Document peEkMGrozm2Q7B4rg7XBOOaww

Surpass Web Safari Page 1 of 1 Charles S. Morgan Technical Library COMMUNICATINGTHE MISSION, SPIRITANDVALUESOF NFPA Log In Welcome My Lists Search Results - 4 Erase My Lists Search Simple Search Advanced Search Browse Visual Navigator New Materials Library News Bulletins Calendar Log In SEARCH RESULTS Keyword=PCB Your search returned 4 records. Click on a title for details. View:l is t / bibiiograetiy. Show Summaries: YES /no Sort bv: CALL1author 1tit!1iyb Per Page: 10/20/ 50 /all Book Bag Call No. Author Title Type Available R.24 Athanitis, Nick. 1 SQ.487 The PCB risk [microform]: the available environmental and leaal imolications / Nick UNPUB Athanitis. R.24 Davidson, Donald B. 1 SQ.561 The hidden cost of PCB fires Tmicroforml / available Donald B. Davidson. UNPUB R.24 Kern, Walter. 1 SQ.606 PCB problems and solutions [microforml / available Walter Kern. UNPUB TD Environmental Protection Agency support 1 194.5 document/voluntarv environmental impact available ,P6 statement for polych BOOK U5 1979 Add All to Mv Book Baa X Hv/vT'i - Powered by Surpass Web Safari. Version 5.53 2000-2007 Daniel Humphress / Surpass Software http://quincyweb.nfpa.org/scripts/websafari.exe/DoSearchSimple?SearchBy:=X&SearchFo... 4/30/2008 For over forty years, it was common practice to use askarel fluids as the dielectric In llquld-lnsulated transformers and capacitors, providing a countermeasure against potential fire and explosion hazards of mineral-oil-filled transformers and capacitors* However, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recognition of the environmental hazards of askarels containing polychlorinated biphenyls (or more commonly PCB) resulted in specific regulations being adopted for controlling PCB manufacture and use. In October, 1976, under the provision of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), stringent regulations mandating the phasing-out of the production of PCB dielectric fluids, was signed into law. Civil Liability under i.he TSCA regulations, provides up to a $25,000/day/violation penalty. Under criminal liability the penalty for "knowingly or willfully" failing to comply carries, in addition to the $25,000/day/violation, the potential for up to 1 year imprisonment. EPA also adopted Regulation No. 311 requiring all spills of PCB'8 if one pound (0.45 kg) or more to be reported. Failure to report such a spill is a criminal offense punishable by a $10,000 fine and/or one year imprisonment. At the time the regulations were enacted, EPA concluded that it was not necessary to recommend replacement of all PCB-filled transformers and capacitors. Several major property Insurers took a similar view of the risks. However, where a severe fire explosion or lightning potential existed, or where PCB-filled units were located near streams, sewers, ditches, other waterways, or important processes because of the contamination potential and resultant extensive clean-up needed, it was recommended to the owners of the equipment that replacement be considered. The age and condition of equipment also weighed heavily in the decision. Also compounding the decision process was the lack of a suitable method for disposal that was acceptable to the EPA. As a result, there are still many PCB transformers remaining in use today. It has been estimated there are approximately 140,000 PCB transformers which contain an average of 300 gallons of liquid. The average life of a PCB transformer is about 40 years. The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) included an explicit timetable for phasing-out PCB's. TSCA directed the EPA to issue a directive for control of marketing and disposing of PCB's by July 1, 1977. On February 17, 1978, eight months after the deadline, EPA published the regulations. TSCA also prohibits any manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce or use of PCB's after January 1, 1978, in other than a totally enclosed manner unless authorized by the EPA Administrator. EPA Issued rules to put the TSCA prohibitions into effect on May 31, 1979, a year and a half after the statutory deadline. These rules incorporate the marking and disposal rules. A court challenge to the rules, however, resulted in major portions being overturned and rewritten in a three phase process. Two of these concerning PCB's in electrical equipment and insignificant levels of PCB's in chemical process - were completed in 1982. The third, concerning higher levels of PCB's in chemical streams, was published in the Federal Register on July 18, 1984. Current federal PCB regulations control all PCB transformers containing 500 ppm or greater PCB's. Also regulated, are capacitors containing more than 3 lbs. of dielectric fluids with 50 ppm or more PCB's. The regulations go beyond transformers/capacitors and include dielectric fluids, contaminated solvents, oils, waste oils, heat transfer