[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40696-40715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19123]



[[Page 40695]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 262



Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for University Laboratories at the 
University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA; the Boston College, 
Chestnut Hill, MA; and the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 40696]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 262

[FRL-6408-4]


Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking for University Laboratories 
at the University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA; the Boston 
College, Chestnut Hill, MA; and the University of Vermont, Burlington, 
VT

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments and draft final project 
agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is proposing 
this rule to implement a project under the Project XL program that 
would provide regulatory flexibility under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended for the University of 
Massachusetts-Boston, Boston, MA, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA and 
the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT (the Universities). The 
principal objective of this Laboratory XL Project is to pilot a 
flexible, performance-based system for managing laboratory waste. To 
achieve this, today's proposed rule would provide regulatory 
flexibility to allow the participating laboratories at the Universities 
to replace existing requirements for hazardous waste generators with a 
comprehensive Laboratory Environmental Management Plan designed for 
each University. The terms of the overall XL project are contained in 
the draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) on which EPA is also requesting 
comments. The draft Final Project Agreement (FPA) is available for 
public review and comment at the EPA Docket in Washington DC, in the 
EPA Region I library, at the Universities, and on the world wide web at 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/. Following a review of the public 
comments and appropriate changes, the FPA would be signed by delegates 
from the EPA, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 
(MADEP), the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) 
and the Universities.

DATES: Public Comments: Comments on the proposed rule and/or FPA must 
be received on or before August 26, 1999. All comments should be 
submitted in writing to the address listed below.
    Public Hearing: Commenters may request a public hearing by August 
10, 1999 during the public comment period. Commenters requesting a 
public hearing should specify the basis for their request. If EPA 
determines that there is sufficient reason to hold a public hearing, it 
will do so by August 17, 1999, during the last week of the public 
comment period. Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to 
the address below. If a public hearing is scheduled, the date, time, 
and location will be available through a Federal Register notice or by 
contacting Ms. Gina Snyder or Mr. George Frantz at the Region 1 office.

ADDRESSES: Request to Speak at Hearing: Requests for a hearing should 
be mailed to the RCRA Information Center Docket Clerk (5305G), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20460. Please send an original and two copies of all comments, and 
refer to Docket Number F-1999-NEUP-FFFFF. A copy should also be sent to 
Ms. Gina Snyder at U.S. EPA Region I. Ms. Gina Snyder may be contacted 
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
I (SPE), 1 Congress St., Suite 1100, Boston, MA, 02114, (617) 918-1837.
    Comments: Written comments should be mailed to the RCRA Information 
Center Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Please send an original and two 
copies of all comments, and refer to Docket Number F-1999-NEUP-FFFFF.
    Viewing Project Materials: A docket containing the proposed rule, 
draft Final Project Agreement, supporting materials, and public 
comments is available for public inspection and copying at the RCRA 
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway, 1235 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is open from 
9:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. 
The public is encouraged to phone in advance to review docket 
materials. Appointments can be scheduled by phoning the Docket Office 
at (703) 603-9230. Refer to RCRA docket number F-1999-NEUP-FFFFF. The 
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no 
charge. Additional copies cost 15 cents per page. Project materials are 
also available for review for today's action on the world wide web at 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.
    A duplicate copy of the docket is available for inspection and 
copying at U.S. EPA, Region I, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (LIB), 
Boston, MA 02114-2023 during normal business hours. Persons wishing to 
view the duplicate docket at the Boston location are encouraged to 
contact Ms. Gina Snyder or Mr. George Frantz in advance, by telephoning 
(617) 918-1837 or (617) 918-1883.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gina Snyder or Mr. George Frantz, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I (SPE), Assistance and 
Pollution Prevention Division, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 
MA 02114-2023. Ms. Snyder can be reached at (617) 918-1837 and Mr. 
Frantz can be reached at (617) 918-1883. Further information on today's 
action may also be obtained on the world wide web at http://
www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The development and implementation of an 
Environmental Management Plan would be piloted at these three 
Universities in their laboratories at areas that are currently managed 
as satellite accumulation areas (see 40 CFR 262.34(c)). Hazardous waste 
managed at all other areas of each University would continue to be 
subject to current RCRA regulations. This pilot is intended to test the 
effectiveness of an integrated, flexible, performance-based approach 
for managing hazardous waste in university laboratories to determine 
whether this approach promotes better management of laboratory wastes 
than the current standards.
    In an effort to more efficiently manage hazardous waste and 
minimize the volume of waste generated in the university laboratory 
setting, the proposed rule would provide for a ``temporary conditional 
deferral'' from two specific RCRA requirements that apply to generators 
of hazardous waste, 40 CFR 262.11--Hazardous Waste Determination, and 
262.34(c)--Satellite Accumulation, which includes requirements for 
container management. Instead, laboratory waste would be managed in 
accordance with a Laboratory Environmental Management Plan until it 
reaches each University's on-site hazardous waste accumulation area 
where a determination would be made by Environmental Health and Safety 
personnel as to whether the waste can be redistributed and reused at 
the University or whether it must be managed as a RCRA hazardous waste. 
The proposed rule would define laboratory waste as a hazardous chemical 
that results from laboratory scale activities and includes the 
following: excess or unused hazardous chemicals that may or may not be 
reused outside their laboratory of origin; hazardous chemicals 
determined to be RCRA hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261; 
and hazardous chemicals that will be determined not to be RCRA

[[Page 40697]]

hazardous waste pursuant to the new proposed rule at 40 CFR 262.106. 
Making a solid and hazardous waste determination at a central location 
would allow professionals within the Universities' Environmental, 
Health and Safety program to more easily manage the laboratory waste 
and to increase reuse opportunities.
    The deferral of specified RCRA requirements is ``temporary.'' It 
remains in effect only for the four-year term of this Laboratory XL 
project. The four-year term is based upon the date of promulgation of 
the final rule when the Universities will commence the development of 
their Laboratory Environmental Management Plans (EMP). Following review 
of its EMP, each University would notify the applicable state agency 
and EPA in writing of the date on which it intends to implement its 
EMP. The proposed rule would become effective in the designated 
participating laboratories only after such written notification. 
Section III.D.2. and IV.F.1. discuss the aspects of state 
implementation of the proposed rule.
    The deferral of the specified RCRA requirements is also 
``conditional.'' It is conditioned upon each University's 
implementation and compliance with the Laboratory Environmental 
Management Standard set forth in 40 CFR part 262, subpart J of this 
proposed rule. The Laboratory Environmental Management Standard 
includes specific requirements for the management of laboratory waste 
that ensure protection of human health and the environment while 
providing some flexibility to encourage chemical reuse and waste 
minimization. These requirements are termed Minimum Performance 
Criteria. They are enforceable in the same way as current RCRA 
standards are enforceable to ensure that handling of laboratory waste 
would be protective of human health and the environment. During this XL 
project, the proposed requirements set forth in the proposed Subpart J 
(including the Environmental Management Plan requirements) would also 
be enforceable under RCRA section 3008.
    The Environmental Management Standard (EMS) in subpart J contains 
requirements for each University to create and implement an 
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to cover all of its participating 
laboratories. The elements of the EMP in the proposed rule are expected 
to function as an outline of the procedures that must be in place to 
manage laboratory waste in order to both minimize the amount of waste 
generated, while allowing for the maximum reuse of the waste that is 
generated. Although the EMP must describe how each laboratory will 
comply with the specific Minimum Performance Criteria, the Minimum 
Performance Criteria are requirements that stand on their own. The 
proposed deferral of the hazardous waste determination is conditioned 
on compliance with all of the requirements of the EMS, including the 
Minimum Performance Criteria. These criteria ensure that the handling 
of laboratory waste would be protective of human health and the 
environment by establishing how laboratory waste would be managed 
within the laboratory, and in transit to the on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation area for each University.
    EPA has agreed to allow the Universities to undertake this XL 
project with the requested regulatory flexibility to determine if the 
proposed performance-based Environmental Management Plan approach would 
result in superior environmental performance and significant cost 
savings to the universities.
    Today's proposed rulemaking, and the state actions described in 
section IV.F.1. of this preamble that parallel today's action, will not 
in any way affect the provisions or applicability of any other existing 
or future regulations.
    EPA is soliciting comments on this rulemaking. EPA will publish 
responses to comments in a subsequent final rule. The XL Project will 
enter the implementation phase when, in addition to promulgation of the 
final rule, all signatories to the XL Project sign the Final Project 
Agreement. Implementation of the Environmental Management Plan(s) will 
occur after the individual EMPs have been developed by each university, 
and reviewed by EPA and the appropriate State agency to ensure 
adherence to the Environmental Management Standard, prior to 
commencement of the new system.

Outline of Today's Document

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority
II. Overview of Project XL
III. Overview of the University Laboratory XL Project Pilot
    A. To What Laboratories Would the Proposed Rule Apply?
    B. What Problems Have the University Laboratories Identified?
    C. What Solutions Are Proposed by the University Laboratory XL 
Project?
    1. A New Integrated Performance-Based System
    2. Laboratory Environmental Management Standard (EMS)
    3. Laboratory Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
    4. Minimum Performance Criteria
    5. How the New System Would Work
    6. Comparison of the Minimum Performance Criteria with Current 
RCRA Regulations
    7. Comparison of the Proposed Rule with Current OSHA and RCRA 
Regulatory Requirements
    8. How the Laboratory XL Project Will Result in Superior 
Environmental Performance
    D. What Regulatory Changes will be Necessary to Implement this 
Project?
    1. Federal Regulatory Changes
    2. State Regulatory Changes
    E. Why is EPA Supporting this New Approach to Laboratory Waste 
Management?
    F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project?
    G. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?
    H. How Will EPA Ensure the Integrity and Comprehensiveness of 
Each University's Laboratory Environmental Management Plan?
    I. How Will the Terms of the Laboratory XL Project and Proposed 
Rule be Enforced?
    J. How Long Will this Project Last and When Will it be Complete?
IV. Additional Information
    A. How to Request a Public Hearing
    B. How Does this Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866?
    C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?
    D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for this 
Project Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act?
    F. RCRA & Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
    1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    2. Effect on Massachusetts and Vermont Authorization
    G. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13045: 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks?
    H. Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 12875: Enhancing 
Intergovernmental Partnerships?
    I. How Does this Rule Comply with Executive Order 13084: 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments?
    J. Does this Rule Comply with the National Technology Transfer 
and Advancement Act?

I. Authority

    EPA is publishing this proposed regulation under the authority of 
sections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3006, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921, 6922, 6923, 6926, 6930, 
6937, 6938, and 6974).

[[Page 40698]]

II. Overview of Project XL

    The draft FPA sets forth the intentions of EPA and the Universities 
with regard to a project developed under Project XL, an EPA initiative 
to allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental results at 
less cost. The proposed regulation would facilitate implementation of 
the project. Project XL--``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced 
on March 16, 1995, as a central part of the National Performance Review 
and the EPA's effort to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 FR 
27282 (May 23, 1995). Project XL provides a limited number of private 
and public regulated entities an opportunity to develop their own pilot 
projects to provide regulatory flexibility that will result in 
environmental protection that is superior to what would be achieved 
through compliance with current and reasonably anticipated future 
regulations. These efforts are crucial to EPA's ability to test new 
strategies that reduce regulatory burden and promote economic growth 
while achieving better environmental and public health protection. EPA 
intends to evaluate the results of this and other Project XL projects 
to determine which specific elements of the project(s), if any, should 
be more broadly applied to other regulated entities for the benefit of 
both the economy and the environment.
    Under Project XL, participants in four categories--facilities, 
industry sectors, governmental agencies and communities--are offered 
the flexibility to develop common sense, cost-effective strategies that 
will replace or modify specific regulatory requirements, on the 
condition that they produce and demonstrate superior environmental 
performance.
    The XL program is intended to allow EPA to experiment with 
potentially promising regulatory approaches, both to assess whether 
they provide benefits at the specific facility affected, and whether 
they should be considered for wider application. Such pilot projects 
allow EPA to proceed more quickly than would be possible when 
undertaking changes on a nationwide basis. As part of this 
experimentation, the EPA may try out approaches or legal 
interpretations that depart from or are even inconsistent with 
longstanding Agency practice, so long as those interpretations are 
within the broad range of discretion enjoyed by the Agency in 
interpreting statutes that it implements. The EPA may also modify 
rules, on a site-specific basis, that represent one of several possible 
policy approaches within a more general statutory directive, so long as 
the alternative being used is permissible under the statute.
    Adoption of such alternative approaches or interpretations in the 
context of a given XL project does not, however, signal EPA's 
willingness to adopt that interpretation as a general matter, or even 
in the context of other XL projects. It would be inconsistent with the 
forward-looking nature of these pilot projects to adopt such innovative 
approaches prematurely on a widespread basis without first determining 
whether or not they are viable in practice and successful in the 
particular projects that embody them. Furthermore, as EPA indicated in 
announcing the XL program, EPA expects to adopt only a limited number 
of carefully selected projects. These pilot projects are not intended 
to be a means for piecemeal revision of entire programs. Depending on 
the results in these projects, EPA may or may not be willing to 
consider adopting the alternative interpretation again, either 
generally or for other specific facilities.
    EPA believes that adopting alternative policy approaches and 
interpretations, on a limited, site-specific basis and in connection 
with a carefully selected pilot project, is consistent with the 
expectations of Congress about EPA's role in implementing the 
environmental statutes (provided that the Agency acts within the 
discretion allowed by the statute). Congress' recognition that there is 
a need for experimentation and research, as well as ongoing re-
evaluation of environmental programs, is reflected in a variety of 
statutory provisions, such as section 8001 of RCRA.

