[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40508-40528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13116]



[[Page 40507]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 260 et al.



Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste 
Program; Cathode Ray Tubes and Mercury-Containing Equipment; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 12, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 40508]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, 264, 268, 270, and 273

[FRL-7217-7]
RIN 2050-AE52


Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes and Mercury-Containing Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Many used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and items of mercury-
containing equipment are currently classified as characteristic 
hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA). They are therefore subject to the hazardous waste regulations 
of RCRA Subtitle C unless they come from a household or a conditionally 
exempt small quantity generator. Today, the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) proposes and seeks comment on an exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste which would streamline RCRA management 
requirements for used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and glass removed from 
CRTs sent for recycling. In today's notice, the Agency also clarifies 
the status of used CRTs sent for reuse. In addition, EPA proposes and 
seeks comment on streamlining management requirements for used mercury-
containing equipment by adding it to the federal list of universal 
wastes.

DATES: To make sure EPA considers your comments or suggested revisions 
to this proposal, they must be postmarked on or before August 12, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-2002-CRTP-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the 
Arlington, VA address listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
below. Comments may also be submitted electronically to [email protected]. See the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for instructions on electronic submissions.
    Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing 
in the RCRA Docket and Information Center (RIC) located at Crystal 
Gateway 1, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. 
The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is 
recommended that the public make an appointment by calling (703) 603-
9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from the regulatory 
docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index is 
available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 
information on accessing it.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the 
RCRA/Superfund/EPCRA/UST Call Center at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or 
TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area, call (703) 412-9810 or TDD (703) 412-3323. For more 
detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact 
Ms. Marilyn Goode, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8800, electronic mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Comment Submission

    You may submit comments electronically through the Internet to: 
[email protected]. You should identify comments in electronic format 
with the docket number F-2002-CRTP-FFFFF. All electronic comments must 
be submitted as an ASCII (text) file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. If possible, EPA's Office of 
Solid Waste (OSW) would also like to receive an additional copy of the 
comments on disk in WordPerfect 6.1 file format. Commenters should not 
submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). An 
original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover 
to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), 
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. If 
possible, please provide two non-CBI summaries of any CBI information. 
Some of the supporting documents in the docket also are available in 
electronic format on the Internet at URL: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/electron/crt.htm.
    EPA will keep the official record for this action in paper form. 
Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into 
paper form and place them in the official record, which also will 
include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official 
administrative file is the paper file maintained at the RCRA Docket, 
the address of which is in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.
    EPA's responses to public comments, whether the comments are 
received in written or electronic format, will be published in the 
Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the 
public docket. We will not reply immediately to commenters 
electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments 
that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, 
as discussed above.
    You may view public comments and the supporting materials for the 
issues and memoranda discussed below in the RCRA Information Center 
(RIC) located at Crystal Gateway 1, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review file materials, 
we recommend that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. 
You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any file maintained at the 
RCRA Docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.

Preamble Outline

I. Legal Authority
II. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
III. Cathode Ray Tubes
    A. What Is the Purpose of EPA's Proposal?
    B. What Are Cathode Ray Tubes?
    C. Why Are Cathode Ray Tubes An Environmental Concern?
    D. How Are Used Cathode Ray Tubes Currently Managed?
    E. How Do EPA's Current Regulations Apply to CRTs and Other 
Electronic Materials?
    F. What Are The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Recommendations?
    G. Proposed Requirements for Used CRTs Undergoing Recycling
    H. Solicitation of Comment on EPA's Proposed Management 
Requirements for Used CRTs and Processed CRT Glass
IV. Mercury-Containing Equipment
    A. What Is ``Mercury-Containing Equipment?''
    B. Why Is EPA Proposing to Add Mercury-Containing Equipment To 
The List of Universal Wastes?
    C. What Are EPA's Proposed Management Requirements for Used 
Mercury-Containing Equipment?
    D. Solicitation of Comment on Universal Waste Notification 
Requirements
V. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
    C. Interstate Transport
VI. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small 
Business

[[Page 40509]]

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates
    E. Executive Order 13132
    F. Executive Order 13175
    G. Executive Order 13045
    H. Executive Order 13211
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Environmental Justice

I. Legal Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections 
2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 
1976 (RCRA), and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste 
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924, and 
6926.

II. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

CES  Computers and Electronics Subcommittee
CFR  Code of Federal Regulations
CRT  Cathode Ray Tube
CSI  Common Sense Initiative
DOT  Department of Transportation
FPD  Flat Panel Display
HDTV  High Definition Television
LCD  Liquid Crystal Display
LDR  
LQHUW  Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste
OECD  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OSHA  Occupational Safety and Health Administration
RCRA  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SQHUW  Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste
TC  Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP  Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TSDF  Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility
TV  Television
USWAG  Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
UWR  Universal Waste Rule
WTE  Waste-to-Energy

III. Cathode Ray Tubes

A. What Is The Purpose of EPA's Proposal?

    Technological advances in information management and communication 
have improved the quality of people's lives in countless ways. However, 
our growing use of electronic products at home and in the workplace has 
given us a new environmental challenge: Electronics waste. Today's 
proposed rule is an important step towards meeting the challenge of 
managing electronics waste in a way that is environmentally sound while 
at the same time encouraging the reuse and recycling of these 
materials.
    EPA estimates that about 57 million televisions and computers are 
sold annually to households and businesses in the United States. These 
purchasers often do not discard older models when buying newer versions 
of the same products. Consumers (both business and household) 
frequently store their retired products. Experts agree that the average 
household may have between two and three units in storage. The numbers 
of units (mainly computers) stored by businesses are of course much 
greater. In total, approximately 20 to 24 million computers and 
televisions are added to storage each year. Over the next decade, 
storage is expected to increase at a faster rate because of advances in 
digital technology for televisions. Just as advances in computer speed 
and software have made older computers uneconomical to repair, newer 
digital broadcast standards are likely to reduce the repair and resale 
value of older televisions.
    Recycling glass from computers and televisions is still largely a 
new industry. However, the number of units available for reuse or 
recycling is growing rapidly, and state and industry initiatives to 
promote recycling are increasing. EPA is eager to see this industry 
grow, in part because reusing and recycling these materials saves 
valuable natural resources and avoids their disposal in landfills and 
incinerators. The Agency must, of course, assure that materials under 
RCRA jurisdiction are managed in a way that protects human health and 
the environment.
    Today, the Agency seeks comment on streamlining management 
requirements for used CRTs and processed CRT glass by proposing a 
conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for these 
materials when they are recycled (see proposed 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) and 
261.4(b)(39)). The purpose of these proposed simplified requirements is 
to encourage greater reuse, recycling, and better management of this 
growing wastestream, while maintaining necessary environmental 
protection. We are also soliciting comment on certain conditions 
intended to ensure that the materials are handled as commodities rather 
than wastes.

B. What Are Cathode Ray Tubes?

    Cathode ray tubes (CRTs) are vacuum tubes, made primarily of glass, 
which constitute the video display components of televisions and 
computer monitors. CRT sizes are typically measured from one corner; 
the diagonal of a CRT display generally ranges from 1 to 38 inches. 
Other types of CRTs include medical, automotive, oscilloscope, and 
appliance CRTs, which are typically 12 inches diagonal or smaller, 
while military and aircraft control tower CRTs may be much larger.
    CRTs are built of a specialized glass that often contains lead. 
They consist of four major parts: A glass panel (faceplate); a shadow 
mask; a glass funnel; and a glass neck which houses the electron gun. 
The glass panel is the front of the CRT that the viewer sees when 
looking at a TV or computer screen. The shadow mask is a thin metal 
sheet with holes that is located immediately behind the glass panel. 
Attached to the back of the glass panel is the glass funnel. The panel 
and funnel are joined with the shadow mask and sealed together with a 
low-temperature glass frit, consisting of solder glass containing 
organic binders. The back end of the CRT is the glass neck that holds 
the electron gun. This gun produces the electrons that strike the glass 
panel, resulting in viewable images on the display surface. A CRT is 
assembled into a monitor, a unit that includes several other parts, 
including a plastic cabinet, electromagnetic shields, circuit boards, 
connectors, and cabling.

C. Why Are Cathode Ray Tubes an Environmental Concern?

    Under Subtitle C of RCRA, a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it 
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, or 
if it is a listed hazardous waste in part 261, subpart D. The RCRA 
regulations set forth requirements for hazardous waste generators, 
transporters, and owners and operators of treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities (TSDFs). EPA regulations also contain exclusions 
for certain wastes from the definition of solid waste or hazardous 
waste (40 CFR 261.4)(a) and (b)). In addition, EPA has developed 
streamlined rules for particular wastes, including recyclable wastes 
(40 CFR part 266) and universal wastes such as batteries, pesticides, 
thermostats, and lamps that are widely generated by different 
industries (40 CFR part 273).
    Manufacturers generally use significant quantities of lead to make 
color cathode ray tubes. Televisions and color computer monitors 
contain an average of four pounds of lead (the exact amount depends on 
size and make). Lead is present in the panel glass, funnel, neck, and 
glass frit of color CRTs, with the highest concentrations usually found 
in the frit and funnel glass. The amount of lead used in some 
manufacturing processes of CRTs appears to be decreasing. However, 
according to a study of CRTs published by the University of Florida, 
the average concentration of lead in leachate from

[[Page 40510]]

colored CRT glass generated through EPA's toxicity characteristic 
leaching procedure (TCLP) was 22.2 milligrams per liter (mg/l). This 
level is considerably above the toxicity characteristic regulatory 
level of 5 milligrams per liter that is used to classify lead-
containing wastes as hazardous (40 CFR 261.24(b)). For monochrome CRTs, 
the average lead leachate concentration was 0.03 mg/l. These data 
appear to indicate that black and white monitors do not generally fail 
the TC. The faceplate also does not usually fail the TC.
    Other hazardous constituents sometimes present in CRT glass are 
mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. However, these constituents are found in 
very low concentrations that are unlikely to exceed the TC 
concentration limits (see Characterization of Lead Leachability from 
Cathode Ray Tubes Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, 
T.G. Townsend et al., University of Florida, 1999). Flat panel displays 
(FPDs) have emerged on the electronics market as a replacement for CRTs 
in certain applications, primarily because FPDs are lighter, smaller, 
and more portable, and they consume less energy during operation. FPDs 
generally contain no lead, but may contain encapsulated mercury in 
small amounts.

