[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-18045]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 27, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 273




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

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 273

[FRL-5020-1]
RIN 2050-AD93

 
Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Program; Mercury-Containing Lamps

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Mercury-containing lamps (light bulbs) may be hazardous waste 
under the Toxicity Characteristic Rule issued under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and if so, must be managed as a 
hazardous waste, unless they are a household waste or are generated by 
an exempted small quantity generator. Mercury-containing lamps include 
fluorescent, high pressure sodium, mercury vapor and metal halide 
lamps. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today seeking 
comment on two alternative approaches for the management of mercury-
containing lamps. First, EPA is seeking comment on whether an exclusion 
from regulation as hazardous waste is appropriate for mercury lamps, 
provided they are disposed in municipal landfills that are permitted by 
States/Tribes with EPA approved municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill 
permitting programs or managed in mercury reclamation facilities that 
are permitted, licensed or registered by States/Tribes. The second 
approach would add mercury lamps to EPA's Universal Waste Proposal 
(February 11, 1993, 58 FR 8102). The Universal Waste approach is a 
streamlined, reduced regulatory structure, which is designed to address 
the management of certain widely generated wastes currently subject to 
full Subtitle C RCRA regulations.
    Today's proposal presents management options that would be 
considered less stringent than the existing Federal regulations because 
they would exempt certain activities now within the purview of RCRA 
Subtitle C (hazardous waste management). Therefore, States authorized 
under RCRA section 3006 to administer and enforce a hazardous waste 
system in lieu of the Federal program would be allowed flexibility in 
modifying their programs to adopt less stringent regulations regarding 
the management of mercury-containing lamps, should one of the proposed 
options be promulgated as a final rule.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or before 
September 26, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Persons who wish to comment on this notice must provide an 
original and two copies of their comments, include the docket number 
(F-94-FLEP-FFFFF), and send them to EPA RCRA Docket (OS-305), U.S. EPA, 
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA Docket is located at 
Room M2427, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, 
the public must make an appointment by calling (202) 260-9327. The 
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no 
cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA/Superfund Hotline toll free at (800) 424-9346. In the Washington, 
DC metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810. For information regarding 
specific aspects of this notice, contact Valerie Wilson, Office of 
Solid Waste (mail code 5304), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-4678.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

I. Legal Authority
II. Background
    A. The Toxicity Characteristic
    B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs
    C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives
III. Technical Information
    A. Groundwater Impacts
    B. Air Impacts
    1. Incineration
    2. Mercury in Landfill Gas
    3. Crushing and Breakage
    C. Technical Considerations and Requests for Comments
IV. Management Options
    A. Conditional Exclusion
    B. Universal Waste System
    1. Background
    2. Special Collection System for Lamps
VI. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect of State Authorizations
VII. Economic Impact Analysis
    A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for Regulatory Options Considered
    1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Spent Lamp Generators
    2. Baseline Costs
    3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion from Subtitle C Standards 
Costs
    4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
    5. Results
    B. Proposed Rule Impacts
    1. Primary Effects
    2. Secondary Effects
VIII. References
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations would be promulgated under the authority of 
sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001-3007, 3010, 3013, 3016-3017, 3018 and 7004 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 
6921-6927, 6930, 6937-6938, 6939 and 6974 (commonly referred to as 
RCRA).

II. Background

A. The Toxicity Characteristic

    Under section 3001 of the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with 
defining which solid wastes are hazardous by identifying the 
characteristics of hazardous waste and by listing particular hazardous 
wastes. Toxicity is one of the four characteristics used by EPA to 
identify waste as hazardous (along with ignitability, corrosivity, and 
reactivity). EPA promulgated the Extraction Procedure Toxicity 
Characteristic (EPTC) on May 19, 1980. The EPTC regulated eight metals, 
four insecticides, and two herbicides. Section 3001(g) of RCRA, added 
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, required 
EPA to revise the EPTC. On March 29, 1990 (55 FR 11798), the EPA 
promulgated the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) to revise the existing 
EPTC. Like the EPTC, the TC and its associated testing methodology, the 
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is used to define the 
toxicity of a waste by measuring the potential for the toxic 
constituents in the waste to leach out of an unlined municipal landfill 
into groundwater and contaminate drinking water wells at levels of 
health or environmental concern if not subject to Subtitle C controls. 
The TC implemented an improved leaching procedure that better predicts 
leaching and added several hazardous waste constituents. Twenty-five 
organic hazardous waste constituents were added to the TC and a model 
was developed to predict their fate and transport in the groundwater. 
If wastes exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic they are subject to the 
hazardous waste management requirements of RCRA Subtitle C.
    As discussed in the preamble to the Toxicity Characteristic Rule 
(March 29, 1990, 55 FR 11813), the regulatory levels for the TC metals 
were not changed by the promulgation of the final TC rule. EPA retained 
the regulatory levels set by the EPTC rule, pending further study of 
the fate and transport of metals in groundwater.
    The Agency is continuing longer-term developmental work on a metal 
speciation model, called MINTEQ, to be used to evaluate the fate and 
transport of the TC metals (including mercury) for purposes of 
reassessing the toxicity characteristic regulatory levels for the TC 
metals. EPA's preliminary analysis indicates that mercury that would 
leach out of landfills would not all necessarily travel far enough 
through the groundwater to contaminate drinking water wells, depending 
on the distance to the well. A certain percent (still to be determined) 
will combine with other substances in the soil (via complexation, 
adsorption, etc.) to form solid substances and remain in the soil. 
Therefore, the regulatory limits for mercury if re-assessed using the 
MINTEQ model, when completed, might be higher (less stringent) than the 
current limits because mercury may be less mobile than the current TC 
rule indicates. However, these studies are still ongoing (U.S. EPA, 
1991b).
    Available data (included in the docket for this proposal) indicate 
that as a result of the use of mercury in the production of fluorescent 
and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, a relatively high percentage 
of these lamps, when spent, exhibit the characteristic of toxicity. 
(U.S. EPA, 1992a) However, all generators of spent lamps that exhibit 
the toxicity characteristic may not have to manage those lamps as 
hazardous waste. EPA has specified different requirements for 
generators of hazardous waste depending on the amount of hazardous 
waste generated per month. Conditionally-exempt small quantity 
generators (CESQG) generate less than 100 kilograms (kg) of hazardous 
waste each month and can send their waste to a hazardous waste 
facility, or may elect to send their wastes to a landfill or other 
facility approved by the State for industrial or municipal non-
hazardous wastes (see 40 CFR 261.5). Generators of more than 100 kg of 
hazardous waste per month are required to fully comply with Federal 
hazardous waste regulations (although generators of between 100 and 
1000 kg of hazardous waste per month are subject to certain reduced 
regulatory requirements).
    For the purposes of this proposal ``electric lamp'' also referred 
to as ``lamp'' is defined as the bulb or tube portion of a lighting 
device specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in 
the ultraviolet, visible, and infra-red regions of the electromagnetic 
spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps include but are not limited 
to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity discharge, and neon 
lamps. Also, a ``mercury-containing lamp'' is defined as an electric 
lamp in which mercury is purposely introduced by the manufacturer for 
the operation of the lamp. The Agency requests comment on whether the 
definitions of ``lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp'' are technically 
correct and on whether they accurately define the appropriate universe 
of items.

B. Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs

    Today's proposal, which would reduce management requirements for 
lamps, is expected to support the efforts of many existing and planned 
energy conservation programs, which encourage the installation of 
energy efficient lighting. Energy efficient lighting consumes less 
electricity, reducing the generation of pollution from power plants. 
However, replacing energy inefficient lighting systems with energy 
efficient lighting systems requires the use and eventual disposal of 
fluorescent and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, which contain 
mercury. Requiring the disposal of lamp wastes as hazardous waste, 
under full Subtitle C regulations, may discourage participation in 
energy efficient lighting programs. The Agency anticipates that either 
of the proposed actions will encourage participation in energy-
efficient lighting programs, and will therefore promote the energy-
efficiency and the environmental benefits derived from that program.
    If energy-efficient lighting were used wherever it is profitable, 
the nation's demand for electricity could be cut by more than 10 
percent. This would result in reductions of estimated annual carbon 
dioxide emissions of 202 million metric tons (4 percent of the national 
total), reductions of annual sulfur dioxide emissions of 1.3 million 
metric tons (7 percent of the national total), and reductions of annual 
nitrogen oxide emissions of 600,000 metric tons (4 percent of the 
national total). (U.S. EPA, 1992b)
    In 1991, EPA initiated a voluntary energy conservation program 
called ``Green Lights'' to encourage pollution prevention through 
energy efficient lighting. Lighting accounts for 20-25 percent of 
electricity used annually in the U.S. Lighting for industry, 
businesses, offices, and warehouses represents 80-90 percent of total 
lighting electricity use. Available technologies in energy efficient 
lighting can reduce lighting electricity demand by over 50 percent, 
enabling power plants to generate less electricity and burn less fuel. 
It also reduces other types of pollution resulting from mining and 
transporting power plant fuels and disposing of power plant wastes 
(U.S. EPA, 1992b). In addition, electric utilities, when burning fossil 
fuels, emit mercury at a rate of 0.0428 mg/kWh sold, on a national 
average. Full implementation of Green Lights is estimated to reduce the 
emission by 9.7 Mg of mercury by the year 2000 (U.S. EPA, 1992b). 
Further, the energy-efficient fluorescent lamps, used by Green Lights 
and other energy conservation programs, contain less mercury than 
energy-inefficient fluorescent lamps.
    A goal of Green Lights is to encourage the widespread use of 
efficient lighting technologies to reduce air pollution from coal 
combustion. Energy-efficient lighting technologies provide excellent 
investment opportunities. A typical lighting upgrade yields an internal 
rate of return of 20-30 percent and a payback of 3-4 years.
    Green Lights participants include: Corporations; State, city, and 
county governments; lighting manufacturing and management companies; 
electric utilities; non-profit organizations; and hospitals, 
universities, and other businesses throughout the U.S. Green Lights 
encourages the establishment of comprehensive energy-efficient lighting 
programs within an organization that include: Converting from less-
efficient fluorescent to more-efficient fluorescent lamps; converting 
from incandescent to compact fluorescent lamps; converting from 
magnetic to electronic lighting ballasts; installing occupancy sensors, 
daylight dimmers, and other lighting control technologies; installing 
more efficient luminaries or lighting fixtures; and efficient 
maintenance practices, such as group relamping and regular fixture 
cleaning.
    By signing a partnership agreement with the EPA, Green Lights 
participants agree to survey and upgrade, within 5 years, 90 percent of 
all domestic facilities wherever profitable and wherever lighting 
quality is improved or maintained. In return, these participants should 
receive reductions (savings) in their monthly energy expenses. A good 
energy-efficient lighting upgrade typically includes some type of 
control strategy (such as occupancy sensors) that will reduce lamp 
burning hours. The result is that the lamp will last longer and need to 
be replaced less frequently. As of June 30, 1993, over 1,000 
organizations have joined the Green Lights program. These organizations 
have committed over 3.5 billion square feet of facility space to the 
program.
    The Green Lights Program encourages the use of energy-efficient 
lamps using an initial and scheduled periodic relampings to achieve 
higher energy efficiency and reduce energy costs. These relampings 
involve removal and replacement of all lamps in a building or in an 
area at one time, as opposed to replacement of lamps as they burn out. 
An initial lighting upgrade and group relamping may result in a large 
number of fluorescent lamps that require disposal. In some instances, a 
participant that would usually be a conditionally exempt small quantity 
generator, could become a large quantity generator of hazardous waste 
due to the large number of lamps generated in one month. In general, if 
a generator disposes of more than approximately 350 four foot 
fluorescent lamps, that generator is a large quantity generator due to 
lamps alone.
    Despite the environmental and financial benefits of energy 
efficient lighting systems, there are disincentives to participating in 
an energy conservation program like Green Lights. Establishing a 
comprehensive energy-efficient lighting program and installing energy-
efficient lighting technologies require an initial investment that may 
be significant, depending on the size and comprehensiveness of the 
project. Although Green Lights provides information to participants on 
financing options, many profitable lighting upgrade projects are 
delayed due to restricted availability of capital. It is especially 
difficult for smaller businesses and government organizations to raise 
the necessary capital, although energy-efficient lighting investments 
are low risk and in the long run will reduce costs. The additional 
costs associated with managing, transporting, and disposing of lighting 
wastes as hazardous wastes can create an additional disincentive to 
join Green Lights and make the initial investment in energy-efficient 
light technologies. For example, under the hazardous waste regulations, 
large quantity generators are required to label boxes and drums, notify 
EPA of status as a hazardous waste generator, transport waste via a 
hazardous waste transporter, manage waste consistent with the land 
disposal restrictions, and manage waste at a hazardous waste management 
facility. In addition, on May 8, 1994, generators of mercury-containing 
lamps will be required (under the Land Disposal Restrictions) to meet a 
treatment standard for lamps as hazardous debris. As is discussed in 
detail in Section VII, Economic Impact Analysis, of this preamble, the 
Agency estimates that the annual national cost of Subtitle C compliance 
for large quantity generators could range from 110 to 134 million 
dollars. EPA's preliminary estimates suggest that an exclusion would 
save generators of mercury containing lamps approximately 85 to 102 
million dollars annually, while the inclusion of lamps in the universal 
waste management system would save generators approximately 16 to 20 
million dollars annually.
    Although the Green Lights program may increase the number of large 
quantity generators on months when mass relamping occurs, the program 
is not expected to increase the total quantity of used fluorescent 
lamps in the long run. The lamps recommended by the Green Lights 
program are more energy efficient and with implementation of energy 
saving practices, these lamps could have an extended life of four to 
five years rather than the average three to four years. Therefore, if 
by reducing the initial costs of participation in the Green Lights 
program, generators participate in the Green Lights Program, an energy 
savings will occur. These additional energy savings will decrease the 
amount of mercury and other pollutants emitted to in the atmosphere 
from coal-burning.

