Management Options for
Mercury-Containing Lamps
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
nn id IOQ/I
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
MEMORANDUM RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Management^ptions for Mercury-containing Lamps
FROM:
olid Waste
TO: WashTManagement Division Directors
Regions 1-10
The Administrator has just signed a proposal on the management of mercury-
containing lamps (e.g., fluorescent and high intensity discharge lamps). A
prepublication copy of this notice is enclosed for your information and use as well
as a copy of the fact sheet.
As you know, fluorescent and high intensity discharge lamps generally are
considered hazardous waste because of their mercury content. Therefore, these
lamps must be disposed of as hazardous waste (unless they are generated by
households or conditionally exempt small quantity generators).
This proposed rule contains two options for the management of spent mercury-
containing lamps (light bulbs). The first option is an exclusion for mercury-
containing lamps from regulation as hazardous waste if disposed in municipal
landfills that are permitted, licensed, or registered by states with EPA approved
municipal solid waste landfill permit programs, or managed in State permitted,
licensed, or registered reclamation facilities. The second option would add lamps
to the Universal Waste Proposal (58 EB 8102, February 11, 1993), which would
establish a streamlined, reduced regulatory management structure for certain
widely-generated hazardous wastes. States would not be required to adopt either
the exclusion or universal waste system if made final as both options would relax
regulation over generators of hazardous waste.
We are considering these two options based on data that indicate these lamps
may be safely managed outside of the hazardous waste system or within a
reduced, regulatory structure within the hazardous waste system. In addition,
fluorescent lamps, as well as other mercury-containing lamps, are used in
energy conservation programs which encourage the installation of energy-
efficient lighting. Energy-efficient lighting consumes less electricity, reducing
the generation of pollution from power plants. The options in today's proposal
may encourage participation in these energy conservation programs.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled liber
-------
If you need more specific, technical information or assistance, please contact
Valerie Wilson at (202) 260-4678 or Greg Helms at (202) 260-6721. If you or your
staff want additional copies of the notice, please call the RCRA Docket at (202) 260-
9327. The general public can obtain copies by calling the RCRA Hotline at (800)
424-9346.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs
State Authorization Section Chiefs
Permitting Section Chiefs
ESD Laboratories
RCRA Community Relations Coordinators
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261.4
[FRL-XXXXX]
[RIN 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
2S1.24) 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 ccr.ment on two alternative approaches for the management
of mercury-containing lamps. Firsc, SPA is seeking comment on
whether an exclusion from regulation as hazardous waste is
appropriate for mercury lamps, provided they are disposed in
municipal landfills that are permitted by States/Tribes with EPA
approved municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill permitting programs
or managed in mercury reclamation facilities that are permitted,
licensed or registered by States/Tribes. The second approach
would add mercury lamps to EPA's Universal Waste Proposal
(February 11, 1993, 58 FR 3102). The Universal Waste approach is
-------
a streamlined, reduced regulatory structure, which is designed to
address tne management of certain widely generated wastes
currently subject to full Subtitle C RCRA regulations.
Tcday's proposal presents management options that would oe
considered less stringent than the existing Federal regulations
because they would exempt certain activities new within the
ourview 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
orograms 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 SO days after date of publication in the
Federal Register) .
ADDRESSES: Persons who wish to comment on this notice must
crevice an original and two copies of their comments, incl-de the
docket number (F-94-FLEP-FFFFF) , and send tr.em to EPA RCRA Docket
(CS-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 30.15 per pace.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information,
contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline toll free at (300) 424-9346.
In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9310.
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. 204SO, telephone
(202) 260-4S78.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Preamble Outline
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. The Toxicity Characteristic
3. 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
3. Universal Waste System
1. Background
2. Special Collection System for Lamps
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
3. 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 Ccsts
5. Results
3. Proposed Rule Impacts
1. Primary Effects
2. Secondary Effects
VIII. References
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
-------
I. Legal Authority
These regulations would be promulgated under cne authority
of sections 1006, 2002U), 3001-3007, 3010, 3013, 30LS-3017, 3013
and 7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
5905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6937-6938, 6939 and 6974
[commonly referred to as RCRA].
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 ignizability, 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
-------
methodolcay, the Toxicity Characteristic Leacning Procedure
(TCL?) is -ised to define tne tcxitity of a waste by Teas-ring t.-.e
potential for the tcxic constituents in che waste to leacr. t_t cf
an unlir.ed municipal lar.dfili ir.tc groundwater ar.d ccr.tamir.ate
drinking water wells at levels of r.ealth or enviror.rrental ccr.cerr.
if ncc subject co Sabcitle C controls. The TC impIemer.Led an
improved leacnir.g procedure thac better predicts leaching and
added several hazardous waste constituents. Twenty-five organic
hazardous waste constituents were added to the TC and a model was
developed to predict their fate and transport in the groundwater.
If wastes exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic they are subject to
the hazardous waste management requirements of RCRA Subtitle C.
As discussed in the preamcle to the Toxicity Characteristic
Rule (March* 29, 1990, 55 7R 11313), 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 worx en 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. EPA's preliminary analysis indicates
that mercury that would leach out of landfills would not all
-------
necessarily travel far enough through the groundwater co
contaminate drinking water wells, depending on the distance ~z
tne well. A certain percent (still to be det-2r~ir.ee'. will
cc-mbir.e with ctr.er substances in the soil '.via cc~ple:
-------
or municipal r.cp.-hazardous wastes see 4C r~?. cart 251.5'
Generators of more than 130 kg of hazardous waste per ncr.tr. are
required to fully comply witn Federal r.azardcus waste regulaticr.s
'.althougn generators of between 100 ar.d 13GG kg cf r.azardous
waste per Tionth are subject to certain reduced regulatory
requirements).
For the purposes of this proposal "electric lamp" also
referred to as "lamp" is defined as tne bulb or tube portion of a
lighting device specifically designed to produce radiant energy,
most often in the ultraviolet, visioie, 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
lame. The Agency requests comment on whether the definitions of
"lamp" and 'mercury-containing lamp" are technically correct and
en whether tney 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 tne 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
oollution 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
profitaole, 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 T.etric
tons (4 percent of the national tocal), reductions of annual
sulfur dioxide emissions of 1.3 million metric tons (7 percent of
the national total), and reductions of annual nitrogen oxide
emissions of 600,000 metric tons (4 percent of the national
total). (U.S. EPA, 1992b)
In 1991, EPA initiated a voluntary energy conservation
program called "Green Lights" to encourage pollution prevention
-------
through energy efficienc lighting. Lighting accounts for 20-25
oercent of electricity used annually in che U.S. Lighting for
industry, businesses, offices, and warehouses represents 30-30
percent: of total lighting electricity use. Available
technologies in energy efficienc lighting can reduce lighting
eleccriciny demand by over 50 percent, enabling power planes 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, I992b). Further, the energy-efficient
fluorescent lamps, used by Green Lights and other energy
conservation programs, contain less mercury than energy-
inefficien- fluorescent lamps.
A gcal of Green Lights is to encourage the widespread use of
efficient lighting technologies to reduce air pollution from coal
combustion. Energy-efficient lighting technologies provide
excellent investment opportunities. A typical lighting upgrade
yields an internal rate of 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, and other businesses
througnout the U.S. Green Lignts 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 otner lighting control
technologies; installing more efficient luminaries or lighting
fixtures; and efficient maintenance practices, such as group
relamping and regular fixture cleaning.
