Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Subpart K-Standards Applicable to Academic Laboratories, 29712-29752 [06-4654]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29712-29752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4654]



[[Page 29711]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Parts 261 and 262



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

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 2006 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 29712]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 261 and 262

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA 2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012, by one of the 
following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) 
to [``RCRA-docket@epamail.epa.gov''], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012.
     Fax: Fax comments to: 202-566-0270, Attention Docket ID. 
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012.
     Mail: Send comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA Docket Center 
Mailcode: 5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. In addition, please 
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments to: Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2003-0012 or EPA-2050 AG 18 RCRA-2003-0012. EPA's policy is that all 
comments received will be included in the public docket without change 
and may be made available on-line at https://www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 
protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets/htm. For additional 
instructions for submitting comment, comment go to section B of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the at the OSWER 
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1774, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-
0270. Copies cost $0.15/page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact EPA's 
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/ comments. htm. For 
general information regarding lab wastes for educational institutions, 
contact https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/specials/ labwaste/index. 
html. For further information regarding specific aspects of this 
notice, contact Patricia Mercer, Hazardous Waste Identification 
Division, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; (703) 308-8408; 
fax number (703) 308-0514; e-mail address: mercer.patricia@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 29713]]

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

B. What To Consider When Preparing Comments for EPA

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


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

Preamble Outline

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

[[Page 29714]]

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

I. Statutory Authority

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

II. Background

A. Intent of Today's Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 29715]]

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

B. History

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

[[Page 29716]]

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

C. Agency's College and University Initiatives

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

[[Page 29717]]

    Three of these efforts focus specifically on reducing waste. First, 
there is an Agency partnership, called WasteWise, which is a voluntary 
program helping U.S. organizations eliminate costly municipal and solid 
waste, improving economic and environmental sustainability. The 
WasteWise program is supporting RecycleMania, an intercollegiate 
competition involving colleges and universities across the U.S. in an 
annual recycling competition. The goal of the competition is to 
increase student awareness of campus recycling. Founded in 2001 by two 
of EPA's WasteWise partners, the number of competing schools increased 
from 2 in 2001 to 47 in 2005. The total pounds recycled per student 
across all participating schools increased from 74 pounds in 2001 to 
1,117 pounds in 2005.
    Second, in 2002, EPA funded Chemical Management Services (CMS) 
pilots at two universities--the University of New Hampshire and 
Dartmouth College. CMS, which has been used successfully in the 
automotive, microelectronic and aerospace industries, restructures the 
relationship between buyers of chemicals and their suppliers. Chemical 
suppliers and waste service providers bring their expertise directly to 
the college or university to help manage chemicals and waste streams, 
allowing the colleges and universities to focus on their core 
function--education. More information about the results of the pilots 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/minimize/pdfs/cms-
broch.pdf.
    Third, is EPA's Green Chemistry Program. Green Chemistry, a proven 
pollution prevention approach toward environmentally sustainable 
manufacturing, is the design of chemical products and processes that 
reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. To 
promote this goal, EPA's Green Chemistry Program supports a variety of 
educational and research efforts in which colleges and universities 
have participated. One element of EPA's Green Chemistry Program is the 
development of curricular materials and experiments that incorporate 
the principles of green chemistry. These materials are primarily aimed 
at undergraduate and graduate chemistry students. Another element of 
EPA's Green Chemistry program is awarding grants for research that 
advances the development and use of innovative technologies and 
approaches directed at avoiding or minimizing the use or generation of 
hazardous substances. A third element is the Presidential Green 
Chemistry Challenge Awards Program, which provides national recognition 
of outstanding chemical technologies that incorporate the principles of 
green chemistry into chemical design, manufacture, and use. To learn 
more about EPA's Green Chemistry Program, visit: https://www.epa.gov/
greenchemistry/.
    In 2003, EPA launched another award program: the P3 Award--A 
Student Design Competition for Sustainability. P3 focuses on the three 
components of sustainability: People, prosperity and the planet. Only 
colleges and universities are eligible to participate in this annual 
competition. The competition has two phases. Initially, student teams 
compete for $10,000 grants to use for researching and developing their 
design projects. The P3 award, which includes additional funding of up 
to $75,000, is given to the highest-rated student designs, which gives 
the students the opportunity to further develop their designs for 
sustainability, implement their projects in the field, and move them to 
the marketplace. One of the 2005 P3 winners was designing and 
developing solar ovens to be mass-produced at low cost, for use in the 
developing world. To learn more about EPA's P3 Awards, visit: https://
es.epa.gov/ncer/p3/.
    There are two efforts within EPA that focus specifically on 
laboratories. First, in 2003, EPA awarded a cooperative agreement to 
Iowa State University to develop a website, called Labs Achieving 
Better Stewardship (LABS) Central, which is a web-based clearinghouse 
of information of interest to laboratories, at colleges and 
universities and elsewhere, dedicated to the pursuit of enhanced 
environmental performance. This site brings together existing 
information about innovative approaches to waste management and 
resource conservation that may be helpful to laboratories interested in 
regulatory compliance and environmental stewardship. LABS Central 
guides visitors to web-based information about regulatory compliance, 
environmental performance, advanced waste management techniques and 
waste reduction. LABS Central can be found at: https://
www.labscentral.info.
    Second, the Agency's Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) 
Partnership Program encourages the development of sustainable, high-
performance, and low-energy consumption laboratories. Labs21 is a 
voluntary program whose partners set goals to reduce energy and water 
use and take a ``whole-building'' approach to laboratory design or 
retrofitting. Labs21 partners are demonstrating that a holistic 
approach to laboratory design can result in higher efficiencies, cost 
savings, reduced emissions, and improved health and safety conditions. 
Currently 16 of 23 private sector partners in Labs21 are colleges and 
universities. To learn more about Labs21, visit https://
www.labs21century.gov.
    ENERGY STAR is another program that is demonstrating that better 
energy management, in this case across a college or university campus, 
can yield cost savings. Colleges and universities spend close to $2 
billion each year on energy. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary EPA program 
that gives institutions the power to reduce the pollution that causes 
global warming, while enhancing their financial value. EPA's ENERGY 
STAR program encourages colleges and universities to become ENERGY STAR 
partners and adopt a strategic approach to energy management that can 
lower energy bills by 30% or more. By partnering with ENERGY STAR, an 
organization demonstrates environmental leadership, improves its energy 
efficiency, saves money, and receives recognition. ENERGY STAR is a 
proven energy management strategy to distinguish an institution as an 
environmental leader and save money for repair and renovation, hiring 
of new faculty, new construction, and other core activities. To learn 
more about ENERGY STAR or becoming an ENERGY STAR partner, visit: 
https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=higher_ed. bus-- 
highereducation.
    Recognizing that universities have a significant impact on the 
built and natural environment, EPA continues to pursue a series of 
projects that promote smart growth implementation to achieve increased 
viability of the campus and the surrounding neighborhood in an 
environmentally sustainable manner. These activities include: Co-
hosting the 1st Annual Smart and Sustainable Campuses Conference at the 
University of Maryland in November 2005, funding the publication of 
``Partnerships for Smart Growth: University-Community Collaboration for 
Better Public Spaces,'' compiling a list of smart growth course 
prospectuses, developing a list of resources of best practices and 
contacts at universities, providing input on the P3 project and 
providing information and tools to the public. To learn more about 
EPA's Smart Growth Program, visit: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth.
    Finally, EPA has sponsored partnerships with industry, academic 
institutions, environmental groups, and

