ICR Appendix E: Summary of Public Comments, ICR Consultations, and EPA's Responses

Comments Of
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,
The Edison Electric Institute, The American Public Power Association,
the American Gas Association and the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association
On
“Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Consolidated Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements; Comment Request on Agency
Information Collection Activities
NOTICE
72 Fed. Reg. 32644 (June 13, 2007)

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0273

submitted to
The United States
Environmental Protection Agency
August 13, 2007

Of Counsel:
Venable LLP
575 7th St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004

Comments Of The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, The Edison Electric
Institute, The American Public Power Association, the American Gas Association,
and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association On: Polychlorinated
Biphenyls, Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Comment
Request on Agency Information Collection Activities; 72 Fed. Reg. 32644 (June
13, 2007): Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0273
INTRODUCTION
The following comments in response to EPA’s Notice, “Polychlorinated
Biphenyls, Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,” (72 Fed. Reg.
32644 (June 13, 2007)) are submitted on behalf of the Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group (“USWAG”), the Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”), the American Public Power
Association (“APPA”), the American Gas Association ("AGA"), and the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association (“NRECA”) (collectively referred to herein as
“USWAG”). In preparing these comments, USWAG compiled information from several
of its individual members. These comments reflect the views of these individual
utilities. 1
Because of the unnecessary or inaccurately defined burdens associated with
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements in EPA's PCB program, USWAG

1 USWAG was formed in 1978, and is an association dedicated to assisting members in

the management of wastes and the beneficial use of materials associated with the generation,
transmission, or sale of electricity and natural gas including the management of PCB-containing
gas and electrical equipment. USWAG is comprised of approximately 80 energy industry
operating companies and associations, including EEI, NRECA, AGA, and APPA. EEI is the
principal national association of investor-owned electric power and light companies. NRECA is
the national association of rural electric cooperatives. AGA is the national association of natural
gas utilities. APPA is the national association of publicly owned electric utilities. Together,
USWAG members represent more than 85% of the total electric generating capacity of the U.S.,
and service more than 95% of the nation's consumers of electricity and over 93% of the nation’s
consumers of natural gas.

submitted comments on the last renewal of the Information Collection Request ("ICR")
for the PCB program in 2004 and reiterates many of the same concerns in this set of
comments. See USWAG comments dated June 29, 2004 (attached). USWAG's
comments below detail specific portions and/or burden estimates in the ICR renewal
request that are either inaccurate or incomplete. We urge EPA and OMB to revise
descriptions in the request to correct inaccuracies and include USWAG's comments in
analyzing whether to renew certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
PCB program.
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, USWAG notes that EPA mentions that it "meets annually with
representatives from more than 50 utilities and electric cooperatives who have verified
the burden estimates related to inspection recordkeeping requirements for PCB
Transformers." See Section 3(c) of the ICR Renewal Request. In preparation of the
submission of these comments, USWAG queried its members to determine whether any
member company met with EPA to discuss these estimates. No members confirmed
that they were present at such meetings. Since the recordkeeping requirements for
PCB Transformers are a critical component of the PCB program and USWAG
represents a vast number of electric utilities, we would like to be advised of the next
such meeting so that we can help ensure the involvement of individual USWAG
members in this process. We believe that the expertise of USWAG members on the
practical application of the PCB regulatory program could be helpful to EPA in
estimating the recordkeeping and reporting burdens contained in the ICR.