3y signing a partnership agreement with the EPA, Green
Lights participants agree to survey and upgrade, within 5 years,
90 percent of all domestic facilities wherever profitaole and
wherever l.ghting quality is improved or maintained. In return,
these participants should receive reductions (savings) in their
monthly energy expenses. A good energy-efficient lighting
upgrade typically includes some type of control strategy (such as
occupancy sensors) that will reduce lamp burning hours. The
result is that the lamp will last longer and need to be replaced
less frequently. As of June 30, 1993, over 1,000 organizations
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 tr.e 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
aporoximateiy 350 four foot fluorescent lamps, that generator is
a large quantity generator due to lamps alone.
Despite the environmental and financial benefits of energy
efficient lighting systems, there are disincentives to
participating in an energy conservation program like Green
Lights. Establishing a comprehensive energy-efficient lighting
program and installing energy-efficient lighting technologies
require an initial investment that may be significant, depending
on the size and comprehensiveness of the project. Although Green
12
-------
Lights provides information to participants en financing options,
many profitable Lighting upgrade pro^ec-s are delayed due to
restricted availability of capital. It is especially difficult
for smaller businesses and government organizations co raise tne
necessary capital, although energy-efficient lighting investments
are low risk and in the long run will reduce costs. The
additional costs associated with managing, transporting, and
disposing of lighting wastes as hazardous wastes can create an
additional disincentive to join Green Lights and make the initial
investment in energy-efficient light technologies. For example,
under the hazardous wasce regulations, large quantity generators
are required to label boxes and drums, notify SPA 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, en 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 IS to 20 million dollars annually
Although the Green Lights program Tiay increase the nurrvoer 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. Indus cry 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
-------
(48.2 mg/lamp Co 41.6 mg/lamp) from 1985 Co 1990. Future
industry projections of mercury reductions by 1995 show an
estimated 35% further reduction (41.5 mg/lamp cc 27.0 -a/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 1:1 the municipal solid waste, accounting for 3.8% of
mercury r.cw going to MSW landfills. EPA encourages cost-
effective source reduction of mercury in fluorescent lamps.
O^portunit i-=s exist to reduce mercury content levels in both
standard 4-foot fluorescent lamps and the increasingly popular
compact fluorescent lamps (U.S. EPA, I993b). If source reduction
is pursued aggressively by the fluorescent lamp manufacturing
industry, the overall contribution of mercury from fluorescent
lamps to municipal solid waste could remain constant or decrease
over time even as fluorescent lamp usage increases.
15
-------
EPA requests comment: on industry and other source reduction
initiatives involving the reduction of mercury in fluorescent
lamps. Source reduction may be occurring tnrcugn •'•ore 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 tne
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 fcr
mercury. Specifically, SPA has reviewed leachate data fror.
municipal landfills and data on air emissions from municipal
waste combustcrs 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 landfills
is not presented due to a lack of data and the wide variability
in design and waste composition of other non-hazardous landfills.
16
-------
The Agency requests comment or. the data presented in this
section of the preamble. These data, alcr.g with any data
submitted in the public comment to tr.is proposal, will be used to
determine tne risk to human health and the environment from the
management cf used mercury-containing lamps. Also, some
information or. the risks of managing mercury-containing lamps in
landfills, ccmbustors 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. Grou.ndwa.car 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
accurate.'/ predict the movement cf mercury through the
groundwater system. The groundwater pathway for mercury is being
considered cecause 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 MCI,
despite some mercury disposal in MSW landfills EPA esti-.ates
chat approximately ^3% of municipal solid waste '.MSW) 15 placed
in municipal landfills, while 14% of Tiur.icipal 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 33% 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 3.3% respectively. The Agency
estimates that, assuming all lamps are disposed of in MSW
landfills, approximately 20 Mg of mercury would ce placed in MSW
landfills per year from used mercury-containing lamps. (U.S. SPA,
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 Tcxicity Characteristic (TO li^it
for mercury (0.2 mg/L). The average cf -hese MSVf leachate
analyses was 0.0008 mg/L mercury. The ma:
-------
In addition, the Agency reviewed 1390 and 1991 Superfund
Records of Decision (RODs) for information en municipal landfill
sices where mercury was listed as a ccr.tamir.anc cf concerr. ;CGC)
A total of twelve out of sixty-six 1330 ar.d 1331 RGDs for
landfills accepcing municipal waste listed mercury as a COC. 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 ar.d analysis suggest at this
time that mercury in municipal solid wastes is not being readily
released by 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 ccdisposed with municipal solid waste (Borden
et al., 133C/Gould et al. , 1383) . However, the Agency requests
chat commenters provide any MSW landfill leachate or grour.dwater
data, or data from industrial Subtitle D landfills, that EPA has
not considered in its analysis.
3. 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 elevacsd fish concentrations at many sites in Mir.r.esoca,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and ocher States, and these
elevated levels of mercury have ceen attributed ~c acTiospr.eric
deposition from non-specific sources (U.S. EPA, 1993a)
Therefore, E?A reviewed data on mercury emissions co air from a
number of sources, including those potentially relaced co lamp
disposal. EPA also considered available daca on the fate and
transport of mercury of mercury emitted Co 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 atmospneric deposition
of mercury compounds. The first factor is increased atmospheric
levels from mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants,
chloralkal- plants, iMWC facilities, and other sources. The
second facrcr is increased oxidation of atmospheric elemental
mercury vapor to more soluble cxidized forms which is enhanced by
anthropogenic (i.e., pollution from man-made sources) increases
in atmospheric oxidizing agents, sucn as ozone and inorganic
acids. Based on current mercury emissions inventories SPA
believes that major mercury emission source categories.include
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 IT. wr.ich a methyl ur.it
is added co either elemental cr oxidized -lercury The cnr.ary
environmental human exposure pathway for -nercury is tr.rougr. the
consumption of. contaminated fisn. Fish bioccncentration factors
(fish tissue concentration/water concentration) are as high as
35,000. 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, 19SO).
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 combuscors,
possibly landfill gas, as well as concerns with the handling and
disposal of mercury lamps. In this section, available
information will be discussed pertaining to the hazards of
mercury via air exposure.
1) Incineration
The Agency estimates that approximately 14% of U.S.
municipal solid waste is burned in municipal waste combustors
(MWCs), comprising 23 million metric tens (Mg) of waste.
Approximately 100 Mg of mercury-containing waste is burned in
22
-------
municipal waste ccmbustors, of whicn abouc 3 Mg/yr is mercury-
ccntainir.g lamps (U.S. EPA, 1S90). Because of its low ccilir.g
point:, elemental mercury ir. the waste is largely vaporized during
municipal wasc-e cotnoustion ar.d, wichcui concrcls specific zo
mercury, passes out cf the municipal wasce ccmoustcr into che
atmospnere wich "he flue gas. Measurements nave shown thac for
several municipal waste combustors wich 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, 1936/Reiman, 1939}. If we assume that 98% of the
me • try in incinerated municipal solid waste is volatilized
du__ .g combustion this would potentially generate 98 Mg/year
mercury emissions of this, about 2.9 Mg/year wculd be from
mercury-containing lamps. Post-combustion mercury control at the
municipal waste combustor's would reduce mercury levels by 30% to
90%.
EPA plans to propose mercury emission limits for new and
existing -unicipal waste combustors in 1994 {U.S. EPA, 13:-la) .
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 che tests, activated carbon was injected ir.tc trie fl-^e
gases upstream of the acid gas control syste-n ar.d collected fwitr.
the mercury) in the particulate matter ccncrol system. The asr.
