[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18045]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 27, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 273
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste
Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps; Proposed Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 273
[FRL-5020-1]
RIN 2050-AD93
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous
Waste Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mercury-containing lamps (light bulbs) may be hazardous waste
under the Toxicity Characteristic Rule issued under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and if so, must be managed as a
hazardous waste, unless they are a household waste or are generated by
an exempted small quantity generator. Mercury-containing lamps include
fluorescent, high pressure sodium, mercury vapor and metal halide
lamps. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today seeking
comment on two alternative approaches for the management of mercury-
containing lamps. First, EPA is seeking comment on whether an exclusion
from regulation as hazardous waste is appropriate for mercury lamps,
provided they are disposed in municipal landfills that are permitted by
States/Tribes with EPA approved municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill
permitting programs or managed in mercury reclamation facilities that
are permitted, licensed or registered by States/Tribes. The second
approach would add mercury lamps to EPA's Universal Waste Proposal
(February 11, 1993, 58 FR 8102). The Universal Waste approach is a
streamlined, reduced regulatory structure, which is designed to address
the management of certain widely generated wastes currently subject to
full Subtitle C RCRA regulations.
Today's proposal presents management options that would be
considered less stringent than the existing Federal regulations because
they would exempt certain activities now within the purview of RCRA
Subtitle C (hazardous waste management). Therefore, States authorized
under RCRA section 3006 to administer and enforce a hazardous waste
system in lieu of the Federal program would be allowed flexibility in
modifying their programs to adopt less stringent regulations regarding
the management of mercury-containing lamps, should one of the proposed
options be promulgated as a final rule.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or before
September 26, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Persons who wish to comment on this notice must provide an
original and two copies of their comments, include the docket number
(F-94-FLEP-FFFFF), and send them to EPA RCRA Docket (OS-305), U.S. EPA,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA Docket is located at
Room M2427, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials,
the public must make an appointment by calling (202) 260-9327. The
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no
cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline toll free at (800) 424-9346. In the Washington,
DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810. For information regarding
specific aspects of this notice, contact Valerie Wilson, Office of
Solid Waste (mail code 5304), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-4678.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. The Toxicity Characteristic
B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs
C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives
III. Technical Information
A. Groundwater Impacts
B. Air Impacts
1. Incineration
2. Mercury in Landfill Gas
3. Crushing and Breakage
C. Technical Considerations and Requests for Comments
IV. Management Options
A. Conditional Exclusion
B. Universal Waste System
1. Background
2. Special Collection System for Lamps
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect of State Authorizations
VII. Economic Impact Analysis
A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for Regulatory Options Considered
1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Spent Lamp Generators
2. Baseline Costs
3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion from Subtitle C Standards
Costs
4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
5. Results
B. Proposed Rule Impacts
1. Primary Effects
2. Secondary Effects
VIII. References
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Legal Authority
These regulations would be promulgated under the authority of
sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001-3007, 3010, 3013, 3016-3017, 3018 and 7004
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a),
6921-6927, 6930, 6937-6938, 6939 and 6974 (commonly referred to as
RCRA).
II. Background
A. The Toxicity Characteristic
Under section 3001 of the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with
defining which solid wastes are hazardous by identifying the
characteristics of hazardous waste and by listing particular hazardous
wastes. Toxicity is one of the four characteristics used by EPA to
identify waste as hazardous (along with ignitability, corrosivity, and
reactivity). EPA promulgated the Extraction Procedure Toxicity
Characteristic (EPTC) on May 19, 1980. The EPTC regulated eight metals,
four insecticides, and two herbicides. Section 3001(g) of RCRA, added
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, required
EPA to revise the EPTC. On March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), the EPA
promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) to revise the existing
EPTC. Like the EPTC, the TC and its associated testing methodology, the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is used to define the
toxicity of a waste by measuring the potential for the toxic
constituents in the waste to leach out of an unlined municipal landfill
into groundwater and contaminate drinking water wells at levels of
health or environmental concern if not subject to Subtitle C controls.
The TC implemented an improved leaching procedure that 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 preamble to the Toxicity Characteristic Rule
(March 29, 1990, 55 FR 11813), the regulatory levels for the TC metals
were not changed by the promulgation of the final TC rule. EPA retained
the regulatory levels set by the EPTC rule, pending further study of
the fate and transport of metals in groundwater.
The Agency is continuing longer-term developmental work on a metal
speciation model, called MINTEQ, to be used to evaluate the fate and
transport of the TC metals (including mercury) for purposes of
reassessing the toxicity characteristic regulatory levels for the TC
metals. EPA's preliminary analysis indicates that mercury that would
leach out of landfills would not all necessarily travel far enough
through the groundwater to contaminate drinking water wells, depending
on the distance to the well. A certain percent (still to be determined)
will combine with other substances in the soil (via complexation,
adsorption, etc.) to form solid substances and remain in the soil.
Therefore, the regulatory limits for mercury if re-assessed using the
MINTEQ model, when completed, might be higher (less stringent) than the
current limits because mercury may be less mobile than the current TC
rule indicates. However, these studies are still ongoing (U.S. EPA,
1991b).
Available data (included in the docket for this proposal) indicate
that as a result of the use of mercury in the production of fluorescent
and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, a relatively high percentage
of these lamps, when spent, exhibit the characteristic of toxicity.
(U.S. EPA, 1992a) However, all generators of spent lamps that exhibit
the toxicity characteristic may not have to manage those lamps as
hazardous waste. EPA has specified different requirements for
generators of hazardous waste depending on the amount of hazardous
waste generated per month. Conditionally-exempt small quantity
generators (CESQG) generate less than 100 kilograms (kg) of hazardous
waste each month and can send their waste to a hazardous waste
facility, or may elect to send their wastes to a landfill or other
facility approved by the State for industrial or municipal non-
hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR 261.5). Generators of more than 100 kg of
hazardous waste per month are required to fully comply with Federal
hazardous waste regulations (although generators of between 100 and
1000 kg of hazardous waste per month are subject to certain reduced
regulatory requirements).
For the purposes of this proposal ``electric lamp'' also referred
to as ``lamp'' is defined as the bulb or tube portion of a lighting
device specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in
the ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red regions of the electromagnetic
spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps include but are not limited
to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity discharge, and neon
lamps. Also, a ``mercury-containing lamp'' is defined as an electric
lamp in which mercury is purposely introduced by the manufacturer for
the operation of the lamp. The Agency requests comment on whether the
definitions of ``lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp'' are technically
correct and on whether they accurately define the appropriate universe
of items.
B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs
Today's proposal, which would reduce management requirements for
lamps, is expected to support the efforts of many existing and planned
energy conservation programs, which encourage the installation of
energy efficient lighting. Energy efficient lighting consumes less
electricity, reducing the generation of pollution from power plants.
However, replacing energy inefficient lighting systems with energy
efficient lighting systems requires the use and eventual disposal of
fluorescent and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, which contain
mercury. Requiring the disposal of lamp wastes as hazardous waste,
under full Subtitle C regulations, may discourage participation in
energy efficient lighting programs. The Agency anticipates that either
of the proposed actions will encourage participation in energy-
efficient lighting programs, and will therefore promote the energy-
efficiency and the environmental benefits derived from that program.
If energy-efficient lighting were used wherever it is profitable,
the nation's demand for electricity could be cut by more than 10
percent. This would result in reductions of estimated annual carbon
dioxide emissions of 202 million metric tons (4 percent of the national
total), reductions of annual sulfur dioxide emissions of 1.3 million
metric tons (7 percent of the national total), and reductions of annual
nitrogen oxide emissions of 600,000 metric tons (4 percent of the
national total). (U.S. EPA, 1992b)
In 1991, EPA initiated a voluntary energy conservation program
called ``Green Lights'' to encourage pollution prevention through
energy efficient lighting. Lighting accounts for 20-25 percent of
electricity used annually in the U.S. Lighting for industry,
businesses, offices, and warehouses represents 80-90 percent of total
lighting electricity use. Available technologies in energy efficient
lighting can reduce lighting electricity demand by over 50 percent,
enabling power plants to generate less electricity and burn less fuel.
It also reduces other types of pollution resulting from mining and
transporting power plant fuels and disposing of power plant wastes
(U.S. EPA, 1992b). In addition, electric utilities, when burning fossil
fuels, emit mercury at a rate of 0.0428 mg/kWh sold, on a national
average. Full implementation of Green Lights is estimated to reduce the
emission by 9.7 Mg of mercury by the year 2000 (U.S. EPA, 1992b).
Further, the energy-efficient fluorescent lamps, used by Green Lights
and other energy conservation programs, contain less mercury than
energy-inefficient fluorescent lamps.
A goal of Green Lights is to encourage the widespread use of
efficient lighting technologies to reduce air pollution from coal
combustion. Energy-efficient lighting technologies provide excellent
investment opportunities. A typical lighting upgrade yields an internal
rate of return of 20-30 percent and a payback of 3-4 years.
Green Lights participants include: Corporations; State, city, and
county governments; lighting manufacturing and management companies;
electric utilities; non-profit organizations; and hospitals,
universities, and other businesses throughout the U.S. Green Lights
encourages the establishment of comprehensive energy-efficient lighting
programs within an organization that include: Converting from less-
efficient fluorescent to more-efficient fluorescent lamps; converting
from incandescent to compact fluorescent lamps; converting from
magnetic to electronic lighting ballasts; installing occupancy sensors,
daylight dimmers, and other lighting control technologies; installing
more efficient luminaries or lighting fixtures; and efficient
maintenance practices, such as group relamping and regular fixture
cleaning.
By signing a partnership agreement with the EPA, Green Lights
participants agree to survey and upgrade, within 5 years, 90 percent of
all domestic facilities wherever profitable and wherever lighting
quality is improved or maintained. In return, these participants should
receive reductions (savings) in their monthly energy expenses. A good
energy-efficient lighting upgrade typically includes some type of
control strategy (such as occupancy sensors) that will reduce lamp
burning hours. The result is that the lamp will last longer and need to
be replaced less frequently. As of June 30, 1993, over 1,000
organizations have joined the Green Lights program. These organizations
have committed over 3.5 billion square feet of facility space to the
program.
The Green Lights Program encourages the use of energy-efficient
lamps using an initial and scheduled periodic relampings to achieve
higher energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. These relampings
involve removal and replacement of all lamps in a building or in an
area at one time, as opposed to replacement of lamps as they burn out.
