[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17602-17619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-8055]
[[Page 17601]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 761
Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 63 / Monday, April 2, 2001 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17602]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[OPPTS-66015B; FRL-5790-7]
RIN 2070-AC39
Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the requirements for reclassifying
transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators that
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from PCB status
(500 parts per million (ppm)) to PCB-Contaminated
(50 but <500 ppm) or non-PCB (<50 ppm) status; or from PCB-
Contaminated to non-PCB status. This rule brings the reclassification
requirements into conformance with data and Agency experience gained
since EPA last revised this regulation in 1982. The rule reduces the
regulatory and economic burden of reclassification, and reduces the
risk from PCBs to health and the environment by encouraging the phase-
out and removal of PCBs from electrical equipment.
DATES: This rule is effective May 2, 2001. This rule is promulgated
for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m April May 2, 2001 under 40 CFR
23.5.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact:
Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7408), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: [email protected].
For technical information contact: Tom Simons, Project Manager,
National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
260-3991; fax number: (202) 260-1724; e-mail address:
[email protected]; or Julie Simpson, Attorney, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 260-7873; fax number:
(202) 260-1724; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you process,
distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs contained in
transformers, electromagnets, switches, voltage regulators, circuit
breakers, reclosers, or cable. Potentially affected categories and
entities include, but are not limited to:
Table 1.--Potentially Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of
Categories NAICS codes potentially affected
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas 211111........... Facilities that own
Extraction. electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Electric Power Generation, 2211............. Facilities that own
Transmission, and Distribution. electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Food Manufacturing............. 311.............. Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Paper Manufacturing............ 322.............. Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Paper Mills.................... 322121........... Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Newsprint Mills................ 322122........... Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Petroleum and Coal Products 324.............. Facilities that own
Manufacturing. electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Petroleum Refining............. 32411............ Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
All Other Petroleum and Coal 324199........... Facilities that own
Products Manufacturing. electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Chemical Manufacturing......... 325.............. Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Primary Metal Manufacturing.... 331.............. Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Iron and Steel Mills........... 331111........... Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Rolled Steel Shape 331221........... Facilities that own
Manufacturing. electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Primary Aluminum Production.... 331312........... Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Line Haul Railroads............ 482111........... Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Lessors of Real Estate......... 5311............. Owners of commercial
buildings with
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs
Waste Treatment and Disposal... 5622............. Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Materials Recovery Facilities.. 56292............ Facilities that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
Public Administration.......... 92............... Agencies that own
electrical
equipment
containing PCBs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit
could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To
determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR part
761. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult a technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this
Document or Other Related Documents?
1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document, and certain other related documents that might be available
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/.
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and
Regulations,'' ``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the
entry for this document under ``Federal Register--Environmental
Documents.'' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings
at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
To access information about PCBs, go directly to the PCB Home Page
for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at http://www.epa.gov/pcb.
2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for
this action under docket control number OPPTS-66015B. The official
record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received during an applicable
[[Page 17603]]
comment period, and other information related to this action, including
any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI).
This official record includes the documents that are physically located
in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those
documents. The public version of the official record does not include
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic
comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available
for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North
East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC.
The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202)
260-7099.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
This final rule amends the requirements for reclassifying
transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators (40 CFR
761.30(a)(2)(v) and 761.30(h)(2)(v)). Reclassification is a voluntary
process you can use to lower the PCB concentration in electrical
equipment. This rule:
Eliminates the requirement to raise the temperature of a
transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.Centigrade (C) .
Eliminates the 90-day in-service use requirement for all
transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators with a
pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm.
Allows you to reclassify PCB-Contaminated transformers,
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators to non-PCB status by
retrofilling with fluid <2 ppm PCBs. The rule does not require you to
test the equipment after 90 days.
Requires you to keep records showing that you followed the
required reclassification procedures, and to make these records
available to EPA or to any party holding or possessing the equipment.
1. What are the advantages of reclassifying electrical equipment?
Electrical equipment containing PCBs is regulated for use based on the
PCB concentration of its dielectric fluid. The most stringent and
costly use conditions apply to electrical equipment containing
dielectric fluid at PCB concentrations 500 ppm. Less
stringent and less costly use conditions apply to PCB-Contaminated
electrical equipment (containing 50 but <500 ppm PCBs in the
dielectric fluid), and non-PCB electrical equipment (containing <50 ppm
PCBs in the dielectric fluid). Reclassification allows you to take
advantage of the less stringent and less costly use conditions that
apply to electrical equipment at lower PCB concentrations, helps you
avoid or reduce liability and insurance costs, and benefits health and
the environment.
a. Use conditions--i. Transformers. EPA originally issued the
reclassification rules to allow the owner of a PCB Transformer (a
transformer containing dielectric fluid at 500 ppm PCBs) to
rebuild the transformer rather than dispose of it. Rebuilding involves
draining and opening the transformer to service the coil and other
internal parts, and presents the risk of PCB exposure to workers and to
the environment. Because of this risk, since 1979 EPA has banned
rebuilding PCB Transformers unless they were first reclassified to at
least PCB-Contaminated status (that is, the PCB concentration of the
dielectric fluid was reduced to <500 ppm) (Ref. 1, p. 31532).
There are many advantages to reclassifying a PCB Transformer
besides allowing you to rebuild it. PCB Transformers are subject to the
following stringent use conditions, and associated costs, that do not
apply to either PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. You can avoid
these use conditions and costs by reclassifying the equipment.
Marking. If you own a PCB Transformer, you must make sure
it is marked with a `ML' (40 CFR 761.40(a)(2) and 40 CFR
761.40(c)(1)). For example, you must mark an unlabeled PCB Transformer
that you sell to another entity; an unmarked PCB Transformer that you
dispose of; a transformer that you assumed was PCB-Contaminated, but
that you test and find is contaminated at 500 ppm; or a PCB
Transformer whose mark is missing, damaged, or incorrect. Additionally,
you must mark the location of a PCB Transformer, including vault doors,
machinery room doors, fences, hallways or other means of access (other
than grates and manhole covers) (40 CFR 761.40(j)(1)). There are no
marking requirements for PCB-Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. EPA
estimates that you save $32.09 each time you avoid having to mark a PCB
Transformer or its location (Ref. 2, p. 8).
Inspections. If you own a PCB Transformer, you must
inspect it periodically to look for leaks and other potential problems
(40 CFR 761.30(a)(ix), (x), and (xiii)) while the unit is in use and in
storage for reuse. There are no inspection requirements for PCB-
Contaminated or non-PCB transformers. EPA estimates that you incur
$43.80 in annual inspection costs for each PCB Transformer you own
(Ref. 2, pp. 8-9).
Recordkeeping. If you own a facility that uses or stores a
PCB Transformer, you must keep an annual document log (40 CFR
761.180(a)). You must include in the annual document log information on
the location and disposal status of PCBs and PCB Items at your
facility. EPA estimates that if your facility is large, your cost to
keep an annual document log is $1,226. Large facilities are likely to
have several PCB Items, including PCB Transformers. You do not have to
include a reclassified in-service transformer in the annual document
log. EPA expects that not having to include a reclassified transformer
in the annual document log would result in cost savings, but is unable
to quantify those savings for an individual transformer (Ref. 2, p. 9).
In addition, the regulations restrict the use of PCB Transformers
near food or feed and in commercial buildings (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(i)
through (v), 40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(vii), 40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(xiv)). PCB
Transformers are subject to registration with EPA (40 CFR
761.30(a)(1)(vi)). You may not store combustible materials in a PCB
Transformer enclosure or within 5 meters of an unenclosed PCB
Transformer (40 CFR 761.30(a)(1)(viii)). If a PCB Transformer is
involved in a fire-related incident, the owner of the transformer must
immediately report the incident to the National Response Center (40 CFR
761.30(a)(1)(xi)). If a PCB Transformer leaks, you must initiate clean-
up within 48 hours (40 CFR 761.30(x)). Finally, the owner of a PCB
Transformer must keep records of inspection and maintenance for at
least 3 years after disposing of a PCB Transformer (40 CFR
761.30(a)(1)(xii)). The PCB Transformer owner may avoid these
restrictions and requirements by reclassifying the transformer to PCB-
Contaminated or non-PCB status.
ii. Electromagnets. You may not use or store for reuse
electromagnets containing 500 ppm PCBs that pose a risk to
food or feed (40 CFR 761.30(h)(1)(i)). This prohibition does not apply
to electromagnets that contain <500 ppm PCBs.
iii. Voltage regulators. Voltage regulators containing 1.36
kilograms (3 lb.) or more of dielectric fluid 500 ppm PCBs
are subject to essentially the same marking, inspection, recordkeeping,
and fire-reporting requirements as PCB Transformers (40 CFR
761.30(h)(1)(ii)). These requirements do not apply to
[[Page 17604]]
voltage regulators that contain <500 ppm PCBs.
b. Liability and insurance costs. Reclassification can help you
avoid or reduce liability and insurance costs. Liability may result
from catastrophic events such as explosions or fires, leaks or spills,
or from improper handling or disposal of PCB waste. In addition, the
risk of such events may increase your insurance costs. Dielectric fluid
released from electrical equipment under any of these scenarios is
unregulated for disposal if its concentration is <50 ppm PCBs, which it
is likely to be if you have reclassified the equipment to non-PCB
status. Therefore, cleanup of spills or releases from electrical
equipment reclassified to non-PCB status is likely to be less costly
and subject to less liability than if you had not reclassified the
equipment.
c. Environmental benefits. Finally, reclassification of electrical
equipment benefits health and the environment. Lower PCB concentrations
in reclassified equipment reduce the risk to workers who may be exposed
while using or servicing the equipment. Spills from reclassified
equipment release less PCBs to the environment and present less of a
risk during cleanup and disposal. PCBs removed from the equipment
during reclassification are disposed of under existing requirements at
40 CFR part 761, subpart D, and thus are not released to the
environment.
2. What do the current reclassification regulations require? Under
the current rules for reclassifying electrical equipment containing
PCBs:
You may reclassify a transformer, electromagnet, switch,
or voltage regulator with a PCB concentration 500 ppm to
PCB-Contaminated status by reducing the PCB concentration in the
equipment's dielectric fluid to <500 ppm.
You may reclassify a transformer, electromagnet, switch,
or voltage regulator with a PCB concentration 500 ppm, or a
transformer, electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator classified as
PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment, to non-PCB status by reducing
the PCB concentration in the equipment's dielectric fluid to <50 ppm.
You must operate the equipment under loaded conditions
(i.e., place it in in-service use) for 90 days after the last servicing
conducted to reduce the PCB concentration in the equipment. The
equipment's dielectric fluid must contain the specified PCB
concentration at the end of this period.
For electromagnets, switches, or voltage regulators, ``in-
service use'' means the equipment is used electrically under loaded
conditions. For transformers, ``in-service use'' means the transformer
is used electrically under loaded conditions that raise the temperature
of the dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.C.
Table 2 summarizes the current requirements for reclassifying
electrical equipment.