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 oecause 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
stac.<, it is likely that mercury from a municipal waste ccmbustor
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 wnicn would,
when implemented, reduce these erxissicr.s.
2) Mercurv in Landfill Gas
EPA evaluated emissions of mercury in landfill gas emission
in its "Preliminary Risk Assessment:" which is available in che
public docket {EPA, 1993). SPA reviewed studj.es 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 (pom) of mercury, which, given
the standard error range, is comparable to the approximately 3.6
ppm of mercury in U.S. municipal solid waste (U.S. EPA, 1990) .
The Swiss study indicated that mercury concentrations in landfill
gases had a mean value of about 0.4 ^.g/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
escimated as 0.3 kg, about 0.0001 percer.t cf rhe total mercury
load, enter-rig M.SW landfills (S43 Mg) Ad^-isting ir.e proper tier.
cf total mercury contributed by mercury-containing lamps to the
MSW stream (3 3 percent), provides an estimate of annual landfill
gas emissions from lamps of about 0.03 kg, less tnan O.C0001
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 r.unicipal landfills. The study did not indicate the
level of mercury in the municipal landfills. Mercury was
measured using differential optical adsorption spectroscopy
(DOAS) , located two meters above the landfill, compared with
background mercury concentrations measured at each of the four
landfills. The mean ranged from 10.2 ng/m3 to 23.5 ng/m3 with
background mercury levels at 4 ng/m3 to 3ng/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 ceter-nir.ed that although the
quantification was uncertain because of a low signal-tc-.-.cise
ratio, the concentration above tne landfills was significantiv
above background mercury levels, indicating that mercury was
being released to the atmosphere However, since it is unknown
hew much mercury is found in Swedish municipal solid waste
landfills, the results of this study cannot be readily compared
to the situation in the U.S.
3) Crushing and Breakace of Lamps
Mercury remains in lamps until they are broken. When lamps
break, the elemental mercury inside becomes available for
evaporation, adsorption, or reaction. EPA modeled mercury
emissions from broken lamps based on two different methods of
transportation (EPA, 1993) . Discarded lamps may be transported
in one cf two ways: in refuse trucks as household or commercial
trash, ar.d in closed vans or trailers as part of a bulk relamping
program. 3ased 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
-------
cime the broken lamps are directly exposed Co the air and che
number of lamps broken. The Agency requests any available data
concerning releases of mercury during storage, transccr-a--_cr. and
waste management (e.g., landfill and recyclers/ activities.
C. Technical Considerations and Request for Comments
The available data on landfill leachace suggests that
mercury-containing lamps may ncc pose a Chreat to groundwater
when olaced in a scace-concrolled municipal landfill due co the
low levels of mercury found in landfill leachace.
However, available information also indicates Chac an
important route of exposure for mercury is bioaccumulation up the
food chain, causing mercury poisoning co both wildlife and humans
(i.e., through fish consumption). Although it is unclear how
mercury moves through the atmospnere and what conditions enhance
or retard it, information suggests that given the high vapor
oressure cf 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 bioaccumu.late in che
food chain.
The actual amount of mercury released from fluorescenc 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 or 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-ccr.caining 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 ce better -nar.aged eitr.er outside of
the hazardous waste system or ir. a reduced regulatory structure
within the hazardous waste system.
However, since there remain uncertainties in the data, more
information on the air exposure pathway for mercury from lamps
would facilitate a decision by EPA on the management of lamps.
Additional information could clarify which kind of reduced
management structure would be -nost 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 nazardous 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 -pajor difference between tr.ese
two options is whether lamps are disposed of under Sujctirle D
requirements cr under Subtitle C requirements. Recycling of
lamps would be allowed under either option.
If EPA concludes, after considering daca from the public
comment on this proposal, tnat 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, che 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. Cond-^-onal Exclusion
Section 3001 of RCRA charges EPA with identifying the
characteristics of hazardous waste and listing particular
hazardous wastes. Section 1004(5) of RCRA defines waste as
"hazardous" if the waste poses a "substantial present cr
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 tne conditions of the proposed
exclusion, may not pose a substantial present or future threat to
human health or the environment. Based, or. the Agency's autncritv
to identify characteristics of hazardous waste and the statutory
definition of hazardous waste, I?A 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, cr registered tiercury
reclamation facility; and
(2) generators would be required to keep a record of
the lamps shipped to management facilities.
The Agency is proposing to limit the exclusion to spent
lamps disposed in MSW landfills (requirements of MSW landfills
are discussed Later in this section}, rather than allowing
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 -nercury
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 ncnhazardous waste landfills. Based
on EPA's existing data and any additional data received, EPA may
expand tr.e exclusion to include disposal in non-municipal, solid
waste, Subtitle D disposal facilities.
While this proposed exclusion from Subtitle C of RCRA is
supported by data from municipal solid waste landfills .with a
range of design and operating conditions, EPA believes that
limiting the exclusion to spent lamps disposed only in MSW
landfills that are permitted by States or Tribes with EPA-
approved MSW landfill permitting programs will provide further
33
-------
assurance that human health and the environment will be
protected. In particular, these MSW landfill permitting controls
will provide added protection to the T\anaceT.er.- of tnese la-ips
In October 1391, EPA promulgated new requirements for
municipal solid waste landfills (40 C7R Part 253, 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
majority of landfill owners/operators accepting greater than 100
tons per day must comply with the majority of the requirements by
October 9, 1993. On October 1, 1993 (53 7R 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,Bribes 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
land'fill permitting programs. Further, States with "partial"
approval have agreed to an EPA approved schedule for full
approval. The Agency believes that limiting today's proposed
exclusion to landfills that are permitted by States that have
incorporated EPA's new municipal landfill standards will provide
further assurance that spent lamps will be safely managed in
municipal solid waste landfills. EPA requests comment on this
approach and any alternative approaches.
The second condition, which limits the proposed exclusion to
lamps managed in State permitted, licensed, or registered mercury
reclamation facilities, is also consistent with the Agency's
support for environmentally sound reclamation of waste. EPA
believes that with adequate State oversight, mercury containing
lamps can be safely recycled and the mercury reclaimed from them.
35
-------
However, EPA is concerned that, in States without oversight over
recyclers, recycling activities cculd pose a tnreat tc r.u-^an
health and the environment because of inadequate or ncr.-existent
waste management ccntrols. Therefore, the Agency is requesting
information cr. recycling cperaticr.s and practices. SPA is aware
that several technologies are available co recycle lamps and
recover mercury frcm them However, the Agency does not have
complete information on wnich tacnnologies 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, SPA would like
to know the operating capacity of existing or planned reyclers of
mercury-cent air.ir.g 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 ris,-:3 to
human health and the environment as well as to determine the
potential or actual use of the materials recovered from lamps in
the market.
Under the conditional exclusion, regulated lamp generators
(i.e., those that generate more than the conditional-exempt small
quantity generator (CESQG) limit of 100 kilograms of hazardous
waste per month which would be about 350 mercury-containing
36
-------
lamps) would not: be able Co send lamps to a municipal waste
combustor for disposal. EPA does not propose to extend the
exclusion to lamps disposed in municipal waste ccmcustors 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 tc 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 -nair.tain a written
certification indicating the disposal cr recycling location fcr
the lamps. The proposed certificaticn, 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 A.gency is proposing that separate documentation be
required for each shipment based on its oelief that most lamp
generation is sporadic (every three to four years) , as opposed to
on-going generation which would lead to a continuous relationship
with the same disposal or recycling facility. Given that the
life span of mercury-containing lamps is approximately three to
four years, businesses that participate in mass relampings would
38
-------
only dispose of their lamps every few years. Under the current
hazardous waste regulations, many of chese businesses would be
subject to hazardous waste regulation because mass relampir.g
could cause them to exceed the conditionally-exempt small
quantity generator level (approximately 350 four fooc 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 wich the conditions, the form and
frequency cf documentation proposed are appropriate.
