Tuesday
July 6, 1999
r !! =
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, etc.
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program; Hazardous Waste Lamps; Final
Rule
-------
36466
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261 264,265, 268,
270 and 273
[FRL-6371-3]
RIN 2050-AD93
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Program; Hazardous Waste
Lamps
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: Today's final rule adds
hazardous waste lamps to the federal
list of universal wastes regulated under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Handlers of
universal wastes are subject to less
stringent standards for storing,
transporting, and collecting these
wastes. The Agency has concluded that
regulating spent hazardous waste lamps
as a universal waste under 40 CFR Part
273 will lead to better management of
these lamps and will facilitate
compliance with hazardous waste
requirements. Today's final rule, which
streamlines the Subtitle C management
requirements for hazardous waste
lamps, also supports energy
conservation efforts.
EFFEcrrVE DATE: This final rule is
effective on January 6, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket F-
99-FLEF-FFFFF and is in the EPA
RCRA docket, locate^ in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC) at Crystal
Gateway I. First Floor, 1235 Jefferson
Davis Highway. Arlington, VA 22202.
The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
federal holidays. To review docket
materials, it is recommended that the
public make an appointment fay calling
(703) 603-9230. The public may copy a
maximum of 100 pages from the
regulatory docket at no charge.
Additional copies cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
RCRA/SuperfunoVEPCRA/UST Hotline
at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or TDD
(800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In
the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area,
call (703) 412-9810. For technical
information about this rule, contact
Marilyn Goode of the Office of Solid
Waste (5304W). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW.,
Washington DC 20460, phone 703-308-
8800. or E-mail
goode.marilyn@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Internet Availability
This rule is available on the Internet.
Using a World Wide Web (WWW)
browser, type http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/osw/hazwaste.htm#id.
Official Record
The official record for this action is
kept in a paper format. The official
record is maintained at the address in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document.
Outline of Today's Document
I. Background
A. Current Regulations
B. Proposed Rule
C. The Toxicity Characteristic
D. Universal Waste Rule
E. Energy Efficient Lighting Programs
F. Notice of Data Availability
II. Relationship to Other Agency Activities
A. Report to Congress on Mercury
B. Health Effects on Children
HI. Rationale for Including Hazardous Waste
Lamps in the Scope of the Universal
Waste Rule
A. Why Management Controls Are
Necessary for Spent Mercury-Containing
Lamps
B. Why the Universal Waste Approach is
Preferable to a Conditional Exclusion for
Spent Mercury-Containing Lamps
C. Why Relief From Full Subtitle C
Requirements is Warranted Both for
Mercury-Containing Hazardous Waste
Lamps and Other Hazardous Waste
Lamps
IV. Summary of Final Rule
A. Waste Covered by Today's Rule
B. Summary of Management Requirements
for Hazardous Waste Lamps
1. Categories of Participants in the
Universal Waste System
2. Small and Large Quantity Handlers
3. Universal Waste Transporters
4. Universal Waste Destination Facilities
C. Management Requirements for Small
and Large Quantity Handlers of
Hazardous Waste Lamps
D. Effect of Today's Rule on Conditionally-
Exempt Small Quantity Generators
E. Requirements for Transporters of
Hazardous Waste Lamps
F. Requirements for Destination Facilities
G. Import and Export Requirements
H. Land Disposal Restriction Requirements
V. Discussion of Comments Received in
Response to Proposed Rule Making and
Agency's Response
A. Universe of Lamps Covered Under the
Final Rule
1. Summary of Proposed Scope and
Definition
2. Summary of Comments Received
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
B. Requirements for Handlers of Hazardous
Waste Lamps
1. Prohibition on Treatment
a. Summary of Proposed Provision
b. Summary of Comments Received
c. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
2. Notification Requirement
a. Summary of Proposed Provision
b. Summary of Comments Received
c. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
3. Prevention of Releases/Packaging
Requirements
a. Summary of Proposed Provision
b. Summary of Comments Received
c. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
4. Accumulation Time
a. Summary of Proposed Provision
b. Summary of Comments Received
c. Agency's Response to Comments and
summary of Promulgated S Standards
5. Tracking of Shipments
a. Summary of Proposed Provision
b. Summary of Comments Received
c. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
C. Storage Time Limitations for
Transporters of Universal Waste Lamps
1. Summary of Proposed Provision
2. Summary of Comments Received
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
D. Destination Facility Requirements/Lamp
Recycling Facilities
1. Summary of Proposed Provision
2. Summary of Comments Received
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
E. Sunset Provision
1. Summary of Proposed Provision
2. Summary of Comments Received
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
C. Interstate Transport
VH. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Economic Assessment
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Environmental Justice
E. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
F. Executive Order 13045—Children's
Health
G. Regulatory Issues—Unfunded mandates
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Executive Order 13084
J. Executive Order 12875
Vm. Submission to Congress and General
Accounting Office
I. Background
Under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has promulgated regulations
governing the nation's hazardous waste
management program. These regulations
are found at parts 260 through 279 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. These regulations first
define which materials are considered
solid wastes and then identify wastes
that are hazardous and thus subject to
RCRA hazardous waste requirements.
Requirements are then set forth for
hazardous waste generators.
•i *:,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, Mo. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36467
transporters, and owners and operators
of treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDs). On May 11, 1995, EPA
finalized streamlined requirements for
collecting certain widely dispersed
hazardous wastes under the Universal
Waste Rule, codified in 40 CFR part 273.
Today's rule extends the scope of that
rule by adding hazardous waste lamps.
A. Current Regulations
Any person who generates a solid
waste, as defined in 40 CFR 261.2, must
determine whether or not the solid
waste is a hazardous waste, either
because the waste is listed as a
hazardous waste in subpart D of 40 CFR
part 261 or because the waste exhibits
one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste, as provided in subpart
C of 40 CFR part 261. Data available to
EPA, including studies conducted by
the Agency, indicate that many
fluorescent and high intensity discharge
(HID) lamps exhibit the toxicity
characteristic (TC) for mercury because
of the use of that compound in
producing these lamps. Some HID and
other types of lamps may also exhibit
the toxicity characteristic for lead,
principally because of the use of lead
solder. Before today's rulemaking
(except as explained in the next
paragraph), generators of spent lamps
that exhibited hazardous waste
characteristics were subject to the RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste management
requirements. Generators were subject
to all applicable requirements of 40 CFR
parts 260 through 268, including the on-
site management, pre-transport, and
manifesting requirements of part 262.
Spent hazardous waste lamps sent for
reclamation are considered spent
materials (rather than sludges or by-
products) and are therefore solid wastes.
A spent material is "any material that
has been used and as a result of
contamination can no longer serve the
purpose for which it was produced
without processing" (40 CFR
261.1(c)(l)). Generators of solid wastes
(including spent lamps) are thus
responsible for determining whether the
wastes are hazardous (through testing or
through their knowledge of the
material).
However, even though waste lamps
are considered solid and hazardous
wastes if they exhibit hazardous waste
characteristics, not all generators of
these spent lamps have had to manage
the lamps as hazardous waste. Under
RCRA Subtitle C, there are different
requirements for generators of
hazardous waste depending on the
amount of hazardous waste generated in
a calendar month. Conditionally-exempt
small quantity generators (CESQGs) (i.e.,
generators of less than 100 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a calendar month)
are not subject to RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste management standards
and may choose to send their wastes to
a municipal solid waste landfill or other
facility approved by a state for the
management of industrial or municipal
non-hazardous wastes (40 CFR 261.5).
Generators of more than 100 kilograms
and less than 1,000 kilograms in a
calendar month are subject to the RCRA
hazardous waste management :
standards, but are allowed to comply
with certain reduced regulatory
requirements (40 CFR 262.34). :
Generators of more than 1,000 kilograms
of hazardous waste in a calendar month
are required to comply fully with .
federal hazardous waste regulations.
Household generators of waste lamps
may be exempt from hazardous waste
management requirements under 40
CFR 261.4(b)(l). Also, several states
already regulate waste lamps as
universal wastes under their authorized
state hazardous waste programs.
B. Proposed Rule
On July 27, 1994 (59 FR 38288), EPA
proposed two approaches for contrblling
the management of spent lamps, .
specifically mercury-containing lamps.
Mercury-containing lamps include'
fluorescent, high pressure sodium,;
mercury vapor, and metal halide lamps.
In that notice, the Agency requested
comment on whether either approach
was appropriate for protecting human
health and the environment from ,
potential releases of mercury. The two
management options proposed by EPA
were less stringent than the existing
federal regulations. Both regulatory
alternatives provide streamlined
requirements for certain waste
management activities in lieu of
regulating spent mercury-bearing lamps
under the full RCRA Subtitle C
management standards.
The first regulatory alternative
proposed by EPA was a conditional
exclusion from hazardous waste ',
regulation for waste mercury-containing
lamps. Under the proposed conditional
exclusion, waste mercury-containing
lamps could be disposed in a municipal
landfill provided the landfill was
permitted by a state with an EPA- I
approved municipal solid waste landfill
permitting program or managed at a
mercury reclamation facility permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state. The
second regulatory alternative included
in the proposed rule was to add waste
mercury-containing lamps to the
universal waste program, which consists
of streamlined regulations designed to
address the management of certain
widely generated hazardous wastes.
EPA also solicited comment on whether
to add other types of spent hazardous
waste lamps (e.g., lamps that are
hazardous waste because they fail the
TC for other constituents, such as lead)
to the universal waste program.
C. The Toxicity Characteristic
Under section 3001 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
EPA is charged with defining which
solid wastes are hazardous by
identifying characteristics that indicate
hazardous waste and by listing
particular solid wastes as hazardous
wastes. On May 19, 1980, the Agency
promulgated the Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Characteristic (EPTC) to
determine the toxicity of waste. The
EPTC regulated eight metals, four
insecticides, and two herbicides. On
March 29, 1990, in response to section
300 l(g) of RCRA, which was added by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, the
Agency replaced the Extraction
Procedure with the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP). Like the EPTC, the TCLP is used
to determine the toxicity of waste.
Although regulatory levels for the
metals (including mercury) remained
the same as originally promulgated in
1980, the promulgation of the Toxicity
Characteristic resulted in additional
wastes becoming regulated as hazardous
due to the new leaching procedure (the
TCLP) and to the addition of regulatory
levels for more waste constituents.
In the 1994 proposal on spent lamps,
the Agency did not propose, or request
comment on, regulatory language that
would modify or amend the current
hazardous waste toxicity characteristic
provisions published in 40 CFR 261.24.
However, EPA noted that the Agency
was conducting long-term studies on the
fate and transport of TC metals in
ground water, and that the TC
regulatory levels for mercury may be
changed when that work is completed.
The proposed rule also requested
submission of any municipal solid
waste leachate or groundwater data to
support this separate effort. Because of
the extreme complexity of mercury
chemistry in the environment and
because scientific knowledge about the
environmental fate and transport of
mercury continues to evolve, this work
is still ongoing.
The most recent data available to the
Agency demonstrate greater mobility
than previously thought. These data
include updated groundwater modeling,
as well as field data collected by the
Agency in reviewing the hazardous
characteristics generally, the TCLP test,
-------
36468
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules arid Regulations
and Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) Records of
Decision (RODs) from municipal solid
waste landfills. As explained in more
detail in responses to comments and
elsewhere in the record, these data
expand upon and corroborate data cited
in the proposal that mercury can
migrate from municipal solid waste
landfills in harmful concentrations and
reach human drinking water sources
located over a mile from the landfill in
significant concentrations, i.e.,
concentrations exceeding allowable
mercury in drinking water. Thus, actual
site data from recent and on-going
studies support the Agency's conclusion
that mercury is present in significant
concentrations in both leachate and
groundwater at non-hazardous waste
landfill sites, including municipal solid
waste landfills, and has migrated off-site
to drinking water sources (in some
instances in concentrations exceeding
Federal drinking water standards). This
conclusion is sufficient to warrant
continue^ regulation of spent lamps
containing mercury as hazardous waste.
Even though EPA did not re-open
issues related to the appropriateness of
the TCLP for evaluating the toxicity of
mercury-bearing waste in this proposal,
the Agency is clarifying that the recent
opinion of the D.C. Circuit in Columbia
Falls Aluminum Company v. EPA, 139
F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Columbia
FaUs"), does not affect the use of the
TCLP to determine whether spent waste
lamps exhibit the toxicity characteristic
and, therefore, should be regulated as
hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle
C.
Columbia Falls presented unique and
limited circumstances which do not
apply to the question of using the TCLP
for determining whether spent lamps
are hazardous wastes. In the context of
Columbia Falls, EPA had established
treatment standards for spent aluminum
podiners (hazardous waste code K088),
and the treatment standards used the
TCLP to measure the performance of the
treatment technology in mitigating the
hazard presented by several hazardous
constituents found in the waste,
including arsenic and fluoride. In the
case of Columbia Falls, all of the
commercial treatment capacity for the
waste (K088) was provided by a single
facility, and all of die treatment residue
from this single process was disposed at
a single location in a dedicated
monofill.1 Notwithstanding that the
treatment process was able to achieve
the treatment standards for arsenic and
fluoride as measured by the TCLP (i.e..
'62FR 1993 (Jan. 14.1997).
the treatment residue, when tested with
the TCLP, never exceeded the regulatory
levels), actual leachate from the single
disposal site contained significantly
higher levels of these two constituents.
EPA had not offered any substantive
explanation for continued use of the
TCLP to measure performance of the
treatment process for these constituents
after the disparities between the
predicted leaching using the TCLP and
the actual performance in the field
became known. Under these
circumstances, the court held that it was
arbitrary and capricious to continue to
use the TCLP to establish treatment
standards for spent potliner wastes
because it bore no rational relationship
to what was actually occurring.
None of these circumstances applies
to die question of using the TCLP to
determine the toxicity of spent lamps
and, therefore, whether such lamps are
hazardous wastes in the first place. With
respect to mercury, the TCLP has not
been shown in this case to under predict
mercury leachate concentrations for 100
percent of the wastes to which the test
applies.
First, there is no question that it is
reasonable to model a disposal
environment where lamps are disposed
with municipal solid waste, since most
lamps are disposed in municipal solid
waste landfills, or would be if they were
not hazardous wastes. The grinding
feature of the TCLP protocol is likewise
reasonable, since there is no dispute
that lamps will be crushed after they are
landfilled. The dilution/attenuation
feature of the TCLP is likewise a
reasonable approximation of fate and
transport of mercury which escapes
from the lamp matrix. There is no
chemical reason why such mercury
would be immobile. The mercury itself
is primarily the divalent form which can
form mobile salts or soluble mercury
acetate upon exposure to acidic
municipal solid waste (a phenomenon
modeled by die pH and acid of die
simulated leachate in the TCLP test (see
Memorandum To the Docket from
Gregory Helms entitled "Solubility of
Mercury Salts," dated June 18, 1999).
Second, as explained in more detail in
responses to comments and other
materials in die record, mercury has
proven mobile in municipal solid waste
landfill environments, migrating in
leachate to contaminate ambient
groundwater at concentrations
exceeding the federal maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) used for
drinking water (see EPA's "Summary of
Mercury Damage Incidents from
CERCLA Records of Decisions (RODs),"
June 9, 1999, and chart entitled
"Maximum Mercury Concentration
Observed in Leachate from Landfill
Cells," June 11, 1999.) Mercury
contamination from municipal solid
waste leachate exceeding MCLs has
actually been found in groundwater
drinking wells over a mile from the
landfill (well past the 500 feet used in
the TC for fate and transport
assumptions). These concentrations are
within an order of magnitude, or within
the same order of magnitude, as
predicted in the TC. Id. Thus, the
reasonableness of using the TC to
evaluate: the hazardousness of these
wastes is firmly supported by empirical
data.
D. Universal Waste Rule
On February 11,1993, EPA proposed
streamlined hazardous waste
management requirements for collecting
and managing certain widely generated
hazardous wastes (58 FR 8102). The
Agency finalized the Universal Waste
Rule on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25492).