XL Criteria

    To participate in Project XL, applicants must develop alternative 
pollution reduction strategies pursuant to eight criteria: superior 
environmental performance; cost savings and paperwork reduction; local 
stakeholder involvement and support; test of an innovative strategy; 
transferability; feasibility; identification of monitoring, reporting 
and evaluation methods; and avoidance of shifting risk burden. They 
must have full support of affected Federal, state and tribal agencies 
to be selected.
    For more information about the XL criteria, readers should refer to 
the two descriptive documents published in the Federal Register (60 FR 
27282, May 23, 1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997), and the December 
1, 1995 ``Principles for Development of Project XL Final Project 
Agreements'' document. For further discussion as to how the University 
Laboratories XL project addresses the XL criteria, readers should refer 
to the Final Project Agreement available from the EPA RCRA docket or 
Region 1 library for this action (see ADDRESSES section of today's 
preamble).

XL Program Phases

    The Project XL program is compartmentalized into four basic phases: 
the initial pre-proposal phase where the project sponsor comes up with 
an innovative concept that they would like to consider as an XL pilot, 
the second phase where the project sponsor works with EPA and 
interested stakeholders in developing an XL proposal, the third phase 
where EPA, local regulatory agencies, and other interested stakeholders 
review the XL proposal, the fourth phase where the project sponsor 
works with EPA, local regulatory agencies, and interested stakeholders 
in developing a Final Project Agreement and legal mechanism. After 
promulgation of the final rule (or other legal mechanism) for the XL 
pilot, and after the Final Project Agreement has been signed by all 
designated parties, the XL pilot proceeds into the implementation phase 
and evaluation phase.

Final Project Agreement

    The Final Project Agreement (FPA) is a written agreement between 
the project sponsor and regulatory agencies. The FPA contains a 
detailed description of the proposed pilot project. It addresses the 
eight Project XL criteria, and the expectation of the Agency that this 
XL project will meet those criteria. The Final Project Agreement 
identifies performance goals and indicators (monitoring schedule) which 
will enable the laboratories to clearly illustrate the baseline 
quantities. The draft FPA specifically addresses the manner in which 
the project is expected to produce superior environmental benefits. The 
FPA also discusses the administration of the agreement, including 
dispute resolution and termination. The Final Project Agreement is 
available for review in the docket for today's action, and also is 
available on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

III. Overview of the University Laboratories XL Project

    EPA is today requesting comments on the draft FPA and proposed rule 
to implement key provisions of this Project XL initiative. Today's 
proposed rule would facilitate implementation of the draft FPA (the 
document that embodies EPA's intent to implement this project) that has 
been developed by EPA, Massachusetts Department of

[[Page 40699]]

Environmental Protection (MADEP), Vermont Department of Environmental 
Conservation (VTDEC), the Universities, and other stakeholders. After 
comments on the draft FPA have been considered, EPA, MADEP, VTDEC, and 
the three Universities expect to sign a final FPA. Today's proposed 
rule would not be effective in Massachusetts and Vermont until those 
states have made conforming changes.

A. To What Laboratories Would the Proposed Rule Apply?

    The Proposed Rule would apply only to participating laboratories at 
the following three Universities:
     University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA
     Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
     University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
    Boston College is classified as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG). 
The University of Massachusetts Boston and the University of Vermont 
are classified as Large Quantity Generators (LQG). The University of 
Massachusetts Boston is an LQG solely as a generator of acute wastes in 
excess of the one kilogram per month threshold. Additionally, the 
University of Vermont operates a part B permitted facility for the 
storage of hazardous wastes. Participating laboratories at all the 
Universities currently generate and manage hazardous waste and the 
Universities fully expect that some of the laboratory wastes that would 
be generated and managed under the Environmental Management Plans would 
meet the definition of a RCRA hazardous waste.
    The University laboratories that would be affected by this project 
are used for research and teaching purposes. A breakdown of the 
individual Universities' laboratories is shown in Table 1 below. The 
table also identifies each Universities' on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation areas which would continue to be regulated under existing 
federal and state RCRA regulation:

                             Table 1.--Laboratory XL Project Participant Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Location of current
           Institution               Student     Number of   Departments participating       hazardous waste
                                       body         labs                                 accumulation areas \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA.       14,000          120  Chemistry, Biology,        Merkert Chemistry
                                                              Geology, Physics,          Building, 2609 Beacon
                                                              Psychology.                St., Boston MA; Higgins
                                                                                         Building, 140
                                                                                         Commonwealth Ave.,
                                                                                         Chestnut Hill MA.
University of Massachusetts             13,000          150  Chemistry, Biology,        Science Building (Bldg.
 Boston Boston, MA.                                           Psychology,                #080); McCormack
                                                              Anthropology, Geology      Building (Bldg. #020);
                                                              and Earth Sciences, and    and Wheatley Building
                                                              Environmental, Coastal     (Bldg. #010) 100
                                                              and Ocean Sciences.        Morrissey Blvd., Boston
                                                                                         MA
University of Vermont Burlington,       10,000          400  Colleges of: Agriculture   Given Bunker, 89
 VT.                                                          and Life Sciences; Arts    Beaumont Ave.,
                                                              and Sciences; Medicine;    Burlington VT.
                                                              and Engineering and
                                                              Mathematics; and Schools
                                                              of: Nursing; Allied
                                                              Heath Sciences; and
                                                              Natural Resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: These accumulation areas would still be fully covered by the current federal and state RCRA
  regulations. This XL project, for example, would not allow any increased air emissions that would otherwise be
  controlled under the current RCRA regulations such as the subpart CC hazardous waste organic air emission
  standards that apply to large quantity generators who accumulate hazardous waste on-site.

B. What Problems Have the University Laboratories Identified?

    To understand the problems faced by the Universities and the 
purpose behind the proposed rule, it is necessary to understand the 
context in which the proposed rule has arisen and to consider the 
experience of university laboratories as regulated entities under both 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and RCRA. While both 
statutes have the common objective of protecting human health, RCRA 
makes a clear distinction between hazardous waste and hazardous 
chemicals in a laboratory setting. There are specific handling and 
management requirements for ``hazardous wastes'' under RCRA which do 
not apply to the larger universe of ``hazardous chemicals'' regulated 
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Researchers are 
familiar with the specialized system developed for laboratory work by 
OSHA, which includes the requirement to develop and implement a 
Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP). This systematic approach, incorporating a 
specific plan, can also be applied to the management of hazardous waste 
that sometimes results from the use of hazardous chemicals in the 
laboratory. However, under the current system, laboratories are 
required to implement and to track two parallel, and not always 
consistent chemical management systems within the laboratory setting.
    The Universities have proposed streamlining the management of 
chemicals in the laboratory by having a single system addressing 
hazardous chemicals that will result in both better management and a 
reduction in the quantity of laboratory wastes that have to be 
disposed. This streamlining will result in a number of changes, which 
when combined in a single systematic approach to chemical management, 
are expected to provide results that are superior to those provided by 
the current regulatory framework.
    An example of one area that will be streamlined is the process for 
training laboratory workers. OSHA's chemical standard requires that the 
employer provide employees with information and training on the hazards 
of chemicals present in their area. RCRA requires large quantity 
generators to ensure that facility personnel complete classroom 
instruction or on-the-job training that teaches them to perform their 
duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with applicable 
requirements. RCRA requires small quantity generators to ensure that 
all employees are familiar with proper waste handling and emergency 
procedures relevant to their responsibilities. The new system proposed 
in this rule would require the same standardized training for all 
laboratory workers, including: students, personnel in positions related 
to hazardous waste management, and laboratory employees. This 
systematic training approach can cover both safety

[[Page 40700]]

and environmental concerns when performed through the integration of 
chemical hygiene planning and environmental management planning. This 
is expected not only to streamline but also to upgrade existing 
training, and to provide students--the laboratory workers of the 
future--with a better understanding of the environmental impacts of 
their work and how to minimize those impacts.
    The university laboratory setting is decentralized, with various 
departments funding diverse types of research. The university community 
is also diverse and subject to the regular turnover of students and 
researchers. This decentralized setting, when combined with rules that 
vary from state to state (as discussed in sections D.2. and E., below) 
and between federal RCRA and federal OSHA standards, often leads to the 
unnecessary and premature disposal of chemicals after an individual 
laboratory has no use for them. This is true even for unused chemicals 
that may be reusable elsewhere at the University. A more centralized 
system should result in more effective decision making with regard to 
chemical disposition and should result in increased chemical reuse. 
Therefore, one of the larger changes to result from this proposed 
project would be the centralization of the system for managing chemical 
wastes. This would allow decisions regarding chemical disposition to 
more easily occur at a centralized area where knowledge of campus-wide 
needs for chemicals can be factored into decisions as to whether unused 
or used chemicals (formerly disposed as waste) can be reused within the 
University.
    The implementation of the current system is further complicated by 
the structure of university laboratories which is different from 
industrial settings where RCRA has been quite effective. Industrial 
settings commonly have ongoing processes which generate a single waste 
at a fairly regular rate of generation. With potentially hundreds of 
small laboratories within one university, each producing small amounts 
of multiple wastes on a noncontinuous basis, the overall management of 
hazardous wastes becomes more difficult. For example, it can be 
difficult for universities to comply with the current requirements that 
result in 3 day removal timeframes for hazardous waste in excess of 55 
gallons at their satellite areas (managed under 40 CFR 262.34(c) or 
equivalent state provisions). Waste generation in manufacturing 
settings is generally more uniform and continuous than it is in 
university research laboratories where the rate of waste generated is 
often unpredictable. This uncertainty makes it difficult for a 
university to predict when satellite accumulation limits may be 
exceeded and to arrange for removal of the waste within the required 
amount of time. This proposed alternative system for university 
laboratories attempts to address their atypical circumstances by 
allowing them to set up a monthly pick-up schedule for laboratory 
waste. With the ability to be proactive in setting up schedules for 
waste pickups, EH&S professionals at the Universities would be able to 
avoid a reactive mode of operation, to proactively develop a systematic 
approach for re-use of chemicals on-site, and to operate that system 
based on the schedule they could develop under this proposal.
    The difficulty of managing laboratory wastes has been the subject 
of nation-wide discussions within the university and research community 
throughout the past decade. Many organizations including the Campus 
Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association, the National 
Research Council, and the American Chemical Society have all sought a 
better way to properly manage and handle hazardous chemicals in the 
laboratory, and to comply with the requirements of both OSHA and RCRA. 
In the New England area, the Laboratory Consortium for Environmental 
Excellence (LCEE) was formed to explore viable alternatives to the 
current parallel regulatory scheme and to promote best management 
practices for laboratories. As a result of exhaustive reviews and 
interviews with universities and research organizations across the 
country, a consensus was reached regarding the need to harmonize the 
RCRA and OSHA regulatory systems through a performance-based management 
system that would actively promote prudent practices, encourage 
chemical reuse and recycling, minimize costs, and increase efficiency.
    The central purpose of this Laboratory XL project is to test the 
effectiveness of an integrated, performance-based environmental 
management system which is consistent with the objectives of RCRA and 
which would complement the applicable OSHA regulations.

