1
1
2
3
PCB
REMEDIATION
WASTE
PUBLIC
MEETING
4
Monday,
July
18th,
2005
9:
00
a.
m.
to
noon
5
Room
1153,
EPA
East
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2
1
MS.
CLELAND­
HAMNETT:
Good
morning,
everybody.

2
Just
a
little
volume
check.
I'm
Wendy
3
Cleland­
Hamnett.
I'm
the
deputy
office
director
in
4
the
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
and
I
5
want
to
welcome
you
to
EPA's
public
meeting
on
PCB
6
remediation
waste
and
related
issues
under
the
Toxic
7
Substances
Control
Act.
8
As
you
know,
as
a
result
of
OMB's
Thompson
9
Report
to
Congress
the
PCB
remediation
waste
10
regulations
have
been
nominated
by
USWAG
as
11
regulations
needing
revision.
And
in
addition
to
12
assessing
the
issues
that
were
raised
by
USWAG,
EPA
13
is
assessing
the
PCB
remediation
waste
regulations
14
more
broadly
to
see
how
they
can
be
improved
and
15
there
are
a
number
of
questions
that
we'd
like
to
16
hear
your
comments
on
this
morning.

17
One
is
whether
the
PCB
remediation
waste
18
regs
need
to
be
clarified
and,
if
so,
how
that
19
should
be
done,
how
the
regs
could
be
better
20
organized
to
better
clarify
the
disposal
21
requirements
for
cleanups
under
Section
761.61(
a)

22
and
(
b),
whether
there
are
other
regulations
that
3
1
should
be
changed
to
improve
the
regulations
that
2
relate
to
PCB
remediation
waste,
whether
the
3
regulations
can
be
modified
or
organized
in
other
4
ways
that
would
make
them
easier
to
use
and
more
5
transparent,
whether
there
are
comments
on
USWAG's
6
interpretation
of
the
disposal
requirements
in
their
7
comments
to
OMB
on
Section
761.61(
b),
and
finally,

8
whether
there
are
self­
implementing
cleanups
and
9
disposals
that
need
not
be
subject
to
EPA
review
10
and,
if
so,
your
thoughts
on
what
the
11
characteristics
of
those
cleanups
or
those
sites
12
are.

13
We,
the
EPA
folk,
are
here
to
listen
to
14
you
this
morning.
We
won't
be
commenting
on
the
15
oral
presentations
except
to
provided
clarification
16
of
the
regulatory
requirements
where
appropriate.

17
We
welcome
and
will
respond
to
written
questions
on
18
regulatory
interpretation
but
we
won't
be
able
to
19
provide
those
kinds
of
responses
orally
today.

20
What
we
hear
from
you
today
will
be
an
21
important
component
of
our
effort
to
compose
a
22
response
to
OMB
on
the
Thompson
Report
issues
and
we
4
1
plan
to
make
the
official
transcript
of
this
meeting
2
available
in
about
a
month
by
posting
to
the
public
3
docket.
And
then
we
will
respond
to
OMB
this
fall,

4
early
this
fall.

5
I
think
we
all
have
a
common
interest
and
6
a
desire
for
an
efficient
and
effective
regulatory
7
framework
to
safely
manage
PCB
remediation
waste
and
8
I
look
forward
to
a
productive
meeting
and
now
I'll
9
turn
it
over
to
Maria
Doa
who's
the
Director
of
our
10
National
Program
Chemicals
Division
in
the
Office
of
11
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
and
Maria
will
take
12
the
lead
in
facilitating
our
meeting
this
morning.

13
MS.
DOA:
Good
morning
everyone,
and
thank
you
14
so
much
for
coming.
We
have
six
people
now
signed
15
up
to
talk.
I'll
go
through
­­
I'll
tell
you
the
16
order.
Jim
Roewer,
followed
by
Larry
Liden,

17
followed
by
Elizabeth
Watson,
followed
by
Jonathan
18
Gledhill,
followed
by
Stephen
Nadeau
followed
by
19
Theresa
Pugh
and
if
anyone
else
would
like
to
make
a
20
presentation
after
that
we
will
certainly
provide
21
time
for
that.
Please
give
a
copy
of
your
22
presentation
to
Ms.
Peggy
Reynolds
in
the
blue.

5
1
We'd
like
folks
to
come
up
to
the
podium
2
to
make
their
presentation
and
I
think
we
have
3
enough
time
for
everyone
to
have
about
15
minutes
4
for
the
presentation.
So
shall
we
start
off
with
5
Mr.
Roewer
­­
I'm
sorry,
I
left
out
a
very
important
6
thing.
Tony
Baney
is
going
to
go
over
very
briefly
7
a
presentation
of
the
issue.

8
MR.
BANEY:
Good
morning.
Your
agenda
says
9
that
John
Smith
is
going
to
give
this
presentation
10
but
he
couldn't
be
here
today,
so
I'm
his
understudy
11
and
my
name
is
Tony
Baney.
I'm
Chief
of
the
Fibers
12
and
Organics
Branch
and
I
work
for
Maria
Doa.

13
First
I
want
to
start
off
with
the
14
overview
of
why
we're
here
today.
EPA
would
like
15
public
input
regarding
the
nomination
for
reform
of
16
the
disposal
requirements
for
less
than
50
part
per
17
million
PCB
remediation
waste.
The
Utility
Solid
18
Waste
Activities
Group
in
response
to
requests
for
19
comments
from
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
20
has
concerns
that
different
sections
of
the
disposal
21
requirements
treat
less
than
50
ppm
PCB
remediation
22
waste
differently.
EPA
is
required
to
respond
to
6
1
OMB
by
September
30,
2005
regarding
the
Agency's
2
intention
for
addressing
these
concerns.
We
would
3
like
to
hear
your
ideas
regarding
USWAG's
nomination
4
for
reform
of
certain
PCB
remediation
waste
disposal
5
requirements.
Copies
of
USWAG's
comments
and
6
background
paper
were
distributed
to
you
as
you
7
entered
the
room.
And
they're
still
back
there
on
8
the
table.
We
are
also
interested
in
getting
your
9
input
on
remediation
waste
disposal
provisions
10
whether
the
Agency
should
consider
changing
the
11
requirements
and,
if
so,
how.
To
that
end,
we
will
12
now
briefly
describe
the
regulatory
requirements,

13
then
provide
presenters
the
opportunity
to
share
14
their
views,
and
finally,
solicit
your
input
15
concerning
the
set
of
questions
in
the
background
16
paper
identified
as
"
Issues
for
EPA
and
17
Stakeholders,"
which
I
will
go
over
later.

18
Now,
PCB
remediation
waste
regulations,

19
just
a
quick
review.
The
EPA
regulations
and
policy
20
under
review
include
Section
761.61
PCB
Remediation
21
Waste,
Section
761
Subpart
G,
PCB
Spill
Cleanup
22
Policy,
Section
(
761.50(
b)(
3)(
ii))
Applicability
of
7
1
the
Disposal
Requirements
for
PCB
Remediation
Waste.

2
In
general,
PCB
remediation
waste
is
waste
3
containing
PCBs
as
a
result
of
a
spill,
release
or
4
other
unauthorized
disposal.

5
To
continue,
the
regulations
at
Section
6
761.61
address
the
management
of
PCB
remediation
7
wastes
in
three
ways.
First,
self­
implementing
8
on­
site
cleanup
and
disposal,
Section
761.61
9
paragraph
(
a)
is
limited
in
application
and
requires
10
compliance
with
very
prescriptive
procedures.

11
Performance­
based
disposal,
Section
761.61(
b),
this
12
is
just
disposal,
no
cleanup
component
is
specified
13
under
this
provision
of
the
regulations.
And
14
lastly,
the
risk­
based
disposal
approval
at
Section
15
761.61,
paragraph
(
c),
provides
for
alternative
16
sampling,
cleanup,
storage
and
disposal
options
17
based
on
risk.
18
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
also
contain
a
19
1987
enforcement
policy
to
encourage
speedy
cleanup
20
of
fresh
PCB
spills.
That's
the
PCB
Spill
Cleanup
21
Policy
at
Section
761
Subpart
G.
The
applicability
22
section
at
761.50
specifies
disposal
requirements
for
8
1
PCB
waste
at
as­
found
concentrations,
specifically
2
that's
paragraph
761.50(
b)(
3)(
i).
The
cleanup
of
PCB
3
remediation
waste
is
also
associated
with
the
future
4
use
of
the
site,
the
use
of
contaminated
equipment
5
structures
or
other
non­
liquid
and
liquid
materials
6
is
required
to
be
in
conformance
with
the
use
7
authorization
at
Section
761.30(
u).

8
Now,
the
issues
identified
by
USWAG.

9
USWAG
contends
that
in
two
different
paragraphs
of
10
the
PCB
regulations
at
Section
761.61
EPA
treats
11
identical
PCB
remediation
waste
at
concentrations
12
less
than
50
ppm
differently.
Further,
USWAG
13
contends
that
the
regulations
at
Section
761.61
and
14
Section
761.50(
b)(
3)(
ii)
state
that
all
PCB
15
remediation
waste
containing
less
than
50
ppm
PCBs
16
can
be
disposed
of
based
on
its
as­
found
17
concentration
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.

18
Now,
the
issues
for
EPA
and
stakeholders
19
which
I
alluded
to
earlier.
First,
do
the
20
regulations
pertaining
to
PCB
remediation
waste
need
21
to
be
clarified?
Secondly,
how
should
the
22
regulations
be
organized
to
better
clarify
the
9
1
requirements
for
cleanups
and
disposal
of
PCB
2
remediation
waste
in
accordance
with
Section
761.61
3
paragraph
(
a)
and
the
disposal
of
PCB
remediation
4
waste
under
Section
761.61
paragraph
(
b)?
Third,

5
are
there
other
regulations
other
than
those
6
discussed
above
that
should
be
changed
to
improve
7
the
regulations
that
relate
to
PCB
remediation
8
waste?
Fourth,
can
the
regulations
be
modified
or
9
organized
in
other
ways
that
would
make
them
easier
10
to
use
and
more
transparent?
Fifth,
are
there
11
comments
on
USWAG's
interpretation
of
the
disposal
12
requirements
under
Section
761.61
paragraph
(
b)?

13
This
refers
to
Comment
I,
pages
3
through
6
of
the
14
May
20th,
2004
letter
to
Ms.
Lorraine
Hunt
at
OMB.

15
And
sixth,
and
finally,
are
there
self­
implementing
16
cleanups
and
disposals
that
need
not
be
subject
to
17
EPA
review,
if
so,
what
are
the
characteristics
of
18
these
sites?
That's
the
end
of
my
presentation.

19
Now
back
to
Marie
Doa.

20
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you,
Tony.
Mr.
Roewer.

21
MR.
ROEWER:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Jim
22
Roewer
and
I'm
the
Executive
Director
of
the
Utility
10
1
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group,
or
USWAG.
We're
an
2
association
of
electric
and
gas
utilities
that
are
3
dedicated
to,
among
other
things,
advising
our
4
members
with
respect
to
EPA's
PCB
program.
We've
5
been
working
closely
with
EPA
since
the
inception
of
6
the
PCB
program
25
years
ago
and
I'm
very
pleased
7
today
to
have
the
opportunity
to
discuss
some
of
our
8
recommendations
for
clarifying
and
improving
the
9
regulations
applicable
to
PCB
remediation
waste.

10
As
an
initial
point
I'd
like
to
note
that
11
we've
had
a
very
short
time
period
for
interested
12
parties
to
prepare
testimony
and
comments
in
13
response
to
EPA's
notice
in
the
Federal
Register.