The final rule promulgated streamlined
hazardous waste management
regulations for hazardous waste
batteries, certain hazardous waste
pesticides, and mercury-containing
thermostats. Handlers of universal
wastes are subject to less stringent
standards for storing, transporting, and
collecting these wastes. These standards
serve to encourage environmentally
sound collection and proper
management of these hazardous wastes.
The universal waste regulations apply
to handlers and transporters of universal
wastes. Handlers include universal
waste generators and collection
facilities. The regulations distinguish
between "large quantity handlers of
universal waste" (tiiose who handle
more than 5,000 kilograms of total
universal waste at one time) and "small
quantity handlers of universal waste"
(those who handle 5,000 kilograms or
less of universal waste at one time). The
5,000 kilogram accumulation criterion
applies to the quantity of all universal
wastes accumulated.
Universal waste handlers who
generate or manage items designated as
universal waste are exempt from certain
requirements routinely applied to
hazardous waste management and
instead are subject to the management
standards under part 273. These include
streamlined standards for storing
universal waste, labeling and marking
waste or containers, preparing and
sending shipments of universal wastes
off-site, employee training, and response
to releases. Large quantity handlers of
universal waste (LQHUW) also must
provide notification of universal waste
management to the appropriate EPA
Region (or state director in authorized
-------
FedergJ Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36469
states), obtain an EPA identification
number, and retain for three years
records of off-site shipments of
universal waste. Small quantity
handlers of universal waste (SQHUW)
are not required to manifest wastes,
notify the EPA region, or keep records
of universal waste shipments.
Transporters of universal waste also
are subject to less stringent
requirements than the full Subtitle C
hazardous waste transportation
regulations. Universal waste
transporters must comply with all
applicable Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations and
ensure transportation of universal waste
to a universal waste handler or a
destination facility. Transporters may
store universal waste at a transfer
facility for ten days or less and must
contain any releases of universal waste.
Transporters of universal waste do not
have to comply with RCRA hazardous
waste manifest requirements.
Destination facilities are those
facilities that treat, dispose, or recycle
universal wastes. Universal waste
destination facilities are subject to all
currently applicable requirements for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities and must receive a
RCRA permit for such activities.
Hazardous waste recycling facilities that
do not store hazardous wastes prior to
recycling may be exempt from
permitting under federal regulations (40
CFR261.6(c)(2)).
In the universal waste proposal, the
Agency did not propose to include
spent fluorescent lamps in the universal
waste regulations because further
investigation into the issue was
necessary. However, EPA requested
comment on several questions related to
fluorescent lamps (58 FR 8110). First,
EPA requested comment on the risks
posed by these lamps in landfills or
municipal waste combustors. Second,
EPA requested information on the risks
of current or developing mercury
recovery technologies. The Agency
received a number of comments in
response to these questions. Some
commenters supported including waste
lamps in the Universal Waste Rule, and
other commenters suggested other
regulatory alternatives for managing
these lamps. The comments addressing
the management of waste mercury-
containing lamps that were received in
response to the universal waste
proposed rule are addressed in the
background documents for today's
rulemaking.
E. Energy Efficient Lighting Programs
Prior to publication of the proposed
rule, the Agency initiated a review of
the potential risks represented by waste
mercury-containing lamps and began to
analyze the contribution "of siich lamps
to total mercury emissions to the;
environment. The Agency undertook
this evaluation in part because of the
importance of promoting energy
efficiency. The use of energy-efficient
lighting can reduce mercury emissions
from coal-burning power plants as well
as reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
and sulfur oxide. Energy-efficient'
lighting in all U.S. commercial-floor
space currently illuminated by less
efficient fluorescent lamps would save
an estimated 35 to 40 billion kilowatt
hours of electricity annually. This'
saving would result in reduced
emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide,
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide,
some of which are projected to cause
greenhouse effects.
Replacing energy inefficient lighting
systems with energy efficient lighting
systems requires the use and eventual
disposal of spent mercury-containing
lamps. It was suggested that requiring
the management of spent lamps in
accordance with the full Subtitle C
hazardous waste management :
requirements could discourage
participation in energy efficient lighting
programs, since facilities might avoid or
postpone replacement of lamps because
of potential disposal costs. If this were
true, streamlined management standards
for spent mercury-containing lamps
could decrease the costs associated with
managing the lamps and promote
greater participation in energy-efficient
lighting programs. However, as
discussed below, the Agency has found
that the cost of these programs appears
to be largely independent of the
regulatory options chosen by EPA.
F. Notice of Data Availability
On July 11, 1997 (62 FR 37183), the
Agency made available to the public
additional data on mercury emissions
from managing spent lamps. The
information provided as part of the'
Notice of Data Availability (MOD A)
consisted of an electronic model and a
report that assessed mercury emissions
from the management of waste mercury-
containing lamps under different
regulatory approaches. The report, titled
"Mercury Emissions From the Disposal
of Fluorescent Lamps," discusses the
methodology, data and assumptions
used in developing the Mercury
Emissions Model. The report describes
inputs used in the model for estimating
potential mercury emissions during
waste management and disposed ,
activities (such as lamp properties, lamp
disposal rates, and lamp mercury
emissions rates from specific waste
management practices). It also discusses
inputs for estimating energy savings
from using high-efficiency T8 lamps,
and the effects on mercury emissions
from electric utilities. The report
estimates mercury emissions under
baseline conditions (i.e., management of
mercury-containing lamps in
compliance with full hazardous waste
requirements) and under other
regulatory options, including the
conditional exclusion and universal
waste approaches proposed. These
estimates include annual and
cumulative emissions from disposal of
mercury-containing lamps, and net
mercury emissions.
The Agency received thirty-five
public comments on this NODA, about
twenty of which presented substantive
information on the model. The Agency
has reviewed these comments in great
detail and revised the model and report,
as appropriate. The Agency also has
prepared a comprehensive response to
comment document addressing each
substantive issue. The revised model,
report, and response to comment
document are available in the RCRA
docket established for this action. A
brief summary of the major public
comments and the Agency's responses
is presented below.
Many commenters raised concerns
about the model's Subtitle D landfill
emissions rates. Several commenters
believed the Agency should not have
rounded the high emissions rate of 0.8
percent to one percent. EPA believes
this is a valid concern and has revised
the model to include the original 0.8
percent emissions rate.
Some commenters raised concerns
that EPA had misinterpreted data from
the State of Florida on its recycling
emissions estimates. EPA has carefully
reviewed available recycling emissions
data and revised the model's central and
low emissions factors for divalent
mercury emissions. EPA revised the
central estimate from three percent to
1.09 percent and the low estimate from
one percent to 0.07 percent.
Various commenters believed that the
model should clearly distinguish
between CESQG and non-CESQG lamp
mercury emissions. These commenters
pointed out that CESQG lamp emissions
are outside the scope of the rulemaking
effort. The Agency agrees with this
concern and has revised the model to
segregate non-CESQG from CESQG lamp
emissions.
Some commenters believed that
higher spent lamp management costs
would discourage certain building
owners from conducting lighting
upgrades. These commenters were
concerned with the model assumption
-------
36470
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
that upgrades are independent of policy
options. In response to the comments,
EPA revisited its assumptions and
performed additional calculations on
the impact of disposal costs on a
lighting upgrade's internal rate of return
(IRR). The Agency has found that,
holding all other lamp operating costs
constant, the cost of lamp disposal has
minimal impacts on an upgrading
project's IRR. At a 30.50/lamp
transportation and recycling cost, the
IRR for a typical project over ten years
is 51 percent. At a Sl.OO/lamp
transportation and recycling cost, the
IRR was 50 percent—only a slight
decrease in IRR despite a 100 percent
increase in waste management costs. For
these reasons, EPA continues to believe
that the decision to use T8 lamps is
independent of the Agency's policy
options.
A number of commenters indicated
that the model underestimated lamp
recycling rates under the baseline and
overestimated the rate of Subtitle C
landfilling. Commenters suggested that
the national lamp recycling rate is
approximately ten percent and that
Subtitle C landfilling of lamps is near
three percent. EPA believes these
estimates may be reasonable, and has
revised the baseline's recycling rate to
ten percent and reduced the Subtitle C
disposal rate to about two percent.
The Agency also conducted an
internal review of the model and made
additional revisions. First, the Agency
revised the model assumptions
regarding the effectiveness of pollution
control equipment at municipal waste
combustor (MWC) emissions from 80 to
95 percent. This revision has the effect
of decreasing the MWC high emission
factor for divalent mercury from 30
percent to 16 percent. Second, EPA
revised the disposal trees under the
baseline and options to account for the
fact that some CESQGs voluntarily
recycle their spent lamps.
II. Relationship to Other Agency
Activities
A. Report to Congress on Mercury
As required by the Clean Air Act
(CAA) Amendments of 1990, on
December 19,1997. the Agency issued
the Mercury Study Report to Congress.
The study estimates the quantity of
mercury emissions to the air from a
number of human activities, estimates
the health and environmental impacts
associated with these mercury
emissions, and describes the
technologies available to control
mercury emissions from these sources.
The report estimates that annual
anthropogenic U.S. emissions of
mercury in 1994-1995 were 158 tons.
Approximately 87 percent of these
mercury emissions came from
combustion sources. Approximately 1
percent of mercury emissions are
estimated to come from spent mercury-
containing lamps.
The report found that anthropogenic
emissions of mercury to the air rival or
exceed natural inputs. Recent estimates
place the annual amounts of mercury
released into the air by human activities
at between 50 and 75 percent of the total
yearly input to the atmosphere from all
sources. Some of the air emissions are
deposited on land and water within
several hundred miles of the source.
The remainder enters global circulation,
from which it may be deposited on land
or water at great distances from the
source. Mercury deposited on land or
water may be re-emitted and reenter the
global circulation to be redeposited
elsewhere. When mercury enters water
bodies, either through direct deposition
or through run-off of mercury deposited
on land, a series of transformations
occur resulting in conversion of some of
the mercury into a methylated form
which is more toxic and more
conducive to bioaccumulation in fish.
While the report does not quantify the
risk from mercury exposure, it
concludes that there is cause to seek
further reductions in mercury releases
and exposures to mercury. The report
recommends that cost-effective
opportunities to deal with mercury
during the product life cycle (rather
than just at the point of disposal),
should be pursued. The Agency believes
that today's rule furthers that goal by
including provisions related to
management prior to disposal.
In addition, on February 19, 1998,
EPA and the Department of Agriculture
issued the Clean Water Action Plan,
which describes important actions EPA
and other federal agencies will take to
reduce exposure to toxic pollutants
(especially mercury) in the nation's
water and fish. Mercury is identified as
a pollutant of concern in 60 percent of
state-issued fish consumption
advisories. The Clean Water Action Plan
outlines several important Agency
actions aimed at reducing the exposure
of people and wildlife to mercury-
contaminated fish.
B. Health Effects on Children
In April 1997 President Clinton
signed Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885), "Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks," requiring each federal agency to
assess risks that disproportionately
affect children, including risks from
mercury. Mercury is a toxic.
bioaccumulative pollutant. The primary
health effects are on the neurological
development of children exposed
through fish consumption and fetuses
exposed through their mothers'
consumption of fish. Given equivalent
exposure, children absorb more mercury
as a percentage of their body weight
than do adults. Children are, therefore,
more susceptible to the negative health
effects of mercury emissions. The
results of EP A's analyses (as presented
in Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps—
Economic Assessment) indicate that it is
likely that emissions from regulated
mercury-containing lamps will decrease
somewhat as a result of today's final
rule. Therefore, it is likely that children
may experience a marginal benefit from
this action due to these decreased
emissions.
in. Rationale for Including Hazardous
Waste Lamps in the Scope of the
Universal Waste Rule
A. Why Management Controls Are
Necessary for Spent Mercury-Containing
Lamps
In today's rule, the Agency's primary
objective is to promulgate regulations
for management of hazardous waste
lamps that both protect human health
and the environment and are efficient
and effective in doing so. EPA believes
that management controls for spent
mercury-containing lamps are necessary
to minimize releases of mercury to the
environment during accumulation and
transport, to ensure safe handling of
such lamps, and to keep spent mercury-
containing lamps out of municipal
waste management facilities (both
landfills and solid waste incinerators).
Studies reveal that significant threats of
mercury releases from managing spent
lamps result from incineration and from
breakage during storage and transport.
In addition, data available to the Agency
show that mercury can be found in
municipal landfill leachate, and EPA
remains concerned that landfill releases
may pose threats over the long term. For
these reasons, the Agency has
concluded that some management
controls are essential for these wastes.
Mercury is easily volatilized; it can be
dispersed widely through the air and
transported thousands of miles. It
undergoes complex chemical and
physical changes as it cycles among air,
land, and water. Humans, plants, and
animals may be exposed to mercury and
accumulate it during this cycle,
potentially resulting in ecological and
human health impacts. The primary
health effects from mercury are on the
neurological development of children
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64. Mo. 128/Tuesday. July 6,; 1999/Rules and Regulations
36471
exposed through fish consumption and
on fetuses exposed through their
mother's consumption of fish.
Because of its low boiling point,
elemental mercury is largely vaporized
during municipal waste combustion
and, without the use of control
technologies specific to mercury, passes
out of the municipal waste combustor
into the atmosphere with the flue gas.
On December 19, 1995, EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) promulgated standards for
new municipal waste combustors of a
certain capacity (60 FR 65387).
However, combustors at smaller plants
would not be affected by the standards,
nor do the standards address the
problem of mercury emissions from
lamp breakage.
When spent mercury-containing
lamps break, the elemental mercury
inside becomes available for
evaporation, adsorption, or reaction. For
example, a study performed by Research
Triangle Institute (RTI) estimated
emissions from lamps after breakage to
be about 6.8 percent of the total mercury
content of the broken lamp. The
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) estimated
emissions from lamp breakage to be in
the range of 1 percent of the mercury
content of the broken lamp. The Electric
Power Research Institute's (EPRI)
measurements of mercury emissions
from uncovered broken lamps totaled
2.8 percent of the total mercury content
of the lamp.
Mercury may also be released to the
environment as a result of lamp
crushing operations. Available studies
show that emission percentages from
drum top crushing range from 10 to 100
percent of the total elemental mercury
in the lamps, depending on the
operating conditions and supplemental
controls used.
To address these concerns, today's
rule moves spent hazardous waste
lamps into the universal waste
regulatory program. Comments from
stakeholders and from other regulatory
agencies (especially state solid and
hazardous waste authorities) support
EPA's conclusion that this approach
offers the most effective way to ensure
environmentally protective management
of these wastes.
B. Why the Universal Waste Approach
is Preferable to a Conditional Exclusion
for Spent Mercury-Containing Lamps
Although EPA has determined that
spent mercury-containing lamps can
safely be subject to management
requirements that are less stringent than
those of full Subtitle C (see discussion
in Part IH.C below), the Agency does not
believe that its proposed conditional
exclusion approach would sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment. It is clear to the Agency
that mercury poses an environmental
threat and that man-made sources of
mercury emissions should be reduced
or, where inevitable, managed properly.
EPA therefore gave considerable Weight
to actions that would minimize mercury
emissions to the environment while
encouraging the collection and |
environmentally-sound management of
spent lamps. The Agency is convinced
that the universal waste approach is the
best v/ay to further these goals. EPA
agrees with those commenters to the
proposed rule who stated that the
conditional exclusion approach would
reduce the quantities of spent mercury-
contaming lamps that would be
recycled, increase disposal of the lamps
in municipal landfills, and increase the
amount of mercury released to the
environment due to increased breakage
of lamps during storage, transport, and
landfilling. The Agency's analysis
predicts that uncontrolled mercury
emissions under the conditional
exclusion approach are likety to be
somewhat greater than under the
universal waste approach promulgated
in today's rule (see the Economic
Assessment discussed in section Vn.B
of today's preamble).