-2DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

I. EPA Fails to Include Burdens Associated with Storage for Reuse Variances at
40 C.F.R. § 761.35(b)
As we identified in our comments on the 2004 ICR renewal request, EPA has
again failed to account for many recordkeeping and reporting burdens associated with
obtaining approval pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 761.35(b) to store PCB Articles for longer
than 5 years in a facility that does not meet the design requirements at 40 C.F.R.
§ 761.65(b). While EPA does estimate (in Table 6-2, Reference #7) that submitting the
request takes an average of 10 minutes per piece of equipment, this estimate does not
account for the time it took many USWAG members to respond to EPA's often repeated
requests for confirmatory and supplemental information.
Additionally, nowhere in the ICR renewal request does EPA identify or quantify
the burdens associated with complying with conditions attached to storage for reuse
extensions under this provision (these extensions are granted on a case-by-case basis
by the EPA Regions; see 40 C.F.R. §761.35(b)). Many USWAG members obtained
such extension approvals, though the approvals often contain additional conditions. For
example, under its extension approval, USWAG member American Electric Power
("AEP") is required to keep certain additional records on these storage areas. These
records can include such requirements as conducting a quarterly inspection for leaks of
articles in the storage area and inventorying all materials on an annual basis to
determine whether there is a need to continue storage. EPA's request does not identify
or estimate the burdens associated with the unnecessary conditions on approvals that
at least double the burden associated with this provision or properly estimate the time
required to obtain such approvals.

-3DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

II. EPA Should Be Required to Update its PCB Transformer Database
In Section 4(b)(i)(A)(3) of the ICR request, EPA notes that owners of PCB
Transformers are required to register these transformers with EPA to provide State
officials and emergency response personnel with information to provide "a significantly
higher degree of protection in emergency situations" as well as to "address
requirements of international environmental programs to identify sources and reduce or
eliminate the reliance on PCBs." As an initial matter, USWAG is not aware of any
international program that requires utilities to identify sources of PCBs and/or reduce or
eliminate PCBs in the United States. While Congress is still evaluating legislation to
implement the United States' obligations under the Stockholm Convention with respect
to persistent organic pollutants, including PCBs, even that Convention speaks of
"phase-down" goals and not the mandatory elimination of PCB-containing equipment.
Furthermore, as USWAG and its many members have discussed with EPA, the
Agency's PCB Transformer database suffers from serious deficiencies making the
current database of questionable use for emergency response situations. Various
entries in the database are inaccurate, duplicative, and incomplete. USWAG members
have found their company-specific information in the database to double-count
transformers on-site, include the presence of transformers that have been taken out of
service, retro-filled or disposed of, or misidentify the number or volume of on-site PCB
Transformers.
Due to the importance of the database in properly identifying the number of PCB
Transformers currently in service, USWAG has hired a contractor to identify errors in
member company information in the database and compile this information for USWAG.
USWAG urges EPA to update information in the database to provide an accurate
-4DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

picture of the number of PCB Transformers in the U.S. EPA should establish a method
to update the database on a regular basis to accurately reflect information provided to
the Agency on the number of PCB Transformers in service.
III. EPA Inaccurately Identifies the Types of Entities that Own PCB-Containing
Equipment
As USWAG pointed out in our 2004 comments, EPA inaccurately identifies in
Section 5(a) the types of entities generating PCB wastes by failing to include all types of
PCB wastes generated by federal, state and municipal facilities, which may represent
one of the largest sources of PCB-containing equipment and PCB waste. EPA's
comments suggest that PCB waste generation of these entities is limited to ballasts
from fluorescent light fixtures. However, many government entities own/operate various
forms of PCB-containing equipment which the ICR renewal request does not identify or
capture the burden imposed on these entities by the PCB regulatory program. EPA
should correct this error in its summary of entities generating PCB wastes and include
these entities in estimating the burdens associated with this program.
IV. EPA Should Estimate Burdens Associated with Compliance with the Issuance
of Guidance Documents
As USWAG described in its previous set of comments, EPA continues to
maintain in the current ICR renewal in Section 6(b) that:

There are no new training costs anticipated to the affected industries or the
Federal government associated with responding to the information collections
that are subject to renewal, nor have there been any Federal costs associated
with printing or mailing. Costs associated with reading the rules, providing
training, and updating procedures to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are not included in this renewal as no new regulations have been
promulgated that involve paperwork burdens.