An initial lighting upgrade and group relamping may result in a large
number of fluorescent lamps that require disposal. In some instances, a
participant that would usually be a conditionally exempt small quantity
generator, could become a large quantity generator of hazardous waste
due to the large number of lamps generated in one month. In general, if
a generator disposes of more than approximately 350 four foot
fluorescent lamps, that generator is a large quantity generator due to
lamps alone.
Despite the environmental and financial benefits of energy
efficient lighting systems, there are disincentives to participating in
an energy conservation program like Green Lights. Establishing a
comprehensive energy-efficient lighting program and installing energy-
efficient lighting technologies require an initial investment that may
be significant, depending on the size and comprehensiveness of the
project. Although Green Lights provides information to participants on
financing options, many profitable lighting upgrade projects are
delayed due to restricted availability of capital. It is especially
difficult for smaller businesses and government organizations to raise
the necessary capital, although energy-efficient lighting investments
are low risk and in the long run will reduce costs. The additional
costs associated with managing, transporting, and disposing of lighting
wastes as hazardous wastes can create an additional disincentive to
join Green Lights and make the initial investment in energy-efficient
light technologies. For example, under the hazardous waste regulations,
large quantity generators are required to label boxes and drums, notify
EPA of status as a hazardous waste generator, transport waste via a
hazardous waste transporter, manage waste consistent with the land
disposal restrictions, and manage waste at a hazardous waste management
facility. In addition, on May 8, 1994, generators of mercury-containing
lamps will be required (under the Land Disposal Restrictions) to meet a
treatment standard for lamps as hazardous debris. As is discussed in
detail in Section 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
million dollars annually, while the inclusion of lamps in the universal
waste management system would save generators approximately 16 to 20
million dollars annually.
Although the Green Lights program may increase the number of large
quantity generators on months when mass relamping occurs, the program
is not expected to increase the total quantity of used fluorescent
lamps in the long run. The lamps recommended by the Green Lights
program are more energy efficient and with implementation of energy
saving practices, these lamps could have an extended life of four to
five years rather than the average three to four years. Therefore, if
by reducing the initial costs of participation in the Green Lights
program, generators participate in the Green Lights Program, an energy
savings will occur. These additional energy savings will decrease the
amount of mercury and other pollutants emitted to in the atmosphere
from coal-burning.
C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives
A report, ``The Management of Spent Electric Lamps Containing
Mercury,'' by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA,
1992) discussed industry efforts to reduce mercury in fluorescent
lamps. According to the report, due to the use of more efficient dosing
techniques (i.e., placing mercury in the lamp), the average mercury
content of a standard 4-foot, 1\1/2\ inch diameter, cool white
fluorescent lamp was reduced by 14% (48.2 mg/lamp to 41.6 mg/lamp) from
1985 to 1990. Future industry projections of mercury reductions by 1995
show an estimated 35% further reduction (41.6 mg/lamp to 27.0 mg/lamp)
for the standard fluorescent lamp.
Source reduction, which is the reduction or elimination of the
toxicity and/or volume of a waste product, is at the top of EPA's
hierarchy of municipal solid waste (MSW) management methods. With
regard to mercury, the most significant source reduction achievement
has been the trend toward elimination of mercury from alkaline
batteries. Although these batteries are still a significant contributor
of mercury to municipal solid waste, discards of mercury from alkaline
batteries are dropping dramatically because of source reduction
achievement. Mercury-containing lamps are one of the next highest
single sources of mercury in the municipal solid waste, accounting for
3.8% of mercury now going to MSW landfills. EPA encourages cost-
effective source reduction of mercury in fluorescent lamps.
Opportunities exist to reduce mercury content levels in both standard
4-foot fluorescent lamps and the increasingly popular compact
fluorescent lamps (U.S. EPA, 1993b). If source reduction is pursued
aggressively by the fluorescent lamp manufacturing industry, the
overall contribution of mercury from fluorescent lamps to municipal
solid waste could remain constant or decrease over time even as
fluorescent lamp usage increases.
EPA requests comment on industry and other source reduction
initiatives involving the reduction of mercury in fluorescent lamps.
Source reduction may be occurring through more efficient dosing
techniques, lightweighting of lamps, and changes in phosphor powder
technology. The Agency requests comments reflecting these and any other
source reduction activities and may use this information to develop a
strategy to support and encourage voluntary source reduction.
III. Environmental Release and Fate
This section presents the technical information used by the Agency
in developing options for the management of used mercury-containing
lamps. Information is provided on the environmental fate and transport
in the ground water and air pathway for mercury. Specifically, EPA has
reviewed leachate data from municipal landfills and data on air
emissions from municipal waste combustors and municipal landfills. In
addition, the Agency has estimated possible releases of mercury to the
air from lamps broken during storage and transportation. Most of the
information considered pertains to management in municipal landfills.
Information on other types of non-hazardous landfills is not presented
due to a lack of data and the wide variability in design and waste
composition of other non-hazardous landfills.
The Agency requests comment on the data presented in this section
of the preamble. These data, along with any data submitted in the
public comment to this proposal, will be used to determine the risk to
human health and the environment from the management of used mercury-
containing lamps. Also, some information on the risks of managing
mercury-containing lamps in landfills, combustors and recovery
facilities was submitted to the Agency in response to a request for
such information in the Universal Waste Proposal (February 11, 1993, 58
FR 8102). This information is included in the rulemaking docket for
today's proposal and the Agency requests comment on it.
A. Groundwater Impacts
This section discusses leachate samples collected by EPA from
municipal landfills. As previously discussed, the Agency is further
developing its groundwater model under the TC to accurately predict the
movement of mercury through the groundwater system. The groundwater
pathway for mercury is being considered because the TC uses the
groundwater pathway to estimate the movement of contaminants from
municipal landfills. The leachate data indicate that further analysis
may be needed on the behavior and movement of mercury in municipal
landfills and in groundwater, although initial analyses indicate that
mercury is less mobile than previously believed.
EPA has collected data indicating that mercury may not leach from
MSW landfills at levels above the drinking water MCL, despite some
mercury disposal in MSW landfills. EPA estimates that approximately 73%
of municipal solid waste (MSW) is placed in municipal landfills, while
14% of municipal solid waste is incinerated and 13% is recycled. Based
on a study of mercury production and use, the Agency estimates that
about 643 metric tons (Mg) of mercury is discarded in MSW landfills per
year. A major source of mercury in municipal solid waste is household
batteries which accounts for about 88% of the 565 metric tons (Mg) of
mercury in municipal solid waste. Most of these batteries fall under
the Household Waste Exclusion (see 45 FR 33119, May 19, 1980).
Thermostats/thermometers and mercury-containing lamps are second in
their contribution of mercury in municipal solid waste, 3.9% and 3.8%
respectively. The Agency estimates that, assuming all lamps are
disposed of in MSW landfills, approximately 20 Mg of mercury would be
placed in MSW landfills per year from used mercury-containing lamps.
(U.S. EPA, 1991c).
Data on the amounts of mercury in MSW landfill leachate are
included in a study summarizing the available data on MSW landfill
leachate characteristics conducted by the Office of Solid Waste (U.S.
EPA, 1988). Out of 109 leachate mercury analyses collected, only six (7
percent) were above the drinking water level or maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for mercury (0.002 mg/L) and none were above the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) limit for mercury (0.2 mg/L). The average of these
MSW leachate analyses was 0.0008 mg/L mercury. The maximum
concentration reported is 0.0098 mg/L.
Further analysis indicates that less than 0.01 percent of the
mercury in MSW landfills leaches from the landfill. This estimate is
supported by a study measuring mercury disposition (in landfill gas and
leachate) in four Swiss landfills which found around .007 percent of
the mercury from the landfill in the leachate (Baccini et al., 1987).
The behavior of mercury in a MSW landfill is not known in great
detail. The complexity of aqueous mercury chemistry makes it difficult
to predict and model at this time. However, the available information
suggests that chemical conditions tend to favor the metallic form of
mercury in MSW landfills. This form has a lower solubility in water
(0.02-0.04 mg/L) than other chemical forms. In addition, EPA has
identified studies that indicate that municipal solid waste has a
significant capacity for retaining mercury in the landfill unless there
are unusually large quantities of mercury in municipal solid waste
(Gould et al., 1988/Mennerich, 1985). The Agency has not seen field
data for industrial non-hazardous landfills.
In addition, the Agency reviewed 1990 and 1991 Superfund Records of
Decision (RODs) for information on municipal landfill sites where
mercury was listed as a contaminant of concern (COC). A total of twelve
out of sixty-six 1990 and 1991 RODs for landfills accepting 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 and 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 codisposed with
municipal solid waste (Borden et al., 1990/Gould et al., 1988).
However, the Agency requests that commenters provide any MSW landfill
leachate or groundwater data, or data from industrial Subtitle D
landfills, that EPA has not considered in its analysis.
B. Air Exposure
The Agency is also reviewing data on the air pathway for mercury
because low levels of mercury in surface water have caused elevated
fish concentrations at many sites in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Florida, and other States, and these elevated levels of mercury have
been attributed to atmospheric deposition from non-specific sources
(U.S. EPA, 1993a). Therefore, EPA reviewed data on mercury emissions to
air from a number of sources, including those potentially related to
lamp disposal. EPA also considered available data on the fate and
transport of mercury of mercury emitted to the air.
Because of elemental mercury's high vapor pressure, it is easily
volatilized into the atmosphere. Two factors are believed to contribute
to the recent increases in atmospheric deposition of mercury compounds.
The first factor is increased atmospheric levels from mercury emissions
from coal-fired power plants, chloralkali plants, MWC facilities, and
other sources. The second factor is increased oxidation of atmospheric
elemental mercury vapor to more soluble oxidized forms which is
enhanced by anthropogenic (i.e., pollution from man-made sources)
increases in atmospheric oxidizing agents, such as ozone and inorganic
acids. Based on current mercury emissions inventories EPA believes 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 tissue.
Methylation is a chemical process in which a methyl unit is added to
either elemental or oxidized mercury. The primary environmental human
exposure pathway for mercury is through the consumption of contaminated
fish. Fish bioconcentration factors (fish tissue concentration/water
concentration) are as high as 85,000. Recently, elevated levels of
mercury in fish in isolated, pristine lakes have been identified in
widespread areas around the country. There are currently over 1,550
fish consumption bans or advisories due to mercury in effect in the
United States (Sorensen et al, 1990).