14
That
notice
was
published
just
a
little
over
two
15
weeks
ago.
The
Agency,
as
we
just
heard,
has
16
identified
six
areas,
six
issues,
or
posed
six
17
questions
to
the
regulated
community.
Given
the
18
complexity
of
those
questions,
the
complexity
of
the
19
PCB
regulations
in
general
and
the
importance
of
20
these
regulations
to
the
regulated
community
I
would
21
respectfully
ask
that
EPA
continue
to
accept
written
22
comments
on
this
notice
for
another
60
days.

11
1
As
EPA
is
aware,
this
public
meeting
is
2
being
held
at
least
in
part
to
respond
to
USWAG's
3
comments
to
OMB's
request
for
ideas
on
ways
to
4
improve
the
federal
regulations
by,
among
other
5
things,
reducing
unnecessary
costs,
increasing
6
effectiveness
and
enhancing
competitiveness.
One
of
7
our
recommendations
to
OMB
for
improving
the
TSCA
8
PCB
regulations
was
a
need
for
EPA
to
clarify
or,
if
9
necessary,
to
amend
its
regulations
to
make
clear
10
that
all
PCB
remediation
waste
that
contain
11
concentrations
of
PCBs
at
less
than
50
parts
per
12
million
can
be
disposed
of
in
a
municipal
solid
13
waste
landfill.
We
raised
this
idea
with
OMB
14
because
we
are
concerned
that
EPA
has
taken
the
15
position
that
only
a
subset
of
waste
containing
PCBs
16
at
less
than
50
parts
per
million
can
actually
be
17
managed
in
this
manner,
while
other
wastes
that
also
18
contain
less
than
50
parts
per
million
PCBs
must
be
19
disposed
of
in
a
much
more
expensive
TSCA
regulated
20
landfill.

21
Regulating
identical
waste
differently
22
makes
no
sense
from
an
environmental
or
risk
12
1
perspective
and
certainly
doesn't
increase
2
competitiveness,
rather
it's
resulted
in
only
3
regulated
entities,
which
include
federal,
state
4
and
local
governments,
spending
large
sums
on
tight
5
operating
budgets
to
dispose
of
waste
with
extremely
6
low
levels
of
PCBs
in
TSCA
landfills,
even
though
7
the
Agency
has
already
determined
that
such
waste
8
can
be
safely
disposed
of
in
municipal
solid
waste
9
landfills.

10
It
is
our
position
that
extending
the
11
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
disposal
option
to
12
all
categories
of
less
than
50
parts
per
million
13
PCBs
remediation
waste
will
not
only
be
fully
14
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment
but
15
it
will
actually
help
promote
the
cleanup
of
PCB
16
contaminated
sites
by
allowing
for
an
17
environmentally
sound
and
cost­
effective
disposal
18
option
for
all
less
than
50
parts
per
million
PCB
19
remediation
waste
generated
during
the
cleanup
of
20
any
site.

21
In
the
notice
announcing
this
meeting
the
22
Agency
stated
it
does
not
necessarily
believe
that
13
1
the
exact
same
PCB
remediation
waste
is
treated
2
differently.
If
we
have
interpreted
the
Agency's
3
regulations,
and
it
is
in
fact
EPA's
position
that
4
all
less
than
50
part
per
million
PCB
remediation
5
waste
can
be
disposed
of
in
municipal
solid
waste
6
landfills,
we
would
like
nothing
better
than
to
be
7
corrected
on
this
point.
To
date,
however,
EPA
has
8
not
provided
such
clarification
and
we
will,

9
therefore,
continue
to
press
the
Agency
to
either
10
clarify
this
point
or
amend
its
regulations
to
allow
11
for
this
result.

12
A
little
background
on
the
regulations
13
helps
define
the
problem
and
the
need
for
14
clarification
or
correction.
In
the
1998
amendments
15
to
the
PCBs
regulations
EPA
promulgated
40
CFR
16
Section
761.761
dedicated
solely
to
the
cleanup
and
17
disposal
of
PCB
remediation
waste.
The
opening
18
paragraph
of
that
section
states
that
"
any
person
19
cleaning
up
and
disposing
of
PCBs
managed
under
this
20
section
shall
do
so
based
on
the
concentration
at
21
which
the
PCBs
are
found."
There
are
no
exceptions
22
or
caveats
to
the
statement.

14
1
The
new
section
is
comprised
of
three
2
remediation
disposal
options
for
addressing
PCB
3
spill
sites
set
forth
in
subparagraphs
(
a),
(
b)
and
4
(
c).
The
PCB
regulations
also
contain
a
spill
5
cleanup
policy
which
sets
forth
yet
another
option
6
for
cleaning
up
and
disposing
of
PCB
remediation
7
waste.
Of
these
four
options
only
one,
subparagraph
8
(
a),
explicitly
authorizes
the
disposal
of
9
remediation
waste
containing
less
than
50
parts
per
10
million
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
This
11
subparagraph
is
referred
to
as
a
self­
implementing
12
option
and
requires
parties
to
follow
specific
13
notification
and
certification
procedures
and
allows
14
for
PCBs
to
be
left
in
place
above
background
levels
15
including
up
to
100
parts
per
million
PCBs
in
some
16
circumstances.

17
In
contrast,
if
a
person
remediates
a
PCB
18
spill
under
subparagraph
(
b)
­­
the
so­
called
19
performance­
based
option
­­
EPA
takes
the
20
position
that
all
remediation
waste
generated
21
under
this
option
even
that
containing
less
than
50
22
parts
per
million,
must
be
disposed
of
in
a
TSCA
15
1
related
facility.
Thus
the
identical
PCB
2
remediation
waste
that
can
go
to
a
municipal
solid
3
waste
landfill
if
generated
under
the
4
self­
implementing
option
must
go
to
a
TSCA
landfill
5
if
generated
under
the
performance­
based
option.

6
Neither
common
sense
nor
environmental
risk
7
objectives
justify
this
perverse
result.
This
is
8
especially
true
given
the
fact
that
to
avoid
this
9
regulation
the
PCB
concentration
levels
at
the
spill
10
site
under
the
performance­
based
option
must
be
11
cleaned
to
less
than
one
part
per
million
while
PCB
12
concentrations
of
100
parts
per
million
can
be
left
13
behind
under
the
self­
implementing
option.

14
The
same
inconsistency
arises
in
cases
of
15
disposal
requirements
for
less
than
50
parts
per
16
million
PCB
remediation
wastes
managed
under
EPA's
17
PCB
spill
policy.
EPA
interprets
the
policy
as
18
requiring
such
waste
to
be
disposed
of
in
a
TSCA
19
landfill,
when
the
identical
waste
if
generated
20
under
the
self­
implementing
option
can
go
to
an
21
environmentally
protective
and
much
less
expensive
22
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
This
makes
16
1
absolutely
no
sense.

2
The
chart
up
there,
I
apologize,
it
is
a
3
little
small,
illustrates
the
situation
we're
4
talking
about.
The
first
column
is
the
5
self­
implementing
option.
We
lay
out
the
notice
and
6
characterization
requirements
in
very
general
terms.

7
We
identify
the
spill
cleanup
levels
at
the
bottom
8
and,
again,
this
is
the
bottom
line:
PCB
remediation
9
waste
generated
under
761.61
(
a)
can
go
to
a
10
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
if
it's
less
than
50
11
parts
per
million.

12
The
next
column
is
the
performance­
based
13
761.61(
b).
There's
no
notice
or
characterization
14
data
provided
to
the
Agency
but
the
cleanup
levels
15
must
be
much
lower,
as
I
said
earlier,
but
the
waste
16
that
contained
50
parts
per
million,
the
identical
17
waste
generated
under
(
a)
that
can
go
to
a
municipal
18
solid
waste
landfill,
now
has
to
go
to
a
TSCA
19
landfill.
Perhaps
we're
wrong
and
we'd
like
to
be
20
told
we're
wrong
by
the
Agency.
This
might
be
the
21
first
time
we've
ever
wanted
and
invited
being
told
22
we're
wrong
by
the
EPA.
The
third
column
is
the
17
1
requirements
of
the
spill
policy.
Again,
we
refer
2
to
the
spills,
requirements
to
respond
to
those
3
spills
when
found,
the
spill
cleanup
levels
4
specified
here,
but
we
see
that
the
remediation
5
wastes
that
contain
less
than
50
parts
per
6
million
generated
under
the
spill
policy
have
to
go
7
to
a
TSCA
landfill.
This
makes
absolutely
no
sense
8
at
all.

9
Our
proposed
solution
is
very
simple.
EPA
10
should
clarify
that
all
PCB
remediation
waste
that
11
contains
less
than
50
parts
per
million
PCBs
can
be
12
disposed
of
based
on
the
as­
found
concentration
in
a
13
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
Further,
EPA
should
14
clarify
that
the
disposal
options
under
the
15
self­
implementing
option
for
porous
and
non­
porous
16
surfaces
should
also
be
available
for
porous
and
17
non­
porous
surfaces
generated
under
any
other
18
cleanup
option.

19
The
bottom
line
is
if
EPA's
determined
20
that
a
particular
PCB
remediation
waste
can
be
21
safely
managed
in
a
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
22
when
generated
under
the
self­
implementing
cleanup
18
1
option,
there's
no
reason
why
waste
of
identical
2
chemical
composition
generated
under
different
3
cleanup
scenarios
cannot
be
managed
in
the
same
4
manner.
Off­
site
disposal
options
and
related
costs
5
should
depend
on
the
nature
of
the
waste
being
6
disposed,
not
on
the
cleanup
option
chosen
for
7
remediating
a
site.
Thank
you
for
your
attention
to
8
this
issue.
If
we
need
to,
we
will
follow
up
with
a
9
formal
request
for
extension
of
comment
deadline.

10
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Next
Larry
Liden,

11
Constellation
Energy.

12
MR.
LIDEN:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Larry
13
Liden.
I
serve
as
the
chair
of
USWAG's
low­
volume
14
waste
committee.
Although
my
company,
Constellation
15
Energy,
is
a
member
of
USWAG
and
we
echo
USWAG's
16
comments,
I'm
speaking
here
on
behalf
of
17
Constellation
Energy
in
my
role
as
senior
18
environmental
scientist
for
the
Constellation
19
Generation
Group
located
in
Baltimore,
Maryland.

20
Constellation
Energy,
just
as
a
little
21
background,
is
the
nation's
leading
competitive
22
supplier
of
electricity
to
large
commercial
and
19
1
industrial
customers
and
it's
one
of
the
nation's
2
largest
wholesale
power
sellers.
Constellation
also
3
manages
fuels
and
energy
services
on
behalf
of
4
energy­
intensive
industries
and
utilities.
We
own
5
or
co­
own
a
diversified
fleet
of
35
power
plants
in
6
a
total
of
eleven
states.
We
market
energy
7
throughout
North
America,
and
also
deliver
8
electricity
and
natural
gas
through
a
regulated
9
utility
in
central
Maryland,
the
Baltimore
Gas
&

10
Electric
Company.

11
By
way
of
background,
at
Constellation
12
Energy
I
deal
with
many
types
of
PCB­
containing
13
electric
equipment
and
am
actively
involved
in
PCB
14
remediation
projects
and
frequently
must
make
15
cost­
effective
decisions
to
manage
PCB
cleanup
and
16
decontamination
wastes.

