- Outline of this page with links to this and other pages
- Introduction
- Possible effects of the EPA laboratory rulemaking
- Problems that EPA can repair by regulatory changes
- The military munitions rule and multiple ID numbers
- Consolidation from separate sites to a 90–day facility
- Improved service to K–12 sites
- Reform of P and U lists
- Episodic generation and time limits
- Reform 3-day time limit for removal of excess waste from satellite accumulation areas
- Flexible accumulation times for small quantities
- Deregulation of 14C and 3H waste that is not LSC
- Training
- LDR paperwork
- Clarify how to handle wastes generated during field work
- Simplify and clarify requirement for arrangements with local authorities
- Problems that federal regulatory change cannot address directly
- Problems that the C/U sector can address
- Correctly identifying acute hazardous waste
- Correctly identifying other RCRA waste
- Measure net weights to avoid overstating labpack waste quantities
- Create generic training resources for lab workers
- Customizable web-based training
- Templates for signs and placards [Examples]
Introduction
The following is intended to start a “living” list of concerns to be available during future regulatory discussions. The items in the outline link to paragraphs or documents that describe the concern in more detail. Send suggestions for additions or changes via email. Folks who are assembling information for future regulatory comments may be interested in information about how to comment effectively on proposed regulations.
The list of concerns divides into three groups: Problems that require regulatory change, problems that federal regulations alone cannot solve and problems that the College and University Sector can solve within the framework of existing regulations. Links in the following list connect to brief descriptions on this page or to other pages on the site that have more extensive information about the problem.
Effect of the Labs Rule
The current EPA rule-making on chemical waste management in laboratories will not solve all problems for colleges and universities. The comment was closed on September 20, 2006. We will not know the content of the final rule until later in 2007. Nonetheless, according to information shared with the College and University Sector organization, the agency will not address all issues of concern to higher education.
Colleges and universities need to remember and promote all of our concerns going forward. This page is to prompt our collective memories.
EPA had planned to address concerns not included in the academic laboratory rule through the Hazardous Waste Generator Program Evaluation, often referred to as the Generator Initiative, which was open for comment in 2004 (69FR21800-21804). EPA has posted the Comments on generator initiative received by EPA. Unfortunately, recent discussions with EPA indicate that the generator initiative will probably be delayed and may even be cancelled. Therefore, we can only hope that some of these concerns will be addressed in the Labs Rule. Use the following button for more information and links.
Use Adobe Reader to read the linked EPA .pdf document.
Problems that EPA can address with regulatory changes
Military Munitions rule—
The Military Munitions Rule should be extended to allow transport of unwanted materials and hazardous waste between nearby facilities that are under the same administrative and EH&S control. This recommendation works in harmony with our recommendation to allow consolidation of chemical waste between sites under certain conditions without invoking the 10 day transfer rule under §264.1(g)(9) (See next item). Military bases have miles of public roads with no breaks in property, so it’s no problem for them. Urban campuses often have sites separated by a block or two. Performance-oriented changes in the military munitions rule could largely solve the multiple ID problem that afflicts many campuses. This could be a big paperwork reduction feather in EPA’s cap! [Military Munitions rule page]
Consolidation from multiple sites—
Waste consolidation from SQGs to a 90-day facility under same ownership (administrative and EH&S control) should not trigger the 10-day storage limit. This change will eliminate the need for multiple 90-day storage facilities on closely adjacent pieces of land. The change will also help discourage organizations from using minor property separations to reduce regulation by separating an LQG into multiple SQGs or CESQGs. Finally, institutions that maintain a permitted TSD facility to consolidate waste from nearby sites would be able to drop their permit.
Urban universities often have laboratory buildings separated by property owned by others. Under present rules, the buildings are usually required to have different generator numbers. If the buildings are SQG or LQG and waste is moved from one building to a 90-day facility in another building, §264.1(g)(9) requires it to be shipped out within 10 days. The provision applies even if the buildings are under the same administrative control, served by the same EH&S organization and separated by a few hundred feet. The problem is greatest for colleges and universities, which have usually expanded in their original urban locations while industries and other large organizations have established unified campuses on the outskirts of urban areas.
The apparent purpose of §264.1(g)(9) was to assure that commercial transporters did not accumulate waste at transfer points and that purpose remains valid. Commercial transporters handle chemicals from many sources and have little information about the material they are transporting beyond the information on the manifest, the labels on the containers and the placards on their vehicles. In contrast, colleges and universities have more information and more expertise readily available and all waste and unwanted materials and their sources are under the same ownership, which places an upper limit on quantities. Nonetheless, under present rules, campuses must maintain 90-day collection facilities in each of these nearby buildings except for those that qualify as a CESQG. This complicates inventory control, requires additional inspections and increases the cost and complexity of contractor removal, all of which increase the possibility of errors leading to noncompliance or accident. A single location for accumulation would allow better inspection and management.
We recommend that the rules allow waste or unwanted materials from locations under the same ownership and served by the same EH&S unit to be consolidated to a 90-day facility, also under the same ownership (i.e. administrative and EH&S control) without triggering the 10-day storage limit imposed by §264.1(g)(9). The EH&S staff workers have much more knowledge about the unwanted materials and/or hazardous waste and their sources than a commercial transporter. The volume of materials is always limited by the size of the campus, unlike the situation with a commercial transporter where volume is limited only by the number and size of vehicles arriving at the facility. Therefore, the rules should permit safely transporting the waste and consolidating it into a single 90-day facility. A single facility is easier to manage and can be built to higher standards. Some campuses now maintain a TSD permit solely to allow consolidation of waste between nearby campuses.
