Comment submitted by Mike McNeill, Headquarters Environmental Management Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Comments to EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-RCRA 2003-0012, "40 CFR Parts 261 and 262 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K? Standards Applicable to Academic Laboratories; Proposed Rule" The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon this proposed rule. NASA and other federal agencies have a long history of laboratory operations, and can provide insight regarding the scope and applicability of this alternate standard. The proposed rule creates an optional, alternative process for the management of hazardous wastes in "academic laboratories". It allows a college or university laboratory to elect one of two available processes for managing hazardous wastes, based upon the unique operational and organizational conditions of the facility. We commend EPA on creating this flexibility, while also requesting that you expand and simplify the scope of the proposed standard. The proposed standard correctly asserts that an academic laboratory is substantially different, both operationally and organizationally, from the industrial/manufacturing setting for which the existing hazardous waste management regulations (40 CFR Part 262) were promulgated to address. However, the proposed standard fails to recognize that other types of laboratories exist, in government and industry, which are substantially comparable (from an environmental risk perspective) to the academic laboratories addressed in the standard. Specifically, all of these laboratories are comparable in that they all use relatively small quantities of a variety of hazardous chemicals on a non-production basis. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recognized that all laboratories (including academic, government and industrial) shared common operational risks when it promulgated 29 CFR 1910.1450, "Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories". Instead of divisions based upon the "ownership" of the operation by a university, company or Agency, the OSHA standard is focused on defining the characteristics of the laboratory operations it applies to. The existing, well-understood OSHA standard defines a "laboratory", which includes the definitions for "laboratory use of hazardous chemicals" on a "laboratory scale" using "protective laboratory practices and equipment". NASA recommends that the optional, alternate standard proposed in this docket be expanded in scope, in order to permit all laboratories (academic, industrial, and government) options in mitigating the risks of hazardous waste generation. By doing so, the standard allows flexibility based upon equivalent risk groups, as opposed to arbitrary organizational delineations (e.g. "academic" versus "other labs") which are not risk-based. Further, NASA recommends that, instead of creating a new definition for "laboratories" in EPA regulations, the proposed standard directly reference the OSHA definition of "laboratories" already promulgated in 29 CFR 1910.1450. This change again targets equivalent risk groups, while promoting a level of regulatory harmony between OSHA and EPA regulations which impact the same user community. If you have questions or desire clarification regarding these recommendations, please contact Mike McNeill, NASA Headquarters, Environmental Management Division at (202) 358-1886 or mike.a.mcneill@nasa.gov.