17
For
a
company
like
mine
that
has
both
18
residential
and
non­
residential
customers
with
19
electricity
rates
set
by
a
state
public
services
20
commission
as
well
as
a
large
commercial
and
21
industrial
customer
base,
there
are
extremely
22
intense
pressures
to
keep
all
costs
associated
with
20
1
the
generation
and
distribution
of
electricity
and
2
gas
to
a
minimum.
Given
this
operating
environment
3
where
all
expenses
are
scrutinized
and
every
dollar
4
matters,
especially
when
you
have
to
go
to
the
Board
5
of
Directors
for
extra
money,
there
are
intense
6
pressures.
It
is
very
frustrating
to
be
forced
to
7
incur
costs
for
the
remediation
of
PCB
waste
that
8
are
neither
justified
from
a
health
or
from
an
9
environmental
perspective
nor
are
deemed
necessary
10
by
EPA
in
an
identical
context.

11
However,
rather
than
reiterate
USWAG's
12
comments
presented
by
Mr.
Roewer,
which
13
Constellation
Energy
fully
supports,
on
the
14
inconsistent
standards
applicable
to
the
disposal
15
of
identical
PCB
remediation
waste
I
would
like
to
16
address
several
other
problems
with
the
PCB
17
remediation
regulations.

18
On
a
preliminary
note,
my
company
is
in
19
favor
of
reorganizing
TSCA's
PCB
regulations
to
20
consolidate
and
add
needed
clarity
to
the
PCB
rules.

21
Simpler
is
always
better.
However,
one
remediation
22
option
which
should
not
be
changed
is
the
PCB
Spill
21
1
Cleanup
Policy
which
as
the
Agency
knows
was
a
2
result
of
a
consensus
position
reached
after
3
extensive
expensive
negotiations
by
regulators,

4
industry
and
environmental
groups
that
culminated
in
5
1987.
This
policy
has
been
extremely
effective
for
6
close
to
20
years
in
providing
a
cost­
effective
and
7
environmentally
sound
option
to
remediate
PCB
spill
8
sites
and
it
is
essential
that
EPA
retain
all
9
aspects
of
this
policy
in
the
PCB
regulations.

10
The
first
specific
item
is
risk­
based
11
cleanup
options.
One
issue
of
concern
to
our
12
company
is
that
for
a
variety
of
reasons
certain
PCB
13
remediation
waste
cleanup
scenarios
cannot
be
14
adequately
addressed
by
the
PCB
Spill
Cleanup
Policy
15
or
by
the
self­
implementing
or
performance­
based
16
options.
Although
these
types
of
cleanup
scenarios
17
were
intended
to
be
addressed
through
written
18
requests
to
the
EPA
under
the
risk­
based
cleanup
19
option
at
Section
761.61(
c)
it
has
been
in
our
20
experience
and
that
of
others
in
my
industry
that
21
EPA
is
often
slow
to
act
on
risk­
based
cleanup
22
requests.
Often
times
there
are
compelling
reasons
22
1
to
pursue
these
risk­
based
cleanups
in
an
accelerated
2
manner
such
as
in
real
estate
transactions.

3
Unfortunately,
the
current
system
cannot
accommodate
4
such
scenarios.
In
order
to
make
this
cleanup
option
5
a
viable
and
meaningful
remediation
strategy,
we
6
recommend
that
EPA
detail
either
in
the
regulations
7
or
through
guidance
memoranda
what
specifically
is
8
required
for
applicants
to
receive
approval
for
a
9
risk­
based
cleanup.
Such
an
explanation
should
10
provide
regulated
entities
with
the
site
conditions,

11
allowable
remaining
PCB
concentrations
and
the
risks
12
that
are
acceptable
to
EPA
for
this
type
of
spill
13
cleanup.
This
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
14
applicants
to
understand
whether
they
should
15
consider
this
cleanup
strategy
and
will
limit
the
16
Agency's
cost
in
reviewing
inadequate
and
17
unacceptable
applications.
It
will
also
help
ensure
18
a
more
prompt
response
by
the
Agency
to
the
19
respondents
or
the
requesters
and
will
provide
20
expanded
opportunities
for
PCB
site
cleanup
where
21
other
cleanup
options
are
not
practical
22
alternatives.

23
1
Second
point
is
the
sampling
of
PCB
2
remediation
waste.
One
area
of
the
PCB
regulations
3
where
clarity
is
needed
relates
to
the
sampling
4
requirements
for
PCB
remediation
waste.
Currently
5
PCB
sampling
requirements
are
spread
out
in
various
6
portions
of
the
regulations
including
subparagraphs
7
761.60
and
761.130
and
Subparts
N,
O,
P
and
R
of
8
Section
761.
Needless
to
say
there's
a
few
of
those
9
floating
around.

10
Notwithstanding
the
number
of
regulations
11
that
detail
these
sampling
requirements,
it
is
often
12
extraordinarily
difficult
to
understand
the
quantity
13
and
locations
from
which
these
samples
should
be
14
taken
at
the
remediation
site
and
how
those
samples
15
are
to
be
collected
especially
from
porous
surfaces.

16
We
recommend
that
EPA
clarify
the
PCB
sampling
17
requirements
and
consolidate
the
regulations
in
a
18
single
location
to
rectify
this
issue.

19
Thirdly,
cleanup
standards
for
groundwater
20
and
concrete.
Another
area
where
clarity
and/
or
21
improvement
is
needed
in
the
PCB
provisions
relates
22
to
the
cleanup
options
for
groundwater
remediation
24
1
and
historic
spills
onto
porous
surfaces
such
as
2
concrete.
Turning
first
to
groundwater
remediation.

3
The
regulations
are
clear
that
the
self­
implementing
4
option
is
not
available
for
these
types
of
5
cleanups,
but
they
provide
no
guidance
or
direction
6
under
the
other
cleanup
options
for
how
to
remediate
7
these
site
spills
such
as
when
PCB­
contaminated
oil
8
is
released
directly
to
surface
or
groundwater.

9
EPA
should
define
the
cleanup
requirements
10
and
parameters
or
identify
what
a
risk­
based
11
groundwater
cleanup
application
should
contain
to
12
provide
a
way
to
appropriately
remediate
such
sites
13
in
a
timely
fashion.
The
cleanup
and
decontamination
14
requirements
or
lack
thereof
for
historic
spills
15
onto
porous
surfaces
such
as
concrete
also
remains
a
16
perplexing
problem
for
Constellation
and
I
believe
17
many
others
in
our
regulated
community.
Although
18
the
regulations
contain
provisions
authorizing
the
19
continued
use
of
porous
surfaces,
if
certain
20
conditions
are
complied
with
under
Section
21
761.30(
p),
this
option
is
not
always
practical.

22
For
example,
we
are
aware
of
a
situation
where
a
25
1
large
concrete
basin
has
been
contaminated
with
2
residual
levels
of
PCBs
from
the
grout
that
was
3
historically
used
in
the
manufacture
of
the
basin.

4
The
grout
has
been
removed
and
disposed
of
as
a
PCB
5
bulk
product
waste
but
the
residual
PCB
6
contamination
remains
within
the
concrete
basin.
7
Employing
the
double
wash
and
use
of
8
contrasting
coats
of
paint
as
contemplated
under
9
Section
761.30(
p)
is
not
quite
practical
in
this
10
scenario.
Therefore
we
urge
EPA
to
continue
working
11
with
the
regulated
community
to
identify
a
practical
12
and
risk­
based
decontamination
option
for
historic
13
PCB
spills
onto
contaminated
porous
surfaces.

14
I
have
one
other
issue
which
relates
to
15
the
provision
for
continued
use
of
porous
surfaces
16
just
mentioned.
This
provision
authorizes
the
17
continued
use
of
these
surfaces
if
regulated
18
entities
comply
with
specific
conditions
including
19
those
described
earlier.
While
we
appreciate
the
20
availability
of
this
option
and
utilize
this
21
provision
for
certain
porous
surfaces,
we
encourage
22
EPA
to
extend
this
provision
to
nonporous
surfaces
26
1
where
the
concentration
limits
applicable
to
2
remediation
cannot
be
achieved.
For
example,
with
3
the
remediation
of
steel
grading
or
plates
or
a
4
rusted
surface.
The
rationale
that
is
currently
5
applicable
to
the
continued
use
of
porous
surfaces
6
applies
identically
to
the
types
of
non­
porous
7
materials
and
is
equally
protective
of
the
8
environment.

9
Batch
testing
requirements.
Finally,

10
another
area
of
the
PCB
regulations
related
to
11
remediation
waste
that
needs
clarification
are
the
12
rules
applicable
to
batch
testing
under
40
CFR
13
761.60(
g).
This
is
another
example
where
the
14
regulatory
text
does
not
provide
clear
direction
to
15
the
regulated
community
including
precisely
when
and
16
how
such
batch
testing
operations
may
occur.
I
17
believe
it
is
EPA's
intention
that
batch
testing
is
18
appropriate
in
circumstances
involving
dielectric
19
fluids
from
different
pieces
of
electrical
equipment
20
when
they
are
included
in
the
same
assumption
21
category,
for
example,
any
dielectric
fluids
from
22
equipment
assumed
to
be
PCB­
contaminated
can
be
27
1
batched
for
purposes
of
testing
and
eventual
2
disposal.
If
this
is
EPA's
intent,
then
I
3
believe
that
the
regulations
can
be
written
more
4
clearly
to
reflect
this
point.

5
Further,
the
batch
testing
rules
lay
out
6
two
different
sets
of
batch
testing
procedures.

7
There
is
one
set
of
procedures
for
batch
testing
8
"
mineral
oil
dielectric
fluid"
which
is
an
undefined
9
term.
There
is
another
separate
set
of
procedures
10
for
batch
testing
"
waste
oil"
which
is
defined
11
within
the
regulations,
in
part,
as
"
used
products
12
primarily
derived
from
petroleum"
including
13
dielectric
fluids.
It
is
unclear
why
EPA
has
14
different
batch
testing
provisions
for
these
two
15
categories
of
fluids
when
the
second
category
can
be
16
interpreted
to
include
the
first.

17
On
behalf
Constellation
Energy,
thank
you
18
again
for
the
opportunity
to
participate
and
present
19
some
of
our
views.

20
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you
very
much.
Elizabeth
21
Watson.

22
MS.
WATSON:
Good
morning.
I'm
Elizabeth
Festa
28
1
Watson.
I'm
the
manager
of
the
PCB
Panel,
a
2
CHEMSTAR
Panel
of
the
American
Chemistry
Council.

3
The
PCB
Panel
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
respond
4
to
EPA's
request
to
comment
on
the
PCB
remediation
5
waste
rules.

6
The
PCB
Panel
has
worked
with
EPA
and
7
other
stakeholders
on
PCB
regulations
since
1980.

8
My
comments
today
are
focused
on
the
Utility
Solid
9
Waste
Activities
Group's
(
USWAG's)
interpretation
of
10
the
disposal
requirements
for
PCB
remediation
wastes
11
and
only
briefly
touch
upon
other
issues.
The
PCB
12
Panel
also
requests
additional
time
to
respond
to
the
13
other
questions
raised
in
the
Background
Document.

