1
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENT
DOCUMENT:
RCRA­
2004­
0010.

A.
Used,
Intact
CRTs
Sent
for
Recycling
Used,
intact
CRTs
are
CRTs
remaining
within
the
monitor
whose
vacuum
has
not
been
released.
In
its
June
12,
2002
notice,
the
Agency
proposed
to
exclude
these
materials
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
unless
they
were
disposed.
These
materials,
when
sent
for
recycling,
would
not
have
been
subject
to
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
including
the
speculative
accumulation
limits
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)
(
see
also
40
CFR
§
261.2(
c)(
4)).
Under
the
proposal,
used,
intact
CRTs
could
therefore
have
been
held
for
long
periods
of
time
without
being
considered
abandoned
and
thereby
becoming
solid
wastes.

EPA
determined
that
intact
CRTs
are
highly
unlikely
to
release
lead
to
the
environment
because
the
lead
is
contained
in
the
plastic
housing
and
the
glass
matrix
(
see
67
FR
40513).
Because
of
this
low
likelihood
of
release,
EPA
proposed
reduced
requirements
for
used,
intact
CRTs
by
excluding
them
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
Unused
CRTs
are
already
considered
commercial
chemical
products
which
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
when
recycled,
even
if
they
are
reclaimed
or
speculatively
accumulated
(
see
50
FR
14219,
April
11,
1985).
Used
and
unused
intact
CRTs
are
identical
in
appearance.
In
the
proposal,
the
Agency
stated
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
distinguish
between
used
and
unused
intact
CRTs
destined
for
recycling,
and
there
appeared
to
be
no
environmental
basis
for
such
a
distinction.

The
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
lead
contained
in
used,
intact
CRTs
is
generally
unlikely
to
be
released
to
the
environment.
However,
views
expressed
by
commenters
have
led
the
Agency
to
change
the
proposed
speculative
accumulation
requirements
for
these
materials.
Today s
rule
provides
that
used,
intact
CRTs
are
subject
to
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
261.1(
c)(
8)
if
they
are
accumulated
by
glass
processors
or
collectors
(
see
40
CFR
261.4(
a)(
23)(
i)
in
the
final
rule).
Today s
rule
also
modifies
requirements
applicable
to
used,
intact
CRTs
that
are
exported.
The
export
requirements
are
discussed
in
a
separate
section
below.
Following
are
the
significant
comments
received,
and
our
responses.

Response
to
Comments
Commenters
were
divided
about
imposing
speculative
accumulation
requirements
on
used,
intact
CRTs.
Some
commenters
supported
our
proposal
to
impose
no
accumulation
limits
on
intact
CRTs.
These
commenters
claimed
that
intact
CRTs
being
recycled
were
more
commodity­
like
than
waste­
like,
and
that
there
is
virtually
no
possibility
of
environmental
releases
from
intact
CRTs.

Other
commenters,
particularly
States,
wanted
to
subject
used,
intact
CRTs
to
the
speculative
accumulation
provisions
because
they
were
concerned
about
the
possibility
of
abandonment.
Some
of
these
commenters
believed
that
intact
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
resembled
spent
materials
rather
than
commercial
chemical
products
being
reclaimed,
and
2
therefore
should
not
be
excluded
at
all
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
One
commenter,
however,
stated
that
speculative
accumulation
might
be
better
addressed
under
state
solid
waste
authorities
than
under
federal
law.
Another
commenter
suggested
clarifying
that
40
CFR
§
261.2(
f)
applies
to
used,
intact
CRTs
sent
for
recycling.
This
provision
requires
respondents
in
enforcement
actions
to
demonstrate
that
the
material
in
question
is
not
a
solid
waste,
or
is
exempt
from
regulation.
This
commenter
believed
such
a
clarification
was
preferable
to
imposing
speculative
accumulation
requirements
on
used,
intact
CRTs.

One
commenter
suggested
two
alternative
approaches
to
speculative
accumulation
for
used,
intact
CRTs.
One
approach
would
involve
a
speculative
accumulation
period
of
up
to
three
years
(
presumably
because
intact
CRTs
become
increasingly
nonfunctional
with
time,
and
because
storage
costs
also
increase
with
time).
The
alternative
approach
would
involve
a
quantity
limit
(
10,000­
20,000
kg)
beyond
which
stored
materials
would
be
subject
to
speculative
accumulation
requirements
unless
the
facility
in
question
provided
a
closure
plan
with
financial
assurance
and
could
document
a
specified
turnover
every
six
months.

The
Agency
does
not
agree
that
three
years
is
generally
necessary
to
find
reuse
or
recycling
markets
for
intact
CRTs.
If
more
time
is
needed
than
specified
in
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8),
the
facility
may
apply
for
an
additional
time
period
under
the
variance
procedures
in
40
CFR
§
260.30(
a)(
see
the
discussion
of
this
variance
in
the
following
section.)
In
response
to
the
suggested
quantity
limit
and
closure
plan,
the
Agency
notes
that
such
a
plan,
although
interesting,
is
technically
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
would
require
an
additional
proposal.
Moreover,
the
commenter
did
not
provide
compelling
reasons
for
establishing
the
particular
requirements,
while
the
Agency s
current
speculative
accumulation
requirements
have
a
long
history
under
the
regulations
and
are
commonly
understood
by
affected
stakeholders.
We
are
therefore
not
addressing
the
merits
of
the
suggestion
at
this
time.

The
Agency
agrees
with
those
commenters
who
expressed
concern
about
potential
abandonment
of
used,
intact
CRTs,
particularly
by
glass
processors
and
by
persons
who
collect
CRTs
for
recycling.
Although
broken
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass
are
likely
to
pose
a
greater
immediate
risk
of
environmental
releases,
we
believe
that
this
possibility
also
exists
for
intact
CRTs
that
are
stored
for
long
periods
of
time,
particularly
if
a
collector
of
such
materials
abandons
them
instead
of
sending
them
for
recycling.
Such
indefinite
storage,
in
the
Agency s
view,
indicates
that
the
materials
are
waste­
like
rather
than
commodity­
like
in
nature.

EPA
has
also
reconsidered
its
earlier
statement
that
it
is
very
difficult
to
distinguish
between
unused
and
used
intact
CRTs.
The
two
types
of
materials
are
not
normally
stored
together.
Unused
intact
CRTs
are
generally
returned
to
the
manufacturer
by
consumers
or
retailers,
after
which
they
are
sent
directly
to
recyclers.
Prolonged
storage
of
unused
intact
CRTs
by
consumers,
retailers,
or
manufacturers
is
unlikely.

Nor
do
we
agree
with
the
commenter
who
stated
that
speculative
accumulation
is
better
addressed
by
state
solid
waste
authorities,
rather
than
federal
law.
Some
state
definitions
of
solid
waste
are
based
on
the
federal
definition,
and
these
States
would
find
it
more
difficult
to
use
their
authorities
to
require
removal
of
abandoned
CRTs.
We
also
note
that
40
CFR
3
§
261.2(
f)
is
not
an
adequate
substitute
for
speculative
accumulation
requirements
because
it
applies
only
if
enforcement
actions
are
taken.
This
provision
is
not
a
measure
that
would
prevent
excessive
accumulation
of
used,
intact
CRTs.

For
the
reasons
stated
above,
today s
rule
imposes
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)
on
collectors
of
CRTs
and
glass
processors
(
see
40
CFR
§
261.(
a)(
23(
i)).
Speculative
accumulation
requirements
also
apply
to
used
CRTs
that
are
exported
for
recycling
(
see
40
CFR
§
§
261.4(
a)(
23(
ii)
and
261.40)).

However,
we
are
not
imposing
speculative
accumulation
requirements
on
persons
who
use
computers
or
televisions
and
then
send
the
intact
CRTs
to
collectors
and
glass
processors.
Such
persons
are
generally
not
likely
to
accumulate
CRTs
in
circumstances
that
will
lead
to
environmental
releases,
nor
is
there
an
economic
incentive
for
them
to
store
intact
CRTs
indefinitely.
Because
of
the
new
speculative
accumulation
requirement,
we
have
also
added
a
definition
of
 
CRT
collector 
to
40
CFR
§
260.10
( 
a
person
who
receives
used,
intact
CRTs
for
recycling,
repair,
resale,
or
donation ).

In
addition,
we
do
not
agree
that
intact
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
should
be
classified
as
spent
materials
and
regulated
under
full
Subtitle
C
requirements,
including
use
of
the
hazardous
waste
manifest.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
today s
rulemaking
record,
we
believe
they
resemble
commodities
more
than
wastes
as
long
as
they
are
recycled
promptly
in
accordance
with
today s
exclusion
which
is
conditioned
upon
meeting
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)).

One
commenter
suggested
that
unused
CRTs
should
also
be
subject
to
speculative
accumulation
requirements.
EPA
did
not
propose
this
approach,
and
it
is
therefore
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
As
a
practical
matter,
we
also
believe
that
unused
CRTs
are
more
likely
to
be
accumulated
by
manufacturers
of
these
materials,
who
are
less
likely
to
abandon
them.
We
also
note
that
once
unused
CRTs
are
broken,
they
are
subject
to
all
of
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a).

One
commenter
said
that
our
proposed
exclusion
for
used,
intact
CRTs
implied
that
if
such
CRTs
were
destined
for
recycling,
they
could
enjoy
the
proposed
exclusion
without
having
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
proposed
40
CFR
§
261.39,
even
if
they
were
subsequently
broken.
This
conclusion
is
incorrect
because
the
proposed
(
and
final)
definition
of
 
intact
CRT 
refers
to
a
CRT
whose
vacuum
has
not
been
released.
After
the
vacuum
has
been
released,
the
CRT
becomes
a
broken
CRT
and
must
be
managed
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)
and
(
b).
The
same
commenter
noted
that
our
proposed
exclusions
were
repeated
in
regulatory
language
for
each
stage
of
management
(
i.
e.,
storage
prior
to
processing,
transportation,
processing,
and
recycling
of
processed
glass).
The
commenter
stated
that
this
language
implied
that
complying
with
any
one
of
the
stages
conferred
immunity
from
compliance
with
any
of
the
succeeding
stages
in
the
sequence.
According
to
the
commenter s
logic,
if
a
material
is
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
it
is
forever
not
a
waste
and
the
Agency
is
precluded
from
regulating
it
at
a
later
stage.
However,
most
materials
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
wastes
may
become
wastes
at
a
later
time
if
they
do
not
comply
with
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8),
or
if
they
are
burned
or
incinerated.
4
The
Agency
therefore
does
not
agree
with
this
commenter s
reasoning,
nor
do
we
believe
that
most
readers
would
interpret
the
regulations
in
that
way.

One
commenter
asked
us
to
clarify
that
used
intact
CRTs
sent
to
a
reseller
for
potential
reuse
do
not
have
to
be
accompanied
by
a
hazardous
waste
manifest.
The
commenter
is
correct,
since
the
original
users
of
such
CRTs
are
not
considered
to
be
generators
of
solid
or
hazardous
waste.

B.
Used,
Broken
CRTs
Sent
for
Recycling
Labeling
and
Storage
Some
users
and
collectors
of
CRTs
separate
the
CRT
from
its
housing
and
release
the
vacuum.
They
then
send
the
monitor
with
its
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
nonreusable
and
non­
repairable
and
therefore
could
potentially
be
solid
wastes
at
the
time
such
breakage
occurs.

In
the
proposal,
EPA
proposed
to
add
a
new
section
(
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a))
which
provided
that
used,
broken
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
would
not
be
solid
wastes
if
they
were
stored
in
a
building
with
a
roof,
floor,
and
walls,
or
if
they
were
stored
in
a
container
(
i.
e.,
a
package
or
a
vehicle)
which
was
constructed,
filled,
and
closed
to
minimize
identifiable
releases
of
CRT
glass
(
including
fine
solid
materials)
to
the
environment.
The
containers
were
to
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. 
The
containers
must
also
be
labeled
 
do
not
mix
with
other
glass
materials. 
When
transported,
the
broken
CRTs
would
have
had
to
be
in
a
container
meeting
the
conditions
described
above.
Used,
broken
CRTs
destined
for
recycling
could
not
be
speculatively
accumulated
as
defined
in
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8).

The
Agency
stated
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
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
was
considered
appropriate
if
the
broken
CRTs
were
handled
under
the
conditions
proposed.

The
Agency
has
decided
to
promulgate
the
regulations
applicable
to
storage
and
labeling
of
used,
broken
CRTs
substantially
as
proposed.
EPA
has
determined
that
used,
broken
CRTs
are
not
solid
wastes
if
they
are
sent
for
recycling
within
the
United
States
under
the
conditions
specified
in
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)(
1)­(
4).
However,
the
Agency
has
made
certain
modifications
to
the
proposed
conditions
in
response
to
comments
received.
These
changes
5
are
described
below.
Today s
rule
also
modifies
the
proposed
requirements
applicable
to
used,
broken
CRTs
that
are
exported.
The
export
requirements
are
discussed
in
a
separate
section
below,
along
with
requirements
for
imports.

Response
to
Comments
Several
commenters
suggested
changes
to
our
proposed
labeling
requirements
for
used,
broken
CRTs
being
transported
or
stored.
Some
commenters
wanted
requirements
which
they
believed
were
more
accurate
or
specific
than
the
ones
we
proposed.
For
example,
under
our
proposal,
processed
glass
going
to
certain
types
of
recycling
would
have
to
be
packaged
and
labeled
identically
to
used,
broken
CRTs
(
see
proposed
40
CFR
§
261.39(
d),
47
FR
40525)).
One
commenter
pointed
out
that
processed
glass
can
no
longer
be
considered
a
 
cathode
ray
tube. 
This
commenter
therefore
suggested
that
applicable
labeling
requirements
for
processed
glass
be
changed
to
 
processed
cathode
ray
tube
glass 
or
 
glass
removed
from
cathode
ray
tubes. 
Similarly,
another
commenter
stated
that
used
broken
CRTs
may
be
in
such
small
pieces
that
the
materials
might
not
be
recognizable
as
 
cathode
ray
tubes. 
This
commenter
suggested
that
a
useful
alternative
requirement
(
which
could
be
used
in
addition
to
our
proposed
language)
would
be
to
label
containers
of
broken
CRTs
with
the
phrase
 
leaded
glass 
and
some
indication
of
the
source
of
the
glass
 
e.
g.,
 
leaded
glass
from
televisions. 
Another
commenter
pointed
out
that
one
of
our
proposed
alternative
labeling
phrases
( 
waste
cathode
ray
tubes
 
contains
leaded
glass )
was
not
necessary,
since
the
cathode
ray
tubes
would
not
be
wastes
if
they
were
packaged
and
labeled
in
accordance
with
the
regulations.

The
Agency
agrees
that
these
suggestions
are
more
clear
than
our
proposed
regulations,
and
has
modified
the
final
rule
accordingly.
Section
261.39(
a)(
2)
of
today s
rule
specifies
that
each
container
in
which
a
used,
broken
CRT
is
contained
must
be
labeled
or
marked
clearly
with
one
of
the
following
phrases:
 
used
cathode
ray
tubes
 
contains
leaded
glass 
or
 
leaded
glass
from
televisions
or
computers. 

One
commenter
urged
complete
flexibility
in
labeling
requirements.
Another
suggested
that
the
Agency
not
specify
the
exact
wording
of
labels
in
the
regulations,
but
instead
should
require
that
contents
be
 
marked
with
words
that
identify
the
contents
of
the
containers. 
This
latter
commenter
believed
that
labelers
would
then
have
more
discretion
and
would
not
be
subject
to
enforcement
actions
for
failing
to
use
the
precise
words
specified
in
the
regulations.

The
Agency
does
not
agree
with
these
comments.
Requiring
no
specified
words
or
phrases
for
labeling
in
the
regulations
does
not
provide
sufficient
notice
to
either
regulators
or
the
regulated
community,
and
could,
if
anything,
lead
to
more
enforcement
actions
than
a
precisely
worded
requirement.

One
commenter
said
that
EPA
should
also
require
CRT
devices
to
be
labeled
(
presumably
the
commenter
was
referring
to
CRT
devices
still
in
use)
because
the
public
is
unaware
that
these
devices
may
be
hazardous
when
disposed.
Besides
being
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking,
the
Agency
does
not
agree
that
labeling
products
is
necessary
6
merely
because
they
may
be
hazardous
when
disposed.
Such
labeling
could
result
in
a
misleading
impression
that
the
products
are
harmful
during
normal
use.

Another
commenter
suggested
requiring
closed
containment,
avoidance
of
air
entrainment
of
contaminants,
and
protection
from
exposure
to
precipitation
or
corrosive/
leaching
chemicals.
Today s
rule
requires
used,
broken
CRTs
(
if
not
stored
in
a
building)
to
be
placed
in
a
container
that
is
constructed,
filled,
and
closed
to
minimize
releases
to
the
environment
of
CRT
glass
(
including
fine
solid
materials.)
EPA
believes
that
this
regulatory
language
is
more
appropriate
for
these
materials
than
the
commenter s
suggested
language.
Reference
to
unspecified
 
contaminants 
and
 
chemicals )
is
not
sufficiently
precise
to
give
notice
to
the
regulated
community.

