Wednesday
July 27, 1994
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFIR Parts 260, 261, and 273
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps;
Proposed Rule
-------
-------
38288
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261, and 273
[FRL-5020-1]
BIN 2050-AD93 '
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Program; Mercury-Containing
Lamps
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
• SUMMARY: Mercury-containing lamps
(light bulbs) may be hazardous waste
under the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
issued under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and if so,
must be managed as a hazardous waste,
unless they are a household waste or .are
generated by an exempted small
quantity generator. Mercury-containing
lamps include fluorescent, high
pressure sodium, mercury vapor and
metal halide lamps. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is today
seeking comment on two alternative
approaches for the management of
mercury-containing lamps. First, EPA is*
• seeking comment on whether an
exclusion from regulation as hazardous
waste is appropriate for mercury lamps,
provided they are disposed in
municipal landfills that are permitted
by States/Tribes with EPA approved
municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill
permitting programs or managed in
mercury reclamation facilities that are
permitted, licensed or registered by
States/Tribes. The second approach
would add mercury lamps to EPA's
Universal Waste Proposal (February 11,
1993,58 FR 8102). The Universal Waste
approach is a streamlined, reduced
regulatory structure, which is designed
to address the management of certain
widely generated wastes currently
subject to full Subtitle C RCRA
regulations.
Today's proposal presents
management options that would be
considered less stringent than the
existing Federal regulations because
they would exempt certain activities
now within the purview of RCRA
Subtitle C (hazardous waste
management). Therefore, States
authorized under RCRA section 3006 to
administer and enforce a hazardous
waste system in lieu of the Federal
program would be allowed flexibility in
modifying their programs to adopt less
stringent regulations regarding the
management of mercury-containing
lamps, should one of the proposed
options be promulgated as a final rule.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted on or before ,
September 26,1994.
ADDRESSES: Persons who wish to
comment on this notice must provide an
original and two copies of their
comments, include the docket number
(F-94-FLEP-FFFFF), and send them to
EPA RCRA Docket (OS-305), U.S. EPA,
401M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460. The RCRA Docket is located at
Room M2427, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. To review docket materials,
the public must make an appointment
by calling (202) 260-9327. The public
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from
any regulatory docket at no cost.
Additional copies cost $0.15 per jpage.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the RCRA/
Superfund Hotline toll free at (800) 424-
9346. In the Washington, DC i
metropolitan area, call (703) 412—9810.
For information regarding specific
aspects of this notice, contact Valerie
Wilspn, Office of Solid Waste (mail code
5304), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
260-4678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Legal Authority, , '.
II. Background
A.,The Toxicity Characteristic,
B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs
C Industry Source Reduction Initiatives'
III. Technical Information
A. Groundwater Impacts '
B. Air Impacts > !
1. Incineration :
2. Mercury in Landfill Gas i
3. Crushing and Breakage •• '
C. Technical Considerations and Requests
for Comments ]
IV. Management Options •
A. Conditional Exclusion
B. Universal Waste System ;
1. Background
2. Special Collection System for Lamps
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
", B. Effect of State Authorizations
VII. Economic Impact Analysis j
A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for i '
Regulatory Options Considered
1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Sptent
Lamp Generators ' i
2. Baseline Costs - !
3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion from
Subtitle C Standards Costs
4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
5. Results
B. Proposed Rule Impacts !
1. Primary Effects
2. Secondary Effects '
VIII. References
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. the Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Legal Authority
These regulations would be '
promulgated under the authority of
sections 1006,2002(a), 3001-3007,
3010,3013, 3016-3017, 3018 and 7004
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a),
6921-6927, 6930, 6937-6938, 6939 and
6974 (commonly referred to as RCRA).
n. Background
A. The Toxicity Characteristic
Under section 3001 of the Resource,
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is charged with defining
which solid wastes are hazardous by
identifying the characteristics of
hazardous waste and by listing
particular hazardous wastes. Toxicity is
one of the four characteristics used by
EPA to identify waste as hazardous
(along with ignitability, corrosivity, and
reactivity). EPA promulgated the
Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic (EPTC) on May 19,1980.
The EPTC regulated eight metals, four
insecticides, and two herbicides.
Section 3001(g) of RCRA, added by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste .
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, required
EPA to revise the EPTC. On March 29,
1990 (55 FR 11798), the EPA
promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic
(TC) to revise the existing EPTC. Like
the EPTC, the TC and its associated
testing methodology, the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) is used to define the toxiicity of
a waste by measuring the potential for
the toxic constituents in the waste to
leach out of an unlined municipal
landfill into groundwater and
contaminate drinking water wells at v
levels of health or environmental . ,
concern if not subject to Subtitle C
controls. The TC implemented an
unproved leaching procedure that better
predicts leaching and added several
hazardous waste constituents. Twenty-
five organic hazardous waste v
constituents were added to the TC and
a model was developed to predict their
fate and transport in the groundwater. If
wastes exhibit the Toxicity •
Characteristic they are subject to the
hazardous waste management
requirements of RCRA Subtitle C.
As discussed in the preamble to the •
Toxicity Characteristic Rule (March 29,
1990, 55 FR 11813), the regulatory
levels for the TG metals were not
changed by the promulgation of the
-------
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
38289
final TC rule. EPA retained the
regulatory levels set by the EPTC rule,
pending further study of the fate and
transport of metals in groundwater.
"The Agency is continuing longer-term
developmental work on a metal
speciation model, called MINTEQ, to be
used to evaluate the fate and transport
of the TG metals (including mercury) for
purposes of reassessing the toxicity
characteristic regulatory levels for the
TC metals. EPA's preliminary analysis
indicates that mercury that would leach
out of landfills would not all necessarily
travel far enough through the
groundwater to contaminate drinking
water wells, depending on the distance
to die well. A certain percent (still to be
determined) will combine with other
substances in the soil (via complexation,
adsorption, etc.) to form solid
substances and remain in the soil.
Therefore, the regulatory limits for
mercury if re-assessed using the
MINTEQ model, when completed,
might be higher (less stringent) than the
current limits because mercury mayoe
less mobile than the current TC rule
indicates. However, these studies are
stUl ongoing (U.S. EPA, 1991b).
Available data (included in the docket
production of fluorescent and high
intensity discharge (HID) lamps, a
relatively high percentage of these
lamps, when spent, exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity. (U.S. EPA,
1992a) However, all generators of spent
lamps that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic may not have to manage
those lamps as hazardous waste. EPA
has specified different requirements for
generators of hazardous waste
depending on the amount of hazardous
waste generated per month.
Conditionally-exempt small quantity
generators (CESQG) generate less than
100 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste
each month and can send their waste to
a hazardous waste facility, or may elect
to send their wastes to a landfill or other
facility approved by the State for
industrial or municipal non-hazardous
wastes (see 40 CFR 261,5). Generators of
more than 100 kg of hazardous waste
per month are required to fully comply
with Federal hazardous waste
regulations (although generators of
between 100 and 1000 kg of hazardous
waste per month are subject to certain
reduced regulatory requirements).
For the purposes of this proposal
"electric lamp" also referred to as
"lamp" is defined as the bulb or tube
portion of a lighting device specifically
designed to produce radiant energy,
most often in the ultraviolet, visible,
and infra-red regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of
common electric lamps include but are
not limited to, incandescent,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge,
and neon lamps. Also, a "mercury-
containing lamp" is defined as an
electric lamp in which mercury is
purposely introduced by the
manufacturer for the operation of the
lamp. The Agency requests comment on
whether the definitions of "lamp" and
"mercury-containing lamp" are
technically correct and on whether they
accurately define the appropriate
universe of items.
B. Energy-Efficient lighting Programs
Today's proposal, which would
reduce management requirements for
lamps, is expected to support the efforts
of many existing and planned energy
conservation programs, which
encourage the installation of energy
efficient lighting. Energy efficient
lighting consumes less electricity,
reducing the generation of pollution
from power plants. However, replacing
energy inefficient lighting systems with
energy efficient lighting systems
requires the use and eventual disposal
of fluorescent and high intensity
discharge (HDD) lamps, which contain
mercury. Requiring the disposal of lamp
wastes as hazardous waste, under full
Subtitle C regulations, may discourage
participation in energy efficient lighting
programs. The Agency anticipates that
either of the proposed actions will
encourage participation in energy-
efficient lighting programs, and will
therefore promote the energy-efficiency
and the environmental benefits derived
from that program.
If energy-efficient lighting were used
wherever it is profitable, the nation's
demand for electricity could be cut by
more than 10 percent This would result
in reductions of estimated annual
carbon dioxide emissions of 202 million
metric tons (4 percent of the national
total), reductions of annual sulfur
dioxide emissions of 1.3 million metric
tons (7 percent of the national total),
and reductions of annual nitrogen oxide
emissions of 600,000 metric tons (4
percent of the national total). (U.S. EPA,
1992b)
In 1991, EPA initiated a voluntary
energy conservation program called
"Green Lights" to encourage pollution
prevention through energy efficient
lighting. Lighting accounts for 20—25
percent of electricity used annually in
the U.S. Lighting for industry,
businesses, offices, and warehouses
represents 8Q-SO percent of total
lighting electricity use. Available
technologies in energy efficient lighting
can reduce lighting electricity demand
by over 50 percent, enabling power
plants to generate less electricity and
burn less fuel. It also reduces other
types of pollution resulting from mining
and transporting power plant fuels and
disposing of power plant wastes (U.S.
EPA, 1992b). In addition, electric
utilities, when burning fossil fuels, emit
mercury at a rate of 0.0428 mg/kWh
sold, on a national average. Full
implementation of Green Lights is
estimated to reduce the emission by 9.7
Mg of mercury by the year 2000 (UJS.
,EPA, 1992b), Further, the energy- '
efficient fluorescent lamps, used by
Green Lights and other energy
conservation programs, contain less
mercury than energy-inefficient
fluorescent lamps.
A goal of Green Lights is to encourage
the widespread use of efficient lighting
technologies to reduce air pollution
from coal combustion. Energy-efficient
lighting technologies provide excellent
investment opportunities. A typical
lighting upgrade yields an internal rate
of jteturn of 20-30 percent and a
payback oif 3—4 years.
Green Lights participants include:
Corporations; State, city, and county
governments; lighting manufacturing
and management companies; electric
utilities; non-profit organizations; and
hospitals, universities, and other
businesses throughout the U.S. Green
Lights encourages the establishment of
comprehensive energy-efficient lighting
programs within an organization mat
include: Converting from less-efficient
fluorescent to more-efficient fluorescent
lamps; converting from incandescent to
compact fluorescent lamps; converting
from magnetic to electronic lighting
ballasts; installing occupancy sensors,
daylight dimmers, and other lighting
control technologies; installing more
efficient luminaries or lighting fixtures;
and efficient maintenance practices,
such as group relamping and regular
fixture cleaning.
By signing a partnership agreement
with the EPA, Green Lights participants
agree to survey and upgrade, within 5
years, 90 percent of all domestic
facilities wherever profitable and
wherever lighting quality is improved or
maintained. In return, these participants
should receive reductions (savings) in
their monthly energy expenses. A good
energy-efficient lighting upgrade
typically includes some type of control
strategy (such as occupancy sensors)
that will reduce lamp burning hours.
The result is that the lamp will last
longer and need to be replaced less
frequently. As of June 30,1993, over
1,000 organizations have joined the
Green Lights program. These
organizations have committed over 3.5
-------
38290
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
billion square feet of facility space to the
program.
The Green Lights Program encourages
the use of energy-efficient lamps using
an initial and scheduled periodic
relampings to achieve higher energy
efficiency and reduce energy costs.
These relampings involve removal and
replacement of all lamps in a building
or in an area at one time, as opposed to
replacement of lamps as they burn put.