-5DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

This statement and position fails to consider the numerous and wide-ranging costs
imposed on the regulated community that are associated with guidance documents and
related PCB interpretive documents issued by EPA.
While not "regulations" in the strict sense, these additional documents do set
forth important Agency pronouncements and require close review by the regulated
community. They can also have real world consequences. For example, EPA has
recently issued, among other things, a draft Dioxin Reassessment which some
regulating agencies have relied on to adopt more stringent cleanup standards, and a
PCB Site Revitalization Guidance that while summarizing the regulations, also contains
compliance interpretations not otherwise codified in the rules. The Agency has also
issued a Supplemental Response to Comments Document on the Proposed Rule on the
Storage of PCB Articles for Reuse and has issued numerous interpretive letters that
directly affect compliance with the PCB program and a comprehensive Question and
Answer document that are, at the very least, required reading for any entity complying
with the program. Understanding and training employees on each of these agency
actions is necessary for any entity complying with the program. EPA's failure to again
update training costs in this ICR renewal because no new regulations have been issued
is seriously misleading and mischaracterizes the reality of complying with the Federal
PCB program.
V. EPA Underestimates the Time Required to Conduct a Self-Implementing
Cleanup Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 761.61(a)
Table 6-2, Reference #12 describes the reporting required for entities engaging
in PCB cleanup pursuant to the "self-implementing" procedure at 40 C.F.R. § 761.61(a).
EPA estimates that it takes an average of 100 hours to "notify EPA (as well as State,

-6DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

Tribal, and local) officials of self-implementing remediation activity, including a summary
of the procedures used to sample contaminated areas and sample collection and
analysis data; submit additional information as requested; and certify that records of
remediation activity are on file at the location designated in the certificate." One
hundred hours is a drastic underestimation of the time it takes to perform this
notification. For example, USWAG member AEP has reported that it can take more
than 12 full days and over 360 samples to just complete the characterization sampling
required by this procedure. We urge EPA to gather more data and recalculate this
burden or limit the unnecessary recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated
with this provision.
VI. EPA Should Identify the Number of Samples Sent to Laboratories for Analysis
to Estimate the Reporting Burden
On Table 6-3, Reference #66, EPA does not attempt to provide an estimated
burden associated with identifying the sample collector, the lab, date of shipment,
quantity, and description of sample for each PCB sample sent to a laboratory for
analysis because the Agency "has no way of estimating the number of samples that
would be sent off-site annually for testing, or the frequency with which the samples are
sent to an off-site lab." The Agency can in fact request this data either formally or
informally from entities that are likely to maintain this information. To assist EPA, in our
preparation of these comments we queried USWAG members on the number of PCB
samples taken by their respective companies. Only 17 members had this information
readily available, but among these members a total of 106,469 samples were obtained
and sent to labs in 2006. This limited survey demonstrates a significant burden
imposed on regulated entities and EPA should attempt to acquire similar data to
-7DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

develop a reasonable estimate for this burden and determine whether the existing
burden is appropriate.
VII. EPA Inaccurately Estimates the Number of Facilities Required to Keep
Annual Document Logs
EPA makes a mistake in estimating the number of facilities required to keep
annual document logs pursuant to §§ 761.65(c)(10) & 761.180. In Table 6-4, Reference
#88, EPA uses the number of “commercial storers” as the number of facilities required
to keep annual document logs of PCB materials in storage for disposal facilities.
However, these requirements apply both to “commercial storers” and other entities that
engage in the storage for disposal of PCBs under § 761.65. The flaw in the ICR is that
other storage for disposal facilities that meet the requirements of § 761.65(b) are not
included in the number of facilities required to keep annual documents logs. EPA limits
its estimate to the 73 commercial storers of PCBs. However, we obtained information
from 16 USWAG members who collectively maintained an additional 42 sites that are
subject to the annual document log requirements pursuant to the above provisions.
EPA should consider these storage for disposal facilities in reassessing the
recordkeeping burden associated with the annual document log requirements.
VIII. Other Issues
In Section 5(c) of the ICR renewal, EPA estimates that for small entities "the
overall regulatory cost remains small" because the number of PCB Transformers used
by such entities is limited. However, in a draft case study project prepared for U.S. EPA
Region 5 comparing the costs and benefits of replacing PCB Transformers, the draft
estimates that the non-recurring cost to keep a PCB Transformer in service through its
service life is $47,080. This estimate does not include removing and/or replacing such

