulate radioactive PCBs under TSCA. EPA agrees in part and disagrees

in part. TSCA section 3(2)(B)(iv) states that the term ``chemical

substance'' does not include ``any source material, special nuclear

material, or byproduct material (as such terms are defined in the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and regulations issued under such Act).''

Generators of PCB/radioactive waste are subject to regulatory oversight

for radioactive materials under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as

amended (DOE or NRC). EPA, on the other hand, has regulatory oversight

for PCBs under TSCA. Thus, generators of PCB/radioactive waste must

comply with both EPA and NRC regulations, State requirements, or DOE

Orders. Mixtures of radioactive PCB molecules and non-radioactive PCB

molecules that cannot be separated are subject to TSCA and the AEA

because, for regulatory purposes, when separation of the PCB molecules

is not achieved, the statutory exemption does not extend to

nonradioactive PCBs in a mixture. It should be noted that regulation of

PCB/radioactive mixtures under TSCA and the AEA applies to both wastes

and non-wastes. The NRC and DOE participated in the development of this

section in order to ensure compatibility between TSCA and AEA.

D. Issues Not Addressed When the Rules Were Originally Promulgated

In the ANPRM, EPA solicited comments on whether to establish a

household waste exemption under TSCA, and information regarding current

PCB uses that are not authorized in the regulations. Items 1 and 2

below discuss the household waste exemption and unauthorized use

issues. In responding to these issues, several commenters raised

questions regarding the disposal requirements for certain items

containing PCBs; these issues are addressed under Item 3.

1. Household waste exemption. EPA solicited comments in the ANPRM

on whether a household waste exemption, similar to the household waste

exclusion under RCRA at 40 CFR 261.4, should be established under the

TSCA PCB disposal regulations. The RCRA household waste exclusion

exempts from the hazardous waste requirements any material that was

derived from households (including single and multiple residences,

hotels and motels, bunk houses, ranger stations, crew quarters,

campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day use recreation areas). Examples of

household waste under the RCRA exclusion include garbage, trash, and

sanitary wastes in septic tanks. Under the RCRA criteria, household

waste is limited to: (1) Waste generated by individuals on the premises

of a household, and (2) waste composed primarily of materials found in

the wastes generated by consumers in their homes (49 FR 44978, November

13, 1984). Additionally, EPA sought comments on the types of PCB wastes

for which such an exemption would be applicable. In today's notice, EPA

is proposing a household waste exemption for any waste containing PCBs

generated by individuals on the premises of private households

(including single or individually owned or rented units of a multi-unit

construction) primarily found in wastes generated by consumers in their

homes, i.e., domestic wastes (see proposed regulatory text at

Secs. 761.3 and 761.63). This change in the PCB regulations would

authorize private homeowners, including individually owned or rented

units of a multi-unit construction, to dispose of their unwanted

household items that contain hazardous and toxic wastes under a

municipal solid waste collection program without fear of recrimination

even though the homeowner may have knowledge of the existence of PCBs

in the household appliance.

EPA received roughly a dozen comments, and all but two supported

the establishment of a household waste exemption. Some commenters

provided additional caveats on how such an exemption should be

structured. Comments in favor of the household waste exemption

essentially fell into four categories: (1) Broadly define the scope of

the exemption, (2) consider the impact of the exemption on recycling

activities, (3) limit the scope of the exemption, and (4) address other

disposal considerations (i.e., the disposal of materials containing

PCBs used in the construction of residential buildings). Commenters not

in favor of the TSCA proposal for an exemption questioned whether there

should be a household waste exemption under either TSCA or RCRA, and

whether the volume of waste containing PCBs which was generated from

households was significant enough to warrant an exemption. EPA's

responses to the four broad categories of comments are provided below.

a. Broadly define exemption. Those in favor of establishing a

household waste exemption suggested broadly defining the activities

that would qualify for the exemption. One commenter suggested EPA use

the definition for ``Municipal solid wastes'' found at Sec. 761.3 to

define the scope of the household waste exemption. Municipal solid

wastes are defined as ``garbage, refuse, sludges, wastes and other

discarded materials resulting from residential and non-industrial

operations and activities, such as household activities, office

functions, and commercial housekeeping wastes.'' However, if such a

change was made, the exemption would include items EPA believes should

not be excluded from regulation (e.g., PCB wastes from offices and

commercial activities). Another commenter stated that commercial

buildings should also be included in a household waste exemption

because the wastes generated at these buildings may be from the same

sources and types of equipment found in the household.

The effect of banning the manufacture, processing, and distribution

in commerce of PCBs, coupled with actions taken to limit the use of

PCBs, focuses the Agency's concern on activities where the continued

use of PCBs has been authorized (i.e., industrial or commercial-scale

settings such as utilities, manufacturing sites, construction/

renovation/demolition projects, etc.) rather than on household settings

where appliances with PCBs may not generally be found (Ref. 32).

Additionally, industrial and commercial-scale PCB disposal activities,

because of the risks associated with the greater volume of PCB wastes

generated by these activities, require a level of protection for health

and the environment that can best be achieved through demonstrated and

effective PCB destruction and containment technologies. Therefore, EPA

is not persuaded that a broadly defined household waste exemption,

encompassing large volumes of commercial-scale PCB wastes, would be

protective of health and the environment.

b. Impact on recycling activities. One commenter stated that the

exemption should include waste generated by households but diverted or

removed from the wastestream for purposes of recycling. Another

commenter stated EPA should control the recycling and storage of

household waste (e.g., increase the storage timeframe from 1 to 2

years). The final set of comments associated with this category

suggested EPA take steps to encourage municipal collection programs for

PCBs.

