would be eligible to be disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill,
which is allowed under the CESQG regulations of 40 CFR 261.5.  In fact,
in the preamble to the proposed rule we stated, “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” (see 71 FR 29739).

Nevertheless, we believe that for clarity it is appropriate to revise
the regulatory language of § 262.213 to reflect the intent of the rule
as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule.  This is made all the
more necessary by the expansion of scope of the final rule to include
eligible academic entities that are CESQGs.  If an SQG avoided LQG
status as the result of a laboratory clean-out incentive, the hazardous
waste would still be regulated as hazardous waste once it is taken
off-site, since both SQGs and LQGs must comply with the same
transportation and disposal regulations.  With the inclusion of CESQGs
into the final rule, however, if a CESQG avoided becoming an SQG or LQG
as the result of a laboratory clean-out incentive, then potentially
regulated hazardous waste would be allowed to be disposed of at a
municipal solid waste landfill.  Therefore, we are modifying the
language of § 262.213(a)(2) to indicate that the effect of not counting
hazardous wastes that are unused commercial chemical products toward the
eligible academic entity’s generator status is limited to the on-site
accumulation of the hazardous waste.  In tandem, we also are including a
new paragraph, § 262.213(a)(3), to indicate that for the purposes of
off-site management, if an eligible academic entity generates more than
the monthly CESQG limits (i.e., >1 kg of acutely hazardous waste, or
>100 kg of hazardous waste), then the eligible academic entity must
manage its hazardous waste according to all applicable hazardous waste
regulations for SQGs and LQGs.  When determining whether these monthly
limits have been exceeded, the eligible academic entity must count all
of its hazardous wastes, including those generated during laboratory
clean-outs.  In other words, even when hazardous wastes are not counted
toward the site’s generator status on-site, if they are generated in
excess of the CESQG monthly limits, they are regulated as hazardous
waste when they are transported, treated, stored or disposed of
off-site.  EPA intended to create an incentive to conduct laboratory
clean-outs by relieving the generator of some of the additional burden
that would be incurred by changing generator status.  However, we did
not intend to allow regulated hazardous waste in excess of the CESQG
monthly limits to be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills.

Comment: We heard from two commenters noting that the proposed
regulatory text at 40 CFR 262.213(a)(3) indicates that colleges and
universities must maintain records related to a laboratory clean-out
“for a period of three years from the date the clean-out ends,”
rather than “for as long as the college or university operates
under” the new Subpart K, as stated in the preamble (71 FR 29739)
(Commenter Nos. 33 and 107).  The commenters suggested that the final
rule clarify that the retention period for laboratory clean-out records
is three years, as stated in the proposed regulatory text.

Response:  We thank the commenters for pointing out the discrepancy
between the preamble and the proposed regulatory text.  We agree with
the commenter that the proposed regulatory text reflects what we
intended for record retention pertaining to laboratory clean-outs.
Thus, the final rule makes clear that records for laboratory clean-outs
must be kept for three years from the date the clean-out ends and we
have revised the preamble to the final rule to also reflect this
three-year period.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that the Agency should
consider not requiring colleges and universities to document the waste
taken from the laboratory during the clean-out (Commenter No. 52). The
commenter believes this raises questions of self-reporting if the amount
collected is over the accumulation limit or at least a potential
violation for not identifying unwanted material.

Response:  We did not propose, nor are we finalizing, a requirement to
report the results of a laboratory clean-out.  However, we did propose
and are finalizing unchanged the recordkeeping requirements for
laboratory clean-outs.  There is no requirement to submit these records.

Comment: We heard from two commenters stating that the procedures for
clean-outs are too prescriptive (Commenter Nos. 68 and 74).  The
commenter suggested that the college or university develop written
procedures and timeframes in the LMP regarding lab clean-out process
including, if applicable: requests for clean-out, initial review,
management of unknowns, start date, and completion date; include
provisions for extending timeframes in case of extenuating
circumstances; describe documentation procedures (Commenter No. 68).
Another commenter encouraged EPA to provide more discretion to colleges
and universities in how they conduct clean-outs (Commenter No. 74).  The
commenter stated that EPA should require that clean-outs or some other
chemical management process be included in the LMP. The commenter
suggested that Subpart K should include information on what criteria
must be met for a clean-out including any restrictions (such as only
conducted once every twelve months). .

Response:  We disagree with the commenter that the procedures for
clean-outs are too prescriptive.  In fact, we did not propose, nor are
we finalizing, procedures for conducting laboratory clean-outs.  We
proposed and finalized a requirement that the LMP describe procedures
for conducting laboratory clean-outs, as the commenter suggests.  The
final rule also includes a requirement that the LMP describe the
procedures for documenting laboratory clean-outs.  The recordkeeping
requirements for laboratory clean-outs and the restriction that a
laboratory can only take advantage of the laboratory clean-out
incentives once per 12 month period are both intended to reduce the
potential for abusing the laboratory clean-out incentives.

We agree with the commenter that eligible academic entities would
benefit from a chemical management process.  We believe that conducting
laboratory clean-outs is only one part of that process.  Although we are
not requiring a comprehensive chemical management process, we have added
a requirement that Part II of the LMP must include a list of chemicals
that the eligible academic entity has, or is likely to have, that become
more dangerous when they exceed their expiration date and/or as they
degrade, and it must describe procedures to safely dispose of chemicals
that become more dangerous when they exceed their expiration date and/or
as they degrade.  This requirement allows eligible academic entities to
focus on the more dangerous chemicals in the laboratory.  However, an
eligible academic entity is encouraged to go beyond the basic
requirements of the LMP, and may include additional best practices in
Part II of its LMP.

Comment: We heard from one commenter asking for clarification as to
whether the unwanted materials generated in clean-outs are to be sent to
the on-site central accumulation area or an on-site TSDF at the
conclusion of the clean-out (Commenter No. 107).

Response:  It is up to the eligible academic entity to decide whether to
bring the unwanted materials that it generates during a laboratory
clean-out to its on-site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF.
There is no requirement in Subpart K to send unwanted materials
generated during laboratory clean-outs to an on-site central
accumulation area or on-site TSDF.  Nor is there anything in Subpart K
prohibiting eligible academic entities from sending unwanted materials
generated during laboratory clean-outs to an on-site central
accumulation area or on-site TSDF.

Comment: We heard from two commenters suggesting that EPA extend the
labeling and container management standards to clean-out wastes
(Commenter Nos. 102 and 105).  They stated that such requirements are
not clearly spelled out in the proposed regulations.

Response:  We agree with the commenter.  In fact, the proposed
regulations, and now the final regulations, require that the labeling
and container management standards apply to unwanted materials generated
during a laboratory clean-out.  This intent is captured in the first
paragraph of the regulatory text for laboratory clean-outs in 262.213,
which reads:

One time per 12 month period for each laboratory, a eligible academic
entity may opt to conduct a laboratory clean-out that is subject to all
the applicable requirements of this subpart, except that: [emphasis
added]

During the course of a laboratory clean-out, some chemicals will be
considered unwanted materials and ultimately hazardous wastes, while
others will not.  Those laboratory clean-out chemicals that become
unwanted materials are subject to all the same labeling and container
management standards - as well as all other applicable requirements of
Subpart K - as any other unwanted material in the laboratory, with the
exceptions noted in                      § 262.213(a)(1)-(4).  On the
other hand, those chemicals that can continue to be used in the same
laboratory would be considered products, not unwanted materials, and
would not be subject to the labeling and container management standards
of Subpart K.  If a clean-out chemical from one laboratory can be used
in a different laboratory, we can envision two probable scenarios.  If
the determination is made in the laboratory that a chemical can be used
in another laboratory, it would not be considered an unwanted material;
rather, it would be considered a product and thus not regulated under
RCRA.  If, on the other hand, the determination that the chemical can be
used in another laboratory is made after it is removed from the
laboratory, in an on-site CAA or TSDF, the clean-out chemical would be
regulated as an unwanted material until it is redistributed from the CAA
to another laboratory for further use.

Comment: We heard from one commenter asking for clarification on whether
laboratory clean-outs would be subject to the size restriction imposed
under the definition of “unwanted material” (Commenter No. 107).
The commenter indicated that it generates large items (e.g., High
Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters) that could not be easily
picked up under the 10-day removal frequency specified in the proposed
rule for unwanted material that exceeds specified volume limits.  The
commenter believes such large items could be better addressed under the
clean-out provisions.

Response:  Neither the proposed or final definition of unwanted material
includes any size restriction.  We believe the commenter meant to refer
to the definition of laboratory, which includes the requirement that
containers must be easily manipulated by one person.  Based on the
information provided by the commenter, we believe that the large items
to which the commenter refers, would not be considered unwanted
materials generated in a laboratory and therefore would not be subject
to Subpart K or the Subpart K clean-out provisions.  Subpart K is
intended to regulate the management and disposal of laboratory chemicals
and other materials that are routinely generated in laboratories.  We
would not consider large equipment, such as HEPA filters (which can not
be easily manipulated by one person) to be unwanted materials.  As the
commenter points out, the Subpart K requirements, such as the volume and
time limits, do not appropriately address large equipment.  If such
large equipment were hazardous waste, it would be regulated under the
existing RCRA generator regulations.

	12.2	Incentives to Conduct Clean-outs

Comment: We heard from two commenters stating that EPA can encourage the
best practice of laboratory clean-outs by adopting their suggestions to
make Subpart K more attractive to colleges and universities (Commenter
Nos. 11 and 25): allowing CESQGs to use the clean-out provisions without
adopting all of Subpart K; lengthening the time for a laboratory
clean-out from 30 to 60 days; and allowing a laboratory clean-out to
count as a regular removal.

Response:  We disagree with the commenters three suggestions for making
the laboratory clean-out incentives more attractive.  First, EPA agrees
that stand-alone CESQGs and CESQG sites that are part of a larger
eligible academic entity will benefit by removing legacy chemicals from
the laboratory by taking advantage of the clean-out incentives of
today’s rule.  However, EPA is not allowing a stand-alone eligible
academic entity or a CESQG site that is part of a larger eligible
academic entity to partake only in the laboratory clean-out provisions
and not the other Subpart K requirements because this would prevent
CESQGs from taking advantage of the two main benefits of today’s final
rule.  That is, if a CESQG site only participated in the laboratory
clean-out provisions, it would not be able to take advantage of the
flexibility in where and when to make the hazardous waste determination.
 Second, if a CESQG site that is part of a larger eligible academic
entity only participated in the laboratory clean-out provisions, it
would be unable to establish one hazardous waste management system in
all the laboratories at the eligible academic entity.  The ability to
establish a unified hazardous waste management system for all
laboratories is one of the priorities cited by academic commenters.
Therefore, in order for a CESQG site at an eligible academic entity or
an eligible academic entity that is itself a CESQG, to take part in the
laboratory clean-out incentives, the eligible academic entity must opt
into Subpart K in its entirety and follow the management standards for
unwanted materials in the laboratories.

Second, we anticipate that in most instances, laboratory clean-outs will
be planned events.  Therefore, we continue to believe that 30 days is
sufficient time to conduct a thorough laboratory clean-out and we are
finalizing the time limit for laboratory clean-outs, as proposed.

Third, we view laboratory clean-outs to be distinct from routine,
regularly scheduled removals of unwanted materials.  In the course of
normal laboratory operations, many chemicals are used and will become
unwanted materials and ultimately may be determined to be hazardous
wastes.  This can occur as a result of teaching or research activities
or, in the case of teaching hospitals, as a result of clinical or
diagnostic activities.  We expect that these routinely generated
wastestreams will comprise the bulk of the unwanted materials that are
removed from the laboratory during regularly scheduled removals.  On the
other hand, a laboratory often can accrue a large number of unused
chemicals in its inventory, some of which can become dangerous over
time, developing the potential to cause significant harm.  It has been
our observation that it is unusual for laboratories to remove unused
chemicals from their inventories on any regular basis.   Therefore, a
regularly scheduled removal of unwanted material does not qualify as a
laboratory clean-out.  Nor does a laboratory clean-out qualify as a
regularly scheduled removal.  However, nothing prohibits these two
events from happening concurrently in order to coordinate waste
management activities.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that SQGs are likely to benefit
from the laboratory clean-out allowance (Commenter No. 60).  The
commenter suggested that  EPA could increase the incentive by: (1)
extending the length of time to conduct the clean-out to at least 60
days; (2) allowing an extension beyond 60 days, if required; and (3)
allowing the institution to determine the clean-out start date.  The
commenter stated that, although some large quantity generators (LQGs)
may benefit from the laboratory clean-out allowance, most will find
EPA’s encouragement for both conducting laboratory clean-outs and
including laboratory clean-out procedures in the Laboratory Management
Plan as sufficient incentives.