Table 2.--Current Requirements for Reclassifying Electrical Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and test results
If the PCB concentration and, if your show the PCB then the
(ppm) in the equipment prior and you . . . equipment is a concentration (ppm) equipment's
to retrofill is transformer . . . after retrofill is reclassified
. . . status is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 operate the operation under 50 but PCB-Contaminated
equipment under loaded conditions <500
loaded conditions raises the
for at least 90 temperature of the
days after dielectric fluid
retrofill to at least 50
deg.C
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
<50 non-PCB
50 but <500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current rules governing reclassification of transformers are at 40
CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v); rules governing reclassification of
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators are at 40 CFR
761.30(h)(2)(v). The rules governing reclassification of
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators also apply to circuit
breakers, reclosers, and cable (40 CFR 761.30(m)(1)(ii)).
The current rules also allow EPA to approve the use of alternate
methods that simulate loaded conditions of in-service use. Requests for
reclassifying transformers using an alternate method had typically
involved simulating in-service use or requesting that the temperature
requirement of 50 deg.C for 90 days be waived. It has been EPA's
experience that these requests were typically necessary when a
transformer had failed, is not on line because it is being serviced or
is in storage for reuse as a back-up unit, or for some other reason
could not be operated under normal loaded conditions.
3. Why did EPA propose to change the requirements? After EPA
promulgated the original reclassification rule in 1982, the Agency
received information that raised questions about whether the 50 deg.C
requirement, the in-service use requirement, and the 90-day period for
testing after retrofill were necessary for an effective
reclassification. This unit discusses the new information and EPA's
assessment of whether it warrants a change in the current
reclassification requirements at Sec. Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v) and
761.30(h)(2)(v).
a. New information--i. The 1986 study. An industry-sponsored study
of 18 retrofilled PCB-Contaminated transformers was conducted in 1986
to determine what effect, if any, electrical loading had on removing
PCBs from the core and coil of a drained, flushed, and refilled
distribution transformer (Ref. 3). The study concluded that electrical
loading had no significant effect on PCB levels. The refilled fluid in
all the sampled transformers remained <50 ppm.
EPA's independent analyses also concluded that the study showed no
discernable relationship between transformer temperature, transformer
loading, and the rate of leaching (``leaching'' refers to the migration
of PCBs from the transformer core and coils into the dielectric fluid)
(Refs. 4 and 5). EPA also noted that the most important factor in the
post-retrofill concentration of the transformer was the pre-retrofill
concentration of the dielectric fluid. Another important factor was the
length of time between retrofill and sampling--the results of the study
generally confirmed EPA's belief that near asymptotic (eventual) PCB
concentrations are achieved by 90 days after retrofill (Ref. 4). EPA
also found that the study showed that within 7 days after retrofill the
PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid had already achieved a
relatively high
[[Page 17605]]
proportion of the level attained at 90 days. Increases in PCB
concentrations after the first 7 days were gradual and fairly
consistent from transformer to transformer (Refs. 4 and 5).
ii. The 1989 study. A larger industry-sponsored report analyzed
data on 387 retrofilled transformers with concentrations <1,000 ppm
collected from several dozen utility companies (Ref. 6). The report
concluded that the percent of PCB reduction in a retrofilled
transformer was not significantly related to its size (KVA rating),
whether the transformer was energized, whether it was loaded, or
whether the internal temperature reached 50 deg.C. The report found
that whether the transformer was flushed was a significant factor, but
only for transformers with pre-retrofill concentrations 100
ppm PCBs.
EPA's analysis of the report focused on 263 transformers for which
the data were complete (Ref. 4). Of these 263 transformers, 175 had
pre-retrofill PCB concentrations of 50 but <500 ppm; the
remaining 88 retrofilled transformers had pre-retrofill PCB
concentrations 500 but <1,000 ppm. All the transformers were
retrofilled with fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, and were tested for PCB
concentration shortly after retrofill. After 90 days of in-service use,
during which the temperature of the dielectric fluid reached 50 deg.C
in some, but not all, of the transformers, the PCB concentrations were
tested again. All but one of the 175 PCB-Contaminated transformers
contained <50 ppm PCBs, and the concentration of that one was 53 ppm.
Of the 88 PCB Transformers, all but eight (9.0%) had post-retrofill
concentrations <50 ppm after 90 days, and the mean post-retrofill
concentration for these eight transformers was 64.4 ppm. The results of
EPA's analysis were generally consistent with those of the report's
author. The only variable which EPA found to be related to post-
retrofill PCB level was the number of days between pre-retrofill and
post-retrofill testing. EPA's analysis concluded that these data showed
that a properly conducted retrofill was very likely to reduce PCB
dielectric oil concentrations to <50 ppm in transformers that had pre-
retrofill levels <500 ppm; and that over 90% of transformers with pre-
retrofill levels 500 but <1,000 ppm had 90-day test
concentrations <50 ppm.
iii. Other information. EPA evaluated two additional sets of data
on transformers that had been retrofilled and tested more than 90 days
after retrofill (Ref. 4). The data did not specify how the retrofill
was conducted or the conditions under which the transformers were
operated after retrofill, so their usefulness for establishing
regulatory requirements is limited.
In addition, information submitted to EPA orally and in writing
indicated that many transformers, even under normal operating
conditions, might never reach 50 deg.C because of the design
limitations of the equipment, equipment failure, low ambient
temperatures, or transformer loading restrictions. In addition, this
information suggested that there are drawbacks associated with
attempting to comply with the 50 deg.C temperature requirement by
simulating in-service use of the transformers. These include safety
risks to maintenance personnel, fire hazards associated with energizing
or insulating equipment which is not designed to withstand heavy loads
or increased temperatures, and the economic and resource commitment
that must be borne by the transformer owners (Refs. 7, 8, 9, and 10).
b. EPA's assessment of the new information. Review of this new
information led EPA to believe that changes to the reclassification
requirements might be warranted (Refs. 4 and 5).
i. The 50 deg.C requirement. EPA originally based the 50 deg.C
requirement on a 1981 study showing that this temperature was
associated with light electrical loading and that it caused the release
of PCBs from the internal components of transformers into the
dielectric fluid (Refs. 8 and 11). EPA's independent analyses of the
1986 and 1989 studies concluded that they showed no discernable
relationship between transformer temperature and leachback rate. Other
information discussed in Unit II.A.3.a.iii. raised questions about the
practicability, safety, and necessity of this requirement. EPA believed
that the data showed that the rate of migration of PCBs into the
dielectric fluid appeared not to be greatly affected by the
transformer's temperature, and that the difficulties and dangers
associated with meeting this criterion supported eliminating the
50 deg.C requirement.
ii. The in-service use requirement. EPA's independent analyses of
the 1986 and 1989 studies concluded that whether a transformer <1,000
ppm PCBs was loaded or energized did not significantly affect its post-
retrofill concentration. The data showed that PCB levels in these
transformers measured shortly after retrofill, but before being placed
in service, had nearly reached their asymptotic PCB level. These
studies therefore supported eliminating the in-service use requirement
for transformers <1,000 ppm.
iii. Properly conducted retrofill. The studies showed that, in PCB-
Contaminated transformers, a properly conducted retrofill substantially
reduced the PCB concentration in the dielectric fluid. This is
particularly well-demonstrated in the case of PCB-Contaminated
transformers. During a properly conducted retrofill, the transformer
was drained, flushed, and refilled with dielectric fluid <2 ppm PCBs.
The studies supported requiring a properly conducted retrofill as part
of the reclassification process.
iv. Testing after 21 days. The 1986 study data showed that a high
proportion of the asymptotic PCB concentration was attained very soon
after retrofill. After the first week, continued increases in PCB
concentrations occurred gradually and predictably. The increase in PCB
concentration was generally consistent from transformer to transformer,
and from one make or model to another. In general, the longer the
period after retrofill when sampling was conducted, the more reliable
the estimate of the eventual PCB level. Sampling at 3 weeks provided a
more reliable estimate than at 1 week. These data supported allowing
testing shortly after retrofill for transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs.
4. What changes to the reclassification requirements did EPA
propose? In the Federal Register of November 18, 1993 (Ref. 12), EPA
proposed to amend the PCB rules governing the reclassification of
transformers to:
Eliminate the requirement to raise the temperature of a
transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.C.
Eliminate the 90-day in-service use requirement for all
transformers with a pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm.
Require you to test a transformer to determine its PCB
concentration prior to retrofill.
Require a ``properly conducted retrofill''--draining the
PCB dielectric fluid, flushing with dielectric fluid <2 ppm PCBs or
with a solvent in which PCBs were at least 5% soluble by weight using
no less than 10% of the volume of the transformer, and retrofilling
with <2 ppm dielectric fluid.
Allow you to initially test a transformer with a pre-
retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm after 21 days, rather than 90
days, after a properly conducted retrofill. If post-retrofill test
results showed a PCB concentration 25 to <500 ppm, you could
reclassify the transformer to PCB-Contaminated status. If the results
were <25 ppm, you could reclassify the transformer to non-PCB status.
[[Page 17606]]
Allow you to immediately reclassify, with no 90-day post-
retrofill test, a PCB- Contaminated transformer to non-PCB status,
after a properly conducted retrofill.
Table 3 summarizes the proposed changes to the requirements for
reclassifying transformers.
Table 3.--Proposed Changes to the Requirements for Reclassifying Transformers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and test results
If test results show the PCB show the PCB then the
concentration (ppm) in the and you . . . and you . . . concentration (ppm) transformer's
transformer prior to after retrofill is reclassified
retrofill is . . . . . . status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 drain the PCB operate the 50 but PCB-Contaminated
dielectric fluid transformer under <500
from the loaded conditions
transformer; flush for at least 90
the transformer days after
with dielectric retrofill
fluid <2 ppm PCBs
or with a solvent
in which PCBs are
at least 5%
soluble by weight
using no less than
10% of the volume
of the
transformer; and
refill the
transformer with
<2 ppm dielectric
fluid.
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
<50 non-PCB
-------------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000 operate the 25 but PCB-Contaminated
transformer under <500
loaded conditions
for at least 21
days after
retrofill
----------------------------------------
<25 non-PCB
------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
50 but <500 (not applicable) (no need to test)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also proposed to:
Regulate a reclassified transformer based on its actual
concentration if testing showed that the actual concentration had
increased after reclassification, but allow the owner to repeat the
reclassification process.
Require you to keep records of the transformer's pre-
retrofill PCB concentration, the retrofill and reclassification
schedule and procedure, and the transformer's post-retrofill PCB
concentration.
Require the PCB dielectric fluid drained from the
equipment to be stored, manifested, and disposed of according to
existing requirements for PCB waste.
EPA did not propose to change the requirements for reclassifying
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators, but solicited
comments on whether to treat this equipment like transformers for
purposes of reclassification (Ref. 12, p. 60973). The current
regulations at Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v) allow you to reclassify voltage
regulators, switches and electromagnets that are 500 ppm
PCBs to non-PCB or PCB-Contaminated status.
