R98012B.PDF

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

AMENDMENT OF )

35 Ill. ADM. CODE 733 ) R98-12

(STANDARDS FOR UNIVERSAL ) (Rulemaking)

WASTE MANAGEMENT) ) Volume II

The following is the transcript of a hearing held in

the above-entitled matter, taken

stenographically by Kim

M. Howells, CSR, a notary public within and for the

County of Cook and State of Illinois, before CYNTHIA I.

ERVIN, Hearing Officer, at the James B. Thompson Center,

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 9-040, Chicago, Illinois

on the 15th day of December, 1997,

A.D., commencing at

the hour of 10:00 a.m.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

A P P E A R A N C E S:

HEARING TAKEN BEFORE:

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

600 South Second Street

Suite 402

Springfield Illinois 62704

(217) 524-8509

BY: CYNTHIA I. ERVIN

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Claire A. Manning

Mr. Anand Rao

Ms. Kathleen

Hennessey

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP:

Ms. Whitney

Wagner Rosen

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:

Mr. Peter G.

Orlinsky

Mr. Christopher P.

Perzan

There were also other appearances not listed on this

appearance page.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

I N D E X

Page

Testimony of David C.

Jansen......... 49

Testimony of Jerry

Kuhn.............. 51

Testimony of Todd Marvel............. 54

Question and Answer Period........... 61

Testimony of Jennifer

Cawein......... 65

Question and Answer Period........... 75

Testimony of Lawrence Kelly.......... 117

Question and Answer Period........... 122

Testimony of Dale

Duffala............ 135

Closing Remarks...................... 142

E X H I B I T S

Admitted into

Evidence

Exhibit No. 8........................ 61

Exhibit No. 9........................ 74

Exhibit No. 10....................... 80

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Good morning. My name is

Cynthia Ervin. I'm the hearing officer in this

proceeding originally entitled In The Matter of:

Amendments of 35 Illinois Administrative Code 703, 720,

721, 724, 725, 728, and 733, Standards for Universal

Waste Management.

This is the second hearing in this rulemaking. The

first was held in Springfield on December 9th.

Present today on behalf of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board is a presiding board member in this

rulemaking to my right Chairman -- sorry, to my left

Chairman Claire Manning.

MS. MANNING: Good morning.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Also joining us is Board

Member Kathleen

Hennessey.

MS. HENNESSEY: Good morning.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: And

Anand Rao from the --

our technical unit.

As background, on October 17, 1997, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency filed this proposal for

rulemaking to amend the Board's regulations concerning

standards for universal waste management to include

mercury-containing lamps as a category of universal

waste.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

This rulemaking was in response to Public Act 90-502

which changed the designation of fluorescent and

high-intensity discharge lamps from hazardous waste to

universal waste. The legislation also required the board

to adopt the agency's proposal within six months of

receipt of the agency's proposal.

On November 6, 1997, the board accepted the proposal

for hearing and due to the stringent time frames for

adopting the agency's proposal sent this matter to first

notice without commenting on the proposal. The rule

adopted for first notice was published in the Illinois

As noted earlier, the board held a hearing in this

matter on December 9th in Springfield. At this hearing,

the agency provided testimony in support of its

proposal. The purpose of today's hearing is to allow the

agency to present some follow-up testimony based on

questions asked at the hearing and further question the

agency and also to provide anyone else who would like to

testify in this matter an opportunity to do so.

Procedurally, this is how I would like to proceed.

The agency will provide a summary of the testimony

provided in Springfield. They will then provide some

additional testimony based on questions raised at that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

hearing. We will then allow for questioning of the

agency.

At this questioning period, I prefer that all persons

with questions raise their hand and wait for me to

acknowledge them. After being acknowledged, please state

your name and organization that you represent, if any.

After this questioning period, anyone else who would like

to testify will be given the opportunity to do so.

This hearing will be governed by the board's

procedural rules for regulatory proceedings. All

information which is relevant and not repetitious or

privileged will be admitted. All witnesses will be sworn

and subject to cross-questioning.

Are there any questions regarding the procedures we

will follow this morning?

Seeing none, I will then ask if Chairman Manning or

Board Member

Hennessey have any additional comments

before we proceed.

MS. MANNING: No. Just welcome you all to this

proceeding, and we hope to proceed expeditiously and

judiciously.

Thank you.

MS. HENNESSEY: Nothing in addition to that.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: At this time, I'll turn to

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

the agency.

Mr. Orlinsky, do you want to make an opening

statement?

MR. ORLINSKY: No, I have no opening statement.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Would you like to then

proceed?

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes. We had not prepared to

resummarize our testimony, but if you'd like us to do so,

we can do that.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Why don't you because

there are some people that didn't attend the first

hearing?

MR. ORLINSKY: Do the witnesses need to be

resworn?

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Yes.

Will the court reporter please swear in the

witnesses?

(Whereupon the witnesses, David

Jansen, Jerry Kuhn and Todd

Marvel, were sworn by the

Notary Public.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

WHEREUPON:

D A V I D C. J A N S E N ,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,

testified, and

saith as follows:

MR. JANSEN: Yes. My name is David

Jansen. I'm

the Springfield Regional Manager for the Bureau of Land

in the Field Operations Section. I wanted to summarize

my testimony before the board.

The proposal before the board does not change existing

definitions of universal waste, small and large quantity

handlers,

transporters, and destination facilities. It

does not change existing Part 733 universal waste

requirements for small quantity and large quantity

handlers and

transporters of universal waste regarding

disposal and treatment prohibitions, notification,

accumulation time limits, employee training, responses to

releases, off-site shipments, tracking of shipments and

exports. It also does not change the destination

facility requirements.

The proposal defines the applicability of the

standards and provides for specific mercury-containing

lamp waste management and labeling and marketing

standards for small quantity and large quantity

handlers. Under the proposal

transporters and small

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

quantity and large quantity handlers will not be allowed

to intentionally crush bulbs. The small quantity

handlers do not need to notify their activities or keep

track of their shipments.

The agency estimates that if approximately 23 million

bulbs are generated in Illinois on an annual basis for

disposal, 1,375 pounds of mercury are being discarded

annually. Reducing the amount of mercury going into

landfills and incinerators, you will reduce the amount of

mercury entering groundwater, surface water, the food

chain, and the air we breathe.

The agency will attempt to reduce the number of

mercury-containing lamps destined for disposal primarily

through the education of generators in the requirements

of the proposal and the promotion of land recycling.

During its routine inspections of generators,

transporters, treaters, storers, and disposers of waste,

the agency will determine if they are in compliance with

the lamp rules in an attempt to obtain their voluntary

compliance. The sites not achieving voluntary compliance

with the rules will be considered for enforcement action

following the procedures of Section 31 of the act.

At this time, no special efforts are planned to

specifically target regulated generators of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

mercury-containing lamps for inspection, compliance and

enforcement action.

Any complaints the agency receives regarding the

generation, transportation, storage, treatment or

disposal of mercury-containing lamps will be investigated

and the necessary follow-up action will be completed.

MR. ORLINSKY: Jerry?

WHEREUPON:

J E R

R Y K U H N ,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,

testified, and

saith as follows:

MR. KUHN: My name s Jerry

Kuhn. I'm the manager

of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act unit within the

Permit Section, Division of Land Pollution Control,

Bureau of Land in the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

My comments today will address the characteristic of

spent mercury-containing lamps that render them hazardous

waste and discuss the reasons for prohibiting the

intentional crushing or breaking of the lamps by

handlers.

Many commonly used lights contain small amounts of

mercury. Such lights include fluorescent, high pressure

sodium, mercury vapor, and metal halide lights. Used

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

mercury-containing lights may be a RCRA hazardous waste

if the material exhibits the characteristic of toxicity.

Toxicity is one of the four characteristics used to

identify waste as hazardous along with

ignitability,

corrosivity, and reactivity.

The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, TCLP

test, is used to define the toxicity of a waste. Mercury

is a well-known toxin that primarily affects the central

nervous system and kidneys. If, when using the TCLP, the

extract from a representative sample of waste contains

mercury at a concentration greater than or equal to the

maximum contaminant concentration of point parts per

million, the waste would be hazardous waste.

According to the U.S. EPA, past testing of used

fluorescent lamps showed that a high percentage of the

lamps tested exhibited toxicity characteristic for

mercury.