C. Industry Source Reduction Initiatives

    A report, ``The Management of Spent Electric Lamps Containing 
Mercury,'' by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA, 
1992) discussed industry efforts to reduce mercury in fluorescent 
lamps. According to the report, due to the use of more efficient dosing 
techniques (i.e., placing mercury in the lamp), the average mercury 
content of a standard 4-foot, 1\1/2\ inch diameter, cool white 
fluorescent lamp was reduced by 14% (48.2 mg/lamp to 41.6 mg/lamp) from 
1985 to 1990. Future industry projections of mercury reductions by 1995 
show an estimated 35% further reduction (41.6 mg/lamp to 27.0 mg/lamp) 
for the standard fluorescent lamp.
    Source reduction, which is the reduction or elimination of the 
toxicity and/or volume of a waste product, is at the top of EPA's 
hierarchy of municipal solid waste (MSW) management methods. With 
regard to mercury, the most significant source reduction achievement 
has been the trend toward elimination of mercury from alkaline 
batteries. Although these batteries are still a significant contributor 
of mercury to municipal solid waste, discards of mercury from alkaline 
batteries are dropping dramatically because of source reduction 
achievement. Mercury-containing lamps are one of the next highest 
single sources of mercury in the municipal solid waste, accounting for 
3.8% of mercury now going to MSW landfills. EPA encourages cost-
effective source reduction of mercury in fluorescent lamps. 
Opportunities exist to reduce mercury content levels in both standard 
4-foot fluorescent lamps and the increasingly popular compact 
fluorescent lamps (U.S. EPA, 1993b). If source reduction is pursued 
aggressively by the fluorescent lamp manufacturing industry, the 
overall contribution of mercury from fluorescent lamps to municipal 
solid waste could remain constant or decrease over time even as 
fluorescent lamp usage increases.
    EPA requests comment on industry and other source reduction 
initiatives involving the reduction of mercury in fluorescent lamps. 
Source reduction may be occurring through more efficient dosing 
techniques, lightweighting of lamps, and changes in phosphor powder 
technology. The Agency requests comments reflecting these and any other 
source reduction activities and may use this information to develop a 
strategy to support and encourage voluntary source reduction.

III. Environmental Release and Fate

    This section presents the technical information used by the Agency 
in developing options for the management of used mercury-containing 
lamps. Information is provided on the environmental fate and transport 
in the ground water and air pathway for mercury. Specifically, EPA has 
reviewed leachate data from municipal landfills and data on air 
emissions from municipal waste combustors and municipal landfills. In 
addition, the Agency has estimated possible releases of mercury to the 
air from lamps broken during storage and transportation. Most of the 
information considered pertains to management in municipal landfills. 
Information on other types of non-hazardous landfills is not presented 
due to a lack of data and the wide variability in design and waste 
composition of other non-hazardous landfills.
    The Agency requests comment on the data presented in this section 
of the preamble. These data, along with any data submitted in the 
public comment to this proposal, will be used to determine the risk to 
human health and the environment from the management of used mercury-
containing lamps. Also, some information on the risks of managing 
mercury-containing lamps in landfills, combustors and recovery 
facilities was submitted to the Agency in response to a request for 
such information in the Universal Waste Proposal (February 11, 1993, 58 
FR 8102). This information is included in the rulemaking docket for 
today's proposal and the Agency requests comment on it.

A. Groundwater Impacts

    This section discusses leachate samples collected by EPA from 
municipal landfills. As previously discussed, the Agency is further 
developing its groundwater model under the TC to accurately predict the 
movement of mercury through the groundwater system. The groundwater 
pathway for mercury is being considered because the TC uses the 
groundwater pathway to estimate the movement of contaminants from 
municipal landfills. The leachate data indicate that further analysis 
may be needed on the behavior and movement of mercury in municipal 
landfills and in groundwater, although initial analyses indicate that 
mercury is less mobile than previously believed.
    EPA has collected data indicating that mercury may not leach from 
MSW landfills at levels above the drinking water MCL, despite some 
mercury disposal in MSW landfills. EPA estimates that approximately 73% 
of municipal solid waste (MSW) is placed in municipal landfills, while 
14% of municipal solid waste is incinerated and 13% is recycled. Based 
on a study of mercury production and use, the Agency estimates that 
about 643 metric tons (Mg) of mercury is discarded in MSW landfills per 
year. A major source of mercury in municipal solid waste is household 
batteries which accounts for about 88% of the 565 metric tons (Mg) of 
mercury in municipal solid waste. Most of these batteries fall under 
the Household Waste Exclusion (see 45 FR 33119, May 19, 1980). 
Thermostats/thermometers and mercury-containing lamps are second in 
their contribution of mercury in municipal solid waste, 3.9% and 3.8% 
respectively. The Agency estimates that, assuming all lamps are 
disposed of in MSW landfills, approximately 20 Mg of mercury would be 
placed in MSW landfills per year from used mercury-containing lamps. 
(U.S. EPA, 1991c).
    Data on the amounts of mercury in MSW landfill leachate are 
included in a study summarizing the available data on MSW landfill 
leachate characteristics conducted by the Office of Solid Waste (U.S. 
EPA, 1988). Out of 109 leachate mercury analyses collected, only six (7 
percent) were above the drinking water level or maximum contaminant 
level (MCL) for mercury (0.002 mg/L) and none were above the Toxicity 
Characteristic (TC) limit for mercury (0.2 mg/L). The average of these 
MSW leachate analyses was 0.0008 mg/L mercury. The maximum 
concentration reported is 0.0098 mg/L.
    Further analysis indicates that less than 0.01 percent of the 
mercury in MSW landfills leaches from the landfill. This estimate is 
supported by a study measuring mercury disposition (in landfill gas and 
leachate) in four Swiss landfills which found around .007 percent of 
the mercury from the landfill in the leachate (Baccini et al., 1987).
    The behavior of mercury in a MSW landfill is not known in great 
detail. The complexity of aqueous mercury chemistry makes it difficult 
to predict and model at this time. However, the available information 
suggests that chemical conditions tend to favor the metallic form of 
mercury in MSW landfills. This form has a lower solubility in water 
(0.02-0.04 mg/L) than other chemical forms. In addition, EPA has 
identified studies that indicate that municipal solid waste has a 
significant capacity for retaining mercury in the landfill unless there 
are unusually large quantities of mercury in municipal solid waste 
(Gould et al., 1988/Mennerich, 1985). The Agency has not seen field 
data for industrial non-hazardous landfills.
    In addition, the Agency reviewed 1990 and 1991 Superfund Records of 
Decision (RODs) for information on municipal landfill sites where 
mercury was listed as a contaminant of concern (COC). A total of twelve 
out of sixty-six 1990 and 1991 RODs for landfills accepting municipal 
waste listed mercury as a COC. Of these 12 sites, 5 had mercury 
detections in ground-water over the MCL. All but one of these sites had 
confirmed industrial waste codisposal. At this site only onsite ground-
water exceeded the MCL for mercury (maximum of 0.013 mg/L); all offsite 
ground-water samples were below detection limits.
    In conclusion, preliminary data and analysis suggest at this time 
that mercury in municipal solid wastes is not being readily released by 
leaching processes that typically occur in the MSW landfill 
environment. This indication is also supported by controlled leaching 
studies of high-concentration mercury-containing wastes codisposed with 
municipal solid waste (Borden et al., 1990/Gould et al., 1988). 
However, the Agency requests that commenters provide any MSW landfill 
leachate or groundwater data, or data from industrial Subtitle D 
landfills, that EPA has not considered in its analysis.