Although there may be insufficient data to determine whether
mercury from lamps will endanger human health and environment by the
release of mercury to the air, there are concerns over emissions of
mercury from lamps from municipal waste combustors, possibly landfill
gas, as well as concerns with the handling and disposal of mercury
lamps. In this section, available information will be discussed
pertaining to the hazards of mercury via air exposure.
(1) Incineration
The Agency estimates that approximately 14% of U.S. municipal solid
waste is burned in municipal waste combustors (MWCs), comprising 23
million metric tons (Mg) of waste. Approximately 100 Mg of mercury-
containing waste is burned in municipal waste combustors, of which
about 3 Mg/yr is mercury-containing lamps (U.S. EPA, 1990). Because of
its low boiling point, elemental mercury in the waste is largely
vaporized during municipal waste combustion and, without controls
specific to mercury, passes out of the municipal waste combustor into
the atmosphere with the flue gas. Measurements have shown that for
several municipal waste combustors with emissions controls for sulfur
and nitrogen oxide particulates, average MWC mercury emission factors
range from 70 to 90 percent of the mercury input (Vogg et al, 1986/
Reiman, 1989). If we assume that 98% of the mercury in incinerated
municipal solid waste is volatilized during combustion this would
potentially generate 98 Mg/year mercury emissions of this, about 2.9
Mg/year would be from mercury-containing lamps. Post-combustion mercury
control at the municipal waste combustor's would reduce mercury levels
by 80% to 90%.
EPA plans to propose mercury emission limits for new and existing
municipal waste combustors in 1994 (U.S. EPA, 1991a). The mercury
emission limits will be based on the use of activated carbon injection
for mercury control as demonstrated by EPA at tests at the Stanislaus
municipal waste combustor (California) and Camden municipal waste
combustor (New Jersey). These tests demonstrated activated carbon
injection technology as available for post-combustion mercury control
at municipal waste combustors and achieved mercury reduction levels of
80 to 90 percent. During the tests, activated carbon was injected into
the flue gases upstream of the acid gas control system and collected
(with the mercury) in the particulate matter control system. The ash
from the particulate matter control system was then landfilled.
It is unclear to what degree the mercury being released from
municipal waste combustors would contribute to increased mercury levels
in surface waters because the transport and cycling of atmospheric
mercury emissions are complex and poorly understood. It is uncertain
how long mercury will stay in the atmosphere after being released. The
oxidation state of mercury dictates how long it remains in the air.
Elemental mercury could stay in the atmosphere for months to years,
whereas an oxidized species of mercury would stay for only days to
weeks. Although controversy remains over the form of mercury as it
leaves the MWC stack, it is likely that mercury from a municipal waste
combustor would be more oxidized and therefore would not remain in the
atmosphere for a long period of time.
However, since MWC facilities comprise one anthropogenic source of
atmospheric mercury, there are probably regional-scale or global-scale
impacts from such sources (Glass et al., 1986/Johnson, 1987). The
elimination of mercury-containing lamps from municipal waste combustors
would reduce annual atmospheric mercury emissions from these
significant sources by around 3 metric tons, or about 3 percent of the
total mercury-bearing waste that is incinerated. The Agency is
considering proposing air emission controls for mercury later this year
which would, when implemented, reduce these emissions.
(2) Mercury in Landfill Gas
EPA evaluated emissions of mercury in landfill gas emission in its
``Preliminary Risk Assessment'' which is available in the public docket
(EPA, 1993). EPA reviewed studies on the amount of mercury that may be
released to the air from municipal solid waste landfills. Specifically,
this section presents in detail the results of two studies that attempt
to measure mercury air releases.
A Swiss study (Baccini et al., 1987) measured the amount of
landfill gas from four municipal landfills. This study is comparable to
municipal solid waste landfills in the U.S. because the study indicated
that these Swiss MSW landfills contained approximately 2 parts per
million (ppm) of mercury, which, given the standard error range, is
comparable to the approximately 3.6 ppm of mercury in U.S. municipal
solid waste (U.S. EPA, 1990). The Swiss study indicated that mercury
concentrations in landfill gases had a mean value of about 0.4
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 amount of mercury annually released in landfill
gas can be estimated as 0.8 kg, about 0.0001 percent of the total
mercury load entering MSW landfills (643 Mg). Adjusting the proportion
of total mercury contributed by mercury-containing lamps to the MSW
stream (3.8 percent), provides an estimate of annual landfill gas
emissions from lamps of about 0.03 kg, less than 0.00001 percent of the
total municipal solid waste mercury input (EPA, 1993). The amount of
mercury from lamps emitted into the atmosphere by landfill gas is very
small (.00003 Mg) when compared to the 3 Mg of mercury from lamps that
is estimated to be emitted into the atmosphere through municipal waste
combustors.
EPA also received a study (National Environmental Protection Board
et al, 1989) in a comment to the Universal Waste Proposal that provided
data on mercury gas from four municipal landfills in Sweden. The
Swedish study measured the ambient air quality above four municipal
landfills. The study did not indicate the level of mercury in the
municipal landfills. Mercury was measured using differential optical
adsorption spectroscopy (DOAS), located two meters above the landfill,
compared with background mercury concentrations measured at each of the
four landfills. The mean ranged from 10.2 ng/m3 to 23.6 ng/m3
with background mercury levels at 4 ng/m3 to 8ng/m3. The
report stated that because all measurements were close to the detection
limit for the DOAS technique, the reliability of the results was
questioned. After a review, it was determined that although the
quantification was uncertain because of a low signal-to-noise ratio,
the concentration above the landfills was significantly above
background mercury levels, indicating that mercury was being released
to the atmosphere. However, since it is unknown how much mercury is
found in Swedish municipal solid waste landfills, the results of this
study cannot be readily compared to the situation in the U.S.
(3) Crushing and Breakage of Lamps
Mercury remains in lamps until they are broken. When lamps break,
the elemental mercury inside becomes available for evaporation,
adsorption, or reaction. EPA modeled mercury emissions from broken
lamps based on two different methods of transportation (EPA, 1993).
Discarded lamps may be transported in one of two ways: In refuse trucks
as household or commercial trash, and in closed vans or trailers as
part of a bulk relamping program. Based on available information, it
was assumed for the 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 time the
broken lamps are directly exposed to the air and the number of lamps
broken. The Agency requests any available data concerning releases of
mercury during storage, transportation and waste management (e.g.,
landfill and recyclers) activities.
C. Technical Considerations and Request for Comments
The available data on landfill leachate suggests that mercury-
containing lamps may not pose a threat to groundwater when placed in a
state-controlled municipal landfill due to the low levels of mercury
found in landfill leachate.
However, available information also indicates that an important
route of exposure for mercury is bioaccumulation up the food chain,
causing mercury poisoning to both wildlife and humans (i.e., through
fish consumption). Although it is unclear how mercury moves through the
atmosphere and what conditions enhance or retard it, information
suggests that given the high vapor pressure of mercury, it can readily
volatilize to the air and be transported, perhaps long distances, and
be deposited on surface water or soil (which can run off into surface
water). Some mercury that is subsequently methylated will bioaccumulate
in the food chain.
The actual amount of mercury released from fluorescent or HID lamps
is unknown. It is estimated that lamps that are incinerated will
release 98% of their mercury due to the high temperatures needed for
the incineration process. However, because mercury is such a volatile
metal, amounts of mercury could be released into the air from lamps
broken during transportation or lamps broken at the landfill. For
purposes of this proposal, EPA has made assumptions on the amount of
mercury that may be released from a broken lamp but few studies have
directly measured the amount of mercury released from a lamp over time.
More information on the air release, transport and exposure pathway
for mercury is needed in order to better evaluate the proper management
methods for spent mercury-containing lamps. The Agency requests
information on air transport of mercury from mercury-containing lamps,
the mercury methylation process (both in general and in landfills) and
any studies that directly measure the amount and form of mercury
released from broken mercury-containing lamps.
IV. Management Options
The information presented in this notice has led the Agency to re-
evaluate the management of waste mercury-containing lamps because of
their importance in promoting energy-efficiency. As mentioned earlier
in this notice, the use of energy-efficient lighting can reduce mercury
emissions from coal-burning power plants as well as emissions of carbon
dioxide and sulfur oxide. In light of the benefits derived from the use
of these lamps, EPA is seeking comment on two proposed options based
the data which indicate that these lamps may be better managed either
outside of the hazardous waste system or in a reduced regulatory
structure within the hazardous waste system.
However, since there remain uncertainties in the data, more
information on the air exposure pathway for mercury from lamps would
facilitate a decision by EPA on the management of lamps. Additional
information could clarify which kind of reduced management structure
would be most appropriate for mercury-containing lamps. The Agency has
requested that information, if available, be submitted with the public
comment to this proposal.
Given these technical uncertainties, EPA has developed two proposed
alternative approaches for the management of mercury-containing lamps.
The first approach is a conditional exclusion for mercury-containing
lamps from regulation as hazardous waste. Under this approach, mercury-
containing lamps would no longer be considered hazardous waste provided
that they are managed under the conditions of the exclusion. The second
approach is to add mercury-containing lamps to the universal waste
management system, which was proposed for batteries and pesticides on
February 11, 1993 (58 FR 8102). Under the universal waste management
system, lamps that fail the TC would be considered hazardous waste, but
they would be subject to streamlined hazardous waste management
requirements, which are described in detail later in this notice. The
major difference between these two options is whether lamps are
disposed of under Subtitle D requirements or under Subtitle C
requirements. Recycling of lamps would be allowed under either option.
If EPA concludes, after considering data from the public comment on
this proposal, that the risk from mercury release from mercury-
containing lamps is not significant enough to warrant Subtitle C
regulation, the Agency may choose to finalize a conditional exclusion.
However, if EPA concludes, after considering data received in public
comment that the risk from mercury release from lamps is significant,
the Agency may choose to keep mercury-containing lamps in Subtitle C,
under the universal waste management system.
The following sections describe the two approaches in detail.
A. Conditional Exclusion
Section 3001 of RCRA charges EPA with identifying the
characteristics of hazardous waste and listing particular hazardous
wastes. Section 1004(5) of RCRA defines waste as ``hazardous'' if the
waste poses a ``substantial present or potential hazard'' to human
health or the environment when improperly managed. The groundwater data
discussed earlier in this notice suggest that mercury-bearing lamps, if
they are disposed of according to the conditions of the proposed
exclusion, may not pose a substantial present or future threat to human
health or the environment. Based on the Agency's authority to identify
characteristics of hazardous waste and the statutory definition of
hazardous waste, EPA is considering whether an exclusion of used
mercury-containing lamps from regulation as hazardous waste would be
appropriate. EPA requests comment on the data presented in the
proposal, as well as on whether to exclude these lamps from regulation
as hazardous waste.