-8DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

transformer or responding to a spill/remediation event. Therefore, the regulatory costs
associated with maintaining even a single PCB Transformer can be exceedingly high for
small entities.
Also in Section 5(c), EPA's statement that PCB Transformers are "associated
with high voltage applications" is inaccurate. In fact, the regulatory definition of "PCB
Transformer" at 40 C.F.R. § 761.3 includes "distribution type mineral oil transformers
containing > 500 ppm which operate at low voltage." Many residential low voltage
transformers were contaminated with PCBs (at or above 500 ppm) during manufacture.
* * * * * * *
USWAG appreciates the opportunity to submit documents on this important
review of the recordkeeping and reporting burdens of the PCB program and urges EPA
to reconsider the ICR renewal request in light of these comments. Please contact
USWAG Executive Director Jim Roewer (jim.roewer@uswag.org; 202-508-5645) or
USWAG counsel Doug Green (dhgreen@venable.com; 202-344-4483) if you have
questions regarding these comments.

-9DC2DOCS1-#884255-v1

Comments Of
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,
The Edison Electric Institute, The American Public Power Association,
and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
On
“PCBs, CONSOLIDATED REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS; REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON RENEWAL
OF INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES”
NOTICE
69 Fed. Reg. 23747 (April 30, 2004)

Docket No. OPPT-2004-0087

submitted to
The United States
Environmental Protection Agency
June 29, 2004

Of Counsel:
Piper Rudnick LLP
1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Comments Of The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,
The Edison Electric Institute, The American Public Power Association,
and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
On “PCBs, CONSOLIDATED REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS; REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON RENEWAL
OF INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITIES”
Notice - 69 Fed. Reg. 23747 (April 30, 2004)
Docket No. OPPT-2004-0087
INTRODUCTION
The following comments in response to EPA’s Notice, “PCBs, Consolidated
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,” (66 Fed. Reg. 23747 (April 30, 2004))
are submitted on behalf of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (“USWAG”), the
Edison Electric Institute (“EEI”), the American Public Power Association (“APPA”), and
the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (“NRECA”) (collectively referred to
herein as “USWAG”). USWAG was formed in 1978, and is an association primarily
dedicated to assisting members in the management of wastes and the beneficial use of
materials associated with the generation, transmission, or sale of electricity and natural
gas. USWAG is comprised of approximately 80 energy industry operating companies
and associations, including EEI, the NRECA, and the APPA. EEI is the principal
national association of investor-owned electric power and light companies. NRECA is
the national association of rural electric cooperatives. APPA is the national association
of publicly owned electric utilities. AGA is the national association of natural gas
utilities. Together, USWAG members represent more than 85% of the total electric
generating capacity of the U.S., and service more than 95% of the nation's consumers
of electricity and over 93% of the nation’s consumers of natural gas.

DISCUSSION
1.

Reference No. 77 on Table 2-3 Concerning The Obligation to Keep

Records of PCB Articles Stored for Reuse (40 C.F.R. § 761.35(a)(2). The Agency
explains that the use of this information is to ensure the proper handling of the
equipment stored for reuse. In assessing the impact of this obligation, EPA fails to take
into account the additional recordkeeping and inspection requirements that have been
imposed on electric utilities and other entities that obtained variances from EPA to store
PCB articles for reuse for longer than five years in areas that do not meet the storage
standards under 40 C.F.R. 761.65(b). These site-specific variances granted by the EPA
Regions impose additional inspection and recordkeeping requirements that go beyond
those specified in 40 C.F.R. 761.35(a)(2). EPA should factor these additional regulatory
burdens into the ICR in order to accurately assess the true burden of this particular
obligation.
2.