Other
commenters
believed
that
several
of
our
proposed
requirements
were
unnecessary.
For
example,
some
commenters
objected
to
EPA s
proposed
requirement
that
broken
CRTs
be
stored
either
in
a
container
or
a
building.
One
commenter
believed
that
these
materials
should
not
be
classified
as
solid
wastes
if
they
were
stored
on
a
concrete
pad
or
the
equivalent,
since
this
practice
should
be
adequate
for
a
coarse
solid
material
which
is
insoluble
in
water.
Other
commenters
suggested
replacing
our
proposed
requirements
with
a
requirement
that
storage
of
CRT
glass
must
take
place
in
 
environmentally
contained
areas
(
water
and
particle
containment) 
or
must
be
 
stored
in
a
manner
that
meets
other
environmental
regulations
that
control
or
limit
release
to
the
environment. 

EPA
disagrees
with
these
comments.
In
the
first
place,
storing
broken
CRTs
outdoors
prior
to
processing
is
inconsistent
with
the
premise
that
these
materials
are
commodity­
like,
because
they
can
easily
be
damaged
if
exposed
to
excessive
wind
or
moisture
unless
they
are
packaged.
Language
requiring
storage
in
 
environmentally
contained
areas 
is
too
vague
to
provide
guidance
to
the
regulated
community
on
the
measures
required
to
ensure
appropriate
handling
of
commodity­
like
materials.
Similarly,
a
requirement
that
materials
be
 
stored
in
a
manner
that
meets
other
environmental
regulations 
would
be
redundant,
since
they
are
required
to
comply
with
all
applicable
environmental
regulations
in
any
event.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
does
not
contain
these
suggested
requirements.

One
commenter
pointed
out
that
containers
holding
used,
broken
CRTs
may
also
hold
other
portions
of
electronic
equipment
such
as
the
plastic
housing
that
contains
the
CRT.
This
commenter
requested
that
the
Agency
clarify
that
these
other
associated
materials
need
not
be
segregated
from
CRTs
during
storage.
We
agree
with
this
commenter
that
such
segregation
was
not
our
intent
and
the
rule
does
not
require
such
segregation.

Speculative
Accumulation
In
our
June
12,
2002
notice,
we
proposed
to
require
that
used,
broken
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass
be
subject
to
the
speculative
accumulation
provisions
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8).
These
provisions
generally
specify
that
materials
are
speculatively
accumulated,
unless
75
percent
of
the
materials
(
calculated
by
weight
or
by
volume)
are
recycled
within
a
calendar
year.
We
inquired
whether
a
longer
accumulation
period
(
such
as
two
or
more
years)
should
be
provided
for
CRTs
to
allow
recycling
markets
to
grow,
especially
since
there
appeared
to
be
few
environmental
concerns
with
storage
if
these
7
materials
are
properly
packaged
and
labeled.
After
evaluating
comments
received
on
this
issue,
we
have
decided
to
finalize
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
as
proposed
for
used,
broken
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass.
The
comments
received,
and
our
responses,
are
described
below.

Response
to
Comments
Some
commenters
(
principally
states)
supported
the
current
speculative
accumulation
provisions
for
broken
CRTs
(
or,
in
some
cases,
the
one­
year
accumulation
period
of
the
universal
waste
rule).
These
commenters
were
concerned
about
the
possible
environmental
effects
of
a
longer
accumulation
time,
and
generally
believed
that
the
one­
year
time
frame
allowed
in
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)
was
enough
to
accumulate
sufficient
quantities
for
recovery
and
find
outlets
for
recycling.

Other
commenters
(
generally
representing
industry)
supported
extending
speculative
accumulation
requirements
for
broken
CRTs.
Some
supported
extensions
of
two
or
more
years
for
used,
broken
CRTs,
and
a
few
wanted
no
limits
at
all.
These
commenters
argued
that
longer
time
limits
would
allow
persons
handling
used
CRTs
to
accumulate
the
materials
in
larger
numbers,
which
would
make
shipping
less
expensive.
They
also
believed
that
extended
speculative
accumulation
times
would
allow
markets
to
develop
more
fully,
thus
encouraging
recycling.
A
few
commenters
supported
longer
speculative
accumulation
times
for
used,
intact
CRTs
as
well,
and
two
commenters
wanted
a
longer
accumulation
time
(
e.
g.,
two
or
three
years)
only
for
used,
intact
CRTs.
One
commenter
suggested
requiring
that
only
10%
of
intact
CRTs
be
recycled
or
transferred
for
recycling
within
a
calendar
year.

EPA
agrees
with
those
commenters
who
stated
that
markets
are
likely
to
increase
for
CRT
glass.
Although
some
commenters
were
concerned
about
lack
of
markets,
these
commenters
did
not
submit
quantitative
data
that
would
be
sufficient,
in
the
Agency s
view,
to
justify
treating
these
materials
differently
from
other
materials
that
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
on
condition
that
they
not
be
speculatively
accumulated.
We
note
that
markets
for
all
of
these
materials
frequently
fluctuate.
Similarly,
there
appear
to
be
no
data
indicating
that
extended
accumulation
times
are
generally
necessary
to
lower
shipping
costs
for
CRTs.
For
these
reasons,
we
believe
that
used
broken
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass
(
as
well
as
used
intact
CRTs,
as
discussed
in
section
A
above)
should
be
subject
to
the
usual
requirements
that
they
not
be
speculatively
accumulated.
In
addition,
we
do
not
think
that
different
accumulation
times
for
broken
and
intact
CRTs
would
be
practical.
Although
broken
CRTs
present
a
somewhat
greater
risk
of
releases,
the
difference
in
risk
seems
outweighed
by
the
difficulties
in
program
implementation
that
would
be
incurred
by
a
longer
accumulation
period
only
for
used,
intact
CRTs.
Different
accumulation
times
for
the
two
materials
could
also
make
recycling
more
complicated
if
facilities
collecting
CRTs
had
to
keep
separate
track
of
storage
times.

One
commenter
suggested
extending
the
speculative
accumulation
period
for
processed
glass,
stating
that
processed
glass
must
sometimes
be
stored
at
glass
manufacturing
facilities
for
long
periods
of
time
due
to
the
lack
of
current
need
for
glass
with
the
particular
lead
content
found
in
the
stored
glass.
Similarly,
according
to
this
commenter,
CRT
glass
8
processors
must
sometimes
accumulate
processed
glass
in
order
to
meet
the
needs
of
CRT
glass
manufacturers
during
periods
of
peak
usage.
This
commenter
also
stated
that
processed
glass
meets
many
of
the
criteria
for
a
variance
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
under
40
CFR
§
260.31(
a)
(
which
allows
extended
accumulation
periods
to
individual
facilities).
The
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
extend
the
speculative
accumulation
time
for
processed
glass
on
an
industry­
wide
basis.
However,
another
commenter
supported
the
use
of
such
variances
to
extend
accumulation
times
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
as
necessary
for
persons
developing
new
glass
technologies.
We
agree
with
this
commenter.
Such
variances
are
available
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
if
the
applicant
can
demonstrate
that
sufficient
amounts
of
the
material
in
question
can
be
recycled
or
transferred
for
recycling
within
the
following
year.
The
variances
can
be
renewed
annually
by
filing
a
new
application.
We
note
that
these
variances
are
available
not
only
to
glass
processors
and
to
persons
developing
new
glass
technologies,
but
also
to
any
person
storing
used
CRTs
who
needs
additional
storage
time.
Because
they
are
site­
specific
and
allow
individual
circumstances
to
be
taken
into
account,
the
variances
are
more
appropriate
than
an
extension
covering
many
different
kinds
of
facilities
in
differing
situations.

Another
commenter
suggested
basing
storage
time
and
quantity
limits
(
for
both
broken
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass)
on
a
percentage
of
annual
sales
volume
to
glass
manufacturers.
This
commenter
also
said
that
storage
limitations
should
only
apply
to
materials
of
 
environmental
concern 
and
not
to
panel
glass.
In
response,
the
Agency
notes
that
basing
storage
requirements
on
a
percentage
of
sales
volume
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
However,
we
agree
that
such
requirements
only
apply
to
materials
which
are
hazardous
wastes,
which
would
generally
not
include
panel
glass
from
CRTs.

One
commenter
stated
that
since
most
facilities
will
rarely
encounter
broken
CRTs,
it
would
be
burdensome
to
try
to
distinguish
them
from
intact
CRTs;
therefore,
they
should
be
subject
to
the
same
speculative
accumulation
requirements.
EPA
does
not
agree
with
this
commenter.
If
CRTs
are
to
be
recycled,
they
must
be
broken
at
some
point
in
order
to
be
disassembled.
Nor
is
it
difficult
to
determine
visually
whether
the
vacuum
tube
on
a
CRT
has
been
released.
In
any
event,
we
note
that
the
importance
of
distinguishing
between
broken
and
intact
CRTs
is
not
important
for
purposes
of
speculative
accumulation,
since
under
today s
rule
both
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.(
c)(
8).

Another
commenter
stated
that
the
purpose
of
the
original
speculative
accumulation
provisions
was
to
alleviate
concerns
about
sham
recycling
and
to
provide
a
way
to
determine
storage
periods
and
turnover
rates
for
materials
that
did
not
have
well­
defined
markets.
Since
there
are
current
markets
for
CRT
glass,
this
commenter
reasoned
that
the
speculative
accumulation
provisions
should
not
apply
to
these
materials.
We
disagree
with
this
commenter.
The
speculative
accumulation
provisions
have
never
been
limited
to
materials
with
particular
types
of
markets.
In
any
event,
markets
for
most
commodities
usually
change
over
time.
Another
commenter
said
that
there
are
few
environmental
or
human
health
risks
associated
with
the
storage
of
broken
CRTs
when
properly
contained
and
labeled.
Therefore,
no
speculative
accumulation
requirements
for
CRTs
are
needed.
In
response,
we
note
that
indefinite
storage
increases
the
likelihood
of
environmental
releases,
and
that
such
storage
is
inconsistent
with
commodity­
like
status.
9
Another
commenter
believed
that
recordkeeping
requirements
incumbent
upon
a
processor
to
demonstrate
that
speculative
accumulation
limits
have
not
been
violated
would
hinder
the
growth
of
the
CRT
recycling
industry.
In
response,
we
note
that
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)
do
not
contain
specific
recordkeeping
requirements,
and
that
labeling
and
storage
procedures
that
are
part
of
most
ordinary
business
practices
will
generally
be
sufficient
to
make
any
demonstration
that
may
be
requested.

One
commenter
stated
that
the
speculative
accumulation
period
for
CRTs
(
and
possibly
other
materials
as
well)
should
be
expanded
because
the
Agency
can
address
threats
to
human
health
and
the
environment
through
RCRA
imminent
hazard
authority
as
well
as
authorities
granted
under
other
statutes.
In
response,
EPA
points
out
that
these
authorities
do
not
render
more
proactive
measures,
such
as
enforcement
of
the
speculative
accumulation
provisions,
unnecessary
or
less
effective
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
Such
proactive
measures
may
in
fact
conserve
substantial
resources
that
would
otherwise
be
needed
to
address
environmental
risks
after
they
have
reached
the
stage
of
imminent
endangerment.

A
few
commenters
suggested
a
period
shorter
than
one
year
for
accumulation
of
used
CRTs.
Two
commenters
said
that
180
days
should
be
sufficient
to
allow
CRTs
to
be
recycled,
and
that
longer
periods
could
encourage
sham
operations.
These
commenters
who
suggested
shorter
accumulation
times,
such
as
180
days,
did
not
submit
data
indicating
that
CRTs
could
be
effectively
recycled
in
such
a
short
time
period.
Therefore,
we
are
not
adopting
these
suggestions.

EPA
notes
that
a
few
commenters
may
have
been
confused
about
the
relationship
between
the
current
speculative
accumulation
provisions
and
the
classification
of
CRTs
as
solid
wastes.
The
speculative
accumulation
provisions
apply
to
materials
that
are
not
solid
wastes
at
the
beginning
of
the
accumulation
period;
if
they
are
not
recycled
in
sufficient
quantities
within
the
specified
period,
they
become
solid
wastes
(
and,
if
they
are
hazardous
waste,
subject
to
all
applicable
Subtitle
C
requirements).
If
used
CRTs
were
classified
as
spent
materials
as
soon
as
they
were
taken
out
of
service,
they
would
instead
be
subject
to
the
shorter
accumulation
times
((
90
or
180­
270
days)
allowed
for
generators
of
hazardous
wastes
pursuant
to
40
CFR
262.34,
rather
than
the
one­
year
period
allowed
under
40
CFR
261.1(
c)(
8).

Use
Constituting
Disposal
In
our
June
12,
2002
notice,
we
proposed
a
condition
prohibiting
land
placement
of
processed
CRT
glass,
unless
it
met
the
use
constituting
disposal
requirements
of
Part
266,
Subpart
C.
We
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
impose
the
same
prohibition
on
broken
CRTs
as
well.
We
asked
for
information
about
the
current
uses
for
broken
CRTs
or
processed
CRT
glass
that
involved
use
constituting
disposal.
We
received
very
little
data
on
this
issue,
although
a
few
commenters
mentioned
the
use
of
processed
glass
in
road
building
materials.
Because
we
have
no
information
about
this
practice
that
would
justify
distinguishing
it
from
use
constituting
disposal
of
processed
CRT
glass,
today s
rule
imposes
the
same
prohibition
on
both
kinds
of
materials
(
see
40
CFR
§
§
261.39(
a)(
4)
and
10
(
d)).
One
commenter
suggested
that
our
proposed
prohibition
was
unnecessary,
since
processed
glass
that
was
a
solid
and
hazardous
waste
would
be
subject
to
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C
in
any
event.
The
Agency
believes
that
placing
the
requirements
in
today s
rule
provides
more
guidance
to
the
regulated
community.

We
also
note
that
for
materials
to
be
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal,
such
recycling
must
be
legitimate
rather
than
a
form
of
treatment.
For
guidance
in
determining
such
legitimacy,
see
the
Memorandum
entitled
 
F006
Recycling 
from
Sylvia
K.
Lowrance
to
Hazardous
Waste
Division
Directors,
April
26,
1989.

Other
One
commenter
stated
the
belief
that
the
University
of
Florida
study
cited
by
the
Agency
in
the
proposal
which
reported
the
average
concentration
of
lead
in
leachate
from
color
CRTs
was
not
representative.
According
to
this
commenter,
coarse,
broken
CRT
glass
with
a
very
low
specific
surface
area
is
unlikely
to
release
enough
lead
to
make
it
a
characteristic
hazardous
waste
under
any
circumstances.
In
response,
we
note
that
generators
may
always
test
their
wastes
on
their
own
to
determine
if
the
wastes
are
hazardous.
Other
generators
may
choose
to
apply
knowledge
of
the
waste
in
light
of
the
materials
or
the
processes
used
(
see
40
CFR
§
262.11(
c)).

C.
Used
CRT
Processing
Requirements
for
CRT
Processors
The
Agency
also
proposed
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
used
CRTs
undergoing
glass
processing,
if
certain
conditions
were
met
(
see
proposed
40
CFR
§
261.39(
b)).
CRT
glass
processing
was
defined
in
proposed
40
CFR
§
260.10
as
the
receiving
of
intact
or
broken
used
CRTs,
intentionally
breaking
them,
sorting
or
otherwise
managing
glass
removed
from
CRT
monitors,
and
cleaning
coatings
from
the
glass.
CRT
users
and
collectors
sometimes
break
CRTs
before
sending
them
to
a
processor.
Therefore,
under
the
proposal,
breaking
used
CRTs
would
not
by
itself
subject
a
facility
to
the
CRT
glass
processing
conditions.
In
order
to
be
classified
as
a
CRT
glass
processor,
the
facility
would
have
to
perform
all
of
the
enumerated
activities.

Under
the
proposal,
used,
broken
CRTs
undergoing
glass
processing
would
not
have
been
solid
wastes
if
they
were
stored
in
a
building
with
a
roof,
floor,
and
walls.
If
they
were
not
stored
inside
a
building,
they
would
have
to
be
packaged
and
labeled
under
conditions
identical
to
those
proposed
for
used,
broken
CRTs
prior
to
processing,
including
the
prohibition
on
speculative
accumulation.
All
glass
processing
activities
would
have
to
be
conducted
in
a
building
with
a
roof,
floor,
and
walls.
In
addition,
no
activities
could
be
performed
during
glass
processing
that
used
temperatures
high
enough
to
volatilize
lead
from
CRTs.

The
CSI
Council
had
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.
We
solicited
comment
in
the
proposal
on
whether
to
require
11
additional
performance
standards
for
glass
processors.
However,
we
did
not
propose
the
general
performance
standard
recommended
by
the
CSI
Council,
citing
the
Council s
statement
that
storing
broken
CRTs
and
CRT
glass
in
buildings
or
closed
containers
(
as
we
proposed)
were
examples
of
ways
to
control
wind
dispersal,
runoff,
and
direct
releases
to
soil.

We
also
did
not
propose
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.
We
stated
our
belief
that
matters
of
local
notice
and
public
participation
are
generally
best
decided
at
the
state,
county,
or
municipal
level.
However,
we
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
require
such
procedures
under
federal
regulations
in
the
case
of
CRT
recycling,
and
the
reasons
why
these
procedures
would
be
needed.

EPA
stated,
at
the
time
of
proposal,
that
the
conditions
proposed
for
used,
broken
CRTs
being
processed
indicate
that
the
materials
in
question
are
more
commodity­
like
than
wastelike
Used,
broken
CRTs
that
are
not
managed
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
also
proposed
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
management
rather
than
production.