Generators of used mercury-containing lights are

responsible for determining if their lighting wastes are

hazardous. If the lighting wastes have not been tested

to show that they are not hazardous or if the generator

doesn't have other supporting data such as manufacturer's

information, then the generator should assume the lights

are hazardous and manage them as a hazardous waste.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Also, the proposed regulations prohibit the

intentional crushing for breaking of used

mercury-containing lamps by small and large quantity

handlers and

transporters. They do not prohibit

destination facilities, however, from crushing or

breaking lamps.

In the U.S. EPA report, Mercury Emissions from the

Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps, it was concluded that a

large amount of the total mercury released to the

environment would be as a result of breakage of the lamps

during handling and transportation to the disposal and/or

recycling facility.

Drum top crushing is a treatment technology providing

volume reduction by crushing lamps before transport.

Estimates of the control efficiency provided by these

devices vary from zero percent to about 90 percent for

the more complex devices. Operational difficulties have

been reported, however, including leaks at the seal

between the drum and crusher, resulting in violations of

the OSHA mercury standards.

The report recommends that procedures be established

to minimize emissions during transport and/or processing;

i.e., crushing of used mercury-containing lamps.

The agency believes that limiting the intentional

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

crushing and breakage of lamps to the destination

facility only is the most appropriate way to address this

issue. Destination facilities are subject to full RCRA

permitting requirements, and all would be required to

have the appropriate equipment, expertise, safety

measures, and the ability to respond to and contain

releases.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Thank you.

WHEREUPON:

T O D

D M A R V E L ,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,

testified, and

saith as follows:

MR. MARVEL: My name is Todd Marvel. I'm the RCRA

coordinator -- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

coordinator and the U.S. EPA liaison for the Bureau of

Land, and I've also recently been named the acting

assistant manager of the field operations section within

the Bureau of Land.

My today -- my testimony summary today will cover the

federal rulemaking and RCRA authorization issues as they

relate to mercury-containing lamps as part of the

Universal Waste Rule.

On February 11th of 1993, U.S. EPA proposed a

Universal Waste Rule with new streamlined hazardous waste

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

management regulations governing the collection and

management of certain widely generated hazardous wastes

known as universal waste.

On May 11th of 1995, U.S. EPA promulgated a final

Universal Waste Rule very similar to the proposed rule.

In between those two dates, U.S. EPA published a proposed

rule specifically addressing the regulations for

fluorescent lamp management.

Two options for changing the regulations were

proposed. The first option was a conditional exemption

from regulation as a hazardous waste. The second option

was to add fluorescent lamps to the Universal Waste

Rule.

In the proposed Universal Waste Rule, U.S. EPA

originally had fluorescent lamps as part of the rule.

However, prior to the proposal, fluorescent lamps and

high-intensity discharge lamps were removed from the rule

because they felt that further investigation of the risk

posed by mercury-containing lamps was needed.

To date no further action has been taken to

specifically address the regulation of mercury-containing

lamps under RCRA. However, on June 30th of 1997, U.S.

EPA published a study entitled Mercury Emissions from the

Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps, Final Report. This report

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

is further discussed in Mr.

Kuhn's testimony.

During the Illinois Pollution Control Board's rules

adoption process for the Universal Waste Rule, they

stated that they could not add a hazardous waste to the

Universal Waste Rule until U.S. EPA authorized the

Illinois universal waste regulations. In response to

that order, the agency submitted Authorization Revision

Application No. 7 to the U.S. EPA. This application

contained the Universal Waste Rule.

No action to date has been taken on that application,

although the Waste Pesticides and

Toxics Division of U.S.

EPA Region 5 has reviewed the application and indicated

that the application is complete and ready for approval.

The application -- excuse me. The approval has not

been published in the Federal Register due to several

enforcement-related issues involving statutory revisions

in Illinois over the last several years.

This rulemaking is submitted in response to Public Act

90-502. The Universal Waste Rule with mercury-containing

lamps in the rule is less stringent than the federal RCRA

regulations and could be considered inconsistent with the

federal program.

However, several states' frustration with the lack of

regulatory action by U.S. EPA has prompted the addition

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

of mercury-containing lamps to their Universal Waste

Rules. U.S. EPA has not and has stated that they will

not take action against those states.

Currently, there are 14 states that have

mercury-containing lamps as part of their Universal Waste

Rule. Six of those states are listed in the attachment

to my testimony, and those are the six that we have

copies of the regulations for.

On February 13th of 1997, U.S. EPA published a

universal waste rule Questions and Answer Document. This

document was authored by Mike

Shapiro, the director of

the Office of Solid Waste. In the first question under

that document, there's a question as to whether or not

states can add waste to the Universal Waste Rule prior to

obtaining authorization, and the answer specifically

states that states can add a hazardous waste to the

Universal Waste Rule prior to authorization provided that

the waste meets three criteria identified in the

Universal Waste Rule.

The agency believes that mercury-containing lamps do

meet those three criteria and that that is the

appropriate regulatory proposal for mercury-containing

lamps. The agency has notified U.S. EPA of this action

and provided them with a copy of our proposed rule.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Thank you.

MR. ORLINSKY: That concludes our summarized

testimony.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: There were also some

additional matters that were raised at the previous

hearing.

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes. There were a few questions we

told you that we would get back to you on. One had to do

with the consistency of the proposed regulation to the

handlers in the act as promulgated by the legislature.

Mr. Kuhn has a statement on that.

MR. KUHN: House Bill 2164, Minute Section 22.238

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act designated

waste fluorescent bulbs and high intensity discharge

lamps as universal waste.

Section 22.238 includes a definition of fluorescent or

HID lamps as a lighting device that contains mercury and

generates light through the discharge of electricity.

The definition provided in the agency proposal for

addition to the Universal Waste Rule is for a

mercury-containing lamp, which means an electric lamp in

which mercury is purposely introduced by the

manufacturer.

Now, both definitions include examples of these types

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

of lights. In Section 22.238 of the act, examples are

mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, or metal halite

lamps. In the Universal Waste Rule, the examples

provided for mercury-containing lamps are fluorescent in

HID.

So in summary, in fact, both definitions are

equivalent since both definitions include the universal

lamps that contain mercury. So they're equal even though

they go about different ways to define them.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Do you want to --

Mr. Orlinsky, would you like to proceed with all the

testimony on these additional matters, then we'll do

questions?

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes. The other question, as I

recall, had to do with the economics of the proposal, and

Mr. Jansen will address that.

MR. JANSEN: The agency believes that the proposed

regulations will reduce the regulatory burdens and

accompanying costs on handlers and mercury-containing

lamps in the state of Illinois.

The costs associated with managing the lamps in

accordance with RCRA hazardous waste regulations are

larger than most associated with handling them under the

universal waste regulations. This is because of less of

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

record keeping management.

In addition, the Illinois EPA believes the Illinois

legislature considered the positive economic effects in

directing that mercury-containing lamps be added to the

Universal Waste Rules.

MR. ORLINSKY: That's their testimony.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: I think there was an

exhibit that you also were going to introduce.

MR. PERZAN: Yeah. I'm Chris

Perzan, co-counsel

for the agency.

There was an exhibit that we offered, I think it was

Exhibit 7, at the last hearing. It was a portion of a

document entitled Universal Waste Questions and Answers

Document from the U.S. EPA. The date is February 13,

1997. The board requested that we offer into evidence

the entire document, and we have that here today. I'd

like to offer that.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Thank you.

Are there any objection to the admittance of this

document? Seeing none, the Universal Waste Questions and

Answers Document of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency will be admitted as Exhibit No. 8.

(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 8 is

admitted into evidence.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Mr.

Orlinsky, do you have

anything further at this time?

MR. ORLINSKY: No, we do not.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Okay. Seeing none, we

will now proceed with the questions for the agency's

witnesses.

Does the board have any additional questions?

MS. MANNING: I just -- I just wanted to -- there

was a question we had at the last hearing as well about

the statement that, I think, Mr. Marvel made about the

enforcement activities and the U.S. EPA not acting yet on

the -- the request, the No. 7 request that was given, and

the idea was that there was some sort of enforcement

activity concern that they had, and I had asked whether

the U.S. EPA's concerns to the agency were ever indicated

in writing, and I was wondering if you had an answer for

me on the record, Mr.

Orlinsky, to that question.

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes. I've talked to Renee

Cipriano

who's our associate director who had been dealing with

U.S. EPA on this matter. She said she has not seen

anything in writing from the U.S. EPA. At this point,

it's just a matter of hearsay.