An initial lighting upgrade and group
relamping may result in a large number
of fluorescent lamps that require
disposal. In some instances, a
participant that would usually be a
conditionally exempt small quantity
generator, could become a large quantity
generator of hazardous waste due to the
large number of lamps generated in one
month. In general, if a generator
disposes of more than approximately
350 four foot fluorescent lamps, that
generator is a large quantity generator
due to lamps alone.
Despite the environmental and
financial benefits of energy efficient
lighting systems, there are disincentives
to participating in an energy
conservation program like Green Lights.
Establishing a comprehensive energy-
efficient lighting program and installing
' energy-efficient lighting technologies
require an initial investment that may
be significant, depending on the size
and comprehensiveness of the project.
Although Green Lights provides
information, to participants on financing
options, many profitable lighting
upgrade projects are delayed due to
restricted availability of capital. It is
especially difficult for smaller
businesses and government
organizations to raise the necessary
capital, although energy-efficient
lighting investments are low risk and in
the long run will reduce costs. The
additional costs associated with
managing, transporting, and disposing
of lighting wastes as hazardous wastes
can create an additional disincentive to
join Green Lights and make the initial
investment in energy-efficient light
technologies. For example, under the
hazardous waste regulations, large
quantity generators are required to label
boxes and drums, notify EPA of status
as a hazardous waste generator,
transport waste via a hazardous waste
transporter, manage waste consistent
with the land disposal restrictions, and
manage waste at a hazardous waste
management facility. In addition, on
May 8,1994, generators of mercury-
containing lamps will be required .
(under the Land Disposal Restrictions)
to meet a treatment standard for lamps
as hazardous debris. As is discussed in
detail in Section VTL Economic Impact
Analysis, of this preamble, the. Agency
estimates that the annual national cost
of Subtitle C compliance for large >
quantity generators could range from
110 to 134 million dollars. EPA's
preliminary estimates suggest that an
exclusion would save generators of
mercury containing lamps !
approximately 85 to 102 million dollars
annually, while the inclusion of lamps
hi the universal waste management
system would save generators !
approximately 16 to 20 million dollars
annually. :
Although the Green Lights program
may increase the number of large '
quantity generators on months when
mass relamping occurs, the program is
not expected to increase the total
quantity of used fluorescent lamps in
the long run. The lamps recommended
by the Green Lights program are more
energy efficient and with i
implementation of energy saving ;
practices, these lamps could have an
extended life of four to five years rather
than the average three to four years.
Therefore, if by reducing the initial
costs of participation in the Green
Lights program, generators participate in
the Green Lights Program, an energy
savings will occur. These additional
energy savings will decrease the amount
of mercury and other pollutants emitted
to hi the atmosphere from coal-burning.
C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives
A report, "The Management of Spent
Electric Lamps Containing Mercuiy," by.
the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA, 1992) discussed
industry efforts to reduce mercury in
fluorescent lamps. According to the
report, due to the use of more efficient
dosing techniques (i.e., placing mercury
in the lamp), the average mercury
content of a standard 4-foot, 1% inch
diameter, cool white fluorescent Lamp
was reduced by 14% (48.2 mg/lamp to ',
41.6 mg/lamp) from 1985 to 1990.|
Future industry projections of mercury
reductions by 1995 show ah estimated
35% further reduction (41.6 mg/lajmp to
27.0 mg/lamp) for the standard j
fluorescent lamp. ! . •,
Source reduction, which is the
reduction or elimination of the toxicity
and/or volume of a waste product^ is at
the top of EPA's hierarchy of municipal
solid waste (MSW) management
methods. With regard to mercury, the
most significant source reduction
achievement has been .the trend toward
elimination of mercury from alkaline
batteries. Although these batteries are
still a significant contributor of mercury
to municipal solid waste, discards; of ,
mercury from alkaline batteries are
dropping dramatically because of'source
reduction achievement. Mercury-
containing lamps are one of the next
highest single sources of mercury in the
municipal solid waste, accounting for
3.8% of mercury now going to MSW
landfills. EPA encourages cost-effective
source reduction of mercury in
fluorescent lamps. Opportunities exist
to reduce mercury content levels in both
standard 4-foot fluorescent lamps and
the increasingly popular compact
fluorescent lamps (U.S. EPA, 1993b). If
source reduction is pursued aggressively
by the fluorescent lamp manufacturing
industry, the overall contribution of
mercury from fluorescent lamps to
municipal solid waste could remain
constant or decrease over time even as •
fluorescent lamp usage increases.
EPA requests comment on industry
and other source reduction initiatives
involving the reduction of mercury in
fluorescent lamps. Source reduction
may be occurring through more efficient
dosing techniques, lightweighting of
lamps, and changes in phosphor powder'
technology. The Agency requests
comments reflecting these and any other
source reduction activities and may use
this information to develop a strategy to
support and encourage voluntary source
reduction.
m. Environmental Release and Fate
This section presents the technical
information used by the Agency in
developing options for the management
of used mercury-containing lamps.
Information is provided on the
environmental fate and transport in the
ground water and air pathway for
mercury. Specifically, EPA has
reviewed leachate data from municipal
landfills and data on air emissions from
municipal waste combustors and .
municipal landfills, hi addition, the
Agency has estimated possible releases
of mercury to the air from lamps broken
during storage and transportation. Most
of the information considered pertains
to management in municipal landfills.
Information on other types of non-
hazardous landfills is not presented due
to a lack of data and the wide variability
in design and waste composition of
other non-hazardous landfills.
. The Agency requests comment on the
data presented hi this section of the
preamble. These data, along with any
data submitted in'the public comment
to this proposal, will be used to
determine the risk to human health and
the environment from the management
of used mercury-containing lamps. Also,
some information on the risks of
managing mercairy-containing lamps in
landfills, combustors and recovery
facilities was submitted to the Agency
in response to a request for such
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27. 1994 / Proposed Rules 38291
information in the Universal Waste
Proposal (February 11,1993,58 FR
8102), This information Is included in
the rulemaking docket for today's
proposal and the Agency requests
comment on it.
A. teoundwater Impacts
This section discusses leachate
samples collected by EPA from
municipal landfills. As previously
discussed, the Agency is further
developing its groundwater model
under the TC to accurately predict the
movement of mercury through the
groundwater system. The groundwater
pathway for mercury is being
considered because the TC uses die
groundwater pathway to estimate the
movement of contaminants from
municipal landfills. The leachate data
indicate that further analysis may be
needed on the behavior and movement
of mercury in municipal landfills and in
groundwater, although initial analyses
indicate that mercury is less mobile
than previously believed.
EPA has collected data indicating that
mercury may not leach from MSW
landfills at levels above the drinking
water MCL, despite some mercury
disposal in MSW landfills. EPA
estimates that approximately 73% of
municipal solid waste (MSW) is placed
in municipal landfills, while 14% of
municipal solid waste is incinerated
and 13% is recycled. Based on a study
of mercury production and use, the
Agency estimates that about 643 metric
tons (Mg) of mercury is discarded in
MSW landfills per year- A major source
of mercury in municipal soBd. waste Is
household batteries which accounts for
about 88% of the 585 metric tons (Mg)
of mercury in municipal solid waste.
Most of these batteries fall under the
Household Waste Exclusion (see 45 FR
33119, May 19,1980), Thermostats/
thermometers and mercury-containing
lamps are second in their contribution
of mercury in municipal solid waste/
3,9% and 3.8% respectively, The
Agency estimates that, assuming all
lamps are disposed of in MSW landfills,
approximately 20 Mg of mercury would
be placed in MSW landfills per year
from used mercury-containing lamps.
(U.S.EPA, 1991c).
Data on the amounts of mercury in
MSW landfill leachate are included in a
study summarizing the available data on
MSW landfill leachate characteristics
conducted by the Office of Solid Waste
(U.S. EPA, 1988). Out of 109 leachate
mercury analyses collected, only six (7
percent) were above the drinking water
level or maximum contaminant level
(MCL) for mercury (0.002 mg/L) and,
none were above the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) limit for mercury
(0.2 mg/L), The average of these MSW
leachate analyses was 0,0008 mg/L
mercury. The maximum concentration
reported is 0.0098 mg/L.
Further analysis indicates that less
than 0.01 percent of the mercury in
MSW landfills leaches from, the landfill.
This estimate is supported by a study
measuring mercury disposition (in
landfill gas and leachate) in four Swiss
landfills which, found around .007
percent of the mercury from the landfill
in the leachate (Baccini et al, 1987).
The behavior of mercury in a MSW
landfill is not known in great detail. The
complexity of aqueous mercury
chemistry makes it difficult to predict
and model at this time. However, the
available information suggests that
chemical conditions tend to favor die
metallic form of mercury in MSW
landfills. This form has a lower
solubility in water (0,02-0,04 mg/L)
than other chemical forms. In addition,
EPA has identified studies that indicate
that municipal solid waste has a
significant capacity for retaining
mercury in the landfill unless there are
unusually large quantities of mercury in
municipal solid waste (Gould et al.,
1988/Mennerieh, 1985). The Agency has
not seen field data for industrial non-
hazardous landfills.
In addition, the Agency reviewed
199Oand 1991 Superfund Records of
Decision (RODs) for information on
municipal landfill sites where mercury
was listed as a contaminant of concern
(COG). A total of twelve out of sixty-six
1990 and 1991 RODs for landfills
accepting municipal waste listed
mercury as a COG. Of these 12 sites, 5
had mercury detections in ground-water
over die MCL. All but one of these sites
had confirmed industrial waste
codisposal. At diis site only onsite
ground-water exceeded die MCL for
mercury (maximum of 0.013 mg/L); all
offsite ground-water samples were
below detection limits.
In conclusion, preliminary data and
analysis suggest at this time that
mercury in municipal solid wastes is
not being readily released by leaching
processes diat typically occur in the
MSW landfill environment. Tins
indication is also supported by
controlled leaching studies of high-
concentration mercury-containing
wastes codisposed with municipal solid
waste (Borden et al., 1990/Gould et al,,
1988). However, die Agency requests
diat commenters provide any MSW
landfill leachate or groundwater data, or
data from industrial Subtitle D landfills,
diat EPA has not considered in its
analysis.
B. Air Exposure
The Agency is also reviewing data on
die air patiiway for mercury because
low levels of mercury in surface water
have caused elevated fish
concentrations at many sites in
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Florida, and cdier States, and diese
elevated levels of mercury have been
attributed to atmospheric deposition
from non-specific sources (U.S. EPA,
1993a). Therefore, EPA reviewed data
on mercury emissions to air from a
number of sources, including those
potentially related to lamp disposal.
EPA also considered available data on
die fate and transport of mercury of
mercury emitted to die air.
Because of elemental mercury's high
vapor pressure, it is easily volatilized
into die atmosphere. Two factors are
believed to contribute to die recent
increases in atmospheric deposition of
mercury compounds. The first factor is
increased atmospheric levels from
mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants, chloralkali plants, MWC
facilities, and other sources. The second
factor is increased oxidation of
atmospheric elemental mercury vapor to
more soluble oxidized forms which is
enhanced by anthropogenic (i.e.,
pollution from man-made sources)
increases in atmospheric oxidizing
agents, such as ozone and inorganic
acids. Based on current mercury
emissions inventories EPA believes diat
major mercury emission source
categories include coal fired power
plants, municipal waste combustors and
medical waste combustors. (U.S. EPA,
1993).
Mercury diat is mediylated is strongly
biomagnified through die food chain
diroughbioconeentration in animals,
and in plant tissue. Mediylation is a
chemical process in which a methyl
unit is added to eidier elemental or
oxidized mercury. The primary
environmental human exposure
padiway for mercury is dirough die
consumption of contaminated fish. Fish
bioconcentration factors (fish tissue
concentration/water concentration) are
as high as 85,000, Recently, elevated
levels of mercury in fish in isolated,
pristine lakes have been identified in
widespread areas around the country.
There are currently over 1,550 fish
consumption bans or advisories due to
mercury in effect in die United States
(Sorensen et al, 1990).
