- Links on this page
- Introduction
- The benefits of regulations and inspections
- Performance oriented regulations
- Guidelines for performance oriented regulation
- Example goal analysis
- Fundamental goals of hazardous waste management
- Performance criteria
- Applying performance oriented approaches to existing regulations
- Written plans
- An alternative to written plans
- Sample placards
Abstract
Regulatory agencies want positive results from their work. New regulations are increasingly performance oriented, focusing on outcomes and offering considerable flexibility in the means used to achieve the outcomes. In contrast, many existing regulations attempt to assure good outcomes by regulating work processes.
The regulated community generally prefers performance-oriented rules because they allow more opportunities for technical and managerial ingenuity. Enforcement inspectors generally prefer work process and record keeping specifications that require less training to measure for compliance.
Written plans, required by some performance oriented rules have been difficult to prepare. In some cases, enforcers have used the plans to assess penalties for violations of the plan that are not included in the published rule.
In practice, performance oriented rules will contain specifications, for example, to prohibit unreliable or dangerous intermediate processes. Development of performance oriented rules includes identifying broad goals, focusing on the desired end points and identifying intermediate stages that must be regulated. Older rules may serve as the basis for performance oriented rules by changing the focus from intermediate processes to the end points. Enforcement policies must also change their methods to measure results instead of processes.
Introduction
Regulatory agencies want positive results from their work. New regulations are increasingly performance oriented, focusing on outcomes and offering considerable flexibility in the means used to achieve the outcomes. In contrast, older regulations attempted to assure good outcomes by regulating work processes.
The regulated community generally prefers performance-oriented rules because they allow more opportunities for technical and managerial ingenuity. Enforcement inspectors generally prefer work process and record keeping specifications that require less training to measure for compliance.
A purely performance based regulation will fail to yield reliable results if an intermediate work process is unreliable. For example, consider the endpoint of proper treatment of hazardous waste to protect the environment. Fragile storage containers that break and spill during transportation will cause environmental contamination. Therefore, there will always be some rules governing storage and transportation processes. Therefore, some regulation of work processes will nearly always be incorporated in a rule, even if the primary judgment is based on outcomes. This paper will refer to “performance oriented” regulations to recognize the need to specify some intermediate processes.
This paper traces the evolution of performance oriented rules from a set of goals and objectives and shows that laboratory chemical waste regulations are susceptible to performance oriented revisions.
The benefits of regulations and inspections
Common cause is a rare concept when it involves the regulated community and those who enforce against them. Nonetheless, enforceability will be considered by regulation writers and should also be carefully considered by those who understand operations.
It is easy for those of us in the regulated community to complain about inspectors, focus on the burden of compliance and overlook the essential functions performed by regulatory agencies. Everyone knows that regulators must enforce compliance with minimum standards of performance and many organizations exceed the minima. But we also must remember that people perform better when they are watched and encouraged. That’s why management exists and why it’s easier to win games in front of the hometown fans.
Good enforcement of good regulations also reassures the general public and legislators that we are doing things right. It is easier to deal with periodic inspections than to deal with constant suspicion, information requests or public challenges by groups with varying demands and no standards to give a basis for discussion.
A regulatory agency needs information if it is to provide reassurance. That means we must keep records and share them with inspectors. The alternative, a full-time inspector on site, is practiced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in meat packing plants but is neither financially feasible nor operationally desirable in most situations.
Finally, well-enforced regulations create a level playing field for competitors. Compliance is rarely free, but if everybody is treated attentively and fairly, regulation will not affect competitive positions.
Performance oriented regulations
It is easier to set speed limits than to legislate safe driving behavior. Similar truths apply in many regulated situations. Therefore, many bodies of regulations, like driving rules, are based on specifications. Unfortunately, the regulated community is often diverse and specifications that make sense for one group create problems for another. Speed limits are generally irrelevant for bicyclists and a helmet law for automobile drivers would contribute little to traffic safety. As a result, performance oriented rules have gained increasing popularity because they focus on results with more flexibility on how to reach the desired end point. Traffic rules and enforcement policies that focus on controlling aggressive driving and road rage are examples of the new focus on regulated performance even in the highly specification oriented field of traffic safety.