A principal reason for this conclusion
is that some substantive and relatively
detailed controls for managing spent
mercury-containing lamps are necessary
for protection of human health and the
environment, although these controls
can be structured in a much more
simplified and streamlined way than the
full Subtitle C.management sjrstem. The
Agency believes that such controls
would be difficult to implement and to
enforce using a conditional exclusion
approach. Such an approach could be
appropriate if the regulated universe
was less numerous and varied, or more
sophisticated about Subtitle C
requirements. However, since handlers
of spent mercury-containing lamps are
widely varied, diffuse, and often not
knowledgeable about RCRA regulations,
it would be very difficult to monitor
compliance and enforce controls such as
those included in today's rule if these
handlers were completely outside of the
Subtitle C universe and the controls
were implemented only as conditions
for maintaining the exclusion. The
Agency believes that the packaging ,
standards and prohibition on treatment
included in today's rule are important
for preventing potential mercury
emissions during storage and transport.
Controls of this type can best be
implemented through a universal waste-
type approach where handlers are
operating within a simple, streamlined
management system with some limited
oversight rather than completely outside
of any regulatory structure.
A further reason for selecting the
universal waste approach was the
Agency's desire to promote further
reductions in the quantity of mercury in
spent lamps, which will lead to a
reduction in total emissions of mercury
to the environment. The conditional
exclusion approach would have
provided less incentive to reduce or
eliminate the presence of mercury in
lamps, since under that approach spent
mercury-containing lamps would not
have been classified as hazardous waste.
With respect to mercury, the most
significant source reduction
achievement has been the reduction and
elimination of mercury from alkaline
batteries. Although these batteries are
still a significant contributor of mercury
to municipal solid waste, this
contribution is dropping dramatically.
Spent mercury-containing lamps are one
of the next highest sources of mercury
in the municipal solid waste stream,
possibly accounting for as much as 3.8
percent of all mercury now going to
municipal landfills. Opportunities exist
to further reduce mercury content in
both standard 4-foot fluorescent lamps
and the increasingly popular compact
fluorescent lamps.
Commenters on the proposed rule
stated that advances in lamp technology
have resulted in a 14 percent reduction
in lamp mercury content from 1985 to
1990. These commenters also pointed
out that projections show an additional
35 percent decline in future mercury
levels. Some manufacturers have made
considerable progress in reducing levels
of mercury in fluorescent lamps. Many
commenters urged EPA to continue to
encourage industry in these efforts.
The Agency believes that today's final
rule will encourage lamp manufacturers
to continue reducing or eliminating the
amount of mercury used to manufacture
lamps. Because mercury-bearing lamps
that fail the TCLP are still considered to
be hazardous wastes under the universal
waste rule, lamp producers will have an
incentive to design lamps with a
mercury content below the level that
will cause the lamps to fail the TCLP.
If lamp manufacturers aggressively
pursue source reduction, the
contribution of mercury to the
environment from lamps will continue
to decrease over time.
EPA also notes that under the
universal waste rule, handlers and
destination facilities must comply with
the substantive requirements of the
-------
...... lf f •
W:
36472
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
h i.
•iiii'j!
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
provisions of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HS WA).
These include (1) a prohibition on
accumulating prohibited wastes directly
on the land; (2) a requirement to treat
waste to meet treatment standards
before disposal; (3) a prohibition on
dilution; and (4) a prohibition on
accumulation except for purposes of
accumulating quantities sufficient for
proper recovery, treatment, or disposal.
Since mercury can be found in
municipal landfill leachate and releases
remain a concern (especially for the
long term), the Agency believes that
compliance with the substantive
requirements of the LDR program is still
necessary to minimize risks from
managing spent mercury-containing
lamps (studies on the movement of
mercury in a variety of land disposal
settings are ongoing). Again, the Agency
believes that controls of this type are
best implemented through a simple,
streamlined regulatory approach such as
the universal waste rule rather than as
a conditional exclusion.
A further reason for today's rule
finalizing the universal waste approach
is that this approach will provide more
consistency between federal and state
regulations governing the management
of spent hazardous waste lamps.
Currently, several states have added
mercury-containing lamps to their
universal waste programs and others
have proposed to do so in the near
future. By placing hazardous waste
lamps within the federal universal
waste rule, EPA hopes to encourage
additional states to regulate spent lamps
as universal waste and therefore
promote greater consistency in
regulatory approaches across state
borders. This will improve waste
management efficiency and reduce
compliance costs for waste handlers
engaged in interstate commerce.
C. Why Relief From Full Subtitle C
Requirements is Warranted Both for
Mercury-Containing Hazardous Waste
Lamps and Other Hazardous Waste
Lamps
Although some controls for
management of spent lamps are
necessary for protection of human
health and the environment, for several
reasons' the Agency believes that these
controls can be successfully applied in
a more simple, streamlined system than
the full Subtitle C program, and that
such an approach is appropriate both for
mercury-containing hazardous waste
lamps and any other spent lamps that
are hazardous.
The Agency believes that relief from
full Subtitle C requirements for handlers
of hazardous waste lamps is justified
(whether the lamps are hazardous
because they exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for mercury or another
constituent, such as lead). First, the
principal reason for this belief is that
the full Subtitle C regulatory structure is
not appropriate for the universe of
people handling these materials, and
adequate protections can be applied in
the more appropriate structure of the
universal waste rule. Many handlers of
hazardous waste lamps are office
buildings, retail establishments, and
other building managers, most of whom
are not familiar with or equipped to
comply with the full Subtitle C
regulatory structure. This structure was
initially developed with industrial
hazardous wastes in mind, and is most
appropriate for these materials and for
the types of facilities that generate these
wastes. The streamlined universal waste
structure is more appropriate for the
numerous, widely varied universe of
spent lamp handlers who are not
familiar with or easily able to comply
with the full hazardous waste regulatory
structure.
In addition, the final universal waste
rule included a number of factors to be
used to evaluate whether candidate
wastes are appropriate to be added to
the universal waste regulations. The
factors were designed to determine
whether regulating a particular
hazardous waste under the streamlined
standards of the universal waste
program would improve overall
management of the waste. The factors,
which are codified at 40 CFR 273.81,
include: (a) The waste must be a
hazardous waste generated by a wide
variety of generators; (b) the waste, or
category of waste, should not be
exclusive to a particular industry or
group of industries, but generated by a
wide variety of establishments; (c) the
waste should be generated by a large
number of generators and generated
frequently, but in relatively small
quantities; (d) systems to be used for
collecting the waste should ensure close
stewardship of the waste; (e) the risks
posed by the waste during accumulation
and transport should be relatively low
compared to the risks posed by other
hazardous waste, and specific
management standards would be
protective of human health and the
environment during accumulation and
transport; (f) regulation of the waste, or
category of wastes, under the universal
waste rule should result in the diversion
of the waste from management with
non-hazardous waste streams (i.e., the
municipal solid waste stream); (g)
regulation of the waste as a universal
waste should improve implementation
of and compliance with the hazardous
waste regulatory program and/or (h)
other factors that may be appropriate.
As the Agency noted in the preamble
to the final universal waste rule (60 FR
25513), not every factor must be met for
a waste to be appropriately regulated
under the universal waste system.
However, consideration of all the factors
should result in a conclusion that
regulating a particular hazardous waste
under 40 CFR part 273 will improve
waste management. After evaluating
spent hazardous waste lamps in the
context of the regulatory criteria for
adding wastes to the universal waste
rule, EPA has determined that on
balance, these wastes are highly
appropriate for inclusion in the
regulatory scheme of 40 CFR part 273.
The results of the Agency's evaluation
of how these wastes meet the universal
waste factors are described below.
A. Spent lamps are often hazardous
because they exhibit the characteristic
of toxicity by exceeding the regulatory
level for mercury or another constituent
(most frequently lead).
B. Spent hazardous waste lamps are
generated by a wide variety of
generators, including retail
establishments, manufacturing
establishments and office buildings.
C. Spent hazardous waste lamps are
generated frequently by a large number
of generators; in fact, a large percentage
of all office buildings, retail
establishments, and manufacturing
facilities; generate such lamps. Spent
lamps are often generated in relatively
small quantities.
D. The; packaging standards included
in today's rule and increased recycling
will encourage close stewardship of the
waste.
E. The Agency is convinced that the
requirements of the universal waste
program can be highly effective in
mitigating risks posed by breakage of
hazardous waste lamps during storage
and transport. The universal waste
requirements for proper packaging and
handling of the lamps to avoid breakage
during accumulation and transport
should prevent releases of mercury or
lead to the environment before recycling
or other management, which will make
the risks posed during accumulation
and transport extremely low.
F. The Agency believes that managing
hazardous waste lamps under the
universal waste program will result in
diversion of at least some of this waste
from management in the municipal
waste stream. EPA believes that the
streamlined requirements of today's rule
will encourage all handlers of spent
lamps (whether hazardous or not) to
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36473
manage them under the requirements of
part 273. Under the current RCRA
regulatory scheme, the management of a
waste differs based on the source of the
waste. Wastes (including spent lamps)
generated by consumers in their homes
are not regulated under Subtitle C when
discarded, because they are excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l). Similarly,
many spent lamps are largely exempt
from the hazardous waste regulations
because they are generated by
conditionally exempt small quantity
generators (CESQGs). Spent lamps
generated by households and CESQGs
are not distinguishable from those
generated by fully regulated generators.
Because the waste looks the same, spent
lamps that would be more protectively
managed in the hazardous waste system
are entering municipal solid waste
landfills or combustors instead. The
simplified regulations will provide an
incentive for individuals and
organizations to collect the unregulated
portions of the waste stream and
manage them using the same systems
developed for the regulated portion,
thereby removing spent mercury or
lead-containing lamps from the
municipal waste stream and minimizing
the amount of hazardous constituents
going to municipal landfills and
combustors.
G. Finally, managing hazardous waste
lamps under the universal waste
program will improve implementation
of and compliance with the hazardous
waste regulatory program. Generation of
hazardous waste lamps by facilities
which otherwise generate no hazardous
waste is widespread. Currently, if a
mercury or lead-containing lamp is a
hazardous waste, it must be managed
under Subtitle C regulation. If more than
100 kilograms of hazardous waste
(including spent lamps) are generated in
a calendar month, generators are subject
to full Subtitle C requirements for
storage, packaging, manifesting, and
record keeping. Many facilities are
therefore required to undergo significant
technical and paperwork burdens
largely or solely because they replace or
upgrade used hazardous waste lamps.
These generators may not be in
compliance with RCRA regulations
because they are unfamiliar with the
requirements. EPA believes that the
streamlined requirements of the
universal waste program will give such
"episodic" generators a more accessible
starting point for good environmental
management. If regulatory requirements
are simpler, the compliance rate will
improve, more hazardous waste lamps
will be handled properly, and more
spent lamps will be sent for recycling
(or to other Subtitle C facilities) instead
of going to solid waste landfills or to
municipal waste combustors. Improved
management will therefore lead to a
reduction in the total amount of
hazardous waste emissions to the
environment.
In summary, considering these1
factors, the Agency finds that the
universal waste approach is highly
appropriate for this waste stream; and
that it is in fact exactly this type of
waste that the universal waste system
was designed for. The Agency-believes
that the universal waste approach
promulgated in today's rule will
improve management of hazardous
waste lamps, will improve :
implementation of the hazardous waste
regulatory program, and will adequately
protect human health and the
environment from the risks posed by
management of this waste stream.
IV. Summary of Final Rule
A. Waste Covered by Today's Rule
Today's rule adds hazardous waste
lamps (waste lamps that are hazardous
due to exhibiting one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste) to
the federal universal waste rule. In the
proposed mercury-containing lamps
rule, the Agency provided definitions
for "electric lamp" and "mercury-
containing lamp." In response to .
comments received on the proposed
definitions, and to reduce potential
confusion regarding the scope of the
final rule, in today's final rule the
Agency is finalizing a single definition
of "lamp" or "universal waste lamp." In
addition, in the applicability section of
today's rule, the Agency is clarifying
that all hazardous waste lamps fall
within the scope of the universal waste
rule.
B. Summary of Management
Requirements for Universal Waste
Lamps
Today's final rule for hazardous waste
lamps ensures consistency with the
universal waste rule. Today's rule adds
subsections to §§273.13 and 273.33 of
the existing universal waste rule,
specifically addressing requirements for
hazardous waste lamps. New §273;13(d)
includes lamp handling requirements
for small quantity handlers of universal
waste, and new §273i33(d) provides
lamp handling requirements for large
quantity handlers of universal waste
lamps. Management standards for
transporters of universal waste lamps
are the same as those applicable to
transporters of other types of universal
waste. Destination facilities (e.g.,
recycling facilities and treatment and
disposal facilities) remain subject to all
applicable hazardous waste permitting
and management requirements under
RCRA.
The universal waste management
requirements for different participants
handling hazardous waste lamps are
summarized below. A discussion of the
public comments that the Agency
received in response to the management
requirements for spent lamps contained
in the proposed rule is found in Section
V of this preamble, along with EPA's
responses to comments received on the
proposed requirements.
1. Categories of Participants in the
Universal Waste System
There are four categories of
participants in the universal waste
management system: small quantity
handlers of universal waste (SQHUW),
large quantity handlers of universal
waste (LQHUW), transporters, and
destination facilities. When the
proposed spent lamps rule was
published, the Agency chose to
categorize the lamps in a manner that
was consistent with the proposed
universal waste rule. Both proposed
rules classified regulated persons
managing universal waste into one of
four types: generators, consolidation
points, transporters, or destination
facilities. When the final universal
waste rule was published, the Agency
modified the four categories. The
transporter and destination facility
categories were retained essentially as
proposed. However, the generator and
consolidation point categories were
merged to create two new categories of
participants: small quantity handlers of
universal waste (SQHUWs) and large
quantity handlers of universal waste
(LQHUWs). In today's final rule, the
Agency is categorizing handlers of
hazardous waste lamps in a manner
consistent with the existing universal
waste regulations.
2. Small and Large Quantity Handlers
The term "universal waste handler" is
defined under existing 40 CFR 273.6 as
a generator of universal waste or the
owner or operator of a facility
(including all contiguous property) that
receives universal waste from other
universal waste handlers, accumulates
universal waste, and sends universal
waste to another universal waste
handler, to a destination facility, or to
a foreign destination. The definition of
"universal waste handler" does not
include: (1) A person who treats (except
under the provision of §§273.13(a) or
(c), or §§273.33(a) or (c)), disposes of,
or recycles universal waste; or (2) a
-------
36474
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
person engaged in the off-site
transportation of universal waste by air,
rail, highway, or water, including a
universal waste transfer facility. Persons
who treat, recycle, or dispose of
universal waste remain subject to all
applicable hazardous waste regulations
as discussed below in Section IV.F.
Transporters of universal waste are
regulated as discussed below in Section
IV.E.
There are two types of entities that are
considered handlers of universal waste
lamps. The first is a person who
generates the lamps, i.e., the person who
used the lamps, then determined that
they are no longer usable and thus
should be discarded. Contractors who
remove universal waste lamps from
service are considered handlers and co-
generators of the waste. The second type
of handler is a person who receives
universal waste lamps from generators
or other handlers, consolidates the
lamps, and then sends the lamps 'on to
other universal waste handlers,
recyclers, or treatment and disposal
facilities. Facilities that accumulate
universal waste lamps but do not treat,
recycle, or dispose of them are handlers
of the lamps. Each separate location,
(e.g., generating location or collecting
location) is considered a separate
handler,
Whether a universal waste handler is
a SQHUW or LQHUW depends on the
amount of universal waste being
accumulated at any time. A small
quantity handler of universal waste is
defined under 40 CFR 273.6 as a
universal waste handler who
accumulates 5,000 kilograms or less of
universal waste (i.e., batteries,
pesticides, thermostats, or lamps,
calculated collectively) at any time. A
large quantity handler of universal
waste is defined under 40 CFR 273.6 as
a universal waste handler who
accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more of
total universal waste (i.e., batteries,
pesticides, thermostats, or lamps,
calculated collectively) at any time. The
5,000 kilogram accumulation cut-off
level refers to the total quantity of all
universal waste handled on-site,
regardless of the category of universal
waste.