The exclusion under consideration today has two conditions. In
order to qualify for the exclusion:
(1)(a) Generators would be required to either dispose of these
lamps in a municipal solid waste landfill that is permitted by a State/
Tribe with an EPA-approved MSW permitting program, or
(b) If generators do not send these lamps to a MSW landfill, they
would send them to a State permitted, licensed, or registered mercury
reclamation facility; and
(2) Generators would be required to keep a record of the lamps
shipped to management facilities.
The Agency is proposing to limit the exclusion to spent lamps
disposed in MSW landfills (requirements of MSW landfills are discussed
later in this section), rather than allowing disposal in any
nonhazardous waste landfill, because EPA has field data on leachate
(including mercury levels) only for MSW landfills (among Subtitle D
facility categories). The available information (discussed above)
suggests that the amount of mercury from mercury-containing lamps that
is released from MSW landfill gas is very small and its effect on
ambient air quality may not pose a significant hazard to human health
or the environment. EPA requests any information on the levels and
impacts of mercury in MSW landfill gas. Further, data on leachate
quality and air emissions from other nonhazardous waste landfills,
including industrial solid waste landfills, is very limited. However,
some soil column data also suggest that mercury dissolution into soil
pore water occurs at very low levels (Eichholz et al., 1986). EPA
requests comment on this approach and any information on mercury
releases from other nonhazardous waste landfills. Based on EPA's
existing data and any additional data received, EPA may expand the
exclusion to include disposal in non-municipal, solid waste, Subtitle D
disposal facilities.
While this proposed exclusion from Subtitle C of RCRA is supported
by data from municipal solid waste landfills with a range of design and
operating conditions, EPA believes that limiting the exclusion to spent
lamps disposed only in MSW landfills that are permitted by States or
Tribes with EPA-approved MSW landfill permitting programs will provide
further assurance that human health and the environment will be
protected. In particular, these MSW landfill permitting controls will
provide added protection to the management of these lamps.
In October 1991, EPA promulgated new requirements for municipal
solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part 258, October 9, 1991, 56 FR 51016).
These requirements cover location restrictions, landfill design and
operations, groundwater monitoring, corrective action measures,
financial assurance, and conditions for closing the landfill and post
closure care. The majority of landfill owners/operators accepting
greater than 100 tons per day must comply with the majority of the
requirements by October 9, 1993. On October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51536), EPA
delayed the October 9, 1993 effective date for six months for landfills
accepting less than 100 tons per day (in addition to other criteria)
and delayed the effective date for two years for landfills in arid or
remote regions that accept less than 20 tons per day.
States/tribes are in the process of incorporating these 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 waste landfill programs. In addition, EPA is
actively reviewing numerous State permitting program applications and
expects to approve the remaining State landfill permitting programs by
April 1994, well before this proposed rule would become effective as a
final rule. EPA expects to issue ``partial'' program approvals to some
States because their landfill permitting programs may not fully address
all elements of the EPA municipal solid waste landfill criteria. For
purposes of today's rule, EPA would consider ``partial'' program
approvals, as well as ``full'' program approvals, to be ``EPA-
approved'' State municipal solid waste landfill permitting programs.
Further, States with ``partial'' approval have agreed to an EPA
approved schedule for full approval. The Agency believes that limiting
today's proposed exclusion to 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. However, EPA is concerned
that, in States without oversight over recyclers, recycling activities
could pose a threat to human health and the environment because of
inadequate or non-existent waste management controls. Therefore, the
Agency is requesting information on recycling operations and practices.
EPA is aware that several technologies are available to recycle lamps
and recover mercury from them. However, the Agency does not have
complete information on which technologies are currently being used by
recycling companies and if these technologies can address all different
kinds of lamps (e.g., tube, U-shaped, compact, etc.). The Agency also
seeks information that tracks mercury as it moves through the recycling
process. Further, EPA would like to know the operating capacity of
existing or planned reyclers of mercury-containing lamps. The Agency is
also requesting information on what markets exist for the mercury and
other materials recovered from lamps. This information will be useful
to the Agency in understanding and assessing possible risks to human
health and the environment as well as to determine the potential or
actual use of the materials recovered from lamps in the market.
Under the conditional exclusion, regulated lamp generators (i.e.,
those that generate more than the conditional-exempt small quantity
generator (CESQG) limit of 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month
which would be about 350 mercury-containing lamps) would not be able to
send lamps to a municipal waste combustor for disposal. EPA does not
propose to extend the exclusion to lamps disposed in municipal waste
combustors because of concern over mercury air emissions from these
sources. However, this proposed option would not affect municipal waste
combustors' ability to continue the combustion of traditional municipal
solid waste which contains limited quantities of unregulated household
or CESQG mercury-containing lamps. Because mercury-containing lamps do
not burn, it is unlikely that truck loads of mercury-containing lamps
(i.e., containing more than 350 lamps) would have been acceptable to
most operators. The exclusion would assure that this disposal
alternative is not considered in any situation. The Agency requests
comment on the proposal to limit the exclusion to permitted municipal
solid waste landfills (i.e., regulated lamp generators would not be
allowed to send lamps to a municipal waste combustor for disposal).
EPA also requests comment on adding to the exclusion handling
requirements to minimize mercury emissions during storage and
transportation (e.g., packaging to reduce breakage). These management
controls could be the same as those proposed in the universal waste
management system. The Agency is interested in data on the cost of and
human health protection provided by these handling requirements for
lamps.
The third condition is that generators taking advantage of the
exclusion would be required to maintain a written certification
indicating the disposal or recycling location for the lamps. The
proposed certification, to be signed by the generator or its authorized
representative, would state that on a specified date a specified amount
of lamps was consigned to a specified transporter for disposal or
recycling at a specified facility. This certification would be required
for each shipment of lamps and would be maintained by the generator for
three years from the date of shipment. The Agency is proposing this
documentation as a mechanism for verifying that the conditions of the
exclusion have been met. Failure to maintain the required documentation
would disqualify the generator from eligibility for the exclusion. The
existence of the certification, however, would not protect a generator
from an enforcement action if the lamps were not actually disposed of
or recycled in accordance with the conditions.
The Agency is proposing that separate documentation be required for
each shipment based on its belief that most lamp generation is sporadic
(every three to four years), as opposed to on-going generation which
would lead to a continuous relationship with the same disposal or
recycling facility. Given that the life span of mercury-containing
lamps is approximately three to four years, businesses that participate
in mass relampings would only dispose of their lamps every few years.
Under the current hazardous waste regulations, many of these businesses
would be subject to hazardous waste regulation because mass relamping
could cause them to exceed the conditionally-exempt small quantity
generator level (approximately 350 four foot lamps, if lamps are the
only hazardous waste generated). However, small businesses and other
facilities that generate just under the CESQG limit of hazardous waste
(100 kg per month) may exceed this limit with attrition relamping. For
these generators, this recordkeeping requirement could be more
burdensome. The Agency requests comments on whether there are
alternative mechanisms that can be used by generators to demonstrate
compliance with the conditions of the exclusion. The Agency also
requests comment on whether, if the Agency determines that
documentation is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
conditions, the form and frequency of documentation proposed are
appropriate.
In addition to requesting comment on the conditions of the
exclusion, the Agency requests comment on having a 3 to 5 year sunset
provision on the exclusion. A sunset provision would require the Agency
to re-evaluate the exclusion after a period of three to five years, to
determine whether an exclusion is indeed appropriate for lamps given
any unanticipated management or risk issues that develop as a result of
the exclusion. The Agency would then determine whether to extend the
exclusion.
Finally, the Agency requests comments on other alternatives that
still achieve the overall RCRA goal of protection of human health and
the environment. EPA is interested in data on the benefits, costs, and
legal authority for any alternatives and the Agency will consider such
options.
B. Universal Waste Management System
1. Background
On February 11, 1993, EPA proposed a streamlined, reduced
regulatory management structure for certain widely-generated hazardous
wastes currently subject to full RCRA Subtitle C regulation, in an
effort to facilitate their collection and proper management (the
``universal wastes'' proposal, 58 FR 8102). The proposed reduced
regulatory structure, known as a special collection system, is designed
to ensure that management of these hazardous wastes is conducted in a
manner that is protective of human health and the environment, given
the diffuse and diverse population of generators of these wastes. See
the February 11, 1993 preamble discussion, for a detailed discussion of
the proposal.
The general waste types that EPA believes may be appropriately
managed under this streamlined regulatory structure are known as
``universal wastes'' and share several characteristics. These wastes:
Are frequently generated in a wide variety of settings
other than the industrial settings usually associated with hazardous
wastes;
Are generated by a vast community, the size of which poses
implementation difficulties for both those who are regulated and the
regulatory agencies charged with implementing the hazardous waste
program; and
May be present in significant volumes in the municipal
waste stream.
The February 11, 1993, proposal included specific regulatory text
addressing the management of two waste types; hazardous waste
batteries, and suspended and/or canceled hazardous waste pesticides
that are recalled. The proposal also included a petition process and a
set of criteria to be used to determine whether it would be appropriate
to add additional waste types to the special collection system in the
future. Several waste types such as automotive antifreeze, paint
application wastes, and mercury-containing items such as thermostats
and thermometers were discussed as possible additions to the Universal
Waste proposal, also referred to as the special collection system.
2. Universal Waste System Alternative for Lamps
In the February 11, 1993, proposal EPA mentioned fluorescent lamps
(58 FR 8110), explaining that the Agency was examining the risks of
managing these wastes in landfills and requesting data on the risks of
various management methods for these wastes. Comments received in
response to that request are included in the docket for this proposal.
The Agency will respond to these comments in the final rule together
with those submitted in response to Today's proposal. The Agency is
requesting comment on using the proposed special collection system for
the management of spent lamps as another approach to the management of
mercury-containing lamps. The Agency has not yet promulgated a final
universal waste rule but anticipates doing so in the near future.
Should EPA select the universal waste option for lamps as a final rule,
the Agency will ensure consistency with the more comprehensive
universal waste final rule.
