Government▼Watch
It’s a case of one size not fitting all. of Wisconsin–Madison (UWM). In University and research lab directors UWM’s case, that can mean ~50,000 have long argued that the U.S. EPA’s different types of chemical waste anregulations for handling hazardnually. ous waste are designed for large inRCRA’s regulations have led to dustries and not for relatively small various challenges for academic relabs where students experiment with thousands of different chemicals every year. EPA officials acknowledged as much in a 2002 report to Congress. In a draft proposed rule released in May, the agency is introducing a performance-based standard streamlined to meet the specific needs of these labs. EPA regulations developed under guidelines in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) lay out requirements for The proposed rule would let lab managers design managing hazardous waste. But plans that take into account student turnover and RCRA was designed for largesmall, varied waste streams. scale operations, where a few very large waste streams are genersearch institutions, because the labs ated. Universities, on the other hand, are required to manage each type of “tend to have a large number of waste waste individually. The difficulties streams that are very small,” explains include determining which wastes David Drummond, director of the are considered hazardous and staff safety department at the University training of students and researchers
who work on semester schedules. Consequently, universities have called on EPA to modify the rules to be more in line with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s lab standard, which allows the lab managers to determine how they will safely manage chemicals rather than follow a prescribed, onesize-fits-all approach. “You still have to meet a number of standards, but how those standards are met is up to the lab,” Drummond explains. EPA is proposing to give universities this discretion under a performance-based approach that allows lab directors to identify the compliance method that best suits their institution. Under this approach, RCRA provisions only come into play when trained environmental health and safety professionals take over responsibility for the rubbish and determine that it’s hazardous. Until these professionals take over, the chemicals that lab users no longer need would be considered “unwanted materials” and would be handled according to the lab’s waste management plan. —KRIS CHRISTEN PHOTODISC
EPA lab waste rule gives universities a break
New state-level e-waste recycling law Starting this month, manufacturers in Washington State will have to foot the bill for recycling old computers, monitors, and TVs. A new law, signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire (D) in March, goes further than similar laws in California, Maine, and Maryland, because it covers more products and it makes producers pay for the collection and transportation of e-waste to recycling facilities. Laws in those three states require producers to pay only for e-waste recycling programs. Manufacturers and retailers can’t sell electronics covered under the law unless they either create their own programs for taking back their equipment at the end of its useful life or participate in a similar system developed by the state and fund their portions of the costs. The take-back programs must provide convenient collection spots in urban and rural areas where consumers can turn in their old electronics. The state government will oversee and enforce the program. Requiring manufacturers and retailers to pay for these
© 2006 American Chemical Society
programs provides a financial incentive for them to design products that are greener, less toxic, and easier to recycle, says Mo McBroom, policy director for the Washington Environmental Council. The state’s department of ecology estimates that between 2003 and 2010, >4.5 million computer processing units, 3.4 million cathode ray tube monitors, and 1.5 million flat-panel monitors will become obsolete in Washington. When signing the legislation into law, Gregoire vetoed a provision prohibiting the export of e-waste to other countries, such as China and India. Gregoire said she agrees with the policy but noted that only the U.S. Congress, not Washington State, has the authority to restrict these exports. The law has a wide range of supporters, including businesses and environmentalists, charities, and local governments. —KRIS CHRISTEN
JULY 1, 2006 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 4051
