[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29712-29752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4654]



[[Page 29711]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 261 and 262



Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K--
Standards Applicable to Academic Laboratories; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 2006 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 29712]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261 and 262

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012; FRL-8171-5]
RIN 2050-AG18


Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart 
K--Standards Applicable to Academic Laboratories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today, EPA is proposing alternative generator requirements 
applicable to college and university laboratories as defined in this 
proposed rule. The proposal provides a flexible and protective set of 
regulations that address the specific nature of hazardous waste 
generation in college and university laboratories. The flexibility in 
today's proposed rule will allow colleges and universities the 
discretion to determine the most appropriate and effective method of 
compliance with today's proposed requirements. This preamble will refer 
to this flexible approach as a ``performance-based'' approach. 
Additionally, this proposed rule grants colleges and universities the 
choice to manage their hazardous wastes in accordance with today's 
alternative set of regulations or remain subject to the existing 
generator regulations.

DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until 
August 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA 2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012, by one of the 
following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) 
to [``[email protected]''], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012.
     Fax: Fax comments to: 202-566-0270, Attention Docket ID. 
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012.
     Mail: Send comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA Docket Center 
Mailcode: 5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. In addition, please 
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments to: Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. EPA's policy is that all 
comments received will be included in the public docket without change 
and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets/htm. For additional 
instructions for submitting comment, comment go to section B of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the at the OSWER 
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1774, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-
0270. Copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact EPA's 
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/comments.htm htm. For 
general information regarding lab wastes for educational institutions, 
contact http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/labwaste/index.html html. For further information regarding specific aspects of this 
notice, contact Patricia Mercer, Hazardous Waste Identification 
Division, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; (703) 308-8408; 
fax number (703) 308-0514; e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed action are 
generators of unwanted materials, as defined in this proposal, from 
college and university laboratories. College and university 
laboratories, as defined under this proposal, include laboratories 
associated with a private or public, post-secondary, degree-granting, 
academic institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency listed 
annually by the U.S. Department of Education. Only those colleges and 
universities which have laboratories on their campuses would be covered 
by this alternate approach; laboratories not located at colleges or 
universities would not be covered. This proposed action is optional in 
that colleges and universities may elect to have their laboratories 
remain regulated under current RCRA generator regulations as set forth 
in 40 CFR 262.11 and 262.34(c), or may choose to manage

[[Page 29713]]

their hazardous wastes according to this alternative regulatory 
approach. (In RCRA authorized states, today's proposed action would be 
an option once it has been adopted by the state in which the college or 
university resides.) To determine whether a college or university 
laboratory is covered by this action, interested parties should examine 
40 CFR part 262 subpart K carefully. If there are questions regarding 
the applicability of the proposed rule to a particular entity, consult 
the person listed in the section of this preamble entitled FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What To Consider When Preparing Comments for EPA

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark part of all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed, except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The Agency may ask for commenters to 
respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If estimating potential burden or costs, explain methods 
used to arrive at the estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to 
be reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate any concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
     Make sure to submit comments by the comment period 
deadline identified above.


                                                                    List of Acronyms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACE.........................................  American Council on Education.
APA.........................................  Administrative Procedures Act.
APPA........................................  Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers.
BR..........................................  Biennial Report.
C2E2........................................  Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence.
CAA.........................................  Central Accumulation Area.
CAS.........................................  Chemical Abstract Service.
CESQG.......................................  Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator.
CFR.........................................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CSHEMA......................................  Campus Safety, Health and Environmental Management Association.
EH&S........................................  Environmental Health and Safety.
EMP.........................................  Environmental Management Plan.
EMS.........................................  Environmental Management System.
HHMI........................................  Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
HSWA........................................  Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
ICR.........................................  Information Collection Request.
LDR.........................................  Land Disposal Restrictions.
LMP.........................................  Laboratory Management Plan.
LQG.........................................  Large Quantity Generator.
NACUBO......................................  National Association of College and University Business Officers.
NGO.........................................  Non-Governmental Organization.
NTTAA.......................................  National Technology Transfer Advancement Act.
OMB.........................................  Office of Management and Budget.
PRA.........................................  Paperwork Reduction Act.
Project XL..................................  eXcellence and Leadership.
RCRA........................................  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RFA.........................................  Regulatory Flexibility Act.
SAA.........................................  Satellite Accumulation Area.
SIC.........................................  Standard Industrial Code.
SQG.........................................  Small Quantity Generator.
SWDA........................................  Solid Waste Disposal Act.
TRI.........................................  Toxics Release Inventory.
TSDF........................................  Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility.
UMRA........................................  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preamble Outline

I. Statutory Authority
II. Background
    A. Intent of Today's Proposed Rule
    B. History
    C. Agency's College and University Initiatives
    D. Overview of College and University Laboratory Operations
    1. Generation of Hazardous Wastes--Types and Quantities
    a. Data Sources
    b. Summary of College and University Hazardous Waste Generation 
Activities
    i. Summary of College and University Laboratory Hazardous Waste 
Generation
    ii. Summary of Type and Volume of Laboratory Hazardous Waste 
Generation at College and University LQGs and SQGs
    2. Summary of Current RCRA Generator Regulations
    a. Who May Determine Whether a Waste Is Hazardous?
    b. Generators That Treat Hazardous Waste On-Site
    c. Land Disposal Restrictions
    d. Applicability of Today's Proposal to Conditionally Exempt 
Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs)
III. Overview of Today's Proposed Rule
IV. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposed Rule
    A. Discussion of Proposed Definitions
    B. Scope of Laboratories at Colleges and Universities Covered 
Under This Proposed Rule

[[Page 29714]]

    1. Laboratories in Colleges and Universities
    2. Alternative Regulations
    3. Notification
    C. Specific Requirements Under the Alternative Regulations
    1. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination
    2. Container Standards
    3. Labeling Standards
    4. Training and Instruction Requirements
    5. Removal Frequency of Unwanted Materials
    a. Reactive Acutely Hazardous Unwanted Materials
    b. Other Unwanted Materials That Are Potentially Acutely 
Hazardous Waste
    6. Where and When To Make the Hazardous Waste Determination--
Transferring Unwanted Materials or Hazardous Wastes From the 
Laboratory to an On-Site CAA or On-Site TSDF
    7. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination in the Laboratory
    8. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination at an On-Site 
Central Accumulation Area
    9. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination at an On-Site TSDF
    10. Laboratory Clean-Outs
    11. Laboratory Management Plan
    D. Recordkeeping
    E. Implementation and Enforcement
V. State Authorization
    A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
    B. Effect on State Authorization
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. Economic Analysis
    2. Summary of Proposed Rule Findings: Costs, Economic Impacts, 
Benefits
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (ICR)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Attachment A

I. Statutory Authority

    These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 
2002, 3001, 3002, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of 
1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
of 1976, as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 
(HSWA), 42 U.S.C. 6921, 6922, 6923, and 6924.

II. Background

A. Intent of Today's Proposed Rule

    The intent of today's proposed rule is to establish an alternative 
set of generator requirements for college and university laboratories 
that is better suited to their specific circumstances, and promotes 
environmental protection and public health through safer management of 
laboratory hazardous wastes. While the Agency has been investigating 
these issues for a number of years, starting in 2002, EPA conducted a 
series of outreach activities to generators of hazardous waste with 
laboratories to obtain information regarding the differences between 
how hazardous waste is generated and managed at college and university 
laboratory operations as compared with production operations of 
industrial generators and other non-college or university laboratory 
generators. The information collected by the Agency indicates that 
college and university laboratory operations differ from both 
industrial laboratories and industrial production facilities that 
generate hazardous waste, warranting development of an alternative set 
of regulations for college and university laboratories.
    Relative to industrial production facilities, laboratories 
generally have a large number of points of generation (i.e. points 
where waste is originally generated) such as multiple laboratory 
benchtops within a single laboratory and laboratories located at 
several areas on a single campus. Laboratories also tend to generate a 
relatively small volume of hazardous waste at each of these points of 
generation. In contrast, industrial generators tend to generate only a 
few wastestreams in large quantities at relatively few generation 
points. Additionally, while most individuals involved in hazardous 
waste generation activities at both industrial production facilities 
and other non-college or university laboratories are employees who are 
professionally trained in managing hazardous wastes, students often 
generate hazardous waste at college and university laboratories.
    EPA recognizes that hazardous waste management operations vary 
widely among campuses and some colleges and universities have developed 
programs that have proven to be successful, and thus may be reluctant 
to change from the regulation under which they are currently operating. 
Therefore, today's proposal is an optional, alternative set of 
requirements to the existing generator regulations at Sec. Sec.  262.11 
and 262.34(c). Those colleges or universities that choose to continue 
to manage their laboratory hazardous waste under the current hazardous 
waste regulations may do so. Colleges or universities that would like 
the additional flexibility of today's rule may choose to manage their 
laboratory hazardous waste according to this new set of generator 
regulations. This proposal was developed with performance-based 
standards in part to account for the diversity among college and 
university operations and practices, curricula, and goals. The term 
``performance-based standards'' means a flexible approach that will 
allow colleges or universities the discretion to determine the most 
appropriate and effective method of compliance with the requirements of 
today's proposed rule. This diversity in programs for managing wastes, 
including hazardous waste, is also reflective of logistical 
considerations including campus size, space, personnel, and other 
resource differences among colleges and universities.
    EPA has heard from college and university stakeholders that the 
greatest difficulty they face in managing their laboratory hazardous 
waste under the existing regulations is making the RCRA hazardous waste 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11 (i.e. determining whether their 
solid waste is hazardous waste) in the laboratory when individuals in 
the laboratory generating the solid waste and other materials are 
students, often untrained and unqualified to make a hazardous waste 
determination.
    Additionally, stakeholders have pointed out that it is difficult to 
make hazardous waste determinations in college and university 
laboratories because in a college and university setting there are 
numerous individual points of generation. This can make it difficult 
for an Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) (or other similarly 
qualified) staff member to be present when the waste is generated. 
Since any individual laboratory chemical hood (as one example) can be 
considered a point of generation, and any college or university with a 
substantial science department can have over a thousand such hoods 
located in many laboratories throughout a campus, it can be extremely 
impractical to have such qualified individuals present at each point.
    Today's proposal addresses this issue by providing flexibility in 
40 CFR 262.209 with regard to where the hazardous waste determination 
can be made (i.e. in the laboratory, at an on-site central accumulation 
area (CAA) or at an on-site TSDF), provided all unwanted materials (as 
defined in Section IV. A. of this preamble) that are generated in the 
laboratory are managed according to the provisions described below. If 
the unwanted materials are sent to an on-site CAA (or on-site TSDF) at 
the college or university for

[[Page 29715]]

hazardous waste determination by EH&S personnel (or other RCRA trained 
individuals), the hazardous waste determination must be made within 
four calendar days of arriving at the on-site CAA or TSDF. 
Additionally, today's rule allows for the hazardous waste determination 
to be made by RCRA-trained individuals in the laboratory before 
unwanted materials are removed from the laboratory. The proposed 
provisions would apply to all unwanted materials in the laboratory that 
have the potential for being RCRA hazardous wastes, including those 
which are later determined not to be RCRA hazardous waste by EH&S or 
other qualified personnel. Colleges or universities with laboratories 
that generate hazardous waste that choose not to be subject to today's 
proposal would remain subject to the current generator requirements set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  262.11 and 262.34(c). Today's proposal would not 
alter or move the point of generation of any hazardous waste, but 
merely allow the hazardous waste determination to be made at an on-site 
central accumulation area or TSDF, or allow the hazardous waste 
determination to be made in the laboratory, but at a point in time 
after initial generation of the waste. The point of generation of the 
hazardous waste would continue to be the location and time at which the 
hazardous waste is first created.
    Because the specific issues which are faced by colleges and 
universities with regard to waste management are specific to hazardous 
wastes generated in laboratories, it is only the hazardous waste 
generated in the laboratory that may be managed under subpart K. 
Hazardous wastes generated at other parts of the college and university 
will remain subject to the existing hazardous waste regulations.
    EPA believes that a performance-based approach will allow colleges 
and universities greater flexibility and ensure better environmental 
results. EPA also recognizes that performance-based standards 
inherently lack specificity. Therefore, EPA is proposing a planning 
component to help ensure that a college or university throughly 
considers its specific circumstances, and provides the details needed 
to ensure safe management of its unwanted materials. Therefore, under 
today's proposal, colleges and universities must develop, implement and 
retain a Laboratory Management Plan (LMP). This plan would describe how 
a college or university will meet the required provisions in this 
proposal (i.e. the performance-based standards). Subpart K will require 
that the LMP contain certain elements; however, how an individual 
college or university chooses to comply with these requirements (i.e. 
the specifics of the LMP) will be left to its discretion. For example, 
while the labeling standards for containers require the words 
``unwanted material'' to be either affixed to or physically accompany 
the container, the Agency is providing flexibility to colleges and 
universities to use their discretion to meet the labeling standard for 
providing sufficient information to alert emergency responders to the 
hazards of the contents of the container. In this instance, the Agency 
is proposing performance-based language for container labeling and is 
not mandating specific terms or information to be used for defining 
``sufficient information.'' The same is true for the propose 
requirements for container management standards (i.e., while containers 
must be maintained and kept in good condition, EPA is not prescribing 
precisely how the containers are managed) and training/instruction 
(i.e., depending on a college or university's generator status and the 
duties of individual workers, colleges and universities may determine 
the level of training needed for an individual to perform their 
assigned duties). These elements must be addressed in detail in an LMP. 
It would be a violation of subpart K for a college or university 
laboratory (choosing to operate under subpart K) not to have an LMP 
that addresses the required elements in a way which would meet the 
performance standards. EPA is proposing two options for enforceability 
of the provisions contained within the LMP. Under one option, it would 
not be a violation of subpart K for a college or university to deviate 
from its LMP, provided the performance-based standards are met. Under 
the second option, it would be a violation of subpart K for a college 
or university to deviate from its LMP.
    EPA believes that today's proposal will lead to safe management of 
unwanted materials and greater environmental protection by facilitating 
RCRA hazardous waste determinations, requiring that they be performed 
by specifically trained personnel, rather than by untrained students in 
college and university laboratories. EPA also believes that today's 
proposal will promote the protection of human health and the 
environment by ensuring that all unwanted materials which may, in whole 
or in part, be RCRA hazardous wastes are safely managed while in the 
laboratory prior to the time that the hazardous waste determination is 
made. In addition, EPA believes that the requirement in today's 
proposal to develop and implement an LMP will improve a college or 
university's coordination and integration of hazardous waste management 
procedures and enhance environmental awareness among researchers and 
students at colleges and universities, leading to a transfer of good 
environmental management practices to the larger community.
    EPA strongly encourages colleges and universities to go beyond 
developing an LMP that addresses only the required elements, and 
examine their waste generation and management practices college or 
university-wide, with a particular eye toward finding opportunities for 
waste minimization and pollution prevention. For example, opportunities 
may exist for developing systems that would facilitate and encourage 
redistribution and reuse of unwanted materials throughout the 
institution. To that end, EPA actively encourages colleges and 
universities to consider the implementation of an Environmental 
Management System (EMS), a system of management practices and related 
documentation, procedures, and work practices that are put in place to 
manage an institution's overall environmental impacts. More information 
on EMSs at colleges and universities can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ne/assistance/univ/emsguide.html and http://www.campusEMS.org/.

B. History

    EPA has led and participated in several efforts to gain a better 
understanding of the challenges associated with managing hazardous 
wastes in college and university laboratories. Pursuant to 
Congressional direction in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984 (HSWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a 
study of challenges associated with the accumulation, storage and 
disposal of hazardous wastes from college and university laboratories. 
The study culminated in a Report to Congress (Report) in April 1989, 
outlining the then current regulatory requirements for college and 
university laboratories managing hazardous waste, the current practices 
at these laboratories, and the problems confronting college and 
university laboratories. The challenges for college and university 
laboratories highlighted in the Report included a lack of awareness 
about hazardous wastes and the applicable regulations due to the 
transient nature of the student population, the highly variable 
wastestreams generated, resource constraints on hazardous waste

[[Page 29716]]

management, and general difficulty in complying with the hazardous 
waste regulations.
    In 1999, EPA initiated a pilot program for three colleges and 
universities, providing the regulatory flexibility necessary for the 
participating institutions to be able to experiment with potentially 
promising regulatory approaches to hazardous waste management in 
college and university laboratories. This program was developed under 
the Agency's Project XL, which stands for ``eXcellence and 
Leadership,'' an initiative to allow regulated entities to achieve 
better environmental results at less cost by increasing awareness of 
EPA regulations and environmental performance through the use of tools 
such as Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). The goals of the EPA 
University Laboratories Project XL were to develop a more effective 
approach for regulating university laboratories, develop programs to 
enhance laboratory safety, and illustrate better systems to manage 
laboratory environmental impacts.
    In 2001, Congress endorsed EPA's participation in a pilot project 
in collaboration with ten major academic research institutions, the 
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and state regulatory officials 
and directed EPA to subsequently report to Congress on the HHMI 
project. The project was intended to evaluate a performance-based 
approach in order to provide regulatory flexibility, reduce burdens and 
yield superior compliance, and thus, environmental protection. EPA 
encouraged state regulators to provide the maximum flexibility under 
the current regulations to program participants so that they could 
implement the consensus best practices developed through the program. 
In 2002, EPA issued a Report to Congress (Report) on the HHMI project, 
recognizing that college and university laboratories may have 
difficulty complying with the RCRA hazardous waste regulations largely 
due to the regulations' industry-oriented framework. In the Report, EPA 
also indicated that regulatory changes may be necessary in some cases 
and that the regulatory process would allow EPA to consider views from 
diverse stakeholders and promote national consistency through the 
public notice-and-comment process.
    EPA subsequently developed a three-phased approach to address the 
issues identified in the 2002 Report to Congress: (1) Outreach to 
stakeholders to gather information to help EPA understand the specific 
nature of the issues, (2) guidance to clarify issues raised by 
stakeholders not needing regulatory changes, and (3) regulatory 
changes, where appropriate, to provide flexibility. Such an approach 
allowed EPA to first identify the specific issues involved, and quickly 
address, through guidance, those issues that would not necessarily 
require rulemaking. Those issues that are more complex, and that are 
best served by the rulemaking process, were to be addressed at a later 
time.
    In June 2003, as part of the first phase, EPA held a public meeting 
in order to solicit input from stakeholders on approaches to address 
the issues concerning hazardous waste management in college and 
university laboratories. Topics discussed at the meetings included: 
Where and when to make the hazardous waste determination; waste 
labeling requirements; personnel training requirements; satellite area 
accumulation; and types of treatment performed in laboratories. In 
March 2004, as part of the second phase, EPA issued a guidance 
memorandum, answering certain frequently asked questions regarding 
satellite accumulation area regulations. Because most laboratories in 
colleges and universities would be considered satellite accumulation 
areas, this memorandum helped resolve many of the issues faced by 
college and university laboratories. Today's rule constitutes phase 
three of the three-phased approach, and addresses several of the issues 
which require a rulemaking.
    As a parallel effort, in May 2003, colleges and universities were 
selected to become a partner in EPA's Sector Strategies Program. The 
Sector Strategies Program seeks industry-wide environmental gains 
through innovative actions taken with a number of manufacturing and 
service sectors. EPA is working with six college and university Sector 
Partners (Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI); American Council on 
Education (ACE); APPA: The Association of Higher Education Facilities 
Officers; Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence (C2E2); Campus 
Safety Health and Environmental Management Association (CSHEMA); and 
National Association of College and University Business Officers 
(NACUBO)) to develop sector-specific approaches to assist colleges and 
universities to advance the use of environmental management systems, 
reduce regulatory performance barriers, and measure environmental 
progress.
    In May, June and August 2004, the College and University Sector 
Program Partners shared their thoughts in a series of proposals 
suggesting alternative approaches for developing a RCRA program that 
addresses the specific problems faced by college and university 
laboratories. Their suggested changes to existing requirements focused 
on tailoring new regulations for college and university laboratories 
that are different from the standards required of other generators and 
operators of treatment, storage and disposal facilities, similar to the 
current ``satellite accumulation area'' regulations, and included 
provisions for providing flexibility for the point at which the 
hazardous waste determination is made, training of laboratory workers, 
labeling, container management standards, and provisions for bench-
scale treatment of waste in the laboratory. (See the docket for today's 
rulemaking for copies of proposals submitted to EPA.)

C. Agency's College and University Initiatives

    Today's proposed rule is just one of the many efforts EPA is 
pursuing to assist colleges and universities in reducing risks and 
costs by developing tools to better manage chemicals and waste; 
reducing use of resources; and promoting better overall environmental 
stewardship. These efforts on behalf of colleges and universities rely 
on voluntary and tool-based approaches, as well as regulations designed 
to achieve better environmental performance at less cost and burden. 
The Agency also has developed funding mechanisms to promote the 
development of new, more environmentally friendly experiments and 
technologies. The goals of all these programs are to improve 
environmental performance and environmental health where students, 
educators, and college or university personnel learn, teach and work.
    Through its Colleges and Universities Sector Strategies Program, 
described above, the Agency is partnering with college and universities 
and their trade associations to overcome potential regulatory barriers, 
promote environmental management systems, and develop measures of 
environmental performance. More specifically, EPA is working with the 
college and university sector to incorporate sound sustainable 
practices to improve environmental safety practices, provide a baseline 
for measuring change, identify priorities for continual improvement and 
minimize overall environmental impacts. To learn more about EPA's 
College and University Sector Strategy Program, visit: http://www.epa.gov/sectors/colleges/index.html.

[[Page 29717]]

    Three of these efforts focus specifically on reducing waste. First, 
there is an Agency partnership, called WasteWise, which is a voluntary 
program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal and solid 
waste, improving economic and environmental sustainability. The 
WasteWise program is supporting RecycleMania, an intercollegiate 
competition involving colleges and universities across the U.S. in an 
annual recycling competition. The goal of the competition is to 
increase student awareness of campus recycling. Founded in 2001 by two 
of EPA's WasteWise partners, the number of competing schools increased 
from 2 in 2001 to 47 in 2005. The total pounds recycled per student 
across all participating schools increased from 74 pounds in 2001 to 
1,117 pounds in 2005.
    Second, in 2002, EPA funded Chemical Management Services (CMS) 
pilots at two universities--the University of New Hampshire and 
Dartmouth College. CMS, which has been used successfully in the 
automotive, microelectronic and aerospace industries, restructures the 
relationship between buyers of chemicals and their suppliers. Chemical 
suppliers and waste service providers bring their expertise directly to 
the college or university to help manage chemicals and waste streams, 
allowing the colleges and universities to focus on their core 
function--education. More information about the results of the pilots 
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/pdfs/cms-broch.pdf.
    Third, is EPA's Green Chemistry Program. Green Chemistry, a proven 
pollution prevention approach toward environmentally sustainable 
manufacturing, is the design of chemical products and processes that 
reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. To 
promote this goal, EPA's Green Chemistry Program supports a variety of 
educational and research efforts in which colleges and universities 
have participated. One element of EPA's Green Chemistry Program is the 
development of curricular materials and experiments that incorporate 
the principles of green chemistry. These materials are primarily aimed 
at undergraduate and graduate chemistry students. Another element of 
EPA's Green Chemistry program is awarding grants for research that 
advances the development and use of innovative technologies and 
approaches directed at avoiding or minimizing the use or generation of 
hazardous substances. A third element is the Presidential Green 
Chemistry Challenge Awards Program, which provides national recognition 
of outstanding chemical technologies that incorporate the principles of 
green chemistry into chemical design, manufacture, and use. To learn 
more about EPA's Green Chemistry Program, visit: http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/index.html.
    In 2003, EPA launched another award program: the P3 Award--A 
Student Design Competition for Sustainability. P3 focuses on the three 
components of sustainability: People, prosperity and the planet. Only 
colleges and universities are eligible to participate in this annual 
competition. The competition has two phases. Initially, student teams 
compete for $10,000 grants to use for researching and developing their 
design projects. The P3 award, which includes additional funding of up 
to $75,000, is given to the highest-rated student designs, which gives 
the students the opportunity to further develop their designs for 
sustainability, implement their projects in the field, and move them to 
the marketplace. One of the 2005 P3 winners was designing and 
developing solar ovens to be mass-produced at low cost, for use in the 
developing world. To learn more about EPA's P3 Awards, visit: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/p3/index.html.
    There are two efforts within EPA that focus specifically on 
laboratories. First, in 2003, EPA awarded a cooperative agreement to 
Iowa State University to develop a website, called Labs Achieving 
Better Stewardship (LABS) Central, which is a web-based clearinghouse 
of information of interest to laboratories, at colleges and 
universities and elsewhere, dedicated to the pursuit of enhanced 
environmental performance. This site brings together existing 
information about innovative approaches to waste management and 
resource conservation that may be helpful to laboratories interested in 
regulatory compliance and environmental stewardship. LABS Central 
guides visitors to web-based information about regulatory compliance, 
environmental performance, advanced waste management techniques and 
waste reduction. LABS Central can be found at: http://www.labscentral.info.
    Second, the Agency's Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) 
Partnership Program encourages the development of sustainable, high-
performance, and low-energy consumption laboratories. Labs21 is a 
voluntary program whose partners set goals to reduce energy and water 
use and take a ``whole-building'' approach to laboratory design or 
retrofitting. Labs21 partners are demonstrating that a holistic 
approach to laboratory design can result in higher efficiencies, cost 
savings, reduced emissions, and improved health and safety conditions. 
Currently 16 of 23 private sector partners in Labs21 are colleges and 
universities. To learn more about Labs21, visit http://www.labs21century.gov.
    ENERGY STAR is another program that is demonstrating that better 
energy management, in this case across a college or university campus, 
can yield cost savings. Colleges and universities spend close to $2 
billion each year on energy. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary EPA program 
that gives institutions the power to reduce the pollution that causes 
global warming, while enhancing their financial value. EPA's ENERGY 
STAR program encourages colleges and universities to become ENERGY STAR 
partners and adopt a strategic approach to energy management that can 
lower energy bills by 30% or more. By partnering with ENERGY STAR, an 
organization demonstrates environmental leadership, improves its energy 
efficiency, saves money, and receives recognition. ENERGY STAR is a 
proven energy management strategy to distinguish an institution as an 
environmental leader and save money for repair and renovation, hiring 
of new faculty, new construction, and other core activities. To learn 
more about ENERGY STAR or becoming an ENERGY STAR partner, visit: 
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=higher_ed.bus_highereducation highereducation.
    Recognizing that universities have a significant impact on the 
built and natural environment, EPA continues to pursue a series of 
projects that promote smart growth implementation to achieve increased 
viability of the campus and the surrounding neighborhood in an 
environmentally sustainable manner. These activities include: Co-
hosting the 1st Annual Smart and Sustainable Campuses Conference at the 
University of Maryland in November 2005, funding the publication of 
``Partnerships for Smart Growth: University-Community Collaboration for 
Better Public Spaces,'' compiling a list of smart growth course 
prospectuses, developing a list of resources of best practices and 
contacts at universities, providing input on the P3 project and 
providing information and tools to the public. To learn more about 
EPA's Smart Growth Program, visit: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.
    Finally, EPA has sponsored partnerships with industry, academic 
institutions, environmental groups, and

[[Page 29718]]

other agencies to launch sector-specific Compliance Assistance Centers 
(Centers). Through web sites, telephone assistance lines, fax-back 
systems, and e-mail discussion groups, the Centers are helping 
businesses, local governments, and federal facilities understand 
federal environmental requirements and save money through pollution 
prevention techniques. The Agency is in the early stages of developing 
a new compliance assistance center dedicated to the education sector. 
Existing compliance assistance centers may be viewed at: http://www.assistancecenters.net.

