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 ain’t over till it’s 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. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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-benzenediol (P042) • Mercury fulminate (P065) • Nitroglycerine (P081) • Tetranitromethane (P112) • Zinc phosphide >10% (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

19. Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance

20. Academic Laboratory Rule -Comparison At A Glance

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 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

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 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

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. Kristin Fitzgerald Fitzgerald.Kristin@epa.gov 703-308-8286 Meg McCarthy McCarthy.Meg@epa.gov 703-308-8653 Trisha Mercer Mercer.Patricia@epa.gov 703-308-8408 Anna Tschursin Tschursin.Anna@epa.gov 703-308-8805 Gail A. Cooper, Branch Chief Cooper.GailAnn@epa.gov 703-308-8419 Contact Info for OSW Labs Team