EPA
has
determined
that
used,
broken
CRTs
being
processed
under
these
conditions
resemble
commodities
more
than
wastes.
For
this
reason,
we
are
finalizing
these
conditions
substantially
as
proposed.
However,
we
have
revised
some
of
our
proposed
language
in
response
to
comments
received.
Significant
comments,
our
responses,
and
the
changes
are
discussed
below.

Response
to
Comments
Several
commenters
believed
that
our
proposed
temperature
requirement
was
unnecessary.
They
noted
that
workers 
exposure
to
lead
was
already
covered
by
OSHA
requirements
at
29
CFR
Part
1910,
and
that
a
high
temperature
(
or
thermal
processing)
does
not
by
itself
indicate
waste
management.
Several
commenters
stated
that
lead
volatilization
and
other
lead
releases
would
also
be
covered
by
applicable
provisions
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Other
commenters
supported
the
proposed
temperature
requirements,
in
part
because
they
believed
that
using
high
temperatures
is
in
fact
a
sign
of
waste
management.
Some
commenters
asked
EPA
to
specify
a
particular
temperature,
beyond
which
processing
would
be
prohibited.

EPA
agrees
with
those
commenters
who
believed
that
CRT
processing
conducted
with
high
temperatures
may
indicate
waste
management,
because
high
temperatures
are
more
likely
to
release
lead
and
other
contaminants
into
the
environment,
thereby
leading
to
possible
loss
of
materials.
Such
waste
management
could
occur
even
if
OSHA
requirements
apply.
We
are
therefore
retaining
our
prohibition
on
using
temperatures
high
12
enough
to
volatilize
lead,
as
proposed.
However,
we
are
not
adding
a
specific
temperature
to
the
prohibition
because
the
relevant
scientific
literature
reveals
differing
temperatures
for
volatilization
of
lead,
possibly
depending
on
various
conditions
(
see,
e.
g.,
Volatilization
Studies
of
a
Lanthanide
Lead
Borosilicate
Glass,
WSRC­
MS­
98­
00240,
R.
F.
Schumacher,
D.
S.

McIntyre,
D.
K.
Peeler,
J.
M.
Parteizs;
and
Effect
of
Heating
on
the
Sintering
Behavior
and
the
Piezoelectric
Properties
of
Lead
Zirconate
Titnate
Ceramics,
Jungho
Ryu,
Jong­
Jin
Choi,
and
Hyoun­
EeKim,
Journal
of
the
American
Ceramic
Society,
Vol.
84,
No.
4,
pp.
902­
904,
April
2001.
We
therefore
believe
that
this
requirement
is
more
appropriately
expressed
as
a
performance
standard
than
as
a
numeric
value.

Some
commenters
mistakenly
thought
that
the
proposed
temperature
requirement
would
apply
to
Aend
users@
of
recycled
CRT
glass,
such
as
glass
furnaces
or
smelters.
One
commenter
asked
EPA
to
impose
a
performance
standard
on
both
CRT
processors
and
glass
manufacturers
(
and
presumably
smelters
as
well)
that
would
ensure
that
no
temperatures
would
be
employed
that
released
toxic
metals
into
the
work
environment
or
the
surrounding
air.
Another
commenter
suggested
requiring
that
CRT
processors
be
required
to
monitor
for
fugitive
emissions
of
lead,
silica,
and
mercury.
In
response,
the
Agency
notes
that
requirements
for
glass
manufacturers
and
smelters
were
not
proposed
and
are
completely
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
With
respect
to
CRT
processors
performing
extensive
monitoring,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
benefits
of
such
monitoring
(
which
the
commenters
did
not
elaborate)
would
outweigh
the
costs.
In
any
event,
silica
is
not
a
hazardous
waste,
and
EPA
has
no
data
indicating
that
CRTs
contain
mercury,
or
that
any
heat
employed
in
CRT
processing
causes
the
release
of
toxic
metals
other
than
lead.
We
also
believe
that
our
temperature
prohibition
(
and
applicable
OSHA
requirements)
are
a
more
direct
and
effective
way
to
protect
workers
than
a
general
requirement
to
monitor
lead
emissions.

One
commenter
stated
that
EPA s
proposed
requirement
that
CRTs
undergoing
processing
be
stored
(
unless
packaged)
in
a
building
 
with
a
roof,
floor,
and
walls 
could
lead
to
placing
CRTs
in
locations
with
inadequate
containment.
This
commenter
suggested
replacing
the
Agency s
proposed
requirement
with
a
provision
calling
for
 
storage
 
within
a
permanently
constructed
building
consisting
of
at
least
a
roof
and
three
walls
permanently
affixed
to
an
impermeable
floor
placed
on
the
ground. 
Another
commenter
also
suggested
requiring
standards
for
the
doors
and
walls
of
storage
buildings
to
prevent
releases
(
without
specifying
what
the
standards
should
be).

We
remain
unconvinced
that
such
requirements
are
necessary
for
buildings
where
CRTs
are
processed.
For
example,
it
is
not
clear
that
CRT
processing
would
pose
environmental
risks
(
or
that
CRTs
would
be
handled
as
wastes
instead
of
as
commodities)
if
such
processing
took
place
in
a
temporary
building,
since
no
liquids
are
involved
in
the
processing.
We
also
note
that
spills
or
releases
would
in
any
event
be
considered
solid
wastes.

One
commenter
disagreed
with
EPA s
statement
in
our
proposal
that
persons
who
break
CRTs
before
sending
them
to
processors
should
not
be
subject
to
our
proposed
conditions
for
CRT
glass
processing.
Breaking
CRTs
and
separating
components
constitute
reclamation
and
should
require
a
permit,
according
to
this
commenter.
Another
13
commenter
said
that
the
Agency
should
require
licensing
for
CRT
processors.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
should
consider
a
tiered,
reduced
permitting
structure
for
solid
waste
recycling,
such
as
the
system
prevailing
in
California.
Under
this
scheme,
each
entity
in
the
collection,
processing,
and
recycling
chain
is
accountable
for
one
or
more
responsibilities.

EPA
disagrees
that
collecting
CRTs,
breaking
CRTs,
or
separating
components
should
necessarily
require
a
RCRA
treatment
permit.
These
actions
may
be
performed
by
almost
anyone
sending
a
CRT
to
a
recycler.
The
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)
concerning
storage,
transportation,
labeling,
and
speculative
accumulation
are
adequate
to
ensure
that
broken
CRTs
are
handled
as
commodities;
there
is
no
need
to
impose
other
Subtitle
C
requirements
required
under
40
CFR
Parts
264
and
265.
Nor
is
there
a
need
to
subject
persons
who
merely
break
CRTs
to
the
provisions
concerning
high
temperature
activities.

The
Agency
does
not
necessarily
disagree
that
breaking
CRTs
and
separating
the
components
may
constitute
reclamation.
Nevertheless,
when
a
person
receives
broken
CRTs
that
are
packaged
and
labeled
in
accordance
with
today s
rule,
the
materials
are
commodity­
like
and
the
person
or
facility
in
question
should
not
have
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
a
hazardous
waste
storage
permit.
Nor
should
they
be
subject
to
federal
licensing
or
permitting
requirements
when
other
recyclers
of
excluded
materials
are
not
subject
to
such
requirements.
EPA
generally
does
not
regulate
reclamation
processes
themselves.
States
are
of
course
free
to
impose
more
stringent
requirements
if
they
believe
such
requirements
are
justified.

Some
commenters
urged
that
EPA
impose
additional
requirements
on
CRT
processors,
such
as
environmental
management
standards,
emissions
and
ventilation
standards,
notification
requirements,
recordkeeping
and
tracking
of
wastes,
employee
training,
and
worker
health
and
safety
protections.
Some
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
these
requirements
should
also
apply
to
persons
sending
CRTs
for
recycling.
Some
suggestions
were
substantially
identical
to
certain
practices
required
under
the
universal
waste
rule,
such
as
employee
training,
container
standards,
notification,
and
tracking.
Other
commenters,
however,
suggested
requirements
that
were
much
more
stringent
than
those
applicable
to
universal
waste
handlers.
For
example,
a
few
commenters
said
that
additional
worker
health
and
safety
provisions
were
needed
under
our
rule,
and
one
commenter
expressed
concerns
that
the
OSHA
permissible
exposure
limits
(
PELs)
at
29
CFR
Part
1910
do
not
apply
to
handlers
of
materials
that
are
not
solid
wastes,
or
to
recyclers
with
fewer
than
ten
employees.
This
commenter
stated
that
excluding
CRTs
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
would
remove
any
enforceable
standards
that
might
protect
the
public
from
the
dangerous
processing
operations
currently
occurring
in
China.
One
commenter
suggested
requiring
processors
to
ensure
that
lead
particles
are
contained
such
that
workers,
the
surrounding
community,
and
the
environment
would
be
protected.
Another
commenter
recommended
that
processors
be
provided
with
educational
materials
and
trained
in
the
identification
of
mercury­
containing
components,
to
ensure
proper
handling.

We
have
responded
elsewhere
in
this
rulemaking
record
to
those
commenters
who
argued
that
the
Agency
should
impose
the
universal
waste
requirements
of
notification,
tracking,
and
employee
training
on
CRT
processors.
With
respect
to
OSHA
requirements,
14
we
disagree
with
the
commenter
who
said
that
the
worker
health
and
safety
provisions
of
that
statute
do
not
apply
to
people
handling
materials
that
are
not
solid
wastes.
The
permissible
exposure
limits
(
PELs)
of
section
1910
of
the
OSHA
regulations
are
not
tied
to
EPA=
s
RCRA
definitions.
Additional
worker
health
and
safety
requirements
are
not
necessary.
It
is
true
that
the
requirements
do
not
apply
if
a
facility
has
fewer
than
ten
employees,
but
this
is
true
of
any
recycler.
EPA
disagrees
with
the
statement
that
the
lack
of
such
requirements
will
lead
to
situations
similar
to
those
allegedly
prevailing
in
China.
We
note
that
today s
rule
specifically
prevents
the
use
by
CRT
glass
processors
of
temperatures
that
are
high
enough
to
volatilize
lead.
This
requirement
should
go
far
to
ensure
that
workers
and
the
community
are
protected.
In
addition,
the
contamination
of
Chinese
soil
and
groundwater
mentioned
by
one
of
these
commenters
appears
to
be
largely
a
result
of
dumping,
rather
than
recycling
alone.
Today s
rule
does
not
change
the
legal
status
of
CRTs
that
are
dumped
or
abandoned.
We
also
note
that
education
and
training
requirements
for
mercury­
containing
components
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
In
any
event,
the
Agency
has
no
data
indicating
that
CRT
monitors
contain
mercury.

One
commenter
suggested
that
all
handlers
be
required
to
demonstrate
that
their
recycling
is
legitimate
and
that
there
are
no
releases
of
toxic
constituents
either
to
the
environment
or
through
introduction
in
a
consumer
product.
Another
commenter
wanted
the
Agency
to
require
that
all
processors
prepare
a
CRT
management
plan,
to
be
approved
by
the
appropriate
State
agency,
and
one
commenter
wanted
EPA
to
require
licensing
for
companies
involved
in
CRT
handling,
demanufacture,
and
recycling.
Still
another
commenter
suggested
that
processors
should
be
required
to
ensure
that
lead
particles
are
contained
such
that
workers,
the
surrounding
community,
and
the
environment
would
be
protected.
Finally,
one
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
should
promulgate
standards
addressing
emissions
of
all
potential
hazardous
constituents
in
the
environment
and
the
workplace.
In
response,
we
note
that
all
recycling
of
secondary
materials
must
be
legitimate
(
see,
e.
g.,
the
memorandum
titled
F006
Recycling
,
from
Sylvia
K.
Lowrance
to
EPA
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Division
Directors,
April
26,
1989).
However,
there
is
no
federal
requirement
that
such
recyclers
must
necessarily
demonstrate
legitimacy
before
beginning
operations
(
if
that
is
what
the
commenter
intended
to
suggest).
The
Agency
sees
no
reason
to
impose
legitimacy
requirements
on
CRT
processors
that
do
not
apply
to
other
recyclers.
With
respect
to
State­
approved
management
plans
and
licensing,
the
Agency
believes
that
States,
rather
than
EPA,
are
in
the
best
position
to
decide
whether
such
requirements
are
appropriate
for
a
particular
facility.
The
same
is
true
of
standards
addressing
emissions
of
hazardous
constituents
or
broad
standards
involving
all
releases
of
lead
particles.
In
addition,
the
Agency
has
no
data
indicating
that
CRT
recycling
results
in
significant
releases
of
non­
lead
hazardous
constituents.

One
commenter
suggested
that
CRT
processors
be
required
to
capture
any
CRT
dust
and
fines
produced.
The
Agency
believes
that
this
requirement
is
redundant,
since
it
is
our
understanding
that
CRT
fines
are
generally
sent
for
recycling
in
any
event.
In
addition,
our
storage
requirements
and
the
prohibition
against
the
use
of
temperatures
high
enough
to
volatilize
lead
are
more
preventative
than
the
general
requirement
suggested
by
the
commenter.
15
Some
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
believed
that
several
of
our
proposed
requirements
were
unnecessary.
For
example,
some
commenters
objected
to
EPA=
s
proposed
requirement
that
broken
CRTs
be
stored
either
in
a
container
or
a
building.
One
commenter
believed
that
these
materials
should
not
be
classified
as
solid
wastes
if
they
were
stored
on
a
concrete
pad
or
the
equivalent,
since
this
practice
should
be
adequate
for
a
coarse
solid
material
which
is
insoluble
in
water.
We
continue
to
believe,
however,
that
storing
broken
CRTs
outdoors
prior
to
processing
is
inconsistent
with
the
premise
that
they
are
commodity­
like,
since
they
can
easily
be
damaged
by
excessive
moisture
or
wind
unless
they
are
packaged.
The
same
is
true
for
processing
CRTs
outdoors,
even
if
the
processing
takes
place
on
a
concrete
pad.
However,
we
note
that
under
today s
rule,
intact
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
glass
manufacturers
or
lead
smelters
may
be
stored
on
concrete
pads
or
on
the
ground
without
packaging
and
labeling
(
see
40
CFR
§
§
261.4(
a)(
23)
and
261.39(
c)).
In
the
case
of
intact
CRTs,
packaging
or
storage
in
a
building
is
generally
not
necessary
to
minimize
releases
to
the
environment,
since
the
CRTs
are
contained
in
their
housing.
However,
if
prolonged
storage
outdoors
renders
the
CRTs
unfit
for
recycling,
they
would
become
solid
wastes,
subject
to
full
Subtitle
C
regulation
provided
they
were
also
hazardous
wastes.
In
addition,
the
exclusion
in
today s
rule
does
not
affect
the
obligation
to
respond
to
and
remediate
any
releases
of
hazardous
wastes
that
may
occur.

Other
commenters
suggested
replacing
our
proposed
requirements
with
a
requirement
that
processing
and
storage
of
CRT
glass
must
take
place
in
Aenvironmentally
contained
areas
(
water
and
particle
containment)@
or
must
be
Astored
in
a
manner
that
meets
other
environmental
regulations
that
control
or
limit
release
to
the
environment. 
EPA
disagrees
with
this
suggestion
because
requiring
processing
to
be
conducted
in
Aenvironmentally
contained
areas 
is
too
vague
to
provide
guidance
to
the
regulated
community.
Similarly,
a
requirement
that
materials
be
Astored
in
a
manner
that
meets
other
environmental
regulations@
would
be
redundant,
since
they
are
required
to
comply
with
all
applicable
environmental
requirements
in
any
event.

Some
commenters
appeared
to
believe
(
incorrectly)
that
our
proposal
would
have
required
processed
glass
to
be
packaged
or
stored
in
a
building.
However,
we
note
that
under
the
proposal
(
and
under
today s
final
rule)
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
a
CRT
glass
manufacturer
or
to
a
lead
smelter
would
not
have
to
be
either
packaged
or
stored
in
a
building
(
see
40
CFR
§
261.39((
c)).
Under
today s
final
rule,
processed
glass
sent
to
other
kinds
of
recycling
need
not
be
packaged
or
labeled
if
it
is
determined
by
regulatory
authorities
to
be
legitimately
reused
as
an
effective
substitute
for
a
commercial
chemical
product
(
this
exclusion
is
explained
elsewhere
in
this
rulemaking
record).

One
commenter
said
that
the
Agency
should
completely
prohibit
the
outdoor
storage
of
all
CRT
glass.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
this
suggestion;
processed
CRT
glass
resembles
a
commodity
and
therefore
does
not
warrant
such
extensive
regulation.
The
same
commenter
also
suggested
adopting
container
standards
that
would
 
prevent
releases
of
components
and
CRT
glass
to
the
environment. 
In
response,
we
note
that
under
our
proposal,
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)(
1)(
ii),
containers
must
be
 
constructed,
filled,
and
closed
to
minimize
identifiable
releases
to
the
environment
of
CRT
glass
(
including
fine
solid
materials). 
EPA
does
not
see
any
practical
difference
between
our
language
and
that
suggested
by
the
commenter.
16
With
respect
to
public
notice
requirements
(
which
we
did
not
propose)
many
commenters
argued
that
such
notice
for
CRT
processing
operations
should
be
conducted
pursuant
to
pre­
existing
state
and
local
requirements,
and
should
not
be
imposed
as
a
function
of
our
proposed
conditional
exclusion.
Some
commenters
pointed
out
that
local
notice
and
public
meetings
are
governed
by
various
state
or
local
requirements
concerning
siting,
zoning,
or
licensing.
They
believed
that
matters
of
local
notice
and
public
participation
are
generally
best
decided
at
the
state,
county,
or
municipal
level.
One
commenter
pointed
out
that
additional
opportunities
for
public
involvement
are
also
afforded
under
existing
federal
laws,
such
as
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
and,
in
the
case
of
potential
worker
exposures,
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Act.
This
commenter
feared
that
imposing
additional
requirements
for
public
notice
could
increase
costs
for
CRT
processors,
thereby
undermining
the
goal
of
CRT
recycling.

