Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-19305

Proposed Rule2021-19305

Alternate PCB Extraction Methods and Amendments to PCB Cleanup and Disposal Regulations

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

October 22, 2021

Issuing agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Abstract

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) proposes to expand the available options for extraction and determinative methods used to characterize and verify the cleanup of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) waste under the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations (also referred to as the PCB regulations). These proposed changes are expected to greatly reduce the amount of solvent used in PCB extraction processes, thereby conserving resources and reducing waste. In addition, the proposed changes are expected to result in quicker, more efficient, and less costly cleanups, due to greater flexibility in the cleanup and disposal of PCB waste, while still being equally protective of human health and the environment. EPA also proposes several other amendments to the PCB regulations, including the amendment of performance-based disposal option for PCB remediation waste; the removal of the provision allowing PCB bulk product waste to be disposed as roadbed material; the addition of more flexible provisions for cleanup and disposal of waste generated by spills that occur during emergency situations (e.g., hurricanes or floods); harmonizing the general disposal requirements for PCB remediation waste; and making other amendments to improve the implementation of the regulations, clarify ambiguity and correct technical errors.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58730-58762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19305]

[[Page 58729]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 202

October 22, 2021

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 761

Alternate PCB Extraction Methods and Amendments to PCB Cleanup and
Disposal Regulations; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 202 / Friday, October 22, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 58730]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0556; FRL-7122-02-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH08

Alternate PCB Extraction Methods and Amendments to PCB Cleanup
and Disposal Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
proposes to expand the available options for extraction and
determinative methods used to characterize and verify the cleanup of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) waste under the federal Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations (also referred to as the PCB
regulations). These proposed changes are expected to greatly reduce the
amount of solvent used in PCB extraction processes, thereby conserving
resources and reducing waste. In addition, the proposed changes are
expected to result in quicker, more efficient, and less costly
cleanups, due to greater flexibility in the cleanup and disposal of PCB
waste, while still being equally protective of human health and the
environment. EPA also proposes several other amendments to the PCB
regulations, including the amendment of performance-based disposal
option for PCB remediation waste; the removal of the provision allowing
PCB bulk product waste to be disposed as roadbed material; the addition
of more flexible provisions for cleanup and disposal of waste generated
by spills that occur during emergency situations (e.g., hurricanes or
floods); harmonizing the general disposal requirements for PCB
remediation waste; and making other amendments to improve the
implementation of the regulations, clarify ambiguity and correct
technical errors.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2021. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information
collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or
before November 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2021-0556, by one of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute.
<bullet> Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, OLEM Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets</a>.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding
specific aspects of this document, contact Jennifer McLeod, Program
Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, (703) 308-8459; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7bab4bbb2b8b3f9bdb2b9b9beb1b2a597b2a7b6f9b0b8a1">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or Karen Swetland-Johnson, Program
Implementation and Information Division, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, (703) 308-8421; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a090d1f0e161b141e571015121409151454111b081f143a1f0a1b541d150c">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

This proposed rule potentially affects persons that manufacture,
process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of PCBs. The following
list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help
readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
<bullet> Utilities: Electric power and light companies, natural gas
companies (NAICS code 22);
<bullet> Manufacturers: Chemical manufacturers, electroindustry
manufacturers, end-users of electricity, general contractors (NAICS
codes 31-33);
<bullet> Transportation and Warehousing: Various modes of
transportation including air, rail, water, ground, and pipeline (NAICS
code 48-49);
<bullet> Real Estate: People who rent, lease, or sell commercial
property (NAICS code 53);
<bullet> Professional, Scientific and Technical Services: Testing
laboratories, environmental consulting (NAICS code 54);
<bullet> Public Administration: Federal, state, and local agencies
(NAICS code 92);
<bullet> Waste Management and Remediation Services: PCB waste
handlers (e.g., storage facilities, landfills, incinerators), waste
treatment and disposal, remediation services, material recovery
facilities, waste transporters (NAICS code 562);
<bullet> Repair and Maintenance: Repair and maintenance of
appliances, machinery and equipment (NAICS code 811);
To determine whether your entity is affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the proposed changes to the regulatory text.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

EPA proposes to expand the list of extraction and determinative
methods in the PCB regulations (40 CFR part 761); amend the
performance-based cleanup option for PCB remediation waste under Sec.
761.61(b); remove the provision allowing PCB bulk product waste to be
disposed as roadbed material; add more flexible provisions for cleaning
up spills that occur during emergency situations, such as during a
hurricane or flood; harmonize the general disposal requirements for PCB
remediation waste; and make several other amendments to improve the
implementation of the regulations, clarify ambiguity, and correct
technical errors and outdated information. In addition to the proposed
regulatory changes to 40 CFR part 761 included in this notice, EPA has
also included a redline mark-up of the proposed changes as a supporting
document in the docket, titled Redline Version of Proposed Revisions to
40 CFR part 761 (PCB Regulations; NPRM). This transparency will assist
the public in visualizing what EPA is proposing to change in the
regulatory text at 40 CFR part 761, by showing what is proposed to be
added to and removed from the current version of the regulatory text.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

The authority to propose this rule is found in section 6(e)(1) of
TSCA. Specifically, section 6(e)(1)(A) gives

[[Page 58731]]

EPA the authority to promulgate rules regarding the disposal of PCBs
(15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(A)).

D. What are the overall economic impacts of this action?

EPA estimated the costs and benefits of the proposed rule in an
Economic Assessment, which is available in the docket for this action.
Overall, EPA estimates that the proposed rule would result in
quantifiable annual cost savings of approximately $13.5 million to
$15.2 million (annualized at a discount rate of seven percent).

E. What is the scope of this proposed rule?

This proposed rule addresses several key issues related to
implementing the PCB Cleanup and Disposal Program under TSCA,
including:
Expand Available Extraction Methods
EPA proposes to add the following extraction methods from SW-846,
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, to the PCB regulations in 40
CFR part 761 for use on solid matrices: Method 3541 (Automated Soxhlet
Extraction), Method 3545A (Pressurized Fluid Extraction), and Method
3546 (Microwave Extraction). EPA is also proposing to add the following
aqueous extraction methods to the PCB regulations: Method 3510C
(Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction), Method 3520C (Continuous
Liquid-Liquid Extraction), and Method 3535A (Solid-Phase Extraction).
The Agency is proposing to incorporate by reference Methods 3541,
3545A, 3546, 3510C, 3520C, and 3535A into Sec. 761.19.
Remove Ultrasonic Extraction
EPA proposes to remove SW-846 Method 3550B (Ultrasonic extraction)
from the PCB regulations in 40 CFR part 761.
Add Determinative Methods
EPA proposes to add three determinative methods to the PCB
regulations: SW-846 Method 8082A (Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) By
Gas Chromatography); 8275A (Semivolatile Organic Compounds (PAHs And
PCBs) In Soils/Sludges And Solid Wastes Using Thermal Extraction/Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (TE/GC/MS)); and Clean Water Act (CWA)
Method 1668C (Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment,
Biosolids, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS).
Amend the Performance-Based Disposal Option Under Sec. 761.61(b)
EPA proposes to amend the performance-based disposal option for PCB
remediation waste under Sec. 761.61(b) to include provisions for
performance-based cleanup such as applicability, cleanup levels,
verification sampling, recordkeeping and notification requirements. EPA
is also proposing to add RCRA Subtitle C permitted landfills to the
list of allowable performance-based disposal options for non-liquid PCB
remediation waste.
Remove Regulatory Provision Allowing Disposal of PCB Bulk Product Waste
as Roadbed
EPA proposes to remove the option in Sec. 761.62(d)(2), which
allows for disposal of PCB bulk product waste under asphalt as part of
a roadbed.
Add Flexible Provisions for Emergency Situations
EPA proposes to add two provisions to the existing PCB Spill
Cleanup Policy in 40 CFR part 761, subpart G, that would allow for more
flexible requirements for cleanup of spills caused by and managed in
emergency situations, such as hurricane or floods. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to add provisions to allow individuals to request a waiver
from specific requirements of Sec. Sec. 761.60, 761.61, 761.62, and
761.65, when necessitated by an emergency situation.
Harmonize General Disposal Requirements for PCB Remediation Waste
EPA proposes to amend Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii) to remove a phrase
that was added erroneously in 1998, which could imply that waste with
<50 ppm PCBs that met the definition of PCB remediation waste in Sec.
761.3 was not regulated for disposal.
Make Changes To Improve Regulatory Implementation
EPA proposes several supplemental amendments to improve
implementation of existing requirements, clarify regulatory ambiguity
and correct technical errors in the PCB regulations.
More information on each of the above proposed changes can be found
in Section III, Detailed Discussion of the Proposed Rule.

II. Background

A. General Background on Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and This
Rulemaking

What are PCBs?
PCBs are a group of man-made organic chemicals known as chlorinated
hydrocarbons, which consist of carbon, hydrogen and chlorine atoms.
PCBs were manufactured in the United States from 1929 until fabrication
was banned in 1979. (As allowed by TSCA, the PCB regulations provide
for excluded manufacturing processes, as defined in 40 CFR 761.3, which
include inadvertent generation.) The number of chlorine atoms and their
location in a PCB molecule determine many of its physical and chemical
properties. PCBs have no known taste or smell, and range in consistency
from thin, light-colored liquids to yellow or black waxy solids. Due to
their non-flammability, chemical stability, high boiling point and
electrical insulating properties, PCBs were previously used in hundreds
of industrial and commercial applications including: Electrical, heat
transfer and hydraulic equipment; plasticizers in paints, plastics and
rubber products; pigments, dyes and carbonless copy paper; and other
industrial applications. The PCBs used in these products were chemical
mixtures made up of a variety of individual chlorinated biphenyl
components known as congeners. Most commercial PCB mixtures are known
in the United States by their industrial trade names, the most common
being Aroclor. Please visit: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs</a> for more information.
PCB Exposures and Health Effects 1 2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Thomas, Xue, Williams, Jones, and Whitaker.
``Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in School Buildings: Sources,
Environmental Levels, and Exposures''; Office of Research and
Development, National Exposure Laboratory; Washington, DC. September
2012.
\2\ ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. November
2000.
\3\ ATSDR. Addendum to the Toxicological Profile for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. April 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCBs are persistent in the environment and can cause both acute and
chronic health effects. Short-term exposure to high concentrations of
PCBs can lead to skin conditions such as acne and rashes and may be
associated with decreased liver function, neurological effects and
gastrointestinal effects.

[[Page 58732]]

These high levels of exposure are generally rare in the general
population. Chronic exposure to lower concentrations of PCBs may also
cause health effects, as PCBs can accumulate in people over time. In
animal studies, PCBs have been shown to cause effects on the immune,
reproductive, nervous, hepatic and endocrine systems. PCBs have also
been shown to cause cancer in animals. Some studies in humans provide
supportive evidence for some of these health effects. Studies also show
that PCBs in pregnant women can affect their children's birth weight,
short-term memory and learning. Also, because of potential neurotoxic
and endocrine effects, there is concern regarding children's exposures
to PCBs.
PCBs are highly persistent in the environment. As such, they are
still present in soils and sediments at many locations and may be found
at low levels in ambient air and water, even decades after banning
them. PCBs can be released into the environment from hazardous waste
sites, illegal or improper disposal of industrial wastes and consumer
products, leaks from old electrical transformers and capacitors
containing PCBs and burning of some wastes in incinerators, among other
sources. PCBs bioaccumulate and may be present in foods that people
consume, such as fish, meat and dairy products. Dietary consumption of
contaminated foods is believed to be an important route of background
exposure.
Laws and Regulations
This proposed rule is issued pursuant to section 6(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2605(e). Section 6(e)(1)(A) gives EPA
the authority to promulgate rules regarding the disposal of PCBs (15
U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(A)). TSCA section 6(e)(2) and (e)(3) generally
prohibit the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce and use
(other than totally enclosed use) of PCBs (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2) and
(e)(3)). TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) 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)). TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) provides that any
person may petition EPA for an exemption from the prohibition on the
manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs (15
U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)). EPA may grant an exemption based on findings
that an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment will
not result, and that the petitioner has made good faith efforts to
develop a substitute for PCBs.
The implementing PCB regulations can be found in title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 761. For useful
interpretations of the regulations as well as answers to frequently
asked questions please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/policy-and-guidance-polychlorinated-biphenyl-pcbs">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/policy-and-guidance-polychlorinated-biphenyl-pcbs</a>.
Rationale for Updating Portions of the PCB Regulations
Several developments have occurred in recent years to warrant an
update to portions of the PCB regulations, including: The emergence of
new science, advancement of analytical methods and technology, new
information, and repeated requests from the regulated community to
address their concerns and areas of confusion.
EPA is thus proposing several revisions to the PCB regulations to
better reflect current science and other available new information.
This rulemaking is expected to ease regulatory burden and costs on the
regulated community and on EPA by providing greater flexibility while
maintaining environmental protectiveness in the allowable extraction
and determinative methods used to characterize and verify the cleanup
of PCB waste. This rulemaking is also expected to ease regulatory
burden by improving the implementation of the regulations, clarifying
ambiguity and correcting technical errors.

B. Assumptions and Terminology Used in Discussion of Various Methods

Sources of the Methods
There are two important sources of EPA methods related to this
rulemaking. The first source is SW-846, also known as The Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods Compendium, which
is EPA's collection of methods for use in complying with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). SW-846 is organized into chapters
providing guidance on how to use the methods and groups of methods,
called ``series,'' which are organized by topic. The methods change
over time as updates are published to keep up with evolving analytical
and measurement needs.\4\ The second source is the Clean Water Act
(CWA) Methods, which are EPA published laboratory methods, or test
procedures that are used by industries and municipalities, to analyze
the chemical, physical and biological components of wastewater and
other environmental samples.\5\ Methods for both SW-846 and CWA go
through an extensive review and validation process before they are made
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846">https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846</a>.
\5\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods">https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terminology of the Methods
EPA would like to avoid confusion with the variety of methods
discussed, the source of each method, and the numbering of the methods.
EPA will use streamlined nomenclature in this preamble to improve its
readability. For example, rather than stating, ``SW-846, Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA Method 3540C (Soxhlet Extraction),''
EPA will only state ``Method 3540C''. This terminology applies to all
subsequent sections in this preamble. See Table 1 for a comprehensive
list of all methods referenced in this document.

Table 1--Table of Methods Discussed in This Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication
Source Method ID year Method type Method name Proposed change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SW-846......... Method 3510C............. 1996 Extraction...... Separatory Propose to Add.
Funnel Liquid-
Liquid
Extraction.
SW-846......... Method 3520C............. 1996 Extraction...... Continuous Propose to Add.
Liquid-Liquid
Extraction.
SW-846......... Method 3535A............. 2007 Extraction...... Solid-Phase Propose to Add.
Extraction
(SPE).
SW-846......... Method 3500B............. 2007 Extraction...... Organic Propose to
Extraction and Remove
Sample Reference to
Preparation. Method.
SW-846......... Method 3540C............. 1996 Extraction...... Soxhlet Remains in
Extraction. regulations.
SW-846......... Method 3541.............. 1994 Extraction...... Automated Propose to Add.
Soxhlet
Extraction.
SW-846......... Method 3545A............. 2007 Extraction...... Pressurized Propose to Add.
Fluid
Extraction.
SW-846......... Method 3546.............. 2007 Extraction...... Microwave Propose to Add.
Extraction.

[[Page 58733]]

SW-846......... Method 3550B............. 1996 Extraction...... Ultrasonic Propose to
Extraction. Remove.
SW-846......... Method 8082.............. 1996 Determinative... Polychlorinated Remains in
Biphenyls regulations.
(PCBs) by Gas
Chromatography.
SW-846......... Method 8082A............. 2007 Determinative... Polychlorinated Propose to Add.
Biphenyls
(PCBs) by Gas
Chromatography.
SW-846......... Method 8275A............. 1996 Extraction and Semivolatile Propose to Add.
Determinative. Organic
Compounds in
Soil/Sludges
and Solid
Wastes Using
Thermal
Extraction/Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectrometry
(TE/GC/MS).
CWA............ Method 1668C............. 2010 Extraction and Chlorinated Propose to Add.
Determinative. Biphenyl
Congeners in
Water, Soil,
Sediment,
Biosolids, and
Tissue by HRGC/
HRMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Detailed Discussion of the Proposed Rule

A. Expand Available Extraction Methods for PCBs

Background on Extraction Methods for PCBs
Currently, the only extraction methods explicitly allowed in the
PCB regulations for solid matrices are Method 3540C (Soxhlet
Extraction), which is commonly referred to as `Manual Soxhlet
Extraction,' and Method 3550B (Ultrasonic Extraction). The regulated
community has long expressed interest in the availability of extraction
methods at cleanup sites beyond those currently allowed under the PCB
regulations.\6\ The data on Method 3550B indicate that it has the
potential to produce unreliable and inconsistent results. For more
information on this issue, see Section III.B. Remove Ultrasonic
Extraction (Method 3550B) from the PCB Regulations. Manual Soxhlet
Extraction was invented in the late 1800s and the original Method 3540C
was created in 1996. It is a long-standing, effective method for PCBs;
however, over time it has slowly been replaced by newer methods in both
EPA and commercial laboratories.\7\ This transition has caused problems
with the availability of Manual Soxhlet Extraction in EPA and
commercial laboratories, which could potentially cause delays in
getting samples extracted and analyzed in a timely matter. In addition,
Manual Soxhlet Extraction takes 16-24 hours (whereas other methods may
take only 2-4 hours, or less) to complete the extraction of a limited
number of samples, which could result in further delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Allison D. Foley ``Consolidated Petition on Behalf of USWAG
Members to Use Automated Soxhlet Extraction (Method 3541) in
Connection with June 10, 2014 Risk-Based Approvals to Dispose of
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Remediation Waste''; March 2015.
\7\ M.D. Luque de Castro, L.E. Garc[iacute]a-Ayuso. ``Soxhlet
extraction of solid materials: An outdated technique with a
promising innovative future.'' Department of Analytical Chemistry,
Faculty of Sciences, University of Cordoba. Cordoba, Spain. March
1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the PCB regulations explicitly allow these extraction
methods, neither of these methods are applicable to PCB extraction of
aqueous samples. Method 8082 is currently the only determinative method
listed in the PCB regulations for extraction from aqueous matrices and
states that ``[a]queous samples may be extracted at neutral pH with
methylene chloride using either Method 3510 (separatory funnel), Method
3520 (continuous liquid-liquid extraction), Method 3535A (solid-phase
extraction) or other appropriate technique or solvents.''
EPA proposes to add the following extraction methods to the 40 CFR
part 761 regulations: Method 3541 \8\ (Automated Soxhlet Extraction),
Method 3545A \9\ (Pressurized Fluid Extraction), and Method 3546 \10\
(Microwave Extraction) for extraction of PCBs from solid matrices; and
Method 3510C \11\ (Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction), Method
3520C \12\ (Continuous Liquid-Liquid Extraction), and Method 3535A \13\
(Solid-Phase Extraction) for extraction of PCBs from aqueous matrices.
EPA is also proposing to add determinative methods to the PCB
regulations at 40 CFR part 761 (see Section III.C. Proposed Updates to
Determinative Methods for PCBs). Although not explicitly allowable at
this time for determining PCB concentrations for purposes of the PCB
disposal and cleanup regulations, these methods are already widely used
in both EPA and commercial laboratories for PCB extraction under other
cleanup programs, such as cleanups under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
state-led cleanups. These methods are as accurate as and offer several
significant benefits over Manual Soxhlet Extraction, including quicker
sample processing time (a few hours or less compared to 16-24 hours),
less need for physical space for equipment, reduced solvent use and
energy savings. Because of these advantages, most EPA and commercial
labs already use these Methods for extracting PCBs from samples. EPA
finds, based on reasonably available information, that expanding the
options for alternative extraction methods in the PCB regulations would
help the regulated community investigate, clean up and dispose of PCB
waste more quickly, efficiently, and economically, with results that
are as accurate as or more accurate than the results using

