ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261.4
[RIM 2050-AD93]
-Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps .
SUMMARY: Mercury-containing lamps (light bulbs) may be hazardous
waste under the Toxicity Characteristic Rule (codified at 40 CFR
261.24) issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)' and if so, must be managed as a hazardous waste, unless
they are a household waste or are generated by an exempted small
quantity generator. Mercury-containing lamps include
fluorescent, high pressure sodium, mercury vapor and metal halide
lamps. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today
seeking comment on two alternative approaches for the management
of mercury-containing lamps. First, EPA is seeking comment on
whether an exclusion from regulation as hazardous waste is .
appropriace for mercury lamps, provided they are disposed in
municipal landfills that are permitted by. States/Tribes with EPA
approved municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill permitting programs
or managed in mercury reclamation facilities that are permitted,
licensed or registered by States/Tribes. The second approach
would add mercury lamps to EPA's Universal Waste Proposal
(February 11, 1993, 58 FR 8102) . The Universal Waste approach is
-------
a streamlined, reduced regulatory structure, which is designed to
address the management of certain widely generated wastes
currently subject to full Subtitle C RCRA regulations.
Today's proposal presents management options that would be
considered less stringent than the existing Federal regulations
because they would exempt certain activities now within the
purview of RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste management).
Therefore, States authorized under RCRA section 3006 to
administer and enforce a hazardous waste system in lieu of the
Federal program would be allowed flexibility in modifying their
programs to adopt less stringent regulations regarding the
management of mercury-containing lamps, should one of the
proposed options be promulgated as a final rule.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or
before (insert date 60 days after date of publication in the
Federal Register).
ADDRESSES: Persons who wish to comment on this notice must
provide an original and two copies of their comments, include the
docket number (F-94-FLEP-FFFFF), and send them to EPA RCRA Docket
(OS-305) , U.S. EPA, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C-. 20460.
The RCRA Docket is located at Room M2427, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460,
The docket is-open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials,
-------
the public must make an appointment by calling (202) 260-9327.
The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory
docket at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR -FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information,
contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline toll free at (800) 424-9346.
In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, call' (703) 412-9810.
For information regarding specific aspects of this notice,
contact Valerie Wilson, Office of Solid Waste (mail code 5304),
U.S. EPA, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone
(202) 260-4678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Preamble Outline .
I. Legal Authority ' '
II. - Background
A. The Toxicity Characteristic
B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs
C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives
III. Technical Information
A. Groundwater Impacts
B. Air Impacts
1. Incineration
2. Mercury in Landfill Gas
3 . Crushing and -Breakage
C. Technical Considerations and Requests for Comments
-------
IV. Management Options
A. Conditional Exclusion
B. Universal Waste System
1. Background
2. Special Collection System for Lamps
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect of State Authorizations
VII. Economic Impact Analysis
A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for Regulatory Options
Considered
1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Spent Lamp Generators
2. Baseline Costs
3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion from Subtitle C
Standards Costs
4. Option 2; Special Collection Costs
5. Results
B. Proposed Rule Impacts
1. Primary Effects
2. Secondary Effects
i.
VIII. References
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
-------
I. Legal Authority
• These regulations would be promulgated under the authority
Of sections 1006, 2002 fa) , 3001-3007, '301'0, '3013, 3016-3017, 3018
•and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
6905,' 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6937-6938, 6939 and 6974
[commonly referred to as RCRAJ .
II. Background
A.. The Toxicity Characteristic
Under section 3001 of the Resource, Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is charged with-defining which solid wastes are hazardous
by identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and by
listing particular hazardous wastes. Toxicity is one of the four
«
characteristics used by EPA to identify waste as"hazardous (along
with ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity). EPA promulgated
the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Characteristic (EPTC) on May
19, 1980. The EPTC regulated eight metals, four insecticides,
and two herbicides. Section 3001(g) of RCRA, added by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, required EPA
to revise the EPTC. On March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), the EPA.
promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic (TO to revise the
existing EPTC. Like the EPTC, the TC and its associated testing
-------
• -
methodology, the'Toxici^ty Characteristic Leaching Procedure
-•'
(TCLP) is used to fdef inV the tcxicitVi: of a- waste |jby measuring the
*• il i . y ' • i1. i '•«
ootential for the Itoxic constituents"' !in thelwaste! to leach out of
' ' • •
an unlined municipal landfill.'into groundwater and contaminate
drinking water wells at' levels-of health or'environmental concern
' I " . ; M " I
if not subject to ?Subtitle C controls':. The :'>TC implemented an
improved leaching Iprocedure that bettjer predicts Bleaching and
added several hazardous* waste constijtuents I '• Twenty-five organic
hazardous waste constituents were added to'the TG and a model was
I ' ''' 'I !i
developed to predict their fate and'transport in .'the groundwater.
If wastes exhibit -'"'the Toxicity Characteristic they are. subject to
the hazardous wastl-e management requirements of RCRA Subtitle C.
\ i \ ' i
As discussedUn the preamble to the Toxicity Characteristic
I ,1 { •
Rule {March* 29, 1990, 55 FR ll813) , /the regulatory levels for the
TC metals were not changed by the promulgation of the final TC
rule. EPA retained the regulatory levels set by :the EPTC rule,
pending further study of the fate and transport of metals in
groundwater. : \
The Agency is continuing longer-term developmental work on a
metal speciation model, called MINTEQ, to be used to evaluate the
fate and transport of the TC metals (including mercury) for
purposes of reassessing the toxicity characteristic regulatory
levels for the TC metals. SPA's preliminary-analysis indicates
•' i
that mercury that would leach out of landfills would not all
-------
necessarily travel far enough through the groundwater to
contaminate drinking water wells, depending on .the distance to
the well. A certain percent (scill to be determined) will
combine with ether substances in the'soil (via ccmplexation,
adsorption, ace.! to form solid substances and remain in the
soil. Therefore-, the regulatory limits for mercury if re-
assessed using the MINTEQ model, when completed, might be higher
(less stringent) than the current limits because mercury may be
less mobile than the current TC rule indicates. However, these
studies are still ongoing (U.S. EPA, 199lb).
Available data (included in the docket for this proposal)
indicate that as a result of the use of mercury in the production
of fluorescent and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, a
relatively high percentage of these lamps, when spent, exhibit
che characteristic of toxicity. (U.S. EPA, 1392a) However, all
generators of spent lamps that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic may not have to manage those lamps as hazardous
waste. EPA has specified different requirements for generators
of hazardous waste depending on the amount of hazardous waste
generated per month. Conditionally-exempt small quantity
«.
generators (CESQG) generate less than 100 kilograms (kg) of
hazardous waste each month and can send their waste to a
hazardous waste, facility, or may elect to send their wastes' to a
'landfill or other facility approved by the State for industrial
-------
or municipal non-hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR part 261.5).
Generators of more than 100 kg of hazardous waste per month are
required to fully comply with Federal hazardous .waste regulations
(although generators of between 100 and 1000 leg -of hazardous
waste per month are subject to certain reduced regulatory
requirements).
For the purposes of this proposal "electric lamp" also
i
referred to as "lamp" is defined as the bulb or tube portion of a
lighting device specifically designed to produce radiant energy,
most often in the ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red regions of
the electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps
include but are not limited to, incandescent, fluorescent, high
intensity discharge, and neon lamps. Also, a "mercury-containing
lamp" is defined as an electric lamp in which mercury is
purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of the
lamp. The Agency requests comment on whether the definitions of
"lamp" and "mercury-containing lamp" are technically correct and
on whether they accurately define the appropriate universe of
items.
B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs
Today's proposal, which would reduce management requirements
for lamps, is expected to support the efforts of many existing
and planned energy conservation programs, which encourage the
8
-------
installation of energy efficient lighting. Energy efficient
lighting consumes less electricity, reducing the. generation of
pollution from power plants. -However/ replacing energy
inefficient lighting systems with energy efficient lighting
systems requires the use and eventual disposal of fluorescent and
high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, which contain mercury.
Requiring the disposal of lamp wastes as hazardous waste, under
full Subtitle C regulations, may discourage participation in
energy efficient lighting programs. The Agency anticipates that
either of the proposed actions will encourage participation in
energy-efficient lighting programs, and will therefore promote
the energy-efficiency and the environmental benefits derived from
that program. . •
If energy-efficient lighting were used wherever it is
profitable, the nation's demand for electricity could be cut by
more than 10 percent. This would result in reductions of
estimated annual carbon dioxide emissions of 202 million metric
tons (4 percent of the national total), 'reductions of annual
sulfur dioxide emissions of 1.3 million metric tons {7 percent of
the national total), and reductions of annual nitrogen^oxide
i
emissions of 600,000 metric tons (4 percent of the national
total). (U.S. EPA, I992b)
In 1991, EPA initiated a voluntary energy conservation .
program called "Green Lights" to encourage pollution prevention
-------
through energy efficient lighting. Lighting accounts for 20-25
percent of electricity used annually in the U.S. Lighting for
industry, businesses, offices, and warehouses represents 80-90
percent of total lighting electricity use. Available
technologies in energy efficient lighting can reduce lighting
electricity demand by over 50 percent, enabling power plants to
generate less electricity and burn less fuel. It also reduces
other types of pollution.resulting from mining and transporting
power plant fuels and disposing of power plant wastes (U.S. EPA,
1992b). In addition, electric utilities, when burning fossil
fuels, emit mercury at a rate of 0.0428 mg/kWh sold, on a
national average. Full implementation of Green Lights is
estimated to reduce the emission by 9.7 Mg of mercury by the year
2000 (U.S. EPA, 1992b). Further, the energy-efficient
fluorescent lamps, used by Green Lights and other energy
conservation programs, contain less mercury than energy-
inefficient fluorescent lamps.
A goal of Green Lights is to encourage the widespread use of
efficient lighting technologies to reduce air pollution from coal
combustion. Energy-efficient lighting technologies provide
- i
excellent investment opportunities. A typical lighting upgrade
yields an internal rate of return of 20-30 percent and a payback
of 3-4 years.
10
-------
Green Lights participants include: corporations; State,
city, and county governments; lighting manufacturing and
management companies; electric utilities; non-profit
organizations; and hospitals, universities, ar.d other businesses
throughout the U.S. Green Lights encourages the establishment of
comprehensive energy-efficient lighting programs within an
organization that include: converting from less-efficient
fluorescent to more-efficient fluorescent lamps; converting from
incandescent to compact fluorescent lamps; converting 'from
magnetic to electronic.lighting ballasts;- installing occupancy
sensors, daylight dimmers, and other lighting control
technologies; installing more efficient luminaries or lighting
fixtures; and efficient maintenance practices, such.as group
relamping and regular fixture cleaning.
By signing -a partnership agreement with che EPA, Green
Lights participants .agree to survey and upgrade, within 5 years,
90 percent of all domestic facilities wherever profitable and
wherever lighting quality is improved or maintained. In return,
these participants: should receive reductions (savings) in their
monthly energy expenses. A good energy-efficient light-ing
*.
upgrade typically includes some type of control strategy (such as
occupancy sensors) that will reduce lamp burning hours. The
result is that the lamp will last longer and need to be replaced.
*
less frequently. As of June 30, 1993, over 1,000 organizations
11
-------
have joined the Green Lights program. These organizations have
committed over 3.5 billion square feet of facility space to the
program.