fluids, hydraulic fluids, paints, sludges, slurries, dredge spoils, oils, materials contaminated as a result of spills and any chemical substance or contaminant of chemical substances containing 50 ppm or greater of PCB's. Manufactured articles or equipment which contain PCB's or whose surface has been in direct contact with PCB's, PCB contaminated electrical equipment, including, but not limited to, transformers, capacitors, circuit breakers, reclosers, voltage regulators, switches, electromagnets, and cable that contains 50 ppm or greater PCB, but less than 500 ppm PCB, also comes under the scrutiny of the regulations This would include a fire department's equipment which becomes contaminated while fighting a PCB transformer fire. PCB transformers, electromagnets, switches, and voltage regulators containing 500 ppm PCB or greater may be reclassified to PCB-Contaminated Electrical Equipment or non-PCB equipment by draining and refilling with a non-PCB dielectric substitute which reduces the hazard potential and the regulatory requirements. Analytical testing for the purposes of reclassification must be conducted at least three months after draining/refilling. Visual inspection of PCB transformers containing 500 ppm or greater PCB's which do not pose an exposure risk to food contamination must be completed quarterly. PCB transformers and electromagnets containing 500 ppm or greater PCB's which pose an exposure risk to food contaminants, must be visually inspected weekly. All inspections must be documented and retained for review by the EPA. Mineral oil dielectric fluid from PCB contaminated electrical equipment, liquids containing a PCB concentration greater than 50 ppm but less than 500 ppm non-liquid PCB's in the form of contaminated soil, rags, or other debris may only be disposed of in a U.S. EPA approved incinerator facility or chemical waste landfill. PCB transformers and PCB containers must be disposed of in a D.S. SPA approved incinerator facility or in a chemical waste landfill provided that the transformer id first drained of all liquid and flushed with solvent. The solvent and dielectric must be disposed of as required by the regulations. -A. Askarel filled transformers have good fire resistance, however, in a high current fault test of three transformers, one filled with mineral oil, one with silicone fluid, and the third askarel filled, all three dielectric coolants exploded. Only the mineral oil continued to burn after the explosion. The askarel exploded violently producing considerable smoke and soot, but quickly self extinguished. In addition, recent studies have Indicated industrial-grade PCB's also contain several other toxic chemical contaminants -- polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF's), polychlorinated dibenzodioxlns (PCDD's) and tetrachclorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3, 7,8 - TCDD). On February 5, 1981, a PCB transformer In the basement of the Binghamton State Office Building in Binghamton, New York became involved In a fire which started in the switchgear adjacent to the PCB transformer. The heat from the fire in the switchgear caused a ceramic brushing to crack on the transformer allowing 180 gallons of PCB dielectric fluid to drain onto the r>; ' -6- ' ' S ' ) f -J ' \i$. v'V f,' ! floor. During the 50 minute period after this initial malfunction, there was repeated electrical arcing and reports of loud explosions. The switchgear was completely destroyed but there was little fire damage to the transformer. PCB's, and the contaminates PCDF's, PCDD's and 2,3,7,8-TCDD were distributed throughout the interior of the building. The 18 story building, once occupied by 33 state agencies and more than 720 employees, still remains closed today and state officers, it has been reported, are still uncertain when it will be reopened. The cost of cleanup is expected to exceed $25 million. Third party liability claims may exceed 10 times that amount. On May 15, 1983, in the One Market Plaza complex in San Francisco, California, a PCB transformer ruptured and was involved in a smoky transformer vault fire. The San Francisco incident was reportedly caused by a short circuit in high voltage cable in the exterior sidewalk vault housing the transformer. The heat generated by the burning of the cable Insulation (or perhaps the cable itself physically striking a fin on the PCB transformer) caused the transformer to rupture and release 60-70 gallons of PCB's. During the 2 to 3 hours after this initial malfunction, there was considerable vibration and loud noises occurring in the vault. It is presumed this was a result of electrical arcing. The unsealed conduits from the vault to the basement and outside air Intake vents drew the PCB, PCDF'8, PCDD's and 2,3,7,8 TCDD into the building. Soot and smoke fir* war* carried through the office complex by ventilating fans through the street-level