[[Page 58734]]

3540C. Furthermore, the use of less solvent during the extraction
procedure would advance Agency priorities on the use of greener
technologies in cleanup and disposal actions.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ U.S. EPA, Method 3541 Automated Soxhlet Extraction. Office
of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division
(5303P). Washington, DC. EPA-820-R-10-004. September 1994.
\9\ U.S. EPA, Method 3545A Pressurized Fluid Extraction. Office
of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division
(5303P). Washington, DC. EPA-820-R-10-004. January 1998.
\10\ U.S. EPA, Method 3546 Microwave Extraction. Office of Land
and Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division (5303P).
Washington, DC. EPA-820-R-10-004. February 2007.
\11\ U.S. EPA, Method 3510C Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid
Extraction. Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5303P). Washington, DC. December 1996.
\12\ U.S. EPA, Method 3520C Continuous Liquid-Liquid Extraction.
Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management
Division (5303P). Washington, DC. December 1996.
\13\ U.S. EPA, Method 3535A Solid-Phase Extraction. Office of
Land and Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division (5303P).
Washington, DC. February 2007.
\14\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/oswer_greencleanup_principles.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/oswer_greencleanup_principles.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, EPA proposes to add several additional extraction
methods to the PCB Regulations, which will allow for more flexibility
in the allowable extraction methods. See the following section for more
information on EPA's proposed extraction methods.
Technical Summary of Relevant Extraction Methods
EPA Method 3540C: Soxhlet Extraction (aka Manual Soxhlet
Extraction) is currently the primary extraction method used under the
PCB regulations. When performing a Manual Soxhlet Extraction, the solid
sample is mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate, placed in an extraction
thimble or between two plugs of glass wool, and extracted using an
appropriate solvent in a Soxhlet extractor. The extract is then dried,
concentrated (if necessary) and exchanged into a solvent compatible
with the cleanup or determinative step being employed (if necessary).
For certain types of matrices, such as non-liquid manufactured
materials, this method may be the most suitable option to ensure
effective extraction of PCBs for quantitative analysis.
EPA Method 3550B: Ultrasonic Extraction (UE) is a method currently
permissible in the PCB regulations that can be used to extract PCBs
from solids, such as soils, sludges and wastes. There are two
procedures in the method depending on the expected concentration of
organic compounds. Under the low concentration procedure, the sample is
mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate to form a free-flowing powder. The
mixture is extracted with solvent three times, using an ultrasonic
extractor, which uses pulsing energy to extract the targeted analyte.
The extract is separated from the sample by vacuum filtration or
centrifugation. The extract is then ready for final concentration,
cleanup and/or analysis. Under the medium/high concentration procedure,
the sample is mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate to form a free-
flowing powder. The sample is extracted with solvent once, using
ultrasonic extraction. A portion of the extract is then collected for
cleanup and/or analysis. Because of the limited contact time between
the solvent and the sample, Ultrasonic Extraction may not be as
rigorous as other extraction methods for soils/solids. Therefore, it is
critical that the method (including the manufacturer's instructions) be
followed exactly, to achieve the maximum extraction efficiency.
EPA is proposing to add EPA Method 3546: Microwave Extraction to
the PCB regulations. This method is known for its relatively brief
extraction time and low equipment costs. In a microwave extraction, a
sample is prepared for extraction by grinding it to a powder and then
loading it into the extraction vessel. The appropriate solvent system
is added to the vessel, which is then sealed. The extraction vessel
containing the sample and solvent system is then heated to the
extraction temperature and is extracted for the amount of time
recommended by the instrument manufacturer. After the mixture cools,
the vessel is opened and the contents are filtered. The solid material
is then rinsed multiple times, and the various solvent fractions are
combined. Finally, the extract may be concentrated, if necessary, and,
as needed, exchanged into a solvent compatible with the cleanup or
determinative procedure to be employed.
EPA is also proposing to add EPA Method 3545A: Pressurized Fluid
Extraction (PFE) to the PCB Regulations. When performing a pressurized
fluid extraction, a sample is prepared for extraction either by air
drying the sample, or by mixing the sample with anhydrous sodium
sulfate or pelletized diatomaceous earth. The sample is then ground and
loaded into an extraction cell. The extraction cell containing the
ground sample is then heated to the extraction temperature, pressurized
with the appropriate solvent system, and extracted for the period of
time recommended by the instrument manufacturer. The solvent is then
collected from the heated extraction vessel and allowed to cool.
Finally, the extract may be concentrated, if necessary, and, as needed,
exchanged into a solvent compatible with the cleanup or determinative
step being employed.
EPA Method 3541: Automated Soxhlet Extraction would also become
permissible for PCB extraction under this proposed rule. This method
shares many similarities with Manual Soxhlet Extraction (EPA Method
3540C); however, it takes less time and solvent per sample. When
performing an Automated Soxhlet Extraction, a moist solid sample (e.g.,
soil/sediment samples) may be air-dried and ground prior to extraction
or chemically dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate. The prepared sample
is then extracted using 1:1 acetone: Hexane in the automated Soxhlet
system.
EPA is proposing to add EPA Method 3510C: Separatory Funnel Liquid-
Liquid Extraction to the PCB Regulations. This method describes a
procedure for isolating organic compounds from aqueous samples. The
method also describes concentration techniques suitable for preparing
the extract for the appropriate determinative methods. A measured
volume of sample, usually 1 liter, at a specified pH, is serially
extracted with methylene chloride using a separatory funnel. The
extract is dried, concentrated (if necessary), and, as necessary,
exchanged into a solvent compatible with the cleanup or determinative
method to be used.
EPA is also proposing to add EPA Method 3520C: Continuous Liquid-
Liquid Extraction to the PCB Regulations. This method describes a
procedure for isolating organic compounds from aqueous samples. The
method also describes concentration techniques suitable for preparing
the extract for the appropriate determinative steps. Method 3520 is
designed for extraction solvents with greater density than the sample.
A measured volume of sample, usually 1 liter, is placed into a
continuous liquid-liquid extractor, adjusted, if necessary, to a
specific pH, and extracted with organic solvent for 18-24 hours. The
extract is dried, concentrated (if necessary), and, as necessary,
exchanged into a solvent compatible with the cleanup or determinative
method being employed.
EPA is also proposing to add EPA Method 3535A: Solid-Phase
Extraction (SPE) to the PCB Regulations. This is a procedure for
isolating target organic analytes from aqueous samples using solid-
phase extraction (SPE) media. It describes conditions for extracting a
variety of organic compounds from aqueous matrices that include
groundwater, wastewater, and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) leachates. The extraction procedures are specific to the
analytes of interest and vary by group of analytes and type of
extraction media.
What is EPA proposing for allowable extraction methods for PCBs?
As stated above, EPA proposes to add the following extraction
methods to the 40 CFR part 761 regulations: Method 3541 (Automated
Soxhlet Extraction), Method 3545A (Pressurized Fluid Extraction), and
Method 3546 (Microwave Extraction) for extraction of PCBs from solid
matrices; and Method 3510C (Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid
Extraction), Method 3520C (Continuous Liquid-Liquid Extraction),

[[Page 58735]]

and Method 3535A (Solid-Phase Extraction) for extraction of PCBs from
aqueous matrices. EPA is also proposing to add Clean Water Act (CWA)
Method 1668C to the PCB regulations. Since it includes both extraction
and determinative steps, the discussion of this method is found in
Section III.C. Proposed Updates to Determinative Methods for PCBs. EPA
is proposing to allow these methods for use, as applicable, under the
following subparts of 40 CFR part 761: Subpart D--Storage and Disposal;
Subpart K--PCB Waste Disposal Records and Reports; Subpart M--
Determining a PCB Concentration for Purposes of Abandonment or Disposal
of Natural Gas Pipeline: Selecting Sites, Collecting Surface Samples,
and Analyzing Standard PCB Wipe Samples; Subpart N--Cleanup Site
Characterization Sampling for PCB Remediation Waste in Accordance with
Sec. 761.61(a)(2); Subpart O--Sampling to Verify Completion of Self-
Implementing Cleanup and On-Site Disposal of Bulk PCB Remediation Waste
and Porous Surfaces in Accordance with Sec. 761.61(a)(6); Subpart P--
Sampling Non-Porous Surfaces for Measurement-Based Use, Reuse, and On-
site or Off-Site Disposal Under Sec. 761.61(a)(6) and Determination
Under Sec. 761.79(b)(3); Subpart R--Sampling Non-Liquid, Non-Metal PCB
Bulk Product Waste for Purposes of Characterization for PCB Disposal in
Accordance With Sec. 761.62, and Sampling PCB Remediation Waste
Destined for Off-Site Disposal, in Accordance With Sec. 761.61; and
Subpart T--Comparison Study for Validating a New Performance-Based
Decontamination Solvent under Sec. 761.79(d)(4). These proposed
modifications to the 40 CFR part 761 regulations can be found in the
regulatory language section towards the end of this notice; the
specific sections of the 40 CFR part 761 regulations with these
proposed changes include: Sec. Sec. 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv),
761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and 761.395.
EPA's proposal to add Methods 3541, 3545A and 3546 to the PCB
regulations for extraction of PCBs from solid matrices is based on
several factors including: Applicability of the method to PCBs,
frequency of use in EPA and commercial laboratories and existing data
supporting the effectiveness of the methods.
EPA proposes to add Method 3541 (Automated Soxhlet Extraction) to
the PCB regulations because this method has been validated and approved
by EPA to be included in the SW-846 compendium of test methods for use
with PCBs. A study titled Intra-Laboratory Recovery Data for the PCB
Extraction Procedure was performed for the validation of Method 3541,
which confirms its effectiveness on soils, sediments, sludges and waste
solids containing levels of 1 to 50 ppm (parts per million) PCBs.\15\
As part of this study, multi-laboratory accuracy and precision data
were obtained for PCBs in soil. Specifically, eight laboratories spiked
Aroclors 1254 and 1260 into three portions of 10 g of soil on three
non-consecutive days followed by immediate extraction using Method
3541. Six of the laboratories spiked each Aroclor at 5 and 50 ppm and
two laboratories spiked each Aroclor at 50 and 500 ppm. The data
indicated that Method 3541 is an effective method for extracting PCBs,
and these data are listed in Table 8 of Method 8082A, and support EPA's
decision to propose including Method 3541 in the PCB regulations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Stewart, J. ``Intra-Laboratory Recovery Data for the PCB
Extraction Procedure''; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN, 37831-6138; October 1981.
\16\ U.S. EPA, Method 8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by
Gas Chromatography. Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office
of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5303P). Washington, DC EPA-820-R-10-004.
February 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA also proposes to add Method 3545A (Pressurized Fluid
Extraction) to the PCB regulations because this method has been
validated and approved by EPA to be included in the SW-846 compendium
of test methods for use with PCBs. A study titled, Single Laboratory
Method Validation Report. Extraction of TCL/PPL (Target Compound List/
Priority Pollutant List) OPPs, Chlorinated Herbicides and PCBs using
Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE), was performed for the validation
of Method 3545A, which confirms its effectiveness on solid matrices
containing 1 to 1400 ppm PCBs.\17\ Extractions of contaminated soil,
river sediment, sewage sludge and oyster tissue were performed, and
PCBs were spiked on Fuller's earth (kaolin clay) to determine recovery
levels. The overall average recovery of PCBs from all matrices
demonstrated that Method 3545A is equivalent in performance to Method
3540C. In addition, a comparison study titled, Chemical Analysis of
Non-Liquid PCBs in Shipboard Solid Materials: Extraction Methods
Comparison, was done on electrical cables that were previously found to
contain elevated levels of PCBs.\18\ The results of the study indicated
that there are generally no significant differences for extractions on
shipboard solids using either Method 3540C or Method 3545A. These
methods provided comparable results, which provides additional support
for EPA's decision to propose including Method 3545A in the PCB
regulations. Another study titled, PCBs in Older Buildings: Measuring
PCB Levels in Caulk and Window Glazing Materials in Older Buildings,
was performed on 36 samples of caulk and glazing materials.\19\ The
average percent recovery values for Aroclor 1254 in the caulk material
samples in this study indicate how efficient Method 3545A is for
extracting high PCB concentrations from caulk and glazing materials.
The results of these three studies support EPA's decision to propose
including Method 3545A in the PCB regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ B. Richter, Ezzell, J., and Felix, D., ``Single Laboratory
Method Validation Report. Extraction of TCL/PPL (Target Compound
List/Priority Pollutant List) OPPs, Chlorinated Herbicides and PCBs
using Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE).'' Document 101124,
Dionex Corporation, December 2, 1994).
\18\ George, R. Ph.D., Johnston, R. Ph.D. ``Chemical Analysis of
Non-Liquid PCBs in Shipboard Solid Materials: Extraction Methods
Comparison.'' Marine Environmental Support Office-NW, Environmental
Sciences Branch, January 31, 2008).
\19\ Osemwengie, L. and Morgan, J., ``PCBs in Older Buildings:
Measuring PCB Levels in Caulk and Window Glazing Materials in Older
Buildings.'' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Exposure Methods and Measurement Division,
January 31, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA also proposes to add Method 3546 (Microwave Extraction) to the
PCB regulations because this method has been validated and approved by
EPA to be included in the SW-846 compendium of test methods for use
with PCBs. A study titled, Final Evaluation of US EPA Method 3546:
Microwave Extraction, a Microwave Assisted Process (MAPTM)
Method for the Extraction of Contaminants Under Closed-Vessel
Conditions, was performed for the validation of this method, showing
that it is effective for soils, clays, sediments, sludges and solid
wastes containing PCBs at levels between 1 to 5,000 ppb ([micro]g/
kg).\20\ Data were obtained for PCBs using sediment, natural soils,
glass fiber and sand samples in spiked matrices. PCB concentrations
varied from 0.2 to 10 ppm, and sample extracts were analyzed by Method
8082A. The recovery data are included in Tables 18-20 of Method 8082A.
In addition, a study titled, Comparison of Soxhlet Extraction,
Microwave-Assisted Extraction And Ultrasonic Extraction For The
Determination Of PCBs Congeners In Spiked Soils By

[[Page 58736]]

Transformer Oil (Askarel), focused on the variation of the extraction
quantities for each PCB congener (29 PCBs) with three different
extraction methods (Manual Soxhlet Extraction, Microwave Extraction,
and Ultrasonic Extraction).\21\ The comparison made between the three
methods showed that Microwave Extraction is a suitable alternative to
Manual Soxhlet Extraction for the extraction of PCBs in soils, but
Ultrasonic Extraction did not give a good recovery. Specifically, the
recovery efficiency obtained from Ultrasonic Extraction and Microwave
Extraction were (50.67%-78.27%) on the first extraction and (41.15-
54.40%) on the second extraction, respectively (see Section III.B.
Proposed Removal or Update of Ultrasonic Extraction (Method 3550B) from
the PCB Regulations). Lastly, a study titled, Extraction of Organic
Pollutants from Solid Samples Using Microwave Energy, used Method 3546
to determine the PCB concentration in two marine sediments, soil,
freshly spiked topsoil, spiked and aged topsoil, and four soils from a
Superfund site.\22\ The results for the performance of the method on
four PCB Aroclors are presented in Table 3 of the study. The recoveries
of Aroclor 1016 and 1260 were obtained by Microwave Assisted Extraction
(MAE) and were comparable to or higher than those achieved by the
conventional extraction techniques (Manual Soxhlet Extraction and
Ultrasonic Extraction). The method validation study and additional
studies support EPA's decision to propose including Method 3546
(Microwave Extraction) in the PCB regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ K. Li, J.M.R. B[eacute]langer, M.P. Llompart, R.D. Turpin,
R. Singhvi, and J.R.J. Par[eacute], ``Final Evaluation of U.S. EPA
Method 3546: Microwave Extraction, a Microwave Assisted Process
(MAPTM) Method for the Extraction of Contaminants Under
Closed-Vessel Conditions,'' Soil and Sediment Contamination, 10 (4),
375-386 (2001).
\21\ Halfadji, Ahmed; Touabet Abdelkrim; Badjah-Hadj-Amed,
Ahmed-Yacine. Comparison of Soxhlet Extraction, Microwave-Assisted
Extraction and Ultrasonic Extraction for the Determination of PCBs
Congeners in Spiked Soils by Transformer Oil (Askarel).
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology. Vol.
5, Issue 2, pp. 63-75. Jan. 2013.
\22\ Viorica Lopez-Avila, Richard Young, Janet Benedicto,
Pauline Ho, and Robert Kim, ``Extraction of Organic Pollutants from
Solid Samples Using Microwave Energy,'' Midwest Research Institute,
California (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The extraction effectiveness of Method 3540C (Manual Soxhlet
Extraction), Method 3541 (Automated Soxhlet Extraction), Method 3545A
(Pressurized Fluid Extraction), Method 3546 (Microwave Extraction) and
Method 3550B (Ultrasonic Extraction) on soil containing PCBs was
compared in: Comprehensive comparison of classic Soxhlet extraction
with Soxtec extraction, ultrasonication extraction, supercritical fluid
extraction, microwave assisted extraction and accelerated solvent
extraction for the determination of polychlorinated biphenyls in
soil.\23\ An overall comparison among the recoveries obtained for the
different extraction techniques is shown in Figure 3 of the study. The
study concluded that most of the extraction techniques can provide
accurate results (including Methods 3541, 3545A, and 3546) when the
extraction conditions and procedures are appropriately chosen. In
conclusion, EPA finds, based on reasonably available information, that
Methods 3541, 3545A, and 3546 are technically sound methods for the
extraction of PCBs from solid matrices and provide extraction results
that are as accurate as or more accurate than the results using the
Manual Soxhlet Extraction method (Method 3540C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Sune Sporring, S[oslash]ren B[oslash]wadt, Bo Svensmark,
Erland Bjorklund. Comprehensive comparison of classic Soxhlet
extraction with Soxtec extraction, ultrasonication extraction,
supercritical fluid extraction, microwave assisted extraction and
accelerated solvent extraction for the determination of
polychlorinated biphenyls in soil. Journal of Chromatography. July
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For extraction of PCBs from aqueous matrices, EPA proposes to add
Method 3510C (Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid Extraction), Method 3520C
(Continuous Liquid-Liquid Extraction), and Method 3535A (Solid-Phase
Extraction (SPE)) to the PCB regulations to reduce confusion about
whether these methods (which are currently listed in Method 8082, the
only determinative method currently listed in the PCB regulations) can
be used or if an approval is required to use these methods. EPA is
proposing to add these methods to the PCB regulations because they have
been validated and approved by EPA to be included in the SW-846:
Compendium of Test Methods and because they are included in Method 8082
and 8082A as allowable extraction methods for aqueous matrices. EPA
finds, based on reasonably available information, that Methods 3510C,
3520C and 3535A are technically sound methods for the extraction of
PCBs from aqueous matrices and is requesting comment on the proposed
addition of these methods to the PCB regulations under the following
sections: Sec. Sec. 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv), 761.272, 761.292,
761.358, and 761.395. Note that these aqueous methods would not be
added to Sec. 761.253, as it pertains to wipe sampling of surfaces and
is not applicable to aqueous materials.
EPA is requesting comment on its proposal to add Method 3541,
Method 3545A, and Method 3546 to the PCB regulations for extraction of
PCBs from solid matrices. Additionally, EPA is requesting comment on
adding Method 3510C, Method 3520C and Method 3535A to the PCB
regulations for extraction of PCBs from aqueous matrices. EPA also
requests the submission of any additional data regarding the use of
these methods on samples containing PCBs.