The Agency believes that spent lamps may appropriately be
considered ``universal wastes'' in that they are generated in a wide
variety of settings, are generated by a very large number of
generators, and are present in significant volumes in the municipal
waste stream. The special collection system approach may be an
appropriate option for addressing the collection phase of managing
lamps that are hazardous waste. The special collection system approach
(which is consistent with the February 11, 1993 proposal), would not
change any of the requirements applicable to the ultimate treatment and
disposal or recycling of any wastes collected, but would minimize the
regulatory requirements applicable to collection of these wastes (i.e.,
generation, transportation, and intermediate storage/consolidation) for
proper management.
Special collection system regulations also could remove some
existing barriers to management of hazardous waste lamps under the
Subtitle C system by reducing the technical and paperwork requirements
applicable to collection, thus making collection more efficient and
economical. At the same time, management requirements included in
special collection system regulations could be designed to minimize the
hazards posed in collection of these wastes (e.g., special packaging
could be required to minimize the risk of breakage).
By removing some of the barriers to Subtitle C management for
lamps, a special collection system approach could minimize concerns
about decreased participation in the Green Lights program by
simplifying and clarifying the requirements for mercury-containing lamp
collection while maintaining Subtitle C control over final treatment
and disposal (or recycling) for these lamps. Such an approach could
help in assuring that the substantial environmental benefits offered by
the Green Lights program are realized through increased participation.
Management costs under the special collection system approach proposed
on February 11, 1993, would be lower than full Subtitle C management
because hazardous waste transporters and manifests would not be
required for lamp shipments between the generator and the consolidation
facility, and permits would not be required for storage at interim
consolidation points. However, under the Special Collection System the
management of mercury-containing lamps (after reaching the
consolidation point) would be more expensive than the management of
these lamps under the conditional exclusion (although the larger
volumes managed at these consolidation points may result in certain
economies of scale for transport and disposal or recycling).
The Agency requests comment on whether spent hazardous waste lamps
should be regulated under the special collection system approach
proposed February 11, 1993. Documents included in the docket for this
proposal include estimates indicating that approximately 3.9 billion
spent lamps of all types may be disposed of annually in the country
(including 550 million spent fluorescent lamps) and that lighting is
one of the second largest contributors of mercury to the municipal
waste stream (from all types of mercury-containing lamps). In addition,
the Agency believes that spent mercury-containing lamps of some type
must be generated by almost every commercial and industrial
establishment in the country.
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 since any type of waste lamp is likely to be
``universal'' in nature. The Agency requests comment on whether various
types of spent lamps (e.g., incandescent, neon), other than mercury-
containing lamps, typically fail the TC test (or exhibit other
characteristics) and would be hazardous waste under the current RCRA
Subtitle C toxicity characteristic (40 CFR 261.24). Indeed, should the
Agency choose, in a final rule, to conditionally exempt mercury-
containing lamps from regulation under Subtitle C, the Agency may still
elect to add other types of lamps to the universal waste management
system. The Agency requests comment on this approach and on whether,
how frequently, and for what TC constituents various lamp types may
fail the toxicity characteristic. The Agency also requests that
commenters submit any additional data that may be available on this
question.
The Agency requests comment on a special collection system for
management of spent lamps including the same basic structure and
requirements for generators, transporters, consolidation points, and
destination facilities as proposed on February 11, 1993 for management
of hazardous waste batteries and pesticides. The Agency is also
specifically requesting comment on the items discussed below.
First, in the February 11, 1993, proposal the Agency proposed a
quantity limit for storage of batteries above which generators and
consolidation points would be required to notify the Agency of their
storage activities. The Agency requests comment on a notification
requirement for generators and consolidation points storing more than
35,000 spent mercury-containing lamps. This requirement is similar in
substance to the notification requirement proposed in the Universal
Wastes rule (proposed Sec. 273.11(c) and Sec. 273.13(d) (58 FR 8129-
8130)). EPA 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 Sec. 273.11(b)(2) and Sec. 273.13(a)(2)
(58 FR 8129-8130) for demonstrating that lamps are not stored for
greater than one year. In addition, with respect to tracking of lamp
shipments, the Agency is requesting comment on several alternatives.
The approach included in today's proposed regulatory text is the same
as that included in the universal wastes proposal for batteries
(Sec. 273.12(b) of the universal waste proposal). This approach
requires that the manifest system be used (which triggers the use of
hazardous waste transporters) for shipments from the last consolidation
point to a destination facility, but that no manifests or other records
(or hazardous waste transporters) be required for shipments from
generators to consolidation points, between consolidation points, or
from generators to destination facilities. On the other hand, because a
number of comments received on the proposed universal wastes rule
disagreed with this approach, the Agency is also requesting comment on
two additional approaches. The first alternative, which was suggested
in several comments on the universal wastes rule, would be to require
that persons initiating and receiving shipments of lamps retain
shipping papers documenting the shipments. The minimum data elements
required for such records could be specified (e.g., quantity of lamps,
date of shipment or receipt, name and address of shipper and receiver).
The second alternative would be not to specifically require any
specific record keeping for shipments of lamps, but, as with all
exemptions, the person claiming the exemption would have to keep
documentation to show they qualify (see Sec. 261.2(f)). The Agency is
requesting comment on this second alternative because it is believed
that due to the large volumes of lamps, shipments are more likely to be
made directly from the generator to a destination facility. Records
would be available for such shipments because destination facilities
are already required under 40 CFR 264.73(b)(1) or 265.73(b)(1) to
maintain records including the description and quantity of each
hazardous waste received. It is likely that lamps would be shipped
directly from generators to disposal facilities because volumes are
likely to be large enough that consolidation will not be necessary to
make full truckloads. In addition, the storage space and careful
handling required for management of these wastes make consolidation
less attractive and shipment directly to the destination facility more
likely.
A third question on which the Agency requests comment is what
management controls would be appropriate to impose on collection of
lamps under a special collection system approach. Some of the data
included in the docket for this proposal discuss the risks of the types
of management likely in lamp collection such as management at the
generator's site, transportation, and storage (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
Requirements could include packaging that would be required to meet a
performance standard of minimizing breakage for unbroken spent lamps. A
wide variety of containers would probably satisfy such packaging
requirements. EPA expects that packaging in which new replacement lamps
are shipped from the manufacturer would frequently be reused to store
and transport removed, used lamps. Another option could be to impose a
prohibition on intentional breakage of spent lamps by generators.
In addition, requirements could be imposed on the storage and
transportation of spent lamps that are inadvertently broken, to prevent
further mercury emissions. Steel 55-gallon drums or any enclosed
container could be used to hold broken lamps for transportation to the
disposal site. In summary, the Agency requests comment on whether the
exclusion should include requirements to minimize mercury emissions
during storage and transportation of spent lamps. Management standards
would apply to transporter and consolidation points as well as for
generators. The Agency requests comment on management practices for
lamps, the risks posed by these practices, and appropriate technical
controls to minimize these risks while at the same time not inhibiting
collection and proper management. The Agency also requests comment on
whether generators or consolidation points should be allowed to
intentionally crush lamps to minimize volume for storage or shipment
and what, if any, standards should be imposed to protect against
mercury releases during crushing or the subsequent management of
crushed lamps. The proposed universal waste management system includes
a prohibition on treatment (crushing is considered treatment) of lamps
at the generator, transporter and consolidation points.
A fourth question on which the Agency requests comment is whether
to include a 3 to 5 year sunset provision on the universal waste system
for lamps. A sunset provision will require EPA to re-evaluate the
effectiveness of the universal waste system in addressing the disposal
of lamps after 3 to 5 years. The Agency can then decide whether less
controls or more controls are needed to maintain the safe management of
lamps and whether to extend the inclusion of lamps in the universal
waste system.
VI. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA program with the State. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under
sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have
primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for
authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, a
State with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program
entirely in lieu of EPA administering the Federal program in that
State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized
State and EPA could not issue permits for any facility in the State
that the State was authorized to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State was obliged
to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an authorized State until the
authorized State adopted the requirements as State law.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take effect in
authorized States at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized States. EPA is directed to implement HSWA requirements and
prohibitions in an authorized State, including the issuance of permits,
until the State is granted authorization to do so. While States must
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final
authorization, HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
The conditional exclusion and the universal waste management system
would not be HSWA regulations, and thus would not be immediately
effective in authorized States. Thus, the exemption would be applicable
only in those States that do not have final authorization for the base
(non-HSWA) portion of the RCRA program.
Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to impose more stringent
regulations than the Federal program. Accordingly, authorized States
are only required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates Federal
regulations that are more stringent than the authorized State
regulations. For those changes that are less stringent or reduce the
scope of the Federal program, States are not required to modify their
programs. Today's proposed options are considered less stringent or
smaller in scope than the existing Federal regulations because that
portion of today's proposal would exempt certain activities now within
the purview of RCRA Subtitle C. Therefore, authorized States are not
required to modify their programs to adopt regulations consistent with
and equivalent to the proposed exclusion or the proposed universal
waste management system for lamps.
Even though States will not be required to adopt today's proposed
options (if either is finalized), EPA would encourage States to do so.
As already explained in the preamble, a conditional exclusion of
mercury-containing lamps or the addition of lamps to the universal
waste management system could reduce barriers to participation in EPA's
Green Lights program, which encourages pollution prevention through
energy savings. Further, it could help to clarify for the regulated
community the proper management of mercury-containing lamps.
In addition, the proposed options, by making regulations less
stringent for management of lamps, would give States more freedom to
develop programs for lamp disposal that would be appropriate for their
situation.
VII. Economic Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order No. 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993))
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, this section of the
preamble summarizes the costs (savings) and the economic impact
analysis of (option 1) the proposed mercury-containing lamp exclusion
and of (option 2) the proposed special collection of mercury-containing
lamps. Based upon the economic impact analysis for today's rule, the
Agency's best estimate is that the exclusion of mercury-containing
lamps from Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory requirements (option
1) may result in nationwide annualized savings of approximately $93
million, and the special collection of mercury containing lamps (option
2) may result in a nationwide annualized savings of approximately $17
million. A complete discussion of the economic impact analysis is
available in the regulatory docket for today's proposed rule (EPA,
1994).
The Agency requests information to better evaluate the human health
and environmental effects of the two options described in this notice
and current disposal practices. Human and environmental exposure to
mercury could occur during the collection, transportation, processing,
recycling, treatment, and disposal of spent lamps. EPA estimated the
potential mercury air emissions resulting from some of these
activities, but is uncertain about the extent and likelihood of human
and environmental exposure. The Agency is also aware that the two
regulatory options may pose different worker and transportation injury
risks as well as different environmental risks. The Agency requests
information on the overall risks to human health and the environment
associated with current practices and the two proposed options.