D. Overview of College and University Laboratory Operations

    While Agency data sources and information gained through site 
visits and comments indicate that other areas of colleges and 
universities generate hazardous waste, today's proposal only addresses 
hazardous waste generated and accumulated in college and university 
laboratories. Other areas within the college or university do not face 
the same specific situations as laboratories and the current RCRA 
requirements are effectively dealing with waste generation and 
management in those areas. Agency information gathering and outreach 
efforts also indicate the primary differences between laboratories and 
the other areas in the college or university and more traditional 
industrial settings include the number of wastestreams generated, the 
variability and volume of any individual wastestream generated, the 
number of individuals involved in waste generation and management, 
their employment status (e.g. employee vs. student) and the stability 
of that workforce (e.g. transient nature of students, visiting 
professors etc. involved in waste generation and management vs. 
relatively constant workforce in an industrial setting or other non-
college or university laboratory setting).
    In traditional industrial settings, generally the waste output is 
known in advance. Relatively large volumes of each waste type are 
generated, and there are relatively few wastestreams per facility, with 
little variability over time. Furthermore, industrial facilities, 
including industrial laboratories, maintain a relatively steady 
workforce and include environmental health and safety experts on staff. 
In contrast, the waste generated within a laboratory at a college or 
university is generated in relatively small quantities (beakerful 
versus barrelful), and the exact character and composition of the waste 
may not be known in advance. Additionally, the number of different 
wastestreams generated by a single laboratory may be quite high due to 
the nature of research and teaching activities. Each college or 
university may have a very large number of individual laboratories, 
each generating different wastestreams and operating under different 
management or supervision. The most striking difference is that at 
colleges and universities, much of the hazardous is generated by 
students who are either in instructional settings (such as a chemistry 
class) or are conducting research, but who are not employees of the 
college or university.
    A great deal of variability also exists in hazardous waste 
generation and management procedures from laboratory to laboratory at 
colleges and universities depending on the type of activity being 
conducted and the size of the laboratory. However, there are some 
general practices that can be identified, and are discussed below.
    There are two primary activities that occur in college and 
university laboratories and that generate hazardous waste. The first is 
the routine use of chemicals in instruction and research. Over the 
course of a typical month, the majority of waste generated by college 
and university laboratories is generated during such routine use. 
During instruction or research, chemicals are mixed to produce 
reactions, and the resulting mixtures may qualify as hazardous waste 
upon completion of the experiment. In other instances, solvents, a 
major wastestream from laboratories, are used as extractants (to help 
isolate and extract a wanted chemical from a mixture), or in cleaning 
laboratory glassware. In addition, certain laboratory equipment used in 
analyzing samples discharge the chemical sample and any chemical 
carrier as waste at the end of the analysis. Hazardous waste generated 
in this way may be of a very small volume (beakerful or less), and any 
given experiment may generate multiple wastes. Often the exact chemical 
makeup of such a waste is unknown to the researcher, particularly in 
research experiments involving synthesizing new chemicals.
    A researcher or student in a college or university laboratory 
generally generates the hazardous wastes through routine use under a 
laboratory hood, a contained area equipped with ventilation and 
drainage, as part of the experiment he/she is conducting. Typically, 
these hazardous wastes are collected in a container directly under the 
hood. At the end of an experiment, or the end of the day, the waste is 
transferred to a container in a specially designated area nearby. When 
a container of hazardous waste is filled (usually well before the 55 
gallon limit is exceeded, according to college and university 
representatives), the environmental health and safety staff (or waste 
management company under contract to the college or university) are 
contacted by the researcher or laboratory manager. In some cases, the 
environmental health and safety staff come directly to the laboratory 
to make a hazardous waste determination (identifying the appropriate 
RCRA hazardous waste code), and to transport the waste either to an on-
site central accumulation area, or in some cases, directly to an on-
site or off-site permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility.
    The second activity at college and university laboratories that 
generates hazardous wastes is laboratory clean-outs. Laboratory clean-
outs are relatively infrequent events that may generate larger volumes 
of hazardous waste over a relatively short period of time. Unlike 
routine laboratory operations, the primary wastes generated during a 
clean-out event are not chemicals that have been used during an 
experiment, but rather expired laboratory standard solutions and unused 
reagents. Generally, the term ``reagent'' is used to describe the 
chemicals in their ``original'' state, as purchased from a 
manufacturer, rather than when the chemicals are the result of a 
chemical reaction. However, the result of a chemical reaction can also 
become a reagent in a new reaction. Most laboratories have a large 
inventory of various reagents used for conducting experiments. Because 
researchers at colleges and universities may require a particular 
reagent on very short notice in the development of an experimental 
procedure, they tend to maintain a large inventory in the laboratory, 
rather than obtain each chemical from a central location or from a 
chemical distributor. Reagents generally are used infrequently and only 
in small amounts at any one particular time. Therefore, researchers 
and/or professors at colleges and universities may store those reagents 
for long periods of time. When a researcher and/or professor retires or 
otherwise leaves the college or university, the laboratory may be 
cleaned out of all unused reagents. A laboratory clean-out may also 
occur when a building is renovated, or on occasion, as the result of a 
college or university-wide effort to identify and remove excess 
chemicals. During a laboratory clean-out, reagents often are assessed 
to determine if they should be kept for further use. If retained, the 
reagents are not considered

[[Page 29719]]

solid or hazardous wastes. However, when accumulated for long periods 
of time, for example, such unused reagents may be considered solid or 
hazardous wastes if it can be determined that they are no longer usable 
for their intended purpose.
    Laboratory clean-outs are relatively infrequent. One reason for 
this is that during a laboratory clean-out, fairly large volumes of 
hazardous waste, including those listed as acutely hazardous, may be 
generated at one time (as compared with the baseline of generation for 
that laboratory). Currently, college and university laboratories 
generally operate as satellite accumulation areas under 40 CFR 
262.34(c), and therefore must promptly (within 3 days) remove any 
acutely hazardous waste that exceeds one quart in volume. Furthermore, 
a generator's status (as large quantity generator, small quantity 
generator, or conditionally exempt small quantity generator) is 
determined, in part, by the volume of acutely hazardous waste it 
generates in a calendar month. During a laboratory clean-out, it is 
common for college and university laboratories to generate acutely 
hazardous wastes in relatively large quantities, since many unused 
bottles of reagents are deemed to be no longer needed (the hazard is 
not increased in this instance, because the amount of the substances is 
not increasing, merely its status is changing from unused product to 
hazardous waste). This increase in generation of acutely hazardous 
waste is problematic for small quantity generators that generate 
quantities exceeding one quart during a laboratory clean-out and 
thereby forcing them into large quantity generator status with shorter 
on-site accumulation time and additional requirements and recordkeeping 
burden.
    Hazardous wastes generated in college and university laboratories 
either during routine laboratory operation, or during laboratory clean-
out events are then removed from the laboratory and transferred to 
another location for treatment, storage or disposal. Some colleges and 
universities have on-site central accumulation areas or treatment 
storage and disposal facilities (TSDF), while others transport their 
hazardous waste to off-site TSDFs.
1. Generation of Hazardous Waste--Types and Quantities
    This section describes the estimated hazardous waste quantities and 
hazardous waste types generated by college and university large and 
small quantity generators. Specifically, this section discusses the 
overall hazardous waste generation activities at college and university 
laboratories, and the hazardous waste generated from colleges and 
universities with art programs.
a. Data Sources
    The information on colleges and universities contained in this 
section was obtained from the following agency data sources: 2001 
Biennial Report (BR) data and additional data from the RCRAInfo 
(Resources Conservation and Recovery Act Information) database, and the 
2001 Toxics Release Inventory data files. To supplement data not 
obtainable from EPA databases, EPA used public information to fill data 
gaps or to improve data quality. The Art School and Program Directory 
(http://www.artschools.com) was used to assist with identifying 
colleges and universities that have an art program, and the list of 
U.S. universities and list of community colleges developed by the 
University of Texas (available at: http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/) 
was used to identify small quantity generator sites. These data sources 
provided the most recent and reliable data available to the agency for 
finalizing this proposed rule.
b. Summary of College and University Hazardous Waste Generation 
Activities \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hazardous waste quantities exclude remedial waste generation 
and types and quantities of hazardous waste generated by medical 
facilities affiliated with a college or university hospital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of quantities and types of hazardous wastes generated at 
colleges and universities by large quantity generator (LQG) and small 
quantity generator (SQG) four-year college, university and professional 
schools; two-year junior colleges/technical institutes; and vocational 
schools (which include ``all other miscellaneous schools and 
instruction,'' ``fine arts schools'' and ``other technical and trade 
schools'') follows.
    Assuming college and university hazardous waste generation remains 
fairly stable over time, college and university generators account for 
a relatively small quantity of overall hazardous waste generation 
(i.e., in 2001, over 40,800,000 tons of hazardous wastes were generated 
by the total generator reporting universe compared to the 35,742 tons 
generated by colleges and universities). Specifically, in 2001, there 
were a total of 1,304 college and university LQGs and SQGs generating 
hazardous waste. These entities generated 35,742 tons of hazardous 
wastes. Of these totals, 333 colleges and universities are LQGs 
generating a total of 33,789 tons of hazardous wastes and 971 \2\ 
colleges and universities are SQGs generating a total of 1,953 tons of 
hazardous wastes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA does not have hazardous waste quantity information for 
517 SQGs. Therefore, these SQG estimates are excluded and hazardous 
waste generation quantities for SQGs may be under-estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information also indicates that colleges and universities generate 
relatively small quantities of many different types of hazardous 
wastestreams. For example, in 2001, colleges and universities generated 
12 distinct hazardous waste type categories or wastestreams: lab packs; 
heavy metal and cyanide; dioxin pesticide; ignitable, corrosive and/or 
reactive characteristic; inorganic metal; listed discarded commercial 
chemical products (``P'' and ``U'' listed); mixtures from non-specific 
sources; mixtures of toxic characteristic; pesticide; organic; spent 
solvents; and ``unknowns.'' Hazardous waste generated for any one 
particular wastestream by college and university LQGs ranged from 
approximately 3,158 tons generated by 268 colleges/universities to less 
than one ton generated by one college/university generator (with the 
exception of one vocational school generating over 25,000 tons of 
inorganic metal hazardous wastes). To further illustrate the small 
quantities of hazardous waste generated by college and university large 
and small quantity generators, a significant number of colleges and 
universities generate less than one ton per generator for a particular 
waste type (e.g., 2.3 tons of dioxin pesticides wastes were generated 
in 2001 by 27 four-year colleges or universities which averages to 
approximately .08 tons per college or university).
    In addition, while the majority of college and university hazardous 
waste generators are SQGs (roughly two-thirds of the college and 
university generator universe), LQGs account for over 90% of the 
hazardous waste generated by colleges and universities. Furthermore, in 
2001, LQGs generated an average of approximately 75 tons of hazardous 
waste per school and SQGs generated an average of approximately 2 tons 
per school.
i. Summary of College and University Laboratory Hazardous Waste 
Generation \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this analysis, a hazardous waste was 
considered a laboratory waste if the Biennial Report waste 
description contained the word ``lab.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be expected, laboratory hazardous waste generated by 
colleges and universities is a small percentage of overall hazardous 
waste generation because colleges and universities

[[Page 29720]]

represent only a portion of the total generator universe and laboratory 
waste is only a portion of college and university hazardous waste. In 
addition, not all colleges and universities generating hazardous waste 
reported generating laboratory waste. However, laboratory waste 
represents a small portion of the hazardous waste generated at colleges 
and universities, as well. For instance, 246 of the 333 college and 
university LQGs and 309 of the 971 SQGs reported generating relatively 
small quantities of laboratory hazardous wastes. For LQGs, laboratory 
waste generation only amounts to approximately 9% (or 2,939 tons) of 
the total hazardous waste generated by colleges and universities, while 
SQGs reported generating approximately 334 tons of laboratory hazardous 
waste, which on average equates to approximately 1 ton of laboratory 
hazardous waste per SQG.
    Art studios/programs at colleges and universities are included in 
the universe of college and university laboratories in this proposal, 
while some types of laboratories are not included (e.g., hazardous 
waste generated by medical facilities associated with a college or 
university). In considering the effect of hazardous waste generation by 
college and university art programs, it is interesting to note its 
comparison to hazardous waste generation by other laboratories in the 
scope of today's proposal at colleges and universities. Schools with 
art programs generated an estimated 21% of the total hazardous waste 
generated by college and university LQGs. Another interesting 
comparison is that more college and university SQGs reported having art 
programs than those generating laboratory hazardous wastes.
ii. Summary of Type and Volume of Laboratory Hazardous Waste Generation 
at College and University LQGs and SQGs
    College and university LQGs generated approximately 2,939 tons of 
laboratory hazardous waste in 2001. This represents approximately 9% of 
the hazardous waste generated by these college and university LQGs. 
Four-year schools comprise the vast majority of schools generating 
laboratory waste (235 of 246 LQGs generating laboratory hazardous waste 
were four-year schools) and account for approximately 8.5% of the 9% of 
the laboratory hazardous waste generated. Vocational schools reported 
generating a minute amount of laboratory hazardous waste (about .01%). 
The hazardous waste type comprising the highest percentage generated by 
both four-year and two-year schools generating laboratory hazardous 
waste is lab packs, generated by 114 out of a total of 235 four-year 
schools, and 3 out of a total of 8 two-year schools reporting. Of the 
total number of vocational schools reporting (3), the largest 
percentage of laboratory hazardous waste generated is by one fine arts 
school for inorganic (metal) wastes.
    Approximately 73% of college and university SQGs that generated 
laboratory hazardous waste in 2001 are four-year colleges and 
universities. These four-year schools generated about 285 tons of 
laboratory hazardous wastes which represents approximately 14% of the 
all hazardous waste generated by college and university SQGs. Four-year 
SQGs generated the majority of laboratory hazardous waste for all 
college and university SQGs reporting (~ 85%). Lab packs are the 
largest contributor to the quantity of laboratory hazardous waste 
generated and represents ~ 73 tons of waste generated by approximately 
79 SQGs. Spent solvents is the second largest type of hazardous waste 
generated (~ 51.7 tons generated by ~ 91 SQGs), followed by ignitable, 
corrosive, and/or reactive characteristic hazardous wastes with an 
approximate 44.2 tons of laboratory hazardous waste generated by an 
estimated 92 four-year college and university SQGs.
    College and university LQGs with art programs have a modest impact 
on laboratory hazardous waste generation. In 2001, an estimated 239 of 
333 college and university LQGs reported having an art program. These 
schools generated an estimated total of 7,167 tons of hazardous wastes 
(or 21% of the total hazardous waste generated by college and 
university LQGs). College and university SQGs with art programs account 
for approximately 19% of the total hazardous waste generated by SQGs. 
Notably, SQGs with art programs account for the majority of hazardous 
waste generated by college and university SQGs (approximately 62% of 
the 953 tons of hazardous waste generated).
2. Summary of Current RCRA Generator Regulations
    Colleges and universities that generate hazardous waste are subject 
to the RCRA generator regulations at 40 CFR part 262. Colleges and 
universities generate hazardous waste at many locations and facilities 
throughout their campuses, including laboratories, but also including 
operations and maintenance facilities, construction and renovation 
activities, vehicle maintenance facilities, and photo processing 
facilities. The institution(s generator status depends on the total 
amount of hazardous waste generated at the entire site in a calendar 
month. Many colleges and universities are LQGs of hazardous waste, 
generating (1000 kg/month; or >1 kg of acute hazardous waste/month. 
LQGs may comply with the regulations in 40 CFR 262.34(a) when 
accumulating hazardous waste on-site. Hazardous wastes generated by 
LQGs also may be accumulated on-site without interim status or a permit 
for 90 days or less provided the hazardous waste is accumulated in 
certain types of units. Many other colleges and universities are SQGs, 
generating >100 kg/month but <1000 kg/month of hazardous waste. SQGs 
may comply with 40 CFR 262.34(d) for the accumulation of hazardous 
waste on-site. However, hazardous wastes generated by SQGs may be 
accumulated on-site without interim status or a permit for 180 days or 
less provided the hazardous waste is accumulated in certain types of 
units. In addition, if the hazardous waste needs to travel more than 
200 miles, it can be stored on-site without interim status or a permit 
for up to 270 days, provided the SQG complies with 262.34(d).
    Additionally some colleges and universities are conditionally 
exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs ), generating < 100 kg/month 
of hazardous waste, or < 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste/month. While 
CESQGs are not subject to the requirement to obtain an EPA ID number, 
comply with accumulation and storage requirements, manifest their 
wastes, or meet recordkeeping and reporting requirements, they are 
subject to limited generator waste management standards. CESQGs also 
may be subject to Department of Transportation requirements. 
Specifically, CESQGs must identify their hazardous waste, comply with 
storage limit requirements (no more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste 
stored in any one calendar month), and ensure hazardous waste treatment 
or disposal occurs at a facility that is on-site or off-site and is one 
of the following:
     Permitted hazardous waste TSDF.
     Interim status hazardous waste TSDF.
     Facility authorized to manage hazardous waste by a state 
with an approved hazardous waste program.
     Licensed, registered, or permitted by the state to manage 
municipal solid waste.
     Licensed, registered, or permitted by the state to manage 
non-municipal non-hazardous solid waste.

[[Page 29721]]

     Facility that beneficially uses, reuses, recycles or 
reclaims its waste; or treats its waste prior to beneficial use, reuse, 
recycling, or reclamation, or
     Universal waste facility.
    (See 40 CFR 261.5(f)(3) or 261.5(g)(3).)
    Because generator status is determined on a monthly basis, it is 
possible that a generator(s status can change from one month to the 
next, depending on the amount of hazardous waste generated in a 
particular month. This is commonly referred to as ``episodic 
generation.'' If a generator's status does in fact change, the 
generator is required to comply with the respective regulatory 
requirements for that class of generators for the hazardous waste 
generated in that particular month (i.e. LQG, SQG, CESQG).
    Many of the hazardous wastes managed at colleges and universities 
are generated and initially accumulated in laboratories. The satellite 
accumulation provisions of 40 CFR 262.34(c) allow for reduced 
requirements for hazardous waste accumulated in containers at or near 
any point of generation. Both LQGs and SQGs may take advantage of the 
reduced requirements while hazardous waste is in satellite accumulation 
areas, such as laboratories, provided the waste is managed in 
accordance with the provisions at 40 CFR 262.34(c). Appendix I contains 
a comparison table of current regulations and the proposed regulations 
in Subpart K.
    Regardless of the generator's status, or whether the waste is 
generated in a satellite accumulation area, all generators of hazardous 
wastes are required to make a hazardous waste determination according 
to Sec.  262.11. Proper hazardous waste determination is essential to 
the success of the RCRA program. The determination process can be 
simplified into several basic steps:
    1. Is the material in question a solid waste (as defined in 40 CFR 
261.2)?
    2. Is the solid waste excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste 
under Sec.  261.4?
    3. Is it or does it contain a hazardous waste listed in Subpart D 
of Part 261?
    4. Does it exhibit any of the characteristics defined in Subpart C 
of Part 261 (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity)?
    a. Who May Determine Whether a Waste is Hazardous?
    40 CFR 262.11 states, ``A person who generates a solid waste...must 
determine if that waste is a hazardous waste...'' A ``person'' is 
defined in Sec.  260.10 as ``an individual, trust, firm, joint stock 
company, Federal Agency, corporation (including a government 
corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, 
commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body'' 
(40 CFR 260.10). Therefore, a ``person'' is not limited to a specific 
individual, but may also be an entity. Therefore, any individual who is 
part an entity that meets the definition of ``person'' and can act on 
behalf of that entity may make a hazardous waste determination. The 
hazardous waste determination is not limited to the individual who 
actually generates a solid waste. For example, Environmental, Health & 
Safety (EH&S) personnel may make a hazardous waste determination for a 
waste generated by an individual professor, as long as the EH&S 
personnel and the professor are part of the same ``person'' (e.g., 
colleges and universities). This regulatory interpretation has been 
previously stated in a memo from Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office 
of Solid Waste to RCRA Senior Policy Advisors and EPA Regions, dated 
August 16, 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the docket for 
today's proposal.
    EPA's objective under Sec.  262.11 (Hazardous Waste Determination) 
is to ensure that the hazardous waste is accurately identified. Proper 
hazardous waste determination is important in order to allow the 
generator to comply with the applicable hazardous waste management 
requirements and to protect public health and the environment. In 
short, it is the ``person's'' responsibility to ensure that the 
individuals within the organization who are making the hazardous waste 
determination obtain all the necessary information from appropriate 
sources so that they can make a proper hazardous waste determination. 
In practice, a hazardous waste determination in a laboratory setting 
would likely be made by the laboratory staff or staff member, or would 
be a collaborative effort between the individual researcher at a 
college or university who generates the waste and EH&S personnel who 
may make the hazardous waste determination. In the latter instance, 
EH&S personnel making a hazardous waste determination will need 
sufficiently accurate and detailed information about the waste from the 
laboratory staff to ensure an accurate hazardous waste determination.
b. Generators That Treat Hazardous Waste On-Site
    EPA has consistently interpreted its existing hazardous waste 
regulations to allow generators to non-thermally treat hazardous waste 
in their accumulation tanks and containers, without obtaining a permit 
or having interim status (51 FR 10168, March 24, 1986). This is true 
for both LQGs and SQGs. Of course, all generators are allowed to treat 
only the hazardous waste that is generated on-site. A permit would be 
required to store and/or treat hazardous waste that is consolidated 
from off-site locations. Examples of treatment that may be conducted in 
accumulation tanks and containers without a permit or interim status 
include precipitating heavy metals from solutions and oxidation/
reduction reactions. It should be noted, however, that thermal 
treatment by generators is not allowed without a permit.
c. Land Disposal Restrictions
    The land disposal restrictions (LDRs) of part 268 also apply to 
generators of hazardous waste, including college and university 
laboratories. The LDRs require that hazardous waste must be treated by 
a specified method or to a specified constituent concentration level 
before it (or its residue) may be placed in or on the land. The 
generator must know the treatment standard applicable to his/her 
hazardous waste and either treat (non-thermally and in tanks and 
containers) to meet the treatment standard or send it to an interim-
status or permitted hazardous waste treatment facility to do so.
    The hazardous waste becomes subject to the LDR requirements at the 
point the waste is generated. Therefore, if the hazardous waste is 
being treated on-site and the treatment residue is destined to be land 
disposed, the generator still has responsibilities under the LDR 
program with regard to the treatment residues. In addition, generators 
who treat hazardous waste on-site to meet a treatment standard must 
prepare a waste analysis plan if treatment occurs in units that do not 
require a RCRA permit (see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) for LQGs, and 40 CFR 
262.34(d)(4) for SQGs). Additionally, there are some generator 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the LDRs (40 
CFR 268.7(a)). More information about the LDR program may be found in 
``Land Disposal Restrictions: Summary of Requirements'' at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr/new.htm.
d. Applicability of Today's Proposal to Conditionally Exempt Small 
Quantity Generators (CESQGs)
    Conditionally exempt small quantity generators are generators of 
hazardous waste that generate less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste 
and less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste/month. Although, like all 
generators of hazardous wastes, CESQGs are required to make a hazardous 
waste

[[Page 29722]]

determination at the time the waste is generated, under the existing 
hazardous waste regulations, CESQGs are not required to comply with 
many of the requirements that apply to LQGs and SQGs. Because CESQGs 
are not currently subject to the controls that apply to satellite 
accumulation areas, many of the provisions set forth in today's 
proposal would be more stringent than those to which they currently are 
subject. For this reason, today's proposed alternative regulations 
would not apply to college and university laboratories that are CESQGs.
    Nevertheless, EPA does not wish to preclude CESQGs from taking 
advantage of any of the benefits which could be gained by this proposed 
approach and is considering whether it would be appropriate to include 
CESQGs under this rule. EPA therefore is, requesting comment on whether 
to include CESQGs in this rule, whether CESQGs would in fact benefit 
from this alternative program, and whether they would elect to manage 
their hazardous wastes in accordance with its provisions. EPA also is 
soliciting comment on what portions of today's proposal would be 
appropriate for CESQGs if colleges and universities that are CESQGs are 
interested in complying with Subpart K. Specifically, EPA is requesting 
comment on whether it would be appropriate to allow colleges and 
universities that are CESQGs to take advantage of the proposed 
regulatory incentives for conducting laboratory clean-outs.

III. Overview of Today's Proposal

    A college or university which chooses to manage the unwanted 
materials generated in its laboratories according to the alternative 
regulations proposed today, would be required to send a notice to the 
EPA Regional Administrator or, in a state authorized for this rule, the 
State Director, informing them of its intent to follow the alternative 
set of regulations, as finalized. The college or university also would 
have to develop a Laboratory Management Plan (LMP), which describes the 
procedures that will be used by the laboratory(ies) at the college or 
university for implementing the performance-based requirements of these 
regulations.
    Under the provisions of today's alternative set of regulations, all 
laboratory workers must be trained and students must be instructed 
commensurate with his/her duties. All persons working in a laboratory 
must determine whether any material they generate is unwanted and has 
the potential of being a RCRA hazardous waste. They must then place the 
unwanted material in an appropriate container for subsequent removal. 
The container must be safely managed to prevent leaks, spills, 
emissions to the air, and adverse chemical reactions while in the 
laboratory. Containers also must be properly labeled with the 
appropriate information to make a hazardous waste determination. The 
date that the initial amount of unwanted material was placed in the 
container must be associated in some manner with the container, and if 
the volume of unwanted material exceeds 55 gallons or the volume of one 
of the seven reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials (as defined 
in today's proposal) exceeds one quart, the date on which either volume 
limit is exceeded must also be associated with the container. 
Additionally, laboratory workers or students must provide sufficient 
information to allow a RCRA-trained individual to properly make a RCRA 
hazardous waste determination at a later time. Like the date, this 
information must be associated with the waste, but need not physically 
be attached to the waste container. For example, this information may 
be entered into a computer tracking system and a bar code placed on the 
container. In this example, the information is not physically on the 
container, but is associated with it via the bar code. A college or 
university must determine a schedule for removal of unwanted materials 
from its laboratories and specify the schedule in its LMP. The removal 
of unwanted materials must occur at least once every six months. 
However, if the volume limits of 55 gallons of unwanted materials or 
one quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials are 
exceeded, all of the unwanted material must be removed within 10 
calendar days, or the next regularly scheduled removal time, whichever 
occurs first.
    At the time of a removal, a RCRA-trained individual must either 
make a RCRA hazardous waste determination in the laboratory, or else 
remove the material to an on-site central accumulation area or on-site 
TSDF. If the hazardous waste determination is made in the laboratory, 
the RCRA hazardous waste can be taken to a regulated unit on-site or 
transported to an off-site TSDF, and must comply with the existing 
hazardous waste regulations, including the manifest requirements. If, 
however, the hazardous waste determination is not made in the 
laboratory, then the unwanted material must be taken to an on-site 
central accumulation area or on-site TSDF. The college or university 
has four calendar days from the time that the unwanted material arrives 
at the on-site central accumulation area or TSDF within which to make 
the RCRA hazardous waste determination. EPA expects that the time that 
the unwanted material is in transport on-site from the laboratory to 
the central accumulation area or TSDF would be relatively short. 
However, to ensure that the unwanted material does not stay in 
transport for long periods of time, the rule requires that the unwanted 
material be taken directly from the laboratory(ies) to the on-site 
central accumulation area or on-site TSDF. Once an unwanted material is 
determined to be RCRA hazardous waste, it is subject to full RCRA 
hazardous waste regulation.

