[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