B. Air Exposure

    The Agency is also reviewing data on the air pathway for mercury 
because low levels of mercury in surface water have caused elevated 
fish concentrations at many sites in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, 
Florida, and other States, and these elevated levels of mercury have 
been attributed to atmospheric deposition from non-specific sources 
(U.S. EPA, 1993a). Therefore, EPA reviewed data on mercury emissions to 
air from a number of sources, including those potentially related to 
lamp disposal. EPA also considered available data on the fate and 
transport of mercury of mercury emitted to the air.
    Because of elemental mercury's high vapor pressure, it is easily 
volatilized into the atmosphere. Two factors are believed to contribute 
to the recent increases in atmospheric deposition of mercury compounds. 
The first factor is increased atmospheric levels from mercury emissions 
from coal-fired power plants, chloralkali plants, MWC facilities, and 
other sources. The second factor is increased oxidation of atmospheric 
elemental mercury vapor to more soluble oxidized forms which is 
enhanced by anthropogenic (i.e., pollution from man-made sources) 
increases in atmospheric oxidizing agents, such as ozone and inorganic 
acids. Based on current mercury emissions inventories EPA believes that 
major mercury emission source categories include coal fired power 
plants, municipal waste combustors and medical waste combustors. (U.S. 
EPA, 1993).
    Mercury that is methylated is strongly biomagnified through the 
food chain through bioconcentration in animals, and in plant tissue. 
Methylation is a chemical process in which a methyl unit is added to 
either elemental or oxidized mercury. The primary environmental human 
exposure pathway for mercury is through the consumption of contaminated 
fish. Fish bioconcentration factors (fish tissue concentration/water 
concentration) are as high as 85,000. Recently, elevated levels of 
mercury in fish in isolated, pristine lakes have been identified in 
widespread areas around the country. There are currently over 1,550 
fish consumption bans or advisories due to mercury in effect in the 
United States (Sorensen et al, 1990).
    Although there may be insufficient data to determine whether 
mercury from lamps will endanger human health and environment by the 
release of mercury to the air, there are concerns over emissions of 
mercury from lamps from municipal waste combustors, possibly landfill 
gas, as well as concerns with the handling and disposal of mercury 
lamps. In this section, available information will be discussed 
pertaining to the hazards of mercury via air exposure.
(1) Incineration
    The Agency estimates that approximately 14% of U.S. municipal solid 
waste is burned in municipal waste combustors (MWCs), comprising 23 
million metric tons (Mg) of waste. Approximately 100 Mg of mercury-
containing waste is burned in municipal waste combustors, of which 
about 3 Mg/yr is mercury-containing lamps (U.S. EPA, 1990). Because of 
its low boiling point, elemental mercury in the waste is largely 
vaporized during municipal waste combustion and, without controls 
specific to mercury, passes out of the municipal waste combustor into 
the atmosphere with the flue gas. Measurements have shown that for 
several municipal waste combustors with emissions controls for sulfur 
and nitrogen oxide particulates, average MWC mercury emission factors 
range from 70 to 90 percent of the mercury input (Vogg et al, 1986/
Reiman, 1989). If we assume that 98% of the mercury in incinerated 
municipal solid waste is volatilized during combustion this would 
potentially generate 98 Mg/year mercury emissions of this, about 2.9 
Mg/year would be from mercury-containing lamps. Post-combustion mercury 
control at the municipal waste combustor's would reduce mercury levels 
by 80% to 90%.
    EPA plans to propose mercury emission limits for new and existing 
municipal waste combustors in 1994 (U.S. EPA, 1991a). The mercury 
emission limits will be based on the use of activated carbon injection 
for mercury control as demonstrated by EPA at tests at the Stanislaus 
municipal waste combustor (California) and Camden municipal waste 
combustor (New Jersey). These tests demonstrated activated carbon 
injection technology as available for post-combustion mercury control 
at municipal waste combustors and achieved mercury reduction levels of 
80 to 90 percent. During the tests, activated carbon was injected into 
the flue gases upstream of the acid gas control system and collected 
(with the mercury) in the particulate matter control system. The ash 
from the particulate matter control system was then landfilled.
    It is unclear to what degree the mercury being released from 
municipal waste combustors would contribute to increased mercury levels 
in surface waters because the transport and cycling of atmospheric 
mercury emissions are complex and poorly understood. It is uncertain 
how long mercury will stay in the atmosphere after being released. The 
oxidation state of mercury dictates how long it remains in the air. 
Elemental mercury could stay in the atmosphere for months to years, 
whereas an oxidized species of mercury would stay for only days to 
weeks. Although controversy remains over the form of mercury as it 
leaves the MWC stack, it is likely that mercury from a municipal waste 
combustor would be more oxidized and therefore would not remain in the 
atmosphere for a long period of time.
    However, since MWC facilities comprise one anthropogenic source of 
atmospheric mercury, there are probably regional-scale or global-scale 
impacts from such sources (Glass et al., 1986/Johnson, 1987). The 
elimination of mercury-containing lamps from municipal waste combustors 
would reduce annual atmospheric mercury emissions from these 
significant sources by around 3 metric tons, or about 3 percent of the 
total mercury-bearing waste that is incinerated. The Agency is 
considering proposing air emission controls for mercury later this year 
which would, when implemented, reduce these emissions.
(2) Mercury in Landfill Gas
    EPA evaluated emissions of mercury in landfill gas emission in its 
``Preliminary Risk Assessment'' which is available in the public docket 
(EPA, 1993). EPA reviewed studies on the amount of mercury that may be 
released to the air from municipal solid waste landfills. Specifically, 
this section presents in detail the results of two studies that attempt 
to measure mercury air releases.
    A Swiss study (Baccini et al., 1987) measured the amount of 
landfill gas from four municipal landfills. This study is comparable to 
municipal solid waste landfills in the U.S. because the study indicated 
that these Swiss MSW landfills contained approximately 2 parts per 
million (ppm) of mercury, which, given the standard error range, is 
comparable to the approximately 3.6 ppm of mercury in U.S. municipal 
solid waste (U.S. EPA, 1990). The Swiss study indicated that mercury 
concentrations in landfill gases had a mean value of about 0.4 
g/cubic meter. The annual total mercury release also was low 
(0.0065 mg/Mg waste, average). Using this gas release value, and the 
amount of municipal solid waste annually disposed in U.S. landfills 
(118 million Mg), the amount of mercury annually released in landfill 
gas can be estimated as 0.8 kg, about 0.0001 percent of the total 
mercury load entering MSW landfills (643 Mg). Adjusting the proportion 
of total mercury contributed by mercury-containing lamps to the MSW 
stream (3.8 percent), provides an estimate of annual landfill gas 
emissions from lamps of about 0.03 kg, less than 0.00001 percent of the 
total municipal solid waste mercury input (EPA, 1993). The amount of 
mercury from lamps emitted into the atmosphere by landfill gas is very 
small (.00003 Mg) when compared to the 3 Mg of mercury from lamps that 
is estimated to be emitted into the atmosphere through municipal waste 
combustors.
    EPA also received a study (National Environmental Protection Board 
et al, 1989) in a comment to the Universal Waste Proposal that provided 
data on mercury gas from four municipal landfills in Sweden. The 
Swedish study measured the ambient air quality above four municipal 
landfills. The study did not indicate the level of mercury in the 
municipal landfills. Mercury was measured using differential optical 
adsorption spectroscopy (DOAS), located two meters above the landfill, 
compared with background mercury concentrations measured at each of the 
four landfills. The mean ranged from 10.2 ng/m3 to 23.6 ng/m3 
with background mercury levels at 4 ng/m3 to 8ng/m3. The 
report stated that because all measurements were close to the detection 
limit for the DOAS technique, the reliability of the results was 
questioned. After a review, it was determined that although the 
quantification was uncertain because of a low signal-to-noise ratio, 
the concentration above the landfills was significantly above 
background mercury levels, indicating that mercury was being released 
to the atmosphere. However, since it is unknown how much mercury is 
found in Swedish municipal solid waste landfills, the results of this 
study cannot be readily compared to the situation in the U.S.
(3) Crushing and Breakage of Lamps
    Mercury remains in lamps until they are broken. When lamps break, 
the elemental mercury inside becomes available for evaporation, 
adsorption, or reaction. EPA modeled mercury emissions from broken 
lamps based on two different methods of transportation (EPA, 1993). 
Discarded lamps may be transported in one of two ways: In refuse trucks 
as household or commercial trash, and in closed vans or trailers as 
part of a bulk relamping program. Based on available information, it 
was assumed for the purposes of this model that as much as 6.6% of 
mercury could be released in the air from a lamp broken during the 
collection, storage and transport of mercury-containing lamps in 
garbage trucks. The Agency recognizes that it is uncertain how much 
mercury is released from broken lamps. The amount of mercury released 
would vary depending on the ambient air temperature, the time the 
broken lamps are directly exposed to the air and the number of lamps 
broken. The Agency requests any available data concerning releases of 
mercury during storage, transportation and waste management (e.g., 
landfill and recyclers) activities.

C. Technical Considerations and Request for Comments

    The available data on landfill leachate suggests that mercury-
containing lamps may not pose a threat to groundwater when placed in a 
state-controlled municipal landfill due to the low levels of mercury 
found in landfill leachate.
    However, available information also indicates that an important 
route of exposure for mercury is bioaccumulation up the food chain, 
causing mercury poisoning to both wildlife and humans (i.e., through 
fish consumption). Although it is unclear how mercury moves through the 
atmosphere and what conditions enhance or retard it, information 
suggests that given the high vapor pressure of mercury, it can readily 
volatilize to the air and be transported, perhaps long distances, and 
be deposited on surface water or soil (which can run off into surface 
water). Some mercury that is subsequently methylated will bioaccumulate 
in the food chain.
    The actual amount of mercury released from fluorescent or HID lamps 
is unknown. It is estimated that lamps that are incinerated will 
release 98% of their mercury due to the high temperatures needed for 
the incineration process. However, because mercury is such a volatile 
metal, amounts of mercury could be released into the air from lamps 
broken during transportation or lamps broken at the landfill. For 
purposes of this proposal, EPA has made assumptions on the amount of 
mercury that may be released from a broken lamp but few studies have 
directly measured the amount of mercury released from a lamp over time.
    More information on the air release, transport and exposure pathway 
for mercury is needed in order to better evaluate the proper management 
methods for spent mercury-containing lamps. The Agency requests 
information on air transport of mercury from mercury-containing lamps, 
the mercury methylation process (both in general and in landfills) and 
any studies that directly measure the amount and form of mercury 
released from broken mercury-containing lamps.

IV. Management Options

    The information presented in this notice has led the Agency to re-
evaluate the management of waste mercury-containing lamps because of 
their importance in promoting energy-efficiency. As mentioned earlier 
in this notice, the use of energy-efficient lighting can reduce mercury 
emissions from coal-burning power plants as well as emissions of carbon 
dioxide and sulfur oxide. In light of the benefits derived from the use 
of these lamps, EPA is seeking comment on two proposed options based 
the data which indicate that these lamps may be better managed either 
outside of the hazardous waste system or in a reduced regulatory 
structure within the hazardous waste system.
    However, since there remain uncertainties in the data, more 
information on the air exposure pathway for mercury from lamps would 
facilitate a decision by EPA on the management of lamps. Additional 
information could clarify which kind of reduced management structure 
would be most appropriate for mercury-containing lamps. The Agency has 
requested that information, if available, be submitted with the public 
comment to this proposal.
    Given these technical uncertainties, EPA has developed two proposed 
alternative approaches for the management of mercury-containing lamps. 
The first approach is a conditional exclusion for mercury-containing 
lamps from regulation as hazardous waste. Under this approach, mercury-
containing lamps would no longer be considered hazardous waste provided 
that they are managed under the conditions of the exclusion. The second 
approach is to add mercury-containing lamps to the universal waste 
management system, which was proposed for batteries and pesticides on 
February 11, 1993 (58 FR 8102). Under the universal waste management 
system, lamps that fail the TC would be considered hazardous waste, but 
they would be subject to streamlined hazardous waste management 
requirements, which are described in detail later in this notice. The 
major difference between these two options is whether lamps are 
disposed of under Subtitle D requirements or under Subtitle C 
requirements. Recycling of lamps would be allowed under either option.
    If EPA concludes, after considering data from the public comment on 
this proposal, that the risk from mercury release from mercury-
containing lamps is not significant enough to warrant Subtitle C 
regulation, the Agency may choose to finalize a conditional exclusion. 
However, if EPA concludes, after considering data received in public 
comment that the risk from mercury release from lamps is significant, 
the Agency may choose to keep mercury-containing lamps in Subtitle C, 
under the universal waste management system.
    The following sections describe the two approaches in detail.