Other
commenters,
however,
supported
the
CSI
Council
recommendation
that
glass
processors
be
required
to
notify
local
communities
of
their
activities.
They
thought
that
a
federal
public
notice
requirement
was
important
for
the
health
and
well­
being
of
communities
that
house
CRT
glass
processors.
They
also
believed
that
workers
at
these
facilities
should
know
of
any
health
or
safety
risks
involved
with
their
daily
activities.
One
commenter
stated
that
it
was
not
sufficient
to
defer
to
local
authority
to
provide
notice,
and
that
such
notice
was
a
federal
responsibility
that
must
be
retained.

In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
federal
public
notice
requirements
for
CRT
recycling
are
unnecessary.
In
general,
we
have
not
mandated
such
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
recycling
facilities,
unless
they
obtain
RCRA
permits
for
storage
of
hazardous
waste
prior
to
recycling.
Since
glass
processors
are
managing
materials
that
are
commodity­
like
if
handled
pursuant
to
today s
conditions,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
impose
the
same
public
notice
requirements
that
are
imposed
on
facilities
that
store
hazardous
wastes.
In
addition,
the
public
generally
will
be
able
to
learn
of
these
facilities
through
other
notices
or
filings
at
the
state,
county,
or
municipal
level.

Even
though
we
are
not
significantly
modifying
our
proposed
requirements
for
glass
processors,
we
believe
that
some
of
our
proposed
language
could
benefit
from
clarification.
We
are
therefore
revising
some
of
this
language.
First,
we
note
that
the
proposed
storage
requirements
for
broken
CRTs
prior
to
processing
(
storage
in
a
building
or
in
a
properly
labeled
container)
would
also
have
applied
under
our
proposal
to
CRTs
actually
undergoing
processing.
This
application
was
not
our
intent
because
CRTs
cannot
physically
remain
in
a
container
while
being
processed.
Therefore,
we
are
revising
proposed
40
CFR
§
261.39(
b)
to
remove
the
reference
to
labeling
and
placement
in
a
container.
Used
broken
CRTs
undergoing
processing
need
only
be
stored
in
a
building,
and
may
not
be
speculatively
accumulated.

Second,
we
note
that
one
of
the
activities
encompassed
in
today s
definition
of
 
CRT
processing 
at
40
CFR
§
260.10
( 
receiving
broken
or
intact
CRTs )
generally
need
not
(
and
sometimes
cannot)
take
place
in
a
building.
We
are
therefore
removing
our
proposed
requirement
that
all
CRTs
be
 
processed
within
a
building. 
Instead,
today s
rule
requires
17
that
 
all
activities
specified
in
paragraphs
(
2)
and
(
3)
of
the
definition
of
 
CRT
processing 
in
40
CFR
§
260.10
must
take
place
within
a
building. 
This
means
that
only
breaking
or
separating
CRTs,
or
sorting
or
otherwise
managing
glass
removed
from
CRT
monitors,
must
be
performed
in
a
building.
Actual
receipt
of
the
CRTs
may
occur
outside.

Exclusions
for
Processed
CRT
Glass
Under
the
proposal,
processed
glass
from
used
CRTs
would
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
if
it
were
sent
for
recycling
to
a
CRT
glass
manufacturer
or
a
lead
smelter
(
40
CFR
§
261.39
(
c)).
If
it
were
sent
to
any
other
kind
of
recycling,
it
would
be
excluded
if
it
were
stored,
labeled,
and
transported
similarly
to
used,
broken
CRTs
(
40
CFR
§
261.39(
d)).
In
neither
case
could
the
processed
glass
be
speculatively
accumulated.
If
it
were
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal,
all
processed
glass
from
used
CRTs
would
have
to
comply
with
the
storage,
labeling,
and
transportation
requirements
applicable
to
used,
broken
CRTs
and
the
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C.

In
the
proposal,
we
explained
that
processed
glass
from
used
CRTs
destined
for
a
CRT
glass
manufacturer
or
a
lead
smelter
meets
the
regulatory
criteria
in
40
CFR
§
260.31(
c)
for
a
variance
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
Accordingly,
the
Agency
decided
that
the
resulting
material
is
commodity­
like
and
should
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
In
particular,
the
Agency
tentatively
found
that
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
glass
manufacturers
or
lead
smelters
needs
minimal
further
processing
and
has
economic
value
and
strong
end
markets.
We
also
found
that
processed
CRT
glass
is
similar
to
materials
that
glass
manufacturers
and
lead
smelters
use
as
feedstock,
and
that
it
is
handled
to
minimize
loss.
For
a
more
complete
discussion
of
these
criteria
and
the
Agency s
findings,
see
the
proposal
at
67
FR
40514.
No
comments
on
these
findings
have
caused
the
Agency
to
change
them,
so
we
are
adopting
them
as
final.
We
also
believe
that
recycling
CRT
glass
at
lead
smelters
appears
to
be
just
as
legitimate
as
glass­
to­
glass
recycling,
and
that
an
exclusion
for
this
material
could
turn
out
to
be
useful
if
the
growing
use
of
flat
screens
decreases
the
potential
for
glass­
to­
glass
recycling.

The
Agency
solicited
comment
on
whether
processed
glass
destined
for
lead
smelters
should
be
eligible
for
the
exclusion.
Processed
glass
is
sent
to
lead
smelters
for
reclamation
of
lead
and
also
for
use
as
a
flux
agent
(
to
promote
fusing
of
metals
or
to
prevent
the
formation
of
oxides).
The
Agency
also
solicited
comment
on
whether
to
exclude
processed
glass
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
without
packaging
and
labeling
requirements
if
it
were
sent
to
copper
smelters
for
use
as
a
flux
agent.
In
addition,
we
solicited
comment
on
an
identical
exclusion
for
processed
glass
sent
for
recycling
into
other
glass
materials,
such
as
optical
beads,
decorative
objects,
radiation
shielding
materials,
and
acoustic
barriers.
We
requested
information
from
commenters
about
whether
processed
CRT
glass
sent
for
these
glass
uses
or
to
copper
smelters
was
commodity­
like.

After
evaluating
all
comments
received,
the
Agency
is
retaining
our
exclusion
for
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
glass­
to­
glass
manufacturers
and
lead
smelters
as
proposed.
Processed
glass
sent
to
copper
smelters
and
other
glass
uses
is
not
a
solid
waste
if
it
is
legitimately
used
or
reused
without
reclamation
as
an
effective
substitute
for
a
commercial
product,
or
as
an
ingredient
in
an
industrial
process
to
make
a
product
pursuant
to
40
CFR
18
§
261.2(
e)(
1)(
i)
or
(
ii)).
Processed
glass
sent
for
any
of
these
types
of
recycling
may
not
be
speculatively
accumulated.
If
it
is
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal,
all
processed
glass
from
used
CRTs
must
comply
with
the
storage,
labeling,
and
transportation
requirements
applicable
to
used,
broken
CRTs
and
the
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C.
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
today s
exclusion,
importers
of
processed
glass
from
used
CRTs
must
comply
with
these
requirements
as
soon
as
these
materials
enter
the
United
States.

The
significant
comments
received
on
this
issue
and
our
response
to
the
comments
are
described
below.

Response
to
Comments
Commenters
who
addressed
the
issue
of
CRT
glass
sent
to
lead
smelters
generally
supported
our
proposed
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
processed
glass
sent
to
this
destination
(
without
packaging
and
labeling
requirements).
These
commenters
thought
that
CRT
glass
sent
to
lead
smelters
(
for
reclamation
and
use
as
a
flux
agent)
is
commodity­
like.
Because
the
Agency
agrees
with
these
comments,
and
for
the
reasons
stated
in
the
proposal
(
see
67
FR
40514),
we
find
that
processed
CRT
glass
is
commoditylike
and
we
are
finalizing
the
exclusion
at
40
CFR
§
261.39(
c)
as
proposed.

One
commenter
believed
that
the
Agency
should
allow
processed
glass
to
be
sent
to
glass
manufacturers
or
lead
smelters
without
any
conditions,
including
those
for
speculative
accumulation.
This
commenter
noted
that
processed
glass
sent
for
these
uses
already
fit
the
criteria
for
a
Apartially
reclaimed@
variance
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
under
40
CFR
'
260.31(
c);
hence,
no
conditions
should
be
required.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
this
commenter.
Even
if
the
processed
glass
meets
the
criteria
for
the
variance
in
question,
the
speculative
accumulation
requirement
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
materials
are
actually
recycled
and
not
abandoned.
We
also
note
that
the
conditions
under
which
such
variances
are
granted
are
site­
specific
and
vary
according
to
circumstances.
They
frequently
include
conditions
relating
to
storage
and
land
disposal.

A
few
other
commenters
believed
that
our
proposed
exclusions
for
processed
CRT
glass
were
unnecessary,
since
processed
glass
sent
to
a
lead
smelter
is
used
directly
as
an
ingredient
in
a
production
process,
and
would
therefore
qualify
for
the
use/
reuse
exclusion
at
40
CFR
§
261.2(
e).
Alternatively,
even
if
reclamation
were
required,
the
glass
would
be
a
characteristic
by­
product
destined
for
reclamation,
which
again
would
not
be
a
waste,
unless
speculatively
accumulated
(
see
40
CFR
§
§
261.2(
c)(
3)
and
(
4)).
One
commenter
said
that
use
of
CRT
glass
in
CRT
glassmaking,
use
of
CRT
glass
as
a
flux
in
a
smelter,
and
use
of
CRT
glass
would
all
fall
under
40
CFR
§
261.2(
e).
In
response,
the
Agency
notes
that
the
more
specific
regulatory
exclusions
promulgated
today
for
CRT
glass
going
to
glass
manufacturing
and
lead
smelting
provide
more
clarification
to
the
regulated
community
than
the
more
general
provisions
cited
by
the
commenters.
EPA
agrees,
however,
that
CRT
glass
going
to
other
kinds
of
recycling
may
sometimes
be
eligible
for
a
use/
reuse
exclusion
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
40
CFR
§
261.2(
e).
19
Although
the
Agency
has
not
specifically
addressed
the
regulatory
status
of
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
smelters,
we
note
that
these
commenters 
interpretations
do
not
appear
to
be
consistent
with
previous
regulatory
interpretations
or
with
regulatory
definitions
In
any
event,
the
more
specific
regulatory
exclusions
promulgated
today
for
CRT
glass
provide
greater
clarity
to
the
regulated
community
than
the
more
general
provisions
cited
by
the
commenter.
Some
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
objected
to
allowing
CRT
glass
to
go
to
smelters
without
additional
controls.
One
commenter
cited
financial
and
environmental
problems
caused
by
smelters
located
in
the
commenter=
s
state,
and
another
believed
that
CRT
glass
should
be
restricted
from
going
to
smelters
because
it
could
lead
to
an
increase
in
lead
air
emissions
or
lead
content
in
the
slag
from
these
facilities.

EPA
does
not
agree
with
the
commenter
who
cited
general
concerns
about
smelters
as
a
rationale
for
restricting
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
these
facilities.
The
commenter
was
concerned
about
financial
and
environmental
problems
caused
by
smelters
in
one
state
and
did
not
tie
these
concerns
to
the
use
of
processed
CRT
glass.
EPA
believes
that
these
concerns
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking,
and
that
they
should
be
addressed,
if
necessary,
in
the
context
of
rulemakings
applicable
specifically
to
smelters.

Many
commenters
supported
allowing
a
similar
exclusion
for
processed
glass
sent
to
copper
smelters.
They
pointed
out
that
such
glass
is
used
as
a
flux
agent
in
a
very
similar
manner
at
copper
smelters,
and
that
it
seems
unjustified
to
impose
different
conditions
on
materials
destined
for
virtually
identical
uses.
One
commenter
noted
that
at
least
one
copper
smelter
has
product
specifications
for
recycled
flux
materials
spelled
out
in
its
authority
to
operate
issued
by
the
relevant
government
agency.
The
specification
includes
a
minimum
flux
value
and
maximum
contaminant
level.
The
commenter
stated
that
CRT
glass
met
these
criteria.

Another
commenter
pointed
out
that
virgin
copper
concentrate
already
contains
approximately
1%
lead.
Therefore,
lead
is
a
constituent
that
is
already
present
in
the
copper
smelting
process
and
is
already
being
managed
in
process
residues.
According
to
this
commenter,
the
use
of
processed
CRT
glass
will
not
significantly
increase
the
amount
of
lead
already
resulting
from
the
copper
smelting
process
and
being
managed
in
the
slag
or
air
pollution
control
sludge.

Some
commenters
were
also
concerned
about
the
capacity
of
CRT
glass
manufacturers
to
absorb
the
large
volume
of
CRT
glass
that
is
generated
in
this
country.
They
urged
the
Agency
to
take
this
concern
into
account
and
encourage
recycling
by
allowing
similar
exclusions
for
processed
CRT
glass
sent
to
glass
manufacturing,
lead
smelting,
or
copper
smelting.

The
Agency
agrees
with
those
commenters
who
pointed
out
that
the
degree
of
processing
that
is
required
for
use
in
a
copper
smelter
appears
to
be
the
same
as
that
required
for
use
in
a
lead
smelter.
The
economics
also
may
be
similar
for
fluxes
used
in
both
kinds
of
smelters.
Processed
glass
is
composed
mainly
of
silica,
which
is
useful
as
a
flux,
although
lead
is
not
recovered
when
CRT
glass
is
used
as
a
flux
at
a
copper
smelter.
Nevertheless,
the
Agency
has
been
unable
to
confirm
that
CRT
glass
is
accepted
at
actual
copper
smelters.
For
this
20
reason,
we
cannot
currently
make
a
finding
that
CRT
glass
sent
to
copper
smelters
is
commodity­
like,
and
we
are
not
finalizing
our
proposed
exclusion.
However,
we
note
that
if
the
processed
CRT
glass
were
legitimately
used
or
reused
without
reclamation
as
an
effective
substitute
for
a
commercial
product
(
i.
e.,
as
a
flux
agent),
it
could
be
excluded
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
by
states
or
EPA
as
an
effective
substitute
for
a
commercial
product
under
40
CFR
§
261.2(
e)(
ii)
(
see
letter
from
Michael
Shapiro
to
Christian
Richter
of
the
American
Foundrymen s
Society,
March
8,
1995).

With
respect
to
processed
CRT
glass
sent
for
recycling
into
other
glass
uses,
commenters
were
divided.
Some
believed
that
these
uses
were
likely
to
be
commodity­
like;
others
disagreed.
Commenters
submitted
very
little
data
about
these
uses.
Since
the
Agency
has
at
present
very
little
information
about
their
status
as
commodities,
we
are
not
finalizing
our
proposed
exclusion.
However,
similarly
to
the
case
of
processed
glass
sent
to
copper
smelters,
if
the
glass
is
legitimately
used
or
reused
as
an
effective
substitute
for
a
commercial
chemical
product,
or
used
as
an
ingredient
in
an
industrial
process
to
make
a
product
(
provided
the
materials
are
not
being
reclaimed),
it
could
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
by
States
or
EPA
on
a
case­
specific
basis
under
40
CFR
261.2(
e)(
i)
or
(
ii).

One
commenter
requested
that
the
Agency
clarify
the
status
of
wastes
(
i.
e.,
 
contaminated
batches )
generated
during
the
processing
of
CRT
glass.
The
commenter
was
apparently
referring
to
recycled
glass
or
glass
fines
with
a
composition
that
is
unsuitable
for
glass
furnaces.
EPA
believes
that
glass
furnaces
are
aware
of
the
specifications
needed
to
make
new
glass
and
that
glass
fines
not
suitable
for
such
furnaces
are
not
sent
to
these
destinations.
If
the
glass
is
sent
to
a
lead
smelter
instead,
it
would
be
regulated
under
40
CFR
§
261.39(
c).
If
the
glass
is
sent
to
other
kinds
of
recycling,
it
could
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
by
States
or
EPA
on
a
case­
specific
basis
under
40
CFR
§
§
261.2(
e)(
i)
or
(
ii).

One
commenter
noted
an
inconsistency
in
our
proposed
language
governing
use
constituting
disposal
of
processed
CRT
glass.
We
had
proposed
that
such
material
meet
both
the
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C
and
our
management
requirements
for
broken
CRTs
at
proposed
40
CFR
§
§
261.39.(
a)(
1­
4).
The
commenter
stated
that
our
proposed
management
requirements
(
for
packaging,
labeling,
and
storage)
are
not
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C.
We
presume
the
commenter
was
referring
to
40
CFR
§
§
266.21­
23,
which
require,
among
other
things,
the
use
of
the
hazardous
waste
manifest.
The
commenter
suggested
deleting
the
reference
to
40
CFR
§
§
261.39.(
a)(
1­
4).
We
agree
with
this
commenter.
Although
it
is
possible
to
comply
with
both
our
proposed
packaging
and
labeling
conditions
and
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C,
we
believe
that
our
proposed
conditions
would
be
redundant
if
all
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C
are
met.
Therefore
we
have
adopted
this
commenter s
suggestion.
Processed
glass
(
as
well
as
broken
CRTs)
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal
need
only
comply
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
266,
Subpart
C
(
see
40
CFR
261.39(
a)(
4)
and
(
d).

