July 27, 1999 federal register40696 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 1999/Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 262 [FRL–6408–4] Project

fede

ral r

egiste

r

40695

TuesdayJuly 27, 1999

Part VI

EnvironmentalProtection Agency40 CFR Part 262Project XL Site-Specific Rulemaking forUniversity Laboratories at the Universityof Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA;the Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA;and the University of Vermont,Burlington, VT; Proposed Rule

VerDate 18-JUN-99 13:36 Jul 26, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27JYP3.XXX pfrm03 PsN: 27JYP3

40696 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 1999 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 262

[FRL–6408–4]

Project XL Site-Specific Rulemakingfor University Laboratories at theUniversity of Massachusetts Boston,Boston, MA; the Boston College,Chestnut Hill, MA; and the Universityof Vermont, Burlington, VT

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed rule; request forcomments and draft final projectagreement.

SUMMARY: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) today is proposing thisrule to implement a project under theProject XL program that would provideregulatory flexibility under the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),as amended for the University ofMassachusetts-Boston, Boston, MA,Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA andthe University of Vermont, Burlington,VT (the Universities). The principalobjective of this Laboratory XL Project isto pilot a flexible, performance-basedsystem for managing laboratory waste.To achieve this, today’s proposed rulewould provide regulatory flexibility toallow the participating laboratories atthe Universities to replace existingrequirements for hazardous wastegenerators with a comprehensiveLaboratory Environmental ManagementPlan designed for each University. Theterms of the overall XL project arecontained in the draft Final ProjectAgreement (FPA) on which EPA is alsorequesting comments. The draft FinalProject Agreement (FPA) is available forpublic review and comment at the EPADocket in Washington DC, in the EPARegion I library, at the Universities, andon the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/. Following areview of the public comments andappropriate changes, the FPA would besigned by delegates from the EPA, theMassachusetts Department ofEnvironmental Protection (MADEP), theVermont Department of EnvironmentalConservation (VTDEC) and theUniversities.DATES: Public Comments: Comments onthe proposed rule and/or FPA must bereceived on or before August 26, 1999.All comments should be submitted inwriting to the address listed below.

Public Hearing: Commenters mayrequest a public hearing by August 10,1999 during the public comment period.Commenters requesting a public hearing

should specify the basis for theirrequest. If EPA determines that there issufficient reason to hold a publichearing, it will do so by August 17,1999, during the last week of the publiccomment period. Requests for a publichearing should be submitted to theaddress below. If a public hearing isscheduled, the date, time, and locationwill be available through a FederalRegister notice or by contacting Ms.Gina Snyder or Mr. George Frantz at theRegion 1 office.ADDRESSES: Request to Speak atHearing: Requests for a hearing shouldbe mailed to the RCRA InformationCenter Docket Clerk (5305G), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.Please send an original and two copiesof all comments, and refer to DocketNumber F–1999–NEUP–FFFFF. A copyshould also be sent to Ms. Gina Snyderat U.S. EPA Region I. Ms. Gina Snydermay be contacted at the followingaddress: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Region I (SPE), 1 Congress St.,Suite 1100, Boston, MA, 02114, (617)918–1837.

Comments: Written comments shouldbe mailed to the RCRA InformationCenter Docket Clerk (5305W), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.Please send an original and two copiesof all comments, and refer to DocketNumber F–1999–NEUP–FFFFF.

Viewing Project Materials: A docketcontaining the proposed rule, draft FinalProject Agreement, supportingmaterials, and public comments isavailable for public inspection andcopying at the RCRA Information Center(RIC), located at Crystal Gateway, 1235Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor,Arlington, Virginia. The RIC is openfrom 9:00 am to 4:00 pm Mondaythrough Friday, excluding federalholidays. The public is encouraged tophone in advance to review docketmaterials. Appointments can bescheduled by phoning the Docket Officeat (703) 603–9230. Refer to RCRA docketnumber F–1999–NEUP–FFFFF. Thepublic may copy a maximum of 100pages from any regulatory docket at nocharge. Additional copies cost 15 centsper page. Project materials are alsoavailable for review for today’s actionon the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

A duplicate copy of the docket isavailable for inspection and copying atU.S. EPA, Region I, 1 Congress Street,Suite 1100 (LIB), Boston, MA 02114–2023 during normal business hours.Persons wishing to view the duplicatedocket at the Boston location are

encouraged to contact Ms. Gina Snyderor Mr. George Frantz in advance, bytelephoning (617) 918–1837 or (617)918–1883.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.Gina Snyder or Mr. George Frantz, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Region I (SPE), Assistance and PollutionPrevention Division, 1 Congress Street,Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.Ms. Snyder can be reached at (617) 918–1837 and Mr. Frantz can be reached at(617) 918–1883. Further information ontoday’s action may also be obtained onthe world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thedevelopment and implementation of anEnvironmental Management Plan wouldbe piloted at these three Universities intheir laboratories at areas that arecurrently managed as satelliteaccumulation areas (see 40 CFR262.34(c)). Hazardous waste managed atall other areas of each University wouldcontinue to be subject to current RCRAregulations. This pilot is intended to testthe effectiveness of an integrated,flexible, performance-based approachfor managing hazardous waste inuniversity laboratories to determinewhether this approach promotes bettermanagement of laboratory wastes thanthe current standards.

In an effort to more efficiently managehazardous waste and minimize thevolume of waste generated in theuniversity laboratory setting, theproposed rule would provide for a‘‘temporary conditional deferral’’ fromtwo specific RCRA requirements thatapply to generators of hazardous waste,40 CFR 262.11—Hazardous WasteDetermination, and 262.34(c)—SatelliteAccumulation, which includesrequirements for container management.Instead, laboratory waste would bemanaged in accordance with aLaboratory Environmental ManagementPlan until it reaches each University’son-site hazardous waste accumulationarea where a determination would bemade by Environmental Health andSafety personnel as to whether thewaste can be redistributed and reused atthe University or whether it must bemanaged as a RCRA hazardous waste.The proposed rule would definelaboratory waste as a hazardouschemical that results from laboratoryscale activities and includes thefollowing: excess or unused hazardouschemicals that may or may not bereused outside their laboratory of origin;hazardous chemicals determined to beRCRA hazardous waste as defined in 40CFR part 261; and hazardous chemicalsthat will be determined not to be RCRA


40697Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 1999 / Proposed Rules

hazardous waste pursuant to the newproposed rule at 40 CFR 262.106.Making a solid and hazardous wastedetermination at a central locationwould allow professionals within theUniversities’ Environmental, Health andSafety program to more easily managethe laboratory waste and to increasereuse opportunities.

The deferral of specified RCRArequirements is ‘‘temporary.’’ It remainsin effect only for the four-year term ofthis Laboratory XL project. The four-year term is based upon the date ofpromulgation of the final rule when theUniversities will commence thedevelopment of their LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plans(EMP). Following review of its EMP,each University would notify theapplicable state agency and EPA inwriting of the date on which it intendsto implement its EMP. The proposedrule would become effective in thedesignated participating laboratoriesonly after such written notification.Section III.D.2. and IV.F.1. discuss theaspects of state implementation of theproposed rule.

The deferral of the specified RCRArequirements is also ‘‘conditional.’’ It isconditioned upon each University’simplementation and compliance withthe Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard set forth in 40CFR part 262, subpart J of this proposedrule. The Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard includes specificrequirements for the management oflaboratory waste that ensure protectionof human health and the environmentwhile providing some flexibility toencourage chemical reuse and wasteminimization. These requirements aretermed Minimum Performance Criteria.They are enforceable in the same way ascurrent RCRA standards are enforceableto ensure that handling of laboratorywaste would be protective of humanhealth and the environment. During thisXL project, the proposed requirementsset forth in the proposed Subpart J(including the EnvironmentalManagement Plan requirements) wouldalso be enforceable under RCRA section3008.

The Environmental ManagementStandard (EMS) in subpart J containsrequirements for each University tocreate and implement an EnvironmentalManagement Plan (EMP) to cover all ofits participating laboratories. Theelements of the EMP in the proposedrule are expected to function as anoutline of the procedures that must bein place to manage laboratory waste inorder to both minimize the amount ofwaste generated, while allowing for themaximum reuse of the waste that is

generated. Although the EMP mustdescribe how each laboratory willcomply with the specific MinimumPerformance Criteria, the MinimumPerformance Criteria are requirementsthat stand on their own. The proposeddeferral of the hazardous wastedetermination is conditioned oncompliance with all of the requirementsof the EMS, including the MinimumPerformance Criteria. These criteriaensure that the handling of laboratorywaste would be protective of humanhealth and the environment byestablishing how laboratory wastewould be managed within thelaboratory, and in transit to the on-sitehazardous waste accumulation area foreach University.

EPA has agreed to allow theUniversities to undertake this XL projectwith the requested regulatory flexibilityto determine if the proposedperformance-based EnvironmentalManagement Plan approach wouldresult in superior environmentalperformance and significant cost savingsto the universities.

Today’s proposed rulemaking, and thestate actions described in section IV.F.1.of this preamble that parallel today’saction, will not in any way affect theprovisions or applicability of any otherexisting or future regulations.

EPA is soliciting comments on thisrulemaking. EPA will publish responsesto comments in a subsequent final rule.The XL Project will enter theimplementation phase when, inaddition to promulgation of the finalrule, all signatories to the XL Projectsign the Final Project Agreement.Implementation of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan(s) will occur after theindividual EMPs have been developedby each university, and reviewed byEPA and the appropriate State agency toensure adherence to the EnvironmentalManagement Standard, prior tocommencement of the new system.

Outline of Today’s DocumentThe information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:I. AuthorityII. Overview of Project XLIII. Overview of the University Laboratory XL

Project PilotA. To What Laboratories Would the

Proposed Rule Apply?B. What Problems Have the University

Laboratories Identified?C. What Solutions Are Proposed by the

University Laboratory XL Project?1. A New Integrated Performance-Based

System2. Laboratory Environmental Management

Standard (EMS)3. Laboratory Environmental Management

Plan (EMP)

4. Minimum Performance Criteria5. How the New System Would Work6. Comparison of the Minimum

Performance Criteria with Current RCRARegulations

7. Comparison of the Proposed Rule withCurrent OSHA and RCRA RegulatoryRequirements

8. How the Laboratory XL Project WillResult in Superior EnvironmentalPerformance

D. What Regulatory Changes will beNecessary to Implement this Project?

1. Federal Regulatory Changes2. State Regulatory ChangesE. Why is EPA Supporting this New

Approach to Laboratory WasteManagement?

F. How Have Various Stakeholders BeenInvolved in this Project?

G. How Will this Project Result in CostSavings and Paperwork Reduction?

H. How Will EPA Ensure the Integrity andComprehensiveness of Each University’sLaboratory Environmental ManagementPlan?

I. How Will the Terms of the Laboratory XLProject and Proposed Rule be Enforced?

J. How Long Will this Project Last andWhen Will it be Complete?

IV. Additional InformationA. How to Request a Public HearingB. How Does this Rule Comply With

Executive Order 12866?C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Required?D. Is an Information Collection Request

Required for this Project Under thePaperwork Reduction Act?

E. Does This Project Trigger theRequirements of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act?

F. RCRA & Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments of 1984

1. Applicability of Rules in AuthorizedStates

2. Effect on Massachusetts and VermontAuthorization

G. How Does this Rule Comply withExecutive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks?

H. Does this Rule Comply with ExecutiveOrder 12875: EnhancingIntergovernmental Partnerships?

I. How Does this Rule Comply withExecutive Order 13084: Consultation andCoordination with Indian TribalGovernments?

J. Does this Rule Comply with the NationalTechnology Transfer and AdvancementAct?

I. Authority

EPA is publishing this proposedregulation under the authority ofsections 2002, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3006,3010, and 7004 of the Solid WasteDisposal Act of 1970, as amended by theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921,6922, 6923, 6926, 6930, 6937, 6938, and6974).



II. Overview of Project XLThe draft FPA sets forth the intentions

of EPA and the Universities with regardto a project developed under Project XL,an EPA initiative to allow regulatedentities to achieve better environmentalresults at less cost. The proposedregulation would facilitateimplementation of the project. ProjectXL—‘‘eXcellence and Leadership’’—wasannounced on March 16, 1995, as acentral part of the National PerformanceReview and the EPA’s effort to reinventenvironmental protection. See 60 FR27282 (May 23, 1995). Project XLprovides a limited number of privateand public regulated entities anopportunity to develop their own pilotprojects to provide regulatory flexibilitythat will result in environmentalprotection that is superior to whatwould be achieved through compliancewith current and reasonably anticipatedfuture regulations. These efforts arecrucial to EPA’s ability to test newstrategies that reduce regulatory burdenand promote economic growth whileachieving better environmental andpublic health protection. EPA intends toevaluate the results of this and otherProject XL projects to determine whichspecific elements of the project(s), ifany, should be more broadly applied toother regulated entities for the benefit ofboth the economy and the environment.

Under Project XL, participants in fourcategories—facilities, industry sectors,governmental agencies andcommunities—are offered the flexibilityto develop common sense, cost-effectivestrategies that will replace or modifyspecific regulatory requirements, on thecondition that they produce anddemonstrate superior environmentalperformance.

The XL program is intended to allowEPA to experiment with potentiallypromising regulatory approaches, bothto assess whether they provide benefitsat the specific facility affected, andwhether they should be considered forwider application. Such pilot projectsallow EPA to proceed more quickly thanwould be possible when undertakingchanges on a nationwide basis. As partof this experimentation, the EPA maytry out approaches or legalinterpretations that depart from or areeven inconsistent with longstandingAgency practice, so long as thoseinterpretations are within the broadrange of discretion enjoyed by theAgency in interpreting statutes that itimplements. The EPA may also modifyrules, on a site-specific basis, thatrepresent one of several possible policyapproaches within a more generalstatutory directive, so long as the

alternative being used is permissibleunder the statute.