Although diere may be insufficient
data to determine whedier mercury from
lamps will endanger human health and
environment by die release of mercury
to die air, there are concerns over
emissions of mercury from lamps from
-------
38292
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 7 Wednesday, July 27, 1994 /Proposed Rules
municipal waste combustors, possibly
landfill gas, as well as concerns with the
handling and disposal of mercury '
lamps. In this section', available
information will be discussed pertaining
to the hazards of mercury via air
exposure.
(1) Incineration
The Agency estimates that
approximately 14% of U.S. municipal
solid waste is burned in municipal
waste combustors (MWCs), comprising
23 million metric tons (Mg) of waste.
Approximately 100 Mg of mercury-
containing waste is burned in municipal
waste combustors, of which about 3 Mg/
yr is mercury-containing lamps (U.S.
EPA, 1990). Because of its low boiling
point, elemental mercury in the waste is
largely vaporized during municipal
waste combustion and, without controls
specific to mercury, passes out of the '
municipal waste combustor into the
atmosphere with the flue gas.
Measurements have shown that for
several municipal waste combustors
with emissions controls for sulfur and
nitrogen oxide particulates, average
MWC mercury emission factors range
from 70 to 90 percent of the mercury
input (Vogg et al, 1986/Reiman, 1989).
If we assume that 98% of the mercury
in incinerated municipal solid waste is
volatilized during combustion this
would potentially generate 98 Mg/year
mercury emissions of this, about 2.9
Mg/year would be from mercury-
containing lamps. Post-combustion
mercury control at the municipal waste
combustor's would reduce mercury
levels by 80% to 90%.
EPA plans to propose mercury
emission limits for new and existing
municipal waste combustors in 1994
(U.S. EPA, 1991a). The mercury
emission limits will be based on the use
of activated carbon injection for
mercury control as demonstrated by
EPA at tests at the Stanislaus municipal
waste combustor (California) and
Camden municipal waste combustor
(New Jersey). These tests demonstrated
activated carbon injection technology as
available for post-combustion mercury
control at municipal waste combustors
and achieved mercury reduction levels
of 80 to 90 percent. During the tests,
activated carbon was injected into the
flue gases upstream of the acid gas
control system and collected (with the
mercury) in the particulate matter .
control system. The ash from the
particulate matter control system was
then landfilled. ,
It is unclear to what degree the
mercury being released from municipal
waste combustors would contribute to
increased mercury levels in surface
waters because the transport and cycling
of atmospheric mercury emissions are
complex and poorly understood. It is
uncertain how long mercury will :btay in
the atmosphere after being released. The
oxidation state of mercury dictates how
long it remain? in the air. Elemental
mercury could stay in the atmosphere
for months to years, whereas an
oxidized species of mercury would stay
for only days to weeks. Although
controversy remains over the form of
mercury as it leaves the MWC statik, it
is likely that mercury from a municipal
waste combustor would be more \
oxidized and therefore would not.
remain in the atmosphere for a long
period of time. ,i
However, since MWC facilities T~
comprise one anthropogenic source of
atmospheric mercury, there are probably
regional-scale or global-scale impacts
from such sources (Glass et al., 1986/
Johnson, 1987). The elimination of
mercury-containing lamps from '<
municipal waste combustors would
reduce annual atmospheric mercury
emissions from these significant sources
by around 3 metric tons, or about 3
percent of the total mercury-bearing
waste that is incinerated. The Ageincy is
considering proposing air emission
controls for mercury later this year
which would, when implemented,
reduce these emissions.
(2) Mercury in Landfill Gas
EPA evaluated emissions of mercury
in landfill gas emission in its
"Preliminary Risk Assessment" which ,
is available in the public docket (EPA,
1993). EPA reviewed studies on the
amount of mercury that may be released
to the air from municipal solid waste
landfills. Specifically, this section
presents in detail the results of two
studies that attempt to measure mercury
air releases. ,
A Swiss study (Baccini et al., 1987)
measured the amount of landfill gas
from four municipal landfills. This
study is comparable to municipal solid
waste landfills in the U.S. because the
study indicated that these, Swiss MSW
landfills contained approximately 2
parts per million (ppm) of mercury,
which, given the standard error range, is
comparable to the approximately 3.6
ppm of mercury in U.S. municipal solid
waste (U.S. EPA, 1990). The Swiss study
indicated that mercury concentrations
in landfill gases had a mean value of
about 0.4 ng/cubic meter. The annual
'total mercury release also was lovlr
(0.0065 mg/Mg waste, average). Using
this gas release value, and the amount
of municipal solid waste annually
disposed in U.S. landfills (118 million
Mg), the amount of mercury annually
released in landfill gas can be estimated
as 0.8 kg, about 0.0001 percent of the
total mercury load entering MSW
landfills (643 Mg). Adjusting the
proportion of total mercury contributed
by mercury-containing lamps to the
MSW stream (3.8 percent), provides an'
estimate of annual landfill gas emissions
from lamps of about 0.03 kg, less than
0.00001 -percent of the total municipal
•solid waste mercury input (EPA, 1993).
The .amount of mercury from lamps
emitted into the atmosphere by landfill
gas is very small (.00003 Mg) when
compared to the 3 Mg of mercury from
lamps that is estimated to be emitted
into the atmosphere through municipal
waste combustors.
EPA also received a study (National
Environmental Protection Board et al,
1989) in a comment to the Universal
Waste Proposal that provided data on
mercury gas from four municipal
landfills in Sweden. The Swedish study
measured the ambient air quality above
four municipal landfills. The study did
not indicate the level of mercury in the
municipal landfills. Mercury was
measured using differential optical
adsorption spectroscopy (DOAS), . •.
located two meters above the landfill,
compared with background mercury
concentrations measured at each of the
four landfills. The mean ranged from
10.2 ng/m3 to 23.6 ng/m3 with
background mercury levels at 4 ng/m3 to
8ng/m3. The report stated that because
all measurements were close to the
detection limit for the DOAS technique,
the reliability of the results was
questioned. After a review, it was '
determined that although the •
quantification was uncertain because of
a low signal-to-noise ratio, the
concentration above the landfills was
significantly above background mercury
levels, indicating that mercury was
being released to the atmosphere.
However, since it is unknown how
much mercury is found in Swedish
municipal solid waste landfills, the
results of this study cannot be readily
compared to the situation in the U.S.
(3) Crushing and Breakage of Lamps '
Mercury remains in lamps until they
are broken. When lamps break, the
elemental mercury inside becomes
available for evaporation, adsorption, or
reaction. EPA modeled mercury
emissions'from broken lamps based on
two different methods of transportation
(EPA, 1993). Discarded lamps may be
transported in one of two ways: In
refuse trucks as household or
commercial trash, and in closed vans or
trailers as part of a bulk relamping
program. Based on available • • '
information, it was assumed for the'
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No; 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
38293
purposes of this model that as much as
6.6% of mercury could be released in
the air from a lamp broken during the
collection, storage and transport of
mercury-containing lamps in garbage
tracks. The Agency recognizes that it is
uncertain how much mercury is
released from broken lamps. The
amount of mercury released would vary
depending on the ambient air
temperature, the time the broken lamps
are directly exposed to the air and the
number of lamps broken. The Agency
requests any available data concerning
releases of mercury during storage,
transportation and waste management
(e.g., landfill and recyclers) activities.
C. Technical Considerations and
B&questfor Comments
The available data on landfill leachate
suggests that mercury-containing lamps
may not pose a threat to groundwater
when placed in a state-controlled
municipal landfill due to the low levels
of mercury found in landfill leachate.
However, available information also
indicates that an important route of
exposure for mercury is
bioaccumulation up the food chain,
causing mercury poisoning to both
wildlife and humans (i.e., through fish
consumption). Although it is unclear
how mercury moves through the
atmosphere and what conditions
enhance or retard it, information
suggests that given the high vapor
pressure of mercury, it can readily
volatilize to the air and be transported,
perhaps long distances, and be
deposited on surface water or soil
(which can run off into surface water).
Some mercury that is subsequently
methylated will bioaccumulate in the
food chain.
The actual amount of mercury
released from fluorescent or HID lamps
is unknown. It is estimated that lamps
that are incinerated will release 98% of
their mercury due to the high
temperatures needed for the
incineration process. However, because
mercury is such a volatile metal,
amounts of mercury could be released *
into the air from lamps broken during
transportation or lamps broken at the
landfill. For purposes of this proposal,
EPA has made assumptions on the
amount of mercury that may be released
from a broken lamp but few studies
have directly measured the amount of
mercury released from a lamp over time.
More information on the air release,
transport and expos are pathway for
mercury is needed in order to better
evaluate the proper management
methods for spent mercury-containing
lamps. The Agency requests information
on airtransport of mercury from
mercury-containing lamps, the mercury
methylation process (bom in general
and in landfills) and any studies that
directly measure the amount and form
of mercury released from broken
mercury-containing lamps.
IV. Management Options
The information presented in this
notice has led the Agency to re-evaluate
the management of waste mercury-
containing lamps because of their
importance in promoting energy-
efficiency. As mentioned earlier in this
notice, the use of energy-efficient
lighting can reduce mercury emissions
from coal-burning power plants as well
as emissions of carbon dioxide and
sulfur oxide, In light of the benefits
derived from the use of these lamps,
EPA is seeking comment on two
proposed options based the data which
indicate that these lamps may be better
managed either outside of the hazardous
waste system or in a reduced regulatory
* structure within the hazardous waste
system.
However, since there remain
uncertainties in the data, more
information on the air exposure
pathway for mercury from lamps would
facilitate a decision by EPA on the
management of lamps. Additional
information could clarify which kind of
reduced management structure would
be most appropriate for mercury-
containing lamps. Hie Agency has
requested that information, if available,
be submitted with the public comment
to this proposal.
Given these technical uncertainties,
EPA has developed two proposed
alternative approaches'for the
management of mercury-containing
lamps. The first approach is a
conditional exclusion for mercury-
containing lamps from regulation as
hazardous waste. Under this approach,
mercury-containing lamps would no
longer be considered hazardous waste
provided that they are managed under
the conditions of the exclusion. The
second approach is to add mercury-
containing lamps to the universal waste
management system, which was
proposed for batteries and pesticides on
February 11,1993 (58 FR8102). Under
the universal waste management
system, lamps that fail the TC would be
considered hazardous waste, but they
would be subject to streamlined
hazardous waste management
requirements, which are described in
detail later in this notice. The major
difference between these two options is
whether lamps are disposed of under
Subtitle D requirements or under
Subtitle C requirements. Recycling of
lamps would be allowed under either
option.
If EPA concludes, after considering
data from the public comment on this
proposal, that the risk from mercury
release from mercury-containing lamps
is not significant enough to warrant
Subtitle C regulation, the Agency may
choose to finalize a conditional
exclusion. However, if EPA concludes,
after considering data received in public
comment that the risk from mercury
release from lamps is significant, the
Agency may choose to keep mercury-
containing lamps in Subtitle C, under
the universal waste management
system.
The following sections describe the
two approaches, in detail.
A. Conditional Exclusion
Section 3001 of RGRA charges EPA
with identifying the characteristics of
hazardous waste and listing particular
hazardous wastes. Section 1004(5) of
RCRA defines waste as "'hazardous" if
the waste poses a "substantial present or
potential hazard" to human health or
the environment when improperly
managed. The groundwater data
discussed earlier in mis notice suggest
that, mercury-bearing lamps, if they are
disposed of according to the conditions
of the proposed exclusion, may not pose
a substantial present or future threat to
human health or the environment.
Based on the Agency's authority to
identify characteristics of hazardous
waste and the statutory definition of
hazardous waste, EPA is considering
whether an exclusion of used mercury-
containing lamps from regulation as
hazardous waste would be appropriate.
EPA requests comment on the data
presented in the proposal, as well as on
whether to exclude these lamps from
regulation as hazardous waste.