B. Remove Ultrasonic Extraction (Method 3550B) From the PCB Regulations

Background on This Issue
EPA Method 3550B (Ultrasonic Extraction) is a method currently
permissible in the PCB regulations that can be used to extract PCBs
from solids, such as soils, sludges and wastes. EPA Method 3550C
(Ultrasonic Extraction) is an updated version of Method 3550B and is
not currently permissible in the PCB Regulations. For more information
on the technical aspects of ultrasonic extraction, see Section III.A.2.
Technical Summary of Relevant Extraction Methods.
The text in EPA Method 3550B and Method 3550C includes caveats that
ultrasonic extraction may not be as rigorous as other extraction
methods and highlights the importance of following the method
explicitly. By comparison, this issue is generally not mentioned or
highlighted in other SW-846 methods.\24\ Specifically, Method 3550C
further emphasizes, beyond what is stated in Method 3550B, the crucial
importance of conducting the method properly, in line with the
manufacturer's instructions regarding operational settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Section 1.4 of Method 3550C states, ``Because of the
limited contact time between the solvent and the sample, ultrasonic
extraction may not be as rigorous as other extraction methods for
soils/solids. Therefore, it is critical that the method (including
the manufacturer's instructions) be followed explicitly, in order to
achieve the maximum extraction efficiency. See Sec. 11.0 for a
discussion of the critical aspects of the extraction procedure.
Consult the manufacturer's instructions regarding specific
operational settings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous studies done on the extraction efficiency of ultrasonic
extraction methods have provided inconsistent results. Some studies
have yielded results from ultrasonic extraction that were equivalent to
the results from other extraction methods and, in others, ultrasonic
extraction had a lower extraction efficiency.25 26 For

[[Page 58737]]

example, in a large study, 20 governmental laboratories and 153
accredited laboratories were provided proficiency samples to extract
using either ultrasonic extraction or Manual Soxhlet Extraction and the
results were compared. This study showed that ``results from
laboratories using Soxhlet extraction were significantly more accurate
than those obtained using ultrasonic extraction, especially at higher
concentrations.'' 27 28 The study goes on to state that
ultrasonic extraction required ``more expertise and care for the method
to yield accurate results.'' Furthermore, this concern was amplified
for difficult to extract media, such as caulk and clay materials, where
PCBs are sorbed to the material such that they are very difficult to
extract for analysis. Another study tested the effectiveness of several
extraction methods on soil containing PCBs, including: Method 3540C,
Method 3541, Method 3545A, Method 3546 and Method 3550B.\29\ This study
found that using n-hexane/acetone with appropriate choices of
extraction time and temperature gave nearly identical data for all
methods tested in the study. The study concluded that all extraction
techniques tested (including Method 3550B) are capable of providing
accurate results when the extraction conditions and procedures are
appropriately chosen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Halfadji, Ahmed; Touabet Abdelkrim; Badjah-Hadj-Amed,
Ahmed-Yacine. Comparison of Soxhlet Extraction, Microwave-Assisted
Extraction and Ultrasonic Extraction for the Determination of PCBS
Congeners in Spiked Soils by Transformer Oil (Askarel).
International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology. Vol.
5, Issue 2, pp. 63-75. Jan. 2013.
\26\ McMillin, Richard; Spencer, David; Gregg, Diane; and
Nguyen, Neal. Comparison of Five Soil Extraction Techniques for
Pesticide and Semivolatile Analysis. Waste Testing and Quality
Assurance Conference. July 1999.
\27\ Erickson, M.D. Analytical Chemistry of PCBs. CRC Press,
Inc. 1997.
\28\ Kimbrough, D.E., R. Chin and J. Wakakuwa. ``Industry-Wide
Performance in a Pilot Performance Evaluation Sample Program for
Hazardous Materials Laboratories. 1. Precision and Accuracy of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Environmental Science Technology. Vol.
26, Issue 11, pp. 2101-2104. 1992.
\29\ Sune Sporring, S[oslash]ren B[oslash]wadt, Bo Svensmark,
Erland Bjorklund. Comprehensive comparison of classic Soxhlet
extraction with Soxtec extraction, ultrasonication extraction,
supercritical fluid extraction, microwave assisted extraction and
accelerated solvent extraction for the determination of
polychlorinated biphenyls in soil. Journal of Chromatography. July
2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is EPA proposing on this issue?
EPA proposes to remove EPA Method 3550B (Ultrasonic Extraction)
from the PCB Regulations. EPA is proposing not to include ultrasonic
extraction methods in the PCB regulations because they do not
consistently produce reliable results and have a higher potential than
other methods to be conducted improperly. The PCB regulatory sections
which would be affected by this proposal include Sec. Sec.
761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv), 761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and
761.395.
Previous studies arrived at different conclusions regarding the
effectiveness of ultrasonic extraction. The level of uncertainty raised
by these studies causes concerns, especially for difficult to extract
media, such as caulk and clay materials, where PCBs are sorbed to the
material such that they are very difficult to extract for analysis.
Compounding this, the importance of following the method explicitly is
uniquely highlighted in the ultrasonic extraction methods, suggesting
that the potential of conducting ultrasonic extraction improperly is
higher relative to other methods found in SW-846. Therefore, EPA finds,
based on reasonably available information, that ultrasonic extraction
is not a reliably effective extraction method and is proposing to
remove it from the PCB regulations.
EPA also believes that removing ultrasonic extraction from the PCB
regulations would not result in increased burden as many laboratories
do not solely use ultrasonic extraction for PCB samples for several
reasons, including difficulty in meeting quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) requirements, problems with low recoveries depending on
the sample matrix, and the fact that Method 3550B may be labor
intensive relative to other commonly used methods, such as Method
3545A. In addition, EPA believes that if ultrasonic extraction were
removed from the PCB regulations, laboratories would likely use other
extraction methods with associated equipment they likely already have
available. See the Economic Assessment for a full analysis of the costs
and cost savings.
EPA requests comment on the impacts of removing ultrasonic
extraction from the PCB regulations due to the conflicting data and the
challenge of conducting this method appropriately to obtain reliable
results. Any additional information or data regarding the efficiency of
Methods 3550B and 3550C would help EPA better evaluate them for
inclusion in the PCBs regulations.

C. Add Determinative Methods for the PCB Regulations

Background on This Issue
Currently, the PCB regulations list Method 8082 (Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography) as the only determinative
method for PCB samples.\30\ The only exception in the PCB regulations
is at Sec. 761.60(g)(1)(iii) where it states that ``[a]ny gas
chromatographic method that is appropriate for the material being
analyzed may be used'' and then suggests several optional determinative
methods.\31\ However, this section in the PCB regulations is restricted
to samples of mineral oil dielectric fluid (MODEF) and waste oil (see
Sec. Sec. 761.60(g)(1) and 761.60(g)(2)). Currently, all other samples
must be analyzed using EPA Method 8082, and any alternative
determinative method would require EPA approval. In addition, updated
(i.e., Method 8082A) or modified versions of 8082 may not be used,
since they are not explicitly stated in the PCB regulations. While EPA
has not received any significant concerns from the regulated community
regarding the availability of determinative methods, EPA has
investigated additional determinative methods to include in this
rulemaking to provide a greater number of technically sound options for
the regulated community. Additional determinative methods may reduce
the administrative burden on the Agency by reducing the number of
approvals processed for alternative methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ U.S. EPA, Method 8082 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) By
Gas Chromatography. Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office
of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5303P). Washington, DC. December 1996.
\31\ The regulatory text at Sec. 761.60(g)(1)(iii) lists the
following methods: ``. . . EPA Method 608, ``Organochlorine
Pesticides and PCBs'' at 40 CFR part 136, Appendix A;'' EPA Method
8082, ``Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Capillary Column Gas
Chromatography'' of SW-846, ``OSW Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste,'' which is available from NTIS; and ASTM Standard D-4059,
``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in
Insulating Liquids by Gas Chromatography,'' which is available from
ASTM.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the previously mentioned methods referenced in Sec.
761.60(g)(1)(iii) are outdated and EPA believes that they should be
updated to the most current versions. By updating these method
references, EPA is not requiring that only the new specifically
referenced methods be used, as Sec. 761.60(g)(1)(iii) provides that
``[a]ny gas chromatographic method that is appropriate for the material
being analyzed may be used.'' EPA believes this update will avoid
confusion by referencing the most up-to-date methods while still
allowing flexibility in this regulatory provision.
What is EPA proposing on this issue?
EPA proposes to add three determinative methods to the PCB
regulations: Method 8082A (Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) By Gas
Chromatography), Method 8275A (Semivolatile Organic Compounds (PAHs And
PCBs) In Soils/Sludges and Solid Wastes Using Thermal Extraction/Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (TE/GC/MS)), and Method 1668C
(Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment, Biosolids and

[[Page 58738]]

Tissue by HRGC/HRMS).32 33 34 The PCB regulatory sections
affected by this change include Sec. Sec. 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv),
761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and 761.395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ U.S. EPA, Method 8082A Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) By
Gas Chromatography. Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office
of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5303P). Washington, DC. February 2007.
\33\ U.S. EPA, Method 8275A Semivolatile Organic Compounds (PAHs
And PCBs) In Soils/Sludges and Solid Wastes Using Thermal
Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (TE/GC/MS). Office
of Land and Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division
(5303P). Washington, DC. December 1996.
\34\ U.S. EPA, Method 1668 Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in
Water, Soil, Sediment, Biosolids, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS. Office of
Land and Emergency Management, Office of Water, Office of Science
and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T).
Washington, DC. EPA-820-R-10-005. April 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned in the preceding section, EPA also proposes to update
the outdated referenced methods in Sec. 761.60(g)(1)(iii). EPA Method
608 would be updated to EPA Method 608.3, and EPA Method 8082 would be
updated to EPA Method 8082A.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ U.S. EPA, Method 608.3 Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs
by GC/HSD. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Engineering and Analytical Division (4303T). Washington, DC. EPA-
820-R-10-004. December 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA proposes to add Method 8082A to the PCB regulations because
Method 8082A has been validated and included in the SW-846 compendium
of test methods and Method 8082A is only a minor revision to the method
(Method 8082) currently allowed in the PCB regulations. Method 8082A
includes updated references/validation studies, formatting changes and
other various minor changes, but overall is similar to Method 8082.
Method 8082A can determine the concentrations of PCBs as Aroclors or as
individual PCB congeners in extracts from solid, tissue, and aqueous
matrices, using open-tubular, capillary columns with electron capture
detectors (ECD) or electrolytic conductivity detectors (ELCD). If
appropriate sample extraction and cleanup procedures are employed,
Method 8082A can work for other matrices, such as oils and wipe
samples. Note that Method 8082A would not replace Method 8082, and that
both methods would be available in the PCB regulations.
EPA also proposes to add Method 8275A (Semivolatile Organic
Compounds (PAHs and PCBs) In Soils/Sludges and Solid Wastes Using
Thermal Extraction/Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (TE/GC/MS)) to
the PCB regulations for several reasons, including the fact that this
method has been validated and approved by EPA to be included in the SW-
846 compendium of test methods. Method 8275A is a thermal extraction
capillary GC/MS procedure for the rapid quantitative determination of
targeted PCBs and PAHs in soils, sludges and solid wastes. The
validation data presented in the method demonstrates that several PCB
congeners can be reliably analyzed using this method.\36\ This method
is different from the other methods because PCBs are extracted, without
the use of any solvent, by a process of heating a stream of inert gas
to a temperature that is adequate to desorb the PCBs out of the sample.
The desorbed PCBs are then fed directly into an analyzer (e.g., GS/MS)
to determine the PCB concentration. A separate extraction method may
not be required if using Method 8275A and, since no solvent is used,
there is less waste produced and fewer cleanup steps involved. EPA
finds, based on reasonably available information, that Method 8275A is
appropriate for inclusion in the PCB regulations and since this method
does not require solvent, it would advance Agency priorities on the use
of greener technologies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Worden, R., ``Method 8275A: Quantitative Addendum For SW-
846 Method 8275'', Research report to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Ruska Laboratories, Inc., Houston, TX, 1993.
\37\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/oswer_greencleanup_principles.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/oswer_greencleanup_principles.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA also proposes to add Method 1668C, Chlorinated Biphenyl
Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment, Biosolids and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS,
developed by EPA's Office of Water for use under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), to the PCB regulations. This method determines PCB congeners in
environmental samples by isotope dilution and internal standard high-
resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/
HRMS) for use in wastewater, surface water, soil, sediment, biosolids
and tissue matrices. Method 1668C is different relative to many methods
in SW-846, in that it is a comprehensive method where cleanup,
extraction and determinative steps are all within Method 1668C. In SW-
846, these steps are usually separated into multiple different methods.
Additionally, Method 1668C allows for certain modifications to be made
without EPA review provided that all performance criteria are met as
described within the method. EPA finds, based on reasonably available
information, that Method 1668C is appropriate for inclusion in the PCB
regulations because the validation data presented in the method
demonstrate that several PCB congeners can be reliably analyzed using
this method.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ U.S. EPA, Method 1668A Interlaboratory Validation Study
Report. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Engineering and Analytical Division (4303T). Washington, DC. EPA-
820-R-10-004. March 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA considered other determinative methods but chose against
proposing those which were judged to be too broad, too prescriptive, or
not robust enough to accurately determine the PCB concentration. For
example, EPA Method 608.3 is prescribed for analyzing only Aroclors,
which is why it will only be allowed under Sec. 761.60(g)(1)(iii) as
this section relates to chemical analysis of mineral oil dielectric
fluid. This method was a concern for PCB remediation waste because
spilled PCBs become `weathered' over time. The weathering process is
due to repeated wetting and drying cycles, which causes the PCBs to
adsorb to the material and degrade into congeners that are different
from when the PCBs were manufactured as Aroclors. As a result, the PCB
concentration may not be accurately determined by a method that only
analyzes for Aroclors. Another example is Method 8270E, which contains
a limitation that states, ``[i]n most cases, this method is not
appropriate for the quantitation of multicomponent analytes (e.g.,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as Aroclors, technical toxaphene,
chlordane, etc.) because of limited sensitivity for these analytes or
potential for measurement bias using gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometer (GC/MS) technology.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ U.S. EPA, Method 8270E Semivolatile Organic Compounds by
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. (GC/MS). Office of Land and
Emergency Management, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery,
Materials Recovery Waste Management Division (5303P). Washington,
DC. June 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other methods considered but not included in today's proposal were
very general and were designed for `semivolatile' compounds rather than
specifically for PCB analysis. After reviewing these methods, EPA found
that the validation studies did not include PCBs and thus EPA is unable
to determine the effectiveness of these methods for PCB samples. Method
680 was also considered but this method has not been maintained,
reviewed, or updated regularly, like those found in the SW-846
compendium.\40\ As a result, this method is over 30 years old and its

[[Page 58739]]

reliability is unclear. Although EPA is not proposing Method 608.3
(except for use in the chemical analysis of mineral oil dielectric
fluids under Sec. 761.60(g)(1)(iii)), Method 8270E, or Method 680, EPA
notes that a person may either conduct a Subpart Q comparison study or
submit an appropriate application (i.e., Sec. Sec. 761.61(c),
761.62(c) or 761.79(h)) requesting to use or modify a determinative
method for their project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ U.S. EPA, Method 680 Determination of Pesticides and PCBs
in Water and Soil/Sediment by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS). Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.
November 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA is seeking comment on its proposal to add three determinative
methods (Method 8082A, Method 1668C, and Method 8275A) to the PCB
regulations. EPA also requests any additional information that may
supplement or refute the existing support for EPA's findings for this
proposal.