IV. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposed Rule

    EPA is today proposing optional, alternative regulations (40 CFR 
part 262, subpart K) for the management of unwanted materials generated 
in college and university laboratories.
    This section discusses in detail the major features of and 
rationale for the proposal. The Agency also presents other options that 
are being considered in developing the proposed rule. EPA welcomes 
comments on all aspects of this proposed rule, and on the options under 
consideration. Throughout this section, EPA requests comments on 
specific options and on specific issues, but comments are welcome on 
all provisions of this proposal. EPA's request for comments on specific 
options and specific issues means that EPA is considering those options 
and issues in developing the final rule.

A. Discussion of Proposed Definitions

    All the definitions that appear in today's proposal are for the 
purposes of part 262, subpart K only. Therefore, the definitions are 
relevant only to colleges and universities that have laboratories and 
that take part in today's proposed alternative regulations.
    Central Accumulation Area--Today's proposal defines ``central 
accumulation area'' as:

an on-site hazardous waste accumulation area subject to either Sec.  
262.34(a) of this Part (large quantity generators) or Sec.  
262.34(d) of this Part (small quantity generators). A central 
accumulation area at a college or university that chooses to be 
subject to this Subpart also must comply with Sec.  262.211 when 
accumulating unwanted materials.

Under existing regulations, large quantity generators may accumulate 
hazardous waste on-site without a permit for up to 90 days provided 
they comply with Sec.  262.34(a) and small

[[Page 29723]]

quantity generators may do the same for up to180 days, provided they 
comply with Sec.  262.34(d).\4\ EPA is proposing to codify the term 
``central accumulation area'' solely for the purposes of this rule to 
distinguish these types of accumulation areas from satellite 
accumulation areas or laboratories. Today's proposal does not change 
the existing regulations in Sec. Sec.  262.34(a) and 262.34(d); it 
merely codifies a term for the sake of convenience and clarity, within 
today's rule. Colleges and universities that choose to operate under 
the provisions of today's alternative regulations must comply with 
262.34(a) or (d) at the central accumulation area, if and when, 
unwanted materials are brought from laboratories to a central 
accumulation area, as well as proposed Sec.  262.211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Small quantity generators that must send their hazardous 
waste more than 200 miles for off-site treatment, storage, or 
disposal are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste on-site without a 
permit for 270 days or less, provided the conditions of Sec.  
262.34(d) are met (see Sec.  262.34(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    College or University--Today's proposal defines ``college or 
university'' as:

a private or public, post-secondary, degree-granting, academic 
institution, that is accredited by an accrediting agency listed 
annually by the U.S. Department of Education.

Regardless of whether an institution has the word ``college'' or 
``university'' in its title, for a generator to be eligible to operate 
under the provisions of Subpart K, the generator must meet the criteria 
in the definition. Aside from the obvious academic institutions, some 
of the institutions that EPA intends to include under this definition 
are post-secondary military academies, two-year community colleges, and 
post-secondary vocational or technical schools that admit high school 
graduates or GED recipients. Therefore, EPA does not intend for 
vocational or technical high schools, which are not post-secondary, to 
be eligible to participate in this proposed Subpart.
    Similarly, the Agency does not intend for laboratories at hospitals 
that are affiliated with a college or university to be included in the 
definition of college or university. The Agency believes that although 
hospitals affiliated with colleges or universities have laboratories, 
the waste generation pattern at these hospital laboratories differs 
substantially from the research or teaching laboratories at a college 
or university, such as chemistry laboratories. The number of different 
wastestreams from research or teaching laboratories at a college or 
university is expected to be higher and the variability of the wastes 
greater than from hospital laboratories. Furthermore, the turnover of 
hospital personnel is expected to be lower than at other types of 
laboratories within a college and university.
    Given the importance of this definition to today's proposal, the 
Agency requests comment on a number of areas. First, the Agency would 
like to know if the proposed definition of ``college'' or 
``university'' captures and excludes the types of institutions that are 
discussed above. Second, is it appropriate to include and/or exclude 
those institutions described above in the definition of college and 
university? Third, what types of institutions grant certificates, 
rather than degrees and is it appropriate to extend participation in 
these new alternative regulations to those institutions? Fourth, the 
Agency is seeking comment on whether it is appropriate to include in 
the definition of college and university the requirement that the 
institution be accredited and if so, whether it is appropriate to limit 
accredited schools to those whose accreditation was granted by agencies 
approved by the U.S. Department of Education. The Department of 
Education publishes its list of approved agencies annually in the 
Federal Register. It is EPA's understanding that the purpose of the 
Department of Education's list of accreditation agencies is to 
determine eligibility for participation in federal financial aid 
programs. That is, a college or university that is accredited by an 
agency that is identified by the Department of Education is allowed to 
participate in federal financial aid programs. For those commenters 
that believe it is important for a college or university to be 
accredited to be able to participate in this new Subpart, EPA requests 
comment on whether there are alternative approaches for defining what 
institutions may bestow accreditation.
    Laboratory--Today's proposal defines ``laboratory'' as:

an area within a college or university where relatively small 
quantities of chemicals and other substances are used on a non-
production basis for teaching or research purposes and are stored 
and used in containers that are easily manipulated by one person. An 
area where the same hazardous wastes are routinely generated, such 
as photo processing, is not a laboratory.

    Today's proposed definition of laboratory has its basis in the OSHA 
Laboratory Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450) and in EPA's University 
Laboratory XL rule (40 CFR part 262, subpart J). EPA has combined 
elements of the definitions of laboratory and laboratory-scale into a 
single definition. EPA is including phrases that both OSHA and the 
University Laboratory rule use such as ``non-production basis'' and 
``containers that are easily manipulated by one person'' to make it 
clear that the rule is not intended for non-academic, commercial 
operations that may occur in areas sometimes referred to as 
laboratories. Commercial-scale laboratory operations tend to differ in 
their waste generation patterns, by using only a few chemicals, but in 
large quantities. Therefore, laboratories that use or produce 
commercial quantities of chemicals are not considered laboratories for 
purposes of this subpart. EPA intends to include laboratories where 
teaching or research occur, that are associated with a college or 
university, and where chemicals are used in small quantities. Of 
course, small quantities of many wastes can add up to large quantities 
overall, and it is not EPA's intent to exclude laboratories at colleges 
and universities that are large quantity generators from participating 
in this proposed set of regulations. The intent is for subpart K to 
apply to those laboratories where each individual chemical is used in 
relatively small quantities.
    Those areas that are typically referred to or considered as 
laboratories include chemistry and biology laboratories, for example. 
However, other areas within a college or university will also be 
considered laboratories. Generally, areas where large numbers of 
different wastestreams are generated in small volumes will be 
considered laboratories. For example, art studios will be considered 
laboratories under this proposal, despite the fact that they are rarely 
referred to as laboratories, because they have similar waste generation 
patterns to chemistry laboratories. On the other hand, it is possible 
that some areas that are typically referred to as laboratories will not 
be considered laboratories under subpart K. For example, photography 
laboratories, which generate a few predictable wastestreams, would not 
be considered laboratories under today's proposal. Likewise, computer 
laboratories would not be considered laboratories under today's 
proposal.
    Similarly, automotive maintenance facilities, whether they are 
teaching facilities, or for the maintenance of college or university 
motor pools, will not be considered laboratories. This is because auto 
shops tend to generate a few predictable waste streams in large 
volumes.
    Under the existing regulations, laboratories usually initially 
accumulate the hazardous waste they generate in satellite accumulation 
areas. EPA is

[[Page 29724]]

proposing that laboratories operating under these proposed alternative 
regulations will no longer be subject to the satellite accumulation 
area provisions. Instead, laboratories at colleges and universities 
electing to participate in this new set of regulations will be subject 
to regulations in new subpart K in part 262, which have been developed 
specifically for the way these laboratories operate.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposed definition of laboratory 
and whether it is appropriate to include and/or exclude the types of 
laboratories discussed and whether there are additional types of 
laboratories that the Agency needs to consider. For example, the Agency 
seeks comment on whether field laboratories that are associated with 
colleges and universities should be included in the definition of 
laboratory and be eligible for the alternative regulations. 
Specifically, EPA is interested in whether the waste generation 
patterns of field laboratories that are associated with a college or 
university are similar to those of laboratories located at a college or 
university, and whether the alternative regulations proposed today 
would be suitable for their operations. The Agency expects that many 
field laboratories would be conditionally exempt small quantity 
generators, but seeks comment on whether this is the case and whether 
field laboratories associated with colleges and universities would fit 
the criteria of today's proposed alternative regulations.
    In addition, EPA is seeking comment on whether to expand the scope 
of this alternative set of regulations to include other laboratories 
outside of colleges and universities that have similar hazardous waste 
generation patterns. For example, this could include government and 
private laboratories that generate large numbers of different waste 
streams, each in relatively small quantities that are stored and used 
in containers that can be easily manipulated by one person. Such an 
expansion in scope would not include production scale manufacturing 
laboratories, as they do not have the similar production patterns and 
unique circumstances that this rulemaking is intended to address. EPA 
is particularly interested in comments that provide data showing 
similarities or differences between college and university laboratories 
and laboratories at other institutions, with regard to hazardous waste 
generation patterns and challenges. Additionally, EPA seeks comments on 
whether such an expansion of scope might lead to unintended, adverse 
consequences for human health or the environment.
    If the Agency were to conclude that certain other laboratories 
should be included within the scope of this rulemaking, it would alter 
the definition to reflect those laboratories covered by the final rule 
to ensure that the specific types of non-academic laboratories that EPA 
has determined meet the same criteria are provided the same options 
that academic laboratories are provided. EPA envisions that the revised 
definition of laboratory might be ``an area where relatively small 
quantities and a wide variety of chemicals and other substances are 
used on a non-production basis for teaching or research purposes and 
are stored and used in containers that are easily manipulated by one 
person. An area where the same hazardous wastes are routinely 
generated, such as photo processing, is not a laboratory.'' (See 
discussion under section IV.B.1.)
    Laboratory Clean-out--Today's proposal defines ``laboratory clean-
out'' as:

An evaluation of the inventory of chemicals and other materials in a 
laboratory that are no longer needed or have expired and the 
subsequent removal of those chemicals or other unwanted materials 
from the laboratory. A clean-out may occur for several reasons. It 
may be on a routine basis (e.g., at the end of a semester or 
academic year) or as a result of a renovation, relocation, or a 
change in laboratory supervisor/occupant. A regularly scheduled 
pick-up of unwanted materials as required by Sec.  262.208 does not 
qualify as a laboratory clean-out.

    EPA is proposing a definition for ``laboratory clean-out'' to 
distinguish it from regularly scheduled pick-ups of unwanted materials. 
Under the proposal, laboratory clean-outs are more comprehensive than 
the regularly scheduled pick-ups of unwanted materials. Although EPA 
does not intend to limit regularly scheduled pick-ups to used 
chemicals, EPA expects that regularly scheduled pick-ups will mainly 
consist of unwanted materials that are routinely generated in the 
course of laboratory operations and experiments, many of which will be 
used chemicals. A laboratory clean-out, on the other hand, includes an 
assessment of the inventory of unused chemicals and other materials in 
a laboratory that may have expired or are no longer needed and the 
subsequent removal of those chemicals or other materials. It is a 
process of sorting and evaluating to determine what should be 
eliminated from the laboratory's inventory. But just as EPA does not 
intend to limit regularly scheduled pick-ups to the removal of used 
chemicals, EPA does not intend to limit laboratory clean-outs to the 
removal of unused chemicals and may include other unwanted materials as 
well.
    During a laboratory clean-out, some of the chemicals that are 
evaluated may turn out not to be unwanted materials. That is, the 
chemicals may end up back on the laboratory shelf for further use. 
Those chemicals that are unwanted materials may include chemicals that 
are subsequently redistributed to other laboratories. However, the bulk 
of unwanted materials generated during laboratory clean-outs is 
expected to be disposed of as solid or hazardous waste.
    Laboratory Worker--Today's proposal defines ``laboratory worker'' 
as:

a person who handles chemicals and/or unwanted materials in a 
laboratory and may include, but is not limited to, faculty, staff, 
post-doctoral fellows, graduate students, interns, researchers, 
technicians, supervisors/managers, and principal investigators. A 
person does not need to be paid or otherwise compensated for his/her 
work in the laboratory to be considered a laboratory worker. 
Students in a supervised classroom setting are not laboratory 
workers.

The reason for defining laboratory worker is to identify who in a 
laboratory must receive training under this subpart. The definition is 
intended to include any person who performs duties in a laboratory, 
regardless of whether that person is paid or is an employee of the 
college or university. EPA is proposing that students, whether 
undergraduate or graduate, will not be considered laboratory workers if 
their activities in the laboratory are limited to experimentation or 
other classwork. The Agency proposes to exclude students from the 
definition of laboratory worker for two reasons. First, EPA expects 
that students in a classroom setting will be under the direct 
supervision of an instructor or professor who would be considered a 
laboratory worker and would thus receive training under these new 
regulations. Second, given the large number and high turnover of 
students, EPA recognizes the impracticability of requiring training for 
students. However, EPA proposes that students in a classroom setting 
receive some form of instruction regarding the proper procedures for 
handling unwanted materials generated in the laboratory.
    Under the proposed definition, a student may be considered a 
laboratory worker if that student conducts research activities outside 
of those required for a specific class. For example, undergraduate 
students that conduct research for extra credit, for honors projects or 
to earn money, would be considered laboratory workers. Similarly, EPA 
expects that most

[[Page 29725]]

graduate students would be considered laboratory workers, because their 
research is outside the classroom setting and may be unsupervised. It 
is not uncommon for colleges and universities to have guest 
researchers, or summer interns that are not employees of the college or 
university, that conduct research at the college or university. 
Therefore, the Agency proposes that it is not necessary for a person to 
be an employee of the college or university in order to be considered a 
laboratory worker.
    EPA is requesting comment on the definition of laboratory worker. 
Specifically, EPA requests comments on whether there are additional 
types of work arrangements that EPA has not anticipated in this 
discussion and that may require clarification.
    RCRA-Trained Individual--Today's proposal defines ``RCRA-trained 
individual'' as:

a person who has completed the applicable RCRA training requirements 
of Sec.  265.16 for large quantity generators, or Sec.  
262.34(d)(5)(iii) for small quantity generators. A RCRA-trained 
individual may be an employee of the college/university or may be a 
contractor or vendor.

The primary reason for today's proposal is to allow a RCRA-trained 
individual to make the hazardous waste determination instead of the 
laboratory worker or student that generates the unwanted material. 
Today's proposal will allow laboratory workers and students to 
concentrate on proper materials management without having to be trained 
in the RCRA generator requirements. It will also allow a college or 
university to concentrate its resources on providing RCRA training to 
those individuals who will be responsible for using the information 
provided by the laboratory workers regarding the unwanted materials and 
translating that information into solid and hazardous waste 
determinations, as well as identifying any appropriate RCRA waste 
codes.
    In some cases, a RCRA-trained individual will be an employee or 
student of the college or university. In other cases, the RCRA-trained 
individual that makes the hazardous waste determinations for a college 
or university may be an off-site vendor or contractor. If the RCRA-
trained individual is an employee of the college or university, the 
RCRA-trained individual must have RCRA training appropriate to the 
generator status for the facility. That is, RCRA-trained individuals at 
colleges and universities that are small quantity generators must have 
training that complies with Sec.  262.34(d)(5)(iii), while RCRA-trained 
individuals at colleges and universities that are large quantity 
generators must have training in compliance with Sec.  265.16. RCRA-
trained individuals that are not employees of the college or university 
must have training that complies with the large quantity generator 
regulations.
    The Agency is requesting comment on the extent to which colleges 
and universities currently rely on individuals that are not employees 
of the college or university to make the hazardous waste determination 
on their behalf. EPA seeks comment on allowing such individuals to make 
the hazardous waste determination on their behalf. EPA notes that a 
college or university that allows a non-employee to make the hazardous 
waste determination on its behalf could still be held liable in the 
event that a non-employee makes mistaken determinations that lead to 
mismanagement of hazardous waste.
    Reactive Acutely Hazardous Unwanted Material--Today's proposal 
defines ``reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material'' as:

 an unwanted material that is one of the acutely hazardous 
commercial chemical products listed in Sec.  261.33(e) for 
reactivity and toxicity.

A reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material is an unwanted material 
that also is a commercial chemical product listed in Sec.  261.33(e) 
(known as the ``P-list'') for reactivity and toxicity. Reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted materials are a subset of unwanted materials and 
they currently include the following seven commercial chemical 
products:
    (1) P006 (CAS Number: 20859-73-8) Aluminum phosphide;
    (2) P009 (CAS Number: 131-74-8) Ammonium picrate; Phenol, 2,4,6-
trinitro-, ammonium salt;
    (3) P042 (CAS Number: 51-43-4) 1,2-Benzenediol, 4-[1-hydroxy-2-
(methylamino)ethyl]-;
    (4) P065 (CAS Number: 628-86-4) Fulminic Acid, mercury(2+) salt; 
Mercury fulminate;
    (5) P081 (CAS Number: 55-63-0) Nitroglycerine; 1,2,3-Propanetriol, 
trinitrate;
    (6) P112 (CAS Number: 509-14-8) Methane, tetranitro-; 
Tetranitromethane; and
    (7) P122 (CAS Number: 1314-84-7) Zinc phosphide 
Zn3P2 when present at concentrations greater than 
10%.
    The language in the regulations at Sec.  261.33(d) states: ``the 
phrase ``commercial chemical product'' * * * refers to a chemical 
substance which is manufactured or formulated for commercial or 
manufacturing use which consists of the commercially pure grade of the 
chemical, any technical grades of the chemical that are produced or 
marketed, and all formulations in which the chemical is the sole active 
ingredient.'' Only unused chemicals are considered commercial chemical 
products that could carry a ``P-listed'' waste code. Once a reactive 
chemical that is on the P-list has been used, it is not considered a 
commercial chemical product. Therefore, it cannot be a reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted material, nor an acute hazardous waste. It may, 
however, still be a hazardous waste because it meets the criteria of 
another listing, or one of the four characteristics.
    Unwanted Material--Today's proposal defines ``unwanted material'' 
as:

any chemical, mixtures of chemicals, products of experiments, or 
other materials from a laboratory that are no longer needed, wanted 
or usable in the laboratory and which are destined for hazardous 
waste determination by a RCRA-trained individual. Unwanted materials 
include reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials. Unwanted 
materials include materials that may eventually be determined not to 
be solid waste pursuant to Sec.  261.2 or a hazardous waste pursuant 
to Sec.  261.3.

As discussed above, one of the main purposes of today's proposal is to 
provide a college or university the discretion to make the hazardous 
waste determination for unwanted materials generated in the laboratory 
at a location other than the laboratory and at a time after its initial 
generation. Therefore, the Agency is proposing that chemicals or other 
materials that are no longer needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory 
be referred to as unwanted materials. The Agency prefers this term over 
the term laboratory waste, which was used in the University 
Laboratories XL rule, published as a final rule in the Federal Register 
(64 FR 460696, July 27, 1999), because some fraction of the unwanted 
materials may turn out not to be solid or hazardous waste. Stakeholders 
have frequently told EPA that putting a ``waste'' label on a container 
stigmatizes the material so that it is difficult to redistribute. 
Likewise, EPA has been told that generators are concerned about the 
legality of removing a hazardous waste label from a container, even if 
the label is in error. For example, sometimes chemicals are mistakenly 
identified as hazardous waste or a hazardous waste label is put on a 
container of unused material that is no longer wanted in one 
laboratory, but is otherwise eligible for redistribution to another 
laboratory for further legitimate use at the college or

[[Page 29726]]

university. EPA proposes to resolve these concerns by using the term 
unwanted materials. EPA believes this will remove any regulatory 
barriers that may exist to the redistribution of unused chemicals and 
promote the legitimate reuse of laboratory chemicals. Increased 
chemical redistribution and reuse will decrease costs associated with 
purchasing new chemicals, reduce the volume of hazardous waste 
generation, and avoid waste disposal costs.
    EPA is proposing that the term unwanted materials include all 
chemicals or other materials in a laboratory that are no longer needed, 
wanted or usable in the laboratory. To this extent, the laboratory 
worker or student has made the decision that the material serves no 
useful purpose in the laboratory where it originated. Unwanted 
materials may be used or unused, new or expired, pure or mixtures, 
products of an experiment, or newly synthesized in the laboratory. Any 
chemical or other material that has the potential to be a solid and 
hazardous waste will be considered to be an unwanted material at the 
time that it is determined by a laboratory worker or RCRA-trained 
individual that it is no longer needed, wanted or usable in the 
laboratory. Many unwanted materials will later be determined to be 
solid and hazardous wastes. EPA emphasizes that the point of generation 
of those solid and hazardous wastes is in the laboratory, even though 
the formal RCRA hazardous waste code determination may be made at a 
later date, and outside the laboratory where it was generated.
    The definition of unwanted materials includes reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted materials, as defined above. In other words, 
reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials are a subset of unwanted 
materials.
    EPA requests comments on the definition of unwanted material and 
whether the definition appropriately captures the items EPA has 
indicated it intends to include or whether certain materials should be 
excluded from the definition. EPA asks that commenters provide specific 
examples of materials that may require additional clarification.

B. Scope of Laboratories at Colleges or Universities Covered Under This 
Proposed Rule

1. Laboratories in Colleges and Universities
    Today's proposed alternative regulations would apply only to 
laboratories at colleges and universities that generate unwanted and 
that choose to be subject to these proposed regulations instead of the 
existing regulations governing the generation of hazardous waste. Other 
parts of the college or university, and laboratories located outside of 
colleges and universities, that generate hazardous wastes would not be 
eligible for today's proposed rule, but rather are and will continue to 
be subject to the existing hazardous waste regulations.
    As stated above, EPA has a long history of working with colleges 
and universities on the management of hazardous waste generated in 
laboratories. EPA has worked with colleges and universities since the 
early 1980s to more fully understand the difficulties they face in 
complying with the existing RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Projects 
such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute pilot program and the EPA's 
University Laboratories Project XL Pilot Project, which provides 
flexibility to colleges and universities, have focused on how hazardous 
wastes are generated and accumulated in laboratories. EPA has met with 
stakeholders, held a public meeting, gone on site visits, and attended 
meetings and conferences with associations representing various 
colleges and universities and laboratories. Through these various 
activities, EPA has developed a good understanding of the operational 
practices in laboratories at colleges and universities and the 
challenges they face in complying with the RCRA hazardous waste 
requirements. Therefore, EPA has decided to develop separate, 
alternative hazardous waste regulations, primarily as it relates to 
where the hazardous waste determination for laboratories at colleges 
and universities can be made.
    Nevertheless, EPA is taking comment on whether to expand the scope 
of this alternative set of regulations to include other laboratories 
with similar hazardous waste generation patterns. Specifically, this 
could include government and private laboratories that generate large 
numbers of different waste streams, each in relatively small 
quantities, that are stored and used in containers that can be easily 
manipulated by one person. EPA also requests comment on whether 
laboratories in hospitals owned by or affiliated with colleges or 
universities should be included in the scope of this alternative set of 
regulations, regardless of any other expansion in scope.
    As stated above, college and university representatives have 
commented that laboratories located in colleges and universities have 
specific hazardous waste generation patterns. However, in comments 
submitted in response to EPA's public meeting in 2003, several 
commenters indicated that laboratories in government and industry share 
similar processes, use of chemicals, and hazardous waste generation 
patterns. Specifically, like laboratories at colleges and universities, 
many industry, utility, and government laboratories generate relatively 
small amounts of a large variety of hazardous wastes.
    Therefore, EPA seeks comment on whether the proposed alternative 
regulations should be limited solely to college and university 
laboratories or whether other institutions with laboratories having 
similar hazardous waste generation patterns as those in colleges and 
universities should also be given the option of complying with this 
alternative set of regulations. EPA is interested in comments with data 
that show similarities or differences between college and university 
laboratories and laboratories at other institutions, with regard to 
hazardous waste generation patterns and challenges.
    If the Agency were to conclude that non-academic laboratories 
should be included within the scope of this rulemaking, it would alter 
the definition to reflect those laboratories covered by the final rule 
to ensure that the specific types of non-academic laboratories which 
EPA has determined meet the same criteria are provided the same options 
that academic laboratories are provided.
2. Alternative Regulations
    Today's proposal would allow colleges and universities the 
flexibility to manage unwanted materials generated in their 
laboratories in a more efficient manner, based on their specific 
circumstances, while still meeting the goals of the RCRA hazardous 
waste program: management of hazardous waste that is protective of 
human health and the environment. EPA believes that a regulatory option 
that is more tailored to the college and university laboratory setting 
will allow them to achieve better environmental performance. EPA also 
believes that today's proposed alternative set of regulations are as 
protective as the existing hazardous waste regulations. Therefore, EPA 
believes that allowing college and university laboratories to manage 
their hazardous waste under today's proposal will best meet the goals 
of the RCRA statute.
    At the same time, it should be noted that laboratories in colleges 
and universities can operate quite differently from one another. For 
instance, there is tremendous variety among colleges and universities 
with regard to the number