Response:  We anticipate that in most instances, laboratory clean-outs
will be planned events.  Therefore, we continue to believe that 30 days
is sufficient time to conduct a thorough laboratory clean-out and we are
finalizing the time limit for laboratory clean-outs, as proposed.  We
believe that providing a mechanism for extensions beyond the maximum
time limit allowed for clean-outs would be burdensome for eligible
academic entities and States.  Therefore, we are not allowing extensions
beyond the 30 days.  We proposed and are finalizing recordkeeping
provisions for laboratory clean-outs that require that an eligible
academic entity that conducts a laboratory clean-out identify the start
date of the laboratory clean-out.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that, for a very large LQG,
not counting the hazardous waste toward RCRA generation limits is not an
incentive (Commenter No. 81).  The commenter stated, however, that
having a formal regulatory recognition of laboratory clean-outs with a
time limit will force colleges and universities to formally address
clean-outs in their hazardous waste management systems.  For CESQGs and
SQGs, the commenter believes the lab clean-out provisions would be very
advantageous because the amount of acutely hazardous waste generated
from laboratory clean-outs is a primary concern because of the
implications of exceeding LQG status.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that for a very large LQG, not
counting the unused hazardous waste toward RCRA generation limits is
unlikely to change its generator status and may not provide as much of
an incentive as for other generators.  That is because even after
subtracting laboratory clean-out wastes when calculating their generator
status, many eligible academic entities will still generate enough
hazardous waste to be LQGs, based on their routinely generated
laboratory waste, as well as their non-laboratory hazardous wastes.  For
these very large LQGs, we believe that allowing 30 days to conduct a
laboratory clean-out establishes a mechanism to conduct laboratory
clean-outs that currently does not exist, and therefore will encourage
laboratory clean-outs.

	12.2.1		30-Day Limit for Laboratory Clean-outs

Comment: We heard from ten commenters expressing support for the
proposed 30-day limit for conducting a lab clean-out (Commenter Nos. 14,
17, 47, 51, 56, 71, 74, 81, 84, 99).  These commenters believe that 30
days is sufficient time to conduct clean-outs.

Response:  We thank the commenters for their support and we are
finalizing the provision as proposed.  Therefore, eligible academic
entities conducting laboratory clean-outs under Section 262.213 must
remove all unwanted materials from the laboratory within 30 days from
the start of the laboratory clean-out.

Comment: We heard from 12 commenters asking for a longer timeframe for
conducting a lab clean-out (Commenter Nos. 5, 8, 11, 15, 25, 60, 76, 77,
78, 86, 88, 107).  The commenters stated that additional time is needed
for such activities as arranging for and mobilizing a contractor,
characterizing unknown materials, and finalizing distribution of
unwanted materials.

One commenter stated the timeframe should coincide with the 90/180-day
accumulation limit (Commenter No. 8).

Eight commenters stated that 60 days is a more appropriate timeframe
(Commenter Nos. 11, 15, 25, 60, 77, 78, 86, 88).  Two of these
commenters also asked EPA to require colleges and universities to define
the start of the lab clean-out in the LMP and to clarify that the
inventory evaluation is not included in the clean-out period (Commenter
No. 11, 25).

One commenter stated that a 90 calendar day timeframe is more
appropriate (Commenter No. 76).  The commenter clarified that 90 days
should include the entire timeframe from designation of unwanted
material to shipment off-site.

One commenter recommended a minimum of 75 days for the clean-out
(Commenter No. 107).

One commenter stated that it needs 30 to 40 days to classify waste from
its clean-outs (Commenter No. 5); if it must put an accumulation start
date on the container the day it is removed from a lab, this can result
in 45 to 50 days before the container is received at its 90-day
accumulation area.  The commenter described the paperwork requirements
and timeframes associated with its governmental organization to support
this estimated duration.

Response:  We anticipate that in most instances, laboratory clean-outs
will be planned events.  Therefore, we continue to believe that 30 days
is sufficient time to conduct a thorough laboratory clean-out and we are
finalizing the time limit for laboratory clean-outs, as proposed.

The definition of “laboratory clean-out” in today’s final rule is:

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

Therefore, the 30 days of a laboratory clean-out starts when a trained
professional or laboratory personnel begins sorting through and
evaluating the inventory of laboratory chemicals and making decisions
about whether they are unwanted materials or not.  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 the
requirements of Subpart K.  We realize that a laboratory clean-out can
involve considerable planning before the laboratory clean-out begins.
Advanced planning for a laboratory clean-out prior to sorting and
evaluating a laboratory’s chemical inventory is not considered the
start of the 30 days allowed for a laboratory clean-out.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA should not provide
30 days, or any additional time beyond the three days under current
regulations for current satellite accumulation areas, to complete a
clean-out (Commenter No. 58).  The commenter does not believe the
extended timeframe would be effective in encouraging clean-outs.

Response:   We disagree with the commenter and believe that the extended
time allowed for laboratory clean-out is necessary to remove one of the
regulatory barriers that act as a disincentive for conducting laboratory
clean-outs.  EPA has often 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 will be generated.
The existing satellite accumulation area rules require that once 55
gallons of hazardous waste (or 1 quart of acutely hazardous waste) is
exceeded, the excess of 55 gallons must be removed within three days.
Stakeholders have told EPA that the current requirement to remove the
excess of 55 gallons (or 1 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.  The result
of this disincentive, as EPA inspections and enforcement cases have
revealed, is that used and unused chemicals that are clearly no longer
useable, have in some cases remained in laboratories at academic
institutions for years and even decades.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing its preference that all
unwanted material be removed from the lab at the end of the 30-day
period, regardless of quantity (Commenter No. 47).

Response:  We agree with the commenter.  In the final rule, we have
retained the proposed regulatory text.  Therefore, 40 CFR 262.213(a)(1)
requires that an “eligible academic entity must remove all unwanted
materials from the laboratory within 30 calendar days from the start of
the laboratory clean-out.”  The discussion in the preamble to the
proposed rule which was somewhat inconsistent with the text of the
proposed rule should no longer be considered relevant.  We agree with
the commenter that the timely removal and disposal of the laboratory
clean-out chemicals is the main goal of conducting laboratory clean-outs
and to let the chemicals remain in the laboratory at the conclusion of
the laboratory clean-out is counter-intuitive.  Therefore, regardless of
the quantity of unwanted materials generated during a laboratory
clean-out, all unwanted materials must be removed at the conclusion of
the laboratory clean-out.

	12.2.2		Not Counting Hazardous Wastes from Laboratory Clean-outs

Comment: We heard from 13 commenters expressing support for the proposed
provisions for exempting clean-out wastes from generator counting
requirements (Commenter Nos. 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, 25, 60, 74, 84, 85, 88,
108, 109).  These commenters stated their belief that the exemption
would reduce the risk of episodic generation and a potential change in
generator status, and would encourage more colleges and universities to
conduct clean-outs, leading to more protective waste management.

Response:  We thank the commenters for their support.  We agree that the
laboratory clean-out incentives will encourage eligible academic
entities to conduct clean-outs and therefore lead to safer laboratory
conditions and more protective waste management, although based on
comments we received on the proposal, we are finalizing the laboratory
clean-out incentives with some modifications.

Comment: We heard from one commenter objecting to the clean-out
exemption because college or university labs are overseen by trained
instructors who are experienced in proper lab procedures; a goal of RCRA
is to improve waste management by raising awareness among the U.S.
public and the clean-out exemption would not train students on effective
waste management decision-making; non-academic sites are able to count
their clean-out wastes; and the proposed provisions could create a
disincentive for colleges and universities to conduct clean-outs more
frequently than annually (Commenter No. 24).  The commenter also
expressed concern that the exemption would require the lab to handle
clean-out unwanted materials differently than unwanted materials
accumulating before the clean-out began, and this would entail burden
(e.g., recordkeeping burdens).

Response:  We disagree with the commenter.  We anticipate that regular,
time-driven removals of unwanted materials will help remove mostly used
materials from the laboratory, but may not address the problem of
unused, “legacy” chemicals that often accumulate over many years in
a laboratory.  We believe the incentives that Subpart K provides to
conduct laboratory clean-outs of unused chemicals will increase the
number of laboratory clean-outs, even if eligible academic entities are
limited to using the incentives once per 12-month period.  Eligible
academic entities that conduct laboratory clean-outs under 262.213 are
not required to count their hazardous waste that is unused commercial
chemical products toward their generator status.  This may cause them to
segregate their laboratory clean-out wastes from their non-clean-out
wastes to ensure proper counting.  We believe the benefit of the
clean-outs will outweigh any burden associated with the recordkeeping
for laboratory clean-outs.

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing concern that the
clean-out exemption would result in the underreporting of college or
university waste (Commenter Nos. 24, 41, 56, and 113).  One commenter
suggested that colleges and universities that become large quantity
generators due solely to clean-out wastes be exempt from the large
quantity generator rules except biennial reporting and be subject to the
small quantity generator rules (Commenter No. 56).  Another commenter
stated that the lack of Biennial Report data could hinder regulators’
ability to monitor them; not counting toward generator status hazardous
waste that has been shipped is unprecedented; the largest colleges and
universities already file Biennial Reports so there is no added burden
for them to continue to do so (Commenter No. 113).

Response:  We acknowledge that there may be fewer generators reporting
hazardous waste generation as a result of the laboratory clean-out
provisions that allow not counting toward the eligible academic
entity’s generator status hazardous waste that consists of unused
commercial chemical products.  Under the Federal regulations, only LQGs
have to submit the BR.  Nevertheless, we anticipate that even after not
counting laboratory clean-out wastes when calculating their generator
status, many eligible academic entities will still generate enough
hazardous waste to be LQGs, based on their routinely generated
laboratory waste, as well as their non-laboratory hazardous wastes, in
which case they will still be required to submit the BR.  Moreover, some
States require SQGs to submit a BR.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter that the proposed clean-out
incentives could encourage colleges and universities to hold onto their
unwanted materials longer (Commenter No. 113). We heard from another
commenter that objected to the exemption because the clean-out
provisions are not protective of human health and the environment could
create an incentive for colleges and universities to hoard their
unwanted materials until the annual clean-out (e.g., to avoid payment of
state fees associated with waste quantity) (Commenter No. 41).  The
commenter stated that the clean-out exemption is inconsistent with RCRA,
in which generator status is a measure of risk based on waste quantity.
Because the commenter believes some clean-outs are better than none, it
stated that the clean-out incentives should be applied on a state-level
under EPA approval and be available to all industries.

Response:  We share the commenters’ concerns and have changed the
laboratory clean-out incentive provision so that only laboratory
clean-out hazardous wastes that are unused commercial chemical products
are not counted toward the eligible academic entity’s generator
status.  Unused commercial chemical products include chemicals that are
discarded P- or U-listed commercial chemical products, and unused
discarded chemicals that are hazardous waste because they exhibit one or
more characteristics.  Any unwanted material that has been used and is a
hazardous waste must be counted toward the eligible academic entity’s
generator status, even if it is removed during the 30-day period of a
laboratory clean-out.  We intend for routinely generated unwanted
materials to be removed from the laboratory during regularly scheduled
removals, and we expect that the bulk of these routinely generated
unwanted materials will be used chemicals.  We do not consider these
used, routinely generated unwanted materials to be laboratory clean-out
wastes and thus they must be counted toward the eligible academic
entity’s generator status.  Therefore, we have revised the regulatory
language to be consistent with our intent and to safeguard against the
potential for abuse of the laboratory clean-out incentive.  This change
will also emphasize that the purpose of the laboratory clean-outs is to
remove unneeded or unuseable chemicals from the laboratory’s inventory
in order to increase safety within the laboratory.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing concern that the
exemption would create difficulties for compliance personnel attempting
to determine the circumstances of waste generation (e.g., because the
labeling requirements do not require differentiation of clean-out
materials versus non-clean-out materials) (Commenter No. 58 and 105).
One of the commenters stated that the tracking requirements for
documenting which lab has had a clean out in the past 12 months adds
more complexity and opportunities for non-compliance (Commenter No.
105).