On occasion, SQHUWs may
accumulate greater than 5,000 kilograms
of universal waste on-site at any one
time, thus requiring them to comply
with the LQHUW regulations. A large
quantity handler of universal waste
retains this designation for the
remainder of the calendar year in which
more than 5,000 kilograms of universal
waste was accumulated at any given
time. A handler may re-evaluate his
status as a LQHUW in the following
calendar year.
3. Universal Waste Transporters
Under 40 CFR 273.6, the definition of
a universal waste transporter is "a
person engaged in the off-site
transportation of universal waste by air,
rail, highway, or water." Persons
meeting the definition of universal
waste transporter include those persons
who transport universal waste from one
universal waste handler to another, to a
destination facility, or to a foreign
destination. These persons are subject to
the universal waste transporter
requirements of subpart D of part 273.
The proposed regulations for
transporters of hazardous waste lamps
were designed to be consistent with the
proposed universal waste rule. Since the
proposed regulations for universal waste
transporters were not modified
significantly in the final rule, today's
requirements for universal waste lamps
are essentially identical.
4. Universal Waste Destination Facilities
The definition of "destination
facility," found in 40 CFR 273.6, is "a
facility that treats, disposes of, or
recycles a particular category of
universal waste, except those
managemenractivities described in
paragraphs (a) and (c) of §§273.13 and
273.33 of this chapter (40 CFR part 273).
A facility at which a particular category
of universal waste is only accumulated
is not a destination facility for purposes
of managing that category of universal
waste." Persons meeting the definition
of destination facility are subject to the
universal waste destination facility
requirements of Subpart E of Part 273.
Like the regulations for transporters,
the final regulations for destination •
facilities have changed very little from
the proposed rule.
C. Management Requirements for Small
and Large Quantity Handlers of
Universal Waste Lamps
As mentioned above, the universal
waste rule includes different
requirements for small and large
quantity handlers of universal wastes.
Small quantity handlers are those who
accumulate 5,000 kilograms or less of all
universal waste categories combined at
their location at any time. The
requirements for small quantity
handlers of universal waste are located
in subpart B of part 273. Large quantity
handlers are those who accumulate
more than 5,000 kilograms of all
universal waste categories combined at
any time. The requirements for large
quantity handlers of universal waste are
located in subpart C of part 273.
Both small and large quantity
handlers must follow specified
requirements when handling universal
waste lamps. 40 CFR 273.13 specifies
packaging standards for waste lamps to
prevent breakage of spent lamps during
accumulation, storage, and transport of
universal waste lamps. Handlers of
universal waste lamps must label each
universal waste lamp or container
holding the lamps with the words
"Universal Waste—Lamp(s)" or "Waste
Lamp(s)" or "Used Lamp(s)."
In addition, the final rule requires that
spent lamps be managed in a way that
prevents releases of mercury or other
hazardous constituents to the
environment during accumulation,
storage, and transport. Handlers may
accumulate universal waste lamps for
one year. If the lamps are stored for
longer than one year, the handler must
be able to demonstrate that such
accumulation is solely for the purpose
of accumulating such quantities of
universal waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal. (Handlers are not required to
notify EPA or the authorized state of
storage for longer than one year.)
The requirements for responding to
releases applicable to small and large
quantity handlers of universal wastes
(including universal waste lamps) are
found in §§273.17 and 273.37. Today's
rule does not amend these sections. All
handlers of universal waste lamps must
immediately contain any releases from
the lamps and must handle the residues
according to all applicable regulatory
requirements. The Agency notes that
any releases of universal waste not
cleaned up could constitute illegal
disposal and could incur enforcement
action under RCRA. In addition, any
releases of hazardous substances
(universal wastes are hazardous wastes,
and thus are hazardous substances)
must be reported under CERCLA if they
are above reportable quantity
thresholds.
The employee training requirements
for small and large handlers of universal
waste are found in §§273.16 and
273.36. The Agency today is applying
these standards to handlers of universal
waste lamps. Large quantity handlers
must ensure that all employees are
thoroughly familiar with proper waste
handling and emergency procedures
related to their responsibilities during
normal facility operations and
emergencies. Small quantity handlers
must inform all employees that handle
or have responsibilities for managing
universal waste lamps of proper
handling and emergency procedures
appropriate to such lamps. The Agency
believes that basic employee training is
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6,, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36475
necessary to ensure that employees are
specifically familiar with waste lamp
handling procedures. Training that is
required under other programs (such as
OSHA or RCRA) will generally fulfill
the part 273 training requirements.
Small quantity handlers are not
required to notify EPA of their universal
waste management activities and need
not obtain an EPA identification
number. However, large quantity
handlers must notify EPA (or the
authorized state) of their universal
waste activities and they must obtain an
EPA identification number, if they do
not already have one.
The Agency has decided to adopt the
off-site shipment provisions included in
the final universal waste rule for
hazardous waste lamps in order to
remain consistent with the current
universal waste regulations. Handlers of
universal waste are prohibited from
sending universal waste to a place other
than another universal waste handler, a
destination facility, or a foreign
destination. Handlers who transport
universal waste off-site themselves are
considered universal waste transporters
and must comply with the universal
waste transporter requirements.
Universal wastes being offered for off-
site transportation that meet the
Department of Transportation (DOT)
definition of hazardous material must
comply with the applicable DOT
requirements. Large quantity handlers
must track waste lamp shipments by
maintaining records documenting
shipments received by and sent from the
facility.
Handlers of universal waste must also
comply with requirements for rejected
shipments of universal waste. To
prevent or limit rejected shipments,
facilities that offer universal waste for
shipment off-site must ensure, before
the shipment is sent, that the receiving
facility (another universal waste handler
or destination facility) will agree to
receive the load. If the shipment is
rejected, the handler must take the
waste back or agree with the receiving
facility on a destination facility to
which the shipment will be sent. If a
handler rejects a shipment or a portion
of a shipment, the handler must contact
the originating handler to discuss re-
shipment of the load. The handler may
send the shipment back to the
originating handler or send the
shipment to a destination facility agreed
upon by both handlers. If a handler
receives a shipment containing
hazardous waste that is not universal
waste, the handler must notify the EPA
Regional office of the illegal shipment
and receive instruction on further
management of the waste. If the handler
receives a shipment containing non-
hazardous, non-universal Waste, the
handler may manage the waste
according to applicable federal, state, or
local solid waste regulations.
D. Effect of Today's Rule on
Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity
Generators
Under the universal waste system,
conditionally-exempt small quantity
generators (CESQGs) can choose to
manage their universal waste lamps in
accordance with either the CESQG
regulations under 40 CFR 261.5 or as
universal waste under part 273 (4'0 CFR
273.8(a)(2)). In addition, handlers and
destination facilities that mix universal
waste lamps from CESQGs with other
universal waste regulated under part
273 are required to manage the ;
combined waste as universal waste
under part 273 (40 CFR 273.8 (b)).
As discussed in the proposal,
hazardous waste lamps that are ;
managed as universal waste under 40
CFR part 273 do not have to be included
in a facility's determination of
hazardous waste generator status (40
CFR261.5(c)(6)). Therefore, if a
generator manages such lamps under
the universal waste system and does not
generate any other hazardous waste, that
generator is not subject to other Subtitle
C hazardous waste management •
regulations, such as the hazardous waste
generator regulations in part 262. A
generator that generates more than 100
kilograms of hazardous waste in
addition to universal waste lamps;
would be regulated as a small or large
quantity hazardous waste generator and
would be required to manage all
hazardous wastes not included within
the scope of the universal waste rule in
accordance with all applicable Subtitle
C hazardous waste management
standards, depending on the amount of
other hazardous waste generated.
E. Requirements for Transporters of
Universal Waste Lamps
Transporters of universal waste lamps
are subject to the requirements of
subpait D of part 273. Under the
universal waste system, hazardous ;
waste manifests need not accompany
off-site shipments of universal waste.
Transporters of universal wastes must,
however, comply with any applicable
Department of Transportation (DOT)
requirements. The Agency notes that the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR,
49 CFR parts 171-180) define a
hazardous waste as any material that is
subject to the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Manifest Requirements of U.S. EPA,
specified in 40 CFR part 262. Since
shipments of universal waste are not
required to be accompanied by a
manifest, universal wastes are not
considered "hazardous wastes" under
DOT regulations. Therefore, for any
universal waste shipments, transporters
of universal waste must decide if the
waste falls under any of the other DOT
hazard classes to determine if
compliance with the DOT requirements
for "hazardous materials" under 49 CFR
parts 171 through 180 is required. If the
waste material does not meet the
definition in the HMR for hazardous
waste or any other hazardous material,
its shipping description on shipping
papers will not include a hazard class
or identification number shown in the
HMR.
Transporters may store universal
waste lamps for up to ten days at a
transfer facility during the course of
transportation. A transporter storing
universal waste lamps for more than ten
days at one location must comply with
the appropriate universal waste handler
requirements in managing the wastes
accumulated at the site, in addition to
complying with the applicable universal
waste transporter requirements.
Universal waste transporters must
transport a shipment of universal waste
to a small quantity handler, large
quantity handler, or a destination
facility.
Today's final rule adopts the release
response requirements promulgated in
the universal waste rule for transporters
of universal waste lamps. These
requirements are found in §273.54. The
release response requirements have
been adopted essentially as proposed
and remain consistent with the current
requirements for all universal waste
transporters.
F. Requirements for Destination
Facilities
A destination facility is a facility that
treats, disposes of, or recycles universal
wastes. The requirements for
destination facilities are found under
subpart E of part 273. Under the
universal waste rule, destination
facilities are subject to all hazardous
waste management requirements
applicable to permitted or interim status
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities under parts 264 and
265, as well as applicable standards in
parts 268 and 270. Facilities that recycle
universal waste lamps without
accumulating the lamps before they are
recycled are subject to the recycling
requirements of §261.6(c)(2).
G. Import and Export Requirements
The proposed rule for spent lamps did
not include provisions for the
importation of lamps. Several
-------
36476
Federal Itegister/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules arid Regulations
commenters on the universal waste
proposal pointed out that the Agency
did not address the issue of imports.
The Agency's intent was that once
universal waste entered the United
States, it should be subject to the same
standards as any other universal waste.
The final universal waste regulations
therefore included import requirements
in §273.70. Under today's rule, the
same requirements apply to universal
waste lamps. Universal waste lamps that
are imported from another country must
be managed, upon entry into the
country, in compliance with the
appropriate universal waste
requirements for transporters, handlers,
or destination facilities, depending on
the universal waste management
activities conducted within the United
States. To determine whether a handler
importing universal waste is a small or
large quantity handler, the universal
waste imported from a foreign country
is counted toward the quantity of waste
accumulated as would any other
universal waste. In addition, handlers
managing universal waste that is
imported from an Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) country are
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 262 subpart H.
The proposed provisions for exports
of spent lamps were equivalent to the
proposed provisions for exports of
Universal waste in the universal waste
proposal. The requirements for handlers
sending universal wastes (including
spent hazardous waste lamps) to a
foreign destination are found in §273.20
for small quantity handlers and §273.40
for large quantity handlers. Handlers
exporting universal wastes are subject to
the same provisions as generators of
hazardous waste in subparts E and H of
part 262. The exporting requirements for
transporters of universal wastes to a
foreign destination are found in
§ 273.56. Transporters may only accept
shipments of universal wastes bound for
foreign destinations that conform to the
EPA Acknowledgment of Consent. They
must ensure delivery of the universal
waste to the facility designated by the
person initiating the shipment.
The Agency notes that on April 12,
1996 (61 FR 16290), EPA revised the
final universal waste regulations on
importing and exporting of universal
waste to reflect the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Council Decision
Concerning the Control of Transfrontier
Movements of Wastes Destined for
Recovery Operations (March 30, 1992).
These revised regulations are today
adopted for universal waste lamps.
H. Land Disposal Restriction
Requirements
The proposed spent lamps rule did
not include specific provisions on land
disposal restrictions (LDR)
requirements. However, the proposed
and final universal waste regulations
included a provision that exempted
generators, transporters, and facilities
that consolidated universal waste from
the notification requirements in 40 CFR
268.7 and the storage prohibition in
§268.50. Destination facilities are
subject to the full LDR program.
Pursuant to the LDR provisions of the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
hazardous wastes listed or identified in
accordance with RCRA section 3001
cannot be land disposed until they meet
treatment standards (established by
EPA), which are sufficient to minimize
the short-and long-term threats
potentially posed by land disposal. The
regulations for the LDR program in 40
CFR part 268 apply to persons who
generate or transport hazardous waste,
as well as hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities, unless
they are specifically excluded from
regulation in parts 261 or 268. Universal
waste, as hazardous waste, remains
subject to the requirements of the LDR
program.
The applicability of the LDR
requirements to universal waste lamps
remains the same as the existing
requirements for universal waste.
Universal waste handlers and
transporters must comply with the
substantive requirements of the LDR
program but are not required to comply
with the administrative requirements
(e.g., notification to all handlers of
applicable treatment standards). The
Agency believes that because of the
unique nature of universal wastes (i.e.,
the wastes and treatment standards are
easily identifiable), the substantive
requirements would be sufficient to
ensure that the goals of the LDR
program are met for universal waste
managed under part 273.
Destination facilities are required to
comply with all of the part 268 LDR
requirements for universal waste,
including both the substantive and
administrative requirements. Therefore,
all universal waste must be treated or
disposed of in compliance with LDR
treatment standards, and the
appropriate documentation regarding
such compliance must be maintained by
the destination facilities.
V. Discussion of Comments Received in
Response to Proposed Rulemaking and
Agency's Response
The following section describes the
principal comments the Agency
received in response to the proposed
rulemaking on mercury-containing
lamps. Complete comments arid the
Agency's responses are located in the
docket for this rulemaking.
A. Universe of Lamps Covered Under
the Final Rule
I. Summary of Proposed Scope and
Definition
The Agency proposed to include
within the scope of the universal waste
rule those spent mercury-containing
lamps that are hazardous because they
exhibit the characteristic of toxicity.
Common types of electric lamps that
may contain sufficient concentrations of
mercury (or other constituents) to cause
them to be hazardous include, but are
not limited to, incandescent,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge,
and neon lamps. In the proposed rule,
the Agency also proposed definitions for
"electric lamp" and "mercury-
containing lamp" and requested
comment on these definitions.
In addition, the Agency requested
comment on whether the universal
waste approach should address all types
of spent lamps that fail the toxicity
characteristic. The Agency also
requested comment on whether and
how frequently other types of spent
lamps (such as incandescent and neon
lamps) fail the toxicity characteristic
test or exhibit other characteristics.
2. Summary of Comments Received
The Agency received a significant
number of comments on the proposed
definitions of "electric lamp" and
"mercury-containing lamp." Many
commenters requested that EPA clarify
which type of lamps would be included
within the scope of the final rule. Other
commenters provided suggestions on
the types of lamps to include within the
definition. Many commenters confirmed
that mercury-containing lamps include,
but are not limited to, fluorescent
lamps, mercury vapor lamps, high
pressure sodium vapor lamps, and metal
halide lamps.
Many commenters concurred with
EPA's findings that mercury lamps
consistently fail the toxicity
characteristic test for mercury. A few
commenters stated that many types of
spent mercury-containing lamps
(especially HID lamps and incandescent
lamps) also frequently exhibit the
toxicity characteristic for lead, generally
because of lead soldered bases and
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36477
leaded glass. These commenters
generally supported adding all
hazardous waste lamps to the universal
waste scheme, because they all fit
within the universal waste criteria and
it would be more convenient to have the
same management requirements for all
spent lamps. However, a few other
commenters opposed adding lamps
other than mercury-containing lamps to
the universal waste system, mainly
because the Agency lacked data on the
effects of other constituents. One
commenter claimed to have tested
incandescent bulbs at one of its facilities
and determined that all the bulbs failed
the test for lead, and many failed for
cadmium as well.