The exclusion under consideration
today has two conditions. In order to
qualify for the exclusion:
(1.)(a) Generators would be required to
either dispose of these lamps in a
municipal solid waste landfill that is
permitted by a State/Tribe with, an EPA-
approved MSW permitting program, or
(It) If generators do not send these
lamps to a MSW landfill, ftiey would
send them to a State permitted,
licensed, or registered mercury
reclamation facility; and
(2) Generators would be required to
keep a record of the lamps shipped to
management facilities.
The Agency is proposing to limit the
exclusion to spent lamps disposed in
MSW landfills (requirements of MSW
landfills are discussed later in this
section), rather than allowing disposal
in any nonhazardous waste landfill,
-------
38294
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 /Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
because EPA has field data on leachate
(including mercury levels) only for
MSW landfills (among Subtitle D
facility categories). The available
information (discussed above) suggests
that the amount of mercury from
mercury-containing lamps that is
released from MSW landfill gas is very
small and its effect on ambient air
quality may not pose a significant
hazard to human health or the
environment. EPA requests any
information on the levels and impacts of
mercury in MSW landfill gas. Further,
data on leachate quality and air
emissions from other nonhazardous
waste landfills, including industrial
solid waste landfills, is very limited.
However, some soil column data also
suggest that mercury dissolution into
soil pore water occurs at very low levels
(Eichholz et al. ,'1986). EPA requests
comment on this approach and any
information on mercury releases from
other nonhazardous waste landfills.
Based on EPA's existing data and any
additional data received,'EPA may
expand the exclusion to include
disposal in non-municipal, solid waste,
Subtitle D disposal facilities.
While this proposed exclusion from
Subtitle C of RCRA is supported by data
from municipal solid waste landfills
with a range of design and operating
conditions, EPA believes that limiting
the exclusion to spent lamps'disposed
only in MSW landfills that are
permitted by States or Tribes with EPA-
approved MSW landfill permitting
programs will provide further assurance
that human health and the environment
will be protected. In particular, these
MSW landfill permitting controls will
provide added protection to the
management of these lamps.
In October 1991, EPA promulgated
new requirements for municipal solid
waste landfills (40 CFR Part 258,
October 9,1991, 56 FR 51016). These
requirements cover location*restrictions,
landfill design and operations,
groundwater monitoring, corrective
action measures, financial assurance,
and conditions for closing the landfill
and post closure care. The majority of
landfill owners/operators accepting '.
greater than 100 tons per day must
comply with the majority of the
requirements by October 9,1993. On
October 1,1993 (58 FR 51536), EPA
delayed the October 9,1993 effective
date for six months for landfills
accepting less than 100 tons per day (in
addition to other criteria) and delayed
the effective date for two years for
landfills in arid or remote regions that
accept less than 20 tons per day.
States/tribes are in the process of
incorporating these hew municipal solid
waste landfill standards into their
permitting programs and applying for
EPA approval of their permitting
programs. EPA is currently evaluating
these State permitting programs to
determine their adequacy in
incorporating the new municipal solid
waste landfill criteria (40 CFR part 258).
As of June 30,1993, EPA approved
thirty-six State municipal solid waste
landfill programs. In addition, EPA is
actively reviewing numerous State
permitting program applications; and
expects to approve the remaining State
landfill permitting programs by April
1994, well before this proposed rule
would become effective as a finjil rule.
EPA expects to issue "partial" program
approvals to some States because their
landfill permitting programs may not
fully address all elements of the EPA
municipal solid waste landfill criteria.
For purposes of today's rule, EPA would
consider "partial" program approvals,
as well as "full" program approvals, to
be "EPA-approved" State municipal .
solid waste landfill permitting
programs. Further, States with "partial"
approval have agreed to an EPA
approved schedule for full approval.
The Agency believes that limiting
today's proposed exclusion to landfills
that are permitted by States that have
incorporated EPA's new municipal
landfill standards will provide further
assurance that spent lamps will be
safely managed in municipal solid
waste landfills. EPA requests comment
on this approach and any alternative
approaches.
The second condition, which limits
the proposed exclusion to lamps
managed in State permitted, licensed, or
registered mercury reclamation
facilities, is also consistent with the
Agency's support for environmentally
sound reclamation of waste. EPA
(believes that with adequate State
oversight, mercury containing kjmps
can be safely recycled and the mercury
reclaimed from mem. However, EPA is
concerned that, in States without
oversight over recyclers, recycling
activities could pose a threat to human
health and the environment because of. '
inadequate or non-existent waste ,
management controls. Therefore, the
Agency is requesting information on
recycling operations and practices. EPA
is aware that several technologies are
available to recycle lamps and recover
mercury from them. However, the
Agency does not have complete
information on which technologies are
currently being used by recycling
companies and if these technologies can
address all different kinds of lamps (e.g.,
tube, U-shaped, compact, etc.). The
Agency also seeks information that
tracks mercury as it moves through the
recycling process. Further, EPA would
like to know the operating capacity of
existing or planned reyclers of mercury-
containing lamps. The Agency is also
requesting information on what markets
exist for the mercury and other
materials recovered from lamps. This
information will be useful to the Agency
in understanding and assessing possible
risks to human health and the
environment as well as to determine the
potential or actual use of the materials
recovered from lamps in the market.
Under the conditional exclusion,
regulated lamp generators (i.e., those
that generate more than the conditional-
exempt small quantity generator
(CESQG) limit of 100 kilograms of
hazardous waste per month which
would be about 350 mercury-containing
lamps) would not be able to send lamps
to a municipal waste combustor for
disposal. EPA does not propose to
extend the exclusion to lamps disposed
in municipal waste combustors because
of concern over mercury air emissions
from these sources. However, this
proposed option would not affect
municipal waste combustors' ability to
continue the combustion of traditional
municipal solid waste which contains
limited quantities of unregulated
household or CESQG mercury-
containing lamps. Because mercury-
containing lamps do not burn, it is
unlikely that truck loads of mercury-
containing lamps (i.e., containing more
than 350 lamps) would have been
acceptable to most operators. The
exclusion would assure that this
disposal alternative is not considered in
any situation. The Agency requests
comment on the proposal to limit the
exclusion to permitted municipal solid
waste landfills (i.e., regulated lamp
generators would not be allowed to send
lamps to a municipal waste combustor
for disposal).
EPA also requests comment on adding
to the exclusion handling requirements
to minimize mercury emissions during.
storage and transportation (e.g.,
packaging to reduce breakage). These
management controls could be the same
as those proposed in the universal waste
management system. The Agency is
interested in data on the cost of and , >
human health protection provided by
these handling requirements for lamps. ,
The third condition is that generators
taking advantage of the exclusion would
be required to maintain a written
certification indicating the disposal or
recycling location for the lamps. The
proposed certification, to be signed by
the generator or its authorized
representative, would state that on a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
38295
specified date a specified amount of
lamps was consigned to a specified
transporter for disposal or recycling at a
specified facility. This certification
would be required for each shipment of
lamps and would be maintained by the
generator for three years from the date
of shipment. The Agency is proposing
this documentation as a mechanism for
verifying that the conditions of the
exclusion have been met. Failure to
maintain the required documentation
would disqualify the generator from
eligibility for the exclusion. The
existence of the certification, however,
would not protect a generator from an
enforcement action if the lamps were
not actually disposed of or recycled in
accordance with the conditions.
The Agency is proposing that separate
documentation be required for each
shipment based on its belief that most
lamp generation is sporadic (every three
to four years), as opposed to on-going
generation which would lead to a
continuous relationship with the same
disposal or recycling facility. Given that
the life span of mercury-containing
lamps is approximately three to four
years, businesses that participate in
mass relampings would only dispose of
their lamps every few years. Under the
current hazardous waste regulations,
many of these businesses would be
subject to hazardous waste regulation
because mass relamping could cause
them to exceed the conditionally-
exempt small quantity generator level
(approximately 350 four foot lamps, if
lamps are the only hazardous .waste
generated). However, small businesses
and other facilities that generate just
under the CESQG limit of hazardous
waste (100 kg per month) may exceed
this limit with attrition rekmping. For
these generators, this recordkeeping
requirement could be more burdensome.
The Agency requests comments on
whether there are alternative
mechanisms that can be used by
generators to demonstrate compliance
with the conditions of the exclusion.
The Agency also requests comment on
whether, if the Agency determines that
documentation is necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the
conditions, the form and frequency of
documentation proposed are
appropriate.
In addition to requesting comment on
the conditions of the exclusion, the
Agency requests comment on having a
3 to 5 year sunset provision on the
exclusion. A sunset provision would
require the Agency to re-evaluate the
exclusion after a period of three to five
years, to determine whether an
exclusion is indeed appropriate for
lamps given any unanticipated
management or risk issues that develop
as a result of the exclusion. The Agency
would then determine whether to
extend the exclusion.
Finally, the Agency requests
comments on other alternatives that still
achieve the overall RCRA goal of
protection of human health and the
environment. EPA is interested in data
on the benefits, costs, and legal
authority for any alternatives and the
Agency will consider such options,
B. Universal Waste Management System
1. Background
On February 11,1993, EPA proposed
a streamlined, reduced regulatory
management structure for certain
widely-generated hazardous wastes
currently subject to full RGRA Subtitle
C regulation, in an effort to facilitate
then-collection and proper management
(the "universal wastes" proposal, 58 FR
8102). The proposed reduced regulatory
structure, known as a special collection
system, is designed to ensure that
management of these hazardous wastes
is conducted in a manner that is
protective of human health and the
environment, given the diffuse and
diverse population of generators of these
wastes. See the February 11,1993
preamble discussion, for a detailed
discussion of the proposal.
The general waste types that EPA
believes may be appropriately managed
under this streamlined regulatory
structure are known as "universal
wastes" and share several
characteristics. These wastes:
• Are frequently generated in a wide
variety of settings other than the
industrial settings usually associated
with hazardous wastes;
• Are generated by a vast community,
the size of which poses implementation
difficulties for both those who are
regulated and the regulatory agencies
charged with implementing the
hazardous waste program; and
• May be present in significant
volumes in the municipal waste stream.
The February 11,1993, proposal
included specific regulatory text
addressing the management of two
waste types; hazardous waste batteries,
and suspended and/or canceled
hazardous waste pesticides that are
recalled. The proposal also included a
petition process and a set of criteria to
be used to determine whether it would
be appropriate to add additional waste
types to tiie special collection system in
lie future. Several waste types such as
automotive antifreeze, paint application
wastes, and mercury-containing items
such as thermostats and thermometers
were discussed as possible additions to
the Universal Waste proposal, also
referred to as the special collection
system.
2. Universal Waste System Alternative
for Lamps
hi'the February 11,1993, proposal
EPA mentioned fluorescent lamps (58
FR 8110), explaining that the Agency
was examining the risks of managing
these wastes in landfills and requesting
data on the risks of various management
methods for these wastes. Comments
received in response to that request are
included in the docket for this proposal.
The Agency will respond to these
comments in the final rule together with
those submitted in response to Today's
proposal. The Agency is requesting
comment on using the proposed special
collection system for the management of
spent lamps as another approach to the
management of mercury-containing
lamps. The Agency has not yet
promulgated a final universal waste rule
but anticipates doing so in the near
future. Should EPA select the universal
waste option for lamps as a final rule,
the Agency will ensure consistency with
the more comprehensive universal
waste final rule.
The Agency believes that spent lamps
may appropriately be considered
"universal wastes" in that they are
generated in a wide variety of settings,
are generated by a very large number of
generators, and are present in significant
volumes in the municipal waste stream.
The special collection system approach
may be an appropriate option for
addressing the collection phase of
managing lamps that are hazardous
waste. The special collection system
approach (which is consistent with the
February 11,1993 proposal), would not
change any of the requirements
applicable to the ultimate treatment and
disposal or recycling of any wastes
collected, but would minimize the
regulatory requirements applicable to
collection of these wastes (i.e.,
generation, transportation, and
intermediate storage/consolidation) for
proper management.