Response:  With this “no counting” incentive, we were and remain
concerned about inadvertently encouraging eligible academic entities to
retain unwanted materials that are generated in the laboratory on a
routine basis and to remove them only during a laboratory clean-out,
thereby improperly manipulating their generator status.  Two provisions
are intended to safeguard against this.  First is the requirement for
the eligible academic entity to identify the start date of the
laboratory clean-out in its records.  This, in combination with the
labeling requirement for each container to have an accumulation start
date associated with it, provides a method of verification to ensure
that any container of unwanted material that has a date that pre-dates
the onset of the laboratory clean-out would not be considered to be from
the laboratory clean-out and the unwanted material would have to be
counted toward calculating the facility’s generator status, assuming
it is determined to be hazardous waste.  The second safeguard is that
each laboratory at an eligible academic entity could take advantage of
the laboratory clean-out incentives only once per 12 month period.
Given that each laboratory is required to have a regularly scheduled
removal of unwanted material at least every six months, this is intended
to ensure that each laboratory would have at least one regularly
scheduled removal during a calendar year between laboratory clean-outs.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that stated that a provision to
count clean-out waste would make the academic laboratories more
accountable to buy only the chemicals needed and encourage waste
minimization, and it would result in better overall inventory management
(Commenter No. 66).  The commenter suggested that lab chemical reviews
be conducted in labs and ancillary areas and recorded once per year.
The commenter believes this will encourage good inventory management and
waste minimization.  In addition, the commenter stated that, if acutely
hazardous chemicals are handled, then they should be fully regulated due
to risk.

Response:  We disagree with the commenter.  The existing generator
regulations require clean-out chemicals to be counted toward determining
generator status, yet they have not always resulted in encouraging waste
minimization or better overall inventory management.  On the contrary,
EPA inspections and enforcement cases have revealed that used and unused
chemicals that are clearly no longer useable, have in some cases
remained in laboratories at academic institutions for years and even
decades.  Therefore, we believe it is necessary to provide the
laboratory clean-out incentives to encourage eligible academic entities
to remove their legacy chemicals.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing concerns that the
proposed clean-out exemption could interfere with the existing
requirements for college or university emergency planning and
preparedness (Commenter Nos. 82 and 87).  These commenters noted that,
under the existing regulations, hazardous waste generators are required
to plan and prepare for emergencies.  By exempting clean-out wastes from
generator counting, EPA would relieve some CESQGs and SQGs from the more
rigorous emergency planning and preparedness requirements applicable to
LQGs.  The commenters stated that emergency planning and preparedness
requirements should apply to colleges and universities, regardless of
the counting exemption.

Response:  We agree with the commenters assessment that as a result of
the laboratory clean-out provisions that allow not counting hazardous
waste that consists of unused commercial chemical products toward the
eligible academic entity’s generator status, some generators will no
longer be required to prepare contingency plans.  In fact in the
preamble to the proposed rule, we stated, “as a result of the 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”.

We believe that providing incentives to remove the legacy chemicals from
laboratories will reduce these legacy chemicals from laboratories and
thus reduce the significance of such contingency plans

Comment:  The following are suggested specific edits to the regulatory
text. Four commenters recommended that EPA clarify section 262.210(c) to
read:  “If an unwanted material is a hazardous waste, the college or
university must count the hazardous waste toward the college or
university’s generator status, pursuant to §261.5, unless the
generation of the waste was part of a laboratory clean-out, subject to
§262.213” (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 54, 76).

Response:  An unwanted material that is a hazardous waste must be
counted toward  generator status, unless it is an unused commercial
chemical product that was generated during a laboratory clean-out under
262.213.  Therefore, we believe it is sufficiently clear to refer to the
“no counting” incentive in the laboratory clean-out section of the
regulations only.  Referring to the “no counting” incentive under
other sections of the regulatory text, could add confusion and mislead
eligible academic entities about their responsibility to count all other
hazardous wastes.

Comment:  We heard from two commenters expressing opposition to allowing
SQGs and CESQG generators to adopt the clean-out provisions (Commenter
Nos. 58, 82).  One of the commenters stated that EPA should not waive
the acute hazardous waste threshold in any case (Commenter No. 82).  One
of the commenters noted the probability of colleges being a CESQG as a
result of the clean-out exemption and then being allowed to dispose the
now CESQG wastes to municipal solid waste landfills (Commenter No. 58).
The commenter does not believe this is in the best interests of the
public or the environment and cannot be characterized as promoting
"safer management of laboratory hazardous wastes."  The commenter also
indicated its belief that some of the rule’s requirements (e.g., for
container management, training, and lab management plan) are overly
restrictive or burdensome for CESQGs.  Another commenter stated that
CESQGs who do not adopt the rule should not be allowed to selectively
use the laboratory clean-out provision (Commenter No. 82).

Response:  EPA agrees that it is not in the best interest of the public
or the environment to allow quantities larger than the CESQG limits of
100 kg of hazardous waste or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste to be
disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills.  Therefore, EPA is not
allowing a stand-alone eligible academic entity or a CESQG site that is
part of a larger eligible academic entity to partake only in the
laboratory clean-out provisions and not the other requirements of
Subpart K.  A CESQG site at an eligible academic entity or an eligible
academic entity that is itself a CESQG must opt into Subpart K in its
entirety and follow the management standards for unwanted materials in
the laboratories.

EPA intends for hazardous waste generated from laboratory clean-outs to
be properly managed no matter which type of generator generates the
waste.  In the preamble to the proposed rule we stated, “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.

We revised the regulatory language of § 262.213 to reflect the intent
of the rule as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule.  This is
made all the more necessary by the expansion of scope of the final rule
to include eligible academic entities that are CESQGs.  If an SQG
avoided LQG status as the result of a laboratory clean-out incentive,
the hazardous waste would still be regulated as hazardous waste once it
is taken off-site, since both SQGs and LQGs must comply with the same
transportation and disposal regulations.  With the inclusion of CESQGs
into the final rule, however, if a CESQG avoided becoming an SQG or LQG
as the result of a laboratory clean-out incentive, then potentially
regulated hazardous waste would be allowed to be disposed of at a
municipal solid waste landfill.

Therefore, we are modifying the language of § 262.213(a)(2) to indicate
that the effect of not counting hazardous wastes that are unused
commercial chemical products toward the eligible academic entity’s
generator status is limited to the on-site accumulation of the hazardous
waste.  In tandem, we also are including a new paragraph, §
262.213(a)(3), to indicate that for the purposes of off-site management,
if an eligible academic entity generates more than the monthly CESQG
limits (i.e., >1 kg of acutely hazardous waste, or >100 kg of hazardous
waste), then the eligible academic entity must manage its hazardous
waste according to all applicable hazardous waste regulations for SQGs
and LQGs.  When determining whether these monthly limits have been
exceeded, the eligible academic entity must count all of its hazardous
wastes, including those generated during laboratory clean-outs.  In
other words, even when hazardous wastes are not counted toward the
site’s generator status, if they are generated in excess of the CESQG
monthly limits, they are regulated as hazardous waste when they are
transported, treated, stored or disposed of off-site.  EPA intended to
create an incentive to conduct laboratory clean-outs by relieving the
generator of some of the additional burden that would be incurred by
changing generator status.  However, we did not intend to allow
regulated hazardous waste in excess of the CESQG monthly limits to be
disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills.

	12.2.3		Expanding Laboratory Clean-out Incentives

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that the definition of a
stockroom needs to be clarified (Commenter No. 81).  The commenter
stated that, across its university campus, stockrooms exist in multiple
formats ranging from a common storage room for chemicals that are
individually owned by different researchers to the more traditional
formal Chemistry Department stockroom that operates as a business
selling users individual chemical bottles from the stock.

Response:  EPA agrees with these commenters and we have revised the
definition of laboratory to include chemical stockrooms and preparatory
laboratories and other areas that provide a support function to teaching
or research laboratories (or diagnostic laboratories at teaching
hospitals).  The reason for this change is that the operation of these
areas is well integrated with the operation of the laboratories; that
is, they are often in close proximity to laboratories, and share
laboratory personnel, and thus should properly be viewed as part of the
laboratory.  Chemical stockrooms that are not associated with laboratory
operations would not; however, be eligible to operate under Subpart K.
For example, a chemical stockroom that stores cleaning chemicals or
pesticides for maintenance at the facility would not be providing a
support function to a laboratory and would not be considered a
laboratory that is allowed to operate under Subpart K.

Comment: We heard from 12 commenters expressing support for extending
the proposed lab clean-out provisions to non lab areas (Commenter Nos.
8, 11, 14, 16, 25, 54, 60, 71, 76, 79, 81, 111).  These commenters
agreed that ancillary spaces (e.g., stockrooms, preparatory rooms)
should be able to participate in the proposed clean-out provisions.  One
commenter believes that inclusion of chemical stock rooms in laboratory
clean-out provisions will help support the removal of “legacy”
chemicals stored in these areas, as well as the re-location and
re-distribution of unwanted materials which are still suitable for
re-use in other laboratories via the chemical stock rooms (Commenter No.
81). Three commenters stated that simplicity, inclusiveness and high
environmental performance will result if colleges and universities are
able to take advantage of the clean-out provisions for rooms that are
ancillary to laboratories (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 54). The commenters
stated that college and university laboratories vary widely in their
configuration and design, and unused reagents are often stored in these
ancillary rooms and transferred to the laboratories on an as-needed
basis.  They stated that laboratory workers generally oversee these
ancillary rooms and control access to them.  One commenter stated that,
because of the relative high cost of chemicals and chemical demand being
highly dependent upon the research direction, chemical stock programs
may be reluctant to dispose of unused chemicals (Commenter No. 14).
Allowing the flexibility of stock rooms to take advantage of clean-out
incentives would likely improve the management of chemicals in those
areas.

Response:  We agree with the commenters and we have revised the
definition of laboratory so that these ancillary spaces would be
considered laboratories, whether they support individual laboratories or
the laboratories of a department, and thus they would be eligible to
take advantage of the laboratory clean-out provisions.  In fact, since
these ancillary areas typically store chemicals for use by nearby or
surrounding laboratories, we believe the clean-out provisions are
especially important for these ancillary areas.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter noting that some colleges and
universities will likely not adopt the Subpart K provisions for whatever
reason (Commenter No. 72).  The commenter noted that such colleges and
universities may nonetheless want to partake of the benefits of the
rule’s beneficial aspects, including the clean-out incentives and
container management standards.  The commenter encouraged EPA to amend
the existing RCRA regulations to integrate these specific provisions
from the proposed rule.  The commenter suggested that EPA could do this
in addition to finalizing Subpart K.

Response:  We view Subpart K as a holistic approach for the management
of hazardous wastes generated in laboratories and we do not anticipate
extending only certain portions of the rule to eligible academic
entities or to other generators.

	12.3	12-Month Interval Between Laboratory Clean-outs

Comment: We heard from eight commenters expressing support for the
12-month interval required for clean-outs to be eligible for the
rule’s counting exemption (Commenter Nos. 8, 17, 51, 74, 79, 81, 84,
99).