D. How Are Used Cathode Ray Tubes Currently Managed?

1. Reuse
    Many used computers are resold or donated so that they can be used 
again, either as is or after minor repairs. Although the Agency has no 
legal jurisdiction over reused computers, we encourage this option as a 
responsible way to manage these materials, because preventing or 
delaying the generation of waste often conserves resources. This option 
extends the lives of valuable products and keeps them out of the waste 
management system for a longer time. Reuse also allows schools, non-
profit organizations, and individual families to use equipment that 
they otherwise could not afford. Many markets for reuse of computers 
are located abroad, particularly in countries where few may be able to 
purchase state-of-the-art new equipment.
    Organizations which handle used computers vary from area to area. 
In some cases, nonprofit organizations such as charities and school 
districts take donations of used computer equipment. These 
organizations may test the equipment, and, if necessary, rewire it and 
replace various parts, including the electron gun, before sending them 
for reuse. In other cases, the entities that collect the CRTs send them 
to another organization with more expertise for evaluation and possible 
repair and reuse. CRTs that cannot be used after such minor repairs may 
be sent to recycling or disposal. CRTs from televisions are more likely 
to be repaired by appliance dealers or small repair shops before reuse.
2. Recycling
    a. Collection of used CRTs. If reuse or repair is not a practical 
option, CRTs can be sent for recycling, which typically consists of 
disassembly for the purpose of recovering valuable materials from the 
CRTs, especially glass. A growing number of municipalities are offering 
to collect computers and electronics for recycling. In addition, public 
and private organizations have emerged that accept CRTs for the same 
purpose. Examples of such organizations include county recycling drop-
off centers, television repair shops, charities, electronics recycling 
companies, and electronics manufacturers and retailers.
    An increasing number of electronics manufacturers are offering to 
take back computer CRTs for recycling. In some cases, these services 
are provided free. In other cases, a fee is charged, usually for 
shipping and handling. Take-back programs have been available for some 
time to major corporations and large purchasers of electronic 
equipment. Now, electronics manufacturers are beginning to offer 
similar services for computer CRTs to small businesses and households.
    b. Recycling of unused CRTs and unused CRT glass. Makers of glass 
for CRTs recycle some of the glass they produce because it does not 
meet product specifications. EPA estimates that about one or two 
percent of glass production results in unused, off-specification 
products. This glass is generally recycled into new CRT glass. The 
glass may be recycled on-site at a CRT glass manufacturing facility, or 
it may be sent to a glass processor. Computers and television 
manufacturers also find that a small percentage of assembled monitors 
are ``off-specification''. They may send these unused devices to a 
glass processor.
    c. Glass processing and other materials recovery. CRT glass 
processors that accept used CRTs generally receive them from three 
sources: the glass manufacturers described above (who supply most of 
the glass), manufacturers of monitor units who decide not to sell off-
specification monitors, and businesses who provide used computers or 
televisions, which at present are a much smaller source.
    The used CRTs are typically stored in a warehouse. When the 
processing begins, the CRT display unit is dismantled, and the bare CRT 
is separated from all other parts (usually glass, plastic, or metal). 
Next, the vacuum is released by drilling through the anode, a small 
metal button in the funnel. The different glass portions of the CRT 
(faceplate, funnel, and neck) are then separated and classified 
according to chemical composition, especially by the amount of lead 
contained. The same sorting takes place for broken glass received from 
CRT glass manufacturers, which is separated into leaded and non-leaded 
glass. All glass is then cleaned and the coatings removed. The sorted 
and cleaned cullet (i.e., processed glass) is then typically stored in 
enclosed areas before it is shipped off-site to a CRT glass 
manufacturer (or sometimes to a smelter or to manufacturers of other 
kinds of glass). When a CRT glass manufacturing facility receives a 
shipment of processed CRT glass, it removes the anode button and 
further crushes the glass, which then enters a furnace to be heated and 
made into new CRT glass.
    Sometimes the processed glass is sent to a lead smelter where it is 
recycled to reclaim the lead and to provide silica, which acts as a 
fluxing agent in the smelter. These uses often occur if the glass does 
not meet the specifications for CRT glass. The cleaning process 
described above also generates glass fines that are collected and sold 
to lead smelters to be used as a fluxing agent. In addition, processed 
CRT glass may be sent to copper smelters, also for use as a flux. 
Sometimes other types of production facilities use processed CRT glass 
to make objects such as radiation shielding, acoustical barriers, 
optical glass beads, or decorative glass and tile products. The market 
for these recycled glass items is currently limited, but may grow in 
the future.
3. Disposal
    Many consumers do not wish to discard monitors and TVs if they can 
be recycled. Many or most CRTs therefore remain in storage. Of the CRTs 
that are disposed of by households, most go to municipal landfills, and 
others to municipal waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities. Only a small 
percentage are recycled (see Life Cycle Assessment of the Disposal of 
Household Electronics, D. McKenna et al., August 1996, which indicated 
that only one percent of CRTs from households were recycled). Some CRTs 
from non-household sources are also placed in municipal landfills. Some

[[Page 40511]]

states (such as Massachusetts and California) have banned CRTs from all 
sources from landfills.

E. How Do EPA's Current Regulations Apply to CRTs and Other Electronic 
Materials?

    As described above, CRT glass often exhibits the toxicity 
characteristic (TC) for lead because this constituent is used to make 
most CRT glass. Whether a person or facility is currently subject to 
the RCRA hazardous waste regulations depends on several factors, 
including whether the CRT will be recycled or disposed and the type of 
user. Following is a brief description of how different entities are 
currently regulated.
1. Who Is Regulated And Who Is Not?
    a. Households. Households that dispose of CRTs are exempt from 
hazardous waste management requirements under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). They 
may therefore send their used computer and television monitors to any 
facility or collector for recycling or disposal without being subject 
to regulation. Other facilities managing household hazardous waste 
(such as collectors, recyclers, or disposers) continue to be exempt 
from hazardous waste requirements unless the household waste is mixed 
with other regulated hazardous waste.
    b. Non-residential generators. Non-residential generators of less 
than 100 kilograms (about 220 lbs) of hazardous waste (including CRTs) 
in a calendar month are known as conditionally exempt small quantity 
generators (CESQGs) and are not subject to most RCRA Subtitle C 
hazardous waste management standards. The Agency notes that about 7 or 
8 CRTs would be sufficient to weigh 220 lbs (assuming that each monitor 
weighed 30 lbs). These CESQGs may choose to send their wastes to a 
municipal solid waste landfill or other facility approved by the state 
for the management of industrial or municipal non-hazardous wastes, 
including recycling facilities (40 CFR 261.5). Generators of more than 
100 kilograms (about 220 lbs) and less than 1,000 kilograms (about 
2,200 lbs) of hazardous waste (including CRTs) in a calendar month are 
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste management standards, but are 
allowed to comply with certain reduced regulatory requirements (40 CFR 
262.34). Generators of more than 1,000 kilograms (about 2,200 lbs) of 
hazardous waste in a calendar month are considered large quantity 
generators and are subject to all the applicable hazardous waste 
regulations for generators (40 CFR 262.34). CRTs that are not 
considered wastes should not be counted in determining whether a 
generator is a CESQG, SQG, or LQG.
2. When Do CRTs Become Wastes?
    To determine whether a non-residential facility with used CRTs must 
comply with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, the user must first 
determine if its used CRTs are solid wastes. Following is a brief 
description of how solid waste determinations for CRTs are made under 
federal law.
    a. Reuse and repair of used CRTs. EPA has consistently taken the 
view that materials used and taken out of service by one person are not 
wastes if a second person puts them to the same type of use without 
first ``reclaiming'' them (see 50 FR 624, January 5, 1985). Many CRTs 
are taken out of service by both businesses and households not because 
they can no longer be used, but because users are upgrading their 
systems to take advantage of the rapid advances that have resulted in 
better and faster electronics. Businesses and organizations upgrading 
their computers often replace the entire computer system, including the 
monitors. A working CRT-containing unit considered obsolete by one user 
is therefore likely to be capable of reuse as a computer monitor or a 
television monitor by another user.
    Many businesses and organizations that take CRTs out of service do 
not have the specialized knowledge needed to determine whether the unit 
can be reused as a computer or television display unit. Moreover, those 
entities often do not decide whether a particular CRT will, in fact, be 
reused. Many businesses and other organizations send used computers and 
televisions to resellers. Resellers often test CRTs or otherwise decide 
if the CRTs can be reused directly, if they can be reused after minor 
repairs, or if they must be sent for further processing or disposal. 
Because the typical original user usually lacks the specialized 
knowledge needed to decide the future of a CRT, EPA is today clarifying 
that we do not consider a user sending a CRT to a reseller for 
potential reuse to be a RCRA generator.
    Furthermore, EPA today clarifies that used CRTs undergoing repairs 
before resale or distribution are not being ``reclaimed,'' and are 
considered to be products ``in use'' rather than solid wastes. 
Resellers of used CRTs generally test and identify equipment that can 
be resold or is economically repairable. Sometimes the equipment is 
collected and redistributed for reuse with no repairs. If repairs are 
necessary, they typically consist of rewiring, replacing defective 
parts, or replacing the electron gun. Under these circumstances, the 
CRT would still be considered a commercial product rather than a solid 
waste. EPA believes that these repairs and replacement activities do 
not constitute waste management.
    b. Unused CRTs sent for recycling. Sometimes manufacturers of 
computers and televisions send unused CRTs (usually off-specification 
CRTs) directly to glass processors who break the CRTs and separate out 
the glass components. Generally, the processor then sends the processed 
glass to a glass-to-glass recycler or to another recycling facility, 
such as a lead smelter. Although EPA could consider these activities to 
constitute reclamation, the Agency does not regulate the reclamation of 
either listed or characteristic unused commercial chemical products 
(see 50 FR 14219, April 11, 1985). EPA considers unused CRTs to be 
unused commercial chemical products. Therefore, these materials are not 
solid wastes when sent for reclamation.
    c. Used CRTs sent for recycling. Under the current RCRA 
regulations, used CRTs sent directly to glass processors or other 
recyclers could under some circumstances be considered spent materials 
undergoing reclamation, and could therefore be solid wastes. However, 
as explained elsewhere in this notice, EPA believes that under some 
circumstances used CRTs sent for recycling do not resemble spent 
materials. Therefore, users and resellers sending used CRTs to 
recyclers should check with their authorized States to see which 
Subtitle C requirements, if any, are applicable to their activities. 
EPA encourages States to take approaches consistent with today's 
proposal. The Agency is today proposing an exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste for used CRTs being recycled if they are 
managed under certain conditions. This proposal is discussed later in 
this notice.
    d. Disposal. If a non-household entity decides to send used or 
unused CRTs directly to a landfill or an incinerator for disposal, that 
entity would be considered the generator of a solid waste. The person 
making the decision must determine if the CRTs exhibit a hazardous 
waste characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. He may either 
test the CRTs or use process knowledge to make this determination. As 
stated above, many or most CRTs from color computer or television 
monitors exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead. Although EPA's 
data indicate that most CRTs from black and white monitors do not fail 
the TC, those that do are subject to all applicable hazardous waste 
management requirements. When a

[[Page 40512]]

decision is made to dispose of hazardous waste CRTs, the non-
residential user, reseller, or manufacturer must comply with all 
applicable hazardous waste generator requirements of 40 CFR part 262, 
including packaging and labeling, 90-day accumulation requirements, use 
of the hazardous waste manifest, and recordkeeping and reporting 
(unless the generator is a CESQG).
    Some companies ship their waste CRTs to hazardous waste landfills 
for disposal. Used CRTs generated by a non-residential facility that 
fail the TC for lead must meet applicable land disposal restrictions 
(LDRs) before being placed in a land-based unit, such as a landfill. 
These restrictions do not apply to CRTs generated by households or 
CESQGs. To meet LDRs, the CRT glass must be treated so that the TCLP 
lead concentration does not exceed 0.75 mg per liter. This 
concentration level is generally achieved by crushing and stabilizing 
the glass through the addition of chemicals which reduce the solubility 
of lead when contacted by leachate.
3. When Do Non-CRT Electronic Materials Become Wastes?
    In 1992, the Agency issued a memorandum to its EPA Regional Waste 
Management Directors stating that used whole circuit boards are 
considered to be scrap metal when sent for reclamation, and therefore 
exempt from regulation under RCRA. The Agency has also addressed 
printed circuit boards in the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV 
rulemaking (see 62 FR 25998, May 12, 1997). In that rulemaking, the 
Agency provided an exclusion from the definition of solid waste at 40 
CFR 261.4(a)(14) for shredded circuit boards being reclaimed, provided 
they are stored in containers sufficient to prevent a release to the 
environment prior to recovery and provided they are free of mercury 
switches, mercury relays, nickel-cadmium batteries and lithium 
batteries. Subsequently, on May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), the Agency 
clarified that the scrap metal exemption applies to whole used circuit 
boards that contain minor battery or mercury switch components and that 
are sent for continued use, reuse, or recovery. In that notice, EPA 
stated that it was not the Agency's intent to regulate under RCRA 
circuit boards containing minimal quantities of mercury and batteries 
that are protectively packaged to minimize dispersion of metal 
constituents. Once these materials are removed from the boards, they 
become a newly generated waste subject to a hazardous waste 
determination. If they meet the criteria to be classified as a 
hazardous waste, they must be handled as hazardous waste; otherwise 
they must be managed as a solid waste.
    The Agency is studying certain non-CRT electronic materials to 
determine whether they consistently exhibit a characteristic of 
hazardous waste. However, we are not currently aware of any non-CRT 
computer components or electronic products that would generally be 
hazardous wastes. With respect to these materials, the Agency would use 
the same line of reasoning that is outlined above for CRTs to determine 
if the materials are solid wastes. That is, if an original user sends 
electronic materials to a reseller because he lacks the specialized 
knowledge needed to determine whether the units can be reused as 
products, the original user is not a RCRA generator. The materials 
would not be considered solid wastes until a decision was made to 
recycle them in other ways or dispose of them.

