EPA Contract No. 68-W-03-028
Work Assignment No. 2-19
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sector Strategies Division
April 6, 2006
Prepared by
ICF Services
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22031
April 6, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW
Page
3 a.
Background 3 b.
Purpose 3 c.
Report Organization 3 d.
Definitions Used in This Report e.
Overview of the Different Definitions of “Facility” i.
Definition per RCRA Hazardous Wastes ii.
Definition per CAA Hazardous Air Pollutants iii.
Definition per CWA/SPCC Hazardous Substances f. Data Collection Methodology
4
4
5
5
5
5
II. ACTIVITIES AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SUBJECT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION a.
RCRA Regulations at Colleges and Universities i.
Multiple RCRA Facilities ii.
Waste Transfers iii.
Waste Limits per Generator Status b.
CAA Regulations at Colleges and Universities c.
CWA Regulations at Colleges and Universities i. Overview of SPCC Plans ii. Definition of Facility per SPCC Plans
III. IMPACTS OF THE DEFINITION OF FACILITY ON
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT COLLEGES
AND UNIVERSITIES a.
RCRA b.
CAA c.
CWA/SPCC d.
Different Definitions of Facility under RCRA, CAA, and CWA/SPCC
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
8
12
16 a. Suggested Options for Revising the Definition of Facility i.
Revise the Definition of Facility under RCRA to Include
Non-contiguous Parts of Campus ii.
Allow Colleges and Universities that Comply with
Performance-based Standards to Use a Flexible Definition of
16
16
Facility under One or More Environmental Statutes or Regulations 18 iii.
Revise the Definition of Facility under RCRA to Apply to
Each Building Individually 19
12
14
14
15
8
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
April 6, 2006 Page 1

iv. Revise the Definition of Facility under CAA and CWA/SPCC to Apply to Each Building Individually v. Create a Single Definition of Facility that Would be Used for
RCRA, CAA, and CWA/SPCC vi.
Additional Recommendations Not Directly Related to the
Definition of Facility b.
Recommendations for Implementation i.
Guidance or Regulations ii.
Other Recommendations for Implementation c.
Potential Partners for Regulatory Development and Implementation
APPENDIX A: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATING
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
19
20
23
APPENDIX B: FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS 24
APPENDIX C: REGULATORY DEFINITIONS 26
20
21
21
21
21
April 6, 2006 Page 2

I. OVERVIEW a. Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Sector Strategies Program (SSP) develops and coordinates implementation of cross-Agency strategies to improve environmental performance of entire sectors. One of the industry sectors that SSP is working with is the college and universities sector.
For the past several years, EPA has been investigating the environmental issues facing colleges and universities. EPA discovered that, for colleges and universities, compliance with environmental regulations is a complex task. Many campuses are analogues of small cities, within which many activities that impact the environment take place. Campuses house research labs, art studios, print shops, power plants, underground storage tanks, boilers, and incinerators.
These facilities, and activities conducted at them, may be subject to regulation under a variety of environmental statutes. In addition, population growth, changing demographics, and the need for additional research or other facilities may cause many colleges and universities to expand outside of their traditional campus boundaries. This expansion can result in both positive and negative impacts on the environment and the communities in which campuses are located. b.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to analyze the regulatory and policy issues specific to the college and university sector. In particular, this report:

Evaluates the existing definition of facility under various environmental regulations;

Explores how those definitions impact colleges and universities; and

Provides options for a revised definition of facility that could streamline environmental compliance.
The key regulatory and policy issues facing colleges and universities include:

Management of hazardous wastes, which are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);

Emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which are regulated under the Clean Air Act
(CAA); and

Preparation for and containment of potential releases of hazardous substances, which are regulated under the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) portion of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). c. Report Organization
Section I of this report provides background on the project, including an overview of the different definitions of facility and a discussion of the data collection methodology. Section II identifies the facilities at colleges and universities that may be subject to environmental regulations and discusses how these definitions are applied to them. Section III summarizes the
April 6, 2006 Page 3

challenges colleges and universities face in complying with environmental regulations as a result of the application of these definitions to the unique set of operations and activities conducted on campuses. Finally, Section IV describes potential solutions and future next steps for EPA to address the sector’s concerns. Appendix A lists the general characteristics of the nine colleges and universities that were interviewed as part of this project. Appendix B lists follow up questions that were asked of the colleges and universities. Appendix C contains the actual regulatory language associated with the definitions of facility described in this report. d.
Definitions Used in This Report
Colleges and universities often conduct their activities at a variety of locations. While some colleges and universities, particularly in rural locations, may conduct their activities on a single, contiguous piece of real estate, many others have multiple locations that may be separated by public roads, parks, or private property. Colleges and universities frequently use the term
“campus” to refer to the locations where they conduct activities, but the term is inconsistently applied, and may have different meanings at different colleges and universities.
When colleges and universities conduct activities that fall under environmental regulation, the location of those activities occur can affect how they are regulated. The location of such activities is particularly critical to understanding how the regulatory definition of facility is applied to colleges and universities. For this report, special definitions have been developed to help readers understand the locations associated with regulated activities. These definitions are intended to be used in the context of this report, and may not be consistent with how these terms are used at all colleges and universities.
Campus refers to any location within a geographic area at which a college or university conducts activities and is responsible for compliance with environmental regulations in those locations. This definition is intended to cover all the parts of a campus in a single city or otherwise in relatively close proximity, including both the main campus and satellite areas.
Colleges that have locations in different cities separated by many miles are not intended to be considered a single campus under this definition.
Main campus refers to the largest contiguous area on a college or university campus.
Satellite area refers to any area on a college or university campus that is not contiguous with the main campus. Satellite areas may be separated by roads, other public property such as parks, geographic features such as rivers, or private property such as residential housing, commercial areas, and industrial facilities. e. Overview of the Different Definitions of “Facility”
Per Section I.b. above, the three definitions of “facility” of most concern to the college and university sector are: (1) that under RCRA; (2) that under CAA; and (3) that under CWA/SPCC.
This section provides a general description of these definitions. Appendix C contains the actual regulatory language associated with the definitions of facility described in this report.
April 6, 2006 Page 4