14
These
remarks
are
a
summary
of
written
comments
15
submitted
to
the
docket
on
Friday.

16
The
Panel
supports
USWAG's
request
that
17
EPA
clarify
that
all
remediation
waste
containing
18
less
than
50
parts
per
million
PCBs
can
be
managed
19
in
the
same
manner
regardless
of
the
method
being
20
used
to
cleanup
the
PCBs
or
when
they
were
disposed
21
of.
This
would
encourage
cleanup
by
eliminating
the
22
need
to
determine
when
PCBs
were
disposed
of,
and
29
1
what
their
concentration
was
at
the
time
of
2
disposal.
That
exercise
is
increasingly
difficult,

3
if
not
impossible,
at
sites
where
PCBs
were
used
4
more
than
25
years
ago
before
Section
6(
e)
of
TSCA
5
took
effect.
The
requested
clarification
also
would
6
encourage
cleanups
by
reducing
the
cost
of
disposing
7
of
wastes
that
EPA
has
determined
do
not
present
an
8
unreasonable
risk.
9
The
requested
clarification
would
fully
10
implement
the
intent
that
EPA
expressed
when
it
11
revised
the
disposal
rules
in
1978.
At
that
time
12
EPA
announced
that
the
revised
regulations
would
13
allow
certain
wastes
to
be
disposed
of
at
their
14
current
concentrations,
as
opposed
to
the
15
concentrations
of
the
original
materials,
noting
16
that
EPA
was
expanding
(
quote)
"
the
options
for
17
off­
site
disposal;
for
example,
PCB
remediation
18
waste
containing
less
than
50
parts
per
million
PCBs
19
may
be
sent
off­
site
for
disposal
in
State­
approved
20
land
disposal
facilities
for
the
management
of
solid
21
waste,
landfills
permitted
by
EPA
under
Section
3004
22
under
RCRA,
or
by
a
State
authorized
under
Section
30
1
3006
of
RCRA;
or
disposal
facilities
approved
2
under
40
CFR
part
761."
(
end
of
quote)
EPA
adopted
3
this
approach
in
order
to
encourage
cleanups
at
sites
4
contaminated
with
PCBs.

5
There's
no
risk­
based
reason
for
EPA
to
6
interpret
Section
761.61
in
a
manner
that
limits
7
the
available
alternatives
for
disposing
of
8
materials
that
is
currently
less
than
50
parts
per
9
million
PCBs
based
on
either
the
source
of
the
PCBs
10
or
the
nature
of
the
cleanup
that
generated
the
waste.

11
For
example,
soil
containing
less
than
50
parts
per
12
million
PCBs
that
is
disposed
of
at
a
municipal
or
13
industrial
landfill
poses
the
same
level
of
risk
14
regardless
of
the
concentration
of
the
PCBs
when
15
they
were
spilled
onto
the
soil
or
whether
the
16
cleanup
followed
the
requirements
of
761.61(
a),
17
for
self­
implementing
remediation.

18
Any
concern
that
an
across­
the­
board
19
approach
to
PCB
remediation
wastes
will
prompt
20
entities
to
intentionally
release
PCBs
into
the
21
environment
in
order
to
dilute
their
concentration
22
so
that
they
can
be
disposed
of
in
municipal
31
1
landfills
is
unwarranted.
Such
an
act
would
violate
2
multiple
provisions
of
the
regulations
including
3
Section
761.20(
c)(
1)
and
761.50(
a)
which
authorize
4
disposal
in
accordance
with
the
rules,
and
Section
5
761.1(
b)(
5)
which
explicitly
prohibits
dilution
of
6
PCBs
to
avoid
regulatory
obligations.
Such
7
violations
can
lead
to
severe
enforcement
8
consequences
including
imprisonment.
Those
who
are
9
not
deterred
by
the
threat
of
civil
and
criminal
10
enforcement
actions
for
improper
disposal
and
11
dilution
will
not
be
deterred
by
restrictions
on
12
disposal
options.

13
Moving
beyond
USWAG's
request,
other
14
aspects
of
the
PCB
rules
unnecessarily
impede
15
cleanups
and
redevelopment
of
brownfields
sites.

16
For
example,
TSCA
explicitly
prohibits
most
uses
of
17
PCBs
except
to
the
extent
authorized
by
EPA.

18
Pursuant
to
that
authority,
EPA
has
promulgated
19
extensive
PCB
use
authorizations
in
Section
761.30
20
that,
for
the
most
part
encompass
actual
uses
of
PCBs
21
such
as
transformers
using
PCB­
containing
dielectric
22
fluid.
However,
the
background
document
32
1
accompanying
the
June
30th,
2005
Federal
Register
2
notice
equates
the
use
of
property
contaminated
by
3
spills
of
PCBs
with
the
use
of
PCBs.
Using
a
4
building
that
is
contaminated
with
PCBs
is
no
more
a
5
use
of
PCBs
than
using
a
wet
floor
is
use
of
the
6
water.

7
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
word
disposal
8
has
similar
adverse
effects.
As
defined
in
Section
9
761.3
"
disposal
means
intentionally
or
accidentally
10
to
discard,
throw
away,
or
otherwise
complete
or
11
terminate
the
useful
life
of
PCBs
and
PCBs
items.

12
Disposal
includes
spills,
leaks
and
other
13
uncontrolled
discharges
of
PCBs
as
well
as
actions
14
relating
to
containing,
transporting,
destroying,

15
degrading,
decontaminating
or
confining
PCBs."

16
Under
this
definition
only
activities
that
17
"
complete
or
terminate
the
useful
life
of
PCBs"

18
qualify
as
"
disposal."
Recently,
however,
two
EPA
19
Regions
have
asserted
that
the
post­
1978
migration
20
of
PCBs
that
were
spilled
or
otherwise
released
into
21
the
environment
before
1978
constitutes
"
illegal
22
disposal."
The
Regions
have
taken
that
position
even
33
1
though
the
rules
presume
that
sites
that
contained
2
such
contamination
do
not
present
an
unreasonable
3
risk,
and
require
the
regional
administrator
to
find
4
that
migration
or
other
circumstances
give
rise
to
5
an
unreasonable
risk.
The
Region's
interpretation
6
is
inconsistent
with
the
rule,
the
preamble
and
the
7
definition
of
disposal.
It
also
subjects
every
8
owner
of
property
that
has
pre­
1978
PCB
contamination
9
to
potential
enforcement
actions
for
"
illegal
10
disposal."
These
interpretations
of
"
use"
and
11
"
disposal"
will
subject
thousands
of
property
12
owners
and
their
tenants
to
potential
enforcement
13
actions.
As
such,
these
interpretations
will
impede
14
redevelopment
of
brownfields
properties.
Neither
15
interpretation
is
necessary
given
EPA's
extensive
16
risk­
based
cleanup
authority
under
CERCLA
and
17
numerous
state
cleanup
programs.

18
The
PCB
Panel
thanks
the
EPA
for
the
19
opportunity
to
provide
comments
on
these
important
20
issues
and
requests
additional
time
to
submit
21
supplemental
comments
to
the
EPA
on
the
other
issues
22
raised
in
the
background
document
and
looks
forward
34
1
to
working
with
EPA
on
these
issues.
Thank
you.

2
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you
very
much.
Jonathan
3
Gledhill,
Policy
Navigation
Group.

4
MR.
GLEDHILL:
Thank
you,
the
EPA,
for
the
5
opportunity
to
speak.
Policy
Navigation
doesn't
6
represent
anyone
on
this
matter.
This
is
purely
a
7
historical
interest
having
served
at
the
time
when
8
these
rules
were
being
­­
these
options
were
first
9
being
formulated.
It's
rare
to
get
a
chance,
almost
10
15
years
later,
to
come
back
and
try
to
promote
good
11
policy
and
good
public
policy
analysis.

12
Finally,
it's
very
gratifying
for
me
at
13
OLYRA
to
see
Lorraine
Hunt's
name
being
linked
to
14
this.
Lorraine
is
a
long­
standing
secretary
for
our
15
branch
that
was
back
there
and
she's
worked
for
16
many,
many
years
to
keep
OLYRA
functioning.
Whether
17
it's
really
an
honor
to
have
your
name
associated
18
with
PCB
remediation
waste
is
probably
something
19
Lorraine's
not
to
desire.

20
I
wanted
to
mostly
touch
on
three
things.

21
Number
one,
what
was
striking
in
EPA's
notice
was
22
how
it
fails
to
ask
the
crucial
public
policy
35
1
question.
Do
the
benefits
of
any
reform
justify
the
2
costs.
This
is
a
rare
chance
to
go
back
and
look
at
3
the
performance
of
a
program
that
was
designed
to
4
produce
reform
now
10,
15
years
after
5
implementation.
The
way
I
would
look
at
that
6
question
is
that
the
petitioners
basically
talk
7
about
two
situations.
One,
about
the
PCB
8
remediation
waste
disposal
method.
And,
second,

9
about
whether
PCB
material
can
be
left
in
place
and
10
what
are
the
risks
about
that.
Why
is
this
11
important?
The
reason
this
is
important
is
that
12
these
reforms
or
the
answers
to
these
questions
13
could
easily
save
society
over
a
hundred
million
14
dollars
a
year.
And,
finally,
my
recommendation
is
15
EPA
should
perform
an
economic
analysis
to
evaluate
16
the
options
and
choose
the
ones
that
maximize
social
17
benefits.

18
Going
to
the
first
point,
the
major
public
19
policy
question.
Would
reforms
improve
social
20
welfare?
Why
should
EPA
consider
this
question?

21
Number
one,
it's
required
under
executive
order
22
12866
and
related
ones
and
especially
it's
a
36
1
statutory
basis
of
policy.
Unfortunately,
this
2
question
wasn't
included
in
EPA's
notice.
It's
3
important
because
if
you
look
back
at
the
1998
rule
4
the
55
percent
of
the
146
million
benefit
dollars
in
5
annual
benefits
that
EPA
claimed
were
from
this
6
provision
of
remediation
waste
reform.
So
clearly
7
this
was
an
important
part
of
the
rule
and
still
is
8
important
today.

9
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
suggest
a
10
framework
to
talk
about
the
two
issues
raised
by
11
petitioners.
There
were
two
issues
raised
by
12
petitioners
and
I
have
a
toddler
at
home,
so
I
think
13
of
things
as
(
a)
and
(
b)
not
761.
Petitioners
14
suggest
that
the
remediation
waste
with
the
same
15
concentration
must
be
managed
differently
in
(
a)

16
versus
(
b).
So
the
question
is
did
the
risks
17
justify
this
extra
cost
to
management.

18
Secondly,
the
petitioners
suggest
that
19
waste
­­
different
waste
with
different
20
concentration
that
you
left
in
place
in
(
a)
than
21
they
can
be
in
(
b).
So,
again,
the
question
is
do
22
the
risks
justify
this
different
treatment?

37
1
Let's
turn
to
the
waste
disposal
issue
2
which
is
always
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
from
my
3
background.
The
current
regulations
mirror
the
4
flaws
in
the
current
hazardous
waste
regulations
5
system
in
this
country,
basically
regulate
material
6
based
on
its
history
not
its
hazard.
If
you
want
to
7
make
a
showing
that
you
should
treat
these
things
8
differently
you
need
to
show
that
there's
some
9
physical
difference
between
the
waste
in
(
a)
than
in
10
(
b)
that
would
affect
their
risk
to
human
health
in
11
the
environment,
i.
e.,
for
example,
are
they
in
12
physical
forms
that
affect
landfill
stability,
that
13
affect
their
dilution
attenuation
in
the
unsaturated
14
zones
or
their
bio­
availability
once
they
reach
a
15
potential
receptor.

16
So
first
of
all
you
would
have
to
17
categorize
these
differences,
if
there
are
any.

18
Certainly
from
what
we've
heard
this
morning
19
petitioners
at
least
suggest
there
aren't
physical
20
differences.
But
if
there
are
differences,
what
are
21
the
social
costs
or
the
value
of
that
incremental
22
risk
of
removing
all
remediation
waste
below
50
38
1
parts
per
million
to
a
municipal
solid
waste
2
landfill
and
this
is
particularly
interesting
3
because
at
the
time
these
options
were
formed
we
4
were
just
developing,
it
was
just
promulgating,
the
5
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
design
criteria
so
it
6
was
an
interesting
new
option.
Again,
now
we
have
7
10
years
of
experience
with
these
landfills
and
know
8
a
lot
more
about
their
performance.