Confirmatory Records When Using Independent PCB Transporters –

Item 46 in Section 4(b) of the ICR package sets forth the requirements for the filing of
an exception report when a generator uses an independent transporter, including the
requirement for the generator to confirm by telephone or other convenient means that
the commercial storer or disposer actually received the manifested waste. Generators
must keep records of these follow-up confirmation procedures. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 761.208(a)(4). This follow-up confirmation requirement, and the associated record
keeping requirement, is unique to the PCB program. The RCRA hazardous waste
generator and manifest requirements – which have worked well for over twenty five
years (and after which the PCB manifest rules were patterned) -- do not include these
additional confirmation and record keeping requirements. Accordingly, USWAG
~WASH1:4595043.v1

2

believes that this confirmation obligation is unnecessary and has little, if any, practical
utility for EPA or the regulated community. Therefore, this particular regulation is an
ideal candidate for elimination to minimize the burden of the PCB record keeping
requirements on the regulated community.
3.

SPCC Requirements for 30-Day PCB Temporary Storage – Item 65 in

section 4(b) identifies the obligation under the storage for disposal requirements for all
entities storing PCB waste pursuant to 30-day temporary storage provision to implement
a spill prevention, control and counter measure plan (“SPCC”). See 40 C.F.R.
§ 761.65(c)(1)(iv). The obligation to implement an SPCC plan (and all associated
record keeping and reporting requirements) under this provision is triggered without
regard to the volume or characteristics of the PCB wastes in question. In other words,
even though the SPCC requirements are normally triggered only when a specified
threshold of regulated substances is stored, this particular PCB obligation applies to any
volume of PCB wastes, including non-liquid PCBs. USWAG believes that this particular
obligation, and the associated record keeping and reporting requirements, should be
triggered only for liquid PCB waste and where the applicable SPCC threshold is
otherwise triggered.
4.

PCB Transformer Registration Database – Section 5 of the ICR

package addresses “Information Collection – Agency Activity, Collection Methodology
and Information Management.” Section 5(a) of that section discusses the PCB
Transformer data base created by EPA. The discussion details how the database is
used to provide information to environmental and emergency response officials on an
as requested basis.

~WASH1:4595043.v1

3

It is apparent that the PCB Transformer database is used as an important tool for
a variety of reasons, including by various organizations, including EPA, for purposes of
developing future PCB regulatory policies and strategies. In this regard, USWAG
believes that it is absolutely critical for EPA to ensure that the database is updated and
kept as current as possible. This includes amending the database to remove those
PCB Transformers that have either been disposed or reclassified. The ICR does not
address how this type of information – specifically, the disposal or reclassification of
previously registered PCB Transformers – is incorporated into the database. This is a
potentially serious flaw in the database that requires immediate attention.
5.

Burden on Small Entities – Section 5(c) if the ICR package, entitled

“Small Entity Flexibility,” discusses the general burden of the PCB record keeping and
reporting requirements on small entities. USWAG disagrees with the statement in the
first paragraph of that section that “the reporting and recordkeeping requirements [for
small businesses] are no more burdensome than standard business procedures
currently in place.” This statement fails to appreciate the burden of the PCB record
keeping and reporting requirements on many small businesses. The National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association (“NRECA”) is a USWAG member and represents rural
electric cooperatives across the country. These are small businesses that are subject
to the full gamut of PCB substantive, record keeping and reporting obligations. Many of
these PCB record keeping and reporting requirements are anything but “standard
business procedures,” including, for example, the storage for reuse record keeping
requirements, annual document log requirements, and certain of the associated PCB
manifest record keeping requirements. Therefore, EPA is incorrect in its assumption