louvers, contaminating the building's sub-basement, and first six floors of the 28 story structure with PCB and PCB's contaminants. Cleanup of the contaminants took 10 1/2 months and cost more than $20 million. Pacific Gas and Electric (P G & B) the owners of the trans formers, have paid out more than $10 million of its own funds for cleanup work and is seeking recovery from its insurers. The major loss to the building property Insurer from the One Market Plaza fire was not from the physical damage Itself, but from the loss of rent revenues and third party liability claims which are expected to be in the millions of dollars. In addition to the Binghamton and San Francisco Incidents, four more recent PCB transformer incidents occurred in the First National Bank Building in Chicago, Illinois in September 1983; in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in December, 1983 and May 1984; and in Miami, Florida, in May, 1984. The Chicago incident was reportedly caused by a fire in a bus bar between the PCB transformer and the switchgear. The heat generated by the fire, or possibly electrical arcing, caused a small hole in the transformer casing and resulted in the release of 15 gallons of PCB dielectric fluid. The transformer was reportedly deenergized within 10 minutes of the Initial fault, and there were no reports of loud explosions. The Miami incident was reportedly caused by electrical arcing. The heat generated by the arc caused the transformer to rupture and released 100 gallons of PCB dielectric fluid. The transformer was reportedly rapidly deenergized after rupture. Extensive building contamination was not encountered in either the Chicago, Miami, or other fires. However, these incidents prompted the EPA to reevaluate its positions regarding the fire risk Involving transformers containing PCB's. The EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rule-making, which appeared in the March 23, 1984 Federal Register to obtain addition information regarding the risks posed by fires involving transformers containing PCB'a, their frequency of occurrence, the cost of cleanup, and costs associated with regulatory control measures for reducing or eliminating the risks. In response to the comments it received, the EPA decided to issue proposed rules to address the risks posed by fires involving transformers that contain PCB. The proposed rules appeared in the Federal Register on October 11, 1984. In preparation for writing the proposed rules, the EPA assumed that 50 PCB transformer fires with smoke spread into buildings will occur over the remaining useful life of all remaining PCB transformers and that cleanup costs from these incidents would be about $20 million each. The estimates were based on the Binghamton and San Francisco Incidents. Ia its decision asking process, the BPA felt that it had several options. They could take no action and expect the occurrence of 50 fire incidents over the remaining useful life of the PCB transformers in service or adopt additional regulatory requirements. The controls considered by the EPA were labeling and registration programs, smoke control techniques, floor drain closure systems, increased electrical protection, and external disconnect switch, retrofilling, and phase-out of PCB Transformers. After completing a risk/benefit assessment of the use of PCB transformers in and around buildings, the EPA reaffirmed their position that the continued use of PCB's in transformers does not pose unreasonable risk to public health or the environment, provided that in addition to the quality inspection, recordkeeping, and servicing requirements of the August 25, 1982 Electrical Equipment Rule, they would also adopt additional rules for the reduction of the potential for fire exposure risks. The new rules will establish that PCB's at any concentration may be used in transformers (other than railroad locomotives and self-propelled railroad cars) and may be used for purposes of servicing Including rebuilding these transformers for the remainder of their useful lives, subject to the following conditions. After October 1, 1985, the use and storage for reuse of PCB transformers that pose an exposure risk to food or feed is prohibited. After July 1, 1988, transformers in high secondary voltage systems (480/277 volt ayatea) located in or near buildings oust be equipped with either heat sensitive (infrared) automatic disconnect switches on the secondary circuit, external secondary disconnect switches (lateral means outside of the transformer vaults or enclosure), or equivalent technology to ensure that the secondary side of a PCB transformer with a high secondary voltage can be rapidly deenergized after a fault. After July 1 1988, PCB transformers in or near buildings must be Isolated from building ventilation equipment. The building distance, and openings in construction would be required to be in accordance with