Response:  We thank the commenters for their support.  We are
finalizing, as proposed, that a laboratory may only take advantage of
the laboratory clean-out incentives provided in Section 262.213 once per
12-month period.  We stress, however, that laboratories may conduct
laboratory clean-outs more frequently than once per 12-months.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing its belief that the
12-month interval should be tied to a certain space and principal
investigator (Commenter 8).  As an example, the commenter stated that,
if room ABC is vacated by Dr. X and a clean-out is conducted, the new
occupant should not be precluded from conducting a clean-out for a
period of twelve months.  We heard from another commenter objecting to
the 12-month internal (Commenter No. 24).  The commenter believes
colleges and universities should be encouraged to conduct clean-outs
more frequently.

Response:  We agree with the commenters.  We emphasize that we are not
limiting the number of laboratory clean-outs an eligible academic entity
may conduct, only the frequency with which it may take advantage of the
clean-out incentives.  If a laboratory has conducted a clean-out within
the past 12 months, EPA does not typically 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 as the first laboratory
clean-out and generates an excess of 55 gallons of unwanted materials,
the laboratory may not take advantage of the clean-out incentives.
Therefore, the unwanted materials would have to be removed from the
laboratory within 10 calendar days, in conformance with the requirements
for exceeding 55 gallons on a routine basis and that amount would have
to be counted in determining the generator status of the eligible
academic entity.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that it is unclear whether
the intent is once per 12 months for the whole university to conduct one
clean-out of every laboratory, or once per 12 months for each individual
laboratory (Commenter No. 79).  The commenter stated that further
clarification is necessary for this definition in the rule as it would
be impractical and burdensome for a large university to conduct one
clean-out of all labs at once.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that it would be impractical for
a large university to conduct one clean-out for all of its laboratories
at once.  However, we disagree with the commenter that EPA’s intent is
unclear in its regulation and that further clarification is necessary.
We believe that EPA’s regulation is clear as written and therefore, we
are finalizing, as proposed, that each individual laboratory at an
eligible academic entity may take advantage of the laboratory clean-out
incentives once per 12-month period.

Comment: We heard from two commenters clarifying that the clean-out
interval should be an “academic year” (i.e., 11 to 13 months)
(Commenter Nos. 11, 25)

Response:  We disagree with the commenters.  We believe that
implementing a clean-out interval on the basis of an “academic year”
could be confusing, because it varies from institution to institution
and even varies from year to year within an institution.  Therefore, we
have retained the provision, as proposed, that a laboratory may take
advantage of the laboratory clean-out incentives once per 12-month
period.

Comment: We heard from two commenters expressing concerns about the
12-month interval required for clean-outs to be eligible for the
rule’s counting exemption (Commenter Nos. 60 and 101).  These
commenters stated that there should be no such limitation.  One of the
commenters stated that the space constraints faced by colleges and
universities lead to the need for optimizing the efficiency of
laboratory space, including the assignment of laboratories as “swing
space” for periods of less than one year and the use of academic
laboratories for different courses and purposes in each academic
semester (Commenter No. 60).  The commenter stated that it is likely
that many colleges and universities would benefit from conducting a
clean-out of the same laboratory room(s) more than once in a 12-month
period.  To encourage timely removal of unwanted chemicals from the
laboratory, the commenter asked EPA to allow for more than one lab
clean-out per 12-month period per laboratory.  Another commenter noted
that EPA acknowledges in the preamble that academic laboratories
generate a minor fraction of the nation's hazardous waste (Commenter No.
101).  The commenter therefore suggested that EPA refrain from
restricting colleges and universities from access to the clean-out
exemption more often than annually for the purposes of determining
generator status by differentiating between "clean out" waste and
"process" waste. The commenter stated that the former creates the
greatest risk of generator status shift, while the latter represents the
majority, by mass, of hazardous waste that laboratories generate.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that laboratory clean-outs are
distinct from regularly scheduled removals of routinely generated
unwanted materials.  We have changed the provision of the laboratory
clean-out incentive so that only laboratory clean-out hazardous wastes
that are unused commercial chemical products are not counted toward the
eligible academic entity’s generator status.  We intend for routinely
generated unwanted materials (i.e., “process” waste) to be removed
from the laboratory during regularly scheduled removals, and we expect
that the bulk of these routinely generated unwanted materials will be
used chemicals.  We do not consider these used, routinely generated
unwanted materials to be laboratory clean-out wastes and thus they must
be counted toward the eligible academic entity’s generator status.
Therefore, we have revised the regulatory language to be consistent with
our intent and to safeguard against the potential for abuse of the
laboratory clean-out incentive.  This change will also emphasize that
the purpose of the laboratory clean-outs is to remove unneeded or
unuseable chemicals from the laboratory’s inventory in order to
increase safety within the laboratory.

We disagree, however, with the commenter’s view that a 12-month
interval for eligibility for the lab clean-out counting exemption is an
inappropriate limitation.  To further safeguard against the potential
for abuse, the laboratory clean-out incentives (i.e., having 30 days to
conduct a laboratory clean-out and not counting toward the eligible
academic entity’s generator status the hazardous waste that consists
of unused commercial chemical products) remain limited to once per
laboratory per 12 month period.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter that laboratory clean-outs should
be treated as an exception rather than the rule (Commenter No. 88).  The
commenter stated that the term should be used to indicate events that
occur once in many years, i.e. actual lab clean-outs such as upon the
death or retirement of a faculty member or significant remodeling of a
building or lab suite, or the relocation of lab groups. It stated that
clean-outs should be encouraged but the definition should not include
recurring activities (e.g. every semester) to remove waste that should
have been picked up routinely.

Response:  We disagree with the commenter that laboratory clean-outs
should be treated as an exception rather than the rule.  On the
contrary, we believe that laboratories should conduct laboratory
clean-outs on a regular basis to remove any unwanted, unneeded or
expired chemicals from their inventories.  Without regular laboratory
clean-outs of chemical inventories, we are concerned that a laboratory
would accrue a large number of unused chemicals in its inventory, some
of which can become dangerous over time, developing the potential to
cause significant harm.  It has been our observation that it is unusual
for laboratories to remove unused chemicals from their inventories on
any regular basis.  We have developed the laboratory clean-out
provisions to provide incentives for laboratories to assess their
inventory and remove chemicals from the laboratory that are either
dangerous or have the potential to become dangerous, or are unlikely to
be used in the future, regardless of the reason.  We anticipate that
many eligible academic entities will take advantage of the laboratory
clean-out provisions when a researcher or faculty member retires or
moves, or when a building is renovated.  However, we are not limiting
the use of the laboratory clean-out provisions to these events because
we would like to encourage laboratories to develop the practice of more
frequent reviews and removals of their unneeded or unuseable chemicals.

	12.4	Compulsory Laboratory Clean-outs

Comment: We heard from four commenters expressing support for the
alternative of requiring lab clean-outs (Commenter Nos. 52, 84, 102,
105).  One of the commenters stated that mandatory clean-outs will
increase protection of human health and the environment (Commenter No.
84).  Another commenter stated that, in its experience, many college or
university laboratories have endangered human health and the environment
by allowing many dangerous unwanted chemicals (such as peroxide formers)
to accumulate without much use (Commenter No. 102). The accumulation of
peroxide formers is especially dangerous since these chemicals can form
crystals which become shock sensitive and can explode. The commenter
recommended that all college and university laboratories conduct
mandatory evaluations of their chemical inventories to determine if
there are any "unwanted materials and to ensure that non-essential
chemicals or expired chemicals (especially potentially dangerous
peroxide formers) are removed from the chemical inventory and properly
managed.

Response:  We agree with the commenter that because college and
universities have sometimes allowed dangerous chemicals to accumulate in
laboratories without much use laboratory clean-outs will increase
protection of human health and the environment.  However, we believe
that the laboratory clean-out provisions are attractive enough to
eligible academic entities such that they will avail themselves of the
clean-out provisions without EPA forcing them to do so through a
mandate.

Nevertheless, we have incorporated the commenter’s suggestion
regarding potentially dangerous chemicals (such as peroxide formers)
into a new required element of the LMP.  Because of the threat some
chemicals may pose, the final rule requires that the seventh element of
Part II of the LMP includes a list of chemicals that the eligible
academic entity has or is likely to have that can degrade over time and
become more dangerous with age; the list of chemicals is intended to
facilitate the removal of these chemicals before a problem develops.
The third sub-element requires eligible academic entities to develop
procedures to dispose of these chemicals safely.

Comment: We heard from 12 commenters expressing opposition to required
lab clean-outs (Commenter Nos. 8, 11, 14, 25, 29, 54, 60, 76, 79, 81,
107, 108).  These commenters believe the proposed clean-out provisions
should be kept as flexible and performance-based as possible.  Four of
these commenters stated that there are many laboratories for which
regular removals under section 262.208 will sufficiently promote safe
laboratory chemical management and prevent accumulation of excessive
unwanted materials (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 54, 79).  The commenters
stated that the non-mandatory nature of the clean-out provision allows
individual institutions the flexibility to decide how to best minimize
the accumulation of unused and no longer needed chemicals based on such
factors as available storage space, laboratory worker turnover and class
schedules.  Another commenter stated that required clean-outs could
become a disincentive for laboratories to submit their waste in a timely
fashion as it is generated and instead hold waste until the next
required clean-out time (Commenter No. 14).  Another commenter stated
that performance-based protocols for clean-outs could be described in
section 262.214(a)(10) of the Laboratory Management Plan (Commenter No.
76). For academic laboratories, the commenter believes it would be most
appropriate for clean-outs to be based upon chemical inventory updates,
a change in activities or lab move, and/or routine health and safety
surveys of laboratories.  Two commenters stated that clean-outs should
not be required because they are need-driven (Commenter Nos. 8, 29).

Response:  We agree with the commenters that the laboratory clean-out
provisions should not be mandatory.  First, we believe that the
provisions are attractive enough to eligible academic entities such that
they will avail themselves of the clean-out provisions without EPA
forcing them to do so through a mandate.  Second, we do not want to add
requirements that may deter eligible academic entities from opting into
Subpart K.  Third, we believe that eligible academic entities should
have the flexibility to focus their resources on the laboratories that
are most in need of conducting laboratory clean-outs, rather than
mandating that all laboratories must conduct clean-outs regardless of
the volume or hazards of the chemicals in its laboratories.

In the final rule we have retained the requirement that an eligible
academic entity must describe in its LMP its best practices for
conducting and documenting laboratory clean-outs.  This element must be
addressed in Part II of the LMP.

13.0	Laboratory Management Plan

	13.1	General

Comment: We heard from 30 commenters expressing support for combining
performance-based standards with a requirement for a lab management plan
(LMP) (Commenter Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 20, 24, 25, 30, 44, 49, 51, 52,
53,  54, 60, 61, 71, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89, 95, 99 and
108).  These commenters support a performance-based approach and believe
the LMP will help colleges and universities to better achieve
environmental goals, such as regulatory compliance, pollution prevention
and environmental awareness.  One commenter suggested that EPA should
extend this approach to non-academic laboratories (Commenter No. 84).

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenters that the LMP will complement
the performance-based standards by providing a tool that requires
eligible academic entities to thoughtfully plan how they will implement
Subpart K in their laboratories.  We also believe that the LMP will help
eligible academic entities to better achieve environmental goals such as
regulatory compliance, pollution prevention and environmental awareness.
 This is why EPA has finalized Subpart K with a requirement that
eligible academic entities must develop an LMP containing nine required
elements that are meaningfully addressed.  While EPA believes that
non-academic laboratories would certainly benefit from developing LMPs,
we are not expanding the scope of the rule to allow non-academic
laboratories to opt into Subpart K because they do not fit all of the
rationale for today’s rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concern that the LMP
must be developed from scratch or by inclusion in another document
(Commenter No. 19).

Response:  While EPA understands the commenter’s concern, we believe
that we are providing flexibility to eligible academic entities
regarding the development of the LMP.  By allowing an eligible academic
entity to decide for itself whether to develop its LMP from scratch or
by integrating it with another planning documents, EPA is giving
eligible academic entities the ability to decide what is best for their
laboratories.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating its belief that, under the
performance-based approach, colleges and universities would be able to
include laboratories located on non-contiguous properties so that waste
could be brought to an accumulation area that may not be “on-site, but
that is under the same management system and personnel as the rest of
the campus (Commenter No. 10).