~WASH1:4595043.v1

4

that the PCB record keeping and reporting obligations imposed on small entities are “no
more burdensome than standard business procedures currently in place.” The failure of
the ICR to accurately reflect these additional burdens on small businesses is a
potentially serious flaw in the ICR.
Also incorrect is the statement that very few small businesses are likely to own
PCB Transformers because of the initial cost associated with the purchase of this
equipment and long-term expense for their operation and maintenance. The ICR fails to
recognize that many small transformers – such as potential and current transformers –
must be assumed to be “PCB Transformers” under the Agency’s PCB Transformer
assumption rule (see 40 C.F.R. § 761.2(a)(3) (if the date of manufacture and the type of
dielectric fluid in a transformer are unknown, the transformer must be assumed to be a
PCB Transformer). Therefore the costs associated with PCB Transformer record
keeping and reporting requirements often are borne by small entities. Again, the failure
of the ICR to recognize these PCB Transformer costs incurred by small businesses
results in under-estimating the true costs of the PCB record keeping and reporting
obligations on regulated entities.
6.

Federal Facilities as a Source of PCB Wastes – Section 5(c)(i) of the

“Small Entity Flexibility” discussion identifies six general categories/circumstances
where PCB waste can be generated. These include: electric utilities, non-utility entities,
entities with PCB ballast and lighting fixtures, natural gas pipelines, electrical
components, and Superfund sites. A significant omission in this list is the large universe
of PCB wastes generated by federal, state and municipal facilities. Indeed, this
grouping of governmental facilities may represent one of the largest sources of PCB-

~WASH1:4595043.v1

5

containing equipment and PCB waste. In attempting to characterize the sources of
PCB-containing equipment and PCB wastes, EPA should not overlook the potentially
significant contributions of federal, state and local governments.
7.

Continuing Burdens Associated With Storage For Reuse Variance

Request – Table 6-1 in the ICR sets forth the reporting burdens under TSCA
Section 6(e). An error in this table is reflected in item 7 with respect to requirements to
obtain approvals under 40 C.F.R. § 761.35(b) for PCB Articles stored for reuse for
greater than five years in a facility that does not comply with the storage for disposal
standard under 40 C.F.R. § 761.65(b). The ICR states that the time period for preparing
storage for reuse variance requests takes five minutes for a piece of equipment. Based
on the experience of the many USWAG members who prepared variance requests in
2003, EPA’s estimate of five minutes for a piece of equipment is far too low. Virtually all
USWAG members who submitted storage for reuse variance requests were asked for
additional information after the initial variance request was submitted. In some cases,
EPA came back a third time and asked for additional and detailed site- and equipmentspecific data. Many of these variance requests took many hours to complete and
covered only several pieces of equipment. Therefore, the estimate of only 5 minutes
per piece of equipment is at odds with reality and should be adjusted upward by at least
an order of magnitude to more accurately reflect the real world burden of obtaining
storage for reuse variances.
8.

Burdens with New Regulatory Guidance and Variances – Section 6(b)

of the ICR addresses “Estimating Respondent and Costs.” That section states, in part,
that no new rule has been promulgated since the PCB disposal amendments in 1998

~WASH1:4595043.v1

6

that involved paperwork burdens. Based on this assertion, the ICR does not take into
account any costs associated with updating procedures and reading regulations to
comply with new record keeping requirements. This assumption, however, fails to take
into account that, since the 1998 PCB disposal rule, EPA has issued scores of
interpretative letters and a PCB Question and Answer (“Q&A”) document that provide
interpretive guidance on the scope and obligations set forth in the 1998 disposal rule.
Reviewing, interpreting, and adjusting operations to comply with this new guidance and
the related interpretive letters has involved a substantial investment of resources by
regulated entities. In other words, the fact that no new regulations have been
promulgated since 1998 does not mean that there are not continuing burdens and costs
associated with interpreting and updating procedures to comply with the existing rules.
Further, the ICR fails to take into account the cost and burdens associated with
the additional record keeping and reporting obligations imposed by EPA on regulated
entities through various approvals, such as risk-based disposal and decontamination
variances, and storage for disposal and storage for reuse variances, to name just a few
categories. Complying with the record keeping and reporting obligations in these
variances impose real and substantial burdens on the regulated community. These
burdens should be captured in the ICR.
* * * * *
USWAG appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the PCB ICR.

~WASH1:4595043.v1

7