MS. MANNING: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Does the board have any

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

other questions?

We'll open it up then. Is there anyone in the

audience that has questions for the agency at this time?

Okay.

MR. BERNSTEIN: My name is Gene

Bernstein, and I

entered an appearance in this proceeding on behalf of

Commonwealth

Edison and Company.

I'd like to direct just a couple of questions, if I

may to, Mr.

Kuhn or whoever the agency prefers to answer

the question, but I think the questions relate to the

subject that he addressed in his testimony.

Did the agency model the language that it incorporated

in the regulation that prohibits crushing on language

that it found in the regulations in any of the other

states whose regulations were examined?

MR. KUHN: Not that I'm aware of.

MR. BERNSTEIN: Did you find prohibition on

crushing of mercury-containing lamps in the regulation in

any of the other states?

MR. KUHN: Not a prohibition that is as direct as

what ours is.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Mr.

Kuhn, what do you mean

"not as direct"?

MR. KUHN: Well, our language specifically

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

prohibits, and I believe many of the states that prohibit

it, prohibit it through not allowing treatment of

universal waste, and crushing of a lamp would be

treatment.

MR. BERNSTEIN: Excuse me. Can I ask you to

repeat the last few words? What did you say about

crushing and treatment? I couldn't hear the words.

MR. KUHN: Okay. Crushing would be volume

reduction, which if you look at the definition of

treatment in RCRA, it would fall under that definition.

MR. BERNSTEIN: Are you familiar with the EPA

interpretation that crushing of lamps that are destined

for recycling is not regarded as treatment?

MR. KUHN: No, I'm not aware.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Any other questions for

the agency at this time? Seeing none, is there anyone

else who would like to testify today?

The agency, you can be excused.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Yes?

MS. ROSEN: My name is Whitney

Rosen. I'm with

the Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group, and with me

today is Jennifer

Cawein who is going to be offering

testimony on behalf of Commonwealth

Edison and IERG.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: If you can step forward.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

(Brief pause.)

MS. ROSEN: Just before we begin, we have made

copies of Jennifer's testimony available. They are on

the back table. She will be reading the document into

the record, and then we will move to admit it as an

exhibit. I believe we discussed that that would be the

most appropriate way to handle it.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Ms.

Rosen, do you have an

opening statement you'd like to make?

MS. ROSEN: I believe we're okay. I've already

introduced myself for the record and Gene

Bernstein and

Jennifer

Cawein, and, as I said, Jennifer's testimony is

on behalf of Commonwealth

Edison and IERG. IERG is a

trade association of approximately 59 companies that are

members of industry within the state, I guess is a fairly

general description.

A number of our members have issues with the lamps

that could be managed as universal waste lamps pursuant

to the regulations, and we're interested in this issue.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Okay. Would the court

reporter please swear in the witness?

(Witness sworn.)

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

WHEREUPON:

J E N

N I F E R C A W E I N ,

called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn,

testified, and

saith as follows:

MS. CAWEIN: Good morning. My name is Jennifer

Cawein. I'm an environmental engineer in the Corporate

Environmental Services Department at Commonwealth

Edison

Company. For the past four years, I've served as the

company's principal RCRA regulatory expert. My

responsibilities include providing RCRA compliance

guidance to all

ComEd facilities as well as overseeing

ComEd's waste disposal contacts. I also serve on several

Utility Solid Waste Activity Group Committees or USWAG,

an industry group that works closely with the U.S. EPA on

the federal level to promote reasonable regulation of

solid and hazardous wastes.

My educational background includes a bachelor's degree

in chemistry and a master's degree in environmental

engineering both from Northwestern University.

I appreciate being given the opportunity to address

you today on behalf of

ComEd and the Illinois

Environmental Regulatory Group or IERG regarding the

proposed Illinois universal waste standards for the

management of spent mercury-containing lamps.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

As the largest electric utility in Illinois,

ComEd

generates thousands of spent fluorescent lamps each year

from our over 50 different facilities in northern

Illinois. We also have an extensive program that

provides guidance and assistance to our commercial,

municipal, and industrial customers to help them install

energy-efficient lighting. IERG represents 59 members of

industry with numerous facilities throughout the state,

many of whom will be impacted by this rulemaking.

IERG and

ComEd commend the IEPA and the state of

Illinois for its commitment to develop an alternative

regulatory scheme for mercury-containing lighting wastes

that is more appropriate than the existing highly

prescriptive "one-size-fits-all" approach of RCRA

Subtitle C hazardous waste rules.

But having waited years for some relief, we are

disappointed that IEPA has elected to include a

prohibition against intentional crushing of spent

fluorescent lamps.

While we understand the concern that IEPA has

expressed regarding the integrity of some of today's

crushers, we believe that a blanket prohibition against

crushing is short sighted and unwise. Lamp recycling is

a relatively recent phenomenon, and the technology is

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

still evolving. Barring crushing is likely to preclude

the introduction in Illinois of important improvements in

lamp recycling technology.

It would unnecessarily inflate the cost of recycling

and place Illinois businesses who wish to recycle at a

disadvantage relative to their counterparts in other

states.

In short, it may seriously undermine attempts to

increase lamp recycling and mercury recovery in the state

of Illinois. We were aware of no other state that has

imposed such a prohibition.

At the outset, we should note that crushing is not

widely utilized in Illinois.

ComEd, for example, crushes

fewer than one percent of its generated lamps, all in a

highly controlled environment. We are, however, aware of

several trends in the mercury recovery and recycling

industry including the development of new and improved

crushers that are expected to significantly drive down

the cost of lamp recycling and mercury recovery. Cost

reduction, we believe, will be the primary factor in

capturing more lamps for mercury recovery, and we should

encourage the use in Illinois of new technology that may

eventually result in more recycling.

It's important for the board to understand that only a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

small fraction of discarded mercury-containing lamps will

be directly affected by this rulemaking because most

lamps are generated by Conditionally Exempt Small

Quantity Generators or

CESQGs. CESQGs are currently

exempt from most RCRA Subtitle C requirements. They will

also be exempt from the universal waste standards and

requirements.

The U.S. EPA recognizes that monthly generation of

about 350 four-foot lamps would be necessary to exceed

the 100 kilogram per month threshold for Conditionally

Exempt Small Quantity Generators which is roughly 4,200

lamps discarded per year.

After analyzing commercial floor space and lamp

density, the U.S. EPA concludes that less than 20 percent

of commercial buildings are large enough to exceed this

threshold and that 80 to 90 percent of discarded lamps

fall into the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity

Generator or Subtitle C status and these estimates come

from the Mercury Emissions from the Disposal of

Fluorescent Lamps final report at 2-23.

A prohibition against crushing under the universal

waste standards will apply only to the regulated 20

percent of discarded lamps. Ironically, the generators

of these lamps, who either generate large quantities or

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

generate other hazardous wastes, will tend to be those

that are the most

knowledgable about potential problems

with crushers.

These larger and more aware generators are also the

driving force behind new technology development to lower

mercury recovery and lamp recycling costs, including,

potentially, the creation of new and more protective

crushers.

ComEd was, in fact, told a few months ago by

one mercury retorting facility that it's in the process

of developing a new crusher that, quote, will satisfy

even ComEd.

IERG and

ComEd agree with IEPA that the new universal

waste standards should result in some increased recycling

by encouraging on-site consolidation of lighting wastes

and by enhancing compliance through increased generator

awareness. The majority of lamps, however, will remain

unregulated and unaffected by this rulemaking.

If Illinois truly wishes to have an impact on mercury

emissions attributable to lamp disposal, it must

encourage mercury recovery and recycling within the

unregulated 80 percent. Thus the prime environmental

benefit of the rule should come from the 80 percent of

used lamps that historically end up as municipal solid

waste.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

We firmly believe that most companies, whether or not

it's required, would choose to recycle lamps over

landfilling provided the costs can be brought down to a

comparable level. Therefore, Illinois must promote

policies to help drive down the cost of recycling.

Unfortunately, a prohibition on crushing would have the

opposite effect, keeping costs high. More importantly, a

crushing prohibition will likely slam the door on

existing -- on certain emerging technologies that are

expected to reduce costs.

The lamp recycling industry is in its infancy. We are

unaware of any

recycler in the Midwest that's more than

five years old, and like any other new industry, it will

likely undergo many transformations as it matures.