Another
commenter
suggested
deleting
the
reference
to
Part
266
requirements
entirely,
since
processed
glass
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal
would
be
subject
to
these
21
requirements
even
in
the
absence
of
such
a
reference.
However,
we
are
retaining
the
reference
because
it
provides
more
clarity
for
the
regulated
community.

D.
Exports
and
Imports
Under
the
June
12,
2002
proposal,
exporters
of
used
CRTs
for
reuse
or
recycling
would
not
have
been
required
to
submit
any
notifications
prior
to
export.
Processed
glass
imported
into
the
United
States
would
be
excluded
if
it
complied
with
the
proposed
conditions.
Because
the
imported
processed
glass
would
not
be
a
hazardous
waste
if
it
met
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion,
it
would
not
be
subject
to
the
hazardous
waste
import
requirements
of
Subpart
F
of
40
CFR
Part
262.
The
CSI
Council
had
recommended
that
entities
exporting
CRT
and
CRT
glass
be
subject
to
various
notice
and
consent
provisions,
depending
on
whether
the
CRT
glass
was
coated
or
uncoated
and
on
the
destination
of
the
materials
(
for
a
complete
description
of
the
CSI
recommendations,
see
the
proposal
at
67
FR
40516).
For
example,
the
CSI
Council
recommended
that
CRTs
and
coated
CRT
glass
should
be
subject
to
the
same
notice
and
consent
provisions
as
exporters
of
hazardous
waste
in
Subparts
E
or
H
of
40
CFR
Part
262.

In
its
proposal,
the
Agency
stated
its
belief
that
we
did
not
have
legal
authority
to
require
notification
under
40
CFR
Subparts
E
and
H,
or
the
authority
to
require
additional
notifications,
for
CRTs
or
CRT
glass
that
were
not
solid
wastes
because
they
were
in
compliance
with
our
proposed
conditions.
We
noted
that
if
used
CRTs
were
added
to
the
universal
waste
program,
we
would
have
the
authority
to
require
notification
at
least
for
exported
broken
CRTs.
We
solicited
comment
on
whether
the
need
for
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.

EPA s
proposal
elicited
many
comments
and
some
additional
data
on
the
export
of
CRTs
for
recycling.
These
comments
and
data
convinced
us
that
exported
CRTs
often
are
not
handled
as
valuable
commodities.
For
this
reason,
we
have
reconsidered
our
earlier
position
about
imposing
notification
requirements
on
exports.
Therefore,
today s
rule
requires
exporters
of
CRTs
for
recycling
to
comply
with
notice
and
consent
requirements
that
are
similar
to
those
found
in
40
CFR
Part
262
Subparts
E
and
H
for
exporters
of
hazardous
waste.
The
rule
also
requires
exporters
of
CRTs
for
reuse
to
submit
a
one­
time
notification
to
EPA.
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
today s
exclusion,
importers
of
used,
broken
CRTs
must
comply
with
the
packaging,
labeling,
and
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)(
1)­(
4)
as
soon
as
the
materials
enter
the
United
States.

The
new
export
requirements,
significant
comments
received,
and
our
responses
to
the
comments
are
described
in
more
detail
below.

Response
To
Comments
Many
commenters
who
addressed
this
question
expressed
concern
about
exporting
CRTs
and
other
electronics
for
recycling,
especially
to
developing
countries.
These
commenters
argued
that
our
proposed
rule
would
exacerbate
the
effects
of
market
dynamics,
lack
of
existing
regulatory
controls,
and
the
absence
of
a
domestic
recycling
22
infrastructure
and
would
increase
the
amount
of
electronic
waste
that
is
shipped
abroad
and
managed
inappropriately.
One
commenter
further
argued
that
our
proposal
would
prevent
the
growth
of
a
domestic
electronics
recycling
industry
by
making
it
easier
to
export
electronics.

To
address
such
concerns,
some
commenters
suggested
that
the
Agency
adopt
notice
and
consent
procedures
for
exported
CRTs
similar
to
those
currently
found
at
40
CFR
262,
Subparts
E
and
H
for
exports
of
hazardous
waste.
Some
of
these
commenters
said
that
EPA
should
impose
notification
requirements
on
exported
CRTs
as
an
additional
condition
of
the
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
They
believed
that
the
Agency
has
adequate
authority
to
impose
such
conditions
without
adding
these
materials
to
the
universal
waste
rule.
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
a
conditional
exclusion
from
a
waste
classification
is
an
exclusion
only
from
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations,
and
not
from
the
RCRA
statute,
in
which
the
notice
and
consent
provisions
are
imposed
(
42
USC
§
6938.)
Thus,
according
to
this
commenter,
if
a
material
comes
within
the
statutory
definition
of
waste,
the
Agency
has
the
jurisdiction
to
selectively
exclude
or
retain
some
of
all
of
its
regulatory
requirements.

After
evaluating
these
comments,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
impose
notice
and
consent
requirements
as
a
condition
of
today s
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
on
CRTs
exported
for
recycling.
The
comments,
and
data
submitted
by
the
commenters,
have
convinced
us
that
unfettered
export
of
CRTs
for
recycling
could
lead
to
environmental
harm.
Information
in
the
record
shows
that
exported
electronics
may
not
be
handled
as
valuable
commodities
in
foreign
countries.
In
fact,
there
is
documentation
that
they
are
sometimes
managed
so
carelessly
that
they
pose
possible
human
health
and
environmental
risks
from
such
practices
as
open
burning,
land
disposal,
and
dumping
into
rivers.
Notice
and
consent
requirements
mean
that
the
receiving
country
will
be
informed
of
the
proposed
export,
after
which
the
country
may
consent
or
not,
based
on
its
analysis
of
whether
the
receiving
facility
can
properly
recycle
the
CRTs
as
commodities
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.
EPA
has
therefore
decided
to
ensure
that
the
importing
countries
are
able
to
consent
(
or
withhold
consent)
when
CRTs
are
proposed
to
be
recycled
within
their
borders.

EPA
believes
that
sections
2002,
3002,
3007,
and
3017
of
RCRA
provide
authority
to
impose
this
condition,
because
used
CRTs
sent
abroad
are
sufficiently
waste­
like
to
justify
this
requirement,
and
because
notice
and
consent
help
ensure
that
the
CRTs
are
not
discarded.
We
have
therefore
reconsidered
our
earlier
position
(
discussed
in
the
preamble
of
our
proposed
rule
at
67
FR
40516)
about
imposing
notice
and
consent
requirements
on
CRTs
exported
for
recycling.
EPA
has
the
authority
to
ensure
that
CRTs
exported
for
recycling
are
handled
in
a
manner
consistent
with
commodity­
like
status.

EPA
considered
simply
requiring
exporters
of
CRTs
for
recycling
to
comply
with
the
current
notice
and
consent
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
262.
These
requirements,
however,
rely
on
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
and
other
Subtitle
C
provisions
that
EPA
is
not
imposing
on
used
CRTs.
Consequently,
we
are
promulgating
separate
(
although
very
similar)
export
requirements
that
will
apply
exclusively
to
conditionally
exempt
CRTs
exported
for
recycling.
In
addition,
the
notice
and
consent
requirements
promulgated
today
23
do
not
apply
to
processed
glass
that
is
exported,
since
there
is
no
information
available
to
us
indicating
that
this
material
is
not
handled
as
a
commodity
when
exported.

Under
today s
rule,
used
CRTs
exported
for
recycling
are
not
solid
wastes
provided
the
exporter
notifies
EPA
and
obtains
a
subsequent
written
consent
forwarded
by
EPA
from
the
receiving
country.
The
provisions
that
we
are
promulgating
today
in
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)(
5)(
i)­(
ix)
and
40
CFR
§
261.40
require
exporters
of
used
CRTs
destined
for
recycling
(
whether
broken
or
intact)
to
notify
EPA
of
an
intended
export
60
days
before
the
initial
shipment
is
intended
to
be
shipped
off­
site.
The
notification
may
cover
export
activities
extending
over
a
12
month
or
shorter
period.
The
notification
must
include
contact
information
about
the
exporter
and
the
recycler,
including
any
alternate
recycler.
The
notification
must
include
a
description
of
the
manner
in
which
the
CRTs
will
be
recycled.
It
must
also
include
the
frequency
and
rate
at
which
CRTs
will
be
exported,
the
period
of
time
over
which
they
will
be
exported,
the
means
of
transport,
the
estimated
total
quantity
of
CRTs,
and
information
about
transit
countries
through
which
the
CRTs
will
pass.
Notifications
must
be
sent
to
EPA=
s
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance,
which
will
notify
the
receiving
country
and
any
transit
countries.
Where
the
receiving
country
consents
in
writing
to
the
receipt
of
the
CRTs,
EPA
will
forward
the
written
consent
to
the
exporter.
The
exporter
may
proceed
with
shipment
only
after
he
has
received
a
copy
of
the
written
consent
from
EPA.
If
the
receiving
country
does
not
consent
to
receipt
of
the
CRTs
or
withdraws
a
prior
consent,
EPA
will
notify
the
exporter
in
writing.
EPA
will
also
notify
the
exporter
of
any
responses
from
transit
countries.
Exporters
must
keep
copies
of
notifications
and
consents
for
a
period
of
three
years
following
receipt
of
the
consent.

EPA
has
decided
to
require
exporters
of
used,
intact
CRTs
sent
abroad
for
recycling
to
meet
the
same
requirements
as
those
applicable
to
exporters
of
used,
broken
CRTs.
Although
used,
intact
CRTs
are
more
commodity­
like
than
used,
broken
CRTs,
they
are
more
likely
to
be
exported,
and
information
in
the
record
does
not
indicate
that
they
are
less
likely
to
be
discarded
or
handled
as
low­
value
materials
abroad.
We
believe
that
notice
and
consent
help
ensure
that
the
CRTS
are
not
discarded.

Some
commenters
urged
EPA
to
forbid
all
exports
of
CRTs
to
developing
countries.
EPA
does
not
agree
with
this
suggestion
because
RCRA
does
not
provide
the
authority
to
unconditionally
ban
exports
of
solid
and
hazardous
wastes
if
the
exporter
complies
with
the
existing
regulatory
requirements
governing
the
export
of
these
materials.
We
also
disagree
with
this
suggestion
for
practical
reasons.
Such
a
ban
would
prevent
even
the
safe
recycling
of
hazardous
wastes
abroad
and
would
discourage
resource
recovery
and
reuse.

One
commenter
suggested
that
verifiable
documentation
should
be
required
to
substantiate
the
approval
by
the
receiving
country
and
the
receipt
by
an
approved
CRT
recycling
facility.
The
commenter
did
not
specify
whether
the
approval
of
the
CRT
recycling
facility
should
be
performed
by
EPA
or
by
the
receiving
country.
EPA
believes
that
today s
requirements
for
notice
and
consent
are
sufficient
to
document
approval
by
the
receiving
country.
We
do
not
believe
that
documentation
of
receipt
by
an
approved
recycling
facility
is
necessary
after
the
consent
of
the
receiving
country
has
been
obtained.
24
The
receiving
country
is
in
a
better
position
than
EPA
to
ascertain
whether
materials
are
properly
managed
after
they
enter
that
country.

Some
commenters
believed
that
our
proposed
rule
was
inconsistent
with
various
international
agreements
involving
the
export
of
hazardous
waste.
In
particular,
one
commenter
stated,
the
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
legal
obligations
under
the
treaty
law
of
the
Organization
for
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development
(
OECD),
the
Basel
Convention
on
the
Control
of
Transboundary
Movements
of
Hazardous
Wastes
and
their
Disposal,
and
the
Stockholm
Declaration.

With
respect
to
the
OECD
obligations,
the
commenter
believed
that
CRTs,
because
of
the
presence
of
lead,
would
be
considered
hazardous
wastes
under
OECD
Decision­
Recommendation
C(
86)
64/
FINAL
and
under
OECD
Decision
C(
92)
39/
FINAL
(
even
CRTs
from
households
and
CESQGs).
According
to
the
commenter,
the
export
of
these
materials,
either
for
recycling
or
disposal,
would
therefore
be
illegal
unless
subject
to
the
export
controls
of
40
CFR
Part
262
Subpart
E
(
or
its
equivalent)
or
Subpart
H.

Concerning
OECD
Decision
C(
86)
64/
FINAL,
the
commenter s
concern
has
been
mooted
in
any
event
by
the
notice
and
consent
provisions
in
the
final
rule
for
used
CRTs
exported
for
recycling.
OECD
Decision
C(
2001)
107/
FINAL,
which
amends
Decision
C(
92)
39/
FINAL,
recognizes
that
 
certain
Member
countries
have
developed
regulations
used
to
determine
whether
or
not
wastes
are
controlled
as
hazardous
wastes. 
(
OECD
Amended
Decision
C(
2001)
107/
FINAL,
Section
B,
paragraph
(
4),
footnote
1).
Consistent
with
this
provision,
the
United
States
interprets
the
OECD
Decision
C(
92)
39/
FINAL
to
be
applicable
only
to
exports
from
the
United
States
of
materials
that
are
defined
as
hazardous
waste
under
U.
S.
national
procedure,
subject
to
federal
RCRA
manifesting
requirements.
More
specifically,
EPA s
regulations
regarding
the
transboundary
movement
of
hazardous
waste
for
recovery
to
OECD
countries
in
40
CFR
Part
262,
Subpart
H
apply
specifically
only
to
hazardous
waste
that
meets
the
federal
definition
of
hazardous
waste
in
40
CFR
§
261.3
and
is
subject
to
federal
RCRA
manifesting
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
262,
Subpart
B,
to
the
universal
waste
management
standards
of
40
CFR
Part
273,
or
to
state
requirements
analogous
to
40
CFR
Part
273
(
see
40
CFR
§
§
262.80
and
262.89(
a).

This
commenter
also
believed
that
the
United
States
was
in
violation
of
the
Basel
Convention.
The
commenter
explained
that
CRTs
would
be
considered
hazardous
waste
under
the
Basel
Convention
because
they
are
listed
as
items
A1180
and
A2010
of
Annex
IX
[(
sic].
Similarly,
the
commenter
believed
that
our
proposed
rule
was
in
violation
of
the
Basel
Ban
Amendment,
which
bans
all
hazardous
waste
exports
from
countries
that
are
a
part
of
the
OECD,
the
European
Union,
and
Liechtenstein
to
any
other
countries.

The
Agency
is
sympathetic
to
concerns
about
the
potential
risks
of
exporting
CRTs
for
recycling.
Therefore,
to
ensure
that
CRTs
exported
for
recycling
are
handled
in
a
manner
consistent
with
commodity­
like
status,
we
are
requiring
that
these
materials
be
subject
to
the
notice
and
consent
requirements
described
in
detail
above.
We
are
currently
not
a
party
to
the
Basel
Convention
or
to
the
Ban
Amendment,
which,
in
any
event,
has
not
entered
into
force.
25
Finally,
the
commenter
also
stated
that
the
proposal
violated
the
principles
of
the
Stockholm
Declaration
(
the
1972
Stockholm
Declaration
on
the
Environment)
which
the
United
States
signed
and
which
calls
for
signatory
countries
to
 
ensure
that
activities
within
their
jurisdiction
of
control 
do
not
cause
damage
to
the
environment
of
other
States  
The
commenter
believed
that
exporting
CRTs
for
recycling
to
China
(
which
has
banned
the
import
of
CRT
waste)
was
inconsistent
with
the
spirit
of
international
cooperation
called
for
by
the
Stockholm
Declaration.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
export
of
CRT
waste
is
in
violation
of
the
Stockholm
Declaration,
which
in
any
event
is
not
a
legally­
binding
instrument.
Furthermore,
the
final
rule s
notice
and
consent
provisions
remove
any
suggestion
of
inconsistency
with
the
spirit
of
international
cooperation.
Similarly,
the
final
rule s
notice
and
consent
provisions
should
facilitate
implementation
of
any
national
laws
that
may
restrict
the
import
of
certain
CRTs.

Other
commenters
argued
that
notice
and
consent
requirements,
besides
being
unnecessary,
were
likely
to
discourage
the
export
of
CRTs
for
desirable
recycling
by
making
such
export
more
burdensome.
Another
commenter
noted
that
glass
recyclers
need
to
sell
recovered
CRT
glass
to
developing
countries,
because
the
volume
of
obsolete
CRT
equipment
will
increase
just
as
the
domestic
demand
for
CRT
glass
parts
will
be
reduced
because
of
new
technology
such
as
flat
panel
screens.

We
disagree
with
those
commenters
who
said
that
an
export
notification
and
consent
requirement
would
be
burdensome.
The
Agency
estimates
that
these
requirements
will
impose
a
burden
of
approximately
four
hours
per
year
(
on
average)
per
respondent.
We
believe
that
this
burden
is
not
excessive,
especially
since
it
helps
ensure
that
exported
CRTs
are
handled
in
ways
consistent
with
an
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
We
also
do
not
believe
that
these
requirements
will
significantly
affect
the
quantity
of
CRTs
or
CRT
glass
exported
for
recycling,
since
the
relative
amount
of
such
materials
recycled
domestically
and
abroad
depend
principally
on
other
economic
factors.