[[Page 29727]]

of laboratories on campus, the dispersal of those laboratories over a 
large area and in a number of separate buildings, and the management 
and organizational structure of the institution. This high degree of 
variability among colleges and universities argues against a ``one-
size-fits-all'' approach. In fact, certain colleges and universities 
may have developed internal procedures for identifying, handling, and 
storing hazardous waste such as computer tracking systems or contracts 
with waste haulers which allow them to more easily comply with the 
current requirements at their individual laboratories. For these 
college and university laboratories, the difficulty in transitioning to 
an alternative set of regulations for unwanted materials management may 
be greater than the benefit derived.
    Additionally, because today's proposed alternative regulations 
apply only to colleges or universities that generate hazardous wastes 
in laboratories, and not to colleges or universities that generate 
hazardous wastes elsewhere on-site, a college or university choosing to 
be regulated under today's proposal could be subject to two different 
sets of requirements for waste management: 40 CFR part 262, subpart K 
for unwanted materials it generates in its laboratories, and all other 
applicable requirements in 40 CFR part 262 for hazardous wastes it 
generates elsewhere at the college or university. Therefore, some 
colleges or universities may find it easier to simply manage all of 
their hazardous wastes according to one set of regulations, and 
therefore remain subject to existing regulations, and therefore remain 
subject to 40 CFR part 262.
    For these reasons, EPA believes that providing the option for 
colleges and universities to comply with either the existing hazardous 
waste regulations or the proposed alternative regulations better serves 
the intentions and goals of both the Agency and the college and 
university community.
    Although today's proposed alternative set of regulations does give 
colleges and universities the option to select between the existing 
hazardous waste regulations or the proposed alternative regulations, 
EPA does not intend for colleges and universities to make this decision 
on a laboratory-by-laboratory basis. All laboratories in the college or 
university (covered under a single EPA ID number) must operate under 
the same set of regulations.
    Finally, it should be noted that because EPA authorizes qualified 
states to administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the 
federal program within the state, colleges and universities located in 
authorized states wishing to have their laboratories be subject to 
subpart K do not have this option until and unless their state has 
adopted the finalized rule.
3. Notification
    Because EPA's proposal provides the option for colleges and 
universities to choose to manage their hazardous wastes from 
laboratories under the existing regulations or alternatively their 
laboratories' unwanted materials under today's proposed provisions, it 
is important that EPA, or the authorized state, know to which set of 
regulations a college or university's laboratories are subject.
    Today's proposal, therefore, requires that a college or university 
choosing the proposed alternative regulations for unwanted materials 
over the existing regulations for regulation of hazardous wastes 
generated in its laboratories must notify the appropriate EPA Regional 
Administrator or, when appropriate, State Director in authorized states 
that have adopted the final rule. A single notice may apply to multiple 
ID numbers, however, all laboratories within one EPA ID number must 
comply with the same set of regulations (in other words, the 
alternative approach can not be applied to only one or a few 
laboratories within that ID number, but must apply to all or none). The 
reason for this is that EPA believes it would be difficult for a 
college or university to adequately keep track of which set of 
regulations apply to which laboratory or group of laboratories. 
Furthermore, it would be extremely difficult for states or regions to 
keep track of the applicable set of regulations if, within a single EPA 
ID number, different laboratories are complying with different 
requirements. No mechanism currently exists at EPA or the states to 
track such distinctions. The notice must be submitted to the 
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator or State Director in authorized 
states that have adopted the final rule. At all times, a college or 
university's laboratories must comply with either the existing 
regulations or the alternative regulations. If a college or university 
decides that its laboratories will remain subject to the existing 
regulations, no notification is necessary.
    It is also possible that once a college or university has chosen to 
manage its unwanted materials under the alternative regulations, it may 
decide that this approach is not meeting the needs of the college or 
university, and that it would prefer to return to regulation under 
existing applicable generator regulations. Under today's proposal, a 
college or university that chooses to no longer manage its unwanted 
materials under the proposed alternative regulations would be required 
to submit another notice to the EPA Regional Administrator (or State 
Director in authorized states). The notice must indicate the date upon 
which the college or university's laboratories will no longer be 
subject to subpart K and would be subject to the existing applicable 
generator regulations.
    The intent of today's proposed notification requirement is to 
provide basic information to regulatory agencies concerning which set 
of regulations the college or university has chosen to govern the 
management of the hazardous wastes or unwanted materials generated in 
its laboratories. The Agency is not proposing any specific format for 
these notices, but that the notification must include the name and 
address of the college or university, the EPA ID number(s), the name 
and phone number of a contact person at the college or university, and 
the date that the college or university will comply with or withdraw 
from the alternative regulations.
    EPA requests comment on whether the information required in the 
notification to the EPA Regional Administrator (or State Director, in 
authorized states) is sufficient to unambiguously identify and monitor 
which colleges and universities are managing their hazardous waste or 
unwanted materials under which set of regulations. EPA would also like 
input into whether the Subtitle C Site Identification Form [EPA Form 
8700-12] or the comparable state form should be used to provide this 
notice, and whether the forms should therefore be modified to include a 
checkbox to indicate which set or regulations the college or university 
is choosing to manage the unwanted materials generated in its 
laboratories. Additionally, EPA seeks comment on whether the Regional 
Administrator (or State Director, in authorized states) should provide 
the college or university with a written receipt of the one-time 
notice.

C. Specific Requirements Under the Alternative Regulations

    Today's proposed alternative regulations would allow laboratories 
in colleges and universities to send unwanted material that is 
generated in the laboratory to an on-site central accumulation area or 
an on-site TSDF before making the hazardous waste determination for the 
unwanted

[[Page 29728]]

material, or to make the hazardous waste determination in the 
laboratory prior to removal. However, the college or university 
laboratory must meet certain requirements as described below.
1. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination
    Currently, under the existing hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR 
262.11, any individual generating a solid waste is required to 
determine if that solid waste is hazardous, that is, determining 
whether a waste is ``listed'' and/or ``characteristic'' (as described 
in section II.D.2 of this preamble). Under 40 CFR 262.34(c), generators 
are allowed to accumulate up to 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one 
quart of acutely hazardous waste) in containers at or near the point 
where the waste was generated without a permit or interim status and 
without complying with certain other hazardous waste generator 
requirements. This point is generally known as a ``satellite 
accumulation area,'' (SAA). The SAA must be ``under the control of the 
operator'' generating the hazardous waste [40 CFR 262.34(c)(1)]. 
Although the generator requirements for hazardous wastes managed in the 
satellite accumulation area are a more streamlined set of requirements, 
the requirement to determine if the solid waste is hazardous still 
applies. Because most hazardous waste generated in a college or 
university laboratory is generated in small quantities (rarely do 
college or university laboratories accumulate up to the 55 gallon limit 
before removing their waste), laboratories generally manage their 
hazardous wastes according to the requirements of the ``satellite 
accumulation area.''
    Typically, college and university laboratories do not have one 
central location where hazardous wastes are generated, but may have 
many independent and widely dispersed points where hazardous waste is 
generated, including many different points of generation within a 
single laboratory. Hazardous wastes generated in colleges and 
university laboratories are characterized by a wide variability in 
wastestreams, generally small quantities of each individual 
wastestream, and a large number of individuals involved in hazardous 
waste generation and management, many of whom are students, an 
inherently transient population. Due to this dynamic, under the current 
regulations, a large number of potentially constantly changing 
individuals must be able to make proper hazardous waste determinations 
(per 40 CFR 262.11) for large numbers of ever changing wastes. Colleges 
and universities have explained to EPA that it is a challenge to 
provide sufficient RCRA training to all these individuals. However, the 
potentially large number of laboratories at colleges and universities 
where such hazardous waste is generated makes the hazardous waste 
determination extremely difficult for the limited EH&S staff employed 
at these institutions. Scheduling an individual trained in RCRA 
regulations to be present at every laboratory location where hazardous 
waste generation occurs is impractical and difficult to achieve. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing today that colleges and universities be 
provided the flexibility to make the hazardous waste determination in 
the laboratory before it is removed from the laboratory or within four 
days of arriving at an on-site CAA or TSDF, provided certain provisions 
are met. Specifically these provisions are: (1) Any unwanted material 
that is generated is labeled in the laboratory, (2) the RCRA hazardous 
waste determination is made by a RCRA-trained individual before the 
unwanted material is removed from the laboratory or within four 
calendar days of arriving at an on-site CAA or TSDF, and (3) that while 
the unwanted material is in the laboratory certain other standards are 
met, as described in other sections of this preamble.
    With the flexibility to make the hazardous waste determination in 
the laboratory, in an on-site central accumulation area or on-site 
TSDF, the individual in the laboratory generating the waste does not 
need to be familiar with the RCRA hazardous waste determination 
procedures. However, it is important to note that while the actual 
hazardous waste determination does not need to be made at the time that 
unwanted materials are generated in the laboratory, any unwanted 
material identified later as hazardous waste will be considered to have 
been generated in the laboratory, and the unwanted material must be 
properly managed from the moment of its generation and comply with the 
requirements of today's proposal. To ensure that any RCRA hazardous 
wastes that may be generated in the laboratory are properly managed, 
today's proposal would require that all unwanted materials generated in 
the laboratory be managed in accordance with the provisions set forth 
in today's proposal (even if ultimately they are determined not to be 
RCRA solid or hazardous waste). This provision is designed to ensure 
that persons properly and thoroughly trained in the RCRA hazardous 
waste regulations be able to make hazardous waste determinations for 
all unwanted materials generated at the laboratory, rather than relying 
on a great many individual researchers or students attempting to do 
this. EPA believes that this will reduce the chances of either an 
improper hazardous waste determination or no hazardous waste 
determination at all for the unwanted material, and thus the 
possibility of hazardous wastes being improperly managed. It also will 
allow EH&S personnel at the college or university to determine, campus-
wide, whether any of the chemicals or other materials generated in one 
laboratory may continue to be used in another laboratory and thus, 
reduce the amount of waste, whether hazardous or not, that is generated 
in the first place.
    EPA's authority to impose requirements in today's proposal on 
college and university laboratories that generate unwanted materials, 
including unwanted materials that are ultimately determined not to be 
RCRA hazardous waste, is based on RCRA section 3002. This provision 
allows EPA to promulgate regulations for generators of hazardous waste. 
Historically, college and university laboratories have been generators 
of hazardous waste. College or university laboratories that decide to 
comply with subpart K of part 262 know that hazardous wastes typically 
constitute most of the unwanted materials generated in these 
laboratories. In this rulemaking, EPA is using its authority in Section 
3002 to cover unwanted materials that may, in fact, be hazardous waste 
even though the formal determination is not required until such time 
that the unwanted material is removed from the laboratory, or until 
such time the unwanted material reaches the on-site central 
accumulation area or on-site TSDF. By making the determination of 
hazardous waste at a time subsequent to the initial generation of the 
unwanted materials, the laboratory assumes the responsibility for 
managing all of the unwanted materials in accordance with the 
provisions of today's proposal until such time as each wastestream is 
determined to be a hazardous waste, a non-hazardous solid waste or 
another material not regulated pursuant to RCRA.
2. Container Standards
    The Agency is proposing performance-based requirements for the 
management of containers of unwanted material while they are being 
accumulated in the laboratory. Today's proposal would require that 
containers

[[Page 29729]]

be properly managed for safe storage, to prevent spills, and to avoid 
dangerous situations in which adverse chemical reactions occur. 
Additionally, the Agency is proposing to require the following 
regulations for proper container management: management to prevent 
spills, leaks, or adverse environmental releases, including minimizing 
loss of unwanted materials via emissions into the air; practices to 
ensure containers are kept in good condition and damaged containers are 
replaced; and management to ensure that unwanted materials are 
compatible with their containers to avoid reactions between the 
contents and its container. The proposed rule would not specify the 
manner in which college or university laboratories would achieve these 
standards, thus providing flexibility for each laboratory to determine 
the most suitable approach, although in all cases, the unwanted 
materials would have to be properly controlled within the container.
    Under the existing satellite accumulation area regulations, the 
container management standards are more specific, requiring that 
containers be in good condition with no structural defects or leaks, 
that the waste be compatible with the containers, and that containers 
holding hazardous waste always be closed during storage, except when 
adding or removing waste.
    The proposed container management requirements provide laboratories 
with more flexibility than the current specific regulatory 
requirements, since each college or university laboratory is able to 
determine the most appropriate way to meet the standards in the rule. 
For example, the flexibility in the proposed rule allows laboratories 
to decide how to safely manage their in-line wastes, as opposed to the 
current regulations, which require that containers be closed at all 
times, except when adding or removing wastes. EPA believes that by 
allowing this flexibility, laboratories will be able to establish 
methods which are most appropriate for their institutions, thereby 
obtaining better environmental results.
    One alternative the Agency is considering including in the 
regulation is the concept of a ``working container.'' A working 
container would be defined as a small container (of one gallon or 
less), managed under the control of a laboratory worker and used at a 
bench or work station, whose contents are emptied into a container of 
unwanted material at the end of the procedure. Under this alternative, 
a more specific provision would be added to the proposed performance-
based container management standards, requiring that any container of 
unwanted materials that does not fit the definition of a working 
container be closed at all times, except when it is necessary to add or 
remove unwanted materials. This alternative option would provide 
flexibility for laboratory workers to leave working containers open 
during ongoing experiments, but would ensure that all other containers 
remain safely closed when not in use.
    A second alternative option the Agency is considering is to 
explicitly include specific container management requirements in the 
regulation. This option would be similar to the current container 
management standards for laboratories, requiring that containers be in 
good condition, that the waste be compatible with other materials and 
the containers, and that containers holding hazardous waste always be 
closed during storage. As opposed to the more performance-based 
proposal, this option would contain regulatory language requiring that 
an institution ``must at all times'' keep containers: closed except 
when adding or removing materials and, in cases for in-line collection, 
provide assurance of no spillage from overflow; maintained to prevent 
leaks or spills and, if the container becomes impaired, immediately 
transfer materials to a container in good condition; and compatible 
with materials to prevent adverse reactions or container impairment and 
stored a safe distance from other incompatible containers. In addition, 
this option could impose minimum requirements for what constitutes a 
``safe distance from'' and what constitutes a ``container in good 
condition.'' This option also could include specific requirements for 
assuring that no spills from overflow occur for in-line collections by 
mechanisms such as secondary containment, equipment monitoring or shut 
down of equipment in certain instances. The Agency has proposed 
performance-based standards for container management as opposed to more 
specific requirements because the Agency believes such flexibility is 
appropriate and will lead to greater environmental protection, 
considering the specific circumstances at laboratories. As a result, 
laboratory personnel will be able to apply their institutional 
knowledge and experience to determining the most effective and safest 
container management standards for each laboratory.
    The Agency requests comments on the proposed performance-based 
standards for container management. Specifically, EPA is seeking 
comment on whether the proposed standards provide for protection of 
human health and the environment, while providing flexibility to the 
laboratories. EPA also seeks comment on the ease of determining 
compliance with the performance-based standards. EPA requests comments 
on the concept requiring that all containers be closed at all times, 
except ``working containers.'' EPA specifically requests comment on the 
definition of ``working container'' and its applicability in college 
and university laboratories. Additionally, EPA is seeking comment on 
whether the alternative option of specific container management 
requirements should be in the regulations, and, if so, what these 
regulations should contain.
3. Labeling Standards
    The labeling requirements in today's proposal include two sets of 
performance-based requirements. First, in order to demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed rule, to alert individuals handling the 
materials, and to ensure proper handling, a label must be affixed to or 
physically accompanying the container of unwanted material. This 
cautionary compliance label must include sufficient information to 
alert emergency response personnel and transporters to the material's 
hazards and/or identity. For example, this might include the possible 
hazardous properties of the unwanted material or its constituents. Once 
the RCRA-trained individual makes the hazardous waste determination, 
whether it is in the laboratory or an on-site CAA or TSDF, the 
hazardous waste code(s) must be added to the cautionary compliance 
label that is affixed to or physically accompanying the container. 
Requiring that the hazardous waste code(s) be placed onto the 
cautionary compliance label will ensure that inspectors can confirm 
that the hazardous waste determination has been made and that there is 
no confusion as to the contents of the container so that employees of 
the college or university or contractors consolidating the waste can 
easily verify that incompatible wastes are not lab-packed together.
    The second proposed standard requires that the RCRA-trained 
individual who makes the hazardous waste determination receives 
sufficient information regarding the unwanted material so that the 
hazardous waste determination can be properly made. This information 
may be affixed to, but at a minimum, must in some way be associated 
with each container in order to allow this individual to properly 
identify whether an unwanted material is a hazardous waste and to 
assign a proper hazardous waste code(s).

[[Page 29730]]

Examples of the types of information that may be associated with the 
container are: a description of the chemical composition of the 
material; whether the unwanted material has been used or is unused; a 
description of the manner in which the unwanted material was used 
(i.e., used as a solvent); and a description of the possible hazardous 
properties of the unwanted material (i.e., toxic, reactive, corrosive 
or ignitable). This information may be physically affixed or attached 
to the container of unwanted material, but need not be. The information 
must be received by the RCRA-trained individual making the hazardous 
waste determination so that this individual is able to correlate the 
information received with the container of unwanted material to which 
it refers.
    Additionally, the date the unwanted materials began accumulating in 
the laboratory must be associated with (but need not be affixed to) the 
container in order to track the interval when materials must be removed 
as specified in a college or university's LMP, which must not exceed 
six months. If the volume of unwanted materials in a laboratory exceeds 
55 gallons (or 1 quart of acutely hazardous reactive waste), an 
additional date must be recorded in order to determine whether the 10 
calendar days for removing the unwanted materials from the laboratory 
has elapsed. These dates--the date that the unwanted material began 
accumulating in the container in the laboratory and the date that the 
container exceeds 55 gallons of unwanted materials (or one quart of 
acutely hazardous reactive wastes)--may be on the label affixed to the 
container, or otherwise added to the label associated with the 
container.
    A laboratory might meet the second proposed labeling standard by 
devising a system that, for example, numbers the containers of unwanted 
material and creates a spreadsheet containing sufficient information to 
identify the material for each of the numbered containers of unwanted 
material. The spreadsheet could then be sent electronically to the 
RCRA-trained individual so the information is available to that 
individual when the hazardous waste determination is made. 
Alternatively, laboratories could affix a bar code to each container 
that, when scanned, would provide the information necessary for proper 
determination of the unwanted material. Laboratories might also choose 
to include with the containers a printed inventory of the unwanted 
materials and the associated information each time the containers are 
removed from the laboratory and the RCRA-trained individual makes the 
hazardous waste determination. The second labeling requirement is meant 
to provide the laboratory with flexibility in determining the most 
efficient manner in which to provide the RCRA-trained individual with 
the information they need to accurately and easily identify whether the 
unwanted materials are RCRA hazardous wastes.
    Proposing two distinct labeling standards ensures that the RCRA-
trained individual will be able to make an accurate hazardous waste 
determination of the status of the unwanted materials that are 
generated by students and laboratory workers. The central accumulation 
area or TSDF at a college or university may be receiving unwanted 
materials from dozens of laboratories, in addition to other sources on 
campus, and the RCRA-trained individual responsible for identifying and 
managing the unwanted materials may not be aware of the origins of this 
material, unless sufficiently informed by the generators in the 
laboratories.
    The Agency is also considering a labeling option (concerning the 
second labeling requirement) that would require specific information be 
associated with the container of unwanted materials, as opposed to the 
performance-based requirements described above. Under this approach, 
specific labeling requirements would be specified in the regulatory 
language. For example, the rule would specifically require, among other 
things, that containers have associated labels that include a chemical 
description of the unwanted material, whether the material is used or 
unused, the manner in which the chemicals were used, and a description 
of the possible hazardous properties of the material. The Agency is 
proposing the performance-based requirements and requesting comment on 
the specific labeling requirements option since EPA believes that the 
performance-based labeling requirements will allow college and 
university laboratories more flexibility in finding the most 
appropriate labeling method for their laboratory that will ensure the 
unwanted materials are labeled in such a way that they are properly 
handled, as well as easily and accurately identified, whether that is 
in the laboratory or at an on-site central accumulation area or TSDF.
    The Agency requests comments on the proposed performance-based 
labeling requirements and the more prescriptive alternative option 
described above. Specifically, EPA is seeking comment on whether the 
proposed standards provide sufficient flexibility. Additionally, EPA is 
seeking comment on whether it is more appropriate to require specific 
standards for labeling and, if so, what information should be required 
on the container labels.
4. Training and Instruction Requirements
    Today's proposal includes performance-based standards for training 
workers and instructing students in laboratories at participating 
colleges and universities. The proposal maximizes flexibility in both 
the content and method of instruction for students or training for 
workers in order to meet the proposed standards. Under this proposal, 
the regulation requires that colleges and universities provide 
laboratory workers with training commensurate with the laboratory 
workers' duties. Students working in laboratories must receive 
instruction relevant to their activities in the laboratory. A college 
or university is required to document in its Laboratory Management Plan 
(LMP) how it will meet the training and instruction standards of the 
proposed regulation (e.g., who will be trained/instructed, what are the 
minimal requirements for completing the training/instruction). EPA 
believes training should be commensurate with an individual's assigned 
duties, the degree of involvement with the management of the unwanted 
materials, and the transportation of potentially hazardous waste until 
the ultimate hazardous waste determination and treatment, storage or 
disposal of such hazardous waste is made. Therefore, EPA maintains it 
is sufficient for students to be instructed in the applicable 
laboratory chemical and unwanted materials management standards and 
practices of today's proposal to enable them to perform learning and 
enrichment activities customarily performed by students in the 
laboratory. Laboratory workers, including graduate students, must be 
trained in accordance with their job function. EPA is including 
graduate students in the same category for training as laboratory 
workers, as explained in the definition sections (section IV.A of this 
preamble and Sec.  262.200 of subpart K), since graduate students often 
perform many of the same chemical or unwanted materials management 
functions as laboratory workers employed by, or otherwise in service 
to, a college or university.
    EPA distinguishes training from instruction to correspond with the 
level of knowledge or practical application needed by individuals to 
perform their assigned functions or fulfill their job or enrollment 
classification (i.e., professor,

[[Page 29731]]

EH&S, graduate student) within a college or university laboratory. EPA 
believes instruction constitutes familiarization or transference of 
knowledge to perform tasks and assignments in a safe and 
environmentally sound manner. For example, students conducting 
experiments will come in contact with and use a variety of chemicals 
which may potentially become hazardous waste following experimentation 
or may react adversely if incorrectly stored or managed. These 
potentially hazardous wastes must be stored in containers to minimize 
risk and labeled to alert individuals that the contents of the 
container should be managed in a certain manner. There is also the 
potential for dangerous or hazardous situations such as explosions, 
fires, spills, or other hazards from mishandling of chemicals or 
unwanted materials which require emergency response actions by 
qualified personnel. It is not necessary that students have the 
capability of an emergency response coordinator or other qualified 
individual to respond and perform emergency procedures and other 
remedial actions. Rather, it is sufficient for students to know how to 
correctly handle and manage potentially hazardous wastes to avoid 
dangerous or hazardous situations and in case of an emergency, the 
correct information or procedures to follow such as contact information 
and evacuation procedures.
    Conversely, the Agency considers training as more formalized or 
technical instruction whereby upon completion of training, personnel 
are qualified to perform the functions of their job descriptions or 
assigned duties. To illustrate, current RCRA personnel training for 
LQGs under 40 CFR 265.16(a)(1) describes required training as classroom 
or on-the-job training. It also requires personnel to complete a 
training program that teaches them to perform their duties in a way 
which ensures compliance with the regulations. Therefore, for the 
purpose of subpart K, laboratory workers must receive formalized 
training or technical instruction commensurate with their duties (which 
is dependent on an individuals job description or assignments), be able 
to supervise or instruct students in the laboratory and generally 
perform duties which fulfill responsibilities contained in their job 
description or assigned duties, which may include conducting chemical 
analysis, preparing containers for transport, emergency response duties 
or other duties, as appropriate. It is required that personnel 
conducting the hazardous waste determination or transporting unwanted 
materials on-site be RCRA-trained according to the generator status of 
the college or university. In the case of laboratory workers, the level 
of training needed by workers is dependent on their individual duties 
and may not require these individuals to be RCRA-trained to the same 
degree as required for individuals involved in the on-site transport of 
unwanted materials or making the hazardous waste determination if these 
duties are not assigned to them.
    Under this proposal, colleges and universities choosing to be 
subject to this new set of alternative regulations have the flexibility 
to determine the appropriate subject matter for instructing their 
students and training laboratory workers and to tailor the training to 
individual needs according to function, duties and tasks. For example, 
to meet the requirement that all laboratory workers must receive 
training in accordance with their functions, a college or university 
may develop training that includes proposed laboratory practices and 
standards for unwanted materials management. As with personnel training 
for individuals not making the hazardous waste determination or 
transporting unwanted materials on-site, EPA is not mandating specific 
subject matter, materials or methods for instructing students. However, 
the Agency believes appropriate instruction for students would cover 
such information as unwanted materials management standards and 
practices sufficient to enable students to manage unwanted materials 
safely and in an environmentally sound manner, while working in the 
laboratory. Both training of laboratory workers and instruction of 
students must ensure that appropriate and accurate information is 
conveyed to the RCRA-trained individual in order for that individual to 
make accurate hazardous waste determinations and to safely transport 
unwanted materials on-site, if appropriate.
    EPA believes it is necessary for individuals involved in the on-
site transportation of potentially hazardous wastes and individuals 
making the hazardous waste determination (either in the laboratory, on-
site CAA or on-site TSDF) to receive the full complement of RCRA 
training in accordance with the college or university's generator 
status as found in 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) and 265.16 for LQGs, and 
262.34(d)(5)(iii) for SQGs. EPA is requiring that individuals involved 
in the on-site transportation of unwanted materials receive this level 
of training due to the potential of a release or spill directly to the 
environment (e.g., soil, air, water) or risks from an explosion or 
other accident, while potentially hazardous wastes or other materials 
are in route during on-site transport. EPA also believes that 
individuals making the hazardous waste determination must be aware of 
all applicable RCRA requirements in order to be able to classify the 
unwanted materials as solid and hazardous wastes and identify the RCRA 
hazardous waste code(s) for proper hazardous waste or unwanted 
materials management or re-use. Therefore, Sec. Sec.  262.207(c) and 
(d), 262.209, 262.210(a) and (e), 262.211(a) and (c), and 262.212(a) 
and (c) of subpart K require that a RCRA-trained individual accompany 
on-site transport of unwanted materials and hazardous wastes and only 
RCRA-trained individuals may make the hazardous waste determination. 
EPA also is requiring in today's proposal that contractors employed by 
the college or university involved in laboratory management of unwanted 
materials or hazardous waste as contained in subpart K must be RCRA-
trained per LQG requirements regardless of a college or universities 
generator status. To summarize, the existing training requirements 
relevant to RCRA-trained individuals cited above:
    1. LQG regulations under 40 CFR 265.16 set a minimum of required 
elements (much of which pertain to emergency response) as follows:
    a. Personnel must successfully complete a program of classroom 
instruction or on-the-job training that teaches them to perform their 
duties in a way that ensures compliance and must include hazardous 
waste management procedures (including contingency plan implementation) 
relevant to their employment position. Personnel who have not 
successfully completed training must not work in unsupervised 
conditions.
    b. The training program must be directed by an individual trained 
in hazardous waste management. At a minimum, training must be designed 
to ensure that personnel are able to effectively respond to emergencies 
by familiarizing them with emergency procedures, equipment and systems. 
Where applicable, personnel are required to become familiar with the 
procedures and information of Sec.  265.16(a)(3)(i)-(vi), such as 
responses to fires or explosions, or groundwater contamination 
incidents.
    In addition, LQG training requirements of 40 CFR 265.16 require 
that personnel take part in an annual review of training (Sec.  
265.16(c)) and must