D. Revise Performance-Based Disposal Under Sec. 761.61(b)

Background on the Issue
Currently, there are three options for addressing PCB remediation
waste, listed in Sec. 761.61 under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Section 761.61(b) (entitled ``performance-based disposal'') prescribes
disposal methods for liquid and non-liquid PCB remediation waste but
does not explicitly require or refer to cleanup requirements or cleanup
levels in the regulations. Specifically, section 761.61(b) simply
states that any person disposing of liquid (Sec. 761.61(b)(1)) and
non-liquid (Sec. 761.61(b)(2)) PCB remediation waste shall do so by
one of the TSCA-approved disposal methods listed therein. Section
761.61(b) does not currently include provisions for site cleanup. The
other PCB remediation waste options in Sec. 761.61 are ``self-
implementing on-site cleanup and disposal of PCB remediation waste'' in
Sec. 761.61(a) and ``risk-based disposal approval'' in Sec.
761.61(c). Section 761.61(a) describes in detail the requirements for
notification, site characterization, cleanup levels, cleanup
verification, disposal options and more. Section 761.61(c) allows the
site owner to apply for a risk-based approval to ``sample, cleanup, or
dispose of PCB remediation waste in a manner other than prescribed in
paragraphs (a) or (b).'' The language of section 761.61(b) thus does
not conform to the other two options in that the provision does not
state the removal requirements of PCB remediation waste at any
specified concentration nor does it provide for procedures to
demonstrate that on-site cleanup is complete.
Prior to this rulemaking, EPA had stated in guidance related to
Sec. 761.61(b) that to be completely unregulated for disposal off-site
without an approval from EPA, waste must contain <1 ppm PCBs, and that
concentration must not be the result of dilution during remediation
(i.e., by mixing with clean soil during excavation).\41\ Similarly, if
someone were to use Sec. 761.61(b) for disposal of waste, but leave
materials on-site > 1 ppm, they would still have TSCA obligations for
those remaining materials.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ PCB Q&A Manual. June 2014. Pg. 91. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/qacombined.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/qacombined.pdf</a>.
\42\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/managing-remediation-waste-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-cleanups">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/managing-remediation-waste-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-cleanups</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While EPA's regulatory text and preamble statements refer to
Sec. Sec. 761.61(a), (b), and (c) as three alternatives for PCB
cleanup and disposal, the absence of cleanup provisions, such as
cleanup levels and sampling requirements, in Sec. 761.61(b) could make
it challenging for site owners to know when EPA would agree that on-
site cleanup is complete and the site is authorized for use under Sec.
761.30(u).43 44 Clear regulatory requirements may be
warranted as EPA estimates that 50 to 60 million kg of PCB remediation
waste are generated at 430 to 460 sites cleaned up under Sec.
761.61(b) each year.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The preamble to the 1994 proposed PCB Megarule (59 FR
62796).
\44\ 40 CFR 761.61, introductory paragraph.
\45\ Manifest data from 2018 and 2019 was analyzed to estimate
the volume of waste and number of sites cleaned up under Sec.
761.61(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA Proposal on This Issue
EPA proposes to amend Sec. 761.61(b) (performance-based disposal)
to add performance-based cleanup standards, while maintaining this
option as one which does not require prior EPA approval and thus
remains an expedient option for those entities removing PCB remediation
waste from the site. Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend Sec.
761.61(b) to include explicit conditions for on-site remediation and
cleanup of PCB remediation waste. This specification includes: (1)
Establishing cleanup levels for sites remediated under Sec. 761.61(b)
performance-based cleanup; (2) limiting applicability of this option to
sites that are not near sensitive populations or environments; (3)
verification sampling; (4) recordkeeping requirements; (5) post-cleanup
notification; and (6) allowing for disposal of PCB remediation waste in
RCRA Subtitle C permitted landfills. After fulfilling the conditions of
performance-based cleanup and disposal, the site would then be
authorized for use under Sec. 761.30(u).
While the proposed conditions for performance-based cleanup will
require additional effort on the part of site owners, the proposed
conditions will also provide site owners confidence that they are
satisfying the regulatory requirements. As always, failure to properly
characterize PCBs on site is not a defense for noncompliant cleanup and
disposal. Liability for ensuring compliance with Sec. 761.61(b),
performance-based cleanup and disposal, lies with the responsible
party. In addition, while the revisions to Sec. 761.61(b) are designed
to be fully self-implementing, if the remediating party has questions
as to whether its site qualifies to be cleaned up under Sec.
761.61(b)(1)(i) of this provision, it would be in the remediating
party's best interest, from a compliance assurance perspective, to
contact the appropriate EPA Regional PCB Coordinator prior to
commencing the cleanup and disposal activities. See the EPA PCB website
for a list of the EPA Regional PCB Coordinators <a href="http://www.epa.gov/pcbs/program-contacts">www.epa.gov/pcbs/program-contacts</a>.
First, EPA proposes to establish cleanup levels for sites
remediated under a Sec. 761.61(b) performance-based cleanup.
Currently, the regulations do not reference a specific cleanup level.
The 1994 preamble provides that Sec. 761.61(b) ``could be used where
all PCB remediation waste would be removed from the environment, or
where remediation levels were established elsewhere in these rules.''
\46\ In guidance, EPA has interpreted ``all PCB remediation waste'' to
mean PCB remediation waste at >1 ppm PCBs.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ The preamble to the 1994 proposed PCB Megarule (59 FR
62796).
\47\ Managing Remediation Waste From Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) Cleanups <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/managing-remediation-waste-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-cleanups">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/managing-remediation-waste-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs-cleanups</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identifying a numerical cleanup level in regulations will help
responsible parties understand the circumstances under which they could
expect to have no further cleanup responsibility at the site under
Sec. 761.61(b). EPA is therefore proposing to incorporate the
following cleanup levels directly into Sec. 761.61(b): <=1 ppm for
bulk PCB remediation waste and porous surfaces; the concentrations
specified in Sec. 761.79(b)(1) and (2) for liquids; and the
concentrations specified in Sec. 761.79(b)(3) for nonporous surfaces.
EPA notes that the cleanup levels for liquids and nonporous surfaces
are already performance-based decontamination standards, so materials
decontaminated to those levels are authorized for use under Sec.
761.79 and Sec. 761.30(u). Additionally, the cleanup level for bulk
remediation waste and

[[Page 58740]]

porous surfaces is already used in Sec. 761.61(a) as the most
stringent cleanup level (with certain exceptions accommodated in the
proposal as described below), corresponding to the cleanup level for a
high occupancy area without further conditions. See proposed Sec.
761.61(b)(1)(ii).
Second, EPA proposes an applicability provision be included in the
Sec. 761.61(b) performance-based cleanup to exclude the provision's
use at sites with specific characteristics that merit additional
consideration by EPA. In the 1998 Megarule, EPA established that
certain types of sensitive environments and populations would not be
well-served by the cleanup levels prescribed in Sec. 761.61(a)(4) and
therefore excluded these locations from the applicability of Sec.
761.61(a). See Sec. 761.61(a)(1). In addition, the regulation
identifies certain types of sites that, while subject to Sec.
761.61(a), may call for more stringent cleanup levels. See Sec.
761.61(a)(4)(vi). Since the proposed performance-based cleanup would
not require consultation with EPA, EPA proposes a list of objective
characteristics that would exclude a site from using performance-based
cleanup standards, which largely mirrors the applicability section in
Sec. 761.61(a)(1) and the characteristics in Sec. Sec.
761.61(a)(4)(vi), 761.120(a)(2), and 761.120(d)(2)(iv) of sites that
may require more stringent cleanup levels or site-specific
determinations. Additionally, the proposed criteria in Sec.
761.61(b)(1)(A) exclude sites where PCB remediation waste is found
within the 100-year floodplain, which would allow EPA to give
additional consideration to the protection of waterways by handling the
cleanup through Sec. 761.61(a) and/or Sec. 761.61(c). Responsible
parties should be able to independently evaluate their site and
determine whether performance-based cleanup would be applicable. EPA's
regional PCB Coordinators are available to provide site-specific
guidance, but such consultation should not be needed to apply the
regulations to a site.\48\ See proposed Sec. 761.61(b)(1)(i)(A). In
the event that a responsible party is precluded from using Sec.
761.61(b) under EPA's proposed applicability criteria, they can choose
to conduct their cleanup under one of the other two options, i.e.,
Sec. Sec. 761.61(a) or 761.61(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ Contact information for PCB regional coordinators. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/program-contacts">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/program-contacts</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, EPA proposes to require verification sampling in accordance
with the PCB regulations to ensure that the proposed cleanup levels
have been met. Currently, EPA expects that verification sampling is
already conducted by responsible parties using Sec. 761.61(b) for site
cleanup to ensure that PCB remediation waste is removed. Under this
proposal, EPA is specifying that verification sampling be conducted in
accordance with Subpart O for bulk PCB remediation waste and porous
surfaces, Subpart P or Sec. 761.79(b)(3)(i) for nonporous surfaces,
and Sec. 761.269 for liquid remediation waste. EPA is also proposing,
similar to the cleanup option under Sec. 761.61(a), that the
concentration in every required sample analysis result must be below
the specified cleanup levels for the cleanup to be complete. See
proposed Sec. 761.61(b)(1)(iii).
Fourth, EPA is also proposing to incorporate explicit recordkeeping
requirements into performance-based cleanup. Currently, responsible
parties using Sec. 761.61(b) are subject to the applicable
recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 761.180(a) for PCB remediation
waste shipped off-site. Under the proposed provisions for performance-
based cleanup, responsible parties would need to follow the
recordkeeping requirements in the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy at Sec.
761.125(c)(5) in addition to any applicable requirements in Sec.
761.180(a). These requirements are also required for self-implementing
cleanups conducted under Sec. 761.61(a) (see Sec. 761.61(a)(9)). Nine
specific items would be documented in the records, and records would be
required to be maintained for five years. While the proposed
requirements would present a small additional burden to responsible
parties, EPA believes that recordkeeping would benefit responsible
parties by allowing them to demonstrate to regulators, prospective
property purchasers, or insurers that site cleanup was completed
according to the conditions in Sec. 761.61(b). See the Economic
Assessment for a full analysis of the costs. See proposed Sec.
761.61(b)(1)(iv).
Fifth, EPA proposes to incorporate a post-cleanup notification into
the proposed performance-based cleanup provisions. Under performance-
based cleanup and disposal, sites would be remediated without EPA
involvement. While EPA understands the value of a site remediation
option that is self-directed and expedient, it is also reasonable to
expect that regulators need a way to evaluate performance to ensure the
conditions, such as cleanup levels, were met. EPA is proposing to
require responsible parties to send a notification to EPA within 14
days of the final shipment of waste offsite for disposal. The proposed
notification would require information about the site and point of
contact, the disposal facility and waste shipments, and a summary of
the required records. The notification would also include a
certification, as defined in Sec. 761.3, from the responsible party.
This basic notification would only include information that EPA is
proposing be kept under the recordkeeping provision, and thus should
not present an additional significant burden on the responsible party.
See the Economic Assessment and Information Collection Request for
specific estimates. EPA, state, tribal and local environmental agencies
could then use the proposed notification as way to maintain oversight.
Sixth, EPA proposes to add a RCRA Subtitle C landfill disposal
option for non-liquid PCB remediation waste under Sec. 761.61(b). RCRA
Subtitle C landfills are already allowed to be used for the disposal of
bulk PCB remediation waste under Sec. 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iii) and
for PCB bulk product waste under Sec. 761.62(a)(3). EPA has previously
stated in the preamble to the final 1998 PCB Disposal Amendments, ``EPA
added RCRA Subtitle C landfills as a disposal option for PCB bulk
product waste because they are designed and operated in the same manner
as TSCA chemical waste landfills.'' \49\ EPA has not received any
information in the intervening two decades that would suggest
otherwise. Since EPA has already determined that RCRA Subtitle C
landfills are protective for bulk product waste, which typically
contain very high concentrations of PCBs, the Agency finds its proposal
to extend the use of RCRA Subtitle C landfills for non-liquid PCB
remediation waste under Sec. 761.61(b) to be reasonable. By adding
these landfills to the list of allowable disposal options for certain
PCB remediation wastes, EPA anticipates that the transportation costs
will decrease, as the distance to the closest allowable disposal option
diminishes. Furthermore, the disposal cost per ton of non-liquid,
nonhazardous PCB waste is generally lower at RCRA Subtitle C landfills
than it is at TSCA chemical waste landfills. See the Economic
Assessment for more information on the estimated costs. EPA is
requesting comment on the proposal to add RCRA

[[Page 58741]]

Subtitle C landfills to the list of allowable disposal options for non-
liquid PCB remediation waste under Sec. 761.61(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ pg 35410: Megarule Preamble. 1998 ``In response to comments
seeking consistency with PCB remediation waste disposal, EPA added
RCRA Subtitle C landfills as a disposal option for PCB bulk product
waste because they are designed and operated in the same manner as
TSCA chemical waste landfills (see Sec. 761.62(a)(3) of the
regulatory text). <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-06-29/pdf/98-17048.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-06-29/pdf/98-17048.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, EPA proposes a change to Sec. 761.125(a)(2) of the PCB
Spill Cleanup Policy to ensure that the addition of RCRA Subtitle C
landfills to Sec. 761.61(b) does not affect the Spill Cleanup Policy.
Currently, the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy calls for disposal of cleanup
debris and non-liquid materials in accordance with the provisions of
Subpart D. The only Subpart D disposal options currently available for
PCB remediation waste managed under the Spill Cleanup Policy are the
options under Sec. 761.61(b). Under the current language of the Spill
Cleanup Policy, the proposed addition of RCRA Subtitle C landfills to
Sec. 761.61(b) would have the effect of adding those landfills as an
option for disposal under the Spill Cleanup Policy. Expanding the
disposal options available under the Spill Cleanup Policy is not an
objective of this rulemaking, and is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the language in the
Policy to specify that only disposal facilities with TSCA approvals
issued under Subpart D of the PCB regulations may be used for disposal
of cleanup debris and materials generated under the Spill Cleanup
Policy. This change to the Spill Cleanup Policy is not substantive;
rather, it maintains the disposal options currently available under the
Policy.
EPA notes that the above proposed changes would not impact a
responsible party's ability \50\ to pair disposal under Sec. 761.61(b)
with on-site cleanup under Sec. 761.61(a), proposed Sec. 761.61(b),
Sec. 761.61(c), or Sec. 761.77 (state-led cleanup under a coordinated
approval). The proposed regulatory text explicitly preserves the
ability to use Sec. 761.61(b) solely as a disposal provision. See
proposed introductory paragraph in Sec. 761.61(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ 1994 proposed PCB Disposal Amendments (59 FR 62796).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA requests comment on its proposed changes to Sec. 761.61(b), as
well as how often it is currently being used in comparison to EPA's
estimate. Additionally, EPA is requesting comment on the option of
requiring a pre-cleanup notification in Sec. 761.61(b), in addition to
the proposed changes described above. The pre-cleanup notification
would include basic information such as name, contact information, site
location and proximity to areas identified in Sec. 761.61(b)(1)(i),
initial site characterization, and planned remedial action(s). EPA sees
value in receiving such a notification in terms of providing EPA with
an opportunity to conduct compliance assistance, increase public
transparency, and minimize the need for the use of enforcement tools
after the cleanup and disposal are complete. EPA also recognizes that
pre-cleanup notification would pose additional reporting burden and
that such burden must be balanced with the self-implementing nature of
Sec. 761.61(b). If a pre-cleanup notification were incorporated into
Sec. 761.61(b), the responsible party would not be required to wait
for a response or receive approval from EPA and could begin the planned
remedial action(s) immediately. EPA requests comment on the impacts of
a pre-cleanup notification and whether or not to include the
notification in the final rulemaking.

E. Remove Regulatory Provision Allowing Disposal of PCB Bulk Product
Waste as Roadbed

Background on the Issue
EPA established a provision allowing for disposal of PCB bulk
product waste as roadbed in 1998 (63 FR 35412 (June 29, 1998)). In the
preamble for that rule, EPA stated that ``[b]ecause these disposal
options have been restricted to materials that do not leach and because
other potential routes of exposure have been controlled, EPA has
concluded that the risk from these disposal options is the practical
equivalent of disposal in a landfill as required in Sec. 761.62(b)(1),
and therefore that this risk is not unreasonable.'' Since 1998, the
assumption that PCBs do not migrate from bulk product waste has been
proven incorrect in many scenarios.\51\ For example, studies show that
caulk containing PCBs degrades, releasing PCBs to the air, stormwater,
and adjacent soil.\52\ Considering these studies, EPA questions whether
potential leaching of PCBs from bulk product waste used as roadbed
could lead to environmental releases of PCBs and potential exposures to
humans and wildlife. As a result, EPA no longer has a basis to support
the determination of no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment that the Agency made in 1998. EPA further believes that
this disposal option is not widely used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ Eero Priha, Sannamari Hellman, Jaana Sorvari, PCB
contamination from polysulphide sealants in residential areas--
exposure and risk assessment, Chemosphere, Volume 59, Issue 4, 2005,
Pages 537-543. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653505001074">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653505001074</a>.
\52\ Luca Rossi, Luiz de Alencastro, Thomas Kupper, Joseph
Tarradellas, Urban stormwater contamination by polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) and its importance for urban water systems in
Switzerland, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 322, Issues 1-
3, 2004, Pages 179-189. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969703003619">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969703003619</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is EPA proposing on this issue?
EPA proposes to remove the option currently provided for in Sec.
761.62(d)(2) to dispose of PCB bulk product waste under asphalt as
roadbed because the Agency cannot, at this time, determine the practice
presents no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
EPA further believes that this disposal option is not widely used and
thus removing it from the regulations is not likely to present
significant burden to the regulated community. EPA is seeking comment
on the proposal to remove this option from the regulations. In
particular, EPA is interested in any concrete information about the use
of PCB bulk product waste as roadbed, especially reports of specific
placements indicating that the practice is more widely used than EPA
believes. EPA is also interested in any studies regarding the potential
for the release of PCBs from the roadbed.