The recycling of household waste contaminated with PCBs surfaced as

a national issue during 1985-86 when the problem of PCB contamination

in shredder fluff (i.e., the non-metallic residue from the shredding

process) was first identified. Since that period, EPA has conducted a

pilot study of the shredding industry to ascertain, among other things,

the source of the PCB contamination (Ref. 34). When the fluff

contamination problem first surfaced, PCB Small Capacitors in household

appliances were thought to be the source of the contamination.

Therefore, data search/collection activities were initiated to

determine the types of appliances that would most likely contain PCB

Small Capacitors. The results of these efforts indicated that PCB Small

Capacitors were not used in most household appliances. However, EPA

determined that there was a significant likelihood that PCB Small

Capacitors could be found in room and central air conditioners, heat

pumps, furnace blowers, fluorescent lighting ballasts, and microwave

ovens (Refs. 32 and 33). As a result, many States have implemented PCB

Small Capacitor removal programs to ensure that PCBs are not

intentionally processed during shredding operations.

In proposing a TSCA household waste exemption, EPA recognizes that

some objects that contain a PCB component may inadvertently be

shredded, resulting in fluff containing PCBs. EPA is proposing at

Sec. 761.62(b) that this residue when tested and found to be

contaminated at levels of 50 ppm PCB or greater, but measuring less

than 50 micrograms per liter (ppb) when using RCRA's Toxicity

Characteristic Leaching Procedure (see 40 CFR part 261 Appendix II) may

be disposed of in a facility that is permitted, licensed, or registered

by a State as a municipal or industrial waste landfill. However,

shredder residue when tested and found to contain 50 ppm or greater

PCBs must be managed pursuant to the current disposal requirements at

Sec. 761.60. (Additional disposal options for this type of waste are

proposed at Sec. 761.62 and discussed at Unit II.A.5. of this

preamble.) Under the current regulations, the processing and

distribution in commerce of PCBs is prohibited unless otherwise

authorized by rulemaking or under a PCB exemption. The proposed

household waste exemption authorizes these activities for household

wastes containing PCBs. The processing of non-exempt, non-household

items such as commercial or industrial grade appliances containing

PCBs, fixtures from renovation or demolition projects, and industrial

or heavy duty equipment containing PCBs would continue to be a

violation of the PCB regulations. EPA is not encouraging the processing

and subsequent dilution of PCBs by recycling facilities.

In a May 31, 1979, Federal Register notice, EPA explained that the

random disposal of PCB Equipment in municipal solid waste sites by

householders and other infrequent disposers did not present an

environmental hazard (44 FR 31528). On the other hand, EPA determined

that the disposal of large quantities of PCB Small Capacitors posed a

somewhat larger risk, and commercial and industrial activities were

encouraged to establish a voluntary collection and disposal program.

EPA would therefore include in the household waste exemption

wastestreams created by recycling operations that accepted only wastes

composed of household items from private residences (see the discussion

under Unit II.D.1.c., ``Limit Scope of the Exemption'' of this

preamble). Therefore, the owner or operator of a recycling facility

should establish contractual requirements or other appropriate

notification or inspection procedures to ensure that PCB wastes not

covered under the exemption (e.g., commercial or industrial appliances

containing PCBs or fixtures from demolition or renovation projects,

industrial, or heavy-duty equipment containing PCBs) were not processed

at the facility. In any event, the owner or operator of such a facility

would be subject to an enforcement action should such waste be

processed.

Municipal collection programs accepting only those wastes that

satisfy the proposed exemption criteria could operate under the TSCA

household waste exemption; the TSCA chemical waste landfill and

incineration requirements would not apply to the disposal of these

wastes (see the discussion under Unit II.D.1.c., ``Limit Scope of the

Exemption'' of this preamble). Because disposal of the wastes collected

under a municipal solid waste program that satisfy the criteria

proposed for the exemption would not be regulated by this rule, the

wastes could be disposed of in a facility which is permitted, licensed,

or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial waste. As a

result, the commercial storage approval requirement and compliance with

the TSCA PCB 1-year time limit for storage and disposal limitation

would not apply. Therefore, EPA does not see a need to extend the

storage timeframe from 1 to 2 years as suggested by one commenter.

c. Limit scope of the exemption. A few commenters stressed the need

to restrict the applicability of a household waste exemption to purely

residential settings in order to exclude business activities that take

place in a residence. Another commenter believed the exemption should

be identical to the RCRA household waste exclusion. EPA has interpreted

the RCRA Subtitle C rules at 40 CFR 261.4 as limiting the exclusion to

those household wastes that meet two criteria: (1) The waste must be

generated by individuals on the premises of either a temporary or

permanent household, and (2) the waste must be composed primarily of

materials found in wastes generated by consumers in their homes. The

RCRA exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(b) includes ``household waste from

single and multiple dwellings, hotels and motels, and other residential

sources.'' The RCRA hazardous waste program, in establishing a

household waste exclusion, acted upon a Congressional intent to ensure

that wastes generated by consumers in their households would be exempt

from the Subtitle C regulation. As a result, the RCRA exclusion

included materials from single and multiple residences, hotels, motels,

bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic

grounds, and day use recreation areas -- locations at which consumer

activity is of a type that would be conducted in a residential setting

and result in the generation of hazardous wastes.