Response:  The commenter’s belief is incorrect.  Even though an
eligible academic entity may develop one LMP for non-continuous sites
(i.e. facilities that are off-site from one another), EPA has not
altered the RCRA hazardous waste manifest regulations (40 CFR 262.20).
The hazardous waste manifest regulations state that a generator who
transports or offers for transport a hazardous waste for off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal must manifest the hazardous waste to a
permitted facility.  Unless the non-contiguous sites the commenter is
referring to are permitted to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste, the generator cannot send hazardous waste there regardless of
whether they have an accumulation area.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating its intent to develop a
model LMP that offers a range of options to meet local needs (Commenter
No. 11).

Response:  EPA supports the commenter’s intent to develop a model LMP
and strongly encourages it.  We believe this is reduce the burden on
eligible academic entities and help provide a starting point for
entities developing LMPs.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concern that each lab
would be required to develop a performance-based waste management plan
that outlines how that lab will manage its hazardous waste under the new
Subpart K regulations (Commenter No. 48).  The commenter stated that the
plan would need to be updated as systems, experiments and generation
processes change and made available to inspectors upon request.
Laboratory staff would need to be re-trained in the waste management
plan.  The commenter was concerned that these provisions would require
redundant documentation when considering that all labs are already under
a regulatory mandate to have a chemical hygiene plan that contains
similar information.

Response:  The concern that each lab would be required to develop an LMP
is not the case at all.  Rather, EPA intended and finalized the rule so
that the eligible academic entity – a college or university, or
non-profit research institute or teaching hospital that is owned by or
has a formal written affiliation agreement with a college or university
– would create one LMP for all its laboratories that are operating
under Subpart K.  In addition, if an eligible academic entity has
multiple EPA Identification Numbers or sites, then it can develop one
LMP to cover operations for all laboratories at all sites operating
under the Subpart K requirements.  Further, we disagree with the
commenter that the provisions of the LMP are redundant with the chemical
hygiene plan.  As the proposal clearly explained, a college or
university (and now eligible academic entities) can take an existing
plan, such as the Chemical Hygiene Plan and revise it to include the
additional necessary information or procedures required by today’s
rule.  In addition, since the LMP is a document to plan how an eligible
academic entity will meet the performance-based standards of Subpart K,
EPA requires the LMP to be reviewed and updated, as needed, so that it
is current with the waste management practices at the eligible academic
entity’s laboratories.  Thus, the commenter is correct in that the LMP
would need to be updated as systems, waste management, or other
processes that are required provisions change.  And, the LMP is required
to be made available to anyone requesting the LMP at the eligible
academic entity again confirming the commenter’s statement.

Comment:  The following are suggested specific edits to the regulatory
text. Three commenters suggested that EPA revise section 262.214(a)(9)
to change “laboratory” to “laboratories” (Commenter Nos. 11, 25,
54).  The commenters stated that, for the purposes of the laboratory
management plan, a single emergency procedure is sufficient for all
laboratories at most colleges and universities.

Response:  EPA intends for an eligible academic entity to use its LMP
for all of the laboratories it owns once it has opted into Subpart K.
While we did not change the regulatory text from laboratory to
laboratories, the word laboratory in this part of the regulatory text is
used in the general sense to indicate the types of hazards that occur in
the laboratory.  In preceding regulatory language, it is made clear that
an eligible academic entity may write one Laboratory Management Plan for
all the laboratories owned by the eligible academic entity that have
opted in to this subpart, even if the laboratories are located at sites
with different EPA Identification Numbers.  Thus, changing the word
laboratory to laboratories in this instant would not clarify the
meaning.  Further, EPA provides flexibility for eligible academic
entities in Part II of the LMP which is where the emergency procedure
element is located.  This flexibility allows eligible academic entities
to decide what is right for their facilities, i.e. whether one emergency
procedure is sufficient for all their laboratories or whether they want
to establish various emergency procedures.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA should ensure that
college or university lab performance does not slip below existing
levels by requiring LQGs to have an adequate and active Environmental
Management Systems and an LMP that is an integral part of the EMS
(Commenter No. 82).

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter that Environmental Management
Systems can be useful tools in monitoring performance of laboratories
and increasing environmental management.  However, the EPA did not
propose this requirement and therefore it is beyond the scope of this
final rulemaking.

Comment: We heard from one commenter in regard to a potential benefit of
allowing colleges and universities to integrate the LMP into the
chemical hygiene plan (Commenter No. 99).  The commenter stated that one
way for the EPA to ensure the site is indeed a lab is to check its OSHA
hazard communication compliance. If the site uses a chemical hygiene
plan then it is a laboratory, if the site follows the hazard
communication standard then the site would, presumably, not be a
laboratory. By placing the requirements for the LMP in the chemical
hygiene plan, then the control processes are covered in one document.

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter that allowing the LMP to be
integrated into an existing plan such as the chemical hygiene plan
provides the eligible academic entity the ability to consolidate and
coordinate all its planning and implementation into one document.  In
addition by providing this option both in the proposal and final rule,
EPA has given eligible academic entities the flexibility to individually
determine the best way to meet the planning requirements of Subpart K.
While we do not require that the LMP be integrated with another plan, we
do believe integrating planning documents may potentially provide
additional benefits as suggested by this comment.  Finally, EPA
recognizes that if an eligible academic entity has a chemical hygiene
plan, then it would be a laboratory.  However, EPA does not plan to use
this as a verification method.  Subpart K defines the term laboratory
and any space that does not meet this definition cannot operate under
the requirements of Subpart K.

Comment: We heard from 12 commenters suggesting that a new section be
added to the LMP to address the timely characterization of unknown
material, among other things (Commenter Nos. 7, 11, 15, 25, 49, 54, 61,
69, 72, 86, 91, 100).  The following language was suggested for
inclusion at section 262.214(a)(10): “Develop procedures to safely
manage all laboratory materials, including: materials that become more
hazardous as they degrade, the timely characterization of unknowns,
materials that exceed their expiration dates, materials stored for
future use, surplus materials, and deciding that a material is
unwanted.”

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenters that this new section is
important in terms of emergency prevention and added some of the above
concepts to the emergency prevention element in the LMP.  Specifically,
EPA added three sub-elements to element 7 of Part II of the LMP, the
emergency prevention element.  The sub-elements we added to address the
above comment is for an eligible academic entity to describe its
intended best practices for emergency prevention, including (1) a list
of chemicals that the eligible academic entity has, or is likely to
have, that become more dangerous when they exceed their expiration date
and/or as they degrade, (2) procedures to safely dispose of chemicals
that become more dangerous when they exceed their expiration date and/or
as they degrade, and (3) procedures for the timely characterization of
unknown chemicals.  Thus, EPA appreciates this comment and has
incorporated the suggestion into Subpart K as these are challenges faced
in many laboratories in being prepared for emergencies.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that “expired
materials” is a subjective concept (Commenter No. 60).  The commenter
recommended that each college or university should define the procedure
for determining which materials are expired in its performance-based
Laboratory Management Plan.

Response:  EPA did address the concept of expired materials but in a
different way than the commenter suggested.  Comments above informed the
EPA that laboratories face issues with chemicals that expire and/or
become dangerous as they degrade.  A good example of this is picric
acid, which becomes explosive if it becomes dehydrated/crystallized.
Because of the threat some chemicals may pose, the final rule requires
that the seventh element of Part II of the LMP includes a list of
chemicals that the eligible academic entity has or is likely to have
that can degrade over time and become more dangerous with age; the list
of chemicals is intended to facilitate the removal of these chemicals
before a problem develops.  It is these expired dangerous chemicals in
particular that have caused enforcement issues in the past.  By creating
a list of these chemicals, EPA expects that eligible academic entities
may find the concept of expired chemicals, less “subjective”.

Comment: We heard from two commenters stating that EPA should include
procedures whereby RCRA-trained staff can create a one-time written
documentation that specific waste streams are not considered hazardous
waste (Commenter Nos. 7 and 61).

Response: The authority to determine which waste streams or materials
are considered hazardous waste is held at the federal level and the
state level in RCRA authorized states.  It would be unlawful for the EPA
to allow RCRA-trained staff at eligible academic entities to create
documentation determining certain waste streams are not hazardous
wastes.  If the commenter was implying that lists of typical
non-hazardous wastes be shared with faculty and students, EPA would find
this practice acceptable.  However, the generator continues to have the
responsibility under 40 CFR 262.11 to make a hazardous waste
determination.

Comment: We heard from eight commenters suggesting that college or
university LMPs should explain or define which of their labs are
participating under Subpart K (Commenter Nos. 10, 11, 25, 54, 62, 81,
102, 110, 112).  These commenters stated that there could be wide
interpretations by colleges and universities of which labs should be
covered under Subpart K, because of the many different situations in
which college or university labs operate (e.g., college or university
labs in which students, faculty and staff work in a laboratory
side-by-side with workers employed by the state or Federal government or
private research institutions), and colleges and universities should be
allowed to determine which of their labs may participate under Subpart K
and describe this in the LMP.

Response:  If multiple sites with separate EPA Identification Numbers
operate under one LMP, the LMP must identify which sites are covered by
the LMP.  However, there is no requirement to identify each laboratory
within each site, as all laboratories at a participating eligible
academic entity within that site or covered by an EPA Identification
Number must operate under Subpart K.  The reason for this is that EPA
believes it would difficult for an eligible academic entity to keep
track of which set of generator regulations apply to which laboratory or
group of laboratories.  Moreover, it would be extremely difficult, if
not impossible, for the States or Regions to keep track of the
applicable set of regulations if, within a single EPA Identification
Number, different laboratories were choosing to be regulated under
different requirements.  Thus, EPA continues to require that all
laboratories owned by the eligible academic entity within one EPA
Identification Number must comply with the same set of regulations.
Nevertheless, should an eligible academic entity choose to list all its
laboratories that are participating in Subpart K, it could be a valuable
tool to manage removals of unwanted material, as well as assist EPA and
State inspectors in determining compliance with the Subpart K
requirements.

Comment: We heard from two commenters that EPA should include a
requirement for EPA or authorized State to review and approve each LMP
(e.g., before it is implemented) (Commenter Nos. 44 and 102).  One of
the commenters stated that review of the LMP is needed to ensure that
the LMP includes all the necessary information for compliance with
Subpart K (Commenter No. 102).  The other commenter stated that the
RCRA-trained person’s qualifications should be reviewed as part of
this LMP review (Commenter No. 44).

Response:  EPA did not propose a requirement for the EPA or authorized
State to review and approve each LMP not for a RCRA-trained person’s
qualifications to be reviewed.  Thus these comments are beyond the scope
of this rulemaking

Comment: We heard from one commenter that a failure to meet the
performance standards of the Subpart K may indicate a deficiency in the
LMP or of its implementation.  The commenter believes that EPA should
amend the requirement of 262.24(c) to say the LMP must be reviewed and
revised necessary whenever it is discovered that the performance
standards are not being met (Commenter No. 24).

Response:  EPA thanks you for your comment.  However, we believe that
the performance-based standard of reviewing and revising the LMP when
necessary is sufficient to ensure that the LMP is kept current with the
hazardous waste management practices being used at the eligible academic
entity.  EPA anticipates that this standard as written will ensure that
the LMP will be revised should an eligible academic entity fail to meet
a standard and thus updates their practices.  We also expect that when
an EPA or state inspector visits an eligible academic entity that he/she
will review the LMP especially, Part I of the LMP.  Thus, EPA does not
agree that the commenter’s additional prescriptive standard is
necessary for it will not be more environmentally protective than the
standard as written.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that EPA amend the proposed
regulations to include the option that EPA has the right to deny any
college or university access to the Subpart K if EPA finds the
university or college is not meeting the intent of Subpart K and has a
history of non-compliance (Commenter No. 74).

Response:  EPA thanks you for your comment.  However, the commenter’s
option was not proposed and thus is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: We heard from one commenter recommending that EPA add to items
to the list of requirements for LMPs:  1) Executive Commitment - Clearly
call out the need for an institution to have an executive commitment and
for the clear communication of that commitment to everyone in the
institution; and 2) Pollution Prevention (Commenter No. 76)

Response:  EPA thanks you for your comment.  However, the commenter’s
option was not proposed and thus is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter stating that EPA should clarify if
CESQGs adopting the rule would need to develop a Lab Management Plan
(LMP) under section 262.213 (Commenter No. 10).