F. Add Flexible Provisions for Emergency Situations

Background on the Issue
The TSCA PCB Spill Cleanup Policy was first published on April 2,
1987 (52 FR 10688), codified at part 761, subpart G, and applies only
to certain releases of PCBs occurring after May 4, 1987. The TSCA PCB
Spill Cleanup Policy requires cleanup of PCBs to different levels
depending upon spill location, the potential for exposure to residual
PCBs remaining after cleanup, the concentration of PCBs initially
spilled (high concentration or low), and the nature and size of the
population potentially at risk of exposure to residual PCBs. Thus, the
Policy applies the most stringent requirements for PCB spill cleanup to
non-restricted access areas where there is a greater potential for
human exposures to spilled PCBs. The Policy applies less stringent
requirements for cleanup of PCB spills in restricted access areas where
the nature and degree of human contact present a lower potential for
significant exposure. Finally, even less stringent requirements apply
to restricted access areas where there is little potential for human
exposures (59 FR 62793).
When the spilled material contains 50 to 500 ppm PCBs and the total
quantity of material spilled involves less than 1 lb of PCBs, the
Policy allows for cleanup in accordance with procedural performance
requirements (i.e., double wash/rinse for solid surfaces and removal of
visible traces plus a 1-foot lateral boundary for soil and other

[[Page 58742]]

ground media provided that the minimum depth of excavation is 10
inches) rather than requiring sampling to verify that numerical cleanup
standards have been met. When the spilled material has greater than 500
ppm PCBs or the total quantity of material spilled involves more than 1
lb of PCBs by weight, the Policy provides numerical cleanup standards
based on the accessibility of the area and the potential for human
exposure. Post-cleanup sampling is required to verify that the cleanup
standards have been met. The Policy requires reporting to EPA within 24
hours for spills that directly contaminate sensitive areas, such as
drinking water supplies or grazing lands, or where a spill exceeds 10
pounds of PCBs by weight. See Sec. 761.125(a)(1) for details.
EPA may allow less stringent or alternative requirements based upon
site-specific considerations (Sec. 761.120(a)(4)). EPA has used this
provision to issue storm-specific guidance in Regions 4 and 6 for
Hurricanes Katrina (2005),\53\ Harvey (2017),\54\ Irma (2017),\55\
Florence (2018),\56\ Michael (2018),\57\ Dorian (2019) 58 59
and Tropical Storm Barry (2019).60 61 Generally, EPA
extended the time frame for notification and allowed spills to be
managed based on the as-found concentration for spills directly caused
by the emergency situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ Letter from Jesse Baskerville to Mary Davis, Nov 9, 2005.
Guidance for Addressing Spills from Electrical Equipment [damaged by
Hurricane Rita or Katrina].
\54\ Correspondence from James Sales, EPA to Mary Davis. Aug 29,
2017. PCB Disaster Debris Cleanup Guidance.
\55\ Memo from Alan Farmer to Barnes Johnson, Sept 8, 2017. EPA
Region 4 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
\56\ Memo from Susan Hansen to Barnes Johnson. Sept 13, 2018.
EPA Region 4 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
\57\ Memo from Susan Hansen to Barnes Johnson. Oct 10, 2018. EPA
Region 4 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
\58\ Memo from John Armstead to Barnes Johnson. Sept 4, 2019.
EPA Region 3 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
\59\ Memo from Carol J. Monell to Barnes Johnson. Sept 3, 2019.
EPA Region 4 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
\60\ Memo from Ronnie Crossland to Barnes Johnson. July 11,
2019. EPA Region 6 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
\61\ Memo from Carol J. Monell to Barnes Johnson. July 18, 2019.
EPA Region 4 Issuance of Disaster Waste Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA recognizes that issuing the guidance on a case-by-case basis
can create some inefficiencies. First, since disasters can develop
without forewarning, they can put pressure on EPA to develop the
guidance quickly so that it may be distributed to the regulated
community in time for facilities to use it. Also, the fast-paced nature
of the response to such events means that entities that could use the
guidance may not become aware that it was issued in time to use it.
Finally, due to uncertainty regarding whether a guidance document will
be issued, it is often challenging for regulated facilities to include
the flexibilities offered in the EPA guidance into their disaster
preparation protocols. EPA received comments from industry requesting a
more standardized set of flexibilities, citing several of these
reasons.
What is EPA proposing on this issue?
EPA proposes two independent changes to make the PCB regulatory
requirements more practical during emergency situations. First, EPA is
proposing that two additional flexibilities for spills caused by
emergency situations be added to the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy in
Subpart G. Second, EPA is proposing to create an option to apply for a
waiver from various cleanup, storage, and disposal requirements for
releases caused by emergency situations, when meeting those
requirements as stated in the regulations would be impracticable. EPA
is looking for comment on both changes and may finalize either option
or both options. EPA is also proposing to establish a definition of an
``emergency situation'' to clarify the applicability of the proposed
changes.
a. Definition of ``Emergency Situation''
EPA proposes to add identical definitions of ``emergency
situation'' to Sec. Sec. 761.3 and 761.123. Specifically, EPA proposes
to define an emergency situation as adverse conditions caused by
manmade or natural incidents that threaten lives, property, or public
health and safety and require prompt responsive action from the local,
state, tribal, territorial, or federal government. Furthermore, these
adverse conditions must result in either: (1) A declaration by either
the President of the United States or governor of the affected state of
a natural disaster or emergency; or, (2) an incident funded under the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) via a Stafford Act disaster
declaration or emergency declaration. Examples of emergency situations
may include civil emergencies or adverse natural conditions, such as
hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados. EPA is proposing this definition
because it is sufficiently broad to capture a wide range of emergencies
that would be likely to significantly impact the cleanup and disposal
of PCB waste. At the same time, the definition is contingent upon a
declaration of emergency from an established authority, which are
generally made in an objective and timely manner. EPA is seeking
comment on the proposed definition of an ``emergency situation.'' In
particular, EPA would like to know if there is a corresponding tribal
authority able to declare a state of emergency that should be included
in the definition.
b. Additional Flexibilities Under the Spill Cleanup Policy for Spills
Caused by Emergency Situations
In this rulemaking, EPA proposes to expand the existing
flexibilities in the Spill Cleanup Policy in Subpart G to be available
in all emergency situations, rather than on a case-by-case basis.
First, EPA proposes to allow the responsible party to clean up a spill
caused by an emergency situation (which would be defined in 40 CFR
761.123, as discussed above) based on the as-found PCB concentration
when the source concentration cannot readily be determined, as is
common in emergency situations. Specifically, EPA is proposing to allow
responsible parties to use the as-found concentration when determining
whether the spill can be managed under Sec. Sec. 761.125(b) or
761.125(c) for actions taken directly in response to spills caused by
emergency situations. To this end, EPA proposes to add ``except where
authorized in Sec. 761.120(c)'' to the definition of ``spill'' to
accommodate the proposed flexibility to manage waste at the as-found
concentration. EPA believes these proposed changes would avoid delays
associated with searches for the source of the spill during or
immediately following an emergency situation, where the search is
likely to be time-consuming and unsuccessful, thereby expediting
cleanups and reducing any potential exposure more quickly.
Secondly, EPA proposes to add flexibility to the timeframe for
completing notification under the Spill Cleanup Policy. Generally, the
Spill Cleanup Policy specifies that notification be made within 24
hours after the responsible party was notified or became aware of the
spill, see Sec. 761.125(a)(1). Under EPA's proposed changes, when the
Policy is used for cleanup activities undertaken directly in response
to spills caused by emergency situations, as would be defined in Sec.
761.123, the policy would extend the timeframe for reporting to seven
days after the adverse conditions that prevented communication have
ended. Often in emergencies, communication networks are stretched thin
and responsible parties may need extra time

[[Page 58743]]

to notify the required entities.\62\ This proposed change would only
pertain to reporting required under Sec. 761.125(a)(1) that is
directly impacted by the adverse conditions. There is no need to
provide for flexibility as to the timeframe for cleanup completion in
emergency situations because the Spill Cleanup Policy already
incorporates this flexibility under Sec. Sec. 761.125(b)(2) and
761.125(c)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ Planning for Natural Disaster Debris. EPA. April 2019. p.
66 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/final_pndd_guidance_0.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/final_pndd_guidance_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA believes that the proposed flexibilities would not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under the
defined emergency situations but rather would result in a net benefit
in protection of health and the environment, given that they allow
those conducting the spill response to assess and dispose of waste more
quickly, and prioritize time-sensitive remedial actions.
c. Waiver From Various Sampling, Extraction, Analysis, Cleanup,
Storage, and Disposal Requirements in Emergency Situations
EPA proposes to create an option to apply for a waiver from various
PCB waste management requirements when necessitated by emergency
situations. Responsible parties would be able to request a waiver from
the provisions of Sec. Sec. 761.60, 761.61, 761.62, and 761.65, which
provide requirements for sampling, extraction, analysis, cleanup,
storage, and disposal of all types of regulated PCB wastes.
Cleanup and disposal activities often cannot be initiated promptly
in emergency situations such as hurricanes, due to necessary emergency
response actions taking place. EPA recognizes that spills caused by an
emergency situation may not be discovered or be able to be cleaned up
until after the emergency ends or until after the initial emergency
response. EPA regularly negotiates and implements special arrangements
during emergency situations on a case-by-case basis, which can delay
implementation of remedial actions. EPA is proposing to modify the PCB
regulations to allow the person managing the cleanup and/or disposal of
PCB waste caused by an emergency situation to request waivers from
applicable PCB sampling, extraction, analysis, cleanup, storage,
disposal and other regulatory requirements when there is an emergency
situation and the existing regulatory requirements (e.g., timeframes,
sampling protocols) are impracticable due to the nature of the
emergency situation. Due to the varied nature of the emergency
situations that would be covered by this waiver option, EPA is
proposing to allow requests that would modify specific requirements
from a broad swath of the PCB cleanup and disposal regulations.
Requests would need to be submitted to EPA within seven days of
discovery of the PCB waste. Under the proposed waiver provisions, EPA
would individually evaluate each request and would only approve those
that provide sufficient information to justify modifying select
requirements upon a determination that the modifications would not
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
Successful waiver requests must identify the specific requirements to
be waived or modified, the adverse conditions caused by the emergency
situation, why fulfillment of those specific requirements would be
impracticable and the proposed method of managing the PCB waste in lieu
of the waived requirements. EPA expects most waivers to be temporary
with a specified end-date, requiring the recipient of the waiver to
meet full regulatory requirements after the emergency conditions no
longer impede the ability to comply. For example, the waiver recipient
can perform immediate cleanup without fully verifying that cleanup
levels have been met; however, once the emergency conditions are over,
the recipient would need to determine whether cleanup levels have been
met, and perform additional cleanup, if needed. Similarly, EPA intends
that the disposal options for a given waste will rarely, if ever, be
modified under the waiver option, as the final disposition of the waste
is, by nature, permanent and would therefore outlast the adverse
conditions. EPA is including disposal requirements in the scope of the
waiver option to accommodate rare or extenuating circumstances, for
example, the disposal of mixed or partially characterized waste
streams, where waste stream segregation or full characterization is not
practicable. Therefore, EPA anticipates that impacts to communities
near sites where this provision is exercised would be limited in the
short term and as protective in the long term. See proposed Sec.
761.66.
The proposed option allows a person to request a waiver by sending
site information and a sampling, cleanup, and/or disposal plan that
describes the requested deviation from the generally applicable
regulatory requirements to the relevant EPA Regional Administrator. The
EPA Regional Administrator would review the request and determine
whether compliance with the regulatory requirements from which a waiver
is sought is impracticable and whether the action approved under the
waiver would not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment. The EPA Regional Administrator could grant or deny such a
waiver request or may grant the request with changes or conditions
beyond those described in the waiver request, such as design standards,
marking, or time limits, and would communicate those conditions to the
requestor. EPA is considering posting approved waivers publicly on the
EPA website to promote transparency and awareness of the use of the
waiver option in the local community. EPA is requesting comment on the
proposed waiver option, particularly comments on ensuring that the
waiver option would be used effectively in real-world emergency
situations without presenting an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. EPA is also requesting comment on posting approved
waivers online, from both the public's and the requestor's
perspectives.
Independent of EPA's proposed additions above, EPA notes that Sec.
761.61 currently ``does not prohibit any person from implementing
temporary emergency measures to prevent, treat, or contain further
releases or mitigate migration to the environment of PCBs or PCB
remediation waste.'' This means that immediate measures may be taken to
contain PCBs during an emergency situation prior to receiving approval
from the EPA Regional Administrator as described in Sec. 761.66(b).
Such examples might include excavating visibly contaminated soil near
storm drains or removing and storing leaking electrical equipment that
contains PCB oil before the remaining oil is released to the
environment.

G. Harmonize General Disposal Requirements for PCB Remediation Waste

Background on This Issue
In the 1998 PCB Megarule (63 FR 35384), EPA promulgated both the
definition of PCB remediation waste in Sec. 761.3 and a guide to the
cleanup and disposal obligations for PCB remediation waste in Sec.
761.50(b)(3). At the time of the 1998 Megarule, Sec. 761.50(b)(3)
failed to account for the fact that disposal of PCBs < 500 ppm was not
regulated between April 18, 1978, (the effective date of the Disposal
and Marking Rule, which set the 500 ppm threshold) and July 2, 1979
(the effective date of the PCB Ban Rule,

[[Page 58744]]

which replaced the 500 ppm level with 50 ppm). A technical amendment to
correct this discrepancy was issued in 1999 (64 FR 33755). The preamble
text addressed changes made to Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(i), which was amended
accordingly. Section 761.50(b)(3)(ii) was also amended, presumably to
correct the same discrepancy for the time between April 18, 1978 and
July 2, 1979. However, the phrase ``at as-found concentrations >=50
ppm'' was added to Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii) unnecessarily. This addition
was apparently an error; there is no justification in the preamble for
the change, and it could be read to cut against the apparent intent to
better align Sec. 761.50(b)(3) with the definition of PCB remediation
waste and the general direction in Sec. 761.50(b)(3) that PCB
remediation waste ``is regulated for cleanup and disposal in accordance
with Sec. 761.61.''
In keeping with the regulatory text overall, preamble and guidance
statements, and interactions with the regulated community, EPA does not
interpret the ``as found'' language in Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii) as
limiting the cleanup and disposal obligations for PCB remediation waste
created by releases that occurred on or after the dates referenced in
that clause, where the as-found PCB concentration is <50 ppm. Rather,
EPA maintains that all materials that fit the definition of PCB
remediation waste in Sec. 761.3--including materials which are
currently at any volume or concentration where the original source was
>=500 ppm PCBs beginning on April 18, 1978, or >=50 ppm PCBs beginning
on July 2, 1979--are regulated for cleanup and disposal under Sec.
761.61. The introductory language to Sec. 761.50(b)(3) provides,
without exception, that ``PCB remediation waste . . . is regulated for
cleanup and disposal in accordance with Sec. 761.61.'' EPA has
published guidance affirming that PCB remediation waste, even if <50
ppm, is regulated under Sec. 761.61.\63\ EPA has also issued numerous
risk-based disposal approvals in the past five years that apply only to
<50 ppm PCB remediation waste.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ PCB Q&A Manual. June 2014. Pg. 49 Q.3 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/qacombined.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/qacombined.pdf</a>.
\64\ Nationwide Risk-based PCB Remediation Waste Disposal
Approvals. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/nationwide-risk-based-pcb-remediation-waste-disposal-approvals">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/nationwide-risk-based-pcb-remediation-waste-disposal-approvals</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In EPA's view, the function of Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii) is to clarify
that PCB remediation waste created by releases that occurred on or
after the dates referenced in that clause can be managed either in
accordance with the PCB Spill Cleanup Policy if it meets the criteria
established in the Policy, as provided in Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii)(A); or
in accordance with Sec. 761.61, as provided in Sec.
761.50(b)(3)(ii)(B) and the introductory text to Sec. 761.50(b)(3).
This intention is reflected in the 1998 Megarule preamble, which
states: ``With regard to sites containing PCB remediation wastes
generated on or after April 18, 1978, owners or operators of those
sites now have two choices: They may clean up the wastes in accordance
with the new Sec. 761.61, or, if applicable, they may cleanup the
wastes in accordance with EPA's Spill Cleanup Policy, part 761, subpart
G.''.\65\ (In contrast, the older PCB remediation waste addressed under
Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(i) is not eligible for management under the Spill
Cleanup Policy.) Thus, as EPA interprets Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii), the
effect of adding the ``as-found'' limitation to the provision was to
suggest that PCB remediation waste created by releases that occurred on
or after the dates referenced in that clause, where the as-found PCB
concentration is < 50 ppm, is not eligible for management under the
Spill Cleanup Policy, but only under Sec. 761.61 as provided in the
introductory text. EPA did not intend to so limit the Policy, which
applies to the cleanup of certain spills resulting from the release of
materials containing PCBs >=50 ppm but is not dependent on the as-found
concentrations of the materials contaminated by such spills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ Megarule Preamble 63 FR 35402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is EPA proposing on this issue?
EPA proposes to change the language in Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii) by
removing the phrase ``at as found concentrations >=50 ppm.'' This
proposed change would avoid potential confusion over the meaning of
Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii) and make clear, consistent with the regulatory
text and guidance, that all PCB remediation waste is subject to Sec.
761.61, and that all qualifying PCB remediation waste can be managed
under the Spill Cleanup Policy regardless of its as-found
concentration. Since this regulatory change is in line with current EPA
policy, guidance, and practice, EPA estimates no net economic impacts
from this change. EPA is requesting comment on this proposed change.
See proposed Sec. 761.50(b)(3)(ii).