As commenters have suggested, EPA is proposing an exemption under

TSCA for the disposal of household wastes containing PCBs that is

similar, but not identical, to the RCRA exclusion. Like the RCRA

exclusion, the TSCA exemption would not include non-residential PCB

wastes such as commercial or industrial grade appliances containing

PCBs, fixtures from demolition or renovation projects, and industrial

or heavy duty PCB Equipment. Under TSCA, Congress sought to eliminate

the use of PCBs, unless specifically authorized, by banning their

continued manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce.

However, Congress intended that the use of equipment which contained

PCBs in a totally enclosed manner not be terminated prior to the end of

the equipment's useful life. As stated earlier, research conducted by

EPA suggests that some refrigerators and household freezers, room and

central air conditioners, heat pumps, furnace blowers, fluorescent

lighting ballasts, and microwave ovens may contain PCB Small

Capacitors. The risks associated with the disposal of those items

containing PCB Small Capacitors in a random, geographically dispersed

manner by individual homeowners were considered by EPA in mid-1977 when

it proposed the PCB Small Capacitor exemption. EPA has re-evaluated

this issue twice subsequent to that time and has determined that the

exemption should remain in place (see the discussion at Unit II.D.3.c.

of this preamble).

The distinction that EPA makes between the TSCA household waste

exemption, which focuses on consumer products used by individuals in

private residences, and the RCRA household waste exclusion, which

focuses on consumer activity conducted by private individuals in

temporary or permanent residences, is based on the continued belief

that the unregulated disposal of large quantities of PCB Items such as

light ballasts and PCB Small Capacitors by commercial and industrial

activities presents an environmental risk (see 42 FR 26568, May 24,

1977; 43 FR 7152, February 17, 1978; 44 FR 31528, May 31, 1979 and the

discussion on the disposal of small capacitors at Unit II.D.3.c. of

this preamble).

Under RCRA, the risks associated with consumer activities that

result in the generation of hazardous waste do not change when the

activities are conducted in a single or multiple residence, hotel,

motel, bunkhouse, ranger station, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic

grounds, or day use recreation areas. These are all locations at which

the consumer activity is of a type that would be conducted in a

residential setting.

For the PCB household waste exemption under TSCA, EPA believes that

the unregulated disposal by individual households of consumer products

which contain PCBs should be exempted from the TSCA disposal

requirements because there are relatively few household products that

would contain PCBs. The proposed exemption would not apply to

individuals who reside in transient settings because they would likely

not dispose of household appliances that would contain PCBs (e.g.,

certain refrigerators and household freezers, room and central air

conditioners, heat pumps, furnace blowers, fluorescent lighting

ballasts, and microwave ovens). Rather, equipment containing PCBs

obtained for use in transient settings would likely be of a commercial

grade and disposed of in quantity. Therefore, the removal and disposal

of equipment containing PCB Small Capacitors by commercial activities

and entrepreneurial interests such as hotel and motel chains and owners

of multiple unit residential buildings engaged in repair, renovation,

and/or demolition projects, would not be covered by this exemption.

EPA considered excluding from the TSCA household waste exemption

PCB wastes found in a home-based business, but has determined that PCB

Items found in a private residence would likely be evident in these

smaller business enterprises as well. That is, industrial-scale

manufacturing activities would not normally be conducted in a

residential setting. If, however, such was the case, only those PCB

Items commonly found in a private household would be covered by this

exemption.

Although EPA proposes to establish an exemption under TSCA for the

disposal of household waste, the public is reminded of the CERCLA

reporting requirement for PCBs at 40 CFR 302.6 that essentially

requires individuals to contact the National Response Center when they

are disposing of 1 pound or more of PCBs in any 24-hour period in a

non-federally permitted facility. The TSCA household waste exemption

does not relieve an individual (i.e., the person disposing of the waste

and/or the owner of the disposal facility) of the liability for

remediating PCB contamination if the non-federally permitted disposal

facility becomes a future Superfund site. Therefore, EPA is seeking

comments on whether additional limitations should be imposed when

defining entities that would qualify for this exemption.

d. Other disposal considerations. One commenter, although not

objecting to the exemption, suggested EPA should focus on the previous

residential applications of PCBs, such as a wall painted with PCB-

containing paint, and the item's sale, destruction, and disposal. The

proposed TSCA household waste exemption would not apply to debris

produced during building construction, renovation, or demolition and

similar type wastes, since such wastes do not consist primarily of

materials found in wastes generated by a consumer in his/her home.

Disposal options for this large-volume waste are discussed under Unit

II.A. of this preamble.

2. Unauthorized use. EPA also sought comments in the ANPRM on

widespread PCB applications that had not been addressed when the

original regulations were developed. EPA was particularly interested in

obtaining information on current, but unauthorized uses of PCBs. Nearly

a dozen sets of comments were submitted from four primary sources:

Natural gas pipeline companies, the Armed Forces, civilian governmental

agencies, and companies from the industrial sector. Items currently in

use and identified by the commenters as containing PCBs included wool

felt insulating materials which have high levels of PCBs and deck

plates that are found on naval vessels; plastics, paints, small rubber

parts, adhesive tape, and insulating materials used in electrical

cabling, for example; PCB-impregnated gaskets in heating, ventilation

and air conditioning, and other duct systems; concrete expansion joint

materials, and large-diameter natural gas pipeline. Several distinct

``unauthorized use'' scenarios emerged based on a review of the

comments and discussions with EPA Regional representatives. These

scenarios and the proposed regulatory provisions addressing these uses

are discussed below.