EPA also requested comment on whether to consider a transformer's
Kilovolt-ampere (KVA) rating in determining what kind of
reclassification process would be required (Ref. 12, p. 60972). EPA had
received information that distribution transformers with a KVA rating
of 500 or less are not required to have sampling valves and are
therefore difficult to sample after retrofill (Ref. 13).
5. What comments did EPA receive on the proposed rule? EPA accepted
written comments on the proposed rule for 45 days after its
publication. On March 9, 1994, EPA held a public hearing on the
proposed rule in Washington, DC, where the agency took oral comments
(Ref. 20). An additional period for written reply comments followed the
hearing. Copies of all written comments and a transcript of the hearing
are in the official record for this rulemaking. These documents are
available to you as part of the public version of the official record
for this final rule. To learn how to get copies of these documents, see
Unit I.B. The following discussion addresses significant issues raised
by the commenters, EPA's reaction to those comments, and how these
comments affected the outcome of this final rule. Comments raising each
issue are identified in parentheses by the designation assigned each
comment by the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center staff.
a. Drop the 50 deg.C requirement. The current reclassification
rule requires you to operate a retrofilled transformer under conditions
that would raise the temperature of the dielectric fluid to at least
50 deg.C. Many commenters favored EPA's proposal to eliminate this
requirement. Commenters agreed that the data discussed in Unit II.A.3.
show that temperature has a minimal, if any, effect on the amount of
PCBs recovered when a transformer is drained and refilled with non-PCB
fluid. They also noted the practical difficulties and safety risks
associated with attempting to comply with this requirement (C1-007, C1-
008, C1-009, C1-011, C1-012, C1-014, C1-024, C1-033, C1-034, C1-035,
C1-036, C1-037, C1-038, C1-039, C1-041, C1-043, C1-045, C1-046, C1-048,
C1-050, C1-052, and C1-054) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). The final rule
follows the proposal in eliminating the 50 deg.C requirement.
b. Drop the in-service use requirement for equipment <1,000 ppm
PCBs. Most commenters did not object to EPA's proposal to drop the in-
service use requirement for transformers <1,000 ppm PCBs. However, one
commenter supported maintaining the in-service use requirement for all
transformers (C1-047) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-43). The commenter also asked
EPA to define ``in-service use'' and ``under loaded conditions.'' The
commenter was concerned that retrofilled transformers might be put back
into in-service use
[[Page 17607]]
under conditions where there was significant voltage in the equipment,
but no measurable electric current to ensure the movement of fluid
through the internal components of the equipment; and that, without
this movement, the levels of PCBs in the fluid might rise after
retrofilling due to the retention of PCBs in the fluid remaining in the
coil.
The commenter submitted results of experiments conducted to
determine the effectiveness of triple rinsing in reducing the PCB
concentration of fluids retained within the core and coils of mineral
oil-filled electrical equipment. In one experiment, two transformers
containing fluid at 128 and 282 ppm PCBs respectively were triple
rinsed with <2 ppm PCB fluid. Then the transformers were disassembled
and the fluid and core were tested. In one transformer, the PCB
concentration of the fluid was 13 ppm and the concentration of the core
was 58 ppm. In the other transformer, the concentration of the fluid
was 6 ppm and the concentration of the core was 75 ppm. The second
experiment used a hot oil flush a varied number of times in 3
transformers with PCB concentrations >400 ppm. The concentrations of
the rinse oil after the last flush ranged from 9 to 22 ppm PCBs, and
the residual concentrations in the core and coil assemblies ranged from
105 to 204 ppm PCBs. The commenter asserted that these experiments
supported their concern that lack of loading could cause PCB
concentrations to rise after retrofilling due to the retention of PCBs
in the oil remaining in the coil. The commenter urged EPA to ensure
that the PCB concentration of the oil in the coils was not still above
regulated levels prior to reclassification of the equipment (C2-005).
EPA has never formally defined the terms ``in-service use'' or
``under loaded conditions,'' nor did it propose to. Placing equipment
back into in-service use or operating it under loaded conditions means
simply that, after retrofill, you must operate the equipment under its
normal operating conditions, whatever they may be. As the commenter
correctly pointed out, the purpose of putting the equipment back into
in-service use was to circulate the oil in the equipment to remove PCBs
from the inner workings of the equipment. Based on the data discussed
in Unit II.A.3., this final rule does not require you to operate
equipment containing <1,000 ppm PCBs under loaded conditions. At the
same time, this rule does not allow you to reclassify equipment
containing PCBs 50 ppm simply by rinsing, flushing, or
retrofilling it (except for PCB-Contaminated equipment retrofilled with
fluid <2 ppm). You must allow 90 days after retrofill for leaching to
occur and then test the equipment to determine its post-retrofill
concentration. The commenter's study, which tested only the
effectiveness of flushing a transformer, does not demonstrate that the
reclassification process required by the final rule for equipment
<1,000 ppm PCBs (removing the free-flowing liquid from the equipment,
refilling the equipment, and testing the fluid after 90 days) will not
result in an effective reclassification.
Another commenter believed the in-service use requirement was
necessary so that PCBs would leach adequately from the transformer's
porous insulation into the newly retrofilled liquid (C1-001) (Ref. 20,
pp. 8-29). The commenter correctly noted that the studies referenced in
EPA's proposed rule did not measure the PCB level in the porous inner
parts of a reclassified transformer. The commenter was concerned that
workers dismantling a ``non-PCB'' reclassified transformer could be
exposed to PCBs 500 ppm. EPA has not adopted this suggestion
because the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. support allowing
reclassification without in-service use for equipment <1,000 ppm PCBs
while the equipment is in use. The reclassification procedure is a form
of servicing to reduce the risks from PCBs during continued use. It
does not determine equipment's concentration at the time of disposal.
You should verify the equipment's PCB concentration at the time of
disposal to ensure that you manage and dispose of it properly. An added
safeguard to proper disposal is the disposal industry's practice of
testing waste at the disposal facility.
Several commenters took issue with the statement in the preamble to
the proposed rule that most substation transformers contain
1,000 ppm PCBs (Ref. 12, p. 60972). The commenters asked EPA
to correct this statement in the final rule (C1-007, C1-011, C1-020,
C1-024, C1-035, C1-036, and C1-045). EPA made the statement based on
data available at the time of the proposed rule, as part of its
rationale for dropping the in-service use requirement for transformers
<1,000 ppm PCBs, but not for transformers 1,000 ppm. EPA
believed that small distribution transformers, which are difficult and
dangerous to sample after having been reconnected, are likely to
contain <1,000 ppm PCBs, while large substation transformers, which can
be sampled more conveniently and safely, generally contain
1,000 ppm PCBs. EPA is retaining the in-service use
requirement for all equipment 1,000 ppm, but, in light of
these comments, is not basing the requirement on assumptions about the
concentration of substation transformers. EPA is relying on the data
discussed in Unit II.A.3. in retaining the in-service use requirement
for equipment 1,000 ppm, whether or not the equipment is a
substation transformer. These data do not support dropping the
requirement for this equipment, and commenters did not supply
additional data to support such a change.
A commenter asked EPA to clarify that the rule covers Askarel
transformers as well as mineral oil-filled transformers (C1-040). You
may reclassify equipment regardless of the type of dielectric fluid it
contains. Virtually all Askarel transformers will have PCB
concentrations 1,000 ppm prior to reclassification. For
equipment 1,000 ppm PCBs, you must operate the equipment for
at least 90 days after retrofill, under loaded conditions, and retest
the dielectric fluid. The equipment is regulated based on this post-
reclassification PCB concentration.
Finally, a commenter suggested eliminating the 90-day in-service
use requirement for all oil-filled electrical equipment, regardless of
concentration, that does not contain a core (C1-038). The commenter did
not support this suggestion with data showing that it would be
effective for equipment 1,000 ppm, so EPA is not adopting
it.
i. Allow immediate reclassification of PCB-Contaminated equipment
to non-PCB status. Under the proposed rule, if you removed all free-
flowing PCB dielectric fluid from a piece of PCB-Contaminated equipment
and refilled the equipment with dielectric fluid containing <2 ppm
PCBs, the equipment would be immediately reclassified to non-PCB status
without being placed in in-service use (that is, operated under loaded
conditions). The final rule retains this provision, which most comments
on this issue supported (C1-009, C1-037, C1-045, C1-048, and C1-052)
(Ref. 20, pp. 8-29). (See Unit II.A.5.b. for a discussion of a comment
that supported maintaining the in-service use requirement for all
transformers.)
ii. Modify the 90-day in-service use requirement for equipment
1,000 ppm PCBs. One commenter stated that they do not
continuously use their 1,000 ppm PCB Transformers, and
therefore would not be able to meet the continuous 90-day in-service
use requirement included in the proposed rule. The commenter requested
that EPA allow for cumulative time in service in the final rule (C1-
008). Another commenter stated that it had one-of-a-
[[Page 17608]]
kind transformers that are in storage for reuse as backups to the
equipment on line. These backups might never get on line and,
therefore, might never be able to meet the 90-day in-service use
requirement for equipment 1,000 ppm (C1-030). The commenter
suggested that EPA allow equipment that has been properly retrofilled
to be tested at an interval to be determined by EPA.
EPA is not adopting these suggestions. The effectiveness of these
alternate reclassification methods could depend on factors such as the
equipment's pre-retrofill PCB concentration, the amount of fluid
replaced, and the length of the intervals the equipment was in service
and out of service. EPA would need to look at each case individually.
If you wish to use a method of reclassification that differs from the
method in the final rule, you may request an approval from the Director
of the National Program Chemicals Division under
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).
iii. Do not require all retrofilled transformers to be installed.
A commenter asked EPA to clarify Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) (formerly
Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(C)(2)(iii)). That provision refers to
transformers that are ``installed'' for reclassification. The commenter
noted that under the proposal, not all transformers would have to be
installed as part of reclassification, only those 1,000 ppm
PCBs (C1-017).
The purpose of Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) is to authorize the
installation of retrofilled transformers where installation is required
for reclassification. Without this authorization, installation would be
prohibited under Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii). You need not install a
transformer as part of reclassification unless required to do so under
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v), notwithstanding Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B).
The proposed rule would have deleted all but the first sentence of
Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B). The purpose of this change was to remove
language that would have conflicted with EPA's proposal to allow
reclassification after 21 days for transformers 500 but
<1,000 ppm PCBs. Since EPA is not finalizing this provision of the
proposal (see Unit II.A.5.c.iii.), the final rule leaves the current
language of Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(iii)(B) intact.
c. Drop the post-retrofill 90 day testing requirement--i. Allow
immediate reclassification of equipment < 500 ppm PCBs. Under the
proposed rule, if you removed all free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid
from a piece of PCB-Contaminated equipment and refilled the equipment
with dielectric fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, the equipment would be
immediately reclassified to non-PCB status without further testing. The
final rule retains this provision, which most comments on this issue
supported (C1-007, C1-008, C1-014, C1-015, C1-036, C1-037, C1-039, C1-
041, C1-043, C1-045, C1-046, C1-048, C1-050, and C1-052) (Ref. 20, pp.