The Green Lights Program encourages the use of energy-
efficient lamps using an initial and scheduled periodic
relampings to achieve higher energy efficiency and'reduce energy
costs. These relampings involve removal and replacement of all
lamps in a building or in an area at one time, as opposed to
replacement of lamps as they burn out. An initial lighting
upgrade and group relamping may result in a large number of
fluorescent lamps that require disposal. In some instances, .a
participant that would usually be a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator, could become a large quantity generator of
hazardous waste due to the large number of lamps generated in one
month. In general, if a generator disposes of more than
approximately 350 four foot fluorescent lamps, that generator is
a large quantity generator due to lamps alone.
Despite the environmental and financial benefits of energy
efficient lighting systems, there are disincentives to
participating in an energy conservation program like Green
i
Lights. Establishing a comprehensive energy-efficient lighting
program and installing energy-efficient lighting technologies
require an initial investment that may be significant," depending
on the size and comprehensiveness of the project. Although Green
12
-------
Lights provides information to participants,on financing options,
many profitable lighting upgrade projects are delayed due to
restricted availability of capital. I.t is especially difficult
for smaller businesses and government organizations to raise the
necessary 'capital, although energy-efficient lighting investments
are low risk and in the long run will reduce costs. The
additional coses associated with managing, transporting, and .
disposing of lighting wastes as hazardous wastes can create an
additional disincentive to join .Green Lights and make the initial
investment in energy-efficient light technologies. For example,
under the hazardous waste regulations, large quantity generators
are required to label boxes and drums, notify EPA of status- as a
hazardous waste generator, transport waste via a hazardous waste
transporter, manage waste consistent with the.land disposal
restrictions, and manage waste at a hazardous waste management
facility. In addition, on May 8, 1994, generators of mercury-
containing lamps will be required (under the Land Disposal
Restrictions) to meet a treatment standard for lamps as hazardous
debris. As is discussed in detail in Section VII, Economic
Impact Analysis, of this preamble, the Agency estimates that the
«.
annual national cost of Subtitle C compliance for large quantity
generators could range from 110 to 134 million dollars. EPA's
preliminary estimates suggest that an exclusion would save
generators of mercury containing lamps approximately 85 to 102
13
-------
million dollars annually, while the inclusion of lamps in the
universal waste management system would save generators
approximately 16 to 20 million dollars annually.
Although the Green Lights program may increase the number of
large quantity generators on months when mass relamping occurs,
the program is not .expected to increase the total quantity of
used fluorescent lamps in the long run. The lamps recommended by
the Green Lights program are more, energy efficient and with
implementation of energy saving practices, these lamps could have
an extended life of four to five years rather than the average
three to four years. Therefore, if by reducing the initial costs
of participation in the Green Lights program, generators
participate in the Green.Lights Program, an energy savings will
occur. These additional energy savings will decrease the amount
of mercury and other pollutants emitted to in the atmosphere from
coal-burning.
C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives
A report, "The Management of Spent Electric Lamps Containing
Mercury," by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA, 1992} discussed industry efforts to reduce mercury in
fluorescent lamps. According to the report, due to the use of
more efficient dosing techniques {i.e., placing mercury in the
lamp) , the average mercury content of a standard 4-foot,. 1-1/2
inch diameter, cool white fluorescent lamp was'reduced by 14%
14
-------
•V
(48.2 mg/lamp to 41.6 mg/lamp). from 1985 to 1990. Future
industry projections of mercury, reductions by 1995 show an
estimated 35% further reduction (41.6 mg/lamp to 27,0 mg/lamp)
for the standard fluorescent lamp.
Source reduction, which is the reduction or elimination of
the toxicity and/or volume of a waste product, is at the top of
EPA' s hierarchy of municipal solid waste (MSW) management
methods. With regard to mercury, the most significant source-
reduction achievement has been the trend toward elimination of
mercury from alkaline batteries.- Although these batteries are
still a significant contributor of mercury to municipal solid
waste, discards of mercury from alkaline batteries are dropping
dramatically because of source reduction achievement. Mercury-
containing lamps are one of the next highest single sources of
mercury in the municipal solid waste, accounting for 3.8% of
mercury now going to MSW landfills. SPA encourages cost-
effective source reduction of mercury in fluorescent lamps.
Opportunities exist to reduce mercury content levels in both
standard 4-foot fluorescent lamps and the increasingly popular
compact fluorescent lamps (U.S. EPA, 1993b). If source reduction
. ' i
is pursued aggressively by the fluorescent lamp manufacturing
industry, the overall contribution of mercury from fluorescent
-lamps to municipal solid waste could remain constant or decrease
over time even as fluorescent lamp usage increases.
IS
-------
1 f
••41
EPA requests comment on industry, and other source reduction
initiatives involving the reduction of mercury in fluorescent
lamps. Source reduction may be occurring through more efficient
dosing techniques, lightweighting of lamps, and changes in
phosphor powder technology. The Agency requests comments
reflecting these and any other source reduction activities and
may use this information to develop a strategy to support and
encourage voluntary source reduction.
III. Environmental Release and Fate
This section presents the technical information used by the
Agency in developing options for the management of used mercury-
containing lamps. Information is provided on the environmental
fate and transport in the ground water and air pathway for
mercury. Specifically, EPA has reviewed leachate data from
municipal landfills and data on air emissions from municipal
waste combustors and municipal landfills. In addition, the
Agency has estimated possible releases of mercury to the air from
lamps broken during storage and transportation. Most of the
information considered pertains to management in municipal
*.
landfills. Information on other types of non-hazardous landfill's
is not presented due to a lack of data and the wide variability
in design and waste composition of other non-hazardous landfills.
-------
* '
The Agency requests cgftiment ,<
n thj$£ata..gesented in this
section of the preamble. These data, along with any data
submitted in the public comment to this proposal, will be used to
determine the risk to human health and the environment from the
management of used, mercury-containing lamps. Also, some
information on the risks of managing mercury- containing lamps in
landfills, combustors and recovery facilities was submitted to
the Agency in response to a request for such information in the
Universal Waste Proposal (58 FR 8102). This information is
included in the. rulemaking docket for today's proposal. and the
Agency requests comment on it .
A. Groundwater Impacts
This section discusses leachate samples collected by EPA
from municipal landfills. As previously discussed, the Agency is
further developing its groundwater model under the TC to
accurately predict the movement of mercury through the
groundwater system. The groundwater pathway for mercury is being
considered because the TC uses the groundwater pathway to
estimate the movement of contaminants from municipal landfills.
The leachate data indicate that .further analysis may be needed on
the behavior and movement of mercury in municipal landfills and
in groundwater, although initial analyses indicate that mercury
is less mobile- than previously believed.
17
-------
EPA has collected data indicating that mercury may not leach
from MSW landfills at levels above the drinking water MCL,
despite some mercury disposal in MSW landfills. EPA estimates
that approximately 73% of municipal solid waste (MSW) is placed
in municipal landfills, while 14% of municipal solid waste is
incinerated and 13% is recycled. Based on a study of mercury
production and use, the Agency estimates that about 643 metric
tons (Mg) of mercury is discarded in MSW landfills per year. A
major source of mercury in municipal solid waste is household
batteries which accounts for about 88% of the 565 metric tons
(Mg) of mercury in municipal solid waste. Most of these
batteries fall under the Household Waste Exclusion (see 45 FR
33119, May 19, 1980). Thermostats/thermometers and mercury-
containing lamps are second in their contribution of mercury in
municipal solid waste, 3.9% and 3.8% respectively. The Agency
estimates that, assuming all lamps are disposed of in MSW
landfills, approximately 20 Mg of mercury would be placed'in MSW
landfills per year from used mercury-containing lamps. (U.S. EPA,
1991c).
Data on the amounts of mercury in MSW landfill leachate are
included in a study summarizing the available data on MSW
landfill leachate characteristics conducted by the Office of
•Solid Waste (U.S. EPA, 1988) . Out of 109 leachate mercury-
analyses collected, only six (7 percent) were above the drinking
18
-------
water level or maximum contaminant level (MCL) for mercury (0.002
mg/L) and none were above the Toxicity Characteristic (TO limit
for mercury- (0.2 mg/L). The average of these MSW leachate
analyses was 0.0008 mg/L mercury. The maximum concentration
reported is 0.0098 mg/L. " .
Further analysis indicates that less than 0.01 percent of
the mercury in MSW landfills leaches from the landfill. This
estimate is supported by a study measuring mercury disposition
(in landfill gas and leachate) in four Swiss landfills which
found around .007 percent of the mercury from the landfill in the
leachate (Baccini et al., 1987).
The behavior of mercury in a MSW landfill is not known in
great detail. The .complexity of aqueous mercury chemistry makes
* • ,
it difficult to predict and model at this time. However, the
available'information suggests that chemical conditions tend to
favor the metallic -form of mercury in MSW landfills. This form
has a lower solubility in water (0.02 - 0.04 mg/L) than other
chemical forms.- In addition, EPA has identified studies that
indicate that municipal solid waste has a significant capacity -
for retaining mercury in the landfill unless there are .-unusually
large quantities of mercury in municipal solid waste (Gould et
al., 1988/Mennerich, 1985) . The Agency has not seen field data
for industrial non-hazardous landfills.
19
-------
In addition, the Agency reviewed 1990 and 1991 'Superfund
Records of Decision (RODs) for information on municipal landfill
sites where mercury was listed as a contaminant of concern (COO .
A total of twelve out of sixty-six 1990 and 1991 RODs for
landfills accepting municipal waste listed mercury as a COG. Of
these 12 sites, 5 had mercury detections in ground-water over the
MCL. All but one of these sites had confirmed industrial waste
codisposal. At this site only onsite ground-water exceeded the
MCL for mercury (maximum of 0.013 mg/L); all offsite ground-water
samples were below detection limits.
In conclusion, preliminary data and analysis suggest at this
time that mercury in municipal solid wastes is not being readily
released fay leaching processes that typically occur in the MSW
landfill environment. This indication is also supported by
controlled leaching studies of high-concentration mercury-
containing wastes codisposed with municipal solid waste {Borden
et al., 1990/Gould et al., 1988). However, the Agency requests
that commenters provide any MSW landfill leachate or groundwater
data, or data from industrial Subtitle D landfills, that EPA has
not considered in its analysis.
B. Air Exposure
The Agency is also reviewing data on the air pathway for
mercury because low levels of mercury in surface water have
20
-------
caused elevated fish concentrations at many sites in Minnesota,
Michigan, Wisconsin,•Florida, and-other States, and these
elevated levels of mercury have been attributed to atmospheric
deposition from non-specific sources (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
Therefore, EPA reviewed data on mercury emissions to air from a
number of sources, including those potentially related to lamp
disposal. EPA also considered available data on the.fate and
transport of mercury of mercury emitted to the air.
Because of elemental mercury's high vapor pressure, it is
easily volatilized into the atmosphere. Two factors are believed
* * «•
to contribute to the-recent increases in atmospheric, deposition
of mercury compounds. The first factor is increased atmospheric
levels from mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants,
chloraikali-plants, MWC facilities, and other sources. The
second factor is increased oxidation of atmospheric elemental
mercury vapor to more soluble oxidized.forms which is enhanced by
anthropogenic (i.e., pollution from man-made sources) increases
in atmospheric oxidizing agents, such as ozone and inorganic
acids. Based on current mercury emissions inventories EPA
believes that major mercury emission source categories-include
- • i
coal fired power plants, municipal waste combustors and medical
waste combustors. (U.S. EPA, 1993)
Mercury that is methylated is strongly biomagnified.through
the food chain through bioconcentration in animals, and in plant
21
-------
tissue. Methylation is a chemical process in which a methyl unit
is added to either elemental or oxidized mercury. The primary
environmental human exposure pathway for'mercury is-through the
consumption of contaminated fish. Fish bioconcentration factors
(fish tissue concentration/water concentration) are as high as
85,000. Recently, elevated levels of mercury in fish in
isolated, pristine lakes have been identified in widespread areas
around the country. There are currently over 1,550 fish
consumption .bans or advisories due to mercury in effect in the
United States (Sorensen et al, 1990) .