A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for Regulatory Options Considered
This section briefly describes (1) the universe of spent mercury-
containing lamps and lamp generators, (2) the current regulatory
baseline and (3) the major options for the regulation of spent mercury-
containing lamps included in today's proposal for consideration.
Descriptions of the baseline and the major options also include a
summary of the methodology used in estimating compliance costs
(savings). Results of the analysis are summarized in section 5.
1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Spent Lamp Generators
The Agency estimates that approximately 310 to 380 million mercury-
containing lamps, and 47,000 to 64,000 facilities could be affected
annually by today's proposal.
The spent lamp generation number is based on sales data,\1\
adjusted to account for (1) Lamps generated by Conditionally Exempt
Small Quantity Generators (CESQG), which would not be affected by
either one of the proposed options, and (2) lamps generated in States
where spent bulb management regulations exist (California, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin). (It was assumed that these State controls would be more
stringent than the options considered in today's proposal and would
therefore supersede any Federal exemption of spent mercury-containing
lamps from Subtitle C requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Source: National Electrical Manufacturing Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Baseline Costs
EPA assumed that baseline requirements are the continuation of
current Subtitle C regulatory standards for the treatment and disposal
of mercury-containing lamps which currently fail the TC. Under this
scenario, generators of spent mercury containing lamps which fail the
TC continue to be subject to the full spectrum of hazardous waste
management standards including record keeping and manifesting of all
mercury-containing lamp shipments, Agency notification and Subtitle C
transport, treatment, storage and disposal standards.
In the cost analysis, all spent mercury-containing lamps were
assumed to be TC (Toxicity Characteristic) hazardous wastes. All spent
lamps were also assumed to be in the low risk category for mercury,
requiring stabilization as treatment under the Land Disposal
Restrictions.
Cost drivers for the baseline management of spent lamps include
hazardous waste transportation, and Subtitle C disposal. The bulk of
mercury-containing lamps currently disposed (97%) are assumed to be
stabilized and disposed of in hazardous waste landfills. The remainder,
based upon volume data from the spent mercury-containing lamp recovery
industry, are recycled. Based upon conversations with the recycling
industry, which indicate planned increases in recycling capacity, the
analysis assumed a small annual increase in the baseline recycling rate
of mercury-containing lamps over the first three years of the analysis.
Unit costs for stabilization, landfilling, recycling and hazardous
waste transport were applied on a per ton basis.
Generator specific requirements which applied to all large quantity
generators of spent mercury-containing lamps included record-keeping,
manifesting, exception reporting, and BRS (Biennial Reporting System)
reporting. Other generator requirements, including rule
familiarization, notification, personnel safety training and
emergency\2\ planning were only assessed for new facilities which spot
relamp and store (up to 90 days for large quantity generators; up to
180 days for small quantity generators) spent lamps on site. It is
assumed that costs resulting from generator requirements which are
incurred on a per shipment basis (i.e. manifesting, exception
reporting) will be incurred by group relampers once every three years
(once per relamp). Spot relampers will incur these costs twice a year
(for small quantity generators) or four times per year (for large
quantity generators).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\According to 40 CFR part 265 Subpart D of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, all large quantity generators of
hazardous waste must draft a contingency plan describing the actions
facility personnel will take should a fire, explosion, or any
unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of hazardous waste
constituents to air, soil, or surface water occur. Local emergency
response teams use the information required in the contingency plan
to minimize unanticipated damage from the storage of hazardous
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion From Subtitle C Standards Costs
The first option under consideration in today's proposal is to
exclude mercury-containing lamps from Subtitle C management standards
with the condition that these lamps are managed in permitted municipal
landfills or recycling facilities. The proposed exclusion also includes
a minor generator record keeping requirement. As the exclusion would be
deregulatory, primary economic impacts to small and large quantity
generators of mercury-containing lamps resulting from this action would
be in the form of cost savings from avoided Subtitle C regulatory
management, particularly for transport and disposal of spent lamps.
In the cost analysis, it was assumed that, given the proposed
conditional exclusion, all small and large quantity generators of spent
mercury-containing lamps would opt for management in municipal
landfills in order to reduce disposal costs.
Some generators may have slightly higher disposal costs than others
as a result of the proposed exclusion of mercury-containing lamps from
municipal combustors. If these generators currently manage their non-
hazardous waste in municipal combustors, the combustor exclusion may
require these generators to: (1) Keep their spent lamps separate from
the rest of their municipal solid waste, (2) store spent lamps on site
until enough volume has been generated to make disposal cost effective,
and (3) haul spent lamps greater distances to municipal solid waste
landfills.
In short, overall savings to be accrued from the proposed exclusion
may vary slightly from generator to generator.
4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
The second option, special collection, included in today's proposal
would allow small and large quantity generators of spent mercury-
containing lamps to reduce certain administrative activities required
under Subtitle C standards, including biennial reporting, notification,
manifesting and personnel training. Additionally the option also allows
generators to store spent mercury-containing lamps on-site for up to
one year without a hazardous waste permit, and to transport their spent
lamps direct to final disposal or recycling using non-hazardous waste
haulers.
The option also includes similar reduced requirements for interim
spent lamp storage facilities and ``special collection centers.''
Transportation to these facilities or centers from the generator would
not be regulated under Subtitle C standards, however, transport to
final disposal or recycling from these facilities would be regulated
under Subtitle C standards.
The costs estimated for Special Collection Option assumes for urban
generators direct shipment using non-hazardous waste haulers, as
allowed under this option, from generators to final disposal; thus the
costs of creating and operating an interim storage facility or special
collection center are not included for urban generators. The rationale
for this omission is twofold: (1) It is assumed that spent lamp
generation is large enough to create economies of scale for direct non-
hazardous waste transport; the need for special collection centers is
precluded by non-hazardous waste transport ``milk runs'' for spent
lamps, and (2) although there may be economies of scale generated for
long-haul transport of spent lamps from collection centers, the special
collection option requires Subtitle C transport from the centers to
final disposal or recycling, thus making the use of a collection center
with Subtitle C final transport more expensive than Subtitle D direct
transport to the disposal facility.
5. Results
a. National Annualized Costs (Savings). A summary of estimated
national annual compliance costs associated with the exclusion option
and the special collection option, along with estimated baseline
compliance costs are presented below in exhibit VII.1. Also presented
are estimated incremental savings above baseline compliance costs for
each option. Costs were annualized over a twenty-year period, using a
7% discount rate. The analysis used projected growth in the U.S.
population over the twenty-year time frame of the analysis to estimate
the increase in growth of spent lamp generation. Total estimated
annualized savings range between approximately $85 million and $102
million for the exclusion and savings estimates for the special
collection option range between $16 million and $20 million in savings.
The above savings estimate is based on the assumption in the
baseline that all facilities are properly managing their mercury-
containing spent lamps as Subtitle C waste. Currently, however, some
lamp generators may not be aware that fluorescent lamps are hazardous
waste and therefore may not be following Subtitle C requirements.
Hence, estimated savings may represent savings from a future scenario
of full compliance with current law, rather than savings from current
lamp management. EPA expects that if no regulatory action is taken,
Subtitle C management of mercury-containing lamps will become more
prevalent over the next few years.
Exhibit VII.1.--Annualized Costs (Savings) of Regulatory Options
[Costs (savings) are presented in millions of 1992 dollars/year\3\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental annualized
Regulatory option Total annualized costs costs/(savings) above
baseline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Subtitle C $110-$134; BE: $118.... NA.
Standards.
Option 1: Conditional $25-$32; BE: $25...... ($85)-($102); BE:
Exclusion from ($93).
Subtitle C.
Option 2: Special $94-$115; BE: $101..... ($16)-($20); BE:
Collection. ($17).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
BE=Best Estimate.
b. Individual Generator Savings. Average total savings per
generator for both options were simply assessed by dividing total
savings by the estimated number of generators above (refer to the
methodology section). The average annual baseline Subtitle C cost per
generator is estimated to be between $2,000 to $2,250 per generator.
Average per generator savings for the two deregulatory options are
indicated below in exhibit VII.2. Individual generator savings,
however, will vary due to facility size, proximity to disposal or
recycling facility, and regional disposal/recycling costs.
Exhibit VII.2.--Average Annual Cost (Savings) Per Regulated Generator
[In 1992 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual cost (savings)/
Regulatory option generator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion from Subtitle C Standards ($1,500)--High Savings Scen.
($2,000)--Low Savings Scen.
($1,600)--Best Estimate.
Special Collection................. ($300)--High Savings Scen.
($300)--Low Savings Scen.
($300)--Best Estimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Savings Per Waste Lamp Generated. As with average savings per
generator estimates, average savings per waste lamp generated were
derived by simply dividing total upper and lower bound costs (savings)
by the estimated number of waste lamps accounted for by small and large
quantity generators in states without specific spent lamp management
standards. The average baseline Subtitle C cost per bulb is estimated
to be $.34 to $.36. The resulting savings per lamp is estimated at $.27
per bulb for the conditional exclusion option (both high and low
savings scenario) and at $.05 per bulb for the special collection
option. Again, cost per bulb may vary significantly due to site
specific factors.
6. Sensitivity Analysis
This section presents the results of EPA's analysis of the effects
of varying selected major parameters in the cost analysis (where the
Agency used considerable judgment in arriving at the parameter's value)
on the estimated savings incurred under the proposed conditional
exclusion and the proposed Universal Waste Rule. The following
assumptions were analyzed in the sensitivity analysis for EPA's
analysis of spent lamp management costs:
(1) Percentage of Lamps Generated at Small and Large Quantity
Generators. In the sensitivity analysis, EPA set its lower bound
estimates of the percentage of lamps generated at SQGs and LQGs at
fifty percent of total spent lamp generation and its upper bound
estimates at ninety percent. (Seventy-five percent was used in the
initial cost analysis).
(2) Cost to Transport Subtitle C Waste. In the sensitivity
analysis, EPA increased the upper bound estimates of the costs of
transporting spent lamps as Subtitle C by a factor of three, based on
price quotes from commercial transporters, over original estimates.
(3) Cost to Dispose of Subtitle C Waste. Based on price quotes from
commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities, EPA increased the upper
bound estimates of the Subtitle C disposal costs by a factor of four
over original estimates.