Adoption of such alternativeapproaches or interpretations in thecontext of a given XL project does not,however, signal EPA’s willingness toadopt that interpretation as a generalmatter, or even in the context of otherXL projects. It would be inconsistentwith the forward-looking nature of thesepilot projects to adopt such innovativeapproaches prematurely on awidespread basis without firstdetermining whether or not they areviable in practice and successful in theparticular projects that embody them.Furthermore, as EPA indicated inannouncing the XL program, EPAexpects to adopt only a limited numberof carefully selected projects. Thesepilot projects are not intended to be ameans for piecemeal revision of entireprograms. Depending on the results inthese projects, EPA may or may not bewilling to consider adopting thealternative interpretation again, eithergenerally or for other specific facilities.

EPA believes that adopting alternativepolicy approaches and interpretations,on a limited, site-specific basis and inconnection with a carefully selectedpilot project, is consistent with theexpectations of Congress about EPA’srole in implementing the environmentalstatutes (provided that the Agency actswithin the discretion allowed by thestatute). Congress’ recognition that thereis a need for experimentation andresearch, as well as ongoing re-evaluation of environmental programs,is reflected in a variety of statutoryprovisions, such as section 8001 ofRCRA.

XL CriteriaTo participate in Project XL,

applicants must develop alternativepollution reduction strategies pursuantto eight criteria: superior environmentalperformance; cost savings andpaperwork reduction; local stakeholderinvolvement and support; test of aninnovative strategy; transferability;feasibility; identification of monitoring,reporting and evaluation methods; andavoidance of shifting risk burden. Theymust have full support of affectedFederal, state and tribal agencies to beselected.

For more information about the XLcriteria, readers should refer to the twodescriptive documents published in theFederal Register (60 FR 27282, May 23,1995 and 62 FR 19872, April 23, 1997),and the December 1, 1995 ‘‘Principlesfor Development of Project XL FinalProject Agreements’’ document. Forfurther discussion as to how theUniversity Laboratories XL project

addresses the XL criteria, readers shouldrefer to the Final Project Agreementavailable from the EPA RCRA docket orRegion 1 library for this action (seeADDRESSES section of today’s preamble).

XL Program PhasesThe Project XL program is

compartmentalized into four basicphases: the initial pre-proposal phasewhere the project sponsor comes upwith an innovative concept that theywould like to consider as an XL pilot,the second phase where the projectsponsor works with EPA and interestedstakeholders in developing an XLproposal, the third phase where EPA,local regulatory agencies, and otherinterested stakeholders review the XLproposal, the fourth phase where theproject sponsor works with EPA, localregulatory agencies, and interestedstakeholders in developing a FinalProject Agreement and legalmechanism. After promulgation of thefinal rule (or other legal mechanism) forthe XL pilot, and after the Final ProjectAgreement has been signed by alldesignated parties, the XL pilotproceeds into the implementation phaseand evaluation phase.

Final Project AgreementThe Final Project Agreement (FPA) is

a written agreement between the projectsponsor and regulatory agencies. TheFPA contains a detailed description ofthe proposed pilot project. It addressesthe eight Project XL criteria, and theexpectation of the Agency that this XLproject will meet those criteria. TheFinal Project Agreement identifiesperformance goals and indicators(monitoring schedule) which willenable the laboratories to clearlyillustrate the baseline quantities. Thedraft FPA specifically addresses themanner in which the project is expectedto produce superior environmentalbenefits. The FPA also discusses theadministration of the agreement,including dispute resolution andtermination. The Final ProjectAgreement is available for review in thedocket for today’s action, and also isavailable on the world wide web athttp://www.epa.gov/projectxl/.

III. Overview of the UniversityLaboratories XL Project

EPA is today requesting comments onthe draft FPA and proposed rule toimplement key provisions of this ProjectXL initiative. Today’s proposed rulewould facilitate implementation of thedraft FPA (the document that embodiesEPA’s intent to implement this project)that has been developed by EPA,Massachusetts Department of



Environmental Protection (MADEP),Vermont Department of EnvironmentalConservation (VTDEC), the Universities,and other stakeholders. After commentson the draft FPA have been considered,EPA, MADEP, VTDEC, and the threeUniversities expect to sign a final FPA.Today’s proposed rule would not beeffective in Massachusetts and Vermontuntil those states have made conformingchanges.

A. To What Laboratories Would theProposed Rule Apply?

The Proposed Rule would apply onlyto participating laboratories at thefollowing three Universities:

• University of Massachusetts Boston,Boston, MA

• Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA• University of Vermont, Burlington,

VTBoston College is classified as a Small

Quantity Generator (SQG). TheUniversity of Massachusetts Boston andthe University of Vermont are classifiedas Large Quantity Generators (LQG). TheUniversity of Massachusetts Boston isan LQG solely as a generator of acutewastes in excess of the one kilogram permonth threshold. Additionally, theUniversity of Vermont operates a part Bpermitted facility for the storage ofhazardous wastes. Participatinglaboratories at all the Universities

currently generate and managehazardous waste and the Universitiesfully expect that some of the laboratorywastes that would be generated andmanaged under the EnvironmentalManagement Plans would meet thedefinition of a RCRA hazardous waste.

The University laboratories thatwould be affected by this project areused for research and teachingpurposes. A breakdown of theindividual Universities’ laboratories isshown in Table 1 below. The table alsoidentifies each Universities’ on-sitehazardous waste accumulation areaswhich would continue to be regulatedunder existing federal and state RCRAregulation:

TABLE 1.—LABORATORY XL PROJECT PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

Institution Studentbody

Number oflabs Departments participating Location of current hazardous waste

accumulation areas 1

Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA .... 14,000 120 Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Phys-ics, Psychology.

Merkert Chemistry Building, 2609Beacon St., Boston MA; HigginsBuilding, 140 CommonwealthAve., Chestnut Hill MA.

University of Massachusetts BostonBoston, MA.

13,000 150 Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, An-thropology, Geology and EarthSciences, and Environmental,Coastal and Ocean Sciences.

Science Building (Bldg. #080);McCormack Building (Bldg. #020);and Wheatley Building (Bldg.#010) 100 Morrissey Blvd., BostonMA

University of Vermont Burlington, VT 10,000 400 Colleges of: Agriculture and LifeSciences; Arts and Sciences;Medicine; and Engineering andMathematics; and Schools of:Nursing; Allied Heath Sciences;and Natural Resources.

Given Bunker, 89 Beaumont Ave.,Burlington VT.

1 Note: These accumulation areas would still be fully covered by the current federal and state RCRA regulations. This XL project, for example,would not allow any increased air emissions that would otherwise be controlled under the current RCRA regulations such as the subpart CC haz-ardous waste organic air emission standards that apply to large quantity generators who accumulate hazardous waste on-site.

B. What Problems Have the UniversityLaboratories Identified?

To understand the problems faced bythe Universities and the purpose behindthe proposed rule, it is necessary tounderstand the context in which theproposed rule has arisen and to considerthe experience of university laboratoriesas regulated entities under both theOccupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA) and RCRA. While both statuteshave the common objective of protectinghuman health, RCRA makes a cleardistinction between hazardous wasteand hazardous chemicals in a laboratorysetting. There are specific handling andmanagement requirements for‘‘hazardous wastes’’ under RCRA whichdo not apply to the larger universe of‘‘hazardous chemicals’’ regulated by theOccupational Safety and HealthAdministration. Researchers are familiarwith the specialized system developedfor laboratory work by OSHA, whichincludes the requirement to develop andimplement a Chemical Hygiene Plan

(CHP). This systematic approach,incorporating a specific plan, can alsobe applied to the management ofhazardous waste that sometimes resultsfrom the use of hazardous chemicals inthe laboratory. However, under thecurrent system, laboratories are requiredto implement and to track two parallel,and not always consistent chemicalmanagement systems within thelaboratory setting.

The Universities have proposedstreamlining the management ofchemicals in the laboratory by having asingle system addressing hazardouschemicals that will result in both bettermanagement and a reduction in thequantity of laboratory wastes that haveto be disposed. This streamlining willresult in a number of changes, whichwhen combined in a single systematicapproach to chemical management, areexpected to provide results that aresuperior to those provided by thecurrent regulatory framework.

An example of one area that will bestreamlined is the process for traininglaboratory workers. OSHA’s chemicalstandard requires that the employerprovide employees with informationand training on the hazards of chemicalspresent in their area. RCRA requireslarge quantity generators to ensure thatfacility personnel complete classroominstruction or on-the-job training thatteaches them to perform their duties ina way that ensures the facility’scompliance with applicablerequirements. RCRA requires smallquantity generators to ensure that allemployees are familiar with properwaste handling and emergencyprocedures relevant to theirresponsibilities. The new systemproposed in this rule would require thesame standardized training for alllaboratory workers, including: students,personnel in positions related tohazardous waste management, andlaboratory employees. This systematictraining approach can cover both safety



and environmental concerns whenperformed through the integration ofchemical hygiene planning andenvironmental management planning.This is expected not only to streamlinebut also to upgrade existing training,and to provide students—the laboratoryworkers of the future—with a betterunderstanding of the environmentalimpacts of their work and how tominimize those impacts.

The university laboratory setting isdecentralized, with various departmentsfunding diverse types of research. Theuniversity community is also diverseand subject to the regular turnover ofstudents and researchers. Thisdecentralized setting, when combinedwith rules that vary from state to state(as discussed in sections D.2. and E.,below) and between federal RCRA andfederal OSHA standards, often leads tothe unnecessary and premature disposalof chemicals after an individuallaboratory has no use for them. This istrue even for unused chemicals that maybe reusable elsewhere at the University.A more centralized system should resultin more effective decision making withregard to chemical disposition andshould result in increased chemicalreuse. Therefore, one of the largerchanges to result from this proposedproject would be the centralization ofthe system for managing chemicalwastes. This would allow decisionsregarding chemical disposition to moreeasily occur at a centralized area whereknowledge of campus-wide needs forchemicals can be factored into decisionsas to whether unused or used chemicals(formerly disposed as waste) can bereused within the University.

The implementation of the currentsystem is further complicated by thestructure of university laboratorieswhich is different from industrialsettings where RCRA has been quiteeffective. Industrial settings commonlyhave ongoing processes which generatea single waste at a fairly regular rate ofgeneration. With potentially hundredsof small laboratories within oneuniversity, each producing smallamounts of multiple wastes on anoncontinuous basis, the overallmanagement of hazardous wastesbecomes more difficult. For example, itcan be difficult for universities tocomply with the current requirementsthat result in 3 day removal timeframesfor hazardous waste in excess of 55gallons at their satellite areas (managedunder 40 CFR 262.34(c) or equivalentstate provisions). Waste generation inmanufacturing settings is generally moreuniform and continuous than it is inuniversity research laboratories wherethe rate of waste generated is often

unpredictable. This uncertainty makes itdifficult for a university to predict whensatellite accumulation limits may beexceeded and to arrange for removal ofthe waste within the required amount oftime. This proposed alternative systemfor university laboratories attempts toaddress their atypical circumstances byallowing them to set up a monthly pick-up schedule for laboratory waste. Withthe ability to be proactive in setting upschedules for waste pickups, EH&Sprofessionals at the Universities wouldbe able to avoid a reactive mode ofoperation, to proactively develop asystematic approach for re-use ofchemicals on-site, and to operate thatsystem based on the schedule theycould develop under this proposal.

The difficulty of managing laboratorywastes has been the subject of nation-wide discussions within the universityand research community throughout thepast decade. Many organizationsincluding the Campus Safety, Healthand Environmental ManagementAssociation, the National ResearchCouncil, and the American ChemicalSociety have all sought a better way toproperly manage and handle hazardouschemicals in the laboratory, and tocomply with the requirements of bothOSHA and RCRA. In the New Englandarea, the Laboratory Consortium forEnvironmental Excellence (LCEE) wasformed to explore viable alternatives tothe current parallel regulatory schemeand to promote best managementpractices for laboratories. As a result ofexhaustive reviews and interviews withuniversities and research organizationsacross the country, a consensus wasreached regarding the need toharmonize the RCRA and OSHAregulatory systems through aperformance-based management systemthat would actively promote prudentpractices, encourage chemical reuse andrecycling, minimize costs, and increaseefficiency.

The central purpose of this LaboratoryXL project is to test the effectiveness ofan integrated, performance-basedenvironmental management systemwhich is consistent with the objectivesof RCRA and which would complementthe applicable OSHA regulations.

C. What Solutions Are Proposed by theUniversity Laboratory XL Project?

1. A New Integrated Performance-BasedSystem

The University Laboratory XL projectproposes to test the effectiveness of anintegrated, flexible, performance-basedsystem for managing hazardous wastesin laboratories which (1) would result inpollution prevention and streamlined

procedures for managing hazardouswastes and hazardous chemicals atuniversities, (2) would meet theobjectives of both the RCRA and OSHAregulatory programs combined and (3)would be at least as protective of humanhealth and the environment as thecurrent system.