In addition to requesting comment on the conditions cf the
exclusion, che Agency requescs 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 projection of human
health and the environment. EPA is incerested in data zr. tr.e
benefits, coses, and legal authority for any alternatives and tne
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 propcsed reduced regulatory structure, known as a special
collection system, is designed to ensure that management of these
hazardous Bastes 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.tne
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 wno
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-ccr.taining 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 £?A 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 Che risks of various management: methods for these wastes.
Comments received in response ~o that request are included in the
dccket for this proposal. The Agency will respond to these
comments in the final rule together wich ~hcse sucmitred 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 rr.anagemeriC.
Special collection system regulations also could remove seme
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).
3y removing some of the barriers to Subtitle C management
for lamps, a special collection system approach could minimize
concerns aocut decreased participation in the Green Lights
program by simplifying and clarifying the requirements for
mercury-c^r.zaining lamp collection wnile maintaining Subtitle C
control ever 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-contair.ir.g
lamps (after reaching the consolidation point) would be mere
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 -lercury-containing lamps) . In addition, the Agency
believes that spent mercury-containing lamps of some type Trust be
generated by almost every commercial and industrial establishment
in the country.
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" m
nature. The Agency requests comment on whether various types of
spent lamps (e.g., incandescent, r.ecn) , ether than -nerrury-
containir.g lanps, typically fail tne TC test (or exhibit ctr.er
characteristics) and would be hazardous waste under the current
RCRA Subtitle C toxicity characteristic (40 CFR 2SI.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 requirs-ents for generators, transporters, consolidaf.cn
pomes, 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
-------
che Agency of their storage activities. The Agency requests
comment on a notification requirement for generators ar.ci
consolidation points storing more char. 35,000 scent •nerri.ry-
containing lamps. This requirement is similar in substance tc
the notification requirement proposed in the Universal Wastes
rule (proposed §273.11(c) and §273.13(d) (58 FR 3129-8130)}. SPA
is suggesting a numerical limit rather than a weight 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 regulacory text is the same as that included in tr.e
universal wastes proposal for batteries(§273 12'b'i cf the
universal waste proposal). This accroach requires that the
manifest system be used (wnich triggers the ase of Hazardous
waste transporters) for shipments from the last consolidation
point co 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 ir. several comments on the universal wastes rule, would
be to req-ire that persons initiating and receiving shipments of
lamps retsin shipping papers documenting che shipments. 7ne
minimum data elements required for sucr. 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
-------
Agency is requesting comment on this second alternative because
it is believed that due to the large volumes of lamps, sr.ipmer.ts
are more likely to be made directly from the generator ~o a
destination facility. Records would be availaole 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 facilit_es 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 ~f. 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 tc store
and transport removed, used lamps. Ar.otner opticr. could ce to
impose a prohibition on intentional breakage cf 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 oe used to hold broken lamps for
transportation to the disposal site. In summary, the Agency
requests comment en 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, -he risks posed by tnese practices, and appropriate
technical rcntrols to minmize these risks while at the same time
not inhibiting collection and proper management. The Ager.cy 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 comma-r is
whether to include a 3 co 5 year sunset provision on the
universal waste syscem 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 C7R part 271 for the standards and requirements fcr
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 admir.is-eri.ig the Federal
prcgram in that State. The Federal requirements r.o longer
applied ir. the authorized £tare ar.d E?A zz-'.z. r.ci i=2_5 per-its
for any facili-y in tne State ..-.at rr.e Scare was autr.crized _o
permit When r.ew, --nore stringer.- Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State *as obliged to enact equivalent
authority witnin specified time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized State until the authorized
State adopted rhe requirer.enzs as State law.
In contrast, under section 3305-ig) cf RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
€925(g), new requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA
cake effect in autnorized States at tne same time that they take
effect in non-authorized States. ZPA is directed to implement
I-ISWA requirements and proniciticns in an authorized State,
including tne issuance of permits, jntil the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States must still adopt HSWA-
related previsions as State law to re_ain final authorization,
HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.
3. Effect on State Authorizations
The conditional exclusion and the universal waste management
system would not be HSWA regulations, and chus would not be
immediately effective in authorized States Thus, the exemption
would be applicable only in those States tnat do not have final
51
-------
authorization for the base (r.on-KSWA) portion of -he XCR
program.
Section 3C09 of R.CRA allows States ~z _-pcse rrcrs stnr.ger.t
regulations than the Federal prcgran. Accordingly, authorized
States are only required to -ncdify their programs when I?A
promulgates Federal regulations "hat are more stringent than the
authorized State regulations. For tnose 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.
Ever, tnough States will not ce required to adopt today' s
proposed options {if either is finalized), Z?A would encourage
States to do so. As already explained in the preamble, a
conditional exclusion of mercury-containing lamps or che addition
of lamps to the universal waste management system could reduce
barriers to participation in EPA's Green Lights program, which
encourages pollution prevention througn energy savings. Further,
52
-------
it ccuici help to clarify for "he regulated community t.-.e crocer
management of mercury-containing la^ps.
Ir. addition, the proposed options, cy -a'Cctooer 4, 1993M rhe Agency -"ust de-er-iine wr.e"her the
regulatory action, is "significant" ar.d tnerefore subject to OMB
review ar.d the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defir.es "significant regulatory acticn" as one that is likely to
result ir. a rule that may {!• r.ave an annual effect on the
economy of $103 "nillicn or more or adversely affect in a material
way tr.e ecor.cny, a sector of tr.s econcrry, productivity,
corpet 111 :r., ^ocs, tr.e environment, p-clic nealtr. or safety, or
State, Ijcal, or tribal governments or communities,- (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere witn an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter thai 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 sec forth i- -he
Executive Order.
Pursuant to ~he ter^s of Executive Crier L2 = €=, tr.is sectirr.
of the preamble summarizes tr.e ccsts (savings; and tr.5 eccr.cni:
impact analysis of {option 1) the prcpcsed -nercury-ccntair.ir.g
lamp exclusion and of (option 2) tne prcpcsed special collection
of mercury-containing lamps. Based upon tr.e economic iTpact
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
anriualized savings of approximately S93 -nillion, 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 mpact 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 cf the two options described in
tnis 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 cf human and
environmental exposure. The Agency is also aware that the two
54
-------
regulatory options may pose different worker and transportation
ir.jury risks as well as differer.- er.v-.rtr.-ental ris,
-------
generated in States where spent bulb management -emulations exist
•California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin! ;it was assumed t.-.at
these State controls would be more stringent -.-.an che cpticr.s
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
wnich 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 che 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 co be stabilized ar.ci disposed of ir. hazardous waste
Landfills The remainder, cased -per. vcl--e daca from i.-.e scene
mercury-ccncair.ing lame recovery industry, are recycled ^as-ed
~pon conversations wirh cr.e recycling ir.d-scry, A/.-.icr. in-icace
planned increases in recycling capacity, the analysis assumed a
small annual increase in cne caseline recycling race of -nercury-
cor.cair.ir.g lamps over "he firsc cr.ree years of cr.e analysis.