(4) Cost of Employee Training. To reflect uncertainty over whether
a professional trainer would be required and over how many employees
would need to be trained, EPA increased and decreased the cost of
employee training required by 50 percent.
The costs associated with the high-end scenario were estimated
using the upper bound estimates for each cost element included in the
sensitivity analysis. The costs associated with the low-end scenario
combined the lower bound estimates for each cost element. The results
from these two analyses suggest that the range of total annual savings
from the proposed condition exclusion for spent lamps could be $65
million to $289 million, and the range of total annual savings from the
proposed Universal Waste RCRA requirements for generators of spent
lamps could be $15 million to $39 million. The range in cost savings is
mainly the result of uncertainty over Subtitle C transportation and
disposal costs for lamps. Although EPA has received price quotes for
management of lamps as Subtitle C waste that are considerably higher
than the average cost of managing hazardous waste in Subtitle C
landfills, it is not appropriate to directly compare price quotes to
engineering costs because the price quotes reflect a constrained market
place which tends to inflate prices well above costs. However, a three-
fold difference between the price quotes for spent lamps and standard
Subtitle C management cost may also be due to other factors beyond the
inflated prices of the constrained market, including the low density of
lamps (i.e. a ton of lamps has a greater volume than a ton of hazardous
waste sludge), or difficulty in handling lamps. EPA requests comment on
the true costs, as well as the reasoning behind these costs, of
managing spent lamps as Subtitle C waste.
B. Proposed Rule Impacts
1. Impacts on Generators of Mercury-Containing Waste Lamps
As indicated above, option 1, the exclusion, is estimated to result
in average annual savings per small and large quantity spent lamp
generator ranging from $2,000 to $2,250. Option 2, special collection,
is estimated to result in an average annual per generator savings of
approximately $300.
2. Secondary Effects
While total incremental savings from the proposed exclusion (option
1) and from the proposed special collection system (option 2) over a
Subtitle C management approach appear to be high, the Agency does not
expect significant immediate shifts in demand or price for the lamps or
for products manufactured or sold by firms which consume these lamps
due to the proposed options. Because the impacts to lamp generators are
positive (i.e. net savings), the Agency does not expect the rule to
result in adverse impacts to businesses, or to affect employment or
international trade to any appreciable degree.
EPA believes that, with the exception of lamps generated in States
with existing lamp disposal requirements, most small and large quantity
generators of mercury containing lamps will choose to dispose of their
waste lamps in municipal solid waste landfills under option 1, the
proposed exclusion from Subtitle C. This is because Subtitle D disposal
is significantly less expensive per bulb than recycling or Subtitle C
disposal.\4\ Subsequently, most waste lamps currently being handled
according to Subtitle C standards by permitted hazardous waste haulers,
disposal sites and spent lamp processing facilities, would be handled
by Subtitle D haulers and disposal facilities. Thus Subtitle C waste
haulers, disposal and spent lamp processing facilities would be
affected negatively while Subtitle D haulers and disposal facilities
would be affected positively under option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\EPA estimates that the average cost per ton for Subtitle D
disposal is $35 as compared to $400 per ton for Subtitle C disposal
and $1,375 per ton for recycling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusion, option 1, may also have an impact upon mercury-
containing lamp processors. The Agency estimates that there are
currently 15 facilities which process spent mercury-containing lamps.
Two of these facilities recover spent mercury through retorting; the
remaining 13 facilities separate the glass and aluminum ends, and send
the mercury-containing phosphor powder to the two facilities that
retort. Ten of the 15 lamp processing facilities are located in the
three States where spent lamp management regulations exist. Although
most recovery facilities are located in States with stringent State
lamp disposal requirements, and would most likely will not be affected
by today's proposed exclusion, a certain percentage of the spent lamps
currently recovered at these facilities are generated in States with no
specific lamp disposal requirements. EPA believes that a portion of
mercury-containing lamps would no longer be sent for recovery under the
proposed exclusion (option 1) since disposal in municipal landfills
would be significantly less expensive.5 Assuming that lamps
generated outside of these States will not be sent for recovery, it is
possible that 17 percent, or 16 million lamps, may be diverted. Using a
lamp/revenue ratio for recovery facilities of $.44, total impact to the
industry could be approximately $7 million dollars6 in lost
revenues ($469,000 per facility). Future recycling efforts may also be
impacted since many of these facilities may retract plans for expansion
in States which currently have no specific lamp disposal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\EPA estimates that Subtitle D landfilling costs range between
$10 and $150 per ton depending upon the region of the country.
Compared with an average recycling cost of $1375 per ton, Subtitle D
landfilling is significantly less expensive.
\6\Similar estimates were not derived for Subtitle C waste
haulers or disposal sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under option 2, the proposed special collection system, small and
large quantity generators would not be allowed to choose to dispose of
hazardous waste lamps in a municipal solid waste landfill. Thus the
above impacts on Subtitle C waste haulers, disposal and spent lamp
processing facilities would not be observed under the second option.
VIII. References
Baccini, P., G. Hensler, R. Figi, and H. Belevi. 1987. Water and
Element Balances of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste
Management and Research. 5:483-499.
Borden, R.C., and T.M. Yanoshak. 1990. Ground and Surface Water
Quality Impacts of North Carolina Sanitary Landfills. Water
Resources Bulletin. 26(2):269-277.
Eichholz, C.G., Petelka, M.F., Kury, R.L. 1986. Migration of
Elemental Mercury through Soil from Simulated Burial Sites. Water
Resources. 22(1): 269-277
Gould, J.P., F.G. Pohland, and W.H. Cross. 1988. Mobilization and
Retention of Mercury and Lead from Particulates Co-disposed with
Municipal Solid Waste. Particulate Science and Technology. 6:381-
392.
Kirschner, D.S., R.L. Billau, and T.J. MacDonald. 1988. Fluorescent
Light Tube Compaction: Evaluation of Employee Exposure to Airborne
Mercury. Applied Industrial Hygiene. 3:129-131.
Mennerich, A. 1985. Laboratory Scale Test Simulating Co-disposal in
Landfills. In: Proceedings--International Conference on New
Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management. U.S. EPA. 60/9-851025.
Metzger, M., and H. Brown. 1987. In-situ Mercury Speciation in Flue
Gas by Liquid and Solid Sorption Systems. Chemosphere. 16(4):821-
832.
NEMA. 1992. The Management of Spent Electric Lamps containing
Mercury. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Washington,
D.C.
National Environmental Protection Board and Swedish Association of
Public Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. 1989. Off gassing of
Mercury Vapor from Landfills. Depa-90 Report No. 5. Sweden.
Reimann, D.O. 1989. Heavy Metals in Domestic Refuse and their
Distribution in Incinerator Residues. Water Waste Management and
Research. 7:57-62.
Sorenson, J.A., G.E. Glass, K.W. Schmidt, J.K. Huber, and G.R. Rapp,
Jr. 1990. Airborne Mercury Deposition and Watershed Characteristics
in relation to Mercury Concentrations in Water, Sediments, Plankton,
and Fish of eighty northern Minnesota Lakes. Environmental Science
Technical. 24(11):1716-1727.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Leachate Characteristics. EPA/530-SW-88-038. U.S. EPA. Office of
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Environmental News: EPA Sets Air Emission Standards
for Municipal Waste Incinerators. January 11, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. A Geochemical Assessment Model for Environmental
Systems. EPA/600-3-91-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Characterization of Products containing Mercury in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970-2000. U.S. EPA.
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Analytical Results of Mercury in Fluorescent Lamps.
U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Green Lights Program: The First Year. U.S. EPA.
Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Management of Used Fluorescent Lamps: Preliminary
Risk Assessment. U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Report of the National Technical Forum on Source
Reduction of Heavy Metals in Municipal Solid Waste. U.S. EPA. Office
of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Technical Background Document: Economic Impact
Analysis for Proposed Options on Mercury-Containing Lamps. U.S. EPA.
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
Vogg, H., H. Brown, M. Metzger, and J. Schneider. 1986. The Specific
Role of Cadmium and Mercury in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration.
Waste Management and Research. 4:65-74.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in today's proposed rule
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 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, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public record keeping burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 4.7 hours per response annually, including time
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the required data, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2236, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal
agencies to consider ``small entities'' throughout the regulatory
process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial screening analysis
to be performed to determine whether small entities will be affected by
the regulation. If affected small entities are identified, regulatory
alternatives must be considered to mitigate the potential impacts.
Small entities as described in the Act are only those ``businesses,
organizations and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.''
The only entities directly subject to today's proposed rule are
small and large quantity generators of spent mercury containing lamps
(conditionally exempt small quantity generators are not directly
subject to today's proposed rule). In order to meet the definition of a
regulated entity under today's rule, a generator must produce over 100
kg of spent lamps (350 four foot fluorescent lamps) in a given month.
It is conceivable that some of these generators would meet the
definition of ``small business'' as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (i.e. mid-sized firms that group relamp and generate in
excess of 346 spent fluorescent lamps in a given month); however the
Agency does not have an estimate of the number of such ``small
entities.'' However, both of the proposed options are expected to
result in net savings to the regulated entities. Option 1, excluding
mercury containing lamps from Subtitle C management standards, is
estimated to result in per generator savings of between $2,000 and
$2,250 annually. Option 2, managing spent lamps under a special
collection system is estimated to result in an average annual per
generator savings of approximately $300. Thus, since generator impacts
are positive for both options, EPA has determined that small regulated
entities will not be adversely impacted, and thus, no ``mitigating''
options are being analyzed in this section. Hence, pursuant to section
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), ``the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of entities.''
Dated: July 13, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment amd disposal.
40 CFR Part 273
Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and
containers.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 260 and 261,
and 40 CFR part 273 as proposed in the Federal Register on February 11,
1993 at 58 FR 8102, are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935,
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.
Subpart B--Definitions
2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definitions for ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 260.10 Definitions.
* * * * *
Electric lamp means the bulb or tube portion of a lighting device
specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in the
ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR) regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps include,
but is not limited to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity
discharge, and neon lamps.
* * * * *
Mercury-containing lamp is an electric lamp in which mercury is
purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of the lamp.