Currently, all-inclusive prices for lamp recycling in

northern Illinois range from a low of about 35 cents per

12-foot bulb to a high of about $1.25 per four-foot

bulb. There are two major cost components, the cost

related to the actual processing of the spent lamps and

the cost associated with handling, management, storage,

and transportation of the bulbs.

Disregarding the costs of handling, management, and

storage, the cost associated with transportation can

comprise up to 60 percent of the total recycling cost.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Because Illinois has done little to promote the

development of the recycling industry within our state,

there are no land

recyclers in Illinois. Consequently,

lamps destined for recycling must be transported to other

states and thus transportation costs can be high.

How can transportation costs be reduced? One way

would be to eliminate transportation entirely by

fostering the development of on-site mobile recycling

units. We are aware of several

recyclers that have

developed the technology to do just that. However,

because a mobile unit would require intentional crushing,

a crushing prohibition will discourage the development of

this option.

Another way to reduce transportation costs is to

transport more lamps per trip. Including lamps as a

category of universal waste, it is, in fact, expected to

lower the cost of transportation slightly by allowing

generators to build up larger quantities of lamps before

calling for a pick up, thereby reducing the number of

milk runs.

However, space is often at a premium particularly in

and around the city of Chicago, and many facilities

simply will not have enough room to build up the quantity

of lamps necessary to see real and significant cost

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

savings.

Crushing, however, would allow significant volume

reduction in both lamp storage and transportation.

Obviously, the more lamps transported per trip, the less

the cost per lamp. Although most

recyclers now prefer to

receive lamps whole due to the design of their equipment,

there's a growing initiative among mercury retorting

facilities to encourage generators to crush lamps.

One large mercury retorting facility has even informed

us that it's looking into developing a lamp maintenance

program similar to that used for parts washers in which

the lamp crushing equipment would be installed, serviced,

and maintained on the generator's premises by the mercury

recovery facility.

Crushing can be accomplished in a manner that's

protective of workers and the environment, crushing units

in which air is passed through a cyclone, a HEPA filter,

and a carbon absorber before being released are now

available and reportedly capture roughly 90 percent of

the mercury. Better systems are on the horizon.

Prohibiting all crushing would preclude the use of not

just today's crude drum top crushers, but also the more

efficient devices including those likely to emerge in the

next few years. And we believe that the long-term

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

benefits in cost reduction for mercury recovery and the

resultant increase in recycling that may be promoted

through the eventual use of crushers will far outweigh

the negative impact created by the potential release of

mercury from the few poorly-designed crushers now in

service.

Our suggestion to fix the proposed regulation is

simple. Section 733.113(d), Waste Management, as

proposed by IEPA should be revised as follows: In

Paragraph 2, a large (sic) quantity handler of universal

waste lamps must at all times manage waste lamps in a way

that minimizes insert unintentional lamp breakage.

Paragraph 5, striking universal waste

mercury-containing lamps shall not be intentionally

broken or crushed and replacing with universal waste

lamps may be intentionally broken or crushed to reduce

storage volume. Such breaking, crushing, handling, or

storing must be conducted in equipment specifically

designed and operated to minimize the release of mercury

to the workplace or environment and must ensure

compliance with applicable OSHA exposure levels for

mercury. Similar language changes should be made to

733.133(d) and 733.151.

The simplicity of this language is its greatest

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

virtue. It allows crushing activities that are conducted

in a manner that is protective of both workers in the

environment, but it does so without imposing an

inflexible standard that could preclude innovation and

progress in an industry, lamp recycling, that is likely

to experience significant changes in the coming years.

It would likely be a costly mistake to regulate based

solely on today's conditions and without regard for a

different tomorrow.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in these

proceedings.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Rosen, do you have anything else?

MS. ROSEN: Well, I would like to have this

admitted as an exhibit.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Are there any objections

to the admittance of this testimony? Seeing none, we

will enter into the record as Exhibit No. 9 the statement

of Jennifer Cawein.

(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 9 is

admitted into evidence.)

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: We'll now open it up for

any questions -- well, I guess, Ms. Rosen, do you have

anything further?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. ROSEN: No, I have nothing further at this

time.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Thank you.

We'll open it up for questions for Ms. Cawein. I will

first ask Mr. Orlinsky. I realize that the agency just

received this testimony this morning. Would you like to

take a short recess to go over it, or are you ready?

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, we have several questions

that we can ask now, but I think we could probably do a

better job if you can give us a short recess.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Certainly. We'll do

that. Will a ten-minute recess be enough?

MR. ORLINSKY: Sure.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Then we'll reconvene in

ten minutes.

(Break taken.).

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: We'll now proceed with

questions for Ms. Cawein.

Are there any questions?

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes, the agency has some

questions.

Ms. Cawein, is it my understanding then that the main

reason that Commonwealth Edison is proposing that

crushing of mercury-containing lamps be permissible is

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

that by doing a crushing, you'd be reducing the volume of

the lamps?

MS. CAWEIN: I would say the main reason is to

leave open options for the future. We don't know, but it

appears that that may be one of the primary cost savings,

but, again, we're speculating right now about that. We

don't know what's coming down the road. We want to be

open to what's coming down the road.

MR. ORLINSKY: But there's no question though that

crushing would lead to volume reduction?

MS. CAWEIN: Right.

MR. ORLINSKY: Sections 731.111(b) and 733.131(b)

of the current board regulations prohibit a handler of

universal waste from diluting or treating a waste.

In your opinion, wouldn't both crushing constitute

treatment?

MS. CAWEIN: No, not if it was intended to lead to

recycling because the U.S. EPA has determined that that

is their interpretation, and we have a letter to that

effect.

MR. ORLINSKY: That letter you have is not -- is

not an exhibit in this hearing at this point, is it?

MR. BERNSTEIN: I don't believe so. We were not

at the last hearing.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. ROSEN: No, it's not part of the record.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Would you like to

introduce it into the record?

MS. CAWEIN: Yes, yes. I can read portions of it.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Please.

MS. CAWEIN: Thank you for your letter dated March

30th, 1992 --

MS. ROSEN: One moment. Identify who the letter

is from and who it is directed to.

MS. CAWEIN: Oh, right. The letter is from

Michael Petruska, chief regulatory development branch of

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

MR. BERNSTEIN: Spell Petruska.

MS. CAWEIN: Petruska is spelled P-e-t-r-u-s-k-a.

And it's dated June 5th, 1995, and was in response to a

letter from Mr. Steven O. Jenkins, chief RCRA compliance

branch land division of Alabama Department of

Environmental Management.

The letter addresses a question that Mr. Jenkins had

obviously asked about what he was interpreting as

conflicting guidance from the U.S. EPA on the crushing of

mercury-containing lamps.

The original letter had referenced two documents from

the U.S. EPA. The first document referenced was a letter

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

dated July 28, 1993, from Jeffery Denit, D-e-n-i-t,

acting director of the office of solid waste. This

letter clarifies, quote, that the crushing of fluorescent

lamps as a necessary step of a legitimate recycling

process is exempt under 40 CFR 261.6(c) and, therefore,

would not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulatory

requirements except as specified in 406 CFR 261.6(d).

The letter further clarifies that the crushing

activities may occur at this generator's facility or at

the recycler's facility and remain exempt under 40 CFR

261.6(c). The agency had considered an interpretation of

261.6(c) where the recycling would have to take place at

the same site as the crushing but determined that as long

as recycling occurs, it does not have to be at the same

site.

Under this interpretation, the person claiming the

exemption, the generator, is responsible for ensuring

that the crush bulbs do end up being recycled, not just

disposed of. This remains the current regulatory status

of lamp crushing activities that are part of a legitimate

recycling process.

MS. ROSEN: We'd like to have this admitted for

the record.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Are there any objections

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

to the admittance of this document?

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, I would like to know before

it's admitted -- the copy of the letter I have has no

address on it. We don't know who Michael Petruska is, if

he's at U.S. EPA headquarters, if he's in one of the

regional offices, and as long as it's not going to be

admitted for the purpose of stating that this is U.S. EPA

policy because we don't know that, we just have a letter

from one person of some unidentified office to another

person in Alabama that -- you know, with those caveats, I

have no objection to it being admitted as an exhibit.

MS. ROSEN: Well, I would note that the letter is

on United States Environmental Protection Agency

letterhead, and we will make an effort to better identify

if that is from within a region or from the main

office. We will trace back that address within our

comment.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: If you could provide those

in your final comments, that would be great.