Some commenters believed that spent
fluorescent lamps do not exhibit the
toxicity characteristic for mercury under
certain circumstances. One commenter,
who conducted its own testing of
fluorescent light bulbs, stated that test
results were highly variable and
concluded that the test results on lamps
are inconclusive. Some commenters
stated that the percentage of lamps that
pass the test is rising and will continue
to rise due to new technologies
employed in lamp manufacturing.
Many commenters said that spent
mercury-containing lamps meet the
established criteria to be classified as a
universal waste, and that managing
lamps under the universal waste system
will encourage recycling and keep
lamps out of the municipal solid waste
combustors and landfills. Commenters
also stated that the universal waste
system for lamps will provide a more
consistent national management
approach, since many states regulate
lamps under regulatory programs that
are more stringent than the proposed
conditional exclusion option. Many
states are also currently adding lamps to
the scope of their universal waste
programs or have already done so.
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
To simplify the proposed definitions,
and in response to comments, the
Agency is today finalizing a single
definition of "lamp" or "universal waste
lamp" which is derived from the
proposed definitions of "electric lamp"
and "mercury-containing lamp."
The Agency agrees with those
commenters who believed that all
hazardous waste lamps would be
appropriately included in the universal
waste program. These lamps appear to
meet all of the criteria for inclusion in
the universal waste rule (see Section
III.C above), and EPA does not believe
that the presence of other hazardous
constituents (principally lead) in spent
lamps should preclude such lamps from
being managed as universal wastes.
Hazardous waste batteries (including
lead-acid batteries) are already part of
the universal waste scheme, in part
because EPA determined that the
environmental risks associated with
collection and transportation of these
materials was relatively low and can be
successfully controlled with the :
universal waste standards. Lead in
hazardous waste lamps is largely found
in endcaps and in the glass. Lead is not
volatile or widely dispersible in the case
of lamp breakage, and EPA also notes
that the packaging requirements in
today's rule will minimize breakage. For
these reasons, the Agency is including
all waste lamps that exhibit a •
characteristic in today's rulemaking.
With respect to incandescent lamps,
we note that most of these lamps are
generated by households or small
facilities. Waste lamps that are
household waste remain excluded from
hazardous waste regulation under 40
CFR 261.4(b)(l) Facilities that generate
less than 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste in a calendar month, including
any hazardous waste lamps that are not
managed as universal waste, qualify as
conditionally exempt small quantity
generators subject to reduced regulation
under 40 CFR 261.5. Spent lamps, that
do not exhibit any hazardous waste
characteristic are not subject to Subtitle
C regulation.
EPA also notes that waste lamp$ must
be solid waste (i.e., discarded) before
they are considered hazardous wastes
and thus subject to regulation under
RCRA. Section 273.5 (c) describes when
lamps become wastes. A used lamp
becomes a waste on the date that it is
discarded. An unused lamp becomes a
waste on the date a handler decides to
discard it. i '
B. Requirements for Handlers of
Universal Waste Lamps
1.' Prohibition on Treatment :
a. Summary of Proposed Provision.
The Agency requested comments on the
same prohibitions for generators and
consolidation points that were proposed
in the February 11, 1993 universal waste
proposal. The Agency had proposed that
generators of hazardous waste lamps
and consolidation points managing
hazardous waste lamps be prohibited
from diluting or disposing of the lamps
and from treating them except in
response to releases.
The Agency requested comments on
management practices for lamps, the
risks posed by these practices, and
appropriate technical controls to
minimize these risks which would not
inhibit collection and proper'
management. The Agency requested
comment on whether requirements
should be included in the final rule to
minimize mercury emissions during
storage and transport of the lamps.
The definition of treatment under
RCRA (40 CFR 260.10) includes any
method, technique or process designed
to change the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of
any hazardous waste so as to neutralize
such waste, or so as to recover energy
or material resources from, or render
such waste non-hazardous or less
hazardous, safer to transport, store or
dispose of, amenable for recovery, or
storage, or reduced in volume. The
crushing of spent mercury-containing
lamps clearly falls within this
definition. The Agency therefore
requested comment on whether
generators or consolidation points
should be allowed to crush lamps
intentionally to minimize volume for
storage or shipment and which, if any,
standards should be imposed to protect
against mercury releases during
crushing or the subsequent management
of crushed lamps.
b. Summary of Comments Received.
Several commenters stated that the
Agency should maintain its proposed
prohibition on waste treatment,
including lamp crushing. These
commenters said that lamp crushers are
a significant source of mercury
emissions and that many lamp recyclers
prefer to receive whole lamps. Other
commenters stated that generators
should be allowed to separate,
consolidate, and crush their own lamps.
Many commenters supported allowing
crushing if it were safely performed, and
some commenters stated that crushing is
necessary to reduce storage and
transportation costs. Information
submitted to the Agency on drum top
crushing systems for lamps indicates
that there is a wide range of air
emissions of mercury from these units,
depending on the type of controls, and
that in some units emissions of mercury
exceed the OSHA limit of 0.05 mg/m3.
c. Agency's Response to Comments
and Summary of Promulgated
Standards. The Agency is adopting for
universal waste lamps the prohibitions
in the final universal waste rule
promulgated on May 11, 1995. In
general, as explained in the preamble to
the universal waste rule (60 FR 25519),
the Agency does not believe that
universal waste handlers, who are not
required to comply with the full Subtitle
C management standards, should treat
universal wastes. Therefore, under
today's rule, both small and large
quantity handlers of universal waste
-------
36478
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules arid Regulations
lamps are prohibited from diluting or
treating universal waste lamps except by
responding to releases as provided in
§§273.17 and 273.37. Prohibitions for
Small quantity handlers are found in
§ 273.11 and for large quantity handlers
In §273.31. The prohibition against
treatment includes a prohibition of
crushing of lamps. EPA is particularly
concerned that uncontrolled crushing of
universal waste lamps in containers
meeting only the general performance
standards of the universal waste rule
would not sufficiently protect human
health and the environment. As stated
earlier, the prevention of mercury
emissions during collection and
transport is one of the principal reasons
that the Agency selected the universal
waste approach. Allowing uncontrolled
crushing would be inconsistent with
this goal.
The Agency is aware that a number of
states have already added spent lamps
to their universal waste programs.
Available information indicates that
some of these state programs prohibit
crushing of spent lamps, but that at least
some state programs may allow crushing
under regulatory requirements designed
to control emissions of hazardous
constituents, particularly mercury. The
Agency believes that some state
programs may include standards for
controlling emissions from mercury-
containing lamps during crushing that
could be equivalent, per RCRA Section
3006, to the federal prohibition.
Therefore, EPA will consider
authorization of state programs that
include provisions for controlling
treatment or crushing of universal waste
lamps, where the state program
application includes a demonstration of
equivalency to the federal prohibition.
Factors the Agency would expect such
an application to address include the
effectiveness of technical requirements
in controlling emissions of hazardous
constituents, the level of interaction of
regulated entities with the regulatory
agency to ensure compliance with
control requirements, and other factors
demonstrating that the state regulatory
program would be equivalent to the
federal treatment prohibition.
2. Notification Requirement
a. Summary of Proposed Provision.
The Agency proposed a notification
requirement for generators and
consolidation points (i.e., handlers of
universal waste lamps) storing more
than 35,000 spent lamps. The Agency
proposed a numerical rather than a
weight limit because lamp packaging
(the cardboard boxes in which new
replacement lamps are shipped) may
constitute a large proportion of the total
weight of a shipment or stored quantity
of lamps. In addition, industry practice
is generally to count lamps by number
rather than by weight, calculated by
multiplying the number of boxes of
lamps in storage or in a shipment by the
number of lamps per box. Since a full
truckload of fluorescent lamps consists
of approximately 35,000 lamps, the
Agency proposed that universal waste
handlers storing 35,000 lamps or more
at any time be required to send a written
notification of universal waste lamp
storage to the applicable EPA Regional
Administrator (or authorized state
director) and obtain an EPA
Identification Number.
b. Summary of Comments Received.
The Agency received only a few
comments on the proposed quantity
limit for the notification requirement.
One commenter suggested increasing
the limit to 80,000 lamps. About half the
commenters supported the general
notification requirement for generators
and consolidation points. Other
commenters stated that the notification
requirement was unnecessary and
burdensome since generators may
already possess an EPA identification
number.
c. Agency's Response to Comments
and Summary of Promulgated
Standards. In the interest of consistency
with the final universal waste rule, the
Agency has decided that the 5,000
kilogram limit for the accumulation of
all universal wastes will apply to all
universal waste handlers (i.e., handlers
of batteries, pesticides, mercury
thermostats, and lamps). As explained
in the preamble to that rule, the Agency
believes that the total amount of
universal waste at a handler's site is a
better indicator of potential risk than the
quantity of individual universal wastes
being accumulated and handled at that
site. EPA has determined that the 5,000
kilogram limit is appropriate for
facilities handling universal waste
lamps. The Agency believes that it is
just as practical to set the notification
requirement on the basis of a quantity
(or weight) of waste accumulated as on
the total number of items generated.
Handlers can weigh the amount of waste
as easily as they can count the total
number of individual light bulbs
accumulated, and can also subtract the
weight of the packaging.
In response to commenters who said
that the notification requirement will be
burdensome, the Agency points out that
those generators who have already
notified EPA of their hazardous waste
management activities are not required
by the universal waste rule or today's
final rule to re-notify EPA or obtain a
new identification number. Prior to
today's rulemaking, many lamps that are
hazardous waste were required to be
managed in accordance with all
applicable Subtitle C hazardous waste
management standards, including the
RCRA notification provisions.
Therefore, the notification requirement
in today's rule is a new requirement
only for generators of universal waste
lamps that have never generated more
than 100 kg of hazardous waste in a
calendar month, but now accumulate
more than 5,000 kg of universal waste
lamps.
3. Prevention of Releases/Packaging
Requirements
a. Summary of Proposed Provision.
The Agency proposed that generators
and consolidation points be required to
manage hazardous waste lamps in a
manner that minimizes lamp breakage.
The proposal required that unbroken
lamps be contained in packaging that
will minimize breakage during normal
handling conditions, and broken lamps
be contained in packaging that will
minimize releases of lamp fragments
and residues.
The Agency requested comment on
appropriate management controls for
handlers of spent mercury-containing
lamps that would minimize potential
releases of mercury during collection,
accumulation, storage and transport.
Approaches suggested by the Agency
included requiring performance
standards for packaging to minimize
lamps breakage. EPA expected that the
packaging in which new replacement
lamps are shipped from the
manufacturer would frequently be
reused to store and transport removed,
used lamps. The Agency also suggested
that requirements could be imposed on
storing and transporting spent lamps
that are inadvertently broken to prevent
further mercury emissions. For example,
55-gallon steel drums or any enclosed
container could be used to hold broken
lamps for transportation to a recycling
facility or a disposal site.
b. Summary of Comments Received. A
number of commenters, including both
lamp manufacturers and mercury lamp
recycling facilities, supported container
or packaging standards to minimize
lamp breakage during accumulation,
storage, and transport. Lamp recycling
facilities in particular voiced a
preference for spent lamps to be stored
and transported in packaging that
protects the spent lamps from potential
breakage. Commenters representing
recycling facilities pointed out that
proper packaging will prevent releases
of mercury to the environment before
the lamps arrive at recycling facilities.
These commenters stated that lamp
1 f..p
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36479
recycling facilities prefer to receive
intact, unbroken lamps so that the
lamps can be crushed in a closed,
controlled environment at the recycling
facility to allow for the capture and
recycling of the available mercury. In
addition, commenters pointed out that
broken lamps and potential releases of
mercury can endanger the safety of
employees at the recycling facility.
Commenters representing both lamp
manufacturers and lamp recyclers
recommended that intact lamps be
stored in original cartons or specially
designed containers (e.g., fiber
containers with closed lids) that will
protect the spent lamps from breakage.,
Commenters pointed out that
unintentionally broken lamps should be
stored and transported in closed drums
or other puncture-proof containers that
are sealed and properly labeled.
Although many commenters
supported the promulgation of
packaging or container requirements to
reduce lamp breakage and reduce
mercury emissions during storage and
transport, other commenters stated that
mercury emissions from broken lamps
do not pose a threat to human health
and the environment and that therefore
protective package may not be
necessary.
c. Agency's Response to Comments
and Summary of Promulgated
Standards. The Agency agrees with the
commenters who stated that universal
waste lamps should be stored and
packaged in a way that minimizes lamp
breakage. Recent studies (such as that
performed by the Research Triangle
Institute) show that significant releases
of mercury during storage and transport
can occur as a result of lamp breakage.
EPA therefore disagrees with those
commenters who stated that breakage
presents no threat to human health and
the environment. Today's final rule
adds a subsection (d) for universal waste
lamps to the universal waste
management §§273.13 and 273.33 for
small quantity handlers and large
quantity handlers respectively. The
Agency believes that these standards
generally satisfy the concerns of
commenters for environmental
protection. The packaging provisions
generally resemble the universal waste
packaging requirements for mercury-
containing thermostats.
The final rule requires universal
waste handlers to manage universal
waste lamps in a way that prevents
releases of the lamps or the components
of the lamps to the environment. Spent
lamps must be packed to minimize
breakage and packaging materials must
be designed to contain potential releases
due to breakage during transport.
Universal waste lamps must be stored in
containers or packages that remain
closed, are structurally sound, adequate
to prevent breakage, compatible with
contents of lamps, and lack evidehce of
leakage, spillage, or damage that could
cause leakage under reasonably
foreseeable conditions. Examples of
accejptable packaging could include
placing the lamps evenly spaced in
double or triple-ply cardboard
containers with closed lids. Handlers
also must contain any universal waste
lamps that show evidence of breakage,
leakage, or.damage that could cause the
release of mercury or other hazardous
constituents to the environment. An
example of such containment could
include placing unintentionally broken
lamps in closed wax fiberboard drums.
The Agency points out that in
addition to these container and
packaging provisions, universal waste
handlers, including handlers of
universal waste lamps, must comply
with the provisions of 40 CFR 273.17
and 273.37 for responding to releases of
universal waste. Handlers of universal
waste must immediately contain all
releases of universal waste and any
residues from universal wastes. In
addition, universal waste handlers must
determine whether any material :
resulting from a release is a hazardous
waste and, if so, must manage the ',
hazardous waste in compliance with all
applicable provisions of 40 CFR parts
260 through 268, as well as all other
applicable statutory provisions.
4. Accumulation Time ,
a. Summary of Proposed Provision. In
the proposed spent mercury-containing
lamps rule, the Agency proposed to
limit the time period in which handlers
may accumulate such lamps on-site to
one year following the date that a lamp
becomes a waste. In addition, the
Agency proposed several alternative
ways to demonstrate compliance with
this provision, and solicited comment
on the alternatives. The proposed :
regulations required that generators and
consolidation points either mark the
container, mark the individual lamps,
maintain an inventory system, or place
lamps in a specific storage area while
identifying the earliest date a lamp was
placed in that area. '
b. Summary of Comments Received.
Generally, most commenters supported
the proposed one-year storage time
limitation and compliance
demonstration requirements. A few
commenters stated that each lamp
should be dated as soon as it is removed
from the lamp fixture to verify '.
compliance with the one-year time
limit. Stome commenters stated that the
one year storage limit was too long and
increased the probability of broken
lamps. These commenters suggested
reducing the time limit to 180 days, 90
days, or 10 days. Other commenters
stated that the one-year limit was too
restrictive and did not allow for proper
.recovery, treatment, or disposal. One
commenter suggested that a provision
be included for case-by-case extensions
to the storage time limit if necessary.
c. Agency's Response to Comments
and Summary of Promulgated
Standards. In today's rule, the Agency
has decided to adopt the accumulation
time limit requirements in the universal
waste rule (§§273.15 and 273.35) for
small and large quantity handlers of
spent lamps. These requirements are
similar to the provisions for the
accumulation time limit in the proposed
spent mercury-containing lamps rule.
