EPA ICR No. 1446.10; OMB Control No. 2070-0112

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 APPENDIX E

Summary of Public and Consultative Comments and EPA’s Response to All
Comments 

(Copies of public comments are available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  at Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0910)

May 6, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Response to Comments on the PCB Consolidated Reporting and
Recordkeeping 			Requirements Information Collection Request Renewal 

FROM: 	Maria J. Doa, Director /s/

		National Program Chemicals Division

TO: 		Angela Hofmann, Director

		Regulatory Coordination Staff

	In proposing to renew ICR number 1446.10, on December 29, 2010, EPA
published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on
the ICR and its supporting statement (75 FR 82007).  The 60-day public
comment period ended February 28, 2011.  In response to the notice, EPA
received two sets of written comments, submitted by the Utilities Solid
Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and the Color Pigments Manufactures
Association (CPMA). 

	In addition, concurrent with the public comment period for this ICR
renewal, EPA conducted a consultative outreach effort.  EPA contacted
seven individuals to solicit their opinion on the PCB recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.  EPA received two responses.  EPA received oral
comments from the American Gas Association (AGA) and comments from Guy
Donzella, EPS Industries.  Below is a brief summary of the comments made
and the responses to them: 

A. Public Comments

1. USWAG: 

USWAG did not object to EPA’s proposal to renew the existing ICR. 
USWAG commented that there has been a 10 percent decline in the number
of newly discovered PCB transformers and that since the last ICR renewal
there has been a decrease in the number of PCB waste items listed on
manifests, a decrease in the number of reports on which PCB wastes were
listed, and a decrease in the number of certificates of disposal for PCB
wastes.    

Response: This comment raises issues outside the scope of the ICR
exercise.  No change was made to the supporting statement based on this
comment. 

	

USWAG commented that there has been a decrease in the number of PCB
spills and the number of spills required to be reported to the National
Response Center (NRC). USWAG also commented on the limitations of the
NRC spill data.

	

Response: This comment raises issues outside the scope of the ICR
exercise.  No change was made to the supporting statement based on this
comment. 

2. CPMA:

CPMA commented in support of the existing regulatory structure for the
control of inadvertent de minimis PCBs in excluded products and
processes.  CPMA further commented that EPA’s recent proposal to
eliminate the excluded products and processes regulation under 40 CFR
section 761 would impact significantly numerous important color pigments
and be unreasonable, unnecessary, and not cost effective. 

	

Response: This comment raises issues outside the scope of the ICR
exercise.  No change was made to the supporting statement based on this
comment. 

CPA commented that the cost estimates for the burden of compliance
provided in the PRA supporting statement significantly underestimate the
costs of compliance with the reporting obligations because the cost of
management time is missing from the estimate of costs. 

	

Response: This comment did not provide sufficient detail on what amount
of management supervision the commenter believes is needed for the
maintenance of records.  EPA believes that a minimal amount of
management supervision is necessary to ensure records are compiled and
maintained.  EPA revised its burden estimate to include .5 hours of
managerial time and reduced its estimate of the technical time by .5
hours.  

CPA commented that the cost estimates for the burden of compliance
provided in the ICR’s supporting statement significantly underestimate
the costs of compliance with the reporting obligations because the costs
of sampling and analyzing products for PCBs is not included in EPA’s
cost estimates. 

Response: The burden of sampling and analyzing the data are outside the
scope of this ICR exercise.  These comments relate to substantive
compliance with the regulations, not record keeping and reporting
burdens.  No change was made to the supporting statement based on this
comment.

B. Consultative Comments 

1. American Gas Association (AGA)

AGA’s oral comments expressed concern with the requirement that if PCB
testing reveals greater than 50 ppm PCBs, that the collection point or
source must be tested every year until there are two successive tests
indicating less than 50 ppm PCBs.  According to AGA some collection
points become dry holes, so such testing would never reveal less than 50
ppm PCBs.  Wipe samples were suggested. 

Response: EPA is aware of these industry concerns; however they are
outside the scope of this ICR exercise.  EPA plans to address issues
like these in its forthcoming rulemaking (see 75 FR 17645).  No change
was made to the supporting statement based on this comment.

AGA comments expressed concern that sampling data may need to be kept
perpetually.  

Response:  EPA notes that 40 CFR section 761.30 (i)(1)(iii)(C) requires
records to be maintained “for 3 years after the PCB concentration in
the component or segment is reduced  to <50ppm.” No change was made to
the supporting statement based on this comment.  

2. Guy Donzella, EPS Industries 

Mr. Donzella commented that some of the data EPA is seeking may be
available through the regional coordinators, inspectors, or other
personnel.  Also, he commented that some states such as New York collect
data on PCBs.

Response:  EPA’s regional coordinators receive this information based
on the requirements of the underlying regulations which the ICR
supports.  Because the PCB program is not a delegated program, State
information is not uniform or complete enough to be a viable data source
for EPA’s data needs.  No change was made to the supporting statement
based on this comment.

Mr. Donzella believed it was clear what is required for data submission.

	Response: No response is required for this comment. 

Mr. Donzella commented that he would be interested in an electronic data
submission option, preferably a secured web based data submission
system.  Mr. Donzella also commented that signatures should be handled
via PINS and passwords on a secured web system.  He commented that there
would be a significant increase in efficiency if companies could submit
raw data in comma delimited fields.   

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that a move toward electronic
manifesting as soon as feasible would be beneficial to both the Agency
and the public.  As EPA noted in 2004, the RCRA program has the lead on
this initiative for the uniform hazardous waste manifest, as the use of
the manifest for PCBs in 40 CFR part 761 is modeled on the RCRA
regulations.  EPA further notes that since 2004 the Agency is much
closer to implementation of electronic manifesting under RCRA and that
legislation to fund this program is under consideration in Congress. 
Once electronic manifesting for hazardous waste has been implemented, it
may be possible to implement compatible electronic manifesting
requirements for PCBs.  EPA appreciates the information provided by Mr.
Donzella and will take it into account as it explores electronic
manifesting issues. 

Mr. Donzella agreed with EPA’s estimated burden and costs.

Response: No response is required for this comment. 