Although there may be insufficient data to determine whether
mercury from lamps will endanger human health and environment by
the release of mercury to the air, there are concerns over
emissions of mercury from lamps from municipal waste combustors,
possibly landfill gas, as well as concerns with the handling and
disposal of mercury lamps. In this section, available
information will be discussed pertaining to the hazards of
mercury via air exposure.
JLL Incineration
k
The Agency estimates that approximately 14% of U.S.
municipal solid waste is burned in municipal waste combustors
(MWCs), comprising 23 million metric tons (Mg) of waste.
Approximately 100 Mg of mercury-containing waste is burned in
22
-------
municipal wasce combustors, of which about 3 Mg/yr is mercury-
containing lamps (U.S. SPA, 1990)-. Because of its 'low boiling
point, elemental mercury in the waste is largely vaporized during
municipal waste combustion and, without controls specific to
mercury, passes out_ of the municipal waste combustor into the
atmosphere with the flue gas. Measurements have shown that for
several municipal waste combustors with emissions controls for
sulfur and nitrogen oxide particulates, average MWC mercury
emission factors range from 70 to 90 percent of the mercury input
(Vogg et al, 1986/Reiman, 1989}. If we assume that 98% of the
mev"iry in incinerated municipal solid waste is volatilized
duri..g combustion this would potentially generate 98 Mg/year.
mercury emissions of this, about 2.9 iMg/year would be from
mercury-containing lamps. Post-combustion mercury control at the
municipal waste combustor's would reduce mercury levels by 80% to
90%.
EPA plans to propose mercury emission limits for new and
existing municipal waste combustors in 1994 (U.S. EPA, 1991a) .
The mercury emission limits will be based on the use of activated
carbon injection for mercury control as demonstrated by EPA at
tests at the Stanislaus municipal waste combustor (California)
and Camden municipal waste combustor (New Jersey). These tests
demonstrated activated carbon injection technology as available
for post-combustion mercury control at municipal waste combustors
23
-------
and achieved mercury reduction levels of 80 to 90 percent.
During the tests, activated carbon was injected into the flue
gases upstream of the acid gas control system and collected (with
the mercury) in the particulate matter control system. The ash
from the particulate matter control system was then landfilled.
It is unclear to what degree the mercury being released from
municipal waste combustors would contribute to increased mercury
levels in surface waters because the transport and cycling of
atmospheric mercury emissions are complex and poorly understood.
It is uncertain how long mercury will stay in the atmosphere
after being released. The oxidation state of mercury dictates
how long it remains in the air. Elemental mercury could stay in
the atmosphere for months to years, whereas an oxidized species
of mercury would stay for only days to weeks. Although
controversy remains over the form of mercury as it leaves the MWC
stack, it is likely that mercury from a municipal waste combustor
would be more oxidized and therefore would not remain in the
atmosphere for a long period of time.
However, since MWC facilities comprise one anthropogenic
source of atmospheric mercury, there are probably regional-scale
or global-scale impacts from such sources (Glass et al.,
1986/Johnson, 1987). The elimination of mercury-containing lamps
from municipal waste combustors would reduce annual atmospheric
mercury emissions from these significant sources by around 3
24
-------
metric tons, or about 3 percent of the total mercury-bearing
waste that is incinerated. The Agency is considering proposing
air emission controls for mercury later this year which would,
when implemented, reduce these emissions.
21 Mercury in Landfill Gas
EPA evaluated emissions of mercury in landfill gas emission
in its "Preliminary Risk Assessment" which is available in the
public docket (EPA, 1993). EPA reviewed studies on the amount of
mercury that may be released to the air from municipal solid
waste landfills. Specifically, this section presents in detail
the results of two studies that attempt to measure mercury air
releases.
A Swiss study (Baccini et al., 1987} measured the amount of
landfill gas from four municipal landfills. This study is
comparable to municipal solid waste landfills in the U.S. because
the study indicated that these Swiss MSW landfills contained
approximately 2 parts per million (ppm) of mercury, which, given
the standard error range,-is comparable to the approximately 3.6
ppm of mercury in U.S. municipal solid waste (U.S. EPA, 1990) .
The Swiss study indicated that mercury concentrations in landfill
i.
gases had a mean value of, about 0.4 /ig/cubic meter.' The annual
total mercury release also was low {0.0065 mg/Mg waste, average).
.Using this gas release value, and the amount of municipal solid
waste annually disposed in U.S. landfills (118 million Mg), the
25
-------
amount of mercury annually released in "landfill gas can be
estimated as 0.8 kg, about 0.0001 percent of the total mercury
load entering MSW landfills (643 Mg). Adjusting the proportion
of total mercury contributed by mercury-containing lamps to the
MSW stream (3.8 percent), provides an estimate of annual landfill
gas emissions from lamps of about 0.03 kg, less than 0.00001
percent of the total municipal solid waste mercury input {EPA,
1993}. The amount of mercury from lamps emitted into the
atmosphere by landfill gas is very small (.00003 Mg) when
compared to .the 3 Mg of mercury from lamps that is estimated to
be emitted into the atmosphere through municipal waste
combustors.
• EPA also received a study (National Environmental Protection
Board et al, 1989) in a comment to the Universal Waste Proposal
that provided data on mercury gas from four municipal landfills
in Sweden. The Swedish study measured the ambient air quality
above four 'municipal landfills. The study did not indicate the
level of mercury in the municipal landfills. Mercury was .
measured using differential optical adsorption spectroscopy
(DOAS), located two meters above the landfill, compared with
i.
background mercury concentrations measured at each of the four
landfills. The mean ranged from 10.2 ng/m3 to 23.6 ng/m3 with
background mercury levels at 4 ng/m3 to 8ng/m3-. The report
stated that because all measurements were close to the detection
26
-------
limit for the DOAS technique, the reliability of the results was
questioned. After a review, it was determined that although the
quantification was uncertain because of a low signal-tc-rioise
ratio, the concentration above the landfills was significantly
above background mercury levels, indicating that mercury was
being released to the atmosphere. . However, since it is unknown
how much .mercury is found in Swedish municipal solid waste
landfills, the results of this study cannot be readily compared
to the situation in the U.S.
3J_ Crushing and Breakage of Lampg
Mercury remains in lamps until they are broken. When lamps
break, the elemental.mercury inside becomes available for
evaporation, adsorption, or reaction. EPA modeled mercury
emissions from broken lamps based on two different.methods of
transportation (EPA, 1993) . Discarded lamps may be transported
in one of two ways: in refuse-trucks as household or commercial
trash, and in closed vans or trailers as part of a bulk relamping
program. Based on available information, it was assumed for the
purposes of this model .that as much as 6.6% of mercury could be
released in the air from a lamp broken during the collection,
*
storage and transport of mercury-containing lamps in garbage
trucks. The Agency recognizes that it is uncertain how much
mercury is released from broken lamps. The amount of mercury
released would, vary depending on the ambient air temperature, the
27
-------
time the broken lamps are directly exposed to the air and the
number of lamps broken. The Agency requests any available data.
concerning releases of mercury during storage, transportation and
waste management (e.g., landfill and recyclers) activities.
C. Technical Considerations and Request for Comments
The available data on landfill leachate suggests that
mercury-containing lamps may not pose a threat to groundwater
when placed in a state-controlled municipal landfill due to the
low levels of mercury found in landfill leachate.
However, available information also indicates that an
important route of exposure for mercury is bioaccumulation up the
food chain, causing mercury poisoning to both wildlife and humans
(i.e., through fish consumption). Although it is unclear how
mercury moves through the atmosphere and what conditions enhance
or retard it, information suggests that given the high vapor
pressure of mercury, it can readily volatilize to the air and be
transported, perhaps long distances, and be deposited on surface
water or soil (which can run off into surface water). Some
mercury that is subsequently methylated will bioaccumulate in the
4.
food chain.
The actual amount of mercury released from fluorescent or
HID lamps is unknown. It is estimated that lamps that are
incinerated will release 98% of their mercury due to the high
28
-------
temperatures needed for the incineration process. However,
because mercury is such a volatile metal, amounts of mercury
could be released into the air from lamps broken during
transportation or lamps broken at the landfill. For purposes of
this proposal, EPA has made assumptions on the.amount of mercury
that may be released from a broken lamp but few studies have
directly measured the amount of mercury released from a lamp over
time.
More information on-the air release, transport and'exposure
pathway for mercury is needed in order to better evaluate the
proper management methods for spent mercury-containing lamps.
The Agency requests information on air transport of mercury from
mercury-containing lamps, the mercury methylation process (both
in general and in landfills) and any studies that directly
measure the amount and form of mercury released from broken
mercury-containing lamps.
IV. Management Options
The information presented in this notice has led the Agency
to re-evaluate the. management of waste mercury-containing lamps-
because of their importance in promoting energy-efficiency. As
mentioned earlier in this notice, the use of energy-efficient
lighting can reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power
plants as well as emissions of carbon dioxide and sulfur oxide.
29
-------
In light of the benefits derived from the use of these lamps, EPA
is seeking comment on two .proposed options based the data which
indicate that these lamps may be better managed either outside of
the hazardous waste system or in a reduced regulatory structure
within the hazardous waste system.
However, since there remain uncertainties in the data, more
information on the air exposure pathway for mercury from lamps
would facilitate a decision by SPA on the management of lamps.
Additional information could clarify which kind of reduced
management structure would be most appropriate for mercury-
containing lamps. The Agency has requested that information, if
available, be submitted with the public comment to this proposal.
Given these technical uncertainties, EPA has developed two
proposed alternative approaches for the management of mercury-
containing lamps. The first approach is a conditional exclusion
for mercury-containing lamps from regulation as hazardous waste.
Under this approach, mercury-containing lamps would no longer be
considered hazardous waste provided that they are managed under
the conditions of the exclusion. The second approach is to add
mercury-containing lamps to the universal waste management
system, which was proposed for batteries and pesticides on
February 11, 1993 (58 FR 8102). Under the universal waste
management system, lamps that fail the TC would be considered
hazardous waste, but they would be subject to streamlined
30
-------
hazardous waste management requirements, which are described in
detail later in this notice. The major difference between these
two options is whether lamps are disposed of under Subtitle D
requirements or under Subtitle C requirements. Recycling of
lamps would be allowed under either option.
If EPA concludes, after considering data from the public
comment on this proposal, that the risk from mercury release from
mercury-containing lamps is not significant enough to warrant
Subtitle C regulation, the Agency may choose.to finalize a
conditional exclusion. However, if EPA concludes, after
considering data received in public comment that the risk from
mercury release from lamps is significant, the Agency may choose
to keep mercury-containing lamps in Subtitle C, under the
universal waste management system.
. The following sections describe the two approaches in
detail.
A,. Conditional Exclusion
Section 3001 of RCRA charges SPA with identifying the
characteristics of.hazardous waste and listing particular
hazardous wastes. Section 1004(5) of RCRA defines waste as
4.
"hazardous" if the waste poses a "substantial present or
potential hazard" to human health or the environment when
improperly managed. The groundwater data discussed earlier in
this notice suggest that mercury-bearing lamps, if they are
31
-------
disposed of according to the conditions of the proposed
exclusion, may not pose a substantial present or future threat to
human health or the environment. Based on the Agency's authority
to identify characteristics of hazardous waste and the statutory
definition of hazardous waste, EPA is considering whether an
exclusion of used mercury-containing lamps from regulation as
hazardous waste would be appropriate. EPA requests comment on
the data presented in the proposal, as well as on whether to
exclude these lamps from regulation as hazardous waste.