F. What Are The Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Recommendations?

    From 1994 through 1998, EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) 
explored the environmental regulation of six industry sectors and 
looked for ways to make environmental regulation ``cleaner, cheaper, 
and smarter.'' EPA established CSI as an advisory committee (the ``CSI 
Council'') under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The CSI Council 
included representatives from each industry sector, from non-
governmental environmental and community organizations, from state 
governments, and from colleges and universities. EPA also established 
subcommittees of the Council for each industry sector. The 
subcommittees included representatives of the various stakeholders 
represented in the CSI Council. One of the industry sectors selected 
for this initiative was the computer and electronics industry. The CSI 
Computers and Electronics Subcommittee (CES) then formed a workgroup to 
examine regulatory barriers to pollution prevention and recycling. The 
workgroup (known as the ``Overcoming Barriers Workgroup'') explored the 
problems of managing mounting volumes of outdated computer and 
electronics equipment.
    One of the concerns investigated by the Overcoming Barriers 
Workgroup and the CES was the barrier to CRT recycling created by some 
existing hazardous waste management regulations. The CES urged that 
removing such barriers was essential to fostering CRT recycling, 
especially glass-to-glass recycling. The Subcommittee believed that CRT 
recycling would provide the following benefits: (1) Less lead sent to 
landfills and combustors; (2) added resource value of specialty glass 
and lead; (3) lower waste management costs; (4) less regulatory 
uncertainty about CRT recovery and recycling; (5) less use of raw lead 
in CRT glass manufacturing; (6) better melting characteristics, 
improved heat transfer, and lower energy consumption in CRT glass 
manufacturing furnaces; (7) improved CRT glass quality; and (8) lower 
emissions of lead from CRT glass manufacturing. The CES Subcommittee 
indicated that some recycling methods or end products (other than those 
associated with glass-to-glass recycling) may pose risks to human 
health and the environment and would require further investigation.
    As a result of the finding of the CES Subcommittee, the CSI Council 
issued a document titled Recommendation on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) 
Glass-to-Glass Recycling. In this document, the Council recommended 
streamlined regulatory requirements for CRTs that would encourage 
recycling and better management. The recommendations included 
streamlined requirements for packaging, labeling, transportation; 
general performance standards for glass processors; and export 
provisions. The CSI Council also recommended an exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste for processed glass that is used to make new 
CRT glass. In today's document, EPA proposes an exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste which would streamline management 
requirements for used CRTs. Although the requirements proposed today 
are more streamlined that those recommended by the CSI Council, we 
believe that they will be just as effective in fostering the goals of 
the Council. The Agency is also soliciting comment on several 
alternative management requirements.

G. Proposed Requirements for Used CRTs Undergoing Recycling

1. What Will Not Be Affected by Today's Proposed Rule?
    All materials discussed above that are not currently regulated 
under RCRA will remain unaffected by today's proposal. Used CRTs from 
households and CESQGs will retain their current regulatory exemptions. 
Used CRTs from any source that are sent for reuse as is or after minor 
repairs are not wastes. Proposed Sec. 261.4(a)(23) will provide better 
notice of this interpretation of our current regulations. Unused CRTs 
sent for recycling will still be classified as commercial chemical 
products which are not solid wastes even if they are

[[Page 40513]]

reclaimed or speculatively accumulated. Finally, both used and unused 
CRTs sent for disposal will also remain regulated as before.
2. What Is Covered by Today's Proposed Rule and What Are the Proposed 
Management Requirements?
    Today's proposal principally addresses used CRTs destined for 
recycling and processed glass from CRTs. The regulations we are 
proposing distinguish between intact CRTs and CRTs that are broken. An 
intact CRT is a CRT remaining within the monitor whose vacuum has not 
been released. A broken CRT means glass removed from the monitor after 
the vacuum has been released. EPA notes that these proposed definitions 
would also cover non-consumer CRTs such as medical, automotive, 
oscilloscope, and appliance CRTs.
    a. Used, Intact CRTs Destined for Recycling. Today's proposal would 
exclude intact CRTs from the definition of solid waste unless they are 
disposed. Consequently, these units would not be subject to Subtitle C 
regulation, including the speculative accumulation limits of 40 CFR 
261.2(c)(4). They could therefore be held indefinitely without becoming 
solid wastes.
    Intact CRTs are highly unlikely to release lead to the environment 
because the lead is contained in the plastic housing and the glass 
matrix. Because of this low likelihood of release, EPA is today 
proposing reduced requirements for broken CRTs which are based on 
findings that these materials merit exclusion from the definition of 
solid waste. For the sake of regulatory simplicity, the Agency is 
proposing to codify all of the reduced requirements for CRTs in one 
section of the Code of Federal Regulations, under the list of 
exclusions from the definition of solid waste.
    As noted above, unused CRTs are currently considered commercial 
chemical products which are excluded from the definition of solid waste 
when recycled, even if they are reclaimed or speculatively accumulated. 
We believe that it would be very difficult to distinguish between used 
and unused intact CRTs destined for recycling. Moreover, there appears 
to be no environmental basis for such a distinction. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to grant relief from Subtitle C requirements for all intact 
CRTs unless they are disposed, whether used or unused.
    b. Used, Broken CRTs Destined for Recycling. Some users and 
collectors of CRTs separate the CRT from the monitor and release the 
vacuum, after which they send the resulting broken glass to a recycler 
(often a glass processor). This practice saves shipping costs and 
enables the glass processor to pay more for the broken CRTs received. 
At other times, the CRTs are first broken by the processor or other 
recycler. CRTs whose glass has been broken by releasing the vacuum are 
non-reusable and non-repairable; they are therefore solid wastes at the 
time such breakage occurs.
    EPA is proposing today to amend 40 CFR part 261 to add a new 
Sec. 261.39(a), which will provide that used, broken CRTs are excluded 
from the definition of solid waste if they meet specified conditions. 
Under today's proposal, used, broken CRTs sent for recycling would not 
be solid wastes if they are stored in a building with a roof, floor, 
and walls. If they are not stored in a building, they must be stored in 
a container (i.e., a package or a vehicle) that is constructed, filled, 
and closed to minimize identifiable releases of CRT glass (including 
fine solid materials) to the environment. The packages must also be 
labeled or marked clearly. When transported, the broken CRTs must also 
be in a container meeting the conditions described above. Used, broken 
CRTs destined for recycling would also not be allowed to be 
speculatively accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 261.1.
    The Agency believes that if these materials are properly 
containerized and labeled when stored or shipped prior to recycling, 
they resemble articles in commerce or commodities more than wastes. 
Breakage is a first step toward recycling the leaded glass components 
of the CRT. Also, materials held in conditions that safeguard against 
loss are more likely to be regarded as valuable commodities destined 
for legitimate recycling. In addition, the proposed packaging 
requirements would ensure that the possibility of releases to the 
environment from the broken CRTs is very low. For these reasons, an 
exclusion from the definition of solid waste is appropriate if the 
broken CRTs are handled under the conditions proposed today.
    Today's proposal would require used, broken CRTs that are imported 
for recycling to comply with the packaging and labeling requirements 
specified above when they enter the borders of the United States in 
order to be eligible for the exclusion. Similarly, they could not be 
speculatively accumulated after arriving in the country. However, they 
would not be subject to any of the hazardous waste import requirements 
of 40 CFR part 262, subparts F and H.
    Used, broken CRTs that are exported would not be solid wastes if 
they were packaged and labeled as described above, and if they were not 
speculatively accumulated. Exports of broken CRTs meeting these 
conditions would therefore not be subject to the hazardous waste export 
requirements of 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, including the 
hazardous waste notification requirements.
    c. Used, broken CRTs Undergoing Glass Processing. The Agency also 
proposes today an exclusion from the definition of solid waste for used 
CRTs undergoing glass processing, as long as the processing meets 
certain conditions. CRT glass processing is defined in proposed 40 CFR 
260.10 as receiving intact or broken used CRTs, intentionally breaking 
them, sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors, 
and cleaning coatings from the glass. As noted above, CRT users and 
collectors sometimes break CRTs before sending them to a processor. 
Therefore, breaking used CRTs would not by itself subject a facility to 
the CRT glass processing conditions. In order to be classified as a 
used CRT glass processor, the facility must perform all of the 
activities listed above.
    The provisions of today's proposed 40 CFR 261.39(b) state that 
used, broken CRTs undergoing glass processing would not be considered 
solid wastes if they are stored in a building with a roof, floor, and 
walls. If they are not stored inside a building, they must be packaged 
and labeled under conditions identical to those proposed above for 
used, broken CRTs prior to processing. In addition, all glass 
processing activities must take place within a building with a roof, 
floor, and walls, and no activities may be performed that use 
temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from used, broken CRTs. In 
order to be eligible for the exclusion proposed today, the used, broken 
CRTs could not be speculatively accumulated as defined in 40 CFR 261.1. 
As discussed above, EPA is today proposing an unconditional exclusion 
for used, intact CRTs if they are sent for recycling (including glass 
processing). Under today's proposal, no other conditions would apply to 
intact CRTs.
    EPA believes that the packaging and storage conditions proposed 
today indicate that the materials in question are more commodity-like 
than waste-like. Used, broken CRTs that are not stored or packaged in 
accordance with these requirements would not be valuable, product-like 
materials. The opportunity for loss or releases of the materials would 
indicate that they are wastes. As specifically recommended by the CSI 
Council, we are also proposing

[[Page 40514]]

that processors be required to conduct their activities without using 
temperatures high enough to volatilize lead from broken CRTs. Besides 
increasing the risk of releases to the environment, such practices 
could be a sign of waste treatment rather than production.
    d. Processed Glass From Used CRTs Sent for Recycling to Glass 
Manufacturers and Lead Smelters. In today's document, the Agency is 
proposing in 40 CFR 261.39(d) to exclude processed glass from used CRTs 
from the definition of solid waste if it is sent for recycling to a CRT 
glass manufacturer or to a lead smelter, as long as the processed glass 
is not speculatively accumulated, and as long as it is not used in a 
manner constituting disposal.
    EPA believes that processed glass from used CRTs destined for CRT 
glass manufacturing or sent to a lead smelter meets the regulatory 
criteria in 40 CFR 260.31(c) for a variance from the definition of 
solid waste. This variance applies to materials that have been 
reclaimed but must be reclaimed further before recovery is completed, 
if, after initial reclamation, the resulting material is commodity-
like. The following paragraphs discuss the characteristics of processed 
CRT glass and how they meet the criteria.
    i. The degree of processing a material has undergone and the degree 
of further processing that is required (40 CFR 260.31(c)(1)). Processed 
CRT glass needs minimal further processing by CRT glass manufacturers 
or lead smelters. CRT glass cullet is shipped to these facilities 
already cleaned and sorted. CRT manufacturers and smelters perform 
processing steps consisting only of magnetic separation of anode 
buttons and studs and, if necessary, further crushing of the glass. 
Following these steps, the partially reclaimed CRT glass enters the 
furnace or smelter, similar to other feedstocks used in glass 
manufacturing and smelting.
    ii. The economic value of the material that has been initially 
reclaimed (40 CFR 260.31(c)(2)). The initial processing of CRT glass 
satisfies this criterion. CRT glass is usually purchased by CRT glass 
manufacturers from processors for at least $170 per ton (approximately 
three-fourths of the price of virgin glass). In contrast, lead smelters 
are usually paid at least $150 per ton by processors for CRT glass used 
as fluxing material and lead feedstock. However, lead smelters only pay 
an average of about six dollars per ton for industrial sand used as a 
fluxing material. Broken glass from CRTs resembles industrial sand in 
composition and can therefore serve as a substitute for this sand in 
the fluxing process. The sand, however, is not expensive.
    CRT glass manufacturers and lead smelters currently obtain 
processed CRT glass from processors and are working with the processors 
to increase the supply and quality of processed CRT glass, which may 
further increase value. The value of processed CRT glass depends on 
whether manufacturers' specifications are met, and some glass 
chemistries require exacting specifications that make the processed 
glass more valuable if it meets those specifications. CRT glass 
manufacturers have stricter quality standards than lead smelters about 
the type of material that they can accept (e.g., cleaned, sized, free 
of coating and debris).
    Further evidence of the economic value of reclaimed CRT glass is 
demonstrated by the cost savings realized by CRT glass manufacturers 
and lead smelters when using processed CRT glass. The use of processed 
CRT glass cullet benefits the manufacturer in several ways, such as 
improving heat transfer and melting characteristics in the furnaces, 
lowering energy consumption, and maintaining or improving the quality 
of the final product.
    iii. The degree to which the reclaimed material is like an 
analogous raw material (40 CFR 260.31(c)(3)). Under this criterion, the 
partially reclaimed material must be similar to an analogous raw 
material or feedstock for which the material may be substituted in a 
production or reclamation process. Processed CRT glass is similar to 
off-specification glass and cullet that manufacturers currently use as 
feedstock. Glass-making furnaces require between approximately 30 and 
70 percent cullet. With respect to lead smelters, processed CRT glass 
is similar to industrial sand that would otherwise be used as feedstock 
or flux in the smelter.
    iv. An end market for the partially reclaimed material is 
guaranteed (40 CFR 260.31(c)(4)). The Agency believes that there is a 
strong end market for processed CRT glass. CRT glass manufacturers and 
lead smelters have developed relationships with CRT glass processors to 
increase the amount and quality of reclaimed CRT glass cullet available 
for glass-to-glass recycling and lead reclamation. In addition, CRT 
glass manufacturers have developed programs in which off-specification 
CRTs may be delivered directly to CRT processors for initial 
processing. The processed CRT glass is delivered to CRT glass 
manufacturers for use as feedstock in glass-to-glass manufacturing, or 
to lead smelters for recycling.
    v. The extent to which the partially reclaimed material is handled 
to minimize loss (40 CFR 260.31(c)(5)). The Agency believes that 
current CRT glass industry practices are effective in minimizing losses 
and preventing releases. Processed CRT glass generally is stored 
indoors on a cement or asphalt pad. In most cases, the material is 
shipped in large capacity trucks that are covered with a tarp to 
minimize loss during transport. When the CRT glass manufacturers or 
lead smelters receive shipments, the glass is unloaded into a temporary 
holding area, inspected, and either loaded onto a conveyor belt for 
further processing or stored under cover. Following these steps, the 
reclaimed CRT glass enters the furnace feedstock stream or the smelter.
    e. Processed glass from Used CRTs Sent For Other Types of 
Recycling. Under today's proposal, processed glass from used CRTs sent 
for recycling at a facility other than a glass manufacturer or a lead 
smelter would be excluded from the definition of solid waste only if 
additional conditions were met. The processed glass would have to be 
packaged and labeled in accordance with the requirements of proposed 40 
CFR 261.39(a). Also, speculative accumulation limits would apply.
    As stated previously, processed glass is sometimes sent to copper 
smelters for recycling. It also may be sent for recycling into objects 
such as radiation shielding, acoustical barriers, optical glass beads, 
or decorative glass and tile products. The Agency believes that 
processed glass sent for such uses resembles a commodity more than a 
waste if it is packaged and labeled under these conditions. In 
addition, such packaging ensures that the possibility of releases to 
the environment is minimal.
    f. Processed Glass From Used CRTs Used in a Manner Constituting 
Disposal. If processed glass is sent for any kind of recycling that 
involves land placement, it would be subject to the requirements of 40 
CFR part 266, subpart C, for recyclable materials used in a manner 
constituting disposal. The Agency is currently unaware of processed 
glass being recycled in this manner.
    g. Imports and Exports. Import requirements were discussed above 
for used, broken CRTs prior to recycling. Similar import requirements 
would apply to used, broken CRTs sent to the United States and held at 
glass processing facilities, as well as already processed glass from 
used, broken CRTs sent to the United States. In all cases, the material 
would be subject to the