EPA's Guidelines for the preparation and implementation of a PCB Bmoke spread reduction plan. The objective of isolation and the development of this plan is reduction of smoke and soot spread as experienced in the Binghamton and San Francisco fires. This may require the modification of the ventilation system servicing the transformer location and sealing cracks or openings which would permit smoke to escape freely into occupied areas and the environment. The ventilation for PCB transformers were designed to keep the ambient temperature at/or below 30 centigrade. The removal or alteration of existing ventilation systems could result in higher operating temperatures which shorten transformers operating lives and may increase the likelihood of equipment failure. The design of alternative ventilation or cooling system may be necessary. However, a smoke activated device (smoke damper) which shuts down the ventilation system and completely seals off the enclosed transformer may be the most practical solution. A written PCB - Smoke Spread Reduction Plan, will need to be prepared In accordance with EPA guidelines for each PCB transformer location in/or near buildings b; July 1, 1988 and maintained until the date the transformer is placed into storage for disposal or until the transformers are disposed and made available for inspection upon request by the EPA, Following several PCB incidents, most notably the Yusho, Japan exposure to 1,300 people who became ill after consuming rice oil contaminated with PCB's, the adverse publicity generated in Michigan following the discovery of PCB's in the fish in Lake Huron and government scientific studies, the PCB laws were quickly enacted. The question of toxicity to humans from PCB's has been studied intensely since the laws were promulgated. Hew scientific studies conducted from the entire collection of data on people and test animals, conclusions and opinions as to the possibility of occurrence of specific potential health effects in people from exposure to PCB's claim only two consequential effects - a skin disorder known as chloracne and the production of excess amounts of proteins (enzymes) chiefly in the liver. Neither condition poses a serious health risk. The severe health effects observed in laboratory animals , the studies claim, have not been observed in persons subjected to many years of occupational exposure. The studies suggest that the addition of PCB contaminants (PCDF's, PCDD's, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD) may pose an increased risk to health under certain conditions, such as In a fire, however, there Is no direct evidence to Imply that the effects will be severe to humans. Although these recent health studies do not indicate there are serious adverse health effects from PCB exposure and the EFA has concluded it Is not necessary to ban PCB transformers, the existing strict laws and public concern regarding the "terrible" effects of PCB's places owners of such equipment in a precarious legal position. Following the San Francisco transformer fire, a major insurance company embarked on a program to remove all PCB transformers from the 700 properties it owned. There are a "fairly substantial number" of PCB transformers on those properties according to a recent article in "Business Insurance". The insurer owns about 40 of the units with the remainder owned by the local utility company. The cost of replacement is expected to be several million dollars. However, one must keep in mind that removing the PCB transformer does not eliminate the owner's liability until the PCB'a are destroyed. One of the three EPA authorized incineration sites has been closed creating a backup in the remaining two. It may be a year or longer before these PCB's can be destroyed. Until that time, a spill or incident involving the stored PCB's could Implicate the former transformer owner. A thorough risk assessment regarding the various alternatives should he undertaken which involves fire protection and environaental specialists before asking a decision to either retain or eliminate a PCB transformer. Clayton Environmental Consultants published a PCB electrical equipment replacement risk analysis in their October, 1984 Newsletter which would help to thoroughly address the legal implications of retaining or replacing PCB transformers. The Clayton analysis covers three alternatives; 1) no replacement, 2) an accelerated 10 year replacement and; 3) an accelerated 3 year replacement. To obtain the greatest efficiency, from this analysis, one should evaluate each PCB transformer site. Although time consuming, it will provide the best alternative fore each Individual risk. In completing an assessment, the following are some risks that should be considered: 1. The potential for fire 2. Exposure to humane 3. Exposure to the environment 4 Physical damage 5 Liability coats 6* Coat of transformer