| Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
| Category: |
Documents |
| View: | 217 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Alternative Regulatory Program for Academic Laboratories
Iowa Air & Waste Management AssociationAmana Holiday Inn, Amana, IA Presented by Bill DiesslinIowa State University – Environmental Health & SafetyTuesday, November 14, 2006
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 ain’t over till it’s over”
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!
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]
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!”
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
History:Academic 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
History:Academic 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
History:Academic 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
History:Academic 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
History:Academic 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
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
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
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
Reactive Acutely Hazardous
Aluminum phosphide (P006) Ammonium picrate (P009) (R)-4-(1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino)ethyl)-1,2-
benzenediol (P042) Mercury fulminate (P065) Nitroglycerine (P081) Tetranitromethane (P112) Zinc phosphide >10% (P122)
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
Academic Laboratory Rule -Major Provisions Laboratory Management Plan
Academic institution will outline compliance with performance-based provisions in lab management plan
Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance
Existing Rule Proposed RuleLocation 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
Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance
Existing Rule Proposed RuleLabeling “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
Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance
Existing Rule Proposed RuleLaboratory 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”
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
Next Steps: Rulemaking Process
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)
My Spin
Based on the EPA’s 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
(Continued)
Who Made Comments?
Regulators (17)
Colleges & Universities (80) CSHEMA 38 pages
The “Me Too” Coalition (17) NASA, DOE, ACS
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
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
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
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
The Regulated Say
“[UNO] appreciate EPA’s efforts to understand the unique needs of colleges and universities, and to propose a rule that addresses our issues while helping to improve the environmentalperformance of colleges and universities.
-Patrick Wheeler, August 17, 2006
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
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
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
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
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
Now What?
EPA OSW Review comments Analyze and summarize data Forward to management
EPA OPEI Review comments Suggest changes
OMB
Now What?
Negative state comments Not a problem
“Me too” coalition Will slow things down
Publish Summer 2008 Time could be a problem
Contact Info for OSW Labs Team
Kristin [email protected]
703-308-8286
703-308-8653
Trisha [email protected]
703-308-8408
Anna [email protected]
703-308-8805
Gail A. Cooper,Branch [email protected]
703-308-8419