Nonetheless, performance oriented regulation comes with its own set of problems and frustrations. Regulated entities often find performance based rules vague because the rules say little or nothing about the processes needed for compliance. Smaller entities are especially troubled by the time-consuming need to prepare written plans, which then, in some cases, become enforcement tools. Enforcers find it difficult to evaluate compliance with performance based rules because some results are difficult to measure and they cannot judge the reliability of novel compliance processes.
Pure performance based rules are rare in systems designed for specified results and enforcement. ISO 14001 is a voluntary performance standard; compliance verification is time consuming and adherence to the standard does not guarantee environmental quality. In contrast, environmental regulations require specified results and enforcement inspectors cannot devote the on-site time required for ISO 14001 certification. Therefore, this paper uses the term “performance oriented.”
Performance oriented rules have found a place in the U.S. regulatory system and their use is increasing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been a leader among federal agencies in developing performance oriented regulatory strategies, including both rules and enforcement policies.
There is a third strategy, called “management based regulation” that can augment either type of regulation and has an important role in successful regulatory strategies. Management based regulation is built on incentives structured so that achieving good results is inherently preferable to achieving poor results. An incentive/disincentive structure can be overlaid on both specification and performance regulations. Of course, legal penalties such as fines and jail time intend to make good results preferable to bad results but these tools are crude, applied after the fact and often hit the wrong target.
Positive regulatory results don’t require the threat of direct penalties. The EPA Energy Star program is a notable example of a government program that has achieved substantial results with modest incentives and no penalties. Another government example is the National Institutes of Health Recombinant DNA Guidelines, which have no regulatory force but are carefully followed by research universities. Other examples are the certification and accreditation programs of voluntary organizations such as AAALAC that carry no penalties beyond revocation of accreditation or certification. Nonetheless, every university takes its various academic and research accreditations very seriously and compliance rates are excellent.
In practice, the best regulations usually combine elements of performance, specification and management based approaches. If we were starting with a clean slate, a scheme like the one shown in figure 1 would help identify measurement parameters for performance oriented regulations. As the diagram shows, if there is nothing to measure, there is nothing to regulate, no matter how noble the objective. The stakeholder and the enforcement unit need independent measurement capability to be credible to the public and each other. The diagram is a simplified view of the general logic underlying performance oriented regulation. It assumes the decision in favor of performance oriented regulation has already been made and appears to be feasible.
Figure 1:
A simplified diagram of the process of establishing
performance oriented regulations.
[text version]
Guidelines for performance oriented regulation
The following, more extensive guidelines are loosely adapted from guidance published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: [1]
- Can a performance
oriented approach be developed?
- What is the current margin of safety, estimated with quantitative and/or qualitative estimation tools? Is the margin robust (What can go wrong? How serious will the effects be? Will the stakeholder act appropriately?)? Is there time to make corrections in case of a problem?
- What can the stakeholder observe and measure to gauge performance? What can the inspector observe and measure to gauge performance? Are the measurements adequately reliable?
- Can the measurements (in B.) be used as the basis for a standard(s) to establish acceptable performance?
- Will increased process flexibility encourage better results and discourage worse results, i.e. what is the incentive/disincentive structure?
- Is it worthwhile to develop or change to a
performance oriented rule?
- Will the change significantly affect the current level of environment/public health/RCRA worker protection, e.g. by stronger emphasis on actual outcomes?
- Will the change significantly affect public confidence in the hazardous waste management system?
- Will the change significantly affect the effectiveness, efficiency and/or realism of RCRA activities and decision-making?
- Will the change significantly reduce regulatory burden?
- Will the change to a performance based approach yield a net benefit?
- What are the effects on inspection and enforcement?
- Will the change accommodate best available technology, now and in the future?
- Does any part of this approach violate basic regulatory principles?
Example goal analysis
The performance oriented approach to regulations begins by establishing the goals that the regulations hope to achieve. The fundamental or Stage 1 goals drive development of performance objectives, which must be measurable. The objectives and their measurement points form the basis for the written regulations.
