[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-29569] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: December 6, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 761 [OPPTS-66019; FRL-4904-5] RIN 2070-AB20 Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce; Proposed Decisions on Exemption Petitions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed Rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) bans the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and the use of PCBs unless the PCBs are totally enclosed. Section 6(e) gives EPA authority, however, to allow these activities if the Administrator finds that they will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. This proposed rule addresses 19 individual petitions under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) for exemptions from the prohibition against the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In this proposed rule EPA proposes to deny eight petitions and to grant seven petitions; four petitions were withdrawn by the petitioners. DATES: Written main comments on this proposed rule must be received by February 6, 1995. If requested in writing by December 20, 1994, an informal hearing will be held in Washington, DC on a date to be announced later. ADDRESSES: Comments should reference docket #OPPTS-66019 and should be sent to TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, EPA/Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Room B-607, Northeast Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Hazen, Director, Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Rm. E-543B, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551, FAX: (202)554-5603 (document requests only). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) bans the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and the use of PCBs unless the PCBs are totally enclosed. Section 6(e) gives EPA authority, however, to authorize these PCB activities if the Administrator finds that they will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. TSCA provides that EPA may set terms and conditions, including recordkeeping and reporting requirements, for granting an exemption. I. Background A. Statutory Authority Section 6(e) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2605(e), generally prohibits the manufacture of PCBs after January 1, 1979, the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs after July 1, 1979, and the use of PCBs after October 11, 1977, unless otherwise permitted. While section 6(e)(2)(A) of TSCA bans the use of PCBs in any manner other than a totally enclosed manner, section 6(e)(2)(B) provides that the Administrator may by rule authorize the use of PCBs if such use will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Section 6(e)(3)(A) of TSCA prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs except for the distribution in commerce of PCBs that were sold for purposes other than resale before July 1, 1979. Section 6(e)(3)(B) provides that any person may petition the Administrator for an exemption from the prohibition on the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. The Administrator may by rule grant an exemption if the Administrator finds that: (i) an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment would not result, and (ii) good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for such polychlorinated biphenyl. (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3)(B)(i)-(ii)). The Administrator may set terms and conditions for an exemption and may grant an exemption for not more than 1 year. Section 6(e)(1) also authorizes EPA to regulate the disposal of PCBs consistent with the provisions in section 6(e)(2) and (3). EPA has issued a regulation that authorizes the import for disposal of PCBs with concentrations below 50 ppm. PCBs with greater concentrations, currently may only be imported for disposal pursuant to an exemption granted by EPA based upon the criteria discussed above. B. Regulatory Authority EPA's Interim Procedural Rules for manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemptions describes the required content for the manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemption petitions and the procedures EPA follows in rulemaking on exemption petitions. Those rules are codified at 40 CFR 750.10 through 750.41. These rules were amended effective April 11, 1994, by notice in the Federal Register (59 FR 16991). EPA's Procedural Rule for rulemaking under section 6 of TSCA, which governs use authorizations for PCBs, is found at 40 CFR 750.1 through 750.9. C. History of this Rulemaking EPA received for consideration 18 new exemption petitions and 1 renewal petition under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B) which are the subject of this proposed rule. The requests for exemption are as follows: 1. S.D. Myers submitted four individual petitions seeking approvals to import PCB Transformers from Canada for disposal, to import PCB Capacitors from Canada for metal recovery and disposal, to import PCB fluids from Canada for disposal, and to import PCB containing light ballasts from Canada for disposal. 2. Electrical Apparatus Service Association (EASA) submitted a petition seeking to renew their approval to process and distribute in commerce for reuse non-porous component parts from PCB-Contaminated Transformers that have been double washed/rinsed. 3. MTM Research Chemicals, Inc. submitted a petition seeking approval to export PCBs that had been shipped illegally to the United States and also to import four PCBs (less than 500 grams per chemical) to be distributed in commerce for use in microscopy (this petition was withdrawn by the petitioner). 4. Sigma-Aldrich Corporation submitted a petition seeking approval to process and distribute in commerce for export small quantities of PCBs for research and development. 5. Millipore Corporation in conjunction with Immunosystems Inc. submitted two petitions, one petition seeking approval to process and distribute in commerce for export small quantities of PCBs for research and development and the other petition seeking approval to process and distribute in commerce small quantities of PCBs for research and development, characterized as the development of a PCB product (the second petition was withdrawn by the petitioner). 6. Triangle Labs submitted a petition seeking approval to import small quantities of PCBs in water, soil and air matrices for purposes of analysis (this petition was withdrawn by the petitioner). 7. General Electric submitted a petition seeking approval to manufacture small quantities of PCBs for use on-site in EPA-authorized research activities. 8. Edwin Kraemer submitted a petition seeking approval to process and distribute in commerce products made from PCB-contaminated fluff. 9. Jaco Analytical Laboratory submitted a petition seeking approval to import transformer oil samples for testing. 10. ENSR submitted a petition seeking approval to use carbon drums to filter PCBs from silicone-filled transformers and to transfer these drums between customers as in-service equipment (this petition was withdrawn by the petitioner). 11. Chemsyn Science Laboratories submitted a petition seeking approval to manufacture and import PCBs for export and domestic use for the production of analytical standards. 12. Dangerous Goods Consultants submitted a petition seeking approval to import laboratory samples from Canada for treatability. 13. Supelco, Inc. submitted a petition seeking to manufacture small quantities of PCBs for research and development. 14. National Institute of Standards and Technology submitted a petition seeking to export small quantities of PCBs for research and development. 15. ERTHCO Environmental Service, Inc. submitted a petition seeking to import transformer oil samples for analysis. II. Findings Necessary to Grant Petitions A. Unreasonable Risk Finding Before granting an exemption petition, section 6(e)(3)(B)(i) of TSCA requires the Administrator to find that granting an exemption would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment in the United States. Consistent with the principle that persons seeking an exemption from a legislative prohibition bear the burden of demonstrating eligibility for that exemption, EPA has interpreted this provision to require a petitioner to demonstrate that the proposed activity would not pose an unreasonable risk. To determine whether a risk is unreasonable, EPA balances the probability that harm will occur to health or the environment against the benefits to society from granting or denying each petition. (See generally, 15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1).) Specifically, EPA considers the following factors: 1. Effects of PCBs on human health and the environment. In deciding whether to grant an exemption, EPA considers the magnitude of exposure and the effects of PCBs on humans and the environment. a. Health effects. EPA has determined that PCBs are toxic and persistent. PCBs can enter the body through the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and skin, can circulate throughout the body, and can be stored in the fatty tissue. b. Environmental effects. Certain PCB congeners are among the most stable chemicals known, which decompose very slowly once they are released in the environment. PCBs are absorbed and stored in the fatty tissue of higher organisms as they bioaccumulate up the food chain through invertebrates, fish, and mammals. This ultimately results in human exposure through consumption of PCB-containing food sources. c. Risks. Toxicity and exposure are the two basic components of risk. Based on animal data, EPA concluded that in addition to chloracne, PCBs may cause developmental toxicity, reproductive effects, and oncogenicity in humans. EPA also concluded that PCBs present a hazard to the environment. A lengthy discussion of these factors is provided in the preamble to the August 24, 1988 proposed exemption rule (53 FR 32327). 