a. PCB impregnated materials used in duct systems. During the late

1940s through 1950s, the adhesive coating used on ventilation gaskets

for use in the Department of War (a predecessor of the Department of

Energy (DOE)) heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems

was impregnated with PCBs to comply with the Department of War's

specifications. This application was not in violation of the ban on the

manufacture, use, processing, or distribution in commerce of PCBs

because it occurred prior to the enactment of TSCA and promulgation of

the implementing regulations. However, in late 1989, DOE notified EPA

that over time, operation of their plants had caused small amounts of

the lubricating oil (from motor and compressor bearings) to leach

through the gasket material and to be drawn into the ventilation

system, resulting in releases of material containing PCBs.

b. PCB impregnated insulation materials. The Department of the Navy

discovered that wool felt containing PCBs had been installed in older

submarines for sound-dampening purposes. Information provided to EPA by

the Department of the Navy indicates no PCBs are emitted from the

material and that the material is generally located in inaccessible or

rarely accessed areas, fixed between metal plates. The Navy's current

policy is to remove the material only when necessary (i.e., during

maintenance).

c. Agency experience. Experience gained in implementing the PCB

requirements has resulted in the identification of other uses of PCBs

that are not authorized by the regulations. Issues have arisen over

time concerning the use of PCBs in paint formulations, coatings for

ceiling tiles, roofing, and siding materials, adhesives, waterproofing

compounds, and any number of other chemical uses such as additives and

plasticizers. The recent discovery of asbestos roofing and siding

materials and insulating (potting) material in fluorescent light

ballasts that contain PCBs are illustrations of the Agency's expanding

knowledge of the applications for PCBs.

In November 1992, EPA was informed of the discovery of PCBs in

asbestos roofing and siding materials that had been manufactured by H.

H. Robertson (circa 1917) and marketed as Robertson Protected Metal

(RPM) and Galbestos. RPM and Galbestos are multilayered steel siding

materials that consist of steel, asphalt, or zinc (depending on the

product line); asphalt-impregnated asbestos felt; and an asphaltic

waterproof coating. Although there is limited evidence available that

PCBs were ever introduced in the manufacturing process, preliminary

sampling and analysis have indicated PCB concentrations in this

material ranging from 3) for a 10-hour workday, 40-hour workweek (the

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's (NIOSH's)

occupational exposure limit for all PCBs) or wipe samples of accessible

exterior surfaces greater than 10 micrograms per 100 square centimeters

(10 g/100cm2) would require that action be initiated

within 24 hours of the occurrence to modify the release controls, to

re-encapsulate the surface, or to remove the PCB-impregnated materials.

In addition, individuals would be required to notify the EPA Regional

Toxics Office by facsimile machine or overnight delivery mail services

within 24 hours of the occurrence of an environmental release that

exceeded the action levels listed above. The notification would

indicate the actions that would be taken to bring the facility into

compliance. However, if the release occurred during a weekend or

Federal holiday, notification could be made during the next business

day. This notification would not be in lieu of any other Federal,

State, or local notification requirements such as those under CERCLA

for the release of a hazardous substance (see 40 CFR 302.6).

At the end of their current useful life, all such PCB materials

with a PCB concentration of 50 ppm or greater, and materials that came

in contact with 50 ppm or greater PCBs, including leak collection

systems, PCB-containing paint and other encapsulation materials, and

all materials used during decontamination or cleanup procedures would

have to be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with the PCB

storage requirements at 40 CFR 761.65 and the disposal requirements at

Sec. 761.60 or Sec. 761.62.

While the continued use of unauthorized pre-TSCA PCB materials is a

violation of the existing PCB regulations, in most cases, premature

removal of the media containing PCBs could only be achieved with great

difficulty and at enormous expense given the extraordinary efforts that

would be required to remove the PCBs. The conditions proposed by EPA

for the continued use of these items (i.e., removal upon evidence of

deterioration, installation of release controls, or encapsulation)

would ensure no unreasonable risk from exposure to PCBs as a result of

the continued use of these materials. Comments are therefore solicited

on whether consideration should be given to developing authorizations

for the conditional, continued use of these materials and whether

additional restrictions should be imposed and if there are other

situations which are similar to the pre-1978 authorization issues which

should be addressed in this rulemaking. Comments are also solicited on

whether the proposed authorization should allow for the movement and

reassembly of the PCB-Containing material when such movement and

reassembly will not adversely impact the integrity of the material

(e.g., will not result in a risk of injury to health or the environment

caused by the exposure to PCBs). Comments supporting a modification of

the proposed authorization should also provide examples of the specific

material and reuse scenarios that should be addressed.

EPA has no information indicating that PCBs were routinely used in

the formulation of consumer products such as household paints,

sealants, finishes or caulking. It believes however, that consumers

could now occasionally obtain products such as industrial enamels or

marine paints which were formulated with PCBs, through the purchase of

these items as surplus. The sale of these unauthorized items containing

PCBs is currently prohibited under TSCA. Identification and removal of

these materials, once installed in households, could pose considerable

costs to homeowners while increasing risk of exposure through removal.