The steps to develop performance and specification regulations are quite similar. The difference is that performance objectives are expressed, as much as possible, in the form of results and allow for variation in the processes used to achieve them.
Fundamental goals of hazardous waste management
The goals of hazardous waste management may be divided into specific goals that are essential to this area of regulation and general goals that apply to many areas of regulation.
- Specific goals
- Prevent improper disposal of chemical waste that is hazardous to the environment or public health.
- Protect the environment and human health by assuring proper management of hazardous chemical waste.
- Assure the general public that hazardous chemical waste is being properly managed
- General goals
- All workers have appropriate knowledge, skills and resources to fulfill their roles.
- Systems are in place to assure reliable performance.
- Enforcement among regulated entities does not affect competitive positions, i.e. enforcement is even handed.
- The regulatory agency has adequate information gathering capabilities to fulfill its public information and enforcement roles.
- Proper incentives, disincentives and penalties are available to promote compliance.
Some may question the difference between disincentives and penalties in the last item. Disincentives, like incentives represent costs that are part of the structure of a system while penalties are costs imposed by enforcement authorities. For example, the cost of chemical waste disposal is a strong incentive toward waste minimization but the same cost is a disincentive with respect to proper disposal of chemical waste. Therefore, penalties must be available to discourage improper disposal.
The goals provide a basis for performance criteria, i.e. operating conditions that are believed to lead to satisfactory program quality and reliability and can be evaluated by program staff and outside inspectors.
Performance criteria
The following performance criteria are directed toward handling of chemical waste from laboratories, studios and similar worksites in colleges and universities. Each criterion includes standards that by managers and inspectors can apply to measure adherence to the criterion.
- Waste collection points and
other critical locations are clearly identified.
- Is there a place in or near the workplace to put unwanted chemicals?
- Do people know where it is and what it is for?
- Are waste container and labeling requirements posted, understood and followed?
- Are known incompatibles isolated from one another?
- Waste containers are properly labeled.—Is the waste adequately labeled for safe transportation, accurate RCRA determination and follow-up, if needed, e.g. identified as unwanted, source location, responsible person, chemical information, hazard class?
- Someone is accountable for the
waste at all times who has enough expertise and authority to assure its proper
handling.
- Does someone have explicit authority and responsibility for proper handling of the waste?
- Does the accountable person know the general characteristics of the waste, routine and emergency procedures, etc., i.e. does the accountable person have the necessary knowledge and expertise?
- The waste is reasonably secure.
- Are unwanted chemicals as secure as other chemicals in the lab?
- Are waste chemicals dearly distinguishable from wanted materials by labels or signs?
- Are incompatible materials segregated?
- Is secondary containment used?
- The collection system is
equipped to manage all chemicals that can be reasonably anticipated.
- Is the equipment adequate for both normal and emergency operations in view of hazard classes to be handled and quantities?
- Have the people collecting waste chemicals received adequate training and do they know how to use the equipment?
- Are procedures available to handle containers that do not have required information?
- Self-inspections, errors and
accidents are documented, reviewed and information is used to improve the
program.
- Are periodic self-inspection documents on file and available for review?
- Are incident reports on file and available for review?
- For programs with more than one employee assigned to chemical waste collection, are minutes available of periodic (at least annual) meetings to review incident reports and consider improvements?
- The system design encourages
proper handling of chemical waste (i.e. disincentives are minimized).
- Are there direct charges for unknowns—containers that do not carry required information?
- Are there direct charges for chemical waste disposal?
- Is pre-collection effort minimized?
- Is collection service predictable and customer-friendly?
- Basic instructions and/or
checklists are posted or readily available.
- Is concise, accurate information readily available (consider quality of information, language(s), multiple sources)?
- Is user training readily available (consider language(s), multiple delivery methods?
- Everyone understands and practices their responsibilities for chemical waste management in workplaces and processes under their control.
- If a chemical waste emergency
occurs, it will be properly handled.
- Is there an emergency plan or training outline?
- Are appropriately trained and equipped people available to manage credible emergencies at all stages in the chemical waste handling process?