However, to remain consistent with the
universal waste rule, handlers of
universal waste lamps are allowed
accumulation for more than one year if
such accumulation is solely for
accumulating such quantities of
universal waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal. For any accumulation longer
than one year, the handler must be able
to prove that such accumulation is
solely for accumulating quantities
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal (it is assumed that
any accumulation up to one year is for
this purpose). Notification to the EPA
Regional Administrator of extended
storage is not required; however,
authorized states may have more
stringent requirements.
The final rule requires that handlers
of universal waste lamps comply with
one of the following measures to
demonstrate compliance with the
accumulation time limit: mark the
container holding the lamp, mark the
individual lamp, maintain an inventory
system, place the lamps in a specific
storage area marked with the earliest
date a lamp is placed in the area
identified, or use any other method
which demonstrates the length of time
that the lamp has been accumulated
from the date the lamp becomes a waste
or is received.
In response to comments requesting a
different accumulation time, the Agency
believes that this issue was addressed in
the final universal waste rule (60 FR
25526). In that rule, the Agency
recognized that one year may not be
sufficient for some handlers to
accumulate enough universal waste to
properly recover, treat, or dispose of the
waste. By allowing accumulation for
longer than one year, certain facilities
will have the additional time they need
-------
36480
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
to facilitate proper recovery, treatment,
or disposal. However, for any
accumulation longer than one year, the
burden pf proof is on the handler to
demonstrate that such accumulation is
solely for accumulating quantities
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal. Although the
Agency agrees with commenters that it
Is possible to send spent lamps to a
management facility, in a shorter period
of time, there does not appear to be a
strong environmental justification for
such a requirement.
Also in response to comments
received, the Agency is not modifying
the proposed demonstration
requirement to show compliance with
the accumulation time limit (40 CFR
273.15 and 273.35). Labeling each
individual tube with the date that it is
removed from the fixture is an
acceptable means of identifying the
accumulation time. However, the
Agency believes that the other measures
for showing compliance with the
accumulation time limit are adequate
and impose a smaller burden,
particularly upon small quantity
handlers.
5. Tracking of Shipments
a. Summary of Proposed Provision.
The Agency requested comment on
several ways to track off-site shipments
of waste lamps. One suggested approach
required the use of a hazardous waste
manifest (and thus a hazardous waste
transporter) for shipments from the last
consolidation point to the destination
facility. However, no manifests or other
records (or hazardous waste
transporters) would be required for
shipments from generators to
consolidation points or from generators
to destination facilities. This approach
Is the same as that presented in the
universal waste proposal. Another
approach suggested by the Agency was
to require that persons initiating and
receiving shipments of spent lamps
retain shipping papers documenting all
shipments. The last approach suggested
was requiring that persons claiming an
exemption from the hazardous waste
manifesting requirements must keep
documentation to show that they
qualified for such an exemption
(specific shipment records need not be
retained). In the proposed spent
mercury-containing lamps rule, the
Agency stated that because of the large
volume of lamp shipments, such
shipments are more likely than other
universal wastes to be made directly
from the generator to the destination
facility. Records would be available for
such shipments because destination
facilities are already required under the
hazardous waste regulations to maintain
records, including the description and
quantity of each hazardous waste
received.
b. Summary of Comments Received.
Some commenters opposed any tracking
and recordkeeping requirements for the
shipment of spent lamps. Several
commenters said that the use of
manifests for generators and
consolidation points is not necessary to
track the transportation of spent lamps,
and that this requirement would create
an unnecessary cost burden. These
commenters believed that the increased
costs and administrative burden of
using manifests and hazardous waste
transporters would discourage the
collection of universal waste and would
inhibit removal of these wastes from
solid waste landfills and incinerators.
Commenters suggested that the
documentation requirements for
generators and consolidation points
should be flexible. However, many
commenters, including some of those
who opposed manifests, supported
some form of tracking requirement to
document the transport of universal
wastes. These commenters argued that a
less burdensome tracking requirement
would not inhibit participation in
collection programs. Further benefits
might include reduction of liability for
persons managing universal waste,
increased enforceability of the universal
waste system, and decreased potential
for abuse of the streamlined universal
waste requirements. Some commenters
supported stringent tracking
requirements, and a few stated that all
consolidation points should be required
to accompany lamp shipments with a
manifest to protect generators from
potential liability. One commenter
stated that receiving facilities should
keep documentation of all shipments
received until the facility closes.
c. Agency's Response to Comments
and Summary of Promulgated
Standards. In the final universal waste
rule, the Agency decided to require
tracking only for large quantity handlers
of universal waste. EPA believed that
tracking was needed only in cases
where facilities are handling larger
quantities of universal waste, thus
posing potentially greater
environmental risk. The Agency
decided not to impose these
requirements on small quantity handlers
of universal waste because it agreed
with those commenters who said that
the administrative burden of tracking
would discourage retail establishments,
service centers, and other "front line"
collectors managing small quantities of
waste from participating in collection
programs, thus undermining the goal of
the universal waste program. In
addition, because these operations
accumulate smaller quantities of
universal wastes, they will generally
pose less risk than facilities
accumulating larger quantities.
EPA believes that these arguments
apply with equal force to handlers of
universal waste lamps. In today's rule,
the Agency is therefore adopting the
universal waste tracking requirements
in part 273 for such lamps. The tracking
provisions for small and large quantity
handlers of universal waste are found in
§§273.19 and 273.39, respectively. The
universal waste rule includes a
recordkeeping requirement to track
waste shipments arriving at and leaving
from large quantity handlers. Large
quantity handlers are required to keep
records of each shipment of universal
waste lamps received and keep records
of each shipment of lamps sent off-site.
The record may take the form of a log,
invoice, manifest, bill of lading, or other
shipping document. The Agency
believes that standard business records
that are normally kept by businesses
will fulfill this requirement. Records
must be retained for at least three years
from the date of receipt of a shipment
of lamps or the date a shipment of
lamps leaves the facility. Small quantity
handlers are not required to keep
records of shipments of universal waste
lamps. The Agency believes that these
requirements provide consistency with
the current universal waste rule and
adequately respond to concerns raised
by commenters on the proposed rule,
including those commenters requesting
flexibility in recordkeeping
requirements.
C. Storage Time Limitation for
Transporters of Universal Waste Lamps
1. Summary of Proposed Provision
The proposed regulations for
transporters of mercury-containing
lamps were designed to be consistent
with the proposed universal waste rule.
The Agency proposed to allow
transporters of universal waste lamps to
store spent lamps for up to ten days at
a transfer facility during the course of
transportation. A transporter storing
spent lamps for more than ten days at
one location would have to comply with
the appropriate universal waste handler
requirements in managing the wastes
accumulated at the accumulation site, in
addition to complying with the
applicable universal waste transporter
requirements.
2. Summary of Comments Received
In response to the proposed universal
waste rule, the Agency received
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36481
comments from two commenters who
argued for a longer storage time limit for
transporters. In addition, one
commenter argued that the Agency
should limit the total transportation
time allowed for a waste to reach its
destination, rather than impose a time
limit for storing the waste during
transport. The commenters, however,
provided little information to justify a
longer in-transit storage time limit. The
Agency proposed the same.
accumulation time limit for transporters
of universal waste lamps in the
proposed rulemaking on mercury-
containing lamps. The transporter
accumulation time limit in the proposed
universal waste rule was not
significantly changed in the final
universal waste rule, except to clarify •
that if the waste is stored for greater
than 10 days, the transporter is subject
to the standards for small or large
quantity handlers.
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
Today's final rule adopts the storage
time limit standards for transporters of
universal waste lamps as promulgated
in the universal waste rule. Under 40
CFR 273.53 of the universal waste
regulations, transporters can store
universal waste at a transfer facility for
ten days or less. If the ten day limit is
exceeded, the transporter becomes a
universal waste handler and must
comply with the applicable small or
large quantity handler requirements
under subparts B or C of part 273 while
storing the universal waste. The Agency
chose to retain the proposed 10-day
accumulation limit for transporters of
universal waste, consistent with the
limit for transfer facilities handling
other types of hazardous waste. In
response to the commenter requesting
that the Agency limit total transport
time, rather than set a limit on the
accumulation time at transfer facilities,
EPA does not believe that a limit on
total transportation time is practicable
because of the extreme variation in the
time needed to deliver shipments to
different parts of the country. It is
generally in the economic self-interest
of transporters to make deliveries as
quickly as possible. Delays in transport
usually imply the likelihood of storage,
so a limit on such storage seems the
most efficient way to protect human
health and the environment.
facilities receiving universal waste.
Destination facilities remain subject to
full subtitle C regulation,-including all
applicable requirements of parts 264,
265, 266, 268, 270, and 124. A recycling
facility that does not store universal
waste lamps before recycling them must
comply with §261.6(c)(2).
The existing requirements for
destination facilities (i.e., hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
(TSD) facilities, or recycling facilities
that do not store hazardous waste before
recycling) are found in subpart E of part
273. Subpart E requires that destination
facilities remain subject to full subtitle
C regulation. These provisions are the
same as those proposed in the proposed
spent mercury-containing lamps rule.
The proposed spent mercury- '
containing lamps rule required that
destination facilities recycling .
hazardous waste lamps prior storage
must comply with 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2),
which requires that facilities recycling
universal waste obtain an EPA
identification number. If a recycling
facility stores hazardous waste lamps
before recycling or performs treatment
other 1:han recycling, the facility is
subject to full subtitle C hazardous
waste management regulations,
including the RCRA permitting
requirements. :
2. Summary of Comments Received
The Agency received many comifaents
addressing the regulation of mercury
lamp recycling facilities. Some
commenters stated that mercury lamp
recyclers are a potential threat to the
environment because these facilities
lack substantive regulation. A number of
commenters suggested that the Agency
implement standards for recycling
facilities, and suggested best
management practices that would
reduce releases of mercury into the
environment from these facilities.
D. Destination Facility Requirements/
Lamp Recycling Facilities
1. Summary of Proposed Provision
Today's rule does not amend the
existing standards for destination
3. Agency's Response to Comments:and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
Today's rule does not amend the
existing standards for recycling facilities
receiving universal waste. In general,
destination facilities, including
recycling facilities, remain subject to
full hazardous waste regulation. A
recycling facility that does not store
universal waste lamps prior to recycling
the lamps is subject only to 40 CFR
261.6(c)(2).
The Agency believes that changing
requirements for destination facilities
(including lamp recyclers) is beyond the
scope of today's regulation, which
addresses the generation and collection
of universal waste lamps rather than
final treatment, disposal, or recycling.
EPA believes that with adequate state
oversight, universal waste lamps can be
safely recycled, allowing the mercury
and other economically viable materials
to be reclaimed. Safe recycling should
ensure that residuals from recovery
operations are managed in accordance
with all applicable solid and hazardous
waste management requirements.
Residuals that exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste must be managed as
hazardous waste.
The Agency received no comments
concerning the provisions for universal
waste destination facilities, other than
those addressing lamp recycling
facilities. Therefore, today's rule does
not amend the existing standards for
treatment and disposal facilities
receiving universal waste. Treatment
and disposal facilities that receive
universal waste lamps are subject'to the
same standards that apply to permitted
or interim status hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. These standards include
notification requirements, general
facility standards, unit-specific
management standards, and permitting
requirements. The Agency notes that
facilities that store universal waste
lamps, but do not treat, dispose, or
recycle them, are considered handlers.
and not destination facilities.
E. Sunset Provision
1. Summary of Proposed Provision
In the proposed lamps rule, the
Agency requested comments on whether
to include a three to five-year sunset
provision in the final rule. A sunset
provision would require EPA to re-
evaluate the effectiveness of the
universal waste system in addressing
the disposal of lamps after three to five
years. At that time, the Agency could
decide whether fewer controls or more
controls were needed to maintain the
safe management of lamps.
2. Summary of Comments Received
More than half of the comments
received generally supported a three to
five year sunset provision. Commenters
stated that a sunset provision would
allow the Agency to examine any new
information on lamp management and
the fate and transport of mercury, and
re-evaluate options as necessary.
Other commenters did not support the
proposed three to five year sunset
provision. Commenters stated that a
sunset provision or other deadline was
not necessary and that the Agency
already had the authority to re-evaluate
the rule at any time.
-------
36482
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
3. Agency's Response to Comments and
Summary of Promulgated Standards
Today's final rule does not include a
sunset provision. The Agency believes
that the data and information provided
to the Agency, along with the Agency's
own studies and analyses (available in
the docket for this rulemaking) provide
adequate evidence of the behavior of
mercury in the environment and
potential releases of mercury to support
today's final rule. The Agency notes.
however, that if additional information
about the behavior of mercury becomes
available in the future, the Agency may
re-evaluate the standards promulgated
in today's final rule.
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
hazardous waste program within the
State. 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 are found at 40 CFR part
271.
Prior to enactment of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), a State with Final RCRA
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 facilities in that
State, since only the State was
authorized to issue RCRA permits.
When new, more stringent federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obligated to enact
equivalent authorities within specified
time frames. However, the new federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the federal requirements as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was
added by HSWA. new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under HSWA
authority take effect in authorized States
at the same time that they take effect in
unauthorized States. EPA is directed by
the statute to implement these
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized States, 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. EPA implements the
HSWA provisions in authorized States
until the States do so.
Authorized States are required to
modify their programs only when EPA
promulgates federal requirements that
are more stringent or broader in scope
than existing federal requirements.
RCRA section 3009 allows the States to
impose standards more stringent than
those in the federal program. See also 40
CFR 271.1(1). Therefore, authorized
States can, but do not have to, adopt
federal regulations, both HSWA and
non-HSWA, that are considered less
stringent.
B. Effect on State Authorization
Today's rule is not promulgated
pursuant to HSWA. Therefore the rule is
applicable on the effective date only in
those States that do not have final RCRA
authorization. Today's rule is also less
stringent than the current federal
program. Because States are not
required to adopt less stringent
regulations, they do not have to adopt
the universal waste regulations for spent
lamps. A number of States have added
spent lamps to their universal waste
programs or are in the process of doing
so. While these actions are specifically
allowed under the universal waste rule,
if a State's standards for spent lamps are
less stringent than those in today's rule,
the State will need to amend its
regulations to make them equivalent to
today's standards and pursue
authorization.
As noted earlier, EPA recognizes that
States have been proactive in adopting
universal waste standards for spent
lamps. Some of these standards allow
crushing of lamps under certain
conditions. Although today's rule does
not provide for crushing, EPA believes
that State programs could have
standards for crushing which will be
equivalent to the federal rules and thus
appropriate for authorization. EPA also
believes that this flexibility will allow
for a minimal level of disruption to
existing State programs. The Agency
will determine at the time of
authorization whether a State regulation
that allows crushing is equivalent to the
federal standard.
C. Interstate Transport
Due to the fact that not all States will
choose to seek authorization for today's
rulemaking, there may be only a few
destination facilities that will accept
and manage universal waste lamps. The
Agency believes that it is important to
explain how the regulations will apply
because interstate transportation will be
necessary for these wastes.
First, a waste which is subject to the
universal waste regulations may be sent
to a State, or through a State, where it
is not a universal waste and where it
would be subject to the full hazardous
waste regulations. In this scenario, for
the portion of the trip through the
originating State, and any other States
where the waste is a universal waste,
neither a transporter with an EPA
identification number per 40 CFR
263.11 (hazardous waste transporter)
nor a manifest would be required.
However, for the portion of the trip
through the receiving State, and any
other States that do not consider the
waste to be a universal waste, the
transporter must have a manifest, and
must move the waste in compliance
with 40 CFR Part 263. In order for the
final transporter and the receiving
facility to fulfill their requirements
concerning the manifest (40 CFR 263.20,
263.21, 263.22; 264.71, 264.72, 264.76
or 265.71, 265.72, and 265.76), the
initiating facility should complete a
manifest and forward it to the first
transporter to travel in a State where the
waste is not a universal waste. The
receiving facility must then sign the
manifest and send a copy to the
initiating facility. EPA recommends that
the initiating facility note in block 15 of
the manifest (Special Handling
Instructions and Additional
Information) that the wastes are covered
under the universal waste regulations in
the initiating State but not in the
receiving facility's State.