[[Page 40515]]

conditions proposed today, rather than the import requirements of 40 
CFR part 262. Similarly, as long as used CRTs (or processed glass from 
used CRTs) met the conditions proposed today, the export requirements 
of 40 CFR part 262 would not apply.

H. Solicitation of Comment on EPA's Proposed Management Requirements 
for Used CRTs and Processed CRT Glass

    EPA believes that today's proposed exclusion from the definition of 
solid waste is the regulatory scheme which will best promote the CSI 
Council goals of improved management and increased recycling of the CRT 
wastestream. The requirements proposed in today's notice are more 
streamlined than those recommended by the CSI Council. However, we 
believe that these requirements, if finalized, will lead to better 
management and more recycling while affording full protection to human 
health and the environment.
    The Agency is also soliciting comment today on several other 
recommendations of the CSI Council, on certain other regulatory 
alternatives for CRTs that are not proposed today, and on a proposed 
change to the universal waste rule. These solicitations are discussed 
below.
1. Universal Waste Alternative
    The CSI Council envisioned that CRTs would be added to the 
universal waste rule, which distinguishes between small quantity 
handlers of universal waste (SQHUWs) and large quantity handlers of 
universal waste (LQHUWs). The accumulation limit for LQHUWs recommended 
by the CSI Council was 36,287 kilograms (for CRTs stored on-site for 
longer than seven consecutive days). Other universal waste requirements 
applicable to both SQHUWs and LQHUWs that are not proposed today for 
regulated entities include employee training requirements. The Agency 
also is not proposing to require that regulated entities notify the 
appropriate EPA Region of their CRT waste management activities, and 
track shipments of CRTs sent and received, which would have been 
required of LQHUWs under the CSI recommendations. The Agency solicits 
comment on whether these requirements would be appropriate or 
burdensome for any entities engaged in breaking or processing CRT 
glass, or for collectors who send used CRTs or CRT glass to glass 
processors.
2. Definition of ``Broken CRT''
    EPA is today proposing streamlined requirements for broken CRTs 
sent for recycling. ``Broken CRT'' is defined as ``glass removed from 
the monitor after the vacuum has been released''. Data available to the 
Agency indicate that after the vacuum has been released and the glass 
removed, the CRT is generally no longer reusable as a product. However, 
EPA solicits comment on whether it might be possible to repair and 
reuse a CRT after the vacuum has been released and the glass removed 
from the monitor, as well as suggested alternative definitions for 
``broken CRT'.
3. Alternative Approaches to Speculative Accumulation and Use 
Constituting Disposal (Land Placement)
    EPA notes that under today's proposal, broken CRTs (but not intact 
CRTs) that are sent for recycling in accordance with the packaging and 
labeling requirements of proposed 40 CFR 261.39 would be subject to the 
speculative accumulation provisions of 40 CFR 261.1(c)(8). The Agency 
solicits comment on whether a longer accumulation time period (such as 
two or more years) should be provided for CRTs, in order to allow 
recycling markets to develop more fully for this relatively new 
wastestream and because there appear to be few environmental concerns 
with storage as long as these materials are packaged and labeled 
properly. EPA also solicits comment on whether intact CRTs sent for 
recycling should be subject to the speculative accumulation provisions, 
or whether they resemble commercial chemical products being reclaimed. 
In addition, the Agency requests comment on whether to add a condition 
prohibiting use constituting disposal or land placement of broken CRTs 
(as is proposed today for processed CRT glass). The Agency is not aware 
of any current uses for broken CRTs or processed CRT glass that involve 
use constituting disposal, and we solicit comment on the existence of 
any such uses and their implications.
4. Alternative Standards for Processing Used CRTs
    EPA also solicits comment on the appropriateness of requiring 
additional performance standards for glass processors. The CSI Council 
recommended that glass processors install and maintain systems 
sufficient to minimize releases of glass and glass particulates via 
wind dispersal, runoff, and direct releases to soil. It also 
recommended that processing be performed at temperatures low enough to 
avoid volatilization of lead from the glass. Today's proposal contains 
the requirement for processing temperatures, but took a different 
approach than proposing the general performance standard recommended by 
the CSI Council. Today's proposed conditions for excluding glass being 
processed from the definition of solid waste are very similar to 
management standards cited by the CSI Council as examples of 
conformance to its recommended performance standards. For example, the 
Council stated that storing broken CRTs and CRT glass in buildings or 
closed containers were examples of ways to control wind dispersal, 
runoff, and direct releases to soil. EPA therefore believes that 
today's proposed requirements, in addition to being indications that 
the materials in question resemble commodities rather than wastes, are 
adequate to fulfill the concerns of the CSI Council. However, the 
Agency solicits comment on whether to require the general performance 
standards recommended by the Council.
    EPA also solicits comment on whether to retain today's proposed 
requirement that glass processing be conducted at temperatures that are 
not sufficiently high to volatilize lead. We note that worker health 
and safety would be covered under the provisions of 29 CFR part 1910 of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Agency 
seeks comment on whether today's proposed temperature requirement is 
necessary to prevent volatilization of lead, and also on whether glass 
processing conducted at high temperatures is an indication of waste 
management.
    EPA would also like to solicit comment on the CSI Council 
recommendation that glass processors implement a procedure for advising 
local communities of the nature of their activities, including the 
potential for resident and worker exposure to lead or chemical 
coatings. In general, EPA has not required public participation for 
hazardous waste recycling facilities, unless they obtain RCRA permits 
for storage of hazardous waste prior to recycling. Usually, local 
notice and public meetings are governed by preexisting state or local 
requirements concerning siting, zoning, or licensing. The Agency 
believes that matters of local notice and public participation are 
generally best decided at the state, county, or municipal level, but 
solicits comment on whether to require additional procedures under 
federal regulations in the case of CRT recycling, and the reasons why 
these procedures are needed.

[[Page 40516]]

5. Alternative Standards for Processed Glass From Used CRTs Sent for 
Recycling
    In addition, EPA solicits comment on whether to exclude from the 
definition of solid waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b))(39) only processed 
glass recycled by being sent to CRT glassmaking, as recommended by the 
CSI Council. EPA notes that the recommendations of the CSI Council did 
not include an exclusion for processed glass sent to lead smelters, and 
that the Council expressed concerns about possible environmental risks 
associated with this practice. However, after evaluation of this 
question, the Agency has decided, as explained previously in this 
preamble, that processed glass sent to lead smelters is more like a 
commodity than a waste. EPA believes that such an exclusion would be 
desirable because recycling CRTs at lead smelters appears to be just as 
legitimate as glass-to-glass recycling. The proposed exclusion may also 
turn out to be useful if the increased use of flat screens decreases 
the potential for glass-to-glass recycling.
    EPA is also soliciting comment today on whether to exclude from the 
definition of solid waste CRT glass sent to copper smelters or other 
glass uses without packaging and labelling requirements. The Agency is 
aware that processed CRT glass has been shipped for recycling to copper 
smelters, but we lack much information about this practice. We request 
comment on whether this glass is as commodity-like as that sent to 
glass-to-glass recycling or lead smelters. We also solicit comment on 
whether the exclusion should be allowed for other glass uses. These 
glass uses are currently being developed and include optical beads, 
decorative objects, radiation shielding materials, and acoustic 
barriers for use in the aerospace industry and in equipment 
manufacturing where sound control is essential. EPA believes that CRT 
glass being recycled into some of these products would likely be a 
commodity-like material which would meet the variance criteria 
described above. We therefore solicit additional information about 
these uses, or other uses of which commenters may be aware, and on 
whether CRT glass used for these purposes is commodity-like.
6. Exports of Used CRTs
    With respect to exports, the Agency notes that the CSI Council also 
developed recommendations for exporting CRT glass. The recommendations 
include exporting provisions for CRTs, coated (i.e, unprocessed) CRT 
glass, and uncoated (processed) CRT glass. For each category, the CSI 
Council recommended administrative requirements, depending on whether 
or not the shipment is destined for an Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) country.
    Under the CSI recommendations, entities exporting CRTs and coated 
CRT glass would be subject to the same exporting provisions as 
generators of hazardous waste in Subparts E or H of Part 262 (export 
notice and consent procedures for non-OECD and OECD countries); such 
provisions would be revised to specifically identify the recipient as a 
collector or processor. For shipments of uncoated CRT glass to those 
OECD countries specified in 40 CFR 262.58(a)(1), the exporter would be 
required to provide an annual report to EPA summarizing the number of 
shipments and volume sent to each recipient (by country), and 
identifying the recipient CRT glass collector and processor. For 
shipments of uncoated CRT glass to non-OECD countries, the exporter 
would be required to send annual notification to EPA 90 days prior to 
the first shipment to each recipient, identifying the country, the 
recipient CRT glass collector or processor, and the expected number and 
volume of shipments to be sent that year.
    EPA notes that today's proposal would exclude from the definition 
of solid waste used intact CRTs sent for recycling, along with used, 
broken CRTs sent for recycling if they are packaged and labeled in 
accordance with the conditions proposed in 40 CFR 261.39. Similarly, 
processed glass would be exempt from the definition of solid waste if 
sent to CRT glassmaking or a lead smelter. Since these materials would 
no longer be considered solid or hazardous wastes, the Agency would not 
have the legal authority to require notification under 40 CFR part 262, 
subparts E and H, or the authority to require additional notifications. 
The Agency notes that if used CRTs were added to the universal waste 
program, EPA would have authority to require notification at least for 
exported broken CRTs. EPA solicits comment on whether the need for the 
export notification requirements recommended by the CSI would warrant 
adding used CRTs to the universal waste program, and whether these 
requirements would be unduly burdensome.
7. Disposal of CRTs
    Finally, the Agency requests comment on whether to allow CRTs sent 
for disposal in hazardous waste facilities (i.e., landfills or 
incinerators) to comply with streamlined packaging and labeling 
requirements similar to those proposed today for broken CRTs sent for 
recycling, rather than comply with full Subtitle C requirements. EPA 
also seeks comment on whether adding used CRTs to the universal waste 
program, which would provide packaging and labeling requirements (as 
well as tracking requirements for larger quantities of CRTs) would 
provide better management of these wastes through improved compliance, 
and whether such requirements would adequately protect human health and 
the environment.

IV. Mercury-Containing Equipment

A. What Is ``Mercury-Containing Equipment?'

    In response to the 1993 universal waste proposal (58 FR 9346, 
February 11, 1993), some commenters suggested adding used mercury-
containing equipment (such as switches, relays, and gauges) to the 
universal waste rule at 40 CFR part 273. In the 1995 final rule, 
however, the Agency did not include these materials in the universal 
waste program, stating in the preamble that we lacked sufficient 
information to justify such a decision (60 FR 25942, 25508, May 11, 
1995). In particular, EPA did not have data about which kinds of wastes 
should be included in the suggested category, the amount of mercury in 
the wastes, and which management controls would be effective. We stated 
that we would welcome a petition which would provide enough information 
to add some forms of mercury-containing equipment to the universal 
waste program.
    On October 11, 1996, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 
(USWAG), the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power 
Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 
submitted a petition to add mercury-containing equipment to the 
universal waste program. This petition identified many types of 
mercury-containing equipment, including several kinds of instruments 
that are used throughout the electric utility and other industries, 
municipalities, and households. These devices include manometers, 
barometers, hagenmeters, relay switches, mercury wetted switches, 
mercury regulators, meters, temperature gauges, pressure relief gauges, 
water treatment pressure gauges, sprinkler system contacts, power plant 
water treatment gauges, and variable force counterweight wheels used in 
coal conveyor systems.