In summary, we recommend that the ten-day limit in §264.1(g)(9) be increased to 90 days (same as for on-site materials) provided that the following conditions are met:
- Hazardous waste or unwanted materials are generated by the same college or university
- The trained persons who serve the different locations are part of the same administrative subunit
- The administrative subunit with trained persons (e.g. EH&S) has authority and responsibility for all locations served under this exception
- Properly trained persons accompany hazardous waste and unwanted materials during transportation between locations
This performance-oriented change will eliminate the need for multiple 90-day storage facilities on closely adjacent segments of campus. The change will also reduce the incentive for institutions to use minor property separations to escape regulations by balkanizing a campus into multiple SQGs or CESQGs. Finally, institutions that maintain a permitted TSD facility to consolidate waste from nearby sites would be able to convert to 90-day storage facilities if they desired.
Service to K–12 schools—
Serve local school districts by allowing a 90-day facility to accept up to 10–20 percent of annual volume from local K–12s and possibly other public agencies without triggering the 10-day limit. This would encourage campuses to assist nearby K–12s who have very little waste, but even less RCRA experience. Limit quantities to a percentage of annual volume to prevent the possibility of overwhelming staff of the receiving facility with requests for service. This practice is severely inhibited under present rules by the fear that if the K–12 becomes anything but a CESQG, the 90-day facility will be limited to 10 day storage of the waste.
P and U lists—
The present P and U lists are severely out of date. Colleges and universities can live with present lists, but EPA should change the basis of the lists to performance criteria to rationalize them and immediately accommodate new chemicals.
Episodic generation and other timing problems—
The forthcoming proposed academic laboratory waste rule will help stabilize the changes in generator status caused by end-of-semester episodic generation and laboratory cleanouts although the improvement is well into the future for most of us. Important additional changes related to academic year schedules include:
- Extending “annual” requirements to 400 days or creating another way to allow for calendar variations in the end of the academic year and uncertainty in the timing of contractor visits.
- Extend 180 days limits to 230 days to allow summer session waste (generally low quantity) to be stored until the end of the following semester.
- Clarify all time intervals:
- Distinguish between “weekly” and “at least once in every seven days.”
- State whether time limits are based on calendar days, business days or working days (but see next item).
Reform 3-day time limit for removal of excess waste from satellite accumulation areas—
A new interpretation of RCRA rules by the EPA Office of Solid Waste states “Three days means three consecutive days. It does not mean three working days or three business days.”[1] The 2004 interpretation directly contradicts a 1987 interpretation of the same rule.[2] Exceeding the 55 gallon limit on ordinary hazardous waste is unlikely in higher education laboratories but a single container can easily exceed the 1 quart limit on acute hazardous waste. The new interpretation creates great difficulty around holiday weekends when a material could be declared unwanted and the 3 day limit expire entirely outside of working hours. Illness in a small program or severe weather could also cause the limit to be exceeded, especially if a normal weekend intervenes. A modest performance requirement for the container would allow the time limit to be extended to, for example, 11 working days. A reasonable performance requirement would be that the container is compatible with the contents, safe for storage for at least six months, safely closed and properly labeled, i.e. ready for transport and storage at the central facility.
Flexible accumulation times in special cases—
Allow some flexibility in accumulation times to accumulate economical amounts for items that have to be shipped separately. e.g. up to one year in secondary containment w/ monthly inspections of primary container.
Solvent mixtures similar to scintillation cocktail—
Deregulate 14C and 3H waste that is not liquid scintillation cocktail (LSC) to non-Low Level Mixed Waste (LLMW) standards as previously done for LSC. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may need to take the lead on this but EPA will probably want to be involved.
Training—
Another page on this site has a more comprehensive discussion of training. The following list covers a few highlights.
- Clarify training requirements but retain performance orientation
- Allow training to be adjusted to the role of the employee
- Encourage signage to reinforce training
- Encourage a broad variety of training methods
- Extend training requirements to include students and volunteers
LDR notification—
A complete set of LDR notifications now must accompany every waste shipment. This should not be required for wastes that are to be incinerated or for shipments to licensed hazardous waste contractors who already possess the information.
Clarify handling of chemical waste from field work—
If an employee generates waste off-campus during a day in the field, the “at or near point of generation” qualifier for satellite accumulation areas has occasionally caused problems during inspections. Regulations should give the employee explicit permission to bring the waste back to the regular laboratory or work site where it will be handled properly.
Problems that federal regulatory change cannot address directly
State and local rule variations—
Research faculty and senior staff change their location frequently compared to industrial workers. Varying state and local rules create confusion and increase the likelihood of waste management errors without concomitant benefit to the environment or public health. Unfortunately improvement is unlikely because it would require harmonization of state regulations and/or reduced autonomy for EPA regional offices. rules The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act allows states to enact rules that are more stringent than EPA regulations.
Varied interpretations of rules—
Colleges and universities are relatively uncommon in the universe of RCRA-regulated waste generators. This causes difficulty for many inspectors as they try to understand our work and correctly apply regulations. Special training for some inspectors could reduce this problem pending improved regulations.
Problems that colleges and universities can address without regulatory change
Generic training resources—
Programs need training resources that focus on minimizing and simplifying the training requirements for laboratory workers while still complying with applicable regulations. This will place most of the burden of compliance on EH&S workers, a smaller workforce whose major responsibility and expertise lie in chemical waste management. Training outlines that are promulgated through the sector partnership will gain credibility and help promote a more uniform approach to laboratory chemical waste training. The training discussion on this website offers an outline that could serve as a starting point for discussion.