8-29, 44-60). (See Unit II.A.5.c.v. for a comment recommending
retesting until there is no increase in PCB concentration in at least
two consecutive tests.)
ii. Allow retrofill with fluid <50 ppm PCBs. Commenters also wanted
the option of retrofilling equipment with fluid <50 ppm PCBs (C1-037
and C1-054). Allowing retrofilling with fluid at this slightly higher
PCB concentration would save costs and would not add to
reclassification risks where testing was required after retrofill.
Therefore, the final rule allows you to reclassify equipment using
retrofill fluid <50 ppm PCBs, however testing is also required to
ensure that the PCB concentration has been sufficiently reduced and the
reclassification has been successful. If it has not, you may either
repeat the reclassification process or treat the equipment as regulated
at its actual concentration as reflected in the test.
iii. Do not allow reclassification based on 25 ppm after 21 days
for equipment 500 but <1,000 ppm. Under the proposed rule,
you could have tested transformers with a PCB concentration
500 but <1,000 ppm after 21 days rather than after 90 days
following a properly conducted retrofill. Then, if the results of the
post-retrofill test were <25 ppm PCBs, you could have reclassified the
transformer to non-PCB status. If the results were 25 but
<500 ppm PCBs, you could have reclassified it to PCB-Contaminated
status.
Commenters were generally opposed to this provision. Most saw it as
creating a new category of PCB-Contaminated transformer (25
but <500 ppm), and pointed out that this new category would create
confusion, particularly in the application of the Spill Cleanup Policy
(where a spill of 25 but <50 ppm would have to be
categorized for purposes of cleanup as 50 but <500 ppm) (C1-
002, C1-006, C1-011, C1-027, C1-032, C1-036, C1-038, and C1-041).
Another commenter stated that this provision would allow high
concentrations of PCBs to remain in the porous inner parts of the
transformer (C1-001). Others believed the 25 ppm level was arbitrary,
or might be unreasonably low based on the available data (C1-024, C1-
039, and C1-048). A commenter asked EPA to clarify how these
transformers should be labeled and stored during the 21-day period (C1-
017). Other commenters favored the provision, but thought the 25 ppm
threshold was overly conservative (C1-023, C1-024, and C1-051).
After re-examining the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. and these
comments, EPA has not included this provision in the final rule. In the
1989 study, PCB concentrations in a significant percentage (9%) of
transformers with pre-retrofill concentrations 500 but
<1,000 ppm tested <50 ppm at 21 days, but continued to rise, and when
retested after 90 days showed PCB concentrations 50 ppm.
Therefore, in this final rule, EPA is requiring that transformers with
a pre-retrofill concentration of 500 but <1,000 ppm PCBs be
tested to determine PCB concentration 90 days after retrofill.
iv. Allow reclassification based on testing after 21 days for
transformers with PCB concentrations 1,000 ppm. Commenters
suggested that the reclassification procedures proposed for equipment
500 but <1,000 ppm be applied to at least some equipment at
concentrations 1,000 ppm. This would allow equipment at
higher concentrations to be tested after 21 days of in-service use as
opposed to 90 days (C1-023 and C1-030). One commenter suggested that
these classification procedures apply to equipment containing up to
5,000 ppm PCBs. The commenter theorized that since the data EPA relied
on in the proposed rule indicated that most equipment retains less than
8% of the original PCB concentration after retrofill, EPA could raise
the upper limit as high as 6,200 ppm (6,200 ppm x 0.08 = 496 ppm). For
the reasons discussed in Unit II.A.5.c.iii., EPA is not including the
21-day provision in the final rule. EPA therefore is not adopting this
suggestion.
Likewise, EPA is not adopting commenters' suggestion to eliminate
the 90-day test after retrofill for transformers 1,000 ppm
PCBs, especially for mineral oil transformers less than 500 KVA (C1-035
and C1-036). The data discussed in Unit II.A.3. support amending the
reclassification requirements for electrical equipment <1,000 ppm PCBs,
not for equipment at higher concentrations. The commenter did not
support this suggestion with data, so EPA is not adopting it.
v. Require testing to be repeated until there is no increase in
concentration. One commenter stated that, since leachback occurs,
retesting should be conducted at regular intervals until there is no
increase in PCB concentration in at least two consecutive tests. The
commenter also argued that reliance on a single test taken at 21 days,
or even at 90 days, can
[[Page 17609]]
lead to improper disposal based on the assumption that the equipment
has maintained that concentration over time (C1-047) (Ref. 20, pp. 29-
43).
EPA recognizes that even after a properly conducted
reclassification procedure, the concentration of reclassified equipment
may rise. The final rule at Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)(B) and
Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v)(B) clarifies that if the PCB concentration in the
fluid of reclassified equipment changes, causing the equipment's
reclassified status to change, the equipment is regulated based on the
actual concentration of the fluid. The final rule allows you time to
come into compliance with requirements for a transformer or voltage
regulator you discover contains 500 ppm PCBs. The rule also
allows you to repeat the reclassification procedure.
Finally, the reclassification procedure is a form of servicing to
reduce the risks of continued use. It does not determine equipment's
concentration for disposal. You should verify the equipment's PCB
concentration at the time of disposal to ensure that you dispose of it
properly. An added safeguard to proper disposal is the disposal
industry's practice of testing waste at the disposal facility. EPA does
not believe that continuous testing of reclassified equipment while in
use is necessary to ensure proper disposal.
d. Define ``properly conducted retrofill.'' A commenter requested
that EPA define the term ``properly conducted retrofill'' or provide
further clarification on the process (C1-036). EPA is not using this
term in the final rule. Instead, the reclassification process described
at Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v) and Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v) includes all the
required steps for reclassifying electrical equipment, including the
requirements for retrofilling.
i. Clarify how to drain equipment prior to retrofill. A comment
suggested that EPA prescribe what draining means procedurally, i.e.,
whether there is a certain amount of time that should elapse when
draining the free-flowing liquid from a piece of equipment, and whether
there are other methods one could use to remove the fluid (C1-014).
The purpose of draining is to remove as much as possible of the
original dielectric fluid from the equipment prior to retrofill.
Removing this free-flowing liquid increases the likelihood of a
successful reclassification. EPA is not requiring that a specific
amount of time elapse or that a specific method be used to remove the
fluid from the equipment. You may use any method that removes the
fluid, such as draining or pumping. An extended or second draining or
pumping may be prudent to remove as much of the free-flowing fluid as
possible. To reduce confusion, the final rule requires you to
``remove'' rather than ``drain'' the fluid from the equipment prior to
retrofill.
You must either test the fluid prior to initiating a
reclassification procedure or assume that it is 1,000 ppm
PCBs. You may not use the ``assumption rule'' at Sec. 761.2 to classify
mineral oil filled equipment as PCB-Contaminated (50 but
<500 ppm PCBs) for purposes of reclassification under this rule. Nor
may you batch test the fluid from several pieces of equipment and use
those test results to classify all of the equipment.
ii. Do not require flushing as part of a ``properly conducted
retrofill.'' Several commenters were strongly opposed to including
flushing as part of the reclassification procedure. They stated that
flushing provided no significant benefit because it only removed
superficial surface residues, and that flushing generated additional
waste, which is counter to the Agency's waste minimization efforts (C1-
007, C1-008, C1-045, C1-046, and C2-001) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
Other commenters recommended that if the provision were maintained,
the process should be revised. Some suggested reducing the flush volume
from 10% to 5% of the volume of the transformer, or limiting the flush
volume to a maximum of 500 gallons (C1-007, C1-036, and C1-046). Some
commenters pointed out that the proposal to estimate flush volume based
on the transformer's height, width, and depth would not account for
volume displaced by the core and coils. They recommended estimating 10%
of the volume of the equipment based on the volume of fluid removed or
80% of total volume (C1-007, C1-020, and C1-050).
Other comments suggested that EPA allow the use of flush material
at PCB concentrations up to 50 ppm, rather than <2 ppm. One commenter
wanted to know whether the flush material could be disposed of based on
its ``as is'' PCB concentration as opposed to the original
concentration of the equipment it was used to flush. Lastly, commenters
felt that flushing should be optional for PCB Transformers
1,000 ppm where post-retrofill testing is required (C1-007
and C1-008).
Based on the data discussed in Unit II.A.3. and the comments, this
final rule does not require flushing as part of the reclassification
procedure. The data show that flushing provided only about a 7%
difference in PCB reduction compared to equipment that was not flushed
(Refs. 4 and 6). In addition, as commenters pointed out, flushing
creates additional waste, which is counter to the Agency's waste
minimization efforts. Nonetheless, you may flush equipment prior to
retrofill, and the final rule prescribes neither the concentration nor
the volume of flush material you must use. You may dispose of the flush
material ``as is'', i.e., based on its concentration after the flushing
procedure has been completed, not based on the concentration of the
equipment prior to the flush. (See 40 CFR 761.79(g).)
e. Do not make KVA a factor in the reclassification procedure. In
the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asked for comment on whether KVA
rating, in addition to or separately from pre-retrofill concentration,
should be taken into account in determining transformer
reclassification requirements. EPA had requested comment on this issue
based on information provided by a utility that distribution
transformers with a KVA rating of 500 or less are not required to have
sampling valves, and that sampling these units outside of the shop
environment is precarious. The utility therefore suggested that EPA not
require post-retrofill testing of distribution transformers 500 KVA and
below (Ref. 12, p. 60972, and Ref. 13).
There was little consensus among the commenters on this question.
Some commenters noted that there were no data indicating a relationship
between PCB concentration and KVA rating, or demonstrating a
relationship between KVA rating and the effectiveness of a retrofill
(C1-007, C1-008, C1-014, C1-024, C1-041, and C1-045) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-
60). One commenter stated that the current post-retrofill testing
requirements have not placed an undue burden on industry (C1-040).
Other commenters favored taking KVA into consideration, stating that
transformers larger than 500 KVA are generally designed to allow in-
service sampling of their oil, while transformers 500 KVA and smaller
are not. Sampling the latter transformers would be unfeasible and
potentially dangerous to service personnel (C1-017, C1-035, and C1-
036). One commenter suggested that, if KVA were taken into account, a
100 KVA rating level would be more favorable to the environment (C1-
040). Another suggested that distribution transformers be defined as
less than 69 KV, 500 KVA equipment (C1-020). Since most of the comments
did not support the utility's suggestion, EPA has not added a KVA
criterion to the final rule.
f. Allow reclassification of all oil-filled equipment as well as
transformers. In the proposed rule, EPA invited comments on allowing
the proposed
[[Page 17610]]
reclassification rules to be used for electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators (Ref. 12, p. 60973). Commenters addressing the issue
unanimously agreed that EPA should include these types of electrical
equipment, but some also wanted EPA to expand the rules to include all
oil-filled electrical equipment 50 ppm (C1-014, C1-036, C1-
038, C1-041, C1-045, and C1-052). Information supplied by commenters
supported amending Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v) so that the new
reclassification procedures apply to electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators. Under Sec. 761.30(m)(1)(ii), these reclassification
provisions also apply to circuit breakers and reclosers. The
information shows that, compared to a transformer, this equipment
contains the same amount or less porous inner materials that could
absorb PCBs. Therefore, the reclassification requirements that apply to
transformers would be as effective or more effective for this
equipment.