- Does everyone in the organization who may be affected by a chemical waste emergency understand what to do in case of an emergency?
- Are emergency responders prepared to provide backup for situations beyond in-house capability?
- Unwanted chemicals are safely
transported from workplace to central facility.
- Are materials properly identified and segregated in accordance with transportation rules including “fingerprinting,” analysis or isolated transportation, if needed?
- Is the bill of lading accurate and complete with required information?
- Are carts and vehicle equipped for spill containment and/or control?
- Do individuals, including drivers know their roles in case of emergency and are they properly equipped?
- The central facility is safe
and secure.
- Secure against vandalism, theft, unauthorized entry of waste?
- Are incoming materials evaluated as soon as reasonably feasible?
- Is storage time tracked and reasonable, i.e. waste isn’t being ignored?
- Is the past frequency of removal being maintained (assumes flexible storage time)?
- Are containers inspected regularly and problems documented and fixed?
- Are aisle space, segregation and other storage conditions satisfactory?
- Waste is shipped regularly for
environmentally correct treatment and disposal.
- Is licensed contractor used?
- Are wastes removed on a regular schedule?
- Records are sufficient to allow
an inspector to conclude that the regulated entity is reliably fulfilling its
duties to protect public health and the environment.
- Can every waste item be tracked from source to ultimate destination?
- Are inspection records complete and accurate?
- Are manifest records properly created and maintained?
- Are manifest records matched with collection records to prove cradle-to-grave tracking?
- Do records accurately reflect waste quantities?
- Is all required information
available—
- To meet needs of the inspector?
- To adequately inform the public about the program?
- Have all required reports been filed or published as required?
-
Note: The last two performance criteria apply to the regulating agency.
The waste management system is perceived as effective, efficient and reliable because the public is well informed about successes, problems and general status of the program. - Inspection and enforcement methods are even-handed throughout the regulated community.
Applying performance oriented approaches to existing regulations
For better and worse, hazardous waste regulations have been with us for nearly a quarter century. Regulatory agencies and users have accommodated to them, despite acknowledged problems. As a result, it may be easier to modify the existing regulatory framework than to discard it in favor of an entirely new structure. In short, evolution is probably easier than revolution. Furthermore, the specification and performance oriented approaches share the same goal: To protect public health and the environment by proper management of chemical wastes. The performance criteria and standards of the previous section provide a benchmark against which to evaluate the evolution of the present regulatory scheme.
The following table divides laboratory waste management into steps that follow the pattern of existing regulations. For each step, there is a summary of the purpose of the step, a description of problems presented by existing regulations, suggested performance oriented approaches and standards that will verify compliance. As stated earlier, the suggested regulatory approaches are performance oriented, but include specifications that appear necessary to assure the reliability of the system.
The table shows that performance oriented approaches can greatly reduce operational problems, allow for equal or better environmental performance and identify possible enforcement observations.
Enforcement policy can prioritize violations according to their effects on results giving it a large role in establishing performance orientation. More about enforcement policy.