* * * * *
Option 1
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
4. In Sec. 261.4, paragraph (b)(16) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(16) Spent mercury-containing lamps which are disposed in municipal
solid waste landfills in States or Indian Tribes with an EPA approved
State or Tribal municipal solid waste landfill program or managed in
mercury reclamation facilities that are permitted, licensed or
registered by a State or Tribe. To qualify for this exclusion, a
generator must maintain in its operating records for three years from
the date of shipment a certification for each shipment of mercury-
containing lamps that is signed by the generator or its authorized
representative and that states the following:
I certify, under penalty of law, that on [date], I consigned
[amount] of mercury-containing lamps to [name and address of
transporter] for [disposal] [recycling] at [name and address of
disposal or recycling facility]. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Option 2
PART 273--STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM WASTES
5. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6930, and 6937.
6. In Sec. 273.3, definitions for ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-
containing lamp'' are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 273.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Electric lamp means the bulb or tube portion of a lighting device
specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in the
ultraviolent (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR) regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps include,
but are not limited to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity
discharge, and neon lamps.
* * * * *
Mercury-containing lamp is an electric lamp in which mercury are
purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of the lamp.
* * * * *
7-8. Subpart D is added to Part 273 to read as follows:
Subpart D--Lamps That Are Hazardous Wastes
Sec.
273.30 Applicability.
273.31 Generator requirements.
273.32 Transporter requirements.
273.33 Consolidation point requirements.
273.34 Destination facility requirements.
273.35 Export requirements.
273.36-273.39 [Reserved].
Subpart D--Lamps That Are Hazardous Wastes
Sec. 273.30 Applicability.
(a) Covered wastes. (1) This subpart sets forth standards for
managing lamps that are hazardous wastes.
(2) Lamps that are hazardous wastes and that are not managed in
compliance with the requirements of this Part must be managed under the
hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 of this
chapter.
(b) Household and conditionally exempt small quantity generator
waste lamps. (1) Persons managing the wastes listed below may, at their
option, manage them under the requirements of this subpart without
changing the wastes' exempt status:
(i) Household hazardous waste lamps that are exempt under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(1); and/or
(ii) Conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste
lamps that are exempt under 40 CFR 261.5.
(2) Persons who commingle household hazardous waste lamps and/or
conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste lamps
together with hazardous waste lamps regulated under this subpart must
manage the commingled lamps under the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 273.31 Generator requirements.
(a) Generation of hazardous waste lamps. (1) The date a used lamp
becomes a waste is the date the generator permanently removes it from
its fixture.
(2) The date an unused lamp becomes a waste is the date the
generator decides to throw it away.
(3) A waste lamp is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of
the characteristics identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C.
(b) Condition of hazardous waste lamps. A generator of hazardous
waste lamps must at all times:
(1) Contain unbroken lamps in packaging that will minimize breakage
during normal handling conditions; and
(2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize releases
of lamp fragments and residues.
(c) Storage. (1) A generator may store a hazardous waste lamp for
no longer than one year from the date the lamp became a waste.
(2) A generator who stores hazardous waste lamps must be able to
demonstrate that lamps are not stored for more than one year from the
date they became a waste. A generator may make this demonstration by:
(i) Placing the lamps in a container and marking or labeling the
container with the earliest date that any lamp in the container became
a waste;
(ii) Marking or labeling an individual lamp with the date that it
became a waste;
(iii) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the date each
lamp in storage became a waste;
(iv) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the earliest
date that any lamp in a group of lamps became a waste; or
(v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and identifying
the earliest date that any lamp in the storage area became a waste.
(d) Notification. (1) A generator who stores more than 35,000
hazardous waste lamps at any time must have, before exceeding the
35,000 lamp quantity limit, sent written notification of hazardous
waste lamp storage to the Regional Administrator and received an EPA
Identification Number.
(2) This notification must include:
(i) The generator's name and mailing address;
(ii) The name and business telephone number of the person at the
generator's site who should be contacted regarding the lamp storage
activity;
(iii) The address or physical location of the lamp storage
activity;
(iv) A statement indicating that the generator stores more than
35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
(e) Prohibitions. A generator of hazardous waste lamps is:
(1) Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
(2) Prohibited from treating them, except by responding to releases
as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and
(3) Prohibited from sending or taking the hazardous waste lamps to
a place other than a consolidation point, destination facility, or
foreign destination.
(f) Lamp management. (1) A generator must at all times manage
hazardous waste lamps in a way that minimizes lamp breakage.
(2)(i) A generator must immediately contain all releases of
residues from hazardous waste lamps.
(ii) A generator must determine whether any materials resulting
from the release are hazardous wastes, and if so, the generator must
manage them in accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR
parts 260 through 272.
(3) A generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly
familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relative
to their responsibilities during normal facility operations and
emergencies.
Sec. 273.32 Transporter requirements.
(a) Shipments from a generator to a consolidation point, from a
generator to a destination facility, or from one consolidation point to
another consolidation point.
(1)(i) A transporter must at all times contain unbroken lamps in
packaging that will minimize breakage during normal handling and
transport conditions; and
(ii) A transporter must at all times contain broken lamps in
packaging that will minimize releases of lamp fragments and residues.
(2) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps may only store them at a
transfer facility for ten days or less.
(3) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps is prohibited from:
(i) Diluting or disposing of them;
(ii) Treating them, except by responding to releases as provided in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section; and
(iii) Transporting them to a place other than a consolidation
point, destination facility, or foreign destination.
(4)(i) A transporter must at all times manage hazardous waste lamps
in a way that minimizes lamp breakage.
(ii) A transporter must immediately contain all releases of
residues from hazardous waste lamps.
(iii) A transporter must determine whether any materials resulting
from the release are hazardous wastes, and if so, the transporter must
manage them in accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR
parts 260 through 272.
(b) Shipments from a consolidation point to a destination facility.
A transporter who transports shipments from a consolidation point to a
destination facility must comply with 40 CFR part 263.
Sec. 273.33 Consolidation point requirements.
(a) Condition of lamps. The owner or operator of a consolidation
point managing hazardous waste lamps must at all times:
(1) Contain unbroken lamps in packaging that will minimize breakage
during normal handling conditions; and
(2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize releases
of lamp fragments and residues.
(b) Storage. (1) The owner or operator of a consolidation point may
store a hazardous waste lamp for no longer than one year from the date
that the owner or operator receives it.
(2) The owner or operator of a consolidation point who stores
hazardous waste lamps must be able to demonstrate that lamps are not
stored for more than one year from the date they were received. The
owner or operator may make this demonstration by:
(i) Placing the lamps in a container and marking or labeling the
container with the earliest date that any lamp in the container was
received;
(ii) Marking or labeling an individual lamp with the date that it
was received;
(iii) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the date each
lamp in storage was received;
(iv) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the earliest
date that any lamp in a group of lamps was received; or
(v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and identifying
the earliest date that any lamp in the storage area was received.
(c) Prohibitions. The owner or operator of a consolidation point
managing hazardous waste lamps is:
(1) Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
(2) Prohibited from treating them, except by responding to releases
as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
(3) Prohibited from sending or taking them any place other than a
consolidation point, destination facility, or foreign destination.
(d) Lamp Management. (1) The owner or operator of a consolidation
point must at all times manage hazardous waste lamps in a way that
minimizes lamp breakage.
(2)(i) The owner or operator of the consolidation point must
immediately contain all releases of residues from hazardous waste
lamps.
(ii) The consolidation point owner/operator must determine whether
any materials resulting from the release are hazardous wastes, and if
so, the owner/operator must manage them in accordance with all
applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.
(3) The consolidation point owner or operator must ensure that all
employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and
emergency procedures, relative to their responsibilities during normal
facility operations and emergencies.
(e) Notification. (1)(i) A consolidation point owner or operator
who stores more than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps at any time must
have, before exceeding the 35,000 lamp quantity limit, sent written
notification of hazardous waste lamp storage to the Regional
Administrator and received an EPA Identification Number.
(ii) This notification must include:
(A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
(B) The name and business telephone number of the person who should
be contacted regarding the lamp storage activity;
(C) The address or physical location of the lamp storage activity;
(D) A statement indicating that the owner or operator stores more
than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
(2)(i) A consolidation point owner or operator who sends a shipment
of hazardous waste lamps directly from the consolidation point to a
destination facility, who is not required to notify under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section, must have, before initiating the shipment, sent
written notification of hazardous waste lamp shipments to a destination
facility to the Regional Administrator and received an EPA
Identification Number.
(ii) This notification must include:
(A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
(B) A statement that the owner or operator intends to ship
hazardous waste lamps to a destination facility;
(C) The name and business telephone number of the person who should
be contacted regarding the lamp storage activity; and
(D) The address or physical location of the lamp storage activity.
(f) Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests. The owner or operator of a
consolidation point who sends a shipment of hazardous waste lamps
directly to a destination facility must comply with subpart B of part
262 and Secs. 262.30 through 262.33, 262.40(a), 262.40(d), and 262.42
of this chapter when initiating a shipment.
Sec. 273.34 Destination facility requirements.
(a) Owners or operators of destination facilities that recycle,
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste lamps must comply with all
applicable requirements of parts 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and 124 of
this chapter, and the notification requirement under section 3010 of
RCRA.
(b) Owners and operators of destination facilities that recycle
hazardous waste lamps without storing them before they are recycled
must comply with 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2).
Sec. 273.35 Export requirements.
(a) A generator who sends hazardous waste lamps to a foreign
destination, without first sending them to a consolidation point or
destination facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary exporter
in 40 CFR 262.53, 262.56(a)(1) through (4), (6), and (b) and 262.57;
(2) Export such materials only upon consent of the receiving
country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent as
defined in subpart E of part 262 of this chapter; and
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for the
shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for export.
(b) A transporter transporting a shipment of hazardous waste lamps
to a foreign destination may not accept a shipment if the transporter
knows the shipment does not conform to the EPA Acknowledgment of
Consent. In addition the transporter must ensure that:
(1) A copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent accompanies the
shipment; and
(2) The shipment is delivered to the facility designated by the
person initiating the shipment.
(c) An owner or operator of a consolidation point who sends
hazardous waste lamps to a foreign destination, without first sending
them to another consolidation point or destination facility, must:
(1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary exporter
in 40 CFR 262.53, 262.56(a) (1) through (4), (6), and (b) and 262.57;
(2) Export such materials only upon consent of the receiving
country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent as
defined in subpart E of part 262 of this chapter; and
(3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for the
shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for export.
(d) A destination facility sending hazardous waste lamps to a
foreign destination must also comply with the generator requirements of
part 262 of this chapter, and with 40 CFR 264.71(c) or 265.71(c)
pertaining to initiating the manifest.
Secs. 273.36-273.39 [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 94-18045 Filed 7-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