MS. ROSEN: Yes.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Mr. Orlinsky, then you are

objecting to this document?

MR. ORLINSKY: No, I will not object to it.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: All right. Seeing no

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

objections, the document from Michael Petruska will be

admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. Ten.

(Whereupon, Exhibit No. 10 is

admitted into evidence.)

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Mr. Orlinsky, do you have

further questions?

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes, I do.

Along those same lines of treatment, you told us what

Mr. Petruska's opinion is at least. I just would like

you to take a look for a second at the Illinois Pollution

Control Board definition of treatment which is found as

35 Illinois Administrative code 720.110, and I can read

that to you.

It says treatment means any method, technique, or

process including neutralization, design to change the

physical, chemical, or biological character or

composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize

such waste or so as to recover energy or material

resources from the waste or so as to render such waste

not hazardous or less hazardous, safer to transport,

store or dispose of, or amenable for recovery, amenable

for storage or reduced in volume.

Given that definition of treatment, which is the

board's current definition of treatment, wouldn't you

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

think that crushing would include changing the physical

characteristic of a waste so as to make it amenable for

storage or reduced in volume?

MS. ROSEN: Could I ask that we have a -- that she

could look at the copy while she gives her answer?

(Mr. Orlinsky tendered documents

to the witness.)

MS. ROSEN: Thank you.

MS. CAWEIN: First of all, I believe this word for

word comes out of the U.S. EPA guidelines, Federal RCRA

guidelines.

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, my question to you has

nothing to do with federal guidelines.

My question to you is, does crushing constitute

treatment as so defined by Pollution Control Board

Regulations?

MS. CAWEIN: I'm not sure that it does, I mean,

safer to transport. Reduced in volume, yes, it does

reduce the volume.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. Thank you. That's all I

wanted to know.

Now, I would like to take a look at your testimony

concerning your proposed regulation. First of all, when

you refer to 733.113(d), I think you probably were

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

mistaken. You said large quantity handlers. I assume

you meant that to be small quantity handlers because the

large quantity handlers were at 733.133?

MS. CAWEIN: Oh, yes. Right. All three sections

should be amended in a similar way, yes, you're right.

MR. ORLINSKY: All right. But my question to you

has to do with the language where you say such breaking,

crushing, handling, or storage must be conducted in

equipment specifically designed and operated to minimize

the release of mercury to the workplace or environment.

Now, minimize is a pretty general term, and I just

pulled out a dictionary, and my dictionary defines it as

minimize, to reduce to the smallest possible amount,

extent, size, or degree.

Are you then proposing that the smallest -- that by

minimizing it that companies that do crushing should be

required to put out the least amount of emissions as

possible?

MS. CAWEIN: I think as far as it's technically

feasible, yes. I think that the word "minimize" in this

context means that the person who's conducting the

crushing has an obligation to ensure that they're doing

it in some way that limits the emissions of mercury to

the environment, and that means to me that they can't do

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

it with baseball bats or trash compactors. They must

have some equipment that's designed for that purpose, to

minimize and reduce the emissions of mercury.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. The U.S. EPA report which is

Exhibit 3 identifies crushing technology, and it says

that crushers have -- that they're aware of crushers with

control efficiencies ranging from zero to 90 percent.

Would 90 percent then be the efficiency you're looking

at as being the best available technique to reduce

emissions?

MS. CAWEIN: Where was that?

MR. ORLINSKY: In your testimony, you refer to the

federal report that says that -- you said crushing units

are available that capture roughly 90 percent of the

mercury, and that figure came -- I'm assuming came from

the federal report, which is Exhibit 3.

MS. CAWEIN: No. That, I did not get from the

federal report. No. I don't really recall anything that

says crushers in the federal report except that it may be

a cost saving measure for large mercury retrofit

projects. That's the only recollection I have of them

mentioning it.

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, maybe I can --

MS. CAWEIN: Oh, here. Okay. Here we go. Yes.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

Estimates of control efficiency provided by these devices

vary from zero percent for the uncontrolled case to about

90 percent for the more complex devices.

MR. ORLINSKY: So then would 90 percent efficiency

be the equivalent of minimizing the releases?

MS. CAWEIN: Well, I would say that when you're

talking about minimizing, you're talking about looking at

the current technology that's available. This number and

these figures come from a report that came out in 1994.

I'm not sure that that's the current state.

MR. ORLINSKY: So you're saying it may be greater

than 90 percent?

MS. CAWEIN: It could be.

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, wouldn't it make more sense

then to put in an efficiency figure than just say a

general term like minimize?

MS. CAWEIN: Well, I think it's a little premature

to do that, and I think that we don't really know the

current state of the technology as far as -- or where

it's going, and I think you're locking yourself into a

number too early --

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay.

MS. CAWEIN: -- if we try to do that.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. In Exhibit 6, which is a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

compilation of the different state regulations that we're

aware of that have to do with mercury-containing lamps,

the Oregon provision allows for crushing, and let me just

read it to you and see if you think that that would

comport with what you're suggesting.

It says handlers of universal waste may treat

mercury-containing lamps for the purpose of volume

reduction at the site they were generated provided the

handler crushes the lamps in a controlled unit that does

not allow releases of mercury or other hazardous

constituents to the environment.

So the question is, do you believe that the Oregon --

that the Oregon regulation is such that it would minimize

emissions to the environment?

MS. CAWEIN: What was the question again?

MR. ORLINSKY: Let me rephrase it. Let me

rephrase it. We were talking about what minimize means,

and then we -- I cited the Oregon regulation that says no

emissions of mercury should go into the environment.

Is that -- would that be equivalent to minimizing?

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah, I would say so.

MR. ORLINSKY: Would that be 100 percent of

efficiency they're looking for in the Oregon standard?

MS. CAWEIN: That to me seems very restrictive and

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

that is what they're looking for, and I think that is

what the goal is.

MR. ORLINSKY: You're saying that's a goal, but do

you think that's not enforceable?

MS. CAWEIN: I don't know how you could especially

since there's no detection equipment that goes down to

zip.

MR. ORLINSKY: Are you -- okay. Let me go on.

Are you aware of any U.S. EPA policy that would state

that if bulbs are to be crushed that all emissions must

be contained?

MS. CAWEIN: No. The U.S. EPA has stated that

they're looking at that right now --

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. Well, let me.

MS. CAWEIN: -- as part of the universal waste

rulemaking.

MR. ORLINSKY: Let me cite you the Petruska

letter, which was just entered into as an exhibit which

states such waste management requirements may include

volume reduction incident to collection activities and

should be designed to ensure that these management

practices do not dilute the hazardous constituents or

release them to the environment.

After researching and considering the issue, a state

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

may decide that crushing be allowed as appropriate

management if the crushing process was performed in a

controlled unit which did not allow any releases of

mercury or other hazardous constituents to the

environment.

By any releases of mercury, is that then saying that

you must have a control of an efficiency of 100 percent

if you're going to crush bulbs?

MS. CAWEIN: First of all, this is not a

rulemaking guidance, and I think --

MR. ORLINSKY: Oh, I understand that, but --

MS. CAWEIN: -- that they would like that, and I

think everybody who would like that wants to be protected

and would want to eliminate it. And here they're taking

about design of the equipment. Again, we may be limited

on what's possible technology-wise.

MR. ORLINSKY: So are you saying then that the

Oregon regulation which says no emissions of mercury to

the environment and the Petruska letter which says states

should be allowed to -- to allow the handlers to control

as long as there's no emissions to the environment, then

at the present time those are standards that cannot be

achieved?

MS. CAWEIN: Can you repeat that?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. ORLINSKY: Are you saying that those standards

of no emissions to the environment could not be achieved

at the present time?

MS. CAWEIN: No, I'm not saying that. I'm not

saying that. I don't know. I don't know the limits of

our technology right now.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. Let me ask you a further

question.

Given your proposal which asks handlers to minimize

emissions of mercury to the environment if an Illinois

EPA inspector was to go and observe crushing, what would

be a violation? How would that inspector know if this

regulation was being violated?

MS. CAWEIN: Again, I think it would be reasonable

to assume that if an inspector walked in and saw that the

crushing was being done in a unit that has been

manufactured and designed to contain mercury and to

control the release of mercury that that would be in

compliance with what we are saying.