i.
Definition per RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Colleges and universities are often regulated as generators of hazardous wastes. They may also be regulated as hazardous waste transporters, treatment facilities, or disposal facilities. EPA’s definition for facility under RCRA is centered on contiguity. A facility might contain one or several structures. For RCRA purposes, it is the entirety of contiguous land, structures, and appurtenances under the control of the same owner or operator. Where land is non-contiguous, each parcel is considered a separate facility. ii. Definition per CAA Hazardous Air Pollutants
CAA and the regulations implementing it contain several definitions that are important in determining the activities, operations, units, and structures that are part of the facility regulated under a CAA permit. The closest approximation to facility that the CAA and associated regulations define is based on the type of air emissions source. When colleges and universities are subject to CAA, they are most likely to be regulated as “stationary sources.” CAA defines a stationary source as any building, structure, equipment, installation, or substance-emitting stationary activity that belongs to the same industrial group, is located on one or more contiguous properties, and is under the control of the same person (or persons under common control).
In practice, operations and activities regulated under CAA vary from campus to campus. At some campuses their CAA permits cover only major sources of air emissions, while at other campuses their CAA permits cover all significant sources. CAA permits for colleges and universities can also vary in geographic extent. At some colleges and universities, it may be limited to specific buildings, while at others it may include the entire campus, including satellite areas that are not contiguous with the main campus. iii. Definition per CWA/SPCC Hazardous Substances
Colleges and universities may store oil or other chemicals. Under CWA, for purposes of developing an SPCC, facility means any mobile or fixed, onshore or offshore building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe, or pipeline (other than a vessel or a public vessel) used in oil well drilling operations, oil production, oil refining, oil storage, oil gathering, oil processing, oil transfer, oil distribution, and waste treatment, or in which oil is used. The boundaries of a facility depend on several factors including, but not limited to, the ownership or operation of buildings, structures, and equipment and the types of activity conducted.
In practice, the parts of a campus covered under an SPCC Plan vary from campus to campus. At some colleges and universities, only the main campus is covered by their SPCC Plan, while at others their SPCC Plan also includes satellite areas. f. Data Collection Methodology
From February to March 2006, phone interviews were conducted with staff responsible for environmental compliance at the following nine colleges and universities:
April 6, 2006 Page 5

1.
Boston University
2.
Catholic University of America
3.
Colorado College
4.
Iowa State University
5.
Kansas State University
6.
Rice University
7.
University of California, Berkeley
8.
University of Maryland, College Park
9.
University of Vermont
EPA selected institutions that had a diverse set of characteristics to help ensure that campuses with different environmental challenges and approaches to environmental compliance would be represented. These nine participants represent a geographically and demographically diverse cross-section of the higher education sector, including:

Large and small student populations (with undergraduate student populations ranging from 1,977 to 29,253);

Campuses in both urban and rural settings;

Publicly- and privately-funded institutions (four independent and five state-supported institutions); and

Colleges and universities with compact, contiguous campuses as well as those with campuses that include multiple satellite areas.
Appendix A lists other general characteristics of the participating institutions.
The contacts were asked the following eight questions to tease out sector concerns with the different definitions of facility as related to their environmental obligations:
1.
How many EPA IDs does your campus have?
2.
How proximate are the locations?
3.
Do you ship waste between EPA IDs? If so, how? If not, why not? (or would you like to?)
4.
If you were given the opportunity to define your facility or facilities for hazardous waste management purposes, how would you do so? And why? [This question could help explain other models and their benefits.]
5.
How is your facility defined under the Clean Air Act?
6.
How is your facility defined under the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures program?
7.
What do you think is the best way to manage these areas, and why?
8.
Do differing facility definitions cause difficulties in managing these protection and compliance programs? – if so, please give information on the difficulties.
Depending on the preference of the school contact, phone interviews were conducted or responses were collected via e-mail. For each phone interview, a written telephone call record was prepared to document the responses.
April 6, 2006 Page 6

After collecting information from all nine colleges and universities, copies of written telephone records were provided to the contacts so they could verify their responses. Clarification of responses was also requested where appropriate.
During the initial interviews, some colleges and universities had specific recommendations on how to change regulatory programs to streamline compliance for their sector. The initial contact was followed up with a second set of questions to help identify obstacles to environmental compliance and potential solutions designed to overcome such obstacles. Attachment B lists these questions. As part of this follow up effort, the interviewees shared their opinions about whether changes suggested by their peers would benefit their campus.
April 6, 2006 Page 7

II. ACTIVITIES AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SUBJECT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Colleges and universities engage in a variety of activities that are subject to environmental regulations. These activities, and the regulations that are usually applicable to them, are listed in
Table 1 below. Additional information on each statute then follows.
The table below is based on the responses from the colleges and universities interviewed as described in Section I.e. above, applicable Federal and state regulations, and an understanding of the typical activities conducted at colleges and universities. Because state regulations may vary, and the activities conducted at colleges and universities may also vary, the table may not accurately reflect the applicability of regulations to all colleges and universities.
Table 1: Typical Activities at Colleges and Universities Subject to Environmental Regulation
Type of Campus
Facility
Laboratories
RCRA
Chemical use creates hazardous waste stream
Statute
CAA
Volatile chemicals may be released into atmosphere
CWA/SPCC
Art Studios
Print Studios
Power Plants and
Boilers
Chemical use creates hazardous waste stream
Chemical use creates hazardous waste stream
Hazardous wastes may be burned for energy recovery
Volatile chemicals may be released into atmosphere
Volatile chemicals may be released into atmosphere
Combustion may result in the release of hazardous air pollutants
Fuel oil storage
Medical Facilities Chemical use creates hazardous waste stream
Emergency
Generators
Volatile chemicals may be released into atmosphere
Combustion may result in the release of hazardous air pollutants
Fuel oil storage
Hydraulic oil storage Elevator
Maintenance
Food Service Cooking oil storage a. RCRA Regulations at Colleges and Universities
RCRA, as amended, directs EPA to establish programs to address hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste management. EPA, states, and tribes implement, maintain, and enforce these programs through a variety of mechanisms.
Colleges and universities will often fall under the “generator” category of entities regulated under RCRA’s hazardous waste program. Some colleges may also store or treat hazardous wastes (e.g., burn wastes for energy recovery) which may bring them into the definition of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. In addition, some colleges and universities are licensed hazardous waste transporters. A “generator” includes any facility or person that creates hazardous waste subject to regulation, or whose act first causes EPA to subject a hazardous
April 6, 2006 Page 8

