Alternative Regulatory Program for Academic Laboratories

1
Alternative Regulatory Program for Academic
Laboratories

• Iowa Air Waste Management Association
• Amana Holiday Inn, Amana, IA
• Presented by Bill Diesslin
• Iowa State University Environmental Health
  Safety
• Tuesday, November 14, 2006

2
Presentation Caveats

• All comments are those of the presenter and do
  not necessarily reflect position of the EPA
• Rulemaking is subject to change
• Proposed rules often look different when compared
  to final rules
• In fact, sometimes they are never finalized
• It aint over till its over

3
What I Said in 2004

• Optimistic Goal
• Substantial draft by the end of summer
• I was wrong!
• Realistic Goal
• Substantial draft by early fall
• Wrong again!

4
What I Said in 2005

• Proposed Rule
• February 2006 - Rule published in Federal
  Register
• Wrong Wrong Wrong (but close)
• Proposed rule published 05/23/06
• FR Vol. 71, No. 99 29712 29752

5
What I Said That Was True

• Regulatory Reform is Really Happening!
• FR Vol, 71, Num. 99, 05/23/06
• Pages 29715 - 29752
• Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
  Waste Subpart K Standards Applicable to
  Academic Laboratories

The cat is out of the bag!
6
Outline of Presentation

• History Academic Laboratory Rulemaking
• Academic Laboratory Proposed Rule
• Goals
• General Framework
• Major Provisions
• What I Think
• What Others Think
• Next steps in Rulemaking Process

7
HistoryAcademic Laboratory Rule

• 1989 Issued Report to Congress addressing
  challenges of managing hazardous waste
  pg 29715 of proposed rule
• Report highlighted a lack of awareness regarding
  hazardous waste and RCRA regulations
• Transient nature of student population
• Highly variable waste streams
• Resource constraints

8
HistoryAcademic Laboratory Rule

• 1999 XL Project pg 29716
• Goal develop a more effective approach to
  regulating academic laboratories
• Allowed greater flexibility in managing wastes
• Increase awareness of RCRA and environmental
  performance through the use of tools such as
  Environmental Management Plans
• Three Universities piloted the project

9
HistoryAcademic Laboratory Rule

• 2001 Pilot Project pg 29716
• Congress requested EPA participate in a pilot
  project and report on the results
• Pilot Project included EPA, 10 major research
  institutions, HHMI, and state regulatory
  officials
• The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness and
  efficiency of a performance based approach

10
HistoryAcademic Laboratory Rule

• 2002 Report to Congress pg 29716
• Report on the pilot project indicated
• academic laboratories have difficulty in
  complying with RCRA regulations
• regulatory changes may be necessary to address
  compliance issues
• EPA developed a 3 phased plan to address problems
• Outreach
• Guidance
• Regulatory Changes

11
HistoryAcademic Laboratory Rule

• Outreach
• Began outreach in 2002
• Classes, conferences, public meeting
• Guidance
• Making the hazardous waste determination
• Satellite Accumulation Area Guidance
• Responses to 14 frequently asked questions
• Regulatory Changes
• Developed generator program specifically for
  academic laboratories

12
Academic Laboratory Rule -Goals

• Develop an alternative regulatory program which
• allows for site specific flexibility
• improves compliance and
• enhances protection of human health and the
  environment

13
Academic Laboratory Rule -General Framework

• Alternative program for Laboratories at Academic
  Institutions
• Proposal includes art studios but not shops,
  photo labs or waste generated in support
  operations
• Opt-in Approach
• Rule will allow generators to manage wastes under
  either new program for labs or existing
  regulations
• Requires notification to Regional Administrator
  or State Director

14
Academic Laboratory Rule -Major Provisions

• Regulations address waste from point of
  generation (lab) to 90/180 day area
• Once in 90/180 day area existing regulations
  apply
• Rule defines unwanted material
• All unwanted material generated in lab will be
  subject to the new program
• Reactive Acutely Hazardous
• 7 Substances with a one quart limit

15
Reactive Acutely Hazardous

• Aluminum phosphide (P006)
• Ammonium picrate (P009)
• (R)-4-(1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl)-1,2-benzene
  diol (P042)
• Mercury fulminate (P065)
• Nitroglycerine (P081)
• Tetranitromethane (P112)
• Zinc phosphide gt10 (P122)

16
Academic Laboratory Rule -Major Provisions

• Hazardous waste determination made in 90/180 area
• Institution will have four days to make hazardous
  waste identification
• Delay identification until pick-up for schools
  without 90/180 day area

17
Academic Laboratory Rule -Major Provisions

• Laboratory Management Plan
• Academic institution will outline compliance with
  performance-based provisions in lab management
  plan