| Waste management step | Purpose of regulations | Problem with existing regulations | Alternative performance oriented approach | Compliance observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Establish accumulation area for unwanted chemicals (now called SAA) |
Assure that there is a safe location for hazardous chemical waste |
“Under control of” interpreted as “Line-of-sight” regardless of security Different management standards for wanted and unwanted chemicals discourages identification and removal of unwanted chemicals |
The person with direct management responsibility for operations is also responsible to identify a safe location(s) for temporary storage of unwanted chemicals and is responsible for the safety and security of all materials placed there. |
Is the location established? Are basic chemical safety practices followed in handling and storing waste? Is the SAA at least as secure as the storage for chemicals in inventory? |
|
Move unwanted chemicals to accumulation area in safe containers |
Assure that unwanted chemicals are moved to a safe place Assure containers are safe for transportation and storage |
Requirement that containers “...must always be closed during storage, except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.” creates problems when processes generate waste continuously or when wastes release gases. |
Evaporation and spillage during transportation and storage must be minimized. When containers cannot be fully closed, users shall have standard operating procedures to minimize evaporative losses and spillage. |
Do workers know the location of the accumulation area for unwated chemicals? Are container requirements posted and observed? Are waste containers securely closed or have users taken steps to prevent evaporative losses or spillage, e.g. spring-loaded covers, chilled waste containers? Do workers who generate or handle unwanted chemicals know and use appropriate procedures to minimize losses from waste containers? |
|
Label unwanted chemicals as Hazardous Waste w/ complete labeling information |
Capture identity and hazard class information for later use Prevent inappropriate disposal of RCRA waste |
Some interpretations require the term “Hazardous Waste” on the label “Once a hazardous waste, always a hazardous waste.” Discourages identifying unknown chemicals as waste. |
As written, this rule is already performance oriented in the statement “...marks his containers either with the words ‘Hazardous Waste’ or with other words that identify the contents of the containers” Unwanted chemicals shall be moved to the identified temporary storage area and labeled with as much information about hazards and chemical composition as is known at the time. Note: The label needs to carry enough information to allow classification for safe transportation and to make the HW determination. If labeling is incomplete, the information must be developed by interview or analysis. Labels shall be legible and chemical resistant. |
Do workers who produce chemical waste know how to label the waste? Are the labels legible? Are any labels decomposed past the point of legibility? |
|
Make Hazardous Waste Determination |
Segregate RCRA waste from non-RCRA waste Help assure proper handling of RCRA waste Prevent inappropriate disposal of RCRA waste |
Non-RCRA waste is not non-hazardous Some current interpretations require the HW determination to be made at the SAA. |
All unwanted chemicals shall be placed in the SAA and removed from there to the same location. There shall be a posted list of any exceptions that may be handled by other means, e.g. sewered or placed in normal trash. |
Are the instructions posted? Do workers who handle waste know what to do with various wastes produced in the work area? Are workers without this information prohibited from handling waste chemicals? Is a hazardous waste determination made on all materials removed from the SAA? |
|
Transport to central location |
Eliminate unnecessary paperwork when trained people transport hazardous waste and assure that trained assistance is available in case of emergency |
Currently defined by military munitions rule. “…transportation of hazardous waste on public or private right-of-ways on or along the border of contiguous properties under the control of the same person…” The “Seven-Eleven” problem—A retail outlet on an outside corner creates a violation as the vehicle goes around the corner. Big problems for urban research institutions that often have a block or two between buildings. “Contiguous” definition requires multiple generator numbers (some interpretations), which may reduce regulation of some facilities. Manifest required between facilities regardless of separation. Requires multiple central storage facilities to avoid “ten-day” transporter storage limit. |
Manifest is not required if transportation is by trained workers and within n minute travel distance from centralized chemical waste facility. Outside of vehicle must be placarded with contact phone numbers and according to DOT rules. Assistance must be available at all times. A bill of lading listing hazard classes and approximate quantities on board shall accompany vehicle. |
Different measurements on same map used for military munitions rule. Check staffing patterns and contact information. Note: n minute travel distance can be interpreted prima facie as radius or travel distance from the central facility. |
|
Three day deadline to remove excess accumulation from SAA. |
Prevent excess accumulation of hazardous materials with concomitant safety and health hazards. |
