1. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative1 Region 2's College & University Compliance Initiative: Environmental Results From An Integrated Strategy Leveraging Limited Resources To Obtain Better Compliance Six Year Status Report

2. Academic Labs Rule Proposed Rule published in Federal Register – –May 23, 2006 90 day public comment period – –Originally ended August 21, 2006 CSHEMA, C2E2, NACUBO and ACE asked for an extension of public comment period Public comment period extended – –Ended September 20, 2006

3. 111 Public Comments on Proposal 66 individual colleges & universities 17 states/state groups 13 trade groups – –8 academic - AAMC, ACS, CSHEMA, C2E2, COGR, HHMI, NACUBO/ACE, VESCO (13 VT schools) – –5 non-academic 6 federal government 9 other or no affiliation given

4. Main Points from C/U Comments Applicability of Rule – –Expand to include CESQGs, teaching hospitals, photo labs, field labs, stockrooms – –Expand to include all HW on campus – dual regulation is too confusing Performance-based Standards – –Proposal is too prescriptive to be truly performance-based Clean-out Incentives – –Supportive of incentives for voluntary clean-outs – –Allow CESQGs to do clean-outs without fully opting in Laboratory Management Plan – –LMP should NOT be enforceable Other areas – –Supportive of opt-in approach – –Add consolidation area/super satellite area – –Add working container – –Eliminate LQG status based on 1 kg/month of acute HW – –Allow one EPA ID# per campus – –Allow treatment in the lab – –Lab waste is MUCH more than 9% of C/U’s total HW

5. Main Points from State Comments Applicability of Rule – –5 states said to limit to C/Us only – –5 states said to expand to others with labs Performance-based Standards – –5 states said they are not enforceable; will lead to inconsistent enforcement – –3 states said to add more prescriptive labeling requirements Clean-out Incentives – –7 states said HW from clean-outs should be counted LMP Enforceability – –2 states said LMP should NOT be enforceable – –4 states said LMP should be enforceable

6. Main Points from Other Comments Applicability of Rule – –Expand to include other facilities with labs R&D labs (Government, commercial, non-profit), hospitals – –2 said to expand to include all HW – dual regulation in “untenable” Performance-based Standards – –Proposal is too prescriptive to be truly performance-based Clean-out Incentives – –4 supportive of incentives for voluntary clean-outs – –2 said clean-outs should be mandatory – –1 said HW from clean-outs should be counted Laboratory Management Plan – –4 said LMP should NOT be enforceable – –3 said LMP should be enforceable Other areas – –Add consolidation area/super satellite area – –Add working container – –2 said to allow treatment in the lab

7. If EPA Finalized as Proposed 2 states said they would adopt the rule 1 school said it would opt in 12 schools said they would NOT opt in 2 C/U trade groups said many schools are unlikely to opt in

8. EPA’s Next Steps Re-convene Agency workgroup for final rule phase Work toward Early Guidance with AAs AA tasks workgroup with issues for workgroup to focus on in final rule Workgroup develops options and recommendations for management Management makes decisions regarding final rule

9. Finalizing & Implementing the Labs Rule EPA prepares Final Rule Final Rule is reviewed by OMB Final rule is signed & published in the Federal Register (Summer 2008) C/Us in AK, IA can implement the Labs Rule (not authorized) Other states get authorized for Labs Rule C/Us in authorized states can implement the Labs Rule

10. Contact Info for OSW Labs Team Kristin Fitzgerald Fitzgerald.Kristin@epa.gov 703-308-8286 Trisha Mercer Mercer.Patricia@epa.gov 703-308-8408 Meg McCarthy McCarthy.Meg@epa.gov 703-308-8653 Jessica Biegelson Biegelson.Jessica@epa.gov 703-308-0026

11. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative11 Goals For Compliance Initiative Improve environmental compliance and safety at main and off-site facilities. Improve environmental compliance and safety at main and off-site facilities. Change the culture to one in which environmental compliance is a priority. Change the culture to one in which environmental compliance is a priority. Ensure compliance of entire sector; not just those reached through inspections. Ensure compliance of entire sector; not just those reached through inspections. Ensure continued compliance by implementing permanent changes. Ensure continued compliance by implementing permanent changes.

12. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative12Approach Region 2 combined the following strategies to address compliance issues in this sector: Region 2 combined the following strategies to address compliance issues in this sector: –Compliance assistance –Compliance incentives (voluntary audit/disclosure) –Compliance monitoring –Enforcement –Pollution prevention –Environmental management systems (EMS)

13. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative13 Results: Compliance Monitoring & Incentives Programs Colleges & Universities Universe 375 Inspections 79 Enforcement Actions 62 Formal Enforcement Actions26 ($3,815,048) Settlements24 ($781,305) Audit Agreements16 Voluntary Disclosures 144 ($22,173,380 for 129 resolved) Violations Corrected1717

14. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative 14 PERCENT / YEAR

15. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative15 University and College SEPs 11 settlements include SEPs 11 settlements include SEPs Range from $26,000 to $270,000 Range from $26,000 to $270,000 Total value of SEPs = $1,810,297 Total value of SEPs = $1,810,297

16. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative16 Types of SEPs –Chemical Tracking & Control Systems –Mini/Micro-Scale Chemistry –Solvent Recovery Systems –Other Equipment/Technology Modifications –Environmental Compliance Promotions –Environmental Management Systems

17. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative17 Results: Environmental Benefits ProgramEnvironmental Benefits from Disclosures RCRAMore than 525,736 lbs/year of hazardous waste is now being managed properly because colleges have self-disclosed violations and corrected mismanagement. SPCCAt least 984,650 gallons of oil are now being managed properly. TSCAAt least 206 residential units now in compliance with lead-based paint rules. CAAAt least 6,100 pounds of chlorofluorocarbons now being appropriately managed.

18. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative18 Root Causes Of Noncompliance Systemic violations appear to stem from: Inadequate resources for people, equipment and training to carry out environmental activities; Inadequate resources for people, equipment and training to carry out environmental activities; Limited or no environmental compliance accountability for individual departments, laboratories, and staff; Limited or no environmental compliance accountability for individual departments, laboratories, and staff; Limited authority vested in environmental compliance officials; Limited authority vested in environmental compliance officials;

19. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative19 Root Causes Of Noncompliance No clear environmental compliance chain- of-command; No clear environmental compliance chain- of-command; Scattered, incomplete, and missing environmental compliance documentation; Scattered, incomplete, and missing environmental compliance documentation; Incomplete institutional knowledge regarding environmental regulatory requirements; and Incomplete institutional knowledge regarding environmental regulatory requirements; and Broad use of hazardous materials when effective substitutes exist Broad use of hazardous materials when effective substitutes exist

20. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative20

21. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative21

22. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative22

23. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative23

24. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative24 College & University Violations 2007

25. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative25 College & University RCRA Violations - 2007

26. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative26 College & University CAA Violations 2007

27. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative27 Survey Overview 61 colleges completed and returned the audit survey 61 colleges completed and returned the audit survey 18,345 faculty are reported to be working at these facilities 18,345 faculty are reported to be working at these facilities 25,922 staff are reported to be working at these facilities 25,922 staff are reported to be working at these facilities 399,498 students are reported to attend these facilities 399,498 students are reported to attend these facilities 2191 facilities are reported to compose these 61 colleges 2191 facilities are reported to compose these 61 colleges

28. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative28

29. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative29 Understanding Of Waste Management Regulations Before And After Compliance Initiative (42% - 97%)

30. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative30 Understanding Of Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations Before And After Compliance Initiative (46 - 91%)

31. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative31 Understanding Of Under Ground Storage Tank Regulations Before And After Compliance Initiative (51% - 90%)

32. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative32 Understanding Of Clean Air Act Regulations Before And After Compliance Initiative (34% - 83%)

33. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative33 Understanding Of Wastewater Discharge Regulations Before And After Compliance Initiative (44% - 74%)

34. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative34 Understanding Of Spill Prevention Control Countermeasure Plans Before And After Compliance Initiative (33% - 87%)

35. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative35 Understanding Of Toxic Substances Control Act Before And After Compliance Initiative (43% - 75)

36. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative36 Understanding Of Pesticide Regulations Before And After Compliance Initiative (49% - 79%)

37. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative37

38. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative38

39. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative39 Top $$ Saving Activities RMW management/segregation $350,000 Upgrade surface coating spray painting operations $35,000 Retrofit heating plant to allow summer shutdown $30,000 Reduction in disposal, storage, & management costs by reducing on-hand chemical storage $10,000 Consolidation of photo processing operations $10,000

40. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative40 Top $$ Saving Activities Retrofit library air system with variable speed drives $6,500 Computerized chemical inventory – avoided unnecessary purchases $5,000 Used rag service to launder oily rags $3,000 Installed silver recovery system $1,750 Installed high-efficiency motors, up- graded light fixtures to t-8’s, and new electronic ballasts $1,400

41. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative41 Top Five Pollutant Reductions RMW Segregation 475 tons Upgrade surface coating spray painting operations – reduce HW 5.2 tons Used rag service to launder oily rags 10,000 lbs Upgrade printmaking screen washing process – also reduced 800 lbs VOCs & HAPs/yr 5,000 lbs corrosive oxides Implement solvent recycling 40% reduction

42. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative42 Five Simple Waste Reduction Activities Five Simple Waste Reduction Activities Install automatic light sensors Install automatic light sensors Install water saver plumbing fixtures Install water saver plumbing fixtures Send kitchen grease to a reclamation facility Send kitchen grease to a reclamation facility Switch from disposable to reusable plates, eating utensils, and cups for cafeteria services Switch from disposable to reusable plates, eating utensils, and cups for cafeteria services Reduce the use of disposable cleaning materials Reduce the use of disposable cleaning materials

43. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative43

44. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative44

45. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative45

46. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative46

47. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative47

48. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative48

49. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative49 Reported College & University Audit Costs Average cost of audit is $44,012 Average cost of audit is $44,012 Average cost of audit without 5 most expensive (>$100,000) is $13,331 Average cost of audit without 5 most expensive (>$100,000) is $13,331 Average cost of compliance is $124,788 Average cost of compliance is $124,788 Average cost of compliance without 7 most expensive (>$100,000) is $23,047 Average cost of compliance without 7 most expensive (>$100,000) is $23,047

50. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative50

51. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative51

52. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative52

53. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative53

54. Region 2 College & University Compliance Initiative54 Goals For Compliance Initiative Improve environmental compliance and safety at main and off-site facilities. Improve environmental compliance and safety at main and off-site facilities. Change the culture to one in which environmental compliance is a priority. Change the culture to one in which environmental compliance is a priority. Ensure compliance of entire sector; not just those reached through inspections. Ensure compliance of entire sector; not just those reached through inspections. Ensure continued compliance by implementing permanent changes. Ensure continued compliance by implementing permanent changes.