Because the PCBs are bound into these materials, EPA believes they

would not pose a serious risk of exposure if left in place. Therefore,

EPA is proposing a general use authorization at Sec. 761.30(q)(2) for

the non-liquid PCBs that meet the definition of household wastes at the

time of disposal. In unit II.A. of this preamble EPA discussed a

proposed exemption for the disposal of household wastes containing

PCBs. Today, EPA is also proposing a general authorization for

continued use at Sec. 761.30(g)(3) for non-liquid items that do not

leach PCBs at levels 50 g/l as measured by the

TCLP.

d. Reuse of natural gas pipeline. EPA received comments on both the

reuse of and the disposal requirements for natural gas pipeline. A

discussion concerning the disposal of natural gas pipeline appears at

Unit II.D.3.e of this preamble. Regarding the reuse of pipeline,

commenters contend that the inadvertent contamination of natural gas

pipeline at or above regulated levels for PCBs all but eliminates any

opportunity for the natural gas industry to reuse the pipe and other

natural gas pipeline appurtenances. Requirements to dispose of or

decontaminate the equipment often deprive these companies of the

economic benefits associated with recycling, reusing, or selling the

equipment. EPA, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), has been reviewing

pipeline abandonment plans and issuing alternate disposal permits for

the decontamination of pipeline since late 1987. Based on this

experience, EPA does not view risks of injury to health and the

environment from exposure to PCBs due to the continued use of PCB-

Contaminated pipeline as being unreasonable.

PCBs when found in natural gas pipeline are generally located in

the condensate that is collected from drips and geographical low points

along the pipeline or in the moisture on the interior of the pipe.

Since these collection points are often dry, EPA is proposing, as an

alternative for characterization purposes, surface levels of greater

than 10 micrograms PCB per 100 square centimeters for dry pipe as the

regulatory equivalent of 50 ppm, and 100 micrograms PCB per 100 square

centimeters in dry pipe as the regulatory equivalent of 500 ppm with

regard to the TSCA PCB regulatory requirements at part 761

(characterization of natural gas pipeline is discussed at Unit II.B.4.

of this preamble). EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 761.30(i) to

authorize the reuse of natural gas pipeline systems, provided the

liquids have been removed. All removed liquids must be disposed of

pursuant to the disposal requirements at Sec. 761.60(a)(3). EPA

solicits comments on whether EPA should require marking of pipe that

may be in temporary storage while testing is being conducted. Pipe in

temporary storage is generally capped at each end and stacked in a

restricted area along the perimeter of the pipeline system. EPA

solicits comment on whether the Agency should require each pipe in a

temporary storage area to be marked or whether only posting a sign in

the storage area would be adequate.

In today's notice at Sec. 761.30(i), the reuse of PCB-Contaminated

natural gas pipeline and appurtenances would be allowed in natural gas

pipeline systems. Natural gas pipeline and pipeline appurtenances that

were to be reused would have to be drained of free-flowing liquids and

decontaminated pursuant to procedures proposed in Sec. 761.30(i). Any

natural gas pipeline may also meet the decontamination level as

proposed in Sec. 761.79(d). Based on experience gained from issuing

alternate disposal approvals to pipeline companies, EPA is also

proposing several additional uses. Acceptable proposed reuse scenarios

are for the transport of bulk hydrocarbons, chemicals, or petroleum

products; as a coal slurry pipeline; as casing to provide secondary

containment under transportation systems such as highways or railroads;

as temporary flume at construction sites; as culverts (less than 80

feet in length) in intermittent flow situations (i.e., as culvert for a

driveway over a roadside ditch); as equipment skids; for sewage service

with written consent of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW); for

steam service; in totally enclosed compressed air systems; as

irrigation systems where the pipe is less than 20 inches in diameter

and 200 miles in length; or as industrial structural material such as

fence posts, sign posts, gate posts, bridge supports, and overhead sign

cross members. In addition to commenters' reactions as to whether

natural gas pipeline should be authorized for reuse in these scenarios,

EPA solicits comments on the other specific uses for which this pipe

would be suitable. The reader should remember that the reuse provision

is intended for contaminated equipment which is drained of all free

flowing liquid (i.e., the surface is dry) and the surface contamination

is demonstrated to be less than 100 micrograms PCBs per 100 square

centimeters.

EPA is also proposing a parallel authorization for the use of PCBs

in other pipelines or air compressor systems, with the consent of the

Regional Administrator. The Agency is aware of the use of PCBs as

lubricants in other air compressor systems not associated with natural

gas pipelines and believes that these uses pose no greater risk.

3. Disposal issues. The disposal of non-liquid, bound materials,

such as plastic insulating material containing PCBs found in electrical

cabling and lead (Pb) cable insulated with PCB oil-soaked paper, were

also identified by commenters to the ANPRM as issues that are not

adequately addressed by the current regulations. Since the ANPRM, EPA

has also received comments addressing the disposal requirements for the

relatively small quantity of waste generated during the chemical

analysis of PCBs.

a. Disposal of PCB-bound material. One commenter requested that EPA

designate these materials as unregulated for disposal. The PCB

concentration encased in this solid plastic insulating material ranges

from less than 50 ppm to 500 ppm PCBs. The commenter argues that non-

liquid, bound PCB materials are distinct from liquid PCBs and that the

current exemption at Sec. 761.60(b)(2)(ii) that allows persons, except

manufacturers, to dispose of PCB Small Capacitors in municipal

landfills should be extended to cover manufactured items containing

non-liquid, bound PCB materials. Alternatively, the commenter argues

that the PCB bound plastic insulation should be treated as ``other PCB

Articles'' having a PCB concentration between 50 and 500 ppm pursuant

to the current Sec. 761.60(b)(5)(ii). The commenter suggests that these

bound PCB materials should be viewed as having been drained of free

flowing liquid and should be treated as unregulated for disposal under

that section.