Unit coses for staDiiization, iandfilling, recycling and
hazardous waste transpcr* were applied on a per con basis.
Generator specific requirements which applied co all large
quar.cicy generators of spenc -nercury-cor.caining lamps included
record-keeping, -nanifescing, excepcicn reporting, and 3RS
(Biennial Reporting Sys-em; reporting. Ocher generator
requirements, including rule familiarizacion, nocificacion,
persor.ne. safecy training and emergency- planning were only
assessed for new facili-ies wnicn spec reiamp and score lup co 90
days for large quancicy generaccrs, ap co 130 days for snail
quancicy generacorsj spent lamps on sice. Ic is assumed chac
costs resulcing from generator requiremencs whicn are incurred en
^According to 40 CFR, 265 Subparc D of che Resource
Conser'/ation. and Recovery Ace, 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 ncn-sudden releases of hazardous wasce
constituents to air, soil, or surface water occur. Local
emergency response teams use the information required in che
contingency plan co minimize unancicipaced damage from che
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 ccsts twice a year •for
small quantity generators) or four tiTes per year (for large
quantity generators).
3 . Option 1: Conditional Exclusion fron Suotitle 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 forT 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
-------
Seme generators may have slightly r.igner disposal costs than
ethers as a resale of tne crcccsed sxd-sicr. :f Tercurv-
are cr.eir r.cr.-hazar-c _3
r crs , rr.e ccrrjoustcr excl-Sicr. Tay require cr.ese ger.era-crs
cc: 1] keep iheir sper.r lamps secaraze frcTi zr.e rest cf tr.eir
mur.icipai solid wasce, 2) sccre sper.t laTips en si'e ur.-il er.c^cr.
voiuTie has been ger.erared co T.a.o disposal ccs. effective, and 2 .-
r.aui spent lamps greater distar.ces tc -ur.izipal solid, -
lancf il Is .
Ir. s.icrt , overall savings ~^z ce acor-ed from the proposed
excl-sicn may vary slightly fr^m generator to generator.
4 . Cctior. 2 • Sceoial Cslleoticr. Ccsts
The second option, speoial collection, included in today's
proposal would allow small and large quantity generators of spent
mercury- rcntainir.g lamps tc reduce certain administrative
aotiviti-25 required under Subtitle C standards, including
oiennial reporting, nocif ication, T-anif est ing and personnel
training. Additionally the opcior. also allows generators to
store spent mercury-containing lamps or.-site fcr up to.or.e year
without a hazardous wasce 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 cclletticr.
centers." Transportation co tr.ese facilities or cer.-ers frcrr t.-.e
generator would not be regulated L.r.der Subtitle C standards,
however, transport to final disposal or recycling frcm these
facilities would be regulated under Subtitle C standards
The costs estimated for Special Collection Cption assumes
for urban generators direct shipment using non-nazaraous 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: 1) it is assumed that spent lamp generation is large
enough to create economies of scale for direct non-hazardous
waste transport; the need fcr special collection centers is
precluded cy non-hazardous waste transport "-nilk runs" fcr spent
iamos
, and 2; although there may be economies of scale generated
for long-naul transport of spent lamps from collection centers,
the special collection option requires Subtitle C transport from
the centers to final disposal or recycling, thus making the use
of a collection center with Subtitle C final transport more
expensive Chan Subtitle D direct transport to the disposal
facility.
SO
-------
5. Results
a. National Anr.ualized Costs Savings^
A summary of estimated national ar.r.ual compliance costs
associated with tr.e exclusion cccicr. and the special collection
option, 312-9 with estiTated caselir.e cc~pliar.ce costs are
presented celcw in exhibit VII L. Also presented are esti-st-ed
incremental savings acove baseline compliance costs for eacn
opcion. Costs were annualized over a twenty-year period, using
a 7% discount rate. The analysis used projected growth in tne
U.S. population over the twenty-year time frame cf the analysis
to. estimate tne increase in grcwtn of spent lamp generation.
Total estimated ar.r.ualized savings range between approximately
$85 million and S102 Tiillicr. for the exclusion and savings
estimates for the special collection option range between $15
•nillien and 520 million in savings.
The above savings esti-.ate is cased on the assumption in the
baselir.r tnat all facilities are properly managing their mercury-
con-aining scent lamps as Scccitle Z waste. Currently, however,
some lamp generators may not be aware that fluorescent lamps are
hazardous waste and therefore may not ce following Subtitle C
requirements. Hence, estimated savings may represent savings
from a future scenario of full compliance with current law,
rather than savings from current lamp management. EPA expects
that if no regulatory action is taken. Subtitle C management of
61
-------
mercury-containing Lamps will ceccne T.ore prevalent: over the next
few vears.
Exhibit VII.1. - ANNUALIZED COSTS (SAVINGS) OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
Costs (savings) are presented in ->il liens cf 1992
dcllars/vear:
REGULATORY OPTION
Baseline :
Option 1 :
Cption 2:
Subtitle C
Standards
Conditional
Exclusion from
Subtitle C
Special
Collection
TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS
$110 - $134
3E: S113
S25 - S32
3E: S25
$94 - 5115
3E:S101
INCREMENTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS/ (SAVINGS)
ABOVE BASELINE
NA
l$85) - ($102)
3E: ($93)
(SIS) - ($20)
BE: ($17)
3E = Sesc
b. Individual Generator Savings
Average total savings per generator for botn options were
simply assessed by dividing total savings by the estimated numbe:
of generators above (refer to the •nethcdclcgy section) . The
average annual baseline Subtitle C cost per generator»ds
estimated to be between $2,000 to $2,250 per generator. Average
per generator savings for the two deregulatory 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 o:
recycling facility, and regional disposal/recycling oosrs
EXHIBIT VII.2. - AVERAGE ANNUAL COST (SAVINGS)
PER REGULATED GENERATOR
Regulatory Option
AVERAGE ANNUAL COST
(SAVINGS)/GENERATOR
Exclusion from Subtitle C
Standards
i S1,5 C C) - High Savings Seen
i.S2,jQC; -low Savings Seen.
•Sl.cCO) - 3est Estimate
Scecial Collection
(33GG) - Hign Savings Seer
'S3GO) - Low Savings Seen,
(S3GC) - Best Estimate.
c. Savings Per Waste Lamp Generated
As with average savings per generator estimates, average
savings per waste lamp generated were derived cy simply dividing
total -peer and lower bound costs 'savings) by the estimated
nuiriber of *-aste lamps accounted for oy s-p.all and large r-_antity
generators in states without specific spent lamp management
standards. The average baseline Subtitle C cost per biilb 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 S.05 per bulb for th«
63
-------
special collection option. Again, cost per bulb may varv
significantly due site specific fsctcrs
5. Sensitivity Analysis
This section presents t.~e results of EPA's analysis cf tr.e
effects of varying selected T.a]cr parameters in the ccst analysis
(where the Agency used cor.sideracle j-dgment in arriving az tr.e
parameter's value) on the estimated savings incurred under the
proposed conditional exclusion and the proposed Universal Wasce
Rule. The following assumptions were analyzed in the sensitivity
analysis for EPA's analysis of spent lamp management costs-.
(I)' Percentage of Lamps Generated at Small and Large 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) Czsz to Transrcrt Subtitle C Waste - In the sensitivity
analysis, EPA increased the upper bcund estimates of tr.e costs of
transporting spent lamps as Subtitle C by a factor of three,
based on price quotes from commercial transporters, over original
estimates.