The exclusion under consideration today has two conditions.
In order to qualify for the exclusion:
(1)(a) generators would be required to either dispose of
these lamps in a municipal solid waste landfill
. that is permitted by a State/Tribe with an EPA-
approved MSW permitting program, or
(b) if generators do not send these lamps to a MSW
landfill, they would send them to a State
permitted, licensed, or registered mercury
reclamation facility,- and
(2) generators would be required to keep a record of
i
the lamps shipped to management facilities.
The Agency is proposing to limit the exclusion to spent
lamps disposed in MSW landfills (requirements of MSW landfills
are discussed later in this section), rather than allowing
32
-------
disposal, in any nonhazardous waste landfill, because EPA has
field data on leachate (including mercury levels},only for MSW
landfills (among Subtitle D facility categories). The available
information (discussed above) suggests that the amount of mercury
from mercury-containing lamps that is released from'MSW landfill
gas is very small and its effect on ambient air.quality may not
pose a significant hazard-to human health or the environment. '
EPA requests any information on the levels and impacts of mercury
in MSW landfill gas. Further, data on leachate quality and air
emissions from other nonhazardous waste landfills, including
industrial solid waste landfills, is very limited. However, some
soil column data also suggest that mercury dissolution into soil
pore water occurs at very low levels (Eichholz et al., 1986).
EPA requests comment on this approach and any information on
mercury .releases from other nonhazardous waste landfills. Based
on EPA's existing data and any additional data received, EPA may
expand the exclusion to include disposal in non-municipal, solid
waste, Subtitle D disposal facilities.
While this proposed exclusion from Subtitle C of RCRA is
supported by data from municipal solid waste landfills .with a
t
range of design and operating conditions, EPA believes that
limiting the exclusion to spent lamps disposed only in MSW
landfills that are permitted by States or Tribes with EPA-
approved MSW landfill permitting programs will provide further
33
-------
assurance that human health and the environment will be-
protected. In particular, these MSW landfill permitting controls
will provide added protection to the management of these lamps.
In October 1991, EPA promulgated new requirements for
municipal solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part 258, October 9,
1991, 56 FR 51015}. These requirements cover location
restrictions, landfill design and operations, groundwater
monitoring, corrective action measures, financial assurance, and
conditions for closing the landfill and post closure care. The
maj-ority of landfill owners/operators accepting greater than 100
tons 'per day must comply with the majority of the requirements by
October 9, 1993. On October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51536), EPA delayed
the October 9, 1993 effective date for six months for landfills
accepting less than 100 tons per day (in addition to other
criteria) and delayed the effective date for two years for
landfills in arid or remote regions that accept less than 20 tons
per day.
States/tribes are in the process of incorporating these new
municipal solid waste landfill standards into their permitting
programs and applying for EPA approval of their permitting
programs. EPA is currently evaluating these State permitting
programs to determine their adequacy in incorporating the new
municipal solid waste landfill criteria (40 CFR part 258).. As of
June 30, 1993, EPA approved thirty-six State municipal solid
34
-------
waste landfill programs. In addition, EPA is actively reviewing
numerous State permitting program applications and expects to
approve the remaining State landfill permitting programs by April
1994, well "before this proposed rule would become effective as a
final rule. EPA expects to issue "partial" program approvals to
some States because their landfill permitting programs may not
fully address all elements of the EPA municipal solid waste
landfill criteria. For purposes of today's•rule, EPA would
consider "partial" program approvals, as well as "full" program
approvals, to be "EPA-approved" State municipal solid waste
landfill permitting programs. Further, States with "partial"
approval have agreed to an EPA approved schedule for full
approval. The Agency believes that limiting today's proposed
exclusion to landfil-ls that are permitted by States that have
incorporated EPA's new municipal landfill standards will provide
further assurance chat spent lamps will be safely managed in
municipal solid waste landfills. EPA requests comment on this
approach and any alternative approaches.
The second condition, which limits the proposed exclusion to
lamps managed in State permitted, licensed, or registered mercury
reclamation facilities, is also consistent with the Agency's
support for environmentally sound reclamation of waste. EPA
believes that with adequate State oversight, mercury containing
lamps can be safely recycled and the mercury reclaimed from them.
35
-------
However, EPA is concerned chat, in States without oversight, over
recyclers, recycling activities could pose 'a threat, to human
health and the environment because of inadequate or non-existent
waste management controls. Therefore, the Agency is requesting
information on recycling operations and practices. EPA is aware
that several technologies are available to recycle lamps and
recover mercury from them. However, the Agency does not have
complete information on which technologies are currently being
used by recycling companies and if these technologies can address
all different kinds of lamps (e.g., tube, U-shaped, compact,
etc.}. The Agency also seeks information that tracks mercury as
it moves through the recycling process. Further, EPA would like
to know the operating capacity of existing or planned reyclers of
mercury-containing lamps. The Agency is also requesting
information on what markets exist for the mercury and other
materials recovered from lamps. This information will be useful
to the Agency in understanding and assessing possible risks to
human health and the environment as well as to determine the
potential or actual use of the materials recovered from lamps in
the market.
- . i
Under the conditional exclusion, regulated lamp generators
(i.e., those that generate more than the conditional-exempt small
quantity generator (CESQG) limit of 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste per month which would be about 3SO mercury-containing
36
-------
lamps) would not be able to send lamps to a municipal waste
combustor for disposal. EPA does not propose to extend the
exclusion to lamps disposed in municipal wasce combustors because
of concern over mercury air emissions from these sources.
However,- this proposed option would not'affect municipal waste
combustors' ability to continue the combustion of traditional
municipal solid waste which contains limited quantities of
unregulated household or CESQG mercury-containing lamps. Because
mercury-containing -lamps do not burn, it is unlikely that truck
loads of- mercury-containing lamps (i.e., -containing more than 350
lamps) would have, been acceptable to most operators. -The
exclusion-would assure that this disposal alternative is not
considered in any situation. The Agency requests comment on the
proposal to limit the exclusion to permitted municipal solid
waste, landfills (i.e., regulated lamp generators would not be
allowed to send lamps to a municipal waste combustor for
disposal).
EPA also requests comment on adding to the exclusion
handling requirements to minimize mercury emissions during
storage and transportation (e.g., packaging to reduce breakage).
These management controls could be the same as those .proposed in
the universal waste management:system. The Agency is interested
in data on the. cost of and human health protection provided by
these handling requirements for lamps.
37
-------
The third condition is that generators taking advantage of
the exclusion would be required to maintain a written
certification indicating the disposal or recycling location for
the lamps. The proposed certification, to be signed by the
generator or its authorized representative, would state that on a
specified date a specified amount of lamps was consigned to a
specified transporter for disposal or recycling at a specified
facility. This certification would be required for each shipment
of lamps and would be maintained by the generator for three -years
from the date of shipment. The Agency is proposing this.
documentation as a mechanism for verifying that the conditions of
the exclusion have been met. Failure to maintain the required
documentation would disqualify the generator from eligibility for
the exclusion. The existence of the certification, however,
would not protect a generator from an enforcement action if the
lamps were not actually disposed of or recycled in accordance
with the conditions.
The Agency is proposing that separate documentation be
required for each shipment based on its belief that most lamp
generation is sporadic (every three to four years), as.opposed to
it
on-going generation which would lead to a continuous relationship
with the same disposal or recycling facility. Given that the
•life span of mercury-containing lamps is approximately three to
four years, businesses that participate in mass relampings would
38
-------
only dispose of their lamps every few years. Under the current
hazardous waste regulations, many of these businesses would be
subject to hazardous waste regulation because mass relatnping
could cause them to exceed the conditionally-exempt small
quantity generator level (approximately 350 four foot lamps, if
lamps are the only hazardous waste generated). However, small
businesses and other facilities that generate just under the
CESQG limit of hazardous waste (100 kg per month) may exceed this
limit with attrition relamping. For these generators, this
recordkeeping requirement could be more burdensome. The Agency
requests comments on whether there are alternative mechanisms
that can be used by generators to demonstrate compliance with the
conditions of the exclusion. The Agency also requests comment on
whether, if the Agency determines that documentation is necessary
to demonstrate compliance with the conditions, the form and
frequency of documentation proposed are appropriate.
In addition to requesting comment on the conditions of the
exclusion, the Agency requests comment on having a 3 to 5 year
sunset provision on the exclusion. A sunset provision would
require the Agency to re-evaluate the exclusion after a period of
three to five years, to determine whether an exclusion is indeed
appropriate for lamps given any unanticipated management or risk
issues that develop as a result of the exclusion. The Agency
would then determine whether to extend the exclusion.
39
-------
Finally, the Agency requests comments on other alternatives
that still achieve the overall RCRA goal of protection of human
health and the environment. EPA is interested in data on the
benefits, costs, and legal authority for any alternatives and the
Agency will consider such options.
B. Universal Waste Management System
1. Background
On February 11, 1993, EPA proposed a streamlined, reduced
regulatory management structure for certain widely-generated
hazardous wastes currently subject to full RCRA Subtitle C
regulation, in an effort to facilitate their collection and
proper management •(the "universal wastes" proposal, 58 FR 8102).
The proposed reduced regulatory structure, known as a special
collection system, is designed to ensure that management of these
hazardous wastes is conducted in a manner that is protective of
human health and the environment, given the diffuse and diverse
population of generators of these wastes. See the February 11,
1993 preamble discussion, for a detailed discussion of.the
i
proposal.
The general waste types that EPA believes may be
appropriately .managed under this streamlined regulatory structure
40
-------
are known as "universal"wastes" and share several
characteristics. These wastes:
• are frequently generated in a wide variety of settings
other than the industrial settings usually associated
with hazardous wastes; . -
• are generated by.a vast community, the size of which
poses implementation difficulties for both those who
are regulated and the regulatory agencies charged with
implementing the hazardous waste program; and
• may be present in significant volumes in the municipal
waste stream.
The February 11, 1993, proposal included specific regulatory
text addressing the management of two waste types; hazardous
waste batteries, and suspended and/or canceled hazardous waste
pesticides that are recalled. The proposal also included a
petition process and a set of criteria to be used to determine
whether it would be appropriate to add additional waste types to
the special collection system in the future. Several waste types
such as automotive antifreeze, paint application wastes, and
mercury-containing items such as thermostats and thermometers
were discussed as possible additions to the Universal Waste
proposal, also referred to as the special'collection system.
2. Universal Waste System Alternative for Lamps. .
In the February 11, 1993, proposal EPA mentioned fluorescent
lamps (58 FR' 8110), explaining that the Agency was examining the
risks of managing these wastes in landfills and requesting data
41
-------
on the risks of various management methods for these wastes.
Comments received in.response to that request are included in the
docket for this proposal. The Agency will respond to these
comments in the final rule together with those submitted in
response to Today's proposal. The Agency is requesting comment
on using the .proposed special collection system for the
management of spent lamps as another approach to the management
of mercury-containing lamps. The Agency has not yet promulgated
a final universal waste rule but anticipates doing so in the near
future. Should EPA select the universal waste option for lamps
as a final rule, the Agency will ensure consistency with the more
comprehensive universal waste final rule.