However, EPA is proposing provisions at Sec. 761.62 to address the

disposal of PCB non-remediation wastes using one of four options:

Incineration, chemical waste landfill, municipal solid waste landfill,

or a disposal method approved by the Regional Administrator. Under this

provision, the Regional Administrator could approve an alternate

disposal method based, among other things, on technical, environmental,

or waste-specific characteristics or considerations indicating that the

disposal method would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health

or the environment. EPA believes that this provision would provide the

flexibility being sought by the commenter, and that expansion of the

current exemption would therefore be unnecessary.

b. Disposal of cable insulation containing PCBs. Another commenter

informed EPA of lead-sheathed cable containing PCBs in the oil-soaked

paper that is used to wrap the copper conductors; the PCB levels

typically range from 50 to 500 ppm with some levels reported as

exceeding 100,000 ppm. Discarded lead cable is potentially stored for

long periods of time, pending changes in the metals market, and then

ultimately sent to scrap yards where the metal is removed and sold to

recycling operations. The scrap yards then burn the PCB-soaked paper

without regard to its PCB content. This may result in illegal disposal

and site contamination by PCBs, dioxins, and dibenzofurans. Further,

cables that are not contained in a conduit are often abandoned in

place. The cable is ripped out to a convenient point, cut, and

abandoned with no protection at all for the cut end. The PCB-containing

oil will often leak, as free flowing oil, from the paper when the cable

is cut or the covering damaged, thereby creating environmental concerns

when cable runs are abandoned or old cable is improperly stored or

disposed of.

According to the information submitted by the commenter, lead cable

is used in high voltage distribution of electric power, typically 5,000

volts and above. This cable has been in use for quite some time (about

100 years), and although lead cable can be found everywhere, including

in overhead distribution lines, the product typically was used in

underground, submerged, or submersible applications. In particular,

lead cable was used to supply primary power to vaulted network

distribution systems and subway transformers. Almost all utilities

serving metropolitan areas and most large industrial facilities either

currently own or have owned significant quantities of lead cable. Large

commercial facilities that distribute primary power also have lead

cable.

On August 25, 1982 (47 FR 37352), EPA promulgated 40 CFR 761.30(m)

to authorize the use of PCBs in, and the servicing of, cable containing

any concentration of PCBs for the useful life of the cable provided the

cable is serviced (including rebuilding) only with dielectric fluid

containing less than 50 ppm PCBs. This provision was based in part on a

study conducted by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the

Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) that described voltage

regulators, switches, electromagnets, and cable as mineral oil-filled

electrical equipment, not designed to contain PCB dielectric fluid. The

rulemaking record indicates that this oil-filled cable generally

contained less than 50 ppm PCBs (Previous Rulemaking Record Ref. 6,

Support Document for the Electrical Equipment Use Rule, Response to

Comments, August 1982). Although this oil-filled cable was authorized

for use until it reached the end of its lifecycle, EPA required that

the disposal requirements at 40 CFR 761.60 and the servicing

requirements at Sec. 761.30(m)(2) be followed for any cable found to

contain a PCB concentration of at least 50 ppm.

Therefore, the issue being raised by the commenter suggests that

other types of electrical cable containing PCBs may exist that were not

anticipated when Sec. 761.30(m) was promulgated. As reflected at Unit

II.D.2. of this preamble, proposed Sec. 761.30(q) would expressly allow

the continued use of electrical cable, in a totally enclosed manner,

until it reached the end of its useful life. However, the installation

of materials containing PCBs as insulation and the processing and

distribution in commerce, except for purposes of disposal, would

continue to be unauthorized.

Comments are solicited on whether EPA should include electrical

cable under the proposed authorization to be inserted at Sec. 761.30(q)

or expand its interpretation of the current authorization at

Sec. 761.30(m) to include, in addition to oil-filled cable, all

electrical cable containing PCBs such as electrical cable encased with

PCB-impregnated insulation materials, and lead cable containing PCB

oil-soaked paper.

EPA also welcomes information on any other electrical cable

containing PCBs, including its uses, PCB concentrations, and potential

risks of exposure to workers, the general public, and the environment.

For example, high-voltage cable used in underground coal mines may have

been manufactured with PCBs in the conductor insulation. In 1954, the

U.S. Bureau of Mines published fire-resistance standards for

underground electrical equipment. In addition to requiring non-

flammable liquid [e.g., PCB dielectric fluid] in liquid-filled

transformers, the Bureau also published a fire test procedure which was

mandatory for ``trailing cables,'' or electric cables that are reeled

out the back of mobile, high-voltage mining equipment such as

continuous miners and shuttle cars (Ref. 56). The fire resistance test

was considered prudent because trailing cables, which lie on the mine

floor, are often damaged by equipment travel and can short out, causing

an electrical fire. While the Bureau did not specify how such cable

should be made, experience with naval vessels indicates that such cable

could have been manufactured with PCBs to meet the test standards. Some

of this cable may still be in use or may be abandoned with other

electrical equipment in mine storage areas or in closed mines. An

environmental hazard would exist if the cable is improperly disposed

of. A hazard to workers would exist from inhalation of the fumes during

an electrical short or from dermal contact when splicing cable.

Therefore, EPA is seeking comment from any person who may know of past

uses of PCBs in electrical cables.