This project would pilot analternative approach to hazardous wastemanagement in University laboratorieswhich is more systematic and morecentralized than the approachimplemented by Universities under thecurrent system. At the same time, thepilot integrates some of the currentRCRA hazardous waste regulations withcurrent OSHA regulations by proposingthat universities develop a plan similarto the CHP but designed for themanagement of environmental aspectsof their activities to facilitate thecreation of an integrated and consistentsystem for managing laboratory waste inlaboratories. As a result of theefficiencies gained from theharmonization of the OSHA CHP andthe RCRA-oriented LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan, thenew system is expected to provide abetter management approach forlaboratories and to result in increasedpollution prevention while stillensuring protection of human healthand the environment.

To achieve this objective, theUniversities would like to pursue aregulatory model of a LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standard(EMS) that identifies both the elementsfor the effective management oflaboratory wastes, and the minimumperformance requirements for handlingwastes in each individual laboratory.The proposed Laboratory EMS sets outall the requirements for the proposedalternative system of managinglaboratory waste. First and foremost, theLaboratory EMS would includeMinimum Performance Criteria for themanagement of laboratory wastes withinthe laboratory and en route to the on-site hazardous waste accumulation area.These criteria are the requirements thatwould be an alternative to 40 CFR262.34(c) in the laboratory. TheMinimum Performance Criteria are a setof measurable requirements that aresimilar to the current RCRArequirements. Each of the elements ofthe Minimum Performance Criteria isdescribed in full in today’s proposedrule and is briefly explained below. Inaddition, the Laboratory EMS wouldalso require the development of aLaboratory Environmental ManagementPlan (EMP). The EMP would be writtenby each University to document itsspecific procedures for how it would



conform with the Laboratory EMS. TheEMP would also describe theprocedures each laboratory wouldfollow in order to meet the MinimumPerformance Criteria. The elements ofthe EMP are summarized below in Table2.

2. Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard (EMS)

Today’s proposed rule is called the‘‘Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard’’. It wouldinclude a definition section (40 CFR262.102), the requirements for wastemanagement in the laboratory, or theMinimum Performance Criteria, (40 CFR262.104) and the specific requirementthat each University develop aLaboratory Environmental ManagementPlan (40 CFR 262.105). Proposedsubpart J also contains requirementsdetailing the organizationalresponsibilities and the trainingrequirements of each participatingUniversity laboratory (40 CFR 262.105).The Laboratory EMS would provide theumbrella framework for an effectivesystem for the management of universitylaboratory waste. It would contain allthe elements, from definitions throughwaste determination requirements (40CFR 262.106), that would make up thenew systematic approach proposed foruniversity laboratories. The proposedLaboratory EMS was originally modeledafter the general structure and format ofthe OSHA ‘‘Occupational Exposure toHazardous Chemicals in Laboratories’’standard which requires a ChemicalHygiene Plan.

3. Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Plan (EMP)

The Laboratory EMS would requirethe development of a Laboratory EMPwhich would be the mechanism throughwhich the Laboratory EMS is put intopractice at each University. TheLaboratory EMP, modeled on OSHA’sChemical Hygiene Plan, would be acomprehensive plan to be developed byeach University. The EMP woulddocument the procedures, practices andprograms to (a) manage laboratory wastein a manner that is protective of humanhealth and the environment and (b) thatwould be implemented to achievecompliance with the requirements of theLaboratory EMS and the MinimumPerformance Criteria. It is through theLaboratory EMP that the Universitieswould have the opportunity and theobligation to design a performance-based system to complement the OSHArequirements, to encourage wasteminimization, and the redistributionand reuse of laboratory waste. TheLaboratory EMP would identify specific

elements to be implemented by eachUniversity, including requirements forpollution prevention policies andprocedures.

One of the objectives of the EMP andthe overall XL project is to erase thedistinction between unused chemicalsand waste chemicals in the laboratorysetting, so that the value in reusingchemicals can be realized. This wouldbe accomplished by defining laboratorywaste to include hazardous chemicalsthat result from laboratory scaleactivities and which may or may notconstitute RCRA hazardous wastes. Inthe proposal, laboratory waste is definedas ‘‘a hazardous chemical that resultsfrom laboratory scale activities andincludes the following: excess orunused hazardous chemicals that mayor may not be reused outside theirlaboratory of origin; hazardouschemicals determined to be RCRAhazardous waste as defined in 40 CFRpart 261; and hazardous chemicals thatwill be determined not to be RCRAhazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR262.106.’’ Thus, all ‘‘laboratory waste’’would be managed under a singlestandard while in the laboratory. Thedetermination that a laboratory wastecould not be reused and would be aRCRA solid waste, and as to whethersuch solid waste would be a RCRAhazardous waste, would be made at acentralized area, by EnvironmentalHealth and Safety professionals.

4. Minimum Performance CriteriaThe proposed requirements for the

laboratory EMP include a requirementthat the EMP include procedures toassure compliance with certainMinimum Performance Criteria (MPC)specified in the proposed regulation.The proposed Minimum PerformanceCriteria set forth minimum requirementsfor the management of laboratory wasteand have been designed to ensure thatlaboratory waste will be managed in amanner protective of human health andthe environment. The requirements inthe Minimum Performance Criteriainclude provisions which are consistentwith current RCRA requirements,including labeling and containermanagement. The criteria have a widerapplication than current RCRArequirements because the definition oflaboratory waste includes somematerials that are not RCRA hazardouswaste.

5. How the New System Would WorkThis new proposed system would

help each University to centralize andcoordinate its chemical managementpractices and demonstrateenvironmental performance beyond

what would likely be achieved underthe existing system.

Currently, there are two potentialimpediments to such centralization andcoordination. The first is the hazardouswaste determination requirement under40 CFR 262.11. If this determination ismade in the individual laboratory,decisions with regard to reuse areinevitably decentralized since thehazardous waste determinationnecessitates a prior solid wastedetermination. To the extent that thesedecisions are made by laboratoryworkers who do not have a completesense of the chemical needs of the entireuniversity, such decisions are oftenpremature and do not maximize thepotential for re-use. The secondpotential impediment under the currentsystem is the requirement under 40 CFR262.34(c) that hazardous waste in excessof 55 gallons be removed within threedays of reaching the 55-gallon limit.Such a time constraint results inconstant, unplanned, episodic pick-upswhich are in themselves, time-consuming. In contrast, the extendedaccumulation period of 30 days shouldallow for a more coordinated andefficient pick-up and delivery systemwhich would free up staff time, andallow for the development ofinfrastructure and training designed toincrease waste minimization and anorganized and coordinated campus-wide chemical reuse system.

The EMP and the MinimumPerformance Criteria would worktogether to form the alternative systemfor the management of laboratory waste.The following outline presents a step-by-step overview of how the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standardwould work once this rule is finalizedand conforming changes are adopted byVermont and Massachusetts.

Development of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan

Step 1: Within six months, eachUniversity would develop itsEnvironmental Management Plan (EMP)addressing all the elements required by40 CFR 262.105, summarized in Table 2,below. Applicable RCRA requirementswould remain in full effect in thelaboratories prior to the EMP beingwritten, reviewed, and implemented.For the purpose of this Laboratory XLproject, each University would consultwith EPA, and the state ofMassachusetts (DEP) or Vermont (DEC)in the development of its EMP. Thecenterpiece of the new system would bethe individual LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan. TheEMP would include detailed specificelements that would have to be



included and implemented by eachUniversity. Each University would beexpected to craft an EnvironmentalManagement Plan that is tailored to thestructure and individual needs of theUniversity and its laboratories. Asummary of the elements in theEnvironmental Management Plans isoutlined in Table 2. These are more

fully detailed in the proposed rule at 40CFR 262.105.

Step 2: Once completed, the EMPwould be made available on eachUniversity’s web site. So that EPA cancontinue to evaluate this XL project,EPA-Region I would review each EMPto confirm that it meets all of therequirements of 40 CFR 262.105. The

relevant state agencies may also reviewthe EMP. Each University would also beworking on how it will implement itsEMP, which would include traininglaboratory workers with regard to therequirements of the MinimumPerformance Criteria pursuant to theprocedures contained in theEnvironmental Management Plan.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF MAJOR ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN LABORATORY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

General:The EMP must include a description of specific measures a University will take to protect human health and the environment from hazards

associated with the management of laboratory wastes.Administration:

1. An environmental policy, including commitments to regulatory compliance, waste minimization, risk reduction and continual improvementof the environmental management system.

2. A description of roles and responsibilities for the implementation and maintenance of the Laboratory Environmental Management Plan.3. A pollution prevention plan.4. Provisions for information dissemination and training.5. Procedures for the development and approval of changes to the EMP.

Waste Management and Conformance Review:6. Criteria that laboratory workers shall comply with for managing, containing and labeling laboratory wastes.7. Procedures for inspecting a laboratory to assess conformance with the requirements of the Environmental Management Plan.8. Procedures to assure compliance with the Minimum Performance Criteria (MPC).9. Procedures for the identification of environmental management plan noncompliance and the assignment of responsibility, timelines and

corrective actions to prevent their reoccurrence.10. Criteria for the identification of physical and chemical hazards and the control measures to reduce the potential for releases to the envi-

ronment of laboratory wastes.Reporting/Recordkeeping:

11. The University’s system for identifying and tracking legal and other requirements applicable to the management and disposal of des-ignated laboratory wastes.

12. The University’s system for conducting annual surveys of hazardous chemicals of concern.13. The recordkeeping requirements to document conformance with the EMP.

Removal of Waste:14. Procedures relevant to the timely and safe removal of laboratory wastes.15. Procedures and work practices for safely transporting or moving laboratory wastes.

Maintenance:16. Procedures for conducting laboratory clean-outs.

Emergency:17. Emergency preparedness and response procedures.

Step 3: Following review of its EMP,each University would notify therelevant state agency in writing of thedate on which it intends to implementits EMP. For purposes of this XL project,each University would also notify EPARegion I. The proposed rule wouldbecome effective in the laboratories onlyafter such written notification.

Implementation of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan Including Proceduresfor Meeting the Minimum PerformanceCriteria

The EMP would cover themanagement requirements for laboratorywaste until that waste reaches thedesignated on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area, including emergencyresponse requirements in the MinimumPerformance Criteria while the waste isin transit to the accumulation area. Thefollowing steps outline procedures at alaboratory once the EMP would be inplace and operational:

Step 4: Information and trainingwould have been provided to laboratory

workers to comply with the MinimumPerformance Criteria as well as OSHAper the University’s LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan.Hazardous chemicals would be receivedat the University, distributed to thelaboratory and placed in storage in thelaboratory in accordance with any andall requirements imposed by OSHA,Fire Codes and/or building permits. Ifthose chemicals pose a new or uniquehazard for which a worker has notreceived prior training, the workerwould receive new information andtraining so that they could understandand implement the relevant elements ofthe EMP.

Step 5: Hazardous chemicals wouldbe used in the research or teachinglaboratory under the direction of atrained individual, and laboratory wastewould be generated from thoselaboratory scale activities.

Step 6: The laboratory waste would bemanaged in accordance with theMinimum Performance Criteria and theUniversity’s specific Laboratory EMP

which would include the University-specific procedures for meeting thosecriteria. These procedures wouldinclude ensuring that the laboratorywaste generated as a result of laboratoryscale activities in Step 5 is placed incontainers and labeled with a chemicalname and hazard warning as per theMinimum Performance Criteria and theprocedures for meeting those criteria asoutlined in the EnvironmentalManagement Plan. For example, theLaboratory EMP may specify the type oflabel the University requires for eachtype of laboratory waste and how thatlabel must be filled out.

Step 7: Each laboratory would be ableto temporarily hold up to 55-gallons oflaboratory waste (or up to 1 quart ofacutely hazardous laboratory waste)prior to having to put a date on thewaste. Upon reaching the 55 gallon or1 quart limit in the laboratory, thelaboratory waste container(s) would bemarked with the date. Any laboratorywaste held in excess of these limitsbefore the dated laboratory waste is



removed would also be managed asdescribed in Step 6, and the excesswould be limited in quantity to anadditional 55 gallons (or an additional1 quart of acutely hazardous laboratorywaste). Excess waste accumulatedbefore dated laboratory waste isremoved would also have to be markedwith the date it reaches the 55 gallon or1 quart limit and would subsequently beremoved from the laboratory asdescribed in Step 8.

Step 8: Once laboratory waste isdated, the University EH&S staff wouldbe immediately informed that thelaboratory waste would have to beremoved to the on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area within 30 days of thelabel date.

Step 9: The laboratory waste referredto in Step 8 would be picked up (withinthirty days of the dates referred to inStep 8) by EH&S departmentrepresentatives and directly transferredto a designated on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area (as defined in thedefinitions at proposed 40 CFR262.102). Current hazardous wasteaccumulation areas at each of theUniversities are shown in Table 1.Designated hazardous wasteaccumulation areas would be listed inthe EMP.

Step 10: As soon as the laboratorywaste is received at the on-sitehazardous waste accumulation area, theUniversity EH&S staff or designatedtrained professionals, would make adetermination as to whether it is a solidwaste under RCRA, and if it is a solidwaste, the staff would determinewhether it is a hazardous waste inaccordance with 40 CFR 262.11, asrequired by proposed 40 CFR 262.106.Once the laboratory waste is received atthe on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area, the proposed‘‘temporary conditional deferral’’ wouldno longer apply, and the laboratorywaste that is determined to behazardous waste would be managed inaccordance with current RCRArequirements.

Step 11: If the laboratory waste couldbe reused, the University EH&S staffwould arrange for its redistribution andreuse within the University. If EH&Sstaff determine that the laboratory wasteis a solid waste and it is hazardous, itwould be managed in accordance withall applicable RCRA requirements.

