Wednesday,

June
12,
2002
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40508
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
rcradocket
epamail.
epa.
gov.
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:
goode.
marilyn@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Electronic
Comment
Submission
You
may
submit
comments
electronically
through
the
Internet
to:
rcra­
docket@
epa.
gov.
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
MercuryContaining
Equipment
To
The
List
of
Universal
Wastes?
C.
What
Are
EPA's
Proposed
Management
Requirements
for
Used
MercuryContaining
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40509
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
lowtemperature
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40510
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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,
nonprofit
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,
offspecification
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
``
offspecification
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40511
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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.
Nonresidential
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
nonresidential
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40512
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
decision
is
made
to
dispose
of
hazardous
waste
CRTs,
the
nonresidential
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
nonCRT
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
§
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40513
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
nonconsumer
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
nonrepairable
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
§
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
wastelike
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40514
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
threefourths
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
offspecification
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40515
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
onsite
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.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40516
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
commoditylike
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
mercurycontaining
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.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40517
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40518
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
waste
received
or
sent
off­
site.
These
requirements
ensure
that
spent
mercurycontaining
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,
NonHazardous
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
mercurycontaining
equipment
is
included
in
the
universal
waste
system,
collectors
of
these
wastes
would
be
encouraged
to
gather
these
wastes
(along
with
nonCESQG
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
mercurycontaining
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
§
273.13(
a)
or
(c),
or
§
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
mercurycontaining
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.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40519
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
mercurycontaining
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
offsite
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
mercurycontaining
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
ConditionallyExempt
Small
Quantity
Generators
Adding
mercury­
containing
equipment
to
the
definition
of
universal
wastes
would
not
substantially
change
the
way
households
and
conditionallyexempt
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
mercurycontaining
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
§
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40520
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
nonHSWA
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40521
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
postmanufacturing
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.
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
preregulatory
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.
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
postregulatory
scenarios
and
estimated
the
net
cost
savings
and
economic
impacts
for
each
combination
of
baseline/
postregulatory
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40522
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
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
selfimplementing
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
mercurycontaining
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
threeyear
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,

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40523
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40524
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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.

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40525
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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
``
Mercurycontaining
equipment''
and
by
republishing
the
introductory
text
of
and
adding
paragraph
(5)
to
the
the
definition
of
``
Universal
Waste''
to
read
as
follows:

§
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
§
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:

§
261.4
Exclusions.

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

§
261.9
Requirements
for
universal
waste.

*
*
*
*
*
(e)
Mercury­
conteaining
equipment
as
described
in
§
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
§
261.38
Comparable/
Syngas
Fuel
Exclusion.

*
*
*
*
*

§
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
§
261.1.
(b)
Requirements
for
used
CRT
processing:
Used,
broken
CRTs
undergoing
CRT
processing
as
defined
in
§
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
§
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40526
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
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:

§
264.1
Purpose,
scope,
and
applicability.

*
*
*
*
*
(g)
*
*
*
(11)
*
*
*
(v)
Mercury­
containing
equipment
as
described
in
§
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:

§
265.1
Purpose,
scope
and
applicability.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
*
*
*
(14)
*
*
*
(v)
Mercury­
containing
equipment
as
described
in
§
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
§
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:

§
270.1
Purpose
and
scope
of
these
regulations.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
*
*
*
(2)
*
*
*
(viii)
*
*
*
(E)
Mercury­
containing
equipment
as
described
in
§
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:

§
273.1
Scope.
(a)
*
*
*
(5)
Mercury­
containing
equipment
as
described
in
§
273.6.
*
*
*
*
*
17.
A
new
§
273.6
is
added
to
read
as
follows:

§
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
§
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
mercurycontaining
equipment
becomes
a
waste.
(2)
Mercury­
containing
equipment
that
is
not
a
hazardous
waste.
Mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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:

§
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
mercurycontaining
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
§
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:

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40527
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
§
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
mercurycontaining
ampules
from
universal
waste
thermostats
or
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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:

§
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—
MercuryContaining
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:

§
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:

§
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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
ampules
from
universal
waste
thermostats
or
mercurycontaining
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;

VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
40528
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
113
/
Wednesday,
June
12,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(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
mercurycontaining
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
mercurycontaining
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:

§
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—
MercuryContaining
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
VerDate
May<
23>
2002
21:
35
Jun
11,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
12JNP2.
SGM
pfrm12
PsN:
12JNP2