C. What Solutions Are Proposed by the University Laboratory XL Project?

1. A New Integrated Performance-Based System
    The University Laboratory XL project proposes to test the 
effectiveness of an integrated, flexible, performance-based system for 
managing hazardous wastes in laboratories which (1) would result in 
pollution prevention and streamlined procedures for managing hazardous 
wastes and hazardous chemicals at universities, (2) would meet the 
objectives of both the RCRA and OSHA regulatory programs combined and 
(3) would be at least as protective of human health and the environment 
as the current system.
    This project would pilot an alternative approach to hazardous waste 
management in University laboratories which is more systematic and more 
centralized than the approach implemented by Universities under the 
current system. At the same time, the pilot integrates some of the 
current RCRA hazardous waste regulations with current OSHA regulations 
by proposing that universities develop a plan similar to the CHP but 
designed for the management of environmental aspects of their 
activities to facilitate the creation of an integrated and consistent 
system for managing laboratory waste in laboratories. As a result of 
the efficiencies gained from the harmonization of the OSHA CHP and the 
RCRA-oriented Laboratory Environmental Management Plan, the new system 
is expected to provide a better management approach for laboratories 
and to result in increased pollution prevention while still ensuring 
protection of human health and the environment.
    To achieve this objective, the Universities would like to pursue a 
regulatory model of a Laboratory Environmental Management Standard 
(EMS) that identifies both the elements for the effective management of 
laboratory wastes, and the minimum performance requirements for 
handling wastes in each individual laboratory. The proposed Laboratory 
EMS sets out all the requirements for the proposed alternative system 
of managing laboratory waste. First and foremost, the Laboratory EMS 
would include Minimum Performance Criteria for the management of 
laboratory wastes within the laboratory and en route to the on-site 
hazardous waste accumulation area. These criteria are the requirements 
that would be an alternative to 40 CFR 262.34(c) in the laboratory. The 
Minimum Performance Criteria are a set of measurable requirements that 
are similar to the current RCRA requirements. Each of the elements of 
the Minimum Performance Criteria is described in full in today's 
proposed rule and is briefly explained below. In addition, the 
Laboratory EMS would also require the development of a Laboratory 
Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The EMP would be written by each 
University to document its specific procedures for how it would

[[Page 40701]]

conform with the Laboratory EMS. The EMP would also describe the 
procedures each laboratory would follow in order to meet the Minimum 
Performance Criteria. The elements of the EMP are summarized below in 
Table 2.
2. Laboratory Environmental Management Standard (EMS)
    Today's proposed rule is called the ``Laboratory Environmental 
Management Standard''. It would include a definition section (40 CFR 
262.102), the requirements for waste management in the laboratory, or 
the Minimum Performance Criteria, (40 CFR 262.104) and the specific 
requirement that each University develop a Laboratory Environmental 
Management Plan (40 CFR 262.105). Proposed subpart J also contains 
requirements detailing the organizational responsibilities and the 
training requirements of each participating University laboratory (40 
CFR 262.105). The Laboratory EMS would provide the umbrella framework 
for an effective system for the management of university laboratory 
waste. It would contain all the elements, from definitions through 
waste determination requirements (40 CFR 262.106), that would make up 
the new systematic approach proposed for university laboratories. The 
proposed Laboratory EMS was originally modeled after the general 
structure and format of the OSHA ``Occupational Exposure to Hazardous 
Chemicals in Laboratories'' standard which requires a Chemical Hygiene 
Plan.
3. Laboratory Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
    The Laboratory EMS would require the development of a Laboratory 
EMP which would be the mechanism through which the Laboratory EMS is 
put into practice at each University. The Laboratory EMP, modeled on 
OSHA's Chemical Hygiene Plan, would be a comprehensive plan to be 
developed by each University. The EMP would document the procedures, 
practices and programs to (a) manage laboratory waste in a manner that 
is protective of human health and the environment and (b) that would be 
implemented to achieve compliance with the requirements of the 
Laboratory EMS and the Minimum Performance Criteria. It is through the 
Laboratory EMP that the Universities would have the opportunity and the 
obligation to design a performance-based system to complement the OSHA 
requirements, to encourage waste minimization, and the redistribution 
and reuse of laboratory waste. The Laboratory EMP would identify 
specific elements to be implemented by each University, including 
requirements for pollution prevention policies and procedures.
    One of the objectives of the EMP and the overall XL project is to 
erase the distinction between unused chemicals and waste chemicals in 
the laboratory setting, so that the value in reusing chemicals can be 
realized. This would be accomplished by defining laboratory waste to 
include hazardous chemicals that result from laboratory scale 
activities and which may or may not constitute RCRA hazardous wastes. 
In the proposal, laboratory waste is defined as ``a hazardous chemical 
that results from laboratory scale activities and includes the 
following: excess or unused hazardous chemicals that may or may not be 
reused outside their laboratory of origin; hazardous chemicals 
determined to be RCRA hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR part 261; 
and hazardous chemicals that will be determined not to be RCRA 
hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 262.106.'' Thus, all ``laboratory 
waste'' would be managed under a single standard while in the 
laboratory. The determination that a laboratory waste could not be 
reused and would be a RCRA solid waste, and as to whether such solid 
waste would be a RCRA hazardous waste, would be made at a centralized 
area, by Environmental Health and Safety professionals.
4. Minimum Performance Criteria
    The proposed requirements for the laboratory EMP include a 
requirement that the EMP include procedures to assure compliance with 
certain Minimum Performance Criteria (MPC) specified in the proposed 
regulation. The proposed Minimum Performance Criteria set forth minimum 
requirements for the management of laboratory waste and have been 
designed to ensure that laboratory waste will be managed in a manner 
protective of human health and the environment. The requirements in the 
Minimum Performance Criteria include provisions which are consistent 
with current RCRA requirements, including labeling and container 
management. The criteria have a wider application than current RCRA 
requirements because the definition of laboratory waste includes some 
materials that are not RCRA hazardous waste.
5. How the New System Would Work
    This new proposed system would help each University to centralize 
and coordinate its chemical management practices and demonstrate 
environmental performance beyond what would likely be achieved under 
the existing system.
    Currently, there are two potential impediments to such 
centralization and coordination. The first is the hazardous waste 
determination requirement under 40 CFR 262.11. If this determination is 
made in the individual laboratory, decisions with regard to reuse are 
inevitably decentralized since the hazardous waste determination 
necessitates a prior solid waste determination. To the extent that 
these decisions are made by laboratory workers who do not have a 
complete sense of the chemical needs of the entire university, such 
decisions are often premature and do not maximize the potential for re-
use. The second potential impediment under the current system is the 
requirement under 40 CFR 262.34(c) that hazardous waste in excess of 55 
gallons be removed within three days of reaching the 55-gallon limit. 
Such a time constraint results in constant, unplanned, episodic pick-
ups which are in themselves, time-consuming. In contrast, the extended 
accumulation period of 30 days should allow for a more coordinated and 
efficient pick-up and delivery system which would free up staff time, 
and allow for the development of infrastructure and training designed 
to increase waste minimization and an organized and coordinated campus-
wide chemical reuse system.
    The EMP and the Minimum Performance Criteria would work together to 
form the alternative system for the management of laboratory waste. The 
following outline presents a step-by-step overview of how the 
Laboratory Environmental Management Standard would work once this rule 
is finalized and conforming changes are adopted by Vermont and 
Massachusetts.

Development of the Environmental Management Plan

    Step 1: Within six months, each University would develop its 
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) addressing all the elements 
required by 40 CFR 262.105, summarized in Table 2, below. Applicable 
RCRA requirements would remain in full effect in the laboratories prior 
to the EMP being written, reviewed, and implemented. For the purpose of 
this Laboratory XL project, each University would consult with EPA, and 
the state of Massachusetts (DEP) or Vermont (DEC) in the development of 
its EMP. The centerpiece of the new system would be the individual 
Laboratory Environmental Management Plan. The EMP would include 
detailed specific elements that would have to be

[[Page 40702]]

included and implemented by each University. Each University would be 
expected to craft an Environmental Management Plan that is tailored to 
the structure and individual needs of the University and its 
laboratories. A summary of the elements in the Environmental Management 
Plans is outlined in Table 2. These are more fully detailed in the 
proposed rule at 40 CFR 262.105.
    Step 2: Once completed, the EMP would be made available on each 
University's web site. So that EPA can continue to evaluate this XL 
project, EPA-Region I would review each EMP to confirm that it meets 
all of the requirements of 40 CFR 262.105. The relevant state agencies 
may also review the EMP. Each University would also be working on how 
it will implement its EMP, which would include training laboratory 
workers with regard to the requirements of the Minimum Performance 
Criteria pursuant to the procedures contained in the Environmental 
Management Plan.

Table 2.--Summary of Major Elements Required in Laboratory Environmental
                            Management Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
General:
    The EMP must include a description of specific measures a University
     will take to protect human health and the environment from hazards
     associated with the management of laboratory wastes.
Administration:
    1. An environmental policy, including commitments to regulatory
     compliance, waste minimization, risk reduction and continual
     improvement of the environmental management system.
    2. A description of roles and responsibilities for the
     implementation and maintenance of the Laboratory Environmental
     Management Plan.
    3. A pollution prevention plan.
    4. Provisions for information dissemination and training.
    5. Procedures for the development and approval of changes to the
     EMP.
Waste Management and Conformance Review:
    6. Criteria that laboratory workers shall comply with for managing,
     containing and labeling laboratory wastes.
    7. Procedures for inspecting a laboratory to assess conformance with
     the requirements of the Environmental Management Plan.
    8. Procedures to assure compliance with the Minimum Performance
     Criteria (MPC).
    9. Procedures for the identification of environmental management
     plan noncompliance and the assignment of responsibility, timelines
     and corrective actions to prevent their reoccurrence.
    10. Criteria for the identification of physical and chemical hazards
     and the control measures to reduce the potential for releases to
     the environment of laboratory wastes.
Reporting/Recordkeeping:
    11. The University's system for identifying and tracking legal and
     other requirements applicable to the management and disposal of
     designated laboratory wastes.
    12. The University's system for conducting annual surveys of
     hazardous chemicals of concern.
    13. The recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with the
     EMP.
Removal of Waste:
    14. Procedures relevant to the timely and safe removal of laboratory
     wastes.
    15. Procedures and work practices for safely transporting or moving
     laboratory wastes.
Maintenance:
    16. Procedures for conducting laboratory clean-outs.
Emergency:
    17. Emergency preparedness and response procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 3: Following review of its EMP, each University would notify 
the relevant state agency in writing of the date on which it intends to 
implement its EMP. For purposes of this XL project, each University 
would also notify EPA Region I. The proposed rule would become 
effective in the laboratories only after such written notification.

Implementation of the Environmental Management Plan Including 
Procedures for Meeting the Minimum Performance Criteria

    The EMP would cover the management requirements for laboratory 
waste until that waste reaches the designated on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation area, including emergency response requirements in the 
Minimum Performance Criteria while the waste is in transit to the 
accumulation area. The following steps outline procedures at a 
laboratory once the EMP would be in place and operational:
    Step 4: Information and training would have been provided to 
laboratory workers to comply with the Minimum Performance Criteria as 
well as OSHA per the University's Laboratory Environmental Management 
Plan. Hazardous chemicals would be received at the University, 
distributed to the laboratory and placed in storage in the laboratory 
in accordance with any and all requirements imposed by OSHA, Fire Codes 
and/or building permits. If those chemicals pose a new or unique hazard 
for which a worker has not received prior training, the worker would 
receive new information and training so that they could understand and 
implement the relevant elements of the EMP.
    Step 5: Hazardous chemicals would be used in the research or 
teaching laboratory under the direction of a trained individual, and 
laboratory waste would be generated from those laboratory scale 
activities.
    Step 6: The laboratory waste would be managed in accordance with 
the Minimum Performance Criteria and the University's specific 
Laboratory EMP which would include the University-specific procedures 
for meeting those criteria. These procedures would include ensuring 
that the laboratory waste generated as a result of laboratory scale 
activities in Step 5 is placed in containers and labeled with a 
chemical name and hazard warning as per the Minimum Performance 
Criteria and the procedures for meeting those criteria as outlined in 
the Environmental Management Plan. For example, the Laboratory EMP may 
specify the type of label the University requires for each type of 
laboratory waste and how that label must be filled out.
    Step 7: Each laboratory would be able to temporarily hold up to 55-
gallons of laboratory waste (or up to 1 quart of acutely hazardous 
laboratory waste) prior to having to put a date on the waste. Upon 
reaching the 55 gallon or 1 quart limit in the laboratory, the 
laboratory waste container(s) would be marked with the date. Any 
laboratory waste held in excess of these limits before the dated 
laboratory waste is