6. Comparison of MinimumPerformance Criteria with CurrentRCRA Regulations

EPA intends that laboratory waste bemanaged safely. The MinimumPerformance Criteria contained inproposed 40 CFR 262.104 have been

developed by the University laboratoriesand EPA to ensure that laboratory wasteis managed in a manner that isprotective of human health and theenvironment. The following discussiondemonstrates how specific provisions inthe Minimum Performance Criteriawould compare with RCRA provisionscurrently in effect. EPA is describing thecurrent RCRA provisions as a point ofcomparison for the requirementsproposed today, but is not proposingany changes to these current RCRAprovisions.

(i) Labeling: Current RCRA regulationsrequire that containers of hazardouswaste in satellite accumulation areas belabeled either with the words‘‘hazardous waste’’ or with other wordsthat identify the contents. Today’s rulewould contain a requirement thatlaboratory waste would have to belabeled or tagged with the chemicalname and general hazard class. Where alaboratory container is too small to beeffectively labeled or where containersof like wastes are consolidated, such aswhere test tubes are stored in a rack orwhere similar wastes are beingconsolidated in a lab-pack shippingcontainer, the secondary container (e.g.the rack containing the test tubes or theDOT shipping container) would have tobe labeled. The EnvironmentalManagement Plan would includespecific procedures that lab workerswould have to follow to carry out theMPC requirements for labeling in thelaboratories.

(ii) Quantity Limitations: Currentfederal RCRA regulations for satelliteaccumulation areas require that anyhazardous waste accumulated at anypoint of generation in excess of 55gallons (or one quart of acutelyhazardous laboratory waste) be removedwithin three days. Current regulationsdo not limit the number of points ofgeneration within an individuallaboratory as long as hazardous waste isaccumulated in accordance with all therequirements of 40 CFR 262.34(c). Thus,a given laboratory could potentiallyaccumulate well over 55 gallons underthe current rules. However, under theproposed rule, the Universities wouldbe limited to temporarily holding 55gallons of laboratory waste perlaboratory, and no matter how manypoints of generation there are within alaboratory, any laboratory would belimited to 110 gallons. While thisproposed restriction may prove to bemore restrictive than the current system,this approach represents an experimentto be tested under this XL project.Although this approach could result ina limit that is considerably less thanwhat a laboratory might be allowed to

accumulate under current law, today’sproposed rule would grant theUniversities flexibility on the amount oftime allowed to remove excess wastefrom the laboratory. (See (iv) below.)

(iii) Quantity Limitation for ExcessLaboratory Waste: Current RCRAregulations do not place specific limitson the amount of ‘‘excess’’ hazardouswaste, beyond 55 gallons, that agenerator may accumulate in satelliteareas during the three days prior toremoval of such excess. Today’sproposed rule specifically limits suchexcess in the laboratory setting to anadditional 55 gallons of laboratory waste(or an additional 1 quart of acutelyhazardous laboratory waste). Thus, themaximum amount of laboratory wastewhich may be held in a Universitylaboratory at any time under today’sproposed rule would be 110 gallons (ortwo quarts of acutely hazardouslaboratory waste). While thisrequirement may prove to be morerestrictive than the current system, thisapproach represents an experiment to betested under this XL project, and itwould ensure that there would not beexcessive quantities of waste in thelaboratories during the 30-daytimeframe discussed below.

(iv) Timing Limitations: CurrentRCRA regulations state that a generatormay accumulate up to 55 gallons ofhazardous waste (or one quart of acutelyhazardous waste) under 40 CFR262.34(c) and within three days ofexceeding that 55 gallons must complywith the requirements of 40 CFR262.34(a) or other applicablerequirements with respect to the excessover 55 gallons (or one quart). Under theproposed rule, all laboratory waste thathas reached threshold amounts wouldhave to be removed from the lab within30 days, instead of three days. EPA isgranting flexibility on the timing ofremoval to allow for a more efficientpick-up schedule which will in turnallow University staff to devoteadditional resources to make centralizeddecisions about the reuse of laboratorywaste. As noted above, to ensure thatlarge quantities of waste are not held inlaboratories, today’s proposal limits theexcess to an additional 55 gallons oflaboratory waste (or one additionalquart of acutely hazardous laboratorywaste).

(v) Dating and RemovalRequirements: Current RCRAregulations require that a generator markthe container holding hazardous wastein excess of 55 gallons of hazardouswaste (or one quart of acutely hazardouswaste) with the date the excess amountbegan accumulating. Today’s proposedrule would contain a requirement that



when laboratory waste reaches thethreshold of 55 gallons (or one quart ofacutely hazardous laboratory waste) itmust be dated. Once laboratory waste isdated, the laboratory would have 30days to remove it from the laboratory tothe on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area.

(vi) Hazardous Waste AccumulationAreas: Once satellite accumulationquantity limits are met, current RCRAregulations require generators to comply(within 3 days) with 40 CFR 262.34(a)or other applicable provisions. Undertoday’s proposed rule, the accumulatedlaboratory waste would be directlytransferred to a designated on-sitehazardous waste accumulation area.Once the laboratory waste is received atthe on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area, the proposed‘‘temporary conditional deferral’’ wouldno longer apply, and the laboratorywaste that is determined to behazardous waste would be managed inaccordance with § 262.34(a) or otherapplicable RCRA requirements. In thisregard, the proposed alternative systemis meant to work in the same way as thecurrent system.

(vii) Container Management: CurrentRCRA regulations set forth at 40 CFR265.173(a), as referenced by§ 262.34(c)(1)(i), require that containersof hazardous wastes be closed at alltimes, except when it is necessary toadd or remove wastes. Today’s proposedrule would contain the samerequirement but allows the University tomake exceptions for in-line wastecollection containers. Some experimentsuse a process for the ‘‘in-line collection’’of waste, which is a system thatautomatically collects waste while anexperiment is running. Such systemsmay collect waste through a physicallyconnected apparatus, such as, forexample, gas chromatographs. Gaschromatographs commonly carry thechemical sample through the instrumentusing tubing that leads from theinstrument to waste collection bottleson the back of the instrument. Each tubecommonly runs through a stopper setinto each small collection bottle. Othertypes of equipment use in-linecollection systems that, while notphysically connected, are nevertheless anecessary part of the apparatus as ameans to collect waste, such asdistillation equipment. In these types ofsystems, the waste is collected in anotherwise uncovered container (e.g.,waste drips from a tube into thecontainer) while the experiment isrunning—although the entire apparatuswould be covered or hooded to preventthe release of volatile hazardous vaporsor fumes. The apparatus set-up provides

the physical control otherwise providedby the laboratory worker, who ensuresduring an experiment that containersare closed, except when he or she needsto add or remove a chemical. Theproposed rule for this XL projectproposes that such systems for the in-line collection of waste would be acircumstance in which waste may beadded, consistent with the requirementthat containers containing waste be keptclosed (i.e., when a container ispermissibly ‘‘open’’ for the adding ofwaste). To be considered as in-linewaste collection, the University woulddescribe this arrangement for in-linewaste collection in their EMP. This partof the proposed rule addresses the needfor flexibility around the diverseconditions of research andexperimentation that constitute thework of the University laboratories,while at the same time minimizing thepotential for release. (Note that this ruledoes not change the meaning of‘‘release’’ under RCRA.) This flexibilityis limited to specific circumstances inorder to address the uniqueconfiguration of some research andlaboratory instrumentation such as gaschromatographs and DNA synthesizers.The flexibility is being proposed for in-line waste collection due to laboratoryscale experimentation.

Today’s proposed rule also specifiesthat containers be compatible with theircontents, and be in good condition.These requirements are equivalent tothe current requirements at 40 CFR262.34(c)1(i) which reference section265.171 and section 265.172 regulatingthe condition of containers andcompatibility of waste in satelliteaccumulation areas.

(viii) Inspections: Current RCRAregulations require that satelliteaccumulation areas (those areasregulated by 40 CFR 262.34(c), at or nearany point of generation where wastesaccumulate) be under the control of theoperator of the process. Although ineach laboratory, laboratory waste couldonly be generated under the control ofthe trained laboratory workers, today’sproposed rule would also contain arequirement for regular inspections ofcontainers of laboratory wastes withinthe laboratory to ensure that thecontainers are meeting requirements forcontainer management. The frequencyof these inspections would be at leastonce per year and would otherwise bebased on laboratory practices. Specificinspection schedules would be specifiedin the Environmental Management Plan.

Other Minimum Performance Criteriainclude

(ix) Posting of Emergency NotificationProcedures: Today’s proposed rulewould contain a requirement thatincludes posting of emergencynotification procedures and evacuationprocedures for laboratory workers.Current RCRA regulations requirefacilities to include such information ina contingency plan (large quantitygenerators) or to ensure that allemployees are thoroughly familiar withemergency procedures (small quantitygenerators). Today’s proposed rulemakes no changes to thoserequirements. Emergency response andnotification procedures, under theproposed rule, would be required forparticipating laboratories that otherwisecould be regulated under 40 CFR262.34(c), and the EMPs must addressall aspects of laboratory wastemanagement, including emergencies(see Table 2 for an outline of EMPrequirements and the proposed rule at40 CFR 262.105).

(x) Emergency Response: Today’sproposed rule would contain arequirement that emergency responseequipment and procedures foremergency response be appropriate tothe hazards in the laboratory. CurrentRCRA regulations require equipmentappropriate to the hazards presented ata facility and specify procedures thatmust be followed for particularemergencies. The proposal also includesa requirement to comply with spillresponse provisions set forth in 40 CFR263.30 and 263.31 for spills oflaboratory waste that may occur while itis en route to the on-site hazardouswaste accumulation area.

(xi) Training Requirements: Today’sproposed rule would contain arequirement that laboratory workersreceive training so that they canimplement and comply with theMinimum Performance Criteria.Training under the EMP is requiredwhen a laboratory worker is firstassigned to a laboratory and when alaboratory waste poses a new or uniquehazard for which the worker has notreceived prior training.

(xii) General Compliance: Today’sproposed rule would contain astatement that laboratory wastemanagement must not result in therelease of hazardous constituents intothe land, air and water where suchrelease would be prohibited by federallaw.

As noted in Table 2, above, additionalrequirements for laboratories under thisproposed system would be included in



the Environmental Management Plan(EMP).

As previously mentioned, theproposed Minimum PerformanceCriteria described above would onlyapply to the management of laboratorywaste within laboratories and while enroute to an on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area. Once received at anon-site hazardous waste accumulationarea, the laboratory waste would besubject to all applicable RCRArequirements. A participating Universitycould, for example, accumulate anylaboratory waste that is determined tobe hazardous waste at the hazardouswaste accumulation area in accordancewith the current requirements of 40 CFR262.34 (for 90 or 180 day on-siteaccumulation). EPA is not proposingany changes to the requirementsUniversities would have to meet inorder to accumulate waste on-site for 90(large quantity generators) or 180 days(small quantity generators).

7. Comparison of the Proposed RuleWith Current OSHA and RCRARegulatory Requirements

The following discussiondemonstrates how specific provisions inthe proposal compare with currentOSHA and RCRA requirements. EPA isdescribing the current RCRA provisionsas a point of comparison for therequirements proposed today, but is notproposing any changes to these currentRCRA provisions.

The OSHA Chemical Hygiene Plan(CHP) set forth at 29 CFR1910.1450(e)(3) requires that the CHPaddress: (i) standard operatingprocedures, (ii) criteria used todetermine when to implement controlmeasures, (iii) fume hood functioning,(iv) employee training, (v)circumstances requiring prior approval,(vi) provisions for medical consultation,(vii) designation of responsiblepersonnel, (viii) provisions forprotection for work with particularlyhazardous substances and (ix) annualreview of the plan and its effectiveness.

Although current OSHA regulationsmay require a Chemical Hygiene Planfor laboratories, there is no parallelrequirement under RCRA. Noregulations currently require theUniversities to implement a LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan aswould be required by today’s proposedrule. Moreover, while many of theMinimum Performance Criteriadelineated in the proposed requirementswould be similar to current RCRArequirements for satellite accumulationof hazardous waste (in the laboratoryareas which are currently regulatedunder 40 CFR 262.34(c)), some

limitations have been proposed beyondwhat current RCRA requirements allow,such as limiting each laboratory to 55gallons of laboratory waste.

Existing RCRA requirements forsatellite accumulation (under 40 CFR262.34(c)) require that containers: (i) beat or near the point of generation, (ii) beunder the control of the operator, (iii) bemarked with the words ‘‘hazardouswaste’’ or the contents, (iv) be in goodcondition, (v) be compatible with theircontents, and (vi) be kept closed exceptas necessary to add or remove waste. Inaddition, accumulation is limited to 55gallons of hazardous waste per point ofgeneration. Any excess waste over 55gallons must within three days complywith 262.34(a) or other applicableprovisions. Existing RCRA regulationsalso require that a generator make ahazardous waste determination. Thecurrent federal regulations do notrequire management plans for theseareas.

The proposed LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standardhas been drafted in an attempt to alignRCRA requirements that would apply tohazardous wastes in laboratories withthe OSHA requirements for hazardouschemical handling in laboratories, inorder to provide for the more efficientmanagement of laboratory waste. Thiswould be accomplished by the craftingof an Environmental Management Planthat would implement standardoperating procedures for managinglaboratory waste, just as the CHPrequires standard operating proceduresrelevant to safety and healthconsiderations when working withhazardous chemicals.