2. Benefits and costs. The benefits to society of granting an exemption vary, depending on the activity for which the exemption is requested. The reasonably ascertainable costs of denying an exemption vary, depending on the individual petition. EPA has taken benefits and costs into consideration when evaluating each exemption petition. B. Good Faith Efforts Finding Section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) of TSCA also requires the Administrator to find that ``good faith efforts have been made to develop a chemical substance which does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and which may be substituted for [PCBs].'' Based upon general legal principles allocating the burden of proof to the person seeking to qualify for an exemption, EPA has interpreted this provision to require that a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that it has made the requisite good faith efforts. EPA considers several factors in determining whether good faith efforts have been made. For each petition, EPA considers the kind of exemption the petitioner is requesting and whether the petitioner expended time and effort to develop or search for a substitute. In each case, the burden is on the petitioner to show specifically what they did to substitute non-PCB material for PCBs or to show why it was not feasible to substitute non-PCBs for PCBs. To satisfy this finding for requests for an exemption to import PCBs, a petitioner must show why such activity must occur in the United States and what steps will be taken to eliminate the need to import PCBs in the future. III. Explanation of Class Exemption for Research and Development Distinct from its authority to exempt PCBs from the ban on manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce, EPA may also authorize the use of PCBs. EPA authorized, indefinitely, the use of PCBs in small quantities for research and development in the Use Authorization Rule, 40 CFR 761.30(j), published in the Federal Register of July 10, 1984 (49 FR 28154). ``Small quantities for research and development'' is defined at 40 CFR 761.3 as ``any quantity of PCBs (1) that is originally packaged in one or more hermetically sealed containers of a volume of no more than 5.0 milliliters, and (2) that is used only for purposes of scientific experimentation or analysis, or chemical research on, or analysis of PCBs, but not for research or analysis for the development of a PCB product.'' The processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs in small quantities for use in research and development is allowed under a class exemption in the PCB Exemptions Rule, 40 CFR 761.80(g), published in the Federal Register of August 8, 1986 (51 FR 28556). This rule eliminated the need for each person who wishes to process and distribute small quantities of PCBs in commerce for research and development to file an individual exemption petition. EPA placed the following terms and conditions on the class exemption: That all processors and distributors maintain records of their PCB activities for a period of 5 years; and that any person or company that expects to distribute in commerce 100 grams (0.22 lb.) or more of PCBs for research and development within a 1-year period must report to EPA and identify the sites of PCB activities and the quantities of PCBs to be distributed in commerce. The processor or distributor could process and distribute PCBs in commerce and, provided it gives proper prior notification to EPA, increase the amounts of PCBs that are processed and distributed in commerce, until EPA takes action to issue a final rule that changes (e.g., terminates) the applicability of the exemption at Sec. 761.80(g) to the processor or distributor. In granting a class exemption, EPA retains the authority to terminate the class exemption, or to exclude any distributor from the class exemption, upon determining the activities allowed in the class exemption will pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Any changes in the disposition of the class exemption, or the status of individuals within the class exemption, will be accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking and members of the class will be allowed to continue activities until a final rule is promulgated. IV. Disposition of Pending Exemption Petitions A. Import EPA received eight exemption petitions to import PCBs. Two of these petitions were withdrawn by the petitioners. 1. S.D.Myers, Inc. (Myers). EPA has received a total of four petitions from S.D. Myers, Inc. of Talmadge, Ohio, to import large volumes of PCB waste from Canada for disposal. The first petition was received by EPA on May 15, 1991, the second and third were both received on September 9, 1992, and the fourth was received on October 27, 1993. a. Current petitions. Myers processes PCBs for disposal. It has received approval from EPA to: disassemble, decontaminate, and recycle capacitors, to operate a mobile PCB disposal process, and it has received interim approval to commercially store PCBs. The petition received on May 15, 1991 (Petition 1) is to import drained PCB Transformers from Canada for purposes of disposal at Myers' facility in Talmadge, Ohio. The petition requests a 5-year exemption, without a limit on quantity. Petition 1 cites data that 21,000 PCB Transformers are in storage for disposal in Canada, and that an additional 10,000 PCB Transformers are still in service, but could be imported for disposal. Myers estimates that if all 31,000 transformers were imported into the United States, approximately 1.8 million pounds of PCBs in those transformers would enter the United States. Once at Myers' facility, the transformers would be disposed of in accordance with Myers' permit from EPA Region V. The transformers would be disassembled, metallic portions would be decontaminated and subsequently smelted for metal recovery, and residual PCBs and porous materials would be shipped off site to a TSCA-permitted incinerator. Myers' second petition, received on September 9, 1992, (Petition 2) is to import intact, non-leaking PCB Capacitors from Canada for disposal. The capacitors would be disposed of by Myers through a disassembly, decontamination, and materials recycling process similar to its transformer process. Myers is permitted by EPA Region V to process capacitors for disposal. Petition 2 requests a 5-year exemption, with no limit on quantity. Myers states that there are 18.6 million pounds of PCB capacitors in Canada, and estimates that 13 million pounds of PCB waste requiring incineration would be generated by the processing of these capacitors at its facility. The third petition, also received on September 9, 1992, (Petition 3) is a request to import askarel PCB liquids (500 ppm and over) from Canada to the United States for purposes of disposal. The petition cites data that 40 million pounds of high-concentration fluid is present in Canada. Myers would transport the PCBs to a TSCA-approved incinerator for disposal. The PCBs would not be disposed of at Myers' Talmadge, Ohio, facility, but some might be stored there before being incinerated elsewhere. Myers is a permitted PCB transporter and has interim approval as a commercial storer of PCBs. Petition 3 also requests a 5-year period with no limit on quantity. Myers' fourth petition, received by EPA on October 27, 1993, (Petition 4) is to import intact, non-leaking PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts from Canada for disposal. The ballasts would be taken to Myers' facility, where they would be processed to recover reclaimable metals, and the contaminated materials remaining would be shipped off site to a TSCA-approved incinerator. EPA Region V has permitted Myers' ballast disposal method. Myers is requesting an exemption for a 5-year period, and estimates that 60 million pounds of PCB containing light ballasts are present in Canada [Canadian Government data from 1991 actually estimates that there are 60 million units present in Canada, which have a total weight of 220 million pounds (see ``Canadian PCB Summary: A Summary of National PCB Inventory'' January, 1991)]. Myers provides estimates that indicate about 20 percent of the ballast weight would consist of unrecoverable PCB waste [44 million pounds] requiring incineration. In all four petitions, Myers asserts that since EPA has permitted their disposal processes based on the fact that these processes do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, this finding should be applied to any PCB waste imported from Canada for purposes of disposal. Petition 3, which does not involve in-house disposal activities but only transportation and storage, cites the overall safety record and safety procedures of the company as grounds for a no unreasonable risk finding, and specifically asserts that Myers' PCB tank truck fleet ``has not had an accident or spill when moving PCBs.'' In terms of benefits, Myers estimates in Petition 1 that by importing all of Canada's PCB transformers, it would generate $180 million in service fees, and an additional $20 million in scrap metal sales. Petitions 2, 3 and 4 are estimated to generate revenues of $46 million, $30 million, and $45 million, respectively. Myers estimates that Petition 3 would earn a profit of $20 million for Myers and the incinerators (the other petitions do not provide profit estimates). In addition, Petitions 2 and 4 state that each would create an additional 20 jobs. Other benefits mentioned in the petitions include speeding the removal of PCBs from North America and a lowering of disposal costs for companies in Canada. In response to the good faith efforts criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) have been met, Myers maintains in all four petitions that this criteria is not applicable to his petitions. Petition 1 does, however, go on to state that Myers has investigated the possibility of destroying these wastes in Canada, but concluded that it would not be politically or economically feasible to do so. b. Proposed decision on petitions. EPA proposes to deny all four petitions from S.D. Myers. EPA has determined that the petitioner has failed to establish that there is no unreasonable risk as required in TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B). The petitioner has not demonstrated how the benefits accruing from granting these petitions would outweigh the risks inherent in the importation of PCB waste as proposed by petitioner. In addition, EPA believes that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it has made a good faith efforts to investigate and develop alternatives to import. EPA has already made a general determination that the import of PCBs into the United States