Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes, 42928-42949 [06-6490]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42928-42949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6490]



[[Page 42927]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 9, 260, 261, et al.



Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste 
Program; Cathode Ray Tubes; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 145 / Friday, July 28, 2006 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 42928]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 260, 261, and 271

[RCRA-2004-0010; FRL-8203-1]
RIN 2050-AE52


Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous 
Waste Program; Cathode Ray Tubes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: A cathode ray tube (CRT) is the glass video display component 
of an electronic device (usually a computer or television monitor). In 
this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its 
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to 
streamline management requirements for recycling of used CRTs and glass 
removed from CRTs. The amendments exclude these materials from the RCRA 
definition of solid waste if certain conditions are met. This rule is 
intended to encourage recycling and reuse of used CRTs and CRT glass. 
EPA proposed this rule on June 12, 2002 (67 FR 40508).

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. RCRA-2004-0010. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information may not be publicly available, such as confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-
0270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marilyn Goode, Office of Solid 
Waste, Mail Code 5304W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8800, 
electronic mail: goode.marilyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of this final rule are listed 
in the following outline:

Contents of the Final Rule

I. General Information
    A. Does This Rule Apply To Me?
    B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Final Rule?
    C. Acronyms Used in the Rule
II. Summary of This Rule and Clarification of Existing Policies
    A. CRTs From Households and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity 
Generators
    B. Reuse and Repair of Used CRTs
    C. CRTs and CRT Glass Sent for Recycling
    D. Export of Used CRTs
    E. Disposal of CRTs
    F. Circuit Boards
    G. Other Electronic Material
III. Background
IV. Rationale for This Rule and Response to Comments
    A. Used, Intact CRTs Sent for Recycling
    B. Used, Broken CRTs Sent for Recycling
    C. Used CRT Processing
    D. Exports and Imports
    E. Universal Waste
    F. Definitions
    G. Disposal
    H. Enforcement
V. State Authority
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
    C. Interstate Transport
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Environmental Justice
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does This Rule Apply to Me?

    This rule potentially affects all persons who send used cathode ray 
tubes (CRTs) and CRT glass for recycling, as well as all persons who 
recycle these materials. The rule does not affect households or 
conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs). If you have 
any questions about the applicability of this rule, consult the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Final Rule?

    Today's rule is promulgated under the authority of Sections 
2002(a), 3001, 3002, 3004, and 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 
1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 
(RCRA), and as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984 (HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 3007, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924, 6926, 6927, and 
6938.

C. Acronyms Used in the Rule

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

II. Summary of This Rule and Clarification of Existing Policies

    On June 12, 2002, EPA published a Federal Register notice seeking 
comment on a proposed rule change that would streamline management 
requirements for used CRTs and processed CRT glass (see 67 FR 40508 and 
following pages). In the same notice, EPA proposed to add mercury-
containing equipment to the Federal list of universal wastes. This part 
of the proposal was finalized on August 5, 2005 (70 FR 45507).
    The proposed requirements for used CRTs and processed CRT glass 
would exclude these materials from the RCRA definition of solid waste 
if they were sent for recycling under certain conditions. The purpose 
of the proposed amendments was to encourage increased reuse, recycling, 
and better management of this growing wastestream, while maintaining 
necessary environmental protection. The conditions proposed were 
intended to ensure that the materials were handled as commodities 
rather than as wastes.
    The Agency received many comments in response to its June 12, 2002 
notice. Numerous commenters supported the proposed rule, while other 
commenters suggested changes to all or part of our proposal. After 
considering all comments, we are finalizing the

[[Page 42929]]

proposal substantially as proposed, with two significant modifications. 
The final rule, similarly to the proposed rule, contains an exclusion 
from the definition of solid waste for used CRTs and processed glass 
removed from CRTs (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)). The conditions for meeting 
the exclusion are found in 40 CFR 261.39. The first change from the 
proposal concerns exported CRTs. The Agency is promulgating notice and 
consent requirements for all used CRTs (whether broken or intact) that 
are exported for recycling (see 40 CFR 261.40 and 261.39(a)(5)). We are 
also promulgating a one-time notification requirement for used CRTs 
exported for reuse (see 40 CFR 261.41). The second change from the 
proposal concerns speculative accumulation requirements, which the 
final rule imposes on used, intact CRTs (see 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)).
    EPA believes that today's rule will encourage recycling, protect 
human health and the environment, and ensure that the subject materials 
are handled as commodities rather than as wastes. Today's rule does not 
limit or constrain the Agency in exercising its discretion to 
promulgate additional rulemaking relating to the definition of solid 
waste. Specifically, the Agency maintains the discretion to promulgate 
additional regulations that aim to encourage legitimate recycling of 
waste.
    Following is a brief summary of today's rule, along with some 
clarifications of existing policies applicable to used CRTs.