While the Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Plan proposed in thisproject is intended to function in thesame way as the OSHA CHP, therequirements of the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standardwould be more effective at managinglaboratory wastes. For example, theLaboratory Environmental ManagementStandard would require procedures foran annual review of high hazardchemicals (defined in theEnvironmental Management Standardunder ‘‘hazardous chemicals ofconcern’’) in the laboratory, while nosuch requirement currently exists underRCRA or OSHA. In addition, theLaboratory Environmental ManagementStandard would require an institutionalprocess that is not required by currentregulations for (i) setting environmentalobjectives and targets, and (ii) thepromotion of pollution prevention andenvironmental improvements.

The current RCRA system allowsgenerators to accumulate hazardous

waste at satellite accumulation areasunder 40 CFR 262.34(c). Therequirements under 40 CFR 262.34(c)set specific requirements for containermanagement, labeling, andaccumulation times. No written plansare currently required for a facility to setforth and document the procedures thatthey will use to comply with therequirements of § 262.34(c). In today’sproposed rule, the Universities wouldbe required not only to comply withproposed requirements on containermanagement, labeling and holding timespursuant to proposed § 262.104, whichoffers some flexibility but still ensuresprotection of human health and theenvironment, they would also have tospecifically document the proceduresthey will use to comply with proposed§ 262.104. In addition, to documentingthe procedures for complying with theMinimum Performance Criteria of§ 262.104, the Universities would alsohave to develop and document theprocedures for all of the elements inTable 2, i.e.: (i) their environmentalpolicy, (ii) roles and responsibilities,(iii) a pollution prevention plan, (iv)their system for tracking requirementsapplicable to laboratory waste, (v)criteria for identifying physical andchemical hazards and control measuresto reduce releases, (vi) a system forconducting surveys of hazardouschemicals of concern, (vii) proceduresfor cleaning out laboratories, (viii)criteria with which laboratory workerswould be required to comply inmanaging laboratory waste according tothe Minimum Performance Criteria, (ix)procedures for safe and timely removalof wastes from laboratories, (x)procedures for emergencies, (xi)procedures for training, (xii) proceduresfor safe transfer of waste to theaccumulation areas, (xiii) procedures forregularly inspecting a laboratory toassess conformance with therequirements of the EMP, (xiv)procedures for identifyingenvironmental management plannonconformances and correctiveactions, (xv) recordkeepingrequirements to document conformancewith their EMP. This LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan wouldbe an entirely new requirement imposedupon the Universities. (This proposedrequirement doesn’t change existinginstitutional RCRA requirements. Forexample any University that is currentlyrequired to have a Contingency Planwould still be required to have aContingency Plan).

EPA envisions a three-partcompliance assurance program toensure that this proposed system



adequately protects human health andthe environment. First, because EPAexpects the Minimum PerformanceCriteria to operate as an equivalent,alternative system to the current RCRArequirements in 40 CFR 262.34(c), EPAexpects the first level of assurance to besimilar to the inspection systemcurrently in place. Thus, at thelaboratory level, the first level: themanagement of laboratory waste wouldhave to be in conformance with theMinimum Performance Criteria. Thesecond level would be thedocumentation of procedures: theLaboratory EMP would have to bewritten in conformance with therequirements of the standard proposedat 40 CFR 262.105. The third levelwould be operational: the operationsongoing in all the laboratories that areparticipating would have to be inconformance with the proceduresdescribed in the EMP. Thus, thisproposal provides two additional levelsof review for satellite storage ofhazardous waste, while allowing theUniversities to be more centralized intheir operations and to adopt a morecoherent approach to management oflaboratory wastes.

8. How the Laboratory XL Project WillResult in Superior EnvironmentalPerformance

The Laboratory XL Project is designedto achieve environmental results thatare superior to what is currentlyachieved by the current RCRAregulatory system. The aim of theproposal is to enable the Universities tomore easily manage all hazardouschemicals under a logical, integratedscheme. Under the proposed model,environmental professionals at theUniversities would, at on-site hazardouswaste accumulation areas, determinewhether there are any opportunities,throughout the University, for reuse oflaboratory waste or whether thelaboratory waste is hazardous waste.

As a result, the Laboratory XL projectis expected first and foremost to resultin increased pollution prevention. In a1996 survey of approximately 100academic institutions conducted by theCampus Safety Health andEnvironmental ManagementAssociation, nearly 95 percent ofrespondents reported that they reused orrecycled less than one percent of thehazardous chemical waste otherwisedestined for disposal. In the FPA, theUniversities have committed themselvesto increased hazardous waste reduction.The Universities have set specificpollution prevention goals including (i)a 10 percent reduction in the overallamount of hazardous waste generated

from participating laboratories (frombaseline) and (ii) a 20 percent increase(from baseline) in reuse of laboratorywaste over the life of the project. Inaccordance with the FPA for thisproject, the Universities participating inthis XL project would report each yearon their progress in meeting these goals.

Second, under this proposed rule,each University would implement theirprocedures for an annual assessment ofthose hazardous chemicals that theybelieve pose significant risks (based onphysical or health hazards, or definedshelf-life) in an effort to minimize risksto human health and the environmentand to monitor materials that mightotherwise accumulate on the shelf orrequire disposal.

In addition, this XL project wouldpromote the following:

• Setting of Environmental Objectivesand Targets and Pollution Prevention:The systematic approach toenvironmental management wouldenable the University to organize wastemanagement functions to achieve goalsetting, better tracking, pollutionprevention, and control. This process isoutlined in more detail in the FinalProject Agreement.

• Streamlining of the RegulatoryProcess: By setting up a complementarysystem that essentially attempts tointegrate EPA and OSHA requirements,the project would streamline the overallregulatory process for laboratories,reducing the burden on the Universitiesand resulting in a more efficient andprotective approach to chemicalmanagement.

• Increased EnvironmentalAwareness: The implementation andcontinuous improvement of theLaboratory Environmental ManagementStandard for laboratories wouldenhance environmental awarenessamong researchers and students leadingto a transfer of good environmentalmanagement practices to the largercommunity.

Finally, the implementation of theLaboratory Environmental ManagementStandard would achieve superiorenvironmental performance becausecriteria would be set for the systematicmanagement of all laboratory wastes.Some of the laboratory wastes wouldotherwise not be managed under therequirements of RCRA (such asethidium bromide wastes and virgin orunused chemicals on the shelf and thathaven’t consistently been defined ashazardous waste.)

D. What Regulatory Changes Will BeNecessary to Implement This Project?

1. Federal Regulatory ChangesToday’s proposal would provide the

Universities with a temporaryconditional deferral from two specificRCRA regulations: Hazardous WasteDetermination: 40 CFR 262.11, and theSatellite Accumulation Provisions: 40CFR 262.34(c). The site-specific rulenecessary to allow for the temporaryconditional deferral, and beingproposed by EPA today, would add aparagraph (j) to 40 CFR 262.10 to clarifythat the temporary holding of laboratorywastes within the participatingUniversity laboratories would becovered by a new section to 40 CFR part262, subpart J. Proposed subpart J wouldfully describe the conditions to be metfor each University’s management oflaboratory waste and by its LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan asoutlined above, in the sections C.2., C.3.and C.4 of this preamble.

(i) Hazardous Waste Determination:40 CFR 262.11: Current regulationrequires that generators make adetermination as to whether a solidwaste is a RCRA hazardous waste. Theproposed rule would identify thespecific point at which the Universitieswould make this determination. Underthe proposed rule, the Universitieswould not make a hazardous wastedetermination until the laboratory wasteis received at the on-site HazardousWaste Accumulation Areas identified inTable 1 above. These areas would be thepoint where decisions would be madeas to whether the laboratory wastewould be reused within the University,accumulated for up to 90- or 180-dayspursuant to 40 CFR 262.34, or sent to aRCRA permitted (or interim status)treatment, storage or disposal facility.

Because universities have such smalland diverse waste streams and havelarge numbers of small laboratories, EPArecognizes the resource efficiency inmaking the hazardous wastedetermination at the on-site hazardouswaste accumulation area. This approachwould enable the university todetermine whether laboratory waste canbe reused on site at a central area, wherethe connections between departmentsand laboratories on a university-widebasis can be better made by theinstitution’s professional environmentalhealth and safety personnel. EPA alsorecognizes that while laboratory wastesremain in the laboratory, they would bemanaged pursuant to the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standard asembodied in the proposed subpart Jwhich includes Minimum PerformanceCriteria to ensure that they would be



managed in a manner protective ofhuman health and the environment.

(ii) Satellite Accumulation Provisions:40 CFR 262.34(c): This regulationgoverns the satellite accumulation ofhazardous waste. It states in paragraph(1) that a generator may accumulate asmuch as 55 gallons of hazardous wasteor one quart of acutely hazardous wastein containers at or near any point ofgeneration where wastes initiallyaccumulate, which is under the controlof the operator of the process generatingthe waste, without complying withparagraph 262.34(a) provided thegenerator: (i) complies with sections265.171, 265.172 and 265.173(a); and(ii) marks the containers with the words‘‘Hazardous Waste’’ or with other wordsthat identify the contents. Paragraph (2)states that a generator that accumulatesin excess of the amounts in paragraph(1) must, with respect to the excessamount, comply within three days with40 CFR 262.34(a) or other applicableprovisions. This paragraph also requiresthat the generator must mark thecontainer holding the excessaccumulation with the date the excessbegan accumulating.

This proposed rule would allow theUniversities to manage hazardous wastein the laboratories without complyingwith § 262.34(c). Specifically, theUniversities would not be required tocomply with the 3-day accumulationtime limit that applies to hazardouswaste in excess of 55 gallons. Instead,under the proposed rule, Universitieswould be allowed to take 30 calendardays to remove the waste in theirlaboratories once the 55 gallon (or onequart of acutely hazardous laboratorywaste) threshold is reached, whilecomplying with their EnvironmentalManagement Plans. The extension from3 to 30 days would allow for Universityenvironmental, health and safetyprofessionals to collect and removelaboratory wastes during planned,systematic and scheduled intervalsrather than the current reactive andepisodic pick-ups which, in aninstitution with over a hundredlaboratories, can be extremelyinefficient, diverting environmental,health and safety department staff timefrom more proactive measures. Byproviding additional time for wastepickups to be carefully scheduled, thisproposed rule should enable universityenvironmental professionals to provideadditional training to students and otherlaboratory workers and to develop wasteminimization, reuse and recyclingopportunities for chemicals from theuniversity laboratories. In addition,while laboratory waste is being held inthe laboratory, the Universities would

have to manage it in compliance withminimum performance criteria.

Thus, the result of today’s rule is that40 CFR 262.34(c) would no longer bethe only alternative available to managewaste in the individual laboratories atthe Universities. Another system wouldbe available under the proposed rule at40 CFR part 262, subpart J, which setsforth the requirements of the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan(proposed § 262.105), and the MinimumPerformance Criteria (proposed§ 262.104).

Proposed subpart J would only applywithin the Universities’ laboratories andwhile the laboratory waste is en route toan on-site hazardous wasteaccumulation area. Once the laboratorywaste is received at the on-sitehazardous waste accumulation area,subpart J would no longer apply andlaboratory waste that is determined tobe hazardous waste would be subject toall applicable RCRA requirements.

2. State Regulatory ChangesThe state of Vermont and the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts areauthorized under section 3006 of RCRAto implement the federal RCRAprogram. Thus, these state programsoperate in lieu of the federal program.Moreover, Vermont and Massachusettshazardous waste managementregulations, codified in Code ofVermont Regulations and 310 Code ofMassachusetts Regulations (CMR) 30.00,respectively, contain equivalent or morestringent, requirements as compared tothe Federal regulations at 40 CFR 262.10and 262.34(c). The Universities aresubject to the Vermont (for theUniversity of Vermont) and theMassachusetts (for the University ofMassachusetts Boston and BostonCollege) state regulations, which wouldinclude requirements that the hazardouswaste in laboratories be handledaccording to the accumulationprovisions of RCRA. Therefore,conforming state regulatory changes orlegal mechanisms must be implementedin addition to the proposed federalchanges to undertake this new system.

E. Why Is EPA Supporting This NewApproach to Laboratory WasteManagement?

EPA is supporting the regulatorymodel contained in today’s rule becauseit provides for a degree ofenvironmental protection that is at leastas protective as that which existingRCRA regulations would provide for theparticipating laboratories. The modelalso promotes systemic, integrated cost-effective compliance which shouldincrease opportunities for waste

minimization through the centralizationof waste determinations. EPA and theUniversities anticipate that chemicalswhich would have been disposed of aswaste should be redistributed andreused through the centralizedhazardous waste determination process.In addition, by providing theUniversities the flexibility to scheduleregular waste pickups, professionalresources can be redirected fromreactive waste management to proactivewaste management.

EPA hopes that this proposed rulewill result in a successful innovativepilot of a new system for universitiesand research organizations as uniqueworkplaces where researchers andstudents often move from onejurisdiction to another throughout thecountry. If this pilot is successful, EPAhopes that this system could betranslated into a national program, toaddress the confusion regarding theRCRA rules that has been reported bythe universities. By implementing astandard system for universities,laboratory workers would remaincognizant of the requirements formanaging chemicals, and in particular,waste chemicals, no matter where in theU.S. they are performing their research.EPA recognizes that the proposed newsystem may not be appropriate ornecessary for some institutions such assmall colleges but may, at some point,depending on the results of this XLproject, consider the possibility ofoffering it as a regulatory option.

Finally, for this pilot, the Universitieswould be implementing continuousimprovement systems which wouldinclude training, planning, and self-inspections in ways that have neverbeen tested before.

