[Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 99)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29711-29752]
[DOCID:fr23my06-16]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 261 and 262

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261 and 262

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA 2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012, by one of the
following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012.
     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID.
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012.
     Mail: Send comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA Docket Center
Mailcode: 5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments to: Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
 Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your

e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets/htm. For additional

instructions for submitting comment, comment go to section B of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the at the OSWER

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1774, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-
0270. Copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact EPA's
Web site at http://www. epa.gov/ epaoswer/osw/ comments. htm. For

general information regarding lab wastes for educational institutions,
contact http://www. epa.gov/ epaoswer/osw/specials/ labwaste/index.

html. For further information regarding specific aspects of this
notice, contact Patricia Mercer, Hazardous Waste Identification
Division, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule

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

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

B. What To Consider When Preparing Comments for EPA

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark part of all of the

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

                                                                    List of Acronyms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Preamble Outline

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

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

I. Statutory Authority

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

II. Background

A. Intent of Today's Proposed Rule

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

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

http://www.campusEMS.org/.

B. History

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

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

C. Agency's College and University Initiatives

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

    Three of these efforts focus specifically on reducing waste. First,
there is an Agency partnership, called WasteWise, which is a voluntary
program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal and solid
waste, improving economic and environmental sustainability. The
WasteWise program is supporting RecycleMania, an intercollegiate
competition involving colleges and universities across the U.S. in an
annual recycling competition. The goal of the competition is to
increase student awareness of campus recycling. Founded in 2001 by two
of EPA's WasteWise partners, the number of competing schools increased
from 2 in 2001 to 47 in 2005. The total pounds recycled per student
across all participating schools increased from 74 pounds in 2001 to
1,117 pounds in 2005.
    Second, in 2002, EPA funded Chemical Management Services (CMS)
pilots at two universities--the University of New Hampshire and
Dartmouth College. CMS, which has been used successfully in the
automotive, microelectronic and aerospace industries, restructures the
relationship between buyers of chemicals and their suppliers. Chemical
suppliers and waste service providers bring their expertise directly to
the college or university to help manage chemicals and waste streams,
allowing the colleges and universities to focus on their core
function--education. More information about the results of the pilots
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/pdfs/cms-broch.pdf
.

    Third, is EPA's Green Chemistry Program. Green Chemistry, a proven
pollution prevention approach toward environmentally sustainable
manufacturing, is the design of chemical products and processes that
reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. To
promote this goal, EPA's Green Chemistry Program supports a variety of
educational and research efforts in which colleges and universities
have participated. One element of EPA's Green Chemistry Program is the
development of curricular materials and experiments that incorporate
the principles of green chemistry. These materials are primarily aimed
at undergraduate and graduate chemistry students. Another element of
EPA's Green Chemistry program is awarding grants for research that
advances the development and use of innovative technologies and
approaches directed at avoiding or minimizing the use or generation of
hazardous substances. A third element is the Presidential Green
Chemistry Challenge Awards Program, which provides national recognition
of outstanding chemical technologies that incorporate the principles of
green chemistry into chemical design, manufacture, and use. To learn
more about EPA's Green Chemistry Program, visit: http://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/index.html
.

    In 2003, EPA launched another award program: the P3 Award--A
Student Design Competition for Sustainability. P3 focuses on the three
components of sustainability: People, prosperity and the planet. Only
colleges and universities are eligible to participate in this annual
competition. The competition has two phases. Initially, student teams
compete for $10,000 grants to use for researching and developing their
design projects. The P3 award, which includes additional funding of up
to $75,000, is given to the highest-rated student designs, which gives
the students the opportunity to further develop their designs for
sustainability, implement their projects in the field, and move them to
the marketplace. One of the 2005 P3 winners was designing and
developing solar ovens to be mass-produced at low cost, for use in the
developing world. To learn more about EPA's P3 Awards, visit: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/p3/index.html
.

    There are two efforts within EPA that focus specifically on
laboratories. First, in 2003, EPA awarded a cooperative agreement to
Iowa State University to develop a website, called Labs Achieving
Better Stewardship (LABS) Central, which is a web-based clearinghouse
of information of interest to laboratories, at colleges and
universities and elsewhere, dedicated to the pursuit of enhanced
environmental performance. This site brings together existing
information about innovative approaches to waste management and
resource conservation that may be helpful to laboratories interested in
regulatory compliance and environmental stewardship. LABS Central
guides visitors to web-based information about regulatory compliance,
environmental performance, advanced waste management techniques and
waste reduction. LABS Central can be found at: http://www.labscentral.info
.

    Second, the Agency's Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21)
Partnership Program encourages the development of sustainable, high-
performance, and low-energy consumption laboratories. Labs21 is a
voluntary program whose partners set goals to reduce energy and water
use and take a ``whole-building'' approach to laboratory design or
retrofitting. Labs21 partners are demonstrating that a holistic
approach to laboratory design can result in higher efficiencies, cost
savings, reduced emissions, and improved health and safety conditions.
Currently 16 of 23 private sector partners in Labs21 are colleges and
universities. To learn more about Labs21, visit http://www.labs21century.gov
.

    ENERGY STAR is another program that is demonstrating that better
energy management, in this case across a college or university campus,
can yield cost savings. Colleges and universities spend close to $2
billion each year on energy. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary EPA program
that gives institutions the power to reduce the pollution that causes
global warming, while enhancing their financial value. EPA's ENERGY
STAR program encourages colleges and universities to become ENERGY STAR
partners and adopt a strategic approach to energy management that can
lower energy bills by 30% or more. By partnering with ENERGY STAR, an
organization demonstrates environmental leadership, improves its energy
efficiency, saves money, and receives recognition. ENERGY STAR is a
proven energy management strategy to distinguish an institution as an
environmental leader and save money for repair and renovation, hiring
of new faculty, new construction, and other core activities. To learn
more about ENERGY STAR or becoming an ENERGY STAR partner, visit:
http://www.energystar.gov /index.cfm?c=higher--ed. bus--

highereducation.
    Recognizing that universities have a significant impact on the
built and natural environment, EPA continues to pursue a series of
projects that promote smart growth implementation to achieve increased
viability of the campus and the surrounding neighborhood in an
environmentally sustainable manner. These activities include: Co-
hosting the 1st Annual Smart and Sustainable Campuses Conference at the
University of Maryland in November 2005, funding the publication of
``Partnerships for Smart Growth: University-Community Collaboration for
Better Public Spaces,'' compiling a list of smart growth course
prospectuses, developing a list of resources of best practices and
contacts at universities, providing input on the P3 project and
providing information and tools to the public. To learn more about
EPA's Smart Growth Program, visit: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.

    Finally, EPA has sponsored partnerships with industry, academic
institutions, environmental groups, and

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

D. Overview of College and University Laboratory Operations

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

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

colleges and universities that have an art program, and the list of
U.S. universities and list of community colleges developed by the
University of Texas (available at: http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/)

was used to identify small quantity generator sites. These data sources
provided the most recent and reliable data available to the agency for
finalizing this proposed rule.
b. Summary of College and University Hazardous Waste Generation
Activities \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d. Applicability of Today's Proposal to Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generators (CESQGs)
    Conditionally exempt small quantity generators are generators of
hazardous waste that generate less than 100 kg/month of hazardous waste
and less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste/month. Although, like all
generators of hazardous wastes, CESQGs are required to make a hazardous
waste

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

III. Overview of Today's Proposal

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

IV. Detailed Discussion of Today's Proposed Rule

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

A. Discussion of Proposed Definitions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Specific Requirements Under the Alternative Regulations

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

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