[[Page 29732]]

maintain training records including a written description of the types 
and amount of training completed in accordance with job descriptions 
(Sec.  626.16(d)).
    2. SQG training requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(iii) require 
the generator to ensure all employees are thoroughly familiar with 
proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relevant to their 
responsibilities during normal college or university operations and 
emergencies.
    For purposes of Subpart K, training records for RCRA-trained 
individuals at college or university large quantity generators must be 
kept as currently required by 40 CFR 265.16. Both large and small 
quantity generators must address training standards for RCRA-trained 
individuals in their LMP as required by subpart K (see details in 
preamble section IV.D for recordkeeping and section IV.C.11 for LMP 
requirements associated with today's proposed rule).
    As stated earlier, EPA is not proposing specific types of training 
methods for laboratory workers or instruction requirements for 
students. Rather, each college or university choosing to be subject to 
subpart K may determine the best training or instruction method to meet 
their circumstances and operations. For example, training methods may 
consist of a variety of approaches, including formal classroom or 
electronic training, on-the-job training, or instruction to students by 
professors or other qualified personnel before or during an experiment. 
Professors may choose to simulate an emergency event as a method to 
instruct students on proper emergency contact or evacuation procedures, 
or choose to post information or procedures in the laboratory and/or 
test the students on these procedures as part of regular exams. 
Regardless of the method used, a college or university is required to 
address the training and instruction standards found in today's 
proposed rule and must document the training methods in its LMP. In 
addition, training or instruction must be sufficient to enable 
individuals to carry out their duties in an environmentally safe and 
sound manner and in accordance with other appropriate regulations.
    The Agency is also considering an alternative option to today's 
proposal. This option is a more prescriptive regulatory approach than 
the proposed performance-based option. Like the proposed option, this 
option requires that training/instruction be commensurate with the 
duties of laboratory workers and students based on the degree of 
involvement with handling and management of unwanted materials, and 
transportation of potentially hazardous waste. Also, as with the 
proposal, laboratory workers and graduate students would receive 
training, while students are required to receive instruction in 
appropriate areas. Colleges and universities would tailor the training/
instruction to the individuals' functions and would determine training 
and instruction methods that best fit the college or university's 
environment (see examples in the proposal above). However, with this 
alternative, EPA would set certain minimum training requirements for 
laboratory workers and students. Specifically, EPA would require that: 
(1) Students receive instruction in proper container management and 
labeling (Sec.  262.206), collection procedures for unwanted materials 
(Sec.  262.208), and emergency procedures (as added, if appropriate); 
and (2) laboratory workers must be trained in the same subject matter 
as students, and any additional training necessary to perform their 
individual duties. For instance, laboratory workers may need to receive 
more technical or extensive training in the same areas as students to 
be able to teach, supervise or otherwise assist students in laboratory 
chemical and unwanted materials management practices. In addition, 
further training maybe required beyond what is sufficient to be able to 
supervise students in the laboratory if laboratory workers perform 
other duties such as chemical inventories, laboratory clean-outs, 
emergency response or other duties not required of students. These 
additional duties would require training in the areas not required of 
students. Furthermore, as with the proposed option, only RCRA-trained 
individuals may be tasked with on-site transportation of unwanted 
materials (see summary of RCRA training requirements in the proposed 
option above for LQGs and SQGs) and colleges and universities must 
address the required training standards in their LMP.
    The Agency requests comments on the proposed performance-based 
training and instruction requirements and the alternative option 
offered. The proposed option grants maximum flexibility to colleges and 
universities in meeting the training requirements. The alternative 
option sets minimum standards which colleges and universities would be 
required to meet. In both cases, training must be documented in the 
college and university's LMP. Additionally, the Agency is interested in 
receiving comment on training requirements under other regulations that 
institutions may use to fulfill the requirements of today's proposed 
option.
5. Removal Frequency of Unwanted Materials
    Typically, laboratories initially accumulate hazardous wastes 
within the laboratory before sending the hazardous wastes to an on-site 
or off-site location. As the initial accumulation area for hazardous 
wastes, the laboratory generally manages the hazardous waste in a 
satellite accumulation area (see Sec.  262.34(c)). Under the current 
regulations, the removal of hazardous waste from satellite accumulation 
areas is dependent on the volume of hazardous waste. That is, once more 
than 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or more than 1 quart of acutely 
hazardous waste) is accumulated in a satellite accumulation area, a 
generator has three days to remove the excess hazardous waste from the 
satellite accumulation area and transfer it to an area that complies 
with Sec.  262.34(a) for large quantity generators, or Sec.  262.34(d) 
for small quantity generators. Of course, the hazardous waste from the 
laboratory may also be sent to an on-site TSDF or off-site TSDF. Large 
quantity generators are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste for up to 
90 days on-site without a permit, provided the standards of Sec.  
262.34(a) are met. Similarly, small quantity generators are allowed to 
accumulate hazardous waste for up to 180 days on-site without a permit, 
provided the standards of Sec.  262.34(d) are met.\5\ The hazardous 
waste management standards in Sec. Sec.  262.34(a) and 262.34(d) are 
more comprehensive than the regulations for accumulating hazardous 
waste in satellite accumulation areas in Sec.  262.34(c). The satellite 
accumulation regulations of Sec.  262.34(c)(2) require that once 55 
gallons of hazardous waste is exceeded, only the excess of 55 gallons 
of hazardous waste must be removed (or the excess of 1 quart of acutely 
hazardous waste) from the satellite accumulation area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Small quantity generators that must send their hazardous 
waste more than 200 miles for off-site treatment, storage or 
disposal are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste for 270 days or 
less on-site without a permit, provided the conditions of Sec.  
262.34(d) are met (see Sec.  262.34(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Colleges and universities have told EPA that they rarely accumulate 
55 gallons in a laboratory, except during a laboratory clean-out, which 
occurs, for example, when faculty retire or when buildings are 
renovated. Thus, under the existing hazardous waste

[[Page 29733]]

regulations, the hazardous waste can remain in the laboratory for long 
periods of time, provided that no more than 55 gallons of hazardous 
waste (or 1 quart of acutely hazardous waste) is accumulated, since 
there is no time limit for how long a satellite accumulation area can 
take to accumulate 55 gallons. However, once 55 gallons is exceeded, 
the excess must be removed within three days. Colleges and universities 
have commented that the three-day time limit is insufficient for EH&S 
personnel to respond to individual waste removal requests at 
laboratories that are sometimes spread out over extensive grounds of a 
college or university campus.
    Today, EPA is proposing to regulate the removal of unwanted 
materials from laboratories at colleges and universities primarily by 
time, and secondarily by volume of unwanted materials (including 
reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials). EPA is proposing that 
unwanted materials, including reactive acutely hazardous unwanted 
materials, generated in laboratories at colleges and universities must 
be removed from the laboratory at a regular interval that is specified 
in the college or university's Laboratory Management Plan. However, the 
regular interval for routine removal of unwanted materials must not 
exceed six months. If a laboratory accumulates more than 55 gallons of 
unwanted materials, or one quart of reactive acutely hazardous reactive 
unwanted material, prior to the regularly scheduled removal specified 
in the college or university's Laboratory Management Plan, then all of 
the unwanted materials, including the reactive acutely hazardous 
unwanted materials, must be removed from the laboratory within 10 
calendar days of exceeding 55 gallons or one quart of acutely hazardous 
reactive materials, or at the next regularly scheduled removal, 
whichever occurs first. Colleges and universities that do not have an 
on-site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF will have to ensure 
that laboratories do not exceed 55 gallons, or be prepared to arrange 
for transportation off-site to a designated facility within 10 calendar 
days of exceeding 55 gallons.
    EPA is proposing this alternative regulation for two reasons. 
First, it is rare for a laboratory to accumulate 55 gallons of 
hazardous waste (other than during laboratory clean-outs); therefore, 
hazardous waste can accumulate in laboratories for extended periods of 
time. The Agency believes a time-driven schedule for removal of 
hazardous waste from laboratories is more appropriate for the way 
laboratories operate and generate hazardous waste. Second, regularly 
scheduled removals of unwanted materials will provide additional 
protection for laboratory workers and students, as well as the 
environment, since the regular removal of unwanted materials will 
result in accumulation of lower volumes of unwanted materials in the 
laboratory for shorter periods of time.
    Colleges and universities will be required to identify in their LMP 
the frequency of removals of all unwanted materials. The Agency is 
proposing to impose a maximum time of six months that may elapse 
between removals. Colleges and university representatives have told EPA 
that tying the removal of wastes with the academic calendar would 
facilitate removal of wastes that accumulate during the course of the 
semester with a minimum of disruption. The Agency believes that six 
months is an appropriate length of time to allow colleges and 
universities to schedule removals of unwanted materials at the end of 
each semester. The Agency realizes that many colleges and universities 
have more than the traditional two semesters; however, the Agency is 
not aware of any college or university that has a semester exceeding 
six months. EPA is requesting comment on whether six months is an 
appropriate maximum interval for regularly scheduled removal of 
unwanted materials or whether another time interval may be more 
appropriate. Colleges and universities are certainly free to schedule 
the removal of unwanted materials from their laboratories at a shorter 
interval, if that best suits their schedule. However, EPA does not 
believe that allowing unwanted materials to accumulate for longer than 
six months would provide the benefits to human health and the 
environment that are anticipated from moving to a time-driven rather 
than volume-driven approach.
    Although many commenters have told EPA that laboratories rarely 
accumulate 55 gallons of hazardous waste, the Agency is maintaining the 
current volume-driven removal approach as a secondary measure to 
prevent laboratories from accumulating unnecessary volumes of unwanted 
materials. Today's proposal differs from the current satellite 
accumulation area regulations, which are also volume-driven, in two 
ways. First, rather than being required to remove just the excess of 55 
gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart of acutely hazardous waste), 
EPA is proposing that if a laboratory accumulates more than 55 gallons 
of unwanted materials or one quart of reactive acutely hazardous 
unwanted materials, all the unwanted materials must be removed from the 
laboratory. The Agency believes that if a RCRA-trained individual is 
called upon for removal of unwanted materials, it makes sense to remove 
all the containers of unwanted materials, rather than leave up to 55 
gallons of potentially hazardous waste or one quart of reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted materials behind, while removing only the excess of 
unwanted materials. Secondly, the Agency is proposing to extend from 
three days to ten calendar days the time that a college or university 
has to remove unwanted materials from a laboratory when that laboratory 
exceeds 55 gallons of unwanted materials or one quart of reactive 
acutely hazardous unwanted materials. Under the current regulations, if 
a college or university has a schedule for waste removal from 
laboratories and a laboratory requests that waste be removed due to an 
exceedance of the specific thresholds, it may be difficult for EH&S 
staff to respond to the request within three days. For example, when 
removal requests are made just prior to weekends or holidays, three 
days will likely not provide sufficient time to respond to the request, 
and to continue routine waste removals. Commenters have suggested to 
EPA that extending the period from three days to ten calendar days will 
provide enough flexibility to allow colleges and universities to 
respond to what is expected to be an unusual occurrence of exceeding 55 
gallons of unwanted materials or one quart of reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted materials in a laboratory, while maintaining the 
requirement for regular waste removal from laboratories.
    Currently, when a generator accumulates more than 55 gallons of 
hazardous waste (or 1 quart acutely hazardous waste) in a satellite 
accumulation area, the generator has three days to remove the excess 
hazardous waste from the satellite accumulation area to another 
location. The Agency has received numerous inquiries regarding the 
definition of ``three days'' in the current satellite accumulation area 
regulations. The Agency has interpreted ``three days'' to mean ``three 
calendar days'' (see memo from Robert Springer, Director, OSW to EPA 
Regional Directors, 3-17-04, a copy of which is included in the docket 
for today's proposed rule). For clarity, in today's proposal, the 
Agency is including the word ``calendar'' in the regulatory language 
that allows ten days to remove unwanted materials that exceed 55 
gallons (or 1 quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials).

[[Page 29734]]

That is, once a laboratory accumulates more than 55 gallons of unwanted 
material (or 1 quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials), 
all of the unwanted material (or reactive acutely hazardous unwanted 
material) must be removed within 10 calendar days. EPA is requesting 
comment on whether 10 calendar days is an appropriate length of time 
for removing all of the unwanted material (or reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted material) from the laboratory, once 55 gallons (or 1 
quart) is exceeded in the laboratory.
1. Reactive Acutely Hazardous Unwanted Materials
    EPA recognizes the higher risk from reactive acutely hazardous 
unwanted materials (as defined in section IV.A. of this preamble), and 
has determined that there is justification for treating these materials 
somewhat differently from other unwanted materials, including others 
that are potentially acutely hazardous waste. The Agency has decided 
that these seven reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials should 
be subject to a lower volume limit for accumulation in the laboratory. 
These reactive chemicals pose extreme danger to laboratory personnel 
when they are stored for long periods and become unstable. When they 
become unstable, these reactive chemicals have the potential to cause 
significant harm to individuals and property. Reactive acutely 
hazardous unwanted materials must be removed from the laboratory during 
regularly scheduled pick-ups, along with all unwanted materials. But, 
the Agency is proposing that if a laboratory exceeds 1 quart of these 
acutely reactive unwanted materials prior to a regularly schedule 
removal, then all the acutely reactive unwanted materials must be 
removed from the laboratory within 10 calendar days of exceeding 1 
quart, or at the next regularly scheduled removal, whichever occurs 
first. Because these reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials are, 
by definition, unused commercial chemical products, and there are 
currently only seven such chemicals, they will be easily identifiable 
by a laboratory worker or student, and could therefore be collected 
separately from other unwanted materials. By segregating reactive 
acutely hazardous unwanted materials from other materials, the student 
or laboratory worker could easily determine when the one quart limit is 
reached.
b. Other Unwanted Materials That Are Potentially Acutely Hazardous 
Waste
    Other than the reactive unwanted materials listed as acutely 
hazardous in 261.33(e), the remainder of unwanted materials that may 
eventually be determined to be acutely hazardous waste will not be 
subject to the lower accumulation volumes. Current requirements for 
managing hazardous wastes in satellite accumulation areas allow for the 
accumulation of up to one quart of acutely hazardous wastes and require 
the removal (within three days) of any excess over one quart. There is 
currently no requirement to remove the initial quart of acutely 
hazardous waste. Because today's proposal does not require that the 
hazardous waste determination be made until the unwanted material is 
removed from the laboratory or within 4 calendar days of arriving at an 
on-site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF, there is no way to 
distinguish in the laboratory between unwanted materials that may be 
acutely hazardous waste and those that may be non-acutely hazardous 
waste. Therefore, under today's proposal, except for the reactive 
acutely hazardous unwanted materials, unwanted material which may later 
be determined to be acutely hazardous waste is subject to the same 
requirements as other unwanted material generated in the laboratory, 
and may potentially accumulate in the laboratory in volumes greater 
than one quart. However, unlike the current generator regulations, 
today's proposal requires all unwanted material accumulated in the 
laboratory to be removed at a regular interval not to exceed six 
months. Furthermore, when 55 gallons of unwanted materials or one quart 
of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials is exceeded, all 
unwanted materials must be removed from the laboratory, not merely the 
excess of 55 gallons, as is required currently.
    EPA believes that the risk associated with acutely hazardous waste 
is reduced in the laboratory by requiring unwanted material to be 
removed from the laboratory at least every six months and requiring 
that all of the unwanted materials be removed at regularly scheduled 
pick-ups, as well as when maximum volumes are exceeded. Additionally, 
today's proposed alternative regulations contain provisions, such as 
training requirements for laboratory workers, instruction for students, 
and the Laboratory Management Plan, which includes planning for 
emergency response, which the Agency believes will improve management 
of unwanted materials, while in the laboratory. Improved management 
will limit the potential for human exposure and spills from all 
unwanted materials, including those which may later be determined to be 
acutely hazardous wastes. For these reasons, EPA does not propose to 
treat potentially acutely hazardous waste, with the exception of 
reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials, differently from other 
potentially hazardous waste that is generated in the laboratory.
6. Where and When To Make the Hazardous Waste Determination
    In today's proposal, the Agency is providing maximum flexibility 
for colleges and universities with respect to where the hazardous waste 
determination may be made, while still providing protection of human 
health and the environment. Section 262.209 in today's proposal, 
requires colleges and universities to make the hazardous waste 
determination under Sec.  262.11 on unwanted materials generated in 
laboratories in one of three places: (1) In the laboratory before the 
unwanted materials are removed from the laboratory (see Sec.  262.210), 
(2) within 4 calendar days of arriving at an on-site central 
accumulation area (see Sec.  262.211), or (3) within 4 calendar days of 
arriving at an on-site TSDF (see Sec.  262.212). Regardless of where 
the hazardous waste determination is made, all of the standards that 
EPA is proposing today for managing unwanted materials in the 
laboratory would apply, while the unwanted materials remain in the 
laboratory, including training/instruction, labeling, and container 
management. Also, regardless of where the hazardous waste determination 
is made, an unwanted material that is determined to be a hazardous 
waste is subject to all applicable hazardous waste regulations from 
that point, including the land disposal restrictions of part 268, all 
requirements for the on-site management of hazardous waste, and any 
applicable requirements pertaining to off-site transportation.
    As with all hazardous waste determinations, if a RCRA-trained 
individual determines that an unwanted material is suitable and 
intended for direct use or reuse at another laboratory or location at 
the college or university, or does not meet the definition of solid 
waste in 40 CFR 261.2, then the unwanted material will not become 
subject to the hazardous waste regulations. Likewise, if a RCRA-trained 
individual determines that an unwanted material is a solid waste, but 
not a hazardous waste, the unwanted material is no longer subject to 
the hazardous waste regulations, including part 262. However, the non-
hazardous solid wastes must be managed and disposed

[[Page 29735]]

of according to applicable State and local solid waste management 
requirements.
Transferring Unwanted Materials or Hazardous Wastes From the Laboratory 
to an On-Site Central Accumulation Area, or On-Site TSDF
    Currently, when hazardous waste is removed from a laboratory that 
manages it in a satellite accumulation area, it can be brought to an 
on-site generator accumulation area (sometimes called a <90 or <180 day 
area), an on-site TSDF, or picked up for transport to an off-site 
designated facility, such as an off-site TSDF. EPA's policy has been 
that hazardous waste in a satellite accumulation area may not be 
transferred to another satellite accumulation area (see memo from 
Robert Springer, Director, OSW to EPA Regional Directors; 3-17-04, a 
copy of which is in the docket for today's proposal). Today's proposal 
maintains all the same options and prohibitions for the removal of 
unwanted materials from the laboratory and for the removal of hazardous 
wastes from the laboratory if the hazardous waste determination is made 
in the laboratory.
    Many of the unwanted materials that will be transferred from 
laboratories to an on-site central accumulation area or an on-site TSDF 
will ultimately be determined to be hazardous wastes. Therefore, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to keep the existing level of protection for 
the on-site movement of unwanted materials. EPA's interpretation of 
existing regulations is that any personnel responsible for the on-site 
movement of hazardous waste must receive the level of training 
appropriate to the college or university's generator status, as 
specified by Sec.  262.34(d)(5)(iii) for small quantity generators and 
Sec.  265.16 for large quantity generators (see memo from Robert 
Springer, Director, OSW to EPA Regional Directors; 3-17-04, a copy of 
which is in the docket for today's proposal). EPA is proposing to 
codify this regulatory interpretation for the on-site movement of 
unwanted materials at colleges and universities.
    To ensure that unwanted materials removed from the laboratory are 
brought promptly to their next destination, the Agency is proposing to 
require that when unwanted materials are removed from a laboratory, 
they must be brought ``directly'' from the laboratory(ies) to an on-
site central accumulation area or an on-site TSDF. Without such a 
requirement, the Agency is concerned that the unwanted material or 
hazardous wastes could be held in on-site transport for days or longer 
(without any specific controls) before it is delivered to its next 
destination.
    The Agency realizes that in certain cases, the RCRA-trained 
individual will remove the unwanted material from a single laboratory 
and deliver it immediately to the central accumulation area, while in 
other instances, the RCRA-trained individual will remove the unwanted 
material from a number of laboratories before it is delivered to the 
central accumulation area. In both cases, this would meet the intent of 
the regulation. On the other hand, if a RCRA-trained individual that is 
collecting unwanted materials from laboratories leaves the unwanted 
materials on a cart in the hallway overnight, this would not meet the 
intent of the regulations. In general, if the unwanted materials are 
sent from the laboratory to its next destination within the same work 
day, this would meet the intent of today's requirement to bring 
unwanted materials or hazardous wastes ``directly'' from the laboratory 
to an on-site central accumulation area, or on-site TSDF. EPA is 
seeking comment on whether it is necessary to define ``directly'' or to 
replace it with a more specific time-frame, such as a same day 
requirement.
7. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination in the Laboratory
    Any college or university that chooses to comply with today's new 
set of alternative regulations for unwanted materials generated in 
laboratories will have the option of making the hazardous waste 
determination in the laboratory before the unwanted materials are 
removed from the laboratory. The Agency believes that this option will 
be most useful for those colleges and universities that do not have on-
site central accumulation areas or on-site TSDFs. EPA expects that 
smaller colleges and universities are less likely to have on-site 
central accumulation areas or on-site TSDFs and will be the most likely 
to benefit from making the hazardous waste determination in the 
laboratory before the unwanted materials are removed from the 
laboratory. Nonetheless, the Agency would like to extend the added 
flexibility of this option to colleges and universities that have on-
site central accumulation areas or on-site TSDFs, as well. Some 
colleges or universities with on-site central accumulation areas or on-
site TSDFs may elect to make the hazardous waste determination in the 
laboratory in order to avoid bringing non-hazardous wastes to its on-
site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF. Regardless of whether a 
college or university has an on-site central accumulation area, or on-
site TSDF, if a college or university identifies in its Laboratory 
Management Plan that the hazardous waste determination will be made in 
the laboratory, EPA is proposing that the hazardous waste determination 
may be made in the laboratory at any time, but must be made before the 
unwanted materials are removed from the laboratory.
    Commenters have told EPA that there are a number of reasons a 
college or university may choose not to build and maintain an on-site 
central accumulation area. First, some colleges and universities choose 
not to have a central accumulation area because they lack the extra 
resources needed to have an emergency coordinator available at all 
times to be either on-site or on call, as required for both small and 
large quantity generators (see Sec. Sec.  262.34(d)(5)(i) and 265.55, 
respectively). Secondly, some colleges and universities do not have the 
physical space to build a central accumulation area and the cost of 
acquiring space can be prohibitive. Thirdly, complying with local fire 
codes associated with a central accumulation area can also make the 
cost prohibitive. It is clear, from these comments, that many colleges 
and universities that do not currently operate central accumulation 
areas are unlikely to do so in the future. Therefore, as noted 
previously, EPA is proposing that the hazardous waste determination for 
unwanted materials generated in laboratories at colleges and 
universities may be made before the unwanted materials are removed from 
the laboratory.
    In many cases, EPA expects that the hazardous waste determination 
will not be made by an employee of the college or university, but 
rather by a contractor or vendor. This practice is acceptable, since 
the proposed definition of RCRA-trained individual includes contractors 
and vendors, provided the contractor or vendor has received RCRA 
training. Regardless of who makes the hazardous waste determination in 
this scenario, it must be made on all unwanted materials before the 
unwanted materials may be removed from the laboratory. In addition, 
regardless of whether an employee or non-employee makes the hazardous 
waste determination, the college or university could still be 
responsible if the hazardous waste determination is not made correctly 
and for any mismanagement of hazardous waste.
    When an unwanted material has been determined to be a hazardous 
waste prior to its removal from the laboratory, it remains subject to 
subpart K for as