In lab practice, the 1 quart limit on acutely hazardous waste, lab closures and end-of-semester are a problem. A single five pound container can change generator status. This increases hazard by encouraging repackaging into smaller containers. Many 4-year C/U campuses have only one person trained in HW rules or they must wait for a contractor, making the time requirement infeasible. |
Extend time to allow for holidays, sick time, vacations and staging of proper equipment and services. Note: New England XL project allows 30 days (40CFR262.104(c)). If storage is in an area that is not regularly occupied during working hours [e.g. closed lab], the area must be inspected for container integrity and leaks at least weekly and secondary containment must be provided. Allow larger accumulations of acutely toxic wastes if they are placed in secondary containment. |
Direct observation of work practices. Review of inspection logs |
|
P- and U- lists |
Create extra precautions for especially toxic wastes |
Lists are obsolete because they specify chemicals by name instead of by characteristics. Some chemicals should be added and some should be removed based on today’s knowledge. |
Define the P- and U- list chemicals by a set of characteristics. |
Similar to current practice |
|
Determination of generator status |
Assure extra precautions by generators of larger quantities of waste. |
Status can change based on a single container of waste. This increases hazard by encouraging repackaging into smaller containers. Generator status can vary unpredictably. |
Base generator status on total amount of waste and require extra handling precautions for acutely hazardous waste. Base generator status on annual amounts of waste instead of monthly. |
No significant change |
|
Segregate by hazard class |
Assure safe storage in central facility Assure safe transportation in commerce |
Three-day limit does not allow for holiday weekends. |
Seven working days allows for experts to take vacation, sick leave, etc. (If containers are sound enough for transportation, this is not urgent.) |
Are containers sound and compatible with the waste? (no change from present) Are all except recent “acquisitions” properly segregated? (prima facie, within 7 working days) Evidence of compatibility related problems or accidents in facility operations log? |
|
Re-segregate by contractor treatment class |
[This step has no government enforcement implications for the generator. It is included here because of cost implications.] |
Contractor must segregate by treatment/disposal route if transportation routes or disposal methods are different. Often results in use of increased packing materials. |
None at generator level. |
None at generator level. |
|
Labpack or barrel and manifest |
Assure safe transportation in commerce Allow tracking of waste from generator to ultimate destination. |
Greatly exaggerates the amount of hazardous materials in labpacks. As a result: —Discrepancies between manifest data and biennial reports are sometimes viewed as evidence of dishonesty if net weights are used as basis for biennial reports. —Manifest data may cause an undeserved raising of generator status. |
Generators may optionally estimate actual quantities of chemical waste in containers to be labpacked and use the data for biennial reports and for determining generator status. Generator must document and be prepared to demonstrate the method used [e.g. prima facie gross weight less estimated tare weight] |
Review documentation and observe work in progress. |
Written plans
Some performance oriented rules have required written compliance plans. Examples include the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29CFR1910.1200, Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories (the “OSHA Lab Standard”) 29CFR1910.1450 and the RCRA Waste Analysis Plan, 40CFR264.13(b).
Requirements for written compliance plans are poorly regarded in the regulated community. Preparation takes time and often requires assistance from consultants to deal with complex requirements. If a plan promises anything that is not required by rule, inspectors have used the plan to cite for violation of a self-created “rule.” The plan must be revised whenever a procedure is changed or responsibilities are reassigned. The net result is a strong incentive to create a plan that barely meets minimum requirements and is as general as possible.
Even if a written plan is not required, an internal policy document that contains reporting requirements, self-evaluation methods, training outlines and achievement standards is a useful tool. Such a document helps with continuity when personnel changes occur and can serve as an important reference for staff and management.
An alternative to written plans
A partial alternative to written plans is to create performance-oriented rules and add a Practice Guide with specific procedures. Anyone who complies with the Practice Guide will be presumed to meet the performance standards but no-one is compelled to follow the Practice Guide. This especially benefits small organizations with limited expertise and is fairly common outside of the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published a series of practice guides. [2]
The group of tables included in Table 2 illustrates the elements of a Practice Guide. The table gives examples of chemical waste criteria or check points that indicate quality in a chemical waste management program. For each checkpoint, the table gives evaluation methods and also a simplified Practice Guide.
Table 2:
Some check points in each stage of laboratory chemical waste management, ways to evaluate quality
and a suggested practice guide.