waste to regulation. Requirements applicable to generators include storage provisions, emergency planning, personnel training, and recordkeeping and reporting that ensures all hazardous wastes are identified and managed to protect human health and the environment.
The requirement that each RCRA facility consist of contiguous property has an impact on how colleges and universities manage their hazardous wastes. In addition, the RCRA definition of
“facility,” in conjunction with other aspects of RCRA, such as the thresholds at which certain regulations apply, can have a particular impact at colleges and universities. These impacts are discussed below. i. Multiple RCRA Facilities
With very few exceptions, every facility that generates, treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste must have an EPA identification number. Because the RCRA definition of facility requires that any non-contiguous property be identified as a separate facility, and many campuses are geographically not contiguous, colleges and universities often have multiple RCRA facilities.
Colleges and universities must perform separate registration, reporting, and recordkeeping for each RCRA facility. ii.
Waste Transfers
Transfers of hazardous wastes must be done by a licensed and registered hazardous waste transporter and must be accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest that tracks the waste. When colleges and universities transfer wastes between RCRA facilities, these transfers must comply with the RCRA hazardous waste transport requirement, even if the transfer is from one part of the same campus to another. iii. Waste Limits per Generator Status
RCRA regulations vary based on the amount of waste generated per month. Large quantity generators (LQGs) must meet requirements that small quantity generators (SQGs) do not need to meet. In some states, facilities may qualify for conditionally exempt SQG (CESQG) status.
CESQGs have even fewer regulatory requirements. The amount of waste that determines a facility’s generator status depends on the type of waste produced. Each non-contiguous area of a college or university is considered a separate facility under RCRA. Therefore, the main campus and each satellite area that generates hazardous waste are considered separate facilities. Colleges and universities must perform a separate determination of generator status for each RCRA facility. Colleges and universities with multiple RCRA facilities may have a different generator status for each facility, which may result in different requirements for the hazardous waste generated in different parts of the campus.
The amount of hazardous waste generated by colleges and universities can vary from month to month. The monthly change can be particularly significant in the case of laboratories, which have periodic cleanouts of expired or unused chemicals. Because RCRA generator status is based on the monthly generation of waste, some facilities at colleges and universities may change their status from month to month.
April 6, 2006 Page 9

b.
CAA Regulations at Colleges and Universities
CAA, as amended, directs EPA to regulate stationary and mobile sources of air pollutants. EPA, states, and tribes implement, maintain, and enforce these standards through a variety of mechanisms. The law includes programs to address smog, acid rain, stratospheric ozone protection, and air toxics.
Colleges and universities may fall under CAA’s “stationary source” definition when they have power plants or utility boilers on campus used for heat or power generation. Whether a college or university is subject to CAA regulations and needs a permit may depend on a variety of factors, such as the amount and type of emissions, and whether the campus is in a non-attainment zone as defined under National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Most CAA permits are issued by State and local permitting authorities. Title V permits are required for all major stationary sources. In addition, some local agencies also require CAA permits for minor sources.
All of the nine colleges and universities hold a CAA permit, while eight of the nine have Title V permits for major sources. At some colleges and universities, a CAA permit is required due to the presence of major stationary sources of emissions, such as boilers. Once a permit is required for a major source, additional sources of air emissions at the college or university may also be included in their CAA permit. The emissions sources covered under a college or university’s
CAA permit can vary from campus to campus. At some of the colleges and universities, local agencies require that their permits cover minor sources. At other campuses, their CAA permit may only cover the boiler or other major source. The interviewed colleges and universities also reported variability in the parts of their campus covered under their CAA permit. At some campuses, their CAA permit may include only the main campus, while others reported that their
CAA permits covered both the main campus and satellite areas. c. CWA Regulations at Colleges and Universities
The primary objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the
Clean Water Act, is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s surface waters. Pollutants regulated under CWA are classified as “priority” pollutants.
These include various toxic pollutants; “conventional” pollutants, such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal chloroform, oil and grease, and pH; and
“non-conventional” pollutants, including any pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority.
The most common ways that CWA affects operations are through requirements for storm water permits and SPCC Plans. Contacts described in Section I.b. did not identify issues associated with storm water permits at colleges and universities. Therefore, storm water is not discussed further in this document. However, issues associated with the definition of facility and SPCC
Plans are discussed below.
April 6, 2006 Page 10