And I don't know how far ahead or how far behind. I

don't see it as having to have the crusher of the moment

being in compliance. I mean, he may get something that

is the state of the art, and two years later something

slightly better comes out. I wouldn't say that he would

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

necessarily be out of compliance if he didn't have the

very latest as it comes out every time.

I mean, there has to be a certain amount of

reasonableness associated with this in order to encourage

this among the people that are not subject to this

especially.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. But the U.S. EPA report,

Exhibit 3, says that they've looked at crushing equipment

with efficiencies that varied from zero percent to 90

percent.

If an inspector were to observe crushing in a piece of

equipment that had a 20 percent efficiency, would that be

in compliance with your proposed rule?

MS. CAWEIN: I would say that the word "minimize"

is flexible enough so that the Illinois EPA could make

their own determination about whether that was minimized

or not. The inspector could make the call about whether

that was minimized or not. Personally, I don't think it

would be.

MR. ORLINSKY: But are you willing to give an

opinion as to what control efficiencies the inspector

should be able to see before in order to say that

minimizing emissions are taking place?

MS. CAWEIN: Well, I don't know how you would

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

demonstrate that. I don't know how an inspector would

walk in and know how to measure that.

I mean, in order to have a reduction, you have to know

what the influence stream is, and you would have to know

what you're reducing from, and there's no way of really

knowing that. The only way -- that's why we thought the

applicable OSHA exposure levels -- that is a number, and

if they're exceeding that, they're in violation according

the way we've written this.

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, is there a way -- is there a

methodology by which the EPA inspector could go in to a

plant and know whether the OSHA levels are being

exceeded?

MS. CAWEIN: If he had a monitor, he could.

MR. ORLINSKY: So are you saying then the

inspector should have monitors or that the plant should

have monitors?

MS. CAWEIN: I really don't think I should take a

position on that.

MR. ORLINSKY: All right. I have no further

questions, but Mr. Perzan does.

MS. CAWEIN: Okay.

MR. PERZAN: Yeah. Can you tell me right now if

you know that there's a significant difference in the

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

cost between getting rid of a crushed lamp versus an

uncrushed lamp?

MS. CAWEIN: It depends on who you talk to.

There's a brand new mercury reporting facility that is

very large that will charge you less for crushed lamps.

Most recyclers currently in existence though prefer to

get lamps whole, and it depends on a number of factors.

It depends on where you're transporting from. If

you're going from Carbondale up to Wisconsin and include

the transportation costs there, it's going to be more

expensive than if you're going from Zion to Wisconsin.

MR. PERZAN: I think the question was a little bit

more specific though. I mean, do you know if there's a

difference?

MS. CAWEIN: There is a difference usually.

Although, I've calculated out for some facilities where

it comes out to be just about the same --

MR. PERZAN: It's about the same?

MS. CAWEIN: -- as the prices they quoted, but

we're using estimates on how many lamps fit in a drum of

crushed lamps, for example.

MR. PERZAN: So in the facilities that you've

contacted, it's about the same to dispose of or recycle

crushed versus a noncrushed lamp?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. CAWEIN: No, none of them -- we're not talking

disposing.

MR. PERZAN: I mean recycling.

MS. CAWEIN: Recycling crushed lamps versus

recycling whole lamps? Yeah. It --

MR. PERZAN: So allowing --

MS. CAWEIN: -- varies depending on the facility.

MR. PERZAN: But I thought you just said that of

the ones that you've talked to, there isn't a difference

really?

MS. CAWEIN: No. I said I've talked to a facility

where there was no big difference. I've talked to other

facilities where there's a big difference. I've talked

to facilities where in one case a whole lamp is actually

more expensive than a crushed lamp.

MR. PERZAN: Do you know how much --

MS. CAWEIN: So I've seen all of it.

MR. PERZAN: Do you know how much a crushing

machine costs?

MS. CAWEIN: All I know is from a conversation I

had with Jerry Kuhn that some of them can be 15 to

$20,000. Other than that, I don't know.

MR. PERZAN: Do you think the cost of operating

and running and managing the crushing machine would have

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

an impact on the cost of recycling?

MS. CAWEIN: It would depend on who was doing the

crushing. If it could -- yeah. It would have some kind

of an impact either lower or raise it depending on who

was doing it, I suppose.

MR. PERZAN: So I think in your testimony you said

that a lot of recyclers now or most or all prefer whole

bulbs record than crushed?

MS. CAWEIN: Yes.

MR. PERZAN: Do you know why that is?

MS. CAWEIN: The design of their equipment. Some

of them their mercury retorting facilities are small, and

it's more economical for them to separate out the

phosphor powder and only retort that as opposed to the

whole crushed lamps.

Other mercury retorting facilities that are large and

have large units and are doing other mercury wastes, it

can be cheaper to do the whole lamp rather than go

through the separate step of separating out the glass

from the phosphor powder from the aluminium end cap from

the mercury vapor, so. . .

MR. PERZAN: So let me ask you a little bit about

the process then.

If a generator crushes the lamps and gives it to a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

transporter, say, how would that be contained? How would

you make sure that whatever mercury has been contained

during the crushing process stays contained when it's

transferred to the transporter and it goes and it ends up

at the recycling facility?

MS. CAWEIN: Well, No. 1, a lot of recyclers only

do the part up to the torting, the retort.

MR. PERZAN: I'm not sure I understand.

MS. CAWEIN: A lot of recyclers will only do the

separation of the glass from the phosphor powder from the

aluminum end caps. They take the phosphor powder which

contains most of the bound mercury. They put it in drums

which is very concentrated, and they ship it now to the

mercury retorting facilities in large truckloads. The

way they're doing it --

MR. PERZAN: Okay. I'm -- you're a couple steps

ahead of me here though. That wasn't really my

question. My question was --

MS. CAWEIN: Well, the way they're doing it --

MR. PERZAN: -- generator to transporter to

recycler.

MS. CAWEIN: I was going to say the way they're

doing it is --

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Just one speak at a time

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

for the court reporter.

MS. CAWEIN: The way they're doing it is in sealed

drums, you know, and that's a lot more concentrated than

you're going to get from a lamp crusher as far as the

mercury.

I think if a generator has a drum that is sealed to go

there, it should be all right because --

MR. PERZAN: How does the -- and I'm not real

familiar with this.

How does the crushed lamp get from the crusher to the

drum?

MS. CAWEIN: The crushing is done in the drum.

MR. PERZAN: Okay.

MS. CAWEIN: But, again, you have to remember

we're talking about present technology. My point is, as

I said, we don't crush lamps. We don't think there's a

lot of crushing going on, and a lot of what you're

raising here is the reason it's not done because the

technology is not good enough yet.

But we think there are developments to encourage the

crushing with better technology, and you're asking me to

speculate about technology that I don't know.

MR. PERZAN: Well, I'm not asking you because this

is -- I guess the key to your argument has been that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

there are going to be these technologies. I just want to

know -- and I think the board will probably be interested

in hearing what the technology is right now because, you

know, these will become final within a couple of months,

and this is what we'll be dealing with.

MS. CAWEIN: Well, the technology right now is you

have to remember that most lamps are being put in trash

compactors, period, and that's where most of them are

going. So we have to leave open the door for these --

any initiatives that are going to help with mercury

recovery and recycling.

MR. PERZAN: Okay. You talked earlier about

how -- and I'm paraphrasing your testimony, and correct

me if I'm wrong. Conditionally exempt small quantity

generators, you were talking about, the way I understand

it, that allowing crushing would encourage more

conditionally exempt small quantity generators to use the

Universal Waste Rule to sent these to recycling?

MS. CAWEIN: Um-hum.

MR. PERZAN: Isn't it true that even after this

Universal Waste Rule is passed the conditionally exempt

small quantity generator can still toss it in the

dumpster, if they wanted to?

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MR. PERZAN: Is there a significant economic

incentive for them to take?

MS. CAWEIN: Right now, no.

MR. PERZAN: No. So there isn't right now?

MS. CAWEIN: No, there isn't.

MR. PERZAN: Okay.

MS. CAWEIN: And that's what we want to encourage,

the development of economic incentive.

MR. PERZAN: I guess I'm still not clear on how

that will happen.

MS. CAWEIN: Like I said, the lamp recycling

industry is very young. It's very young. The oldest one

in the Midwest is '92. I don't think the equipment

actually began until '91 or was even developed to do

that. So if it's like every other industry, there will

be new innovations which will lead to lower costs

altogether.