Electromagnets. A commenter stated that electromagnets do
not contain significant core and coil components that can trap PCBs
(C1-011).
Switches (including sectionalizers). Commenters stated
that switches and sectionalizers are used throughout all utility
systems. Switches and sectionalizers contain dielectric fluid, but,
unlike transformers, do not contain an iron core or paper insulated
coils of wire. Therefore, there is very little material into which oil
(and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-007, C1-011, C1-012, C1-023, and
C1-037) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
Voltage regulators. Voltage regulators control voltage as
it moves through the electric utility system from generation to
ultimate consumption. Commenters stated that voltage regulators are
like transformers in that they require the same type of insulating oil
to retain dielectric integrity, and they contain an iron core or paper
insulated coils of wire. Therefore, the anatomy of a voltage regulator
and a transformer can be considered the same and the procedures to
reclassify the two forms of equipment should be the same. Thus, enough
oil and PCBs would be removed by a drain and refill process to
reclassify a contaminated voltage regulator without placing it in
service (C1-007, C1-011, C1-012, C1-017, C1-020, C1-037, and C1-039)
(Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). One commenter provided data on retrofilled
voltage regulators, but the data did not specify how the retrofill was
conducted or the conditions under which the voltage regulators were
operated after retrofill, so the data's usefulness for establishing
regulatory requirements is limited (C1-007).
Circuit breakers. Circuit breakers may be used throughout
a utility system, but are especially common in transmission substations
where they are used to protect transformers. According to commenters,
circuit breakers require the same type of insulating oil as
transformers for dielectric integrity. However, unlike transformers,
they do not contain an iron core or paper insulated coils of wire into
which oil (and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-007, C1-023, and C1-
041) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
Reclosers. Reclosers are relatively small pieces of
equipment that are often mounted on utility poles to protect
distribution system equipment. Reclosers contain dielectric fluid, but
have no inner iron core or paper insulate coils of wire into which oil
(and thus PCBs) could be absorbed (C1-007) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
Under Sec. 761.30(m)(1)(ii), you may also reclassify oil-filled cable.
It is EPA's experience that oil-filled cable rarely contains PCBs
50 ppm (Ref. 14, p. 37352). Therefore, most oil-filled cable
is considered non-PCB, and would not be reclassified. In the unlikely
event that you discover oil-filled cable containing PCBs at
50 ppm, you may reclassify it by following the procedures at
40 CFR 761.30(h)(2)(v).
One commenter asked that the reclassification procedures also apply
to bushings (C1-038). EPA has not adopted this suggestion because
bushings are not regulated separately from the equipment on which they
are installed, that is, there is no separate use authorization for
bushings and therefore no reclassification provision for bushings in
Sec. 761.30. The PCB regulations assume that intact electrical
equipment contains the component parts necessary for the equipment to
operate. A bushing that is in service on authorized electrical
equipment is treated as having the same PCB concentration as the
equipment of which it is a part. Therefore, if you reclassify equipment
under Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v), Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v), or Sec. 761.30(m)(1),
you need not reclassify the bushing separately for the equipment as a
whole to be considered reclassified.
If, however, you wish to reduce the concentration of the bushing
while it is installed on the equipment, you may do so by draining the
existing fluid and disposing of it as PCB waste, flushing the bushing
with fluid containing <2 ppm PCBs, and refilling it with fluid
containing <2 ppm PCBs. Once you remove a bushing from the equipment,
it is regulated as a separate PCB Article and you may not reclassify it
under the provisions of this rule. At the time of disposal, you must
dispose of a bushing containing fluid 50 ppm PCBs as a
separate PCB Article under 40 CFR 761.60(b)(5) (Refs. 15, 16, and 17).
Commenters pointed out that many voltage regulators contain an
internal small capacitor that has the potential to rupture or leak.
They felt that it was important to remove this small capacitor during
reclassification to prevent it from leaking and contaminating the
replacement fluid in the voltage regulator (C1-017 and C1-024). Intact
and non-leaking small capacitors containing PCBs are authorized for use
without restriction (see 40 CFR 761.3 and 761.30(l)), and are subject
to existing disposal requirements (see 40 CFR 761.60(b)(2)). If your
voltage regulator's fluid were contaminated by a leak from an internal
small capacitor, you could reclassify the voltage regulator if
necessary, or you could manage it at its post-leak PCB concentration.
EPA recognizes this potential problem and suggests that if you find a
small capacitor in a voltage regulator, you remove it after draining
and replace it with one that contains no PCBs.
g. Do not regulate disposal as part of reclassification. The
proposed rule would have required you to properly store and dispose of
PCB-containing waste materials as part of a properly conducted
retrofill. Commenters felt that the ultimate disposal of these
materials (such as drained fluid, rags, and personal protective
equipment) was not necessary to complete a properly conducted retrofill
(C1-007, C1-008, and C1-024) (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60). EPA agrees that the
reclassification process can be regulated separately from the disposal
of waste from reclassification. This final rule does not specifically
refer to disposal of PCB-containing waste materials as part of the
reclassification procedure, although you must dispose of these
materials based on their PCB concentration at the time of disposal by
following existing rules at 40 CFR part 761, subpart D.
h. Allow time to come into compliance when equipment's
concentration changes after reclassification. Commenters were concerned
that they would be subject to enforcement action if, after properly
reclassifying a piece of equipment, the concentration of the equipment
rose above the concentration limit for its class. Commenters strongly
urged that the rules allow the opportunity to come into compliance if
equipment originally reclassified as non-PCB were later discovered to
be 50 ppm, or if
[[Page 17611]]
equipment originally reclassified as PCB- Contaminated were later
discovered to be 500 ppm. Commenters suggested using a
schedule similar to that at Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(xv) for assumed mineral-
oil transformers that are later discovered to be 500 ppm.
Commenters also wanted to have the opportunity to repeat the
reclassification process if the transformer's concentration increased
(C1-007, C1-012, C1-016, C1-035, C1-050, C1-051, C1-052, and C2-001).
Under the final rule, a piece of equipment is regulated for use
based on its reclassified concentration until the equipment is
retested. If the retest shows that the equipment is above the upper
concentration limit for its reclassified status, the equipment is
regulated based on the actual concentration of the fluid. EPA agrees
with the commenters that if you discover that the concentration of
equipment reclassified to PCB-Contaminated status has risen to
500 ppm PCBs, you should have time to come into compliance
with requirements that apply to equipment containing 500 ppm
PCBs. The final rule directs you to follow the schedules in
Sec. 761.30(a)(1)(xv)(A) through (J) for transformers and
Sec. 761.30(h)(1)(iii) for voltage regulators. If you documented that
you conducted the original reclassification procedure properly (see the
recordkeeping requirement at Sec. 761.180(g)) and you complied with
these schedules, you would not be in violation of the reclassification
requirements.
If you discover that the concentration of equipment reclassified to
non-PCB status has risen to 50 but <500 ppm, the only
regulatory concern (other than cleanup of spills during use) is the
eventual disposition of the equipment and its fluid. During use, you do
not need to mark, inspect, or keep records on the equipment.
The final rule also allows you to repeat the reclassification
process to reduce the concentration in any reclassified equipment to
the desired level.
i. Allow reclassification based on the procedures in the proposed
rule. Several commenters requested that EPA allow owners to consider
their equipment to be reclassified if they followed the procedures in
the proposed rule before the effective date of this final rule. These
commenters asked to be ``grandfathered in'' to the requirements of the
final rule, rather than having to request a formal approval of an
alternate method of reclassification from EPA or having to repeat the
procedure after the effective date of this final rule (C1-007, C1-008,
C1-023, C1-050, C1-052, and C1-053).
EPA is not adopting this suggestion. Prior to promulgation of this
final rule, owners who wanted to reclassify their equipment based on
the provisions of the proposed rule could do so based on a written
approval from EPA. Those who have requested and received an approval
need not follow the reclassification process in the final rule for the
equipment that was subject to the approval. Those who have followed the
requirements of the proposed rule without requesting and receiving an
approval have not complied with the reclassification rules and must
either request an approval or comply with the provisions of this final
rule. Equipment reclassified under the rules currently in effect does
not need to be reclassified again once this final rule goes into
effect.
j. Allow alternate reclassification methods. A commenter suggested
that EPA amend the rule to allow on-line processing (C1-021). The
commenter stated that on-line processing is conducted while the
transformer is energized and under load, thereby achieving sustained
elevated temperatures which should promote effective PCB extraction
from the transformer. The commenter did not submit enough data to allow
EPA to include this process in the final rule. If you wish to use on-
line processing for reclassification, you may request an approval under
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)(C) or Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v)(C).
k. Do not require recordkeeping. The proposed rule would have
required you to maintain the following records on your reclassified
equipment for at least three years after you disposed of the equipment:
The pre-retrofill concentration of the equipment.
The retrofill and reclassification schedule and procedure.
A copy of the analysis indicating the equipment's
reclassified status (i.e., final PCB concentration).
Commenters questioned the need for this requirement (C1-022, C1-039,
and C1-041). First, as discussed in Unit II.A.5.l., if reclassified
equipment is sold or transferred to another company for use, service,
or salvage, those records will provide useful information to the buyer,
servicer or disposer. In addition, for equipment that has been
reclassified from 500 to <500 ppm PCBs, the records of
reclassification will provide documentation of why the equipment is no
longer being recorded on the annual report or the annual document log
and why the equipment is no longer being marked or inspected. Finally,
the records will allow EPA inspectors to determine whether the
equipment was reclassified according to the regulatory requirements.
EPA is generally retaining the proposed recordkeeping provisions in
this final rule for equipment reclassified on or after the effective
date of this rule. This final rule requires you to maintain records of
the pre-reclassification concentration of the equipment, the
reclassification procedure conducted, and the final PCB concentration
after the completion of the reclassification procedure (see
Sec. 761.180(g)).