(3) Coat to Dispose of Subtitle C Waste - Based on price quotes
from commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities, SPA
64
-------
increased the upper bound estimates of the Subtitle c disposal
costs oy a factor cf fcur over original esti-ates
-.. --er
whetr.er a professional trainer would ce required ar.d ever new
Tianv e~c levees «C'_.ld r.eed te ce trained, ZrA increased ar.d
decreased "e rose cf employee -rair.ir.c required by EG percent
The ccscs associa-ed with the higr.-er.d scenario were
est mated using cne upper bcund esc mates for each cose eie-ner.t
included in the sensitivity analysis. The costs associated witn
che low-end scenario con-Lbined tne Icwer bound esciT.ates for each
cose element . The results from tnese two analyses suggest chat
tne range of total annual savings from tne proposed condicion
exclusion for spent lamps could be S65 T.illicn to S28S million,
and the range of cctal annual savings from the proposed Universal
Waste RC7LA requirements ftr generatcrs of spent lamps could be
31= million -2 539 Tiillion. The range in cost savings is mainly
the result cf uncertainty over Subtitle C transportation and
disposal rests for lamps. Althcugn EPA nas received price quotes
for manage -.enc of lamps as Subtitle Z waste tnac are considerably
higher than the average cose of managing nazardcus waste in
Subtitle C landfills, it is ncc appropriace to directly compare
price quotes Co engineering costs because the prices quotes
reflect a constrained market place which tends to inflate prices
well above costs. However, a three -fold difference oetween the
55
-------
once quotes for spent lamps and standard Subtitle C management
cost -nay also be due to other factors ceycnc the inflated pnoes
of. the constrained market, ir.cl-dir.g the low density of la~ps
.; i . e. a con of lamps nas a greater vcl-Te t.-.ar. a tor. of r,azaric_5
waste sludge; , cr difficulty in nar.dlir.g la.rps E?A requests
comment on the true costs, as well as tne reasoning benin-d tnese
costs, of managing spent lamps as Subtitle C waste
3. Proposed Rule Impacts
1. I-noacts on Generators of Mercury- Containing Waste Lamcs_
As indicated above, option '., che exclusion, is estimated to
result in average annual savings per snail and large quantity
spent lamp generator ranging frora 52,3CC to 52,250. Option 2,
special collection, is estimated to result in an average anr.-al
per generator savings of approximately S300.
2. Secondary Srfects
While total incremental savings from tne proposed exclusion
'option I) and from the proposed special collection syste"
[option 2: over a Subtitle C management approach appear to oe
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
fi.e. net savings), the Agency dees 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 -he exception ~i lar.ps generated in
States with existing lamp disposal requirements, rest small and
large quantity generators of T\er-'iry containing la-ps will cnocse
to dispose of their waste la^ps 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 disposal*.
Subsequently, most waste lamps currently being nandled according
to Subtitle C standards by permitted hazardous waste haulers,
disposal sites and spent la~p 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 wculd be affected positively under option
T
.L
The exclusion, option 1, nay also have an impact upon
mercury-ccntaining lamp processors. The Agency estimates that
there are currently 15 facilities whicn process spent.mercury-
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 S35 as compared to S400 per ton for Suctitle C
disposal and $1375 per ton for recycling.
67
-------
and aluminum ends, and send the mercury-containing phosphor
powder to the two facilities tr.at retcrt Ten of tne 15 l3~p
processing facilities are located in tr.e tr.ree States *r.er-r sper.t
larrp management regulaticr.s exist. Altr.cugh rest reccvery
facilities are located ir. States witn stringent State lamp
disposal requirements, and would mcst likely will not be affected
by today's proposed exclusion, a certain percentage of tne spent
lamps currently recovered at these facilities are generated in
States with no specific lamp disposal requirements. IPA believes
tnat a portion of mercury-ccr.tainir.g lamps would no longer be
sent1 for recovery under the proposed exclusion {option 1) since
disposal in municipal landfills would oe significantly less
expensive3. Assuming that lamps generated outside of these
States will not be sent for recovery, it is possible that 17
percent, or 15 million lamps, may be diverted. Using a
lame/revenue ratio for recovery facilities of 3.44, total impact
to tne industry could be approximately S7 tiillion dollars' in
lost reven-es ($459,000 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 cost of $1375 ?e:
ton, Subtitle D landfilling is significantly less expensive.
'Similar estimates were not derived for Subtitle C waste
haulers or disposal sites.
55
-------
plans for expansion in Stages which currenciy have no specific
iaT.p disposal requirements
Under option 2, the preceded special collect icr. = yst-=~,
scnall ar.d large quantity generators «culc: not ce all
choose ~o dispose of hazardous waste lanps ir. a municipal solid
waste landfill. Thus the accve impacts on Subcicie C waste
haulers, disposal and spent lamp processing facilities would ncc
be observed under che second option.
VIII . REFERENCES
Baccini, ?., G. rlensier, R Figi, and H. Belevi . 1937. Water and
Element Balances of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste
Mar.acemenc and Research. 5:433-493
Border., ?. C., and T.M. Yanoshak. 1350. Ground and Surface Water
Quality I-npacts of North Carolina Sanitary Landfills. Wa t e r
Res.:'jrces Bulletin . 2 € •. 2 ' 259-277
Sichholz, C.3., Petelka, M.F., Xury, R.L. 1535. Migration of
Elemental Mercury througn Soil from Smulated Burial Sites.
Water Resources. 22(1): 269-277
Gould, J.P., r.G. Pohland, and W.H. Cross. 1988. Mobil-ization and
Retention of Mercury and Lead from Particulates Co-disposed
with Municipal Solid Waste. Partioulate Science and
Technology. 5:381-392.
69
-------
Kirschner, D.S., R.L. Billau, and T.J. MacDcnaid. 1938.
Fluorescent: Light Tube Compaction: Evaluation of Employee
Exposure to Airborne Mercury. Acslied Indus-rial Hvrier.e
3 : 129-131.
Menr.erich, A. 1933. Laboratory Scale Test Sin\ulauing Co-d^spcsal
in Landfills. In: Proceedir.gs -- Incernacional Cor.ferer.ee en
New Frontiers for Hazardous Wasce Managemenc. U.S. EPA,
SO/9-351025.
Metzger, M., and H. Brown. 1337 ir.-si-u Mercury Speciation in
Flue Gas by Liq^aid and Solid Sorption Systems. Chemc sphere.
16 (4) -.321-332 .
NEMA. 1992. The Management of Spent: Elec-ric Lamps containing
Mercury. National Electrical Manufacturers Association.
Washington, D.C.
National Environmental ?rocec~ion Board and Swedish Association
of ?-.siic Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. 1989 Cff-
gassing of Mercury Vapor from Landfills. Depa-90 Report No.
5 . Sweden.
Reimann, D.O. 1989. Heavy Metals in Domestic Refuse and their
Distribution in Incinerator Residues. Water Waste Management
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 ar.d Watershed
Characteristics in relation to Mercury Ccr.cer.tra-icr.s ir.
Water, Sediments, Plankton, ar.d Fis.i of eighty r.orzr.err.
Minnesota La.
-------
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Green Lights Program-. The First Year, u S. EPA.
Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, I C.