[[Page 29718]]

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

D. Overview of College and University Laboratory Operations

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

[[Page 29719]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 29720]]

represent only a portion of the total generator universe and laboratory 
waste is only a portion of college and university hazardous waste. In 
addition, not all colleges and universities generating hazardous waste 
reported generating laboratory waste. However, laboratory waste 
represents a small portion of the hazardous waste generated at colleges 
and universities, as well. For instance, 246 of the 333 college and 
university LQGs and 309 of the 971 SQGs reported generating relatively 
small quantities of laboratory hazardous wastes. For LQGs, laboratory 
waste generation only amounts to approximately 9% (or 2,939 tons) of 
the total hazardous waste generated by colleges and universities, while 
SQGs reported generating approximately 334 tons of laboratory hazardous 
waste, which on average equates to approximately 1 ton of laboratory 
hazardous waste per SQG.
    Art studios/programs at colleges and universities are included in 
the universe of college and university laboratories in this proposal, 
while some types of laboratories are not included (e.g., hazardous 
waste generated by medical facilities associated with a college or 
university). In considering the effect of hazardous waste generation by 
college and university art programs, it is interesting to note its 
comparison to hazardous waste generation by other laboratories in the 
scope of today's proposal at colleges and universities. Schools with 
art programs generated an estimated 21% of the total hazardous waste 
generated by college and university LQGs. Another interesting 
comparison is that more college and university SQGs reported having art 
programs than those generating laboratory hazardous wastes.
ii. Summary of Type and Volume of Laboratory Hazardous Waste Generation 
at College and University LQGs and SQGs
    College and university LQGs generated approximately 2,939 tons of 
laboratory hazardous waste in 2001. This represents approximately 9% of 
the hazardous waste generated by these college and university LQGs. 
Four-year schools comprise the vast majority of schools generating 
laboratory waste (235 of 246 LQGs generating laboratory hazardous waste 
were four-year schools) and account for approximately 8.5% of the 9% of 
the laboratory hazardous waste generated. Vocational schools reported 
generating a minute amount of laboratory hazardous waste (about .01%). 
The hazardous waste type comprising the highest percentage generated by 
both four-year and two-year schools generating laboratory hazardous 
waste is lab packs, generated by 114 out of a total of 235 four-year 
schools, and 3 out of a total of 8 two-year schools reporting. Of the 
total number of vocational schools reporting (3), the largest 
percentage of laboratory hazardous waste generated is by one fine arts 
school for inorganic (metal) wastes.
    Approximately 73% of college and university SQGs that generated 
laboratory hazardous waste in 2001 are four-year colleges and 
universities. These four-year schools generated about 285 tons of 
laboratory hazardous wastes which represents approximately 14% of the 
all hazardous waste generated by college and university SQGs. Four-year 
SQGs generated the majority of laboratory hazardous waste for all 
college and university SQGs reporting (~ 85%). Lab packs are the 
largest contributor to the quantity of laboratory hazardous waste 
generated and represents ~ 73 tons of waste generated by approximately 
79 SQGs. Spent solvents is the second largest type of hazardous waste 
generated (~ 51.7 tons generated by ~ 91 SQGs), followed by ignitable, 
corrosive, and/or reactive characteristic hazardous wastes with an 
approximate 44.2 tons of laboratory hazardous waste generated by an 
estimated 92 four-year college and university SQGs.
    College and university LQGs with art programs have a modest impact 
on laboratory hazardous waste generation. In 20