A. CRTs From Households and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity 
Generators (CESQGs)

    Under previously existing regulations, CRTs from households are 
exempt from Federal hazardous waste management requirements, even when 
they are sent for recycling or disposal. Non-residential generators of 
less than 100 kilograms (about 220 lbs) of hazardous waste in a 
calendar month, including CRTs, are known as conditionally exempt small 
quantity generators (CESQGs) and are not subject to most RCRA Subtitle 
C management requirements. These provisions are not changed by today's 
rule. For a more detailed description of requirements applicable to 
these generators, see the discussion in the proposal at 67 FR 40511.

B. Reuse and Repair of Used CRTs

    In today's rule, we are reaffirming our long-standing policy that 
any user sending a CRT to a collector or reseller for potential reuse 
is not a RCRA generator. Materials used and taken out of service by one 
person are not wastes if another person uses them in the same way. Many 
businesses take usable CRTs out of service only because they are 
upgrading their systems to take advantage of rapid advances in 
electronic technology. These organizations do not have the technical 
knowledge to decide whether a unit can be reused as a computer or 
television.
    The Agency also confirms today that used CRTs undergoing repairs 
(such as rewiring or replacing defective parts) before resale or 
distribution are not being reclaimed, and are considered to be products 
in use rather than solid wastes. These repairs do not constitute waste 
management. For a fuller discussion of this issue, see the proposal at 
67 FR 40511. However, under today's rule, CRTs exported abroad for 
reuse are subject to a one-time notification requirement, which is 
discussed later in this section.

C. CRTs and CRT Glass Sent for Recycling

    Many CRTs that cannot be reused are sent for recycling, which 
consists of disassembly to recover valuable materials from the CRTs, 
such as lead or glass. For a complete discussion of the different types 
of recycling, see the proposal at 67 FR 40510. Following is a summary 
of how CRTs and CRT glass sent for recycling within the United States 
are regulated under today's rule.
Unused CRTs
    Today's rule clarifies that persons who send unused CRTs for 
recycling are not subject to RCRA regulations. Sometimes manufacturers 
of off-specification CRTs send them to glass processors, glass-to-glass 
manufacturers, or smelters. Although these types of recycling may 
constitute reclamation, EPA does not regulate unused commercial 
chemical products that are reclaimed. For a more detailed discussion of 
this issue, see the proposal at 67 FR 40511.
Used, Intact CRTs
    Today's rule provides that used, intact CRTs sent for recycling 
(e.g., glass processing, glass manufacturing, or smelting) that occurs 
within the United States are not solid wastes, unless they are 
speculatively accumulated by a CRT collector or glass processor (see 40 
CFR 261.4(a)(23)(i)).
Used, Broken CRTs
    Under today's rule, used, broken CRTs (those whose vacuum has been 
released) are not solid wastes when sent for recycling that occurs 
within the United States if they are packaged and labeled or if they 
are stored in a building (see Sec. Sec.  261.4(a)(23)(iii) and 
261.39(a)(1)-(3)). Like used, intact CRTs, they may not be 
speculatively accumulated (see Sec.  261.39(a)(4)).
Requirements for CRT Processing
    Today's rule provides that to qualify for the exclusion from the 
definition of solid waste, CRT glass processing as defined in 40 CFR 
260.10 must take place in a building, and no activities may be 
performed that use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead (see 40 
CFR 261.39(b)).
Processed CRT Glass
    Under today's rule, processed CRT glass (glass removed from CRTs) 
that is sent to a CRT glass manufacturer or a lead smelter is not a 
solid waste, unless it is speculatively accumulated (see 40 CFR 
261.39(c)). If it is sent to other types of recycling, it may be 
excluded from the definition of solid waste if it meets the criteria of 
40 CFR 261.2(e)(ii). All processed CRT glass legitimately used in a 
manner constituting disposal must be packaged and labeled and must also 
comply with the applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 266, subpart C 
(see 40 CFR 261.39(a)(1)-(4) and (d)). Subpart C applies to recycled 
materials placed on the land.