U S. EPA. 1993a. Management of Used Fluorescent La-ps
Preliminary Risk Assessr.er.t U S EPA Cffice of Solid
Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1592s. Report of t.-.e National Technical ?cr-^i en Source
Reduction of Heavy Metals in Municipal Solid Waste. U.S.
SPA. 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. 1935. The
Specific Role of Cadmium and Mercury in Municipal Solid
Waste Incineration. Waste Management and Research. 4:65-74.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's proposed
rule have seen submitted for approval to t.-.e Cffice of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.3.C.
3501 e_t 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) 2SO-2"40.
72
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. (2136);
Washington, D.C. 20460 or by calling (222) 250-2740.
The public record keepir.g curder. fcr -.-.is collect LOT. cf
inforniation is estimated to average -i ~ r.o-rs cer response
annually, including time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the required
data, and completing and reviewing tne 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. 20460; 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 CMS or puolic comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires
Federal agencies to consider "small entities" throughout the
regulatory process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial
screening analysis to be performed to determine whether small
entities will be affected by the regulation. If affected small
entities are identified, regulatory alternatives must be
73
-------
considered to mitigate the potential impacts. Small entities as
described in the Act are cr.ly t.-.cse "businesses, organizations
and governmental jurisdictions s^b^eot to regulation "
The only en~i~ies directly suo^ect to today's proposed rule
are small and large quantity generators of spent rr.ercury
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 -ncnth. 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 reiamp and generate in excess of 346 spent
fluorescent lamps in a given -ncntn); however the Agency does not
have an estimate of the number of such "small entities."
However, both of the proposed options ara expected to result in
net savings to the regulated entities. Option 1, excluding
mercury containing lamps from Subtitle C management standards, is
estimated co 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 botn options, EPA has
determined that small regulated entities will not be adversely
74
-------
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Progra
Mercury-containing Lamps; Proposed Rule
impacted, arid thus, r.o "mitigating" ccticr.s are cei-g analyze;
rr.is section.. Hence, pursuant tc section 505 c> of ~r.e
Regulatcry Flexibility Act, 5 "J S.C. 505 \b), "tne Administrate
certifies tr.at this rule will r.ct have a significant eccncrnic
iTiDact en a substantial r.urocer cf entities "
Date Carol M. Browne:
Administrator
75
-------
Hazardous Haste 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 noc 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 OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
In 261.4, paragraph (bMlS) is added ^o read as follows-
2SI.4 Exclusions
-------
OPTION 2
PART 273 -- STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM WASTES
3. A table of contents for S^crart D is added zz the tacle
of ccr.ter.ts 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 Expert requirements.
§§ 273.36 - 273.33 Reserved.
4. The authority citation for Part 273 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5322, 5323, 6324, 5325, S33Q, and
5337.
5. Definitions for "electric lamp" also referred to as
"lamp" and "mercury-containing lamp" are added to Section 273.3,
in alphabetical order, to read
as follows:
78
-------
273.3 Sefinitions.
Electric lamp means tr.e culb cr tuce
device specifically designed ~o crcd_ce radiant energy, -cs"
often in ~r.e -l-raviclet 'JV^ , visicle, ar.d ir.fra-red .'I?.;
regions of the electromagnet:ic spectrum. Examples of common
electric lamps include, bu- is noc limited to, incandescenc,
fluorescent, high intensity discharge, and neon lamps.
Mercurv-ccntainir.g lams is an electric lanp in which mercury
is purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of
the lamo.
5. Subpart D is added to Part 273 to read as follows:
Subpart 0 - Lamps that are Hazardous Wastes
§ 273.3C Applicability.
ta) Covered wastes.
(1) This subpart sets forth standards for managing lamps
that are hazardous wastes.
(2) Lamps that are hazardous wastes and that are not managed
in compliance with the requirements of this Part must be managed
79
-------
under the hazardous wasce regulations in 40 CFR Pares 260 througn
2~2 of this chapcsr.
(b) Household, ar.d Ccr.dit icr.allv Zxe-tt --all C'-ar." iv
Generator Waste Larrcs .
(I; Persons managing tr.e wastes listed below ~ay, at their
occicn, manage -hem under the requirements of this subparc
without changing the wastes' exempt status:
(i) Household hazardous waste lamps that are exempt under 40
CFR 251.4(b)(1); and/or
(11) Conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous
waste lamps that are exempt under 40 IFR 261.5.
(2) Persons who commingle nousehold hazardous waste lamps
and/or conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous
waste lamps together wit.i hazardous waste lamps regulated under
this subpart must T.anage the ccmmingled larr.ps 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 tne
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
•r\cre of the characteristics identified in 40 C7R Part 2€i,
Subpart C.
(b) Condition of hazardous waste la~cs.
A generator cf hazardous waste larr.ps rr.ust at all times:
('!/ Contain unbroken lamps in packaging t.-.at will -Ti.iimize
breakage during r.or-nal handling conditions,- and
(2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize
releases of lamp fragments and residues.
(c) Storace.
(1) A generator may store a hazardous waste lamp for no
longer than one//ear fron the date the lamp became a waste.
(2) A generator who stores nazardous waste lamps must be
able to demonstrate that lamps are not stored for more than one
year fron tne date tney became a waste. A generator may make
this demonstration by
d) rlacing the lamps in a container and -narking or labeling
the container witr. tne earliest date tr.at 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 tr.at identifies the
earliest date that any lamp in a grcup cf la^ps beca-.e a vaste,-
or
!v; Placir.g the lamps ir. a specific storage area and
identifying tr.e earliest date tnat any lamp in t.-.e storage area
became a waste.
(d) Notification.
(1} A generator who stores mere than 35,000 Hazardous waste
lamps at any ti:?e must have, before exceeding the 35,000 lamp
quantity limit, sent written notification of hazardous waste lamp
storage to the Regional Administrator and received an E?A
Identification Number.
(2) This notification must include:
(i) The generator's name and -nailing address;
in) The name and business telephone number of the person at
the generator's site who should be contacted regarding the lamp
storage activity;
(ni; The address or physical location of tne lamp storage
activity;
(iv) A statement indicating that the generator stores more
than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
(e) Prohibitions.
A generator of hazardous waste lamps is:
(1) Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
82
-------
(2) Prohibited from creating tnero, except oy responding to
releases as provided in paragraph >f! 2! of tr.is section, and
(3) Prohibited from sending cr ta.
-------
(1) (i) A transporter muse at ail times contain unbroken
lamps in packaging that will minimize breakage durir.g normal
handling and transport conditions; and
(11) A transporter must at all times contain broker, lamps i:
packaging that will minimize releases of lamp fragments and
residues.
(2) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps may only store
them at a transfer facility for ten days or less.
(3) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps is prohibited
from:
(i) Diluting or disposing of them;
(11^ Treating them, except by responding to releases as
provided in paragraph (a) (4) of this section; and
(in) 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 oreakage.
di) A transporter must immediately contain all releases of
residues from hazardous waste lamps.
(iii) A transporter must determine whetner 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
-------
(b) Shipments from a consolidation point to a destination
f acil i tv
A transporter who transports s.-.ip~er.t3 frc- a consolidation
ccir.r to a destination facility TUS- comply vitr. 43 I??. Par. 2-53
§ 273.53 Consolidation PCI.-.- recr-ireT.er.-s .
(a j Ccr.ciirior. of La^cs .
The owner or operator of a consolidation point managing
hazardous waste lamps must at all times:
(1) Contain unbrcKen lamps in packaging that will minimize
breakage during ncr-nal handling conditions ; and
i2) Contain croken lamps in packaging that will minimize
releases of lamp fragments and residues.