In the preamble to the proposed rule (Ref. 12, p. 60971), EPA
erroneously cited ASTM methods D923-86 and D923-89 as recognized
methods for determining the concentration and nature of PCBs in
dielectric fluid. These are sampling methods, not testing methods. You
may analyze for PCBs using any method of gas chromatography that is
appropriate for the material being analyzed (see 40 CFR
761.60(g)(iii)). Methods include ASTM Method D4059-96, ``Standard Test
Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids
by Gas Chromatography'' (Ref.18) and ``The Determination of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Transformer Fluid and Waste Oils,'' issued
by EPA's Office of Research and Development (Ref.19). Other methods are
listed in 40 CFR 761.60(g)(iii).
l. Require that reclassified equipment be labeled to protect
workers from higher PCB concentrations in porous inner parts. A
commenter submitted data to show that 21 days after a PCB-Contaminated
transformer has been properly reclassified, the fluid in the equipment
may test at <50 ppm, but the porous inner parts may be 50
ppm. The commenter expressed concern that workers who dismantle these
transformers for servicing or disposal could unknowingly be exposed to
PCBs at 50 ppm when they remove the internal components of
the equipment. The commenter asked EPA to require notification and
labeling to show that the equipment had been reclassified (C1-001 and
B1-001) (Ref. 20, pp. 8-29, 62-67). Another commenter opposed such a
requirement as misleading (Ref. 20, pp. 44-60).
EPA has not adopted this suggestion. Such a change would not by
itself guarantee that workers dismantling transformers were protected
from PCBs that might remain in the internal workings of reclassified
equipment. The PCB regulations at 40 CFR 761.30(a)(2)(v) and (h)(2)(v)
have allowed the reclassification of electrical equipment since 1982
and have never
[[Page 17612]]
required labeling of units <500 ppm. If EPA required labeling of all
equipment reclassified after the effective date of this rule, disposal
facilities would still receive equipment that had been reclassified
before the effective date of this rule, but that was not labeled. If
the facility needed to make sure of the PCB concentration of the
internal components of this unlabeled equipment, it would still have to
test these components--it could not rely on the fact that the equipment
was not labeled to assume that the equipment had not been reclassified.
EPA believes that imposing a labeling requirement for equipment
reclassified after the effective date of this rule could therefore give
disposers of electrical equipment a false sense of security in handling
equipment that was not labeled. A labeling requirement would create
costs and burdens for owners of reclassified equipment, but would be of
limited usefulness to servicing and disposal facilities.
This final rule requires anyone conducting a reclassification after
the effective date of this rule to keep records of the reclassification
(see 40 CFR 761.180(g)). These records must contain the pre-
reclassification concentration of the equipment, the reclassification
procedure conducted, and the final PCB concentration after the
completion of the reclassification procedure. Any potential buyer,
servicer, or disposer may request these records. Obtaining these
records would serve as notification of the potential for the inner
workings of the equipment to contain higher PCB concentrations than the
fluid itself, and would allow servicers and disposers to take proper
precautions if the equipment were to be dismantled. In addition, the
existing rules at Sec. 761.60(b)(8) protect workers by requiring that
persons disposing of PCB Articles wear or use protective clothing or
equipment to protect against dermal contact with or inhalation of PCBs
or materials containing PCBs.
Finally, nothing in this final rule limits the servicer's or
disposer's flexibility to include provisions in its contracts with its
suppliers requiring additional information on the servicing history of
the equipment it receives.
m. Do not encourage dilution of PCBs during reclassification. One
commenter objected to the proposal on the basis that it encouraged the
deliberate dilution of PCBs as an acceptable means of avoiding more
stringent disposal requirements. The commenter stated that
reclassification in general, and the proposed amendments to an even
greater extent, allow transformer owners to decrease the PCB
concentration in the residual oils in the internal components of the
transformer through dilution with the retrofill liquid. The commenter
believed the proposal would cause huge volumes of PCBs to be diluted to
unregulated levels rather than permanently destroyed. The commenter
suggested that EPA instead create incentives for the use of methods
which actually remove the PCBs from the transformer and decrease the
risk of release of PCBs into the environment (C1-047 and C2-005) (Ref.
20, pp. 29-44).
As discussed in Unit II.A.1.a., EPA originally developed the
reclassification process to allow the owner of a PCB Transformer to
rebuild the transformer rather than dispose of it. Rebuilding involves
draining and opening the transformer to service the coil and other
internal parts, and presents the risk of PCB exposure to workers and to
the environment. Because of this risk, in 1979 EPA banned the
rebuilding of PCB Transformers unless they were reclassified to PCB-
Contaminated status. Since 1979, EPA has regulated rebuilding and
reclassification as a form of servicing, and has allowed dilution of
PCBs during these activities. While EPA generally prohibits dilution of
PCBs to avoid disposal requirements, the agency recognized that for
certain activities, including servicing, dilution is essential to the
intended performance of the activities and is not performed with the
intent of evading the disposal requirements for PCBs. Therefore,
reclassification is an exception to the general ban on dilution to
avoid regulation at Sec. 761.1(b)(5).
The process of retrofilling equipment during reclassification
removes substantially all the original fluid (90% according to this
commenter, 95% according to another commenter who testified at the
informal hearing (Ref. 20, p. 51)), and since this fluid is subject to
the disposal requirements, the PCBs it contains are not released to the
environment. The reclassified equipment remains in use, but the lower-
concentration fluid poses a reduced risk to health and the environment
from spills or other exposures. In addition, disposal of the equipment
at the end of its useful life, and the fluid it contains, are regulated
to protect health and the environment. For all these reasons, EPA
believes the benefits of allowing reclassification outweigh the risks
to health and the environment of allowing a relatively small amount of
the fluid in the equipment to be diluted.
6. What does this final rule require? Based on comments and data
submitted in response to the proposed rule, and further review of the
data the Agency had at the time of the proposed rule, EPA is modifying
the current rule to:
Eliminate the requirement to raise the temperature of a
transformer's dielectric fluid to at least 50 deg.C.
Eliminate the requirement to operate the equipment under
loaded conditions for all transformers, electromagnets, switches, and
voltage regulators with a pre-retrofill PCB concentration <1,000 ppm.
Allow you to reclassify equipment using retrofill fluid
<50 ppm, as long as you test the equipment 90 days after retrofill to
ensure that reclassification has been successful.
Allow you to reclassify PCB-Contaminated transformers,
electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators to non-PCB status by
retrofilling with fluid <2 ppm PCBs. You are not required to test the
equipment after 90 days.
Allow you time to come into compliance if you determine
that the concentration of equipment reclassified to PCB-Contaminated
status has risen to 500 ppm PCBs.
Allow you to repeat the reclassification process to
further reduce the PCB concentration in your equipment, for example, if
your prior attempt at reclassification fails. If your attempt to
reclassify your equipment does not lower its PCB concentration
sufficiently, the equipment is not considered reclassified under the
PCB regulations. This would be the case if your equipment had a PCB
concentration 1,000 ppm prior to reclassification, and after
following the reclassification procedures the concentration was not
reduced to <500 ppm; if your equipment had a PCB concentration
500 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the
reclassification rocedures the PCB concentration was not reduced to
<500 ppm; and if your equipment had a PCB concentration 50
but <500 ppm prior to reclassification, and after following the
reclassification procedures the PCB concentration was not reduced to
<50 ppm.
Require you to keep records showing that you followed the
required reclassification procedures. The records must include copies
of pre- and post-reclassification PCB concentration measurements from a
laboratory using quality control and quality assurance procedures. You
must make these records available to EPA or to another party holding or
possessing the equipment (for example, through sale, loan, lease, or
for servicing). You must retain the records for at least 3 years
[[Page 17613]]
after you sell, transfer, or dispose of the equipment.
Change the EPA official authorized to approve alternate
methods for reclassifying equipment from the Assistant Administrator to
the Director of the National Program Chemicals Division.
Table 4 summarizes the reclassification requirements for
transformers from which you have removed free-flowing liquids (see
Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v)); and for electromagnets, switches, and voltage
regulators from which you have removed free-flowing liquids (see
Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v))). Under Sec. 761.30(m)(1)(ii), these
reclassification provisions also apply to circuit breakers, reclosers,
and cable.
Table 4.--Classification Requirements of this Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and test results
If test results show the PCB and you retrofill show the PCB then the
concentration (ppm) in the the equipment with and you . . . concentration equipment's
equipment prior to retrofill is dielectric fluid (ppm) after reclassified
. . . containing . . . retrofill is . . . status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 (or untested) <50 ppm PCBs operate the 50 but PCB-Contaminated
equipment <500
electrically
under loaded
conditions for at
least 90
continuous days
after retrofill,
then test the
fluid for PCBs
---------------------------------------
<50 non-PCB
--------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000 test the fluid for 50 but PCB-Contaminated
PCBs at least 90 <500
days after
retrofill
---------------------------------------
<50 non-PCB
-----------------------------------------------------
50 but <500 2 but
<50 ppm PCBs
------------------------------------------------------------
<2 ppm PCBs (no need to test) (not applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
This final rule is issued pursuant to TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B).
Section 6(e)(2)(B) of TSCA gives EPA the authority to authorize the use
of PCBs in other than a totally enclosed manner based on a finding of
no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment (15 U.S.C.
2605(e)(2)(B)).
EPA finds that this rule's amendments to the reclassification
requirements will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. PCBs have significant ecological and human health
effects, including cancer, neurotoxicity, reproductive and
developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin
irritation, and endocrine disruption (Ref. 21). EPA has found that any
exposure of humans or the environment to PCBs may be significant,
depending on such factors as the quantity of PCBs involved in the
exposure, the likelihood of exposure to humans and the environment, and
the effect of exposure (see 40 CFR 761.20). Nonetheless, EPA has
recognized the economic benefits of continued use of PCBs in electrical
equipment, and has authorized those uses under conditions designed to
minimize the risk of exposure to PCBs during use and servicing, or
through leaks or other releases (Ref. 14).
EPA finds that the amendments in this final rule will reduce the
risk to health and the environment from exposure to PCBs. The process
of retrofilling electrical equipment during reclassification removes
substantially all the original fluid (90% to 95%), and because this
fluid is subject to the disposal requirements of 40 CFR part 761,
subpart D, the PCBs it contains are not released to the environment.
The reclassified equipment remains in use, but the lower-concentration
fluid poses a reduced risk to health and the environment from spills or
other exposures. In addition, disposal of the equipment at the end of
its useful life, and the fluid it contains, are regulated to protect
health and the environment.
Because the final rule will relax a number of the requirements for
reclassifying PCB-containing electrical equipment (while adding one new
requirement), the rule will result in a net cost savings for owners who
choose to reclassify their equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of a
PCB Transformer, or the owner of a PCB-Contaminated transformer who
reclassifies the transformer using fluid 2 but <50 ppm PCBs,
will save $35.15 compared to the costs of the current requirements. EPA
estimates that the owner of a PCB-Contaminated transformer who
reclassifies the transformer using fluid <2 ppm PCBs (and who need not
test the concentration of the transformer after retrofill) will save
$80.15 compared to the costs of the current requirements. In addition
to reducing the costs of reclassifying electrical equipment, the rule
will allow owners of reclassified equipment to experience incremental
savings from the less stringent regulatory requirements that apply to
reclassified equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of a reclassified
transformer will save $32.09 each time the owner avoids the requirement
to mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80 annually for not having to inspect
PCB Transformers that are reclassified (Ref. 2, p. 21).
Reclassification can also help avoid or reduce recordkeeping,
liability, and insurance costs.