In response to concerns raised about handling lead cable, EPA

cannot emphasize strongly enough that caution must be exercised when

handling any electrical cable which contains PCBs. First, caution must

be exercised when servicing the cable to prevent the inadvertent

release of PCBs into the environment. In this instance, restrictions

attendant to the disposal of lead complicate the PCB disposal process,

as environmental releases must be controlled when separating the PCB

and lead materials to ensure further contamination is avoided. Further,

to ensure the PCBs are not reintroduced into commerce, the lead cable

must be decontaminated to remove the residual PCBs prior to sending it

to a recycling operation. The processing and distribution in commerce

for the purpose of disposal of regulated PCB wastes and their

destruction require an approval (i.e., permit) from EPA (see

Sec. 761.20(c)(2) and Sec. 761.60(a)). Owners and operators of scrap

yards who engage in activities to decontaminate the cable (i.e., to

remove the PCBs) and/or destroy PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or

greater through the practice of ``open burning'' may be subject to an

enforcement action and are conducting these activities in violation of

the TSCA permit requirements if they do not possess a PCB disposal

approval. Finally, owners and operators of recycling operations who

accept lead cable containing PCBs for processing are operating in

violation of the TSCA ban on processing PCBs if they have not obtained

an exemption for their activities (see Sec. 761.20(c)).

The disposal activities identified by the commenter are currently

regulated under the TSCA PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761 to include

abandonment in place, storage, disposal, permitting, and manifesting

requirements for PCB wastes at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater.

Therefore, from a regulatory perspective, no further rules are required

to address the disposal of this cable. However, an outreach program

designed to reach scrap and salvaging operations may be the most

appropriate mechanism to ensure the owners and operators of these

facilities are educated about their responsibilities regarding the TSCA

PCB disposal approval requirements and potential liabilities under

CERCLA for environmental releases of PCBs. EPA solicits the cooperation

of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) and any

other individuals, organizations, or associations in developing a

comprehensive mailing list of facilities to whom such an outreach

program could be directed.

c. Disposal of small capacitors. Another commenter suggested that

EPA define the disposal requirements for PCB Small Capacitors and then

cross reference these disposal requirements to the CERCLA requirements

for reporting releases of hazardous substances. The TSCA disposal

requirements for PCB Capacitors are provided at Sec. 761.60(b)(2);

CERCLA reporting requirements for hazardous substance releases are

listed at 40 CFR 302.6. The regulations in 40 CFR 302.6(a) state: ``Any

person in charge of a vessel or an offshore or an onshore facility

shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any release (other than a

federally permitted release or application of a pesticide) of a

hazardous substance from such vessel or facility in a quantity equal to

or exceeding the reportable quantity determined by this part in any 24-

hour period, immediately notify the National Response Center ((800)

424-8802; in Washington, DC (202) 426-2675).''

Since PCBs are a hazardous substance with a reportable quantity

(RQ) of 1 pound under CERCLA, the question becomes which scenarios

constitute a ``release'' under CERCLA. In the case of fluorescent light

ballasts containing PCB Small Capacitors, open or closed drums of light

ballasts collectively containing 1 pound or more of PCBs, that are

abandoned or otherwise disposed of, such as through placement in a

municipal solid waste landfill, would generally be regarded as a

reportable release under CERCLA. One point should be made clear; unlike

TSCA or RCRA, CERCLA imposes no disposal requirements itself on the

initial disposal (i.e., release) of hazardous substances such as PCBs,

even if the release is in excess of the RQ for that substance. For

specifics regarding the reporting requirements for the release of

hazardous substances under CERCLA, readers are advised to contact EPA's

Superfund/RCRA Hotline, which is the information service for the Office

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response in Washington, D.C. (Toll-free

(800) 424-9346, local for the Washington, D.C. area (703) 920-9810).

In promulgating the disposal and marking rule published on February

1978 (43 FR 7150), EPA decided not to impose special disposal

requirements for small capacitors (except those owned by capacitor

manufacturers or PCB Article manufacturers in which the small capacitor

was placed as a result of manufacturing activities) due to problems

associated with regulating this class of PCB wastes (e.g., enforcement

difficulties, the expense associated with their collection/disposal,

and issues surrounding the question of who should incur these costs).

In reassessing whether steps should be taken to further limit the small

capacitor exemption, EPA determined not to impose additional regulatory

controls (44 FR 31528, May 31, 1979). However, because the disposal of

large quantities of PCB Small Capacitors by commercial and industrial

activities posed a somewhat larger risk to the environment than

disposal by householders and other infrequent disposers, EPA encouraged

commercial and industrial firms to establish a voluntary PCB Small

Capacitor collection and disposal program that would result in the

disposal of these capacitors in either a chemical waste landfill or an

incinerator. EPA still recommends disposing of fluorescent light

ballasts containing intact and non-leaking PCB Small Capacitors in an

approved hazardous waste incinerator or an approved chemical waste

landfill. Persons who can dispose of such fluorescent light ballasts

under the household waste exemption should consider utilizing local

hazardous waste collection efforts sponsored by city/county health

departments, local fire departments or other local government entities

for disposal of these items.

Under the current regulations, PCB Small Capacitors found in light

ballasts generally are not required to be disposed of in a TSCA

approved disposal facility (see Sec. 761.60(b)(2)(ii)). Readers are,

however, advised that State and local governments may impose more

stringent disposal requirements on items containing PCB Small

Capacitors such as fluorescent light ballasts and are advised to

determine all other disposal requirements prior to undertaking

disposal. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation has developed guidance

addressing these activities in conjunction with its ``Green Lights

Program'' (Ref. 53). Once a PCB Small Capacitor starts leaking, it is

regulated for disposal under Sec. 761.60(d) as a PCB Article and must

be disposed of according to the disposal rules for PCB Articles at

Sec. 761.60(b)(5) (Ref. 57). Also, Sec. 761.60(b)(2)(iv) identifies

another exception: ``Any PCB Small Capacitor owned by any person who

manufactures or at any time manufactured PCB Capacitors or PCB

Equipment and acquired the PCB Capacitors in the course of such

manufacture shall be disposed of in ... an incinerator which complies

with Sec. 761.70 or until March 1, 1981, ... in a chemical waste

landfill which complies with Sec. 761.75.'' In practice, this means

that, except for manufacturers of capacitors or manufacturers of

equipment containing small capacitors, any quantity of intact, non-

leaking small capacitors may be disposed of in a municipal landfill. As

mentioned earlier in this section, EPA reevaluated the scope of the

small capacitor exemption and determined not to impose additional

regulatory controls. In the Federal Register notice of May 31, 1979 (44

FR 31528), EPA also warned readers that any PCB spillage that might

result from failure of, or from damage to small capacitors, could be

considered illegal disposal, as is the case for other spills of PCBs.