Another
commenter
pointed
out
that
questions
regarding
the
export
of
used
CRTs
for
recycling
may
implicate
several
bilateral,
regional,
and
multilateral
environmental
agreements
as
well
as
important
regional
and
global
markets.
This
commenter
also
noted
that
EPA
is
currently
preparing
proposed
implementing
legislation
for
the
Basel
Convention,
and
the
Agency
will
likely
need
to
address
the
relationship
between
the
Convention s
scope
and
the
existing
U.
S.
waste
management
requirements
under
RCRA.
Similarly,
EPA
is
expected
to
propose
regulations
to
implement
recent
changes
to
the
OECD
system
for
controlling
transboundary
shipments
of
waste
destined
for
recovery
operations
within
OECD
member
countries.
The
commenter
believed
that
any
questions
regarding
the
export
of
used
CRTS
from
the
U.
S.
are
best
addressed
in
the
context
of
these
other
broader
international
policy
initiatives.

With
respect
to
the
Basel
Convention,
as
noted
above,
the
United
States
is
not
currently
a
party
to
the
Convention.
However,
the
Agency
believes
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
wait
until
the
Convention
is
ratified
to
impose
notice
and
consent
requirements
on
the
export
of
CRTs
for
recycling.
Since
we
agree
with
the
arguments
of
those
who
suggested
these
requirements,
the
simplest
course
is
to
codify
the
requirements
in
this
rulemaking
rather
than
delay
them
indefinitely.
We
also
do
not
agree
that
EPA s
future
proposed
regulations
26
regarding
the
transboundary
shipments
of
wastes
to
OECD
countries
would
be
an
appropriate
vehicle
for
these
requirements.
The
OECD
rulemaking
effort
would
be
designed
primarily
to
implement
a
specific
Council
Decision,
C(
2001)
107/
FINAL,
of
the
OECD,
and
would
apply
only
to
transboundary
shipments
destined
for
recovery
operations
in
OECD
member
countries.
CRTs
are
exported
to
many
countries
not
belonging
to
the
OECD.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
not
delaying
the
promulgation
of
our
notice
and
consent
requirements
for
CRTs
exported
for
recycling.

One
commenter
suggested
(
in
lieu
of
a
notice
and
consent
procedure)
that
EPA
require
exporters
to
keep
records,
such
as
shipping
papers,
that
would
allow
tracking
of
CRT
shipments
or
the
amount
paid
by
the
shipper
for
the
material.
Another
commenter
suggested
requiring
exporters
to
demonstrate
that
the
materials
are
being
sent
to
a
credible
end
market
and
reasonable
positive
end
value.
Agency
has
rejected
these
approaches
because
they
would
not
give
notice
to
the
receiving
country,
nor
would
it
give
the
country
the
opportunity
to
refuse
consent
to
a
shipment.
It
is
therefore
not
sufficient
to
ensure
that
the
material
is
treated
as
a
commodity.
The
receiving
country
should
be
notified
to
help
ensure
that
the
CRTs
will
be
recycled
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.
Requiring
an
exporter
to
show
evidence
of
payment
would
not
involve
the
receiving
country,
and
would
thus
not
be
a
sufficient
requirement.

Another
commenter
stated
his
belief
that
the
export
requirements
found
in
40
CFR
Part
262
were
too
burdensome,
and
suggested
alternative
documentation
detailing
specific
use
of
the
material,
including
repair
and
resale
of
the
unit;
recovery
of
glass,
metals,
and
plastics
with
proper
disposal
or
recycling
of
all
hazardous
components;
or
manufacturing
of
lead
crystal
glass.
The
exporter
would
also
be
required
to
submit
evidence
that
the
recipient
paid
more
than
a
nominal
amount
for
the
material.
The
Agency
is
not
convinced
that
these
suggested
requirements
are
significantly
less
burdensome
than
the
export
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
262.
In
addition,
they
would
not
allow
the
receiving
country
to
help
ensure
that
the
CRTs
are
managed
safely
as
a
commodity.

Another
commenter
said
that
export
controls
on
used
CRTs
were
unnecessary
because
CRTs
not
meeting
the
terms
of
our
exclusion
would
be
solid
and
hazardous
wastes
and
therefore
subject
to
40
CFR
Subpart
E.
In
addition,
according
to
this
commenter,
under
40
CFR
§
262.2(
f)
persons
claiming
the
exclusion
will
bear
the
burden
of
demonstrating
that
the
materials
satisfy
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
and
that
they
will
be
recycled
after
they
are
exported.
In
response,
we
note
that
CRTs
could
easily
meet
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
in
this
country,
but
then
be
subject
to
subsequent
mismanagement
or
disposal
abroad.
The
commenter s
suggestion
would
not
allow
the
receiving
country
to
ensure
that
the
CRTs
are
recycled
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.

Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
should
also
require
semiannual
or
annual
reporting,
which
would
provide
valuable
information
on
the
role
of
exports
in
maintaining
a
viable
market
for
used
CRTs.
This
commenter
also
suggested
requiring
recordkeeping
requirements
for
domestic
recyclers.
The
Agency
is
not
adopting
these
suggestions
because
we
believe
that
the
export
notices
in
today s
rule
may
be
tracked
without
requiring
additional
reporting
from
exporters
of
CRTs.
Concerning
domestic
recyclers,
we
do
not
27
believe
that
additional
recordkeeping
requirements
are
needed
for
materials
that
are
handled
according
to
the
conditions
in
today s
rule.

Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
Agency
impose
full
RCRA
export
requirements
on
all
CRTs
exported
for
recycling,
whether
broken
or
unbroken,
used
or
unused.
As
part
of
the
RCRA
requirements,
this
commenter
also
suggested
requiring
documentation
from
the
destination
facility
(
presumably
as
part
of
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
requirements.)
EPA
disagrees
that
unused
CRTs
should
be
subject
to
notice
and
consent
requirements,
because
these
materials
have
always
been
considered
commercial
chemical
products
being
reclaimed.
As
a
practical
matter,
it
is
also
unlikely
that
many
unused
CRTs
are
exported.
In
addition,
we
are
not
requiring
any
documentation
from
the
recycling
facility
because
we
are
not
requiring
the
use
of
the
hazardous
waste
manifest,
which
is
not
appropriate
for
materials
that
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.

The
Agency
notes
that
intact
CRTs
exported
for
reuse
are
identical
in
appearance
to
those
exported
for
recycling.
Consequently,
to
help
ensure
that
the
intact
CRTs
are
actually
reused
abroad,
we
are
requiring
persons
who
export
used,
intact
CRTs
for
reuse
to
submit
a
one­
time
notification
to
the
Regional
Administrator
with
contact
information
and
a
statement
that
the
notifier
plans
to
export
used,
intact
CRTs
for
reuse.
These
notifications
will
allow
regulatory
authorities
to
contact
the
notifier,
when
appropriate,
to
ask
for
verification
that
the
CRTs
are
exported
for
reuse
instead
of
recycling
or
disposal.
These
persons
must
keep
copies
of
normal
business
records
demonstrating
that
each
shipment
of
exported
CRTs
will
be
reused,
and
this
documentation
must
be
retained
for
three
years
from
the
date
the
CRTs
were
exported.
Examples
of
normal
business
records
include
those
that
document
the
transfer
of
used
equipment
to
the
consignee
for
reuse,
including
name
and
address
of
the
consignee,
description
of
the
shipment,
and
conformance
with
any
product
specifications,
as
well
as
the
amount
paid
(
if
any)
for
the
exported
material.
We
believe
that
our
right
to
require
such
basic
notification
is
inherent
in
our
authority
to
regulate
discarded
materials,
and
in
our
RCRA
section
3007
authority
to
obtain
information
pertaining
to
materials
that
may
become
solid
or
hazardous
wastes.
Because
a
one­
time
notification
is
adequate
to
give
the
Regional
Administrator
notice
about
persons
who
are
exporting
for
reuse,
additional
notifications
are
not
necessary
each
time
CRTs
are
exported
for
this
purpose.

One
commenter
suggested
that
the
Agency
require
persons
who
export
CRTs
for
reuse
to
demonstrate
that
the
units
are
certified
as
reusable
or
repairable
by
the
importing
entity.
We
believe
that
this
requirement
could
impose
significant
burdens
on
exporters
of
used
CRTs
for
reuse,
with
few
corresponding
benefits
(
for
example,
the
certifications
from
entities
located
abroad
would
be
difficult
to
verify.)
For
this
reason,
we
are
not
adopting
this
suggestion.

Another
commenter
suggested
clarifying
in
the
preamble
to
our
final
rule
that
if
intact
CRTs
exported
for
reuse
were
managed
in
a
certain
manner
(
e.
g.,
loose
placement
in
a
shipping
container),
they
would
not
be
considered
to
be
intended
for
reuse.
However,
EPA
believes
that
the
question
of
determining
whether
CRTs
are
intended
for
reuse
is
best
addressed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
by
the
appropriate
regulatory
authorities
rather
than
by
categorical
guidance.
28
Another
commenter
said
that
applying
export
requirements
to
CRTs
could
interfere
with
legitimate
business
practices
such
as
sending
CRTs
under
manufacturer
warranty
to
other
countries
for
repair.
In
response,
EPA
notes
that
sending
intact
CRTs
abroad
for
repair,
rather
than
recycling,
would
not
be
subject
to
today s
notice
and
consent
requirements.
The
same
commenter
was
concerned
that
export
provisions
for
CRTs
could
also
preclude
glass
processors
from
sending
leaded
glass
abroad
for
legitimate
uses.
In
response,
we
note
that
processed
CRT
glass
is
also
not
subject
to
the
notice
and
consent
requirements
of
today s
rule.

E.
Universal
Waste
In
our
June
12,
2002
notice,
the
Agency
proposed
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
used
CRTs
and
CRT
glass
being
recycled.
However,
we
also
solicited
comment
on
the
alternative
approach
of
adding
these
materials
to
the
universal
waste
rule.
In
particular,
we
requested
comment
on
whether
various
universal
waste
requirements
would
be
appropriate
or
burdensome
for
glass
processors,
or
collectors
who
send
used
CRTs
or
CRT
glass
to
these
processors.
The
universal
waste
requirements
in
question
were
employee
training,
notification
of
universal
waste
management
activities,
and
tracking
of
shipments
sent
and
received.
After
evaluating
all
comments,
the
Agency
has
decided
to
retain
the
proposed
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
used
CRTs
and
processed
CRT
glass,
instead
of
adding
these
materials
to
the
universal
waste
rule.
Significant
comments,
our
responses,
and
the
rationale
for
the
final
rule
are
explained
below.

Response
to
Comments
Some
states
and
many
industry
commenters
(
such
as
those
from
the
electronics
industry)
supported
the
proposed
conditional
exclusion
and
did
not
want
EPA
to
add
used
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
rule.
These
commenters
agreed
with
the
Agency
that
used
CRTs,
when
managed
under
the
proposed
conditions,
resemble
commodities
more
than
wastes.
They
argued
that
adding
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
scheme
would
harm
the
developing
infrastructure
for
electronics
recycling
by
imposing
greater
burdens
and
reducing
flexibility.
According
to
these
commenters,
classifying
CRTs
as
hazardous
waste
would
create
a
Astigma@
that
would
make
retailers
or
collectors
reluctant
to
participate
in
recycling
programs.
One
state
said
that
adding
used
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
rule
would
make
virtually
any
business
with
computers
or
televisions
a
potential
hazardous
waste
generator,
with
negative
implications
for
program
implementation
and
enforcement.

They
also
believed
that
the
universal
waste
requirements
mentioned
above
were
unnecessary
for
used
CRTs
because
these
materials
pose
minimal
environmental
risks.
A
few
commenters
feared
that
glass
processors
could
be
classified
as
Adestination
facilities@
which
could
need
a
RCRA
storage
permit,
thereby
frustrating
CRT
recycling
goals.
Finally,
they
questioned
whether
processed
glass
met
the
criteria
for
the
universal
waste
rule
because
it
is
not
Awidely
generated.@
29
However,
other
commenters,
including
several
states,
supported
these
requirements
and
suggested
that
EPA
add
used
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
rule.
These
commenters
generally
noted
that
CRTs
fit
the
regulatory
criteria
for
universal
waste
at
40
CFR
Part
273,
and
cited
the
familiarity
of
stakeholders
with
this
rule.
Some
of
these
commenters
argued
that
keeping
CRTs
within
the
universe
of
hazardous
waste
would
ensure
better
oversight
by
regulatory
authorities
than
would
a
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.

One
commenter
pointed
to
the
significant
amounts
of
lead
contained
in
many
CRTs,
and
disputed
the
Agency=
s
assertion
that
leaded
glass
from
CRTs
resembled
a
commodity
more
than
a
waste.
Some
commenters
believed
that
the
universal
waste
rule
would
ensure
more
responsible
management
of
such
a
potentially
harmful
substance.
In
particular,
these
commenters
urged
imposing
the
requirements
in
the
universal
waste
rule
for
employee
training,
release
response,
packaging,
labeling,
notification,
accumulation
time
limits,
and
weight
limits.
Some
states
were
also
concerned
about
speculative
accumulation,
and
supported
the
one­
year
accumulation
limit
for
universal
waste.
Others
preferred
the
universal
waste
requirements
because
40
CFR
§
§
273.17
and
273.37
require
universal
waste
handlers
to
contain
all
releases.

According
to
several
commenters,
the
streamlined
requirements
of
the
universal
waste
rule
would
also
encourage
recycling.
One
commenter
believed
that
adding
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
rule
would
facilitate
improved
voluntary
management
of
CRTs
from
households
or
CESQGs,
since
the
universal
waste
rule
specifically
allows
wastes
from
these
sources
to
be
managed
as
universal
wastes.

After
considering
these
comments,
EPA
has
decided
to
finalize
the
proposed
conditional
exclusion
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
CRTs
and
CRT
glass
being
recycled.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
who
pointed
out
that
intact
or
broken
CRTs
largely
fit
the
regulatory
criteria
for
universal
wastes
(
see
40
CFR
§
273.81).
For
example,
they
are
frequently
generated
in
a
wide
variety
of
settings
and
are
present
in
significant
volumes
in
the
municipal
wastestream.
Commenters
are
also
correct
that
stakeholders
are
familiar
with
the
universal
waste
scheme,
although
they
are
also
quite
familiar
with
the
concept
of
conditional
exclusions.
However,
we
disagree
with
the
commenter
who
implied
that
the
presence
of
lead
in
CRT
glass
prevents
this
material
from
being
commodity­
like.
As
discussed
elsewhere
in
this
notice,
there
are
demonstrated
markets
for
CRTs
and
CRT
glass,
and
it
is
generally
the
presence
of
lead
that
contributes
to
its
value
to
glass
manufacturers
and
smelters.
An
exclusion
is
more
suitable
for
materials
that
resemble
commodities
more
than
wastes,
especially
if
conditions
are
promulgated
to
ensure
that
they
will
be
stored
and
handled
as
objects
of
value.
In
support
of
our
decision,
we
note
that
many
of
the
provisions
of
the
conditional
exclusion
are
similar
to
the
provisions
suggested
by
commenters,
and
recommended
by
the
CSI
for
CRTs
sent
for
recycling.
For
example,
the
packaging
and
labeling
requirements
for
CRTs
are
nearly
identical.
In
addition,
we
are
also
imposing
notice
and
consent
requirements
for
CRTs
exported
for
recycling,
as
would
be
required
under
the
universal
waste
rule.

Although
some
commenters
believed
that
regulating
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
under
the
universal
waste
program
would
ensure
greater
regulatory
oversight,
materials
destined
for
the
types
of
recycling
addressed
in
today s
rule
do
not
need
as
much
regulatory
oversight
as
30
other
waste
materials
because,
when
handled
consistently
with
the
specified
conditions,
they
are
commodity­
like.
Furthermore,
the
requirements
of
the
universal
waste
rule
for
employee
training,
notification
of
waste
management
activities,
and
tracking
and
record
retention
for
off­
site
shipments
are
not
necessary
as
a
matter
of
federal
law
for
these
materials,
when
they
are
not
being
sent
for
disposal.
The
packaging
and
labeling
conditions
for
broken
CRTs
that
are
promulgated
today
will
ensure
that
the
possibility
of
releases
to
the
environment
is
very
low.
In
addition,
intact
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
also
pose
a
minimal
risk
of
releases
while
being
transported,
since
the
glass
is
unlikely
to
be
released
unless
the
vacuum
is
broken.
Lead
from
CRTs
is
therefore
not
readily
available
to
the
environment
as
long
as
the
CRTs
are
intact.
We
also
note
that
the
universal
waste
rule
distinguishes
between
large
and
small
quantity
handlers
of
universal
waste,
and
imposes
additional
notification
and
tracking
requirements
on
the
former.
But
the
weight
limits
which
place
handlers
in
the
large
quantity
handler
category
(
5000
kilograms
or
more)
are
not
as
appropriate
for
CRTs
as
for
lighter
materials
such
as
lamps
and
batteries.
The
weight
limits
would
place
most
handlers
of
CRTs
in
the
large
quantity
category,
even
if
they
accumulated
only
a
few
CRT
monitors.