[[Page 40517]]

B. Why Is EPA Proposing To Add Mercury-Containing Equipment To The List 
of Universal Wastes?

    The USWAG petition contained useful information describing how such 
equipment would meet the regulatory criteria for adding wastes to the 
universal waste program set forth at 40 CFR 273.81. After examining the 
information contained in the petition, we have decided to propose 
adding spent mercury-containing equipment to the universal waste rule. 
Following is a description of the regulatory criteria for adding wastes 
to the universal waste rule, and why the Agency believes that used 
mercury-containing equipment meets these criteria. In particular, EPA 
believes that adding these wastes to the universal waste rule will 
facilitate collection of mercury-containing equipment, thereby reducing 
the amount of mercury reaching municipal landfills and incinerators. 
USWAG has estimated that approximately 3,000 pounds of such equipment 
is generated annually by electric and gas utilities and by other 
businesses.
1. The Waste, as Generated by a Wide Variety of Generators, Should Be a 
Listed or Characteristic Hazardous Waste (40 CFR 273.81(a))
    The category of mercury-containing equipment consists of such 
devices as thermometers, manometers, barometers, relay switches, 
mercury regulators, meters, pressure relief gauges, water treatment 
pressure gauges, and sprinkler system contacts. Most mercury-containing 
equipment has a few grams of mercury, although devices such as large 
manometers may contain much more. Many of these devices would fail the 
TCLP toxicity level for mercury of 0.2 mg per liter, and would be 
classified as D009 characteristic hazardous waste. They would therefore 
meet the first regulatory criterion.
2. The Waste, or Category of Waste, Should Not Be Exclusive To a 
Particular Industry or Group of Industries, but Generated by a Wide 
Variety of Establishments (40 CFR 273.81(b))
    Used mercury-containing equipment meets this criterion because it 
is discarded by many different kinds of generators. Although electric 
and gas utilities generate the largest number of such devices, many 
other businesses use instruments designed to measure or regulate 
pressure or temperature, such as thermometers, barometers and 
manometers. In addition, regulators, switches, and relays often contain 
mercury for use as an electric conductor. These devices are used widely 
in manufacturing industries, retail and commercial establishments 
(including the dairy industry), office complexes, hospitals, 
municipalities, and (in the case of certain wastes such as thermometers 
and mercury switches) domestic households. Sources of this wastestream 
are many and varied.
3. The Waste Should Be Generated by a Large Number of Generators and 
Generated Frequently, but in Relatively Small Quantities (40 CFR 
273.81(c))
    Spent mercury-containing equipment would meet this criterion even 
if electric utilities alone were counted. Some large electric utilities 
have several hundred individual generation points throughout their 
distribution network, including generating stations, service centers, 
substations, and transformer vaults. In addition, utilities perform 
servicing operations on meters, regulators, and other mercury-
containing equipment at many customer locations; a large utility may 
have more than 1,000 customer sites. Most facilities, whether utilities 
or not, tend to generate mercury-containing wastes sporadically and in 
relatively small quantities because equipment failures are relatively 
numerous (due to the large number of generation points) and 
unpredictable, while not producing large quantities of waste equipment. 
The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group estimates that a single mid-
sized electric utility generates from 2,000 to 4,000 pieces of mercury-
containing equipment annually.
4. Systems To Be Used for Collecting the Waste (Including Packaging, 
Marking, and Labeling Practices) Should Ensure Close Stewardship of the 
Waste (40 CFR 273.81(d))
    EPA believes that the universal waste program is a very effective 
way to ensure such stewardship. The Agency is today proposing to 
require small and large-quantity universal waste handlers of spent 
mercury-containing equipment to label or mark such equipment clearly, 
similar to the requirements for other handlers of universal wastes in 
40 CFR 273.14 and 273.34.
    To further encourage responsible stewardship, EPA is also proposing 
to require universal waste handlers of mercury-containing equipment to 
manage it in accordance with the universal waste management standards 
currently in place for used thermostats, because both kinds of devices 
contain mercury in ampules which are sometimes removed. Today's 
proposal would require handlers who remove ampules from spent mercury-
containing equipment to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 273.13 
(described later in this notice).
5. The Risks Posed by the Waste During Accumulation and Transport 
Should Be Relatively low Compared to the Risks Posed by Other Hazardous 
Waste, and Specific Management Standards Would Be Protective of Human 
Health and the Environment During Accumulation and Transport (40 CFR 
273.81(e))
    The Agency believes that spent mercury-containing equipment poses 
risks that are relatively low compared to other hazardous wastes 
because they tend to be generated in relatively small amounts at any 
one time by each generator. In addition, the elemental mercury 
contained in such devices is generally fully enclosed within the 
equipment. The danger of spills and leaks during accumulation and 
transport is therefore low when the equipment is packaged correctly. In 
addition, USWAG has suggested, and the Agency is today proposing, that 
spent mercury-containing equipment be managed in accordance with the 
requirements of the universal waste rule at 40 CFR 273. These 
requirements will ensure that the devices are handled safely during 
accumulation and transport. Besides the provisions discussed above that 
are specific to accumulation, packaging, and transport of mercury-
containing universal wastes, the universal waste program requires 
handlers to train employees in proper handling and emergency procedures 
and to contain all releases of universal wastes immediately. Handlers 
may accumulate universal wastes for no longer than one year.
    The universal waste rule also contains several provisions which 
ensure safe transport. For example, handlers may send universal waste 
only to another universal waste handler, a destination facility, or a 
foreign destination. If the handler sends a universal waste off-site 
which meets the definition of hazardous materials under the Department 
of Transportation (DOT) regulations (49 CFR parts 171 through 180), the 
handler must package and label the shipment in accordance with those 
regulations and prepare the proper DOT shipping papers. If a handler of 
universal waste sends a shipment which is rejected, the handler must 
either take the waste back or agree with the rejecting facility to send 
the waste to a destination facility. If a handler receives a shipment 
containing hazardous waste that is not universal waste, the handler 
must immediately notify the appropriate EPA regional office. Finally, 
large quantity handlers of universal waste must keep records of each 
shipment of universal

[[Page 40518]]

waste received or sent off-site. These requirements ensure that spent 
mercury-containing devices will be transported safely.
6. Regulation of the Waste Under 40 CFR Part 273 Will Increase the 
Likelihood That the Waste Will Be Diverted From Non-Hazardous Waste 
Management Systems (e.g., the Municipal Waste Stream, Non-Hazardous 
Industrial or Commercial Waste Stream, Municipal Sewer or Stormwater 
Systems) to Recycling, Treatment, or Disposal in Compliance With 
Subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR 273.81(f))
    If spent mercury-containing equipment was added to the universal 
waste program, thousands of sites that generate such devices would be 
considered handlers of universal wastes, rather than individual 
hazardous waste generators. Because the hazardous waste manifest would 
no longer be required, it would be easier to transport these wastes to 
central consolidation points. Collecting the wastes at such central 
points makes it easier to send them for recycling or for proper 
disposal, which makes it less likely that the wastes will be improperly 
disposed of in municipal landfills or incinerators. In addition, waste 
handlers that wish to consolidate large volumes of waste from 
conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) must now obtain 
a RCRA permit if they accumulate more than 1000 kg of such waste on-
site, pursuant to 40 CFR 261.5(g)(2). This requirement severely 
discourages the central collection of large amounts of CESQG waste. If 
spent mercury-containing equipment is included in the universal waste 
system, collectors of these wastes would be encouraged to gather these 
wastes (along with non-CESQG waste and household waste) for recycling 
or proper disposal. More of these materials would be kept out of the 
municipal wastestream if they were available for removal of elemental 
mercury and recycling of scrap metal.
    In addition, if spent mercury-containing equipment is included in 
the universal waste program, handlers will be less likely to try to 
separate the hazardous and non-hazardous portions of this waste. 
Because the requirements of the universal waste rule are relatively 
streamlined, and because sampling of mercury-containing devices can 
sometimes be difficult, handlers will find it easier to manage the 
entire wastestream as universal waste. Therefore, waste that would 
otherwise go to municipal landfills or combustors would be sent for 
recycling or proper disposal. For these reasons, EPA believes that 
adding mercury-containing equipment to the universal waste program will 
help fulfill the criterion in 40 CFR 273.81(f).
7. Regulation of the Waste Under 40 CFR part 273 Will Improve the 
Implementation and Compliance With the Hazardous Waste Regulatory 
Program (40 CFR 273.81(g))
    EPA believes that the requirements of the universal waste rule are 
particularly suited to the circumstances of handlers of spent mercury-
containing equipment, and that their participation in the universal 
waste program will improve compliance with hazardous waste regulations. 
As stated earlier, spent mercury-containing equipment is generated 
sporadically and in small quantities by many geographically dispersed 
operations. The existence of so many distribution points, along with 
the small quantities of waste, makes compliance with full Subtitle C 
requirements very difficult. Compliance with full hazardous waste 
generator requirements is particularly difficult for electric or gas 
utility operations which are located on customers' properties. The 
requirements of the universal waste rule are clear and should be easily 
understood by the diverse community affected by this proposal, who will 
not need to spend an excessive amount of time and effort interpreting 
the regulations. In addition, because the rule does not require 
handlers to count universal wastes toward their monthly quantity 
determination, many handlers will find it easier to determine their 
hazardous waste generation rates. The Agency believes that the 
streamlined requirements of this proposal will make compliance more 
achievable, and that human health and the environment will benefit as a 
result.

C. What Are EPA's Proposed Management Requirements for Used Mercury-
Containing Equipment?

1. Summary of Proposed Requirements
    The universal waste rule classifies regulated persons managing 
universal waste into four categories: small quantity handlers of 
universal waste (SQHUWs), large quantity handlers of universal waste 
(LQHUWs), transporters, and destination facilities. The term 
``universal waste handler'' is defined in 40 CFR 273.9 as a generator 
of universal waste; or the owner or operator of a facility that 
receives universal waste from other universal waste handlers, 
accumulates universal waste and sends it to another universal waste 
handler, a processor, a destination facility, or a foreign destination. 
The definition of ``universal waste handler'' does not include: (1) a 
person who treats (except under the provision of Sec. 273.13(a) or (c), 
or Sec. 273.33(a) or (c)), disposes of, or recycles universal waste; or 
(2) a person engaged in the off-site transportation of universal waste 
by air, rail, highway, or water, including a universal waste transfer 
facility.
    Whether a universal waste handler is a SQHUW or LQHUW depends on 
the amount of universal waste being accumulated at any time. A SQHUW is 
defined under 40 CFR 273.9 as a universal waste handler who accumulates 
less than 5,000 kilograms of universal waste, calculated collectively 
at any time. The 5,000 kilogram accumulation limit applies to the total 
quantity of all universal waste handled on-site, regardless of the 
category of universal waste. If at any time a SQHUW accumulates 5,000 
kilograms or more of universal waste, then the universal waste handler 
becomes a LQHUW for the calendar year in which 5,000 kilograms or more 
of universal waste was accumulated. A handler may re-evaluate his 
status as a LQHUW in the following calendar year. LQHUWs are subject to 
certain additional regulatory requirements.
    The management requirements proposed today for mercury-containing 
equipment are generally the same as the existing requirements for 
mercury-containing thermostats. Under these proposed requirements, 
management standards for these universal wastes would not significantly 
differ from the current requirements of 40 CFR part 273. Our proposed 
definition of mercury-containing equipment was adapted from the 
regulatory definitions used by States which have added these materials 
to their universal waste programs.
    Following is a more detailed description of today's proposed 
requirements for mercury-containing equipment.
2. Proposed Requirements for Small and Large Quantity Handlers
    Under today's proposal, most of the existing universal waste 
requirements currently applicable to SQHUWs and LQHUWs would also apply 
to handlers of mercury-containing equipment. For both SQHUWs and 
LQHUWs, these requirements include waste management standards, labeling 
and marking, accumulation time limits, employee training, response to 
releases, requirements related to off-site shipments, and export 
requirements. LQHUWs are subject to additional notification and 
tracking requirements.