Therefore, having considered the effects on health and the
environment of PCBs, the economic benefits of continued use of PCBs in
electrical equipment, and the expected cost savings of these
amendments, EPA finds that this rule's amendments to the
reclassification requirements will not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment.
III. References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Toxic
Substances (OTS). Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing,
[[Page 17614]]
Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Final Rule.
Federal Register (44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979).
2. USEPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Economic and Policy
Analysis Branch. Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment Rule: Supporting Analysis for Small Entity,
Environmental Justice, and Unfunded Mandates Certifications, September
28, 2000.
3. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Electric Test Department,
Paul J. Frey. PCB-Contaminated Distribution Transformer
Reclassification Study, July 16, 1987.
4. USEPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS).
Memorandum from Dan Reinhart to Tony Baney; Background Report on
Empirical Basis for Proposed Changes to Reclassification Criteria for
PCB and PCB-Contaminated Transformers (undated).
5. USEPA, OPTS. Memorandum from Dan Reinhart to Joe Davia;
Examination of the Relationship Between PCB Leaching and Load Level in
Transmission Transformers by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, May
20, 1988.
6. Resource Planning Corporation. Letter from Richard E. Bell to
Carl Manger, April 24, 1989.
7. Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI). PCB Seminar
Notebook; ``Reclassification: Simulating In-service Use,'' October
1989.
8. USEPA, OPTS, OTS. Letter from Don R. Clay, Director, OTS, to
Timothy S. Hardy, Kirkland and Ellis, June 13, 1984.
9. USEPA, OPTS. Letter from Joseph J. Merenda, Director, Exposure
Evaluation Division, to Edward Karapetian, Department of Water and
Power the City of Los Angeles, November 29, 1990.
10. S.D. Myers Transformer Consultants. Letter from Dana S. Myers,
President, to Jan Canterbury, USEPA, OPTS, Exposure Effects Division
(EED), Chemical Regulation Branch (CRB), August 16, 1991.
11. EPRI, Dr. Gilbert Addis. Equilibrium Study of PCBs Between
Transformer Oil and Transformer Solid Materials, December 3, 1981.
12. USEPA, OPPT. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reclassification
of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Transformers; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register (58 FR 60970, November 18, 1993).
13. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Electric Test Department.
Letter from H. C. Manger, General Supervisor, to Jan Canterbury, USEPA,
OPTS, EED, CRB, July 24, 1991.
14. USEPA, OTS. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Manufacturing,
Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions; Use in
Electrical Equipment; Final Rule. Federal Register (47 FR 37342, August
25, 1982).
15. USEPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS). Letter from Tony Baney, Chief, Operations Branch, to Jim
Ridder, PCB Coordinator, Elkhorn Rural Public Power District, June 8,
1994.
16. USEPA, OPPTS. Letter from Tony Baney, Chief, Operations Branch,
to Ron D. Johnson, Sr. Environmental Scientist, Public Service Co. of
New Mexico, August 29, 1995.
17. USEPA, OPPTS. Letter from John W. Melone, Director, National
Program Chemicals Division, to John T. Graves, Environmental Manager,
Minnetonka Power Cooperative, Inc., April 29, 1999.
18. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test
Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids
by Gas Chromatography (D 4059-96), 1996.
19. USEPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD), Environmental
Monitoring & Support Laboratory. Test Method: The Determination of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Transformer Fluid and Waste Oils (EPA-600/
4-81-045), September 1982.
20. USEPA. Transcript of Proceedings: PCB Transformer
Reclassification Proposed Rule, March 9, 1994.
21. USEPA, ORD, National Center for Environmental Assessment. PCBs:
Cancer Dose-Response Assessment and Application to Environmental
Mixtures (EPA/600/P-96/001F), September 1996.
22. USEPA, OPPT. Consolidated ICR Supporting Statement for the PCB
Regulations at 40 CFR part 761, September 28, 1999.
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), because this action is not likely to
result in a rule that meets any of the criteria for a ``significant
regulatory action'' provided in section 3(f) of the Executive Order.
EPA's analysis of the potential impact of this action is contained
in a document entitled ``Reclassification of PCB and PCB-Contaminated
Electrical Equipment Rule: Supporting Analysis for Small Entity,
Environmental Justice, and Unfunded Mandates Certifications''
(Supporting Analysis) (Ref. 2). This document is available to you as a
part of the public version of the official record for this final rule.
To learn how to get a copy of this document, see Unit I.B.
This final rule will affect owners of electrical transformers,
voltage regulators, electromagnets, switches, circuit breakers,
reclosers and cable that contain PCBs. Because of data limitations and
the assumed small numbers of units of electrical equipment other than
transformers, the analysis addresses only transformers. This analysis
concludes that, because the final rule will relax a number of the
requirements for reclassifying PCB-containing transformers, the rule
will result in a net cost savings for transformer owners who choose to
reclassify their equipment (Ref. 2, p. 4). The effect of including data
on other electrical equipment affected by the rule, were these data
available, would be only to further increase the overall cost savings
attributable to the rule (Ref. 2, p. 1).
EPA estimates that the owner of a PCB Transformer, or the owner of
a PCB-Contaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using
fluid 2 but <50 ppm PCBs, will save $35.15 compared to the
costs of the current requirements. EPA estimates that the owner of a
PCB-Contaminated transformer who reclassifies the transformer using
fluid <2 ppm PCBs (and who need not test the concentration of the
transformer after retrofill) will save $80.15 compared to the costs of
the current requirements (Ref. 2, pp. 3-5). In addition to reducing the
costs of reclassifying electrical equipment, the rule will allow owners
of reclassified equipment to experience incremental savings from the
less stringent regulatory requirements that apply to reclassified
equipment. EPA estimates that the owner of a reclassified transformer
will save $32.09 each time the owner avoids the requirement to mark a
PCB Transformer and $43.80 annually for not having to inspect PCB
Transformers that are reclassified (Ref. 2, p. 8-9).
Moreover, neither the current reclassification requirements nor the
amendments in this final rule require you to reclassify your electrical
equipment. Whether to reclassify is a private business decision. Any
firm, large or small, will reclassify their equipment only if the
savings to the firm exceed the firm's costs of performing the
reclassification. The changes to the reclassification rules
[[Page 17615]]
impose no positive net costs on small entities because firms that
choose to reclassify their equipment are basing their decision on a
comparison of private costs and benefits.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Agency hereby certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The factual basis for the Agency's
determination is presented in the Supporting Analysis (Ref. 2), and is
briefly summarized here.
For the purpose of analyzing potential impacts on small entities,
EPA used the definition for small entities in section 601 of the RFA.
Under section 601, ``small entity'' is defined as:
A small business that meets Small Business Administration
size standards codified at 13 CFR 121.201.
A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000.
A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
This rule will result in a net cost savings for transformer owners
who reclassify their equipment. Information on transformer ownership
and reclassification decisions among small entities is needed to
accurately assess the small entity impacts. Following a review of
available data sources, EPA concluded that complete data are not
available for any of the affected sectors. Nevertheless, several
observations can be drawn (Ref. 2, pp. 20-22).
The rule is expected to generate cost savings for
reclassifying PCB and PCB-Contaminated transformers. On a per
reclassification basis, the estimated cost savings are $35.15 for PCB
Transformers and for PCB-Contaminated transformers retrofilled with
fluid 2 but <50 ppm, and $80.15 for PCB-Contaminated
transformers retrofilled with fluid <2 ppm (EPA has eliminated the
requirement to test the concentration of these transformers after
retrofill). Thus, the rule will benefit both small and large entities
by making reclassifications more affordable, and will increase the
number of reclassifications that occur.
These ``induced'' reclassifications will be able to
capture cost savings associated with complying with reduced regulatory
requirements. PCB Transformer owners who reclassify will save $32.09
each time they avoid having to mark a PCB Transformer and $43.80
annually for not having to inspect each reclassified transformer. Small
entities that are induced to reclassify a PCB Transformer will benefit
from these cost savings.
Because reclassification is voluntary, it is a private
business decision on the part of transformer owners in which the
private benefits are compared to the private costs of reclassifying.
Thus, each reclassification project should be assumed to generate net
private benefits for transformer owners, both prior to and after
implementation of the rule.
Smaller entities are less likely to own transformers, and
therefore less likely to need to perform reclassification. Thus, larger
businesses may be more likely to take advantage of the reduced
requirements of reclassification. However, even if smaller entities did
own a disproportionate number of transformers (which is unlikely), this
should not create an adverse impact because reclassification is
performed only when it is in the interest of the transformer owner to
do so, and the final rule is expected to only reduce the costs of
reclassification.
Having reviewed all of the available relevant data and after taking
the data limitations into account, EPA believes that this rule will not
impose any adverse impact on small entities, and should actually
provide a potential source of cost savings to many transformer owners
who choose to reclassify their equipment. The final rule will make
reclassification more affordable for both small and large entities, and
should result in an increased rate of reclassification and an
accelerated rate of removal of PCBs from use. Furthermore,
reclassification is a business decision made by transformer owners
based on a comparison of private benefits and costs. Assuming that
transformers owners pursue their own best interest, no reclassification
will take place that does not have a positive net benefit for
transformer owners.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements contained in this rule are
reflected in the Consolidated Information Collection Request (ICR)
Supporting Statement for the PCB Regulations at 40 CFR part 761,
September 28, 1999 (Consolidated ICR) (Ref. 22). The Consolidated ICR
was prepared in response to a request from OMB to combine the various
PCB information collections into a single ICR. These information
collection requirements (including minor amendments to address the
requirements of this final rule) have been submitted to OMB for review
and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and in accordance with the procedures at 5 CFR 1320.11. The
burden and costs related to the information collection requirements
contained in this rule are described in an ICR identified as EPA ICR
No. 1446.07, which has been included in the public version of the
official record described in Unit I.B.2., and is available
electronically as described in Unit I.B.1., at http://www.epa.gov/opperid1/icr.htm, or by e-mailing a request to [email protected].
You may also request a copy by mail from Sandy Farmer, Collection
Strategies Division, Environmental Protection Agency (2822), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-
2740.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information that is subject to approval
under the PRA, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after appearing in the
preamble of the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and
included on any related collection instrument.
As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), ``burden'' means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for
a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The information collection for this rule is a recordkeeping
requirement placed on owners of electrical equipment containing PCBs
who choose to reclassify that equipment to lower its PCB concentration.
The recordkeeping requirement is being implemented so that if
reclassified equipment is sold or transferred to another company for
use, service or salvage, the buyer, servicer or disposer will be able
to learn the servicing history of the equipment. In
[[Page 17616]]
addition, for equipment that has been reclassified from 500
ppm to <500 ppm PCBs, the records of reclassification will provide
documentation of why the equipment is no longer being recorded on the
annual report or the annual document log and why the equipment is no
longer being marked or inspected. Finally, the records will allow EPA
inspectors to determine whether the equipment was reclassified
according to the regulatory requirements. The burden to respondents for
complying with this information collection is estimated to total 15,050
hours per year, with an annual cost of $573,322. The totals are based
on an average burden of 15 minutes per response for an estimated 60,200
respondents to maintain required records.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4), EPA has determined that this rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Rather than impose net
costs of $100 million or more in any 1 year, this final PCB
Reclassification rule will result in a net cost savings to transformer
owners who decide to reclassify their equipment (Ref. 2, p. 23).
E. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local government officials
in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of the Executive order, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local government officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with State and local government
officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing State and local government officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local government
officials regarding the conflict between State law and federally
protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory
responsibility.
The Agency has determined that this rule does not have federalism
implications. It amends a voluntary process by which owners of
transformers and other electrical equipment can reclassify that
equipment to a less stringent regulatory status. The changes are not
expected to result in a significant intergovernmental mandate under the
UMRA, and thus, EPA concludes that the rule will not impose substantial
direct compliance costs. Nor would the rule substantially affect the
relationship between the national government and the States, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Those relationships have already been established under the
existing PCB regulations, and these amendments would not alter them.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this final rule.
This final rule would preempt State and local law in accordance
with TSCA section 18(a)(2)(B). By publishing and inviting comment on
the proposed rule (Ref. 12), EPA provided State and local government
officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation.
Thus, EPA has complied with the requirements of section 4 of the
Executive Order.
F. Executive Orders 13084 and 13175
Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998) EPA may not
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments, nor does it impose substantial direct
compliance costs on such communities. It amends a voluntary process by
which owners of transformers and other electrical equipment can
reclassify that equipment to a less stringent regulatory status.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(65 FR 67249). Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001,
and revokes Executive Order 13084 as of that date. EPA developed this
rule, however, during the period when Executive Order 13084 was in
effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal considerations under Executive Order
13084.
G. Executive Order 12898
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has considered
environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential
impacts of this action on the environmental and health conditions in
low-income and minority communities. EPA finds that the amendments in
this final rule will reduce the risk to health and the environment from
exposure to PCBs. The process of retrofilling electrical
[[Page 17617]]
equipment during reclassification removes substantially all the
original PCB-containing fluid, and since this fluid is subject to the
disposal requirements of 40 CFR part 761, subpart D, the PCBs it
contains are not released to the environment. The reclassified
equipment remains in use, but the lower PCB concentration in the fluid
poses a reduced risk to health and the environment from spills or other
exposures. In addition, at the end of its useful life, the equipment
and the fluid it contains must be disposed of based on existing
requirements to protect health and the environment. EPA's research did
not reveal any data to suggest that the effects of this rule, even
beneficial effects, would disproportionately affect minority or low-
income populations (Ref. 2, pp. 22-23).
H. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that is both determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12966, and concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
and safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. However, it
has been EPA's policy since November 1, 1995, to consistently and
explicitly consider risks to infants and children in all risk
assessments generated during its decision-making process, including the
setting of standards to protect public health and the environment.
This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12966
(i.e., it does not generate annual costs of $100 million), and the
Agency does not have reason to believe that the environmental health or
safety risks addressed by the regulation present a disproportionate
risk to children (Ref. 2, pp. 23-24). This regulation changes the
requirements for reclassifying PCB Transformers, voltage regulators and
other PCB-containing electrical equipment to a lower PCB status. The
activities addressed by the regulation include draining PCB liquids
from the equipment, refilling it with a non-PCB mixture, and then in
some cases, testing the equipment after a period of use. Most
transformers and voltage regulators are located in facilities such as
electric utilities, manufacturing facilities, and prisons where
children are not present. In facilities such as schools and hospitals
that have equipment containing PCBs and where children are present, the
equipment is located in areas that are strictly off-limits to children,
and for that matter, any unauthorized personnel. Therefore, the
reclassification will occur where children are either not present or
not permitted, and the process will pose no special risks to children.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards
that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus
standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272
note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rule requires you to test dielectric fluids from electrical
equipment for PCB concentration. Existing regulations at
Sec. 761.60(g)(iii) set out requirements for testing the fluids, and
allow you to use any method of gas chromatography that is appropriate
for the material being analyzed, including voluntary consensus methods
established by organizations such as the American Society for Testing
and Materials.
J. Executive Order 12630
EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988), by examining the takings
implications of this rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's
Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of
Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive Order.
K. Executive Order 12988
In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996).
V. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 16, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 761--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 761 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.
2. Section 761.30 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and
(h)(2)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 761.30 Authorizations.
* * * * *
(a)***
(2)***
(v) You may reclassify a PCB Transformer that has been tested and
determined to have a concentration of 500 ppm PCBs to a PCB-
Contaminated transformer (50 but <500 ppm) or to a non-PCB
transformer (<50 ppm), and you may reclassify a PCB-Contaminated
transformer that has been tested and determined to have a concentration
of 50 ppm but <500 ppm to a non-PCB transformer, as follows:
[[Page 17618]]
(A) Remove the free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid from the
transformer. Flushing is not required. Either test the fluid or assume
it contains 1,000 ppm PCBs. Retrofill the transformer with
fluid containing known PCB levels according to the following table.
Determine the transformer's reclassified status according to the
following table (if following this process does not result in the
reclassified status you desire, you may repeat the process):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you retrofill and test results
If test results show the PCB the transformer show the PCB then the
concentration (ppm) in the with dielectric and you . . . concentration transformer's
transformer prior to retrofill fluid containing . (ppm) after reclassified
is . . . . . retrofill is . . . status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 (or untested) <50 ppm PCBs operate the 50 but PCB-contaminated
transformer <500
electrically
under loaded
conditions for at
least 90-
continuous days
after retrofill,
then test the
fluid for PCBs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<50 ppm PCBs operate the <50 non-PCB
transformer
electrically
under loaded
conditions for at
least 90-
continuous days
after retrofill,
then test the
fluid for PCBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000 <50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for 50 but PCB-contaminated
PCBs at least 90 <500
days after
retrofill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for <50 non-PCB
PCBs at least 90
days after
retrofill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 but <500 2 but test the fluid for <50 non-PCB
<50 ppm PCBs PCBs at least 90
days after
retrofill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<2 ppm PCBs (no need to test) (not applicable) non-PCB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) If you discover that the PCB concentration of the fluid in a
reclassified transformer has changed, causing the reclassified status
to change, the transformer is regulated based on the actual
concentration of the fluid. For example, a transformer that was
reclassified to non-PCB status is regulated as a PCB-Contaminated
transformer if you discover that the concentration of the fluid has
increased to 50 but <500 ppm PCBs. If you discover that the
PCB concentration of the fluid has risen to 500 ppm, the
transformer is regulated as a PCB Transformer. Follow paragraphs
(a)(1)(xv)(A) through (J) of this section to come into compliance with
the regulations applicable to PCB Transformers. You also have the
option of repeating the reclassification process.
(C) The Director, National Program Chemicals Division, may, without
further rulemaking, grant approval on a case-by-case basis for the use
of alternative methods to reclassify transformers. You may request an
approval by writing to the Director, National Program Chemicals
Division (7404), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460. Describe the equipment you plan to
reclassify, the alternative reclassification method you plan to use,
and test data or other evidence on the effectiveness of the method.
(D) You must keep records of the reclassification required by
Sec. 761.180(g).
* * * * *
(h)***
(2)***
(v) You may reclassify an electromagnet, switch, or voltage
regulator that has been tested and determined to have a concentration
of 500 ppm PCBs to PCB-Contaminated status (50
but <500 ppm) or to non-PCB status (<50 ppm), and you may reclassify a
PCB-Contaminated electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator that has
been tested and determined to have a concentration of 50 ppm
but <500 ppm to a non-PCB status, as follows:
(A) Remove the free-flowing PCB dielectric fluid from the
electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator. Flushing is not required.
Either test the fluid or assume it contains 1,000 ppm PCBs.
Retrofill the electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator with fluid
containing known PCB levels according to the following table. Determine
the electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator's reclassified status
according to the following table (if following this process does not
result in the reclassified status you desire, you may repeat the
process):
[[Page 17619]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
then the
If test results show the PCB and you retrofill and test results electromagnet,
concentration (ppm) in the the equipment with show the PCB switch, or voltage
equipment prior to retrofill is dielectric fluid and you . . . concentration regulator's
. . . containing . . . (ppm) after reclassified
retrofill is . . . status is . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 (or untested) <50 ppm PCBs operate the 50 but PCB-contaminated
equipment <500
electrically
under loaded
conditions for at
least 90-
continuous days
after retrofill,
then test the
fluid for PCBs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<50 ppm PCBs operate the <50 non-PCB
equipment
electrically
under loaded
conditions for at
least 90-
continuous days
after retrofill,
then test the
fluid for PCBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 but <1,000 <50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for 50 but PCB-contaminated
PCBs at least 90 <500
days after
retrofill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<50 ppm PCBs test the fluid for <50 non-PCB
PCBs at least 90
days after
retrofill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 but <500 2 but test the fluid for <50 non-PCB
<50 ppm PCBs PCBs at least 90
days after
retrofill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<2 ppm PCBs (no need to test) (not applicable) non-PCB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) If you discover that the PCB concentration of the fluid in a
reclassified electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator has changed,
causing the reclassified status to change, the electromagnet, switch,
or voltage regulator is regulated based on the actual concentration of
the fluid. For example, an electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator
that was reclassified to non-PCB status is regulated as a PCB-
Contaminated electromagnet, switch, or voltage regulator if you
discover that the concentration of the fluid has increased to
50 but <500 ppm PCBs. If you discover that the PCB
concentration of the fluid in a voltage regulator has risen to
500 ppm, follow paragraph (h)(1)(iii) of this section to
come into compliance with the regulations applicable to voltage
regulators containing 500 ppm PCBs. You also have the option
of repeating the reclassification process.
(C) The Director, National Program Chemicals Division may, without
further rulemaking, grant approval on a case-by-case basis for the use
of alternative methods to reclassify electromagnets, switches or
voltage regulators. You may request an approval by writing to the
Director, National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Environmental
Protection Agency,1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460.
Describe the equipment you plan to reclassify, the alternative
reclassification method you plan to use, and test data or other
evidence on the effectiveness of the method.
(D) You must keep records of the reclassification required by
Sec. 761.180(g).
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 761.180 by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 761.180 Records and monitoring.
* * * * *
(g) Reclassification records. If you reclassify electrical
equipment using the procedures in Sec. 761.30(a)(2)(v) or
Sec. 761.30(h)(2)(v), you must keep records showing that you followed
the required reclassification procedures. Where these procedures
require testing, the records must include copies of pre- and post-
reclassification PCB concentration measurements from a laboratory using
quality control and quality assurance procedures. You must make these
records available promptly to EPA or to any party possessing the
equipment through sale, loan, lease, or for servicing. You must retain
the records for at least 3 years after you sell or dispose of the
equipment.
[FR Doc. 01-8055 Filed 3-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S