D. Exports of Used CRTs

    Under today's rule, used, intact CRTs exported for recycling are 
not solid wastes provided they are not speculatively accumulated and 
provided the exporter notifies EPA of the export and receives a 
subsequent written consent from the receiving country allowing the CRTs 
to be imported for recycling (see 40 CFR 261.40 and 261.39(a)(5)). 
Used, broken CRTs exported for recycling are not solid wastes provided 
the exporters comply with the same notification and consent 
requirements applicable to used, intact CRTs. They must also be 
packaged and labeled, and they may not be speculatively accumulated 
(see Sec.  261.39(a)(5) and (a)(1)-(4)).
    Today's rule also provides that used intact CRTs exported for reuse 
are not solid wastes if the exporter sends a one-time notification to 
the EPA Regional Administrator. The notification must contain a 
statement that the notifier plans to export used, intact CRTs for 
reuse, as well as contact information (see Sec.  261.41).

E. Disposal of CRTs

    Today's rule clarifies that if a person (other than a household) 
decides to send used or unused CRTs directly to a landfill or 
incinerator, that person

[[Page 42930]]

would be considered the generator of a solid waste. The person making 
the decision must determine if the CRTs exhibit a hazardous waste 
characteristic under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, either testing the 
CRTs or using process knowledge to make this determination. If the used 
or unused CRTs are determined to be hazardous and if a decision is made 
to dispose of them, the non-residential user, reseller, or manufacturer 
must comply with all applicable hazardous waste generator requirements 
of 40 CFR part 262. If hazardous waste CRTs are shipped to a hazardous 
waste landfill, they must also comply with applicable land disposal 
restrictions (LDRs). LDRs do not apply to CRTs generated by households 
or CESQGs. For a more complete description of disposal requirements for 
CRTs, see the proposal at 47 FR 40512.
    In addition, we note the possibility of conducting research and 
development on CRT-related disposal and recycling technologies pursuant 
to the treatability study exemption under 40 CFR 261.4(e) and (f). The 
exemption allows researchers to store and use up to 1000 kg. of non-
acute hazardous waste without triggering most Subtitle C requirements. 
In treatability studies, a hazardous waste is subjected to a treatment 
process to determine whether the waste is amenable to a treatment 
process, what pretreatment (if any is required), optimal process 
conditions, treatment process efficiency, and characteristics and 
volumes of residues (see 40 CFR 260.10). Examples of treatability 
studies that could fall under this exemption include physical, 
chemical, biological, or thermal treatment, solidification, volume or 
toxicity reduction, and recycling feasibility (see 53 FR 27290, 27293, 
July 19, 1988).

F. Circuit Boards

    In 1992, the Agency issued a memorandum to its EPA Regional Waste 
Management Directors stating that used whole circuit boards are 
considered to be scrap metal when sent for reclamation, and therefore 
exempt from regulation under RCRA. The Agency also addressed circuit 
boards in the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV rulemaking (see 62 FR 
25998, May 12, 1997). In that rulemaking, the Agency provided an 
exclusion from the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(14) for 
shredded circuit boards being reclaimed, provided they are stored in 
containers sufficient to prevent a release to the environment prior to 
recovery and provided they are free of mercury switches, mercury 
relays, nickel-cadmium batteries and lithium batteries.
    Subsequently, on May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), the Agency clarified 
that the scrap metal exemption applies to whole used circuit boards 
that contain minor battery or mercury switch components and that are 
sent for continued use, reuse, or recovery. In that notice, EPA stated 
that it was not the Agency's intent to regulate under RCRA circuit 
boards containing minimal quantities of mercury and batteries that are 
protectively packaged to minimize dispersion of metal constituents. 
However, once these materials are removed from the boards, they become 
a newly generated waste subject to a hazardous waste determination. If 
they meet the criteria to be classified as a hazardous waste, they must 
be handled as hazardous waste; otherwise they must be managed as a 
solid waste.

G. Other Electronic Material

    With respect to non-CRT electronic materials, the Agency uses the 
same line of reasoning that is outlined above for CRTs to determine 
that the materials are not solid wastes if they are reused or only 
require repair and are not sent for processing or reclamation. That is, 
if an original user sends electronic materials to a reseller because he 
lacks the specialized knowledge needed to determine whether the units 
can be reused as products, the original user is not a RCRA generator. 
The materials are not considered solid wastes until a decision is made 
to recycle them in other ways or dispose of them.