H. Make Changes To Improve Regulatory Implementation

EPA proposes several supplemental amendments to improve
implementation of existing requirements, clarify regulatory ambiguity,
and correct technical errors in the PCB regulations. EPA requests
comment on each proposed change listed below.
Medium Density Plastics as Non-Porous Surfaces
The definition of ``non-porous surface'' in Sec. 761.3 includes
several examples, including high-density plastics. EPA is proposing to
modify this definition to include medium-density plastics as an example
of a non-porous surface. In December 2018, EPA issued an interpretive
letter to the American Gas Association which found that medium- and
high-density polyethylene used in natural gas distribution piping meet
the definition of a ``non-porous surface'' under Sec. 761.3.\66\ EPA
found that the study titled, Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) in Polyethylene (PE) Gas Distribution Piping, conducted by
NYSEARCH and National Grid, demonstrated that the amount of PCB
absorption into medium- and high-density polyethylene pipe was minimal,
and penetration of PCBs beyond the immediate surface was limited.\67\
EPA is taking comment on whether the relevant properties of medium-
density polyethylene are representative of medium-density plastics
generally. See proposed Sec. 761.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ Letter from Barnes Johnson to Pamela Lacey. Dec 14, 2018.
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/epas-response-letter-aga-regarding-mdpe-and-hdpe-non-porous-surface">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/epas-response-letter-aga-regarding-mdpe-and-hdpe-non-porous-surface</a>.
\67\ JANA on behalf of NYSEARCH NGA. Oct 19, 2018. Assessment of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Polyethylene (PE) Gas
Distribution Piping. Revision 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Temporary Storage in Containers at the Site of Generation
The PCB regulations permit the storage of bulk PCB remediation
waste in piles at the site of generation for up to 180 days under Sec.
761.65(c)(9). In response to requests from generators, EPA is proposing
to allow the use of non-leaking, covered containers under the same
provision. Waste stored in containers would have to meet all of the
same criteria as waste stored in piles, and thus would not incur
additional risk. See proposed Sec. 761.65(c)(9).
Language Modifications for Financial Assurance Instruments
The PCB regulations at Sec. 761.65(g) currently require commercial
storers of PCB waste to establish financial assurance for closure of
PCB storage facilities by choosing from financial assurance mechanisms
in the RCRA regulations under 40 CFR part 264. Part 264 includes
prescribed language that must be included in each type of

[[Page 58745]]

financial instrument. Some variation from the RCRA instrument wording
may be necessary for the purposes of effectuating the financial
assurance requirements under TSCA. EPA is proposing to allow the
Regional Administrator (RA) the flexibility to modify the language
required in financial assurance instruments for the purposes of
implementation under TSCA. These proposed changes would allow the RA to
request modification to the terms of those instruments to account for
the fact that they are being used to fulfill a financial assurance
obligation under TSCA; for example, changes to the instrument wording
so that references to RCRA may be replaced with references to TSCA, or
changes to the instruments to better comport with the legal authorities
under, and applicable to, TSCA. The proposed changes must be made
throughout Sec. 761.65(g), once for each of the financial instruments.
See proposed Sec. Sec. 761.65(g)(1), 761.65(g)(1)(iv), 761.65(g)(2),
761.65(g)(3)(i), 761.65(g)(4)(i), 761.65(g)(5), 761.65(g)(6), and
761.65(g)(7).
Remove Manifest Tracking Numbers From Annual Reports
EPA proposes to remove the provision at Sec. 761.180(b)(3)(ii)
requiring owners or operators of PCB disposal facilities or commercial
storage facilities to record, as part of their logs, lists of manifest
tracking numbers (MTNs) of signed PCB manifests either received by or
generated at the facility for purposes of annual reporting. As of June
30, 2018, receiving facilities must submit final, signed manifests to
EPA's hazardous waste electronic manifest (e-Manifest) system. Since
PCB manifests can now be obtained from the e-Manifest system, EPA no
longer needs this information to be submitted as part of the annual
reporting requirement. In place of the aforementioned requirement, EPA
would mark Sec. 761.180(b)(3)(ii) as ``[Reserved].'' See proposed
Sec. 761.180(b)(3)(ii).
Mandatory Form for Annual Reports
EPA proposes to modify how the annual report information is
submitted to the Agency. While Sec. 761.180(b)(3) describes the
information EPA requires in the annual report, it does not specify a
format. This lack of clarity has led to confusion on the part of both
EPA and the regulated entities. EPA is proposing to require a standard
form be used for the submission of annual reports. Use of the form
would standardize the format and improve the data quality, allowing EPA
to process the reports in less time. The form will also reduce
reporting burden on some members of the regulated community who submit
much more than the required information, such as facilities that send
copies of every manifest instead of every manifest tracking number.
Furthermore, the instructions for the form would clarify EPA's
expectations; for example, facilities should report ``zero'' in all
categories for which they did not manage PCB waste in that calendar
year. At present, many facilities omit categories, making it unclear as
to whether this is an oversight or a determination that the categories
do not pertain to them.
PCB Waste Categories on the Manifest
EPA proposes to revise the categories of PCB waste specified by the
generator on the manifest to match the categories of PCB waste
specified by the commercial storer or disposer in the annual document
log and annual report. Harmonizing these PCB waste categories would
streamline recordkeeping for commercial storers and disposers, while
imposing negligible burden on the generators. Currently, Sec.
761.207(a) requires PCB waste to be listed on the manifest as either
``bulk PCBs,'' ``PCB Article Container or PCB Container,'' or ``PCB
Article not in a PCB Container or PCB Article Container.'' EPA is
proposing to modify Sec. 761.207(a) to list the five categories from
Sec. 761.180(b)(3)(iii) through (vi). If finalized, the categories in
Sec. 761.207(a) would be ``bulk PCBs,'' ``PCB Transformers,'' ``PCB
Large High or Low Voltage Capacitors,'' ``PCB Article Containers,'' and
``PCB Containers.'' \68\ The requirements for supporting data (unique
identification number, weight in kilograms, date removed from service)
would remain the same. EPA is also proposing to remove references to
instructions in the Appendix of Part 262 because the instructions were
recently removed from it and are available on EPA's website.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ While the text in Sec. 761.180(b)(3)(iii) through (vi) is
of the format ``PCB waste in PCB Containers,'' due to limited space
in Box 14 of the manifest form, EPA chose to simplify the language
to ``PCB Containers'' or similar.
\69\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/uniform-hazardous-waste-manifest-instructions-sample-form-and-continuation-sheet">https://www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/uniform-hazardous-waste-manifest-instructions-sample-form-and-continuation-sheet</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Define ``As-Found Concentration''
EPA proposes to add a definition of ``as-found concentration'' to
Sec. 761.3. ``As-found concentration'' is used in the PCB regulations
particularly in reference to PCB remediation waste (Sec. Sec.
761.50(b) and 761.61). The proposed language clarifies that the as-
found concentration must be measured from samples collected in-situ,
unless otherwise specifically provided. Existing accumulations, as
described in Sec. 761.340(a) would be one such exception. Often, ex-
situ sampling reduces the concentration of PCBs in environmental media
through dilution.
The proposed definition would provide that ``As-found concentration
means the concentration measured in samples of environmental media or
material collected in-situ (i.e. prior to being moved or disturbed for
cleanup and/or disposal), unless otherwise specifically provided. For
example, soils must not be disturbed, nor may they be diluted (e.g.,
excavated, placed on a pile, and sampled after such placement) before
characterization sampling is conducted. Sampling media in piles and
existing accumulations would be considered ``as-found'' if the media
were already in piles when the site was first visited by the
responsible party, such as during the redevelopment of abandoned
properties with historic PCB contamination. The as-found concentration
is distinct from the source concentration, which is the concentration
of the PCBs in the material that was originally spilled, released, or
otherwise disposed of at the site.''
Clarify Sec. 761.61(a) Cleanups Must Comply With All Applicable
Requirements
EPA proposes to clarify that responsible parties must ensure that
notifications submitted under Sec. 761.61(a) comply with all
requirements of Sec. 761.61(a)(3)(i) in order to proceed without EPA
approval 30 days after submission to EPA. EPA is also proposing to add
language clarifying that the subsequent cleanup and disposal must
comply with all applicable requirements in Sec. 761.61(a)(4) through
(9).
The regulations at Sec. 761.61(a) establish a 30-day time frame
for EPA to review and react to self-implementing cleanup notifications.
If the Agency does not respond within 30 days of receiving the
notification, the person may proceed with cleanup and disposal in
accordance with the information in the submitted notification. This
provision, as currently written, equates EPA's silence over the 30-day
period with a determination by EPA that the notification is complete
and accurate. EPA believes that the responsible party should be
responsible for verifying completeness and accuracy of the
notification.
EPA is proposing to remove the section of text that states the
responsible party may assume that the notification

[[Page 58746]]

is complete and acceptable if the Agency does not respond within 30
days. The responsible party may still proceed with the cleanup if the
Agency does not respond within 30 days. However, if upon review EPA
determines that the notification does not contain all of the
information required by Sec. 761.61(a)(3)(i), sufficient to ensure
compliance with Sec. 761.61(a)(4) through (9) at the site, the Agency
may require the submission of additional information. Furthermore,
regardless of the content of the notification, the proposed language
states that the cleanup and disposal must meet all requirements of
Sec. 761.61(a)(4) through (9). If the applicant has reason to believe
their implementation of Sec. 761.61(a) may not satisfy the regulatory
requirements, it would be in their best interest, from a compliance
assurance perspective, to contact the appropriate EPA Regional PCB
Coordinator prior to the end of the 30-day period (or earlier) or at
least prior to commencing the cleanup and disposal activities. See the
EPA PCB website for a list of the EPA Regional PCB Coordinators
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/pcbs/program-contacts">www.epa.gov/pcbs/program-contacts</a>. See proposed Sec. 761.61(a)(3)(ii).
Harmonize PCB Concentration Language Regarding Cap Material
EPA proposes to correct a remediation waste cap requirement to
provide consistency with the rest of the PCB regulations. Currently,
Sec. 761.61(a)(7) requires that ``a cap shall not be contaminated at a
level >=1 ppm PCB per Aroclor\TM\ (or equivalent) or per congener.''
EPA is proposing to delete ``per Aroclor\TM\ (or equivalent) or per
congener'' to make this requirement consistent with the rest of the PCB
regulations. A PCB congener is a single version of the PCB molecule,
with a number of chlorine atoms attached to the benzene rings in
different configurations. Theoretically, there are 209 PCB congeners
possible.\70\ Aroclors are mixtures of PCB congeners that were
manufactured between 1929 and 1979; there are sixteen known
Aroclors.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/table-polychlorinated-biphenyl-pcb-congeners">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/table-polychlorinated-biphenyl-pcb-congeners</a>.
\71\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/table-aroclors">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/table-aroclors</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other than this paragraph, the regulations only specify
requirements or restrictions based on PCB concentrations, rather than
PCB congener concentrations or PCB Aroclor concentrations. The PCB
regulations at Sec. 761.1(b)(2) state ``Unless otherwise provided,
PCBs are quantified based on the formulation of PCBs present in the
material analyzed,'' which means that when PCBs are present as
Aroclors, e.g., in PCB transformer oil, they should be measured and
reported as Aroclors. When PCBs are present as congeners, e.g., in
weathered environmental samples, they should be measured and reported
as congeners. Furthermore, there is no technical or risk-based reason
why PCB remediation waste cap requirements should differ from other
sections of the PCB regulations. As a result, the newly proposed
language simply requires that ``a cap shall not be contaminated at a
level >=1 ppm PCB.'' This designation is consistent with how PCB limits
are described in the rest of the TSCA PCB regulations. See proposed
Sec. 761.61(a)(7).
Clarify Applicability of Deed Restrictions
EPA proposes to clarify the requirements for deed restrictions
associated with PCB remediation waste being left on-site under a self-
implementing cleanup and disposal activity (Sec. 761.61(a)). The self-
implementing cleanup and disposal option for PCB remediation waste
provides for varying cleanup levels based on the occupancy level and
the presence of a fence or cap. When cleanup levels are based upon low
occupancy of the cleanup area or the existence of a fence or cap
(either in high or low occupancy areas), deed restrictions are required
(see Sec. 761.61(a)(8)). EPA intends for the December 2012
Institutional Controls document to provide guidance on how to
effectively plan, implement, maintain, and enforce deed restrictions
required under Sec. 761.61(a)(8).\72\ EPA's 2005 PCB Site
Revitalization Guidance confirms that Sec. 761.61(a)(8) requires a
deed restriction for all cleanups requiring caps or fences, and all
cleanups based on low-occupancy uses.\73\ However, portions of the
regulatory text could suggest that the deed restriction must reference
low-occupancy status and the existence of a cap or fence in every case,
even though some sites with low occupancy cleanups will not have caps
or fences, and some sites with caps or fences will not be low-
occupancy. In particular, the text of Sec. 761.61(a)(8)(i)(A) could
suggest that all of the elements identified in Sec.
761.61(a)(8)(i)(A)(1) through (3) (i.e., low-occupancy and caps or
fences) will be present at sites subject to the deed restriction,
whereas EPA plainly intended the deed requirement to apply to all sites
cleaned up to low-occupancy levels, and/or requiring caps or fences. To
remedy any potential for confusion, EPA is proposing several minor
edits to Sec. 761.61(a)(8) to clarify that deed restrictions apply to
any area with a cap, a fence, or a low occupancy designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing,
Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated
Sites. December 2012. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/final_pime_guidance_december_2012.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/final_pime_guidance_december_2012.pdf</a>.
\73\ Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Site Revitalization Guidance
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). November 2005. Page
13. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pcb-guid3-06.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pcb-guid3-06.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, EPA proposes to clarify in Sec. 761.61(a)(8)(i)(A)
that the deed restriction should designate the portion of a property
that is subject to the deed restriction, when applicable. The deed
restriction should reference the location of the cap, fence, or low
occupancy portion in a format that makes sense for the site, for
example, latitude/longitude coordinates, street address, or annotated
areal image.
Include Alternate Extraction and Analysis Under Sec. 761.61(c)--PCB
Remediation Waste
EPA proposes to clarify that the risk-based approval under Sec.
761.61(c) can be used to modify or replace the extraction or analysis
methods required for PCB remediation waste in lieu of a Subpart Q
comparison study. EPA's current practice is to allow responsible
parties to request to modify or replace an extraction or analysis
method, as they are considered part of the sampling requirements. The
proposed change would simply clarify that responsible parties have this
option, by adding ``extraction, analysis'' to the list of modifiable
requirements under a Sec. 761.61(c) risk-based approval.
Include Alternate Extraction and Analysis Under Sec. 761.62(c)--PCB
Bulk Product Waste
EPA proposes to clarify that the risk-based approval under Sec.
761.62(c) can be used to modify or replace the extraction or analysis
methods required for PCB bulk product waste in lieu of a Subpart Q
comparison study. EPA's current practice is to allow responsible
parties to request to modify or replace an extraction or analysis
method, as they are considered part of the sampling requirements. The
proposed change would simply clarify that responsible parties have this
option, by adding ``extraction, analysis'' to the list of modifiable
requirements under a Sec. 761.62(c) risk-based approval.
Include Alternate Extraction and Analysis Under Sec. 761.79(h)--
Decontaminated Material
EPA proposes to clarify that an approval under Sec. 761.79(h) can
be used to modify or replace the extraction or

[[Page 58747]]

analysis methods required for decontaminated PCB waste in lieu of a
Subpart Q comparison study. EPA's current practice is to allow
responsible parties to request to modify or replace an extraction or
analysis method, as they are considered part of the sampling procedure.
The proposed change would simply clarify that responsible parties have
this option, by adding ``extraction, analysis'' to the list of
modifiable requirements under a Sec. 761.79(h) approval.
Clarify Sampling Procedure for Non-Porous Surfaces
EPA proposes to correct an inconsistency in the site
characterization requirements for non-porous surfaces conducted
pursuant to the self-implementing cleanup option for PCB remediation
waste (Sec. 761.61(a)). This self-implementing cleanup and disposal
option states that site characterization of non-porous surfaces may be
conducted using procedures included in Subpart N. The method found in
Subpart N for sampling non-porous surfaces (Sec. 761.267) specifies
that the sampling area shall be divided into ``square portions
approximately 2 meters on each side'' and ``[f]ollow[ing] the
procedures in Sec. 761.302(a).'' However, Sec. 761.302(a), which is
the section of the regulations pertaining to post-cleanup sampling of
non-porous surfaces, specifies dividing the surface into 1 meter square
portions instead of 2 meters. EPA is proposing to amend Sec. 761.267
by adding the following italicized language to this provision, ``Follow
the procedures in Sec. 761.302(a), with the exception of the sampling
grid size,'' to correct this inconsistency. This change reflects the
way in which the EPA has already been addressing the inconsistency. See
proposed Sec. 761.267(a).
Add Unit to Concentration in Sec. 761.1(b)(3)
Currently, Sec. 761.1(b)(3) lists a concentration with only
partial units of reference, ``PCB concentrations of >10/100 cm\2\,''
which is meaningless, as written. It is clear from context that the
text should read ``PCB concentrations of >=10 [mu]g/100 cm\2\,'' which
is how the referenced concentration otherwise appears throughout the
PCB regulations, for example in Sec. 761.79(b). Thus, EPA is proposing
to modify the Sec. 761.1(b)(3) text to read ``PCB concentrations of
>=10 [mu]g/100 cm\2\.'' EPA is also proposing to harmonize the
``greater/less than'' and ``greater/less than or equal to'' symbols in
this section. See proposed Sec. 761.1(b)(3).
Update ASTM Methods
The regulations at Sec. 761.19 incorporate by reference several
ASTM test method standards that have since been updated. These ASTM
standards reflect the current consensus of ASTM members. EPA proposes
to make the following changes:
ASTM D93-09, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-
Martens Closed Tester, was approved by ASTM in 2009 and added to the
PCB regulations in 2012 at Sec. Sec. 761.71(b)(2)(vi) and
761.75(b)(8)(iii).\74\ EPA is proposing to add as an alternative ASTM
D8175-18, Test Method for Finite Flash Point Determination of Liquid
Wastes by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ 77 FR 2463, Jan. 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASTM D3278-89, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by
Setaflash Closed-Cup Apparatus, was approved by ASTM in 1989 and added
to the PCB regulations in 1992 at Sec. 761.75(b)(8)(iii).\75\ EPA is
proposing to replace it with the updated version, ASTM D3278-96
(Reapproved 2011), Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by
Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus, and add ASTM D8174-18, Test Method
for Finite Flash Point Determination of Liquid Wastes by Small Scale
Closed Cup Tester at Sec. Sec. 761.71(b)(2)(vi) and 761.75(b)(8)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ 57 FR 13323, Apr. 16, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA is proposing to remove ASTM D2784-89, Standard Test Method for
Sulfur in Liquified Petroleum Gases (Oxy-hydrogen Burner or Lamp) from
Sec. 761.19 and Sec. 71(a)(2)(vi). This test method was withdrawn in
June 2016 because it is archaic and not used in the industry.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ <a href="https://compass.astm.org/Standards/WITHDRAWN/D2784.htm">https://compass.astm.org/Standards/WITHDRAWN/D2784.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA is proposing to replace ASTM D3178-84, Standard Test Methods
for Carbon and Hydrogen in the Analysis Sample of Coke and Coal, with
D5373-16, Standard Test Methods for Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen
and Nitrogen in Analysis Samples of Coal and Carbon in Analysis Samples
of Coal and Coke, in Sec. Sec. 761.19 and 761.71(a)(2)(vi). ASTM
D3178-84 was replaced in June 2007 because there was no reproducibility
statement for D3178.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\77\ <a href="https://compass.astm.org/Standards/WITHDRAWN/D3178.htm">https://compass.astm.org/Standards/WITHDRAWN/D3178.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA is proposing to update ASTM Standard D-4059, Standard Test
Method for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids
by Gas Chromatography, with ASTM D4059-00 (Reapproved 2018), Standard
Test Methods for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating
Liquids by Gas Chromatography, in Sec. Sec. 761.19 and 761.60(g)(iii).
EPA is proposing to replace ASTM D482-87, Standard Test Method for
Ash from Petroleum Products, with ASTM D482-13, Standard Test Method
for Ash from Petroleum Products, in Sec. 761.71(a)(2)(vi). EPA is also
proposing to replace ASTM D3278-89, Standard Test Methods for Flash
Point of Liquids by Setaflash Closed-Cup Apparatus, with ASTM D3278-96,
Standard Test Methods for Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-
Cup Apparatus, in Sec. 761.75(b)(8)(iii) (see above). ASTM began
building its electronic library of standards in the 1990s, so the 1987
version of ASTM D482 and the 1989 version of ASTM D3278 are no longer
available from the ASTM website. Therefore, the Agency is updating ASTM
D482-87 and ASTM D3278-89 to list the most recent versions of the
methods.
Furthermore, EPA requests public comment on whether there are other
standards that should be incorporated by reference or whether there are
standards that should be removed from the regulations entirely. EPA is
relying on voluntary consensus standards developed by ASTM and already
in use in the laboratory testing sector, which is consistent with the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). EPA has found
that most of the entities that would have to comply with these
standards are already familiar with them, since it would be difficult
to be in the business of testing for PCBs without being familiar with
these industry consensus standards. The standards are all readily
available electronically or in print and are relatively inexpensive.
See proposed Sec. 761.19.
Require a Wipe Sample Under Sec. 761.30(i)(4)
Currently, Sec. 761.30(i)(4) (covering PCB characterization of
natural gas pipe) reads, in part, ``. . . if no liquids are present,
they must use standard wipe samples in accordance with Subpart M of
this part.'' This language might be read to mean that all owners of
natural gas pipe must characterize their pipe and must do so using a
wipe sample if no liquids are present. However, the sentence was meant
to convey that if an owner chooses to characterize natural gas pipe
that does not contain liquids, they must do so using wipe samples.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to replace the existing text with ``if no
liquids are present and they decide, in their discretion, to
characterize PCB contamination, the person must use standard wipe
samples