9
And
the
third
value
we
have
is
we
have
the
10
experience
not
so
much
maybe
in
the
TSCA
program
but
11
certainly
in
the
RCRA
program
that
this
type
12
modeling,
this
type
of
answering
the
risk
question,

13
what's
the
risk
of
putting
something
in
this
solid
14
waste
landfill
versus
a
Subtitle
C
TSCA
type
15
landfill.
EPA
models
this
all
the
time,
in
either
16
regulatory
decisions
on
listing
or
as
more
likely
in
17
the
listing
petitions.
So
EPA
and
the
TSCA
program
18
have
the
models
and
data
available
to
answer
this
19
analytic
question.
And
we
can
compare
the
model
20
incremental
risks
shifting
from
Subtitle
C
to
21
municipal
solid
waste
to
the
cost
because
as
22
commoners
the
marketplace
tells
us
what
the
costs
39
1
difference
are
for
those
two
types
of
waste
disposal
2
systems.

3
So
let
me
give
an
illustrative
example.

4
Suppose
we
take
the
same
volume
of
PCB
remediation
5
waste
and
put
it
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
and
a
6
municipal
solid
waste
landfill.
I'm
going
to
say
7
the
volume's
the
same,
call
the
volume
X,
it
turns
8
out
that
most
ground
water
models,
EPA
models
9
especially,
violate
the
law
of
conservation
and
mass
10
so
there
really
is
no
need
to
worry
about
volume
or
11
mass.
Assume
PCBs
leach
out
of
these
landfills
and
12
reach
a
drinking
water
immediately,
instantaneously,

13
once
the
respective
post­
closure
care
periods
are
14
over
and
in
case
you
don't
happen
to
remember
right
15
off
the
top
of
your
head
what
the
respective
16
post­
closure
care
periods
are
for
municipal
solid
17
waste
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill,
let
me
remind
you
18
that
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
it's
20
years
19
and
for
Subtitle
C
landfill
it's
usually
30
years.

20
So
right
after
the
landfill
is
closed
you
21
have
20
years
of
close
closure
monitoring
and
then
22
you
reach
a
receptor.
So
at
that
receptor
let's
40
1
first
assume
that
there
actually
is
some.
You
2
remember,
probably
don't,
but
if
you
would
remember
3
the
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
criteria
found
4
that
there
actually
are
relatively
few
receptors
5
down
gradiant
of
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
6
that
actually
cause
an
exposure.
Let's
assume
that
7
the
concentration
that
reaches
that
person
is
50
8
parts
per
million
divided
by
20.
Why
20?
Because
9
that's
EPA's
conservative
assumption
when
it
assumes
10
leaching
and
this
can
be
found
all
over
the
EPA's
11
models.

12
Let's
use
OMB's
recommended
value
of
a
13
statistical
life,
let's
assume
unfortunately
that
14
there
is
a
fatality
in
this
hypothetical
situation
15
and
let's
use
a
seven
percent
discount
rate
to
16
discount
that
forward
to
say
what
is
the
value
of
17
avoiding
the
incremental
risk
today
and
let's
use
18
the
cancer
slope
factor
from
EPA's
1997
risk
19
analysis
on
PCBs.

20
When
you
look
at
that,
you
look
at
that
21
situation
which
is
very
typical
how
EPA
would
model
22
this
if
it
was
under
a
RCRA
situation,
the
real
41
1
difference
is
that
10­
year
period
difference
between
2
the
expected
when
you're
going
to
reach
the
3
receptor.
Basically
in
the
one
scenario
you
reach
a
4
receptor
50
years
out
versus
another
situation
you
5
reach
a
receptor
60
years
out
when
you
add
up
the
6
years.

7
What's
the
expected
value
today?
The
8
expected
value
of
avoiding
that
risk,
i.
e.
what
9
society
would
want
to
pay
today
to
avoid
that
risk
10
50,
60
years
out
is
eight
thousand
dollars
for
11
municipal.
It's
four
thousand
dollars
for
Subtitle
12
C.
I.
e.,
the
incremental
difference
of
moving
the
13
incremental
value
to
society
for
putting
something
14
in
a
more
stringent
landfill
is
only
four
thousand
15
dollars.

16
Using
today's
value
of
disposal,
that's
17
about
27
to
40
barrels
of
waste.
Now
we
know
we
18
dispose
of
hundreds
more
barrels
of
that
typically
19
in
a
given
year.
If
EPA
extended
this
analysis,

20
again
relaxed
some
these
assumptions,
actually
they
21
would
tend
to
be
­­
would
drive
the
risk
values
­­

22
the
expected
risk
values
down
because
PCBs
aren't
42
1
very
mobile.
We
don't
typically
find
receptors
and
2
even
if
you
assumed
a
receptor
you'd
have
to
make
3
some
adjustments
there
as
EPA
typically
does
in
all
4
these
analyses.

5
So
even
from
this
illustrative
example
it
6
appears
that
shifting
PCB
remediation
waste
to
7
municipal
solid
waste
landfills
is
cost
effective
8
for
society.
But,
again,
it
is
an
illustrative
9
example.
This
just
drives
home
the
point
that
the
10
EPA
should
ask
the
question
and
perform
a
national
11
analysis
given
that
it
has
the
models
and
data
12
available.

13
Let
me
turn
to
the
second
issue,
talk
14
briefly
about
that,
about
concentrations
left
in
15
place.
Petitioners
point
out
the
differences
in
16
concentration
typically
around
where
you
place
(
a)

17
versus
(
b).
So
the
question
is
why
is
100
parts
per
18
million
safe
in
some
areas
and
not
others.
If
you
19
look
at
what
is
typically
allowed
or
what
types
of
20
cleanups
happen
under
the
self­
implementing
option
21
(
a)
you're
talking
about
schools.
You're
talking
22
about
lots
of
places
that
have
PCB
materials
in
43
1
place.
There's
real
risks
there,
not
hypothetical
2
risks.

3
It
is
interesting
as
I
think
Elizabeth
4
point
out
in
her
last
comments
that
EPA
suggests
5
that
any
relaxation
of
this
would
call
into
question
6
whether
the
property
could
be
transferred
under
7
other
parts
of
the
PCB
regulations.
That's
8
interesting
because
that
seems
to
be
at
odds
with
9
other
key
EPA
policies,
i.
e.
Brownfields,
and
10
especially,
for
example,
the
Navy,
the
legal
11
decision
that
the
EPA
gave
the
Navy
allowing
BRAC
12
transfers
when
lots
of
PCB
materials
are
left
in
13
place
on
property.
One
would
imagine
our
BRAC
14
process
for
the
Navy
and
many
other
armed
services
15
couldn't
exist
if
EPA's
prohibition
on
property
16
transfers
existed.
Fortunately
it
doesn't.

17
But
instead
of
these
regulatory
18
restrictions,
again,
what
can
analysis
tell
us.

19
First
of
all,
I
really
recommended
the
Agency
20
approach
it
as
a
risk
issue
not
as
a
process
issue.

21
That
these
self­
implementing
options
seem
to
be
take
22
places
in
cases
in
"
and"
or
"
a,"
where
cases
there
44
1
are
real
exposures,
not
hypothetical
exposures
to
2
ground
water
sediment.

3
And
I'd
also
point
out
again
since
we
have
4
the
benefit
of
time
we
look
back
at
these
5
self­
implementing
option
and
it
is
by
current
6
standards
quite
crude.
It
has
a
high
exposure
7
option
and
a
low
exposure
option.
Well,
that
was
8
maybe
all
we
knew
or
all
we
were
comfortable
with
9
back
in
the
early
1990s
when
corrective
action
was
10
tight
and
we
thought
we
were
actually
doing
a
lot
of
11
cleanups
but
we've
come
a
long
way
in
risk
12
assessment
since
then
and
I
recommend
EPA
should
13
consider
self­
implementing
options
for
soil,
ground
14
water
settlement
and
other
remediation
waste
that
15
could
provide
the
middle
ground
between
(
a)
and
a
16
complete
freeform
in
(
b).
Many
states
in
EPA
17
regions
use
detailed
look­
up
tables
and
calculations
18
to
set
self­
implementing
cleanup
levels
for
soil,

19
ground
water
and
sediment
for
a
whole
host
of
other
20
contaminants,
pretty
much
almost
every
other
21
contaminant
except
for
PCBs
because
of
the
special
22
regulatory
system
that's
set
up
for
PCBs.
It
would
45
1
seem
that
we
could
learn
a
lot
from
the
experience
2
of
our
fellow
regulators
as
they've
struggled
to
3
accelerate
cleanups
to
use
the
risk­
based
cleanup
4
approaches
adopted
for
others
as
we're
looking
at
5
what
to
do
here.

6
So
again,
in
conclusion,
number
one,
I
7
think
EPA
should
ask
the
right
questions
so
that
8
society
benefits
from
the
reform
action,
that
OMB
9
should
continue
to
direct
EPA
to
provide
the
public
10
with
information
on
social
benefits
and
cost
of
11
various
perform
options
under
this
approach
and
EPA
12
should
take
advantage
of
the
experience
and
the
13
regulated
community
and
states
to
use
real
data
in
14
its
analysis.
Thank
you
very
much.

15
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you,
Mr.
Gledhill.
Next
16
Steven
Nadeau,
Sediment
Management
Work
Group.

17
MR.
NADEAU:
Good
morning,
my
name
is
Steven
C.

18
Nadeau
and
I
am
the
Coordinating
Director
of
the
19
Sediment
Management
Work
Group.
And
correspondingly,

20
my
focus
today
is
going
to
be
on
the
impact
of
these
21
rules
on
contaminated
sediment.

22
As
I
mentioned,
our
focus
is
going
to
be
46
1
on
contaminated
sediments
and
in
this
situation
this
2
is
a
very,
very
important
issue.
Quite
frankly,
I
3
don't
think
I've
ever
seen
an
issue
quite
like
this
4
in
the
sense
that
really
all
the
stars
align
in
one
5
direction.
Typically
with
the
environmental
6
regulations
you're
balancing
risk
and
you'll
find
7
that
this
remedy
may
be
very
close
on
protectiveness
8
but
maybe
not
quite
as
much
or
the
other
way
around,

9
but
in
this
case
if
you
really
look
at
the
10
consequences
of
what
we're
dealing
with
and
look
at
11
all
the
regulations
there
seems
to
be
only
one
right
12
answer
and
the
good
news
is
that
the
tools
are
13
available
in
our
existing
regs
as
long
as
we
can
14
clarify
them
and
apply
them
in
a
sound
science,

15
practical
manner.

16
When
I
say
the
stars
are
in
alignment
what
17
I
mean
by
that
is
there's
really
no
justification
18
for
the
more
restrictive
view
or
more
restrictive
19
interpretation
that
we've
heard
applied
to
20
contaminated
sediment
sites.
The
tension
or
tug
of
21
war
here
is
between
whether
you
sample
contaminated
22
sediments
­­
take
the
data
that
have
when
the
47
1
sediments
are
in
the
water,
in
the
water
body
2
themselves,
or
whether
you
use
the
data
that
you
3
have
to
sample
for
characterization
for
disposal
at
4
the
end
of
the
process
when
the
sediments
are
out
in
5
the
staging
area
ready
to
go
off
to
the
landfill.

6
Very
simple
question,
but
with
huge
consequences.

7
When
you
compare
the
two
options,
what
you
8
see
is
the
scale
tips
dramatically
in
favor
of
the
9
latter,
that
is,
sampling
after
the
sediments
have
10
been
removed
and
that's
because
there's
more
11
accuracy
in
your
results.
You're
more
protective
12
because
you're
more
accurate,
you're
actually
going
13
to
know
what's
going
to
the
landfill
based
on
what
14
is
going
out
the
door.
And
it's
also
significantly
15
more
cost
effective
because
of
the
way
you
have
to
16
process
sediments.
The
regulations
are
in
place
17
that
will
allow
this
with
some
clarification
but,
if
18
not,
then
clearly
some
amendment
or
guidance
should
19
be
issued.