i. Overview of SPCC Plans
A facility must prepare an SPCC Plan if:
1. It is non-transportation related;
2. It has an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than 1,320 gallons, or completely buried storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons; and
3. There must be a reasonable expectation of discharge into navigable waters.
If any of the conditions in #2 are met, the entire facility is regulated under SPCC requirements.
As such, the facility must make one Plan that covers every container holding over 55 gallons of oil. Revisions to the SPCC regulations promulgated in 2002 provided some regulatory relief, such as not counting toward the regulatory threshold completely buried tanks that meet certain standards, containers with a capacity of less than 55 gallons, and containers meeting a definition of “permanently closed.” These types of containers were also exempted from regulation, and are not subject to SPCC Plan requirements at the Federal level. However, some states may have more stringent requirements that could continue to regulate such containers.
The large storage tanks often needed for fuel for boilers have caused many colleges and universities to need SPCC Plans. Although colleges and universities may be required to develop
SPCC Plans based on fuel storage tanks for boilers, once an SPCC Plan is required, they often must include in those Plans containers associated with oil storage at other facilities on campus, such as fuel storage for emergency generators, hydraulic oil storage in elevator maintenance areas, and cooking oil storage in dining service areas. ii. Definition of Facility per SPCC Plans
The definition of facility applied for SPCC Plans has been inconsistent across colleges and universities. At some campuses, their SPCC Plan may only cover the main campus. Others report their SPCC Plans are required to cover all of the campus, including satellite areas.
April 6, 2006 Page 11

III. IMPACTS OF THE DEFINITION OF FACILITY ON ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
The regulations described above, the definition of facility used in the implementation of those regulations, and the types of facilities and management practices used by colleges and universities have resulted in challenges to the sector in complying with environmental requirements. Some colleges and universities reported that they are satisfied with existing regulations, and have found ways to comply with those regulations efficiently. Others welcomed changes that could reduce their regulatory burden. Many of the interviewees agreed that, in some way or another, the different definitions of facility adversely affected the allocation of their resources. Two distinct but related general issues were frequently cited:
1.
Campuses with satellite areas have increased regulatory complexity and additional compliance costs because they are regulated as separate and distinct facilities.
2.
Certain areas or activities at colleges and universities put them over a regulatory threshold that results in other areas and activities being subjected to regulations that would otherwise not be regulated.
The following discussion summarizes the challenges identified and issues raised by the nine interviewees, by statute. a.
RCRA
Overall, RCRA regulations are the most problematic for colleges and universities. Eight of the nine interviewees raised specific concerns about RCRA’s regulatory scheme, noting that its definition of “facility,” which is based on contiguity, is not practical for the sector and creates an undue regulatory burden.
Only two interviewees reported having only one RCRA facility; the remaining seven reported anywhere from three to 20. For example, Boston University has 11 RCRA generator IDs, including one LQG, 2 SQGs, and 8 CESQGs. Many of these facilities are separated by only one road or parcel of land.
Interviewees raised five specific issues related to the RCRA definition of “facility:”

Additional paperwork burden and cost – Since colleges and universities with RCRA generators on the main campus and satellite areas must treat each as a separate RCRA facility, additional paperwork is associated with registration, reporting, and record keeping for these multiple facilities. In addition, the paperwork burden associated with the RCRA hazardous waste manifest for transfers of waste across campus was noted as particularly burdensome. Some states have fees for each RCRA facility, so colleges and universities with multiple RCRA facilities must pay higher fees. In addition, tracking and reporting activities by facility was confusing and required additional staff time.

Different requirements at different facilities lead to training and compliance issues –
Different RCRA facilities on the same campus may be subject to different requirements
April 6, 2006 Page 12

based on their generator status. In some instances, the institution must implement different practices for the same activities when they are conducted in different satellite areas of the campus with different RCRA generator statues. This can cause confusion among staff, resulting in additional training needs and increased potential for noncompliance.

Additional burden for on-campus waste transfers – The “contiguity” definition and the different thresholds for waste also affect the sector’s approach to the shipment and disposal of hazardous waste. Although some colleges and universities stated that their status as CESQGs allowed them to ship wastes with minimal regulatory burden, others stated that hazardous waste shipments were expensive and burdensome. The requirement that waste must be shipped by a RCRA-licensed transporter, along with the manifesting requirements, resulted in significant costs and paperwork burden for waste shipments.
For example, at the University of Vermont and the University of Maryland, all waste is shipped on Hazardous Waste Uniform Manifests or Hazardous Material Bills of Lading.
The University of Vermont owns a permitted waste hauling vehicle, has a waste transporter ID number, and maintains employees with Certified Driver’s Licenses (CDL) with hazmat endorsements. Both universities sign as the generator of the waste, transporter of the waste, and the receiving facility.
In addition, some interviewees stated that the regulatory burden associated with waste shipment causes them to manage wastes in ways that are not cost effective or might be less preferable environmentally. For example, Kansas State does not ship hazardous wastes between its six RCRA facilities. Instead, it hires vendors to go to each facility separately to ensure the waste is treated and disposed properly. Kansas State would prefer to bring the wastes into its main campus, where most of the waste would be reused.
However, the university feels that the regulatory burden associated with transport is too great, so it sends wastes for off-site disposal, even though it is more expensive.

LQG thresholds – Small colleges are concerned that certain chemicals have very low thresholds, as low as one pound, for LQG status. They suggested these thresholds were intended for large industrial sources of waste and were not appropriate for small laboratory facilities. They felt that the risk posed by these relatively small amounts of waste did not justify the additional regulatory burden associated with LQG status.

Monthly determination of generator status – Some colleges and universities also felt that the determination of generator status based on the monthly generation rate was not compatible with the typical academic calendar, and was unduly burdensome, particularly for facilities that generate wastes only episodically. For example, Boston University stated that it must have a RCRA facility ID for some laboratories that generate wastes only once per year due to clean-outs. At Colorado College, clean-outs of lab inventory may occur when staff members leave the university or when research projects are completed. This may result in a one-time generation event requiring a RCRA facility ID.
Colleges and universities felt that the regulatory burden associated with disposing of such materials could create an incentive to keep potentially dangerous materials in inventory.
April 6, 2006 Page 13