[[Page 29736]]

long as it remains in the laboratory. This is to avoid having the 
laboratory being dually regulated as a satellite accumulation area for 
the unwanted materials that have been determined to be hazardous wastes 
and as a laboratory under subpart K. For those unwanted materials that 
are determined to be hazardous wastes in the laboratory, the 
appropriate hazardous waste code(s) and the words ``hazardous waste'' 
must be placed on the container label that is affixed to the container 
prior to removing it from the laboratory. Upon removal from the 
laboratory, an unwanted material that has been determined to be a 
hazardous waste is subject to all applicable hazardous waste 
regulations, including the land disposal restrictions. Additionally, an 
unwanted material that is determined to be a hazardous waste must be 
counted toward the college or university's generator status. If an 
RCRA-trained individual determines that an unwanted material is not a 
solid or hazardous waste, then it would no longer be subject to part 
262, including subpart K.
    Many commenters representing colleges and universities have 
suggested that EPA create a new type of accumulation area to allow for 
the consolidation of hazardous wastes from laboratories. Under the 
existing regulations, generators may accumulate hazardous waste in two 
types of areas without having a permit or interim status: (1) satellite 
accumulation areas and (2) generator accumulation areas (<90 or <180 
day areas).\6\ EPA believes that today's proposal provides sufficient 
flexibility for colleges and universities to manage the unwanted 
materials that are generated in their laboratories. Nevertheless, the 
Agency is soliciting comment on whether such an additional category 
should be created. (See section below for specific request for 
comment.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Small quantity generators that must send their hazardous 
waste more than 200 miles for off-site treatment, storage, or 
disposal are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste for 270 days or 
less on-site without a permit, provided the conditions of Sec.  
262.34(d) are met (see Sec.  262.34(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current satellite accumulation area regulations, 
hazardous wastes must be accumulated at or near the point of 
generation. In addition, it has been EPA's regulatory interpretation 
that hazardous wastes can not be moved from one satellite accumulation 
area to another (see memo from Robert Springer, Director, OSW to EPA 
Regional Directors; 3-17-04, a copy of which is in the docket for 
today's proposal). Although many commenters suggested EPA create a new 
type of consolidation area, one commenter suggested a specific type of 
consolidation area--a ``super satellite area''--whereby hazardous 
wastes could be consolidated in a common area that is outside of the 
laboratory (i.e, not at or near the point of generation), but the 
current satellite accumulation area regulations, including volume 
limits, would continue to apply to the consolidated wastes. The 
commenter's primary goal was to enhance the safety of laboratory 
personnel by removing hazardous wastes from the laboratory as quickly 
as possible in order to prevent accidents. EPA believes that this 
concept would only be practical for laboratories generating relatively 
low volumes of waste, since combining hazardous wastes from multiple 
laboratories could result in quickly exceeding 55 gallons of unwanted 
materials or one quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted 
materials, which would require frequent removals. Thus, EPA is not 
proposing to establish a ``super satellite area,'' as suggested by the 
commenter. However, the Agency is soliciting comment on this concept, 
and specifically, the Agency requests comment on why this approach is 
needed and what additional safeguards should be imposed, if any.
    In summary, EPA is requesting comment on whether today's proposal 
will enable colleges and universities without central accumulation 
areas to take advantage of the intended benefits of today's rule. EPA 
is requesting comment on our proposal or other alternative approaches 
for allowing colleges and universities without central accumulation 
areas to benefit from this rule. Specifically, EPA is requesting 
comment on the creation of a third category of accumulation area--such 
as a consolidation area or ``super satellite area.'' The Agency 
encourages commenters to be as specific as possible about what 
management standards would apply to consolidation areas and how those 
conditions would differ from those required in the current two types of 
accumulation areas. The Agency also requests that commenters address 
whether creating a new type of category of accumulation area would 
eliminate the concerns that have been raised to EPA by colleges and 
universities which do not operate an on-site central accumulation area.
8. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination at an On-Site Central 
Accumulation Area
    Based on the information that EPA received from college and 
university representatives, including from a public meeting in June 
2003, receiving nearly 50 written comments to the associated docket, 
and participating in many meetings, EPA has come to expect that most 
colleges and universities will remove their unwanted materials from 
laboratories to an on-site central accumulation area. Under the 
existing hazardous waste regulations, when hazardous wastes are removed 
from the laboratory to an on-site central accumulation area, the waste 
has already been identified as a hazardous waste and is subject to the 
applicable requirements, including the requirement to identify the 
hazardous waste code. EPA is proposing that when a RCRA-trained 
individual removes containers of unwanted materials from the laboratory 
and the unwanted material is brought to an on-site central accumulation 
area, the hazardous waste determination must be made within four 
calendar days after the unwanted material arrives at the on-site 
central accumulation area. The Agency has selected four calendar days 
for making the hazardous waste determination to allow sufficient time 
to make a hazardous waste determination when unwanted materials are 
removed from a laboratory at the end of the work week. Since the 
unwanted materials will be fully regulated upon arrival in the central 
accumulation area, with the exception of the ``hazardous waste'' label 
and hazardous waste code, the Agency believes that allowing four 
calendar days for the hazardous waste determination does not compromise 
protection of human health and the environment.
    EPA is proposing that from the time the unwanted material arrives 
in the central accumulation area, it will be subject to the full 
central accumulation area regulations of Sec.  262.34(a) or Sec.  
262.34(d). Among other things, these existing generator regulations 
require that containers must be dated upon arrival in the central 
accumulation area. Under the existing generator regulations, this date 
is used to calculate when the maximum accumulation time for generators 
has elapsed (either 90, 180 or 270 days). Under today's proposal, the 
date of arrival at the central accumulation area will also be used to 
calculate when the four calendar days for making the hazardous waste 
determination have elapsed. That is, EPA is proposing that the four 
calendar days allowed for making the hazardous waste determination will 
be part of the 90 or 180 (or 270) days of maximum accumulation time, 
not in addition to it. EPA is proposing that containers in the central 
accumulation area will not be required to be labeled with the words 
``hazardous waste,'' as required by Sec.  262.34(a)(3), until after a 
hazardous

[[Page 29737]]

waste determination has been made. When a RCRA-trained individual 
determines that an unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the 
appropriate hazardous waste code(s) and the words ``hazardous waste'' 
must be added to the label that is affixed to the container.
    EPA is requesting comment on whether four calendar days is an 
appropriate timeframe for making the hazardous waste determination for 
unwanted materials in the central accumulation area (or at an on-site 
TSDF), or whether another time period is more suitable. EPA also seeks 
comment on whether the four day period in which to make the hazardous 
waste determination should be added to the 90 or 180 (or 270) days of 
accumulation in the central accumulation area. Under today's proposal, 
by including the four calendar days as part of the 90/180/270 days, the 
date of arrival at the central accumulation area would be used for two 
purposes: (1) Calculating the four calendar days allotted for making 
the hazardous waste determination and (2) calculating the maximum 
accumulation time in the central accumulation area. Under this 
scenario, the total maximum accumulation time in the central 
accumulation area would be 90/180/270 days, which is the same as the 
current regulations. Under today's proposal, the hazardous waste 
determination would also have to be made within the first four calendar 
days of the on-site accumulation time. If, however, the four calendar 
days is in addition to the 90/180/270 days, then additional dating 
would be required after the hazardous waste determination is made. That 
is, the date of arrival at the central accumulation area would be used 
for calculating the four calendar days allotted for making a hazardous 
waste determination and a second date would be required after the 
hazardous waste determination is made for calculating the maximum 
accumulation time in the central accumulation area. Under this 
scenario, the total maximum accumulation time would increase from 90/
180/270 days to 94/184/274 days. The Agency seeks comment on whether 
the benefit of an additional four calendar days of accumulation time 
warrants an additional dating requirement.
9. Making the Hazardous Waste Determination at an On-Site TSDF
    In a few cases, colleges and universities have on-site permitted 
(or interim status) storage or treatment facilities. In such cases, a 
college or university may choose to make the hazardous waste 
determination in the laboratory before the unwanted materials are 
removed or bring unwanted materials to their on-site TSDF for the 
hazardous waste determination. EPA is proposing to allow colleges and 
universities to have the flexibility of choosing whichever option works 
best for them.
    Under today's proposal, there will be many operational similarities 
between a college or university that makes the hazardous waste 
determination at an on-site central accumulation area and a college or 
university that makes the hazardous waste determination at an on-site 
TSDF. For example, colleges and universities that choose to make the 
hazardous waste determination at their on-site TSDF must bring their 
unwanted materials directly from the laboratory(ies) to the on-site 
TSDF and must make the hazardous waste determination within four 
calendar days of arriving at the on-site TSDF. The Agency does not 
intend to add any new dating requirements for colleges or universities 
that operate on-site TSDFs. Therefore, in order to calculate when the 
four calendar days have elapsed, EPA will rely on the requirement for 
dating containers upon arrival at a TSDF that already exists in the 
storage prohibition regulations of part 268 [see Sec.  
268.50(a)(2)(i)]. In order to implement the storage prohibition, EPA 
requires that containers of hazardous waste must be labeled with the 
date accumulation begins at a TSDF. This requirement will now have the 
secondary purpose of determining when four calendar days have elapsed 
for colleges and universities that make the hazardous waste 
determination in an on-site TSDF.
10. Laboratory Clean-Outs
    While today's proposal does not require periodic laboratory clean-
outs, EPA strongly encourages that such clean-outs be conducted in 
laboratories at colleges and universities. EPA inspections and 
enforcement cases at colleges and universities have revealed that used 
and unused chemicals, but particularly unused chemicals, have remained 
in laboratories for years and even decades and can have the potential 
to cause significant harm to human health and the environment. Regular 
removals of unwanted materials will help remove some materials from the 
laboratory, but may not address the problem of ``legacy'' chemicals. 
These legacy chemicals often accumulate over many years in a laboratory 
as researchers purchase chemicals for new projects without using or 
disposing of chemicals from previous projects. Other times, EPA has 
been told that chemicals are purchased in much larger quantities than 
are necessary for an experiment, because it is less expensive to buy in 
bulk, and the excess remains in the laboratory. In other cases, 
chemicals accumulate in laboratories when the management of an 
individual laboratory changes, such as when professors retire or move 
to another institution. In some of these cases, chemicals are left 
behind in the laboratory by a previous occupant, the new laboratory 
occupant may not know the contents of the containers, and the chemicals 
remain in the laboratory unidentified.
    In the definitions section of today's proposal, the definition of 
``laboratory clean-out'' is described. In short, EPA envisions 
laboratory clean-outs as more comprehensive than the regularly 
scheduled removals of unwanted materials. It is a process of sorting 
and evaluating to determine what should be eliminated from the 
laboratory's inventory.
    EPA has been told that the current satellite accumulation area 
regulations are a barrier to conducting clean-outs of laboratories. 
Specifically, when laboratory clean-outs are conducted, it is likely 
that more than 55 gallons of chemicals, whether used or unused, will be 
generated. The existing satellite accumulation area rules require that 
once 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart of acutely hazardous 
waste) is exceeded, the excess of 55 gallons must be removed within 
three days. Commenters have told EPA that the current requirement to 
move the excess of 55 gallons of hazardous waste (or one quart of 
acutely hazardous waste) within three days is an impediment to 
comprehensive laboratory clean-outs, because it does not provide enough 
time to sort through and evaluate the many chemicals that can be part 
of a laboratory clean-out. Under today's proposal, when 55 gallons of 
unwanted materials (or one quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted 
materials) is exceeded in a laboratory, the college or university has 
10 calendar days to remove all of the unwanted materials from the 
laboratory. EPA believes that even 10 calendar days may not be a 
sufficient amount of time to conduct a thorough evaluation of the 
inventory of unused chemicals in a laboratory. Therefore, in an effort 
to encourage laboratory clean-outs, EPA is proposing certain 
modifications to the hazardous waste regulations that are designed to 
make it more advantageous for colleges and universities to conduct 
clean-outs. Specifically, EPA is proposing that during a laboratory 
clean-out only, a college or university will have up to 30 calendar 
days to sort through unwanted materials from the laboratory. EPA has

[[Page 29738]]

chosen 30 calendar days for the duration of a clean-out because college 
and university representatives have indicated that this would allow 
sufficient time to complete a thorough laboratory clean-out. EPA hopes 
that the extra time that EPA is including in today's proposal for 
laboratory clean-outs, will remove an existing regulatory obstacle for 
conducting laboratory clean-outs at colleges and universities.
    During the course of a laboratory clean-out, as chemicals are 
evaluated and sorted, the determination about whether a chemical or 
other material is an unwanted material will be made. No doubt, some 
chemicals that are evaluated during a laboratory clean-out will end up 
not being unwanted materials. Once it has been determined that a 
chemical is, indeed, an unwanted material, as opposed to a chemical or 
other material that can be kept in the laboratory for further use, then 
the unwanted material becomes subject to subpart K.
    If, at the conclusion of a laboratory clean-out, the total volume 
of unwanted materials in the laboratory does not exceed 55 gallons and 
the total volume of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted materials does 
not exceed one quart, the unwanted materials may remain in the 
laboratory until the next regularly scheduled removal of unwanted 
material. However, EPA would encourage colleges and universities that 
generate unwanted materials during a laboratory clean-out to remove the 
unwanted materials promptly to an on-site central accumulation area, an 
on-site TSDF or an off-site designated facility, even if 55 gallons is 
not exceeded. When determining whether 55 gallons of unwanted materials 
has been exceeded in a laboratory, EPA does not intend for routinely 
generated unwanted materials to be counted separately from unwanted 
materials generated at laboratory clean-outs.
    If, however, the volume of unwanted materials generated during a 
laboratory clean-out exceeds 55 gallons, at the end of the 30-day 
laboratory clean-out, all unwanted materials must be removed from the 
laboratory, regardless of whether it was generated during the clean-out 
or during routine laboratory activities. As with other unwanted 
materials in today's proposal, unwanted materials generated during a 
laboratory clean-out must be brought directly to an on-site central 
accumulation area, on-site TSDF, or an off-site TSDF. If the unwanted 
materials generated during a laboratory clean-out will be transferred 
to an on-site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF, the hazardous 
waste determination, which must be done by a RCRA-trained individual, 
may be made in the laboratory during the clean-out, but must be made no 
later than four calendar days after arriving at an on-site central 
accumulation area, or on-site TSDF. If the unwanted materials from a 
laboratory clean-out are not destined for further on-site management in 
a central accumulation area or on-site TSDF, the hazardous waste 
determination must be made in the laboratory and the hazardous waste 
sent off-site by the conclusion of the 30-day laboratory clean-out.
    EPA has been told that another barrier to conducting laboratory 
clean-outs is the possibility that the volume of hazardous waste 
generated during a laboratory clean-out would be sufficient to change 
the college or university's generator status. This change in generator 
status would add additional regulatory burden, such as fewer days for 
on-site accumulation in a central accumulation area, or a requirement 
to have a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA is proposing that the 
hazardous waste generated during a laboratory clean-out will not be 
counted toward calculating the amount of hazardous waste generated per 
month when determining a college or university's generator status. 
Under the existing hazardous waste regulations, all hazardous wastes 
generated during a laboratory clean-out would be counted toward the 
college or university's generator status (unless it meets one of the 
exclusions in Sec.  261.5(c) or (d)). EPA believes adding this 
flexibility will allow colleges and universities that are small 
quantity generators to undertake laboratory clean-outs without changing 
their generator status.
    The Agency believes that both of these changes, allowing 30 
calendar days for a laboratory clean-out and not counting hazardous 
wastes from laboratory clean-outs in calculating generator status, 
should encourage routine laboratory clean-outs. The Agency believes 
that laboratory clean-outs will go a long way toward addressing unused 
``legacy'' chemicals that pose a threat to human health and the 
environment.
    Nevertheless, while EPA wants to encourage laboratory clean-outs at 
colleges and universities, the Agency is also concerned that by 
providing these two incentives, EPA may be inadvertently encouraging 
colleges and universities to retain unwanted materials that are 
generated in the laboratory on a routine basis and remove them only 
during laboratory clean-outs. Therefore, EPA feels that it must limit 
the frequency with which colleges and universities can take advantage 
of the two incentives for laboratory clean-outs to once per 12-month 
period per laboratory. Without such a safeguard, a college or 
university that is currently a large quantity generator could become a 
conditionally exempt small quantity generator by claiming that it is 
conducting monthly laboratory clean-outs since it is not required to 
count the hazardous waste toward its generator status. EPA is proposing 
that for each 12-month period each laboratory may have 30 calendar days 
to conduct a laboratory clean-out with the hazardous waste generated 
during that laboratory clean-out excluded from the college or 
university's monthly waste quantity determination. The Agency has 
selected a ``12-month period,'' rather than ``calendar year'' because 
selecting ``calendar year'' could allow a laboratory clean-out to occur 
once in November of one calendar year and again in January of the 
following calendar year, and this was not EPA's intent. EPA wants to 
ensure that there will be at least one regularly scheduled removal of 
unwanted materials between laboratory clean-outs. Therefore, each 
laboratory may take advantage of the incentives for laboratory clean-
outs only once per 12-month period.
    Unwanted materials generated prior to a laboratory clean-out that 
are still in the laboratory at the time a laboratory clean-out begins 
must be counted toward the college or university's generator status. 
The proposed labeling standards requires that laboratories must 
identify the date that unwanted materials begin accumulating in a 
container. Therefore, any containers with dates that pre-date the onset 
of a laboratory clean-out are not considered part of the laboratory 
clean-out and must be counted toward the college or university's 
generator status.
    EPA emphasizes that it is not limiting the number of laboratory 
clean-outs a college or university may conduct, only the frequency with 
which a college or university laboratory may take advantage of the 
proposed regulatory incentives. If a laboratory has conducted a 
laboratory clean-out within the past 12 months, EPA does not expect a 
subsequent laboratory clean-out to yield an excess of 55 gallons of 
unwanted materials. However, if a laboratory conducts a subsequent 
laboratory clean-out within the same 12-month period and generates an 
excess of 55 gallons of unwanted materials, the unwanted materials 
would have to be removed from the laboratory within 10 calendar days, 
in conformance with the requirements proposed for exceeding 55 gallons 
on a routine basis and that

[[Page 29739]]

amount would have to be counted in determining the generator status of 
the college or university.
    EPA also emphasizes that any hazardous waste that is not counted 
toward generator status during a laboratory clean-out is still a 
hazardous waste and is subject to all applicable regulations, including 
the land disposal regulations, and the regulations for on-site and off-
site management, transportation, and treatment and disposal of 
hazardous waste. The incentive that the Agency is proposing to provide 
for hazardous wastes generated during a laboratory clean-out affects 
only the length of time that hazardous wastes are stored on-site and 
other associated regulations of 40 CFR 262.34 pertaining to generator 
status, such as biennial reporting and contingency plans.
    Because EPA is reluctant to impose barriers to laboratory clean-
outs, it does not want to require overly burdensome recordkeeping for 
laboratory clean-outs. However, the Agency believes that it must 
require some minimal recordkeeping related to laboratory clean-outs to 
ensure compliance with the proposed requirements. The recordkeeping 
requirements would only apply if the college or university intends to 
take advantage of the laboratory clean-out incentives. A participating 
college or university that conducts a laboratory clean-out must keep 
records that identify the laboratory that has been cleaned out, the 
date the clean-out began and was completed, and the volume of hazardous 
waste generated during the laboratory clean-out. The Agency believes 
these records are necessary to ensure that a college or university is 
in compliance with the proposed requirements. The records identifying 
which laboratory is being cleaned out and the date the clean-out begins 
should be created at the onset of the laboratory clean-out. All records 
pertaining to laboratory clean-outs must be maintained for as long as 
the college or university operates under this new subpart.
    A college or university may also want to implement a system for 
distinguishing between hazardous wastes that are counted and hazardous 
wastes that are not counted toward generator status. Such a system 
could consist of labels on individual containers, or separate storage 
areas, or records in a log book. EPA is not proposing to require such a 
mandatory tracking system, in order to provide colleges and 
universities with maximum flexibility.
    EPA requests comments on the provisions related to laboratory 
clean-outs. First, the Agency seeks comment on whether laboratory 
clean-outs should be required, rather than simply encouraged. In 
responding to this request, the Agency would appreciate any information 
or data that would support that such clean-outs should be required. 
Second, the Agency requests comment on whether 30 calendar days is an 
appropriate length of time for conducting a laboratory clean-out. 
Third, the Agency seeks comment on whether the proposal provides 
appropriate mechanisms for encouraging laboratory clean-outs or whether 
there might be a better incentive that EPA could provide. Fourth, EPA 
is requesting comment on whether limiting these incentives to once per 
12-month period per laboratory is appropriate or whether a different 
interval, or no limit, would be more appropriate. Fifth, the Agency 
seeks comment on whether it would be appropriate to allow a college or 
university to take advantage of the incentives for laboratory clean-
outs if the clean-out occurred in a chemical stock room that is not 
itself a laboratory, but that supplies laboratories with new or 
redistributed chemicals.
11. Laboratory Management Plan
    Today's proposal would require colleges and universities choosing 
to be subject to the proposed alternative regulations to develop a 
Laboratory Management Plan (LMP).
    Under today's proposed rule, the performance-based standards set 
the framework for managing unwanted materials generated in a college or 
university laboratory, while the LMP is the mechanism for implementing 
those performance-based standards. A college or university is required 
to develop an LMP which articulates how it plans to comply with the 
performance-based requirements for safely managing the unwanted 
materials generated in laboratories. Specifically, the LMP must 
describe how the college or university proposes to meet the standards 
for regularly scheduled removal of unwanted materials from the 
laboratory, container management, labeling requirements, the 
requirements for instructing students and training laboratory workers, 
the requirements to ensure safe transportation of unwanted material or 
hazardous waste from the laboratory to an on-site accumulation area, 
on-site TSDF or an off-site TSDF, and emergency preparedness and 
response procedures. Additionally, although laboratory clean-outs are 
voluntary, if a laboratory conducts clean-outs, the college or 
university must also describe its laboratory clean-out procedures in 
the LMP. EPA is requiring an LMP as part of this proposal to ensure 
that a college or university seeking flexibility in managing the 
unwanted materials from their laboratories will do so in a thoughtful 
manner by documenting their practices in an LMP. The LMP replaces the 
``one-size-fits all'' provisions of the current regulations with the 
option for a college or university to develop their own system for 
managing unwanted materials from the laboratory. EPA has found that the 
written environmental management plan was a key component to the 
positive changes seen during the EPA University Laboratories XL 
Project.
    While today's proposed rule would only require the above elements 
to be addressed in a college or university's Laboratory Management 
Plan, EPA envisions and encourages that additional elements could be 
incorporated into the LMP or that the LMP could form the basis for, or 
be incorporated as part of, a larger effort to ``green'' a campus. The 
LMP could help colleges and universities to go beyond compliance with 
today's proposed regulations by developing a program addressing all of 
their waste issues. The college or university could design a campus-
wide recycling program or develop waste minimization programs for 
implementation. EPA envisions that the LMP will present an opportunity 
for colleges or universities to address all aspects of their waste 
management programs in a holistic manner.
    While the development of an LMP is required under today's proposed 
rule, EPA is proposing two options regarding the enforceability of the 
LMP. The first option requires that an LMP be developed and that 
specific elements of today's proposal be contained in the LMP, but 
under this option the college or university would have some flexibility 
in how it implemented the specific provisions in its LMP. Provided the 
college or university meets the performance-based standards set forth 
in the rule, it would be in compliance with today's rule. The 
requirement to develop an LMP would, however, be enforceable and the 
failure to develop a plan would be a violation of this requirement.
    As an example, under this option, an individual college or 
university may decide to meet the requirement that containers of 
unwanted materials have certain information associated with them by 
using a particular computer tracking system, and indicate this in its 
LMP. While EPA would expect the computer tracking system to be used as 
stated, if for some reason that system is

[[Page 29740]]

not functioning, and the university tracks the information manually, 
provided the information included with the unwanted materials meets the 
requirements of the regulation (i.e. it provides sufficient information 
to allow a RCRA-trained individual to make the hazardous waste 
determination), EPA would consider the college or university to be in 
compliance with the performance-based standards.
    Under the second proposed option, as in the previous option, 
colleges and universities would be required to develop an LMP, and 
address all the specific elements of today's proposal. The LMP, 
however, would be enforceable. Therefore, a college or university would 
need to follow the specific provisions in its LMP, to be in compliance 
with this requirement. Only the parts of the LMP that are developed to 
satisfy the requirements of this subpart would be enforceable. If a 
college or university chooses to include elements not required by this 
proposal, resulting in a broader LMP, those other elements contained in 
the LMP would not be enforceable.
    As an example, under this option, an individual college or 
university may decide to meet the requirement that containers of 
unwanted materials have certain information associated with them by 
using a particular computer tracking system, and indicate this in its 
LMP. EPA would expect the college or university to utilize the computer 
tracking system as described in the LMP. If the college or university 
fails to use this computer tracking system, EPA would consider the 
college or university to be in violation of these regulations.
    As described elsewhere, today's proposed alternative regulations 
allow colleges and universities flexibility to tailor their laboratory 
operations to fit their individual circumstances, and remain protective 
of human health and the environment. Performance-based standards for 
management of unwanted materials generated in laboratories provide a 
better opportunity for colleges and universities to evaluate their 
overall hazardous waste management program, and tailor it in such a way 
that facilitates efficient and safe management of its hazardous waste, 
and minimizes burden, while at the same time maintain a high standard 
of protection of human health and the environment. Both of today's 
proposed options would help each college or university centralize and 
coordinate its chemical management practices and demonstrate 
environmental performance.
    EPA realizes that many colleges and universities may already have 
plans that address some of the provisions of the LMP proposed today. It 
is not EPA's intent for colleges or universities to develop a separate 
document or plan in such a situation. Therefore, both of today's 
options allow a college or university to revise an existing plan to 
address the specific LMP provisions described above. In this way, 
colleges and universities that have existing plans, such as the 
Chemical Hygiene Plan required under OSHA, may use this plan as a basis 
for meeting the LMP provision of today's proposal, making only those 
modifications and/or additions which would address the specific 
provisions required to be addressed in today's proposed LMP. This would 
avoid the development of largely redundant plans, while still ensuring 
that all provisions are adequately considered. It is EPA's belief that 
thoughtful, documented planning will result in better management of 
hazardous wastes, and the LMP requirements can be incorporated into 
existing mechanisms to achieve that end.
    Finally, under both proposed options, the proposed rule would 
require colleges and universities to revise the LMP and improve it as 
new information becomes available. EPA envisions the LMP will evolve 
and change in accordance with changes in operations at the college or 
university.
    In addition to the two options described above, EPA is also 
considering not requiring the development of an LMP as a condition of 
eligibility for this alternative regulation. In this case, rather than 
the ``performance-based'' requirements for container management, 
labeling, and training, etc., more specific requirements would likely 
be included in the regulatory language. (These specific requirements 
are discussed in sections IV. C. 2-4 above.)
    Although many stakeholders have commented that the variability 
among colleges and universities makes a ``one-size-fits all'' approach 
impractical, and have stated that a more performance-based approach is 
preferable, EPA has learned from others that performance-based 
standards, by their very nature, are less specific than more 
prescriptive types of regulations. This less prescriptive form of 
regulation has the potential for differing interpretations regarding 
whether the standards have been met. Some stakeholders have expressed 
concern regarding compliance decisions in situations where one 
interpretation of a performance-based standard may differ from another. 
For such a college or university, complying with more specific 
regulatory conditions for the management of unwanted materials in the 
laboratory may be preferable to having performance-based requirements 
accompanied by the requirement to develop an LMP.
    While EPA believes that the development of an LMP will provide 
colleges and universities with an opportunity to thoroughly examine the 
hazardous waste management operations and practices in a holistic 
manner and identify areas of savings and improved management, the 
Agency is mindful of the additional burden. Therefore, EPA is taking 
comment on whether the Final Rule should require the development of an 
LMP. The process of developing an LMP can be lengthy and resource 
intensive for a college or university. For the LMP to be an effective 
and beneficial tool, we recommend that a college or university evaluate 
its current hazardous waste management practices and identify areas for 
improvement, as well as any barriers to meeting the performance-based 
standards. While EPA is proposing that a college or university may 
modify an existing plan to meet the requirement of an LMP (rather than 
developing a separate plan), many colleges and universities may not 
have a pre-existing plan to build upon. For these colleges and 
universities, the added burden of developing an LMP may discourage them 
from taking advantage of the benefits of today's proposal. However, EPA 
believes that colleges and universities can greatly benefit from the 
development of a comprehensive LMP and strongly encourages colleges and 
universities to develop a plan regardless of whether it is a mandatory 
requirement in the final rule or not.
    EPA is requesting comment on whether the proposed approach of 
combining performance-based standards with a requirement for an LMP is 
practical, or whether it would be preferable to have more specific 
regulatory conditions for the management of unwanted materials in the 
laboratory due to the burden of developing an LMP.