[linearized table 2]
| Check Point | Evaluation Method | Practice Guide |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Is there a place in the workplace to put unwanted chemicals? |
Observe workplace, ask workers |
Each location for unwanted chemicals is marked with a sign that also carries simplified labeling instructions, e.g. Figure 2. |
|
2. Are waste container and labeling requirements posted, understood and followed? |
Observe containers and labels, ask randomly selected worker to demonstrate procedures |
Each location for unwanted chemicals is marked with a sign that also carries simplified labeling instructions, e.g. Figure 2. |
|
3. Are unwanted chemicals adequately secure? |
Observe |
The location for unwanted chemicals is in a room where the same workgroup uses and/or stores other chemicals and is protected by the same level of security. |
|
4. Are there provisions for accident prevention / consequence control (e.g. secondary containment, spill control materials)? |
Observe, ask workers |
Place unwanted chemicals in a pan that will hold the contents of the largest individual
container. |
|
5. Are known incompatibles isolated from one another? |
Observe |
Provide separate secondary containment pans for incompatible groups, labeled by group. See Figure 2. |
| Check Point | Evaluation Method | Practice Guide |
|---|---|---|
|
1. Does the collection system accept “unknowns” with minimal or zero penalty? |
Ask EH&S management |
No direct charges for unknowns. Apply administrative discipline to labs that repeatedly create unknowns through careless practices. |
|
2. Is pre-collection effort minimized for labortory personnel? |
Observe, compare with other facilities, ask supervisors & workers |
Labs label unwanted chemicals with chemical name and/or classification. EH&S staff provide other needed info. Collection is routine or by phone call, email or web form. No other preliminary paper-work. No transport to an out-of-work-area location by lab workers required. Lab must provide packaging that is tight, compatible, sound enough for local transportation and adequate for storage until collected by contractor. |
|
3. Is collection service predictable and customer-friendly? |
Ask laboratory workers. Ask EH&S staff about procedures |
Assign collection date occurring within 7 days to call-in requests. Perform routine and call-in collections as scheduled. Notify labs immediately in case of unavoidable schedule change. |
|
4. Is the lab charged directly for removal of waste? |
Ask EH&S and laboratory management |
Do not assess direct charges to laboratories or departments for waste removal. |
| Check Point | Evaluation Method |
Practice Guide
|
|---|---|---|
|
1. Is packaging and labeling information checked to verify adequacy for transportation? |
Observe collection procedure |
EH&S staff re-package materials or use secondary packaging if needed and assign transportation compatibility classification. |
|
2. Are materials properly identified and segregated in accordance with transportation rules including “fingerprinting,” analysis or isolated transportation, if needed? |
Observe collection procedure |
EH&S staff re-package materials or use secondary packaging if needed and assign transportation compatibility classification. |
|
3. Is the bill of lading accurate and does it contain all required information? |
Observe collection procedure |
Vehicle carries bill of lading that lists materials and quantities. Vehicle has placards, if needed. |
|
4. Are carts and vehicle equipped for spill containment and/or control? |
Observe collection equipment |
Transport carts provide secondary containment. Spill control equipment and supplies available in vehicle and/or at loading area and/or on transport carts. |
|
5. Do individuals, including drivers know their roles in case of emergency and are they properly equipped? |
Ask EH&S staff |
Staff are trained. Carts and vehicle are placarded with basic emergency information and phone numbers (Figure 3), (Figure 4). |
| Check Point | Evaluation Method |
Practice Guide
|
|---|---|---|
|
1. Is waste secure against vandalism, theft and unauthorized entry? |
Compare with other facilities, observe levels of security at other facilities on campus |
Secure facility against unauthorized entry at all times. Perform a security survey and implement recommendations. Placard loading areas against leaving unauthorized waste and with instructions to obtain service. (Figure 5). Unload transport vehicles immediately unless fully secured. |
|
2. Are incoming materials evaluated as soon as reasonably feasible? |
Observe procedures, check records |
Evaluate chemicals and perform hazardous waste determination within 7 working days. |
|
3. Is storage time tracked and reasonable, i.e. waste isn’t being ignored? |
Observe dates on materials, check records |
Ship chemical waste at least annually. Wastes that must be shipped in separate containers may be accumulated for up to 2 years if necessary for economical labpacking. |
|
4. Are containers inspected regularly and problems documented and fixed? |
Check records |
Weekly inspection log is up to date and contains information on problems discovered and actions taken. |
|
5. Are aisle space, segregation and other storage conditions satisfactory? |
Observe |
Facility meets OSHA, NFPA, RCRA and current building code fire safety standards, has fire suppression throughout and earthquake resistance if needed. |
| Check Point | Evaluation Method |
Practice Guide
|
|---|---|---|
|
1. Can every person state their role in case of emergency? |
Ask laboratory personnel and EH&S staff |
Each person can describe their duties and whom to notify in case of spill, fire, break-in, vehicle accident, etc. |
|
2. Are supplies and equipment available and adequate? |
Observe, compare with other facilities |
Minimum: Containment boom, shovel, absorbent material, dust pan, broom, mercury vacuum or spill kit. Gloves, boots, coveralls and goggles for two people. |
|
3. Is there a written emergency plan (only required if 3 or more workers involved)
for all aspects of the work?