A. Conditional Exclusion

    Section 3001 of RCRA charges EPA with identifying the 
characteristics of hazardous waste and listing particular hazardous 
wastes. Section 1004(5) of RCRA defines waste as ``hazardous'' if the 
waste poses a ``substantial present or potential hazard'' to human 
health or the environment when improperly managed. The groundwater data 
discussed earlier in this notice suggest that mercury-bearing lamps, if 
they are disposed of according to the conditions of the proposed 
exclusion, may not pose a substantial present or future threat to human 
health or the environment. Based on the Agency's authority to identify 
characteristics of hazardous waste and the statutory definition of 
hazardous waste, EPA is considering whether an exclusion of used 
mercury-containing lamps from regulation as hazardous waste would be 
appropriate. EPA requests comment on the data presented in the 
proposal, as well as on whether to exclude these lamps from regulation 
as hazardous waste.
    The exclusion under consideration today has two conditions. In 
order to qualify for the exclusion:
    (1)(a) Generators would be required to either dispose of these 
lamps in a municipal solid waste landfill that is permitted by a State/
Tribe with an EPA-approved MSW permitting program, or
    (b) If generators do not send these lamps to a MSW landfill, they 
would send them to a State permitted, licensed, or registered mercury 
reclamation facility; and
    (2) Generators would be required to keep a record of the lamps 
shipped to management facilities.
    The Agency is proposing to limit the exclusion to spent lamps 
disposed in MSW landfills (requirements of MSW landfills are discussed 
later in this section), rather than allowing disposal in any 
nonhazardous waste landfill, because EPA has field data on leachate 
(including mercury levels) only for MSW landfills (among Subtitle D 
facility categories). The available information (discussed above) 
suggests that the amount of mercury from mercury-containing lamps that 
is released from MSW landfill gas is very small and its effect on 
ambient air quality may not pose a significant hazard to human health 
or the environment. EPA requests any information on the levels and 
impacts of mercury in MSW landfill gas. Further, data on leachate 
quality and air emissions from other nonhazardous waste landfills, 
including industrial solid waste landfills, is very limited. However, 
some soil column data also suggest that mercury dissolution into soil 
pore water occurs at very low levels (Eichholz et al., 1986). EPA 
requests comment on this approach and any information on mercury 
releases from other nonhazardous waste landfills. Based on EPA's 
existing data and any additional data received, EPA may expand the 
exclusion to include disposal in non-municipal, solid waste, Subtitle D 
disposal facilities.
    While this proposed exclusion from Subtitle C of RCRA is supported 
by data from municipal solid waste landfills with a range of design and 
operating conditions, EPA believes that limiting the exclusion to spent 
lamps disposed only in MSW landfills that are permitted by States or 
Tribes with EPA-approved MSW landfill permitting programs will provide 
further assurance that human health and the environment will be 
protected. In particular, these MSW landfill permitting controls will 
provide added protection to the management of these lamps.
    In October 1991, EPA promulgated new requirements for municipal 
solid waste landfills (40 CFR Part 258, October 9, 1991, 56 FR 51016). 
These requirements cover location restrictions, landfill design and 
operations, groundwater monitoring, corrective action measures, 
financial assurance, and conditions for closing the landfill and post 
closure care. The majority of landfill owners/operators accepting 
greater than 100 tons per day must comply with the majority of the 
requirements by October 9, 1993. On October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51536), EPA 
delayed the October 9, 1993 effective date for six months for landfills 
accepting less than 100 tons per day (in addition to other criteria) 
and delayed the effective date for two years for landfills in arid or 
remote regions that accept less than 20 tons per day.
    States/tribes are in the process of incorporating these new 
municipal solid waste landfill standards into their permitting programs 
and applying for EPA approval of their permitting programs. EPA is 
currently evaluating these State permitting programs to determine their 
adequacy in incorporating the new municipal solid waste landfill 
criteria (40 CFR part 258). As of June 30, 1993, EPA approved thirty-
six State municipal solid waste landfill programs. In addition, EPA is 
actively reviewing numerous State permitting program applications and 
expects to approve the remaining State landfill permitting programs by 
April 1994, well before this proposed rule would become effective as a 
final rule. EPA expects to issue ``partial'' program approvals to some 
States because their landfill permitting programs may not fully address 
all elements of the EPA municipal solid waste landfill criteria. For 
purposes of today's rule, EPA would consider ``partial'' program 
approvals, as well as ``full'' program approvals, to be ``EPA-
approved'' State municipal solid waste landfill permitting programs. 
Further, States with ``partial'' approval have agreed to an EPA 
approved schedule for full approval. The Agency believes that limiting 
today's proposed exclusion to landfills that are permitted by States 
that have incorporated EPA's new municipal landfill standards will 
provide further assurance that spent lamps will be safely managed in 
municipal solid waste landfills. EPA requests comment on this approach 
and any alternative approaches.
    The second condition, which limits the proposed exclusion to lamps 
managed in State permitted, licensed, or registered mercury reclamation 
facilities, is also consistent with the Agency's support for 
environmentally sound reclamation of waste. EPA believes that with 
adequate State oversight, mercury containing lamps can be safely 
recycled and the mercury reclaimed from them. However, EPA is concerned 
that, in States without oversight over recyclers, recycling activities 
could pose a threat to human health and the environment because of 
inadequate or non-existent waste management controls. Therefore, the 
Agency is requesting information on recycling operations and practices. 
EPA is aware that several technologies are available to recycle lamps 
and recover mercury from them. However, the Agency does not have 
complete information on which technologies are currently being used by 
recycling companies and if these technologies can address all different 
kinds of lamps (e.g., tube, U-shaped, compact, etc.). The Agency also 
seeks information that tracks mercury as it moves through the recycling 
process. Further, EPA would like to know the operating capacity of 
existing or planned reyclers of mercury-containing lamps. The Agency is 
also requesting information on what markets exist for the mercury and 
other materials recovered from lamps. This information will be useful 
to the Agency in understanding and assessing possible risks to human 
health and the environment as well as to determine the potential or 
actual use of the materials recovered from lamps in the market.
    Under the conditional exclusion, regulated lamp generators (i.e., 
those that generate more than the conditional-exempt small quantity 
generator (CESQG) limit of 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month 
which would be about 350 mercury-containing lamps) would not be able to 
send lamps to a municipal waste combustor for disposal. EPA does not 
propose to extend the exclusion to lamps disposed in municipal waste 
combustors because of concern over mercury air emissions from these 
sources. However, this proposed option would not affect municipal waste 
combustors' ability to continue the combustion of traditional municipal 
solid waste which contains limited quantities of unregulated household 
or CESQG mercury-containing lamps. Because mercury-containing lamps do 
not burn, it is unlikely that truck loads of mercury-containing lamps 
(i.e., containing more than 350 lamps) would have been acceptable to 
most operators. The exclusion would assure that this disposal 
alternative is not considered in any situation. The Agency requests 
comment on the proposal to limit the exclusion to permitted municipal 
solid waste landfills (i.e., regulated lamp generators would not be 
allowed to send lamps to a municipal waste combustor for disposal).
    EPA also requests comment on adding to the exclusion handling 
requirements to minimize mercury emissions during storage and 
transportation (e.g., packaging to reduce breakage). These management 
controls could be the same as those proposed in the universal waste 
management system. The Agency is interested in data on the cost of and 
human health protection provided by these handling requirements for 
lamps.
    The third condition is that generators taking advantage of the 
exclusion would be required to maintain a written certification 
indicating the disposal or recycling location for the lamps. The 
proposed certification, to be signed by the generator or its authorized 
representative, would state that on a specified date a specified amount 
of lamps was consigned to a specified transporter for disposal or 
recycling at a specified facility. This certification would be required 
for each shipment of lamps and would be maintained by the generator for 
three years from the date of shipment. The Agency is proposing this 
documentation as a mechanism for verifying that the conditions of the 
exclusion have been met. Failure to maintain the required documentation 
would disqualify the generator from eligibility for the exclusion. The 
existence of the certification, however, would not protect a generator 
from an enforcement action if the lamps were not actually disposed of 
or recycled in accordance with the conditions.
    The Agency is proposing that separate documentation be required for 
each shipment based on its belief that most lamp generation is sporadic 
(every three to four years), as opposed to on-going generation which 
would lead to a continuous relationship with the same disposal or 
recycling facility. Given that the life span of mercury-containing 
lamps is approximately three to four years, businesses that participate 
in mass relampings would only dispose of their lamps every few years. 
Under the current hazardous waste regulations, many of these businesses 
would be subject to hazardous waste regulation because mass relamping 
could cause them to exceed the conditionally-exempt small quantity 
generator level (approximately 350 four foot lamps, if lamps are the 
only hazardous waste generated). However, small businesses and other 
facilities that generate just under the CESQG limit of hazardous waste 
(100 kg per month) may exceed this limit with attrition relamping. For 
these generators, this recordkeeping requirement could be more 
burdensome. The Agency requests comments on whether there are 
alternative mechanisms that can be used by generators to demonstrate 
compliance with the conditions of the exclusion. The Agency also 
requests comment on whether, if the Agency determines that 
documentation is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the 
conditions, the form and frequency of documentation proposed are 
appropriate.
    In addition to requesting comment on the conditions of the 
exclusion, the Agency requests comment on having a 3 to 5 year sunset 
provision on the exclusion. A sunset provision would require the Agency 
to re-evaluate the exclusion after a period of three to five years, to 
determine whether an exclusion is indeed appropriate for lamps given 
any unanticipated management or risk issues that develop as a result of 
the exclusion. The Agency would then determine whether to extend the 
exclusion.
    Finally, the Agency requests comments on other alternatives that 
still achieve the overall RCRA goal of protection of human health and 
the environment. EPA is interested in data on the benefits, costs, and 
legal authority for any alternatives and the Agency will consider such 
options.