Second, a hazardous waste generated
in a State which does not regulate it as
a universal waste may be sent to a State
where it is a universal waste. In this
scenario, the waste must be moved by
a hazardous waste transporter while the
waste is in the generator's State or any
other States where it is not a universal
waste. The initiating facility would
complete a manifest and give copies to
the transporter as required under 40
CFR 262.23(a). Transportation within
the receiving State and any other States
that regulate the waste as a universal
waste would not require a manifest and
need not: be conducted by a hazardous
waste transporter. However, it is the
initiating facility's responsibility to
ensure that the manifest is forwarded to
the receiving facility by any non-
hazardous waste transporter and sent
back to the initiating facility by the
receiving facility (see 40 CFR 262.23
and 262.42). EPA recommends that the
generator note in block 15 of the
manifest (Special Handling Instructions
and Additional Information) that the
waste is covered under the universal
waste regulations in the receiving
facility's State but not in the generator's
State.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6,; 1999/Rules and Regulations
36483
Third, a waste may be transported
across a State in which it is subject to
the full hazardous waste regulations
although other portions of the trip may
be from, through, and to States in which
it is covered under universal waste
regulations. Transport through the State
must be conducted by a hazardous
waste'transporter and must be
accompanied by a manifest. In order for
the transporter to fulfill its requirements
concerning the manifest (Subpart B of
Part 263), the initiating facility must
complete a manifest as required under
the manifest procedures and forward it
to the first transporter to travel in a State
where the waste is not a universal
waste. The transporter must deliver the
manifest to, and obtain the signature of,
either the next transporter or the
receiving facility.
As noted previously. States are not
required to adopt today's rule. However,
EPA strongly encourages them to do so.
As more States add spent lamps in their
universal waste program, not only will
this assist in achieving the most benefits
of the universal waste program, it will
also reduce the complexity of interstate
transport of these universal wastes.
VII. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735), the Agency must determine
whether this regulatory action is
"significant" and therefore subject to
formal review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and to
the requirements of the Executive Order,
which include assessing the costs and
benefits anticipated as a result of the
proposed regulatory action. 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 a 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 the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, the Agency has
determined that today's final rule is a
significant regulatory action because
this final rule contains novel policy
issues. As such, this action was '
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in
the public record. Although this rule is
not "economically significant", the
Agency has prepared the supporting
analysis: Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Program: Hazardous Waste
Lamps—Final Economic Assessment
(Economic Assessment). The findings
from this analysis are presented below.
B. Economic Assessment
The Economic Assessment conducted
in support of today's final rule analyzed
impacts associated with this final '
universal waste action, plus the primary
alternative of promulgating a
conditional exclusion for lamps. :
Although the final rule includes all
hazardous waste lamps in the universal
waste program, this Economic :
Assessment addresses only rnercury-
contaming fluorescent lamps. The;
Agency estimates that non-fluorescent
lamps represent approximately 0.8 to
1.7 percent of the total universe of i
lamps addressed under today's j
rulemaking. The comparatively '
negligible proportion of other hazardous
waste lamps is not expected to
appreciably affect the impact estimates
presented in this analysis. •:
Fluorescent lamps contain a small
amount of mercury that emits light
when stimulated with electrical current.
When a fluorescent lamp breaks, the
mercury in the lamp is released into the
environment and may cause health
risks, primarily through consumption of
fish. Neurotoxicity is the health effect of
greatest concern for humans; death,
reduced reproductive success, impaired
growth and development, and
behavioral abnormalities are effects of
concern to fish, birds, and mammal's.
Lamp mismanagement scenarios '
indicate that, without government
intervention, market failures will likely
lead to disposal activities resulting in
unnecessarily high releases of mercury
to the environment.
Prior to today's final action, spent
lamps that failed the toxiciry
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) test were automatically ,
considered hazardous wastes under
RCRA and subject to full Subtitle C'
management requirements, unless the
lamps are generated by a household or
a conditionally-exempt small quantity
generated. EPA recognized the
confusion and mismanagement patterns
historically associated with maintaining
spent hazardous waste lamps within the
Subtitle C system. The Agency is taking
today's final action of adding spent.
lamps to the scope of universal waste
regulations in an effort to streamline the
current regulations governing the
management of such lamps, increase
lamp management efficiency, and
ultimately to cause a potential reduction
in aggregate mercury emissions. The
Agency's final action of adding spent
lamps to the scope of the universal
waste system, however, is not expected
to completely determine how these
lamps will be managed in individual
states. States already have the option of
including lamps within their universal
waste programs. Furthermore, states that
have not chosen to adopt universal
waste programs, or have not included
lamps within their universal waste
programs, are not obligated to do so in
response to EPA's decision.
The universal waste regulations
include requirements for the proper
packaging of spent lamps, storage of
spent lamps, EPA notification, and
responses to releases. EPA selected this
action over the other proposed option
which would have been based on a
conditional exclusion (CE). The CE
would have excluded spent mercury-
containing lamps from regulation as
hazardous waste. The addition of spent
lamps to the universal waste regulations
is considered a deregulatory action and
imposes fewer requirements on
generators and transports of spent lamps
than the hazardous waste management
standards under RCRA Subtitle C. The
proposed conditional exclusion would
have been deregulatory as well.
The Economic Assessment conducted
in support of today's final rule analyzed
impacts associated with the final
universal waste action, plus the primary
alternative of promulgating a
conditional exclusion for lamps. Two
different compliance scenarios are
examined in the baseline, and under
each option in an effort to incorporate
alternative management practices. The
first (high) compliance scenario assumes
100 percent compliance under all
regulatory schemes. The second (low)
compliance scenario assumes 20 percent
compliance under a scenario where
handlers of spent mercury-containing
lamps are subject to full Subtitle C, 80
percent compliance under the universal
waste option, and 90 percent
compliance under the conditional
exclusion option. The reader should
refer to the report: Mercury Emissions
From The Disposal of Fluorescent
Lamps—Revised Model, Final Report,
for a detailed discussion of estimated
compliance rates. This report is
available in the RCRA docket
established for today's action.
The total national annualized costs of
compliance and disposal under the
baseline are estimated at $80.01 million
-------
36484
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
and $54.37 million under the high and
low compliance scenarios, respectively.
Under the universal waste final action
these costs are projected at $78.52
million under the high compliance
scenario and $56.14 million for the low
compliance scenario. In the high
compliance scenario, the costs under
full Subtitle C and universal waste are
close because transportation and
disposal costs, which account for
approximately 76 percent of total costs,
are virtually the same. Under the low
compliance scenario, costs under the
universal waste final action are higher
than under the full Subtitle C baseline
because of the higher compliance rate
assumed under the universal waste
scheme. While costs could increase for
some non-exempt entities under the
universal waste approach, this would be
the result of non-compliance in the
baseline. These costs would not
appropriately be attributable to this
rulemaking, Compliance and disposal
costs under the conditional exclusion
option also were examined. Aggregate
annualized costs under the conditional
exclusion option are estimated at $73.90
million and $52.60 million for the high
and low compliance scenarios,
respectively.
The Economic Assessment also
examined economic impacts on affected
facilities. EPA's final universal waste
action is projected to result in cost
savings to affected generators under the
high compliance scenario. Adverse
impacts on generators, therefore, are not
anticipated. However, actual costs to
some generators may increase under the
low compliance scenario. The
magnitude of the potential cost increase
under this scenario, however, would not
result in meaningful impacts on affected
generators. In addition to generators, the
Assessment also examined potential
economic impacts on consolidation and
recycling facilities. The Agency found
that few, if any, spent fluorescent lamp
consolidation facilities exist at present
or are likely to exist in the future as
independent economic entities. Impacts
on consolidated facilities dedicated to
spent fluorescent lamps, therefore, were
not examined. Recycling facilities may
benefit indirectly due to today's final,
which may result in additional revenues
for firms owning or operating recycling
facilities.
The Economic Assessment projected
changes in total nationwide mercury
emissions resulting from the universal
waste final action and the conditional
exclusion option. Average annual
emissions corresponding to the
management of spent mercury-
containing fluorescent lamps (four-foot
equivalents) were projected over the
1998 through 2007 period. Under the
high compliance scenario, average
annual baseline emissions were
estimated at 790.4 kilograms. Emissions
under the universal waste final action
were projected at 790.5 kilograms,
resulting in an incremental increase of
0.1 kilograms, or 0.013 percent above
the baseline. Emissions under the
conditional exclusion option are
projected at 798.4 kilograms, or 1.012
percent beyond the baseline. Under the
low compliance scenario, average
annual baseline emissions are estimated
at 822 kilograms. The universal waste
final action is projected to result in
average annual emissions of 819.2
kilograms. This is a reduction of 2.8
kilograms, or 0.341 percent. Emissions
under the conditional exclusion option
increase by 10.5 kilograms, or 1.277
percent beyond the baseline.
The examination of cost-effectiveness
may help put the above emission
increments into perspective. Cost-
effectiveness allows for the direct
comparison of costs, or cost savings on
a per kilogram basis. Under the high
compliance scenario, shifting from the
baseline to the universal waste final
action is projected to result in cost
savings of $10.5 million per additional
kilogram of mercury emitted. This
implies that it would be very expensive,
on a per kilogram basis, to keep
emissions low by holding to a high
compliance baseline. Under the low
compliance scenario, shifting from the
baseline to the universal waste final
action is projected to result in a cost
increase of $0.63 million per kilogram of
mercury reduced. Furthermore, today's
final action is projected to cut emissions
by over thirteen kilograms per year
compared to the conditional exclusion
option, at a cost of approximately $0.27
million per kilogram.
For more information on the cost and
emissions impacts associated with
today's final rule see the EPA report:
Modification of The Hazardous Waste
Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps—
Economic Assessment. This report is
available from the RCRA docket
established for this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an Agency is required
to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the
factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion
explains EPA's determination.
The small entity analysis conducted
for today's final action indicates that the
addition of spent lamps to the universal
waste system would generally result in
savings to affected entities relative to
baseline requirements. Under the full
compliance scenario, the rule is not
expected to result in a net cost to any
affected entity. Thus, adverse impacts
are not anticipated. Costs could increase
for entities that are not complying with
current requirements, but even these
costs (which are not properly
attributable to the current rulemaking)
would not be expected to result in
significant impacts on a substantial
number of small entities. Based on the
foregoing discussion, I hereby certify
that this rule will not have a significant
adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Consequently, the Agency has
determined that preparation of a formal
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
unnecessary.
For more information on small entity
impacts potentially associated with
today's final rule see the EPA report:
Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program: Hazardous Waste Lamps—
Regulatory Flexibility Screening
Analysis. This report is available from
the RCRA docket established for this
action.
D. Environmental Justice
Under Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations," as well as through EPA's
April 1995 "Environmental Justice
Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice
Task Force Action Agenda Report", and
the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken
to incorporate environmental justice
into its policies and programs. EPA is
committed to addressing environmental
justice concerns, and is assuming a
leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all residents of the United
States. The Agency's goals are to ensure
that no segment of the population.
1 „.:
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36485
regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income, bears disproportionately
high and adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of
EPA's policies, programs, and activities,
and all people live in clean and
sustainable communities. To address
this goal, EPA conducted a qualitative
analysis of the environmental justice
issues under this final rule. Potential
environmental justice impacts are
identified consistent with the EPA's
Environmental Justice Strategy and the
OS WER Environmental Justice Action
Agenda. In addition, public comments
received on the 1994 proposal that
. relate to environmental justice were
reviewed for this analysis.
As mentioned before, the primary
concern regarding management of spent
mercury-containing lamps is the air
emissions as a result of crushing and
accidental breakage during transport,
lamp management, or disposal. Mercury
air emissions can have human health
effects through direct contact or indirect
human contact by consuming fish and
shellfish, or through contamination of
drinking water (perhaps from
inadequate disposal measures).
From a direct exposure standpoint,
the transient nature of mercury air
emissions results in less concern to the
location of minority and low-income
populations than might be expected.
Since atmospheric mercury can travel
thousands of miles (and beyond U.S.
borders), an environmental justice
analysis does not require a detailed
geographic analysis. However,
populations immediately surrounding
transportation, incineration, recycling,
crushing, or disposal facilities may be
exposed to a higher concentration of
emissions than those populations living
further away. If these types of facilities
are located more often in communities
characterized by low-income or
minority populations, there may be
disproportionate impacts to those
populations from the promulgation of
today's final rule. If the location of such
facilities is random with respect to race
or income, disproportionate impacts
could be said not to exist. The low
compliance scenario is examined for the
environmental justice analysis.
Of the indirect exposure pathways,
the ingestion of mercury-contaminated
fish and shellfish has been shown to be
of the highest concern due to mercury's
propensity to bioaccumulate in the
aquatic environment. This can present
an environmental justice issue since the
bulk of subsistence fisher populations
consist of low-income people. These
subsistence fisher populations rely on
locally-caught fish as an inexpensive
source of protein or due to cultural
reasons. However, since today's rule is
expected to improve compliance, and
thus adequate management of mercury-
containing lamps, it is expected that
there will be a positive impact on .these
populations, with less mercury available
to contaminate aquatic environments.
No disproportional impacts for low-
income or minority communities are
expected as a result of the final action
for the following reasons:
(1) The environmental impact of the
final universal waste action is small.
The 10-year modeling period projects a
net decrease in emissions (low-
compliance scenario) at approximately
30 kilograms under the universal waste
final action. The conditional: exclusion
option would have shown an increase
(approximately 105 kg) in mercury
emissions over 10 years. In either case,
the wide distribution of mercury '•
emissions is unlikely to create
significant impacts on any particular
community. i
(2) The distribution of the municipal
waste combustors and recycling '•
facilities throughout minority and/or
low income counties in the United
States does not suggest any
distributional pattern around
communities of concern. Lamps
crushing, legal or illegal, is difficult to
measure because any building in any
area is a potential source. Specific:
impacts on low income or minority
communities, therefore, are
undetermined. The Agency believes that
emissions during transportation would
not be a major contributor to
communities of concern through which
lamps may be transported. Any lamps
broken during transport would be
contained in the packaging. The Agency
recognizes, however, the potential for
some increased risk to transportation
workers. Overall, no disproportional
impacts to minority and/or low income
communities are expected.
For more information on the
environmental justice analysis
conducted in support of today's final
rule see the EPA report: Modification of
the Hazardous Waste Program: •
Hazardous Waste Lamps—Economic
Assessment. This report is available
from the RCRA docket established for
this action.
E. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law
104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary ,
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, though OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
rule does not establish technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
F. Executive Order 13045—Children's
Health
"Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to any rule that EPA determines
(1) "economically significant" as
defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency
must: Evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on
children; and explain the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned
rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other
potential effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency. We believe this final rule is not
subject to E.O. 13045, entitled
"Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
because it is intended to be
deregulatory. However, an analysis of
the potential effects of this action on
children's health in the spirit of the
Executive Order and consistent with the
Agency's ongoing concern with
children's health, is included in section
n of today's preamble.
G. Regulatory Issues—Unfunded
Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for
federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for the proposed and final
rules with "federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures by state, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year.
-------
36486
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
Before promulgating a rule for which
a written statement is needed, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted.
Before EPA established any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must
have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan.
The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments,
enable officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant
federal Intergovernmental mandates,
and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The Agency's analysis of compliance
with the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today's
final rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal government
or the private sector. This final rule
contains no federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title n of the
UMRA) for state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. In
addition, EPA has determined that this
rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
, uniquely affect small governments. The
Act generally excludes from the
definition of "federal intergovernmental
mandate" (in sections 202, 203, and
205) duties that arise from participation
in a voluntary federal program.