[[Page 40519]]

    The Agency is proposing today to require SQHUWs and LQHUWs to 
manage mercury-containing equipment in accordance with the universal 
waste management standards currently in place for used thermostats, 
because both kinds of devices contain mercury in ampules which are 
sometimes removed. Today's proposal would require handlers who remove 
ampules from spent mercury-containing equipment to remove them in 
accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 273.13. These provisions state 
that the ampules must be removed in a manner designed to prevent 
breakage, and that they must be removed only over or in a containment 
device. A mercury clean-up system would have to be readily available to 
immediately transfer any mercury from leaks or spills from broken 
ampules to a container. Handlers would be required to ventilate and 
monitor the area in which ampules are removed to ensure compliance with 
applicable standards of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) for exposure to mercury.
    Employees of SQHUWs and LQHUWs would need to be thoroughly familiar 
with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures. They would 
be required to store removed ampules in closed, non-leaking containers, 
and pack removed ampules in containers with packing materials adequate 
to prevent breakage. Handlers who remove mercury-containing ampules 
would have to determine whether residues from spills or leaks exhibit a 
characteristic of hazardous waste. They would also be required to make 
this determination for any other solid waste generated during removal 
of the ampules. If the residues or other solid waste exhibits a 
characteristic of hazardous waste, it would have to be managed in 
accordance with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 
279, rather than as a universal waste.
    The notification requirement proposed today for large quantity 
handlers of universal waste mercury-containing equipment is consistent 
with the existing notification requirement for LQHUWs of all other 
universal wastes (40 CFR 273.32). Under today's proposed rule, a large-
quantity handler of mercury-containing equipment would be required to 
notify the Regional Administrator and receive an identification number 
before meeting or exceeding the accumulation limit. In addition, these 
handlers would be required to keep records of universal waste shipments 
received or sent off-site. These records may take the form of a log, 
invoice, manifest, bill of lading, or other shipping document.
3. Proposed Requirements for Transporters
    Under 40 CFR 273.9, the definition of a universal waste transporter 
is ``a person engaged in the off-site transportation of universal waste 
by air, rail, highway, or water.'' Persons meeting the definition of 
universal waste transporter include those persons who transport 
universal waste from one universal waste handler to another, to a 
processor, to a destination facility, or to a foreign destination. 
These persons are subject to the universal waste transporter 
requirements of subpart D of part 273. The existing provisions apply to 
transporters of all types of universal waste, and, therefore, they 
would also apply to transporters of mercury-containing equipment. EPA 
notes that today's proposed rule would not affect the applicability of 
shipping requirements under the hazardous materials regulations of the 
Department of Transportation (DOT). Transporters would continue to be 
subject to these requirements if applicable (see 49 CFR 173.164 
(Metallic Mercury and Articles Containing Mercury)).
4. Proposed Requirements for Destination Facilities
    Today's notice does not propose to change any existing requirements 
applicable to destination facilities (subpart E of part 273).
5. Effect of Today's Proposed Rule on Household Wastes and 
Conditionally-Exempt Small Quantity Generators
    Adding mercury-containing equipment to the definition of universal 
wastes would not substantially change the way households and 
conditionally-exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) manage these 
devices. Household waste continues to be exempt from RCRA Subtitle C 
regulations under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). However, under the universal 
waste rule, households and CESQGs may voluntarily choose to manage 
their mercury-containing equipment in accordance with either the CESQG 
regulations under 40 CFR 261.5 or as universal waste under part 273 (40 
CFR 273.8(a)(2)). If CESQG waste or household wastes are mixed with 
universal waste subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 273, the 
comingled waste must be handled as universal waste in accordance with 
part 273. Under today's rule, such comingled waste would be subject to 
the 5000 kilogram threshold limit for large quantity handlers.
    Hazardous waste mercury-containing equipment that is managed as 
universal waste under 40 CFR part 273 would not have to be included in 
a facility's determination of hazardous waste generator status (40 CFR 
261.5(c)(6)). Therefore, if a generator were to manage such devices 
under the universal waste rule and did not generate any other hazardous 
waste, that generator would not be subject to other Subtitle C 
hazardous waste management regulations, such as the hazardous waste 
generator regulations in part 262. A generator that generates more than 
100 kilograms of hazardous waste in addition to universal waste 
mercury-containing equipment would be regulated as a hazardous waste 
generator and would be required to manage all hazardous wastes not 
included within the scope of the universal waste rule in accordance 
with all applicable Subtitle C hazardous waste management standards.
6. Land Disposal Restriction Requirements (LDRs)
    Under existing regulations (40 CFR 268.1(f)), universal waste 
handlers and transporters are exempt from the LDR notification 
requirements in 40 CFR 268.7 and the storage prohibition in 
Sec. 268.50. Today's proposal would not change the regulatory status of 
destination facilities; they would remain subject to the full LDR 
requirements.

D. Solicitation of Comment on Universal Waste Notification Requirements

    EPA is soliciting comment on a proposed change to the notification 
requirements of the universal waste rule. The current rule (40 CFR 
273.32(b)(5)) requires large quantity handlers of universal waste 
(LQHUWs) to include in the notification sent to the Regional 
Administrator a statement indicating that the handler is accumulating 
more than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and the types of 
universal waste (i.e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and 
mercury-containing equipment) the handler is accumulating above this 
quantity. The Agency believes that requiring LQHUWs to specify which 
types of universal waste exceed the 5,000 limit is unnecessary because 
the regulations already require LQHUWs to provide a list of all the 
types of universal waste managed by the handler (see 40 CFR 
273.32(b)(4)). In addition, the requirement appears irrelevant because 
the 5,000 limit for determining whether a handler is a LQHUW applies to 
all universal waste accumulated by the handler, not to any particular 
universal waste. The Agency is therefore

[[Page 40520]]

proposing today to delete from 40 CFR 273.32(b)(5) the requirement to 
notify the Regional Administrator of which particular universal wastes 
exceed the 5,000 kg. accumulation limit. EPA solicits comment on 
whether this requirement serves a valid purpose for regulatory 
authorities, and on whether it is unduly burdensome for LQHUWs.

V. 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 hazardous waste program within the 
state. 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 
state authorization are found at 40 CFR part 271.
    Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984 (HSWA), a State with final RCRA 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 facilities in that state, since only the state was authorized to 
issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal requirements were 
promulgated, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authorities 
within specified time frames. However, the new federal requirements did 
not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the 
federal requirements as state law.
    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which 
was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA 
authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they 
take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by the statute to 
implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, 
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, EPA implements 
the HSWA provisions in authorized states until the states do so.
    Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when 
EPA enacts federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in 
scope than existing federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the 
states to impose standards more stringent than those in the federal 
program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, but 
are not required to, adopt federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, 
that are considered less stringent than previous federal regulations.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    Today's proposed rule is less stringent than the current federal 
program. Because states are not required to adopt less stringent 
regulations, they do not have to adopt the streamlined regulations for 
CRTs or the universal waste regulations for mercury-containing devices, 
although EPA encourages them to do so. Some states may already be in 
the process of streamlining their regulations for these materials or 
adding them to their list of universal wastes. If a state's standards 
for used CRTs or mercury-containing equipment are less stringent than 
those in today's rule, the state will need to amend its regulations to 
make them equivalent to today's standards and pursue authorization.

C. Interstate Transport

    Because some states may choose not to seek authorization for 
today's proposed rulemaking, there will probably be cases when used 
CRTs, processed CRT glass, or mercury-containing equipment will be 
transported through states with different regulations governing these 
wastes.
    First, a waste which is subject to an exclusion from the definition 
of solid waste or to the universal waste regulations may be sent to a 
state, or through a state, where it is subject to the full hazardous 
waste regulations. In this scenario, for the portion of the trip 
through the originating state, and any other states where the waste is 
excluded or is a universal waste, neither a hazardous waste transporter 
with an EPA identification number per 40 CFR 263.11 nor a manifest 
would be required. However, for the portion of the trip through the 
receiving state, and any other states that do not consider the waste to 
be excluded or a universal waste, the transporter must have a manifest, 
and must move the waste in compliance with 40 CFR part 263. In order 
for the final transporter and the receiving facility to fulfill the 
requirements concerning the manifest (40 CFR 263.20, 263.21, 263.22; 
264.71, 264.72, 264.76 or 265.71, 265.72, and 265.76), the initiating 
facility should complete a manifest and forward it to the first 
transporter to travel in a state where the waste is not excluded or is 
not a universal waste. The receiving facility must then sign the 
manifest and send a copy to the initiating facility. EPA recommends 
that the initiating facility note in block 15 of the manifest (Special 
Handling Instructions and Additional Information) that the wastes are 
covered by an exclusion or under the universal waste regulations in the 
initiating state but not in the receiving facility's state.
    Second, a hazardous waste generated in a state which does not 
provide an exclusion for the waste or regulate it as a universal waste 
may be sent to a state where it is excluded or regulated as a universal 
waste. In this scenario, the waste must be moved by a hazardous waste 
transporter while the waste is in the generator's state or any other 
states where it is not excluded or not a universal waste. The 
initiating facility would complete a manifest and give copies to the 
transporter as required under 40 CFR 262.23(a). Transportation within 
the receiving state and any other states that exclude the waste or 
regulate it as a universal waste would not require a manifest and need 
not be transported by a hazardous waste transporter. However, it is the 
initiating facility's responsibility to ensure that the manifest is 
forwarded to the receiving facility by any non-hazardous waste 
transporter and sent back to the initiating facility by the receiving 
facility (see 40 CFR 262.23 and 262.42). EPA recommends that the 
generator note in block 15 of the manifest (Special Handling 
Instructions and Additional Information) that the waste is excluded or 
covered under the universal waste regulations in the receiving 
facility's state but not in the generator's state.
    Third, a waste may be transported across a state in which it is 
subject to the full hazardous waste regulations although other portions 
of the trip may be from, through, and to states in which it is excluded 
or covered under universal waste regulations. Transport through the 
State must be conducted by a hazardous waste transporter and must be 
accompanied by a manifest. In order for the transporter to fulfill its 
requirements concerning the manifest (subpart B of Part 263), the 
initiating facility must complete a manifest as required under the 
manifest procedures and forward it to the first transporter to travel 
in a state where the waste is not excluded or is not a universal waste. 
The transporter must deliver the manifest to, and obtain the signature 
of, either the next transporter or the receiving facility.
    As more states streamline their regulatory requirements for these 
wastes, the complexity of interstate transport will be reduced.

[[Page 40521]]