The Agency believes that spent lamps may appropriately be
considered "universal wastes" in that they are generated in a
wide variety of settings, are generated by a very large number of
generators, and are present in significant volumes in the
municipal waste stream. The special collection system approach
may be an appropriate option for addressing the collection phase
of managing lamps that are hazardous waste. The special
collection system approach (which is consistent with the February
11, 1993 proposal), would not change any of the requirements
applicable to the ultimate treatment and disposal or recycling of
any wastes collected, but would minimize the regulatory
requirements applicable to collection of these wastes (i.e.,
42
-------
generation, transportation, and- intermediate •
storage/consolidation) for proper management.
Special .collection system regulations also could remove some
existing barriers -to management of hazardous waste lamps under
the Subtitle C system by reducing the technical and paperwork
requirements applicable to collection, thus making collection'
more efficient and economical. At the same time, management
requirements included in special collection system regulations
could be designed to minimize the hazards posed in collection of
these wastes (e.g., special packaging could be required to
minimize the risk of breakage).
By removing some of the barriers to Subtitle C management
for lamps, a special collection system approach could minimize
concerns about decreased participation in the Green Lights
program by simplifying and clarifying the requirements for
mercury-containing lamp collection while maintaining Subtitle C
control over final treatment and disposal (or recycling) for- •
these lamps. Such an approach could help in assuring that the .
substantial, environmental benefits offered by the Green Lights
program are realized through increased participation. -Management
costs under the special collection system -approach proposed on
February 11, 1993, would be.lower than full Subtitle C management
because hazardous waste transporters and manifests would not be
required for lamp shipments between the generator and the
43
-------
consolidation facility, and permits would 'not be required for
storage at interim consolidation points. However, under the
Special Collection System the management of mercury-containing
lamps {after reaching the consolidation point) -would be more
expensive than the management of these lamps under the
conditional exclusion (although the larger volumes managed at
these consolidation points may result in certain economies of
scale for transport and disposal or recycling).
The Agency requests comment on whether spent hazardous waste
lamps should be regulated under the special collection system
approach proposed February 11, 1993. Documents included in the
docket for this proposal include estimates indicating that
approximately 3.9 billion spent lamps of all types may be
disposed of annually in the country (including 550 million spent
fluorescent lamps) and that lighting is one of the second largest
contributors of mercury to the municipal waste stream (from all
types of mercury-containing lamps). In addition, the Agency
.believes that spent mercury-containing lamps of some type must be
generated by almost every commercial and industrial establishment
in the country.
i.
In addition, a special collection system approach could
address all types of spent lamps that fail the toxicity
characteristic and are therefore hazardous waste, not only
mercury-containing lamps. Such an approach seems appropriate
44
-------
since any type of waste lamp is likely to be "universal" in
nature. The Agency requests comment on whether various types of
spent lamps (e.g., incandescent, neon)., other than mercury-
containing lamps, typically fail the TC test (or exhibit other
characteristics) and would be hazardous waste under the current
RCRA Subtitle C toxicity characteristic (40 CFR 2.61.24). Indeed,
should the Agency choose, in a final rule, to conditionally
exempt mercury-containing lamps from regulation under Subtitle C,
. the Agency may still elect to add other types of lamps to the
universal waste management system.- The Agency requests comment
on this approach and on whether, how frequently, and for what TC
constituents various lamp types may fail the toxicity
characteristic. The Agency also requests .that commenters submit
any additional data that may be available on this question.
The Agency requests comment on a special collection system
for management of spent lamps including the same basic structure
and requirements for generators, transporters, consolidation.
points, and destination facilities as proposed on February 11,
1993 for management of hazardous waste batteries and pesticides.'
The Agency is also specifically requesting comment on the. items
discussed below.
First, in. the February 11, 1993, proposal the Agency
proposed a quantity limit for-storage of batteries above which
generators and consolidation points would be required to notify
45
-------
the Agency of -their storage activities. The Agency requests
comment on a notification requirement for generators and
consolidation points storing more than 35,000 spent mercury-
containing lamps. This requirement is similar in substance to
the notification requirement proposed in the Universal Wastes
rule (proposed §273.11(c) and §273.13(d) (58 FR 8129-8130)). EPA
is suggesting a numerical limit rather than a weighc limit
because lamp packaging (e.g., the cardboard boxes in which new
replacement lamps were shipped) may constitute a large proportion
of the total weight of a shipment or stored quantity of lamps.
In addition, industry practice appears to be to quantify
inventories by number of lamps 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 about 35,000
lamps roughly correspond to a full truckload of packaged
fluorescent lamps, the Agency is suggesting a 35,000 limit for
fluorescent lamps. The Agency also requests comment on
appropriate quantity limits for notification for other hazardous
waste lamps types.
Second, the Agency is requesting comment on the options
&
proposed in the Universal Waste proposal §273.11(b)(2) and
§273.13(a)(2) (58 FR 8129-30) for demonstrating that lamps are
not stored for greater than one year. In addition, with respect
to tracking of lamp shipments, the Agency is requesting comment
46
-------
on several alternatives. The approach included in today's
proposed regulatory text is the same as that included in the
universal wastes proposal for batteries(§273.12(b) of the
* t *
universal waste proposal). This approach requires that the
manifest system be used (which triggers the use of hazardous
waste transporters) for shipments from the last consolidation
*
point to a destination facility, but that no manifests or other
records (or hazardous waste transporters) be required for
shipments from generators to consolidation points, between
consolidation points, or from generators to destination
facilities. On the other hand, because a number of comments
received on the proposed universal wastes rule disagreed with '
this approach, the Agency is also requesting comment on two
additional approaches. The first alternative, which was
suggested in several comments on the universal wastes rule, would
be to require that persons initiating and receiving shipments of
lamps retain shipping papers documenting the shipments. The
'minimum data elements required for such records could be
specified (e.g., quantity of lamps, date'of shipment or receipt,
name and address of shipper and receiver). The second.
alternative would be not to specifically require any specific
record keeping for shipments of lamps, but, as with all
exemptions, the person claiming the exemption would have to keep
documentation to show they qualify (see section 261.2 (f) ) , The
47
-------
Agency is requesting comment on this second alternative because
it is believed that due to the large volumes of lamps, shipments
are more likely to be made directly from the generator to a
destination facility. Records would be available for such
shipments because destination facilities are already required
under 40 CFR part 264.73(b)(1) or part 265.73{b)(1) to maintain
records including the description and quantity of each hazardous
waste received. It is likely that lamps would'be shipped
directly from generators to disposal facilities because volumes
are likely to be large enough that consolidation will not be
necessary to make full truckloads. In addition, the storage
space and careful handling required for management of these
wastes make consolidation less attractive and shipment directly
to the destination facility more likely.
A third question on which the Agency requests comment is
what management controls would be appropriate to impose on
collection of lamps under a special collection system approach.
Some of the data included in the docket for this proposal discuss
the risks of the types of management likely in lamp collection
such as management at the generator's site, transportation, and
*
storage {U.S. EPA, 1993a). Requirements could include packaging
that would be required to meet a performance standard of
•minimizing breakage for unbroken spent lamps. A wide variety of
containers would probably satisfy such packaging requirements.
48
-------
EPA expects that packaging in which new replacement lamps are
shipped from the manufacturer would frequently be reused to store
and transport removed, used lamps. Another option could be to
impose a prohibition on intentional breakage of spent lamps by
generators • •
( (
In addition, requirements could be imposed on the storage
and transportation of spent lamps that are inadvertently broken,
to prevent further mercury emissions." Steel 55-gallon drums or
any enclosed container could be used to hold broken lamps for
transportation to the disposal site. In summary, the Agency
requests comment on whether the exclusion should include
requirements to minimize mercury emissions during storage and
transportation of spent lamps. Management standards would apply
to transporter and consolidation points as well as for
generators. The Agency requests comment on management practices
for lamps, the risks posed by .these practices, and appropriate
technical controls to minimize these risks' while at the same time
not inhibiting collection and proper management. The Agency also
requests comment on whether generators or consolidation points
should be' allowed to intentionally crush lamps, to minimize volume
for storage or shipment and what, if any, standards should be
imposed to protect against mercury releases during crushing or
the subsequent management of crushed lamps. The proposed
universal waste management system includes a prohibition on
49
-------
treatment (crushing is considered treatment) of lamps at the
generator, transporter and consolidation points.
A fourth question on which the Agency requests comment is
whether to include a 3 to 5 year sunset provision on the
universal waste system for lamps. A sunset provision will
require EPA to re-evaluate -the effectiveness of the universal
waste system in addressing the disposal of lamps after 3 to 5
years. The Agency can then decide whether less controls or more
controls are needed to maintain, the safe management of lamps and
whether to extend the inclusion of lamps in the universal waste
system.
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified
States to administer and enforce the RCRA program with the State.
(See 40 CFR part 271 for the standards and requirements for
authorization.) Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although
authorized States have primary enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for authorization are found at 40 CFR
part 271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984, a State with final authorization administered its hazardous
50
-------
waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that State. The Federal requirements no longer
applied in the authorized State and EPA could not issue permits
for any facility in che State that the State was authorized, to
permit. When new, more stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized State until the authorized
State adopted the- requirements as State law.
In. contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
5326(g), new requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA
cake effect in authorized States at the same time that they take
effect in non-authorized States. EPA is directed to implement
HSWA requirements and prohibitions in an authorized State,
including the issuance of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as State law to- retain final authorization,
HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.
3. Effect on.Stats Authorizations i
The conditional exclusion and the universal waste management
system would not be HSWA regulations, and thus would not be
immediately•effective in authorized States. Thus, the-exemption
would be applicable only in those States that do-not have final
51
-------
authorization for the base (non-HSWA) portion of the RCRA
program.
Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to impose more stringent:
•regulations than the Federal program. Accordingly, authorized
States are only required to modify their programs when EPA
promulgates Federal regulations that are more stringent than the
authorized State regulations. For those changes that are less
stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program, States are
not required to modify their programs. Today's proposed options
are considered less stringent .or smaller in scope than the
existing Federal regulations because that portion of today's
proposal would exempt certain activities now within the purview
of RCRA Subtitle C. Therefore, authorized States are not
required to modify their programs to adopt regulations consistent
with and equivalent to the proposed exclusion or the proposed
universal waste management system for lamps.
Even though States will not.be required to adopt today's
proposed options (if either is finalized)-, EPA would encourage
States to do so. As already explained in the preamble, a
conditional exclusion of mercury-containing lamps or tiie addition
of lamps to the universal waste management system could reduce
barriers to participation in EPA's. Green Lights program, which
encourages pollution prevention through energy savings. Further,
52
-------
it could help to. clarify for the regulated community the orocer
management of mercury-containing lamps.
In addition, the proposed options, by -axing regulations
less stringer.- for management of lamps, would give States more
freedom to develop programs for lamp disposal that would be- '
appropriate for their -situation.
VII. Economic Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order No. .12365, [53 Federal Register 51735
(October 4, 1393)3 the Agency must determine whether -the
regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject fo-OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to.
result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the'
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect: in a material
way the. economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, 'or
State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency,- (3) materially alter t hi 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
53
-------
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order. • :
Pursuant to the terms of Executive'Order 12366, this section ?
of the preamble summarizes the costs (savings) and the economic
impact analysis of (option i) the proposed mercury-containing
lamp exclusion and of (option 2} the proposed special collection
of mercury-containing lamps. Based upon the economic impact
analysis for today's rule, the Agency's best estimate is that the
exclusion of mercury-containing lamps from Subtitle C hazardous
waste regulatory requirements (option 1) may result in nationwide
annualized savings of approximately S93 million, and the special
collection of mercury containing lamps (option 2) may result in a
nationwide annualized savings of approximately $17 million. A
complete discussion of the economic impact analysis is available
in the regulatory docket for today's proposed rule (EPA, 1994).