[[Page 58748]]

in accordance with Subpart M of this part.'' See proposed Sec.
761.30(i)(4).
High Efficiency Boilers Approval Application Requirements
EPA is proposing to correct an editorial error in Sec. 761.71.
This section describes the required operating parameters for high
efficiency boilers that dispose of PCB waste. The requirements for high
efficiency boilers are divided into two sections, a section for burning
PCB-contaminated mineral oil dielectric fluid (Sec. 761.71(a)) and a
section for burning any other PCB-contaminated fluids (Sec.
761.71(b)). Mineral oil dielectric fluid is an insulating fluid used in
electrical equipment such as transformers. Other PCB-contaminated
fluids might include used oil, contaminated water, and hydraulic fluid.
Despite the fact that Sec. 761.71(b) regulates high efficiency boilers
that burn PCB liquids other than mineral oil dielectric fluid, Sec.
761.71(b)(2)(iv) requires persons seeking approval to burn these
liquids to submit to the EPA Regional Administrator a statement of
``the type of equipment, apparatus, and procedures to be used to
control the feed of mineral oil dielectric fluid to the boiler . . .''
(emphasis added). In that sentence, ``mineral oil dielectric fluid''
should, instead, be ``PCB liquids.'' This proposal would amend Sec.
761.71(b)(2)(iv) to correct this error by replacing the phrase
``mineral oil dielectric fluid'' with ``PCB liquids.'' See proposed
Sec. 761.71(b)(2)(iv).
Mailing Address for Annual Reports
Currently, the owner or operator of any PCB disposal facility or
commercial storage facility submits an annual report to the EPA
Regional Administrator for the region in which the facility is located,
pursuant to Sec. 761.180(b)(3). EPA proposes to change the recipient
of the annual reports from the Regional Administrator to the Director
of the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, which is the
office in EPA headquarters that manages the PCB cleanup and disposal
program. An analogous change is also proposed in Sec. 761.3 under the
definition of annual report. This change would reduce the
administrative burden on the Agency of compiling the data in the annual
reports, which is used to inform Agency actions. The address for
submission would be displayed prominently on the proposed mandatory
form. See proposed Sec. Sec. 761.3 and 761.180(b)(3).
Update Address for Submission of EPA Form 7710-53
EPA proposes to remove the address for EPA form 7710-53,
``Notification of PCB Activity,'' from the regulations. This change
will allow EPA to more easily update the mailing address in the future
without undergoing a regulatory change. The mailing address will
continue to appear on the form itself and can be updated through the
Information Collection Response (ICR) process. This proposed change
would expedite future address changes and thus streamline the
distribution of mail and reduce the processing time for these forms.
See proposed Sec. 761.205(a)(3), Sec. 761.205(d).
Add Field for Facility Email Address and EPA PCB Email Address to EPA
Form 7710-53
EPA form 7710-53, ``Notification of PCB Activity,'' currently does
not include space for an email address for the facility point of
contact. EPA proposes to change the regulations so that an email
address must be submitted on the notification form. Additionally, EPA
is adding the EPA PCB email address (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c689948594968584b586a3b6a7e8a1a9b0">[email&#160;protected]</a>) to the
notification form to facilitate any questions from members of the
public. These proposed changes would improve communication and reduce
the processing time for these forms. See proposed Sec. 761.205(a)(3),
Sec. 761.205(d).
Sample Site Selection Instructions for Pipelines
Subpart M provides a number of steps that must be followed when
selecting the locations for sampling to characterize natural gas
pipeline. EPA found that, due to rounding errors, the instructions for
a pipeline greater than seven segments but shorter than three miles in
length are, at present, incorrect. EPA proposes to modify the
instructions and the example given in Sec. 761.247(b)(2)(ii)(B) to
clarify where each sample must be taken along pipelines of this length.
This change is a technical correction and does not influence the number
of samples taken or the burden on the owner of the pipe. See proposed
Sec. 761.247(b)(2)(ii)(B).
Remove Reference to Method 3500B
SW-846 is organized such that several similar methods are grouped
together in a series and the 3500 series contains extraction procedures
used for the preparation of samples for analysis of organic parameters.
These techniques include Liquid-Liquid Extraction, Solid-Phase
Extraction, Soxhlet Extraction, and Supercritical Fluid Extraction,
among others. Method 3500B (recently updated to Method 3500C) is not a
detailed method where step-by-step instructions are
discussed.78 79 Rather, Method 3500B simply provides general
guidance for all the methods within its series (i.e., 3500 series),
including the extraction methods proposed to be added as part of this
rulemaking. Also, Method 3500B or 3500C is already referenced in every
3500 series method EPA is proposing to add to the PCB Regulations.
Therefore, EPA feels that it is unnecessary to reference Method 3500B
in the PCB regulations directly and proposes to remove the reference
from the PCB regulations. The removal of Method 3500B from the
regulations would not influence any of the 3500 series methods
currently in or proposed to be added to the PCB regulations. The PCB
regulatory sections affected include Sec. Sec.
761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv), 761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and
761.395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ U.S. EPA, Method 3500B Organic Extraction and Sample
Preparation. Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5303P). Washington, DC. December 1996.
\79\ U.S. EPA, Method 3500C Organic Extraction and Sample
Preparation. Office of Land and Emergency Management, Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division (5303P). Washington, DC. February 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct References to SW-846
The official title of the EPA publication known as SW-846 has been
updated from ``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste'' to ``Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods.'' There
are several references to this publication throughout the PCB
regulations. EPA proposes to update the definition of SW-846 in Sec.
761.3 with the current official title, and then refer to it as ``SW-
846'' throughout the PCB regulations, for readability. See proposed
Sec. Sec. 761.3, 761.60(g)(1)(iii), 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv),
761.253(a), 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, 761.395(b)(1).
Correct References to EPA's PCB Website
There are several references throughout the PCB regulations to the
EPA's PCB website. In 2015, as part of a redesign, the URL for the EPA
PCB web page changed from <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcb">https://www.epa.gov/pcb</a> to <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pcbs">https://www.epa.gov/pcbs</a>. EPA proposes to update those references throughout
the PCB regulations. See proposed Sec. Sec. 761.130(e), 761.205(a)(3),
761.243(a), 761.386(e).

[[Page 58749]]

Change ``he'' to ``they''
The PCB regulations frequently refer to generic individuals such as
the Regional Administrator or facility owners as ``he,'' ``his,'' ``he/
she,'' or ``he or she.'' EPA proposes to replace all such references
with the gender neutral ``they'' and ``their.'' See proposed Sec. Sec.
761.3, 761.20(e)(3)(ii)(B), 761.20(e)(4)(i), 761.20(e)(4)(ii),
761.50(b)(3)(i)(A), 761.60(b)(2)(v)(C), 761.61(a)(8)(i)(B), 761.65(g),
761.65(h), 761.70(d)(4)(i), 761.75(c)(3)(i), 761.75(c)(4),
761.77(a)(1)(ii)(B), 761.77(a)(2), 761.77(b), 761.120(b)(2),
761.125(c)(3)(iii), 761.125(c)(4)(iv), 761.180(b)(4), 761.207(c),
761.212(a), 761.213(a)(4), 761.213(b), 761.214(a), 761.216(a),
761.217(a)(2)(ii).
Change ``on site'' to ``on-site''
The term ``on site'' is included in the definitions at Sec. 761.3,
but the PCB regulations use the term ``on-site'' throughout. EPA
proposes to modify Sec. 761.3 to read ``on-site'' to improve the
readability of the PCB regulations. See proposed Sec. 761.3.
Correct Reference to Methods for Standard Wipe Test Samples
Currently, Sec. 761.314 ``Chemical analysis of standard wipe test
samples'' instructs the reader to ``perform the chemical analysis of
standard wipe test samples in accordance with Sec. 761.272.'' While
Sec. 761.272 does contain the allowable methods for wipe test samples,
it also lists several other methods that would not be appropriate for
wipe test samples. This reference is proposed to be corrected to Sec.
761.253, which is specific to wipe samples.
Incorporation by Reference
The Agency is proposing to incorporate by reference SW-846 Test
Methods 3540C, 3541, 3545A, 3546, 3510C, 3520C, 3535A, 8082, 8082A, and
8275A into 40 CFR part 761 under Sec. Sec. 761.60, 761.61, 761.253,
761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and 761.395. The Agency is also proposing to
incorporate by reference Clean Water Act Analytical Method 1668C into
40 CFR part 761 under Sec. Sec. 761.60, 761.61, 761.253, 761.272,
761.292, 761.358, and 761.395. These test methods are described in
detail in Section III.A. Expand Available Extraction Methods for PCBs
and Section III.C. Add Determinative Methods for the PCB Regulations,
above. The Agency is also proposing to incorporate the following
methods by refence that involve testing the flash points of liquids to
evaluate the ignitability of liquid wastes: ASTM standards D3278-96
(Reapproved 2011), D8174-18, and D8175-18. ASTM D3278-96 (Reapproved
2011) uses a small-scale tester to determine the flash point, ASTM
D8174-18 also uses a small-scale tester but tests whether a material
does or does not flash at a specific temperature, and ASTM D8175-18
uses a Pensky-Martens tester to determine the flash point. Likewise,
the Agency is proposing to incorporate by reference ASTM standard D482-
13, which determines the percentage of ash generated from distillate
and residual fuels, gas turbine fuels, crude oils, lubricating oils,
waxes, and other petroleum products. The Agency is also proposing to
incorporate by reference ASTM Standard D4059-00 (R18), which is a
quantitative determination of the concentration of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical insulating liquids by gas
chromatography. Lastly, the Agency is proposing to incorporate by
reference ASTM Standard D5373-16, which is used to determine the
concentration of hydrogen and nitrogen in analysis samples of coal and
of carbon in analysis samples of coal and coke. These methods will be
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 761 under Sec. Sec. 761.60,
761.71, and 761.75.
ASTM D93-09, D129-64, D240-87, D524-88, D808-87, D923-86, D923-89,
D1266-87, D1796-83, D2158-89, D2709-88, and E258-67 (Reapproved 1987)
were previously approved for incorporation by reference on January 18,
2012.
The SW-846 Test Methods proposed for incorporation by reference are
published in the test methods compendium known as, ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA Publication
SW-846, Third Edition, available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846">https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846</a>. The
Clean Water Act Analytical Methods are available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods">https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods</a>. ASTM materials may be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428-2959, or by calling (877) 909-ASTM, or at <a href="https://www.astm.org">https://www.astm.org</a>. All methods proposed for incorporation by reference are
also included in the docket.

IV. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rulemaking

One focus of the proposed rule is expanding the allowable PCB
extraction methods, which would impact testing laboratories (NAICS code
541380) that currently perform PCB extractions under TSCA. Based on
method-specific certifications and communication with laboratory
personnel, EPA estimates that approximately 22 laboratories would be
impacted by the proposed rule. Further, EPA estimates that these 22
laboratories perform approximately 65,000 relevant extractions each
year. Some laboratories may experience a one-time cost of purchasing
equipment used to perform one of the proposed extraction methods.
However, the decreases in solvent and labor hours required to perform
the proposed extraction methods are expected to result in net annual
cost savings of approximately $4.2 million (annualized at a discount
rate of seven percent).
Updating the permissible PCB determinative methods would offer the
regulated community greater flexibility. However, EPA does not
anticipate that it would have an economic impact, since most labs are
expected to continue using EPA Method 8082 or EPA Method 8082A as their
PCB determinative method.
The proposed revisions to Sec. 761.61(b) may impact any facility
performing a PCB site remediation under Sec. 761.61(b). No data are
available on the exact number of Sec. 761.61(b) remediations performed
annually, but EPA estimates that there would be between 430 and 460
relevant remediations per year, based on an analysis of 2018 and 2019
hazardous waste manifests. Certain aspects of this provision would
increase burden on the regulated community through certain requirements
(e.g., recordkeeping, notification, sampling). However, EPA also
proposes to allow for disposal of relevant waste at RCRA Subtitle C
landfills under Sec. 761.61(b), in addition to the existing disposal
options (e.g. TSCA landfills, TSCA incinerators), which will decrease
transportation and disposal costs related to non-hazardous, non-liquid
PCB waste for the regulated community. Overall, the proposed revisions
to Sec. 761.61(b) are expected to result in net annual cost savings
between $9.2 million and $10.9 million (annualized at a discount rate
of seven percent).
Disallowing PCB bulk product waste to be used as roadbed has the
potential to create a slight increase in costs for the regulated
community. Facilities that would have used PCB bulk product waste on-
site as roadbed under asphalt would now have to pay to transport the
waste to a municipal solid waste landfill and pay the associated
tipping fee for disposal. EPA believes that the practice of using PCB
bulk product waste as roadbed is exceedingly rare. However, in an
effort to incorporate all potential impacts of the proposed rule, the
Economic Assessment modeled a single party using PCB bulk product waste
as roadbed per year. EPA estimates that the cost increase for the
regulated

[[Page 58750]]

community would be between $660 and $5,950 per year.
EPA anticipates that the added flexibilities for emergency
situations would result in cost savings for the regulated community.
EPA estimates that there would be between 12 and 60 emergencies each
year where the regulated community may use the proposed flexibilities.
A lack of data prevents an overall quantitative estimate of the cost
savings from this provision. However, impacted parties are expected to
save money and time by avoiding delays associated with searches for the
source of the spill during an emergency situation where the search is
likely to be time-consuming and unsuccessful, and by being able to
manage waste under the less burdensome procedures of Sec. 761.125(b),
rather than Sec. 761.125(c). The regulated community is also expected
to see a decrease in sampling and testing expenditures.
The proposed change to harmonize the general disposal requirements
for PCB remediation waste is in line with current EPA policy, guidance
and practice. Therefore, EPA estimates that this change will not have
any economic impact.
The Economic Assessment for the proposed rule is constrained by the
lack of relevant data, largely because the proposed rule makes changes
to provisions that are self-implementing and/or require no EPA
notification. EPA has quantified costs and cost savings when possible.
When quantification has not been possible, EPA has analyzed the costs
and cost savings qualitatively. The Economic Assessment associated with
the proposed rule can be referenced for a greater level of detail
related to the costs and benefits of the proposed provisions. EPA
requests comments and data related to the universe of parties impacted
by the proposed provisions and the economic impact of the proposed
rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and Executive Order 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The Economic
Assessment is available in the docket and is summarized in Section I.D
What are the projected economic impacts of this action? of the
preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2688.01 (2050-NEW). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket
for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
Respondents/affected entities: The information collection
requirements of the proposed rule affect facilities that will read the
proposed rule, responsible parties using Sec. 761.61(b)(1)
performance-based cleanup, responsible parties using Sec. 761.66
waivers in emergency situations, commercial storers and disposers
submitting annual reports, and entities submitting Notification of PCB
Activity forms.
Respondent's obligation to respond: The recordkeeping and
notification requirements are required for parties performing relevant
activities (e.g. using Sec. 761.66 waivers in emergency situations).
These requirements are described in detail in the ICR Supporting
Statement.
Estimated number of respondents: 1,085.
Frequency of response: On occasion/as necessary.
Total estimated burden: 8,276 hours.
Total estimated cost: $979,187.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your
comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f1beb8a3b0ae8284939c988282989e9fb19e9c93df949e81df969e87">[email&#160;protected]</a>, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB
is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than November
22, 2021. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under RFA, 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may
certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves burden or has
no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule. These proposed
changes would reduce the impacts on all small entities subject to the
rule, so there are no significant impacts to any small entities. We
have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory
burden for all directly regulated small entities. Details of this
analysis are presented in the Economic Assessment, which is in the
public docket for this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA estimates that
the proposed rule would result in net annual cost savings of between
$4.3 and $9.1 million, assuming a seven percent discount rate. As a
result, EPA expects that the rule would not result in annual
expenditures exceeding $100 million annually and therefore would not be
subject to requirements of section 202 of UMRA as listed above.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because the
action is not expected to result in any adverse environmental or human
health impacts on tribal entities. In addition, the action is expected
to result in a cost savings, and not expected to result in any adverse
financial impacts on tribal entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not

[[Page 58751]]

apply to this rule. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA prepared a tribal consultation
and coordination plan and sent a letter to the tribes on July 13, 2021,
inviting consultation. EPA will provide a summary of any tribal
consultation conducted in the docket.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR. 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. In addition,
because the rule would not increase risk related to exposure to
hazardous materials, the Agency does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001) because it is not likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use
of energy. The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy
production or consumption and is expected to result in net cost
savings.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This action involves technical standards. In this rulemaking, the
EPA incorporates voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) developed by both
ASTM and the Agency into the rulemaking, consistent with the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). These VCSs support PCB
cleanups as well sampling activities including the extraction and
analysis of PCBs. For more details on the technical standards that EPA
is using in this rulemaking, please see Section III.G--Incorporation by
Reference.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In fact, this
action is expected to benefit these populations.
Generally, the proposed rule would modernize PCB regulations,
making it easier and more affordable to clean up contaminated sites,
while continuing to ensure that the requirements remain protective of
health and the environment. Underserved, disadvantaged, and
overburdened communities are expected to benefit from quicker, more
cost-effective, compliant cleanups under the proposed rule. For
example, adding explicit cleanup provisions under Sec. 761.61(b),
including the requirements to notify EPA and follow specific sampling
protocols, would provide additional assurance that sites are properly
remediated and enable compliance and enforcement. Furthermore, the
increased flexibility in emergency situations would allow the Agency to
work collaboratively with responsible parties during and after the
response to a natural disaster or other emergency, which can
disproportionately impact such communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Labeling, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 761 as
follows:

PART 761--POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) MANUFACTURING,
PROCESSING, DISTRIBUTION IN COMMERCE, AND USE PROHIBITIONS

0
1. In part 761, the authority citation continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614, and 2616.