Special collection system regulations
also could remove some existing
barriers to management of hazardous
waste lamps under the Subtitle C system
by reducing the technical and
paperwork requirements applicable to
collection, thus making collection more
efficient and economical. At the same
time, management requirements
included in special collection system
regulations could be designed to
minimize the hazards posed in
collection of these wastes (e.g., special
packaging could be required to
minimize the risk of breakage).
-------
38296
Federal Register /Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 /Proposed Rules
By removing some of the barriers to
Subtitle C management for lamps, a
special collection system approach
could minimize concerns about
decreased participation in the Green
Lights program by simplifying and
clarifying the requirements for mercury-
containing lamp collection while
maintaining Subtitle C control over final
treatment and disposal (or recycling) for
these lamps. Such an approach could
help in assuring that the substantial
environmental benefits offered by the
Green Lights program are realized
through increased participation.
Management costs under the special
collection system approach proposed on
February 11,1993, would be lower than
full Subtitle C management because
hazardous waste transporters and
manifests would not be required for
lamp shipments between the generator
and the consolidation facility, and
permits would not be required for
storage at interim consolidation points.
However, under the Special Collection
System the management of mercury-
containing lamps (after reaching the.'
consolidation point) would be more ,
expensive than the management of these
lamps under the conditional exclusion
(although the larger volumes managed at
these consolidation points may result in
certain economies of scale for transport
and disposal or recycling).
The Agency requests comment on
whether spent hazardous waste lamps
should be regulated under the special
collection system approach proposed
February 11,1993. Documents included
in the docket for this proposal include
estimates indicating that approximately
3.9 billion spent lamps of all types may
be disposed of annually in the country
(including 550 million spent fluorescent
lamps) and that lighting is one of the
second largest contributors of mercury
to the municipal waste stream (from all
types of mercury-containing lamps). In
addition, the Agency believes that spent
mercury-containing lamps of some type
must be generated by almost every
commercial and industrial
establishment in the country.
Li addition, a special collection
system approach could address all types
of spent lamps that fail the toxicity
characteristic and are therefore
hazardous waste, not only mercury-
containing lamps. Such an approach
seems appropriate since any type of
waste lamp is likely to be "universal" in
nature. The Agency requests comment
on whether various types of spent lamps
(e.g., incandescent, neon), other than
mercury-containing lamps, typically fail
the TC test (or exhibit other
characteristics) and would be hazardous
waste under the current RCRA Subtitle
C toxicity characteristic (40 CFR
261.24). Indeed, should the Agency
choose, in a final rule, to conditionally
exempt mercury-containing lamps from
regulation under Subtitle G, the Agency
may still elect to add other types of
lamps to the universal waste j.-
management system. The Agency
requests comment on this approach and
on whether, how frequently, and for
what TC constituents various lamp
types may fail the toxicity characteristic.
The Agency also requests that
commenters submit any additional data
that may be available on this question.
The Agency requests comment on a
special collection system for
management of spent lamps including
the same basic structure and
requirements for generators,
transporters, consolidation point;;, and
destination facilities as proposed on
February 11,1993 for management of
hazardous waste batteries and .
pesticides. The Agency is also j
specifically requesting comment on the
items discussed below.
First, in the February 11,1993,
proposal the Agency proposed a ';
quantity limit for storage of batteries
above which generators and j
consolidation points would be required
to notify the Agency of their storage
activities. The Agency requests ;
comment on a notification requirement
for generators and consolidation points
storing more than 35,000 spent mercury-
containing lamps. This requirement is
similar in substance to the notification
requirement proposed in the Universal
Wastes rule (proposed § 273.11(c) and
§ 273.13(d) (58 FR 8129-8130)). EPA is .
suggesting a numerical limit rather than
a weight limit because lamp packaging
(e.g., file cardboard boxes in which new
replacement lamps were shipped) may
constitute a large proportion of the total
weight of a shipment'or stored quantity
of lamps. In addition, industry practice
appears to be to quantify inventopes by
number of lamps rather than by weight,
calculated by multiplying the number of
boxes of lamps in storage or in a i
shipment by the number of lamps per
box. Since about 35,000 lamps roughly
correspond to a full truckload of ,
packaged fluorescent lamps, the Agency
is suggesting a 35,000 limit for i . .
fluorescent lamps. The Agency al so
requests comment on appropriate!
quantity limits for notification foir other
hazardous waste lamps type's. '
Second, the Agency is requesting
comment on the options'proposed in the
Universal Waste proposal § 273.11(bj(2)
and§273.13(a)(2) (58 FR 8129-8130) for
demonstrating that lamps are not stored
for greater than one year. In addition,
with respect to tracking of lamp |
shipments, the Agency is requesting
comment on several alternatives. The
approach included in today's proposed
regulatory text is the same as that
included in the universal wastes
proposal for batteries C§ 273.12(b) of the
universal waste proposal). This
approach requires that the manifest
system be used (which triggers the use
of hazardous waste transporters) for
shipments from the last consolidation
point to a destination facility, but that
• no manifests or other records (or .
hazardous waste transporters) be
required for shipments from generators .
to consolidation points, between
consolidation points, or from generators
to destination facilities. On the other
hand, because a number of comments
received on the proposed universal
wastes rule disagreed with this
approach, the Agency is also requesting
.comment on two additional approaches.
The first alternative, which was
suggested in several comments on the
universal wastes rule,,-would be to,
require that persons initiating and
receiving shipments of lamps retain
shipping papers documenting the
shipments. The minimum data elements
required for such records could be
specified (e.g., quantity of lamps, date of
shipment or receipt, name and address
of shipper and receiver). The second
alternative would be not to specifically
require any specific record keeping for
shipments of lamps, but, as with all
'exemptions, the person claiming the
exemption would have to keep
documentation to show they qualify (see
§ 261.2(f)). The Agency is requesting
comment on this second alternative.
because ,it is believed that due to the
large volumes of lamps, shipments are
more likely to be made directly from the
generator to a destination facility.
Records would be available for such
shipments because destination facilities
are already required under 40 CFR
264.73(b)(l) or 265.73(b)(l) to maintain
records including the description and
quantity of each hazardous waste
received. It is likely that lamps would
be shipped directly from generators to
disposal facilities because volumes are
likely to be large enough that
consolidation will not be necessary to
make full truckloads. In addition, the
storage space and careful handling
required for management of these
wastes make consolidation less
attractive and shipment directly to the
destination facility more nicely.
" A third question on which the Agency
requests comment is what management
controls would be appropriate to impose
on collection of lamps under a special
collection system approach. Some of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules 3829?
data included in the docket for this
proposal discuss the risks of the types
of management likely in lamp collection
such as management at the generator's
site, transportation, and storage (U.S.
EPA, 1993a). Requirements could
include packaging that would be
required to meet a performance standard
of minimizing breakage for unbroken
spent lamps, A wide variety of
containers would probably satisfy such
packaging requirements. EPA expects
that packaging in which new
replacement lamps are shipped from the
manufacturer would frequently he
reused to store and transport removed,
used lamps. Another option could be to
impose a prohibition on intentional
breakage of spent lamps by generators.
In addition, requirements could be
imposed on the storage and
transportation of spent lamps that are
inadvertently broken, to prevent further
mercury emissions. Steel 55-gallon
drums or any enclosed container could
be used to hold broken lamps for
transportation to the disposal site. In
summary, the Agency requests comment
on whether the exclusion should
include requirements to minimize
mercury emissions during storage and
transportation of spent lamps.
Management standards would apply to
transporter and consolidation points as
well as for generators. The Agency
requests comment on management
practices for lamps, the risks posed by
these practices, and appropriate
technical controls to minimize these
risks while at the same time not
inhibiting collection and proper
management. The Agency also requests
comment on whether generators or
consolidation points should be allowed
to Intentionally crush lamps to
minimize volume for storage or
shipment and what, if any, standards
should be imposed to protect against
mercury releases during crushing or the
subsequent management of crushed
lamps. The proposed universal waste
management system includes a
prohibition on treatment (crushing is
considered treatment) of lamps at the
generator, transporter and consolidation
points,
A fourth question on which the
Agency requests comment is whether to
include a 3 to 5 year sunset provision
on the universal waste system for lamps.
A sunset provision will require EPA to
re-evaluate the effectiveness of the
universal waste system in addressing
the disposal of lamps after 3 to 5 years.
The Agency can then decide whether
less controls or more controls are
needed to maintain the safe
management of lamps and whether to
extend the inclusion of lamps in the
universal waste system.
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program with the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008,3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for
authorization axe found at 40 CFR part
271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied In the authorized State
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facility in the State that the State was
authorized to permit. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State was
obliged to enact equivalent authority
within specified time frames. New
Federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized State until the
authorized State adopted the
requirements as State law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in non-authorized States. EPA is
directed to implement HSWA
requirements and prohibitions in an
authorized State, including the issuance
of permits, until the State Is granted
authorization to do so. While States
must still adopt HSWA-related
provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in
authorized States in the interim.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
The conditional exclusion and the
universal waste management system
•would not be HSWA regulations, and
thus would not be immediately effective
in authorized States. Thus, the
exemption would be applicable only in
those States that do not have final
authorization for the base (non-HSWA)
portion of the RCRA program.
Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to
impose more stringent regulations than
the Federal program. Accordingly,
authorized States are only required to
modify their programs when EPA
promulgates Federal regulations that are
more stringent than the authorized State
regulations. For those changes that are
less stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are not required
to modify their programs. Today's
proposed options are considered less
stringent or smaller in scope than the
existing Federal regulations because that
portion of today's proposal would
exempt certain activities now within the
purview of RCRA Subtitle C. Therefore,
authorized States are not required to
modify their programs to adopt
regulations consistent with and
equivalent to the proposed exclusion or
the proposed universal waste
management system for lamps.
Even though States will not be
required to adopt today's proposed
options (if either is finalized), EPA
would encourage States to do so. As
already explained in the preamble, a
conditional exclusion of mercury-
containing lamps or the addition of
lamps to the universal waste
management system could reduce
barriers to participation in EPA's Green
Lights program, which encourages
pollution prevention through energy
savings. Further It could help to clarify
for the regulated community the proper
management of mercury-containing
lamps.
In addition, the proposed options, by
making regulations less stringent for
management of lamps, •would give
States more freedom to develop
programs for lamp disposal that would
be appropriate for their situation.
VU. Economic Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order No. 12866, (58
PR 51735 (October 4,1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to OMB review and the -
raquirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State; local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or
-------
38298
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. .
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, this section of the .
preamble summarizes the costs (savings)
and the economic impact analysis of
(option 1) the proposed mercury-
containing lamp exclusion and of
(option 2) the proposed special
collection of mercury-containing lamps.
Based upon the economic impact
analysis for today's rule, the Agency's
best estimate is that the exclusion of
mercury-eontaining lamps from Subtitle
C hazardous waste regulatory
requirements (option 1) may result in
nationwide annualized savings of
approximately $93 million, and the
special collection of mercury containing
lamps (option 2) may result in a
nationwide annualized savings of
approximately $17 million. A complete
discussion of the economic impact
analysis is available in the regulatory
docket for today's proposed rule (EPA,
1994).
The Agency requests information to
better evaluate the human health and '
environmental effects of the two options
described in this notice and current
disposal practices. Human and '
environmental exposure to mercury
could occur during the collection,
transportation, processing, recycling,
treatment, and disposal of spent lamps.
EPA estimated the potential mercury air
emissions resulting from some of these
activities, but is uncertain about the
extent and likelihood of human and
environmental exposure. The Agency is
also aware that the two regulatory
options may pose different worker and
transportation injury risks as well as
different environmental risks. The '
Agency requests information on the
overall risks to human health and the
environment associated with current
practices and the two proposed options.