The Agency requests information to better evaluate the human
health and environmental effects of the two options described in
this notice and current disposal practices. Human and
environmental exposure to mercury could, occur during the
Collection, transportation, processing, recycling, treatment, and
disposal of spent lamps. EPA estimated the potential mercury air
emissions resulting from some of these activities, but is
uncertain about the extent and likelihood'of human and •
environmental exposure. The Agency is also aware that the two
54
-------
regulatory,ope ions may pose different worker and transportation
injury risks as well as different environmental risks. The
Agency requests information on the overall risks to human healrh
and the environment associated wich current practices and the two
nrooosed ootions.
A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for Regulatory Options Considered
This section briefly describes 1) the universe of spent
mercury-containing lamps and lamp generators, 2) the current
regulatory baseline and 3). the major options for the regulation
of spent mercury-containing lamps included in today's proposal
for consideration. Descriptions of the baseline and the major
options also include a summary of the methodology used in
estimating compliance costs (savings). Results of the analysis
are summarized in section 5.
1. Universe of Scent Lames and Scent Lamp Generators
The Agency estimates that approximately 310 to 380 million
mercury-containing lamps, and 47,000 to 64,000 facilities could
be affected annually by today's proposal.
The spent lamp generation number is based on sales data1,
adjusted to account for (1) lamps generated by Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQG), which would not be
affected by either one of the proposed options, and (2) lamps
'Source: National Electrical Manufacturing Association
55
-------
generated in States where spent bulb management regulations exist
(California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). (It was assumed that
these State controls would be more stringent than the options
considered in today's proposal, and would therefore supersede any
Federal exemption of spent mercury-containing lamps from Subtitle
C requirements).
2. Baseline Costs
EPA assumed that baseline requirements are the continuation
of current Subtitle C regulatory standards for the treatment and
disposal of mercury-containing lamps which currently fail the TC.
Under this scenario, generators of spent mercury containing lamps
which fail the TC continue to be subject to the full spectrum of
hazardous waste management standards including record keeping and
manifesting of all mercury-containing lamp shipments, Agency
notification and Subtitle' C transport, treatment, storage and
disposal standards.
In the cost analysis, all spent mercury-containing lamps
were assumed to be TC (Toxicity Characteristic) hazardous wastes.
All spent lamps were also assumed to be in the low risk category
for mercury, requiring stabilization as treatment under the Land
Disposal Restrictions.
Cost drivers for the baseline management of spent lamps
include hazardous waste transportation, and Subtitle C disposal.
The bulk of mercury-containing lamps currently disposed (97%) are
56
_
-------
assumed to be stabilized and disposed of in hazardous waste
landfills. The remainder, based upon volume data from chs scent
mercury-containing lamp recovery industry, are'recycled. Based
upon conversations'with the recycling industry, which indicate
planned increases in recycling capacity, the analysis assumed a
small annual increase in the baseline recycling rate of mercury-
• containing lamps over the first three years of the analysis.
Unit costs for stabilization/ landfilling, recycling and
hazardous waste transport were applied on a per ton basis.
Generator.specific requirements which applied to all large
quantity generators_of spent mercury-containing lamps included
record-keeping, manifesting, exception reporting, and BRS
{Biennial Reporting System) reporting. Other generator
requirements, including rule familiarization, notification,
personnel safety training and emergency2 planning were only
assessed for new facilities which spot relamp and store (up to 90
days for large quantity generators; up to 130 days for small
quantity generators.) spent lamps en site. It is assumed that,
costs resulting from generator requirements which are incurred on
According to 40 CFR, 265 Sufapart D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, all large quantity generators of
hazardous waste must draft a contingency plan describing the
actions facility personnel will take should a fire, explosion, or
any unplanned sudden or .non-sudden releases of hazardous waste
constituents to air, soil, or surface water occur. Local
emergency response teams use the information required in the
contingency plan to minimize unanticipated damage from the
storage of hazardous waste.
57
-------
a per shipment basis (i.e. manifesting, exception reporting) will "
be incurred by group relampers once every.three years {once per
relamp). Spot relampers will incur these costs twice .a year (for
small quantity generators) or four times per year (for large
quantity generators).
3. Potion 1: Conditional Exclusion from Subtitle C standards
Costs
The first option under consideration in today's proposal is
to exclude mercury-containing lamps from Subtitle C management
standards with the condition that these lamps are' managed in
permitted municipal landfills or recycling facilities. The
proposed exclusion also includes a minor generator record keeping
requirement. As the exclusion would be deregulatory, primary
economic impacts to small and large quantity generators' of
mercury-containing lamps resulting from this action would be in
the form of cost savings from, avoided Subtitle C regulatory
management, particularly for transport and disposal of spent
lamps.
In the cost analysis, it was assumed that, given the
proposed conditional exclusion, all small and large quantity
generators of spent mercury-containing lamps would opt for
management in municipal landfills in order to reduce disposal
costs.
58
-------
Some generators may .have.slightly higher disposal costs than
others as a result of the proposed exclusion of mercury-
containing lamps from municipal ccmbustors. If these •~ensra"cv'3
currently manage their non-hazardous waste in municipal
ccmbustcrs, the comfaustcr exclusion 'may require these generators
to: 1) keep their spent lamps separate from the rest of their
municipal solid waste, 2) store spent lamps on site until enough
volume has been, generated to make disposal cost effective, and 3)
haul spent lamps greater distances to municipal solid waste
landfills.
In short, overall savings to be accrued from the proposed
exclusion may vary slightly from generator to generator.
4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
The second option,, special collection, included in today's
proposal would allow small and large quantity generators of spent
mercury-containing lamps to- reduce certain administrative
activities required under Subtitle C standards, including
biennial reporting, notification, manifesting and personnel
training. Additionally the option also allows generators to
store spent mercury-containing lamps on-site for up to.one year
- " t
without a hazardous waste permit, and to transport their spent
lamps direct to final disposal or recycling using non-hazardous
waste haulers.
59
-------
The.option also includes similar reduced requirements for
interim spent lamp storage facilities and "special collection
centers," Transportation to these .facilities or centers frcm the
generator would not be regulated under Subtitle C standards,
however, transport to final disposal or- recycling from these
facilities would be regulated under Subtitle C standards.
The costs estimated for Special Collection Option assumes
for urban generators direct shipment using non-hazardous waste
haulers, as allowed under this option, from generators to final
disposal; thus the costs of creating and operating an interim
sto-rage facility or special collection center are not included
for urban generators. The rationale for this omission is
twofold: l) it is assumed that spent lamp generation is large
enough to create economies of scale for direct non-hazardous
waste transport; the need for special collection centers is
precluded by non-hazardous waste transport "milk runs" for spent
lamps, and 2) although there may be economies of scale generated
for long-haul transport of spent lamps from collection centers,
the special collection option requires Subtitle C transport from
the centers to final disposal or recycling, thus making the use
i
of a collection center with Subtitle C final transport more
expensive than Subtitle D direct transport to the disposal
facility.
60
-------
5. Results
a. National Annualizeci Costs (Savings) .
A summary of estimated national annual compliance ccsts
associated with 'the exclusion option and the special collection
option, along with estimated baseline compliance costs are
presented below in exhibit Vll.i. .Also presented are estimated
incremental savings above baseline compliance costs for each
option. Costs were annualized over a twenty-year period, using
a 7% discount rate-. The analysis used projected growth in the
U.S. population over' the twenty-year time frame of the analysis
to estimate the increase in growth of spent lamp generation.'
Total estimated annualized savings range between approximately
$85 million and $102 million for the exclusion and savings
estimates for-the special collection option range between $16
million and $20 million in savings.
The above savings estimate is based on the assumption in the
baseline that all facilities are properly managing their mercury-
containing spent lamps as Subtitle C -waste. Currently, however,
some lamp generators may not be aware that fluorescent lamps are
hazardous, waste and therefore may not be following Subtitle' C
t
requirements. Hence, estimated savings may represent savings
from a future scenario of full compliance with current law,
rather than savings from current lamp management. EPA expects.
•
that if no regulatory action is taken, Subtitle C management of
Si
-------
mercury-containing lamps will become more prevalent over the next
few years.
Exhibit VII. 1. - ANNUALIZED COSTS (SAVINGS) OF REGtJLATORY OPTIONS
Coses (savings) are presented in millions of 1992
dollars/year3
REGULATORY OPTION
Baseline :
Option 1:
Option 2 :
Subtitle C
Standards
Conditional
• Exclusion from
Subtitle C
Special •
Collection
TOTAL
ANNUAL I ZED
COSTS
$110 - $134
BE: $113
$25 - $32
BE: $25
$94 - $115
BE:S101
INCREMENTAL
ANNUAL I ZED
COSTS /(SAVINGS)
ABOVE BASELINE
NA
($85) - ($102)
3E: ($93)
($16) - ($20)
BE: ($17)
3E
Best Estimate
b. Individual Generator Savings
Average total savings per. generator for both options were
simply assessed by dividing total savings by the estimated number
of generators above (refer to the methodology section). The
average annual baseline Subtitle C cost per generator *is
estimated to be between $2,000 to $2,250 per generator. Average
per generator savings for the .two dereguiatory options are
'Numbers my not add up due to rounding.
62
-------
indicated below in exhibit VII.2. Individual, generator savings,
however, will vary due to'facility size, proximity to disposal or
recycling facility, and regional disposal/recycling costs.
EXHIBIT VII.2. - AVERAGE ANNUAL COST (SAVINGS)
PER REGULATED GENERATOR
dr.. 1992 dciiars)
Regulatory Option
AVERAGE ANNUAL COST
(SAVINGS)/GENERATOR
Exclusion from Subtitle C
Standards
(51,500) - High Savings Seen,
(32,000) -Low Savings Seen.
(51,500) - Best Estimate
Scecial Collection
(5300) - High Savings Seen.
(S300) - Low Savings Seen.
'($300) - Best Estimate.
c. Savings Per Waste Lamp Generated
As with average savings per generator estimates, average
savings per waste lamp generated were derived by simply dividing
total upper and lower bound costs (savings! by the estimated
number of waste lamps accounted for by small and large quantity
generators in states without specific spent lamp management
standards. The average baseline Subtitle C cost per bjilb is
estimated to be $.34 to $.36. The resulting savings per lamp is
estimated at'-$.27 per bulb for the conditional exclusion option
(both high and low savings scenario) and at $.05 per bulb for the
63
-------
special collection option. Again, cost per bulb may vary.
significantly due site specific factors.
6. Sensitivity Analysis
This section presents che results of EPA's analysis of the
effects of varying selected major parameters in the cost analysis
(where the Agency used considerable judgment in arriving at the
parameter's value) on the estimated savings incurred under the
proposed conditional exclusion and the proposed Universal Waste
Rule. The following assumptions were analyzed in the sensitivity
analysis for EFA's analysis of spent lamp management costs:
(1) Percentage of Lamps Generated at Small and Larcte Quantity
Generators - In the sensitivity analysis, EPA set its lower bound
estimates of the percentage of lamps generated at SQGs and LQGs
at fifty percent of total spent lamp generation and its upper
bound estimates at ninety percent. (Seventy-five percent was
used in the initial cost analysis).
(2) Cost to Transport Subtitle C Waste - In the sensitivity
analysis, EPA increased the upper bound estimates of the costs of
transporting spent lamps as Subtitle C by a factor of three,
based on price quotes from commercial transporters, over original
estimates.
(3)_-_Cpat to Dispose of Subtitle C Waste - Based on price quotes
from commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities, EPA
64
-------
increased the upper bound estimates of the Subtitle C disposal
•costs by a factor of four over original estimates.