[[Page 40703]]

removed would also be managed as described in Step 6, and the excess 
would be limited in quantity to an additional 55 gallons (or an 
additional 1 quart of acutely hazardous laboratory waste). Excess waste 
accumulated before dated laboratory waste is removed would also have to 
be marked with the date it reaches the 55 gallon or 1 quart limit and 
would subsequently be removed from the laboratory as described in Step 
8.
    Step 8: Once laboratory waste is dated, the University EH&S staff 
would be immediately informed that the laboratory waste would have to 
be removed to the on-site hazardous waste accumulation area within 30 
days of the label date.
    Step 9: The laboratory waste referred to in Step 8 would be picked 
up (within thirty days of the dates referred to in Step 8) by EH&S 
department representatives and directly transferred to a designated on-
site hazardous waste accumulation area (as defined in the definitions 
at proposed 40 CFR 262.102). Current hazardous waste accumulation areas 
at each of the Universities are shown in Table 1. Designated hazardous 
waste accumulation areas would be listed in the EMP.
    Step 10: As soon as the laboratory waste is received at the on-site 
hazardous waste accumulation area, the University EH&S staff or 
designated trained professionals, would make a determination as to 
whether it is a solid waste under RCRA, and if it is a solid waste, the 
staff would determine whether it is a hazardous waste in accordance 
with 40 CFR 262.11, as required by proposed 40 CFR 262.106. Once the 
laboratory waste is received at the on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation area, the proposed ``temporary conditional deferral'' 
would no longer apply, and the laboratory waste that is determined to 
be hazardous waste would be managed in accordance with current RCRA 
requirements.
    Step 11: If the laboratory waste could be reused, the University 
EH&S staff would arrange for its redistribution and reuse within the 
University. If EH&S staff determine that the laboratory waste is a 
solid waste and it is hazardous, it would be managed in accordance with 
all applicable RCRA requirements.
6. Comparison of Minimum Performance Criteria with Current RCRA 
Regulations
    EPA intends that laboratory waste be managed safely. The Minimum 
Performance Criteria contained in proposed 40 CFR 262.104 have been 
developed by the University laboratories and EPA to ensure that 
laboratory waste is managed in a manner that is protective of human 
health and the environment. The following discussion demonstrates how 
specific provisions in the Minimum Performance Criteria would compare 
with RCRA provisions currently in effect. EPA is describing the current 
RCRA provisions as a point of comparison for the requirements proposed 
today, but is not proposing any changes to these current RCRA 
provisions.
    (i) Labeling: Current RCRA regulations require that containers of 
hazardous waste in satellite accumulation areas be labeled either with 
the words ``hazardous waste'' or with other words that identify the 
contents. Today's rule would contain a requirement that laboratory 
waste would have to be labeled or tagged with the chemical name and 
general hazard class. Where a laboratory container is too small to be 
effectively labeled or where containers of like wastes are 
consolidated, such as where test tubes are stored in a rack or where 
similar wastes are being consolidated in a lab-pack shipping container, 
the secondary container (e.g. the rack containing the test tubes or the 
DOT shipping container) would have to be labeled. The Environmental 
Management Plan would include specific procedures that lab workers 
would have to follow to carry out the MPC requirements for labeling in 
the laboratories.
    (ii) Quantity Limitations: Current federal RCRA regulations for 
satellite accumulation areas require that any hazardous waste 
accumulated at any point of generation in excess of 55 gallons (or one 
quart of acutely hazardous laboratory waste) be removed within three 
days. Current regulations do not limit the number of points of 
generation within an individual laboratory as long as hazardous waste 
is accumulated in accordance with all the requirements of 40 CFR 
262.34(c). Thus, a given laboratory could potentially accumulate well 
over 55 gallons under the current rules. However, under the proposed 
rule, the Universities would be limited to temporarily holding 55 
gallons of laboratory waste per laboratory, and no matter how many 
points of generation there are within a laboratory, any laboratory 
would be limited to 110 gallons. While this proposed restriction may 
prove to be more restrictive than the current system, this approach 
represents an experiment to be tested under this XL project. Although 
this approach could result in a limit that is considerably less than 
what a laboratory might be allowed to accumulate under current law, 
today's proposed rule would grant the Universities flexibility on the 
amount of time allowed to remove excess waste from the laboratory. (See 
(iv) below.)
    (iii) Quantity Limitation for Excess Laboratory Waste: Current RCRA 
regulations do not place specific limits on the amount of ``excess'' 
hazardous waste, beyond 55 gallons, that a generator may accumulate in 
satellite areas during the three days prior to removal of such excess. 
Today's proposed rule specifically limits such excess in the laboratory 
setting to an additional 55 gallons of laboratory waste (or an 
additional 1 quart of acutely hazardous laboratory waste). Thus, the 
maximum amount of laboratory waste which may be held in a University 
laboratory at any time under today's proposed rule would be 110 gallons 
(or two quarts of acutely hazardous laboratory waste). While this 
requirement may prove to be more restrictive than the current system, 
this approach represents an experiment to be tested under this XL 
project, and it would ensure that there would not be excessive 
quantities of waste in the laboratories during the 30-day timeframe 
discussed below.
    (iv) Timing Limitations: Current RCRA regulations state that a 
generator may accumulate up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one 
quart of acutely hazardous waste) under 40 CFR 262.34(c) and within 
three days of exceeding that 55 gallons must comply with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(a) or other applicable requirements with 
respect to the excess over 55 gallons (or one quart). Under the 
proposed rule, all laboratory waste that has reached threshold amounts 
would have to be removed from the lab within 30 days, instead of three 
days. EPA is granting flexibility on the timing of removal to allow for 
a more efficient pick-up schedule which will in turn allow University 
staff to devote additional resources to make centralized decisions 
about the reuse of laboratory waste. As noted above, to ensure that 
large quantities of waste are not held in laboratories, today's 
proposal limits the excess to an additional 55 gallons of laboratory 
waste (or one additional quart of acutely hazardous laboratory waste).
    (v) Dating and Removal Requirements: Current RCRA regulations 
require that a generator mark the container holding hazardous waste in 
excess of 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart of acutely 
hazardous waste) with the date the excess amount began accumulating. 
Today's proposed rule would contain a requirement that

[[Page 40704]]

when laboratory waste reaches the threshold of 55 gallons (or one quart 
of acutely hazardous laboratory waste) it must be dated. Once 
laboratory waste is dated, the laboratory would have 30 days to remove 
it from the laboratory to the on-site hazardous waste accumulation 
area.
    (vi) Hazardous Waste Accumulation Areas: Once satellite 
accumulation quantity limits are met, current RCRA regulations require 
generators to comply (within 3 days) with 40 CFR 262.34(a) or other 
applicable provisions. Under today's proposed rule, the accumulated 
laboratory waste would be directly transferred to a designated on-site 
hazardous waste accumulation area. Once the laboratory waste is 
received at the on-site hazardous waste accumulation area, the proposed 
``temporary conditional deferral'' would no longer apply, and the 
laboratory waste that is determined to be hazardous waste would be 
managed in accordance with Sec. 262.34(a) or other applicable RCRA 
requirements. In this regard, the proposed alternative system is meant 
to work in the same way as the current system.
    (vii) Container Management: Current RCRA regulations set forth at 
40 CFR 265.173(a), as referenced by Sec. 262.34(c)(1)(i), require that 
containers of hazardous wastes be closed at all times, except when it 
is necessary to add or remove wastes. Today's proposed rule would 
contain the same requirement but allows the University to make 
exceptions for in-line waste collection containers. Some experiments 
use a process for the ``in-line collection'' of waste, which is a 
system that automatically collects waste while an experiment is 
running. Such systems may collect waste through a physically connected 
apparatus, such as, for example, gas chromatographs. Gas chromatographs 
commonly carry the chemical sample through the instrument using tubing 
that leads from the instrument to waste collection bottles on the back 
of the instrument. Each tube commonly runs through a stopper set into 
each small collection bottle. Other types of equipment use in-line 
collection systems that, while not physically connected, are 
nevertheless a necessary part of the apparatus as a means to collect 
waste, such as distillation equipment. In these types of systems, the 
waste is collected in an otherwise uncovered container (e.g., waste 
drips from a tube into the container) while the experiment is running--
although the entire apparatus would be covered or hooded to prevent the 
release of volatile hazardous vapors or fumes. The apparatus set-up 
provides the physical control otherwise provided by the laboratory 
worker, who ensures during an experiment that containers are closed, 
except when he or she needs to add or remove a chemical. The proposed 
rule for this XL project proposes that such systems for the in-line 
collection of waste would be a circumstance in which waste may be 
added, consistent with the requirement that containers containing waste 
be kept closed (i.e., when a container is permissibly ``open'' for the 
adding of waste). To be considered as in-line waste collection, the 
University would describe this arrangement for in-line waste collection 
in their EMP. This part of the proposed rule addresses the need for 
flexibility around the diverse conditions of research and 
experimentation that constitute the work of the University 
laboratories, while at the same time minimizing the potential for 
release. (Note that this rule does not change the meaning of 
``release'' under RCRA.) This flexibility is limited to specific 
circumstances in order to address the unique configuration of some 
research and laboratory instrumentation such as gas chromatographs and 
DNA synthesizers. The flexibility is being proposed for in-line waste 
collection due to laboratory scale experimentation.
    Today's proposed rule also specifies that containers be compatible 
with their contents, and be in good condition. These requirements are 
equivalent to the current requirements at 40 CFR 262.34(c)1(i) which 
reference section 265.171 and section 265.172 regulating the condition 
of containers and compatibility of waste in satellite accumulation 
areas.
    (viii) Inspections: Current RCRA regulations require that satellite 
accumulation areas (those areas regulated by 40 CFR 262.34(c), at or 
near any point of generation where wastes accumulate) be under the 
control of the operator of the process. Although in each laboratory, 
laboratory waste could only be generated under the control of the 
trained laboratory workers, today's proposed rule would also contain a 
requirement for regular inspections of containers of laboratory wastes 
within the laboratory to ensure that the containers are meeting 
requirements for container management. The frequency of these 
inspections would be at least once per year and would otherwise be 
based on laboratory practices. Specific inspection schedules would be 
specified in the Environmental Management Plan.
Other Minimum Performance Criteria include
    (ix) Posting of Emergency Notification Procedures: Today's proposed 
rule would contain a requirement that includes posting of emergency 
notification procedures and evacuation procedures for laboratory 
workers. Current RCRA regulations require facilities to include such 
information in a contingency plan (large quantity generators) or to 
ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with emergency 
procedures (small quantity generators). Today's proposed rule makes no 
changes to those requirements. Emergency response and notification 
procedures, under the proposed rule, would be required for 
participating laboratories that otherwise could be regulated under 40 
CFR 262.34(c), and the EMPs must address all aspects of laboratory 
waste management, including emergencies (see Table 2 for an outline of 
EMP requirements and the proposed rule at 40 CFR 262.105).
    (x) Emergency Response: Today's proposed rule would contain a 
requirement that emergency response equipment and procedures for 
emergency response be appropriate to the hazards in the laboratory. 
Current RCRA regulations require equipment appropriate to the hazards 
presented at a facility and specify procedures that must be followed 
for particular emergencies. The proposal also includes a requirement to 
comply with spill response provisions set forth in 40 CFR 263.30 and 
263.31 for spills of laboratory waste that may occur while it is en 
route to the on-site hazardous waste accumulation area.
    (xi) Training Requirements: Today's proposed rule would contain a 
requirement that laboratory workers receive training so that they can 
implement and comply with the Minimum Performance Criteria. Training 
under the EMP is required when a laboratory worker is first assigned to 
a laboratory and when a laboratory waste poses a new or unique hazard 
for which the worker has not received prior training.
    (xii) General Compliance: Today's proposed rule would contain a 
statement that laboratory waste management must not result in the 
release of hazardous constituents into the land, air and water where 
such release would be prohibited by federal law.
    As noted in Table 2, above, additional requirements for 
laboratories under this proposed system would be included in