b. CAA
All of the colleges and universities have permits under the Clean Air Act. All of these institutions stated that they were regulated due to the emissions from their power plants or boilers. Several of the interviewees felt that regulation of the smaller emissions sources (in addition to these larger sources) was overly burdensome and provided little environmental benefit. For example, Iowa State has two permits: (1) one permit for the on-campus heating plant has 10 emission points and costs about $90,000 per year in state fees, while (2) the second is for the “Balance of Campus,” which covers the remaining nearly 200 emission points on campus; fees for this permit are less than $1,000.
Although the CAA permits at these campuses seemed to be inconsistent with regard to the parts of the campus to which they applied, the colleges and universities did not cite this as a problem with the CAA definition of “facility.” For example, Colorado College’s Central Plant is considered a minor source, and its definition of facility is the Central Plant building plus about two feet. At Boston University, the Charles River Campus is a major source under the CAA for
NOx and SO
2
and is operating under a CAA permit. The university’s entire campus, including satellite areas, is included in the permit. c. CWA/SPCC
Seven of the colleges and universities interviewed have an SPCC Plan. Rice University and
Colorado College, which are among the smallest interviewees, are not required to have SPCC
Plans.
Specific issues raised by interviewees about the definition of facility under CWA include the following:

CWA covers many smaller sources, with little environmental benefit – Many of the colleges and universities with SPCC Plans felt that the inclusion of numerous small containers was overly burdensome. For colleges and universities that have many tanks spread out over a large area, SPCC Plans may be complex and lengthy, requiring significant resources to develop and maintain. While the Plan may cover the entire campus and numerous small containers, it is usually only a couple of localized petroleum storage containers that push the college or university above the threshold for regulation.
For example, at UC Berkeley, the facility is defined as the entire main campus. Of the 40 tanks on the main campus, only two or three exceed the threshold limit. The combined capacity of the remaining tanks is less than the threshold. Due to those two or three tanks, the entire main campus falls under SPCC. The main burden for colleges and universities is creating an inventory of the containers and completing compliance training.

Unclear definition – Interviewees also felt that the definition of facility for purposes of developing an SPCC Plan is not always clear and is inconsistent across the sector. The parts of a campus covered under a Plan vary from campus to campus based on state and
April 6, 2006 Page 14

local regulations and the interpretations of those regulations by enforcement officials. At some colleges and universities, only the main campus is required to be covered by their
SPCC Plans, while at others their SPCC Plans are required to include satellite areas. For example, at the University of Vermont, the main campus and multiple satellite areas have oil storage, but only two locations have oil storage capacities above the regulatory threshold, and each of these locations has a separate SPCC Plan. At Boston University, the entire campus is covered under a single SPCC Plan, including satellite areas. d. Different Definitions of Facility under RCRA, CAA, and CWA/SPCC
Some colleges and universities felt that the different definitions of facility under different statutes or regulations led to confusion among staff and potential noncompliance. Problems arise when, for example, the Environmental, Health, and Safety Office has to explain to custodial staff, faculty, and students that the definition of facility changes depending on the waste or environmental statute in question. In some cases, professors may have classrooms in different locations across campus, each subject to different requirements. Due to varying definitions, instructions to custodial staff, faculty, and students regarding EPA compliance can differ from building to building. For example, at Iowa State their CAA permit covers all of the campus within a two mile radius from the center of the main campus, while under RCRA, the definition is based on contiguity. Their SPCC Plan covers all oil containers on campus with a storage capacity greater than 55 gallons. This results in various areas of Iowa State being within inconsistent realms of regulation. For instance, a particular building might be regulated under
CAA but not under RCRA.
April 6, 2006 Page 15

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Interviewees suggested several options for changing the definition of facility used by RCRA,
CAA, and SPCC Plans, which they felt would streamline environmental compliance at colleges and universities. These options are listed in Section IV.a. below, along with some potential advantages and disadvantages associated with each recommendation. While the recommendations were proposed by the interviewees, the advantages and disadvantages include those suggested by the interviewees as well as those that were identified through regulatory analysis. In addition, colleges and universities had several recommendations for regulatory changes that were not related to the definition of facility or were only tangentially related. These are also discussed below, but more briefly. A discussion of recommendations for implementing a revised definition of facility, and a list of potential partners that might assist with the development or implementation of a revised definition of facility, are provided in Sections IV.b. and IV.c., respectively. a. Suggested Options for Revising the Definition of Facility i.
Revise the Definition of Facility under RCRA to Include Satellite Areas
Most colleges and universities are in favor of a more flexible approach specifically designed for their sector. A majority of interviewees suggested that RCRA broaden its definition of facility for colleges and universities to allow them to create one RCRA ID for their entire campus.

One potential option is to adopt a RCRA definition of facility that includes the entire campus, including both the main campus and satellite areas.

Another potential option is to use the existing RCRA definition of “on-site.” This term is used in specific hazardous waste regulations, such as in the identification of inherently waste-like materials at 40 CFR 261.2(d)(2)(iii). The definition of on-site includes properties separated only by a public road or right-of-way. The RCRA definition of onsite is provided in Appendix C. A related suggestion was that the definition include satellite areas separated only by a public road or a single parcel of land.

Another suggestion was that a flexible definition be adopted, which takes into account the local circumstances. Two universities recommended that each campus be allowed to determine which operations or locations to combine into each RCRA facility.