A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for
Regulatory Options Considered
This section briefly.describes (l).the
universe of spent mercury-containing
lamps and lamp generators, (2) the
current regulatory baseline and (3) the
major options for the regulation of spent,
mercury-containing lamps included in
today's proposal for consideration.
Descriptions of the baseline and the
major options also include a summary
of the methodology used in estimating
compliance costs (savings). Results of
the analysis are summarized in section
5. ' • '' .
1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Spent
Lamp Generators
The Agency estimates that
approximately 310 to 380 million
mercury-containing lamps, and 47,000
to 64,000 facilities could be affected
annually by today's proposal. -•;
• The spent lamp generation number is
based on sales data,1 adjusted to
account for (1) Lamps generated by
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators (CESQG), which would not
be affected by either one of the proposed
options, and (2) lamps generated in
States where spent bulb management
regulations exist (California, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin). (It was assumed (hat
these State, controls would be more
stringent than the options considered in
today's proposal and would therefore
supersede any Federal, exemption of
spent mercury-containing lamps from
Subtitle C requirements)..
2. Baseline Costs
EPA assumed that baseline • j
requirements are the continuation of
current Subtitle C regulatory standards
for the treatment and disposal of,
mercury-containing lamps which
currently fail the TC. Under this ,.
scenario, generators of spent mercury
containing lamps which fail the TC
continue to be subject to the full
spectrum of hazardous waste j
management standards including record
keeping and manifesting of all mercury-
containing lamp shipments, Agency
notification and Subtitle C transport,
treatment, storage and disposal !
standards. |
In the cost analysis, all spent
mercury-containing lamps were j
assumed to be TC (Toxicity '
Characteristic) hazardous wastes. All
spent lamps were also assumed to be in
the low risk category for mercury^
requiring stabilization as treatment
under the Land Disposal Restrictions.
Cost drivers for the baseline
management of spent lamps include
hazardous waste transportation, and
Subtitle C disposal. The bulk of
mercury-containing lamps currently
- disposed (97%) are assumed to be'
stabilized and disposed of in hazardous
waste landfills. The remainder, based
upon volume data from the spent
mercury-containing lamp recovery
industry, are recycled. Based upon
conversations with the recycling'
industry, which Indicate planned
increases in recycling capacity, the
analysis:assumed a small annual, .__
increase in the baseline recycling, rate of
mercury-containing lamps over the first
three years of the analysis. Unit costs for
stabilization, landfilling, recycling and
hazardous waste transport were applied
on a per ton'basis.
Generator specific requirements
which applied to all large quantity
generators of spent mercury-containing
lamps included record-keeping,
manifesting, exception reporting, and
BRS (Biennial Reporting System)
reporting. Other generator requirements,
including rule familiarization,
notification, personnel safety training
and emergency2 planning were only
assessed for new facilities which spot
relamp and store (up to 90 days for large
quantity, generators; up to 180 days for
small quantity generators) spent lamps
on site. It is assumed that costs resulting
from generator requirements which are
incurred on a per shipment basis (i.e.
manifesting, exception reporting) will
be incurred by group relampers once
every three years (once per relamp).
Spot relampers will incur these costs
twice a year (for small quantity
generators) or four times per year (for
large quantity generators).
3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion ,
From Subtitle C Standards Costs
The first option under consideration
in today's proposal is to exclude .
mercury-containing lamps from Subtitle
C management standards with the
condition that these lamps are managed
in permitted municipal landfills, or
recycling facilities. The proposed
'exclusion also includes a minor
generator record keeping requirement.
As the exclusion would be deregulatory,
primary economic impacts to small and
large quantity generators of mercury-
containing lamps resulting from this
action would be in the form of cost
savings from avoided Subtitle C
regulatory management, particularly for
transport and disposal of spent lamps.
1 In the cost analysis, it was assumed
that, given the proposed conditional
exclusion, all small and large quantity
generators of spent mercury-containing
lamps would opt for management in
municipal landfills in order to reduce
disposal costs.
Some generators may have slightly
higher disposal costs than others as a
result of the proposed exclusion of
mercury-containing lamps from
municipal combustors. If these
generators currently manage their non-
hazardous waste in municipal
combustors, the combustor exclusion
1 Source: National Electrical Manufacturing
Association. ,
2 According to 40 CFR part 265 Subpart D of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, all large
quantity generators of hazardous waste must draft
• a contingency plan describing the actions facility
personnel will tale should a fire, explosion, or any
'unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of
hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface
i water occur. Local emergency response teams use
the information required in the contingency plan to
minimize unanticipated damage from the storage of
hazardous waste.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules 38299
may require these generators to: (1)
Keep their spent lamps separate from
the rest of their municipal solid waste,
(2) store spent lamps on site until
enough volume has beea generated to
make disposal cost effective, and (3)
haul spent lamps greater distances to
municipal solid waste landfills.
In short, overall savings to be accrued
from the proposed exclusion may vary
slightly from generator to generator.
4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
The second option, special collection,
included in today's proposal would
allow small and large quantity
generators of spent mercury-containing "
lamps to reduce certain administrative
activities required under Subtitle C
standards, including biennial reporting,
notification, manifesting and personnel
training. Additionally the option also
allows generators to store spent
mercury-containing lamps on-site for up
to one year without a hazardous waste
permit, and to transport their spent
lamps direct to final disposal or
recycling using non-hazardous waste
haulers.
The option also includes similar
reduced requirements for interim spent
lamp storage facilities and "special
collection centers." Transportation to
these facilities or centers from the
generator would not Deregulated under
Subtitle C standards, however, transport
to final disposal or recycling from these
facilities would be regulated under
Subtitle C standards.
The costs estimated for* Special
Collection Option assumes for urban
generators direct shipment using non-
hazardous waste haulers, as allowed
under this option, from generators to
final disposal; thus the costs of creating
and operating an interim storage facility
or special collection center are not
included for urban generators. The
rationale for this omission is twofold:
(1) It is assumed that spent lamp
generation is large enough to create
economies of scale for direct non-
hazardous waste transport; the need for
special collection centers is precluded
by non-hazardous waste transport "milk
runs" forspent lamps, and (2) although
there may be economies of scale
generated for long-haul transport of
spent lamps from collection centers, the
special collection option requires
Subtitle C transport from the centers to
final disposal or recycling, thus making
the use of a collection center with
Subtitle C final transport more
expensive than Subtitle D direct
transport to the disposal facility.
5. Results
a. National Annttalized Costs
(Savings). A summary of estimated
national annual compliance costs
associated with the exclusion option
and the special collection option, along
with estimated baseline compliance
costs are presented below in exhibit
VTI.1. Also presented are estimated
incremental savings above baseline
compliance costs for each option. Costs
were annnalized over a twenty-year
period, using a 7% discount rate. The
analysis used projected growth in the
U.S. population over die twenty-year
time frame of the analysis to estimate
the increase in growth of spent lamp
generation. Total estimated annualized
savings range between approximately
$85 million and $102 million for the
exclusion and savings estimates for the
special collection option range between
$16 million and $20 million in savings.
The above savings estimate is based
on the assumption in the baseline that
all facilities are properly managing their
mercury-containing spent lamps as
Subtitle C waste. Currently, however,
some lamp generators may not be aware
that fluorescent lamps are hazardous
waste and therefore may not be
following Subtitle C requirements.
Hence, estimated savings may represent
savings from a future scenario of full
compliance with current law, rather
than savings from current lamp
management. EPA expects that if no
regulatory action is taken, Subtitle C
management of mercury-containing
lamps will become more prevalent over
the next few years.
EXHIBIT Vll.1.—ANNUAUZED COSTS
(SAVINGS) OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
[Costs (savings) are presented in millions of
1992 dollars/year3]
Regulatory op-
tion
Baseline: Sub-
title C Stand-
ards.
Option ^Condi-
tional Exclu-
sion from Sub-
title C.
Option 2:,Spe-
cial Collection.
Total
annualized
costs
$110-$134;
BE: $118.
S25-S32;
BE: $25.
$94-$115;
BE: $101.
Incremental
annualized
costs/(sav-
ings) above
baseline
NA.
($85)-
($102);
BE: ($93),
(S16HS20);
BE: ($17).
3Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
BE=Best Estimate.
b. Individual Generator Savings.
Average total savings per generator for
both options were simply assessed by
dividing total savings by the estimated
number of generators above (refer to the
methodology section). The average
annual baseline Subtitle C cost per
generator is estimated to be between
$2,000 to $2,250 per generator. Average
per generator savings for the two
deregulatory options are indicated
below In exhibit VH.2. Individual
generator savings, however, will vary
due to facility size, proximity to
disposal or recycling facility, and
regional disposal/recycling costs.
EXHIBIT VH.2.—AVERAGE ANNUAL
COST (SAVINGS) PER REGULATED
GENERATOR
[In 1892 dollars]
Regulatory option
Exclusion from Sub-
title C Standards.
Special Collection ....
Average annual cost
(savings)/generatar
($1,500)—High Sav-
ings Seen.
($2,000)—Low Sav-
ings Seen.
($1,600)—Best Esti-
mate.
($300)—High Savings
Seen.
($300)—Low Savings
Seen.
($300)—Best Esti-
mate.
c. Savings Per Waste Lamp Generated.
As with average savings per generator
estimates, average savings per waste
lamp generated were derived by simply
dividing total upper and lower bound
costs (savings) by the estimated number
of waste lamps accounted for by small
and large quantity generators in states
without specific spent lamp
management standards. The average
baseline Subtitle C cost per bulb is
estimated to be $.34 to $.36. The
resulting savings per lamp is estimated
at $.27 per bulb for the conditional
exclusion option (both high and low
savings scenario) and at $.03 per bulb
for the special collection option. Again,
cost per bulb may vary significantly due
to site specific factors.
6. Sensitivity Analysis
This section presents the results of
EPA's analysis of the effects of varying
selected major parameters in the cost
analysis (where the Agency used
considerable judgment in arriving at the
parameter's value) on the estimated
savings incurred under the proposed
conditional exclusion and the proposed
Universal Waste Rule. The following
assumptions were analyzed in the
sensiitivity analysis forEPA's analysis of
spent lamp management costs:
(1) Percentage of Lamps Generated at
Small and Large Quantity Generators. In
the sensitivity analysis, EPA set its
lower bound estimates of the percentage
-------
383OO
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
of lamps generated at SQGs and LQGs
at fifty percent of total spent lamp
generation and its upper bound
estimates at ninety percent. (Seventy-
five percent was used in the initial cost
analysis).
(2) Cost to Transport Subtitle C Waste.
In the sensitivity analysis, EPA
increased the upper bound estimates of
the costs of transporting spent lamps as
Subtitle C by a factor of three, based on
price quotes from commercial
transporters, over original estimates.
(3) Cost to Dispose of Subtitle C
Waste. Based on price quotes from
commercial hazardous waste disposal
facilities, EPA increased the upper
bound estimates of the Subtitle C
disposal costs by a factor of four over
original estimates.
(4) Cost of Employee Training. To
reflect uncertainty over whether a
professional trainer would be required
and over how many employees would
need to be trained, EPA increased and
decreased the cost of employee training
required by 50 percent.
The costs associated with the high-
end scenario were estimated using the
upper bound estimates for each cost
element included in the sensitivity
analysis. The costs associated with the'
low-end scenario combined the lower
bound estimates for each cost element.