Adopting today's final action, because it«
is less stringent, is optional. The
universal waste final action, therefore,
could be interpreted as voluntary and
not subject to the Unfunded Mandates
Analysis requirement. Furthermore,
today's final action is deregulatory and
Will not impose incremental costs in
excess of S100 million to the private
sector, of to state, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Information Collection Request
(ICR) detailing the information
collection requirements associated with
today's rule will be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq. A
copy of the ICR document (ICR No.
1699.02) may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC
20460, by e-mail at
farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by
calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also
be downloaded off the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov.icr. The
information requirements are not
effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements
established for this action, and
identified in the Information Collection
Request (ICR) supporting today's final
rulemaking, are largely a self-
implementing process. This process will
ensure that: (i) Handlers of lamp wastes
are held accountable to the universal
waste requirements; and (ii) state
inspectors can verify compliance when
needed. For example, the universal
waste standards require LQHUWs and
SQHUWs to demonstrate the length of
time that the lamp waste has been
accumulated from the date it was
received or became a waste. The
standards also require LQHUWs and
destination sites to keep records of all
shipments received and sent. Further,
the standards require waste handlers to
notify EPA when needed (e.g.,
notification of illegal shipment).
EPA will use the collected
information to ensure that lamp waste is
being managed in a protective manner.
These data aid the Agency in tracking
lamp waste shipments and identifying
improper management practices. In
addition, information kept in facility
records helps handlers and destination
sites to ensure that they and other
facilities are managing lamp wastes
properly. Section 3007 (b) of RCRA and
40 CFR part 2, subpart B. which define
EPA's general policy on the public
disclosure of information, contain
provisions for confidentiality. However,
no questions of a sensitive nature are
included in any of the information
collection requirements associated with
today's action".
EPA has carefully considered the
burden imposed upon the regulated
community by the regulations. EPA is
confident that those activities required
of respondents are necessary and, to the
extent possible, has attempted to
minimize the burden imposed. EPA
believes strongly that if the minimum
requirements specified under the
regulations are not met, neither the
facilities nor EPA can ensure that
hazardous waste lamps are being
managed in a manner protective of
human health and the environment.
The aggregate burden to respondents
over the three-year period covered by
this ICR is estimated at 385,461 hours,
with a cost of approximately
$15,247,245. The aggregate burden to
the Agency is estimated at 5,583 hours,
with a cost of $320,910. Burden means
the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or
provide information to or for a federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
I. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36487
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities."
EPA has determined that the
requirements of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to today's final rule
because the rule does not significantly
or uniquely affect Indian tribal
governments or communities.
Furthermore, the rule does not impose
any enforceable duties on these entities,
and is not likely to impose substantial
direct compliance costs on tribal
governments and their communities.
/. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a
mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If
EPA complies by consulting, Executive
Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to
the Office of Management and Budget a
description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition. Executive Order
12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of
State, local and tribal governments "to
provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded
mandates."
Today's rule does not create a
mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose
any enforceable duties on these entities.
Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1 (a) of Executive Order 12875 do
not apply to this rule.
VEQ. Submission to Congress and
General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A "major rule"
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a "major rule" as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule
will be effective six months from the
date of publication. :
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials;
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping,
Waste treatment or disposal.
40 CFR Parts 261 ;
Hazardous materials, Recyclingj
Waste treatment and disposal. :
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste. Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 270
Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and
disposal.
40 CFR Part 273
Environmental protection, Hazardous
materials, Packaging and containers.
Dated: June 28, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations, parts 260 261,
264, 265, 268, 270 and 273, are ;
amended as follows:
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.
Subpart B—Definitions
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order the
definition of "Lamp" and by revising
the definition of "Universal Waste" to
read as follows:
§260.10 Definitions.
*****
Lamp, also referred to as "universal
waste lamp", is defined as the bulb or
tube portion of an electric lighting i
device. A lamp is specifically designed
to produce radiant energy, most often in
the ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Examples of common universal waste
electric lamps include, but are not
limited to, fluorescent, high intensity
discharge, neon, mercury vapor, high
pressure sodium, and metal halide
lamps.
* * . * * * *
Universal Waste means any of the
following hazardous wastes that are
managed under the universal waste
requirements of part §273 of this
chapter:
(1) Batteries as described in §273.2 of
this chapter;
(2) Pesticides as described in §273.3
of this chapter;
(3) Thermostats as described in
§273.4 of this chapter; and
(4) Lamps as described in §273.5 of
this chapter.
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, 6924(y), and 6938.
Subpart A—General
4. Section 261.9 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 261.9 Requirements for universal waste.
*****
(b) Pesticides as described in §273.3
of this chapter;
(c) Thermostats as described in
§ 273.4 of this chapter; and
(d) Lamps as described in §273.5 of
this chapter.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
Subpart A—General
6. Section 264.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (g)(ll)(ii) and
(g) (11) (iii) and adding ajiew paragraph
(g) (11) (iv) to read as follows:
§264.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*****
(g)* * *
(11) * * *
-------
36488
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
(ii) Pesticides as described in §273.3
of this chapter;
(iii) Thermostats as described in
§273.4 of this chapter; and
(iv) Lamps as described in §273.5 of
this chapter.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
7. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6906, 6912,
6922. 6923. 6924, 6925. 6935. 6936, and
6937.
Subpart A—General
8. Section 265.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c)(14)(ii) and
(c) (14) (iii) and adding a new paragraph
(c)(14)(iv) to read as follows:
§ 265.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(c) * * *
(14)* * *
(ii) Pesticides as described in §273.3
of this chapter;
(iii) Thermostats as described in
§273.4 of this chapter; and
(iv) Lamps as described in §273.5 of
this chapter.
PART 26S—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
9. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
Subpart A—General
10. Section 268.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) and
adding a new paragraph (f) (4) to read as
follows:
§268.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*****
ffl* * *
(2) Pesticides as described in §273.3
of this chapter;
(3) Thermostats as described in
§ 273.4 of this chapter; and
(4) Lamps as described in 40 CFR
273.5.
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
11. The authority citation for part 270
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924,
6925. 6927. 6939, and 6974.
Subpart A—General Information
12. Section 270.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (c) (2) (viii) (B) and
(c) (2) (viii) (C) and adding a new
paragraph (c) (2) (viii) (D) to read as
follows:
§ 270.1 Purpose and scope of these
regulations.
*****
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) * * *
(B) Pesticides as described in §273.3
of this chapter;
(C) Thermostats as described in
§ 273.4 of this chapter; and
(D) Lamps as described in §273.5 of
this chapter.
PART 273—STANDARDS FOR
UNIVERSAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
13. The authority citation for part 273
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6922, 6923, 6924,
6925, 6930, and 6937.
Subpart A—General
14. Section 273.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) (2) and (a) (3) and
adding a new paragraph (a) (4) to read as
follows:
§273.1 Scope.
(a) * * *
(2) Pesticides as described in §273.3;
(3) Thermostats as described in
§273.4; and
(4) Lamps as described in §273.5.
*****
15. Section 273.2 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(l), (b)(2), and
(b)(3) to read as follows:
§273.2 Applicability—batteries.
(a) * * *
(1) The requirements of this part
apply to persons managing batteries, as
described in §273.9, except those listed
in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * " *
(b)* * *
(2) Batteries, as described in §273.9,
that are not yet wastes under part 261
of this chapter, including those that do
not meet the criteria for waste
generation in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(3) Batteries, as described in §273.9,
that are not hazardous waste. A battery
is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one
or more of the characteristics identified
in part 261, subpart C of this chapter.
16. Section 273.3 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§273.3 Applicability—pesticides.
(a) Pesticides covered under this part
273. The requirements of this part apply
to persons managing pesticides, as
described in § 273.9, meeting the
following conditions, except those listed
in paragraph (b) of this section:
*****
17. Section 273.4 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§273.4 Applicability—mercury
thermostats.
(a) Thermostats covered under this
part 273. The requirements of this part
apply to persons managing thermostats,
as described in § 273.9, except those
listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
***** '
18. Section 273.5 is revised to read as
follows:
§273.5 Applicability—Lamps.
(a) Lamps covered under this part
273. The requirements of this part apply
to persons managing lamps as described
in §273.9, except those listed in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Lamps not covered under this part
273. The requirements of this part do
not apply to persons managing the
following lamps:
(1) Lamps that are not yet wastes
under part 261 of this chapter as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section.
(2) Lamps that are not hazardous
waste. A lamp is a hazardous waste if
it exhibits one or more of the
characteristics identified in part 261,
subpart C of this chapter.
(c) Generation of waste lamps. (1) A
used lamp becomes a waste on the date
it is discarded.
(2) An unused lamp becomes a waste
on the date the handler decides to
discard it.
§ 273.6 [Redesignated as § 273.9]
§§ 273.6 and 273.7 [Reserved]
19. Section 273.6 is redesignated as
§ 273.9 arid §§273.6 and 273.7 are
added and reserved.
20. Section 273.8 is added to read as
follows:
§273.8 Applicability—household and
conditionally exempt small quantity
generator waste.
(a) Persons managing the wastes listed
below may, at their option, manage
them under the requirements of this
part:
(1) Household wastes that are exempt
under § 261.4(b) (1) of this chapter and
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
36489
are also of the same type as the
universal wastes defined at §273.9; and/
or
(2) Conditionally exempt small
quantity generator wastes that are
exempt under §261.5 of this chapter
and are also of the same type as the
universal wastes defined at § 273.9.
(b) Persons who commingle the
wastes described in paragraphs (a)(l)
and (a) (2) of this section together with
, universal waste regulated under this
part must manage the commingled
waste under the requirements of this
part.
21. Newly designated §273.9 is
amended by adding, in alphabetical
order, the definition of "Lamp" and
revising the definitions of "Large
Quantity Handler of Universal Waste,"
"Small Quantity Handler of Universal
Waste" and "Universal Waste" to read
as follows:
§273.9 Definitions.
*****
Lamp, also referred to as "universal
waste lamp" is defined as the bulb or
tube portion of an electric lighting
device. A lamp is specifically designed
to produce radiant energy, most often in
the ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Examples of common universal waste
electric lamps include, but are not
limited to, fluorescent, high intensity
discharge, neon, mercury vapor, high
pressure sodium, and metal halide
lamps.
*****
Large Quantity Handler of Universal
Waste means a universal waste handler
(as defined in this section) who
accumulates 5,000 kilograms or more
total of universal waste (batteries,
pesticides, thermostats, or lamps,
calculated collectively) at any time. This
designation as a large quantity handler
of universal waste is retained through
the end of the calendar year in which
5,000 kilograms or more total of
universal waste is accumulated.
*****
Small Quantity Handler of Universal
Waste means a universal waste handler
(as defined in this section) who does not
accumulate 5,000 kilograms or more
total of universal waste (batteries,
pesticides, thermostats, or lamps,
calculated collectively) at any time.
* * * * *
Universal Waste means any of the
following hazardous waste that are
subject to the universal waste
requirements of this part 273:
(1) Batteries as described in §273.2
(2) Pesticides as described in §273.3
(3) Thermostats as described in
§273.4; and
(4) Lamps as described in §273.5.
Subpart B—Standards for Small :
Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste
22. Section 273.10 is revised to read
as follows:
§273.10 Applicability.
This subpart applies to small quantity
handlers of universal waste (as defined
in 40 CFR 273.9).
23. Section 273.13 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (d) to read .as
follows:
§273.13 Waste Management '
***** ;
(d) Lamps. A small quantity handler
of universal waste must manage lamps
in a way that prevents releases of any
universal waste or component of a
universal waste to the environment, as
follows:
(1) A small quantity handler of
universal waste must contain any lamp
in containers or packages that are
structurally sound, adequate to" prevent
breakage, and compatible with the
contents of the lamps. Such containers
and packages must remain closed and
must lack evidence of leakage, spillage
or damage that could cause leakage'
under reasonably foreseeable
conditions.
(2) A small quantity handler of
universal waste must immediately clean
up and place in a container any lamp
that is broken and must place in a ;
container any lamp that shows evidence
of breakage, leakage, or damage that
could cause die release of mercury or
other hazardous constituents to the
environment. Containers must be
closed, structurally sound, compatible
with the contents of the lamps and must
lack evidence of leakage, spillage or
damage that could cause leakage or
releases of mercury or other hazardous
constituents to the environment under
reasonably foreseeable conditions.
24. Section 273.14 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
§273.14 Labeling/marking.
*****
(e) Each lamp or a container or
package in which such lamps are
contained must be labeled or marked
clearly with one of the following
phrases: "Universal Waste—Lamp(s),"
or "Waste Lamp(s)," or "Used Lamp(s).'
Subpart: C—Standards for Large
Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste
25. Section 273.30 is revised to read
as follows:
§273.30 Applicability.
This subpart applies to large quantity
handlers of universal waste (as defined
in §273.9).
26. Section 273.32 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) as
follows:
§273.32 Notification.
*****
(b) * * *
(4) A list of all the types of universal
waste managed by the handler (e.g.,
batteries, pesticides, thermostats,
lamps);
(5) A statement indicating that the
handler is accumulating more than
5,000 kg of universal waste at one time
and the types of universal waste (e.g.,
batteries, pesticides, thermostats, and
lamps) the handler is accumulating
above this quantity.,
27. Section 273.33 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
§273.33 Management.
* * * * *
(d) Lamps. A large quantity handler of
universal waste must manage lamps in
a way that prevents releases of any
universal waste or component of a
universal waste to the environment, as
follows:
(1) A large quantity handler of
universal waste must contain any lamp
in containers or packages that are
structurally sound, adequate to prevent
breakage, and compatible with the
contents of the lamps. Such containers
and packages must remain closed and
must lack evidence of leakage, spillage
or damage that could cause leakage
under reasonably foreseeable
conditions.
(2) A large quantity handler of
universal waste must immediately clean
up and place in a container any lamp
that is broken and must place in a
container any lamp that shows evidence
of breakage, leakage, or damage that
could cause the release of mercury or
other hazardous constituents to the
environment. Containers must be
closed, structurally sound, compatible
with the contents of the lamps and must
lack evidence of leakage, spillage or
damage that could cause leakage or
releases of mercury or other hazardous
constituents to the environment under
reasonably foreseeable conditions.
28. Section 273.34 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
§273.34 Labeling/marking.
*****
(e) Each lamp or a container or
package in which such lamps are
-------
36490
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 128/Tuesday, July 6, 1999/Rules and Regulations
contained must be labeled or marked
clearly with any one of the following
phrases: "Universal Waste—Lamp(s),"
or "Waste Lamp(s)," or "Used Lamp(s)."
Subpart D—Standards for Universal
Waste Transporters
29. Section 273.50 is revised to read
as follows:
§273.50 Applicability.
This subpart applies to universal
waste transporters (as defined in
§273.9).
Subpart E—Standards for Destination
Facilities
30. Section 273.60 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§273.60 Applicability.
(a) The owner or operator of a
destination facility (as defined in
§ 273.9) is subject to all applicable
requirements of parts 264, 265, 266, 268,
270, and 124 of this chapter, and the
notification requirement under section
SOlOofRCRA.
Subpart G—Petitions to Include Other
Wastes Under 40 CFR Part 273
31. Section 273.81 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§273.81 Factors for petitions to include
other wastes under this part 273.
(a) The waste or category of waste, as
generated by a wide variety of
generators, is listed in subpart D of part
261 of this chapter, or (if not listed) a
proportion of the waste stream exhibits
one or more characteristics of hazardous
waste identified in subpart C of part 261
of this chapter. (When a characteristic
waste is added to the universal waste
regulations of this part 273 by using a
generic name to identify the waste
category (e.g., batteries), the definition
of universal waste in §260.10 of this
chapter and §273.9 will be amended to
include only the hazardous waste
portion of the waste category (e.g.,
hazardous waste batteries).) Thus, only
the portion of the waste stream that does
exhibit one or more characteristics (i.e.,
is hazardous waste) is subject to the
universal waste regulations of this part
273;
*****
[FR Doc. 99-16930 Filed 7-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
------- |