Another suggestion was to allow consolidation of waste from facilities with a CESQG or
SQG status without requiring a TSD permit at the consolidating facility. The university also suggested the development of a less burdensome alternative to the existing RCRA hazardous waste transport and manifest requirements for transfers associated with consolidating waste.
Advantages: For most colleges and universities, multiple ID numbers make tracking difficult and maintenance and inspection burdensome. With one EPA ID number for the entire campus, reporting to state and federal officials would be greatly simplified. A single facility would also reduce the manifesting and reporting burden for intra-campus waste transfers. This approach would also eliminate the need for creating temporary ID numbers for one-time cleanouts. Waste could be consolidated to one main storage area, instead of requiring separate storage areas,
April 6, 2006 Page 16

reducing risks of releases and injuries. Wastes could then be managed in larger loads, which is typically less expensive than small loads. Barriers to recycling or reuse of waste would also be lower. Some colleges also felt that training would be easier, because the same procedures could be applied at all locations on campus. They also felt that this might also increase compliance.
One additional advantage cites was that colleges and universities may also be able to align their environmental management with their administrative management, rather than by location.
Disadvantages: Many colleges and universities were concerned that a move to a single RCRA facility could result in some satellite areas at colleges and universities requiring more stringent regulations. For example, if all of a campus were considered one facility under RCRA, separate facilities that are currently considered CESQGs or SQGs might be considered an LQG when their waste generation rates are combined. One university felt that this might result in an increased burden associated with training staff to comply with more stringent requirements associated with LQG status. Several colleges and universities expressed concern about this potential outcome, and such an outcome might discourage some colleges and universities from adopting this regulatory approach if it were optional, or to oppose it if it were not optional.
Some potential ways of mitigating this disadvantage include making the revised facility definition optional and allowing colleges and universities to continue to apply the generator standards they are currently using to satellite areas. This option might also require additional implementation assistance from EPA and the states to help colleges and universities determine their facility boundaries. In addition, some colleges and universities were concerned that regulators would have difficulty understanding optional or flexible approaches to determining facility boundaries, and would apply the regulations inconsistently, or not allow their use.
Additional training for regulators and enforcement officials might be needed to help understand such an approach. The way such an approach is crafted might also create incentives for colleges to disperse their activities to ensure that none of the campus needs to comply with LQG regulations.
Another potential disadvantage may be that waste transfers would no longer be regulated under
RCRA at many colleges and universities, and the safeguards associated with the use of licensed
RCRA transporters and the hazardous waste manifest system would no longer be in place. This may present additional risks in some cases. These additional risks may be small if the distance of the waste transfers is short. In addition, some waste transfers may continue to be subject to other regulations that would continue to provide environmental protection and tracking. For example, some transfers would continue to be subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations for dangerous goods shipping.
Another potential disadvantage is that RCRA may require facility-wide corrective action measures in response to certain events such as cleanups of spills. For some colleges and universities, if their campus were considered a single facility, cleanup of a spill may trigger campus-wide corrective actions. At a campus that is divided into multiple facilities, the corrective action requirements in response to a spill might be more limited.
April 6, 2006 Page 17

ii.
Allow Colleges and Universities that Comply with Performance-based Standards to Use a Flexible Definition of Facility under One or More Environmental
Statutes or Regulations
Several colleges and universities expressed an interest in allowing a more flexible definition of facility when certain performance-based standards are met. Under this option, an alternate definition of facility could be used, or a college or university could identify the boundaries of each facility on their campus within certain guidelines. The flexibility could be limited to one particular set of environmental regulations, such as RCRA, or could apply to RCRA, CAA, and
SPCC. Suggested performance-based standards included (1) developing a management plan for environmental compliance on campus, and (2) including environmental considerations and staff in campus planning. One college referenced a Web site that showed potential management approaches and the means to evaluate them
( http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/ER-IS-08-2.pdf
).
.
Advantages: Some potential advantages of this approach are that it could reduce the cost of regulatory compliance for colleges and universities. Having flexibility in the definition of facility could allow colleges and universities to optimize the number and boundaries of facilities to reduce regulatory complexity and compliance burdens. In addition, this approach could reduce compliance costs associated with training, if it were structured in a way that resulted in uniform regulatory requirements at all locations on campus engaged in similar regulated activities. It also could be structured to encourage pollution prevention and waste minimization.
If the change resulted in effective management plans, it could ultimately lead to better environmental, health, and safety outcomes. With a common definition of “facility,” it could be easier for colleges and universities to integrate overall waste generation and pollution data. A more detailed description of these and other benefits is contained in the Fact Sheet for Senior
Administrators developed by the Colleges and Universities Sector Group
( http://www.c2e2.org/ems/Fact_Sheet_10-6.pdf
)
Disadvantages: The level of flexibility in defining facility could affect whether colleges and universities would be willing to adopt a management plan in exchange for increased flexibility.
Depending on the types of flexibility allowed, at some colleges and universities the measure might not provide any regulatory relief. In addition, the costs associated with developing a management plan could outweigh the benefits of increased regulatory flexibility.
This option might require additional implementation assistance from EPA or states for colleges and universities developing management plans. One college expressed a concern that the cost of conventional compliance is often lower than the cost of an innovative program. Colleges and universities may choose to forego an innovative approach, because it is easier at inspection time to explain a program that an inspector understands than an innovative one. Additional training may be needed for regulators and enforcement officials to help them accept innovative approaches, ensure that such approaches are applied in a consistent fashion, and determine whether management plans are acceptable.
April 6, 2006 Page 18