and the distribution in commerce of PCBs present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment [See 40 CFR 761.20 and 44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979]. EPA has also stated that ``[i]t is the clear intent of TSCA to minimize the addition of PCBs to the environment of the United States.'' Id. Moreover, while EPA believes that there is always some risk inherent in the import of any quantity of PCBs, the large quantities that Myers would import significantly increases the risk. All four of Myers' petitions would involve the importation, transportation, and disposal of very large quantities of PCB waste. Taken together, they would account for most of Canada's PCB fluids at concentrations over 500 ppm, as well as all of its PCB Transformers, PCB Capacitors and PCB-containing fluorescent light ballasts. Myers indicates in the four petitions that over a 5 year period it wishes to import a total of approximately 300 million pounds of PCB waste for disposal. Based on the data supplied in the petitions and supplemental information (see note to docket ``Calculations''), EPA calculates that the four petitions could involve the importation of up to 457 million pounds of PCB waste into the United States, for disposal either at Myers' Talmadge, Ohio facility, or, in the case of Petition 3, at an unspecified TSCA-approved incinerator. Prior to disposal, Myers would transport large quantities of PCB waste through the United States either to the Ohio site or to an incinerator. Subsequent to Myers' disposal activity in Ohio, an additional 60 to 90 million pounds of concentrated PCB waste (not counting any additional solvents and process waste that Myers would generate) would have to be transported from Ohio to a TSCA-approved incinerator. Currently, the closest available incinerator is located in Coffeyville, Kansas (Aptus, Inc.). In information supplemental to the petitions, Myers estimates that an average truckload for such waste would weigh 40,000 pounds. Using this estimate, EPA calculates that 7,500 to 11,750 truckloads of waste would be shipped to Talmadge, and an additional 1,500 to 2,250 truckloads would be shipped from Talmadge for incineration. Myers has failed to demonstrate that the proposed activity would not pose a risk to health and environment in the United States. The introduction and disposal of large volumes of PCBs would pose some risk of exposure, even if the PCBs are disposed of in an EPA-permitted facility such as Myers' Ohio facility or other TSCA-approved incinerator. In addition, the large volumes of PCBs that would be transported to various facilities in different parts of the United States pose a potential risk of spills or other exposure to PCBs despite the past safety record of the transporting company. Myers also has failed to submit adequate information with respect to the benefits of the proposed activity. Myers states that one of the benefits would be additional revenues for the company. With the exception of Petition 3, however, Myers has provided revenue information only with respect to gross revenues. Gross revenue estimates tend to overinflate the actual financial benefit to the petitioner. To properly evaluate the financial impacts, EPA needs additional information regarding any costs that might offset projected gross revenues. In addition, Myers has failed to substantiate its claim that the United States would benefit by the removal of PCBs that are stored in Canada and the elimination of possible risk of crossborder contamination. EPA acknowledges that there is a possibility that some PCBs stored in Canada could pose some risk to health or environment in the United States. Myers, however, has not presented factual information to demonstrate why PCBs stored in Canada pose such a risk or to show the extent of the risk to health and environment in the United States. The Canadian government regulates the storage and disposal of PCBs in that country which should provide adequate protection against releases or spills that could threaten the United States. Moreover, Canada possesses a domestic disposal facility, and is in the process of expanding its PCB disposal resources (Memo from Bryan to Greenwood, June 25, 1991). The government also has some mobile disposal facilities. Id. Some of these facilities may be available to dispose of the PCBs that Myers proposes to import into the United States. Myers also states that lowered disposal costs for Canadian companies constitute an additional benefit of the proposed activities. Under TSCA, however, EPA does not consider benefits that may occur accrue to foreign businesses, just as it does not consider risks that do not threaten domestic health or the environment. EPA is proposing to deny Myers' petitions because Myers has failed to demonstrate that the risks of the proposed activity are reasonable when weighed against the benefits, particularly in view of the limited information available to substantiate the alleged benefits. Myers contends that the proposed disposal activities do not pose an unreasonable risk by noting that the facilities that would dispose of the PCBs are permitted by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 761.60(e). Section 761.60(e) authorizes EPA to issue a permit if the method of destroying PCBs will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Under this provision, EPA weighs the risk of the disposal methodology against the benefits to the health and environment in the United States. The fact that EPA has determined that the benefits outweigh the risks when the activity involves the disposal of domestic PCBs that are already present in the United States, however, does not demonstrate that the benefits outweigh the risks when the activity involves disposing of foreign PCBs that would be introduced into this country. The introduction of additional PCBs that would otherwise not be in the United States adds an additional factor to the risk/benefit equation. EPA further finds grounds to deny the petitions based on the good faith efforts criteria of TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii). Petition 1 maintains that this criteria is ``not really applicable,'' in that Myers only wishes to import PCBs for disposal, and not for use in commerce; however, the petition does go on to discuss other disposal options. The subsequent three petitions simply state that the good faith efforts criteria does not apply, and provide no discussion of alternatives. While, strictly speaking, section 6(e)(3)(B)(ii) refers to finding substitute chemicals, EPA believes that under this section it must generally consider the issues of the availability of alternatives, and the overall necessity for granting an exemption. The alternative to importation of Canadian PCB waste into the United States for destruction is to destroy those wastes in Canada itself. Myers maintains in Petition 1 that it has investigated the possibility of setting up a facility in Canada to recycle/destroy PCB Transformers, and it concluded that it would be uneconomical and politically difficult to establish a facility in Canada. However, Myers fails to demonstrate that establishing a facility in Canada is not feasible; rather, Myers only forwards arguments as to why doing so is less expedient and less profitable for Myers than importing the waste to its existing facility in the United States. Myers does not provide any evidence that it made substantial good faith efforts to pursue such an option before it petitioned the Agency for this exemption. More importantly, Canada already possess a domestic disposal facility, and is in the process of expanding its PCB disposal resources. There are no technological barriers to the effective destruction of PCBs in Canada that would necessitate their shipment to the United States for safe disposal. Myers has not demonstrated the necessity for the PCBs in question to be imported to the United States for disposal, and accordingly EPA finds that all four petitions have failed to meet the good faith efforts criteria. Although Myers has not submitted adequate information to allow the Agency to make the requisite findings for these four specific exemptions to import Canadian PCBs for disposal, EPA is considering whether to amend existing PCB disposal rules to modify the general restriction on the import of PCBs with 50 ppm or greater for disposal. EPA believes that opening the border to allow import for disposal may have far-reaching consequences and that it is preferable to raise the issue of the transboundry movement of PCB waste generally in the proposed disposal rules rather than to examine it in isolation in the context of individual company's petitions for exemption. In the proposed disposal rules, EPA is requesting comment on the circumstances under which the United States border should be opened to the transboundry shipments of PCBs for disposal. The proposal, if finalized, would retain the general prohibitions on import of PCB wastes at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, with certain exceptions described in more detail in the preamble to the proposed disposal rule. 2. Gene Rideout Dangerous Goods Consultants, Inc. (DGC). On December 27, 1993, Dangerous Goods submitted an exemption petition to import laboratory samples from Canada for treatability studies. DGC is a consulting firm which is based in Ontario, Canada, and which also is incorporated in the state of New Jersey. a. Current petition. The petitioner requests to import PCB waste samples, primarily soil samples, not to exceed 5 kilograms total weight. DGC estimates that samples would be shipped no more than once a week. Assuming weekly shipments of 5 kilograms each, approximately 260 kilograms of soil and other media would be imported annually. If granted an exemption, DGC expresses an intent to renew their exemption for up to 5 years. Treatability analysis would be conducted at unidentified client laboratories in the United States (DGC is a consulting firm and does not operate its own laboratory facilities). The petitioner claims that PCBs in the waste samples would normally be destroyed during treatment and analysis, but if any remained, the residuals could be returned to Canada if EPA so stipulates. According to DGC, the capability to treat/analyze such PCB waste samples does not exist in Canada at this time, but at least one U.S. laboratory possesses such technology. DGC believes that such capability should be developed in Canada within 4 or 5 years time. DGC does not claim any economic losses to the United States would result from a petition denial, but it maintains that without this exemption, PCB-contaminated soil in Canada will remain untreated until Canada develops this laboratory technology domestically. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to deny this exemption petition. EPA has determined that, in general, the import (manufacture) of PCBs into the United States and the distribution in commerce of PCBs present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment [See 40 CFR 761.20 and 44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979]. EPA has also stated that ``[i]t is the clear intent of TSCA to minimize the addition of PCBs to the environment of the United States.'' Id. DGC has not demonstrated what benefits would accrue to the United States through the granting of its petition, and how those benefits would outweigh the risk inherent in importation of PCB wastes. Accordingly, EPA cannot make the finding that granting this petition will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. In addition, EPA finds that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the good faith efforts criterion, i.e., DGC has not demonstrated that there is no viable alternative to importing these samples into the United States. According to the Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories, there are laboratories within Canada capable of conducting PCB analysis. The petition does not provide any details on the unidentified U.S. laboratory's techniques, why the Canadian laboratories are unable to provide such analysis, or why developing such technologies would take Canadian laboratories so long. Further, the petition fails to justify how the shipment of individual laboratory samples to the United States will expedite the cleanup of PCB- contaminated sites in Canada: cleanup of these sites will not occur until the Canadians develop their own domestic ability to apply such technologies in situ on a large commercial scale. EPA notes that the primary reason it closed the border in 1980 was to encourage foreign countries to develop their own capacity for properly handling and disposing of PCB waste. [See 45 FR 29115, May 1, 1980]. The Agency believes that granting this petition might actually hinder Canadian efforts to develop a domestic treatment capability. 3. Jaco Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (Jaco). On June 14, 1993, Jaco (formerly National Chem Lab) submitted an exemption petition to import oil samples from transformers from Canadian utilities to test for PCBs, and to return (export) to the Canadian utilities any unused samples that test positive for PCBs following their analysis. On May 13 1994, Jaco amended its petition and notified EPA that National Chem Lab has been acquired by Jaco. a. Current petition. The sample sizes would be 2.5 milliliters per sample of oil. These samples would then be analyzed for PCB content. Following their analysis, waste oil 499 ppm or less would be recycled in a high efficiency boiler at Big Stone Utility; and waste oil 500 ppm or greater would be sent to Aptus for incineration. Jaco estimates that based on a submittal rate of 50,000 samples per year, the total volume of PCBs to be imported would be 6 gallons. Jaco maintains that historical laboratory data indicates that less than 5 percent of the samples are in the PCB classification (over 50 ppm). In addition, Jaco estimates that their volume of waste oil greater than 499 ppm would only increase by 3 gallons annually. During analysis, Jaco states that the 1 microliter injected into the Gas Chromatograph (GC) is destroyed in the destructive detector and the residual oil from this process contains no PCBs since the extraction process removes the PCBs from the oil. Further, the 9.4 milliliters of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane that is used in the extraction process and remaining after the GC sample is run, is separated from the acid and reclaimed in a distillation process for reuse. This recycling of the solvent used in the extraction eliminates the need for solvent disposal. Jaco states that the economic consequences of denial would be greater for the Canadian utilities. In their petition, Jaco indicates that Canadian utilities currently pay $100.00 per sample, while Jaco's cost is $15.00 per sample. Jaco maintains that denial of their petition would limit the growth of Jaco (4 additional jobs) and the number of non-farm jobs available in Eastern Washington State. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to deny this exemption petition. EPA has determined that the petitioner has failed to establish that there is no unreasonable risk as required in TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B). The petitioner has not demonstrated how the benefits accruing from granting these petitions would outweigh the risks inherent in importation of PCB waste. EPA has determined that the import (manufacture) of PCBs into the United States and the distribution in commerce of PCBs present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment (See 40 CFR 761.20 and 44 FR 31514 and 31537, May 31, 1979). EPA has also stated that ``[i]t is the clear intent of TSCA to minimize the addition of PCBs to the environment of the United States.'' Id. In 1980, EPA issued a policy that encouraged foreign countries to develop their own capacity for properly handling and disposing of PCB waste. (See 45 FR 29115, May 1, 1980). Further, EPA has determined that the petitioner has not met the good faith efforts criterion. Although no non-PCB substitutes can be used for the analysis of PCBs, the petitioner has not demonstrated or provided any convincing rationale as to why there is a necessity for the PCBs to be imported into the United States, solely for the purpose of analysis. According to the Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories (CAEL), there are analytical laboratories within Canada for conducting PCB analysis (See CAEL lists of accredited and certified labs - January, 1994). EPA does not want to encourage the expansion of PCB products or PCB services for companies when there are feasible alternatives already in place. 4. ERTHCO Environmental Service, Inc. (ERTHCO). On March 4, 1994, ERTHCO submitted an exemption petition requesting to import from the Philippines samples of oil for PCB analysis. a. Current petition. The petitioner states that the oil samples from transformers and other electrical equipment would be in vials of 5 milliliter or less. These samples would be collected from clients of their Manila Branch Office and submitted through the Rancho Cordova/ Sacramento Office to Analytical Associates Inc. located at 4011 Power Inn Road, Suite G, Sacramento, CA, 95826. The petitioner states that the analytical evaluations (e.g., dielectric breakdown voltage, acid number, dissipation factor, etc.) of these samples is in an effort to assist power utilities in understanding the inner performance of their electrical equipment. The petitioner expects that a maximum of 3 liters of fluid (250 ml or 50 samples less than 5 milliliters), with a PCB concentration range from 0 to 100 percent, would be imported in 1 year. The petitioner states that PCB release prevention measures would be implemented for their shipments. In addition, the petitioner would require all contracting laboratories to handle the samples in an environmentally sound manner, throughout the process and up to final disposal. The petitioner states that the no unreasonable risk criteria would be met because no handling of the PCBs would take place outside of an experienced laboratory. Transportation of the samples would be according to International Air Transportation Authority (IATA) guidelines. In quantifying the economic consequences if their petition were denied, the petitioner states that there is major economic benefit to be realized, but an accurate estimate of the economic impact cannot be given at this time. Moreover, the petitioner believes that it may be liable if this activity is not allowed because the petitioner's operation in the Philippines would not be able to properly determine risks to personnel safety and the environment. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to deny ERTHCO's exemption petition. EPA has determined that the petitioner has failed to establish that there is no unreasonable risk as required in TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B). The petitioner has not demonstrated how the benefits accruing from granting these petitions would outweigh the risks inherent in importation of PCB waste. EPA has determined that the import (manufacture) of PCBs into the United States and the distribution in commerce of PCBs present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment (See 40 CFR 761.20 and 44 FR 31514 and 31537, May 31, 1979). EPA has also stated that ``[i]t is the clear intent of TSCA to minimize the addition of PCBs to the environment of the United States.'' Id. In 1980, EPA issued a policy that encouraged foreign countries to develop their own capacity for properly handling and disposing of PCB waste. (See 45 FR 29115, May 1, 1980). Further, EPA has determined that the petitioner has not met the good faith efforts criterion. Although no non-PCB substitutes can be used for the analysis of PCBs, the petitioner has not demonstrated or provided any convincing rationale as to why there is a necessity for the PCBs to be imported into the United States, solely for the purpose of analysis. EPA does not want to encourage the expansion of PCB products or PCB services in the United States when there are feasible alternatives already in place. C. Export EPA received four petitions to export PCBs. One of these petitions was withdrawn by the petitioner. 