F. How Have Various Stakeholders BeenInvolved in This Project?

Stakeholder involvement during theproject development stage wasencouraged in several ways. Themethods included communicatingthrough the media (newspaper, e-mails,and the LCEE website); directlycontacting interested parties andoffering an educational programregarding the regulatory requirementsimpacted by the XL project.Stakeholders have been kept informedon the project status via mailing lists,newspaper articles, public meetings andthe establishment of a website at URL:http://esf.uvm.edu/LabXL.

Representatives from Second Natureand Ecologia, national environmentalinterest groups (with membersparticipating in the ISO14000 standardsetting process), and the Tellus Institute(a nationally recognized nonprofit



corporation providing research on,among other issues, environmentalmanagement performance andreporting) have participated inconference calls and meetings with theProject XL team and providedcomments during the development ofthe proposed Final Project Agreement.A representative of the nationalenvironmental group, theEnvironmental Defense Fund, has alsobeen a participant in commenting onthis proposal. These representativescontinue to be notified of projectmeetings and activities.

The university and researchcommunity is a diverse and busy one.Each University has held individuallocal stakeholder meetings in an effortto engage their surroundingcommunities. However, few localstakeholders other than employees ofthe facilities have expressed interest inactively participating in thedevelopment of the project. Copies of allcomment letters, as well as EPA’sresponse to comment letters, will belocated in the rulemaking Docket (seethe ADDRESSES section of today’spreamble).

As this XL project continues to beimplemented, the stakeholderinvolvement program would shift itsfocus to ensure that: (1) Stakeholders areapprised of the status of projectimplementation and (2) Stakeholdershave access to information sufficient tojudge the success of this Project XLinitiative. Anticipated stakeholderinvolvement during the term of theproject will likely include other generalpublic meetings to present periodicstatus reports, availability of data andother information generated. In additionto the EPA, VTDEC, and MADEPreporting requirements of today’srulemaking, the FPA includesprovisions whereby the UniversityLaboratories will make copies of interimproject reports available to all interestedparties. A public file on this XL projecthas been maintained at the websitehttp://esf.uvm.edu/labxl throughoutproject development, and theUniversities have committed tocontinue to update it as the project isimplemented. Additional information isavailable at EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/projectxl.

A detailed description of this programand the stakeholder support for thisproject is included in the Final ProjectAgreement, which is available throughthe docket or through EPA’s Project XLsite on the Internet (see ADDRESSESsection of this preamble).

G. How Will This Project Result in CostSavings and Paperwork Reduction?

Laboratory waste managementcurrently accounts for the mostsubstantial expense for environmental,health and safety programs at theparticipating Universities. This XLProject would allow academicinstitutions to more effectively promoteand implement waste minimizationprograms in laboratories which wouldreduce waste disposal costs andminimize chemical purchasing costs.The opportunity to develop asystematic, planned procedure for thepickup of laboratory wastes andcentralization of waste managementdecisions would also enableEnvironmental Health and SafetyDepartments to more effectively utilizestaff on proactive activities such astraining and implementing chemicalreuse and waste minimization programs.

Additionally, a certain amount ofpaperwork associated with RCRAcompliance is likely to be reduced inthe long term, while in the short termthe requirement to write EnvironmentalManagement Plans would addadditional paperwork. Once theLaboratory EMP is written, the annualreview of the Chemical Hygiene Plansrequired by OSHA, and the review ofthe Environmental Management Plancould be accomplished in one step. TheUniversities do not expect significantpaperwork reduction gains given thefact that the RCRA requirements wouldstill be fully applicable once thelaboratory waste reaches the on-sitehazardous waste accumulation areas.

H. How Will EPA Ensure the Integrityand Comprehensiveness of EachUniversity’s Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Plan?

EPA, along with MA DEP and VT DECand designated stakeholders would havesufficient opportunity to review andcomment on the Laboratory EMP’s asthey are being developed by theUniversities. In this pilot project, onceits Laboratory EMP is complete, eachUniversity would formally submit theirown Laboratory EMP to EPA and theapplicable state for a final review of itsconformance with the requirements ofthe Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard. Because theUniversities would be working with theagencies in developing their EMP, it isexpected that they would be able torespond quickly to any possiblecomments or concerns raised by theagencies.

I. How Will the Terms of the LaboratoryXL Project and Proposed Rule BeEnforced?

All XL projects must include a legallyenforceable mechanism to ensureaccountability and superiorenvironmental performance. EPAretains its full range of enforcementoptions under the proposed rule. Theenforcement response on the part ofEPA would vary depending upon theactual performance of each Universityand the severity of any violation. So thatEPA can continue to evaluate this XLproject, each University would beevaluated by EPA Region I throughregular inspections based on thefollowing four criteria:

1. Does the University have anEnvironmental Management Plan asrequired by the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standard?

2. Does the University’sEnvironmental Management Planinclude the required policy andprocedural elements specified in theLaboratory Environmental ManagementStandard?

3. Is the University in compliancewith the Minimum Performance Criteriaas set forth in the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standard at40 CFR 262.104?

4. To what degree do the University’senvironmental management practices inthe laboratory conform to itsEnvironmental Management Plan?

Today’s proposed rule includes atermination provision, in addition toEPA’s usual enforcement options, whichauthorizes EPA to remove from this XLproject any University that does notcomply with the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Standard asdescribed in the rule. In the event ofsuch removal, the temporaryconditional deferral would be revokedand the Universities would be requiredto submit to EPA an implementationschedule setting forth how theUniversities would plan to come intofull compliance regulations within 90days from such notice. The schedulewould reflect the Universities’ intent touse their best efforts to come intocompliance as quickly as practicablewithin the 90 day transition period.During this 90 day transition period, theprovisions of this proposed rule and theUniversity’s EnvironmentalManagement Plan would apply in full.At the conclusion of the 90 day period,the applicable RCRA regulations wouldagain apply to the Universities in full.

The rationale for the 90-day transitionperiod is to allow sufficient time for theUniversities to reinstate the operationaland administrative infrastructure



necessary for proper RCRA compliance.Such a transition will likely require thedismantling of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan and its componentparts. Retraining and reverting to theimplementation of the current RCRAsystem would include, among otherthings, (1) the re-establishment of 3-daypick-ups of hazardous waste from theUniversity laboratories, (2) making earlyhazardous waste determinations in thelaboratories, and (3) the re-training ofhundreds of laboratory workers. Mostimportantly, this transition mightrequire the acquisition of funding andresources which were unnecessaryunder the streamlined EnvironmentalManagement Plan. For example,additional funding might be needed forthe re-negotiation of contract terms withhazardous waste contractors who mightbe needed for additional hazardouswaste pick-ups. Finally, the Universitiesmay receive such a revocation noticeduring the summer or during a semesterbreak when staff and graduate studentsare less available for re-training. For allof these reasons, and given the fact thatthe proposed rule and EnvironmentalManagement Plan would be fullyapplicable during this time, EPA isconfident that the 90-day time frame isreasonable.

J. How Long Will This Project Last andWhen Will It Be Complete?

As with all XL projects testingalternative environmental protectionstrategies, the term of the UniversityLaboratory XL project is one of limitedduration. Today’s proposed rule wouldset the term of the XL Project at fouryears after the effective date of this rule.

Because Project XL is a voluntary andexperimental program, today’s proposedrule contains provisions that allow theproject to conclude prior to the end ofthe four years in the event that it isdesirable or necessary to do so. Forexample, an early conclusion would bewarranted if the project’s environmentalbenefits do not meet the Project XLrequirement for the achievement ofsuperior environmental results. Inaddition, new laws or regulations maybecome applicable to the Universities’laboratories during the project termwhich might render the projectimpractical, or might contain regulatoryrequirements that supersede thesuperior environmental benefits that theUniversity Laboratories are achievingunder this project. Similarly, theUniversities may also request that thetemporary conditional deferral berevoked prior to the four years if theexperimental project does not providesufficient benefits for the Universities tojustify continued participation.

If an early conclusion to the project isdetermined to be appropriate, today’srule provides a mechanism for EPA tolegally conclude the project prior to thefour years, through a notice oftermination, which would trigger the90-day transitional period describedabove in this preamble discussion.While EPA, the state environmentalagencies and the Universities havebroad discretion and latitude to initiatean early conclusion of the project, bothexpect to exercise their good faith andjudgment in determining whetherexercising this option is appropriate.

EPA reserves the discretion toterminate a project and an FPA in theevent a University fails to comply withor meet its obligations in the proposedrule, or its supplementary commitmentscontained in the FPA. The FPA and thesite specific rule also provide for theproject sponsor’s return to compliancewith existing regulatory requirementsfollowing termination.

IV. Additional Information

A. How To Request a Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, ifrequested, to provide opportunity forinterested persons to make oralpresentations regarding this regulationin accordance with 40 CFR part 25.Persons wishing to make an oralpresentation on the site specific rule toimplement the University Laboratory XLproject should contact Ms. Gina Snyderor Mr. George Frantz of the Region IEPA office, at the address given in theADDRESSES section of this document.Any member of the public may file awritten statement before the hearing, orafter the hearing, to be received by EPAno later than August 10, 1999. Writtenstatements should be sent to EPA at theaddresses given in the ADDRESSESsection of this document. If a publichearing is held, a verbatim transcript ofthe hearing, and written statementsprovided at the hearing will be availablefor inspection and copying duringnormal business hours at the EPAaddresses for docket inspection given inthe ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

B. How Does This Rule Comply WithExecutive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR51735, October 4, 1993) the Agencymust determine whether the regulatoryaction is ‘‘significant’’ and thereforesubject to Office of Management andBudget (OMB) review and therequirements of the Executive Order.The Order defines ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ as one that is likelyto result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on theeconomy of $100 million or more oradversely affect in a material way theeconomy, a sector of the economy,productivity, competition, jobs, theenvironment, public health or safety inState, local, or tribal governments orcommunities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency orotherwise interfere with an action takenor planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetaryimpact of entitlement, grants, user fees,or loan programs of the rights andobligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issuesarising out of legal mandates, thePresident’s priorities, or the principlesset forth in the Executive Order.

Because the annualized cost of thisfinal rule will be significantly less than$100 million and will not meet any ofthe other criteria specified in theExecutive Order, it has been determinedthat this rule is not a ‘‘significantregulatory action’’ under the terms ofExecutive Order 12866, and is thereforenot subject to OMB review.

Executive Order 12866 alsoencourages agencies to provide ameaningful public comment period, andsuggests that in most cases the commentperiod should be 60 days. However, inconsideration of the very limited scopeof today’s rulemaking and theconsiderable public involvement in thedevelopment of the proposed FinalProject Agreement, the EPA considers30 days to be sufficient in providing ameaningful public comment period fortoday’s action.

C. Is a Regulatory Flexibility AnalysisRequired?

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, generally requiresan agency to conduct a regulatoryflexibility analysis of any rule subject tonotice and comment rulemakingrequirements unless the agency certifiesthat the rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Small entitiesinclude small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and smallgovernmental jurisdictions. This rulewill not have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesbecause it only affects three institutions,the University of Massachusetts inBoston, Massachusetts, Boston Collegein Boston, Massachusetts, and theUniversity of Vermont in Burlington,Vermont. These universities are notsmall entities. Therefore, EPA certifiesthat this action will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.



D. Is an Information Collection RequestRequired for This Project Under thePaperwork Reduction Act?

This action applies only to threeuniversities, and therefore requires noinformation collection activities subjectto the Paperwork Reduction Act, andtherefore no information collectionrequest (ICR) will be submitted to OMBfor review in compliance with thePaperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.3501, et seq.

E. Does This Project Trigger theRequirements of the UnfundedMandates Reform Act?

Title II of the Unfunded MandatesReform Act of 1995 (UMRA), PublicLaw 104–4, establishes requirements forFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir regulatory actions on State, local,and tribal governments and the privatesector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,EPA generally must prepare a writtenstatement, including a cost-benefitanalysis, for proposed and final ruleswith ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that mayresult in expenditures to State, local,and tribal governments, in the aggregate,or to the private sector, of $100 millionor more in any one year. Beforepromulgating an EPA rule for which awritten statement is needed, section 205of the UMRA generally requires EPA toidentify and consider a reasonablenumber of regulatory alternatives andadopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternativethat achieves the objectives of the rule.The provisions of section 205 do notapply when they are inconsistent withapplicable law. Moreover, section 205allows EPA to adopt an alternative otherthan the least costly, most cost-effectiveor least burdensome alternative if theAdministrator publishes with the finalrule an explanation of why thatalternative was not adopted. Before EPAestablishes any regulatory requirementsthat may significantly or uniquely affectsmall governments, including tribalgovernments, it must have developedunder section 203 of the UMRA a smallgovernment agency plan. The plan mustprovide for notifying potentiallyaffected small governments, enablingofficials of affected small governmentsto have meaningful and timely input inthe development of EPA regulatoryproposals with significant Federalintergovernmental mandates, andinforming, educating, and advisingsmall governments on compliance withthe regulatory requirements.

As noted above, this rule is applicableonly to the three universities inMassachusetts and Vermont. The EPAhas determined that this rule contains

no regulatory requirements that mightsignificantly or uniquely affect smallgovernments. EPA has also determinedthat this rule does not contain a Federalmandate that may result in expendituresof $100 million or more for State, local,and tribal governments, in the aggregate,or the private sector in any one year.Thus, today’s rule is not subject to therequirements of sections 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA.

F. RCRA and Hazardous and SolidWaste Amendments of 1984

1. Applicability of Rules in AuthorizedStates

Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPAmay authorize qualified states toadminister and enforce the RCRAprogram for hazardous waste within thestate. (See 40 CFR part 271 for thestandards and requirements forauthorization.) States with finalauthorization administer their ownhazardous waste programs in lieu of thefederal program. Followingauthorization, EPA retains enforcementauthority under sections 3008, 7003 and3013 of RCRA.