iii.
Revise the Definition of Facility under RCRA to Apply to Each Building
Individually
Recognizing the incentive of keeping facilities below regulatory thresholds, one university located in a state that recognizes CESQG status suggested that each building be considered a separate RCRA facility. Under this scenario, each building on its campus would qualify as a
CESQG, with the lower associated regulatory burden.
Advantages: This option would be advantageous to some schools, because it would reduce their regulatory burden. For some schools, it may allow them to assign all RCRA facilities the same generator status, thus decreasing confusion among their students and staff and potentially reducing training costs and increasing compliance.
Disadvantages: This option would likely result in some colleges and universities having more
RCRA facilities on their campus, which could result in increased regulatory complexity and increased fees. This option could also create an incentive for colleges and universities to disperse their hazardous waste-generating activities among multiple buildings, which may increase the risks associated with those activities by spreading them over a larger area, and requiring more frequent or longer distance transfers of hazardous wastes. In addition, it may create an added paperwork burden associated with manifesting the transport of wastes. In addition, some states do not recognize CESQG or SQG status, and therefore this option would not provide regulatory to relief for colleges and universities in those states.
iv.
Revise the Definition of Facility under CAA and CWA/SPCC to Apply to Each
Building Individually
At many colleges and universities, only a limited number of larger operations exceed the threshold for a CAA permit or SPCC Plan. In most cases, if the definition of facility were revised to regulate buildings rather than the entire campus, only a few tanks or boilers would need a CAA permit or an SPCC Plan. Some of the interviewees recommended defining each building as a separate facility for CAA permits and SPCC Plans.
Advantages: This approach would reduce the scope of CAA permits and SPCC Plans at colleges and universities, resulting in shorter, simpler permits and plans, less training, lower permit fees, and lower compliance costs.
Disadvantages: This option could create an incentive for some colleges and universities to disperse their activities among multiple buildings, which may increase the risks associated with those activities by spreading them over a larger area. For example, an incentive might exist to change fuel storage from a few large tanks to many small tanks in more locations so that none require an SPCC Plan. In addition, fewer emissions sources and containers at colleges and universities would be covered under CAA permits and SPCC Plans, which in turn could lead to greater risks to the environment.
April 6, 2006 Page 19

v.
Create a Single Definition of Facility that Would be Used for RCRA, CAA, and
CWA/SPCC
Some colleges and universities recommended using a single definition of facility for all environmental statutes and regulations.
Advantages: At some colleges and universities, a single definition for all environmental statutes and regulations could reduce complexity, confusion among staff and students, and training requirements, and could increase compliance. Depending on how the definition of facility is determined, many of the advantages for the options discussed previously might also apply.
Disadvantages: The specific definition of facility used may not be optimal for each regulation.
Any potential definition would need to be crafted so that it would be appropriate for all applicable regulations. Depending on how the definition of facility is determined, many of the disadvantages for the options discussed previously might also apply. vi.
Additional Recommendations Not Directly Related to the Definition of Facility
Interviewees suggested a number of other recommendations that were not directly related to the definition of “facility:”

Field activities away from campus may generate hazardous waste – For example, waste may be generated from water test kits. One college recommended that the waste be shipped back to the university for management and be accounted for under one of its existing RCRA facilities, rather than creating a separate RCRA facility for the field activity.

Waste must be removed from accumulation areas within 90 days – This schedule is inconsistent with the flow of an academic calendar, and colleges and universities often store, under satellite accumulation, hazardous material in student-dense areas. One college recommended that regulatory language be changed to allow colleges and universities to arrange shipment times based on the academic calendar, conditioned upon certain storage requirements.

The threshold for LQG status should be increased – By increasing the hazardous waste threshold, there will be an incentive to consolidate hazardous waste at a centralized management center.

Laboratories should be excluded from RCRA regulations to simplify the regulatory requirements.

EPA should redefine generator status based on the mass of waste generated per unit area of the facility – One college representative stated that this approach would allow regulatory requirements to be set based on high, medium, and low intensity rates of generation of waste.

EPA should work with Congress to create a requirement for states to adopt regulatory changes that decrease regulatory burden on higher education – One college suggested linking continued grant funding for state agencies to adoption of regulatory relief for higher education.
April 6, 2006 Page 20

b.
Recommendations for Implementation
Follow up on the initial set of interviews included a question regarding whether a revised approach to the definition of facility should be implemented through guidance or regulations. In addition, interviewees had other recommendations on potential methods for improving implementation. i.
Guidance or Regulations
Many states are authorized to implement environmental regulations under RCRA, CAA, and
CWA. Therefore, any changes made by EPA to these regulations would not automatically apply to those states. Since state-run programs must be at least as protective as federal regulations, states can also choose to adopt more stringent standards. The individual states would need to modify their programs to implement any changes made by EPA to the definition of facility, and some may choose not to adopt such standards if they were less restrictive. College and university representatives who responded to this question generally felt that guidance could be implemented more quickly but would be less likely to be implemented by states than a rulemaking. One college recommended doing both guidance and a rulemaking. ii.
Other Recommendations for Implementation
Interviewees expressed the following recommendations on potential methods for improving implementation:

Convening a working group to draft standards for management plans for colleges and universities;

Facilitating meetings between state regulators and higher education;

Promoting alternative approaches with regulatory officials at the regional and state level, stressing that such a strategy is in the nation’s best interest and serves the will of the people;

Suspending enforcement activities against higher education until performance-based alternatives exist; and

Providing incentives to states to adopt any new approaches, such as suspending grants to states that do not adopt a new approach. c.
Potential Partners for Regulatory Development and Implementation
The development and implementation of a revised definition for facility is more likely to be successful if done in conjunction with partners in regulatory agencies and the regulated colleges and universities. OPEI is already engaging some of these potential partners through a working group of colleges and universities. Some additional potential partner organizations are listed below. As these organizations are identified, additional research will need to be done to identify the individuals within these organizations that can act as conduits for these partnerships.

Potential EPA partners – Office of Solid Waste, Office of Water, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA Regional Offices
April 6, 2006 Page 21


Potential State Partners – State regulatory agencies

Potential College and University Partners – CSHEMA, ECOS, individual colleges and universities
April 6, 2006 Page 22

APPENDIX A: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
PARTICIPATING COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES 1
Name
Boston University
Catholic University of
America
Colorado College
Iowa State University
Kansas State University
Rice University
University of California,
Berkeley
University of Maryland,
College Park
University of Vermont
State
MA
DC
CO
IA
KS
TX
CA
MD
VT
Type
Independent
Independent
Independent
State-supported
State-supported
Independent
State-supported
State-supported
State-supported
Number of
Undergraduate
Students 2
18,694
3,053
1,977
20,732
19,098
3,185
23,447
29,253
9,235
Number of
Faculty
2,438
714
206
1,636
1,048
710
Not Available
2,862
691
1
Unless otherwise noted, information was obtained at the following Web site: www.petersons.com
2 Represents total number of undergraduate students at each college or university.
April 6, 2006 Page 23