1. Sigma-Aldrich Corporation (Sigma-Aldrich). On May 6, 1992, Sigma-Aldrich submitted an exemption petition to export small quantities of PCBs for research and development to the international monitoring community for use in the identification and quantification of environmental contaminants. On May 24, 1994, Sigma-Aldrich submitted an amendment to its petition. a. Current petition. Sigma-Aldrich states that they obtain PCBs for environmental monitoring purposes from companies already exempted by EPA. These PCBs are analyzed for quality control by highly trained chemists using gas chromatography and then prepared as analytical reference standards. The PCB standards are prepared in concentrations not exceeding 1,000 micrograms per milliliter in organic solvent. The standards will be packaged in volumes of 1 milliliter in flame sealed amber glass ampules. The ampules will be packaged using die-cut cardboard inserts that hold the ampules securely in place inside a rigid cardboard box which will be overpacked in a box that has been tested, certified and labelled according to Department of Transportation (DOT) specifications. Sigma-Aldrich also states that all shipping will be done in observance of all domestic and foreign transportation requirements. The processing of these standards will be performed at the Sigma-Aldrich facility at 3500 DeKalb Street, St. Louis, Missouri. The maximum total volume of PCB solution will not exceed 5 liters and the maximum total PCB volume contained in the solution will not exceed 5 milliliters. Sigma-Aldrich estimates that the total amount of PCBs to be exported in 1 year will not exceed 100 grams or 0.220 pounds. According to Sigma-Aldrich the analytical work will generate a wastestream that contains a maximum of 2.5 milligrams of PCBs, while the processing wastestream will not exceed 5.0 milligrams of PCBs. Sigma-Aldrich states that these wastestreams will be handled in accordance with 40 CFR part 761, subpart K. In its petition, Sigma- Aldrich also states that through customer screening they will ensure proper handling of the materials by qualified personnel. Sigma-Aldrich estimates that denial of this petition will result in a loss in revenue of $60,000 per year. In a letter dated March 24, 1994, Sigma-Aldrich amended their petition to include an exemption to export small quantities of Carbon 14-labelled PCBs for sale to foreign customers for use in the performance of metabolic and environmental fate studies. Sigma-Aldrich synthesizes Carbon 14-labeled PCBs in small quantities for metabolism and environmental research according to their existing exemption. Sigma-Aldrich's existing exemption for manufacturing PCBs for these products is in the name of Pathfinder Laboratory which is now the Radiochemicals Department of Sigma Chemical Company (part of Sigma- Aldrich Corporation). The petitioner states that these Carbon-14 PCBs are analyzed by highly trained chemists using high pressure liquid chromatography in a quality control laboratory. Packaging for these items consists of flame-sealed glass ampules containing less than 0.5 milliliters of solvent. The primary container is overpacked using packing material and a second box that is DOT specified and labeled. The petitioner also states that if the petition is granted, applicable foreign requirements for air, land and water transportation will be followed. In addition, the wastestream that is produced during the synthesis and analysis will be absorbed on silica gel and solidified in concrete prior to storage in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. The activity for this petition will be conducted at 11542 Fort Mims Drive, St. Louis, Missouri. The petitioner maintains that the total number of ampules to be distributed in a year will not exceed 500, at less than 5 milligrams of PCBs per ampule. The petitioner also states that through a customer screening procedure, the PCBs would be handled by qualified personnel and should not present a risk of injury to health or the environment. The petitioner estimates that denial of this petition would result in a loss of up to $100,000 per year in sales from foreign distributors. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant the Sigma- Aldrich an exemption for 1 year to export small quantities of PCBs for research and development under Sec. 761.80(c). The Agency generally treats petitions for exemption to export PCBs more stringently than petitions to distribute PCBs within the United States. This is because once the PCBs cross beyond our borders, the United States loses its ability to monitor the handling and distribution activities, to inspect the receiving facilities for any regulatory violations, or to protect health or the environment from releases of those PCBs that might lead to additional PCB contamination in this country. However, EPA believes that those concerns are mitigated in the export of PCBs in small quantities for research and development particularly given the viscosity, quantity, marking, and packaging of the PCBs, as well as the careful handling of the PCBs by trained personnel as described in the petition and amendment. Since there are no substitutes for PCB analytical samples, the good faith efforts finding has been met. Sigma-Aldrich would be prohibited from exporting PCBs in excess of the amounts and quantities specified in its petition (i.e., less than 100 grams/year - Petition 1 and less than 2.5 grams/year - Amendment), and would be required to petition EPA and obtain an exemption prior to an increase in the quantity or a change in the manner of handling PCBs under the Sigma-Aldrich exemption. EPA would consider any such change as a new exemption petition and address the request by rulemaking. If Sigma-Aldrich were to wish to continue its export activities beyond the 1-year timeframe under the EPA approved exemption, a certified letter, pursuant to the amended Interim Procedural Rules, would have to be submitted to EPA at least 6 months prior to the expiration of the exemption. 2. Millipore Corporation and ImmunoSystems, Inc. On May 6, 1992, Millipore Corporation and ImmunoSystems, Inc. requested an exemption to process and distribute in commerce for export small quantities of PCBs for research and development. a. Current petition. The petitioners seek to process and distribute for export small quantities of PCBs for research and development. Specifically, the petitioners seek to export their product, the EnviroGardPCB Test Kit to 42 of their international distribution subsidiaries. The petitioners state that the EnviroGard PCB Test Kit is an immunoassay-based test kit for the analysis of PCBs in soils, water, oil and other liquids. The petitioner currently processes and distributes in commerce small quantities of PCBs under the class exemption at 40 CFR 761.80(g). The components of the kits which contain PCBs (Aroclor 1248) are EnviroGard PCB Positive Calibrators at 7 ppm, 10 ppm and 45 ppm in methanol. The EnviroGard PCB Test Kit is an analytical test kit that is used by trained professional chemists and engineers who are involved in the remediation of PCBs. The petitioners predict that 250 to 500 kits will be sold overseas per year. Based on these numbers each kit would contain 6.7 micrograms of Aroclor 1248 in 0.3 milliliters of methanol, yielding a total of 0.0017 to 0.00335 grams of Aroclor 1248 in 75 to 150 milliliters of methanol exported in a year. The petitioners state that the kits will expand existing conventional technologies such as gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy by offering a safe, reliable, economic, and expedient way of screening negative samples from positive samples. Positive samples are later confirmed with conventional techniques and are disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. There are no substitutes available which can be used to accurately determine the presence of PCBs, since known concentrations of PCBs must be used in the calibrators that contain known concentrations of PCBs. The petitioners estimate that the cost of denial of this petition could cause a loss in revenue amounting to $0.25 million the first year and $2 to 4 million in 5 years. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant Millipore Corporation and ImmunoSystems, Inc. an exemption for 1 year to export small quantities of PCB for research and development under Sec. 761.80(c). As stated above, EPA generally treats petitions for exemption to export PCBs more stringently than petitions to distribute PCBs within the United States. This is because once the PCBs cross beyond our borders, the United States loses its ability to monitor the handling and the distribution activities, to inspect the receiving facilities for any regulatory violations, or to protect health or the environment from releases of those PCBs that might lead to additional PCB contamination in this country. However, EPA believes that those concerns are mitigated in the export of PCBs in small quantities for research and development particularly given the viscosity and quantity of the PCBs involved, as well as the careful handling of the PCBs by trained personnel as described in the petition. Further, since no PCB substitutes exist that can be used to determine the presence of PCBs, the good faith efforts criterion has been met. The petitioners would be prohibited from exporting PCBs in excess of the amounts and quantities specified in their exemption petition, and would be required to petition EPA to obtain an exemption prior to an increase in the quantity or a change in the manner of handling PCBs under the Millipore/ImmunoSystems exemption. EPA would consider any such change as a new exemption petition and address the request by rulemaking. If the petitioners were to wish to continue its export activities beyond the 1-year timeframe under the EPA approved exemption, a certified letter, pursuant to the amended Interim Procedural Rules, would have to be submitted at least 6 months prior to the expiration of the exemption. 3. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). On July 1, 1991, NIST submitted an exemption petition to export small quantities of PCBs for research and development to the international monitoring community for use in the identification and quantification of environmental contaminants. a. Current petition. NIST currently offers for sale Standard Reference Materials (SRMs) that were produced and/or characterized with financial support from U.S. Government Agencies, including EPA. These SRMs were used for environmental monitoring and research. The petitioner states that these SRMs in the form of Aroclor mixtures and as individual isomers, both neat and in solution are distributed in sealed 2 milliliter ampules pursuant to the class exemption at 40 CFR 761.80(g). NIST states that the PCBs they analyze are obtained from commercial sources. Once received, these PCBs are analyzed by their Organic Analytical Division and/or the Gas and Particulate Science Division. The petitioner maintains that the material is handled by professional scientists and technicians. Once the analysis is complete, the petitioner states that the liquids are packaged in hermetically sealed ampules and the sediment is contained in amber bottles by trained staff following proper safety precautions. The materials are packaged using the NIST logo which indicates the presence of PCBs. The petitioner states that the PCB materials received for SRM development are analyzed for their content only, no residual material is produced. Each SRM is accompanied by a certificate that provides the results of the characterization and indicates the intended use of the material. In addition, the petitioner states that because of their congressional mandate to serve as the nation's physical laboratory and the legal ramifications of a certified NIST SRM, other governments, industry and others seek out NIST for its SRMs. The petitioner states that estimating the economic consequences of denying their petition is difficult to quantify. However, when monitoring the import of goods and produce containing PCBs residues, the petitioner believes an inaccurate PCB analysis could cost human lives and billions of dollars in produce. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant the NIST's petition. The Agency generally treats petitions for exemption to export PCBs more stringently than petitions to distribute PCBs within the United States. This is because once the PCBs cross beyond our borders, the United States loses its ability to monitor the handling and distribution activities, to inspect the receiving facilities for any regulatory violations, or to protect health or the environment from releases of those PCBs that might lead to additional PCB contamination in this country. However, EPA believes that those concerns are mitigated in the export of PCBs in small quantities for research and development particularly given the viscosity, quantity, and packaging of the PCBs, as well as the careful handling of the PCBs by trained personnel as described in the petition. Since there are no substitutes for PCB analytical samples, the good faith efforts finding has been met. NIST would be prohibited from exporting PCBs in excess of the amounts and quantities specified in its petition (i.e., less than 500 grams/year), and would be required to petition EPA and obtain an exemption prior to an increase in the quantity or a change in the manner of handling PCBs under the NIST exemption. EPA would consider any such change as a new exemption petition and address the request by rulemaking. If NIST were to wish to continue its export activities beyond the 1-year timeframe under the EPA approved exemption, a certified letter, pursuant to the amended Interim Procedural Rules, would have to be submitted to EPA at least 6 months prior to the expiration of the exemption. D. Processing and Distribution in Commerce EPA received one petition requesting an exemption to allow the processing and distribution in commerce of PCBs. Edwin C. Kraemer. On January 30, 1993, Edwin C. Kraemer requested an exemption to process and distribute in commerce products made from PCB containing car shredder waste or fluff. a. Current petition. In the petition, Edwin Kraemer states that he seeks to use a procedure that converts car shredder waste or fluff (less than 50 ppm) into a product filler which will constitute a commodity in trade. The process Mr. Kraemer proposes to use is a mechanical process which specializes in grinding to a microstructure size resulting in filler material. Mr. Kraemer maintains that these fillers can be flame retarding, lightweight, compressible, absorbent, and have sound proofing, thermal insulating and energy absorbing characteristics. As described in the petition, items to be manufactured using this process include, but are not limited to: product filler, absorbent, solid bulk filler, substitute for concrete fill, ceiling tile, adobe block, brick, concrete block, insulation panels for walls and ceilings, packaging, furniture and mattress stuffing, gymnastics mats, safety barriers, sound insulation, replacement for asbestos, injection moulding filler, fire retardant coating, plaster board or building panel filler. Mr. Kraemer proposes to conduct his initial work using material from the Orange County Steel Salvage Company which he states is considered one of the most contaminated sites in the country where 50,000 tons of contaminated material has been stockpiled. Based on the 50,000 tons of contaminated material, Mr. Kraemer estimates that 10,000,000 lbs. will be processed onsite at a concentration of 30 ppm PCBS, for a total of 300 lbs of PCBs. Mr. Kraemer also asserts that the PCB contamination is not the result of shredding appliances, motors and transformers or PCB Items, but is actually attributable to the use of plastics and finishes in products. The petitioner maintains that due to the low concentrations and the anticipated nonfriable uses, that any release of PCBs to the environment is unlikely. In addition, the petitioner states that the predictable and anticipated level of inadvertently generated PCBs in any end product will be kept under 25 ppm; therefore, the manufacturing or processing for commercial purposes of products with PCB concentrations of less than 50 ppm should be excluded from the prohibitions of TSCA section 6(e)(2) and (3). The petitioner states that he does not see a need for any special labelling, disposal and recordkeeping requirements, since he is not producing a PCB Item, article, equipment or container. The petitioner states that denial of this petition would eliminate a potential $18.5 million (cost for disposal) savings for the State of California and a potential $50 million in profit. If the exemption is granted and the process is successful, the petitioner states that it would generate employment, eliminate a hazardous waste, recycle a strategic material, conserve landfill space and protect the environment and public safety on a long term basis. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to deny the petition submitted by Edwin C. Kraemer. Although EPA agrees that conversion of fluff into viable products for trade might ameliorate the disposal problem in the area of PCB-contaminated fluff, EPA would not be able to make a finding of no unreasonable risk to health and the environment in this instance due to insufficient data to support such a finding. EPA encourages the petitioner to continue to pursue research in this area in order to generate more data in support of this petition. The good faith efforts criterion would have been met because the use of a substitute is not applicable in this instance in that this proposal seeks to provide an alternative to disposal for PCB-contaminated fluff. E. Manufacture EPA received two petitions to manufacture PCBs. 1. General Electric (GE). On November 16, 1992, GE submitted a petition to manufacture small quantities of PCBs for use on-site in EPA- authorized research activities. a. Current petition. GE seeks to synthesize small quantities of PCBs for use on-site in EPA-authorized activities. In the petition GE states that ongoing and future research involving the remediation of PCB-contaminated media requires ready access to a supply of individual PCB congeners of a known quality and quantity, which is currently not readily available commercially. This activity would be conducted at GE- Corporate Research and Development, River and Van Antwerp Roads, Niskayuna, New York, 12309. The petitioner states that the PCB congeners will be synthesized only as necessary for specific EPA-authorized research experiments while the amount of PCBs to be synthesized will be determined by the project specific requirements. The petitioner estimates that the total amount of PCBs to be synthesized will be limited to 2 kilograms per year, and the total amount of PCBs synthesized with bench-scale laboratory procedures will be limited to a maximum theoretical yield of 150 grams or less per experiment. The petitioner maintains that the accidental release of PCBs is prevented by the use of apparatus such as condensers, cold traps, molecular sieves, or filters for retaining all reactants and reaction products. Also, reaction products and waste materials will be analyzed for PCB content, handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. As described in the petition, PCB congeners are needed for research into developing alternative PCB remediation methods and innovative PCB destruction methods; therefore, use of a PCB substitute would not be feasible. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant GE an exemption for 1 year to manufacture small quantities of PCBs for use on-site in EPA-authorized activities. Because the research is being conducted by highly trained and experienced professionals under controlled conditions and only small quantities are involved, EPA finds that no unreasonable risk will result from granting an exemption to GE to manufacture small quantities of PCBs for use on-site in EPA- authorized research activities. The good faith effort criterion has been met, because for research in development of alternative PCB remediation methods and PCB destruction methods, use of a PCB substitute may not be possible. GE would be prohibited from manufacturing PCBs in excess of the amounts and quantities specified in their exemption petition, and would be required to petition EPA to obtain an exemption prior to an increase in the quantity or a change in the manner of handling PCBs under the GE exemption. EPA will consider any such change as a new exemption petition and address the request by rulemaking. If GE were to wish to continue its export activities beyond the 1-year timeframe according to the EPA approved exemption, a certified letter, pursuant to the amended Interim Procedural Rules, would have to be submitted at least 6 months prior to the expiration of the exemption. 