III. Background

    Under Subtitle C of RCRA, a solid waste is a hazardous waste if it 
exhibits one or more of the characteristics of ignitability, 
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, or 
if it is a listed hazardous waste in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D. The 
RCRA regulations set forth requirements for hazardous waste generators, 
transporters, and owners and operators of treatment, storage, and 
disposal facilities (TSDFs). Generators are required to determine 
whether their waste is hazardous, either by testing the waste or 
applying their knowledge of the waste in light of the materials or 
processes used (see 40 CFR 262.11). EPA regulations also contain 
exclusions for certain materials from the definition of solid waste or 
hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.4(a) and (b)). In addition, the Agency has 
developed streamlined rules for particular wastes, including recyclable 
wastes (40 CFR part 266) and universal wastes such as batteries, 
pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps that are widely 
generated by different industries (40 CFR part 273).
    CRTs are vacuum tubes, made primarily of glass, which constitute 
the video display components of televisions, computer monitors, and 
other electronic devices. Other types of CRTs include medical, 
automotive, oscilloscope, appliance, and military and control tower 
CRTs. A CRT is assembled into a monitor, which includes several other 
parts, such as a plastic cabinet, electromagnetic shields, circuit 
boards, connectors, and cabling. The preamble to the proposed rule 
provides more detailed information on the nature of the industry (see 
67 FR 40509).
    Manufacturers generally employ significant quantities of lead in 
the glass used to make color CRTs. Televisions and color computer 
monitors contain an average of four pounds of lead (the exact amount 
depends on the size and make). Lead is a toxic metal that can cause 
delayed neurological development in children and other adverse health 
effects in adults, including increased blood pressure, nephritis, and 
cerebro-vascular disease. It is reasonably anticipated to be a human 
carcinogen. See, e.g., Iris Database Toxicity Profile No. 0277: Lead 
and Compounds (Inorganic), EPA 2004 \1\ and 53 FR 31522, August 18, 
1988. The amount of lead used by some manufacturers appears to be 
decreasing. However, according to recent studies performed at the 
University of Florida, most color CRTs leach lead in the TCLP test at 
concentrations above the TC regulatory level of 5 milligrams per liter 
(mg/l). In one study, Musson et al. (2000) found that 21 of 30 color 
CRTs tested exceeded the TC value, with an average lead level of 22.2 
mg/l in TCLP leachate.\2\ In a 2004 study,\3\ the average concentration 
of lead in leach tests of color computer

[[Page 42931]]

monitors \4\ was 47.7 mg/l. These levels are considerably above the 
toxicity characteristic regulatory level of 5 mg/l that is used to 
classify lead-containing wastes as hazardous (40 CFR 261.24(b)). This 
result is not surprising because CRT glass generally accounts for over 
60 percent of the weight of the monitor. The 2000 Musson et al. study 
also showed that for monochrome CRTs, the average lead leachate 
concentration was 0.03 mg/l. These data appear to indicate that black 
and white monitors do not generally fail the TC. Other hazardous 
constituents sometimes present in CRT glass are mercury, cadmium, and 
arsenic. However, these constituents are found in very low 
concentrations that are unlikely to exceed the TC concentration limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0277.htm.
    \2\ Characterization of Lead Leachability from Cathode Ray Tubes 
Using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, Stephen Musson 
et al., Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University 
of Florida, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 34, no. 20, 
2000. The investigators in this study also believed that variability 
in the subsampling technique used in the study (neck, funnel and 
face glass were all tested separately) led to an underestimate of 
lead leachability. Additional testing showed that the glass frit 
used to seal the face to the funnel, and which has a very high total 
lead concentration, was undersampled. The investigators concluded 
that CRT subsampling that included a representative amount of the 
frit would have resulted in all 30 of the color CRTs exceeding the 
TC regulatory value of 5 mg/l in the TCLP.
    \3\ www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/townsend/Research/ Electronic 
Leaching/default. asp.
    \4\ The data in this study were generated using a modified 
version of EPA's TCLP. The authors used a modified TCLP because 
standard TCLP particle size reduction and waste subsampling for 
debris-like materials can pose difficulties. In the ``Large Scale 
Leaching Procedure,'' the computer monitor or television was 
disassembled and all the parts placed in a large leaching vessel 
without particle size reduction. Other aspects of the standard TCLP 
test design (e.g., the 20:1 liquid-solid ratio) were maintained. 
Particle size reduction is intended to simulate the physical 
breakdown of wastes over time, and also facilitate achieving 
equilibrium in an 18-hour leaching period. Such reduction typically 
increases the leaching of metals in the TCLP, because it increases 
the surface area exposed to the leaching fluid. However, Townsend 
showed earlier in this same paper that when the waste contains a 
significant amount of iron, particle size reduction facilitates iron 
oxidation and the formation of binding sites on the iron. These 
oxidized iron binding sites adsorb metals from the leaching solution 
and can result in lower leaching of metals in the TCLP. However, the 
CRTs from computers and color televisions contained only small 
amounts of iron (3% and 6% of the total, respectively) and the 
authors concluded that the presence of the iron was not a 
significant factor in the overall results. The Agency agrees with 
these conclusions. We note that the regular, unmodified TCLP is 
still the legal standard for classifying materials as hazardous 
wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1994 through 1998, EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI) 
explored the environmental regulation of six industry sectors and 
looked for ways to make environmental regulation ``cleaner, cheaper, 
and smarter''. The CSI Computers and Electronics Subcommittee (CES) 
formed a workgroup to examine regulatory barriers to pollution 
prevention and electronic waste recycling. The workgroup explored the 
problems of managing mounting volumes of outdated computer and 
electronics equipment.
    As a result of the finding of the CES Subcommittee, the CSI Council 
issued a document titled Recommendation on Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) 
Glass-to-Glass Recycling. In this document, the Council recommended 
streamlined regulatory requirements for CRTs to encourage recycling and 
better management. The recommendations included streamlined 
requirements for packaging, labeling, and transportation; general 
performance standards for glass processors; and export provisions. The 
CSI Council also recommended an exclusion from the definition of solid 
waste for processed glass that is used to make new CRT glass.
    Since the recommendations of the CRT Council, the recycling of CRTs 
and CRT glass has evolved and various stakeholders have made occasional 
suggestions to the Agency about how to address changing practices.