VI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735), the Agency must 
determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to formal review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of the Executive Order, which 
include assessing the costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the 
proposed regulatory action. 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 a 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, the Agency has 
determined that today's proposed rule is a significant regulatory 
action because this proposed rule contains novel policy issues. As 
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in 
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the 
docket to today's proposal.
    To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts 
and benefits from this rule to affected regulated entities, we 
completed an economic analyses for this rule. Copies of these analyses 
(entitled ``Economic Analysis of Cathode Ray Tube Management, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking'' and ``Economic Analysis of Including Mercury-
Containing Devices In the Universal Waste System, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking'') have been placed in the RCRA docket for public review. 
The Agency solicits comment on the methodology and results from the 
analysis as well as any data that the public feels would be useful in a 
revised analysis.
1. Methodology
    To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts 
and benefits of this rule, the Agency estimated both the affected 
volume of cathode ray tubes (CRTs) \1\ and regulated entities. Because 
CRTs are often not managed as hazardous wastes but rather along with 
municipal refuse, the Agency has evaluated two baseline (pre-
regulatory) scenarios: (1) A Subtitle C scenario which modeled a 
distribution of affected monitors as if all affected entities were in 
compliance with Subtitle C regulation, and (2) a Subtitle D scenario 
which models a high percentage of CRTs being discarded untreated in 
municipal solid waste landfills. There is a lower degree of compliance 
with Subtitle C regulation in the Subtitle D scenario. However, this 
scenario is being analyzed to evaluate the real-world effect of this 
rule on affected entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note: Many CRTs that exhibit the toxicity characteristic for 
lead are nonetheless not solid wastes that are also hazardous wastes 
for a number of different reasons. Some are considered household 
hazardous wastes which are excluded from the federal definition of 
hazardous wastes. See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(1). Other CRTs which are post-
manufacturing but not post-consumer are excluded as commercial 
chemical products being reclaimed. See 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3). Thus, the 
fact that a CRT exhibits the toxicity characteristic for lead is not 
sufficient in and of itself to know that the monitor is a hazardous 
waste and affected by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has then modeled two post-regulatory scenarios: (1) The 
regulation being proposed today (hereafter referred to as the ``primary 
alternative''), and (2) the Common Sense Initiative recommendation 
(hereafter referred to as the ``CSI alternative''). The chief 
differences between the primary alternative and CSI alternative is that 
the former applies to both glass-to-glass recycling and lead smelters 
whereas the latter only applies to glass-to-glass recycling. The CSI 
alternative also includes additional management requirements for CRT 
handlers. Finally, the CSI alternative envisions streamlined management 
requirements for monitors but keeping them within RCRA Subtitle C 
jurisdiction as hazardous waste. By contrast, the primary alternative 
of today's proposal excludes previously regulated volumes of CRTs from 
the federal definition of solid and hazardous waste.
    In our economic analysis, we have calculated administrative, 
storage, transportation and disposal/recovery costs for both baseline 
and post-regulatory scenarios and estimated the net cost savings and 
economic impacts for each combination of baseline/post-regulatory pair 
(Subtitle C/primary alternative, Subtitle C/CSI alternative, Subtitle 
D/primary alternative, Subtitle D/CSI alternative). The Subtitle C/
primary alternative pair is the scenario that we are using to meet our 
administrative requirements following this section. This is so because 
it is appropriate to use a baseline scenario that reflects compliance 
with existing federal law and a post-regulatory scenario that is the 
leading scenario being proposed.
    For mercury-containing equipment, we used a similar methodology in 
our economic analysis to the one we are using for CRTs. Again, because 
mercury-containing equipment is often managed in municipal solid waste, 
we have modeled two baselines, one reflecting compliance with Subtitle 
C management under existing law and the other reflecting ongoing 
management of a portion of discarded mercury-containing equipment in 
the municipal solid wastestream.
    The benefits from today's proposed rulemaking are presented 
qualitatively. EPA solicits comment on the need and means to evaluate 
quantitative benefits from today's rule.
2. Results
    a. Volume. Estimated volumes of CRTs subject to RCRA regulation are 
16,100 tons of monitors under the Subtitle C baseline. We have 
estimated the affected volume of CRTs (including both previously 
regulated and diverted volumes of monitors) under the primary 
alternative at 17,500 tons and 17,700 under the CSI alternative when 
paired with the Subtitle C baseline. We believe that between 1500 and 
1700 tons of CRTs would be diverted from export or hazardous waste 
landfill to CRT glass manufacturing under both the primary alternative 
and the CSI alternative. Estimated volumes of mercury-containing 
equipment affected by today's rule are 550 tons.
    b. Cost/Economic Impact. We estimate that the primary alternative 
would save CRT handlers $3.5 million per year relative to the Subtitle 
C baseline. This cost savings comes from reduced administrative, 
transportation and disposal/management cost. We estimate that CSI 
alternative would save CRT handlers $1.15 million relative to the 
Subtitle C baseline, again primarily due to reduced administrative and 
disposal costs. However, unlike the primary alternative, transportation 
costs could actually be higher for the CSI alternative because this 
option does not include lead smelters. Thus, longer transportation 
distances to glass processors would be required.
    To estimate the economic impact of the primary alternative and CSI 
alternative on CRT handlers, the Agency evaluated the cost savings or 
incremental costs as a percentage of firm sales. In virtually all cases 
economic impacts are cost savings at less than one

[[Page 40522]]

percent of firm sales. The average savings for a previously regulated 
small quantity generator is $755 per year and $1740 per year for a 
previously regulated large quantity generator under the primary 
alternative. The average cost savings for previously regulated small 
and large quantity generators under the CSI alternative are estimated 
at $703 and $7819 respectively.
    For mercury-containing equipment, we estimate cost savings 
resulting from today's proposal would be approximately $273,000 per 
year. Of this, about $200,000 in savings is attributed to generators of 
mercury-containing equipment, an average of $106 per generator per 
year. The remaining $73,000 is attributable to retorters and waste 
brokers. As with CRTs, the economic impact of these savings relative to 
firm sales is very small, i.e., less than 0.1 percent of firm sales.
    c. Benefits. EPA has evaluated the qualitative benefits and to a 
lesser extent, the quantitative benefits of the proposed rule for CRTs 
and mercury-containing equipment. Some of the benefits resulting from 
today's rule include conservation of landfill capacity, increase in 
resource efficiency, growth of a recycling infrastructure for CRTs and 
possible reduction of lead emissions to the environment from CRT 
recycling. EPA estimates that approximately 2600 tons or 456,000 cubic 
feet of CRTs per year would be redirected away from landfills towards 
recycling under the Agency's proposal today. In addition, as mentioned 
above, the use of processed CRT glass benefits the manufacturer in 
several ways, such as improving heat transfer and melting 
characteristics in the furnaces, lowering energy consumption, and 
maintaining or improving the quality of the final product. This rule 
will facilitate the growth and development of the CRT glass processing 
industry in the United States by reducing regulatory barriers to new 
glass processing firms becoming established. Finally, this rule will 
reduce lead emissions to the environment by diverting CRTs from 
municipal landfills and waste-to-energy facilities.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has 
fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code 
the firm primarily is classified; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction 
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    The small entity analysis conducted for today's proposal indicates 
that streamlining requirements for CRTs and mercury-containing 
equipment would generally result in savings to affected entities 
compared to baseline requirements. Under the full compliance scenario, 
the rule is not expected to result in a net cost to any affected 
entity. Thus, adverse impacts are not anticipated. Costs could increase 
for entities that are not complying with current requirements, but even 
these costs, which are not properly attributable to the current 
rulemaking, would not be expected to result in significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this 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. 
Information Collection Request (ICR) documents have been prepared (ICR 
No. 1189.10) for the proposed CRT requirements, and ICR No. 1597.05 for 
the proposed requirements for mercury-containing equipment. Copies may 
be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, by email at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 260-4901. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    The information requirements established for this action, and 
identified in the Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting 
today's proposed rule, are largely self-implementing. This process will 
ensure that: (i) Regulated entities managing CRTs or mercury-containing 
equipment are held accountable to the applicable requirements; and (ii) 
state inspectors can verify compliance when needed. For example, the 
universal waste standards require LQHUWs and SQHUWs to demonstrate the 
length of time that mercury-containing equipment has been accumulated 
from the date they were received or became a waste. The standards also 
require LQHUWs and destination sites to keep records of all shipments 
received and sent. Further, the standards require waste handlers and 
processors to notify EPA under certain circumstances (e.g, when large 
amounts are accumulated or when illegal shipments are received).
    EPA will use the collected information to ensure that mercury-
containing equipment is being managed in a protective manner. These 
data aid the Agency in tracking waste shipments and identifying 
improper management practices. In addition, information kept in 
facility records helps handlers, processors, and destination sites to 
ensure that they and other facilities are managing these wastes 
properly. Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, which 
define EPA's general policy on the public disclosure of information, 
contain provisions for confidentiality. However, no questions of a 
sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection 
requirements associated with today's action.
    EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated 
community by the regulations. EPA is confident that those activities 
required of respondents are necessary and, to the extent possible, has 
attempted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes strongly that if 
the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, 
neither the facilities nor EPA can ensure that used CRTs and mercury-
containing equipment are being managed in a manner protective of human 
health and the environment.
    For the proposed requirements applicable to CRTs, the aggregate 
annual burden to respondents over the three-year period covered by this 
ICR is estimated at 10,426 hours, with a cost of approximately 
$687,000. Average annual burden hours per respondent are estimated to 
be 7 hours; there are an estimated 2400 respondents. This represents a 
reduction in burden to respondents of approximately 18,616. There are 
no capital or start-up costs,

[[Page 40523]]

operation or maintenance costs, and no costs for purchases of services. 
Nor is there any burden to the Agency. For the proposed requirements 
affecting mercury-containing equipment, the aggregate annual burden to 
respondents over the three-year period covered by this ICR is estimated 
at 114,770 hours, with a cost of approximately $825,158. Average annual 
burden hours per respondent are estimated to be 4.5 hours for small 
quantity handlers, 15 hours for large quantity handlers, 10 hours for 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and 16 hours for 
transporters; there are an estimated 2495 respondents. This represents 
a reduction in burden of approximately 18,493 hours. The aggregate 
burden to the Agency is estimated at 377 hours, with a cost of 
$10,816.00. Total capital costs are estimated to be $1430 annually for 
all respondents, and operation and maintenance costs are estimated to 
be $113 annually for all respondents.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (Mail Code 2823), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460-0001; and to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA''. Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after June 12, 2002, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 12, 
2002. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

D. Unfunded Mandates

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for the proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' 
that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year.
    Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider 
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The Agency's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today's proposed rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the 
private sector. This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under 
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, EPA has 
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Act 
generally excludes from the definition of ``federal intergovernmental 
mandate'' (in sections 202, 203, and 205) duties that arise from 
participation in a voluntary federal program. Today's proposed rule is 
voluntary, and because it is less stringent than the current 
regulations, state governments are not required to adopt the proposed 
changes. The UMRA generally excludes from the definition of ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' duties that arise from participation in a 
voluntary federal program. The UMRA also excludes from the definition 
of ``Federal private sector mandate'' duties that arise from 
participation in a voluntary federal program. Therefore we have 
determined that today's proposal is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This 
proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.

F. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the federal

[[Page 40524]]

government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. This 
proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045

    ``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that EPA 
determines (1) ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive 
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
rule as defined by Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Today's 
proposed rule streamlines hazardous waste management requirements for 
used cathode ray tubes and mercury-containing equipment. By encouraging 
reuse and recycling, the rule may save energy costs associated with 
manufacturing new materials. It will not cause reductions in supply or 
production of oil, fuel, coal, or electricity. Nor will it result in 
increased energy prices, increased cost of energy distribution, or an 
increased dependence on foreign supplies of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, though OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This 
rule does not establish technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not 
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (February 
11, 1994) is designed to address the environmental and human health 
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to 
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership 
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental 
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are 
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, 
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and 
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's 
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order 
12898, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) 
formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of 
environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop 
an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER 
Directive No. 9200.3-17). To address this goal, EPA conducted a 
qualitative analysis of the environmental justice issues under this 
proposed rule. Potential environmental justice impacts are identified 
consistent with the EPA's Environmental Justice Strategy and the OSWER 
Environmental Justice Action Agenda.
    Today's proposed rule would streamline hazardous waste management 
requirements for used cathode ray tubes sent for recycling. It would 
also streamline such requirements for mercury-containing equipment by 
adding this equipment to the federal universal waste rule. Facilities 
that would be affected by today's rule include any facility generating 
hazardous waste computers and televisions sent for recycling, and any 
facility generating hazardous waste mercury-containing equipment sent 
for recycling or disposal. Also affected would be facilities which 
recycle these materials. Disposal facilities themselves would not be 
affected by today's proposed rule.
    The wide distribution of affected facilities throughout the United 
States does not suggest any distributional pattern around communities 
of concern. Any building in any area could be affected by today's 
proposal. Specific impacts on low income or minority communities, 
therefore, are undetermined. The Agency believes that emissions during 
transportation would not be a major contributor to communities of 
concern through which used CRTs and mercury-containing equipment may be 
transported. Any such material broken during transport would be 
contained in the required packaging. Overall, no disproportional 
impacts to minority or low income communities are expected.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 260

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

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 264

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and 
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security 
measures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 265

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Packaging and 
containers, Security measures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 270

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 273

    Environmental protection, Hazardous materials transportation, 
Hazardous waste.


[[Page 40525]]


    Dated: May 17, 2002.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, parts 260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270 and 
273, are 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 of ``Cathode ray tube,'' ``CRT glass manufacturing 
facility,'' ``CRT glass processor,'' and ``Mercury-containing 
equipment'' and by republishing the introductory text of and adding 
paragraph (5) to the the definition of ``Universal Waste'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 260.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Cathode ray tube or CRT means a vacuum tube, composed primarily of 
glass, which is the video display component of a television or computer 
monitor. An intact CRT means a CRT remaining within the monitor whose 
vacuum has not been released. A broken CRT means glass removed from the 
monitor after the vacuum has been released.
* * * * *
    CRT glass manufacturing facility means a facility or part of a 
facility that uses a furnace to manufacture CRT glass.
* * * * *
    CRT processing means conducting all of the following activities:
    (1) Receiving broken or intact CRTs;
    (2) Intentionally breaking intact CRTs or further breaking or 
separating broken CRTs;
    (3) Sorting or otherwise managing glass removed from CRT monitors; 
and
    (4) Cleaning coatings off the glass removed from CRTs.
* * * * *
    Mercury-containing equipment means a device or part of a device 
(excluding batteries, thermostats, and lamps) that contains elemental 
mercury necessary for its operation.
* * * * *
    Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that 
are managed under the universal waste requirements of part 273 of this 
chapter:
* * * * *
    (5) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

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, 6924(y), and 
6938.

Subpart A--General

    4. Section 261.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(23) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 261.4  Exclusions.

    (a) * * *
    (23) Used cathode ray tubes (CRTs)
    (i) Used intact CRTs as defined in Sec. 260.10 are not solid wastes 
unless disposed. No restrictions on speculative accumulation as defined 
in Sec. 261.1 apply.
    (ii) Used, broken CRTs as defined in Sec. 260.10 are not solid 
wastes provided that they meet the requirements of Sec. 261.39.
* * * * *
    5. Section 261.9 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 261.9  Requirements for universal waste.