D. Recordkeeping

    Today's proposal requires that every college and university 
choosing to comply with this alternative set of regulations maintain 
certain records. Specifically, colleges and universities must maintain 
the following records: (1) Notification(s) to the appropriate EPA 
Regional Administrator (or State Director, in authorized states) of its 
participation in or subsequent withdrawal from subpart K; (2) a 
Laboratory Management Plan (LMP) (an

[[Page 29741]]

existing plan may be modified to address the specific requirements of 
this alternative regulation, as finalized); (3) training records for 
RCRA-trained individuals and laboratory workers as defined in 40 CFR 
262.200 of this subpart; and (4) documentation of laboratory clean-out 
activities identifying the laboratory being cleaned out, the date the 
clean-out begins and is completed, and the volume of waste accumulated 
during a clean-out if a college or university chooses to conduct such 
clean-outs.
    In today's proposal, EPA is requiring that the college or 
university maintain a copy of its notification to participate in 
subpart K on file for the duration the college or university remains 
subject to subpart K. Additionally, the college or university must 
maintain a copy of its notification to withdrawal from today's 
proposal, as finalized, on file for three (3) years.
    Also, in today's proposal, EPA is requiring that the most recent 
copy of the college or university's LMP be retained on file at the 
college or university for the duration that it is regulated under 40 
CFR part 262, subpart K. Furthermore, the LMP must be dated and 
accessible by anyone involved in the management of unwanted materials, 
including students in the laboratory. The college or university must 
determine how best to meet the requirements of this proposal. Further, 
since EPA envisions that an LMP will be revised periodically, the 
college or university must determine how best to maintain it, keep 
records, make revisions, etc. It is important to note that subpart K 
does not supersede or in any way alter the requirements of existing 
plans used or modified to comply with subpart K.
    Today's proposal also requires that training records for RCRA-
trained individuals (individuals conducting the hazardous waste 
determination or transporting unwanted materials on-site) and for 
laboratory workers are maintained in accordance with existing 
applicable training requirements pertaining to a college or 
university's generator status. SQG training requirements at 40 CFR 
262.34(d)(5)(iii)) do not require retention of training records. Since 
EPA proposes no changes to the existing recordkeeping requirements for 
compliance with today's proposal, RCRA-trained individuals at large 
quantity generators must comply with recordkeeping requirements found 
at 40 CFR 265.16(e). For laboratory workers at LQG colleges and 
universities, training records that are sufficient to indicate whether 
the laboratory worker has received adequate training commensurate with 
their duties that ensures understanding the requirements of complying 
with this alternative regulation must be maintained (e.g., if 
laboratory workers are tasked with making the hazardous waste 
determination or transporting unwanted materials on-site then these 
employees would need to be RCRA-trained (see definitions in Sec.  
262.200). Under existing LQG recordkeeping provisions for training, 
these records must be kept until the institution closes or for three 
years after departure of a laboratory worker. In addition, it is 
sufficient for college and university laboratories that maintain 
training records required under existing regulations (i.e., LQGs) to 
cite in its LMP where existing training requirements and records are 
maintained for RCRA-trained individuals and laboratory workers.
    Today's proposal would require a second labeling or information 
requirement, other than currently required by 40 CFR 262.34(c). 
Specifically, the following labels are required for containers for 
college and university laboratories choosing to be regulated under 
subpart K: (1) A precautionary label that must be affixed or physically 
accompany the container and (2) a second label (or other media such as 
a computer system that contains the required information) that may 
either be affixed or somehow associated with the container that 
contains the date unwanted materials began accumulating in the 
laboratory and sufficient information for a RCRA-trained individual to 
make the hazardous waste determination. At a minimum, these labels must 
be affixed or otherwise associated with their containers until the 
hazardous waste determination is made. However, it is left to the best 
judgement of each college or university to determine if labels should 
be kept longer.
    Additionally, this alternative regulation includes a new 
recordkeeping provision for laboratory clean-out events at colleges and 
universities. Section 262.213 of today's proposal requires colleges and 
universities to document their clean-out activities. EPA is not 
mandating a particular record format or media. Instead, colleges and 
universities may determine the most appropriate type of record to 
maintain that best suits their individual capabilities and 
recordkeeping systems (e.g., filed hard copy, electronic copy). 
However, the documentation must contain certain specific information 
and be retained at the college or university, while the college or 
university laboratories are regulated under 40 CFR part 262, subpart K. 
Specifically, this documentation must include the date the activity 
began and the date the clean-out was complete, the particular 
laboratory that is being cleaned out, and the volume of hazardous waste 
generated during the clean-out. This documentation is particularly 
relevant since a laboratory may only utilize the waiver from counting 
hazardous wastes toward generator status and the 30-day allowance for 
removal once per 12-month period per laboratory. Additionally, clean-
out records must be easily accessible by inspectors and other relevant 
college and university personnel.
    Today's proposal strives to reduce or minimize additional 
recordkeeping requirements on colleges and universities choosing to be 
subjected to subpart K. As an example, EPA believes colleges and 
universities will revise current planning documents required by 
relevant regulations such as OSHA's Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP), where 
practicable. In this instance, a CHP, as revised, is required to be 
kept under OSHA laboratory standard regulations at 29 CFR 1910.1450 
and, therefore, no additional recordkeeping requirement would be 
associated with an LMP. However, EPA also understands that this may not 
be true in all cases. While EPA does not expect this to be the case, 
where planning documents suitable for modification to comply with 
subpart K are not kept as a current requirement for a particular 
college or university, an additional recordkeeping requirement would be 
associated with maintaining an LMP since colleges and universities may 
need to develop this document to comply with this subpart.
    EPA also believes utilizing existing generator regulatory 
provisions for training records associated with today's proposal is 
another example of how the Agency is minimizing burden. Specifically, 
today's proposal requires that college and university laboratories 
comply with the same requirements that currently apply to its generator 
status for maintaining training records for RCRA-trained individuals 
and laboratory workers. However, as is the case for an LMP, if training 
records do not exist, college and university laboratories would need to 
maintain pertinent records to comply with this proposal.
    EPA is considering whether maintenance of other records or 
reporting requirements not included in the paragraphs above should be 
required under today's alternative regulation for purposes of improving 
implementation and compliance monitoring and

[[Page 29742]]

assistance by the relevant regulatory authority or for program 
implementation. However, it is not EPA's intention to place such 
additional recordkeeping or reporting burden on colleges and 
universities as to make subpart K unattractive or otherwise too 
burdensome. Therefore, EPA seeks comment on whether records are needed 
to assure compliance with subpart K requirements such as the retention 
of container labels for a specified length of time or if specific 
reporting requirements are needed for program implementation. The 
Agency is also requesting comment on whether other types of 
recordkeeping or reporting should be required to ensure compliance with 
today's proposed regulation, to measure program success, or if existing 
reporting requirements exist which may further reduce burden on 
colleges and universities. Specifically, EPA is requesting comment on 
whether maintenance of training records for RCRA-trained or laboratory 
workers at SQGs should be required, or if other additional records or 
information are needed to assure college and university laboratories 
are conducting clean-outs or managing unwanted materials in the 
laboratory according to requirements of this subpart (e.g., retention 
of labels with unwanted materials accumulation and removal dates for 
specified period of time after the hazardous waste determination is 
made such as electronic labels accompanying containers, or records on 
container maintenance). In addition, EPA is considering using the RCRA 
Subtitle C Site Identification Form [EPA Form 87-12] in the 
Notification of Waste Activity Instructions and Form Booklet or the 
required state form as a substitute for the proposed notification 
process. Therefore, EPA is seeking comment on whether the alternative 
notification option contained in today's proposal of utilizing the RCRA 
Subtitle C Site Identification Form should be required instead of the 
proposed requirement to submit a separate notice to the appropriate EPA 
Regional Administrator (or State Director, in authorized states) to 
enter or withdraw from subpart K. Specifically, instead of submitting a 
written notification to enter or exit regulation under subpart K, 
colleges and universities would notify the appropriate state (in 
authorized states that have adopted the final rule) or EPA authority of 
their regulatory status by submitting a Subsequent Notification of 
Regulated Waste Activity. The college or university laboratory 
generator would complete the RCRA Subtitle C Site Identification Form 
[EPA Form 87-12] in the Notification of Waste Activity Instructions and 
Form Booklet or the required state form. Data from the form is 
maintained in the agency's RCRAInfo system. EPA also requests comment 
on whether using this method would reduce burden on colleges and 
universities. In lieu of requiring notification using EPA Form 87-12, 
EPA is seeking comment on whether to include a requirement for the 
appropriate EPA Regional Administrator (or State Director, in 
authorized states) to send an acknowledgment of receipt to colleges and 
universities submitting a notification to either enter or withdraw from 
regulation under subpart K. EPA is also seeking comment on whether 
colleges and universities would still choose to be subject to subpart K 
if additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements are necessarily 
imposed and when it would be too burdensome.

E. Implementation and Enforcement

    Colleges and universities with laboratories that are subject to the 
existing hazardous waste regulations of 40 CFR 262.11 and 262.34(c) 
must comply with either those existing regulations or with today's 
proposed subpart K of part 262, as finalized. Today's proposal co-
proposes two enforcement options for the Laboratory Management Plan 
(LMP) requirement. Under proposed option one, colleges and universities 
must develop, implement and maintain an LMP. However, how a college or 
university chooses to meet the required rule standards in the LMP is 
not enforceable. Proposed option two, as with option one, requires 
colleges and universities to develop, implement and maintain an LMP; 
however, the college or university must comply with the procedures 
described in their LMP. Only colleges and universities with eligible 
laboratories, as defined in this proposal, may choose to manage their 
wastes according to subpart K. All laboratories sharing a single 
identification number (ID) must comply with either the existing 
generator regulations of 40 CFR 262.11 and 262.34(c) or with subpart K 
of 40 CFR part 262. Specifically, a college or university may not 
decide to manage the unwanted materials from some of its laboratories 
or campuses under the existing hazardous waste regulations and then 
manage unwanted materials from other laboratories with that same ID 
number under today's proposed alternative regulations. However, 
colleges and universities may choose which set of regulations (i.e., 40 
CFR subpart K or 40 CFR 262.11 and 262.34(c)) to comply with on a case-
by-case basis for laboratories or campuses with unique RCRA ID numbers.
    In addition, since today's proposal is optional, it is possible 
that eligible colleges and universities could be subject to two 
different sets of requirements for waste management: 40 CFR part 262, 
subpart K for unwanted materials generated in its laboratories and 40 
CFR part 262, subpart C for all other applicable wastes generated by 
the college or university. Further, the regulatory status of 
laboratories sharing the same RCRA ID number may fluctuate periodically 
since colleges and universities have the option to enter or exit 
regulation under subpart K at their discretion. As a result, 
implementers will need to determine a college or university's 
laboratory regulatory status at any given time for compliance 
monitoring and assistance.
    Colleges and universities regulated under subpart K of part 262 
must adhere to the requirements and standards set forth therein for 
notifying the appropriate State or EPA Administrator of its 
participation or subsequent withdrawal from subpart K (Sec. Sec.  
262.203-262.204), making the hazardous waste determination (Sec. Sec.  
262.209-262.212), the container management and labeling requirements 
(Sec.  262.206), the training requirements (Sec.  262.207), and the 
requirement to develop and maintain an LMP which under proposed option 
one addresses the required performance-based elements of Sec.  262.214 
of the rule, or under proposed option two address and complies with the 
measures developed by the college or university and contained in their 
LMP to meet the performance-based elements of Sec.  262.214 of today's 
proposed rule. In addition, colleges and universities must adhere to 
the quantity limits and removal frequencies for unwanted materials both 
in the laboratory and at other on-site locations (Sec.  262.208), and 
the safe movement of unwanted materials from laboratories to other on-
or off-site destinations (Sec. Sec.  262.210, 262.211 and 262.212). 
Further, the college or university must make its LMP available to 
students, laboratory workers, others at the college or university who 
request it and inspectors, and the LMP must be reviewed and revised as 
needed. Failure to comply with the requirements of the rule, including 
the performance-based requirements and standards set forth in the rule, 
may subject a college or university to an enforcement action. To comply 
with the LMP requirement of proposed option one, colleges and 
universities must meet the performance-based standards requirements set 
forth in the proposed rule; however, how a

[[Page 29743]]

college or university chooses to describe its procedures in the LMP or 
how the LMP is implemented is not an enforceable action. For a college 
or university to comply with the co-proposed option two for the LMP 
requirement, a college or university must implement the measures 
contained in their LMP to meet the performance-based standards. For 
example, minimum standards exist in the rule with which colleges and 
universities are required to comply, including a requirement for an LMP 
and a requirement to document in a college or university's LMP how it 
will meet the standards of the rule. Specifically, an LMP must describe 
how a college or university will meet the required standards for: (1) 
Container labeling and management in accordance with Sec.  262.206(a) 
and (b); (2) training of laboratory workers, other appropriate faculty, 
and environmental health and safety personnel, commensurate with their 
duties in accordance with Sec.  262.207(a); (3) instructing students in 
accordance with Sec.  262.207(b); (4) ensuring the safe movement of 
unwanted materials from the laboratory to an on-site central 
accumulation area; an on-site interim status/permitted treatment, 
storage, or disposal facility; or an off-site interim status/permitted 
treatment, storage, or disposal facility in accordance with Sec.  
262.207(c); (5) developing a regular schedule for identifying and 
removing unwanted materials from its laboratories in accordance with 
Sec.  262.208, (6) making the hazardous waste determination, including 
where the determination will be made in accordance with Sec.  262.209 
and (7) conducting laboratory clean-outs in accordance with Sec.  
262.213, if a college or university chooses to conduct these events. If 
these required standards are not addressed in an LMP, the college or 
university is in violation and an enforcement action may ensue. 
However, under the proposed option it is the intent of the proposed 
rule that if a college or university does not comply precisely with the 
terms of its LMP, that no enforcement action can be levied against it, 
provided the college or university meets the performance-based 
requirements. As an example, colleges and universities must describe in 
a LMP how it will instruct students. If the college or university LMP 
contains an instruction program that includes a specific number of 
hours of classroom training for students, but students receive either a 
different number of hours, or a different type of training, such as 
video instruction, the college or university would not be in violation 
of subpart K, as long as the students are instructed and meet the 
performance-based standards. However, it is the intent of co-proposed 
option two to require that a college or university's LMP is 
enforceable. Specifically, while the college or university may tailor 
the approach or measures developed to meet the required standards of 
the rule in order for a college or university to be in compliance with 
co-proposed option two, the college or university must implement those 
measures as developed and described in their LMP.
    Further, under subpart K, colleges and universities are required to 
maintain and retain certain records as specified in section D of this 
preamble and the appropriate sections of this proposed rule. 
Specifically, colleges and universities must maintain the following 
records: (1) Notifications to enter or exit participation in subpart K, 
(2) an LMP, (3) training records for RCRA-trained individuals and 
laboratory workers, and (4) laboratory clean-outs.
    In summary, colleges and universities with laboratories must either 
comply with the existing regulations found at 40 CFR 262.11 and 
262.34(c), or with today's proposal, as finalized. Colleges and 
universities with eligible laboratories electing to be regulated under 
subpart K must comply with the requirements set forth in today's 
proposal. Failure to comply with these requirements or to meet the 
performance-based standards of this proposed rule may result in an 
enforcement action. As referenced above and specified in the rule 
language, a violation may occur if colleges or universities fail to 
notify the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator or State Director of 
their election to participate or withdrawal from regulation under 
subpart K and to include the required information in the notice; do not 
develop or revise an existing plan to meet the LMP requirements of this 
proposal; fail to meet required container labeling and management 
standards; do not maintain required records, such as training records 
for RCRA-trained individuals at LQGs, clean-out documentation and 
notifications to enter or withdrawal from subpart K; do not instruct 
students and train laboratory workers and other relevant faculty 
commensurate with their duties; do not comply with the requirement that 
only RCRA-trained individuals may make the hazardous waste 
determination or transport unwanted materials on- or off-site; and do 
not comply with the rule requirements for making the hazardous waste 
determination in the laboratory, or on-site CAA, or TSDF, including 
such requirements as frequencies for removing unwanted materials from 
the laboratory or on-site CAA, or TSDF; quantity limits for 
accumulating unwanted materials or chemicals in the laboratory; 
providing dates for unwanted material accumulation and removal in the 
laboratory or other areas where the hazardous waste determination is 
made or for laboratory clean-outs. In essence, while this summary is 
not exhaustive, failure to adhere to or comply with any of the 
requirements as found in today's proposal or failure to meet any of the 
performance-based standards of this proposal may result in an 
enforcement action.
    In addition, today's proposed rule would not affect the college and 
university's obligation to promptly respond to any releases of 
hazardous wastes that may occur, including releases in the laboratory, 
as they may later prove to be hazardous wastes once the hazardous waste 
determination is made. Any management of released material not in 
compliance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste 
requirements could result in an enforcement action. For example, an 
individual who spilled or released a hazardous waste and failed to 
immediately clean it up could potentially be subject to enforcement for 
illegal disposal of the hazardous wastes. See, for example, 40 CFR 
264.1(g)(8). In addition, solid and hazardous waste releases could 
potentially be addressed through enforcement orders, such as orders 
under RCRA sections 3013 and 7003.

V. State Authorization

A. Applicability of the Rule in Authorized States

    Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified states to 
administer their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal 
program within the state. Following authorization, EPA retains 
enforcement authority under sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, 
although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. The 
standards and requirements for state authorization are found at 40 CFR 
part 271.
    Prior to enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 
1984 (HSWA), a State with final RCRA authorization administered its 
hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of EPA administering the 
federal program in that state. The federal requirements no longer 
applied in the authorized state, and EPA could not

[[Page 29744]]

issue permits for any facilities in that state, since only the state 
was authorized to issue RCRA permits. When new, more stringent federal 
requirements were promulgated, the state was obligated to enact 
equivalent authorities within specified time frames. However, the new 
federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until 
the state adopted the Federal requirements as state law.
    In contrast, under RCRA section 3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which 
was added by HSWA, new requirements and prohibitions imposed under HSWA 
authority take effect in authorized states at the same time that they 
take effect in unauthorized states. EPA is directed by the statute to 
implement these requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, 
including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted 
authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWA related 
provisions as state law to retain final authorization, EPA implements 
the HSWA provisions in authorized states until the states do so.
    Authorized states are required to modify their programs only when 
EPA enacts Federal requirements that are more stringent or broader in 
scope than existing Federal requirements. RCRA section 3009 allows the 
states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal 
program (see also 40 CFR 271.1). Therefore, authorized states may, but 
are not required to, adopt Federal regulations, both HSWA and non-HSWA, 
that are considered less stringent than previous Federal regulations.

B. Effect on State Authorization

    Today's notice proposes regulations that would not be promulgated 
under the authority of HSWA. Thus, the standards proposed today would 
be applicable on the effective date only in those states that do not 
have final authorization. Moreover, authorized states are required to 
modify their program only when EPA promulgates Federal regulations that 
are more stringent or broader in scope than the authorized state 
regulations. For those changes that are less stringent or reduce the 
scope of the Federal program, states are not required to modify their 
program. This is a result of section 3009 of RCRA, which allows states 
to impose more stringent regulations than the Federal program. Today's 
proposal, however, is considered to be neither more nor less stringent 
than the current standards. Therefore, authorized states would not be 
required to modify their programs to adopt regulations consistent with 
and equivalent to today's proposed standards. Nevertheless, because EPA 
believes that today's proposal will increase the ability of colleges 
and universities to comply with the RCRA hazardous waste generator 
regulations, which would likely lead to greater environmental 
protection, EPA strongly encourages States to adopt today's proposed 
rule, once it is finalized. Colleges and universities located in 
authorized states wishing to be subject to subpart K do not have this 
option until their state has adopted the final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. Economic Analysis
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), the 
Agency, in conjunction with OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the full 
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, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' The 
proposed rule raises novel legal or policy issues. The proposed rule is 
unlikely to result in any significant university lab waste management 
costs or cost savings. Thus, the $100 million threshold for economic 
significance, as established under point number one above, is not 
relevant to this action. In addition, this rule is not expected to 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. Thus, this rule is not considered to be an economically 
significant action. This rule is also not considered significant under 
points two through three of the Order. Finally, while economic benefits 
have not been quantified or monetized for this proposal, we believe 
such benefits to be well below the $100 million threshold.
    We have prepared an economic assessment in support of today's 
proposal. This document is entitled: Assessment of Costs, Benefits, and 
Other Impacts For the Proposed Revised Standards Applicable to 
Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K--Academic Laboratories. 
Findings from this document are summarized below. This document, and 
any changes made in response to OMB review, are maintained in the RCRA 
docket established for today's action. Interested persons are 
encouraged to read and comment on all aspects of this document.
2. Summary of Proposed Rule Findings: Costs, Economic Impacts, Benefits
    This section summarizes the findings from our Assessment document, 
as identified above. A detailed review of our analytical methodology, 
data sources, findings, and limitations are presented in the full 
Assessment document.
    The Agency has identified a total of 1,811 colleges and 
universities in operation in the U.S. Of this total number of colleges 
and universities, we estimate that 333 are large quantity generators 
(LQGs) and 1,478 are small quantity generators (SQGs).
    The total quantity of hazardous waste generated by the affected 
colleges and universities, excluding remediation wastes was estimated 
based on 2001 biennial reporting data. In total, the affected colleges 
and universities generated a total of 11,628 tons of hazardous waste 
during 2001. Of this waste quantity, laboratory hazardous wastes are 
estimated to range from approximately 3,400 to 6,000 tons per year. 
Only the management of laboratory-generated hazardous wastes are 
affected by the proposed rulemaking.
    The proposed rule is optional, which means that individual colleges 
and universities may choose to be regulated under subpart K, or 
continue to operate under existing regulations. Furthermore, because 
the rule is optional, states with authority to administer the RCRA 
program may adopt the proposed rule (when it is finalized) or continue 
to rely on existing rules. Because the rule is optional, we believe 
only some states will adopt the rule. Additionally, we believe that 
colleges and universities

[[Page 29745]]

will only choose to be subject to the rule if it is deemed to be in 
their interest. For purposes of the EA, it is assumed that only 
colleges and universities that would experience a reduction in 
hazardous waste management costs would choose to be subject to the 
rule. The aggregate annualized cost savings associated with the 
proposed rule are estimated to range from $0.6 to $2.9 million for all 
colleges and universities that choose to be subject to subpart K.
    The proposed regulations have numerous benefits. There are many 
economic gains through efficient waste management practices, waste 
minimization and waste coordination activities. The structured nature 
of the Laboratory Management Plan (LMP) will result in safer laboratory 
practices and increased awareness of waste management. This would 
minimize exposure of hazardous substances to humans and the 
environment. Ultimately, the proposed changes would improve the way 
universities coordinate and integrate waste management activities and 
enhance awareness about proper handling techniques.
    In addition to the LPM, the proposed rule specifies training 
requirements for students, laboratory workers, individuals involved in 
the on-site transportation of potentially hazardous wastes and 
individuals making the hazardous waste determination. The requirements 
for training are expected to reduce the potential for release of 
hazardous materials. For example, waste generated through 
experimentation may react adversely if incorrectly stored or managed; 
training requirements for laboratory workers will ensure workers are 
knowledgeable in the storage and compatibility of waste materials, as 
well as reagents.
    The Agency believes that the proposed rule will also encourage more 
frequent clean-outs of unwanted material, including unused reagents 
from laboratories. Over time, storage of unused material stored in the 
laboratory can suffer from deteriorating labels and containers, 
increasing the chances that a long-stored reagent will be accidently or 
mistakenly released into the environment. More frequent clean-outs of 
laboratories will help to reduce this potential.
    The Agency did not complete a formal RCRA 3007 survey of college 
and university laboratories. Consequently, for this assessment it was 
necessary to rely on publicly available data which resulted in numerous 
limitations. Furthermore, this analysis may not capture all of the 
variables that affect a generator's decision to manage hazardous wastes 
under the proposed rule. College and university laboratories manage 
hazardous wastes with substantial variations in procedures and staff 
making hazardous waste determinations, in regarding laboratory clean-
outs, use of subcontractors and other factors which could not all be 
modeled. Additionally, this analysis relies on biennial reporting data 
which does not include hazardous waste quantities for a number of SQGs. 
Furthermore, it is difficult to determine whether hazardous waste 
reported is generated in college and university laboratories or other 
college and university operations.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (ICR)

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR Number 0820.10.
    EPA is proposing an alternative set of generator regulations for 
college and university laboratories under the authority of sections 
2002, 3001, 3002, and 3004 of RCRA as amended by the Hazardous and 
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Section 2002 authorizes EPA to 
prescribe regulations as are necessary to carry out the requirements 
under the RCRA statute. Section 3001 authorizes EPA to develop and 
promulgate criteria for identifying the characteristics of hazardous 
waste, and for listing hazardous waste, which would be subject to the 
hazardous waste program. Sections 3002(a) and 3004(a) direct EPA to 
establish requirements for hazardous waste generators and TSDFs 
respecting, among other things, recordkeeping practices for hazardous 
wastes.
    As stated above, this proposed rule establishes an alternative set 
of generator requirements for eligible college and university 
laboratories. It is important that EPA or the authorized states know 
which set of regulations a college or university is subject to. 
Therefore, EPA has determined at proposed 40 CFR 262.203 and 262.204 
that it is necessary to require colleges and universities to submit a 
notification to the EPA Regional Administrator or State Director, in 
authorized states indicating that they are electing to be subject to or 
withdrawing from subpart K for all laboratories under the same EPA ID 
number.
    Under proposed 40 CFR 262.206, 262.208, 262.10, 262.11, and 262.12 
colleges and universities must label containers of unwanted materials 
as specified. These labeling requirements are necessary to: demonstrate 
compliance with subpart K, alert individuals handling the containers of 
its contents to ensure proper handling, assist RCRA-trained individuals 
in making the hazardous waste determination and assigning the 
appropriate hazardous code(s) and for enforcement and monitoring 
purposes.
    Proposed 40 CFR 262.207 requires training or instruction for all 
individuals working in a laboratory commensurate with their duties. 
This training/instruction is necessary to ensure that unwanted 
materials are handled safely and in an environmentally sound manner and 
in compliance with the proposal. In addition, colleges and universities 
that are LQGS must maintain training records for laboratory workers to 
ensure compliance with the proposed requirements.
    Under proposed 40 CFR 262.313 colleges and universities must 
develop and maintain documentation on laboratory clean-outs to ensure 
compliance with the proposed requirement.
    Under proposed 40 CFR 262.214 colleges and universities are 
required to develop, implement and maintain a laboratory management 
plan to document their practices for complying with the performance-
based requirements of subpart K.
    Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, which defines 
EPA's general policy on public disclosure of information, contain 
provisions for confidentiality. However, the Agency does not anticipate 
that businesses will assert a claim of confidentiality covering all or 
part of the proposed rule. If such a claim were asserted, EPA must and 
will treat the information in accordance with the regulations cited 
above. EPA also will assure that this information collection complies 
with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108.
    According to the estimates provided in the ICR for this proposed 
rule, the average annual incremental burden to respondents as a result 
of the proposed requirements is approximately 59,136 hours and $2.08 
million. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the

[[Page 29746]]

existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which 
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-
2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. Submit any comments related to the ICR for 
this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the 
beginning of this notice for where to submit comment to EPA. Send 
comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 
decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after May 23, 2006, 
a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by June 22, 2006. The final rule will respond to any OMB or 
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in 
this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    Because this proposed rule is performance-based, colleges and 
universities with qualifying laboratories have increased flexibility to 
manage materials and hazardous wastes in a manner best suited to the 
operations at their individual institutions. The Agency believes that 
hazardous waste management costs for both small and large entities will 
be reduced or minimized. In addition, since facilities may choose to 
either opt into the new requirements in today's proposal or to remain 
subject to the existing part 262 requirements, EPA believes facilities 
will only opt into today's proposal if they are more cost effective or 
otherwise beneficial to the facility. EPA has therefore concluded that 
today's proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for all small 
entities.
    Because this proposal will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to 
reduce the impact of this proposal on small entities. In addition to 
the economic analysis, we conducted outreach activities to ensure that 
small business interests were informed of our potential actions, and to 
solicit input from representatives of small entities during the 
development of the proposal. We continue to be interested in the 
potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome 
comments on issues related to such impacts.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, we have concluded that this proposed rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

D. 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 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.
    EPA has 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 to the 
private sector in any one year. This is because this final rule imposes 
no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments. EPA also 
has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's 
rule is not

[[Page 29747]]

subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rulemaking 
directly affects primarily generators of ``unwanted materials'' and 
hazardous wastes from college and university laboratories, as defined 
in this proposal. There are no state and local government bodies that 
incur direct compliance costs by this rulemaking. State and local 
government implementation expenditures are expected to be a minimum of 
$2,126 in any one year. The $2,126 cost does not include one-time-only 
costs of $23,917 for reviewing notifications from schools and a cost of 
$10,632 for initial inspector training (refer to the economic 
background document to this proposed rule for more information). Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.''
    EPA has concluded that this proposed rule may have tribal 
implications to the extent that qualifying academic institutions with 
laboratories affiliated with tribal lands could be affected. However, 
this proposed rule will neither impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    EPA did not consult directly with representatives of Tribal 
governments early in the process of developing this proposal. However, 
EPA did conduct an extensive outreach process with industry. Thus, EPA 
believes it has captured concerns that also would have been expressed 
by representatives of Tribal governmental. EPA solicits additional 
comments on this proposed rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    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 being considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it 
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, 
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a 
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer 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 standards. This 
proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 
not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Attachment A

      Table 1.--Comparison of Current and Proposed Regulations for
                              Laboratories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Current            Proposed
                                   regulations Sec.       regulations
                                       262.34(c)           subpart K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
name of accumulation area.......  satellite           laboratory.
                                   accumulation area.
materials regulated.............  hazardous wastes &  unwanted materials
                                   acute hazardous     & reactive
                                   wastes.             acutely hazardous
                                                       unwanted
                                                       materials.
hazardous waste determination...  must make           RCRA-trained
                                   hazardous waste     individual must
                                   determination:.     make hazardous
                                   in          waste
                                   satellite           determination:
                                   accumulation area.  in
                                   when        laboratory,
                                   hazardous waste     before unwanted
                                   is generated.       material is
                                                       removed, or
                                                       within 4
                                                       days of arriving
                                                       at on-site
                                                       central
                                                       accumulation area
                                                       or on-site TSDF.
maximum accumulation time in lab  none (unless 55     six months (unless
                                   gallons hazardous   55 gallons
                                   waste or 1 quart    hazardous waste
                                   acute hazardous     or 1 quart
                                   waste is            reactive acutely
                                   exceeded).          hazardous waste
                                                       is exceeded).