(!• T.-.e owner or operator of a consolidation ocinz may stcre
a hazardc_= wasce lamp for no longer tnan one year frcm the date
z.-.at the cvner or operator receives it
(21 Tr.e owner or operator of a consolidation point w-.o
stores hazardous waste lamps must be acle to demonstrate thac
lamps are not stored for more than one year from the date they
were received. The owner or operator may maKe this demonstration
by:
35
-------
(i) Placing the lamps in a container and marking or labeling
tr.e container with the earliest date tr.at any la~p in t.-.e
container was received;
(11) Marking or labeling an individual larp witn tne date
than it was received;
(111) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the
date eacn lamp in storage */as received,
(iv) Maintaining an inventory system tnat identifies tr.e
earliest date that any lamp in a group of lamps was received; or
(v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and
identifying tne earliest date that any lamp in the storage area
was received.
The owner or operator of a consolidation point managing
hazardous waste lames is:
(1. Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them,
•'2' Prohibited from treating tne*?., except by responding to
releases as provided in paragi'apn d) 2' of tnis section, and
(3) Prohibited from sending or taking them any place other
than a consolidation point, destination facility, or foreign
destination.
(d) Lamp Management.
36
-------
(1) The owner or operator of a. consolidation point muse at
all times manage hazardous waste lamps in a way that mini-.izes
lamp breakage.
(2! 'i' The cwr.er cr operator cf t.-.e consolidation point ^us
i-mediately ccr.~air. all releases cf resid-es frcm r.azardcus wasc
lamps.
'11; The cor.soiidacior. cc.r.r cwr.er/operaccr muse determine
whecher ar.y materials resulting frcm the release are hazardous
wastes, ar.d if so, the cwner.''operator must mar.age them in
accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260
through 272.
,'3.' The consolidation poir.t owner or operator muse ensure
tr.at all employees are thorcugr.lv familiar with proper waste
handling and emergency procedures, relative to tneir
resccnsibiiities during normal facility operations and
emergencies.
e; Met ifination.
;1) (;'. .-. ronsclidaeion point owner or operator who stores
more than 35,000 nazardous waste lamps ae any time must have,
before exceeding the 35,000 lamp quantity limit, sent written
notification of hazardous waste lamp storage to the Regional
Adminiserator and received an EPA Idencificaeion Mumber.
(ii) This notification must include.
(A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
37
-------
(B) The name and business telephone number of the person who
snould be contacted regarding trie lamp storage activity,
(C) The address or physical Iccaticr. cf tne La~p st;r=re
activity;
(2,1 A statement indicating that the owner cr operatcr stcres
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, wno is not required to notify
under paragraph Je) II) of this secticn, must have, before
initiating the shipment, sent written notification of hazardous
waste lamp snipments to a destination facility to the Regional
Administrator and received an EPA Identification Number.
(11; This notification must include:
(A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
(E) A statement that tne owner cr operator intends to snip
nazardcus waste lamps to a destination facility;
(C) The name and business telephone nurier cf the person wnc
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
38
-------
facility must comply with Subpart 3 of Par- 262 and §§ 252.30
through 262.33, 262 40 (a) , 252 40 a:, and 262 42 cf tr.is r.-.apter
when initiating a smpaent.
§ 273 34 Cestir.aticm facility reouire-e.-.ts
(as Owners cr operators cf destination facilities tnat
racycle, treat, store, cr dispose cf hazardous waste lamps must
comply wi-h ail applicable reqMireter.cs of Paris 254, 255, 2SS,
253, 270, ar.ci 124 of chis chapcar, ap.d the r.ccificacicr.
requirement ander sec-ion 3010 of RCRA.
(b) Owners and operators of destination facilities that
recycle r.azardcus /^aste lamps witr.cut storing tnem befcre they
are recycled Trust comply witn 40 CrR 261. 5 [c) {2} .
§ 273.35 Zxccrt requirements.
^a' A generator vho sends r.azardcus waste laTips to a foreign
destination, witncut first sending them to a consolidation point
or destination facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary
exporter in 40 C?R §§ 262.S3, 262.5S(a)
-------
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for
the shipment co the transporter transporting tne 3r.ipre.-t fcr
export.
(b) A transporter transporting a shipment cf nazardcus vaste
lamps to a foreign destination -nay net accept a snipnrent if tne
transporter
-------
(3) Provide a copy of che EPA Acknowledgement of Consent f
che shipment: to the Transporter transporting the snip-en- fcr
export.
(d) A destina-icn facility sending .-.azaric.-s waste la-ps
a foreign destination ~ust also zc~ply wi~n tr.e generatcr
recuirements of Part 252 cf tnis chapter, and virn 43 CF?. §§
264.71 (c) or 265 71 (c) pertaining to initiating the manifest
- -vv-
91
-------
United States Solid Waste and
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA530-F-94-022
Agency (5305) July 1994
Office of Solid Waste
&EPA Environmental
Fact Sheet
Options Proposed for Managing
Discarded Fluorescent and Other
Lights that Contain Mercury
Background
Mercury-containing lamps include fluorescent, high-pressure
sodium, mercury vapor, and metal halide lamps. Fluorescent and high
intensity discharge (HID) lamps are energy efficient and consume less
electricity, reducing the generation of pollution from utility plants.
However, these lamps generally are considered hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
because of their mercury content. Therefore, fluorescent and other
mercury-containing lamps must be disposed of as hazardous waste
(unless they are generated by households or conditionally exempt small
quantity generators).
Many existing and planned energy conservation programs
encourage the installation of energy efficient lighting systems,
including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) voluntary
energy conservation program, Green Lights. Fluorescent bulbs are the
most commonly used energy efficient lights, with approximately one
billion in use throughout the U.S. About half—or 500 million—of these
lamps are disposed of by large-scale facilities, both public and private.
Upgrading and maintaining energy efficient lighting systems often
means that businesses replace all of their lamps at once. As a result,
some businesses become hazardous waste generators of mercury-
containing lamps when they normally are exempt from Subtitle C
regulation.
Action
This proposal contains two options for managing spent mercury-
containing lights (such as, fluorescent bulbs and HID lamps).
• Option one would exclude mercury-containing lamps from
regulation as hazardous waste if they are disposed of in
municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) that are registered.
permitted, or licensed by states with EPA approved MSWLF
permitting programs, or in state registered, permitted, or licensed
-------
mercury-reclamation facilities. Under this option, incineration of
lamps In municipal waste combustors would be prohibited.
• Option two would add mercury-containing lamps to the proposed
universal waste system for certain widely generated hazardous
wastes (primarily nickel-cadmium batteries and cancelled
pesticides). This option would allow generators to ship their
lamps without a hazardous waste manifest and store lamps for a
longer period of time.
EPA is considering these two options for the management of spent
mercury-containing lamps based on data which indicate that these
lamps may be safely managed outside of the RCRA hazardous waste
system or within a reduced regulatory structure under it.
Contact
For more information or to order a copy of the Federal Register
notice, contact the RCRA Hotline, Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:30
p.m. EST. The national, toll-free number is (800) 424-9346: TDD (800)
553-7672 (hearing impaired); in Washington, D.C.. the number is (703)
412-9810, TDD (703) 412-3323.
Copies of documents relevant to this action may be obtained by
writing: RCRA Information Center (RIC), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste (5305), 401 M Street SW, Washington.
D.C. 20460.
------- |