Subpart A--General

0
2. Amend Sec. 761.1 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 761.1 Applicability.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Most provisions in this part apply only if PCBs are present in
concentrations above a specified level. Provisions that apply to PCBs
at concentrations of <50 ppm apply also to contaminated surfaces at PCB
concentrations of <10 [mu]g/100 cm\2\. Provisions that apply to PCBs at
concentrations of >=50 to <500 ppm apply also to contaminated surfaces
at PCB concentrations of >=10 [mu]g/100 cm\2\ to <100 [mu]g/100 cm\2\.
Provisions that apply to PCBs at concentrations of >=500 ppm apply also
to contaminated surfaces at PCB concentrations of >=100 [mu]g/100
cm\2\.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 761.3 by:
0
a. Removing in the definition the words``On site'' and adding in its
place the words ``On-site'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions ``As-found
concentration'', ``CWA'', ``Director, Office Resource Conservation and
Recovery'', and ``Emergency situation''; and
0
c. Revising the definitions ``Administrator'', ``Annual report'',
``ASTM'', ``NTIS'', ``Non-porous surface'', and ``SW-846''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 761.3 Definitions.

* * * * *
Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, or any employee of the Agency to whom the
Administrator may either herein or by order delegate their authority to
carry out their functions, or any person who shall by operation of law
be authorized to carry out such functions.
* * * * *
Annual report means the completed EPA Form 6200-025 submitted each
year by each disposer and commercial storer of PCB waste to the
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. The annual
report is a brief summary of the information included in the annual
document log.
* * * * *
As-found concentration means the concentration measured in samples
collected in-situ (i.e., prior to being moved or disturbed for cleanup
and/or disposal) from environmental media or material, unless otherwise
specifically provided. For example, media must not be disturbed, nor
may they be diluted (e.g., excavated, placed on a pile, and sampled
after such placement) before characterization sampling is conducted.
Sampling media in piles and existing accumulations would be considered
``as-found'' if the media were already in piles when the site was first
visited by the responsible party, such as during the redevelopment of
abandoned properties with historic PCB contamination. The as-found
concentration is distinct from the source concentration, which is the

[[Page 58752]]

concentration of the PCBs in the material that was originally spilled,
released, or otherwise disposed of at the site.
* * * * *
ASTM means ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
* * * * *
CWA means Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Waters
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 12-51-1387, amended
ch.23 1151).
* * * * *
Director, Office Resource Conservation and Recovery means the
Director of the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery of the
Office of Land and Emergency Management of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Submissions to the Director shall be
sent to 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, MC5303P, Washington, DC 20460.
* * * * *
Emergency situation means adverse conditions caused by manmade or
natural incidents that threaten lives, property, or public health and
safety; require prompt responsive action from the local, state, tribal,
territorial, or federal government; and result in: (1) A declaration by
either the President of the United States or Governor of the affected
state of a natural disaster or emergency; or, (2) an incident funded
under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) via a Stafford Act
disaster declaration or emergency declaration. Examples of emergency
situations may include civil emergencies or adverse natural conditions,
such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados.
* * * * *
NTIS means the National Technical Information Service, 1401
Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (703) 605-6060.
* * * * *
Non-porous surface means a smooth, unpainted solid surface that
limits penetration of liquid containing PCBs beyond the immediate
surface. Examples are: Smooth uncorroded metal; natural gas pipe with a
thin porous coating originally applied to inhibit corrosion; smooth
glass; smooth glazed ceramics; impermeable polished building stone such
as marble or granite; and medium- and high-density plastics, such as
polycarbonates and melamines, that do not absorb solvents.
* * * * *
SW-846 means the document having the title ``SW-846, Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods,'' also known as
the SW-846 Compendium, which is available online at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846">https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846</a>. Hard copies can be obtained from NTIS, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20230,
telephone: (703) 605-6060.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec. 761.19 to read as follows:

Sec. 761.19 Incorporation by reference.

The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference
into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material
is available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001, (202) 566-1744, and is available from the sources listed in the
following paragraphs of this section. It is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583e2a7631362b283d3b2c3137361836392a39763f372e">[email&#160;protected]</a> or go <a href="http://towww.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">towww.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>.
(a) ASTM International. 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, <a href="http://www.astm.org">www.astm.org</a>.
(1) ASTM D93-09, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-
Martens Closed Tester, Approved December 15, 2009, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 761.71 and 761.75.
(2) ASTM D129-64, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products (General Bomb Method), Reapproved 1978, IBR approved for Sec.
761.71.
(3) ASTM D240-87, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuel by Bomb Calorimeter, Approved 1987, IBR
approved for Sec. 761.71.
(4) ASTM D482-13, Standard Test Method for Ash from Petroleum
Products, Approved June 2013, IBR approved for Sec. 761.71.
(5) ASTM D524-88, Standard Test Method for Ramsbottom Carbon
Residue of Petroleum Products, Approved 1988, IBR approved for Sec.
761.71.
(6) ASTM D808-87, Standard Test Method for Chlorine in New and Used
Petroleum Products (Bomb Method), Approved 1987, IBR approved for Sec.
761.71.
(7) ASTM D923-86, Standard Test Method for Sampling Electrical
Insulating Liquids, Approved 1986, IBR approved for Sec. 761.60.
(8) ASTM D923-89, Standard Methods of Sampling Electrical
Insulating Liquids, Approved 1989, IBR approved for Sec. 761.60.
(9) ASTM D1266-87, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum
Products (Lamp Method), October 1987, IBR approved for Sec. 761.71.
(10) ASTM D1796-83, Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in
Fuel Oils by the Centrifuge Method (Laboratory Procedure), Reapproved
1990, IBR approved for Sec. 761.71.
(11) ASTM D2158-89, Standard Test Method for Residues in Liquified
Petroleum (LP) Gases, Approved 1989, IBR approved for Sec. 761.71.
(12) ASTM D2709-88, Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in
Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge, Approved 1988, IBR approved for Sec.
761.71.
(13) ASTM D3278-96 (Reapproved 2011), Standard Test Methods for
Flash Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus, Approved
June 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 761.75.
(14) ASTM Standard D4059-00 (Reapproved 2018), Standard Test Method
for Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Insulating Liquids by Gas
Chromatography, Approved December 2018, IBR approved for Sec. 761.60.
(15) ASTM D5373-16, Standard Test Methods for Determination of
Carbon, Hydrogen and Nitrogen in Analysis Samples of Coal and Carbon in
Analysis Samples of Coal and Coke, Approved September 2016, IBR
approved for Sec. 761.71.
(16) ASTM D8174-18, Test Method for Finite Flash Point
Determination of Liquid Wastes by Small Scale Closed Cup Tester,
Approved March 2018, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.71 and 761.75.
(17) ASTM D8175-18, Test Method for Finite Flash Point
Determination of Liquid Wastes by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec. 761.71 and 761.75.
(18) ASTM E258-67 (Reapproved 1987), Standard Test Method for Total
Nitrogen Inorganic Material by Modified KJELDAHL Method, Approved 1987,
IBR approved for Sec. 761.71.
(b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency material. 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 272-0167,
<a href="http://www.epa.gov">www.epa.gov</a>; <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods">https://www.epa.gov/cwa-methods</a> and <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846">https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846</a>. (Note: For hard copies of these materials, contact: National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port
Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161, (800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000.) .
(1) CWA Method 1668C, Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Water,
Soil, Sediment, Biosolids, and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS, Approved April
2010,

[[Page 58753]]

IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358,
and 761.395.
(2) SW-846 Method 3510C, Separatory Funnel Liquid-Liquid
Extraction, Approved December 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61,
761.272, and 761.292.
(3) SW-846 Method 3520C, Continuous Liquid-Liquid Extraction,
Approved December 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.272,
and 761.292.
(4) SW-846 Method 3535A, Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE), Approved
February 2007, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.272, and
761.292.
(5) SW-846 Method 3540C, Soxhlet Extraction, Approved December
1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.253, 761.272, 761.292,
761.358, and 761.395.
(6) SW-846 Method 3541, Automated Soxhlet Extraction, Approved
September 1994, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.253, 761.272,
761.292, 761.358, and 761.395.
(7) SW-846 Method 3545A, Pressurized Fluid Extraction (PFE),
Approved January 1998, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.253,
761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and 761.395.
(8) SW-846 Method 3546, Microwave Extraction, Approved February
2007, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.253, 761.272, 761.292,
761.358, and 761.395.
(9) SW-846 Method 8082, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) By Gas
Chromatography, Approved December 1996, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
761.61, 761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and 761.395.
(10) SW-846 Method 8082A, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) By Gas
Chromatography, Approved February 2007, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
761.60, 761.61, 761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358, and 761.395.
(11) SW-846 Method 8275A, Semivolatile Organic Compounds (PAHs And
PCBs) in Soils/Sludges and Solid Wastes Using Thermal Extraction/Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (TE/GC/MS), Approved December 1996,
IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 761.61, 761.253, 761.272, 761.292, 761.358,
and 761.395.

Subpart B--Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and
Use of PCBs and PCB Items

0
5. Amend Sec. 761.20 by revising paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(B), (4)(i), and
(ii) as follows:

Sec. 761.20 Prohibitions and exceptions.

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The burner will burn the used oil only in a combustion facility
identified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and identify the class
of burner they qualify under.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Marketers. Marketers who first claim that the used oil fuel
contains no detectable PCBs must include among the records required by
40 CFR 279.72(b) and 279.74(b) and (c), copies of the analysis or other
information documenting their claim, and they must include among the
records required by 40 CFR 279.74(a) and (c) and 279.75, a copy of each
certification notice received or prepared relating to transactions
involving PCB-containing used oil.
(ii) Burners. Burners must include among the records required by 40
CFR 279.65 and 279.66, a copy of each certification notice required by
paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section that they send to a marketer.
0
6. Amend Sec. 761.30 by revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows:

Sec. 761.30 Authorizations.

* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) Any person characterizing PCB contamination in natural gas pipe
or natural gas pipeline systems must do so by analyzing organic liquids
collected at existing condensate collection points in the pipe or
pipeline system. The level of PCB contamination found at a collection
point is assumed to extend to the next collection point downstream. Any
person characterizing multi-phasic liquids must do so in accordance
with Sec. 761.1(b)(4); if no liquids are present and they choose, in
their discretion, to characterize PCB contamination, the person must
use standard wipe samples in accordance with subpart M of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart D--Storage and Disposal

0
7. Amend Sec. 761.50 by revising paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(A) and (3)(ii)
to read as follows:

Sec. 761.50 Applicability.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Sites containing these wastes are presumed not to present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment from exposure
to PCBs at the site. However, the EPA Regional Administrator may inform
the owner or operator of the site that there is reason to believe that
spills, leaks, or other uncontrolled releases or discharges, such as
leaching, from the site constitute ongoing disposal that may present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment from exposure
to PCBs at the site, and may require the owner or operator to generate
data necessary to characterize the risk. If after reviewing any such
data, the EPA Regional Administrator makes a finding, that an
unreasonable risk exists, then they may direct the owner or operator of
the site to dispose of the PCB remediation waste in accordance with
Sec. 761.61 such that an unreasonable risk of injury no longer exists.
* * * * *
(ii) Any person responsible for PCB waste that was either placed in
a land disposal facility, spilled, or otherwise released into the
environment on or after April 18, 1978, but prior to July 2, 1979,
where the concentration of the spill or release was >=500 ppm; or
placed in a land disposal facility, spilled, or otherwise released into
the environment on or after July 2, 1979, where the concentration of
the spill or release was >=50 ppm, must dispose of it in accordance
with either of the following:
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 761.60 by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(C) and
(g)(1)(iii) and (2)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec. 761.60 Disposal requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(C) There is other good cause shown. As part of this evaluation,
the Assistant Administrator will consider the impact of their action on
the incentives to construct or expand PCB incinerators.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Unless otherwise specified in this part, any person
conducting the chemical analysis of PCBs shall do so using gas
chromatography. Any gas chromatographic method that is appropriate for
the material being analyzed may be used, including EPA Method 608.3, 40
CFR part 136, Appendix A; EPA Method 8082A (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 761.19) and ASTM D4059-00 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 761.19).
(2) * * *
(ii) For purposes of complying with the marking and disposal
requirements, representative samples may be taken from either the
common containers or the individual electrical equipment to

[[Page 58754]]

determine the PCB concentration. Except, that if any PCBs at a
concentration of 500 ppm or greater have been added to the container or
equipment then the total container contents must be considered as
having a PCB concentration of 500 ppm or greater for purposes of
complying with the disposal requirements of this subpart. For purposes
of this paragraph, representative samples of mineral oil dielectric
fluid are either samples taken in accordance with ASTM D 923-86 or ASTM
D 923-89 (both incorporated by reference, see Sec. 761.19) or samples
taken from a container that has been thoroughly mixed in a manner such
that any PCBs in the container are uniformly distributed throughout the
liquid in the container.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 761.61 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)
(5)(i)(B)(2)(iv), and (7), the introductory text to paragraph (a)(8),
paragraphs (a)(8)(i)(A) and (B), paragraph (b), the subject heading to
paragraph (c), and (c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 761.61 PCB remediation waste.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Within 30 calendar days of receiving the notification, the EPA
Regional Administrator will respond in writing approving of the self-
implementing cleanup, disapproving of the self-implementing cleanup, or
requiring additional information. If the EPA Regional Administrator
does not respond within 30 calendar days of receiving the notice, the
person submitting the notification may proceed with the cleanup
according to the information the person provided to the EPA Regional
Administrator. If, upon review of the notification, the EPA Regional
Administrator determines that the notification does not contain all of
the information required by paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section,
sufficient to ensure compliance with paragraphs (a)(4) through (9) of
this section at the site, they may require the submission of additional
information. The cleanup and disposal must comply with all applicable
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4) through (9) of this section. Once
cleanup is underway, the person conducting the cleanup must provide any
proposed changes from the notification to the EPA Regional
Administrator in writing no less than 14 calendar days prior to the
proposed implementation of the change. The EPA Regional Administrator
will determine in their discretion whether to accept the change, and
will respond to the change notification verbally within 7 calendar days
and in writing within 14 calendar days of receiving it. If the EPA
Regional Administrator does not respond verbally within 7 calendar days
and in writing within 14 calendar days of receiving the change notice,
the person who submitted it may proceed with the cleanup according to
the information in the change notice provided to the EPA Regional
Administrator, subject to the submission of additional information if
the Regional Administrator determines it is needed to address the
elements of paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, and in compliance with
all applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(4) through (9) of this
section and other applicable requirements of this part.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The generator must provide written notice, including the
quantity to be shipped and highest concentration of PCBs at least 15
days before the first shipment of bulk PCB remediation waste from each
cleanup site by the generator, to each off-site facility where the
waste is destined for an area not subject to a TSCA PCB Disposal
Approval. The generator must select applicable method(s) from the
following list to extract PCBs and determine the PCB concentration from
individual and composite samples of PCB remediation waste: SW-846
Method 3510C, Method 3520C, Method 3535A, Method 3540C, Method 3541,
Method 3545A, Method 3546, Method 8082, Method 8082A, Method 8275A, or
CWA Method 1668C (all incorporated by reference, see Sec. 761.19).
Modifications to the methods listed in this paragraph or alternative
methods not listed may be used if validated under subpart Q of this
part or authorized in a Sec. 761.61(c) approval.
* * * * *
(7) Cap requirements. A cap means, when referring to on-site
cleanup and disposal of PCB remediation waste, a uniform placement of
concrete, asphalt, or similar material of minimum thickness spread over
the area where remediation waste was removed or left in place in order
to prevent or minimize human exposure, infiltration of water, and
erosion. Any person designing and constructing a cap must do so in
accordance with Sec. 264.310(a) of this chapter, and ensure that it
complies with the permeability, sieve, liquid limit, and plasticity
index parameters in Sec. 761.75(b)(1)(ii) through (b)(1)(v). A cap of
compacted soil shall have a minimum thickness of 25 cm (10 inches). A
concrete or asphalt cap shall have a minimum thickness of 15 cm (6
inches). A cap must be of sufficient strength to maintain its
effectiveness and integrity during the use of the cap surface which is
exposed to the environment. A cap shall not be contaminated at a level
>=1 ppm PCB. Repairs shall begin within 72 hours of discovery for any
breaches which would impair the integrity of the cap.
(8) Deed restrictions for caps, fences and low occupancy areas.
When a cleanup activity conducted under this section includes the use
of a fence or a cap, the owner of the site must maintain the fence or
cap, in perpetuity. In addition, whenever a fence, a cap, or the
procedures and requirements for a low occupancy area, is used, the
owner of the site must meet the following conditions:
(i) * * *
(A) Record, in accordance with State law, a notation on the deed to
the property, or on some other instrument which is normally examined
during a title search, that will in perpetuity notify any potential
purchaser of the property:
(1) That the land, or the specific portion thereof identified in
the instrument when only a portion is subject to the instrument, has
been used for PCB remediation waste disposal and, when applicable, that
the area is restricted to use as a low occupancy area as defined in
Sec. 761.3;
(2) Of the existence of the fence or cap and the requirement to
maintain the fence or cap, when applicable; and
(3) The applicable cleanup levels left at the site, including
inside any fence, and/or under any cap, or in a low occupancy area.
(B) Submit a certification, signed by the owner, that they have
recorded the notation specified in paragraph (a)(8)(i)(A) of this
section to the EPA Regional Administrator.
(ii) The owner of a site being cleaned up under this section may
remove a fence, cap, or low occupancy designation after conducting
additional cleanup activities and achieving cleanup levels, specified
in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, which do not require a fence, cap,
or low occupancy designation. The owner may remove the notice on the
deed no earlier than 30 days after achieving the cleanup levels
specified in this section which do not require a fence, cap, or low
occupancy designation.
* * * * *
(b) Performance-based cleanup and disposal. Any person may clean up
and dispose of PCB remediation waste at a

[[Page 58755]]

site in full compliance with the performance-based cleanup provisions
of paragraph (b)(1) of this section and disposal provisions of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Alternatively, any person may dispose
of PCB remediation waste in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, but such disposal does not relieve the site owner of cleanup
and disposal obligations for any PCBs that remain on-site if the
provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section are not complied with.
(1) Performance-based cleanup of PCB remediation waste.
(i) Applicability. (A) The performance-based cleanup option may not
be used to clean up:
(1) Surface or ground waters.
(2) Sediments in marine and freshwater ecosystems.
(3) Sewers or sewage treatment systems.
(4) Any private or public drinking water sources or dist

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 22, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.