Response:  A CESQG site at an eligible academic entity or an eligible
academic entity that is itself a CESQG must opt into Subpart K in its
entirety and follow the management standards for unwanted materials in
the laboratories.  This would include the development of an LMP for
stand-alone CESQGs such as small colleges or universities.  However, if
a CESQG site is part of a larger eligible academic entity, then the
eligible academic entity can develop one LMP to cover operations for all
laboratories at all sites operating under the Subpart K requirements.
EPA intends that the eligible academic entity – a college or
university, or non-profit research institute or teaching hospital that
is owned by or has a formal written affiliation agreement with a college
or university – would create one LMP for all its laboratories that are
operating under Subpart K regardless of generator status.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute (HMMI) Consensus Best Practices 4, 5, 8, and 14 are
applicable to the clean-out process that colleges and universities will
describe in their LMP (Commenter No. 60).

Response:  In Part II of the LMP, there is a requirement to describe the
procedures for conducting and document laboratory clean-outs.  An
eligible academic entity is free to incorporate HHMI's consensus best
practices as part of this requirement.

Comment: We heard from one commenter recommending that EPA include an
additional requirement at section 262.214(a) for the LMP to address
pollution prevention and waste minimization methods (Commenter No. 74).
The commenter suggested the following language for the additional
requirement: “Examine their waste generation and waste management
practices with a particular eye toward finding opportunities for waste
minimization and pollution prevention.  Practices that should be
included in the LMP are the identification of opportunities to
redistribute and reuse unwanted materials throughout the institution.
Examples of waste minimization processes which would be appropriate for
laboratories at colleges and universities are the use of micro-scale
techniques for sample analysis and experimentation.”

Response:  Under the final rule, the LMP must be comprised of two parts
with a total of nine elements as specified in 40 CFR § 262.214.  The
specific contents in Part I of the LMP are enforceable, while the
specific contents in Part II of the LMP are not enforceable.  While
waste minimization and pollution prevention methods are not a required
element, the commenter is free to develop methods for Part II of its
LMP.  In fact, we envision Part II will comprise eligible academic
entities’ best management practices (BMPs) which could certainly
include waste minimization and pollution prevention practices

13.2	Enforceability of LMP

Comment: We heard from eight commenters that the LMP should be an
enforceable document (Commenter Nos. 40, 41, 51, 66, 74, 82, 99, and
105).  These commenters stated that an enforceable LMP would encourage
and hold colleges and universities accountable for developing and
implementing a responsible waste management approach, and facilitate
enforcement and compliance activities.  One of these commenters
suggested that the specific requirements of the rule be included in the
LMP and that it be enforceable (Commenter No. 66).

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenters’ reasoning about how an
enforceable LMP holds the eligible academic entity accountable.
Reviewing the Agency’s reasons for proposing the requirement for an
LMP, EPA wanted colleges and universities to give careful thought
regarding the management of unwanted materials and hazardous waste
generated in their laboratories.  Moreover, we wanted to encourage
colleges or universities to go above and beyond the regulations and to
think holistically about waste management on campus by planning and
developing best management practices (BMPs) in the LMP.  We continue to
believe strongly that the LMP is necessary in order to provide the
planning component for implementing the provisions of this rule.  Based
on our views regarding the purpose of the LMP and the comments we
received both above and below, we have decided to split the LMP into two
parts - with the contents of one part enforceable and the contents of
the other part not enforceable, although in order to be in compliance
with Subpart K, an eligible academic entity must reasonably address all
nine elements in its LMP.  As a way to incorporate more flexibility into
the regulations and give eligible academic entities more options, while
maintaining the accountability (as commenters suggested) in this
Subpart, the contents of Part I of the LMP are enforceable.  This part
of the LMP contains necessary information for inspectors and other
officials about what options within Subpart K the eligible academic
entity is exercising.  EPA believes that by designating the contents of
Part I of the LMP enforceable, we are achieving the positive comments
above such as encouraging a responsible waste management approach.

Comment: We heard from 30 commenters that the LMP should not be an
enforceable document (Commenter Nos. 2, 8, 11, 14, 15, 24, 25, 30, 31,
37, 47, 53, 54, 61, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78, 80, 81, 84, 87, 89, 92, 96, 100,
107, 108, 110, 114).  These commenters expressed concern that an
enforceable LMP is contrary to a performance-based approach, and would
exacerbate college or university lab performance (e.g., because college
or university labs would be compelled to develop minimum procedures),
discourage participation in Subpart K, and increase compliance problems.
 One of the commenters suggested that the performance standards need to
be written in the LMP so that not addressing the minimum amount of
activity required by the regulations to promote the protection of human
health and environment (e.g., frequency of disposal, training, labeling
containers, hazardous waste determinations, locations and removal
schedules etc.), as described in the LMP, would mean that the
performance standards have not been met (Commenter No. 114).  The
commenter believes that the LMP should only be used for enforcement if
the performance standards have not been met.  The commenter noted that
some LMPs may include more aggressive management procedures than
required in the rule.  The commenter stated that deviations from the LMP
that are not considered by state or Federal authorities to compromise
the integrity of the college or university’s hazardous materials
management program and are in compliance with the regulations as far as
addressing the required elements should not be considered violations
that warrant enforcement action.

Response:  EPA also agrees with the commenters’ reasoning about how an
enforceable LMP could inadvertently lead eligible academic entities to
develop weak LMPs in order to avoid compliance and enforcement issues.
Reviewing the Agency’s reasons for proposing the requirement for an
LMP, EPA wanted colleges and universities to give careful thought
regarding the management of unwanted materials and hazardous waste
generated in their laboratories.  Moreover, we wanted to encourage
colleges or universities to go above and beyond the regulations and to
think holistically about waste management on campus by planning and
developing best management practices (BMPs) in the LMP.  We continue to
believe strongly that the LMP is necessary in order to provide the
planning component for implementing the provisions of this rule.  Based
on our views regarding the purpose of the LMP and the comments we
received both above and below, we have decided to split the LMP into two
parts - with the contents of one part enforceable and the contents of
the other part not enforceable, although in order to be in compliance
with Subpart K, an eligible academic entity must address all nine
elements in its LMP.  EPA envisions that eligible academic entities will
use Part II of the LMP to capture BMPs for holistic waste management
within laboratories.  In order to encourage the development of BMPs, the
specific contents of Part II of the LMP are not enforceable, but the
eligible academic entity must reasonably address the seven required
elements.  By splitting the LMP, EPA anticipates that eligible academic
entities will go beyond the regulation and fully think through their
hazardous waste management practices.

Comment: We heard from one commenter indicating that there could some
uncertainty if the LMP is not enforceable (Commenter No. 44).  The
commenter noted several areas in the preamble that showed some
indecision as to different options being considered in implementing the
regulation.

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenter that some uncertainty could
exist if parts of the LMP are not enforceable.  This is why for the
final rule, we split the LMP into two parts - with the contents of one
part enforceable and the contents of the other part not enforceable.  As
a way to incorporate more flexibility into the regulations and give
eligible academic entities more options, while maintaining the
accountability in this Subpart, the contents of Part I of the LMP are
enforceable.  This part of the LMP contains necessary information for
inspectors and other officials about what options within Subpart K the
eligible academic entity is exercising.  In Part II of the LMP, EPA
envisions that eligible academic entities will use this section to
capture BMPs for holistic waste management within laboratories.  In
order to encourage the development of BMPs, the specific contents of
Part II of the LMP are not enforceable, but the eligible academic entity
must reasonably address the seven required elements.  Finally, the
preamble to the proposed rule explained and solicited comments on
various options the EPA was proposing and considering which may have
lead the commenter to misinterpret this as indecision.

13.3	Adding an Element to the LMP about Procedures for Unknowns

Comment: We heard from 18 commenters asking EPA to consider the
particular needs of colleges and universities in handling and
characterizing unknowns (i.e., an unknown is an unwanted laboratory
material for which information on its identity, properties and/or
heritage is insufficient to make a hazardous waste determination and/or
assign a waste code) (Commenter Nos. 7, 11, 15, 25, 49, 52, 54, 60, 61,
68, 69, 73, 76, 91, 100, 102, 107, 108).  Eleven of these commenters
asked EPA to include a new section in the LMP provisions for colleges
and universities to develop procedures to safely manage all laboratory
materials, including: materials that become more hazardous as they
degrade, the timely characterization of unknowns, materials that exceed
their expiration dates, materials stored for future use, surplus
materials, and deciding that a material is unwanted (Commenter Nos. 7,
11, 15, 25, 49, 54, 61, 69, 76, 91, 100).

Response:  EPA agrees with the commenters that this new section is
important in terms of emergency prevention and added some of the above
concepts to the emergency prevention element in the LMP.  Specifically,
EPA added three sub-elements to element 7 of Part II of the LMP, the
emergency prevention element.  The sub-elements we added to address the
above comment is for an eligible academic entity to describe its
intended best practices for emergency prevention, including (1) a list
of chemicals that the eligible academic entity has, or is likely to
have, that become more dangerous when they exceed their expiration date
and/or as they degrade, (2) procedures to safely dispose of chemicals
that become more dangerous when they exceed their expiration date and/or
as they degrade, and (3) procedures for the timely characterization of
unknown chemicals.  Thus, EPA appreciates this comment and has
incorporated the suggestion into Subpart K since many laboratories may
face these challenges in preparing for emergencies.

Comment: We heard from one commenter recommending that sampling and
interim storage pending analysis be allowed while still in the
laboratory (Commenter No. 107). The commenter reasoned that the
material/waste’s composition must be known before it can be moved to
the on-site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF in order to ensure
that the facility’s safety basis is not compromised.  In addition, the
commenter stated that some provision is needed for allowing extra time
(beyond the proposed 4-day limit) for assignment of waste codes and for
making waste determinations when wastes require sampling and analysis.
Given that a typical analytical laboratory turn around time is 28 days,
the commenter stated that the laboratory’s subject matter experts may
need 40 to 45 days to conduct the sampling, obtain results, and evaluate
the results.  In these cases, wastes could be labeled as “wastes (or
materials) pending analysis” or equivalent terms.  Similarly, the
commenter suggested that, if an unknown or poorly documented unwanted
material is found or is generated in a laboratory late in the 6-month
pick up cycle, it may not be fully characterized and suitable for
transfer to the on-site collection area with the other unwanted
materials.  Hence, provisions for management of laboratory
wastes/materials pending analysis in the laboratory, central
accumulation area or TSDF, is needed and increased flexibility in
scheduling pick ups is needed.

Response:  EPA has expanded the emergency prevention element of the
non-enforceable section (Part II) of the LMP to include the development
of procedures to characterize unknown unwanted materials in a timely
manner.  We anticipate that this element will allow eligible academic
entities to put into place procedures so that unknown unwanted materials
are identified quickly.  To further address the comment of additional
time necessary beyond the 4 days to add the HW codes, we have changed
the 4 day provision for the HW codes.  The eligible academic entity must
still initially determine whether the unwanted materials is hazardous
waste (rather than non-hazardous waste) and, if so, add the words
“hazardous waste” within 4 days of the arrival of unwanted materials
at an on-site central accumulation area or on-site TSDF.  But, the
specific hazardous waste codes may be added to the container’s
associated label before it is taken off-site allowing eligible academic
entities the additional time to determine the hazardous waste codes
while the container is safely stored.

Comment: We heard from one commenter encouraging EPA to consider use of
guidance or some form of regulatory action to enable disposal facilities
to handle experimental materials (i.e., materials for which sufficient
hazard data do not exist) in the same manner as “samples” (Commenter
No. 87).