MR. PERZAN: Now, have you discussed with people

who would manage these, what you see, just generally what

these new innovations are? You've talked with them,

right?

MS. CAWEIN: I have -- you mean people who are

developing things? Yes.

I've been told there are crushers now that have no

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

mercury emissions. I haven't seen them, but I've been

told they're being developed. I've been told that

certain people are looking at becoming the Safety Kleen

of the fluorescent lamp world where they would just

maintain crushers to -- and I guess the whole purpose is

to come up with something that is more efficient.

And I've also been told by some that the true value in

lamp recycling is to recover mercury, that the raw

material value in a fluorescent lamp is very low, and

there's glass -- mostly glass. There's aluminum, a tiny

bit, in the end caps, and there's phosphor powder, and a

little bit of mercury, none of which have a tremendous

amount of economic value.

So the real advantage to encouraging recycling is

really to capture mercury, and I've been told by some

that if they avoid doing the little stuff and go straight

for the mercury which after all is the true value of

their service, they may be able to lower costs.

MR. PERZAN: Let me ask you another question.

Do you think it's important, from your general

understanding as to how these machines work, to keep them

up and keep them maintained?

If they're not maintained, they don't contain

properly, is that a correct statement?

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

MS. CAWEIN: I don't know.

MR. PERZAN: Do you think it's fair to say --

MS. CAWEIN: I've never operated one. We don't --

MR. PERZAN: Do you think it's fair to say though

that if the machine isn't properly maintained and it's

designed to reach a certain level of efficiency that it's

not going to contain as well as it might?

MS. CAWEIN: I would think. I don't know. I'm

speculating.

MR. PERZAN: Who would be responsible for the

maintenance of the machines?

MS. CAWEIN: It would depend. If you had Safety

Kleen coming out every month or whatever, maybe they

would be. If it was the generator, maybe the generator

would. Again, we're speculating. I'm guessing.

MR. PERZAN: Okay. Do you think a little bit of

oversight on the part of the agency might be helpful in

terms of making sure that machines are maintained

properly, if they're operating?

MS. CAWEIN: I'm not sure I understand. You mean

through a regulation?

MR. PERZAN: Inspection.

MS. CAWEIN: Inspection. If you think that a

typical inspector would know how to.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

100

MR. PERZAN: Do you think that notification

requirements should crushing be allowed might be a

notification to the agency that crushing activities were

taking place at some point would be a reasonable thing to

have required by the regulations?

MS. CAWEIN: Well, I think certainly if somebody

was in the business of doing this and was, therefore,

maybe a large quantity handler, I think that would be

reasonable.

On the other hand, what we're really trying to do here

is bring the ones that are not regulated and the

conditionally exempt small quantity generators into

becoming, in essence, small quantity handlers.

I think notification, since they wouldn't have to

notify under any other requirements in here, would act as

a distance center.

MR. PERZAN: Do you think you could do it on, say,

a one-page letter to the agency saying that we are doing

this, this activity, and they may never be inspected for

it?

MS. CAWEIN: Well, again, it's adding another

layer to maybe someone who you're encouraging to become a

small quantity generator -- handler rather.

MR. PERZAN: Do you really think that would be a

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

101

distance center?

MS. CAWEIN: I think it could.

MR. PERZAN: Do you think maybe the people that

would be unwilling to do that maybe shouldn't be doing

crushing?

MS. CAWEIN: I don't know. If you're looking at

the alternative, which is throwing it in the trash

dumpster or throwing it in the trash compactor, I'm not

so sure.

MR. PERZAN: Did you read through the U.S. EPA

report that, I think, is Exhibit 3?

In that report, I think it says that an improperly

functioning crusher machine can actually create more

emissions than incidental breakage during -- you know,

like in a dumpster because of the way it can propel the

emissions outside.

Are you familiar with that?

MS. CAWEIN: I think that is more of an OSHA

issue. I think ultimately if it's broken in the

dumpster, I think you're going to -- by the time it

reaches the landfill, you will have lost the mercury to

the environment.

If you're talking about more concentrated, it's more

of a safety concern, I would think, more concentrated

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

102

emissions in the vicinity of the unit and, again, which

is another reason why we think an OSHA -- yeah. They

already have to comply with an OSHA standard, then they

wouldn't be in that event.

MR. PERZAN: Well, let's all concede that OSHA

has -- you know, OSHA regs. are applicable, and they're

important here, but don't you think that the possibility

of increased emissions is also a matter that the board

and the agency would be concerned with as well?

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah. But I don't see how it would

be increased emissions. I can see how it would be more

concentrated emissions, but I'm not so sure it would be

increased. I mean, there's only so much mercury in a

lamp.

MR. PERZAN: Well, more coming out of the machine,

I think, is the concern that the U.S. EPA has.

MS. CAWEIN: Okay. I'm going to have to think

about that because I haven't really given that any

thought.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Does the agency have any

further questions?

MR. ORLINSKY: Yes. I just have a few more.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: You can answer that

question in your final comments.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

103

MS. CAWEIN: Okay.

MR. ORLINSKY: I just have a few more questions.

You testified that ComEd does already at this point

crush some of its lamps, albeit not a lot, but they are

doing --

MS. CAWEIN: A tiny fraction.

MR. ORLINSKY: -- some crushing.

Where do they do their crushing?

MS. CAWEIN: We do it in a nuclear station.

MR. ORLINSKY: Which station?

MS. CAWEIN: In Quad Cities.

MR. ORLINSKY: So it's just one Edison facility?

MS. CAWEIN: No, and it's only a tiny fraction of

theirs. They are in the process of sending a whole slew

of lamps probably today to a recycler in Minnesota, Quad

Cities is. They crush only the lamps that come out of

the radiologically-protected area, and they crush it

together with their radioactive waste.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. But that is the only ComEd

facility where any crushing takes place?

MS. CAWEIN: I think one of our nuclear facilities

does the same, but, again, it's only a small fraction of

the lamps that they generate.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. At those facilities, what

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

104

types of crushing equipment do they use, do you know?

MS. CAWEIN: No. And as I said, it's done -- it's

a crusher that was not designed specifically for lamp

crushing but was designed for compacting and getting

ready for landfilling radioactive dry wastes.

MR. ORLINSKY: So do you know if they have any --

if those crushers at those facilities have any controlled

equipment at all?

MS. CAWEIN: Oh, yes. I can guarantee they're

very, very highly controlled. In fact, the whole room is

highly controlled. So I can guarantee you that no

mercury is getting out from those -- those activities.

MR. ORLINSKY: So you're talking about crushers

with very high control efficiencies?

MS. CAWEIN: Um-hum. It's not just the crusher

though.

MR. ORLINSKY: But while the crushing activities

are going on, there's a very high level of control

efficiency?

MS. CAWEIN: Yes.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. Do you have any idea what

that equipment costs?

MS. CAWEIN: No.

MR. ORLINSKY: Just one other question, before

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

105

when you were talking about trying to get the

conditionally exempt small quantity generators into the

program so that they would be doing recycling as well,

even under your proposal though, they would not be

required to do anything?

MS. CAWEIN: No.

MR. ORLINSKY: Okay. If crushing were allowed and

there would be a set price for whatever recycling costs,

I mean it may be across the board, it would still always

be cheaper though, wouldn't it, for the conditionally

exempt small quantity generators to continue tossing

their bulbs in the dumpster?

A. Probably. But I'd like to add that our experience

has been that most people want to recycle and will be

willing to pay even if it's a little more to recycle over

landfilling because they feel it's the right thing to

do. I think there has been a lot of publicizing about

mercury in the environment, and we know that a lot of our

customers want to recycle. But the costs are so high

that it's difficult for them to justify economically.

MR. ORLINSKY: Other than general statements like

that, do you have any specific information that you can

provide the board with?

MS. CAWEIN: I can get it.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

106

MR. ORLINSKY: Well, I'm sure that will be helpful

to the board.

Thank you. I have nothing further.

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah. We can get letters from some

of our customers.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: That's fine.

Are there any other questions for Miss Cawein? I

think the board has some for you.

MS. CAWEIN: Okay.

MS. MANNING: We do.

In addition to the letters that you've just provided,

I would like you to provide whatever information you have

on these technologies and developing technologies. In

your testimony, you talked about the 90 percent rate, yet

there's no -- and then you indicated, I think, in your

testimony that it came from a figure in 1984 or

something?