[[Page 40705]]

the Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
    As previously mentioned, the proposed Minimum Performance Criteria 
described above would only apply to the management of laboratory waste 
within laboratories and while en route to an on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation area. Once received at an on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation area, the laboratory waste would be subject to all 
applicable RCRA requirements. A participating University could, for 
example, accumulate any laboratory waste that is determined to be 
hazardous waste at the hazardous waste accumulation area in accordance 
with the current requirements of 40 CFR 262.34 (for 90 or 180 day on-
site accumulation). EPA is not proposing any changes to the 
requirements Universities would have to meet in order to accumulate 
waste on-site for 90 (large quantity generators) or 180 days (small 
quantity generators).
7. Comparison of the Proposed Rule With Current OSHA and RCRA 
Regulatory Requirements
    The following discussion demonstrates how specific provisions in 
the proposal compare with current OSHA and RCRA requirements. EPA is 
describing the current RCRA provisions as a point of comparison for the 
requirements proposed today, but is not proposing any changes to these 
current RCRA provisions.
    The OSHA Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP) set forth at 29 CFR 
1910.1450(e)(3) requires that the CHP address: (i) standard operating 
procedures, (ii) criteria used to determine when to implement control 
measures, (iii) fume hood functioning, (iv) employee training, (v) 
circumstances requiring prior approval, (vi) provisions for medical 
consultation, (vii) designation of responsible personnel, (viii) 
provisions for protection for work with particularly hazardous 
substances and (ix) annual review of the plan and its effectiveness.
    Although current OSHA regulations may require a Chemical Hygiene 
Plan for laboratories, there is no parallel requirement under RCRA. No 
regulations currently require the Universities to implement a 
Laboratory Environmental Management Plan as would be required by 
today's proposed rule. Moreover, while many of the Minimum Performance 
Criteria delineated in the proposed requirements would be similar to 
current RCRA requirements for satellite accumulation of hazardous waste 
(in the laboratory areas which are currently regulated under 40 CFR 
262.34(c)), some limitations have been proposed beyond what current 
RCRA requirements allow, such as limiting each laboratory to 55 gallons 
of laboratory waste.
    Existing RCRA requirements for satellite accumulation (under 40 CFR 
262.34(c)) require that containers: (i) be at or near the point of 
generation, (ii) be under the control of the operator, (iii) be marked 
with the words ``hazardous waste'' or the contents, (iv) be in good 
condition, (v) be compatible with their contents, and (vi) be kept 
closed except as necessary to add or remove waste. In addition, 
accumulation is limited to 55 gallons of hazardous waste per point of 
generation. Any excess waste over 55 gallons must within three days 
comply with 262.34(a) or other applicable provisions. Existing RCRA 
regulations also require that a generator make a hazardous waste 
determination. The current federal regulations do not require 
management plans for these areas.
    The proposed Laboratory Environmental Management Standard has been 
drafted in an attempt to align RCRA requirements that would apply to 
hazardous wastes in laboratories with the OSHA requirements for 
hazardous chemical handling in laboratories, in order to provide for 
the more efficient management of laboratory waste. This would be 
accomplished by the crafting of an Environmental Management Plan that 
would implement standard operating procedures for managing laboratory 
waste, just as the CHP requires standard operating procedures relevant 
to safety and health considerations when working with hazardous 
chemicals.
    While the Laboratory Environmental Management Plan proposed in this 
project is intended to function in the same way as the OSHA CHP, the 
requirements of the Laboratory Environmental Management Standard would 
be more effective at managing laboratory wastes. For example, the 
Laboratory Environmental Management Standard would require procedures 
for an annual review of high hazard chemicals (defined in the 
Environmental Management Standard under ``hazardous chemicals of 
concern'') in the laboratory, while no such requirement currently 
exists under RCRA or OSHA. In addition, the Laboratory Environmental 
Management Standard would require an institutional process that is not 
required by current regulations for (i) setting environmental 
objectives and targets, and (ii) the promotion of pollution prevention 
and environmental improvements.
    The current RCRA system allows generators to accumulate hazardous 
waste at satellite accumulation areas under 40 CFR 262.34(c). The 
requirements under 40 CFR 262.34(c) set specific requirements for 
container management, labeling, and accumulation times. No written 
plans are currently required for a facility to set forth and document 
the procedures that they will use to comply with the requirements of 
Sec. 262.34(c). In today's proposed rule, the Universities would be 
required not only to comply with proposed requirements on container 
management, labeling and holding times pursuant to proposed 
Sec. 262.104, which offers some flexibility but still ensures 
protection of human health and the environment, they would also have to 
specifically document the procedures they will use to comply with 
proposed Sec. 262.104. In addition, to documenting the procedures for 
complying with the Minimum Performance Criteria of Sec. 262.104, the 
Universities would also have to develop and document the procedures for 
all of the elements in Table 2, i.e.: (i) their environmental policy, 
(ii) roles and responsibilities, (iii) a pollution prevention plan, 
(iv) their system for tracking requirements applicable to laboratory 
waste, (v) criteria for identifying physical and chemical hazards and 
control measures to reduce releases, (vi) a system for conducting 
surveys of hazardous chemicals of concern, (vii) procedures for 
cleaning out laboratories, (viii) criteria with which laboratory 
workers would be required to comply in managing laboratory waste 
according to the Minimum Performance Criteria, (ix) procedures for safe 
and timely removal of wastes from laboratories, (x) procedures for 
emergencies, (xi) procedures for training, (xii) procedures for safe 
transfer of waste to the accumulation areas, (xiii) procedures for 
regularly inspecting a laboratory to assess conformance with the 
requirements of the EMP, (xiv) procedures for identifying environmental 
management plan nonconformances and corrective actions, (xv) 
recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with their EMP. This 
Laboratory Environmental Management Plan would be an entirely new 
requirement imposed upon the Universities. (This proposed requirement 
doesn't change existing institutional RCRA requirements. For example 
any University that is currently required to have a Contingency Plan 
would still be required to have a Contingency Plan).
    EPA envisions a three-part compliance assurance program to ensure 
that this proposed system

[[Page 40706]]

adequately protects human health and the environment. First, because 
EPA expects the Minimum Performance Criteria to operate as an 
equivalent, alternative system to the current RCRA requirements in 40 
CFR 262.34(c), EPA expects the first level of assurance to be similar 
to the inspection system currently in place. Thus, at the laboratory 
level, the first level: the management of laboratory waste would have 
to be in conformance with the Minimum Performance Criteria. The second 
level would be the documentation of procedures: the Laboratory EMP 
would have to be written in conformance with the requirements of the 
standard proposed at 40 CFR 262.105. The third level would be 
operational: the operations ongoing in all the laboratories that are 
participating would have to be in conformance with the procedures 
described in the EMP. Thus, this proposal provides two additional 
levels of review for satellite storage of hazardous waste, while 
allowing the Universities to be more centralized in their operations 
and to adopt a more coherent approach to management of laboratory 
wastes.
8. How the Laboratory XL Project Will Result in Superior Environmental 
Performance
    The Laboratory XL Project is designed to achieve environmental 
results that are superior to what is currently achieved by the current 
RCRA regulatory system. The aim of the proposal is to enable the 
Universities to more easily manage all hazardous chemicals under a 
logical, integrated scheme. Under the proposed model, environmental 
professionals at the Universities would, at on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation areas, determine whether there are any opportunities, 
throughout the University, for reuse of laboratory waste or whether the 
laboratory waste is hazardous waste.
    As a result, the Laboratory XL project is expected first and 
foremost to result in increased pollution prevention. In a 1996 survey 
of approximately 100 academic institutions conducted by the Campus 
Safety Health and Environmental Management Association, nearly 95 
percent of respondents reported that they reused or recycled less than 
one percent of the hazardous chemical waste otherwise destined for 
disposal. In the FPA, the Universities have committed themselves to 
increased hazardous waste reduction. The Universities have set specific 
pollution prevention goals including (i) a 10 percent reduction in the 
overall amount of hazardous waste generated from participating 
laboratories (from baseline) and (ii) a 20 percent increase (from 
baseline) in reuse of laboratory waste over the life of the project. In 
accordance with the FPA for this project, the Universities 
participating in this XL project would report each year on their 
progress in meeting these goals.
    Second, under this proposed rule, each University would implement 
their procedures for an annual assessment of those hazardous chemicals 
that they believe pose significant risks (based on physical or health 
hazards, or defined shelf-life) in an effort to minimize risks to human 
health and the environment and to monitor materials that might 
otherwise accumulate on the shelf or require disposal.
    In addition, this XL project would promote the following:
     Setting of Environmental Objectives and Targets and 
Pollution Prevention: The systematic approach to environmental 
management would enable the University to organize waste management 
functions to achieve goal setting, better tracking, pollution 
prevention, and control. This process is outlined in more detail in the 
Final Project Agreement.
     Streamlining of the Regulatory Process: By setting up a 
complementary system that essentially attempts to integrate EPA and 
OSHA requirements, the project would streamline the overall regulatory 
process for laboratories, reducing the burden on the Universities and 
resulting in a more efficient and protective approach to chemical 
management.
     Increased Environmental Awareness: The implementation and 
continuous improvement of the Laboratory Environmental Management 
Standard for laboratories would enhance environmental awareness among 
researchers and students leading to a transfer of good environmental 
management practices to the larger community.
    Finally, the implementation of the Laboratory Environmental 
Management Standard would achieve superior environmental performance 
because criteria would be set for the systematic management of all 
laboratory wastes. Some of the laboratory wastes would otherwise not be 
managed under the requirements of RCRA (such as ethidium bromide wastes 
and virgin or unused chemicals on the shelf and that haven't 
consistently been defined as hazardous waste.)

D. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary to Implement This Project?

1. Federal Regulatory Changes
    Today's proposal would provide the Universities with a temporary 
conditional deferral from two specific RCRA regulations: Hazardous 
Waste Determination: 40 CFR 262.11, and the Satellite Accumulation 
Provisions: 40 CFR 262.34(c). The site-specific rule necessary to allow 
for the temporary conditional deferral, and being proposed by EPA 
today, would add a paragraph (j) to 40 CFR 262.10 to clarify that the 
temporary holding of laboratory wastes within the participating 
University laboratories would be covered by a new section to 40 CFR 
part 262, subpart J. Proposed subpart J would fully describe the 
conditions to be met for each University's management of laboratory 
waste and by its Laboratory Environmental Management Plan as outlined 
above, in the sections C.2., C.3. and C.4 of this preamble.
    (i) Hazardous Waste Determination: 40 CFR 262.11: Current 
regulation requires that generators make a determination as to whether 
a solid waste is a RCRA hazardous waste. The proposed rule would 
identify the specific point at which the Universities would make this 
determination. Under the proposed rule, the Universities would not make 
a hazardous waste determination until the laboratory waste is received 
at the on-site Hazardous Waste Accumulation Areas identified in Table 1 
above. These areas would be the point where decisions would be made as 
to whether the laboratory waste would be reused within the University, 
accumulated for up to 90- or 180-days pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34, or 
sent to a RCRA permitted (or interim status) treatment, storage or 
disposal facility.
    Because universities have such small and diverse waste streams and 
have large numbers of small laboratories, EPA recognizes the resource 
efficiency in making the hazardous waste determination at the on-site 
hazardous waste accumulation area. This approach would enable the 
university to determine whether laboratory waste can be reused on site 
at a central area, where the connections between departments and 
laboratories on a university-wide basis can be better made by the 
institution's professional environmental health and safety personnel. 
EPA also recognizes that while laboratory wastes remain in the 
laboratory, they would be managed pursuant to the Laboratory 
Environmental Management Standard as embodied in the proposed subpart J 
which includes Minimum Performance Criteria to ensure that they would 
be