[[Page 29748]]

 
maximum accumulation volume.....   55          55
                                   gallons of          gallons of
                                   hazardous waste.    unwanted material
                                   1 quart     1 quart
                                   of acute            of reactive
                                   hazardous waste.    acutely hazardous
                                                       unwanted
                                                       material.
maximum number of days that lab   3 days............  10 calendar days.
 can exceed maximum volume.
labeling on container...........  ``hazardous         
                                   waste'' or          ``unwanted
                                   ``other words       material'' and
                                   that identify the  
                                   contents of the     sufficient
                                   container''.        information to
                                                       alert emergency
                                                       responders to
                                                       hazards of
                                                       contents.
information associated with       none..............  
 container.                                            sufficient
                                                       information to
                                                       allow a RCRA-
                                                       trained
                                                       individual to
                                                       make a hazardous
                                                       waste
                                                       determination.
                                                       date
                                                       accumulation
                                                       begins.
training of laboratory personnel  none..............   training
                                                       for laboratory
                                                       workers
                                                       commensurate with
                                                       duties.
                                                      
                                                       instruction for
                                                       students.
container management............              
                                   containers must     containers must
                                   be in good          be properly
                                   condition.          managed to assure
                                   hazardous   safe storage of
                                   waste must be       unwanted
                                   compatible with     materials to
                                   container.          prevent spillage,
                                               or adverse
                                   containers must     chemical
                                   be kept closed      reactions or
                                   except when         other dangerous
                                   adding or           situations that
                                   removing waste.     may result in
                                                       harm to
                                                       laboratory
                                                       workers or the
                                                       environment.
                                                      
                                                       containers must
                                                       be in good
                                                       condition.
                                                       unwanted
                                                       material must be
                                                       compatible with
                                                       container.
Laboratory Management Plan......  none..............  required to
                                                       describe
                                                       specifics of
                                                       implementing
                                                       performance-based
                                                       standards.
incentives for non-mandatory      none..............   do not
 laboratory clean-outs (limited                        have to count
 to 1x per 12-month period per                         hazardous waste
 lab).                                                 generated during
                                                       lab clean-out
                                                       toward generator
                                                       status.
                                                       have 30
                                                       calendar days to
                                                       complete clean-
                                                       out.
notification....................  notification to     notification to
                                   indicate            indicate decision
                                   generator status.   to exercise
                                                       option to comply
                                                       with part 262
                                                       subpart K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 262

    Environmental protection, Exports, Hazardous materials 
transportation, Hazardous waste, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and 
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 12, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 261 and 262 of title 
40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be 
amended as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y), and 
6938.

    2. Section 261.5 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  261.5  Special requirements for hazardous waste generated by 
conditionally exempt small quantity generators.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) Is generated solely as a result of a laboratory clean-out 
conducted at a college or university pursuant to Sec.  262.213. For 
purposes of this provision, the term college or university shall have 
the meaning as defined in Sec.  262.200 of part 262.
* * * * *

PART 262--STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

    3. 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

    4. Section 262.10 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  262.10  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *
    (l) The laboratories located at a college or university that 
chooses to be subject to the requirements of subpart K of this part are 
not subject to the requirements of Sec.  262.11 or Sec.  262.34(c), 
except as provided in subpart K. For purposes of this provision, the 
terms ``laboratory'' and ``college'' and ``university'' shall have the 
meaning as defined in Sec.  262.200 of subpart K of this part.
    5. Part 262 is amended by adding subpart K to read as follows:

Subpart K--Alternative Requirements for Hazardous Waste 
Determination and Accumulation of Unwanted Material for 
Laboratories Located at Colleges/Universities

Sec.
262.200 Definitions for this subpart.
262.201 Applicability of this subpart.
262.202 This subpart is optional.
262.203 How a college or university indicates it will be subject to 
the requirements of this subpart.
262.204 How a college or university indicates it will withdraw from 
the requirements of this subpart.
262.205 Summary of the requirements of this subpart.
262.206 Labeling and management standards for containers of unwanted 
material in the laboratory.
262.207 Training and instruction.
262.208 When must containers of unwanted material be removed from 
the laboratory?

[[Page 29749]]

262.209 Where and when to make the hazardous waste determination and 
where to send containers of unwanted material upon removal from the 
laboratory.
262.210 Making the hazardous waste determination in the laboratory 
before the unwanted material is removed from the laboratory.
262.211 Making the hazardous waste determination at an on-site 
central accumulation area.
262.212 Making the hazardous waste determination at an on-site 
interim status or permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility.
262.213 Laboratory clean-outs.
262.214 Laboratory management plan.
262.215 Unwanted material that is not solid or hazardous waste.
262.216 Non-laboratory hazardous waste generated at a college/
university.

Sec.  262.200  Definitions for this subpart.

    The following definitions apply to this subpart:
    Central Accumulation Area means an on-site hazardous waste 
accumulation area subject to either Sec.  262.34(a) of this Part (large 
quantity generators) or Sec.  262.34(d) of this Part (small quantity 
generators). A central accumulation area at a college or university 
that chooses to be subject to this subpart must also comply with Sec.  
262.211 when accumulating unwanted material.
    College/University means a private or public, post-secondary, 
degree-granting, academic institution, that is accredited by an 
accrediting agency listed annually by the U.S. Department of Education.
    Laboratory means an area within a college or university where 
relatively small quantities of chemicals and other substances are used 
on a non-production basis for teaching or research purposes and are 
stored and used in containers that are easily manipulated by one 
person. An area where the same hazardous waste is routinely generated, 
such as photo processing, is not a laboratory.
    Laboratory Clean-out means an evaluation of the inventory of 
chemicals and other materials in a laboratory that are no longer needed 
or that have expired and the subsequent removal of those chemicals or 
other unwanted material from the laboratory. A clean-out may occur for 
several reasons. It may be on a routine basis (e.g., at the end of a 
semester or academic year) or as a result of a renovation, relocation, 
or change in laboratory supervisor/occupant. A regularly scheduled 
removal of unwanted material as required by Sec.  262.208 does not 
qualify as a laboratory clean-out.
    Laboratory Worker means a person who handles chemicals and/or 
unwanted material in a laboratory and may include, but is not limited 
to faculty, staff, post-doctoral fellows, interns, researchers, 
technicians, supervisors/managers, and principal investigators. A 
person does not need to be paid or otherwise compensated for his/her 
work in the laboratory to be considered a laboratory worker. 
Undergraduate and graduate students in a supervised classroom setting 
are not laboratory workers.
    RCRA-Trained Individual means a person who has completed the 
applicable RCRA training requirements of Sec.  265.16 for large 
quantity generators, or Sec.  262.34(d)(5)(iii) for small quantity 
generators. A RCRA-trained individual may be an employee of the 
college/university or may be a contractor or vendor.
    Reactive Acutely Hazardous Unwanted Material means an unwanted 
material that is one of the acutely hazardous commercial chemical 
products listed in Sec.  261.33(e) for reactivity and toxicity.
    Unwanted Material means any chemical, mixtures of chemicals, 
products of experiments or other material from a laboratory that are no 
longer needed, wanted or usable in the laboratory and that are destined 
for hazardous waste determination by a RCRA-trained individual. 
Unwanted material includes reactive acutely hazardous unwanted 
materials. Unwanted material includes material that may eventually be 
determined not to be solid waste pursuant to Sec.  261.2 or a hazardous 
waste, pursuant to Sec.  261.3.


Sec.  262.201  Applicability of this subpart.

    This subpart provides optional, alternative requirements to the 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  262.11 and 262.34(c) for the hazardous waste 
determination and accumulation of hazardous waste in laboratories 
located at colleges and universities that choose to be subject to this 
subpart and that complete the notification requirements of Sec.  
262.203. This subpart does not apply to laboratories at colleges or 
universities that are conditionally exempt small quantity generators 
(CESQGs) under Sec.  261.5.


Sec.  262.202  This subpart is optional.

    Colleges and universities have the option of complying with this 
subpart with respect to its laboratories, as an alternative to the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  262.11 and 262.34(c).


Sec.  262.203  How a college or university indicates it will be subject 
to the requirements of this subpart.

    (a) A college or university must notify the appropriate EPA 
Regional Administrator in writing that it is electing to be subject to 
the requirements of this Subpart for all laboratories located at the 
college or university under the same EPA Identification Number. In the 
notification, a college or university must include:
    (1) The name, address and EPA Identification number of the college 
or university
    (2) Contact information for an appropriate representative of the 
college or university, and
    (3) The date on which the laboratories at the college or university 
will become subject to this subpart.
    (b) A college or university must keep a copy of the notification on 
file at the college or university while its laboratories are subject to 
this subpart.


Sec.  262.204  How a college or university indicates it will withdraw 
from the requirements of this subpart.

    (a) A college or university must notify the appropriate EPA 
Regional Administrator in writing that it is electing to no longer be 
subject to the requirements of this subpart for all laboratories 
located at the college or university under the same EPA Identification 
Number. In the withdrawal notification, a college or university must 
include:
    (1) The name, address and EPA Identification number of the college 
or university
    (2) Contact information for an appropriate representative of the 
college or university, and
    (3) The date on which the laboratories at the college or university 
will no longer be subject to this subpart.
    (b) A college or university must keep a copy of the withdrawal 
notice on file at the college or university for three years from the 
date of the letter.


Sec.  262.205  Summary of the requirements of this subpart.

    This subpart provides optional, alternative requirements for the 
hazardous waste determination and accumulation of unwanted material in 
laboratories located at colleges and universities that choose to be 
subject to this subpart and that complete the notification requirements 
of Sec.  262.203. Under this subpart, a participating college or 
university must manage the unwanted material in its laboratories in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  262.206-262.208 (container labeling, 
container management standards, training/instruction, regular removal 
from the laboratory) from the point of generation of unwanted materials 
in the laboratory. For purposes of this subpart, the

[[Page 29750]]

hazardous waste determination pursuant to Sec.  262.11 for unwanted 
material must be made by a RCRA-trained individual in the laboratory 
before the unwanted material is removed from the laboratory, or within 
4 calendar days of arriving at an on-site central accumulation area, or 
on-site treatment, storage or disposal facility in accordance with the 
applicable provisions of Sec. Sec.  262.210, 262.211, or 262.212. A 
college or university that chooses to be subject to subpart K is not 
required to have interim status or a permit for the accumulation of 
hazardous waste in the laboratory, provided the laboratories comply 
with the provisions of this subpart and the college or university has a 
Laboratory Management Plan (LMP) in accordance with Sec.  262.214 that 
describes how the college or university laboratories will comply with 
the requirements of subpart K.


Sec.  262.206  Labeling and management standards for containers of 
unwanted material in the laboratory.

    A college or university must manage containers of unwanted material 
while in the laboratory in accordance with the requirements in this 
section.
    (a) Labeling: Label unwanted material as follows:
    (1) The following information must be affixed to or physically 
accompany the container:
    (i) The words ``unwanted material'' and
    (ii) Sufficient information to alert emergency responders to the 
hazards or the contents of the container.
    (2) The following information must be associated with the 
container:
    (i) The date that unwanted material first began accumulating in the 
container.
    (ii) Information sufficient to allow a RCRA-trained individual to 
properly identify whether an unwanted material is a solid and hazardous 
waste and to assign a proper hazardous waste code(s), pursuant to Sec.  
262.11. For example, the following information may be associated with 
the container:
    (A) The name and/or description of the chemical contents or 
composition of the unwanted material, or, if known, the product of the 
chemical reaction.
    (B) Whether the unwanted material has been used or is unused
    (C) A description of the manner in which the chemical was 
processed, if applicable.
    (b) Management of Containers in the Laboratory: A college or 
university must properly manage containers to assure safe storage of 
the unwanted material, to prevent leaks, spills, emissions to the air, 
adverse chemical reactions, and to prevent dangerous situations that 
may result in harm to human health or the environment. Proper container 
management must include the following:
    (1) Containers are maintained and kept in good condition and 
damaged containers are replaced.
    (2) Containers are compatible with their contents to avoid 
reactions between the contents and the container; and are made of, or 
lined with, material that is compatible with the unwanted material so 
that the container's integrity is not impaired.


Sec.  262.207  Training and instruction.

    A college or university must provide training or instruction to all 
individuals working in a laboratory at that college or university, as 
follows:
    (a) For laboratory workers: Training for laboratory workers must be 
commensurate with their duties so they understand the requirements in 
this subpart and implement them such that it ensures the laboratories' 
compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
    (1) A college or university that is a large quantity generator must 
maintain training records for laboratory workers:
    (i) That are sufficient to determine whether laboratory workers 
have been trained.
    (ii) For the durations specified in Sec.  265.16(e).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) For students: Students in a laboratory where unwanted material 
is generated must receive instruction relevant to their activities in 
the laboratory. For example, instruction may include proper container 
labeling, collection procedures for unwanted material, and emergency 
response procedures.
    (c) For on-site transportation: Only RCRA-trained individuals may 
transport unwanted material and hazardous waste on-site.
    (d) For hazardous waste determination: Only RCRA-trained 
individuals may make hazardous waste determinations, pursuant to Sec.  
262.11, for unwanted material
    (e) A college or university can provide training and instruction 
for laboratory workers and students in a variety of ways, including, 
but not limited to:
    (1) Instruction by the professor/manager before or during an 
experiment.
    (2) Formal classroom training.
    (3) Electronic/written training.
    (4) On-the-job training.
    (5) Written or oral exams.


Sec.  262.208  When must containers of unwanted material be removed 
from the laboratory?

    (a) A college or university must remove all containers of unwanted 
material and acutely reactive unwanted material from each laboratory on 
a regular interval, not to exceed 6 months. The college or university 
must specify in its Laboratory Management Plan a regular interval for 
removal of unwanted material and acutely reactive unwanted material.
    (b) If a laboratory accumulates more than 55 gallons of unwanted 
material (including reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material) 
before the regularly scheduled removal, the college or university must 
ensure that all containers of unwanted material (including reactive 
acutely hazardous unwanted material) are:
    (1) Labeled with the date that 55 gallons is exceeded; and
    (2) Removed from the laboratory within 10 calendar days of the date 
that 55 gallons was exceeded, or at the next regularly scheduled 
removal, whichever comes first.
    (c) If a laboratory accumulates more than 1 quart of reactive 
acutely hazardous unwanted material before the regularly scheduled 
removal, then the college or university must ensure that all containers 
of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material are:
    (1) Labeled with the date that 1 quart is exceeded; and
    (2) Removed from the laboratory within 10 calendar days of the date 
that 1 quart was exceeded, or at the next regularly scheduled removal, 
whichever comes first.


Sec.  262.209  Where and when to make the hazardous waste determination 
and where to send containers of unwanted material upon removal from the 
laboratory.

    A college or university must ensure that a RCRA-trained individual 
makes a hazardous waste determination, pursuant to Sec.  262.11, for 
unwanted material in one of the following areas:
    (a) In the laboratory before the unwanted material is removed from 
the laboratory, in accordance with Sec.  262.210, or
    (b) Within 4 calendar days of arriving at an on-site central 
accumulation area, in accordance with Sec.  262.211, or
    (c) Within 4 calendar days of arriving at an on-site treatment, 
storage or disposal facility, in accordance with Sec.  262.212.

[[Page 29751]]

Sec.  262.210  Making the hazardous waste determination in the 
laboratory before the unwanted material is removed from the laboratory.

    If a college or university makes the hazardous waste determination, 
pursuant to Sec.  262.11, for unwanted material in the laboratory 
before the unwanted material is removed from the laboratory, it must 
comply with the following:
    (a) A RCRA-trained individual must determine, pursuant to Sec.  
262.11, if the unwanted material is a hazardous waste before the 
unwanted material is removed from the laboratory.
    (b) If an unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or 
university must place the appropriate hazardous waste code(s) and the 
words ``hazardous waste'' on the container label that is affixed to or 
physically accompanies the container, before the hazardous waste may be 
transferred to an on-site central accumulation area, an on-site interim 
status or permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility, or 
transported off-site to a designated facility.
    (c) If an unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or 
university must count the hazardous waste toward the college or 
university's generator status, pursuant to Sec.  261.5.
    (d) An unwanted material that is a hazardous waste, is subject to 
all applicable hazardous waste regulations when it is removed from the 
laboratory.
    (e) Unwanted material and hazardous waste that is transferred from 
the laboratory to an on-site central accumulation area or on-site 
interim status or permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility 
must be accompanied by a RCRA-trained individual.


Sec.  262.211  Making the hazardous waste determination at an on-site 
central accumulation area.

    If a college or university makes the hazardous waste determination, 
pursuant to Sec.  262.11, for unwanted material at an on-site central 
accumulation area, it must comply with the following:
    (a) Unwanted material and hazardous waste that is transferred from 
the laboratory to an on-site central accumulation area must be 
accompanied by a RCRA-trained individual.
    (b) Unwanted material must be taken directly from the 
laboratory(ies) to the on-site central accumulation area.
    (c) A RCRA-trained individual must determine, pursuant to Sec.  
262.11, if the unwanted material is a hazardous waste within 4 calendar 
days of arriving at the on-site central accumulation area.
    (d) The unwanted material becomes subject to the generator 
accumulation regulations of Sec.  262.34(a) for large quantity 
generators or Sec.  262.34(d) for small quantity generators as soon as 
it arrives in the central accumulation area, except for the ``hazardous 
waste'' labeling requirements of Sec.  262.34(a)(3).
    (e) If the unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or 
university must place the appropriate hazardous waste code(s) and the 
words ``hazardous waste'' on the container label that is affixed to the 
container, before the hazardous waste may be transferred to another on-
site central accumulation area or on-site interim status or permitted 
treatment, storage or disposal facility, or transported off-site to a 
designated facility.
    (f) If the unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or 
university must count the hazardous waste toward the college or 
university's generator status, pursuant to Sec.  261.5 and is subject 
to all applicable hazardous waste regulations.


Sec.  262.212  Making the hazardous waste determination at an on-site 
interim status or permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility.

    If a college or university makes the hazardous waste determination, 
pursuant to Sec.  262.11, for unwanted material at an on-site 
treatment, storage or disposal facility, it must comply with the 
following:
    (a) Unwanted material and hazardous waste that is transferred from 
the laboratory to an on-site interim status or permitted treatment, 
storage or disposal facility must be accompanied by a RCRA-trained 
individual.
    (b) Unwanted material must be taken directly from the 
laboratory(ies) to the on-site interim status or permitted treatment, 
storage or disposal facility.
    (c) A RCRA-trained individual must determine, pursuant to Sec.  
262.11, if the unwanted material is a hazardous waste within 4 calendar 
days of arriving at an on-site interim status/permitted treatment, 
storage or disposal facility.
    (d) The unwanted material becomes subject to the terms of the 
college or university's hazardous waste permit or interim status as 
soon as it arrives in the on-site treatment, storage or disposal 
facility.
    (e) If the unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or 
university must place the appropriate hazardous waste code(s) and the 
words ``hazardous waste'' on the container label that is affixed to or 
physically accompanies the container, before the hazardous waste may be 
transferred to another interim status or permitted treatment, storage 
or disposal facility or transported off-site to a designated facility.
    (f) If the unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or 
university must count the hazardous waste toward the college or 
university's generator status, pursuant to Sec.  261.5 and is subject 
to all applicable hazardous waste regulations.


Sec.  262.213  Laboratory clean-outs.

    (a) One time per 12 month period per laboratory, a college or 
university may opt to conduct a laboratory clean-out that is subject to 
all the applicable requirements of this subpart, except that:
    (1) If the volume of unwanted material in the laboratory exceeds 55 
gallons (or 1 quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material), 
the college or university is not required to remove all unwanted 
materials from the laboratory within 10 calendar days of exceeding 55 
gallons (or 1 quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material), 
as required by Sec.  262.208. Instead, the college or university must 
remove all unwanted materials from the laboratory within 30 calendar 
days from the start of the laboratory clean-out, including those 
already in the laboratory prior to the beginning of the laboratory 
clean-out, and
    (2) A college or university is not required to count hazardous 
waste generated solely during the laboratory clean-out toward its 
hazardous waste generator status, pursuant to Sec.  261.5(c) and (d). 
An unwanted material that is generated prior to the beginning of the 
laboratory clean-out and is still in the laboratory at the time the 
laboratory clean-out commences, must be counted toward hazardous waste 
generator status, pursuant to Sec.  261.5(c) and (d), if it is 
determined to be hazardous waste, and
    (3) A college or university must document the activities of the 
laboratory clean-out. The documentation must, at a minimum, identify 
the laboratory being cleaned out, the date the laboratory clean-out 
begins and ends, and the volume of hazardous waste generated during the 
laboratory clean-out. The college or university must maintain the 
records for a period of three years from the date the clean-out ends.
    (b) For all other laboratory clean-outs conducted during the same 
12-month period, a college or university is subject to all the 
applicable requirements of this subpart, including, but not limited to:
    (1) If the volume of unwanted material in the laboratory exceeds 55 
gallons (or 1 quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material), 
the

[[Page 29752]]

college or university is required to remove all unwanted materials from 
the laboratory within 10 calendar days of exceeding 55 gallons (or 1 
quart of reactive acutely hazardous unwanted material), as required by 
Sec.  262.208, and
    (2) A college or university must count hazardous waste generated 
during the laboratory clean-out toward its hazardous waste generator 
status, pursuant to Sec.  261.5(c) and (d).


Sec.  262.214  Laboratory management plan.

    option 1 for paragraph (a):
    (a) A college or university must develop, implement, and retain on-
site a Laboratory Management Plan, or revise an existing plan, that 
describes how the college/university will comply with paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (9) of this section:
    option 2 for paragraph (a):
    (a) A college or university must develop, implement, and retain on-
site a Laboratory Management Plan, or revise an existing plan, that 
describes how the college/university will comply with paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (9) of this section. The college or university must comply with 
the specific provisions contained in its Laboratory Management Plan.
    (1) Container management in accordance with Sec.  262.206.
    (2) Container labeling in accordance with Sec.  262.206, including 
identifying where the labeling information will be located.
    (3) Training for laboratory workers commensurate with their duties 
in accordance with Sec.  262.207(a).
    (4) Instruction for students in accordance with Sec.  262.207(b).
    (5) Training to ensure safe on-site movement of unwanted material 
and hazardous waste in accordance with Sec.  262.207(c).
    (6) Develop a regular schedule for identifying and removing 
unwanted material from laboratories in accordance with Sec.  262.208.
    (7) Make hazardous waste determinations for unwanted material, in 
accordance with Sec.  262.209.
    (8) Conduct laboratory clean-outs in accordance with Sec.  262.213, 
if the college or university elects to conduct laboratory clean-outs.
    (9) Emergency prevention, notification and response procedures 
appropriate to the hazards in the laboratory.
    (b) A college or university must make its Laboratory Management 
Plan available to laboratory workers, students, or others at the 
college or university who request it.
    (c) A college or university must review and revise its Laboratory 
Management Plan, as needed.


Sec.  262.215  Unwanted material that is not solid or hazardous waste.

    (a) If a RCRA-trained individual determines that an unwanted 
material does not meet the definition of solid waste in Sec.  261.2, it 
is no longer subject to this subpart or to RCRA Subtitle C.
    (b) If a RCRA-trained individual determines that an unwanted 
material does not meet the definition of hazardous waste in Sec.  
261.3, it is no longer subject to this subpart or to RCRA Subtitle C, 
but may be subject to RCRA Subtitle D.


Sec.  262.216  Non-laboratory hazardous waste generated at a college/
university.

    A college or university that generates hazardous waste outside of a 
laboratory is not eligible to manage that hazardous waste under subpart 
K and remains subject to the generator requirements of Sec. Sec.  
262.11, 262.34(c) (if the hazardous waste is managed in a satellite 
accumulation area) and all other applicable generator requirements of 
40 CFR part 262, with respect to that hazardous waste.

[FR Doc. 06-4654 Filed 5-22-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P