B. Universal Waste Management System

1. Background
    On February 11, 1993, EPA proposed a streamlined, reduced 
regulatory management structure for certain widely-generated hazardous 
wastes currently subject to full RCRA Subtitle C regulation, in an 
effort to facilitate their collection and proper management (the 
``universal wastes'' proposal, 58 FR 8102). The proposed reduced 
regulatory structure, known as a special collection system, is designed 
to ensure that management of these hazardous wastes is conducted in a 
manner that is protective of human health and the environment, given 
the diffuse and diverse population of generators of these wastes. See 
the February 11, 1993 preamble discussion, for a detailed discussion of 
the proposal.
    The general waste types that EPA believes may be appropriately 
managed under this streamlined regulatory structure are known as 
``universal wastes'' and share several characteristics. These wastes:
     Are frequently generated in a wide variety of settings 
other than the industrial settings usually associated with hazardous 
wastes;
     Are generated by a vast community, the size of which poses 
implementation difficulties for both those who are regulated and the 
regulatory agencies charged with implementing the hazardous waste 
program; and
     May be present in significant volumes in the municipal 
waste stream.
    The February 11, 1993, proposal included specific regulatory text 
addressing the management of two waste types; hazardous waste 
batteries, and suspended and/or canceled hazardous waste pesticides 
that are recalled. The proposal also included a petition process and a 
set of criteria to be used to determine whether it would be appropriate 
to add additional waste types to the special collection system in the 
future. Several waste types such as automotive antifreeze, paint 
application wastes, and mercury-containing items such as thermostats 
and thermometers were discussed as possible additions to the Universal 
Waste proposal, also referred to as the special collection system.
2. Universal Waste System Alternative for Lamps
    In the February 11, 1993, proposal EPA mentioned fluorescent lamps 
(58 FR 8110), explaining that the Agency was examining the risks of 
managing these wastes in landfills and requesting data on the risks of 
various management methods for these wastes. Comments received in 
response to that request are included in the docket for this proposal. 
The Agency will respond to these comments in the final rule together 
with those submitted in response to Today's proposal. The Agency is 
requesting comment on using the proposed special collection system for 
the management of spent lamps as another approach to the management of 
mercury-containing lamps. The Agency has not yet promulgated a final 
universal waste rule but anticipates doing so in the near future. 
Should EPA select the universal waste option for lamps as a final rule, 
the Agency will ensure consistency with the more comprehensive 
universal waste final rule.
    The Agency believes that spent lamps may appropriately be 
considered ``universal wastes'' in that they are generated in a wide 
variety of settings, are generated by a very large number of 
generators, and are present in significant volumes in the municipal 
waste stream. The special collection system approach may be an 
appropriate option for addressing the collection phase of managing 
lamps that are hazardous waste. The special collection system approach 
(which is consistent with the February 11, 1993 proposal), would not 
change any of the requirements applicable to the ultimate treatment and 
disposal or recycling of any wastes collected, but would minimize the 
regulatory requirements applicable to collection of these wastes (i.e., 
generation, transportation, and intermediate storage/consolidation) for 
proper management.
    Special collection system regulations also could remove some 
existing barriers to management of hazardous waste lamps under the 
Subtitle C system by reducing the technical and paperwork requirements 
applicable to collection, thus making collection more efficient and 
economical. At the same time, management requirements included in 
special collection system regulations could be designed to minimize the 
hazards posed in collection of these wastes (e.g., special packaging 
could be required to minimize the risk of breakage).
    By removing some of the barriers to Subtitle C management for 
lamps, a special collection system approach could minimize concerns 
about decreased participation in the Green Lights program by 
simplifying and clarifying the requirements for mercury-containing lamp 
collection while maintaining Subtitle C control over final treatment 
and disposal (or recycling) for these lamps. Such an approach could 
help in assuring that the substantial environmental benefits offered by 
the Green Lights program are realized through increased participation. 
Management costs under the special collection system approach proposed 
on February 11, 1993, would be lower than full Subtitle C management 
because hazardous waste transporters and manifests would not be 
required for lamp shipments between the generator and the consolidation 
facility, and permits would not be required for storage at interim 
consolidation points. However, under the Special Collection System the 
management of mercury-containing lamps (after reaching the 
consolidation point) would be more expensive than the management of 
these lamps under the conditional exclusion (although the larger 
volumes managed at these consolidation points may result in certain 
economies of scale for transport and disposal or recycling).
    The Agency requests comment on whether spent hazardous waste lamps 
should be regulated under the special collection system approach 
proposed February 11, 1993. Documents included in the docket for this 
proposal include estimates indicating that approximately 3.9 billion 
spent lamps of all types may be disposed of annually in the country 
(including 550 million spent fluorescent lamps) and that lighting is 
one of the second largest contributors of mercury to the municipal 
waste stream (from all types of mercury-containing lamps). In addition, 
the Agency believes that spent mercury-containing lamps of some type 
must be generated by almost every commercial and industrial 
establishment in the country.
    In addition, a special collection system approach could address all 
types of spent lamps that fail the toxicity characteristic and are 
therefore hazardous waste, not only mercury-containing lamps. Such an 
approach seems appropriate since any type of waste lamp is likely to be 
``universal'' in nature. The Agency requests comment on whether various 
types of spent lamps (e.g., incandescent, neon), other than mercury-
containing lamps, typically fail the TC test (or exhibit other 
characteristics) and would be hazardous waste under the current RCRA 
Subtitle C toxicity characteristic (40 CFR 261.24). Indeed, should the 
Agency choose, in a final rule, to conditionally exempt mercury-
containing lamps from regulation under Subtitle C, the Agency may still 
elect to add other types of lamps to the universal waste management 
system. The Agency requests comment on this approach and on whether, 
how frequently, and for what TC constituents various lamp types may 
fail the toxicity characteristic. The Agency also requests that 
commenters submit any additional data that may be available on this 
question.
    The Agency requests comment on a special collection system for 
management of spent lamps including the same basic structure and 
requirements for generators, transporters, consolidation points, and 
destination facilities as proposed on February 11, 1993 for management 
of hazardous waste batteries and pesticides. The Agency is also 
specifically requesting comment on the items discussed below.
    First, in the February 11, 1993, proposal the Agency proposed a 
quantity limit for storage of batteries above which generators and 
consolidation points would be required to notify the Agency of their 
storage activities. The Agency requests comment on a notification 
requirement for generators and consolidation points storing more than 
35,000 spent mercury-containing lamps. This requirement is similar in 
substance to the notification requirement proposed in the Universal 
Wastes rule (proposed Sec. 273.11(c) and Sec. 273.13(d) (58 FR 8129-
8130)). EPA is suggesting a numerical limit rather than a weight limit 
because lamp packaging (e.g., the cardboard boxes in which new 
replacement lamps were shipped) may constitute a large proportion of 
the total weight of a shipment or stored quantity of lamps. In 
addition, industry practice appears to be to quantify inventories by 
number of lamps rather than by weight, calculated by multiplying the 
number of boxes of lamps in storage or in a shipment by the number of 
lamps per box. Since about 35,000 lamps roughly correspond to a full 
truckload of packaged fluorescent lamps, the Agency is suggesting a 
35,000 limit for fluorescent lamps. The Agency also requests comment on 
appropriate quantity limits for notification for other hazardous waste 
lamps types.
    Second, the Agency is requesting comment on the options proposed in 
the Universal Waste proposal Sec. 273.11(b)(2) and Sec. 273.13(a)(2) 
(58 FR 8129-8130) for demonstrating that lamps are not stored for 
greater than one year. In addition, with respect to tracking of lamp 
shipments, the Agency is requesting comment on several alternatives. 
The approach included in today's proposed regulatory text is the same 
as that included in the universal wastes proposal for batteries 
(Sec. 273.12(b) of the universal waste proposal). This approach 
requires that the manifest system be used (which triggers the use of 
hazardous waste transporters) for shipments from the last consolidation 
point to a destination facility, but that no manifests or other records 
(or hazardous waste transporters) be required for shipments from 
generators to consolidation points, between consolidation points, or 
from generators to destination facilities. On the other hand, because a 
number of comments received on the proposed universal wastes rule 
disagreed with this approach, the Agency is also requesting comment on 
two additional approaches. The first alternative, which was suggested 
in several comments on the universal wastes rule, would be to require 
that persons initiating and receiving shipments of lamps retain 
shipping papers documenting the shipments. The minimum data elements 
required for such records could be specified (e.g., quantity of lamps, 
date of shipment or receipt, name and address of shipper and receiver). 
The second alternative would be not to specifically require any 
specific record keeping for shipments of lamps, but, as with all 
exemptions, the person claiming the exemption would have to keep 
documentation to show they qualify (see Sec. 261.2(f)). The Agency is 
requesting comment on this second alternative because it is believed 
that due to the large volumes of lamps, shipments are more likely to be 
made directly from the generator to a destination facility. Records 
would be available for such shipments because destination facilities 
are already required under 40 CFR 264.73(b)(1) or 265.73(b)(1) to 
maintain records including the description and quantity of each 
hazardous waste received. It is likely that lamps would be shipped 
directly from generators to disposal facilities because volumes are 
likely to be large enough that consolidation will not be necessary to 
make full truckloads. In addition, the storage space and careful 
handling required for management of these wastes make consolidation 
less attractive and shipment directly to the destination facility more 
likely.
    A third question on which the Agency requests comment is what 
management controls would be appropriate to impose on collection of 
lamps under a special collection system approach. Some of the data 
included in the docket for this proposal discuss the risks of the types 
of management likely in lamp collection such as management at the 
generator's site, transportation, and storage (U.S. EPA, 1993a). 
Requirements could include packaging that would be required to meet a 
performance standard of minimizing breakage for unbroken spent lamps. A 
wide variety of containers would probably satisfy such packaging 
requirements. EPA expects that packaging in which new replacement lamps 
are shipped from the manufacturer would frequently be reused to store 
and transport removed, used lamps. Another option could be to impose a 
prohibition on intentional breakage of spent lamps by generators.
    In addition, requirements could be imposed on the storage and 
transportation of spent lamps that are inadvertently broken, to prevent 
further mercury emissions. Steel 55-gallon drums or any enclosed 
container could be used to hold broken lamps for transportation to the 
disposal site. In summary, the Agency requests comment on whether the 
exclusion should include requirements to minimize mercury emissions 
during storage and transportation of spent lamps. Management standards 
would apply to transporter and consolidation points as well as for 
generators. The Agency requests comment on management practices for 
lamps, the risks posed by these practices, and appropriate technical 
controls to minimize these risks while at the same time not inhibiting 
collection and proper management. The Agency also requests comment on 
whether generators or consolidation points should be allowed to 
intentionally crush lamps to minimize volume for storage or shipment 
and what, if any, standards should be imposed to protect against 
mercury releases during crushing or the subsequent management of 
crushed lamps. The proposed universal waste management system includes 
a prohibition on treatment (crushing is considered treatment) of lamps 
at the generator, transporter and consolidation points.
    A fourth question on which the Agency requests comment is whether 
to include a 3 to 5 year sunset provision on the universal waste system 
for lamps. A sunset provision will require EPA to re-evaluate the 
effectiveness of the universal waste system in addressing the disposal 
of lamps after 3 to 5 years. The Agency can then decide whether less 
controls or more controls are needed to maintain the safe management of 
lamps and whether to extend the inclusion of lamps in the universal 
waste system.

VI. State Authority

A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States

    Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to 
administer and enforce the RCRA program with the State. (See 40 CFR 
part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) 
Following authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under 
sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have 
primary enforcement responsibility. The standards and requirements for 
authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271.
    Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, a 
State with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program 
entirely in lieu of EPA administering the Federal program in that 
State. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized 
State and EPA could not issue permits for any facility in the State 
that the State was authorized to permit. When new, more stringent 
Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State was obliged 
to enact equivalent authority within specified time frames. New Federal 
requirements did not take effect in an authorized State until the 
authorized State adopted the requirements as State law.
    In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new 
requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take effect in 
authorized States at the same time that they take effect in non-
authorized States. EPA is directed to implement HSWA requirements and 
prohibitions in an authorized State, including the issuance of permits, 
until the State is granted authorization to do so. While States must 
still adopt HSWA-related provisions as State law to retain final 
authorization, HSWA applies in authorized States in the interim.

B. Effect on State Authorizations

    The conditional exclusion and the universal waste management system 
would not be HSWA regulations, and thus would not be immediately 
effective in authorized States. Thus, the exemption would be applicable 
only in those States that do not have final authorization for the base 
(non-HSWA) portion of the RCRA program.
    Section 3009 of RCRA allows States to impose more stringent 
regulations than the Federal program. Accordingly, authorized States 
are only required to modify their programs when EPA promulgates Federal 
regulations that are more stringent than the authorized State 
regulations. For those changes that are less stringent or reduce the 
scope of the Federal program, States are not required to modify their 
programs. Today's proposed options are considered less stringent or 
smaller in scope than the existing Federal regulations because that 
portion of today's proposal would exempt certain activities now within 
the purview of RCRA Subtitle C. Therefore, authorized States are not 
required to modify their programs to adopt regulations consistent with 
and equivalent to the proposed exclusion or the proposed universal 
waste management system for lamps.
    Even though States will not be required to adopt today's proposed 
options (if either is finalized), EPA would encourage States to do so. 
As already explained in the preamble, a conditional exclusion of 
mercury-containing lamps or the addition of lamps to the universal 
waste management system could reduce barriers to participation in EPA's 
Green Lights program, which encourages pollution prevention through 
energy savings. Further, it could help to clarify for the regulated 
community the proper management of mercury-containing lamps.
    In addition, the proposed options, by making regulations less 
stringent for management of lamps, would give States more freedom to 
develop programs for lamp disposal that would be appropriate for their 
situation.

