EPA’s New Regulations for Academic Laboratories
Download
Report
Transcript EPA’s New Regulations for Academic Laboratories
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
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 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
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
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”
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
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 (Continued)
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
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 environmental
performance 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 Fitzgerald
Anna Tschursin
[email protected]
703-308-8286
[email protected]
703-308-8805
Meg McCarthy
[email protected]
703-308-8653
Trisha Mercer
[email protected]
703-308-8408
Gail A. Cooper,
Branch Chief
[email protected]
703-308-8419