|
Check records |
Emergency plan may also serve as a training document. The principal points are captured on a posted placard (Figure 6). |
| Check Point | Evaluation Method |
Practice Guide
|
|---|---|---|
|
1. Can every waste item be tracked from source to ultimate destination? |
Check records |
Minimum—Records are sufficient to show that all waste collected by the program is properly managed and disposed of. Recommended—Records allow any item of waste to be tracked from source to treatment, disposal, commingled barrel or labpack and outgoing manifest. Records also permit reverse tracking to allow problem items to be tracked back to source. |
|
2. Do records accurately reflect actual waste quantities for P-list wastes? |
Check records, ask EH&S staff |
Only acute hazardous wastes are identified as such. Recommended—Records show actual waste amounts, excluding container weights, for P-list wastes . Document methods for estimating and excluding container weight. |
|
3. Are inspection records complete and accurate? |
Check records |
There is a weekly inspection log for the central facility that documents any problems found, remedial actions and preventive actions. |
|
4. Are manifest records properly created and maintained? |
Check records |
Retain all manifests for required time period. |
|
5. Have all required reports been filed or published as required? |
Check records |
File all required federal, state and local reports. |
| Check Point | Evaluation Method |
Practice Guide
|
|---|---|---|
|
1. Is someone in charge of the waste? |
Ask laboratory workers and EH&S staff, ask supervisors |
Assign responsibility and appropriate authority at all stages from lab to final shipment. Train responsible persons according to the needs of their job. |
|
a. Do all involved persons know the general requirements, emergency procedures, etc.? |
Ask laboratory workers and EH&S staff, ask supervisors |
Assign responsibility and appropriate authority at all stages from lab to final shipment. Train responsible persons according to the needs of their job. |
|
b. Does EH&S unit have explicit authority covering the proper handling of the waste? |
Ask person in charge, review policy documents |
Assign responsibility and appropriate authority at all stages from lab to final shipment. Train responsible persons according to the needs of their job. |
|
2. Is the waste properly labeled and stored? |
Questions and observations similar to Table 2A |
Segregate stored waste by compatibility group and store in compliance with applicable fire safety and environmental protection rules and good practices. |
|
3. Is there a procedure for removing the waste or getting it removed (either to central storage or by contractor)? |
Ask EH&S staff, ask supervisor |
Train each person involved with waste management to explain their role in waste management. |
|
4. Are all stages of normal operations periodically reviewed? |
Review minutes of staff meetings. |
Hold EH&S staff meetings at least monthly. Review accidents and errors at each meeting. Review general operations at least annually. Use meeting minutes to document issues considered, decisions and actions. |
|
5. Are accidents and errors analyzed? |
Review minutes of staff meetings. |
Hold EH&S staff meetings at least monthly. Review accidents and errors at each meeting. Review general operations at least annually. Use meeting minutes to document issues considered, decisions and actions. |
|
6. Is information used to improve the system? |
Review minutes of staff meetings and observe operations to assure that documented changes have been implemented. |
Hold EH&S staff meetings at least monthly. Review accidents and errors at each meeting. Review general operations at least annually. Use meeting minutes to document issues considered, decisions and actions. |
Figure 2:
Sample placard for chemical waste location in laboratory.
[text version of figure 2]
Figure 3:
Sample placard for waste cart.
[text version of figure 3]
Figure 4:
Sample placard for local transport vehicle.
[text version of figure 4]
Figure 5:
Sample placard for chemical waste facility.
[text version of figure 5]
Figure 6:
Emergency plan summary placard.
[text version of figure 6]