The results from these two analyses
suggest that the range of total annual
savings from the proposed condition
exclusion for spent lamps could be $65
million to $289 million, and the range
of total annual savings from the
proposed Universal Waste RCRA
requirements for generators of spent
lamps could be $15 million to $39
million. The range in cost savings is
mainly the result of uncertainty over
Subtitle C transportation and disposal
costs for lamps. Although EPA has
received price quotes for management of
lamps as Subtitle G waste that are
considerably higher than the average
cost of managing hazardous waste in
Subtitle C landfills, it is not appropriate
to directly compare price quotes to
, engineering costs because the price
quotes reflect a constrained market
place which tends to inflate prices well
above costs. r However, a three-fold
difference between the price quotes for
spent lamps and standard Subtitle C
management cost may also be due to
other factors beyond the inflated prices
of the constrained market, including the
low density of lamps (i.e. a ton of lamps
has a greater volume than a ton of
hazardous waste sludge), or difficulty in
handling lamps. EPA requests comment
on the true costs, as well as the
reasoning behind these costs, of
managing spent lamps as Subtitle C ,
waste. • i
B, Proposed Rule Impacts ;
1. Impacts on Generators of Mercury-
Containing Waste Lamps I
As indicated above, option 1, the
exclusion, is estimated to result in
average annual savings per small and
large quantity spent lamp generator
ranging from $2,000 to $2,250. C|ption 2,
special collection, is estimated to result
in an average annual per generator
savings of approximately $300. -
2. Secondary Effects
.While total incremental savings from
the proposed exclusion (option T.) and
from the proposed special collection
system (option 2) over a Subtitle C
management approach appear to be
high, the Agency does not expect
significant immediate shifts in demand
or price for the lamps or for products
manufactured or sold by firms which
consume these lamps due to the
proposed options. Because the impacts
to lamp generators are positive (i.e. net
savings), the Agency does not expect the
rule to result in adverse impacts to
businesses, or to affect employment or
international trade to any appreciable
degree. : - '
EPA believes that, with the exception
of lamps generated in States with
existing lamp disposal requirements,
most small and large quantity generators
of mercury containing lamps will
choose to dispose of their waste lamps
in municipal solid waste landfills under
option 1, the proposed exclusion from
Subtitle C. This is because Subtftle D
disposal is significantly less expensive
per bulb than recycling or Subtitle C
disposal.4 Subsequently, most waste
lamps currently being handled
according to Subtitle C standards by
permitted hazardous waste haulers,
disposal sites and spent lamp !
processing facilities, would be handled
by Subtitle D haulers and disposal
facilities. Thus Subtitle C waste haulers,
disposal and spent lamp processing
facilities would be affected negatively
while Subtitle D haulers and disposal
facilities would be affected positively
under option 1. .,
The exclusion, option 1, may also
have an impact upon mercury-
containing lamp processors. The Agency
estimates that there are currently 15
facilities which process spent mercury-
containing lamps. Two of these facilities.
recover spent mercury through retorting;
the remaining 13 facilities separate the
glass and aluminum ends, and send the
mercury-containing phosphor powder to
.the two facilities that retort. Ten of the
15 lamp processing facilities are located
in the three States where spent lamp
management regulations exist. Although
most recovery facilities are located in
States with stringent State lamp
disposal requirements, and would most
likely will not be affected by today's
proposed exclusion, a certain
percentage of the spent lamps currently
recovered at these facilities are
generated in States with no specific
lamp disposal requirements. EPA
believes that a portion of mercury-
containing lamps would no longer be
sent for recovery under the proposed "
exclusion (option 1) since disposal in
municipal landfills would be
significantly less expensive.5 Assuming
that lamps generated outside of these
States will not be sent for recovery, it is
possible that 17 percent, or 16 million
lamps, may be diverted. Using a Ismpf
revenue ratio for recovery facilities of
$.44, total impact to the industry could
be approximately $7 million dollars 6 in
lost revenues ($469,000 per facility).
Future recycling efforts may also be
impacted since many of these facilities
may retract plans for expansion in
States which currently have no specific
lamp disposal requirements.
Under option 2, the proposed special
collection system, small and large
quantity generators would not be
allowed to choose to dispose of
hazardous waste lamps in a municipal
soh'd waste landfill. Thus the above
impacts on Subtitle- C waste haulers,
disposal and spent lamp processing
facilities would not be observed under
the second option.
vm. References
Baccini, P., G. Hensler,, R. Figi, and H. Belevi.
1987. Water and Element Balances of
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste
Management and Research. 5:483-499.
Borden, R.C., and T.M. Yanoshak. 1990.
Ground and Surface Water Quality Impacts
of North Carolina Sanitary Landfills. Water
Resources Bulletin. 26(2):269-277.
Eichhok, C.G., Petelka, M.F., Kury, R.L.
1986. Migration of Elemental Mercury
through Soil from Simulated Burial Sites.
Water Resources. 22(1): 269-277
Gould, J.P,, F.G. Pohland, and W.H. Cross. "
1988. Mobilization and Retention of
Mercury and Lead from Particulates .Co-
disposed with Municipal Solid Waste.
«EPA estimates that the average cost per ton for
Subtitle D disposal is $35 as compared to $400 per
ton for Subtitle C disposal and $1,375 per ton for .
recycling. ;
5 EPA estimates that Subtitle D landfilling costs
range between $10 and $150 per ton depending
upon the region of the country. Compared with an
average recycling cost of $1375 per ton, Subtitle D
landfilling is significantly less expensive.
'Similar estimates were not derived for Subtitle
C waste haulers or disposal sites.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules 38301
Participate Science and Technology.
6:381-392,
Kirschner, D.S., R.L. Billau, and TJ.
MacDonald. 1988. Fluorescent Light Tube
Compaction: Evaluation of Employee
Exposure to Airborne Mercury. Applied
industrial Hygiene, 3:129-131,
Mennerich, A. 1985. Laboratory Scale Test
Simulating Co-disposal in Landfills. In:
Proceedings—International Conference on
New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste
Management US. EPA. 60/9-851025.
Metzger, M., and H. Brown. 1987, In-situ
Mercury Speciation in Flue Gas by Liquid
and Solid Sorption Systems. Chemosphere.
16(4):821-832,
NEMA, 1992. The Management of Spent
Electric Lamps containing Mercury.
National Electrical Manufacturers"
Association. Washington, D.C
National Environmental Protection Board
and Swedish Association of Public
Sanitation and Solid Waste Management
1989. Off gassing of Mercury Vapor from
Landfills. Depa-90 Report No. 5. Sweden.
Reimann, D.0.1989.' Heavy Metals in
Domestic Refuse and their Distribution in
Incinerator Residues. Water Waste
Management and Research. 7:57—62.
Sorenson. J.A,,G.E. Glass, K.W. Schmidt, J.K.
Huber, and G.R. Rapp, Jr. 1990, Airborne
Mercury Deposition and Watershed
Characteristics in relation to Mercury
Concentrations in Water, Sediments,
Plankton, and Fish of eighty northern
Minnesota Lakes. Environmental Science
Technical. 24[11):1716-1727.
US. EPA. 1988. Summary of Data on
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Leachate
Characteristics. EPA/S30-SW-88-038, U.S.
EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington,
D.C
US. EPA. 1990. Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the United
States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-
042, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington, D.C
US, EPA, 1991a. Environmental News: EPA
Sets Air Emission Standards for Municipal
Waste Incinerators. January 11,1991.
U.S. EPA, 199lb. A Geochemical Assessment
Model for Environmental Systems. EPA/
600-3-91-021, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
US, EPA. 1991C. Characterization of
Products containing Mercury in Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States, 1970-
2000. U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, D.C
US. EPA. 1992a. Analytical Results of
Mercury in Fluorescent Lamps. U.S. EPA.
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
US. EPA. 1992b, Green Lights Program: The
Firat Year. US. EPA. Office of Air and
Radiation. Washington, D.C
U.S, EPA, 1993a. Management of Used
Fluorescent Lamps: Preliminary Risk
Assessment US, EPA. Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C
US. EPA, 1993b. Report of die National
Technical Forum on Source Reduction of
Heavy Metals in Municipal Solid Waste.
US. EPA. Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, D.C,
US. EPA. 1994, Technical Background
Document: Economic Impact Analysis for
Proposed Options on Mercury-Containing
Lamps. U.S. EPA< Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, D.C.
Vogg, H., H. Brown, M. Metzger, and J.
Schneider. 1986, The Specific Role of
Cadmium and Mercury in Municipal Solid
Waste Incineration. Waste Management
and Research. 4:65-74.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in today's proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 UJS.C. 3501 etseq. An
Information Collection Request (ICRJ
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR# 1699.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Fanner,
Information Policy Branch, U,S,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, S.W. (2136); Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public record keeping burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 4,7 hours per
response annually, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the required data, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2236,
U.S. Itavironmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW», Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA." The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 requires Federal agencies to
consider "small entities" throughout the
regulatory process. Section 603 of the
RFA requires an initial screening
analysis to be performed to determine
whether small entities will be affected
by the regulation. If affected small
entities are identified, regulatory
alternatives must be considered to
mitigate the potential impacts. Small
entities as described ha the Act are only
those "businesses, organizations and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation."
The only entities directly subject to
today's proposed rule are small and
large quantity generators of spent
mercury containing lamps
(conditionally exempt small quantity
generators are not directly subject to
today's proposed rule). In order to meet
the definition of a regulated entity
under today's rule, a generator must
produce over 100 kg of spent lamps (350
four foot fluorescent lamps) in a given
month. It is conceivable that some of
these generators would meet the
definition of "small business" as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (i.e. mid-sized firms that group
relamp and generate in excess of 346
spent fluorescent lamps in a given
month); however the Agency does not
have an estimate of the number of such
"small entities." However, both of the
proposed options are expected to result
in net savings to the regulated entities.
Option 1, excluding mercury containing
lamps from Subtitle C management
standards, is estimated to result in per
generator savings of between $2,000 and
$2,250 annually. Option 2, managing
spent lamps under a special collection
system is estimated to result in an
average annual per generator savings of
approximately $300.-Thus, since
generator impacts are positive for both
options, EPA has determined that small
regulated entities will not be adversely
impacted, and thus, no "mitigating"
options are being analyzed in this
section. Hence, pursuant to section
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U..S.C. 6O5(b), "the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of entities."
Dated: July 13,1994.
Carol M, Browner,
Administrator.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous waste,
40 CFR Part 281
Emnronmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment amd disposal.
40 CFR Part 273 -
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials, Packaging and containers.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR parts 260 and 261,
and 4*0 CFR part 273 as proposed in the
Federal Register on February ll, 1993
at 58 FR 8102, are proposed to be
amended as follows:
-------
38302 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921-
6927,6930,6934,6935,6937,6938,6939,
and 6974.
1 i
Subpart B—Definitions
2. Section 260.10 is amended by .
adding in alphabetical order the
definitions for "electric lamp" and
"mercury-cqntaining lamp" to read as
follows:
§260.10 Definitions.
*****
Electric lamp means the bulb or tube
portion of a lighting device specifically
designed to produce radiant energy, .
most often in the ultraviolet (UV),
visible, and infra-red (IR) regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of
common electric lamps include, but is
not limited to, incandescent,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge,
and neon lamps.
* * *• * ' *
Mercury-containing lamp is an
electric lamp in which mercury is
purposely introduced by the
manufacturer for the operation of the
lamp.
* * • * • * *
Option 1
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3; The'authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
4. In § 261.4, paragraph (b)(16) is
added to read as follows:
§261.4 Exclusions. '
*****
(b)* * *
(16) Spent mercury-containing lamps
which are disposed in municipal solid
waste landfills in States or Indian Tribes
with an EPA approved State or Tribal
municipal solid waste landfill program
or managed in mercury reclamation
facilities that are permitted, licensed or
registered by a State or Tribe. To qualify
for this exclusion, a generator must
maintain in its operating records for
three years from the date of shipment a
certification for each shipment of
mercury-containing lamps that is signed
by the generator or its authorized
representative and that states the
following:
I certify, under, penalty of tew, that on
[date], I consigned [amount] of mercury-
containing lamps to [name and address of
transporter] for [disposal] [recycling] at
[name and address of disposal or recycling
facility]. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations.
Option 2
PART 273—STANDARDS FOR
SPECIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM
WASTES
5. The authority citation for part 273
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.G. 6922,6923,6924,
6925,6930, and 6937.