20
So
the
primary
issue
is
whether
the
21
language
of
40
CFR
761.61,
particularly
the
22
reference
to
two
simple
words
"
as­
found,"
precludes
48
1
the
existing
environmentally
sound
procedure
of
2
using
the
post­
dredging
samples
to
govern.
Two
3
things,
number
one,
is
this
PCB
remediation
waste
4
because
it
may
not
be
and,
two,
to
govern
the
5
appropriate
disposal
facility,
whether
it
goes
to
a
6
municipal
solid
waste
facility
or
a
TSCA
facility.
7
As
a
threshold
matter
then
we
first
need
8
to
determine
whether
this
is
PCB
remediation
waste
9
and
in
this
situation
it's
really
not
in
the
case
of
10
sediments
determined
to
be
PCB
sediment
waste
until
11
it's
dredged,
based
on
the
language
in
the
12
regulations
that
indicates
that
refers
to
in
761.3,

13
settled
sediment
finds
an
aqueos
decantate
from
14
sediment.

15
Sediments
in
essence
do
not
become
dredged
16
material
or
produce
those
sediment
fines
until
17
they're
out
of
the
water
body
and
that's
an
18
important
distinction.
Therefore,
the
definition
19
itself
as
a
threshold
matter
means
that
the
dredged
20
sediments
become
potentially
PCB
remedial
waste
only
21
after
that
material's
been
removed.
So
the
22
appropriate
time
to
find
out
whether
you're
dealing
49
1
with
that
waste
or
not
is
in
those
waste
disposal
2
piles.

3
The
other
important
point
is
how
the
rules
4
already
addressed
phased
PCB
materials
and
the
TSCA
5
regulations
as
written
expressly
recognized
the
need
6
to
handle
multi­
phasic
materials
and
it
specifically
7
authorized
sampling
for
disposal
of
the
separate
8
phases.

9
Now,
when
you're
dealing
with
contaminated
10
sediment
there's
very
little
sophisticated
11
technology
in
the
context
of
dredging,
and
I
should
12
have
noted
it
at
the
outset
the
Sediment
Management
13
Work
Group
has
been
very
active
in
national
policy
14
issues
on
sediment
remediation
and
there
are
of
15
course
three
options
with
respect
to
sediment
16
remediation.
Today
we're
focussed
on
dredging
17
because
that's
the
issue
at
hand.

18
When
we're
dealing
with
dredging
as
the
19
remediation
option
for
sediments,
however,
basically
20
there's
only
a
couple
ways
to
get
that
water
out,

21
using
a
clam
bucket
where
there's
still
going
to
be
22
a
pile
of
water
in
with
the
sediment,
the
PCB
50
1
material,
or
do
hydraulic
dredging
when
you're
lucky
2
to
get
five
to
eight
percent
solid
materials.
So
no
3
matter
what
you
do
you
have
a
lot
of
water
and
you
4
have
to
eliminate
it.
This
has
been
going
on
from
5
the
very
first
dredging
project,
we've
got
fancier
6
equipment,
but
you
have
to
separate
out
the
phases.

7
So
under
the
rules
as
they're
written
we
can
rely
on
8
the
phased
approach
which
expressly
provides
that
9
after
separation
of
the
phases
that's
when
you
10
should
check
each
phase,
solid
phase
and
the
liquid
11
phase,
and
that's
what's
been
going
on
in
the
real
12
word
for
several
years
on
dredging
projects.
And
13
that's
expressly
authorized
in
the
40
CFR
14
761.1(
b)(
4)(
iii).

15
In
fact,
EPA
guidance
points
us
in
the
16
right
direction,
in
the
Q&
A
document
on
page
76,
and
17
I
quote,
"
separate
the
multi­
phasic
waste
and
sample
18
each
phase
separately.
You
may
either
dispose
of
19
each
phase
separately
based
on
the
as­
found
20
concentration
in
that
phase
or
you
can
actually
do
21
all
phases
with
the
sample
results."
But
the
key
22
here
is
the
words
"
as­
found"
are
applied
to
after
51
1
the
phases
are
separated
which
is
exactly
what
2
happens
when
you
dredge
and
you
de­
water.
So
once
3
again,
the
tools
and
the
regulations
are
really
all
4
there
before
us.
It's
a
matter
of
a
sound
5
interpretation.

6
Sediments
in
the
aquatic
environment
can
7
be
dynamic.
There's
some
real
implications
that
are
8
far
different
than
when
we're
dealing
with
soils.

9
When
you're
dealing
with
soils
they
stay
in
place,

10
you're
not
chasing
them
around,
you
can
see
what
11
you're
dealing
with,
you
can
see
side
walls,
you
can
12
see
the
bottom.
When
you're
dealing
with
sediments
13
and
you're
dealing
under
water,
you
don't
get
them
14
all.
They
move
around.
You
put
silt
curtains
up
15
but
there's
absolutely
no
guarantee
that
if
you
had
16
a
55
or
an
83
or
a
590
in
that
water
body
that's
17
going
to
be
in
your
sediment
pile
when
it's
going
18
out
the
door
to
the
landfill.

19
So
we
also
see
changes
over
time
and
the
20
important
thing
here
is
we're
about
protectiveness
21
and
sound
science.
We
want
to
know
what
we're
22
getting
and
sending
to
the
landfill.
We're
going
to
52
1
sample
that.
We
don't
know
whether
the
500
or
the
2
83
is
even
in
our
pile.
We
do
know
that
we
have
a
3
precise
measurement
just
like
we
do
on
land
and
soil
4
if
we
measure
that
pile.
And
once
again,
I
think
5
the
tools
are
existing
right
in
the
regulations.

6
There's
some
concern
I
suppose
with
the
7
policy
of
the
anti­
dilution
rule.
But
we're
far
8
a
field
from
the
anti­
dilution
situation
here.
This
9
isn't
some
sinister
plot
to
add
soil,
mix
it
around
10
and
get
a
lower
number
and
save
some
money.
In
11
fact,
when
you
look
at
the
anti­
dilution
rule
and
how
12
the
regulations
were
originally
designed
we
saw
some
13
real
good
common­
sense
thinking
because
the
choice
14
could
have
been
even
more
difficult.
In
other
15
words,
if
you
were
required
because
the
PCB
16
transformer
had
100,000
parts
per
million
when
it
17
was
working
and
it
didn't
leak,
and
your
soil
had
18
55,
the
regulations
say
you
look
at
what
the
soil
19
has.
We're
not
going
to
make
you
pretend
that
it's
20
really
still
a
hundred
thousand
parts
per
million.

21
In
this
situation
if
you
apply
that
same
spirit
and
22
philosophy
and
good
common
sense
and
sound
science
53
1
you
should
be
disposing
with
what
you're
really
2
dealing
with,
not
the
theory
of
what
was
out
there
3
in
an
unspecified
first
step.
It
may
have
been
4
there,
but
you
may
not
even
have
it
in
your
pile.

5
We
want
to
deal
with
the
realities
of
the
waste
we
6
have
to
address
in
our
post­
dredging
dewatered
7
result.
This
is
a
tried
and
true
method
of
8
separation
and
dewatering
and
what
we
want
to
do
is
9
make
sure
we
comply
with
other
policies.
Certainly
10
not
a
method
to
cheat
the
system,
to
save
money,
the
11
reality
is
when
you
dredge
the
material
it
comes
12
completely
mixed
in
the
process
of
removing
it
and
13
pulling
it
out
of
the
water.

14
In
a
typical
project,
you
can
look
at,

15
say,
Manistique
Harbor
which
was
conducted
by
the
16
EPA,
five­
year
project,
48
million
dollars,
and
the
17
EPA
in
the
project
championed
the
idea
of
18
hydrocycloning.
So
the
water
was
hydraulically
19
drawn
out
with
the
sediment.
95
percent
or
so
was
20
water,
went
through
filter
presses
to
try
to
get
21
some
of
the
water,
then
through
hydrocycloning
to
22
separate
out
the
solids
into
phases.
EPA,
running
54
1
the
program,
sampled
those
waste
piles
after
the
2
fact
and
used
that
data
to
dispose
of
all
that
3
sediment,
187,000
cubic
yards
were
determined
exactly
4
the
way
we
believe
the
regulations
are
intended.

5
The
other
point
is
these
sediment
sites
6
even
more
so
than
land
remedies
are
under
the
7
watchful
eye
of
EPA
and
the
state
agencies.
These
8
are
not
going
to
back
and
dig
a
few
scoops
out.

9
These
are
­­
the
smallest
sediment
site
can
be
as
10
big
as
your
largest
land
nightmare.
So
we're
always
11
dealing
with
work
plans
and
designs.
EPA
always
is
12
fully
aware
and
has
fully
approved
of
types
of
13
programs
we're
working
on.

14
In
terms
of
other
policies,
this
approach
15
of
using
either
ex­
situ
sampling
to
determine
16
whether
it's
remediation
waste
or
not,
under
50
or
17
not,
whether
it
goes
to
a
TSCA
or
non­
TSCA
landfill,

18
is
in
compliance
and
consistent
with
other
policies.

19
First
of
all,
right
in
the
TSCA
policy
in
761.1(
a)

20
the
phasic
waste
approach.
Secondly,
we
know
we
21
can't
put
liquids
in
landfills
because
of
RCRA.

22
Third,
we
typically
end
up
reducing
the
volume
of
55
1
material
requiring
TSCA
disposal
just
by
the
virtue
2
of
how
their
material
is
consolidated
in
the
process
3
of
removing
and
dewatering.
And
we
know
that
TSCA
4
landfills
space
is
scarce
as
it
is
right
now,
so
we
5
don't
want
to
use
up
a
lot
of
TSCA
landfill
space
6
with
material
that's
really
not
TSCA
material
based
7
on
actual
sample
results.

8
Lastly,
we
have
CERCLA's
121
policy
9
favoring
treatment.
Right
now
the
treatments
are
10
not
necessarily
that
sophisticated.
We
definitely
11
have
to
dewater
but
we
want
to
encourage
future
12
innovative
approaches
that
may
even
have
13
opportunities
to
decrease
the
toxicity.
Certainly
14
we're
decreasing
the
volume
by
consolidating.
We
15
want
to
foster
that
policy,
not
provide
a
16
disincentive.

17
Substantial
precedent
already
exists
in
18
the
field
for
using
the
post­
dredging,

19
post­
dewatered
pile
that's
staged
for
disposal
and
20
we
did
a
quick
check
and
came
up
with
about
six
or
21
seven,
five
or
six,
just
who
I
happened
to
catch
on
22
a
Thursday
or
Friday
afternoon.
I'm
sure
there's
56
1
dozens
of
others.
I
mentioned
Manistique
Harbor.

2
That
was
a
EPA
designed
and
implemented
project
from
3
start
to
finish
and
there
are
several
others
that
4
will
be
included
in
our
comments
on
Exhibit
B.

5
A
couple
of
examples,
Manistique
Harbor
is
6
one
in
Michigan,
Cumberland
Bay,
New
York
was
7
implemented
by
the
New
York
DEC
in
1999
and
2000.

8
The
Fox
River
there
was
a
Deposit
"
N"
pilot,
one
of
9
the
first
pilots,
and
Wisconsin
DNR
used
the
same
10
post­
dredging
sampling
timeframe
approach.
The
11
Shiawassee
River
in
Wisconsin
was
also
another
12
example.
The
New
Bedford
Harbor
project
has
a
small
13
segment
where
this
has
been
authorized
in
the
14
desanding
operation
so
you
can
separate
out
the
sand
15
fraction
and
then
sample
in
the
pile
to
determine
if
16
that's
okay.
And
the
St.
Lawrence
River
Reynolds
17
Metal
project
in
2001.