After authorization, federal ruleswritten under RCRA (non-HSWA), nolonger apply in the authorized stateexcept for those issued pursuant to theHazardous and Solid Waste ActAmendments of 1984 (HSWA). Newfederal requirements imposed by thoserules do not take effect in an authorizedstate until the state adopts therequirements as state law.

In contrast, under section 3006(g) ofRCRA, new requirements andprohibitions imposed by HSWA takeeffect in authorized states at the sametime they take effect in nonauthorizedstates. EPA is directed to carry outHSWA requirements and prohibitions inauthorized states until the state isgranted authorization to do so.

2. Effect on Massachusetts and VermontAuthorization

Today’s proposed rule, if finalized,would be promulgated pursuant to non-HSWA authority, rather than HSWA.Massachusetts and Vermont havereceived authority to administer most ofthe RCRA program; thus, authorizedprovisions of each State’s hazardouswaste program are administered in lieuof the federal program. Massachusettsand Vermont have received authority toadminister hazardous waste standardsfor generators. As a result, if today’sproposed rule is finalized, it would notbe effective in Massachusetts andVermont until the State adoptsequivalent legal mechanisms orrequirements as state law. It is EPA’s

understanding that subsequent to thepromulgation of this rule, Massachusettsand Vermont intend to propose rules orother legal mechanisms containingequivalent provisions. EPA may notenforce these requirements until itapproves the State requirements as arevision to the authorized Stateprogram.

G. How Does This Rule Comply WithExecutive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks?

The Executive Order 13045,‘‘Protection of Children fromEnvironmental Health Risks and SafetyRisks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)applies to any rule that: (1) Isdetermined to be ‘‘economicallysignificant,’’ as defined under ExecutiveOrder 12866; and (2) concerns anenvironmental health or safety risk thatEPA has reason to believe may have adisproportionate effect on children. Ifthe regulatory action meets both criteria,the Agency must evaluate theenvironmental health or safety effects ofthe planned rule on children, andexplain why the planned regulation ispreferable to other potentially effectiveand reasonably feasible alternativesconsidered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to ExecutiveOrder 13045 because it is not aneconomically significant rule, as definedby Executive Order 12866, and becauseit does not involve decisions based onenvironmental health or safety risks.

H. Does This Rule Comply WithExecutive Order 12875: EnhancingIntergovernmental Partnerships?

Under Executive Order 12875, EPAmay not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute and that creates amandate upon a State, local or tribalgovernment, unless the Federalgovernment provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by those governments. Ifthe mandate is unfunded, EPA mustprovide to the Office of Managementand Budget a description of the extentof EPA’s prior consultation withrepresentatives of affected State, localand tribal governments, the nature oftheir concerns, copies of any writtencommunications from the governments,and a statement supporting the need toissue the regulation. In addition,Executive Order 12875 requires EPA todevelop an effective process permittingelected officials and otherrepresentatives of State, local and tribalgovernments to provide meaningful andtimely input in the development ofregulatory proposals containingsignificant unfunded mandates.



Today’s rule does not create amandate on State, local or tribalgovernments. The rule does not imposeany enforceable duties on these entities.Accordingly, the requirements ofsection 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 donot apply to this rule.

I. How Does This Rule Comply WithExecutive Order 13084: Consultationand Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments?

Under Executive Order 13084, EPAmay not issue a regulation that is notrequired by statute, that significantly oruniquely affects the communities ofIndian tribal governments, and thatimposes substantial direct compliancecosts on those communities, unless theFederal government provides the fundsnecessary to pay the direct compliancecosts incurred by the tribalgovernments. If the mandate isunfunded, EPA must provide to theOffice of Management and Budget, in aseparately identified section of thepreamble to the rule, a description ofthe extent of EPA’s prior consultationwith representatives of affected tribalgovernments, a summary of the natureof their concerns, and a statementsupporting the need to issue theregulation. In addition, Executive Order13084 requires EPA to develop aneffective process permitting elected andother representatives of Indian tribalgovernments to provide meaningful andtimely input in the development ofregulatory policies on matters thatsignificantly or uniquely affect theircommunities. Today’s rule does notsignificantly or uniquely affect thecommunities of Indian tribalgovernments. There are no communitiesof Indian tribal governments located in

the vicinity of the universitylaboratories. Accordingly, therequirements of section 3(b) ofExecutive Order 13084 do not apply tothis rule.

J. Does This Rule Comply With theNational Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the NationalTechnology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272note) directs EPA to use voluntaryconsensus standards in its regulatoryactivities unless to do so would beinconsistent with applicable law orotherwise impractical. Voluntaryconsensus standards are technicalstandards (e.g., materials specifications,test methods, sampling procedures, andbusiness practices) that are developed oradopted by voluntary consensusstandards bodies. The NTTAA directsEPA to provide Congress, through OMB,explanations when the Agency decidesnot to use available and applicablevoluntary consensus standard. Thisproposed rulemaking does not involvetechnical standards. Therefore, EPA isnot considering the use of any voluntaryconsensus standards. EPA welcomescomments on this aspect of theproposed rulemaking and, specifically,invites the public to identifypotentially-applicable voluntaryconsensus standards and to explain whysuch standards should be used in thisregulation.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 262

Environmental protection,Accumulation time, Hazardous waste,Waste determination.

Dated: July 21, 1999.Carol M. Browner,Administrator.

For the reasons set forth in thepreamble, part 262 of Chapter I of title40 of the Code of Federal Regulations isproposed to be amended as follows:

PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLETO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUSWASTE

1. The authority citation for part 262continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922–6925, 6937, and 6938.

Subpart A—General

1. Section 262.10 is amended byadding paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 262.10 Purpose, scope, and applicability.

* * * * *(j)(1) Universities that are

participating in the Laboratory XLproject are the University ofMassachusetts Boston in Boston,Massachusetts, Boston College inChestnut Hill, Massachusetts, and theUniversity of Vermont in Burlington,Vermont (‘‘Universities’’). TheUniversities generate laboratory wastes,(as defined in 40 CFR 262.102) some ofwhich will be hazardous wastes. Aslong as the Universities comply with allthe requirements of 40 CFR Part 262,Subpart J, the Universities’ laboratoriesthat are participating in the UniversityLaboratories XL Project as identified inTable 1, are not subject to the provisionsof 40 CFR 262.11, 262.34(c), 40 CFR Part264, 40 CFR Part 265, and the permitrequirements of 40 CFR Part 270 withrespect to said laboratory wastes.

TABLE 1.—LABORATORY XL PROJECT PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

InstitutionApprox.

number oflabs

Departments participating Location of current hazardous waste ac-cumulation areas

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA ........... 120 Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Physics,Psychology.

Merkert Chemistry Building, 2609 BeaconSt., Boston MA; Higgins Building, 140Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill,MA.

University of Massachusetts Boston, Bos-ton, MA.

150 Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Anthro-pology, Geology and Earth Sciences,and Environmental, Coastal and OceanSciences.

Science Building (Bldg. #080); McCor-mack Building (Bldg. #020); andWheatley Building (Bldg. #010), 100Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA.

University of Vermont, Burlington, VT ...... 400 Colleges of: Agriculture and LifeSciences, Arts and Sciences, Medicine,and Engineering and Mathematics; andSchools of: Nursing, Allied HeathSciences, and Natural Resources.

Given Bunker, 89 Beaumont Ave., Bur-lington, VT.

(2) Each University shall have theright to change its respectivedepartments or the on-site location of its

hazardous waste accumulation areaslisted in Table 1 upon written notice tothe Regional Administrator for EPA—

Region I and the appropriate stateagency. Such written notice will be



provided at least ten days prior to theeffective date of any such changes.

2. Part 262 is amended by addingSubpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J—University Laboratories XLProject—Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard

Sec.262.100 To what organizations does this

subpart apply?262.101 What is in this subpart?262.102 What special definitions are

included in this subpart?262.103 What is the scope of the laboratory

environmental management standard?262.104 What are the minimum

performance criteria?262.105 What must be included in the

laboratory environmental managementplan?

262.106 When must a hazardous wastedetermination be made?

262.107 Under what circumstances will auniversity’s participation in thisenvironmental management standardpilot be terminated?

262.108 When will this subpart expire?

§ 262.100 To what organizations does thissubpart apply?

This Subpart applies to anorganization that meets all three of thefollowing conditions:

(a) It is one of the three followingacademic institutions: The University ofMassachusetts Boston in Boston,Massachusetts, Boston College inChestnut Hill, Massachusetts, or theUniversity of Vermont in Burlington,Vermont (‘‘Universities’’); and

(b) It is a laboratory at one of theUniversities (identified pursuant to§ 262.105(c)(2)(ii)) where laboratoryscale activities, as defined in § 262.102,result in laboratory waste; and

(c) It complies with all therequirements of this Subpart.

§ 262.101 What is in this subpart?This Subpart provides a framework

for a new management system forwastes that are generated in Universitylaboratories. This framework is calledthe Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard. The standardincludes some specific definitions thatapply to the University laboratories. Itcontains specific requirements for howto handle laboratory waste that arecalled Minimum Performance Criteria.The standard identifies therequirements for developing andimplementing an environmentalmanagement plan. It outlines theresponsibilities of the management staffof each participating university. Finally,the standard identifies requirements fortraining people who will work in thelaboratories or manage laboratory waste.This Subpart contains requirements for

RCRA solid and hazardous wastedetermination, and circumstances fortermination and expiration of this pilot.

§ 262.102 What special definitions areincluded in this subpart?

For purposes of this Subpart, thefollowing definitions apply:

Acutely Hazardous Laboratory Wastemeans a laboratory waste, defined in theEnvironmental Management Plan asposing significant potential hazards tohuman health or the environment andwhich must include RCRA ‘‘P’’ wastes,and may include particularly hazardoussubstances as designated in aUniversity’s Chemical Hygiene Planunder OSHA, or Extremely HazardousSubstances under the EmergencyPlanning and Community Right toKnow Act.

Emergency means any occurrencesuch as, but not limited to, equipmentfailure, rupture of containers or failureof control equipment which results inthe potential uncontrolled release of ahazardous chemical into theenvironment and which requires agencyor fire department notification and/orreporting.

Environmental Management Plan(EMP) means a written programdeveloped and implemented by theuniversity which sets forth standardsand procedures, responsibilities,pollution control equipment,performance criteria, resources andwork practices that both protect humanhealth and the environment from thehazards presented by laboratory wasteswithin a laboratory and between alaboratory and the hazardous wasteaccumulation area, and satisfies theplan requirements defined elsewhere inthis Subpart. Certain requirements ofthis plan are satisfied through the use ofthe Chemical Hygiene Plan (see, 29 CFR§ 1910.1450), or equivalent, and otherrelevant plans, including a wasteminimization plan. The elements of theEnvironmental Management Plan mustbe easily accessible, but may beintegrated into existing plans,incorporated as an attachment, ordeveloped as a separate document.

Environmental Objective means anoverall environmental goal of theorganization which is verifiable.

Environmental Performance meansresults of the data collected pursuant toimplementation of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan as measured againstpolicy, objectives and targets.

Environmental Target means anenvironmental performance requirementof the organization which isquantifiable, where practicable,verifiable and designed to be achievedwithin a specified time frame.

Hazardous Chemical means anychemical which is a physical hazard ora health hazard. A physical hazardmeans a chemical for which there isscientifically valid evidence that it is acombustible liquid, a compressed gas,explosive, flammable, an organicperoxide, an oxidizer, pyrophoric,unstable (reactive) or water-reactive. Ahealth hazard means a chemical forwhich there is statistically significantevidence based on at least one studyconducted in accordance withestablished scientific principles thatacute or chronic health effects mayoccur in exposed employees. The term‘‘health hazard’’ includes chemicalswhich are carcinogens, toxic or highlytoxic agents, reproductive toxins,irritants, corrosives, sensitizers,hepatotoxins, nephrotoxins,neurotoxins, agents which act on thehematopoietic system and agents whichdamage the lungs, skin, eyes or mucousmembranes.

Hazardous Chemical of Concernmeans a chemical that the organizationhas identified as having the potential tobe of significant risk to human health orthe environment if not managed inaccordance with procedures or practicesdefined by the organization.

Hazardous Waste Accumulation Areameans the on-site area at a Universitywhere the University will make a solidand hazardous waste determinationwith respect to laboratory wastes.

In-Line Waste Collection means asystem for the automatic collection oflaboratory waste which is directlyconnected to or part of a laboratory scaleactivity and which is constructed oroperated in a manner which preventsthe release of any laboratory wastetherein into the environment duringcollection.

Laboratory means, for the purpose ofthis Subpart, an area within a facilitywhere the laboratory use of hazardouschemicals occurs. It is a workplacewhere relatively small quantities ofhazardous chemicals are used on a non-production basis. The physical extent ofindividual laboratories within anorganization will be defined by theEnvironmental Management Plan. Alaboratory may include more than asingle room if the rooms are in the samebuilding and under the commonsupervision of a laboratory supervisor.

Laboratory Clean-Out means anevaluation of the chemical inventory ofa laboratory as a result of laboratoryrenovation, relocation or a change inlaboratory supervision that may resultin the transfer of laboratory wastes tothe hazardous waste accumulation area.

Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard means the



provisions of this Subpart and includesthe requirements for preparation ofEnvironmental Management Plans andthe inclusion of Minimum PerformanceCriteria within each EnvironmentalManagement Plan.