[[Page 40707]]

managed in a manner protective of human health and the environment.
    (ii) Satellite Accumulation Provisions: 40 CFR 262.34(c): This 
regulation governs the satellite accumulation of hazardous waste. It 
states in paragraph (1) that a generator may accumulate as much as 55 
gallons of hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous waste in 
containers at or near any point of generation where wastes initially 
accumulate, which is under the control of the operator of the process 
generating the waste, without complying with paragraph 262.34(a) 
provided the generator: (i) complies with sections 265.171, 265.172 and 
265.173(a); and (ii) marks the containers with the words ``Hazardous 
Waste'' or with other words that identify the contents. Paragraph (2) 
states that a generator that accumulates in excess of the amounts in 
paragraph (1) must, with respect to the excess amount, comply within 
three days with 40 CFR 262.34(a) or other applicable provisions. This 
paragraph also requires that the generator must mark the container 
holding the excess accumulation with the date the excess began 
accumulating.
    This proposed rule would allow the Universities to manage hazardous 
waste in the laboratories without complying with Sec. 262.34(c). 
Specifically, the Universities would not be required to comply with the 
3-day accumulation time limit that applies to hazardous waste in excess 
of 55 gallons. Instead, under the proposed rule, Universities would be 
allowed to take 30 calendar days to remove the waste in their 
laboratories once the 55 gallon (or one quart of acutely hazardous 
laboratory waste) threshold is reached, while complying with their 
Environmental Management Plans. The extension from 3 to 30 days would 
allow for University environmental, health and safety professionals to 
collect and remove laboratory wastes during planned, systematic and 
scheduled intervals rather than the current reactive and episodic pick-
ups which, in an institution with over a hundred laboratories, can be 
extremely inefficient, diverting environmental, health and safety 
department staff time from more proactive measures. By providing 
additional time for waste pickups to be carefully scheduled, this 
proposed rule should enable university environmental professionals to 
provide additional training to students and other laboratory workers 
and to develop waste minimization, reuse and recycling opportunities 
for chemicals from the university laboratories. In addition, while 
laboratory waste is being held in the laboratory, the Universities 
would have to manage it in compliance with minimum performance 
criteria.
    Thus, the result of today's rule is that 40 CFR 262.34(c) would no 
longer be the only alternative available to manage waste in the 
individual laboratories at the Universities. Another system would be 
available under the proposed rule at 40 CFR part 262, subpart J, which 
sets forth the requirements of the Laboratory Environmental Management 
Plan (proposed Sec. 262.105), and the Minimum Performance Criteria 
(proposed Sec. 262.104).
    Proposed subpart J would only apply within the Universities' 
laboratories and while the laboratory waste is en route to an on-site 
hazardous waste accumulation area. Once the laboratory waste is 
received at the on-site hazardous waste accumulation area, subpart J 
would no longer apply and laboratory waste that is determined to be 
hazardous waste would be subject to all applicable RCRA requirements.
2. State Regulatory Changes
    The state of Vermont and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are 
authorized under section 3006 of RCRA to implement the federal RCRA 
program. Thus, these state programs operate in lieu of the federal 
program. Moreover, Vermont and Massachusetts hazardous waste management 
regulations, codified in Code of Vermont Regulations and 310 Code of 
Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 30.00, respectively, contain equivalent 
or more stringent, requirements as compared to the Federal regulations 
at 40 CFR 262.10 and 262.34(c). The Universities are subject to the 
Vermont (for the University of Vermont) and the Massachusetts (for the 
University of Massachusetts Boston and Boston College) state 
regulations, which would include requirements that the hazardous waste 
in laboratories be handled according to the accumulation provisions of 
RCRA. Therefore, conforming state regulatory changes or legal 
mechanisms must be implemented in addition to the proposed federal 
changes to undertake this new system.

E. Why Is EPA Supporting This New Approach to Laboratory Waste 
Management?

    EPA is supporting the regulatory model contained in today's rule 
because it provides for a degree of environmental protection that is at 
least as protective as that which existing RCRA regulations would 
provide for the participating laboratories. The model also promotes 
systemic, integrated cost-effective compliance which should increase 
opportunities for waste minimization through the centralization of 
waste determinations. EPA and the Universities anticipate that 
chemicals which would have been disposed of as waste should be 
redistributed and reused through the centralized hazardous waste 
determination process. In addition, by providing the Universities the 
flexibility to schedule regular waste pickups, professional resources 
can be redirected from reactive waste management to proactive waste 
management.
    EPA hopes that this proposed rule will result in a successful 
innovative pilot of a new system for universities and research 
organizations as unique workplaces where researchers and students often 
move from one jurisdiction to another throughout the country. If this 
pilot is successful, EPA hopes that this system could be translated 
into a national program, to address the confusion regarding the RCRA 
rules that has been reported by the universities. By implementing a 
standard system for universities, laboratory workers would remain 
cognizant of the requirements for managing chemicals, and in 
particular, waste chemicals, no matter where in the U.S. they are 
performing their research. EPA recognizes that the proposed new system 
may not be appropriate or necessary for some institutions such as small 
colleges but may, at some point, depending on the results of this XL 
project, consider the possibility of offering it as a regulatory 
option.
    Finally, for this pilot, the Universities would be implementing 
continuous improvement systems which would include training, planning, 
and self-inspections in ways that have never been tested before.

F. How Have Various Stakeholders Been Involved in This Project?

    Stakeholder involvement during the project development stage was 
encouraged in several ways. The methods included communicating through 
the media (newspaper, e-mails, and the LCEE website); directly 
contacting interested parties and offering an educational program 
regarding the regulatory requirements impacted by the XL project. 
Stakeholders have been kept informed on the project status via mailing 
lists, newspaper articles, public meetings and the establishment of a 
website at URL: http://esf.uvm.edu/LabXL.
    Representatives from Second Nature and Ecologia, national 
environmental interest groups (with members participating in the 
ISO14000 standard setting process), and the Tellus Institute (a 
nationally recognized nonprofit

[[Page 40708]]

corporation providing research on, among other issues, environmental 
management performance and reporting) have participated in conference 
calls and meetings with the Project XL team and provided comments 
during the development of the proposed Final Project Agreement. A 
representative of the national environmental group, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, has also been a participant in commenting on this 
proposal. These representatives continue to be notified of project 
meetings and activities.
    The university and research community is a diverse and busy one. 
Each University has held individual local stakeholder meetings in an 
effort to engage their surrounding communities. However, few local 
stakeholders other than employees of the facilities have expressed 
interest in actively participating in the development of the project. 
Copies of all comment letters, as well as EPA's response to comment 
letters, will be located in the rulemaking Docket (see the ADDRESSES 
section of today's preamble).
    As this XL project continues to be implemented, the stakeholder 
involvement program would shift its focus to ensure that: (1) 
Stakeholders are apprised of the status of project implementation and 
(2) Stakeholders have access to information sufficient to judge the 
success of this Project XL initiative. Anticipated stakeholder 
involvement during the term of the project will likely include other 
general public meetings to present periodic status reports, 
availability of data and other information generated. In addition to 
the EPA, VTDEC, and MADEP reporting requirements of today's rulemaking, 
the FPA includes provisions whereby the University Laboratories will 
make copies of interim project reports available to all interested 
parties. A public file on this XL project has been maintained at the 
website http://esf.uvm.edu/labxl throughout project development, and 
the Universities have committed to continue to update it as the project 
is implemented. Additional information is available at EPA's website at 
http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.
    A detailed description of this program and the stakeholder support 
for this project is included in the Final Project Agreement, which is 
available through the docket or through EPA's Project XL site on the 
Internet (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

G. How Will This Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork 
Reduction?

    Laboratory waste management currently accounts for the most 
substantial expense for environmental, health and safety programs at 
the participating Universities. This XL Project would allow academic 
institutions to more effectively promote and implement waste 
minimization programs in laboratories which would reduce waste disposal 
costs and minimize chemical purchasing costs. The opportunity to 
develop a systematic, planned procedure for the pickup of laboratory 
wastes and centralization of waste management decisions would also 
enable Environmental Health and Safety Departments to more effectively 
utilize staff on proactive activities such as training and implementing 
chemical reuse and waste minimization programs.
    Additionally, a certain amount of paperwork associated with RCRA 
compliance is likely to be reduced in the long term, while in the short 
term the requirement to write Environmental Management Plans would add 
additional paperwork. Once the Laboratory EMP is written, the annual 
review of the Chemical Hygiene Plans required by OSHA, and the review 
of the Environmental Management Plan could be accomplished in one step. 
The Universities do not expect significant paperwork reduction gains 
given the fact that the RCRA requirements would still be fully 
applicable once the laboratory waste reaches the on-site hazardous 
waste accumulation areas.

H. How Will EPA Ensure the Integrity and Comprehensiveness of Each 
University's Laboratory Environmental Management Plan?

    EPA, along with MA DEP and VT DEC and designated stakeholders would 
have sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the Laboratory 
EMP's as they are being developed by the Universities. In this pilot 
project, once its Laboratory EMP is complete, each University would 
formally submit their own Laboratory EMP to EPA and the applicable 
state for a final review of its conformance with the requirements of 
the Laboratory Environmental Management Standard. Because the 
Universities would be working with the agencies in developing their 
EMP, it is expected that they would be able to respond quickly to any 
possible comments or concerns raised by the agencies.

I. How Will the Terms of the Laboratory XL Project and Proposed Rule Be 
Enforced?

    All XL projects must include a legally enforceable mechanism to 
ensure accountability and superior environmental performance. EPA 
retains its full range of enforcement options under the proposed rule. 
The enforcement response on the part of EPA would vary depending upon 
the actual performance of each University and the severity of any 
violation. So that EPA can continue to evaluate this XL project, each 
University would be evaluated by EPA Region I through regular 
inspections based on the following four criteria:
    1. Does the University have an Environmental Management Plan as 
required by the Laboratory Environmental Management Standard?
    2. Does the University's Environmental Management Plan include the 
required policy and procedural elements specified in the Laboratory 
Environmental Management Standard?
    3. Is the University in compliance with the Minimum Performance 
Criteria as set forth in the Laboratory Environmental Management 
Standard at 40 CFR 262.104?
    4. To what degree do the University's environmental management 
practices in the laboratory conform to its Environmental Management 
Plan?
    Today's proposed rule includes a termination provision, in addition 
to EPA's usual enforcement options, which authorizes EPA to remove from 
this XL project any University that does not comply with the Laboratory 
Environmental Management Standard as described in the rule. In the 
event of such removal, the temporary conditional deferral would be 
revoked and the Universities would be required to submit to EPA an 
implementation schedule setting forth how the Universities would plan 
to come into full compliance regulations within 90 days from such 
notice. The schedule would reflect the Universities' intent to use 
their best efforts to come into compliance as quickly as practicable 
within the 90 day transition period. During this 90 day transition 
period, the provisions of this proposed rule and the University's 
Environmental Management Plan would apply in full. At the conclusion of 
the 90 day period, the applicable RCRA regulations would again apply to 
the Universities in full.
    The rationale for the 90-day transition period is to allow 
sufficient time for the Universities to reinstate the operational and 
administrative infrastructure

[[Page 40709]]

necessary for proper RCRA compliance. Such a transition will likely 
require the dismantling of the Environmental Management Plan and its 
component parts. Retraining and reverting to the implementation of the 
current RCRA system would include, among other things, (1) the re-
establishment of 3-day pick-ups of hazardous waste from the University 
laboratories, (2) making early hazardous waste determinations in the 
laboratories, and (3) the re-training of hundreds of laboratory 
workers. Most importantly, this transition might require the 
acquisition of funding and resources which were unnecessary under the 
streamlined Environmental Management Plan. For example, additional 
funding might be needed for the re-negotiation of contract terms with 
hazardous waste contractors who might be needed for additional 
hazardous waste pick-ups. Finally, the Universities may receive such a 
revocation notice during the summer or during a semester break when 
staff and graduate students are less available for re-training. For all 
of these reasons, and given the fact that the proposed rule and 
Environmental Management Plan would be fully applicable during this 
time, EPA is confident that the 90-day time frame is reasonable.

J. How Long Will This Project Last and When Will It Be Complete?

    As with all XL projects testing alternative environmental 
protection strategies, the term of the University Laboratory XL project 
is one of limited duration. Today's proposed rule would set the term of 
the XL Project at four years after the effective date of this rule.
    Because Project XL is a voluntary and experimental program, today's 
proposed rule contains provisions that allow the project to conclude 
prior to the end of the four years in the event that it is desirable or 
necessary to do so. For example, an early conclusion would be warranted 
if the project's environmental benefits do not meet the Project XL 
requirement for the achievement of superior environmental results. In 
addition, new laws or regulations may become applicable to the 
Universities' laboratories during the project term which might render 
the project impractical, or might contain regulatory requirements that 
supersede the superior environmental benefits that the University 
Laboratories are achieving under this project. Similarly, the 
Universities may also request that the temporary conditional deferral 
be revoked prior to the four years if the experimental project does not 
provide sufficient benefits for the Universities to justify continued 
participation.
    If an early conclusion to the project is determined to be 
appropriate, today's rule provides a mechanism for EPA to legally 
conclude the project prior to the four years, through a notice of 
termination, which would trigger the 90-day transitional period 
described above in this preamble discussion. While EPA, the state 
environmental agencies and the Universities have broad discretion and 
latitude to initiate an early conclusion of the project, both expect to 
exercise their good faith and judgment in determining whether 
exercising this option is appropriate.
    EPA reserves the discretion to terminate a project and an FPA in 
the event a University fails to comply with or meet its obligations in 
the proposed rule, or its supplementary commitments contained in the 
FPA. The FPA and the site specific rule also provide for the project 
sponsor's return to compliance with existing regulatory requirements 
following termination.

IV. Additional Information

A. How To Request a Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity 
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding this 
regulation in accordance with 40 CFR part 25. Persons wishing to make 
an oral presentation on the site specific rule to implement the 
University Laboratory XL project should contact Ms. Gina Snyder or Mr. 
George Frantz of the Region I EPA office, at the address given in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. Any member of the public may file a 
written statement before the hearing, or after the hearing, to be 
received by EPA no later than August 10, 1999. Written statements 
should be sent to EPA at the addresses given in the ADDRESSES section 
of this document. If a public hearing is held, a verbatim transcript of 
the hearing, and written statements provided at the hearing will be 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours at 
the EPA addresses for docket inspection given in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble.

B. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12866?

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Because the annualized cost of this final rule will be 
significantly less than $100 million and will not meet any of the other 
criteria specified in the Executive Order, it has been determined that 
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of 
Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
    Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a 
meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the 
comment period should be 60 days. However, in consideration of the very 
limited scope of today's rulemaking and the considerable public 
involvement in the development of the proposed Final Project Agreement, 
the EPA considers 30 days to be sufficient in providing a meaningful 
public comment period for today's action.

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required?

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, 
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it only affects three institutions, the University of 
Massachusetts in Boston, Massachusetts, Boston College in Boston, 
Massachusetts, and the University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont. 
These universities are not small entities. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 40710]]

D. Is an Information Collection Request Required for This Project Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act?

    This action applies only to three universities, and therefore 
requires no information collection activities subject to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) 
will be submitted to OMB for review in compliance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

E. Does This Project Trigger the Requirements of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act?

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    As noted above, this rule is applicable only to the three 
universities in Massachusetts and Vermont. The EPA has determined that 
this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has also determined that this 
rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures 
of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, today's 
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the 
UMRA.

F. RCRA and Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984

1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to 
administer and enforce the RCRA program for hazardous waste within the 
state. (See 40 CFR part 271 for the standards and requirements for 
authorization.) States with final authorization administer their own 
hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal program. Following 
authorization, EPA retains enforcement authority under sections 3008, 
7003 and 3013 of RCRA.
    After authorization, federal rules written under RCRA (non-HSWA), 
no longer apply in the authorized state except for those issued 
pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments of 1984 
(HSWA). New federal requirements imposed by those rules do not take 
effect in an authorized state until the state adopts the requirements 
as state law.
    In contrast, under section 3006(g) of RCRA, new requirements and 
prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in authorized states at the 
same time they take effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is directed to 
carry out HSWA requirements and prohibitions in authorized states until 
the state is granted authorization to do so.
2. Effect on Massachusetts and Vermont Authorization
    Today's proposed rule, if finalized, would be promulgated pursuant 
to non-HSWA authority, rather than HSWA. Massachusetts and Vermont have 
received authority to administer most of the RCRA program; thus, 
authorized provisions of each State's hazardous waste program are 
administered in lieu of the federal program. Massachusetts and Vermont 
have received authority to administer hazardous waste standards for 
generators. As a result, if today's proposed rule is finalized, it 
would not be effective in Massachusetts and Vermont until the State 
adopts equivalent legal mechanisms or requirements as state law. It is 
EPA's understanding that subsequent to the promulgation of this rule, 
Massachusetts and Vermont intend to propose rules or other legal 
mechanisms containing equivalent provisions. EPA may not enforce these 
requirements until it approves the State requirements as a revision to 
the authorized State program.

G. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13045: Protection of 
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks?

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

H. Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 12875: Enhancing 
Intergovernmental Partnerships?

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local 
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.

[[Page 40711]]

    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

I. How Does This Rule Comply With Executive Order 13084: Consultation 
and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments?

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities. Today's rule does not significantly 
or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. There 
are no communities of Indian tribal governments located in the vicinity 
of the university laboratories. Accordingly, the requirements of 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

J. Does This Rule Comply With the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act?

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standard. This 
proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, 
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. 
EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, 
specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-applicable 
voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should 
be used in this regulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Accumulation time, Hazardous waste, Waste 
determination.

    Dated: July 21, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 262 of Chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 262 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922-6925, 6937, and 6938.

Subpart A--General

    1. Section 262.10 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 262.10  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *
    (j)(1) Universities that are participating in the Laboratory XL 
project are the University of Massachusetts Boston in Boston, 
Massachusetts, Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, and the 
University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont (``Universities''). The 
Universities generate laboratory wastes, (as defined in 40 CFR 262.102) 
some of which will be hazardous wastes. As long as the Universities 
comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart J, the 
Universities' laboratories that are participating in the University 
Laboratories XL Project as identified in Table 1, are not subject to 
the provisions of 40 CFR 262.11, 262.34(c), 40 CFR Part 264, 40 CFR 
Part 265, and the permit requirements of 40 CFR Part 270 with respect 
to said laboratory wastes.

                             Table 1.--Laboratory XL Project Participant Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Approx.
             Institution                number of     Departments participating    Location of current hazardous
                                           labs                                       waste accumulation areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA....          120  Chemistry, Biology, Geology,   Merkert Chemistry Building,
                                                     Physics, Psychology.           2609 Beacon St., Boston MA;
                                                                                    Higgins Building, 140
                                                                                    Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut
                                                                                    Hill, MA.
University of Massachusetts Boston,            150  Chemistry, Biology,            Science Building (Bldg.
 Boston, MA.                                         Psychology, Anthropology,      #080); McCormack Building
                                                     Geology and Earth Sciences,    (Bldg. #020); and Wheatley
                                                     and Environmental, Coastal     Building (Bldg. #010), 100
                                                     and Ocean Sciences.            Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA.
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT          400  Colleges of: Agriculture and   Given Bunker, 89 Beaumont
                                                     Life Sciences, Arts and        Ave., Burlington, VT.
                                                     Sciences, Medicine, and
                                                     Engineering and Mathematics;
                                                     and Schools of: Nursing,
                                                     Allied Heath Sciences, and
                                                     Natural Resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Each University shall have the right to change its respective 
departments or the on-site location of its hazardous waste accumulation 
areas listed in Table 1 upon written notice to the Regional 
Administrator for EPA--Region I and the appropriate state agency. Such 
written notice will be

[[Page 40712]]

provided at least ten days prior to the effective date of any such 
changes.
    2. Part 262 is amended by adding Subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J--University Laboratories XL Project--Laboratory 
Environmental Management Standard

Sec.
262.100  To what organizations does this subpart apply?
262.101  What is in this subpart?
262.102  What special definitions are included in this subpart?
262.103  What is the scope of the laboratory environmental 
management standard?
262.104  What are the minimum performance criteria?
262.105  What must be included in the laboratory environmental 
management plan?
262.106  When must a hazardous waste determination be made?
262.107  Under what circumstances will a university's participation 
in this environmental management standard pilot be terminated?
262.108  When will this subpart expire?


Sec. 262.100  To what organizations does this subpart apply?

    This Subpart applies to an organization that meets all three of the 
following conditions:
    (a) It is one of the three following academic institutions: The 
University of Massachusetts Boston in Boston, Massachusetts, Boston 
College in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, or the University of Vermont 
in Burlington, Vermont (``Universities''); and
    (b) It is a laboratory at one of the Universities (identified 
pursuant to Sec. 262.105(c)(2)(ii)) where laboratory scale activities, 
as defined in Sec. 262.102, result in laboratory waste; and
    (c) It complies with all the requirements of this Subpart.


Sec. 262.101  What is in this subpart?

    This Subpart provides a framework for a new management system for 
wastes that are generated in University laboratories. This framework is 
called the Laboratory Environmental Management Standard. The standard 
includes some specific definitions that apply to the University 
laboratories. It contains specific requirements for how to handle 
laboratory waste that are called Minimum Performance Criteria. The 
standard identifies the requirements for developing and implementing an 
environmental management plan. It outlines the responsibilities of the 
management staff of each participating university. Finally, the 
standard identifies requirements for training people who will work in 
the laboratories or manage laboratory waste. This Subpart contains 
requirements for RCRA solid and hazardous waste determination, and 
circumstances for termination and expiration of this pilot.


Sec. 262.102  What special definitions are included in this subpart?

    For purposes of this Subpart, the following definitions apply:
    Acutely Hazardous Laboratory Waste means a laboratory waste, 
defined in the Environmental Management Plan as posing significant 
potential hazards to human health or the environment and which must 
include RCRA ``P'' wastes, and may include particularly hazardous 
substances as designated in a University's Chemical Hygiene Plan under 
OSHA, or Extremely Hazardous Substances under the Emergency Planning 
and Community Right to Know Act.
    Emergency means any occurrence such as, but not limited to, 
equipment failure, rupture of containers or failure of control 
equipment which results in the potential uncontrolled release of a 
hazardous chemical into the environment and which requires agency or 
fire department notification and/or reporting.
    Environmental Management Plan (EMP) means a written program 
developed and implemented by the university which sets forth standards 
and procedures, responsibilities, pollution control equipment, 
performance criteria, resources and work practices that both protect 
human health and the environment from the hazards presented by 
laboratory wastes within a laboratory and between a laboratory and the 
hazardous waste accumulation area, and satisfies the plan requirements 
defined elsewhere in this Subpart. Certain requirements of this plan 
are satisfied through the use of the Chemical Hygiene Plan (see, 29 CFR 
Sec. 1910.1450), or equivalent, and other relevant plans, including a 
waste minimization plan. The elements of the Environmental Management 
Plan must be easily accessible, but may be integrated into existing 
plans, incorporated as an attachment, or developed as a separate 
document.
    Environmental Objective means an overall environmental goal of the 
organization which is verifiable.
    Environmental Performance means results of the data collected 
pursuant to implementation of the Environmental Management Plan as 
measured against policy, objectives and targets.
    Environmental Target means an environmental performance requirement 
of the organization which is quantifiable, where practicable, 
verifiable and designed to be achieved within a specified time frame.
    Hazardous Chemical means any chemical which is a physical hazard or 
a health hazard. A physical hazard means a chemical for which there is 
scientifically valid evidence that it is a combustible liquid, a 
compressed gas, explosive, flammable, an organic peroxide, an oxidizer, 
pyrophoric, unstable (reactive) or water-reactive. A health hazard 
means a chemical for which there is statistically significant evidence 
based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established 
scientific principles that acute or chronic health effects may occur in 
exposed employees. The term ``health hazard'' includes chemicals which 
are carcinogens, toxic or highly toxic agents, reproductive toxins, 
irritants, corrosives, sensitizers, hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins, 
neurotoxins, agents which act on the hematopoietic system and agents 
which damage the lungs, skin, eyes or mucous membranes.
    Hazardous Chemical of Concern means a chemical that the 
organization has identified as having the potential to be of 
significant risk to human health or the environment if not managed in 
accordance with procedures or practices defined by the organization.
    Hazardous Waste Accumulation Area means the on-site area at a 
University where the University will make a solid and hazardous waste 
determination with respect to laboratory wastes.
    In-Line Waste Collection means a system for the automatic 
collection of laboratory waste which is directly connected to or part 
of a laboratory scale activity and which is constructed or operated in 
a manner which prevents the release of any laboratory waste therein 
into the environment during collection.
    Laboratory means, for the purpose of this Subpart, an area within a 
facility where the laboratory use of hazardous chemicals occurs. It is 
a workplace where relatively small quantities of hazardous chemicals 
are used on a non-production basis. The physical extent of individual 
laboratories within an organization will be defined by the 
Environmental Management Plan. A laboratory may include more than a 
single room if the rooms are in the same building and under the common 
supervision of a laboratory supervisor.
    Laboratory Clean-Out means an evaluation of the chemical inventory 
of a laboratory as a result of laboratory renovation, relocation or a 
change in laboratory supervision that may result in the transfer of 
laboratory wastes to the hazardous waste accumulation area.
    Laboratory Environmental Management Standard means the

[[Page 40713]]

provisions of this Subpart and includes the requirements for 
preparation of Environmental Management Plans and the inclusion of 
Minimum Performance Criteria within each Environmental Management Plan.
    Laboratory Scale means work with substances in which containers 
used for reactions, transfers and other handling of substances are 
designed to be safely and easily manipulated by one person. 
``Laboratory Scale'' excludes those workplaces whose function is to 
produce commercial quantities of chemicals.
    Laboratory Waste means a hazardous chemical that results from 
laboratory scale activities and includes the following: excess or 
unused hazardous chemicals that may or may not be reused outside their 
laboratory of origin; hazardous chemicals determined to be RCRA 
hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR Part 261; and hazardous chemicals 
that will be determined not to be RCRA hazardous waste pursuant to 40 
CFR 262.106.
    Laboratory Worker means a person who is assigned to handle 
hazardous chemicals in the laboratory and may include researchers, 
students or technicians.
    Legal and Other Requirements means requirements imposed by, or as a 
result of, governmental permits, governmental laws and regulations, 
judicial and administrative enforcement orders, non-governmental 
legally enforceable contracts, research grants and agreements, 
certification specifications, formal voluntary commitments and 
organizational policies and standards.
    Senior Management means senior personnel with overall 
responsibility, authority and accountability for managing laboratory 
activities within the organization.
    Universities means the following academic institutions; University 
of Vermont, Boston College, and the University of Massachusetts Boston, 
which are participants in this Laboratory XL project and which are 
subject to the requirements set forth in this Subpart I.