* * * * *
    (e) Mercury-conteaining equipment as described in Sec. 273.6 of 
this chapter.
    6. Section 261.38 of subpart D is transferred to Subpart E which is 
added to read as follows:
Subpart E--Exclusions/Exemptions
Sec.
261.38   Comparable/Syngas Fuel Exclusion.
261.39   Conditional Exclusion for Broken, Used Cathode Ray Tubes 
(CRTs) Undergoing Recycling.

Subpart E--Exclusions/Exemptions


Sec. 261.38  Comparable/Syngas Fuel Exclusion.

* * * * *


Sec. 261.39  Conditional Exclusion for Broken, Used Cathode Ray Tubes 
(CRTs) Undergoing Recycling.

    Broken, used CRTs are not solid wastes if they meet the following 
conditions:
    (a) Prior to processing: These materials are not solid wastes if 
they are destined for recycling and if they meet the following 
requirements:
    (1) Storage. The broken CRTs must be either:
    (i) Stored in a building with a roof, floor, and walls, or
    (ii) Placed in a container (i.e., a package or a vehicle) that is 
constructed, filled, and closed to minimize identifiable releases to 
the environment of CRT glass (including fine solid materials).
    (2) Labeling. Each container in which the used, broken CRT is 
contained must be labeled or marked clearly with one of the following 
phrases: ``Waste cathode ray tube(s)--contains leaded glass,'' or 
``Used cathode ray tube(s)--contains leaded glass.'' It must also be 
labeled: ``Do not mix with other glass materials.''
    (3) Transportation. These CRTs must be transported in a container 
meeting the requirements of paragraphs(a)(1)(ii) and (2) of this 
section.
    (4) Speculative accumulation. These CRTs are subject to the 
limitations on speculative accumulation as defined in Sec. 261.1.
    (b) Requirements for used CRT processing: Used, broken CRTs 
undergoing CRT processing as defined in Sec. 260.10 are not solid 
wastes if they meet the following requirements:
    (1) Storage. Broken CRTs undergoing processing are subject to the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (4) of this section.
    (2) Processing.
    (i) All CRTs must be processedwithin a building with a roof, floor, 
and walls; and
    (ii) No activities may be performed that use temperatures high 
enough to volatilize lead from CRTs.
    (c) Processed CRT glass sent to CRT glass making or lead smelting: 
Glass removed from used CRTs that is destined for recycling at a CRT 
glass manufacturing facility or a lead smelter after processing is not 
a solid waste unless it is speculatively accumulated as defined in 
Sec. 261.1. Imported, processed glass from used CRTs is subject to 
these requirements as soon as it enters the United States.
    (d) Processed CRT glass sent to other types of recycling, except 
for use constituting disposal: Glass removed from used CRTs that is 
destined for other types of recycling after processing (except use 
constituting disposal) is not a solid waste if it meets the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section. Imported, 
processed glass removed from used CRTs is subject to these requirements 
as soon as it enters the United States.
    (e) Use constituting disposal: Processed glass removed from CRT 
monitors that is used in a manner constituting disposal must comply 
with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section and the 
applicable

[[Page 40526]]

requirements of part 266, subpart C of this chapter. Imported, 
processed glass from used CRTs is subject to these requirements as soon 
as it enters the United States.

PART 264--STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 
TREATMENT STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    7. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925.

Subpart A--General

    8. Section 264.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g)(11)(v) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 264.1  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (11) * * *
    (v) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

PART 265--INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF 
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES

    9. The authority citation for part 265 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925, 
6935, 6936, and 6937.

Subpart A--General

    10. Section 265.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)(14)(v) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 265.1  Purpose, scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (14) * * *
    (v) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

    11. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

Subpart A--General

    12. Section 268.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)(5) to 
read as follows:
* * * * *
    (5) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE 
PERMIT PROGRAM

    13. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 
6974.

Subpart A--General Information

    14. Section 270.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph 
(c)(2)(viii)(E) to read as follows:


Sec. 270.1  Purpose and scope of these regulations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (E) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6 of this 
chapter.
* * * * *

PART 273--STANDARDS FOR UNIVERSAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

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

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

Subpart A--General

* * * * *
    16. Section 273.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 273.1  Scope.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6.
* * * * *
    17. A new Sec. 273.6 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 273.6  Applicability--Mercury-containing equipment.

    (a) Mercury-containing equipment covered under this part 273. The 
requirements of this part apply to persons managing mercury-containing 
equipment as described in Sec. 273.9, except those listed in paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (b) Mercury-containing equipment not covered under this part 273. 
The requirements of this part do not apply to persons managing the 
following mercury-containing equipment:
    (1) Mercury-containing equipment that is not yet a waste under part 
261 of this chapter. Paragraph (c) of this section describes when 
mercury-containing equipment becomes a waste.
    (2) Mercury-containing equipment that is not a hazardous waste. 
Mercury-containing equipment is a hazardous waste if it exhibits one or 
more of the characteristics identified in part 261, subpart C of this 
chapter.
    (c) Generation of waste mercury-containing equipment. (1) Used 
mercury-containing equipment becomes a waste on the day it is 
discarded.
    (2) Unused mercury-containing equipment becomes a waste on the day 
the handler decides to discard it.
    18. Section 273.9 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definition of ``Mercury-containing equipment'' and revising the 
definitions of ``Large quantity handler of universal waste,'' ``Small 
quantity handler of universal waste,'' and republishing the 
introductory text of and adding paragraph (5) to the definition of 
``Universal waste'' to read as follows:


Sec. 273.9  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste 
handler (as defined in this section) who accumulates 5,000 kilograms or 
more total of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, thermostats, 
lamps, or mercury-containing equipment, calculated collectively) at any 
time. This designation as a large quantity handler of universal waste 
is retained through the end of the calendar year in which the 5,000 
kilogram limit is met or exceeded.
* * * * *
    Mercury-containing equipment means a device or part of a device 
(excluding batteries, thermostats, and lamps) that contains elemental 
mercury necessary for its operation.
* * * * *
    Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste means a universal waste 
handler (as defined in this section) who does not accumulate 5,000 
kilograms or more of universal waste (batteries, pesticides, 
thermostats, lamps, or mercury-containing equipment, calculated 
collectively) at any time.
* * * * *
    Universal Waste means any of the following hazardous wastes that 
are subject to the universal waste requirements of this part 273:
* * * * *
    (e) Mercury-containing equipment as described in Sec. 273.6.
* * * * *

Subpart B--Standards for Small Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste

    19. Section 273.13 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 40527]]

Sec. 273.13  Waste management.

* * * * *
    (c) Universal waste thermostats and mercury-containing equipment. A 
small quantity handler of universal waste must manage universal waste 
thermostats and mercury-containing equipment in a way that prevents 
releases of any universal waste or component of a universal waste to 
the environment, as follows:
    (1) A small quantity handler of universal waste must place in a 
container any universal waste thermostat or mercury-containing 
equipment that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that 
could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions. The 
container must be closed, structurally sound, compatible with the 
contents of the thermostat or device, and must lack evidence of 
leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably 
foreseeable conditions.
    (2) A small quantity handler of universal waste may remove mercury-
containing ampules from universal waste thermostats or mercury-
containing equipment provided the handler:
    (i) Removes the ampules in a manner designed to prevent breakage of 
the ampules;
    (ii) Removes ampules only over or in a containment device (tray or 
pan sufficient to collect and contain any mercury released from an 
ampule in case of breakage);
    (iii) Ensures that a mercury clean-up system is readily available 
to immediately transfer any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from 
broken ampules, from that containment device to a container that meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34;
    (iv) Immediately transfers any mercury resulting from spills or 
leaks from broken ampules from the containment device to a container 
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34;
    (v) Ensures that the area in which ampules are removed is well 
ventilated and monitored to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA 
exposure levels for mercury;
    (vi) Ensures that employees removing ampules are thoroughly 
familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, 
including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate 
containers;
    (vii) Stores removed ampules in closed, non-leaking containers that 
are in good condition;
    (viii) Packs removed ampules in the container with packing 
materials adequate to prevent breakage during storage, handling, and 
transportation, and
    (3)(i) A small quantity handler of universal waste who removes 
mercury-containing ampules from thermostats or mercury-containing 
equipment must determine whether the following exhibit a characteristic 
of hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C:
    (A) Mercury or clean-up residues resulting from spills or leaks, 
and/or
    (B) Other solid waste generated as a result of the removal of 
mercury-containing ampules (e.g., remaining thermostat units or 
mercury-containing equipment).
    (ii) If the mercury, residues, and/or other solid waste exhibit a 
characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be managed in compliance 
with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The 
handler is considered the generator of the mercury, residues, and/or 
other waste and must manage it in compliance with 40 CFR part 262.
    (iii) If the mercury, residues, and/or other solid waste is not 
hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in 
compliance with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste 
regulations.
    20. Section 273.14 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.14  Labeling/marking.

* * * * *
    (f) Mercury-containing equipment, or a container in which the 
equipment is contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any of 
the following phrases: ``Universal Waste--Mercury-Containing 
Equipment,'' or ``Waste Mercury-Containing Equipment,'' or ``Used 
Mercury-Containing Equipment.''

Subpart C--Standards for Large Quantity Handlers of Universal Waste

    21. Section 273.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and 
(b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec. 273.32  Notification.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) A list of all the types of universal waste managed by the 
handler (e.g., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury-
containing equipment);
    (5) A statement indicating that the handler is accumulating more 
than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and the types of universal 
waste (i.e., batteries, pesticides, thermostats, lamps, and mercury-
containing equipment) the handler is accumulating above this quantity.
    22. Section 273.33 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 273.33  Waste management.

* * * * *
    (c) Universal waste thermostats and mercury-containing equipment. A 
large quantity handler of universal waste must manage universal waste 
thermostats and mercury-containing equipment in a way that prevents 
releases of any universal waste or component of a universal waste to 
the environment, as follows:
    (1) A large quantity handler of universal waste must contain any 
universal waste thermostat or mercury-containing equipment that shows 
evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under 
reasonably foreseeable conditions in a container. The container must be 
closed, structurally sound, compatible with the contents of the 
thermostat and/or equipment, and must lack evidence of leakage, 
spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably 
foreseeable conditions.
    (2) A large quantity handler of universal waste may remove mercury-
containing ampules from universal waste thermostats or mercury-
containing equipment provided the handler:
    (i) Removes the ampules in a manner designed to prevent breakage of 
the ampules;
    (ii) Removes ampules only over or in a containment device (tray or 
pan sufficient to collect and contain any mercury released from an 
ampule in case of breakage);
    (iii) Ensures that a mercury clean-up system is readily available 
to immediately transfer any mercury resulting from spills or leaks from 
broken ampules, from that containment device to a container that meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34;
    (iv) Immediately transfers any mercury resulting from spills or 
leaks from broken ampules from the containment device to a container 
that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 262.34;
    (v) Ensures that the area in which ampules are removed is well 
ventilated and monitored to ensure compliance with applicable OSHA 
exposure levels for mercury;
    (vi) Ensures that employees removing ampules are thoroughly 
familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, 
including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate 
containers;
    (vii) Stores removed ampules in closed, non-leaking containers that 
are in good condition;

[[Page 40528]]

    (viii) Packs removed ampules in the container with packing 
materials adequate to prevent breakage during storage, handling, and 
transportation, and
    (3)(i) A large quantity handler of universal waste who removes 
mercury-containing ampules from thermostats or mercury-containing 
equipment must determine whether the following exhibit a characteristic 
of hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C:
    (A) Mercury or clean-up residues resulting from spills or leaks, 
and/or
    (B) Other solid waste generated as a result of the removal of 
mercury-containing ampules (e.g., remaining thermostat units or 
mercury-containing equipment).
    (ii) If the mercury, residues, and/or other solid waste exhibit a 
characteristic of hazardous waste, it must be managed in compliance 
with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260 through 272. The 
handler is considered the generator of the mercury, residues, and/or 
other waste and must manage it in compliance with 40 CFR part 262.
    (iii) If the mercury, residues, and/or other solid waste is not 
hazardous, the handler may manage the waste in any way that is in 
compliance with applicable federal, state, or local solid waste 
regulations.
* * * * *
    23. Section 273.34 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 273.34  Labeling/marking.

* * * * *
    (f) Mercury-containing equipment, or a container in which the 
equipment is contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any of 
the following phrases: ``Universal Waste--Mercury-Containing 
Equipment,'' or ``Waste Mercury-Containing Equipment,'' or ``Used 
Mercury-Containing Equipment.''

[FR Doc. 02-13116 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P