18
The
other
important
factor
here
is
public
19
policy
and
the
whole
concept
of
cost
beneficial
20
regulation.
In
this
situation
I
think
there's
a
21
clear
picture
developing.
We
have
a
choice.
We
can
22
choose
between
relying
on
the
in­
situ
data
which
is
57
1
highly
unlikely
to
be
consistent
with
what's
in
the
2
pile.
We
know
that
time
and
time
again
from
project
3
after
project.
We
know
that
that's
going
to
result
4
in
significantly
greater
disposal
costs.
On
a
large
5
scale
dredging
project
it
could
add
50
to
a
hundred
6
million
dollars
on
a
large
scale
project.
You
apply
7
that
to
medium
and
small
projects
across
the
country
8
and
you're
talking
about
an
incredible
change
in
the
9
cost
component.
This
will
be
disruptive.
This
will
10
cause
all
kinds
of
heartburn.
And
it's
not
a
11
situation
where
we're
getting
any
incremental
12
environmental
benefit.
We
could
be
more
protective
13
and
cost
effective
at
the
same
time
and
that's
14
really
what
our
mandate
is
from
Congress
under
the
15
regulations.
So
that's
why
it's
here
and
we
urge
16
consideration
of
that.

17
Couple
final
points.
We
believe
that
the
18
practice
of
allowing
impacted
dredge
sediments
like
19
their
sisters
on
lands,
the
soils,
containing
less
20
than
50
parts
per
million
should
continue
to
be
21
considered
non­
TSCA
remediation
waste
and
disposable
22
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
And
we
are
58
1
mostly
dealing
with
water
and
sediment,
we
do
2
support
the
USWAG
comment
that
relates
to
this
issue
3
as
it
addresses
soils
and
we
strongly
believe
and
4
concur
that
sound
science
and
policy
dictate
that
5
the
characterization
of
the
material
should
be
what
6
governs
the
appropriate
disposal,
not
whether
you're
7
under
sub(
a)
or
sub(
b).
We
want
to
apply
it
as
it
8
really
exists
in
the
field.

9
So
in
conclusion,
the
Sediment
Management
10
Work
Group
believes
that
TSCA
regulations
in
11
numerous
places
­­
I
forgot
one,
the
subsection
12
under
TSCA
that
allows
for
a
risk­
based
approach,
if
13
all
else
fails
and
if
one
is
hung
up
on
the
as­
found
14
terminology,
you
have
this
fallback
which
is
let's
15
take
a
step
back,
let's
see
if
this
is
an
16
unreasonable
risk
and,
if
not,
we
have
the
17
flexibility
in
our
own
program
to
make
adjustments
18
and
to
bless
this
as
a
scientifically
preferable
19
approach.
That's
an
important
point
as
well.

20
Underscoring
the
fact
that
we
have
the
tools,
we
21
have
the
words,
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
clarify
22
that
it's
the
ex­
situ
location
after
dewatering
59
1
where
the
sampling
should
occur.
Then
we'll
have
a
2
protective,
sound
science
and
cost­
effective
3
approach.

4
So
the
Sediment
Management
Work
Group
5
urges
EPA
to
either
clarify
these
existing
6
regulations
in
a
way
that
parties
dealing
with
7
sediment
and
dredged
sediment
can
deal
with
them
as
8
they
do
now
after
the
material's
out
of
the
water
9
and
dewatered
or
if
there's
still
a
problematic
10
concern
that
an
express
guidance
or
clarification,
a
11
change
in
the
regulation,
be
made
consistent
with
12
that
policy.
Thank
you.

13
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you
very
much.
Theresa
Pugh,

14
American
Public
Power
Association.

15
MS.
PUGH:
Thank
you
very
much.
Good
morning.

16
My
name
is
Theresa
Pugh.
I'm
the
director
of
17
environmental
services
at
American
Public
Power
18
Association,
APPA.
We're
the
trade
association
for
19
the
2000
state
and
municipal
utilities,
very
much
20
like
our
colleagues
sitting
down
here
from
USWAG,

21
except
we're
­­
the
utilities
are
run
by
state
and
22
local
government.
So
everything
that
I
say
is
60
1
relevant
to
the
issue
of
SBREFA.

2
Public
power
is
the
term
for
a
2000
state
3
municipal
utilities
owned
by
their
local
4
governments.
We
service
about
40
million
people
5
across
the
U.
S.
in
49
states,
all
but
Hawaii,
and
6
these
utilities
are
typically,
most
typically,
have
7
less
than
50
employees.
That's
another
factor
I'd
8
like
you
to
consider,
both
for
SBREFA
because
the
9
vast
majority
of
our
utility
members
both
meet
the
10
definitions
of
SBREFA
but
they
have
less
than
50
11
municipal
utility
employees.
There
are
exceptions
12
to
that.
But
this
is
significant
when
you're
trying
13
to
deal
with
waste
definition,
and
so
many
of
the
14
commenters
talked
about
some
of
the
inconsistencies
15
in
the
definitions
and
how
clarification
would
be
16
very
helpful
and
that's
especially
true
for
state
17
and
local
government.

18
75
percent
of
our
members
are
located
in
19
communities
with
populations
of
10,000
people
or
20
less
and
those
are
the
people
who
pay
their
electric
21
bills
and
that's
how
we
pay
for
all
capital
and
22
operating
expenses.
Because
of
the
diverse
nature
61
1
of
public
power
we
are
extremely
interested
in
EPA's
2
effort
here
to
look
at
this
issue
and
highly
3
recommend
the
comments
offered
earlier
this
morning
4
by
Jim
Roewer,
director
of
USWAG,
and
by
Larry
5
Linden
of
Constellation.
In
fact,
I
haven't
heard
6
anything
yet
this
morning
that
I
disagreed
with
from
7
the
prior
speakers.
I
don't
know
Mr.
Gledhill
(
who
8
spoke
earlier)
but
I
particularly
appreciated
the
9
comments
that
he
offered
and
thought
that
some
of
10
them
were
particularly
sage
because
he
addressed
both
11
the
risk
issues
and
the
economic
issues
and
because
12
of
his
prior
position
as
OMB.

13
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
directly
14
go
to
the
main
points
without
reiterating
all
the
15
things
that
USWAG
said
so
well.
We
endorse
the
USWAG
16
comments
and
think
that
they
make
a
lot
of
sense.

17
We'd
like
it
if
you
give
some
opportunity
for
18
additional
comment
over
the
next
month
or
so,
60
19
days
would
be
really
helpful.

20
One
reason
that
APPA
is
really
interested
21
in
this
is
because
these
costs,
these
expenses,
if
22
they
were
saved
from
our
local
and
state
government
62
1
entities
would
have
a
direct
bottom
line
on
the
2
taxpayer
and
it's
not
always
you
can
say
that,
but
3
this
is
a
case
where
you
can
because
a
number
of
our
4
utilities
sent
me
notes
and
gave
examples
of
what
5
the
costs
are
doing
it
under
the
TSCA
approach
versus
6
going
through
the
local
municipal
landfill
and
the
7
cost
differences
are
pretty
enormous.
And,
again,

8
I'd
like
to
endorse
what
Larry
said
and
what
­­

9
certainly
what
Jim
Roewer
said,
but
let
me
give
you
10
a
couple
real
world
examples
that
might
be
helpful.

11
I
asked
some
of
our
members,
what
is
the
12
most
typical
PCB
problem
now.
Because
to
be
honest
13
some
of
our
members
are
moving
away
from
PCBs,

14
they're
using
soy­
based
products,
trying
to
get
away
15
from
PCBs
because
that's
what
the
local
community
16
expects
of
them,
but
we
can't
get
away
from
PCBs
17
everywhere.
We
still
use
them.
They're
still
18
necessary.
But
where
possible
we
have
seen
the
19
moving
away
from
PCB
in
a
number
of
our
large
20
utilities.
A
couple
examples
as
small
as
Waverly,

21
Iowa,
I
think
EPA
is
aware
of
because
EPA
has
22
endorsed
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
done
in
63
1
Waverly,
all
the
way
up
to
utilities
as
large
as
2
Sacramento
Municipal
Utility
District
in
Sacramento,

3
California.
4
But
expecting
a
total
elimination
of
PCB
5
is
really
not
the
world
in
which
all
state
and
6
municipal
utilities
operate
in.
A
number
of
them
7
have
PCB
remediation,
frankly,
when
somebody
drives
8
into
a
utility
pole
in
a
car
accident
then
the
9
utility
must
take
steps
to
remediate
that
soil.

10
That
is
the
most
typical
example
of
what
a
APPA
11
member
has
got
to
deal
with.
It's
usually
not
a
12
on­
facility
spill
typically,
it's
a
spill
in
the
13
community
where
somebody
drives
into
a
streetlight.

14
The
car
accident
is
the
most
typical
cause
that
we
15
got
back
from
our
members
when
we
asked
them
what's
16
the
most
typical
reason
you're
having
to
do
PCB
17
remediation
now.

18
One
of
the
things
that
we
asked
them
were
19
some
costs
because
we
thought
that
might
be
helpful
20
to
you
all.
And
here's
a
couple
of
examples
I
got.

21
One
of
the
members
in
the
Southwest
wrote
me
last
22
week
that
the
difference
in
making
the
determination
64
1
on
a
TSCA
permitted
landfill
remediation
and
a
2
municipal,
which
obviously
since
we're
state
and
3
local
government
we
want
to
do
the
right
thing
like
4
everybody
else,
but
we're
also
trying
to
keep
our
5
costs
down.
The
cost
difference
is
enormous.
The
6
TSCA
permitted
landfill
is
approximately
$
140
a
ton,

7
but
if
we
went
to
the
state
and
local
government
or
8
municipal
government
which
we're
a
part
of
landfill,

9
usually
down
the
road,
it's
eight
dollars
a
ton.

10
This
represents
an
enormous
cost
difference
to
the
11
taxpayer.
And
I
think
the
other
speakers
addressed
12
it
far
better
than
I
ever
could.
The
risk
situation
13
is
really
not
sufficient
to
drive
these
costs
in
most
14
cases.

15
I'd
like
to
also
add
to
the
fact
that
this
16
doesn't
consider
the
fact
that
our
guys
typically
17
don't
have
a
full
load
for
transporting
the
capacitor
18
or
few
hundred
pounds
of
soil.
So
they're
paying
19
the
TSCA
permitted
transportation
company
and
the
20
landfill
company
a
full
load
cost
when
really
they
21
may
only
have
one
barrel
or
even
a
half
of
a
truck
22
load.
This
transportation
cost
issue
is
something
65
1
that
I
don't
think
the
call
for
comments
actually
2
address.
There
are
a
lot
of
incidental
costs
that
3
the
program
­­
what
my
members
describe
as
the
law
4
of
unintended
consequences.
Our
folks
are
having
to
5
pay
for
a
full
load
to
get
TSCA
landfill
companies
6
or
their
transporters
to
come
out
and
pick
up
and
7
haul
the
waste,
but
we
don't
have
a
full
load,
we
8
may
only
have
a
couple
hundred
pounds
in
some
9
cases
or
a
half
ton
but
not
a
full
truckload,
which
10
is
typically
1
ton
to
2,000
pounds.
And
this
is
11
something
that
our
members
have
asked
that
12
clarification
here
would
be
particularly
helpful
13
since
their
most
common
soil
remediation
is
a
few
14
hundred
pounds
not
even
a
full
truck
load.