Laboratory Scale means work withsubstances in which containers used forreactions, transfers and other handlingof substances are designed to be safelyand easily manipulated by one person.‘‘Laboratory Scale’’ excludes thoseworkplaces whose function is toproduce commercial quantities ofchemicals.

Laboratory Waste means a hazardouschemical that results from laboratoryscale activities and includes thefollowing: excess or unused hazardouschemicals that may or may not bereused outside their laboratory of origin;hazardous chemicals determined to beRCRA hazardous waste as defined in 40CFR Part 261; and hazardous chemicalsthat will be determined not to be RCRAhazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR262.106.

Laboratory Worker means a personwho is assigned to handle hazardouschemicals in the laboratory and mayinclude researchers, students ortechnicians.

Legal and Other Requirements meansrequirements imposed by, or as a resultof, governmental permits, governmentallaws and regulations, judicial andadministrative enforcement orders, non-governmental legally enforceablecontracts, research grants andagreements, certification specifications,formal voluntary commitments andorganizational policies and standards.

Senior Management means seniorpersonnel with overall responsibility,authority and accountability formanaging laboratory activities withinthe organization.

Universities means the followingacademic institutions; University ofVermont, Boston College, and theUniversity of Massachusetts Boston,which are participants in thisLaboratory XL project and which aresubject to the requirements set forth inthis Subpart I.

§ 262.103 What is the scope of thelaboratory environmental managementstandard?

The Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Standard will not affect orsupersede any legal requirements otherthan those described in § 262.10(j). Therequirements that continue to applyinclude, but are not limited to, OSHA,Fire Codes, wastewater permitlimitations, emergency responsenotification provisions, or other legal

requirements applicable to Universitylaboratories.

§ 262.104 What are the minimumperformance criteria?

The Minimum Performance Criteriathat each University must meet inmanaging its Laboratory Waste are:

(a) Each University must label alllaboratory waste with the chemicalname and general hazard class. If thecontainer is too small to hold a label,the label must be placed on a secondarycontainer.

(b) Each University may temporarilyhold up to 55 gallons of laboratorywaste or one quart of acutely hazardouslaboratory waste, or weight equivalent,in each laboratory, but upon reachingthese thresholds, each University mustmark that laboratory waste with the datewhen this threshold requirement wasmet (by dating the container(s) orsecondary container(s)).

(c) Each university must remove all ofthe dated laboratory waste from thelaboratory for direct delivery to thehazardous waste accumulation areawithin 30 days of reaching the thresholdamount identified in paragraph (b) ofthis section.

(d) In no event shall the excesslaboratory waste that a laboratorytemporarily holds before datedlaboratory waste is removed exceed anadditional 55 gallons of laboratory waste(or one additional quart of acutelyhazardous laboratory waste). No morethan 110 gallons of laboratory wastetotal (or no more than two quarts ofacutely hazardous laboratory wastetotal) may be temporarily held in alaboratory at any one time. Excesslaboratory waste must be dated andremoved in accordance with therequirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) ofthis section.

(e) Containers of laboratory wastesmust be:

(1) Closed at all times except whenwastes are being added to (includingduring in-line waste collection) orremoved from the container;

(2) Maintained in good condition andstored in the laboratory in a manner toavoid leaks;

(3) Compatible with their contents toavoid reactions between the waste andits container; and must be made of, orlined with, materials which arecompatible with the laboratory wastes tobe temporarily held in the laboratory sothat the container is not impaired; and

(4) Inspected regularly (at leastannually) to ensure that they meetrequirements for container management.

(f) The management of laboratorywaste must not result in the release ofhazardous constituents into the land, air

and water where such release isprohibited under federal law.

(g) The requirements for emergencyresponse are:

(1) Each University must postnotification procedures, location ofemergency response equipment to beused by laboratory workers andevacuation procedures;

(2) Emergency response equipmentand procedures for emergency responsemust be appropriate to the hazards inthe laboratory such that hazards tohuman health and the environment willbe minimized in the event of anemergency;

(3) In the event of a fire, explosion orother release of laboratory waste whichcould threaten human health or theenvironment, the laboratory workermust follow the notification proceduresunder paragraph (g)(1) of this section.

(h) Each University must investigate,document, and take actions to correctand prevent future incidents ofhazardous chemical spills, exposuresand other incidents that trigger areportable emergency or that requirereporting under paragraph (g) of thissection.

(i) Each University may only transferlaboratory wastes from a laboratorydirectly to an on-site designatedhazardous waste accumulation area.Notwithstanding 40 CFR 263.10(a), eachUniversity must comply withrequirements for transporters set forth in40 CFR 263.30 and 263.31 in the eventof a discharge of laboratory waste enroute from a laboratory to an on-sitehazardous waste accumulation area.

(j) Each University must providelaboratory workers with informationand training so that they can implementand comply with these MinimumPerformance Criteria.

§ 262.105 What must be included in thelaboratory environmental managementplan?

(a) Each University must includespecific measures it will take to protecthuman health and the environmentfrom hazards associated with themanagement of laboratory wastes andfrom the reuse, recycling or disposal ofsuch materials outside the laboratory.

(b) Each University must write,implement and comply with anEnvironmental Management Plan thatincludes the following:

(1) The specific procedures to assurecompliance with each of the MinimumPerformance Criteria set forth in§ 262.104.

(2) An environmental policy, orenvironmental, health and safety policy,signed by the University’s seniormanagement, which must include



commitments to regulatory compliance,waste minimization, risk reduction andcontinual improvement of theenvironmental management system.

(3) A description of roles andresponsibilities for the implementationand maintenance of the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan.

(4) A system for identifying andtracking legal and other requirementsapplicable to laboratory waste,including the procedures for providingupdates to laboratory supervisors.

(5) Criteria for the identification ofphysical and chemical hazards and thecontrol measures to reduce the potentialfor releases of laboratory wastes to theenvironment, including engineeringcontrols, the use of personal protectiveequipment and hygiene practices,containment strategies and other controlmeasures.

(6) A pollution prevention plan,including, but not limited to, roles andresponsibilities, training, pollutionprevention activities, and performancereview.

(7) A system for conducting andupdating annual surveys of hazardouschemicals of concern and procedures foridentifying acutely hazardous laboratorywaste.

(8) The procedures for conductinglaboratory clean-outs with regard to thesafe management and disposal oflaboratory wastes.

(9) The criteria that laboratoryworkers must comply with formanaging, containing and labelinglaboratory wastes, including: anevaluation of the need for and the useof any special containers or labelingcircumstances, and the use of laboratorywastes secondary containers includingpackaging, bottles, or test tube racks.

(10) The procedures relevant to thesafe and timely removal of laboratorywastes from the laboratory.

(11) The emergency preparedness andresponse procedures to be implementedfor laboratory waste.

(12) Provisions for informationdissemination and training, provided forin paragraph (d) of this section.

(13) The procedures for thedevelopment and approval of changes tothe Environmental Management Plan.

(14) The procedures and workpractices for safely transferring ormoving laboratory wastes from alaboratory to a hazardous wasteaccumulation area.

(15) The procedures for regularlyinspecting a laboratory to assessconformance with the requirements ofthe Environmental Management Plan.

(16) The procedures for theidentification of environmentalmanagement plan noncompliance, and

the assignment of responsibility,timelines and corrective actions toprevent their reoccurrence.

(17) The recordkeeping requirementsto document conformance with thisPlan.

(c) Organizational responsibilities foreach university. Each University must:

(1) Develop and overseeimplementation of its LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan.

(2) Identify the following:(i) Annual environmental objectives

and targets;(ii) Those laboratories covered by the

requirements of the LaboratoryEnvironmental Management Plan.

(3) Assign roles and responsibilitiesfor the effective implementation of theEnvironmental Management Plan.

(4) Determine whether laboratorywastes received at a hazardous wasteaccumulation area are solid wastesunder RCRA and, if so, whether they arehazardous.

(5) Develop, implement, andmaintain:

(i) Policies, procedures and practicesgoverning its compliance with theEnvironmental Management Plan andapplicable federal and state hazardouswaste regulations.

(ii) Procedures to monitor andmeasure relevant conformance andenvironmental performance data for thepurpose of supporting continualimprovement of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan.

(iii) Policies and procedures formanaging environmental documentsand records applicable to thisEnvironmental Management Standard.

(6) Ensure that:(i) Its Environmental Management

Plan is available to laboratory workers,vendors, employee representatives,visitors, on-site contractors, and uponrequest, to governmentalrepresentatives.

(ii) Personnel designated by eachUniversity to handle laboratory wastesand RCRA hazardous waste receiveappropriate training.

(iii) The Environmental ManagementPlan is reviewed at least annually bysenior management to ensure itscontinuing suitability, adequacy andeffectiveness. The reviews may include,but not be limited to, a consideration ofmonitoring and measuring information,Laboratory Environmental ManagementStandard performance data, assessmentand audit results and other relevantinformation and data.

(d) What are the Information andTraining Requirements for EachUniversity? (1) Each University mustprovide laboratory workers withinformation and training so that they

understand and can implement theelements of each University’sEnvironmental Management Plan thatare relevant to the laboratory workers’responsibilities.

(2) Each University must provide theinformation and training to eachlaboratory worker when he/she is firstassigned to a work area wherelaboratory wastes may be generated.Each University must retrain alaboratory worker when a laboratorywaste poses a new or unique hazard forwhich the laboratory worker has notreceived prior training and as frequentlyas needed to maintain knowledge of theprocedures of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan.

(3) Each University must provide anoutline of training and specify who is toreceive training in its EnvironmentalManagement Plan.

(4) Each University must ensure thatlaboratory workers are informed of:

(i) The contents of this Subpart andthe Laboratory EnvironmentalManagement Plan(s) for thelaboratory(ies) in which they will beperforming work;

(ii) The location and availability ofthe Environmental Management Plan;

(iii) Emergency response measuresapplicable to laboratories;

(iv) Signs and indicators of ahazardous substance release;

(v) The location and availability ofknown reference materials relevant toimplementation of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan; and

(vi) Environmental trainingrequirements applicable to laboratoryworkers.

(5) Each University must trainLaboratory workers in:

(i) Methods and observations that maybe used to detect the presence or releaseof a hazardous substance;

(ii) The chemical and physicalhazards associated with laboratorywastes in their work area;

(iii) The relevant measures alaboratory worker can take to protecthuman health and the environment; and

(iv) Details of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan sufficient to ensurethey manage laboratory waste inaccordance with the requirements ofthis Subpart.

(6) Requirements pertaining toLaboratory visitors:

(i) Laboratory visitors, such as on-sitecontractors or environmental vendors,that require information and trainingunder this standard must be identifiedin the Environmental Management Plan.

(ii) Laboratory visitors identified inthe Environmental Management Planmust be informed of the existence andlocation of the EnvironmentalManagement Plan.



(iii) Laboratory visitors identified inthe Environmental Management Planmust be informed of relevant policies,procedures or work practices to ensurecompliance with the requirements of theEnvironmental Management Plan.

(7) Each University must definemethods of providing objective evidenceand records of training and informationdissemination in its EnvironmentalManagement Plan.

§ 262.106 When must a hazardous wastedetermination be made?

Each University must evaluate alllaboratory wastes to determine whetherthey are solid wastes under RCRA and,if so, determine pursuant to 40 CFR262.11(a) through (d) whether they arehazardous wastes, as soon as thelaboratory wastes reach the University’sHazardous Waste Accumulation area(s).At this point each University mustdetermine whether the laboratory wastewill be reused or whether it must bemanaged as RCRA solid or hazardouswaste. Laboratory waste that isdetermined to be hazardous waste is nolonger subject to the provisions of thisSubpart and must be managed inaccordance with all applicable RCRArequirements.

§ 262.107 Under what circumstances will auniversity’s participation in thisenvironmental management standard pilotbe terminated?

(a) EPA retains the right to terminatea University’s participation in thisLaboratory XL project if the University:

(1) Is in non-compliance with theMinimum Performance Criteria in§ 262.104; or

(2) Has actual environmentalmanagement practices in the laboratorythat do not conform to itsEnvironmental Management Plan; or

(3) Is in non-compliance with theHazardous Waste Determinationrequirements of § 262.106.

(b) In the event of termination, EPAwill provide the University with 15 dayswritten notice of its intent to terminate.During this period, which commencesupon receipt of the notice, theUniversity will have the opportunity tocome back into compliance with theMinimum Performance Criteria, itsEnvironmental Management Plan, or therequirements for making a hazardouswaste determination at § 262.106 or toprovide a written explanation as to whyit was not in compliance and how itintends to return to compliance. If, uponreview of the University’s written

explanation, EPA then re-issues awritten notice terminating theUniversity from this XL Project, theprovisions of § 262.107(c) willimmediately apply and the Universityshall have 90 days to come intocompliance with the applicable RCRArequirements deferred by § 262.10(j).During the 90-day transition period, theprovisions of this Subpart shallcontinue to apply to the University.

(c) If a University withdraws from thisXL project, or receives a notice oftermination pursuant to this section, itmust submit to EPA and the state aschedule for returning to fullcompliance with RCRA requirements atthe laboratory level. The schedule mustshow how the University will return tofull compliance with RCRA within 90days from the date of the notice oftermination or withdrawal.

§ 262.108 When will this subpart expire?

This Subpart will expire on [INSERTDATE 4 YEARS FROM EFFECTIVEDATE OF FINAL RULE].

[FR Doc. 99–19123 Filed 7–26–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P


Documents

July 27, 1999 federal register40696 Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 143/Tuesday, July 27, 1999/Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 262 [FRL–6408–4] Project