(4) Cost of Employee Training - To reflect uncertainty ever
whether a professional trainer would be required and over how
- ' f'-"> ii? '"
many employees would need -to be trained', EPA increased and
decreased the cost of employee training required by 50 percent.
The costs associated with the high-end scenario were
.¥=••••• • • . •-• p-;" -
estimated using the upper''''Bound'1 estimates for each cost element
•included in. the sensitivity analysis. The costs associated with
the low-end scenario combined the lower bound estimates for each
cose element. The results from .these two analyses suggest that
the range of total annual -savings from the proposed condition
exclusion for spent lamps could be $65 million to $289 million,
and the range of total annual savings from the proposed Universal
Waste RCRA requirements for generators of-spent lamps could be '
$15 million to $39 million. The range in cost savings, is mainly
the result of uncertainty over Subtitle C transportation and
disposal costs for lamps. Although SPA has received price quotes
for management of lamps as Subtitle C waste that are considerably
higher than the average cost of managing hazardous waste in
i.
Subtitle C landfills, it is not appropriate to directly compare
' f
price quotes to engineering costs because the prices quotes"
reflect a constrained market place which tends to inflate-prices
well above costs. However, a three-fold difference between the '
65
-------
price quotes^ror spent lamps and^standard Subtitle Jjjjjnar.agement
cose may also be due to other•factors beyond che inflated prices
of the constrained market, including the lew density of lamps
(i.e. a ton of lamps has a greater volume than a ten of hazardous
waste sludge), or difficulty in handling lamps. EPA requests
comment on che true coses, as well as the reasoning behind these
costs, of managing spent lamps as Subtitle C waste.
B. Proposed Rule Impacts
1. Impacts on Generators of Mercurv-Containina Waste Lamps
As indicated above, option l, the exclusion, is estimated, to
result in average annual savings per small and large quantity
spent lamp generator ranging frcm $2,000 to $2,250. Option 2,
special collection, is estimated to result in an average annual
per generator savings of approximately $300.
2 . Secondary Effects'
While total- incremental savings from the proposed exclusion
(option 1) and from the prcpcsed special collection system
(option 2) over a Subtitle C management approach appear to be
high, the Agency does not expect significant immediate shifts in
demand or price for the lamps or for products manufactured or
sold by firms which consume these lamps due to the proposed
options. Because the impacts to lamp generators are positive
(i.e. net savings), the Agency does not expect the rule to result
-------
in adverse impacts to businesses, or to affect employment or
international trade to'any appreciable degree.
EPA believes that, with the except ion of lamps generated in
States with existing lamp disposal requirements, most small and
large quantity generators of mercury containing lamps will choose
to dispose of their waste lamps in.municipal solid waste
.' landfills under option 1, the proposed exclusion from Subtitle C,
This is because Subtitle D disposal is significantly less
expensive per bulb than recycling or Subtitle C disposal4.
Subsequently, most waste lamps currently being handled according
to -Subtitle C standards by permitted hazardous waste haulers,
disposal sites and spent lamp processing facilities, would be
handled by Subtitle D haulers and disposal facilities. Thus
Subtitle C waste haulers, .disposal and spent lamp processing
facilities would be affected negatively while Subtitle D haulers
and disposal facilities would be affected positively under option
1.
The exclusion, option l, may also have an impact upon
mercury-containing lamp processors. The Agency estimates that
there are currently 15 facilities which process soent-mercury-
i
containing lamps. Two of these facilities recover spent mercury
through retorting; the remaining 13 facilities separate the glass
4EPA estimates'that the.average cost per ton for Subtitle D
disposal is $35 as compared to $400 per ton for Subtitle C
disposal and $1375 per ton for recycling.
67
-------
and aluminum ends, and send the mercury-containing phosphor
powder to the two facilities that retort. Ten of the IS lamp
processing facilities are located in the three States where spent
lamp management regulations exist. Although most recovery
facilities are located in States with stringent State, lamp
disposal requirements, and would most likely will not be affected
by today's proposed exclusion, a certain percentage of the spent
lamps currently recovered at these•facilities are generated in
States with no specific lamp disposal requirements. EPA believes
that a portion of mercury-containing lamps would no longer be
sent-for recovery under the proposed exclusion (option 1) since
disposal in municipal landfills would be significantly less
expensive5. Assuming that lamps generated outside of these
States will not be sent for recovery, it is possible that 17
percent, or 16 million lamps, may be diverted. Using-a
lamp/revenue ratio for recovery facilities of $.44, total impact
to the industry could be approximately $7 million dollars6 in
lost revenues ($469,000 per facility). Future recycling efforts
may also be impacted since many of these facilities may retract
SEPA estimates that Subtitle D landfilling costs range
between $10 and $150 per ton depending upon the region of the
country. Compared with an average recycling cose of $1375 per
ton, Subtitle D landfilling is significantly less expensive.
3Similar estimates were not derived for Subtitle C waste
haulers or disposal sites.
63
-------
plans "for' expansion in States- which currently have no specific
lamp disposal requirements.
Under option J2, the proposed special collection svscem,
small and large quantity generators would net be allowed to
choose to dispose of hazardous waste lamps in a municipal solid
waste landfill.. Thus the above, impacts on Subtitle. C waste
haulers, disposal and spent lamp processing facilities would not
be observed under the second option.
-VIII. REFERENCES .
Baccir.i, ?., G. Hensler, R. Figi, and H. Belevi. 1987. Water and
Element Balances of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste
Management and Research. 5:483-499.
Borden, R.C., and T.M. Yanoshak. 1990. Ground and Surface Water
Quality Impacts of North Carolina Sanitary Landfills. Water
Resources Bulletin. 25(2):259-277.
Eichholz, C.G., Peteika, M.F., Kury, R.L. 1985. Migration of
Elemental Mercury through Soil from Simulated Burial Sites.
Water Resources. 22 (1) :• 269-277
Gould, J.P., F..G. Pohland, and W.H. Cross. 1988. Mobilization and
' - ' <.
Retention of Mercury and Lead from Particulates Co-disposed
with Municipal Solid Waste. Particulate Science and
Technology. 6:381-392.
69
-------
Kirschner, D.S., R.L. Billau, and T.J. MacDonald. 1988.
Fluorescent Light Tube Compaction: Evaluation of Employee
Exposure to Airborne Mercury. Applied .Industrial'Hygiene.
3:129-131.
Mennerich, A. 1935. Laboratory Scale Test Simulating Co-disposal
in Landfills. In: Proceedings -- International Conference on
New Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management. U.S. EPA.
60/9-851025.
Metzger, M., and H. Brown. 1937. In-situ Mercury Speciation in
Flue Gas by Liquid and Solid Sorption Systems. Chemosohere.
- ' 16(4):821-332.
NEMA. 1992. The Management of Spent Electric Lamps containing
Mercury. National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Washington, D.C.
National Environmental Protection Board and Swedish Association
of Public Sanitation,and Solid Waste Management. 1989. Off-
gassing of Mercury Vapor from Landfills. Depa-90 Report No.
5. Sweden.
Reimarm, D.O. 1989. Heavy Metals in Domestic Refuse and their
Distribution in Incinerator Residues. Water Waste Management
fc
and Research. 7:57-62.
70
-------
Sorenson, J.A., G.E. Glass, K.W. Schmidt, J.K. Huber, and G.R.
Rapp, Jr. 1990, Airborne Mercury Deposition and Watershed
Characteristics in relation to Mercury Concentrations in
Water, Sediments, Plankton, and Fish of eighty northern
Minnesota Lakes. Environmental Science Technical.
24(11) :1716-1727..
U.S. EPA. 1988. Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Leachate Characteristics. EPA/530-SW-S8-038. U.S. EPA.
Office of Solid.Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Environmental News: SPA Sets Air Emission
Standards for Municipal Waste Incinerators. January 11,
1991.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. A Geochemical Assessment Model for Environmental
Systems. EPA/SOO-3-91-021. U.S. Environmental•Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Characterization of Products containing Mercury
in Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970-2000.
U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. ^SPA. 1992a. Analytical Results of Mercury in Fluorescent
Lamps. U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
71
-------
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Green Lights Program:' The First Year. U.S. EPA.
Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Management of Used Fluorescent Lamps:
*
Preliminary Risk Assessment. U.S. SPA. Office of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. I993b. Report of the National Technical' Forum"on Source
Reduction of Heavy Metals in Municipal Solid Waste. U.S.
EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Technical Background Document: Economic Impact
Analysis for Proposed Options on Mercury-Containing Lamps.
U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
Vogg, H., H. Brown, M. Metzger, and J. Schneider. 1986. The
Specific Role of Cadmium and Mercury in Municipal Solid
Waste Incineration. Waste Management^__a,nd Research. 4:65-74.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C.
3501 et sea. An Information Collection Request (ICR) .-document
has been prepared by EPA (ICR# 1699.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.w. (2136);
Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 250-2740.
72
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, 401'M Street, S.W. (2136) ,-
Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public record keeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 4.7 hours per response
annually, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the .required
data, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including-suggestions
for reducing this burden,' to Chief, Information Policy Branch,
PM-223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20450; and to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management "and Budget/
Washington, D.C. 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
The final rule will respond to any CMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980-requires
Federal agencies to consider "small entities" throughout the
4.
regulatory process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial
screening analysis to be performed to determine whether small
entities will be affected by the regulation.. If affected small
entities are identified, regulatory alternatives must be
73
-------
considered to mitigate the potential impacts. Small entities as
described in the Act are only these "businesses, organizations •
and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation."
The only entities directly subject to today's proposed rule
are small and large quantity generators of spent mercury
containing lamps (conditionally exempt small quantity generators
are not directly subject to today's proposed rule). In order to
meet the definition of a regulated entity under today's rule, a
generator must produce over 100 kg of spent lamps (350 four foot
fluorescent lamps) in a given month. 'It is conceivable that some
of these generators would-meet the definition of "small business"
as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (i.e. mid-sized
firms that group relamp and generate in excess of 346 spent
fluorescent lamps in a given month); however the Agency does not
have-an estimate of the number of such "small entities."
However, both of the- proposed options are expected to result in
net savings to the regulated entities. Option I, excluding
mercury containing lamps from Subtitle' C management standards, is
estimated to result in per generator savings of between $2,000
and $2,250 annually. Option 2, managing spent lamps under a
special collection system is estimated to result in an average
annual per generator savings of approximately $300. Thus, since
generator impacts are positive for both options, EPA has
determined that small regulated entities will not be adversely
74
-------
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program;
.* Mercury-containing Lamps; Proposed Rule
impacted, and thus, no "mitigating" options are being analyzed in
this section. Hence, pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), "the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of entities."
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
75
-------
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. A definition for "electric lamp", also referred to as
"lamp", is added to Section 260.10, in alphabetical order, to
read as indicated below:
3. A definition for "mercury-containing lamp" is added to
Section 260.10, in alphabetical order to read as indicated below:
§ 260.10 Definitions.
*****
Electric lamp means the bulb or tube portion of a lighting
device specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most
often in the ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR)
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common
electric lamps include, but is not limited to, incandescent,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge, and neon lamps.
Mercury-containing lamp is an electric lamp in which mercury
is purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of
the lamp.
