Skip Navigation Links
2014
2013
2012
AGA Comments on the EPA Stormwater Notice March 5, 2012
AGA Comments on EPA NSPS Air Rule for Turbines (Dec. 28, 2012)
Regulating Construction Site Stormwater Discharges with a Strong Statewide Program in Alabama (Dec. 3, 2012)
Federal Agency Leadership of Environmental Consultations for Natural Gas Projects (Dec. 10, 2012)
AGA Comments on Water Resources Permitting in California for Natural Gas Projects (Dec. 7, 2012)
AGA Comments on Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Tool for Environmental Permits (Dec. 3, 2012)
Comments on EPA’s PCB Transportation Manifest Rules (Nov. 5, 2012)
Sierra Club v. Bostick – Briefs to 10th Circuit in Appeal of Order Denying Motion for Injunction (Oct. 2012)
Courts Deny Sierra Club’s Motions for Injunction (Aug. 29, 2012)
Comments on EPA’s Draft Environmental Justice Best Practices for Permit Applicants (Aug. 27, 2012)
AGA Joins Multi-Industry Letter to Senate on TSCA Legislation (Aug. 21, 2012)
AGA Comments on EPA Proposal to Amend NESHAPS for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (Aug. 9, 2012)
Sierra Club v Bostick - AGA Moves to Intervene in Support of Streamlined Utility Wetlands Permit (July 30, 2012)
Court Grants AGA's Motion to Intervene in Sierra Club v. Bostick (Aug. 1, 2012)
AGA Comments on EPA GHG Subpart W Reporting Rule Technical Corrections (June 20, 2012)
AGA Comments on EPA Subpart W Greenhouse Gas Confidential Business Information & Reporting Deferral Proposed Rule (April 9, 2012)
AGA Comments on Major Source Boiler MACT Proposed Rule (Feb. 21, 2012)
AGA Court Challenge to GHGReporting Rule Subpart W Technical Revisions (Feb. 21, 2012)
AGA Supports SoCalGas’ Challenge to California Anti-LNG Rule (Jan. 4, 2012)
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Government Links
Prior to 2006

 Comments on EPA’s PCB Transportation Manifest Rules (Nov. 5, 2012) 

AGA, as a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), joined in comments filed on Nov. 5, 2012 on EPA’s attempt to streamline the rules for shipping PCB waste and hazardous waste.  EPA’s action is intended to align the requirements for PCB manifests under its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations with the existing hazardous waste manifest regulations adopted under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Both waste programs are administered by EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). EPA believes that these changes will be non-controversial, so the agency published a direct final rule that will be issued as a final rule, if EPA receives no adverse comments.  On the other hand, if anyone submits an adverse comment, EPA will have to withdraw the direct final rule and instead publish a proposed rule for further comment.  

The comments generally support EPA’s Direct Final Rule, however they seek clarification on two points.  If EPA agrees to provide the requested clarification, the comments are to be considered not adverse.  However, if EPA does not provide the requested clarifications, the comments are to be considered adverse.

Requested Clarifications:

1. Garbled Text:  EPA to correct what appears to be an unintentional error in section 761.207(a)(3) of the direct final rule, to avoid unnecessary confusion.  USWAG notes that this “comment is not to be construed as a negative comment, provided the error is corrected in the Final Rule.” 

2. Manifest Discrepancy Test for Drums / Containers: USWAG also asks EPA to confirm that there is no intention to change long-standing guidance that for PCB waste, the appropriate test for determining whether a significant manifest discrepancy exists in the context of containers is whether there is a variation in the piece count of containers -- not whether there is a greater than 10% discrepancy in weight of containers (i.e. drums).  If EPA does not confirm this and instead intends to change this long-standing position, in that event, the comment is to be considered “adverse.”  But if EPA confirms the long standing policy, the comment would not count as adverse. 

Statement of Support for Eliminating Phone Call to Confirm Delivery:  In addition, the comments specifically support EPA’s intention to change the rules for PCB waste transport manifests so that generators employing an independent transporter to ship PCB waste to a commercial storage or disposal facility no longer have to confirm by telephone or other means that the facility actually received the manifested waste.  There is no similar requirement under the hazardous waste rules, and it is not necessary to ensure compliance.

 USWAG PCB Manifest Comments Nov. 2012

 

 
 

Join the Energy Conversation