VII. Economic Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order No. 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) 
the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant 
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: 
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, this section of the 
preamble summarizes the costs (savings) and the economic impact 
analysis of (option 1) the proposed mercury-containing lamp exclusion 
and of (option 2) the proposed special collection of mercury-containing 
lamps. Based upon the economic impact analysis for today's rule, the 
Agency's best estimate is that the exclusion of mercury-containing 
lamps from Subtitle C hazardous waste regulatory requirements (option 
1) may result in nationwide annualized savings of approximately $93 
million, and the special collection of mercury containing lamps (option 
2) may result in a nationwide annualized savings of approximately $17 
million. A complete discussion of the economic impact analysis is 
available in the regulatory docket for today's proposed rule (EPA, 
1994).
    The Agency requests information to better evaluate the human health 
and environmental effects of the two options described in this notice 
and current disposal practices. Human and environmental exposure to 
mercury could occur during the collection, transportation, processing, 
recycling, treatment, and disposal of spent lamps. EPA estimated the 
potential mercury air emissions resulting from some of these 
activities, but is uncertain about the extent and likelihood of human 
and environmental exposure. The Agency is also aware that the two 
regulatory options may pose different worker and transportation injury 
risks as well as different environmental risks. The Agency requests 
information on the overall risks to human health and the environment 
associated with current practices and the two proposed options.

A. Compliance Costs (Savings) for Regulatory Options Considered

    This section briefly describes (1) the universe of spent mercury-
containing lamps and lamp generators, (2) the current regulatory 
baseline and (3) the major options for the regulation of spent mercury-
containing lamps included in today's proposal for consideration. 
Descriptions of the baseline and the major options also include a 
summary of the methodology used in estimating compliance costs 
(savings). Results of the analysis are summarized in section 5.
1. Universe of Spent Lamps and Spent Lamp Generators
    The Agency estimates that approximately 310 to 380 million mercury-
containing lamps, and 47,000 to 64,000 facilities could be affected 
annually by today's proposal.
    The spent lamp generation number is based on sales data,\1\ 
adjusted to account for (1) Lamps generated by Conditionally Exempt 
Small Quantity Generators (CESQG), which would not be affected by 
either one of the proposed options, and (2) lamps generated in States 
where spent bulb management regulations exist (California, Minnesota, 
and Wisconsin). (It was assumed that these State controls would be more 
stringent than the options considered in today's proposal and would 
therefore supersede any Federal exemption of spent mercury-containing 
lamps from Subtitle C requirements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Source: National Electrical Manufacturing Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Baseline Costs
    EPA assumed that baseline requirements are the continuation of 
current Subtitle C regulatory standards for the treatment and disposal 
of mercury-containing lamps which currently fail the TC. Under this 
scenario, generators of spent mercury containing lamps which fail the 
TC continue to be subject to the full spectrum of hazardous waste 
management standards including record keeping and manifesting of all 
mercury-containing lamp shipments, Agency notification and Subtitle C 
transport, treatment, storage and disposal standards.
    In the cost analysis, all spent mercury-containing lamps were 
assumed to be TC (Toxicity Characteristic) hazardous wastes. All spent 
lamps were also assumed to be in the low risk category for mercury, 
requiring stabilization as treatment under the Land Disposal 
Restrictions.
    Cost drivers for the baseline management of spent lamps include 
hazardous waste transportation, and Subtitle C disposal. The bulk of 
mercury-containing lamps currently disposed (97%) are assumed to be 
stabilized and disposed of in hazardous waste landfills. The remainder, 
based upon volume data from the spent mercury-containing lamp recovery 
industry, are recycled. Based upon conversations with the recycling 
industry, which indicate planned increases in recycling capacity, the 
analysis assumed a small annual increase in the baseline recycling rate 
of mercury-containing lamps over the first three years of the analysis. 
Unit costs for stabilization, landfilling, recycling and hazardous 
waste transport were applied on a per ton basis.
    Generator specific requirements which applied to all large quantity 
generators of spent mercury-containing lamps included record-keeping, 
manifesting, exception reporting, and BRS (Biennial Reporting System) 
reporting. Other generator requirements, including rule 
familiarization, notification, personnel safety training and 
emergency\2\ planning were only assessed for new facilities which spot 
relamp and store (up to 90 days for large quantity generators; up to 
180 days for small quantity generators) spent lamps on site. It is 
assumed that costs resulting from generator requirements which are 
incurred on a per shipment basis (i.e. manifesting, exception 
reporting) will be incurred by group relampers once every three years 
(once per relamp). Spot relampers will incur these costs twice a year 
(for small quantity generators) or four times per year (for large 
quantity generators).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\According to 40 CFR part 265 Subpart D of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, all large quantity generators of 
hazardous waste must draft a contingency plan describing the actions 
facility personnel will take should a fire, explosion, or any 
unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of hazardous waste 
constituents to air, soil, or surface water occur. Local emergency 
response teams use the information required in the contingency plan 
to minimize unanticipated damage from the storage of hazardous 
waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Option 1: Conditional Exclusion From Subtitle C Standards Costs
    The first option under consideration in today's proposal is to 
exclude mercury-containing lamps from Subtitle C management standards 
with the condition that these lamps are managed in permitted municipal 
landfills or recycling facilities. The proposed exclusion also includes 
a minor generator record keeping requirement. As the exclusion would be 
deregulatory, primary economic impacts to small and large quantity 
generators of mercury-containing lamps resulting from this action would 
be in the form of cost savings from avoided Subtitle C regulatory 
management, particularly for transport and disposal of spent lamps.
    In the cost analysis, it was assumed that, given the proposed 
conditional exclusion, all small and large quantity generators of spent 
mercury-containing lamps would opt for management in municipal 
landfills in order to reduce disposal costs.
    Some generators may have slightly higher disposal costs than others 
as a result of the proposed exclusion of mercury-containing lamps from 
municipal combustors. If these generators currently manage their non-
hazardous waste in municipal combustors, the combustor exclusion may 
require these generators to: (1) Keep their spent lamps separate from 
the rest of their municipal solid waste, (2) store spent lamps on site 
until enough volume has been generated to make disposal cost effective, 
and (3) haul spent lamps greater distances to municipal solid waste 
landfills.
    In short, overall savings to be accrued from the proposed exclusion 
may vary slightly from generator to generator.
4. Option 2: Special Collection Costs
    The second option, special collection, included in today's proposal 
would allow small and large quantity generators of spent mercury-
containing lamps to reduce certain administrative activities required 
under Subtitle C standards, including biennial reporting, notification, 
manifesting and personnel training. Additionally the option also allows 
generators to store spent mercury-containing lamps on-site for up to 
one year without a hazardous waste permit, and to transport their spent 
lamps direct to final disposal or recycling using non-hazardous waste 
haulers.
    The option also includes similar reduced requirements for interim 
spent lamp storage facilities and ``special collection centers.'' 
Transportation to these facilities or centers from the generator would 
not be regulated under Subtitle C standards, however, transport to 
final disposal or recycling from these facilities would be regulated 
under Subtitle C standards.
    The costs estimated for Special Collection Option assumes for urban 
generators direct shipment using non-hazardous waste haulers, as 
allowed under this option, from generators to final disposal; thus the 
costs of creating and operating an interim storage facility or special 
collection center are not included for urban generators. The rationale 
for this omission is twofold: (1) It is assumed that spent lamp 
generation is large enough to create economies of scale for direct non-
hazardous waste transport; the need for special collection centers is 
precluded by non-hazardous waste transport ``milk runs'' for spent 
lamps, and (2) although there may be economies of scale generated for 
long-haul transport of spent lamps from collection centers, the special 
collection option requires Subtitle C transport from the centers to 
final disposal or recycling, thus making the use of a collection center 
with Subtitle C final transport more expensive than Subtitle D direct 
transport to the disposal facility.
5. Results
    a. National Annualized Costs (Savings). A summary of estimated 
national annual compliance costs associated with the exclusion option 
and the special collection option, along with estimated baseline 
compliance costs are presented below in exhibit VII.1. Also presented 
are estimated incremental savings above baseline compliance costs for 
each option. Costs were annualized over a twenty-year period, using a 
7% discount rate. The analysis used projected growth in the U.S. 
population over the twenty-year time frame of the analysis to estimate 
the increase in growth of spent lamp generation. Total estimated 
annualized savings range between approximately $85 million and $102 
million for the exclusion and savings estimates for the special 
collection option range between $16 million and $20 million in savings.
    The above savings estimate is based on the assumption in the 
baseline that all facilities are properly managing their mercury-
containing spent lamps as Subtitle C waste. Currently, however, some 
lamp generators may not be aware that fluorescent lamps are hazardous 
waste and therefore may not be following Subtitle C requirements. 
Hence, estimated savings may represent savings from a future scenario 
of full compliance with current law, rather than savings from current 
lamp management. EPA expects that if no regulatory action is taken, 
Subtitle C management of mercury-containing lamps will become more 
prevalent over the next few years. 

    Exhibit VII.1.--Annualized Costs (Savings) of Regulatory Options    
   [Costs (savings) are presented in millions of 1992 dollars/year\3\]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Incremental annualized
   Regulatory option      Total annualized costs   costs/(savings) above
                                                         baseline       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline: Subtitle C     $110-$134; BE: $118....  NA.                   
 Standards.                                                             
Option 1: Conditional     $25-$32; BE: $25......  ($85)-($102); BE:     
 Exclusion from                                    ($93).               
 Subtitle C.                                                            
Option 2: Special        $94-$115; BE: $101.....  ($16)-($20); BE:      
 Collection.                                       ($17).               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Numbers may not add up due to rounding.                              
BE=Best Estimate.                                                       

    b. Individual Generator Savings. Average total savings per 
generator for both options were simply assessed by dividing total 
savings by the estimated number of generators above (refer to the 
methodology section). The average annual baseline Subtitle C cost per 
generator is estimated to be between $2,000 to $2,250 per generator. 
Average per generator savings for the two deregulatory options are 
indicated below in exhibit VII.2. Individual generator savings, 
however, will vary due to facility size, proximity to disposal or 
recycling facility, and regional disposal/recycling costs. 

  Exhibit VII.2.--Average Annual Cost (Savings) Per Regulated Generator 
                           [In 1992 dollars]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Average annual cost (savings)/  
         Regulatory option                        generator             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusion from Subtitle C Standards  ($1,500)--High Savings Scen.       
                                     ($2,000)--Low Savings Scen.        
                                     ($1,600)--Best Estimate.           
Special Collection.................  ($300)--High Savings Scen.         
                                     ($300)--Low Savings Scen.          
                                     ($300)--Best Estimate.             
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Savings Per Waste Lamp Generated. As with average savings per 
generator estimates, average savings per waste lamp generated were 
derived by simply dividing total upper and lower bound costs (savings) 
by the estimated number of waste lamps accounted for by small and large 
quantity generators in states without specific spent lamp management 
standards. The average baseline Subtitle C cost per bulb is estimated 
to be $.34 to $.36. The resulting savings per lamp is estimated at $.27 
per bulb for the conditional exclusion option (both high and low 
savings scenario) and at $.05 per bulb for the special collection 
option. Again, cost per bulb may vary significantly due to site 
specific factors.
6. Sensitivity Analysis
    This section presents the results of EPA's analysis of the effects 
of varying selected major parameters in the cost analysis (where the 
Agency used considerable judgment in arriving at the parameter's value) 
on the estimated savings incurred under the proposed conditional 
exclusion and the proposed Universal Waste Rule. The following 
assumptions were analyzed in the sensitivity analysis for EPA's 
analysis of spent lamp management costs:
    (1) Percentage of Lamps Generated at Small and Large Quantity 
Generators. In the sensitivity analysis, EPA set its lower bound 
estimates of the percentage of lamps generated at SQGs and LQGs at 
fifty percent of total spent lamp generation and its upper bound 
estimates at ninety percent. (Seventy-five percent was used in the 
initial cost analysis).
    (2) Cost to Transport Subtitle C Waste. In the sensitivity 
analysis, EPA increased the upper bound estimates of the costs of 
transporting spent lamps as Subtitle C by a factor of three, based on 
price quotes from commercial transporters, over original estimates.
    (3) Cost to Dispose of Subtitle C Waste. Based on price quotes from 
commercial hazardous waste disposal facilities, EPA increased the upper 
bound estimates of the Subtitle C disposal costs by a factor of four 
over original estimates.
    (4) Cost of Employee Training. To reflect uncertainty over whether 
a professional trainer would be required and over how many employees 
would need to be trained, EPA increased and decreased the cost of 
employee training required by 50 percent.
    The costs associated with the high-end scenario were estimated 
using the upper bound estimates for each cost element included in the 
sensitivity analysis. The costs associated with the low-end scenario 
combined the lower bound estimates for each cost element. The results 
from these two analyses suggest that the range of total annual savings 
from the proposed condition exclusion for spent lamps could be $65 
million to $289 million, and the range of total annual savings from the 
proposed Universal Waste RCRA requirements for generators of spent 
lamps could be $15 million to $39 million. The range in cost savings is 
mainly the result of uncertainty over Subtitle C transportation and 
disposal costs for lamps. Although EPA has received price quotes for 
management of lamps as Subtitle C waste that are considerably higher 
than the average cost of managing hazardous waste in Subtitle C 
landfills, it is not appropriate to directly compare price quotes to 
engineering costs because the price quotes reflect a constrained market 
place which tends to inflate prices well above costs. However, a three-
fold difference between the price quotes for spent lamps and standard 
Subtitle C management cost may also be due to other factors beyond the 
inflated prices of the constrained market, including the low density of 
lamps (i.e. a ton of lamps has a greater volume than a ton of hazardous 
waste sludge), or difficulty in handling lamps. EPA requests comment on 
the true costs, as well as the reasoning behind these costs, of 
managing spent lamps as Subtitle C waste.