MS. CAWEIN: '94.

MS. MANNING: '94. I'm sorry. If you could

provide the basis for those conclusions, I think that

would be helpful.

MS. CAWEIN: Okay. You have to understand that a

lot of that comes from people contacting me and telling

me what they have. I do know of one lamp recycler that

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

107

is offered to provide data to us. So I will be able to

get that. I'll make more inquiries.

They call us because we're the utility, you know, and

they call us, and they are testing the market to see

what's out there and what kind of demand there may be.

So I think we're privy to some of these phone calls

that -- and can see growing trends.

MS. MANNING: Well, are you familiar with other

states? I mean, Oregon has obviously some sort of

crushing rule. We just talked about it, and it was put

into evidence. I would assume then that they have

technologies, perhaps, that have been developed in Oregon

that aren't developed elsewhere. I don't know.

I mean, is there any technology that has developed in

other states that do allow for the crushing that might be

wise for the board to look at?

MS. CAWEIN: We can look into that. I just don't

know, but I doubt it. I doubt they have other technology

that hasn't been seen elsewhere, but we can look into

that.

MS. MANNING: You indicated as well in your

testimony that the generally accepted -- you didn't call

it the generally accepted practice, but you basically

said that most -- let's face it, most of the lamps are

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

108

now being disposed of by trash compaction. Obviously,

that's not ComEd. Yours is only a small portion.

But my question is, when they are disposed of through

trash compaction, then I assume that goes into a

municipal waste landfill, and that's part of the problem

we're trying to deal with here and we've been trying to

deal with the whole legislation and the changing it to

universal waste.

My question though is, the way that your suggested

rule revision reads, might some generator of waste

construe this sort of broad language to actually maybe

even indicate that a trash compactor could be such a -- I

guess what I'm saying is, is this language itself,

perhaps, not hinting to people that they continue to

trash compact?

MS. CAWEIN: Hinting to other people that are

not --

MS. MANNING: Well, it says must be conducted in

equipment specifically designed, and, obviously, a trash

compactor is not specifically designed to necessarily

minimize the release of mercury, but there aren't any

standards set forward or --

MS. CAWEIN: For the conditionally exempt?

Are you saying that the conditionally exempt, the ones

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

109

that are not subject to this rule may misinterpret this

and think they can put it in the trash compactor?

MS. MANNING: Well, I'm just wondering whether

this might be an allowance for -- I guess I'm just

wondering whether this might not be misconstrued to

actually allow for the continuation of the practice of

trash compacting. I mean, is this really driving --

MS. CAWEIN: I don't see how anyone can interpret

this to allow it into a trash compactor. I mean, those

things are open. I mean, for all intents, I don't think

anyone would.

MS. MANNING: More specifically, you talk about

the OSHA exposure levels for mercury, would you provide

us in your comments as well what OSHA exposures those

are, the standards, the OSHA standards?

MS. CAWEIN: Um-hum.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Along the same lines as

Chairman Manning's questions about the term "minimize,"

are there any thresholds or standards because that is

somewhat of a broad term?

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah. The only standard I know of is

in the OSHA standard, really. It is broad, but, again,

we want to be flexible here because we want to leave

open -- I mean if you impose, you know, 75 percent

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

110

standard or something like that, then you talk about

well, there's 90 percent ones. If you impose 90 percent,

then what happens if they come out with a cheap one

that's 99 percent? I mean, you're locking yourself in to

a numerical standard that I don't know if it's not too

early to do that right now.

MR. RAO: Can we have a minimum threshold so that

there will be at least a minimum level to which they can

reduce, say, 90 percent or whatever you think is a

reasonable minimum threshold, so if they want to achieve

99 percent or 100 percent they can still do it?

MS. CAWEIN: Again, the difficulty with that is

how you demonstrate that. I'm afraid of the burden on

the industry to try to demonstrate that.

MR. RAO: Do manufacturers of this unit, do they

rate their units, you know, at what efficiency they can

reduce?

MS. CAWEIN: I don't think so.

MR. RAO: And does the statement from the

manufacturer rectifies to say, you know, that equipment

can reduce up to 90 percent or whatever minimum threshold

that was set to reduce such a threshold?

MS. CAWEIN: I really don't know the answer to

that.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

111

MR. RAO: Would it be possible for you to get this

information because you said all the manufacturers

contacted you frequently?

MS. CAWEIN: It's not manufacturers of crushers.

You have to understand that.

MR. RAO: Oh, really?

MS. CAWEIN: It's just people talking about

generally, well, if we were able to do this for you,

would you be interested in this? I always -- we're a

very conservative company, and I'm always questioning

them closely about how protective their ideas are.

MR. RAO: But assume that if, you know, people are

going to use these crushing units, they will be a

manufacture of selling them, and if we put in this kind

of thing, if they say it's allowed to at least reduce to

whatever level, they should be able to, say, rate their

equipment that it can reach that level of reduction. So

based on --

MS. CAWEIN: Well, I'll see what I can dig up, and

we'll provide that in our written comments on the

standards.

MR. RAO: And it will be helpful if the agency has

any information as to what kind of reduction levels are

currently being achieved that you can provide us.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

112

MS. MANNING: Also, do you know whether the state

of Oregon has been able to develop an effective recycling

industry with the crusher rule that it has?

MS. CAWEIN: No, but that's a good question. I'd

be interested in knowing that.

MS. MANNING: Thank you. Yeah we would be

interested in knowing that.

MS. HENNESSEY: I had two questions.

Are there any OSHA regulations other than the exposure

levels that you're aware of?

MS. CAWEIN: Are there any other standards?

MS. HENNESSEY: Yes. Well, not -- I know there's

a standard for mercury. But do they specifically address

handling mercury in the workplace other than by setting

an exposure standard?

MS. CAWEIN: Not that I'm aware of.

MS. HENNESSEY: Okay. And then you're discussing

the crushing units that are now available can recapture

90 percent of the mercury.

Can you explain how is it captured?

MS. CAWEIN: It doesn't allow the free

volatilization of mercury out of the container that the

crushing is done in.

I think it can -- I'm going to speculate again, but I

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

113

think that the small amount that gets released is

probably from changing, you know, from taking equipment

off because you're going to have a lag in there. But,

again, I'm speculating because I don't use those, and I

haven't, you know, operated one, so. . .

MS. HENNESSEY: Well, do you know if -- when you

say they capture this mercury, it's trapped in filters?

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah, in filters that are built in to

the crusher primary, but also some of them have, you

know, sealed where there's no air flow.

MS. HENNESSEY: And then do the people that

utilize these crushers extract the mercury --

MS. CAWEIN: Yes.

MS. HENNESSEY: -- from those -- wherever it's

trapped?

MS. CAWEIN: The whole mess goes into a big

retorting operation, or some of the recyclers actually

dump the drum of the crushed lamps into their separation

unit. So then it will separate the glass from the

phosphor powder from the aluminum and the mercury, and

then we'll just retort the phosphor powder and then also

sometimes retort the drum or we use the reuse of the

drum.

MS. HENNESSEY: And where does this typically take

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

114

place, at the generator or the recycler?

MS. CAWEIN: Oh, at the recycler.

Typically, the only thing that happens at the

generator is they just crush it and never open it and

send it off, but at some point, they have to change -- it

all gets crushed in the drum, and then, you know, they

have to change it out, and I'm not sure exactly how

that's accomplished.

MS. HENNESSEY: That's where the releases might

occur?

MS. CAWEIN: Might. Again, I don't know how the

technology works, so I don't know, but I can look into

that closely. How they change it out, I'd like to know.

MS. HENNESSEY: And do you know if in the crushing

process there's any hazardous waste generated that can be

recycled?

MS. CAWEIN: No.

MS. HENNESSEY: And you also talked a little bit

about drum top crushers?

MS. CAWEIN: Um-hum.

MS. HENNESSEY: What's the capture rate for those types

of crushers?

MS. CAWEIN: I don't have any data on that, so I

don't know.

L.A. REPORTING (312) 419-9292

115

MS. HENNESSEY: Thank you.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: I think Mr. Orlinsky asked

you this question. But in your testimony you said though

it would necessarily inflate the cost of recycling if

they were strictly prohibited.

If you do have any actual figures regarding this, if

you could provide those that would be very helpful.

MS. CAWEIN: Yeah, I'm trying to come up with some

of those.

HEARING OFFICER ERVIN: Any other questions? Any