2. Supelco Inc. (Supelco). On July 31, 1990, Supelco submitted a petition to manufacture PCBs in small quantities for use in research and development. a. Current petition. Supelco seeks approval to manufacture individual pure PCB isomers in quantities of 0.02 to 0.04 pounds (i.e., 10 to 20 grams) each at its Supelco Park facility in Bellefonte, PA. The petitioner estimates that a 10 to 20 gram production lot of an individual pure PCB isomer would represent a 3 to 5 year supply. Total annual production is projected at less than 1 pound (i.e., 454 grams). The PCBs would be diluted in the microgram range and packaged for distribution in sealed vials for solids and amber ampules for liquids in either 5 milliliter or 1 milliliter quantities. Waste materials from the manufacture of PCBs would be manifested off-site for incineration in accordance with TSCA regulations. To produce unsymmetrical PCBs, Supelco proposes to use a modified Gomberg-Bachmann reaction. An aromatic amine, an organic nitrite, and excess substrate are heated for several hours. Distillation under vacuum removes the remaining substrate. Column chromatography and/or high pressure liquid chromatography yields the product. Supelco asserts the merits of the method are that most of the starting materials are readily available from commercial sources, the synthesis is a simple one-step reaction, the final products following chromatography are sufficiently pure (>97 percent), and the yields are relatively good (30 to 35 percent). To produce symmetrical PCBs, Supelco proposes to use replacement reaction of biphenylsulfonic acid with carbon tetrachloride. The reactants are heated in a Parr reactor for several hours at 250 deg. C and, after removal of excess solvent, the final product is obtained in high purity (>98 percent) and high yield (>80 percent). The synthesis of PCBs would be conducted in a controlled access laboratory that has been constructed for the preparation of hazardous chemicals by specially trained personnel in compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) requirements at 29 CFR part 1910, subpart Z. Standards would be distributed in sealed glass ampules, no larger than 5 milliliters, to analytical laboratories with personnel trained in the handling of hazardous materials. Processing and distribution in commerce activities would be conducted pursuant to the class exemption at Sec. 761.80(g), and although processing activities would be expected to reach a maximum of 150 grams, distribution activities would not be expected to exceed 100 grams and therefore would not trigger the reporting requirement of the class exemption. Supelco maintains that since it has been selected as the private industry participant in a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to produce and distribute organic quality control samples for EPA's EMSL-Cincinnati laboratory, the consequences of EPA's denial of its exemption would be a serious inconvenience to the EPA and an economic loss of not less than $100,000 annually in potential sales to Supelco, Inc. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant Supelco an exemption for 1 year to manufacture PCBs for use in small quantities for research and development under Sec. 761.80(f) . EPA believes that, due to the careful handling of PCBs by trained personnel as demonstrated in the petition, there would be no unreasonable risk presented by granting this exemption petition request. All manufacturing, processing and distribution activities would be performed at the Supelco, Inc. facility at Supelco Park, Bellefonte, PA. Since no PCB substitutes exist for analytical standards, the good faith effort criterion does not apply. Granting an exemption would benefit society by allowing important health, environmental, and analytical research to continue. EPA proposes to prohibit Supelco from manufacturing PCBs in excess of the amounts and quantities specified in its petition (i.e., not to exceed 1 pound). Further exemptions beyond the 1-year period would be subject to the amended Interim Procedural Rules at 40 CFR part 750. Supelco would be required to petition EPA to increase the amount of PCBs handled, and to change the type of activities, the procedures for handling the PCBs, and any other term under the Supelco exemption. EPA would consider any such change as a new exemption petition and address the request by rulemaking. If Supelco were to wish to continue its manufacturing activities beyond the 1-year timeframe, a letter sent by certified mail would have to be received by EPA at least 6 months prior to the expiration of the exemption pursuant to the amended Interim Procedural Rules. F. Manufacture, Import and Export EPA received one petition to manufacture, import and export PCBs. Chemsyn Science Laboratories (Chemsyn). On October 22, 1993, Chemsyn Science Laboratories submitted an exemption petition to manufacture/import and export PCBs in small quantities for research and development. Chemsyn is a manufacturer of chemical samples based in Lenexa, Kansas, and associated with Wellington Laboratories in Ontario, Canada. Chemsyn distributors are located in the United States, the Netherlands, Spain, Japan, and Italy. Chemsyn manufactures small quantity, high purity chemicals for use by industry, universities, government agencies, etc., for basic scientific research. Chemsyn produces standards such as radiolabelled, stable isotope labeled, and unlabelled environmental contaminants, including dibenzo-p-dioxins, chlorinated dibenzofurans, and EPA Method 1613 and 513 Standard Solutions. Samples are intended exclusively for laboratory applications. a. Current petition. Chemsyn wishes to add PCB analytical standards to its current selection of environmental contaminant standards. The petition estimates that not more than 50 grams of PCBs would be produced annually. Chemsyn will produce each PCB congener in milligram quantities, and then diluted to the necessary concentration for the appropriate standard. Chemsyn also will import some standards containing PCBs that will be made in Canada by its partner, Wellington Laboratories. All the PCB standards will be flame sealed in 2 ml ampoules, and will contain less than 1 g PCB per vial dissolved in 1.2 ml solvent. The PCB standards will be packaged and shipped in accordance with DOT shipping requirements. Chemsyn literature indicates that all toxic preparations are shipped with documentation sheets describing known hazards. Chemsyn expects production waste generation to be minimal due to the small production rate and batch size involved. These wastes will be treated as PCB wastes. Chemsyn asserts that it has a highly trained staff, including chemists involved in the development of PCB chemistry and standards with Midwest Research Institute. Chemsyn estimates annual sales from PCB standards would be approximately $30,000. b. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant the Chemsyn petition for manufacture, import, and export PCBs. EPA has previously established the need for analytical standards [49 FR 28154, July 10, 1984]. Because of this need, the small quantity limitations, and the carefully controlled conditions of PCB manufacture, EPA finds that no unreasonable risk would result from granting an exemption to Chemsyn to manufacture PCBs in small quantities for research or development. This finding also applies to the import of samples from Chemsyn's Canadian partner, Wellington Laboratories, provided that the imported samples are prepared, packaged, and labeled in the same manner as domestically produced samples. Because the manufacture of these analytical standards is being conducted by highly trained and experienced professionals under controlled conditions and only small quantities are involved, EPA finds that no unreasonable risk would result from granting this exemption. As such, EPA does not believe that the importation of these standards, when compared with their domestic manufacture, would pose any added risk to health or the environment. The Agency generally treats petitions for exemption to export PCBs more stringently than petitions to distribute PCBs within the United States. This is because once the PCBs cross beyond our borders, the United States loses its ability to monitor the handling and distribution activities, to inspect the receiving facilities for any regulatory violations, or to protect health or the environment from releases of those PCBs that might lead to additional PCB contamination in this country. However, EPA believes that those concerns are mitigated in the export of PCBs in small quantities for research and development particularly given the quantity, marking, and packaging of the PCBs, as well as the careful handling of the PCBs by trained laboratory personnel. This finding would be consistent with previous determinations regarding the export of PCB analytical samples for research and development [49 FR 28154]. EPA has determined that the good faith efforts finding would be met for petitions to manufacture, import, distribute or export PCBs in small quantities on projects consistent with the overall purposes of section 6(e) of TSCA, such as using PCBs as standards for the purpose of measuring PCB concentrations or using PCBs in the study of health and environmental effects of PCBs, because, in these cases, there are no PCB substitutes. There will always be a need for pure analytical standards to be developed to support laboratory analysis for PCBs. Also, pure PCBs are needed in critical health and environmental research because commercial PCBs contain mixtures of isomers and contaminants which may adversely affect experimental research. Chemsyn would be prohibited from exporting PCBs in excess of the amounts and quantities specified in its petition (i.e., less than 50 grams/year), and would be required to petition EPA and obtain an exemption prior to an increase in the quantity or a change in the manner of handling PCBs under the Chemsyn exemption. EPA would consider any such change as a new exemption petition and address the request by rulemaking. If Chemsyn were to wish to continue its export activities beyond the 1-year timeframe under the EPA approved exemption, a certified letter, pursuant to the amended Interim Procedural Rules, must be submitted to EPA at least 6 months prior to the expiration of the exemption. G. Processing and Distribution in Commerce of PCB in Buying and Selling Transformers 1. Electric Apparatus Service Association (EASA). On July 3, 1991, EASA submitted a petition requesting the