If the insulating material inside the ballast, sometimes referred to as

``potting'' material, contains PCBs at greater than or equal to 50 ppm,

then the entire ballast is regulated for disposal under current rules

even if the internal small capacitor remains intact and nonleaking.

Many facilities are disposing of light ballasts or their capacitors in

TSCA incinerators to avoid the potential for Superfund liability should

today's municipal landfills become subject to future CERCLA cleanup

action. Therefore, EPA proposes to include a statement in

Sec. 761.60(b)(2)(vii) in response to the commenter's suggestion that

the PCB regulations cross reference the CERCLA requirements.

Since the publication of the ANPRM, EPA has received a TSCA section

21 petition from several fluorescent light ballast recyclers and the

Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (Ref. 49). The petitioners requested

that disposal requirements for intact and non-leaking small capacitors

in fluorescent light ballasts at Sec. 761.60(b)(2)(ii) be amended to

require incineration of fluorescent light ballasts or incineration of

the PCB Small Capacitors or PCB potting materials removed by recycling

the fluorescent light ballasts. EPA granted their petition and stated

its intention to initiate a regulatory investigation to determine

whether or not to amend the PCB Small Capacitor disposal requirements

at Sec. 761.60(b)(2)(ii) (Ref. 50).

As noted earlier, EPA has discussed the disposal and phaseout of

PCB Small Capacitors in various rulemakings. In 1979, EPA encouraged

firms disposing of large quantities of PCB Small Capacitors to

establish a voluntary collection and disposal program resulting in the

waste capacitors going to chemical waste landfills or high temperature

incinerators (44 FR 31514, 31528, May 31, 1979). In 1982, EPA revisited

the issue of small capacitors, this time in regard to their potential

phaseout. EPA concluded that because many of these PCB-containing small

capacitors are encapsulated and contain minimal quantities (0.1 to 0.6

pounds) of fluid and a significant amount of absorbent materials such

as paper, PCBs are rarely released from the capacitors during their use

or from equipment using the capacitors. Therefore, EPA determined the

exposure risks to humans, food, feed, water, and the environment were

low (47 FR 37342 and 37349, August 25, 1982).

In their petition, petitioners raised a number of issues for which

EPA is seeking information regarding the proposed amendment of the

disposal requirements for intact and non-leaking PCB Small Capacitors,

specifically those in fluorescent light ballasts.

First, the petitioners indicated that the PCBs are not only found

in small capacitors but in the potting material of fluorescent light

ballasts as well. EPA is seeking data on the level of PCBs found in the

potting materials of fluorescent light ballasts and whether the PCBs

were in the potting material prior to recycling, i.e., were the PCBs in

the potting material because of a rupture of the PCB Small Capacitor.

EPA is also seeking data on the percentage of ballasts recycled that

contain PCBs in either a small capacitor and/or the potting material,

as well as the concentration of PCBs in the potting material. EPA is

also seeking information regarding the manufacture of light ballasts

that have PCBs in their potting materials, i.e., date of manufacture,

PCB concentration, etc. However, any additional disposal requirements

for fluorescent light ballasts with PCB Small Capacitors become moot if

the ballast potting material contains PCBs. Fluorescent light ballasts

with PCBs in their potting material meet the definitional requirements

of PCB Articles under Sec. 761.3 and the disposal requirements for such

items are already prescribed at Sec. 761.60(b)(5). If PCBs

50 ppm are found in the potting materials of fluorescent

light ballasts, the issue of continued use becomes a significant

problem because such PCBs are not authorized for use under Sec. 761.30.

However, PCBs found at 50 ppm are subject to the

disposal requirements at 40 CFR 761.60. However, PCB-Contaminated

Articles that have been drained of all free flowing liquids could still

be abandoned in place under proposed Sec. 761.60(b)(6)(ii), as under

current Sec. 761.60(b)(5)(ii), but not used or reused.

Local distribution system pipe frequently shares public rights-of-

way, thus underlying major public infrastructures such as roadways,

water lines, sewer lines, and telephone and electrical service lines.

Unlike interstate transmission lines, testing and removal of some

distribution lines have a great potential for causing prolonged

disruption of other utilities sharing these rights-of-way. Today's

proposal at Sec. 761.60(b)(5) would allow segments of either interstate

or distribution natural gas pipelines to be abandoned in place along

these rights-of-way if certain activities were undertaken to limit the

risk of exposure. EPA believes that it is not a function of who owns

the pipeline but rather how disruptive a removal would be that is the

determining factor for allowing abandonment in these circumstances. DOT

requires that natural gas pipeline abandoned in place must be

disconnected from all sources and supplies of gas; purged of gas (but

not liquids); in the case of local distribution lines, physically

disconnected from the cust

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.