replacement 7. Retrofilling as an alternative 8. Maintenance and control procedures Potential for Fire Both the Binghamton and San Francisco fires developed into more serious incidents it was determined because the secondary (low side) voltage in the PCB transformers in use was high enough to allow a selfsustaining arc to be formed after the transformer ruptured. Prolonged arcing results in the transfer of tremendous amounts of heat to the transformer. Based upon these incidents, it is assumed that PCB transformer systems made up of transformers with higher secondary voltages can remain energized despite a fault on the secondary side of a transformer system, and result in self-sustaining arc. It also suggests that transformers in lower secondary voltage systems, such as 216/125 volt systems are not likely to be associated with more serious fires. Exposure to Humans Six populations have been Identified as having the potential for risk exposures to PCB's and their contaminants in the event of a PCB transformer fire* These are: 1) Persons present in a building or possibly in an adjacent building at the time of a five in or near a building; 2) firemen and other emergency response personnel; 3) on-lookers and the general public; 4) persons Involved in sampling and cleanup operations; 5) persons returning to the building following clean-up (complete cleanup may not be achieved) and 6) persons exposed to equipment, automotives, etc. that may have been contaminated during or after the fire. Human exposure to PCB's and its contaminants as a result of a transformer fire would be expected to occur primarily through inhalation and absorbed into the skin. Exposure to the environment If a transformer involved in a fire ruptures and releases PCB dielectric fluids to a floor drain leading to a storm sewer, there is potential for contamination of surface water and drinking water supplies. Further, if water is uae'd to extinguish the fire or other source of water mingles with the PCB dielectric fluids, there may be additional contaminants of surface water and drinking water supplies with PCB's through unsealed floor drains, through fall-out from airborne sources, and through run-off from the site. 20 Physical Damage The Binghamton incident serves as an example of the worst case to date as r indicated earlier, costs for cleanup could exceed $25 million. i Liability Coats If the experience of the Binghamton and San Francisco incident are typical, liability claims may be in the $100 to $200 million range. To top it off, availability of pollution insurance coverage is rapidly shrinking. However, if all the estimated 140,000 PCB transformers were taken out of service immediately, there aren't enough waste disposal sites currently available to handle them. Transformer Replacement In the example used by Clayton in their risk analysis, they estimated replacement cost to be $65,000. This cost Includes labor, equipment, transportation, storage and disposal of the PCB dielectric fluids. Actual cost may vary. I The PCB Risk: The Environmental and Legal Implications (( ** RELEASE AGREEMENT "New Concepts in FIRE and SMOKE CONTROL Systems in High Rise Buildings -- Full A paper entitled Integration with Fire Sprinklers" ______ is hereby submitted to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for presentation at the 1984 Fall Meeting. I understand that i f the paper is accepted by NFPA, i t is accepted on the following terms and conditions: The copy of the paper submitted for presentation becomes the property of NFPA and there is no obligation for NFPA to return said copy. Ownership of the copyright in the paper remains with the author. However, NFPA is hereby granted a royalty-free, non-exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the paper either in whole or in part in any publication of NFPA. It 1s further agreed that NFPA has the right to record the full oral presentation of the author or others making the presentation and to make transcripts of the same. NFPA acquires the same rights as set forth above, in the transcript as i t does in the paper submitted. NFPA w ill, if the paper or transcript is published, place a copyright notice on the paper in the name of the author i f , in fact, copyright has been secured, but NFPA has no obligation to seek or register the copyright. NFPA also has the right to f ill requests made by others for copies of the paper, transcript or oral recordings where such requests are only for a single copy. Any requests by others for more than a single copy of the paper, transcript or oral recording will be referred directly to the author. The paper submitted contains no material the publication of which wouldviolate the copyright or other right of any other person, and I have the right to transfer the rights set forth above. I. A. Naman + Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers Company August 17, 1984 Date'