renewal of their exemption which was originally granted in the May 22, 1990 Federal Register (55 FR 21023). This exemption allowed EASA members, for a period of 1 year, to process and distribute in commerce for reuse non-porous component parts from PCB-Contaminated Transformers that have been double washed and rinsed. a. Background. EPA determined in granting the original exemption that, due to the non-porous nature of these component parts and, also, because of the relatively small amounts of PCBs involved, the activity of reusing component parts presents no unreasonable risk to health and the environment. Regarding the benefits to society of granting this exemption, EASA maintained that, without access to their stockpiles of component parts, both economic loss to the member companies and detriment to the society would be incurred. EASA asserted that its members may be put out of business if reuse of these components were prohibited, due to their inability to repair transformers during the activities of buying and selling used transformers and servicing customers' transformers. Although EPA made no judgement regarding this claim, EPA acknowledged that without stocks of component parts, many transformers could not be repaired promptly and equipment users could experience interruptions of electrical services and could be forced to prematurely dispose of reusable units. To support its claim of good faith efforts to reduce inventories of PCB-contaminated components, EASA submitted evidence of their efforts to develop a double-rinse method to remove PCBs from the non-porous component parts that would be reused on the PCB-Contaminated Transformers. This double-rinse procedure employs a protocol similar to that in EPA's Spill Cleanup Policy (40 CFR part 761, subpart G). EASA maintained that the introduction of double-rinsed, non-porous component parts back onto the PCB-Contaminated Transformers would not change the original parts per million PCB content of the transformer into which the component part is incorporated. EPA concluded that the processing and distribution in commerce of the PCB residues on non-porous, double-rinsed transformer component parts as well as the buying and selling of PCB or PCB-Contaminated Transformers that have been serviced with double-rinsed, non-porous parts, meets both the no unreasonable risk and good faith effort criteria. EPA granted this class exemption for 1 year. EPA decided that in future requests for renewal of their (EASA) exemption, that EPA would consider the petitioner's evidence of no unreasonable risk and good faith efforts by evaluating whether stockpiles of component parts have been effectively decontaminated and also whether inventories of PCB and PCB-Contaminated Transformers in EASA's contained storage areas have been reduced. b. Current petition. In this petition EASA seeks to renew their exemption to process and distribute in commerce for reuse non-porous component parts from PCB-Contaminated Transformers that have been double washed/rinsed as granted in the May 22, 1990 FR 21023. EASA has submitted two additional reports from T R Service Company to support that the double wash/rinse method is effective to decontaminate non-porous components. As described in the renewal petition, one report showed that 20 samples were taken from 10 transformers and all showed PCB concentrations of less than 10 micrograms per 100 square centimeters. On June 12, 1990 the petitioner stated that it surveyed its members and of those that responded, only 20 percent were still handling mineral oil transformers 50 ppm or greater. In the petitioner's opinion the number of members with inventories of 50 ppm to less than 500 ppm has decreased significantly. c. Proposed decision on petition. EPA proposes to grant EASA's request for renewal of their exemption. EPA believes that EASA has fulfilled their responsibility in seeking to renew their exemption by demonstrating efficacy, a reduction in inventory and all other conditions as set forth in their original exemption. V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f), the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order. Pursuant to terms of this Executive Order, it has been determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to OMB review. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (the Act), 5 U.S.C. 603, EPA must perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules that are likely to have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which provides that section 603 of the Act ``shall not apply to any proposed or final rule if the Agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'', EPA certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, EPA is sending a copy of this rule to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Section 6(e)(3)(A) and (B) of TSCA and EPA's PCB Ban Rule, 40 CFR part 761, prohibits the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. This rule, under section 6(e)(3)(B) of TSCA, would exempt persons from these prohibitions where petitioners have demonstrated that granting an exemption would not result in an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment and that they have made good faith efforts to develop substitutes for PCBs. Both small and large businesses must meet the same statutory standard. Thus, even if EPA believed that it was an economically desirable policy to grant an exemption petition for a small business, it could do so only if the small business met the requirements set forth in TSCA. This rule would not add to the burden placed on small businesses, it would only remove the prohibition placed on such businesses through granting an exemption. In essence, any impact from granting or denying a petition would only affect the petitioner. Owners of individual small businesses who elect to petition the Administrator to engage in activities otherwise banned by the statute have already considered the economic consequences of conducting these activities, and nonetheless have opted to pursue an authorization for these activities. Finally, because this rule basically would benefit some small entities, without imposing direct economic costs on others, EPA believes that it is appropriate to certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., authorizes the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review certain information collection requests by Federal Agencies. Under OMB Control Number 2070-0021, OMB has approved a general information collection request submitted by EPA for purposes of collecting information for rulemakings on PCB exemption petitions, and for any recordkeeping or reporting conditions to PCB exemption petitions granted by EPA. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average five hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. VI. Official Rulemaking Record All of the information previously submitted and filed in docket number OPTS-66001, 66002, 66008-66008K (manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce exemptions) has been consolidated into docket number OPTS-66011. EPA has established this consolidated docket for the convenience of the public but did not rely upon information in that docket when proposing this rule. A public record, along with a complete index, is available for inspection in the Nonconfidential Information Center, Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) from 12 noon - 4:00 p.m. in Room G-102, Northeast Mall (401 M St., SW., Washington, DC). The following material is cited in the Index to the Rulemaking Record for Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce; Exemptions, Docket Number OPTS 66011 at A2- File (Insert the date of this final rule). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761 Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling, Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: November 23, 1994. Susan H. Wayland, Acting Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter R is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 761--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 761 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614 and 2616. 2. In Sec. 761.80 by adding paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (f)(9), (f)(10) and (m)(8) and by revising paragraphs (h) and (n) to read as follows: Sec. 761.80 Manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce exemptions. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, St. Louis, MO, 63103. (4) Millipore Corporation and ImmunoSystems Inc., Bedford, MA, 01730 and Scarborough, ME, 04074. (5) National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899. * * * * * (f) * * * (9) General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY,12301. (10) Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, PA, 16823-0048. * * * * * (h) The Administrator grants the following petitioners a class exemption for 1 year to process and distribute in commerce non-porous transformer component parts which have been decontaminated of PCB residues and to buy and sell PCB Transformers or PCB-Contaminated Transformers to which only double-rinsed, non-porous component parts have been added: (1) Electrical Apparatus Service Association, St. Louis, MO,63123. (2) [Reserved] * * * * * (m) * * * (8) Chemsyn Science Laboratories, Lenexa, KS, 66215. (n) The 1-year exemption granted to petitioners in paragraphs (a) through (c)(1), (d), (f), and (m)(1) through (m)(6) of this section shall be renewed automatically as long as there is no increase in the amount of PCBs to be processed and distributed, imported (manufactured), or exported, nor any change in the manner of processing and distributing, importing (manufacturing), or exporting of PCBs. If there is such a change, a new exemption petition must be submitted to EPA and it will be addressed through rulemaking. In such a case, the activities granted under the existing exemption may continue until the new petition is addressed by rulemaking, but must conform to the terms of the existing exemption approved by EPA. The 1-year exemption granted to petitioners in paragraphs (c)(2), (3), (4) and (5), (f)(9) and (10), (h) and (m)(7) and (8) of this section may be extended pursuant to Sec. 750.11(e) or Sec. 750.31(e). * * * * * [FR Doc. 94-29569 Filed 11-30-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F