Response:  We appreciate the comment about experimental materials;
however since we did not propose amendments to regulations for disposal
facilities, this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: We heard from one commenter offering language to account for
unwanted material that requires analysis to complete a waste
determination (Commenter No. 88).  The commenter suggested adding
language to the effect that “Unwanted material brought from a
laboratory to a central accumulation area for which there is not
sufficient information to make a waste determination and for which
analytical testing will be required, will be labeled in a manner to
indicate that analysis is pending and the waste determination must be
made prior to disposal within the applicable time limits for
accumulation.”

Response:  While we thank the commenter for his language suggestion, we
added a similar concept to Subpart K through another avenue.  To address
the comment of  additional time necessary to make the hazardous waste
determination, we have changed the 4 day provision for the HW codes.
The eligible academic entity must still make the initial hazardous waste
determination and add the words “hazardous waste” within 4 days of
the arrival of unwanted materials at an on-site central accumulation
area or on-site TSDF.  But, the hazardous waste codes may be added to
the container’s associated label before it is taken off-site allowing
eligible academic entities the additional time to determine the
hazardous waste codes while the container is safely stored.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that a problem associated with
unknowns is that they generally get labeled as "'most hazardous" simply
because they are not identified specifically (Commenter No. 1). The
commenter stated that the generator generally knows what the general
level of hazard of these materials, because of the nature of the work
done in his/her lab, but does not know specifically the type of waste.
The commenter stated that a “serious” category of unknowns is
"empty" steel lecture bottles (less than 5 pounds if liquefied) of gases
which have lost labels because of age; the disposal of these is very
onerous and needs some relief.

Response:  EPA thanks you for your comment.  However, this is out of the
scope of this rulemaking.

14.0	Recordkeeping Requirements

Comment: We heard from seven commenters in response to EPA’s request
for comment on the need for additional recordkeeping or reporting
(Commenter Nos. 7, 8, 11, 25, 54, 71, 81), stating that no additional
recordkeeping or reporting is needed.  Four commenters stated that the
required recordkeeping is more than sufficient for purposes of Subpart
K, in light of the existing recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 262.34
to which CAAs would also be subject (Commenters 11, 25, 54, 71).  One of
the commenters stated that the recordkeeping requirements should be as
performance-based as possible to ensure colleges and universities have
flexibility to tailor them to their operations (Commenter No. 81).
Refer to other sections of this document for comments on specific
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the rule.

Response:  We thank the commenters for their responses.  In general, we
agree with commenters that no additional recordkeeping or reporting,
beyond records for training and use of the RCRA Site ID form to notify,
is needed as a requirement under Subpart K. The only recordkeeping we
have added under the final rule is due to the expansion of scope of the
rule.  Specifically, an eligible academic entity that is not college or
university must maintain a copy of its formal written affiliation
agreements with a college or university.  We believe the
performance-based nature of Subpart K does not preclude eligible
academic entities from developing site-specific records as they deem
fit, provided the specific recordkeeping requirements of this rule are
met.

	14.1	Retention of Label Information

Comment: We heard from five commenters who said that records of
container maintenance or label information (e.g., accumulation and
removal dates) should not be retained because it would be burdensome and
unnecessary (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 54, 71, and 77).  Three of these
commenters stated their belief that a record of routine pickups and
pickup offers, which they have recommended, obviates the need to both
date containers and retain labels (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 54).  We heard
from one commenter that suggested that records regarding container
labels be kept to assure that proper treatment and disposal have been
accomplished for waste laboratory chemicals (Commenter No. 66).

Response:  We thank the commenters for their responses.  The information
on the label associated with containers, such as the accumulation start
date and information sufficient to make a hazardous waste determination,
was assumed to be either electronic, via spreadsheets and bar codes, or
written logs and in the proposed rule EPA considered requiring that this
information be retained on file as a record.  We agree with the
commenters and believe that other recordkeeping requirements
sufficiently document the information necessary for inspections of
laboratories at eligible academic entities.  Therefore, the final rule
does not require that records be kept for labeling information
associated with containers, beyond the time that a hazardous waste
determination is made for the contents.

	14.2	Training Records

Comment: We heard from ten commenters stating that colleges and
universities should be able to provide evidence of training, in lieu of
training records (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 31 54, 61, 68, 71, 73, 96,
100).  The commenters indicated that the proposed recordkeeping
requirements for training are too burdensome and that, as an
alternative, training can be evidenced (e.g., by staff knowledge based
on observed work practices, interviews, point-of-use training material
being posted at the work site, staff meeting minutes, or a formal
practice of reviewing waste disposal and management at the onset of each
laboratory learning exercise).  We heard from one commenter stating that
training records for RCRA trained persons or laboratory workers should
be maintained (Commenter No. 66).

Response:  We received comments advocating for both the required
retention of training records and the elimination of a requirement for
eligible academic entities to keep training records.  After careful
consideration, we continue to believe it is appropriate that eligible
academic entities that are LQGs under Subpart K retain the records for
training of laboratory workers in order to best demonstrate that the
individual received the necessary training.    The training records that
LQGs must retain for laboratory workers are the same kinds of records
that LQGs must retain for trained professionals under existing generator
regulations, so EPA does not believe that this requirement in Subpart K
is overly burdensome.  The rule provides flexibility in the types of
records or documentation sufficient to determine whether laboratory
workers have been trained.  Documentation demonstrating training can
include, but is not limited to, sign-in or attendance sheet(s) for
training session(s), syllabi for training session(s), certificate(s) of
completion, or test results.  However, EPA disagrees that merely a
posted sign or other non-documented source that does not directly
correspond to training received by the individual would be sufficient to
determine whether individual(s) have been trained

Comment: We heard from four commenters stating that the proposed
recordkeeping requirements should be deleted because they are more
burdensome than the existing requirements, which do not require
documented training for personnel at satellite accumulation areas
(Commenter No. 7, 8, 60, 77).  One of the commenters stated that a
better approach might be to allow the college or university to state in
the LMP how training goals are achieved, thereby allowing each entity
the flexibility to design an appropriate program for their institution
(Commenter No. 7).  Another commenter stated that colleges and
universities are not currently set up to identify, track and train all
lab workers (Commenter No. 8).  Another commenter stated that the number
of individual records at a college or university could be voluminous and
such wide-scale recordkeeping is not merited given the turnover among
those defined as "lab workers" (Commenter No. 77).  The commenter
believes it is sufficient to document that training programs are in
place and to develop a lab management plan that ensures that each worker
receives an appropriate level of training given their duties within the
lab.

Response:    The Agency recognizes that the satellite accumulation area
regulations do not require documented training for personnel. However,
we believe it is appropriate that eligible academic entities that are
LQGs retain the records for training of laboratory workers in order to
best demonstrate that the laboratory worker received the necessary
training.  Additionally, we do not believe the recordkeeping
requirements of this rule are overly burdensome as the Agency is not
requiring retention of training records for all laboratory workers.
Subpart K does not require SQGs to retain training records  for students
in the laboratory, laboratory workers, or trained professionals.  The
training records that LQGs must retain for laboratory workers are the
same kinds of records that LQGs must retain for trained professionals
under current generator regulations, so EPA does not believe that this
requirement in Subpart K is overly burdensome.  However, we agree with
commenters and believe it is important that Subpart K contain provisions
for an LMP that includes flexibility for a participating academic entity
to plan for and develop training programs.   Therefore, § 262.214
requires participating entities to describe in Part II of its Laboratory
Management Plan (LMP) their intended best practices for providing
training to students and laboratory workers commensurate with their
duties, and for ensuring safe transportation of unwanted materials and
hazardous wastes on-site by trained professionals.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that, instead of retaining
training records, each college or university should establish learning
goals in its LMP, as well as a method of measuring the effectiveness of
knowledge transference; in this way, the training will be tailored for
institutional needs, and results will be measurable (Commenter No. 68).

Response:  We thank the commenter for providing this alternative
suggestion.  The Agency believes that the requirement that LQGs retain
training records for trained professionals and laboratory workers in
conjunction with the LMP requirement to describe its intended best
practices for training students and laboratory workers is appropriate.
Additionally, we believe the blend of more traditional and
performance-based requirements of this rule provides eligible academic
entities the opportunities and flexibility to develop training programs
tailored to their institutional needs which may enhance development of
learning goals and effective measuring methods while assuring that the
requirements of this rule are met.

Comment: We heard from five commenters stating that the maintenance of
training records for RCRA-trained or laboratory workers at small
quantity generators is unnecessary (Commenter Nos. 8, 11, 25, 54, 81).
Four of the commenters stated that this is particularly true if evidence
of training or other more flexible approach is used instead (Commenter
Nos. 8, 11, 25, 54).

Response:  We agree with these commenters.  Therefore, Subpart K does
not require maintenance of training records for trained professions
(“RCRA-Trained in the proposal) or laboratory workers at SQGs.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that, assuming certain
small quantity generator universities will benefit from the regulatory
relief provided by Subpart K, it is reasonable to expect in exchange
that EPA include in its final rule a requirement that training records
for designated RCRA-trained individuals be developed and retained by
participating university laboratories (Commenter No. 53).

Response:  We thank the commenter for this comment.  The scope of the
final rule is expanded to include SGQs.  We received comments advocating
for the required retention of training records as well as comments
advocating for the elimination of this requirement.  After careful
consideration of all the related comments we believe that a trained
professional (RCRA-trained individual in the proposal) must be a
“trained professional” according to the definition in § 262.200,
which requires that the individual complete the applicable RCRA training
requirements of § 265.16 for LQGs, or § 262.34(d)(5)(iii) for SQGs and
CESQGs.   LQG training requirements require training records while SQG
requirements do not.  We believe that recordkeeping requirements under
current RCRA generator training requirements are appropriate under
Subpart K.  Therefore, the final rule does not require SGQs to retain
training records.

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that there should be a
written record in the LMP to show the student was actually in class to
receive the necessary instruction dealing with RCRA compliance and other
relevant health and safety issues (Commenter No. 84).

Response:  We thank the commenter for this suggestion.  Subpart K is a
performance-based approach to regulations.  The final rule requires that
training for laboratory workers and students must be commensurate with
their duties so they understand the requirements in this subpart and can
implement them.  While this rule does not preclude compliance with other
relevant requirements (e.g., OSHA) Subpart K does not require that a
student receive training in full RCRA compliance.  Additionally, under
this performance-based approach we do not believe it is necessary to
require a written record documenting student training.  Training for
students (as well as laboratory workers) must be in direct correlation
with their assigned duties and the level of involvement in unwanted
materials management.  For students this may be familiarization with
this rule in order to meet the requirements of proper unwanted materials
management (e.g., students in a supervised classroom setting should be
trained to place the products of experiments in the appropriate
containers of unwanted materials).  Given the student’s degree of
involvement with unwanted materials management we believe a requirement
to describe in an eligible academic entity’s LMP their intended best
practices for training students commensurate with their duties provides
sufficient documentation of planned training.

15.0	Enforcement and Compliance under Proposed Rule

Comment:  We heard from five commenters that performance-based
regulations are easier for colleges and universities to comply with and
for regulators to monitor and enforce (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 54, 60,
61).  One of these commenters stated that, in its experience, inspectors
with experience in conducting RCRA inspections should be able to quickly
gain an effective understanding of how the new rule is implemented on a
particular campus and evaluate conformance with core standards (e.g.,
labeling, training) articulated in the institution’s LMP (Commenter
No. 60).

Response:  EPA thanks the commenters for their support of Subpart K’s
performance- based standards.

Comment:  We heard from one commenter that the effect of inconsistent
application of the Subpart K rule is unclear (Commenter No. 12).  The
commenter stated, for example, that the compliance implications are
unclear if some faculty at the college or university follow Subpart
K/LMP while others do not (e.g., because they are unaware of it).  The
commenter wondered if this would invalidate the LMP and render everyone
following it to be in violation.

Response:  Eligible academic entities managing their laboratory
hazardous wastes under Subpart K must provide training for laboratory
workers and students, and training must provide sufficient information
so that laboratory workers and students can understand and implement the
requirements of Subpart K, commensurate with their duties.  Thus, staff,
faculty, EH&S staff should all be trained to be able to carry out their
duties under Subpart K.  Because of this provision, EPA does not believe
that Subpart K will have inconsistent application.  Further, all
laboratories owned by the eligible academic entity within one EPA
Identification Number must comply with the same set of regulations.  In
other words, the alternative approach can not be applied to only one or
a few laboratories within that EPA Identification Number, but rather
must apply to all laboratories or no laboratories.  Once an eligible
academic entity chooses to opt into Subpart K, the same hazardous waste
management requirements apply to all laboratories covered by the same
Site ID number leading to a consistent application of the Subpart K
requirements.