18
Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance
Existing Rule Proposed Rule
Location SAA Laboratory
Materials Hazardous Waste Acute Hazardous Wastes Unwanted Material Reactive Acutely Hazardous Unwanted Material
Waste Determination In SAA, when waste is generated Before waste is shipped or within 4 days of transfer to campus waste facility
Max Time no time limit Six months
Max Volume 55 gallon/1 quart 55 gallon/ 1 quart
Time Allowed 3 days 10 days
19
Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance
Existing Rule Proposed Rule
Labeling Hazardous Waste or Other words that identify contents Unwanted Material sufficient information for emergency response start date
Information associated with container None Information for hazardous waste determination
Lab staff training None Commensurate with duties
Containers Good condition, compatible with waste kept closed Good condition, compatible with waste managed to assure safe storage
20
Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance
Existing Rule Proposed Rule
Laboratory Management Plan None Required
Lab Clean-out Incentive None 1x/12 months without changing generator status, 30 days to complete clean out
Notification None Notify Regional Administrator or State Director if you opt in
21
Next Steps Rulemaking Process

• Proposed Rule
• Published 05/23/06
• FR Vol. 71, No. 99 29712 29752
• Public Comment Period
• Initial end 08/21/06
• Extended to 09/20/06
• Final Rule
• Summer 2008
• State Programs Will Decide If They Will Adopt
• A year later if so

22
My Spin

• Large Schools (LQGs)
• As written, the proposed rules actually increase
  regulatory burden rather than provide relief
• Small Schools (SQGs)
• May provide some advantages, but at a huge
  regulatory cost
• Small School (CESQGs)
• As written, not included
• Outside Entities
• Likely to challenge some issues (and win in court)

23
My Spin
(Continued)

• Based on the EPAs goals
• Develop an alternative regulatory program which
• allows for site specific flexibility (C-)
• improves compliance (D, but time will tell)
• enhanced protection of human health and the
  environment (F)
• The success of this rule depends upon
• Comments from the academic community
• Ability of the EPA to respond to the comments

24
Who Made Comments?

• Regulators (17)
• Colleges Universities (80)
• CSHEMA 38 pages
• The Me Too Coalition (17)
• NASA, DOE, ACS

25
The Regulators Say
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) is pleased to comment in support
of EPA's proposed rulemaking. - Kathy McGinty,
August 24, 2006
26
The Regulators Say
MassDEP applauds EPA for proposing
performance-based standards specifically for
academic laboratories that address the unique
nature of college and university laboratory
environments. - Steven DeGabrile, August 21,
2006
27
The Regulators Say
We Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality find it puzzling that college professors
with PhDs, and their students, all with at least
high school diplomas and presumably high ACT
scores, are assumed to be unable to figure out
ways to comply with the RCRA regulations. -
David Haldeman, August 18, 2006
28
The Regulated Say
UNL appreciates the opportunity to comment on
these proposed rules and applauds the Agency for
taking the steps necessary to alleviate the
burden of complying with regulatory requirements
that are not compatible with the nature of work
in college and university laboratories. -
Brenda Osthus, August 10, 2006
29
The Regulated Say
UNO appreciate EPAs efforts to understand the
unique needs of colleges and universities, and to
propose a rule that addresses our issues while
helping to improve the environmental performance
of colleges and universities. -Patrick Wheeler,
August 17, 2006
30
The Regulated Say
In its current form, I would not suggest that
FAU opt into regulation under this proposed
rule. - Thomas Bradley, August 17, 2006
31
The Regulated Say
SDSU has reviewed the comment letter submitted
by the Campus Safety, Health and Environmental
Management Association (CSHEMA), and whole
heartedly endorses the principles and priorities
of CSHEMA's letter, and supports the details that
members of CSHEMA have documented. - Peggy
Miller, August 17, 2006
32
The me too Say
NASA recommends that the optional, alternate
standard proposed in this docket be expanded in
scope, in order to permit all Laboratories
(academic, industrial, and government) options in
mitigating the risks of hazardous waste
generation. - Mike McNeil, July 25, 2006
33
The me too Say
USAMRIID along with many other research
laboratories that have a similar situation as
described in the background section of the
proposed regulation changes should be included
along with colleges and universities in the
proposed regulation changes. - William F.
Schultz, August 02, 2006
34
The me too Say
It is not clear to ACS why the laboratories
this Proposed Rule will apply to are limited to
those in academia. Industrial laboratories have
indicated to the Task Force that they have the
same challenges in applying RCRA to their
situations. - Eric Talley, August 10, 2006
35
Now What?

• EPA OSW
• Review comments
• Analyze and summarize data
• Forward to management
• EPA OPEI
• Review comments
• Suggest changes
• OMB

36
Now What?

• Negative state comments
• Not a problem
• Me too coalition
• Will slow things down
• Publish Summer 2008
• Time could be a problem

37
Contact Info for OSW Labs Team

• Anna Tschursin
• Tschursin.Anna_at_epa.gov
• 703-308-8805
• Gail A. Cooper,
• Branch Chief
• Cooper.GailAnn_at_epa.gov
• 703-308-8419

• Kristin Fitzgerald
• Fitzgerald.Kristin_at_epa.gov
• 703-308-8286
• Meg McCarthy
• McCarthy.Meg_at_epa.gov
• 703-308-8653
• Trisha Mercer
• Mercer.Patricia_at_epa.gov
• 703-308-8408