Similarly,
we
note
that
under
today s
rule,
the
speculative
accumulation
requirements
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)
apply
to
used
CRTs
(
whether
broken
or
intact)
and
processed
CRT
glass.
These
provisions
state
that
75%
of
the
CRTs
or
processed
glass
must
be
recycled
or
transferred
to
another
site
for
recycling
within
a
calendar
year.
If
more
time
is
needed,
the
facility
in
question
may
apply
for
a
variance
under
40
CFR
§
260.31(
a)
(
see
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8)).
Under
the
universal
waste
rule,
materials
may
be
accumulated
for
one
year;
additional
time
is
available
if
the
handler
can
demonstrate
that
such
time
is
necessary
to
facilitate
proper
recovery,
treatment,
or
disposal
(
see
40
CFR
§
§
273.15
and
273.35).
These
requirements
are
generally
similar,
and
the
Agency
believes
that
today s
rule
will
be
as
effective
in
preventing
extended
accumulation
periods
as
the
accumulation
limits
of
40
CFR
§
§
273.15
and
273.35.

In
addition,
processed
CRT
glass
sent
for
many
kinds
of
recycling
is
commodity­
like.
This
material
fits
the
criteria
for
the
variance
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
for
 
partially
reclaimed 
materials
under
40
CFR
§
§
260.30(
c)
and
261.31(
c)
(
see
the
discussion
of
this
issue
in
the
preamble
to
our
proposal
at
67
FR
40514).
This
variance
is
specifically
designed
for
commodity­
like
materials.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
who
noted
that
processed
glass
does
not
actually
fit
the
regulatory
criteria
for
the
universal
waste
rule
(
because
it
is
not
widely
generated
by
different
types
of
facilities)
and
that
glass
processors
might
technically
be
considered
destination
facilities
under
the
universal
waste
rule
(
because
they
are
recyclers).

Under
the
universal
waste
approach,
CRTs
destined
for
recycling
would
still
be
classified
as
hazardous
wastes,
although
subject
to
reduced
regulation.
We
agree
with
those
commenters
who
argued
that
in
the
case
of
CRTs,
this
classification
could
discourage
recycling.
We
are
concerned
that
nonprofit
organizations
might
refuse
to
help
collect
used
CRTs
because
of
this
hazardous
waste
classification.
Without
their
participation,
CRT
recycling
would
be
greatly
inhibited.
31
A
few
commenters
also
believed
that
adding
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
rule
would
alleviate
the
need
for
our
proposed
distinctions
between
used
and
unused
or
intact
and
broken
CRTs.
The
Agency
does
not
agree
with
these
commenters.
Adding
used
CRTs
to
the
universal
waste
rule
would
not
eliminate
the
need
for
these
distinctions.
Unused,
intact
computers
and
televisions
are
often
returned
to
the
manufacturer,
or
they
may
be
sold
or
donated
for
use.
Long­
standing
rules
define
unused
materials
as
products
rather
than
wastes,
and
products
would
not
be
subject
to
the
universal
waste
rule.
Similarly,
even
if
intact
and
broken
CRTs
were
added
to
the
universal
waste
rule,
the
same
universal
waste
requirements
would
not
be
appropriate
for
both
categories
of
materials,
since
there
is
a
greater
possibility
of
releases
from
broken
CRTs.

It
is
true
that
40
CFR
§
§
273.17
and
273.37
require
universal
waste
handlers
to
contain
all
releases.
Under
a
conditional
exclusion,
on
the
other
hand,
if
a
person
failed
to
respond
to
a
release,
EPA
or
the
State
could
take
action,
including
an
enforcement
action,
which
is
a
reactive
rather
than
preventive
measure.
However,
in
the
case
of
CRTs
and
CRT
glass,
the
possibility
of
immediate
environmental
harm
from
a
release
is
expected
to
be
sufficiently
low
to
be
outweighed
by
the
benefits
from
fostering
increased
recycling.

One
commenter
supported
placing
CRTs
in
the
universal
waste
rule
because
the
rule
met
EPA s
objective
in
the
proposed
CRT
rule
of
requiring
storage
in
containers
that
convey
the
impression
of
value;
further,
the
universal
waste
rule
requires
the
use
of
RCRA­
quality
containers.
This
commenter
also
believed
that
since
the
universal
waste
rule
would
leave
CRTs
within
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
this
approach
would
allow
State
agencies
to
inspect
facilities.
According
to
this
commenter,
if
the
Agency
did
not
recognize
CRTs
as
wastes,
States
would
not
have
the
ability
to
evaluate
and
approve
recycling
facilities
or
inform
the
local
community.
In
addition,
placing
CRTs
in
the
universal
waste
rule
would
curtail
accumulation
time
because
solid
and
hazardous
waste
could
only
be
stored
at
processing
facilities
for
brief
periods
of
time
without
a
RCRA
TSDF
permit.

EPA
disagrees
with
this
commenter
about
the
effects
of
the
universal
waste
rule.
The
storage
and
packaging
requirements
in
today s
rule
for
broken
CRTs
are
substantially
similar
to
those
found
in
40
CFR
Part
273
for
universal
wastes.
State
agencies
are
not
precluded
from
inspecting
facilities
managing
materials
that
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
in
order
to
determine
if
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
are
being
met.
Nor
does
today s
rule
affect
States 
ability
to
impose
more
stringent
requirements
on
CRT
glass
processors.
Finally,
this
commenter
is
incorrect
about
the
necessity
for
issuing
RCRA
permits
to
CRT
glass
processors.
Today s
speculative
accumulation
requirements
for
CRTs
are
sufficient
to
prevent
excessive
warehousing
or
abandonment
of
these
materials.
Permits
are
not
needed
to
accomplish
this
goal.

Another
commenter
suggested
that
if
EPA
adopted
the
universal
waste
approach
for
CRTs,
the
Agency
should
clarify
that
CRTs
sent
to
a
reseller
are
considered
discarded
(
and
therefore
regulated
as
wastes).
EPA
disagrees
with
this
approach
and
does
not
believe
that
it
would
be
desirable
or
necessary
even
under
the
universal
waste
rule.
CRTs
sent
to
resellers
are
often
capable
of
being
reused.
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
these
materials
are
considered
products
rather
than
wastes.
32
One
commenter
complained
that
our
proposed
rule
was
structured
such
that
the
least
regulatory
burden
is
incurred
by
the
person
who
takes
advantage
of
the
exclusion
in
proposed
40
CFR
§
261.4(
a)(
23)(
i)(
i.
e.,
the
person
who
chooses
to
do
nothing
with
the
waste,
according
to
the
commenter),
rather
than
the
person
who
chooses
to
recycle
the
waste
pursuant
to
40
CFR
§
261.4(
a)(
23)(
ii).
This
commenter
has
misunderstood
these
two
proposed
provisions.
Both
of
the
two
provisions
apply
to
CRTs
sent
for
recycling.
The
first
applies
to
used,
intact
CRTs,
the
second
to
used,
broken
CRTs.
Used,
intact
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
are
subject
to
no
conditions
for
packaging
and
labeling
(
unlike
used,
broken
CRTs)
because
the
CRT
glass
is
enclosed
within
its
housing
and
the
possibilities
for
release
are
less.
And
used,
intact
CRTs
intended
for
reuse
were
considered
products
before
this
rule,
which
does
not
affect
their
status.
The
commenter
is
therefore
incorrect
in
saying
that
our
proposed
regulations
reward
people
who
do
not
recycle
CRTs.
The
same
commenter
expressed
concern
about
our
proposed
quantity
accumulation
limits
for
CRTs.
Again,
the
commenter
is
mistaken;
the
Agency
did
not
propose
any
limits
on
the
quantity
of
CRTs
that
can
be
accumulated.

Some
commenters
urged
us
to
adopt
the
universal
waste
approach
because,
unlike
the
conditional
exclusion
approach,
it
does
not
require
use
of
the
hazardous
waste
manifest
for
materials
sent
to
disposal.
These
commenters
wanted
this
benefit
for
CRTs
sent
to
disposal;
one
commenter
stated
that
having
similar
requirements
for
recycling
and
disposal
reduces
complications
for
enforcement
authorities
by
eliminating
the
need
to
discern
the
waste
handler=
s
intent.
Other
commenters,
however,
argued
that
used
CRTs
should
be
fully
regulated
when
sent
for
disposal,
and
that
such
full
regulation
was
necessary
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.

Even
though
requiring
no
manifest
for
CRTs
could
simplify
the
regulations,
we
believe
that
today s
conditional
exclusion
will
foster
the
equally
important
goal
of
collecting
CRTs,
conserving
resources,
and
minimizing
negative
impacts
on
the
environment.
We
anticipate
that
it
will
lead
to
increased
recycling
and
less
disposal
of
CRTs,
including
those
from
households
and
CESQGs,
because
municipalities
and
other
entities
can
consolidate
CRTs
from
all
sources
more
easily
than
if
some
CRTs
were
classified
as
hazardous
wastes.
In
addition,
as
described
earlier
in
this
notice,
the
Agency
and
many
states
are
engaged
in
several
efforts
to
increase
the
rate
of
CRT
and
electronics
recycling,
including
electronics
from
households
and
CESQGs.
We
believe
that
these
efforts,
as
well
as
many
others
at
the
state
and
local
level,
will
ultimately
bring
about
a
considerable
improvement
in
the
rate
of
voluntary
electronics
recycling.

One
commenter
stated
that
removing
CRTs
from
the
category
of
characteristic
hazardous
wastes
could
encourage
disposal
and
could
have
a
chilling
effect
on
States
which
are
considering
prohibitions
on
any
CRTs
going
to
landfills
or
incinerators.
This
commenter
therefore
recommended
that
our
final
rule
contain
a
strong
disposal
ban
and
a
manifest
system.
In
response,
we
note
that
today s
rule
does
not
change
the
regulatory
classification
of
CRTs
being
sent
to
landfills
or
incinerators;
under
federal
law,
CRTs
being
disposed
of
are
still
fully
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
unless
they
come
from
households
or
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators
(
CESQGs).
The
Agency
believes
that
streamlining
requirements
for
recycling
but
not
for
disposal
will
encourage
recycling.
33
With
respect
to
disposal,
materials
sent
to
landfills
or
incinerators
under
the
universal
waste
rule
need
not
be
accompanied
by
a
hazardous
waste
manifest.
Under
our
proposed
conditional
exclusion,
the
manifest
would
have
to
accompany
CRTs
sent
for
disposal.
A
few
states
said
the
universal
waste
rule
was
therefore
less
stringent
(
in
this
respect)
than
a
conditional
exclusion.
These
states
were
therefore
concerned
that
if
a
state
had
already
added
CRTs
to
its
universal
waste
program,
it
would
have
to
amend
its
rules
and
seek
authorization
from
EPA
to
remain
equivalent
to
the
federal
program.
This
conclusion
is
incorrect.
The
Agency
has
concluded
that
adding
CRTs
to
a
state
universal
waste
program
is
permissible
under
state
authorization
rules.
As
commenters
pointed
out,
the
universal
waste
rule
is
in
other
respects
more
stringent
than
today=
s
conditional
exclusion.
In
addition,
the
Agency s
longstanding
position
is
that
under
a
state
universal
waste
program,
individual
wastes
and
management
standards
are
not
subject
to
the
authorization
revision
provisions
in
40
CFR
§
271.21,
since
the
state
is
already
authorized
for
the
universal
waste
regulations
and
the
regulation
of
hazardous
wastes
(
see
the
preamble
to
the
universal
waste
rule
at
60
FR
25537,
May
11,
1995).
Therefore,
states
are
free
to
add
CRTs
to
their
universal
waste
programs
without
seeking
authorization
from
EPA.

A
few
commenters
said
that
if
EPA
adopted
a
conditional
exclusion
approach,
it
should
be
an
exclusion
for
CRTs
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
rather
than
solid
waste.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
Agency
should
prepare
a
cost
analysis
which
examined
the
effects
of
excluding
CRTs
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste.
However,
this
approach
was
not
proposed
and
is
therefore
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

F.
Definitions
Several
commenters
suggested
changes
to
some
of
EPA s
proposed
definitions.
The
following
is
a
summary
of
these
suggested
changes,
with
our
responses.

 
Cathode
Ray
Tube 

The
Agency=
s
proposed
definition
of
Acathode
ray
tube@
was
a
Avacuum
tube,
composed
primarily
of
glass,
which
is
the
video
display
component
of
a
television
or
computer
monitor.@
Some
commenters
said
that
our
proposed
definition
of
Acathode
ray
tube@
did
not
make
clear
whether
we
intended
to
include
such
devices
as
scanning
equipment,
multichannel
analyzers,
medical,
automotive,
oscilloscope,
military,
aircraft,
and
appliance
CRTs.
These
commenters
apparently
believed
that
these
types
of
CRTs
did
not
fall
within
the
definition
of
a
television
or
computer
monitor.
One
commenter
said
that
the
use
of
the
term
Avideo
display@
was
misleading,
since
that
phrase
is
associated
with
television
monitors.
This
commenter
suggested
that
Avideo
or
visual
display
component@
would
be
a
better
definition.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
confine
the
regulatory
definition
to
color
CRTs,
since
monochrome
CRTs
generally
do
not
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
lead.

The
Agency
agrees
with
those
commenters
who
desired
a
more
general
definition
that
would
encompass
various
types
of
CRTs;
we
believe
that
such
a
definition
would
provide
more
clarity
to
the
regulated
community
and
would
better
reflect
the
intent
of
our
proposal
(
see
67
FR
40509).
We
also
agree
with
the
commenter
who
said
that
 
video
or
visual
34
display
component 
would
be
a
more
precise
definition.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
changing
our
proposed
definition
of
Acathode
ray
tube@
in
40
CFR
§
260.10
to
read
as
follows:
Acathode
ray
tube
means
a
vacuum
tube,
composed
primarily
of
glass,
which
is
the
video
or
visual
display
component
of
an
electronic
device.@
This
definition
would
encompass
all
the
different
types
of
CRTs
mentioned
by
the
commenters.

The
Agency
does
not
agree
with
the
commenter
who
suggested
that
the
definition
of
 
cathode
ray
tube 
be
limited
to
color
CRTs,
since
we
are
not
certain
that
all
color
CRTs
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
lead,
or
that
no
monochrome
CRTs
exhibit
this
characteristic.
For
this
reason,
we
are
not
revising
our
proposed
definition
to
include
a
reference
to
color
or
monochrome
CRTs.
If
CRTs
do
not
exhibit
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
lead,
they
are
not
regulated
under
any
of
the
hazardous
waste
regulations,
including
the
exclusion
promulgated
today.

 
Intact 
and
 
Broken 
CRTs
In
our
proposal,
EPA
had
defined
an
Aintact@
CRT
as
one
remaining
within
the
monitor
whose
vacuum
has
not
been
released.
A
Abroken@
CRT,
on
the
other
hand,
was
defined
as
Aglass
removed
from
the
monitor
after
the
vacuum
has
been
released.@
Some
commenters
pointed
out
that
our
proposed
definitions
did
not
take
into
account
two
categories
of
CRTs:
those
removed
from
a
monitor
without
release
of
the
vacuum
(
i.
e.,
 
bare 
CRTs)
or
CRTs
remaining
within
the
monitor
after
being
inadvertently
broken.

A
few
commenters
believed
that
intact
CRTs
removed
from
the
monitor
were
commodity­
like,
and
should
therefore
be
completely
excluded
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
especially
since
they
presented
very
little
potential
for
environmental
releases.
One
commenter
suggested
that
the
definition
of
 
used,
intact 
CRT
should
therefore
be
changed
to
read
 
any
CRT
that
does
not
qualify
as
a
broken
CRT .
However,
another
commenter
suggested
that
intact
CRTs
removed
from
the
monitor
should
be
treated
the
same
as
broken
CRTs.

After
reviewing
the
comments,
the
Agency
agrees
that
its
proposed
definitions
did
not
adequately
address
at
least
one
category
of
CRTs.
With
respect
to
intact
CRTs
that
are
removed
from
the
monitor
with
the
vacuum
still
unbroken,
we
understand
that
these
materials
must
normally
be
packaged
before
being
shipped
for
repair
or
reuse.
It
would
therefore
be
unnecessary
and
redundant
to
subject
these
materials
to
the
same
conditions
as
broken
CRTs
sent
for
recycling.
They
resemble
products
more
than
wastes
because
they
can
be
reused
in
other
monitors.
In
today=
s
rule,
therefore,
we
are
clarifying
the
status
of
these
materials
by
including
them
within
the
definition
of
Aintact
CRT,@
and
we
are
revising
that
definition
to
read:
Aan
intact
CRT
means
a
CRT
whose
vacuum
has
not
been
released.@
We
believe
this
definition
is
more
clear
and
gives
more
guidance
to
the
regulated
community
than
one
which
merely
cross­
references
the
definition
of
broken
CRTs.

As
stated
above,
some
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
did
not
address
broken
CRTs
remaining
within
a
monitor
because
of
inadvertent
breaking
of
the
glass.
Another
commenter
pointed
out
that
his
company
considered
CRTs
with
released
vacuum
tubes
to
be
intact
because
they
have
not
been
mechanically
altered
so
as
to
increase
the
potential
35
release
of
heavy
metals.
In
response,
the
Agency
is
not
changing
the
definition
of
 
broken
CRT 
to
specifically
address
inadvertently
broken
CRTs,
since
such
breakage
is
accidental
and
does
not
occur
routinely.
If
some
CRTs
within
a
shipment
of
intact
CRTs
are
accidentally
broken,
such
occurrences
are
most
appropriately
addressed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
by
the
appropriate
regulatory
authorities.
A
released
vacuum
facilitates
glass
breakage
and
makes
subsequent
environmental
releases
more
likely,
even
if
these
materials
have
not
been
substantially
altered
mechanically.