6. In § 273.3, definitions for "electric
lamp" and "mercury-containing lamp"
are added in alphabetical order to read
as follows:
§273.3 Definitions.
***.**
Electric lamp means the bulb or tube
Sortion of a lighting device specifically
esigned to produce-radiant energy,
most often in the ultraviolent (UV),
visible, and infra-red (IR) regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of
common electric lamps include, but are
not limited to, incandescent,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge,
and neon lamps.
* * * * ' *
Mercury-containing lamp is an.
electric lamp in which mercury are
purposely introduced by the
manufacturer for the operation of the
lamp.
* - * * * *
7-8. Subpart D is added to Part 273
to read as follows:
Subpart D—Lamps That Are Hazardous
Wastes
Sec.
273.30 Applicability.
273.31 Generator requirements.
273.32 Transporter requirements.
273.33 Consolidation point requirements.
273.34 Destination facility requirements.
273.35 Export requirements.
273.36-273.39 [Reserved].
Subpart D—Lamps That Are
Hazardous Wastes
§273.30 Applicability.
(a) Covered wastes. (1) This subpart
sets forth standards for managing lamps
that are hazardous wastes:
(2) Lamps that .are hazardous wastes
and that are not managed in compliance
with the requirements of this Part must
be managed under the hazardous waste
regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through
272 of this chapter.
(b) Household and conditionally
exempt small quantity generator waste
lamps. (1) Persons managing the wastes-
listed below may, at their option,
manage them under the requirements of •
this subpart without changing the
wastes' exempt status:
• (i) Household hazardous waste lamps
that are exempt under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(l); and/or
(ii) Conditionally exempt small
quantity generator hazardous waste '
lamps that are exempt under 40 CFR
261.5.
(2) Persons who commingle
household hazardous waste lamps and/
or conditionally exempt small quantity
generator hazardous waste lamps
together with hazardous waste lamps
regulated under this subpart must
manage the commingled lamps under
the requirements of this subpart.
§273.31- Generator requirements. '
(a) Generation of hazardous waste
lamps. (1) The date a used lamp
becomes a waste is the date the
generator permanently removes it from
its fixture.
(2) The date an unused lamp becomes
a waste is the date the generator decides
to throw it away.
(3) A waste lamp is a hazardous waste
if it exhibits one or more of the
characteristics identified in 40 CFR part
261, subpart C.
(b) Condition of hazardous waste
lamps. A generator of hazardous waste
lamps must at all times:
(1) Contain unbroken lamps hi
packaging that will minimize breakage
during normal handling conditions; and
(2) Contain broken lamps in
packaging that will minimize releases of
lamp fragments and residues.
(c) Storage. (1) A generator may store
a hazardous waste lamp for no longer
than one year from the date the lamp
became a waste.
(2) A generator who stores hazardous
waste lamps must be able to
demonstrate that lamps are not stored
for more than one year from the date
they-became a waste. A generator may
make this demonstration by:
(i) Placing the lamps in a container
and marking or labeling the container
with the earliest date that any lamp in
• the container became a waste;
(ii) Marking'or labeling an individual
lamp with the date that it became a
waste;
(iii) Maintaining an inventory system
that identifies the date each lamp in
Storage became a waste;
(iy) Maintaining an inventory system
that identifies the earliest date that any
lamp in a group of lamps became a
waste; or
(y) Placing the lamps in a specific
storage area and identifying the earliest
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
38303
dale Chat any lamp in the storage area
became a waste.
(d) Notification. (1) A generator who
stores more than 35,000 hazardous
waste lamps at any time must have,
before exceeding the 35,000 lamp
quantity limit, sent written notification
of hazardous waste lamp storage to the
Regional Administrator and received an
EPA Identification Number.
(2) This notification must include:
(i) The generator's name and mailing
address;
(ii) The name and business telephone
number of the person at the generator's
site who should be contacted regarding
the lamp storage activity;;
(ifi) The address or physical location
of the lamp storage activity;
(iv) A statement indicating that the
generator stores more than 35,000
hazardous waste lamps.
(e) Prohibitions. A generator of
hazardous waste lamps is:
(1) Prohibited from diluting or
disposing of them;
(2) Prohibited from treating them,
except by responding to releases as
provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section; and
(3) Prohibited from sending or taking
the hazardous waste lamps to a place
other than a consolidation point,
destination facility, or foreign
destination.
(f) lamp management (1) A generator
must at all times manage hazardous
waste lamps in a way that minimizes
lamp breakage.
(23(i) A generator must immediately
contain all releases of residues from
hazardous waste lamps,-
(ii) A generator must determine
whether any materials resulting from
the release are hazardous wastes, and if
so, the generator must manage them in
accordance with all applicable
requirements of 40 GFR parts 260
through 272.
(3) A generator must ensure that all
employees are thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency
procedures, relative to their
responsibilities during normal facility
operations and emergencies.
§273.32 Transporter requirements.
(a) Shipments from a generator to a
consolidation point, from a generator to
a destination facility, or from one
consolidation point to another
consolidation point
(l)(i) A transporter must at all times
contain unbroken lamps in packaging
that will minimize breakage during
normal handling and transport
conditions; and
(ii) A transporter must at all times
contain broken lamps in packaging that
will minimize releases of lamp
fragments and residues.
(2) A transporter of hazardous waste
lamps may only store them at a transfer
facility for ten days or less.
(3) A transporter, of hazardous waste
lamps is prohibited from:
(i) Diluting or disposing of them;
(ii) Treating them, except by
responding to releases as provided in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section; and
(iii) Transporting them to a place
other than a consolidation point,
destination facility, or foreign
destination.
(4)(i) A transporter must at all times
manage hazardous waste lamps in a way
that minimizes lamp breakage.
(ii) A transporter must immediately
contain all releases of residues from
hazardous waste lamps.
(iii) A transporter must determine
whether any materials resulting from
the release are hazardous wastes, and if
so, the transporter must manage them in
accordance with all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR parts 260
through 272.
(b) Shipments from a consolidation
point to a destination facility. A
transporter who transports shipments
from a consolidation point to a
destination facility must comply with
40 CER part 263.
§273.33 Consolidation point
requirements.
(a) Condition of lamps. The owner or
operator of a consolidation point
managing hazardous waste lamps must
at all times:
(1) Contain unbroken lamps in
packaging that will minimize breakage
during normal handling conditions; and
(2) Contain broken lamps in
packaging that will minimize releases of
lamp fragments and residues.
(b) Storage. (1) The owner or operator
of a consolidation point may store a
hazardous waste lamp for no longer
than one year from the date that the
owner or operator receives it.
(2) The owner or operator of a
consolidation point who stores
hazardous waste lamps must be able to
demonstrate that lamps are not stored
for more than one year from the date
they were received. The owner or
operator may make this demonstration
by:
(i) Placing the lamps in a container
and marking or labeling the container
with the earliest date that any lamp in
the container was received;
(ii) Marking or labeling an individual
lamp with the date that it was received;
(iii) Maintaining an inventory system
that identifies the date each lamp in
storage was received;
(iv) Maintaining an inventory system
that identifies the earliest date that any
lamp in a group of lamps was received;
or
(v) Placing the lamps in a specific
storage area and identifying the earliest
date that any lamp in the storage area
was received.
(c) Prohibitions. The owner or
operator of a consolidation point
managing hazardous waste lamps is:
(1) Prohibited from diluting or
disposing of them;
(2) Prohibited from treating them,
except by responding to releases as
provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section; and
(3) Prohibited from sending or taking
them any place other than a
consolidation point, destination facility,
or foreign destination.
(d) Lamp Management, (l) The owner
or operator of a consolidation point
must at all times manage hazardous
waste lamps in a way that minimizes
lamp breakage.
(2)(i) The owner or operator of the
consolidation point must immediately
contain all releases of residues from
hazardous waste lamps.
(ii) The consolidation point owner/
operator must determine whether any
materials resulting from the release are
hazardous wastes, and if so, the owner/
operator must manage them in
accordance widi all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR parts 260
through 272.
(3) The consolidation point owner or
operator must ensure that all employees
are thoroughly familiar with proper
waste handling and emergency
procedures, relative to their
responsibilities during normal facility
operations and emergencies,
(e) Notification. (l)(ij A consolidation
point owner or operator who stores
• more than 35,000 hazardous waste
lamps at any time must have, before
exceeding the 35,000 lamp quantity
limit, sent written notification of
hazardous waste lamp storage to the
Regional Administrator and received an
EPA Identification Number.
(ii) This notification must include;
(A.) The owner's or operator's name
and mailing address;
(B) The name and business telephone
number of the person who should be
contacted regarding the lamp storage
activity;
(C) The address or physical location
of the lamp storage activity;
(D) A statement indicating that the
owner or operator stores more than
35,OOO hazardous waste lamps.
(2)(i) A consolidation point owner or
operator who sends a shipment of
hazardous waste lamps directly from the
-------
38304
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 27, 1994 / Proposed Rules
consolidation point to a destination
facility, who is not required to notify
under paragraph (e)(l) of this section,
must have, before initiating the
shipment, sent written notification of
hazardous waste lamp shipments to a
destination facility to the Regional
Administrator and received an EPA
Identification Number.
(ii) This notification must include:
(A) The owner's or operator's name
and mailing address;
(B) A statement that the owner or
operator intends to ship hazardous
waste lamps to a destination facility;
(C) The name and business telephone
number of the person who, should be
contacted regarding the lamp storage
activity; and
(D) The address or physical location
of the lamp storage activity.
(f) Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifests. The owner or operator of a
consolidation point who sends a
shipment of hazardous waste lamps
directly to a destination facility must
comply with subpart B of part 262 and
§§ 262.30 through 262.33, 262.40(a),
262.40(d), and 262.42 of this chapter
when initiating a shipment.
§ 273.34 Destination facility requirements.
(a) Owners or operators of destination
facilities that recycle, treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste lamps must
comply with all applicable requirements
of parts 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and 124
of this chapter, and the notification
requirement under section 3010 of
RCRA.
(b) Owners and operators of
destination facilities that recycle
hazardous waste lamps 'Without storing
them before they are recycled must
comply with 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2).
§273.35 Export requirements.
(a) A generator who sends hazardous
waste lamps to a foreign destination,
without first sending them to a
consolidation point or destination
facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements
applicable to a primary exporter in 40
CFR 262.53,262;56(a)(l) through (4),
(6), and (b) and 262.57;
(2) Export such materials only mpon
consent of the receiving country and in
conformance with the EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent as
defined in subpart E of part 262 of this
chapter; and . -i -
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent for the
• shipment to the transporter transporting
the shipment for export.
(b) A transporter transporting a
shipment of hazardous waste lamps to
a foreign destination may not accept a
shipment if the transporter knows the
shipment does not conform to the EPA
Acknowledgment of Consent. In i
addition the transporter must ensure
that: ' , -
(1) A copy of the EPA '
Acknowledgment of Consent
accompanies the shipment; and
(2j The shipment is delivered to the
• facility designated by the person .
initiating the shipment.
(c) An owner or operator of a
consolidation point who sends
hazardous waste lamps to a foreign
destination, without first sending them
to another consolidation point or
destination facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements
applicable to a primary exporter in 40
CFR 262.53, 262.56(aj (1) through (4),
(6), and (b) and 262.57; . '
(2) Export such materials only upon
consent of the receiving country and in
conformance with the EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent as .
defined in subpart E of part 262 of this
chapter; and
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA
Acknowledgement of Consent for the
shipment to th£ transporter transporting
the shipment for export.
(d) A destination facility sending
hazardous waste lamps to a foreign
destination must also comply with the
generator requirements of part 262 of
this chapter, and with 40 CFR 264.71(c)
or 265.71(c) pertaining to initiating the
manifest.
§§273.36-273.39 [Reserved]
IFR Doc. 94-18045 Filed 7-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
------- |