Comment: We heard from one commenter recommending that EPA and the
college and university sector establish a collaborative initiative to
develop guidance that will be helpful to colleges and universities who
have opted to comply with Subpart K and for  EPA and State regulators
who will have responsibility for inspecting for compliance with Subpart
K. (Commenter No. 60).  The commenter stated that experiences of
colleges and universities in developing the initial Laboratory
Management Plans will be a valuable source of information.  Another
commenter suggested that EPA engage in a new study of the appropriate
enforcement of performance-based standards, because the commenter
believes enforcement for this rule could be problematic (Commenter No.
92).

Response:  EPA plans to work closely with the Regions, States, and the
academic sector to assist the adoption and the implementation of Subpart
K.  We hope to visit Regions and invite states and eligible academic
entities in order to provide training on the rule.

Comment: We heard from one commenter noting that the performance-based
regulations are optional standards that may be viewed as less stringent
than the existing regulations (Commenter No. 65).  The commenter
expressed concern about the potential difficulty of ensuring compliance
with a college or university policy that is more stringent than the
underlying requirement.

Response:  EPA disagrees that Subpart K’s performance-based approach
for management of unwanted materials in the laboratory with a
requirement for the eligible academic entity to develop and implement an
LMP is less stringent than the existing regulations.  In fact, Subpart K
requires training of students commensurate with their duties unlike the
non-existent training requirements for student under the existing SAA
regulations. We believe that a performance-based approach will allow
eligible academic entities greater flexibility by allowing them to
tailor their laboratory waste management program with respect to
container labeling, container management, and training, while ensuring
the necessary environmental protection.  Inspectors will be able to
determine compliance with Subpart K at eligible academic entities.
Areas of the performance- based regulations that provide more
flexibility are countered by being included in the Part I of the LMP.
Part I of the LMP contains necessary information for inspectors and
other officials about what options within Subpart K the eligible
academic entity is exercising and the contents of Part I of the LMP are
enforceable.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that expressed concern that that
the rule could be seen as the new “baseline” for compliance
(Commenter No. 88).  The commenter stated that a college or university
that is operating under the existing RCRA regulations may be viewed as
out of compliance by regulators (Commenter No. 88).

Response:  EPA disagrees with the commenters concern.  The final rule
establishes a set of alternative generator regulations for laboratories
owned by eligible academic entities under a new Subpart K in 40 CFR part
262.  Eligible academic entities may choose to be subject to Subpart K
in lieu of the existing generator requirements for the management of the
hazardous waste generated in the laboratories that they own.  We
recognize that the details of hazardous waste management operations vary
widely among campuses and some eligible academic entities have developed
programs consistent with the existing generator regulations that have
proven to be successful.  Thus, these institutions may be reluctant to
change from the generator regulations under which they are currently
operating.  Therefore the final rule, like the proposal, remains an
optional, alternative set of requirements to the existing generator
regulations and eligible academic entities may continue to manage their
laboratory hazardous wastes under the current hazardous waste generator
regulations.  Eligible academic entities may choose according to which
set of generator regulations they will manage their laboratory hazardous
wastes.

16.0	Issues that are Outside the Purview of this Rulemaking

	16.1	Treatment in Labs

Comment: We heard from 18 commenters that EPA should clarify that
colleges and universities can conduct non-thermal treatment/hazard
reduction in their labs under Subpart K in order to minimize waste
and/or  risks to human health and the environment (Commenter Nos. 2, 7,
11, 16, 25, 39, 54, 64, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 85, 87, 91, 107, 109).
Eight of these commenters stated that EPA should further clarify that
non-thermal hazard reduction procedures on unwanted materials in Subpart
K laboratories do not constitute “treatment” in the regulatory
sense; do not require a RCRA hazardous waste permit; are not subject to
in-container treatment standards that require containers to be closed at
all times except when waste is	added or removed; and are not subject to
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) requirements, including LDR requirements
for recordkeeping, certification and preparing an analysis plan
(Commenter Nos. 7, 11, 25, 54, 75, 85, 91, 109).

Response:  In the proposal to Subpart K, the Agency did not specifically
identify a regulatory approach for the treatment of hazardous waste by
generators in laboratories.  Therefore, because the Agency did not
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add
any such provisions to the final rule.  While today’s final rule does
not specifically address the treatment of hazardous waste in
laboratories, it also does not change EPA’s interpretation of existing
regulations.

Comment: We heard from one commenters asking if it was EPA’s intent to
clarify treatment in labs under the rule (Commenter No. 114).

Response:  In the proposal to Subpart K, the Agency did not specifically
identify a regulatory approach for the treatment of hazardous waste by
generators in laboratories.  Therefore, because the Agency did not
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add
any such provisions to the final rule.  While today’s final rule does
not specifically address the treatment of hazardous waste in
laboratories, it also does not change EPA’s interpretation of existing
regulations.

Comment: We heard from one commenter recommending that the final rule
clarify that non-thermal risk reduction treatment of small amounts of
material resulting from laboratory experiments can be done as a
continuation of the lab experiment, since the material is not yet
“unwanted” (Commenter No. 39).

Response:  In the proposal to Subpart K, the Agency did not specifically
identify a regulatory approach for the treatment of hazardous waste by
generators in laboratories.  Therefore, because the Agency did not
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add
any such provisions to the final rule.  While today’s final rule does
not specifically address the treatment of hazardous waste in
laboratories, it also does not change EPA’s interpretation of existing
regulations.

Comment: We heard from one commenter asking EPA to clarify that
treatment by the generator may be conducted by the lab worker and not
just EH&S staff (Commenter No. 76).

Response:  In the proposal to Subpart K, the Agency did not specifically
identify a regulatory approach for the treatment of hazardous waste by
generators in laboratories.  Therefore, because the Agency did not
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add
any such provisions to the final rule.  While today’s final rule does
not specifically address the treatment of hazardous waste in
laboratories, it also does not change EPA’s interpretation of existing
regulations.

Comment: We heard from one commenter expressing concern that evaporating
solvents under laboratory hoods, as a method of hazardous waste
treatment or disposal, may still be done in some laboratories (Commenter
No. 45).  The commenter suggested that EPA clarify the specific
circumstances under which such evaporation would be allowed to take
place within the context of Subpart K.  The commenter also noted that
the preamble to the proposed rule stated that “generators who treat
hazardous waste on site to meet a treatment standard must prepare a
waste analysis plan if treatment occurs in units that do not require a
RCRA permit (see 40 CFR Part 262.34(a)(4) for LQGs, and 40 CFR Part
262.34(d)(4) for SQGs).”  The commenter stated that this is not true
when treatment occurs in wastewater treatment units or elementary
neutralization units, since the section 268.7(a)(5) requirement is only
for tanks and containers managed under section 262.34, and wastewater
treatment units and elementary neutralization units are not regulated
under section 262.34.

Response:  In the proposal to Subpart K, the Agency did not specifically
identify a regulatory approach for the treatment of hazardous waste by
generators in laboratories.  Therefore, because the Agency did not
provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this subject, it
is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add
any such provisions to the final rule.  While today’s final rule does
not specifically address the treatment of hazardous waste in
laboratories, it also does not change EPA’s interpretation of existing
regulations.

	16.2	One EPA ID Number per Campus

Comment: We heard from eight commenters regarding their concerns that
some contiguous sites have received multiple EPA identification (ID)
numbers, which can cause confusion, burden and inefficiency (Commenter
Nos. 7, 11, 25, 31, 37, 54 80, and 97).  These commenters encouraged EPA
to resolve this problem by allowing one ID number per contiguous campus
as part of the final Subpart K rule.

Response:  We did not specifically identify in the proposal to Subpart K
a regulatory approach for allowing one EPA Identification Number per
campus.  Therefore, because the Agency did not provide notice and an
opportunity for public comment on this subject, it is outside the scope
of this rulemaking and EPA does not intend to add any such provisions to
the final rule.

Eliminate Acutely Hazardous Waste

Comment: We heard from one commenter stating that EPA should eliminate
entirely the threat of generator status shifts caused by acute hazardous
waste  (Commenter No. 101). The commenter stated that generator status
does not indicate relative risk of a facility to the environment or
community.  The commenter stated that sorting generators into tiers by
status eliminates any risk differentiation. The commenter suggested an
alternative, i.e., generation intensity, where waste management programs
depend on normalizing waste generation with some measure of area (square
footage, property size, etc). The commenter believes this approach would
sort the chemical plants from the colleges in a meaningful way for
assessment of relative risk from hazardous waste generation.

Response:  We disagree with the commenter.  In fact, acutely hazardous
wastes are designated as acutely hazardous wastes because they pose a
risk to human health and the environment regardless of how they are
managed (see 45 FR 33106).  Furthermore, the commenter’s suggested
alternative would require a complete revision of the existing RCRA
regulations for hazardous waste listings, which is outside the scope of
this rulemaking.

Comment: We heard from three commenters noting that, under 40 CFR
261.5(e)(1) of the current regulations, generation of 1 kg of an acute
hazardous waste (P-listed) in a calendar month triggers large quantity
generator status, and asking for EPA to address this issue under Subpart
K (Commenter Nos. 11, 25, 31).  Two of the commenters stated that
commercial chemical products on the P-list are rarely found except in
laboratories; hence, laboratories disproportionately and unfairly bear
the burden of this threshold, especially since so many academic
laboratories are small quantity and conditionally exempt small quantity
generators (Commenter Nos. 11 and 25).  The commenters stated their
belief that the 1 kilogram threshold is arbitrary and unnecessarily
complex, and does not relate generator status to waste hazard in a
meaningful way.  All of the commenters urged EPA to waive the 1-kg
P-list large quantity generator threshold for Subpart K.

Response:  We disagree with the commenter.  In fact, acutely hazardous
wastes are designated as acutely hazardous wastes because they pose a
risk to human health and the environment regardless of how they are
managed (see 45 FR 33106) and therefore warrant a lower threshold for
triggering LQG status.  Furthermore, the commenter’s suggested
alternative would require a complete revision of the RCRA regulations
for hazardous waste listings, which is outside the scope of this
rulemaking.

Other Issues that are Outside the Purview of this Rulemaking

Comment: We heard from three commenters that discussed the benefits of
greater generator flexibility over their waste management (Commenter
Nos. 54, 64 and 87).  The commenters asked EPA to enable colleges and
universities to consolidate their offsite waste at a centralized
non-permitted location.  The commenters believe this would result in
greater environmental performance and increased college or university
participation rates under Subpart K.

Response:  We did not specifically identify in the proposal to Subpart K
a regulatory approach for allowing off-site consolidation at a
centralized non-permitted facility.  Therefore, because the Agency did
not provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on this
subject, it is outside the scope of this rulemaking and EPA does not
intend to add any such provisions to the final rule.

Comment:  We heard from six commenters that expressed concern about the
varying and potentially conflicting regulatory interpretations of
satellite accumulation areas (SAAs) (Commenter Nos. 5, 43, 46, 56, 87,
88):

One of the commenters stated its belief that the various interpretations
of SAAs and other accumulation areas (e.g., where wastes must be held
and the timeframes) are a source of problems for college or university
labs in managing their unwanted materials (Commenter No. 5).  The
commenter stated, for example, that some people believe that a bottle of
unused or partly used acetone that is no longer wanted but not beyond
its expiration date is an unwanted material and cannot be sent to
another location for redistribution.  The commenter stated it belief
that this is an incorrect interpretation, because such material can be
sent back to the manufacturer without regulatory intervention.  The
commenter stated that the person responsible for making a hazardous
waste determination needs to see the entire picture (e.g., site-wide),
not simply the perspective of a single lab at the site.

Another commenter noted that the preamble refers to labs as “SAAs”