IV. Rationale for This Rule and Response to Comments

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. Consequently, 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)). 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. One commenter said that intact 
CRTs are likely to be stored in containers or buildings, at least while 
they have resale value.
    Other commenters, particularly States, wanted to subject used, 
intact CRTs to the speculative accumulation provisions because they 
were concerned about the possibility of abandonment. However, one 
commenter stated that this problem might be better addressed under 
state solid waste authorities than under federal law.
    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

[[Page 42932]]

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.
    For these reasons, 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 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'').

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 non-reusable 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 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 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 accurate 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 legal notice to either regulators or the regulated 
community, and could, if anything, lead to more enforcement actions 
than a precisely worded requirement.
    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

[[Page 42933]]

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 
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, 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.
    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. For these reasons, we believe that used 
broken CRTs and processed CRT glass should be subject to the usual 
requirements that they not be speculatively accumulated.
    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. However, another commenter supported 
the use of variances under 40 CFR 260.30(a) to extend accumulation 
times when 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.
    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 relevant for purposes of speculative accumulation, 
since under today's rule both are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 
261.1(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.
    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

[[Page 42934]]

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 (d)). 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.

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 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 waste-like. 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, noting that workers' exposure to lead was 
already covered by OSHA requirements at 29 CFR part 1910, and that a 
high temperature (or thermal processing) is not by itself an indication 
that waste management is occurring. 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 use of high temperature requirements 
are in fact an indication 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 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; \5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://sti.srs.gov/fulltext/ms9800240/ms9800240.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters mistakenly thought that the proposed temperature 
requirement would apply to ``end users'' of recycled CRT glass such as 
glass furnaces or smelters. One commenter

[[Page 42935]]

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. The Agency does not 
agree with those commenters who suggested additional requirements for 
glass manufacturers and smelters, or emissions monitoring for CRT 
processors. EPA did not solicit comment on any of these measures and 
they are inappropriate for commodity-like materials. They could also be 
duplicative of requirements that are already applicable under OSHA, the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and RCRA.
    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.''
    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 commodities) if such processing work 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.
    EPA disagrees that breaking CRTs and separating components should 
require a 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 with 
the commenter that breaking CRTs and separating the components 
constitutes 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. Moreover, 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 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 be applicable to persons 
sending CRTs for recycling, as well as processors. 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.
    We have responded elsewhere in this notice 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, 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.
    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 may be stored on 
concrete pads or on the ground without packaging and labeling (see 40 
CFR 261.4(a)(23)). 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 ``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 this suggestion because requiring processing to be 
conducted in ``environmentally contained areas'' is too vague to 
provide guidance to the regulated community on the measures required to 
ensure that they are handled in a commodity-like manner. Similarly, a 
requirement that materials be ``stored in a manner that meets other 
environmental regulations'' would be redundant, since they are required 
to meet other applicable environmental regulations in any event.
    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

[[Page 42936]]

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 may learn of these facilities through 
other notices or filings at the state, county, or municipal level.
    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 legitimately reused as an effective substitute for a 
commercial chemical product (this exclusion is explained further later 
in today's notice).
    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 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,