# Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls;

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-29568

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** December 6, 1994

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-29568. Public record. Not legal advice.