B. Proposed Rule Impacts

1. Impacts on Generators of Mercury-Containing Waste Lamps
    As indicated above, option 1, the exclusion, is estimated to result 
in average annual savings per small and large quantity spent lamp 
generator ranging from $2,000 to $2,250. Option 2, special collection, 
is estimated to result in an average annual per generator savings of 
approximately $300.
2. Secondary Effects
    While total incremental savings from the proposed exclusion (option 
1) and from the proposed special collection system (option 2) over a 
Subtitle C management approach appear to be high, the Agency does not 
expect significant immediate shifts in demand or price for the lamps or 
for products manufactured or sold by firms which consume these lamps 
due to the proposed options. Because the impacts to lamp generators are 
positive (i.e. net savings), the Agency does not expect the rule to 
result in adverse impacts to businesses, or to affect employment or 
international trade to any appreciable degree.
    EPA believes that, with the exception of lamps generated in States 
with existing lamp disposal requirements, most small and large quantity 
generators of mercury containing lamps will choose to dispose of their 
waste lamps in municipal solid waste landfills under option 1, the 
proposed exclusion from Subtitle C. This is because Subtitle D disposal 
is significantly less expensive per bulb than recycling or Subtitle C 
disposal.\4\ Subsequently, most waste lamps currently being handled 
according to Subtitle C standards by permitted hazardous waste haulers, 
disposal sites and spent lamp processing facilities, would be handled 
by Subtitle D haulers and disposal facilities. Thus Subtitle C waste 
haulers, disposal and spent lamp processing facilities would be 
affected negatively while Subtitle D haulers and disposal facilities 
would be affected positively under option 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\EPA estimates that the average cost per ton for Subtitle D 
disposal is $35 as compared to $400 per ton for Subtitle C disposal 
and $1,375 per ton for recycling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The exclusion, option 1, may also have an impact upon mercury-
containing lamp processors. The Agency estimates that there are 
currently 15 facilities which process spent mercury-containing lamps. 
Two of these facilities recover spent mercury through retorting; the 
remaining 13 facilities separate the glass and aluminum ends, and send 
the mercury-containing phosphor powder to the two facilities that 
retort. Ten of the 15 lamp processing facilities are located in the 
three States where spent lamp management regulations exist. Although 
most recovery facilities are located in States with stringent State 
lamp disposal requirements, and would most likely will not be affected 
by today's proposed exclusion, a certain percentage of the spent lamps 
currently recovered at these facilities are generated in States with no 
specific lamp disposal requirements. EPA believes that a portion of 
mercury-containing lamps would no longer be sent for recovery under the 
proposed exclusion (option 1) since disposal in municipal landfills 
would be significantly less expensive.5 Assuming that lamps 
generated outside of these States will not be sent for recovery, it is 
possible that 17 percent, or 16 million lamps, may be diverted. Using a 
lamp/revenue ratio for recovery facilities of $.44, total impact to the 
industry could be approximately $7 million dollars6 in lost 
revenues ($469,000 per facility). Future recycling efforts may also be 
impacted since many of these facilities may retract plans for expansion 
in States which currently have no specific lamp disposal requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\EPA estimates that Subtitle D landfilling costs range between 
$10 and $150 per ton depending upon the region of the country. 
Compared with an average recycling cost of $1375 per ton, Subtitle D 
landfilling is significantly less expensive.
    \6\Similar estimates were not derived for Subtitle C waste 
haulers or disposal sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under option 2, the proposed special collection system, small and 
large quantity generators would not be allowed to choose to dispose of 
hazardous waste lamps in a municipal solid waste landfill. Thus the 
above impacts on Subtitle C waste haulers, disposal and spent lamp 
processing facilities would not be observed under the second option.

VIII. References

Baccini, P., G. Hensler, R. Figi, and H. Belevi. 1987. Water and 
Element Balances of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Waste 
Management and Research. 5:483-499.
Borden, R.C., and T.M. Yanoshak. 1990. Ground and Surface Water 
Quality Impacts of North Carolina Sanitary Landfills. Water 
Resources Bulletin. 26(2):269-277.
Eichholz, C.G., Petelka, M.F., Kury, R.L. 1986. Migration of 
Elemental Mercury through Soil from Simulated Burial Sites. Water 
Resources. 22(1): 269-277
Gould, J.P., F.G. Pohland, and W.H. Cross. 1988. Mobilization and 
Retention of Mercury and Lead from Particulates Co-disposed with 
Municipal Solid Waste. Particulate Science and Technology. 6:381-
392.
Kirschner, D.S., R.L. Billau, and T.J. MacDonald. 1988. Fluorescent 
Light Tube Compaction: Evaluation of Employee Exposure to Airborne 
Mercury. Applied Industrial Hygiene. 3:129-131.
Mennerich, A. 1985. Laboratory Scale Test Simulating Co-disposal in 
Landfills. In: Proceedings--International Conference on New 
Frontiers for Hazardous Waste Management. U.S. EPA. 60/9-851025.
Metzger, M., and H. Brown. 1987. In-situ Mercury Speciation in Flue 
Gas by Liquid and Solid Sorption Systems. Chemosphere. 16(4):821-
832.
NEMA. 1992. The Management of Spent Electric Lamps containing 
Mercury. National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Washington, 
D.C.
National Environmental Protection Board and Swedish Association of 
Public Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. 1989. Off gassing of 
Mercury Vapor from Landfills. Depa-90 Report No. 5. Sweden.
Reimann, D.O. 1989. Heavy Metals in Domestic Refuse and their 
Distribution in Incinerator Residues. Water Waste Management and 
Research. 7:57-62.
Sorenson, J.A., G.E. Glass, K.W. Schmidt, J.K. Huber, and G.R. Rapp, 
Jr. 1990. Airborne Mercury Deposition and Watershed Characteristics 
in relation to Mercury Concentrations in Water, Sediments, Plankton, 
and Fish of eighty northern Minnesota Lakes. Environmental Science 
Technical. 24(11):1716-1727.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Summary of Data on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill 
Leachate Characteristics. EPA/530-SW-88-038. U.S. EPA. Office of 
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the 
United States: 1990 Update. EPA/530-SW-90-042. Office of Solid Waste 
and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991a. Environmental News: EPA Sets Air Emission Standards 
for Municipal Waste Incinerators. January 11, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. A Geochemical Assessment Model for Environmental 
Systems. EPA/600-3-91-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Characterization of Products containing Mercury in 
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970-2000. U.S. EPA. 
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. Analytical Results of Mercury in Fluorescent Lamps. 
U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Green Lights Program: The First Year. U.S. EPA. 
Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Management of Used Fluorescent Lamps: Preliminary 
Risk Assessment. U.S. EPA. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. Report of the National Technical Forum on Source 
Reduction of Heavy Metals in Municipal Solid Waste. U.S. EPA. Office 
of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Technical Background Document: Economic Impact 
Analysis for Proposed Options on Mercury-Containing Lamps. U.S. EPA. 
Office of Solid Waste. Washington, D.C.
Vogg, H., H. Brown, M. Metzger, and J. Schneider. 1986. The Specific 
Role of Cadmium and Mercury in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration. 
Waste Management and Research. 4:65-74.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in today's proposed rule 
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR# 1699.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, 
Information Policy Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, S.W. (2136); Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The public record keeping burden for this collection of information 
is estimated to average 4.7 hours per response annually, including time 
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 
and maintaining the required data, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2236, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal 
agencies to consider ``small entities'' throughout the regulatory 
process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial screening analysis 
to be performed to determine whether small entities will be affected by 
the regulation. If affected small entities are identified, regulatory 
alternatives must be considered to mitigate the potential impacts. 
Small entities as described in the Act are only those ``businesses, 
organizations and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.''
    The only entities directly subject to today's proposed rule are 
small and large quantity generators of spent mercury containing lamps 
(conditionally exempt small quantity generators are not directly 
subject to today's proposed rule). In order to meet the definition of a 
regulated entity under today's rule, a generator must produce over 100 
kg of spent lamps (350 four foot fluorescent lamps) in a given month. 
It is conceivable that some of these generators would meet the 
definition of ``small business'' as defined by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (i.e. mid-sized firms that group relamp and generate in 
excess of 346 spent fluorescent lamps in a given month); however the 
Agency does not have an estimate of the number of such ``small 
entities.'' However, both of the proposed options are expected to 
result in net savings to the regulated entities. Option 1, excluding 
mercury containing lamps from Subtitle C management standards, is 
estimated to result in per generator savings of between $2,000 and 
$2,250 annually. Option 2, managing spent lamps under a special 
collection system is estimated to result in an average annual per 
generator savings of approximately $300. Thus, since generator impacts 
are positive for both options, EPA has determined that small regulated 
entities will not be adversely impacted, and thus, no ``mitigating'' 
options are being analyzed in this section. Hence, pursuant to section 
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), ``the 
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of entities.''

    Dated: July 13, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment amd disposal.

40 CFR Part 273

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and 
containers.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 260 and 261, 
and 40 CFR part 273 as proposed in the Federal Register on February 11, 
1993 at 58 FR 8102, are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 260--HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

    1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 
6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974.

Subpart B--Definitions

    2. Section 260.10 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definitions for ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-containing lamp'' to 
read as follows:


Sec. 260.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electric lamp means the bulb or tube portion of a lighting device 
specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in the 
ultraviolet (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR) regions of the 
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps include, 
but is not limited to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity 
discharge, and neon lamps.
* * * * *
    Mercury-containing lamp is an electric lamp in which mercury is 
purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of the lamp.
* * * * *

Option 1

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    3. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.