APPENDIX B: FOLLOWUP QUESTIONS
Guidance versus Proposed Rule
1.
In order for you to implement a revised definition of facility or otherwise change your environmental practices, would guidance be sufficient, or do you think a rulemaking published in the Federal Register is necessary? Will changes need to be mandatory, or will guidance be a sufficient justification and motivation?
Helpfulness of Regulatory Options Suggested by Other Respondents
2.
Some suggestions for easing the regulatory burden for colleges and universities have focused on a revised definition of facility to be used by colleges and universities that comply with certain performance-based standards, similar to the outcomes of the
RCRA lab rule. For example, colleges and universities that create and implement a management plan meeting certain performance standards could use an alternative definition of “facility.” Would your school consider taking advantage of such an option? Do you have suggestions about what performance standards should be used to evaluate the management plans?
3.
If you have multiple RCRA generator IDs, would a single ID make compliance less complex? Would it make compliance more affordable?
4.
For some colleges and universities, the multiple definitions of facility can lead to different management practices for the same or similar waste or activity in different parts of the campus. This may lead to different practices in different parts of the campus, result in confusion among staff, and result in the need for more training. Do you face this problem? How would you change current definitions or regulations to make things simpler for your staff? What else could EPA do to help with this type of problem?
Other Contacts
5.
Is the focus of your efforts on a particular statute/regulation, such as RCRA? Does your college or university have another person we should be talking with about regulatory compliance under other statutes, such as CAA? Is environmental compliance at your school sufficiently labor-intensive that you must have multiple staff members devoted to it?
April 6, 2006

Planning
6.
To what extent is your office involved in overall planning and evaluating long-term and future needs as opposed to day-to-day activities? Do you focus on future needs that may impact your campus? For example, to what extent do you consult in your school’s master plan, or with committees such as buildings and grounds committees?
How, in other words, does the school’s overall planning scheme incorporate environmental issues?
7.
What compliance benefits do you currently or could you potentially gain from involvement in planning? Please provide examples if possible, such as improving designs to reduce or control contaminated storm water, or locating hazardous waste generating facilities on contiguous property to reduce transportation and manifesting costs.
Labor and Cost Information
8.
What are the costs of your CAA permit(s), in state fees and maintenance?
0 - None Less than
$5,000
$5,000 –
Cost in Dollars
$10,000 – $50,000 –
10,000 50,000 100,000
$100,000
– 500,000
Greater than
$500,000
9.
What costs stem from drafting your SPCC Plan?
0 - None Less than
$5,000
$5,000 –
10,000
Cost in Dollars
$10,000 –
50,000
$50,000 –
100,000
$100,000
– 500,000
Greater than
$500,000
Cost in Labor as Number of Full Time Equivalent Employees
0 - None Less 1 – 2 3 – 5 6 – 10 11 – 20 21 – 39 More than 1 than 40
April 6, 2006 25

APPENDIX C: REGULATORY DEFINITIONS
This appendix contains the regulatory language associated with the definitions of facility discussed in this document. The definitions from RCRA, CAA, and SPCC are provided.
RCRA
RCRA definitions for facility and on-site are given in 40 CFR 260.10 and are provided below.
“Facility means:
(1) All contiguous land, and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal operational units (e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them).
(2) For the purpose of implementing corrective action under Sec. 264.101, all contiguous property under the control of the owner or operator seeking a permit under subtitle C of RCRA. This definition also applies to facilities implementing corrective action under RCRA Section 3008(h).
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this definition, a remediation waste management site is not a facility that is subject to 40 CFR 264.101, but is subject to corrective action requirements if the site is located within such a facility.”
“On-site means the same or geographically contiguous property which may be divided by public or private right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a cross-roads intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along, the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned by the same person but connected by a right-of-way which he controls and to which the public does not have access, is also considered on-site property.”
CAA
CAA and the regulations implementing it contain several definitions that are important in determining the activities, operations, units, and structures that are part of the facility regulated under a CAA permit. Some key definition that affect colleges and universities are:

Stationary source from 40 CFR 60.2
“Stationary source means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant.”

Affected facility from 40 CFR 60.2
“Affected facility means, with reference to a stationary source, any apparatus to which a standard is applicable.”
April 6, 2006 26


Affected source from 40 CFR 63.2
“Affected source, for the purposes of this part, means the collection of equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under common control that is included in a section 112(c) source category or subcategory for which a section 112(d) standard or other relevant standard is established pursuant to section 112 of the Act. Each relevant standard will define the ``affected source,'' as defined in this paragraph unless a different definition is warranted based on a published justification as to why this definition would result in significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems and why the different definition would resolve those problems. The term ``affected source,'' as used in this part, is separate and distinct from any other use of that term in EPA regulations such as those implementing title IV of the Act. Affected source may be defined differently for part 63 than affected facility and stationary source in parts 60 and 61, respectively. This definition of ``affected source,'' and the procedures for adopting an alternative definition of ``affected source,'' shall apply to each section 112(d) standard for which the initial proposed rule is signed by the
Administrator after June 30, 2002.”

Major source from 40 CFR 63.2
“Major source means any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants, unless the Administrator establishes a lesser quantity, or in the case of radionuclides, different criteria from those specified in this sentence.”
SPCC
The definition of facility used when creating SPCC Plans is contained in 40 CFR 112.2:
“Facility means any mobile or fixed, onshore or offshore building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe, or pipeline (other than a vessel or a public vessel) used in oil well drilling operations, oil production, oil refining, oil storage, oil gathering, oil processing, oil transfer, oil distribution, and waste treatment, or in which oil is used, as described in Appendix A to this part. The boundaries of a facility depend on several site-specific factors, including, but not limited to, the ownership or operation of buildings, structures, and equipment on the same site and the types of activity at the site.”
April 6, 2006 27