One
commenter
suggested
that
the
definition
of
 
broken
CRT 
should
refer
to
glass
removed
from
any
 
housing 
or
 
casing 
rather
than
glass
removed
from
a
 
monitor .
The
Agency
agrees
that
the
language
suggested
by
the
commenter
is
more
descriptive.
The
same
commenter
noted
that
our
proposed
definition
assumed
that
CRT
vacuums
are
released
before
the
CRT
is
removed
from
the
monitor,
whereas
in
actuality
the
CRT
is
sometimes
removed
from
the
monitor,
after
which
the
vacuum
is
released.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
our
intent
was
not
to
draw
distinctions
based
on
the
timing
of
the
vacuum
release.
We
have
therefore
revised
our
proposed
definition
of
 
broken
CRT 
to
read:
 
glass
removed
from
its
housing
or
casing
whose
vacuum
has
been
released. 

One
commenter
noted
that
EPA
did
not
present
data
showing
that
a
CRT
is
not
reusable
as
a
product
after
the
vacuum
has
been
released
and
the
glass
removed.
A
few
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
revise
its
definition
of
Abroken
CRT@
to
refer
to
CRTs
that
were
no
longer
reusable,
or
to
specify
that
CRTs
become
wastes
when
they
will
no
longer
be
used
for
the
purpose
for
which
they
were
manufactured.
In
response
to
these
comments,
we
note
that
the
Agency
specifically
requested
comment
in
the
preamble
to
our
proposed
rule
about
whether
it
was
possible
to
repair
and
reuse
a
CRT
after
the
vacuum
was
released.
No
commenters
submitted
information
or
explanations
about
how
this
phenomenon
might
occur.
We
also
believe
that
it
would
be
much
more
difficult
to
implement
the
definition
if
regulators
or
the
regulated
community
were
required
to
ascertain
whether
a
computer,
television,
or
other
electronic
device
could
be
used
again.
Such
a
determination
would
require
considerably
more
technical
expertise
than
merely
examining
a
CRT
to
see
if
the
vacuum
had
been
released.
Therefore,
under
today=
s
rule,
a
CRT
will
still
be
considered
broken
if
the
vacuum
is
released.

One
commenter
suggested
that
we
should
change
the
definitions
of
Aintact@
and
Abroken@
CRTs
in
proposed
40
CFR
'
260.10
to
read
Aused,
intact
CRTs 
and
Aused,
broken
CRTs@
(
presumably
to
be
consistent
with
the
language
in
our
proposed
exclusions).
EPA
agrees
and
has
added
this
language
to
the
definitions
in
today=
s
final
rule.

A
few
commenters
objected
to
the
Agency=
s
regulatory
distinctions
between
Aunused 
and
Aused@
or
Aintact 
and
Abroken@
CRTs.
These
commenters
believed
that
most
CRTs
in
all
of
these
categories
should
be
treated
the
same
(
presumably
because
the
environmental
risks
were
similar).
One
commenter
suggested
abandoning
the
definition
of
 
broken
CRT 
altogether
and
dividing
the
universe
of
CRT
materials
into
two
categories.
The
first
category
would
include
all
waste
CRT­
containing
devices
and
intact
CRTs
removed
from
CRT­
containing
devices.
The
second
category
would
include
glass
removed
from
the
first
category
of
devices.
This
commenter
also
suggested
different
management
standards
for
the
two
categories,
but
did
not
clarify
how
the
management
standards
would
differ.
We
are
36
therefore
unable
to
respond
effectively
to
this
suggestion.
The
same
commenter
said
that
our
definitional
concepts
were
irrelevant
to
the
breakage
of
glass.
The
Agency s
intent
was
to
distinguish
between
wastes
and
non­
wastes,
and
to
promulgate
management
standards
for
the
latter.

Although
classifying
all
CRTs
in
the
same
regulatory
category
would
undoubtedly
lead
to
simplified
program
implementation,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
eliminating
our
proposed
distinctions
is
desirable.
Intact
CRTs
present
very
little
risk
of
releases,
unless
they
are
accumulated
for
long
periods
of
time;
therefore,
subjecting
them
to
the
same
conditions
as
broken
CRTs
is
not
appropriate.

Another
commenter
expressed
concern
that
our
proposed
definition
of
 
broken
CRT 
(
glass
removed
from
the
monitor)
might
preclude
an
exclusion
for
mixtures
of
glass,
plastic,
and
copper
sent
to
copper
smelters.
This
was
not
the
Agency s
intent.
Materials
sent
to
copper
smelters
(
if
otherwise
a
hazardous
waste)
could
be
excluded,
if
appropriate,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
40
CFR
261.2(
e)(
1)(
i)
or
(
ii).

 
CRT
Processing 

EPA
received
several
comments
on
the
proposed
definition
of
ACRT
processing. 
Specifically,
the
proposed
regulation
stated
that
CRT
processing
meant
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.
Some
commenters
believed
that
it
was
not
necessary
to
perform
all
of
these
activities
in
order
to
be
considered
a
CRT
processor.
In
particular,
commenters
pointed
out
that
some
CRT
recyclers
do
not
clean
coatings
from
CRT
glass,
and
that
there
is
an
increased
market
for
glass
with
the
coating
still
on
it.
These
commenters
recommended
that
the
definition
of
ACRT
processing@
be
revised
to
specify
that
performing
the
first
three
activities
listed
above,
or
cleaning
coatings
from
glass
removed
from
CRTs,
should
be
sufficient
to
classify
a
person
or
facility
as
a
CRT
processor.

EPA
agrees
with
these
commenters.
As
one
commenter
stated,
coatings
do
not
have
to
be
removed
from
CRT
glass
sent
to
a
smelter.
We
are
therefore
revising
our
proposed
definition
of
ACRT
processing@
to
mean
conducting
all
of
the
following
activities:
(
1)
receiving
broken
or
intact
CRTs;
and
(
2)
intentionally
breaking
intact
CRTs
or
further
breaking
or
separating
broken
CRTs;
and
(
3)
sorting
or
otherwise
managing
glass
removed
from
CRT
monitors.
Since
any
CRT
recycler
cleaning
coatings
from
CRT
glass
would
necessarily
be
performing
the
first
three
activities,
we
believe
it
is
unnecessary
to
refer
to
such
cleaning
in
the
regulations.
This
revised
definition
will
be
more
consistent
with
the
current
activities
of
CRT
recyclers.

One
commenter
said
that
our
proposed
definition
of
 
CRT
processing 
included
 
receiving
CRTs ,
thereby
implying
that
CRT
processing
could
occur
only
off­
site.
We
assume
this
commenter
meant
to
say
that
sometimes
original
users
of
CRTs
also
perform
glass
processing.
However,
EPA
has
no
data
to
indicate
that
such
is
the
case.
37
 
Processed
CRT
Glass 

In
our
proposal,
we
did
not
include
a
definition
of
Aprocessed
CRT
glass.@
One
commenter
noted
that
if
EPA
revised
its
definition
of
ACRT
processing@
to
remove
the
reference
to
coating,
the
Agency
should
then
promulgate
a
definition
of
Aprocessed
CRT
glass@
that
would
ensure
that
only
CRT
glass
with
the
coatings
removed
would
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
proposed
40
CFR
'
261.39(
c)
(
i.
e.,
no
packaging
or
labeling
for
the
processed
glass).
This
commenter
believed
that
only
glass
with
the
coating
removed
could
properly
be
considered
commodity­
like.
EPA
disagrees
with
this
suggestion,
because
we
believe
that
whether
CRT
glass
is
coated
or
uncoated
has
little
to
do
with
whether
the
glass
resembles
a
commodity.
As
stated
above,
CRT
glass
sent
to
smelters
does
not
need
to
have
coatings
removed,
and
we
believe
that
such
materials
are
commodity­
like.
We
believe
that
the
destination
of
the
glass
is
a
more
reliable
indicator
of
its
nature
as
a
commodity
than
its
coated
or
uncoated
condition.

 
CRT
Glass
Manufacturing 

Finally,
one
commenter
pointed
out
that
our
proposed
definition
of
ACRT
glass
manufacturing
facility@
could
cause
confusion
because
40
CFR
'
260.10
defines
a
Afacility@
as
Aland,
etc.
used
for
treating,
storing,
and
disposing
of
hazardous
waste, 
which
is
not
true
of
CRT
glass
manufacturers.
The
Agency
agrees
with
this
commenter
that
the
use
of
the
word
Afacility@
could
be
misinterpreted.
We
have
therefore
changed
the
definition
in
today=
s
rule
to
read:
ACRT
glass
manufacturer
means
an
operation
or
part
of
an
operation
that
uses
a
furnace
to
manufacture
CRT
glass.@

G.
Disposal
of
CRTs
In
the
preamble
to
our
proposed
rule,
EPA
solicited
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
the
ones
we
proposed
for
broken
CRTs
sent
for
recycling,
rather
than
comply
with
full
Subtitle
C
requirements,
including
use
of
the
hazardous
waste
manifest.

Some
commenters
said
that
disposal
of
CRTs
should
be
subject
to
streamlined
requirements
similar
to
those
applicable
to
broken
CRTs
sent
for
recycling.
These
commenters
generally
believed
that
CRTs
presented
very
low
environmental
risks,
even
in
landfills.
They
cited
what
they
believed
to
be
the
benefits
of
simplified
program
implementation
(
presumably
including
facilitation
of
inspections
and
enforcement)
if
CRTs
sent
for
recycling
and
disposal
were
subject
to
the
same
regulatory
requirements.
Other
commenters
supported
the
application
of
full
Subtitle
C
requirements
to
CRTs
sent
for
disposal.
These
commenters
believed
that
CRTs
sent
for
disposal
presented
greater
environmental
risks;
they
also
supported
this
approach
because
they
believed
it
would
encourage
recycling.
38
After
evaluating
these
comments,
the
Agency
has
concluded
that
the
arguments
for
streamlining
requirements
for
CRTs
sent
for
disposal
do
not
appear
to
be
justified.
As
noted
by
some
commenters,
the
volume
of
these
materials
will
increase
in
future
years
because
of
evolving
computer
and
television
technology.
EPA
does
not
necessarily
agree
with
those
commenters
who
said
that
CRTs
invariably
present
very
low
environmental
risks,
even
in
landfills.
We
have
not
conducted
a
separate
analysis
of
disposal
issues
as
part
of
this
rulemaking.
In
addition,
we
wish
to
encourage
the
environmentally
sound
recycling
of
this
rapidly
growing
wastestream
to
conserve
resources
and
raw
materials,
and
we
do
not
want
to
promulgate
regulations
that
are
inconsistent
with
this
policy.
For
this
reason,
we
are
not
extending
our
proposed
conditional
exclusion
to
CRTs
sent
for
disposal.

H.
Other
Issues
Two
commenters
disagreed
with
our
statement
that
used
CRTs
sent
for
disassembly
and
recycling
are
solid
wastes
unless
managed
in
accordance
with
the
conditions
in
today s
rule.
These
commenters
believed
that
CRTs
should
not
be
considered
wastes
until
they
were
actually
disposed,
abandoned,
or
thrown
away.
On
the
other
hand,
another
commenter
believed
that
users
of
CRTs
who
send
the
materials
to
resellers
should
be
regulated
because
they
may
have
a
good
idea
which
computers
are
reusable
and
which
are
not.
This
commenter
was
concerned
that
our
interpretation
might
be
applied
to
large
groups
of
secondary
materials
that
would
be
considered
exempt
from
regulation
until
they
are
sent
to
handlers
who
make
the
decision
to
reuse,
recycle,
or
dispose
of
them.
Another
commenter
disagreed
with
the
Agency s
long­
standing
interpretation
of
the
regulatory
status
of
materials
that
are
transported
across
more
than
one
state.
In
response
to
these
commenters,
we
note
that
the
point
of
generation
for
used
CRTs
and
other
secondary
materials
was
not
part
of
our
proposal,
and
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
In
addition,
today s
rule
is
intended
to
be
applicable
only
to
CRTs,
not
to
other
secondary
materials.

One
commenter
said
that
the
term
 
disposal 
as
defined
in
40
CFR
§
260.10
is
limited
to
discharge
or
placement
in
land
or
water.
The
commenter
suggested
that
the
proposed
language
at
40
CFR
§
261.4(
a)(
23)(
i)
(
which
would
exclude
used
intact
CRTs
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
unless
disposed)
would
therefore
allow
such
CRTs
to
be
abandoned
or
incinerated.
Another
commenter
said
that
the
proposed
rule
would
allow
CRTs
to
be
burned
for
energy
recovery
or
used
in
a
manner
constituting
disposal,
thus
promoting
sham
recycling.
In
response,
the
Agency
notes
that
40
CFR
§
§
261.2(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
provide
that
materials
are
solid
wastes
if
they
are
abandoned
by
being
disposed
of,
burned
or
incinerated.
In
addition,
today s
rule
subjects
used,
intact
CRTs
to
the
speculative
accumulation
provisions
of
40
CFR
§
261.1(
c)(
8).
Finally,
recycling
CRTs
through
use
constituting
disposal
is
prohibited
under
40
CFR
§
261.39(
a)(
4)
unless
the
conditions
of
Part
266,
Subpart
C
are
met,
and
CRTs
burned
for
energy
recovery
would
be
considered
solid
wastes
pursuant
to
40
CFR
261.2(
c)(
2);
hence
they
would
not
be
excluded
from
RCRA
regulation
under
today s
rule.

One
commenter
also
pointed
out
that
proposed
sections
40
CFR
§
§
261.39(
c),(
d),
and
(
e)
(
provisions
for
processed
CRT
glass)
all
contained
requirements
for
imported
glass.
Proposed
40
CFR
§
§
261.39(
a)
and
(
b),
on
the
other
hand,
which
govern
requirements
for
39
CRTs
prior
to
and
during
processing,
lack
a
specific
reference
to
imports.
In
response,
we
note
that
other
regulatory
exclusions
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
do
not
refer
specifically
to
imports,
even
though
imported
materials
must
comply
with
the
conditions
of
the
exclusion
in
question
if
they
are
not
to
be
considered
solid
wastes.
To
avoid
confusion
and
to
make
today s
rule
consistent
with
other
regulatory
exclusions,
we
have
deleted
the
reference
to
imports.

Finally,
this
commenter
suggested
changing
the
wording
of
proposed
40
CFR
§
261.39(
e)
from
 
processed
glass
 ..
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
   
to
 
processed
glass
must
be
managed
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of .. 
since
people,
rather
than
inanimate
objects,
comply
with
requirements.
The
Agency
agrees
with
this
suggestion
and
has
modified
this
provision
accordingly
(
see
40
CFR
§
261.39(
d))
in
today s
rule.

Two
commenters
said
that
EPA s
preamble
discussion
of
CRTs
sent
for
reuse
could
be
misleading
because
we
implied
that
only
CRTs
destined
for
 
minor 
repairs
would
be
outside
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
These
commenters
said
that
the
extent
of
CRT
repairs
does
not
have
any
effect
on
whether
the
units
are
intended
for
continued
use
and
subsequently
continue
to
be
used.
The
Agency
agrees
with
these
statements
and
has
modified
the
relevant
preamble
discussion
accordingly
(
see
Section
II.
B
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule).
Another
commenter
asked
us
to
clarify
that
transporters
of
CRTs
to
resellers
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
263.
We
have
stated
in
the
preamble
that
CRTs
sent
to
resellers
are
considered
products,
not
wastes.
As
such,
they
are
not
regulated
at
all
under
the
Subtitle
C
regulations.

One
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
explore
options
that
would
require
computer
and
television
manufacturers
to
take
back
their
equipment
as
a
means
of
establishing
a
recycling
infrastructure.
As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
this
rule,
EPA
has
been
involved
in
a
multistakeholder
dialogue
to
identify
ways
to
increase
funding
for
recycling
used
electronics.
However,
mandatory
take­
back
plans
were
not
discussed
in
our
proposal
and
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Other
commenters
were
concerned
about
the
regulatory
status
of
used
circuit
boards
sent
for
recycling,
as
well
as
CRTs
from
households
and
conditionally
exempt
small
quantity
generators.
These
commenters
generally
believed
that
EPA
should
change
its
regulations
to
exert
more
control
over
these
materials,
mainly
to
prevent
disposal.
These
suggestions
are
also
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.

Another
commenter
expressed
concerns
about
interstate
transport
of
CRTs.
This
commenter
noted
that
some
states
might
require
waste
CRTs
shipped
through
their
state
to
be
accompanied
by
a
hazardous
waste
manifest
even
though
use
of
such
a
manifest
was
not
required
under
federal
law.
This
commenter
advanced
legal
arguments
by
which
she
believed
that
EPA
could
justify
preempting
certain
state
transportation
requirements
(
intrastate
as
well
as
interstate),
thereby
leading
to
uniform
transportation
requirements
for
CRTs.
Preemption
of
state
transportation
requirements
in
the
case
of
federal
exclusions
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
is
outside
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