Sec. 262.103  What is the scope of the laboratory environmental 
management standard?

    The Laboratory Environmental Management Standard will not affect or 
supersede any legal requirements other than those described in 
Sec. 262.10(j). The requirements that continue to apply include, but 
are not limited to, OSHA, Fire Codes, wastewater permit limitations, 
emergency response notification provisions, or other legal requirements 
applicable to University laboratories.


Sec. 262.104  What are the minimum performance criteria?

    The Minimum Performance Criteria that each University must meet in 
managing its Laboratory Waste are:
    (a) Each University must label all laboratory waste with the 
chemical name and general hazard class. If the container is too small 
to hold a label, the label must be placed on a secondary container.
    (b) Each University may temporarily hold up to 55 gallons of 
laboratory waste or one quart of acutely hazardous laboratory waste, or 
weight equivalent, in each laboratory, but upon reaching these 
thresholds, each University must mark that laboratory waste with the 
date when this threshold requirement was met (by dating the 
container(s) or secondary container(s)).
    (c) Each university must remove all of the dated laboratory waste 
from the laboratory for direct delivery to the hazardous waste 
accumulation area within 30 days of reaching the threshold amount 
identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) In no event shall the excess laboratory waste that a laboratory 
temporarily holds before dated laboratory waste is removed exceed an 
additional 55 gallons of laboratory waste (or one additional quart of 
acutely hazardous laboratory waste). No more than 110 gallons of 
laboratory waste total (or no more than two quarts of acutely hazardous 
laboratory waste total) may be temporarily held in a laboratory at any 
one time. Excess laboratory waste must be dated and removed in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section.
    (e) Containers of laboratory wastes must be:
    (1) Closed at all times except when wastes are being added to 
(including during in-line waste collection) or removed from the 
container;
    (2) Maintained in good condition and stored in the laboratory in a 
manner to avoid leaks;
    (3) Compatible with their contents to avoid reactions between the 
waste and its container; and must be made of, or lined with, materials 
which are compatible with the laboratory wastes to be temporarily held 
in the laboratory so that the container is not impaired; and
    (4) Inspected regularly (at least annually) to ensure that they 
meet requirements for container management.
    (f) The management of laboratory waste must not result in the 
release of hazardous constituents into the land, air and water where 
such release is prohibited under federal law.
    (g) The requirements for emergency response are:
    (1) Each University must post notification procedures, location of 
emergency response equipment to be used by laboratory workers and 
evacuation procedures;
    (2) Emergency response equipment and procedures for emergency 
response must be appropriate to the hazards in the laboratory such that 
hazards to human health and the environment will be minimized in the 
event of an emergency;
    (3) In the event of a fire, explosion or other release of 
laboratory waste which could threaten human health or the environment, 
the laboratory worker must follow the notification procedures under 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) Each University must investigate, document, and take actions to 
correct and prevent future incidents of hazardous chemical spills, 
exposures and other incidents that trigger a reportable emergency or 
that require reporting under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (i) Each University may only transfer laboratory wastes from a 
laboratory directly to an on-site designated hazardous waste 
accumulation area. Notwithstanding 40 CFR 263.10(a), each University 
must comply with requirements for transporters set forth in 40 CFR 
263.30 and 263.31 in the event of a discharge of laboratory waste en 
route from a laboratory to an on-site hazardous waste accumulation 
area.
    (j) Each University must provide laboratory workers with 
information and training so that they can implement and comply with 
these Minimum Performance Criteria.


Sec. 262.105  What must be included in the laboratory environmental 
management plan?

    (a) Each University must include specific measures it will take to 
protect human health and the environment from hazards associated with 
the management of laboratory wastes and from the reuse, recycling or 
disposal of such materials outside the laboratory.
    (b) Each University must write, implement and comply with an 
Environmental Management Plan that includes the following:
    (1) The specific procedures to assure compliance with each of the 
Minimum Performance Criteria set forth in Sec. 262.104.
    (2) An environmental policy, or environmental, health and safety 
policy, signed by the University's senior management, which must 
include

[[Page 40714]]

commitments to regulatory compliance, waste minimization, risk 
reduction and continual improvement of the environmental management 
system.
    (3) A description of roles and responsibilities for the 
implementation and maintenance of the Laboratory Environmental 
Management Plan.
    (4) A system for identifying and tracking legal and other 
requirements applicable to laboratory waste, including the procedures 
for providing updates to laboratory supervisors.
    (5) Criteria for the identification of physical and chemical 
hazards and the control measures to reduce the potential for releases 
of laboratory wastes to the environment, including engineering 
controls, the use of personal protective equipment and hygiene 
practices, containment strategies and other control measures.
    (6) A pollution prevention plan, including, but not limited to, 
roles and responsibilities, training, pollution prevention activities, 
and performance review.
    (7) A system for conducting and updating annual surveys of 
hazardous chemicals of concern and procedures for identifying acutely 
hazardous laboratory waste.
    (8) The procedures for conducting laboratory clean-outs with regard 
to the safe management and disposal of laboratory wastes.
    (9) The criteria that laboratory workers must comply with for 
managing, containing and labeling laboratory wastes, including: an 
evaluation of the need for and the use of any special containers or 
labeling circumstances, and the use of laboratory wastes secondary 
containers including packaging, bottles, or test tube racks.
    (10) The procedures relevant to the safe and timely removal of 
laboratory wastes from the laboratory.
    (11) The emergency preparedness and response procedures to be 
implemented for laboratory waste.
    (12) Provisions for information dissemination and training, 
provided for in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (13) The procedures for the development and approval of changes to 
the Environmental Management Plan.
    (14) The procedures and work practices for safely transferring or 
moving laboratory wastes from a laboratory to a hazardous waste 
accumulation area.
    (15) The procedures for regularly inspecting a laboratory to assess 
conformance with the requirements of the Environmental Management Plan.
    (16) The procedures for the identification of environmental 
management plan noncompliance, and the assignment of responsibility, 
timelines and corrective actions to prevent their reoccurrence.
    (17) The recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with 
this Plan.
    (c) Organizational responsibilities for each university. Each 
University must:
    (1) Develop and oversee implementation of its Laboratory 
Environmental Management Plan.
    (2) Identify the following:
    (i) Annual environmental objectives and targets;
    (ii) Those laboratories covered by the requirements of the 
Laboratory Environmental Management Plan.
    (3) Assign roles and responsibilities for the effective 
implementation of the Environmental Management Plan.
    (4) Determine whether laboratory wastes received at a hazardous 
waste accumulation area are solid wastes under RCRA and, if so, whether 
they are hazardous.
    (5) Develop, implement, and maintain:
    (i) Policies, procedures and practices governing its compliance 
with the Environmental Management Plan and applicable federal and state 
hazardous waste regulations.
    (ii) Procedures to monitor and measure relevant conformance and 
environmental performance data for the purpose of supporting continual 
improvement of the Environmental Management Plan.
    (iii) Policies and procedures for managing environmental documents 
and records applicable to this Environmental Management Standard.
    (6) Ensure that:
    (i) Its Environmental Management Plan is available to laboratory 
workers, vendors, employee representatives, visitors, on-site 
contractors, and upon request, to governmental representatives.
    (ii) Personnel designated by each University to handle laboratory 
wastes and RCRA hazardous waste receive appropriate training.
    (iii) The Environmental Management Plan is reviewed at least 
annually by senior management to ensure its continuing suitability, 
adequacy and effectiveness. The reviews may include, but not be limited 
to, a consideration of monitoring and measuring information, Laboratory 
Environmental Management Standard performance data, assessment and 
audit results and other relevant information and data.
    (d) What are the Information and Training Requirements for Each 
University? (1) Each University must provide laboratory workers with 
information and training so that they understand and can implement the 
elements of each University's Environmental Management Plan that are 
relevant to the laboratory workers' responsibilities.
    (2) Each University must provide the information and training to 
each laboratory worker when he/she is first assigned to a work area 
where laboratory wastes may be generated. Each University must retrain 
a laboratory worker when a laboratory waste poses a new or unique 
hazard for which the laboratory worker has not received prior training 
and as frequently as needed to maintain knowledge of the procedures of 
the Environmental Management Plan.
    (3) Each University must provide an outline of training and specify 
who is to receive training in its Environmental Management Plan.
    (4) Each University must ensure that laboratory workers are 
informed of:
    (i) The contents of this Subpart and the Laboratory Environmental 
Management Plan(s) for the laboratory(ies) in which they will be 
performing work;
    (ii) The location and availability of the Environmental Management 
Plan;
    (iii) Emergency response measures applicable to laboratories;
    (iv) Signs and indicators of a hazardous substance release;
    (v) The location and availability of known reference materials 
relevant to implementation of the Environmental Management Plan; and
    (vi) Environmental training requirements applicable to laboratory 
workers.
    (5) Each University must train Laboratory workers in:
    (i) Methods and observations that may be used to detect the 
presence or release of a hazardous substance;
    (ii) The chemical and physical hazards associated with laboratory 
wastes in their work area;
    (iii) The relevant measures a laboratory worker can take to protect 
human health and the environment; and
    (iv) Details of the Environmental Management Plan sufficient to 
ensure they manage laboratory waste in accordance with the requirements 
of this Subpart.
    (6) Requirements pertaining to Laboratory visitors:
    (i) Laboratory visitors, such as on-site contractors or 
environmental vendors, that require information and training under this 
standard must be identified in the Environmental Management Plan.
    (ii) Laboratory visitors identified in the Environmental Management 
Plan must be informed of the existence and location of the 
Environmental Management Plan.

[[Page 40715]]

    (iii) Laboratory visitors identified in the Environmental 
Management Plan must be informed of relevant policies, procedures or 
work practices to ensure compliance with the requirements of the 
Environmental Management Plan.
    (7) Each University must define methods of providing objective 
evidence and records of training and information dissemination in its 
Environmental Management Plan.


Sec. 262.106  When must a hazardous waste determination be made?

    Each University must evaluate all laboratory wastes to determine 
whether they are solid wastes under RCRA and, if so, determine pursuant 
to 40 CFR 262.11(a) through (d) whether they are hazardous wastes, as 
soon as the laboratory wastes reach the University's Hazardous Waste 
Accumulation area(s). At this point each University must determine 
whether the laboratory waste will be reused or whether it must be 
managed as RCRA solid or hazardous waste. Laboratory waste that is 
determined to be hazardous waste is no longer subject to the provisions 
of this Subpart and must be managed in accordance with all applicable 
RCRA requirements.


Sec. 262.107  Under what circumstances will a university's 
participation in this environmental management standard pilot be 
terminated?

    (a) EPA retains the right to terminate a University's participation 
in this Laboratory XL project if the University:
    (1) Is in non-compliance with the Minimum Performance Criteria in 
Sec. 262.104; or
    (2) Has actual environmental management practices in the laboratory 
that do not conform to its Environmental Management Plan; or
    (3) Is in non-compliance with the Hazardous Waste Determination 
requirements of Sec. 262.106.
    (b) In the event of termination, EPA will provide the University 
with 15 days written notice of its intent to terminate. During this 
period, which commences upon receipt of the notice, the University will 
have the opportunity to come back into compliance with the Minimum 
Performance Criteria, its Environmental Management Plan, or the 
requirements for making a hazardous waste determination at Sec. 262.106 
or to provide a written explanation as to why it was not in compliance 
and how it intends to return to compliance. If, upon review of the 
University's written explanation, EPA then re-issues a written notice 
terminating the University from this XL Project, the provisions of 
Sec. 262.107(c) will immediately apply and the University shall have 90 
days to come into compliance with the applicable RCRA requirements 
deferred by Sec. 262.10(j). During the 90-day transition period, the 
provisions of this Subpart shall continue to apply to the University.
    (c) If a University withdraws from this XL project, or receives a 
notice of termination pursuant to this section, it must submit to EPA 
and the state a schedule for returning to full compliance with RCRA 
requirements at the laboratory level. The schedule must show how the 
University will return to full compliance with RCRA within 90 days from 
the date of the notice of termination or withdrawal.


Sec. 262.108  When will this subpart expire?

    This Subpart will expire on [INSERT DATE 4 YEARS FROM EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE].

[FR Doc. 99-19123 Filed 7-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P