Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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