management of containers of unwanted material while they are being
accumulated in the laboratory. Today's proposal would require that
containers

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).

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,

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.