15
One
member
recorded
that
the
costs
of
16
disposing
the
soil
in
the
TSCA
landfill
where
17
there's
a
long
distance
of
traveling
involved
is
18
about
$
1250
a
ton.
I
had
another
member
that
19
offered
it
was
about
$
2200
a
ton.
So
there's
some
20
pretty
wide
variation
in
costs
here.
When
I
asked
21
why,
it
was
really
how
close
they
were
to
the
TSCA
22
permitted
landfill.
And
even
though
we're
all
over
66
1
the
country
in
49
states
except
for
Hawaii
it
looked
2
like
a
great
number
of
our
members
were
somewhere
3
between
600
and
900
miles
away.
And
I
have
to
tell
4
you
that
was
a
rough
estimate.
And
that's
not
5
necessarily
our
commercial
transport
carrier
lines
6
and
that
sort
of
thing.
But
600
to
800
miles
away
7
is
a
pretty
far
stretch
for
a
lot
our
members
in
8
paying
those
transportation
costs.

9
So
really
without
reiterating
all
the
10
things
that
USWAG's
Jim
Roewer
said
so
well
and
so
11
did
all
the
other
prior
speakers,
I'd
just
like
to
12
encourage
you
to
take
a
very
pragmatic
view.
We're
13
state
and
local
government,
just
like
the
industrial
14
folks
and
the
investor
utilities.
We're
trying
to
do
15
the
right
thing,
but
it
sure
would
be
helpful
if
we
16
could
actually
do
something
that's
safe
for
the
17
environment
and
also
save
the
taxpayers
money.

18
Thank
you
all
very
much.

19
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you
very
much.
We
have
a
20
little
bit
more
time.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
21
would
like
to
make
comments
who
didn't
sign
up?

22
MR.
CHOUDHURY:
Good
morning.
My
name
is
Raj
67
1
Choudhury
and
I
am
a
manager
in
the
Washington
office
2
of
General
Motors
Corporation.
I
would
like
to
3
voice
our
support
for
the
preceding
comments
of
the
4
American
Chemistry
Council's
PCB
Panel
and
USWAG
5
regarding
the
call
for
harmonization
of
less
than
50
6
ppm
PCB
remediation
wastes
based
on
their
as­
found
7
concentrations
­­
namely,
that
all
such
waste
may
8
safely
be
disposed
of
within
municipal
solid
waste
9
landfills.

10
We
believe
that
such
harmonization
is
11
justified
from
an
environmental
risk
perspective,

12
which
clearly
should
­­
from
a
public
health
and
13
safety
perspective
­­
be
the
determining
factor
for
14
disposal
requirements.

15
By
clarifying
that
PCB
remediation
waste
16
found
at
the
less
than
50
ppm
level
can
be
disposed
17
of
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills,
EPA
will
free
18
up
more
limited
TSCA­
regulated
landfill
space
19
which
could
then
be
better
used
for
relatively
higher
20
risk
requisite
disposals.
This
logic
makes
sense
21
to
us
from:
environmental
protection;
cost;

22
efficiency;
and
social
welfare
perspectives.

68
1
Thank
you.

2
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you
very
much.

3
MR.
RAPER:
Good
morning.
My
name's
Stephen
4
Raper,
I
represent
a
solid
waste
facility
who's
5
permitted
to
take
PCBs
less
than
50.
Unfortunately
6
I'm
not
a
landfill,
so
the
way
that
the
current
7
regulations
are
written
I
am
unable
to
receive
TSCA
8
regulated
waste
that
are
under
50
parts
per
million.

9
I
would
like
to
see
the
regulatory
changes
made
so
10
that
all
solid
waste
facilities
permitted
by
a
state
11
to
receive
PCBs
can
receive
PCBs
less
than
50
ppm
12
regardless
if
they
are
generated
from
a
site
with
13
PCBs
greater
than
50
ppm.
I
believe
this
single
14
change
will
increase
the
amount
of
disposal
options
15
for
the
generating
facilities,
reduce
costs
and
in
16
the
case
of
our
facility
reduce
the
future
liability
17
for
the
generator,
in
that
we're
actually
destroying
18
the
PCBs
as
opposed
to
just
burying
it.
A
lot
of
the
19
comments
I've
seen
and
what
I've
heard
today
is
that
20
everybody
is
focusing
on
landfills.
There
are
other
21
technology
out
there.
Thermal
desorption
which
is
22
already
commonly
used
in
treating
a
lot
of
PCB­
type
69
1
waste
whether
at
a
fixed
facility
or
brought
in
2
specifically
for
the
job
specifically
permitted
for
3
and
meets
guidelines
defined
in
the
regulations
for
4
TSCA
waste.
But
here
we
are
with
a
facility
permitted
5
by
the
state
to
accept
PCBs
less
than
50
ppm
and
we
6
would
just
like
to
see
some
regulatory
change
brought
7
in
to
allow
us
to
help
you
with
your
problem.

8
Thank
you
very
much.

9
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Any
additional.

10
MR.
SLESINGER:
My
name
is
Scott
Slesinger.

11
I'm
with
the
Environmental
Technology
Council.
I
12
represent,
relevant
for
today's
hearing,
TSCA
13
landfills
and
treatment
facilities
in
the
United
14
States.
I
do
not
have
a
prepared
statement.

15
First,
I
want
to
agree
with
a
couple
of
16
the
statements
that
were
said,
first
by
Jim
Roewer
17
of
USWAG.
Our
council
agrees
with
his
comments
18
that
we
need
additional
time
to
comment.
We
think
19
that
the
request
for
comment,
coming
out
at
the
end
20
of
June,
was
a
little
late
for
us
to
get
some
of
21
the
technical
background
that
we
think
is
necessary
22
to
comment
fairly.
We
also
agree
with
one
of
the
70
1
recommendations
of
Lawrence
Linden
of
Constellation
2
Energy
about
the
risk­
based
cleanup
options.
If
3
EPA
did
provide
some
guidance,
better
guidance,
if
4
each
cleanup
did
not
require
EPA
case­
by­
case
5
approval
that
could
help
speed
up
the
cleanups.

6
These
delays
are
understandably
a
major
concern.

7
One
thing
I
would
like
to
talk
about
in
8
general
and
we
will
go
into
more
detail
in
our
9
written
comments
that
we
will
submit
later,
and
that
10
is
the
argument
that
if
50
ppm
of
PCBs
can
go
to
11
municipal
landfills
in
one
case,
it
must
be
safe
for
12
all
PCBs
under
50
ppm
to
be
disposed
in
such
13
landfills.
I'll
give
you
an
example
in
RCRA
with
14
CAMU
sites,
Corrective
Action
Management
Units.
If
15
you're
doing
a
cleanup
on
your
site
you're
allowed
16
to
put
remediation
waste
in
a
single
lined
landfill
17
on
your
site.
If
you
send
it
off
site
to
one
of
18
our
facilities
that
are
double­
lined
Subtitle
C
19
landfills
that
are
built
specifically
to
take
20
hazardous
waste,
you
are
required
to
pre­
treat
the
21
waste
before
disposal.
Why
would
EPA
require
more
22
pre­
treatment
if
the
waste
is
going
to
a
better,

71
1
more
protective
facility,
then
if
it
was
disposed
in
2
an
inferior
facility
on
site?
Part
of
the
reason
has
3
to
do
with
liability.
The
theory
of
EPA
is
that
if
4
you're
going
to
leave
it
on­
site
you
are
liable
if
5
there's
any
problems.
If
there's
a
leak,
you
are
6
the
liable
party.
If
it
goes
to
one
of
our
7
facilities,
your
liability
is
not
as
clear.
I
8
believe
this
is
analogous
to
this
situation
when
you
9
use
the
self­
implementing
option,
you
can
dispose
of
10
low
level
of
PCBs
in
a
D
landfill.
If
you
use
this
11
option
you
are
required
to
tell
people
in
advance
12
where
you're
going
to
put;
you
have
a
plan
with
very
13
detailed
sampling
and
your
plan
must
be
approved
by
14
regulators.
In
these
cases
it
makes
sense
to
send
15
some
wastes
to
a
D
landfill.
If
cleanups
are
going
16
to
be
undertaken
without
all
the
protections
of
the
17
self­
implementing
option,
it
makes
more
sense
to
18
require
the
PCBs
to
be
disposed
in
a
more
protective
19
TSCA
landfill.
I
disagree
with
the
argument
that
EPA
20
was
arbitrary
and
just
said
if
you
go
through
option
21
(
a)
you
have
an
easy
way
to
dispose
of
PCBs
and
if
22
you
go
through
option
(
b)
it's
a
harder
way.
There
72
1
are
logical
reasons
for
treating
cleanups
under
(
a)

2
and
(
b)
differently.
I
would
note,
despite
the
3
excellent
companies
represented
here
today,
improper
4
handling
of
PCBs
wastes
occurs
all
the
time.
For
5
instance,
a
lot
of
PCB
wastes
are
theoretically
6
household
exempt.
All
our
companies
do
household
7
waste
cleanups.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
one
of
the
8
paint
cans
that
are
brought
to
our
site
or
that
we
9
pick
up
says
"
Sherwin
Williams"
paint
but
there
10
will
be
one
quarter
inch
of
paint
and
the
rest
is
11
illegally
filled
with
PCB
dielectric
fluids.

12
This
is
not
a
legal
way
to
get
rid
of
waste
but
13
that
is
a
very
typical
way
that
high
levels
of
PCB
14
waste
ends
up
at
our
household
hazardous
waste
15
cleanup
activities.
In
fact
we
had
one
facility
16
that
sent
such
waste
to
one
of
their
facilities
in
17
Canada
and
the
Prime
Minister
and
the
President
18
of
the
United
States
were
involved
in
getting
the
19
waste
back
into
the
United
States.
There
are
people
20
out
there
who
do
get
rid
of
PCB
waste
without
the
21
protectiveness,
the
attorneys,
the
planning
of
22
the
sophisticated
companies,
such
as
those
73
1
represented
by
USWAG
and
ACC.
I
think
a
lot
of
2
the
requirements
under
761.61(
a)
makes
sense
and
3
should
be
encouraged.
One
of
the
incentives
is
that
4
your
cleanup
will
be
less
expensive
because
you
can
5
send
your
PCBs
below
50
parts
per
million
in
a
6
Subtitle
D
landfill.
I
would
note
that
we
will
have
7
prepared
remarks
especially
if
the
time
is
extended.

8
Thank
you.

9
MS.
DOA:
Thank
you.
Would
anyone
else
like
to
10
make
comments?

11
Well,
first
of
all
I
would
like
to
thank
12
everyone
for
taking
the
time
to
come,
everyone
­­

13
the
presenters
for
taking
the
time
to
prepare
the
14
comments,
they
were
very
informative
and
very
15
helpful.
I
think
that
they
will
be
key
in
16
developing
a
response
to
OMB.
And
there
are
really
17
a
lot
of
issues
that
you
guys
thought
long
and
hard
18
about
and
raised.
On
the
extension
of
the
comment
19
period
for
60
days,
we
will
get
back
to
you
by
the
20
end
of
the
week
and
we
will
contact
folks,
if
not
21
sooner.
And
also
we'll
post
something
on
the
Web
22
for
those
that
didn't
specifically
ask
for
it.

74
1
Q
If
you
decide
not
to
allow
additional
2
comments,
I
know
you
have
a
schedule
to
respond
to,

3
do
you
expect
to
allow
some
time
for
written
4
comments
list?
At
this
point
the
notice
didn't
5
provide
any
provisions
for
submitting
direct
6
comments
at
all.

7
MS.
DOA:
Yes,
we'll
post
it
on
the
Web.

8
Again,
thank
you
very
much.
This
was
extremely
9
informative
and
helpful.

10
(
Meeting
was
adjourned
at
11:
30
a.
m.)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