    4. In Sec. 261.4, paragraph (b)(16) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 261.4  Exclusions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) Spent mercury-containing lamps which are disposed in municipal 
solid waste landfills in States or Indian Tribes with an EPA approved 
State or Tribal municipal solid waste landfill program or managed in 
mercury reclamation facilities that are permitted, licensed or 
registered by a State or Tribe. To qualify for this exclusion, a 
generator must maintain in its operating records for three years from 
the date of shipment a certification for each shipment of mercury-
containing lamps that is signed by the generator or its authorized 
representative and that states the following:

    I certify, under penalty of law, that on [date], I consigned 
[amount] of mercury-containing lamps to [name and address of 
transporter] for [disposal] [recycling] at [name and address of 
disposal or recycling facility]. I am aware that there are 
significant penalties for submitting false information, including 
the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Option 2

PART 273--STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM WASTES

    5. The authority citation for part 273 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 6930, and 6937.

    6. In Sec. 273.3, definitions for ``electric lamp'' and ``mercury-
containing lamp'' are added in alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 273.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Electric lamp means the bulb or tube portion of a lighting device 
specifically designed to produce radiant energy, most often in the 
ultraviolent (UV), visible, and infra-red (IR) regions of the 
electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of common electric lamps include, 
but are not limited to, incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity 
discharge, and neon lamps.
* * * * *
    Mercury-containing lamp is an electric lamp in which mercury are 
purposely introduced by the manufacturer for the operation of the lamp.
* * * * *
    7-8. Subpart D is added to Part 273 to read as follows:

Subpart D--Lamps That Are Hazardous Wastes

Sec.
273.30  Applicability.
273.31  Generator requirements.
273.32  Transporter requirements.
273.33  Consolidation point requirements.
273.34  Destination facility requirements.
273.35  Export requirements.
273.36-273.39  [Reserved].

Subpart D--Lamps That Are Hazardous Wastes


Sec. 273.30  Applicability.

    (a) Covered wastes. (1) This subpart sets forth standards for 
managing lamps that are hazardous wastes.
    (2) Lamps that are hazardous wastes and that are not managed in 
compliance with the requirements of this Part must be managed under the 
hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 260 through 272 of this 
chapter.
    (b) Household and conditionally exempt small quantity generator 
waste lamps. (1) Persons managing the wastes listed below may, at their 
option, manage them under the requirements of this subpart without 
changing the wastes' exempt status:
    (i) Household hazardous waste lamps that are exempt under 40 CFR 
261.4(b)(1); and/or
    (ii) Conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste 
lamps that are exempt under 40 CFR 261.5.
    (2) Persons who commingle household hazardous waste lamps and/or 
conditionally exempt small quantity generator hazardous waste lamps 
together with hazardous waste lamps regulated under this subpart must 
manage the commingled lamps under the requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 273.31  Generator requirements.

    (a) Generation of hazardous waste lamps. (1) The date a used lamp 
becomes a waste is the date the generator permanently removes it from 
its fixture.
    (2) The date an unused lamp becomes a waste is the date the 
generator decides to throw it away.
    (3) A waste lamp is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or more of 
the characteristics identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C.
    (b) Condition of hazardous waste lamps. A generator of hazardous 
waste lamps must at all times:
    (1) Contain unbroken lamps in packaging that will minimize breakage 
during normal handling conditions; and
    (2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize releases 
of lamp fragments and residues.
    (c) Storage. (1) A generator may store a hazardous waste lamp for 
no longer than one year from the date the lamp became a waste.
    (2) A generator who stores hazardous waste lamps must be able to 
demonstrate that lamps are not stored for more than one year from the 
date they became a waste. A generator may make this demonstration by:
    (i) Placing the lamps in a container and marking or labeling the 
container with the earliest date that any lamp in the container became 
a waste;
    (ii) Marking or labeling an individual lamp with the date that it 
became a waste;
    (iii) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the date each 
lamp in storage became a waste;
    (iv) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the earliest 
date that any lamp in a group of lamps became a waste; or
    (v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and identifying 
the earliest date that any lamp in the storage area became a waste.
    (d) Notification. (1) A generator who stores more than 35,000 
hazardous waste lamps at any time must have, before exceeding the 
35,000 lamp quantity limit, sent written notification of hazardous 
waste lamp storage to the Regional Administrator and received an EPA 
Identification Number.
    (2) This notification must include:
    (i) The generator's name and mailing address;
    (ii) The name and business telephone number of the person at the 
generator's site who should be contacted regarding the lamp storage 
activity;
    (iii) The address or physical location of the lamp storage 
activity;
    (iv) A statement indicating that the generator stores more than 
35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
    (e) Prohibitions. A generator of hazardous waste lamps is:
    (1) Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
    (2) Prohibited from treating them, except by responding to releases 
as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section; and
    (3) Prohibited from sending or taking the hazardous waste lamps to 
a place other than a consolidation point, destination facility, or 
foreign destination.
    (f) Lamp management. (1) A generator must at all times manage 
hazardous waste lamps in a way that minimizes lamp breakage.
    (2)(i) A generator must immediately contain all releases of 
residues from hazardous waste lamps.
    (ii) A generator must determine whether any materials resulting 
from the release are hazardous wastes, and if so, the generator must 
manage them in accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR 
parts 260 through 272.
    (3) A generator must ensure that all employees are thoroughly 
familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relative 
to their responsibilities during normal facility operations and 
emergencies.


Sec. 273.32  Transporter requirements.

    (a) Shipments from a generator to a consolidation point, from a 
generator to a destination facility, or from one consolidation point to 
another consolidation point.
    (1)(i) A transporter must at all times contain unbroken lamps in 
packaging that will minimize breakage during normal handling and 
transport conditions; and
    (ii) A transporter must at all times contain broken lamps in 
packaging that will minimize releases of lamp fragments and residues.
    (2) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps may only store them at a 
transfer facility for ten days or less.
    (3) A transporter of hazardous waste lamps is prohibited from:
    (i) Diluting or disposing of them;
    (ii) Treating them, except by responding to releases as provided in 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section; and
    (iii) Transporting them to a place other than a consolidation 
point, destination facility, or foreign destination.
    (4)(i) A transporter must at all times manage hazardous waste lamps 
in a way that minimizes lamp breakage.
    (ii) A transporter must immediately contain all releases of 
residues from hazardous waste lamps.
    (iii) A transporter must determine whether any materials resulting 
from the release are hazardous wastes, and if so, the transporter must 
manage them in accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR 
parts 260 through 272.
    (b) Shipments from a consolidation point to a destination facility. 
A transporter who transports shipments from a consolidation point to a 
destination facility must comply with 40 CFR part 263.


Sec. 273.33  Consolidation point requirements.

    (a) Condition of lamps. The owner or operator of a consolidation 
point managing hazardous waste lamps must at all times:
    (1) Contain unbroken lamps in packaging that will minimize breakage 
during normal handling conditions; and
    (2) Contain broken lamps in packaging that will minimize releases 
of lamp fragments and residues.
    (b) Storage. (1) The owner or operator of a consolidation point may 
store a hazardous waste lamp for no longer than one year from the date 
that the owner or operator receives it.
    (2) The owner or operator of a consolidation point who stores 
hazardous waste lamps must be able to demonstrate that lamps are not 
stored for more than one year from the date they were received. The 
owner or operator may make this demonstration by:
    (i) Placing the lamps in a container and marking or labeling the 
container with the earliest date that any lamp in the container was 
received;
    (ii) Marking or labeling an individual lamp with the date that it 
was received;
    (iii) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the date each 
lamp in storage was received;
    (iv) Maintaining an inventory system that identifies the earliest 
date that any lamp in a group of lamps was received; or
    (v) Placing the lamps in a specific storage area and identifying 
the earliest date that any lamp in the storage area was received.
    (c) Prohibitions. The owner or operator of a consolidation point 
managing hazardous waste lamps is:
    (1) Prohibited from diluting or disposing of them;
    (2) Prohibited from treating them, except by responding to releases 
as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
    (3) Prohibited from sending or taking them any place other than a 
consolidation point, destination facility, or foreign destination.
    (d) Lamp Management. (1) The owner or operator of a consolidation 
point must at all times manage hazardous waste lamps in a way that 
minimizes lamp breakage.
    (2)(i) The owner or operator of the consolidation point must 
immediately contain all releases of residues from hazardous waste 
lamps.
    (ii) The consolidation point owner/operator must determine whether 
any materials resulting from the release are hazardous wastes, and if 
so, the owner/operator must manage them in accordance with all 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272.
    (3) The consolidation point owner or operator must ensure that all 
employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and 
emergency procedures, relative to their responsibilities during normal 
facility operations and emergencies.
    (e) Notification. (1)(i) A consolidation point owner or operator 
who stores more than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps at any time must 
have, before exceeding the 35,000 lamp quantity limit, sent written 
notification of hazardous waste lamp storage to the Regional 
Administrator and received an EPA Identification Number.
    (ii) This notification must include:
    (A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
    (B) The name and business telephone number of the person who should 
be contacted regarding the lamp storage activity;
    (C) The address or physical location of the lamp storage activity;
    (D) A statement indicating that the owner or operator stores more 
than 35,000 hazardous waste lamps.
    (2)(i) A consolidation point owner or operator who sends a shipment 
of hazardous waste lamps directly from the consolidation point to a 
destination facility, who is not required to notify under paragraph 
(e)(1) of this section, must have, before initiating the shipment, sent 
written notification of hazardous waste lamp shipments to a destination 
facility to the Regional Administrator and received an EPA 
Identification Number.
    (ii) This notification must include:
    (A) The owner's or operator's name and mailing address;
    (B) A statement that the owner or operator intends to ship 
hazardous waste lamps to a destination facility;
    (C) The name and business telephone number of the person who should 
be contacted regarding the lamp storage activity; and
    (D) The address or physical location of the lamp storage activity.
    (f) Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests. The owner or operator of a 
consolidation point who sends a shipment of hazardous waste lamps 
directly to a destination facility must comply with subpart B of part 
262 and Secs. 262.30 through 262.33, 262.40(a), 262.40(d), and 262.42 
of this chapter when initiating a shipment.


Sec. 273.34  Destination facility requirements.

    (a) Owners or operators of destination facilities that recycle, 
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste lamps must comply with all 
applicable requirements of parts 264, 265, 266, 268, 270, and 124 of 
this chapter, and the notification requirement under section 3010 of 
RCRA.
    (b) Owners and operators of destination facilities that recycle 
hazardous waste lamps without storing them before they are recycled 
must comply with 40 CFR 261.6(c)(2).


Sec. 273.35  Export requirements.

    (a) A generator who sends hazardous waste lamps to a foreign 
destination, without first sending them to a consolidation point or 
destination facility, must:
    (1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary exporter 
in 40 CFR 262.53, 262.56(a)(1) through (4), (6), and (b) and 262.57;
    (2) Export such materials only upon consent of the receiving 
country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent as 
defined in subpart E of part 262 of this chapter; and
    (3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for the 
shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for export.
    (b) A transporter transporting a shipment of hazardous waste lamps 
to a foreign destination may not accept a shipment if the transporter 
knows the shipment does not conform to the EPA Acknowledgment of 
Consent. In addition the transporter must ensure that:
    (1) A copy of the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent accompanies the 
shipment; and
    (2) The shipment is delivered to the facility designated by the 
person initiating the shipment.
    (c) An owner or operator of a consolidation point who sends 
hazardous waste lamps to a foreign destination, without first sending 
them to another consolidation point or destination facility, must:
    (1) Comply with the requirements applicable to a primary exporter 
in 40 CFR 262.53, 262.56(a) (1) through (4), (6), and (b) and 262.57;
    (2) Export such materials only upon consent of the receiving 
country and in conformance with the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent as 
defined in subpart E of part 262 of this chapter; and
    (3) Provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for the 
shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for export.
    (d) A destination facility sending hazardous waste lamps to a 
foreign destination must also comply with the generator requirements of 
part 262 of this chapter, and with 40 CFR 264.71(c) or 265.71(c) 
pertaining to initiating the manifest.


Secs. 273.36-273.39  [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 94-18045 Filed 7-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P