*****
76
-------
OPTION 1
PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OP HAZARDOUS WASTE
In 261.4, paragraph (b) (16) is added co read .as follows:
261.4 Exclusions
(b) * * *
(16) Spent mercury-containing lamps which are disposed in
municipal solid waste landfills in States or Indian Tribes with
an SPA approved State or Tribal municipal solid waste landfill
program or managed in mercury reclamation facilities that are
permitted, licensed or registered by a State or Tribe. To
qualify for this exclusion, a.generator must maintain in its
operating records for three years from the date of shipment a
certification, for each shipment o'f mercury-containing lamps that
is signed by the generator or its authorized representative and
that states the following:
I certify, under penalty of law, that on [date], I consigned
[amount] of mercury-containing lamps to [name and address of
transporter] for [disposal] [recycling] at [name and address of ,
disposal or recycling facility]. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
77
-------
OPTION 2
PART 273 -- STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM WASTES
3. A table of contents for Subpart D is added to the table
of contents for Part 273 to read as follows:
Subpart D -- Lamps that are Hazardous Wastes
§ 273.30 Applicability.
§ 273.31 Generator requirements.
§ 273.32 Transporter requirements.
§ 273.33 Consolidation point requirements.
§ 273.34 Destination facility requirements.
§ 273.35 Export requirements.
§§ 273.36 - 273.39 Reserved.
4. The authority citation for Part 273 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C..6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6930, and
6937. ' •
5. Definitions for "electric lamp" also referred .to as
k
"lamp" and "mercury-containing lamp" are added to Section 273.3,
in alphabetical order, to read
as follows:
78
-------
S 273.3 Definirinnq
*
^Electric lams means the bulb or cube portion of a lighting
device specifically designed to produce radiant energy-, most
often in the ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR)
regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common
electric lamps include, but is not limited to,' incandescent,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge, and neon lamps. .
Mercury-containing lamn is an electric lamp in which mercury
is purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of
the lamp.
6. Subpart D is added to Part 273 to read as follows:
Subpart 0 - Lamps that are Hazardous Wastes
§ 273.30 Applicability.
(a) Covered wastes.
(1) This suhpart sets forth standards -for managing lamps
that are hazardous wastes.
(2) Lamps that are hazardous wastes and that are not managed
in compliance with the requirements of this Part must be managed
79
-------
under the hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260 through
272 of this chapter.
(b) Household-and Conditionally Exempt Small Quangi-v
Generator Waste Lamps.
(1) Persons managing -the wastes listed below may, at their
option, manage them under the requirements of this subpart
without changing the'wastes' exempt status:
(i) Household hazardous waste lamps that are exempt under 40
CFR 261.4(b)(1); and/or
(ii) Conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous
waste lamps that are exempt under 40 CFR 261.5.
(2) Persons who commingle household hazardous waste lamps
and/or conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous
waste lamps together with hazardous waste lamps regulated under
this subpart must manage the commingled lamps under the
requirements of this subpart.
§ 273.31 Generator requirements.
(a) Generation of hazardous waste lamps.
(1) The date a used lamp becomes a waste is the:date the
generator permanently removes it from its fixture.
(2) The date an unused lamp becomes a waste is the date the
generator decides to throw it away.
' 80
-------
(3) A waste lamp is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or
more of the characteristics identified in 4-0 CFR Part 261,
Subpart C.
(b) Condition of hazardouswaste lamps.
c-
A generator of hazardous waste lamps must at all times:
(1) Contain unbroken lamps in packaging -hat will minimize
breakage during normal handling conditions; and
(2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize
releases of lamp fragments and residues.
(c) Storage.
(l) A generator may store a hazardous waste'lamp for no
longer chan one year from the date the lamp became a waste.
(2) A generator who stores hazardous waste lamps must be
able to demonstrate that lamps are not stored for more chan one
year from the date they became a waste. A generator may make
this demonstration by:
(i) Placing the lamps in a container and. marking or labeling
the container with the earliest date that any lamp in the
container became a waste;
(ii> Marking or labeling an individual lamp with .the date
that it became a waste;
(iii) Maintaining an inventory system'that identifies the
date each lamp in storage became a waste;
81
-------
(iv) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the
earliest date that any lamp in a group of lamps became a waste,-
or
(v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and
identifying the earliest date that any lamp in the storage area
became a waste.
(d) Notification.
(1) A generator who stores more than 35,000 hazardous waste
lamps at any time must have, before exceeding the 35,000 lamp
quantity limi't, sent written notification of hazardous waste lamp
storage to the Regional Administrator and received an EPA
Identification Number.
(2) This notification must include:
(i) The generator's name and mailing address;
(ii) The name and business telephone number of the person at
the generator's sice who should be contacted regarding the lamp
storage activity;
(iii) The address or physical location of the lamp storage
activity;
(iv) A statement indicating that the generator stores more
than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
(e) Prohibitions.
A generator of hazardous waste lamps is:
(l) Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
82
-------
(2) Prohibited from treating them, except by responding to
releases as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and
(3) Prohibited from sending or taking the hazardous wasce
lamps to a place other than a consolidation point, destination
facility, or foreign destination.
(f) Lamp management.
(1) A generator must at all times manage hazardous waste
lamps in a way that minimizes lamp breakage.
(2)(i) A generator must immediately contain all releases of
residues from hazardous waste lamps.
(ii) A generator must determine whether any materials
resulting from the release are hazardous wastes, and if so, the
generator must manage them in accordance with all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 2SO through 272.
(3) A generator must ensure that all employees are
thoroughly familiar with proper' waste handling and emergency
procedures, relative to their responsibilities during normal
facility operations and emergencies.
§ 273.32 Transporter requirements. -
t
(a) Shipments from a generator to a consolidation point,
from a generator to a destination facility, or from one
consolidation point to another'consolidation point.
33
-------
(1)(i) A transporter must at all times contain unbroken
lamps in packaging that will minimize breakage during normal
handling and transport conditions; and
(ii) A transporter must at all times contain broken lamps in
packaging thac will minimize releases of lamp fragments and
residues.
(2) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps may only store
them at a transfer facility for ten days or less.
(3) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps is prohibited
from:
(i) Diluting or disposing of them;
(ii) Treating them, except by responding to releases as
provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; and
(iii) Transporting them to a place other than a
consolidation point, destination facility, or foreign
destination.
(4}(i) A transporter must at all times manage hazardous
waste lamps in a way that minimizes lamp breakage.
(ii) A transporter must immediately .contain all releases of
residues from hazardous waste lamps. • i
(iii) A transporter must determine whether any materials
resulting from the release are hazardous wastes, and if so, the
transporter must manage them in accordance with 'all applicable
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 272.
84
-------
Shipments from a consolidation -point to a deaEinat-iein
facility..
A transporter who transports shipments from a consolidation
point to a destination facility must comply with 40 CFR Part 263 .
§ 273.33 Consolidation point requirements.
(a) Condition of Lamps.
The owner or operator of a consolidation point managing
hazardous waste lamps must at all times: '
(1) Contain unbroken lamps in packaging that will minimize
breakage during normal handling conditions; and
(2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize
releases of lamp fragments and residues.
(b) Storage .
(1) The owner or operator of a consolidation point may store
a hazardous waste lamp 'for no longer than one year from the date
that the owner or operator receives it .
(2) The owner or operator of a consolidation point who
stores hazardous waste lamps must be able to demonstrate that
lamps are not stored for more than one year from the date they
were received. The owner or operator may make this demonstration
by: •
85
-------
(i) Placing the lamps in a container arid marking or labeling
the^ container with the earliest date that any lamp in-the
container was received;
(ii) Marking or labeling an individual lamp with the- date '
Chat it was received;
(iii) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the .
date each lamp in storage was received;•
(iv) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the .
earliest date that any lamp in a.group of lamps was received; or
(v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and1
identifying the earliest date that any lamp in the storage area
was received.
(c) Prohibitions.
The owner or operator of a consolidation point managing
hazardous waste lamps is:
(1} Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
(2) Prohibited from treating them, except by responding to
releases as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
- (3) Prohibited from sending or taxing them any place other
than a consolidation point, destination facility, or foreign
destination.
(d) Lamp Management.
86
-------
(1) The owner or operator of a consolidation point must at
all times manage hazardous waste lamps in a way that minimizes
lamp breakage.
(2)(i) The owner or operator of the consolidation point must
immediately contain all releases of -residues from hazardous waste
lamps. •
(ii) The consolidation point owner/operator must determine
whether any materials resulting from the release are hazardous
wastes', and if so, the owner/operator must manage them in
accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260
through-272.
(3) The consolidation point owner or operator must ensure
that all employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste
handling and emergency procedures, relative to their
responsibilities during normal facility operations and
emergencies.
(e) Notification.
(1)(i) A consolidation point owner or operator who stores
more than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps at any time must'have,
before exceeding the 35,000 lamp quantity limit, sent written
i
notification of hazardous waste lamp storage to the Regional
Administrator and received an EPA Identification Number.
(ii) This notification must include:
(A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
87
-------
{B> The name and business telephone number of the person who
should be contacted regarding the lamp storage activity;
(C) The address or physical location of the lamp storage
activity;
(D) A statement indicating that the owner or operator stores
more than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
(2> (i) A consolidation point owner or operator who sends a
shipment of hazardous waste lamps directly from the consolidation
point to a destination facility, who is not required to notify
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, must have, before
initiating the shipment, sent written notification of hazardous
waste lamp shipments to a destination facility to the Regional
Administrator and received an EPA Identification Number.
(ii) This notification must include:
(A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
(B) A statement that the-owner or operator intends-to ship
hazardous waste lamps to a destination facility;
(C) The name and business telephone number of the person who
should be contacted regarding the lamp storage activity; and
(D) The address or physical location of the lamp .-storage
activity.
(f) Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests.
The owner or operator 'of a consolidation point who sends a
shipment of hazardous waste' lamps directly to a destination
88
-------
facility must comply with Subpart B of Part 262 and §§ 262.30
through 262.33, 262.40 (a), 262.40(d), and 252.42 of this chapte;
when initiating a shipment.
§ 273.34 -Destination facility requirements.
(a) Owners or operators of destination facilities that
recycle, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste lamps must
comply with all applicable requirements of Parts 264, 265, 266,
268, 270, and 124 of this chapter, and the notification
requirement under section 3010 of RCRA.
"(b) Owners and operators of destination facilities that
recycle hazardous waste lamps without storing them before they
are recycled must comply with 40 CFR 261.6 (c) (2)'.
§ 273 . 3 5.. Export re.quireme.nts .
(a) A generator who sends .hazardous waste lamps to a foreign
destination, without first sending them to a consolidation point
or destination facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary
exporter in 40 CFR §§ 262.53, 262.56 (a) (1) - (4), (6) ,.- and (b)
and 262.57;
(2) Export such materials only upon consent of the receiving
country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of
Consent as defined in Subpart E of Part '262 of this chapter; and
39
-------
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for
the shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for
export.
(b) A transporter transporting a shipment of hazardous waste
lamps to a foreign destination may not accept a shipment if the
transporter knows the shipment does not conform to the SPA
Acknowledgment of .Consent. In addition the transporter must
ensure that:
(1) A copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent accompanies
the shipment; and
(2) The shipment is delivered to the facility designated by
the person initiating the shipment.
(c) An owner or operator of a consolidation point who sends
hazardous waste lamps to a foreign destination, without first
sending them to another consolidation'point or destination
facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary
exporter in 40 CFR §§ 262.53, 262.56(a)(1) - (4), (6), and (b)
and 262.57;
(2) Export such materials only upon consent of the receiving
country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of
Consent as defined in Subpart E of Part 262 of this chapter,- and
90
-------
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for
the shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for
export.
(dj -A destination facility sending hazardous waste lamps to
a foreign destination must also comply with the generator
requirements of Part 252 of chis chapter, and wich 40 CFR §§
264. 71 (c) or 265. 71 (c.) pertaining to initiating the manifest.
-------
------- |